Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz?

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Manna.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Azuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bonieth?

Commissioner Vavkith.

President.

Chair Orion.

And I'm present.

We have 10 seated, so we have a quorum.

Uh if everyone could please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

And two publications.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state.

One individual.

All right.

All right.

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

Uh this board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

Following the conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting, followed by a director's report.

Lastly, as chair, I will make announcements such as community calendar events.

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

Following the following conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting followed by a director's report.

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

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

In addition, we have powers to hear cases and other matters authorized by City Council under Chapter 21 of the Texas Local Government Code.

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

Every member will be asked to vote on the motion.

Appeals from the decision of this board regarding appeals from an administrative official, 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.

Staff.

Thank you.

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

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

Checkmarks in the case of those property owners in favor of the request, X in the case of property owners in opposition.

Following the presentation and questions about a board, the applicant will present the request.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

So today we're going to be starting with item one, which is consideration of adding a work session to discuss uh potential UDC updates.

So in that regard, uh when is uh when does staff need uh any uh BOA recommendations for UDC updates?

Is there a target date?

So we would uh formally have those submitted when the application window opens to the public at large, which would be January 1 through March 31st of 2027.

So certainly we can put a that's an alternative for that's yeah.

You are you're doing work this year.

No, we're we would be a little early to collect them from the board.

So the the development services department internal staff, we're starting to work on our amendments and we'll have those finalized to be submitted for public review when the January 1 application window opens.

Okay.

So we can maybe look to schedule something with y'all if you'd prefer in the late summer and early fall, kind of collect your feedback.

Yeah, that's fine.

I I I thought that the TAC was in session this year.

No, it won't be until next year.

All right, well then that changes that.

So what we can do is uh can we just uh table this to a future meeting?

I don't want to see this every meeting, but you know, maybe have it pop that back up in May.

Sure.

We can do that.

All right, then let's do that.

Uh any commentary from the commission, any other items they like to bring up.

Hearing none, we're gonna move on to uh we have a continuance requisance requested today.

The first one is item number six.

Uh I understand there's a voicemail for that one.

Correct.

Uh let me read it into a record real quick.

BOA 261030011.

Request by Zigger Architects Architectural Studios uh for variance for a lot layout standard to allow primary access and front from a for single family residential lot on an alley located at 510 Booker Alley.

Council District 2.

Um they'll request a continuance to March 23rd.

And we do have one voicemail if we can play that, please.

Yep.

Hello, my name is Lulu Francois, chairperson of the historic neighborhood review committee for Dicknawidie Hill, calling in on case 510 Booker Alley.

Staff is recommending denial of the lot configuration based on the following findings of facts.

The width of Booker Alley is not large enough to allow ingress and stress of emergency vehicles, and it would create a development of configuration inconsistent with the surrounding conforming lot, thereby altering the essential character of the district.

Staff's recommendations for denial are the exact reasons we did not support the design of the house and the detached garage when the design request was submitted for OHP approval.

As called out, Booker Alley is an active alley.

The residents who front Nolan and Dawson all have backyards at back up to Booker Alley, and many of them use Booker Alley to get to their backyards.

In addition, we specifically called out our concern about how this new structure would block ingress and egress of emergency vehicles from getting to the houses that back up to the alley.

Please remember that the charter of HDRC is to only determine the design and mapping of the new structures to ensure they meet OHP guidelines.

They do not take into consideration whether ingress or egress is going to be a problem, which is why we are glad that this major issue of contention is being addressed and answered by the zoning BOA staff.

For these reasons, we ask that you support the recommendation of this request and deny this application.

Thank you.

All right.

Is anyone in the gallery signed up to speak on this issue?

No, sir.

All right.

So moved.

Is there good?

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

Cases continue to March 23rd.

Uh the next item uh for continuance request is item number 11, requesting a continuance to March 9th.

Uh is there anyone signed up to speak or public comment on item number 11?

Uh no, let me read into the record real quick.

Uh BOA 251030261.

A request by Herman Garada for uh 6646 square foot variant for the maximum 2500 square foot uh for an accessory structure for a combined 9146 square foot accessory structure located 1102, 1100 two Vance Jackson Road.

Staff recommend denial and request to continuous to March 9th.

All right, thank you.

Is there a motion to continue to March 9th?

So moved.

Uh motion by and a commotion motion by commissioners and a second by Commissioner Benavides.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Uh uh hearing none, motion carries.

Uh item is item 11 to continue to March 9th.

And now we are on item number two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez Planner with Development Services.

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

The subject property is located at 626 Delmar Street Unit 202.

Surrounding uses include residential single family lots.

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

There is currently one active type two short-term rental permit on the block located at 626 Delmar Street Unit 201.

And is owned by the same person at the subject property, having been approved on August 11th, 2025.

Per the code type 2 short-term rental shall be limited to no more than one-eighth of the total number of single family, duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on the block face.

There is a total of 15 units on this block face.

One active type two is already there, being unit 201, issued on August 11, 2025.

The block face is currently at 7%.

And if the second type 2 is approved, the block face will be at 13%.

Limiting this exceeds the 12.5 density limitation for type two short-term rentals.

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

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

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

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

And there were a total of 37 mail notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is in favor and no response from our five citywide groups.

This concludes staff presentation.

Does the applicant uh um have any outstanding hot taxes or um they should be current on their taxes?

All right.

Any commissions, commissioner questions?

Okay.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

All right, state your name.

Tell us about your uh project.

All right, my name is Rob McClellan.

I am the uh the owner of the property there, and I'm requesting that just due to the fact that it is uh well, I'm just here before just to help pay with my bills and um I'm from a hospitality industry.

It's something I know.

Um it's just kind for me, just nature.

All right.

Well, with this if this gets approved, it'll hit 13 percent, which doesn't seem like a big deal.

All right, is there any commissioner questions for the applicant?

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um is this something new, sir, or is it because it was rented out in a different way?

And now you're trying to do it as a type two.

Uh no, it was um a rental property when I had purchased the property.

Um I tried to maintain the uh tenants.

Um they had left to go to another city for work, and I had uh done I had a property manager to try and help me get more tenants in there, and I had been unsuccessful.

With that time, my savings was dwindling, and I was going to another venue.

Okay.

Thank you, Mana.

Yes, Commissioner Manna.

So last time we heard didn't we yet uh ask you to go to the neighborhood association, and that's what you did.

So good great job, and thank you for doing that.

Because that certainly bodes well in my favor.

I also brought a neighbor if anybody wants to talk to him.

So is there anyone sign to speak or voicemails on this?

No public comment.

All right, great.

Uh with that I'm looking for a motion.

Mana.

Commissioner Mann.

Um regarding case number BOA 251030233.

I moved that the board adjustment.

Grant a special special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated at 626 Del Mar Street Unit 202.

Applicant BN Bob McClellan McClennon McLellan, sorry.

Uh, because the test might present 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 UDCS amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The neighboring properties consist of residential structures.

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

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

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

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

The applicant or owner does not previously have revoked licenses, confirms citations, or adjudicated offenses or convictions on this property or other properties.

F the special exception does not alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is thought, sought.

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

The special exception does not appear to alter the essential character of the district and location which your property is seeking the special exception.

End of motion.

Second.

Second, Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Manna.

So I'll be voting in favor.

And so you know, thank you for listening and taking you know the input from the board with regards to reaching out to community.

And I think you know having the community engaged in these dialogues is is always very important, at least for me.

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

All right, Commissioner Benavides.

I agree with my colleagues.

I'll be voting in favor.

Um you already have one.

Um you're familiar with the um with how to run them.

So and the fact that you the neighborhood association is in favor of it as well.

I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Any of the commissioners like to add here now, so have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides, I concur.

Commissioner Bede.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

A motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Thank you all.

You got it.

Item number three.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Leos, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number three is uh BOA-25-1030269 uh 8201 Meadow Post.

Uh it's within Council District 6, and the applicant is JK and France Guidance LOC.

And they are requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit.

Uh the type of permit is a type two, and the zoning is R6 for residential single family.

Uh again, the subject property is located at a 201 meadow post.

Surrounding land uses include residential single family.

Uh again, they are requesting an appeal to the administrator's decision to revoke this permit.

Um just for some background, SCR operators are required to report hot to the city's finance department on a monthly basis.

Uh this also includes reporting zero dollars if no revenue was collected.

As of March 10th, 2025, the platforms that direct uh directly remit state hot also now directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

Uh this includes major platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

Um if the property is not rented through platform that doesn't remit the hot directly to the state, the operator must continue to report and remit the city and county hot directly to the city through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Um lastly, all SCR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports and bay and pay Bear County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Uh the city's finance department who manages reporting and collection services for the city of San Antonio.

State's revenue reports were missing from December 2024 through May 2025.

Um notices of delinquencies were mailed by Avenue between February 2025 through July 2025 with a final notice of delinquency emailed by us on November 3rd, 2025.

Um Section 16-1110D states that the failure to timely report and pay hot within 90 days shall result in permit revocation.

Since no payment was made within that 90 days, the permit was revoked on November 18th in accordance with the city's code of ordinances.

Um as of um today, the applicants still not current on their hot.

Um this is the type two density count, so there are 12 units on this block face.

All right.

Thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Francis Inhisaba.

I am the manager of the LOSC that owns the property at A20 Media Post.

I have the timeline of events, which I would like to share with the commissioners.

Okay.

So November 11, um an addendum was signed and executed to allow him to use it for ABMB.

December 2024, uh the operator started uh using uh the property for HTR activity and collects revenue.

Um in late uh November um late 2024, the operator first to remit HOT.

2025, um the city issues notices with incorrect name.

So I was not able to receive those notices because the name were incorrectly um addressed to me as a manager of the LLC.

In the late 2025, following a visit to the office, I was made aware that the renter was not paying taxes, and that's when I filed the appeal, and uh I started a b um at that at that point I took position of the property uh from the renter, and uh from November to today, February, I've been compliant uh with the hot taxes.

Um let me uh let me just get some things cleared up real quick.

You had rented the property sublet to someone else who then made it an STR.

So staff uh who who obtained the actual permit?

The the person he was renting to or the owner of the property.

The record for the application included both the property owner and the applicant's names.

And where where I'm going with that is so if if somebody has is is in a duly active uh rental arrangement with an owner and they apply for an STR, who technically owes the money?

Is it always the owner?

Always the owner.

Always the theorem.

And the owner was the name that the delinquency notices were assessed to.

Okay.

So in November, when you took back the property and you were aware that there was outstanding monies due.

So that's when they told me from the office.

Um I miss somebody who told me the guy was not paying taxes.

Well, but you knew in November, so here we are in February 23rd.

You st you still owe money, staff is saying that you still owe money and report filings.

I've actually, if they can pull out the record, I've actually paid from November.

Um from November, I didn't have a lot of um actually bookings, but the ones I did book, I am compliant from November up to date.

Well, that but the there's still money owed from prior to November of 2025 at a minimum.

I just I'm trying to I'm trying to ascertain, you know, what what sort of outstanding debt are we talking about?

So the short-term rental started 12 2024.

And we haven't received we received payments.

Yeah, we can't sorry, we can't hear you.

We received payments on 1st of January 2026 for November 2025 and December 2025.

Okay.

But there's but the re but prior to November of 2025, there's still outstanding monies owed, and they're and there's still outstanding monthly report filings that are missing.

Correct.

Okay.

And are you aware that you have to do monthly filings whether you owe money or not?

Or um so first of all, I wasn't the one that filed the permit.

I wasn't here when it was filed, but I do know that the rental wasn't it for ABMB.

Now I I didn't I didn't know how much he made.

I wasn't a control of the bookings.

I'm not sure you know who came into the house.

The only thing that he paid a JCAM funds was a monthly lease agreement that he signed.

Okay, it's it's uh I'm just gonna put this out there is that normally when people appeal these sort of things, they come before the board and all their paperwork has been filed and there's no outstanding debt, whether you incurred it or not.

It's the owner's issue, the it's the owner's problem.

So is there any commissioner questions uh for this applicant manna?

Commissioner Manna.

So I was trying to um so so you I think you stated that so you didn't receive any notifications at all that um that this was happening.

I have um a copy of what I received and the name the way it was mailed, so they were not coming to me.

I didn't because of the deficient in the record, it appears like a scam in the letter, yeah, which um I did not acknowledge it.

So uh Commissioner Benavides, do you want to ask anything?

I I had a question for the city.

Yes, okay.

I that so at the the initial permit that was issued back to the person who leased.

Am I correct that it was the permit was issued in both the owner's name and the renter?

So on the application, he provided the property's owners information as well as the tenant.

We also have a proof of permission by the owner stating that he's authorizing that person as the applicant as a design operator to apply for the short-term rental permit.

Yeah, well, I'm gonna put make a suggestion.

Uh I I just in all just to try to be as fair as we can to you.

Uh, would would anybody in this board like to entertain a continuance so this applicant can can make current on all his paperwork and outstanding monies and then come back to the board with that because it's not something that I don't know.

That certainly would provide um more incentive for me to be in favor.

So right now I'm not so it's would you like a continuance so that you can okay?

So how much time do you need?

And we're not asking you to make good on it until November.

We need it from the date of inception, everything has to be in order, and then at least you'll come before the board not having any outstanding debt or outstanding paperwork in the easy file.

Would you like an additional time?

I do.

How much time would you like?

Um the problem with this is that I don't I've tried to reach out to the tenant in the it's it's right now it's between you and the city is what it looks like.

You're gonna have to negotiate what uh something you can agree on, what you owe, what you rented.

It's you're just gonna have to work that out with them.

Okay, okay.

How much time would you need, sir?

Um, probably giving about maybe three months.

Well, we can't do three months, we can do one month.

Okay, sure.

I'll take to one month.

When is one month?

March 26th.

Excuse me?

March 23rd.

23rd.

March 23rd.

So is there a motion to continue this appeal to March 23rd?

So moved.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Uh hearing nine.

We'll see you back on the 23rd and and I hope you have everything in order.

Thank you very much.

You got it.

Uh item four, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, planner with development services.

Item number four is requested by Ska Skyhawk Custom Homes and is requesting for a special exception to allow three additional type two short-term rentals on the block face located at Consult District 1.

The subject property is located at 424 A Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family, residential, multifamily, and commercial.

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

There is currently one active type two short-term rental permit on the block located at 424 A Street Unit 4, and is owned by the same person at the subject property, having been approved on December 12th, 2025.

Per the code type 2 short-term rental shall be limited to no more than one-eighth of the total number of single family duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on the block face.

On July 2nd, 2019, the Board of Adjustment granted a special exception to allow four additional type two short-term rental permits for 424th A Street units one through four.

On July 8th, 2022, these type two short-term rental permits were renewed by staff who made an error by not processing the request for consideration before the Board of Adjustment for another special exception.

On July 13th, 2025, these type two short-term rental permits expired as renewal applications were not submitted prior to the to their expiration date.

The applicant submitted four new type two short-term rental applications for 424 A Street units one through four.

A type two short-term rental permit for 424 A Street Unit 4 was approved by right, and units 1 through 3 were placed on pending BOA decision due to density being met.

This exceeds the 12.5 density limitation for type two STRs.

This property has no code enforcement history.

These are the active listings as as of today.

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

And this is the parking agreement from the applicant.

And staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a special exception.

And there were a total of 21 male notices, one in favor, zero in opposition, no response from downtown neighborhood association, and no response from our six citywide groups.

This concludes that presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

How many spaces?

Oh, uh, they have four off-street parking spaces for one per unit, and they didn't have you know an off-street parking spaces, so they asked their neighbor to left to give them that parking agreement.

So the the agreement is with the city or with the neighbor.

With the neighborhood it's with the neighbor, but it was approved by the city department.

Okay, gotcha, gotcha.

Any commissioner questions?

Manna?

So can you walk through again?

Um so the uh how it so how we got here, so so it was approved, and then and then we kind of missed something that was supposed to come back for approval.

Is that what I understood?

So in 2019, they originally came to the board of adjustment.

There were issued that special exception for those four units, and then when 2022 came around, uh those permits were renewed without going to a board of adjustment again.

All right.

Thank you.

Hello, state your name.

Tell us about your SDRs.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon to all of y'all.

My name is Tanner Montgomery.

I'm representing for Skyhawk Custom Homes on this property.

Um bought this actually before the whole thing.

You gotta keep sorry.

I see I can hear you, but sometimes we're not gonna be able to do something else.

We bought the property actually before the short-term rental was a thing.

So, but it was for the intention of doing this, and took about two and a half years to uh renovate it, bringing the new all the new codes.

I mean, this building was falling apart.

And uh once we got it done, the STR thing came out.

We came down here, went through this whole approval process.

It's that one building you saw in the photo, which is just four private apartments.

Um was approved like that from the beginning after meeting with you guys a few years ago, and it's been running that way ever since.

Like you said, the city just mistakenly made a mistake and didn't do the board of adjustments, but it came back this time.

The permits did expire.

I was I I'm a professional pilot.

I was out of the country during the time of the expiration.

I tried to do it online.

Sometimes it's a little bit glitchy on that system, and I could not get it to work.

Time zone changes.

I kept calling in, but could not get hold of somebody to walk me through it or to fix it.

So as soon as I got back here, which was like three days after because expired on like July 12th, kind of a random day.

Came back in a few days later, put all the new permits and paid all the new permit fees and started it over.

So I just want to make sure everybody knew this is not like actually a new one.

I mean, it looks like it's new because the permit process is new, but it's something that's been running since 2019 with no complaints, no problems, all my hot taxes.

The density thing looks a little bit off because it's it's a unique street.

It's a bunch of old houses that were turned into businesses.

I only have one actual residential neighbor.

Um, if you're facing a building to the right, they're actually my biggest fans.

They were happy to not have a dilapidated, you know, building falling apart, but they also use it for their family, their friends, because their house is too small to accommodate people come in.

I've used it for lots of people who are here locally who want to stay cation and get to see San Antonio for all its glory.

People from all around the world visited, and it's just a nice spot to bring in business.

So because the block face is one house, this building, and the La Roca bar, it looks like it's really dense, but really there's nothing on the entire street.

It's just the block face is only three buildings, so it throws it off.

But the rest of it are all commercial buildings, and we've never had any kind of issues.

Okay.

So staff is so no outstanding paperwork or hot taxes on this one.

They are current on their hot taxes and no investigations were found.

Any voicemails anyone sended a speed?

No public comment.

Any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Benavides.

I have a question for the city.

I'm I'm surprised that you're in favor of it due to the density at 80%.

Is it just because the renewal lapsed or um I think the fact that it's been operating since 2019?

They did get special exception approval initially, and it was a staff error upon renewal.

So it's just correcting that.

And again, he has paid all his hot taxes, have no received no complaints from us.

And it's also next to, like you mentioned, of a local bar area, and then the original and a house next door.

And highway.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Hearing none, uh, thank you very much.

Um looking for a motion.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero two seven nine.

I moved that the board adjustment uh grant a special exception to allow for three type two short-term rental units situated at 424 8th Street, unit one, two, and three.

Applicant being Skyhawk custom homes, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

During this period, this property had active STR permits.

Staff was unable to identify any code enforcement history to the location in the past six months, and staff finds that the request to operate three additional short-term rentals beyond the 12.5% density cap is not likely to materially materially endanger the public health and or safety if approved.

Additionally, the structure in which the STRs are located within do not pose a haze hazard to life health or public safety.

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

The applicant has demonstrated over the previous six months that the operation of these STRs does not cause a public nuisance.

Staff finds that this trend is more than likely to continue with zero complaints registered against the property and operator.

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

The density caps were established to ensure that neighbors are not inundated by the presence of type two STRs, allowing these three additional STRs on this block face will not substantially injure neighboring properties as they've been operating since 2019 and has not impacted the surrounding areas since.

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

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

Confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses, convictions for violations of Chapter 16, Article 22 of the city code within one year to the date of this applicant application.

The applicant or owner does not have any confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses or convictions for this property or other properties.

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

The requested special exception is not likely to alter the essential character of the district as this property is zoned.

Um VBZ T4-2, which allows for land use of a STR and general residential land uses.

Staff finds that exceeding 12.8% block face density is not likely to alter the essential character of the district.

End of motion.

I think it's supposed to be IBZ, right?

Or is it FBZ?

Fore-based zoning, FBC.

Okay, FBC.

Okay, thank you.

Second by Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Manna.

So I don't want to doubt the wisdom of the board uh from uh 2019.

So I see no reason why it is that I wouldn't be supporting it again.

Thank you, Commissioner Benavides.

I agree with Commissioner Manna.

I'll be in favor of it.

Anyone else like to add?

Hear none of us have roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonus.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yeah, second concurrent.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings.

The fact motion passes nine to one.

You have any questions you can get with staff.

Matt, thank you.

All right.

We are on item number five.

Do you want to skip to seven?

All right.

Let's skip to seven.

Item seven.

Well, let's see ready.

All right.

We'll stick on five.

Hi.

Hello.

The next item is uh BOA-26-103013.

Uh the address is 326 Lexington Avenue Unit 101 and Council District 1.

Uh the applicant is Manual Martinez, and they're requesting a special exception.

Um again, the properties located at 326 Lexington Avenue, Unit 101.

Uh surrounding land uses our office, multi-family, uh park, and then some vacant residential.

Um again, they're requesting a special exception to allow an additional type two on the block face and then per city code.

Um they're limited to no more than one eighth of the total number of units on the block face.

Uh this is the type two density count.

Uh so this is a pretty short block face.

Um, there's only two units.

There's one active type two currently on the block face, uh 326 Lexington unit 102, so within the same building.

Uh block face is currently at 50 percent, and if this one is approved today, it will be at 100 percent.

The this is the permanent history and investigation.

So um unit 101 was issued a short-term rental permit uh back in 2022 on December 16th.

Um it wasn't until the renewal was submitted uh late last year that we had caught that it was issued uh an error prior, so we've um had um request a um special exception today.

And this is the active listings, the site plan, and then the subject property and the surrounding areas.

Uh staff recommendation for the special exception.

Uh staff recommends an approval of the applicant's request.

And this is the notification plan.

We sent out 13 notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, uh, no response from downtown neighbors association, and then no response from the um citywide groups either.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Thank you very much.

Uh if this gets approved today, is this a renewal on the on the original permit renewal date?

Correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

Is there any commissioner questions before staff leaves?

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

I please state your name and tell us about your STR.

Yes, my name is uh Manuel Martinez, and uh thank you very much for allowing me to uh to be here today.

Now this uh uh as you saw this uh um face block only has uh two residential units.

The other buildings, uh one is um uh attorney's office and the other is a residential reentry uh center that does not have uh uh fontash uh on that uh same block.

Now the intent of uh uh the SDR density uh limit is to uh prevent uh the um um uh uh uh uh over um uh population of STRs and uh uh uh that can displace uh people that uh live on the in the area uh current residents now prior to um uh uh uh to this uh unit being uh reconditioned and uh and uh start uh renting uh it had been uh abandoned for over 20 years and um uh we did not displace any prior residents uh uh on this area.

Now uh this is uh designated uh historic uh landmark uh it does uh have uh um uh comply with all of the requirements uh for the building and maintenance uh has no outstanding um uh violations and uh uh uh is not uh part of the paper but I did get a letter of support from the other only other um uh resident is a neighbor uh and uh he also has an STR uh so I have that for review if you if you want now uh uh given that uh that and there's only uh two units here I I do think that's that uh um uh uh the uh granting this uh will not result in uh precedent that would compromise uh the intent of the ordinance and thank you very much all right so quick question uh when I look at Street View on this it looks like this site is surrounded by parking meters on one of the parking meters on Lexington there's a there's like a small sign that says that parking is not allowed and is

Now uh given that uh that and there's only uh two units here.

I I do think that's that uh um uh uh the uh granting this uh will not result in the precedent that would compromise uh the intent of the ordinance.

And thank you very much.

All right.

So quick question.

Uh when I look at street view on this, it looks like the site is surrounded by parking meters.

On one of the parking meters on Lexington, there's a there's like a small sign that says that parking is not allowed and is for emergency.

And I'm trying to I don't recall seeing a sign like that.

I'm just trying to figure out if that's a city sign or or what you repeat that, Donald.

Oh, yeah, yeah, sure, sure.

Uh so it looks like um the site is surrounded uh on the very on the two streets with uh parking meters.

And one of the parking meters on Lexington uh has a sign that says no parking emergency restriction to away zone.

So I'm just wondering like how can there be a parking meter and then a sign say that you can't park there?

I'm just trying to figure out what that means.

Yeah, we're gonna need to look into that and get back to you on that one.

Okay.

Um and sir, how many parking spaces do you have on your property and notice you have a driveway on either street?

And the uh in my property side uh there is two parking spaces.

But you have a driveway on Lexington and you also have um a driveway on the on the um on Dallas Street.

The one in Dallas is uh my parking space and he has uh two parking spaces.

Now the one in Lexington Street is actually uh uh from the other um unit uh on the duplex, and they also have two parking spaces.

Oh, okay.

Well that okay, great.

Any commission questions?

Commissioner Manning?

No?

Okay.

I was just observing almost every one of the parking meters has a sign on it for that block face.

And so apparently maybe it's a shortcut way to do a no parking disblock.

So that is confusing.

It does have dates on it, so it might have been for special events.

Okay.

Well, I'm just trying to figure out the parking scenario.

Um is there any voicemails anyone's time to speak?

No public comment.

All right, is there any other questions?

All right, hearing none, uh looking for a motion.

Benavides.

Commissioner Benavides.

Regarding case number BOA 26-103013, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a special exception to allow for one additional type two short-term rental unit situated at 326 Lexington Avenue, Unit 101, applicant being Manuel Martinez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provision of the UDC as amended would result in in an unnecessary hardship hardship.

Specifically, we find that a the special exception will not materially endanger the public health or safety, in that this is the first renewal, and staff has been unable to identify any code enforcement history to the location in the past three years.

Staff finds that the request to operate an additional short-term rental beyond the 12.5% density cap is not likely to material to materially endanger the public health and or safety if approved.

Additionally, the structure in which the STR is located within does not pose a hazard to life, health, or public safety.

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

The applicant has deter has demonstrated over the previous three years that the operation of the STR does not cause a public nuisance.

Staff finds that this trend is more than likely to continue with zero complaints registered against the property and operator.

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

The density caps were established to ensure that neighbors are not inundated by the presence of type two STRs, allowing this additional STR in the black on the block face will not substantially enter neighboring property, as it has been operated since 2022 and has not impacted the surrounded area, the surrounding area since then.

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

The requested special exception is not likely to alter the essential character of the district as the property is zoned FBZ T 5-1, which allows for the land use of a STR and general residential and commercial land uses.

The density limits established by city council exist to ensure that neighborhood that neighborhoods remain primarily residential.

Staff finds that exceeding the 12.5 block face density is not likely to alter the essential character of the district.

End of motion.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Beniz.

Commissioner Benavides.

I'm going to be in favor of this for the same reasons as the previous case.

It's a renewal.

There's no issues in the past three years.

I'll be in favor of it.

Thank you, Commissioner Bonis.

Yeah, I'll also be in favor of this.

Uh the uh applicant has shown to be a good host.

And uh this block's unique in uh in how many actual residential uh properties or other I'll be in favor.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Um have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Yes, I concur.

I read.

Yes, I concur.

Yes, I concur.

I do not concur.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Osuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to one.

Um item number seven.

I have to recuse.

I'll be turning the gavel over to Vice Chair Azuna.

All right.

Time is 151, and Chairman Orion is recusing himself.

Staff, let's move to case number five.

I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joel Velas and your planner.

Item seven is case BOA-26-103012, the applicant being Alamo Architects in Council District 4 at 3, excuse me, 3022 Reformatima Drive.

Uh the zoning is R4, and this is a request for a two and a half foot variance from the minimum 14 and a half foot site distance decision point standard to allow for a 12-foot site distance decision point at the eastern driveway approach.

The subject property is situated northwest of the intersection of Southwest Interstate Loop 410 and Palo Alto Road.

The surrounding properties are occupied by single-family residences, a municipal park, a church, a strip mall, and various food services establishments.

The subject property is actually occupied by a school.

The existing chain link perimeter fence was recently replaced by a wrought iron fence, and the appropriate permit was obtained.

However, upon inspection of the new fence, staff determined that the new wrought iron fence encroaches into the area designated to be free of obstructions surrounding the east driveway approach per the UDC transportation and street design standards.

The fence must be altered to eliminate the encroachment or a variance must be obtained to remain in its current location.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property.

Again, we're talking the east driveway approach on this subject property that is kind of a blown-up image for you.

Um notating in the green and the yellow there, the yellow being the minimum required site distance area.

Um again, the that's based off of that decision point notated by those two X's there.

Normally what's required is a 14.5 foot decision point that's measured off of the curb line inwards.

Um the applicant is proposing a 12-foot measurement instead, and that would kind of again.

This is just for illustration purposes to kind of show what we're talking about here.

And this is the subject property again, occupied by a school.

You can see that new wrought iron fence established there, and this is the inside of that driveway.

Can we go one back?

Um again, uh kind of measuring from the curb line inwards.

Uh, you'll be able to see um kind of around that uh this is where a car exiting would need to be able to see around that corner to the left there.

And go on one.

Uh as you can see, there is a speed bump there, and that's called out on the site plan as well, pretty much at that same point where a car would need to be able to observe around that corner.

We move on.

And this is the surrounding area along Reformatima Drive.

Staff recommendation uh for the site distance variance.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-26-103012 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the proposed reduction in combination with an existing speed bump in the road adequately supports motor safety at this intersection, and two, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship by necessitating the relocation of the driveway approach or the relocation of the fence to cross through what would otherwise be usable parking spaces on this lot.

Staff mailed 42 notices, zero were returned in favor of zero in opposition, and there is no neighborhood association registered within 200 feet of this location.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

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

Mana.

Mr.

Manna.

So what is so can you give me a really good definition of what a site decision or uh yeah, the site decision, site distance decision point is.

So versus you know, clear vision, you'll so try to understand the difference between those two kind of um Mr.

Collins is present here for the traffic department.

So the site decision point is uh the setback distance from the curb line to that point within the driveway where the the essentially where the driver is sitting, right to to make the decision whether to proceed into the intersection or to wait.

So it's that's the short end or the base of the triangle that Joel showed up there.

So it's still taking so it's it's it kind of is very similar then to clear vision with the notion of being able to look down while I'm seated in the car to be able to see how far down the road is, right?

Yes, sir.

It's the same exact issue.

That is the issue.

So um I observed or in the photos here that there are trees, it looks like on on that corner as well.

And so um I know that in clear vision dialogue, there's not supposed to be landscape that's that's um below or above three foot to seven foot.

That range is supposed to be clear again for the view.

So but if you have a massive tree there, does that does that weigh into the into that dialogue as as well?

Yes, sir.

The tree can um frequently trees will create clear vision obstructions.

Um this particular location has a lot of things going on.

You've got the curvature, you've got trees in the uh in the parkway along the front of the school, and then they converted the chain link fence to a ride iron fence, which clearly on an angle you can't see through very easily is the problem.

Um but what we determined when we were out there is that at 12 feet um you you it is safe.

It is safe at 12 feet.

You can see uh past the tree and and past the wrought iron uh for sufficient distance.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

So thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

I had a quick question.

So with the addition of the speed bump there, also that was in considered into the variance request here or approval Uh I would say that the the speed bump helps because trafficker is going to slow down.

Um however, we also had to consider, you know, at the peak hour for traffic at that location, it's gonna be morning and afternoon, obviously pick up drop-off.

Um that there is also uh a regulatory reduced speed at those times.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Hearing not at asked the applicant to the question.

Actually, I have one more for it.

So okay, so we we were talking about the division.

So we measured from the fence or or did it include the tree as well as you know for blocking that.

Yeah, at the 12 feet, we were able to see around the tree.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Manna.

All right, let's uh hear the applicant.

If you could please come forward.

State your name for the record, please.

Hello.

Um, my name is Libita Soares.

I'm with Alma Architects, and I'm here uh representing Southwest ISD.

Um so we wanted to clarify that the raw iron fence was installed in order to comply with the safety standards of TA.

That's the Texas Education Agency.

They now require a six-foot-tall non-climbable fence.

So the old chain link fence that was defined as climbable.

So that's why we had to um bring in the new uh raw iron fence.

And so it was installed in the exact same location as the chain link fence, and um uh as Mr.

Collins stated, we weren't really able to uh see to the left as well at the required 14 and a half.

So we're just requesting that we scooch up that two and a half um just to be able to see to the left a little better.

Thank you.

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

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, staff, do we have any voicemail or any public comments to be read in?

No public comment.

All right.

Um would you like to have any closing comments before we close a public portion?

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Uh hearing none, I'd ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

All right, Mr.

Mann, I see your regarding case number BOA 26103012.

I moved that the board of adjustment grant the request for a two-foot five-inch variance from the minimum 14 uh point five foot site clearance decision point standard to allow a 12-foot site distance decision point at the eastern driveway approach, situated at 3022 reformer drive.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the proposed reduction in combination with an existing speed bump in road in road adequately supports motorist safety at this intersection.

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

A little enforcement would cause an unnecessary hardship by necessitating the relocation of the driveway approach or the relocation of the fence to cross through otherwise usable parking spaces.

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

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed as an existing speed bump provides a means of slowing traffic to supplement the proposed reduction to the minimum site distance area.

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

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

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

This variance uh is not anticipated to affect traffic circulation along reformer drive, given the existing speed bump in the right of way.

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

The school is tasked with providing adequate security to the premises, adequate parking for staff and visitors, and safe egress from the property for motorists.

Whereas a fence is needed to ensure the security of the premises, and whereas the relocation of fence would reduce available parking spaces, the reduction of the site distance area where a speed bump exists best balances these responsibilities.

And in motion.

Second.

Please, Mr.

Manna?

So I I concur with the city's position here.

And you know, I think the addition of the speed bump, you know, maybe that becomes a standard, you know, as we see more of these, if it is going to be driven, um, you know, with with say some of these uh certain uh circumstances, but uh with that I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

I'd remind my colleagues that we only we have nine members of the board here, so it would take unanimous nine.

If you have an issue, respectfully I'll ask for you to kind of speak up so that we could um look to uh fully and panel board to reconsider if that's the issue here.

Let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Oh, Ms.

Cruz, I'm sorry.

I understand, sir.

Um and I concur with Mr.

Mana.

I don't see a problem with it, especially with the speed bump there.

It will slow down traffic.

We hopefully a little bit more.

Thank you.

Apologies, Ms.

Cruz.

Right.

Uh uh, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz, yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Vice Chair Osena.

Yes, I I concur with the nine in favor of zero in opposition.

The variance uh passes us read.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Time is uh 203 if we can get our esteemed chair back.

Good afternoon.

This is BOA 25-1030195.

The address is 602-606 North New Bromple Street and 1513 Dawson Street.

The council districts two.

The applicant is Eskander Sakal.

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

And the zoning is C2.

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

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

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

The uh subject property uh directly abuts an existing single family resident use to the east.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property and the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 25-1030195 based on the following findings of fact.

The elimination of the residential separation would injure residential properties as it does not provide sufficient distance between residential and non-residential uses intended for protection from potential noise and light pollution.

And two, the uh property owner may reduce the number of proposed movable food truck establishments to the allowable maximum to operate without a variance approval.

We mailed 26 notices, we got six in favor, and two in opposition.

The Harvard Place East Lawn neighborhood association responded in opposition, and the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association responded in opposition.

Uh we resent them.

So these are the letters in support.

And this is the old letters of opposition.

And these are the new letters of opposition.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh have the applicant come forward.

Please state your name and tell us about your mobile food court.

Good afternoon.

My name is Iscandor Sapale.

I think the last meeting was uh December 15th.

And uh the plan was for me to leave and get in touch with the management team or the board, uh Ms.

Frank Hoy.

If I can meet with her in person or get into their meetings weekly, monthly, quarterly to discuss their concerns.

Uh and I understand December 15th was a little bit tough time because of the holidays, didn't get no respond.

I followed back on another email December 29.

Uh just explain what I really like to sit down just to listen to their concern and answer any questions, didn't get no response.

Then I responded again one more time, January six.

She responded back after January six, which is understand there were holidays.

She said, We already heard everything you want to tell us.

I don't think there's anything else we need to talk about.

And we left it that way.

So I didn't uh get much of answers.

Okay.

Is there any commissioner questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Cruz?

Um I'm trying to make my recollection here.

How many trucks are you proposing on this property chair?

I was proposing between eight and ten on three lots.

Uh the meeting we have with them uh about uh sometimes in late November, they requested four or four trucks to start with, and then we'll see how that's gonna be between traffic flow and uh I'm okay with that to do it start four or five.

Uh I'd like to do eight and ten, but I'm okay to do four or five to start with to get everybody on the same page.

So the question for staff uh he had mentioned he has three lots.

Is he allowed two per lot by right?

That is correct.

So in theory, he could put six trucks out there uh and and right now.

So is there is there any other commissioner questions?

Manna Commissioner Manna?

So um I'm looking at the letter that got mailed out with regards to the community responses, and I don't see this case listed here unless I'm looking at the wrong email.

So I was trying to read the letter that was provided by the uh neighborhood associations.

Can you bring it back up and leave it up so I can read through it, please?

Stevens.

Uh Commissioner Stevens.

Can I if I recall correctly, the last meeting there was some conversation about what he'd be allowed to do by right?

And I believe that it was the city's stance that he would have to provide separate facilities for each of those lots, meaning parking, restroom facilities.

Is that true?

That's correct.

So to follow up on that, if he were to do two just by doing two, he has to have a facility.

He has to have on-site parking, he has to have a restroom.

Okay, and is it does it it if he only wanted to do if he wanted to do two per lot and try to get a variance from having the the parking on one or uh or or a second lot?

Is that something that he can request from the city?

So he can do um a parking agreement, it sounds like to solve that issue.

And the restroom issue.

Uh I would have to talk with the health department to see if he can put that on the building standards board or something that would have to hear something like that.

Uh that's not under the purview to the BOA, the location.

But I'm just wondering if there's a path for him to potentially have six out there and have one restroom facility and maybe not have separate parking on each lot.

Is there a pathway for this applicant?

I don't I don't believe so.

Um the health department's restroom one is the one that's would stop it.

Okay.

Yes, come uh uh Ivan, yes.

Um to the city.

So the variance he's asking for right now is for 200 feet uh set back from the east side where the residential housing is.

Is he still required, in spite of two on each lot, would he still be required to have that 200 feet?

Sean, I don't think your mic's on.

Yeah.

No, uh it would the only thing that requires the 200 foot separation is the mobile food court designation.

So if it's not a mobile food court designation, it wouldn't require the 200 foot separation.

Even if he has the trucks on each lot.

Yeah, he he's it's not a considered mobile until you have more than two trucks, and because he has three lots, he could put two in each lot, and that's the as a way of bypassing that 200 foot uh requirement.

Um, but then the requirement for the restrooms kick in.

So in theory, he might only be able to do maybe four.

Who I mean, so yes, Commissioner Manna?

And so uh actually going back for the restroom dialogue.

So so if there's two or less on a lot, it still requires a restroom because I know that there are lots of facilities around my neighborhood that do not have that.

Yeah, the only thing that's designating between the difference of what Sean just said and a mobile food court is just uh zoning designation.

That's all.

They still have to abide by parking restrooms, all that stuff.

Uh I have another question uh question, but it's it's for the applicant.

Um Dignity neighborhood had some concerns about lighting and where the dumpsters would go, the concerns about smells.

Um how would you address that so that just for the record?

We're not planning on putting a lot of lights, just stringed lights only, uh, which is not very bright.

And dumpster, we're gonna have one on the side.

I designate there's one person actually is gonna do nothing but clean up the lot on a daily basis.

And uh we uh that dumpster will be picked up every couple of days whenever it needs it, actually, if more than that.

Did the neighbors association say the word deed restrictions to you as far as a way of of making sure that there was some documented agreement about the lighting and the trash pickup and did you bring it up?

I didn't uh we talked about it.

Okay, you did yeah, we talked about the lights and stuff like that.

They concern about loud music, which is no plan for me to put a loud music or strong lighting.

So I mean, if if I was in charge of the neighborhood association, I would if I if the if there was three or four issues that kept me from approving it, getting something recorded in the deed restrictions might make me more acceptable to it.

That's why I'm wondering in your talks.

They they didn't none of that.

We talked about their biggest concern is uh parking, music, lighting.

Okay.

Uh too many food trucks, uh, which is uh I don't want to do a lot of trucks.

So gotcha.

Any other questions?

All right, hearing none.

Uh voicemails, anyone send to the speech.

Do you have a voicemail?

All right.

Hello, my name is Lulu Francois, chairwoman of the Historic Neighborhood Review Committee for Dignity Hill.

Calling in on case 602, 606 North New Broncle and 1513 13 Dawson Street.

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

For all the same reasons, we were not in support of this request the last two times it was presented to this committee.

Our comments from the last request are included in the email we submitted.

The last time this applicant presented to the historic neighborhood review committee, he stated that he had trouble joining the Zoom meeting we created and was concerned that we did not understand the goals for this project.

For that reason, the zoning DOA requested that he reach out to us to schedule another time to review this request, which he did.

But we decided not to meet with him again because we completely understood what he is was requesting.

We allowed the applicant to explain fully what he wanted to do.

We had many questions for him based on the information he emailed and discussed with us.

We felt satisfied that he answered all our questions about this project.

We did not give him a time limit to present, and I, as a chairperson, made it a point to ask the rest of the committee members if there were any additional further questions for the applicant.

Then and only then did we end the conversation and presentation with him.

The areas of concern have not changed as you can see from the previous email submitted for his November 17th review.

For all these reasons, we asked that you deny this application and recommend that the applicant establish the two lots he owned with the four food trucks he is currently allowed to establish.

Please make sure to see the attached comments from the November 17th to 2025 meeting.

Thank you.

All right.

So if there's nothing any other questions from the commission.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030195.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant and requests for an elimination of the required 200 foot separation to allow the use of a mobile food court within 200 feet of a residential lot or use.

Situated at 602 and 606 North New Bromfels and 1513 Dawson Street applicant being Iskander Sakel, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the literal enforcement of the provision of the UDC as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The lack of separation would not create a significant increase in noise traffic or related nuisances as the lots already sit on the corner of a primary arterial road.

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

The subject's property, the subject property's location along an arterial roadway distinguishes this property from interior residential lots.

Strict application of the 200 foot separation requirement would preclude development of a use that is otherwise appropriate for the site, result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The intent of the separation requirement is to protect residences from the income incompatible uses.

The development of this lot would be subject to all the all other development standards, including landscape buffers as part of the transition between uses.

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

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

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.

Given the property's location along the primary arterial road, the mobile food core use will not introduce noise traffic or related nuisances to agree to a degree that is substantially different from existing conditions.

Six, the plight 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.

Staff finds the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the existing location along North New Bromfels.

Traffic or noise generated by the proposed use would not significantly increase beyond existing conditions created by the primary arterial road.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manning.

Commissioner Stevens.

I'm going to be in support of this variance.

And the mitigating factors for me include being along this arterial road, New Bromfels.

Already a busy road across the street from a little Caesars and adjacent to a cash advance store.

The parking along Dawson doesn't concern me because that's the rear of the houses that face Gulf Street.

And I think that this use serves the neighborhood, which is clear and all the green check boxes that we saw.

I understand Dignity is against it, but I think they might be a little out of touch.

And it seems like a good use for the area, so I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Manna.

I I will not be in favor of this.

Um one of the reasons why is that I think that by right, uh, this applicant can have uh, you know, pretty much what it was that he's looking for, just not quite as many.

And then he does, you know, has an opportunity to come back.

And I think once it is that he you know kind of does prove that this is how you want to do it and how it works, and and you know, the be able to get the community support.

And I think that you know this time frame would get allow him to do that.

And so um so then you know I think that you know he would get a second chance once it is that uh he does prove you know that it that it is you know a viable part of that community and and they adopt it.

So I will not be voting in favor at this point.

All right, anyone else like to add um roll call vote?

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Benavinis.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Osuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur, Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact, but the vote is seven to three, it did not pass.

And so with that uh motion fails.

If you have any questions, you can get with staff.

Uh let's see, item number nine.

Good afternoon.

Item number nine um is located at 9310 Magnolia Grove.

The zoning is R5, and the request is for one, a three-foot fence height special exception from the maximum three-foot privacy fence to allow a six-foot privacy fence, and two, a five-foot variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision.

The subject property is generally located between Ingram Road and Hunt Lane along Magnolia Grove.

The property and surrounding area are single family dwellings and a drainage easement to the south.

The applicant installed a six-foot privacy fence in the front yard along the western side property line and was cited by code enforcement for building without a permit and exceeding the maximum front yard privacy fence height.

Currently, the fence extends beyond the front property line.

The applicant has declared their intent to cut the fence back to the front boundary to leave a 10-foot clear vision area.

A special exception is requested to allow the fence to remain at its current height and a variance for the fence to remain within the minimum driveway clear vision area.

This is the site plan depicting both of the requests.

This is the aerial view of the subject property.

The current view of the subject property with estimated property line.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030238 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the increased fence height is three feet over the minimum required privacy fence height, which adversely impacts the visual openness of the front yard areas along the streetscape.

Two, the special exception will alter the essential character and uniformity of the neighborhood as no similar fences were observed to be built within the front property yard, front yard of the properties.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030238 for the driveway clear vision variants based on the following findings of fact.

There is no significant encroachment into the right-of-way that would impede traffic or pedestrian safety or hinder maintenance issues.

And two, adjacent properties retain full functionality and no traffic impacts or circulation conflicts are expected.

Staff mill 39 notices, five are received in favor, zero in opposition, and El Sandero Neighborhood Association provided comments.

Oh, I'm sorry, I just read the letter.

It said they didn't want to provide any comments.

Okay, great.

Any uh commissioner questions for staff before we move on to the applicant?

Hearing none, let's have the applicant come forward.

Hi state your name, tell us about your fence.

Good afternoon, Judith and Solo Gonzalez, my husband.

Um so dear members of the board, we are here to formally request approval to allow us to maintain a privacy fence along the boundary of our property to prevent unauthorized access and to protect the safety and the security of our family and property.

This request is based on repeated incidents involving the neighboring tenants, which have created both safety and property concerns.

So just a little bit of history.

They moved out October of 2024.

There are going to be some videos that may have some language.

So I just want to let you all know.

I will try to stop as much of that as possible.

Okay.

I just want to let you know.

Oh, it is going to be image 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4.

They're just quick snippets.

So here you can see that I'm sending this to the owner, letting her know these are videos that we're capturing, letting her know that the first one was at 12, and then they returned at 145.

Do you want to go over?

And then that's her comment.

Wow, kind of scary.

Um here's the out one of the actual videos.

You can speed up to them.

We can't answer the door right now.

But if you'd like to leave a message, you can do it now.

Sorry.

Um this is where someone, I guess, I don't know if the gentleman was knocking on other neighbors' doors, but you see police presence.

Um, this is when they returned again.

Okay.

So the oh go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

So this is loitering.

My dad, so as you can see, there is no fence there, but they use our people who are coming in and out of that area.

My dad's window, because I do have my elderly parents that live with us.

His window, they have direct access to his window, and my son's window is right on top of that.

And this occurs when we're home or we're not.

You can see the vehicles.

Um, and this are our vehicles right here in the driveway.

Um this is my driveway, yes.

So they are they just they're having a party or something.

We're uh we'd like to assume that, but you'll see many videos that show that they have no regard for our property.

So this is another incident.

Wait, all those cars across the street are going to your neighbor's house.

Yes.

Okay.

And the thing is, this passage right here, this is still my property.

If um, you can show video number 14 point uh 14.3.

Oh, you see this gentleman.

We don't know who he is, he's on our driveway.

My parents are at home most of the time, they are retired.

Um 14.3.

So it is somewhat alarming, especially if we're not home as in as the homeowners and my parents are there alone with my 13-year-old son.

Okay.

Uh I I get the idea.

Uh is there any other we don't need to see every video.

Okay, just and that so it doesn't just, it's just not people walking.

Did you see that vehicle?

They're I saw the IETV, yeah.

Yes, there's also one of cars going through trucks.

They also pull the big utility um trailers with items in there.

Just is in your neighborhood, this is public or private streets.

Is it a public or private street?

It's uh I mean I'm assuming it's a public street.

Yes, uh-huh.

I apologize.

I wanted to show you the way the home is.

14.3.

They have access on the opposite side.

We live on the corner, and there's a proper the property behind us, their backyard is to us.

Their door to their property that they rent.

So here's the house.

So there's the windows.

As you can see, there was no fence there.

Our intent was now that the mock door.

That's the mock door, and that's the entryway to our backyard.

So what they did is they teed off of this of the side of the house.

So now they created an entryway to be able to transport items back and forth.

There's, I mean, I'm like, but you've constructed a fence down the side, your side property line already, right?

So yes, what happened was there was an altercation with my 72-year-old father.

This gentleman, I mean, we there's our he actually has criminal trespassing charges that are filed with the city of San Antonio because of the altercation.

Okay.

I I I understand.

Is there any commissioner questions for the applicant?

So Manna.

Commissioner Manna?

So the um I know I know so I'm the president of a neighborhood association and we work with uh our neighborhood safe officers.

So have you reached out to them?

You hopefully you like speed dial with them right now.

So Chestnut Springs has gone through some management difficulties.

I think for this for the last couple of years.

There's a there's a legal battle going on with the the management company.

He was the manager of the company that was overseeing the HOA, but he was also the president of the HOA.

So for many years, okay there's we so they're rebuilding it.

So we that's also why we reached out to Sendero because they're is this a gated community?

It is not.

So three so 311 safe officer speed dial.

So there's also police records attached to this of how many times SAPD.

The one time it has sub somewhat subsided is now that the fence is there.

We have videos where you see the gentleman.

I mean, you guys haven't even seen everything.

The gentleman walks and then he sees where the fence is, and then he doesn't about face.

Is is uh is your neighbor's association mandatory or non-managed?

It is mandatory, yes.

Okay, they still have not voted a board in.

Um we still don't have one yet.

We still don't have one.

But you do have one that's supposed to be there.

Supposed to be, yes, in theory.

Okay.

So um I I've seen everything I need to see.

Is there any uh commissioner questions or comments?

And so was this going um so it looked like it was kind of the side of the property, but not across the front.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So okay.

So um yeah.

And then for the evening, it does have lights.

So I mean the the I saw those little things, yeah.

It staff, is there any voicemails or anyone signed to speak?

Yes, to sign up to speak.

Okay.

I got a question for the applicant.

Yes, uh, is this near like a um does the school bus go near here at all?

Are there any kids in this area?

Um the school bus usually I think it goes in at like five in the morning.

They have a bus stop further further down from the from our house.

Does it drive in front of your house?

Yes, it drives in front of our house.

Okay.

Um and have you seen that this fence has actually done something?

Has it improved?

How long have you had the fence up again?

Um I think we so September.

September 11th.

And then how long have those neighbors lived there?

April.

April of 2025.

Geez, all this has happened.

Yeah, you like I'm sure.

Um we because of the them uh driving through, they actually broke our water meter.

Um, and so then we had to then try to obtain restitution with that.

Um, they wanted to fix it on their own, they called some buddies from Home Depot to come and fix it, and that became another issue.

And so a lot of this has been has come from that situation.

Yeah, that's Saz's property, so okay.

So we so we did extend the fence to protect our water meter.

So now they cannot um ruin the integrity of the saws water meter there.

Um and it keeps them off of our property and provides a little bit of safety for my parents and my son.

My son, he can't even have friends come over anymore because we have texts from friends, parents saying please don't let the boys in the front yard, don't let them play in the backyard because if like again, if you heard what we endure, if I could show you just one video, if that was gonna help anyone, um they my dad can't even he's retired, he wants to sit outside and drink coffee, front yard or backyard.

I I okay.

I only have one more one more quick.

Yeah, I guess my only concern is uh when you know, if let's say kids are playing or they were they're walking by that sidewalk and you can't really see them.

If you read if we reduced any of that that fence down to the the three feet or whatever, we need to be would do you think it would still help, even if you even if we brought it down a little bit so that way you could at least be able to see when you exit the drive.

Because it because if all these other cars are there too, they're also causing clear vision issues.

Kids are running in between the I don't know if there's any how many kids are in that neighborhood, but that's my concern really with not being able to see when you drive out of there.

And I will tell you that the homes in that it's like almost like a little cul de sac, they don't have young children, it's just the tenants right now that have young children.

The home next to it, they have three grown, I think they're three grown children.

The house next to it, there's no children.

Home next to it, no children.

The only other one that would have a child is the one on the corner, but they've had encounters.

Um and one of our, I think in one of our uh police reports, that gentleman has actually approached the child.

So we're all living just kind of confined within, you know, go in and go out, and you know, we have a buddy system that my parent or my sons cannot go outside without one of us.

And if I can just uh sorry, senior planner Joel Villa over here, uh just button about your concern, Mr.

Bonias.

If we could go one photo forward in the slides, um I think this was probably your concern.

This photo shows that the fence goes all the way to the back of the sidewalk.

Um that's actually off of the the applicant's property, and that's why we kind of estimated the property line there.

If I'm not mistaken, um the applicant had agreed to cut the fence back to the property line where the actual property boundary is.

So this is what it looks like when we went out and took our photos, but the property owner has agreed to remove the fencing posts, you know, to to not encroach beyond their property line.

Um maybe focus in a little bit, the water meter is right there.

Yeah, so I just wanted to add that this is a standard neighborhood which typically has a 50-foot ride of way, so the the property now would be 10 feet behind the face of curb.

So with the four foot sidewalk, they they're basically cutting it back six more feet.

That's what that's correct.

And and mana, so and I think so.

Part of the dialogue, so so with her agreeing with the city here and and you know, which I'll figure out.

So three foot with a a uh partially open fencing, so so metal fencing on top of that, you could still keep so per this dialogue still keep um the fence as is, but still allow for that clear vision.

Because one of the things we talk about safety and you know, just being safe with the community, but also providing the the separation that you know that you're looking for, and so that may be an option, you know.

Um, one of the things that my dad's Hummer, as I stated he's retired, it's always there.

So that regard in reference to the the vision, that vehicle usually doesn't ever move.

It's one I mean now it's just he's saving it for one day for my son.

So there the Hummer is still even taller than the fence.

Well, I don't uh so I'm personally not concerned with with we'll say that fence up to that uh you know past the you know up to the 10 foot line, but but after that 10 foot line as you get closer to the sidewalk, you know, making that part of the fence partially open um or predominantly open is what we call it, and so that way you can still see the curb, but you still have the separation and and we'll say the protection, and so that way it's kind of uh a little we'll say a little bit of a compromise, you know.

Yeah, again, just to clarify, uh uh beyond that 10 foot line that's depicted there, there can be no fencing, that's not their property.

That's the that's the right-of-way, correct.

Oh, gotcha.

Okay, correct.

Like we had already said, like we're okay.

Yeah, we can't give you permission to even keep it there.

So okay, thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, absolutely.

I put like reminder, we are working to the five things.

We have the gentleman that built the built the fence like on standby.

Well, we have two people signed up to speak.

Uh let's hear from them and see what they have to say.

Oh, well, my parents.

First one is Mr.

Frank Melendez.

Yes.

All right.

You can state your name and address and make your comment, please.

Yeah, we have to record it.

Um yeah.

I'm kind of nervous, that's why I remember my address.

Um I remember.

Um, do you do you live in uh no uh I don't know, sir.

Do you do you live at the property?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so you so for the record it's 9310 Magnolia.

Right.

Correct.

So what do you what do you think?

Should the fence stay?

I believe so, sir, because you know I'm retired and everything like that, and and I sit in the in the front sometimes, and and he comes and he says, Um, before the the gate the the fence was there, you know, the like they didn't want they were mad.

I don't know why, but when we put the fence and everything, he still goes up in the fence and he says, I don't know if I have to say this.

He says, uh, I know you're racist, you're racist, you're racist, and everything.

And they says uh dirty Mexicans and everything like that.

And I I just want to say that that uh people that the owners of the house, um the kids used to call me grandpa and to my wife grandpa, and uh the lady was very nice with us and everything like that, and we even were going to Dubai with them, but they went when it was very hot, and uh so we didn't go, so we went uh later on.

But anyway, with uh now with the fence and everything, so peaceful, so peaceful mama.

And then but I sit in the back now because I don't want no problems and I think like that.

And he's well, you didn't see the video.

The F forward and so and so and so and it's it's bad.

And and I live in this side, and when they you didn't see the other video that they were have parties, they're standing in my my window.

And and and believe me, a lot of people, not just a little bit.

You get scared.

I'm 72 years old.

You know what I mean?

And um I hate to say because I'm mad, but I'm scared.

I'm scared.

And I'm just scared.

And with a fence, quiet, very nice, peaceful.

You know, I mean, and um he says, he said now that with a door, I know you put the uh the fence because you don't want to see us, uh, your dirty Mexican.

Um we don't want to see you neither, you know, I mean, like this.

But uh it's safe with the with the fence.

Uh I can get out right there, sit in the front, and I sit in the back, but sometimes, you know, still he jumps, okay, he's dirty medicines and so and so and so with the fence is real good.

I uh I am very comfortable and helps me, and it's scary.

And now with all the people coming in and everything like this, and you didn't see the other video.

My my helmet's right there with uh with the cars going in inside with the trailers inside, and then in my driveway, they're sitting right there that go own it.

I'm not racist.

The people that owns a house that can prove we got letters and Christmas, Papa, Grandpa, you know I mean, babies, grandpa, grandpa.

I'm not racist.

You know, I mean I work for the school so many years, and everybody knows me.

Sir, the wall, very nice, and and then my age, golden age, they're retired, really nice, and everything like this.

Sir, your three minutes are up.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

I know I'm pretty much good.

Let's have you let's have your wife come up.

Would you like to say anything?

Yeah.

It's okay.

So Maria Melinda.

Hi, good afternoon.

You have to you have to and and the address is the same, 9310 Magnolia.

All right.

Well, tell us what you think.

Well, the main thing, believe me, I'm on this together.

I live in California, never problems with the neighbors.

I live to El Paso, Texas.

We live two houses here in San Antonio.

Now we live with my son-in-law and my daughter-in-law, because we all, but anyway, um, with this people, the neighbors, very good neighbors.

I used to live in Baby City.

Those kids, they call me a grandma, but since we're in this people, too much problem.

Because uh I don't know, they have different manners.

You can call other neighbors, never problems.

And I'm afraid, I'm stuck, because I used to live water and be at the front to get the mailman or get the we had the medication by the male man.

My husband and myself said I'll go get it.

But now I'm afraid to go because that young guy, they can come and scare me, you know.

I'm our lady.

So in one way I feel like uh I feel like afraid to leave to go outside.

I I never live in this country for to go new with a fear, but now I do because I know he's uh schizophrenia or something in the mine, and he's a young boy and mention if I do what are my flowers at the front, and he can shock me.

And my husband and my son-in-law and my daughter and the little boy at school.

I mean, I'm I I don't want to be in dangers.

So like I repeat myself, I never have problems.

Well nowhere.

I can't get the names, I can't keep the neighborhood that very good, never in my life.

So now it's a problem.

I'm afraid, honest to God.

I'm afraid to go out the front to get the mail, throw the trush away, or sit down and do my um and border, because that's my my hobby.

So I don't know.

Like I repeat myself.

The owners, real nice people.

I can see that letter at the kids call me grandma in a baby city and everything, but now with that rent, there's that one that we give you a lot of uh problems.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you very much, and God bless you.

Got it.

Thank you.

Is there any other uh follow-up from the board?

Any other questions?

All right, so um, as we've as we were explained, uh the the fence does have to be removed approximately five or six feet behind the sidewalk to keep it off the city property.

Um, but that doesn't make any changes to what's uh to the motions before us today.

Does that change the clear vision motion?

Okay, so with that, uh if there's anything else you'd like to close with, we're ready to move on to a motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who would like to make a motion on this one?

No.

Okay.

I can do it if no one wants.

Uh let's see.

Item number nine.

Uh we'll start off with the uh with the fence.

Uh regarding case number BOA 25-103-00238.

I move the board of adjustment grant and request for a three-foot fence site.

Special exception for the maximum three-foot privacy fence to allow a six-foot front yard privacy fence situated at 9311-9310.

Pologize.

Magnolia Grove applicant being Sawell 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 literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that a, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter.

The privacy fence will not significantly significantly limit visibility across the front yard of the streetscape and would still promote uh a sense of community that is typical of a single family residential neighborhood.

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

The proposed the proposed fence does appear to serve the public welfare as it would maintain the community character associated with the single family residential neighborhoods.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as the fence will maintain sufficient visual openness of the adjacent property's front yard space.

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

The special exception will not alter the essential character of the district which the property is located, as it would not, as it would maintain sufficient visual openness of the property as it is limited to the eastern side.

E.

The special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or regulations here and established for the specific district.

This requested special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district as it would maintain a sense of community essential for single-family residential neighborhoods.

And just to clarify that this is for a um uh special exception, the three-foot is for the west side of the front property.

Uh end a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

So I'm going to be in support of this uh because if you take uh when you when you look at Google uh maps and you zoom back a little bit, this this area is not really a throughput.

It has a very minor in and out.

And so um so I don't think it's gonna be that detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or to traffic flow or visualness.

Um and the fact that it's going to be moved off of the city property and move back about five feet.

Uh that I'm perfectly fine with it.

Commissioner Manna?

Um I concur with my colleague.

Um just as a side uh maybe uh sorry, I still maybe a dialogue with the city here.

So are there any options to protect uh the meter that can be done by right or as a citizen there that they can add to you to protect that meter because that's kind of part of the dialogue of why the fence is already where it is.

So they can request uh to build on the property with the uh plan or the plan department's uh real estate office, but it would have to be limited to three feet if that's approved.

Well, as far as the meter, um SAS does have uh a metal meter box typically on residential, they're not the iron ones unless you're like you know on the concrete.

So I guess I could ask, but that SAWs is property, it's up to them.

Okay, thank you.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Yep.

Uh is there any other commissioners like to add?

Uh let's have a roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right.

That motion passes 10 to 0.

Uh now we're going to move on to the clear vision aspect of it.

Uh regarding case number BOA-25-103-00238.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a five-foot variance and the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision situated at 9310 Magnolia Grove, applicant being Saw Gonzalez because of testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest as it does not comp compromise traffic or pedestrian safety.

Site observations indicate that the proposed variance will still provide adequate site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway.

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

A literal enforcement enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship because of physical constraints unique to the site that limit the ability to expand the clear vision area without substantial loss of function functional fence area.

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

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

Granting this variance does not alter the essential character of the district and injure the use of adjacent properties.

As adjacent properties retain full functionality and no traffic impacts or circulation conflicts will result by granting this variance.

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

The need for the variance stems from unique existing site conditions.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

And just to clarify, uh Chair Orion, it was a five-foot variance that you read to allow for a 10-foot driveway clear vision, correct?

It said uh yeah, this this the uh suggested motion said a request for a five-foot variance and then a fifteen-foot driveway to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision.

Okay, perfect.

That's correct.

So just clarifying.

Thank you.

You got it.

Uh so I will be in support of this.

Um again, it's it's kind of on a short street that that's just kind of a minor circulation area.

It's not a lot of traffic going in and out of there.

I don't see it as a as a true uh hazard as if this was a major street, uh Main Street in the neighborhood, and by moving it back the five feet behind the sidewalk, I think uh everything will be all right.

Uh Commissioner Manor.

Um I concur with my colleague.

And just for clarification, so did I understand that a three-foot by uh three-foot fence would not be permitted by right in front of this property along the sidewalk?

Uh behind the sidewalk for about five feet as city property, they can't build anything there without an agreement with the city.

So all the neighborhoods that we see where the chain link fences are abutting the sidewalks, those are not supposed to be there, but also there's a uh some of those older neighborhoods of streets are narrower.

Some of the property lines start at the back of sidewalk, it just depends, you know.

Okay.

So I guess I that's I'm learning this for the first time today.

So it's a good thing.

Yeah, I think something that as we see more of these in the future, staff will have to verify that the fence is indeed on their property and not on the staff.

Correct.

And we're doing that by um verifying on the plat uh as we research these to verify the right-of-way width and kind of determine where the property line is from there.

Obviously, with some margin of error, we're not surveyors out there.

But I'll just make a statement.

If you see a sidewalk that's offset from the curb, usually that is the back of the that is the property line at the back of sidewalk.

So that I mean, in some cases it is on the right, and I think we have seen some where it's probably on city property.

So that's a good point.

And and and there is an option then for if if a citizen wanted to go there, they they go to the city and then put in uh a request.

That's what the public works department through the real estate office to get a uh encroachment permit essentially to have some sort of construction within the right-of-way.

Um that's an option that the property owner can explore for this case.

Or reach out to SAWs as chair oriented.

Yeah, and I've actually done some of those.

You you you they canvas it to like 14 different departments.

It's it's a incredibly thorough review, and it has to go to city council.

It's a big deal.

Thank you.

I will be voting in favor, so thank you for the clarification.

All right.

So uh if there's no other commissioner comments, let's have a roll call vote.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Oh, that's it.

So motion passes.

Congratulations.

I I did want to uh just one quick statement.

I notice you have a pool in your backyard, so you theoretically in your backyard can have an eight-foot fence by right if you wanted to, just so you know.

In the backyard.

Okay.

What do you think?

The sides in the rear.

You can go up to eight foot by right.

If you have any questions, you can talk to staff.

Just thought you might want to know.

All right.

Thank you.

Item number 10, unless somebody needs a break.

Yep, we're gonna, I'm sorry, we're gonna take a short break.

See you all back here at 3 o'clock.

All right, it's 302.

We are back in session.

Item number 10.

Give us a moment, we're getting our team.

Yeah.

Do you want to skip to another one?

Item number twelve.

Okay.

Okay.

This is BOA.

Uh 251030267.

The applicant is Ricardo Navarro.

The council district is two.

Location is 305, 307, and 309 Porter Street.

The zoning is RM4.

And the request is a variance from the RM4 development standards to allow for the construction of two separate structures on each lot.

The subject property consists of three distinct lots located on the northeast corner of Porter Street and South Palomato Street.

The applicant has recorded an irrevocable ingress-egress easement across the three lots to support the proposed development.

The applicant proposes to construct two separate duplex structures on either side of the shared easement and on each lot.

This development would consist of four dwelling units on each lot and twelve dwelling units total.

Considering the zoning designation and lot size, the unified development code requires that the RM4 development on each lot be contained within a single structure.

To proceed with the development as proposed, the applicant requests a variance from the residential mixed district multifamily developmental standards from the Board of Adjustment to allow separate structures on each lot.

This is the site plan.

This is the plat that was recorded in 2023.

This is the subject property from the air.

And this is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial on BOA two five-1030267 based on the following finding of facts.

And this is the letter in support we received.

And this is the applicant's applied uh resident feedback and the one letter of uh denial that's not in support.

There's two of them there, but there's only one that's within the 200 feet.

Okay.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Great.

Uh let's have the applicant come forward.

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

Thank you for having me.

My name is Ricardo Navarro.

Um just to clarify the easement was there before uh my client uh bought the property.

So basically we're trying to work with what we got.

Right.

Uh the project um uh as oops, sorry.

Thank you.

So we put together a little presentation that's actually resembles a lot of what he showed.

Um it's that it's now it's not loading.

Um it's just showing aerial shots of the neighborhood of the lot in question, and obviously that easement in the middle does not allow us to really build one forplex.

That's why we're requesting to have two duplexes on the same lots.

Um basically having the same density, just uh different configuration.

Okay.

So I would like to uh provide my thoughts on this real quick to the board.

Uh so in 2022, uh, this was not a problem, and that's why the plat was probably approved and processed in this manner.

But I would like to point out that there have been other projects uh that were platted prior to the 2023 change in the zoning ordinance.

And what they did was they applied for vested rights to say, hey, this is my my uh project predates 2023.

I want to be able to have separate units.

Uh the city has in the past rejected those, but in 2024, an applicant went to the planning commission, of which I sit on as well, and they appealed the decision of the city uh for a property over off of a MacArthur uh street or avenue or whatever that is.

And after deliberation uh at the planning commission, it was unanimous that it is it was in fact susceptible to vested rights.

So in theory, you theoretically could apply for vested rights and get them and not have to come here.

This costs six hundred dollars or whatever, or maybe four hundred if it's residential.

So this is a less expensive avenue.

I just wanted everyone here to know that the that if this doesn't pass today, um there is uh um you know history about this other pathway for you to accomplish the exact same thing.

Just so you know.

Thank you for that.

All right, is there any questions from the commission?

Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So um there was a note uh from the from the neighborhood association that talked about three-story versus two story.

And so so that's not an issue, so you're gonna be compliant with regards to what that states, correct?

Yes, if we actually scroll down on the presentation, we had a meeting with uh HOA and they expressed their concerns, which we addressed by reducing the size of the buildings to two stories.

Uh I mean, these are preliminary plans, of course, because we haven't done a full set.

If we weren't going to be allowed to do it, uh it would have been a little bit of a waste of time.

Uh but this is the preliminary design.

Uh if you scroll a little further down, there's a color rendering of it, which would show kind of um what we expect them to look like once they're finished.

So what size would be what what number of stories would be permitted by right?

Yeah, yeah.

Well, or what's your zoning?

It's RM4.

So RM4 can go three stories.

Okay.

So can we add uh as submitted then or as uh well it's not really submitted so well the problem is that that that section that allows you to that says if you're within 50 feet of a residential neighborhood where you have to go down to the code actually says you go down to the zone to the heights that are that are allowed for the abutting residential zoning district.

He's completely surrounded by room four, they all allow 30 feet, so wouldn't he be able to do 30 feet at three stories anyway?

Correct.

There is no restriction for him to go.

You can do that by right, no one can stop you.

Yeah, it's just to comply with the HOA's requests and their concerns that's generous of you, so thank you.

All right.

Is there uh any other commissioner questions?

All right.

Anyone's time to speak any voicemails.

Hearing none of the questions.

No public comment.

Pardon me?

No public comment.

All right, looking for a motion.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030267.

I moved that the board adjustment, grant the variance from the RM4 development standard to allow for the construction of two separate structures on each lot.

Situated at 305, 307, and 309 Porter Street, applicant being Ricardo Navarro, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there would be adequate space to develop two multifamily structures on each lot while maintaining building scaling and massing that is consistent with the surrounding areas.

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

The raised topography of the property makes creating driveway access from Porter Street for each lot unnecessarily challenging.

The applicant's proposed configuration to include a shared driveway access alleviates this concern.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as allowing development across multiple structures on each lot, would not harm nor injure the surrounding properties and would conform with the established surrounding neighborhood.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent uh property owners uh as a development will be compatible in scale and density with surrounding properties.

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

The apply to the owner, the plight of the property owner is due to the unique circumstances of the inherent size and physical layout of the lots, which predate the proposed development and are not the result of the owner's actions or general conditions in this district.

End a motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna?

So um I'll be voting in favor.

Um I think um as chair uh brought out with regards to you know the this would have this this is gonna be allowed, you know, more or less one way or the other.

And so this looks like a more appropriate uh uh solution from my perspective.

And Denver uh Heights, thank you for reaching out to them.

You know, is uh you know that you're working with them, and so they're in favor of this, so I have no reason to be in um uh not in agreement.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with Commissioner Manna, I'll be in support.

I think um seeing additional units and density in our neighborhood is great.

So like I said, I'll be in support.

Anyone else like to add?

Manna.

So also I uh you know, I thought it unique that the the uh staff showed a picture that says how out of character was where every single house next to it was a configuration like this or bigger.

So but just as a note.

I I'm just gonna close by adding that if you go down Porter, they they're building on 20 foot wide lots.

Uh and it's it is yeah, there's some good density out there.

All right, great.

Uh let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Menna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Osina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnez.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

Item 10.

Item number 10.

Item 10 is BOA-25-1030251.

The applicant being Don B.

McDonald Architects in Council District 1 at 116 East Agorita Avenue.

The zoning is R4.

Uh, and this is a request for a four-foot eight-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport in the rear yard with a four-inch side setback limited to the rear 31 feet of the west side property line.

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

And the proposed carport will be attached to an existing stone wall, which is uh which stands four inches off the west side property line.

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

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

Uh shown here is a site plan of the development.

On the right side is the full uh view of that property with East Agarita being on the far right side there, and you can see the blown up version.

Uh there is that existing stone wall uh where they're proposing that carport, which the carport roof will be affixed to here's kind of a better view of that blown up portion.

Uh shown here is the subject property from East Agarita.

And this is the rear yard area where the carport is proposed.

That's that back fence line abutting the alley to the rear.

Uh this is the surrounding area.

This is the alley entrance.

And further down the alley, that's the subject property there on the right side.

And again, the subject property, that brown uh fence there in the middle.

And here's more of the surrounding area.

There is another kind of uh access way being used right across the alley, just a little bit further um to the east.

Uh staff recommendation for a carport side setback variance.

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

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

Staff mailed 28 notices, five were returned in favor.

Uh zero in opposition, the Mona Vista Historical Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the San Antonio, Texas District One resident association did not respond.

Shown here is the support received by staff and the uh survey given out to those individuals at the top there, and here's more letters of support that we received.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

This case looks very familiar.

Was this a re-advertisement or a continuance?

This was re-advertised initially because we did not re-advertise with that connection to the wall.

And then it was going to go to the sub that last one that just got canceled January 26th.

So that's what I remember then.

Hi, please state your name.

Tell us about the your project.

I'm Don McDonald.

Um this is replacing a structure that existed here up until it fell down in maybe 1984.

And um and the all that's remaining is a two-hour firewall to the right.

And and so we're looking to put this um structure in the same location as in the original building.

Uh there are in the I just counted, uh, there are five buildings that abut the property line with adjacent firewalls on this alley alone.

Oh wow.

And there are a dozen in this block that uh abut uh alley.

So we're more normal than abnormal in this particular location.

And it's the only it's really the only opportunity to put um it's a 20-foot-wide carport, it's the only opportunity to uh to do that on this property.

All right.

Well, is there any com uh questions from the commission?

Ozuna.

Commissioner Azuna.

Staff um makes the assertion that there is an uh alternate use of a way to put a garage.

Do you see an alternate way?

I mean, it's it's a two-car garage.

Right.

Uh carport, and it it existed previously, and there's no other place on this property to do that.

It's not adjacent to a property line.

Understood, thank you.

All right, any other questions?

Anyone signed to speak?

Any voicemails.

Uh no public comment.

All right.

Well, unless there's anything else you'd like to add, we'll move on to a motion.

All right.

Looking for a motion.

Ozuna, I'll take it.

Commissioner Azuna.

Uh regarding case number BOA-25-1030251.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment Granting requests for a four four foot eight inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a car part in the rear yard with a four-inch site setback limited to the rear 31 feet of the west property line situated at 116 east Agarita Avenue applicant being Don B B.

McDonald Architects, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined should show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest as there would remain sufficient space to support the maintenance of the structure.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as the existing stone wall would mitigate the risk of damage to adjacent property from fire spread or water runoff.

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

Granting the variance would support the spirit of the ordinance as the typical negative impacts from the crowding structures along a shared property line are mitigated by the existing stone wall.

Four, the variants would not authorize the operation of those uses other than those specifically authorized in the zoning district as the variance is located.

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

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent forming property.

There are also the essential character of the district which the property is located.

Such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property, nor alter the essential character of the district as the carport is proposed in the rear yard and behind the existing stone wall.

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

Apply to the owner for which the variance is sought is due to the unique limited space in the rear yard of the property for the place with the carport.

The space limitation requires the carport utilize the existing stone wall as a structural element, and moving uh the this wall further from the property line would be unreasonable.

And a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Zuma.

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

Um the staff provided uh uh testimony and shown that the uh property owners most affected are all in support of the structure as proposed.

That garage had been there for years and years, uh most recently just dilapidating and the replacing existing uh condition.

And then third, um, they're fixing to an existing structure that wall.

So there's really um no, I mean the the walls there are red again, so that we're merely fixing the the garage structure to that wall, and so any maintenance there would have already been addressed uh with with that wall in its present condition.

So red.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stevens.

I concur with uh Commissioner Ozuna.

Um as Mr.

McDonald stated, it's replacing a previously existing structure and benefits from this beefy two-hour masonry wall, and it appears to be the only place to locate a two-car garage on the site, so I'll be in favor.

All right, thank you.

Manna, yes, Commissioner Manna.

And I would say that um Bona Vista would weigh in if they had an issue with this and they did not.

So they're in favor, so I'm in favor.

All right, awesome.

Um, if there's nothing else, uh let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Elzina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Thumbs up or thumbs down.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

And Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of that motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

We are on item number 13.

Moving along.

Moving along.

BOA 25-103-0027.

The applicant is Juan Osuro.

The council district is 10.

The location is 327 rainbow drive.

Uh the zoning is R5.

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, including a two-foot overhang limited to the north side property line.

The subject property is located in the middle of the block face along Rainbow Drive between Eisenhower Road and Deerwood Drive.

The development started without a permit and was cited by code compliance for building without a permit.

The applicant submitted a plan for renovation for a two-story single-family residence.

During the permitting process, plan review determined that a variance would be required to build within the setback.

Prior to renovation, the structure maintained a similar setback that was uh created by an attached carport.

The renovation uh maintains the carport and adds a livable area above it due to the extent of the renovation to the exist existing structure.

The applicant is considering it's considered a new bill and must comply with current code.

This is the site plan.

And I want to point out that the applicant cut back the um overhang on the side by a foot.

And I'll show those pictures uh when he presents.

Next slide.

This is the subject property.

As you can see right here, uh this is the original when we went out on the site of site visits.

The new one is cut back about a foot.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 25-103-0027 based on the following findings of fact.

There's uh insufficient space will remain to adequately maintain the structure, and insufficient space will remain for the purposes of water runoff and fire protection.

79 uh notices were mailed, eight in favor, and then both of the neighborhood associations are in opposition.

The uh this is the support provided by the applicant.

And this is an email provided by the applicant from the neighborhood directly affected.

And these are the two opposition letters from the neighborhood associations.

Can you keep those up?

Absolutely.

And again, these weren't in the packet, unfortunately, so for some reason.

Okay.

And just to be clear, that they're cutting back the overhang of foot.

Does that mean the request is now for a uh uh one foot less or variance?

Yeah, I believe so, yes.

So it should be about a one-foot less variance.

So it would now be a three-foot six-inch variance to allow a foot and a half to include a one-foot overhang.

Yes, sir.

If everyone caught that.

Okay, great.

All right, uh, thank you very much.

Is there any commissioner questions before we move on to the applicant?

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

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

Juan Osorio.

Uh what it was uh tell us about your project.

Oh, yes.

So um I started with the um with this project.

We did have uh I know it says there that we did not have permits in place.

We've always had permits in place since day one.

We started um we started with our first permit, which was a remodel.

Uh that's what we started with remodeling the house.

Um we requested basically had a uh they had a car uh car port at the time and we requested to uh turn it into a car garage.

That was at the the initial time that we uh requested the permit.

When we came back, um they came back, the city said no you cannot have that.

You need a five foot setback um requirement.

Um or you have an option to do a three-foot if you do a carport and uh five foot if you do a car garage.

Uh that's what they gave me at the time.

Um considering that we have purchased the property because it was a zero lot line based on the survey uh initially.

Um that was the initial uh proposed proposal that we submitted to the city.

Uh once they denied it uh um and they suggested the three foot, we opted for that.

Uh so we went ahead and build the carport, um, the existing slab, moved back to the the house, and um and we started building at that point with permit in place.

Um thereafter we went up uh into the attic to build our additional bedrooms, and we realized you know it's not what we it wasn't giving us what we needed.

So at that point, we submitted a new application for uh to be able to remodel and add the second part of the house.

Um we had already started, like I like I said, we were remodeling the house, trying trying to build something in the attic.

Uh the city came back and said, Um you need a uh new construction permit.

So they basically withdrew my old permit and uh gave me a brand new permit for new construction.

Um all that, you know, within the within the time frame uh that we had already started building that.

Um it was approved.

We did get that permit um to continue construction, uh, which is what we have right here.

And um uh we passed our inspections or mechanicals, uh, but when the framing came by, uh the framing inspector asked us for a um uh he wanted to know how we were gonna x-ray the uh north side of the of that wall, which we did not have on on the plans.

So we went back to the uh drawing board and you know redesigned that gave them what you know how we were going to planning to um uh protect that side of the house.

At that point, the uh city came back and um and approved it.

Uh we submitted that that paperwork also to the city, and they went ahead and approved that.

Um here's where we submitted what was the plan that we're that we're trying to do, and based on per code, of course.

Uh they approved it, and um they say, well, considering that we're gonna be doing this, now we need you to enclose your carport, uh, which you know it was originally a carport.

We need you to enclose it, and we need you to cut back on the soffit uh to one foot.

So we complied with that.

So we we've been complying with everything that the city has been asking us for um up to the point um when I came back to the city and I said, hey, okay, we we we're done with all this.

Can we request our framing inspection once again?

And that's when they told me no, now you need a variance.

So and uh that's where we are here.

So a quick question this house was originally built in 1949 according to the appraisal district records.

Are you widening the house beyond the existing footprint?

Winding the house beyond the yeah, so the the the house that was the old house that was there when we first got there, are you making it any wider?

Wider no.

Okay, so you're staying in the con you keeping the placement, you're just going up to store.

Yes, exactly.

So we built so the existing house is still in place.

Um we still the existing carport.

What we did is we build above the house and the carport to be able to fit uh what we needed.

Okay.

Manna?

Yes, Commissioner Manna.

So so I'm confused because I'm looking at a picture from 2022, and there was a different house there.

Was there?

Or am I looking at the wrong picture?

Well, the the record show that the original house was built in 1949.

Got that.

And then when did you guys start doing work at this property?

We started in 20 um like April, uh March, April, something like that, or 2025.

2025.

What was the date?

So but I looked at the so if we go to Street View, um and so it looked like there was a carport and a separation, uh, a driveway there, and the original house looked like it was separated by 10 foot.

And then and then now this house sits here.

Um so it looks like this it looks like it's a a new home that's been added on this lot.

Is that correct?

Oh no.

So it is still the original house.

So uh on the left hand side where you see the the the beginning of the car garage now, that's still the original house.

Okay, so so everything to the everything above that garage to the right is new addition to the home.

Okay.

So um and so that part didn't exist before, so that's an add-on there from from the original build of the house, correct?

That is correct.

It looks like they had a slant carport.

That's the uh the original that's the original when we purchased it though, it it had the uh concrete slab on it on the right side.

Uh so that's uh what's on the comp the community monitors, there's a slant carport that looks like they now enclosed in.

Correct.

Right, but that looks like I mean that is that concrete on the bottom or is that just gravel?

So it looks like it doesn't look like concrete.

Yeah.

This is uh yeah, this is gravel.

Yeah, and if you go further, you can see all the way through to the backyard there.

And so basically they built a new structure all the way to the wall there.

Um that's that's why I was asking.

I I was trying to find out that if if if you widen the home, did you widen the foundation and it looks like you did?

Uh no, I did not.

Uh so this the original structure is still there.

Uh when we bought it, when we bought it, so you're not you're not building anything that's the concrete slab.

So you're not building anything with air conditioned space underneath where that car port was shown in that previous picture?

Staff, can you bring it Oh no, no air conditioning?

Steph, can you bring that picture back up, please from the street view?

So you see on the side that you there's a little parking area.

It's a the roof is there and then you can park underneath of it.

Aren't you constructing a home in that same exact area?

Oh no, I'm not.

You're not.

I'm not building something in that area right here.

Yeah.

Okay.

We were going to rebuild it if it was falling apart.

Uh and then we go to the other.

Can you please speak into the microphone?

We'll first give your name and address and then speak in the microphone, please.

My name is Jonathan O'Sodio, 327 Rainbow Drive.

Okay.

Um the initial thing was that that carport was falling apart, so that's why we wanted to we would have to do that.

But instead of a carport, there's a foundation you're gonna put a foundation there and a house.

Well, when we purchased the property, the slab was already there.

Uh the carport.

If if I'm parked underneath that carport, am I parked on a slab?

Yes.

That was one of the things that we have to do.

That's what we're trying to figure out is if you had something of permanence, or is that just compacted earth?

Uh well, we purchased it, it was already a slab, and then we we built the driveway to attach to that.

Oh, the driveway we did build that.

Okay.

So the driveway, so when we purchased the house, there was the slab already, and that was what really got me to purchase the property because it was on a zero lot line and it already had the slab, and that was the reason why I wanted it to, you know, buy that property.

And when you say zero lot line, is there anything documented like an old deed restriction or a D that reference it as a zero lot line, or is that just an adjective you're putting on it?

Uh where did you get the zero lot line?

Oh, from the survey.

So when we when we were offered the property, uh they the seller gave us a copy of the survey and it showed the and they reflected the carport very, very close to the side property line.

So it's not a true zero lot line where it was created in the deed records or a plat or anything.

So it was built prior to annexation to the city.

So that's okay.

Yeah, 1949.

All right.

I think I I have an understanding of what's going on now.

So manna so it always wanted, you know, we're thinking of the safety and you know, and fire safety.

So if I understand correctly, because it's so close to the property line that all of the walls will be fire rated.

And you know, so was the house built?

So there's this there's two portions.

Okay, maybe I'll ask you all.

So there's so do you have uh does the carport of the garage doesn't go all the way to the back of the building, does it?

Right now it's uh three feet six inches away from the lot line.

Got that.

But but um how deep is it?

And so does is the length of the current garage the entire length or the car, yeah, the entire length or depth of the house itself.

Oh no.

No.

So the uh the carport um there's about two to three feet of the house past what was the carport.

Okay and so did that exist before, or is that an add-on that you all added?

So so it looks like you added we'll say the whole right side with a with a lower story with an upper story above it.

Is that what happened?

Okay.

So was and you showed some documents that implied that that was permitted, because you gave the plans.

And so um so city can confirm that the the construction of the original project prior to the addition of the car port or uh or yeah, the carport um was permitted by the city of San Antonio, so they they approved the walls and all of that, and this came up before us because they added to the front of it.

Is that is that my understanding?

Yeah, it looks like they were just trying to initially replace and redo the carport.

And because they weren't spending more than the 50% or whatever nothing triggered any new re-reviews there was just maintenance.

Correct until they started doing full blown you know home construction in that area that all of a sudden here we are.

Correct.

Stevens?

Commissioner Steve what was it from the city's perspective that triggered the need for a new build permit it's usually um the reconstruction of two or more exterior walls um and any addition that's over one story.

So the second story edition regardless full stop any anytime there's a second story addition requires a full plan review at that time and in this particular case you know there's um the actual addition of exterior walls um and that would qualify as well the in closing that garage so that would be the the enclosed area above the carport.

Well the enclosing of the garage itself as well as the second story above the garage so the the applicant had stated that the city had requested that they enclosed their quote unquote carport is that accurate I don't believe that's um the the case of what happened in in this instance um you know I think per what the testimony that was presented to us you know um options were given depending on a variety of scenarios at the permit counter if you're given the the permit tech in front of you a site plan that says I'm gonna be three feet away from the side property line for an accessory structure that's kind of the extent of the review that happens for these minor builds um if that's the information that was given at the time to the permit counter I can see how that would get approved and a permit be issued at that time but obviously that's not what was done um in this particular case there's more construction going on here.

I think we have the Eagle View images.

I think this will probably shed a little more light on your concerns uh Commissioner Manna this is 2025 um showing the current construction if we go back one um let's go 2023 or 2024 you can kind of see the footprint of the old structure that was there let's go one forward actually 2025 yeah there you can see the old footprint of the structure and then go back to the current view you can kind of see there you go the change over time is it the city's position that they're not any closer to the property line currently than the original structure?

So we think they're the same distance but obviously it's a different structure now and and does this does it from the area that looks like the extent of the of the encroachment is not too far into the side plane of the neighboring home.

It was like it's like it's corner to corner almost is that a true assessment the crest of the roof oh I can see it now I didn't I didn't notice that shadow okay okay any other questions and I think I I couldn't find where we said anything about the openings but maybe it was backwards because maybe we're trying to tell them that it needs to be open no more than two sides to continue being a carport when we saw it was enclosed.

I I don't see any of that written anywhere but I'm suspecting that maybe was a case.

Okay.

Well um any other questions so go back to so by I guess one of the questions I asked though was the the you know the firewall ratings and that so does that automatically kick in for this particular structure simply because of the proximity to the within three feet yeah the per the plan review team would require fire rating.

To what degree I'm actually not too sure but yes.

And did we have input for the neighboring property for the budding property next and and they were okay with this?

Yes.

Okay.

So the property that's most impacted potentially is is okay with this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes sir all right is there anyone sent it to speak of voicemails?

No public comment okay uh is there any further questions all right I do I do have a comment uh just can I want to add to it um you know the confusion that that uh we've been going through back and forth like that X-rated you know we we pay for the the design and you know to get a quote it underquote um fire extra assembly um but I do want to add that I was informed by the reviewer that we no longer need the X-rayed if you're within three feet of that side property line it has to be fire rated.

Um but I do want to add that I was informed by the reviewer that we no longer need the X-ray.

If you're within three feet of that side property line, it has to be fire rated.

Okay.

Okay.

And and you you have to understand that you know we need to earn a residential permit.

I'm just you you know staff has to look at what's before them.

So if they think it's a carport, they look at it differently.

If they think it's a two-story structure, you know.

If you have an existing structure and you're doing renovation and you don't exceed 50 percent of the appraised value, then it doesn't trigger some of the new rules.

There's a lot of different avenues and passing we we learned that we were not aware of that part.

Um but what's before us today is that you're attempting to construct uh a structure within within five feet of the property line, so therefore you have to come here, and whatever happens here, uh if this gets approved, you'll have to deal with the the the requirements that get imposed based on how close you are to that side property line.

Sure.

So just be prepared that there will be this gets approved.

Sure.

I mean we we we're prepared for all that like like we've complied with everything that the city has requested of us, including that fire one.

And I but I'm glad you're uh clear that out because uh like I said this last time I spoke with you.

You have to ask plenty of questions.

Yeah, okay.

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

Can I can I just clarify what we're talking about?

Um we're they're requesting a three and a half foot variance for one foot six side setback, including a one-foot overhang.

And real quick, can I get the applicant to verify that please since we advertise for something different?

Sir You did cut it back by a foot.

Yes, uh the city asked me to cut it back.

It wasn't eleven inches because we can do whatever we need to do.

We just want to make sure it's the right number.

Yes, yes, it was twelve inches.

Yes, all right.

Uh there's some new pictures.

Uh oh, we believe you.

We we just want to make sure that you know we're doing what we need to do.

Yes, of course.

All right.

So who will be reading the motion today?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103027.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a four foot six inch variance from or sorry, a three foot six inch variance from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a one foot six inch side setback, including a two-foot overhang limited to the north north side property line situated at 327 Rainbow Drive, applicant being Juan Asorio, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of the 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.

In this case, there would be adequate space between the structures as the new development is being developed and the same footprint of the original carport.

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

The special condition on this property is that the location of the existing home and driveway is long is along the side of the house, leading to less room for development.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback would not cause any hardship to the property abutting the slot, as there is adequate space between the homes.

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

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

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

Granting this variance will not substantially injure the adjacent property owners, as there is sufficient separation between structures.

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

The plight of the property owners due to the unique circumstances of location of the existing house and the lot leading to decreased space for this development.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor, Commissioner Stevens.

Okay.

I'm going to be in favor of this variance.

I I can respect that.

So ultimately I'll be in favor.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

All right.

Is there anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, is that roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Menna.

I concur with the finding as a fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

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

Congratulations.

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

And please ask questions from the building permit department to make sure you know exactly what they're going to be looking for.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Item number 14.

Good afternoon.

Item 14 is BOA-25-1030280, located in District 5.

The location is 1514 West Salina Street.

The zoning is R form, and the request is for one, a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters limited to 40 feet in depth and a one-inch side setback.

And two, a three foot ten inch variants from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow an accessory structure, a one foot two inch side setback, including a four-inch overhang.

The subject property is central centrally located on West Salina Street between North Richter Street and North Colorado Street.

The subject property in the surrounding area are single family dwellings.

The case originated in November 2025 from a code enforcement investigation in response to citizen call related to the construction of a carport without a permit.

Further imagery suggests the current cardboard was constructed sometime between 2022 and early 2024.

During a visit to the site, the carport was observed to be within the side setback.

An accessory structure in the rear yard proposed for future reconstruction is also within the side setback.

The property owners requesting variances to allow the carport to remain in the storage shed to be rebuilt at their existing distances from the side property line.

Since this carport is classified as a new construction, building permits are required and are pending the outcome of the board of adjustment.

This is the site plan with both variances depicted.

This is the subject property.

This is the carport side setback.

The accessory structure side setback.

And the surrounding area.

One, and sufficient space will remain for water runoff, fire hazards, and maintenance of the structures.

And two, the carport is uncharacteristic of the existing streetscape and would visibly disrupt the consistent spacing between properties due to its location within the side setback.

Staff mailed out 39 notices.

And here is the prospect Hill notice received.

And that concludes staff presentation.

Uh real quickly, the the structure in the back corner.

So there's an alley back there.

So we're just looking at the side setback.

Do you know how how long that that structure is?

Like 10 feet or something, 12 feet.

In the back, the accessory structure?

Yeah.

I don't know if they if that was ever disclosed or anything.

I don't know at the top of my head, but I can say photos that we visited.

Okay.

All right.

Well then let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Carlos Talaveda.

You English.

I'm here to present my case.

And it'll say you compare la propiedad.

I bought my property in 2016.

Okay, is that mic on?

I I can hear you perfectly well, but it uh it doesn't it doesn't sound like it's coming through the speakers.

Oh, you have to hold it down.

Hold it down.

Oh thank you so much.

Sorry about that.

All right, thank you.

Okay, I guess you can hear me now.

Wonderfully great, great, thank you.

So I bought my property in 2016.

Um Porche Yasin controversial.

When I bought the property, the port the porch was already there.

Um reemplacé yo porque se estaba in those 22?

In 2022 I replaced it because the roof was collapsing.

Uh the city staff uh led um a notice there that I didn't have permit for that.

In this moment at that moment I was not at home.

To explain to him that the porch had already been like that before.

Uh so I replaced it.

So my neighbor on the other side was the one who built that porch.

Now that we are dealing with this thing, um I asked him for his support, but he didn't give me his support.

The city is requesting me to move the post five uh cinco piece?

Five feet five feet inwards.

If I do so, I won't be able to put my vehicle in there.

Because the space is really narrow.

On the side there is the gas connection, the gas uh line.

Um this is the reason why I replaced it.

I didn't know I had to get a permit for that because the porch was already there.

Um stretchual space.

And well, the space there is really, really narrow.

And um in the front of the house, the the parking space is really, really small, so that I can park my my cars there.

Uh no tening problemaske pushera la canaleta de agua para no perjudical.

Um the the when the neighbor built all all these um porch, he told me that there was no problem, only that I needed to to build the the the water the channel for the water to so that the ri the water wouldn't go into his house.

But if I I haven't had any any diff any problems with anybody.

Well, I have little kids there and my grandchildren, so I don't want them to have any the uh that there are any hazards for them.

Okay.

Well let me ask you a question.

Uh was the carport as uh as long as it the new car port is at the same length.

So it went back about 40 feet marks.

Um to the inside I I built it like 10 feet longer.

Okay, and then uh we're also here about your accessory structure in the back.

Uh what is that?

Oh, it's the uh it's a small building that's in the back corner of the property.

I'm I'm wondering how big it is, what size is it?

So a corner eagle view it's about 17 feet from left to right in the rear property line.

17 feet along the side property line.

Well on the rear.

I think that was a question asked earlier.

Oh yeah, I was trying to figure out well, because the rear is not a vision because it's abutting an alley, but on the side, uh sometimes when we read these motions, we like to put uh a distance for how far that accroachment goes, and I was wondering about how long it's uh both sides seems to be about 17 feet.

Okay.

Is that is that uh structure in the back about 17 feet by 17 feet?

Is that the structure?

Uh low it is but most of the proximamente.

I really don't know for sure, but I think it's kind of that.

Maybe 18 feet, someone wants to read a motion might be the number just to be safe.

Um is there any questions from the commission?

I just like to say that um so we've heard testimony that um the carport is about 10 feet longer.

Uh the original carport didn't appear to have gutters, the new one does.

And so that's what I've observed.

Uh I don't have any other questions beyond that.

Mana?

Commissioner Mann.

So the so the the accessory structure that's in the back, is that a new structure, or did that just come up because of the city dialogue?

Uh gave the uh applicant an option to add it on here in case he wanted to remodel it, and he indicated that he may want to.

That way, to prevent any issues.

So it's existing.

So existing.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well, if there's nothing else, is there anyone signing to speak?

Anyone any voicemails?

Uh one speaker, Mrs.

Kiana.

All right, come on up, tell us your name and tell us your thoughts.

Hello, my name is Kiana Native.

Uh I also am a resident of Prospect Hill.

Uh I am in favor to support the request of Mr.

Talavera.

Uh the original structure was decaying and posed a threat as a safety threat to his family, which is why he decided to rebuild the carport uh shown in the image presented here on the PowerPoint.

The previous carport is in similar or approximate distance footprint as the structure that he had uh previously uh had when he purchased the home.

Uh in addition to this, by maintaining the on-site parking area, he's reducing the street congestion on West Salina Street.

If you review the images documented by the variants, um the surrounding area, the street views show congestion by the neighbors.

I have communicated with previous uh I'm sorry, with uh owners from the same street on 1502 West Salinas and 1524 Westalinas, those property owners, um they did not respond, but they I did I am a witness that I had communication with them and they did not oppose also the o I also had communication in as a witness with Mr.

Talavera that he shared um with the owners that they went sorry the owners of 1502, which is the neighbors right next to them.

Uh I was a witness that he had a conversation with them regarding request to support him, but they denied to support him due to them having their own personal problems with the city.

So that's why they did not want to support him.

Um I have also in the the property owner on 1502 West Salina hats did state to me that there is significant congestion on that street, which makes it difficult to park um uh on that on that on West Salinas.

Okay.

Um thank you very much, Commissioner Manna.

So I have a question for you.

So hello.

So um yes.

So thank you.

Uh thank you for for for helping.

So are are so did you live nearby or no?

I actually live on Chupadera Street.

Okay.

And then have you worked with so um uh prospect so the prospect neighborhood association, have you worked with them at all?

I have not, but I actually did communicate with the prospect um Hill, the the gentleman, um, to be able to look at his property, and he said that he just did a quick view and said that no, that it's not it's not on the right property line.

So there was communication between me and the the prospect hill president, and he denied supporting Mr.

Talavera without actually looking at the full picture of why he has the structure like that.

And so yeah, good um the notice that there were the note that he sent was was we'll say minimal with regards to details, but talked about fire rating essentially is where what his interests were.

And so um and so you don't know anything more than you know than that.

Okay.

That's I that's what I was looking for, is actually if you had a chance to talk about them.

So thank you.

I did have a number of things.

And thank you very much for doing that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anything else?

Hearing none.

Um looking for a motion.

Commissioner Cruz.

Regarding case number BOA B 251030280.

I move that the Board of Adjustment granted request for a 4-foot, 11-inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow carport with gutters limited to 40 feet in depth and one inch side setback and a two, a three-foot, 10-inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure, one foot, two inches side setback, including a four-inch overhang situated at 1514 West Salina Street applicant being Juan Carlos Talave, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDCS amended would result in the necessary hardship.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in a necessary hardship as the existing residence was built in 1940.

The location of the home limits the usable space on the western side to construct a carport that complies with the minimum side setback requirement.

Three, by granting the variants, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed as substantial justice will be done.

The reduced side setback provide sufficient spacing between the properties necessary for potential prior aggravation, water runoff, and maintenance of the structures.

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

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

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

The proposed carport maintains visual openings, openness of the property and preserve the established neighborhood character.

The proposed storage shed side setback provides reasonable separation from the abutting property, ensuring no adverse impact for maintenance access and fire aggravation.

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

Staff finds the plight of the own of the property of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the existing side setback of the home established by its construction in 1940.

Additionally, the storage shed was constructed prior to the current owner and allowing the shed to be rebuilt as its existing setback is most reasonable to maintain and functional rear area yard and a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, um, I was kind of hesitant, but I understand what he's trying to do.

And because the property is so old and the original home is from 1940, it's kind of hard to say it's gonna be any bit different.

And since he already put in gutters, I think that would still be a good uh improvement on his home.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

So would you take a friendly amendment for restricting uh item two to be an 18 by 18 accessory structure?

Um as uh the applicant kind of committed to.

That's fine.

I will accept.

All right.

So we have an amended motion for item number two to be uh limited to 18 feet along the side property line.

And the second question, and then again, I apologize I'm not keeping up with the city questions.

And so the fire rating dialogue, if I understood earlier, um, because it's within the three foot that so but even though the house uh budding it is further than three foot, it's still going to require fire rating, yes or no.

Uh gotta double check on that, but I believe they still won't need it because there's you know the other property has the potential to build without having to come over here.

And the reason why it's important because I I know that that was Prospect Hill's you know, interest was the dialogue about fire rating, and and as I drive through the community, I see lots of other homes that are built along with the same kind of structure, and this one's gonna be fire rated, which is good, and I think that we need to go look at all the rest of the structures that are out there and you know consider the same thing.

So you all be voting in favor.

All right, thank you.

Is there any other commissioners like that?

Hearing none of the call vote, please.

Commissioner Cruz, yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I can concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I I concur.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Chair Orion.

Yes, I concur with the fines of fact.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

Uh, if there's um if it happened to have any questions, you can get with staff.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number 15.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

All righty.

Uh item 15 is case BOA-25-103-00281, the applicant being mint development LLC in Council District 1 at 137 University Avenue.

Zoning is IDZ2 with uses permitted in MF 33.

This is a request for go back one of variance from the NCD 5 window standard to allow less than 25% surface area to be dedicated to window openings on each floor, limited to the structures within the NCD boundary.

Two, a variance from the NCD 5 driveway and curb cut standard to allow a driveway to be 25 feet wide and a curb cut to be 33 feet wide, and three, a variance from the NCD 5 garages standard to allow an attached garage limited to the structures within the NCD 5 boundary.

The subject property is located west of the intersection of Fredericksburg Road and University Avenue, and is the former site of a charter school and multiple single-family homes.

The property is currently unoccupied, surrounded by residential to the south and west and commercial to the east.

Only an eastern portion of the subject property lies within the NCD boundary and is subject to its design standards.

The proposed design does not comply with the NCD 5 standards for windows on building facades visible from a public right-of-way, driveway, and curb cut widths, or for a garage design.

As such, the garage uh excuse me, the applicant requests that the Board of Adjustment approve variances from these standards to proceed with their designs as proposed.

Shown here is a site plan of the proposed development notating the area that's within the NCD 5 boundary.

Uh and as such, uh kind of color coding there each of those those variances.

So everything in blue, all these structures, any facades that are visible from the street would be held to that window standard, uh, which again states that at least uh 25% of that surface area of each facade needs to be dedicated to window openings.

And this is an aerial view of the subject property, still some existing structures from the old uses.

None of these are occupied currently, and this is um that main driveway, which would be used for again that's the driveway that would be within the N C D 5 boundary, kind of the one closest to Fredericksburg.

And this is the surrounding area along university going east towards Fredericksburg again, going east towards Fredericksburg, the other side of that street.

It's across the street on University Av.

Going west on University.

And this is going northwest along Fredericksburg, and going southeast along Fredericksburg.

Staff recommendation for the neighborhood conservation district variance.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-103-00281 based on the following findings of fact.

One allowing reduced window transparency, oversized driveways, and curb cuts and attached garages within the district would undermine the conservation goals adopted to protect the public streetscape and neighborhood identity.

And two, approving these variances would weaken the purpose of the conservation district and create inequity with nearby properties that are required to meet the same standards.

Staff mailed out 51 notices, one was returned in favor, one in opposition.

The Uptown Neighborhood Association did not respond.

The Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is in support of items two and three, and the San Antonio, Texas District One resident association did not respond.

And here's the response from Beacon Hill area again in support of uh requests two and three regarding the driveways, curb cuts, and the garages.

And they are in support of kind of an alternate um to the window standard, but as written, they're not in support of the window variants.

And that's highlighted there.

And this is the opposition received with translation at the bottom.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

And just to be clear that is less than half of the property is in the NCD.

The other half is not.

Thereabouts, correct, yeah.

Okay.

And when did the IDZ zoning go through?

Um grab my staff report.

It would be in there.

You mean just one second?

The zoning went through um February 15, 2024.

And did the the and I know that when you do these these IDZ zoning site plans, but did the zoning site plan that went through public hearings and scrutiny by the community, did it include did it look like the layout that's before us today?

There was a major site plan amendment done uh after the adoption of the initial initial site plan um to actually reduce the density that was initially proposed, reviewed by the community and adopted by uh council.

Um this design here again is uh is an amendment to that with a reduced overall density.

So they're they're put they're proposing less density.

That's correct.

But but um I know the windows isn't wouldn't be on there, but the garage, the garages were they reflected on the site plan that was advertised and discussed by the community during those those hearings.

I I think the applicant can speak more to that.

I if I'm remembering correctly, and I can pull up the original site plan.

It was originally proposed to be one large scale, a lot more um multifamily looking in nature, like an apartment building.

Um I don't know if there was a proposed uh dialogue for attached garages in that initial plan.

I just think that if if you can get your hands on that IDZ side plan, if you happen to have it, I think we might want to.

Absolutely, yeah.

All right, so yeah, yes.

So um had it not headed N C D would this be before us?

No, these are all N C D requests.

Yeah, and then um and I and may have said, but I didn't hear it.

So who um who uh uh uh facilitated the generation of the N C D.

So which organization was uh Beacon Hill.

So it was Beacon Hill, correct?

Perfect.

Thank you.

Great.

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

Hi, good afternoon.

Uh my name is Ricardo Torriates with Men Development uh 10 uh 446 Troy Oak.

Um so yeah, so uh can I control the keyboard for the There's a keyboard underneath the podium there, right there.

You can you should be able to use that one, it should be plugged in if you want to just slide that out and put it on top of the podium.

Yeah, that should be connected and in control.

This works.

Nope.

All right.

Okay, you just so um to uh answer the previous question, so yes, so this should refresh.

Why are these pages empty?

Oh, I just have to leave it there for a bit.

So yeah, so the our group um recently there we go.

So our group recently um started working on this project.

Uh we have a we're doing a JV with the uh current landowner.

Um they had previously done uh thought about doing a JV for with another uh group, and this was the uh site plan that was approved.

Uh they went through the zoning and um got a um support from Beacon Hill.

So it was slated to be a four-story one hundred unit uh project.

Um unfortunately, you know, they things didn't go through.

Um now that once we're sorry.

I think they're playing with the yeah.

Once we uh once we got uh um started working with the uh property owner and um we thought what was the highest and best use, this is how this is where we landed in regards to site plan.

So it's 22 um duplicate, three story.

So reduce, you know, we reduce the uh units significantly uh to 44 units overall.

Um with the propo and then reduce the parking also um significantly.

Um brought down the overall structure to three from four.

Um every car, every unit will have their own car um car garage, and then we have additional uh parking for um the um for for guests.

So this is the proposed um kind of architecture that kind of we're kind of working through.

As you see, um this uh this uh facade is kind of our our uh say prototype.

This facade will uh be facing in the N C D boundary, Fredericksburg.

So as you see, we are above the 25% threshold and r and on the windows um on on those on this uh particular uh elevation.

The window um variants that we're that we're here today for is the the elevation that's will be facing University Avenue, which is the kind of the the minor street.

So as you see right here where uh I kind of noted the percentages we're at.

Um on the first floor, you know, we we don't the the neighbor association actually uh approve the variants um under 25 percent for the gr uh for the first floor only.

Afterwards, you know, we were we were thinking, okay, well maybe we can make it work, but once we kind of start started working with the architect, the architect was the architect basically said it's it's almost impossible because you have a TV wall here, you have restrooms and closet and third floor, but we were we tried our best to really um kind of work through the through as many windows that we could.

And so that that's where we landed today.

This is just some of those floor plans, so we can kind of reference what the elevations look like.

And again, this is uh the first uh variance is for the window standard, the second is for the driveway, and the uh and the third one's for the garage standard.

Um the city uh reviewer um reviewer mentioned the bound it the N city boundaries only around 40 percent of the um project.

And I've kind of noted where the variants that would be basically enacted.

So the driveway and curb cut variants would be for the driveway, um, which will be repeated on the other ones.

The window window variants uh would be for the for the two elevations um face uh yeah, sure.

The two the window variants will really be only if in effect for these two units right here, which are under, because this these facades right here all are basic basically um within the 25% uh uh threshold and that window.

So really that because of these two were we're here today along with this driveway, and of course the garage, um the garages that are in here.

So I do want to point out the NCD five um guidelines were initially uh crafted for you know single family, so anything above that, uh right, they were crafted for your original 50 by 140 um lot with your you know main home and your driveway with the structure in the rear.

So anything above that, you know, we we're we're here.

This particular property is not within the Beacon Hill um neighborhood, it's actually in the uptown neighborhood.

But when the NCD five boundary was created, they kind of you know sliced it.

They wanted to make sure that whatever uh guidelines were being reflected on the opposite side of Frederick's birth that they were also kind of working through it.

But we've been working with them since almost September, and um, you know, we we've met with them and and they were uh we appreciate their support and in what they you know to today.

So let me ask uh what is the minute what is the driveway with requirement of the N C D.

He's putting in a 25 foot with 33 crew cut.

What it what is a requirement?

Just a second.

And then also this is one lot correct?

Yes sir.

Okay.

So driveway curb cuts shall not exceed 15 feet in width.

And does that I mean I have to tell you I mean if I was a huge lot and I was doing a multifamily development in this N C D I mean the fire truck access has to be 20 feet.

Is there is there a different set of standards if you're doing multifamily in this yeah I hear you so there are a lot of um exceptions baked into this N C D to address multifamily development this is not one of those areas that was covered by that there's some other things that were looked in here that that could have applied to this development but we're specifically addressed by I mean if multifamily they may not have sort of a thing in the NCD like this but it just you know with the fire code requiring a 20 foot fire lane I don't see how you could ever meet the 15 foot driveway if you're doing something with large amounts of buildings like this it just I'm just trying to figure out how maybe the N C D should have be revisited if we're gonna see more of this stuff.

Sure.

Okay is there any uh commissioner questions uh commissioner crews um how many buildings are you thinking of making an each one of them is gonna be three three stories is that correct yes ma'am how many buildings 22 22 duplexes oh okay so you're what is there right now are you all gonna tear down and rebuild brand new ones?

Yes ma'am okay that's what I want to make sure thank you okay uh is there any other questions Steven Commission sorry I know that you he tried to Commissioner Stevens sorry uh a question for city staff when when it comes to N C D five and how we consider glazing and fenestration do we do we equate that looking at the building holistically so if I had like a cube of a house could I have just one side of it be glazing and meet the 25 percent or is it considered per facade?

It is a per facade basis that it's reviewed by question for applicant do you have an idea of what your total glazing percentage would be for the building holistically like if we looked at it not holistically but as you see these um uh these exhibits the NCD says per floor so what we did was we took the square footage of the floor and then the square footage of the glazing and we put a number right of what what that percentage is so on the ones facing Fredericksburg we're above that threshold on the elevations for those two units that will there are within the boundary uh on university we're under that right so the you know the neighborhood association basically said hey we understand the garage but try to get as much as you can out here we've actually added a lot more windows since we met with them but we're still under this you know the threshold if you had to give it a number what would you say like total glazing against the whole building facade?

Honestly I think we're we're probably above 25 because we you know we we're above on on the front facade I mean we're there's a lot of windows and we're not even counting the side light right here plus you know the same amount of windows are on this side and then we have our rear windows I mean it looks like you're at 30% 30 36, 38 and then you're at 21 17 and that's getting there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mana Commissioner Manna?

So if I understood correctly um what's at stake here are the walls on two of the units that are within the N C D and that would be the lower two buildings that that would require um or or that are impacted by the N C D are looking for per the letter from Beacon Hill for the additional window space right so glazing I guess I'm uh want to speak the language here so so additional glazing um so um is it impossible I guess um just for those two to have the additional glazing and change it for the rest of the you know all the rest of them be as as you have a design and those two receive the extra glazing for whatever reason.

Yes sir that's what we you know we're well what I what we're trying we we've been trying to do is and um to add as much windows as we can but ultimately you know the space planning we c I've kind of put it here it's like this is a restroom these are closets there's a TV wall um garage you know so we're you know we've done really everything we can I mean we're still open to adding more windows where we can maybe maybe make them a little bit bigger um but ultimately I don't I don't think we'll reach the 25 percent um glazing with so um and so as I go down this definition of glazing um so does glazing imply that there actually has to be um a a poke through on the wall versus um the windows so what so the regulation specifically standard glassing I'm sorry the regulation specifically says a minimum of twenty five percent of the surface area of each story on the front facade shall be dedicated to window openings and so if I had a window opening but I closed it off on the back side um with a wall space is that still a window opening so I think he's wondering if you can put a window on top of the wall and just you know I just I'm just going there.

So you know if so because part of the dialogue is that they're looking for that that look and so are there ways to take that look without punching all the way through so that we can accomplish you know you know so if I have a restroom and closet and I put a wall on the back of it, you know um I'm just can you put a fake window that's what I'm asking tried.

Has anybody tried that I've actually done it before and um be in um dignuity hill.

And they didn't notice no they approved it like that.

Yeah I would say that I would say I would assume we approve it because you're you're looking for the facade you know that's part of the dialogue and and so and I know we've had dialogue in the past with regards to what can and can happen here.

And so something along that along that line went up and so maybe something that we could accomplish what it was that they were looking for and having the the continuity there and well I like to to point out that again the NCD five's uh guidelines were specifically I would say historically made for your typical single family one story bungalow with a fifth and a fifty by one fifty you know so these guidelines were you know if I if I have to write uh kind of guess was were made for front facing right a lot of these were for for front facing now we're in a position where we're you know we're being uh these guidelines are being interpreted on a not you know semi-residential development also on you know uh facades that are being seen on both both streets in particular like the you know a corner like our corner unit will be you know what right here right we would have to be you know that that regulation is being held here and here well the improved IDZ side plan used to have the structures parallel with Fredericksburg and now what you're doing is you're kind of like 45 degrees to Fredericksburg does there anything that would the standards would say that it's not facing Fredericksburg anymore because of the angle like if you exceed 45 degrees is that remove it from consideration I I don't know I mean once staff is looking at this as both of these are facing both streets um just because of the L C D and staff's position in windows it has to be a window not a fake window.

Yeah wall is facing uh street on the N C D so I do want to point out that you know the N C D five is is a it's pretty um it's pretty thorough and I I I do think that I we've been working with the neighborhood association along with our architect to reduce the variance as needed.

So out of the all the variant all the N C B N C D five guidelines that are included in the guidelines, we're down to three with two you know three of them um being uh two of them being fully approved well uh supported by the neighbor association and and one of them being you know supported with um you know with I guess uh well an exclusion I'll just say that the driveway one doesn't bother me because I know you need it for fire protection.

No the garage one doesn't bother me because it's important for the parking but the window one you know can we are we allowed to make a a a motion to include fake windows or something can that be a part of it?

I'm just asking I mean just to give him give the just to give the neighbor association something.

I Ivan yes can you uh Chair I think that uh his request uh is not an unrealistic request right and I believe that being that the other one two three four buildings on that street on university have somewhat the same window designs on each floor um that I don't think it's an unrealistic request to have and and I think the overall percentage of his glazing um you know pretty much meets the standards of what they're expecting other than those two two facades.

Um that I don't think it's an unrealistic request to have.

And and I think the overall percentage of his glaciers.

Um, pretty much meets the standards of what they're expecting.

Other than those two two facades.

I completely agree with you.

Uh is there anyone else on the commission like to add?

Yes, Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I that and I I agree that it's not unreasonable.

I'm just out of curiosity, was there any consideration given into uh rotating those uh end units to face university the in units the the the two units that are are basically being uh affected by the rotating them towards so that the garage would face university?

Or is that present its own issues with curb cuts and so forth?

Yes, I think uh you know, in regards to trying to serve them in a way where we can um we can serve all these units are rear loaded, and so we're trying to create these these uh uh corridors, there will be landscape, and we're connecting every every um every unit with a basically a more kind of walkable path.

So uh the whole the whole development can be basically walk with ADA and everything.

So I was just curious.

I mean I I assume you put thought into this cycle.

So I want to thing another one to point out is that I even though we are only 40 percent of our properties in within the N C D, we will be following the N C D guidelines throughout the voicemails in the Senator to speak on this?

No public comment.

Uh man, did you uh I thought you were motioning to ask the question.

Well, it's good.

So is there an over or so uh a view of what the N C D boundaries are, so you can kind of see that because they kind of brought up that it kind of cuts into some of this property, but you know, a larger view of we'll say the rest of the N C D just to see how much it is bounded by the street versus going one off, you know, we'll say one property off.

You pull up the one stop map and kind of give them uh bigger overview.

And just uh additionally the definition of a window and the unified development code, and opening constructed in a wall and which emits light for air into an enclosed as framed and spanned with glass.

Um a decorative window looking wouldn't suffice.

Unless it was vented.

Not saying it didn't happen before, just turn on the NCD overlay.

Yeah.

Under layers.

Okay.

Yeah, that's what it is.

Okay.

Well, if um there's no other questions.

I just I have more comment than I mean.

So we talk about hardship here.

Obviously, the applicant is working through these hardships um to to try to bring a viable project uh over kind of the NCD um constraints here.

And I think there was a first attempt at the redevelopment of this property which didn't work right.

So if we look at trying to provide what I would say affordable, much needed housing for specifically this area.

And if we're down to a few NCD issues, which I don't think, I think in the totality of the project, it kind of meets the NCD.

I I think this is the exact reason why the board is here and it's a good application of of you know what we're trying to do here.

So I'm not hearing anybody oppose anything, so if anyone would like to make a motion, Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens Regarding case number BOA-25-1030281, I move the Board of Adjustment Grant one of variance from the N C D 5 window standard to allow less than 25 percent service area dedicated to window openings on each floor, limited to the structures within the N C D boundary, two a variance from the N C D five driveways and curb cut standards to allow a driveway to be 25 feet wide and a curb cut to be 33 feet wide, and three a variance from the N C D five garages standard to allow attached garages limited to the structures within the N C D boundary situated at 137 University Avenue Avenue applicant being mint development LLC because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, allowing the variances would create greater uniformity across the entire development as over half of the property is not within the neighborhood conservation district and thereby not subject to these standards.

Two, due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship because the request are concerns a proposed multifamily development.

Strict application of these standards would create unnecessary hardship by imposing standards intended to promote features of typical single-family home development.

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

Given that only the subset of structures in the development would be subject to these standards, granting these variances would promote consistency of design within the development itself and thereby align with the spirit of the ordinance.

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

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

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

Granting these variances will not substantially injure adjacent properties nor alter the essential character of the district as the development will remain consistent with surrounding properties in scale, mass and other NCD five design standards.

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

The need for the variances arises from the unique lot shape, which imposes certain disign constraints for multifamily development, especially regarding driveway access.

This condition was not created by the owner, is not merely financial in nature, and is not the result of general conditions affecting the broader district.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Stevens.

I'll be in support of all three variances.

I think the curb cut and the drive aisle is kind of a no-brainer.

We need to have uh fire access, and then I think that the glazing you clearly are aligned with the spirit of the ordinance.

Um I'll be in favor of this.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague.

And I and I think one of the commissioners brought up a good point with regards to you know the the part of the a good portion of this is not within that space and so wouldn't require that.

And so forcing essentially every one of those to be changed for consistency or allowing these two to not have it, you know, does it does seem a little bit contrary.

And I think they got pretty close to the glazing, so and it and it maybe it was a stretch goal, but uh because of that, I'll be voting paper.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

I just wanted to add that, you know, with this being a larger IDZ development and having gone through public hearings and public scrutiny.

I I think that this is perfectly fine with what they're doing.

Uh so let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I'll concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Osina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can care with the findings of that motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Yep.

Item number 16.

And if you guys haven't noticed, we do have some food back there if you guys want to munch on.

What was that?

We got some food back there.

Oh, okay.

We're gonna be out of here pretty soon.

I'm okay.

Feel free to partake.

Would you like me to present?

Yes, please.

This is BOA 26-10308.

The applicant is Anna Gura.

The council district is seven.

The location is 143 Globe Avenue.

The zoning is R5.

The request is for a 9-foot, 11-inch variance from the minimum required 10-foot front setback to allow an accessory structure with a one-inch front setback.

And two, a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow an accessory structure within the front yard area of a residential district.

And three, a five-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision area.

The subject property is located along the middle of the block face of Globe Avenue.

The property owner intended to build a carport and a code enforcement investigation of the property found a partially enclosed structure and no permanent file.

Plan review staff determined that the structure cannot be classified as a carport because it is enclosed on three sides, making it an accessory structure.

Code enforcement also noticed that it was built too close to the front property line, which prompted the applicant to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

When conducting the site visit, staff noticed that the overhang of the carport was over the property line, and the applicant will be cutting back at the overhang to comply with the setback standard if the setback variance is approved.

Staff also noticed a driveway clear vision issue upon further inspection of the accessory structure.

Here is the site plan pointing out all three variances.

And to explain this further, uh plan review stated that the amount of wall on the sides constitutes a wall.

So that back part and the two side parts and being closed makes it an accessory structure at this point.

This is the subject property.

As you can see, the overhang is a little bit over the front property line, but the applicant has already stated that she will be cutting it back.

And here's the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the front setback variants and associated structure variants.

Staff recommends denial in BOA 26-10308 based on the following findings fact.

The placement of the accessory structure in the front yard would lead to the crowding of the front yard along the front property line.

And the structure will block sidelines of the neighboring house and is out of character for the surrounding neighborhood.

Staff recommendation for the driveway clear vision.

Staff recommends approval in BOA 26-10308 based on the following findings of fact.

The site line variance request is in character for the surrounding area and will not harm the surrounding properties.

And the request is modest in alliance with the surrounding clear vision site lines.

We got one in favor and one in opposition.

The University Park Neighborhood Association did not respond.

This is the in support.

And this is the neighbor that is in opposition.

This concludes staff's presentation.

So my quick question is if item number two and item number three are not are not approved, then the result is then an item one is approved, then the applicant would have to get rid of the siding on either side.

Yes, sir.

And that's it.

And the front part creeping into the property.

Yes.

Everybody catch that.

So yeah, I actually had a couple questions about that, but yes.

Can you repeat it again?

Yeah, so if uh whoever reads a motion uh and and what the board considers, if we only approve item number one regarding the front setback uh and don't approve item number two and three, then the applicant would have to get rid of the siding, but nothing else.

Oh three is only for the fence.

Not what the I thought.

It's just item two.

Oh, I apologize.

Because the siding also was a clear vision.

No, okay.

All right.

Sounds like a plan.

Um let's have the applicant come forward.

Yes.

Yeah, the garage counts as a side.

But it it isn't uh it's open on the sides.

No, I mean it it it whatever causes a you have the two sides and then the back because it is it it's yeah, it's we have the two sides, and then I had doorways made.

So it it's not closed up to the after we reviewed this structure, it's considered it's not considered a carport.

Uh it's not really three walls, it's two walls.

Um, and I'm the resident and the occupant of 143 Globe.

Can you have to speak into that one?

The top one that one right there.

Okay, can you lower it?

Oh, yeah, you can um I live at 143 Globe.

I'm a resident occupant.

I've lived on that uh for 43 years on the block.

Um most of the tenant the the composer of the of the neighborhood is seniors like me or uh renters.

Um the proposed structure would not block views nor cause injury to adjacent properties.

Current restrictions impose an unnecessary hardship on my ability to use the area of my shallow driveway to completely cover my vehicle.

It's a very short driveway.

Um variants would allow the proposed structure to provide safe and practical shelter for my vehicle.

The proposed structure uh would have a positive effect, enhancing the property curb appeal and neighborhood charm.

It's uh consistent with the neighborhood character.

If you notice that house on the corner, that's way past the boundary line.

See where the approach is.

She got he has it all the way to the sidewalk.

Oh, that's on one corner.

On the other corner, you have a a carport that is not as bad, but it's still past the boundary line.

And in between uh, this is my side of the block.

There's still two or three other uh houses that have uh fences that go to the sidewalk of privacy fence, or they have uh concrete decorative stuff that we were told we weren't supposed to.

And I'm not complaining or I'm just saying the character of the neighborhood is that's why I I I didn't think I needed a permit because I thought I had the 20-foot for the driveway, and that's what my contractor told, and we looked at the neighborhood, and that's what we went by.

That's the only reason I didn't get the the permit.

Um zoning is request is due to shallow short driveway lot presenting unusual conditions preventing compliance.

I need a safe weather protected area to park my vehicle.

I'm diagnosed with arthritis in my knees, and the structure would allow me more access to exit the vehicle.

Sometimes I use a rollator.

So um in my I have a car uh a garage, but I use it for storage, and I can't get in and out of my car.

Um due to the shallow short front yard, the proposed structure could not be relocated.

It can't be put anywhere else.

Um let's see.

Um this is a minimum variance request for proposed accessory structure for a live-alone senior retiree with a modded budget.

The minimum variance offers me to have a reasonable use of my property.

Um other than that, that's that's the main points.

You know, I've already I I've already spent money to get that siding on and uh and and and the post and everything.

Uh fortunately it's within the boundary line, whatever it's just the overhang.

I need to cut some of it so that it's not into the boundary line.

But other than that, as you see that some of the neighbors I have it all the way down to the sidewalk, and I don't have it that far.

So you it's a clear vision.

Uh it's attractive, uh, several neighbors, and and there's not one letter, there are four letters that we gave.

There were four.

Okay, but I gave you four.

I hand you me to give it to you?

Uh you sure can.

Yeah, I can be emailed three early.

You can just hand those to staff, they can project them up on sure.

And the ones that I um received letters are actual homeowners.

If you receive any kind of opposition, it could have been but you speak in uh to the mumps.

Those are all homeowners, the property owners.

Uh if you received anything that's in the opposition, it could have been from a renter.

Because I noticed on that uh form that y'all send out, it says owner, and I don't know why, you know.

They mail them to the home to the address.

You know, who on the who picks up the mail who who's there?

So they count the renters.