All right, it looks like all eleven uh members are present.

Is there a uh are we recording?

All right.

It is one oh two.

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

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

Good morning.

Buenos excuse me, good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Uh umsejo prove interpretación para el que necesite español escuchar in espanhol.

Si ocupa este servicio, por favor de pasar a la cabina al fondo, but I cast enter so equipo.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Uh staff, if you please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana?

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Commissioner Bonias.

Here.

Commissioner Vazquez.

Present.

Chair Oyan.

And I'm present.

It looks like we have 11 members today.

And if everyone could please stand me and join me in the pledge.

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

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation undervisible liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God.

One invisible.

All right.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

We are private citizens appointed to this board by the city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff.

Thank you.

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

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows you it to be considered for the variant special exemption or appeal.

And property within 200 feet of the side of their property.

Following this presentation and any board by any questions about a board, the applicant will present the request for those that signed up to speak for or against the proposed variance special exemption or appeal.

You will be called out in order that you sign up to speak.

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

For those that like to give up their time to a speaker, last speaker will be a lot of maximum two people giving out their time for a total of nine minutes.

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

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

And one quick question, Antoinette and Juan Gonzalez.

You guys here for 1734 Shelley Avenue.

Okay.

All right, we're gonna start with item number one regarding 2751 for Spur Street.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, senior planner with development services.

Item number one is requested by Mario Lamaru and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to hog collection located at 27514 Spurs Street.

The subject property is located at 2751 4 Spurge Street.

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

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

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

Five notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from March 2025 through July 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on January 5th, 2026.

No payment was made within 90 days, and only partial payment was made after receiving the final notice of delinquency on January 5th, 2026.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on January 20th, 2026.

And January 2025 through November 2025, delinquent payments were made on January 30th of 2026.

There is a total of 13 units on the block face and no active type twos.

The subject property does not have any code violations also about the permitting history.

The permit was originally approved on January 10th, 2025, but it was revoked on January 20th, 2026 due to hot delinquency.

This is the communication that was sent to the Av to the applicant from Avenue.

And this is the active listing as of today.

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

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 30 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from Oak Hollow Park Neighborhood Association, and six citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes the staff presentation.

Finance is here to answer any questions.

Yeah, uh one quick question.

I noticed that the uh the last uh notice from Avenue was July, uh, and then the city didn't get involved until January.

Is that typical for a six-month gap to occur like that?

Um chair, so when we do our reviews, um we got this list for September of last year, and by time staff reviewed it, verify which permits were ready for revocation.

Um this was on a batch number two, and that was when we it we revoked it back in January of this year.

So that's kind of the gap uh when we reviewed it.

We only had access to the July Avenue letters, but since then Avenue has sent continue to send out additional letters after staff get their review.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Benjamin.

We have a question.

You said that the uh permit was revoked in January.

Did you did you mention that the listing is still live?

Yes.

That they're still an active listing as of today.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

The applicant come forward.

Hi, state your name.

Tell us about your STR, please.

Yep, I uh my name is Mario Lambert.

I'm originally from North Dakota.

Um, but yeah, my family and I uh got into the property as we really love San Antonio and eventually plan to move our family here.

Um so we kind of run it as a short-term rental uh for now.

Um where the where we were delinquent on the HOT taxes was if you go look at kind of like where those delinquency letters were sent.

Since then they had I think shortly after they applied for the license, they had moved offices.

So then I wasn't receiving any delinquency notices.

The management company wasn't receiving any.

So the only notice I ever got was the final um notice that hey, your your license is revoked, which you can on the list of where uh those letters were being sent, um no one ever got them.

So then once I found out what was going on, it took me a few hours to call different offices, and I realized they were all being sent to the wrong address, and then once we figured out what what was wrong, we communicated correctly, we got all those things up to date and paid um so that that no longer happens.

Now there's a plan moving forward so that we're making sure that we're staying up to date on all of our taxes.

So really a miscommunication, the letters weren't getting no one was really receiving the delinquency notices, and now I've um we're up to date on everything that we need to be, and there's a plan moving forward so that we're not gonna be missing any of those moving forward.

So and like for me as like kind of the the homeowner of kind of taken some time to try and meet some of the neighbors as well, so that we're kind of being making sure uh we're a positive property in the neighborhood.

Um trying to make sure we take care of the yard and all those things.

Um property we really care about.

Um eventually my family and I would move down here and move in there.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

Ragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um so the management company wasn't having their mail forwarded to the new address?

I guess I'm not exactly sure, but they said they weren't they went from an address in Florida, and I actually don't know what the their new company address was, but they said that they hadn't been receiving those notices either.

So I you would think it would get forwarded, but that was not what I was told was that they weren't receiving those notices.

And they were just sent via mail.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So question for city staff.

Um so so this applicant applied for a position or for applied for a permit.

Was there any communication that was received back by the city acknowledging or you know the the first hot dialogue or any anything that went on, or was it always missed from day one?

Can you do that question?

Was there any communication back from the applicant after they applied for the permit?

Um our records I don't see any communication afterwards.

We did receive an email from the owner and the operator once the permit was revoked on what their options were moving forward for their permit.

Okay.

So you know, we and and we've had this dialogue before, and I you know, I I would I would prefer it if you know if you don't receive something, the city doesn't receive something, that they do that outreach to get at least that first connection done so that all the lines aren't crossed, and you know, they kind of go through that.

And so I struggle when it is that you know on the get-go, we don't hear back from the applicant.

And so that seems something's a miss there.

Uh yeah, to clarify, so for DSD, um R is an online e-business, so all our commissions via email.

I see when they initially applied for their permit, there was communication back and forth with the email, the owner and the operator via email to get their permit issued again for as of for Avenue, they're the third party contract, and they do mail the notices, so we don't really have information regarding their process.

I guess my position is yeah, after the first month, when it is that the hot tax is due, and that that cycle is skipped, that you know to me there's something you know a miss somewhere along the line, and that's a that's a point where we can catch it versus six months down the road, and all of a sudden we're revoking it.

So anyways.

And uh so another question is did this applicant uh uh was he assessed a fine and has and if so was that fine paid.

Hi um if it's what PenCS everything has been paid.

All right, thank you.

If there's no other questions, Commissioner Stevens.

Yeah, for the applicant.

Um beautiful place you have here.

Very nice, very nice setup.

Um what's the you said you had a plan moving forward to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What is that plan?

So the management well, I talked to the management company and they specialize in doing all this, but the management company is gonna be taking care of making sure all the taxes are paid moving forward.

There was kind of a miscommunication on where those letters are being sent and then who was doing it, but now they're everything is set up so that those are being paid on time.

Okay, are you aware of the date that you need to have that that submitted by?

Um I'm not sure if you're the the date that what's supposed to be submitted.

When you got to go on avenue on the site and you have to submit your your report, do you know what date that is?

I guess off the top of my head, I don't know.

I just know that the management company said, hey, from here moving forward, um we're taking care of all the taxes so that we're not getting into the city.

Could we could we confirm what that date is that they need to report this by?

Um so they have to the we have until the for to like report for the month of April.

They have until the end um of March 31st report.

I thought I was I thought it was the 10th of the month.

Hold on.

It's the 10th of the following month, isn't it?

It's the 20th day to report the previous month online.

Okay.

Okay, I because I I swear when I went on avenue and tried to report after 10 days, they were trying to charge me uh penalty.

So not it's not the 10th, because I I tried to file last month and they were getting me on the 10th.

Like when I filed past the 10th, I for my record it's always been the 20th of each month they have to report the for the previous month to avoid penalty and late fees.

So the 20th.

So just have a really good understanding to when that's due.

Uh I guess a big thing that we're trying to see here is you know, when you guys hire management companies or a manager, you guys put a lot of the the load on them.

However, it's you guys who do it.

You guys have to make sure that that it's paid on time, not the management company.

So I just want to just to understand that that's there, that way you can be on top of the management company.

Um and we're good with that.

Are you current on everything though right now?

Uh the following month, so I guess what would have been March.

Um it's not due yet, but that one is planned to get paid.

So that would be the one, I believe that's the one month that we're um still have to pay, but we still have time to pay that one.

Okay.

Uh and how many does it sleep the property?

Uh it's sleep 16.

Uh City, what's the the limit on uh occupants?

Is it by room or is it by parking space?

Um it's by sleeping area, so usually it's 70 square foot room allows for two people.

If anything is in excess of that, we provide them they divide the square footage for each room and we verify that they can occupy more than two people.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay.

That's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stevens?

Uh for city staff.

If the the permit was issued January 10th, and uh a delinquency notice was sent out at the end of March.

Is that indicative of them having paid the first three months or is it just the 90 days that it takes to catch up?

Um for when we did a review, we based it off the last time we did the permit revocation and so we started off looking at March letters, but he did receive letters previously for February.

Was hot tax ever paid.

At the time he received those notices, no, the payments were not made for any of the months since for January 2025 to September 2025, November 2025 until January 30th, 2026.

Thank you.

Ivan Yes.

Commissioner Bonus.

Um Mr.

Lamaru, uh are you aware of the process that your management company has to do each month that they have to go in to the uh site to pay their county taxes and then to post the revenue that was made in both the city and the county.

Are you aware of that process?

I guess I'm not from like start to finish.

I just know that you have to go and report all of those numbers.

They've informed me, hey, we're handling this, this is what we do.

Um it sounds like they dropped the ball on you, sir.

100% they did and I I really uh think you need to uh think about getting a different management company because this is costly to you.

Yeah, absolutely.

And it that conversation has already happened.

I've we uh have a good relationship with uh one of our neighbors now, just talking with him, um, someone that's lived in the neighborhood.

So we actually had some great conversations this past week um about how I because I want we want this to be an awesome place um for us to come stay um and for other people to enjoy.

And but yes, uh there's already been conversations about making switches so that making sure we're doing everything exactly by the book that we need to, and it's a positive property for the city.

Commissioner Benavides.

Um I'm just curious.

So are you saying that you that this is still an active listing February and March of this year?

Um yeah, I yeah, it was because we were kind of in the appeal process, so I guess I wasn't so uh I guess to answer the question, yes.

But your permit was terminated in January of this year, right?

Yeah, so we um yeah, so we got the revocation and then we were kind of on appeal, so we didn't we weren't taking any more active listings um for that, I guess up until now.

So I have I I guess my question is the has it been rented?

Um since did you have any anyway?

There was a couple of guests that had stayed that were previously booked on there.

For February and March?

Yeah, I I don't remember off the top of my head, I don't have the exact dates.

Okay, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh one more question.

Do you have the ability to go in and check and make sure that the reports have been filed and that the taxes have been paid?

Yes, I I would have an account to go on there just to make sure we're kind of like doing a double check to make sure everything's done.

Because I want it to be I don't have to be here at this meeting because we weren't doing things the right way.

And uh the intention is I'm gonna be a little more actively involved, just making sure things are getting done.

Okay, perfect, thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh last one for the city bonios yes, commissioner.

Is there any other uh applications uh for this city block right now?

Not this time now.

Okay.

Dean.

Commissioner Dean.

Uh it was mentioned earlier um that you were current and this question may be for the city.

Um how much how much was it that the applicant had to pay to be current?

I'm just curious on the estimate of the taxes.

Um, it's um I would say about four thousand dollars.

Okay, about four thousand to be current.

Okay.

And that's what you paid.

To be current that you're tracking.

Is that for me?

Or yes.

Okay.

All right.

How much of that was a fine?

Uh I'd have to go look off the top of my head.

I know we paid the six hundred dollars to appeal.

Uh so for staff, how much what is a fine on something like this?

It was about $334.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Stevens.

Mr.

Stevens.

We get these a lot, and I'm just I'm I'm struggling to find the hardship on your end, aside from I mean you hired a crappy manager, you know, like I just don't see where the hardship is, like technically for me to be in favor of of this.

I I'm uh unsh I'm not sure what the question is.

Well uh did this we're asked whether or not the city made an error in revoking your permit.

And I I I'm just like I'm trying to find that error and I don't necessarily see one.

So I guess we're so if you go look at where the they had the list of this is when the notices were sent out, they're all sent to a an address that wasn't existing with that the management company had, so then I wasn't receiving any of the notices.

And the father basically the the email was sent to me at the end when it was revoked.

And that's where I was like, wait, what is going on here?

I thought all this was being handled, and I guess that ultimately it it's my fault.

Um where I should have kind of maybe been more on top of this, but you're trusting a management company that says they're doing things the right way and made steps to fix all those things over the last coup I guess couple of months.

Um just to make sure we're staying on top of all that stuff.

So I guess I wasn't receiving any of those notices.

The management company wasn't receiving the notices because they're going to an address that didn't exist anymore.

Are you still with the same management company?

Well, for right now, yes.

I was kind of waiting until I guess today was done.

Um but we kind of have plans.

I've already talked to some different people about making the switch so that uh we're getting good service to make sure make sure we're not having this issue anymore.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh Bonias, I got one more question for the um Do you have any other STRs that you operate?

Uh not in Texas, no.

Gotcha.

Uh how many do you operate?

We just do uh our first house that my wife and I ever moved into back at in North Dakota, we do that.

That's our hometown, and we try to run a very tight ship with that, and that's uh that's our own at home.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Do you have a mortgage on this property?

Yes, I do.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Um and I guess my my only other um comment would be, you know, I know the the site, you know, takes fifteen percent.

So I know a lot of the you know STR operators or owners, you know, they already think Airbnb is taking all the taxes out.

Which they are.

They're taking they're taking state and they're taking uh city, right?

They're taking fifteen percent of it.

So people see a big chunk go out and they think, oh, I'm good.

That's you took 15 percent.

But we always forget about the 1.75 percent that needs to go to the county uh here.

Um it's a lot of taxes.

I I I see that, but it's the way it is here, and it can get confusing.

Um but I think I would agree that it gets confusing.

Like there's the stuff from the comp troller.

At one point, I because I got a notice for that and actually sent a check in.

Uh it was about $1,500.

So I sent a check in that actually eventually got mailed back to me.

They said, Oh, you overpaid, because I wanted to make sure it was up to date.

Um so just I guess it could kind of honestly, there's a lot of different things to try to manage with all the taxes.

True.

Um, but I feel like I'm more informed on it now, just trying to learn the process.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

If there's no other questions, let's have looking for a motion.

Right.

Bonus.

Uh Commissioner.

I'll give it to Commissioner Bonnie.

No public comments.

Thank you.

Uh regarding case number BOA 26103014.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 2751 for Spurs Street.

Applicant being Mario Lamuro.

Sorry if I mispronounced that.

Because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-110 when revoking the short-term rental permit in a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brackman.

Uh and staff, there wasn't any public comment on this, right?

Okay.

I didn't think notice any.

All right, Commissioner Bonis.

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

While I don't uh think that the city, you know, did anything in error.

Um we do see a lot of these cases.

Um I think that the the homeowner is showing good faith by being here by paying his six hundred dollars to to revoke the appeal by paying his late fees by getting up to date by becoming more aware and having a plan.

Um we just we still collect uh uh 15, you know, we we need the the the hot revenue that is being collected here.

There's no other applicants on the city block.

Um so for those reasons I'll be in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Ben uh Bragg.

Um I agree with my colleague.

I don't think that the city made an error, but I do feel like the applicant is um trying to uh rectify the situation.

Um and it sounds like and I would highly encourage you to look at another management company, but um I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

Uh I concur with the fines in fact.

Uh however, the motion does fail uh six to five.

And um so if you have any uh questions, you can ask staff, sir.

Item number two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alares, senior planner with development services.

Item number two is requested by Kilin Griffin and Ferramon PLOC and is requesting a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental permit on the block face.

The subject property is located at 335 East Park Avenue.

Surrounding uses include residential single family and multifamily.

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

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

There is a total of thirty-three units on this block face, four active type twos are currently active at 327 East Park Avenue units one through four, and the block phase is currently at 12.1 percent.

If an additional type two gets approved, the block face will be at 15 percent exceeding the 12.5 density limitation for type two STRs.

There is no code violations or investigations, and there is no active listings as of today.

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

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request.

And there were a total of 42 male notices, two in favor, two in opposition.

Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association is an opposition.

No response from San Antonio District One resident association.

And six citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation of the goodness here to answer any questions.

Yeah, I have a quick question on the density count map.

Um you said there was four active type twos.

Yes.

I see the I see the purple grandfathered one.

Can you the units one through four on three twenty-seven, they're all grandfathered?

All four.

Yeah, all four.

All right, thank you.

So have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hello, state your name, tell us about the STR.

Hi, Ashley Fairmon, Killen Griffin and Fairmont.

I have a presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm here on behalf of the owner of 335 East Park requesting the special exception for the density limitation.

Um here's a property at 335 East Park Avenue.

One of the main reasons, and I'll get to it that we're requesting the density exception today, is um because this property is historic, is located within a historic neighborhood and has been restored.

Um that provision is part of the code, and and don't feel like it's used very often, if at all, with the commission, um, but it is an important reason of why this property was restored and would like to seek that exception.

Uh you can see the property here, uh just a couple different angles.

Uh the property is 0.1655 acres, 2500 square foot structure, um, and zone single family.

So here's the structure.

Um, and the owner has put quite a bit of money and effort into restoring it, and it it looks really great.

Uh here's the backyard.

I have some pictures of the inside that I'll show you all in a little bit.

Um just about the the historic nature of the structure.

It was built in 1909.

It is within the Tobin Hill Historic District.

Um there's a list there of all of the different renovations that um were done, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this house.

Um, and that has all been certified and requires approval from HDRC.

Um, so as you all know, you go to HDRC, get approval of your plans for the renovations and different you know, whatever you do to historic structure.

Um, and then at the end of 2024, those um renovations were certified as part of the tax uh credit um program that the city has.

Just the the historic neighborhood included just a couple of zoning maps to show the different zonings of the area.

There is our six single family, also MF33 and commercial um just down the street.

And zooming out a little bit further, you can see the different um mixture of uses in the area.

And then also the future land use plan does call for a variety of different residential um densities and up to MF 18, so 18 units an acre.

So I just included this to show you know there's a lot about character, and we think that the STR fits in with the character of this area and is not in any way disturbing that.

Um in 2024, uh, this property we have applied for a special exception before.

Some of you may remember it.

Um in 2024, there was another type 2 STR on the block face.

Um that type 2 STR is no longer there.

So we think that it was an opportunity to request the density limitation go up to 15%, slight increase.

So instead of five, or this in 2024 it would have been the sixth STR, but now it would be the five.

Also, this property is in a unique situation.

Uh as staff mentioned, it is next door to the only other type 2 STRs on the block, and that structure has four type 2 STRs inside.

So the immediate next door property, and one of the two oppositions I believe received by property owners, uh, is from the neighbor next door who already has four STRs.

Um this is a map today, so you can see the the type two next door, and then a few type ones on the block.

Um the purpose of these slides, I don't think you need to read the details, but um I think it's important to know that for um an STR, you cannot receive a permit unless you are the owner of the property.

So there is a great risk involved, especially with a historic structure.

If you're buying it, planning on renovating it and using an STR to recoup some of those costs, you cannot apply for an STR unless you are the owner of that property.

Um it also says on the city's website that the city will not verify if you're eligible for an STR unless you apply for um through a permit.

Um also when the owner purchased this property a while back, um the city's maps were not very clear on uh the number of STRs on the block.

It looked like there were three.

Um the city's maps today, you can see the one kind of in the upper left-hand corners only shows two.

Um so if you know to look at the zoning map and you know to click on the property next door now and you know that it shows four STRs, that's kind of the only way today you would know.

But that wasn't something that was possible back when they purchased the property.

So um owner was in renovations, started, uh, looked into further applying for the SDR because they were now the owner.

Um, and then were informed that they would exceed the density limitation.

So in 2024, um all the improvements were done and made.

They tried to sell it as single family home and and could not.

So from January 2024 through December 2024, it was listed and was unable to sell, applied for the STR permit, um, or the special exception for the density um lim exceeding the density limitation, uh, and that was denied.

Uh so they have been since then doing some 30-day or longer leases.

Um but you know, it's not anything that is consistent and able to recoup again those costs that go into restoring a historic structure.

Um this just to point out I I don't I don't know if the property next door is still considered grandfathered or not.

It's not shown as grandfathered on this map, but just a side note.

And again, here's is the specific code language on the historic exception.

So the applicant must demonstrate and the board must find the restoration of the historic landmark or structure is a valuable addition to the quality and character of the city.

Um I I don't think anyone would argue that uh restoration of historic structures is a valuable.

Uh we would just like for you all to consider this valuable enough to grant the STR permit.

Um also in terms of economic feasibility.

Um again, have not been able to sell it.

Um the leasing market is um hit or miss.

Uh and the owner is also picky with who gets to lease the property.

So uh there have been has been some interest, but not anyone he would um choose to lease to or some of the tenants.

Uh here's some pictures of the interior of the structure.

Um and then also a letter from the Office of Historic Preservation that um just certified that the renovations were made.

Um and then just to kind of run through briefly um some of the additional criteria.

I'm not exactly clear how those criteria work hand in hand with um the historic exception as well, but um the list at the bottom is in the the standard uh requirements for special exception.

Um and again, I think that you know there's a lot of mention in staff report of public nuisance.

Um I don't think there has been one that is shown.

Um again, there was another type two SDR on this block for a while that is no longer there.

Um, and we think that adding another would not impact the character or create a public nuisance.

Um the only opposition that I saw that had uh comments in it talked about on-street parking.

Um this property has um enough parking for three cars um on site.

Um then again we would appreciate your consideration just because this is a historic structure and the renovations we think um qualify for the special exception.

Happy to answer any questions.

Uh sure I have uh a couple questions.

So on the distress structure and the historic nature, isn't part of that have to do with whether or not it was uh it was unsellable uh in the condition it was in or the value to was this on the market for a while?

I don't know how long it was on the market before the current owner purchased it.

I don't know why I thought that was a some one of the conditions that there had to have been an attempt like this had to this was a necessity.

So m so funds could be used to restore the project as opposed to just sitting there dilapidated.

Staff, can you chime in on any of the qualifications under that distress section?

And where I'm going with that is is I I was under the impression that if you had an historic structure, the sometimes the only way to get it up to code and get it uh up to speed is is to be able to recoup the cost using using the STR a permit.

Yeah, let me just make let me pull the language in the code to make sure I'm quoting it accurately, but I'll get back to you in just a second.

Okay.

And then um questions from the commission?

What is Commissioner Buddha?

Who is the owner of the property?

Uh the current owner.

The sorry, staff report says blue line housing, it has changed uh while the application was in process and that was provided to city staff.

I let me see the Theodore East Park LLC.

Okay.

Chris Coker is the individual who has Coke.

Okay.

Uh City, does this owner have any previous citations or revocations of any kind?

You said it was Chris Coker.

So he had two short terminal license revoked at other properties, but that was not within the last 12 months.

So if we go back to I guess there was a a list here you had of special exemptions that we had up.

Can we get that back up?

That was item E under there that said something about the owner cannot have any previous revocations or citations.

That's that's as long as it's within a year?

That's what you're saying.

That's just a history on file for the property or in in general.

So the only premise we have he has been revoked was more than two more than a year ago.

Nothing since then.

Okay.

And that's for Mr.

Coker.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes so that section was actually up there where it says the restoration of an historic landmark or structure as a valuable addition to the quality city or there is proof that a short-term rental is the only econom type two is the only economical feasible way to finance a preservation of the structure.

So I guess you had mentioned they spent over a couple hundred thousand do you know how much they spent about two hundred thousand about two hundred thousand and is that is is there anything that shows like what the what the qualifying rent they could achieve for something like that.

Pro forma performance or anything they could I don't have that with me today.

Okay.

But I do think that code section is it it is an OR, right?

It's yeah the OR is is uh if it's a valued addition to the quality of the city or so but are you are you trying to use the first bullet are you trying to I think we qualify for both.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens?

This property is in a historic district but it's not identified as a historic landmark on one stop.

Can the city confirm that this is actually a historic landmark I can answer that.

It's it's not designated a historic landmark because it doesn't need to be because it's within a historic district where is it qualified that it needs to be in historic district and not a landmark?

They are treated the same way.

But this specifically says a historic landmark so I mean there would be no reason to designate something as a landmark if it's within a historic district.

Yeah could the city answer there.

Yeah.

Yeah I I would just say that it says that the restoration of a historic landmark or structure so it is a structure in the historic district so I think it would be applicable.

Okay.

Yeah I think that the and I will chime in on that I think that question comes from you know sometimes we see properties that are designated H or designated H L or No I understand probably I was having the same thought myself.

Okay.

Yes Commissioner Beneas?

Uh City do we have a the I know Tobin Hill was in uh in opposition do we had any response for them on why this one so on the screen you could see the response that they uh mailed back to DSD.

Gotcha I don't really see much there.

Did you guys get to speak with Tobin Hill and figure out what you know why they were in opposition?

We reached out and their response is they just oppose.

Gotcha because I know a bunch of members on this board really like when they have that so if we had some communication there with them that it may help.

Yeah STR.

Bineus?

Yes, Commissioner Bunny I know that Tobin Hill uh is one of the is in district one and it's one of the districts that is most saturated with STRs.

And they had several members of their community on as stakeholders when the um code was being developed for STRs.

Well I want to try to understand why this would be a financial opportunity for the owner to just do STRs because it's a struggle to pay, get all that money back with not with an economy that isn't all that healthy right now.

So I and I'm I don't want to ask a question.

I'm just trying to explain my point of view of a neighborhood that is so saturated with STRs.

And I understand why Tobin Hill would oppose it, because almost every block face in that neighborhood association has an STR2.

And so part of the code was to help curb the wave of investors that wanted to create that type of housing, and it's a business on in those communities.

So I can understand why Tobin Hill feels that they are opposed to another STR2 next to four grandfathered ones, which are grandfathered because they were short-term rentals prior to the code being established.

So I just want to give you an I I I will not be supporting this STR2 and for that reason.

Manna?

Commissioner Manor?

So and and one of the things that I always look at is the density, you know, and follow up with that.

And within a thousand feet, there's nineteen others within a thousand feet.

And generally I go to like a half mile distance.

And so a thousand feet is is actually pretty close for for having that many.

And then also again, so I I know it's kind of called out with regards to the the uh neighborhood associations and and and so you know they are defining how they want their community to be developed, and you know, they're saying no, and so I I struggle whenever it is when I need to go against the the community, and so uh I probably will not be supporting this either.

Fragment.

Commissioner Bragman?

Just for some information, um pulling up MLS, uh it shows that the property was listed for sale for 305 days.

300?

305 days.

305 days listed for sale.

Okay.

Okay.

And so when were the the renovations were completed when?

Uh end of 24 or in 24.

And they were certified in by historic in 24.

So it looks like the renovations were completed, they put it up for sale, and then it didn't no takers.

Yeah, it shows that it went on the market on the 24th of of January 2024 at 850, and then uh it was last listed at 779 in at the end of March 2025.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Uh last one for the city.

Uh the owner, uh Coker is does he have any other STRs that he operates here in town?

And if so, are they current?

Yes and yes.

Give me a few minutes so we can look that up.

He does, and they they are current.

I'll let staff verify, but do you know how many?

Uh I don't know how many, but there are.

Okay, let's confirm that.

Okay.

And City, can we put up that slide again that that has the um when the historic landmark and reference that?

Uh for the applicant um.

You know, what type of revenue does he does he anticipate bringing in maybe per month for this property?

I I don't know.

I'm sorry, I don't have that information today.

I mean, I could get it for you, but I don't have it today.

Um sorry, just one comment on the I I know there's concern about uh neighborhood association and and you know they just say no, which I understand.

But the applicant or the owner does have a very good relationship with his immediate next door neighbor uh in the neighbor across the street, um the neighbor across the street wrote a pretty nice um letter in support.

But I would just say they're they're the no two most impacted property owners and they're supportive of this.

Well, I will tell you that um you know the issue of whether of of having a dilapidated structure, the only way you can bring it up is is to make it an STR.

I uh that I like the fact that there's a section in the code for that.

I'm just trying to figure out um where the proof for that is because the last time somebody invoked that, you know, they would they brought us some history regarding how they were approving that, and I'm not hearing any today.

So what I've understand that it was on the market for 779 for the last year, and apparently there's been no traction.

And so I don't know what the going rate for those kind of homes are, what they purchased it for versus what they put into it, and and I I can't, I'm not seeing any I'm not seeing any offer of of evidence of compliance with that bullet point.

That's that's what I'm really looking for.

Okay.

I mean we could we could provide that.

I I do want to answer the commissioner's question.

It looks like there's six other uh six other STRs they do appear to be current.

Okay.

You know, uh Chair, I know you once want to see some of that proof.

So do I.

Um, he's current on all the other ones.

He has six other that he operates.

This is a big project.

Uh I I would be I would be okay with the continuance if somebody won a motion to is that a motion continue to the next meeting.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Let's have a roll call vote about a continuance to the uh April uh 20th meeting.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ivanis?

Yes.

Commissioner Dean?

No.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes.

Commissioner Mena?

Yes.

Commissioner Bragman?

Yes.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes.

Commissioner Vafkis.

Yes.

All right.

So you're continuing to the 20th, and you know what we're looking for.

All right, thank you.

Item three.

All right.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number three is requested by Rosalia Peña Bautista and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to hog collection located at 7A23 Pinebrook Drive.

The subject property is located at 7823 Pinebrook Drive.

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

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

All STR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Bear County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis for notice of delinquency where Melba Avenue from April 2025 through July 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on February 2nd of 2026.

No payment was made within the 90 days, therefore the permit was revoked on February 17th.

And February 2025 through February 2026, delinquent payments were made on March 5th of 2026.

There is a total of 18 units on the block face.

One active type 2 STR is on 7903 Pinebrook.

And a little of the background history.

The address did have an open investigation for operating without a permit.

They later on applied and obtained that STR permit.

And they also have two AHO citations issued, one in 2024 and one in 2025.

And the permit was originally approved on February 3rd of 2025, but it was revoked on February 17th, 2026, due to a hot delinquency.

This is the communication that was sent from sent to the applicant from Avenue.

And this is the active listing as of today.

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

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 26 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from San Antonio Texas District 1 resident association, and six citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

No sweet.

And HO citations and administrative hearing officer citation.

So our code it's from it's issued by our code officer.

Um if they're operating a permit, once the notice is sent out after 14 days, they reinspect.

Um at the final inspection they found they were still in violation, issued the first AHO citation, and then re-inspected at a later day and found they were still operating a permit and issued a second.

Just to clarify, in in September of 24, there was a an investigation for the operation without a permit.

And then and that investigation was so when I see AHO, what it what were my minds going is that there's there's structural issues, like maybe they don't have a fire extinguisher and maybe they don't have a life safety plan or something, or is it just operating without a permit?

For this property it's for operating without a permit.

Okay, so then they were they went through some documentation back and forth, communication with the city, went through hearings and notices and good all that good stuff.

They eventually got a permit and almost immediately weren't up on their obligation.

Correct.

After receiving the second AHO citation or weekly, they applied for a short-term rental application for with the city.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, if you could please state your name and tell us about your SDR.

My name is Rosalia Peñabatista.

My propiedad is 7823 PineBro Drive.

My property is 78 23.

Yes.

And to see if you could consider a granting me the permit again.

Okay.

So one question is uh was was she the owner back in 2024?

No.

Okay, so that that was somebody else.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Uh Bonnie.

Commissioner Bonis.

So there was um some citations issued on the property.

What were the dates of those again?

Was it when she was the owner or or she wasn't?

Uh the first one was issued on November 13th of 2024, and then the second one was January 15 of 2025.

Okay.

Was she the one that for the applicant?

Did she get were those were both those citations in for her?

Yes, because I was the manager of the property at the time, but I was not the owner to the property.

Okay, what type of management was she doing for the property at that time before she was the owner?

Manejaba las platformas de RMB y Verbio para el dueño.

I was managing the platforms, uh RBMB and VRBO for the owner.

For how long?

Okay, thank you.

For clarification, um B CAPCHO's um Ms.

Batista on the property on September 4, 2024, prior to the license investigation began.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Um so then back back to the applicant.

Um if she received both these citations and she was operating it before as a manager for six months prior to owning it, and then received two citations as the owner, why did she continue to operate it.

And then uh I was waiting for the appeal, and then I did the appeal to to be able to get to the permit again.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Benavides.

Is your um property still active on Airbnb and VRBO today?

See, in este momento está ya que estaba esperando pues passar por este processo a ver que me decidía.

But you do realize it is now.

It is now active.

I was just waiting for this process to see uh what was going to be the the outcome of the process.

But she is aware that the permit is terminated.

Yes, I was.

But uh actually I was uh I thought that I could keep on using it until the appeal was resolved.

Well, I my my opinion is I don't know that I'm gonna be able to support this.

I feel like there's a pattern of repeat offenses with this STR permit, and I think it should be taken into consideration.

Okay, Commissioner Manna.

Um so who is Gustavo uh uh Rivera Castro?

Mi pareja.

My partner.

So when I look at the records, uh the house was sold uh in 2020, I think, uh to the partner, then the partner transferred to you.

So really for both citations, you and your partner were engaged in this property.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Uh is there anyone senator to speak on this issue?

No public comment.

All right, there's no other questions.

I'm looking for a motion.

Bonus.

Commissioner Moniz.

Regarding case number BOA 26103046.

Uh might have said 120s.

Uh, I move that the board of adjustment grant the appeal uh for the property situated at 7823 Pinebrook Drive.

Applicant being Rosalia Peña Batista because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city made an error in enforcing section 16-11 uh 10D when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Benavides, Commissioner Beniz.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in and uh denial of this uh mainly because there was two citations issued.

Um she was managing the property prior to ownership for six months um according to her.

Um still running late on on paying the the hot taxes.

Um we saw a case earlier today where I think that case qualified better for for um for granting it than this one.

So for those reasons I'm gonna be in denial.

Thank you, Commissioner Benavides.

I I'm in agreement with Commissioner Bonias.

I won't be um in favor of this um either.

I think there's a complete disregard for the city's um permit that's that surrounds this STR and um repeat offender, so I will not be in favor of it either.

All right, anyone else like to add here now?

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bonias?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Benavides?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Reed?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

No.

Commissioner Ipanis.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the fundings of fact.

Commissioner Bagman?

No.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

I do not concur.

Uh, motion fails 0 to 11.

Um if you have any questions you get with staff.

All right, item four.

What jack is a good question.

Good afternoon.

Tyler Adam Planner Development Services.

This is BOA-26-103-0005-3, located at 1-2231 Madrigal in Council District 10.

Applicant and owner is Cedro Akpakun.

And this is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit.

This is a type 2 short-term rental permit, and it is zoned residential single family.

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

Includes major platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

The City's Finance Department found three notices of delinquency were mailed by AVNU between May of 2025 and July 2025.

A final notice of delinquency was emailed by Development Services February 16, 2026.

And the account is current.

There are seven total units on this block face, no active type twos, so the density is currently at zero.

Should that should that say 2025?

June through March.

Which were where we looking at?

On the communication.

On this one?

Yes, but yes, yeah.

That that is a mistake.

Yes.

So yes, so these are all May, June, and July of 2025.

My apologies.

But these were the notices mailed from Avenue.

And then February 16th.

And then March 3rd emailed the revocation notice.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

34 notices were mailed, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

All right.

So my question is uh on the case summary.

You had mentioned that the the revenue reports were missing from March, April and May of 2025.

Correct.

Does that mean that June of 2025 and forward the reports were provided?

It was only those three months.

So we did our um revocations based on the months March through May of 2025.

Um however, no payments on this account were made um until March 5th of 2026.

So that does include the months June through the So then June through current or June through the early of the year, they could have also not.

Correct.

They they still would have received those mail notices.

They just weren't taken in consideration in the batch that we were reviewing at the time.

And when did the switch over to Avenue um happen about that?

Is that in 2024?

March 2024?

Okay, so that was way out.

This is way after.

All right.

Any other questions?

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens.

Um just a bit of clarification.

They made good on all their back taxes that they owed on the 5th of March.

Yes.

And they also re-listed their property as an Airbnb on the same day.

Um I believe the listing was still um open was still up at that time.

It has since been taken down.

Any other questions?

All right, so if the applicant come forward.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Cedroac Pacoon.

I'm the owner of the property in Madrigal 1 to 2, 3 5, Madrigal Street.

And so the thing is I didn't receive any of the email.

For my background, I'm from France.

So English is my second language.

So I'm trying to understand everything you said, even if it's odd a little bit.

But all the I moved from California in May 28th, May 29.

So I never received any mail from the city.

And the only email that I received is to say that they revocate my permit.

So I was shocked a little bit.

And so my I have a property manager too.

But she wasn't copied on the email, so she wasn't aware also of the taxes.

So in March 3rd, so two days later, March 5th, we we called the city and we pay everything to be current.

So right now we're current uh on the taxes we don't have.

And we also unlisted the property from all the platform because this is there wasn't uh it wasn't intentional from me or my manager because uh I also have a uh property um a house in Miami that I rent and uh for like uh four years plus years and I never had any issue.

So it just uh I'm new in this area and uh um so I don't I didn't know I I thought Airbnb will collect all the taxes and just like um distributed to everyone, but I'm learning March 3rd that they don't.

So March 5th we take everything um current and off the listing to make sure when the appeal arrive um that I can justify I'm really the good faith to show the good faith that it's not unintentionally and in in my mind to I don't know I don't know because you have to pay the taxi so um for me it wasn't it never was a question to avoid paying or to fraud or whatever whatever um it is so yeah so that's uh my case here.

Okay, so commissioner Braggman.

So I have a uh two questions for you.

You said you moved from California to Texas?

No, to Florida to Florida, and you weren't having your mail forwarded?

No, unfortunately, not okay.

What was the system set up like with the property management company?

I mean if if they're a property manager, yes, do they manage short-term rentals in Texas?

No, they manage in California.

So they weren't aware of the system and the mail wasn't being sent to them either.

No, no, no, that the mail was sent to me uh to my address personal address because that's the way uh we I set it up before um giving to this property manager to to manage it.

So I was supposed to receive the the mail from city, county, whatever, whatever.

So you didn't change your address with the city when you moved?

No, no, I didn't.

I didn't.

So I didn't receive uh the the letter and I received the email uh saying it's revocate, like March 3rd and March 5th, I take actions to put everything in in order and current.

So what I'm hearing is is you you purchased the property, put it up as an SCR using a management company, but at no time did like this is before you moved to Texas or lived, or you have you ever lived in Texas?

No, no, no, no, I never lived in Texas.

Uh my story is um, so I was a professional basketball player in France and I trained Victor Wimbayama that you probably know here.

And um so last year, uh two years ago, I wanted to have a property here because my I won't say duty, but in French I'm well known.

But and I like to help the young kids from France to come over here and watch game with Victor Wembayama.

And uh this house is was mainly um made for that.

So bring the kids during the vacation for a week and have San Antonio um experience and see Victoria and Bayama.

So that's uh why I I bought this house.

And um, but between the time uh a group of French kids come and another group of French that come, there is a gap, and so I wanted to rent it out a couple of days just to pay no the mortgage and everything.

But the management company, did they tell you that they could handle this for you?

Yes.

Yes, they tell me they can handle that for me.

But the yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Manna?

Commissioner Man?

So I showed that the property is bought in February of 2025.

Correct.

And then um And then the first notice was mailed out in May of 2025 to the the prior address.

And so it was in that period that you moved?

Yes.

Between Yes, that's the period I moved May 28.

I mean I think my May 25th, probably I started to to drive my stuff from California to to to Miami.

So no, I didn't receive any any of it.

If I if I did, I I wouldn't be here because I'm you know I'm just someone like who doesn't like to froad or I like to be, you know.

And and for the city, so the first correspondence that you send out currently there's listed as address and and and uh a mail was an email also sent out at the same time, or do you do correspondence with mail, mail, mail, mail, then email?

Is it it follows along this or do you do both at the same time all the way through?

Um when the permit was approved, we send an email indicating to both all contacts listed about your responsible for hot taxes as an owner, the platforms don't do it for you, things like that.

Um at that point, if they begin to keep one month delinquent, Avenue will then mail out notices each month the property continues to be delinquent.

Once we get the list, um DSC gets the list, we do send a final notice.

Um we did which we did on March.

February 16, 2026, giving them a final 14-day notice to bring their hot account current or the permit will be revoked, and then on March 5th, right?

March 5th, the property the permit was revoked by staff.

And so on May 30th, 2025, was that the first month that this the CTR was opened or let me verify because this permit was approved on March 10th, 2025.

So let me check.

So that probably aligns it.

Okay, that's what I need to know.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Anyone sent them to the speaker?

Uh Bonnie, it's real quick for the uh for the city.

Um are any like when we sign up or when they sign up for an STR and you know, it's describing their obligations, duties, everything they need to do.

Are there any of those in in different languages provided?

Or is it just in English?

Correct.

It's just in English.

Okay, gotcha.

Um and then uh last meeting uh city, you guys gave us a fun fact of how much we used to collect in hot taxes prior to like um I don't know, however, we used to report it.

Well what what are those numbers?

Just so the board knows and then and then we can just remember what we're collecting on these.

Yeah, prior to the change where those platforms, Airbnb and Verbo would remit directly the city portion.

We prior to that we were collecting about a hundred thousand a month, and that's up to closer to a million a month now.

Million a month.

Well, uh what and then this goes primarily for what the hot taxes go to do what now for for the city.

The state of Texas limits the legal use of hotel occupancy funds to like eleven different things, but it's mainly tourism, historic preservation, arts and culture.

Gosh, I thank you.

Oh has anyone did anyone send him to speak?

There is.

One speaker.

Um we're gonna hear from Commissioner Braggman and then we'll hear the speaker.

Um this is for staff as well, and it's specifically Logan, because you mentioned um at the last meeting that there was a code, there was something that the legislature didn't allow Avenue A to collect county taxes.

Can you be specific about what that is?

Yeah, let me see if I can track down what it was.

I to clarify, we were fine with it.

I suspect the county was fine with it, but we were told by Airbnb that they thought that that was a violation of the law and they were not going to do that for San for for Bear County.

So let me see if I can track down specifically what they cited.

Um give me a little bit.

All right, let's have the speaker come uh forward.

Sir, if you could just kind of I think you can have a seat and we'll we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

All right, please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

My name is Babs Krisonik, and I live in the subdivision of El Dorado.

And um when we want in the address.

My address is 12419 Magnifico.

Thank you.

My street actually backs up to this property Madrigal.

Okay.

And in the um in the zone we have the ones in the cul-de-sac at the end back up to that property.

There's and I've also went over to the street on Magdail and talked to the to of some of the neighbors that have lived.

One particular one that lives on the left that has small children, about three or four, actually about four that's under five is what it looks like.

And they're out there playing in the front yard and everything.

This is a very small narrow street, which is a cul-de-sac, and it's big it's um been a big problem with it because of the fact that there is no parking in that street.

There the driveway is narrow at the very beginning of this house, and then it it branches out to a two-car garage, which puts a lot of those the um cars that people bring.

There was 16 at one time in that cul-de-sac because of the house.

And they were um parked all up and down the cul-de-sac because of how short that street is.

And then uh we also feel as though that he is renting individual leases per bedroom on in the house.

And um there has been police called out to that house several times where they have seen people be removed from the house and arrested.

And that's what I'm here to shed light on.

I really didn't know exactly why the city had revoked his permit, but when we got the 200 um feet around the property, we were thrilled that you guys did.

And we thought it was because of that and not necessarily the taxes because this is new to me.

Okay.

And so is there is there any uh co-compliance or law enforcement tied to this address?

Can you y'all look that up for staff?

Um the only code uh this case we have was on March 5th, 2026.

Um for SAPD would have to reach out to directly regarding any cases that were um submitted burn ways or parking violations.

Okay.

And I know that he is um I know that he's renting it.

It still it was taken off of Airbnb, but I looked up Saturday and it was on V RBO, and there was another site that it was on, which is also renting it.

So I don't know how long it wait it's been revoked.

Okay.

Okay.

Any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Braggman?

No.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Bragman.

Um the speaker just mentioned that it's still active on VRBO.

So is there a process by which Airbnb and VRBO verify that the the permit number associated with that property is still current?

So when the ordinance was updated, we made it a requirement for platforms to ensure that a permit number is listed in the posting.

During the task force meeting where those updates were contemplated, we had both Airbnb and Expedia Group that owns Verbo.

They were a member of that task force, and they made it clear they will not be made to police permits for the city of We will make sure that there is a permit number, but it is incumbent on the city to ensure that it's active, that it's not expired or revoked or whatever else it is.

Okay.

So did you have a solution then for for tracking that or some kind of automated solution or are you working on that?

We within Lauren, correct me if I'm wrong.

Um a month and a half to two months had almost complete compliance from Verbo.

Uh Airbnb is a very different experience.

Um they removed after about a year, they removed hundreds of listings that did not have a permit, but were kind of waiting for them to do that again.

So if you look at our um our department's performance measures, one of the things that we track is our permit compliance rate.

Um when kind of over the years we bumped that up from kind of the 50s up to the 80s.

It jumped into the mid to upper 90s when Airbnb finally went through and removed those listings that didn't have a permit number.

And then it's kind of slowly but surely fallen every month since as more unpermitted listings are added to the website.

All right.

So if there's no other questions, I have the applicant come back forward.

Um so you've heard some comments.

Uh it will give you an offer opportunity to provide any rebuttal if you like.

Um so I um I wasn't uh uh aware of uh any of the comments that um the lady made um earlier because I would have maybe take action.

Um so what did I don't remember exactly everything she said.

But VRBO, we don't operate on VR Bureau, so I don't know because um they say earlier there's no listing active and it's true since uh like I said in March of uh fifth.

So we never had like uh any um tenant from booking from VR Bureau at all from the beginning.

So only Airbnb.

So I have all the proof here that I can show you.

Uh so I don't understand uh really what the matter I can't maybe it comes from um they don't like to have like Airbnb operate around their the house.

I know around me it's the same family, the dad and the son, and I'm in the middle.

So maybe that's the reason why, I don't know.

But no, we never we had like yes, we're once uh the uh police that we call because the the tenant wasn't was uh think drunk or something.

So yes, we call because we thought he was dangerous and the police take him out, but that's not someone else who called the police to say oh there's news uh or whatever.

So I don't I don't really understand why and she could have fun.

Somebody could have come to me and I would have uh discuss with uh the person to to find the best solution.

Okay.

Right.

Any other questions before we move on to a motion?

Hearing none, I'm looking for a motion.

Bonios.

Commissioner Boone.

Uh regarding case number B0826103053.

I moved it to the board of adjustment.

Grant the appeal for the property situated at 12231 Madrigal.

Applicant being uh Cedro Bakone.

Uh because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revokes when revoking the short-term uh permit and a motion.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion and a second by Commissioner Benia.

I mean, Commissioner Benavides, Commissioner Bonias.

Uh apologies if I pronounced your name wrong.

Um I'm gonna be in support of this.

Um I don't feel once again that the city was in error.

Um I I do feel uh you know a big part of this was the transitioning from you know Airbnb taking taxes to um to when they didn't take taxes before.

And um of this is on management, but that's also on the owners.

But I do feel that uh, you know, a lot of you guys are coming here, you're paying the money to be heard to get your property back up.

Um there's no other STRs on this block face, so it it's it's currently at zero percent density, so I think we're okay with having another one there.

I think the applicant knows how to you know manage this going forward.

We're gonna be able to collect hot taxes from this.

Um we had statement earlier from the city saying that you know, you know, now now revenue went from a hundred thousand a month to a million a month, right?

So maybe we could hire some more people to to kind of maybe some of that could go to staffing.

I don't know, just throw that out there.

Probably not.

Unfortunately, that is not a legal use of the hot funds.

But you know, it you know, I think I think City does a great job in doing what they need to do to manage this.

Um, but you know, there there's just some miscommunication, I think, and and I think a lot of that is between you know, Avenue Management, um, the ST, you know, the the sites starting to collect now.

Um but just you know, keeping keep this in consideration, board.

You know, if Airbnb or VRBO was collecting the county taxes as well, we wouldn't be here for any of these cases.

I mean they're collecting 15%, they're collecting city, they're collecting state.

That's a huge chunk.

You know, and we're sitting here, we're denying people for 1.75 percent.

Yeah, you guys do need to pay it.

I think you're gonna do it going forward.

But if we can get you know these these sites to pay it too, we're not hearing any of these cases anymore for the most part.

It would just be people operating without a permit that we'd be hearing.

Um so for for those, you know, uh facts, I'll be in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Benavides.

I agree with Commissioner uh Bonias, and um hopefully you've updated all your information so we don't see you here again, but I will be in favor as well.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Is there anyone else like to add?

Hearing none of us have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bonnez?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides, yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can cover the findings of fact.

Uh motion passes.

Uh, please be careful moving forward.

I will.

Believe me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Item number five.

The applicant for item number seven will be needing to leave their requesting uh continuance to April 20th.

Okay.

And I can read that in for the record.

Just read that in, please.

It's um BOA-26-103-00040.

Uh request by Asiel Casada for a half story variance and an eight-foot variance from the maximum 2.5 stories and a 35-foot uh to allow development of three stories at 43 feet located at 21 142 Las Lomas Boulevard.

All right, and then the date was two weeks.

We do have one person's arnote to speak for that one.

Okay.

Uh what was the date?

April 20th.

April 20.

So let's have the speaker come forward, please.

Sir Arctavio Viramontes.

Hello, sir.

Please state your name.

Tell us your thoughts.

Uh oh, the um Mr.

Casada.

This is the applicant.

Uh we're looking for Mr.

Viramontes, he was signed up to speak.

Uh um Caso Cinco.

Yeah, si el caso.

Acient Quesada.

Um Mr.

Binamontes had to leave.

And we would like to postpone these uh audience because this year because uh we want to be more prepared for the case.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, is there a motion to continue to uh April 20th?

So moved.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

I'll give that to Commissioner Bernabides.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we'll see you on the 20th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, item number five.

Good afternoon.

Item number five is BOA-26-103037, located in District 3 at 1734 Schleet Avenue.

The zoning is R form, and the request is for a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow an enclosed carport to be one inch from the east side property line.

There's a couple more variants.

Do you mind your favorite in addition?

There was a four-foot variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow one foot side setback from the east and west side property lines to include a one-foot overhang, and three and nineteen foot eleven inch variants from the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow one inch rear setback.

The subject properties located along Schley in the middle of residential block between South Givers and South Midman Street.

The surrounding area consists primarily of R4 residential-based zoning districts.

The case originated from a code enforcement investigation conducted regarding work done to enclose the existing carport without a permit.

Upon visiting the property, staff observe additional setback violations, thus prompting additional side and rear setback requests.

Aerial photography indicates various additions to an existing structure in the southeast corner of the rear yard beginning in 2018.

In 2018, in addition to the existing structure was completed to extend the structure along the length of the rear property line and to extend approximately 40 feet into the rear yard along the west side property line.

In 2020, an addition was constructed to connect the accessory structure to the primary structure along the west side property line.

And then in 2021, an unenclosed covered area was added just north of the original accessory structure in the southeast corner.

This 2021 project is the only construction for which a permanent is obtained and constitutes roughly 25% of the new construction completing in the rear yard since 2018.

The new complex of additions created in the rear yard will require full permitting review to ensure compliance with life and safety standards.

The property butts a 10-foot alley, which will reduce the required rear setback to 15 feet.

However, the overall requested rear setback remains at one inch.

This is the site plan.

The yellow is the original variance request, and then the number two and number three are the side, the additional side and rear setback requests.

This is the subject property.

Staff recommends denial for the side and rear setbacks and BOA-26-10307 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the carport and primary structure editions would be too close to the side property lines which present a fire hazard to the abutting and surrounding properties, and two permitting such distances from the property lines and just airflow between the structures and may set a precedent for crowded structures within the neighborhood.

Staff mailed out 42 notices, zero were received in favor, one was received in opposition, and Highland Park Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

So I did reach out to code enforcement and made them aware that there may be something.

Something that maybe they could help work like address with the applicant.

Right.

So uh with that uh the questions for staff was have the applicant come forward.

Yes, Commissioner Bene.

So can you all put up that opposition letter?

That I just wanted to see it if you can just keep it up.

Great.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name and Petra Jacques.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Petra Jacques.

All right.

Tell us about your your project.

Okay, and you have Sakado Kera el Carpor.

Soy una persona diabetica.

Uh me ayuda mucho.

Um yes, um I know that I made a mistake, and I really apologize for that.

Um I made a mistake because I covered the carport, and I know that I should have done it, but the problem is that I am a dia I'm a diabetic and I have a vision problems.

Ah, and go my party in front of you para mysemea difficult subirasia arriva.

So I prefer to enter my house through the carport to the back side of the house, and then be able to go into my house because there are no uh steps to go into the house, as I can't see very well.

And if I do in the front, I there are some steps that I have to go up.

Um yeah, so I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to make it uh clear to make it good.

And I told I I got in touch with the city, and uh I told them that I was willing to have everything fixed.

Twelve years ago when I bought the property.

Well, my family is really big.

Yes, por eso que nosotros construimos Auritaya no, ya nada más vivimos.

That's why we started building.

Uh but not now.

Now uh it's just my husband and I who live in the house, just by ourselves.

Yes, in la mejor disposition in quanto lo que yo puedes, pero todo lo e se por mi enfermedad.

And so I'm here willing to do whatever is necessary to make it right.

And what I did in the past, what I did was just due to my illness.

Okay.

Uh so uh a question for staff for it number one about it about it being an enclosed carport, is this thing looks like it's is it enclosed on more than is it two sides that makes it a garage and not a carport?

Or three sides.

So that item number one's concerning uh and the side plan here, you can see it's the color coded in yellow.

It's it it is a garage.

It was at one point uh carport, and we described it as such to kind of describe the work that was done on it recently.

It was a carport at one time, recently been enclosed into a garage.

And on the neighboring property, uh so if I'm looking at one of the pictures straight in at the garage door part, is a neighboring property are they like are they touching each other?

Is there overlap on that from the gutter and the roof when compared to the carport?

Can we go back to the um subject property photo?

I think that's what the chair is describing is the one.

So we didn't observe any actual touching, um, but I think this photo does illustrate the very very minimal distance between the two structures on the on the side.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh commissioner questions.

Uh Bonus for the applicant.

Yes.

Do you have gutters on the sides of the house all all the way?

Yes, it does.

It has a gun.

And it it brings the water outwards.

Does it drain to the front to towards the rear?

Does she know?

Sale asia in front.

It goes to the front.

Okay.

And then um has she talked with the neighbor who put that opposition letter in.

Have they been in communication?

Una vez mi vecino con mi esposo, pero realmente yo no sé.

Yeah, uh once the neighbors talked to my husband, and they said that they wanted something like a drain for the water to go out after the g it was brought down by the gutter.

But um I have I have the gutter and the water runs towards the front, but they don't have the drain.

Excuse it, but no Iuna Manguera que saque asiafuera el agua.

Oh, they have the gutter and they the water comes down, but they don't have a way for the water to come out.

All right, any other questions?

Real quick, we had uh one additional slide we put up there kind of showing the transition throughout the years.

Just for your information.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Mann.

Okay, so um the prior carport that was there, uh did you make this current addition larger than the previous carport with regards to its width?

No, Lasposas stand exactamente on the mismo.

Um de hecho I señas donde estaban los tubos del porton.

No, it's exactly at the same place as as it used to be.

In fact, there are signs of the the poles that were toward the the gate.

Okay, so it it it didn't appear for that on on the online view, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

So right now you have a garage door that's we'll say eight foot wide or or nine foot wide, I guess whatever width of a normal garage door is.

So do you need to have the extra distance facing the garage there to the left to be able to utilize that garage?

Because seeing it this close, so I always worry about fire safety in your neighbors, and we're not used to seeing property built all the way against the neighbor's property line.

And so this concerns me, you know, just for the safety of you and your neighbor.

And so is there a requirement or is there anything that could be done there to move that wall in so that so there is a little bit of distance there, being that you have a solid wall there.

If there is no any other option, then I would do it.

No, I'm asking me then on the app then.

But I just would need for you to give me some time to be able to make it.

And then I have a second question then.

So if you go to the picture on the back, so so it does look like this alley is has a lot of structures along this uh you know that are lining this alleyway all the way down.

Uh there is a unique feature here on this on this property though, and I don't know how that fits in there where they actually have a cutout in the roof to support the telephone pole.

And so I don't know if CPS would would have a problem with that.

I I think that um I'm not used to seeing structures built around telephone poles.

And so um the that may present a problem, you know I did looking down the line, I don't see anybody else digging out for the for a telephone pole, and so that one seems a little bit uh unique there.

Yeah, if this was uh detached accessory structure, it would it would be one inch or it would be flush to the uh alley because of the alley, but since it is a primary structure, that's why the school has our variance and then yeah, CPS they might be over there properly line, so depending on what the board decides, they still may have to cut back that uh overhang.

Yeah, see on single face CPS likes ten feet on either side of the pole.

They probably put the poles right on the edge so they could drive down there and service them or whatnot, and they were relying and in this case they're relying on setbacks to provide the ten foot separation they need from from primary electric overhead.

So it just so happens that it's more imperative on that the applicant side of the alley than the opposite side of the alley.

So anyway.

All right, does there anyone else like to ask uh any questions of the applicant or the staff?

Anyone signed to speak?

Um yes, we do have two speakers.

Okay, let's hear them.

Uh Juan Gonzalez, hello sir, please state your name and uh first name is Juan, last name Gonzalez.

All right.

What are your thoughts?

Um it's not making a complaint, it's just understanding the structure and the variances.

Um we do understand that there's a fire risk because of the structure itself to the neighbors, or at least to the neighborhood.

And that was the main understanding of this whole um, I guess, variance and and not being agreement with it.

Um we do understand the closeness of that structure to the other houses on either side.

Um if it came down to the point of um a potential fire risk.

If we did undertake if if these neighbors actually undertook a fire in their home, that spread would be uh risk to everybody else in the neighborhood.

Uh we're not very close, but I'd say we're about a hundred feet.

But um understanding some of the ramifications.

I work with uh the city here with public safety, and so I get to see both sides of the house, uh both PD and fire, and I understand just the slightest wind with a structure that's on fire, even at five miles an hour, um that spreads pretty quick.

It only takes a minute to three minutes for it to get you know, maybe uh I'd say uh a hundred feet at five miles an hour, we understand it can spread like within a minute.

I understand the response from the fire department.

We you know they have to come out, but we just saw that the structure was just not conducive to what we have there in Highland Park.

Highland Park has been maintained so well.

I mean, I I like to think the neighborhood has done very well with trying to upkeep the the homes, you know.

You know, we we're also in a remodel ourselves, and we're compliant with all the permits, and uh I've just never seen a structure like this.

And so it's kind of like a just an understanding of risk for the neighborhood.

And if we or the way I look at it, if this is allowed, I I'll see other neighbors doing the same thing.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for you.

So if can you bring me that overhead there?

So is it that you uh you know the your concerns are really for all of the structures following all the property lines or or just the the garage or because the garage certainly butts a bit another home, and that one, you know, I I I share your concerns there.

Do you have the same concerns for the the the U-shape back portion of the property as well?

Oh, yes, I do as well.

I mean, I I was kind of surprised at the um at the electrical pole or the pole behind the house.

I would have never thought of doing something like that or seeing something like that.

Um of course if it was a separate structure, but now it's enclosed.

So even the occupants could be at risk if um there was some kind of catastrophe that happened and those poles were to become compromised, so would that home.

But I understand the question.

Okay, thank you.

Ivanis.

Uh Mr.

Gonzalez, um so when they had the carport, just an open carport.

Were you troubled by that carport being open?

It or well, it's technically I uh I see that carport is not the same as others in the neighborhood.

Um in fact I see how close it is to the neighboring home, but since it's been enclosed, I don't know if the neighbor next door has would have an opportunity even to if I look at the windows for replacement and I said, okay, I want to replace all those windows.

I I don't know who's going to get in there to replace that window in that small little area to work.

That property, the neighbor's property, she really doesn't have that much space between her house and the property line.

It's a it's not a five-foot separate.

No, ma'am, it's not.

And if I can just see from here the exterior of that home, it's all wood.

It's not hardy plank or anything else.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

We're good?

Uh yes, sir.

You thank you for thoughts.

Antonet Virrial.

And um my concerns are basically the same as uh Mr.

Gonzalez's and uh other neighbors in the neighborhood too, that um the setback requirements weren't followed.

And mostly because of the safety of the other homes involved.

Um I guess back when those homes were built in the 19, late 1920s and 30s, I believe the setbacks were probably like three feet.

Right.

Uh science.

But having looked at the letter that we were sent and reading it, where they only complied, well, I I believe that they didn't uh get any permits, but um they're only one inch from their property line where they should have been at minimum from the original setbacks three feet.

Um and then I think the rear mentioned something about 20 feet, and they're only one inch.

So I just want to read what I wrote here so that I wouldn't, because otherwise I'll forget.

And again, it isn't so much that we're complaining because of the people who live there.

We're also concerned about them, but it's mostly just the neighborhood, but mostly the surrounding, the people who are like adjacent to their property.

So on here I put um due to the encroachment into the setbacks, the fire risk for the adjacent or neighboring homes increase substantially.

Also due to the overbuild of the lot or the property, the impervious cover has uh which was de it will uh it was uh decreased or will minimize rainwater saturation and therefore increase the rainwater runoff.

And then especially during flood events, because there's so much overbuild and they don't have where the water can go into the yard or the grass, it could possibly create problems for the neighbors.

And um the other point that I have here is we're concerned that uh again it's the impervious cover.

It's been compromised and it could have a negative impact on the neighborhood as well as the neighbors.

And I wasn't really aware of the carport that had been built where they pulled a permit for that one.

I believe that's the one that they pulled the permit for.

But um we just weren't aware that it had been built at that time.

So all right, thank you very much.

That's it.

Any questions?

Any questions?

No.

All right.

Last one is uh Lisa or Bryant.

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

My name is Lisa O'Brien, and I live I submitted the letter of opposition and I live next door just inches away.

So I can read my letter or what's the one.

You can do whatever you like.

You have the podium for three minutes.

Oh, reading my letter.

Uh my name is Lisa O'Brien, I'm the owner of the adjacent property at 1740 Schlei.

My west property line is the east property line referenced in the applicant's variance requests.

I'm submitting these comments as an affected adjacent property owner.

Uh I'm writing to respectfully oppose the requested variances.

Number one, drainage issues on the shared property line.

Our property now experiences drainage issues along the west side, which is the exact area impacted by the construction that has already taken place.

The enclosed carport has been constructed extremely close to the shared property property line, fundamentally altering storm flow, stormwater flow and surface drainage in this area.

As a result, there's no longer a practical ability to grade channel or manage drainage between the structures.

Uh I'm going to skip ahead.

Foundation damage following construction.

I've lived in my home for eight years and I've never experienced any foundation issues until last year when my neighbor began construction activities along a shared property line.

Since that time, I've had to repair the foundation damage to my home, both inside and outside, totaling $8300.

Attached are the pictures of the damage done in my living room from that repair job.

So that includes a buckling wall and a caved in ceiling, and then additional cracks not pictured.

Not pictured are the 10 new piers in skirting I also replaced.

I've also attached pictures of the new damage that is surfaced in the last four weeks.

These pictures are from my dining room, which also sits along the property line.

And they show a new wall starting to buckle and the drywall that is already separating from the studs above the entrance.

No maintenance access.

So the minimal setback that now exists leaves effectively no practical access for maintenance of either structure along the shared property line.

So roofing, siding, foundation, or utility work.

This creates a permanent condition that diminishes the value of both properties.

The overhang concerns.

So the appro the approved design includes an overhang is extending toward the property line, depending on the precision of the surveying struction, this overhang may shed water and debris directly onto my property.

And I request that any approval explicitly prohibit encroachment across property line or require proper guttering and drainage management to direct water away from my property.

And then fire for life and safety.

So side setback requirements exist in part to maintain adequate separation between structures for fire containment, the extremely limited distance between enclosed structure and any and my property line.

Okay.

So all that to say my neighbor never had a conversation with me.

We had one conversation about one gutter months ago, but not any of these projects.

So before it was covered, but there is no wall here.

And ever since then I've had drainage issues, and I'm told that because I had three bids for the foundation work I had done, and they told me that my water, that the water was collecting, where again, six, seven years before that previously, I never had that problem.

So also just to say that a large family lives there.

It's not just her and her husband.

They don't have a car there.

They have stuff in there, so also it's a fire hazard.

We've had a fire on our street before, so my neighbors are.

Well, you're time's up, but I I do have some questions for you.

So how does the water drain uh at your lot, your neighbor's lot?

Does it go predominantly to the front or is it predominantly to the alley?

Um it goes towards the front yard.

Okay.

And then is your house three is three feet off of the side property line?

Something like that.

It's it's short.

Okay.

Any questions for the speaker?

Additional questions?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

What do you think is the minimum space?

Was this three feet enough or I mean, does I believe the paperwork says five feet?

Um I don't even think it's that.

Like when I think of doing this to my neighbor on the other side, because basically that's where my driveway is in my carport.

If I were to just put stuff there, I mean she would be annoyed.

And then I ended up enclosing it, which is just what happened here.

And she and I have a good relationship.

I mean, she'd see the pants off me.

Nobody wants that right next to their house, you know.

Like it should be a regular driveway, and then their garage should be at and detached in the backyard the way the rest of the homes are in the neighborhood.

So what we have the ability to approve one inch or anything up to the required five-foot setback.

Is there a minimum somewhere between one inch and five feet that you would be satisfied with as the abutting neighbor?

Possibly.

I mean, I'm not prepared to make that answer today.

Maybe it's equidistance that your house sits from the property line.

So my property line would be on the fence.

I don't know.

I I don't have enough information to say yes or no.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh Bonnie, it's real quick for the uh Commissioner.

If it was just a regular carport, no enclosed sides, would you feel more comfortable with it?

Yes.

I wouldn't like it, but yes.

All right.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So once a structure is is less than five foot uh from uh another structure, then it starts to require fire rating.

And so that's we'll say a minimum distance that you know that I like to see when it is that we're talking about uh uh uh uh abutting properties.

And I know there's been dialogue with regards to fire, fire rating and fire, you know, the fire servants.

And so if we assume that yours is three foot from um that side, then two foot would move would give us that five foot.

You so I'm just trying to work through for a number for that siding.

So it's would would that be something that would make you more comfortable if it was moved two feet in uh with regards to two feet in on their side?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

So there's no other questions.

Let's have the applicant come back forward.

But also I'll caveat, I would like to have an expert come and confirm that that would be a smart decision.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So have the applicant come back forward.

So you've heard you've heard comments from your neighbors.

Uh would you like to make a rebuttal?

I do think you could just add a suppressed upon that.

No, I think you're still looking.

She says she's willing to do whatever it takes to to make things right.

Uh and uh, what I'm giving that you have.

Oh, she was just doing it for her convenience because she's getting surgery and she has a problem with vision and she wants to be able to go in the back door from her car.

Okay, thank you very much.

Commissioner Menavides?

I have a question.

Who who did this work?

Did you hire a contractor?

See in nosotros.

They did it themselves.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna?

So just a general question.

You know, we talk a lot about safety.

And so when I look at the structure, let's assume something horrible happens and the front of the house is on fire, and you have to flee through the back door.

Are you enclosed a hundred percent in your backyard?

Well, you will not be able to get out, or how do you escape?

Should it be that the front of the house happens to be on fire?

I want to ask you nothing to see on the uh isolamente pueda salir su casa or la puerta trasera.

Is that encerrada and stuff?

He has an exit by the alley.

Uh I think that would be um at the far end of the photo here at the far end where that pitched roof is, there is a small space there.

There's also a a small gate next to that pole that's about eighteen inches wide.

Okay, do you have a pointer you can uh point?

Yeah.

Let us know where where the where the exit is.

There's a door there.

She said there's a gate there.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you very much.

We're gonna look from yes?

Was there another question?

Okay.

Um real quick, Bonnie, sorry, yes, I was just looking at some old photos here.

Um for the applicant, the the garage there, did they add uh concrete or a foundation?

More out to the side?

Uh garage.

Can you see mentors?

It's metal.

Yeah, arriva.

And there's cement on the it's one big slab.

Is it just what it would be?

Yeah, it's a slab.

Okay.

And lamina?

Arriva.

Metal on top, yeah.

The metal roof, right?

Aluminum on the top.

Yeah.

Cement slab.

Yes, Commissioner Manna.

Can you come back up for a second here?

Because there was uh she was pointing to the side property there.

And so is that your fence that you would be going through?

Or does she have a fence?

Does she actually have an opening there that she could leverage?

Yeah, why don't you all uh if if y'all could m uh take a step over a little bit uh and if you could state your name and and you have a so there the lower corner of the right hand picture um at the lower corner is where it is that she indicated that she had a gate to escape should should the funder structure is that your property or is that her property there?

And so there is a gate there that she can explain through.

Yeah, it's it's really it's really odd.

It's a very narrow little alley.

There's a state your name, please.

Lisa O'Brien.

Thank you.

So there's a door from the backyard that goes into this little alley, and that is in between my house my property and her property.

Like it's lengthwise north to south, and then that will take you to another gate that gives you access to the big alley.

People can throw that.

So so a three foot by three foot path to that door on on their property?

Maybe like three by six.

Okay.

I just so three foot is you know, OSHA kind of, you know, for safety requirements.

I I just want to make sure that we're we're being safe here.

So she does have the other questions.

Okay, thank you.

I'm looking for a motion.

If uh I'll read the motion if no one wants to.

Uh do we want to talk about what's what the board is?

Yeah, I mean uh I'm I'll just put this out there.

Uh when I see this case, uh I could not get behind a an enclosed car port any any closer to three feet under any circumstances.

If it was an open car port, I'd go down to foot foot two feet.

Along the rear, I will not be in support of anything that gets a structure closer to ten feet to the alley line, do the overhead pole and the primary electric that's running right on the property line.

I can't get behind anything less than ten feet.

Um on the side uh in the rear, if it's in line with the current home, I don't mind three feet, because there's a there's a provision about about uh you know homes that were you're extending in the in the common line.

I could get behind that, but that's where that's where I sit on this.

Anyone else like?

Stevens, considering the old neighborhood, I'm I think three feet going down to three feet is um adequate on the sides.

And I'm I'm aligned with you at ten foot on the rear.

Even considering the the alley.

Anyone else like to add?

I concur.

Chair, is it is it ten foot off the pole like square?

Well it looks like the pole is actually the circular part of the of the pole is uh is against the the theoretical property.

I think that was the antenna CPS.

So I'm looking for for 10.

That would mean that if that is the case, which it looks like it is, I would I would need 10 feet, no closer than ten feet.

Can you com i I I don't understand.

So that that would be from the building would be cut back ten feet from the pole.

Yeah, the pole is the CPS is not going to put the pole on someone's private property.

So the edge of that pole is on the property line.

And so 10 feet beyond that, I they need 10 feet on either side of the pole from primary electric.

So that's that's why I couldn't.

So that one I had a question, because just looking down that eye line, you know, there's structures that are equal distance all the way down.

And so it's like that whole community built it on that line.

So you're suggesting that we go down that whole line then and adjust the whole line for safety's sake.

Is that what you're stating?

Now that the CPS can put the poll there, but CPS will in these older neighborhoods, they're relying on the adherence to setbacks, even though they don't have an easement or an overhang, there is a reliance on setbacks to ensure compliance with the electric code.

And I will say also just you can see that shed roof where it you have it the flat and then it goes to the shed section.

That is the original, it looks like the original accessory unit.

When you are detached from the main structure, your rear setback is only five feet.

Yeah.

And with that alley, they can up you they can use up to half of that.

So that means that if they were just to do an accessory structure back there, they could technically go to their rear property line.

But I mean and if you go to that one graphic where you had the three different items, you can see it was originally there from like 2000s.

So that's that was kind of the intent, not obviously taking the entire rear property line.

So if if we land on a 10-foot rear setback, would they only be required to meet five feet of that 10?

Well, because it's attached, they've attached it to the main dwelling unit, it instantly goes into the main dwelling setbacks, which is 20 foot rear.

But if they were to detach it, you'd like to do that.

But if we're still if we're approving a variance for 10 feet, a variance from 20 feet down to 10 feet, in reality, would they only have to honor five feet?

No, they they can't kind of go on top of what you guys approve and use the alley.

So that's why the the motion would have to be read and this is the variance, this is how close the structure could get so that there is no confusion uh for that.

And Manneso with regards to if it if it was read as was, or as as being suggested, um and the applicant would have two options.

One to move the whole structure back because it is attached, or come back and detach it, correct?

And then at that point it would be then compliant.

Yeah, they could technically detach it, but then they'd have those accessory structure uh square footage items that they would have to comply with.

Yep.

Okay, there's um Bonias real quick.

Um there's a few different options we could present um to make this work.

I think if we could have the applicant come back up, maybe we could present some of these to her and see which one is actually feasible.

Because I know Chair, you had said maybe doing something with the enclosed uh with the carport being enclosed, you'd be okay with three feet.

If it were open, you would be okay with it at one foot.

Yeah.

Um I don't know.

Either way, this sounds like it's also a costly project, which whichever way the it's gonna be done, it's gonna be costly for the homeowner.

Um I think you know there are a few different options we could choose, but which one is gonna work best for her, her finances And then also to protect the neighbors, you know, I I think going back to the carport garage.

Um I think that for myself, I I think it needs to be reopened as a carport, but also um it looks like the original maybe was one foot away from the property line.

And if we're asking going to see about see, I wouldn't vote for giving them this variance.

I think it's it's not very safe.

I don't think the materials that they use are up to code either.

Uh but opening it up back into a carport and having the roof line be two feet away, because it's so close to that to the neighbor's house.

So let me ask a question of staff.

Can the motion on that item, item one, be read to include enclosed or not enclosed, so that both conditions are present and the variance, is that possible?

I believe the applicant would have to uh uh but could we read it, could we say a variance for this or this and then let them just pick moving forward?

Yeah, I believe that's correct.

Is that I'm sorry, is that a ES?

So real quick, uh Chair, are you asking if if we could say uh three foot enclosed or one foot open?

That's what I am saying.

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Mann.

Or that we leave it three foot regardless.

You know, and because personally, you know.

Well, there's eleven of us, so the nine of us has got to agree.

So if if anybody would like to first is that possible to do.

Could such a variance could a motion be read for item one to do such a thing.

If as long as it's very clear, um, and and the applicant would have to understand that you're not not being allowed both, you know, and they have to pick one basically.

Okay.

So with that, uh we got to start somewhere.

Uh so back to that with that point for the rear setback, could we also do the same thing where we give them a and or or either or that one is different because the mo the moment they sever it, they don't need that anymore.

So if we if we say ten feet, then it's ten feet, but if they want to sever it and make it an accessory use and that it becomes moot, it it doesn't have to be included because it automatically goes to zero.

If they keep it if they if they make it an accessory by severing it from the main house.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Yep.

So what what I would like to do is I'm going to read a variance and we're going to see what people think about it.

And I'll be open to adjustments.

So be ready to make any.

So regarding case number BOA-26-103037.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one a two-foot variance from the minimum re I'm sorry, a one-foot variance from the minimum required five foot setback to allow a carport to be one foot from the east property line, or a two-foot variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow an enclosed carport structure to be three feet from the east property line.

Item number two, a two-foot variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a three-foot side setback from the east and west side property line to include a one-foot overhang for any structure not included in item one.

Item number three.

A ten-foot variance from the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow a ten foot rear setback which includes any adjustments due to the rear alley situated at 1734 Schlei Avenue.

Applicant being Petra Jacques, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would require the primary structure addition to be changed to adhere to the city's required development standards for residential properties, which would prove difficult as the additions have already been developed.

Three, by granting the variance to spare the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

Granting the reduced setback variances will still observe the spirit of the ordinance as these structures will still maintain adequate distance from the side of rear property lines to mitigate buyer risk.

Four, the variance would 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 shall be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants will not substantially ensure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located, allowing the proposed setbacks would not significantly alter the central character of the district, nor would it provide a standard for other single family residential residential district yet to be developed or approved upon in compliance with UDC regulations.

Six, supply to 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 not created by the owner of the property or not merely financial, not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variant is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, as there would be inadequate space to construct an enclosed carport and primary structure additions to the owner's desire and still adhere to the current setback requirements in a motion.

Second.

Can we strike the second uh when you said the enclosed carport?

At that point is just an enclosure.

Can we just strike the word carport?

Yes.

So I am going to support it as read because I didn't have a problem with the way I read it.

So I'm looking for anyone to provide offer any suggestions or alterations.

Commissioner Stevens.

I did second it, but and I don't want to muddy the waters, but as I'm thinking about this, I would be willing to go down to a five-foot setback at the rear.

Because I think considering along that alley, there are a lot of what appear to be original or very old structures that are against the alley.

If we give five feet, that allows access for maintenance on the rear, and I think fire risk is mitigated at the rear.

So I'm just throwing that out there.

Okay.

I am looking for uh I will accept that if someone else on the commission would give me a thumbs up on that.

All right.

So I duly accept that.

And so the motion is changed to reduce to five feet.

So just want to make sure.

So on the current dialogue for the carport or garage, because there is currently a gutter on the current structure that that requirement remains in place regardless of what structure gets put in place.

So it's part of the application.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Ivan.

Ivanus.

Can you explain number two?

A four-foot variance from the minimum required five-foot site set back.

Sure.

Where is that that we're going to do that?

So if you look at the aerial it's predominantly meant to for the new U part, which is actually like a letter J.

So that that is existing close, way closer than allowed to the side.

And so I was my I read the motion to read that it would not get any closer than three feet, which would be in line with the existing structure, which is something this board has historically supported.

So the owner would not need to reconstruct any of that side.

Well, the right now the current structure is listed as an inch away from the side.

It's right on the property line.

So they would have to do something.

On that that portion there.

Right.

So they they will have to have some financial responsibility to to move that.

Correct.

Anyone else like to offer any suggestions?

I am sorry, I didn't understand the question I was being asked or the it and or maybe the response.

He was looking for a clarification of where exactly the side setback was on item number two was the same.

So the J portion of the property.

The sides of the J.

So there was a question, you know, could it talk about a foot, but again, we have the back corner gate.

And so is it three foot?

And so you know, so gates are gates.

I know, but uh it's so you are referencing the four-foot variants that was just for the carport if it's an open carport.

Is that correct?

Yep.

So if there's nothing else, I think we I uh we're we're past that at this point.

Uh so if there's nothing else, let's um have a roll call vote.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Oh man.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman?

I concur with the findings of the fact.

Commissioner Benabitas?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

All right.

So the the vote was seven to four against.

Is anyone on the prevailing side like to offer any alternative Can you break up the historical picture again, please?

I know.

Yes.

I think we need to vote individually on these.

Okay.

Because I am okay with number one.

I'm not okay with number two.

Okay.

Well then let's let's get this started.

I'm not sure where I am with number three.

So let's get this started.

I'm gonna I'm rereading the motion exactly as I read before regarding item one, no changes.

And if since if there is no discussion, let's just go straight to roll call vote on that one.

Wait, Chair, was there a motion to reconsider?

Oh you motion to reconsider.

Uh motion to reconsider by Commissioner Manna.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

I hope y'all are writing all this down.

I'm running out of room on my paper.

So who made the motion?

Uh Commissioner Manna.

So is uh all in favor say aye?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed hearing not.

So there's a motion to reconsider.

I move uh to restate the motion solely for item number one as exactly as previously stated.

But only for item one.

So with that, let's have a roll call vote.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibannis?

Yes.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the finance effect.

Commissioner Bragman?

Yes.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes.

Commissioner Boniath?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes.

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to number two.

Commissioner Ivanez, is there anything that you would like to offer?

I just think that what we're asking with the structure is a financial hardship on this family.

Okay.

And I don't know, I mean, any anything that we say, whether it is two feet, three feet, is going to require them to spend a lot of money to comply.

Right.

If you look at the an older neighborhood and you see how it how it's developed, if there's grass next to it, and I don't feel like the neighborhood is going to per the neighbors are going to pursue additional development in their yard, I am more prone to feel comfortable with something a little bit lower.

But I I really don't like habitable structures under any circumstances to be less than three feet.

That just kind of that's just a thing for me because there's just maintenance and fire protection that I can't get behind.

If it was something with a cover on it, like a carport or a gazebo or you know something that was more open, I'd be more open to going a little bit less.

But I just I I just can't get behind anything less than three feet.

That's just my personal thing.

Is anyone else like to add to that?

Commissioner Benavidus.

While I um while I see uh the Commissioner's point, my feeling is that yes, it's gonna be a big financial hardship, but this was incurred by them by their complete disregard to the city's ordinances.

They did patchwork on this home.

Um and they incur, you know, anything that they incur is on them.

For me, if it was my opinion, in my opinion, they should take it all down.

Um but I know that um that is a bit d drastic, but I think um the fact that this commission is agreeing to let them um to allow them to leave to leave it up somewhat is um something that I'm willing to compromise on.

But I yeah, I uh well I see the financial aspect of it, but this was brought on by themselves.

Okay.

Commissioner Manning?

And this is reading the OR clause for one, correct?

Is that what you are speaking to specifically?

Just item number two about the J, the side setback for the J portion of the of the habitable structure.

Okay.

It's it's just really large.

If it was something smaller, that's one thing it's just so large.

So I'm looking for a suggestion for two.

Right now, the way I read it before was down to three feet.

Is there anybody like to offer anything else?

I I just think that if we do go down to two feet, they're still moving that wall.

So you know, like the the cost.

And I just like one foot is not enough to maintain someone's property.

Okay.

So is is there anybody who would like any commissioners who would like to suggest other anything other than three feet, or we can attempt to to state that one again?

Okay.

So I'm I move to read item number two as well.

Before actually, I'm sorry, before we move on to item two.

For item one, y'all voted unanimously.

Did we have a second?

For that restated item one.

Uh I'll second that.

Okay.

And if we want to.

For the restated.

Okay.

Yeah.

Very much.

We're moving fast here.

I'll I'll keep up.

So I'm I'm reading item number two as previously read with a three-foot side setback on the we s east and west side, uh, non-inclusive of of anything uh subject to item one.

So uh is there a second for that?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Um let's have a roll call book.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibannis?

No.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yes.

Commissioner Benavides.

No.

Commissioner Boniath?

Yes.

Commissioner Bafkis.

Yes.

All right.

That passes nine to two.

Item number three is regarding the rear setback.

So we heard um it was read to be five feet.

Is there anyone who would like to offer any suggestions or friendly amendments to that?

Okay.

Is there is everyone anyone opposed to it?

That is looking for uh so because if if we vote on this one again and go through, then that means that we basically read it as red or initially correct.

And so I didn't necessarily need three foot or the five foot, I was actually going to go less.

And and so I didn't mind it actually being less than five foot.

And so just again looking at the structured way this is built.

And I don't know, you know, being that we just did three elsewhere, you know, to me that that would be consistent with all the way around.

And when I look down this alley right there, that picture, that just kind of tells me you know that I don't I don't necessarily know that we need to push it back that far.

But but you know, again, you know, you can easily convince me.

You'll have to do that.

Yeah, my my thought is it's one thing to have like uh a small shed or a small building, but when you go all the way across, it's different when you start blocking stuff off, and that's that's where I I I just can't get behind it.

If it was limited to like 50 percent of the of the frontage of the rear line, then I could get behind something way less.

But I can't do it if it's spanning the whole land.

So that's just where I sit on it.

Is there anyone who would like to offer any suggestions before we move forward on some sort of a vote?

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner.

So if they disconnect from the primary structure, they're allowed by right.

Five.

They're allowed by right to go down to zero because of the alley credit, but then they're also limited on square footage and those other issues that that tie in.

So they yeah, if they if they make it an accessory structure, it isn't gonna look like that is too big.

If they keep it like this and in the mass that it is, uh it's gonna have to move back.

Do we want to just vote for one inch setback and see what where we get with that?

I mean uh the roof line's got to get cut back no matter what, right?

Yeah.

The wall is is the property line, I presume.

So I mean, from an access and maintenance standpoint, I'm okay with it.

And it seems like all these other houses are on top of these poles.

Okay, but if we read it as a one inch, it's not for an accessory, it's for a structure.

So that's that's uh and manna, so and one thing we did do, which move in the sides on both sides.

And so it's not contiguous space now.

And so it's I was concerned about a back access, and I still worry about that.

And uh so that was alleviated by the last reading from my perspective.

And so now you know the and that's why I I don't necessarily know about the one inch, but certainly it less than that, you know.

I don't need the whole five foot, I guess.

But again, I'm I'm I can go either way now.

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Benavides.

So I would I would prefer a ten foot.

I'm not I would not vote for a one-inch.

So I will compromise and I'll I'm okay with the five foot, but not a one inch.

Okay.

So I am going to reread item number three and I'm gonna keep it exactly the same at five feet.

And um if if somebody would like to see how one inch would do, I would say make a formal amendment and we'll see how the count turns out.

So right I re I'm reading item number three as read originally.

Is there a second second?

Second.

Okay.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

Is anybody want to explore a friendly amendment down to one inch?

I I would love to explore that.

Okay.

So we have a formal amendment by Commissioner Stevens to go to to alter the variance down to one inch.

Is there a second for that?

I second.

Second by Commissioner Ibanius.

So let's have a roll call vote to see how the amendment goes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibanneth?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes.

Commissioner Dean?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

No.

Commissioner Mana?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

No.

Commissioner Benavides?

No.

Commissioner Bonias?

No.

Commissioner Valfith?

No.

Chair Orion.

And no.

So the motion.

I mean, I think we're at seven to four on that one.

So we're back to the original motion at five feet.

And I will be feel safe to say that if this doesn't pass, it's just not gonna pass.

So let's have a roll call vote on the motion for item three down to a five-foot setback.

Knowing that if they did sever it and make an accessory use, it doesn't even matter what we voted on.

They could take it to zero.

So let's have roll call vote.

Manna, and also comment they could come back to the board to get a larger accessory structure permitter on the thing.

Okay.

Several call vote, please.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibannath?

No.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Mana?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes.

Okay.

10 to 1.

All right.

So that passes.

I'm going to need somebody to thoroughly explain this to the applicant.

If someone could kindly uh take her outside.

Chair, may we have a break?

Yes.

Oh, yes.

We are having a break.

It is 340.

See you all back in about five to seven minutes.

We're back in session.

348.

Good afternoon, y'all.

This is uh item BOA 26-103-00038.

The applicant is Caro Developments.

It's in Council District 2.

And the zoning is RM4.

The variance is for a variance to allow separate structures on a lot zoned RM4 that is smaller than one-third of an acre.

The subject property is located along three lots east of the intersection of South New Bronfels Avenue and Montana Street.

The applicant submitted a board of adjustment application for the same request this September of 2024, but withdrew their case.

Since then, the applicant has attained a certificate of determination that allows for the development of the property to move forward.

The applicant has attained an addressing verification and assignment letter and is now approaching the Board of Adjustment before proceeding with the project.

The applicant proposes to construct two single family dwelling structures rather than abiding by the RM4 stand uh development standards, which limits such development to a single structure.

This is the current site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

We uh Savagman's denial and BOA 26-103-0038, based on the following findings of fact.

There is signific sufficient space on the property for the development of a single structure on the lot to support the same overall dwelling unit density.

And the development would represent a conspicuous departure from the established character of the neighborhood, which is largely made up of at single family homes.

We mailed 33 notices.

We got zero in favor, zero opposition at Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association and Denver Heights Neighborhood Association did not respond.

Okay.

All right.

This concludes staff's presentation.

So one quick question.

Uh you've got uh does it to the how how close can the structures be before it becomes an issue?

Do they have to be five feet apart?

I believe it's five feet.

Okay.

All right.

So let's have the applicant come forward.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um really quick, I kind of want to address some of the things.

Okay, you need to uh state your name, please.

Oh, Jared Barfield, owner of Cairo Developments.

All right, continue.

Um we I did a little bit of due diligence before we made the request.

I don't know if you guys noticed, but we actually had the request in like I think you believe 24 in September.

Um before we go and we actually you know built build these homes out, we do some due diligence.

We actually get gather quantitative data to know if this is actually a fit for what's going on in the neighborhood.

We tried something a little bit different um with the prior project.

Um, because as you guys notice today, most of the most of the homes in on these areas, people are kind of the developers are kind of transitioning and going towards single um well, not single family residents, uh STRs if they run into issues.

That's usually financial because they can't find anyone that can actually go purchase the home at the price that they were hoping to for what the cost for to construct on the home.

So rather than just build without that data there, we actually go and we find people who are looking for a particular type of home before we go and actually construct that building.

That's why we actually initially we had buyers, purchasers for the initially for that project.

They pulled out, so we said, you know, let's wait.

So rather than spend an unnecessarily, we went back to the drawing board.

That's when we went, got the COD, and um kind of brought us here.

So when you go to the next slide for me, I just want to kind of note we're not putting forward large uh structures on this home.

We're literally just separating two units rather than making a duplex.

Um the zoning, we're not we're not it's nothing far-fetched that we're requesting as far as zoning is required.

The dense when we shouldn't run into a density problem.

We're not gonna overload these uh overload the houses.

The houses are pretty good fit, and we're still within the required variances on all sides.

Um go to the next slide.

Um again, we did market data before making the request.

So we have someone that's under contract for the first unit already.

The reason, the only reason we don't have a contract for the second person, we have an individual right now that does want to contract with us.

I've had to deny them that contract because we don't have approval for it yet.

So I can't sign a contract if you know we're here and we haven't had an approval for that.

So it's not that we don't like the community doesn't want it.

We have buyers right now that I could call on phone right now and say, hey, I want to purchase this.

Price has been agreed to.

I just cannot contractually put them um under contract without the approval, which is why we only have that first unit under contract.

Okay.

So your goal is to build two units, that's it.

Yeah, just two units side by side.

We've actually had the engineered structural plans already done for them prior.

We actually had two sets.

We've done one for um just a single family.

It just doesn't make any it would be fiscally responsible to build that there.

Um especially looking at what's going on in the in the net in that neighborhood and what people are can afford because we're running into an affordability problem.

And are you attempting to put the driveway in the they're in the front, right?

You're trying to do that.

Yes, and that's actually it doesn't show here.

Um you have an alley back there, and then if you're doing rear access.

No, I don't want the um oh, sorry.

The uh there we go.

So back here, we don't want to touch anything back here at all on this alley.

I don't want any access.

I want to just close that off.

Just have a fence there.

What's not showing is we do have a garage here.

One of the things that I noticed in the neighborhood that's been a really big issue is the parking.

Um if we were to attempt to do to let's say we were trying to get the most we can out of the margin as far as that home is concerned or that property is concerned.

If you go through the data, you would need to put four units on there, right?

In order to extract the extract the margin that you would need to go ahead and continue do another project, so on and so forth, right?

The problem that I see aesthetically in that neighborhood though is you wouldn't have the parking that you would think that you would have if you were to try to do that.

You'd probably have to make put a building like here, here, here, and here, and have parking on the back or something like that.

Which is fine, but now everything is concrete.

I'm from Dallas.

Um one of the things that I noticed here that I like that I didn't know at home is we've we kind of attempted to do that model that I'm showing you guys where you basically just put all the homes on the side and everything else is concrete.

One, you have a crazy amount of money that you're spending on your concrete in your foundation, and two, you you lose your greenery.

This property has two large um pecantries.

So in order to make that to do that, I would have to get rid of that.

I don't want to get rid of the pecantries.

Um the greenery, and again, we don't see it here yet, but that stuff as time goes forth and you start to see that, it does make a difference in the aesthetic of of where you live.

And people will end up saying, in the beginning, everybody likes it, but later down the line, you're like, I kind of miss having the greenery around.

Okay.

Um go to the next one.

And so we actually have this is within walking distance, less than half a mile.

This house is part of a kind of regime that's done the exact same thing that I'm attempting to do.

Their layout is different than mine, um, but it accomplishes the same goal.

Uh you go to the next slide.

This is the other house.

They're literally on the same piece of property, they're just split into a kind of regime.

One's facing Montana, the other one is facing Piedmont.

Is that a sign saying they're gonna knock the house down?

They probably want to, which makes sense.

Because if you look at how the house is like I should okay, I should I wouldn't use that as an example.

But they want to rent this house.

Like if I were this individual, I would have done like what I'm attempting to do, I would have turned it.

Instead, they just it was easier to just put split it down the middle and have the have it failed from the street.

Doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's not mine, so you know I digress.

Um the hardship.

What people do not talk about, so I'm actually licensed originated as well, as well.

You can have a home that's a fee simple detached, and you can have one that's under um that's uh also under a cono regime, and you can also have um an attached home.

Same price.

So let's just for argument's sake, let's say they're 200,000, right?

Each one is 200,000.

Do you know it's harder to get approved for the 200,000 dollar one that's attached than it is for the one that's fee simple or a condo regime?

There's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have different requirements that go under underwriting that I know this because that's my job, but most people are not seeing that it makes the cost and the risk higher to Freddie May and Fanny Mac who are backing those loans, right?

So that's why it's harder for people to actually get approved, like for the like what you see in condos, even though technically they're supposed to be cheaper.

You see issues like most of the time you see these issues arises like in Florida.

Uh I think Houston has it kind of bad, but there's a reason that everyone switches the detach.

It's easier not just for us on the build side, but also for the purchaser.

Um case in point.

That scenario that I initially brought up when we first were withdrew the request, we could have just put the duplex there.

The person who wanted it to buy from us, I noticed doing their loan.

I was like, this is gonna cost you more.

They did approve for it, they were approved, but I noticed what they're that's something that they're not gonna pay attention to until way later they're in the house.

It's gonna cost them more because of the type of loan that they have to get in order to get it.

That's why VA, if you look at VA, VA has very stringent.

Let's let's kind of stay on point though.

But um, but I wanted to point out that those barriers are those financial barriers are not just to the developer, it is to the purchaser as well.

Okay.

Uh is there any questions for the applicant?

Bonias?

Commissioner Beneas.

Is there a neighborhood association here?

Uh there is I think Jefferson's the one that's closest.

Gotcha.

Did you any correspondence with them?

No, the neighbor, uh the neighborhood in front, I'm actually uh the actual immediate neighbors, I'm actually close with a lot of them because I was doing work on like a adjacent properties.

So, like there's one that I didn't show, like on um Toledo.

The owners on Toledo, I know because they did essentially the same thing that I did.

The thing that they did different, they just went to and paid extra to have it just replatted, which you're paying like twelve thousand dollars more to do it.

I just did it in a more I think effective way personally.

Yeah, and you're waiting a while for that too.

Um okay, but so no correspondence with Jefferson Heights or Denver, but you did get did you get a neighbor's approval?

Uh so I I didn't so I know the neighbors like immediate around, like I they built I built something similar around the corner.

Um so I kind of just spoke with them about it, they're like just continue to say do the same thing.

These are people have like phone numbers.

I can I speak with the Yeah, I think uh I think your presentation today is is a good presentation.

I think if Denver Heights and Jefferson Heights could hear this and break it down the same way to them, they may be in approval.

I think if you get the neighbors to approve it as well, too, that's gonna speak highly to this board.

And um that that's just my recommendation.

Because your presentation is good and I like it, but you know, I think if Denver and Jefferson could see the same thing, they may be in support also.

So well, so I normally those two are pretty vocal.

And they weren't this time.

And so are you thinking they're I saw I take their non non-submitting to be an okay thing.

So that's just my personal opinion.

Okay.

All right.

Is there anyone signed up to speak on this case?

No public comment.

All right.

So uh with that, I'm looking for uh a motion and then and I would uh it would I would appreciate it.

Whoever reads it uh specifically mentions that he's only doing two units.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10308, a move the Board of Adjustment Grant of variance to allow two separate structures on a lot zone RM4 that is smaller than one-third of an acre, situated at 1410 Montana Street, applicant being Cairo Developments LLC.

Applicant being Cairo Developments LLC, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have a term or 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 unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there would be adequate space to develop two multifamily.

To develop uh two single families.

Two single family, yes.

Yes, two single family.

Two single family structures on the lot while maintaining building scale and massing that is consistent with the surrounding areas.

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

The special condition on this property is due to the unique circumstance of the inherent size and physical layout of the lot.

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

Allowing the development across two structures on the lot would not harm or harm nor injure the surrounding properties and would conform with the established surrounding neighborhood.

Four of 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.

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

Six, the plight of the owner of the property, 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 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 the inherent size and physical layout of the lot, which predate the proposed development or not the result of the owner's actions or general conditions in the district.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor.

Commissioner Bragman.

I'll be in support of this motion.

I I feel like the applicant made perfect sense in terms of the layout of the proposed uh structures and how they fit on the lot without having to ask for variances.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Commissioner Manor.

I concur with my colleague.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing now is that a roll call vote?

Commissioner Braggman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Warrior.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

All right.

Uh, we are going back to item number six.

It is 404, and Commissioner Cruz has left the meeting.

Thank you.

Does anyone else on the commission have a hard leave today?

I know of I know of one other.

Midnight.

Okay.

Before bedtime.

All right.

Good afternoon.

BOA-26-103039 is located in District 3 at 3311 Huth Drive.

The zoning is R20, and the request is for a variance from the accessory dwelling standards to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the side yard of the property.

The subject properties located along Hughes Drive, being the property at the corner of Heath Drive and Charon Road.

The surrounding areas of mixture of R20 and NP15 residential base zoning districts.

The case originated from the applicant being advised by zoning staff at development services to apply for the variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the side yard.

The proposed structure being converted to an accessory dwelling unit was constructed in 2005 as a storage shed slash garage.

There's no permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling on file, meaning the applicant would have to apply for a permit following their case receiving a determination.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

That's the accessory dwelling unit.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval for the accessory dwelling standard in BOA-26-103039 based on the following findings.

There's more land considered side yard than rear yard.

An accessory dwelling in the side yard would still observe the spirit of the ordinance while also maintaining adequate distance from other nearby structures.

Two, if granted, the accessory dwelling would be permitted in the side yard of the property where there is sufficient room to maintain UDC setback requirements.

Staff mailed out 19 notices.

Zero were received in favor, one was received in opposition, and there's no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

This is the notice received in opposition.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

Is uh applicant come forward, please.

Please state your name and tell us about your sex accessory structure.

Good afternoon.

My name is Manuel Rocha.

I'm representing my mom.

She's the owner of the property, but she has uh language barriers, so the one that is uh we both live there.

She comes uh from Mexico, so she comes and stay with us due to me divorcing and uh having the need of having my daughters there.

Um I'm the one living there, so they come visit me when my visits are allowed.

So um we need a little bit of more room, so we have that uh second um storage, you could say, but we want to make it uh you know uh a living living uh space.

Um so we wanted to do it the right way, hearing all this other cases.

We wanted to first get the permit and being able to comply with everything before we start.

Okay.

Uh so for staff, is this accessory structure within the uh square footage percentages of the of the main structure?

No other issues?

It does not require variance for the size.

Okay.

And um I mean it it obvious that if you were addressed off of Terran Road, I know your access is really off a huff, but this would just be like any other residence, I would think.

So is there any questions from the commission?

Fragment.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um, so you saw the um note from your neighbor while they were opposed to the structure of their concern that it's gonna be turned into a rental is that the case?

If you could tell, um we have uh kind of like a long um lot.

So the front of the front neighbor, um he was okay with it.

He said I don't he actually responded me like I'm not I'm not gonna be against it because first it's not my property and then it doesn't bother me.

We have I think the lot that I have, it's the uh the smallest of all the blocks.

Um usually people have above one acre there.

So um I talked to that neighbor that sent this back.

I told him he was going to be receiving this letter.

Um he said he does an opposed of it is just that says um he doesn't want me to rent it, which I think it's besides the point of me making making that a uh a living space um you know of I mean it's besides the point what we're trying to figure it out here.

So I I guess my question is are you in the long run planning on turning that into a rental unit?

Uh well no, as of right now, that's not in my plans.

Okay.

And your your property is 0.58 acres, 100 foot wide by 256 deep.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Hearing none.

Anyone send it to the speak on this one?

No public comment.

Looking for a motion.

Stevens.

Mr.

Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103039.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a variance from the accessory dwelling standards to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the side yard of the property situated at 3311 Hooth Drive, applicant being Maradel Carmen Vasquez Garcia, 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 provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Permitting an accessory structure in the side yard in this case would not be contrary to the public interest since the placement would still adhere to the other requirements for single family residential property.

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

The limited rear yard space and orientation of the lot present a situation that would result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant to comply with current development standards.

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

An accessory dwelling in the side yard would still observe the spirit of the ordinance while also maintaining adequate distance from the other nearby structures.

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

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

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

If granted, the accessory dwelling would be permitted in the side yard of the property where there is sufficient room to maintain UDC setback requirements.

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

The configuration of the lot and its presence at a corn as a corner lot leaves more land considered side yard versus rear yard, making the potential locations for an accessory dwelling in the rear yard more limited in placement as compared to the area available in the side yards under motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Benice.

Commissioner Stevens.

So and this is exactly why the city promotes accessory dwelling units to have family live together.

And if one day you decide to rent it out, good for you.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Bonice.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Stevens.

Um I'll be in support for those reasons and the city's uh approval as well.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reid.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vavketh.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the fines of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number nine.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joel Vellas and your planner of the Board of Adjustment.

Item number nine is BOA-26-103044.

The applicant being Vrenem Morales and District 6.

This is at 9235 Marbach Road.

Request for the 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.

Subject property is located east of Marbok and Ingram Road.

The property is currently vacant, surrounded by other vacant properties, a pawn shop and an existing industrial business park.

To the north, the property is adjacent to existing single-family homes separated by 60-foot drainage easement.

The applicant proposes to develop the property as a mobile food court in accordance with all UDC standards.

However, where the code requires mobile food courts to be separated from single family districts by at least 200 feet, the applicant proposes to build directly adjacent to property zoned R6, which is occupy occupied by that drainage easement.

The proposed mobile food court would be separated from existing single-family uses by an on-premises circular driveway, parking stalls, and the drainage easement.

No permits have been filed and no construction has begun at this time.

Here's kind of a rough site plan of what the applicant is proposing, again, directly adjacent to that property zoned R6, actually occupied by a drainage easement, 60 feet wide.

Directly on the other side of that easement is where the single family homes begin.

And here's a rendering shared by the applicant, not for construction, just for visual purposes of the proposed project.

And uh aerial view just to illustrate all the situations that we've kind of described here.

Here's the subject property, the entrance, and it's actually this open area behind that existing pond shop.

You can see how the existing residences kind of look down on that property.

Here's the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103-00044 based on the following findings of fact.

One, granting this variance would not support the public interest as the existing homes would be exposed to increased noise and light pollution.

And two, such noise and light pollution would have an unobstructed path to windows on the rear facades of the existing homes due to the elevated grade level of the homes relative to the subject property.

Staff mailed out 26 notices, zero were returned in favor, one was returned in opposition, and there's no neighborhood association within 200 feet of this property.

And here is the opposition received by staff by one of the homes to the north.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Stevens?

Yes, Commissioner Manna.

Steve's handed first.

Oh, do we know it?

Thank you.

Do we know the general width of the utilities?

60 feet.

Commissioner Man?

So is it the location of the park itself versus parking for that distance?

Does that does that play into the measurement or is it not play in?

It's measured property line to property line.

I mentioned that just for context, just to kind of show where the food courts are going to begin.

There's the driveway, the parking lots, uh, and then the 60 feet, and then the homes, uh, just for context.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

So the applicant come forward.

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

Uh good afternoon, uh, border members.

My name is Renee Morales.

I'm the uh applicant for the uh variants for the property located at 9235 more back.

I'm sorry.

Uh mainly this property is is zone C3 commercial.

Can you get closer to the line?

Thank you.

This property is is is uh properly zoned C3 commercial, and the request is for a food uh uh truck foot court and uh which is uh permitted within this zoning.

And uh the only issue it's the uh to move forward with this project is the 200 feet.

Uh due to the existing conditions of the lot and surrounding uh developments.

This creates an unnecessary hardship on the property that is otherwise appropriately sown for this type of use.

Uh the project has been uh designed with uh considerations for the nearby residents.

Uh and we are proposing limited hours of usage, non-amplified outdoor music, non uh direct light away from uh residential properties, uh daily trash maintenance and landscaping and visual buffering along the residential site.

Uh these measurements will ensure uh harmony within the surrounding properties while maintaining a commercial character of the district.

Uh this request allows uh responsible use for the commercial zoning property that supports a local businesses and activities.

Uh this hardship is due to the unique site condition that were not created by by owners.

So for this reason, I respectfully uh request your support.

All right, thank you very much.

A one quick question.

Uh there is an existing sign that shows on on some of the staff pictures for a restaurant, uh a Mexican restaurant coming soon.

Is that for this lot or your neighbor?

Originally it was going to be a restaurant, and uh it didn't go through the owner uh had financial problems and they modified the investment was going to be too much, and they decide to do something to a smaller grade, and this was one option.

And for staff, uh the one of the renderings showed a very large uh display or television or whatnot.

Is there any rules about how something like that being provided?

Like right above the bar.

I mean, I I believe the there is a NR district which restricts noise.

Um this isn't one of those districts as far as the actual are you talking like the height of the display or just having a display at all?

Or like I guess what is the crux of the question.

Whether or not they could have an outdoor display.

Um I don't have the answer off the top of my head.

I could look for that.

Um I don't know if I would believe it's not exactly a use, so it's not really a zoning question.

It would probably be something that our science department or um basically.

Because you know that you have to have screening for certain things or outdoor storage comes into play in some instances.

I didn't know if uh a large screen like that would be something that needed to be.

I mean, we definitely would have nuisance, you know, potential nuisance if it was late at night or you know, outside certain hours that could negatively impact the neighbors.

Um so again, those are items that would be discussed when they get further down in the permitting stage.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner questions.

Fragment.

Commissioner Brainwith.

Um you mentioned that you were going to do a landscape buffer.

Well, definitely.

Uh can you tell us where and how wide could you show?

Yeah, the uh not on that one, but on um 50-60 feet plus there's a pointer, there's a pointer there on the podium.

Oh, yeah.

If you can show us where the landscape buffer would be and tell us how wide it would be.

Okay, we we have the uh we have the the back uh buffer already that between the the the buffer and the parking lot by the by the trucks, uh we have another probably ninety feet or so.

So eventually from the food truck to the uh to the fence of the of the homes probably be like 150 feet or more and uh we want to have along the the the parking lot we want to have we could have we have vegetation, we we have landscaping and uh a fence, a wood fence, and uh if if allowed by the city we want to do a six-foot fence.

If we uh if we are allowed to do eight-foot fence, even better.

I mean, I the thing is we want to comply with regulations and be uh uh in harmony with the neighbors.

So how wide do you expect that landscape buffer to be?

Well, it has to be from side to side, whatever our property is.

All right, let me rephrase that.

How deep do you expect?

Oh uh Well, it has to be uh we could we can do any any greenity with uh if we can do bushes, we can do trees, certain trees that won't grow big enough where they can uh uh minimize the uh the sound that are we willing to do that uh the fence, which is if it's uh a tall fence, the the the the most we can get out of uh probably say food fence the most, and uh that's that's a good sound barrier plan.

Okay, so do you have a plan for a landscape buffer?

I mean like a physical plan for it.

I know that you've suggested that you're gonna put in bushes and trees, but if you specified it's gonna be uh an eight-foot buffer, it's gonna be a 10-foot buffer.

Have you developed that yet?

Uh we no, not uh we we're in the process of uh of uh we have pretty much everything uh we have that.

And the UDC would require at least a 15-foot uh buffer on that property line when they come in for permitting.

So there you go.

That's just gonna do that.

We can go that buffer is along the frontage.

Or are we talking about the rear?

The rear.

Yeah, on the back side of the property with where the neighbors are.

Yes.

So there's a C3 abutting and R4, but you know, the R4 use like that as a 15-foot type C buffer.

I was just curious if the 60-foot utility easement would cause a reduction or removal of that buffer.

I think it's on touchdown.

I'm also just gonna add, I know sorry, Joel.

Um there is a stipulation that if you're a budding, if it's a non-residential use on a residential use matrix, the um they kind of focus on a different district.

So we're not exactly certain.

It's not a hundred percent certain if a buffer would be required.

From an initial standpoint, I would say no.

So here is here because I I I'm reading that section in the buffer code.

And so usually when when you hear the word drainage, I mean utility easement, the an easement means that there's an underlying owner.

Do we know is is that a utility right is that a drainage right-of-way, or is is there is it truly an easement?

Give me a second, I can check.

Okay.

The the right-of-way would eliminate the buffer, right?

The right-of-way would probably eliminate the buffer, but if it was an easement, it's too big.

It's a massive concrete drainage channel.

So if we look at this plan here that's drawn up.

So one of the questions that I was wondering, and and I asked a question kind of with regards to the distance to the actual park itself versus the parking, what have you.

And one of the questions I would wonder is if if we look at this picture as it's oriented, and I'll just make an assumption that the north is on top.

So if we were to push it um south east so that there was just a single lane all the way around so that the vehicles could get to it and park, but not have parking there, um that basically would push it all the way against and you know, not providing any parking there, where they could provide parking on the other side and do double lane parking potentially.

And so is that a possibility there from that perspective?

Because I'm trying to find you know, provide the distance between the the neighbors, you know, the the the 200 foot and get you closer to 200 foot, because I think for your dialogue that puts it closer probably to 150 feet away or more and and may get to 200 feet or closer to that by eliminating that space there on top.

So does that make sense what it would have said to everybody?

So if we move it so that the the part the trucks are parking on the south, we'll say on the south portion of this, and they allows for space to move around for trucks only and no cars.

And so basically just parking and put and pushes everything south.

Yeah, so one issue would be is the code requires a 200 foot separation.

Can the board can list a specific number to reduce that?

But but that's to the property line or to the actual trucks?

It's to the property lines or property line.

So we may not be able to augment.

But it but if he said per design and he stated here's how he's going to design it, could that be done?

Yeah, we've we've had those kind of dialogue in the past.

Is that something that could be included in the case?

Because the uh language in the code is the property line of property line.

Um at that point you're adding a standard, um, which I don't think we've done before.

Um so if you're saying the nearest food truck can't be within, for example, a hundred feet, that's just introducing a new standard.

Uh and I don't believe we have done that before.

Okay.

Okay.

So we yeah, there's no there's no way to lock that into a motion.

So that's Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Uh regarding your the traffic, are you gonna have two-way traffic?

How wide is there your street?

Um like driveway and uh is yeah, what's considered that?

It's for two two vehicle lane and the fire and the fire lane has to, I mean, we have we decided like this because of the fire, fire code and fire lane, and uh it's it has enough space for for two vehicles at once.

And just real quick for the rear, it looks like there is a the 60-foot drainage easement, but there is also a 28-foot electrical and gas easement, which looks like it's half on the property and half with the drainage, so it looks like their rear drainage easement is part of the commercial lot.

No, the drainage easement is not, but the electrical and gas easement is.

Um half of it is part of is in the drainage easement and half of it is in the commercial lot.

So it looks like that's gonna take care of their buffer.

So they won't have a buffer.

Correct.

The easement that's on their property would take care of the required buffer, even if they were meant to put a buffer in there.

Okay.

Bragman?

Yes, Commissioner Braggman.

So if they wanted to put buffer, a landscape buffer, can they put it on top of that um utility easement that's on the commercial lot?

I would have to double check with uh our tree department.

Um I believe in previous cases I have heard that they do put it on top, but uh, I'd have to get verification from the tree department.

I mean, because it sounds like that's what he's wanting to do.

So and the point I was just making, it it just seems like it's not required.

Yeah.

Any other commissioner questions?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

And I know that so in the code there is you there's two types of buffers.

Um so one is a landscape buffer um that exists.

And I know that the example that I can think of is if you have an RE lot and you put in a sub-RE lot new plating, then it requires um a I want to say it's a 50-foot additional buffer on top of that, but it's not a landscape buffer.

Um and so can that be leveraged at all?

So I'm just trying to figure out how to add to the buffering there, because if we come up with the landscape buffer and potentially that other description of buffer, um, you know, I don't know.

So just trying to figure out how to get drive some more spacing using our existing code.

Ragman?

Yes, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh how tall a fence can he put up in the back there?

They can put up to an eight-foot fence.

Okay.

So you can put an eight-foot fence up in the back there.

We can do that.

Uh yes, commission.

Required six foot fence, but they can't put up eight-foot fence.

Uh the food trucks you have there, are they gonna plug in or are they gonna be off generators?

Uh it's gonna be plugged in.

Uh, power will be available for that for every truck.

Keep noise down.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh real quick, I got one for the city.

I guess it's just curiosity more than anything else.

If um if they were to put like uh a restaurant, a sports bar there, would they have this 200 foot buffer?

They would not.

Gotcha.

So they could and they could operate till two in the morning and and do their thing and as long as again that they're following nuisance ordinances.

Right.

Yeah.

But okay.

So restaurant, um 200 buffer food court.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Is there anyone signal to speak on this case?

No public comment.

Alrighty.

So at this time we're going to look for a motion and see how this turns out.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

So who would like to make a motion on this case?

Bragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103-00044.

I move the board of adjustment granted request for the elimination of the required 200 foot separation to allow the use of mobile food court within 200 feet of a residential lot or use situated at 9235 Marbach Road.

Applicant being Renee Morales, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have the terms 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 unnecessary hardship.

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

Granting this variance would adequately support the public interest in providing transitions between uses of varying intensity and the preservation of privacy and security for extendential uses.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would prevent the reasonable development of the subject property without substantial change to the proposed use or established lot configuration.

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

Granting this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the nearest residential single family uh zoning district is not occupied by single family residential use, but rather by drainage easement.

Four, the variance will not authorize the operation of the 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.

Their material thoroughfare in the surrounding area would not be substantially altered by the establishment of this use, which is permitted by right and appropriate for this area.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is do due to unique circumstances existing on the property and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property.

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

The plight of the owner for which the variance is sought is due to the zoning designation of the property abutting the north, being zoned by a single family residential use, but being occupied by a drainage easement.

Given the unlikelyhood that this property will be developed for single family residential use in the future, granting this variance is appropriate.

End of motion.

Second second by Commissioner Bonnyas.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I I think that the applicant has thought this through very well and wants to be a good citizen and a good uh neighbor to the residential area.

Um he said that he's gonna put in a landscape buffer.

He's gonna put in an eight-foot fence.

Um and that he's limiting the hours of operation.

There'll be no uh light that are gonna be cast directly into the the homes.

Um so I'll be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Beneas.

Yeah, I'll also be in support uh for all the um reasons listed by Commissioner Braggman.

I think this is a better alternative to other establishments you could put there.

Um I think it's more welcoming for families of the area.

So I'll be in support.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Matt.

Yes, Commissioner Manis?

So uh unfortunately I won't be in favor and simply um I just that um have some questions with regards to food courts, and then also because we don't have the ability to limit it, it is gonna potentially uh leave it a little bit more vulnerable for that neighborhood.

So I will not be supporting it.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Uh I just wanted to add that um yeah, I did find the plats, and staff was correct.

It it it it is a 60-foot drainage easement, it's not a right-of-way.

Um it uh apparently doesn't seem to have an owner.

It's very odd.

It was platted as an off-site easement a long, long time ago.

And uh there's also a 20-some odd foot variable width, uh electric and gas easement behind it.

So there's it's it's gonna be probably 80 feet before you hit the back fence of the next house.

So um I'll I'll be in support of this one.

So let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Boneth.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yabannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Valfeth.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I care if the findings the fact motion passes 9 to 1.

You have any questions you can get with staff.

All right, we are in item number 10.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.