All right.

Do we have uh we have 10 now?

Is there an eleventh that's gonna be joining us?

Uh Commissioner Bragman uh should be joining us online shortly.

She was online and uh she logged off.

We're gonna get started and get through some of this housekeeping.

103 hereby call this uh meeting of the Board of Adjustments into session.

If we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon, buenas tardes.

Las personas que prefieran escuchar la audiencia in espanhol, for favor passen a la cabina de la de atrás del lado derecho para que les demos un apparato de interpretación.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Staff, if you can please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Manna?

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bonnieas.

Here.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Chair Orion.

And I'm present.

So it looks like we have 10 seated at the moment, possibly an eleventh coming on soon.

If everyone could please stand and join me in the pledge.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republicans, one nation under the indivisible with every team justice for all.

Texas one state.

Undergone one and individual.

Well, good afternoon.

All right.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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

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

Special exceptions or variances are made to the district or county court at law based on the record of these proceedings.

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

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

Staff.

Thank you.

Staff will for the short presentation of the request.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, understand item number sixteen would like a continuance to May 4th.

Uh is there anyone signed up to speak on this case?

Uh nobody signed up to speak, but real quick, uh Commissioner Bragman.

Um can you turn your camera on, please?

I'm trying to I'm having trouble getting it turned on.

So we have items 11 and 16.

Oh, 11 would like one uh continues to May 4th.

All right, thank you.

Correct.

Um so item number 11 is BOA 261030055 for one foot specialization to allow a four-foot solid fence along the west side front, uh 10 foot clear vision in the front.

And located at 539 Kalamet place.

Um staff recommended denial.

And this is uh request for the May 4th.

All right.

Is there a motion to uh move continue this to May 4th?

Motion to continue uh to May 4th.

All right, is there second second?

Second by Commissioner Manna, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh motion carries cases continue to May 4th.

Item number 16.

Number 16 is BOA 26103065 for a variant from the UDC accessory structure uh to allow accessory structure in the side yard and a one-inch um accessory dwelling uh uh from the property line located at 330 emission street with staff recommended now requesting a continuance also to May 4th.

All right.

So moved.

Is there a second second?

Uh second by Commissioner Benavides.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion carries.

Uh that brings us to item number one.

Good afternoon, y'all.

This is case BOA 26103 00052.

The applicant is Felice De Novo.

It's in Council District 1.

The location is 519 West Kings Highway.

And the zoning is R6.

The request is for a two-foot 11-inch variance from the minimum required three-foot rear setback to allow an additional addition to an accessory structure to be one inch from the rear property line.

The subject property is located along the middle of the block face along West King Highway.

The applicant submitted plans to convert the current accessory structure into an uh accessory dwelling unit.

During the plan review process, city staff found that the rear setback of the structure encroached on the minimum required rear setback.

Given the proposed change of use, uh compliance was commissioner Braggman.

Could you mute your microphone, please?

Given the proposed change of use, compliance with setback standards is required for permit issuance.

The current edition is limited to approximately 15 feet in width and abuts the rear yard of the residential dwelling with not uh with structure in the rear yard, with not a structure in the rear yard.

The Alta Vista N C D limits accessory structures to 40 percent square footage of the principal structure, and the proposed development is under that limit.

The applicant has requested a variance from the standards uh from the standard to proceed.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and boa two six-103052 based on the following findings of fact.

The current uh there currently exists sufficient developable space on the property to place an accessory structure on the slot.

The reduced setback would lead to an increased research fire spread and water runoff.

We mailed 34 notices.

We got three in favor and one in opposition.

There were no voicemails.

And outside of 200 feet, the applicant provided 53 in favor and one in opposition.

The Alta Vista Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the applicant reached out to them and they did not respond.

That is the end of staff's presentation.

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

Please state your name and tell us about your project.

Good afternoon.

My name is Felice Denovo.

I am requesting a variance for a four by ten foot accessory storage structure attached to the rear of my garage.

I brought a simple diagram to help illustrate the location of the structure.

If you can display this.

Oh, the photos are not showing.

There we are.

Okay.

The structure allows passage from one side of the garage to the other and is used for normal residential storage.

It has not impacted it has not impacted neighboring properties or the character of the neighborhood.

Can we display the selected community support?

No, that is not it.

It's the one I handed her.

There we are.

Okay.

I made a good faith effort to reach out to neighbors and community contacts and receive support or no objection.

The adjacent rear neighbor, uh, the most directly affected, expressed no concerns and described me as a responsible neighbor.

Others describe the structure as small, clean, and not an eye sore.

And the architect who evaluated my garage conversion also visited the property and supported this addition.

Oh well, before we go to that, can you display this?

Oh, mine is hard.

So that oh, there we go.

Um sorry for the um yeah, doesn't look great.

The one I submit it looks much better.

Okay.

Um so I uh went around the neighborhood and handed out some uh little door hangers uh so that we can I don't know solicit more response from the properties within 200 feet of my property, and um I submitted those today.

Uh so in all, we got 59 in favor responses, and then three were directly emailed to Sean, my case manager.

Okay.

Um we display collage number two now.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh we can't hear the boardroom is on mute.

All right, thank you for letting us know.

I have to start over.

I don't think I've heard that one before, but uh can you hear us now?

Yep, we can hear you now.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Um the structure was built prior to this request, and I am here to grant uh to complete the proper process and ask the board to evaluate it based on the variance criteria.

Granting the variance would allow reasonable residential use of the property while maintaining the intent and spirit of the ordinance, and it would not adversely affect neighboring properties or the character of the neighborhood.

Would you uh go ahead and just as I understand it from my uh uh plan developer, uh the variance that I'm requesting is one foot away from the setback, not one inch.

That's what I'm you did?

Okay.

All right then.

Uh so um yeah, thank you for your consideration.

Um you asked about gutters and uh I one of the oh it should be the top picture.

Are you displaying this one?

Because this is the relight.

No, that yeah, that's good.

There you go.

So I mean it's kind of hard to see, but yeah, I do have a gutter.

Okay.

So quick question.

Uh the aerial is uh is a little uh tough to see what's directly behind the storage.

Uh there's some trees there.

Uh is there does your does your neighbor directly behind you have the structure immediately behind this element?

No, he doesn't.

Um there was his fence and um and then there was like a foot between both of our fences, and for some reason he took down the fence.

Okay.

But he he does have something not in front of the structure, but in the corner.

It looks like a lot of the your neighbors have something similar to yours, something very close to the rear property line.

I was just curious if if the if he had something, it just wasn't in the plane of this addition.

Um as far as I could see, it just looked like a big space of kind of grass.

Okay.

And then they would park far away from my structure.

Okay.

Any other qu Commissioner questions?

Yeah, I'll let bump out that little section you said that there's a gutter, but I don't I don't see a gutter from the picture.

So small.

Uh can you display this one again?

Um do you have a pointer that you want to put this whatever?

Yes and no, I see that gutter, but the actual bump out the the section against the fence line, does that have a gutter?

Um I see the gutter on the No the leaf guard company for some reason didn't put it there.

Okay.

I think that would be some of our concern of the drainage because you know anything coming off of that structure is gonna go directly to the to your neighboring property.

Okay.

Yeah, I can always call leaf gutter back out.

I mean I just got them um two two, three months ago.

Yeah.

Commissioner Zoom.

Yeah, from staff, did we confirm was it a one foot or one inch from the rear property line?

It's one inch.

One inch from the property line.

The next question is if the variance was to be approved today, is there any building permit or or fire barrier or something that she'd have to comply with or uh between that structure and the adjoining?

It would have to go through the plan review process because she's uh upgrading it to an ADD ADU, so it would most likely, yes.

I think and which would incur a fire review and as far as I'm aware, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

How do you maintain that side of the addition being one inch from your property line?

Uh there are leaves.

Um I mean I have the the shop back if I want to vacuum up the leaves.

Is that what you mean?

Well, just generally how how would you maintain the structure like paint repair?

Oh paint?

Um repair.

Well, the in the normal weight, I don't see uh barrier.

There's there's one inch between the side of the building and your property line, so I'm just curious how you would maintain that side of the building.

Like paint?

Uh maybe?

Painting?

Like, I mean, I'm just wondering what what would be necessary to Well, the siding that's up against the fence.

Yeah.

I mean we could take off the the things from inside and then you know, work from the inside.

There are um supplies such as paint, cleaning, um, and the shelves are like 12 inches wide.

Um, okay.

Anyone else?

What uh yes, yes, Commissioner Dean.

Uh Reed, sorry.

And maybe um maybe we're not seeing everything with this image, but I'm assuming if I'm looking at this sort of covered storage area on the left side, I is there a soding between the storage area and the fence, or is that open?

Yeah, there is siding.

Uh okay.

I think I said that's the question how do you maintain that siding if there's no space to access it between the fence and the exterior.

Right.

Right, the exterior.

So as I was saying, we would probably have to go from the inside and remove uh the things that I have inside the storage.

Uh take down the boards and replace the boards that way.

Okay.

I are you storing anything flammable in there?

Is that those paint cans or what's in there?

Uh paint.

Okay.

All right.

Uh if there's no other questions, is there anyone standing to speak?

No public comment?

One more for the applicant.

Yes, Commissioner.

So uh when you convert this to an ADU with that little bump out section, is that going to be is that will that remain a storage or is that going to be living area?

No, it will remain storage.

There um by the way, oh it's kind of hard to see, but I j I just put a fire blanket and the I can't even see it there, but that's it if you want to point at it on top of the tennis false.

Can you see that?

It's red.

It's a fire blanket.

Um but I mean, if I needed to if I was asked to remove anything flammable, I would do that.

Okay.

Let's see, is there's uh public input?

Chair, before we go input.

Um in the past we have requested structures that were one inch or on the property line that they bring a um of the owner on the other side that would allow them to their property to repair anything.

So for example, taking down the fence to have to repair something.

Did you uh have you discussed that with your neighbor a maintenance access easement?

No, I didn't think about that.

Um I think he would be amenable.

He's the one that called me a good neighbor.

So he's he's one of the people that voted in favor.

We've done we've seen projects like this where they're right one inch or on the property line.

Um if you were to put gutters on that bump out, you would probably have to uh go and ask him to go on his properties so that you could put them on.

Um but also um having access to that side of the wall if you need to repair it.

And we've asked for a letter of consent that would allow you to do that from that property owner.

Um so I don't know if maybe Yeah, well, I I would actually need a recorded easement for to make me happy about it.

Um is anyone else on this commission uh like to offer uh continuance to have her entertain that such a thing, or do you want to uh move forward on this today?

Well, I'd say that uh given that that you want to convert the shed, having a shed one inch from the property line is one thing, but this being converted into a residence inherently creates more of a fire risk.

So that's that's my concern, being one inch off the property line, a buddy and a wooden fence in a pretty dense neighborhood, but I think an access easement would be for me the bare minimum.

Okay.

So is anyone uh like to see that?

Would that would anyone else like to support that?

Okay.

So I'm gonna how much time would you need to discuss this with your neighbor to look into acquiring such an eye?

We can't force anybody to do anything or put conditions.

That is just something that we have liked to see in the past, uh, where somebody uh didn't didn't attain one and and found the letter?

And found no uh a recorded access easement, a permanent access easement, so that you would have a legal right to do that.

Okay.

And so if you would like some time to entertain that, um that might be helpful to you.

Otherwise we can move forward uh today.

Here I would before we move on, um I I'm a little concerned as Commissioner Stevens pointed out.

Um a little confused.

So this space that's bumping out that is now currently storage, that is going to be part of the redesign for this ADU.

Yeah, the structure is going to be converted to an ADU, so there'll be it would be living.

No, I'm sorry, that's not correct.

You're it's not gonna be an ADU?

No, somebody asked me that already, and it's gonna remain.

A garage.

Well, the structure is there a second floor ADU on there?

Is any is there second floor?

No.

No apartment on the first or it's only for cars, or what do you what is the structure using for?

So the structure is going to be ADU.

I think what she's referring to is that portion of it is going to remain storage.

So that portion that we are looking at and the portion that's one inch from the property line will remain storage.

And what about the rest of the structure?

The rest of the structure will be an ADU.

Okay.

So there you go.

So there you go.

Well, half of it is garage.

And half of it will remain garage.

Okay.

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

And so I was what is the distance of the existing structure to the back fence without the um the extension?

Because that looks also close.

So where where did that come in, I guess, for the original ADU backing up to the fence.

And is that five foot there then?

Roughly?

So it's Roughly.

Okay.

So personally, I'm I'm ready to vote on this today.

If somebody would like to make a motion for continuance, I will be happy to second it.

Can I say something?

Okay.

So uh yes.

Oh, um I mean if anybody has doubts, I I will be glad to get that, whatever you asked for.

It's it's um if a commissioner would like to see that, we'll we'll entertain a motion for it.

Otherwise, uh we'll vote on this as is.

If there's no one signed to the speak.

Nobody?

All right, I'm looking for a public comment.

I'm looking for a commissioner to make a motion on this case.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

I'm gonna read it as is.

Um regarding case number BOA two six one zero three.

Let's see, hold on a second.

So okay.

I'm gonna actually back up for a second here.

So with regards to the existing structure um that's not part of this dialogue at all.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Um they only require a three-foot um setback with no overhang.

So the structure that originated there without the pop-out is not.

Okay.

Thank you then.

Okay.

Regarding case number B08 um 26103 00052.

I move that the board adjustment, grant a request for a two-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required three-foot rear setback to allow an addition to an accessory structure to be one inch from the rear property line situated at 519 West Kings Highway.

How can it be in Felice uh de novo?

Because the test might present us and the facts that we determined show that the physical characters property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there is no increased risk of fire and water runoff as a distance from the structure to the uh next closest structure is sufficient to mitigate this risk.

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

The special condition on this property is the location of the existing accessory structure, leaving little room for additions to the rear.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback would not lead to the increased risk of water runoff or fire spread.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation between accessory structure and the next closest structure to the rear.

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

The apply to the owner property is due to unique circumstances of the current configuration of the accessory structure, leaving little room for approvement in the rear end of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna?

So one of the things um we always look at is uh you know that the safety of the community itself.

And whenever it is that we start to encroach you know and get this close to lines, it it it becomes a little problematic for me.

And and and then also for you know for the for the structure as part of it is an ADU, you know, that basically increases that risk.

And and I don't know that that at that point that this is uh what is it appropriate structure for my perspective?

And so I will not be supporting the motion.

I apologize.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yeah, I concur with Commissioner Manna.

I think you're in a position where if you want to turn this into an ADU, you probably have to chop off that three-foot storage area and then you're fine.

It's just so close to the fence line that I think it becomes a fire risk when you're you're creating a residential unit out of this space.

So I will not be in favor.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Zuna?

I would just uh inform my colleagues here that any structure would have to go to the building permit review, which includes a fire uh fire review.

And so that may include you know, fireproofing that side or doing whatever she needs to uh remediate that area for fire um compliance.

Okay.

Anyone else like to add?

I'm just gonna chime in.

I I I can't be behind this one for two reasons.

Um it it there's plenty of room on the left side of the building to do such a pop-out for storage.

The storage is not accessed from within the space, and uh the reduction in fire uh the below the three feet is just I can't get behind that, especially since if it did have to be rated, you can't have open glazing like that anyway.

So I just I don't see how this could be uh co-compliant even if we did allow it to move forward.

So I'll be able to do that.

On the left side uh so with that we'll have a roll call vote, please.

Okay, Commissioner Mana.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Uh no, I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I did not concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

No, I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

No.

Commissioner Osuna.

Yes, I concur.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur.

Uh, motion fails one to ten.

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

Okay.

Item two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Flayos.

I'm a senior planner with development services.

Item number two is BOA-26-103024 at 335 East Park Avenue.

It's within uh Council District 1.

The applicant is uh Killing Griffin and Ferramon, and they are requesting a special exception to allow for one additional type 2 short-term rental on the block face, and the current zoning is R6 for residential single family.

Uh again, the such a properties located at 335 East Park.

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

Again, they are requesting a special exception to allow for an additional type two on the block face.

Um per section 35-374.01 of the city code, type two short-term rentals shall be limited to no more than one-eighth of the total number of units on a block phase.

So this is the type two density count.

Um there are 33 units on this block face.

It ranges it goes from 315 to 645.

Um there are four active type 2s currently on this block face located at 327 East Park.

Um, all four are grandfathered.

Um so currently the block face is at 12.1 percent.

And if this additional type two is approved, it'll be at 15 percent, which exceeds our density cap for type twos.

Um there are no code violations or investigations and no active listings.

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

For the special exception, staff recommends a denial of the applicant's request.

And this is the notification plan.

Uh we mailed out 42 notices.

We received two in favor to an opposition.

The Tobin Hill communities um neighbor association is in opposition.

Uh we had no response from the District 1 resident association and then no response from the community groups.

Uh and this concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is present.

Thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

At least state your name, tell us about your SDR.

Great.

Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners.

Ashley Fairman with Killing Griffin and Fairmon.

Uh nice to see you all again.

Um if you recall, I think almost everybody was here last time uh we continued this case from the last meeting.

Uh just to provide a little bit more information.

Do you have a presentation?

Uh while he's pulling that up.

I I do want to mention, and I I didn't mention it last time, I wouldn't know if I was allowed to.

Um, but this case, the request for the special exception did come before you guys about 15, 16 months ago, and it was denied at that point.

Um there is ongoing litigation related to this um property and the the denial of that.

Um and as part of that, the parties in the litigation agreed that with one STR less on the block now since the litigation started, that it would be appropriate to come back to the board to consider it again.

So that case is ongoing, but that is why we are making the request again.

I just want to make sure you guys are aware of that.

So just to be clear, there were two, and you were trying to add a third 15 months ago, and now there's one in your trying to address it.

So there were five.

Oh, geez.

It's because there's the four in the building next door.

So the only other STR2s on the block are right next door in one structure.

Um there was another one, and so that fifth one is now no longer an STR2.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um I know you guys have a lot on your plate today, so I will not do the full presentation again.

Um, but just to recap, again, we're asking for the special exception.

Um here is that property at 335 East Park, the one to the left on the same side of the street, that is where the four STR2s are located.

Um, and just while looking at this map, just so you guys are aware, the property across the street.

Um, that neighbor is in support, and then the property immediately next door to the right in this picture, they are also in support.

Um, here's what the structure looks like now.

Um, as I mentioned last time, there's been 201,000 that went into the renovation once it was purchased.

Um, and I do have a picture from before, a little bit further in the presentation, but here's the back of the structure.

Um again, two-story built in 1909.

It is part of the Tobin Hill Historic District, so meaning every structure is considered historic within that district unless deemed otherwise by historic staff.

Uh and then there's just a list of the renovations that were completed to bring this really up to kind of what it what it should be, we'll say.

Um here's just a map from 2024 that shows where that fifth STR used to be, uh, to the left of the one with the four.

And then the current STRs.

Um I'll get into this a little bit later, but part of the history on the property was the owner when he purchased it, um, did believe he could do an STR in this property.

I know I went through that last time, but just a reminder, and it at that time it was not very clear at all, or any information really regarding that the property next door had four STRs as opposed to one.

Um so he purchased the property and got a loan to buy it and to do the renovations, began those renovations, applied for an STR2 permit, and was denied uh due to the density on the block.

Um and just also a reminder you cannot apply for a permit unless you own the property.

So again, that is a risk.

Um so just again, some pictures of the interior of the structure since the renovation.

So one of the special exceptions and allowances that we talked about last time was for historic uh distress structures.

So here's the code section, the applicant must demonstrate and the board must find the restoration of a historic landmark or structure is a valuable addition to the quality and the character of the city.

So our position is that restoration of historic structures is of great value to the city.

Um we do not want the historic structures to be demolished and want to keep them obviously in perpetuity.

So reinvesting in those structures is something that should be encouraged, and I think that's why it's part of this of the ordinance.

Um with STRs, does that give the ability to invest in these structures and keep them?

So here is a picture of what the structure looked like when it was purchased.

Um and then we don't have too many, there weren't a lot of pictures taken, but just kind of to demonstrate that is a picture of the front, and then you know the interior, a lot of issues.

That window I included because it was sheetrocked from the inside.

Um so a lot of things that had to be fixed with this to really to make it habitable.

And the the back, that's kind of mid-renovation where you can see the back deck being added to the second story.

And then here's what the structure looks like now.

So I don't think anyone would disagree that this hasn't been a good investment in this historic property, and it's it's really a beautiful street if you drive down and see the homes there.

Uh, the second part of this section of the code is so it's restoration of historic structure or uh so that is our first position.

We believe that it qualifies for a density um extra density allowance because it is a valuable character to the historic.

The rest of the this section says there's proof that the only only economically feasible way to finance the preservation of the structure is with an STR, and then the board agrees that it doesn't impact the residential quality.

So just some additional financial information, which you all requested last time.

Again, as I mentioned, nothing to indicate the density limitations were already met on the block face.

Began the reserve uh renovations applied for the STR permit and denied.

But at that point, you have a loan, you're already in so completed the renovations of that.

And so spent uh $201,000 doing that.

This is the whole budget.

Um it's small, but if anybody wants to dig into the numbers, that is the actual amount of money spent on the renovations.

Um when the STR uh permit was denied, the owner then listed the structure.

It was listed for um almost all of 2024, um, reduced the price a few times but could not sell it.

So went back then to look at again applying for the STR density exception from you all, um, and that was not granted.

So then the and so it was not sold, no STR.

So the only option then is to lease for 30 days or longer either through Airbnb or someone who does the long-term leases or a long-term 12-month, say six-month lease.

So the issue with that, um, and this is just kind of the monthly holding costs on the property, and this is really where you know some of the financial issues come in with regards to the STR uh permit exception.

So you spent the um $520,000 on the house, $201,000 in renovations, and then these are the monthly holding costs.

So this has been going on now since the property is purchased in July.

Um and and this is just a kind of a typical month.

I mean, I that can fluctuate a little bit.

But so this property is obviously losing money.

Um and it was programmed as an STR really property, and so when you couldn't sell it, um, you know, we're kind of left with what what to do.

And so this is the month again, monthly costs.

Um it is far more financially feasible to um rent as an STR than on the longer terms, particularly the 30 day or so.

Um and so I'm happy to answer any questions, but this is kind of where we are.

Um I'm glad you brought all that up.

That's what I wanted to information I wanted to know from the last time this was here.

But uh what my my question is when it when it was on the market, what were you asking?

Um so I have that for you.

It started off at I can tell you it started at 850 and it got down to I believe 779.

Okay.

And what is the going rate for a house in pristine shape in that area?

Do you have it?

Do you know?

I don't know.

Okay.

Yeah, no one.

Because you're getting uh getting really close to the money you spent on it, especially if you had two years of taxes and insurance and whatnot.

So yeah.

So okay.

Is there any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Reed.

Um let me uh Yes.

If this were to be um use a STR.

What's the occupancy?

So there, I guess you can go back to the site plan, sorry.

Oh there you go.

So you can see here that there's should be four bedrooms on here and two baths.

Okay, so say eight people.

How much parking is provided off off street?

Um there's a very long driveway on the property.

So you could fit at least three cars on there at least.

Okay.

I don't have a great shot of it, but it's in front of that gate and behind that gate.

Commissioner's unit.

Yeah, this question is for staff regarding that exemption for historic structures redevelopment and and providing exemption from the short term or ability for more of an administrative grant.

How how many of those have been approved or I I just don't see those often.

I don't know what the I believe we don't have many that uh utilize this section of the code.

It's usually just section 35-37401 about special exception.

We hardly see one using the historic distressed.

So almost none.

This is what I'm saying.

I would say none.

All right.

Chair, I think Yes, Commissioner Ivan, yes.

Um did you meet again with Tobin Hill to see if you could change their mind about and show the numbers to them about what the investment We reached back out and they didn't respond.

And as I mentioned the last time, uh Tobin Hill is one of the neighborhoods in District 1 that is saturated, just saturated with STRs.

The other one is District 2.

Um for me, it's really hard for me to vote for this if the neighborhood association is opposing it.

Um I was really hoping that you could have We were hoping they'd meet with us too, but they as we talked about last time, they just have that blanket no policy.

Anyone else?

Yeah, Bonus.

Commissioner Bonis.

Uh have you uh looked at the current market rents and what that would go for, like with a long-term tenant for this property?

It's about $3,000 a month.

Right, and your notes 44, right?

So thank you.

Commissioner Manning?

And so it's and so to follow up on part of the dialogue, you know, one of things I always look at is that density and the saturation in the community.

And within a quarter mile perimeter, there's like 33 other short-term rentals.

So this not only is the whole area but this block or this these two blocks are also pretty high density.

So I do uh uh struggle with that.

And then again, reiterating with regards to Tobin Hill, and so um so I do have some concerns there.

So we sorry, just in saying we recognize that it's it's difficult.

Um it's difficult to be here too making the request.

Um we appreciate you all's consideration.

Um it's hard being next door to a building also that has four STRs.

Um and so I know that I know some of you would never vote for a STR density exception.

Um, but we think this one is unique in where it's located and then the circumstances regarding the historic renovation.

And if this were to pass it, it it would be at 14 percent?

Fifteen.

Fifteen.

Okay.

Uh is there anyone to speak?

No public comment?

Okay.

All right.

Is there any other questions?

Uh Bonnie, as real quick, could we put that um historic uh uh what she's trying to get the exemption like her her argument is those three criteria, right?

The um sorry.

Yep.

And this is your main argument, right?

Like this this is the main thing you're going off of is right now.

Our main argument is it's there's two parts of this.

It's one that it's a valuable addition to the character.

And then or in the alternative, the economic feasibility.

Do you know how long this property was vacant before it was uh purchased?

I know that I I don't know how long it was vacant, but I do know that the previous owner had purchased it with the intent of renovating it, did some renovations and did not finish.

The owner now came in, purchased it, had to basically redo all of that work and kind of start over.

So the the previous one could not finish it.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yeah, it's just a follow-up question.

Um so the code, I guess section reads that a special exemption approval to operate short-term describing section may be granted for the following stru structures and then it goes itemizes them.

So it may be granted.

Who has a granting authority?

Is it within administrative or the board has the ability to grant it?

So we hear we have a viable.

Or few.

What the two.

But we've never, there's never been a granting of the section within.

So why have this section if it's never uh I I think I I want to say I've heard somebody hint at it.

I don't think that we ever used it.

Uh we brought it up before.

Yeah, you'll do it.

I remember.

Maybe it was it was yours.

Okay.

That had to have been it.

Same property.

Chair, if we use these three bullets from uh this section, um it is a fact that they have they meet that criteria uh regardless of how Tobin Hill neighborhood association feels about it.

Well, my my thing about this is is that if Tobin Hill is always going to say no, I I kind of have to put some weight on on that.

But for this for this issue, you know, the house is the house is either going to remain dilapidated because no one's gonna buy it and sink all that money into it to have something there where they're upside down in.

And the one thing that that is so great about STRs is they only have a three-year shelf life.

This applicant will have to come back here every three years, and possibly in three years, maybe they won't have uh as much of a uh uh uh debt on the property, and perhaps they could uh attempt to sell it uh and and get this into somebody's hands instead of being a short-term rental.

I have no I personally don't have an issue with giving them three years to just to try to get you know not be underwater on the property, but that's just what I think.

I just follow up.

So the adjoining properties that has a short-term rentals, don't those licenses also come up for grandfather, grandfather.

They're all grandfathered, all four of them.

So they can they're locked in as long as they want to be there.

Um and so I I have to take that in consideration as well.

Um that effectively locks out any structures on this block if anybody wants to kind of go through a redevelopment of any and and just to be uh just also if if the property needs to be repaired, and the 200,000 dollars is a lot of repair.

If it needs to be repaired, they're not even allowed to ask for an SDR until it's in a livable condition, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So I mean there's a reason why this the section is.

Can I answer one question?

Sorry, I guess.

Yes, go ahead.

It's four years on the vacancy.

And Mana.

Commissioner Mann.

So follow yeah, follow up on this line.

So if I understood correctly, the city does not have the ability to look at these three points, and these are the three points that are done by the board, or do the city consider these three points as well.

And the reason I'm asking that question is what what is you know, I guess why was your position if it if it is the case that the city can make the decision, why is it, or what what about these points did you not consider was relevant for this particular dialogue.

We we base our decision off the special exception type two and the density rules.

So this would leave it up to the board.

Yep.

And and I just like to say something here.

You know, it you know, your your third point on there would say, you know, it adver it, you know, how does this adversely impact the residential quality of the neighborhood?

I think it being vacant for four years it adversely affects it more than it being, you know, fixed up and running as another STR.

So you know, in my opinion, I I I think they meet all three of the criteria.

Well, I like seeing the green check marks on the neighbor across the street and next door, so that that doesn't seem to be adversely affecting them.

Dean.

Commissioner Dean.

Uh you had talked about that your current situation is you're doing 30 days or greater or greater.

Um do you have economics on that?

Um I can yeah, I can give you a little bit of information on that.

So those are about for a month, about 2800 um on the 30-day plus leases.

The issue there is you lease for 30 days, and then say you have somebody who leases month of January, and then the next interested person says I would like to come March or February 20th.

Then you have basically 20 days, you cannot rent the structure in between because they have to be 30 days or longer.

Um so they're about like about 2800 for 30 days on that, but it leaves a lot of vacancy um in the calendar year.

Okay.

Anyone else have any other questions?

All right.

Then I'm looking for a motion.

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103024, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated at 335 East Park Avenue, applicant being Killing Griffin in Ferramont PLLC because of testimony presented to us.

And the facts of the determined show that the physical physical character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The neighboring properties consist of single family and multifamily structures.

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

D adequate utilities, access road storm, drainage, uh recreation, open space, and other necessary facilities have been or being provided.

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

E.

The applicant or owner for the special exception does not have any previously revoked short-term rentals license.

Confirmed citations are adjudicated offenses, convictions for violations of Chapter 16, Article 22 of the City Code within one prior year of the date of the application.

The applicant owner does not have any previously confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses, offenses, convictions.

There have been two short-term rental licenses revoked at other properties, but not within the last 12 months.

F the special exemption will not alter the essential character of this district and locations for which the property for which the special exemption is sought.

Subject property is located in close proximity to other residential, with the property owner providing all-street park and maintaining it from the next and maintaining it from the neighboring property.

The special exemption does not appear to also to alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property is seeking the special exemption and emotion.

Second by Commissioner But he is Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, so I will be supporting the motion.

I mean, there reason the these items were built into the code, I guess, to address situations specific to this.

I think the prior use of the property is distressed.

You know, ha has to have some economic benefit, and the short term rental was proven to me that is the only economic benefit.

We did see some opposition from the neighborhood association, but to me it's kind of a blanket.

And that is almost offset by the fact that we we lost one of the short-term rentals, so it's not as dense as it would have been prior because of that.

Uh short-term rental license that was taken off of that mark of that street, East Park Avenue.

So the density impact is less, and then of course, is a there's a four-year permit only, give them a kind of a test period to see how it runs, and then if it's not working out, they're they're back before the board, and we're gonna revoke it.

So that's my thought.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Boniz.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in support as well.

I agree with Commissioner Ozuna.

Also, you know, regardless of how Dobin Hill feels or how any of us feel, I think they meet the three criteria here for the special exemption.

Um so just just both of that, I'm in favor.

Yeah.

Anyone else?

Uh Ivan Yes.

Commissioner Bonne.

Normally I would not vote for this because of my concern of the density in District 1.

Um, and because the opposition from the neighborhood association.

But I'm gonna use the facts from this special exemption, UGC 35 389.03, number um H and the three bullets under number one for distress structures.

I'm using that as my uh support for the um applicants' requests.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh and I would like to just say that uh if this were to pass today in three years, I'd we'll see how they are financially at that point.

But so, but I think they should they should they should get at least a three year, so I'll be in support of this.

Uh let's have a roll call vote.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Dean.

To me, uh to me, the economics, you know, I when I heard the 30 days that they're making 20 approximate 28, I think that's uh a reasonable economic number.

Um, uh from the numbers I seen that you depreciate over the 30 years or um whatever term that they had.

Um just some quick analysis that I was doing.

I think um it doesn't warrant um you know uh a special exception because I think uh you know if you rent it long term for 28 um what was it, 2800 a month.

Um I think they would be doing well for 30 years.

So I will not be in favor.

All right.

Um anyone else?

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reid.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

Uh and I concur.

Motion does fail seven to four.

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

Item three.

And following the other.

Uh Tyler Adam, uh, Plan Air Development Services.

Uh this is BOA 261030018.

Um address is 221 IRA Avenue in Council District 2.

Applicant, it's Tim Hendricks.

And this is a request for a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short term rental permit on the block face that is the type 2.

And property is zone multifamily.

As mentioned, the subject property is located at 221 IRA Avenue.

Surrounding uses include residential single family and multifamily.

The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short-term rental permit on the block face per city code.

Type 2 short-term rental shall be limited to no more than one eighth or 12.5% of the total units on the block face.

No property shall be eligible to obtain short-term rental permits by utilizing multiple block faces.

All units on a lot must be assessed as being solely on one block face.

Block face uh density is currently sitting at 11% with this uh request is approved, that'll bring the density up to 22%.

Uh the original um short-term rental permit for unit one was issued in October of 2020.

It has been renewed and does not expire until October 15th of 2026.

Uh December 3rd, 2025, the applicant submitted um an application for unit two.

Uh the applicant did submit this as 201 Wesley, but uh there is not an approved address verification on record for this address, and as mentioned, no property shall be eligible to obtain short-term rental permits by utilizing multiple block faces.

Uh there was a code investigation for operating without a short-term rental permit, um, opened October 11th, 2025, um, and was um issued an administrative hearing citation in November November 18th of 2025, and February 6th, 2026, the owner was held liable for operating a short-term rental without a permit.

Um and uh this case was continued from March 23rd in that time because of concerns brought up at the last meeting.

Um code uh code enforcement has issued um other citations, including right of way citations for visual obstructions uh for overgrown vegetation, um, a citation for improper residential refuse placement regarding their trash cans, as well as an unpermitted fence material citation for a corrugated fence.

Um this was the active listing for the property, uh the site plan and then the subject property as well as the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request.

Uh 33 notices were mailed.

Uh one was was one was received in favor, three in opposition.

Uh we've received no voicemails uh for this uh case.

Um and the applicant was able to speak with Menke Park Neighborhood Association.

Um, however, their stance remains in opposition and no response from the six citywide groups.

Um and we do have uh code enforcement um here uh today in case you have questions about those new violations.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name.

Tell us about USDR.

Tim Hendricks, thank you guys and ladies for having me back here.

Uh if you recall, I was I was here last month.

Uh just a brief refresher.

I purchased this property in 2020.

Uh the duplex.

Uh we I obtained a short-term rental permit and have been operating it as a short-term rental for the last almost six years.

Uh I was not aware up until last fall that I needed two individual permits for each side of the property.

Uh the addressing 201 Wesley versus 221 IRA.

It was not uh an intent to try to subvert any rules.

Those are the addresses that I pay my CPS and SAWS bills to.

Uh, since I bought it, it's had those two addresses.

Um, and that's how I've I've operated in it, and when the code violation was issued, I'm like, okay, I need to apply for a permit for that other address.

Um last time we were here, I met with the Mankey Park Neighborhood Association.

I understand I learned this morning that they were not in support.

Uh I did meet with their land use committee of the two members that were willing to voice their opinion at the meeting.

One was in favor, one was against, but I understand the board as a whole uh came out and said they were not in favor of proceeding.

Um I do think this is a little bit of a unique property that it does sit on a corner, and I understand the block face requirements.

These are both very small units, less than 500 square feet.

And what using one of these small units is an STR would do for traffic and occupancy and parking versus a three or four five-bedroom house.

I don't know that it's an apples to apples comparison.

The code violation issues.

All right.

Is there any commissioner questions?

Bonios.

Commissioner Bunice.

How did you get CPS to split the bills like that?

It was nothing I did when I purchased the property.

There were two meters and two accounts, just continued service the way it had been set up.

I guess it's the and then city for that.

They didn't need like an address verification.

I know it says there's not one on record, but isn't there usually something like that needed from CPS?

Like when I've tried to you know turn on stuff and it didn't like addressing does it look right on their end, they'll say, hey, you need a address verification letter before they turn on.

We would have to get with CPS and find out the history.

But if the two meters have been sorry.

If the two meters have been existing, um CPS may not have questioned the reconnection for switching over to a new owner, but we can always get clarification on that from CPS.

But knowing the area and seeing how old the property is, it's likely they've just been existing.

Was this property ever referenced in any other way as 201 Wesley?

It's always just not just on the application that we have for the STR.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh is there an assignment to speak on this case?

No comment.

All right.

If there's no more questions, uh thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

There was is there any time to speak on item three?

Oh, wait a minute.

I have the wrong case number.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Oh, apologize.

Let's call the first name.

Bruce Martin.

Hello, please state your name for the record.

We're recording all this and tell us your thoughts.

Thank you.

My name is Bruce Martin.

I live at 458 Pershing in San Antonio.

This is my neighborhood.

Um, I'd like to just recognize the board.

Uh thank you for the hard work that you do.

I was a former board of adjustment member chairman for a number of years.

Um recognize what staff has done, which I think is a good recommendation that there are no unique circumstances that justify doubling the uh the number of short-term rentals on this street.

And from the map, it's a little difficult to tell, but it is only a two-block long street.

So there's there's a very compressed area.

Um I think they've done a good job on evaluating uh it's also a narrow street, and I think it's pretty straightforward, quite honestly.

Thank you very much for your consideration of uh denying this special exception to double the number of short-term rentals on IRA Avenue.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm on our land use committee in the neighborhood for many years, has a committee that meets with applicants for uh zoning changes, variants, especially obsections.

Uh the committee is made up of people with experience in our neighborhood on these types of of changes, and uh currently it consists of two uh includes two architects and uh and one attorney.

And the way the committee works is we meet with an applicant, we make a recommendation to the board of directors of the neighborhood association, and the board decides uh on that uh that recommendation.

We we met with Mr.

Hendricks on April the 8th.

We found uh no justification for this variance and that it was not in the public interest, and we made that recommendation to the board which voted uh to uh oppose.

Uh in addition, one of the things the committee uh considers is the uh uh opinion of the neighbors that are most closely uh uh affected by this, and we found significant uh opposition from the neighbors.

Uh the the owner is uh uh real estate professional, he uh tells us that he manages long-term rentals.

Uh he uses an agent to manage his short-term rentals.

So uh he's perfectly capable of making this second unit a long-term rental.

And there's a there's a robust rental market uh property for long-term rentals uh in this part of the neighborhood.

Uh and as mentioned in a prior uh presentation, there there's a pretty high density of short-term rentals in district two.

And in this area, I don't know if you have the map, but uh there's there's also one at 216 Eleanor, which is the property uh immediately to the north of this property.

Uh there's a one across the street at 202 IRA.

There's two on the next block east, which is uh 335 and 337 IRA, and there's one on Mulberry, which is one block to the south.

So uh we have a lot of short-term rentals in this area, and and this just uh would not be in the interest of the neighborhood to grant uh this special exception.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, last one, Ms.

Sandra Burge.

Hello, I'm back.

I'm Sandra Burge.

I live at 220 Ira Avenue, directly across the street from this property, and I'm here in opposition to adding another short-term rental on my street.

Um I see no particular advantage to having short-term rentals on a street in a neighborhood.

I I moved here because I like neighbors, and this is just a very warm neighborhood, and Mankey Park is just a great place to live.

Uh I was out of the country in January, and when there was that hard freeze that came along, it was my neighbors who moved in, kind of moved along and took care of my house.

Uh they shut up the water so my pipes wouldn't freeze.

Um, and then they turned it back on again to water my brand new trees that I have in the yard.

So I'm really grateful to live in a place that has neighbors like that.

So giving um a property for short-term rental means that's giving giving away a possible neighbor that I could have.

And also I I think a lot of people think of short-term rentals as rentals, but they are businesses.

They don't have residents living there that can be my friend or my enemy or um so or be somebody who's part of the community.

So I had complaints about this property before when I was here before.

One is about the garbage cans that the cans that live in the street, the green ones, the blue ones, the brown ones, all live in the street.

They still live in the street four weeks later.

Parking is also an issue because there's lots of off-street parking, so most of the homeowners on the street or the the full-time renters on the street will park behind the house.

And this is not true with these short-term renters because what do they know about that?

And it's actually kind of dangerous to them because folks have backed out of their driveway into parked cars before.

Um I just think there are too many.

I think the the requirements for short-term rentals are or what's allowed for short-term rentals is always all is still too big of a number to have one in eight residences being a short-term rental means you're removing that housing from our short shortage of housing in the community.

So I think more of these pace places need to be rentals instead of short-term.

So that's all I have to say.

I've said it before.

I thank you for listening to me.

Um, and I again reiterate I oppose approval of this special exception.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there uh have the applicant come back forward if you'd like to make any rebuttal to anything you've heard?

All right.

I'm looking for a uh last minute questions.

Commissioner Bonice.

Sorry, for the city.

Um for this applicant, if he wanted to just run the like if he decided to open up a wall, he could run it as just one unit, right?

He could open up a wall and he could have two bedrooms, you know, and double up like that.

Yeah, we would have to verify that the uh proper permits are pulled to make sure that it's converted back into uh a single family.

And then yes.

Gotcha.

Okay.

But just to clarify, if you if the owner of that property would do that, he would be stopping his short-term rental for a while and doing those renovations.

And doing those renovations.

And if the owner is doing renovations to that property, can he still keep his uh STR2 permit?

Yes, you can.

All right.

If there's no more questions, I'm looking for a motion.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 26103018.

I moved to the board of Justin Grant a special exception to allow one type two short-term rental unit situated at 221 IRA Avenue.

Applicant be in Tim Hendricks, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the fiscal character is property such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The neighboring properties consists of single family and multifamily structures.

This scenario does not cause reason to believe it will substantially injure the neighboring properties as a type 2 short-term rental.

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

Uh Article 22 of the City Code within one year prior to the date of application.

The applicant or owner does not have previously revoked licenses but does have one confirmed citation on this property.

On 2 6 2026, the applicant or owner was held liable for operating a short-term rental without a permit.

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

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

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

Commissioner Manna.

So um so there was a big oh, so I was looking for you.

Okay.

So there was a big committee that established you know how the short-term rentals were created.

And so they worked with the communities and they worked with um the um the short-term rental industry and the city and all and all kind of people to come up with terms of of what they thought was appropriate in the communities.

And so with it, they kind of defined um you know how many were permitted.

And and they kind of came to this agreement.

And um and I think that agreement was a good agreement to be made.

You know, and so just to just by right, you know, you could have one per block and and that was kind of or one per the whatever the numbers are, and that's kind of by right on how they allowed for the short-term rental uh industry to exist.

But when you start to exceed it, I start to draw you know the lines with that.

And and then also when it is that the community, you know, it looks at their community and says, you know, this is not how we want our community to be developed.

And sometimes the community recognizes that what that's what has to be done, and they don't on others.

And so this case they don't, and so therefore I'll I'll side with the community as well.

So I will not be voting in favor.

Commissioner Bonese?

Yeah, I'll also be in opposition uh for uh three main points.

Uh Mankey Park against it and the neighbors against it.

Uh number two though, being, you know, the layout could be changed to fully maximize the structure.

Um or or lastly, you could turn that second unit into a midterm rental and run it that way.

Um and still rent them both out.

Um be in opposition.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bunnyas?

I do not.

Commissioner Reed?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibannath.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Benavitas.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Unfortunately, I I do not concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur a motion uh fail zero to eleven.

If you have any questions to get with staff.

Thank you.

Item 4.

Hello, Commissioners.

Item number 4 is BOA-2 BOA-26-103026 at 810 Dakota Street in Council District 2.

The applicant is Marisa Gomez.

And the request is for a special exception to offer one additional type 2 in the block face.

And the current zoning is RM4 for residential mixed district.

Again, the properties located at A10 Dakota Street.

They're requesting a special exception to allow an additional one on the block face.

So this is the uh type two density count.

There are 12 units.

Dakota Street.

And if this one is approved, it'll be at 16.6%.

There are no investigations or active listings for the property.

And the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends a denial of the applicant's request.

And this is the notification plan.

We mailed out 39 notices that did receive three in favor of zero in opposition.

As for voicemails, we hadn't readn't receive anything.

This concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is present.

Thank you.

So the advocate come forward.

Hi, please state your name and tell us about USDR.

Hi, um, my name is Marisa Game.

Um I'm the owner.

Sorry.

Um my name is Marisa Gamez.

I'm the owner of 810 Dakota Street.

Um I'm not a realtor, I'm not an investor, I'm not um a lawyer.

Um we are just expecting a baby and moved closer to family, and our houses went up for sale since October.

And um this is sort of our last resort.

Um we tried for sale, no bites.

Um we had one um um uh offer um and it was back and forth, but that they um ended up pulling out.

Um then we tried the long-term rental, no bites, and then we tried um like the 30-day rentals through like um furnish finder.

Um so we left all of her furniture and just kind of used little pieces that our family had um uh to where we're living now.

And um unfortunately we've had no bites there either.

So um this isn't necessarily something I want uh to add to my life.

Um this is just a a last resort.

Um we um with with sorry uh crowds make me nervous.

Um we we're small business owners here um in San Antonio on the east side.

Um we just own a little tea shop.

Um so we believe in keeping San Antonio, you know, community-based and keeping everything um positive and vibrant, and so everything all of our experience in our home um we don't believe will be a nuisance to anybody around us.

Um we've um kept in touch with the neighbors and they're in full support, the neighborhood association, um Mr.

Aubrey Lewis, um he's in full support as so as well as his board, and um they've been lovely throughout the process as well, um kind of giving us a little guidance and um just making us feel a little bit more secure um in this process.

Um we we just hope that um our home will sell.

Um that's that's the main thing.

We just want to be close to family as we welcome our baby boy, and um that that's that's it.

I I so the plan was to to keep the house on the market while you're just trying to get some income flow going from the house payment.

Yes.

Um and we have it's been on the market this whole time.

Um yeah, it's it's it's active everywhere.

MLS, um our realtor um compared all the comps in the neighborhood to make sure even um she was reaching out um on Wednesday, so like five days ago, um, about just lowering it even just a little bit to try to get an extra push.

Um unfortunately the market right now is just really bad.

Um so it's just kind of a a pickle we're in right now.

Yeah, we we rarely see nobody opposed in the neighborhood association in in support of something like this, so that's pretty rare.

Any questions from the commission?

No.

All right.

Uh is there anybody time to speak?

No public comments.

Is there anything else I like to add?

We'll go straight to a motion.

All right.

Who would like to make a motion?

Uh oh question for the applicant.

Uh you said you did try to rent it, and when you were trying to rent it, what were you trying to rent it for?

Um, we're had it listed at 1950, which um even with our our mortgage and all the house bills, or how uh the total comes out to about 2500.

Um so either way, we're we're in the in the red.

Um so it's just sort of a way, but also nobody wanted to rent it.

So your hardship is yeah, being able to cover that that payment that's just the payment, like I honestly, like it's it's at the like yeah, this this is last resort.

Uh I personally don't want to run an Airbnb.

Um so it will be my husband will be the ones cleaning it, we'll be the ones keeping in touch.

Um, it's not like we can like hire somebody.

Right.

And if you were to get an offer that you that you wanted 60 days from now, take that and you wouldn't even be Airbnb in it anymore.

I would hope not, yeah.

Okay.

I want it gone.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Reed.

I was gonna make a motion.

Yes.

I was just gonna say, and if she were to sell at that, that air the short-term rental would go away.

Permit would go away, right.

Come back properly.

So you just commissioner Reed.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA 26103026.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated at 810 Dakota Street, applicant being Marissa Gomez.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined showed that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The board finds that the request to operate an additional short-term rent toll is unlikely to materially endanger public safety, public health safety or welfare.

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

B, a special exemption does not create a public nuisance.

There's not appear to be a reason to believe that a public nuisance will be created if an additional short-term rental permit was approved.

C, the neighborhood property will not substantially injured uh by such proposed use.

The neighborhood or neighboring properties consists of single family structures.

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

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

Subject property provides off street parking, it appears to have adequate utilities access and open space.

E, the applicant or owner for the special exemption does not have any previously revoked short-term rental licenses, confirmed citations, or adjudicated offenses, convictions for violations of chapter 16.

Article 22 of the city code within one year prior to the date of application.

The advocate or owner does not have previously revoked licenses.

Confirmed citations or adjudicated fences or convictions.

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

Subject property is located in close percentage to other residential uses with the property owner providing off street parking and maintaining it for the neighboring property, the special exception.

And a motion.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah, normally I wouldn't be in support of something like this, but again, since the neighborhood association uh seems to be in support and immediate neighbors seem to be in support, and um, you know, hopefully it's a temporary solution.

Um I'll be in support of it.

Commissioner Bonis?

Yeah, I'm gonna lose the same reasons as uh Commissioner Reed here.

Also, she has neighborhood uh neighborhood association support.

We rarely uh see their them supporting that.

Um so I think that's that's huge there.

Um also I think it is a hardship.

You know, she's obviously trying to get rid of it.

I see it listed here.

I see the price has been dropped, you know, a few times.

And um hopefully it's not gonna be an STR for longer than the next few months, so they can sell this home and then move on, and then once that happens, the permit will be removed anyways.

So uh I'll be in support.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Reed.

Uh yes.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanias.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 with one abstention.

Congratulations.

If you haven't had any questions, you can get the staff.

All right.

Item number five.

Good afternoon.

Item number five is BOA-226-103041 at 122 RIA Vista in Council District 1.

Uh, the applicant is Enrique La Vintman, and they're requesting a special exception.

And the current zoning is R5 for residential single family.

Um again, it's located at 122 Rio Vista.

Surrounding land uses include residential single family and multifamily land uses.

Um they're requesting a special exception to allow an additional one on the block face.

Per the city code, um, type two short-term rentals are limited to no more than 12.5% of the total number of units on that block face, and at least one type 2 is allowed per block phase.

Um so this is the background history.

Um, so there was an active investigation that was open um September of 2025, um, where an AHO citation was issued.

Um, and then the following month after that, the applicant was held liable for operating without a permit.

Um also there is some permitting history for this property.

Um they were issued a type two short-term rental previously on August 15th of 2022.

Um, however, uh about three years later, the type two permit lapsed um as the renewal application wasn't submitted.

Um the applicants uh uh resubmitted a new type two short term rental application and was placed on pending BOA as one of the neighbors was able to um snag the spot before it was approved.

Um and then below that is just the the permitting history for this this property on the submission dates.

Uh so this is the type two density count.

There are 11 units on this block face.

Um one active type two is currently there at 128 RIA Vista.

Uh the block face is currently at 9.09 percent.

And if this additional type 2 is approved, it will be at 18.1 percent.

Um so there is an active active listing, but it's for a 30-night minimum.

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

Staff recommendation for the special exception.

Staff recommends the denial of the applic um denial of the applicant's request.

And then this is the notification plan.

We mote out 21 notices.

Uh we received zero in favor, one in opposition.

Um there are no voicemails, and the neighborhood association, Sherry Hills Ridgeview is in opposition, um, no response from San Antonio, Texas D1 resident association, and then the community groups also did not respond.

Uh, this concludes staff's presentation, and the applicant is present.

Great.

So the applicant come forward.

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

Thank you.

My name is Enrique Lavinman.

Um I'm the owner of uh one to two Rila Vista Drive.

Uh the property as you heard from the city.

Uh I did I purchased the property back um a while back, and it was a long-term rental.

I did a vast renovations on the property.

It was empty.

Uh it was um vacant as a foreclosure.

Obviously, did the insights as a regular long-term rental.

I had it as a wrong to long-term rental, but uh was not making enough payments.

I had long-term rentals around 2400 a month.

Basically, the so I looked into STR back in 2022, like the history says there.

In 2022, I did have the permit for three years.

I run as uh Airbnb for three years over three hundred reservations, no complaints during this time.

Everything was perfect.

But in August, when the permit was up, I was not in the country.

I didn't even know my permit was up because everything was running smoothly, right?

No complaints.

And I found out in September when they issued the citation, I was like, I got a citation.

I immediately contacted the city to reapply.

But my permit expired August 15, August 20, something, the new neighbor, which is uh across the street, they got a new permit, right?

So now they've denied it because of that.

Uh obviously, when I was running, obviously smoothly within like I think it was five to ten days.

Um of me finding out.

I took care of the citation because I didn't know my my permit has had expired.

I also work with the city on parking.

I moved the parking as you can see on the last block.

There's a couple of items I want to show uh with the city.

I don't know if you can show this.

I've worked with the city to address every concern, right?

With uh parking in the back, as you can see, rela Vista Drive.

I'm in the corner.

Um the parking is at the back, so it does not create a nuance for the for the neighborhood or the neighborhood association as the parking is on DOT Street, not on Rela Vista Street, right?

Uh with three or four cars on on the back.

That was one of the uh critical issues where we can park cars, right?

So we'll park at the back up against the uh the the apartment complex there.

I have another view here of the aerial view that you can see, which I want to mitigate any any concerns from the board and also from from the neighborhood, right?

Uh as you can see from the aerial view, the driveway is on the back, so there should not be any concerns uh regarding parking, and also where they are all located.

Um to the nearest neighbor, it's about more than 250 feet from the back.

So there's no concern on the back in impacting any neighborhoods in in the back.

Also within the whole neighborhood, um the sh the nearest STR is obviously that the the guy that denied um uh the opposition because he's like two houses up.

Uh the the other ones are there's nothing around over almost two thousand feet from the nearest STR.

Uh the second nearest as STR, of course.

So that should not be a a concern from that point of view.

Uh I also wanted to mention that I run this property uh for three years with no violations, no parties, no nothing, no complaints from the city, maintaining a 4.95 um rating, which is very, very hard on over 250 reservations in the property, right?

So that's also pretty it's we we take a lot of pride maintaining that property.

Also from from the um the neighbor that opposed, right?

They we are not in direct competition, obviously.

He he is a ultra-luxury STR that they do average 460 dollars a night to 750 dollars a night with uh barbecue with a hot tub, barbecue pit fire pit, luxury str with outside.

We on the other hand, my uh I have three uh years of proving record.

We offer it's about 100 to 15 dollars per night.

It's I don't have any barbecues or anything outside that I don't permit anything like that.

That's why I maintain a a good standard for the neighborhood.

I don't want anything outside, no noise violations during three years.

It's been proven.

Um and like I said, I've also tried uh the long-term rental.

Uh it was not working as a long-term rental because it's a big house.

Um, it's over 20 about 2700 square feet, and midterm rental.

I've been trying mid-term rental, and does not work because uh what I found uh like the previous lady said the mid-term rental market is very inconsistent.

You get one month and you'll get 2900 dollars, but it's empty for 60 days, right?

Because it could you could have 20 days in between and it will not I will not concurrently work, right?

So it the only way is is the short-term rental exception, right?

And um the expenses run about 2800 a month, so that I've known I've tried it was working perfectly before, so I am respectfully adding the board to reconsider restating my STR as uh I've proven I've been a very good neighbor for over three years with no violations and uh proven uh record, right?

Uh so I I asked for the special synchronous uh for this uh permit.

All right, thank you very much.

Um any cut questions for the applicant commissioner man.

Question actually for city couple couple of things here.

So one is the workflow for what it is that a um permit comes up for renewal.

It so what type of communication goes out with regards to that um to the applicants and and how far advanced are they aware that there's a clock going on and and you know the a year a year left to live and or a year left on the contract, etc.

So how does that work out for that communication piece?

So I'm trying to understand because he said he was out of the country.

So you know email communication is sent via the email address we had on file when the permit was issued.

It sends it uh three months prior to expiration date.

So it expired August 14th, and email was sent on May 14th, reminding him there is permitts is set to expire in three months, and then there's a one-month reminder email sent saying you have one month left until your permit is set to expire.

And then um just a second second point for the board here.

So I was reading the letter from the neighborhood association, and you know, one of the things that were working actively to resolve is communication of these types of events or these type of activities out to the the neighborhood associations.

And they said they only had two days to review it.

And I don't know if there's is there anybody here uh set to speak for this case?

Do you know?

Um, I don't believe that a neighborhood association is here.

Okay.

No protocol.

So I would I would actually ask to have this uh deferred or or post or uh set set aside so he can he can actually reach out and have a conversation because it you know so they talked about the density and other things, and and I think there's a case here to be made, but but I certainly would want you know to weigh in, you know, again having the neighborhood buy into this, you know, for my decision.

So but I don't want to you know kind of push away for the uh pilot here.

I I would like to add the um yes, the emails from the city somehow with Gmail they just get lost.

Even today, when communicated with Joseph here, I have to do uh research by City of San Antonio.

Joseph, otherwise they don't come up, unfortunately.

That's how Gmail works, but I I agree uh they can easily get get lost.

So uh staff he can renew up to six months before it so it's up to three months before, okay.

And and the app and the renewal process is a is it does he have to resubmit anything else, or he just has to be have a clean record and pay a fee?

Is it uh he it submits like another renewal, another application essentially, but it's a renewal, so same upload the floor plan, same type of review that was initially done with the new application.

The only difference is is verifying the their current other hot taxes, and they haven't received any other violations or citations.

Okay.

So uh are you interested in in reaching out to the neighbor association and coming back, hopefully with their support?

Yes, for sure.

I have talked to uh Ms.

Day, she today because she was not aware of this as well.

They only had two days.

So I I did talk to her today uh and ask her if I was willing to come to the association, right?

And present the same eight bullets I presented to you, and she was willing to to do that.

What kind of timeline did she did she said uh they have a meeting on Thursday?

On Thursday?

Yes.

So May the 4th.

All right.

Uh so if I'm looking for a motion to continue, then I would suggest moving to May 4th personally.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Reed.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh, we will see you on May 4th, and we hope to have some uh dialogue from the neighborhood association.

Perfect.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

You got it.

Item number six.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number six is requested by Rogelio Peña Signs and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant short-term rental permit due to hog collection located at 443 North Trail Drive.

The subject property is located at 443 North Trail Drive.

Surrounding uses include residential single family as of March 10th, 2025, platform that directly remits 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.

Three notices of delinquency were emailed by Avenue between May 2025 through July 2025, and the final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on February 16th, 2026.

No payment was made within the 90 days.

And the block face is currently at 5.5%.

A little bit of background history.

There is an open investigation for operating a short term rental without an active permit.

This was at the time when it was revoked.

And a little bit about the permitting history.

It was issued on March 25 of 2025, and it was revoked a year later on March 3rd of 2026.

And this is the subject property.

And the next few slides are the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial.

And there were a total of 32 mail notices, two in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails, no response from Greater Harmony Hills Neighbor Association, and six city wide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

So the city do we have like a stat that shows zero rentals and they just you know didn't follow that part of it, or um you know had rentals but didn't do the um county um taxes.

You know, is is there different uh is a way to come up with where where was that the violations occur?

So that way I can kind of put my head around you know some of the other dialogues that we continue to have.

Um so just trying to understand a little bit more details.

That makes sense so she's looking at the reports right now, given what's the second one.

So we can tell difference.

Usually if they miss payment for no revenue, it usually puts $20 penalty fee um based off of the listing or the on avenue.

It looks like they were actively operating as a short-term rental, and based on the reviews, they have active reviews um reviews in the past couple months.

The property utilizes a short-term rental.

And so then the failure would so they have failure, but then would it also with regards to hot taxes?

Do we have the dialogue then for we'll say that the the um third parties are paying for this the city, but are they did they uh are we aware of whether or not they made the county taxes then as well?

Yes, they are yes, they have paid the county taxes.

All right, any other questions?

Commissioner Braggman.

So uh with the if this was approved, uh the seconds that would what would be the percentage of density?

If you said with one, it's five point five.

So with the second, it would be eleven percent change.

Yes, that's correct.

So still under the 12 and a half percent.

Yes.

Thank you.

And what the what was the uh date that it was revoked?

When is the one year?

It was revoked on the third of March.

March.

All right, if there's no other questions, have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hello, please state your name and yeah, there you go.

I'm the interpreter, and I'm going to be your supporting him.

He said that he will address you in English, but in you know, if you are asking questions in something he needs support, I will be next to him.

Okay.

Uh hi, good afternoon.

My name is Rogelio Pena.

I'm the owner of uh 443 Northville Drive.

And uh well, I'm here because uh we received the notice about the um short-term um uh counsellation about the permit because we don't pay them the taxes on for the county.

Uh I just want to say that um I received the um papers that uh county sent me, but I thought that it was like um some kind of scams.

We receive a bunch of scams and uh basically uh it was by avenue until I call them.

I know that now avenue it's the guy that they collect the money for Connie.

And uh how I saw on this side um avenue.

Say it's like uh I received like a you maybe have some um taxes to pay or you have to receive money.

I thought that it was something like that.

And uh basically until um they hang the nodties on my door, I call them and say was well it was true.

We already pay everything and um um what I want to say is that um I received these papers, but I don't receive any email because uh my email on the system is web bad.

It was like uh incorrect.

They have Rogelio Pena one and it's only Rogelio Pena at My RobSA dot com.

That's uh the first thing that I didn't receive any kind of um like uh uh email.

The second one is all the these letters are writing to me, but I just put it on side and um well I'm just asking you if you can give me a chance to um get the permit again and that's because we didn't know about the the problem.

Okay, so and just be clear that the the number one should not be at the end of your email.

Yes, okay.

Staff when when the applicant first got his permit, did he have that email address?

Uh the application has Rohelio Peno at MyRopeSA.com.

With without the one?

Without the one.

Okay.

Because on the uh communication in this in the file it says that it was sent to Rohilio Pena one at Europa.

Maybe actually Chair, are you are you um relating to the notifications that were sent that we showed up on the screen?

Uh yes.

It's on it's on the uh PowerPoint.

Can you go back?

So are these and these are these are from Avenue, maybe they have a different email address.

I don't know where that can come.

It's putting from the contact.

Yeah, well so when w the so all of the contact information in a cella is input.

Um so when the permit was issued there was no one.

But when the revocation was sent, it was sent and there's a one in the email.

Okay.

All right.

Is there uh is there anyone signal to speak on this case?

No public comment.

Any further questions?

So one is correct or not one correct.

So I got confused.

We're not sure.

Okay.

That's okay.

He's not getting the ones.

Yeah, he's not here.

He's not getting that's what I understood, so I just want to make sure.

So but it says here we're sending it to our communication is going to one somehow.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Um looking for a motion then.

Do you want to do it?

No.

Um regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero zero five six.

I moved to the board of justice and granted appeal for the property situated at four four three North Trail Drive, Ap can be in uh Rosalia Peña Batista, because information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error enforced in in enforcing section sixteen one one zero D when provoking when revoking the short-term rental and a motion.

Second by Commissioner Bragman, Commissioner Manor.

Sir, do you have a speaker on?

I don't know.

I hear two, but yes, that's my translator.

So Commissioner Bragg.

So um, I'm sorry.

So there well, there's a mistake here, so that's that's not a good start.

Um and and you know, we're I do want to you know have the city go back and you know we've had dialogue in the past with regards to the handshake kind of dialogue.

So when it is that you know a contract starts, yeah, it it would behoove us so that we do get a good a good handshake between the applicant, the city, and if there's some kind of miscommunication in those in that early steps, you know, that you know, where where there's confusion, you know, the time to fix that would be immediately you know, as we're trying to work through these.

So when it is that you know a contract starts, you know, it it would behoove us so that we do get a good a good handshake between the applicant, the city, and if there's some kind of miscommunication in those in that early steps, you know, that you know, where there's confusion, you know, the time to fix that would be immediately you know, as we're trying to work through these, and so training, you know, more communication other things, and so I I just you know I have a problem with some of these uh in this in this path line, and so um I'll be supporting the appeal.

Thank you, Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I agree with my colleague.

Uh uh there's obviously some miscommunication that that took place as far back as immediately after the uh permit was issued to be a red flag, um, so that uh it can be corrected in the beginning.

And I think we've seen multiple times where uh the issue with Avenue paying county tax and the platforms paying the city tax has been an issue, and we had that discussion at the last meeting with um information that the city brought forward about the Texas uh tax code, which hopefully we can get corrected, but in the meantime, I don't think that uh applicants like this should be penalized, so I'll be in support of the motion.

All right, anyone else like to add?

I wanted to add um also just the notion of the spam dialogue, and and so I think again that handshaking would help resolve that.

So um, but anyway, sorry.

All right.

So with that, let's have and also this will be under 12 and a half percent with or without.

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

Commissioner Manna.

I support the appeal.

Commissioner Brackman.

Yes, I approve.

Commissioner Reed.

Uh yes, concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vavkis.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur uh to support the appeal.

So congratulations.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

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

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Does anybody need a break?

All right.

Let's have a break.

We'll see everybody about seven minutes.

All right.

Well, it is 3 06.

And we are gonna get back to business.

Seems like a lot today.

Are we good to go?

Yes, item number seven.

Cool.

Good afternoon.

Item number seven is BOA-26-103028, located in District 1 at 619 Barb Street.

The zoning is RM4, and the request is for a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow carport with gutters to be one inch from the western side property line.

The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial-based zoning districts consisting of RM4, C2, CD with a conditional use for auto sales, and C3NA.

The Office of Historic Preservation has provided a certificate of appropriateness dated November 21st, 2025, and has stated that their staff recommends approval to construct a carport along the western facade behind the front wall plane with the stipulation at the applicant obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

The carport was constructed without gutters per staff's visit to the site in February of 2026.

This is the site plan.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff red commands denial for the side setback variants and BOA-26-103028 based on the following findings.

One, the granting of the reduced side setback variants will not observe the spirit of the ordinance, as a carport would be too close to the side property line and water runoff may be imposed onto the abundant property.

And two, if granted, the carport would maintain a one-inch distance from the property to the southwest, which would alter the essential character of the district.

Staff mailed out 34 notices.

One was received in favor, and zero received in opposition.

Outside of 200 feet, one was also received in favor, zero in opposition.

There was one voicemail received in opposition from King William Neighborhood Association, who is who's in opposition.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name and uh tell us about your carport.

Hi, my name is Deborah Raina.

I'm the owner of 619 Barb Street.

And I'm requesting a variance for the reduced side setback from my car port along the existing driveway.

So last time we had done the continuance so that I could meet with the excuse me, Miss Raina, would you get this microphone a little closer, Chief?

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry.

Um last time we were here we got the continuance so that I could speak to the um neighborhood association.

So I did meet with them and I met with the architectural advisory committee for them.

They reviewed the project, uh, they visited the property, they acknowledged that the historic design and review commission had already approved the design as compatible with the district.

Um but their primary concern was um setting precedent for future cases rather than the design itself.

Um they did note that there were similar configurations in the surrounding area, but they were not going to be in approval.

Um because they don't want to set that for future cases.

But um just for a reminder, the carport is placed along um the existing structure in a way that minimiz minimizes visual impact and maintains the overall streetscape.

Um with the layout of my lot and the placement of the house, that's really the only place where I can put it on the existing driveway.

Um before this, the side yard was lined with a continuous wooden fence.

The carport is open in design, which improves airflow and visibility and removes that flammable barrier.

Um I will also be adding gutters to properly direct the water runoff so it does not impact the neighboring property.

And my adjacent neighbor whose home is directly next to the carport has reviewed the project.

Uh she doesn't have any concerns about its impact as in and is in support of it.

So I respectfully ask that the board consider the specific conditions of my property and grant the variants.

Okay.

So is there any questions for the applicant?

Yes, Commissioner Reed.

So I realize it was uh approved by the OHP.

Um did they advise you that variants would be needed or was it?

Yeah, they said they approve it, but I need to get the board's approval for the setback.

Anyone else?

Uh Bonias.

Commissioner Beneath.

Did the uh neighborhood association?

I know that they weren't in approval, but did they maybe offer any feedback on how they do they want to maybe different construction materials used or just not at all?

They weren't going to um approve any that came through for the neighborhood.

Yeah, but she did say, well, you got the um HDRC approval, so basically good luck and the and the did the neighborhood association participate in the HDRC meeting.

They didn't complain then.

Nobody there were no opposition to that one.

Okay.

Yes.

So I guess it was a built before approval from the Yes, it was.

So um with regards to the the carport itself, so would if it was cannile against the house, and we'll say that it was architecturally consistent.

Um would um so it didn't have the polls dropping at the at the side yard.

How far could they go to you know to that edge there?

It would have to be the five foot.

They could be five feet from the side or three feet without overhang.

So three foot so three foot from the side um if it was cantilevered.

So um and would it be the same truth?

Would it be true for the same with polls?

So if they had poles up at three foot?

So let me um so the the polls um or the wall have to be at the five feet.

The overhang can go um to a three-foot line.

If this was a detached accessory structure, then the poles and our wall can go to the three-foot line.

But since it is attached to a house, the poles and the or the wall have to be at the five-foot line.

So poles and the wall.

So so um so did it change from was this enclosed?

Uh I try to remember, so for the picture.

It had a wooden fence.

Right.

But so is this what the structure looks like right now?

Yes.

Okay.

So if so if it was a cantilevered, so so you know, architecturally significant addition to the house.

So then would it still without a wall?

Um so would it be then a three foot then at that point?

Or still be five foot?

Correct.

Yeah, if there if there's no poles, and it's just the uh overhang, they can go down to a three foot without uh BOA approval.

Oh, okay.

So three foot.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Is there anybody signed to the speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Uh well, what we're gonna do is is entertain a motion and see how this turns out.

Who would like to make a motion?

All right, going once, going twice.

Okay.

Commissioner Reed.

All right, regarding case number BOA 26103028.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a 4 foot 11-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow carport with gutters to be one inch from the western side property line situated at 619 Barbie Street.

Applicant being Deborah Raina, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

A one-inch distance between the car port and property line could still provide adequate space to mitigate potential fire hazards and stormwater runoff to the adjacent property, especially with the inclusion of a gutter and consistent considering the existing side yard of the adjacent property, thus serving the public interest.

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

Uh literal enforcement of the ordinance would necessitate the alteration of the carport size or location, which would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The spirit of the ordinance is defined as the intent of the code rather than the exact letter of the law, granting the reduced side setback variants will observe the spirit of the ordinance as the location design of the approved car port would not impose excess runoff onto the abundant property.

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

No uses other than those allowed within 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 car port would maintain a one-inch distance from the property to the southwest, which would not alter the essential character of the district, nor would it introduce design elements that would be uncharacteristic of residential districts.

And six, the play of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

Staff finds that the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the side setbacks in relation to the existing primary structure and a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, second by Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Reed.

Um I'm a little torn on this one.

I mean, I think it's a sensitive design for a car port.

Um, but I certainly understand some of the concerns expressed, especially the fact that this neighbor may not always be the next door neighbor, and uh whoever lives there will have to um uh live with this structure.

Um flip side is that you know if you put gutters, I think it uh alleviates the water runoff issues, so um I'm still thinking.

All right, Commissioner Benavides.

I'll be in favor.

I'll be in favor of this.

Um is uh you know, with the gutters, I think that's gonna alleviate um a lot of the the neighbors um concerns, so I will be in favor of it.

All right, anyone else like to address it?

Just want some clarification.

The neighbor uh that's next to your driveway.

That's the one that sent in in favor, right?

Yes.

Okay, just wanted that to clarify that.

All right.

Anyone else?

I have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Reed?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Menna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Yes.

Commissioner Vosquez?

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Uh motion passes 92.

Congratulations.

All right.

Item number eight.

So uh item number eight has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Um it's ago.

So we're going to go on to item number nine.

Okay.

Item number nine.

Good afternoon.

Item number nine is BOA-26-103043 located in District 1 on 224 Dora Street.

The zonings are five.

And the request is for one, a request for a variance to allow a single family residential lot to front an arterial street.

Two, a three-foot variance from the minimum five-foot side setback requirement to allow primary structure to be within two feet of the side property lines.

Three, a five-foot variance from the minimum twenty-foot rear setback to allow our primary structure to be 15 feet from the rear property line form.

A 30% variance from the minimum from the maximum 50% impervious cover to allow 80% impervious cover in the front yard.

The subject property is located in the middle of a residential block off Dora Street with North Main Avenue to the east and a railroad to the west.

The surrounding area comprises of residential uses with base zoning districts of R5 and MF 33.

The applicant was requesting a side and rear setback variance to accommodate the proposed size of the structure, an impervious cover variance to accommodate the proposed front yard parking area and walkway, and a variance from lot layout standards to allow the development of a single family lot along a secondary arterial type B roadway.

The applicant has informed staff that all of their development standards, including minimum parking requirements, will be adhered at to as part of this project.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval in the lot frontage variants in BOA-26-1030043 based on the following findings of fact.

The request does not appear to be contrary to the public interest as developed residential properties that also front door street were observed in the surrounding area.

A variance to allow frontage on a secondary arterial street will observe the sphere of the ordinance as is access is only allowable entrance to the property.

If the variance is not granted, the property will not be accessible and cannot be developed.

Staff recommends denial in the side setback, rear setback, and impervious cover variances in BOA-26-103043.

Based on the following findings of fact one, although the property has not been developed yet, there are plans to construct on the other lots of the property, granting a reduced side setback for one lot could set a precedent for reduced setbacks for future development, which may not provide ample room to mitigate fire spread or water runoff.

Staff mail dot 39 notices.

Zero were received in favor, one was received in opposition as for voicemails, zero or received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Kenwood Neighbor Association did not provide a response.

So on the on the uh site plan, it looks like the the lot width is 25 feet.

That's correct.

Yes, I believe that's correct.

Because on the on the aerial, it looks pretty normal.

Oh, this is so this case they're requesting it for lot 32 only.

The total the aerial is showing three three lots.

Is this is this uh lot thirty-two?

Is that in the middle?

It's on the side.

It's on which which one of the two sides?

The one that's next to I think it's on the the leftmost.

Okay.

And okay.

Are any questions from the commission?

Are they trying to reply?

I don't understand why we're they we talked about plotting, and I believe they have CODs to develop on each of the lots.

So I how are they?

Don't they have to have the right to access their property?

I mean, I don't understand the first variant.

The so there's a section of the code that says single family residential residential can't be off of an arterial street, which door street is.

That's why they're requesting that first variance.

So if that var if that variance fails, I mean what happens because isn't there another state law that says you have to have the right to have a driveway at somewhere on your property or something?

Right.

I think it's just the idea that it can't be developed as single family residential, it could be developed rezoned possibly and developed in another way.

Um but that is in the code.

Um we were also surprised to find this was a arterial road.

So um given the nature of the developed neighborhood already, but uh that is in contrast to section of our code.

Okay, and then on the side plan for lot 32, the next door neighbor to them that is not her property.

That house is one foot away from the property line.

Is that what that says?

Are you asking?

Sorry, the neighboring property.

Yeah, well, I'm just I'm so she's only this this request is is only being asked for one of the three 25-foot wide lots, and that would be on the west westernmost lot.

Uh I believe so, yes.

And so on the side plan it says that the adjacent lot says it it's it's three feet between structures.

If this variance goes through, does that mean that the neighboring home is one foot away from the property line?

Okay, well, I guess we'll hear the question.

I'm not certain on the setbacks for the neighboring property, but I can do a rough estimate from I'm just I'm looking at what's on the uh on the slideshow here.

Well, I would have to get I would I can look into it, but I'm not sure the setback from the neighboring property.

All righty.

Okay, so the applicant come forward.

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

Great, thank you.

Uh are they able to see the my the the pointer when I point on the power point?

Yes, so they're able to see okay, great.

Great uh uh good afternoon uh uh um honorable board.

My name is Ricardo Valdez, and I'm I'm the owner for located for two to four Dora Street.

For lot right now, the uh the variance is just for lot 32.

So what you saw in the picture are the three lots combined, lots 30, 31, and 32.

For this presentation, we are only requesting for one lot, which is lot 32.

Uh, and I'll show you exactly where the photo is of that lot.

Uh so we're requesting the setback variance for a single family residential project.

It's a brand it will be brand new construction, and uh, I'll take you for your time and consideration today.

Uh on the next slide.

Uh let's see how do I there is who's just changing the slides?

Great.

Okay.

I'm here to request a set of variances that address a very specific physical constraint on this lot.

First of all, the property loss six feet lost to public dedication to the city of San Antonio, uh, which were given uh the previous owners gave it to the city in order to have uh a sidewalk back in the 80s, and then plus a two-feet buffer for electrical posts.

So those six feet were lost and granted to the city.

Uh so right now, so right now we got that hardship, which we love the the from the original lot, the six feet, and then combined with the setbacks, plus the minimum parking that we should have at front for 20 feet, it creates a very limited buildable area.

It forces a 15-feet wide home, and you're familiar with those type of houses, it's a very thin house with very restrictive layouts.

Uh it creates a non-functional layout, a single park, a car park uh uh only to be parked, and otherwise you will have two cars one behind others, and then people the people have to park on the street because they don't have a space for their cars, and then it will be not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Having a thin house will look will look rare, will look strange.

And in you and I'm happy to show that the some of the samples of the houses there.

So the variances allow a functional single family home.

It will maintain the scale and the character of the area.

The hardship is not self-imposed, it is directly tied to the loss of debt that I already explained, and I will walk you through a quick explanation.

So again, this property consists on three locks, three lots.

So right now, the what we applying is for lot 32, right here.

I'm pointing, very important.

The narrow weave creates a significant functional limitation.

It limits the ability to design a viable single family house, as I explained.

And our proposal is to maintain single family use.

It is not about increasing density or intensity, and to be compatible with the neighborhood scale.

The variances are not in uh okay, uh the IG address site-specific contrain, and they will enable a functional code compliant home.

Next, I will show you how these constraints constraints impact the layout.

So again, these are the three lots that we have here.

They're 25 feet wide ish times 1.45.

Originally they were one point 110, but again, six feet were donated, or I don't know what type of transaction happened in the past, but they were given to the city uh back in the past.

So I will now show you how this translates in real conditions.

So this is this is the total uh the three lots together.

Lot 32, it'll be right here.

So this did the third section looking towards the left of the lot.

Right now, I am I'm the owner of the whole lot, but right I we're planning to build in the future a similar structures in lot 30 uh 31.

I'm sorry, in lot uh this 30, 31, 30 and 31.

Right now, again, lot 32 is is the subject in question.

Next uh next slide.

You can see around, for example, my the neighbor, and this is lot 32 again.

There is um there's a carport right here, uh, and there's open space for parking.

So the structure right here is not does not go all the way to this part.

So the only way they can park in the neighboring house is towards this open space.

So that creates some ample space within within the properties.

Next slide.

Again, this is a photo of the collector street.

Um there's a lot of houses there, so we don't understand why that what happened.

Maybe that code came after the uh recently, but you can see it's a race incidental neighborhood in a collector street.

Uh this is a photo of the of the the lot again, the subject for variance.

We got lot 32, we got a 25 feet width, and this is the neighboring house.

So this is to understand what is existing right now, and it's the only area again that the the neighbor has to park their cars.

So it's very certain that they will keep this open area, otherwise they will not have a place to park.

Um here we got some samples of the of the current houses.

You can see that they are they they're they're wide, they're at least at uh 20 30 to 40, 50 feet wide, each of the houses.

This is the typical representation of the of the neighborhood.

And right now we are trying to create the design within the limited constraints to that maintains the character.

So this is the proposed design that we have.

Uh here we show the the create a fo we need to create a functional layout with these constraints on the lot.

We it responds to site and street conditions, maintains the scale and the proportions of the surrounding homes, supports typical single family residential use, layout accommodates the carport.

You can see that here with this layout.

Then we can have a layout for 18 for 18 feet, which is the minimum required so the owner can park their cars in this here in this part rather than the street.

And then it allows a three feet, which is the minimum entryway to have a comfortable entry in the house.

Without this adjustment, the only viable alternative will be a taller three-story structure.

A taller structure will have a greater impact on the neighborhood.

And this proposal is more comp it's a more compatible solution.

This design balances functionality with neighborhood compatibility.

Next slide, please.

So again, this is a photo of what we're trying to build here, and it's very simple.

It was very similar.

Once we if we we have uh granted the this opportunity, the also very similar houses will be built in the future in the contiguo and in the in the next lots.

This is next slide, please.

This is the conceptual side plan.

So this is the front again.

This is the sidewalk, this this area was given to the city in order to build uh a sidewalk to construct, and then there is a two-feet uh buffer for the electrical post.

So we lost six feet here from the original lot.

So right now we need to have a minimum length of 20 feet for the driveway.

So this creates a very limited uh 21.

Well, I'm sorry, this will be the conceptual plan.

If we allow with then we can have a 21 feet house uh with 69.5, which is a great layout, very comfortable house, at least for three bedrooms, and the owner I'm happy to, you know, we'll be very happy to have a very comfortable house.

Uh to answer your question, Mr.

Orion or this is the adjacent lot, lot 31.

So is that is the empty lot right now that that that I also own, and then this is the the other house, the property line.

Hopefully that clarifies your question before.

Okay, so bring the yeah, there's a side point.

So on that side plan, you're saying adjacent lot 31, and you have a dimension that says four feet between structures.

Please uh uh yes, yeah.

Okay, this two two feet variance right here.

This is the property line.

Okay, and then the plus the another two feet, you know, if we build it, we get granted the variance, and it also for the other property to be built in the future.

So two four two two two feet here plus two for a feet here will be four feet.

That's if you get the variance today, and then if you get a variance in the future.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

And then uh on your sketch where you showed the 18 feet and the three feet, the the color rendering uh where you're looking at the uh if you could bring that back up.

Yeah, the color rendering, please.

Uh uh one one previous, no, one after uh no the one with the dimension.

No, no, go ahead.

Uh no, no, no, the photo, the big photo of the house.

So uh there's one before.

That one there is so on your site plan, you're showing 21 feet of structure.

This thing is showing also 21 feet, but the dimension looks like it's to the door and not to the outside of the home.

So like if you have 18 feet for the driveway and then three feet for the home, what about the what about the uh on the side of the door where you have that light?

I mean, is there is that's what represents.

Yeah, well, if this line right now, maybe maybe I don't clarify, but this this area would should be three feet right here.

Well, this isn't the door, a three-foot door.

I'm I'm trying to figure out like if I need 18 feet to park the cars, and then I have a post for the carport, and then you're saying that you have three feet for an entry door, you're not accounting for any of the structural supports of the thickness of the wall or anything on the side.

Um is this just a generic rendering?

No, no, it's not engineering.

I I do it, I did it myself to explain.

So it's not it's not it's it's uh more it's just to give you an idea.

Okay, of course I will have an architect design it, but I my my goal is just to my goal here with this photo is uh is just to show the necessary uh uh measurements in order to have a functional house.

Okay.

Um and then the and then the uh it also if you if you're only two feet off of the property line, you can't have windows on the entire house.

No, no, not on the sides.

And we're we're comp we're gonna be complying with the fire code, which says that no no windows, you cannot have any openings on the sides.

Okay.

Any questions on that?

Uh I'm still I still oh sorry.

I I thought you were done.

No, no.

Okay.

Uh so these are the four variances.

Each variance directly responds to a specific physical constraint of the property.

These conditions are inherent to the property and not self-created, and none of these variances increase density or intensity in sight.

So quick explanation just on on the justification for each uh for each of these four.

Next slide, please.

So again, uh this lot fronts on on an arterial classification.

We already talked so to allow a single family residential use in arterial street.

I believe that uh the the board already understood the situation with the code what happening in this is a residential neighborhood, and we just need to comply with the with the due process in order to uh accept the construction of a residential house here.

I hope that's self-explanatory.

Um the next variance right now, just again I try to design the best possible.

This is not an architect.

So this will be this is how it looks.

This is actually the neighboring houses.

These are the existing houses.

They're real houses.

So if we have if we limit the construction to 15 feet, this is how normally the layout will see.

And even we will need to build a third floor, which will make the the the character less compatible and with uh and not too with the character of the rest of the neighborhood.

Um so it will force a three-story design to achieve functional living space.

Next slide.

So just as again the same picture, uh just to provide a better image.

So right now there is it will create a one uh one space per carport.

The owners will have to probably park adjacent or even even we even that's 20 feet will have will create um how say a vicious cycle because if you have to park another car here, it will create a more limited setback right here.

Now, next slide.

This is for example how how it can looks with the with the uh by extending to 21 feet.

You can have the two cars and uh a more compatible look uh with the uh character of the neighborhood.

It's very important, very very important that the since this is new construction, we're gonna have fire-rated walls.

Uh, we have to be fully compliant with the fire code and with the grading code.

There will be no open.

I already had a meeting with the fire marshal, and they say, okay, we as go to present to the board, and then it's up to us if we're gonna allow us you know the number of feet after after, but you first you need to have that granted.

So right now we're working on a on a code modification request with the fire department with some of the important things that we need in the construction is to have no openings, no overhangs, non-combustible materials including fences.

So the fences have to be also fire rated or uh there had to be uh some kind of metal uh not wood so we're to go gonna comply with that with a type of fence that will not be subject to fire just to show you a um a quick here for example explanation again these were the four feet were given to the city of San Antonio for the for the sidewalk plus the a two feet buffer right here in order to construct the uh electrical post so this creates a much harder hardship for the for the lot again this is another look of the house I can on the on the on the uh impervious no the non-impervious cover this is how we're trying to to create the look uh having that 80 percent but if for some reason the board is uh does not uh support we can build in this area with no uh with uh impervious I'm sorry non-impervious materials like other like or other currently properties in San Antonio uh and finally these are comparable approved conditions already existing in San Antonio we got three addresses with uh uh one here in uh 223 and 221 West Laurel it has two feet three inches feet side setbacks you can see the difference right here uh another one here in West Lower I'm sorry uh ah I got wrong the address I apologize but the another address with one point seven and another address one with one point six um and these are three three three um three level structures which normally um if if we are limited we will have to build a three uh three a three story building and we don't want that we want to be more compatible with the neighborhood so finally this request maintains a single family residential use with no increased intensity or intensity it remains compatible with the neighborhood and there's not adverse impact next slide based on these conditions we respectfully request approval of the variances including arterial condition setbacks and impervious cover adjustments to enable a functional code compliant single family home consistent with the with the surrounding neighborhood the constraints I hope I I was able to show that they're not real I'm sorry that they're real and not self-created and this request is not about maximizing development but about restoring functionality without it the only viable alternative would result in a more impactful design than what it is proposed with a three story building we respectfully request your approval thank you for your time and consideration so uh the the two examples you had on West Laurel those are zone IDZ and they don't have to have a five foot side setback they have to have a five foot perimeter setback.

There's no interior setback did you did you consider pursuing IDZ for these three properties that you can have these sort of uh lessen setbacks in terms of I'm sorry Mr.

Ryan one more repeat the question please uh did you consider pursuing like IDZ zoning so that you can sculpt this sort of a um no no I'm not uh to be honest I'm I I'm not aware of uh of that um structure okay yeah because the example the this example that you provide that's on the screen that those are zone IDZ they okay they don't have to have the five foot interior side setbacks they only have to have a five foot perimeter setback so these so I I'm just that's why they're like that okay okay uh and then um did did you attempt to uh request all um a BOA variance for all three lots and you just decided to to just do one yes for now because uh it it it it is two three different situations here once we go and have the first one uh with the second one that we're planning uh we're first we're planning to build the first one with the second one it's a different story this is a different situation now we are talking about uh uh a building in the middle of two structures that I'm building and then with the the the the the one in the right it's another story so they're they don't have their own uh situations uh characteristics and is there a is there a uh uh a functional layout that you can have that just doesn't have 21 feet like maybe even nineteen feet or something because it this board has seen these before and and and honor honoring a a bigger setback next to a neighbor is one thing on your own property that's something where we've we've seen a reduction um I I personally not a fan of the two feet on the outer on the outer perimeters um but I'll leave see if there's any other questions to that extent.

Commissioner Manna?

So um can we bring up so you had a wonderful chart there that showed the neighborhood with the original plating and then um and so that is original plating did you replat those that property to be three separate plats?

No Mr.

Manor there they are three storical lots and there is a C O D A radio proof for each of them.

So um because that whole community basically is laid out that way but there's only one lot in that community that is the width that you're getting ready to make the three lots.

And so and they and it does have a house and if you bring up Google drive and you go down to the next blocks it does show the house that is a 15 foot wide house on that property.

And so the only other house that is this width is basically designed as it was his original community was meant to be designed as although it's an older house.

And so I I wonder about the IDZ dialogue but then also um you know I was trying to look up town home kind of dialogue and and I don't like to go down those paths at all but but with it you have shared wall space um allowed for the three lots um and you have this you still have setbacks on the sides but it kind of does allow you to have a shared wall and start to work within reducing some of the setbacks that you may be able to get happen what you what you're working through.

Yeah and and on that so for staff because this is an antiquated plat, if you were to were to pursue a town home would it require a plat?

I believe so just because you're and that's what I was saying so he's gonna replatt it anyways and if he did that he'd have to dedicate a 14 foot CPS easement along the front uh and maybe even more right away.

So that kind of but it may be it may be a wash so I mean the the C O D what it is what it is that is available for townhomes is is quite liberal.

I was going to say the COD waives the plating need.

So he would not need a plat if he was able to build three separate dwelling units.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah so uh you know to me it seems like it's a wrong design going on these three lots and that's I was wondering if there was another IDZ yeah another path and I need to understand that the different or why the town home wouldn't work but but yeah IDZ is a yeah he would just because you'd have to plat.

And then and then um if he had the plat with the R5 zoning you can do the town home and still have the a lower square footage is that true?

Does that give you an exemption on the square footage or did he say does he have to meet the R five no he can do the lower square footage.

Okay.

So he was to do a town home development.

So the so he has two other paths IDZ or town home to do something like this.

Okay.

All right.

But those would most likely require platting.

Platting or zoning yeah.

Anyone else have a I'm just curious on the ID zoning would that be beneficial for the the impervious cover um or is there any benefit with the zoning No the impervious coverage would still need to be reviewed by a variance.

Yeah.

I also want to point out really quick that some of the renderings had a carport if the applicant were to develop a carport that would also need a variance.

Yeah.

Not under town.

Right.

Okay.

So um anything else?

I just I mean that commission um keep going town out thing but ha have you explored to in shared walls?

I mean that would give you a lot more flexibility sorry shared walls like a a town um personally personally I'm not a fan of sharing walls based on the because for the privacy of the owner or the future owner uh I I have living in the past at least a personal think about living with next to other people uh noise et cetera.

So personally I'm not a fan of sharing walls.

Um yeah but and that's the part of the my DNA as a developer here.

And when this plat was done in the early 1900s, the zoning allowed a three foot side setback.

So I'd be in I don't have any issue with the three foot side setback and and I might you know uh on the exterior for sure I could but on the interior lot like so facing his lot on the I guess that would be the the E side I might support a two foot maybe but I I couldn't get below three on the exteriors.

So just for guidance here are we then suggesting a continuance for him to explore the zoning uh before we take a vote here or because if we don't if we take a no action or if his variance is denied here then he is well see the last time we saw three lots like this it was five feet on the outside and then two and three, two and three so that there was five foot separation on the homes because we are trying to th this board honored the five foot side exterior for the neighbor for the lot he didn't own for the side you know the budding neighbor he didn't have.

Or because if we don't if we take a no action, or if his variance is denied here, then he is Well see the last time we saw three lots like this, it was five feet on the outside and then two and three, two and three so that there was five foot separation on the homes, because we are trying to this board honored the five foot side exterior for the neighbor for the lot he didn't own for the side, you know, the budding neighbor he didn't have.

Was that a 25-foot lot?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

And so that and what that did was that that allowed him to go down to like 18 foot wide of development instead of 15.

But this but this is too I I I don't know, I can't get behind two.

Is there is there anything that you would you know be in favor of other than two feet?

I mean, yes, yes.

I if you if I'm if if the board um considers not not that that the two feet uh but rather uh three feet or four I'm um I can comply.

With one feet I can leave with that.

If if if it's a three, uh if it's uh sorry, if it's it's rather than two feet, it will be three feet.

Any other commissioners like to chime in?

Stevens?

Is there is there the uh I historically like three feet to be able to maintain your your property on all sides, assuming somebody you're selling these properties eventually?

My I guess m the only concern I have uh pending that three-foot setback would be the impervious cover at the front.

So can we reduce that from 80 percent down to something closer to the 50 percent requirements?

Yes, I I don't have an if you can see on the on the parking lot they varies the uh the the photo they can we show the photo of the property uh yeah uh yeah here in here for example well well it shows if if we build uh some impervious materials right here, like other properties do, weak weekend management.

You mean like the scripts for the is there a pervious cover that you could get behind, like 70 percent or something?

Yeah, I mean and I think in the spirit of compromise, like 765, 70.

Uh does it cover on above count for the impervious cover versus so that that's part of it?

Is that a good question, Staff?

On that impervious cover requirement, if there's a carport involved and he had uh some sort of a pervious parking or drive driveway, does that counter?

So the impervious cover is in the in front of the front facade.

So that's the wall of the house.

Doesn't matter if they have a carport and not uh the whole thing.

It's only the ground.

Correct.

So the carport even though it defeats the purpose, it but he still have to come back for the carport anyway, because it's too close to the front.

But the strip lots or the uh car ribbon lot, uh ribbon driveway would take care of that.

So we so the number that was thrown out is 70 percent is if if this uh for the impervious cover and three foot for the side setback.

Is there any any other commissioners that would like to uh uh um add or is there anyone sign to speak for this?

But real quick Bonus for the applicant, you know.

I don't think you had ever heard of IDZ zoning.

So are you are you familiar with IDZ and over here at the end?

So you had never heard of IDZ zoning before this?

No, sir.

Okay.

Um it might it might be in your in your favor to maybe take a look at that.

And do you cause so do you have an idea of what you want to do with the other lots already?

Because I know you showed us kind of you know a rendering of you want to put three there, you want to you have an idea of what you want to do in the future here.

So I don't know, maybe entertaining and really looking at that IDZ zoning might benefit you because you're gonna have to come back for the Yeah, the the the IDZ zoning has a has a five-foot perimeter setback, it does not have a uh other than it being detached, it doesn't have an internal uh setback if if he maintains a lot.

But if we were to prove this today with a three-foot and then he were to go pursue IDZ, maybe to give him some more options, would would the any variants that we grant still count?

Yes, as long as he builds within or as long as he submits an application within a year.

Okay.

Great.

So there so you still have additional options, you know, even after two.

Yes, yes, that would be great.

That would be great.

So is with that, is there pending in no more questions?

I'm looking for a motion.

If anybody would like to make it, or I can make it and uh why don't you just share some speed?

Okay, so let's see.

This is item number nine.

Oh, you got it?

Awesome.

All right.

Uh regarding case number BOA-26-103-00043, I move that the Board of Adjustment Grand A request for one request for variance as described in Section 355 C4 to allow a single family residential lot to front an arterial street.

Two, a three-foot, a two-foot variance from the minimum five-foot setback requirement to allow a primary structure to be within three feet of the side property line.

Three, a five-foot variance of the minimal and twenty-foot rear setback to allow a primary structure to be fifteen feet from the rear property line, and four, a 20 uh 20 what is this thing to allow a yeah, 20 percent the 30 percent variance in the maximum 50 percent and per uh 20 percent variance in the maximum 50 percent of previous cover to allow a 70 percent of pervious cover in the front yard situated at 224 door street applicant being Ricardo Valdez, because the testimony presented us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

Existing residential properties fronting door street were observed in the surrounding area.

Setbacks and previous cover requested would still provide adequate space and conditions to mitigate stormwater runoff or potential fire spread of the adjacent properties.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance result in not allowing the frontage on door street, the inability to develop with the reduced setbacks and increased pervious cover requests would also result in unnecessary hardship as a lot is limited in space.

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

A frontage variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance as this access is the only allowable entrance of the property.

The construction of a single family residence with reduced setback requirements will require compliance with building codes to mitigate the risk of fire spread.

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

Such variants uh number five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property or alter the central character of the district, which the property is located.

Staff finds that the request is not entered the appropriate use of adjacent properties or alter your central character of the district due to the residential lots running Dora Street.

If granted, the residence would maintain a three-foot distance from each side property line and a 15-foot distance to the rear property line, which are not alter the essential character of the district.

Six, the plot of the owner of the property food severance to sold is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and not merely financial, not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds apply to the owner for the property foods and variance of salt is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

If the variance is not granted, the property would not be accessible and cannot be developed, and the proposed plans would need to be altered into motion.

Second.

Okay, second by Commissioner Manna.

Uh I'm going to be in support of the motion as I read.

I it's three foot uh side setbacks on the sides.

The rear was acceptable because of the the the front uh dedication prior.

Uh and and I think the 70 percent impervious cover limit is a good compromise.

Uh Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

Uh any other commissioners like to add.

Hearing none sub roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Is that everybody?

Okay.

Motion passes uh 11 to 0.

If you have any questions, please give the staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 10.

This is case BOA 26-103-00050.

The applicant is Alberto Garcia.

The council district is 5.

The location is 155 Holly Street.

It is zoned R4.

The request is for one, a fence material variance to allow the use of corrugated metal.

Two, a three-foot special exception from the maximum three-foot to allow a six-foot tall privacy fence in the front yard limited to the west side property line.

And three, a one-foot special exception to allow a raw iron fence with a six-foot stone columns along the uh front property line.

And four, a five-foot variance from the minimum required fifteen-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision area.

The subject property is located near the northeast quarter of Southwest uh 21st Street and Holly Street.

A code enforcement investigation was conducted on site in response to a citizen call and found evidence of a new fence being constructed of a non-permitted material at a height over six feet.

The property owner informed the code enforcement officer that the fence is temporary and that their intent is to tame a permit to install a permanent fence and the material will alternate between wood and corrugated metal.

Uh the applicant proposed to build the fence along the rear property and west side property lines using a combination of wood and corrugated metal at a height no taller than six foot to include the front yard.

The applicant was informed that in order to build the fence with the material and height proposed variants and special exception must be attained from the Board of Adjustment.

While on site visit, staff noticed a noncompliant fence, which after review, it was determined that no variance was obtained for the current height.

The front fence also created a clear vision issue for which a variance is needed.

This is the site plan, and uh one is where the corrugated middle as well as right here.

Two is the uh special exception for the six foot tall fence in the front.

The applicant is going to put a pool in eventually, so they're gonna request eight feet here, which is allowed by code.

Three is the uh the existing fence with the stone columns, and five or four is the uh driveway clear vision.

This is the subject property, and that's the temporary fence.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the fence material variants.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103051 based on the following finding fact.

The fence material is out of character for the surrounding area.

The property is a budding single family dwellings, and the industrial like fence material will adversely impact the neighborhood's looking character.

And two, the special height, special exception.

Staff d uh recommends denial and BOA 26-103050 based on the following findings fact.

The fence height is out of character for the surrounding area, and the fence height will lead to a loss of sense of community for the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for a clear vision variant, staff recommends approval in BOA 26-103050, based on the following findings fact.

The reduction of the clear vision distance is minimal and sight lines are maintained.

There uh exists enough clear vision on both sides of the driveway for a driver to be able to see traffic and exit safely.

We mailed 46 notices.

We got two in favor.

The next door neighbor was in favor of all but number two.

And uh, we got zero opposition besides the half approval from uh the next door neighbor.

There were no voicemails in the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

So have the applicant come forward.

Hi.

Hello, my name is Eugene Jolso, the owner of 155 Holly Street.

All right.

And um trying to build a fence.

I got two Dovermans, they jumped the six-foot fence almost already.

And uh we're doing uh in ground swimming pool.

So I wanted the eight around the back and the sides, and then of course I know they said uh I could only do six on the front area or something like that.

Yeah, if you're gonna have a swimming pool, you can go to eight feet by right only on the side and the rear.

Okay.

Uh so that means that you can't go past the front plane to your home.

Okay.

Uh and then but but after that you can go eight feet.

So I so we're looking at the corrugated metal issue.

Uh is there a reason why you needed corrugated metal as opposed to uh just looking at the houses that I've seen being built on other sides of town that looks really nice and kind of want to go with that idea.

Does your corrugated metal have a cap?

Uh we haven't, we just put those up temporarily because the dogs jumped the fence.

Okay.

Um but as soon as we get the approval, we'll go ahead and rip that down and do it the right way.

Their proposed fence material does have a cap on the top.

It would have a wood, it's wood and corrugated metal alternating.

I have the picture.

Okay.

On somewhat the way we want it.

Yeah, and the uh um so you're trying to run that taller fence all the way to the front corner, and so there's that little area that can't be.

Correct.

And we have to watch the dogs when they go out because they like to jump right there.

That fence is about this tall.

And uh the overmans do jump very high.

And and this is this is uh that corrugated metal fence is gonna go up toward the side.

That's where your driveway is, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

On both sides.

I got a driveway on both sides.

So those are the fence that kind of something on what I want to do.

Can we submit those as exhibits for today's presentation?

Yeah, it's it is can I have them.

It just wasn't loading on the computer.

And we can reference those as part of the middle by the applicant.

Yes, sir.

That shows the cap and everything.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Um any other questions?

Commissioner Manna?

So uh I'm trying to understand um, I guess the fencing itself, the front fencing, and then now the going down the side.

Uh and so there's a picture, so I was on I guess the one that shows a truck kind of in front, and you see the open, primarily open fencing there in the front.

Um, in one of the pictures, so on the presentation here.

Sure, we'll go with that one.

Um the front is going to remain predominantly open fencing then?

Is that the goal?

Is it so the whole front will remain with with what is that we see here?

Correct.

And then so a question I would ask is could you run an another set of fencing at the front facade of the house to push your dogs to the back part of the property and not be in that front part or be managed in the front part so that way that fence on the side isn't six foot all the way to the front.

Does that make sense what I'm asking?

Yes, but uh have a truck and trailer that I back in every day.

Um I I thought about that, but it it wouldn't fit.

I'd have to keep disconnecting it every day.

Okay.

So the six-foot fence is required because you have a dog and you back your trailer into your driveway each day.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Not not a specifically required, but it's something I like.

Okay.

So I guess coming forward, I uh you know, uh so I guess the question here is could you have predominantly open fencing um along the front versus a solid fencing where you know then so run your run the pr uh predominantly open all the way down to the five years?

I see what you mean.

Like what I got in the front, do it on the sides.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

The height, the height is what I need.

I mean the dollars won't fit through, I'll make it small enough.

Okay.

So then item number two uh on the variance would be uh a three-foot that could be changed to uh well a three-foot special exception to allow a six-foot tall predominantly open fence in the front yard.

Okay.

And then the first one if if we would just it would be a request of for corrugated metal in the side and rear yard.

Yes, correct.

And then item number three would be the um is really just for the stone columns.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

I think that makes that makes sense.

Uh any commissioner questions?

No?

So I just also wanted to item number two.

It wouldn't be a three-foot special exception.

It would be still like a one-foot special exception, correct.

Yeah.

Because he would be permitted five feet predominantly open.

Yeah.

All right.

Now on item number three, he's asking for the the variance to go to a six-foot stone column.

Is it your intent to put a stone column on the sides if you were to do that?

Or or uh I I can.

Well, I didn't want to.

I was I could just do it all wrought iron.

If you do it on a wrought iron, it can exceed five feet.

So like so you have a variance where you have wrought iron, but we're really concentrating on the stone columns which exceed five feet.

That's really the premise of of what we're yeah, they don't exceed five feet.

The stone columns.

There were six.

Yes.

Oh, six foot three.

Yeah, they're probably about six.

Sorry about that.

So on the side, uh I'm just wondering for continuity if your intent was to do a stone column.

No.

No.

You would just you would just use a regular post and just put it.

Correct, four by four rod iron.

And just for just for clarification, without the stone column, it would not uh about trouble.

Well, it won't mess up for the clear vision.

Because that column there in the corner would.

Yeah.

Well, that's why he's asking for a variance on the clear vision.

Yeah, it wouldn't matter if it's uh regular wrought iron or the stone, it still needs the clear vision.

Okay.

All right.

Any other commissioner questions or comments?

Anyone sign them to speak on this issue?

No public comment.

All right.

Well then it looks like I think we have what we need.

Uh we're looking for a brave commissioner to tackle this one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mann.

Commissioner Manna.

So uh regarding case number uh BOA 26103 000 five zero.

I moved to the board adjustment grant a request for one, a three-foot special exception from the maximum three foot uh to allow a six-foot tall privacy fence that is predominantly open uh in the front yard, limited uh the front yard.

And two, a two-foot special exception or one foot special exception to allow a wrought iron, predominantly open fence with six-foot stone columns along the front property line situated at 155 Holly Street.

APC being able to see a because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character is property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the EDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that A, the special exception will not be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter.

The request would provide ultra security and privacy and is in character of the surrounding area.

The proposed six-foot-tall columns with primarily open faced wrought iron fence is within character of the surrounding area.

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

The special exception will not harm the public welfare, and the site lines to the house will be maintained from the front to the house.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as the height increase is modest and will not block the view of the house from the street.

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

The request will not be out of character for the surrounding area as there are front yard fences on many homes up and down the street.

The proposed increase of the side fence is modest and not a total departure from the aesthetics of the surrounding area and character of the neighborhood.

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

The general purpose of the district regulation is protect neighborhood character, promote safety, ensure consistent development patterns, allowing a modest increase in fence height in this unique location does not undermine these goals as is based on site specific conditions that do not apply to most lots.

End a motion.

Second.

Just a request on when you when you read the first item, you you put you, I know you said predominantly open, but you also said privacy fence.

I was wondering if you can remove the private.

So I'll remove privacy fence like yeah.

So privacy predominantly open fencing, so in the front yard.

So I didn't recall if when you on the second item, did you say limited to the west side property line, or did you leave that was that included?

Um I did not limit it because I thought both sides would be done.

So I I did not state on the west side.

Oh awesome.

Okay, great.

Also, could you reference the submittals that the applicant provided as an example?

And so okay.

And so it uh to be to be I was gonna say those are examples for the other item.

You are just reading in the special exception.

So we'll get to that when somebody does the variance for the material.

All right.

Yeah, for the corrugated.

So Commissioner Manor, what do you think?

Okay.

Um yeah, so I think um, you know, driving down, you know, Google drive down the street.

I do see other chain link fences that are at near the same height, if not the same height.

And you know, there's a nicer fence than those, and so I think it actually is uh an upgrade for the community, and maybe something else everybody else will consider.

All right.

And I I think as as it was read, it's I I'm gonna be in support.

I mean, this lot is a little bit bigger than what would most of the lots seem like in the area, so I think this is a nice look.

Um anyone else like to add.

Hearing none of us have roll call vote on the fence.

Special exception.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the finding the fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

And so I believe on this one I just leave out number one, right?

Is my understanding.

And so I'm just going to read with regards to number two.

Um is that correct?

To accomplish what we're leaving the predominantly open fencing.

Which is not permitted by right.

So you would still need to at least read that one as it pertains just to the side and rear yard fencing.

Okay.

So and so the way that we read the first one basically says that they can't move it forward of that.

So then I could read it exactly as is then, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

We'll have to you have to reference a side and rear yard, right?

Well, the previous one was read as a predominantly open fence for the front.

Submitted designs were solid.

Yeah.

Just to be clear, just say corrugated mind uh metal for the side and rear fence as presented in by applicant.

Or not to exceed the front plane of the house.

That would be a good thing.

As we had a side and rear yard, yeah.

So okay.

So regarding case number BOA 26103050, I moved to the board adjustment.

Grant a request for one, a fence material variance to allow the use of corrugated metal along the side and back of the property uh not to um move forward of the house, the plane of the house, the front of the plot the house.

And two, a five-foot variance for the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a 10-foot driveway clear vision area situated at 155 Holly Street.

Applicant being a Borlardo Garcia, 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 UDC as amendment would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, as corrugated metal fencing provides a durable material that provides extra safety or extra security and promotes the safety of the property is not contrary to public interest.

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

The property requires a more durable fence for security and to prevent dogs from climbing.

Strict enforcement enforcement would require relocating existing stone pillars, creating an unnecessary hardship, especially since the fence aligns with uh Cork uh I guess that that one doesn't really apply with regards to the second position because it it stops at the front facade of the house.

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

The variance aligns with the ordinance as the material is durable and not uncommon in this area.

Um and the fence placement maintains adequate clear vision for safe driveway exit.

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

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

Grant and variants would not harm adjacent properties or alter the district's character.

Uh similar front yard fences exist nearby.

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

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

The owner's hardship stems from the need for a more durable secure material.

And the proposed clear vision is appropriate given existing neighborhood fence patterns and the motion.

Second by Commissioner Azuma, Commissioner Mama.

So I think with all the dialogue with regards to how we are uh laying out the fence, I think this kind of accomplishes leaves the neighborhood looking open still, but provides you the security that you need.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Zuna.

I'll be in support of it as well for the same reasons as my colleague.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to add?

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

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Zena?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonus.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can cover the fines in fact.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

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

Congratulations.

Item number 12.

Item number 12 is BOA-26-103057.

Located in District 20 at 210 country lane.

The zoning is NP 10, and the request is for a 143 square foot variance from the maximum 1,582 square feet to allow one accessory dwelling unit to be 1,725 square feet.

The subject property is located along country lane with surrounding base zoning also being NP 10 neighborhood preservation districts.

The case originated from the owner wanting to develop an accessory dwelling unit on the property that exceeds the maximum permissible accessory dwelling unit square footage limitation.

Staff visited the site in March 2026 and did not see any construction started for the project.

Project construction is pending board of adjustment variance approval.

Per county records, the lot is 1.079 acres.

The principal residential structure is 3,164 square feet, and the minimum lot size for an NP 10 is 10,000 square feet.

If approved the overall accessory structures would not exceed the maximum 2,500 square feet requirement.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the print the primary structure on the property.

This is an accessory structure that is on the property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval for the ADU square foot variants in BOA-26-103057 based on the following findings of fact.

One, due to the configuration of the lot, existing structures and remaining yard space, an accessory dwelling that exceeds the maximum permissible square footage would still observe the spirit of the ordinance while also maintaining adequate distance from other nearby structures and serving its purpose as intended by the code.

Two, in this instance, staff found there was adequate room on the subject property to construct an ADU that exceeds UDC standards and still provides adequate distance from surrounding existing structures.

Staff mailed out 27 notices.

Two were received in favor, zero received in opposition for voicemails received, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Oak Park Northwood neighborhood association did not provide a response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

So have the advocate come forward.

Hi, how are you doing?

Good afternoon.

Hi.

My name's Dan Reed.

So I I am Reed Homes LLC.

I'm a builder.

I'm also the nephew of the owner of this property for kind of full disclosure.

So the intent of this is so my aunt who's lived on this property between her and her late husband, they bought this property in 1945.

So she's got quite a big emotional attachment here.

Um while she is in her 80s, she's still very mentally fit and still works full-time.

She's just mobility challenged.

Uh she had two quite significant falls over the Christmas period just due to the configuration of her home.

The family have been putting pressure on her for some time to try and take action.

And the best solution we came up with that she's in support of is build an accessory structure in her on her property that she can move into.

And the intent and the design of that accessory structure is that it's more modern, uh, you know, ADA compliant, and something that she can uh, you know, age in place and have more independence for a long period of time.

The size restriction of 1,500 square feet.

We wanted to design it in way that it did have a second bedroom, so we could have a live in carer at some point in the future, although she doesn't need it yet.

Um you know, the current property, you know, it's quite unique in this area that it actually has a basement in it and the laundry's down in the basement.

Um I don't think it's been touched since the 50s.

I mean, it's a stunning home, but it's just not a suitable home for a a woman living her own in her 80s that struggles to get around.

And i is this the way the lot was configured the entire time she was she's been there.

So uh you might be surprised when when her and her husband bought it in or when her husband bought it in the forties, it was seven acres.

Yeah.

I think in sometime in early two thousands, they sold off a couple of acres to the west, which they had a tennis court on.

Um, and in 2018, she replatted it into four lots.

She gifted that front lot that adjacent the the home that showed the picture that showed surrounding neighborhood is actually my father-in-law's home.

So her brother lives on the adjacent lot.

She just sold those two lots to the east, but there's no plan soon to get rid of it.

Yeah, this is an old tennis court community.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean it's it's love.

Yeah, she's emotionally attached.

Um, we we looked at many options to try and get it more suitable for her to stay in place.

Okay.

Um you know, she's she's not someone that is keen on moving.

It was you know, it's taken some time with the family to try and get her to this place, but you know, she's encouraged that we've got a solution that enables her to stay on the property and keep her support structure close by.

Um my wife and I actually live about 500 yards around the corner, so we're just trying to kind of keep this little community in place for as long as we can to keep her there and independent as long as we can.

Okay, any commissioner questions?

Thank you.

Hearing none.

Okay.

And um comments fee?

No public comment.

All right, then I guess we're looking for a motion.

Commissioner Zuna.

I was gonna say last time we had a case on country lane, we were on H3O, so I hope that's not the case here again.

Yeah, that and that that was actually this owner, Emily.

She came and spoke, and my father in law and mother-in-law came and spoke at that hearing.

Okay.

So regarding case number BOA-26-103057.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a 143 square foot variance for the maximum one thousand five hundred eighty-two square feet to allow one accessory dwelling unit to be one thousand seven hundred twenty-five square feet situated at two ten country lane applicant being Reed Holmes LLC, because the testimony presented to us and the facts were determined, show that the physical care for this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardships specifically specifically.

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

In this in this instance, staff found that there was adequate room on the subject property to construct an ADU that exceeds UDC standards and still provide adequate distance from surrounding existing structures.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would necessitate the relocation of the proposed development of the property, which may prove difficult and unnecessary due to the existing structures on the property.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed.

A substantial justice will be done due to the configuration of a lot, existing structures and remaining yard space, an accessory dwelling dwelling that exceeds the maximum permittable square footage would still observe the spirit of the ordinance while you also maintaining adequate distance from other nearby structures and serving its purpose as intended by the code.

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

No uses other 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 also the essential character of the district which the property is located.

If granted, the accessory dwelling would be permitted to exceed square footage limitations, which would not substantially injure adjacent conforming property, as lots in this area are relatively large and conditions are not easily visible from neighboring property.

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

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to the unique circumstances existing in the property, including the configuration of the lot and the remaining land available to develop, which provides adequate space to develop an ADU.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, I'll be supporting uh the variance as red uh due to the conditions the applicant uh made.

There's uh the um ADU is not visible, it's tucked behind, it doesn't impact any of the surrounding properties.

Uh so no issues here.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with my colleague.

Um this is a minor request.

Uh the neighbors are not impacted by it, and there's no opposition from any of the neighbors, so I'll be in support.

Anyone else like that?

Commissioner Ozina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I also concur, motion passes eleven to zero.

Congratulations.

Thanks very much.

Item number 13.

Item number 13 is BOA-26-103062.

Applicant being Lydia Cotra.

The in located in District 4 on 5115 Gwendolia Street.

The zoning is R6.

The requests are for one, a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow a shade structure to be one inch from the west side property line with no overhang.

Two, a three-foot-five-inch fence height special exceptions from the maximum allowable five-foot fence height to allow six-foot tall predominantly open fence with two eight foot five-inch poles in the front yard.

Three, a nine foot eleven-inch variant from the variance from the minimum ten foot front setback requirement to allow a shade structure to be one inch from the front property line and allow the accessory structure in the front yard.

Four, a two-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum required three-foot side setback to allow two shade structures to be one inch from the west side property line.

Five, a two-foot-six inch variance from the minimum required three-foot side setback requirement to allow an accessory structure to be six inches from the east side property line.

And six, uh 2,500 square foot variants from the maximum allowable accessory structure square footage to allow 5,000 total square feet of accessory structures in the side and rear yard.

The subject property is located in the middle of a residential block off of Gwendolia.

Alpha Vent intersection with Dumpset Drive.

The surrounding areas primarily R6 single family family residential base zoning districts.

The case originated from a code enforcement case for the shade structure to the west of the primary structure.

This is the site plan.

This is the location for the first variants.

The location for the third variance.

And then variance number six.

Staff recommends denial in for the front setback, accessory structure in the front yard, side setback, and maximum square footed variances in BOA-26-103062, based on the following findings of fact.

One, the construction of a structures with a due setback requirements would pose potential hazards, such as water runoff to abutting properties.

The existing structures do not provide provide adequate space between properties to allow airflow and fire mitigation.

Two, the residential district is already permitted accessory structures on the property, meaning there is an ability for the property owner to have an accessory structure while also complying with UDC regulations.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103062 for the fence height special exception based on the following findings of fact.

One, the abutting and immediate nearby properties do not have fence heights similar to the request.

Two, the requested special exception would be introducing a fence height that is inconsistent with the current character of the surrounding community.

Staff mailed out 27 notices, zero received in favor, six received in opposition.

Outside of 200 feet, zero received in favor, one was received in opposition.

There were zero voicemails received in favor or in opposition.

And Southwest Community Association Neighbor Association did not provide a response.

No.

Okay.

The yeah, the the poles are.

There they are.

Okay.

So sorry.

Apologize.

I just saw the picture.

No, no worries.

All right.

Any questions for staff before we have the applicant come up?

Hearing that's how the applicant come forward.

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

Hi, my name is Lydia Cottrell, and I am here for all the different variances.

I don't know why she has six oppositions because I had um two three four five in favor.

That I emailed you.

Yes, I received an email this morning past the cutoff when we receive or when we record responses, but I do have them pulled up right here from what you emailed me earlier.

But I am emailed them around nine something.

I was trying to gather a bunch of data because I didn't get back into town uh until around seven o'clock last night.

Um I also uh attached from 2010, the Google view of the property, um, which shows the same structure there in 2010.

Google Earth shows the um property with the same structure there from 2000, although I know it's been there since the late 80s or 90s.

You're referring to the the accessory structure and the roof.

Yeah, numbers not the shade structures.

Yeah, number six.

Did you purchase the house prior to the uh after that it was installed?

Or did you install it?

Uh no, I only installed the number one and number four and number two and three.

Five and six were already there, have been there for many, many years.

Those are all the in favor support along with the association.

Do you know the history of the I'm sorry to go to the the history of this uh when that structure was built and perhaps was this part of the city listed?

I can only go back on Google Earth to 2006 and it was there.

Okay.

Um I just know because I was there from 73, I believe, in the neighborhood.

Okay.

And then we moved away, and then my husband and I uh came back in eighty six and were there for 20 years.

And I've been involved with the new neighborhood association from that time from the 90s.

Okay.

Um and I purchased that property in 2014 from Mr.

Albert Reyes's um estate.

And so all of this structure of five and six, I guess it is, it's the same, or building the the rear, which is a garage with a uh apart uh I'm sorry, an office inside.

It's a garage with an office.

And so number one on the site, um I had looked up for c uh permits, what you do not need a permit for, and it said any storage building 300 square foot and under.

So I went ahead and um put the metal roofing on and I put a gutter in the neighbors' windows look right into our bedroom window and living room.

So it was more of storage that I wanted, but as I look at it, it's kind of a um privacy into our home from the neighbor.

Um fencing.

Uh the fencing is the posts are at least, I guess, from the post right there.

Um on her side, that's her mobile home.

So she could see right down into our living room.

But uh that was the storage that I wanted to build that was 270 square feet.

It has metal.

Um it it is not attached to the home.

And um the fence post you can see if you look in the gutter if you expand it a little bit.

You can see that the gutter um is on right at the wood fence, and then the posts are the property line, basically.

And can I show the other picture of the inside?

Oh, oops.

Um did it did that one show the gutter running into our front yard?

Did you see that?

Or do I need to show that to you again?

I guess that one maybe maybe a little bit better for the gutter.

It runs into the our front yard.

The covering and it runs down into our front yard.

I wanted to show you the inside so you can see that it's not attached.

Um I'll go ahead and add a note really quickly just to that structure in the rear yard um while while you look for those photos we're looking for.

Um you were asking about the structure in the rear yard, uh, Chair Orion, and that looks like it's very, very old, seems original to the property going all the way back to like 2003, the imagery that I find, and it's back there.

Um, but there was a second story edition done to that structure in about 2017.

Yeah, I I was looking it up on BCAD.

Uh they they show the house was built in the 50s, and that 1990, it looks like it may have been built.

But but it's only uh the um a thousand square foot or twelve hundred square foot, and they're talking about five thousand, so yeah, that that is the home, the front home I um because all the measurements were off, so I had to have the architectural architect design and all that done in 2018.

So the is not a two-story, it's just windows for ventilation.

And it's not a two-story.

Was this property part of the city limits uh in the in 1990?

I can find that.

Yeah, probably.

I because I think it was um I think it was acquired in this late 70s when I was a little girl.

Okay.

Yeah.

Like I said, I lived there and then um anyway, let me find that picture.

Yeah, she's correct.

It was annexed into the city in 1972.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Manna?

So the it does seem that there's some significant opposition um, I guess, for the activities.

So were the addresses that you provided different or the same addresses that showed X's in the prior dialogue?

I don't know what she had for opposition.

I was like surprised because yeah, all the neighbors that I spoke to in the area were uh four.

So can the staff confirm the addresses?

So you showed a a map that showed basically every neighbor in opposition, and then she's providing documents that I went and gathered yesterday evening when I got back.

Yes, the notices that were recorded in staff's presentation were received prior to the like the deadline that we put on the notices.

I did receive these notices in support that you can see.

I received them this morning, so they are not part of staff's presentation counts, but I did receive them this morning.

Are those even even address numbers?

So the question I'm asking is that was it the same people that were previously in opposition are now in favor, or is it a different subset of neighbors that that are let me look at that?

I will get back to you.

Yeah, if you can bring the map up because uh the the odd ones on her side of the street of the or who's in opposition.

All the X's are the opposition.

Yeah, see um I spoke to 5107, they're on there.

She's on there, she was fine with it.

Um 13 um oops, you have one way.

Yeah, 5107, she was fine, she uh was in favor.

And um 11 um she's had issues with us since the beginning that we purchased the property.

And then the mother next to the one who was uh upset about the sunshades that I put up number four.

And um because of the water runoff.

So I wanted to ask if you guys would consider leaving those in favor if I put gutters and rain barrel catches for my raised bed garden in the back.

Um currently they are right at the line.

I can show you a picture of that.

She was gonna put up a picture of the other, but then 51 23.

Is that 23?

Can't read that.

Which one?

2327 is in favor.

I spoke with her last night.

So I don't know.

She's on my list that I visited.

Um did you get to see the uh detachment of the storage on the side?

That which is uh reflecting number one.

That was the one that I built because when I looked at the um what I don't need a permit for, it's 300 square foot and under.

And that's a detached.

Um I didn't know that there was any setbacks because it doesn't say on the where you'd look to see what I don't need a permit for.

That looks detached or attached to me.

It's detached.

By how much?

It's got separate posts where the metal is attached, the metal roofing, the metal post.

Do you want to say it again?

Okay.

So you so you you purchased this home after 1990?

Yeah, 2014.

2014, okay.

So you had nothing to do with this existing condition of the larger accessory structure in the rear yard.

Just changing the the roof.

Yeah, because it was metal, it was metal roof, metal, regular roof and metal.

Yes.

But um the city was saying that was two story, but I'm like, no, it's just ventilation on the uh and it's well I mean something that it was if it was built twenty-four years before she bought it, I don't know.

I'm a little more sympathetic to that.

Um but the stuff that that are on out of these six items, five of them are items that they that you built.

Uh four, yes, the sunshades, and those are the ones that the neighbor at 511 um was in opposition of.

But I am asking to item number five on the east side.

Um is that something that that you contributed to, or is that an existing condition when you purchase the house?

I don't I don't even really understand what that one is.

Yeah, so number five, there's a kind of concrete wall underneath the uh metal shape structure that you have that yeah, has that been there or something?

Yeah, that's been there.

Okay, gotcha since the nineties.

So yeah, the photo shown on the slides here.

If you look over on the projection over there, the concrete wall is only where that red line is.

Okay.

Sorry, and that looks like it went away.

Um pulled that back up.

The green line just is there to denote that the rest of the structure that's back there does comply with the minimum setback.

It's just there's this concrete wall that juts out where the red line shows.

That's been there since the nineties as well.

Um I mean I have a grasp of what we're looking at.

Um it looks like uh uh the sunshade items, uh the front the front posts uh is is everything you added.

The front the the item uh the sunshade in the front.

What is the purpose of that?

Because it looks like a you're in make trying to put like a pseudo car port or something.

Yes, exactly.

And I did get a permit for that.

That's why I don't understand, and it passed.

When did you get a permit?

Um year and a half ago.