Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I'm present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ibanes.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Zuna?

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Manna?

Present.

Commissioner Cruz?

Present.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Commissioner Benez.

Here.

And Commissioner Gomez.

Here.

We are good to go.

All right.

Thank you very much.

If anyone could please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Indivisible liberty and justice for all.

Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One state under God.

One and indivisible.

All right, I thought I could show that Commissioner Ivanez has joined the meeting.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals from the board decisions regarding Chapter 28 are made to the city council.

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

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

You are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

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

Those giving 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, I understand we have uh two uh cases requesting a continuance, item four and and item thirteen.

Is there anybody sign up to speak uh on those two items?

No, sir.

All right.

So um if you'd like to please present item four and thirteen uh for a continuance consideration.

Item four, uh re located uh five thirty-nine uh Calmont place for a four-foot uh front yard fence and a ten foot clear vision.

Um and then item number thirteen is a fence material variance and a clear vision variance located at 607 MacIvean, both requesting uh May 18th.

All right.

Is there a commissioner who would like to motion on uh item number four?

Motion for continuance to uh May 18th.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, item is continued to May 18th.

Uh how about item 13?

Same motion for continuance to May 18th.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Motion uh case uh thirty item thirteen is continued to May 18th.

Uh I understand that item number uh let's see, 15 has been withdrawn.

Is there anyone sign up to speak on item 15?

No, sir.

All right.

That leaves us with item number one.

Good afternoon.

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

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

This is a continuance from the April 20th meeting.

The subject property is located at 122 Rilla Vista.

Surrounding uses include residential and multifamily uses.

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

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

The applicant has received a citation for operating a short term rental without a permit, and the applicant's original permit was approved on August 15, 2022 and expired on August 2025.

There are a total of 11 units on the block face, one active type two permit already being there at 128 Rela Vista.

The block face is currently at 9.09 percent.

If a second type 2 is approved, the block face will be at 18.1 percent, exceeding the 12.5 density limitation for type 2 STRs.

This is the current listing but only advertising with a 30-day minimum.

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

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request.

And there were a total of 21 mail notices, zero in favor, one in opposition.

Voice mails there was zero in favor, zero in opposition, and Shear Hills Ridge Ridgeview neighborhood is in opposition.

No response from the Senate San Antonio District One Resident Association, and six citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

Yes, and this is a duplex.

Is that correct?

Um, thank you.

All right, so the applicant come forward.

Mr.

Chair Clarification, it's a one single family home.

Okay.

The reason why I ask is uh and on the and I'll ask the applicant, but on the aerial on real drive re um RIA Vista Drive, there's an entryway, uh, but there's a driveway and a door off of DOT Drive with the number two.

It looks like they're attempting to make it a second suite on this House, and I was just wondering if uh that had any thing to do with this request uh at all.

Um Mr.

Chairman, just to clarify, it was uh duplex at one point, but because the zoning didn't allow for that, uh we had the applicant go back and add uh uh doorway between the two, so that way it can be classified as one unit and rented out as such.

All right, thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

That is me.

The uh good afternoon uh board.

My name is Enrique Lavinman.

So yes, I came last time um with the facts of the case, right?

Like I told you before, I did have my license to permit back in 2022 with no complaints and no violations up until the point that I found out that uh my permit had expired because I got the citation.

Unfortunately, I was out of the country when that happened, and I immediately reapplied.

Then I started working with the city with making sure that we changed the driveway to the back, the door and all that.

Um in that 10-day period, another STR came on the block, they applied, and unfortunately got they applied on the 15, applied on the 25th.

Mine came and within the 30-day period, basically I lost my permit while I was working with the city and uh making sure that the driveway on the back is set for the parking.

We change as you saw the egress on the property, uh and made all those changes, and that's that's why it had extended all this time.

But uh anyway, there were no complaints prior to the um to the September item.

These density issue arose only after um after uh I was uh I was cited.

So I'm I'm asking if you you have some of my paperwork.

If you can display just some of the facts, right.

Um like I said, I've never in the next in the next slide.

Oh, it's very hard to see, but I'm just gonna go through it.

Uh I've never had any any it will I was always uncompliant during all those three years, right?

That I've been in compliance.

I had uh I'm just gonna read it because it's very hard to read.

I've never had uh a noise violation or anything like that.

I have no outdoor entertainment on the property like any other Airbnbs, right?

I've also maintain a 4.95 guest uh average Airbnb rating, which is very, very difficult.

I've had over 200 five-star reviews proving that I've been a very good neighbor for the city and for the neighborhood.

Uh I've also made a change as you can see there in item number five, like I talked earlier with the city, making sure that the parking is in the back with the next to the apartment complex, because there's a apartment complex on the back of the property.

My property is the one all the way to the end of the neighborhood, the very, very last property of the neighborhood, and it backs to an apartment complex.

Uh the nearest neighbor is 250 feet uh to the nearest neighbor in the back, so there's no answers to any neighbor on the back, right?

And approximately 200 feet to the nearest second SCR, other than the one that got the permit approved while I had my lapse of um density, right?

Uh in this property I also invested over a hundred K to bring this property back to live.

It was very, very in bad shape.

And I've maintained the inside uh the outside, I made a lot of a couple of changes inside, right?

The exterior has no changes on the appearance, so it doesn't influence on anything from the neighborhood, and there's no complaints from neighboring properties.

I've talked to the neighbor, and they have no complaint right next door to me.

Uh I've proven compatibility with all the residences, and like like I said, um I I parks in the back, right?

I also did talk to the HOA last time we were gonna go talk to the HOA.

I went and met with the HOA, we had about 20 to 30 people on the meeting.

Uh during the the meeting, everybody was in favor of uh the granting the special exception, uh at least that was my opinion and my impression.

They even voiced over, you know, when when I did my presentation to them.

Um over but this neighbor over the weekend and I got an email today from the president that they had met again and their board, and I think they communicated that to the um to the city that they were maintained uh the the opposition because of STRs.

I've invested a lot here and it would provide a lot of hardship uh not only financially but it threatens the million ability to maintain the properly the property properly, you know.

And this has not been um due to a viol my my lapsing permit was not due to a violation but it was more of a lapse of my my uh my uh be me being out of the country right so obviously I have a couple of alternatives I've tried.

I think I presented last time when I was here uh long term I've had it as a long-term rental, but the uh it barely covered the cost, so it would not be feasible, you know, with all the investment that uh has been put in.

So my recommendation, my opinion is that um I'm asking the board for the special exception to restore my previously compliant STR, given that I have proven history, so it's not not that the we're not going to have something that it's up to the air.

It's proven history that the property was in compliance, that it's not noise, there's no parking, there's no issues with the neighborhood, it's not something that is not you're going blind.

You're going with facts here that we were in compliance, we had over 255 tar reviews, so it's not like we're going against the city.

But uh that's what I'm asking the board to um for the special compliance.

So on in the next couple of slides, uh thank you.

Uh staff, is this applicant owe any money to the city?

This SDR.

I don't own anything I can show you, but let them.

Um he's currently on his hot taxes.

Okay.

And then the other my this is related to my question from earlier.

So everyone on on Ria Vista has their driveway on Ria Vista, but this particular house has a driveway and now an entry door on dot drive.

And the only other house that has a driveway and an entry door, which is neighbor uh, you know, to the right, also addressed off a dot drive.

Is is this applicant qualify for addressing on dot drive?

It just seems like that would be more in line with what's going on out there on the street.

Because his access and entry doors there.

Yeah, that would be an addressing situation, but essentially the way that addressing is done is off the front face of the house, not where the driveway is.

Or the because he has an entry door there now.

That's what I'm wondering.

Because that door that has a two, yeah, and it's it's one minute.

And this I was just curious because you know, if this doesn't work out, I mean I would pursue addressing off a dot, then you'd be the only STR.

Correct.

Well, that's another alternative.

That's why I pointed that 200 feet to my nearest neighbor on dot drive, and it's also the apartment.

Uh I've been working with the city to make the entrance that way and making sure that I have an entrance that way as well.

That's definitely another alternative that's going through I don't know where.

Addressing you said I would have to find out where where that is.

Okay.

But our addressing department is here, we can help you with that.

I I would not know.

I would start with them.

All right.

Is there any commission questions?

Uh Commissioner Zuna.

Just for perspective, I know your current all the hot taxes, but for my perspective, do we know at the peak what kind of taxes the city was collecting in hot revenue from this uh STR?

Just give us one second, we're gonna check.

While they're doing that, is any other questions?

Commissioner Manon?

So is this your only um rental property in San Antonio?

I have four rental properties in San Antonio.

Two are um strs.

Well, this one was one.

I have two long-term rentals in LA Heights and one uh STR in Tobin Hill.

And so does it is the same arrangement or or I I guess it's that property safe over in Tobin Hill, I guess.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

With regards to uh Tobin Hill is good.

Okay.

So this is the only one that's out of compliance, we'll say, so to speak.

Okay.

All right.

Well, this one was a lapse in timing because I was out of the country at Win Hill.

Obviously, I've learned my lessons and it's it's good.

Yep.

All right, is anyone signed up to speak while we're waiting on the research?

No public comment.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yeah, Bonnie is for the city.

Yes, Commissioner.

The other STR on that on that block face, is that STR current?

Yes, it is.

Or re-vista.

Oh.

On re revista.

Oh, mine is current.

Commissioner Beneas, is that were you asking about the other thing?

Yeah, I was asking about the other the other STR on that block face.

If they were current, the Yes, the other STR is current.

And just to answer your question, uh Chairman, uh I'm sorry.

Um it's about 866 per month or so for the last 33 months.

All right.

So if there's no other questions.

I'm not sure.

You can see it's a lot of money.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh I'm looking for a motion.

Ozuna.

Commissioner Azuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103041.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated at 122 Rio Vista Drive.

Applicant being Enrique Leventman.

Because the testimony presented to us.

And the facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property is such that a little literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

And 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 the short-term rental versus a long-term rental at this facility.

B the special exception does not create a public nuisance.

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

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

The neighboring properties consist of single family and multifamily structures.

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

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

The subject provides uh 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 a previously revoked short-term rental license.

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

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

On February 10th, 2026, the applicant or owner was held liable for operating short term without a permit.

If the special exception will not alter the essential character of the district and the location in which the property for which the special exception is sought, subject property is located in clock close proximity to other residential units uh reuses with the property owner providing all street parking and maintaining it from the neighboring property.

The special exception does not appear to alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property seeking the special exception and a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Boniz.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, so I heard all the testimony by the applicant, and I am going to be in support of the motion as read.

The applicant has five-star reviews, has history of operating this with this property in good order.

Um the permit was revoked due to a timing lapse, and the applicant uh kind of made amends for that.

He was in the process of of making sure that the property was up to the building codes and and re operations for uh renewal of the short-term license, and that's when the neighbor property applied.

So it's kind of a timing issue, and this is the same issue that has crept up of time to time when when people are renovating properties, we see this.

And so I I think it's a timing issue.

I don't hold the applicant responsible for that in part.

I think the city is receiving revenue of about $866 a month from the short-term taxes, which is meaningful, I think, for this property.

And I think it's a good use of the property, so I'm supporting it.

Thank you, Commissioner Benez.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in support also for everything that Commissioner Zuna said.

Uh in addition to that, you know, he has had a solid history as an operator, no violations whatsoever.

Uh, I think we've been here a number of times and we've had people who are not good operators, and we see that uh often we don't see that here with this with this operator.

Uh I think he'll uh he'll continue to do well and uh I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Yes, uh Reed?

Yes, Commissioner Reed.

Um I should ask this earlier, but when a um license is up or coming up for renewal, how what kind of notice does the owner get?

Is it a single notice?

Is it multiple?

Um so when a person expired, they receive a reminder to renew three months prior to expiration date and then one month prior to expiration date.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, if there's nothing else, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ponias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reid.

Uh no, do not concur.

Commissioner Yupanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion does fail, however, 8 to 3.

Please get with staff to explore your options and where to take this from here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item two.

Good afternoon, Tyler Adam, uh Planner Development Services.

This is special exception BOA-261030075.

This is located at 1722 North Olive Street in Council District 2.

Applicant being Nat Dow.

This is a request for a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short-term rental permit on the block face zoning is residential single family.

As mentioned, the subject property is located at 1722 North Olive Street.

Surrounding uses include residential, single family, and multifamily.

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

This block face is made up of only three units ranging from 1722 to 1730 North Olive.

There is an active type two already at 1730 North Olive, which means this block face is currently at 33 percent density with an additional type 2.

Um this would bring the block face to 66 percent, uh which exceeds the 12 and a half percent density limitation.

Um applicants submitted their application uh March 24th of 2026, was placed uh by staff on pending BOA decision for exceeding block face density on April 4th.

And as mentioned, there is a permit at 1730 North Olive, which was approved in October of 2023.

That property is current on their hot taxes, and for the subject property, there are no code enforcement um history, no active listings.

This is the site plan submitted, and then the subject property and the surrounding areas in the following slides.

Staff recommendation um is denial.

And staff mailed 34 notices.

We received one in opposition.

Uh we did receive a voicemail in opposition.

Uh no response from government Hill Alliance Neighborhood Association and five citywide groups were notified with no response.

And applicant is here for questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Is that the applicant come forward?

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

Yes.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Nyet Dow.

Uh I'm an owner of the property.

You have to kind of sensitive.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Nyet Dow, and I'm here today to um request uh spatial exception for my property.

Uh I bought this property um last year in June 2025 to be closer to my radar family.

Uh they live here in San Antonio.

Um so I stay in San Antonio about four to five months.

Um put my property for short-term rental um because uh the time I'm not here, I want to have some revenue so I can maintain the property well.

Um the house is single family resident with garage driveway and additional street parking directly in front of the property because of this, the home is can fully accommodate your guests without impacting neighborhood properties or street um any type of neighbor the house is very separate.

Uh I take pride in maintaining my property and being respectful to neighborhood.

I operate res responsibly by enforcing strict house rule, including quiet hours, no parties, no events, all gatherings, and verify uh screening guests.

I also limit uh occurrency to small family style state, uh uh typically three to four guests to ensure minimum impact on a neighborhood.

I have exterior uh security cameras and remain active involved managing the property to ensure compliance and quickly respond to any concern.

Umly this request is just for one more Taichu short-term rental on a lock face and approval would remain within the city pacing and density requirement and would not create an over concentration.

I'm fully committed to calm lying with all the city regulations and operating in a way that protects the character, safety, and quality for the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

And uh do you own any other STRs in San Antonio?

No.

You don't?

Okay.

Any questions from the Commission?

Commissioner Manna.

So just for clarification, there's only three units on this block face.

And I'm looking, you know, on Google Drive.

And it looks like there's the RM.

Are they being addressed differently?

And that's why they're not being considered on this block face?

Um, it's because that RM, there's more if there's more than four units on a lot, they're considered their own block face and not are not counted for the remainder of the block face.

The street is so there are hold on, I'm so sorry.

Okay.

So okay.

So they are included in account.

So um do we know if there's any short-term rentals in those units?

There are none on that.

Those units.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yeah, real quick, Bonnie's Commissioner.

One more time, can you clarify what would you just say if there are RM4, they're considered their own block face?

So if they lot or parcel has more than four units on it, they are considered their own block face and are separate from the remainder of that street.

Okay.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um so I'm looking at what they're showing.

Uh so I'm trying to figure out so who the um is not accepting the request.

Somebody said uh a post uh request.

Do you know why?

Does anybody know why?

Are you referring to the public comment?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Um I can pull up.

It's the next door neighbor, so I'm trying to figure out why they would be opposing it.

Um this is from the property owner at 1712 North Olive.

Oh, this is the RM4 with the multiple units.

Okay.

Yeah.

Bonus, I have a question for the companies.

Yes, sir.

What type of hardship uh would you experience if if we if you don't get this permit?

Uh so for me, if I get this permit, then I would be able to maintain the property really well, which is I would be able to um having uh a management that helped me to run this property with me as a co-host.

Um I would be able to obviously pay the city taxes, uh, bring in revenue for the city.

And if you don't get if you don't get the permit, what what difficulties do you face if you don't get the permit?

I would have challenging uh cover the expense.

Um things.

Would you have enough to uh is there a mortgage on this?

Would you have enough to cover the cover the monthly debt?

Yes.

If you get the permit.

Yes.

Thank you.

And that you had mentioned that you stay there five months out of the year.

Is that five months concurrently or sporadically spread out throughout the year?

Uh spread out.

So doing the holidays, uh I come for like uh uh I would say like uh between Thankgiving until maybe like uh March.

Uh so I don't I don't love the coal in Washington, D.C., so I come here um and also my rudder here, so I just spend time with them holidays and sometimes I come back and forth.

It all depends.

Okay.

So it would be do you think it would be difficult for you to find a tenant or even or even allocate more than 30 days in a row to rent this facility out?

Yes, I think it's challenging to do long term, and because I want the flexibility for my properties, if I want to, let's say if my niece graduates and I want it to come for a week, so I then I have that um flexibility that I can book and say.

If I rent it out long term, I I would say I have more restricted yes.

Yeah.

This is why I wish we had uh the ability to do less than three years.

Okay.

Any other questions before we move on?

Anyone sign up to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Um looking for a motion.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 261030075, I moved to the board adjustment grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental unit situated at 1722 North Olive Street, applicant being Nat Dow, uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Code as recomm as amendment 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 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.

See 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 uh cause reason to believe it will substantially injure neighboring properties as a 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.

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

E, the applicant or owner of the pro the special exception within uh that such uh special exception does not have any previously revoked short-term rental licenses, confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses, convictions or uh for violations of chapter 16 Article 22 of the city code within one year prior to the date of application.

The applicant or owner does not have previously revoked licenses, confirms citations or adjudicated offenses or conviction of chapter 16.

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

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

The special exception does not appear to alter the central character of the district and location in which the property is seeking the special exception and a motion.

I second.

Second by Commissioner Bonnie's Commissioner uh Manna.

So unfortunately, I I'm not going to support this motion, and I apologize.

Um when I take a look at this community, I do see that um there does appear to be a fair amount within the thousand feet, there's eighteen um other short-term uh type two rentals here.

And so is so one of the things that we're trying to do is protect the density in a community, and I think this um basically just aggravates that.

So I will not be supporting this.

Commissioner Banyas.

Uh I agree with Commission commit the Commissioner.

Um it's very odd uh for us well for me to support the percentage um sixty-six percent for this block face.

Anyone else like to add?

Yeah, I'm not sure.

Commissioner Bunny is yeah, I'll be in support.

Um I think that you know this this block's laid out kind of odd.

There's only three properties there, so even one puts it at 33 percent, which is way over the 12.5.

Uh but in addition, I think this applicant said, you know, he stays there five months out of the year, six months out of the year.

So it's kind of like his, you know, it's also his personal home too, and that makes it really difficult for him to use this home as a long-term rental as a midterm rental.

We know they don't really do well.

Um so for those reasons, I think, you know, it being his home five, six months out of the year, him not being able to really rent it out long term puts him in a financial hardship.

So I'll be in support.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Zuna.

I'll be in support too for all the reasons my colleague brought up.

All right, thank you.

If there's nothing else, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Ibanis, I do not concur.

Commissioner Reed.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Breckman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Suna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

Uh and I concur.

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

Uh if you could please get with staff if you have any questions.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Tyler Adam, uh, Planner Development Services.

This is special exception BOA-26-103079, located at 247 Princeton.

This is Council District 1.

Applicant is Elvis Trevino, and this is a request for a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short-term rental permit on the block face.

As mentioned, subject property is located at 247 Princeton.

Surrounding uses include residential single family and per city code type 2 short-term rentals shall be limited to no more than one-eighth or 12 and a half percent of the total number of single family, duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on the block face.

There are 15 units on this block face, ranging from 207 to 247 Princeton, with one active type 2 permit located at 211 Princeton.

Current block face density is 6.6%.

If an additional is approved, that would bring the density to 13.3% exceeding the 12 and a half percent limitation.

Applicant submitted um his short-term rental application February 3rd of 2026.

Application was placed on pending BOA decision for exceeding block face density on March 31st.

And as mentioned, the type 2 that's located at 211 Princeton was approved in October of 2025.

That property is current on their HOT.

And for the subject property, there is no code enforcement history and no active listings.

This is the site plan.

And then the subject property, and the next slides are the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request.

We received zero in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails were received for this request.

No response from Uptown Neighborhood Association, no response from San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association, and five citywide groups were notified with no response.

And the applicant is here for questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Good afternoon.

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

Hi, um, my name is Elvis Travino.

I'm the owner at the property at 247 Princeton Avenue.

I respectfully request approval of a special exemption to allow a type 2 STR at this location for the following reasons.

The exception will not be contrary to the public interest.

The property was previously operated as a short-term rental, concurrent with the other existing STR on the block without incident.

During that time, there were no impacts to the public interest, nor were there concerns raised regarding the operation of the property.

The project has operated as both a long-term and short-term rental without disturbance to adjacent owners.

And the property will be actively and locally managed with control operations including no parties, enforced quiet hours, uh guest screening, and 24-7 availability of a local contact to respond to any concerns.

As there's two off-street parking areas from the front of the street, and on the side there's a two-car detached garage, which can also be available to uh the STR guests.

In addition, I have coordinated with Ray Salinas, president of the Uptown Neighborhood Association, who indicated no opposition or concern to the request.

And also no concerns were raised by the neighborhood association board.

Um Mr.

Salinas actually resides within the perimeter or circumference of the notice notices.

Um about a block and a half away.

So I think that speaks volumes to kind of his uh lookout on this.

Um the home was originally uh constructed in 1930 and has been fully renovated in compliance with all city codes, permits and regulations, and this reflects a commitment to maintaining the property in a matter consistent with neighborhood standards and city requirements.

Um this area also lacks hospitality accommodations such as hotels, and I strongly believe having an additional STR in this area will provide visitors with an alternative to experience San Antonio at a more intimate level.

Um based on the information provided, I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment determine that the proposed special exemption meets the criteria and grants approval of the type two STR at this location.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh is there any questions from the commission?

Ragman.

Commissioner Brackman.

Um you said that the HOA president lived nearby.

Yes.

Do you know how close to the property he lives?

It's uh 206 university.

So okay.

So just catches catches a clear.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions?

Manna.

Commissioner Manor.

Um, did do you have like documentation that shows that that they were in support of it?

So and so any other documentation outside of um not besides a phone call and a text kind of coordinating other things that were he was concerned about a 60 unit development down the street and he texted me about it, but no official documentation or email.

So does your text show his compliance or his would we be able to look at that?

So uh um so it'd be nice to be able to see just confirmation from uh let me I don't know if there's a camera somewhere.

Oh I guess the extent of it is it was uh nice chatting with you.

But he did share concerns about uh lot down the street, and he was just kind of talking to me about the neighborhood and kind of what uh what they like to see in the area.

But if uh some form of um I guess thumbs up would help my case, I think I could provide that.

Um or request it.

So my question, you had mentioned that it used to be an STR, uh, the previous owner.

Correct.

And so did you buy it in the hopes to continue on its use as an STR?

Yes.

And then the the individual at uh 211 Princeton got a license before were they grandfathered?

Did they get a license during that uh part where his license got canceled because of the change in ownership and then the one at 211 came in to be, or was that a uh grandfather?

Um the previous permit uh 247 expired in 2024.

Uh 21 got their permit in October of 2025.

Oh no, a year later.

Yeah, and for clarification, the previous center had their permit revoked due to hot delinquency in 2024.

Okay.

Thank you.

Right.

Any transaction?

It wasn't a transaction that calls the formative.

Right.

Uh is there any other questions?

Uh Bonnie's for the company's.

Uh, were you able to speak to any neighbors and maybe get support from them?

Yes, uh, I spoke to the neighbor across the street, which would be Brazos.

Um, and then I spoke with the one um, I guess it would be south of the property, which is directly adjacent to it.

Um there's an opposition, and I asked about any previous uh complaints or um any other uh things that they would want me to know as I operate in the area, and they had no concerns.

And then and then I know you spoke with Mr.

Salinas, and you said he wasn't in opposition, but but would he be in support, you think?

Um I believe he would.

Um I think uh he's also operates uh rentals, not in this neighborhood, but in the area.

Um so I think he would give the thumbs up on it.

Yeah, I think uh you know, because I don't think his board is being too friendly today.

So um I think maybe if you could get uh maybe some support from from Mr.

Salinas and Uptown Neighborhood Association, some something saying, hey, yeah, we we're good with it.

If you can get maybe some some checks from neighbors around you, getting some support there, I think that would greatly help and and maybe be able to get you approved.

Um would you like a continuous to pursue that endeavor?

Could you explain uh what the process is for that?

Yeah, we would just kind of shelf this.

We would I I would ask if the commissioner would like to make a a motion for a continuance, and then if it gets granted, you would come back uh hopefully with uh documented support from the neighbor association and documented support from immediate neighbors.

Okay, would that result in no a no vote right now?

No action today.

It would be just continue to another day.

Um yeah, I think that seems like um the best path forward.

So I agree.

Is there is uh anyone time to speak on this issue?

No public comment.

Is there a commissioner that would like to make a continuance?

So moved.

Is there two weeks enough or you need a month?

Two weeks is good.

Okay, so there's a motion for continuous to May 18th.

Is there a second?

Second.

I'll give that to Commissioner Bragman this time.

Uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Uh we'll see you in a couple weeks, and you know, we'll look we look forward to seeing if you can garnish written support.

And if you appreciate y'all's time.

If you can get them in writing, especially.

Yes, definitely.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Item number five.

And if um real quick, uh because we got external staff here for item number six.

Um can we push that up on the agenda?

Oh, sure.

Yep.

I'm gonna be transferring the gavel to Commissioner Ozuna, as I will be recruiting.

Time it's 153 and uh Chair Orion has left.

So that puts us down to how many commissioners?

Uh 10 commissioners.

Okay.

All right.

So staff, if we can hear the presentation for item number six.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joel Vellas and your planner with the development services department.

Uh item number six is BOA-26-103, 00073 at 5070 Old Pearsall Road.

Uh we'll just go ahead and present outside of full screen.

Yeah.

Uh the applicant being ADA consulting group incorporated in District 4.

Um, this is a request for one an elimination of the 15-foot type C buffer required along Medina Base Road, two, an elimination of the 30-foot type E buffer required along the north property line, and three, a five-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot type C buffer to allow a 10-foot buffer along old Pearsall Road.

The subject property is located north of the intersection of old Pearsall Road and Medina Base Road.

Uh, the applicant proposes that this irregularly shaped lot be used for a new food service establishment with access from Medina Base Road.

The UDC requires new development to include certain landscape buffers along property lines to create transition spaces spaces between uses and to promote green space as part of new development.

The minimum required size of these buffer yards is based on the zoning classification of the subject property and the classification of adjacent property.

The minimum required buffer yards in this case are the result of the current zoning designation of I-1 General Industrial.

If the requested variances are not granted by the board, the applicant may propose a change of zoning to any of the C commercial zoning districts, which each permit this proposed use and would impose a smaller landscape buffer requirement on new development.

Shown here is the subject property and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the landscape buffer yard variants.

Staff recommends denial and BOA-26-103-00073 based on the following findings.

And two, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship as the applicant may propose a change of zoning to lower the intensity uh of the zoning classification, which is more aligned with this proposed use.

Staff mailed 10 notices.

One was received in favor from outside the 200 foot notification area, zero in opposition, zero voicemails were returned, and we did not receive uh notice from the Southwest Community Neighborhood Association.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, let's see if we have any questions for the board.

Any questions for the staff?

Cruz.

Ms.

Bragman.

Ms.

Bragman and then Ms.

Cruz.

Sorry.

I'm just looking at the notification plan that we have compared to the presentation, and they look considerably different.

So I'm just trying to figure out.

Yeah, I think the uh template one that I sent you over is has some ones and twos in there.

Those that again, though that's just the template.

This is the official counts that we have here.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Cruz.

Of course.

Okay.

On the uh notices, you're saying there was two in favor, one opposed, but it's not showing anywhere on the map.

Can you show up?

Yeah, this is the uh official uh no uh notices that we received here on the presentation before y'all, not the one that we sent over the weekend.

That one uh is in the in that pres preparation packet doesn't include the official counts.

What we received was one in favor outside 200 feet, zero in opposition.

Again, the one sent over the weekend.

Sorry, that's it's go ahead and ignore the the notification plan on that one.

We're going off of on the screen here.

Thank you, Ms.

Cruz.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah, I I'm just curious because what you're showing on the computer.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

That's what it is.

All right, thank you.

Apologies for that.

Any other questions for staff?

Here and then we'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Thank you.

Hi.

Um, hi.

My name is Taylor Erickson, and I work with the civil engineering firm on this project.

Um I am new to this, so just bear with me.

Um today we're asking to uh request landscape buffer variances to accommodate a small drive-through only restaurant developed in an 8 by 40 foot reused shipping container on a vacant and isolated lot.

Um, if you could show the first exhibit, that would be awesome.

Thank you.

Oops.

So what this shows is to give a little history on how this track came to be, we go back to 1967 when the U.S.

Air Force released a large access drive, now called Medina Base Road, uh, which was used by the U.S.

Um Air Force to access Lackland Air Force Base.

As old Pearsall expanded, uh, the paved road became unnecessary and was ultimately detached and obliterated by the city in 1988 when Medina Base Road was improved.

Um in 1988, uh Medina Base Road was connected to Old Pearsall by a 60 foot right-of-way taking that severed our small site from the larger, more rectangular 4.283 acre lot um across the street.

Um this left our small site isolated at the hard corner of two arterial streets.

And then could you show the second one, please?

Thank you.

And now this exhibit shows the 4.283 acre lot that would have had some real potential for an industrial use, but once this small portion was isolated by right-of-way taking, it led to our hardships.

After our required 13-foot of right-of-way deduction along Medina Base Road, our tract is now 0.434 acres in size, making it practically unusable for typical industrial use.

And being on the corner of two public arterial streets, we have to dedicate 14-foot CPS easements on the two street frontages, making the site even smaller when compared to small parcels that only front one roadway.

And then the last one, and that last one can stay up, please.

Thank you.

Um, another hardship is that this small site has a 30-inch heritage oak tree that is being preserved.

This pushes our development back away from old Pearsol, further restricting what we can do.

When a site is on an arterial, the UDC does not allow a driveway within 245 feet of an intersection.

So being at the corner of two arterials and our site being so small, we technically aren't allowed to have a driveway at all.

So our office had to secure administrative variances to place this driveway, which is shown on the exhibit, which is right where the 30-foot side landscape buffer is required.

So then to go over our variance requests since there's three.

Regarding the 30-foot side landscape buffer elimination at the back of the property line.

If we were zoned C1 or C2, like this land should be, this buffer would not be required, and we are asking the board to treat this property as such.

Providing a 30-foot landscape buffer along with our driveway location requirement, right-of-way and CPS easement dedication, and preservation of the 30 inch oak tree make this land basically useless.

The abutting apartment complex in construction is situated well above our site, as you saw from those pictures.

So bear me with me as I try to explain this, but from the common property line, you'd have to travel 16 feet across a sanitary sewer main easement.

Then the elevation rises over 25 feet to the apartment parking lot, which is about 100 feet away from the common property line.

Then the nearest four story apartment building is another 100 feet away.

So this buffer truly serves no purpose as it's not screening anyone from anything.

Regarding the 15-foot landscape buffer along Medina Base elimination request to provide compliant for parking spots and interior drive access, the development also has to lie near the required 14-foot CPS easement along Medina Base Road, leaving only a few feet per planting to meet any buffering requirements along Medina Base Road.

A 13-foot right-of-way dedication to the city and then 14-foot CPS easement dedication are required on the plat.

After report after providing those drive and some parking, there is very limited space for any planting along this street.

And then regarding the 15-foot landscape buffer reduction request along Old Pearsol Road, we are asking to be treated as a C1 or C2 zoned property, which would only need a 10-foot buffer along Old Pearsol.

So to summarize, our site is isolated with a text out parcel used for drainage to the north.

To the west is a new apartment complex currently in construction, but as I mentioned, they're well located over 100 feet away and over 25 feet above our site.

Across the old Pearsall is a saws facility, and the property across Medina Base Road is owned by the same owner as the subject tract.

Buffers are used to screen uses of higher intensity from view, but who are we screening from if across Medina Base is the same owner, which is undeveloped at this time, and across Old Pearsall is used as a SAUS facility.

From the surrounding development, I1 is not appropriate zoning designation, and we really should be C1 or C2.

And if we were C1 or C2, we wouldn't have a 30-foot buffer at all.

And we would just have the 10 feet buffers along the two arterial roads.

Even the staff report for this case suggests a change of zoning to a lower intensity zoning classification, which is more aligned with the proposed use.

Such a change would impose more appropriate development standards, including landscape buffer requirements.

However, a change in zoning is expensive and can take four to six months to be approved.

Coming to the board is much quicker and less expensive.

I'm here today to ask to be treated as a lower intensity zoning class, not because we don't think we would succeed, but it's because it's quicker and cheaper to go this route.

Besides, if the zoning ever does ultimately change in the future, there's no harm in granting our variances today.

Also, our office did reach out to the Southwest Community Neighborhood Association via email and did have an opportunity to discuss the project and our requests with Chanel Alvier and have received an email stating their support, which I do have printed here today.

It just came over the weekend, so was not included in the presentation.

In closing, we are preserving trees, we'll fully comply with the landscape code and provide on-site planning, and we'll only have 55% impervious cover, and we would really appreciate relief to our hardships that I had mentioned.

Thank you for your time and let me know if there's any questions.

Could we see first of all the letter from that first page and then the second page is what we had sent them?

And then my other question is so you're saying that on the Medina Base Road where the 15-foot buffer, if you were a different classification, that there would be no buffer required at all.

Along Medina Base Road, I believe there'd still be a 10-foot buffer, and same with old Pearsol, but that 30-foot buffer in the back property line would not be there.

Okay, so but you're requesting to eliminate the 15-foot entirely, and not yes, because as you can see in the blue, that's where the 14-foot CPS easement is, and there's the green is where we could plant now, but I mean with a reduction, we could plant, we could beautify the area more outside of the strict screening codes, and that's kind of what we're trying to go for.

Um I mean, in your request, you're requesting to eliminate it entirely.

Yes.

Which means then there would be no requirement for you to put any sort of planting.

No, yeah, no strict requirement, but we would still plant, um, if that makes sense.

And how much, how wide a strip do you need for that planting?

I'm just trying to figure out because the way you're requesting, you're you're saying take it down to zero.

And I don't feel comfortable with that.

So I'd like to know if there's something that that you would feel comfortable with that you would say, yes, we can do 10 foot, we can do five foot.

Realistically, I think ten feet, uh like I said, if we were classified as zone C1 or C2, we would only have the 10 foot requirement on the two arterial streets.

Um I think the bigger one is the 30-foot one in the back, because if you can see it cuts right through the only place we can put our driveway.

Um so that one's the bigger one that I would like to get eliminated, and then along the two streets.

Uh less is better along Medina Road, but if it was 10 just to be treated as a C1, C2, I I I would appreciate that.

So are you amending your application to 10 feet instead of eliminating it entirely?

Um wouldn't wouldn't you have an encroachment where those parking spaces are within the within the setback?

Yeah, because if you see on the lap.

Yes.

Um I I think 10 could work.

Five would be better.

I more or less just the reduction.

If I can't get an elimination, I will I will take a reduction.

It's just uh as I mentioned, this lot just can't be used for anything industrial, and I don't know who we're screening from.

And I'm we're just trying to build something on this lot in this up and coming commercialized area.

Well, I guess my argument would be is not entirely commercial because you've got an entire section of of apartments behind you.

So I mean, for their sake, it would be nice to have some sort of a landscape buffer.

So it's not just they're looking at a uh you said a a container is what the rest of the reuse shipping container, yes.

So that's not terribly attractive.

And I guess my point was with the 30-foot buffer in the back, though.

Um the apartment complex is if you can imagine it, it's a hundred feet away and twenty-five feet up, so the landscape buffer would have to be close to a hundred feet tall of trees before the top story of a four-story apartment building could see right over and in is kind of what I'm saying.

So that back one kind of doesn't make sense to me.

I understand the streets because people would drive by it, but the one on Medina Base Road, not the one behind.

Yes.

So yes, I understand what you're saying.

So are you amending your application to uh um well I mean don't they have to amend their application?

No, it's okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Manna.

So question for city staff.

So so on this picture here.

Um so is there so is the blue section?

Um so trying to understand how close to old Bure Sall Road it can get, because there's a tree drawn here that the applicant was stating that the reserving, but on the picture shows that's gone.

Um and so I don't think that tree is there.

And so can the property be moved closer to old Pearsall Road by right before it starts to have issues?

In other words, so I don't know what the green versus the blue is there.

The blue is the actual uh it's on their property.

If you're asking if the property line can move closer all Pearsall Road?

No, I'm asking if the whole park can be moved closer to Pearsall Road.

So the the blue, I believe, represents the easements.

Yes.

And we do allow because of when we get into situations where it's so tight, we we do allow a certain amount of planting in those easements as well.

So we we we are not in support of eliminating any buffers.

Certainly reducing buffers we can consider.

Well, so and where I was going was the applicant was talking about you know more in the back side.

And so I'm wondering if they move everything down a little bit that if it provides more in the back side um just in general, because you know that there's a picture of a tree drawn here that's not there any longer.

So as a heritage oak that was cut down.

And so um and so just trying to understand, you know, does the applicant have the ability to move any of this um accordingly?

And so therefore we can provide a bigger backs a bigger buffer in the back side uh for the that's uh you know facing departments themselves.

So that is possible.

I know the driveway is not able to be adjusted in order to accommodate uh the development that's proposed.

Did that answer your question, Mr.

Manna?

To the applicant, uh Bonias?

If you move this forward as as Commissioner Mann is saying, can you still do that uh the driveway?

Kind of like how I mentioned the UDC doesn't allow a driveway within 245 feet of the intersection.

So being at the corner, this is kind of where it can go.

Um like I said, we weren't technically allowed to have any driveway on our site, and we had to go get a special variance for that.

So no.

I don't believe so, no.

Gotcha.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Ragman.

Ms.

Bragman.

Uh so you heard staff say that they're not in favor of any sort of elimination on the uh back side of the property.

And it looks like from the rendering that yeah, there's a fair portion of the property.

Um the constructed piece of the property that would be in that 30-foot buffer.

Is there something that you could live with on the back side besides elimination?

Um yeah, uh from our site plan, it's possible to provide a five-foot buffer, but um like I said, we kind of would like to spend our money beautifying the area elsewhere that can actually be seen because it's nothing's gonna be seen back there.

But I a five, five, five, ten-foot buffer, just thirty is extremely large for something that it's not going to screen anyone from anything, and it's just kind of a lot of money being thrown at something that's not going to be seen or serving its purpose as a buffer.

Mr.

Mahana.

And so just confirming the dialogue for there's um if they were to go for a rezoning, then it would be a 10-foot buffer.

Um all the way round.

10 feet along the roads and no buffer along the north property line.

No buffer along the back property?

That's correct, right?

C12.

Yeah.

No buffer along where the 30-foot is currently.

If the zoning was changed.

Thank you, Mr.

Manor.

I had a quick question for staff.

So the property to the east is owned by the State of Texas.

They're not required to abide by any buffer or any are they?

Would they need to provide any buffering or if they were to develop that property?

I I'm not sure that I understand the question.

I'm not sure.

My understanding they're exempt from with state would be exempt from some of the property.

They're definitely exempt from zoning, but this is a different section from zoning.

So they would most likely have to comply with buffers and if they were to develop that property?

Our UDC only clarifies an exemption from Article 3.

Um, not this Article 4 standard.

All right.

Thank you.

Dean.

You said you were from the civil engineering firm that was consulting with this for this project.

The drainage piece of it.

Um looking at it.

It's I guess it's going to drain more to Pearsall, like um, and then more impervious cover here.

Um can you just elaborate more on the concepts related to that, related to the drainage piece for the board here to understand?

Yeah, like I uh briefly mentioned, there's a text drainage outfall to the north of this property.

So all of the off-site does flow down and collect off of old Pearsall.

There's um some existing drainage structure uh across Medina and then cuts over and goes across the street towards uh Leon Creek, I believe.

Can you use can you use the pointer?

Yes.

So there's an existing drainage right here and culverts, and it goes across the street here.

Um actually I believe it's over here.

Then there's a another um drainage culvert right here, so where all three culverts will connect, and then they go across the street towards the Sauce facility and Old Pearsall Park, and they will eventually drain the Leon Creek.

Um then like I said, it's only trying to do 55 percent impervious cover, whereas most commercialized lots are 90 percent impervious cover.

Um we did the drainage on it.

There's no adverse impacts downstream uh with this proposed conditions and uh the existing infrastructure can contain the runoff that would occur.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dean, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes.

So I I guess I'm going back to the tree thing because you mentioned you're trying to preserve a tree which has been cut down, it appears.

Um with that in mind, uh obviously your site plan works around a tree that's no longer there.

Could you not move parking over to get it out of that easement as you're showing out that blue area?

Sorry, repeat that.

The site plan kind of curves around that 30-inch tree, which I believe that's what that is.

Yes.

But it it appears from tree view that that's already been cut down.

Okay.

Um so my question is since that was dictating uh the layout here.

Now that that's gone, can this be changed to get it out of that uh blue easement area, the parking?

You see where the parking overlaps the blue area.

E oh, right.

Right here.

Um I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

I would assume uh I've been told the driveway can't move.

Um, but I think that's why we were saying that along Old Pearsall Road, the 10-foot buffer is okay if we kept that because you said the tree isn't there anymore than I was just thinking to add a little more buffer along Medina, although I know you mentioned with a different zoning that wouldn't be required.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Um more or less trying to get away from an I-1 and be treated as a commercial and just get the 10-foot buffers along the two arterial streets.

Mr.

Reed, was that answer your question or I don't think so?

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, hearing none, um Steph, do we have any voicemails or other public comment to be read in?

No public comments.

All righty.

Any closing rebuttal or statements you'd like to make before we close the public portion?

No, like I said, we're not opposed to um getting rid of any landscape.

We we intend to landscape and add greenery.

It was just more or less to get outside of the strict uh buffering because of how small the lot is and what we're just trying to do so that it's usable.

Um this just kind of is what made sense the most to us.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Let's see if we have a member of the board that'd like to fragment.

Chair.

Um did you amend uh the zero taking the the elimination of the uh 30-foot buffer or just to be clear, um the applicant doesn't have to amend it.

The board can uh request less.

It's they only need to amend it when they're adding stuff like gutters or stuff like that.

Yes, so the motion I think will incorporate any idea.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Oh, I'm okay.

Oh, you do?

Ms.

Bregman.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103073.

I move the board board of adjustment, grant a request for one, a five-foot variance from the 15-foot type C buffer to allow a 10-foot buffer along Medina Base Road and Old Pearsall Road situated um sorry, and two, an elimination of a 30-foot type E buffer required on the north property line, situated at 5070, old Pearsall Road, applicant being ADA consulting group Inc.

because of the testimony presented to us.

The facts we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal apportamental provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the request would still allow for effective separation and screening between uses and provide leaf relief from the constraints of the existing lot size and shape.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as the total square footage required to meet the minimum landscape buffer standard would consume over half the developable area of the entire parcel.

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

Granting this variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to provide screening of certain land uses that may create visual clutter or distractions.

The ten-foot buffer along Old Paris All Road and Medina Base Road is sufficient to screen this use from the road.

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

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

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

The proposed reduction of the landscape buffer requirement will not negatively impact adjacent properties.

The multifamily buildings on adjacent property are over 200 feet away and separated from the subject property by green space and the apartment complex parking lot.

Furthermore, the proposed buffer along Old Pearsall Road and Medina Base Road are sufficient to create separation from the roadway.

The plight of the owner of the property of which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

Existing conditions, including the overall lot size, irregular lot shape and access point limitations are such the literal enforcement of the landscape buffer yard standards will impose significant challenges that preclude this lot from being developed.

End of motion.

Oh a second.

Second.

Yes.

With this amended motion, I'll be in support.

I understand that they could easily go ahead and get um they could apply for a zoning change that would allow them to eliminate these buffers entirely.

I'm not in support of that, so I'd like to at least give them the opportunity to uh provide some landscape along Old Pearsall Road and Medina Base Road.

I agree I don't know that one is necessary on the back side because of the distance away from the um apartment complexes and the green space and the slope.

Uh so I think that this is a happy uh median uh between what was asked and uh what will service the public best.

Thank you, Mr.

Bagger.

Mr.

Manna.

So I was actually going to ask for a friendly memory to put 10 foot on the back side.

Would that be a consideration or do you want to vote on without the 10-foot?

Well, because I asked her what she could live with, and she said five.

On the back side?

Yes.

Well, so you want so provide for a five-foot then?

Because right now it's none.

So I I would be fine with five feet.

Okay.

I'm still fine with zero, but I mean I would be fine.

Okay.

Five feet because they said they could live without.

Okay.

So I'd like to go uh uh ask for a friendly member of five foot then if that's possible.

Accepted.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

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

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner A.

Banis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Vice Chair Osina.

Yes, I concur with Aten of Favors or Opposition.

The variance passes as read as amended.

Uh good luck with the project.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Yes.

The time is 223.

Let's get our chair back in his seat.

I got it.

I got it.

Yeah.

All right.

We're going to do uh we're going to do item seven since that also has a landscape buffer.

All right.

Item seven.

That's also you, Sean.

Good afternoon, you all.

This is case BOA 26-103-00076.

The applicant is Juan Vargas.

It is in Council District 5.

Location is 720 Northwest 24th Street.

Oh, and it's zoned C2.

The request is for a request for an 18-foot variance from the minimum required 30-foot rear setback to allow a structure with a 12-foot rear setback.

And two, an elimination of the 15-foot type B buffer in the rear.

And three, an elimination of the 10-foot type A buffer along Northwest 24th Street.

The subject property sits on the southeast corner of Northwest 24th Street and Lyele Street.

The property is surrounded by a lot zoned for single-family residential use on all sides except to the south, where there is a property zoned in sea neighborhood of commercial district.

The property owner has used this lot as a food service establishment operated out of a food truck.

That is the site plan and the variance is requested.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103-00076 based on the following findings of fact.

Is there any uh questions for staff?

Alright, let's have the applicant come forward.

Sorry, this is not seeing the second part of the presentation at all.

And can we stop it so we can get that fixed?

Because I'm trying to keep it up.

Yes, so the PowerPoint, there's a part one and a part two part, they're both exactly the same.

Right.

So we're not seeing anything that he's talking about.

Yeah, could the staff have the ability to uh get that to us?

Otherwise we'll have to look at the attachments from the uh meeting from the website.

It's better better than nothing.

But it's also delayed by send that to you all right now.

But what is displayed on these two screens here is the is the full PowerPoint.

But I'll make sure to get it to you as soon as possible that way you can see it on your own.

It's not everything, but it's something.

Can we send the uh display from the podium to the dias monitors as well?

Thank you.

In 2024, I came over to get a permit to have a roof thirty by thirty.

And then very recently uh we hired engineers because I wanted to have a gate, and then when we came over for the permit, they told me that there was a variance of the dimensions of the roof.

Did you catch all that?

Okay.

Um I would like you to consider that this is the very first time that I have that uh I'm over here.

Like I said since twenty sixteen, my wife and I we've been doing everything uh step by step, the drainage, that roof, everything that we installed the water, we always do it with uh with a permit from the city.

This is our way of life.

I was not aware of this variant, and this is why I'm here today because I like to be responsible.

This is our the way we live, and this is uh how we make money uh with this uh food truck, and I'm here uh to see what can I do with these variants, and that I was not aware of.

And they say that they do support me.

Uh I have is uh this is a parking lot.

When was that constructed?

We bought the property in 2020 and we started doing everything uh step by step.

Was it was this zone C2 when you purchased when this was purchased?

So before I tried to buy that property, I came over here and I told them what was my purpose for the property, and they said yes.

So just to be clear, he purchased it in 2021.

No, la Garrett cuando yo is.

I bought it in twenty sixteen and I finished paying it on twenty twenty-one.

And then the in the did he require a permit to build the parking lot, the concrete.

So when I before I I bought a property, I came over and I spoke with the CD and I told them what was my intention, and I told them that I wanted to put a base, and obviously I wanted to put asphalt.

Okay, so the question for staff.

I mean, if he if quick quick correction, that's not asphalt, that's like gravel.

Oh, that's gravel.

Okay.

All right.

You know, the the base material.

I'm just wondering um, was there any permits acquired for this at all?

As far as we saw, uh the only permit that we found was the one for the pavilion.

Okay.

I'm just trying to figure out how this got by drainage.

Yeah, and just to clarify, that was a permit application that was submitted for that pavilion structure.

Uh that was the only permit that was submitted.

Permit application, excuse me, that was submitted on this property.

Alrighty.

Any other questions?

Question on the same line.

So the the permit application for the pro the pavilion was approved because he's building within the setback lines, correct?

No, it the application expired before approval.

Um the questions?

Commissioner Manning?

So the pavilion's pavilion currently in the um in the space that says that it would not be permitted, or if yes, that's correct.

That's why they're asking for the rear setback.

Okay, because I I was looking at the I guess the way that where they had the food truck right now and the green space there, so the green spaces so what would be the buffer requirement for this property on that on the number one.

So what would be required?

The buffer or the setback.

So the setback would be a minimum 30 foot, and they're asking for 12.

So yeah, with this photo shown here, that back green space or the one on the right, it's not perfectly to scale, but that's representing the 15 foot minimum required buffer area.

Um to imagine what the minimum required setback would look like just double that width there.

That's what the required setback would be being that that's uh considered the rear property line, which to your point, yes, would take up a sizable portion of this property.

Yeah, and so when was the zoning change to C2?

Because obviously this was originally a residential lot at some point.

This is uh from our research always been uh a B2 prior to the 2001 zoning change um since its annexation.

Oh, oh, what's the uh it was zoned to B2 in 1969?

Okay, 69, thanks.

Okay.

Well, then a couple more questions.

So Commissioner Zuna the C2 zoning and the setback and the buffer requirements were existing conditions when he bought the property, and there's there was no change to that right.

Um alternative would be a zoning change with we heard earlier cases that would eliminate potentially the buffer requirements to the rear.

It could well it wouldn't eliminate all the um setbacks.

It could eliminate buffer, but the problem is then he wouldn't be able he wouldn't be permitted the use that he is doing right now, which is food service establishment.

There is also IDZ uh option that he can do with the reduced setbacks.

It just depends on what they asked for.

So question for the applicant.

Um he mentioned the neighbor behind is in support of what he is doing.

Is there any letters or anything that he brought as just evidence of the support from the neighbor behind?

Uh C is the Lindsey?

Yes, we included that response in the packets.

Well, the red check marks, okay.

Red threw me all off.

Okay, the reds, yeah.

So those the colors are freaking me out today and check marks versus X's and okay.

Um we'll change those colors.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so kind of going back to the question I was kind of going towards is so food establishment, and so right now where currently located is on along that property line.

And so if they move that elsewhere on the property line outside of the 15 feet, the 15-foot buffer, does that change part of the dialogue with regards to how it's operating as a food establishment?

Or is it still the 200 foot or you know, I guess how does all that play in there?

I'm trying to understand the food the 200 foot separation that you are talking about is a mobile food establishment, they have to have three or more.

Right.

The applicant has indicated they are only going to have one.

Okay.

And but because it is against the property line, it's in that 15-foot buffer right now, correct?

And if he moved it outside of the 15-foot, if we said we'd still, you know, we want a 13-foot or whatever, he would still have to move the truck, correct the food, the food truck, correct?

Yes, he would have to move the food truck out of the buffer if the buffer is correct.

Okay.

Is there is there anyone sign to speak on this?

No public comment.

Okay.

Um, you know, I uh if there's no other questions, I I really think that this uh I'm gonna give you my opinion.

I think that uh 12-foot is fine because the site is thin and rectangular and fronting on Artarial that also has some issues um you know with access and and if he we go through the permit process, he's gonna have to put a 12-foot sidewalk there, from what I understand.

I mean, that's what's off the top of my head.

Um but yes, it will have to go through the full uh permitting and review process.

All disciplines from plan review will have the chance to kind of uh have their input on this development.

I don't see an established bike lane in the street, so you have to have a multi-use path, which is 12 feet.

So this I mean this site is constrained, it's pre-existing.

I I I personally have no issue with um 12-foot setback, 12-foot buffer on number two and elimination on number three, because he's gonna have to give up 12 feet.

He's gonna have to do a uh a multi-use facility along the arterial, so that's just my two cents.

So I guess like where I was uh you know, so does a food truck have to move?

Uh the food truck will have to stay at least 12 feet away from the rear if we ask this, yeah.

So it so won't be setting where it currently is is what I'm gathering.

And so because right now it is along that rear.

And so is that correct?

So if we read it as is, is that what is going to occur?

Correct.

Yeah.

All right.

Is there any other um questions or commentary?

Well, thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

We would like to get this rolling.

So Manna.

Commissioner Manor?

So regarding case number BOA 26 uh 103076, I moved it to the board of adjustment grant to request for one, a 18-foot variance from the minimum thirty required 30-foot rear setback to allow structure uh with a 12-foot rear setback.

Okay.

And two, the elimination of the 15-foot type B buffer.

So are we reading that one?

I would say uh I would recommend doing a three-foot variance.

Three front or 12-foot buffer.

Do you want to take this one then?

Sure.

Let me I'll I'll read this motion.

Uh regarding case number BOA-26-103076.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment Ground request for an 18-foot variance from the minimum required 30-foot rear setback to allow a structure with a 12-foot rear setback.

Two, a very a reduction in the three-foot reduction in the 15-foot type B buffer in the rear for a 12-foot buffer to be provided, and three, an elimination of the 10-foot type A buffer along Northwest 24th Street situated at 720 Northwest 24th Street.

Applicant being Juan Guillermo Vargas, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Code is amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, the variances are not contrary to the public interest if there would be adequate space in separation to create a natural transition between the commercial use of the subject property and the adjacent residential property.

Two, do do special conditions.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Special conditions on this property include the location of existing residential property and the narrow width of the lot.

Literal enforcement of the ordinance would prevent the construction within 30 feet of the rear property line, which is roughly 50 percent of the total parcel area.

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

Such variants will be in the spirit of the ordinance as reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship to either property abutting the slot.

And the reduced buffers will impose no hardship to the surrounding neighborhood.

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

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

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

Granting this variance will not substantially enter the adjacent property owners.

Is there sufficient separation between the not between the residential and commercial uses?

The structure will be located over 10 feet from the shared property line, which is the typical side setback minimum between commercial and residential uses.

Six, supply to the owner of the property for its variance is all it is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances are not graded by the owner of the property are not merely financial, not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the property owner is due uh to the unique circumstances of the narrow lot width and the configuration lot with frontage along north northwest 24th Street.

These conditions are such that a literal enforcement of the setback and landscape buffer standards would prevent reasonable use of the property into motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Um, this site is so narrow, uh, everyone's in sub uh surrounding is in support.

Uh so I have no uh issue with granting of some relief.

Uh this is since this site was zone commercial for so long and is is is in and this site actually predates these setbacks uh and and buffers uh I I see no issue with the the reduction down to 12 feet.

I think the elimination on 24th Street uh is just necessary because this this uh applicant will be forced to put in a really large sidewalk, which might even have to creep into his property through use of the pedestrian easement uh as as is allowed by the UDC.

And so I just think he's I think he's gonna need that elimination to make this a functional layout.

Commissioner Manna?

Um I I do concur with my colleague.

And so I was trying to read the Prospect Hill, you know, what their objections were.

And so I think that um we addressed the one with regards to number two by by not completely eliminating it.

And then I think your point with regards to number three, which they also had objection for, I think is is resolved uh with the dialogue to talk about with regards to sidewalks.

So for those reasons I'll be in favor.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none.

Is that a roll call vote?

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reid?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I recur.

Commissioner Pegman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunny?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right.

Motion passes.

Um if you have questions, you can get with staff.

They're not.

All right.

Item number, I think we're on five.

Good one.

This is case BOA 26-103-00065.

This was continued from last time.

The applicant is Michael Perez.

It's in Council District 1.

Location is 330 Mission Street.

It is zoned RM4.

And the request is for a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulation to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the side yard, and two, a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the required five-foot side setback to allow an accessory dwelling unit one inch from the property line.

The subject property is located on the corner of Mission Street in Steern Street.

The client is pro proposing to enclose an existing carport to convert it into a new accessory dwelling unit.

The location of the ADU was situated in the backyard of the property as originally platted.

However, the applicant replatted the property, which altered the overall lot layout.

The uh subject structure is now what is uh considered the side yard by UDC standards.

The applicant received a BOA subacts variance in 2014 for the carport side setback.

However, since the new build will change the use, uh the original variants will no longer be applicable, and a new approval is required.

We also have an OHP summary.

The property is located within the King Williams Historic District.

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

Approval of a site plan or materials submitted as part of a variance application does not supersede any requirements for the design review outline and article VI of the Unified Development Code.

On February 5th, 2025, the Historic and Design Review Commission issued a commission action letter, which is different from a um certificate of appropriateness, and that is laying out requirements for them to obtain that certificate of appropriateness.

And that is why they are here currently.

To obtain the uh variances to allow them to continue.

This is the site plan as I outlined.

Uh the side yard is all the way over to the right.

As you can see notated on the site plan here.

And then the front yard is here now.

This is the subject property.

This is the ADU that it will be enclosed.

This is the subject property still.

There's another uh structure back here.

This is the subject property from the aerial portion.

You can see the ADU right here.

These used to be different lots.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the accessory dwelling standard and uh side setback variants.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103-00065 based on the following finding fact.

Location of the ADU will lead to the overcrowding of the side yard.

And two, the location of the ADU will be out of character with the surrounding area.

The side setback variants.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103-00065 based on the following findings fact.

Location of the ADU will lead to less space for the sidewalk right away, and the location of the ADU will be out of character for the surrounding area.

We emailed 39 uh notices, we got zero in favor, zero in opposition.

There were zero voicemails, and King Williams Neighborhood Association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, I need I need uh be super clear on this.

So can you bring up that picture that showed the ADU that was highlighted yellow?

Okay, there we go.

So this L-shaped lot contains two homes, or is that rear on something else?

It's another unit.

So it's an RM4.

They're allowed four units.

It's a they're allowed four, they're separate.

Yeah, these are separate.

Okay.

So the there's one unit here, the second unit back here, and this will be an ADU.

And and so when you have one lot and you're gonna have an accessory dwelling unit to make three units on the property.

Is this lot over a third of an acre?

So the one-third of an acre rule doesn't apply because they're classifying as accessory dwelling.

If they were classifying as a normal unit, which they could, but they would still have to go to BOA for that rule that you're speaking about.

So they're allowed accessory dwelling unit.

So this is this is where it lies in the confusion.

So if somebody wanted to somebody has RM4 zoning and they want to build three units or two, or they can have one, they want to build two units that are separate on the RM4 that's less than a third of an acre.

They could just call one an ADU and get away with it.

Is that how that as long as it meets ADU standards?

Okay.

I'm just wondering, because I that's a new one.

I don't get too many new ones here, so uh being on here for so long.

But any questions from the commission.

No.

Um my last question is are they removing the driveway?

Are they going to keep using this as a garage and put dwellings on the second floor?

I'm not aware.

Okay.

Um ask the applicant.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

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

Hi, I'm Megan Perez.

I am Michael Perez's sister.

You have to move the mic just to there you go, thanks.

I am Michael Perez's sister.

He's the applicant.

So I am here on his behalf.

Could you pull up the slideshow?

Okay.

I can quickly answer your question.

Yeah, I mean, is it is a garage gonna stay?

Yes.

So it's going, well, he has additional parking on the Steeran property, so that's gonna become the parking.

And this is a generational housing, so none of this is STR or rental.

This is his main residence, it's family residence.

Um so the ADU is going, and I'll show you in the presentation, it's gonna continue looking like a garage.

Um and there's not going to be an upper level on it.

Um I will give you the quick timeline.

Um in 2014, the BOA and Historic approved construction of a detached open garage in what was the current rear yard of 330 steering.

So this is before 403 was acquired.

Then in 2024, 403 steering was acquired.

And then in 2025, 330 and 403 were replatted to form one lot again because it's generational living is the plan.

Um 2025, HCR HDRC approved to enclose the garage and create an ADU.

And now we're here, and in order to move forward, variances are now needed.

So this was the old rendering.

The picture you see here is old rendering from 2014, and then this is a current picture of what the garage looks like.

And um, based on what was read by staff that there's gonna be an impact to the sidewalk.

There's not gonna be any impact um to the sidewalk because the building is not going to shift towards the sidewalk.

Um so just wanted to bring that up while we had this picture.

Okay, and then next is the site plan in the next slide.

Yes.

Um so number one, a request for variants from the uh for from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow an ADU in the side yard.

Again, um this used to be the rear yard of 330 mission, but with the replat, it became now the side yard.

Um then also a 4'11 inch variants from the required five-foot setback to allow an ADU one inch from the property line, which is how the house is currently with the property line as well.

So it's in line with the current uh setback of of the current house of the existing residents.

And then the arrow points to the existing garage location, which is the proposed ADU.

And keep in mind, yeah, I already said that.

The keep in mind that the proposed ADU used to be the back backyard before the two lights were or the two lots were combined.

So we can go to the next slide.

So this is what the conversion is going to look like.

Um from the street, it is going to still look like a garage.

The back wall is going to be styled as if it was still garage doors.

Um, and so they're just gonna become stationary and operable faux garage doors per HDRC requirements, and all materials and styles have been approved by HDRC.

And then these are the front and rear uh elevations.

So the front again, it'll just look like a garage.

And then the rear, this is what actually faces their side yard, um, will be nice doors to open and enjoy the outdoor space.

And then the right side is where the entry would be.

The left side um is just blank because that's what faces the existing structure.

So there's gonna be the water heater back there, the AC unit, so and it's very close to the existing structure, so um no windows were needed on that side.

And then this is the floor plan, and again, the intent is to expand the living space of the current home.

It will not be a rental unit.

And it just makes more sense since they're using the current residents as a full-time residence to make this an ADU instead of uprooting the family moving while they extend their main residence.

So this would be less of an impact on them and they could stay there while this ADU was being completed.

Okay.

So uh questions for staff.

So this was originally constructed in 2014 or 2012.

Um the garage.

The garage was a car port.

We had the variance in 2014.

The variant, yeah.

Yeah, because it was a carport.

It was just a carport.

Okay.

So how does the now because it was a carport?

Um the garage door requirement for having 20 feet in front of it didn't apply, even though there is a garage door?

How did how was that looked at?

That was probably missed.

Um because our rule is definitely around there.

Um if it doesn't not have the 20 foot, so they did get a variance for it to exist that close to the street.

Yes.

And be and and I thought variances were permanent.

Shouldn't that if they're not changing the footprint of the structure, shouldn't that variant still be intact?

The use is changing from an accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit.

Okay.

Well, if anything is getting better, because you're getting rid of the 20, the 20-foot requirement doesn't apply anymore.

Is there a thing so but th so where is the parking now?

Because basically you removed all the parking.

Um let's go back to the site plan on the because you you have two units and an ADU, so you're supposed to have at least two on-site parking.

Right.

So if you look at the um existing casita is how it's labeled.

Um there's a driveway that's not shown.

Um that's also new and was put in, I guess the apron for it was, I can't remember how far it extends.

But there's a ribbon path, and that's where they are currently parking their two vehicles because they're already using the ADU not as garage and more as storage and stuff like that.

Okay.

Steph, can you bring up a street view on that?

I can't do that.

This would be off of uh I could use the laser to show on 403.

Okay.

How does this thing work?

Oh, so there'll be three dwellings?

So I'm confused again.

So with regards to the one's an ADU, so the parking requirement is just two spaces, because you don't have a requirement for parking on an ADU, correct?

It's only if it's a more than eight hundred square feet, which this one is not.

So they would only have to have two spaces.

And this is where the parking is right now.

But are there other not three are the three dwelling units on this property?

Yes, but according the parking lot.

So one of them is considered an ADU, and as Mirko said, if it's under 800 square feet, it does not require a parking space.

So it should have a parking space, but it's but the other two require parking spaces, yes.

Correct.

And so are so and because it's a combined lot, um, the back parking is crediting for both of those properties?

Both those housing dwellings?

Okay.

Yes.

And then currently the back one is listed as um a short-term rental.

Um I not since it's been purchased.

So maybe the previous owner had it um as that, but it's not been that since it's been purchased.

It's been a residential home.

And after the replot, when it was combined with this house, it's not.

So staff is there is there an existing short-term rental permit on this lot?

One second.

Okay.

Looks like it was updated in April 2025.

When did they purchase the property?

I can check.

Um it was not that long ago.

It might have been at the end of it might have been in sometime in 2025.

I can look that up.

It does look like an STR permit was established in April of 2025.

Do you think they purchased it after that?

It is under Michael Perez's name.

Oh, well, then he changed his plans.

I was not aware of that.

Does the SDR does the parking in any way change as far as how you look at it, or is it just two spaces and regardless of where they're at?

So you are required a parking space for any STR.

But that SDR is also a free standing structure, so that means is that count as this as a parking space that's that's due for that structure.

Sorry, repeat.

So I mean whether it's an SDR or not, they it doesn't change their obligation to only have two parking spaces.

Correct.

Because again, you look at the amount of what uses are on the property.

So if you have a single family home and STR, each of those would require a parking, one parking spot.

So he'd be required at least two.

Is there any requirement for the parking spot for the STR that's different than the requirement for the parking for a dwelling unit?

I do not believe so.

Okay.

Alrighty.

So that means it can be combined then?

So if there's two lots, two parking slots on the STR, then one could be used for the Correct.

Since they've re-platted it into one property, essentially, he if he has two spaces on that one lot, it meets the requirements.

Very interesting.

All right.

That'll be a type one, right?

Um because it's on the property.

Correct.

If he since he's living on the property.

But he's living on this as a type one.

Type one, yeah.

It was most likely listed as a type two because he did not have the two lots platted together and they were considered two separate units or two separate properties.

But now that he lives there, it most likely will either need to be changed, but the STR team is not here to answer specifically that process.

And that's a by right, you can't.

It's by right to have a type one, right?

So it's not a well, can you have a type one if it's two separate structures?

I thought that's the same thing.

Yes, you can have to be.

I thought they had to be physically.

They don't have to be physically touching, they have to be on the same property.

And again, at the time when the STR was most likely requested, it was two separate lots.

But now that he's re-platted and merged the two lots into one, it could be considered a type one.

But did the will staff require it to be a type one?

Again, that would probably be an STR team question.

I can try to teams them.

I think anything having to do with STR, I I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but that's not his plan if that needs to go away.

I'm sure he'd be okay with that.

If the rest of the Yeah, it we're we're getting off base, but just for for but for the rest of uh if y'all recall years ago when we had an individual where the city classified a Casita as an ADU, they made them get a type two, not a type one.

Even so this board had one.

This we see it was what a couple of must have been two or three years ago.

Yeah, it was before I yeah, that was an interesting case.

That was the one, yeah.

Well, I don't want to get off on that tangent.

So all right.

So uh is there any qu again?

Yeah, could the city bring up so um I I am gonna request a pause after this so we can get the right presentation up.

Can you bring up the the the dialogue with regards to the city, what the objections were?

And you had two listings, so I want to make sure that we're addressing both of those points.

Okay, so hold on.

Okay.

All right, is there um any questions?

Anyone sign up to speak?

No public comment?

And then so one more, I'm sorry.

And then there was dialogue with so uh yeah, this is frustrating me a little bit because I can't keep up with the with all the notes in my head.

Um so there was dialogue with regards to uh was this reviewed by by OHP or somebody?

Reviewed by OHP.

Okay.

And and they were okay with everything?

Yes, they had stipulations about design and that they needed to get the variants for the the setback, obviously, but they have the um commission action report.

It basically states they have to come here for the variants and then submit their final site plans to them.

And they'll get the um certificate of appropriateness after that.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So if there's nothing else, we can move to a motion.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Commissioner Fragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103065.

A move to the Board of Adjustment Grant requests for one of variants from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow accessually accessory dwelling unit in the side yard and two a four-foot eleven inch variants from the required five-foot size setback to allow an accessory structure unit one inch from the property line situated at 330 Mission Street.

Applicant being Michael Perez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we've determined showed 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 the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

In this case, the proposed ADU would be in the same location as the current existing carport.

Well, garage, isn't it a garage?

Garage.

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

The special condition on this property is the lot orientation, as its current orientation would not allow sufficient space in the rear yard for an ADU.

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

Such variants would not be in the spirit of the ordinance as the new ADU would occupy the footprint of an existing structure as in character of the surrounding area.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners, as the proposed ADU would occupy the space of an existing structure on the property, thereby having little impact on the existing structure of the street streetscape.

Furthermore, the setback variance request would only impact the distance of the structure from the right-of-way rather than the adjacent property.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

The plight of the property owner is due to unique circumstances, including the current orientation of the lot, the lack of rear yard space, and the existing footprint of the structure proposed for rehabilitation.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor.

Commissioner Braggman.

I'm going to be in support of the motion.

I feel like the applicant's presentation regarding the garage that's going to be converted and the fact that it's going to look like a garage.

We obviously had questions about the amount of parking, but that's been covered, and so they have sufficient parking for uh what they intend the lot to be.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh yes, Commissioner Dean.

I was concerned about the short-term rental talk earlier because the facts of this are a little weird to me on the uses and why we need an ADU, how the parking is arranged, the rear yard, the front yard, and kind of how it was re-platted and what your overall, I guess, goals are with this property.

And so it just seems a little odd.

Um, so I'm going to reopen uh we'll take a reopen the public here real quick.

If you could please answer uh Commissioner Dean's question about any uh long-term use.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so like I said, the the plan is for generational housing.

Um again, this is my brother's property, so I'm presenting on his behalf.

And um they fully use the main residence and the casita full-time.

They just had a baby, they're wanting to host and have more family come in town from Mexico and from everywhere.

Um, and so again, instead of um making their their main residence uh a larger residence and disturbing the main residence, they're adding on this ADU, which they that means they could still stay in their main house.

Um and it's not a disturbance while it's being constructed, as it would be tearing up the inside of a house and doing an add-on, and that would be a whole nother thing.

So from what he's told me, that's my understanding.

Um they plan to stay in King William for a long time.

His wife owns the mustard seed, which is a few blocks up, she walks to school.

I don't think they have any plans on leaving.

King William.

I will add that if they use that as a short-term rental, they're gonna have to provide the short-term rental team with their parking plan, and if they don't have enough parking, they're gonna have to come back to BOA for an exemption to that parking standard.

And if they don't have enough parking, they're gonna have to come back to BOA for an exemption to that parking standard.

Yeah, I don't think that's a problem.

I don't think you'd have a problem taking that definition of an STR away from that case though, because that's not why we're here.

Is the STR um permit addressed off of mission or Steyron?

It's off of the steering address.

So because they replatted and they're dress off a mission, does it change to a mission address, thus blocking another SDR from potentially existing on mission street?

I will have to follow up with the STR team.

Because that is a Chair, with all due respect, this application has nothing to do with an STR.

Correct.

No, I have to do that.

And if we could and if we could go back to the talk of this ADU and the setbacks that they're requesting.

Okay.

Well, uh if there was no other questions, Commissioner Dean.

Well, the facts are is that there is an SER.

And so just trying to double check the goals of the property.

Um that's not the goal.

And stuff.

Okay.

Well, um we um closing the public uh hearing going back uh to um discussion.

I think we we were at uh commissioner, we're looking for commissioner input.

Is there any additional commissioner input?

Uh I just I will add that uh this board granted a variance for it for this structure, whether it was a car port or whether it is going to be an ADU to be that close to the street.

Um and since they're not changing the footprint, uh I I'm have no issue honoring what we approved.

And personally, I think that by removing the car port and having cars back onto Styron in an in a completely noncompliant manner, uh I think is best for everybody.

So I will be in support.

So actually I'll I'll comment on that.

So two comments.

One, there's already short-term rental on uh mission, and so that so they would not be permitted um to have one here on the street unless it gets grandfathered in there.

And second, is there are overhead pictures that show they are parking on steering already in front of the you know on steering itself, and so they are not leveraging the um you know the existing garage.

So that part doesn't seem like it's changing.

Um my assumptions that's where they're gonna continue to park.

And so they're parking still an issue, but I'm still okay with it.

So just um from what we're looking at the pictures, it looks like the garage slash carport is opened on three sides.

It looks like it's only closed on that garage door side.

So even though it has garage doors are still opened on two or more sides, so it would be classified as a carport.

Okay.

Any other commissioner comments?

Yes.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Uh the cover in the rear yard, does that need a setback?

Uh variant?

This one.

Which one?

Oh sorry.

The existing building?

Yes.

Talking about the carport on 403.

No, so when they plotted this together, essentially they created a nonconforming structure.

They do need a 10-foot rear setback.

I'm not sure.

I I think they may have that though.

Because it's a driveway there.

Can you park in the setbacks?

Yes.

If they're as long as they're paved or uh they would have to meet the parking lot standards.

Um, but yeah, they can park, they just can't park in a buffer.

Yeah.

Yeah, they don't have a landscape upper though, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I was asking about the the parking uh because you know the code does not allow more than uh two vehicles to back onto a public road.

So as long as they weren't putting three cars, then there wouldn't be an issue with that parking scenario.

So that's uh something that's that was important to me.

All right.

If there's nothing else, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Menna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Cruz?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve the finance of fact.

Motion passes uh nine to one to one with one abstention.

If you have any questions, you can give the staff.

All right, we will be taking a break.

See everyone back in about seven or so minutes.

All right, three thirty-one.

We're back in session.

We're on item eight.

Good afternoon.

Item number eight is boa-26-103-00031, located in District 5 on 1419 West Moloch Avenue.

Zonings are five in the request is for one, a one-foot-one inch special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard solid fence to allow a four-foot-one-inch front yard solid fence.

And two, an eight-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision areas to allow a seven-foot driveway clear vision area for both the subject and adjacent West property driveways.

The subject properties located along West Molone Avenue in the middle of a residential block.

Surrounding properties are also zoned for R5 single family residential district.

The case originated from a code enforcement investigation on the property in August 2025.

Her staff's visit to the site in April 2026, the front yard fence stands at four feet and one inch tall and does not meet the standard for predominantly open fencing.

Staff also found the fence to be within the minimum required clear vision areas protecting the driveway on the subject property and the property to the west.

The applicant may either modify the existing fence to comply with the unified development code standards or request relief from these requirements from the Board of Adjustment.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends the NIL in BOA-26-103031 for the fence height special exception based on the following findings of fact.

One, the abutting and immediate nearby properties do not have fence sites similar to the request, and two, the requested special exception would be introducing a fence height that is inconsistent with the current character of the surrounding community.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-26-103031 for the clear vision variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest as the fences do not impede traffic sufficiently to navigate the streetscape.

Two, the granting of the clear vision reductions in this instance would still observe the spirit of the ordinance as the streets would remain navigable by the cars.

Given the nature of the one-way traffic in the existing parking shoulder on this street, which creates more space to safely exit the property and enter the roadway.

Staff mailed 41 notices.

Zero received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Voicemails also received received zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Palm Heights Neighbor Association did not provide a response.

So instead of it being like 70% predominantly open, can we go to like 30%?

Is that possible?

It's under our yeah, so it's under the purview of the board.

Um but the applicant will have to provide that clear percentage to be held to it.

Because this fence is does have it's not it's not opaque like we're used to seeing.

Just curious.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh let's have the applicant come forward.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Elizabeth Russell.

Um I represented at the time of the filing.

I represented the current owner, Abel Martinez.

The property was under contract at that time.

And um while the property was under contract, is when the current owner of that time received the notice of violation.

Because the property was under contract.

My original client wanted to get into compliance, and he was not able to make any changes to the fence because they were already under contract for the property.

And so we requested this variance.

Um unfortunately, I was like six months pregnant, and so we've had some delays due to my pregnancy.

So thank you all for accommodating me.

But since that time, the property has closed, and there is a new property owner, and we did get permission from that property owner for me to be here today.

Um my original client, Abel Martinez, owned um, I'm sorry, purchased the property in 2022.

Um, at that time, the fence had been in place, as you can see, at least since 2015.

He thinks maybe even longer than that.

Um he purchased the property at that time in 2022 with the fence had been in place for at least seven years.

He didn't even realize that there were any violations until he received this notice while the property was pending for sale.

Um he has reached out physically to the following property addresses.

Give me just a moment.

1414 Malone, 1415 Malone, 1418 Malone, and 1423.

And so those are the two properties to the left and right of him and the two properties in front of him.

Um I've also sent letters to those same four properties.

We've received no response, and they did not come to the door whatsoever.

Um also would like for me to notate that 415 and 423 Malone were purchased after he purchased the property.

So they moved into the neighborhood with the fence already in existence.

Um he is requesting on behalf of his purchaser that you do grant the variants.

He um had originally purchased this property for his son, did not work out for his son to live there and did sell the property already at a loss.

And so having to replace the fence or um would incur even a more of a financial loss and a hardship for my particular client.

The owner now of the property does not have the funds to replace the fence, and there is no cutting down the fence because of the age of the fence, the structural integrity couldn't just be eliminated 13 inches.

You would you couldn't just remove it to that point.

Um and then additionally, it is fairly open, it's not opaque.

You that was something we wanted to bring to your attention.

Um I understand that there's not any other fences that look like this in the neighborhood, but it does match with the front face of the of the property.

There's like some railings on the property that it was um intended to all match and look kind of uniform to this particular property.

Um my client did say that there were other fences like this in the neighborhood, and they have since been replaced.

I don't know if that is because of violations, but I did drive around and I couldn't find any.

Um again, we are requesting the variants because there's no harm to um public health or safety by granting the variants because it has been in place at least since 2015, so that's over 11 years, and because it would be a financial hardship both for my original client, the seller of the property, and for the new owner of the property.

And I talk really fast and I apologize.

So do you have any insight about what sort of um openness the fence has?

Is it like 30 percent?

You know, I I think it's 30 percent just based on like the measurements that I took, but they were there was nothing exact, and just looking at it, I do think it looks like it's about one-third open, in my opinion.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll just like to offer that to whoever makes a motion that there's an option of of listing a 30 percent predominantly open fence associated with this, if you're willing to.

All right, any questions from the commission?

No, I do see though that on older street views that that fence existed since 2017 December.

There was nothing there, February 2016, but 2017 December there was.

Okay.

All right, any other questions?

Is anyone signed up to speak on this issue?

Nobody signed up to speak.

Commissioner?

So if we read it to predominantly open by 30 percent, so does that bothered forever then so that it could always be 30 percent?

Or could it be read 30 percent as is for right now?

But if it's reconstructed, it would have to meet current compliance.

I think we usually put as presented by the by the applicant.

Um as uh currently built, something some language like that.

Instead of saying like 30 percent.

So so if we say as built, but if it gets so and if it is that more than so they so this would be more than uh 25 percent or whatever it was a 50 percent, 25 percent of fence replacement.

No, but but if they redo the fence um and they replace the front fencing, would it then have to be compliant um or would could they be rebuild back to as built?

If they were to remove a significant amount, 50 percent or more, basically it would have to comply with code.

Perfect.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think that there was another part of that question was um would they have to build it if they remove the entire fence, they'd have to build it back just like this, or could it be a different version of a 30 percent predominantly open?

No, it would have to comply with code.

Yeah.

That's what I was asking.

That's what I thought.

That's what I thought we would do.

No, if we granted a variance and and the variance cited it, they could have 30 percent predominantly open fence that was four foot one in the front yard, and then they reconstructed the fence, the variance would go away.

No, they can rebuild a different kind of if you say 30 percent, they can rebuild it at that 30 percent.

So that's what I'm wondering, would it have to be the same style?

But if we said as built.

Obviously, besides the 12 months.

May I address something?

The attorney in me is concerned with the 30 percent, because the as built makes us not determine that calculation.

I am concerned that a future board might say that is not 30 percent.

So, if we could put as built, or you all could make a finding that it was 30 percent, either one or the other, that which would be.

Well, I think we were giving a recommendation as built.

Because if it was 50 percent of it were to be destroyed, then they would have to comply with the current.

So, yes, they are good for 12 months.

So any time within the 12 months.

Why am I correct?

So you're implying so that's a different aspect of it.

If you have a fence and you destroy more than 50 percent of it and it's that way for more than 12 months, our variance is void.

No, I said the variance is good for 12 months.

So if you were to I understand.

If it was to be torn down after 12 months, after if you guys were to approve it, any brand new fence would have to comply with the project.

The premise of my question is is that the I personally don't have a problem with this fence, but if they were to get a variance and they were to rebuild it, not out of let's say wood, but they wanted to make it uh um wrought iron with only 30 percent predominantly open, could they?

Within the next 12 months, yes.

Okay.

But then after the 12 months, I mean I'm just saying the 30 percent is what is what follows permanency is is the permanence of this, not the material.

Correct, yeah.

We're not talking about material.

Okay.

But the applicant is saying the applicant is saying that she would have a hard time.

No, I know.

I'm but I'm not an attorney, but I just was wondering how the staff looked at that.

Okay.

So any other questions?

No?

All right, looking for a motion.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number B06103031.

I moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for a one-foot, one-inch special exception for the maximum allowable three-foot front yard solid or um fence as built uh to allow a four-foot and one-inch front yard as built fence situated at 1419 West Malone Avenue.

Ap can be in law office of EARP L L C because the testimony presented to us in fact we determine sure that the physical characters property is such a law enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Uh in this case, the special exception would be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter, as this fence would provide extra security and privacy of the sub for the subject property within a residential block.

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

This special exception would not harm the public welfare, and as presidents would protect the property owners while still promoting a sense of community.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as the fence height is modest, it will not block the view of the house from the street.

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

The proposed increase of the side fence is modest and not a total departure from the aesthetics for the surrounding area and character of the neighborhood.

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

The general purpose of the district's regulation is protect neighborhood character, promote safety, ensure consistent development patterns, allowing an increase in fence sites in this location does not undermine these goals as is based on site-specific conditions that do not apply to most lots.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Mana.

So there are lots of um properties that have predominantly open fence.

Um I think that by allowing this predominantly or this somewhat open fence uh you know for this period of time uh is um appropriate, and so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I will be in favor as well.

I mean the fence has been in existence over 11 years.

Um if more than 50 percent of it were to be destroyed, uh it would have to comply with the current um zoning of the current uh uh code here for the four fences.

All right, thank you.

Any other commissioners like to add?

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

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bede.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibnis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair O'Reilly.

And yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Uh now motion for the uh clear vision.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regard crazy number BOA 26103031.

I move to the board of adjusting grant requests for a foot variance for the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision areas to allow a seven-foot driveway clear vision area for both the subject and adjacent property west property driveways situated at 1419 West Malone Avenue.

Applicant being in the law office of EAR PLLC because the testimony presented us and the facts that we determined showed the physical characters character of this property is such that the little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one variance is not contrary to the public interest, the proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the fence does not impede traffic's ability to safely navigate the roadway.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would require the applicant to alter the fence for which they are requesting a special exception or to modify a long time existing driveway of the property.

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

Granting the clear vision reductions in this instance would still observe the spirit of the ordinance as the streets would remain navig navigable by cars given the nature of the one-way traffic and the existing parking shoulder on the street, which creates more space to safely exit the property and enter the roadway.

Four, the variants will 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 the district will be allowed with this variance.

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

Grant to this variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties, as the conditions granted would not impede other individuals operating cars in the area directly impacted by the subject properties reduction in clear vision standards.

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which this variance is sought is due to unique unique circumstances existing on the property, including the one-way traffic rule and the existing parking shoulder on the street.

End of motion.

Second.

All right.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Manna.

Uh I'll accept the city's um recommendation for approval.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur with with Commissioner Manna.

I don't see a problem with you.

All right.

Is there anyone else like to add?

Hearing none less have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Beckman.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Basquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

Item number nine.

Located in District 2 along 1023 North Pine Street.

The zoning is RM4, and the request is for one, a two-foot-six-inch fence fence height special exception from the maximum allowable six-foot side or rear fence height to allow an eight-foot six-inch predominantly open raw iron fence in the side and rear yard.

And two, a one-foot six-inch fence height special exception and the maximum allowable five-foot predominantly open front yard fence height to allow a six-foot predominantly open raw iron fence with a six-foot six inch stone columns.

The subject property is located along North Pine Street and is bound by Burlington Street to the north, North Olive Street to the west, and Lamar Street to the south.

The surrounding properties are a mix of residential-based zoning districts, including RM4, R5, RM5, R6, IDZ, and MF33.

The IDZ to the north permissions uses in the NC and MF18 based zoning district uses and has developed small lot single family dwellings.

The subject property and surrounding area are within the Dignoty Hill Historic District.

The subject property is currently undergoing renovations, which include improvements to the security perimeter fence to create a consistent eight-foot raw iron fence around the site and rear yards, and a six-foot-six-inch decorative fence in the front yard.

Both proposed fence designs exceed the maximum allowable height limitation.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property along North Pine Street.

This is subject property and surrounding area.

It's looking north along North Pine Street.

This is looking north along North Pine Street, also.

This is subject property surrounding area looking west along Burleson.

This is looking south along North Olive.

And this is looking east along Lamar.

Then back to looking north along North Pine Street.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special exception in BOA-26-103069 is approval based on the following findings of fact.

One, the request meets the criteria for approval as the predominantly open fence design maintains compatibility with the district, enhances security for use similar to governmental facility, and does not negatively impact adjacent properties or alternate wood character.

Two, granting the special exception is consistent with the intent of UD seam as comparable fence heights are permitted for government uses and the proposal supports public welfare without weakening district regulations.

This is the notification plan.

Staff mailed out 55 notices.

One was received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Zero voicemails are received in favor and zero in opposition.

Dignoty Hill Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Commissioner Mann.

So there is an opening or there is a predominantly open fence that's partly there right now.

This is just a question for myself here.

So but they have uh construction plastic uh backing up, I guess, as we're going through the renovation.

But um if you put construction plastic onto a predominantly open fence, it correct it's no longer predominantly open at that point.

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

It's not a permanent um part of permanent structure, so it wouldn't we wouldn't classify that as a closed fence.

So this is just a temporary uh screening.

But after the finished construction, it would have to be removed because it would no longer be permanent, correct?

I did just was just kind of general, you know.

Yeah, I mean most likely they're gonna remove it, but I don't think we would get involved because it's not a permanent structure.

That makes sense.

The temporary fence will come down once the construction is finished.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you very much.

The applicant come forward.

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

Uh hello everyone.

Uh my name is Gonzalo Fraga.

I'm with West East Design Group Architects, and I'm here on behalf of the city's uh capital delivery department, uh, the owner of the project.

Um I also want to mention that the Department of Use uh Human Services will be running the building.

So this is a city project.

Yes, sir, it is.

Okay.

And so the intent here, our request is uh not necessarily uh remove all the existing fencing.

It is essentially we're trying to replace existing fencing.

Uh the existing fence is currently a foot high.

So the intent is to match that.

Um the image you see at the moment that's along North Pine Street that's on the east side of the building.

That's what we are going to do or design or intend to do is match the existing uh brick pillar fencing with the vertical bar fencing in between.

Uh so that's the intent there.

Uh we're not modifying or changing the design there.

Um that's also part of what we need to showcase to HDRC, so we still need to go through that process.

Um and the building is currently under plan review, so these are things that that we have to go through to to see if we can get the eight-foot fencing.

Okay, so you you just said you had an eight-foot fence.

You you currently have an eight-foot fence.

That is correct.

What streets is the eight-foot fence fronting?

All four?

Yes, there's portions of it.

So this is Lamar Street, if I'm not mistaken.

Okay.

Um I'm sorry, this is North Olive, and this is uh the fencing around the community garden at the moment.

That is the fencing along uh Burlington Street and Olive Street.

And if you go back one more, um if you can just stay on the chain link fence.

Uh I just wanted to point out that that chain link fence is uh about eleven feet at the moment.

And so the idea would be to take that fencing down and and come back with an eight-foot uh so then questions for staff.

If you have an existing non-conforming use, I thought we heard in the last case that as long as they rebuilt it within twelve months, it could remain as is so the majority of fence is being rebuilt to a similar style fence, and obviously the the chaling fence is gonna be completely removed.

So I believe the project is saying that they're rebuilding the fence, it's just gonna closely replicate the existing fence as part of their application stated.

But if it gets constructed within twelve months, do they even have to come here?

Within twelve months of the BOA approval.

No, no, no.

I mean, oh, okay.

I thought you were talking about there was a there was something associated with non-conforming use code that were if it was uh dorm or something happened where it didn't exist for twelve months and it was rebuilt.

So if they demoed a fence that was non-conforming and then rebuilt it within twelve months.

So if they if they demoed it for less than fifty percent, then they can do a nonconforming, but it has to be done within twelve months.

So the non-conforming goes away after the 50 percent.

Correct.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay.

All right.

Uh any questions for the applicant?

Ragman.

Commissioner Brainman.

So um are there security reasons that you need the fence to be this height?

That is exactly why we need the fence height.

At the moment, we have um vandalism, graffiti on the buildings, and so we're trying to minimize that as much as possible.

Okay.

What's the use of the building going to be?

A community center.

And then uh how long is that really because currently you have an 11-foot tall fence.

How long has that been there?

Like a really long time.

So the steel fencing that we see there, uh, I believe that one was uh installed in 2003 or 2007 based on the Google imagery, Google map imagery.

Uh the chain link fencing, I think was there before that.

So uh not quite sure how long the chain link fencing has been.

But this property never received a BOA variance for the fencing.

It's is it old enough to predate any of the fencing code?

Not that I know of, no, sir.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

I don't have any questions.

I'm just I'm just uh my line of questioning is is that for something that's been there that long, it either needed a variance from us or it was non conforming, or I'm just trying to get a handle on that.

So it wouldn't the amount of work being done would not um classify them as a non-conforming.

Yeah, it it's is it if the if this taller fence was built in 2014, would you I don't know what year you 2013?

Uh 2003 or 2002 that our fence code was still in place back then, so wouldn't they have wouldn't wouldn't they have had to come to us at some point to the VOA for that taller fence that they was built in 03?

It could have been a possibility to be sport court fencing because that area looks like it potentially sport court, which is permitted up to 12 feet.

All right.

Well, great.

That list is no other questions.

Anyone sign up to speak?

Nobody signed us to speak.

Looking for a motion.

Bonus.

Commissioner Boone.

Yeah, regarding case number BOA 26103069.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a two-foot six-inch height fence, uh fence height special exemption for the maximum allowable six-foot side and rear yard fence height to allow an eight-foot six-inch predominantly open wrought iron fence uh in the side and the rear yard, and two a one-foot six-inch fence height special exemption from the maximum allowable five-foot predominantly open fence yard uh fence height to allow a six-foot predominantly open rod iron fence with a six-foot-six-inch stone columns situated at 1023 North Pine Street.

Applicant being West End Design Group, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of the property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended will result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

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

The increased fence height enhances security for use that functions similarly to a government governmental facility, thereby protecting users of the site and providing a broader community benefit.

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

The open design of the fence minimizes visual impacts and the additional height.

Comparable to what would be permitted by right for governmental facilities, it does not introduce adverse effects to adjacent properties.

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

The use of wrought iron and stone collars ensures a high quality, open appearance, and the scale of the fence is consistent with similar security measures allowed for governmental type uses, preserving the character of the area.

E the special exemption will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here on established for the specific district.

Because similar fence heights are permitted by right for governmental facilities, granting the special exemption for a comparable use does not undermine the district's regulations, but rather implies, but rather applies them in a consistent and context sensitive sensitive matter.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Boone.

Yeah, I'll be in favor.

I think it's going to be a um community center.

So I'll be in support.

Great.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur with my colleague.

I don't see a problem with it.

It is uh going to be a good thing for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing now, so have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yupanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur.

Commissioner Sena.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orient.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Uh congratulations.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Item 10.

Item 10 is BOA-26-103070, located in District 2 at 103 Connolly Street.

The zoning is I1, and the request is for a fence material variance to allow corrugated metal fencing.

The subject properties located at the intersection of Connolly Street and Hedges Street near the intersection of Wyoming Street to Hedges Street.

The surrounding properties are a mixture of I1 and RM4 based zoning districts that include industrial uses, single family dwellings, and a church.

The property is currently under investigation by court enforcement staff for violations of outside storage and parking standards.

An industrial use must be established on the lot to retain the industrial fence height standard.

The applicant provided evidence with property ownership for lot 13 only in this quest and any approvals issued for this request would pertain to lot 13 only as described on the applicant's warranty deed.

And this is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103070 for the fence material variants based on the following findings.

Of fact, one corrugated metal material is not intended to be utilized as a fence and therefore prohibited within the city to be used as such.

Two, upon inquiry and applying for a permit, the applicant would have been notified of the city's permitted fence materials.

Staff mailed out 30 notices.

Zero received in favor, zero received an opposition.

For voicemail, zero received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association did not provide response.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much.

As the applicant come forward.

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

Is this the right one?

Yes.

Yeah.

Founder of Jarvis Moore Incorporated.

I don't know where you want me to start.

But we asked for a variance.

Mr.

I.

Purchased this property from me in 22.

I still reside there as uh because we have a buyback clause.

He purchased the property specifically to help me through the uh hardship of uh post pandemic.

And since uh then we've uh we struggled uh as a business.

However, uh you speak into the microphone, sir.

These these these events have created even more uh hardships just uh just here in the recent weeks uh concerning this matter.

All right.

Uh is there any questions from the commission?

Go ahead, Commissioner Manna.

So um the question for city staff.

So it's use currently what's what's allowed for use.

So right now it looks like it is storage of heavy equipment or you know, trucks and and components, is that permitted in this zoning district?

Correct.

Um I believe there have to be a screen from right of way if I recall correctly, but uh the actual use is permitted.

So that's where I guess going down that path.

So so how it's being used requires some screening, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And and this has been here since 2016.

Um 14.

After May 2014.

Um good.

And I noticed that the Correggia Metal Fence has a cap on the town.

Yes.

All right.

Uh and you know, to go back, you know, zoning uh instructed us how to erect that fence.

You know, in 2014?

In 2014.

They told us if you look at the corner, that corner is angled.

Oh, oh, in regards to the clear vision.

That is because zoning told us to.

That was in regards to clear vision, not the material.

Okay, I get that part.

Okay.

Commissioners uh yes, uh, just questioning how was this case originated?

I believe it was from code enforcement.

So was it a call in, or just they just have it to be driving by, or is there a way to originate the okay?

Okay.

I appreciate that because that was my uh next question, because all of this has evolved, if you will, as the neighbor.

Can you put the picture back up where it shows the bordering uh properties?

Where it shows the properties next to that.

Go keep going.

Keep going, but you don't have it.

Well, stop right there.

Right there.

Uh, because this is the issue where we're talking.

It's this is this is the issue where that poll is, where that poll runs, there is a neighboring uh building.

When we purchased this property in 2014, um the owner of that property owned all of it.

He owned the uh because this property encompasses both the west and east side of Connolly.

Is is the uh cell tower on your property or the opposing property?

Both on the opposing property, both all of the towers.

In fact, that's that's what this is all about.

The the neighbor wants to put a sale tower.

In order for him to put that sale tower, he needs 220, I believe, feet from the hedges street, from Hedges Street.

And so he's made this big issue about that easement where I showed you that poll that's an easement.

That easement, uh, we went to title.

This property was bought from the city of San Antonio.

The agent was Scott Price of the Real Estate Department of the City San Antonio.

When I purchased this property, this was a dunk ground.

This this property laid dormant over 30 years, and I had to go to the city before the the board to buy it.

At that time, they held the property for the Samaritan Veterans Center, which is a block away, which is on the other side of this adjacent property.

Yeah, we're getting a little off topic with the fifth.

But no, this is the topic, sir.

If you give me a minute.

Okay.

Just give me a minute.

Sure.

Uh the neighbor purchased the neighboring property in 25 in 2025 last year.

And because of that easement, he came to me and said, Hey, there's an easement here.

I said, Yeah, I'm aware.

It goes all the way across.

It goes all the way to New Brownsville, and it it goes through my property, and uh there's a church behind me which has the same easement that goes all the way through.

And so he said, Well, that's I I should have half of that easement.

Well, he needs half of it in order to make his property fixable to put one of these cell towers.

Well, now co-compliance came to me, Officer Torres came and he had a schematic of the easement.

And he said, This easement belongs to you and uh Mr.

Eric Jones.

I say, well, that needs to be settled in court.

Okay.

Whether it's but I'm just trying to show you where all of this came about.

This is where it started.

The premise of my question was is that I was trying to figure the picture implied that the that the cell tower was on your property.

I wanted to ask which property was on.

No, sir.

It's on the neighboring property.

Okay.

And and uh uh as far as the height of the fence, what what is the maximum allowed height of this fence by right?

Because he's industrial, can you go eight feet?

Eight.

Eight.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

So is there any uh questions for the applicant from the board?

Uh Bonnie is Commissioner Beneas.

Yes, sir.

Uh and you decided to do it uh with metal for what reason?

Security.

Because of the fact that uh this is a high crime area, and uh I've had seven or eight trailers stolen.

With that metal gate, I've had four or five break ins.

Uh as well as I'm not the only one.

Uh and so it just made sense to have metal.

And we have a lot of kids in the neighborhood that are if they can see it, then they'll uh mess with it.

And we have uh, you know, uh equipments that if you touch it, it'll cut you.

You know, so in protection of the community, uh that was our energy behind that.

But but to go uh a step but all this started with uh uh the easement, then it went across the street because I'm a demo contractor, and this past summer I was working in uh Houston, and I would come periodically.

I was waken up by uh code compliance at my house, and I live on the Brownsville street, which is three or four blocks away from this.

They knocked on my door and told me I had to come around.

I said, Well, hey, I just got in, it's five o'clock it at five o'clock in the morning.

This is at 8 30 in the morning, and the next day I get like 10 tickets.

I got 670 tickets for the fence from March in April.

For the fence.

For the fence for the for the debris that we've now moved that I use that yard, I do demolition for have been on a demolition contract since 2013.

Okay.

With this department.

You're currently a provider for the city?

No.

Okay.

As of April, I have received the letter from the general contractor, said because of these proceedings, I'm being removed from the contract.

Okay.

So if you ask me if I got a hardship, I can't pay my car payment today.

Because I couldn't do demo because of this.

Is there any other uh places on the uh in the area that has corrugated metal?

Yeah, I just I sent y'all a lot of the pictures.

Well, as I was asking three within three please let me get this out.

Okay.

Within three blocks, two blocks uh one block over on Cummer Street.

Oncomer Street, man.

There's there's there's corrugated metal.

Graffiti on it.

Everything that's over there is on the ground.

They telling me to move my containers.

I I've complied with everything to try to clean up.

But now you take the very essence of my life, my job.

I haven't got a demo uh order since February.

Behind this man.

All right.

I can barely pay my mortgage, man.

Behind a fence, man.

Sir?

That I asked y'all, can I put it there?

Okay.

Well, it may not be nothing to you but a fence, bro.

But this fence has cost me my job, man.

How do I make money?

Sir.

Okay.

We're just trying to be specific to the fence about whether or not you know corrugated metals are appropriate for the area.

So I'm just gonna ask you another question.

How long has the fence been there?

And you said 2014 it was constructed.

We we bought the property in 14.

And the fence was there already?

No.

Okay.

We ever it was it was a dump ground.

They had wine trees all through there.

And I had to go to the city to purchase the property.

Okay.

But the do you know what year the fence was constructed?

2000, probably it was between four end of 14, beginning of 15.

When we bought it, we we began to erect the fence.

Well, sometimes this board likes to see you know how long something's been in place as we deliberate.

So all right.

Is there any questions that the uh commission would like to ask of staff?

Last thing I do just want to ask this.

And there's a cap on it, right?

Yes, there is.

Gotcha.

All right.

So I think that's about it.

If there's anyone signed up to speak on this matter, nobody signed up to speak.

I do see sporadic corrugated metal uh just north on South New Brunfels, uh, just by looking at all right.

Thank you very much.

Uh code enforcement and uh investigation and sell it.

Okay.

Sometimes that happens.

All right, great.

So with that, sir, what we're gonna do is we're gonna for a motion and we're gonna see how this turns out.

And uh we'll find out momentarily, all right.

Thank you very much.

All right, who'd like to make a motion on this?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 26103070, I moved to the board adjustment.

Grant a request for a fence material variance to allow corrugated metal fencing situated at 103 Connolly Street.

Applicant being Jarvis Moore because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character is property is such 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 the public interest.

The proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the corrugated metal would suffice as an appropriate fence material.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would require the applicant to remove and replace the fence with materials that comply with UDC standards, thus resulting in unnecessary hardship.

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

Granting invariants in fence material would still observe the sphere of the ordinance in this instance as corrugated metal would be appropriate, be in appropriate material to serve as a fence for this property.

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

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

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

Granting variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent forming properties as a corrugated metal fence would not alter the central character of the district.

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

Apply to the owner of the property for several in the salt is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and it's not merely financial.

The corrugated metal adequately serves the intended purpose of securing his property without substantially altering the character of the surrounding area.

End of motion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Zuna.

Commissioner Manor.

So I'll be voting in favor of this for a couple of reasons.

One it is uh material that I have or I do see as I Google drive around the neighborhood.

Um second is that the solid fence is required for uh you know in in an industrial zoned areas and so this one happens to be metal, so I'm okay with that.

And then also since it has been here uh prior to 2016, you know, um, and that Denver Heights, who is very vocal, you know, with regards to their community isn't an objection, so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Zenus.

So a couple things.

I know there was no mention about a cap.

I know there's a cap existing, but just to go forward to make sure that the cap is part of the variance.

Okay, so I I can I agree with that amendment so that it does include a cap, but as was stated, it does have a cap, but I agree.

Exactly.

So I'm gonna be in support as well.

First, the code requires a screening material.

In this case, he chose the material of uh uh the metal the metal uh corrugated, which there it is um a material that's used within the the area, so it's not out of character with the area.

Uh, do believe that this was probably uh uh uh kind of a vengeance call-in from a neighboring property that has another issue with the applicant, so I don't think it was kind of uh uh a genuine uh code issue here.

I think there's so much other issues at play.

And then the fence has been in existence for a while with no opposition from the neighborhood association, so therefore I'm supporting it.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add uh hearing none?

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I commissioner Bergman.

I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

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

All righty.

Item 10.

I mean item 11.

All right, good afternoon, Marcomorabi Principal Planner.

Um, item uh next item is BOA 26103071, located at 1910 Montezuma Street.

Uh, this is for a 15-foot variance to allow a five-foot rear setback.

Next slide, please.

Surrounded by R4, uh, property owner owns lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 45, and 46.

The existing structure occupies lots 27 through 29.

COD for non-conforming law to record has been issued for the three remaining lots.

Given the COD issuance, these lots of not have to meet the owner of lost size or width.

The requested proposed uh 70 uh the request proposes a 75% reduction of the 20-foot rear setback only on lot 30.

And the advocate indicated uh similar constructions may be proposed in the future for 45 and 46.

The site plan.

Subject property currently vacant and surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial uh for boa 26103007.

Uh, based on the following sort of fact, a lack of open yard space proposed by this development would directly contribute to an increased risk of fire spread, increased crowding, and increased density on the block.

And whereas a full 20-foot rear setback may be uh may present a challenge to the development, a 75% reduction of this requirement is not proportional to the constraints of the substandard lot size.

The uh the notice plan, um, none received in favor or the opposition, and no responses from the uh neighborhood association or community organization.

And that concludes that's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Yeah, just all right, please.

Your name and tell us about your project.

Alfonso Garcia.

Um represent holding uh the one second.

What's Senator Tony holding the LDLC?

And uh we are requesting a variance of the 20-foot uh setback on the rear of the property.

And the reason is because the property is I'm sorry.

The property is uh too narrow and not too long, okay.

And taking the 20 feet from the back will take pretty much the whole lot.

The other thing is we have none of the neighbors have the same uh setback.

Pretty much all the neighbors have a five foot uh setback, rear setback.

So uh that's first uh that's the reason that we asking if we can a variance on the 20 feet to five feet or six or seven, something that does an effect.

This house is planning to be for uh uh affordable housing.

Okay.

So right now is the plans are pretty much for a two-bedroom kitchen, uh one restroom, and garage on the front, open garage uh space.

There's not much space if we take it to 20 feet, it's no that project is not going to be feasible to do.

All right.

So how deep is your lot?

It's uh 70 74.8.

In the width?

25?

It's uh 24 point eight.

Okay, so you're you're well below the 4,000 square foot, which is okay.

Gotcha.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Ruth.

Commissioner Cruz.

So you're planning to build a home in each of these lots at the same site?

Is that correct?

It's only one lot.

I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Okay, it's only one lot.

So all the other lots are are still empty, and are they gonna have anything built on them?

We are not requesting any any other lots.

With this is only for this lot.

The staff presentation implied that you had CODs for three of the lots?

Okay, hold hold on, sir.

45 and 46.

Can you clarify on the image on the image like which where those lots are in relation to the one in question?

Sure thing.

The one outlined in red is the subject lot 40, uh excuse me, subject lot 30.

45 and 46 are those two lots to the south.

Uh lots 29 through 27 are occupied by an existing structure to remain.

Okay, so there's there's three CODs that are on vacant property.

Correct.

30, 45, and 46.

But the applicant is only pursuing a variance on one of the lots today.

Today.

Okay.

All right.

And you know, five feet is pretty small.

Um, you know, 10 feet might be a little better.

Is that something that's livable?

And we go like a in the meeting between like a seven-foot.

Well, that'll be up to the commission.

Um I'm just I know usually on these on these sort of existing lots, they're at least a hundred feet deep.

And so I see the hardship that you have.

Uh, we don't see a lot of 20 foot 25 foot uh native wide lots that are less than a hundred feet deep.

So was this originally platted in this configuration, or was this uh cut in half somehow?

I think to obtain the COD would have to have originally been in this configuration.

Correct.

It's a non-conforming lot of record.

That is just so shallow.

We don't see a lot of that.

You can see on the you can see on the floor plan there is not much room to do uh more than two um bedrooms.

I mean, it's only five feet here right now, and uh one two bedrooms, very small bedrooms, a little uh bathroom, a rest uh and the small kitchen and the living area and a space for our garage.

Okay, so you're gonna have that's gonna be a garage.

Well, not a covered garage, I mean open open garage.

Open driveway, okay.

All right, so the front of your house is set back twenty feet from the sidewalk.

Okay.

Great.

Uh any other questions?

Oh, Commissioner Zoom.

Do we know the distance between that proposed setback and the next structure behind you?

I think it's another five feet if based on on the Google map.

So there'll be a 10-foot separation between the existing instructor and the and the new structure.

So some of them have no setbacks.

Okay, some of them have five five-foot setbacks.

Commissioner Manor?

And that was my question too.

So if you bring up the aerial uh Google map um of this with just the close uh without the layers, so just the the bare the bare layer.

So it does look like there's lots of um properties that are you know have you know almost zero lot line on the back.

Um and so is that just by just from a historical perspective of why that's that way, or you're just trying to understand, and so you know it doesn't look like they're doing anything different than what's already there.

Well, if if it's antiquated, it was built before 1927, and the zoning code came in in 1935?

35 35.

So prior to 35, was there a setback requirement at all?

Probably nothing, huh?

No.

Yeah, so go to the actually not this view.

So if you go with the clean view, so click on the the finding glass or the hourglass or the spy glass.

So without the layer added.

There we go.

Okay.

So that view kind of gives me a clear view of it.

So it looks like and so there's some that look like it's less than five feet separation between the back property and that.

Soperty, so the one that we're looking at is the one, I guess that is does have the uh the marker on it, right?

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Well, with that, uh, is there anyone's time to speak on this?

Nobody's on up to speak.

Uh real quick, sir.

Um did you say it's your name and address?

Yes, for the for the record, right?

Luis Estrada?

5169, Randolph Bull Award.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So if we if there's no other questions.

Uh I'm looking for a motion.

I I would tell you personally, I I would like to see at least seven and a half e, but we'll see what where someone starts off on this.

I'll write with it, Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Um regarding case number BOA 26103071.

I moved to the board adjustment.

Grant the request for a um, let's see, that would make it uh 1213.

12 and a half foot variance for the minimum required 20-foot rear view setback to allow a new home with a seven and a half foot uh rear setback, if I did the math right.

Uh situated at 1910 Montezuma Street applicant be in West SA Holdings LLC, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical care of this property is such 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 the public interest.

The variants would not be contrary to the public interest, as adequate separation of the primary structure from property lines would remain to prevent overcrowding of structures, mitigate the risk of fire spread and preserve development patterns that are typical of single family residential areas, including open rear yard space.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as many parcels on this block are generally of a substandard lot size with respect to the designated zoning district.

Strict enforcement of the ordinance in this case would be an inequitable application of development standards that does not account for the context of the existing area.

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

The granting of the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to ensure a minimum separation between structure and property lines.

On this lot, a seven and a half foot separation is a uh approxim is appropriate for side and rear setbacks, especially considering well actually just be for the back, uh with the side being five, especially considering the constraints of the small lot size.

Uh four of the variants will 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 the district will be allowed with this variance.

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

Proposed variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property, nor alter the essential character of this district as the proposed setback aligns with fire safety standards, prevents overcrowding and inappropriate densities, protects owners' privacy, and supports consistency with the overall neighborhood appeal and character.

End of motion.

Oh wait, nope.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Six, the apply to the owner of the property for which the variance of SOT is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

Now into motion.

All right.

Who's the second second?

Thank you by Commissioner Brackman.

Commissioner Manna.

I think by providing that extra uh distance there in the back, kind of will mitigate some of that or uh uh hopefully mitigate some of that.

So uh I'll be voting in favor with the uh uh with the slight alteration of seven half foot.

Thank you, Commissioner Braggman.

I agree with my colleague.

In addition, um, although there's no guarantee it'll stay this way.

It appears that there's nothing built directly behind this lot.

Um so I'll be in support.

All right, anyone looks like that.

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

Commissioner Man.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Osana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonyez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Paul.

Yep.

All right.

Item 12.

Oh, geez, I'm doing that again.

Running my notes once one one notch off.

Okay.

Um item number 14.

What the okay?

Um I apologize.

Item 12.

I had it right.

First plan.

And real quick, do we have Mr.

Velasco here?

Adam Velasco?

Okay, perfect.

All righty.

Uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joel Velas and your planner, Board of Adjustment.

Uh item 12 is BOA-26-103072 at 239 Highway Drive.

Uh, this is in District 2 and a request for an 11-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a home to be four foot one inch from the north side property line.

Subject property is located in the subdivision southwest of the intersection of IH 10 with South WW White Road along Highway Drive.

Bear County records indicate the home was originally built in 1954 when the property was zone A, single family residence district.

At that time, this zoning designation only required a three-foot side setback for new development.

The home was built four feet one inch away from the north side property line, and the home suffered significant fire damage in June 2025, for which the property owner requested an assessment to be completed by the DSD to determine required permits for repair.

The assessment found 15% of the structure's walls and 15% of the structure's roof system to have suffered significant fire damage and permits would be required to complete the necessary repairs.

Subsequent building inspections found the work done to have exceeded the scope of the issued permits and determined that a plan review would now be required.

The ensuing plan review for residential building permit required compliance with all development standards for new construction, including minimum required setbacks.

A variance is required to allow the issuance of a new permit for the re-establishment of this structure with a reduced north side setback.

Shown here is the site plan and the subject property, and that side north side property line showing the separation that we're currently looking at and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the setback variance.

Staff recommends approval in BOA 26103072.

Uh one to restore the existing structure in its historical footprint, a modest variance is required where the existing structure does not currently meet the minimum required setback.

Two, a literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship as a modification to the existing structure beyond the planned restoration efforts would be required to bring the structure into compliance with the setback ordinance.

And three, the plight of the owner is due to pre-existing conditions on the site and the need to restore the home after suffering significant fire damage.

Staff mailed 31 notices, zero were returned in favor or in opposition.

We received no voicemails, and there is no neighborhood association within the notification area.

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

And he's reusing the foot the foundation.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

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

Uh my name is Adam Belasco.

And the kind of the scope of it was as he previously stated, uh it sustained a fire damage on the your face in the house, the right side of the home.

When that happened, of course, you know, we had the assessment going in, determined kind of the damage that was done to it.

As walls started getting exposed.

There was a lot of termite.

That was also damaging the home.

So as the repairs were done, when they went back in, they realized that no more of the repairs were done than initially the scope of work that was written out.

When they went out there, they they saw that at least two walls were replaced, which is where the damage or the fire occurred.

So they asked for new construction plans, and that's when the issue came up of the 11 inches variance approval that was requested.

Um I spoken to the to the owner to the right side, which is where initially the fire took place and kind of mentioned the situation, didn't have any issues with you know the eleven inches discrepancy of today's codes.

And we're here today to see, you know, you guys can grant us that approval.

Well, when this house is built, the setback was three feet.

So you're four foot one, so that's better than what I would used to see.

Is there any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Zuna.

Uh notice that the uh the carport was taken down.

Do you plan on rebuilding that at some point or no, sir?

We're not gonna rebuild the carport.

Yeah, the only thing I would just make sure you're complying with the front set pack inside if you were to rebuild.

So, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manna.

So for the city, so it had I guess had it not been for the amount of uh extra work that was done, would this have been uh a non-issue here with the board of adjustment?

That's correct.

The uh repair permit would have just covered the interior work that was originally proposed.

And then um and does it does the city have um I know that some things will we'll say the city has a leeway to grant some variances with regards to distances and so sometimes like six inches.

So was that not the case here as well?

Or uh administratively uh we can review and grant up to a six-inch setback variance, uh being that the structure was four foot one away.

Uh we could not grant an eleven-inch variance, it would have come to board to the board with that line of questioning.

I know that there's two uh tests.

If it's commercial, it's it's fifty percent of the appraised value of the building, but I thought for residential it was fifty percent of the structure and cost was not part of that.

So uh and I'm asking because we heard testimony that it was fifteen percent of the walls and whatnot that they need to be repaired.

What what triggered this to come here?

I thought I mean is uh isn't that a isn't it a fifty percent of the actual structure that triggers for residential the footprint?

Um so once they start redoing the walls, we have to consider the room as part of that footprint.

Okay, that's just I was just curious.

Okay.

Uh is there any other questions?

All right, thank you very much.

Uh anyone's time to speak.

Nobody's on us.

All right.

Is anybody against this?

No.

All right.

So just curious.

Looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number B08-26-103072.

A move to the Board of Adjustment Grant requests for 11-inch variants from the minimum required five-foot site setback to allow a home to be four foot one inch from the north side property line situated at 239 highway drive applicant being um Adam Velasco because the testimony presented to us.

The facts that we've determined show the physical character of this property is such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the UN unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the request is not propose a narrower side setback than the one that previously existed on this lot to restore the existing structure and its historical footprint.

A modest variance is required where this existing structure does not meet the minimum required setback to due to special conditions.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in this city hardship.

A literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship as a modification to the existing structure beyond the plan of restoration efforts, would be required to bring this structure into compliance with the setback ordinance.

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

Granting this variance would observe the overall spirit of the ordinance and provide substantial justice to the property owner and the surrounding community as it would allow for the restoration of the structure within its historical footprint.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses 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.

The home is only four foot one inch away from the property line at the rear corner.

And this separation gradually increases toward the front of the property.

Sixth, the plight of the owner of the property for which three ounces saw it is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

The plight of the owner of the property is due to unique circumstances, including a historical building footprint established under an historical development regulatory standard and appliar that damages the structure and this necessitated repairs ended motion.

So I can second by Commissioner Boone as Commissioner Bangley.

Yeah, I think we've seen issues like this before where they're just rebuilding on the uh existing um slab and um through no fault of their own.

And as uh the chairman pointed out, um at the time it was built, it probably was three foot standard, and so this is gonna exceed it by 13 inches.

So I'll be in support of the motion.