So it is one o'clock.

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

Can we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please?

Buenas tardes.

In espanhol, por favor, a mi derecha in donde está la cabina.

Acudan para que les podamos dar un dispositivo y continuen ustedes siguiendo la junta.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much.

Staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Manna.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Rosina.

Present.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Present.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Chair Orion.

And I'm present.

That makes ten.

We have a quorum.

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

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

Texas one state under God.

All right.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

This board is supported by members of the city staff, combined in the rules and regulations governing the city zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

We only examine the facts pertaining to the release of it, we do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties.

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

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

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

We also serve in an advisory and appellate capacity to the director of development services regarding request for variances from regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 28-5.

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

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

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

Any opposition to the request will be presented in a like manner after everyone has heard the case will be closed and a member of the board will make a motion.

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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

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

Appeals from the board's decisions regarding chapter 28 are made to the city council.

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

Staff.

Thank you.

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

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

Check marks indicates those properties in favor of the request.

Next indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation, any questions about the board, the applicant will present their request.

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

For those in support in opposition will be allowed a maximum three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

Speaker to speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving up their time for a total of nine minutes.

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, we'll begin with uh item number one, a SDR case at 247 Princeton.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tyler Adam, planner for development services.

This is BOA-26-1030079 located at 247 Princeton in Council District 1.

Applicant property owner 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.

This property zoning is IDZ with uses permitted for three dwelling units.

Subject properties located at 247 Princeton.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

The block face in question is made up of 15 units.

There is one active type 2 short-term rental on the block face located at 211 Princeton.

Block face density is currently at 6.6%.

If an additional type 2 is approved, the block face will be at 13.3%, which exceeds the 12.5% limitation.

Applicant originally submitted uh the application um February 3rd of 2026.

On March 31st, 2026, the application was placed on pending BOA decision for exceeding block face density.

As mentioned, there's um already previously a type 2 short-term rental permit that was permitted uh in October of 2025 at 211 Princeton, and that property is current on their hot taxes, and there's no code enforcement history or active listings for this property.

This is the site plan.

And then we have the subject property followed by the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request.

Staff mailed out 29 notices, received zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Uh no voicemails were received, and no response from Uptown Neighborhood Association.

Uh no response from San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association or any of the five citywide groups.

Uh applicant is here.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant can come forward.

All right, please state your name.

Tell us about your SDR.

Good afternoon.

My name's Elvis Trevinho.

I'm the owner at 247 Princeton.

And the request is for a slight increase in block face density uh to operate the SDR.

Um, I was here on May 4th uh presenting uh my case.

Um so quick summary points from that discussion um is that the property allows for um four off-street parking uh spaces, including a detached garage.

So that uh kind of helps out with some of the traffic control um concerns that may arise.

Um additionally, uh the management and operation controls that will be in place are gonna be no party or no event policy enforced quiet hours.

Uh I'll personally be doing uh the guest screening as well as any booking oversight.

And um my uh commitment to remain in compliance with the city.

Um also since I am local, uh the property will remain locally owned and actively uh managed by uh local presence.

So there will be uh local availability to address any uh concerns or any uh issues that may arise.

So following uh the last meeting is uh discussion, uh it was recommended that I reach out to the neighborhood association and get some support um and reach out to the neighbors and uh try to also get some support for the property.

Um so what I did was uh I uh walked the neighborhood and um anybody within the radius that was notified um and I was able to attain some support and some signatures in support of the STR, um, and then yes, and then uh additionally I communicated with the president of the Uptown Neighborhood Association and requested uh a letter in support of the STR, and that is what's up on the screen, and I would also like to note that the president of the uh neighborhood association is within the perimeter of where the notices were mailed.

Okay, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh do you have any other short-term rentals?

No, I have a long-term rental, but no other short-term rentals.

Okay.

And um you're gonna be managing this yourself?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um, how far down is the other um short-term from your I know it's down to black by about how many houses do you know?

Um, it is located at 21.

Uh, it's probably about 10 houses down.

Thank you.

Bonus.

Commissioner Woods.

Uh, thank you for getting these items for us.

Uh, I remember you from the last meeting.

Um, you say you have a long-term rental and a short-term rental.

This is your short-term rental.

Um, is there like a financial hardship or what's the hardship if you don't get this permit approved?

Um, for this property, I operated it as a long-term rental, and frankly I was losing money on it.

Um, so I think I'd have to weigh the options of selling or um keeping it on the market as a long term until someone came around, but I got you.

Uh uh Bonus again.

So you said you were losing money as a long-term rental.

Does it have a mortgage out on it?

Yeah, there's a mortgage on it.

And pretty much going long term, you weren't able to cover the mortgage or maintenance.

No, I I was essentially paying for utilities and maintenance and then some of the mortgage.

Okay, thank you.

All right, anyone else?

All right, is there anyone sent them to speak on this?

Nobody signed up to speak.

Okay, if there's no other questions, I'm looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Bregman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030079.

I move to the board of adjustment, grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental situated 247 Princeton applicant being Elvis Travino.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

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

There's 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.

Uh there does not appear to be a reason to believe the 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.

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

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

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

E.

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

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

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

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

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

Second by Commissioner Beniz, Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion for a couple of reasons.

Um 13.3 compared to 12.5.

The fact that neighbors have uh so shown support for the applicant as well as the homeowner association uh president living within that um 200 foot radius and also providing a letter of support, I think speaks to the fact that the neighborhood is supporting this.

So I will uh be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Beniz.

Uh I agree with my colleague I also be in support for the reasons uh stated by Commissioner Rugman.

Um, you know, in addition, the margins are tough, you know.

When when you're talking long-term rental, short-term rental.

You know, this is a small local investor, you know, these mommy pop investors that do these Airbnbs, it's not always glamours, and they're not doing it, you know, to get rich.

Really, they're doing it to cover the mortgage a lot of times because like I said, these margins are small, so um I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing now, so we'll go oh, Commissioner Zoom.

I'm just gonna say I'm in support too as well, but we're 10 and panel on the board today, right?

So if there's any opposition, I wish we could hear that opposition, give the applicant a chance to provide some kind of feedback and perhaps kind of discuss what happens.

Well, there's any commissioners that are that are in opposition.

Uh, feel free to to speak up.

Alright, um, let's have roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Mama?

I concur with the finance effect.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the finance of fact.

Motion passes.

Uh 92 uh zero with an abstention.

Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Thank you all for your time.

Yes, sir.

Item two.

Um yeah.

Good afternoon.

Item number two is BOA-26-1030055 located in district 10 at 539 Calume Place.

The zoning is NP8, and the request is for one, a one-foot fence height special exception from the maximum three foot to allow a four-foot front yard solid fence along the west side front yard property line.

And two, a five-foot driveway clear vision variants from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a 10-foot clear vision area for the front and rear yard driveways and alley.

The subject properties addressed off of Calume Place and is located at the corner of Calume Place and Kenilworth Boulevard.

The immediate surrounding area consists primarily of NP8 residential-based zoning districts.

However, they're MF33, R4 for Park and Church, and IDZ for residential use-based zoning districts, and the nearby surrounding area.

In February of 2026, a permanent investigation case was opened for building a fence without a permit on the subject property.

The applicant has since applied for a new fence permit, the review for which it's on hold due to the proposed fence height.

Staff visited the property in March of 2026 and verified the rear fence is eight feet tall, which is permissible due to the adjacent alley.

Staff also found conditions that would necessitate clear vision variances.

The fence is constructed, and the permit for the fence is pending board of adjustment hearing outcome.

This is the site plan showing the clear vision requests and the front yard fence request.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the fence site special exception and BOA-26-103055 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the abutting and immediate nearby properties do not have fence heights similar to the quest.

And two, the requested special exception would be introducing a fence height that's inconsistent with the current character of the surrounding community.

Staff recommends approval in the clear vision variance for BOA-26-103055 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 to sufficiently 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 cars even with the granting of the reduced distances from the driveways and the surrounding car serving infrastructure.

Staff mailed out 30 notices.

Three were received in favor, one was received in opposition.

Outside 200 feet, two were received in favor, zero in opposition.

And for voicemails received zero favors or in opposition.

Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

One of the pictures on the surrounding area is the street green.

The the street is not actually green in real life.

I think that's just uh the photo.

Commissioner Manna.

So um trying to understand um how the two align with regards to the position for one and two.

Um the clear vision um it is it the height or is the fence comes that far forward?

What is what is being, I guess, approved, or what is the city um okay with with regards to the clear vision versus the heights of the fence?

Try to understand words of miss.

It's my understanding staff is a little more um understanding if the clear vision is um within the certain distance of like if it's within if it's a small amount of a variance, staff is a little bit more understanding of recommending approval for the situations versus the fence height.

Um staff didn't find any extenuating circumstances to make a recommendation of approval for that front yard solid fence.

And our uh clear vision is based on any any fence, whether it's privacy or um predominantly open over three feet, and we've observed in a neighborhood other fences around 10 feet.

That's my recommendation.

What for the clear vision was that?

And just to jump on that man, uh Commissioner Manor over here, uh just the distance that we're measuring there is where the fence how close that fence is to the curb.

Um so this variance here is uh it's minimum 15 feet required per the section of fencing code.

They only have 10 feet measured from the curb line to that first point of that fence.

But um normally with the clear vision, it's predominantly open fencing, you know, in that distance, and we generally um I guess have dialogue with predominantly open fencing in that space.

We're here it's a solid fence, and so is there a difference there from that perspective?

The standard is the same for predominantly open or um solid fencing, the section of code does not allow any type of fencing taller than three feet within that 15-foot area.

Okay, Mr.

Cruz?

Um, my I'm thinking about it.

Okay.

So the clear vision is just for one side of the fence or for both sides?

The clear vision is for the if you see that south property, that box with the number two, it is for that.

It is there a stop sign there at the corner.

That is a good question.

I don't need to look into that.

There is on going to the east on comments place, or the stop sign.

Okay, let's uh, yeah, because we're recording this, we'll wait till you you come up.

It's all right.

Um, to keep answering your question, the request for the clear visions is both for this area right here, and then there's also a there's a driveway right here.

So the clear vision is for that location also.

Thank you.

Alright.

Anyone else like to have a question for staff?

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your project.

Hi.

Uh my name is Chris Choco.

I'm actually representing uh the homeowner Justin Diggs.

He's my boss, he's out of town.

But I was uh involved in the renovations of this property.

Um really this was done as a mistake to be you know perfectly frank.

He's our first time homeowner, hired a fence, you know, to replace a chain link fence, and uh, you know, we're grateful for the allowance of the clear vision exception on part two, and would just uh the only arguments I would make in in support of the solid front yard fence that extends beyond and is at a height of four feet.

Um there is a uh house.

I wish I had brought photographs of it, but there's a house on Robin Hood, one street over, that is essentially identical except for that it's constructed of uh two layers of wood slats with tiny uh gaps between them, but I I don't imagine you could see anything on the other side of it.

But there are small gaps, but that are uh basically staggered so that you know maybe some light could stream through that fence, but that would be it, uh and it's at a height of at least four feet and extends even further um into the into the front yard.

But if uh, you know, if if the board sees that you know that that front yard fence is unacceptable, uh we'd be amenable to fixing it, you know.

I don't want to create a you know create any more issue than there is with this because again, we understand that it was our mistake to construct uh the replacement fence without the proper uh with it without the proper paperwork going forward.

So it was partly this was done through mistake, but uh again, we know I'm gonna speak on behalf of Justin again, small business owner, first-time homeowner with his wife and young kid.

Uh it's undertaken quite a expense already in renovating this property, which was uh uninhabited for two years on the market, and uh, you know, I work there myself a lot, a lot of days, and basically it's a very popular place for people to like walk their dogs and come around and you know, it's it's hearsay, but everybody says they love, you know, we love it.

Can you build a fence like that at our house?

And so um, you know, I uh I I think it is not as much of a clash in with the character of the neighborhood.

I don't think it creates any safety issues.

Also, the only people we really did consult with prior to any construction is the immediate neighbors that are in uh that are at 535 calumet that are the ones most impacted by that fence that's uh that's on the property line.

And uh we provided signed letters of their support that are dated that predate the construction of the fence.

So we did consult with them.

So one question I had is uh on Google Street View that shows a a mirror of of short bushes uh where the fence is currently.

Are those still there?

The small plantings?

Um, I want to just clarify which section of fence.

The four foot tall.

Okay.

I don't think there are there are any bushes there.

Okay, I uh the Google Street View that is dated prior to the construction of the fence.

No, no, this is a much more accurate depiction of what it looks like currently.

There are some there is a little bit of really no actually in the the backyard everything's been done as uh, yeah.

What I was what I was referring to was it looks like you replaced a string of plantings that was acting somewhat like a fence with an actual fence.

That's what I was I was wondering if the plantings were still there.

No, the plantings are no plantings are no longer there.

Exactly.

Th those plantings were actually um like intertwined into the chain link fence.

Okay.

So as we remove that chain link fence, we also removed a good deal of small trees and growths that had sort of intertwined into that chain link fence.

But all those are gone, and again, this is just replacing what had been a chain link fence with uh wooden fence.

One reason for this was also because if you again look at the sky view, you can see that this is a corner property.

A vast, vast majority of the square footage is actually comprised of front yard, front side yard.

And again, this is a young family with a young little two-year-old daughter, and it'd be nice to have somewhere for her to be able to play and not you know be visible from hundreds of feet away in every direction.

So I think that was a big uh motivation to replace the chain link fence with a solid fence with a little bit more privacy attribute.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone else like I have a question?

Uh Bonias.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yeah, Mr.

Choco.

Um the fence looks great.

I've drove by it, familiar with this area.

It looks great.

House looks good.

Um you have many in favor, and there was just one opposition from the neighborhood across the street.

Do we know why they were in opposition?

You know, I would just guess that there was one gentleman who uh just after the fence was constructed had uh called me over uh when I was working with the carpenter on some other uh small renovations around the house, and he uh he indicated that the eight-foot height of the fence uh abutting the alleyway was uh was gonna be uh you know violated the the building codes.

And um, you know, so uh in my because and I actually personally went around the neighborhood and uh just delivered copy small copies of the thing that would be mailed out already, just to let people know, hey, you know, you've got an opportunity to make your voice heard.

You're you know, because you're a close neighbor, your opinion matters in this in this uh in this ordeal.

And so uh I didn't get anybody, you know, most people didn't answer.

I would just I just left the notes uh uh notes around, but I would think the only person who I I never experienced anybody expressing any issue with the fence except for the one individual who was the he'd be on Kennelworth, like diagonally um let's see, maybe there's a set of duplexes there, eight fourteen, eight twelve, and eight oh eight kennelworth, one of those properties.

I don't remember which one.

Um probably probably eight fourteen or eight twelve.

Um that gentleman indicated that our eight-foot uh fence abutting the alley was a violation, but it's actually that's that's the most uh protected in terms of the rules of the fencing.

That one actually is probably has the greatest uh you know foot to stand on in terms of it being allowable.

So uh I don't know if that's the basis of his uh of of the uh the one vote against, but that would be my guess.

Okay, Commissioner Man.

Yeah.

So it and I saw the fencing there and um on the the eight foot fencing, and um that's not permitted by right, is that correct?

Uh there's not a pool.

Um, so it is on the uh and it's not on the abutting between the two homes, so it looks like there's eight foot between the two and then on the back.

There's an alley in between those two properties, and the alley permits an eight foot fence.

But on the side yard on the side lot.

So the side is also the same.

It permits an eight foot all the way to the front facade of the building, which it then turns into the front yard.

It drops down once it reases once it reaches the house the house line.

And just to confirm on that, if you're permitted like your rear yard is allowed an eight foot, you are allowed along the sides as well to keep it consistent.

And that's why they were permitted the eight foot along the side as well.

And the alley doesn't look uh very wide.

It looks like it's only uh I didn't see any driveways from any of the homes using the alleys, just for garbage collection.

No, no, exactly.

The alley is only for garbage collection, and I believe there's also a San Antonio uh like a saws easement there.

Um they were doing some work.

I believe that's that's actually the origination of the permitting issue was uh city person involved with that Saws project indicated that that rear fence was too high, even again though that's the most uh defensible part of the fence.

Alrighty.

Anyone else like to add?

Is there anyone sounded to speak?

No, you're signed up to speak.

Well, we'll look for a motion and see how this turns out.

I'll take a seat.

Thank you guys for your time.

Yes, sir.

I'd like to make a motion on this case.

Bonias.

Commissioner Bonias.

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

I move that the board of adjustment grant a variance for a one-foot special exemption from the maximum three foot to allow a four-foot front yard solid fence along the west side of the property line situation situated at 539 CaliMet Place.

Applicant being Justin Diggs, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of the property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended will result in an unnecessary unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the special exemption would be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter as the fence would provide extra security and privacy for the subject property located on the end of a residential block.

B.

The public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

This special exemption would not harm the public welfare, and its presence would protect the property owners while still promoting a sense of community.

C.

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

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exemption as the height increase is modest and will not block the view of the house from the street.

D.

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

The proposed increase of the side uh side fence is modest and not a total departure from the aesthetics of the surrounding area and character of the neighborhood.

E.

The special exemption will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations hereon established for the specific district.

The general purpose of the district's regulation is to protect neighborhood character, promote safety, and ensure consistent development patterns.

Allowing an increase in fence height in this location does not undermine those goals and is based on site specific conditions that do not apply to most lots.

End of motion.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in support.

Uh I think they they have plenty of neighbors in support.

Um I think that the side fence is a modest one foot as the applicant stated.

There's a young family there.

They want a little bit of privacy for their young children to play on the front.

So I'll be in support for those reasons, and it looks good.

I've drove by this, it looks it's a big difference from what this home used to be.

Thank you, Commissioner Cruz.

I concur with uh Commissioner Bonias.

I don't see any problem with it because it it is very well built, so I I'm sure that the neighbors will adjust to it eventually.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Dean.

I'm concerned about the uh the garbage truck and the alley and the clear vision.

Um, so I won't be in support.

All right.

Is there anyone else?

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to one.

Uh now a motion on the clear vision.

Bonias, I'll take it.

Motion Bonias.

Regarding case number BOA 26103055.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a five-foot driveway clear vision variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a 10-foot clear vision area for the front and rear yard uh driveways and alleys situated at 5 39 Cali Met Place.

Applicant being Justin Diggs because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have uh determined show that the physical character of the property is not such that literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest as the fences do not impede traffic or the ability to navigate the streetscape.

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

A literal enforcement of the of the ordinance would require the applicant to alter the fence for which they are requesting a special exemption or to modify the long time existing driveway on the property.

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

Granting the clear vision reduction is in this instance would still observe the spirit of the ordinance as the abutting roadways would remain navigable by vehicles without a substantial loss of clear vision.

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

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

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

Granting the variance would not substantially injure the appropriate uh the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties as the conditions granted would not substantially injure the clear vision area adjacent area of adjacent lots or cause a traffic hazard in this area.

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is salt is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and is not merely financial.

The property is located on the corner of a block and poses a unique layout for the development.

End of motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Brangman, Commissioner Beneas.

Yeah, I'll be in support of this.

I think the city stated their support for it as well, and I'll be in support of what they recommend.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brackman.

Um, I agree.

Uh with my colleague, I'll be in support as well.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

I'm not gonna be in support for the same reason as before, the trash truck.

Alright, thank you.

If there's no one else, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can cover the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to one.

Um you have any questions you can get with staff.

Sir, if you could uh personally just really quickly since we got to move on.

Uh Kenilworth and not the alley.

That's it.

That's all I wanted to note.

So have a great day.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number three.

Is the applicant for item number three at 607 Mackelvane Street present today?

We hadn't had them checked in uh prior to the meeting, so.

Yeah, we'll just table that and come back.

Sure.

Uh, we probably won't be here too long today with only seven more cases left.

I've sent them a couple follow-ups, uh hoping to hear back from them.

Hopefully, they can join us before the end of the meeting.

Yes, sir.

Item four.

So item four.

It's gonna be BOA-25-1030249, located at 214 North Sars of Mora Street.

Uh, the property is zone C2.

Uh, this is a request for one, a 25-foot variance from the minimum required uh 30-foot rear setback to allow structure with a five-foot rear setback, two, a ten-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot type B landscape buffer yard to allow five-foot landscape buffer yard, and three, a fence material variance to allow for sheet roll or corrugated metal limited to the as built portion along the southern side property line.

The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of North Sarzamora and West Travis Street.

Historically, this property was occupied by a convenience store with fuel pumps.

The structures are still present on the property and are currently unoccupied.

Aerial imagery shows evidence uh of a new metal structure on the property as early as October 2023.

Google street view imagery shows evidence of an auto repair-related business operating out of the metal structure in January 2024.

No records of building permits or certificates of occupancy exists for such activity in this time frame.

Given the structure's placement, a permit cannot be issued without a variance granting a reduced rear setback.

In addition to the rear setback encroachment, zoning staff identified that the structure encroaches into the landscape buffer yard required along the rear property line and a corrugated metal fence along the southern property line.

Staff recommendation for the rear setback landscape buffer yard and fence material variances.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, these variances would be contrary to the public interest by allowing the structure intended for use as a tire shop to be five feet from the property line, shared with an existing single-family residential use.

Two, although developable space is limited, this condition is more a result of the intent to keep the existing convenience store and fuel pumps on the property rather than an inherent feature of the parcel.

And three, the use of corrugated metal is prohibited within the city as it detracts from the appearance of the community and can potentially be harmful if sharp edges are left exposed.

Within the last week, um related to the landscaping bit specifically, within the last week, the applicant has been in contact with our tree and landscaping team uh to develop a uh landscaping plan that uh their staff is supportive of, and I'll let the applicant speak uh a little more to that point.

Um, but we did mail 22 notices, zero returned in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails, but the prospect Hill Neighborhood Association is in support of the requests.

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

Uh, before you go, uh just a quick question.

Um do you know if the underground tanks have been removed?

I did not.

I believe the applicant can uh speak more to that.

And and with the uh with the overhead uh utility lines running down the side of the alley on the on the applicant side, uh was CPS or any of the uh telecom companies contacted for their input on this?

Uh not by our staff, um, not for this request.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions from the commission to staff?

Hearing none, so the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

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

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Carlos Alava with Alamo Consulting Services, and here's the uh property owner, Mr.

Carlos Jimenez.

So, yes, uh just as I was he was stated, uh we are requesting um the reduction in the setback for that um building number one, and um for which we propose I don't know if um perhaps um we have the exhibit for the uh fire rating.

We are proposing a uh one-hour fire rating on that side that is uh fronting the adjoining lot, in accordance with the current uh 2024 uh edition of the uh International Building Code.

And um that's uh something that is prescribed by code and it would be uh compliant.

That would be uh something to to make it more like to make it safer.

And regarding the landscape buffer requirement, um we've been in the coordination with the tree division to propose uh the trees that are uh mid two mid to large canopy trees and two understory trees, along with some shrubs, parallel to the back uh property line, and uh as it was uh depicted on the pictures is there's no trees on the on that property, and the owner's intent is to beautify it by having more landscape and trees along that uh side of the property that uh buts the residential use.

Okay.

Uh any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Manna.

So the current structure that's there, the plan is to keep that structure there.

So the original structure that was on the property, um, is the goal to keep that structure there, or is that going to be removed and it's become a tire shop altogether, or I guess what is the plan overall for this property?

Yes, the owner has an existing valid uh certificate of occupancy for the uh existing main building, which is a convenience store that is to remain separate from this uh second proposed building, which uh the the use would be compliant with the um with the C2 uh use for um um the uh tire sales and installation so that's that would be perfectly in line with whatever's permitted by right at the moment.

And for the city, so this structure is built um I guess with without permits, and so is it built within the footprint that's permitted on this property?

So uh so are any setbacks required or is it meeting setback requirements on this on this property as built?

Related to that building one, the metal structure?

Uh no, it it is in violation of the rear setback, um, which is the purpose of this uh request item number one.

Uh, if they were to obtain a approval from y'all on that item number one, of course, they would take that to the plan review staff at that time to obtain a permit, a retroactive permit.

And by the way, the owner uh as a result of the case against the property, he has uh he hired a uh architectural designer and he uh provided plans to development services.

So he has uh shown the good faith in in in purpose and applying for the permit, and then uh as a result of the first round of comments, that's when the building reviewer identify the requirement for the setback and and that's what we're requesting today.

Yes, to clarify, an application has been submitted um by the applicant for this uh has not been approved at this time, but it was uh submitted.

So why is it not the case that I mean, so is a concrete slab poured and everything, you know, is this on slab with regards to the new structure?

Yes, the uh there's a permanent concrete slab on grade foundation, and then um at that uh depicted location, and on top of that is the lightweight uh metal structure.

So the rough timeline would be the the structure was built, code enforcement did identify um the violations for building without a permit, and within the setbacks uh after which an application for permitting was submitted.

And what is the um what is the minimum setback by right, I guess, for a C2 up putting uh residential property?

It'd be 30 feet rear setback required proposed as five.

Okay, I have a I have a question about what we're seeing on the screen right here.

Um just looking at the property from above, it appears that these were this is calling this out as an arbitrary lot twenty-nine.

Has this been replanted into one lot or are there two arbitrary lots there?

And I'm asking because um if there's two separate lots and this building isn't is entirely uh occupying this arbitrary lot twenty-nine, shouldn't it be addressed off one of the side streets and this be a side setback instead of a rear setback?

Uh also that and that looks like it would make sense because the driveway spans all the way across both lots.

So it looked like there was that one point of structure there, and so I'm just trying to figure out what sort of um historical background is.

The owner has just communicated to me that he has a valid certificate of determination issued by land entitlements.

And it's classified as what two lot two arbitrary lots or is or one, because commercial can't cross lot lines.

So I went when when I meet up the application for the for the building, they've with me uh C O D and it's approval and it's under fire on the on the you don't have a copy of that, do you?

Or can staff I'm I'm trying to see what what lot it's referencing?

Right.

So because I if I drove into the parking lot, Google drove, and if you go to Google Maps and you drive, you can see where it was an open lot previously, and and it was a very small shack that was there on the front property that was a butting um that was basically in line with the current structure, and now this whole new structure is is basically on that second property that was brought in.

Yeah.

Yeah, the owner is trying to find the documented button.

In the meantime, uh we just want to also mention that um we were proactive in trying to involve the um the neighbors and so that they would know exactly what it was all about, and we got uh twenty-four twenty twenty-one letters of support sign letters.

Zero position, and also we coordinated uh heavily with uh prospect heel and we also have their support.

Okay.

Yeah, this is showing up as lot six, not as two lots, so they very well may have been just a really large lot.

It looks like it was in that same configuration, at least since nineteen ninety-nine as lot six.

All right, yeah, that green dots covering it up.

I didn't see that, all right.

Okay, well, so much for that line of questioning.

Is there any other questions from the commission?

Cruz.

Oh, okay.

Yes, Commissioner Cruz and I'll get back to it.

Sorry, sir.

Um the gas station and the store, are they still open up or being operated?

Right now it's closed.

It's closed on until I speak into the microphone.

Yes, yeah, because the the my business is closed for now until I finish this process.

They they let me open again.

Okay.

So right now the store and the gas station are closed.

Yeah, the the the the city closed, you can you use you you don't figure this problem with the feedback?

We we we don't let you work.

So if for me it's very important, you get this approval and then I I can start working again because uh I feel a year we might we might store closet and this is a very hard time right now.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Zune.

Now it's worth mentioning that the CO is is valid, but it's just that the uh um the strike team uh has placed the hold although there's a value zero.

Commissioner Zuna?

Can I see the map?

Can I see the map of uh approvals from the neighboring properties again?

Um, we didn't include these on our notification map as they were just received on the earlier today, but we do have the neighbors.

The neighbors to the rear, those are the ones that I was kind of wanted to see if they yeah, we we have their signed support.

And what are the hours of operation of the tire shop?

Well, there's it's not open yet.

Uh, but what were the hours?

Is there proposed hours?

We open it, we use it for like 10 to 6.

So you can sorry.

Uh we we are uh we already opened the uh the shop about it we have to close it about 10 to 6 Monday to Saturday.

Okay, understood.

And then regarding the existing building that's there without built without a permit, were you tied into any of the public utilities?

Did you tie into the public water or sewer with any utilities?

I I use it the same water, the thin electricity.

I just put it.

And there's no water so you gotta speak into them.

It does it you you think I have no water inside, nothing.

Yeah, you use it for the storage, yeah.

Or for the tires, change it.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions from the commission?

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Or in the power lines, do you have concerns with that?

Well, I thought I did.

I was looking really hard on Google Earth.

I didn't see any electric.

It looks like it's just data com.

Uh and the light that's at the pole that's at the hard corner is actually being strung over from across the street.

So without be without electricity being there, I don't have a concern.

So mana?

Yes, Commissioner Manor.

So so if you go on Google Drive and go down Travis, look across it's cutting across the lot.

So I don't know if that got moved.

So so because it let me pull that up.

And maybe it just that's data.

I don't it's it's got two wires, or it's only a single wire, but it's it does look like it's got a oh, it looks like it's just data again.

But it does go across the lot.

Caddy walker or caddy cross.

Yeah, it it most likely could be serving the building.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh Bonia's real quick for city.

The there's like a little strip mall across with the cricket store and HR block T Mobile and all that.

Is that is that one also really close to residential?

Is that residential behind it behind that little strip mall?

So let's go back to the zoning map on uh here.

So yeah, that's strip mall.

Yeah, it goes all the way to that C2 IDZ.

You're talking about the one south of the property, correct?

Yeah, picture here.

Uh no, uh across the street.

Oh, across the street.

2811 West Houston.

And then behind that, is that residential behind that?

So if you can speak.

Yeah, it's not how it's behind.

And I I know because I go now the north, and that's for the support.

And then other people in and it's on the on the on the list.

Okay, Commissioner Zuma.

Uh just as kind of closing here, can you kind of state the hardship of the variances were not approved today?

What would the hardship be to the applicant?

Well, the uh PS invested uh significant funds in the in the foundation and the building which is already there.

Um is is the is unfeasible to involve unviable to relocate the building at the moment.

So okay, and I have a question for landscape.

Um so with the with regards to a buffer, I I was always under the impression that if you had a 15 foot buffer and you had a small area that needed to be reduced, the city would sometimes allow you to expand uh the rest of it to try to equate and and get the same amount of property.

Is that is this susceptible to that sort of a uh uh review?

That's been uh excuse me.

Yes, it's been acceptable to be able to stretch the border or place it to meet the intent of the buffer requirements.

Okay, because it looks like the the the structure that's that's that's imposing on the required rear buffer is about a third of the of the property rear length, and and since it uh seems like you have a lot of vegetation between that building and and Travis Street, um I just I just wanted to see if the you had some alternative um if there was any concerns about the buffer from the commission that perhaps staff could work something out with the applicant.

Okay, I just wanted to you didn't have any plans to do anything on that.

Well that's that's the exhibit uh an exhibit uh with with the um where we are showing the trees.

Yeah, that's that's the exhibit that's that's what has been coordinated with the three divisions.

Okay, yeah.

So you would you would so we're proposing two large mid to large trees and and two small trees plus the old disrupts and currently there's nothing there, but then it is of those two and a half feet.

That addresses my concern uh regarding the buffer with regards to the um the the corrugated metal um staff that is that can you point out where that where that is occurring?

Yeah, it's my understanding that the uh that part is along the the southern portion of the fence which abuts the alley, that would be the that one.

So just that one run down the side, correct.

Yeah, that item number three displayed here.

Oh, there it is, okay.

And is is that alley being used uh by by uh garbage pickup or anything or or any of the homeowners to access their property down that alley?

I know one of the homes that's behind you is really close to the alley, so I'm gonna think I do believe um we saw the residential property directly behind this one had a gate off of that alley.

So at least one is.

Okay.

Manna Commissioner Manna.

So um the property or the way that the current structure is built, it looks like it's 35 feet or I couldn't see the number clearly.

And so are we protecting the rest of that property so that another building can't be put in there?

Based upon the dialogue that we or the what we're voting on?

Yeah, how big is that building?

Do you have a dimensional uh number?

30 feet by 39 feet.

Okay, so we could limit it to 40 feet just to be safe if somebody wanted to include that in the motion.

And then looking at the can you help me understand that I didn't quite understand the two color bars that are going on uh we'll say with the picture north of this picture.

Um, so you have the green and the and the orange, so so what are those two colors there representing uh what is the orange representing?

Oh um, that's just a little bit of a lighter green.

Kind of mixes with the red there, it looks it does look orange.

Uh no, that's supposed to show the minimum required landscape being reduced down to five fifteen foot would be the typical minimum.

So I guess I'd ask why is it that we're looking for five foot along the whole strip versus just the part behind the building?

I have no expectation of it of a motion being read to that effect.

So well just that's in the applicant.

So what is it?

Why is it that we're looking for five foot along the whole piece versus um just the part behind the building, which is I guess in that needs the current.

Well, from staff's perspective, we have to just advertise the um narrowest bit, and so um, but maybe the applicants can speak more to um the plan whether they do have uh intend to plan only five feet along the whole strip.

Do you have any intention of using the re you know beyond the depth of the building that property for anything other than uh impervious cover for that 15 foot strip or within the 30 foot setback?

Yeah, the owner is saying that he has no plans in building anything else, just that one that the so everything else will remain just open space with landscaping, but no more more buildings.

So are you the back area because it's interested?

Because uh on this area is a lot of the road needs, uh, they messing one time they broke on my windows and they tried to they they broke in the electricity and everything, so when I kept cars, I used to park it in the back room for my safety.

They live outside.

Is it you don't see it?

Is the side of the building core a metal side of the building is metal, the structure?

It's all metal, correct?

Yeah, it looks like it's just uh metal.

I noticed the corrugated metal didn't have a cap on it.

Is that something that the applicant would like to amend their application to perhaps require a cap on their corrugated metal?

Of course, any anything that because this is still in the plan review process, anything that needs to be addressed uh either by review?

We can't put conditions, but if you would like to um offer um amending your application to put a cap on it, you might gain some sway with the commission.

Of course.

So you're stating for the record that you're amending your application to have the corrugated metal include a cat.

Yes, we are.

All right.

Is there anyone's wanted to speak on this matter?

Nobody's on it to speak.

Is there any other questions?

Alright.

So it looks like we have the makings of an interesting motion.

We'll wonder if anybody would like to uh take that on.

Anna?

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 25103 00249.

I moved that the board adjustment grant to request for a 25 foot variance from the minimum required 30 foot rear setback.

Two allow a structure with a five foot year rear setback for the existing structure of 40 foot.

So 40 foot in length.

Two, two a 10 foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot type B landscape uh buffer to allow a five-foot landscape buffer behind the existing forty-foot structure.

Um, and three, a fence material variants to allow sheet roll or corrugated metal with cap limited to as built portion along the southern side property line situated at 214 North Sesamore Street.

Abcabian Alamo Consulting Services because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

These variances would not be contrary to the public interest as the proposed setback and buffer is sufficient to protect the adjacent owner from increased noise.

Further, the use of corrugated metal would not distract from the proper for the general appearance of the surrounding community.

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

There is limited developable space in this property to support the new structure, minimum required setback and buffer yard.

Compliance with setback buffer and fencing standards would necessitate substantial time and effort, which would not produce sort of proportional benefits for the neighboring community.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed.

Four, the variance will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in 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 foreign property or alter the central character of the district, which is properties located.

Such variances would not directly injure the appropriate use of adjacent residential property as a proposed setback and buffer yard is adequate to protect the residential property from nuisances generally created by non-residential uses.

Furthermore, the corrugated metal would not substantially impact the character in the neighborhood.

And landscape buffer yard.

End of motion.

Alright, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

All right.

Commissioner Manon.

So I will be voting in favor.

You know, so I think limited to the 40 foot uh behind the building.

I did have a concern with the um abutting residential home, but by limited for just a part that's built out, still leaves um an open space on the residential property.

We did have the neighborhood association uh in support of this.

Um it's unfortunate that it was built without permits, uh, but I'm sure that everything uh will be now done uh with the appropriate permitting process.

Um so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I'd echo Commissioner Manna's comments and satisfied that five feet is probably the bare minimum to be able to maintain the rear of this structure, and then I appreciate the like noting that you'll be rating that hour or that that wall one hour, and I feel comfortable enough restricting the metal panel to the as-built conditions so I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else like to add?

Hearing now, so I'll roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osina, yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunny S.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can care with the findings of fact.

Uh motion passes.

If you happen to have any questions, you can uh get with staff.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, everybody.

Item five.

Item number five is BOA-26-1030081, located in District 7 at 9102 Broxton Drive.

The zoning is R5, and the request is for one, a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback.

It's allowed an accessory structure with gutters to be one inch from the west side property line, and two, a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot rear setback is allowed to structure with gutters to be one inch from the rear property line.

The subject property is located along Broxton Drive at the end of a cul-de-sac, which branches off Oglethorpe Drive to the north and has a rear property line abutting Oxford Trace to the south.

Surrounding properties are also zoned R5 single family residential district in RE and R20 across Oxford Trace.

The case originated from a code enforcement investigation of the property in October 2025.

An accessory structure was observed to encroach into the minimum required rear and side setback per staff's visit to the site in April 2026.

According to street view evidence, the structure was constructed after February of 2020.

The applicant may then move the accessory structure to conform with unified development code standards, remove the accessory structure or requested variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow reduced side and rear setbacks.

The outstanding code enforcement case is pending the result of the Board of Adjustment Hearing.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in the side setback variants for BOA-26-1030081 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the reduced setback variants would leave insufficient room to mitigate potential fire concerns and water runoff into abutting properties.

Two, an accessory structures already permitted on the property as long as it abides by current UC regulations, such as setback requirements.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-26-103081 for the rear setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, the rear property line abuts a street to the south, which provides adequate room to limit its impact on year by structures.

And two, there's limited room to place an accessory structure at the appropriate distance from the rear property line.

Staff mail.31 notices.

Zero were received in favor, zero in opposition.

There are also zero voicemails received in favor and zero in opposition.

Alamo Farmstead's Babcock Road Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

The home to the right or the left?

Uh it would be to the west.

I think it would be uh to the west.

I'm not sure, but I can try and find that.

And then also um just a critique.

Um whenever we see an uh a structure on top of a CPS easement, I'd like to hear from CPS in the future.

That'd be wonderful.

Um, so with that, uh, there's any commissioner questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward.

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

Thank you.

All right, please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh my name is Philip Baltazar.

I am the property owner.

I purchased this home in uh July of 2025.

Uh this particular structure uh was constructed prior to me purchasing the home.

I was not aware of any code violations or setback or variance issues until as stated um fall of last year, 2025.

Um at that point, um was completely blindsided by the fact that there was uh issue at all.

Um so my purpose of applying for the um application of variants, what or exception was um mainly because I I was not aware of the fact.

Purchasing the home um during the survey, during the inspection, this never came up at all.

Had I been given that opportunity, I may have been, you know, um afforded an opportunity to uh budget in some sort of um arrangement or uh negotiation with with what might need to happen.

So because I was not afforded that opportunity, now I'm kind of stuck holding the bag.

Um I'm not opposed to uh whatever the city has um to put forth.

I I just was trying to alleviate having to completely um tear down the structure, basically.

Okay.

I'm gonna just uh chime in.

This is my own personal thought on this.

Um for me to get behind any sort of approval.

I would need to have something from your immediate neighbor uh about uh this encroachment into their maintenance agreement uh easement, and I would also need to have something from CPS regarding the encroachment from the 12-foot electric gas telephone and cable TV.

If you go to the street where Ox uh where the where Oxford Trace encounters the next intersection, there is an underground fiber marker right there, so there is probably underground fiber in that easement.

There is overhead electric, there's overhead data com.

So that easement is being used, and so there's the I have um I'm just letting you know if you were in if you wanted to request a continuance to try to to look into those sort of things, you you would definitely gain some say sway with me personally.

Uh I can't speak for the rest of the commission, but I'm just putting that out there.

Appreciate that.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

So um I am the president of Almofar upsets backcrocker neighborhood association.

But but I and I reached out to so but but this is a sub-community within our community, and so I generally let them I guess um provide the feedback.

And so there is a neighborhood association called the um Lincoln Green beautify uh beautification um association, and I think you can find that online and if you reach out to them, you certainly can get you know the input from them, and I concur with the with the neighbor.

I did reach out to the neighborhood the neighborhood, but I didn't hear back from anybody um as of yet.

But um, you know, but it but it um you can reach out to them and kind of get their input because they kind of can give a perspective there.

I didn't see other any other structures along um Oxford Trace, um so this would be one of the first ones there, but I but I do concur with uh my colleague here with regards to the the the easement concerns you know we certainly don't want to impact that and so that may be an issue or an event there.

All right.

Uh is there anyone else who would like to add to the discussion?

All right.

With that, um is there anyone signed up to speak on this issue?

I'll be signed to speak.

Okay, and is there any of the commissioners who would like to see a continuance?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So um so is the next week open for this?

That might be too quick.

Or two weeks, so two uh so it's an informal group and so I think you can use some email communication out there.

He's gonna need a month to get with CPS.

Oh, okay.

So months and CPS, probably June 13th.

Okay.

Um so a month then, so what's the month out meeting?

June 15th.

June 15th?

Yes.

Okay.

So um suggest that we move to uh June 15th.

Alright, is that acceptable?

Yes, sir.

All right, so it's like the so we have a motion to continue to June 15th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we will see you in a month.

Thanks, sir.

Please please reach out to CPS staff, can give you some numbers and email.

I will do that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Alright, item six.

Item number six is BOA-26-1030083 located in District 3 at 234 Myers Boulevard.

The zoning is R form.

The request is for a twenty-five percent variance from the maximum allowable 50% front yard impervious cover to allow 75% impervious cover in the front yard.

The subject property is located allocated along Myrick Boulevard near the intersection with Pleasanton Road.

Surrounding properties are also zoned R4 single family residential district.

The case originated from a code enforcement investigation of the property in March 2026 for building without a permit.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the impervious cover variants in BOA-26-103083 based on the following findings.

A fact one, installing excessive impervious cover to a lot those already permitted 50% impervious cover in the front contributes to the difficulty in mitigating stormwater and can intensify flood events.

Two, there's the option to utilize pervious materials for parking areas to meet UTC standards.

Staff mailed out 39 notices.

Awesome, thank you.

Uh any questions for staff before we have the applicant come forward?

All right, so the advocate come forward.

Hello, good afternoon.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Hi, I'm Rosalinda Valdez.

And we're here regarding our um concrete that we uh we actually had a two-ribbon driveway, and uh we thought it was time that we do a whole new concrete driveway, so that's what we did.

We did not know that uh you could only do so much of the concrete on your front yard.

It's interesting you can have the carport reactor.

Okay, please continue, I'm sorry.

It'll keep dropping.

So I mean we know we have torrentials coming out on that sort of labor of a work.

It was an even the ground wasn't even and we just figured it would be.

Yeah, okay.

Is there any commissioner questions?

Manna, Commissioner Manor.

So I guess uh I I'm generally not a big fan of paving paradise.

And so I guess I would start to ask what would be the mount that we can cut back and and move to pervious versus impervious cover, and so change it to a different structure so that it does allow for water trickle down and in.

Um so I see where the the current driveway or the current sidewalk is going from the uh street um to the door.

Um the material uh to the left of that, could that be removed?

And I guess just try to understand that part.

I'm done.

So uh are you talking about the pavers?

So I'm looking at an old picture.

So essentially it came so where the where it comes in from the fence straight up to the house, so to the front door, so along that that piece there.

Is that where the curve is at?

By the tree.

Yes.

So the the you're talking about the pavement underneath the carport to the left of that tree.

So if you look at the um the the earlier photos, it looked like you had pavement straight uh through the plane of the driveway, and then as you went to the left, uh specifically near that that uh lone uh tree standing up there.

Uh it looked like you had um something else, maybe some gravel or stone.

Yeah, it was gravel.

It was just like dirt and it was had like um there wasn't the ground wasn't even, so it was just like just dirt.

Well, uh the but the but the premise of the question is there any sort of surface that you can replace with something permeable like a paver or stone or gravel?

Just something that you could offer.

Maybe like um the pavers like the ones we have on the right hand side?

Yes, sure.

So I did reach out to uh someone else from a department and they determined those pavers were considered impervious, which went into the calculation for this request.

Okay, and actually on the right side by the tree coming down to the sidewalk, that was part of sidewalk that runs to the front of the front door of the house.

So so the the pavers, the terracotta and the and the white uh block pavers, uh is that a use as a as a walkway to a point in the rear.

But but as far as could those pavers be removed from the front of the carport forward?

Because you really don't necessarily need them out to the street.

No, no, no, no.

So that's that's something.

They're just flat on there.

Yeah, we're looking we're just looking to see what what we can do.

The easiest thing is hard to graph, we're actually gonna put a sleeve whatever we can do to any other commissioner questions, Commissioner Zuna.

Which way does the water runoff when it rolls off the garage?

Is it going straight to the street or straight to the street?

Nothing's pulling up on because that's one of my concerns too is uh whether all that concrete kind of creates a lot of runoff to the street versus absorbed into the yard or else puddles.

Well, there's some on the on the left side and the right side that the water does go on to the site.

We have an opening of the parkboards full of water.

Right.

Okay, so that again my concern would be all with all that concrete, there's a lot of area that can't um can't absorb the water, so that's one of the reasons why there's this impervious cover restrictions on the front.

So you're not paving over the entire front yard.

Right, right.

But um, and just so you know, what this what this board can do is uh because you're asking for a 25% variance, uh, this board could could go anywhere between 25 and 50 percent.

And so one of one aspect of what we looked at is how we could calculate such a number if a commissioner wanted to motion something in between.

And so those pavers on the side, you know, we could probably remove because they're not that's something um if there's anything else that probably could could help uh us feel better about offering something, uh we'd like to know what what you would like uh and what that would mean.

You know, like maybe even removing some a little bit of concrete forward of the cover, maybe going back to a ribbon drive from the street in one area would be a substantial and you know maybe like from the left side on the left side, perhaps cutting out something in the middle and getting rid of the pavers so that you know maybe offering up a a you know, set of 50%, maybe 65% or 70%, or well you're at 75 now, so it'd be like 60 percent.

I'm just I'm prepared to move forward.

So um, you know, this this this hardship was kind of created by the applicant, right?

And so anything we do here is better than what they have right existing conditions so you look thinking like 60 percent.

I think it's 60 percent, right?

Okay, is there anyone signed with the speaker any uh comment?

Okay.

If uh if there's nothing else, if no one objects or has any additional questions, I'd like to uh let the Commissioner Zuna make a motion.

All right, I'm ready to move forward, right?

Commissioner.

Case number BOA-26-1030083.

I moved at the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for a 10-foot variance from the maximum allowable 50-foot front yard impervious cover to allow sixty percent impervious cover in the front yard situated two, three, four, myrick boulevard.

Applicant being Rosalinda Valdez because the touch point presented to us, the factually determined show that the physical character of this property such that a little enforcement of provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardships, specifically find out when the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The impervious cover request would still provide adequate space and conditions to mitigate stormwater runoff on this property.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in the removal of previously installed and previous cover, which presents an unnecessary hardship.

As the lot is already developed, these conditions now produce substantial adverse impacts.

Three by granting the variance of spirit, the ordinance will be observed, and substantial justice will be done in previous cover variants, which still observes the spirit of the ordinance as the applicant will be prohibited from exceeding the maximum allowable impervious cover granted uh granted, thus still leaving a portion of the front yard permeable to stormwater for the variants would not authorize the operation of use of those use specifically authorized of the zoning district in which the burns are located.

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

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

Staff finds the request does not injured the appropriate use of the adjacent properties or alter the essential characters of the district of as the remaining amount of permeable area is sufficient to mitigate stormwater runoff.

Six to apply to the owner of the property for its variance of sellers due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, not merely financial, not due to other result of general conditions to distribute the properties located.

Staff lines apply to the owner of the property for the variance of solidarities due to the unique circumstances distinct of the property.

But the variance is not granted, the property owner would be required to remove the previously installed impervious cover in a motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Man and Commissioner Zoon.

Yeah, so I'm uh gonna say point of clarification.

Yes.

He said 10 feet.

Yeah, 10 feet.

10%.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, so as you as we noted, I made a variance a request on the variance of 10% to 60%.

I think, you know, the really kind of shifting the burden of the stormwater stormwater runoff to the public, and it's really created by the applicant.

And by trying to reduce it down to that 10%, I think it kind of serves my uh purpose of kind of containing that stormwater on their property and not make it a public burden to remedy.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Manner.

I concur with my colleague.

Anyone else like to add?

Here none of the roll call vote.

Commissioner Zona?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can go with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

So you you get a 10% variance.

And that could look like whatever you want it to look like.

But please get with staff and they can help guide you through that.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Item seven.

Good afternoon, Mark Amorabi Principal.

7 is BOA 261030084, located at 262 Fulton Avenue.

Uh requesting a four-foot variant from the minimum twenty-foot rear setback to allow a sixteen-foot rear setback.

Um two-foot variant from the minimum require five-foot size setback to allow an addition with a three foot side setback, the elimination of the NCD two minimum eighteen-inch E standard, a 10-foot variant from the NCD two maximum to allow a 45-foot front and gable roof length.

A variant from the NCD two standards to allow the use of metal siding for accents and upper portion of an addition, and a variant from the accessory dwelling standards to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the side yard of the property.

So there are property is long located along Fulton Avenue on the end of the block base with a railroad track directly to the west of the property.

So you have property located within Autovista Neighborhood Conservation District, which requires a set of design standards to conserve the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The property owner initially submitted the variance request for consideration with the BOA in 2025.

However, that application would have drawn.

The request proposes the construction of a new home addition and an ADU in the rear and side yard of the existing property.

And the railroad tracks there.

And the surrounding area.

Staff recommends the Nile for this request for the NCD2 standards.

These variances will allow for construction with a lack of visual cohesion with the surrounding area.

Any consistency with the conservation district standards would be especially configured as a property is visible from local roads along the north and south property lines.

Also, my recommended now on setbacks and accessory uh dwelling variances.

The proposed rear setback is insufficient, which will lead to an increase in water runoff onto adjacent property.

The proposed statutory dwelling placement on the side yard out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

17 notices were mailed out.

None received an opposition or in favor or voicemails.

Alta Vista uh didn't stated that they did not take exception to the request.

And this is the not sure if this was sent to all already, but uh we received it yesterday from Alta Vista, and it's a letter from the property owner.

That concludes that recommendation presentation.

Alright, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your your project.

Thank you, board members, for your service.

Uh my name is David Vogel and I'm an architect.

I'm representing uh Sergio de la Mora, the homeowner.

I'm here to request your approval of six variances for Mr.

De La Mora's home, the 626 Fulton.

This project has been significantly redesigned over the past year with extensive neighborhood and input and support.

And Mr.

DeLamore is unable to attend today.

Uh but I have a letter from him responding to the staff committee report.

Um I was gonna ask if I could read it into the record, but um I know we're pressed for time.

Whatever you think is you've got a we're all have it here.

Yeah, you've got a copy of it now too, so appreciate that.

Um so I have some slides.

Do you have as well?

I appreciate it.

I'll just prompt you to do it unless I can.

So this is Fulton Street on the boundary of the property.

Uh the only grade.

Sorry, if you go to the the um, I guess I'm sorry that that was for the first one, and you can go to the second.

So this is the front of the property faces north on Fulton Avenue.

And we're gonna call um Fulton Street the Fulton to the south of the property that it also fronts upon.

Go to the next one, and that's the view of the property from Fulton Street on the south side, um, adjacent to the railroad tracks.

So, the only great this is the only great separated crossing of the Union Pacific between Hildebrand and I 10.

Um, and so what defines Alta Vista's character?

This is a lot of what we want to talk about.

You can see the property at the far left side of that slide.

Uh it's not the land use.

Next slide.

Uh it's not the zoning.

Next slide.

The map gives an impression of sameness, homogeneity, and conformance.

Um slide eight is Alta Vista is not a uniform neighborhood.

Its character comes from variety from historic homes, industrial edges, brick structures, unique lots shaped by the railroad.

This diversity is what makes our neighborhood special.

We even have a landmark lighthouse at Summit.

These are some uh views along the railroad tracks of some of the properties.

This is our landmark lighthouse, it's really in Beacon Hill.

But the diversity is what makes our neighborhood special.

Um next slide.

The Midtown neighborhood plan was created in 2000, and as a uh help growth for Alta Vista and Beacon Hill.

Alta Vista was the second NCD, so it's NCD2.

Alta Vista N C D standards was updated in 2019.

And these standards are applied by staff review, and are very valuable to help protect the neighborhood character.

But they're also rigid and they limit variety.

The defining eclectic character of our neighborhood would not exist if this well-intentioned but limiting ordinance had been in place before development.

Next slide.

The NCD residential standards again are valuable in typical locations for developer and homeowner projects, but they're limiting in atypical locations where design professionals and the public input process is involved.

Next slide.

So we have a few Monterey style homes with porches, facing prevailing breezes, economy of no overhangs, and durability of brick facades.

Here's a large-scale housing with compatible with the streetscape and low density residential through its landscaping, transparent fits, shade tree and shaded patio.

The low slope metal industrial buildings that may not be quote attractive, but again, the diversity is what makes the neighborhood special.

Next slide.

Example of a well-designed large brick structure.

How can this be considered compatible?

I would like to suggest the compatibility comes from the juxtaposition of the scales and each building's own design quality and adjacent landscaping.

Their intact cohesive individual identities project a quality of compatibility.

Next slide.

That's the real juxtaposition there of scales that our neighborhood folks seem to like and appreciate.

Next slide.

And there are many of these.

Again, it's technically, I think in the backyard, but again, perceptibly and from our neighborhood support.

People don't seem to mind these side yard accessory structures.

Next slide, please.

Again, where a side becomes the front, and then the structure appears to be beside.

This one's part of a sort of a compound.

Even has technically separate addresses, I think.

But again, it's as if it's to the side.

Thank you.

Next slide.

Um the neighborhood association we met with uh on the 6th.

Um, uh, had no opposition.

Uh they wrote a letter of support taking no exception.

And I'm glad you got a copy of that.

Thank you.

Next slide.

My client was here, like I was said in 2025, and he gathered a lot of support from his immediate neighbors.

This reflects that support.

And uh what we're doing now is is so similar that he's sure that they're all still in support.

These are from that date.

Next slide.

So our site is atypical.

Properties located at the end of the block with two street frontages, steep topography, and directly adjacent to the railroad.

These conditions are not typical of interior alta vista lots and create real design constraints.

This map begins to identify the variety, and by highlighting in red the project site and in yellow outlines some of the atypical properties that really shape the character of our neighborhood.

Next slide.

After withdrawing the 2025 application, I hired uh Sergeant Sergio hired our architect uh and resident of Alta Vista, David Bowell.

And we reduced the height, we refined the massing, we redesigned the project to better align with the NCD2 standards, while still allowing reasonable use of the property.

Thank you next slide.

The uh variance criterion one of public interest.

Project does not harm the public health, safety, and welfare, improves the property, adds off street parking, and enhances the streetscape.

The public interest is is compatibility, not uniformity, and neighborhood agrees this design is compatible.

Next slide, please.

Variance criterion two, unnecessary hardship.

This hardship comes from the land itself, not from the owner.

The irregular geometry, dual street exposure, railroad adjacency and topography create limitations not shared by surrounding properties.

Literal enforcement of every standard would prevent reasonable use of this atypical lot.

Thank you, next slide.

Variance criterion three, the spirit of the ordinance is to preserve neighborhood character.

Alternistic character is defined by variety, not sameness.

This was brought up several times by some of the public members of the AVA meeting last week.

Next slide.

Many of the structures that define this neighborhood today would not be allowed if NCD2 had existed when they were built.

Our design respects the character through quality materials and contextual massing.

Next slide.

We intend to use brick as the primary material with limited metal accents on upper portions.

These materials relate directly to the industrial edge and existing mixed material homes.

This is a complementary, not dominant use of metal.

The eaves and the gable length also shown on this same slide.

The Eve modification and gable length are functional response to drainage proportion in the site's unusual orientation.

These features relate to other wide gabled structures along the railroad and are consistent with a neighborhood's eclectic character.

Next slide.

The reduced rear setback and drainage.

Shown on this topography.

So it's not a drainage issue really.

Next slide.

Our approach is to front the building facing the addition facing Fulton to the south.

Next slide.

We appreciate staff's review, but several findings don't reflect the actual conditions of the site or the neighborhood.

The neighborhood association supports the project.

The site's subjectively unique and the design aligns with the spirit of the ordinance.

Thank you, next slide.

The ADU placement, because of the lot shape and the angle of the rights of way, the ADU location functions more like a rear yard condition.

Several nearby properties have, as we've seen, accessory structures in similar positions.

The EDG U will be modest, screened and compatible with the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Next slide.

So this is a cross section showing the street to the north on the left and the existing structure labeled existing and the uh two-story addition.

You can see it's it's quite well removed from Fulton Street to the south.

Fulton Street to the south is an 80-foot right of way, and we've got a steep topography separating the building from that.

Next slide, please.

So just the summary here why the variances are appropriate.

The 16-foot rear setback is will occur in two particular corners of the building, the front porch corner, and then the corner of the addition.

Those are the only points that will be narrowed to the 16 foot.

The three foot east side setback is still adequate for property maintenance, and it's required to get the vehicular drive in it between the addition and the ADDU.

The eaves are compatible with neighborhood examples with similar location, material, and form.

The wide gable is compatible with neighborhood examples with similar roof pitches.

Five, the metal siding for accents is compatible with neighborhood reflex character.

And six, the accessory dwelling beside the main structure is compatible with neighborhood examples.

And necessary due to the irregular shape of the lot.

And next slide thank you this project represents a good faith effort to improve the property while respecting the neighborhood responding to the site's unique constraints.

Respectfully request that you approve these variances.

Okay I'm gonna just start off with two questions.

Can you please uh clarify what the 45 foot uh gable we don't see a lot of those and I think so actually that last slide is satisfactory thank you.

So the width of the gable from here to here is 45 and it's a it's a line in our N C D two that limits gable widths to 35 feet maximum.

So that's uh as as an architect um and and a familiar with this this code what what we're trying to prov promote with the N C D two is a neighborhood scale compatibility of scale and and um is the existing structure th over 35 feet the existing structure has a gable in the in the east west direction.

This this gable will run north south okay and then uh would you be amicable um I understand what you're saying about the drive but if the drive were to go down to eleven feet you can get a four foot side setback on that too I'm just curious.

True so the the owner uh my client has has purchased this metal pre engineered metal roof structure it's forty five by forty feet and so I said let's let's see what we can do with what you've already committed to the last time he came to this board he had a forty five by forty foot entire metal building pre-engineered metal building which the neighborhood um so are you saying that for two for the side setback is it is a wall of the building gonna be three feet or the edge of the roof sorry say the question uh on item number two are you saying that the roof edge or the or the wall face is going to be three feet away from the side setback from the sideline.

The the footprint of the building would be three feet from the property line.

So we'd maintain a three foot side set back.

Okay would you have an overhang there on the side no we won't okay and and the overhang is another one of our variances because our our well intentioned NCD two requires all structures to have an overhang of minimum of 18 inches.

And the in this and on the example pictures that you provided you had this interesting looking home nearby did that meet the N C D no a lot of homes don't meet the N C Dcause that home look didn't look that old.

Okay I know the one you're talking about now the offset box succo so that's a that's um that's in the slides can you go back to that so that that's a project that was built here uh contrary recently and it violated N C D two standards and I I worked for the neighborhood association also as an as a resident there and I'm part of the technical committee.

So we outlined I outlined what the violations of the N C D two were after this was built it slipped through staff so staff reviews for N C D two compliance.

Okay.

And and this house does not comply with a number of because I saw that in your presentation like that didn't look old so yeah I didn't want to linger on it but this is this is what the N C D two is intended to prevent actually is that they're not hiring a designer they're they're just uh putting up I don't know what any other questions commissioner back then.

Um so what is the purpose of the ADU and the addition?

That's a lot of square footage to add to one parcel of land.

What's the purpose behind them?

So the purpose of behind it is is his residence.

Uh yeah.

Mr.

Delamar wants to live there.

He wants to um be able to stretch out a bit the the front house is quite quite small by some consider today's standards.

So he's gonna have a um uh other bedrooms, living areas, a garage space, workshop space in his uh in the addition.

The the idea behind the ADDU, which would probably be permitted sometime in the future, would be for his his uh parents and or in-laws to be able to live on on site with them with me and his family.

Okay, anyone else like to have have a question?

All right, is there another sound of the speech?

Yes, Commissioner Winnie.

You said this was like a pre-engineered metal building.

Yes, so what we're proposing to use is a pre-engineered metal roof.

Is this like a is this gonna look like a barn and no uh nonnium or those on the gnome?

It looks like but it's just our concept our conceptual design at the moment is is like shown on the so you say metal siding, that metal siding is that gonna be like lat, board and bat end, standing seam.

Is that gonna look like it's a tile, um it's a hand draw tile um metal sheet metal tile, and I've used it on some other projects.

There's a photograph on Sketch 501.

It's in the slideshow.

Um, so yeah, that's it.

So this is an example uh photograph.

I don't know if you'll have a better way to view that better, but those are those are about nine by eighteen inch tiles and uh, okay, yeah, and sheet metal.

That's the intention on the upper portion in in lieu of the typical corrugated industrial um pre-engineered metal siding.

We intend to do something like this.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

And you did go before uh the neighbor association and and they a lot of questions, they took a vote on it and right.

There was a meeting, a general assembly meeting, and we presented these sketches to them.

Uh there was no opposition voice, there was there was quite a bit of discussion about whether the neighborhood should approve support, no exception, etc.

But uh, it went very well.

Is there any other questions?

Mana.

Commissioner Manage.

And as I recall the prior review, neither Alvista or Beacon Hill supported this, right?

If I recall correctly, that's correct.

So neither supported it now.

Beacon Hills is quiet, which kind of says that they're generally very vocal, but all this is now supporting it.

So but it's a big difference from the last time we heard it.

But it also was it was 35 foot too.

So it was a much bigger, much taller structure.

So it might be that was our main objection.

I was I was wearing my neighborhood association hat at that at that time, and we were in opposition uh because of the.

Yeah, the this is uh being next to the railroad like this and two street apprentices.

Uh I'm you know, I I feel a little bit more amicable toward towards something different, but the fact that you went before the neighbor association and actually had a full meeting and actually just thoroughly discussed it that that's a big sell for me.

So okay.

Uh if there's any other questions.

Looking for a motion.

Commissioner Man.

Regarding case in our BOA 26103 00084.

I moved that to Board of Adjustment Grant to request for a four-foot variance for the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow a sixteen foot rear setback to a two-foot variance uh from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow an addition with a three-foot east side setback.

Three, an elimination of the N C D two minimum eighteen inch E standard, four ten-foot variants from the N C D two maximum to allow for a 45-foot front end cable roof length, five of variants from the NCD two standards to allow for the use of metal signing for accents and upper portion of the addition, and six are variants from the accessory dwelling standards to allow an accessory dwelling unit uh in the side yard of the property situated at 626 Fulton Avenue.

Applicant be in synchro synchro uh architecture studio because the test may present to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character is property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as an amendment would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The requested variances in design modifications will allow for reasonable residential improvements while maintaining compatibility uh with the surrounding neighborhood, and the railroad right-of-way to the west provides additional separation with adjacent properties.

Two, due to special conditions, or little enforcement of the ordinance, it would result in unnecessary hardships due to the limited rear yard space.

The requested variances preserves the residential character of the property while allowing improvements that are consistent with the established development pattern and constraints of the site, thereby balancing neighborhood standards with reasonable use of the property.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which those variants was 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 correct property or alter the central character of the district, which is properties located.

The proposed addition architectural modifications, material accents, and placement of the accessory dwelling unit are designed to remain residential in character.

They are not expected to negatively impact adjacent properties or alter the essential character of the NCD 2 district.

Six apply to the owner of the property for which the variance is sought.

Is due to unique circumstances.

Yeah, so I recall this case quite a bit from the first one just because I know that we had a lot of dialogue with regards to the street frontages in that and the and the railroad and and I kind of concurred with the neighborhood in the first meeting with regards to the mass size of what was being proposed.

And this one seems uh you know seems a whole lot more compatible with the community itself.

NCDs are dangerous, but they're also lovely, you know, for trying to figure out how to preserve, and it is hard to write them, you know, to make them work for the community.

Um so um, so you know I think that they did a good job with regards to um you know working with the community and and redoing what it was that's was you know, I guess went back and redesigned what should work on that property, and I concur, and so I'll be voting in favor.

Alright, thank you.

Um Commissioner Bonnez.

Yeah, I'll also be in favor.

I concur with my colleague, and you know, my only concern was that ADU, but it's it's up against the track, so I'm okay with it over there.

I'll be in support.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Here you know, it's a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonnie is I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Keene?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody need a break?

Alright, we're gonna take ourselves a little break.

Uh, see now about seven or eight minutes and staff that item applicant for item three um get in touch with you all.

All right, we're back in session.

Item eight, good afternoon, Joel Bellas and your planner report of adjustment.

Item eight is BOA-26-1.

Del via alley.

The zoning is R4.

This is a request for one, a variance from the lot layout standards to allow for primary access and frontage of a single family residential lot on an alley.

Two, a four-foot variance from the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow a sixteen-foot rear setback, three, a nineteen hundred square foot variance from the minimum required four thousand square foot lot size requirement to allow for a 2100 square foot lot size.

And four, a nine-foot variance from the minimum required 35-foot lot width to allow for a 26-foot lot width.

The property is surrounded by uh lots zoned R4 residential single family district and several lots along this stretch of the Delvaya alley have already been developed with single-family homes according to Bear County records.

The earliest of these homes were established in the nineteen twenties and the latest were established in the nineteen fifties.

The applicant proposed new infill development of a single family home on this property, however, existing site conditions make this property substandard for development under current UDC standards.

Although it changes zoning designation to the R2 residential single family district would resolve issues related to substandard lot dimensions.

New development along an alley is prohibited by the UDC.

Shown here is a site plan of the subject property with the various variances requested noted.

And the subject property in its current condition.

And the surrounding area.

Again, this is along Del Via Alley with several other homes already fronting that alley.

Staff recommendation for the primary access setback and lot dimension variances.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings.

One, the alley is not wide enough to allow fi access for fire trucks and emergency services, and two, the reduced setback would cause an increased risk of fire spread in an area where a substantial fire hazard already exists due to several older homes having been built with sole access along Del Valle Alley.

Staff mailed 13 notices, zero returned in favor, zero were returned in opposition.

We received zero voicemails, and the historic west side resident neighborhood association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you very much.

And did this applicant have a s a COD?

They're just waiting for on our.

So correct me if I'm wrong, Merco.

I don't know if you have the staff report.

I don't think there's a COD, which is uh why they would require several variances for the lot dimension standards.

Normally the C O D kind of covers those, uh several of those.

Well, not if it's a if it's not a whole lot, because this is the west portion of a lot, it has to meet zoning, so it would have to come to us to get the COD.

But there's one in the COD approved in July 2025.

Okay, Commissioner Dean.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you.

Yeah, I didn't so that that should this actually should have come before us then last year then.

Perhaps that's what we normally do is an application for a COD and then that one caveat that says you have to meet zoning, and then that forces it to come here and understood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'm sorry.

Uh disregard.

Um there is no steel I was looking at the wrong staff report.

There is no COD for this property.

Okay.

So the original thing was Joel said.

Um that's why they're having to come here.

We can have the applicant come forward, please.

And yeah.

Yeah, we we uh we'll let the applicant go first.

Uh if she had time to speak, she can come up.

Absolutely.

And if not, um she can ask and we'll see if anyone likes that ask a question.

Perfect.

Um, thank you guys for meeting with me today.

So we're requesting the four variances.

We need to have your name, please.

Zach Duquevis.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Sorry about that.

Little nervous, usually don't do a bunch of public speaking, so with me.

Um we are requesting uh the four variances for the property.

Uh when we originally purchased this property, we're under the impression of it being an R4, which would be the four thousand square feet.

The variances are for the lot access uh as we were driving through and we've done um some research on as far as the street.

There is a bunch of developed property.

Uh one of the things we did notice based off of the previous property is there is no uh setback on the front.

It seems like they're more towards the front side of it.

Um we are requiring or I'm sorry, requesting a four foot variance from the sixteen foot from the twenty foot.

Uh I'll be truly transparent with you guys because that's the whole point of this and being honesty.

I haven't ever done one of these before, so I don't know if there is one of those um kind of uh give or take type things that if that four foot uh variance from the rear, because I know you mentioned um it being a fire hazard.

If there was the option to reduce our uh building size and to come down and to where we meet that twenty foot setback, um obviously I'll leave that in y'all's hands.

I just don't know if that is an option as a thing.

Any variance you ask for, uh we can we we can't do more, but we can do less.

Okay, perfect, understood.

Um the nineteen hundred square foot lot uh differenti difference uh just amongst that street between um both both intersecting streets, there is about four different properties that are on the same property size of ours.

Uh that's where it kind of circles me back to the um sixteen foot and twenty foot variants to kind of go in line with the rest of those properties.

Um we are asking being that our lot is twenty-one hundred square feet, opposed to the standard four thousand for the R Ford si uh zoning, and then the lot size variance from thirty-five to twenty-six.

Um I know there is another lot on the side of it which is in the same situation as ours, um, which basically those both of those lots we have gone to clean up.

So the reason why we are requesting those variances is to c to conduct the build and obviously bring some more value to the area, uh obviously getting rid of a lot of the trash built up that's been kind of just as the empty lot, it's just been a uh kind of like a trash lot that we usually have to go and clean up is to bring more uh I guess tax value to the the area into the city and also to um just increase the value within the area.

Uh I don't think us building this property would do any harm to the neighbors um or cause any type of issues.

So we are trying to look to increase the the value within the area.

Um I know one of the biggest things that we're looking at is being I know the alleyway is of an issue due to the access points from what they're stating for the uh fire trucks.

Um I know there is grandfathering as as far as some properties due to building codes and stuff like that, but as of right now, you know, there there is properties right there um that would have the same access as far as the um emergency services.

Um we feel that the improvement would truly help the area, as I mentioned, the the trash build up and the pile up um and that's for the most part what I have uh in regards to it.

Okay.

Uh any questions from the commission?

Braggman.

Commissioner Braggman.

So, is there anything that you can do to um address the issue or the concern of staff regarding the the fire spread um with the narrow alleyway with the fire trucks not being able to get down?

Is there something that you propose to mitigate those circumstances?

Would that be in regards to the the sixteen to twenty-foot setback or the the alleyway access?

'Cause I know there's two that were asking that are kind of the alleyway access.

Because that their staff is concerned that since there's it the the alleyway is narrow, it's not wide enough for fire trucks and emergency services.

So is there something that you propose to mitigate um the the circumstances?

I know we would be able to control on our property and our build and increase like the fire rated uh material.

Um obviously with the other properties around we couldn't do anything.

Uh I know that the mention was obviously the setback too, and that's why I was asking that if we uh corresponded with that setback to uh redu or I'm sorry, uh reduce our request down to the twor just go to standard code of the twenty feet.

Um I know that there wasn't a fire hydrant from what I paid attention to on the alleyway, um, but they were at the uh intersecting streets, so I'm not sure if that would even be of an issue or not of an issue, but kind of be of a fact um that the fire truck would have to position itself on the intersecting streets regardless.

How far away would that be from uh from this property?

Um I want to say probably about it.

Well, it's it's one more lot, so I'm gonna say about thirty-five feet away.

It's it's the corner lot, I believe it's on seven, all if I'm not mistaken.

Okay, so you are planning on putting a fire rated material on the exterior of the yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Commissioner Manor?

So the city's position is that the um there's already too much density in this non-pro this this alleyway street, this non uh correct size street, and adding one more house onto this is what's going to or or we have too many already and and we don't want to build any more on it.

I'm trying to f understand the city's position for um I guess from the fire perspective on in this area here.

Right.

Uh we acknowledge that there are other um existing dwellings.

Um obviously those were built before the current standard um from facing an alley.

We just didn't see just because they're there, uh we still see the uh the dangers of kind of putting another um residence somewhere where emergency vehicles would have trouble going into.

Um that's kind of our main basis of recommendation.

'Cause it does appear that there's a lot of a lot of the remaining lot of those lots are are divided, um two whole streets worth are kind of divided, you know, so that they can continue to build out, and so so you know, yeah, and this this particular s um block face of the Vala Alley, it was uh it was there was no original uh alley there.

That's why they couldn't get the COD.

The lots to the right, there was a clear alley there.

Um, and if those were in kind of the same situation, they could get CODs.

Um this one uh alley was created kind of over time.

Um we uh we really couldn't even find where it officially was created as an alley.

We had a um work with uh public works just to kind of verify that the alley did ex does exist, that kind of stuff.

Um so it's just a uh alley created after uh after the area was developed.

And do we have a map or something that shows where the fire hydrants are located?

Um we'll say on the off the main streets, to because I think there's a minimum distance that's required um for running the hose um, you know, to a property, and so you know, do all of these homes follow that already, and you know, would this be you know another home in that in that in that space, or is it actually going to exceed that as well?

I can speak to some of that Marco if you want me to.

This is Kevin Collins, DSD engineer.

Um the the nearest fire fire hydrant is at San Luis and South Cibolo, which is over three hundred feet by hose lay to the house.

So if and and so if you have to assume that the alley itself um would not um be conducive to an emergency access easement or to to an emergency access, I should say, for a fire truck or an ambulance, which is a safe assumption considering it's about twelve foot pavement width with intervening utility poles and parking back there and trees and everything else.

If you look at it in street view, then the the hose lay pull would be over 150 feet from the intersection of the alley to the house.

That's just to get to the house.

And and 150 feet is the maximum hosely.

So that's a problem, right?

Yes, sir.

So I'm gonna chime in too.

So I I uh um when I have personally encountered this and in my professional career, and what we did, and this is before the city made people come here, um, but the city used to do uh and years ago was that it was done during either plating or it's considered a substantial street, you'd get a variance, but it may be or and in that process you can you know worse trade a little bit.

What I did on one of my projects was we offered a uh we we put a requirement for a uh sprinkler system in on the house, which gets the hose lay down to 200 feet, which would make everything work out, but we don't have the mechanism to require anybody to do anything.

And so, you know, and that goes with part of my question is can the applicant amend his application to include a sprinkler system on a structure, or is that something that the city is going to review for compliance during the building permit process where if they offered one up they would get the two hundred foot hole hose lay?

Is that something that we should be even entertaining or discussing, or is that something that w could be discussed by the city in the future.

Yeah I don't know that we could do it here in this forum it might be something that yeah down through the permit review process it might be entertained but I don't know that we can make that requirement tricky.

When I did it I had it on the plat and actually put the requirement on the plat so it was permanent.

We don't really know this isn't like putting cap on the fence it's a little different.

I think the appropriate form would be the building permit review process but but there is a way for them to achieve compliance I'm just pointing that out.

But but would we be voting on something and then we would rely on the city then to well we're voting on the on the ability for him to move forward.

That doesn't mean we're saying you have to get a the city has to grant a permit and or give he's not getting deviations from the building code so that's how I'd look at it.

I I I think that um you know there the way i and you know I I have a little conflict with the city.

I personally think that that because there isn't a plat moving forward the section of the code that applies is there's a section of when you're abutting the substandard right away the process is you get an ADR if it gets rejected then you come here and then if we approve it then you you have the ability to apply for a building permit but that doesn't mean you get the building permit you still have to comply with the code.

So building permit would require a sprinkler system is is what you're saying.

Well that would he would have to provide some means of compliance.

And that would either be a CMR uh code modification request and get permission to have that deviation or if he wanted to be fully compliant he'd have to put in a residential sprinkler system.

Okay.

So there is a mechanism for for them to move forward.

I don't think it's within our purview but um well you know it's so one of the things we always talk about is being safe and wanting all of our residents to be safe and so I wouldn't want to move something forward where the potential is for something very unsafe you know that's in the dialogue.

And this one's completely different because you know in I found the old record where this block was created it's super duper old and there was no alley back then and eight so in eighteen ninety five there was no alley and sometime between then and it became an alley and then lot ten used to be through the alley uh you know and and in nineteen ninety two it was broken up the way we see it today uh according to the deed records.

Uh so in the sixties it was still sold as a complete lot ten but then and sometime in the nineties it was busted up which you know I think the eighty seven UDC would have I think it was the I think the eighty seven UDC I don't know if it's supported exactly what was going on here.

I know the O one version didn't but that's where we're at.

Question on that sir.

Yeah so from what I'm understanding if this goes forward my next step would be I'd have to go and obtain a building permit to approve the sprinkler system through well no you you would obtain a building permit and because you don't meet the 150 feet of hose lay you get 200 feet if you have a a sprinkler system.

Okay or you can get a variance from the fire marshal's office and that's where you negotiate whatever.

Wasn't would I end up having to bring that back here and uh set it before you guys again okay no this is it.

So sorry to feel like I'm hogging up the conversation here.

Is there anyone would like to make have a question?

Okay then is there anyone sign up to speak?

Got a uh Mrs.

Diana Snyder.

Come on up.

So we're gonna hear from from this from this resident and we'll hear her thoughts and we'll see if we have any more questions for you.

That's all right.

Uh please state your name and tell us what your thoughts are.

My name is Diana Snyder and I'm sorry what else?

And I just wanted to comment on that lot because my friend lives right there at the corner and the lot is right next to him and then there are a homes right next to that as well.

Um we just moved in and that lot has been by itself for a long time and yes, it it needs to be worked on somehow, either put a house, sell it or whatever because I mean there's just so many um rodents and trash and everything.

That place has something in it like uh old shed or or or whatever.

I don't even know what it is 'cause I was afraid to go in there.

But um my question was trespassing too.

Yeah, I know I would be.

But 'cause I was interested in buying it, that's why because it looked like it was just by itself.

But um anyways, um, I was going to say if the home is built that that lot is small.

If and you y'all probably don't know and this is my first time at this type of meeting.

If a house is built, is it going to be like real close to the fence lines or is it gonna be longated instead or and then if they put in the the sprinklers and stuff, it's gonna cut down on the home itself.

Wouldn't it well, so there's s what happens is uh just to answer that question.

Um, this applicant is has this piece of property that doesn't on its own comply with the different portions of our code and he's asking for us to give him a variance.

Mm-hmm.

And so one of the variances that he's asking for that affect how close a structure would be to somebody.

There's he's asking for a four foot variance from the required twenty foot rear setback to go down to sixteen feet.

That doesn't mean that we'll necessarily grant it.

Um this board can vote on it and we can vote or we can vote for it against it or vote for something in between.

And and so one of the things that we like to hear is input from the neighbors.

Um are are are you in opposition to the structure being put on the lot if it's compliant with the codes?

No, not necessarily 'cause like you said, I mean it wouldn't make the neighborhood better, you know, better looking and it wouldn't be so trashy.

The only worry that I would have is you're right, the fire truck.

I mean that alley is so small I don't even know if the garbage trucks could go through there.

I'm not I'm not sure.

Garbage traditionally likes fourteen feet.

Yeah.

Although it's small, that's you know.

What they can that truck is like any other vehicle.

Yeah.

And and as far as the sprinklers, if there is a fire, how would the sprinklers help the home?

I mean, the sprinklers usually are grass, it doesn't go Oh no, this is a sprinkler system within the is within the home.

I gotcha.

Yeah.

I'm like, well that doesn't make sense to me.

That would be a very industrial sprinkler system.

I am so sorry.

The yard would be very nice.

I'm sorry, I uh like I did.

Okay.

All right.

I think that's it, but I either way if he if they make a home it'll be nice.

If they don't they sell I mean that's great too because there are bunch of trees as well.

All right.

I mean old trees that don't even have leaves on them because they're dry and whatnot.

So it could be possible for fire any time or you know, especially with the thunder and lightnings and stuff.

Yes, ma'am.

Excuse me.

So w which what's your address?

Yes.

Or son's address, I'm sorry.

What is your son's address?

It is uh eight ten South Sabinas.

Eight ten South Sabina.

Yeah.

I don't classify it as Devay on there, but it's right at the corner of his lot and some uh is it Sambinas?

Yeah, I think it's so uh north or south Sabinas.

Okay.

It's right at the corner.

Alright, thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Does that have you come back forward?

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, so um it looks like the the one item um that that is is that rear setback.

Uh is there a reduction that you would like to um offer?

Yeah, well we're willing to redo the plans to meet to the minimum setback if that was an option.

We had from the process that I was told is to get our plans and specs in order to move forward to bring this in front of you guys, but if that's a requirement and that's something that would obviously get us to pass, then we'd be more than willing to reduce the structure size and go go down.

I mean, we were doing the calculations, it'd probably be about a hundred and twenty square feet less on the home, which is perfectly in line with the remaining of the homes that are along the the street.

Well, your lot're not so small, I I I don't know.

I'd I'm fine with some kind of a setback.

So any anything that we're able to do, like I said, we were talking about doing fire rated uh sheet rock and fire rated hard abort on the outside.

And that would be stuff that would obviously help with the fire concern and everything.

You're not asking for a side setback very sense, and that's what that's something that's really important to me.

Uh, because you're abutting the alley.

Um, we'll see how this uh we'll see what how the vote goes, but is there is there anything else you'd like to state before we move forward?

No, I think I got past my nervousness the more you guys started to talk, so it was a little bit better.

But no, I'll say that's all.

All right.

Any other questions from the commission?

Alright, I'm looking for someone to offer a motion.

Fragment.

Commissioner Brangman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103085.

I move the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a variance from the lot layout standards to allow for primary access and frontage of a single family residential lot on an alley.

Two, a four foot variance from the minimum required twenty foot rear setback to allow sixteen foot rear setback.

Three, and nineteen hundred square foot variance from the minimum required four thousand square foot lot size requirement to allow for twenty one hundred square foot lot, and four a nine foot variance from the required thirty-five foot lot width minimum to allow for a twenty-six foot lot width situated at three ten uh Del Valle Al Alley.

Applicant being homes with Emily LLC.

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

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

The requested variances will allow for development of a residential lot consistent with the surrounding area, where similarly size and configured lots have already been developed and will not adversely uh affect public health safety or welfare.

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

Due to the limited size and width of the lot as well as its alley frontage configuration, strict enforcement of the development standards would prevent reasonable residential development of the property.

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

Granting the variances will permit reasonable residential use of the property while maintaining the overall residential character of the area and allowing development consistent with nearby lot patterns.

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

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

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

The proposed development is residential in nature and compatible with surrounding properties, including other similarly developed lots in the vicinity, and is not expected to negatively impact adjacent conformity properties or alter the character of the neighborhood.

Six, the plight of the owner 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, are not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property's located.

The hardship is attributable to the unique dimensions and alley access configuration of the lot, which limit the ability to develop the property in compliance with current standards, and these conditions were not created by the current owner, nor are they solely financial in nature and emotional.

So I second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Braggman.

Um yeah, I you know, this is a very odd small shape lot, um, and I agree, uh, with the uh neighbor that pointed out that it's been empty for quite a while.

It's got rodents, it's got it tracks bugs and everything else.

Um also it has very little uh taxable value, so adding a structure on the property would make it uh something usable.

And we're also in a housing shortage, and I don't think that this is gonna be an overly expensive house once it's built, just due to the neighborhood and also the size of the property.

So that would um uh create some more uh workforce housing uh for the neighborhood.

So I'll be in support.

Great, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, I'll be in support for the same uh reasons as my colleague, and affordable housing, something that's important to the city uh and so this I think addresses that issue when clear is a nuisance property really and gets it until the tax roll so I support all right thank you anyone else like to add hearing now let's have a roll call book Commissioner Bragman I concur with the findings of fact commissioner yes I concur.

Commissioner Steven?

Yes I concur Dean Yes I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Mana I concur with the findings of fact commissioner yes I concur.

Commissioner Ponias yes I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez I concur chair we and I agree with the findings of fact motion passes 10 to zero congratulations.

Thank you guys appreciate it.

Yes sir quick question yes on the next stage of what you said do I with the okay perfect guys appreciate it.

Thank you.

Item nine afternoon Michael Moravi Principal Planner next item is um located at 3823 South Mittman Street.

Requesting for a one foot six inch side setback and a five foot three inch rear setback.

Next slide please subject property located uh southeast with intersection of South Givers and Goliad.

Uh sixteen foot wide alley separates the subject property from the lot zone C2 occupied by a strip mall the reduced rear setback with the alley allowed for a twelve foot rear setback which would still require a variance by January 2025 aerial images indicate the substantial uh a substantial addition was completed on the existing home which increased the footprint of the house in the current state including encroachments into the minimum um required west side and rear setback there's the investigated uh step indicated an investigation of property in 2025 and found the work um has exceeded the scope of the issues uh issued permits is the site plan the number one indicates the side and two indicates the rear property line the front of the home the side the surrounding area staff recommendation uh staff recommends it now for the side setback the variance would be contrary to public interest that it proposed a one foot system separation from a roughly 70 foot stretch of the share property line which would introduce a significant risk of water damage to adjacent property and a reduced setback would cause a perceived lack of privacy visibility and natural life for the adjacent property along with this this stretch of the share property line.

Staff recommends approval for the rear setback without consider uh consideration of another single family home or the in the rear of the property to request for reduced rear setback does not pose significant risk to fire spread damage or water runoff or overcrowding of structures the rear facade home will be separated by adjacent property by 16 foot wide unpaved alley.

Alright thank you very much have the applicant come forward Mr.

Woman the owner of uh property if you move the uh it's kind of small.

I'm Arnesto Gomez uh good afternoon.

Um representing Mr Juan Center is the owner in Orlando he was the designer uh with the permit after the strike team get involved and uh uh we submit all the uh set plans uh showing the hour rating walls and actually it's beyond the one hour weighted uh walls on on the neighbor uh size uh property property line uh on the back part uh or the property it's uh uh commercial there's no a residential and it has sixteen feet uh of the of the alley uh Mr.

uh Cisneros the owner he started the uh with a or uh remodeling uh permit at the beginning and he just continued with the with the uh line I mean the the construction uh uh guidelines they had on on the previous on the original house uh after uh he started the pr the pr uh the remodeling he found out the all the structure it was damaged so he started doing new the new walls and new stuff and is when the uh striking came uh he passed all the inspections uh mechanical electrical plumbing uh except the this part on on the building on the wall.

So okay uh well so it this thing um says that there was permits issued but you had mentioned they were remodeling permits was there a permit yeah in addition yes previous uh before the strike team uh get involved it was a remodeling b uh permit yes so there was never a permit issued for any expansion of the it was just for a remodel yes uh at the beginning it was just remodeling and then uh once he found out uh the structure was pretty much uh bad uh condition he start doing the new the new walls and all that okay any questions on the commission manna commission mana s in twenty twenty two uh on Google Street shows an original uh a back structure that was there and uh um did the new structure follow that existing line from the old structure and just extended it um to make it longer so it's so it's set on the same distance from the original uh construction of that one structure because it's but that structure's been there for several several years.

Yes that's correct and uh that property was bought by t m by Mr Cisneros on the proposal yeah that property was bought in 2023 by him by the owner and just and I should I see that other structure with the at least in two thousand seven it existed as far as that smaller structure.

And so is that the smaller structure the one that you got the permit for for the for the for the original construction and then just extended from there.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Any other questions and just to mention now with uh we submit all the all the plans with the uh hour rated um uh walls and actually one more time the wall is gonna be well more than one hour rated because it's gonna be uh uh wall insul uh on the wall insulation it's gonna be fire uh rock wool insulation which is uh fire rated and plus the chival plus the the field she rock uh five eight chir rock and the outside is the uh cement uh siding okay and uh did you get a chance to speak with the neighbor the one immediately next to you yes uh and in la vecina for the yeah state your name and and tell us about your conversation with the neighborhood and uh you can see a post to what uh the neighbor she's uh she's okay she don't have no problem with the next staff receive any documentation from anyone really not okay yeah we have to have something in writing uh or some sort of testimony to to have that be tied to the the request.

So all right.

Any other questions coming back?

Mr.

Manna.

And so behind this property is that is that considered like an alley or th 'cause it looks like it's part of the part of the backyard of that other construction or the um whatever that business is.

It and so is there anyway given yeah there is an actual alley back there.

Um which would by right reduce their rear setback, it just doesn't reduce it enough.

I'm sorry, repeat what you said?

It would reduce the rear setback.

You just want to reduce it to the amount that they're requesting.

Okay, so as it's written so that so it's um the twenty foot so it's still I guess five foot three inch from the rear or is it or is that given some leeway because it's on the alley.

Uh we did not um reduce the alley allowance on this request we just left it at twenty feet.

Okay.

Technically they can't be reduced um I believe another six feet um eight feet but they would still need the variance.

How wide is the alley how wide is the alley I believe it's sixteen feet.

So he gets to reduce it by eight feet.

He gets eight he only needs to provide twelve okay.

Any other questions?

I'm looking for a motion then.

Okay.

Does anyone send oh anyone send to speak I would have a able Ramirez.

All right.

Good afternoon, sir please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

My name is April Ramirez and uh I just had a question about this particular property because the original structure that was there was a lot smaller than what it is now.

And the question that I have it you showed some of the pictures there but there's a meat market across the alley from that property.

It's a C two area and there's a right there across that alley is a um meat market.

And tractor trailer rigs are coming and parking and they the trailers themselves are parked side by side so y you have three or four trailers sitting back there, large trailers and since it's a meat market I'm assuming they have meat inside so they've got these compressors going all the time.

The question that I have is I wanna know what the relationship between the meat market and his property is because I see that they park their delivery trucks into that property next door to that garage that's there.

And also in the front of the property they have all their delivery trucks parked even up on the yard in the evening and on the weekend.

So I'm assuming that it's um I'm thinking that maybe they're using that garage as a storage area or uh or a freezer area for for their meat, I'm not sure and I I just don't know if he owns any part of that meat market or if his employees are living on that property or what it is because I see 'em walking back and forth between the meat market and that residence there.

Okay.

And well and I'm also concerned because there's a lot of i in that little neighborhood and I live in the neighborhood it seems like there's been a lot of additions to garages and properties that there is no permits and I I you know at some point this is gonna have to stop because it's kinda like a joke now that people just build things and then by the time the neighborhood knows about it and calls it in well the structure's already built.

And yeah and it's a it's a problem.

And I just see a lot of I I don't like to see delivery trucks parked up on the people's front yard and things like that and the way the setback is on that that garage, the neighbor on the west side of that they have a driveway and they park their truck up in that driveway.

When they back up into that alley sometimes all those trucks and trailers are back there and they have a hard time maneuvering to get out.

Not only that, but you can't it's kind of like a little shortcut between givers and Goliad there and there's a convenience store there.

So you can't even see if cars are coming when you start to back up because there's no space there for them to be able to see.

So that's a safety issue and also if there's so many structures on that particular piece of property.

There's so many structures there.

If there's a fire, I'm afraid the whole street is gonna be burned.

Well then as a as a public right of way alley you sh no one should be parking AD wheeler tractor trailers there.

Well it's not they're not really parked.

Sometimes they're par they pull up and park fair in the alley but most of the time they're backed up against the meat market area but there's just so much trash also that's built up because the dumpsters are back there and but the dumpsters won't allow for them to take pallets and things so there's a bunch of pallets piled up behind that piece of property also it it's a it's a problem and it's funny that y'all said there was no opposition because I turned in a slip but I campus the neighborhood there and the problem was that they just got their notices last Thursday that there was going to be a hearing here so and uh some of the residents that I talked to they don't really want to get involved because they're not the property owner.

They're just renting a property.

So is there any questions for the speaker?

Alright, thank you very much.

I said the applicant come back but I will follow up so on one of the dialogue so if you bring up Google map here so then we'll have the applicant talk about it a little bit you'll um and so if you bring up uh Google Street and look at that alleyway um it's you know um if you drop down onto it so uh so street view.

And then if I go back to so January twenty twenty two so if you go yeah so it shows pretty open there.

Um so there is a s there is a vehicle that looks like it's a work vehicle then it's another work vehicle, another work vehicle so that so would those be permitted by right to be parked on in an alleyway.

Um so I know the city has rules about temporary um parking um but that's on property.

Yeah if you s if you spin around so spin around so you're looking down the other side of the other way the street the other way hundred and eighty.

So and it's also a front end or a uh grater there.

So it seems like a lot of equipment.

Now if you um zoom back out onto the street and so drop out so go out to the street no uh so uh walk out to the street again so uh street view looking down the alleyway okay now walk down a little bit before you get into it okay there's the cars parked in there okay so now we take a look and it's a huge amount of vehicles parked there and so are they permitted to be there you know so it looks you know I um I'm not sure when this building was built they obviously do need a buffer um but absent a buffer they are permitted to uh park over there.

Yeah where the what's alley and what isn't right that's where I was going is what part's alley and so if we're getting credit if we're giving them some credit for being in an alley and they're us they're consuming the whole thing as their back lot then there really isn't you know necessarily and I can see this would be the same thing as parking literally on a street that you're not supposed to be parked in um yeah they just this would be a right of way issue.

'Cause you went to overhead view there's like six semis there.

Uh tractor trailers parked behind his or i yeah, I guess it's a different view, but yeah, I came up and got close enough where I could see like like six vehicles that parked there.

Well, yeah, if you didn't have a map, you it sure looks like the guy's driveway to the meat packing place, yeah.

Okay.

Not gonna say the uh Bear County records does not show ownership of the residents is the same as the commercial property.

All right, is there any other questions?

I'm looking for someone to make a motion and we'll see how this turns out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I'll read one.

I haven't done one yet.

It's like riding a bison.

Um regarding case number BOA-26-103086.

I move that the board of adjustment granite variants for a one, a three foot six inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow for a one-foot six inch side setback, and two, a fourteen foot nine inch variance from the required minimum twenty-foot rear setback to allow for a five-foot three-inch rear setback situated at 3823 South Mintman Street.

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

To the rear of this property, the request will not adversely affect uh public health safety or welfare.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance resulted in unnecessary hardship regarding the side setback because the original principal structure was developed with a reduced side setback strict and application of the current setback requirement would create limitations on reasonable improvements in use of the property regarding the rear setback.

The set structure has already been expanded to approach into the minimum rear setback, and efforts to abate this encroachment would not yield benefits for the community that are proportional to the hardships of undertaking such abatement efforts.

Three by granting the variance of spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done regarding the side setback, granting the variance will accommodate the existing development pattern of the of the property while preserving the residential character and intent of the zoning ordinance regarding the rear setback, granting this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance.

But a similar use to the rear and nearest commercial building is over 70 feet from the subject property's rear line.

Four, the variance 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 uses within the district will be allowed with its variants.

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

The adjacent properties develop approximately fifteen feet from the shared property line, providing adequate separation between structures and the variance is not expected to negatively impact neighboring properties or alter the essential character of the area regarding the rear setback.

The variance is not substantially injured, would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property as a rear facade of the home would face the side facade of the abutting commercial development.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for severance of side is due is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

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

Regarding the rear setback, the plight of the owner of the property is due to the unique circumstances of the home abutting and established commercial alignment towards the rear of this property.

Uh end of motion, and I would like to amend uh the uh item two regarding the rear setback to account for the alley, which is eight feet, and that would result in a six foot nine variance from the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow a thirteen foot three-inch rear setback aside from the credit from the alley.

Okay.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bunnyas.

So, you know, the the rear setback um doesn't uh bother me.

I kind of agree with staff because there is an alley there.

I think the the all the vehicles that are there is just a more of a compliance issue.

Um the city just needs to be notified that there is in fact an alley and they need to not permanently park construction type vehicles or large trucks there.

Uh, side setback, however, I'm kind of on the fence of.

I don't like going below three feet, especially for an expansion of this size.

Um, even though the abutting neighbor there is some good clearance to their next property.

So I'm looking for a fellow commissioner to to chime in and maybe offer an amendment or or not.

Commissioner Bunny is yeah, I'd offer uh friendly amendment to do the side setback to at least a minimum of three feet.

I accept.

Alright, so Commissioner Benis, what are your thoughts?

Yeah, so I'll be in favor of it.

Uh, same thing with me.

I was I'm not really opposed to anything other than that side setback.

I think we've done three foot minimums before, and I think that uh that I uh I could be on board with it if you get three feet, I'll support it.

Alright, anyone else like to add?

Mana.

Commissioner Manus.

So just a question in general for you know, when you lay when someone lays a slab down, um, you know, does engineering has to have to come in to review a slab itself with footing and things like that, and if it's done without a permit, does any follow-up work happen with that?

Well, so on a residential home, the city uh, you know, you you you turn in plans and then there's an inspection by the structural the geotech, but it's not like commercial.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but uh it was my understanding that the city relies on the special inspections on these sort of instances uh for single family homes.

Is that am I off base on that?

Yeah, substructure.

Or they do that inspection for you.

Yeah, the the engineer will do a substruction or superstructure for the framing, and and they have to certify that it's a compliance with the plans that were submitted.

Uh, but you know, the the scrutiny isn't the same as if it was commercial.

Because I I know I had a structure done onto existing slab, and they had to come out and get engineering and and scope it and and do x-rays or whatever, and you know, kind of say that yes, it would support the structure, so do they go back, you know, because I I would hate to approve something and then have it fall over, you know, or or sink it to the ground simply because of you know that those that wasn't complied with, you know, previously.

Yeah, they're you're you're hoping that the engineer is uh on top of that.

Okay, that was just a side question.

Okay.

Uh any anyone else like to add?

Uh uh hearing none let's have roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides?

I concur.

Commissioner Osana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Alright, the motion is amended uh passes ten to zero.

Do you have any questions you get with staff?

Thank you.

Item number 10.

And we haven't heard from item three yet, right?

Oh, we have not.

I believe not.

All right.

Item number 10.

Good afternoon, Joel Villas and your planner with the Board of Adjustment.

Item number 10 is DOA-26-103087.

The applicant being cognition creative LLC in district eight, uh, 15919 Purple Sage Road.

Uh the zoning is R6, and this is a request for a half story variance from the maximum allowable two and a half story building height to allow the development of a three-story single family home.

The subject property is generally located northwest of the intersection of Babcock Road and North Loop 1604 west along Purple Sage Road and is surrounded by properties zoned R6.

The applicant reports that the grade level of the project location is approximately 14 feet lower than the grade level of the property's frontage along Purple Sage Road, and staff observed a major uh significant or significant drop in elevation on the property.

Uh per county records the subject property is approximately 35,750 square feet, and the majority of the properties in the surrounding area far exceed the minimum 6,000 square feet required for the R6-based zoning district.

The property is currently vacant and undeveloped, and the applicant proposes to construct a new three-story single-family home at approximately 32 feet in overall height.

The third level of the home includes a small open air, excuse me, a small office connecting to an open-air terrace, as shown on this third floor uh diagram here, the one on the bottom.

Um here's an elevation plans of the proposed construction, and an aerial view, just kind of showing the wider area.

You can kind of see this is a little bit dark here, but that blue outline is the subject property with that red pin right in the middle there.

Uh, this is what the subject property looks like from the frontage.

Um a little difficult to tell here, but you can kind of see you're looking at treetops as you kind of look out across there, so kind of corroborating that significant elevation change there, and this is looking across uh purple sage one way and down the other way of the surrounding area.

Uh staff recommendation for the building height variant.

Staff recommends approval based on the following find findings of fact.

One, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to the unique condition of significant topographical variability on this property, and two, the site's topography and distance from neighboring homes are such that the allowance for a third floor would not constitute a conspicuous departure from the existing character of the neighborhood.

Uh staff mailed out 18 notices.

We received zero in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails.

The Hills and Dales Neighborhood Association did not respond, nor did the Riot Commons Community Organization.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Okay, a couple questions.

Is there do you get on residential um height increases by going further beyond setbacks like you do for commercials?

I do not believe that applies for residential.

Kelly, can you correct me if I'm wrong?

It does not.

Okay.

And then uh this is this is a a whole lot, right?

Um look at the legal description.

The legal is a clean description, lot eight, block three, yeah.

Because this is in Hills and Dales, and that's this was created in the in 65, 1965.

I've done some projects out there, and I know it was it all predated city annexation.

So there's there's a lot of interesting structures in this in this uh neighborhood, so if for those who aren't familiar, all right.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff before we uh have the applicant board?

I said the applicant come for I think.

Alright, state your name and tell us tell us about your project.

How are you doing?

My name is Victor Nohosa.

I'm the project designer for this new residential construction.

Oh yeah.

And so I mean, pretty much uh we're requesting the variance because uh the my clients want to have the the pleasure of having uh uh a rooftop view.

Um that way they can look down into their property.

Umce you get above 10 feet, you can take advantage of the prevailing uh winds that come through during the spring and the summer that come from the southeast.

So once you get above 10 feet, you can certainly experience those um breezes a lot more.

In addition, uh mosquitoes tend to stay to the ground because that's where the food source is at, so they would rarely go uh above twenty-five feet uh our finished floor level would be at twenty-two feet.

We put your eye level at about twenty-seven feet.

Um but I think the bigger question is would we provide any sort of uh an intrusion to any of the neighbors?

And my argument would be no.

Um do have uh last second, we do have a uh written letter of approval from the uh from the uh neighbor to the uh south.

This was the text message that we got from him, but just prior to to this meeting we do to get his written approval.

Mr.

David Gibson.

Okay.

And um if we show if you can show the site plan, this is important.

This is directly to uh the west.

Uh there's a new residue residential construction going up.

They're about 30 feet high uh above where we are from.

And uh, you know, bear being by virtue of where the where they're located, they have they get to have you know nice views, and we're just asking for like a little slice of that as well.

Um, but certainly we're not gonna provide any sort of visual intrusion in onto that property as there's 30 feet high up to the east, uh they're probably about fifteen feet higher than us.

Uh and then uh Mr.

Gibson, who's uh to the south of us, he's the one that's closest in elevation to our property, uh, but he has given his approval in writing.

Okay.

Um other than that, we're looking to uh uh knock down the minimum amount of trees.

We want to maintain a uh a healthy amount of tree canopy.

Um so by virtue of we're in a bowl like situation, um I don't see us being any sort of an intrusion to any of the neighbors.

Okay.

Sounds wonderful.

Any questions for the applicant?

Man, Commissioner Man and then Frankman.

Sorry, you want to go first?

Okay.

So what is the square footage on the top uh um that's uh the um not the open terrace, but the the enclosed space.

Well on the top floor, so yeah, the the third floor.

So there's this I you know I just saw an opportunity there, so it's a double height space, and so I I kind of was I'm kind of inspired by a lot of Japanese architecture, so uh there was just an opportunity to create an additional space, the office off of that rooftop terrace that I was just need a lot a neat little nook to create uh in the in the in the structure.

That's really the only third story that's enclosed in the building.

What I'm trying to understand is so we're talking about three story structure, and we um and then so and what's permitted in the two and a half story structure and what the delta is here that we're talking about if I was looking at those two and and part of the thing is this notion of a wedding cake design where the top structure is kind of embedded inside uh surrounded by un uh unterraced or un unbalconied area is kind of the the the dialogue that we have for uh two and a half story and so try and figure out where you're sitting because it looks like wall to wall with regards to that top structure, but is it all open space with the small lofter and so really it's you know the how much of it is truly a the a three-story building, I guess.

Right, I I would argue that it's not not a true a three-story building.

So it's so you're really here because you want the terrace because you can't have the terrace on a two and a half, but by being three stories you can have the terrace.

And and that's where I was gonna go, was trying to figure out from the city's perspective, you know, can is there dialogue?

Yeah, we when we're doing the the original UDC rewrites, we talked about you know not having that the footprint on the outside for the three-story, and so can that be permitted, you know, and right, so so we're really not looking at the terrace space as being what's constituting this as a third floor.

Uh it's really just an issue of of definitions and given the definition that we have for a two and a half story as written uh in one of our IBs.

Um this design does not meet that definition for a two and a half story, and yet we do have an enclosed space above the second floor, that small office.

So being that it just doesn't fit the definition of a two and a half story, the only thing left to consider it is a third floor.

Totally understand that it doesn't really um in essence feel like a full third floor, but um there is that small enclosed office space.

Uh you asked for the square footage, I don't have that, it's not loaded on the plans that were submitted to us.

Um, but that's what you would be approving with this variance today.

And what I was looking for was you know if we if we can cap that part of it so that as the top space and a cap for that for the screen.

But the closed space, then you know, then you know that would certainly and you're you mean cap uh as in limiting the variance approved.

We've all uh in the past, I think you all have done uh a reference to to the plans as submitted as designed.

Um that may be something that you want to explore.

So it's it's it's approximately sixty square feet, that little that little section.

And do you feel like these plans are the final product 'cause of if with the motion is read the time to as as presented here, you don't think they're gonna change or anything?

Uh no.

Well we're pretty much I mean we're at at the end of like schematic design of my client.

We're here, they're they're really happy with it.

Okay.

So if uh it was to be approved, we're ready to move forward.

Okay, well, wonderful.

Is there anyone's time to speak?

Oh, yes, I'm sorry, Commissioner Bright.

Just me.

On the site plan, could you point out with a laser pointer where that um the 30 foot drainage easement is?

It says it's cutting across the width of the property roughly 150 feet from the front of the line right there.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

No other questions?

Alright, I'm looking for a motion.

I can do it.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero zero eight seven.

I move that the board of adjustment grant a request for a half-story variance for the maximum level, two and a half story building height um submitted as designed to allow a development of a three-story single family home situated at 15919 Purple Sage Road applicant being cognition creative LLC because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we had determined show that the physical character is property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance is not contrary to the public interest as the overall height will not exceed the UDC maximum.

The proposed third level is limited in scale, and the site's topography and distance from neighboring homes are such that allowance for a third floor would not constitute a conspicuous departure from the existing character of the neighborhood.

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

Significant changes in elevation across this block are such that a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as disallowing the proposed third floor in an area where height variability between neighboring homes is difficult to distinguish, would not yield any significant benefit to the wider community.

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

Granting this variance would would allow greater flexibility for development while accounting for site specific features, including significant elevation changes, which may lessen the perceptibility of the home's true form and massing from the road and adjacent property.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of use, other than those use of specifically authorized in 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 cornery property or alter the essential character of the district in which this property is located.

These properties location elevation sits either significantly lower or higher than that of adjacent homes, thereby limiting the possibility of this new home to significantly disrupt the existing site lines of residences on adjacent property.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which is variants of sought is due to unique circumstances existing on this property and unique circumstances for not created by the owner of the property and are not nearly financial, or are they not or are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which is properties located?

The ply to the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circ unique condition of significant topographical variability on this property.

Second by Commissioner Benin's Commissioner Mammoth.

Um so I I don't see an issue with this.

Um if we're gonna build it as designed, uh certainly s a few of us uh here on the board were engaged in the dialogue for when the UDC for the third story was written.

And um it was kind of designed for close proximity to other homes and providing light and so since this has lots of light around it, you know, this really d is not um I guess negatively impacting you know what was that we're trying to accomplish uh, you know, when it is that we talked about the third story thing.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Venez.

Yeah, I will also vote in favor of for all the reasons listed and uh that the city approves it as well.

So I'll be in favor.

All right, anyone else like to add hearing none let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Menna I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Bunny.

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Dean Yes I concur.

Commissioner Cruz yes I concur.

Commissioner I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Benavides?

I concur.

Commissioner Zenna?

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez I concur.

Chair Orion and I concur with the findings of fact motion passes 10 zero congratulations on to the minutes anybody have any last minute adjustments?

All right I'm looking for a motion motion approve the minutes second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz all in favor say aye any opposed aye.

Hearing none motion the minutes are approved let's what are we doing with item three?

Nothing the board is uh able to entertain it or we can do a continuance we are recommending awful corrugated metal in the residential area approval for uh clear vision.

Does anybody want to offer a motion on this to move forward or do or a continuance or something.

Alright uh so staff if you want to read it into the record please.

So item number three located 607 MacLean uh request for a corrugated metal in the side and rear yard and eleven foot clear vision.

If you can skip over to the uh recommendation please staff recommended now for a fence material request of variance is contrary to public interest is corrugated metal is prohibited as a fence material on characteristic corrugated metal the fence material can potentially be harmful as the sharp edges are less exposed and recommended approval for clear vision is variance is not contrary to public interest there is sufficient separation between the street and this predominantly open fence allowing the oncoming traffic to view safety maneuver in a vehicle into the right of way and granted a variance would observe the spirit ordinance which is to ensure the minimum level of visibility to safety utilize to safely utilized driveway.

And no responses or voicemails received in favor of an opposition and no response for any community or neighborhood association.

All right.

I move to continue to June first.

Second all in favor say aye.

Okay.

All right anyone opposed hearing none motion uh cases continued uh till June first staff report director's report sorry uh we should have our um sharepoint um I think we're finalizing that so next meeting we should have um a share point where you guys are able to go in there and look at all the public responses to include transcripts of voicemails hopefully works out and is there any update on alternates because all of them are past due right and there's still a vacancy summer's coming up it's vacation time just wondering uh we do not have any updates uh we do have two vacancies right now but we don't have any updates to give you right now okay I just curious I had a uh just so you know there was a past alternate member from many many years ago who I think turned it in application.

That's why I was just wondering if there's anything going on.

Pardon me?

Sierra Trevino?

Remember her?

That was been a long time.

Oh no, wait, this is before wasn't there.

Okay, so if there's nothing else, it is four seventeen and we are adjourned.