Well, if y'all don't mind, I'd like to get started if we're recording.

It's 102.

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

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

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes a todos.

Los presentes.

Si hay alguien acá que necesite escuchar esta junta in espanhol.

Or sus audífonos.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the government for which is standing.

One nation under God.

Honor with Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one individual.

All right, staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ivonis.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Here.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Chair Orient.

And I am present.

So that means we have nine.

We're expecting two more, but we're going to go ahead and get started.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

Check marks indicate those property owners in favor of requests.

X indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation, any question by the board, the applicant will present their request.

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

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

You are not obligated to utilize a massive time limitation.

For those who like to scale up to time to a speaker, the speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people given out their time for a total of nine minutes.

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, while we only have nine members, uh, we are waiting for two more to join.

We're gonna do some housekeeping.

Uh we're gonna start off with a request for a continuance, which I believe item number two is asking until June of 15th.

Staff can briefly read that one into the record.

So item number two, BOA 26103008.

Request by Fernando de Leon for an accessory dwelling total in 3715 square feet.

Uh fence material for razor wire in the rear property line.

Uh six-foot front yard fence uh located two nineteen in Palo Grande.

Um staff recommend our approval for it number one, then offer items two and three and requesting a continuance to June 15th.

I do like to anyone commissioner like to move to continue that to the 15th.

Yeah, so we'll move forward continuance to June 15th.

Second, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, cases continue till June 15th.

And uh sure.

We do have item number nine.

Uh staff is recommending approval with nobody sign up to speak.

If that's if that's when you'd like to take on.

Sure.

Actually, I'm gonna do the minutes first.

Any uh last minute revisions, um, they look fine to me.

Uh, but if anybody would like to make a motion to approve those, so moved.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Brackman.

Second, second by Commissioner Manna.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Motions uh minutes are passed.

Uh, we'll be hearing item number nine, which is a full approval.

And I'd also like to ask um for our Spanish interpreter to on when case item number seven, case ending in 94 comes up.

There was a uh public commentary received in Spanish, and for the benefit of the board, perhaps they could translate some of that for us.

All right, thank you.

All righty item item number nine.

Uh located at 202 uh Wilkins Avenue.

Uh, the request for a variant for uh accessory dwelling standards to allow an accessory dwelling unit on the side yard and a four foot eleven variant for the minimum five foot side setback to allow our four shed within one inch of the east side setback.

Subject property located just off the downtown, west of South Presa and abutting I-10 in the rear.

There is surrounded by similar R4 lots, commercials to the northeast and interstate to the rear.

The lot was a reduced size due to right-of-way dedication to the rear.

The property abuts text out right away against the proposed reduced setback and is undevelopable.

This is the site plan.

Welcome to the north.

The yellow indicates the uh carport slash shed.

It's gonna have the uh one inch side setback, and then the proposed casita to the left on the side yard.

Subject property.

You see the uh interstate there to the rear of the property, and the area to the left is the undevelopable part.

This is where the ADU is gonna be proposed.

The side setback and the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval in BOA 261030096 based on following finals of the fact the limited area in the front yard in the rear yard presents a unique circumstance of the lot configuration, a butting reduced setback is undevelopable right away, which prevents a hardship uh from being developed.

Alright, thank you.

Uh let the record show 110.

Commissioner Stevens join the meeting.

All right.

Uh and uh real quick, two in support within uh 200 feet and the roads of park neighborhood association is in support.

That concludes that's presentation.

Thank you very much.

As the app let's have the applicant come forward.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Haime.

I'm with SG Construction and Design, and I'm helping those ladies who are the owners of the property with a project with the ADU.

We're doing it under the new program for the Casita from the City of San Antonio.

Unfortunately, their lot at this point doesn't have a backyard, and uh it's been uh um documented like that since the uh state pretty much took on the rest of that property, but I'll let them tell you a little bit more about the ADU.

All right.

Good afternoon.

I'm Ramona Montoya Coyot, uh owner of the property at 202 Wilkins.

We have questions.

That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Uh any commissioner questions?

Anyone sent them to speak on this matter?

No public comments.

All right, well, anyone like to make a motion.

Bragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103096.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant 1, a variance from the UDC accessory dwelling unit ADU standards to allow an ADU in the side yard.

Two, a four-foot eleven-inch variants from the minimum required side, five-foot side setback to allow a carport slash shed with one inch east side setback situated at 202 Wilkins Avenue.

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

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

The requested variances will allow reasonable residential development on the property while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area, and the carport shed location adjacent to right-of-way and undeveloped property will not negatively impact neighboring properties.

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

Strict application of the ordinance will significantly limit placement options for the ADU due to the constrained rear yard area and would prevent continued use of the existing carport shed configuration despite its minimal impact on the surrounding properties.

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

The requested variance is preserved the residential character of the property while allowing functional use of the lot in a manner consistent with the intent of the ordinance and the existing development pattern.

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

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

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

The proposed structures will remain accessory residential structures and will not adversely affect adjacent conforming properties or alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Six the plight of the owner of the property versus 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 not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The hardship results from the limited rear yard area and the existing site configuration adjustment adjacent to right-of-way and undeveloped property, which uniquely constrained development options and were not created by the current owner.

End of motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Is that Reed?

Mana?

Okay.

Commissioner Bragman.

Uh yeah, I'll be in support of this motion as uh outlined by the applicant.

There's very little rear yard.

Uh the other adjacent piece of property uh would be undevelopable uh without this uh variance.

Uh and we like to see land being used at uh at its highest and best use.

So I will be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manning.

Um I concur with my colleague.

Uh but I do have a question for city staff.

So looking at Google Street, um on you know at the front of it, there are some panels that look like four foot by eight foot panels that are in the front yard.

So is that need to be discussed at some point?

Well, we discussed with this.

We see another uh couple items that needed to go to the BOA.

We informed the applicant, they informed us that they were gonna get those uh down to compliance.

Perfect.

Alright, wonderful.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing none, does that have roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Zina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

If you happen to have any questions, you get the staff.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Now, according to the agenda, we have one more item that is has a full approval.

Item number six, why we still don't have a full board.

Yes.

We got two speakers.

Friend number six.

Okay.

Well then that moves us to right to number one.

I have it.

I'll go ahead and go back to the lead one.

Do you want to have to script this one out?

Good afternoon.

Board members.

My name is Joel Bella, senior planner with the Board of Adjustment.

Item number one is BOA-26-103-00074, the applicant being Adrian Zertuce in District 1 at 607 McElvain Street.

This is a request for a fence material variance to allow corrugated metal fence in the side and rear yard, and a four-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow an 11-foot driveway clear vision area.

The subject property is located just west of the intersection of McElvain Street with Breedon Avenue and across the street from a school.

Historical imagery indicates a corrugated metal fence first appearing on the property in February 2021 and a predominantly open fence in the front yard first appearing in August 2022.

Staff found no permits filed for the construction of either fence.

In March 2026, code enforcement staff initiated an investigation of the subject property and observed the use of corrugated sheet metal as a fencing material, which is prohibited.

And the use of such material is limited to the side and rear yards, and an overall height of up to eight feet is permitted in this area given the abutting alleyway.

Staff also observed that the front yard fence does not meet the minimum driveway clear vision standard, which prohibits any fencing taller than three feet within the designated clear vision area.

Here's a site plan of the property.

Again, one denoting the location of that corrugated metal fencing.

Uh in the blue, there is a fence of uh permitted height and material.

It's just the clear vision area around that driveway there in the front uh left of the property that is uh an issue at this time.

Uh shown here is the subject property, kind of showing that clear vision area.

Uh, the east side of the property, uh, this is taken from the front yard of the home, kind of looking towards the rear.

Uh you can see that corrugated metal fence up at begins behind the front facade of the home.

It's that green corrugated material.

This is the west side uh yard of the property, and then this is from the rear abutting the property um through the alleyway, uh, that same corrugated metal fence.

And uh just a look looking across the sidewalk for the clear vision area and the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings.

A fact one, the requested variance is contrary to the public interest as corrugated metal is prohibited as a fence material and is uncharacteristic of residential areas and two the corrugated metal fence as a uh fence material can potentially be harmful if sharp edges are left exposed.

Click back into it, no worries.

Uh for the driveway clear vision variants, staff recommends approval based on the following findings of fact.

One, this variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Is there a sufficient separation between the street and this predominantly open fence allowing oncoming traffic to view and safely maneuver the vehicle into the right-of-way?

And two, the granting of this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to ensure a minimum level of visibility to safely utilize utilize the driveway.

Staff mail 25 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition.

We received no voicemails.

The North Central Neighborhood Association did not respond, nor did the San Antonio, Texas District One Resident Association.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Alright, thank you very much.

So have the applicant come forward.

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

Uh Fernando Sartucha.

Uh that's clearly my dad's project.

Uh basically we just had um Oh, you have to you can lift the mic up.

Uh pretty pretty much.

Pretty much uh we had um sheet metal built across the property from the uh back and then towards the front, it would be metal fence, just to have like normal normal fence.

Is there any particular uh reason why sheet metal is desired as opposed to wood?

So based on my dad's uh logic, it was pretty much cheaper, more better.

Uh other than that, um he usually works outside of town.

So he just wants like us to be like saved on the you know, having uh talk sheet metal.

Okay, well, it is very common uh for this board to see cases like this, but the the we usually see uh sheet metal fencing with caps on top.

Uh I didn't notice any in the picture.

Uh is there would you like to amend your application to include a cap on the top of the fence?

What is a cap?

It's to uh protect exposed metal.

So like something covered around like a channel piece or it could be a piece of wood, could be something just to protect the rough edges of the exposure.

Oh, okay, okay, I see, and then and uh if you're interested in in uh modifying your application from the from the podium, you can certainly do so.

Um, but we can't put conditions on anything, but that is something that is very common for this board to see.

Okay.

So I'll leave that up to you uh as we go through this.

It was you know, if you would like to amend, you'd have to do it on your own accord.

So just so you know.

Um a question for staff on this.

Uh the alley back there, I noticed a couple garbage cans in the back.

Is this a driveable alley for garbage pickup or is it any other uses that y'all noticed?

At least I think those are garbage cans in the distance of that picture.

There could be a shadow.

Oh yeah, that's not it.

There's no driveways back there or rear access to anyone's house.

Okay.

Yeah, I didn't see any uh util any evidence of utility, so I was just curious.

Oh, there's a looks like there's some electric lines running.

Is that in the front of the yard or is that in the rear yard?

That's uh in the front yard.

Okay.

Is there any commissioner questions for the applicant or staff?

So ma'am.

Commissioner Matt.

So one of the questions, you know, so we brought up with regards to the caps, and and so it's about um having a safe community and and a safe neighborhood.

And that's why it is we really don't want to have anything.

Our preference is not to have any of my preferences not to have anything that would basically harm a neighbor or anything like that.

And that's why we talk about putting the caps on there.

And so it's really just to protect anybody from hurting themselves, you know, from the fence itself.

And that's why it is that we asked that question.

Um so an observation, so looking at Google Streets, I see that the neighbor painted the fence um, you know, a nice blue color to match their house.

So that kind of implies that they're okay with it.

You know, um, you know, my perspective.

So have you talked with your neighbor with regards to the fencing?

So, you know, uh you know I'm sorry, can you read that again?

So the neighbor painted the fence on their side blue, and so did have you had any conversations with them with regards to the fence and are they okay with it?

Yeah, the uh they pretty seemed really nice neighbors, more better than the ones that we had before.

And then um then in the ear aerial view, it looked like there were some cars parked in the back of the property, and and so um is it used for storing cars in the back?

At first it was used um, I believe when as I was growing up, there was a few cars stored, but now that uh we have made like try renovating more of the house and the property.

Uh there's I believe only one.

No, uh zero cars now.

Okay.

And and how did those cars gain access to that?

Was it through the alley?

Uh, yeah, it was the alley.

It was an open alley, and then we closed uh we closed it down with the fence.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Anyone send it to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Is there anything that you would like to do regarding your application before we move forward?

Is there a way you could translate Spanish?

Uh yes, there is.

So we have the interpreter come out, please.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh if I may, um, when they're talking about the capping the fence, the top edge of your metal fence is exposed, right?

And it's a it's an edge that could cut.

The cap would be like a metal cover or some other material that goes over that edge.

That's what a cap is.

And that's why they're asking, you know, if you would amend to add that onto your fence to make it safer.

And amend is what are you amend would be where you would say, you know, that you're gonna you're gonna put a cap.

We cannot tell you to do it.

You have to do it because you want to do it.

Okay, so that's good.

Yeah, we as it stands right now.

Your application is for corrugated metal uh without a cap.

Um if you would like to have it be corrugated metal to include a cap, uh then you can do so right now, if you wish.

And we have the interpreter here who can um, uh, 1500, let me know.

What do you think of the amendment?

I can do that, but I can't.

Okay, can we uh please have her state her name and and that she would like to amend her application to include a cat?

And then my number is Jacqueline Sertuce, y quieren that is uh I.

My name is Jacqueline Sertuce, and I want to amend that um that failure that we have before.

To include a cat.

But I can include is a cubierta que va estar reoccupation.

Yes, to include a cap.

Alright, oh wonderful.

Is there any commissioner uh additional questions?

Hearing none, I'm looking for a motion.

Uh sir, um, did you sign up to speak on this matter?

Yes, you know, but yeah.

I was wondering if it's camp.

Just message.

Yeah, so you have to have your name.

Now, even though you didn't sign up to speak, uh, we're gonna go ahead and entertain coming out.

Well, then we can.

Did you did you have anything about this case?

Well, is it cap for just a supporting post or the entire?

Well, we'll if once you come up to the why don't you come up to the podium?

Okay.

Well, I was just one.

Please say your name for the record.

Uh Robert Weimer.

Okay, and you had a just we usually don't do this.

I'm just I'm just gonna go through this real quick for you.

Um, regarding caps and corrugated metal, corrugated metal is not an allowed fencing material in the city.

Yeah, uh, if you would like to use corrugated metal, you have to come to the board of adjustments.

One thing that is common for the Board of Adjustments is to have exposed edges protected from the possibility of of causing harm to anyone for any reason.

The entire fence and not not just a supporting post.

That is correct.

Okay, that's all I want.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Who would like to make a motion on this?

Stephen.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103074, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a fence material variance to allow a corrugated metal fence with a cap in the side and rear yard, and two, a four-foot variance from the minimum required 15 foot 15 foot driveway clear vision area to allow 11 foot driveway clear vision situated at 607 McGlevain Street.

Applicant being Andrian Zertuce, 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 would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The requested variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Is corrugated metal will provide enhanced security while maintaining the visual characteristics of the area.

The variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Is there sufficient separation between the street and the predominantly open fence, allowing oncoming traffic to view the say view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right of way?

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as it would necess it would necessitate a complete replacement of the existing fence without yielding a significant aesthetic improvement for the area.

As any efforts, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as any efforts of the to modify the existing fence would not yield substantial improvements to visibility around the existing driveway.

The current location of the fence provides a sufficient clear vision area to view oncoming traffic and safely the maneuver of vehicle into the right of way.

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

Granting the variance will not would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as the aesthetic character of the neighborhood would not be substantially changed.

Uh in addition, as the existing separation between the fence and the street provides adequate space to view oncoming traffic and maneuver a vehicle into the right of way, especially considering the fence is predominantly open.

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

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

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

The variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district as corrugated metal fencing material would provide additional security without substantially altering the aesthetics of the streetscape.

The variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties or alter the essential character of the district as an adequate clear vision of the area.

Clear vision area would remain to support safe use of the driveway.

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

The plight of the owner of the property is due to the need for additional security on this property, which is provided by the corrugated metal.

Additionally, the plight of the owner of the property is due to the due to the width of the right-of-way dedicated for the pedestrian use.

The width of this area does not provide code compliant clear vision area on its own, thereby requiring the property owner to locate a fence at least in part within their own property boundaries rather than directly on the property line to meet the UDC prescribed clear vision standard.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Bragman, Commissioner Stevens.

This is a pretty common uh type of case that comes in front of us, and I think with the addition of the cap, I can I can support the corrugated metal, especially considering uh you back up to an alleyway, so you need additional security, and it seems that eleven feet with the predominantly open fence is adequate clear vision, so I'll be in support of both motions.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with my colleague, I'll be in support for the very same reasons.

All right, thank you.

And um, I just wanted to verify.

Did the motion include predominantly open tied to the clear vision?

Uh yes, I believe I believe so.

All right, great.

And uh anyone else like to add hearing none.

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Monius.

You're a second curve.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can care with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

But congratulations.

So does that mean.

Uh it passed.

Uh you have if you have any questions, you can get with staff and they'll and uh walk you through any questions you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number two.

I mean, I'm sorry, item number three.

Good afternoon.

Brought to you for planner with development services.

I don't remember three is BOA-26-103089 located in District 8 at 13649 Forest Rock Drive.

The zoning is R4, and the request is for a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a one-inch setback from the southeast property line.

The subject properties located along Forest Rock Drive near the intersection of Forest Rock Drive with George Road.

Surrounding properties are also zoned R4 and R5 residential single family districts.

The case involves the construction of a patio and second floor deck on the southeast side property line and originated from a code enforcement investigation of the property in April 2026 for building without a permit.

The lot is located in a zero lot line development.

However, the addition was built opposite of the zero lot line.

The addition was still constructed per staff's visit to the site in May of 2026.

The code enforcement investigation resolution is pending board of adjustment outcome.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And an addition, but from the the rear of the property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial uh for the side setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

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

And two, the addition to the primary structure could have been planned to adhere to residential based sunny district setback requirements.

Staff mail.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much.

So the applicant come forward.

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

Robert Weimer, retired Navy commander, retired position.

I have a bunch more pictures.

I don't know if they can.

Yes, I can.

Oh.

Okay.

And anyway, do you have the uh variance appeal that I wrote?

Oh, you know, a variance appeal.

Um I'm sure you must.

Because that's how I got here.

Oh, so they were co-compliance came out.

Okay.

And they and we can project that too just some for the benefit of the board.

Oh, okay.

Well, uh these are pictures of it.

Can we do that first one again?

Okay, I put a ruler there, and of course the contractor who built this assumed that the the uh setback was uh three foot, and there you have a three-foot uh ruler, and and then I attach to it another two feet to show you where five feet would be.

And I assume that the setback is now five feet.

Well, this yes, we have five foot side setbacks.

Okay.

Because this is because when the house was built, it was four foot.

And because of that, uh you see the edge of the floor of the uh deck as it was built when I moved in about eight years ago or so.

But at any rate uh to um what I was wanting to do would be to try to uh make changes such that there would be a minimum takedown.

So now that's what I would have to do uh to make it five foot.

In other words, I'd have to take that window out, uh cut it and uh off uh all the way up to the upper deck um that would be one solution.

Now the the other possible solution would be to leave that six by six uh post which is supporting the upper uh and and maybe cut back the upper deck some you know maybe a foot or two uh but but leave those uh six inch square uh because those are are sturdy that they're in good footings and um but then I could move the interior wall back to that five foot mark but uh if it would be permitted to leave the uh uh six by six uh post to support uh at least the front uh the back part of the uh upper deck okay so that that's what I of course the one request would be just to uh give me a variance where I could utilize the uh five foot setback and uh the three foot setback instead of the five foot if it would be possible to grandfather that but I don't know that's up to the board and everything.

So that that's the essence of it.

Uh I don't know if you want to go through some of those other pictures one top.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens.

I just got a a quick that's from the other direction.

Sir uh we have a commissioner I'd like to ask you a brief question.

Mm-hmm yes just um was this previously a a deck that you enclosed no but it did have just uh lumber covering even even a roof but it wasn't enclosed and and actually the the lumber enclosure fell down I had a metal roof put on and when they took the old roof off they were throwing the the old roof on on top of of of this you know skeleton of the enclosure and it fell down it came down so uh in other words what I what I was doing oh and here you can see that the uh that wood wooden floor is is the old floor deck which is good wood and I'm gonna leave it there because it it's very good wood and um the cement there I just put that there to protect the neighbor's uh footing which is on the right there.

Didn't want any water accumulating where it could possibly uh harm his the footing of his house which is actually about the top of his footing is about that that red letter oh it says neighbor it's top of his footing is about where that line ends um at any rate that's the reason the builder assumed that the uh five foot was uh was the setback and and the uh six by six support there there's there's three of them uh is is uh about two inches greater than three foot so um but uh so the question for you all is can I keep the three foot setback or do I have to modify it and can I make suggestions in terms of how to modify it and to do that I would probably need a continuance because the other thing I had in mind doing was to hire an architect to work with me to do find out the minimum without taking the whole thing down.

Okay.

Well, we have some questions for you.

Uh Commissioner Zuna.

Uh question.

Have you spoken to your neighbor that's most affected um on that side of what is there?

I was the one who uh brought this to the attention of the city.

Right.

So there's a lot of other uh decks throughout the neighborhood.

And I checked with the HOA and they didn't even have any questions.

They more or less said it looks fine.

So I don't think the HOA is involved much.

So what I what I've found is that this house was built in 1984, 83, 84.

Uh your plat was done in 1983, and it was in the ETJ at the time.

It was not in the ceiling as proper, uh, but it did predate the nineteen eighty-seven UDC and back then uh when this uh it it was denoted as a zero lot line on the plat.

Uh there are also referenced deed restrictions, so there's a maintenance easement that runs down the side of your of that particular property for the benefit of your neighbor.

Uh and so that's some that's why you know it's it's even more important not to not to build on that particular side uh of the lot.

So um with that, is there is any questions?

Commissioner Manor?

S so it did so did it state what the size of that easement was.

I am looking for it right now.

Yeah, I couldn't find anything.

So um and so part of the dialogue because it is a zero lot line, um, the neighbor has to be able to get to that side property and maintain the roof, the gutter, the the any of the wall and construction there, and and so it's should be the case that um an abutting neighbor should not build anything in that space so that the neighbor can continue to um leverage that easement so they can manage their their house.

Second thing that we always talk about is um fire fire suppression and firewalls, and so with a carport or or with a cover canopy, you know, fire departments can still get by where all of a sudden now it's a lot more restricted.

And so so I do have concerns with regards to um fire access, you know, especially with the zero lot line component of it.

So um, so when we find out what that space is, that may be you know something that I would think about with regards to what spacing we're looking for on the side there.

Okay.

Uh any other commissioner questions.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens.

Do we have a survey or a plat or anything that we can establish where the actual property line is?

Because I'm seeing like the the rain catchment cistern that's appears to be in your yard, but um that's that's what I need to get a grip on things like where this property line is.

Staff did did the applicant include a any kind of a survey?

Uh the application did not include a survey for this property in our site visit.

Uh we were unable to gain access to the rear yard area.

Um so trying to find the plat right now for that property.

Hopefully that can shed some light on it.

Um, I mean the plat is I found that.

I mean, looking at a ninety-eight foot lot width, but obviously need to know where those two points are.

Um we did not receive a survey.

Okay.

Did you want me to um get you the volume and page of the plat?

I I've got it here.

Thank you though.

Question for the applicant.

Yes, Commissioner Boone.

Sir, how much did you spend on this project?

Um about seventy-five hundred dollars.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And um you had a licensed contractor, or is this just somebody you knew builded?

Well, it's his name's Paul Zano.

He evidently has built um uh close to a hundred of these for other people throughout the city and and areas outside the city.

So I trusted that he knew what he was doing and it was okay with the HOA.

Um I guess h he may have assumed that this was a gated community and not uh under the city of San Antonio Cody.

I don't I don't know, but he did not obtain a uh permit.

Okay, thank you.

And then City real quick, his neighbor at 13 653, they have like a little metal carport.

Are they out of compliance as well?

Yes, we observed a couple out of compliance in the neighborhood.

I mean, so for example, like I didn't complain, so I assume it was the one on the left.

I'm sorry, one more time.

I didn't I couldn't put any catch.

Oh, what'd you say?

Can you repeat that, please?

Repeat what now?

Yeah, what you just said, you have to speak into the mic, sir.

Oh, yes.

I I I assume it was my neighbor on the left that may have brought this to the attention of the city.

Okay, thank you.

Now, I have a couple of questions.

Uh you can sure go ahead.

Can the setback be anything less than five foot?

Number one, and number two, in terms of fire issues, um, would it be possible for me to put a uh make that wall metal and use uh fireproof insulation behind that?

Um, well, there's there's two issues at bay here.

One um there's it's it's something we don't get involved with.

It's a it's a civil aspect of it, is that there your plat your plat does reference deed restrictions, and even in the absence of the deed restrictions, you know, prior to prior to the 87 UDC, or even at the 87 U unified development code, zero lot line subdivisions had a five-foot maintenance easement.

Uh today, if you were to do a development like this today, it would be a little bit more detailed and it would be expressed differently on your plat.

It would be processed differently, it'd be a lot more um out in the open and obvious instead of the districtions that we can't seem to find uh right now.

But uh in this case, um you know that you do have the zero lot line subdivision, and just following the minimal city code, that does require a five-foot maintenance access easement.

Uh and so that's it's the five foot is is there for a reason.

Right now, if this were to get waived by this board, you would still have to meet the permitting requirements and have fire protection and and anything else that would be required by the building code.

Uh what that is is not something we get involved with.

Uh it is something that you would have to deal with permitting at the city.

We're just here to see whether or not you should be uh granted uh a waiver for that five foot.

That's out.

It's evidently out.

Chair, I have a question.

Um I wanted to ask uh applicant, uh the rain barrel, the rain container that is on your neighbor's uh gutter spout.

Is that something that you put there or did your neighbor put?

I asked him.

You asked him to put that in uh collect the water off of his roof to go in my rainbow.

I I may be moving that too.

It still should be there because uh water um should be prevented from being excessive because it's protecting his footing, the footing of his house, and your and your property as well, his footing, yes.

Um and the fence, the the fence that is parallel to the edge, the corner of your neighbor's house.

Um, that is I'm assuming not on his property line.

I don't know for sure.

That's so and just so you know, I did find it is a six-foot maintenance easement that's actually on the plat.

That's that's that every lot is encumbered in this subdivision.

So that is uh just something to point out.

Okay, is there anyone centered to speak?

Any voice uh I'm not gonna say voicemails comment.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Sir, is there anything else you'd like to?

Yes, I was wondering if I could have a continuance so that I could hire an architect to work out the minimum that I need to do to uh not take the whole structure down.

Well, if a commissioner would like to offer uh a motion for such a thing that they can certainly do so.

Uh I will just tell you that you know you have a you do have a platted six foot wide maintenance easement.

The city code does require five foot maintenance easements on zero lot lines and I would comply with that, but I'm I'm well if you have anything you're the you're right now what your your presence before this board is because you're not in compliance with that.

So in other words, if if I uh say I'm going to uh move it back so that there's five foot.

If it was five feet away from the property line, that's then the city would have nothing, no reason to uh yeah to turn you into coconut.

I'm gonna have to cut it back not just from the neighbor's side, but also all the way up to the upper deck, right?

So how wide is that structure that was built?

How wide is it where now?

How how wide is that addition that was built on?

Oh, on the top, on the bottom.

Well, it's um you you can see it.

Yes.

Can I click?

Oh.

Let's see.

Uh do you have the picture that shows the ruler?

Yeah.

Yeah.

In other words, I to accommodate the five foot setback, I would have to move the wall all the way to the end of that rule.

In other words, that the first ruler is three foot, and then there's that's two foot addition.

So I would have to move.

Sir, the the the thing about this is is that you might have a zero setback line, but w one of the reasons why we do like to see surveys is because there's a roof overhang from your neighbor that sticks out about twelve to fifteen inches, and so in theory they that the property line might actually be at the edge of that of that roof overhang.

And not not necessarily the face of the brick.

Okay, and in other words, I I would need to move the wall back to the five foot mark.

No, no, what what you need to do is is you need to get a surveyor and actually figure out where exactly that property line is, and that's where the five feet starts.

Do you have a survey?

Well, do you have a property survey, sir?

No.

But that's what I was wanting to hire an architect for.

Yeah, the the the usually when when a home is purchased, sometimes there's a title survey involved and they would denote these sort of things.

But we're getting off topic here.

I mean, we're we're here to discuss whether or not the structure can exist uh within the five feet, wherever the property line is, whether it's against the wall or fifteen inches away.

And so with that, um unless you have anything else to to add.

No, in other words, I'm willing to move it the whole structure back five feet.

Okay.

Well, great.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens.

I'd move for a continuance so that the applicant can establish where that property line is.

That sounds good.

Second.

Okay.

Is there someone who'd like to second that motion?

Okay, so we have a sec a motion a second.

Is there a date that you would that would be helpful for you?

Uh this is June.

We meet uh we meet on the fifteenth of June, July.

Well, we can do a continuance up to a month, and so that would take us to the uh 6th of July.

Okay.

That would be all right.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so we have a motion and a second for contingency to July 6.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Hearing none, uh, we will see you on July 6th.

Maybe I can make a PowerPoint to do this.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Item four.

Good afternoon.

Um BOA-26-1030090.

It is located in District 2.

At 929 Rice Road.

The zoning is R5, and the request is for an eight-foot variance from the maximum five foot predominantly open front yard fence requirement.

So a 13-foot predominantly open gate on the southwest portion of the front property line.

The subject property is located along Rice Road in the middle of a block that is owned primarily R5 to the east.

And although abundant R5 to the west is within proximity to C1 MF33 and C2 to the west.

In March of 2025, a code enforcement investigation was conducted for building without a permit.

There's a residential fence application that requires additional information to proceed and is pending the outcome from the Board of Adjustment.

The gate, which is the subject of the fence height variants, still exists for staff's visit to the property in May of 2026.

The applicant may either alter or reconstruct a gate to adhere to unified development code regulations or requested variants from the Board of Adjustment.

And this is the site plan that yellow boxes location of the gate.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the fence height variants based on the fall based on the following findings of fact.

One granting an increase to the fence height to permit the 13 foot predominantly open gate will not observe the spirit of the ordinance as the height does not encourage cohesive and consistent development within the established residential area.

And the property can accommodate a gate that complies with unified development code fence height standards while also providing a level of security and privacy.

Staff mailed 25 notices.

One was received in favor, zero in opposition for voicemails.

We also received one in favor and zero in opposition.

Delcrest Area Neighborhood Association is in support.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much.

So the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name.

Tell us about your gate.

Carolyn Randall.

Um the gates was a dream of mine.

Um I purchased this property, it was abandoned.

Uh it was decapitated.

It was really in bad shape.

It had been abandoned for more than 15 years.

Homeless people had got in there and made a big mess inside the house and outside the house.

Um neighbors was really upset, and um I got with some college buddies, and his father's a master welder, and they helped me do the gates on the budget.

Um, it took all the money I had saved to do the gates.

I love peacocks.

So I put peacocks in the middle of it, and they came out to be higher than expected.

Um when I purchased this property, I was told that we was not in the city, so I did not get a permit.

But soon as the cult compliance lady came by, I put in for the permit, and then she told me that the gates was too high.

So then um I was doing another permit, and then she told me I had to do something like a variance, didn't understand that part.

She was very vague with me.

She wanted to argue me down that I was not the owner, that I was pretty much too young for that, and and I hate that kind of profiling.

Um, I was like, I am the owner, and this is my dream home, and I'm just trying to do what's in my heart and what's right for the neighborhood.

I grew up on the east side of San Antonio.

I graduated from Sam Houston High School, and I'm coming home.

This is gonna be my home, or whatever, and I'm just trying.

I'm just trying with what I have.

I'm a Dave Ramsey girl.

He teaches uh live within your means.

Um, don't go into debt, stay out of debt.

So I just that's what I'm trying to do.

So I did the variance.

I saved the six hundred dollars, and now I'm before y'all.

This is all I have, and I'm trying.

Uh I have a couple of neighbors here.

I met with more neighbors yesterday, it went pretty good.

One was really nasty to me.

Again, you're a young girl, you're stupid, you don't know what you're doing, that kind of thing.

Didn't like that.

Okay.

Well, it also looks like you renovated the house.

I'm renovating it as well.

It looks different than what it used to look like.

Yes, it is.

I'm trying.

I've gotten it leveled, I've gotten a roof put on.

Um, I haven't started inside the house.

I was trying to do the outside first because it looked really, really bad.

I met with the neighborhood association ladies and told them that I'm just trying.

I'm a Dave Ramsey girl, I don't borrow money.

So I'm working three jobs, and I'm just trying, trying to do with within my means.

Alright.

And I'm in college.

I'm at St.

Mary's University Law Student.

Wonderful.

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

Any questions from the commission?

Stevens.

I love it.

I think it's great.

Thank you.

And I'm gonna allow some space for debate, but I'm ready to make a motion whenever.

Okay.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Manor.

So I think there may be some speakers here that are signed up to speak.

So yes, uh, so what we're gonna do is we're gonna see if anyone signed up to speak or like to express her opinion.

Uh staff is there anyone signed up to speak on this matter?

Yes, sir.

Um first one is Suzanne Martinez.

So we'll go ahead.

We'll come on up and state your name and tell us your thoughts.

Hey, my name is Suzanne Martinez, and I reside at 932 Rice Road.

Yeah, you have to get that.

932 Rice Road Suzanne Martinez.

I wrote a little something on my phone, so if you don't mind.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

Um so I live across the street from Carolyn Randall's house, and I see it every day.

Um I'm in favor of letting the entry gate remain as is.

It's important to give a little bit of context and backstory as I know it if that's okay.

Sure.

Okay.

Um I have witnessed events that have taken place since 1984.

The entire family that owned the house was ravaged by Huntington's disease.

The last remaining son was taken away by ambulance and soon passed away.

Since then, at least for 15 years, the house became dilapidated.

Um, and I would tell the other neighbors they should just tear it down and start all over again.

Um squatters and scammers took full advantage of the situation.

There was um an online ad that was posted, and people would rent the house unseen, go over there with their stuff, and then it was abandoned.

Um, so they got scammed out of their money, and that again 15 years.

Um Carolyn got the family together and miraculously they agreed to sell the house to her.

Um, since Carolyn's ownership, trash has been removed, the high grass was cut.

Um the old gate around the property was falling down.

It was just a regular metal gate.

I mean, just a gate.

Um, and it's been replaced with that beautiful black one.

Um, the house was leveled, and she's beginning to repair the inside of the house.

I saw it yesterday.

Um, I now see that something old can be made new again.

There's a peacock design, you can see that, and it reminds me of the Elvis Presley Graceland Mansion um gate, and you know, it just beautifies our neighborhood, you know, and we take pride in our our street, all the re you know, surrounding neighbors, and um to me it's just it just adds to the beauty of it of our street.

Um I have 24 people on the next door app.

I started a conversation uh commenting that they love the gate.

Um I didn't see any negative comments.

This yeah, um and um to have Miss Mirandel remove it, it would be a waste of time, energy, um, you know, and money.

Um, you know, um in addition, vagrants would take up housing once again, and um I thank you for your time.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there another speaker?

Uh Diane Quare.

All right, coming up and state your name and tell us your thoughts.

I'm Diana A.

Quayar, and I live at 202 Glen Oak Drive.

That's the street behind the.

That's me right there with a star.

Okay.

I'm very happy with the uh improvement that Ms.

Caroline.

Carolyn is uh doing to the property all good, but I have one main concern.

We live in a very, and this is just to correct y'all.

I've been there for over 31 years, and it's the southeast side.

It's between Martin Luther King, WWE, and the circle and the radius of Rigsby, not past Briggsby.

It's a very high crime area.

I know, because I call by um 911 quite often.

Gunshots, uh, crackhead, I don't know what's going on, but I call and report it all the time at night.

I'm not that young anymore, so I can't be tolerating all that violence.

There's a lot, a lot of violence.

I see it all the time.

Abandoned dog left and right at every corner at the church.

There's the churches right on the corner of uh Miss Carolyn's right there on uh Rice Road.

I just have to take a breath.

I have uh respiratory issues.

Sorry, but anyway, that's what concerns me because it's very dark at night.

I love the fence that she put up.

That's all good, but the problem is that I want to know.

I want you to clarify to me, please.

So she's just asking for a permit for the 13-foot fence in the front, because she addressed some um things that she has plans for to bring in homeless people.

She doesn't need a license or a permit.

That's what she said.

We had a little uh meeting yesterday at her property, that's what she told us.

I know that's not true.

You cannot bring in even if there are adults or not.

If they're having any most of the people, I know because I volunteered with the crisis center on Elmira, the Salvation Army.

So I've worked with those kind of people.

I mean, nobody's perfect.

I understand everybody deserves a second chance.

But we already have a lot of issues in that area, violent issues, killings, rapings, the whole that green week where they killed that lady.

Anyway, that's what my main concern is.

Well, we're we're just here to see the gate.

And anything she uses the property for that is may or may not be allowed is a separate.

That's correct.

Well, that's why I'm here because that's what I thought, and that's why I wanted to clarify this issue.

You're solely here to talk about and only the entry.

Okay, yes, that I just wanted to make sure.

Okay, so okay.

Thank you.

No more public comment.

Okay.

Manna.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, question for six.

Um, this fence is quite high.

So, can we approve a 13 foot fence on the front?

Yes, sir.

Uh, it's uh it's a regular variance, it's not a special exemption since it's over nine feet, but yes, you can't approve it.

Commissioner Zuna, can we also limit the height to just the gate entry uh portion of the fence right?

Okay, so we could but how do we just reference the gates and not just southwest?

The variance is written right now, already says to allow the predominantly open gate on the southwest portion of the front property line.

Did you want it more specific than that?

When red, you can you can even for go further and say only the gate or specific makes more specific specificity to the gate.

So that'd be that'd be fine.

Um is is and just to make sure, like you know, this there's no clear vision issues or anything, it's simply just we're just here about a gate height.

Okay.

Correct.

Is there anything else you'd like to add before we move on?

All right, thank you.

Who would like to make a motion on this?

I see Commissioner Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103090.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grants a requests for an eight-foot variance for the maximum five-foot predominantly open front yard fence requirement to allow a 13-foot predominantly open gate on the southwest portion of the front property line.

Again, the variance is limited to only the swinging gate section of the fence and no other portions of the fence would be subject to this variance request.

The uh fence subject fence is located at 929 Rice Road, applicant being Carolyn Randall.

Because the testimony is presented to the fact to us, and the fact that we determine so that the physical character of the property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDCS amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Granting the requested additional height for the entry gate would not be contrary to the public interest.

Would provide a level of safety for the property owner while still promoting a sense of community.

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

Staff finds that a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship and the requested fence height variant for the existing gate would provide a relief to the property owner.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as a variance and height and fence height would be limited to the gate and would not discourage cohesive and consist and consistent development within the established residential area.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners.

The proposed variance is limited to the gate only, and the variance would not reduce visibility within the area.

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

The unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, not merely financial and not due to other results of general conditions and is in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the property owner is due to the unique circumstances of the property, which were not created by the owner, and not merely financial, and granting the variants would provide substantial relief to the property owner.

End of motion.

Second.

Right.

So I'm gonna lean on the neighborhood support, the support from the neighbor association, and and uh, you know, the overwhelming support that she received from the neighbors for the fence.

Uh I think it uh, you know, it's a testament to the money and the effort that the applicant has put into rehabilitating this property and the additional security lighting that I see from the pictures, and we're limiting the variance to the fence swinging gate section and no other sections of the gate of the fence would be allowed with this variant.

So I'm supporting the motion as read.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

Uh yeah, I think it's a bit tall, but it's beautiful, and um I think is a great addition to our district, so I'll be in support.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

If you happen to have any questions, you get with staff and congratulations.

You're welcome.

Item five.

Good afternoon.

Joel Bella senior planner with the board of adjustment.

Item five is case BOA-26-103091.

The applicant being Carmina Flores in District 2.

Location is 1726 Nolan Street.

And this is a request for several items.

I'll jump over to the uh site plan here, actually, as we go through those.

Um, one, a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters to be one inch from the east side property line, two, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a sixteen foot addition to the rear of the home to be one foot six inches, including a two-foot overhang from the west side property line.

Three, a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure in the rear yard to be one inch from the west side property line.

Four or fifty percent imper uh variance from the maximum allowable 50% front yard impervious cover to allow 100% impervious cover in the front yard.

Five, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow an 11-foot six-inch driveway clear vision, and six, a one-foot-two, uh, one-foot-two-inch fence height special exception from the maximum allowable five-foot predominantly open fence to allow six-foot-two-inch predominantly open fence in the front yard.

Uh, this property is surrounded by lots zoned R4 and MF33.

Uh staff research including a site visit of the property and a review of historical aerial and uh street view imagery found evidence of various improvements completed on the property, including the six foot tall predominantly open fence installed in uh May 2014, a metal roofed accessory structure in the rear yard that's there at the very bottom of that photo shown here uh in December 2018, a side yard carport established in October 2021, a rear yard home addition, they're highlighted in orange number two uh in early 2025, and increases to the front yard impervious cover uh in 2017 and then again in 2025.

Each of these improvements violates either the fence setback or impervious cover standards of the UDC.

The property is currently under investigation by code enforcement to ensure appropriate permits are are filed with the development services department.

Permits cannot be issued for any of these improvements without existing construction being modified, or uh the issuance of variances to these code standards by the Board of Adjustment.

So we'll go through these photos here.

This is the subject property with that carport, which was the main subject of this case there on the left side there.

Also shown here is the uh six foot tall front yard fence predominantly open.

There's a better look at that side uh yard carport and its proximity to the adjacent home.

This is a view of the side yard from the front yard.

Uh you can kind of see here make it out in that photo that addition done to the rear yard of the home.

You can kind of see the change in the paint color as that addition begins and extends towards the rear.

This is the front yard showing uh the concrete and astro turf put down in the front yard, effectively making it a hundred percent impervious cover, and the surrounding area.

I think I jumped too far ahead.

No, there we go.

Uh for the setback and impervious cover variances, staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed setbacks do not provide adequate separation from respective property lines to allow access for maintenance or to mitigate against potential damage to adjacent property from fire spread or water runoff, and two, the increased impervious cover in the front yard impedes proper mitigation of stormwater runoff.

For the driveway clear vision variant, staff recommends approval because the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Is there sufficient separation between the street and this predominantly open fence allowing oncoming traffic to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right of way?

And two, granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance.

The fence height special exception staff recommends denial.

One, uh the increased front yard fence heights were not observed to be permitted elsewhere in the surrounding area, and two increased front yard fence heights do not promote a sense of community.

That is typically desirable feature of residential districts.

Staff mailed 43 notices, zero return in favor, zero in opposition.

We received no voicemails, and the Harvard Place East Lawn Neighborhood Association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Alright, thank you very much.

So have the applicant come forward.

See, my number is Carmina Flores.

Um, so no puzzle.

Pero can stay conmigo porque lo necessito.

Um, I'm such remodelations a la casa.

Um, varios que no me recuerdo de todas.

Lo que puedo decir en cuanto a la cerca alta, is la razon de que la IC alta is porque tengo un niño autista, que él está aquí presente también.

Para fuera, el salto.

Okay.

My name is Carmina Flores, and I am one of the owners.

And also, and also my husband.

Unfortunately, he is right now in surgery, and I'm really sorry that he cannot be with me because I really need him.

And yes, we did several remodeling.

I don't remember exactly how many, but on regards of the height of the fence, I needed to have that height because I have a special child, he's autistic.

He is present right now, and when he gets nervous when he has a crisis, for example, he can get up because he's very tall.

In question de la carport, um la razon de que se iso a essa distanza is the porque mi terreno is muy pequeño and no hay manera de abrirlo mas umida medida que la sufficiente donde cabe el carro, y es el raison de que lo hizo esa distanza.

On regard of the carpal, the reason we did that is because of the distance of and we have this lot and it's very small.

So there is not enough space to do it.

So that was the reason we did that way.

I also want to talk about the addition.

I really don't recall how many feet are that addition that we did.

The only thing that we did was just the continuation of the line.

When we bought the house, we added that part, and you just follow that.

And I really don't know how how much is the distance with that, but I want to I want to point out here that the next door home, we are also the owners.

1722 is the side where we add it.

Okay, that's the one facing the house and no one that's a house on the right.

Alright, please continue.

Yes, please continue.

Adelante señor, continue.

Oh, yo solo queria pedir que la razon de que is a la dision is because adultos in a casa con este hijo autista canita su privacy.

Um de accordo que no no violas normas y stoy disposta pagar la multa lo que sea necessario, pero si le pido the favorite casa seria muchísimo gasto, no canal continuar con ella.

But I would like to ask, and I I understand, we did commit some violations here, is this home is for five adults.

My autistic son is adult and he needs privacy.

So when we were getting bigger home doing that, I am here and I will accept whatever I need to pay and whatever needs to be done, but I am asking your help to continue having my home.

Okay.

Alright, let's see if there's any questions.

There's any questions from the commission?

Right, but Commissioner Brandman.

Um the impervious surface in the front.

Could could you address that?

What what what is the specific need to have a hundred percent impervious surface in the front?

Oh driveway.

Are you asking why I put concrete on the driveway?

Not on the driveway, but in the front yard.

To the side of the driveway.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, there's a picture of being projected up there.

Oh, arriva and else, or the queue.

Oh, pues it's not imitation de la mitad.

Really, it's impermeable.

Really porque abajo tenía piedritas, which había muchas piedritas como cascaco, y este.

So the reason I had that that artificial grass is because there are some stones and debris, and with the children were coming to visit, they will be taking those rocks and will be throwing them.

But I can remove that, no problem.

Could it be made grass?

Yes, real grass.

Commissioner Stevens.

Is it is it paved under the turf or is it just gravel?

No, no staff.

No, there is nothing there.

So then that is over.

Did the city so it looks like back in 2018 there used to be um just normal uh grass there?

Um after that it looked like it was paved and then later on this artificial turf put over the pavement.

Steph, can you bring up a street view picture if you happen to have something?

No, no, no I pavimento.

No, there is nothing paved under the turf.

Mana.

See, no, you know, you meant mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So um if it is gravel underneath and you put artificial turf on it, uh would that be considered pervious then at that point?

Uh we showed this to stormwater and they indicated that this does not qualify for impervious cover.

So artificial grass does not count for that.

Uh they were more looking at the material underneath.

So I see picture from 23 with gravel.

And 22 with gravel.

So and we showed this again, we showed this to stormwater and they made the determination that this is okay.

So I'm still asking the question.

So if it's gravel underneath and you have artificial turf above it, is that pervious cover?

I'm going to chime in on this.

So what happens is um if it's not grass, it's something else.

And so, like for example, if we have gravel and it's compacted, sometimes uh stormwater will let us do something in between grass and pavement just for purposes of of flow rate of water through it.

But whether it's considered impervious or not, I mean it's it's there's some subjectivity to it.

It's not as porous as if it was grass, but it certainly is not the same as concrete.

Okay, and so I think it's up to I think we can make that determination, but if if if the powers that be are going to classify it as something other than impervious surface, that would be something for us to to you know consider.

I mean, only because they're saying that it that we have to look, the city is saying they're classifying it as impervious cover, therefore it has to come to us because it's exceeding fifty percent.

So, you know, uh I would have a problem saying a hundred percent coverage, but if it's covered with artificial turf on top of gravel, I don't have a problem with that.

So the question would be how do we read it so that it's not gonna become a hundred percent.

I absolutely think that it the motion should state that and include um you know that it's artificial turf on top of of of a gravel surface.

Um what that means to what's how staff is going to interpret that later.

Um this is kind of new.

We don't we there's certain things we can't put conditions on, but you know it's if staff is saying it's impervious cover, then that's why it's it before us.

Fragment, Commissioner Bragg.

So would that so if that was considered impervious, and they've got the paved driveway and they've gave the pavers off to the right, the red pavers, if that was considered impervious, would that meet the 50% or does that did you have to take into account the the driveway as well in that calculation?

I have to count the driveway.

The driveway is included in the overall percentage.

Okay, and so that might not even get to 50%.

Yeah, and another thing is is that the unified development code only has one documented example of what's considered a pervious pavement.

It's a very specific design, and if you want to do something other than that, you have to get it approved uh by stormwater.

So that we're at we're at a place where there's some subjectivity here that we're gonna have to uh get through, whether it's through findings or through the actual text of the motion.

So um is there by the way, is there anyone sign up to speak on this?

Yes, we have one speaker.

What we're gonna do is we're gonna hear a speaker and uh we'll hear their thoughts and then we'll come back to see if there's questions.

Uh Lua De Villa?

Alright, please state your name for the record and tell us your thoughts.

My name's Leroy Davila.

Um, their next door neighbor.

I'll be talking about my issues as well.

But you're talking right now about the impervious.

What they did to it makes the yard look wonderful.

I understand that there's drain water issues going on, but what they did was outstanding.

It it better appearance for the for the front yard.

Uh they only have that front, sorry, they only had that front island in the front of the fence that where they have to maintain uh as you can tell, they socialize in the front where there's they don't have to worry about tracking mud or anything else into their house or anywhere else.

They did a great job on that.

So, what what are your thoughts uh on the other items before?

So you the gutter is my only concern because it butts up to our house.

The only thing that I did speak to her husband about was to put the gutter up because it was running into it's right on the fence line, and all I I I would I have spoken to him before is just to ensure that the rain goes on their driveway and out.

Well, because there's a because there is a gutter there, uh any motion we make would include any approval for the corporate would have to include a gutter.

Because that's what was that's what's before us today.

So that would be part of uh that portion of the decision.

Initially when he built it, it didn't have a gutter and it was raining and then him and I spoke about it and he put the gutter on.

I had my gutters on and the guys that installed our gutters on our house had a little bit of an issue getting around that issue but they just climbed the top of our house and and did that so other than that I mean I I don't think the fence heights okay and the fence line is fine.

We haven't had an issue with anything like that.

They do have some some uh some pup some dogs but nothing we love dogs uh he maintains the fence really well to make sure that everything is good.

Alright manna commit Commissioner Manus so excuse me sir so um with regards to the carport and the gutter that's on there is that gutter on your crossing the property line or is it uh on their property line who knows what the actual property line is okay it's I mean it's we're I mean could there used to be a changling fence many many years ago and I believe that y'all are the ones that put the la la cerca de madera we'll still put it on la cerca or on okay I was asking if they were the one for the ones that put the fence because we we just moved into that house in 2020 um but where it's at right now as long as he maintains it in which he does he does take care of it we do agree on there's um typical neighbors we don't agree on everything but whatever we do disagree on we're we're able to work that out okay any other questions all right thank you very much for your thoughts and the applicant come back forward uh is there any questions for the applicant hearing none um looking for a motion then one quick question for staff uh the uh the the uh the side variants uh where it says it's it's uh one foot six inclusive of the overhang the physical wall of the home is at least three feet away from the side property line is that correctly that's correct yes okay I'll read it if uh I'll or I can manna Commissioner Manna let's see here I'm gonna do the second one first and then move to the first one so regarding case number BOA 26103 00091 I moved the board adjustment grant the request for a one foot two inch fence height special exception for the maximum allowable five foot predominantly open fence to allow a six foot two inch predominantly open fence in front yard situated at one seven two six Nolan Street I'm gonna be in Carmina Florida is because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical characters property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that a the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit of the purpose of the chapter the proposed fence height does not represent a significant departure from the existing character of the area nor would it create a significant visual obstruction in the front yard.

B the public welfare inconvenience will be substantially served the public welfare would be substantially served as a front yard provides significant security improvement and justifies this modest proposal for exception from the code standard.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use neighboring property would not be significantly injured by the proposed increased fence as it would not create a significant visual obstruction or present a significant deviation from the existing character of the streetscape.

D.

The special exception will not alter the essential character of the district in which is location in which this property for which the special exception is sought the special exception would not alter the essential character of this location as a proposed fence height would not create a significant visual obstruction of the front yard area.

E the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for this special specific district the special exception would not weaken the general purpose of the district, which is to preserve open front yard space to create a sense of community in single family residential districts.

End of motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Manna.

So I don't see an issue with this particular uh portion of the case here um and having the neighbor uh come in and also concur um I'll be voting in favor.

Commissioner Bragman uh I agree with my colleague, especially since the applicant explained the hardship behind um not being able to have that height.

So I'll be in support.

Alright, anyone else like to add?

You're announced a roll call vote on this on the fence height.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings.

In fact, motion passes unanimously.

Let's uh move on to the variances.

Yeah.

Commissioner Manna.

I may get creative on number four.

So regarding case number BOA 26103 00091, I move that the board adjustment.

Grant a request for one, a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters to be one inch from the east side property line.

Two, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a sixteen foot addition to the rear of the home to be one foot six inches, including a two-foot overhang from the west side property line.

Three, a four foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure in the rear yard to be one inch from the west side property line.

Four, a 50% variance from the maximum allowable 50% front yard impervious cover composed of artificial turf to allow a front yard with 100% impervious cover.

Five, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow 11 foot six inch driveway clear vision area situated at 1726 Nolan.

I'll can be in Carmina Flores because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property, such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Regarding setbacks in impervious cover, these variances would not be contrary to public interest as proposed carport addition and accessory structure setbacks provide adequate separation from respected respected property lines to allow access for maintenance and upkeep or mitigate against potential damage to adjacent property from fire spread and water runoff.

Further, the increased impervious cover comprised of uh artificial uh turf in the front area does not impede proper mitigation of stormwater runoff.

Uh driveway clear vision.

Uh this variance is not contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient separation between the street and spread on the open fence, allowing uncommon tra oncoming traffic to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right of way.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as there is adequate space between the subject improvements and the respective property lines.

Further increase the increase impervious cover in the front yard does not impede proper mitigation of stormwater runoff.

Um regarding driveway clear vision, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in this unnecessary hardship, as any efforts to modify the existing fence would not yield substantial improvements uh to visibility around the existing driveway.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done regarding setbacks and previous cover, granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed setbacks would provide sufficient space to maintain the addition, accessory structure, and carport.

Further, the increase in previous cover in the front yard would not impede proper mitigation of stormwater runoff or deaden the streetscape.

Regarding driveway clear vision, granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the existing separation between the fence and the street provides adequate space to view incoming oncoming traffic and maneuver a vehicle into the right of way.

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

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

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

Setbacks in impervious cover.

Uh these variances would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property, nor alter the essential character of the district as the reduced setbacks and increase of pervious cover would not negatively impact adjacent property.

Uh regarding driveway clear vision, the variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent component property or alter the central character of the district, as is adect as an adequate clear vision area would remain to support safe use of the driveway.

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

Uh regarding setbacks and purpose cover, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to the limited developable space on the property, which limits the ability to construct improvements which abide by setback standards.

These this space limitation is such that reductions of previous front yard space on this lot would not substantially impact proper stormwater mitigation.

Um regarding driveway clear vision, the plight of the owner of the property is due to the width of the right-of-way dedicated for pedestrian use.

This width of this area does not provide code compliant clear vision area on its own, thereby requires the property owner to locate a fence at least in part within their own property boundaries rather than directly on the property line to meet the UDC prescribed clear vision standard and a motion.

Second by Commissioner Braggman, Commissioner Manna.

I have a point of clarification.

Yes, Commissioner Braggman.

On the 50% impervious service, if we're just talking about the um astro turf there, that isn't 50% of the so I'm just wondering if 50% is an appropriate percentage.

So I was trying to read it so that so that the impervious coverage included artificial turf and just left it so with regards to the hundred percent.

So I guess I was trying to state that I'm okay with the 100% as long as it includes a portion of um artificial turf.

And that's what I was trying to specify.

What about specifying you know, as as ref as today, as you know, the location provides today.

And okay, so I would accept that as amendment would that work, do you think?

Well, my question was do we really feel that that represents fifty percent of the staff is determined uh has expressed that they will be considering it impervious cover, and so we have to as well.

So we as far as staff's concerned it's a hundred percent right now, regardless of if the whole thing was astro turf.

Okay, so what you're saying is just leave it as is, even though it's really more than fifty percent, but as long as they keep it the way it is today.

That's what I'm saying.

And so I think so I think that uh how we should amend it then is as as currently presented or currently designed, um, with the architect.

Yeah, with the artificial uh turf.

As in place today.

Okay.

I'm good with that.

Okay, alright.

So is the city okay with that?

Okay.

All right.

You'll be in charge of reviewing the minutes on this one.

Uh is it so?

So I think um with the neighbors' input and I think as um, you know, following the sight lines of the the existing structure.

Um there are other car ports that are on the same street that are very similar in size and proximity.

I don't see this being um out of the ordinary uh in this community, and so uh because of that I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Braggman.

Um yeah, I'll be in support of the motion of a while, especially since the neighbor uh was um here to uh express support um and that uh the explanation of the addition being in sight line with the original structure, uh, the circumstances um regarding family members and the need for the the height and the clear vision is not an issue, so I'll be in support of the motion.

All right, Commissioner Azuma.

Yes, so I'll be in support as well.

Um my issue is really kind of the buildings that are there now would have to go into review by building code, correct, to be able to have them uh permitted and standing.

And so to me, that's assurance that they'll meet fire code and any other kind of code compliance that would impact the neighboring properties to make sure that they're um fire rated against any properties adjoining, so that'll provide some comfort to you as a neighbor.

So I'm supporting.

Alright, thank you.

And and anyone else like to add?

Uh and I just wanted to add that I'll be in support because we did hear testimony that they are also the homeowner for the neighboring property, uh, which is helped me get past uh item number well as red two or three, whichever one is a larger accessory structure in the rear.

Uh so alright, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ifanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can go with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

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

Thank you.

Did the applicant for item six uh come by?

Do we have the applicant for raw and forest?

Yep.

There we are.

Alright, fantastic.

Item six.

Good afternoon.

Item number six.

BOA 261030092.

Uh located at 22315 Roman Forest.

Uh variant for a UDC accessory dwelling unit standards to allow accessory dwelling unit on the side yard of the property.

So you're property located east of US 281 north between TBC Parkway and East Evans Road, surrounded by similar R6 properties.

We requested for the proposed accessory structure in the side yard, which is planned to be over a detached garage.

The property has a swimming pool and mature trees in the rear yard, along with some elevation uh changes.

Your possibility width of the side yard is 30 feet and directly above the drainage, which could result which could reduce the side setback.

This is the uh site plan showing the accessory dwelling unit on the side yard.

Uh there is no setback issue.

We're just making that statement that there could be a reduction of the side yard.

Uh, you see the swimming pool in the rear also.

Next slide, please.

This is from the front of the property line or property.

And that's where the proposed uh accessory dwelling units gonna be.

Closer look there and the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval for BOA 26103092 based on the following finds of the fact the request will fit within the existing development pattern.

I will not be impact the adjacent property or overall character of the neighborhood.

The existing placement of mature trees and physical layout of the property, which uniquely constraints the rear yard development were not created by the current property owner.

Uh 17 notices were mailed out, one received in uh favor and one received in opposition, and no response from the neighborhood association.

And that concludes the staff's presentation.

Uh thank you.

One quick question.

Uh, on the side of the subject house, is there an easement that runs on the side between the two homes, the two lots?

It looks like there's a thin gap on the uh aerial.

You go back to the site plan, please.

Yeah, to the aerial.

I don't believe so, but I can double check.

No, like the the previous uh exhibit.

It does appear that there is a small um strip of land.

Yeah, it looks like there's a thin strip that that kind of runs.

Right, that's the uh drainage.

Um it's a it's not an easement, it's a separate property, but it's used as a uh drainage right-of-way and that's um, okay.

I just I I was just curious about that's additional separation that correct either neighbor owns, it's owned by the HOA or something.

Correct.

All righty.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

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

Hello, my name is Angel Ruiz.

And what they are the designed build, and I'm helping the clients with the design and the construction.

Um, you're gonna put some renderings up.

But I can see the property has some constraints.

Uh the rear yard contains significant existing mature trees, and the lock configuration and available space make the site area the most practical and functional location for the ADU.

The proposed ADU, as you can see with the renderings, has been designed to remain the compati compatible with the neighborhood and minimize impact to adjacent properties.

The policeman maintains the appropriate setbacks, preserves open space of the rear and avoids unnecessary removal or mature trees.

We also believe the proposed location provides better overall site functionality and circulation.

And I'm Elizabeth Campbell.

My husband's the one that submitted the variance request.

He's not able to be here.

He's working on PCSing from Fort Rucker, Alabama.

But we are working with the HOA trying to finalize design.

They are a little concerned about in the original pictures how tall it looked compared to our house, even though the house next to us just past that stormwater drainage area is a solid two foot tall.

So we've been looking at trying to manage that to make the HOA a little bit happier about the look.

Okay.

Uh so quick question.

Uh how much is it set back from the side property line?

How do I have a survey?

But how about on the USB?

Would you like to see that?

Well, I'm what I'm trying to figure out is uh the staff admission that there's no setback issue, so that you have a five foot setback.

Yes, five foot side, but I'm trying to figure out just spatially where it where it lies in relation to everything in the grand scheme of things.

So is is uh you this lot looks like it's 109 feet wide.

That drain channel, do you have any idea about the width of that uh drainage right away?

You're looking at about 10 feet on the side.

It's minor than we have.

Okay, so the drainage is approximately 10 feet, and then your structure is about at least five away from the side property line.

So that's 15 feet of separation.

Yes.

Okay.

And uh you have the the plan doesn't necessarily reflect this, but there's like a continuity of a drainage easement that shows up on the aerial photo.

It looks like you have water coming in from the street, goes through the drainage right away, enters in the the drain channel, but on the the site plan that's presented to us, you're calling out a variable with drainage easement in your rear lot.

Do you have a drainage easement on your rear lot?

That I am not sure about.

You're saying in the back of the lot, there is a green space behind our fence, and our fence is at the edge of the property line that I'm tracking between us and then.

Yeah, I'm looking at that.

That plan right there, that little squiggly arrow line on the right is calling out a variable with drainage easement, but it does it's not reflected as as it is on the aerial for the neighbors.

I'm curious, do you do you actually have a drainage easement in the rear of your property like that?

That I'm not sure about.

I know our property goes all the way back, and our neighbors have had some flooding in that area, but I don't know of anything special in terms of our yard in that area.

Okay, because we're we're here because you're you have uh an accessory use that should be in the rear yard, but if you have a that's a huge drainage easement like that, that's that's something.

Um that the site plan is based on the survey, so if we're showing it there, that the survey does.

So you saw that from the survey.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Great.

Um any casual questions from the commission?

I'm just curious.

So the versions before us today is because the the this new addition is what uh on the side of the house versus the rear.

That's it, period.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

I don't have a problem with that.

It's you got plenty of space on the side, and you have an encumbrance in the rear yard with the drainage easement.

So if there's any other questions, anyone's time to speak.

Yes, we have two speakers.

Yes, let's see from them.

Uh first one, Mr.

Kenbrunst.

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

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Ken Albrecht.

I uh live in the neighborhood.

I live on uh at 3003 Sable Creek.

I'm not one of the 200 foot neighbors, but I am uh on the HOA's ACC committee.

Okay.

Okay.

We reviewed and denied twice uh plans for this, uh, for a number of concerns that we have with the ACC, um, as the plans that were submitted to us.

Uh to start it's our understanding that there's a 10 foot easement setback and they're asking for variance from that down to five.

Uh so that this Yeah we're not there's no setback request.

And what is the variance for?

So there's a there's a part of the Unified Illinois code that says that when you construct an accessory structure it has to be it can't be it has to be behind the front of your house.

That's so that's all the only issue that we're is before us today.

Well real quick correction it's behind the rear of the house not the front of the house.

I'm sorry I apologize yes it has to be in the rear of the house.

Well uh that's also a concern of of ours is that that there are other structures uh in this neighborhood that that uh uh detached garages are have been built either originally or uh subsequently after uh the initial development uh each one of those uh are all developed behind the footprint of the house okay uh and uh this one is seeking to build beside it and uh it's gonna drastically change the look of the house the house itself appears to be a a one story uh house um from the front facade and this unit is clearly a two story a garage and a uh uh uh second story above that the house itself does not have that appearance okay so that's a drastic uh a deviation from from the plan um also it's our opinion that that it if this could be built behind the house granted there's trees back there but sometimes you have to decide do you want trees or do you want a ADU?

And it could because there's room for it to fit all of these um uh homes on this lot uh in our neighborhood are pretty much a minimum of of half acre lots and this if built is going to put everything on the front in the appearance of a very crowded lot and the the uh other homes in the neighborhood don't have that appearance at all there's there's a great deal of distance in between homes okay so you the average homes in your neighborhood are about a half acre yes okay and you know so this is this this is this too is uh at least a half acre lot and and uh I I think that there if there's room for it to go behind the house and it would give vis visible uh uh minimal appearance behind the house okay so um we also have concerns um the electrical and and uh uh uh services that go uh to the that feed the house run along the side of the driveway between the the driveway and the drainage easement so that's gonna be uh I don't know how to point it to you I don't I don't know how to point it to you in okay oh yeah oh press it hold okay so it it it's our belief that that the uh electrical and utilities run uh in this area here uh my uh friend Randy's also pointing to it on the other one they they run here uh along uh this is the drainage easement here then the the the driveway here then there's uh planter beds and whatnot here and and and so the utilities run along in this space here just past the driveway and turn and go towards the house.

And that's where all the utilities go into the house.

Um this structure is gonna be placed on top of that.

And so what what becomes of how the utilities would be serviced if they're now buried is a concern for us.

Are they not currently buried?

They are currently buried, but they're not there's no structure on top of it.

They're just buried by planters and dirt and right.

I'm looking up the I'm I'm trying to pull up the plat right now.

I'm gonna see what kind of an easement this is.

I need to I'd like to know myself.

Uh is there any other questions for the speaker?

Manna?

Commissioner Manna?

So I actually have a question for staff.

So uh what we're talking about is a side um a structure on the side of the house.

And so if this was attached to the house, uh where the you have roof line was attached, would this be part of the dialogue then at this point?

No, no variants be required.

Okay.

Does that make sense what I just asked about?

So if it if the roof lines had touched and it was attached, then it would be permitted by right.

And so as we're kind of going through the dialogue here, you're just trying to figure out uh that the deltas here with regards to the to the structures itself.

So yes, and you you have the uh renditions that the uh uh designer put up there and I if they could pull those back.

Can can those be so on the side of the house there's a twelve foot, twelve foot drainage right of way.

Correct.

No electric.

Yeah, but the there's no electric.

There's no electric.

There is a um the plat reflects a ton foot front building setback and the electric easement is located, there's a ten foot uh there is a ten foot gas electric and telephone easement along the frontage along Rowan Forest that continues on both sides of the street.

So it looks like all your electric is and and your uh dry utilities are located in that easement.

The the electrical that feed the house though.

Right, so but once it leaves the house it it's it's gonna run a it runs underground, doesn't it?

It it does.

Okay.

But can you build a structure on top of the buried utility?

Well that's secondary that's not CPS, it's it's the o is under the homeowner.

Pardon me?

It's under the r responsibility of the holding over.

If that failed and it's buried under the house.

It's it's not a public utility at that point, it becomes an electrical issue.

So we don't know unless they know where the line is.

I mean, I wouldn't recommend building over a line.

I would probably relocate it, but that's up to the builder and you know, planning proper planning.

That's just not a con that's not something that's before this board.

So what they're the structure that that they are requesting to build um is a two-story structure and b beside what appears to be a one story house, and the scale of the of the front elevation of of the two story construction is grossly uh different than than the overall of the of the one-story house sitting next door to it.

Clearly leading to this as an addition, not not part of the original part of the house.

There's there's I believe there's plenty of room if they wanted to build it to build it behind the house behind the fence.

Well, that's the issue before the board, yeah.

So and um if the the are those my question it can those be projected?

So they're up okay, okay.

So I as you see the the the addition there, you know.

They're that granted they've made an attempt to to match materials for the house, but looking at the the facade of the addition and then looking at the s front of the house, the house certainly appears as you see in the top photo a one story house.

Okay, and and and what you have sitting next to it is So Steph, what is the zoning on this property?

R6 PUD.

So an R6 PUB you're allowed to have a two story house.

That's not an issue before this board.

That that's something that your committee can certainly entertain.

Uh but this board is that's not well then what it does sit before the the committee if I understand it is if they're asking for a variance where ordinarily these are built behind the the house, where that the code does that okay that's that that fits more with what existings in the neighborhood this would be the first one uh built beside the house okay and and and we are opposed to that okay and we we and we had it's entertained two requests for that and and denied two requests just to make sure as the notices went out to the property owners I doubt that any of these renditions went out to the property owners so people were didn't know exactly what was being requested.

So I I I it I don't know whether you can confirm that or what what notice was sent to the property owners for what was actually going to be built here.

Okay that's what was so there's no there's no this is what the and we got noticed by the uh by the HOA and and so people don't actually know that they're proposing to build uh a garage in an ADU yeah and so just to clarify on that point further uh the notice did include that page that you're holding as well as the site plan that is projected here uh being that again to the chair's point that the item before the board is just the side yard issue no we did not include any renderings three D's elevations anything like that but we did include this site plan just to show that the location was to be on the side yard of the home thank you thank you yes sir yeah so uh just so that that the board understands that that that uh we felt it strong enough to show up here and to take a half a day out of our schedules to make that the board knows that that you you so the the neighborhood does not agree that the AACC does not agree the ACC did issue a denial letter two denial letters that's in the file is that in the file okay did the applicant exercise a right to petition it to the full board I th they as of now I have not not known that they have okay they that that is within their right I was just curious.

Yeah I I as far as I know they have it uh the the applicant would have to answer that question more we do have one more speakers yeah we have another speaker thank you thank you thank you Randall Holt all right please state your name and tell us your thoughts Randall Holt I'm also on the ACC so I'm a company uh kid here and uh you have to the only thing that so you can Sir can you speak into the mic thank you yeah you can move it and there we go.

Uh the only thing I'd like to add is that in the HOA covenants all of the properties in Evans Ranch are side entry garages.

There are exceptions allowed when there are a a detached garage it has to be behind the footprint of the house and there's two in the neighborhood but every other garage is side entry.

And that's in the covenants and this doesn't meet that.

Okay.

Well thank you very much.

I don't think there's anything else uh one question I would have is has the other uh neighbors been talked to are they aware of this in addition to being sent the notice have they been talked to?

As per state code we have notified them but I cannot say about speaking with them.

Again we follow state code we what happens is is that the applicant can be as as um have as much outreach out outreach as they feel necessary to try to sway this board uh with their request um we will hear from them and we'll we'll get to we'll get to the bottom of that.

Well we've had some past issues uh with building projects in our neighborhood that's okay that um so I know so let me ask you a question is I noticed about half your neighborhood is encumbered by a uh a large drainage easement in the rear of the yards is that something that's that I notice this is also unit three is is your neighborhood uh have separate HOAs or are y'all units one two and three all one big HOA?

We're 151 properties, one HOA okay.

Do you know how many of those properties have those large drainage easements in the rear of their their home.

What do you think Ken?

Maybe twenty twenty five no no maybe maybe five or six I have one behind mine.

Okay.

And and uh but uh it's it's basically a dry creek.

Alright yeah thank you I'd I'm I just was curious.

Yeah all right thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come back forward.

So you've heard you've heard from um some commentary and we always like to see if there's any other questions and give you an opportunity to provide rebuttal um is there any questions from the commission?

Is there anything you'd like to add?

Um my under my husband's been handling all the HOA stuff so if I don't have all the details apologies for that.

But the first denial was they did not believe that it um matched the facade so that's what was the second rendering was for um and then they were still upset about that so we are very open to making it match the look that they would like.

Otherwise in terms of talking with neighbors I'm at work at the military base majority of the day and then running children around to activity so I have not been able to speak to them.

And my husband has really only been able to be here for a week here and there or some weekends just with his duty station being over in Fort Rucker.

We do have good relationships with a couple of our neighbors two down from us so if you're looking at the house two to the left uh the back of his fence he did have to move up in the yard because they've been washed out once or twice already um and he has the same green space behind us and we are right next to that uh water drainage area so we're not sure if we have a whole lot of rain how much is going to be washed through there do look there does look to be some gaps underneath the fence in the back but we've only been there a year so we're not sure what that would mean long term for any structures back there as well.

Okay and you had mentioned how many large trees you have in your rear yard.

Let's see over by the patio there's probably two or three then over along that side there's one with multiple large trunks that are probably like yay big coming out of the ground and then some probably like two or three others there and then towards the back the back right side is basically all live oaks and juniper type trees and then the back left has some space where I'm going with the question line of questioning is that so this board will sometimes hear uh it's all about hardships.

Yes you know why what's keeping you from putting this in the rear of your home like you know like the code requires so having a large drainage easement is absolutely something that that would be our concern.

Having large trees uh especially when you're over over the Edwards Aquifer, you know maintaining trees and all that good stuff is is another encumbrance uh you know maybe if you have a very large lot or something unique about your land that other people don't have is something that this board uh would like to hear about uh I notice that you're one of the few lots that have a 12 foot drainage right away there's a couple of them provided elsewhere in your neighborhood in a handful of places but you actually have an additional width that isn't encumbering anybody um it's not part of your your lot or your neighbor's lot so there's a extra twelve feet that that does add to you know everything that we're hearing today so that's the kind of stuff we're looking for if there's uh anything else you'd like to add I really wish my husband was here um yeah just a lot of big trees in the back and just how would we get things back there if we did have the garage with the ADU and the like would be difficult.

Any other questions?

I just wanted to um it looks like uh the lot slopes towards the back.

Yes.

So how much of an elevation change is is there from say the proposed site and the backyard where the ACC is preferring the addition to be there was a s like if if you look at the image the bottom portion that's pretty much leveled where where the ADU finished floor is going to be at but it slopes down to about four feet by the time it you get to the upper side of it was looking at the image.

So there's a slope going towards the back.

Just to the back of the house is like four foot.

So that's close to the finished floor and it's the stars going to this point there you're looking at closer four feet.

I'm talking about to the rear of the property.

Over here?

Yeah so it so what is the slope differential between the proposed site of the ADU and if you go towards the back of the property what's the differential?

I cannot say what I the only one I had I'm sure was here which the subdivision plat is reflecting a 10 foot drop from about the the back of the house to the back property line.

Okay.

So that would be considerable in terms of foundation to try and it's probably more than that I'm these are five foot contour so there's probably could be 12 feet just from from here you know.

So quite impractical to try and put it uh in the backyard behind the the the back of the house right another another item is is that this being over there topher the least amount of impervious cover is always best and you know running a a driveway and pushing that all the way to the rear is just additional impervious cover that serves no purpose.

So if if uh that in con in conjunction with the large trees the slope drop the twelve foot on the side and there's a lot of things piling up on this it that make me okay with it but that's just me.

Dean do you I still had a question Mr.

Chair?

What is the intent of the ADU are you gonna have a STR, a short term rental?

Oh or it would be more family members coming to visit the neighborhood doesn't seem conducive to short term rentals um but having something that if we had family visiting it would have space because we don't have a space in the home um that if they wanted they could shower make some food if they wanted without having to come into the home.

How how many in the the main house how many bedrooms are there?

Four bedrooms.

How many adults one right now but two when it gets here next month and we have four children right now.

Okay.

That's all I think yeah I was just wondering if the the hardship here if for whatever reason this motion doesn't pass, I mean ability to to just connect the two buildings with some structure and then you don't even have to call it an ADU it's just part of the building.

I think we thought about that um we have the electric and the solar panel and the gas all on that side and we're not sure honestly if we could even connect it to the house there.

The connectivity could be something simple just like a roof line connect I mean I'm not yeah yeah that uh that's a design that we thought about it just connecting the roof lines but there is a AC, um the gas meter, um the electrical meters all right here.

So code wise we will meet the requirements of clearances with what they need but that that would be a lot of uh extra work to relocate that the only other option that we thought about is just connecting rules.

But I don't I don't know that's that's more of a design option that we've thought about but we would like we would like to present this first and then think about other design options because we still have not finished with the design.

And I do believe from a city perspective we would want the walls to be connecting not like a roof connection that allowed us to connect roofs on other similar jobs to count that as being one yeah.

Uh read yes commissioner um and again I forgive forgive me if you already said this but um did you explore pushing this back I understand the trees and I understand the grade issues but um to me it does seem like there's space before you get to that uh variance flood water variance.

Do you have a certain like um aerial view of the property?

Yeah staff can you bring up an aerial view yeah so you can see there there's there's a tree right there already.

So if we start pushing it back, just even if we put it here in the back, you could it yeah it's 40 feet deep, so you'll be removing we'll be removing a few trees at that point for that um water runoff?

Maybe you can speak into the microphone, please.

Okay, sorry.

Um from that water runoff area, it does have a slope down towards the house as well.

Of what a couple feet probably from the top at the fence line down to kind of where the house is, just for that small section as well.

Okay, is there any other questions?

Well, thank you very much.

All right, well, I'm looking for a motion.

No, we're we're closed.

We're too late, sorry.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103092, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance from the UDC accessory dwelling unit standards to allow a new accessory dwelling unit in the side yard of the property situated at 22315 Rhone Forest applicant being Barrett Campbell, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Allowing the accessory dwelling unit within the side yard will preserve existing mature trees in the rear yard while maintaining adequate spacing on the property and compatibility with the surrounding residential area.

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

Strict application of the rear yard placement requirement would necessitate the removal of established trees and limit reasonable development of the property despite sufficient space existing within the side yard.

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

The requested variance supports the intent of the ordinance by allowing an appropriately scaled residential accessory structure while minimizing environmental impacts and preserving the existing character of the site.

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

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

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

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

Second.

I'll be in favor of this uh for a couple of reasons.

I'm I'm always in favor of maintaining mature trees.

Um I think that there's with these larger lots, there's clearly adequate buffer from the front property line, the side property line given the drainage easement.

Um I think that the overall height of the the structure while maybe slightly taller than the uh the primary residence is still appears to be lower than the budding property.

Um I think that limiting impervious cover to the front of the property maintains all this nice vegetation towards the rear.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I I'm I concur with my colleague.

Um, the city's recommended approval uh others as well.

And as I take a look at all of the as we go and look at other um requests such as this, you know, it's it's we have seldom voted against this kind of development, and so I don't you know if I try to be apples apples as I look at everybody else who's put in a similar request, yeah.

We've been voting in or I've voted in favor.

Um additionally, you know, so several of the things that are being requested, you know, with regards to heights in that that's by right.

And so there's uh um an architectural dialogue can happen within the community itself to weigh into uh how that goes and and it does appear that the applicant is being um it is um trying to work with with the org with the neighborhood association to resolve that part of it and and so uh so I think some of it will be handled outside of this dialogue so outside of that you know I I see no reason to uh to not approve this.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add uh I'll just say I'm in favor uh mostly because the items I stated because this being over the edge of a for reducing impervious cover is super important, saving the big trees, super important and this one's unique because it has uh a large 12 foot uh drainage and on the side of it so there's much extra padding so let's have a roll call vote Commissioner Stevens yes I concur Commissioner Menna I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Reed Yes I concured I concur Commissioner Dean Commissioner Bragman I concur with the findings of fact commissioner Osuna yes I concur Commissioner Bunnyas Commissioner Vasquez I concur Chair Orion and I covered the findings of fact motion passes ten to zero um you still got to deal with the uh HOA so please uh coordinate with them but thank you.

Yes, we're gonna be taking a seven to eight minute break.

We'll see you all back in about three thirty.

333 you're back in session.

All right.

Uh let's see item number seven sorry.

Good afternoon.

Joel Velas and your planner with the Board of Adjustment.

Item 7 is BOA-26-103 00094.

The applicant being Josevel Vega in District 10 the address is 10903 Lazy Oaks Drive.

This is a request for a three foot nine inch variance from the minimum required ten foot front setback to allow carport with a six foot three inch front setback and two a three foot two inch variants from the minimum five foot side setback to allow a carport with a one foot ten inch west side setback uh the subject property is generally located west of the intersection of Macadochis and Wurzbach Parkway along Lacey Oak Drive and it's uh surrounded by other properties zoned R6 single family district a code enforcement investigation of the property began in October 2022 in response to a citizen report from which a notice of violation was issued for building a carport without a permit in January 2023 the property owner obtained a side and front setback variance from the board of adjustment and a permit for the carport was con uh was issued required inspections were not completed within six months and the issued permit expired in July 2023 a new permit was issued in August 2024 which also expired in December 2025.

Variance granted by the Board of Adjustment expired in January 2023 excuse me January 2024 and can no longer be used for the issuance of a new permit.

Prior to the issuance of a new permit the completion of the and completion of remaining inspections the property owner must obtain a new variance approval from the board of adjustment staff observed car ports in the area similarly encroaching into minimum required setbacks but now found no approved variances for such construction shown here is the subject property from the front yard and here's a better look at the side setback for that carport structure and the surrounding area you can see some of these carports in the area.

Staff recommendation for the front and side setback variances staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact one the proposed side setback does not provide adequate space to maintain the structure without accessing adjacent property or to mitigate against potential damage from fire spread and water runoff.

Two the proposed front setback would not observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to promote orderly development and the preservation of open front yard space in the single family resid residential district.

And three, there's adequate space over the existing driveway to construct a carport which complies with minimum required setbacks.

Staff mailed out 23 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition one voicemail was returned in favor and there is keeping you know they obtained a permit but they didn't get the inspections.

What what what would the was any work done?

Was anything done to move forward for progress?

So the carport was obviously already constructed, um so the kind of order of operations is you know you get your approval from the board of adjustment, that's good for a year, your permit once you obtain it is good for six months.

They went through that kind of uh ringer twice to get their permit, which expired.

They got another permit that also expired to keep that permit from expiring within that six month period, you have to call an inspection, either framing inspection or final.

I believe those are the only two inspections required for a carport, framing and final.

So really the thing is holding that's holding them up at this time is getting a final inspection with the score port, which was never failed.

Did inspections fail anything?

I mean I can find that out.

I don't have a record of failed inspection, but the the final it needs to be resulted, I mean in four of half.

It sounds like they got a permit and it didn't do anything.

Is that true or I will find that out uh what which inspections were resulted on those permits?

Okay.

Yeah, give me one second.

And let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, state your name.

So, uh, um, uh, yeah, uh, me recommendaron que tenía que acudir a esta junta, uh, uh project, but yeah.

So yes, hi, good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Uh I'm Jose Esquivel Vega, and I live at uh 10903 Lacey Oaks Drive.

I'm the property owner, and I'm here uh looking for support in the sense to get approved the final permit, um because I contacted the uh personnel and I was told that it was expired, and um I need to get the final inspection done.

Uh there was a hearing before and it was approved, and for that I thank you.

I thank the public as well.

Is has the applicant received any inspections from the city uh under that permit.

Yes, uh actually I received a person at home that uh did an inspection and he found that it was there was an unlevel part, it was three uh pulgadas, dijo, three pulgadas, uh yeah, it was uh three uh inches or something.

Uh in uh um and uh he told me that I needed to hire someone to fix that, and I came and I presented a letter.

Usted present.

I presented a structural letter.

Yeah, and there is listed all of the information and also the name for that contract.

Yeah, and I'll go ahead and add on here just a little bit as well.

Um the first permit that was issued, no inspections were resulted on that one, that one expired.

The second permit was issued.

There's three inspections that are required for a carport foundation uh with a letter, um, which was submitted by an engineer, framing and final foundation with letter pass, and like you said, he submitted that that engineered letter.

Uh the framing failed comments, that uh the structure was leaning about three inches.

I guess that's in reference to the post.

It doesn't specify carport structure leaning to left about three inches.

So I guess there was some structural issue at that point.

It just hasn't been completed.

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

Is there any questions from the commission?

No.

Manna, Commissioner Manna?

So there was uh um a phone bell left um on the system.

Was it the applicant who left that phone mail message or was that somebody else who left that message?

So it was definitely the question is that yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I was gonna I had asked uh, you know, based on what discussion I heard from the rest of the commission to have staff read or at least uh translate the voicemail, but if it's from the applicant, and then the second question, um, try to find the case.

Do we know if the prior dialogue included gutters on the structure as well?

Um, because it um, you know, it is a buddy that property, and historically, you know, we've asked for that, and so just will make sure that that's included as well.

So does it so maybe the applicant do you recall in the prior approval whether or not uh the board had asked for gutters to be applied uh onto the carport itself?

Well, staff can look up the uh, so yeah, uh yeah, we have a provider.

Yes, yes.

In fact, I've already spoken with a company to come over and give me an estimate for that.

So this is it was included.

Is he amending his application to include gutters?

Uh well, no younger, no me no, semi-approvo, so.

Okay.

So uh yes, but when I got approved, um uh they didn't mention anything about it.

So staff on the previous VOA approval, can you see it the uh minutes?

Yeah, the the previous approval notice of decision that was sent to the applicant did not include a reference to gutters, did not.

Okay, did not, yeah.

But would the applicant amend their application?

Is that something they're interested in doing today?

Ponerle botawas, uh, you know, you're so yeah.

So yeah, it's better que vaya.

Yes, I'm willing to do so, and I'm waiting for the contractor to come and then.

Well, thank you very much.

Is there any other questions?

Here now let's have a um looking for a motion.

Commissioner Braggman, regarding case number BOA-26-103094, I moved the board of adjustment grant a request for one three foot nine inch variants from the minimum required ten foot front setback to allow a carport with uh six foot three-inch front setback and two a three point three foot two inch variants from the minimum required five foot setback to allow a carport with gutters uh with a one-foot 10-inch west side setback situated at one zero nine zero three lazy oaks drive.

Applicant being Jose Escavel Vega, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of this property is such 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, these variances would not be contrary to public interest as the proposed setbacks provide adequate space to maintain the structure without accessing adjacent property and to maintain open front yard space.

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

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

There is not sufficient width and depth over the existing driveway to construct a carboard, which complies with the minimum front and side setback standards.

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

There would be adequate space between adjacent property and the front property line to mitigate against damage from fire spread and water runoff and to prevent to properly maintain the side of the structure without accessing adjacent property.

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

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

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

These variances would not substantially injure adjacent conforming property.

A sufficient space would remain to maintain the structure and preserve open front yard space.

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

The encroachments into the minimum required front and side setbacks are the result of limited space on the property and over the existing driveway to construct uh behind the minimum required setbacks end of motion.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Brandman.

Uh yeah, I'll be in support of the motion with the addition of the gutters on the carport and the fact that there are other carports in the neighborhood, so it's not out of character.

And obviously, he'll still have to pass all the um permits inspections.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

Yeah, I'll be support in support of this.

I think uh this was previously approved, and the applicant having to come back for approval is really based on a function of time.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

So have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Osina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Item number 8.

Good afternoon.

Joel Velas and your planner with the Board of Adjustment.

Item 8 is BOA-26-103095.

The applicant being Leroy Davila in District 2 at 1730 Nolan Street.

This is a request for one, a four-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport to be six inches from the east side property line, and two, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow an eleven-foot six-inch driveway clear vision area.

The subject property is located west of the intersection of Nolan Street and Lockhart Street and is surrounded by property zoned R4 and MF 33.

Aerial imagery indicates a carport was erected in the east side yard of the property as early as February 2024.

A code enforcement investigation of the property began in response to a citizen call in April 2026 from which a notice of violation was issued to the property owner for building a carport without a permit.

Given the carport's location, a permit cannot be issued without the applicant first demonstrating compliance with minimum side setback standards or the issuance of a setback variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Staff also identified noncompliance with the minimum required driveway clear vision area with regard to a predominantly open front yard fence on the property.

Although a permit was issued for the construction of such fence in April 2026, the construction must still comply with all applicable code standards, the front fence line follows the front property line, as do fences on several other properties along this block face.

Shown here is a site plan, just denoting the location of that carport again in the east side yard and the front yard, driveway clear vision being an issue in this case.

Here's the front view of the property from the street, and a better look of that carport.

Shown here is kind of just a comparison of what the five-foot side setback would look like in comparison to the construction of the carport as currently as currently shown and the driveway clear vision area.

Again, about 11 foot six inch area there and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the carport setback variance.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed setback does not provide adequate space to maintain the eastern roof line of the carport without accessing adjacent property, and two, the proposed setback directly contributes to an increased risk of damage to adjacent property from excess water runoff and driveway clear vision variants.

Staff recommends approval based on the following findings of fact.

One, this variance is not contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient separation between the street and this predominantly open front fence, allowing oncoming traffic to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right-of-way, and two, granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to ensure a minimum level of visibility to safely utilize a driveway.

Staff mailed 43 notices, zero returned in favor, zero in opposition.

We received no voicemails, and the Harvard Place East Lawn Neighborhood Association did not respond.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

We meet again.

Thank you.

So and just so you know, just to get this out of the way, you're more than welcome to amend your application to include gutters.

Yes, and the reason why it wasn't on there is because we I went through several stages in my life.

I got diagnosed with cancer.

So our money got, you know, our priority set changed a little bit.

So that was the full intention.

And then I got this notice, and I was like, I better wait to find out what they cite first before I put gutters on it.

So are you are you officially not going to do it?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Uh, is there any questions from the commission?

Hearing none.

Um, all right.

Well, is there anyone signing to speak on this issue?

No public.

No public comment.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

This shoot for a motion here.

Who would like to make a motion on this one?

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 26103-00095.

I moved to the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for one, a four-foot six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport with gutters to be six inches from the east side property line, and two, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required fifteen-foot driveway clear vision area to allow 11-foot six-inch driveway clear vision area situated at 1730 Nolan Street.

Applicant being Leroy Deval Devala, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we had determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the liberal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Regarding carport setback, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as the proposed setback provides adequate space to maintain the eastern roof line of the carport without accessing adjacent property.

Regarding driveway clear vision, the variance does not is not contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient separation to in the street and this predominantly open fence, allowing oncoming traffic to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right of way.

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

Regarding carport setback, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

As there's adequate space to maintain a structure without accessing adjacent property.

And two, with uh regarding driveway clear vision, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the current location of the fence provides a sufficiently clear uh vision area to view oncoming traffic and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right-of-way.

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

Granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance as a proposed setback provides sufficient space to maintain the structure and does not increase the risk of damage to adjacent property from water runoff.

And regarding driveway clear vision, granting the variants will uh would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the existing separation between the fence and the street provides adequate space to view oncoming traffic and maneuver a vehicle into the right of way, especially considered the fence is predominantly open.

Um, the variants would not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which this property is located.

Um uses other than those allowed within the district would be allowed with this variance.

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

Uh regarding carport setback, the variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent forming property as the proposed setback provides sufficient space to maintain the carport without accessing adequate property, and regarding driveway clear vision, the variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent performing property or alter the central character of the district as an adequate clear vision area would remain to support safe use of the driveway.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, they're not merely financial, and are not due to or the result of general conditions in district, which is property is located regarding carport setback, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance of sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, including the limited space to place a carport elsewhere on the property, and regarding driveway clear vision, the plight of the order of the property is due to the width of the right of way dedication for pedestrian use and emotion.

Second second by Commissioner Stevens, Commissioner Manna.

So the um so number uh, I guess two, the second point with regards to clear vision, the city's recommended approval and and I concur.

And with regards to the carport, you'll um we just voted on one, you know, with approval and uh doing a Google drive.

Uh there are a significant number of homes uh on this on this particular block face as well as on the block that also have similar structures, and so it seems consistent with this community, and therefore I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with everything my colleagues said, and I will be in support as well.

All right, thank you.

Is there any of the commissioners like to add?

Hearing none is a roll call vote.

I concur with the findings of fact.

I'll wait.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I can care.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Alright, thank you.

Item number 10.

No, we already did not.

Good afternoon.

Item number 10 is BOA-26-10309-7, located at 8209 Landing Avenue in District 4.

The zoning is C2 conditional use for light automotive maintenance.

And the request is for one, a 20-foot variance from the minimum 30-foot rear setback to allow 10 foot rear setback.

Two, a nine foot variance from the minimum 15-foot buffer requirement to allow a six-foot buffer from the north property line, and three, a three-foot variance from the minimum 15-bit foot buffer requirement to allow a 12-foot buffer from the east property line.

The subject property is located on the corner of landing avenue in loop 410 access road.

Surrounding base zoning districts consist of consist of R6, MF33, C T C D with a conditional use for a funeral home, C3 and C3R.

Subject property is a butting R6 zone lots with a multifamily apartment use to the east and a vacant lot to the north.

The case originated from the submission of a commercial project permit application that does not meet required setbacks.

Per staff's visit to the site in May 2026.

Construction of the base for the building was started.

The approval of the commercial building permit is dependent on the outcome from Board of Adjustment.

And this is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval for the rear setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, the property's address off landing avenue and not the interstate access road, which provides limited space for the proposed development to meet the minimum rear setback requirement.

The applicant would still be required to provide a landscape buffer along the rear property line, which would contribute to the separation between the subject property and the property to the north.

And the proposed setback provides adequate separation from the lot to the north, which appears to be an appropriately zoned R6.

Staff recommends it says approval, but staff recommends denial for the buffer based on the following findings of fact.

Granting a reduction in the buffer requirement would not serve the intent of the ordinance, which is to provide separation between base zoning districts with differing levels of intensity for traffic and noise.

The standard is especially important for residents who live within close proximity to commercial properties.

The proposed development could still be altered to adhere to buffer requirements for commercial properties, abutting residential properties.

Staff mailed out 20 notices, zero received in favor, one was received in opposition to item number three only.

For voicemails, zero received in favors or in opposition.

And Lackland Terrace Neighbor Association did not provide response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

I think you did I haven't seen this that often, but on your uh the one X that was on there, it just said to item number three.

Yeah, so the person that submitted opposition was just for item number three.

They were they had no comment for items number one or two.

But three's on the east property line.

That's not the one that's next to them, right?

So they didn't they didn't mind about the buffer reduction next to their lock.

The the response that was recorded for them is in regards to an easement that was on the subject property.

There was some discussion on whether the easement was for access to the property, but looking further into it, the easement is not for ingress or egress.

But that's why they were opposed to item number three, even though it's you're talking about the seven and a half foot easement on either side of that common lot line that shoots up and down.

The easement that this person was concerned about is an easement that's right there.

Yeah, that I did I worked on a project a block away from this, and I know they have seven and a half, they have these easements that run.

It's it's an old plat.

So yeah, I think there's just some discussion on what what kind of easement it was, and they were under the impression it was an access easement.

So, the easement.

Yeah, one block to the south.

I did a social.

Stuff was I correct on your recommendation.

Can you uh repeat the recommendation for the uh staff's recommendation?

Yes, uh apologies.

So staff's recommendation is approval for the rear setback variants.

Um this was incorrectly typed.

Staff recommendation.

Wait, sorry.

Oh, denial for the rear setback.

Oh my gosh.

We are recommending denial for the buffers and approval for the rear setback.

Mana.

This is incorrectly typed for the buffers.

Okay, could you bring so could you bring up the um the site plan picture and then point out what you're recommending and which you are there?

You go.

So the rear setback, number one, we are recommending approval for, which encompasses this whole area.

And then for number two and three, we were recommending denial, which is the green and the orange.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Please state your name and tell us about your project.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Sure.

My name is David Garcia, and I'm here representing the owners, Mr.

Juan, Mr.

Juan and Cindy De Hado.

This project is to if you want to just show the uh the layout, please.

This project is to build a uh metal style building for a uh small print shop, uh mom and pop print shop.

It's uh, and the reason for the location of the building is so that we have enough space for parking for the staff and for customers.

Uh that is why we try to push it as close as we could to the rear property, which if you're looking on 410, it actually looks like it's running 410, not landing, and so it's we took that as a side uh property, not the the rear property.

Again, it's for a uh it's a small uh metal style building, warehouse building, with uh an up two offices, a break room, and uh a big space for the printing machines.

This is for uh screen printing for shirts and uh sweaters, whatever screen printing there is.

Spur shirts, yeah, legal ones, so and and I know uh the buffer, I know she mentioned approval of the building going up to 10 feet and the buffer, we are okay with the buffer, right?

With the I know it's 15 feet required, but if the building's allowed to go 10 feet, you know, the whole 10 uh the whole 10 feet can be the buffer, so we're okay with that.

On the other side, we do have 22 feet from the other property, so we do have more than the 15 required on the that would be the side of the property.

So, are you saying that that uh you're you're okay with providing a 15-foot buffer on the east side?

So on the east side, we have 22 feet.

The problem is that there's a slab that we're putting on there, and we don't the slab is about nine feet, I believe.

So it it leaves what um 13 feet from the slab to the property, but there's really nothing gonna go on there.

Is the slab is just for basically a trash can so that the big dump truck doesn't uh make a hole the asphalt or whatever we put on there, okay?

All right, and so does does uh on that side property line, you also have that utility easement.

That is correct.

And if you go to the pictures that I've provided, so there's the uh the first one, please.

Okay, this yeah, that one.

So that's the survey, and that's the seven and a half foot uh easement.

That's for a sewer line that's actually servicing there's a hotel on the third property that it needed that sewer service.

So there is a public sewer line running across the pro the three properties.

It is not an access easement, it is a utility easement, and it's only seven and a half.

Right, and then your neighbor also has a seven and a half.

That is correct.

So that that survey that that line runs all the way across the neighbors, and I believe his his letter says that it's an access easement, and that's why he doesn't want the building, but it's not, it's just the utility easement.

I think he based it off of the driveway, but I want to say the driveway so that they can maintain the sewer line.

This this was a really old platinum.

I remember it's like for the 30s or 40s or something.

This the uh subdivision was in the 1950s.

Oh, 50s.

Oh wow, that's awesome.

Lackland Terrace uh subdivision.

Right.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

So what did what did we summarize for the setbacks and the buffers?

What was um, well, he was uh the applicant had mentioned that he's gonna be um 19 minus uh 13 feet away, but he's asking for 12 uh to go down to 12 from 15.

You want the three foot reduction on the east side, uh, which seems seems fine.

Uh and then the rear, he's saying he can go to a 10 feet, make the whole 10 foot setback instead of uh a six foot reduction, ask for a five foot reduction to get to 10.

Is that correct?

But if I'm allowed to, so if you go back to the layout, please, I think I have it on the second one.

Yeah, so if I'm allowed to have just those two four by eight slabs to have the AC unit and a compressor being installed there, I know that the buffers for noise, but I believe the highway four ten makes a lot more noise than anything in the area.

The cars going by really fast.

So we all know highway noise is pretty pretty loud.

Okay, I mean we we can read these motions, you know, to include or exclude or whatever, but uh the actual wall of your building is will is you're you're intending it to be ten feet away from ten feet, ten a couple of inches, ten and three inches.

How big how big are those those obstructions that you show back there?

The which was the those air condensers or your uh they're eight by four.

Eight by four, yes.

Okay.

All right.

Um is there anyone sign to speak or I don't see anyone else?

No public speakers.

Okay.

I so any other questions for the applicant.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

I just want to make sure that that you're understanding that these are these are landscape buffers, they're not just setbacks.

Yeah, and that's why uh, yeah, I know, and I know that the on that side is fifteen feet required.

So we could we can do all grass.

I just asked that we are allowed to do the A by eight by four, four feet being the the shorter side, and up, of course, right?

And eight feet on the other side.

So we're gonna be six feet of separation between the end of the uh slab to the property.

And again, it's just a small slab.

And we could do all grass on the back, and same over here.

If we need the 15th to be grass, we we're we're okay if we'll do that.

In a landscape buffer, there has to be some plantings.

I can't just be grass.

Correct.

I did contact Mr.

Ricardo Spinoza and I try to ask him if we could do Cyruscape or something different and and uh uh basically apply for it and and see what we could do look at.

I do know that if I do trees on this side, that would actually be um it would be in the way of the sewer main if they ever need to go maintain it and they gotta remove the trees again if they don't need to, but then they would have to because the tree roots will go into the the sewer line, that could also be in the way.

So I know that that uh planting trees would be uh again, hopefully it's looked at and and uh we're not required to do trees in the back.

If we have to do any type of trees or uh brush, the only problem is that the area, there's a couple of home homeless people, and if we do trees or bushes, they could hide it in the back.

We have had that problem in the past.

Um I did speak with Mel Melila Lechuga, who's the Lackland Terror's uh homeowners association, about say chair, and she did mention the the problem with the homeless people.

She was actually in favor of this because right now she said there is a problem on the property about homeless people getting in there, you know, trash.

I have another picture where you can see a mattress.

I don't know if you want to scroll through it.

Yeah.

Um you can see the mattress there, so people dumping things there too.

Yeah, the thing the problem with this is not a problem, but the issue with this area was it was intended to be a residential area.

Correct.

As you go further south, it forced commercial development on all those frontage homes and they weren't that big, and then they were inundated with these seven and a half foot eases.

I I remember going through that couple blocks of the south and and remembering, you know, noticing those those hardships.

So I mean I I understand why you're here.

I'm just trying to, you know, we always want to see what the most you can do.

So that we're we're we're voting on and and talking about, you know, like trying to get something.

Correct, you know.

And and and that's where we're here, you know.

We don't we're not here to take it all, right?

Uh we're here to work together, and uh that's why we're willing to work in the back where you know if we're required to put brush or bushes or something, we you can do that out with with uh landscaping and with uh Mr.

Espinoza, yes, sir.

Okay.

Is there any questions?

I mean, anybody?

No.

All right and I would so and and just so my understanding is even if we reduce the buffer, this the same requirement for whatever is supposed to have been in the buffer needs to still be in the buffer.

Yes.

And so the number of trees number bushes and so it's so even if they shrink it basically you're just um um massing that buffer in that space and so so still the requirements still exist and so that's my understanding at least he'll have to do something.

So as long as I'm allowed to put the building the within 10 feet you know that's we all comply with whatever it's required.

Okay.

Always good to hear so there's nothing else any questions I'm looking for a motion.

Commissioner Yeah I'm reading it as as stated right no change okay regarding case number BOA-26-1030097 I moved that the board of adjustment grant to request for it one a 20 foot variance from the minimum 30 foot rear setback to allow a 10 foot rear setback to a nine foot variance from the minimum 15 foot buffer requirement to allow a six foot buffer from the north property line and three a three foot variance from the minimum 15 foot buffer requirement to allow a 12 foot buffer from the east property line situated at 8209 landing avenue applicant being David Garcia because the testimony presented to us and the facts would be determined so that the physical character of this property cites that a literal literal enforcement of provisions of the UDC as amended would result in a necessary hardship specifically we find that one the variance is not contrary to the public interest the lot of budding to the north is a vacant lot and would not be impacted by the proposed development furthermore the applicant would still be required to provide a landscape buffer along the rear and side property lines which would contribute to the separation between the subject property and the abutting lots to due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

The literal enforcement of the ordinance would necessitate the alteration of the proposed development as the property is addressed off landing avenue and not the interstate access road which provides limited space for the proposed development to meet the minimum rear setback and buffer yard requirements three by granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

Granting a rear setback and buffer reduction to the systems would still observe the spirit of the ordinance and there would still be distance between the proposed structure and the abutting property lines which is the intent of minimum setback and buffer requirements for the variance not 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 other uses would no other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Now five such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the central character of the district in which the property is located granting the variances would not injure the adjacent conforming lots as the abutting property to the north is vacant and locate located between existing commercial zone properties and there would still be requirement to implement a buffer in the rear inside yards even if reduced six apply to the owner of the property for its variance of side is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property and the unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property not merely financial not due to other result of general conditions the district which the property is located.

Addressing off landing avenue the config the configuration of the proposed development is limited in the motion.

Second second by Commissioner Manna Commissioner Zuna so I'll be supporting the variances as red and we have city approval for the setback requirements the buffers the applicant is is meeting the spirit of the buffer setbacks with the grass and other plantings that will be required and this hardship variant the variance for this hardship uh if if approved allows the uh economic use of the property for the printing press and I think that that's a valuable use of the property.

Thank you and Commissioner Manna?

So potentially a friendly amendment but and maybe if I misunderstood it for number three could it just be for that uh for that concrete piece that has been defined per map um so therefore the rest of it isn't impacted so that way they can't do that all the way down the yeah let's see me pull up that side button it looks like that's at least a four foot and maybe it's probably a six by twenty foot pad or something.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, see we use I see what you're saying is is uh um because they're only asking for three foot and it's certainly bigger than three or wider than three foot.

So if it's just that side section, then we're limiting it to that to just to that piece that's that's truly uh impacted by the buffer.

I'm gonna ask the applicant one quick question.

Sure.

Is that a loading dock?

No, that would be for the trash pickup.

We wanted to keep the the dumpster inside the property, because right now it the properties in the area.

Going in between there.

That was that was the intent.

Yeah, but because we're having to do the buffer, yeah, that's correct.

Okay, and so then the whole that whole back piece is gonna be concrete then?

So to get back to it, then it would have been uh mostly asphalt and concrete.

That is correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Then uh then I guess I withdraw that.

Thank you.

So is that good or bad?

We're okay.

Okay.

Is there a commissioner?

I'm looking for a second.

That was a second on mine.

So, so Commissioner Zuna.

I gave a comment already.

And Commissioner Manna, any comment and additional commentary?

No.

Anyone else like to add?

No, all right.

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Azina?

Yes, I concur.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I can current.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve the finance of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

You have any questions, give the staff?

Thank you.

Last case item number 11.

Good afternoon.

Joel Vela, senior planner with the board of adjustment.

Item eleven is BOA-26-103098.

The applicant being Killin Griffin and Ferramon, PLL C in District 1.

The address is 8042 Pinebrook Drive, and this is a request for a five-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot wide type C landscape buffer yard to allow a 10-foot landscape buffer yard along the rear and east side property lines.

The subject property is located northeast of the intersection of Highway 10 and Callahan Road along Pinebrook Drive and is surrounded by property zones C3, C2, C3, and C2 to the west, and a multifamily development zone MF33 to the east.

The applicant proposes the construction of a new automatic car wash on the subject property.

The UDC requires a 15-foot wide type C buffer between new development on parcel zone C3 and parcel zone MF33.

The applicant proposes a reduction of this requirement to allow a 10-foot landscape buffer yard along the east side and rear property lines.

Shown here is a site plan just uh depicting that again uh just the reduction of the landscape buffer yard along the multifamily development.

Uh this is the subject property, current conditions.

And this is also on the subject property.

This is standing in the rear yard looking over that uh back property line into the multifamily development.

Uh that's behind there.

Just is just to kind of illustrate the elevation change that's present on the property.

And looking to the east, that same multifamily development, uh, another elevation change present there to a lesser degree.

And this is the surrounding area.

For the landscape buffer variants, staff recommends denial.

Uh the variance is contrary to the public interest as the request would effectively eliminate roughly 33% of the minimum required landscape buffers, which would not adequate adequately screen the proposed use from adjacent property, and two that such variants would substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property as tenants of the abutting multifamily use would be subject to excessive noise and the loss of privacy created by the proposed facility without appropriate landscape buffer yards.

Staff mailed 10 notices, we received none in favor or opposition, no voicemails, and the San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association did not respond.

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

And just a quick question.

Uh, I'm sure I'll ask the applicant too, but does this this car wash look like it was wall-to-wall concrete?

Correct.

That's current conditions on site, except for uh that here.

Uh I mean, difficult to say where that rear property line exactly lies lies, um, and this photo, but this would be kind of the only kind of green space currently present on the property.

And also on the side plan that shows the uh yeah, this one right here.

What are those curved uh and dashed lines that are denoted by uh letter C?

Are those just uh you know what kind of easements those are?

Because one of them kind of looks like it crosses through the property line as it gets towards the front.

Oh, over the gotcha.

No, I can look into that for you though.

Yeah, I can find out here.

Maybe the applicant will.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, drainage.

Gotcha.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Have the advocate come forward, state your name.

Tell us about the car wash.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Emily Weissler with Killing Griffin and Fairman, 1011 reunion place, suite 250.

Um, here on behalf of the property owner at 8042 Pine Brook.

Um, as staff mentioned, this is a five-foot variance request to the 15-foot type C buffer yard requirement on the rear and east property lines.

Um, for this uh to Commissioner Manor's earlier point.

Um, we are not asking for any changes to the type C requirements, just the width of that buffer yard.

Um this property's a just inside I-10 and Callahan.

Um you could have seen, I don't know where the pointer went.

Thank you.

Um, the commercial development right here.

This is the Law School Office if you're familiar with it.

Um, we are right here on Pinebrook in Callahan.

Um, this is an existing self-service car wash uh that was built 40 years ago.

Um it is not in service anymore.

Um it is abutting the Valero.

There is an access easement here, so we have access from Callahan as well as Pine Brook across the street is the University Health Center uh technology services, and then the Woodway apartments surrounding it.

Property is C3 that allows the car wash by right.

The existing self-service car wash is 1680 square feet.

There's also an additional 1,300 square foot secondary secret vacuum base right behind the car wash.

So that car wash um as it's oriented now is property line to property line.

Um and then what we are proposing with zero landscape buffering now.

What we are proposing is uh 1681 square foot um express tunnel car wash, it will be reoriented from horizontally to vertically across the property.

Um there will not be that separate vacuum base stall um with the 10-foot landscaping.

The 15 foot buffer is triggered by the MF 33, um, and with the skip for uh I'll come back, but with all due respect to staff, um what we are actually abutting is dilapidated fencing shipping containers.

Um this is a better view here, um, and uncovered parking.

Um this has been in existence for 40 years.

The apartments predated that by less than a handful of years.

Um, so the existing uh alignment of those two uses, the car wash next to the apartments has been in existence for decades.

Um, the proposed new car wash is uh quieter, more efficient, a better use of water resources, one of our most precious resources, um, and is going to provide the landscape buffering that does not exist presently.

Um, as staff mentioned, there is some elevation changes, it's about 14 feet in the rear, um, five to seven as you come around towards Pine Brook, and then about two.

So there will be some build-up and retaining wall along with that landscape buffer.

This is a better image of you can see that rear drop-off, which is a very unique circumstance on the back rear of the property.

And again, it it decreases in elevation as you get closer to Pine Brook.

That's the secondary structure for the vacuums.

Um, as I mentioned, we do not actually abut those residents, but all of the accessory uses of those um apartments.

Um, but this is a pre-existing condition.

Um staff does know that C3 permits the car wash by right.

Um, we do feel that the proposed variants, just a small five-foot reduction with the type C requirements is more than reasonable and a significant site improvement as well as improvement for um that existing multi-family.

Um again, much more efficient, environmentally sensitive operation.

This self-service car wash is not in operation.

It is not serving the community in any way, shape, or form.

Um, it collects trash, um, all sorts of activity on there.

Um, and we'd like to get a new and improved um use out of that property, something that is actually serving the community.

Again, there is no landscape buffer yard present on the site.

So in addition to the 10-foot proposed rear and eastern property lines, there are two landscape areas as well.

And I'll circle back really quick and just leave it on the site plan.

You can see those two additional landscape areas along the frontage of Pine Brook, which currently leaves a lot to be desired.

And then again, an additional landscape pattern in the rear.

So we moved it to the opposite side of the property, created as much separation of those uses as possible.

Right now there is quite literally zero separation of those uses.

And so that is put the parking there, the landscaping, the parking, and push that car wash closest to the backside of that Valero convenience store frontage.

So respectfully request your support for the request as is.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

Braggman, thank you, Commissioner Brankman.

Uh, and this could be for staff or for the applicant.

What uh exactly is included in a type C landscape buffer.

I can tell you.

Um it is four, and staff can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it's four canopy trees, eight understory, eighteen large shrubs, and sixteen medium shrubs.

Is that per hundred feet?

For a hundred feet, yes.

And and how what is the what how how big is the that gonna be?

I mean, how many hundred feet are we talking about here on the on these site plans?

Um I believe the the length um the property is less than ninety feet wide and about just a little over two hundred feet deep.

Okay, like a considerable amount of landscaping would be required.

Correct, and some of those, there are a few trees currently on there, um, hack berries, um, and then just a lot of overgrown brush and shrubbery there, so it would be all replaced and and beautified there.

And for the additional um areas that you highlighted on your what is that just gonna be grass or shrubbery or what on Pine Brook, and also that center island?

Yeah, three trees on Pine Brook, and then a variety of well landscaped no trees for the microphone.

Dean, Commissioner Dean.

Do y'all have uh vacuums or uh okay?

Like uh self-serve vacuum or uh, right, on those, yes.

So you would enter in through, come turn our washstone around and pull in those would have vacuums there.

Okay, thank you.

Awesome.

Mana, Commissioner Manning.

So the the north side of that boundaries, so are you changing the are you reducing the amount of landscaping that's the landscape buffer that's currently there, or are you keeping the same amount on the on the north side or whatever that top part?

Yes, so so the green along the top row, is that being reduced at all from what's currently there, or is it the same?

No, there's nothing there.

There's nothing there.

So you're actually adding it on both sides.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I can that's what it looks like in the rear.

Perfect.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Um I assume there's no one here to speak on this, but uh, no public comment.

Okay.

Anyone like to make a motion?

Fragment.

Commissioner Brankman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030098.

I mean, the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a five foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot type C landscape buffer yard to allow a 10-foot landscape buffer yard along the rear and east side property lines situated at 8042 Pine Book Drive, applicant being Killen Griffin and Faramond PLL C because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property is such 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 variance is not contrary to the public interest as the request would reduce the minimum required landscape buffers by uh roughly 33 percent, which would adequate adequately screen the proposed use from adjacent 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 unnecessary hardship, as the proposed reduction would still provide an adequate transition space and screening between uses.

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

Granting this variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance, as the proposed buffer would provide appropriate screening and create a transition space between this high intensity use from adjacent low intensity residential uses.

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 the district will be allowed with this variance.

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

Such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property, as the proposed buffer would improve existing conditions, as no buffer currently exists on this property to create any screening or transition space.

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

The plight of the owner of the property, which the variance is sought is due to existing conditions on the property, including limited developable space and the existing lack of a landscape buffer yard.

Although the variance will not allow for a reduced, although the variance would allow for a reduced buffer yard, the proposed ten-foot yard would be an improvement where no buffer yard exists currently.

End of motion.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and second, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh yeah, I'll be in support of this motion.

Um obviously if this property has satell for a number of years, uh, it'll be put revenue back into uh you know property taxes, business taxes, but also the fact that there's no existing buffer yard will add additional um distance between the properties and the adjacent multifamily, as the applicant pointed out, is um parking structure, um, and so it's not adjacent to the actual living structure.

Um, and uh they also are adding some additional uh landscape buffer along Pine Brook and within the uh center of the property.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Zen.

Yeah, I concur with my colleague.

I'll just add that the what they're proposing is a definite improvement to uh what the current condition is.

Somebody could just pick up this car wash and operate it, it would be in violation of all the setbacks.

And I think the cure here is much better than what the existing is.

In addition, they're providing uh taxable value on the property that adds to our tax role and provides like my colleagues said, uh puts the property back into good use with no impact to the surrounding neighborhoods.

There's no opposition from any of the neighbor neighboring properties or neighborhood associations, so it's a good use of the property.

I'm supporting it.

Thank you.

Anyone else like that?

Hearing none is a roll call vote.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stephen.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yabannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I encourage the finding fact motion passes 10 to zero.

Congratulations.

Alright.

We've already done the minutes.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report.

Okay, I would like to just point out a letter that was provided from public commentary from the Short Term Rental Association of San Antonio.

If I don't know if everyone got a copy of that.

Pardon me.

So they just wanted to give some remarks about how we look at short-term rentals.

So mana?

Yes, Commissioner Man.

So does the city, you know, does the city have position of what what it is that uh I guess the short-term rental association was was stating or asking here, you know, did you have any additional dialogue with them with regards to the letter?

I believe the uh the principal planner uh for short-term rentals is reviewing it.

I think he'll probably have a statement next meeting when they have cases on.

Um they didn't give us an additional statement though.

It just it just kind of seems like they they want us to be a little more stringent.

That's what I mean.

And that's what you know, that was my take as well.

So that you know, um that the group has weighed in and and looked like they want us to ride the the guidelines a little bit closer and not be as loose.

So that's that's my with that was my take on it.

Right.

And I I just I have to say, I mean, I I'm glad that they we have these rules and I'm glad that we you know we look at this stuff, but you know, part of this has to do.

I I personally think half the stuff we hear would just go away if people would do stuff in a timely manner, and I really hope that um you know this organization can partner with the city to help get the word out, maybe even better.

That'd be nice.

And and I think you know, part of the dialogue, you know, which we've talked about a few times is um you know, ensuring the workflow is as optimized as possible, and that's group kind of looks like that.

That was one of the things that they were gonna try to address with the city.

So I so I do commend that effort, you know, to help the city kind of work through the workflow.

I I would just like to make a comment about this is the cases that we have um seeing.

Um I think that we have really looked at the hardships and some of the mistakes.

Um, that we've been very fair in our decision making in spite of the fact of maybe misinformation or delays or tardiness on the part of the applicant.

Um, but I do want to say about the the organization of short-term rentals, the association, stating what they state is is a to me a big thing because they are seeing uh the abuse of many people that don't follow the rules, and so I think they're just saying keep an eye on that.

Yeah, I didn't think we granted them any approvals to be honest with the okay, and uh also um I know some of y'all have issues with the SharePoint page.

Uh we're gonna try to reissue the uh the notices or the permissions.

Um try it again uh before next meeting, um, and we'll have uh kind of a problem-solving session uh from those of y'all have it.

All right, awesome.

Anything uh is anything happening this summer at all?

Any anything that's gonna be.

Mb finals.

Well, I'm just wondering like we we've uh but what about the uh um the the UDC rewrite?

So so because that's getting ready to uh stack up again so that and we talked about having a session to talk about things that this board was gonna recommend.

So when does when is the target for this the UDC to happen?

Is that go to council a year from now, a year and a half from now?

Are we that far away or is it?

I know that I know that um typically they start taking um we're starting to accumulate our internal um UDC amendment request, but then we will also start January 1st to take um applicants.

So that's about we will basically take yeah, that first six to seven months to really go through that.

So 2027.

We should start meeting in the fall then.

Yeah, I would say further closer to the end of the year would be probably better set.

So um we'll just put that out there.

Anybody who wants to be involved, I think the target would be to have um uh you know, maybe some work sessions.

It would be nice if we didn't have them before this meeting, you know, if that was possible.

Um so and I don't know if um so a letter went out for um UDC or I'm sorry, well, um the TAC participation, and so they just sent out another notice for the offset year, and so I don't know if there's anybody it if this group is impacted by that or both were assigned last year, so we may need to take a look.

We have an alternate in a main person to the TAC already.

Right, but but when where they're assigned because it's every other year, and so so I was through general public was was uh the prior session, and so I'm covered, but but there's uh set expiring uh for us, yeah.

Okay.

But I think uh Miss Cruz may also also be in that board, so I don't know if she was also at the same period.

And so as an alternate, so we may we may need to look just to see what our and that that due date was uh in three weeks, I think, with regards to the application.

Yeah.

Well, yes.

Also, is there is there an update maybe we can get from the city regarding like at large participation and um you know yes.

Yeah, do we we s we still have a vacancy?

Uh I haven't heard anything from alternates.

Um, no, we did have some reach out that we sent to the uh city clerk's office.

Yeah that we sent over there to their so they can start that process.

I know what that we used to have uh like today we have 10 people sitting.

We used to always have one on call or one ready to show up or whatever, and that kind of seemed to stop happening.

Hopefully we have one on standby online, but that's that's the best day.

Yeah, we have we have like a permanent fixture here, but uh, you know, out of out of seven alternates we usually had a handful that at least you know, because for like today we only have ten people.

You know, it'd be nice.

I don't know, does anybody ever call y'all and and say, hey, I've me how come you haven't asked me to come show up?

No.

Tell them tell them we're h we're hiring, you know.

Twenty bucks.

So many bucks, yeah.

Well, okay.

If there's nothing else, it is 442.

And the gratitude and respect of city staff.