Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

uh is now in session and it is 1:30. So everyone please uh turn off your cell phones while the meeting's in session. Uh staff please read the opening statements. The Sonian Board of Adjustment of the City of El Paso is not on in session for Monday, November 10, 2025. This board is established under article 211.8 of the Texas Local Government Code and chapter 2.6 of the El Paso Municipal Code. In appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, this board is empowered to make special exceptions or grant variances to the terms of the zoning ordinance that are consistent with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and in accordance with any applicable rules contained in the ordinance. Your application will be decided only after you had the opportunity to present evidence before the board for its consideration. Other parties interested in your case may may also be heard at this time. No consultation among board members has been held in advance regarding your case. This board does not act in an arbitrary manner. You may feel that this application of the zoning ordinance or smart court to your situation will result in a hardship to you. But this this does not mean that this board has the power to grant to grant you relief unless the facts of your your case are such that that the board must act on them. You may be sure full consideration will be given to your case and following this

hearing you will be promptly notified of the board's decision. Vanessa Ranga with planning and inspections.

Uh, Jesus Kintano with the city attorney's office. Ru Samura with planning and inspections. Andrew Surum with planning and inspections. Elizabeth Thurman Binkson with the board. Christian Love with the board. Harva Addition with the board. Martha Aguayo with the board.

Guutieres with the board. Fabian with the board. Coen with the board. Jose planning and inspections. Alejandra Gonzalez, planning and inspections.

Perez with planning and inspections. Andrew Geraldi, planning and inspections. Thank you everyone. Will everyone who is giving testimony please uh stand up and raise your right hand? Everyone who's giving testimony and please say this. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Great. Thank you so much. You may sit. Thank you. Thank you staff. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes. Good afternoon, chairwoman. We do have a few changes on the agenda. [clears throat] Staff is requesting item number six, PZBA 25-000032 to be deleted. This property is located at 8409 Hartford. Again, to be deleted. Also, staff is requesting item number eight, PZBA25-000037 to be postponed until the next meeting. And this property is located at 6530 Mohawk Drive and again to be postponed until the next meeting. Other than that, no further changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Do I hear a motion to accept the changes to the agenda? Uh, I'm Christine Love with the board. I move to accept the changes that staff has proposed.

Do I hear a second? Second. Sidi go second. Okay. All those in favor, please say yes. You approve. I I Any oppose? Thank you. It's approved. Thank you. Okay. Does the board have any questions for the staff?

No. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, let's go ahead and start. Uh is the applicant or representative uh present to respond to comments or questions? Madam Chair. Uh so, right now we can start with the uh items. So, we just did the changes to the agenda. So now we can go into item one.

Okay. Um so item one is a board member elections for chair and vice chair. So this happens every year during uh the month of November. We obviously get prepared for next year. Uh so at this time we're we're asking uh on uh item one that the board decides on who can uh serve as chair and the vice chair for next year. you would like to postpone for the next meeting to take this decision then that's also an option.

Yes. Yes, please. If it's uh if it's okay with the board, I would like to make a motion to postpone this till our next meeting in December. Yeah. Well, that that will have to be on on a boat so you all can

Okay. All those in favor of postponing Well, you need a second. and then I'll need a second. Okay, I'll Heidi, do you have addition with the board? Make a move. Yes. Like to move forward for December's meeting. Okay.

Coen second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Great. Thank you. So, we're going to discuss this in December's meeting. Yes. Thank you. Okay. And then if I might, so item number two uh is the adoption of the 2026 uh board of adjustment meeting schedule. So you should you should have a copy on your backup on the agenda. Uh so we obviously have been working on again like like typically uh we have one meeting scheduled for every month with a possible backup meeting in case something happens we need to cancel the the meeting uh per the month the first one then we can go back to that backup meeting. Uh so we still obviously obviously the applicants can go ahead and continue their projects. Uh so obviously we've checked for the holidays for everything and that's the proposed schedule. So we can just have you know go through that and get approval.

Okay. And do we have a calendar? Yeah. It's not part of the backup. I don't see it. No. No sir. Can you check the back of one of the pages? I think page uh page four or not page uh sheet four I think on the back or page eight.

Page eight. Oh yes sir. Right here. Okay. So I mean maybe not everyone has one but again it's one meeting every month. Uh we try to obviously work out the holidays make sure that we keep those out. Um so just kind of just for reference really. Um but that's so this case in this instance is for the public to be notified to know exactly when those meetings happen. Um so again this is what we're obviously asking for the board to adopt for next year.

Okay. If I may ask, can you email that to all the board members, please? Sure. We we'll email this to everyone. Thank you. So right now we just kind of need a a motion to approve. I move we approve the agenda as presented.

Christine Leverage I second the motion. Okay. All in favor? I. Any oppose? Moved. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Item three. So, we're going to go ahead and start with item three. Okay. Is the applicant or representative present to respond to questions or comments from the board? Okay.

Yeah. We'll we'll have staff uh present first. Present first and then we'll get to the applicants. Okay. Good afternoon, chair and board members. Andrew Slim with planning inspections. Item number three on the agenda is a request for special exception B and special exception K. This aerial map provides an overview of the subject property and its surrounding areas. It's north of Mesa and east of Shadow Mountain Drive. The property is zoned R3 residential. This site plan illustrates the layout of the subject property with the structures marked in magenta and the encroachment areas are highlighted in red as shown on the slide. the accessory structure for the swimming pool equipment which extends 5 feet into the required sideyard setback for a total encroachment area of 74.51 square ft. Additionally, the applicant is also requesting a special exception to allow to legalize the construction of a home structure which extends 2.14 ft into the required sideyard setback for a total encroachment area of 5.59 square ft. Here is the subject property viewing from Golden Springs. This is the existing accessory structure and it's encroaching 74.51 square ft on the sideyard setback. This picture shows the existing home structure that encroaches five uh five feet into the sides setback for a total of 5.59 square ft.

And this map illustrates nearby non-conforming lots that also contain side encroachments and only two qualify for this special exception B. This This property structure encroaches 108 square feet on the sideyard setback. And this property also has a structure encroaching 75 square ft in the sideyard setback. This aerial photo from 2009 confirms the structure existed more than 15 years ago, which supports the criteria for special exception K. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft of the subject property on October 31st of 2025. And as of today, staff has not received any communication in support or opposition from the public. Staff recommends approval of special exceptions B and K. And that concludes my presentation. Any questions?

Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the staff? No questions. Okay. Okay. Is there a um Oh, is the applicant or representative uh please respond to comments or questions from the board? Please introduce yourself.

Okay. Please say your name. Good afternoon. George Halu with SLI Engineering uh representing the Shilots and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Okay. Any questions from the board? No. any anybody uh on the phone, please press star six to unmute yourself if you have any comments or questions? No. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. If um do we have anyone from the public that may want to speak on this item as well? Okay, please.

Fabian, I make a motion to approve the special uh exception requests. Thank you. Second, Christine L. I second motion. Okay. All those in favor of approving the motion? I I. Anyone oppose?

No. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for coming by. [clears throat] Okay. Okay. Number four. Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. Jose Bhutan with planning and inspections. Item four on the agenda is a request for special exception B. Two or more non-conforming lots for the subject property located at 205 Baywood Road. The request is to allow to legalize the encroachment of an existing addition into the required rear yard setback and sideyard setback. Here we see the property shown on the aerial image. It is located north of Loop 375 and west of Alamea Avenue. The zoning for the property is R5 residential. Here we can see the site plan that shows the existing layout of the property with the areas of encroachment highlighted in red as shown in the rear. The applicant is requesting exception B to allow for the modification of the required 18.17 ft rear setback and the required norly 5 foot sideyard setback. If approved, it would allow for 171.21 21 square ft of encroachment into the rear yard setback and 40 square ft of encroachment into the sideyard setback. Here's a front view of the subject property taken from Baywood Road. Here's a view of the encroachment of the rear yard setback of the existing addition. Portion in yellow will be removed to be out of the rear 5T easement area. Here's a portion of the same addition that encroaches the sideyard setback. This is an image of of an encroachment of the southerntherly sideyard setback. The this encroachment will be removed to comply with zoning requirements. And aerial photographs indicate there are four other properties on the same block and a budding street that also

contain structures located in the rear yard and sideyard setbacks. I'll be showing two of these examples. First one is 206 Baywood Road that encroaches the rear and side and we have 220 Arbor Place that encroaches the rear and side setbacks as shown in red. Notices were mailed to property 31st of the present year and the planning division has received four phone calls of inquiry but no communication in support or opposition. And to conclude, staff recommends approval with conditions. First condition is that the overhang uh encroaching into the rear 5 foot utility g easement area be removed and that the existing uh carport encroaching into the southernly sid setback uh be modified or removed to comply with with the code requirements. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the staff? Okay. Is there a is the applicant here or representative and would like to address any comments or questions to the board?

I don't know if they're here. They might be online. Okay. So, uh please uh come to the uh of course if you're on the phone, please press star six to unmute yourself to address the board. There's no one

again. Anyone on on the phone, uh you can press star six to unmute yourself? No. Yeah, I guess there's no one. So,

okay. May I entertain a motion? or if we can have anyone from the public or online to speak on behalf. Yeah. Is there anybody in public on the phone? No. Okay. May I entertain a motion? Heidi, do you have addition with the board? I make a motion to move forward on the spe uh special exception B as per um their recommendations.

Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Was there a second on that? I'm sorry. Jesus from Oh, a second. Go second. Sorry. Okay. All those in favor? I.

Any oppose? Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number five on the agenda is a request for special exception J carport over a driveway and special exception K in existence 15 years or more. This aerial map shows the property at 30005 Park North and the surrounding area. The property is zoned R2 residential. The site plan shows the layout uh of the property. The existing structures are shown in magenta and the encroachments in red. The applicant is requesting to allow to legalize a 24x 24 foot carport that encroaches into the front yard setback for the carport. For this, the carport shall be modified to meet the site setback requirement. And additionally, the home encroaches slightly into the sideyard. So, the applicant is also requesting a special exception K to allow to legalize that portion. This shows the existing cardboard elevation which has a maximum height of 10 ft. This image shows the current condition of the property as viewed from Park North drive. From this angle, you can see the front encroachment. The corporate extends 20.7 ft into the required 25 ft front setback, leaving a 4.3 ft front setback and totaling uh 411.86 86 square ft of encroachment.

Here the carport can be seen from the front. Conditionally the side portion shall be modified to meet the required eight side setback. The existing home extends 3.6 ft into the sideyard setback with a total encroachment of 66.08 square ft. This 2009 aerial photo confirms that the home has existed for more than 15 years supporting the request under special exception K. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft on October 31st, 2025 and the planning division has received as of now four calls in support to their request. Staff recommends approval of special exception K and staff also recommends approval of special exception J with conditions and the conditions are as follows. The carport shall resemble the main residence in scale and character. The carport shall be modified to comply with the site setback requirement and the carport shall be modified to comply with the maximum permitted area of 422 square feet in accordance with special exception J criteria. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Elizabeth Thurman for the board. I have one question. So, you said the home is in existence for 15 years, but the carport's not. No, the carport was barely constructed last year, but that one is under special exception J and the home under special exception K. Okay. Thank you,

Chris. Christine Leverage with the board. So, In in the photos you're showing it, it looked like so the house overhangs slightly into the setback. If the carport were modified to meet that setback, wouldn't the supporting post there kind of run into the driveway? Like it it looks like if you kind of even if you if you modified the carport to to meet the setback, you I I'm just wondering how that's actually physically possible, if that makes sense. Um, yeah, it would be up to the the applicant to um modify the the cardboard itself, but

Okay. Yeah. I mean, is there is there room, right, for that supporting post if you meet? It looks like it's there's only a few inches there. Would it be just like on that the first part of the concrete of the driveway or like what would how does that work or if I might. Yeah, I'm not sure. Some planning inspections. So like Miss Blanca mentioned that will be up to the applicant obviously to the engineer

uh to decide how to um modify it and still make it usable. Obviously uh you know sometimes they do can deliver they can uh have entire support only on one side and obviously that again that goes through an engineer having to know how to do that how to design it properly. So, I I understand obviously like how you're going to uh make sure to have the columns placed so it doesn't uh um it's not an issue affecting the driveway for the garage. But there are obviously ways and that's up to the property owner to the engineer to design it accordingly to make sure it's still usable.

Okay. Thank you. U Sher, if you can turn on your mic, please. I'm so sorry. Yes, please come up. Uh, come to the podium and state your name and you have three minutes to speak.

Okay. My name is Mike Lucino and I'm the owner of the property. Uh, can I take a moment to pass out? Uh, there's a couple of additions to my presentation that I didn't put into the slideshow. Uh, but I have copies enough for the board. One is an aerial shot of the my home compared to the neighborhood and another one is a certification from the engineer showing it meets approval.

Okay. Please engineering wise and I have 10 copies if you could pass them out. Okay. You can start please. Okay. Go ahead,

chair and uh panel members. I'm here to respectfully request approval to retain my front yard carport, which was designed and built to professional standards and uh complements the character and function of our neighborhood. I mentioned some points here. um that I did have a an engineer go through the the carport and for safety and for long-term durability and we didn't find any adverse visual impact and it blends in seamlessly with the home and the neighborhood view of the street. Okay. Um, I would just like to start out with a little bit about the foundation of the property. I'm as far as the carport. The slide kind of came in crooked there, but those are the holes that the the columns are placed into. And I put it the holes at 26 in deep. Um, and also 28 in for the back posts. Okay. Um there's a picture of the while we were it was under construction. I did the work myself with some other friends. Uh the columns that I chose uh the options were 10-ft columns or 12oot columns. I chose the 12T because they were a thicker gauge 11 gauge which is stronger than the the 14 gauge that they also had as an option. Uh also the uh let's see there's a picture of all the pearlings in place and the pearlings support the roof without sagging. Okay. So all four posts are in the ground there. Okay. U I want you to notice that the front uh has a decorative sighting.

Okay. The one on the side, I just have that to show the the difference between if I had not had it decoratively sighted or not. But the final product looks like that with decorative siding on the front and side and also around both sides. Okay, there's a picture of the post that's mounted into the ground and the final completion just from the inside. And I do would like to draw your attention to the certificate from the engineer that shows uh that it meets the standards of uh IBC 2021 and ASCE 7-16 structural codes. He recommends the structure for permit. Okay. Okay. I'll talk a little bit about spacing and the neighborhood support. Okay. Um, one of the board members mentioned what would happen about the post alongside the wall. I was instructed that the the u

uh I'm sorry the time is up. Do I I I can't finish or may I continue? Microphone please. Sorry. Yes. Uh we have three our time allotted is three minutes sir. Okay. Can I So, board members, do you have any further questions?

May I ask for a another minute or so to at least summarize? That will be up to the board to decide. Okay. Okay. You have two minutes. Okay. Um, uh, if the board would like to Jesus from legal, if the board would like to vote on whether to extend the time and how much to extend the time, you all could do that by a motion. Do I hear a motion to extend the time?

Heidi, do you have addition? I to extend the motion. I'm sorry. Would like to extend the motion to two minutes. I second that motion. Okay. All this approved. I Any oppose? Two minutes, sir. Okay. All right. So, just um I was told I'd have to move the post uh 8 feet over. And so the green post indicates where the post would be and it would totally block one of the carport entrances. Uh there's a measurement of the 8 foot mark. Okay. Also, uh those red dots on the driveway indicate where the electrical uh electricity goes into the property. I believe it would be a safety hazard if I were to place the post in line with what has been recommended. I also think it's important to note that I've been informed usually the side setback is set up to where you have five feet of property between the property line and the house. In this case, uh between the next house next to me, there's actually 32 feet between my property and the the property just to the north. So, I believe that should be ample amount of space in case there's a fire u that it would go ahead and compensate for that. Okay.

Uh, just an aerial shot of the properties that I'm going to make a quick comparison to. There's my property in yellow and the ones in red. Notice that the structures are steel post with corrugated roofs just like mine. Uh, the scale. I've been told that the scale has to be at the lower part of the roof. These are all quite a bit higher. You can see the different properties all with steel poles, corrugated roof, and the scale is higher than the lower part of the roof. Same thing here. The scale on this one as well. And the the poles are just very close to the rock wall like mine is there. Okay. I know the city of concern is that it must resemble the property. This one's showing that my property is eight inches approximately from the higher than the roof. Okay. It's not a whole lot of noticeable difference. Okay. Um

Okay. Uh two minutes. Thank you. Two minutes are up. Is there someone from the public who would like to answer or make ask have any questions regarding this matter? If you are okay, please come up. come to the podium and state your name. Sir, you have three minutes.

Yes, ma'am. And the board. My name is Frank Perry. I'm a neighbor to Mike. And I just wanted to say one of the things that wasn't mentioned. It was in really poor planning. The geometry of that street is a curvature. And that's the reason that poll one of the polls like like it's been stated. Why was it why wasn't it put from the from the side of the the distance that's required? It it also we have to see that there's a curvature in that street. It's not a perfectly line perpendicular to any other street and so on.

I am familiar familiar with this as I am I'm in the construction business. Okay. Thank you sir. Thank you. Any other Oh yes ma'am. Come to the podium. Hi. Hi. State your name. I'm Bridget. Bridget Rosson. Um I'm actually the neighbor me and my husband that's right above the property. And actually Frank is absolutely right. the street curved like this to our property. So, I just don't see moving that pole how he would be able to get the car in his carport. It's like it wouldn't really work. As far as infringement, it doesn't bother us at all. Doesn't bother our view.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Jeremy Kraker. I'm also a neighbor uh just a couple of houses down from Mr. Lucil and I can affirm multiple other structures that are very similar in construction to his that are within the neighborhood. Uh I think the the styling and the construction is consistent and um uh spoken with other neighbors about it and and there's no concerns or no issues especially given the distance between his home and structure and the neighboring home. So I'm speaking in support of it.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Please state your name. Dana Mills. Uh we live next door to Mike and um we uh have seen the addition that he put on the property and I'm in total support as is my husband. Uh it is it it looks very nice. It's complements the neighborhood and we would like to see hit this approved.

Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Yes sir. Please state your name. Dr. Rosson. Uh my comments regarding what's going on with this this building or this established poles is that it's sitting up against the wall. I think it's safer being where it's at than putting it over near the garage. You've already made comments about what it would interfere as far as cars getting through anything else. It's very safe the way it was made.

Okay. Why change it? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Board members, any questions? Would Could you put the staff recommendation list back up so that we can see because I'd like to pick and choose. So

yeah, go ahead, Madam Chair, if I might. Yes, sir. Lisa Samura with planning inspections. So just a couple of facts on this. Obviously, the the structure wasn't permitted. The the city cannot obviously confirm whether it's a structural safe or not until they request the permits and the city reviews. That's one of the things. Uh the second uh to can we go back to the site plan please? Uh one of the issues we we found for exception J is there's a maximum square footage allowed and so one of the things that the only way to go through this exception for a carport. They will have to modify that carport to reduce the square footage in order to comply with the exception J and staff check into that. So that will be accounting for removal of the side portion. So they could be within the square footage of that exception request. So just a couple those things to to make sure uh we uh outline.

Thank you. Thank you. I have I have a question for staff. Um what about rainwater runoff? Because it looks like it's right on his property line and if so it's going to rain water runoff into that. it it would be within their property. They have like a

4 foot um setback between the property line and the structure itself, but it's right up against the wall, right? So, so they own that property next door.

Um so, as you can see, the property line actually um extends a little farther than the rock wall. So it would be still within their their property line. Okay. Any further comments from the board to the staff?

No. May I entertain a motion? Elizabeth Thurman Bingson with the board. I may we approve with staff recommendations. Do I hear a second?

Heidi, do you have addition with the board? I second. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. Any oppose? Thank you. It's been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone for coming. Okay. We can continue with um item seven.

Item six. Correct. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, chair members of the board. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number seven on the agenda is a request for special exception B, two or more non-conforming lots for the subject property located at 1746 Sonizuka. The request is to permit a proposed carport over a driveway. [clears throat] Here we can see the property highlighted in yellow. The subject property is located east of George Der Drive. The zoning district for the property is R3 A residential. Here's the site plan that depicts the existing layout of the property with the area of of encroachment highlighted in red. The cover porch will extend 15 ft into the 25 foot front yard setback. And the applicant is requesting a special exception B to propose uh to permit the proposed carput highlighted [clears throat] in purple. I'm sorry. Uh the proposed carpel will extend as I mentioned 15 feet uh into the 25 foot front setback for a total 300 square ft of area. Highlighted in purple is a canopy that is conditioning to be removed and in orange we see um the area that has been previously approved by CVA. This is the subject property. from looking up from Onuka Drive. Um this will be the area where the proposed carper will be highlighting in red and that's the side canopy. [clears throat]

aerial photographs indicating that at two other properties on the same block and street that also contain structures located in their front yard setbacks that encroach more than the subject will be encroaching. Uh we have 1747 onuka drive and 1749 on drive. This property um also has an special exception for the front and rear encroachments. Notices were mailed to the property owners within 300 ft on October 29, 2025 and the planning uh division had not received communication in support nor opposition of the request. Um staff recommends approval with the con with with conditions of the special request. The conditions being as follow. The carpal shall resemble the main resident residential structure in scaling character and shall be open on three sides. And number two, the mesh canopy on this side yard will be removed. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you,

Madam Chair, if I might just really quick uh just to let the board know that Miss Gloria Clark, Franco Clark's on on the online. Uh so we have another board member also right now. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, any questions for the staff?

Probably have a question. I'm sorry. Uh this one's for staff. Uh what items do these people have to meet in order for it to uh resemble the structure, scale, and character of these carports?

Uh Louis Aurora with pl inspections. So on that one, we'll we can go and kind of check with what the board has done before. kind of asking for some cover uh covering the the columns of the carport. Um check into the structure whether it complies with if there's a slope on the roof, whether the structure will be required to be sloped as well. Uh maybe the material uh be more in character with the home, the colors, they can go through that. So that's what we're kind of asking if needed and staff can check at that a later date or we can let the board obviously decide at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. I also have a question. Elizabeth Thurman Binkson with the board. Did you say the other two um properties in the neighborhood had been approved and are legal properties? Uh just one one of the examples I'm showing yes would be so how does it meet excuse me oh I guess just because they exist at all how does it meet exemption B

yeah Louisa with planning inspections so exception B it's about if there's two other properties that are not complying then the applicant can request obviously something similar to what they have um it that really it doesn't really uh states whether there had to be uh permitted or not uh in compliance or not. So that that's up to the board to decide if that's something you would like to obviously go ahead. So obviously staff did uh state that obviously one of them was obviously approved by the sun board of adjustment in the in the past to to build it.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant or representative here to address any questions from the board? If if you are here, please step up to the podium and you have three minutes to speak. State your name, please. Eduardo Davila. Um,

okay. Um, thank you. Uh, I just want to clarify that it's not we're not planning to do like a carport. It's just a canopy. And for the canopy, we submit the blueprints and and I have some pictures. If you don't mind, I can pass just on on what we planning to do. And as far as the mesh, I mean, we agree if we have to remove it. The the source uh the only sole idea to put the mesh is to for our dog because it's too hot in the summer and is to provide shade. And I have a picture as well.

Okay, please. If I might somewhere planning inspections, I will just uh remind you all this. Obviously, they will have to go through a permitting. Uh whatever is shown doesn't mean that's what's going to can be will be built. Obviously, doesn't mean that it won't be built. Just FYI.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. And I'm sorry, it's just one set. It's is no different. I'm I'm sorry. So, and and that's uh that canopy that I'm that is shown on pictures is being permitted and we're trying to do the same I mean with the under coat and the reason why is because that that part of the front of our property receives all the sunlight I mean on the evening and it's it's just to have a shape for or cars.

Great. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? If you are, please press star six. Oh, yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I have a question. Um, after seeing those pictures. So, that structure's already been built.

The one the gray carport. Yeah, it does. It already exists. I think this one they were shown on you have addition with the board. Can we go back to that photo?

Yes. That's the one that's approved. Yes. Oh, but there's no photo like No, I don't have the It's the the one that the ones that you brought. Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Quick. It is. It's highlighted in in red.

If I might, just to for clarification, uh, are you asking about the subject property? No, I believe No, it's it's it's proposed to be built. Yeah. So, the the subject property hasn't it hasn't been built yet.

I'm sorry. Is this gentleman not the owner of the subject property? Yes. Did he not just give us a picture of the property with the carport built? No, that's the example of the one that was approved. Oh, so it's not really built at your house. Ah, got it.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? So, this is a different house. I'm also confused. Okay. And then another question. Um, the can the canopy when was that installed? The side one, the sideyard like I know that the plan is to be removed. When was that installed?

This year. This year. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Again, is there anyone uh here on the phone that would like to speak? If you are, please press star six. Heidi, do you have addition with the board? I have a question for staff member. So I believe the recommendation is that the carport resembles the structure and height of the house. Correct.

That's correct. Okay. But the gentleman is mentioning that he wants to build a canopy. So that doesn't qualify as what the recommendation of the staff is saying. Correct. Am I understanding that correct? Lisa Mora with plan inspection. Uh so yes. So now it is kind of complicated because obviously if they're going to use it for vehicles then we'll deem it a carport regardless if you know even even if it will be a porch we can deem it a carport if they're going to put vehicles in their net. Uh now we can look into it taking it out of the context of carport if it's going to obviously be just like a like a porch. uh a canopy then obviously you all can look into that that way and decide on on it as a separate if it's not a carport because I know that the condition is about uh meeting the the scale and character but for us we're just not sure whether you know they're going to use as a carport or not technically they can put that driveway anytime after.

Okay. Does that answer your question a little? So the So you're not sure if it's going to be used for a carport or not? We we cannot be sure. Okay. Can we ask? Are you going to park your car under there?

Thank you. Can you please come to the microphone, please? Please state your name. Eduardo Davilla. And yeah, we can do the carport. I was thinking just this is just the canopy just uh there's some uh neighbors that has that and the sole purpose is just to have the shade for our cars. That's it. But if it's necessary to do the carport, we we can do the carport and we can do the same materials as the house.

Thank you. If I might uh we have me is Gloria Franco Clark on online. Gloria. Oh, okay. This is Gloria uh Clark from the board. I guess I'm a little confused. Uh is the request actually for a carport or are they changing it at this time for a canopy? And again, it still needs to be approved. So, I guess my question is actually what is it going to be? Um a carport or a canopy uh to the I guess the architecture whoever is presenting their case.

Okay. Please ask. I'm Terry Davila and I'm the owner of this home as well. So, we're just proposing the canopy. The canopy is going to match the color of the house. There's one right across the street from us, which is the one that's circulating. That one's in gray. Ours is going to match the color of the house. It's just to provide shade for one of the cars that is outside of their garage. So, it hasn't been built. we would like to you know put it there so we could provide shade for the course.

Okay. Thank you. So basically uh what I understood also uh from Mr. Samura that they would still have to go and get it approved from planning. Is that correct Mr. Samura? So the construction will require a permit obviously uh then then the city will review for for that construction. [clears throat]

Okay. Thank you sir. So, basically, we're talking about a carpet with a canopy top. It's like the the gray one that is circulating exactly like that. And there's a couple others around our neighborhood that we've seen. So, it's just a shade. It's not an actual carport.

But if it's I mean, if we need to build a carport in order to have shade. Yeah. I think we have a difference of um definition in the verbiage and we're getting caught up in canopy versus carport. If you put a car under it, it's a carport

whether or not you [snorts] have a canopy top in my opinion. Fan with the board. So basically she can define it however she wants to define it as long as it meets the standard of fitting a car under there. Right. So it can be called the carport to meet this request.

Vanessa Ranghel for the record. Yes. So the materials being used or the verbiage being used for what is being proposed the way it's being utilized is carport. Thank you Chris. Christine leverage of the board. So, it sounds like if we approve with the recommendations of staff, then it would still be subject to the requirements that it be uh same materials, similar construction, which to me sounds like the canvas probably wouldn't fly. Normally, we require similar roof and post structure or I mean, it's not super well defined, but that sounds like that would be what it was. So we would actually have to approve and remove that uh that staff recommendation that it match in character to the house or at least in certain to to to provide for it to be the canopy. Right. The canopy sort of carport but stepped down a bit from what's really being what the staff has proposed as modifications to the crest. Correct. But but with but with a canvas top, right? I mean this would still be a

I mean defect like does you know would would a what the owners are proposing would that you know when when you go through that filter of must must meet the home in in character, right? Like what what does that end up looking like looking like? Is it actually going to be what the owners are proposing or is it going to be something more solid, more, you know, a different set of materials?

Heidi with the board, can we get the recommendations the slide where it has the recommendations on? So, if I might, Lisa M with planning inspections. Just as a reminder, the board may decide what you all want it to look like at this time. uh you don't like the fabric, you can request that obviously not to be to use the fabric and use something else. Uh maybe an opaque material. Um that will be up to the board. Uh you all have that authority to decide.

Yeah, Christine Lbert. So it's I'm hearing some voices from the board that seem to be okay with the concept of the fabric topper, but I just I'm wondering that if we just approve exactly this is that are is that actually the fact going to require them to meet a higher standard in terms of building materials

or is that so I would say I will put it on the board to the side at this time right now. You comfortable with it? kind of put it there that you know it should not obviously constitute the fabric if that's the way the board is leaning towards uh just to make sure that it is captured but if I'm understanding correctly there's another neighbor and we have there has been approval of that to have the same material and this was already approved in the past yes it was approved u I don't have the exact So yeah, so the this board obviously uh

in the past um they did approve for for one of them. Uh either and I'm not sure I don't have the details either they approve before they build it or they approve as to legalize it. Correct. Thank you.

Current code is that the carport should resemble the main resident structure. Correct. Thank you. And then I guess a follow-up question for the canopy like why does it have to be removed?

The side canopy. Yes, the side canopy. Yeah, because it's an encroachment into the size setback. They need 5 ft of separation for any structure. Anything technically with a roof and even the the fabric it will be constitute a kind of structure. uh it could be obviously go through permitting um but obviously it doesn't meet the the setback requirement of five feet away from the property line.

Okay. Thank you. So it will be removed. So the one of the conditions is requesting that to be removed in order to obviously make sure they're in compliance. Um back to the mesh for a carport. Is there any sort of requirement for the materials? Does it say anything about mesh being allowed or not allowed for a carport use?

So there's nothing specific really that says what can be allowed. It's mostly the use. Again, if it obviously it's going to cover uh vehicles, then we'll deem it a carport. So then it would be up to the board to decide whether we like the mesh or we would prefer that they use another material.

Yes. So the board has the authority to decide. Martha Guayo, it does state that the mesh mesh canopy will be removed. That's for the side structure. Yeah, that's the side one, not the We're talking about the the canopy that would be over the carpet.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Can we please see another picture of the side canopy just for clarification? Okay. Okay, board members, any further questions? Have your questions been answered?

Gloria Clark from the board. I'd like to see the original proposal how the mash was. Um, I was not online at that point. Um, does she have like a picture picture besides the drawing? Oh, well,

the ones that were passed, if I might, Miss Miss Clark. Uh, so there there's no uh proposal at this time. They they don't have any examples. Oh, okay. Thank you. Well, excuse me. They did bring us those photos. Yeah, those pictures are I believe from the adjacent well the neighbor neighboring properties.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. As long as you guys saw that and you comply with that or you agree that that's enough. Okay. Board members. Any questions? If there's Oh, go ahead.

No, I'm ready to make the motion. Please. So, Elizabeth Thurman Binkson with the board, I move that we approve per staff recommendation with the emphasis on I mean because there's been one in the neighborhood with the canopy approved. It could have a canopy roof line as long as the Can you do that? as long as the dimen the um slope is correct, but there has to be materials on the structure that are in keeping with the home. So, in other words, not just steel poles stuck in the ground. They have to add the addition of materials that would be in keeping with the home, which is the way we've done it in the past, I believe. Is that good?

May I second that motion except covered Jesus with legal? Sorry, I don't know if we took public comment before you all take a motion. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anyone here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? If you're on the phone, please press star six to unmute yourself. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? No. Okay. Thank you. May I entertain uh would you may I hear May I entertain a motion, please? Uh, Miss Liz,

I'd like to move that we approve per staff recommendations with the emphasis on the materials of the home must be used um to encase the the structure, the the metal structure so that it's more in keeping with the character of the home. And Because a mesh top has been used on an adjacent property, we allow that to happen on this one.

Okay. Do I hear a That's a special Fabian. I second that. And regarding the side setback, would that be a separate motion on the sideyard? No. No. The sideyard um setback removal of the canopy is already part of the staff's recommendations.

Oh, I see. I don't think you'd have to specify it. Okay. All those in favor, please. I I I. Any oppose? I. Did Gloria answer? Okay. Thank you. Okay. It's been approved. Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. And item number eight, uh, we've agreed to postpone it, so we're going to go to item number nine, please. Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Jose Banana with Planning and Inspections. Item number nine in the agenda is a request for special exception B or more non-conforming lots for the subject property located at 3469 uh East Glenn. that requests to permit the encroachment of an existing carport into the required front and sideyard setbacks. Uh here we can see the property as shown on the aerial image. It is located north of Edgeir Boulevard and east of Lee Tribunino Drive. Property is zone R4 residential. And here is a site plan that shows the existing layout of the property with the areas of encroachment highlighted in red. The applicant's requesting exception B to allow for the encroachment of an existing carport that encroaches into the required 20ft front yard setback and required southerntherly 5-ft sideyard setback. If approved, it would allow for 264.27 ft of encroachment of the front yard setback and 43.29 ft of encroachment of the sideyard setback. The structure highlighted in yellow is located in the rear easement area and will be relocated. Uh here's a front view of the subject property as taken from East Glenn Drive. Here we have a view of the front and side encroachment areas. This is a view of the front encroachment. And here we have a side view or closer view of the side encroachment.

Aerial photographs indicate there are four other properties on the same block in the budding street that also contain structures uh located in uh in the front and sideyard setbacks. I'll be showing two of these examp two of these examples. So we have 3452 wayside that encroaches the front and side and we have 3484 East Glenn that also encroaches the front and side. Uh notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft on October 31st of the present year and the planning division has not received any communication in support or opposition. To conclude, staff recommends approval with conditions. First condition is that the rear structure be moved out of the five foot easement area, the rear uh storage structure as shown on the site plan and that the carport shall resemble the main home in scale and character. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Board members, any questions to the staff? Elizabeth Thurman Bingson again with the board. Um, are any of the properties you cited in the neighborhood, have they been uh legalized? Uh, it can bring up the presentation.

So, 3452 Wayside does not have any permits on record. Um, 3484 East Glenn uh is registered as legal non-conforming. Uh, so it is uh has been registered as as that. Um, besides that, those were the only car ports that were uh not in conformance.

Thank you. Board members, any further questions? No. Okay. Is there anyone here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? If you are on the phone, please press star six to unmute yourself. No. Always a representative here. I'm sorry. A representative here who would like to speak. Please state your name. You have

My name is Janunes and I representing Mr. Jason Redeye for his canopy shade structure as built. Okay. Are you the homeowner? No. Uh the homeowner is right behind me.

Oh, okay. Okay. I'm the draftsman architect. Okay. Board members, any questions? Heidi with the board. Oh, sorry. Heidi with the board. Can we pull up again those uh recommendations, the staff recommendations? So, on the last the second, it doesn't say anything about moving over to meet the side. Yes, side rear setback. Thank you. Um, it does need to say that, doesn't it? Because it was in one of the photos.

Uh, Jose for the record. So, the side encroachment is actually um they're as they're requesting it as part of exception B because there are two other non-conforming lots that also encroach the site setback. Well, when you say non-conforming, they're they have not been approved or don't have permits on.

That's correct. Okay. Yeah. So, there's four four in total. Uh, I just showed two of those examples. Okay. Okay. Any further questions from the board? Fabian with the board. Can we just see another ground photo of uh showing how it's Yeah. Is there another side setback photo besides that? I think I'd seen another one. There you go. And the neighbor has no problem. Okay. Okay. Anybody from the public ready to speak regarding this item?

Okay. Board members, do I entertain a motion? Do you want to entertain a motion? No. Can I see the staff recommendations one more time? The staff recommendations. Okay. So, Elizabeth Thurman Bingson with the board, I move that we approve the staff recommendations with the addition that extra Oh, God, I wish I had written down what I said before. Extra care be given that um materials used to um that materials will have to be used to enhance the structure so that it's more in keeping with the home. I know, but

well, sorry, Christine Lidge with the board. Is that how does that differ from what is currently proposed in the staff recommendations for number two? Well, because they'll have to have the addition of brick.

The additional what? Sorry. they'll have to add the addition of brick to go with the home to cover the steel structure. So, if I might, Lisa Moran with planning inspections. So, one things we can do as as in the past is to just kind of put there that they can they will have to cover the columns with brick at least half of the column with some material like like brick or something like that. Uh which is what the board has done in the past. Um, now my only question right now will be to whether the board will be okay with the mesh, the fabric on the top since I know it was a item for discussion previously.

Okay. So, that was your motion, Miss Thurman. Well, that's what I was getting to is they've got to be more in keeping with the the home. And I think I think number two's even though it's probably verbatim what the code says, uh I think it's too vague. I think we have to take it a step further because it doesn't seem to be working. And we we keep seeing the same thing over and I keep saying the same things over and I know you guys are sick of me because I say the same thing after meeting after meeting. We have to add brick. We have to put a roof on it. We have to, you know, and there are no homes that are legal in that area. So, we're starting the president in the area if we let it just pass by without any

emphasis that it's got to be more in keeping with the home. Okay. Okay. I I frankly don't see why it has to go outside the five. Maybe that's a question for you, sir. Why does it have to go outside the drive?

So, they are requesting that as part of of exception B. There are two other non-con two other lots that also encroach the side. Uh so, they're requesting that as part of the but they're not legal. So, right, that's that's part of the exception is to uh there has to be at least two other non-conforming lots in order to to uh for the exception to be approved. But again, that's under the perview of the of you all.

Lawyer Clark with the board. Can I see the the proposal there with a proposed encroachment? Okay. So, stop. Okay. So, how far is it going into close to the edge of the driveway or 3/4.

It's hard to see from my It's about two and a half ft from the side property line. Okay. So, you're talking about the sides. So, is that a five or a 10 foot eastment there on those sides? That's a five foot setback. Side setback.

Okay. So, you're already encroaching three feet, I guess. Is that what you're proposing? It's a two and a half foot encroachment. Two and a half. Okay. And so is see I guess I also had a problem because I know like somebody had mentioned also from the board uh when it rains um are they going to put some kind of water protection guards that it doesn't go into the neighbors um two and a half you might say that it's still enough but I depending it always seems to travel to the neighbors unless the neighbors have had no problem and or they have not come and voiced their opinion. in.

So, as part of the um they would still have to get approval for permits which would involve uh the installation of of a gutter system. Okay. Heidi, do you have addition with the board? So what I see here if we don't oppose or actually go with that it's okay with this side setback and from what Elizabeth was saying if which I believe that that's what we should be doing is the material should resemble the home. So, if that's the case, um, and they put any type of either rock or brick around it, we're already hitting the fence because that's gonna Do you know what I'm saying? Right. So, so if they build around that, right, to resemble the home, we're talking probably just a little bit of space from that pole to the fence. Does that make sense? Correct. I could see that.

Right. So, Heidi, again with the board, I I don't approve this. I suggest that we go back to the five beat seg back where it's supposed to be. Uh again, as part of this exception there, the other two other lots are encroaching more than subject property.

So, it does meet the exception B criteria, but again, but it's not approved. They're not legal. Correct. Correct. So, we need to set a precedence and I I think we need to again that's for me it's denied. I don't approve it.

Okay. Well, we're going to vote. Mhm. Okay. So, okay. We're going back to the motion. Yeah. I'd like to modify my I'd like to modify it. Okay. That was an issue with me, too. I was just trying to to be a little softer. just um but I'd like to modify it in that we not approved the side setback and add the addition that the materials on the structure have to be in keeping with the home and the slope can oops the slope of the canopy would then have to be in alignment with the roof structure to keep it with the character of the home.

Okay. So, that is your motion. Yeah. Yes. Do I hear a second? Heidi, I have petition with the board. I second. All those in favor, please say I.

I. I. I. I. I. Sorry. I

voted for the motion. I Gloria Clark with the board says I What did Gloria say? I'm sorry. What did Gloria say? I She said I I Okay. Thank you, Gloria.

Okay. All opposed. Okay, it passes. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number 10 on the agenda is a request for special exception B, two or more non-conforming lots for the property located at 459 General Maloney. This aerial map provides an overview of the subject property and its surrounding area. The property is zoned R3A residential. The site plan shows the existing structures in magenta and the encroachments in red. The applicant is requesting to allow to legalize a porch and a canopy encroaching into the 25- ft rear setback and to accessory structures that encroach into the 5-ft sight setback. This image shows the current condition of the property as viewed from General Maloney Circle. From the left side of the property, you can see the porch area that encroaches 12 feet into the rear setback for a total of 28 square ft. Conditionally, side panels uh shall be removed. Here's another angle of the porch and another structure which sits 9 ft from the rear property line. On the right side, the canopy encroaches 20 ft into the rear setback for a total of 160 square feet, leaving a 5-ft setback. This is the first accessory structure

that encroaches into the 5-ft side setback. And this is the second accessory structure that also encroaches into the site setback with a total encroachment of 72 square feet between the two. This map shows nearby non-conforming lots that have similar encroachments that qualify for this request. At 4445 General Maloney Circle, a similar condition exists with the home encroaching into the rear setback following an unpermitted addition that connected the approved the approved accessory structure to the main home at 4457 General Maloney Circle. An addition encroaches into the rear setback. The accessory structure on the on this property was originally approved, but a later unpermitted addition now connects it to the main dwelling, resulting in one continuous structure. At 4512 General Maloney Circle, an accessory structure encroaches approximately 75 square feet into the site setback with no permit on record. And similarly on 4528 General Maloney Circle notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet on October 31st, 2025. And the planning division has received one call of inquiry but no comments in support or opposition. And with that, staff recommends approval with conditions, and they are for the existing uh porch to remain open on three sides and for the above ground pool to be removed or relocated from the 5-ft easement. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you,

Martha. Board members, any questions for the staff? I'm sorry. Can you give us the total square footage of all the um additions in that piece of property? Yes. So um the total rear encroachment it's uh I have it here. Sorry. It's around 368 square feet and the total side encroachment is 72 square feet. Favian with the board on that site plan right there. Just to clarify where it says canopy 160 ft right next to the pool to the right.

That's also the porch. Uh that's the actual canopy and it's the one covering that deck under. Okay. And you're also saying for the porch to remain open on on three sides. Yes. So, as you can see, they have panels right there, and yeah, they would have to be removed in order to consider it a porch.

Okay. Any further questions? Can Can you show us the recommendations again, please? The what? Sorry, the recommendations again, please, just so I can Fabian with the board again. Uh what is the staff's recommendation regarding the other structures that are encroaching?

Um it would be approved uh the ones on the side. You mean? Yeah. So there are other two uh non-conforming properties that would qualify for this request. So that's why they are a part of the of the final recommendation to approve.

But those properties aren't legal. Uh so for the sites except for the one that was legal but no longer is. Yeah. So the first two which were the rear they were originally legal but since they added and connected them um now it's one continuous structure so now they're they're not legal. But for the sides, uh there are no permits on record. But still for special exception B, um any uh non-conforming lots will qualify even if they don't have a permit.

Okay. Is the applicant or representative here to answer any questions from the board? Please come to this podium, state your name, and you have three minutes to speak. All right. Thank you. My name is Roger Cario. As for the f the full, it's it's not permanently there, but it'd be hard to move it in reference to what you all are recommending. I'd have to drain it and I don't think it's just there. It's not a simple pull that you can. It's not permanent, but it's little cement uh blocks. I don't ever seen they're just temporary, but It's there. I won't be a It's going to cost me and then my grandkids won't appreciate it.

Okay. Board members, excuse me. I did take down that canopy in the corner. I took it down. Okay. Is there anyone here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? If you are, please press star six to unmute yourself. There's no is Clark with the board. I guess I just want can uh planning go over their their recommendations again please. So for staff recommendations it would be approval with the following conditions. The existing porch shall remain open on three sides and the above ground pool shall be removed from the five foot easement.

So, okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr. Karia, so again the uh staff is recommending that the pool needs to be removed and you're telling us that you cannot move it. It can be moved, but then it won't I don't know how much it'd be. It'd be I don't know. It's impossible. I'd have to take it down.

Yeah. If I might lose some water with planning inspection. So, the issue with the pool is that is that it goes over the Eastman, utility Eastman at every year. So, that's one of the city requirements. uh obviously uh ZVA approval is based on the property complying with all the other requirements. So this is a condition that that's is needed in order to if the board is going to obviously recommend approval or approve the request.

So Mr. Sam, what are you saying? Uh that a pool does need to be removed. Correct. Correct. For those for the board to uh approve. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Do I do you want to entertain a motion?

Gloria Clark with the board. I entertain a motion to go with what the planning is um proposing. Do I hear a second the above tools be removed uh due to encroaching on the easement and the sites I believe uh are okay. I mean would be stained. Is that what you said Mr. Samoda? Yeah. So, so what I said is that obviously the pool needs to be moved out of the eastment. Um the southern question that's up to the board if you will uh approve that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, do I hear a second? I guess my question uh Gloria Clark with the board. I guess we have to vote and see we want to do what do we want to do with a site encroachments

board members any comments yeah if I might just to clarify okay so the the request is for there's two well let me start there's an encroachment into the rear for a portion of the that uh we're calling it porch uh with the condition that they remove the the siding. So, it's open on all three sides um along with the the decking that's there. Uh and then I think he mentioned the other canopies it has been removed but the nuclear that's part of the request that's that's one. The second request is for the sad encroaching encroachments which are the two sheds. Uh so there's two requests going through the exception B. Heidi, you have audition with the board. So, this photo right here, I'm just concerned. I don't know if anyone agrees, but it's right up on the wall and it, you know, when it rains, it'll rain over I believe maybe the neighbors. It looks close to the other roof. Um, I I recommend that we have those sheds. Just as a reminder, uh the applicant will require uh permits and then during the permitting obviously that can be checked. Uh one of the um options is obviously to put gutters to make sure the water is retained within the property. So that's also a solution to that.

But it's up to the board to obviously decide. You can request modifications or or approve assess. It's up to you. Clark with the board. I I make a motion to uh go with a planning uh recommendation that the above pool will be um uh removed from the utility easement. Number two, um I believe that like you said uh we could uh according to the planning that the sites shed should be uh removed according um to what the planning proposes as long as they provide their conditions and and they uh approve whatever they need to do. And number three, I believe you said the site two sheds again. Is that what you're talking about utility easements? So my motion is basically to go with what is recommended by city planning.

Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a second?

No. I would ask that we amend it to include the gutters on the two side structures so that the water is retained within the property. Vanessa Ranel for the record. Um board uh that is something that we do review at time of permitting. So when they go into city for permits we are going to take a look at how the proximity is to the property line. We will ask for watershed to be retained within the property. So we would ask for gutters at that time.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Christine Leverage. Can I second Gloria's uh uh motion to just approve with the staff recommendations? Okay. Or does that count as a first?

That can be a second. Jesus attorney's office. Thank you. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay, it passes. Thank you. Thank you. So that was number Thank you everybody.

Thank you. Number 11.

Okay. Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. Jose Belan with planning and inspections. Item 11 on the agenda is a request for special exception C rear ride setback single family residence for the subject property located at 11 11765 Angelica Court. The request is to permit the encroachment of an existing garage addition into the rear yard setback. Uh here we can see the property shown on the aerial image. It is located east of George Deer Drive and south of Pelicano. Zoning district of the property is R3A residential. Here is a site plan that shows the existing layout of the property. Uh the applica is requesting exception C to allow for the modification of the required 30t rear yard setback to allow to legalize the construction of an existing garage addition that will encroach 19.76 ft into the required rear yard setback for a total encroachment area of 474.24 24 square ft uh which is highlighted in red. Here's a front view of the subject property taken from Angelica Court. Here's a view of the of the uh structure in question, the garage edition. Here we have a view of the rear of the yard where we can see the encroachment area. And just to note, there will be a 10-ft uh rear yard setback maintained as required by exception C. Here's a side angle showing the encroachment of the garage edition. Uh this also shows that there are no encroachments of the sideyard setback also uh as a requirement of exception. The pling division has not received any communication in support or opposition. Uh public notice was sent to property owners within 300 ft on October 31st of the of the present year. Uh to conclude, staff recommends approval of the exception request as it

meets all requirements. Thank you. Board members, do you have any uh questions for the uh staff? No. Is the representative or owner here to speak in behalf of this item? Please step up to the podium and state your name.

Good afternoon. My name is Edardo Cha. I'm the owner of the property. Mr. Thank you for being here. Board members, do you have any questions? No. Is there anyone from the public here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? If you are on the phone, please press star six to unmute yourself. No. Okay. Do I hear a motion?

I move we approve pro staff's requirements. Gloria Clark, I second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed, please say nay.

It's approved. Thank you, sir, for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we're going to item number 12. Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number 12 on the agenda is a request for special exception B. Two or more non-conforming lots for the property located at 6220 Cleveland. This aerial map provides an overview of the subject property and its surrounding area. The property is owned R5 residential. The site plan illustrates the layout of the property showing the existing structures in magenta and the encroachments in red. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow to legalize two existing cardboards and one accessory structure that encroach into the required 25 foot rear yard setback and the 5ft sideyard setback. This image shows the current condition of the property as view from Cleveland Avenue. This is a carport which encroaches 266.65 square feet into this five five foot sight setback. And here is a proposed carport encroaching 122.5 ft into the five sight setback. The accessory structure encroaches 17.86 square feet into the five side 5 foot side setback. And here we see the rear encroachment totaling 172.75 square feet, leaving a 7 foot rear setback. This map shows nearby non-conforming lots that have similar rear and side setback encroachments that qualify for this request. At 6264

Cleveland Avenue, an addition encroaches into the sideyard setback and into the rear yard setback with no permits on record for these encroachments. And similarly at 6231 East Yendle Drive, um they have um rear setback encroachments and side setback encroachments also without any permits on record. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft of the subject property on October 31st, 2025. and the planning division has received no communication in support or opposition to the request and staff recommends approval with a condition for the existing and proposed carports to remain open on three sites. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Board members, any questions to the staff? I a petition with the board. So the recommendation doesn't include moving in the carport to because it it's more than 5 ft in.

So that that is part of the special exception. Special exception B um would be for two or more non-conforming lots which uh there are more than two but um we only um are required to get two. So these uh two properties encroach uh five feet into the site setback

s going with the board are the other properties like are they were they are they legalized? They're not they don't have permits um as per our records. Okay. Gloria Clark with the board. Uh this is for the uh the lady who proposed. Can you tell me on the sides uh is that a 10-ft easement and again uh you're encroaching five foot into it. So my understanding they should still be at least 5 feet existing.

Um can you repeat the question? Is it on the on the accessory structure of the home right? Are those 10 foot eastments on each side or is it just a five foot eastment that will go all the way to the rock wall? It would be the five foot setback.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you. The five foot setback. There are no eastments. So on the Let me rephrase that. On the plan, is that a 10-ft easement on each side of the home where they have the the canopies or the

No, it would be porch. It would be a five foot setback. Is that on the back or on the sides? On the sides, there are no easements on the property itself, but um they are requesting um a special exception be for the site encroachment in the rear as well.

Okay. So, you mean there's no I see now there is an alley in the back, correct? Because I saw the wires the electrical wires are in the back. Correct. So, is that why there's no electrical? How about gas? Um, is that in the front?

Yeah, if I might, Lisa, I'm planning inspections. So, given the alley, uh, probably all the utilities run through the alley instead of within the property. So, that's very typical when we have uh alleys on the back of properties is that all utilities run through it. And so, there's no need for easements within the property.

All right. Just uh clarifying that. Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone here that would like to speak regarding this item or on the phone that would like to address any questions? Oh, the representative is here. Thank you. You would please step up to the podium and step uh state your name, please.

You have three minutes to speak. is Gloria. Good afternoon. My name is Gloria. Okay, just Uh, so she's here to ask for an exception for her to be able to finish the carport that it's located in the rear. Um, so she has a condition that doesn't um allow her to be exposed too much in the sun. So, uh, for her in order to do activities, um, on her backyard, she would be required to have some sort of shading structure. [clears throat] Good afternoon. My name is Jorge and I'm here to see um if I could request an exception in order for us to finish the car.

So, sorry. So, um they're explaining that their home it's a little bit under level than the neighbors. So the neighbors uh being able to look into their property. Um so that's why they have that um sighting on the carports. So he's talking about a neighbor um that

what would you want to see the pictures of the Okay. Okay. You want to see the pictures? Board members, you want to see them? Okay. Gloria Franco with the board. Yes, please. Gloria, hold on. Please. Oh, go ahead. I will just if I might with someone with the with planning inspection I'll just remind the board obviously uh what's on on on your authority right now on the table is a request for the exceptions uh this is not for our avenue to obviously discuss uh other issues with neighbors.

Okay. Thank you Heidi with the board. I have a question for the staff. So, the recommendation is that the was it the carport or porch to be open on all three sides? I'm a little confused. Yes. So, as you can see on this one, they have like a small portion at the top uh right of the carport that is kind of covered with the rock wall. And also here, their main intent was to cover also the side. Um but that's one of the our recommendation just to uh keep everything open on three sides.

So keep open also what's existing. So they would have to take off that panel. Not necessarily. Well, which panel? The one on the Yes, the one closest. Oh yes, that would be um that's part of So if I might again, Lisa, uh so one of the requirements for for porches, carports is that they need to be open on three sides. So only one side can be obviously covered which typically is the house. So that's one of the uh requirements by the city code. So that's why the this recommendation uh this condition to remove the the covering on the side because it needs to comply with that requirement to be open on three sides.

Okay. Thank you Martha. Thank you. Thank you. Any other com Thank you. Any other comments, questions from the board? Is there a represent I mean is there someone from the public that would like to address this item? Maybe you are here or on the phone. Please uh press star six to unmute yourselves. There's no one. Okay. [clears throat] Board members.

Uh Jesus Keith with the city attorney's office. Were they done um testifying? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. May I May I uh may I entertain a motion

members? So s going with the board. So ju just for me to understand then what would happen with the rest of the properties are also not complying with this Vanessa with planning and inspections. Uh typically staff will send that to enforcement so that we can start the case so we can get those in process for legalization.

Okay. Thank you. Well, if I might. So, so the request right now is to uh address the issue the encroachment on the site. Uh again, one of the conditions to remove the obviously what's covering to the neighbor. Uh but that's the request to allow that to continue to stay as it is. And then because they're connecting all this uh proposal to the accessory structure, the shed on the back that's creating a a an issue with that one too. And that's the other request is to uh address that one as well so they can go ahead and submit permits and then get everything legalized.

Okay. Thank you. Members, may I may I entertain a motion? Gloria Clark with the board. I make a motion to uh approve the city planning proposal to have it open on all three sides and let them uh legalize it step by step as uh Mr. Samoda has requested as we go forward in the future.

I second Elizabeth Thurman Binks and I second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. All those opposed, please say nay. It passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The last items.

The last item number. Oh, go ahead. Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number 13 on the agenda is a request for a spe special exception B, two or more non-conforming lots for the property located at 937 rim. Here [clears throat] we can see the property which is currently vacant highlighted in yellow. The subject property is located east of Interstate Highway 10. Uh the property is SN R3NCO residential neighborhood conservancy overlay. Here's the site plan that shows the proposed layout of the property with the area of encroachment highlighted in red. The area of en the encroachment will be a garage that will extend 13 ft into the 20 foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting a special exception B to permit the construction of the attached garage that will extend a total of 33 no 330 square ft. [clears throat] is a subject property looking up from rim rim road and that was the approximate location of the um proposed garage on the rear um yard setback. [clears throat] Aerials indicate that there are three other properties on the same block and street that also [clears throat] contain structures located in their rear yard setbacks that encroach more than the proposed um garage. We have 935 [clears throat]

Rim Road encroaching uh 759 square feet which and this property does not have any issued permits on record. We have 925 Rim Road with uh this one has an issue building permit and 9001 Rim Road uh with 469 square ft encroachment and it doesn't have any issued permit. Uh public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet on October 29th, 2025 and the planning division has not receive any communication in support or opposition to the request. With that staff recommends approval of the special request [clears throat] and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you ma'am. Thank you board members. Any questions for the staff? Fabian with the board. I'm just curious the garage in the back. Is there vehicle access? Well, this is for staff. Um, also, or what do you define a garage as if there is no vehicle access?

Yes, there's an uh like you can see in the this image, there's [clears throat] a an alley and there will be the entrance to the garage on the back. Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant or the representative here? Yes, ma'am. Come to this podium and state your name, please.

Good afternoon, chair and board. My name is Martina Laurai with Martina Laurai Architects. I represent the owners in this project. Um, we are Do you have any questions for me? Because I'll just go on about the project forever. Board members, any questions for Miss Lori?

No. Yes. I guess do you have any pictures or do you have anything that you can show us like what it you're planning to make this look like? Oh, well, it was not part of this application, but I can share with you that um the present owners applied for a demolition permit and unknown to them, they should have registered the existing garage that was at the rear property setback line accessible from the alley. and it is in their intention going forward to continue with having a garage structure accessible from the rear alley. Uh the house itself of course is new. We have gone to a lot of trouble to respect the NCO requirements of this neighborhood which is to respect the building setback lines. If you look at the aerial of the of the street, you'll see that the adjacent properties are set back a certain point. And we did the same from Rim Road, which pushed our structure a little further back into the rear property setback line. So, we're at 37 ft front yard property setback and that pushed us further into our rear yard setback. uh we wish we would have filed that existing condition so we would have had an exemption and wouldn't have had to uh take your time today but we didn't. Um the house in the NCO just to share with you the maximum height is 35 ft. Our owners are only uh building 26 feet above finish grade. So they're very respectful of the scale of Rimroad and they want to uh maintain that character.

Okay. Any further questions? No. Is there someone here or on the phone that would like to speak regarding this item? Unmute. Uh press start six to unmute yourself. There's no one. No. Okay. Do I may I entertain a motion, please? Elizabeth Thurman Binkson with the board. I move that we approve uh this item pro staff's recommendations.

Thank you. I Heidi petition second the motion. Okay. All those in favor please say I. I. I. I. Those opposed. It's been approved. Thank you, Miss Lori. Thank you so much. Thank you. Byebye. Byebye. Okay. After all the items have been presented, any questions? No. May I hear a motion to

We have minutes, but Oh, the minutes. Any any comments? No. Just one more item. Um number 14 for the minutes for September. Okay. September 8th. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes?

Christine Love, I move to approve the minutes. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead and second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say I. I. Opposed. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to approve? I mean to adjurnn.

I make a motion to adjurnn. He have addition with the board. I second. Do I hear a motion? I mean, I'm sorry. Meetings adjourn. I gota go. I got