Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. All right, the time is one o'clock and the Board of Adjustments is now in session. I'll ask the Spanish interpreter, please come forward and make your statement.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Please be kind enough to silence all mobile devices. Please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.

of the United States of America, and through the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On behalf of the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. Before we proceed with today's cases, I would like to offer a few words of explanation. The board follows an agenda which is available online. The cases are listed by number with the name of the applicant and street address. Following the conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting followed by a director's report. Lastly, as chair, I will make announcements such as community calendar events. I ask that the board members submit these announcements to me as chair and I will read them at the appropriate time in the meeting. We are private citizens appointed to this board by city council. The 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 and not a court of law. We only examine the facts pertaining to the relief sought and 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 authorize variances from the zoning regulations required in Chapter 35. We also serve as an advisory appellate capacity to the Director of Development Services regarding requests for variances for regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Sections 28 through 5. In addition, we have the powers to hear cases and any other matters authorized by City Council under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code. Every decision or recommendation to the board must be based upon findings of fact, and every finding of fact must be supported in the record of the board's proceedings. The applicant or his representative will present the petition, and they will be questioned by the members of the board. Any opposition to the request will be presented in a like manner. After everyone has been heard in 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 in granting the release thought rests with the applicant. The applicant must present facts on which the requested relief can be legally granted and supported. Appeals from the decision to 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 decision regarding chapter 28 are made to the city council. Please limit your presentations and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case. Staff will give a brief presentation instructions. Staff?

Thank you, Chair. Staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request. Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for the variance, special exemption, or appeal, and property within 200 feet of that subject property. Checkmarks indicate those property owners in favor of the request. X indicates those property owners in opposition. Following this presentation and any questions by the board, the applicant will present their request. For those that sign up to speak for or against the proposed variance, special exemption, or appeal, You will be called on in order you sign up to speak. Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation. For those that would like to give up their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving up their time for a total of nine minutes. Those giving up their time must be present and signed up to speak. The applicant will then be given an opportunity for a rebuttal, limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit, along with the opportunity to address board questions.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. So we have one continuance, case number 13. There's a motion to continue to October 14th. Do I have a motion from the board?

No, I'm sorry. October 12th. I told you. I'm sorry.

October 12th. Can I get a motion?

So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Case is moved. What's that? Oh, yeah. Can we do the roll call? I'm sorry.

Commissioner Bede?

Present.

Commissioner Stevens? Present. Commissioner Yvonnez? Present. Commissioner Dean?

Present.

Commissioner Cruz? Commissioner Gomez?

Present.

Commissioner Mena? Present. Commissioner Bregman? Commissioner Benavidez?

Present.

Commissioner Vazquez? Present. Commissioner Orian? Present. Vice Chair Ozuna?

And I am present. We have a quorum. So we are going to make some movements here based on the last meeting. We're going to move case number seven and number two. And number two is going to be moving to number four. So the cases will be heard in this order 1732. And then we'll continue on the normal cadence of the agenda. With no further list, staff, let's hear the first case.

Thank you, Chairman. Marco Morave, Principal Planner. First case is BOA 26-10300-163, located at 306 Comahan Street. This is a request for the NCD standards for a detached garage, not in the rear of the principal structure, a four-foot separation for the driveway and walkway, and limited to 12 feet, exceeding 12 feet within a driveway for the NCD 6 standards. Next slide, please. modifications were completed on the property that do not comply with the ncd standards the requirement was inadvertently inadvertently missed by zoning staff during the initial permit review and subsequently identified during the permanent inspection that was only for item number one which is the carport garage not behind the principal structure citizen complaint to code compliance regarding the expansion of driveway prompted an additional investigation The curb cut permitted was identified. However, the approved plans depicted a driveway that complies with the NCD standards while the existing driveway expansion exceeded what was shown and approved. And according to the applicant, the property does not exceed the maximum 50% impervious cover standard. This is the site plan item number one. You see it is not behind, totally behind the principal structure, even though there is kind of an indent in the principal structure. Item number two is the walkway separation. And item number three shows where the driveway exceeds the 12 feet. This is subject property. Another view of it. And the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval on the carport setback in BOA 2610300163, a carport NCD standard, I mean. Only a limited portion of the carport extend beyond the rear plane of the principal dwelling. Due to recessed exterior wall, the carport visually appears to be located behind the principal structure when viewed from the front. Staff recommends denial on the walkway and driveway variances. Variances would diminish the distinct separation of vehicular and pedestrian areas intended by these standards. No special physical condition on property prevents the property from meeting the conservation district standards. 22 notices were mailed, four received in favor, three in opposition, one voicemail was received in favor, and two in opposition, and Mahankey Park is opposed to the request. Mahankey Park Neighborhood Association. That concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you. Let's see if we have any questions for staff. Any questions? Hearing none, I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Sorry, can we, Commissioner Cruz, can you hear us?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Okay, please proceed.

Good afternoon. My name is Laura Vaccaro. I've been a proud resident of Mankey Park for 27 years. I bought my first home in 1999 a block over on Pershing Avenue and have remained in that neighborhood this entire time because I fell in love with the charm of the neighborhood. the beautiful mature trees and really just the feeling of community that everyone exhibits in what we call Minkey Park. About a year and a half ago, my husband and I decided to move because our family has been growing. We now have four grandchildren. and I have an aging mom that's going to be moving to Texas and will live part of the time with us. While we looked outside, we could not find another neighborhood that we loved in Belt Lake Home like Mankey Park did. We were fortunate that a home became available about a block from where I lived, purchased that home, and along with it there were plans for a garage an apartment that came with it, the former owner of the home had planned to do this work and never got to it. We proceeded with the work and throughout the process we've made every attempt to follow city codes we've got permits inspections we really approached everything in good faith and it was never our intention to circumvent rules or to do something that wouldn't honor and respect the neighborhood so with that i would also like to introduce renee lafuente who has been our contractor on the project and done all the interactions with the city so can answer the more technical questions that you may have. And I just wanted to say thank you so much for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard today and to meet all of you.

Do we have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Please, if you want to state your name again.

Rene Lafuente, 12725 Applewhite Road.

Okay, and is there anything you'd like to add to the process over?

Well, I'm kind of wearing two hats here. I'm the builder slash designer. If you can see my name and everything, my phone number there on the, we submitted plans. We went through all the processes with the neighborhood conservation district, and I was assuming, I guess, when we submitted the plans that the driveway had been looked at and everything had been, because if you see the driveway, that's what we submitted. That's what's permitted. I have copies of the plans that were approved by the city that show that exact layout so we had no we got blindsided by this whole thing but every everything in that house has been permitted um plans submitted and approved through the conservation district so as well as the city um we're again we're just blindsided by i met inspectors out there for the approach to make sure we were doing okay with the approach so i met the supervisor of all the inspectors out there for the approach cut so he had no problems with it we continued with it Then a couple months later, we get blindsided by this complaint.

All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Manna?

So a question for city staff. Okay, so there are three components here. And were all three approved by the city of San Antonio?

No, just the first one.

The other two, there was no permit for it. One of them was mentioned in a curb cut permit for the driveway, but even that permit, I think, had either 12 feet or less. So only one was approved by city staff.

So the applicant here talked about getting permits approved, and so would permits have been provided for the two and three as well then?

Yes, if he got permits for the work done, the concrete work in the front yard, he should have got a permit.

So I'm trying to understand the delta here. So they're saying it was not approved, but you're saying it was approved. So can you clarify that, please?

Again, what I'm talking about is the city right-of-way, the curb cuts, all that. We didn't cut the curb. We just replaced what was there on the sidewalk because they were terrible in that area. If you can show pictures of it. Anyway, we replaced that, and I met the supervisor. That's what requires permits. Anything inside flat work doesn't require permits. That's what he's probably alluding to that. there was no permits or there was no approval, but the plans that were submitted showed the flat work in that manner, even though permits are not required technically for flat work inside the property.

So coming back to city then, so does that?

Yeah, I'll have to double check whether they need permits or not. But the permit he's talking about, like he said, is for the curb cut. They did mention the driveway width on that permit, but even that calculation was 12 feet or less. It currently exceeds what was even put in the permit, even though it was not reviewed on that curb cut permit.

Okay, I'm confused there. So was it what was submitted, what was submitted is, what was installed is greater than what was submitted, or?

In that curb cut. Okay. All right, thank you, Mr.

Manna. Mr. Orian.

Okay, so there's a 12-foot wide driveway, but the plans reflect the 12-foot wide apron, and then it looks like it expands so that it can house a vehicle parked parallel. At what point does the city still classify it as a driveway and not just a parking space?

So we calculated when the driveway first opens up at the 14-foot driveway width. We don't consider it once they turn to the right. 14 feet is what we calculated for the driveway.

Okay. Then that's where I was at. I thought it was 12. So the issue at Bay is that it's two feet wider than it should be. And on the applicant's plan, do they call it out to be the 12 and they just built it at 14?

They indicated to city staff it's 14 feet.

And I'm wondering, did they submit a plan that reflected it as being 12?

So there's no official plan for any permit on there.

OK. Stevens.

And the four foot separation, I apologize, the sidewalk that goes out to the street, there's a gap there that's about 18 inches on the, there's a great picture you have in the file that looks like you're looking towards the street. That's what you need to be four feet. Right, yes. All right, thank you.

And if I may, I don't know if I can speak. okay yeah it's not 12 feet it's 10 feet at the approach side which is exactly what i got permits for so it's not at the approach side it's 10 feet where the start the driveway starts it's 10 feet so it's not 12. okay thank you any other questions for the applicant

We're going to see if there's any public voicemails or public comments, and then we'll invite you back up.

Yes, I have one more question. So you've been a longtime neighbor in Menke Park, as you stated. So did you work with Menke Park as you're going through this upgrade in the beginning along the way?

No, I tried. So through the years, I've relied on the newsletter. I've been a member of Menke Park, so I get the newsletter in my door. It used to have the names of the leaders and phone numbers and now it has like an info at Menke Park. I also went out to the website like contact us. All I could find was that info at Menke Park. I went in and tried and it said you needed a password. I put in my email and it was like nope. So I tried and I was not successful. I'm sure someone's going to tell me it was user error but I also scoped the newsletter again and did not find like in the past where you could actually call a person and ask. I did walk around and talk to neighbors. I actually had more letters of support than maybe was indicated but I don't know if they all made it via snail mail. I know I had a couple of neighbors that told me they were emailing but I did have three in hand paper but.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir. Staff, do we have any voicemails or public comments to be read in?

And you're Mr. De La Fuente, right? Yeah. Okay, so we have one speaker, Mr. John Bustamante.

Good afternoon, board and chair. My name is John Bustamante. I live at 307 Wilkins Avenue. I come to support the applicant, Ms. Vacato, in seeking a variance for these three items. And I think I appreciate that the staff has supported her on item number one on the carport. In that case as you can see given the indent this is an absolutely no questions asked in my opinion an appropriate use of a variance. With respect to the driveway and the four foot split those second and third items it does become a little more difficult and so I ask that you know should this body not support a variance for those two items that they limit whatever is required of miss avocado to what's literally required by the ncd in this case which would mean expanding out that as commissioner orion pointed out 18 inch space to about four feet and cutting down that approach once you're beyond the sidewalk to about 12 feet and i think that would be an appropriate outcome if this body were not inclined to support the variance in its entirety. But I appreciate your time. I appreciate your service. And that's all I want to say.

All right. Any questions for Mr. Bustamante?

Orion?

Soren?

Yes. So on the guard of the driveway, I assume you're familiar with the NCD, but does the NCD count the typical two-foot flares that are part of the driveway as towards the width, or is it simply just the main width and the flares are excluded?

Is that addressed to me, Commissioner Orian?

I'm sure you're very familiar with the NCD. I'm just wondering.

you know how that's been applied and looked at in your opinion in my experience i don't recall that issue ever coming up i mean obviously the curb cut flares are going to be wider than any driveway because you're going to want that greater approach but yes mr lafuente can answer in his experience if you'd like commissioner

Actually, or I can hear from staff, you know, if the applicant had mentioned you put a 10-foot-wide driveway and the fact that you're measuring 14 makes sense when you incorporate the standard two-foot-wide flare on the residential driveway. Is that what we're seeing here?

So we're measuring the driveway once it opens up, not necessarily the curb cut. I'm trying to pull up a picture of what we calculated with the applicant.

Yeah, because on the plan submitted, it looks like he's holding that two-foot flare all the way from the property line to the edge of pavement. So he would have 14 feet of the street, but then once you hit, once this thing bottles open and widens, It might only be 10 feet. That's what I'm trying to answer.

As per NCD 6, it does state specifically that your curb cut shall not exceed 15 feet in width, and then behind the curb cut, driveway shall not be, I'm sorry, no more than 12 feet. So that regulates the curb cut versus the width of the driveway. Okay.

And what are the exact, what did you measure in this particular case at the street and then the width of the property?

The largest width should be no more than 12 feet as per NCD 6.

Well, I'm hearing, I'm wondering where you measured 14 feet. So look where the number 3 is on this plan. You see how the driveway widens as it goes to the physical edge of asphalt. Did you measure 14 feet width at the property line or did you measure it at the edge of asphalt?

We're about to pull up a picture.

I can answer. It's 10 feet at the driveway. It's 10 feet.

Yeah, so that's where staff measured the width at.

Is that the property line?

It is not.

He measured 14 right there, but you can see how the driveway...

widens as it's working its way out to be to house a parking space for a car and so you know if you were to measure that a foot in is it going to be a violation correct we determined that this is the spot of the kind of driveway ends everything else seems to be kind of either parking or turning around the area so in this case the applicant

wouldn't have to redo the driveway all they'd have to do is carry that narrower width up a foot or two and then move it over to the right no currently they would have to reduce the driveway by two feet to the left yeah but look look where on that picture that you're showing on the screen if i were to scoot that measure if i were to scoot that dimension line down two feet wouldn't it be at the 12-foot max? I'm just saying that it looks like he's just cropping that little chamber. Correct, yeah.

So if it goes down to two feet and keeps going all the way, we would be measuring a little bit differently from what's in front of us right now.

I mean, it looks like he's only having to socket such a small little piece. It just seems... Not a big deal to me. Okay.

Okay. And just to restate your position, Donald, is that you're saying that because of that bow out that they would have met it up until like maybe the halfway point or somewhere within that arc.

They're at the 12 feet as you move up the throat, and there's a part where it's widening out in the transitional way.

It kind of flares out, so there's that portion within that curve that exceeds. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, and so it's just, we're talking about cutting out a small piece of concrete so that he's holding 12 feet up to that point where staff is measured. It just seems kind of the moot condition.

Understood. Any other questions here for Mr. Busomante? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'd invite the applicant. You heard, I guess.

So I do have a question for, I guess, trying to understand Chair Orian's position or what he stated. So if we go to the next picture, there are like two pictures away where it shows the driveway. There you go. So the 18 inches is what's that gravel area there, and it appears that the flare-out to the right of that current cut-out is excessive from what is the NCD, if I understand correctly. And so, Chair, were you suggesting that it be cut back, or what were you thinking here on this?

Well, what I'm looking at is if the staff could pull up the picture where they're standing at the street and they're looking at the home. That one. So right where that clean-out is, that plastic clean-out on the right of the picture, they have the 12 feet at that point. And as you're working your way up, You can see there's a radius there after you go past that plastic clean-out. There's a radius there where the driveway is widening. If staff is measuring it really close to that bush there, then, yeah, it's more than 12 feet. But if he comes back a little bit, coming towards the clean-out, it gets down to 12 feet. So we're only talking about eliminating the radius and making it a 90-degree turn. That's really what we're talking.

Well, I guess I was – so what you're implying or what the city is – or, yeah, I guess what you're implying is a parking pad is different than a driveway. Is that what you're stating?

Yeah. I mean, if you were to take right to the left of that clean-out, if you were to carry that run up a little bit and then instead of radiusing about three to five feet on a radius of the concrete and you would just make a 90-degree turn, it would be compliant. And I just – I just think cutting that little small arc out of the equation is too minor for me to not grant.

So what Commissioner Oren is just talking about this area right here, the 90 degrees is correct.

That's what he's talking about. So I got that. But we're stating that the parking pad then is not part of this dialogue at all and a parking pad is permitted by NCD for this community. Is that what's being stated?

That is not part of the review. But yeah, the parking pad is not part of the driveway. And as the applicant stated, it does not go above 50% of impervious cover.

All right. Thank you, staff. Did we have any other public comments?

No other public comments.

All right. So without any other comments from the board, would you like to provide any rebuttal? You've heard some of the discussion here on the case before we close the public portion.

If you want to know the reason for the pad in the front, it is to allow two cars to pass. My husband and I are both working. Playing musical cars is difficult. I've had a car. At my previous house, my niece's car parked in the street was totaled. Somebody fled the scene. So I, in general, try to keep cars out of the street because the streets aren't that wide, and the intention really for that was safety.

Thank you, Ms. Vacato. Yes, sir. That would close the public portion. I'd ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Stevens.

Mr. Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10300163, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a variance from the NCD 6 standard to not have a detached garage to the rear of the principal structure, two, a variance from the NCD 6 standard to not have a four-foot separation between a driveway and a walkway, and three, a variance from the NCD 6 standard to allow a driveway over 12 feet in width. Situated at 306 Carnahan Street, applicant being Laura Vaccaro, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've 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. The garage is located almost entirely behind the principal structure and is minimally visible from the street while some separation remains between the driveway and the walkway. Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. Strict compliance would require substantial modifications of existing improvements despite the property substantially meeting the intent of the NCD 6 standards. Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. The spirit of the ordinance is maintained because the garage remains visually subordinate to the home and the driveway and walkway remain distinguishable. Four, the variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located. No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance. Five, such a variance 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 variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties or alter the neighborhood's essential residential character. 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 in the district in which the property is located. The existing configuration of the home, garage, driveway, and walkway creates site-specific constraints to make full compliance difficult and are not merely financial in nature and of motion.

Thank you, do I have a second? Second. Mr. Reid, a second. Mr. Stevens.

I'm going to be in favor of this. I think the first request regarding the detached garage is pretty straightforward, and the city recommends approval. The structure is clearly subordinate to the primary structure. And with regards to the driveway, I think where it was originally measured from is somewhat arbitrary, and in general, the width of the driveway meets the spirit of the code, which I think is most important. So I'll be in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Reid?

Yes, I agree with Commissioner Stevens. I don't have any concerns with these variances.

All right.

Let's take a roll call vote.

Anna. Oh, Mr. Manning. So just a couple comments. So I will be voting in favor, but the only reason I will be is because of the parking pad designation versus driveway. And Minky needs to clarify that dialogue to state that there is a difference between those two. Otherwise, I would have voted against this. But because it is a parking pad, and a parking pad is permitted, then I can't argue with it. So I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Manna. Any other questions or comments from the board? All right. Hearing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Stevens? Yes, I concur. Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz? One more time, Commissioner.

Can we get a thumbs up or a?

Thumbs up or thumbs down? Okay, thank you. Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides? I concur. Commissioner Vasquez? I concur. Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ozuna?

Yes, I concur with unanimous 11 in favor, zero against. The variance is due past. Good luck with the project, and thank you. Next case, please. And this would be case number seven.

Good afternoon. Item number seven is B-O-A-36-10300149, located in District 1 at 418 East Locust Street. The zoning is MF33, and the request is for one, a half-story variance from the 2.5 maximum story limit to allow the development of a third-story single-family residence, and two, a half-story variance from the 2.5 maximum story from Section 35517, limiting the height of the development on a multifamily lot abutting a single-family use to allow a three-story single-family residence. The subject property is generally located between McCulloch Avenue to the west and North St. Mary Street to the east along East Locust Street. The property is within the Tobin Hill Historic District and surrounded by properties owned MF33 Multifamily District and R6 Residential Single Family District to the south. Surrounding properties are occupied by a mix of medium density and single-family residential uses. The applicant proposes the construction of a new three-story single-family home on the subject property. The Unified Development Code requires adherence to the R4-based zoning district standards for single-family development on lots zoned MF multifamily and adherence to the height limitation of any single-family residential use within 50 linear feet of a multifamily zoning district which would limit development on the subject property to 35 feet in overall height and a maximum of 2.5 stories. The applicant intends to abide by the overall height standard and request a variance to permit the construction of a third story. This is the site plan. This is the subject property. This is the surrounding area. Staff recommends denial on the building height variances based on the following findings of fact. One, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship or prevent the reasonable use of the property as a compliant single family home. Two, although the applicant intends to abide by the overall height limit, the inclusion of a full third story would increase the building's perceived scale beyond what is compatible with surrounding development. Staff mailed out 28 notices. We received seven in favor, two in opposition. Outside 200 feet, we received four in favor and zero in opposition. We received zero voicemails. The Tobin Hill Community Neighbor Association is in support. This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? If there are none, I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Thank you.

I'm Michael Greenwood, builder for the project. Dr. Patel, who's the owner of this project, spent three plus years designing, taking it through HDRC, getting approval, et cetera. I jumped in about two months ago to begin the process of permitting. In the permitting process, we were asked to get a certificate of determination. Upon getting a certificate of determination, we then were told it would be built as R4, even though it's in a multifamily 33-street district zone. Upon that, the intent of the project was being designed as a two-and-a-half-story After coming into planning, they said, well, it's going to go in as a three-story, but that was never the spirit of it. As you'll see as we go through the drawings, what that might look like. So just touching on some of that, we're on the third floor. We're under 50% on the third floor. Right here, this is the third floor or what we were shooting for as a two and a half story. You can see it here. The architect with the client thoughtfully designed this house. The client even owns the lot, one of the houses next to it. So they're in participation with the neighborhood on other levels as well. Next slide. This is just showing the client, Dr. Patel, and his wife on this property right here. So they have tried to take into consideration many aspects just to get this to be worked out through HDRC, which was done for two years. I think they went through three committee meetings along with Tobin Hill, along with getting neighborhood support for this final design. permitting it then went out as a three-story which i think caused some confusion amongst some of the residents um that well no one wanted the three-story but three stories are all over the neighborhood being its multi-family so this in the spirit of being a good neighbor we feel like uh the patels have done a great job designing something that uh everything that the historic district was requiring and trying to accommodate every neighbor that they possibly could for many years this has gone on so now we're this at this point after we have getting this certificate of determination we're now in a place where it's like okay everything's been done and now we're being stopped because of some technicalities which we hope the spirit of this does not go against next slide So conditions, we don't feel there's any unnecessary hardships issued after design was substantially complete. Not just design, I mean, all the engineering was complete for this project. Substantial to redesign, historically reviewed, approved design. Next slide. Here's the letter for the approval. I think it was Caitlin Brown that ran this project. Next. Minimal impact, it's got a courtyard, the upper level's 32% of the floor below it, which was going towards the spirit of a two and a half story. Keep going. This was a good determination. We got thrown into the whole jumble. Once we were already deep into permitting, this came up. The neighborhood was in 1910, I think, is why we had to go back and get that certificate of determination. Next slide, please, Bronte. The property is single-family residence, no change in use. Next. Okay, so rather than it's a high-density multifamily, there's no impact. There's strong neighborhood support, and we feel like if there's any support against it today, it's just from the confusion of going from the two-and-a-half story into the three, as I said. Keep going. These are some of the houses that have been designed in the area that are, I don't want to say identical, but very similar in nature to what Dr. Patel and his family have designed with the architect and just some of the houses in the area with being accomplished. Next slide. Next. Next. Just some support letters from the neighborhood. Keep going, Bronte, please. Unique circumstances. So it's narrow and technical, the requested variances. We're just looking for this lot to be taken care of. We feel that the intent substantially meets the ordinance. Limited in scope. We're not, you know, these issues were not created by the owners. Keep going. Jumped into the mix, this bulletin. I even talked to McClure, Eric McClure, a couple weeks back just asking, what was the intent of this ordinance that's coming in that's creating this new ordinance These requirements attempted to explain it to me in the best of my ability. We're not fighting with what they were trying to accomplish, God willing. And this came in during the design process, which no one was even aware of. And it's only popped up a few times on the radar of permitting and planning and zoning. So it just kind of further limits what can be done to the third floor or to a two and a half story building in that area. And then next. And that's the application. And if it's OK, Dr. Patel just might share a little history.

Thank you, commissioners, for hearing my comments. Were you done with Mr. Greenwood?

Now, if you can just give us your name and address.

Yes, my name is Jatin Patel. My wife and I own that lot. And as Mr. Greenwood had alluded to, we've spent a better portion of two years very thoughtfully meeting with our architect who has built a few homes in this neighborhood with the understanding of preserving the historic nature of the design and also making sure that we are being respectful to our neighbors. We even went so far as to meet with the Tobin Hill Association. And as Bronte had mentioned, they were in support of the project. My wife and I wanted to move down in the heart of San Antonio in the Tobin Hill District to retire there. We're both physicians, and our kids have moved on, and we want to move closer to what we feel like the heartbeat of San Antonio. We designed that back part thoughtfully to have views of downtown San Antonio. We wanted to see that area and be proud of this city, which we've grown to love, been here over 20 years. So all of the things that Mr. Greenwood alluded to is with a lot of thought and a lot of crafting, a lot of time, and a lot of money actually. We put quite a considerable amount of financial backing into this just so we can live out our dream and a family home that will be there for generations and we want our kids to enjoy it our grandkids so there's a lot of intent behind this There's nothing mean-spirited about it. We've done everything we've been asked to by HDRC. And then this came up, so we would very respectfully ask the commissioners to weigh all of these comments and endorse this project. That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Patel. Any questions? Yes, Reed.

Mr. Reed and then Mr. Patel. Just to clarify, you did receive a COA from Stork? Okay. Yeah, it was in that spot. Yes, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure.

Okay, madam. So I got confused a second ago. This is single-family residence, correct? Okay, so check on that. And then... With regards to the top deck, is it going to have an observation deck on it so that you can look out on the top floor, or is it just going to be, I guess, a room footprint?

What was the intent up there is to have a music room because we're musicians, my family, and we wanted to have that area just specifically up there, and also to entertain and have views of downtown San Antonio, as I mentioned.

So would the entertainment include stepping out on top of a roofing deck on the backside, or is it going to be just from the views inside the house?

There's a small deck that pops out over there.

Okay. So is a deck what causes the question with regards to the third story? Yes.

The deck and the positioning of the third story, which is not centered.

It's 20% on three sides. It's just that one side that is causing the issue.

So what's the size of the deck?

It's not very big. I don't know off the top of my head. It's about... It's just for observation mostly. Again, just to get the downtown view.

It's a roofed and enclosed area, but it's open air.

So, yeah, and that's what part of the dialogue was when we went through the whole thing for the three stories, because we were being inundated, the city was being inundated by three-story block structures. And part of the dialogue that came up was not, when we went to three stories, not having people observing outside to ensure the privacy of the neighbors around them. And that's kind of why the dialogue started, or one of the components of the dialogue. Okay, thank you.

Stevens.

Mr. Stevens.

When the city is evaluating this for a half-story, are they considering this a flat roof?

Well, the flat roof, they have it broken up. If the roof is equal to 3 and 12 slope, it's considered a flat roof. So... I don't believe like the first two floors because you do see some pitched roofs that are more than that three and 12 slope. So that would make me believe that this is actually going to be going with the sloped roof structure style.

So it does, but then it makes me question a few more things. If it's a sloped roof, it's meant to, if I'm not mistaken, the walls are meant to spring from the top plate of the walls below it. Is that correct? Or the roof is meant to?

It's actually meant to come in inside from the walls of the bottom floor and actually poke through the pitched roof. So it should look like dorms or that kind of style.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm joking. Any other questions for Mr. Patel? I had a quick question. Yes, sir. The exposed deck area, does that overlook the property that you own, or is that the other side?

It's towards the back, yes, sir. The property we own is towards the front, so we built the bulk of that to stick out towards the front. Okay. That's more recess, what you're talking about, if you look at the diagram. Okay. If you could pull that down a little bit.

So the property would be.

It overlooks the alley. There's an alley right there.

There's no house directly behind it.

So it would overlook an alley. Yes, sir. Directly into someone's backyard or anything.

No, it's not meant to be designed that way. It was meant to look through behind the alley to get a view of downtown.

Okay. That's helpful.

Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Patel or. Okay. Oh, Mr. Orion.

Yeah, so this could be a variance to have a third story or it could be a considered a variance to the definition where it's less than 20% on one side and it has an exterior porch, which isn't allowed. And this house looks so custom that I just think because they're at 32%, I don't see this one to be of a big deal, especially it has so much support. This house is really custom and very non-typical. So I think we need to look at it that way.

Thank you, Mr. Orion. Any other questions for the applicant? Staff, do we have anybody to sign up for public comments or voicemails to be read? Yes.

Three speakers. First one is Federica Kushner.

Hi.

You can state your name and address.

My name is Frederica Kushner. I live at 405 East Myrtle Street, 78212 in Tobin Hill Historic District. And I'm here to speak about item number seven, 418 East Locust, which is within 200 feet of my home. I have lived in Tobin Hill since 2001 and since 2010 within the Tobin Hill Historic District. I appreciate the character that the buildings from the teens, 1920s, and 30s give the neighborhood. Those buildings, although they are different from each other, complement each other. And this has created a neighborhood with a certain look and feel. In fact, I fought unsuccessfully in 2011 to prevent the demolition of the one-story classical revival bungalow originally on the lot. That is, you might be able to see it there. Over the years, the community has worked successfully with various developers to conform to the OHP's historic design guidelines and to preserve the character of the neighborhood. But here we are at the BOA. In this case, I wholly agree with the BOA staff and ask you to deny the request for a three-story structure in the Tobin Hill Historic District in order to stop the setting of a precedent and to protect the surrounding historic structures and the privacy of their inhabitants and to preserve the character of the neighborhood. And by the way, the alley they refer to, there are houses behind that house. on the other side of the alley. Their backyards are on the alley also. Thank you for your time and attention.

Manna. Mr.

Manna. So Tobin Hill, do you work with the Tobin Hill, or have you met with the Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association or participated in meetings with that? Because trying to understand their perspective and then your perspective just

It's a little odd. Yes, I am fully aware of their perspective. But I have a different perspective. I have quite a bit of knowledge of the whole thing. And I do not have the same perspective. And I'm speaking personally, not as a representative of the association.

Understood that. So I just want to make sure that you're engaged with them and kind of having those dialogues on how you want your community to be developed, and that's part of that dialogue.

Oh, yes, definitely.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker is Ed Lupomcha. Lupomcha.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Ed Lapomic, and I live at 511 East Dewey, which is one block north of the property here, which all the Patels. I'm here in support of the variance.

You can lift up the microphone. Yep.

And I didn't know what the opposition was going to look for today, but I'm going by a letter she sent to the rest of the neighborhood. I can't hear you. Let me see. Privacy was one of the issues. And in that regard, Ms. Kushner, they're right behind, but their privacy fence is a four-foot chain-link fence, so it really doesn't matter how tall any property is going to be behind them. A small boy on a bicycle can see the entirety of their backyard. The other is the character, the skyline. There's a lot of... of very tall buildings very tall trees in the neighborhood i don't think it's going to have a bad impact at all on it and as was kind of pointed out ms kushner has pushed a lot for keeping the historicals protected but we have num a number of houses that are just falling down and literally i've got fifty dollars on this one house just up the block that's I've got it falling down before the end of the year. And what we really like is most of this neighborhood is multifamily, short-term, long-term rental, and fairly large apartment complexes. And we are really hoping we get more people that want to live in this neighborhood. They'll mow their yard. They'll pick up their trash, fix their broken windows, and just be part of the neighborhood, which we really, when someone new moves in, we all rally around them. For that reason, we support the Patels and look forward to them becoming our new neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any other?

Last one is Shane Muldreth.

Good afternoon, and thank you. I'm in here in support of the variants. I live at 501 East Locust, across the street, two doors down. So I'm right there. I have a single family home. I've lived there for 10 years. I've seen that lot turn into a haven for transient peoples. And so we're really looking forward to it. having this house over the last two years the dr. Patel has mentioned he has had a great deal of outreach with all of our neighbors attending the Tobin Hill meetings I've been to five with him in support of this and we're excited the Patel's will be a wonderful neighbors it'll be a great addition And this distinction between, I think it's almost like inches between the two and a half and three stories, almost like a distinction with no difference, but we're very supportive of it and we look forward to having them as neighbors. Thank you. Thank you.

That's all the public comment.

All right. I'd ask the applicant if you want to come forward and make any final kind of rebuttal. You heard some comments from joining properties. If you'd like to kind of make your closing statement.

Yes, sir, thank you. I wanted to reiterate the point that we did engage with the Tobin Hill Association. We're very transparent throughout the whole process, so it was not anything like a hidden agenda. That is often the case sometimes with these type of projects. We were very transparent from the very beginning, and I just wanted to reiterate that point. And we have received support from Mrs. Kushner in the past. It's documented at the last HDRC meeting, just to be completely clear on that.

thank you and just in closing thank you all for for bearing with us on this the the Patel's have no intention to turn this into an Airbnb or any other form they just want to live there in the community and frankly I drive through that neighborhood quite often and it's falling apart in the house that we would put there for the Patel's that was thoughtfully designed with participation of everybody would be a great addition and other houses have already been built just about like it in the area so Thank you again.

Thank you, sir. All right. That closes the public portion. I'd ask if there's a member of the board that would like to make a motion.

Reed.

Mr. Reed.

Regarding case number BOA 2610300149, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a half-story variance from the two-and-a-half maximum story limit to allow the development of a three-story single-family residence, and two, a half-story variance from the 2.5 maximum story from Section 35517, limiting the height of the development of a multifamily lot, budding single-family use to allow a three-story single-family residence situated at 418 East Locust Street, applicant being Mike Greenwood, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of 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. In this case, development standards imposed on single-family homes developed in multifamily districts would not be contrary to public interest and would not be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Two, due to special conditions, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. The special condition on this property is a proposed development, current base zoning district, and its proximity to the property with a single family use. Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. Increased number of stories permitted for the proposed development will cause no hardship to the properties abutting this lot. Four, the variance is not. will not authorize the operation of a use other than those specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located. No uses other than those allowed within district will be allowed with this variance. Five, such variance 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. variance would not reduce the privacy of residents of abutting properties nor will it impose a standard that deviates considerably from the existing neighborhood character six play to the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property any neat circumstances which were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and are not due to or result in general conditions in the district to which the property is located play the property owner is due to unique characteristics of the base zoning district proposed development, and it shared property lines with other single-family use. End of motion.

All right. Can I get a second? Second. Mr. Stevens, second. Mr. Reap?

I'm going to be in support of this variance for a number of reasons. They've certainly made an effort to reach out to neighbors. They've discussed this with the Neighborhood Association, who seems to be in support of this, and it's gone through OHP and HDRC and granted a certificate of appropriateness. It seems to me that this is An appropriate use, I should add also that that third story is not going to face the street fringe, be facing away from it. So I think the design is consistent with the neighborhood.

All right, thank you. Mr. Stephens.

I'll also be in favor. I think it's important to note that they did receive a C of A from OHP and HDRC. And while I respect the spirit of the two and a half foot maximum story limit, to put it into effective use, it makes for pretty restrictive design and a lot of buildings just kind of looking very similar and boring. So I respect the work that's gone into the design in front of us, and I think generally it meets

the spirit of this ordinance so i'll be in favor thank you any other man mr manna so i'd like to offer a friendly amendment such that the variance is limited to the plans as submitted okay yes i accept okay

Would you accept that?

And then just the other comment. So by right, they can do two and a half stories. And so I know that some of the community members wish to have one story remain in those communities. But by right, anybody in that neighborhood can build the two and a half stories. And I think by having the dialogue for setting it so that we're limited to the instruction as defined, I think that's not a far stretch from what is that we're asking for. And being that Tobin Hill approved it, what do you favor?

Thank you. And I'm going to be supporting the motion as read as well. By right, as my colleague mentioned, you have the right to build the two and a half story. The difference here is that the outside small patio area, which is run contra to what the code is, but what I've seen, it kind of faces, doesn't face the street, faces the back alleyway, and there's enough barriers that it's not going to provide an imposing structure on the neighbor's property. So for that, I'm supporting the motion as read. Any other? All right. Hearing none, we'll close the public portion and ask for a roll call vote here.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stephens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz? I concur. Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides? Yes, I concur. Commissioner Vazquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Orian?

I concur with the findings in fact.

Vice Chair Ozuna?

I concur. That's 11 in favor, 0 in opposition. The motion is approved as read. Good luck with the project. Thank you. All right. Now we are going to case number three.

Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Caitlin Brown Clancy, Senior Historic Preservation Specialist with the Office of Historic Preservation. Here for item number three, case number BOA-26-10300170 at 1115 South St. Mary's. The request before you today, located at 1115 South St. Mary's, as you see located here, is an appeal of the historic preservation officer's decision to approve with stipulations a request for certificate of appropriateness related to the proposed installation of a six foot tall iron fence featuring two operable vehicular gates and one pedestrian gate along the front property line of the subject property. This property is located within the King William Historic District. Staff received a certificate of appropriateness application for this request on July 13th and it was subsequently heard by the Compliance and Technical Advisory Board on August 21st where the Commission took action to approve the replacement of the fence with the stipulation that the finished height does not exceed four feet. Here is an image of the current condition. You can see along the front property line there's a four foot tall wooden picket fence. And then here you see the existing site plan showing that same condition there on the left. And then the proposed site plan that the compliance and technical advisory board heard, which was initially a request of a six foot tall iron fence with two operable vehicular gates and one pedestrian gate. Here you'll see the findings considered by the CTAB. And as I mentioned earlier, they moved to approve the replacement with the stipulation that the height does not exceed four feet. The applicant did provide some precedent images for two properties within the King William Historic District that exceeds that four foot in height. One here is located at 129 East Gunther and the other at 422 Parida. Lastly, this is a conceptual rendering of what that ultimate condition would look like if the appeal is granted. I also wanted to mention that during the hearing, the request did receive 24 public comments in support and one in opposition, which was the King William Neighborhood Association. and lastly before you today you're asked whether or not to uphold the decision to approve the stipulations of the c-tab and we've provided the full packet provided to the c-tab for your review so that you may consider the same factors as the commission informing their ultimate determination thank you and i'm available to answer any questions about the case thank you let's see if we have any questions for staff orion mr orion yeah so um

I noticed that in the report staff looks like they're supporting a five-foot fence, but the ultimate use of this facility is for a child education, young children, the mustard seed, right?

Correct.

Is there any obligations based on their use to have a taller fence because they're dealing with the potential for young children to be on the property?

Not in regards to historic review. Those considerations are taken as the original use of the structure, which would have been single-family residential.

Okay. But aside from historic review, if somebody is operating a – and this might go towards maybe not historic, but – If somebody is submitting a permit to have a use of this nature, would they normally be required to have a taller fence due to the possibility of young children being around? Is there a height requirement for that educational type use?

There is a zoning requirement.

Not zoning. um i'm looking i'm looking to see if there if a hardship exists because because of the use or is there an obligation for them to have such a fence because of the fact that there's young children there regardless of this historical whatever i'm just wondering is there some sort of rule or requirement for them to have this outside of the zone if there is um the applicant might be able to shed some light on that if they're required to have it

Manna? All right. So Manna, so. I'm waiting for the applicant. Yeah, so isn't there a requirement for having a fence, but it doesn't stipulate the height of the fence? Because I seem to recall in our community that we've had that dialogue, and a fence is required, but I don't know that we had any dialogue with regards to the heights.

Schools are allowed to have up to an eight-foot perimeter fence, but as far as required, we don't have that in our code.

Is that helpful?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's in line with what I was trying to find out. Is there some obligation to have some height?

Well, staff said by right an eight-foot fence, but no obligation. Is that what I understood?

Correct. Schools are able to have an eight-foot perimeter fence, along with government facilities. But they're not obligated to have an eight-foot fence? We don't obligate them under Article III.

Okay, well, I'll wait for the applicant to come up, and I would hope that they would answer that question. Maybe there's a licensing requirement to have a taller fence. I would just like to know if such a requirement exists.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Christina Medrano and I am one of the owners of Mustard Seed Academy. Today I am here asking for approval for a five foot wrought iron fence along the front of the school. Our number one priority is the safety of the children in our care and we believe that additional foot will provide an additional layer of protection. You can stay there, the second one. We are a small boutique nursery and preschool. We have been serving the community for 13 years and we care for children as young as 12 months. Children play in this building every day inside and outside. So this is not only a commercial building, this is a building that is taking care of very young children.

Okay, you can go to the next one.

What are we requesting? Our original request was for a six-foot wrought iron fence. Through this process, city staff recommended a five-foot fence, and that is what I'm here asking for. We have listened, we have compromised. We are no longer asking for a six feet. We are simply asking for the additional one foot above the four foot historic guideline because we believe it makes a meaningful difference for a property that serves young children.

Next one.

School safety has changed. School safety isn't very different than it was years ago. As a preschool we have a responsibility to think proactively about controlled access and the perimeter of our campus. A fence is only one part of our safety plan, but it is an important first physical layer between our children and the public right away. We believe five feet provides a more meaningful barrier than four feet while still being reasonable and visually appropriate. Our surroundings have also changed. Our neighborhood has changed over the years as well. We are seeing increased pedestrian activity around the school and we anticipate even more activity as development in the area continues to grow. We will also be anticipating the green line which will be running right in front of our school. We aren't asking the board to react to one particular incident. We are asking for the ability to be proactive rather than reactive. As people are responsible for these children every day, we don't want to wait for something to happen without improving our perimeter. Okay, this one, okay.

No, go back, please.

Thank you. So historic character, we love our historic building, its character and beauty are part of what makes Mustard Seed Academy so special and we want to preserve that. That is exactly why we chose a traditional transparent rod iron design. It maintains visibility of the historic property rather than creating a solid visual barrier. We are also willing to continue working with city staff regarding the design so that the fence is as compatible as possible with the historic character of the neighborhood. We believe historic preservation and child safety can coexist. commissioners i understand why historic guidelines exist and i respect them but i am asking you to consider the unique use of this property we care for very young children every single day we originally requested six feet we listened to the feedback and today we are asking for five feet the height recommended by city staff For us, this isn't about aesthetics or convenience. It's about adding one more reasonable layer of protection around the children entrusted to our care. I respectfully ask you to approve our request for a five-foot wrought iron fence. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant here?

So this here is in regards to granting a motion for the appeal. And so if the appeal is granted, so does the applicant come back to the city with regards to what they want to build, or is it by right now we're opening it up so they can build whatever it is that they wish to build?

No. So unless OHP corrects me, if you guys approve their appeal, they will be able to build the five-foot predominantly open wrought iron fence.

So is there any limit to the height of the fence, or is it as presented here?

Five feet is the limit that they're permitted by right. Anything else, they would have to go through a special exemption.

Okay, thank you. And then... Okay. Let's see, I did have one question, you know, going back for the whole dialogue for schools. And the reason why I went there is because in my community, someone put in a landscape nursery, and the city came out and said, you have a nursery that was implied with child care, and you required a fence. And so that's why I became engaged in this whole city. because there was a misunderstanding with regards to the word nursery used in the UDC. And so nursery is implied at that point to imply a daycare or a place where children are, and with the requirement of a fence that this particular person in the neighborhood put in. And so were you able to clarify whether or not a nursery requires fencing? I just want to verify that.

Again, we weren't really not able to see if the city regulates that with that particular type of use. I know earlier we mentioned that a school is allowed up to eight feet, but per our definition, it kind of goes into regulations of kindergarten and up. And it looks like they focus more on the younger preschool or pre-K kind of items. So I don't, so to Merco's comment, the city code would allow them up to five feet height in the front. And I believe that is what they're requesting is appealing the agency's decision to only allow four feet.

And then the eight-foot dialogue would not apply here because it is the front height. They would have to apply for that.

Again, we're looking at the use. Schools are permitted up to eight feet, but we do not see this as a, like we would see this more as like a daycare or childcare rather than like a school per like our definitions in the UDC.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, may I make a comment? Yvonne, yes. It's kind of interesting that a six foot would not be allowed on this road. It's a very commercial road with lots of buses that go down this road, lots of big trucks, commercial trucks go down this road. As the applicant had mentioned, VIA has the green line. which a lot of construction is going to be happening around there as well. So I'm kind of surprised that the seriousness of security for children in this daycare center is not being taken very seriously by the city. And just making the argument that, well, it used to be a residential home and now, to me, it's very odd and kind of disturbing to me. I pass by your daycare every day. And I've seen it grown and I've seen you take care of that property beautifully. And myself, I would say that you should have stuck with getting a variance for six feet and not be so kind to King William Historic District. Because there are other properties in that neighborhood that have six feet fence in the front. And they do not have children that they're taking care of. So it's very disturbing to me that they were telling you you're only allowed four feet. And so I just wanted to give my two cents about that.

Thank you, Ms. Ibanez.

So I just wanted to state that it's the Texas Administrative Code regarding the Health and Human Services that requires a minimum for this sort of use of a four-foot fence. So that's what the state code requires.

That would be the licensing requirement for the state.

Yeah, so if it is a, it's section 746.4305 of the Texas Administrative Code, And they have to fence an outdoor activity space, you know, young children, and it has to be at least four feet high. So that's what I found.

Sounds to me like we take more care of our data centers than we do our children.

One point of clarification, when the city was reading, I guess, the summary, did you state that King William was in opposition or they were in support? Because here it says support, but I thought I heard opposition. That was the city.

Correct. The King William Neighborhood Association was in opposition of a six-foot tall wrought iron fence.

But it states here on the slide that they're in support.

That was initially for the Compliance and Technical Advisory Board review.

Okay, and I don't know what that means, so I got confused now.

Sure, so I was the case manager when this request came to the Compliance and Technical Advisory Board. We received 24 public comments of support and one in opposition. That one in opposition was from the King William Association. What you're seeing now is reflected of public comments that were provided to you all for this particular hearing. So between then and now, King William Association has changed their... Thank you.

That's where I was trying to go. Okay. And was the dialogue for... It wasn't with regards to the six foot or five foot. It was just in general for having a fence taller than four foot. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. Staff? So we'll call you back. Staff, did we have anybody signed up for public comments?

Mr. Roberto Medrano.

Hello Chairman, board members. My name is Roberto Medrano. I live at 303 Wilkins Avenue and I'm in support of what Ms. Medrano just presented. I will just add that there is a concern as Commissioner Yvonne has stated security not only schools but daycare centers as well I think we saw that happen and right in the front yards with what happened in Uvalde there is an undercurrent of concern from parents at all times Including myself as a grandfather and so we're trying to be proactive in this situation and avoid or avert any possibility of any incident happening there. If it was to happen, if an incident was to happen there, hopefully not, we pray that it never happens. Questions start to abound right away. What did you do to prevent this sort of thing? And therefore, that's the reason we're here, to be proactive and make sure that we address every possibility that we can to avert any tragedy from happening. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Manna. Yes, Mr. Manna.

So when the applicant submitted the request, was it specifically for fencing on the street above four foot? I guess trying to understand how it was submitted to follow up with a fellow commissioner with regards to six foot. If they desire to put a six foot, could they come back through and put in a request to make it higher and then this board vote on that perspective?

Yes, so it would originally apply for a six-foot special exemption. However, the applicant changed it to just appeal what the OHP board found. But yes, they can come back here for a special exemption.

So they would have to come back before the board because you've already advertised for the fight?

It's an entirely different request. Okay.

Put a new application.

So the new application can be provided to get it to Sixth Hood if that was requested and then at that point, anyways, so understood. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Manna. All right, any other questions, or any other public comments?

No other public comment, just I guess to add on. It would still have to go through OHP review. Through that process, I'm not saying that that process can be taken away if they come back for a six foot. I guess I've got to clarify with OHP whether they would have to go back to their board or not.

But wasn't the six foot the request I went through OHP? And that's what was rejected. And if we approve that today, we're basically stating that five foot would be, so I just want to verify. Because to me it seems like five foot by right would be there, and then six foot would require the extra thing.

All right, Ms. Cruz, were you out there anywhere? Did you have a question?

OHP is going to clarify the previous question real quick.

Oh, okay. Hold on, Ms. Cruz.

I'll try to clarify. So the question is, if the applicant decides, I do want to go forward with six feet, what the process would be? Essentially, I believe the initial request through the CTAB was for six feet. So the applicant, I believe, could just come back to the Board of Adjustment with an appeal and not have to go back to HDRCTAB, rather, to have them hear something that they've already made a decision on. So technically there is an option. The CTAP could reconsider the request for six feet, but the more direct way to have resolution on that would probably be an appeal for six feet or a variance in an appeal. However, that would go for the six feet from the Board of Adjustment.

And today's actions, if we take action today, that won't impede anything she tries to do if she elects to do a six-foot fence?

Well, I guess that's a question. I don't know if the posting language for what the request is today would allow for that. That would be a question for Merco. But if the approval today was for a five-foot fence, correct, then they would just move forward to permitting.

And it wouldn't, and if we take action on the five-foot, it wouldn't change anything to do with them coming back to seek a six-foot fence?

No, it wouldn't change anything.

Thank you.

Stevens.

Ms. Cruz. Oh, sorry. Ms. Cruz.

No, that's okay. That answered my question. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I just wanted to ask the question, is there an opportunity for us to allow for a six-foot fence today? Not today.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Any other questions? Okay, hearing none, that closes the public portion. I'd ask a member of the board. I'd like to read the short one. Please do.

And then clarify, if you could, Chair, with regards to what the vote means.

Okay. Regarding case number BOA-26-103-00170, I move that the Board of Adjustments grant an appeal for the property situated at 1115 South St. Mary Street, applicant being Michael Perez, because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in a decision made by the Office of Historic Preservation regarding fence height.

All right, and for the motion. OK. A second? Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Manna. And clarification, if you vote in support, you are voting for the five foot fence.

If you're voting for the appeal. You're granting an appeal for them to exceed the four. The way I look at it is they applied for six. They got denied. There's an appeal before us. Whether they change their application to a five or not, A fence in excess of four feet. I think staff should just look into if it's possible for them to go straight to six. But if not, we'll wait for another application to deal with another foot so desired.

Mr. Banner, would you like to provide any additional comment?

Concur with my colleague.

All right. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Could you please explain to the applicant what just corresponded? Right now, because I'm a little confused, and I think they might be a little confused.

Well, right now we're voting for just the five-foot fence. If we vote in favor of the appeal, then we're voting in favor of the applicant. If you vote against it, then you're voting in favor of staff to uphold the four-foot limit on the fence.

Commissioner, if I may. Please. I would like to know if it's possible for us to request a continuance of this particular case and come back with a revised application.

I think we should just go ahead and move forward with the five foot. That's my opinion. And then we can always resubmit. There's no timetable for them to resubmit for a six foot fence if that's what they want to see.

Yeah, they're not restricted by time limitations, and it would still be two separate requests because there's an appeal and a special exemption, so we couldn't combine it.

My suggestion is we're already on the one-foot line. We'll just take the vote and then come back. If you concur with that.

Yeah, and then there's still a cost regardless, so they would have to re-advertise for the six-foot, even if they deferred the dialogue, and so it would still be two cases. So there still would be a second cost, so there's no benefit from my perspective.

Is there a reason to vote on this? I mean, they're not going to build a five-foot fence and then add a foot extension.

Well, let me pose a question this way. If they got denied by the HCRC because their intent was to put something over four feet, This appeal, all that does is get them past the HCRC. The HCRC is not allowed to authorize or allow a fence site that's in excess of the UDC anyway. I think that they always would have to come to us a second time for a special exception. Is that correct or not correct?

That is correct.

Okay. But y'all can- Since they always have to come back to us, we might as well just- Might as well just go ahead and take the vote there.

You can vote on the appeal today, and then if they decide to go six, then they have to come back for a special exception. Okay.

Does that sound fair? Okay. Okay, so go ahead, staff, let's do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Commissioner Mena?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens? Yes. Commissioner Ibanez? Yes. Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz? Yes. Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Benavides? Yes. Commissioner Vazquez?

I concur.

Vice Chair Ozena?

Yes, 11 in favor, 0 in opposition. The motion granting the appeal passes. Good luck with the project, and we might see you again. Okay. Next case, this would be case number two then, right?

You got that all?

Good afternoon. Item number two is BOA-26-10300151, located in District 2 on 2806 South Rosary Street. The zoning is R6, and the request is for one, a five-foot fence height special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard fence requirement to allow an eight-foot solid front yard fence extending 24 feet from the front facade on the west side property line. Two, a 10-foot variance from the required 15-foot driveway clear vision standard to allow a 5-foot driveway clear vision standard. Three, a 5-foot variance from the minimum 10-foot front yard setback requirement to allow a carport to be 5 feet from the front property line. The subject property is located along Rosary Street near the intersection of Rosary Street with South Mill Waiters Way. The property is located within an established residential block. The property is also zoned R6. The case originated from a code enforcement investigation for building a fence. Staff visited the site and found a portion of the fence constructed to a height of eight feet. The applicant intends to extend the solid 8-foot fence for 24 feet from the front facade on the west side property line. Staff also found conditions to necessitate a variance for reduced clear vision request and reduced front setback request for a constructed carport. A permit was issued for the carport based on the submitted site plan, which identified a 10-foot front setback. However, the setback shown on the site plan was based on an incorrect measurement provided by the applicant. This is the site plan. Yes, this is the wrong site plan. I will bring up the correct site plan after the presentation. This is the subject property. Right there is where you can see the eight foot fence. This is the surrounding area. Staff recommends now for the fence height special exception based on the following findings of fact. One, the special exception would not be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter as the fence exceeds the height limit outlined within the chapter and would not be characteristic of other fences located in front of the front facade. Two, the fence height increase would not promote the public welfare of the community as an eight foot front yard solid fence is not permitted in the front yards of residential base zoning districts. Staff recommends denial for the clear vision and front setback variances based on the following findings of fact. One, the reduced distance from the fence to the road could provide an unsafe situation for both drivers backing on the driveway and drivers navigating the road surrounding the property. The reduced clear vision variance would reduce the visibility visible space for drivers navigating the nearby intersection and roadways as well as reduced visibility for drivers utilizing the subject property driveway the variance is variance request is contrary to the public interest as a one-inch setback to the front property line could impact fire mitigation measures to surrounding structures it may increase water runoff into the abutting property Staff Mail.28 notices, we received zero in favor, two in opposition, zero voicemails received. Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is in support. The applicant is present and there's some discussion on talking about whether items two and three were remained or to be withdrawn. And this is the correct side plan.

All righty, thank you. Do we have any questions for staff on this? Any questions for staff? Okay.

There were things withdrawn.

Some of the portions.

No, there's none withdrawn, but there was some discussion about items two and three possibly being withdrawn, so just wanted to put that out there.

All right. Can we have the applicant please come forward?

Hello. Hello. I'm Richard De Leon. I'm Richard De Leon. I live at 2806 South Rosary. The only reason I put that picket fence there, my neighbor put a camera on the corner of the house facing my house, so I blocked it. And then he took it off of there and put it right in the middle of the tree. facing my house, facing my windows. I have grandkids, nieces, they go over there. I don't know why he did that, but he's not the one that reported it. The neighbor across the street reported that. Took a picture on my fence and called co-compliance.

Okay, I hear you. Do we have any questions for Mr. De Leon? Any questions?

So I guess part of the question, Phil Manna. So there's a question with regards to the clear vision and I guess, dialogue. And so with regards to the length of the fence, is that a requirement from your perspective of what it is that you're trying to, what it is that you're requesting with regards to the length of the fence itself? Yes. So your request is to have what was presented in your request and keep that fence length for that whole?

Yes, for the camera.

Okay.

Okay, so all of the variances that are being read are all, you're recommending all, you want to move forward with all the recommended variances? Yes. Okay, gotcha. Any other questions for the applicant here? I had a question regarding the roof. Which way does the water run off from that garage?

To the front.

To the front, okay. And none of it goes to your neighbors on either side?

No, no, sir.

All right, thank you. Any other questions here? All right, staff, do we have any public comments to be read?

No public comment.

All right.

Well, any closing remarks that you'd like to make?

I just want my friends to block my... Privacy, because that's too much having the camera facing my house. And we're handicapped, and my wife is blind, so.

Understood. Thank you, sir. All right. Anybody here on the board want to make a motion?

Manna.

Mr. Manna. Let's see here. We're going to break them up into the number one, and then we can do the, let's see, because they're broken up, right? We have the five-foot height, and then we have the 10-foot variance from the driveway clear vision, and the five-foot variance from the 10-foot front yard setback.

Yes, so I was breaking it up into separate readings. Okay. So the first case, regarding case number BOA 2610300151, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a five-foot fence height special exception for the maximum allow a three-foot front yard fence requirement to allow an eight-foot solid front fence extending 24 feet from the front facade and built, or I guess, And as per submitted in the document itself, so for the length, so not providing for any more than what is currently there. Extending 24 feet from the front facade of the west side property situated at 2806 South Rosary Street, applicant being Ricardo De Leon, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship. Specifically find that A, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter. The proposed eight foot privacy fence in the front yard along a portion of the west side property line would provide extra security and privacy as it is in character of the surrounding area. B, the public welfare convenience will be substantially served. This special exception would not harm the public welfare and slight lines to the house will be maintained from the front of the house. C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use. The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as a fence height increase will not block the view of the house from the street. D, the special exception will not alter the central character of the district and location for which the special exception is sought. The proposed front yard fence height would not be out of character of the surrounding area and is not a total departure of fences permitted in other situations in areas of the city. E, the spectral deception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for the specific district. Allowing a modest increase in fence height in this unique location does not undermine these goals. It is based on a site specific condition that does not apply to most lots in the motion.

Thank you, do I have a second? Second, second. Okay, I'll take the second then if no one takes a second. Mr. Manna?

So limited to the size that we've kind of called out, does good fences make good neighbors? And I think this is a case of that, and so I'll be voting in favor.

Yeah, and I concur with my colleague on this one. And no opposition and support from the neighborhood association. All right, let's take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Vice Chair Ozena?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stephens? Yes, I concur. Commissioner Yaponis? I concur. Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz? Yes, I concur. Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez? I concur. Commissioner Orian?

I concur with my move back. Right, so with 11 in favor, 0 in opposition, the special exception does pass. Manna. Mr. Manna.

Regarding case number BOA2610300151, I move that the Board of Justice grant the request for one, a 10-foot variance from the required 15-foot driveway clear vision standard to allow a 5-foot driveway clear vision, and two, a 5-foot variance for the minimum 10-foot front yard setback requirement to allow a carport to be 5 feet from the front property line situated at 2806 South Rosary Street, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as the amendment would result in unnecessary hardship. Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest. In this case, there would be adequate space from the front property line to the carport and adequate space to navigate the reduced driveway length. Two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. The special condition on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, leaving little room lengthwise for a full carport to meet the setback requirements and little room to meet clear vision standards. Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. Such variance would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the front setback and driveway clear vision will cause no hardship to either property abutting this lot. The variance will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which this variance is located. No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance. Five, such variance will not substantially injure the appropriate use of a change in property or all the essential character of the district in which this property is located. The variance would not reduce visibility and there is sufficient room to mitigate fire spread and water runoff to surrounding properties. Six apply to the owner property for which the variance is due to unique circumstances existing on the property. Any unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property, are not merely financial, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which this property is located. To apply to the owner is due to the unique circumstances of the depth of the front yard, which limits the available space to meet setback and clear vision standards while also having a carport. End of motion.

We've got a second? Second. Stevens? Let's see. Who was our first? Okay, Mr. Mann, I'm sorry.

Um, so, um, I will be, uh, I'm okay with this particular request. Um, I do see that there are one or two other carports here in this community. Um, and again, we had the community buy-in or the neighborhood association buy-in. So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I concur with commissioner Manna. We've seen very similar, um, requests and have been in favor. So I'll be in favor of this one. Thank you.

All right. Can we take a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Manup.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez. I concur. Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vazquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orian.

Yes.

Vice Chair Ozuna.

Yes, I concur with 11 in favor. Is there an opposition? The motion does pass as read. Congratulations. Thank you, sir. How are we doing on time, guys? You ready to push on or? You want a break? Okay. The time is, what do you need, a 10-minute break? 2.55 will reconvene. All right, the time is 2.55. The Board of Adjustment is back in session. We are leading off with, I believe it's case number four.

Good afternoon. Marco Morave, principal planner. Item number four, located at BOA 2610300107, located at 7401 Wurzbach Road. They have a specific use authorization for an extended stay hotel motel, timeshares, corporate apartments. This is a 20-foot variance from the maximum 25-foot height limitation to allow a building that's 49 feet in height. The subject property is located within the medical center just north of the intersection of Babcock and Wurzbach Road. The proposed development of an extended stay hotel will exceed the C2 height limitation of 25 feet. The property is surrounded by other commercial and multifamily lots with many developments exceeding the proposed development. The approved zoning ordinance was presented to the public. The zoning commission and city council indicated a four-story development. This is the site plan, just showing the proposed motel there. Currently a vacant lot. Showing the apartments to the left and right there. And then a hospital. in a nearby area. Staff recommends approval in BOA 26-103-00107 for a height variance based on following funds of the fact the zoning ordinance site plans indicated the proposed four stories and the existing height and scale nearby development create unique context in which the strict application of the height limitation would unnecessarily restrict development of the subject property. Seven notices were mailed out, none received in favor or in opposition, no voicemails received, and no response from the Riot Commons community organization. That concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you. Let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Mr. Orian.

Mr. Orian.

So when this went through the zoning change, why didn't they pursue a zoning district that would allow the height? Did any of that come up? Or did they want to keep it at a C2 location?

It was more of a land use issue, most likely, to restrict the use there. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Orian. Any other questions for the staff? Hearing none, I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Good evening.

Sorry.

I guess I got a different one. Good afternoon. Clayton Nolan, 3229 Dartmoor Court, Dallas, Texas, applicant on this proposed zoning board of adjustments case. Just wanted to share a few slides. The proposed building is a four-story standard Wyndham Echo Suites product. Part of it is that we kept the C2 zoning based on the use of an extended stay hotel. The developer's proposed use is to try and support the medical district around it with long-term stays for doctors and anybody else looking for that type of product. This is, you saw this on the previous slide, just trying to show where it was located.

Next slide, please.

This is the proposed site plan. We're showing the proposed building kind of offset from the side yard setback. We're well within the other setbacks on the site. And then the red is the existing easements that are crisscrossing the site. They include stormwater utilities and even some private utilities on the site. So we tried to offset it more towards the center as far as we could. The side yard setback here is 10 feet. We pushed it to 15. and that was mainly to kind of give us a little bit of offset from that storm sewer that kind of sweeps across the site. And just following up all the things that staff has already said about their recommendation and what we're seeking, and then just another rendering, same one as the first slide, showing the four story building.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Let's see if we have any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Manna.

So were these renderings and elevations presented when it went through the zoning case?

We shared that in case it was pulled off the consent agenda, but since it was not, we didn't have to share them. But staff did have them in case we needed to discuss it with those boards.

Yeah, just trying to verify that the abutting properties, that they had a chance to look at something.

Yes, when we reached out to Ms. Radcliffe, we did share this rendering. Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Manna. Mr. Orian. Okay, so it looks like the existing use of this place was a parking lot. Was this being used to meet any sort of minimal parking for any of the neighboring properties? It just seems odd that there's this big rectangular parking lot that's sitting there.

Yes.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

there so the adjacent property that's multi-family this these two that lot in this lot used to make up a resort previously and then was subdivided for i assume the reason of developing the multi-family and then this was kind of the out parcel that was left but they don't but this parking is not a necessity for the multi-family to meet their parking obligation there's no off-site cooperative parking agreement or anything No, sir. All the parking you see in the pavement that are there are just remnants from the previous development that has since been demolished.

And also for staff, does this site qualify for any of the additional height increases due to further offsets from the front?

No, because the proposed plan is so close to the side property line. We would have to go with the least setback to start that wedding cake process.

All right. Thank you very much.

All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Any questions? All right. Hearing none, that closes the public portion. I ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Stevens.

Mr. Stevens. Thank you.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10300107, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a 24-foot variance from the maximum 25-foot height to allow a 49-foot building situated at 7401 Wurzbach Road, applicant being Flanagan, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we've determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship. Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest. The variance is not contrary to the public interest because the proposed 49 foot building height is consistent with the physical development pattern of the surrounding area. Two, due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. The existing height and scale of nearby development create a unique context in which strict application of the height limitation would unnecessarily restrict development of the subject property. Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. Granted, the variance would maintain the spirit and intent of the ordinance because the proposed height would remain compatible with the established scale and character of the development of the surrounding area. Four, the variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located. No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance. Five, such variance 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. Buildings in the surrounding area already exceed the requested height and proposed building would therefore not introduce a height or scale that is unprecedented within the immediate vicinity. Six the play 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 Although the owner initiated the rezoning the resulting zoning entitlements Contemplates a four-story development that cannot be reasonably achieved with within the applicable 25-foot maximum height end of motion have a second Second.

Second, Mr. Manna.

I'll be in favor of this request, particularly taking into account the abutting properties already have four-story structures. I think that this contextually makes sense, so I'll be in favor.

Thank you, Mr. Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

And I concur. I would give my support also that we have favorable recommendation from approval from staff, so that kind of gives my support. So anyway, let's take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yabanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz? Yes, I concur. Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Benavidez?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vazquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Orian? Yes. Vice Chair Ozuna?

Yes, I concur. With 11 in favor, 0 in opposition, the motion granting a variance does pass. Good luck with the project. Next case. Case number five.

Good afternoon. Item number five is BOA 26103, applicant being Armando Celestino, located within City Council District 4, located at 326 Cypress Garden Drive, zoning being R6, single family. This being a request for a 9-foot, 11-inch variance from the minimum required, 10-foot front to back to allow carport to be located one inch from the property line. The subject property is located on Cypress Garden Drive, local road. Surrounded by a developed residential neighborhood, the variance request originated from a code enforcement case for building a carport without a permit per staff site visit. In August of 2026, the carport remains constructed. Staff determined the carport's location necessitated a variance for the front setback. That's the subject property. photos of the surrounding area. Staff recommends denial in BOA 2610300142 on the setback variance based on the following findings of fact. One, although the carport has been constructed, granting a reduced front setback for one lot could set a precedent for reduced setbacks for future development, which may not provide ample room to mitigate fire, spread, or water runoff. Two, there is space on the property to move the car porch location for the single family residents to meet current setback requirements. 39 notices were mailed, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails received, no registered neighborhood association. That concludes staff presentation and applicant is present.

All right, thank you. Any questions for staff?

Manna, so on that picture there, so it almost looks, so did you measure the overhang part or the part of the pole with regards to 10 foot?

The overhang is at the one inch.

Okay, I just want to make sure it looked closer than that, but okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Cruz? Ms. Cruz?

Is there any other questions? carports in that area close to him that would give him a benefit of why he decided to do this carport?

Sure. I don't know the specific address, but there's, I guess, 338 Cypress Garden Drive is probably one similar.

Could it have been the same contractor? Because it's aluminum, correct?

Correct.

Okay, that's why I want to make sure. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cruz. Any other questions for staff? Orion. Mr. Orion.

So the carport is extending into the grass pretty substantially. Does that reclassify it as not a carport anymore since you can't really park under it? Has that become something else?

I think definitely it's still open on all three sides, so it still falls under a carport.

Okay. I mean, it just looks like there's... a pretty large amount there that's, I don't know.

Okay. On that tune, on that portion that's covered by the roof, is that impervious cover? Is that pervious because it has a roof structure above it?

I believe we would still consider it pervious.

Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for staff? Mary Niner would ask the applicant to please come forward.

Good afternoon, my name is Armando, Armando Celestino. My name is Armando Celestino. The reason I'm here is to ask for your approval for the distance I have from where my carport ends with the property line. The reason I built it.

the reason why i'm here is because i need your approval for the the carport that it ends where the line of the property ends yes

Oh, uh, uh, uh, uh.

The reason why I built it, I really didn't want it to in the first place, but last year it was raining hell and all of my vehicles got damaged. So I decided to build a carport so they can be protected. And I was not aware of the measurement that the city has for the measurements of the carports.

Entonces, como miraron en la fotografía que pasaron en una casa verde, yo fui a mirar la distancia que ellos tenían y hay otra casa del lado izquierdo que tiene más o menos la misma distancia. Entonces, pues, hasta ahí le dije al señor que me la hizo, que si me la podía construir.

So I was driving around, and I saw on a greenhouse a carport, and also on the left of my house, there's another house like that. So when the contractor came by, I told him, look, this is the one, how I want it like.

Si hubiera conocido los limites que tiene la ciudad, me hubiera pegado a los limites. Por eso estoy aquí para pedirles, por favor, su aprobación.

So if I wouldn't know about the measurements that the city has in place for these type of buildings, then I would comply with the city rules and measurements. But I didn't know about it. That's why I'm here to ask you to please approve it. Okay.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Manna?

Mr. Manna.

One of the commissioners brought up the question with regards to the width of the carport and how it actually goes all the way to the front door. And it appears that you cut down a tree to make room for it. So it was a pretty substantial tree that was in the front yard. So is there a reason for having it go all the way to the front door?

¿Cuál es la razón por la cual construyó el carpo bastante ancho al punto de que cortó un árbol? Entonces, también el pórtico, el techo, llega hacia donde está la puerta principal. ¿Hay alguna razón por la cual hizo el techo tan ancho?

Bueno, la razón que la hice ancho es porque como tengo tres carros, entonces trato para que quepan todos mis carros, uno en el garage y los otros en la cachera. Y la razón por la que extendí el techo hasta la entrada de mi casa es porque como tengo dos bebés, uno de un año y uno de dos años, pues a veces tienen que salir corriendo

So the reason why I made it so wide is because I have three vehicles and I want them to be covered. One of them I put them inside the garage and the other two outside under the car park. And the reason why I made it so wide too is because I have two little kids. One is one year old and the other one is two years old. And when it's raining they have to get out of the car running because it's raining so they don't get wet.

Any other questions?

So you're not parking a vehicle in the grass?

Is that true? No. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? Stevens. Mr. Stevens?

Which direction does the roof pitch or slope?

Towards the sidewalk. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stevens.

Any other questions for the applicant here? Okay. Thank you. We'll call him up in a second. Okay.

Staff, do we have any public comments or voicemail to be read in?

No public comments. Okay.

Any other final questions for the applicant before we close the public portion? Okay. That closes the public portion. I'd ask a member of the board to make a motion.

Stevens.

Mr. Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10300142, I move the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a 9-foot, 11-inch variance from the minimum required 10-foot front setback to allow a carport to be one inch from the property line. Situated at 326 Cypress Garden Drive, applicant being Armando Celestino, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of his property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship. Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest. The variance will not negatively impact the public interest as the carport will remain contained within the property and will not create significant public obstruction. Two, due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. the existing site configuration and limited available area creates special conditions that make compliance with the required set front setback and practical without unnecessarily restricting reasonable use of the property three by granting the variance of the spirit of the ordinance will be observed the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done the reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship for either property abutting this lot The variance allows reasonable use of the property while maintaining the intent of the code and avoiding unnecessary hardship for the property owner. Four, the variance 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. 5. Such variance 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 carport will not substantially impact adjacent properties or alter the established residential character of the surrounding district. 6. 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 or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located. The property's existing configuration and site constraints create unique circumstances that are not financial in nature and are not distinct from general conditions affecting other properties in the district, end of motion.

All right, do I get a second? Second. Okay, second, Mr. Manna. Mr. Stephens?

I'll be in favor of this request. This is another request that we see pretty often. I'll note that the one inch from the property line appears to be measured from a slight overhang, and the structure is noncombustible, and the slope of the roof appears to be favorable in terms of adjacent and abutting neighbors. So I'll be in favor. Thanks. Mr. Manning?

I'll be in favor as well, although I am saddened to see that a big tree was cut down to put this in. There are a number of other homes in the community that have come before the board that we have approved. So we are, appears to be approving for this type of building in this community.