[4. APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2025.]
[00:00:36]
SO WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 20TH, 2025.
AND WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND A SECOND, AND THEN ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VISITORS AND GUESTS TO ADDRESS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS ON ANY ISSUE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0 0 7.
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MAY NOT DISCUSS ANY PRESENTED ISSUE, NOR MAY ANY ACTION BE TAKEN ON ANY ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'D INVITE YOU UP.
MAY I JUST ASK VERY QUICKLY IF THE POINT OF ORDER? SURE.
UM, IF YOU WORK HERE FOR A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, CAN YOU MAKE THOSE COMMENTS AT THAT AGENDA? YES, YOU CAN.
SO THIS IS OPEN FOR GENERAL COMMENT, AND THEN AS WE GO TO INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ITEMS, THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY AS WELL.
ANYONE WANT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE AGENDA ITEMS? IF IT'S AGENDA SPECIFIC, UH, IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY AT THAT TIME.
[Consider Variance No. 25-02, A request from Mark Reed Beauchamp, requesting a variance to the City of Boerne UDC, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.B, to allow for a 6-foot fence for the front yard along Irons St., rather than the required 4-foot fence for Irons & Grahams Addition Lot 89A, (612 Graham St.).]
OKAY.SO LET'S GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL, UM, VARIANCES.
AND WE'RE GONNA START WITH VARIANCE NUMBER 25 DASH TWO IRONS AND GRAMS, THE ADDITION TO LOT 89 A AT SIX 12 GRAM STREET.
WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM PLANNING AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WE'LL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM.
UH, FIRST WE'LL LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT, UH, SLASH OWNER IS MARK REED AMP, WHO IS HERE TODAY.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS 0.344 ACRES, IS ZONED R TWO M AND IS ADDRESSED AS SIX 12 GRAM STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE AT IRON STREET INSTEAD OF THE ALLOWED LOCATION AT THE SETBACK LINE.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THIS REQUEST WAS NOTICED IN THE BERNIE STAR AND MAILED THE PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, 15 RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED, SIX RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.
THOSE OPPOSED WROTE ABOUT THE UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL AND CHARACTER THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTED WITH A TALLER FENCE.
NINE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF THE NINE RECEIVED.
FOUR WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR WITH THE STIPULATIONS, WITH A STIPULATION BEING THAT THERE WOULD BE SHRUBBERY OR PLANTS ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FENCE.
ADDITIONALLY, ONE WAS RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT AFTER THE AGENDA THAT WAS IN FAVOR.
THIS IS A MAP, UH, SHOWING THE LOCATIONS THAT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE.
UH, RED LOCATIONS SHOW THOSE IN OPPOSITION GREEN, SHOW THOSE IN FAVOR AND ORANGE SHOW THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR WITH STIPULATIONS.
THIS VARIANCE REQUEST RELATES TO UDC SECTION FOUR DASH FOUR B, WHICH STATES NO FENCE OR WALL OTHER THAN THAT OF A PERMITTED STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SPACE AND NO FENCE OR WALL SHALL OBSTRUCT VISION ABOVE A HEIGHT OF THREE FEET.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG ITS FRONTAGE AT IRON STREET.
THIS IS ANOTHER IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE SAME FRONTAGE, JUST THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
UH, THIS MAP IS A MAP OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES.
UH, THESE PROPERTIES ARE SHOWN TO KIND OF HELP SHOW THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 0 7 IRON STREET, SHOWN ON THE MAP IN PINK.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE PROPERTY AT 6 0 5 IRON STREET FROM THE IRON STREET FRONTAGE SHOWN ON THE MAP WITH BLUE.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SAME DOUBLE FRONTAGE PROPERTY OF 6 0 5 IRON STREET FROM THE
[00:05:01]
GRAHAM STREET.FRONTAGE AGAIN SHOWN ON THE MAP IN BLUE.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 24 IRON STREET, SHOWN ON THE MAP IN GREEN.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 27 IRON STREET, SHOWN ON THE MAP IN RED.
THIS IS A TIMELINE SHOWING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN JULY OF 23.
A PLAT AMENDING LOTS 88 AND 89 TO CREATE ONE LOT.
89 A WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN FEBRUARY OF 24.
THAT AMENDING PLAT WAS RECORDED WITH KENDALL COUNTY IN MARCH OF 24.
A RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR SHOWING A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG IRON STREET AND MAY OF 24.
A RESIDENTIAL FENCE OR WALL PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR SHOWING A FOUR FOOT FENCE ALONG IRON STREET.
AND IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, A VARIANCE APPLICATION WAS APPLIED FOR TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK.
THIS IS AN IMAGE SHOWING THE APPROVED FENCE PERMIT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THIS WAS APPROVED IN MAY OF 2024 AND SHOWS A FOUR FOOT FENCE AT THE IRON STREET FRONTAGE.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE ALLOWED FENCE LOCATION SHOWN IN GREEN, AND THE PROPOSED LOCATION SHOWN IN BLUE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE TO THE ALLOWED FENCE LOCATION AND APPROXIMATELY 35 FEET TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT A THREE FOOT FENCE IS ALLOWED AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION SHOWN IN BLUE.
UH, THESE ARE THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE FIRST IS UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, INCLUDING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET FINANCIAL HARDSHIP STIPULATIONS, UM, AND A TALLER FENCE WILL BE ALLOWED AT THE PROPERTY SETBACK.
UH, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY USE OTHER THAN THE USES THE ZONING DISTRICT ALREADY ALLOWS.
THREE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE PROPERTY AND GENERAL CONDITIONS.
THERE APPEARS NOT TO BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE'S ANOTHER DOUBLE FURNISHED LOT ON THIS BLOCK, AND THE ORIGINAL PLAT HAD ALL OF THESE LOTS AS DOUBLE FURNISHED LOTS.
FOUR IS, DOES NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
THIS FENCE COULD ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS LOW FENCES AND FRONT YARDS ARE THE PREDOMINANT STYLE IN THIS AREA.
FIVE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINE IF THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET AND APPROVE OR DENY THE VARIANCE.
REQUEST FOR MARK REED AMP REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF BERNIE UDC CHAPTER FOUR, SECTION 4.4 TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTIES FRONTAGE AT IRON STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR FOOT FENCE FOR THE IRONS AND GRAM ADDITION LOT 89, A SIX 12 GRAM STREET.
UH, WITH THAT I YIELD TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND THESE MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AT THIS TIME.
HELLO, UH, MY NAME'S MARK REID AMP.
UH, I'M THE APPLICANT AND THIS IS RYAN ACE.
I'M THE HOME BUILDER THAT BUILT THE HOUSE.
SO THE UM, UM, THE REQUIRED, UH, THREE FOOT FENCE OR THE THREE FOOT WALL, UM, IN THE BACKYARD, UM, IS, UH, TO ME JUST WAY TOO, UH, TOO LOW.
UH, FOR ONE AND HALF A DOG, DOG'S GONNA JUMP OVER A THREE FOOT FENCE.
UM, PEOPLE CAN EASILY GET OVER A THREE FOOT FENCE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS MY BACKYARD.
WE ALSO HAVE, UM, SCHOOL STREET, WHICH IS RUNNING AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S A FOUR AND A HALF FOOT ELEVATION CHANGE FROM SCHOOL STREET TO, UM, HIS PORCH.
UM, I RAN A LINE, SIX FOOT MIGHT WHAT? AND YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
THIS IS STANDING ON HIS BACK PORCH.
THAT'S AT SIX FOOT, WHICH IS THE TOP.
UM, IF YOU WANNA JUST HAND 'EM OVER, WE'LL PASS 'EM.
SO, AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE ONE THAT SHOWS THE SIX FOOT LINE AND, UM, MIKE, SORRY, BOTHER YOU, WHERE EVEN AT SIX FOOT FENCE IT, THE, IN THE BACK DOOR, EVEN A SIX FOOT FENCE, EVERYBODY FROM SCHOOL STREET CAN SEE IT AND WE HAVE 147 FEET OF VISIBILITY.
[00:10:05]
SCHOOL STREET.MAYBE IF YOU CAN JUST HAND 'EM OVER TO THE DESK AND TAKE IT FROM THERE.
THE REQUIREMENT, UH, OF BRINGING THE FENCE IN, IF I WANTED IT TO BE TALLER, BRINGING IT IN 15 FEET, UM, I DIDN'T FEEL WAS REALLY THAT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE MY YARD HALF THE SIZE PRETTY MUCH.
UM, BASICALLY GIVING UP ALL THAT PROPERTY.
AND THAT HOUSE ALSO HAS 325 SQUARE FEET OF GLASS ON THE REAR OF IT THAT EVERYBODY FROM SCHOOL STREET CAN SEE WITH A SIX FOOT FENCE EVEN.
AND THEN OF COURSE EVERYBODY ON IRON TO THREE FOOT.
I MEAN, THERE IS ZERO PRIVACY IN THE BACKYARD.
ANY OTHER POINTS THAT YOU WANT TO RAISE ON THIS? UH, I MEAN, JUST WHAT HE SAID.
I MEAN, HE IS GOT A BIG DOG THAT IS NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO RUN LOOSE OUTSIDE ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH IS ON THE BACK PORCH, WHICH IS, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE FRONT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND JUST PRIVACY IN GENERAL.
I MEAN, THERE'S JUST ZERO PRIVACY.
UM, AND AS FAR AS THE FENCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE ON THE FRONT.
YOU CAN JUST GO OVER HERE TO MIKE ON, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE REAR OF THE LOT, OBVIOUSLY.
AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT.
I KEEP HEARING BACKYARD AND REAR, BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S STILL THE BACKYARD TO US.
SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A DOUBLE FRONT LOT.
BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO PULL VEHICLES IN THE FRONT OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
THE ADDRESS IS ON GRAHAM, SO WE'VE CONSIDERED THAT THE FRONT.
I DON'T HAVE AN ADDRESS ON IRON STREET.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A DOUBLE FRONT LOT.
ANY OTHER POINTS TO BRING UP? MM-HMM.
WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, THE, AND THE THOROUGHNESS OF YOUR APPLICATION WILL DEFINITELY CONSIDER ALL OF THIS AS WE GO IN THE NEXT PHASE.
BUT THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING UP AND I'D INVITE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WANTS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
COME ON UP AND PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
I LIVE AT FIVE 18 IRON STREET.
I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL, UH, WELCOME MR. BO CAMPS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S, IT'S A VERY FRIENDLY ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD OF MIXED ETHNICITY, VERY SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, COULD I SEE A PICTURE THAT HE SHOWED OF THE PROPOSED PROPOSED FENCE? IS THAT POSSIBLE? OKAY.
NO, THIS ISN'T A PROPOSED FENCE.
THAT'S THE F THAT'S THE FRONT, THAT'S GRAHAM STREET THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
THE EQUIP PLAN FOR, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT HIS PLANS WERE.
I THOUGHT I HEARD THE SAME, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT I HEARD SAY THE SAME THING.
WELL, WELL IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE THE SIMILAR STYLE AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
SO THAT CAN BE A GOOD FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR SOMEBODY TO CONSIDER.
WELL, THE SIDE YARDS CURRENTLY ARE VERY INDUSTRIAL METAL EVENTS, SIX FEET HIGH TALL, PLUS THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION, WHICH IS A FOOT, SO EFFECTIVELY MOST OFTEN SEVEN.
SECONDLY, UM, THERE'S NO SIX FOOT TALL FENCES.
THIS WOULD BE A 75 FOOT LONG, SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS NO SIX FOOT TALL FENCES ON THE PROPERTY LINE FOR ITS ENTIRE EXTENT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT WHEN THE STATISTICS WERE BEING, UH, DIVULGED HERE ABOUT CITIZENS WRITING IN ABOUT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, IT SAYS FIVE, UH, PEOPLE SENT IN, UH, REQUESTS THAT THE VARIANCE NOT BE APPROVED.
AND NINE PEOPLE SENT IN, UH, LETTERS APPROVING IT.
[00:15:01]
TO SAY THAT, UH, THERE AREN'T NINE PEOPLE ON IRON STREET.THOSE, THOSE NINE HAVE TO BE ON GRAHAM STREET.
YEAH, THEY WOULD BE WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE REST.
YEAH, BUT THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T LIVE ON GRAHAM.
MY OWN SEAT IS WHAT IS MY POINT.
AND IT'S A VERY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO SAY GOOD MORNING TO MY FRIEND ACROSS THE STREET DOG.
HIS DOG AND MY DOG LICK EACH OTHER EVERY MORNING.
AND TO HAVE THIS, THIS, UH, SIX FOOT TALL BARRIER IS A LITTLE INTIMIDATING, NON-FRIENDLY.
I PERSONALLY SUGGESTED IN MY, UH, MAILED IN, UH, IDEAS HERE WAS WHY NOT DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF FOR THE FRONT FOUR FOOT TALL, NOT THREE FEET, FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE AND PUT A HEDGE BEHIND IT.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, A SIX FOOT FENCE DOES NOT PREVENT THE GUY FROM GOING AROUND YOUR FRONT YARD AND GETTING INTO YOUR YARD YARD IF HE WANTS TO ROB YOU.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S YOUR SECURITY SYSTEM THAT'S GONNA PROTECT YOU.
NOT THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE ON IRON STREET.
IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT SEEING THE TRAFFIC OR WHATEVER ON SCHOOL STREET, DO WHAT YOU DID ON GRAHAM STREET, THAT THAT'S GONNA BE A IMPREGNABLE HEDGE OF THOSE PLANTS.
I FORGET WHAT THE, THEY'RE CALLED.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA GROW VERY, VERY TALL AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE DRIVING BY ON SCHOOL STREET IS GONNA BE SEEING INTO THAT BACKYARD.
UM, SOME HAVE SUGGESTED, AND THE PEOPLE I, ON MY STREET I'VE TALKED TO, UH, ON, UM, SHRIVER STREET, A BLOCK DOWN, UH, BOB GREER, A PRETTY WELL-KNOWN BERNIE CONTRACTOR.
HE HAS A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE ALONG HIS SIDE YARD, BUT IT'S NOT CON IT'S NOT CONTINUOUS.
IT, IT GOES FOR LIKE 25 FEET AND THEN IT SETS BACK THREE FEET FOR A WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET OR SO.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S PLANTS EVERY SO OFTEN THAT WOULD BE INFINITELY LESS INSTITUTIONAL LOOKING THAN TALL SIX FOOT 10 FENCE FOR 75 FEET ALONG MY STREET.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTARY AND, AND YOUR INPUT'S BEEN NOTED AND I APPRECIATE YOU SENDING IN YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK AS WELL.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER POINTS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE OR IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CROWD THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THERE'S JUST A REASON WHY THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS THIS AS AN, AS AN ITEM UNDERSTOOD.
I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, BUT THERE'S A REASON FOR IT.
HE'S, THE FOUNDATION'S ALREADY BEEN LAID TO BRING IT UP AT THIS LATE DATE IS KIND OF, WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT SCRATCHING TO ME.
IF YOU WANTED TO DO THIS, YOU COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE A LONG TIME AGO.
ANYONE ELSE UP? HI, I'M VAL ANDERSON.
I'M SORRY TO BE OPPOSING, BUT I FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT OUR STREET HAS NO, I MEAN IT'S, YOU SEE THE FRONTAGE, IT'S LIKE A FRONT YARD AND THEN TO HAVE THAT LONG EXPENSE, I EXPANSE, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO LOTS THAT WILL GO, THAT WILL BE TOTALLY BLOCKING EVERYTHING IT FEELS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HIDDEN BACK THERE, WHAT'S SO DANGEROUS OR WHAT'S, IS IT LIKE A PRISON OR WHAT IS IT BACK THERE? THEY MENTIONED THE, UM, LARGE AMOUNT OF GLASS THAT THEY HAVE THERE, BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, THAT THEY HAVE A VERY, VERY DEEP PORCH AND THE GLASS IS BACK THERE.
AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE BEAM, THE, THE PILLARS THAT ARE AT THE EDGE OF THE PORCH HAVE VERY DARK PULL DOWN SHADE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PULL 'EM DOWN OR HAVE A BUTTON THAT WOULD GIVE THEM MUCH PRIVACY.
THEIR BACKYARD IS ACTUALLY VERY SMALL AND UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEIR BIG DOG WILL BE RUN AROUND BACK THERE.
BUT, UM, IT SAYS, IN MY OPINION, REALLY MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD JUST INSTITUTIONALIZED INSTEAD OF FAMILY HOMES THAT YOU SEE THE FRONT YARD, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS ALL OF OUR FRONT YARDS EXCEPT FOR I BELIEVE THEIRS.
[00:20:06]
GOOD EVENING ALL, UM, NAME'S JOHN WHITAKER, RESIDENT AT 3 0 5 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET, AND WE'LL BE, UH, SHARING A PROPERTY LINE WITH REED.AND, UM, JUST WANTED TO SPEAK PROBABLY JUST TO ECHO A LOT OF THE THINGS HE SAID.
UM, AND HE, WHAT RYAN HAD MENTIONED TOO IS IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY EXPOSED TO SCHOOL STREET RIGHT THERE.
UM, SO IT'S PRETTY UNIQUE AND UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE STANDING IN THEIR BACKYARD, YOU, YOUR EYESIGHT IS RIGHT AT SCHOOL STREETS, SO, SO TRAFFIC COMING UP OUT OF THE DIP, GOING, UH, SOUTHBOUND IT, IT'S PRETTY INTENSE.
SO, UM, I WOULD JUST ECHO A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF VALIDITY TO, UM, PRIVACY.
UM, SO, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND, YOU KNOW, THEIR, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S A, UM, SOME DEBATE BETWEEN WHAT YOU CALL IT AND WHAT IT IS, BUT SINCE IT IS THEIR BACKYARD, UM, I GET THEIR POINT.
UM, AND JUST WANTED TO POP IN AND SAY THAT.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE HAVE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.
WHO WANTS TO START? SO, UM, YOU HAD TO DO THE OTHER ONE, MR. MCKENZIE.
WE WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, ALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FIRST AND THEN GO BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
FIRST TIME IN THE CHAIR, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE.
[Consider Variance No. 25-03, A request from Redwood Architects, on behalf of Arman Mehrafza, requesting a variance to the City of Boerne UDC, Chapter 3, Section 5.B.2, to allow for a rear yard setback of 5-feet rather than the required 20-foot setback for Sunrise Addition Lot PT 3, Block 7 (902 River Rd.).]
[Consider Variance No. 25-04, A request from Redwood Architects, on behalf of Arman Mehrafza, requesting a variance to the City of Boerne UDC, Chapter 3, Section 13.D.4.c, to allow for a side yard setback of 5-feet rather than the required 10-foot setback for Sunrise Addition Lot PT 3, Block 7, (902 River Rd.).]
[Consider Variance No. 25-05, A request from Redwood Architects, on behalf of Arman Mehrafza, requesting a variance to the City of Boerne UDC, Chapter 3, Section 13.E.4, to allow for a 10 percent tree canopy rather than the required 50 percent tree canopy for Sunrise Addition Lot PT 3, Block 7 (902 River Rd.).]
UM, SO WE'LL OPEN UP, WE'LL ASK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO COME TALK TO US ABOUT THE NEXT SET OF 25 DASH OH THREE.AND THEN ARE WE GONNA DO TALK ABOUT OH 3, 0 4 AND OH FIVE ALL IN ONE? I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ALL GONNA BE ADDRESSED IN THE SAME PRESENTATION, BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN, YOU CAN TAKE THEM AS YOU WANT.
WE WILL NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THEM SEPARATELY WHEN YOU DO TAKE THAT.
MY NAME IS JOANNE MARIE ANDRADE.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE, AND I WILL BE PRESENTING THE NEXT THREE AGENDA ITEMS FOR 9 0 2 RIVER ROAD.
THIS PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
THE APPLICANT IS REDWOOD ARCHITECTS REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNER ARMAND ZO.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF RIVER ROAD AND ARANSAS PASS.
THE SITE IS ZONE C TWO TRANSITIONAL COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
THE PARCEL MEASURES ABOUT 60 FEET BY 76 FEET, OR 4,269 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL.
AFTER THE REQUIRED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, THE BUILDABLE AREA IS REDUCED TO 3,743 SQUARE FEET.
PLANNING IS REQUIRED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT PROCESS IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 1060 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING UNDER THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY.
ONSITE PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED.
PARKING DEMANDS CAN BE MET THROUGH REDUCED STANDARDS AND ON STREET PARKING CREDITS.
SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DEDICATED PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE.
THROUGH PLANNING REVIEW, SEVEN VARIANCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
OF THOSE THREE ARE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIES SEVERAL CONSTRAINTS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SMALL, FURTHER REDUCED BY THE REQUIRED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
THEY STATE IT IS NOT BUILDABLE UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR DESIGN.
SEVEN VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED WITHOUT VARI, WITHOUT THESE VARIANCES, THE SITE COULD STILL BE DEVELOPED, BUT NOT TO THE APPLICANT'S PREFERRED LAYOUT IN TOTAL.
SEVEN VARIANCES ARE LISTED HERE.
TONIGHT, THE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT, THE REAR SETBACK, AND THE SIDE BACK.
UH, THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE, UH, WILL BE PRESENTED.
AND THEN THE OTHER FOUR RELATED TO DRIVEWAY AND DRIVE AISLE STANDARDS WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
AT THE OCTOBER 6TH MEETING, PUBLIC NOTICE WAS MAILED TO 29 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE
[00:25:01]
BERNIE STAR.SEVEN RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED.
UM, SIX WERE FROM THE 500 FOOT, UH, RADIUS TO THE PROPERTY AND ONE WAS RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE RADIUS.
UH, SIX OF THOSE RESPONSES WERE OPPOSED TO, UM, WERE ALL OPPOSED TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, AS WELL AS A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
ONE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF THE TREE CANOPY VARIANCE.
UM, AND THEN THE RESPONSE THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA OPPOSED ALL THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
UH, NEXT I WILL PRESENT EACH OF THE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS INDIVIDUALLY.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE VARIANCE REGARDING THE TREE.
SO ACCORDING TO THE UDC SECTION THREE DASH 13 E FOUR RE REQUIRES THAT PROPERTIES IN THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY PROVIDE 50% TREE CANOPY COVERAGE MEASURED AT THE TREE'S MATURITY.
FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT EQUALS 1,873 SQUARE FEET OF COVERAGE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE TO 10%.
AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWN ON THE SLIDE HERE, UM, IDENTIFIES ACTUALLY 14% TREE COVERAGE OR 530 SQUARE FEET, UH, FROM PROPOSING THE PLANTING OF TWO SOUTHERN LIVE OAKS.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS NO TREES ON SITE.
THE OVERLAY STANDARD IS MORE STRINGENT THAN TYPICAL COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT, UH, BUT THE ADDITIONAL, THE INCREASED TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT IS TO MAINTAIN SHADE COMPATIBILITY AND THE DESIRED CORRIDOR CHARACTER OF THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY.
NOW TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, THE PROPERTY IS SMALL AND REDUCED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, BUT THIS IS NOT A UNIQUENESS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PERMITTED USES FOR NUMBER THREE.
SIMILAR CONDITIONS EXIST ON OTHER RIVER ROAD LOTS AND THE OVERLAY STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED.
WITH THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN MIND, REDUCING THE CANOPY TO 14% IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE OVERLAY'S PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO KEEP THE CORRIDOR SHADED COMFORTABLE AND VISUALLY COMPATIBLE.
THE REDUCED CANOPY WOULD LIMIT SHADE RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND BUFFERS THAT SUPPORT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
NOW, UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE TWO SETBACK VARIANCES.
THIS IS A, A RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED 1060 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING.
AND TONIGHT'S FOCUS IS ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST, NOT THE DESIGN REVIEW.
SO WE'RE JUST SHOWING THIS FOR CONTEXT AS IT RELATES TO THE SETBACK.
UH, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THE VARIANCE, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE REAR SETBACK.
UM, PROPERTIES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
THAT REQUIREMENT IS SHOWN HERE.
UM, ON THE GRAPHIC IN RED ON THE SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO FIVE FEET, WHICH IS SHOWN IN BLUE.
THIS REQUEST WOULD REDUCE THE SETBACK DEPTH BY 75%, ALLOWING THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO EXTEND CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN NORMALLY PERMITTED.
REGARDING THE FIVE REQUIRED FINDINGS.
THE PROPERTY IS SMALL AND REDUCED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, BUT ABOUT 1,156 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDABLE AREA REMAINS.
THE HARDSHIP IS TIED TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN, NOT THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
FOR NUMBER TWO, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PERMITTED USES.
NUMBER THREE, A LIMITED NUMBER OF OTHER RIVER ROAD LOTS FACE SIMILAR CONDITIONS.
THE OVERLAY STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED WITH THESE IN MIND.
SO THE HARDSHIP IS NOT UNIQUE.
THE SETBACK STANDARDS ARE CENTRAL TO THE UDC AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, REDUCING THE REAR SETBACK BY 75%.
AND THIS, UH, WOULD UNDERMINE THE CORRIDOR'S CONSISTENCY, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION AND TRANSITIONAL PROTECTIONS.
SETBACKS ARE IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN FIRE SAFETY AND SEPARATION.
REDUCING THIS TO FIVE FEET WOULD TRIGGER FIRE RATED, FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION AND DECREASE SEPARATION AND VISIBILITY ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
AND FINALLY, OUR THIRD, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST IS A, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE GUARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO FIVE FEET.
AND YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SIDE YARD THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS SHOWN IN RED AND THE PROPOSED, UM, SETBACK TO REDUCE IT FROM 10 FEET TO FIVE, THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS SHOWN IN BLUE.
AND MUCH LIKE THE, UH, PREVIOUS SETBACK
[00:30:01]
VARIANCE REQUESTS, THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF FACT ARE SIMILAR.THE PROPERTY IS SMALL AND REDUCED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, BUT IT STILL PROVIDES, UH, IN A OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF BILLABLE AREA.
SO THE HARDSHIP IS, IS TIED TO THE BUILDING DESIGN, NOT THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PERMITTED USES.
THERE ARE SIMILAR LOTS ON THE RIVER ALONG THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY.
UH, THE SETBACK STANDARDS ARE CENTRAL TO THE UDC AND THE OVERLAY'S INTENT.
AND, UM, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND REDUCING IT TO FIVE FOOT WOULD TRIGGER FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION AND A DECREASED SEPARATION AND VISIBILITY.
UM, AND THEN I CAN MOVE ON TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS TYPICALLY.
SO FOR THE TREE CANOPY, UM, FOR THE TREE CANOPY VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE FROM 50% TO 14%, UH, TO 10%, I'M SORRY, THAT'S WHAT WAS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
BUT THEY DID SUBMIT A AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE 14%.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINE IF THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE HAS BEEN MET AND APPROVE OR DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF ALL OTHER VARIANCES AND REQUIRED PERMIT PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 9 0 2 RIVER ROAD.
IF ANY RELATED VARIANCES ARE DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE VARIANCE SHALL BE CONSIDERED NULL AND VOID.
AND THAT, UH, APPLIES TO ALL THREE OF THE, UH, VARIANCE REQUESTS TONIGHT.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MUCH THE SAME FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS WELL AS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT NO ONSITE PARKING WAS REQUIRED IN THE UDC, IT SAYS THAT THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE 50% OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN BELOW THAT IT SAYS THAT PARKING CREDITS CAN BE GRANTED SO THAT OKAY.
THEY CAN MEET THAT THROUGH ON STREET PARKING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I'D INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME PRESENT.
UH, I AM DUSTIN BUCKLEY, A PROJECT MANAGER AT REDWOOD ARCHITECTS.
I'M HERE WITH ARMAND, WHO IS THE, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPER FOR THIS SITE.
UH, UH, I WANT TO TACKLE THIS FIRST WITH THE, THE BUILDING SETBACKS.
AND, UM, AS A POINT OF ORDER, UH, UH, ON THE, UH, FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR THE SIDE YARD, UH, WE WERE ACTUALLY REQUESTING THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY CORNER CUT, UH, PER OUR UNDERSTANDING OF UDC, THE, THE SETBACK THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE, UH, THE CONNECTING ROAD, UH, ARANSAS PASS, THAT IS 10, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 10 FEET SETBACK.
AND WE'RE NOT, WE HAVE NO CONTENTION WITH THAT.
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, SINCE IT'S ADJOINING A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, 'CAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOCK CONDITION THAT SHOULD ONLY BE FIVE FEET SETBACK, WHICH WE ARE MEETING, UH, IT'S SPECIFICALLY ALONG THAT RIGHT AWAY CORNER CUT WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK THAT WE WERE REQUESTING THE FIVE FOOT.
SO I DON'T, UM, AND I, UH, IN OUR APPLICATION, I HAD MADE THAT SPEC, UH, SPECIFICATION, UM, POINT OF CLARITY FOR ME MM-HMM
WHERE CAN YOU POINT THIS OUT ON, ON THE MAP? YES.
SO YOU SEE THE MAGENTA LINE THAT GOES AT A 45 ANGLE, UM, PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, UH, BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT, UH, PER UPDATED, UM, REQUIREMENTS BY THE, UH, THE ZONING, UH, WERE, THEY WERE, WE WERE REQUIRED TO GIVE UP, UH, A 30 FOOT BY 30 FOOT CORNER TRIANGLE OF THE, OF THE CORNER.
AND FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BASICALLY IF THEY WANT TO KIND OF ADD A TURN LANE OR, OR, UH, ONTO ARANSAS PASS SHOULD IT NEED THAT PER FUTURE TRAFFIC USE.
UM, SO WE GAVE UP THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE WITH THE MAGENTA LINE.
THAT'D BE THE ADJUSTED PROPERTY LINES NOW.
SO ALONG THE, UH, RIVER ROAD STREET WE GAVE UP, UH, A FEW FEET AND, AND THEN, UH, WE WERE IN ORDER TO, UH, SET ALLOW THEM FOR FUTURE EXPANSIONS AS NEEDED FOR RIVER ROADS TRAFFIC NEEDS.
[00:35:01]
UP, AS I SAID, A 30 FOOT BY 30 FOOT TRIANGLE ON THE CORNER.AND THE, UH, OUR CONTENTION HERE, UH, PART OF OUR CONTENTION IF I COULD CONTINUE A LITTLE, IS, UM, THAT, THAT ANGLE, THEN ONCE YOU OFFSET THAT 10 FEET, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S CUTTING INTO WHERE WE'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING THE BUILDING.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S THE END OF THAT IS.
IS, IS THIS THE AREA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE? YES, SIR.
SO I THINK YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE, THE SIDE SETBACKS, THE ONE RUNNING ARANSAS PASS, AND THEN OPPOSITE OF THAT RIGHT.
RUNNING THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR THOSE TO BE REDUCED NO.
BEYOND WHAT THE UDC SAYS THEY SHOULD BE.
AND, AND IT'S, UH, IT'S KIND OF, UH, THE RIGHT OF WAY CORNER CUT.
UH, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THOSE TO BE REDUCED WITH THE, THE SIDE YARDS AS THEY'RE, AS YOU WOULD DEFINE THEM, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS HAS A RIVER ROAD PROPERTY ADDRESS.
SO IT IS A RIVER ROAD FACING, UH, PROPERTY.
IT'S THEREFORE SIDES YARD SETBACKS ARE ALONG ARANSAS PASS AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
AND WE ARE NOT, UH, CONTESTING THOSE.
THEY SHOULD BE FIVE FOOT AGAINST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND 10 FOOT ON THE RAMAS PASS SIDE AS PER THE CODE, UM, THE RIVER, THE RIGHT OF WAY CUT.
UH, THE RIGHT OF WAY CORNER CUT COULD BE CONSIDERED A FRONT SETBACK, UH, WHICH COULD BE ALLOWED BETWEEN FIVE AND 25 FEET, DEPENDING ON YOUR ZONING.
C TWO ZONING DEFAULTS TO 10 FEET.
SO IT'S KIND OF, WE, WE, YOU OVERLAY THE RIVER ROAD AND IT SAYS, WELL, IT'S BETWEEN FIVE AND 20 OR 25 FEET, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR ZONING OF YOUR ACTUAL PROPERTY IS, AND THEN C TWO ZONING ALLOWS FOR 10 FEET.
UM, AND I, I JUST DON'T KNOW, SINCE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY CORNER CUT AND NOT THE SIDES, IF THAT CHANGES ANYTHING OR IF WE'RE JUST, WE'RE ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS IT AND MOVE ON TO THE OTHER, UH, IT'S UP TO THE, TO THE CHAIR, BUT I, UM, UH, YOU CAN HAVE THEM TALK ABOUT ALL THREE IF YOU WANT, OR YOU CAN BREAK THEM INTO PIECES.
BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET THE MOTION RIGHT WHEN WE TALK THROUGH THAT LANGUAGE.
I, I EXPECT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND NEED SOME GUIDANCE WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSION.
THEN, UH, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE 20 FOOT REAR BUILDING SETBACK.
UM, AM I ALLOWED TO MOVE THE PRESENTATION? SURE, YEAH.
I FELT THAT THE AERIAL VIEW GAVE A GOOD OVERHEAD OF, OF OUR HERE, UH, OUR ARGUMENT HERE.
UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE REST OF THAT BLOCK HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.
THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP HERE HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE ABOUT 2008.
UM, THAT'S, UH, ALMOST, THAT'S OVER 15 YEARS THAT IT'S JUST SET THERE, YOU KNOW, EXISTING, UH, WHILE THE RE UH, ALL THE ADJACENT LARGER PROPERTIES ON THE LOT WERE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED.
AND THEY, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR ADJACENT PROPERTY OVER HERE, THE BUILDING UP TO THE NORTH, UM, DOES HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS IT'S ALLOWED TO THROUGH THE RES UH, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
UM, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A CASE OF WHERE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU LOOK AT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FIRST, AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, C TWO ZONING AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, UH, GIVES A DESIGNATION FOR WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE FIVE FEET SETBACK, BUT IT OMITS OR IS SILENT ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
AND SO THEN IN THAT CASE, WE GO TO THE 20 FOOT, UH, BUILDING, BUILDING SETBACK.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SAYING THAT'S INCONGRUENT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU WANT MORE SETBACK BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, THAT'S UNDERSTOOD.
BUT BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE JUST BACKING, UH, A PARKING LOT, UM, IT SEEMS INCONGRUENT WITH THE, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UH, ADDITIONALLY IT CUTS OFF, UH, A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY.
UH, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT'D BE HALF THE BUILDING ALMOST.
AND, UH, I GRANT THAT THE BUILDING COULD BE, UH, REDESIGNED IN SOME WAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
AND IT'D BE A, A DEVELOPABLE BUILDING WITHOUT HAVING ANY KIND OF ONSITE PARKING.
I KNOW THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT, UM, BUT, UH, SORRY, TO THE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO RENT A PROPERTY, UH, FOR A BUSINESS AND NOT GIVE THEM PARKING.
TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PARKING AND GRANT, AND ESPECIALLY FROM AN A DA PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AT LEAST ONE A DA SPOT.
[00:40:01]
ACHIEVED THE BEST LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING IN ORDER TO, UH, MAXIMIZE IT FOR OUR CLIENT'S USE.IT'S A SMALL LOT AND IT'S A SMALL BUILDING, BUT ALSO BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND US, UM, TO THE LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, IF I COULD CONTINUE ON TO THAT.
UH, WE ARE PROVIDING 14%, UH, AND AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF A, A COMPARISON TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, THEY ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE PUTTING THEM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING SIMILAR.
THEY HAVE VERY LIMITED, UH, ON THEIR SIDE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE MUCH LARGER LOTS THAT WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE UDC AT EITHER BEEN DEVELOPED, UH, OR AMENDED AT SOME POINT.
UM, BUT WE STILL WANNA PROVIDE, UH, LANDSCAPING AND WE WANNA PROVIDE TREE COVERAGE BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, RIVER ROAD WANTS TO BE A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, UM, A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, UH, ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO OUR, SORRY, AH, OUR, I DON'T SEE IT IN HERE.
OUR PLAN IS TO PUT TREES AS WE CAN ALONG THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WHERE, UH, WE'D BE PROPOSING A FUTURE SIDEWALK.
UH, WE'D BE THE FIRST ONES ON THE PRO ON THE BLOCK TO BE PROVIDING A PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK IN, UH, IN ALONG OUR PROPERTY LINE.
UH, WHICH WOULD BE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT FOR, UH, WALKABILITY BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE ONLY SIDEWALK IS ON THE RIVERSIDE OF RIVER ROAD.
UH, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AS WE CAN, WHILE ALSO LOOKING AT MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND, UH, UH, USABILITY OF THE SITE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IS IT NOT A CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD PUT IN A SIDEWALK? IT IS.
IT IS IT, IT IS IT, IT IS JUST, UH, WE'D BE THE FIRST ONES TO DO IT ON THE SIDE, ON THE LOCK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE NOTHING.
I AM GONNA INVITE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO COME UP AND, AND TALK ON THIS ONE.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GO FROM THERE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU.
AND MY NAME IS MARTHA BIAS AND I HAVE LIVED IN BORN SINCE 1982 AND I OWN THE PROPERTY OF SIX, HER ROAD, WHICH IS THE CORNER OF RIVER ROAD AND HER, AND I'M HERE TO EXPRESS A STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED VARI VARIANCE SETBACKS THAT WE INCREASE FLOOD RISK IN OUR AREA.
MY HOUSEHOLD IS ALREADY IMPACTED IN HEAVY RAINS AND THE NEARBY SEA CREEK IS UNDER CONSTANT CONSTRAIN, REDUCING SETBACKS WITH WORSENED RUNOFF, OVERWHELMED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND ENDANGERED BOTH PROPERTY AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE NEED DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPECT THE LAND'S NATURAL LIMITS, NO ONE THAT PUSHES THEM PAST THE BREAKING POINT.
AND I URGE YOU TO REJECT THESE VARIANTS AND I PRIORITIZE AND PRIORITIZE THE WELLBEING OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
MY MAIN CONCERN REALLY IS THAT IF THEY PUT MORE CEMENT, THE BED OF THE CREEK IS, IS GOING TO GET JEOPARDIZED TO ABSORB ENOUGH WATER AND WE'RE GONNA GET MORE FLOODING THERE AND THE TRAFFIC IS AWFUL IN THAT CORNER.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? I'M SMILING FOLKS BECAUSE MY NAME'S JACK SHORT AND I'M HARD OF HEARING, SO I'VE HEARD NOTHING THAT'S GOING, SO FORGIVE ME IF I SAY SOMETHING I SHOULD.
NOT ONLY THAT THE HEARING AID BATTERY JUST WENT DEAD ON ME TOO.
SO I'LL TRY TO GET TO THE POINT AND NOT BE TOO REDUNDANT.
WE OWN THE PROPERTIES NEXT DOOR TO THIS AND IN THAT ENTIRE BLOCK THERE.
SO I HAD THREE OF THESE REQUESTS COMING TO ME WITH OH 3 0 4 AND OH FIVE ON ALL OF THEM.
AND WE RESPONDED THE SAME WAY.
PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY NOW, BUT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS HERE.
AND I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE THREE VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RIVERWOOD ARCHITECTS FOR 9 0 2 RIVER ROAD, REDUCING THE SETBACKS ON THESE PROPERTIES OR ON THIS PROPERTY FROM
[00:45:01]
ALLOWING THE STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT AT ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR BOUNDARY LINE AND WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A 20 FOOT SETBACK.AND REDUCING THE SIDE BOUNDARIES FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BUILT.
ONLY FIVE FEET WHEN IT'S REQUIRED TO BE 10, IS GOING TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WITH THEM BEING THAT CLOSE, IT'S GOING TO HURT OUR TENANTS.
WE HAVE RIVER ROAD PHARMACY THERE IN THAT BUILDING WITH THIS PROPERTY BUILT.
IT'S SOME VISIBILITY FROM RIVER ROAD IS GOING TO BE DIMINISHED AND THEY RELY ON TRAFFIC COMING FROM RIVER ROAD TO SEE THEM THERE.
SECONDLY, THE PLACEMENT OF THIS BUILDING WILL CREATE A SERIOUS TRAFFIC PROBLEM, I BELIEVE BECAUSE CUSTOMERS FROM RIVER ROAD PHARMACY AND PATIENTS FROM MY URGENT CARE THAT PULL OUT ON TO ARANSAS PASS ARE GOING TO BE VERY CLOSE TO RIVER ROAD.
AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE CALL US THINKING WE OWN THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE THE VEGETATION, THE TREES, THE WEEDS AND THE BRUSHES HAVE GROWN UP WHERE YOU HAVE TO PULL OUT TOO FAR IN THE RIVER ROAD TO SEE.
AND IT'S VERY DANGEROUS, ESPECIALLY WITH BIG TRUCKS COMING ALONG THERE.
AND WE TELL 'EM WE DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THAT BUILDING'S GONNA BE SET BACK, BUT THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A CLOSENESS AREA OF PEOPLE TURNING THAT CORNER WHEN OUR, THE CUSTOMERS FROM THE PHARMACY AND THE PATIENTS FROM THE URGENT CARE PULL OUT ON THERE.
THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A LOT OF TIME.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHERE THIS DRIVEWAY IS COMING IN THERE, IT'S ONLY 39 FEET FROM THAT CORNER.
SO WHEN PEOPLE TURN THERE, IT COULD BE HAZARDOUS BECAUSE I SEE 'EM TURN THERE, HOW FAST THEY COME AROUND THAT CORNER AT TIMES.
AND THEN THE CANOPY TAKEN AWAY FROM HAVING 50% TREE COVER TO 10% IS GOING TO INCREASE THE WATER RUNOFF.
AND YOU FOLKS KNOW IF YOU'RE HERE, THAT WHEN WE GET HEAVY RAINS, WE GET FLOODING ON RIVER ROAD AND THAT FLOODING BACKS UP INTO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.
AND THE MORE WATER THAT GOES ON THERE WITHOUT THE PROPER DRAINAGE AND RETENTION PONDS CREATE A PROBLEM, THE IMPERVIOUS GROUND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE WITH THE BUILDING, WITH THE ASPHALT AND WITH THEIR SIDEWALKS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE GOING TO ADD TO THIS WATER FLOWING OVER ONTO OUR PROPERTY.
AND, AND THEY AFFECT BOTH THE VALUE AND THE USE OF OUR PROPERTY WHEN THIS WATER COMES ON OVER THERE.
DURING, NOW I DO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOW A CONFORMING LOT, BUT IT HADN'T BEEN FOR YEARS AND DURING THE UDC HEARINGS AND THAT WE HAD MANY OF 'EM AT WHICH I WAS PRESENT, THERE WAS TALK FROM PEOPLE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND WITH THE CITY THAT THIS WAS A NONCONFORMING LOT.
AND NO MATTER WHAT WAS BEING DONE WITH THE UDC REGULATIONS, THE ZONING REGULATIONS, THIS WAS A NONCONFORMING LOT.
AND THE REASON IT WAS NONCONFORMING, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME YOU HAD TO HAVE 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND IT HAD BEEN THAT WAY FOR YEARS HERE.
THIS LOT IS THE LADY JUST SAID, I DID HEAR THAT WAS FORTY TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY NINE OR IS 4,269 SQUARE FEET.
AND WHILE THIS 9 0 2 RIVER ROAD WAS STILL AN NONCONFORMING LOT, WE CONSIDERED PURCHASING IT.
THE REASON WE CONSIDERED PURCHASING WAS BECAUSE
[00:50:01]
IT WAS SO INSIGHTFUL.THE, THERE WERE ALL OF THIS GROWTH OUT THERE ON IT, THERE WERE, THERE'S STILL METAL FENCES OUT THERE THAT ARE JUST ROOFS OFF OF, UH, A BUILDING OR SOMETHING.
WE HAD TO PUT A FENCE THERE TO COVER OUR SIDE AS PEOPLE COME PAST GOING INTO BERNIE TO COVER UP SOME OF THAT FENCING AS FAR OUT AS AS THAT FENCE WAS.
AND WE WANTED TO LANDSCAPE THAT AND THEN REQUEST A COUPLE OF PARKING PLACES ON THERE THAT WOULD BE HIDDEN BY THE LANDSCAPING, AS WOULD THE CARS THAT WERE ON THERE.
AND IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND YOU LOOK ON THE OTHER CORNER WHERE OUR LANDSCAPING IS, YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WAS THERE.
THAT WAS A FEW, COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO OR LESS.
WE GOT CALLS, AS I SAID, FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE, TO GET OUT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THAT OVERGROWTH THAT WAS THERE.
AND SO I WENT TO MS. LAURA HANING WHO AT THAT TIME I WAS THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP OR DIRECTOR REGARDING PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY AND DOING WHAT I JUST SAID.
IF THEY WOULD LET US HAVE A COUPLE OF PARKING PLACES THERE THAT WHERE YOU WOULD NOT SEE FROM RIVER ROAD, THOSE CARS, SHE WENT TO SOMEBODY WITH THE CITY AND CAME BACK AND SAID THEY WOULD NOT GRANT US ANY VARIANCES WHATSOEVER.
NOW ABOUT A YEAR LATER OR SO, ONE OR TWO OF OUR TENANTS CAME TO ME AND SAID, WHAT'S GOING ON OVER ON THAT LOT? 'CAUSE THERE WAS SOME ACTIVITY OVER THERE ON THE LOT.
AND I RESPONDED, WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD BY MS. HANING AND PLANNING AND ZONING, IT WAS A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
THAT'S WHAT I KNEW IT TO BE AT THAT TIME, AND YOU COULD NOT BUILD ON IT.
AND I WENT TO MS. HENNING AND I TOLD HER WHAT THESE PEOPLE TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON OVER THERE.
AND I EXPLAINED THEY WERE COMMUNICATING BY EMAIL, WE'RE NOT TALKING.
AND I EXPLAINED THAT WE, THE TENANTS AND MYSELF WERE CONCERNED IF SOMEBODY STUCK A BUILDING ON THERE, IT WAS GOING TO IMPACT OUR PROPERTY APPRECIABLY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WERE COMING TO THE RIVER ROAD PHARMACY, THE URGENT CARE.
AND ALSO IT WAS GONNA DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE OPPOSED TO IT.
SHE RESPONDED BY THAT THE LOT IS NOW A CONFORMING LOT.
AND THAT SURPRISED ME COMPLETELY.
WE HAD NO IDEA THAT, OR WE WOULD'VE TRIED TO BUY THE LOT AND DO WHAT WE SAID WITH IT.
AND I HAD ASKED HER PREVIOUSLY WHEN I TALKED TO HER ABOUT WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO WITH IT WHEN THEY WOULDN'T LET ME BUY THE PROPERTY OR WOULDN'T LET US BUY THE PROPERTY.
AND THEY, AND BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A REALTOR SIGN OUT THERE AND IF THEY COULDN'T BUILD ON IT, WHAT WERE THEY GONNA DO WITH IT? AND SHE, HER RESPONSE WAS, BUYER BEWARE, WATCH OUT WHAT YOU'RE BUYING.
I I APPRECIATE THE HISTORY HERE.
UM, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S TIME, YOU'RE OPPOSED TO IT.
AND IF YOU'LL LET ME FINISH, GIMME A COUPLE OF MORE MINUTES, I'LL FINISH.
THAT LOT HAD BEEN NONCONFORMING FOR MANY YEARS.
THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAD OWNED THAT PROPERTY AND TRIED TO BUILD ON IT AND THEY WERE REFUSED BEING ABLE TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY.
NOW THE WATER FLOWING OVER OUR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY.
AND THEN WHEN THAT WATER FLOWS IN THERE, IT ALREADY COMES DOWN THERE.
IT'S GOING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO OUR BUILDING AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO OUR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING UNITS.
[00:55:02]
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FINDS AGAINST LETTING THEM BUILD ON THAT OR HAVING THESE VARIANCES.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
NO, I, I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT.
HOW ARE Y'ALL DOING? UH, MY NAME'S NICOLE BISHOP.
UM, JUST FOR REASONS I'D RATHER NOT GIVE MY ADDRESS, BUT, UH, I AM A RESIDENT OF KENDALL COUNTY.
I LIVE IN THE ETJ, UM, I AM THIS GENTLEMAN'S DAUGHTER.
UM, AND SO I'M ASSISTING HIM A LITTLE BIT ON THIS.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO, QUITE FRANKLY ON DOWN THE AGENDA THAT WAS PREPARED, I WOULD GUESS BY, UM, JOANNE MARIE.
GUESS THAT PRESENTED EARLIER, UM, BECAUSE I'M GUESSING THIS IS, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU GRANT A VARIANCE OR NOT.
UM, I'M AN ATTORNEY, I LIKE ELEMENTS, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA DO.
UM, YOU KNOW, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE JUST, THEY'VE DISCUSSED ON ALL OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH HERE.
UM, I THINK THAT THESE WERE ALL, UM, KNOWN FACTORS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND THE LIMITATIONS WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THAT.
UH, IF THEY WEREN'T THEN THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THEN, SIMILAR TO WHAT MY DAD SAID, SAID, BUYER BEWARE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME DUE DILIGENCE ON THE, THE PART OF THE PURCHASER WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THESE WERE IN EFFECT WHEN THEY WERE PURCHASED.
UM, THE, I THINK WHAT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT IS WHAT HE HAD SAID IS THAT HE WAS SAYING THAT THAT PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TO THE LEFT, UM, IS ALLOWED TO BE AT FIVE FEET AS OPPOSED TO 10 ALREADY UNDER THE UDC REQUIREMENTS.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT IF THAT'S TRUE, MY BIG CONCERN IS PROBABLY UNDER, UM, SUBSECTION OR UNDER FIVE, WHICH IS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
UM, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FIRE SPREADING IF THERE WERE EVER TO BE A FIRE AT EITHER ONE OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE OTHER PROPERTY.
UH, I THINK THAT'S A, A BIG CONCERN.
I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A BIG CONCERN.
I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, BUT THAT DRIVEWAY, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, I WILL NOT PULL OUT OF ANY OF THOSE AREAS AT 4, 4 30.
I'VE SEEN ACCIDENTS ACTUALLY OCCUR THERE.
UM, IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN OFF TO THE LEFT THERE.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT OBSTRUCTS ANY KIND OF LINE OF SIGHT, THAT'S GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT.
BUT I THINK MAINLY THE, THE BIG DEAL HERE IS PUBLIC, UM, WELFARE, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE THIS WAS PURCHASED KNOWING THAT THESE WERE THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE LOT, UM, I THINK JOANNE MARIE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THERE ARE OTHER LOTS SIMILAR TO THIS THAT DON'T, HAVEN'T BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES AND THEY'VE, UM, BUILT ON THEIR LOTS.
UM, AND SO THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT'S AN UN UNDUE HARDSHIP THAT WAS CREATED BY THIS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE JUST GIVEN JUST THE DANGER OF THAT TRAFFIC JUST AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, UM, AND OF COURSE THE FIRE ISSUE IS, IS A PROBLEM THAT I, I WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU GRANT ANY KIND OF A VARIANCE ON THIS.
ANYONE ELSE? CAN WE MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENT FOR
HELLO? UM, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, THERE, THERE HAS BEEN A FEW THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING AROUND.
IT'S BEEN A THREE YEAR PROCESS, UM, SINCE I PURCHASED THIS PLACE.
UM, AND AT THAT TIME I SAT DOWN WITH A SIMILAR BOARD WHO WAS ON ZOOM AT THE TIME AND I SHOWED THEM MY RENDERING OF A 1500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
UM, SINCE THEN IT'S BEEN A BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY, UM, BASICALLY JUST TRYING TO MITIGATE EVERY ISSUE THAT WE'VE FOUND.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF DOING THAT.
UM, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE POINTS BROUGHT UP HERE BY, UM, I GUESS SOME PARTIES THAT ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN PURCHASING MY PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S BEEN, UH, LIKE GUESS THE CLEARANCE FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF LIKE SHRUBS AND THAT I HAD CLEANED OUT.
I WASN'T, UM, UH, I WASN'T STAYING ON TOP OF IT AND I DID JUST RECENTLY HAVE IT CLEARED, BUT VISIBILITY IS ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ISSUE COMING DOWN ARANSAS PASS AND MAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT ON RIVER ROAD.
UM, AND THEN EVEN AS FAR AS THE UM, THE STORM WATER AND THE UH, THE WATER RETENTION, WE'VE, I MEAN WE'VE, UM, OFFERED DETENTION PONDS AND BASICALLY VERY, I MEAN MY TEAM I FEEL LIKE HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OFFERING SOLUTIONS TO ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WAS, UM, BROUGHT UP AS AN ISSUE.
AND THEN HARDSHIP BEING, I GUESS IS KIND OF LIKE THE LAST
[01:00:01]
STANDING THING BECAUSE I BASICALLY HAVE THIS LOT THAT, UM, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, BE DEVELOPED.UM, IT IS KIND OF AN EYESORE RIGHT NOW AND I AGREE THAT FENCE ON THE SIDE DOES LOOK HORRIBLE.
UH, AND IT SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED AND I THINK THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WOULD CERTAINLY GO UP WITH THE TAXES INCREASED.
AND I'M HAPPY TO PAY A HAPPY HIGHER PROPERTY TAX INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING THIS LOT SIT HERE.
UM, BUT BASICALLY JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT LIKE A STATEMENT THAT WE ARE WILLING TO WORK PAST, I MEAN ANY OF THESE, UM, THESE ISSUES.
AND I THINK THAT THE, WHAT WE'VE OFFERED AS VARIANCES ARE REALLY, IS REALLY NOT REQUESTING TOO MUCH, UM, AT ALL GIVEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE WITH UM, WITH HOW SMALL, HOW SMALL THE LOT IS, YOU KNOW.
UH, AND THEN, UH, AND THE LAST ADDITIONAL POINT ON IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE, UH, DRAINAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE IT, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, UH, APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY ZONING AND EVERYONE HAS A ZERO DRAINAGE, A 0% DRAINAGE INCREASED POLICY.
AND WE ARE GOING TO ABIDE BY THAT.
THE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF HAVING A, UH, UH, ANY WATER RUNOFF DRAIN BENEATH THE, UH, PAVEMENT IN A, IN A KIND OF A FRENCH DARION SYSTEM THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH.
BUT WE ARE, WE ARE AGREEING THAT WE WILL ADD ZERO DRAINAGE RUNOFF TO THE, UH, SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS.
AND, UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT POINT WAS CLEAR.
SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE GOING TO STEP BACK TO CONSIDER VARIANCE 25 0 2.
AND THIS IS A REMINDER THAT IS IRONY GRAHAM'S EDITION LAW 89 A AT SIX 12 GRAHAM STREET.
SO I'LL OPEN IT UP IF ANYBODY WANTS TO START WITH SOME COMMENTARY.
I MEAN, MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS MORE PRIVACY BEING THAT IT'S A BACKYARD BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOME.
IT'S, IT'S NOT WHAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT AS THE FRONT OF A HOUSE.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, EVERY OTHER HOUSE ON THAT STREET THAT FRONTS IRONS, IT IS A FRONT YARD AND THEY'RE CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO I, I ALSO CAN APPRECIATE THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S, UH, OPINIONS ON THE WAY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA LOOK.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY CONFORM TO THE UDC, THEY CAN HAVE THREE FOOT SOLID AND THEN AN AN ADDITIONAL FOOT OF ANOTHER TYPE OF FENCING THAT DOESN'T BLOCK VISIBILITY.
AND I THINK WITH, WITH THAT PLUS SOME, A HEDGE OR SOMETHING IN THE BACK, I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE, THE
AND, UM, I'M NOT SEEING A HARDSHIP BECAUSE I THINK THE LOT WAS LIKELY PURCHASED KNOWING THAT, AND IF IT WASN'T, YOU CAN LET ME KNOW.
BUT KNOWING THAT, THAT THIS WAS THE REQUIREMENT, UM, BEING THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST NOW COMING UP AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR A, UH, FORFEIT FENCE.
A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH JOSH.
UM, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE FACT THAT DRIVABILITY WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD TO HAVE A SIX FOOT, UM, WALL RIGHT THERE ON THE ROAD, UM, IT DOESN'T, UM, UH, DRIVE THROUGH WITH, WITH THE REST OF THE STREET, YOU KNOW, JUST DOESN'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T PLAY WELL IN MY MIND.
DO WE KNOW, WAS THIS A NEW BUILD? YES.
WAS THERE AN EXISTING HOUSE TORN DOWN TO BUILD THIS ONE AND IF SO, WAS THE HOUSE FRONT YARD IRONS OR WAS THIS ALWAYS THE PLANNED ORIENTED? IT, IT'S A DUAL FRONTAGE, SO IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY.
SO TECHNICALLY IT HAS FRONTAGE ON BOTH IRONS AND GRAHAM, WERE THEY ABLE TO PICK WHAT, WHAT WAS THEIR FRONT YARD I WOULD IMAGINE, MIKE, CAN YOU HELP US WITH SOME GUIDANCE? YEAH, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY CAN PROBABLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
UM, SO THE QUESTIONS ARE AROUND
[01:05:01]
DUAL FRONTAGE PROPERTIES.AND WHERE WOULD THAT DECISION HAVE BEEN MADE? WHAT WOULD THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND? I ASSUME WHEN SOMEONE BUYS A PROPERTY LIKE THAT THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND IT OR WAS IT TWO LOTS BACK TO BACK AND SO IT WAS TWO LOTS, BUT EACH LOT HAD ITS OWN ON GRAM'S AND IRON.
SO THEY'VE BEEN DUAL FRONTAGE LOTS, KIND OF LIKE THAT BLUE HOUSE.
LET ME TWO SIDE BYSIDE KIND OF LIKE THAT.
I HAVE A ON, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE BLACK LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THOSE WERE THE ORIGINAL TWO LOTS IN LONG WAYS.
NOT SO THEY'RE COMBINED LONG WAY.
SO THE FRONT WAS ALWAYS GONNA BE GRAHAM, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE THEIR QUOTE UNQUOTE FRONT YARD TO CONFORM WITH IRONS OR DID THEY UH, CORRECT ME? I BELIEVE THEY DID CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DO BELIEVE THEY WERE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH FRONTAGE, UM, THEY WANTED TO HAVE THEIR HOUSE ON.
IT'S JUST INTERESTING TO ME THAT ALL OF THE OTHER HOMES, THAT'S THE FRONT YARDS AND THEN IT SWITCHES TO A BACKYARD.
UM, ORIGINALLY THIS WHOLE LOT WAS DOUBLE FRONTAGE PROPERTIES AND OVER TIME THEY'VE BEEN SPLIT SHORT WISE AND LONG WAYS JUST TO, AND THAT'S WHAT IS CREATING THIS ISSUE WITH FRONT AND REAR YARDS.
THEY WERE INTENDED IN THE ORIGINAL PLA TO ALL BE DOUBLE FRONTAGES.
SO I BELIEVE THE, THE SCHOOL STREET PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, THAT'S MR. WHITAKER.
AND AND THAT IS A DUAL FRONTAGE PROPERTY? IT IS AS WELL.
SO WHEN THAT COMES UP IN THE UDC, IS THERE ANY STIPULATION AROUND FRONTAGE? THERE'S NO DESIGNATION WHERE THE HOMEOWNER GETS TO SAY, OH, THIS IS MY BACKYARD.
IT IS BY PLA THE THE THE STANDARD IS BOTH SIDES ARE FRONTAGE.
AND, AND THEN IF THEY CAME BACK TO THE SETBACK, THEY COULD BUILD THE WALL HEIGHT YES.
BUT IT WOULD CUT INTO THEIR SQUARE BACKYARD SPACE.
IS THERE A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF, OF THE SIDE YARD AND WHAT WILL BE THEIR BACKYARD THAT ALSO HAS A DIFFERENT FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BEING THAT IT'S BEING TREATED AS A FRONT YARD? UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE GOING TO THE FRONT YARD? YES.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAPER DOWN STARTING AT THE SETBACK LINE TO THE FOUR, THE THREE TO FOUR FOOT HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
UM, THE ADJOINING, IT'S THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO YOURS.
THAT HAS TO BE, SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIKE SCHOOL STREET HEIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.
'CAUSE ISN'T THERE LIKE A FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF FEET LIKE RISE BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT, RIGHT.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING SCHOOL STREET'S RISE, WE'RE TALKING THE NEIGHBOR'S RISE.
BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T, DOESN'T FRONT SCHOOL STREET.
RIGHT? IT'S THE ONE LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
I DUNNO THAT, THAT, SO THERE IS A STIPULATION IN THE UDC THAT I THINK YOU MIGHT BE REFERENCING.
IT GIVES, UM, AUTHORITY TO STAFF BY RIGHT TO ALLOW A TALLER FENCE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.
UM, IF IT QUALIFIED FOR THAT, WE WOULD'VE, WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THIS BOARD.
UM, BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THAT QUALIFICATIONS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
AND THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACTOR STATED THAT THE, UH, IT'S FOUR AND A HALF FEET ELEVATION FROM SCHOOL STREET TO THE BACK FENCE.
SO THAT'S THE FOUR AND A HALF.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER CONVERSATION? I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH JOSH'S COMMENTS.
DOES SOMEONE WANT TO PUT FORWARD A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
UH, SHE'S MR. SHE'S AN ALTERNATE.
YEAH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY IT HAS TO BE A VOTING MEMBER AND I DON'T THINK YOU WERE DESIGNATED AS A VOTING MEMBER TONIGHT.
EVERYBODY VOTE TO AGREE WITH THE OKAY.
UM, WE WILL CLOSE 25 DASH OH TWO AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT, UH, VARIANCE 25 0 3.
[01:10:03]
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO BACK THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS.SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY, I IMAGINE.
SO I'D INVITE YOU UP AND THEN, UH, GO FROM THERE.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 25 0 3 AND 25 0 3 REAR YARD FROM 20 TO FIVE.
WE WERE REDUCING THE YEAR REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO FIVE FEET.
AND I HAD AN OPENING QUESTION HERE BECAUSE I HEARD SOME WHERE THE UDC DOES NOT ADDRESS, LIKE THERE'S SILENT ON, I THINK WAS THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE ON WHAT THE SETBACK FOR COMMERCIAL C TWO TRANSITION IS.
THERE WAS A, A RANGE, IT COULD BE FIVE TO 25 FEET.
JOY MARIE, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT? SO FOR WHEN IT SAYS FIVE TO 25 FEET FOR C TWO ZONING, IF THEY'RE WITHIN AN OVERLAY, THEN THE OVERLAY IS WHAT TRUMPS, UM, THE, THE BASE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UNLESS IT'S, IT'S A REFERENCE TO GO BACK TO C TWO FOR, SO FOR THIS, UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUESTS, IT'S UNDER THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY THAT IT'S A 20 FOOT, UM, REAR YARD SETBACK.
AND THEN CAN WE PULL UP THAT SETBACK MAP? OH NO.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF, IT SEEMED WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SPEAKING AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE SIDE SETBACK.
SO THE SETBACK ON ARANSAS PASS THE SETBACK ON MR. SCHWARTZ BUILDING.
UM, IS THAT ALLOWED TO BE FIVE FEET BY THE UDC OR ARE WE LOOKING AT TRYING TO SHRINK THOSE SETBACKS? UH, UH, I NEED TO CLARIFY.
IS THIS QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK OR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK SIDES, BUT NOT, NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT, THAT P AND Z.
UM, I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
UM, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND I DO HAVE CLARIFICATION FOR YOU, UH, FOR, FOR EVERYONE ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, BUT YES.
AND, AND I THINK IN, IN THIS COMMENTARY WE'RE ASKING ABOUT ALL THREE OKAY.
AND SO GIVE YOU ROOM TO REALLY TALK 'CAUSE THEY, THEY'RE ALL INTERRELATED.
AND THEN I HAVE A CURIOSITY SIMILAR ON THE WRITING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY CORNER, BUT WE'LL GET TO JOSH'S QUESTION.
SO FOR, FOR MR. JOSH'S QUESTION, UM, BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID AND WHAT IT SAYS IN THE UDC, THE APPLICABLE CODE IS 13 DASH 3D THREE POINT A, AND THAT IS ALLOWING, UM, A FIVE YARD, A FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO, UH, BASED ON HOW THIS LOT IS LAID OUT, THAT CORONER CLIP IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THEREFORE, WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS ALREADY ALLOWED.
SO, UM, IT WAS SOME CONFUSION BASED ON THE, THE CODE THAT WAS CITED AND THE REQUEST.
SO WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY REQUESTING, WHICH IS A FIVE YARD IS MY THING, IS A FIVE YARD SETBACK HERE AND A FIVE YARD SETBACK HERE IS ALLOWED.
SO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, UM, ESSENTIALLY CAN BE, UM, CANCELED.
YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS ALREADY ALLOWED THROUGH THE UDC.
SO, SO MY QUESTION WAS WITH, WITH THIS PICTURE HERE, WE HAVE A BLUE LINE AND A RED LINE ON THE SIDES.
UH, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE BLUE LINE WAS ALREADY APPROVED BY THE UDC.
IS THAT THE CASE OR ARE WE LOOKING AT SO, UM, ON THE RIGHT WHAT'S ALLOWED IS A FIVE YARD SIDE SETBACK BECAUSE THEY ARE A CORNER LOT HERE.
WHAT'S REQUIRED IS THE 10 FOOT SETBACK.
AND THEY CLARIFIED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THIS SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT REAR AND TREE CANOPY.
YEAH, I, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT JUST CAME UP WITH THE CONFORMING AND NON-CONFORMING LOT.
[01:15:02]
WHAT MADE, WHAT MADE THAT TRANSITION POSSIBLE? DO WE KNOW THAT? UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY BEHIND, UM, WHAT WAS ADVISED TO THE, UM, TO MR. SHORT.UM, ESSENTIALLY A NON-CONFORMING LOT IS WHEN SOMETHING ALREADY EX A CONDITION EXISTS AND THEN A, A CONDITION IS ALREADY EXISTING, WHETHER IT BE A BUILDING OR THE WAY THAT A LOT IS CONFIGURED AND THEN WE ADOPT A NEW REGULATION OR A NEW UDC, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AS IT IS.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THIS WAS A NON-CONFORMING, CONSIDERED A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING, UM, PARCEL PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UDC OR WHEN, WHEN THE CUSTOMER HAD COME TO ASK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY ON THIS? IF I CAN MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT.
UM, THIS LOT HAS, OR IT'S NOT A LOT BECAUSE IT, IT HASN'T BEEN PLANTED YET.
SO WE'RE CA CALLING IT SUBJECT PROPERTY OR PARCEL.
SO IT HAS GONE THROUGH SO, UH, A LOT OF INTEREST AND A LOT OF, UM, CUSTOMERS HAVE COME TRYING TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE IT WORK SO THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP IT.
AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THERE ARE, ARE, UH, A NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS IS WHEN SOMETIMES LANGUAGE LIKE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING LOT OR IT'S, IT'S, UH, THAT THAT COMES UP.
EVEN THOUGH IN OUR UDC OR ACTUAL TECHNICAL LANGUAGE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THE SAME THING.
SO THAT, THAT HAPPENS QUITE OFTEN WHERE THERE'S TOO MANY CONSTRAINTS SO THAT IT DOESN'T, THAT DON'T, THAT DON'T ALLOW A DESIGN TO CONFORM WITH OUR EDCS.
UM, SO THAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS.
CAN WE, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF THE RESPONSES THAT WAS RECEIVED? UM, COMMISSIONER KATES RESPONDED BY STATING THAT THE COMMISSION DENIED THIS REQUEST DUE TO TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY REASONS, WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY GRANTING THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE.
DO WE HAVE ANY AVAILABLE HISTORY ON WHAT THAT MAY BE IN REFERENCE TO? UM, UNFORTUNATELY I, I DO NOT.
I CAN, WE CAN DO SOME MORE RESEARCH, BUT JUST IN THE, UM, STAFF FILES THAT I HAVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR, THIS SITE, WE DON'T HAVE, UM, A HISTORY.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR BACK THAT PARTICULAR HEARING HAD TAKEN PLACE.
CAN ANYONE ELSE ON CITY STAFF UNDERSTAND IF THERE HAS THIS SEEN P AND Z BEFORE? WAS THERE A DENIAL PREVIOUSLY WITH PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY? I DO NOT KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT.
UM, WE HAVEN'T HEARD IT IN TESTIMONY TONIGHT YET, HAVE WE? IT, IT CAME UP IN WRITING IN ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO TRY TO LOOK INTO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN TONIGHT, RIGHT? UH, BUT I COULD TRY TO LOOK INTO IT FOR YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM CITY? JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM I DON'T THINK, I DON'T.
UM, JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, WE'RE GOING TO, IT'S GOING TO BE TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
SO WHICH ONE? SO THE, THE, UH, THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON IS THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UH, IF WE GO IN THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA AND THEN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE FRANKIE, YOU MAY WANNA EXPLAIN THAT MORE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE SETBACKS? I KNOW JOANNE MARIE EXPLAINED IT.
I WAS OUT IN THE HALLWAY, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
UM, MY QUESTION WAS ON THE CORNER.
I I THINK THAT CUT THERE IS FOR T.SAFETY CONCERNS? YES.
SO THAT'S DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
UH, UH, THIS IS NOT A LOT RIGHT NOW, IT IS A PARCEL.
SO IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO BECOME BUILDABLE.
AND ONE OF THE STEPS IN THAT PROCESS IS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION AND SIDEWALK AND SUCH.
SO, UH, IT IS FAIRLY STANDARD TO HAVE, UM, A CORNER CUT, ESPECIALLY IN OLDER AREAS OF TOWN LIKE THIS, WHERE IT USED TO BE VERY STRAIGHT.
SO IT HELPS WITH LINE OF VISION AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT IS A REQUIREMENT THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.
UM, AND USUALLY THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE CURVED.
THIS ONE LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHT, WHICH IS WHY IT LOOKS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT WE WOULD CONSIDER IT TO BE THE FRONT YARD.
AND SO IN THE RIVER ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU'RE
[01:20:01]
ALLOWED A FRONT YARD, UM, SETBACK BETWEEN FIVE AND 25 FEET.SO BECAUSE THIS IS SITTING AT ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE SOMEWHERE IN THERE, THAT SHOULD BE FINE.
SO THEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE VARIANCE ON THIS SITE.
SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR, SO WHEN WE GET FRANKIE, WHEN WE GET JUST FOR, FOR THE RECORD ALLOWED, WHY WOULD IT BE ALLOWED? SO I THINK IT'S GONNA COME DOWN TO CANOPY IS THE REAL VARIANCE REQUEST IT SOUNDS LIKE.
WELL, I THINK THERE IS REAR YARD SETBACK.
WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA GET YOU, WE MAY NEED TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK.
BUT WE ARE GONNA GET YOU SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
FOR YOUR ACTION, YOU CAN DEAL WITH THE BACKYARD SETBACK, UH, REAR YARD SETBACK IF YOU WANT.
AND, UH, AND THEN WE COULD CHANGE THE ORDER, UH, AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION TO, TO DO THE SIDE YARD LAST, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANNA DO WHILE WE CLARIFY.
SO I, I'M COMFORTABLE ASKING FOR IF ANYONE HAS A MOTION TO CONSIDER VARIANCE NUMBER 25 0 3 A REQUEST FROM WE REDWOOD ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF, I APOLOGIZE, I'M NOT GONNA SAY YOUR NAME CORRECTLY.
ARMAND REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF BERNIE UDC CHAPTER THREE, SECTION FIVE POINT B 0.2 TO ALLOW A REAR YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR SUNRISE EDITION.
LOT THREE BLOCK 7 9 0 2 RIVER.
SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT VARIANCE NUMBER 25 DASH OH THREE, DO WE WANNA HAVE ANY CONVERSATION? YEAH, SO REAR YARD SETBACK.
I KNOW FOR A FACT THE, UM, IMPERVIOUS LAND COVER ASPHALT, UH, CONSTRUCTION, THAT WHOLE AREA IS LIKE A RIVER.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU WADE THROUGH THERE.
UM, THE RUNOFF COMING FROM UP THAT HILL DOWN, UM, UH, CARRANZA DETER.
AND ALL THAT, THE, IT, IT'S, IT'S RIDICULOUS HOW MUCH FLOW THERE IS THROUGH THERE.
AND HAVING LESS LAND COVER HA HAVING LESS, UH, TREES AND MORE IMPERVIOUS LAND COVER, IT JUST EXACERBATES THAT PROBLEM AND KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.
SO MR. STEWART, THEY WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY DRAINAGE COATS, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE VARIANCE.
SO IF, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES THE DRAINAGE, THEY WILL NEED TO, THEY WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THAT AS PART OF THE PERMITTING.
SO THIS IS MERELY TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION IN THAT SETBACK AREA.
AND THEN WITHIN THAT SETBACK AREA, WE COULD QUALIFY FIRE MATERIALS AND, AND THINGS IN THAT BUILDING.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
THE SETBACK WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE.
WELL AGAIN, THEY'LL, THEY'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, WITH THE, UH, BUILDING CODES.
SO IF THE BUILDING CODES REQUIRE FIREPROOF MATERIALS IN THERE, THEN, THEN IT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND FRANKIE, I DON'T KNOW, OR JOHN MARIE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.
IF, IF THIS SETBACK VARIANCE WERE TO BE APPROVED AND THEY WERE TO MOVE THE BUILDING, UH, HAVE THE BUILDING, UH, WITHIN AND HAVE THE SETBACK AT FIVE FOOT AND HAVE THE BUILDING AT THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK LINE, IF IT TRIGGERS ANY OF THE BUILDING CODES THAT WOULD REQUIRE FIREPROOF MATERIALS OR OTHER FIRE, UM, SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH, PUT THAT PLAT BACK UP THAT HAS THE REAR ONE PLEASE.
SO RIGHT NOW THAT RED LINE WOULD BE THE SETBACK IS THE PER THE REQUIREMENT? YES.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING MOVE TO THE BLUE LINE.
WHICH IS FIVE FOOT OFF THE MAGENTA.
THE, SO JUST GOING BACK TO THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK FOR, UH, ON THIS BOARD, UM, THE HARDSHIP SEEMS TO BE THAT IT'S A SMALL LOT AND THE UDC DOESN'T HAVE AN EXCLUSION FOR SMALL LOTS.
WE CAN ARGUE WHETHER IT SHOULD OR WHETHER IT SHOULDN'T, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
AND I VENTURE TO SAY EVERY, EVERYBODY DEVELOPING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS IN A SMALLER TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT.
I'M SURE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD ALL WANT.
[01:25:01]
AND I'M, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME JUSTIFYING GRANTING THAT, UM, BECAUSE IT'S SMALL.YEAH, I, I RECOGNIZE THIS IS A VERY HARD LOT TO DEVELOP AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT.
UM, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S MEETING OUR REQUIREMENTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY ON 25 0 3? ANYONE WILLING TO PUT IN A MOTION? I MOVE.
AND I, I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE.
I MISSPOKE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
I SAID THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT, BUT WE DO BECAUSE IF WE GO BACK TO THE PHOTO ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT IS 10 FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
I MISSPOKEN SAID IT WAS FIVE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE UDC, IT'S 10 FEET ON BOTH SIDES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO THE SIDE.
SO WE WILL NEED TO HAVE YOU GUYS VOTE ON THIS, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO, SO THE QUESTION THEN, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THAT MM-HMM
WHAT'S THAT SETBACK? I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I DUNNO.
UM, MAYBE WE CAN SEE JUST FOR CONTEXT WISE ON THE AERIAL, IF IT'LL SHOW US, UH, THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.
YEAH, THE LINES ARE A LITTLE SKEWED ON THAT.
WE'RE NOT SURE THE EXACT DIMENSIONS, THE EXACT SPACING FROM THE OTHER OFFICE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, WE DON'T HAVE A SURVEY THAT SHOWS THAT YOU COULD TAKE AN APPROXIMATION OFFLINE, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE THAT AN APPROXIMATION AND LOOKS LIKE ABOUT FIVE FEET.
AND THEN AGAIN, IF THE VARIANCE WERE TO BE APPROVED AND THE SETBACK IS REDUCED TO FIVE FEET, IF IT TRIGGERS ANY FIRE OR BUILDING CODE TO INCREASE THE FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS AND MATERIALS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO COMPLY.
SO WE'RE CONSIDERING VARIANCE 25 0 4 IN THE, AND IT'S A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE SUNRISE ADDITION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS ONE AS WELL.
THANK ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING 25 0 4 5 0.
AND THEN THE FINAL ONE IS CONSIDER A VARIANCE NUMBER 25 0 5 A REQUEST FROM REDWOOD ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF ARMAND REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF BERNIE UDC CHAPTER THREE, SECTION 13 POINT E 0.4 TO ALLOW FOR A 10% TREE CANOPY RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50% TREE CANOPY FOR SUNRISE EDITION.
LOT THREE BLOCK 7 9 0 2 RIVER ROAD.
I'LL OPEN THAT UP FOR THE BOARD.
ANY COMMENTARY OR QUESTIONS AROUND TREE CANOPY? I THINK IT COMES BACK TO WHAT JOSH SAID.
THE HARDSHIP REALLY IS JUST THE SIZE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, YEAH, IT'S ABOUT THE TREE TOO.
I HAVE A QUESTION JUST FOR A LOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TREES NOW, UM, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION TO TAKE IT TWO 50% CANOPY, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND IF IT WAS COVERED UP WITH TREES, THEY COULDN'T REDUCE IT BELOW 50% CANOPY? YES.
SO THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD AROUND AND PLANT AROUND THAT? YES, THEY COULD.
I THINK THERE IS PROVISIONS FOR THEM TO MOVE, UM, EXISTING TREES OR, OR REMOVE AND, UM, PLANT NEW ONES TO STILL MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S TYPICALLY, UM, NEEDS TO GO THROUGH, UH, RYAN BASS, OUR, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, HE WORKS WITH THEM TO, TO UNDERSTOOD.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT THEY MADE EFFORTS TO 14%, BUT IT, IT'S A SMALL LOT.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY TOUGH TO GET TO THE 50.
BUT I, I HEAR JOSH'S FEEDBACK THAT IS
[01:30:01]
A REQUIREMENT UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE UDC, UM, FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY IN, IN THIS OVERLAY.NO DOUBT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ON THAT LOT.
SO IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION OR HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE TO THAT STEP? I DON'T THINK THERE'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO, TO REALLY WHAT OUR BAROMETER IS.
I, I THINK IT IS THE NATURE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME AND COMMENTARY.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS EFFORT IN.
I, I KNOW IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE DECISION THAT EVERYBODY WANTS, UM, BUT WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE DEBATE AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THE MEETING FOR THE NIGHT.