 18150 is a request for a two-foot variant of the Mekka Park and Reconciliation District design requirement of the 10-foot building separation to allow two structures to be eight feet apart. How we can't imagine would Homes LT, Property Address, 329 Bermond Avenue, Sonning, MF 33, and CTC, Small to Family Mekka Park and Reconciliation District. Here is the location map. The Yelpicant is building a single family home on the subject property and seeking a variant to allow the house to be eight foot from the edging centre. The subject property is located within the Mekka Park and Reconciliation District, which requires 10 feet of building separation between structures. The Yelpicant states that the previous structure was demolished due to deteriorating conditions with the intent of constructing a new home in its five feet away from the west property line. While the property is proposed to be five feet away from the west property line, which means to setbacks, the non-performing neighboring property on the west is only three feet away from the property line, forcing a seven foot setback from the subject property. Here is the site map. We will be looking at the west part of it. Here is the subject property, the property and neighboring project. There is one street scape to the west, and one street scape to the east. Several months ago, all of the variants in A18 were picked based on the public funding. The variance is contrary to the public interest in that it may detract from the character of the community. The male 30-year-old is the subject property located within the boundaries of the Mekka Park and Reconciliation District. Reconciliation District standards is a process in which the property owners within the neighborhood who are working to create an NCD work with steady staff on creating those standards. When this one was adopted, it was sort of like a joint venture, if you will. Our job as a city is to uphold those standards, enforce those standards, and only when there are huge conflicts or legal aspects, if you will, would we or that the design would meet the intent and spirit, do we change our recommendation? In this case, just to give you a great background, there were a couple of NCDs that we have worked and they run us on in the last year to update, to address some loopholes and inconsistencies and help provide clarification. Mekka Park is the third one that we are currently working on. And so, this is one of the standards that we had started to talk about and discuss with the task force, letting them know of the potential to be punitive to a property owner where there is on either side of that property not conforming structures. So, we tabled it from the proposed revision language to it and we hope to address it at the next meeting. We have been meeting monthly with this task force that is made up of property owners within the Mekka Park neighborhood, but we haven't finished the discussion on that. So, I just wanted to give you a brief background, but this is one of the standards that is currently under review. So, it does be premature to hear this case? No. I mean, the standard is still in place today and the developer has a time clock that he needs to move forward with, so that's why he is trying to variance. So, essentially what they've done is they've polished one home, are they planning on moving two homes on the same log? So, the developer is here to help answer that. Okay. And the plan that you're discussing, that this investigation and cooperation, are you giving us a notification by this denial of what is expected to occur? So, in the staff report, we put that again, we tabled it. So, another word when we got to this, there wasn't a consensus to keep the language as is. There was a consensus to come back and revisit it to address the fact that there are non-conforming structures on either side of property owners' lives. Alright. So, a couple of questions. The NCD came out in 2009, correct? Yes. Okay. And is it common for this neighborhood to have homes three feet long, or does this happen to be an outlier? Yes. No, it is common to have properties within the same three feet long, because again, they were built when site setbacks were about three feet. And so, with the 25 foot, this is only a 25 foot wide log, and he would have to build a house that was built 13 feet wide. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No. Go ahead. Sure, I'm clear. So, the neighboring house is less than the five foot site setback. That's correct. But it doesn't appear to be a whole house from previous codes or prior to the five foot setback code. Is that a new home? No. So, I think if you go to the pictures showing one, that is, it's that one on the, if you're looking at it, it's on the west side, the west side. Okay. So, the large green home is the existing home that is... That is nonconforming. I was looking at the right side, and that was my confusion. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Roger. Sure. I would say that, I believe that site was where the bulk of the house set. I'm going to draw that down. It is fine. It did them. No, no. Is that the code? Thank you. Any other questions? No. Thank you. Would the app come forward, please? Sir, for the record, we need your name and address, and the reason why you're requesting this. My name is John Grythamon of Imagine Homes, address 11467 Heapy Road, sweet 225-7230. We're here today to ask for a two-foot variance from the Mankey Park and CD section 3.1.1, which required the 10-foot separation and the request due to the nonconforming setback on the house to the left of our property here. We've got a few slides I'd like to show you in this part of my presentation here. So the lot in yellow there is lot 44 from the original 1927 Nathan Terrace Platt. The property has not been replatted or modified over the years since the original Platt. And over the last two years, Imagine Homes pulled 36 permits within this particular NCD. And you have not seen this here before because we understood the rules and worked to certainly stay within those rules and not have to come out with the variances in the projects that we're working on. So we're kind of here showing the house that was in existence, and it's actually was built right up to within foot of the property line. So there was four feet of separation between this is the green house that's existing that's not conforming approximately three feet off the property line. And this is the house that was taken down. You can see here it was set rather low and lots of slopes from the rear towards the street. And so there were drainage issues along the back of the house. But really the house was mostly obsolete. It was, if that house were to be updated, it would require a new wiring, plumbing. We brought it to the current energy codes and we needed to have central heating there to make it marketable to today's home buyers. In doing all that, we would have had a full building permit because we would have exceeded 50 percent of the value of the home, which would have brought us right back here to ask for a variance to the same standard anyway. As part of the review, we would have been denied the permit because of the side setback here not giving the 10 foot separation. Different angles showing where the existing house was. Now because with the new property we propose here with the five foot conforming side setback, it will give 18 between the two buildings. Because that existing property owner is three feet off, we worked out an agreement with that owner to provide them an access easement to maintain and facilitate the maintenance and the access along that as well as an agreement to not place any kind of fence so that it would leave clear access there. Any kind of fence would be pushed back beyond the rear of the existing home there to our left. Now there's no commentary in the NCD as to the purpose of the 10 foot separation, but the diagram seems to indicate that the 10 feet was based on the minimum side setback of five feet on two conforming properties. And so it felt unfair to penalize the property owner because of the non conforming issue next to or by any different and increased setback. We, you know, furthermore on a 25 foot live, we were forced to have 12 feet of side setback. It reduces us to a 13 foot footprint. And we begin, if we try to incorporate that into a single family residence, we'd be back here asking for different variances to the NCD, for glazing requirements, front yard, facing the street. There's numerous other things that we could not meet with that footprint. Now the neighborhood is a very unique and diverse neighborhood, particularly south of the park. There's a mixture of single family duplexes, triplexes, full-plex of apartments, and you see separation of all kinds. And so I've just taken a sampling here of a few streets around us to show that there are houses with much less than 10 feet separation. Here's one on Nadolin, which is one street to the south. I've got two that I'll show you here on Queen Anne Court, which are a couple of streets to the north. Another one here with mental. This is just a sampling here of what we've seen. So what I'm here today to ask you for is this two foot variance to allow us to build it on the five feet off of the property line in conforming standard. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the new home will actually increase. What was there at four feet to now being an eight foot separation between buildings? The location meets the end of 33 requirements for a five foot side set then. If the purpose was for maintenance for that 10 foot separation, we would address that by granting the property to the left, a maintenance easement. And the total safety of a fire separation would actually increase that separation from four feet to now being eight foot separation between the buildings. Again, it will not, the spirit of the ordinance will not, I'm sorry, it will not, the little enforcement would not result in unnecessary hardship. We did not create this condition. It was created due to the non-conforming status of the property next door. And the strict enforcement of the 10 foot separation would make the lot unnotable. And then, the variance is not, are you able to create a minimum we have with the presidents, but residential property owners entitled to the use of their property to the fullest as it relates to a family home or a place of family recreation. Graining this variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed. We say that there's no commentary on the NCD as a purpose of separation. The variance will provide an eight foot separation between the homes which is sufficient for access and maintenance. And as I've shown with a few of the same many examples, it's not out of character other properties you see within the neighborhood. The variance will not authorize the operation of the use others specifically permitted. In fact, 33 is designing. It was previously single family. It will again be single family to be authorized within the district. And there's a minimum five foot side setback in the 33. The adjacent property owner will not be injured since the setback will be greater than what it was to be demolition of the existing structure. There's several structures within the neighborhood that are less than 10 foot separation. So I can't, I wouldn't see the district 10 foot separation with the character of the neighborhood. And we've provided a maintenance easement next door and there will be a 10 foot separation with the property located to the right of the proposed structure. And finally, the circumstances were not created by the owner, but as a result of the non-conforming status of the property next door. Thank you for your time, and we have to answer any questions. Thank you. Welcome, Martinez. Okay, I go back to my previous question last and judging by the plan last year, there were two and a half plated lots there. So we are building one structure on Plated Lot number 44 from the Ndallin Terrace plant. But there was a single structure on both floors proper. There was a single structure on the two and a half lots, but we are not able to obtain a certificate termination to build over the lot line. If we were to try to build on lots 44 and 45, we cannot pull a building permit because we cannot meet all the standards of the certificate termination to build with a single family residence over a lot line. Your choice was to stay with what you have and try to build two separate structure. It is not imagined a build of 7, 20 of a green building. Yes, these homes are energy sorry, middle of 7, 20 of a green. And then now you have entered from one awards from the city of San Antonio, middle of 7, 20 of a green. I am going to stop there, but I am going to work it out for you for questions. First I want to be your chairman in a lot of project projects. That is all right. Any other questions? Were you, go ahead. Did you reach out to the Ndeke Park Association? We sent them the information. We have met and passed with the neighborhood association and their land use committee. In this case, there is really, there is no room for compromise here. If we increase the setback, we are left with an unbuildable site. But you did go there. We have a path to inform them of our plans for the neighborhood. We are also participating on the task force for this NCD three rights of an involved matter perhaps here. Because they made it in the file they had written in opposition. I don't know if you wanted to speak on any of their points. We, I mean you can term it a loophole if you like, but we understand the rules of the NCD and their specific requirements, very strict requirements in this NCD. Every structure that we have built in the neighborhood meets standards of the NCD. We haven't had to come here for variance. We've sat down, we've talked, and I feel like we've cleaned up a lot of, say, half the structures that we have taken out and making for uninhabited for some period of time. Most of them have not conformed with all the same with the NCD and what looked like Sanford and the Sonnet and there was all all kinds of stuff out of there. So, you know, we talked to the police department or code enforcement or the school district that I think they're called for drugs and prostitution and issues have had to reduce. So I'm like, what we've been able to clean up on the street. I've had a neighborhood association that I'm like what we're doing and so I don't know what we'll ever find on the ground. Alright, thank you. Anyone else? I have a question for staff. So the house that he refers to that is not conforming, at what point was that classifying nonconforming? It couldn't have been originally because the houses were so close together. When the unified development code was adopted in 2001 when the flight from the site set back that house became nonconforming. So it's not conforming in two ways. It was close to the unified development code for a five foot setback and then it was possibly if the current structure was still there it would have been nonconforming to the NCD because it didn't meet the ten foot building separation either. So once he had not found the other house anything that goes in place has to conform? Correct. Okay. But he's still trying to get a little bit more space in between the nonconforming house and what he's trying to build. That's what it sounds like to be next to it. From what was there, right? Correct. Okay. Mr. Martinez, go ahead. My understanding is that there was a ten foot requirement and because the house since existing was the only three people in the property line meant that he could not build at his normal five foot position because that would make it too close to New Jersey property. So essentially if that house didn't exist he wouldn't be needing to come here to it. Correct. Did that adjacent structure not there then he just needs to meet the five foot setback? Exactly. So there was two ways to approach this problem by the property next door and tear it down, re-close the house or re-close the other two properties in the line and try to build something there. Otherwise, he would try to be trying to build a right one until it shut down. Re-closing ones don't have to meet the minimum re-close requirements of the fifty foot line. It still requires seven feet, seven feet. Any other questions? I take it without people to speak. They take a seat for right now, so please. The first is Charlotte Ann Lucas. Matt, you made it just that microphone. We need your name and address for you to run your place. My name is Charlotte Ann Lucas. I live at 434 Function & Race in Vancouver. My husband and I have family deep roots here. Almost exactly a hundred years ago, my grandfather was awarded his wings as a U.S. Army pilot at Fort St. Houston, just blocks from where we live. My husband's mother and late Congressman Henry B. Gautales, both attended Jefferson High School together. In a city that shamefully ranks among the worst in the nation for economic segregation, maybe Park is a sparkling exception, as noted by Dr. Christine Drennan of Trinity University's Urban Studies Director in her presentation to the Mayor's Housing Policy Task Force. In contrast to the 1920s era bungalows, the area south of Park has always had multifamily homes where military families once lived right up base. Most recently, there's two plexus, four plexus and eight plexus on Farron Street, and I want you to offer affordable homes for people with very limited needs, people who could afford to live there included a cellist in the San Antonio Symphony and Octave very much. A single man raising three is his grandchildren who were able to beat the odds of poverty because they lived could walk to the Marl commentary from the best elementary schools in the city. Maybe Park has its improved conservation district designed to protect and strengthen desirable and unique features of the area. Before you consider what may on its face appear to be a very minor variance request, it's important to consider the character of the applicant in Spire Homes. When, I'm sorry, when they came to our neighborhood, Imagine Homes began by exploiting loopholes to get around the spirit of the neighborhood conservation district which requires that lots of our men move in 50 feet wide. Then they commenced to systematically pull on all manner of rules and regulations assaulting the sensibilities of people who live here. Those most affected were not people like me. They were people of color, people in poverty, people whose first language is not English. Those were the fewest resources or ability to hold developer accountable or to seek relief. One by one, house by house, renters were pushed out of their homes, displaced, as they systematically pulled those duplexes, foreplexes, aplexes, and some affordable farewell homes 30 seconds. Video, and I believe my husband just gave it to me this time. What was his name? He is, I didn't know. May I continue with it? Yes. Should be audio. Since we don't have audio, do you want to narrate it? Okay. These are the skinny homes or shop benches as but they used to be known that are proliferating and that's the area in question where one home came down and the developer wants to build three of those skinny homes. The homogeneity is clear violation of the spirit of the native conservation district. And here's how those homes have come down. Thanks to the morning, as you can see in this video, a handful of workers began tearing off asbestos shingles from one of those foreplexes with no protection for any of the neighbors and according to the state which regulates asbestos abatement. They opened an investigation based on this video. The people doing this told me they had done it in many instances in making parking including the property two properties directly behind our home. There was no protection for the neighbors but that's what we know. No mitigation for the asbestos that came down. What you cannot see there is the permit on the demolition of that same property that required the six foot fence and that is a property that included several families including one man who was raising his three grandtons. At 10 o'clock at night workers are still at work on these places creating all manner of noise. We call 3-1-1. 3-1-1 does not respond. You can't hear the audio on this obviously from a block away. It got my attention and we put counters on it. We've gotten no response from the developer about these things. That's 10 o'clock at night. At 4.15 one morning the neighbors got woken up by eight cement trucks coming in across the street from the property in question. Ghosts and then trucks actually blocked a person from being able to get out of their home and take her child to school. When you grant your parents grant it to someone who has been a good citizen of the neighborhood. There's what it used to look like. Now what is it? Can you wrap up a little bit? The last thing I have to say has to do with the imperatives cover. This project of three homes will increase the imperatives cover on this property by 58%. The people downhill will know that there's been a change on this problem. This is one of the other ones where there was a non-conforming he never came to you guys but that's less than 10 feet. Before you go, is there anything that video can imagine still falls? There's no other developer than now. It's on him. Okay. Any other questions for me? Please. You mentioned earlier on that one of the people who has imagined all of this exercise is 25 foot long instead of 50 foot long. Can you explain to me what that is? I don't personally understand all the details of it because I'm not part of the Neighborhood Association leadership but they wrote about it in the newsletter and said that these things were originally planted at 25 feet and so therefore if he wants to when he buys a lot like this it's very easy for him to put up three shotgun houses as opposed to so the Neighborhood Association understands that better than I do and this is an unusual position for me to be in. I'm used to being on the other side of the camera on this but what's happened with these things obviously also is that they're not affordable. They're $378,000 a piece so it's increasing economic segregation in the city. I turn to Cather Logan to answer that question for me perhaps is there no requirement that a lot be 50 feet in a month there's no requirement at all for a lot of it perhaps. Only when there be planning so when the code when the NCD was was developed there was a look at what the current state of the plot was. What happened is that much of the subdivision in Mankey Park originally were 25 foot with lots. What happened was that owners owned several lots and built across the lot lines which you can do with a single family home but you have to own a whole entire lot in order to build across those lot lines. And what has happened is that people have sold off pieces half lots of a lot as well as a full lot and sold off over the years but it was originally crowded with 25 foot with lots. It was developed with the language that acknowledged that there were lots built with only minimum was 25 feet. So the code was written saying somebody wanted to replat property the minimum width had to be 50 feet. There was no maximum width given to prevent McMansions but there was only a minimum width given. So if someone wants to build on the 25 foot with lot they don't have to replat. So if somebody replatted its 25 feet with a 25 foot width lot so they can proceed directly to the building permit stage and build a home. Again, it only comes in when you are replat on the property. But again, there's many parts of the code that exempt properties from complying with certain provisions such as a detached garage because there's no way to fit a detached garage and again, when the NCD was adopted it recognized that the plot was hitting systems and it only addresses when properties are replat. So I can assume that the neighbor association may feel as a loophole because there was an assumption that lots were 50 feet because a home was built on two lots and so in the NCD perhaps it didn't identify where this is coming from. Right, so again, a lot of the homes were built across lot lines and you have those provisions in the code to help prevent undevelopable property. The city doesn't want to be in a position of creating undervaluable circumstances. Any other questions? Do we have any other speakers? Thank you, ma'am. Do you have one more? Laurie Sherwood, from the record we need your team to have this one, please. Laurie Sherwood, 33 Eleanor. Okay. There's a lot of bad blood on the property. The shotgun houses were not what we considered to be appropriate and the loophole was because it was an arrow lot they could put the garage door up front because that's what we didn't want to see because our neighborhood basically didn't have that and now with the over 40 new buildings on the street most of them have that from under the rock and the problem I have with it is instead of taking up the front part of that lot building that houses a lot of families running them all like this there's hardly any land there I live in the bottom of the hill I know I am going to flood eventually once all this is done because there's nowhere for the water to go and the city has failed in their job to look at that had this been one lump size piece of land the developer would have had to deal with that and say yeah this is what we're going to do water mitigation and all that but because it's single lot he doesn't have to do that and the city is not going to do anything about it even though it's 5 foot all the way around the house there's land that's nothing compared to what was there you heard the lady crossing 58% more land is covered and it's covered with buildings one of the things from the NCD what we're trying to do with the houses was to keep them farther apart so there was a driveway to the back to put the garage in the back we didn't have garages on the floor and basically the streets ruined because there's no parking there now there's no place for garbage cans the people who are buying houses they're happy but they have displaced other families there's no more people there now there's more cars there now there's more people that needs I have needs but I couldn't afford to buy one of those houses if I wanted to and I lived two streets away I don't understand what he's at I'm going to create a bigger space between them but he's going to take up all of that land there if you look in that picture and the buildings next to him that wasn't covered now it's all covered and unfortunately they would have to suffer in one of their 50 or so properties and sell that piece of land maybe with a house next to it that's 25 feet I don't know but it's sending a message that yes we do care about what's going on and the flooding is an issue 30 seconds that's all I can say and we have questions Mr. Gaff Mr. Gaff has a question I have a question a lot like for the last speaker you mentioned that your NCE didn't intend to have front facing garages and it was the neighborhood's intent to be able to have a 10 feet to get a driveway to park in the rear would you inform me better how that came to be that this loophole was an exercise 40 something times well when imagine homes came from there they basically came to whatever they wanted to because they figured out that there's a plan they did it in the 20s that nobody knew about was 25 foot wide lines when we were doing the NCD in 2008 there was no mention of oh by the way that land in the sound of the park is on the small 25 foot lines nobody knew and then imagine if homes came in they bought some buildings to arm down and started going what the hell is going on and we figured it out there's a plan you know homes are property if you put a 25 foot you can build a 25 foot wide property and in the NCD there wasn't a single one that's less than 45 feet wide we understand you can have a 12 foot garage any other questions thank you man anyone else? that is all make them up so you heard some of the comments some of the questions now your closing remarks yes change is difficult being we were definitely working on tight sites on an inhabited infill street we're doing our best to comply with trying not to disrupt the neighborhoods the reality is pictures of concrete being finished into the night it's because we get hot days it extends and they can't just stop and pick up the next morning we've got to finish that's happened on one occasion there that I don't know that we've been there late on multiple occasions I know some of the other complaints we received were we had crews after hours trucks got on the street we had equipment running up and down the street to clean the street we had to get the cars out of the way in order to do that we're trying to be good neighbors but at the end of the day the neighborhood isn't happy with what we're building we're here today with one specific case on about 44 dealing with a non-conforming house next door 10 foot and it's not an issue can we replant into a 50 foot lot on the other blocks um just want to touch on the question you had to cat there about replanting the lot size what I was saying you could not get certificate of termination to build over you can't deliver over a single family in a single family come over a lot of line under certain conditions and one of those is it had to be in that original configuration on a specific date 2005 I'm not sure exactly what the significance of that date is but that's the criteria that we cannot meet in most cases because a lot of these houses are sitting on one full plated lot two portions or two full lots and one portion and so unless you're building one house on that full lot with you can't meet that requirement so in this case if we were to try to come back in the middle of 50 foot lot house because this was a two and a portion of a lot we cannot get a building permit without replanting the entire site I get to talk into a different subject of what we're here for on this set back here you know a lot of the displacement is not because we're out soliciting but we've got a lot there's a lot of Claremont and Natalie in these two streets particularly there's a lot of out of town owners who are not investing any money back in these properties and they're in poor shape a lot of them are with when you had a case earlier for Broadway development everybody knows what's happening on Broadway as a result of the Pearl District and that is driving property taxes up and it's driving demand for people to be in the area that's what's pushing people out we're not out knocking on doors we're getting phone calls with people that are getting you know $500 a month rents duplexes and their property taxes are $6,000 and $8,000 a year they just it's not economically feasible and if they wanted to invest money back into these properties they got to meet all these NCD standards that a lot of these old duplex buildings cannot meet parking requirements, placing requirements, front door replacement there's a number of things that it just makes it not feasible to rehab these properties and then just comment and address this loophole there's an exception written into the NCD that it was that 45 foot wide or less or 110 feet deep or less lots from the rear parking requirement and that was specific but I can only guess put in there because of the realization that with a shallow or narrow lot you cannot rely rear parking therefore in this case we're asking for your consideration for the two for the variance. Any other questions? So we heard a testimony that you're increasing the amount of impervious coverage drainage downstream as part of this development did you do a storm management report that looked to see how the effects of this development is with 2,000 foot study? That's very clear these are one of the things that properties that have been laid so benign so has not been a requirement since we have not gone through a planning process we have re-plated we have done many plans on a few properties to allow us to build 2 places and it is part of that through the understudy done. Also they're also partnering building permitting in some instances and I was just curious to know if that had ever been done. Any other questions? I would like to start to say I consider those infield to be able to provide as banking and buy an house that would live on it. The first five that we did build were on banking lots. There are some that were on banking lots. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you sir. No one is close to being very close to the public at this point. So at this time I need a board member to make a motion. Mr. Duff regarding appeal number A18 150 request for a two-foot variance from the main department neighbor of the conservation district design requirement of a 10 foot building separation to allow two structures to be eight feet apart situated at 329 Claremont Avenue applicant being imagined built homes and buildings. I move to the board of the adjustment grant request for the variances to the subject property as described above as the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the liberal enforcement of provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship. Specifically we find that the variance is not contrary to the public interest. The public interest is defined as the general health, safety and welfare of the public. In this case the public interest is represented by minimum setbacks that help to establish uniform and safe development within the city of San Antonio. The proposed structure meets the five-foot side property requirement. Staff finds the request is not contrary to the public interest and if the requested setback intains what used to be prior to demolition and is similar to other setbacks within the community. Due to special conditions the liberal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. The liberal enforcement of the ordinance would result in the applicant not being able to build heads for clothes. By granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. The spirit of the ordinance is the intent of the code rather than the strict letter of the law. In this case the intent of the setback is to allow room for maintenance and to provide safe separation with five-foot side setback and satisfy this intent. The spirit of the ordinance is further observed and the structure meets all other setbacks. The variance will not authorize the operation of the use other than those used specifically authorized. The requested variance will not authorize the operation of the use on the subject property other than those specifically permitted in the MF33NCV6 multi-family manky park neighborhood and conservation district. Such variance will not substantially appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located. There are several properties within the community that benefit from reduced side setbacks. The request will not be out of character of the district. The owner of the property for which the variance is stopped is due to unique circumstances existing on the property and unique circumstances are not created by the owner of the property of general conditions in the district in which the property is located. Quite the amount of variance is due to the previous location of the main building in relation to the adjacent property to the west in motion. Thank you. Mr. Duff, any comments? Yes, I'm very familiar with properties being redeveloped on the certificate of determination and process and intel development and seeing a lot of it in many neighborhoods within these two miles of downtown. I was asking the specific questions about the NCD because I'm not as familiar with the exact ins and outs of what we're called loopholes in this meeting. In favor of intel development I think it is good to take advantage of empty lots that have just been sitting empty for years so that we can provide more housing for our communities and even the insurgents of new members of our communities. However, I think in cases like this you have an opportunity to do everything per codes and per ordinances and per conservation district requirements because you're building from new. You're not dealing with something that you're rehabbing that's 80 years old and was built according to other codes so I disagree with the motion I just read I do think that health, safety and welfare are important considerations that we should make as we're developing our inner city or any part of our city and as we sit on this floor I believe that reducing that input requirement when otherwise it would not need to be in a new construction situation does not warrant any granting approval of this variance today. This is an actual to me a very unusual circumstance because generally speaking only considering the property that's there one would assume that you could go within the standard construction limits and buy books and facts and comply but this particular issue has more to do with overall neighborhood development and very little to do with the specific property in general. Judging by the association not approving this project and the fact that the city staff is recommending denial I also will not be voting for this. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Rogers? Okay, Hector take the vote. Mr. Nair. I do not concur with the findings of that. Mr. Martinez. I do not concur. Mr. Keele. Yes, I concur with the findings of that. Dr. Zolarelli. I do not concur. Mr. Rogers. I do not concur with the findings of that. Mr. Brightman. Yes. Mr. Rodriguez. No, I do not concur. Mr. O'Reilly. Yes. Mr. Brightman. Yes. Mr. Shawl. Yes. And Mr. Keele. I do not concur. So it's five in favor, six in favor. Unfortunately it does not carry getting together with staff and see what your options are. In that case.