[00:00:02]
[1:30 p.m. - Work Session]
TO START OFF, TODAY, WE DO HAVE A BRIEFING FROM, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TURN IT OVER TO PRISCILLA FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
CAN YOU PULL UP THE POWERPOINT PLEASE? YEAH.
WE'RE TRYING TO SHARE IT HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS PRISCILLA ROSALES PENA.
I'M WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND TODAY I HAVE A BRIEFING ON THE LANDON RIDGE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND PATIENT BY BURKE COUNTY, AND ALSO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SA LONDON RIDGE AND FOR TRICO PATIENTS WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PIT.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE DETAILS OF THE LANDON RIDGE PROJECT.
IT CONSISTS OF 131 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PORT TRANQUIL ROAD AND STEVENS PARKWAY AND FAR WEST FAIR COUNTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON A MAP ON THE RIGHT, IT IS ENC IT IS SHOWN ON THE HIGHLIGHTED RED BOX.
STEVEN, I THINK WE LOST PRISCILLA, OR IS IT JUST ME? NO, WE, WE LOST HER AS WELL.
IF YOU CAN HEAR US, IT MAY BE BEST IF WE TURN OFF YOUR CAMERA JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER CONNECTION FOR YOUR AUDIO.
CURRENTLY, A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND LY EXTENSIONS, THE TOTAL CAUSE OF THE PUB PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE 25.9 MILLION, AND THE DISTRICT REVENUES ARE ESTIMATED AT 19.7 MILLION.
SO, PRISCILLA, REAL QUICK, WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING TO HEAR YOUR AUDIO.
YOU, YOU HAD ACTUALLY CUT OUT FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU SAID ON THAT SLIDE SLIDE.
IT MAY BE EASIER IF YOU TURN OFF YOUR CAMERA JUST SO WE HAVE A BETTER AUDIO CONNECTION AND RE PRESENT THIS SLIDE.
DID YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT OR, YES, THIS.
SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE DETAILS ABOUT THE LANDON RIDGE PROJECT.
IT CONSISTS OF 131 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF TRANQUIL ROAD AND STEVEN PARKWAY IN FAR WESTBURG COUNTY.
THE MAP ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT INSIDE THE HIGHLIGHTED RED BOX, THE OWNERS PLAN TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 260 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 400 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, AND 13 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE.
THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THE COMMERCIAL PADS, AS WELL AS AMENITY, AND AN OPEN SPACE DEDICATION, OUTSIDE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED TURN LANE, A TRAFFIC LIFE AND UTILITY EXTENSION.
THE TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IS ESTIMATED AT 25.9 MILLION.
THE PROPOSED REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT IS $19.7 MILLION.
[00:05:03]
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CONDITIONS OF THE CITY CONSENT AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TERMS, I MEAN, TERMS ON THIS SLIDE.REGARDING THE CITY CONSENT CONSENT, IT EQU SENDS TO THE COUNTY'S DELEGATION OF ROAD DISTRICT POWERS, WHICH RE IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR THE PIT AND ORDER TO EXERCISE THE POWER TO PROVIDE ROADWAYS, WATER, WASTEWATER, AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER, THE CITY'S CONSENT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO EXERCISE ANY EMINENT DOMAIN OR TO ANNEX OR EXPAND INTO, OR DIVIDE OR REMOVE LAND FROM THE PIT.
THE CITY AND THE OWNERS HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH TERMS INCLUDE THAT THE CITY WILL NOT ANNEX THE PIT FOR 30 YEARS AND THE OWNERS CONSENT TO ANNEXATION BY THE CITY UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT.
IN ADDITION, THE OWNERS AGREED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY CODES, RULES, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS EQUITABLE TO ALL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY'S E E J DURING ALL THE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT AND DURING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE STEPS FOR THE P APPROVAL AS OUTLINED HERE.
IF APPROVED BY COUNSEL, THE OWNER WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BURKE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT IN SEPTEMBER TO CREATE THE P AND A BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
THEN THEY WILL ALSO CALL AN ELECTION TO CONFIRM THE PIT.
IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUE ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
UM, I'LL DO A ROLL CALL FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER DKI, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
IS THIS LAND OWNED BY THE CITY? NO, SIR.
IT'S THE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT'S SA LANDED RIDGE AND TRANQUIL PATIENTS IS, OR, UH, 30 OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
THE COST MENTIONED IN THE TABLE, 25.9 MILLION.
IS THIS THE COST FOR REDEVELOPING THIS TRACK BY THE APPLICANT OR BY THE CITY? BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THE REVENUES IS IS ALSO, IT'S ALSO FOR THE DISTRICT REVENUES FOR THE DISTRICT? YES, SIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, ARE WE MISSING CHRIS? CHRIS GARCIA? I'M SCROLLING.
CHRIS GARCIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY'S HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARILLO HANKS? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER JACKSON? I'M HESITATING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I SEE HIM EITHER.
DON'T BELIEVE HE'S HERE TODAY EITHER.
UH, YOU'RE ON MUTE, MA'AM, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, MA'AM.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? I DON'T SEE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THE FUN PART OF SCROLLING ON VIRTUAL.
COMMISSIONER PECK, I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER BUSTAMANTE? NO QUESTIONS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE I SEE COMMISSIONER ORIAN, IS THAT ALSO CORRECT? COMMISSIONER ORIAN IS NOT ON THE CALL TODAY.
UH, THANK YOU AGAIN PRISCILLA.
WE WILL HEAD INTO OUR, UH, MAIN AGENDA.
FIRST QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONERS.
[00:10:01]
WE HAVE ANY RECUSALS? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY RECUSALS TODAY.UH, AND I SEE THAT IF Y'ALL HAVEN'T CHECKED, UH, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL WITH THREE LETTERS OF PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NUMBER 2022 AND 25.
UM, BUT IF WE HAVE NO RECUSALS, AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT ITEMS NUMBER 19, 21, 24 AND 25 ARE UP FOR INDIVIDUAL? THAT'S CORRECT.
SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A MEETING OF DENIALS.
IS IS OUR THEME FOR THE, FOR THE MEETING.
SO WE'LL START OFF WITH, UM, WITH, WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS FIRST, IF WE CAN HEAR, UM, ANY, IF WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 1945 NOTICES, UH, WERE MAILED ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, AND DENVER HEIGHTS IS IN SUPPORT.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 19? UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
DO WE HAVE, UM, OR IS SOMEBODY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT? WHEN WE INDICATE THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT, IT MEANS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN SOMETHING IN WRITING, WHETHER BY MAIL OR EMAIL
UM, WELL, BUT THE, BUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS, UH, NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE LOTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? 'CAUSE IT'S A DEAD END STREET AT UNDER A A T INTERSECTION.
CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR JUST A SEC.
GENERALLY WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE IS HIGHER DENSITY, UM, IN CORNER LOTS AS OPPOSED TO THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK.
UM, AND THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UM, IN, IN THE MIDDLE ON A NON THROUGH STREET, WHICH DOES PRESENT A PROBLEM FOR, UH, TRAFFIC.
AND I SAW THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ZONING THAT THEY HAVE AND THE ZONING THAT THEY WANT, OR RATHER THE PLAN USE THAT THEY HAVE AND THE PLAN USE THAT THEY WANT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIX UNITS OR FOUR UNITS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE, THAT THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.
BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT, SO THAT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ANYONE ELSE? I'M SURE THIS IS, YES, SIR.
UM, YEAH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
HAS THIS ACTUALLY ALREADY GONE TO ZONING OR AM I CONFUSING IT WITH ANOTHER ONE? YES, IT DID GO TO ZONING ON MAY 18TH, UM, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE SIXTH UNIT.
AND, AND THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERING AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, OR THEY HAVE DENIED AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THEY DID NOT, UM, AMEND DURING THE ZONING COMMISSION.
THEY MOVED FORWARD WITH A SONY COMMISSION FOR THE SIX UNITS AS REQUESTED, AND THEY GOT A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THEM.
UH, MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT DENIAL ITEM NUMBER 21.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE COUNT? THERE WERE 35 NOTICES MAILED ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED? THE ROOSEVELT PARK IS IN SUPPORT AND THERE WERE TWO, UH, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET.
SO I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE TOO.
UM, SO IN THE BRIEF IT SAID THAT, OH NO, I'M SORRY.
I RECEIVED A, UH, CORRESPONDENCE FROM, UM, JAMES MCKNIGHT REGARDING THIS PROJECT.
HE SAID THAT THE CURRENT OWNER AND CURRENT TENANTS ARE ALREADY OPERATING UNDER THE ZONING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IF WE CHANGE THE, THE, IF WE MAKE THE PLAN AMENDMENT, IF WE APPROVE THE PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO I'M CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, ARE THESE TENANTS, HAVE THEY BEEN IN RESIDENCE FOR A MONTH OR HAVE THEY BEEN IN RESIDENCE FOR FIVE YEARS? SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA KICK ANYBODY OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS HOME, BUT IF THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO USE THIS AS A WAY TO GET AROUND THE LAW, THEN THAT'S DIFFERENT.
[00:15:09]
UM, HOLD ON A SECOND.SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE TENANTS WERE THERE HAVE BEEN OPERATING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR ZONING, UH, FOR AT LEAST ABOUT A YEAR.
AND SO THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING.
UM, BUT STAFF STILL RECOMMENDS, UH, DENIAL OF THAT BECAUSE OF THE SMALL SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE INTENSITY FOR A, UH, CONTRACTOR FACILITY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR ITEM NUMBER 21? YES.
UM, THE RECOMMENDATION HERE BY THE STAFF IS, UH, UH, IT IS NOT IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE, UH, PLANNING PATTERN WITHIN THE BLOCK IS THE BLOCK DEFINITION HERE IS, UH, WITHIN THE CORNER OF THIS LOT AND WHAT IS TO THE LEFT AND TO THE UPPER SIDE OF IT.
AS I SEE THE OTHER CORNERS ARE MATCHING WITH THE PROPOSED PLANNING, URBAN MAKES IT USE, UH, RIGHT.
SO THIS AREA IS WITHIN A BLOCK THAT IS DESIGNATED AS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.
IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM URBAN MIXED USE ON THE OTHER THREE SIDES, WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE, UH, REQUESTING.
THAT'S THE PROPOSAL THEN WHY WE ARE DENYING THEM IF THEY WANTED TO BE IN CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER CORNER SITES.
SO THIS LOT IS ADJACENT TO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.
UM, WHEN THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED FOR THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WAS JUST WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, UM, THE PUBLIC HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, PLAN FOR THE AREA AND THE CURRENT LAND USE WOULD ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES JUST AT A SMALLER SCALE.
UH, FOR US, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND IT'S OVERDEVELOPED FOR THE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND, UH, SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL BECAUSE, UH, THE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO IT.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUS.
UM, KAT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF USE, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS FOR A SMALLER INTENSITY OF USE, SOME OF THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH RESTRICTIONS GIVEN THE CD AT ZONING, RIGHT.
TIME OF DAY PLACE, THAT KIND OF ISSUE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
THE FOR, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE, WHICH WOULD BE THE CONTRACTOR FACILITY IN WHICH THE CONDITIONS COULD BE TIED TO.
IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE REZONED C TWO THERE, THE CONDITIONS WOULD NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER USE THAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN C TWO.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 21? HEARING NONE.
ITEM 24, ANY, UH, COMMENTS OR RESPONSES ON THIS ONE? THERE WERE 25 NOTICES MAILED ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED NO RESPONSE FROM THUNDERBIRD HILLS.
ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, YEAH, THIS COMMISSIONER PECK, DID STAFF HAVE AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE OR WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THE DOC IN THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION THAT SAID THEY COULD GO TO C TWO CD WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT WAS OUR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD FIT WITHIN THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF GENERAL URBANS HERE.
AND THEY HAVE, THEY, UH, INDICATED WHETHER THEY'RE
[00:20:01]
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT OR THEY'RE STILL PUSHING FORWARD WITH THE REGIONAL CENTER.THEY'RE STILL PUSHING FORWARD WITH REGIONAL CENTER BECAUSE THEY WANT C THREE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I OKAY.
ANY RESPONSES ON THIS ONE? I SEE THAT ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE EMAILED WAS, UH, OPPOSED.
ANY OTHERS? SO THERE WERE 112 NOTICES MAILED ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION FOR OPPOSE, NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM LAVA AS OF YET.
UM, THE SAN ANTONIO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
THERE WAS ONE RETURN IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET.
THERE ARE 25 VOICEMAILS, I'M SORRY, 18.
UH, THERE'S DIFFERENCE OF FOUR OTHER ONES.
THERE'S 18 VOICEMAILS LEFT FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 11TH.
SO IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION IF THEY'D LIKE TO, MORE OR LESS.
THE PHRASE IS, TAKE YOUR LICKS NOW OR TAKE YOUR LICKS LATER.
UH, BUT YOU CAN EITHER HEAR THE 25 VOICEMAILS NOW OR PUSH 'EM TO THE EIGHT 11, WHICH MEANS HEARING THOSE 25 AS WELL AS ANY ADDITIONAL ONES.
AND THEN THERE ARE TWO LIVE CALLERS FOR TODAY, BUT THEY ARE WHAT TO GO.
THEY, THEY WANNA BE PUSHED TO THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH.
SO THERE WERE TWO LIVE CALLERS, BUT THEY, WE CONTACTED THEM AND THEY ELECTED TO SPEAK IT ON AUGUST 11TH.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A ONE MONTH CONTINUANCE.
AND, UM, YOU SAID THE TWO LIVE CALLERS ARE, ARE WILLING TO HOLD OFF.
UH, WHAT WAS THE CONTINUANCE FOR? UH, TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE CONCERN.
I PERSONALLY AM OKAY WITH HOLDING OFF ON, ON THE VOICEMAILS AND DISCUSSION UNTIL WE HEAR THIS A MONTH FROM TODAY.
UM, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT FEEL OTHERWISE? LET'S WAIT.
ANY COMMISSIONERS YOU WANNA DISCUSS TODAY? NO.
OKAY, SO 25 WILL BE UP FOR CONTINUANCE.
WE HAVE SEVEN MINUTES, SO NOW WE'LL BACKTRACK NOW THAT WE GOT THOSE DENIALS OUT OF THE WAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON OUR PLATS? WE HAVE 18 PLATS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
ANY QUESTIONS ON, OR DO WE WANNA PULL ANY OTHER ITEMS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER.
I JUST WANTED TO TO VERIFY, UM, IF IS 19 GONNA BE PULLED ALREADY? YES, THAT IS, UM, UP FOR DENIAL.
SO 1921 AND 24 ARE ALL GONNA BE PULLED THEN, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SOME, UM, COMMENTS FOR ITEM NUMBER 20.
IS THAT GONNA BE PULLED AS WELL? IT IS UP FOR CONSENT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT LETTER WILL JUST BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
IS THAT CORRECT, STEPH? SO WE, WE WON'T READ IT INTO, IT'LL BE PART OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD.
IT'S JUST NOT READ INTO THE RECORD.
SO NO, IT IS STILL ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT.
DO WE HAVE A ACCOUNT? I DON'T NEED TO PULL IT.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE PULLED.
DO WANNA, SORRY, COMMISSIONER PROFIT.
DO WE HAVE ACCOUNT FOR 20? YEAH, I, I CAN READ THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE OTHER ITEMS. UH, FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20, WE HAD 18 NOTICES MAILED.
ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE WAS RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY, WE RECEIVED TWO IN OPPOSITION AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON FILE.
SAN ANTONIO HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
UH, MILITARY PROTECTION AREA REQUEST.
UH, ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22, WE HAD SIX NOTICES MAILED ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND AGAIN, G B S A HAD NO CONCERNS.
AND LASTLY, UH, ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 23, WE HAD THREE NOTICES MAILED ONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THERE WAS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND J B S A HAD NO OPPOSITION.
UH, COMMISSIONER PROFIT, DID, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 20? NO, THE, THE LETTER THAT WE DID RECEIVE TALKED ABOUT WATER.
[00:25:01]
MAYBE THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA USE PRIVATE WATER FOR, UH, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION? ARE THEY GOING TO TIE IN TO SOME SORT OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM? UH, I, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD REALLY NEED TO SPEAK WITH SAWS ABOUT WHAT WATER PROVISION WOULD BE SUPPLIED TO THE SITE.
UH, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, SO, UH, THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER OVER THE AQUIFER.
I THINK THE, THE, UH, RESIDENT'S CONCERN WAS JUST THE, THE DRAWING OF WATER OUT FROM PRIVATE WELLS.
BUT, UH, I, APARTMENT, APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS VERY RARELY WILL OPERATE OFF OF A, WELL, THAT'S VERY LIKELY HAVE WATER UTILITIES SUPPLIED BY.
SO PERHAPS SOMEBODY CAN RESPOND BACK TO THIS INDIVIDUAL TO ADDRESS THIS.
AND YEAH, WE'D BE HAPPY TO GET THE APPLICANT IN TOUCH WITH, UH, SOME OF OUR FOLKS OVER AT SS TO GUIDE THEM THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND OF COURSE, AS THE PROJECT MOVES ALONG IN THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE, SAWS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE A BITE AT THE APPLE, UH, DURING THE PLAT REVIEW AND, AND, UH, CONSTRUCTION, VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION.
NO FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 22? HEARING NONE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 23? OKAY.
WE HAVE THREE MINUTES PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND WE HAVE, UH, FOUR ITEMS ON AN INDIVIDUAL, ONE OF THOSE BEING, UM, OR JUST REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE TO TAKE MY DAUGHTER TO THE DENTIST, SO I THINK I'M GOING TO BE LEAVING AROUND TWO 30.
I ALSO NEED TO MAKE MY DENTIST APPOINT
SO I WAS HAPPY TO GET THIS TIME.
WE, WE NEED FIVE AFFIRMATIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER VOTES FOR, FOR AN ITEM TO PASS, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE QUORUM, BUT I KNOW WE'RE SHORT.
I THINK THREE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TODAY.
SO THE, THE BURDEN, SO TO SPEAK, FOR AN ITEM TO PASS, UH, IT DOES REQUIRE THE YES VOTE OF AT LEAST FIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I, I DON'T COUNT FOR QUORUM, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT YOU COUNT FOR VOTING FOR THE VOTE, YOU COUNT FOR THE VOTE, JUST NOT FOR THE QUORUM.
AND I HAVE COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA, COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA AND COMMISSIONER JACKSON, UM, NOT IN ATTENDANCE TODAY, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
AS WELL AS EX OFFICIO COMMISSIONER ON PERFECT.
ALRIGHT, WELL WE'RE READY TO START WHEN YOU'RE, GO AHEAD.
ALRIGHT, WE GOT ABOUT ONE MINUTE TO GO.
GIVE US JUST A COUPLE SECONDS, WE'LL CONFIRM THAT WE ARE READY TO LIVE STREAM AND WE CAN GET STARTED.
[2:00 P.M. - Call to Order]
ON JULY 14TH AND WE ARE CALLING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER, PLEASE.THE SPANISH INTERPRETER SERVICES.
[00:30:18]
THANK YOU.CAN STAFF CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER CARILLO.
COMMISSIONER SIEGEL PRESENT, COMMISSIONER ZUKI PRESENT COMMISSIONER PROFIT PRESENT VICE CHAIR PECK PRESENT, MADAM PRESENT, BUSANTE PRESENT AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ PRESENT, THE QUORUM IS PRESENT.
IF Y'ALL CAN READ THE MEETING FORMAT, SUPER PROTECT THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC AND LIMITED, UH, SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW SAN ANTONIO DOV SLASH DSB OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT TWO TEN TWO OH SIX FIVE FOUR EIGHT THREE.
TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES.
THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS RECEIVED ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL WRITTEN RECORD FOR ITEMS ON AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF WILL PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.
LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE'LL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENT.
SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS.
[Consent Agenda]
THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND A FEW ON IN, UH, UP FOR INDIVIDUAL HEARING.UM, ALL ITEMS ARE UP FOR CONSENT TODAY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM NUMBER 19 21, 24, AND 25.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? MOTION TO APPROVE.
COMMISSIONER PECK, SECOND COMMISSIONER PROFIT MADE THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PECK, SECOND ROLL CALL PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
[25. 21-4753 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2020-11600063 (Council District 1): A request by Brown & Ortiz, P.C., representative, for Approval of a Resolution to amend the Downtown Area Regional Center Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from "High Density Residential" and "Medium Density Residential" to "Regional Mixed Use" on 4.409 acres out of NCB 886, NCB 887, NCB 3591, generally located at the intersection of Mt. Zion Walk and IH 37 South. Staff recommends Denial with an Alternate Recommendation. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2020-10700223) (Lorianne Thennes, Sr. Planner (210) 207-7945, Lorianne.Thennes@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)]
WE TAKE ITEM NUMBER 25 FIRST, SINCE THAT IS UP FOR A CONTINUANCE? DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENT? OKAY.DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OR ARE WE SAFE TO ASK FOR A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE? WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THE, WE'RE GONNA PATCH IN THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM AND ALLOW HIM REQUEST THAT.
[00:35:08]
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS WITH US.
CAN YOU HEAR US, SIR? YES, I CAN.
I'LL HAND IT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR A PRESENTATION OR REQUEST.
JAMES MCKNIGHT, 1 1 2 EAST PECAN BROWN AND ORTIZ.
UH, YES, WE'RE, WE HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST AND, UM, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A MISTAKE WITH THE NOTICES AND WE STILL HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE AS ALONG WITH A NEW COUNCIL PERSON.
SO ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE UNTIL AUGUST 11TH, PLEASE.
I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, Y'ALL GOING BACK AND, AND CORRECTING THE MISTAKE AND TAKING THE TIME TO, TO SPEAK WITH RESIDENTS.
UM, I WILL ASK IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD? HEARING NONE, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF A ONE MONTH CONTINUANCE? COMMISSIONER COHAN MOVED.
COMMISSIONER PECK MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARILLO HANE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 11TH.
I AM DONE THROWING Y'ALL CURVE BALLS.
[19. 21-4739 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE-PA-2021-11600023 (Council District 2): A request by Lee Imbimbo, representative, for Approval of a Resolution to amend Arena District / Eastside Community Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Medium Density Residential" to "High Density Residential" on the South 50 feet of East 70 feet of Lot 1, North 100 feet of South 150 feet of East 70 feet of Lot 1 or 1A, Block 2, NCB 1528, located at 123 and 131 Boudet Place. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700045) (Michael Pepe, Planner, (210) 207-8208, Michael.Pepe@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
19.I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET THAT PULLED UP.
ITEM NUMBER 19, HIS PLAN AMENDMENT CASE, UH, PA 20 21 0 23.
IT'S A REQUEST, UH, TO AMEND THE MARINA DISTRICT EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 1 23 AND 1 31 DAY PLACE.
THERE ARE 45 NOTICES MAILED ZERO, RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE ONE I AM HERE? DID YOU WANNA MAKE A PRESENTATION OR ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, WE DID PROVI, WE DID PROVIDE, UM, A SLIDE, UM, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IF THAT CAN BE PULLED UP.
AND WE ALSO PROVIDED A SITE PLAN.
ALRIGHT, SO THE SITE PLAN IS UP, SIR, SO DON'T FORGET THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TIME DELAY.
SO GO AHEAD AND START YOUR PRESENTATION.
WELL, I, I WANNA, I, FIRST I WANNA SAY THAT, UH, WE, WE WENT BEFORE THE ZONING AND I'M NOT SURE WHY IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S BEING SAYING WE WANT
[00:40:01]
HIGHER DENSITY.ACTUALLY, WHAT WHAT WAS IN PLACE WAS ARMED FOUR.
WE, WE ASKED FOR I D Z TWO AND ACTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO A LESS DENSE THAN WHAT THE RMM FOUR AND THE TWO PARCELS WOULD ALLOW, WOULD'VE ASKED, ACTUALLY PERMITTED UP TO EIGHT UNITS.
THE DIFFERENCE IS WE'RE ASKING ACTUALLY TO, TO DO, UH, SIX INDIVIDUAL LOTS WITH SIX UNITS, NOT EIGHT.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY LESS DENSE.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
THE SLIGHT VARIANCE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HAS TO DO WITH SETBACK ONLY.
UH, DI DENVER HEIGHTS IS IN SUPPORT.
THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION, UH, FOR CITY FOR DISTRICT TWO WAS IN SUPPORT.
AND I, I'VE SENT THEM EVERYTHING AND THEY THOUGHT THAT LONG AS DENVER HEIGHT SUPPORTED THE, THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY OPPOSITION.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A HUGE PRESENTATION.
THIS IS WHAT THE SITE PLAN WILL LOOK LIKE.
THESE WILL BE, UH, SIX, UH, TRADITIONAL TOWNHOMES, UH, THAT THE DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REALLY LIKES WHAT WE'VE DONE AND, AND HOW WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT, UH, UH, DEVELOPING AND BUILDING IN THIS COMMUNITY.
BEFORE I TAKE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, CAN STAFF ADDRESS SOME OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT ZONING? I AM, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? HE HAD SOME CONCERNS OR WAS CONFUSED A LITTLE ABOUT, UM, THE CONSISTENCY OR LACK THEREOF WITH ZONING AND, AND WHY HE IS STILL NEEDING A, A HIGHER LAND USE.
BECAUSE THE REQUEST THAT HE'S IS REQUESTING REQUIRES THIS TYPE OF LAND USE.
SO IT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH, UH, HIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND I, AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
I, I SIMPLY WAS SAYING IN TERMS OF THEY'RE, THEY'RE STILL BILLING IT AS HIGH DENSITY.
IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT IT'S, IT'S TWO UNITS LESS DENSE THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL ARM FOR PERMITTED.
NOW AT THE, AT THE, AT THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UM, BACK IN MAY, UH, THAT BOARD APPROVED US MOVING TO IDZ TWO.
SO UNDER IDZ TWO, WE'RE JUST ASKING IN THIS CASE FOR, FOR, UH, UH, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THE SETBACK, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT, IT'S NOT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME GREATLY HIGH DENSE DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX UNITS THAT WILL BE INDIVIDUAL THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, AS OPPOSED TO EIGHT UNITS, WHICH THE TWO PARCELS WOULD'VE PERMITTED TO TOGETHER.
AND, AND STAFF, THIS STILL FALLS UNDER, UM, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? HOW BIG OF THE UNIT AND HOW MANY BEDROOMS IN EACH? UH, THESE ARE THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH, UH, UNITS.
THEY'RE 1800 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO CAR GARAGE.
THE GARAGE IS A, IS A SINGLE CAR TANDEM, SO TWO CARS FIT IN TANDEM, BUT IT DOES HOLD UP TO TWO CARS, INCLUDING ONE OF 'EM BEING UP TO AN F 1 52 STORY.
UH, THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THREE STORY.
UM, BUT IT'S A VERY SMART DESIGN, HOW, HOW IT WOULD FIT.
AND AGAIN, UH, WE SHOWED THIS TO DENVER HEIGHTS AND THEY LOVED IT.
THEY'RE NOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THREE STORY, THEY'RE NOT LIKE SUPER TALL, LIKE SUPER TOWERING OVER EVERY, EVERYTHING.
WE TOOK CONSIDERATION WHAT DENVER HEIGHTS WANTED IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, WHEN WE, WHEN WE CREATED THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THIS COMMISSIONER PECK, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW HE'S GOT, UH, EIGHT UNITS ON HIS PROPOSED PLAN.
IF THIS REQUEST IS DENIED, WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS HE CAN PUT OUT THERE? IS IT SIX? UH, WITH HOW IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED, WHICH IS ARM FOUR, HE COULD DO A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNITS.
UH, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT, UH, IF HE WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL THEM OFF, UH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND SO RMM FOUR REQUIRES A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE ALLOWING UP TO FOUR UNITS ON THAT LOT.
UH, SO HE WANTS TO DO LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EACH LOT.
[00:45:01]
SO IT WOULD BE TWO LESS HOMES IF, IF THIS PLAN IS DENIED REALLY IS WHAT IT WOULD BOIL DOWN TO.HIS REQUEST IS LESS DENSE THAN WHAT HE WOULD BE ALLOWED.
IT'S JUST THE, THE SUBDIVIDING OF THE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT.
UM, SO HE, HE, I'M ONLY ASKING FOR SIX UNITS, NOT EIGHT.
I'M ONLY ASKING FOR SIX UNITS.
SO, UH, THE CURRENT ZONING AFTER, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED CURRENT ZONING AFTER IT'S RECEIVED ZONING, COMMISSION APPROVAL AS I D Z TWO, AND THAT STILL HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, SO IF THE PLAN, AGAIN, UM, IF, IF HIS REQUEST IS DENIED, DOES THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIT IN AN I D Z TWO ZONING? HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.
AND SIR, WHILE SHE'S CHECKING, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THE I D Z TWO.
THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT'S NOT BEING SAID, SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, IS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, IN ORDER TO SELL UNITS OFF, IF EVERYTHING WAS DENIED, WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO ONE ON EACH SLOT.
UH, SO JUST TO KIND OF ANSWER THAT, I, ID Z TWO WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S WHY HE HAS TO HAVE A, A PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, AND BASICALLY THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DUPLEXES, THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS, COTTAGE HOMES, AND TOWN HALLS.
SO ANYTHING RELATED TO LIKE AN I D Z PROJECT THAT IS ASSIST DENSITY WOULD, WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THAT ANSWERS ALL MY QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 19.
COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, I MOVE TO, UM, APPROVE THE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
DO, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
AND COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE GOING ALONG WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL? NO, I AM GOING, I AM, I THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THE REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR SECOND? YES.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
UH, CAN WE CLARIFY WHAT ARE WE VOTING FOR? WE ARE VOTING TO APPROVE TO, UM, APPEAR AN OPPOSITION OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WE ARE VOTING TO APPROVE THIS PLAN AMENDMENT.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER ZUKI APPROVED COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
[21. 21-4535 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2021-11600033 (Council District 5): A request by James McKnight, representative, for Approval of a Resolution to amend the Downtown Regional Center Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Neighborhood Mixed Use" to "Urban Mixed Use" on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10, Block 1, NCB 3120, located at 541 Roosevelt Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700115 CD) (Michael Pepe, Planner, (210) 207-8208, Michael.Pepe@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
21.YOU HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.
ITEM NUMBER 21 IS PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, PA 20 21 0 33 TO REQUEST TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER PLAN, UH, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO URBAN MIXED USE LOCATED AT 5 41 ROOSEVELT AVENUE.
THERE WERE 35 NOTICES, MAILS ZERO, RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND THERE WERE TWO IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET SUBMITTED.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON, OH, GO AHEAD.
SORRY, I WAS JUST HANDING IT OFF TO YOU.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? I'M STILL HERE.
IF EVERYBODY, CAN YOU STILL HEAR ME? YES, SIR.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR PRESENTATION? I DO, YES.
I, I EMAILED THE PRESENTATION TO STAFF.
IF YOU CAN PUT THAT UP, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN IT'S, IT'S READY.
THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS JAMES MCKNIGHT, 1 1 2 EAST PECAN BROWN ORTIZ.
[00:50:01]
UH, QUESTION TO THE STAFF.UH, THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENIAL OR THE APPLICANT REQUEST.
I BELIEVE ROOSEVELT NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT REQUEST.
THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN SUPPORT OF MY REQUEST, YES.
ALL, ALL RIGHT, JAMES, THE, UH, POWERPOINT IS UP.
OKAY, SO THIS FIRST SLIDE IS SHOWING YOU THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING AREA.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A BETTER CONTEXT OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT IS A, A LITTLE OUT OF PLACE WITH THE, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE.
IT WAS BUILT IN, ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1955.
THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL VIEW AGAIN OF THAT BUILDING IN THE SITE ON IT'S, UH, LOCATION ON ROOSEVELT AVENUE.
THIS IS A 33,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
UH, SEVERAL TENANTS AVAILABLE FOR IT, BUT AT THE MOMENT WE JUST HAVE TWO TENANTS THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING.
THIS IS OUR M X D, OR I'M SORRY, UM, SITE PLAN SHOWING THE, THE CONDITIONAL USES THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR.
IF YOU ACTUALLY GO TO, UH, SLIDE FOUR, YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BETTER.
THIS IS A STREET VIEW SLIDE FOUR OF THE FACADE ON ROOSEVELT PARK.
THERE'S A CABINET MAKER AND THERE'S A WELDER.
SO THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR A FEW YEARS NOW.
UM, THE OWNER BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, HAS HAD THESE TENANTS IN, EACH OF THEM IS OCCUPYING A LITTLE OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WAS THAT EACH ONE OF THOSE, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY IS OWNED C THREE, EACH ONE OF THOSE REQUIRED AN S U P ON ITS OWN.
YOU NEED AN S U P FOR A CABINET MAKER OR AN S U P FOR A WELDER, EVEN IN C THREE.
SO ONCE WE FOUND THAT OUT, WE SAID, OKAY, HOW DO WE, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GET THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY? THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO OTHER THAN HAVING TWO SUVS AND TRY TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY OR SPLIT ZONE THE PROPERTY FOR THESE TWO WAS TO FIND A USE THAT MET BOTH OF THEM.
SO THE USE THAT WE PICKED WAS A, A CONTRACTOR FACILITY.
THE ONLY REASON, AGAIN, THAT WE PICKED THAT WAS JUST SO WE COULD GET THIS WELDER AND CABINET MAKER UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY.
THAT ACTUALLY, UM, MADE US INTO A DOWN ZONING WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.
SO IT'S C THREE NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR A C TWO CONDITIONAL FOR THAT CONTRACTOR, BUT EVEN WITH THE DOWN ZONING, IT KICKS OUR PLAN AMENDMENT UP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO URBAN MIXED USE.
CAN YOU GO TO SLIDE FIVE PLEASE? AS, AS KAT MENTIONED THIS PLAN, THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WAS ADOPTED RECENTLY AND THE OWNER JUST WOULDN'T BE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING ON.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE GOT NOTICES OR NOT, BUT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.
IF SO, I BELIEVE WITH HIS C THREE ZONING, HE WOULD'VE COME FORWARD AT THAT TIME AND ASKED FOR A MORE INTENSE LAND USE.
BUT AS IT WAS, IT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BLOCK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IT RECEIVED A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE DESIGNATION.
THE SLIDE FIVE, YOU CAN SEE AS ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT, URBAN MIXED USE IS ALONG ROOSEVELT AVENUE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
SO IT IS NOT AN UNCOMMON OR INCONSISTENT LAND USE.
I THINK IN THIS CASE IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S LOCKED INTO A LARGER BLOCK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS LIGHT, THERE'S ONLY A FEW HOUSES THAT ARE WEST OF US.
TWO OF THOSE ARE OWNED BY THE OWNER OF OUR PROPERTY.
THE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY NOT AS EFFECTIVE.
BUT EVEN STILL, WE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ROOSEVELT PARK AND WE GAVE THEM DETAILS ABOUT WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHAT, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH IS REALLY JUST TO KEEP THESE TWO TENANTS IN THEIR PLACE IN A VERY ODD SITUATION.
AND, UM, THEY, THEY TOOK A VOTE AND THEY HAD DISCUSSED IT AND THEY, THEY GAVE US A LETTER IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU GO TO SLIDE, ACTUALLY SLIDE SIX SHOWS THE, THE ZONING, SORRY, THAT SHOWS THE C THREE.
CURRENTLY THERE'S, UM, I D Z TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF US, SOME OTHER C TWO AND C THREE NORTH OF US.
AGAIN, WE'RE REQUESTING C TWO CONDITIONAL.
AND THEN SLIDE SEVEN IS THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR OUR PROJECT.
AND THEY EVEN MENTIONED IN THE LETTER THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE CHANGES IN THAT OUR OWNER WOULD AGREE TO THE CHANGES IN GOOD FAITH.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THE REQUEST ENDED UP TO BE THIS ODD REQUEST OF A CONTRACT OF FACILITY WHEN WE'RE NOT CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING NEW.
WE'RE NOT REALLY OPERATING CONTRACTOR FACILITY, JUST TRYING TO KEEP A WELDER AND A CABINET MAKER IN THEIR CURRENT POSITION.
UM, BUT IN A WAY THAT THAT MAKES THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRY TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT, UM, CREATE ANYTHING TO INTENSE.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL RESERVE SOME TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, THAT'S MY PRESENTATION.
[00:55:01]
THANK YOU.AND FOR CLARIFICATION, CAN STAFF EXPAND ON THE REASON FOR DENIAL? SO, UH, THIS PROPERTY WE BELIEVE IS BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES DIRECTLY ABUTTING IT.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAND USE AS DEFINED IS ACTUALLY MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE REQUESTED BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW FOR, UH, SOME COMMERCIAL BUT ADOLESCENT INTENSITY THAN WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING.
AND, UM, ALSO SINCE THE PROPERTY IS VERY SMALL, WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH A, WITH A CONTRACTOR FACILITY, FACILITY DIRECTLY ABUTTING, UH, RESIDENTIAL USAGE.
AT THIS TIME I'LL TAKE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT I HAVE NOT NO INPUT ON ANY, UH, DISCUSSION OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, STAFF.
I GUESS FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, I MEAN, C THREE IS GENERALLY A MORE INTENSIVE USAGE THAN C TWO, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MORE INTENSIVE USAGE, WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS CONTRACTOR USE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL USE THAT THEY ARE, UH, CONDITIONING DOWN TO A LESS INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
AND THAT CONDITIONAL USE IS LIMITED TO WHAT'S SUBMITTED ON THE SITE PLAN? YES, IT'S, IT'S LIMITED TO THE SITE PLAN AND IT'S LIMITED TO ONLY THE CONTRACTOR FACILITY THAT'S PART OF THAT CONDITIONAL USE.
AND IN THIS CASE, THAT CONDITIONAL USE ON THE SITE PLAN IS RIGHT THERE UP AGAINST, UH, ROOSEVELT AVENUE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO TO ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, WE SEE AN URBAN, UH, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ALL ALL ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.
AND WE PULLED UP SLIDE FOR YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS OR MAYBE QUESTIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, UH, SENSITIVE THE FACT, I KNOW IT'S A, IT'S A NEW, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND I THINK THIS WAS A VACANT PIECE OF LAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT, UH, VIEWPOINT ABOUT GRANTING THIS URBAN MIXED USE, BUT THIS IS ALREADY BEING USED.
UM, I MEAN IT'S A DOWN ZONING WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY.
I DON'T, UH, REALLY SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT, UH, FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW.
THEY COULDN'T DO THAT UNDER C ONE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK I REALLY IN SUPPORTIVE OF APPROVING THE REQUEST, UH, JUST BASED ON WHERE IT'S AT AND WHAT IT'S BEEN, WHAT HAS BEEN.
AND, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PROFIT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MS. COMMISSIONER PECK? I THINK IN GENERAL, UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PROFIT'S ASSESSMENT OF THIS AND ALSO NOTING THE FACT THAT THE OTHER THREE CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION ARE URBAN MIXED USE.
UM, AND COMBINING THAT WITH THE FACT THAT THESE ARE EXISTING USES THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE COMMISSIONER PROPHET SAID, IF THIS WAS RAW LAND AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL, YOU KIND OF CRINGE A LITTLE BIT.
BUT, UM, THESE ARE GUYS THAT ARE THERE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY DO AND THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF BUTTON THINGS UP FOR THEM.
I THINK THAT, UH, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE OTHER FOUR CORNERS ARE URBAN MIXED USE, I CAN, I CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR.
LAST CALL FOR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
HEARING NINE? I ECHO THE, THE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER POFF AND COMMISSIONER PECK.
UM, I, LOOKING AT THAT THIS IS A REGIONAL, UH, A RECENTLY ADOPTED, UH, REGIONAL CENTER PLAN, UM, I WOULD THINK THAT THAT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN ADDRESSED.
UH, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS SOMEBODY ON THE LINE THAT WAS A PART OF THAT PROCESS ON THE STAFF SIDE.
UM, AND RECALL ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WHY THIS WAS THE FOURTH AND THE ONLY CORNER THAT WE FELT THE NEED TO CONTINUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MISUSE VERSUS MAKING IT CONSISTENT ON ALL FOUR CORNERS.
I UNDERSTAND IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, JAMES, THAT THE OWNER WAS NOT A PART OF THE REGIONAL CENTER PLANNING COMMUNITY MEETINGS?
[01:00:02]
NO, MA'AM.AND STAFF, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON, ON THAT PIECE, ON ANY OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, IF YOU ALL RECALL IF THERE'S SOMEBODY FROM THE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN AND WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT.
SO, I MEAN, AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE SMALL, UM, ADJACENT, DIRECTLY ABUTTING, UM, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, AT THE TIME IT MADE SENSE TO MAKE IT AT LEAST, UM, A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE APPROACH.
SO THAT WAY YOU COULD HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WOULD JUST BE LIKE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
UM, AND OF COURSE THE PUBLIC PROCESS WAS AN OPEN PUBLIC PROCESS.
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED, UM, AND IT WAS AT LEAST ABOUT A NINE TO 12 MONTH PROCESS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATE AND THERE'S SOME THAT DON'T, BUT IT WAS AN OPEN PUBLIC PROCESS.
UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 21, COMMISSIONER PROFIT.
MOVED APPROVED REQUEST FOR URBAN MEETING.
COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? IT REALLY BROKE UP.
I COULDN'T TELL WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR URBAN MIXED USE.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PECK.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER, UH, EXOFFICIO BUSANTE.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
[24. 21-4572 PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600051 (Council District 7): A request by Miriam Ade, representative, for Approval of a Resolution to amend the West / Southwest Sector Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “General Urban Tier" to "Regional Center" on 2.50 acres out of NCB 15038, located at 6300 block of Northwest Loop 410. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700138) (Michael Pepe, Senior Planner, (210) 207-8208, Michael.Pepe@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
24.DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? ITEM NUMBER 24 IS PLAN AMENDMENT PA 20 21 0 51.
IT'S A REQUEST TO AMEND THE WEST SOUTHWEST SECTOR PLAN, UH, FROM GENERAL URBAN TIER TO REGIONAL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE 6,300 BLOCK OF NORTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
THERE ARE 25 NOTICES MAILED ZERO.
ZERO OPPOSED, UH, NO RESPONSE FROM THE THUNDERBIRD THUNDERBIRD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? YES, WE'RE ON THE LINE, UH, REPRESENTING, UH, STEVEN J. KRAMER ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN.
UH, I HAVE MY CIVIL ENGINEER HERE, ENGINEERING AND, UH, THE, UH, POTENTIAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AND OWNER OF THE BUSINESS.
UH, THIS IS JOSH BERG WITH ALAMO TRUCK GEAR.
JONATHAN, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR COMMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE? UH, COMMENTS? YES.
PRESENTATION, NOT NECESSARILY.
UM, BUT, UH, I GUESS TO, TO START, UM, WE'RE ASKING, UH, I GUESS FOR A, UH, A, UH, UH, AMENDMENT, UH, IN, IN REGARDS TO THE C TWO SS, WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR A C THREE.
UM, THE CURRENT BUSINESS THAT IS PLANNING ON BUILDING ON THERE IS ALAMO TRUCK YEAR, UH, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A RETAIL, UH, LIGHT AUTO, UM, NOT NECESSARILY REPAIR SHOP, BUT TRIM SHOP, UM, ACCESSORIES, UH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
NO REALLY, UH, CAR REPAIR, UM, OR, UH, NECESSARILY NEEDING OR DRAINING OF FLUIDS IN, IN, IN, IN ANY CASE.
UM, IT IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD BUSINESS OF, UH, OF ADDITIONS.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF DID NOT APPROVE OF THE, UH, C THREE, UH, DESIGNATION.
UM, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO, I GUESS, UH, APPEAL TO YOU GUYS, UH, IF AT ALL, UH, POSSIBLE THAT THE C THREE IS AN IMPORTANT, UH, DESIGNATION, I GUESS FOR THE, UH, OWNER HIMSELF.
SIMPLY NOT BECAUSE OF THE, UH, CURRENT CONDITIONS OF, OF WHAT THE C TWO WAS CONDITIONAL USE, COULD, COULD, UH, PROVIDE, BUT MORE ON WHAT IT COULD, UH, DO FOR THE FUTURE, UH, FOR THEM AND FOR THE BUSINESS AS WELL.
UM, WE WOULD BE OKAY AS WELL, EVEN IF THE FULL C THREE WAS NOT, UH, NECESSARILY, UM, UH, IF IT, IF IT WASN'T FULLY THIS, UM, WHAT'S THE WORD, UM, RESTRICTIONS.
ESSENTIALLY, EVEN IF WE HAD A C THREE WITH RESTRICTIONS, AND FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
[01:05:01]
THE C TWO AND THE C THREE OR THE C TWO CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C THREE WAS ESSENTIALLY, UH, HAVING SALES OF ALCOHOL AND OR A PARTY, UH, RENTAL PLACE, WHICH, UH, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING AT ALL.THERE WOULD BE NO SALES OF ALCOHOL, UH, AND OR A A PARTY, UH, UM, RENTAL, UH, ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
WE'RE SIMPLY LOOKING TO DEVELOP IT AS A COMMERCIAL AND OR A RETAIL, UM, AUTOMOTIVE SHOP.
UM, THE POTENTIAL OF MAYBE HAVING EVEN FUTURE TENANTS, UH, ON THE SITE.
UM, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE PROPOSE TO, UH, TO DO.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU ARE STILL, UH, SEEKING, UH, REGIONAL CENTER AND THE STAFF ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO BE, TO REMAIN WITH, UH, GENERAL URBAN TIER, IS THAT RIGHT? STAFF? CORRECT, YES.
LOOK, LOOKING AT THE, LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP, UH, AND, AND THE WAY THAT, THAT IT'S CURRENTLY, UH, LAID OUT, UM, ON THE OPPOSITE END OF FOUR 10, IT IS WHERE THE MALL IS.
SO ALL OF THAT IS ZONED AS C THREE.
IT ALSO INCLUDES, UH, I ONE, UM, AS WELL AS THE R SIX RESIDENTIAL BEHIND ON OUR SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY.
UH, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ALMOST THE SAME MINUS THE I ONE, UM, DOWN, DOWN THE, DOWN THE, THE STREET FROM US, WE HAVE A, A PROPERTY THAT'S ALSO AT AN INTERSECTION, UH, WHICH IS ZONED A C THREE.
UH, AND IT IS, UH, CURRENTLY A FURNITURE TOWN.
UH, THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THAT IS A C TWO WITH CONDITIONAL USE AND IT'S A, UH, COLLISION CENTER, UH, PROPERTY NEXT TO THAT IS ALSO A C TWO, BUT THE ONE NEXT TO THAT ONE IS A THREE R, UH, WHICH IS ALSO A COMMERCIAL CENTER, AND THEN IT'S US ALSO AT AN INTERSECTION.
UM, AND WE WOULD UNDERSTAND, I GUESS IF WE WERE FURTHER INSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, WHY A C THREE MIGHT NOT BE, UH, ACCEPTABLE.
UM, BUT BEING THAT WE'RE ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD RIGHT OFF OF FOUR 10 WITH VISIBILITY, UH, TO THE HIGHWAY GOING, I GUESS NORTH AND SOUTH, UM, IT, WE, WE FEEL THAT THE, THE, THE C THREE, EVEN IF IT HAD A RESTRICTION ON IT, WOULD BE, UH, SUITABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR THE LOCATION.
AND, AND JUST A REMINDER, WE'RE HERE TODAY FOCUSED ON, ON THE LAND USE, NOT, UM, THE ZONING.
UM, BUT I'LL ASK STAFF, STAFF TO CLARIFY ONE MORE THING.
THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION WAS THE C TWO, WHICH IS CONSISTENT OR WOULD WORK UNDER GENERAL URBAN TIER, UM, STAFF.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? IF THE ALAMO TRUCK HERE WOULD, UM, STILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A BUSINESS THERE UNDER GENERAL URBAN TIER, IF, UH, IT WAS REZONED FOR C TWO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THAT USE, THEN THEY COULD OPERATE UNDER THE C TWO, UH, PROVISION.
AND THEY'VE BEEN, UH, THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THAT.
UH, THIS TIME I'LL TAKE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
UM, YOU ANSWER ONE OF MY QUESTIONS JUST NOW 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA ASK IF THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF C TWO CD, UH, IF THE GENERAL URBAN TIER WOULD, WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THAT AND THEY COULD ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT? UH, TO ME THAT'S THE SOLUTION ON THIS ONE BECAUSE, UM, THE SITE REALLY DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO REGIONAL CENTER IN MY OPINION.
UM, THE SIZE IS WAY TOO SMALL FOR THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF REGIONAL CENTER.
IT'S NOT IN A MA IT IS ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY, BUT IT'S NOT IN A MAJOR INTERSECTION.
UM, SO ALL THOSE THINGS COMBINED, I DON'T THINK REGIONAL CENTER IS, IS THE BEST FIT FOR THIS.
SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S DENIAL.
COMMISSIONER PECK, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, EXCUSE ME.
I HAVE ONE CLARIFICATION, UM, FOR THE COMMISSIONER.
UM, WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON BUILDING A REGIONAL CENTER OR A SHOPPING CENTER ON THE SITE ITSELF.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DESIGNING THE SITE FOR ALAMO TRUCK GEAR THEMSELVES, UM, WHICH WOULD ONE BUILDING, UH, WHICH WOULD HOUSE THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR, UH, INSTALLATION, UH, WITH THE POTENTIAL OF MAYBE IN THE FUTURE OF HAVING ADDITIONAL TENANT BASE.
SO IF, IF, IF YOU NOTICE TO THE, TO THE, UH, LEFT OF US, THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE LEFT OF US, WHICH IS A LARGE COMMERCIAL CENTER, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE, UH, LOOKING TO, UH, TO DO.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SIMPLY, UH, LIKE I HAD SAID, UH, DESIGNING A FACILITY FOR ALAMO TRUCK YEAR WITH THE POTENTIAL, SINCE IT IS A LARGE ENOUGH SITE TO POTENTIALLY HAVE ADDITIONAL
[01:10:01]
LEASE SPACE, UH, FOR THEM, MAYBE ONE OR TWO MORE, UH, LOCATIONS, BUT IT'S NOT A FULL SIZE OR FULL-BLOWN COMMERCIAL CENTER.ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? QUESTIONS J JUST A CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF UNDER C TWO, UH, THEY CAN HAVE SMALL MULTI-TENANT SMALL BUSINESSES AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
C TWO IS A, IS ALSO KNOWN AS OUR RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT.
YES, YOU CAN DO A STRIP CENTER WITH, UH, USES THAT ARE TYPICALLY RETAIL.
THE CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH IS THE, UH, MORE INTENSE USE THAT'S ADDED TO THE C TWO USES WOULD ALLOW WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING ELSE AT C TWO.
I'M THE OWNER OF ALAMO TRUCK HERE, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM EVERYBODY HERE IF POSSIBLE.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO AS, UH, THIS STOCK, THE SHOP AND AS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO EVOLVE INTO MIGHT INVOLVE SOME BODY SWAPS WITH COMMERCIAL FLEET BODIES.
IT MIGHT INVOLVE UTILITY BEDS AND FLATBEDS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE.
AND BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THESE PARTS, THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT THEY COULD SIT OUTSIDE BEHIND A, UM, A, A PRIVACY SCREEN FENCE.
THINGS THAT CONCERN ME ABOUT THIS PROPERTY BEING ZONE Z TWO C TWO IS THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE MAY NOT BE THERE.
UM, AND IF WE START TO OPERATE WITHIN THIS BUSINESS AND OUR BUSINESS EVOLVES THAT WE MIGHT BE LIMITED AS TO WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO IN THE FUTURE BASED UPON OUR ZONING.
AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PUSH FOR THE C THREE ZONING DESIGNATION.
UH, AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT Y'ALL READ ON THAT IS IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY BODIES OUTSIDE THAT ARE BEHIND THE SCREEN FENCE, THESE ARE GONNA BE NICE BRAND NEW BODIES THAT ARE GONNA BE GOING ON NICE BRAND VEHICLES.
SOMETIMES, UH, A BRAND NEW VEHICLE THAT'S JUST A CABIN CHASSIS THAT'S SITTING THERE WAITING FOR A BODY THAT MAY BE STORED OUTSIDE AS WELL.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ANY SORT OF ALTERCATION IN THE FUTURE WHERE WE'RE NOT ZONED TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF VEHICLES, UH, THAT ARE WAITING TO BE WORKED ON WITHIN OUR FENCES.
UH, CAN Y'ALL CLARIFY THAT AT ALL? AND, AND THAT MIGHT KIND OF REASSURE US AS FAR AS WHAT ZONING WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING FOR.
UH, SO THE USE THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS BASICALLY, UH, AN AUTO REPAIR WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.
UM, OUR, WE ALSO HAVE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE THAT REQUIRE SCREENING FOR THAT TYPE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE, UH, AND ESPECIALLY SCREENING FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
AND SO AGAIN, THAT CAN, THAT CAN BE, UM, THAT CAN BE ALLOWED WITH WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING WITH DE COMMISSIONAL USE.
WE'RE GONNA WRAP UP COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND THEN WE WILL, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WELL IT WORKED OUT THEN.
UM, WE'LL ALLOW THE APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS PLEASE.
SO WITH, UH, WITH THIS, UM, CONCLUSION OF MAYBE KEEPING THE C TWO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE, ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE A CONCERN TO THE OWNER, UM, I GUESS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE AGREED UPON AND, AND, AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ON, UH, IN WRITING, I GUESS.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE MOTION FOR, FOR THIS MOVING FORWARD? UH, SHERIFF, I CAN, UH, CHIME IN.
SO, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO JUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDING BODY AND COUNSEL IS THE FINAL DECISION RELATED TO PLAN AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO EITHER APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, OR CONTINUE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
UH, THE ZONING REQUEST IS, IS GOING TO ZONING COMMISSION NEXT WEEK.
THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO MORE OR LESS TWEAK WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS, UM, UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ZONING COMMISSION IS AWARE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE PROPOSED OR WHAT THEY COULD CONSIDER IF THEY WERE CONSIDERING A CONDITIONAL USE.
UH, SO REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME TODAY, UH, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS HOW DO WE PREP THIS IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO THE CONDITIONAL USE IN TIME FOR THE ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MEET BEFORE TUESDAY AND I CAN WORK WITH YOUR CASE MANAGER SO WE CAN SET UP THAT MEETING SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UM, ALL OF THE CONTINGENCIES THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUEST AND SEE IF THE CONDITIONAL USE FIT.
THAT, THAT, THAT SOUNDS, UH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY IN AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS AND, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THAT WE
[01:15:01]
MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN.BUT WE KNOW THAT, UH, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS.
SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD FOR THAT MEETING ON, ON TUESDAY BEFORE.
AND TEAM, UH, AT THIS TIME I'LL TAKE A MOTION OR I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PECK, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, FOR DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN, IN CON IN, UH, ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER PRO.
SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PECK.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PROT ROLL CALL PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.
APPROVAL COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
[26. 21-4706 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from June 23, 2021.]
ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THE MINUTES.DO WE HAVE ANY REVISIONS TO THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 23RD? WE STILL HAVE ITEM NUMBER 25.
THAT WAS, YEAH, THAT WAS FIRST.
UH, CLARIFICATION ON, ON THE, UH, VERDICT THAT YOU JUST GUYS JUST GAVE FOR US FOR ALAMO TRUCK YEAR WAS, UH, DENIAL, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S CORRECT.
WE, UH, WE UPHELD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, SO IT IS GOING TO REMAIN GENERAL URBAN TIER.
SO WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, UH, STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU PLANNING AGAINST THE, YEAH.
LEADING UP TO THE ZONING COMMISSION.
UH, HEARING NO REVISIONS TO THE MINUTES, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
SECOND COMMISSIONER PROFIT MADE A MOTION.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
WE ACCOMPLISHED QUITE A LOT IN 48 MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S ATTENDANCE TODAY.
IT IS 2 48 AND I AM ADJOURNING THE MEETING.