* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] ALRIGHT, THE TIME IS ONE O'CLOCK. GOOD AFTERNOON [Call to Order] LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. UH, IF WE COULD, COULD WE HAVE OUR SPANISH TRANSLATION SERVICES STATEMENT? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, AND AS WE HAVE MENTIONED IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, UH, WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE MASK MANDATE. SO I THANK YOU ALL FOR WEARING YOUR MASKS. UH, SHOULD YOU NEED A MASK, THERE IS ONE OVER THERE, BUT UNLESS YOU ARE SPEAKING, YEAH, MERKO JUST RAISED HIS HAND FOR WHERE THE MASKS ARE. IF YOU ARE SPEAKING, YOU MAY REMOVE YOUR MASK FOR THAT TIME. UH, BUT OTHERWISE PLEASE KEEP YOUR MASK ON WHILE YOU ARE IN THIS ROOM, UH, WITH THIS COMMISSION. UM, MY NAME IS JOHN BUSTAMANTE AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT FIVE ZONING COMMISSIONER. THE TIME IS ONE OH ONE AND I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICED MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION. END OF SESSION. UH, I'D LIKE TO DO OUR ROLL CALL BY ALLOWING THE ZONING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING WITH THE COMMISSIONER ON MY FAR LEFT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. MARCO BARROS, UH, REPRESENT DISTRICT NINE CHARLES FUENTES REPRESENTING DISTRICT THREE. TAYLOR WATSON, REPRESENTING DISTRICT TWO MARK WHITE. DISTRICT 10. SUMMER GREATHOUSE, DISTRICT ONE. ROB HIES, DISTRICT SEVEN, FRANCINE ROMERO, DISTRICT EIGHT. UH, SIR KAMATH DISTRICT FOUR. KEN HUI, DISTRICT SIX STAFF IS A QUORUM PRESENT. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDERGROUND INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALRIGHT, UH, PRIOR TO COMMENCING OUR HEARING, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO PLEASE REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE STAFF IF YOU WOULD. SO BEFORE I BEGIN, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO TURN YOUR PHONES ON VIBRATE OR TURN THEM OFF. THE ZONING COMMISSION IS AN 11 MEMBER BODY APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ZONING CASES UPON RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION, YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD YOUR CASE TO CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CASE MANAGER. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REZONING AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN EX INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REZONING. YOU WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL BE INFORMED WHEN YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF WE COULD, UH, [Items 1 - 3] NOW PROCEED TO THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE EITHER POSTPONED OR WITHDRAWN, COULD YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT MORE? ALRIGHT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S MEETING, THE ITEMS THAT ARE POSTPONED AND WITHDRAWN AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY, NO DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER ARE ITEMS NUMBER ONE, TWO, AND THREE. ITEM ONE IS LOCATED AT 2218 WEST SOUTH CROSS AND THAT'S WITHDRAWN AND WILL HAVE TO BE REINITIATED IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK TO ZONING COMMISSION. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS POSTPONED. THAT'S IN THE 8,000 BLOCK OF STATE HIGHWAY 1 51. AND WHENEVER THEY ARE READY TO PROCEED FORWARD, A NEW NOTICE WILL BE MAILED. AND THE SAME FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS ITEM IS POSTPONED IN THE 1500 BLOCK OF MEADOW WAY DRIVE AND AS SOON AS THEY ARE READY TO PROCEED FORWARD, NEW NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO [00:05:01] PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND SO AGAIN, IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS ONE, TWO, OR THREE, THOSE ITEMS WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UH, ONE WILL HAVE TO BE REFILED AND THE REMAINING TWO WILL HAVE TO BE RENO. SO IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THOSE, THEY WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY AND YOU CAN GO ON YOUR WAY AND ENJOY THIS LOVELY WEATHER. UM, STAFF IF WE COULD, UM, [Items 7, 10 - 12, 14, 16 - 21, & 23] CAN WE REVIEW VERY QUICKLY, UH, THE COMBINED HEARING NUMBER ONE ITEMS, UH, AND THEN COMMISSIONERS. IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED, PLEASE LET US KNOW. FOR COMBINED HEARING NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE ITEM 7, 10 11 WITH CONDITIONS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD. ITEM 12 14, 16 AND ITEM 17 CAN REMAIN ON CONSENT, BUT THERE IS A PERSON HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THAT ITEM. ITEM 18 AND ITEM 19. OKAY. UH, IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD AND STAFF TO BE CLEAR? UH, 2021 AND 23 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PAGE, ARE THOSE ON THE COMBINED HEARING OR NOT? OH, YES SIR. THANK YOU. UH, 2021 AND 23. OKAY. ALRIGHT, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? UH, SPEAK NOW, IF NOT, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE COMBINED HEARING? NUMBER ONE AS READ, SEEING NONE. STAFF, IF WE COULD PLEASE READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE AND C TWO TO BP WITH ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. LOCATED IN THE 12,000 BLOCK OF WEST AVENUE, THERE WERE 30 NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX TO M H C LOCATED AT 54 23 GW LEE STREET. ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. THERE WERE 38 NOTICES MAILED. FOUR RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. 15. RECEIVED IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET AND NO RESPONSE FROM SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX TO C TWO C D WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT 5,800 RAY ELLISON BOULEVARD. THERE WERE 34 NOTICES MAILED. TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM PEOPLE ACTIVE IN COMMUNITY EFFORT. AND THE CONDITIONS FOR THIS ITEM ARE AS FOLLOWS, AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND OR USES DOWNWARD FACING LIGHTING DIRECTED AWAY FROM A BUDDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND OR USES. AND A 15 FOOT TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM I TWO AND I ONE TO C TWO CD WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. FULL SERVICE WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE LOCATED AT 35 37 AND 35 23 SOUTHWEST MILITARY DRIVE ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME AND ALSO LOCATED AT 1228 NEW LAREDO HIGHWAY. THERE WERE 18 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED, RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM QUINTANA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 16 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE R TO C TWO. ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. LOCATED AT 4,800 WEST COMMERCE STREET. THERE WERE 15 NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. ALL THE OVERLAYS ON THAT ITEM WILL ALSO REMAIN THE SAME. ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM I ONE A H O D TO L A H O D AT 78 60 MAINLAND DRIVE. THERE WERE 17 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. ITEM NUMBER 19 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C TWO AND C THREE CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE. [00:10:01] TWO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AUTO PAINT AND BODY REPAIR WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLE AND PARTS SCREEN FROM VIEW ADJACENT PROPERTY AND RIGHT OF WAY, LOCATED AT 1 0 2 2 9 COLLIBRA ROAD. THERE WERE 21 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 20 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM MF 33 A H O D TO I ONE A H O D IN THE 8,300 BLOCK OF RESEARCH PLAZA THERE WERE SIX NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 21 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE GC TWO TO MF 33. GC TWO LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE 12,000 BLOCK OF STATE HIGHWAY 1 51. THERE WERE SIX NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. ITEM NUMBER 23 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM I TWO S A H O D WITH SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR MANUFACTURING OF CEMENT TO ED A H O D LOCATED AT 1 0 4 4 0 ACH PARKWAY. THERE WERE SEVEN NOTICES MAILED NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. NONE RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM HILLS OF NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE TO I ONE. GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 20,000 BLOCK OF EAGLE FORD WAY. THERE WERE 11 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND ITEM NUMBER 14 IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C TWO N A H O D C THREE A H O D AND MF 33 A H O D TO MF 33 A H O D. GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 17,000 BLOCK OF GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD. THERE WERE 11 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ONE RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM GREEN MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OF THEM, SIR. ALRIGHT, WE GOT 'EM. UM, ALRIGHT. I BELIEVE THERE IS A SPEAKER ON ITEM NUMBER 17, UH, 78 60 MAINLAND DRIVE. IF WE COULD HAVE THAT PERSON COME AND SPEAK NOW. MY APOLOGIES. I I BROUGHT THE OKAY. WELL VERY GOOD. IT WAS THE APPLICANT SO HE'S IN FAVOR. WE'RE GOOD TO GO. ALRIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE COMBINED HEARING? NUMBER ONE ITEMS? HEARING NONE. UH, IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIR? THIS IS COMMISSIONER SIPES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ITEMS NUMBER SEVEN, NUMBER 10. NUMBER 11, WITH CONDITIONS AS READ NUMBER 12, NUMBER 14. NUMBER 16, NUMBER 17. NUMBER 18. NUMBER 19, NUMBER 20, NUMBER 21 AND NUMBER 23. VERY GOOD. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BARTOS. THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 7 10 11 WITH CONDITIONS 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, AND 23 WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARTOS. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMIT? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE. HI. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. CHAIR BUSANTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S A GOOD REMINDER IF YOU HAVE YOUR CELL PHONE ON, PLEASE MAKE SURE IT'S ON SILENT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, IF WE CAN GO ON TO OUR COMBINED HEARING NUMBER TWO, LEMME MAKE SURE I KNOW WHAT THIS IS. AND THIS REMAINS OUR RECUSAL DOCKET. WE DO, WE DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SO THAT ONE NEEDS TO GO DOWN TO INDIVIDUAL. VERY GOOD. WE'LL MOVE, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR TO INDIVIDUAL. UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 13. CORRECT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE IS RECUSED AND SHE IS LEAVING THE HEARING ROOM. [00:15:05] AND THE TIME IS CURRENTLY 1:15 PM AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE IS NO LONGER IN THE HEARING ROOM. IF WE [13. ZONING CASE Z202110700226 (Council District 2)] COULD PLEASE READ ITEM 13 INTO THE RECORD. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A LEARNING CENTER TO RMM FOUR WITH ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. LOCATED AT 1711 BURLESON STREET, THERE WERE SEVEN NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM HARVARD PLACED EAST LAWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS WOULD'VE BEEN ON THE CONSENT DOCKET COMBINED HEARING NUMBER ONE, BUT FOR THE RECUSAL, UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE. IS THERE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO, MA'AM. OH. OH, DID SOMEONE SIGN UP? ALRIGHT, WELL, IN WHICH CASE, UH, WHAT? I'M SORRY. UH, OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? UH, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 13. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FUENTES FOR YOUR SECOND. UM, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. MOTION IS FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WATSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FUENTES. ITEM NUMBER 13. COMMISSIONER WATSON. YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR BUSANTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. VERY GOOD. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING. UH, DOCKET. UH, THE NEXT ITEM. NOW YOU NEED TO STAY OUT. OH, . OH, ACTUALLY I'M SERIOUS. , WE'RE GOING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE IS THE FIRST ITEM. OH, CONTINUE. I'M SORRY. YOU CAN COME IN. UM, JUST BEING RUDE, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. IT'S, IT'S 'CAUSE I'M ON AN ISLAND OUT HERE ALL BY MYSELF. ALRIGHT. VERY WELL. WE ARE GOING ON TO [Items 15 & 22] OUR COMBINED HEARING NUMBER THREE DOCKET, WHICH IS, UH, GOING TO BE CONTINUANCES, UH, STAFF. IF WE COULD READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. YES, SIR. AND FOR THE RECORD, THESE ARE ITEMS NUMBER EIGHT, NUMBER 15 AND NUMBER 22. OKAY. WE HAD A CHANGE ON NUMBER EIGHT. SO APPARENTLY IT IS ONLY ITEM 15 AND 22. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX A H O D TO R SIX S A H O D WITH A SPECIFIC USE OF AUTHORIZATION FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME LOCATED AT 1 46 RENEE AVENUE. THERE WERE 18 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR TO RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS ITEM IS SEEKING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER THE 19TH. ITEM NUMBER 22 IS A REQUEST FOR TO REZONE FROM R SIX N C D FIVE A H O D TO R THREE C D N C D A H O D WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR DUPLEX LOCATED AT 1102 WEST ASHBY PLACE. THERE WERE 22 NOTICES MAILED TO, RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS ITEM IS ALSO A CONTINUANCE REQUEST TO OCTOBER THE 19TH. ALRIGHT. UM, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEMS 15 AND 22 TO THE OCTOBER 19TH HEARING. THERE IS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 19TH HEARING FOR ITEMS 15 AND 22. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALRIGHT. THERE IS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 19TH BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, UH, FOR ITEMS 15 AND 22. WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIPES DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE. UH, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. CHAIR BUSANTE AYE. MOTION PASSES. OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING DOCKET. UH, WE WILL BEGIN, I BELIEVE WITH [4. (Continued from 09/07/2021) ZONING CASE Z202110700142 (Council District 2)] ITEM NUMBER FOUR. I AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE ARE RECUSED. UM, [00:20:01] I AM GOING TO TURN OVER AT THIS POINT THE MEETING TO SIPES, SIR. OKAY. WE'LL LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE AND COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE HAVE LEFT THE ROOM. AND IF WE COULD BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM AE ONE A H O D AND AE TWO A H O D TO IDZ, TWO A H O D WITH USES PERMITTED FOR 10 DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT 1712 EAST COMMERCE STREET AND SEVEN 11 MONTANA STREET. THERE WERE 31 NOTICES MAILED THREE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, FIVE IN OPPOSITION. DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. NO RESPONSE FROM DITY HILL. AND THERE WERE 11 NOTICES RECEIVED OUTSIDE 200 FEET THAT WERE IN FAVOR AND ONE RECEIVED OUTSIDE 200 FEET THAT WAS OPPOSED. THE CURRENT AE ONE AND AE TWO DISTRICTS ARE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THEIR PROPOSED IDZ TWO MEDIUM INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND MORE UNIFORM APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA RESULTING IN 10 DWELLING UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MR. CHAIR IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. APPARENTLY THERE IS NOT A PROPERTY OWNER HEARING KAT SAYS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A ITEM NUMBER EIGHT THAT GOT MOVED DOWN, SO I'M NOT SURE WHY. OH, I KNOW WHY THERE'S TWO PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SO, OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR IN THE AUDIENCE TAR MARK? NO, SIR. ALRIGHT, WELL WE'LL MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THEY'LL CALL ME UP JOHNNY GARRA. AND IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. JOHNNY GARRA. 1702 EAST COMMERCE. UH, AND I'M AGAINST, OOPS. OKAY. JOHNNY GARRA. . OKAY. UH, I'M AGAINST, UH, APPROVING, UH, THE, THE BUILDING OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT I THINK, UH, IT WOULD PUT THE TENANTS OR THE OWNERS IN GREAT DANGER BECAUSE IN CASE OF A FIRE, UH, THE FIRE TRUCKS WILL HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING IN THERE, REALIZING THAT THE FIRE TRUCKS HAVE TWO, 300 FEET OF HOSES. BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A THREE STORY BUILDING, HOW THERE'S NO TRUCK THAT CAN REACH WITH A LETTER UP THAT HIGH FROM THE STREET, FROM EAST COMMERCE TO TRY AND SAVE SOMEBODY THERE. SO, UH, AND THE ALLEYS OR THE ALLEY IS REAL, REAL NARROW FOR 10 OR 11 OR NINE HOMES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD THERE. SO I REALLY THINK THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, AND IN JUST FOR THE OWNERS TO LIVE THERE. UH, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND, UH, WE OWN AA BODY AND PAINT NEXT DOOR. AND THE FENCE ON THAT ALLEY IS MY PROPERTY. AND WE HAVE A BODY AND PAINT SHOP THERE THAT WE'VE BEEN OPEN NOW FOR 54 YEARS. AND, UH, WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OSHA AND THE CITY, WITH OUR PAINT BOOTH AND, UH, WHATNOT. SO I, UH, REALLY THINK THAT THE BOARD SHOULD LOOK INTO, UH, AND LOOK AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER, UH, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD HOMES THAT CLOSE TOGETHER THERE AND AT THAT HEIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK [00:25:01] YOU LILY GURA. I I'LL HAVE, UH, DAVID GURA SPEAK IN MY BEHALF. HI, UH, MY NAME IS DAVE GURA, 1702 ECOMMERCE. UH, I OPPOSE THE PROJECT, UH, FOR ONE REASON IS THAT, UH, WITH BEING IN COMPLIANCE, UH, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO UP WITH OUR PAINT STACK HIGHER THAN THE ADJOINING BUILDING IS WHAT THE RULES ARE. UH, THAT WOULD BE VERY COSTLY. AND ALSO THEY'RE SITUATING 10 FAMILY DWELLINGS BETWEEN TWO AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A HEALTHY PLACE FOR KIDS TO BE PLAYING. UH, WE WILL HAVE COMPRESSORS GOING ALL TIME. WE HAVE 24 7 WRECKERS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE SHOP. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SHOP 24 7. AND WE DO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH, WITH THE CITY, UH, ANY OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE WRECKED ON THE CITY STREETS. UH, UH, WE'RE ON THE LIST FOR THE RECORDS TO GO AHEAD AND BRING THE VEHICLES IN AND HAVE ACCESS. SO, UH, ANOTHER THING IS THAT, UH, THE CONTRACTOR WAS THERE NEXT DOOR THE OTHER DAY AND, AND THEY WERE GOING TO FENCE UP ALL THE WAY TO MY, UH, BUILDING. WELL, THERE'S AN ALLEY THERE AND, UH, NOW WHAT THEY HAVE, I'D LIKE TO SHOW THESE PICTURES IS THEY'VE GOT MATERIAL, THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF MATERIAL, UH, COVERING THE ALLEYWAYS AND, AND STACKING IT UP, UH, NEXT DOOR. SO, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO SAFE. ALSO, THE DIAGRAM THAT, THAT DIAGRAM RIGHT THERE SHOWS AN ALLEY WHERE THERE'S NO ALLEY, UH, LIKE TO SHOW THESE PICTURES. ALSO SOME MORE PICTURES, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AT THE FRONTAGE OF IT TO COMMERCE THERE, YOU CAN ONLY PARK TWO CARS AT THE CURB. SO THAT'LL GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE WIDTH OF, OF WHERE THEY'RE WANTING TO BUILD THESE UNITS. UH, MOST FAMILIES HAVE TWO CARS. I, I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE GONNA PARK TWO CARS PLUS ANY VISITORS WHERE THE VISITOR'S GONNA PARK. 'CAUSE AFTER THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TWO CARS ON THE FRONTAGE THAT YOU CAN PARK AT THE CURB. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPATIBLE, UH, TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS AT ALL. AND EVERYBODY THAT I'VE SPOKE TO AROUND THE SHOP IS OPPOSED OF IT. UM, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY WORD. THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T COME AND TELL US, HEY LOOK, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS PROJECT, UH, LET'S WORK SOMETHING OUT. ALRIGHT, INSTEAD, UH, THANK YOU. THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR TIME, THAT'S YOUR OKAY. WE GOT AN UPDATE ON THE APPLICANT. THEY WERE JUST RUNNING BEHIND, BUT I THINK THEY JUST ARRIVED. ALRIGHT. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT, PLEASE. HELLO, MY NAME IS RODOLFO. I WAS, I'M THE REP FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, I KNOW THAT IN LAST MEETING WE WERE TOLD ME TO GET WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. THAT WAS THE LAST THING I WOULD, I WAS, THAT'S MY TASK. SO, UH, I GOT TOGETHER WITH THE OWNERS OF THE AA, UM, CARD, UH, UH, PLACE THAT IS ON THE SIDE TRYING TO 'CAUSE THAT HE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS HERE. J THE NAME IS JOHNNY RA. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE HE TOLD ME THAT WELL ACTUALLY WAS THE ONE OF THE PERSON THAT WAS HERE AGAINST, UH, LIKE I MENTIONED, UH, HIS, HIS PROPERTY'S ON THE SIDE. SORRY, I WAS JUST RUNNING . UM, AND HE WAS MENTIONING ABOUT EXHAUST THAT HE WAS GONNA HAVE TO HAVE BECAUSE OUR BUILDING IS GONNA HAVE CERTAIN HEIGHT. I WENT AHEAD AND KIND OF GIVE HIM ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDED TRYING TO KINDA, UH, TALK WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE AND HIS SON. AND ACTUALLY WE'VE BEEN A COUPLE DAYS AND NOW WE'RE PLANNING TO, TO ACTUALLY MAKE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT WITH THEM TO GO WITH, UH, MY BOSS, MY BOSS, SO THEY CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS WHAT WILL BE LIKE THE BEST SOLUTION OF HOW CAN WE COMPROMISE OR HOW KIND OF, HOW CAN WE KINDA MAKE NOT A, A BIG IMPACT ON THEM BECAUSE THAT'S NOT, I KNOW SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLIANCE ONCE WE'RE GONNA BE THERE. AND THAT'S PRETTY [00:30:01] MUCH I HAVE FROM MY END. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE, SO COMMISSIONER WATSON, I BELIEVE. UH, MR. GUERRA, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, COME FORWARD? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YES, MA'AM. I'M DAVE RA. UH, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPAND ON WHAT EFFORTS, UH, TERRAMARK, ACCORDING TO, UM, THEIR APPLICANTS JUST, UH, BRIEFED US ON WHAT EFFORTS THEY'VE MADE TO HAVE APPOINTMENTS TO YOU AND WHAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THOSE APPOINTMENTS? WELL, UH, FIRST I THINK THEY WERE, IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE BOARD THAT ON THE LAST MEETING HERE THAT THEY COME AND TALK TO US. UH, IT WAS KIND OF LATE IN THE GAME, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S STACKING UP MATERIAL ALL, ALL NEXT DOOR TO US BLOCKING THE ALLEYWAY. BY THE WAY, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ALLEY ALL THE WAY AROUND US BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF WORK. AS FAR AS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, THAT WAS, I, I WASN'T PRESENT, BUT MY DAD WAS, AND I GUESS HE COULD FILL YOU IN ON THAT IF YOU WANT HIM TO SPEAK. UH, YES, PLEASE. UH, MR. GADES SENIOR, COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? UH, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPAND ON ANY CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT? YES, MA'AM. WE DISCUSSED PROBABLY THE COST OF, UH, HAVING TO, UH, DO A HIGHER, MAKE A HIGHER STACK FOR THE PAINT BOOTH AND PROBABLY A STRONGER BOOTH TO HOLD THE STACK BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO OR THREE STORY BUILDING NEXT TO US AND COMPLIANCE RES THAT, UH, IT SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE NEXT BUILDING WITHIN 200 FEET. SO IT WOULD BE A REAL COSTLY THING FOR US TOO. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, ANY COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT WITH QUESTIONS, UH, THERE WAS MENTION THAT A FACT THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR FIRE TRUCKS TO, TO HAVE ACCESS TO SECOND OR THIRD STORY, UH, BUILDINGS. UM, WHAT HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THAT AND THIS QUESTION TO THE AF UH, APPLICANT, UH, TO ADDRESS THAT, THE ACCESS OF, OF THOSE HIGHER STORIES WITH LADDER TRUCKS? CAN I TAKE, CAN I SPEAK? SO TALKING ABOUT ALL THAT COMPLIANCE, EVERY, EVERY PROJECT THAT WE DO, EVERYTHING WE GET INTO IS GONNA HAVE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SHARE. THE CIVIL PLAN WAS GONNA SHOW, IS GONNA BE ABLE TO SHOW, UH, ALL THE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FOR BUILDINGS. EITHER WE'RE GONNA SHOW THE HEAT, THE 300 LAY LINEAR FEET OF, OF HOSE LAY FROM THE FIGHT HYDRANT FROM THERE, WE'RE BEING ABLE TO SHOW THE 150 LINEAR FEET FROM THERE TO BE ABLE TO COVER EVERY SINGLE BUILDING. ALSO, SOMETHING WE'RE GETTING IN TOUCH WITH FIRE MARSHALS AND NOW, UH, TALKING ABOUT, UH, ING BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, THEY REQUIRE AT LEAST FIVE TO SIX FEET BECAUSE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE, THE LADDER. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN, UH, INCLINATION ALSO WITH ALL THE EQUIPMENT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT, WE'RE GONNA, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA SHOW AND BY THE TIME WE COME AND WE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THIS, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO SEE. ALL, ALL THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU UHHUH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS ON MY RIGHT. YES. UM, THIS FOR STAFF, WAS THIS EVER USED AS A PET CEMETERY AND IF SO, WAS IT EVER REMEDIATED? IT WAS ZONED FOR A PET CEMETERY? UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD, UM, OF THEM USING IT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, I GUESS WHEN THE APPLICANT DOES THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON THE SITE WORK EXCAVATION, THEY'LL, THEY'LL FIND OUT IF IT WAS UTILIZED, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECORD AFTER THE REZONING IF THEY ACTUALLY STARTED UTILIZING IT. RIGHT. WHAT NORMALLY DOES HAVE TO BE DONE, IF IT WAS USED, IF THEY BUILD A STRUCTURE, THEN IT WOULD BE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IF THEY'RE DOING ANY SITE WORK, UH, SITE WORK PERMIT, UH, IT WOULD'VE BEEN IN OUR OLD SYSTEM. UM, UH, [00:35:01] BUT WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING. THEY MAY NOT HAVE PULLED A C OF O UH, IT IT MAY HAVE BEEN JUST SORT OF AN UNOFFICIAL CEMETERY IF IT WAS UTILIZED AS SUCH. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROMERO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON COMMISSIONERS? ON MY RIGHT? NONE. I ACTUALLY HAVE A, A QUESTION, AND THIS IS FOR STAFF. UM, THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT, UM, SHOP HAVE, UH, MENTIONED REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO UNDERTAKE REGARDING, UM, RAISING THE STACK FOR THE PAINT BOOTH. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALSO REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS ADJACENCY FROM, FROM A BUILDING TO A BUILDING. UM, ALTHOUGH I, I'M ASSUMING THAT WITH THE, UH, LIKE A PUBLIC WAY THAT THE, THE ALLEY THAT, THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT STAFF IS AWARE OF THAT WOULD IMPACT THE CURRENT USAGE? NO, THE, THE CHANGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYBODY ELSE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THEIR PROPERTY. IF, UM, THEY ARE CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING IN THEIR, IN THE, IN WHAT THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE VERSUS CURRENT RULES, THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. UM, IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY ARE MAKING CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS TO THEIR OWN PROPERTY, DO THEY HAVE TO START COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO NO, THE CHANGE IN ONE PROPERTY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CHANGE TO ANOTHER. OKAY. AND IF THEY, UM, DECIDED TO SAY, UM, EXPAND OR REMODEL MORE THAN 50%, IS THERE A BUFFER REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULD THEN NEED TO ADHERE TO SINCE RESIDENTIAL IS NOW KIND OF CLOSE EVEN THOUGH, OR, OR DOES THE ALLEY THEN ELIMINATE THAT BUFFER REQ REQUIREMENT? BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFERENT, IT'S A SPECIAL DISTRICT ZONING. THOSE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS WOULDN'T APPLY. THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN OUR TABLE ARE, UH, FOR TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS CON I'M SORRY, CONVENTIONAL DISTRICTS. AND SO THAT, THAT BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED. THERE MAY BE SOME BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE A AND E THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OR SEEK VARIANCES TOO, IF THEY WANNA JUST KEEP THE STATUS QUO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUE COMMISSIONER ROMERO? I'M SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP THAT QUESTION. SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT NOTHING HERE WILL CHANGE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO DO, YOU MEAN AS FAR AS THE CITY'S CONCERNED, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THEY COULD HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE STATE LICENSING THEY GET TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS. TRUE. IT MAY BE, IT'S, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE STATE. THE CITY WOULD NOT ENFORCE THAT. SO IF IT, THIS WAS DEVELOPED AS A HOME WITHOUT HAVING TO REZONE THAT, THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S, UH, ABUTTING OR ADJACENT TO IT. BUT WE WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THE STATE WOULD REQUIRE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, LES? OKAY. BACK TO COMMISSIONER WATSON. UH, YES. SO THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY AND IS UNIQUE TO OUR DISTRICT, DISTRICT TWO AND IS THERE TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL GROWTH. UM, CLEARLY THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES COME UP IN THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THE LACK OF FORETHOUGHT ON THE IMPACT OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE MAJORITY OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED BY THIS, UM, HAVE SENT IN NOTES OF OPPOSITION BECAUSE, UM, IF YOU'VE EVER LIVED NEXT TO A BAR OR A BODY SHOP, USUALLY AS A RESIDENT, UM, YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO ENJOY THAT EXPERIENCE. UM, AND SO THE, UM, WILLINGNESS TO DO SOMETHING OVERLY DENSE WITH I D Z UM, KIND OF REFLECTS A LACK OF, UM, REALLY FORETHOUGHT IN, IN WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE AREA. UM, A LOT OF LEGACY BUSINESSES, UH, THE GARAGE SHARED, UM, THEIRS HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 54 YEARS ARE GONNA BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS. UM, AND SO I'M, I'M VERY CONCERNED, UM, ABOUT THIS REQUEST. UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO READ INTO THE RECORD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD, I WOULD MAKE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. PLEASE. SECOND. ALRIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATSON FOR DENIAL WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROMERO. UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER'S ON MY LEFT. COMMISSIONER'S ON MY RIGHT? NONE. ALRIGHT. UM, ROLL CALL VOTE I BELIEVE. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER WE AYE. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. AND UH, VICE CHAIR SIPES? YES. MOTION PASSES AS DENIAL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. [00:40:01] IF WE COULD NOTIFY OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY'RE FREE TO COME BACK IN. MR. CHAIR, CAN WE LEAVE NOW? CAN WE LEAVE NOW? YES. THANK YOU. THANK THE BOARD VERY MUCH FOR THEIR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE 1 41 AND I SEE THAT COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE AND COMMISSIONER BUSANTE HAVE REENTERED THE MEETING. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER SIPES, ARE WE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER [5. (Continued from 09/21/2021) ZONING CASE Z202110700114 (Council District 2)] FIVE? WONDERFUL. YES SIR. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM RMM FOUR AND R FIVE TO M H C. ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. LOCATED AT 46 18 WEIL STREET, THERE WERE 28 NOTICES MAILED NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. SIX RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND A PETITION OF OPPOSITION FROM 23 RESIDENTS. THE EXISTING RMM FOUR IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED EMMETT HC WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN WALKABLE DISTANCE TO AREA SCHOOLS IN RETAIL. THE PROPOSED REZONING ACTS AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE EAST STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT MS. EISLER? YEAH. PERFECT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. EMILY WEISLER WITH KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMAN 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE SIX 50 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WHILE WE GET THAT LOADED UP. I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE EASIER VIRTUALLY, BUT WE'RE HERE. SO, UM, THANK YOU. SLIDE TWO. YES. UM, SO THIS CASE MAY BE FAMILIAR TO SEVERAL OF YOU, UM, BUT WE'VE MADE SOME CHANGES OVER THE COURSE OF WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND WITH CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL. SO, UM, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE PROJECT AGAIN. THIS SITE IS UM, IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WALHAM AND 35. IT'S JUST UNDER THREE ACRES. UM, IT IS ADDRESSED ON BLES BUT IT PRIMARILY ACCESSED FROM CERNA PARK AT NEWPORT DRIVE. WE ARE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF WALHAM ELEMENTARY. THERE IS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY TO OUR IMMEDIATE WEST. WE'RE AT THE VERY EDGE OF THIS COMMUNITY. UM, AND THEN THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST. SO WE'RE KIND OF SANDWICHED IN AT THE VERY END OF THIS COMMUNITY. UM, CLOSER TO 35. UM, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING A KINDA LOW TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SOLUTION FOR THIS COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, UH, TO SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AND THE INDUSTRIAL PARK NEXT DOOR. WE CAN GO THE NEXT SLIDE. OH YEAH, THAT'LL WORK. UM, SO THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PRIMARILY RMM FOUR. UM, IT'S JUST OVER TWO ACRES OF RMM FOUR WITH JUST LITTLE LESS THAN AN ACRE OF R FIVE ON THE BOUNDARY. WE ARE REQUESTING A REZONING TO M H C FOR THE CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION, UM, OF MANUFACTURED HOMES. AND I POINT OUT THE ACREAGES OF THE RMM VERSUS THE R FIVE BECAUSE REGULATIONS THE CODE STATES THAT THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS AND THE USE REGULATIONS UNDER THE M H C DISTRICT ARE THE EXACT SAME AS RMM FOUR. SO THE USES AND THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH UNDER M H C ARE PRIMARILY THE EXACT SAME AS WHAT'S ALREADY ON THERE. UM, AND WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE CURRENT ZONING, THE SINGULAR DIFFERENCE BEING THE TYPE OF HOME WHETHER HEIGHT, UH, EXCUSE ME, SITE BUILT OR PREFABRICATED. THAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY WITH THE CHANGE. AS FAR AS THE USE AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATION, THIS IS VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALREADY [00:45:01] ALLOWED. THERE IS A SITE PLAN WHICH WE'LL SEE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT KIND OF SHOW HOW WE'VE REVISED THIS SITE TO KIND OF FIT WITHIN WHAT IS ALREADY THE LAYOUT OF THE CURRENT ZONING RMM FOUR VERSUS THE R FIVE GIVEN BUFFERING AND STUFF TO MAKE THIS AS NICE AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THIS PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN A SECTOR PLAN, COMMUNITY PLAN, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. IT'S JUST KIND OF OUT ON AN ISLAND BY ITSELF. BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND LOOKED AT THE ADJACENT PLAN, WHICH IS THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS KIND OF IN THE AREA. AND SO THIS IS, UM, WITH THE RM FOUR SIMILARITIES ON THE M H C ZONING. THIS WOULD BE CATEGORIZED UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL PLAN AS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS MORE THAN APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY, EXCUSE ME, TO INDUSTRIAL AND THE HIGHWAY. SO THIS IS REALLY A TRANSITIONAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT IS COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED, UM, BUT IT SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE EXISTING USES KIND OF ON EITHER SIDE, UM, KIND OF GAINING ITS INTENSITY AS YOU GET TO INDUSTRIAL AND TO IH 35. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE FULLY AMENDED OUR APPLICATION. WE HAD ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR, UM, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY APPLY, BUT IT WAS PROCESSED AS AN M H P. WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR PARK PLAN FUNCTIONALITY, ANY SORT OF PARK FEATURE ON THIS SITE, WE FULLY AMENDED THE APPLICATION. SO IT IS JUST M H C, WHICH REQUIRES 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUMS, ALL SAME DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS AS RM FOUR. THIS IS A PLATTED, UH, IT WILL HAVE TO BE RE PLATTED WITH ONE HOME PER LOT. THIS, UH, SLIDE SHOWS THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE M H C, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IT IS AFFIXED TO A PERMANENT FOUNDATION. WE HAVE TO HAVE EXTERIOR FINISHES, INTERIOR FINISHES, EVE PROJECTIONS, UM, SKIRTING FOUNDATION, ALL ALMOST EXACTLY SIMILAR TO A SITE-BUILT HOME. THE DIFFERENCE IS THESE HOMES ARE BROUGHT IN RATHER THAN BUILT ON SITE. UM, BUT THESE ARE, I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH. THESE ARE REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE HOME PER LOT. UM, SO JUST WANTED TO BRIEF THAT SINCE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT M H P LAST TIME. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS WE CAN SKIP THROUGH. THIS IS THE RMM FOUR STANDARDS. UM, THE CODE REQUIRES FOR UNDER M H C THAT THESE ARE HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES. SO THERE IS NOW A PROGRAM, UM, WITH HUD THAT GOVERNS AND REGULATES AND SPECIFIES ALL OF THE STANDARDS TO CONTROL QUALITY AND THE FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE LONG-TERM SUSTAINING HOMES. UM, SO YOU CAN SEE PRECISE 1976 VERSUS TODAY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VASTLY DIFFERENT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT YOU MAY NECESSARILY THINK OF WHEN YOU THINK OF A MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE HOME PER LOT, UM, AND THEY HAVE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BOTH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE ONES THAT THE CITY ENFORCES THAT KEEPS THAT QUALITY HIGH AND UNDER CONTROL. UH, THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE, UM, LEGITIMATE RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED PRODUCT FOR THE SITE, THOSE HOMES. UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, WE ARE GONNA BE PROVIDING A AN H O A FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SUSTAINING LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND QUALITY. UM, THESE ARE CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION STANDARD INFRASTRUCTURE LOTS, UM, ROADS INTERNAL. THESE HOMES ARE MINIMUM TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH. UM, THEY HAVE STEEL BEAM FOUNDATIONS AND INCREASED, UM, INSULATION TO HELP WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO INTO THESE HOMES. THESE ARE NOT TRAILERS, THESE ARE NOT RVS. THIS IS NO PARK UNDER ANY SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS IS A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ONE HOME PER LOT. THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THEY'RE PREFABRICATED AND NOT BUILT ON SITE. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE JUST IMAGES OF THE INTERIOR DESIGNS OF THESE UNITS. UM, THESE HOMES, EXCUSE ME, JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT THEY'RE REGULAR HOMES. THEY HAVE KITCHENS, THEY HAVE DINING ROOMS, BATHROOMS, UM, LIVING ROOM SPACES. THEY'RE FULLY BUILT OUT. THIS IS NOT, AGAIN, I REPEAT THIS IS NOT A TRAILER, THIS IS NOT AN RV. THIS IS NOTHING OF THAT SORT. THESE ARE REGULAR HOMES ON ONE HOME PER LOT. UM, NEXT SLIDE. SO WE HAVE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY FORMALLY TWICE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. UM, LAST, ACTUALLY LAST MONTH. WE'VE BEEN MAKING LOTS OF CHANGES AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. THOSE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE BEEN MAKING IN THE PLAN ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL TO THE DESIGN OF THE PLAN. THEY'RE NOT, THIS IS NOT A WHOLE NEW DEAL. WE'VE BEEN MAKING CHANGES BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING FROM THE RESIDENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY, UM, ABOUT CONCERNS [00:50:01] OF HOMES NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, HOW THE ROADS ARE GONNA FUNCTION, WHETHER PARK SPACES IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR NOT. UM, THE LAYOUT OF WHERE THESE HOMES WILL GO IN PROXIMITY TO THEIR EXISTING HOMES AND THEN ACCESS EASEMENTS AND PRESERVED OPEN SPACE. SO THIS RENDERING SHOWS THE LATEST CONCEPTUAL PLAN. UM, IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IN UNITS. UM, AGAIN, WE'RE RESTRICTED TO THE RMM FOUR DENSITY STANDARDS, BUT THIS LAYOUT IS TO BUFFER THOSE EXISTING NEIGHBORS ON SERNA PARK AND ON NEWPORT DRIVE. UM, 3 0 6 NEWPORT AND 3 0 7 SERNA PARK. UM, HAVE NO WAY TO ACCESS THEIR, UH, SIDES OF THEIR HOMES AND THE REARS OF THEIR HOMES WITHOUT A PRESERVED ACCESS EASEMENT. SO WE'VE AGREED TO THAT. UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE'S A PLAYGROUND SPACE WHICH WE WILL BE KEEPING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO WE'RE ADDING THAT AMENITY IN THERE SO FOLKS CAN, UM, REALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE SOME SPACE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. WE LIT. WE ARE RIGHT BEHIND WALLS OF ELEMENTARY, HAVE SOME PARK SPACE IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR THOSE FAMILIES. NEW AND EXISTING. UH, THEN THE LAST SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL OVERVIEW, UM, OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. YOU CAN SEE WALLS AND ROAD TO THE, TO THE NORTH 35 TO OUR EAST. UM, AND WE ARE KIND OF JUST THIS ODD SHAPED TRIANGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED. UM, IT IS ALREADY ZONED FOR A LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT. UM, AND WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING ZONING, THE EXISTING DENSITY ALLOWANCE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS. THE SINGULAR DIFFERENCE BEING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IN PREFABRICATED HOMES RATHER THAN SITE BUILT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN OVERALL INCONVENIENCE FOR A PROJECT. UM, LESS CONSTRUCTION, LESS TRAFFIC, LESS DRAMA, TRYING TO GET THOSE HOMES IN AND UP ONLINE. UM, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UM, AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU MS. WEISLER, UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANYONE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR. I, UH, EMILY LEE. MS. LEE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, MY NAME IS EMILY LEE. I LIVE AT 3 0 6 NEWPORT, SO I'M RIGHT NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY THERE. AND UM, UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T BRING A POWERPOINT 'CAUSE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES, NOT 10. SO, BUT JUST TO BRING UP SOME POINTS, UM, IN, I GUESS TO OBJECT TO THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS PUT UP THERE, UM, TALKING ABOUT A BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA, THIS ISN'T DOING US ANY FAVORS, , WE LIKE THE BUFFER AS IT IS A NICE LITTLE GREEN SPACE THAT'S OVER THERE THAT THE PRESENTATIONS ALLEGING THAT IT'S A SIMILAR MODEL OF WHAT WILL BE IN THERE IN THAT AREA AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW. AND IT'S NOT, THESE HOUSES DON'T HAVE GARAGES, THESE HOUSES DON'T HAVE DRIVEWAYS. THESE HOUSES PRICE POINT AT $65,000 AS WE'VE BEEN TOLD, OUR HOMES ARE ALMOST $200,000. THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY HAVE AN EFFECT ON OUR VALUES OF OUR HOMES IN THIS AREA. AND THAT LITTLE AREA IS NOT AN ISLAND, IT'S NOT AN ISLAND AT ALL. IT IS DIRECTLY SUBMERGED INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS LITTLE PLOT THAT'S GONNA BE PUT IN WILL BECOME OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT ON AN ISLAND. THERE'S NO BUFFER. THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE GREEN SPACE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN THERE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY NOT AN ISLAND THAT'S GOING IN THAT AREA. UM, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT THE BRICK AND MORTAR FOUNDATIONS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY. NOW, IT WILL HAVE THE WHEELS REMOVED, YES, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE THIS, SORRY, ALUMINUM LIKE FOUNDATION AROUND OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA HAVE AROUND THERE AT THE BOTTOM. UM, IT'S ALSO NEXT TO THAT GIANT LITTLE CREEK RIGHT THERE THAT HAS A FLOODPLAIN. IT'S ALL FLOODING THROUGH THERE. I LIVE THERE, I KNOW IT FLOODS. SO NOW THEY WANNA PUT THESE LITTLE MANUFACTURED HOMES THERE AND THESE AREAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WATER RISES UP AND THE WATER COMES THROUGH WHEN WE GET HEAVY RAINS, THAT CREEK COMES UP, IT COMES UP REALLY HIGH. THOSE STREETS FLOOD INTO THAT AREA AS WELL. AND THAT'S A BIG CONCERN THAT IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THESE HOMES. IT'LL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE CONDITIONS. AND AS FAR AS MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, UH, WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY BECOME RUNDOWN AFTER YEARS. YOU CAN HAVE AN H O A, YOU CAN HAVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT IT'S, THEY ALL BECOME RUNDOWN. THEY'RE ALL AROUND TOWN. WE'VE SEEN THEM AND THEY'VE ALL BECOME EITHER RUNDOWN OR RUSTY OR THEY'VE JUST NOT HAD A CONTINUOUS, UM, STATIONARY AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME IN THERE. AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE AREA. ANYBODY CAN COME IN AND EITHER BUY THESE, RENT THESE, THERE'S BEEN, THERE WAS A BUZZWORD THROWN ON THAT THIS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE'S SO MANY INVESTORS THAT ARE COMING INTO SAN ANTONIO RIGHT NOW. IF THERE'S A CHEAP HOUSE ON THE MARKET, SOMEBODY'S GONNA BUY IT UP AND SOMEBODY'S GONNA RENT IT OUT. SOMEBODY COULD EASILY BUY THIS LOT, TURN 'EM ALL INTO RENTALS. THE PREVIOUS CONTRACTOR TOLD ME THAT'S WHAT THEY PLANNED TO DO. UM, AND SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE [00:55:01] THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE AREA. THERE IS A LOT LIKE THIS JUST ABOUT TWO MILES DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY HAVE AVAILABILITY. SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS IN OUR AREA AT ALL. THERE'S ALREADY AVAILABILITY FOR SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM, THOSE ARE PRICE POINT AT $55,000 AND THEY STILL CAN'T EVEN FILL THOSE. SO AS FAR AS PUTTING THIS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO IT. UM, WE APPRECIATE HAVING THE PETITION READ INTO THE RECORD OF ALL THE OBJECTIONS ON THERE. I STILL HAVE A CONCERN THAT A LOT OF THE OBJECTIONS STILL DIDN'T COME THROUGH VIA EMAIL. OKAY, THANK YOU MS. LEE. THANK YOU. STAFF. NEXT MANUAL, VI VENEGAS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S MANUEL VENEGAS. I'VE LIVED AT, UH, OR I, MY 1 54 NEWPORT DRIVE IS MY HOUSE. UH, I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1963 AND IT'S A PRETTY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UH, YOU'RE, THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE EQUIVALENT OF 36 CARS. I IMAGINE EVERY FAMILY HAS ABOUT TWO CARS. NORMALLY THAT'S 32 EXTRA CARS THAT ARE GONNA BE GOING DOWN THOSE TWO LITTLE BITTY STREETS, SERNA AND NEWPORT. UH, THIS IS REAL CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL. I'VE, I'VE SEEN THE CARS LINE UP RIGHT THERE ON OVERLAND PICKING UP THEIR KIDS AND I CAN'T SEE ALL THIS TRAFFIC ALL OF A SUDDEN COMING THROUGH. AND IT'S LIKE, IT IS LIKE THAT GENTLEMAN SAID, UH, PREVIOUSLY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ONLY HAVE A GARAGE THERE FOR, OR, OR A, A DRIVEWAY WHERE YOU CAN FIT TWO CARS, NO GARAGES. IF YOU HAVE ANY PEOPLE COME OVER TO VISIT YOU OR IF YOUR KID HAS A CAR AND HE'S GONNA PARK ON THE SIDE STREET, THOSE STREETS ARE PRETTY SMALL NOW. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ALL THIS TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THERE, ESPECIALLY DURING SCHOOL, SCHOOL TIME. AND, UH, AGAIN, MS. LEE WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE MOBILE HOME AREAS THAT ARE ON EISENHOWER AND AUSTIN HIGHWAY. THEY'RE ALL, I MEAN, IN SHAMBLES, THEY DON'T LAST THAT LONG. I MEAN, I DON'T CARE WHAT, HOW PRETTY YOU PAINT IT, THOSE THINGS ARE GONNA FALL APART BEFORE A REGULAR HOUSE DOES. WHY DON'T THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD REGULAR HOUSES IF THEY WANNA BUILD SOMETHING THERE? WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT? THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET MORE, UH, MORE HOUSES TO ITSELF WHEN ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS JUST BUILD THE HOUSES, LIKE I SAID. AND, UH, THAT'S ALL I GOTTA SAY. THANK YOU MR. VIGAS STAFF. ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, SIR. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. UH, MS. WEISLER REBUTTAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. JUST A COUPLE OF EXTRA COMMENTS, UM, A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. YES. UM, THIS IS A LEGITIMATELY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. UM, THESE HOMES ARE ABOUT 60, $65,000. UM, WHICH CREATES A MASSIVE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO BRIDGE A GAP THAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY FIGHTING TO BRIDGE IN THIS CITY AND IN THIS COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT. UM, THERE, THERE IS A NEED TO PROVIDE A DIVERSITY IN HOUSING OPTIONS. UM, NOT JUST AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS, BUT AFFORDABLE OTHER OPTIONS. UM, SO YES, THAT IS A COMPONENT THAT IS A, A BIG FOCUS OF WHY WE ARE PROPOSING THIS PROJECT. UM, AND WHY WE WANT TO DO THIS. THE CURRENT ZONING PRIMARILY ON THE PROPERTY IS RM FOUR, WHICH LIMITS TO 11 UNITS PER ACRE. HOWEVER, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT YOU CAN EXCEED THAT DENSITY BY DEVELOPING UP TO QUADPLEXES ON EACH LOT. SO YOU COULD GET FOUR UNITS PER LOT. THE PROPOSED REZONING NOW, UM, IS A DRASTIC REDUCTION IN DENSITY. IT REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE ONLY ONE HOME PERMANENTLY AFFIXED TO A FOUNDATION PER 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO THIS PROJECT IN ITSELF CONTROLS THE DENSITY OVERALL. UM, IT'S AN ODDLY SHAPED PROPERTY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DESIGN. UM, AND SO THAT INHERENTLY REDUCES THE OVERALL DENSITY, YOU KNOW, FEASIBLE REALISTICALLY ON SITE. BUT THIS REZONING LIMITS THAT SCOPE OF DENSITY AS WELL. UM, YES, WE ARE NEXT TWO SSOM CREEK, UM, AND WE ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT THERE ARE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND LOTS OF THINGS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PLATTING STAGE. AS I MENTIONED, THIS PROPERTY HAS TO BE FULLY RE PLATTED INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS, EXCUSE ME. OH, INDIVIDUAL LOTS PER HOME. SO WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THAT IN THE, UH, PLATING STAGES. UM, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A PARK AND WE VERY SPECIFICALLY FULLY REVISE THE APPLICATION TO GET OUT OF ANY SORT OF PARK SCENARIO. WHILE WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROPOSING A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION ON THIS PROPERTY, THE M H P DID ALLOW FOR THE OPTION TO PURSUE A PARK PLAN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE TAKEN THAT ENTIRELY OFF THE TABLE HERE. THIS IS REQUIRED TO BE A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION WITH ONE HOME PER [01:00:01] LOT, WITH A MINIMUM 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO, UM, WITH THIS SIZE AND SHAPE WE HAVE A VARIETY OF LOT SIZES, BUT WE CAN'T GO LESS THAN 4,000 AND WE CAN ONLY HAVE UNDER THE M H C ONE HOME PER LOT. UM, DON'T REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS IT, BUT I WILL ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT RENTAL ISSUES. THERE IS NO WAY FOR ANY OF US TO CONTROL WHO BUYS A HOME AND WHO LIVES IN THAT HOME AND WHO RENTS THAT HOME. I LIVE IN A HOME THAT I RENT. UM, THERE IS NO CONTROL OVER THAT AND I WISH THERE WAS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ANY OF US CAN CONTROL. UM, I I WILL NOT GO INTO DISCUSSING KINDS OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THESE HOMES OR COMPARING THIS OTHER THANK YOU MS. WEISSER, TO OTHER PROJECTS, BUT RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. WEISLER. ALRIGHT, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE, UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS. UH, CAN THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? SHOULDN'T HAVE SAT DOWN. UH, COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. UM, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY FORMAL TAXED CREDIT OR OTHER KIND OF PROGRAM SUPPORT FROM ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY TIED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFICIALLY FOR THIS PROJECT? NO MA'AM. WE ARE, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND LOOKING AT THAT OPTION TO TIE INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS AS DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMUNITY SO THAT THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION, UM, AND KIND OF, UM, WHAT'S THE WORD, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT AFFORDABLE PROGRAM. BUT, UM, FORMALLY NO THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU CONFIRM THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WITH THE CURRENT SITE PLAN FOR ME ON THE RECORD? TWO SECONDS. LET ME COUNT. 18. SORRY, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THAT CORRECT. UH, THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON YOUR, THE RIGHTS OF WAIVE PLANS, UM, AND TRAFFIC INFO AND OUTFLOW FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT? YES. SO, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO PULL UP THAT SLIDE AGAIN WITH THE SITE PLAN? UM, YES. SO, UH, PRIMARY ACCESS IS FROM NEWPORT AND C CERNA PARK, UM, NEWPORT DRIVE AND CERNA PARK. UM, RIGHT NOW THE DI IT LOOKS LIKE IT JUST DEAD ENDS, BUT THIS PROPERTY'S ALWAYS, ALWAYS BEEN THERE. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE BECAUSE OF IT LOOKS LIKE A A CREEK, BUT IT'S A FULL-BLOWN DRAINAGE DITCH, UM, CONCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH FOR WALHAM CREEK. UM, SO WE DO NOT HAVE PHYSICAL ACCESS FROM WUBBLE, ALTHOUGH IT IS ADDRESSED THERE. THAT'S NOT MY FAULT. UM, BUT PRIMARY ACCESS IS FROM NEWPORT DRIVE AND SERTA PARK. UM, SO DURING THE PLOTTING STAGE WE'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE CITY, UM, THEIR ENGINEERS, THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO MAP THAT OUT. BUT THIS IS A VERY REALISTIC, LEGITIMATE, UM, SKETCH OF THAT INTERNAL DRIVE. UM, WE, UM, ARE PROPOSING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY IF WE CAN PRIVATELY MAINTAIN THAT OR IF IT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE CITY'S INTERNAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. BUT UM, WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE AN INTERNAL PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRIVE THAT THE H O A WILL BE SET UP AND FUNDED TO IMPROVE AS NEEDED OVER TIME, ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING AND QUALITY AND, AND SUCH THINGS THAT HWAS DO. THANK YOU MS. LEE, COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE CURRENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON NEWPORT AND CERNA DRIVE? YEAH, SO RIGHT NOW NEWPORT AND CERNA PARK RIGHT THERE, THEY DEAD END AND SO PEOPLE PARK THEIR VEHICLES DOWN THERE. A LOT OF KIDS ACTUALLY PLAY DOWN THERE. UM, WE HAVE KIDS PLAYING BASKETBALL, WE HAVE KIDS, UM, RIDING THEIR BIKES. THERE IS NO TRAFFIC THAT ENDS, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT COMES RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE STREET THERE WHEN SCHOOL LETS OUT. UM, AT WALHAM ELEMENTARY, WHICH IS JUST ON LIKE A UPPER PART OF THAT LITTLE MAP THERE, IT GETS PACKED, COMPLETELY PACKED. PARENTS ARE COMING TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS, THEY COME OFF OF WALHAM, THEY COME THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S UM, IT'S LIKE A GATE AREA RIGHT OFF OF NORTH GATE RIGHT THERE THAT DOESN'T OPEN INTO THE SCHOOL, THAT DEAD ENDS AS WELL. BUT PARENTS WILL PARK ALONG THERE AND THE KIDS THEY'RE WALKING TO AND FROM SCHOOL IN THOSE, ALL THOSE AREAS. UM, GOING OUT TO WALHAM AND ALSO TO LAN ARK, WHICH WALHAM IS JUST ON THE NORTH, LIKE I GUESS WOULD BE THE NORTH PART OF THAT MAP THERE. AND THEN ALSO ON THE LEFT SIDE OVER THERE, THOSE GET COMPLETELY PACKED DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC AS IT IS WALLS. AND THEN THERE'S A TRAIN, THERE'S ALSO A TRAIN THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THERE. UM, AND SO THESE PEOPLE WILL LITERALLY HAVE THEIR DISHES RATTLE IN MY HOUSE. I HAVE A LITTLE CHINA CABINET, MY DISH RATTLE WHEN THE TRAIN GOES THROUGH THAT AREA. UM, AND IT'S ON, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA, THERE'S 35 AND IT RUNS PARALLEL WITH 35 RIGHT THERE. AND SO THEY'RE GONNA PUT MANUFACTURED HOMES THAT CLOSE TO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA AND TO THEIR TRAIN AREA. [01:05:01] BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC AS IT IS EXCEPT FOR DURING THE SCHOOL TIMES THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE TRAFFIC. AND SO RIGHT NOW THE KIDS ARE WALKING TO WALLS ELEMENTARY AND THEN COMING DOWN ON MORE, I GUESS MORE OF THE LEFT PART OF THE MAP IS KRUGER MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THERE ARE A LOT OF KIDS WALKING IN THAT AREA AS WELL. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WATSON. UH, COMMISSIONER WHITE. YEAH. FOR THE APPLICANT. WONDERING ABOUT WHAT'S THE, UH, ONSITE PARKING SITUATION? OH YES, THANK YOU. UM, SO THE SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW, BUT WE ARE PLANNING TO PROVIDE ON THE LOTS, UM, INTERNAL PARKING. SO YES, THESE DO NOT HAVE GARAGES, UM, WHICH NOT EVERY HOME DOES. UM, BUT WE ARE PLANNING TO PROVIDE, UM, AT LEAST TWO PARKING SPACES PER LOT, UM, TO KEEP THAT OFF THE ROAD. IT IS A VERY, UM, SMALL, UH, THE ROADS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ARE SMALL AND WE, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF ON-STREET PARKING THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING. UM, AND WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN TO ENGINEER THE SITE TO ENSURE THAT WE AREN'T ADDING TO THE ON-STREET PARKING OR TAKING AWAY ON-STREET PARKING FROM EXISTING RESIDENCES. SO OUR PROJECT WILL BE PARKED SUFFICIENTLY AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE THAT IS LIVING ON THIS SITE CAN ALSO PARK ON THIS SITE. THANKS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. WHITE COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, AND SORRY IF THIS WAS ALREADY ANSWERED. UM, SO THERE'S 18 UNITS AS FOR STAFF. UM, THERE'S 18 UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. UM, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER THAT COULD BE BUILT AS CURRENTLY ZONED? SO THIS HAS A SORT OF A MIXTURE OF ZONING. UM, IT'S ABOUT 2.9 ACRES. SO LET'S JUST KIND OF SPLIT THE BABY HERE. SO MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED ARMED FOR, SO LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT'S AROUND TWO ACRES. AND THE REST OF IT IS, IS ZONED ABOUT R FIVE. SO LET'S ASSUME THAT'S AN ACRE. RMM FOUR, IF YOU SUBDIVIDE INTO 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS EACH, EACH OF THOSE CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS. SO I'M LOOKING AT ABOUT 87 UNITS ON THE RM FOUR SIDE, AND THEN THE R FIVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT AN ACRE. SO THAT'S ABOUT 11 MORE UNITS. SO THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, SO LONG AS THEY MEET OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ROAD PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE TODAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. COMMISSIONER SIPES, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, AND ARE, ARE THE, ARE THE LOTS INDIVIDUALLY SOLD WITH THE HOMES OR IS IT YES, SIR. YES. OKAY. OKAY. THAT WAS IT. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIPES COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT QUESTIONS. DR. ROME. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF BECAUSE, UH, EMILY BROUGHT THIS UP ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE M H P AND THE M H C, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, THE REASON I'M REALLY CONFUSED IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT M H C AND YOU SEE WHAT'S ALLOWED IN M H C, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALLOWED IS A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK. SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE TWO ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM EACH OTHER. SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE M H P ZONING AND THE M M H C UH, ZONING IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR M H C TO BE ONE MANUFACTURED HOME PER LOT. M H P ALLOWS, I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS 20 PER LOT. UM, SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE A SUBDIVISION IN M H P AND IT'D BE A PARK. IT JUST WOULDN'T BE SUBDIVIDED AS ONE LOT WITH MULTIPLE UNITS. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. I, I THINK I NEED YOU TO SAY THAT AGAIN. 'CAUSE YOU JUST SAID, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID MH THE WRONG. M H P IS YOUR, UH, TYPICAL PARK WHERE YOU CAN, IT IS ONE LOT AND YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 20 UNITS ON ONE LOT. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE OWNER OF THE DIRT AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE EITHER OWNING THE STRUCTURE OR LEASING THE STRUCTURE. M H C IS A REQUIRED SUBDIVISION THAT HAS TO BE PLATTED INDIVIDUALLY. SO YOU HAVE ONE MANUFACTURED HOME OR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME PER LOT. UM, AND IT HAS TO BE PLATTED AS SUCH. YOU CAN STILL CALL IT A PARK, BUT IN THAT CASE, IN THAT PARK, WITH IT BEING SUBDIVIDED SEPARATELY, ONE HOME, ONE LOT, YOU CAN OWN THE DIRT AND THE STRUCTURE IN A PARK. OKAY. SO THEN IF, IF YOU GET THE M H C AND YOU CALL IT A PARK, LIKE THE CODE CODE SAYS YOU CAN DO, THEN I DON'T GET WHAT'S, I DON'T GET WHY THAT'S EVEN THERE. IT'S JUST A NAME FOR THE M H C. SO, UM, BUT THAT'S JUST LIKE SAYING I AM, YOU KNOW, MY RESTAURANT IS A BAR, BUT YOU'RE NOT ZONED FOR A BAR. UM, IT, IT'S, AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY CALL IT, A PARK, BUT THE ONLY CONTROLS THAT [01:10:01] WE HAVE IS WHAT, HOW IT'S SUBDIVIDED. M H C REQUIRES IT ONE HOME PER LOT. OKAY. POTENTIAL U D C AMENDMENT THERE, , JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. SURE. THANK YOU DR. ROMERO. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS TO MY RIGHT? ALRIGHT. UM, ANY QUESTIONS TO MY LEFT LAST CALL? ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION, PLEASE. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO CONCERNS BY THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND YOUR REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED AND ADJUSTMENTS TO YOUR ZONING APPLICATION IS DULY NOTED AND APPRECIATED. UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH THE RIGHTS OF WAY BASED ON CURRENT TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EXISTS IN ADDITION TO OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND I RECOMMEND, UH, THAT WE MEN MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL. COMMISSIONER WATSON HAS MADE A MOTION FOR DENIAL. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FUENTES, UH, DISCUSSION COME. I'M GONNA START WITH COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT THIS TIME. UH, COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT DISCUSSION, DR. ROME. UM, I'M, I'M KIND OF TORN ON THIS ONE. IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THAT'S REALLY COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. AND I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH IT AS WELL. BUT SEEING THE DECLINE IN DENSITY WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE IS HARD TO GET OVER. WE'RE LOOKING AT 18 UNITS VERSUS ALMOST A HUNDRED UNITS. UM, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE EITHER ONE IS A PARTICULARLY GOOD BUFFER IN HERE. UM, AND TO JUST SAY THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING WOULD BE A BUFFER TO AN INDUSTRIAL USE IS, IS REALLY HARD. UH, BUT SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE HERE. UM, SO I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE. I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS TOO. ALRIGHT, FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YEAH. OH, I KIND OF ECHO SOME OF THE POSITIVE THINGS DR. ROMERO SAID WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALMOST 95 UNITS TO 18 UNITS. AND, UH, I LIKE THE IDEA THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL, UH, UNITS ARE ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, SO IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO, UH, OWNING A PROPERTY, A REGULAR RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE ON A LOT. UH, AND ALSO I LIKE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IDEAS BECAUSE WE DO NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN ANTONIO. AND AS IT IS, IT'S JUST A VACANT LOT JUST SITTING THERE, UH, NOT BEING, UH, USED AT ALL. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS. I'M STILL WAITING FOR A FINAL HOW I, I'LL VOTE, UH, AFTER I HEAR OTHER COMMISSIONERS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT. UH, ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER WHITE. OKAY. UM, I CAN'T, I CANNOT SUPPORT, UH, THE MOTION. UM, I COULD PROBABLY SUPPORT A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO IF, UH, IF THE APPLICANT MAYBE NEEDS MORE TIME TO, TO WORK WITH, WITH THE, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS, BUT, BUT FRANKLY, I THINK THIS PROJECT'S APPROPRIATE. UM, FOR THE AREA, I THINK SOME OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S SORT OF A NICE, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF GREEN BELT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT IT'S A NICE, UH, VACANT, VACANT AREA THERE THAT THE NEIGHBORS PROBABLY LIKE. UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A PRIVATELY OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT, UM, THE OWNER WANTS TO DEVELOP AND, AND FRANKLY, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. UM, I, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID EARLIER BY COMMISSIONER ROMERO AND KAMATH REGARDING, UH, THE LIMITATION ON DENSITY THAT THIS SORT OF PLAN, UM, WOULD PROVIDE. I THINK, UM, THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY BE PREFERABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS AS, AS OPPOSED TO 95 PLUS UNITS BEING THERE. CAN'T, CAN'T IMAGINE THE TRAFFIC THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE. UH, AND THEN FINALLY, ON THE, UH, ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK WE, UH, WE ALWAYS HAVE THESE PROJECTS. USUALLY THEY COME BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF APARTMENTS AND, AND WE ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS FOR OUR CITY. HERE WE HAVE A, AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WHERE, WHERE FOLKS COULD ACTUALLY OWN, YOU KNOW, THEIR OWN HOME, SORT OF THE, THE AMERICAN DREAM OWNING, OWNING YOUR OWN, UM, PROPERTY AND HOME. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IT FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, UM, AGAIN, I'D SUPPORT A CONTINUANCE [01:15:01] IF WE FEEL THERE'S MORE TIME, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHITE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UM, I'M JUST GONNA ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. UM, I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT CASE AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING HERE. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOU KNOW, IF, IF TRAFFIC PATTERNS ARE THE CONCERN, I BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE MANY MORE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO A HUNDRED UNITS VERSUS 18 UNITS. SO IF THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE REALLY, UM, ADDRESSING THAT BY ONLY GETTING 18 UNITS. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE AFFORDABLE ASPECT OF THIS, OF THIS PROJECT, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. WHILE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY RECEIVING TAX CREDITS OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE SUBSIDIES OR TAX EXEMPTIONS, UM, THE, THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE. AND EVEN JUST ADDING ADDITIONAL UNITS TO OUR HOUSING STOCK THAT ARE DIVERSE HELPS WITH FROM THE, FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN HELPING PREVENT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND FINALLY, TO ECHO, UM, COMMISSIONER WHITE, I THINK THE OWNERSHIP VERSUS RENTAL, IF YOU HAVE THE RMM FOUR, IF YOU HAVE FOUR UNITS PER LOT, BY DEFINITION, YOU WILL HAVE RENTERS THERE. WHICH, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CONCERNING TO YOU, WHILE I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS A CONCERN OR IT SHOULD BE A CONCERN IF THAT WAS A CONCERN IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU WILL HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE OWNING AND WHO ARE INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY IN THAT REGARD. SO I THINK IT, IT ADDRESSES A LOT OF ISSUES THAT, THAT I WOULD'VE HAD OTHERWISE. COMMISSIONER BARROS, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, UM, THE LAST TWO COMMENTS AND, UM, I WILL SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALL OVER THE CITY, SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE, THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? TO MY LEFT, UM, I WILL MAKE ONE COMMENT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, BOY, I THINK THIS PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN A MUCH EASIER CASE. HAD ACCESS BEEN WHERE THE ADJUSTMENT WAS. UH, I THINK HAD THERE BEEN ACCESS FROM LEVELS, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN AN EASY CASE. UH, BUT HERE WE ARE. COMMISSIONER WATSON, FINAL WORD, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE? UH, JUST TO REITERATE, WHILE THERE IS, THERE ISN'T A FORM, IT'S NOT A FORMALLY AFFORDABLE PROJECT. WHILE THE DEVELOPMENT DOES LEND ITSELF TO BEING MORE LIKELY TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK ON THE MARKET, UM, AS WAS BROUGHT FORTH, ANYBODY CAN BUY THOSE PROPERTIES SO A DEVELOPMENT COMPANY COULD COME IN AND PURCHASE ALL OF THEM AND TURN IT INTO A RENTAL COMMUNITY. UM, AND THAT HAS POSED SOME CHALLENGES IN THIS AREA PREVIOUSLY. UM, IF YOU HAVE AN OUT OF STATE DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY MANAGER COME IN WHO CAN PUT UP THE CASH TO BUY THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE, THE PROJECT PLAN ITSELF MITIGATES SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION, WE HAVE ON THE RECORD IN SAN ANTONIO, SEVERAL CASES WHERE THAT HAS OCCURRED. THERE IS, UM, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH LANDLORDS BEING AGGRESSIVE AND NOT HOLDING UP THEIR LEASE TERMS CORRECTLY. AND AS, AS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY, UM, HAVE EXPRESSED THAT IS A CONCERN, UM, WE DO, UH, IN OUR DISTRICT APPRECIATE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, BUT WITHOUT IT BEING A FORMALLY, UM, SUBSIDIZED PROJECT, I, I HESITATE TO SUPPORT THIS AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE BECAUSE IT ISN'T ACTUALLY AN AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S FORMALLY SUBSIDIZED. UM, AND SO WHILE I APPRECIATE THIS ADDITIONAL OPTION IN OUR DISTRICT AS WE'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE HOUSING STOCK AND OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND MAKE SURE THERE'S AFFORDABILITY, UM, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT IS GONNA HAPPEN EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT DOES LEND ITSELF MORE LIKELY TO THAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WATSON, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? NO. COMMISSIONER? WE NO. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? NO. COMMISSIONER BOTTLES? NO. COMMISSIONER WHITE? NO. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? NO. COMMISSIONER SIPES? NO. CHAIR BUS? NO. MOTION FAILS. ALRIGHT. UM, IS THERE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT VOTED AGAINST THIS ITEM? AS A REMINDER, UM, IF THERE IS NO MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION RECONSIDERATION, WHAT HAPPENS? STAFF. SO IF THERE'S NO MOTION TO RECONSIDER FROM SOMEBODY WHO VOTED AGAINST THAT MOTION, UH, THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN THE SECOND TIME THAT IT'S BEEN HEARD, IT [01:20:01] AUTOMATICALLY MOVES FORWARD AS A DEFAULT DENIAL. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY SOMEONE WHO VOTED NO ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION? MOTION TO RECONSIDER. SECOND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. WE, UH, THERE IS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? NO. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? NO. COMMISSIONER KAMIT? YES. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR BUSANTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES FOR RECONSIDER. ALRIGHT. THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR A MOTION. UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER WHITE. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, ITEM FIVE. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM FIVE BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THEM. MO. COMMISSIONER BARTO SECONDS. UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT. SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL VOTE COMM. UH, MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WHITE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARTOS. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER BARTOS? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? NO. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? NO. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR TANTE A. AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON NOW TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER [6. (Continued from 09/21/2021) ZONING CASE Z202110700214 (Council District 3)] SIX ON OUR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM AYE. ONE H A H O D AND I ONE A H O D TO MF 33 A H O D AND MF 33 H A H O D, LOCATED IN THE 9,400 BLOCK OF SOUTHEAST FLUTE. FOUR 10. THERE WERE 16 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. FOUR RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION VIA CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. AND THERE WERE FOUR NOTICES RECEIVED OUT TO OUTSIDE 200 FEET THAT ARE IN FAVOR. THE EXISTING I ONE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED MF 33 IS APPROPRIATE AND OFFERS A TRANSITION BETWEEN R SIX AND NP 10 ZONING AND USES IT ALSO PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING OPTION FOR THE AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HONORABLE CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOSE GALLEGOS. MY ADDRESS IS TWO 14 WEST ACADEMY. AND MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE OFF MY MASK SO I CAN BE BETTER HEARD. UH, BOY, THAT WAS A, UH, CHALLENGING, UH, CASE THAT WAS JUST HEARD. UH, I CONGRATULATE YOU. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, UH, TO THE CITY. AS, UH, VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SERVICE, UH, THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD, UH, APPLICATION FOR DOWN ZONE FROM THE CURRENT I ONE, UH, ZONING TO A M UH, MF, UH, 33. AND THE REASON FOR THE MF 33, UH, APPLICATION IS BECAUSE OF THE, UH, UH, THE ACREAGE AND THE, UH, RECENT, UH, UH, RIGHT OF WAY AN EASEMENT THAT WAS CREATED BY SAWS. SO CONSEQUENTLY, UH, THE MF 18 WOULD NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED BUYER FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT, UH, THE OWNER A LONG TIME, UH, SOUTH SIDE RESIDENT AND BUSINESSMAN, UH, MR. GONZALEZ, UH, IS PRESENT, UH, IS NOT GONNA BE SPEAKING, UH, BUT IS PRESENT AND OF COURSE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT NATION. UM, HE, UH, CURRENTLY OWNS THE PROPERTY AND HAS BEEN, UH, UH, APPROACH TO SELL THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR A PROSPECTIVE BUYER WHO PLANS TO DEVELOP A, UH, 350 UNIT, UH, HIGH-END APARTMENT COMPLEX. IT'S GONNA BE A GATED COMMUNITY WITH NO INGRESS AND EGRESS, UH, TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO THE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY [01:25:01] DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IN THE BACK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, OF COURSE, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME IN. UH, UH, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT, UH, THAT NEED. UM, I WANNA THANK ALSO THE COMMISSION FOR, UH, PROVIDING A CONTINUANCE IN THE HOPES OF, UH, COMMUNICATING AND, AND DIALOGUING AND MEETING WITH THE, UH, UH, NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF ATTEMPTED, UH, NUMEROUS TIMES TO, UH, TO SPEAK WITH THEM, TO MEET WITH THEM. I DID MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VIA CORONADO, UH, AND HER, UM, I GUESS HER GUEST. UH, UH, HOWEVER, SINCE THEN, WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET. UH, I REGRET THAT, UH, I'M DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT. UM, HOWEVER, I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THAT COMMUNITY. ALRIGHT. UH, AND IN DOING SO, IN DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE, I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE, WHAT WERE THEIR, UH, OBJECTIONS TO, UH, AFFORDABLE OR, OR, OR, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT THERE. UH, CERTAINLY THE SOUTH SIDE NEEDS, UH, ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, UH, HOUSING IS, HAS, HAS BEEN STATED IS IN OUR NEED IN SAN ANTONIO. UH, THEIR MAIN OBJECTIVE, UH, WAS THE TRAFFIC. WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT. UH, WE'VE FURTHER DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER AND ALSO, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER TO PROVIDE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD RESTRICT ANY, UH, ACCESS, YOU KNOW, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A ROADWAY, UH, IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE ARE, UH, LOOKING AT THOSE CONCERNS. ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT THEY, UH, WERE INDICATING, AT LEAST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WAS THAT THEY DID NOT WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THEIR AREA. WELL, UH, THIS WILL NOT BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UH, CERTAINLY THE PROSPECTIVE OWNER IS OPEN TO PROVIDING, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MINIMAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT THIS IS NOT GONNA BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UH, THIS IS GONNA BE A HIGH-END, UH, DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GONNA BE GARDEN HOME STYLE APARTMENTS. UH, HIS PLAN, UH, DOWN THE ROAD IF IT'S REZONED, IS TO CREATE A WALKING TRAIL. NOW, MR. GONZALEZ SOLD, UH, THE, UM, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY TO, UH, THE PARKS, UH, NATIONAL PARKS. UH, MR. GONZALEZ IS A SOUTHSIDER, A HISTORIAN IN, IS VERY, VERY MUCH, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS AREA. AND THAT'S WHY IT APPEALED TO HIM TO SELL TO THIS PARTICULAR, UH, DEVELOPER. HE'S HAD NUMEROUS OFFERS IN THE PAST WHO WANTED TO BUY THE PROPERTY. HE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE OF RESPECT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND FOR THE COMMUNITY. UM, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE PLANNED AMENDMENT FOR THIS, UH, PARTICULAR PROPERTY. UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I BELIEVE, UH, THE REQUESTED, UH, ZONING CHANGE IS A GOOD, PROPER AND APPROPRIATE ZONING REQUEST. UM, THE BROOKS CITY BASE, UH, IS IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA. UH, I'VE SPOKEN TO THE SOUTH SIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WHO IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA. AND AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ALONG A MAJOR THEFOR. SO WHAT OTHER, UH, WAY OR, OR WHAT, WHAT OTHER, UH, SITE WOULD PROPER APARTMENTS BE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPED. UH, SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, I JUST AGAIN, PRAY THAT, UH, THE PROPER INAPPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THIS, UH, PARTICULAR AREA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MR. GALLEGOS STAFF. ARE THERE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE EDWARD LOZANO AND MR. LOZANO, IF YOU WOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. MY [01:30:01] NAME IS EDWARD LOZANO. I LIVE IN 95 22 TARLETON, WHICH IS THE VERY ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY, UH, JUST EAST OF THIS PROP PROPERTY. UH, I HAD SPOKEN TO A FEW NEIGHBORS AND KIND OF, WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DEVELOPING AND, UH, THE HANDFUL THAT I SPOKE TO WERE IN FAVOR AFTER WE DISCUSSED THE POSITIVES VERSUS THE NEGATIVES. UH, ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEGATIVES THAT I'VE HAD IS, IF I CAN SHARE THIS WITH, WITH YOU, IS I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND FOR THE LAST 20 PLUS YEARS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH. YOU KNOW, EVERY FEW MONTHS, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN USED AS A DUMP SITE AND, YOU KNOW, EVERY FEW MONTHS WE HAVE TO GET AHOLD OF THE OWNERS TO COME CLEAR IT UP. UM, THE POSITIVE THAT WE SEE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD DEFINITELY USE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE NEW PROPERTY AND NEGATIVES. AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, THIS VACANT PROPERTY HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER 25 YEARS SINCE I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I DON'T SEE NO NEGATIVE AS FAR AS ADDING, YOU KNOW, MORE, YOU KNOW, HOUSING, YOU KNOW, LIKE I DISCUSSED. UM, EITHER THE DEVELOPER WILL BUILD IT THERE OR WE'LL BUILD IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THEY'LL TAKE IT AWAY, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE ELSE. THAT'S BEEN THE STIGMA OF THE SOUTH SIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY SAYS, WELL, WE DON'T BRING IT TO THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND THE SOUTH SIDE HAS GROWN A LOT IN THE LAST 30 YEARS, AND, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE POSITIVE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. LONO. JOSE GALLEGOS. OH, THAT'S THE APPLICANT. I'M SORRY? UM, OLGA MARTINEZ. THANK YOU. MR. GALLOS. YOU'LL GET ANOTHER CHANCE. UH, SORRY. MARTINEZ. OLGA MARTINEZ. OLGA MARTINEZ. YEAH. OKAY. MS. MARTINEZ, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HI, NAME. UH, HI. MY NAME IS OLGA MARTINEZ. I'M WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I LIVE AT 1522 SANTA RAFAEL STREET, 7 8 2 1 4. THAT PICTURE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED, I'VE LIVED THERE ALL MY LIFE. NEVER EVER HAVE I SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT THERE. THAT BEING SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RECEIVED NO NOTICE ABOUT THE ZONING CASE. NOW THIS LAND THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT BUILDING 350 APARTMENTS, THAT'S GREAT, BUT IT CAN BE AN M F 18. M F 18 ALLOWS FOR 360 APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. THIS LAND IS PART OF THE STINSON LAND USE PLAN AND IT'S ZONE. AND HE, HE DID, WE DID GO TO THE MEETING AND THEY DID GO AHEAD AND, AND, UH, SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE, THE HIGHER DENSITY. BUT RIGHT NOW, AS IT IS, THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL RIGHT NOW AS IT IS, IT'S LOW DENSITY. WE DON'T OPPOSE, WE GO AHEAD AND WE CAN WE'LL SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN BUILD THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE 350 APARTMENTS OR 360 IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THAT LAND NEEDS TO STAY LOW DENSITY. WHO'S TO SAY THIS GENTLEMAN BUYS THE PROPERTY AND THEN HE DECIDES TO SELL IT. AND IT'S AN MF 33. AN MF 33 CAN BRING UP TO 660 APARTMENTS TO THAT LOCATION. AND IF YOU KNOW WHERE THAT LOCATION IS, YOU KNOW THAT THE A SAN JUAN IS NEXT TO IT. MISSION IS, IS, IS ACROSS FROM IT AND MISSION SAN JUAN IS BEHIND IT. WE DON'T NEED AN MF 33. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT LAND IS PRESERVED AS AN MF UH, MF 18. WE COMPROMISE WITH THAT, AND THAT WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THAT. BUT, UM, THAT BEING SAID ABOUT MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, HE DID MEET WITH US SEPTEMBER 7TH. HE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEN HE REQUESTED ANOTHER MEETING. TODAY'S TODAY'S OCTOBER 5TH. HE MET WITH US SEPTEMBER 7TH. THAT'S LESS THAN 30 DAYS. SEPTEMBER 30 SENT ME AN EMAIL TO GO AHEAD AND MEET WITH HIM AGAIN. THREE DAYS BEFORE WE MEET HERE. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME. HE HAS, AT THE TIME THAT HE MET WITH US, HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW US A PLAN, LET US KNOW THAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE IT FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY. HE DID NOT PROVIDE WHO THE BUYER WAS, ONLY TO SAY THAT THIS LAND WOULD NOT BE SOLD UNLESS THE BUYER HAD IT AS AN MF 33. WHY IS, WHY DOES HE WANT IT AS AN MF 33? SO 660 APARTMENTS CAN GO IN THERE. WE WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. AND I SPOKE TO A LOT OF RESIDENTS AND I WILL GET THEM TO WRITE IT. THEY'RE AGAINST THOSE APARTMENTS COMING UP THERE. THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT WE'RE COMING UP THERE. AND, UH, LIKE I SAY, I KNOW HE'S SAYING THAT WE NEED HOUSING. WE DON'T NEED HOUSING. RIGHT ACROSS THERE, WE HAVE THE CHAMPION HOMES WITH 400 APARTMENTS FURTHER DOWN, WE HAVE 800 MORE APARTMENTS COMING UP. THIS AREA RIGHT HERE IS, IS TOO CLOSE TO THE MISSIONS. IT NEEDS TO BE, IT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED. NOW, I DON'T MIND, I THINK THIS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO WHERE IF HE'S A MAN OF HIS WORD AND HE'S SAYING 350 APARTMENTS IS ALL THAT'S GONNA BE BUILT, THEN ALL YOU NEED IS AN M FFA TEAM AND KEEP IT LOW DENSITY AS A STINSON LAND USE PLAN CALLS FOR. NO. NOW WE'LL MEET WITH HIM AGAIN. IF THIS IS, IF THIS CAN BE EXTENDED, WE'LL [01:35:01] MEET WITH HIM AND THEN HE CAN LAY OUT THE PLANS, WHICH HE HAD NONE AND HE HAD NO, NO BUYER. WE KNOW WHO THE BUYER IS NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, TO ME THIS NEEDS TO STAY. THIS CAN BE AN M F A TEAM. THANK YOU MS. MARTINEZ. STEPH BRADY ALEXANDER. ALRIGHT, MR. ALEXANDER, YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND YOU KNOW THE DRILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRADY ALEXANDER. I RESIDE AT 1 8 3 9 EAST PYRON 7 8 2 2 3. I REPRESENT THE HOT WELLS MISSION REACH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OUR ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THE VEHICLE, CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION TO THIS PLAN. IT SADDENS ME EVERY TIME I COME HERE AND PARK IN THE PARKING LOT AND SEE THAT SIGN OUT THERE. IT SAYS, HERE LIES THE ASAKIA. I SEE OTHER, UH, THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST PRESENT, LIKE AT MISSION EXCEPTION, VARIANCE IS GIVEN TO APARTMENTS RIGHT UP ON THE MISSION. CURRENTLY, THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO PUT APARTMENTS NEXT TO SAN JOSE. THIS IS, IT'S, IT'S VERY DISTURBING TO SEE THIS CONTINUE ON. AND YET I SEE POSITIVE STUFF LIKE AT THE ALAMO, THEY'RE TRYING TO UNDO PAST MISTAKES ARE, ARE WE GONNA MAKE SOME MISTAKES NOW? SO IN A HUNDRED YEARS THEY CAN SAY, WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING WE GOTTA UNDO. SAN JUAN AND NASPA ARE THE MOST AUTHENTIC MISSIONS IN SAN ANTONIO WITH THE SPANISH FARM, UM, THE RIVER, AND, UH, THE LARGEST A PSYCHIAT SYSTEM LEFT IN THE UNITED STATES. UH, NEXT NUMBER TWO IS SAN DIEGO. IF YOU'RE OUT THERE, CHECK IT OUT. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE MISSION'S WORLD HERITAGE STATUS, ALONG WITH THE SPECULATIVE DEVELOPERS WHO SEEM TO GET THEIR WAY MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. UM, ALSO SAYS A LOT THAT WE'RE IN THE CLIFF MORTON, UH, BUILDING THE SCHOOL TAX ISSUE. YOU GET MORE TAX MONIES FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAN YOU DO FROM APARTMENT COMPLEX. THIS IS A OPPORTUNITY ZONE PURCHASE. IT'S IN THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE, MEANING THE BUYER WILL BUY IT AND IN 10 YEARS HE CAN SELL IT AND DEFER HIS CAPITAL GAINS TAX. SO IT'S, IT'S GONNA FLIP. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A CASH COW. UH, I HAVE NO ILLUSIONS ABOUT THE, UH, MOTIVES OF THE PURCHASER. THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RECOGNIZES THIS AREA AND TAKES PRECAUTIONS AND PROACTIVE STEPS BY PURCHASING LAND IN THE AREA AND 'CAUSE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOTICED AND HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS AREA FOR YEARS BEFORE THE CITY RECOGNIZED THE HISTORIC STATUS AND THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS MISSION THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE STINSON LAND USE PLAN. THEY RECOGNIZE THE THREAT TO THESE HISTORICAL FEATURES FROM HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIENT RENTALS, ET CETERA. THIS IS A SIMPLE CHOICE FOR YOU TO MAKE. EITHER YOU HONOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN OR UNDO IT TO A, TO ALLOW A SPECULATIVE DEVELOPER TO MAKE MORE PROFIT. ALL PROMISES HAVE BEEN VERBAL ONLY. UM, MOST OF 'EM BEEN PATRONIZING EUPHEMISMS LIKE HIGH END, HEARD THAT ALL BEFORE. UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONCRETE STEPS TAKEN AND THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE CORRECTLY, NOT IN HASTE. IT IS TOO VALUABLE AN AREA AND IS BEING RECOGNIZED AND BEING EXPLOITED BY DEVELOPMENTAL INTEREST. AND THAT IS NOT IN THE COMMUNITY'S BEST INTEREST. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. ALEXANDER. STAFF. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. GALLEGOS, IF YOU'D LIKE A SHORT REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. VERY SHORT, MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, I JUST TAKE ISSUE WITH THE QUESTIONING OF THE, UH, GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON THE PART OF NOT ONLY THE OWNER, BUT ALSO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER. UH, CERTAINLY I THINK THAT WE'VE SHOWN, UH, OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND OUR WILLINGNESS TO, TO DISCUSS IT, UH, WITH THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTS AND ALSO ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INCLUDING HOT WELLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT IS, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERABLY REMOVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, AS FAR AS THE MF UH, 18 CLASSIFICATION, THAT WOULD NOT SATISFY, UH, WHAT THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER INTENDS TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT THAT SAN ANTONIO, UH, WATER SYSTEM HAS PLACED, UH, IN THE PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO SETBACKS, UH, FROM THE SAN JUAN SECA THAT WOULD, UH, AGAIN, UH, CUT INTO THE, UH, THE, THE LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT. UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE WALKING TRAILS WOULD BE, AGAIN, SUPPORTIVE OF THE ASEC AND NOT DETRACT FROM THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [01:40:01] THANK YOU MR. GALLEGOS. UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT THREE CASE, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER FUENTES TO YOU, SIR, FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. YES, SIR. MR. GALLEGO. SO YOU SAID THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF MF UH, 33 IS A MUST FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS OF THE ISIA AND, UH, RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SAS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT'S, UH, IN TALKING AND, AND I REGRET THAT THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPER, MR. YOUNG, UH, WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE. HE'S TRAVELING BACK, UH, FROM WASHINGTON STATE AND GOT, UH, TIED UP IN TRAVEL. UH, HE'S ASSURED ME, AND I HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH HIM AS TO, UH, UH, POSSIBLE, UH, AMENDING THE APPLICATION TO AN MF 30 18. UH, HE INDICATED TO ME THAT THAT WOULD NOT SUFFICE, THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY HAVE. UH, I THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED IN TERMS OF GIVEN PARKING, GIVEN AGAIN, THE SETBACKS GIVEN THE, UH, THE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT. UH, THE MF 18 WOULD NOT, UH, WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM. SO WITH THE MF 33 OR THE MF 18, YOU'D STILL HAVE THE SAME SETBACKS FROM THE AZEA AND WITH SAS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES, SIR. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WHY WOULD A HIGHER DENSITY, UH, ZONING BE MORE FAVORABLE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE MF 18, WHICH WOULD STILL GIVE YOU THE SAME AMOUNT OF LIVING UNITS? AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT THAT CURRENTLY, UH, EXISTS AND WAS PUT ON THERE BECAUSE OF THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, UH, THAT EASEMENT IS ALMOST RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF, OF, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THAT, AGAIN, IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE AWAY FROM THE, UH, DEVELOPMENTAL AREA THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED. UH, THIS IS GONNA BE, AGAIN, A 350, UH, UH, UNIT APARTMENT, AND IT'S GONNA BE A HIGH-END APARTMENT. AND DO YOU HAVE, YOU'RE SPEAKING OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, DO YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN READY? NO, SIR. FOR THE UNIT, SIR? NO, SIR, WE DO NOT. AND I DO NOT. UH, AND AGAIN, UH, THIS IS, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. UH, I KNOW THAT MR. UH, UH, ABRAMS WAS HERE AND SPOKE, UH, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAW FED BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PLANNED AMENDMENT. UH, SO I DO NOT HAVE ANY RENDERINGS. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE KIND OF PREMATURE. NOW, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW THAT THERE'LL BE AMPLE TIME, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT DISCUSSION ONCE THE, THE, THE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. BUT I THINK THAT, UH, WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE THE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING, BUT THERE'LL BE AMPLE, AMPLE TIME, NOT ONLY FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE INPUT, BUT CERTAINLY FOR, UH, CITY STAFF AND, UH, THE CLIFF MORTON, UH, DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, UH, STAFF TO HAVE INPUT, UH, AND, AND INTERJECT WHATEVER LIMITATIONS THERE, THERE ARE. THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FUENTES, UH, COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, THEN COMMISSIONER S SIPES QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, HOW LARGE IS THE TOTAL LOT HERE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? 20 ACRES. SO, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT SAYS 24, RIGHT? AND THEN ONCE YOU EXCLUDE THE, UH, ASAKIA AREA, ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND THAT BE, THAT, THAT ACREAGE THEN BECOMES DECREASED. SO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE SETBACKS, THE EASEMENTS, ANY OF THE, THE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HERE, TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT, WE COME UP WITH 20 ACRES APPROXIMATELY. SO WHAT HE'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS NET DEVELOPABLE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. UH, SO LET'S JUST ASSUME YOU HAVE AN ACRE. LET'S SAY I ONLY HAVE, UH, HALF AN ACRE, THAT'S DEVELOPABLE. IF I WANNA PUT 15 UNITS ON THERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE MF 18 WOULD WORK BECAUSE ON AN ACRE YOU COULD GET 18 UNITS, BUT NET DEVELOPABLE MEANS I HAVE TO EXCLUDE THAT HALF. NOW I ONLY HAVE HALF AN ACRE. NOW I CAN ONLY GET NINE UNITS. SO YOU INCREASE THAT DENSITY IN ORDER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE. SO IF YOU DID 33 ON AN ACRE, HALF OF IT IS ONLY DEVELOPABLE, THEN YOU'RE ENDING UP WITH AROUND 15 UNITS. SO THAT'S WHY HE NEEDS THE, THE INCREASED DENSITY IN ORDER TO CLUSTER THE HOUSING BASED ON THE NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE THAT HE HAS. [01:45:02] SO THEN IF YOU HAVE AN EASEMENT ON YOUR PROPERTY, THAT TAKES AWAY, SO IF I HAD AN ACRE A PROPERTY AND A 10TH OF THAT WAS TAKEN UP BY AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR MY NEIGHBOR, THEN I, AND I, AND I WAS, HAD 10 UNITS PER ACRE, LET'S JUST SAY, I WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PUT NINE UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THAT EASEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT A POSSESSORY INTEREST AND LAND. AND I CAN STILL USE THAT LAND IF THE, IF THE EASEMENT IS, IT'S STILL MY PROPERTY. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. IT'S STILL YOUR PROPERTY AND THAT'S GROSS, GROSS DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE. IT'S THE NET DEVELOPABLE THAT, THAT DETERMINES WHAT YOUR DENSITY IS. OKAY. SO THAT YOU DON'T SUBSUME THAT OTHER UNIT INTO THE OTHER 0.9 ACRES. OKAY. NO, AND ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE RE PLATTING IT, THE SEIA AREA OUT OF THAT 24 ACRES, THEN THAT, THAT, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE. OKAY. I THINK I'M GOOD. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU PROFESSOR GREATHOUSE. AND NOW WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A POSSESSORY INTEREST IS. DO YOU WANNA TEACH, UH, FIRST YEAR PROPERTY ? UM, ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SIPES TO YOU. , THAT WAS IT. THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT QUESTIONS DR. ROMEO. UM, JUST SO I KNOW, WOULD MF 25 HAD TR WOULD THAT HAVE NEEDED TO TRIGGER A PLAN AMENDMENT AS WELL? THE YES MF 25 WOULD'VE TRIGGERED A PLAN AMENDMENT. OKAY. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, I, I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M SURPRISED IT'S NEVER COME UP BEFORE. BUT I, I GUESS BECAUSE THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL. SO THEN I GUESS SOME KIND OF SURPRISE THAT IT ENDED UP HAVING TO GO FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT. I MEAN, I SEE WHY IT WENT FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT IF THERE WAS EVER AN EXCEPTION TO SAY WE COULD HAVE MF 33 AND NOT HAVE TO CHANGE IT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THIS WOULD BE WHY I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ENTIRELY THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERN, BUT IT'S PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERN. SO THERE'S LIKE THIS MISMATCH, 'CAUSE YOU'RE TELLING US IT HAS TO BE MF 33, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT, IT'S REALLY MF 18. SO IT SEEMS REALLY ODD THAT WE GOT THAT PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE AGAIN, ULTIMATELY WITH THE NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE, THEY'RE STILL AT 33 UNITS AN ACRE. IT'S JUST THE FINAL NUMBER OF UNITS LOOKS MORE LIKE MF 18. AND REMEMBER THIS IS AN OLDER PLAN. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT WERE WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PLAN AS OPPOSED TO OUR GENERAL LAND USE CATEGORIES TODAY. ALRIGHT. WHICH ALLOW FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU DR. ROME. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO MY RIGHT? ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE GO TO SECOND ROUND, I'M GONNA ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UH, ONE IS, UH, THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED I ONE WITH AN H OVERLAY, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT IS THE H OVERLAY? THAT'S THE HISTORIC, UM, THE MISSION HISTORIC OVERLAY. OKAY. AND SO WHAT IS REQUIRED AND THAT, AND THAT HISTORIC OVERLAY IS GONNA REMAIN ON THIS PROPERTY EVEN IF IT'S REZONED MF 33. CORRECT. SO WHAT ACCESS, OR SORRY, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT'S REQUIRED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND GIVEN THAT H OVERLAY WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY? IT REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO, AND THAT WILL TYPICALLY COME IN AFTER THE PLATT PROCESS WHEN THEY'RE, UH, GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. SO THERE'LL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS ON THE DESIGN ITSELF. UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT CAN YOU LEGALLY USE IT FOR THE PROJECT THAT THEY NEED? THEN THEY'LL GO THROUGH THE PLAT PROCESS, WHICH LAYS OUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN COMES THE DESIGN. AND SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN ASPECT, THAT'S THE MASSING, THE SCALE, UH, WHAT THE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS. UH, WE'RE GONNA START WITH COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE TO MY LEFT. OKAY. ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF OR MAYBE TWO. UM, SO FOR MF 18, WHAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS FOR THE NET DEVELOPABLE AREA FOR THIS 360 FOR 20 ACRES UNDER, UH, AT MF 18 UNDER FM M F 18? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF IT WAS 20 ACRES AT THE END OF THE DAY. OKAY. AND THEN IF WE WERE TO DO MF 33, IT WOULD BE HOW SIX 660 UNITS. OKAY. SO THEN I GUESS I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR VERSUS WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF UNITS VERSUS WHAT WOULD BE [01:50:02] DEVELOPABLE WITH AN MF 33. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A PRETTY BIG DISCONNECT BETWEEN THOSE TWO. SO I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH WHY THE MF 33 IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET 350 UNITS. SO AGAIN, IT COMES ASSUMING THAT THEY CAN PLA 20 ACRES, THAT'S, LET'S, LET'S MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION THAT 20 ACRES ULTIMATELY WILL BE WITH THEM. UH, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE, UM, THE EASEMENTS, THE RESPECT TO THE ASAKIA, WHICH MEANS PROBABLY LARGER BUFFERS, DEEPER SETBACKS, UH, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA END UP COMPRESSING THE DEVELOPMENT MORE TOWARDS, UH, CERTAIN PARTS OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO RESPECT THE, THAT THAT ASAKIA. UH, AND SO AGAIN, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE DOING THAT, YOU STILL NEED THE DENSITY. 'CAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE TAKING THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION IN ORDER TO GET TO YOUR ULTIMATE DENSITY, DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU END UP PLATTING IT. IF IT'S PLATTED AS ONE LOT OR IF IT'S PLATTED AT AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT ASAKIA. UH, SO AGAIN, IT IT'S ABOUT COMPRESSING THAT DENSITY INTO CERTAIN PIECES OF PROPERTY, BUT IN ORDER TO GET TO THE ULTIMATE NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU NEED THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY TO ADD MORE UNITS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE PLATTED LOT RIGHT NOW THAT MAY BE RE PLATTED INTO MULTIPLE LOTS. DON'T KNOW YET UNTIL THEY LAY IT ALL OUT. OKAY, THANKS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT. DR. ROME. I'M SORRY, I I WAS CLEAR ON THIS UNTIL THAT LAST, GIVEN WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DEVELOPABLE PART OF THE LAND, YOU'RE SAYING THEY HAVE TO GET MF 33 TO GET TO THE 350 OR HOWEVER MANY UNITS YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD GET TO THE PROJECT THEY WANT WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN MF 33. SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE, THEY'RE EXPLAINING BECAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN LAYOUT. AGAIN, THERE'S NOT ONE REQUIRED AT THIS POINT. I DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN LAYOUT THAT SHOWS ME ULTIMATELY WHAT THEIR NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE IS BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY NEED THAT FLEXIBILITY OF THE MF 33 TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THE PLATT PROCESS. NO, WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. WE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DEVELOPABLE LAND THERE IS. AND THAT'S THE KEY QUESTION HERE. THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT THAT SITE PLAN LAYOUT, NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, WHICH BRINGS US TO A QUESTION THAT'S NOT REALLY QUITE WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, BUT THERE IS A WAY FOR PRIVATE PARTIES TO CONTRACTUALLY AGREE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THOSE WOULD BE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF OUR PROCESS HERE AT ZONING, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M GONNA BE VERY HEAVY HANDED HERE, UH, VIA CORONADO COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT PARTY WHO HAS THE RIGHTS TO SAY, THIS CAN ONLY BE DEVELOPED TO 350 UNITS AND THEY COULD GET THAT IN WRITING AND IT COULD BE ENFORCEABLE AS BETWEEN THEM, EVEN IF IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO OR THIS BODY OR ANY OTHER BODY FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, COMMISSIONER BOTTLES, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, AND I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE LEGAL EXPLANATIONS, BUT BEING SO CLOSE TO BROOKS, UH, AND STENSON AIRPORT AND BEING A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BY UNESCO, I THINK THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEIGHT, UH, OF ANY BUILDINGS. UH, SO I'M, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS AS THEY MOVE ON THE PROJECT THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICE HAS TO WATCH FOR THAT PROJECT. SO I'M, I'M, I'M NOT A LEGAL EXPERT ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT THERE'S LIMITS ON THE HEIGHT OF ANY BUILDINGS. SO THE BASE DISTRICT FOR MF 33 GETS YOU A RESTRICTION OF UP TO 45 FEET ONLY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS PLACED DURING THE H D R C REVIEW. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. UH, COMMISSIONER FUENTES TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION. SO WITH, WITH DISTRICT THREE, THERE IS A LOT OF I ONE, THERE'S A LOT OF I ONE THAT'S IN USE AND NOT SO MUCH, UM, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF, UH, LIVABLE AREA, UH, A LOT OF RESIDENCES. I DO ENJOY THE FACT THAT THERE IS BEING MORE HOUSING BROUGHT TO THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE [01:55:01] POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY FOR THE DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS CONCERNING. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE LIMITS ON, ON THE DEVELOPABLE LAND WILL SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE THAT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF ALL THE RESIDENTS THERE. UH, IF THIS WAS IN MY BACKYARD, I WOULD BE GREATLY CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT I'D HAVE 300 NEW, UH, NEIGHBORS OR 600 NEW NEIGHBORS. UM, IN ADDITION, THERE'S VERY LIMITED ACCESS. YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE USING THE FOUR 10, UM, ACCESS ROAD THERE. UM, AND THAT'S GONNA BE PUTTING A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THOSE, UH, ON THAT STREET. UM, BUT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, WHICH IS OUT OF OUR HANDS, UH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DISCUSSION HAPPEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES INVOLVED. UM, SO, UM, WOULD HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, HOW, HOW, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE PARTIES TIME TO DISCUSS THAT, WHAT COULD OUR NEXT STEP BE? WELL, BEFORE BEING, UH, SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL, THEY'RE FINALIZING THEIR FIELD NOTES. SO WE WOULDN'T SCHEDULE IT FOR CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT'S GONNA GIVE THEM SOME EXTRA TIME TO, IF, IF THERE IS, UM, DISCUSSION ON DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, THAT'LL GIVE 'EM EXTRA TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT BEFORE IT PROCEEDS TO CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT NOW, IF WE GOT FIELD NOTES IN OUR HAND WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK, THEY COULD GO IN THE, TO THE FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER. SO YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT, AT LEAST A MONTH AWAY. THANK YOU. UM, WITH THAT I WOULD, UM, MOTION TO APPROVE. ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BARTOS A SECOND. MOTION FOR APPROVAL DISCUSSION. I'M GONNA START COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT, DR. ROMERO. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. UM, I THINK MAYBE THERE'S AN ANSWER IN HERE. AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN MORE THAN WILLING TO COMPROMISE. NORMALLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD COME OUT AND JUST SAY NO, AND THEN IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR US TO DEAL WITH THAT. BUT THE NEIGHBORS ARE WILLING TO COMPROMISE AND IF WE APPROVE THIS NOW, THERE'S SO MANY UNKNOWNS FOR US. THERE'S THE UNKNOWNS ABOUT THE DEVELOPABLE AREA, ABOUT WHETHER THEY REALLY NEED MF 33 TO REST THIS ON THE PROMISE THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DO A DEEDED RESTRICTION, WHICH WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERING, BUT WE CAN'T, IN THIS CASE, COASTGUARD, WE WOULDN'T EVEN SEE IT AGAIN. UM, I I JUST WOULDN'T FEEL RIGHT ABOUT LEAVING THE NEIGHBORS UNSUPPORTED IN THIS. THERE'S, THERE'S JUST TOO MANY QUESTIONS. I'M NOT SAYING IT COULDN'T BE A GOOD PROJECT AND MAYBE IT WILL BE. I MIGHT'VE SUPPORTED A CONTINUANCE, BUT, UH, THERE'S TOO MUCH HERE THAT WE DON'T KNOW. SORRY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UH, DR. ROMERO. COMMISSIONER HUI. THANK YOU. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ROMERO. THERE'S JUST SO MANY UNKNOWNS. YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO WORK THE NUMBERS OUTTA MY HEAD AND I JUST CAN'T GET MY, THE NUMBERS TO WORK OUT. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT, UH, PERHAPS THE DEVELOPER CAN WORK WITH THE NAVAL ASSOCIATIONS FURTHER, BUT AT THIS TIME I CAN'T SUPPORT AN APPROVAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. UH, COMMISSIONER'S DISCUSSION TO MY LEFT, UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. COMMISSIONER WATSON, COMMISSIONER SIPES. I ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE PUT IT SO WELL. UM, JUST FOR ME, THE QUESTIONS ON THE DEVELOPABLE AREA. UM, WHILE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SITE PLAN, UM, IN ORDER TO COME TO ZONING, I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEE WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, HOW IT'S BEING DEVELOPED, HOW THE LAND IS BEING USED, AND WHAT IS BEING, WHAT IS GOING TO BE PUT THERE, OR AT LEAST AN IDEA OF THAT. AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD'VE BEEN HELPFUL IN THIS CASE. UM, AND, AND THEN WHILE I DEFINITELY RESPECT MY, THE, THE CHAIRMAN'S, UH, MENTIONING OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH IS LIKE MY FAVORITE THING TO TALK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOES PUT AN ONUS ON THE NEIGHBORS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WHILE, WHILE I RESPECT THAT, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT AS A REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY I WOULD WANT TO SEE IN PLACE, BUT IT IS, IT DOES PUT AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY COME IN, HELP THEM OR, OR HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S OTHERWISE KNOWLEDGEABLE. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY GOING FORWARD, THE ENTITY THAT WOULD BE, UM, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INSTEAD OF THE CITY. SO IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S JUST SO MANY UNKNOWNS AND I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAVING TO REALLY THINK ABOUT LIKE SO MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES TO ADDRESS IN YOUR RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THAT TO ME, UM, IS JUST AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN TO PUT ON THE NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, COMMISSIONER WATSON, THEN COMMISSIONER SIPES ECHOING THE SENTIMENTS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS A VERY PREMATURE PROPOSAL. BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE, I DON'T FEEL LIKE AN ADEQUATE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE MF 33 AND AS THIS TRANSACTION HASN'T ACTUALLY COMPLETED YET, IF WE [02:00:01] APPROVE AN MF 33 ZONING AND A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER ENDS UP PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT, WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENTAL AREA OF ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ONLY VERBAL THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. UM, AND ANYTHING THAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN MF 33 WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE AT THAT POINT. AND THAT'S UNFAIR TO A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT'S EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN COOPERATING AND TRYING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. AND WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, I WOULD'VE FELT A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THIS CASE IF IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN DONE AND SOME SORT OF DRAFT OF THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND THINGS IN WRITING THAT SHOWED A GENUINE GOOD FAITH EFFORT BY THE APPLICANT. UM, THAT THAT'S ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WATSON. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. UM, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ACTUALLY SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. UM, I AGREE. WE, WE, WE DON'T REQUIRE A A SITE PLAN, BUT, BUT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT, UM, WELL THIS AREA IS ONLY THE, THE NET DEVELOPABLE VERSUS THE GROSS DEVELOPABLE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NET DEVELOPABLE EXACTLY IS THEN, THEN IT'S, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, UM, COME TO A DECISION. UM, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS A, A VERY SPECIAL AREA IN THE CITY AND, UM, I DON'T JUST SAY THAT 'CAUSE THAT'S, THIS IS WHERE MY WIFE GREW UP, BUT, UM, BUT I MEAN OVER BY THE, UH, THESE, THESE MISSIONS AND, AND I THINK WE NEED ITS LOCATION REQUIRES ADDITIONAL EFFORT, UM, PUT FORTH BEFORE DECISIONS ARE MADE. SO AT THIS TIME, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION EITHER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIPES. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS AREA DOES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL, UH, REVIEW AND THAT ADDITIONAL REVIEW WILL OCCUR THROUGH THE H D R C. THAT ADDITIONAL REVIEW WILL OCCUR TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE APPROPRIATELY PLACED, THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND OUR PURVIEW HERE AS ZONING. AND TO ME, THE LAND USE OF MF 33 SEEMS APPROPRIATE. IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY ON 1604 AND 2 81 OR SHORTLY THERE AWAY FROM THERE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THESE SAME CONVERSATIONS. AND SO GIVEN THAT AND USING THAT AS MY FRAME TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE HERE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE EXTERNALITIES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WITH THE SECS, MY VIEW WOULD BE THAT THOSE ARE APPROPRIATELY TAKEN UP BY THE H D R C WITH THAT HISTORIC OVERLAY THAT'S REMAINING. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING NEXT TO ONE OF THE JEWELS OF OUR CITY AND THAT IS TOO GREAT A RISK FOR ME. ALRIGHT. SECOND ROUND OF DISCUSSION. ANYONE SEEING NONE? ALRIGHT, IT IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER FUENTES WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARROS. ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? NO. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE? NO. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? NO. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? NO. COMMISSIONER SYS? NO. CHAIR BUSANTE AYE. MOTION FAILS. OKAY. UH, THE MOTION HAS FAILED. IS THERE A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR SOMEONE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT? AND LET ME REMIND YOU ALL THAT. IF THERE IS NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THIS HAS ALSO BEEN BACK AT LEAST TWICE. SO IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS DENIAL. IS THERE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION? MOTION TO RECONSIDER. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER? SECOND. ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. AND A SECOND ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. WHITE, DID YOU SECOND? I'M SORRY. MR. UH, COMMISSIONER WHITE SECONDED. AND MOTION BY GREAT HOUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMIT? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? NO. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR VICE SAMANTHA. AYE. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION. THE MOTION CAN BE B FOR ANYTHING INCLUDING CONTINUANCE. [02:05:02] I'D LIKE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A DATE IN MIND? IT'S, UH, GO TO THE, UH, TWO MEETINGS OUT. OKAY. NOVEMBER 2ND. THERE IS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALRIGHT. UM, THE MOTION IS FOR CONTINUANCE OF NOVEMBER 2ND BY COMMISSIONER FUENTES WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE. OH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE . I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. . IT HASN'T BEEN A LONG ENOUGH MEETING YET. COME ON. YOU WANNA TALK? I WANT TO TALK. I'M LONELY. UM, ? NO, I JUST, I REALLY DO. I I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I REALLY RESPECT YOUR, YOUR INPUT. COMMISSIONER BUS, DEANTE CHAIR, BUS DEANTE. UM, BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT A DOWN ZONING HERE FROM I ONE TO SOMETHING ELSE IS BETTER. UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE, I THINK THAT'S A BETTER LAND USE. RIGHT. I, I, ONE OBVIOUSLY NEXT TO AN AS IS NOT A PROPER LAND USE. HOWEVER, I JUST FELT THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS. SO I THINK THAT GIVING TIME TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE KNOWN ABOUT THE PROJECT, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW US AS A COMMISSION TO MAKE A BETTER RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS OUR DUTY KISS. KISSING UP TO THE CHAIR. FLATTERY ALWAYS WORKS, BUT I ALRIGHT. BUT I, BUT I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHITE. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER VARDOS AND COMMISSIONER FUENTES? I, I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION. WE HAVE 10 COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW. I, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE, THE FIRST COUNT FOR APPROVAL. I THOUGHT WE HAD SIX VOTES IN APPROVING FIVE AND FIVE 'CAUSE THERE'S ONLY 10. YEAH, FIVE AND FIVE. SO IT FAILED. YOU NEED SIX TO APPROVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT OF INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER FUENTES DISCUSSION. UH, JUST TO REITERATE THAT FACT THAT THERE ARE PROCESSES IN PLACE PAST US TO GUARANTEE THAT, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN LINE OF THE AREA. UM, I THINK THAT ALL OF THOSE NECESSARY LIMITATIONS WOULD BE MADE ONCE IT'S PASSED THIS STAGE. BUT, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I, I DO AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT A PLAN OR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD HELP THIS PROCESS. AND, UH, AGREEMENTS IN WRITING WOULD ALSO HELP BETWEEN THE PARTIES, UH, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S, UH, CONCERNS ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND THAT THEY'RE HELD UP, UH, DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FUENTES. FURTHER DISCUSSION, LEFT FURTHER DISCUSSION. RIGHT. MOTION IS FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING BY COMMISSIONER FUENTES WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BOTTLES? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE. AYE. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR BUSTA AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE NOW BEEN GOING FOR, UH, A LITTLE BIT OVER TWO HOURS. I'M GOING TO NOW HOLD US IN RECESS FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. THE TIME IS 3 0 8 AND WE ARE NOW IN RECESS FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE TIME IS THREE 14. UH, I BELIEVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE RETURNED TO THE DAAS. THE TIME IS THREE 14 AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. STAFF, IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT [8. ZONING CASE Z202110700193 CD (Council District 2)] IS A REQUEST TO RESUME FROM R SIX TO R SIX C D WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO DUPLEXES WITH ALL OVERLAYS REMAINING THE SAME. LOCATED AT FIVE 19 B STREET, THERE WERE 10 NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE. THE EXISTING R SIX IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED CD CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO DUPLEXES IS ALSO APPROPRIATE. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ALSO SHARE CONDITIONAL USES FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND LIKELY EV EVIDENCE OF LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING LANDS. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, MAINTAINS THE BASE DISTRICT AND THE CONDITIONAL USE HOLDS THE APPLICANT TO A PRESCRIBED SITE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? [02:10:03] ARE THEY STILL ON BREAK? . THANK YOU MR. MAVI FOR LOOKING. ALRIGHT. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, SIR. THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS PULLED. VERY GOOD. UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE. UM, COMMISSIONER WATSON, AS WE'VE NOTED, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT, UM, TO YOU. IF, IF I MAY JUST VERY QUICKLY YES. SO THIS CASE, UH, CAME BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY, UM, IT WAS HEARD IN LATE AUGUST, THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST. UH, WHAT WE DISCOVERED AS IT WAS MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER IS THAT WE WEREN'T VERY CLEAR ON WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. IT IS FOR TWO DUPLEXES, NOT A DUPLEX. AND SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE SUBDIVIDING IT INTO TWO LOTS. AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NOTICED IT CORRECTLY. UM, IT IS ON A, UH, STREET OF A MIX OF DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S WHAT THOSE CONDITIONAL USE ZONING ARE. THOSE ARE, UH, CONDITIONAL USES FOR DUPLEXES. AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATELY NOTICED, WE BROUGHT IT BACK AND IT'S BEING EXPEDITED TO CITY COUNCIL THIS WEEK. UM, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL OFFICE. UH, SO THAT WAY WE CAN TRY TO KEEP THAT TIMELINE ON BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT'S FAULT. AND SO, UM, IF IT IS NOT GIVEN A MOTION TODAY, WE WILL HAVE TO PULL IT FROM CITY COUNCIL'S, UM, UH, AGENDA FOR THURSDAY. BUT IF THERE IS A MOTION, THEN COUNCIL COULD CONTINUE IT IF THEY WANTED TO AS WELL. THAT WAY IT JUST KIND OF STAYS ON THE TRAJECTORY. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER WATSON, UH, BASED ON THIS ERROR THAT HAS OCCURRED AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA, WHILE THERE ARE SOME EXISTING CONDITIONAL USES ON THAT STREET, UM, BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE'VE RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS AND THE LACK OF COMMENTS, UM, AND THE FACT THAT WE AREN'T VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE PLANS HEIGHT. UM, THE ISSUE WITH IT BEING TWO, TWO DUPLEXES INSTEAD OF ONE, WE'D REALLY LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE PUSHING IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL. UM, JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOME KEY ISSUES IN THAT AREA AS FAR AS COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND, AND ISSUES RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT BEFORE. UM, SO IF, AS I'M SOMEWHAT NEW TO THIS, IF THERE IS AN OPTION TO CONTINUE, I WOULD PREFER TO DO THAT. YOU YOU MAY MOVE TO CONTINUE. OKAY. I MOVE TO CONTINUE. OKAY. TO WHAT DATE? COMMISSIONER WATSON TWO WEEKS IS ACCEPTABLE. OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 19TH ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THERE'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER. WHITE. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER TO MY LEFT. COMMISSIONER TO MY RIGHT. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER, UH, THE MOTION IS FOR CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 19TH. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMIT? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR ANTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALRIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 19TH. IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO ITEM [9. ZONING CASE Z202110700200 (Council District 2)] NUMBER NINE PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R M FOUR H A H O D TO C TWO P H A H O D, LOCATED AT 1 0 3 BROWN STREET AND 1403 EAST HOUSTON STREET. THERE WERE 29 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. TWO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET AND DITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. THE EXISTING RMM FOUR IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED C TWO P IS ALSO APPROPRIATE AS THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONE D DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHILE ALSO PROVIDING A BUFFER BETWEEN NAB NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ZONED RMM FOUR AND D. DOWNTOWN DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT BUCK BENSON IS HERE. ALRIGHT, MR. BENSON, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US ABOUT THIS ZONING REQUEST. ONE MOMENT. THERE WE GO. THANK MR. CHAIRMAN . UH, BUCK BENSON 7 4 5 EAST MULBERRY SUITE FIVE 50 REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, TEXAS RESEARCH, TEXAS AND TEXAS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION. UH, IF YOU COULD PUT THE MAP BACK UP REAL QUICKLY. UH, THE PROPERTY TO THE SCREEN LEFT IS THE VELOCITY CENTER. FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH DISTRICT TWO, IT IS A, UM, [02:15:01] BUSINESS INCUBATOR FOR A TECHNOLOGY FIRM. UH, THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE VELOCITY CENTER PURCHASED THE TRACT, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ZONING REQUEST FOR, UH, OR TO CONSTRUCT SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR ITS RESIDENT, I MEAN FOR ITS, UH, TENANTS AS WELL AS ITS EMPLOYEES. THE SITE ITSELF RIGHT NOW IS SHORT ON PARKING. WE BOUGHT THIS SMALL SLIVER TO, UH, DEVELOP IT FOR ESSENTIALLY A PARKING LOT. WE PROJECTED TO HAVE 25 PARKING SPOTS. IT WILL NEED TO GO TO H D R C FOR, FOR FINAL APPROVAL. UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE VELOCITY CENTER, IT'S A VERY EXCITING PROJECT IN THAT CORRIDOR. WE DID MEET, UH, WITH THE DIGNITY HILLS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FROM THE RESIDENTS, UH, WITHIN THE DIGNITY HEALTH, UM, ASSOCIATION. DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT DIALOGUE. WE DID REACH OUT TO THE BOARD AND WENT THROUGH THE PROPER STEPS. THE BOARD DID SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S STILL SOME CONCERNS. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A TWO E CONTINU AT THIS POINT, TO TWO E CONTINUANCE TO TO TYPE ANY LOOSE INS WITH ANY, UM, RESIDENTS THAT STILL LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THANK YOU MR. BENSON. UM, STAFF, ANY CITIZENS TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? NO, SIR. VERY GOOD. UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE. UH, QUESTIONS, UH, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE, UH, DECISION TO CONTINUE. ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS TO MY LEFT? ANY QUESTIONS TO MY RIGHT? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER WATSON TO YOU, UH, FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION? UH, SO WE DO UM, KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID SUBMIT A NOTICE OF APPROVAL AND AN EFFORT WAS MADE AT THEIR SEPTEMBER MEETING TO ATTEND. UM, WE DID RECEIVE SOME FEEDBACK THROUGH THE COUNCIL OFFICE THAT IT WASN'T PUT TO A FORMAL VOTE FOR ALL OF MEMBERSHIP. UM, AND THAT IS A CONCERN. SO WE ARE, UM, SUP WE, UH, SUPPORT A CONTINUANCE FOR TWO WEEKS. SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE SOME OF THE OTHER NEIGHBOR'S FEEDBACK AND ENSURE THAT IS IN FACT A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE. UM, AND UH, WE WILL RECONSIDER IT AT THAT TIME. ALRIGHT. MOTION SECOND. SORRY. NO MOTION YET, BUT, SO MOTION TO CONTINUE FOR TWO WEEKS. THANK YOU. THERE'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 19TH. I WILL TAKE THIS SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. UM, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT COMMERS TO MY RIGHT. SEEING NONE. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 19TH. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER FUENTES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER SITES? YES. CHAIR BUS. AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALRIGHT. UH, I BELIEVE THE [24. ZONING CASE Z202110700240 (Council District 1 and 5)] NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 24. ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R FOUR A H O D TO I D Z TWO A H O D WITH USES PERMITTED FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS. THERE WERE 26 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO RE UH, RESPONSE FROM PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE CURRENT R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED I D Z TWO MEDIUM INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE IS APPROPRIATE AS WELL FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED ZONING MAINTAINS THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE AREA. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER A PRESCRIBED SITE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, UM, AND TELL US ABOUT WHY YOU'RE SEEKING THIS REZONING. HI, I AM CANDACE AND MY PARTNER IS MARY JANE. WE UM, WELL IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE PHOTOS THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED, THERE ARE A LOT OF LITTLE BITTY HOMES THAT ARE ALL AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE THINK IT WOULD COMPLEMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY WELL. WE HAVE KIND OF A BIGGER LOT, IT'S 0.29 ACRES. SO WE FEEL THAT FOUR LITTLE HOMES WOULD FIT NICE, UM, IN THE LOT THAT WE HAVE. AND THEY'RE DOING THAT CREEK EXPANSION JUST RIGHT NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY. SO WE THINK IT WOULD BE A NICE ADDED FACELIFT TO THE DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE CURRENTLY. AND UM, ALSO, SO WE UM, INITIALLY FILED FOR THE I D Z TWO, HOWEVER WE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT REQUEST PER SECTION 35 DASH 4 0 3 D FOUR B TWO. UM, BASICALLY JUST THE I D Z ONE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING [02:20:01] MORE THAN FOUR. THE I D Z TWO WAS FOR EIGHT OR MORE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MA'AM. UM, STAFF, IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO, SIR. THEY, UH, JUST PULLED IT SO THAT THEY COULD MAKE THE AMENDMENT AND SUBMIT THE NEW SITE PLAN. OKAY. IF SO, THEY WERE INVISIBLE ANYWAY. UM, ALRIGHT. THIS IS A DISTRICT ONE AND A DISTRICT FIVE CASE. UH, SO I WILL GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. YES. UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT, THE SITE PLAN, UM, SEEMS TO BE VERY THIN ON INFORMATION. AND ADDITIONALLY, UM, IS THIS MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SITE PLAN FOR THE I D Z ONE? YES MA'AM. SO WE'RE NOT SHOWING ANY HEIGHT ON HERE AND THAT'S OKAY. YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN UPDATED, UM, GROUND PLAN, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE GROUND PLAN THAT IS SUBMITTED. OKAY. THE GROUND PLAN COMPARISON FORM WAS, IS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT. UM, SO HEIGHT WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A RESTRICTION TO HEIGHT BASED ON THE ZONING. SO THE ZONING ITSELF ALREADY HAS A RESTRICTION ON HEIGHT. UM, AND IT, WITH THE I D Z TWO ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S LIMITED TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES, JUST LIKE THE LOTS NEXT DOOR. UH, SO THE, THE HEIGHT WOULD ONLY BE SHOWN IF THEY WANTED TO IF YOU WANTED TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE. OKAY. AND THEN THERE WAS NO GRAND GROUND USE COMPARISON FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED. AT LEAST I DIDN'T SEE ONE IN ANY OF MY INFORM. RIGHT. THEY BROUGHT IT IN TODAY? YES. OKAY. AND WE'LL SEND YOU A COPY OF THAT. OKAY. SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THAT MYSELF AS WELL AS THE COUNSEL OFFICE HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS, UM, I'D LIKE TO MOTION FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE FOR ITEM NUMBER 24 TO THE OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. ALRIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THE OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? YES, THERE'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON. UM, ALRIGHT. ANY F FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONERS. ALRIGHT. DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONERS. SEEING NONE. UH, THERE IS A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF OCTOBER 19TH BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON. ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER WATSON? YES. COMMISSIONER FUNES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMATH? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER BARROS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR ANTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. OKAY, SO THERE'S A CONTINUANCE FOR TWO WEEKS. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE TO MYSELF AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT ONE AND DISTRICT FIVE COUNCIL OFFICES. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, THERE ARE NO FURTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER BEYOND MINUTES, IS THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT. UM, THE NEXT ITEM [25. Consideration and Approval of the September 21, 2021 Zoning Commission minutes.] IS THE MINUTES, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM 25. ANY CORRECTIONS, AMENDMENTS, MISSPELLINGS, ANYTHING? COMMISSIONERS TO MY LEFT. COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, WE CAN DO THIS BY ACCLAMATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT. MINUTES ARE APPROVED. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? SEEING NONE? AYE IS 3:30 PM AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.