Oct 27, 2021 Planning Commission

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HINES.

MAY STAFF CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? HERE.

COMMISSIONER ZUKI.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER PECK PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER ORIAN PRESENT.

CHAIR GONZALEZ.

ACCORDING MS. PRESENT.

AND BEFORE WE BEGIN, I DO WANNA, UH, TAKE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE AND RECOGNIZE ONE OF THE CITY STAFF, UM, MS. MELISSA RAMIREZ.

AND SHE, OH, THERE SHE GOES.

UM, I DO WANNA RECOGNIZE MELISSA.

SHE JUST GRADUATED FROM A LEADERSHIP SAN ANTONIO, AND BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC THAT WAS ACTUALLY EXTENDED, NOT JUST ONE YEAR, IT WAS TWO YEARS.

UM, AND SO A A LOT OF DEDICATION, AND THAT IS AN AWESOME CLASS TO REALLY GET FAMILIAR WITH.

UM, NOT JUST THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON, BUT, UM, UM, MANY, MANY MORE ISSUES ACROSS THE CITY THAT WE'RE FACING.

AND SO, CONGRATULATIONS.

AND TO THE AGENDA, WE DO HAVE, UH, TWO AGENDAS TODAY, THE CONSENT AGENDA AND SOME ITEMS ON THE INDIVIDUAL.

AND SO ALL OF THE ITEMS WILL BE ON CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NUMBER 16, WHICH IS BEING POSTPONED 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, AND 29, 21, WHICH IS ALSO BEING POSTPONED.

AND NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS BEING PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PECK.

COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYNES? YES.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET? YES.

MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL.

ITEM I'M GOING TO TAKE ON A, A BIT OUT OF ORDER IS ITEM NUMBER 29, UH, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATION OF THREE PRIMARY ME MEMBERS TO THE P T A C AND THE BYLAWS COMMITTEE.

[29. Nomination of three primary members and one alternate member to serve on the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PCTAC) Nominating Committee and Bylaws Committee.]

ITEM NUMBER 29.

DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THE THREE PRIMARY MEMBERS AND AN ALTERNATE MEMBER? I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MEREDITH SIEGEL FOR, UM, ONE OF THE POSITIONS, PRIMARY POSITION AND STAFF.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY IF, IF I MAY THANK YOU, LOGAN.

SORRY.

DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANT TO HAVE ONE COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT BOTH OR DID WE WANNA DO SEPARATE NOMINATING AND BYLAW COMMITTEES? IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO DO ONE COMMITTEE FOR BOTH TASKS.

AGREED.

ALRIGHT.

SO I HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, UH, AT THIS TIME.

WOULD THAT BE FOR A PRIMARY OR AN ALTERNATE SLOT? WAS THAT NOMINATION? PRIMARY.

PRIMARY.

UH, WE CAN DO A VOICE VOTE FOR THIS ONE.

I I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER PECK FOR A PRIMARY MEMBER.

I NEED TO TAKE A LOOK? CAN WE HAVE EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE? I THINK THE BYLAWS REFERENCE THAT.

THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

AND THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND ONE MORE PRIMARY I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE JOHN BUSTAMONTE.

CAN

[00:05:01]

IT'S A PLANNING COMMISSION.

I, I THINK YOU'RE, YEAH.

I NOMINATE COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYNES.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A REGULAR, NOT AN EX-OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.

THOSE OPPOSED? THE SLOT FOR AN ALTERNATE WOULD SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ONE OF THE THREE PRIMARY MEMBERS.

THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

AND THOSE AND THOSE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT WE WILL TAKE IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS JUST BEING PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL.

[5. 20-11800388: Request by Richard Mott, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd., and Michael C. Brisch, PHSA - NW 315, LLC., for approval to subdivide a tract of land to establish Waterwheel Subdivision Unit 8A, generally located northeast of the intersection of Culebra Road and State Highway 211 North. Staff recommends Approval. (Kelsey Salinas, Planner, 210-207-7898, Kelsey.salinas@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

IT IS 2 0 6 AND COMMISSIONER PECK HAS LEFT THE ROOM.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND COMMISSIONER PROFIT MOTION.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.

UH, COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER UH, MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER BUSTAMANTE.

UH, COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES.

ITEM WE'LL TAKE IS ITEM NUMBER 16.

UM, MOTION PASSES HIS APPROVAL.

IT IS 2 0 7 AND COMMISSIONER PECK HAS REJOINED THE MEETING.

UH, NEXT

[16. (POSTPONED) PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600084 (Council District 6): A request by Killen, Griffin & Farrimond PLLC, representative, for Approval of a Resolution amending the West/Southwest Sector Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use classification from “General Urban Tier" to "Specialized Center" on 42.4 acres out of NCB 34400, generally located in the 1600 Block of West Loop 1604 North. (Mirko Maravi, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0107, mirko.maravi@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

DO WE NEED TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? UM, SINCE THIS ITEM IS POSTPONED? NO, 16 AND 21 ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED TODAY.

JUST IN CASE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE IS HERE FOR ITEMS NUMBER 16 OR 21, UM, THOSE HAVE BEEN POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 17TH.

THEY'VE BEEN POSTPONED.

UH, THEY WILL HAVE TO RE NOTIFY AND SEND OUT NEW NOTICES AND DO THE EXPRESS NEWS SO THEY'RE ON HOLD PENDING.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

UH, NEXT ON THE AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER

[17. (Continued from 10/13/2021) PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600052 (Council District 3): A request, by Raymundo Rivera, applicant, for Approval of a Resolution amending the Heritage South Sector Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City by changing the future land use classification from "Country Tier" to "Rural Estate Tier" on 5.04 acres out of CB 4012, located at 19779 Pleasanton Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700121) (Joyce Palmer, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0315, Joyce.Palmer@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department). ]

17.

ALL RIGHT.

ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND TO THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN FROM COUNTRY TIER TO RURAL ESTATE TIER, LOCATED AT 19 7 7 9 PLEASANTON ROAD.

THERE WERE EIGHT NOTICES MAILED THREE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.

AND THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLAN AMENDMENT TO RURAL ESTATE TIER TO REZONE TO RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPOSED RURAL ESTATE TIER IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED LAND USE IN THE AREA AND WOULD NOT MATCH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA PER ANNEXATION AGREEMENT IN 2017.

THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA WERE ZONED RP RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTRICT TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

AMENDING THE PLAN TO RURAL ESTATE TIER WILL INCREASE DENSITY AND WILL NOT MEET THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR.

PLAN GOALS AND LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS COUNTRY TIER ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, THE ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A ZONING CASE FROM RP RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTRICT.

RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT.

STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT, MUNDO RIVERA IS PRESENT.

THE RED ROOF IS A HOMESTEAD, AND THE CONCRETE AREA OVER CLOSE TO RIGHT THERE, UM, THERE'S A CONCRETE PAD AND A SEPTIC TANK THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? DO I CONTROL IT OR DO YOU CONTROL IT? GOT IT.

YEP.

I'LL WAIT FOR THE COPIES ARE BEING PASSED.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

UH, THE OWNERS COULDN'T BE HERE, BUT THEIR SON AND DAUGHTER ARE HERE.

JESSICA BERTO.

SO THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THEY'RE RIGHT BEHIND ME.

UH, SO AS, UH, JOYCE, I THINK IT WAS, JOYCE HAD MENTIONED THE ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RP AND THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR RE THE IMPETUS FOR THE REZONING AND LAND USE CHANGE IS WHEN YOU DO A REPLANT, THEY LOOK AT THE REZONING AT THE ZONING AREA.

SO IF THE ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW FOR SMALLER DENSITY OR GREATER DENSITY THAN THE PLA WON'T BE APPROVED OR EVEN LOOKED AT.

SO CURRENTLY THE ACREAGE IS FIVE ACRES,

[00:10:01]

UH, JESSICA SPEAK TO THAT OR DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? SO THEY'RE HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

THEY APPLIED FOR A SEPTIC TANK AND GOT APPROVED.

SO NOW IT'S ON HOLD BECAUSE WE'RE IN THIS CONUNDRUM WHERE THE ZONING DOESN'T JIVE WITH THE REPLAY PROCESS.

SO SAY SOMETHING.

OH, JUST PRESENT, LIKE WHICH WE WANTED DO.

UM, SO JUST, UM, SIDE NOTE, JUST IN CASE YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THE HISTORY, YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE.

EXCUSE ME.

UMTO MACIAS.

UM, THIS IS FOR THE 19 77 9 PLEASANTON.

UM, BUT YEAH, JUST IN CASE, UM, UNAWARE, UH, HISTORY OF THIS PIECE OF LOT, UM, MY FATHER PURCHASED THIS OVER 15 YEARS AGO.

SUPER HUMBLE, UH, PIECE OF LAND, UM, VERY OVERGROWN.

DEFINITELY WASN'T, UM, NEARLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.

UM, AT THAT AGE I HAD NO, UM, I DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD THINKING OF WHAT HE HAD BOUGHT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS JUST SO, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, VERY HUMBLE, OVERGROWN, STUFF LIKE THAT.

UM, YEAR OVER YEAR DEFINITELY TURNED ME, MY FAMILY, MY MOTHER, UH, DEFINITELY BELIEVERS JUST BECAUSE, UM, LIKE I SAID, VERY HUMBLE, OVERGROWN, THERE WASN'T MUCH SUSTAINABILITY TO HAVE A HOUSE THERE, LET A WHOLE, LET ALONE MULTIPLE HOMES.

UM, SO THROUGH THE YEARS, I MEAN, IT'S JUST BEEN PART OF THE FAMILY.

UM, AND JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH THERE, I MEAN, AND RIGHT NOW WE JUST LIKE TO, UM, KIND OF JUST MOVE FORWARD AND BE ABLE TO, UH, BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN OUR WHOLE FAMILY THERE BECAUSE AGAIN, MY FATHER HAD A VISION THAT WE WEREN'T NECESSARILY SEEING IT.

UM, SEEING HIM SPEND HIS FREE TIME, HIS WEEKENDS, GOING OUT THERE CLEANING INCH BY INCH, FOOT BY FOOT, YARD BY YARD, UM, IT'S VERY INSPIRING, INSPIRED ME, INSPIRED MY SISTER, JUST TO SEE HOW MUCH HARD WORK CAN GO THROUGH.

AND, UM, IT'S, UH, FITS HERE A CERTAIN WAY, JUST KNOWING THAT WE WERE HAVING THESE PLANS TO DO SOME TYPE OF THING.

AND IT'S VERY, IT'S, UM, RESPECTFUL.

IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING, BUT, UM, JUST IT'S KIND OF UNDERSTAND JUST IT, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY AND, UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN VOTE IN OUR FAVOR AND JUST HAVE MY DAD SEE HIS VISION KIND OF BE FULFILLED.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING EIGHT OVER 18 YEARS IN THE MAKING, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I DO HAVE THE, I DO HAVE THE SEPTIC DEPART IF YOU WANNA SEE IT.

IT HAS THE DATE, THE ADDRESS THAT WAS, UH, GRANTED BY THE COUNTY.

THAT'S PAGE PLEASE.

SO, UH, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, NOTICES WERE SENT, THERE'S ONE CHECK THERE.

THE ONE OWNER OWNS TWO LOTS, TWO AND A HALF ACRES EACH.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, A POINT OF, OF NOTIFICATION, THE RP IS SURROUNDED BY O C L.

I'D SAY SAY LIMITS.

I DUNNO IF YOU CAN SEE IT THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR PRINT.

THAT'S THE INTENT FOR THE PLAT WHEN IT'S, WHENEVER THEY START WITH THE ENGINEER.

UH, THE RED HOUSE IS IN HOMESTEAD CURRENTLY.

THAT'S WHERE THE FAMILY, ALL THE FAMILY LIVES, PARENTS AND SIBLINGS.

UH, THERE'LL BE A TWO ACRE LOT, UH, BEHIND IT, ANOTHER TWO ACRE LOT WITH THE ACCESS EASEMENT AND THEN THE ONE ACRE LOT IN THE FRONT, WHICH HAS ALL THAT FRONTAGE.

NEXT PAGE, UH, THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR, UH, RE PLATS WITH THE SMALLER, WITH THE GREATER DENSITY.

UH, I FOUND TWO OF THEM NEXT PAGE.

THESE ARE BOTH NORTH THE STARS, THE FIVE ACRE LOTT.

AND THE CIRCLE AND THE OVAL ARE TWO PLASS THAT WERE DONE IN 2010 AND 2013.

NEXT PAGE.

THIS IS THE ONE FROM 2013.

TOP RIGHT CORNER HAS THE DATE.

13 NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT.

UH, SO THE LATS 1, 2, 3, THEY'RE ALL UNDER 10 ACRES, WHICH IS THE RP, WHICH IS THE COUNTY TIER, UM, ESTABLISHED PER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANT NEXT.

THEN THIS OTHER PLATT ALSO HAS ALL THE LOTS UNDER 10 ACRES, 1.7 AND LESS THAN ONE AND A ONE AND A HALF NEXT.

SO CURRENTLY, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, THE COUNTY TIER IS THE LAND USE, UH, AND KINDA HOW TO READ IT.

BUT THE COUNTY TIER, THAT SECOND LINE GENERALLY SAYS LOTS ARE GREATER THAN 10 ACRES.

SO NONE OF THE LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE 10 ACRES, NONE OF THEM.

SO I THINK, I BELIEVE THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING IS MISAPPLIED IN THIS AREA.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE RE AND THAT IS ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ON THE RIGHT OR FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THE RIGHT.

LOTS GREATER THAN HALF AN ACRE.

SO AGAIN, COUNTY TIER I BELIEVE IS MISAPPLIED AND I, I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE RE FOR, FOR GREATER DENSITY ALLOWING FOR PLATS.

AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

STAFF'S GOAL HERE IS TO UPHOLD THE, YOU KNOW, THE A THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2017, WHICH SAID THAT, UM, RESERVE TO RESERVE THESE RESOURCES IN THIS AREA FOR THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

I'LL START ON MY LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

UH, FOR STAFF, MAINLY, UH, A POINT HAS BEEN MADE THAT, THAT FROM THE O C L, WHICH IS SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE NEAREST INTERSECTION, NONE OF THE LOTS ARE 10 ACRES.

HOW IS THIS APPROPRIATELY, UH, MASTER PLAN NOW? RIGHT.

SO, UH,

[00:15:01]

AND SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT, BESIDES JUST THE 10 ACRES, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY, IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE CRITERIA FOR THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN, IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT, IT SAYS THE AMENDMENT MUST CONSTITUTE AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT AND NOT SOLELY BENEFIT A PARTICULAR LANDOWNER OR OWNER'S OF PROPERTY AT A PARTICULAR TIME.

SO STAFF, WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UPHOLD THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

BUT, BUT AGAIN, NONE OF THE PROPERTY MEETS, I MEAN, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO MEET.

SO THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT, THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT? WHENEVER YOU BRING LAND USE INTO AN AREA AFTER IT'S BEEN ANNEXED, SOME OF THE PROPERTIES ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING.

WELL, YEAH, BUT WHEN THEY GET ANNEXED, THE ZONING THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED SHOULD BE BASED ON THE EXISTING USE, THE ESTABLISHED USES.

IF NONE OF THEM MEET THE USE THAT YOU'RE APPLYING, HOW IS IT APPROPRIATE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL IF NONE OF THEM THAT'S WHAT I'M, IT'S, IT'S SO CONFUSING TO ME IS IT'S NOT JUST ONE LOT OR SOME ABNORMAL, UH, ANOMALY.

THIS IS ALL OF THEM.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE.

AND, AND THEN YOU HAVE, UH, PLATS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING DONE THAT SOMEHOW SNUCK THROUGH.

UM, I'M JUST, UH, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THIS WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

I COMPLETELY, I I DON'T GET IT.

SO THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

SO I MEAN, I'M OKAY.

ANYWAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER DKI A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.

UH, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN ON THIS PLAN IS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY? YES SIR.

IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY THEIR PLAN.

THEY'RE, IT IS THEIR PROPERTY.

I'M JUST, UH, I'M A FRIEND OF A, OF A COLLEAGUE.

BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, CHRIS, UH, THEY WANNA BUILD, I KNOW THE APPLICATION SAYS FOUR, THEY REALLY ONLY WANNA BUILD TWO MORE.

SO IT'D BE A TOTAL OF THREE HOMES.

'CAUSE THERE'S ONLY THREE LOTS IF IT GETS PLOTTED, IF IT GETS APPROVED.

SO FOR, YEAH, RIGHT THERE.

SO TO ADD MORE, TWO MORE, TWO MORE.

RIGHT.

SO THE FOUNDATION FAMILIES AND SEP THE TANK ARE ALREADY THERE FOR THE ONE ACRE LOT.

EVENTUALLY UMBERTO WILL BUILD ON THE TWO ACRE LOT IN THE BACK AND THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WILL BE PART OF THE PLAT.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET, NO REAL QUESTIONS, BUT THE INTENTION IS THAT THIS IS FOR THE FAMILY'S USE THESE THREE LOTS, CORRECT? UH, NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER PECK DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT MAYBE, WELL, MAYBE I DO.

DO YOU KNOW, IS THERE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY TO THOSE? THERE IS, YES.

MY PARENTS.

SO IT'S SAUL'S WATER OR THEY CAN, OKAY.

THERE IS.

AND THEN SEPTIC TANK, OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTY.

OKAY, GREAT.

COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYES.

UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO UNDER RURAL ESTATE TIER, UM, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM, MAYBE THIS IS ZONING, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IS, IS THERE A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BECAUSE, UM, TYPICALLY WHEN WE'VE SEEN RURAL ESTATE HERE THEY ARE IN MORE RURAL AREAS.

SO IS, IS THERE A CONCERN THAT UNDER THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION, THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE UNITS WITHIN THIS? I MEAN, AND, AND IN MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? RIGHT.

WELL, A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE, ARE INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND, AND IT'S JUST THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AGAIN.

SO THAT, IT JUST GOES BACK TO THAT RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

UM, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT THEY WANNA DO FOR THEIR FAMILY.

THEY CAN, THEY'RE CERTAINLY HERE ASKING FOR THAT AND THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A CONCERN PARTICULARLY WITH RURAL ESTATE HERE IN TERMS OF, UM, THE LAND USE ITSELF.

BUT THE DENSITY DOES HAVE A CONCERN FOR STAFF.

SO MAYBE THAT'S MY QUESTION.

SO IS, IS THIS, WHAT IS THE MAX DENSITY THAT COULD BE, UM, UTILIZED UNDER RURAL ESTATE HERE? IT'S ONE HOME PER ACRE.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT FIVE HERE POTENTIALLY.

[00:20:01]

UM, ACTUALLY IT'S A FOLLOW UP TO THE QUESTION POSED BY COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYES.

IF THERE ARE FIVE POTENTIAL, UM, HOMES THAT COULD BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY, THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

CAN YOU REPEAT IT? WELL, WE, WE JUST HEARD THAT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY FIVE HOMES THAT COULD BE BUILT ON THIS FIVE ACRE LOT BECAUSE THEIR DENSITY REQUIREMENT IS, OR THE DENSITY LIMIT IS ONE HOME PER ACRE.

SO IF NO, NO, UH, THAT'S UNDER RURAL ESTATE HERE.

THEY CURRENTLY HAVE COUNTRY TIER.

OH MY APOLOGIES THEN.

NO QUESTIONS.

IT'S AUTOMATICALLY GONE.

CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT COUNTRY TIER WOULD ALLOW? IT'S THE RP RESOURCE PROTECTION.

SO NO ADDITIONAL HOMES AT THIS POINT.

AS, AS IS SINGLE FAMILY.

RIGHT? A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

USUALLY OUR SIX, NOT A SINGLE.

NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO UNDER ITS CURRENT LAND USE, WHICH IS COUNTRY TIER TIER IS THE MAXIMUM, IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED 10 ACRES? THAT'S FOR THE ZONING.

IT'S EXISTING NON-CONFORMING.

SO, SO AS PER THE CURRENT ZONING, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IS 10 ACRES? YES.

SO THIS LOT IS ONLY FIVE ACRES, SO THAT'S ALREADY NON-CONFORMING TO THAT, RIGHT? YES.

SO THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ON THIS NO MATTER WHAT EVER MORE THAN WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

YES SIR.

SO THAT KIND OF LEADS ME BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER ORIAN IS SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF AGREE WITH HIM IN THAT THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER PLATS OUT THERE THAT HAVE LESS THAN 10 ACRE LOTS.

SO I MEAN, IT SEEMS A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS TO PICK ON ONE PERSON WHEN ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THESE GUYS ARE TRYING TO DO.

LET ME GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.

UM, SO WHEN THE PLAN, THE ORIGINAL SOUTH PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED, UH, THE CITY SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN WAS ADOPTED BACK IN 2003.

UM, WHAT WAS LOOKED AT WAS THAT IT ENVISIONED THAT THIS AREA WOULD BE, UM, WOULD HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL USES.

AND SO THE UH, THE PUSH WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T INCREASE DENSITY THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH A LOT OF THOSE INDUSTRIAL USES.

'CAUSE WE ENVISIONED WE WERE GONNA HAVE A LARGE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYER AND WE WOULD HAVE O OTHER EMPLOYERS THAT WOULD TIED TO THAT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYER.

SO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ADD MORE HOMES, GET MORE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES.

UH, SO IN 2010, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, THE HERITAGE CHILD SOUTH SECTOR PLAN WAS ADOPTED THAT REPLACED THE CITY SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN.

AND AGAIN, UH, THE PURPOSE WAS TO PRESERVE, CONSERVE AND MAKE SURE TO LIMIT THE, THE DENSITY WITHIN THIS AREA BECAUSE OF THOSE LARGE INDUSTRIAL USES.

SO WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPLIED, IT DID CREATE WHAT WE CALL NON-CONFORMING, LOTS OF RECORD, BUT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD BASED ON THEIR ZONING TODAY.

BUT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD ANY MORE.

SO EVEN THOUGH THEY, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD, THEY CAN STILL HAVE A HOME.

THE THE HOME IS NOT NON-CONFORMING, IT'S JUST THE LOT DOESN'T MEET THE LOT SIZE, BUT THEY'RE ABLE TO STILL BUILD ON IT NO MATTER WHAT.

UM, I THINK, UH, THE OTHER QUESTION WAS HOPEFULLY I CAUGHT THEM ALL.

ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

OKAY, SORRY.

UM, SO UNDER THE CURRENT COUNTRY TIER, WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES THEY CAN BUILD? ? SORRY, SORRY, IT'S IT'S A LOT TO GO THROUGH.

SORRY.

IT WAS ABOUT THE LAND USE.

SO REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND USE CATEGORIES VERSUS ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO THE COUNTRY TIER LAND USE ALLOWS, UH, SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT LESS DENSITY.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 10 ACRES PER LOT ONE HOME.

UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY COULD DO TODAY.

THEY CAN BUILD ONE HOME, THEY HAVE ONE HOME, SO IT'S, IT'S COMPLIANT.

THEY DON'T NEED TO DO ANYMORE.

BUT WHAT THEY WANNA DO IS THEY WANNA ADD MORE DENSITY TO SUBDIVIDE IT INTO FURTHER LOTS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THAT DENSITY.

TO DO THAT, THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FIRST TO A LAND USE LIKE REAL ESTATE TIER IN ORDER TO REZONE TO A NEW ZONING DISTRICT OF RE THAT WOULD ALLOW ONE HOME PER ONE ACRE.

AND THEN I BELIEVE THEY JUST GOT THE APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION, WAS THAT CORRECT? THEY A ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

DEPENDING UPON WHAT HAPPENS HERE IS STONEVILLE TO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL.

DID THAT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THE ZONING? OKAY.

[00:25:02]

STORY TIME, YES.

BUT IT SOUNDED A LITTLE BIT LIKE STAFF WASN'T TOO OPPOSED TO THE RURAL ESTATE TIER, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, YES, WE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL MAINTAIN THE CURRENT COUNTRY TIER BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY MORE DENSITY IN THIS AREA.

ARE WE SEEING THAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? YES, WE ARE IN THIS AREA, YES.

AND SOME OF THOSE EMPLOYERS ARE GROWING AS WELL? I MEAN, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT MORE 18 WHEELER TRUCK TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THIS AREA, UM, ON SOME SMALL ROADS, SO WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE COGNIZANT OF THAT AS WE, UM, LOOK AT, UH, REQUESTS FOR MORE DENSITY.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, UH, CATHERINE.

SO A LOT OF THESE LOTS ARE UNDER, WELL THEY'RE ALL UNDER 10 ACRES.

SO AS A LANDOWNER, IF THEY WANTED TO EVER PLA THEIR LAND EVEN AS A SINGLE LOT, YOU WOULDN'T LET 'EM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE ZONING.

CORRECT? WE WOULD, IT WOULD JUST BE QUALIFIED AS A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEEK A C CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IF IT WAS ALREADY IN, IN THAT EXISTENCE IF THE LOT WAS ALREADY IN THAT CONFIGURATION PRIOR TO THE ZONING.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I WAS GONNA WAIT TILL YOU WENT BACK.

AND THEN ASK YOU A QUESTION.

SO, SO THE, THE LOTS, THE PLATTS THAT WE, THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT SHOWED TO THE NORTH WERE, WERE THOSE IN COUNTRY TIER AND THEY WERE APPROVED THROUGH I MEAN, PLANNING OR I BELIEVE THOSE WERE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.

THEY'RE INSIDE THE CITY.

SO THE GRAY AREA IS THE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS ON, ON THE WEST SIDE OF PLEASANTON ROAD.

THOSE ARE ALL ZONE RESOURCE PROTECTION.

YOU'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF THAT AS YOU GET TOWARDS THE, THE MIDDLE AREA OF THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN.

YOU'RE GONNA SEE A LOT MORE OF THE, UM, LAND USES THAT REALLY LIMIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, BUT THE, AND THEY'RE LIKELY FOLLOWING THAT PROCESS THAT KAT MENTIONED IN ORDER TO PLOT.

SO THOSE ARE STILL ZONED RP, BUT, AND THE LAND USE DIDN'T CHANGE IS STILL, IS THAT STILL COUNTRY? I BELIEVE IT'S STILL COUNTRY TIER.

A LOT OF THAT AREA IS GONNA BE COUNTRY TIER, BUT THE PLATS WERE APPROVED, PLATS MAY BE APPROVED BASED ON HOW THEY'RE IN THAT CONFIGURATION.

AND AGAIN, EVEN IF THEY DON'T MEET THE 10 ACRES, THEY COULD STILL BUILD ONE LOT ONE HOME PER LOT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

, UH, CLARIFICATION.

SO THE CLOSEST PLANT, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT PLANT, IS TOYOTA, AT LEAST WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ON THE MAP.

UM, DO WE KNOW HOW CLOSE THEIR ADDITIONAL LAND GETS TO THIS PORTION? SO I KNOW THAT TOYOTA STILL HAS LAND TO BUILD ON, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THAT IS.

AND I KNOW THAT THEY ALSO HAVE A BUFFER WHEN THEY PURCHASE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE.

THIS PROPERTY LINE TO THE TOYOTA PROPERTY LINE IS A LITTLE OVER TWO MILES.

AND THAT, AND DO WE KNOW IF THAT INCLUDES THE BUFFER THAT THEY INCLUDED WHEN THEY PURCHASED THAT LAND? YES, IT INCLUDES ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY.

SO TWO MILES.

AND THEN CLARIFICATION FROM, FROM EITHER OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, PLEASE.

UM, IT'S SEMI IRRELEVANT WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USE, BUT THESE TWO OR THE THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT WILL BE, UM, SPECIFIC TO YOU ALL'S FAMILY OR YOU PLAN TO SELL OR RENT? NO, IT WOULD BE FOR MYSELF.

UM, MY PARENTS ARE IN THE MIDDLE END AND MY BROTHER WOULD BE IN THE BACK.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S, UM, APPLICATION TO CHANGE TO RURAL ESTATE TIER.

SO TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THE DENIAL.

I, I REC, UM, I MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S CHANGE REQUEST.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HANE.

UH, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

UH, CARILLO HAYNES? YES.

COMMISSIONER GAR.

UH, COMMISSIONER ZUKI APPROVED.

MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

UH, MADAM CHAIR GONZAL.

CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.

A MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL.

TO 19, UH, SINCE THIS IS THE CONTINUANCE THAT I MESSED UP EARLY ON.

UH, I'M GOING TO JUMP

[19. PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600073 (Council District 1): A request by Bexar Engineers and Associates, applicant, for Approval of a Resolution amending the Greater Dellview Community Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use classification from “Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" on Lot 18-20, Block 163, NCB 7118, located at 1431 Thorain Boulevard. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700216) (Summer McCann, Planner, (210) 207-5876, summer.mccann@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

SO NUMBER 19 IS, UM, BEING REQUESTED FOR A CONTINUANCE UNTIL

[00:30:01]

NOVEMBER 17TH.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A STAFF OR APPLICANT PRESENTATION? YES.

SHE'S JUST GONNA BRIEFLY READ IT INTO THE RECORD.

IS THIS THANK GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS SUMMER MCCANN ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ITEM NUMBER 19, AS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION, AMENDING THE GREATER BELLEVUE COMMUNITY PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

LOCATED AT 1431 TERRAIN BOULEVARD.

THERE WERE 15 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.

NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.

THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 17TH, UH, HEARING APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

HI, I AM CHRIS REPRESENTING BAR ENGINEERS AND ASSOCIATES, AND WE REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

A CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER 17TH.

ANY, UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE, OR, I'M SORRY, NOT TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE.

SO MOVED.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PECK.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

COMMISSIONER DE SUKI APPROVE.

COMMISSIONER AYE.

A MOTION PASSES FOR CONTINUANCE.

ITEM NUMBER 24, WHICH IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED FOR A CONTINUANCE ON NOVEMBER 17TH.

NOW JUMPING TO

[24. PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600093 (Council District 5): A request by Abdelhakim Rafati, applicant, for Approval of a Resolution amending the West/Southwest Sector Plan, a Component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use classification from “General Urban Tier" to "Regional Center" on Lots 23-27, Block 16, NCB 7502, located at 4036 Culebra Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700267 (Summer McCann, Planner, (210) 207-5876, summer.mccann@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? MY NAME IS SUMMER MCCANN ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE WEST SOUTH SECTOR PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM GENERAL URBAN TIER TO REGIONAL CENTER, LOCATED AT 40 36 CALERA ROAD ROAD.

THERE WERE 31 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.

CBRA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED NO RESPONSE FROM LOMA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 17TH HEARING AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

YES, MY NAME IS HAKEEM RDI AND, UH, WE REQUEST A CONTINUOUS.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 17TH.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HANES? YES.

COMMISSIONER UH, MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

COMMISSIONER BUSANTE.

UM, MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.

UM, MADAM MOTION PASSES FOR CONTINUANCE.

UH, INDIVIDUAL

[18. (Continued from 10/13/2021) PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600090 (Council District 1): A request by Robert Delgado, applicant, for Approval of a Resolution amending the Midtown Neighborhood Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use classification from “Low-Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" on the West 100 feet of Lot 25 and South 56.7 feet of Lot 26, NCB 6521, located at 1023 Aganier Avenue. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700247) (Richard Bautista-Vazquez, Planner, (210) 207-0215, richard.bautista-vazquez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

ITEM NUMBER 18.

DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? OKAY, THAT'S IT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, RICHARD, ABOUT THESE DE VASQUEZ, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY PLANNER.

UM, ITEM 18 IS A REQUEST OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM NO DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 1 0 2 3 AGNE AVENUE.

THERE WERE 23 NOTICES MAILED TO IN FAVOR.

FIVE OPPOSED.

AND BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.

THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE SAN ANTONIO TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NOR IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN EXPRESSES A CLEAR DESIRE THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BE PRESERVED AND THAT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BE LOCATED AT, AT AN ARTERIAL THOROUGH FARES OR OTHER MAJOR STREETS.

AGONY AVENUE IS A LOCAL STREET WHILE NEARBY.

VANCO ROAD IS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL ALONG WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PRESCRIBES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FUTURE LAND USE.

STAFF COMMENDED DENIAL STAFF WITH LIABLE QUESTIONS AND ATTEMPT TO CONTACT MR. DELGADO HAS BEEN MADE.

UM, IF YOU SEE MR. DELGADO, IS, IS MR. DELGADO PRESENT? THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.

[00:35:01]

UH, WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, SIMA.

VIN APOLOGIES IF I, IF I BUTCHERED YOUR NAME MA'AM.

YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE.

OSA MC COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I HAVE SOME VISUAL AIDS AS CHRIS IS GONNA PUT UP AS I GO THROUGH MY STATEMENT.

DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MET TWICE WITH THE APPLICANT'S BROKER AND ONCE WITH THE APPLICANT WHO IS THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT AND FAIR TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WORKED ON THE CREATION OF OUR MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN.

THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADHERED TO THE PLAN OVER THE YEARS AND THOSE THAT COME TO US WITH VARIOUS ZONING REQUESTS, WE USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS OUR GUIDING DOCUMENT.

THE PLAN HAS THIS BLOCK OF AGONE AND MUCH OF THE INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATED FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS DEFINED IN OUR PLAN AS ONE TO TWO UNITS.

THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLAN TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE M F 18 ZONING IS CONTRARY TO OUR PLAN BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR HIGHER DENSITY IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY BLOCK.

WHEN WE HAVE PLANNED OUR DENSITY FOR CORRIDORS CORNERS AND SPECIFIC BLOCKS, MF 18 ZONING ON THIS HALF ACRE LOT WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO NINE UNITS.

IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CLARIFICATION, UH, CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION IN OUR PLAN.

AND I QUOTE, IF A STRUCTURE WAS BUILT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND CURRENTLY IS USED AS A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HIGHEST PREFERENCE IS FOR THE HOUSE TO RETURN TO SINGLE FAMILY USE WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION.

THE DIRECTION END QUOTE, THE DIRECTION OF ADDING MULTI-FAMILY TO AN L D R LOT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ALREADY ON IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENT.

WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND CONSIDER THAT ONE OF THE PROPOSED DUPLEXES WOULD BE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOMES AND BACKYARDS OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

MR. RICKS AT 10 15 AGNE, WHICH IS, UH, RIGHT AT THE END OF THE FLAG, HAS LIVED IN THAT HOME FOR 22 YEARS.

IMAGINE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE ALL OF A SUDDEN POPPING UP BEHIND YOUR BACKYARD.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS RECENTLY SUPPORTED A REZONING OF INFILL DEVELOPMENTS WITH THOSE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH OUR PLAN.

FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PLANNED ON BLANCO ROAD JUST NORTH OF MAGNOLIA, AND WE WERE JUST AT ZONING COMMISSION LAST WEEK TO SUPPORT A REZONING FOR A DUPLEX ON BLANCO, BLANCO AND ASHBY.

WE'VE MET WITH DEVELOPERS PLANNING TO BUILD FOUR TOWN HOMES ON THE CORNER OF GRANT AND ASHBY AND 12 TOWN HOMES IN THE 800 BLOCK OF MAGNOLIA.

PLEASE CONSIDER THE WORK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO PLAN THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE OPPOSITION OF THE NEIGHBORS LIVING CLOSEST TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, UM, THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED AT ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL.

WE HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY, UH, EXCUSE ME, THE REPRESENTATIVE, MR. DELGADO, AND TO NO AVAIL.

SO WE'RE NOT SURE IF SOMETHING HAPPENED.

UH, BUT HE HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER OUR EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS.

HAS THAT BEEN THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS OR IS THAT WHAT THAT WAS A NEW NO, THIS SEEMS TO BE, BUT PART OF THE MOST RECENT, I MEAN, UH, THIS WAS CONTINUED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS WELL AND THEN, UM, AND ALSO AT THE ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH WAS OCTOBER 19TH.

SO SINCE BOTH CONTINUANCES OR, OR EVEN BEFORE THEN, HE HAS NOT BEEN RESPONSIVE, CORRECT? YEAH.

CORRECT.

I WILL START ON MY RIGHT HAND SIDE.

UH, COMMISSIONER, MY COMMISSIONER GARCIA, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, NO.

I MAKE, UH, SOME COMMENTS THAT MANY YEARS AGO WHEN, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, UH, PLANS WERE BEING APPROVED, THEY WERE TAKEN, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED THAT THIS WOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PROCESS OF PLANNING, ESPECIALLY WITH NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I I WILL SUPPORT THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT WE DO HAVE SIX VOICEMAILS TO PLAY ON THIS ITEM AS WELL.

THE APPLICANT'S PLANS ARE FOR THESE FOUR DWELLING UNITS AND THEY ARE, UH, DID WE GET LIKE ANY KIND OF A RENDERING OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? IS IT IN FACT, THE TWO STORY THAT, UM, AND I AND I I AM A SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

UH, I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS IF THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE OR THE PROPERTY OWNER OR ANYONE WAS HERE TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT NO ONE IS, SO I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, SO YOU SAID THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? YES.

OCTOBER 13TH.

AND THE, UM,

[00:40:01]

I JUST WANNA GET CLARIFICATION IN CASE WE, SOMEONE CHOOSES TO CONTINUE.

I WANNA UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE SINCE I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST PRESENTATION.

THE PROPOSED REZONING IS TO M F 18 AND SO YES, TECHNICALLY IT COULD HAVE TWO STORIES.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PECK.

UH, NO QUESTIONS.

UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU STAFF AND THANK YOU KOSSO FOR YOUR, UH, YOUR WORDS TODAY.

UM, I'M GONNA BE, UH, ACTUALLY SINCE THE APPLICANT CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SHOW UP OR RESPOND TO PHONE CALLS, I DON'T THINK I CAN BE BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM ANYMORE AND I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF'S DENIAL OF THE ITEM COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

JUST A QUESTION.

IF THE A APPLICANT, IF WE DENY AND IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH, CAN THEY, THEY COULD COME BACK AND, AND REAPPLY, GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN, CORRECT? IT, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.

YOU IT.

RIGHT.

SO THEY, UH, THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OR THEY COULD START OVER AGAIN MAYBE WHEN THEY'RE MORE AVAILABLE, BUT I AGREE AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, UH, CLEAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WANTS SOMETHING ELSE AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S GREAT TO SEE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN, IN MATTERS LIKE THIS.

AND I DO AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO, UH, TO FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

COMMISSIONER DKI.

UM, THE RECOMMENDATION WE MAKE HERE IS GONNA GO NEXT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION, CORRECT? WELL, IF THE APPLICANT'S READY TO MOVE FORWARD, WE STILL HAVE TO GET THEM INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

SO IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP, THIS IS GONNA STICK IN THAT PROCESS GONNA STAY HERE.

IT'LL, IT'LL STOP THE PROCESS UNTIL WE HEAR FROM HIM.

AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU, IF THE OWNER OF THE MEDIUM RESIDE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY DECIDED TO BUY THE LOT OF THE QUESTION OF TODAY AND REQUESTED TO EXTEND THE ZONING AND THE PLANNING OF THIS LOT TO EXPAND ON THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, WOULD THAT MAKE A DIFFERENT CASE TO WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY? WELL, IT WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERIT.

SO THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO APPLY FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER TO DO THAT KIND OF A PROJECT.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY VERY QUICKLY ON THE MOTION.

IT WOULD JUST BE SIMPLY A MOTION FOR DENIAL.

? SURE.

WE DO HAVE TO PLAY THE VOICEMAILS BEFORE.

COMMISSIONER GARCIA? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER BUSANTE? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, NO QUESTIONS.

SIX VOICEMAILS PLEASE, PLEASE PLAY THEM STAFF.

MY NAME IS SHERRY WONG FRANKS, MY ADDRESS IS 8 0 5 WEST AGARITA 7 8 2 1 2.

I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO THE CASE.

LAST THREE OF THE CASE NUMBER IS 0 9 0.

I WANT TO CONTEST, UH, THESE PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO BUILD TOO MANY APARTMENTS BACK THERE.

THERE'S NO PARKING NUMBER ONE.

AND, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF WRAP THAT GOES ON AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ESPECIALLY IN THE PARKING.

THERE'S, THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK BACK THERE, SO, UM, AGAIN, MY NUMBER'S 2 1 0 5 8 4 4 9 9 4.

I ATTEST THIS PROPERTY.

AND IT IS, THE CASE NUMBER IS PA 1 1 6 0 0 0 9 0.

NOT FEASIBLE FOR THIS STREET IN THIS AREA.

HI, MY NAME IS REBECCA GSOM.

I LIVE AT 8 0 3 WEST AGARITA, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

MY PHONE NUMBER IS (830) 377-7754.

I'M CALLING TO PROTEST THE ZONE REQUEST.

UM, CASE NUMBER Z 2 0 2 1 1 0 702 4 7.

IT'S THE ADDRESS OF 10 23 AGNE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

UM, THE, I WANNA PROTEST THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FALL IN LINE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S USE, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.

UM, WE ARE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS, UH, CHANGE TO A MEDIUM DENSITY IS

[00:45:01]

UM, THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH CONGESTION PARKING ISSUES AND IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH, UM, THE SPIRIT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I'M REQUESTING THAT DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE FOR 10 23 AGONE.

UM, I AM, UH, A HOMEOWNER, UM, AND HAVE LIVED HERE FOR EIGHT YEARS.

MY NAME IS HARDY GRISSOM.

I LIVE AT 8 0 3 WEST , JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM, UH, THE PRO PROPOSED, UM, ZONING CHANGE AT 1 0 2 3.

AGNE AGNE IS SPELLED A G A N I E R, BUT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER, UH, CHANGING THE ZONING FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.

THERE'S NO PARKING ANYWHERE.

IT'S TOTALLY CONGESTED.

THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OVER, OVER THERE AND THAT, THOSE THREE HOUSES CONSTANTLY.

AND I'M ONLY HERE DURING, YOU KNOW, AT NIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE DAY, BUT THERE'S TOTAL NONSENSE IN THAT, THAT GENERAL AREA OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

I, I SERIOUSLY DISAPPROVE OF, OF, UH, MAKING ANY ZONING CHANGES TO THAT LOCATION.

AGAIN, I'M CALLING ABOUT 1 0 2 3 AGONE JUST OFF THE CORNER OF SUMMIT STREET.

SPEAKING OF SUMMIT, THERE'S, UH, JUST A BLOCK AND A HALF DOWN.

YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T DRIVE THROUGH THERE WITH, UH, THE TOTAL CONGESTION SENTENCE.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN AT THIS LOCATION.

PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.

MY NAME IS JOSIE DELEY.

MY PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 8 0 8 WEST ATA IN SAN ANTONIO, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO.

MY PHONE NUMBER IS (208) 850-6643.

I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO LOW INCOME ZONING.

THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC ON THE STREET ON AGONE AND, UM, THE PE IT'S NOT SAFE TO WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THAT, THOSE TWO HOMES OVER THERE.

SO WE WANT TO PLEASE KEEP THAT ZONING OUT OF OUR AREA.

I PAY 10,000 A YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES AND TO HAVE LOW INCOME ZONING THERE, IT CAUSED MORE TRAFFIC AND CRIME IN OUR AREA WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL.

UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TWO ONE ZERO FIVE ZERO EIGHT ONE FIVE FIVE FOUR.

YES, GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS CARL SIMONS CALLING IN.

I LIVE AT 1 0 2 2 AGONE AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 3.

I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE, UH, UH, ADDRESS OF 10 23 AGONE, WHICH, UH, IS, UH, IS A PLANNED AMENDMENT.

AND THE, UH, UH, THE PA IS 2 0 2 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 9 0.

IT'S ABOUT THE, UH, REZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY AT 10 23 .

I'M AGAINST IT.

I DON'T WANT IT.

WE DON'T NEED IT HERE.

UH, AND THAT'S IT.

AGAIN, YOU CAN CONTACT ME AT AREA CODE 2 1 0 5 0 8 1 5 5 4.

THAT'S MY PRIVATE LINE.

I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET IN 10 22 AGNE AVENUE.

I WORKED DILIGENTLY TO MAKE SURE I HAD THE PERTINENT INFORMATION I NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY I WAS CONSIDERING COULD DO THE THINGS FOR ME THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR BOTH PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

BYE-BYE.

HI, SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE.

I'M CALLING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18 FOR 10 23 AGONE DEAR COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT LIVE WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION ZONE, I DO LIVE JUST AROUND THE CORNER ON MAGNOLIA BETWEEN AGIR AND BLANCO.

I AM AN INVESTOR AND LANDLORD, AND WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE THIS INVESTOR'S GOAL TO MAXIMIZE THE PROFITABILITY OF THEIR PURCHASE, I'M NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR CURRENT PREDICAMENT.

WHEN I PURCHASED MY PROPERTY IN 2006, MY BROKER AND

[00:50:01]

WE MADE SURE THAT I HAD A COPY OF THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS DURING THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD.

AND OF COURSE, WE VERIFIED THE ZONING.

THIS IS THE JOB OF THE INVESTOR AND HOPEFULLY THE BROKER.

IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM ALSO A HOUSING ADVOCATE, AND WHILE I LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE HOUSING, I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT SIMPLY A GAME OF NUMBERS.

LOCATION MATTERS, COMMUNITY SUPPORT MATTERS, RESULTS MATTER.

IN THIS CASE, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY THE REQUEST.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYNES.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PECK.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYNES, ROLL CALL PLEASE.

UH, UM, COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

COMMISSIONER JA SUKI? YES.

Y COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOR DENIAL.

AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

AND THANK YOU MS. COLVIN FOR, FOR COMING AND LEAVING A VOICEMAIL AS WELL.

APPRECIATE YOU.

UH, NEXT ITEM ON

[23. PLAN AMENDMENT PA-2021-11600092 (Council District 5): A request by Robert Votion, applicant, for Approval of a Resolution amending the South Central San Antonio Community Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use classification from “Low Density Residential" to "Regional Commercial" on the southeast triangular 29.62 feet of Lot 1, on the northeast 16.66 feet of Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, Lots 10 through 12, Block 10, NCB 8965, located at 719 Brighton Avenue and 714 Keats Street. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2021-10700261) (Rebecca Rodriguez, Planner, (210) 207-0120, Rebecca.Rodriguez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department).]

THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 23.

DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? GOOD AFTERNOON.

MARCO MBI, UH, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ITEM 23 IS PA 20 21 1 1 6 92.

I REQUESTED AMEND THE SOUTH CENTRAL SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT SEVEN 19 BRIGHTON AND SEVEN 14 KEATS 36 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR OR, UH, OPPOSITION.

THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED TO REZONE TO C THREE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO EXPAND THE EXISTING OPERATING BUSINESS THAT INTO THE ADJOINING LOTS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

REGIONAL COMMERCIALS ARE COMMONLY LOCATED ALONG MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FROM TRANSIT SYSTEM STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.

APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THEY WILL AMEND THEIR REQUEST TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, UH, STAFF AND APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

MAY YOU CLARIFY, UH, WITH THE AMENDED REQUEST, WOULD STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL? UH, WE GENERALLY WOULD NOT, UM, SUPPORT FURTHER, UM, COMMERCIAL INTO RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

UH, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

IS THE STAFF PRESENT? I MEAN, I'M SORRY.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES.

SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

MY NAME IS ROBERT BOSEN AND MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 1246 AVANT AVENUE.

AND, UH, THE REASON FOR WHY WE REQUEST, UH, THE R UH, EXCUSE ME, I'M PARDON.

THE REASON WHY WE REQUESTED THE C THREE ON R SIX IS BECAUSE THERE ALREADY IS A C THREE ON THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

ON THE NEW AREAS, WHICH IS R SIX, WE RECOMMEND THAT WE WOULD CHANGE IT TO A R ONE RATHER THAN C ONE C, EXCUSE ME, C ONE RATHER THAN A C THREE.

AND THIS WOULD CREATE MORE PARKING THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE, UH, CAR LOT.

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE PARKING ON THE STREETS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH PARKING, WHICH CREATES A LITTLE HAZARD.

UH, BY CREATING MORE PARKING, WE COULD ELIMINATE ALL THAT.

UH, AND BY HAVING IT AGAIN, UH, A C ONE, WE CAN HAVE LESS, UH, LESS DENSITY IN THE STREETS.

AND ARE YOU MAKING THE FORMAL REQUEST TODAY TO SWITCH FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? YES, I AM.

BEFORE WE TAKE QUESTIONS, CAN STAFF, UH, BRIEF US ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, LOW DENSITY AND WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? OKAY, SO INITIALLY THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS A CAR LOT WHICH NEEDS A C THREE ZONING.

[00:55:01]

HOWEVER, SINCE HE'S NOT GONNA BUILD ANYTHING ON THERE, HE CAN STILL, HE CAN GO TO THE C ONE, WHICH WILL PREVENT ANY ADDITIONAL C THREE USES BESIDES THE CAR LOT.

UM, THE, I BELIEVE HE AGREED TO THIS AFTER WE MADE THE PUBLICATION, SO IT'S TOO LATE FOR US TO OFFICIALLY CHANGE IT.

THAT'S WHY, UM, WE HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I'LL START ON MY LEFT.

COMMISSIONER ORIAN, I, YES, I MEAN I, THIS SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO ME.

I, I I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

YOU, YOUR, YOUR INTENT IS TO DEMOLISH THE, THE STRUCTURE AT SEVEN 14 KE AND REPLACE AN ENTIRELY WITH A PARKING AREA FOR YOUR CAR LOT BUSINESS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

AND, UM, ALSO THAT BUILDING THAT'S THEIRS HAS BEEN, UH, DAMAGED.

UH, THERE WAS FIRE DAMAGE TO IT.

THERE'S BEEN, UH, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THERE, SO WE'RE OKAY.

THANK YOU MUCH.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COMMISSIONER BUSANTE, UH, STAFF QUESTION, UM, THIS IS A C ONE CD THAT WILL GO TO ZONING? THAT'S CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER PECK, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

AND SO IN THAT CASE, ZONING CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO THAT USE SUCH AS FENCING, BUFFERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

HOURS OF OPERATION BUFFERS? YES, SIR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER GARCIA, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WILL STAFF IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, UH, WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE AMENDMENT? OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZUKI? NO QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER PROFIT? NO, NO, NO QUESTIONS.

UH, I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT THE CHANGE.

I, IT'S AN ABANDONED STRUCTURE.

UM, MOST OF IT IS ALONG 35, WHICH WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE I THINK FOR THIS LAND USE.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES, UM, I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THE MAP THAT'S UP IN FRONT OF US.

UM, THE HASHED AREA, I'M TRYING TO LINE IT UP WITH OUR MAPS AND WHAT I'M SEEING ON EVEN LIKE GOOGLE IMAGE, GOOGLE MAPS.

IS THERE A STRUCTURE ON THIS, UH, THAT THE LITTLE T PORTION THAT DROPS DOWN, NOT THE T THE, THE PORTION THAT STICKS, THAT TOUCHES BRIGHTEN, IS THERE, IS THERE CURRENTLY A STRUCTURE THERE? THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, SIR.

UH, RIGHT NOW WHERE IT SAYS, UH, SEVEN 14, RIGHT THERE, THERE IS A STRUCTURE THAT IS DAMAGED AND, UH, REALLY UNINHABITABLE.

BUT THE PROPERTY SOUTH, THAT IS JUST CAR LOT, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S TRUE.

UH, THAT THERE, WHAT YOU'RE POINTING AT IS A, UM, UH, JUST WHERE THEY DETAIL CARS.

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE FOR A SALES OFFICE.

COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? UH, I'M UNCLEAR ON WHAT PROCESS WE WOULD FOLLOW IF WE ARE, UM, GOING TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S.

I CAN CLARIFY THAT.

I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT, AND IN EVALUATING THIS AS, AS THE DISCUSSION IS PROCEEDING AND BEING CONSISTENT WITH OUR, OUR TRADITIONAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES, WE WOULD LIKELY RECOMMEND, STILL RECOMMEND DENIAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT SUPPORT FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD BE, UM, THE PROCESS FOR THE COMMISSION IF WE WERE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDED PO PETITION BY THE APPLICANT? WE WOULD NOT, YOU WOULD JUST MAKE THE MOTION, UH, AS A, A MOTION FOR WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE WITH, UH, THE AMENDED REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

SO IT'D BE A MOTION TO APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.

COMMISSIONER GARCIA.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

UH, CLARIFICATION.

HAVE WE HEARD, SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY AND WE APPROVE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT STILL LEAVES A SMALL PARCEL, UH, BETWEEN ON THE SOUTH PARK TOUCHING BRIGHTON, THAT'S LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL? CORRECT? THAT AREA IS CURRENTLY C THREE, SO IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE CHANGED TO, UH, ANY KIND OF LAND USE.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE SAME OWNER.

GREAT.

TO, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION.

ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NOW, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE.

UM, UH, ITEM NUMBER 23, PLAN AMENDMENT PA 20 21, 11 6 0 0 0 9 2

[01:00:02]

COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYES? YES.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ORIEN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.

PROFIT ROLL CALL PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER BUS MONTE.

UH, COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES.

UM, MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL FOR, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

IT IS 3 0 1 AND I AM GOING TO BE LEAVING THE MEETING AND I'M HANDING OVER THE GAVEL TO VICE CHAIR PECK.

IS THERE A STAFF PRESENTATION ON THAT? GOOD AFTERNOON.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

UH, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 28.

[28. Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending the approval of the proposed annexations of numerous properties, totaling approximately 443.81 acres of land, which are contiguous to the city limits and located within the City of San Antonio (City)'s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) in south and east Bexar County. Staff recommends Approval. (Clinton Eliason, Planning Coordinator, Planning Department, Clinton.Eliason@sanantonio.gov, 210-207-0268).]

UH, CLIN EISEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, PLANNING COORDINATOR.

THIS IS, UH, ITEM 28 IS PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF NUMEROUS PROPERTIES, UH, TOTALING 443.81 ACRES ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE CITY'S E T J.

UH, THE ANNEXATIONS WERE CONSENTED TO BY THE WAY, OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND EACH LANDOWNER.

UH, UH, GO BACK UP.

ONE WAS THAT THE SECOND, UH, DURING THE 2014 LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF SOUTH SAN ANTONIO AREA AND 2017 FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION.

UH, THE CITY ENTERED INTO AGRICULTURAL, UH, QUOTE UNQUOTE, UH, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH SEVERAL OWNERS OF PROPERTIES ASSESSED AGRICULTURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OR TIMBER MANAGEMENT BY THE, UH, APPRAISAL, APPRAISAL DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME, BCA, UH, BAIRD COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

UH, IT ALLOWED THE CONTINUATION OF AGRICULTURAL ORDER AS AN INDUSTRY AND PROPERTY TO REMAIN IN THE EXTRA, UH, JURISDICTIONAL STATUS.

UH, BASICALLY THEY REMAIN, THEY REMAINED OUTSIDE THE CITY.

NEXT, UH, HERE IS A TABLE SHOWING THE 10 PROPERTIES, UH, WHICH TOTAL THE 443 ACRES.

UM, THERE'S NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS, AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, UH, IN THE NOTES SECTION.

UH, A FEW OF THEM SUBDIVIDED, VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.

UM, ONE OR TWO OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS AND, UH, A COUPLE OF THEM ALSO NO LONGER HAVE THEIR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, UH, THEIR AGRICULTURAL VALUATION FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

UH, NEXT, UH, PLAN FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES, THE ANNEXATION WILL EXTEND FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO THE PROPERTIES AND ALL CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS WILL BE APPLIED.

ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTIES WILL PROVIDE A UNIFORM LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE ERIC, UH, AND THE ANNEX PROPERTIES WILL BE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS TWO AND FOUR.

HERE'S THE TIMELINE OF, UH, WHERE WE'RE GOING NEXT.

UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HERE PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT NOW, UH, ZONING COMMISSION NEXT WEEK.

CITY COUNCIL, UH, DECEMBER 2ND, AND THEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE AT THE END OF THE YEAR ON DECEMBER 31ST.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VILLA RESOLUTION, PLEASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THE, UH, I GUESS THE APPLICANT IS THE STAFF ON THIS ONE.

SO WE HAVE, UH, THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

UH, REMEMBER WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

UH, FIRST ON THE LIST IS RUSSELL BOLT.

YEAH, I'M RUSSELL BOLT AND I'M AT, UH, 5 9 7 9 NOISE ROAD, VON ARMY.

AND THE PROPERTY, I'M, UH, TALKING AGAINST, UH, Y'ALL ANNEXING WOULD BE A 63 ACRE PARCEL THAT I INHERITED, UH, YEARS AGO.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, FOUR YEARS AGO.

AND I'M KEEPING IT UNDER AG, UH, COASTAL OOA HAYFIELD.

AND I WAS JUST WANTING TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO KEEP IT,

[01:05:01]

UH, FROM BEING ANNEXED.

UH, I THINK THAT THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE WITH STAFF.

UM, FROM WHAT STAFF'S TELLING US THAT THEY'RE NOT AG EXEMPTED ANYMORE, THEY'VE LOST THEIR DESIGNATION, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BEING ANNEXED AT THIS TIME.

SO THAT'S A DISCUSSION I'LL HAVE TO HAVE WITH STAFF, NOT WITH THE COMMISSION.

WHAT IS THAT? UH, THE, THIS PARCEL SPECIFICALLY, UH, IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT, UH, SUBDIVIDED, UH, IT WOULD ORIGINALLY HAD A VERY LARGE PARCEL, UH, WITH THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

UH, IT WOULD BE NUMBER, UH, FIVE ON THERE.

UH, IT, OR LIKE I SAID, ORIGINALLY HAD A VERY LARGE PARCEL.

THEY SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD, UH, CREATED NEW PARCELS, SOLD THEM TO OTHER LANDOWNERS BECAUSE THEN MY, MY MOM WAS THE ONE THAT SIGNED THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SHE PASSED AWAY.

AND THEN IT WENT, WHEN IT WENT TO US KIDS, THERE'S FOUR OF US.

WELL, UH, I THINK THE TWO GIRLS THAT SOLD THEIR PARCELS, BUT ME AND MY BROTHER, WE STILL HAVE OUR TWO AND WE'RE STILL FARMING IT, SO, WHICH IS FINE.

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS WELL.

BUT I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN STILL KEEP FROM BEING ANNEXED OR, AGAIN, I THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS SOMETHING YOU'LL HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND DISCUSS.

IT'S NOT A DELIBERATION HERE AT THE COMMISSION ON WHETHER IT CAN STAY AG OR BE USED FOR WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THE ANNEXATION TODAY.

SO WHAT'S THAT? I'M SORRY.

WE'RE CONSIDERING THE ANNEXATION TODAY THAT THIS, THE QUESTIONS FROM THE APP OR FROM THE, FROM MR. BOLT, ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION.

I THINK IT'S A QUESTION BETWEEN YOU, BETWEEN MR. BOLT AND THE CITY.

SO I CAN TALK TO HIM AFTERWARDS, UH, IF NEED BE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UH, NEXT PERSON IS RANDALL BOLT.

HELLO, MY NAME'S RANDALL BOLT.

I HAD THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO MY BROTHER AND I'M IN THE SAME BOAT.

UM, WELL, I'M FARMING A RANCH IN MY PART 68 ACRES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT LIKE IT IS.

AND I DON'T PLAN ON, THERE'S NO STRUCTURE, NO, THERE'S NO HOUSES OR ANYTHING ON IT.

IT'S JUST CATTLE AND FARMLAND AND I, I JUST DON'T SEE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S LANDLOCKED.

THERE'S NO STREETS, NO STREETS THAT TOUCHES IT.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHAT, WHY IT SHOULD BE ANNEXED.

AND, UH, I JUST WANT TO KEEP IT, KEEP IT FORMING AS LONG AS I CAN, LONG AS I LIVE.

NEXT, I THINK IT'S GAIL BOLT.

HI, I'M GAIL BOLT.

I'M BRUSSEL BOLT'S WIFE.

I JUST WANTED TO, UH, MAKE A STATEMENT THAT THERE'S A NO ENTRANCE, THERE'S NO WATER, THERE'S NO SEWER, THERE'S NO GARBAGE PICKUP, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT FARMLAND, DRY FARMLAND, NO IRRIGATION.

IT'S DRY CROP.

SO I DON'T, WE JUST REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THEN NOBODY SUBDIVIDED ANY OF THAT.

THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY, I GUESS IN THE TRUST THAT WE HAD WITH THE LAWYER IN THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD'VE PROBABLY DECEASED THE CONTRACT THERE.

AND SHOULD, MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED US.

BUT WE STILL DO HAVE, UH, FARM EXEMPT.

SO THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO BE ANNEXED, NOR WOULD ANNEXATION DO ANYTHING.

'CAUSE YOU CAN'T SUPPLY WATER.

THERE'S, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NO ENTRANCE.

THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THAT PROPERTY IS THROUGH THE FRONT OF OUR HOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.

START ON MY RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

NO QUESTIONS, NO QUESTIONS.

NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

QUESTION TO THE STAFF.

UM, FOR THE CITIZENS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE PARCELS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ANNEX, HOW WE CAN RESPOND TO THEM.

I MEAN, HOW WOULD WHAT, I'M SORRY.

HOW WE CAN RESPOND TO THEM IF THEY DON'T WANT IT TO HAVE.

HOW WE CAN, CAN WE EXUDE THEIR AUTHORS FROM THE N UH, THEM BEING UNANIMOUS BY THE CITY DOES NOT PRECLUDE THEM FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON IT NOW.

THEY CAN STILL APPLY FOR THEIR AGRICULTURAL VALUATION WITH, UH, BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

THEY CAN STILL HAVE THAT.

THEY CAN STILL FARM ON IT.

UH, IT'LL JUST BE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS NOW.

[01:10:02]

UH, NO QUESTIONS.

NO QUESTIONS.

WERE CLARIFIED BY STAFF.

WHAT WAS THAT, CHRIS? UH, NO QUESTIONS.

MY QUESTIONS WERE, UH, CLARIFIED BY STAFF.

THANKS.

UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, PLEASE.

UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THIS WAS AREA THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO ANNEX, CORRECT? CORRECT.

ALRIGHT.

AND THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE TIME TO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THE ANNEXATION, CORRECT? YEAH.

AT THE TIME, UH, STATE LAW, UM, SAID THAT BASICALLY, UH, IF THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THESE DESIGNATIONS AS AGRICULTURAL OR TIMBER, UM, THAT THE, THE, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO OFFER A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THEY COULD CHOOSE WHETHER TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS AND THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, OR THEY COULD COME INSIDE CITY LIMITS.

SO AT THAT TIME, IN 2017, UM, AND BEFORE WE DID SEVERAL OF THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, UH, WE HAVE OVER 200 REMAINING STILL.

UM, WE'VE DONE THIS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS.

UH, THEY, ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS LIKE YOU SAW UP THERE, UH, THEY HAVE CERTAIN STIPULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO.

AND IF THEY BREAK THEM IN ANY WAY, THEN IT'S BASICALLY BREAKING THE CONTRACT AND THEN THE CITY IS ALLOWED TO ANNEX THEM.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RUNS WITH THE LAND.

IT WHAT, I'M SORRY? RUNS WITH THE LAND.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO MADE THE AGREEMENT, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYTHING BESIDES CORRECT.

AND THEY, THEY ARE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY, UH, AS WELL.

SO YES, IT'LL ALWAYS BE WITH THE LAND AND THE DEED.

SO EVEN THOUGH WE COULD FEEL FOR THE BOLTS AND THEIR LOSS AND THEIR INHERITANCE AND THE DIVISION OF THAT LAND, THAT DIVISION REMAINS A VIOLATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

CORRECT.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, IT SAYS THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT IS FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND, BUT I'M ON THE ONE STEP MAP.

UH, ONE STOP MAP.

I DON'T SEE ANY PLATTING OR ANYTHING.

WHAT, WHAT DID THEY DO? WHAT DIVISION DID THEY ACTUALLY DO? SO ORIGINALLY THE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS FOR, UH, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE, UH, THE LEFT HAND MAP, UH, AREAS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX.

THOSE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO LARGE PARCELS.

SO WHAT, AND THOSE WERE THE, THE PARCELS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WERE MADE ON, UH, THEY SUBDIVIDING CREATED ALL THE SMALLER PARCELS THAT YOU SEE THERE NOW.

UH, OF WHICH A COUPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANNEXED IN THE CITY LAST YEAR.

UH, BUT WE'RE ANNEXING THE REST OF THEM AT THIS POINT.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.

BECAUSE THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED AND THEY'RE SMALLER PARCELS NOW.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT.

'CAUSE THEY SHOW SOME, OH, THEY'RE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THEY SHOW SOME ZONING ON SOME PIECES THAT YOU'RE EXCLUDING THAT'S, THAT'S THE BETWEEN SOME OF THESE PARCELS.

AND I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED.

'CAUSE I COULDN'T SEE, UH, EXAMPLES OF IT HERE.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

YEP.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NOW? WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY, UH, COMMISSIONER PROFIT AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.

STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER UH, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES.

VICE CHAIR PECK? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL.

IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

LAST ITEM

[30. Consideration and Approval of the October 13, 2021, Planning Commission Minutes]

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE MINUTES? IF NOT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

UH, ALL THOSE, UH, STAFF, PLEASE DO ROLL CALL, VOTE.

UH, COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES ABSTAIN.

I WASN'T PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER BUSTY.

VICE CHAIR PECK? YES.

A MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL.