[00:00:09]
LET'S CALL OUR FEBRUARY 22ND, 2022 TAC MEETING TO ORDER.
I GUESS THE BIG TOPIC OF THE DAY IS IT'S 2 22 22.
HOW EXCITING? 400 YEARS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.
I'M SURE WE'LL ALL BE HERE STILL
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL.
HI, HOW ARE YOU MR. LEASEMAN? HERE.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM?
[Public Comment ]
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN IN TO SPEAK, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PLAY FOR VOICEMAILS.OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.
CURRENTLY RESIDE AT 1 1 7 NORTH JOSEPHINE TOBIN DRIVE 7 8 2 0 1, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE WOODLAWN LAKE COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION OFFERING COMMENTS FOR THE PENDING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THE WOODLAWN LAKE COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION IS SUPPORTED OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION U D C AMENDMENT NUMBER 20 DASH 17.
THIS IS TO ADD WOODLAWN LAKE TO THE RIO OVERLAKE DISTRICT.
THIS G D C AMENDMENT IS A FIRST STEP TO PRESERVE THE SCENIC AND NATURAL QUALITIES OF WOODLAWN LAKE, INCLUDING EXISTING OUTWARD VIEWS FROM WOODLAWN LAKE PARK, AND WAS SUPPORTED BY A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION PASSED IN DECEMBER, 2018.
WOODLAWN LAKE COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION HAS ESTABLISHED A N C D AND CONTINUES TO WORK WITH ITS RESIDENTS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT LONG LAKE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN THIS MATTER.
I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO.
ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR PTAC.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE SUPPORTS ITS MEMBER, THE WOODLAWN LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AND THEIR POSITION OF SUPPORT FOR O P'S U D C AMENDMENT NUMBER 2020 DASH 17 TO ADD WOODLAWN LAKE TO THE RIO OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THIS U D C AMENDMENT IS THE FIRST STEP TO PRESERVE THE SCENIC AND NATURAL QUALITIES OF WOODLAWN LAKE, INCLUDING EXISTING OUTWARD VIEWS FROM WOODLAWN LAKE PARK, AND WAS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION PASSED IN DECEMBER, 2018.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO.
ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR PTAC.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED AMENDMENT ITEM 10 DASH TWO SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
WE SUPPORT LANGUAGE IN SECTION C 0.8 AND C 0.9 AS PROPOSED, BUT NOT SECTION D 0.6.
WE BELIEVE THE REQUEST SUBMITTED IN D 0.6 FOR 30% IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR I D C TWO AND I D C THREE FOR SITE PLANS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE, AS THERE ARE NUMEROUS RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN ONE ACRE.
AND POSSIBLE CANDIDATES FOR I D C TWO OR I D C THREE ZONING
[00:05:01]
CURRENTLY UNDER THE I D C CODE.ANY DECREASE ABOVE 10% IN THE TOTAL OPEN SPARE SPACE ACREAGE IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT AND WOULD REQUIRE A NEW APPLICATION FOR REZONING.
THEREFORE, SHOULDN'T WE CONSIDER ANY INCREASE IN THE TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA ABOVE 10% TO BE A MAJOR AMENDMENT INSTEAD OF THE 30% AS REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION.
APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT WILL SURELY CIRCUMVENT THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES WHEN LARGE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL.
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH THIS AMENDMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD HAVE NO VOICE WHEN A TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA IS INCREASED BY 30% IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THEREFORE, FOR THE ABOVE REASON, THE TIER ONE STEERING COMMITTEE REQUESTS P T A C TO DENY THIS REQUEST.
BASED ON THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN D 0.6, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE IN SAN ANTONIO.
ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR PTAC.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, A TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED AMENDMENT 23 DASH SIX SUBMITTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION.
WE APPLAUD THE EFFORTS OF THE CITY IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE AND SAFETY OF SAN ANTONIO NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO SAN ANTONIO NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN DETACHED OR ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS ARE INCREASED IN FOOTPRINT AT 50% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
THIS INCREASED DENSITY CAN BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL IN MANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF SAN ANTONIO AND WOULD CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF MOST NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT REQUEST PRESENTS A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE WHEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS MAY BE INTERPRETED AS HAVING NO LIMIT, REDUCE SIDE AND REDUCE SETBACKS AS PROPOSED FOR DETACHED DWELLING UNITS WOULD ALSO POSE A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE IN MANY OF SAN ANTONIO'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WITH EXISTING SETBACKS LESS THAN FIVE FEET.
THEREFORE, FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE TIER ONE STEERING COMMITTEE REQUESTS P T A TO DENY THIS REQUEST.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS MONICA SINO 1120 EAST CROCKETT STREET, ALSO A MEMBER OF YOUR PC TAX AS THE ARCHITECT ALTERNATE DUE TO AN UNPLANNED AND URGENT SCHEDULING CONFLICT.
I WANNA LEAVE MY COMMENTS IN CASE I CAN'T RETURN TO THE HEARING WHEN THIS ITEM IS BEING DISCUSSED.
I HAVE A COUPLE CONCERNS THAT I HOPE Y'ALL WILL CONSIDER FOR ITEM NUMBER NINE.
ACCESSORY DWELLING SECTIONS THAT SPEAK TO THE DWELLING SIZE IS CONFUSING.
A FIVE B ONE AND C ONE, WHICH HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR HAS BEEN REMOVED.
MY QUESTION IS, HOW WILL A FIVE COORDINATE WITH B ONE THE A B B U SIZE LIMIT? OR IS IT MEANT TO FLY TO C THE A A B U THAT HAD ITS SIZE LIMIT REMOVED? HERE'S AN EXAMPLE, 2,500 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY PRINCIPLE HOUSE IN MY A D D U 1000 SQUARE FEET AT 40% PER ITEM B OR THE 1,250 SQUARE FEET AT 50% PER A.
THE LACK OF CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY LENDS ITSELF TO A VARIETY OF INTERPRETATIONS.
REMOVING THE FIVE FOOT REAR AND INSIDE SETBACK FOR A D USED WITH NO OVERHANG TO BE THREE FEET FROM, WITH NO OVERHANG TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THIS POSES THREE PROBLEMS. ONE, FIRE SAFETY PER I R S E 2018.
ANY EMERGENCY ESCAPE OR RESCUE OPENINGS MUST BE DIRECTLY INTO A PUBLIC WAY OR YARD.
A COURT THAT OPENS TO A PUBLIC WAY IN CASE OF LARGER OR TWO STORY, A DDU, A THREE FOOT SETBACK IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH SPACE TO PROVIDE RESCUE OR EGRESS FOR SLEEPING AREAS ON THE SIDE OR REAR OF TRUCTURE.
NUMBER TWO, IN THE CASE OF A TWO STORY, A D D U A THREE FOOT SETBACK IS SIMPLY NOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND NUMBER THREE, THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK HAS A TRULY FUNCTIONAL ROLE AS THE PLACE WHERE HVAC EQUIPMENT CAN BE PLACED, TRASH BINS CAN BE STORED, AND REGULAR MAINTENANCE CAN OCCUR.
TOO MANY EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY OLD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DETERIORATE.
IN PART BECAUSE ACCESS'S LIMITED THE STAGING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS FOR REASONS OF SUSTAINABILITY, EQUITY AND RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO LAST AND SAFELY PROVIDE HOUSING.
[00:10:01]
THANK YOU.THAT'S ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE TODAY.
SO THERE'S NO MORE IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL, UH, ACTUALLY, I'M GONNA SKIP TO THE END OF THE AGENDA AND DO THE MINUTES.
HAS ANYONE HAD ANY, UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN THE MINUTES OR EDITS TO THE MINUTES? YOU SEE NONE.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE MINUTES.
SO MOVE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AND MOTION FOR DEBBIE REED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY KARAT, A SECOND BY DEBBIE REED.
I'M GOING TO, AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, KARAT IS NOW IN THE MEETING.
WELL, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
UH, MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 3 4 8 12 18 AND 19? THERE ARE CLARIFICATIONS AND STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO.
SOME OF THE STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO LEAVE.
WHAT WERE YOUR, UH, 3, 4, 8, 12, 18 AND 19? 3, 4, 8, 12 8.
SECOND CHAIRMAN, I'LL SECOND THAT.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE, THERE MAY BE DISCUSSIONS.
MR. UH, COMM COMMITTEE MEMBER, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE? THANK YOU.
I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION, BUT THERE'S, SINCE THEY'RE SO GRAMMATICALLY, JUST, UH, A THOUGHT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF ON THESE MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT WE SHOULD JUST TRY TO KNOCK THOSE OUT RIGHT AWAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE ITEMS 3, 4, 8, 12, 18 AND 19.
AND, UH, THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. BROWN.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. HANLEY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION CHAIR PERSON? I WOULD ASK TO, UM, PULL ITEM 18 TO OVERSIZE VEHICLES.
SO PULL ITEM 18 BACK TO INDIVIDUAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS? SO AGAIN, WHAT'S THAT? YEAH,
SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO APPROVE ITEMS 3, 4, 8, 12, AND 19 SECOND, ALSO ACCEPTS THE AMENDMENT.
ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS? ANYBODY NEED A MINUTE TO LOOK AT IT? OKAY.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[New Business ]
ALL RIGHT.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM FIVE DASH 48 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 3 5 E.
ALRIGHT, UH, WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM REAL QUICK.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT STEMS FROM A 2019 READ, UH, SPECIFICALLY READ 2019 DASH 0 0 5.
UH, THAT RULE INTERPRETATION, UH, WAS ISSUED AS A RESULT OF A LEGISLATIVE ITEM OUT OF THE 86TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE THAT LIMITED, UH, THE ABILITY OF CITIES TO ENFORCE BUILDING MATERIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
UH, SPECIFICALLY IT, UH, APPLIES FOR, UH, NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ESTABLISH ON OR AFTER APRIL 1ST, 2019.
YEAH, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO HEAR ME.
UM, SO AGAIN, IT, UH, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT NCDS CREATED ON OR AFTER, UH, APRIL, UH, APRIL 1ST, 2019.
THE EXISTING NCDS, SO TO SPEAK, ARE GRANDFATHERED INTO BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
UH, AGAIN, THIS IS A STATE LAW.
THIS IS A MANDATE DOWN FROM AUSTIN THAT WE HAVE TO UPDATE OUR CODE TO REFLECT.
AND WE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTING THIS PRACTICE, THANK YOU, UH, SINCE, UH, SINCE THAT 86 TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SO JUST TO UPDATE THE CODE TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS ON E TWO, IT SAYS, EXISTING N C D OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED AFTER THE APRIL, 2019.
SO DOES THAT MEAN IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO A CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN, THEY HAVE TO FILE A NEW ONE? SUSAN ARE, OH, NO.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF THEY ARE MAKING CHANGES, THEN THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
SO THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY COMPLIANCE OR REQUIREMENTS
[00:15:01]
WITH, UH, MATERIAL SPECIFIC MATERIAL.SO IF THEY AMEND IT, KAT OVER HERE, IF THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY, UH, EXISTING N C D TO MAYBE UPDATE, UM, SOME OTHER REGULATIONS BY MERELY TOUCHING IT, IF THEY HAD ANY, UH, PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS, THEN THEY CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE BUILDING MATERIALS.
IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT STATE LAW.
I DON'T GET HOW THAT SAYS THAT.
WE CAN ADD LANGUAGE THAT CLARIFIES IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING TO ME IS THAT JUST THAT READS AS IF YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH BUILDING MATERIALS OR, I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR.
MAYBE WHAT WE STATE IS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, UM, AMENDED OR MODIFIED AFTER APRIL, UH, FIRST 2019, UM, CAN, UH, SHALL LOSE, UM, ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS OR METHODS.
THAT'S CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE, DID YOU CATCH ALL THAT MODIFIED? CORRECT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
I WAS JUST THINKING THAT THE MODIFIED ONES WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW STATE LAW FOR BUILDING MATERIALS.
THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED AND YOU START CHANGING THEM, THEY WILL LOSE THAT STATUS.
SO IF WE CAN SEE KAT'S WORDS, THOSE WERE, I DON'T THINK SO.
AFTER APRIL 1ST, 2019 WILL LOSE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE BUILDING MATERIAL STANDARDS.
BASED ON THAT CHANGE, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 48.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY KARAT FOR APPROVAL.
WHO WAS THE SECOND? BIANCA? BIANCA.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON NU D C AMENDMENT 20 DASH 17 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 33 8.
HI EVERYBODY, I'M COREY EDWARDS, DEPUTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITH O H P.
UM, SO QUICK PRESENTATION, UM, AS STATED IN ONE OF THE VOICEMAILS, THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A 2018 COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO INITIATE A DISTRICT FOR THE WOODLAWN LAKE AREA.
UM, SO THIS IS, THIS SECTION IS OF THE U T C IS REALLY SORT OF THE ENABLING LANGUAGE FOR RIO.
UM, SO IT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES FOR THE RIO DISTRICTS.
AND SO WE'VE JUST INTRODUCED SOME VERY SIMPLE, UH, CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A CREATION OF A DISTRICT, A RIO DISTRICT FOR WOODLAWN LAKE.
UM, THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT CREATE THE DISTRICT ITSELF.
THAT IS A WHOLE SEPARATE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.
WE ACTUALLY BEGAN THAT PROCESS IN 2019, BUT PAUSED DUE TO COVID LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS.
AND SO THIS IS, UH, ALONG WITH THESE U D C CYCLE, KIND OF THE NEXT IMPORTANT STEP TO RESPOND TO THAT RESOLUTION.
UM, THE SECOND PART, THAT LINE THERE, UM, IS CLARIFICATION TO THE PROCESS.
THERE IS AN OPTION WITHIN RIO FOR, UM, A PROPERTY OWNER TO REQUEST A, UH, DEVELOPMENT NODE DESIGNATION
[00:20:01]
ON TOP OF THE RIO.AND ESSENTIALLY THAT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
UM, AND SO WE ALREADY HAVE SORT OF THE POLICY THAT THOSE REQUESTS WOULD COME TO THE H D R C FIRST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING COMMISSION.
UM, AND IT'S NOT REALLY SPELLED OUT ANYWHERE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? QUESTION, QUESTION BY JULIA.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, SO WE HAVE THE SAN PEDRO CREEK AND WE HAVE NOW WOODLAWN LAKE.
UM, ARE WE GOING TO BE COMING BACK IN THE NEXT PROCESS TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL TRIBUTARIES THAT THE SAN UNE RIVER AUTHORITY IS IMPROVING? I MEAN, THEY JUST GOT A WHOLE SLUG OF MONEY FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO IMPROVE ALZA CREEK AND THE OTHER WATERWAYS.
AND I SEE THE SAN ANTONIO WATERWAY IS, UM, CALLED OUT THERE.
SO I'M NOT, I JUST WANNA MAYBE STAFF CAN EXPLAIN WHY, UM, THAT WATERWAYS ISN'T CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S AN OPTION.
THE CITY HASN'T BEEN APPROACHED BY THE RIVER AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DOING THAT.
UM, THAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT HAPPENED FOR ST.
UM, THE RIVER AUTHORITY WAS, UH, SORT OF THE MAIN PROPONENT OF THAT RIO.
AND THEN IT WENT THROUGH THE REGULAR, UH, PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS AND COUNCIL HEARING PROCESS FOR THE CREATION OF THAT DISTRICT.
SO ANY FUTURE DISTRICTS FOR THE TRIBUTARIES OR CREEKS WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS IF THAT, IF THERE WAS INTEREST.
BUT CURRENTLY THIS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY INITIATE THAT.
I'LL JUMP IN AND ADD, BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RIVER AUTHORITY THAT WILL BE A PLANNING COMMISSION TOMORROW.
THAT IS TO CREATE NOT A RIO, NOT TO CREATE A RIO, BUT TO CREATE A WATER QUALITY OVERLAY, UM, FOR LID PURPOSES ALONG WEST SIDE CREEKS.
AND SO THAT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT EXTERNALLY SARAH SUBMITTED.
UM, THEY HAD GONE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A SMALLER KIND OF STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT HAD MET WITH SOME GROUPS ON IT.
AND SO IT'S ONE THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION TOMORROW.
BUT I THINK THE MONEY THAT THEY RECEIVED WAS PROBABLY AFTER THE CUTOFF PROCESS FOR, UM, THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
THEY HAD STARTED WORKING ON THAT AMENDMENT WHILE THEY KNEW THE MONEY WAS IN AT THE CORE.
AND SO THEY KIND OF HAD A DRAFT AND PUSHED FORWARD.
IT IS NOT COMING IN AS A RIO BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC ISSUE.
IT'S A WATER QUALITY AND LAND USE ISSUE.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE ZONING CATEGORY.
TO CLARIFY, THE RIO DISTRICTS ARE DESIGN DISTRICTS, SO THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE BUILDING AND SITE PLAN ORIENTED.
UM, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL LIT REQUIREMENTS IN RIO BEYOND WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND SO IF YOU'RE ADJACENT TO THE RIVER, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT.
UM, IT IS INCLUDED IN RIO, BUT IT DOES, IT'S NOT REQUIRED IN ANY RIO DISTRICT.
IT'S DEPENDENT ON PROXIMITY TO THE, TO THE Y WAY.
I WAS GONNA MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
THIS IS CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? FULLERTON BY MR. FULLERTON.
UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YES, MR. LEASEMAN? UH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.
THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE, UH, STATEMENT OF PURPOSE IS THAT LANGUAGE FROM ANOTHER DOCUMENT YOU DO IS COPIED OVER.
SO THE BULLET POINT, UM, THAT PRESERVE THE SCENIC AND NATURAL QUALITIES THAT IS DIRECTLY FROM THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
SO THERE'S SIMILAR LANGUAGE FROM THERE.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN I, I DON'T CARE.
JUST WONDER WHEN I READ THIS THING, IT SOUNDS, ONE SOUNDS FUNNY THAT PREVENT THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY INCOMPATIBLE AND INSENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY SUBJECTIVE, YOU KNOW, ISSUE RIGHT THERE.
SPECIFICALLY FOR WOODLAND LAKE, THE INTEREST IS VIEWS AND POTENTIALLY LIKE BUILDING HEIGHTENED SCALE.
AND SO WE ADDED SPECIFICALLY THAT BULLET SPEAK TO WOODLAND LAKE.
SO AS, AS THAT THOSE STANDARDS AND DESIGN, UH, REGULATIONS ARE DEVELOPED, UH, IT MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE STANDARDS THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED IN RIO.
IT MAY BE SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC FOR THE WOODLAND LAKE AREA.
SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS PORTION, THE STATEMENT PURPOSE, IS PRETTY MUCH IMMATERIAL? IT, IT'S ALREADY SOMEBODY WROTE IT AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS.
IT'S NOT THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT IT IS SORT OF THE ENABLING LANGUAGE.
SO ANY RIO DISTRICT THAT'S CREATED NEEDS TO BE, NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THESE.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE PREAMBLE TO THE DRAINAGE.
THIS IS THE LANGUAGE FOR ALL RIO DISTRICTS.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE ONE THAT, ANYWAY, I, I KNOW THINGS HAPPEN.
[00:25:01]
IF I MAY SAY, SO DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER, IT SAYS THIS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ASSURE DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE RIVER OR CREEK IS COMPATIBLE WITH FU WITH A FUTURE VISION OF A SERIES OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS.HOW DO WE SIT HERE AND KNOW WHAT THAT FUTURE VISION MIGHT BE? IT COULD BE ANYTHING.
WELL, IN THAT INSTANCE, I THINK IT IS REFERRING TO THE RIVER NORTH PLAN, AND MOST LIKELY THERE WAS SOME, SOME WORK THAT WAS DONE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
UM, SO THERE, THERE WAS SORT OF AN ADOPTED VISION.
UM, BUT YEAH, IT'S NOT, IT'S VERY BROAD LANGUAGE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, BOB? YES, SIR.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE HAVE MOTION TO SECOND.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 10 DASH TWO, SECTION 35 DASH 3 43 0.01 B.
NO, YOU WANT BORROW MIKE COPY PRINTED FOR ME.
SO THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY, UM, A SUBMITTAL FROM OUR ZONING COMMISSION.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT CAME OUT OF SEVERAL, UH, I D Z ZONING CASES AS WELL AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED I DISEASE ZONING CASES.
UM, WHERE THERE WERE, THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, ITEMS THAT WOULDN'T QUALIFY AS A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
UM, AND MAKING SURE TO CLARIFY WHEN IT, IT DOES, WHEN AN AMENDMENT DOES INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT THAT IT TRIGGERS SOME SORT OF MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
SO, UM, THEY TALKED ABOUT WHEN THERE WAS AN INCREASE, OH, YOU WANNA GO BACK TO THAT, WHEN THERE'S AN INCREASE ABOVE 10% IN THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, IF IT INCREASES TO ADD MORE THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD TRIGGER IT AS A MAJOR AMENDMENT BECAUSE THAT'S ABSENT, UH, TODAY IN THE AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND THEN IF IT WAS, IF THEY'RE REMOVING ANY REQUIREMENT RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF AN I D Z SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR NO OUTDOOR SPEAKERS OR, UM, NO, NO ACCESS, UH, FROM THE STREET THAT IT'D BE, THAT IT WOULD TRIGGER A MAJOR AMENDMENT GOING BACK THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THAT PROHIBITION LANGUAGE THAT WAS ON THERE BEFORE.
THAT'S THE FIRST SECTION RELATED TO I D Z ONE SITE PLANS, UM, I D Z TWO SITE, UH, SITE PLANS AND I D Z THREE SITE PLANS THAT WERE EQUAL TO, UM, LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE ACRE.
SO THAT WAS, THAT'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN C DO YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER D OR DO YOU WANNA, UH, TACKLE THAT ONE FIRST OR A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST TACKLE THAT ONE FIRST.
SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM C THERE? EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY.
ITEM D UH, IS GONNA IMPACT IDZ TWO AND IDZ THREE SITE PLANS THAT ARE GREATER THAN ONE ACRE.
UH, WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT FOOTPRINT IS.
UH, THE PEARL IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WOULD FIT INTO THIS, WHERE THEY HAVE A VISION, UM, OF WHERE USES WILL GO, BUT THEY DON'T EXACTLY HAVE THAT VISION TIGHTENED DOWN TO DETERMINE WHERE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ARE GONNA GO.
UM, SO WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THE ZONING COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT WAS ADDING TWO SECTIONS FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT OR ITEMS THAT WOULD TRIGGER A MAJOR AMENDMENT WHERE IT'S ANY INCREASE ABOVE 30% IN THE TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOW ON A SITE PLAN FOR THESE TYPE OF IDZ THREE, IDZ TWO AND IDZ THREE CATEGORIES.
UM, IT'S A BUILDABLE AREA, SO IF THEY WANTED TO INCREASE IT BY 30% OR MORE, THEN IT WOULD TRIGGER A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
AND AGAIN, A MAJOR AMENDMENT IS COMING THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS AGAIN.
AND THEN, UM, NUMBER SEVEN IS ANY REMOVAL OF A REQUIREMENT RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION, SAME THING.
SO IF THE SITE PLAN HAD INDICATED SOME SORT OF PROHIBITED ACCESS OR, UM, A, UH, ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT LIKE THE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS THAT IT TRIGGER A MAJOR AMENDMENT AS WELL.
QUESTIONS ON D, AMANA, BIANCA, KAT, D SO 30%, COULD YOU DEFINE TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA? AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE CONCEPT FROM A PEARL PERSPECTIVE.
MY CONCERN IS ACREAGE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN THAT WHEN YOU GET BETWEEN THE ONE TO FIVE, UM, WHEN YOU DO THESE SITE PLANS, YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE BOUGHT INTO THAT DESIGN AND THAT PLAN.
AND SO WHEN ALMOST A THIRD OF IT CHANGES
[00:30:01]
AT 30%, I MEAN 30% LESS THAN THAT, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.I WOULD THINK THAT THRESHOLDS WOULD NEED TO BE SMALLER AND MAYBE EVEN LOOK AT A SMALLER ACREAGE TO, TO BREAK IT OUT.
BECAUSE I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD AND EVEN THE, UH, FEEDBACK THAT I'VE RECEIVED FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE LARGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, SPECIFICALLY ON THE, OUR ACREAGE LOTS ON, UH, THE WEST SIDE ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY CAN BE POTENTIALLY TARGETED FOR THIS AND CHANGES COULD OCCUR.
UM, SO MAYBE IF YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE NUMBER OF ZONING CASES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THIS INTRODUCTION, BY THE ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, 30%, SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS AND THEN MAYBE EVEN LOOK AT ACREAGE DIFFERENCE.
SO IT WAS THE REASON WHY THEY STARTED THIS CONVERSATION DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH ANY RECENT I D Z ZONING CASES, BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, I D Z WAS UPDATED IN 2017, IT'S BEEN WORKING.
UM, WHAT THIS, WHAT REALLY TRIGGERED IT WAS AN OLD CASE THAT WAS AN OLD I D Z CASE.
UM, AND IT WAS, UH, WHERE THE NEW ROSARIOS IS GONNA BE LOCATED.
SO, UM, IT WAS APPROVED USING THE OLD I D Z SITE PLAN PROCESS.
UM, AND THERE WERE MAJOR AND MINOR AMENDMENTS, UM, THEM REVISING THEIR FOOTPRINT, UH, UH, ON IT WAS ONLY A MINOR AMENDMENT.
IT WASN'T A MAJOR AMENDMENT ACCORDING TO THOSE OLD AMENDMENTS.
SO BECAUSE THAT OLD LANGUAGE STILL APPLIES TO THE OLD I D Z LA, UM, OLD I D Z APPROVED SITE PLANS, IT TRIGGERED THE DISCUSSION OF, OKAY, WELL IF IT WAS APPROVED TODAY WITH THESE I D Z CATEGORIES, WHAT WOULD TRIGGER IT AS A MAJOR AMENDMENT? SO THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS CONVERSATION.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT BUILDABLE AREA, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE GOING UP A, A LEVEL A STORY, UM, WHERE YOU'RE STILL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, UM, THAT YOU'RE GETTING LIKE 35 FEET.
LET'S SAY THAT THEY ORIGINALLY WERE THINKING OF ONLY GOING, YOU KNOW, 25 FEET, BUT IT DIDN'T STATE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN.
UM, IT JUST SHOWED THE FOOTPRINT.
BUT IF THEY'RE GOING UP, YOU KNOW, IT DOES INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE A BIT, BUT THEIR 30% WAS LET'S ALLOW SOME WITHIN, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GREATER THAN AN ACRE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE LARGER PROJECTS, NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE LESS THAN AN ACRE THAT YOU'RE GONNA FIND IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, THAT'S WHERE THE 30% TRIGGER WAS FROM JUST GIVING THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY.
BUT ANY MORE THAN THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE MAJOR AMENDMENT THAT'S CAT.
BUT IF IT'S, WHO'S YOUR MIC? SORRY? IF THE I D Z SITE PLAN SPECIFICALLY SAYS MAX HEIGHT AT 50 FEET, THIS WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO GO ABOVE THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF A RESTRICTION.
OR IF IT SAID SETBACKS AT 30 FEET, MINIMUM 30 FEET, THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE REMOVAL OF A RESTRICTION? CORRECT.
SO IF THE, IF THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT OR THEY WOULD COME BACK THROUGH A MAJOR AMENDMENT, IT'S WHEN, UM, THEY ARE NOT DEFINED.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE JUST MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT I D Z BASE.
UH, AND SO IF THEY WANTED TO GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE THEY CAN, BUT THEY JUST SHOWED ON THEIR BUILDING FOOTPRINT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY THIS MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEN IT WOULD, IF IT WAS MORE THAN 30%, THAT'S WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THE MAJOR AMENDMENT.
SO AGAIN, ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH A, UM, A NOT SO DEFINED AND RESTRICTIVE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT GIVING THEM SOME OF THAT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROJECTS LIKE THE PEARL THAT ARE, THAT FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY.
WELL, WHY DON'T WE, SO, SO I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DOWNSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, SO IF THE LINE WASN'T THERE TO BEGIN WITH, IT WASN'T THERE EARLIER, AND SO, SO IT'S CAUSING, UM, MORE, MORE, UH, APPLICANTS COME THROUGH, UH, TO, UH, THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO, OR, UH, TO APPLY FOR, UM, I GUESS ANY CHANGE THAT COMES INTO THEIR COMMUNITY OR ANY CHANGE THAT COMES INTO THEIR BUSINESS THAT, THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD OR THEY'RE, THEY'RE UNITS TRYING TO BUILD, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE IS SO MANY CASES GOING THROUGH.
IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE? IS, IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THOSE THAT ARE APPROVED THROUGH THIS, THIS NEW I D Z CATEGORY, RIGHT? OF UM, ADDING MORE DEFINED AREAS OF WHAT TRIGGERS A MAJOR AMENDMENT, JUST KIND OF CLEANING UP THAT PROCESS, BUT STILL GIVING SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME MINOR CHANGES.
BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A POINT OF WHERE IT COULD INCREASE THAT INTENSITY, THEN IT TRIGGERS THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SO 10% WORKS FOR ME, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S LIKE THE OTHER ONE.
AND SO I GUESS BY GOING DOWN TO 10%, WHAT DOES THAT CAUSE WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE OF THAT, I GUESS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT, SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO UP TO 10%, RIGHT? TO, TO BE MINOR, BUT ANYTHING 10% OR MORE, YOU JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE REZONING IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
RIGHT? SO, SO IT'S SO, SO FOR THE BUILDERS, IT'S JUST ANOTHER STEP THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO BASICALLY
[00:35:01]
ONCE, ONCE THEY REAP THAT REACH RESET LIMIT, THEN THEY'RE COMING THROUGH FOR ANOTHER CASE, RIGHT? WE SHOULD MINIMIZE IT'S JUST ANOTHER STEP BECAUSE IT IS, IT'S A BIG STEP, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.IT'S A 60 DAY, AT LEAST A TIMEFRAME.
SO IT, IT'S A MAJOR STEP AND IT'S COSTLY, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S ALSO A A, AN OPTION OR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT TOO YES.
AND SO I DON'T WANNA MINIMIZE THAT SIDE.
SO, OH, SHE STILL HAD HER FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
NO, MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT YOU KEEP ME REFERENCING THE PEARL.
CAN YOU PUT AN ACREAGE ON THAT? BECAUSE I HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE ONE TO FOUR TO FIVE ACRE SITES THAT ARE SMALLER BECAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND THE PEARL AND WE'RE LIKE, WE'RE TALKING ACRES AND ACRES OF PROPERTY MM-HMM.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPARISON FOR THIS SITUATION BECAUSE I THINK THE VULNERABILITY IS IN THE SMALLER AREAS, UH, WHEN YOU'RE DOING SPECIFICALLY INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE 30% IS SIGNIFICANT FOR A 1.25 ACRE LOT TO HAVE A CHANGE, IN MY OPINION.
AND IF SOMEBODY'S ONLY GONNA CHANGE UP TO 25% OF THAT, AND I'M THE RESIDENT LIVES NEARBY AND I DRIVE BY AND I'M LIKE, OH MY GOODNESS, WHAT ARE THEY DE BOOING? THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY PROPOSE.
ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE BREAKING THE TRUST, I THINK WITH THE COMMUNITY WHO GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS THROUGH PUBLIC INPUT AND WHO BUYS INTO THAT SITE PLAN AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, OH, WHAT DID THEY GET APPROVAL? OH, WELL THEY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS UP TO 25%.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M MAKING THE CASE ABOUT BREAKING IT OUT BY LOT SIZE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE 30% FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE ACRES, IN MY OPINION.
UM, I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE TO, FOR OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF EFFORT GOES THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS WHEN YOU GET APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN AND THE I D Z AND THEY'RE, IT'S A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK IT'S A RESPECTFUL PROCESS BOTH WAYS THAT IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH IT, YOU GET THAT BUY-IN AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT YOUR CASE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES AT THE END OF AN I D Z CASE, YOU, YOU DO HAVE SUPPORT, RIGHT? YOU, YOU WORK TOWARDS SUPPORT, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK IT'S THE TRUST THAT I THINK IS, IS AN ISSUE, AT LEAST FOR ME, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE SMALLER SITES A LOT.
SO KAT, YOU KNOW, ASHLEY ASKED, AND IT WAS A GOOD CLARIFICATION THAT THINGS LIKE HEIGHT AND SETBACKS ARE RESTRICTIONS.
SO THOSE ARE MAJOR AMENDMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, WHAT OTHER KINDS OF THINGS TO BIANCA'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE TYPICAL THINGS THAT YOU WOULD AMEND THAT AREN'T A RESTRICTION THAT WOULD TRIGGER A MAJOR ANYWAY, I, I WAS GONNA READ OUT, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS ADDING SIX AND SEVEN TO THE LIST OF THE EXISTING FIVE.
SO THE CURRENT ITEMS THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER A MAJOR AMENDMENT, UH, WOULD BE ONE, ANY INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ABOVE 10%.
UH, ANY INCREASE IN THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE ABOVE 10%, ANY DECREASE OF 10% OR GREATER IN THE TOTAL OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
ANY INCREASE IN THE REQUESTED HEIGHT ABOVE 10% UNLESS THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY CAPPED THAT HEIGHT.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION IMPOSED BY COUNCIL.
UH, AND THEN FIVE, ANY CHANGE IN PROPOSED LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL, ANY OF THOSE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE THEY GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.
I, I DID ALSO WANT TO ADD JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT ON WHY WE REGULATED FROM GREATER THAN AND LESS THAN ONE ACRE.
THAT WAS A RESULT OF THE I D Z TASK FORCE THAT WAS CONVENED BACK IN 2017.
SO WE PUT TOGETHER A GROUP OF FOLKS, UH, AND THAT COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT ONE ACRE WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE TO REGULATE, YOU KNOW, SMALLER SCALE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE SEEING IN NEIGHBORHOODS VERSUS LARGER PROPERTIES WHERE MORE FLEXIBILITY IS REQUIRED OR WHERE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
UH, AGAIN, IN THE CASE OF THE PEARL OR EVEN SOMETHING HALF THE SIZE OF THE PEARL TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW BIG EACH BUILDING IS GONNA BE BEFORE YOU START GETTING INTO THAT PROJECT.
SO KAT, THIS IS ACTUALLY PLACING A RESTRICTION THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY THERE? CORRECT.
SO I COULD INCREASE, AS LONG AS I'M NOT GOING UP IN UNITS.
SAY I HAD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITHOUT A HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
I I, I'M NOT LIMITED TO ANY PERCENTAGE IN TERMS OF INCREASE.
SO THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT'S, UH, CARRIES WITH THE BASE DISTRICT ITSELF.
SO LET'S SAY IT'S I D Z, UM, OKAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO THREE.
SO THOSE, YOU WOULD STATE YOUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO LET'S SAY YOUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION SHOWED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE 40 FEET.
YOU STILL CAN'T GO OVER 40 FEET.
BUT YEAH, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD UNITS AND YOUR SITE PLAN AND YOUR ORDINANCE HAS SAID THAT YOU'RE ONLY GONNA DO 30 UNITS, THEN YOU HAVE, THEN IT'S TRIGGERED A MAJOR AMENDMENT, MAN.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I SAW 10% EVERYWHERE.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT BACK THAT 10% NUMBER.
AND SO I GUESS IT WAS JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ONE WASN'T 10%, WHERE ALL THE REST OF 'EM WERE AND TRY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT MEANT OR WHAT.
WELL, THE DISCUSSION STARTED OUT AT 50%, RIGHT? AND THEN, UM, AND THEN IT WENT DOWN TO 10%, BUT 10 PERCENT'S NOT VERY MUCH WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTIES AN ACRE OR MORE.
[00:40:01]
ENDED UP IN BETWEEN WITH A 30, RIGHT? AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST, IT ENABLES MORE, UH, PUBLIC DIALOGUE IS, IS, IS HOW I LOOK AT IT.SO, SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 30 AND 10 IS MORE PUBLIC INPUT, RIGHT? 'CAUSE AGAIN, ON THESE SITE PLANS, YOU'RE ONLY SHOWING BUILDABLE AREA.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA SHOW, IT'S NOT GONNA GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY DOWN TO, WELL THIS IS MY FOUNDATION, THIS IS HOW BIG IT IS.
UH, IT'S NOT GONNA SHOW THAT IT'S NOT THAT DEFINED FOR THESE SITE PLANS.
IT'S BUILDABLE AREA ACCESS, UM, AND LOCATION.
BIANCA, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON IF 30% IS TOO HIGH, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ON NUMBERS? 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING BACK AT THIS.
IT'S THE UNDER ONE ACRE 10%, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ONE ACRE IS PRETTY UNDER AN ACRE IS REALLY SMALL.
SO OVER ONE, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT? ON THAT NUMBER? THANK YOU.
UM, MR. BROWN WAS ASKING ME THAT EARLIER.
AND I HAD ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
TOTAL BUILDABLE AREAS DEFINED IN THE U D C.
AND THAT DEFINITION WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE IMPERIAL AREA THAT YOU COULD PUT, IMPERVIOUS AREA YOU COULD PUT DOWN.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS IMPACTS STORMWATER RUNOFF ALSO, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT DOES.
I MEAN, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO MEET THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF JUST IN I D Z.
WELL, SEE THAT WAS, THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE THAT THE INNER NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
YES, BUT THOSE ARE LESS THAN AN ACRE.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LARGER, THE SMALLER LOTS ARE EXEMPT FROM WHAT I, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER.
THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS GO TO THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS.
SEE, THERE'S, THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN WHICH STORMWATER DOES NOT APPLY.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND, UM, D NUMBER SIX TO 15% AND APPROVE, UM, THE REST AS SUBMITTED.
WHAT IF WE MAKE IT A RANGE? OH, WELL THEN IT BECOMES AN ENFORCEMENT.
DO I START IT AT TWO? DO I START IT AT 10 SO'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS? IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A FINITE NUMBER AT WHERE I START THE MAJOR AMENDMENT AT.
NEIGHBORHOODS NEED TO KNOW, DEVELOPERS NEED TO KNOW.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO AMEND D SIX FROM 30% TO, YOU SAID 15% AND WE HAD A SECOND BY MR. BROWN, DEBBIE REED.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 21 DASH ONE AFFECTING 35 DASH THREE.
HELLO? SO OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE IS TO, UH, CHANGE THE DA, THE WORD GARBAGE COLLECTION TO BASICALLY SOLID WASTE.
WHEN THE CODE WAS FIRST WRITTEN, OUR, THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT WAS BASICALLY FOCUSED ON GARBAGE COLLECTION AND IT REFERENCES A, A SECTION OF OUR FEES CALLED GARBAGE FEES.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, IN THE CODE NO FEES WITH THAT ACTUAL NAME.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO BASICALLY CHANGE WHERE IT SAYS GARBAGE TO COLLECTION TO SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT GARBAGE FEES TO SOLID WASTE FEES.
IN ADDITION, IT ADDS IN ONE SENTENCE AT THE END THAT SAYS, UM, THE PROPERTIES MAY BE STILL SUBJECT TO OTHER FEES.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER FEES IN THE SOLID WASTE IN CHAPTER 14, WHICH IS A SOLID WASTE CODE.
SO THEY WOULD, UM, SO OTHER FEES THAT ARE FOR SERVICES OTHER THAN GARBAGE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION WOULD, WOULD OR MAY STILL APPLY DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE ARE NO NEW FEES INTRODUCED IN THIS AMENDMENT AND THERE ARE NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL
[00:45:01]
COST TO DEVELOPMENT.ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND ONE EDIT.
UM, AT THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE, YOU SAY SOLID WASTE, YOU CROSS OUT THE WORD FINANCE, BUT SHOULDN'T IT BE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR TO BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT? YES, SIR.
AND THEN WHAT IS, WHAT IS REFERENCE WHEN YOU SAY UNITS MAY STILL BE REQUIRED, WHAT IS THAT? BASICALLY AN, UH, AN INDIVIDUAL HOME.
ANY PLACE THAT HAS AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, ELECTRICITY METER.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT? ALRIGHT, UH, WANNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MR. CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, IF WE ARE TALKING UNITS, MEANING DWELLING UNITS, WE MAY WANNA ADD THAT, UH, REFERENCE IN THERE IN FRONT OF UNITS, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR.
IS IT ALWAYS DWELLING UNITS OR COULD IT BE LIKE A, LIKE A, IT'S NOT DWELLING UNIT.
WHAT IS IT? IT'S PRETTY, IT'S ANYTHING THAT HAS A, UH, ELECTRIC METER.
SO IT'S NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SO SHOULD IT BE SOMETHING LIKE PROPERTIES MAY STILL BE REQUIRED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I, I, I AGREE.
'CAUSE WHEN I READ IT, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT MEANT DWELLING UNITS.
SO, UH, WHAT'S A GOOD WORD THEN? UM, FACILITIES.
HOW ABOUT, UH, ACCOUNTS OR, UH, UH, C P SS ENERGY ACCOUNT HOLDERS? USERS? CUSTOMER CUSTOMERS? YEAH.
UM, I MEAN IT REFERENCES THE CODE THAT ACTUALLY OUTLINED IT.
SO THIS ISN'T THE CODE DEFINING IT, IT'S JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY.
YEAH, BUT MY, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THERE'S, GENERALLY SPEAKING IN THE U D C, WHEN YOU USE THE WORD UNIT, WE'RE REFERRING TO IT DWELL A DWELLING CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT, WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE NAMING IS, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I THINK THAT SOME CLARIFICATION IS PROBABLY NECESSARY.
I'D BE OKAY WITH CHANGING IT TO CUSTOMERS IF THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE MAY NEED TO MAKE THE SAME CHANGE IN THE FIRST LINE TOWARD THE END.
ALL UNITS WITHIN THE V U D FOR THE RECORD, ME MAKING DIFFICULTY.
DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT ONE AS WELL TO CUSTOMERS TALKING ABOUT WITHIN THE PHONE? OH, WOULD THAT REMAIN UNIT SINCE IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PD OR, I MEAN, SO IF IT'S A, IF IT'S IN THE PUD IT COULD BE PHASES.
IF IT'S, IF IT'S IN THE PUD, YES.
I MEAN IT'S TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY HOUSING.
I WAS TALKING MORE BROADLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, A CUSTOMER OR LET'S SAY A MILITARY BASE THAT MAY NOT BE A CUSTOMER OR A HOUSEHOLD UNIT, THEY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME OF THE OTHER NON COLLECTION FEES.
BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE POD AREA, THEN YES, IT, IT WOULD BE A CUSTOMER OR A HOUSEHOLD OR HOWEVER IT IS YOU DEFINE IT IN THE U D C.
BUT A POD CAN BE COMMERCIAL OR IT COULD BE.
SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN IT'S MORE OFTEN, BUT NOT NECESSARILY.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE.
SO, UH, A LOT OF COMMERCIAL UNITS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DON'T GET GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE FROM US, BUT THEY PAY OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FEES.
DOES THE WORD CUSTOMERS APPLY THERE TOO? 'CAUSE IT COULD BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.
SO AS YOU SAY, CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE PUD MAY BE EXEMPTED.
IF WE'RE USING CUSTOMER, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE CUSTOMER DEFINED SOMEWHERE? 'CAUSE EVEN CUSTOMERS SOUNDS CONFUSING.
WOULD CUSTOMERS OF WHO, IS IT REFERENCED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THIS SECTION? WELL, IT ALL REFERS TO, IT ALL REFERS TO THAT SOLID WASTE CHAPTER 14 CODE THAT I'M ASSUMING DEFINES WHO PAYS WHAT FEES AND HOW.
I'M GUESSING I DIDN'T BOTHER TO LOOK AT IT.
UH, UH, THE QUESTION THERE, UH, IN, IN READ THE FINANCE, SHOULD THAT, SHOULDN'T THAT BE, UH, DELETED? BECAUSE I THINK I READ THAT IT IS THE, THE WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR AND NOT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR.
SO, UH, ARE WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE WORD CUSTOMER? I GUESS ARE YOU PULLING
[00:50:01]
UP CHAPTER? I THINK LOGAN IS PULLING IT.LOGAN'S PULLING UP CHAPTER 14.
CAN WE PLAY THE JEOPARDY MUSIC WHILE HE'S LOOKING
MAYBE ARTICLE THREE, YOU KNOW.
NOT IN, IN CHAPTER 14 UNIT CUSTOMER.
THOSE ARE NOT DEFINED IN CHAPTER 14.
WE, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT IN THE U D C, BUT AGAIN, THOSE MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT LOOK, ENVIRONMENTAL FEES, SOLID WASTE PER UNIT PARKS PER UNIT.
THEY USE UNIT, THEY USE UNIT WITHOUT DEFINING.
SO WE CAN LEAVE IT AS A UNIT IF WE ARE GONNA CO CONTINUE TO REFER BACK TO THIS, THAT PRETTY MUCH WOULD CO WOULD, UH, BE CONSISTENT BY THE WAY, IT LOOKS CONFUSING, BUT CONSISTENT.
WHAT'S THAT, KEN? IF IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER ONE, WE'LL LEAVE IT IN.
SO THE ONLY AMENDMENT AS THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WAS ADDED FOR DIRECTOR.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR, JUST THE POINT OF INFORMATION, KEEPING IN MIND OUR, UH, UH, UH, COLLEAGUES IN FIVE YEARS WHO ARE GONNA BE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHEN WE HAVE A TINY QUESTION MARK LIKE THIS, DO WE HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF SUGGESTIONS THAT, UH, PERHAPS SHOULD BE LOOKED OVER OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IN TERMS, I MEAN, THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO LOOK AT, BUT AGAIN, THE DIS THIS DISCUSSION, WELL, THIS DISCUSSION ON UNITS WOULD BE IN THE MINUTES, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA BE ANYWHERE ELSE THERE.
THESE MEETINGS ARE LIVE STREAMED AND THEY'RE ALSO RECORDED.
SO THEY'LL BE ARCHIVED FOR US TO GO BACK TO IT TO WATCH THE VIDEOS AND THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED.
WELL, WELL, WELL, I GUESS FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, IS THERE, ARE WE STARTING THE NEXT LIST FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WITH THE ITEM BEING, UM, THERE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SAY CLARITY ON UNITS IN THE WHOLE SECTION SO THAT WE'RE MORE CONSISTENT IN LANGUAGE OR MORE APPROPRIATE? I THINK IF THERE'S, ONCE WE DECIDE, MAKE A DECISION HERE, IF THERE IS A DECISION TO SUPPORT IT AS IS, UM, THE PROCESS CAN MOVE FORWARD AND CONTINUE IF ONCE IT'S APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, IF THERE IS A ISSUE THAT CONTINUES TO ARISE ON CLARITY, WE CAN ALWAYS CREATE A RID IF THERE IS A PROBLEM.
UM, AND THE RULE INTERPRETATION, UH, DECISION WILL BE CO-SIGNED BY SOLID WASTE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ENSURE EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE.
AND JUST, JUST TO ADD A LITTLE MORE TO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO HAVE ITEMS UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS 2021 U D C AMENDMENT CYCLE THAT FAILED IN 2015, UH, THAT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, LET'S GATHER FIVE, SIX YEARS OF DATA AND TRY IT AGAIN.
SO THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE MONITORING OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN ANTICIPATION OF WHAT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE NEXT CYCLE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? BIANCA? I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA, AND I HEARD A SECOND, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS.
NEXT ITEM, UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 18 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 45.
KAT, DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS ONE? YOU WANNA START IT? OKAY.
I MEAN, I CAN PROBABLY TALK ABOUT IT.
UH, SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT BASICALLY WHAT WHAT IT DOES IS THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR REZONING TO AN N P C D, UM, REQUIRES A STEP BEFORE THAT'S SIMILAR TO ESTABLISHING A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS A VERY EXPENSIVE TECHNICAL PROCESS, UM, OF WHICH, UH, YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE STEPS, UH, TO HAVE EVERYTHING REVIEWED FROM STORMWATER TO TRAFFIC, TO, UH, PLACEMENT OF USES, ALL OF THAT, GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT PROCESS.
THEN ONCE YOU'RE DONE WITH THAT AND THAT SITE PLAN IS APPROVED BY ALL THOSE TECHNICAL AGENCIES, THEN YOU CAN SUBMIT TO REZONE.
UM, SO THEN YOU'VE GONE ALL THROUGH THAT.
AND IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, AND ULTIMATELY YOU DON'T REZONE, WELL NOW YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT YOU'VE JUST, THAT YOU'VE JUST TAKEN ON.
SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT WILL CHANGE THE PROCESS TO BE SIMILAR TO HOW WE DO PUDS TODAY.
WE, IN 2015, WE AMENDED THE PUDS TO, UM, HAVE IT GO THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS FIRST WITH THE SITE PLAN BEFORE THEY STARTED GOING THROUGH A PUD PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS AND, AND PLAT PROCESS TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO ALL OF THE TEXTS THAT YOU SEE IS BASICALLY JUST SAYING, IF YOU WANT AN M P C D, YOU NEED TO REZONE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S TIED TO THE N P C D, GET THAT FIRST,
[00:55:01]
AND THEN YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE OTHER STEPS OF THE PROCESS, UH, FOR YOUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YOUR PLATT.SO THAT'S WHAT ULTIMATELY IN A NUTSHELL, THIS ORDINANCE IS DOING.
OR THIS, UH, AMENDMENT IS DOING CHAIR, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS.
UH, I, I WAS ONE OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE ORIGINAL N P C D AND IT WAS NEVER ANTICIPATED THAT WE WOULD, WOULD DO WHAT? IT'S HORRIBLE.
WELL, WE NEVER ANTICIPATED THAT WE WOULD BE DOING DRAINAGE STUDIES.
IT, IT WAS A ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
UH, AND SO IT WAS ALWAYS ANTICIPATED ON OUR PART THAT YOU WOULD GET YOUR ZONING AND THEN YOU WOULD GO THROUGH THE M P C D OR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS.
SO I, I SUPPORT THIS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
I DON'T THINK I MADE ONE, BUT MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KEN BROWN AND A SECOND BY ROBERT HANLEY.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS FOR CLARIFICATION.
PURPOSES, I NOTICED THE, I HAVE QUESTION.
EFFECTIVE DATE ISN'T UNTIL 2023.
THAT IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF U D C AMENDMENTS APPROVED IN THIS CYCLE.
SO WE, WE WON'T TAKE THESE AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL UNTIL OCTOBER OF 2022.
UH, AND THEN WE'LL UTILIZE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER TO CONDUCT TRAININGS WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JAN 1 20 23.
YOU YOU WANT ME TO GO? YOU WANT YOU GO FIRST QUESTION ABOUT OPEN SPACE? YES, MA'AM.
WELL, LOOKING AT, AND IT MAY BE RE THIS MAY BE THE, UM, TEXT THAT'S REPEATED THROUGHOUT THE OTHER ORDINANCES, BUT LOOKING AT OPEN SPACE TO INCLUDE YARDS AND, UM, THAT PARKS, IF YOUR OPEN SPACE CONFORMS TO THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION, THEN YOU CAN DO SWIMMING POOLS AND CLUBHOUSES.
SO YOU HAVE NO OPEN SPACE PER SE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOWEVER, THE, THE OPEN SPACE, UH, IS WRITTEN.
TODAY'S WHAT SPACE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE OR THE CODE RE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACES CHANGED THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
BUT THEN THIS ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT IS, WHAT IS OPEN SPACE, BUT AFTER, LIKE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THEN PARKS REQUIREMENTS.
SO THEY'RE KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT, BUT THEY GOT THROWN IN HERE A LITTLE BIT TOGETHER SO THAT YOU COULD END UP WITH ACTUALLY NO OPEN SPACE, PERVIOUS GREEN SPACE.
AND ALL THIS IS, IS TAKING WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED TODAY WITH THE M P C D AND JUST CHANGING THE PROCESS THAT YOU ZONE FIRST.
THEN YOU GO THROUGH A, UH, M D P PLATT PROCESS.
SO WHAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS TEXT IS JUST PULLED OUT OF MM-HMM.
WE'RE JUST TAKING OUT THAT PRE-STEP.
AND SO THAT INTENSIVE RECREATIONAL USE, UM, INCLUDING SPORTS FIELDS AND TENNIS COURTS WITH THE LIGHTS AND THE SPEAKERS CAN BE PUT 50 FEET AWAY FROM A RESIDENTIAL HOME IS THAT'S THE WAY IT'S STATED IN THE CODE TODAY.
IF THAT'S IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, I, I MEAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH, WITH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION.
AND THESE MP CDS ARE TYPICALLY YOUR, UM, LIKE THINK ABOUT THE RIM, THAT'S AN M P C D, THAT, THAT THESE ARE THE, THESE ARE THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT LAUREN, JUST A QUICK CORRECTION IN THE, WHERE IT SAYS OPEN SPACE, EACH M P D C, CAN WE CHANGE THAT TO M P C D? YES, PLEASE.
CAN WE CHANGE THAT TO M P C D? YES.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO AMEND THAT.
WELL, YEAH, EVERYWHERE IN THE CODE TODAY IN THIS SECTION SAYS M P D C, THE, THE DC GOT REVERSED SOMEHOW WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED.
IS THERE ANOTHER ONE I CAN BLAME YOU ON TODAY? OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE.
I HAVE, UH, SEVERAL, UH, I GUESS SMALL EDITS.
UM, ON THE FIRST PAGE WHERE IT SAYS AMENDMENT TITLE, IT SAYS ESTABLISH SUBSEQUENT TO AFTER.
AND I THINK IT PROBABLY SHOULD JUST SAY SUBSEQUENT TO, SO DELETE THE WORD AFTER ON OR AFTER IS GONNA BE ON OR, OR AFTER, ON OR AFTER.
HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY, I DON'T CARE.
SUBSEQUENT ON OR AFTER? YEAH, IT'S ON OR AFTER AND AFTER.
TAKE OUT THE WORD SUBSEQUENT IF YOU DO THAT THOUGH.
YEAH, IF WE, IF WE WANT TO GO WITH CONSISTENCY, THE P THAT WE'RE, WHAT DOES WE'RE MIRRORING IS IT SAYS ESTABLISH SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY ONE.
I'D RATHER IT BE TO COLLECT DIRT VERSUS ON THE MAJOR THIRD FAIR PLAN
[01:00:01]
DEVELOPMENTS ALL THE TIME WHERE WE HAVE COLLECTORS AND MATERIALS THAT AREN'T ON THIS THIRD FAIR PLAN.BUT IF THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CODE, YEAH.
DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT IT? I CAN OR YOU CAN KEEP EITHER WAY.
I'LL KEEP GOING AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT.
UM, ON, I GUESS IT'S A C THREE.
A NO, C THREE ON PAGE TWO IT SAYS SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION.
WHAT IS, DOES THAT NEED, IS THAT DEFINED SOMEWHERE? WHAT IS THAT? UH, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
IT JUST SEEMS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION THERE.
WHERE'S SIGNIFICANT? WHERE? RIGHT THERE.
UNDER, UNDER AT IT'S THE LAST TWO WERE, OR LAST SENTENCE OF ITEM TWO RIGHT THERE.
I WAS LOOKING IN THREE, SORRY.
OH, IS THAT, IS IT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT? I DON'T KNOW.
IS IT A, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, THERE'S NOWHERE IN THE CODE DO WE USE LANGUAGE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, RIGHT? SO FROM A TREE PROTECTION OR CANOPY, SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION ISN'T DEFINED ANYWHERE.
SO HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO SHOW? CAN WE REFLECT OTHER, UM, TEXTS THAT SAYS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR SIGNIFICANT? NO, I MEAN, YEAH, THERE'S AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANT TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OR, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT, WHAT'S BROKEN ABOUT IT TODAY? 'CAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE THAT WAS JUST PULLED FROM ANOTHER SECTION, RIGHT? YES.
IT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE TODAY.
NO ONE WHO USES THIS FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE LIKES IT.
WE HATE THIS WHOLE SECTION OF CODE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES IT, DOES THIS CAUSE A PROBLEM? I KNOW IT'S JUST REALLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PIECE IT TOGETHER, DON'T YOU? WELL, I TELL CLIENTS ALL THE TIME, DON'T, DON'T, DON'T.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HERE'S YOUR BUCKET OF USES AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MIX.
CAN YOU PLEASE USE YOUR MIC SO PEOPLE AT HOME CAN HEAR YOU? THANK YOU.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE, HERE'S A BUCKET OF USES, HERE'S SOME PROTECTIONS AND YOU CAN MIX IT UP.
BUT IT GOT SO PRESCRIPTIVE THAT IT'S HA HARD HALF THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT MEANS.
SO I GET IT'S WHAT IT SAYS, WE DON'T WANNA CHANGE IT.
THIS BEING BEFORE, YOU KNOW, A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSUS AFTER.
BUT, SO THE, MAY THESE FEATURES, EASEMENT, STREAMS, FLOODPLAINS, SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION ARE, ARE THEY NOT REGULATED SOMEWHERE ELSE IN, IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE CODE? SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION IS NOT REGULATED IN THE CODE, BUT THERE'S SOME PLACE THAT IS REGULATED LIKE LANDSCAPING OR, UH, BUFFER YARDS OR NONE OF THOSE CODES DEFINE SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION.
SO LET'S TAKE OUT THE WORD SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION.
WHAT, WHAT IT'S TRYING TO SAY IS THAT YOU HAVE LANDSCAPING AREAS, BUFFER YARD AREAS, UM, YOU HAVE FLOODPLAIN AREAS.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU PUT IN THE PLA, RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE REGULATIONS THAT EXIST ELSEWHERE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE NECESSARY, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS IS HAVING A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE YOUR LOTS ARE, WHERE YOUR USES ARE, HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILY LOTS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE.
UM, ALL OF THE, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE, ARE PART OF THAT TO SHOW DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THOSE USES.
SO IF THAT SENTENCE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY TEETH TO IT OR THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE, THEN NOW'S OUR CHANCE TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED IT.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, I THINK IT COULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA SHOW, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU HAVE A TREE SAVE ERROR, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE SURE YOU HIGHLIGHT IT BECAUSE IT'S A, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ANYWAYS.
SO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS NOT, IT'S REAL.
AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION IS NOT DEFINED AS SEVERAL MENTIONED.
IT COULD MEAN ANYTHING TO ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
SO I WOULD END THIS SENTENCE AT, UM, SHALL BE INCLUDED.
SO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ARE DESIGNATED MINIMUM LOT SIZE SHALL BE INCLUDED THERE.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY REGULATED IN THE CODE.
AND ALREADY REQUIRES A PERMIT.
TO DEBBIE'S WORD IS SUPERFLUOUS.
I, I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF THE FLOODPLAINS THOUGH.
JUST 'CAUSE, BUT REMEMBER YOU ALREADY HAVE TO DO THAT THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS.
[01:05:01]
REMEMBER THE SITE ABOUT WHERE THESE USES ARE GOING.
THAT'S WHAT THE SITE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.
AND, AND, AND THE M P C D SITE PLAN IS MORE ABOUT THE LOCATION OF USE.
THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK POTENTIALLY WITH AN M D P AND PLATTS.
AND THOSE PLATS ARE GONNA INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE FEATURES YES.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW TOPOGRAPHY.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW IF THERE'S A RIVER RUNNING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS PART OF THOSE PROCESSES AS WELL.
NEXT ONE WOULD BE, UM, IN SECTION THREE.
RIGHT BELOW THAT, THIS IS JUST A TEXT EDIT.
IT SAYS CONFORMS WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SECTION.
THAT SHOULD PROBABLY SAY THIS SECTION.
IT'LL BE ON THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE.
GIVE US JUST ONE SECOND TO MAKE THIS CHANGE REAL QUICK.
SERGEANT GEORGE, WHERE WAS IT? OKAY, IT'S GONNA BE ON THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE UNDER E THREE RIGHT THERE.
IS THERE A SPACE? I CAN'T TELL.
IS THERE A SPACE BETWEEN SHALL AND B? OR IS IT ONE WORD? OKAY.
UM, NEXT TWO MORE SENTENCES DOWN.
F ONE UNDER HEIGHT LIMITATION.
THE WORD HOWEVER, SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED.
IT'S, IT'S A COMMA AFTER SITE.
IS IT A COMMA? IT'S A COMMA, YEAH.
IT LOOKED LIKE A PERIOD TO MY OLD EYEBALLS.
UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO, UNDER MINIMUM YARD END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT SAYS ZONING BASE DISTRICT.
ISN'T THAT TYPICALLY BASE ZONING DISTRICT? YEAH.
I MEAN, YEAH, THEY ARE, THEY ARE REFERRED TO IN THE CODE AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, IT SAYS, MAY PROVIDE CONTROL ACCESS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED.
AND THEN, AND THIS IS JUST MAYBE I'M STUPID.
UM, UNDER I OPEN SPACE, THE LAST SENTENCE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT THAT MEANS UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL OPEN SPACE.
IS THAT SAYING YOU CAN TAKE, IF YOU'RE ADJACENT TO A FLOODPLAIN, YOU CAN USE HALF THE FLOODPLAIN, HALF OF ANY ACCESSIBLE OR ANY OTHER USE BELIEVE THAT ESSENTIALLY IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS AT, IS ADJACENT TO ANY OF THOSE LISTED USES, YEAH.
YOU CAN COUNT ONE HALF OF YOUR REQUIREMENT FROM BEING NEXT TO THOSE OTHER LISTED USES.
IT'S LIKE BEING A BUDDING AN ALLEY.
YOU GET CREDIT FOR HALF OF THAT FOR HALF THE ALLEY AS PART OF THE STEP BACK.
SO WE'RE GETTING CREDIT FROM BEING NEXT TO A CEMETERY.
IT'S JUST BASICALLY JUST DON'T BE BEYOND THE CEMETERY.
OPEN SPACE WITH SOME LITTLE MONUMENT SIGNS.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UNDER SECTION K, UH, NO, SORRY, IT'S GONNA BE UNDER FIVE, WHICH IS UNDER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.
UH, ON THE FIRST SENTENCES, VIEW OF ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE CATEGORY.
OTHER WORD WITH THAT WAS ALL MY QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK THERE MAY BE A QUESTION.
I THINK KARA HAS A QUESTION ON, UH, GOING BACK TO A THREE.
IT SAYS ACCESS HAS TO BE TO A ROAD DESIGNATED ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
YOU KNOW, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN ONLY LOOKS AT SPACING, YOU KNOW, MILE AND A HALF KIND OF DISTANCE.
WE DO MASTER PLANS ALL THE TIME.
WE'RE ADDING COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS.
AND SO I'D LIKE THAT TO READ A COLLECTOR UP OR AN ARTERIAL OR UP VERSUS ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE WE ADD 'EM TO SUPPORT PROPERTIES ALL THE TIME THAT AREN'T ACTUALLY SHOWN ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND DON'T GET ADDED TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
BUT THEY'RE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC.
[01:10:01]
TO HAVE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PUBLIC ACCESS FRONTAGE.UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS VERY DETAILED SPECIFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, WHICH DOES IDENTIFY CERTAIN LEVELS OF STREET.
SO, BUT IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY ALL COLLECTORS IN ARTERIALS.
AND WE OFTEN ADD COLLECTORS IN ARTERIALS.
AND SO THAT WOULD THEN MEAN THOSE DON'T COUNT.
AND I, I THINK WE NEED TO DEFINITELY A MINIMUM STREET SECTION.
I MEAN, IT NEEDS TO BE A LARGE ENOUGH STREET TO SUPPORT IT.
BUT IT MAY NOT BE ON THE PLAN.
WELL, WOULDN'T THE ISSUE BE PICKED UP IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS? YEAH.
BUT YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A T I A FOR ZONING PART OF THE PLAN FOR NO, I'M THINKING IT'S LIKE THE OTHER, THE FLOODPLAIN AND THOSE OTHER THINGS.
WELL, MY ISSUE IS THE WORDS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THE INTENT IS A LARGER ROAD SECTION, BUT WE DON'T, WE HAVE A LOT OF STREETS THAT MEET THE CLASSIFICATION THAT AREN'T ON A THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
AND SO THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL LATER.
SO YOU COULDN'T ZONE IT IF IT WASN'T WITH THIS FOR A BUSINESS PARK, IF IT DIDN'T SIT ON A CURRENT THOROUGHFARE ON THE PLAN.
EVEN IF IT'S SAT ON AN ARTERIAL.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE JUST SAYING AT A MINIMUM, AN ARTERIAL AT OR COLLECTOR.
BECAUSE WE WON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY THE STREET REQUIREMENTS UNTIL IT IS SUBMITTED FOR PLATTING.
AND THERE'S A T I A THAT IS SUBMITTED OF WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, WE KNOW AT A MINIMUM, A COMMERCIAL'S GONNA PROBABLY HAVE TO COME IN ON A LOCAL B, NEVER ANY, NOT A LOCAL A A RESIDENTIAL STREET.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA PUT A BUSINESS PARK.
SHOULD IT BE CHANGED TO SAY, PERMITTED ONLY FROM A ROADWAY WITH ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT? NO.
YOU WON'T HAVE, YOU WON'T HAVE THAT, THAT, BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT THAT SUBSECTION, I MEAN, THE SAYING IT'S APPLICABLE FOR BUSINESS PARKS IS INTERESTING.
'CAUSE THAT'S KIND OF A SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN AND OF ITSELF THAT HAS TO MEET A WHOLE BUNCH OF DESIGN CRITERIA.
PLUS IT'S, IT'S A MIXTURE OF THE VEHICULAR CARS AND 18 WHEELERS.
I MEAN, I, IN ORDER TO CREATE MORE FLEXIBILITY, CAN THERE JUST BE A REFERENCE THAT IT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN? THAT'S OKAY.
MY ISSUE IS WE BUILD THOSE STREETS ALL THE TIME THAT AREN'T IN THAT PLAN.
AND THEY NEVER GET ADDED TO THAT PLAN.
BUT YOU WERE, YOU WERE REFERRING TO ADDING COLLECTOR OR ABOVE MM-HMM.
BECAUSE IF, IF YOU LOOK AT BUSINESS PARK IN THE CODE, IT REQUIRES TO LOCATE A BUSINESS PARK, IT HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO A FREEWAY ARTERIAL PRINCIPLE.
ARTERIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR.
SO YOU JUST COPY THAT LANGUAGE.
SO, LAUREN, LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THE TEXT TO READ? SO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK USE SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY FROM A FREEWAY ARTERIAL.
OR COULD YOU JUST REFERENCE THAT CODE SECTION? PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL WE'RE TOO FAR ON OR NON-RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET.
NON-RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET.
I HOPE TO GET TO, WE'RE NOT ON NINE HERE.
I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE NEXT PAGE.
ARE WE REMOVING ANY OF THE TEXTS FROM HERE? FROM AFTER STREET? YEAH.
DOES THAT LOOK GOOD TO YOU? MM-HMM.
WELL WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO UH, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL AMEND MOTION TO ACCEPT DISCUSSION.
THAT'S THE WAY I, THERE YOU GO.
WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT THE EDITS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
[01:15:01]
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.I'M, I'M A LITTLE LATE ASKING.
WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION ON, ON HEIGHTENED YARD REQUIREMENTS UNDER MINIMUM YARD, UH, IT, UM, THE ROUTE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE THAT IS LESS THAN, SHOULDN'T IT BE MORE THAN, WHERE ARE YOU BUM? UH, HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS UNDER F UNDER TWO.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY, MAYBE IT, IT IS RIGHT.
SO WHERE WAS YOUR QUESTION? IT WAS UNDER F UNDER F TWO MINIMUM YARD SHOULD A MATCH OF, UH, ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF BASE ZONING ZONING DISTRICT, THAT REQUIRES A, A MINIMUM LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THAT SQUARE, UH, FOOTAGE SHOWN ON THE M M M D P SHOULDN'T BE MORE.
NO, IT'S LESS BECAUSE THE M P C D SITE PLAN WILL, UM, IT RELAX, IT RELAXES THE STANDARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED IN YOUR TRADITIONAL AS AND CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 23 DASH SIX SECTION 35 DASH 3 71 A ONE.
I'M FROM NEW MOREHEAD HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION TO PRESENT, UM, OUR RECOMMENDED A D U AMENDMENTS.
THESE AMENDMENTS WENT THROUGH A PROCESS THAT BEGAN WITH, UH, AN AD HOC WORKING GROUP APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, UH, BACK IN AUGUST OF 2019.
UH, THEY MET ABOUT 30 TIMES, UH, BEFORE THE PANDEMIC KICKED IN AND THEIR WORK WAS PAUSED.
UM, BUT IN THAT TIME, THEY CAME UP WITH THESE A D U RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I WILL SHARE THAT, UM, THAT GROUP WAS CO-CHAIRED BY THREE TRI CHAIRS.
JIM BAILEY OF ALAMO ARCHITECTS, CYNTHIA SPIELMAN OF TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND, UM, STEVE PAPO, WHO IS A DEVELOPER.
SO THE THREE OF THEM RAN A CONSENSUS BASED PROCESS THAT WAS RESULTED IN THE A D U AMENDMENTS.
YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, UM, AFTER THE PANDEMIC, UH, I GUESS THE MOST RECENT SURGE.
UM, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RESUMED ITS WORK UNDERNEATH OUR HOUSING COMMISSION.
THEY MET NOVEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER.
UM, AND THEN PUT THEIR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING THE ATTACHED AND THE A D U AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT.
AND THE, UM, HOUSING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THESE, UM, TO SEND ALONG TO YOU, UH, AT THEIR JANUARY MEETING.
IT'S A LITTLE BACKSTORY FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? BIANCA? MOTION TO APPROVE COMPREHEND.
YEAH, JUST A QUICK CHANGE ON, UH, A AND B SINCE WE'RE GONNA BE REMOVING THESE.
UM, CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM FIVE TO FOUR OR FIVE TO THREE.
AND ON B, UM, FROM FOUR TO TWO, AND THEN FOUR, FIVE TO THREE.
BIANCA, I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS ENTIRE AMENDMENT.
UM, IF YOU WANT ME TO GO PIECE BY PIECE, I WILL.
THE FIRST ONE, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING TO BE CONNECTED TO THE CENTRAL ELECTRIC.
UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED AND MENTIONED.
ALSO, I KNOW THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT WENT OUT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE RESULTS OF THOSE SURVEYS THAT WERE DONE BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I'M FEARFUL THAT THIS DID NOT SEE AS MUCH DAYLIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO FROM A TECHNICAL ASPECT, WHICH IS REALLY OUR PURVIEW HERE, UM, WHEN YOU SEEK TO REMOVE THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS OR THE REQUIREMENT THAT, UH, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BE CONNECTED, IT COULD BE CONNECTED SEPARATELY.
SO RIGHT NOW, IT CURRENTLY HAS TO BE CONNECTED TO THE MAIN HOME.
YOU ESSENTIALLY BEGAN TO TRANSFORM A SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY.
YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE A DOUBLE FAMILY COMMUNITY, UM, AND YOU LOSE THE ESSENCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO REMOVE BARRIERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE AT THE DETRIMENT
[01:20:01]
OF WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE IN OUR CITY.AND I'LL TELL YOU THIS, ADVERSELY IMPACTS HOMES THAT ARE NOT IN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SITUATION.
SO IT ADVERSELY PUTS A TARGET ON CERTAIN COMMUNITIES WITHIN CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEN YOU START ADDING ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHAT ELSE DO THEY GET? REMEMBER WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT ADDITIONAL SERVICES THEY GET WITH SOLID WASTE.
THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL THREE BINS THAT COME WITH EVERY PROPERTY.
BUT MY CRITICAL POINT IS THAT IT'S REALLY CHANGING THE EVOLUTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY.
EVERYBODY WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD A SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY WITH A SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ESSENTIALLY BEING CHANGED BY ALL THESE PROPOSALS.
SO WHAT YOU CAN SAY, YOU CAN HAVE 15 PEOPLE IN THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BECAUSE THEN IT FALLS BACK TO SQUARE FOOTAGE PER INDIVIDUAL.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS, UNFORTUNATELY THAT CAN BE, UH, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT THIS, THESE CHANGES DO NOT ADDRESS IS THAT WHAT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
IN A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
YOU START TALKING ABOUT ASSISTED LIVING.
YOU START TALKING ABOUT SOBER HOMES, YOU START TALKING ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS, ALL OF THESE THINGS, THESE, UH, REMOVALS OF THESE ENTITIES IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OPENS THE DOOR FOR ALL OF THOSE TODAY, RIGHT NOW, FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS BEING, UH, RUN IN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, IT'S LIMITED BY THREE PEOPLE.
YOU'RE TAKING THAT OFF AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT COULD BE FIVE, THAT COULD BE SEVEN.
'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT PUTTING A LIMIT ON IT.
SO I HAVE STRONG CONCERNS WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
ALSO, THE 50%, UM, THE ACCESS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS NOT TO EXCEED, UM, 800 SQUARE FEET OR 50%.
A LOT OF YOUR HOMES ARE 2000 SQUARE FEET, MAYBE 2100.
THAT STARTS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
THIS IS HUGELY IMPACTING A LARGE DEMOGRAPHIC AREA IN THE URBAN CORE, IN MY OPINION.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT SUCH AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY CODE WITH RESPECT TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ATTACHED AND DETACHED, BECAUSE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES.
AND SO, WHILE THERE'S NO PROTECTIONS WITH ANYTHING ELSE, I HAVE STRONG CONCERNS AND DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE THAT WE, UM, WE DENY THIS AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
UM, WHEN IT SAYS THE A D U D U SHALL NOT CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOMS, THREE BEDROOMS, WHERE'S THE STOP? THERE'S NO LIMIT LISTED.
SO YOU SEE THEY'RE REMOVING THE RESTRICTION.
SO WHAT IS IT? IT COULD BE FOUR BEDROOMS, HOWEVER, HOWEVER FAR YOU SUBISE YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THAT IS, THAT IS THE BIG CONCERN THAT I THINK THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO REMOVE BARRIERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, SO I WOULD STRONGLY ASK MY FELLOW P TTAC MEMBERS, MR. BROWN, MR. HANLEY, IF YOU WOULD RECONSIDER YOUR MOTION, UM, AND PULL IT BACK TILL WE HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, REMOVING THE OCCUPANCIES.
UM, WHEN YOU REMOVE IT, THERE IS NO LIMIT AT THAT POINT.
UH, MANANA, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THANK AND WOULD ACT ACTUALLY, UM, WOULD VOICE EVERYTHING THAT SHE JUST SAID SO ELOQUENTLY.
SO I KNOW JULIE HAD A QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED, UM, STAFF'S EXPLANATION FOR, UM, THE, IN ADDITION TO THE NOW THE TWO, UH, WHY IT IS LIMITED TO BEING LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD.
SO THIS PROCESS WAS A CONSENSUS BASED PROCESS.
UM, AND THE MEETINGS WERE PUBLIC AND STAFF, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AT THE TIME COULDN'T THINK OF A REASON AS TO WHY.
UM, THERE SHOULD ONLY BE, UM, OH, EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY.
I'M SPEAKING TO THE WRONG AMENDMENT.
UM, BUT THE CONSENSUS SPACE PORTION OF IT STILL APPLIES.
SO THE COMMITTEE WANTED IT TO BE LOCATED IN THEIR REAR YARD, UM, IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE OF SOME CONCERNS THAT BIANCA, UH, RAISED, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UM, NOT CHANGING THE CHARACTER FROM THE FRONT PERSPECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOLKS WHO, UM, SOUGHT TO BUILD AN A D U ON THE SIDE YARD, IF THEY HAD A SIGNIFICANT SIDE YARD FOR ONE, UM, COULD DO SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE FIRST.
UH, YOU KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY, UH, THE VERONICA ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMITTEE WENT THROUGH, THERE'S MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA WAIVE OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON, UH, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
AND SO I'M, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE NOT ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THIS LOGISTICALLY, OR DESIGN WISE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY AND THE GROWTH OF THE CITY, AND,
[01:25:01]
UH, WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE URBAN CORE OR THE FIRST OUTER RING OR THE SECOND.AND SO I THINK THIS IS MORE OF A FLEXIBILITY THAT IT PROVIDES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.
AND SO I, I DON'T HAVE THE SAME FEELING THAT IT IS A BAD THING FOR THE CITY OVERALL.
UH, VASQUEZ WOULD LIKE TO ADD A, A COMMENT.
UH, DID I AGREE WITH MS. ALDO'S CONCERN? OKAY.
SO, SO I'M EXPERIENCING THIS IN MY COMMUNITY TODAY.
AND SO, UM, SO ON A REGULAR BASIS, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ZONING CASES GOING ON RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES.
AND SO, SO, UM, AND SO, SO I THINK THAT WHERE, WHERE IT SITS RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, UM, WE'RE STRUGGLING EVEN KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY WITH THE EXISTING CODE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND I THINK THIS OPENS IT UP SIGNIFICANTLY TO ALLOW MORE OF IT.
AND SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY RECOGNIZE THAT BECAUSE WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO POSITION THE ACCESSORY DWELLING AT THE REAR YARD? WELL, BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE IT'S GONNA ADD A MASSING AND SCALE THAT MAY BE UNPROPORTIONAL TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IT'S THEIR ATTEMPT TO NEGATE IT.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE I COULD, IF WE COULD LEAVE, UH, ITEM, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR TWO, UH, THERE AND, AND STRIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.
WELL, IT'S KIND OF THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
IT'S LIKE, THAT'S THE GREAT PART ABOUT IT, THAT ONE ITEM.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, YOU'VE GOTTA LOSE ALL YOUR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND I THINK THIS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES WHAT PROPERTY OWNERS THINK OF THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WHAT THEY BOUGHT INTO.
AND THEY'RE, BECAUSE THIS IS LIMITLESS.
THIS IS LIKE A, A PROLIFERATION OF ALLOWING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DENSITY MASSING AND SCALE.
AND TO MR. HANLEY'S POINT ABOUT THE SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, THE URBAN CORE, I MEAN, MY SETBACKS 18 INCHES FOR, UH, MY GARAGE NEXT DOOR.
MY NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR IS ONLY THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
THERE'S LIFE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS WITH, UH, SOME OF THESE, UH, SUGGESTIONS.
AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE REMOVING THE, THE, UH, THE LIMITATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS MEETS THE FIRE CODE AT THIS POINT.
AND SO, TO YOUR POINT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, I DID FOLLOW YOUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WHEN THE AMENDMENT STARTED IN THE FALL, BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE BUILDING CODE, THE FIRE CODE, LIFE SAFETY.
AND LIKE I SAID, THIS UNINTENTIONALLY PUTS A TARGET ON NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NOT A PART OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AREA, UH, BY ADDING SO MUCH DENSITY AND THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING OTHER COMMERCIAL USES TO COME IN, LIKE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH WE'RE BATTLING BECAUSE THAT'S CHANGING THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE OPERATIONS OF WHAT GOES ON IN OUR COMMUNITIES TODAY.
AND SO, UM, I, I'M JUST NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AMENDMENT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT ENDANGERS THE, THE LIFE AND THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS.
SO, UM, CHAIR, IF I MAY SPEAK TO THOSE POINTS, AND KATT CAN JUMP INTO WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS WORKING ON THESE, UM, THEY DID LOOK AT ELEMENTS OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CODE THAT GOVERN THINGS LIKE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND MINIMUM SIZES.
AND SO THEY WEREN'T DOING THIS AS A WAY OF, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN WE CRAM INTO A BUILDING OR HOW MANY PEOPLE WE CAN ALLOW.
THEY WERE WANTING TO ELIMINATE AREAS OF CODE THAT WERE DUPLICATIVE AND ALREADY IN PLACE AND, AND MAYBE NOT AS RELEVANT ANYMORE IF WE INCREASED, UM, THE SIZE LIMITATIONS ON THESE.
UM, AND KAT CAN SPEAK MORE ELOQUENTLY TO THAT THAN I COULD.
BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD TOO, THAT THE OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT TO ADUS IS NOT CHANGING IN THESE PROPOSALS.
YOU STILL NEED TO LIVE ON SITE TO ADD THESE.
UM, IT CAN'T BE A, A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BUYING AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY AND THEN PUTTING TWO STRUCTURES ON IT.
YOU STILL HAVE TO BE AN OWNER.
NOW, TO ADD REAL, REAL QUICK, KAT, BEFORE YOU CHIME IN, I DO WANT TO DRAW, UH, ONE IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION THAT THERE ARE NO U D C AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE TAC TODAY THAT WOULD UNDERMINE HEALTH, FIRE, SAFETY, ET CETERA.
OTHER CODES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVER THE YEARS HAS HAD, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF CASES BEFORE THEM WHERE THEY'VE APPROVED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR EVEN PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AT LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND IT'S CERTAINLY INCUMBENT UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEIR CONTRACTOR, ET CETERA, TO WORK OUT WITH PLAN REVIEW A WAY THAT MEETS THE, THE BUILDING CODE, THE FIRE CODE THAT IS SAFE.
SO I, I DID JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE TAC TODAY.
SO IN, LET ME KIND OF TALK THROUGH WHAT THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP.
SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS WILL STILL HAVE A SIZE LIMITATION OF 40%.
RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE DEAL WITH IS SORT OF THIS EITHER OR 40%, NO BIGGER THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.
BUT THINK ABOUT YOU'RE LIVING IN THE DOMINION, RIGHT? OR YOU'RE LIVING WITH A VERY LARGE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AND YOU WANT TO ADD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING U UNIT, UH, ONTO THE PROPERTY.
MAYBE IT'S YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.
[01:30:01]
UM, AND, UH, YOU ARE ONLY LIMITED TO 800 SQUARE FEET.SO IT, IT, IT LOOKS LIKE A STORAGE SHED COMPARED TO THE SIZE OF THE HOME.
SO THIS WOULD STILL PERMIT, IT WOULD NOT LET IT EXCEED 40% OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO EVEN IF YOU HAD A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT HOME, PRIMARY HOME PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN, UH, INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD, 40% MEANS THAT IT CAN'T EXCEED WHAT, 400 SQUARE FEET.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT, THAT WOULD STILL BE PART OF THE CODE.
THE, UM, SO THAT'S WHY NUMBER TWO BECOMES IRRELEVANT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE THE 40% THAT GOVERNS THE SIZE, THE NO MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM.
SO IF YOU ARE, ARE GIVEN THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU CAN WORK WITH, YOUR BEDROOMS HAVE TO MEET AND, UH, A CERTAIN SIZE BASED ON THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BASED ON BUILDING CODE.
SO RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN BUILD A PRIMARY HOME, UM, AND OUR CODE DOESN'T, DOESN'T REGULATE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS. YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE, OUR CODE DOESN'T STATE THAT TODAY, BUT THOSE ARE GOVERNED BY THE BUILDING CODES.
SO THOSE CODES WILL STILL BE IN PLACE.
SO WHEN THEY COME INTO PULL A PERMIT, THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN'T ADD 15 BEDROOM HOME IN A 40%, UM, FOOTPRINT, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE WHEN THEY'RE PULLING THAT PERMIT.
SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD HELP TO TAKE CARE OF HOW MANY BEDROOMS IS IT? AND, YOU KNOW, DO THEY ALL HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS? SO THAT WILL STILL BE PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, THE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, WE HAVE, UH, SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, WHERE THEY HAVE DEEP FRONT SETBACKS, WHERE THE FRONT, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN OAKLAND ESTATES.
UM, WELL, YOU WHERE THE HOME IS SET BACK FAR FROM THE STREET.
UM, AND THIS ONE MAY ENSURE THAT ANY DETACH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE BUILT IN THE REAR YARD AND NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE ALL OF THAT SPACE TO ADD MORE ANOTHER HOME THERE.
BUT THIS WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IF IT'S AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, IT'S BUILT IN THE REAR.
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW, THAT'S HOW THESE LOOK.
YOU HAVE THE PRIMARY HOME, YOU HAVE THE ACCESSORY HOME.
UM, WE, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE OWNER OCCUPANCY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED, THE METER.
SO THIS COMES UP IN A LOT OF MY LARGE AREA REZONING CASES WHERE, UM, SOME OF THESE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS HAD, UH, TWO METERS, BECAUSE BACK THEN WE DIDN'T, UM, THE C P S DIDN'T CHECK WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE ZONED FOR ANOTHER METER.
NOW YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UH, THE RIGHT ZONING TO ORDER TO HAVE A SEC, A SECOND METER.
SO THERE'S SOME HOMES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE TWO METERS, UH, ON THE PROPERTY.
AND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ZONED FOR TWO UNITS.
UH, AND SO THAT, THAT HAS BEEN, UM, A, A POINT OF CONTENTION FOR SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH LARGE AREA REZONING PROCESS.
BECAUSE BASICALLY IT'S THE OWNER AND, AND THE GRANNY FLAT.
AND, BUT IN ORDER FOR THEM NOT TO LOSE THE METER, THEY HAVE TO BE ZONED FOR THE TWO, THE TWO METERS BECAUSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT.
UH, SO, AND WE GET A LOT OF THOSE OWNER OCCUPANCY, UM, OWNER OCCUPIED, UH, PROPERTIES THAT WANT TO ADD THE SECOND METER, EVEN IF IT IS A RELATED, UH, UH, CHILD, OR EVEN IF IT IS, UH, NOT RELATED, THEY WANT SEPARATE UH, METERS.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY NOW HAVE TO REZONE.
AND SO NOW THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WANNA JUST RENT OUT ON A, ON A SEPARATE METER, UH, THE, THE GRANNY FLAT.
SO, UH, THIS WOULD REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT AS WELL BECAUSE THEY'RE, IT'S STILL ESSENTIALLY AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THE END OF THE DAY.
UH, SO WE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS PART OF THAT TASK FORCE TO HELP ADDRESS ALL THESE QUESTIONS.
'CAUSE AS THEY WENT THROUGH EACH PART OF THE CODE, UH, LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, THERE MAY BE OTHER CODES THAT ARE STILL IN PLACE TODAY THAT ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
THESE WERE JUST A ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT MAY OR MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN REDUNDANT BECAUSE OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE ALREADY REGULATED IT.
SO AGAIN, IT WAS ABOUT REMOVING THOSE BARRIERS AND AS IT WENT THROUGH THAT HOUSING COMMISSION PROCESS, THERE WAS THAT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.
AND THERE'S STILL A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS TODAY WITH THESE AMENDMENTS AS IT GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS UNTIL OCTOBER, UH, WHEN, WHEN IT IS SCHEDULED FOR ADOPTION.
SO, WE'LL, I'M SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HEAR ABOUT THESE AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS, THE ZONING COMMISSION PROCESS, THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO GET THAT FEEDBACK IF, IF IT THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH, WITH HOW THESE, UH, AMENDMENTS ARE DRAFTED.
CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION, KATT, JUST TO MAKE SURE.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY OWNER OCCUPIED.
IS THERE ANYTHING SET IN PLACE THAT PREVENTS THAT FROM BEING SOLD TO AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND THEM BEING ABLE TO RENT BOTH UNITS? SO THE WAY THE CODE'S WRITTEN NOW, OWNER, OWNER OCCUPIED IS ONLY ALLOWED THAT WHAT WE CALL THE BONUS UNIT.
THAT'S WHAT, WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE TELL.
BUT THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD UNDER OWNER OCCUPIED.
BUT THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PLACE FOR THE OWNER TO SELL TO
[01:35:01]
AN INVESTMENT COMPANY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.SO, BECAUSE I'M SEEING THAT A LOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS, UM, I MEAN AS LONG AS THE PRO, THE, IF THE IN INVEST, IF IF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY BECOMES THE OWNER, IF THE OWNER'S STILL PART OF THAT, ARE THEY MOVED OFF THE PROPERTY? OH YEAH.
OH, THEN TECHNICALLY THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED THE BONUS UNIT NO MATTER WHAT.
SO THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
AND WE GET THOSE, THEY'LL COME IN THROUGH, THROUGH THE PROCESS.
'CAUSE USUALLY IT'S, IT, WE HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T CHANGE OWNERSHIP THROUGH CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
YOU, YOU CHANGE OWNERSHIP THROUGH BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
UM, THAT'S HOW YOU RECORD WHO THE NEW OWNER IS.
SO WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT IT UNTIL LATER.
SO MAYBE WE HEARD FROM A NEIGHBOR THAT SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER'S NO LONGER LIVING THERE, THERE'S NOW TWO SEPARATE DWELLING UNITS.
UH, THEN CODE NOTIFIES THEM, THEN THEY HAVE TO COME THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS IN ORDER TO REZONE FOR TWO UNITS, OR IT ENDS UP RESULTING IN AN EVICTION.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMMUNITY INITIATED.
ALSO KNOW IF YOU RECEIVE ANY OF THESE ISSUES IN YOUR AREA, YOU CAN ALWAYS CALL 3 1 1.
I'M A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
AND OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL LOOK INTO ISSUES LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO NOT, UH, HAPPEN, RIGHT? SO WE ALWAYS CHECK TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS, UH, DONE CORRECTLY WITH PERMITTED USES, UH, ZONING.
AND, UH, WE WORK CLOSELY WITH OUR COLLEAGUES HERE IN LAND DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING COMPLIES WITH ALL U D C REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD ONE IN, UM, MONTE VISTA, I WANNA SAY, UM, RIGHT OFF OF HILDEBRAND.
UM, WE, SHE HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UM, AND SHE HAD, UM, UH, SHE HAD BOTH UNITS OCCUPIED, BUT THE OWNER WASN'T OCCUPYING IT AND SHE WASN'T OCCUPYING, THAT WASN'T HER HOMESTEAD.
UM, WHEN SHE HEARD THAT IT WAS OUTTA COMPLIANCE, SHE'S LIKE, WELL, I DON'T WANNA EVICT PEOPLE, I JUST WANT IT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND SO SHE HAD TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS TO REZONE IT FOR TWO UNITS BECAUSE THIS CODE REQUIREMENT REQUIRED IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT ON THE SAME METER.
IF YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION, THEN THAT ONE LOT GETS REZONED.
SO NANA, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO SOME OF THESE THINGS SEEM TO BE THAT THEY COULD BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO TEXAS CANNOT DO USE EXPERIENCES.
SO, OKAY, SO THE EXAMPLE OF THE, UH, WHERE WAS THE DIALOGUE FOR THE, UH, THREE FOOT, UM, SETBACK WITH REGARDS TO THE STRUCTURE, THE, UH, THE ROOFING AND THAT? THANK YOU.
SO, SO THAT ONE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DIALOGUE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ABOUT THAT REGULARLY.
AND SO, SO IT'S PART OF THE CODE.
AND SO I GUESS THAT SEEMED LIKE IT WASN'T NECESSARY.
AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, JUST SAYING YOU COULD BUILD THREE FOOT UP AND THEN WE'LL BE DEALING THAT WITH THAT ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS PEOPLE ENCROACH ON THAT SPACE WHERE WE ALREADY ALLOW FOR THE ROOF LINES AND ALL THAT.
YOU BRING UP A PER, THAT WAS THE OTHER, UH, POINT THAT I WANTED TO, SHE TALKED ABOUT, UM, HOW SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES, LIKE LET'S SAY YOU HAD, UH, AN ACCESSORY, UH, DETACHED GARAGE THAT YOU NOW WANNA CONVERT INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND THEY'RE BUILT LESS THAN THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE CODE REQUIRES THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, UH, CURRENTLY THAT IT BE AT LEAST FIVE FEET.
UM, BUT WHEN YOU'RE CONVERTING IT, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.
SO I THINK ONE OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW IF IT WAS ALREADY BUILT, BECAUSE PRETTY MUCH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND YOU'VE BEEN THERE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE APPROVING THESE BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN BEEN THERE.
THEY'RE, ALL THEY'RE DOING IS KEEPING THE SAME FOOTPRINT.
THEY'RE JUST CONVERTING IT INTO LIVING SPACE.
AGAIN, YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING AND FIRE CODES.
UM, AND UH, IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T BYPASS THOSE CODES.
SO EVEN IF IT WAS CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY, YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE.
UH, SO IT, IT, I THINK IT THE PROPOSAL OR SEEKS TO AMEND THAT OTHER STEP, ANOTHER HURDLE IN THE PROCESS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO CONVERT IT, UH, INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
BECAUSE THAT ALONE IS $400 AND THIS ONE WOULD ONLY APPLY, SORRY, THIS ONE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO A DETACHED DWELLING.
IF IT'S, UM, AN ATTACHED UNIT, THEN IT STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT APPLIES TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I GUESS, SO WE REGULARLY SEE WHERE THEY COME IN AND THEY'VE USED THE SAME FOOTPRINT, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING MM-HMM.
BUT, BUT IS THIS ENCOURAGING BASICALLY THOSE THAT OUR NEW STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, TO, TO LEVERAGE THAT LINE VERSUS THE FIVE FOOT LINE.
AND SO, SO THAT'S WHY, I GUESS TO ME, IT SHOULD BE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND THEN COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER.
AND, AND SO ALL THIS DOES IS, IS ALLOW, 'CAUSE CURRENTLY A CODE ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE STORAGE SHEDS, GARAGES, THAT YOU CAN BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SO LONG AS YOU HAVE NO OVERHANG, RIGHT? SO IT, IT'S JUST APPLYING THAT TO THE SAME, TO AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT AS WELL.
AGAIN, YOU STILL HAVE TO FIRE RATE IT, YOU STILL HAVE TO BE BUILDING A FIRE CODE, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW IT JUST LIKE WE DO FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
SO I HAD ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LIFE SAFETY COMPONENT,
[01:40:01]
BECAUSE THIS ISN'T TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT'S GOING ON ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.SO YOUR, UH, NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE WAY MAY ONLY BE 18 INCHES OFF YOUR PROPERTY LINE THAT YOU SHARE.
AND ALL TOO OFTEN WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN THESE SETBACK AREAS IS WHAT, WHAT IS ALSO PERMISSIBLE TANKLESS WATER HEATERS, WATER HEATERS, CONDENSING UNITS FOR HVAC UNITS, PORCH, UM, PORCHES.
AND THEN ALSO, UM, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE SPLIT UNITS THAT ARE VERY POPULAR RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN JUST TACK 'EM ONTO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
AND SO WHEN YOU THINK OF TIGHT AREAS, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK WE COULD JUST LOOK AT THE NEWS LAST WEEK AND WE HAD A, A HOUSE WHERE TWO ADDITIONAL HOMES CAUGHT ON FIRE BECAUSE THERE WERE VERY LITTLE SETBACK, LESS THAN THREE FEET BETWEEN THESE PROPERTIES.
AND SO THE WAY THAT'S WRITTEN, IT GIVES YOU NO CONSIDERATION TO THE OVERALL AREA.
YOU ASSUME YOU HAVE FIVE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS TYPICALLY NOT THE CASE FOR THE URBAN CORE AND A LOT OF THE OLDER BUILDING STOCK HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE.
IF I HADN'T SEEN IT IN MY OWN COMMUNITY, I WOULDN'T BE RAISING THAT POINT.
AND SO I APPRECIATE STAFF'S COMMENTS THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THE LIFE SAFETY, BUT THAT IS PART OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS HERE, IS THAT WHEN YOU THINK OF A FIREMAN TRYING TO GET IN BETWEEN THESE TWO AREAS AND HOW TIGHT THEY ARE, AND THERE'S NO ACCOMMODATION FOR LANGUAGE IN THIS AMENDMENT, AND YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, THE, THE DESIRE TO PUT MORE DENSITY, MORE USE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, PUT LARGER STRUCTURES, UM, IT, IT CAN AND MAY REDUCE ACCESS TO STRUCTURES IN AN EMERGENCY EVENT.
UM, AND THAT IS MY STRONGEST CONCERN.
UM, I, I STILL THINK THAT THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING WHAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL, UM, AREA.
AND SO I STILL SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY BRINGS LIFE SAFETY ISSUES AND DOESN'T DESERVE TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, MAYBE I JUST NEED SOME EDIFICATION ON THIS, BUT WHEN I READ THIS THING, I WAS REALLY SURPRISED IGNORANTLY PROBABLY, THAT THEY COULD BUILD THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
CAN PEOPLE DO THAT RIGHT NOW TODAY? YES.
AND THEN WHEN YOU READ ALSO IN HERE THAT THERE'S SOME WIND LANGUAGE HERE THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COULD BE TWO STORY.
WELL, ACTUALLY TODAY WAS SITTING THERE AND SOMEBODY WAS BUILDING A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, TWO FEET OF FIVE FEET FROM MY REAL PROPERTY.
TODAY AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
BOB, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE CITY, YOU'RE GONNA FIND A LOT OF THOSE ARE EXISTING RIGHT NOW.
THROUGH SOME OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.
GO THROUGH MONTE VISTA, YOU'VE GOT TWO STORY, UH, UNITS WITH A GARAGE APARTMENT OR A NANNY FLAT OVER A TWO CAR GARAGE, AND THEY'RE THREE TO FIVE FEET RIGHT OFF IT.
YOU CAN GO TO A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THAT WAS COMMON TO HAVE SERVANTS QUARTERS DETACHED IN THE BACKYARD.
UH, SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF THAT CURRENTLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATA NUMBER IS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY HAS THAT, BUT THIS IS NOT SOME KIND OF LIKE UNICORN THAT HAPPENS ON, FURTHERMORE, THIS IS A OPTION THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE, IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT, IT DOESN'T MEAN, WELL, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.
AND EVERYBODY THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S NOW GONNA HAVE AN ACCESSORY DRILL IN THE BACKYARD.
THAT'S THE DECISION AND GIVES THEM AS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO DO THAT OR NOT IN THEIR BACKYARD.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, JUST SO I KNOW, WERE, WERE THEY BUILT BEFORE THERE WAS ANY CODES LIMITATION THAT YOU COULD BUILD THAT CLOSE? WELL, MANY OF 'EM WERE BUILT THREE FEET TODAY, YOU KNOW, SO YEAH, THEY WERE, I JUST WANNA MEAN, COULD, COULD, WHAT WAS BUILT 20 YEARS AGO IS DIFFERENT TO ME THAN WHAT WE'RE GONNA LET SOMEBODY BUILD TRUE TOMORROW.
THERE, IT, THERE IS, IS A HEIGHT RESTRICTION PROPOSED FOR THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T EXCEED 25 FEET.
AND AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A LOT, A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE TALKING ABOUT AGING IN PLACE.
THEY WANT TO STAY ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY NEED THE SPACE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SPOUSE, MAYBE SOME GRANDCHILDREN THAT COME BACK TO LIVE, YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS, I GUESS, OR CHILDREN, BUT THEY MAY NOT WANT TO DO THE UPKEEP ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
SO THIS ALLOWS FOR, UH, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE BUILT SO THEY HAVE A SMALLER HOME, STAY ON THE PROPERTY AND RENT OUT, UH, THE OTHER STRUCTURE.
IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE, IF YOU'RE RENTING OUT THE OTHER STRUCTURE NOW, YOU HAVE TWO FAMILIES ON ONE LOT, WHICH DEFIES THE PURPOSE OF HAVING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR FAMILY MEMBERS.
WELL, AND GOES RIGHT BACK TO THE ZONING ISSUE.
IF YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SEPARATE FAMILIES IN ON THE PROPERTY, LET ME CLARIFY.
THE CODE ALLOWS FOR TWO SEPARATE FAMILIES TO, TO BE ON IN AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND A PRIMARY UNIT.
THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO BE RELATED.
[01:45:01]
SO YOU CAN LIVE IN YOUR PRIMARY HOME AND BUILD AN A D D U TODAY, PUT IT ON THE SAME METER, MAKE SURE IT'S FIVE FEET AWAY, UH, AND RENT IT OUT TO S TO SOMEBODY ELSE THAT MAY NOT BE RELATED TO YOU, THAT IS ALLOWED TODAY.SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIONS ON BLOOD RELATION OR NON-BLOOD RELATION TODAY, BUT I, I RE REPEAT WHAT I JUST SAID.
NOW WE HAVE TWO UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT AND WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS TO GET 'EM REZONED FOR THE DENSITY.
AND WE DON'T TODAY, IF THEY'RE OWNER OCCUPIED.
IF THEY'RE OWNER OCCUPIED, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REZONE TO HAVE A, A DETACHED UNIT.
DON'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, HAVE ONE FROM RESIDENCES.
I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT MAY I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR FOR TWO? OH, SORRY.
YEAH, THANK WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR APPROVAL.
THAT WAS THE FIRST MOTION BY MR. BROWN.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. HANLEY.
THOSE MOTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, DIDN'T YOU? NO, NO, YOU MADE THE MOTION.
YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN MOTION FOR DENIALS.
WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION, DEBBIE? I JUST THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, UM, LIVING IN ON A SMALL LOT IN A INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD TO, FOR NEW STRUCTURES TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT AND TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, STEP BACK JUST FOR EVERYTHING FROM JUST WALKING.
I'VE HAD NEIGHBORS GETTING IN FIGHTS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO NOT WALK ON THE OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY FOR STORM WATER RUNNING DOWN FROM ONE FROM THE ALLEY TO THE STREET.
DOESN'T IT SAY THAT NEW STRUCTURES HAVE TO HAVE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK RIGHT? THERE SHALL REQUIRE A MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES OF FIVE FEET.
IT SAYS, OH, SO IT'S GOING 'CAUSE IT'S THREE IF NO STRUCTURE OVERHANG, IT CAN GO TO THREE.
THIS TYPICALLY WHEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THE WALL FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE A TWO FOOT EVE ON IT.
THE TIP OF THAT EVE IS THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THIS PROVISION, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, SAYS THAT IF THERE'S NOTHING HANGING OVER THAT WALL, THERE'S NO EAVE, THERE'S JUST A FLAT WALL, FLAT ROOF, THEN IT CAN BE THREE, WHICH OF, I MEAN A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK IS WHAT WE REQUIRE FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THOSE HOMES HAVE A TWO FOOT EAVE.
SO THE TIP OF THAT EAVE IS THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE INTENTION IS JUST TO MAKE THAT CONSISTENT AND THEN PROVIDE FOR WHAT WE HAVE LONG PROVIDED FOR IN TYPICAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WE'RE NOT HABITABLE UNITS, YOU KNOW, A DETACHED GARAGE.
THAT PROVISION ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CODE.
WHICH AS THE FIVE AND THREE WITHOUT THE OVERHANG.
WHAT SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, YEAH, SO WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IS THAT IF, AGAIN, I HAVE, I WANNA CONVERT A GARAGE THAT'S THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, IF I WANNA CONVERT IT TO HABITABLE SPACE, I NOW HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND CONVERT IT INTO AN ACCESSORY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT BECAUSE I HAVE A FIVE FOOT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT'S HABITABLE.
NOW THIS REMOVES THAT BARRIER AS LONG AS I HAVE NO OVERHANG, JUST RECOMMENDING FOR TOTALLY NEW STRUCTURES, NOT EXISTING
SO THE, THE PROPOSAL, SORRY, SO SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, SO THE PROPOSAL, UH, DEBORAH, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, IS THAT, UM, YOU WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS IF IT APPLIED TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS CONVERTING INTO A DWELLING UNIT, BUT YOU WOULDN'T WANT A NEW BUILDING WITH THAT SETBACK? YEAH, THE RULES HAVE TO, THE RULES HAVE TO APPLY THE SAME BECAUSE IT'S STILL CONSTRUCTION.
BUT WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS IS THAT WHAT NOW YOU CAN HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITH NO OVERHANG THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT EXISTS TODAY.
ALL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TURNING IT INTO A HABITABLE SPACE.
AGAIN, NO OVERHANG STILL MEETING, BUILDING AND FIRE CODE.
THE CODE ALSO ALLOWS FOR INLINE ADDITIONS WITH HOMES BUILT AT A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO CONTINUE IT.
SO, AND A LOT OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS AND WITHIN THE 36 SQUARE MILES, A LOT OF THOSE HOMES WERE BUILT THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR HOME HABITABLE SPACE IN LINE WITH THAT THREE FEET CAN'T BE CLOSER THAN THREE FEET, BUT YOU CAN ADD, SO YOU, THERE IS THAT PROVISION ALREADY, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL INPUT.
I'M HAS, YOU KNOW, A COMMITTEE MET FOR AN EXTENDED
[01:50:01]
PERIOD OF TIME, SO I, I HESITATE EVEN WITH CONCERNS ON, YOU KNOW, ALL THE VALID POINTS, THEY HAD MUCH MORE TIME THAN WE DO IN A 30, 45 MINUTE DISCUSSION TO VET THESE ISSUES AND TO VET WHERE YOU CHASE THOSE ISSUES IN CODE.SO I MEAN, I THINK ONE OF OUR DEALS HAS BEEN VERY MUCH TO ENCOURAGE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND ENGAGEMENT.
AND YOU'VE DONE THAT AND YOU'VE DONE IT EXTENSIVELY.
AND SO I HATE TO SAY, GREAT, YOU DID IT, BUT I DON'T, I'M GONNA DISMISS THAT VERSUS OUR POINT HERE.
THERE IN GENERAL, I PROBABLY WOULD'VE AGREED WITH DEBBIE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THREE VERSUS FIVE, BUT IF IT CONFLICTS WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE, I'D HATE TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IDENTIFIES AND SINGLES OUT SO NARROWLY ONE AREA WHEN SOMETHING IS ALLOWED EVERYWHERE ELSE.
SO WHO ARE THE THREE PROJECT? JIM BAILEY OF ALAMO ARCHITECTS? CAN WE USE THE MICROPHONES PLEASE? SORRY, JIM BAILEY OF ALAMO ARCHITECTS, CYNTHIA SPIELMAN OF TIER ONE, UM, AND STEVE PPO, WHO IS A DEVELOPER, UH, COMMENT ALSO.
SO ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT DID CALL IN WAS ALSO FROM TIER ONE, WHO IS, WHO'S BASICALLY VOTING AGAINST THIS AS WELL.
SO, SO WE DID HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOME CONFLICTS EVEN WITHIN TIER ONE, I GUESS IN THE DIALOGUE FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, BECAUSE MS. SPIELMAN STEPPED OFF THE COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WHEN THESE U D C AMENDMENTS WERE DEVELOPED.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THINGS THAT WOULD COULD HAPPEN, BUT SHE DID STEP OFF THE COMMITTEE BACK IN SEPTEMBER, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND SHE'S NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE, WE, WHEN WE UTILIZE PEOPLE'S NAMES AND WE TALK ABOUT WHY, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS WERE DEVELOPED THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, THE DETAILS.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE SURVEY DATA.
I KNEW THAT SURVEY WENT OUT, BUT THAT'S NOT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH WHAT U D C AMENDMENTS ARE.
AND I'M SINGLE FAMILY, I'M SPEAK TO THAT BIANCA COMMUNITIES.
AND SO IF YOU'D LET ME FINISH.
UM, I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO MENTION, UM, AND, AND THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO MADE THEIR OWN DECISIONS IN THE PROCESS.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I AM WHOLEHEARTEDLY CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS IMPACTS SO MANY PROPERTIES HOLISTICALLY THIS IS GONNA BE BY RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FOR ME.
AND I'VE ALREADY STATED THE CONCERNS AND SO I DON'T REALLY ABLE THE POINT.
JUST, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I HAVE A CONCERN THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING, DOING, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, THAT IF THE OWNER OCCUPIES THE MAIN STRUCTURE, THEY CAN RENT OUT THAT UNIT.
THAT IN ESSENCE IS ZONING BY DEFAULT TO MULTIFAMILY.
AND THAT CONCERNS ME, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY? YES, MA'AM.
UM, I JUST WANNA REMIND THE T THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A PART OF THE MAYOR'S DISCUSSION.
HE CREATED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OR EXCUSE ME, THE HOUSING COMMISSION.
UM, THIS, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED THAT CAME FORWARD FROM THE HOUSING COMMISSION.
UM, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UM, MAKE SOME SORT OF DECISION IF THERE IS AMENDING LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HELP IN THIS SITUATION TO HELP MAKE SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION TO ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD.
AS EVERYONE HERE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS IS GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS, LIKE WE KAT MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, UH, IT WILL GO THROUGH SEVERAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
IT'LL GO THROUGH A COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY THIS WILL LAY WITH CITY COUNCILS FOR FINAL DECISION.
UM, THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE PUBLIC FEEDBACK IF THERE IS STILL CONCERNS.
AND IF I MAY JUST ADD ONE MORE COMMENT, UM, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER WITH UH, EXISTING CODE AND THERE'S POSSIBLE CHANGES AND SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AGAIN.
SO THIS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE FOREVER IF IT IS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, THERE'S, IF THERE ARE HOLES IN THIS ERRORS OR ISSUES OR CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE FACED WITH OVER TIME, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE.
AND IF I MAY JUST SPEAK, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ONE FINAL TIME TO OUR PROCESS FOR THIS, UM, CYNTHIA WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL KIND OF TRI CHAIR GROUP THAT SPENT MANY, MANY MONTHS WORKING ON THESE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS AT THE TIME.
SHE STEPPED OFF ANOTHER REPLACEMENT FROM TIER ONE WHO HAS LEFT THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF TIER ONE TOOK HIS PLACE.
UM, SO I KNOW, UH, CYNTHIA'S NOT HERE TO SPEAK FOR HERSELF, I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR HER ON THIS, BUT, UM, THESE AMENDMENTS DID GO THROUGH, UM, ALL OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH WHEN THEY WERE FORMED.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE SURVEY PROCESS, UM,
[01:55:01]
AND THERE WERE OTHER AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY PROCESS THAT IF THE PUBLIC DIDN'T RESPOND WELL TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVEN A HAIR AT 50% OR LESS THAN 50%, WE DIDN'T SEND THEM FORWARD TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION.SO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY GOT POSITIVE RESULTS TO THE PUBLIC.
MANY OF THEM IN THE 80 PERCENTS IN THAT SURVEY, AND THEN ALSO HAD AN ADDITIONAL HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSING COMMISSION BEFORE THEY ARE HERE TO YOU TODAY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, UM, THAT MELISSA MENTIONED.
IN ADDITION, IT KIND OF A, A POLICY LEVEL.
UM, A LOT OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS ARE PART OF OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE EASE OF DEVELOPMENT ON ADUS, UM, AND INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, FUNDING SOURCES FOR HOW WE CAN MAKE IT IT EASIER FOR HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTIES.
SO THIS IS PART OF THAT PLAN, UM, THAT COUNCIL APPROVED IN DECEMBER CHAIR.
UM, BECAUSE IT, IT DID HAVE SO, SO MANY, UH, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN HEARINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I, I'M NOT REAL COMFORTABLE PICKING A PIECE OUT BECAUSE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A NEGOTIATED PIECE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY GOT THAT FOR THIS.
SO I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE.
WE WILL ENTERTAIN, UH, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A, A, UH, MOTION AND A SECOND.
SO WE'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE ON THAT.
WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
YOU HAVE NEXT TWO, RIGHT? UH, NO, THERE'S ONE THINK YOU HAVE.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER.
UH, I LOST TRACK ITEM NUMBER 10, I BELIEVE IT IS, IS IT NINE OR IS IT 10? TWO DASH 1323 DASH SIX.
SO ITEM NUMBER 10, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH ONE AFFECTING 35 DASH 3 71.
I'M THE D S D PLANS MANAGER OVER THE TECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW TEAM.
AND, UM, WE BROUGHT THIS AMENDMENT, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT MAINLY FROM PLAN REVIEW AND COORDINATION WITH ZONING TO HELP PROVIDE CLARIFICATION WHEN REVIEWING THE A D D USE, UM, CLARIFICATION ON WHEN TO INCLUDE COVERED PORCHES OR EXCLUDE THEM.
UM, THAT IS, UH, IN SECTION A.
UM, RIGHT NOW THERE WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE PLAN REVIEW SECTION AND WITH CUSTOMERS WHEN TO INCLUDE THE PORCHES, UM, WHEN CALCULATING THE ALLOWABLE AREA PERMITTED FOR AN A D D U AND HOW IT PERTAINS TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THEN THE A D D U AND THEN IN SECTION B.
UM, I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ON THE VERBIAGE AND B SIX REGARDING, UM, PITCH SIDING AND THEN THE, UM, DEFINITION OF IDENTICAL WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTING THE ADU OR DESIGNING THEM ON HOW THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE, UM, NEEDS TO BE SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO THE, UH, MAIN DWELLING.
UM, SO WE JUST, UH, PROPOSE TO CHANGE THE VERBIAGE OF ROOF PITCH AND SIDING TO A ROOF TYPE.
UM, ALSO IN REFERENCE TO IDENTICAL, SINCE IDENTICAL DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITE DEFINITION, UM, WE PROPOSED A CHANGE IN IDENTICAL IS SIMILAR AND ALSO PROVIDED A COMMENTARY AS TO, UM, INCLUDING EXAMPLES AS TO WHAT, UM, THOSE TWO WORDS ARE, MEANING WHEN IT COMES TO OUR, OUR PLAN REVIEW AND ZONING REVIEWS.
[02:00:05]
ANY, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? I GUESS ONE QUESTION IS, WE JUST APPROVED AN ITEM THAT STRUCK NUMBERS SENTENCE SIX AND THERE'S EDITS TO SENTENCE SIX IN THIS AMENDMENT.SO, UM, SO THE, WHEN, WHEN WE TAKE THE FINAL PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS AND ARE SUBMITTED TO MUNI CODED INCLUDES THE, THE SECTION NUMBERS THEMSELVES.
SO WE WON'T, FOR INSTANCE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AMENDMENT, WE WILL SUBMIT THE COMMENTARY, THE LANGUAGE IN BLUE, BUT WE WON'T REPEAT ONE THROUGH SIX OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
SO WE SENT IT IN ONE PACKAGE FOR EACH SECTION OF CODE THAT TIME.
SO THE EDITS TO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EDITS TO B SIX THAT ARE ON THE ONE WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW THEY, THEY'RE NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THAT WHOLE THING JUST GOT STRUCK IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
SO WE COULD, WE COULD TAKE THAT.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE JUST IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, WE REMOVED ITEM NUMBER SIX.
SO THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS SIMILAR, NOT IDENTICAL TO WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.
SO WE, I MEAN IF, IF WE NEEDED TO, WE COULD WORK THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE COMMENTARY.
SO I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION IS NOW IF WE, IF WE ACCEPT B SIX THE WAY IT IS HERE, THEN THAT AFFECTS THE LAST ONE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WE JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
BUT ULTIMATELY AT THE END, IF, IF, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE, THEY MOVE SEPARATELY THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IF AT THE END OF THE DAY COUNCIL APPROVES BOTH, THEN WE COORDINATE HOW IT LOOKS IN THE CODE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COMBINE THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS TOGETHER.
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO WORK THAT TODAY.
WE JUST HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IN MY HOME OCCUPATION ONES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IF BOTH OF THOSE PASS.
SO, SO, SO AGAIN, MY, MY QUESTION TODAY AGAIN, WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT KIND OF CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THEM ON THE AGENDA ONE AFTER THE OTHER.
MY QUESTION IS, IN THE EVENT THAT COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES THE ITEM WE JUST CONSIDERED AND TOTALLY ELIMINATE SIX, DO WE FEEL THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, ADDING SIMILAR ET CETERA IS IMPORTANT ELSEWHERE INTO THIS COMMENTARY SECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CAPTURED? SO I'LL DEFER TO YOU FLORENCE, BUT I THINK THAT IF THIS, IF THIS LANGUAGE IS IN THE CODE, THEN WE NEED COMMENTARY.
IF THAT YES, IF THAT NUMBER SIX IS NO LONGER IN THE CODE, COMMENTARY IS NOT NECESSARY.
THAT'S HOW I'M UNDERSTANDING IT.
SO IT'S COMPLETELY STRUCK OUT.
I DON'T SEE THE REASON FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
HOWEVER, IF IT'S VOTED TO BE INCLUDED, IF THE OTHER ONE DOES PASS WITH THIS INCLUSION, THEN I CAN SPEAK FOR A PLAN REVIEW AND PROBABLY THE CUSTOMERS THAT WE DO, UM, ENGAGE WITH WHEN TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS, THAT THE COMMENTARY IS NECESSARY.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM MR. HANLEY? YES.
DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DO WITH B SIX UNDER THE COMMENTARY WHERE YOU'RE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
ONE IS, ARE WE DICTATING DESIGN HERE IN THE EXAMPLES OF THE ROOF TYPES FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES? UM, THAT'S A CONCERN.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN.
BUT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IF YOU JUST SAY THAT THE, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ROOFTOP HAS TO MATCH THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CAPTURED ALL OF THE ROOF TYPES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE INDUSTRY IN YOUR COMMENTARY.
WHAT IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS MULTIPLE AND SHALL INCLUDE ONE OR THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND YOU WOULD GET IT THERE AND WE REGULARLY HEAR THOSE COMMENTS AND DIALOGUES COME UP.
UM, SO, SO THAT IS REGULARLY ADDRESSED.
UM, YEAH, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE JOB AWAY FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HERE.
YES, JOE? UM, ITEM B THREE PREVIOUSLY WE TOOK I'M SORRY, B YEAH, B THREE WE TOOK OUT ON THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE ONE BEDROOM LIMITATION AND NOW IT'S THERE AGAIN.
'CAUSE DOES THAT MEAN IF WE IMPROVE BOTH OF THESE THAT WE'LL STILL JUST HAVE ONE BEDROOM AND A NO? 'CAUSE THE, BECAUSE THIS ONE DIDN'T EDIT B THREE, THE OTHER ONE DID.
SO THAT, WELL, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT LANGUAGE IN BLUE AND RED ON THIS AMENDMENT, BUT THERE'S STILL A CONFLICT IF WE JUST TOOK IT OUT ON THE PREVIOUS ONE AND NOW WE'RE LEAVING IT IN ON THIS ONE.
BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT BLUE
[02:05:01]
AND RED ON THIS AMENDMENT.SO IT'S IN THEORY REMOVED RIGHT THERE TOO.
SO IF THE PREVIOUS ONE GOES AS IT IS, THE ONE BEDROOM RESTRICTION IS STILL EXISTS.
BUT IF YOU WERE NOT TAKING IT OUT OF THIS ONE, BUT IT WAS TAKEN OUT, IT WASN'T UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THIS AMENDMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT BLUE OR RED ON THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
ON THE OTHER ONE IT WAS, SO IT'S, WE'RE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THAT ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I'M UNDERSTAND THAT IF ALL THIS GETS APPROVED AT ONE TIME AND IT PROVED AS IS THE PREVIOUS ONE TAKES IT OUT, BUT THIS ONE STILL LEAVES IT IN, SO IT WOULD STILL BE A REQUIREMENT.
SO, BUT HOW DOES IT NOT BE A REQUIREMENT? I CAN CLARIFY IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO AT, AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE OF ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO ON THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US RIGHT HERE, WE ARE ONLY PAYING, I MEAN, WE, WE CAN DELETE ONE THROUGH FIVE.
THERE'S NO BLUE, THERE'S NO RED.
I MEAN, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AMENDMENT AT LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING DELETED, ADDED OR MODIFIED.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN BLACK NUMBER, YOU KNOW, NUMBER THREE, A D D U SHALL ONLY HAVE ONE.
THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS TODAY.
BUT A SEPARATE AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED PROPOSED TO CHANGE THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO CHANGE NUMBER THREE.
SO WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE FINAL PACKAGE THAT WE SUBMIT TO MUNI CODE LINES UP WITH EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
THAT'S OUR JOB TO PUT THAT PACKAGE TOGETHER WHEN CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES THE AMENDMENTS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
SO, QUESTION, SO MR. HANLEY HAD A POINT WITH REGARDS TO THE ROOF TYPES AND SO, SO WAS THAT, UH, TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS STRIKING IT FOR HAVING SPECIFIC AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERIC? MR. HANLEY HAVE A MOTION? YES.
I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND UNDER COMMENTARY OF UNDER B SIX, DELETE THE EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF ROOFS.
AND I, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS DSDS AMENDMENT.
SHOULD THE, SHOULD NHS D'S AMENDMENT PASS, WE WOULD WITHDRAW THIS ITEM TO AVOID THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REMOVAL OF SIX AND A COMMENTARY ON NUMBER SIX.
I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME MORE EDITS TO ITEM SIX AS YOU HAVE, YOU STILL SAY YOU NEED TO REMOVE THAT WHOLE FIRST SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS EXAMPLES OF ROOF TYPE? YEAH.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. HANLEY FOR, UH, APPROVAL AS EDITED.
ALRIGHTY, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11, DISCUSSION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 23 DASH FOUR, SECTION 35 DASH 3 72 A ONE.
I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER ME FROM ALL OF FIVE MINUTES AGO,
UM, BUT I'LL STATE MY NAME FOR THE RECORD.
SARAH WAMSLEY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES.
SO, UM, CHAIR, I, I WANTED TO OFFER TO YOU THAT, UM, THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY IS LINKED TO ANOTHER, UM, THAT WE SUBMITTED THAT IS GOING TO BE BEFORE YOU ALL IN MAY.
SO IT MAY BE THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE THOSE TWO TOGETHER.
UM, BUT IF NOT, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THEM.
UM, THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, AND IT'S HARD TO REVIEW THIS CON THIS ONE IN CONTEXT WITHOUT KNOWING KIND OF WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS.
AND THAT'S A SEPARATE AMENDMENT.
SO YOUR CALL, I'M HAPPY TO, TO TALK EITHER WAY.
LET'S TABLE IT AND TELL WHAT THE OTHER ITEM SECOND.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS, TO MOVE TO WHATEVER AGENDA IN MAY THE RELATED AMENDMENT IS ON.
CAN WE, I THINK THAT'S, APPROVE IT, ASSUMING THERE'S NO CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE DO LATER, SO WE CAN JUST
[02:10:01]
GET ONE OFF THE VOTES.I'M SAYING CAN WE APPROVE THIS KNOWING, YOU KNOW, PENDING APPROVAL OF THE FURTHER IT'S APPROVED IF WE APPROVE THE OTHERS? BELIEVE IF IT'S ON, JUST GET IT DONE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN TAKE ACTION HERE AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT I MEAN.
IF THAT EXTERNAL AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED AND IT COMES BACK HERE, UM, YOU CAN CONSIDER IT AT THAT TIME.
IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES, Y'ALL WANNA MAKE THAT IMPACT, WE CAN BRING THIS ONE BACK UP IF WE NEED TO.
SO, WHO, WHO'S THE, I GUESS WHO MONITORS THAT OR, SO WE GONNA REMEMBER WOULDN'T BE GATEKEEPERS.
YOU JUST KIND OF KNOW THAT IF WE DO, IF WE DO SOMETHING ON THAT OTHER AMENDMENT THAT THIS ONE HAS TO COME BACK UP.
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
I MOVE, WE, UH, APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF AT THIS TIME.
OKAY, WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION.
KEN BROWN WITHDRAWS HIS MOTION.
SO WE NOW HAVE A NEW MOTION FOR MR. HANLEY TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MS. TACKETT.
ITEM 13, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C ITEM FIVE DASH 24 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 73.
SO, REAL QUICK, JUST TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM, WHAT THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS TODAY IS THAT THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH OF A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOT SHALL BE AT LEAST 80 FEET.
UH, THE, THE 1200 SQUARE FEET REGULATION ISN'T REALLY NEW, ALTHOUGH IT'S ADDED IN BLUE.
UH, LOTS HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 15 FEET WIDE FOR FRONTAGE PURPOSES.
THIS IS REALLY JUST PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY, UH, IN HOW YOU LAY OUT THOSE LOTS.
BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY PERMITTING THEM TO BE ANY SMALLER AND STILL REQUIRES A MINIMUM 15 FEET WIDTH.
FOR THE RECORD, IT IS 2 45 AND MR. BROWN HAS LEFT THE MEETING AND WILL NOT RETURN, MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
OH, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM, WAS IT JODY? YES.
ITEM 14, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM FIVE DASH FIVE FOUR AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 78.
NOW WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, APPLICATIONS THAT ARE DONE ONLINE.
A LOT OF SELLING OF THINGS THAT, UH, YOU DO ONLINE FROM YOUR HOME.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THAT, UH, JUST KIND OF RECOGNIZES THAT WE'VE EVOLVED OVER TIME SINCE THIS, UH, CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 1965.
AND SO IT, IT ALLOWS FOR THAT TRANSFER SALES SO LONG AS, AS IT'S NOT CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
SO IT ALLOWS ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND THEN YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO SHIP IT FROM THERE.
SO THIS ALLOWS YOUR AVON, YOUR ENGINEERING SERVICES, PREMIER JEWELRY, UM, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU, YOU DO FROM YOUR HOME STILL DOESN'T ALLOW FOR EMPLOYEES, STILL DOESN'T ALLOW FOR BUSINESS.
IT'S JUST ALLOW YOU TO DO ONLINE SALES TRANSACTIONS.
SO DOES THIS, UM, IT'S STILL, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, YOU CANNOT STORE MATERIAL ON PREMISE.
CAN YOU STORE THE MATERIAL ON PREMISE THAT YOU'RE SELLING? WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU, IF YOU FIT IT IN YOUR GARAGE, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA GO AND LOOK AT YOUR GARAGE AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE STORING, BUT IT'S, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE OTHER CODE, UH, PROVISIONS, RIGHT? SO, YEAH.
IT JUST ALLOWS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF ONLINE SALES.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. MANNA.
MR. TAPIA, ANY, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 15, UH, DISCUSSION ON ITEM FIVE DASH 23 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 78 B2.
ONCE UPON A TIME, UM, DURING WORLD WAR II, THE MEN WENT OFF TO WAR AND THE WOMEN WERE AT HOME.
UH, THE WOMEN NEEDED TO MAKE SOME MONEY.
SO THEY GO TO THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHO WERE, I'M SORRY FOR ALL THE MALES IN THE ROOM.
[02:15:01]
WERE MADE OF MEN.AND THE MEN DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD GRANT PERMISSION TO THE LITTLE LADIES THAT THEY FELT COULD HAVE PERMISSION TO WORK FROM HOME TO CUT HAIR.
AND SO WE ADOPTED THESE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE THAT BASICALLY TELLS YOU YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD IN ORDER TO CUT HAIR IN YOUR OWN HOME.
AND, UM, WE ARE JUST NOW RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE OTHER HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED, UH, YOU KNOW, BY, RIGHT? I CAN TEACH PIANO TO TWO KIDS AT THE SAME TIME.
SO HAVING A ONE CHAIR IN YOUR HOME THAT HAS NO EMPLOYEES, ALL THOSE PROVISIONS REMAIN THE SAME, WOULD JUST BE CLASSIFIED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAVE UP $400 A YEAR OR, UH, TO, TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND THEN RENEW AFTER TWO YEARS, OR RENEW AGAIN AFTER FOUR YEARS.
SO IT GETS RID OF A VERY OLD ARCHAIC PROVISION IN THE CODE.
I I DO WANT TO CHIME IN 'CAUSE I SAID IT EARLIER.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN MONITORING SINCE 2015 WHEN THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT FAILED.
UM, SINCE 2015, I BELIEVE 100% OF THESE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
AGAIN, THE REQUEST FIGHT IS A HOME OCCUPATION.
SO, SO I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FROM THE BOARD.
'CAUSE ONE QUESTION WE DO ASK IS, YOU KNOW, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY VIOLATIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, OF ON PRIOR, I GUESS IF THEY'VE RENEWING AND, UH, FOR THE RENEWAL.
AND SO I GUESS IS THAT, IS, IS THAT PART OF THE QUESTION? NOW AS FAR AS THEM, UM, IS, IS IS REMOVE THE DIALOGUE? I GUESS IF, IF WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION ANYMORE? IT, IT, IT'S A DIALOGUE ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
BUT OTHER HOME OCCUPATIONS, IT WOULD BE TREATED JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HOME OCCUPATION.
SO, I MEAN, IF THERE ARE POLICE CALLS, FOR SOME SOME REASON, THERE'S OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE THAT WE WOULD TRY TO RESTRICT ANY CRI CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
UM, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE TREATED AS EVERY OTHER HOME OCCUPATION, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO THE QUESTION WAS ALWAYS ASKED.
IT WAS LIKE, OKAY, BECAUSE I THINK IT, I THINK IT, THERE'S, AND SETH CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU ALWAYS, YOU ALWAYS FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY'RE PRESENTING TO YOU.
AND THE ONLY QUESTION YOU HAVE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY POLICE CALLS? NO.
SO I MOTIONED THIS, IT GETS APPROVED.
JULIA, YOU GOT A QUESTION? TWO QUESTIONS ONE.
WHY DID, WHY WAS IT NOT APPROVED IN 2015? SO, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, WE HAD A, A, A DIFFERENT MAKEUP AND CONSISTENCY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BACK THEN.
AND SO, UH, THEY JUST FELT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANNA PASS IT.
UM, AND THEN THE SECTION THAT WE'RE ADDING THAT SAYS RESERVED, UH, WHEN DOES THAT GET FILLED IN? AND, UM, OH, YOU WANNA TALK? YOU CAN TALK TO THAT.
YEAH, WE, WE WILL RESERVE THAT SECTION FOR ANY FUTURE CHANGES.
SO BECAUSE WE HAVE A 35 3 99 0.02 AND A OH THREE, RATHER THAN CHANGING ALL THOSE SECTIONS, WE WILL HOLD OH ONE IN RESERVE FOR A FUTURE AMENDMENT.
SO PLACEHOLDER LIKE BIANCA ASKED ME BEFORE, IT'S A PLACEHOLDER.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MEN AND I THINK THE SECOND WAS MORE DISCUSSION HERE.
HOW DOES THIS INTERPLAY WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE WE JUST APPROVED? IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE BEAUTICIAN IS TRYING TO SELL ADDITIONAL PRODUCT, SO THERE, THERE WOULD BE NO DIRECT ON SALE RETAIL, UH, BASED UPON THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, CORRECT? KATT CAN'T SELL SHAMPOO, NO SHAMPOO, NO HAIR PRODUCT.
AGAIN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION JUST IS CUTTING HAIR, DOING NAILS.
THIS, THIS IS A ONE CHAIR BEAUTY BARBER.
SO IF SOMEONE WAS OPERATING A BUSINESS WITH MULTIPLE CHAIRS, EMPLOYEES, CODE ENFORCEMENT GO.
AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE REZONING.
SO WE HAD A MOTION BY MR. MAN, A SECOND BY MR. HANLEY.
ITEM 16, UH, DISCUSSION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 15 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 78 B.
HELLO, BOARD, MY, MY NAME IS MICHAEL ESTI, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, MANAGER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
CAME HERE TO ADD THIS AMENDMENT.
WE WANT TO ADD, UH, THE LANGUAGE HERE FOR NON-STATE LICENSED THERAPY SURFACE SUCH AS MASSEUSES, MASSAGES, ET CETERA, OR NOT ALLOWED IN, UM, OR NOT ALLOWED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS.
THAT WOULD BE A PROHIBITED USE QUESTION.
SO SOMEONE WHO'S, DOES THAT MEAN WHAT IF THEY'RE A LICENSED MASSEUSE? IF THEY'RE LICENSED WITH THE STATE, THIS WOULDN'T AFFECT THEM.
CORRECT? IF THESE ARE NON-LICENSED, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF PROFESSIONS, UH, POPPING UP.
QUOTES ON TIKTOK AND THEY SAY WE'RE AVAILABLE
[02:20:01]
AT 2:00 AMWE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA SECOND.
WHO WAS THE SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE SECOND BY KURT.
UH, ANY LAST DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THANK YOU FOR THE MOMENT OF LEVITY.
ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 17, DISCUSSION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 53 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH THREE 11.
THIS IS JUST TO CLEAR UP AND CLARIFY, UM, UH, WHERE UNITS, UH, ALLOWED IN, IN CERTAIN MIXED USE BUILDINGS, UH, WERE PERMITTED BECAUSE IT WAS JUST, WHY, WHY DO WE HAVE NOT PERMITTED, PERMITTED? AND IT'S JUST CLARIFYING IT.
SO WE DID A RID, UM, UH, JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP.
UM, THERE'S MORE PART, THERE'S MORE PARTS IF YOU WANNA SCROLL DOWN.
SO WE, UH, WOULD, WE DELETED CERTAIN SECTIONS BECAUSE IT, IT WAS REDUNDANT IN AREAS THAT ALREADY HAD IT PERMITTED BY, RIGHT? WHETHER IT'S SIX UNITS PER ACRE OR 10 UNITS PER ACRE.
AND THEN HERE, UM, WE CLEARED UP THE DISTRICTS THAT WEREN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTING IT BASED ON THAT.
DISTRICT D HAS UNLIMITED DENSITY.
SO WHY ARE WE DOING MAXIMUM DENSITIES IF D'S ALREADY UNLIMITED DENSITY? SO AN E R Z D, IT'S, THAT'S CONTROLLED IN ANOTHER, UH, PROVISION OF THE CODE.
THIS, THIS JUST CLEARS UP ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT, UH, UNITS ARE ALLOWED BY RIDE PER ACRE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THIS DOESN'T LIMIT D TO LIKE 20 UNITS PER ACRE OR WHATEVER IT IS.
THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS.
THESE ARE MISUSE MIXED USE BUILDINGS.
ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NOT WANNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. GARCIA.
ITEM 18, DISCUSSION OF ITEM FIVE DASH 16 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH A 1 0 1 TAG TEAM.
HELLO MICHAEL, YOU'RE SD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER.
AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT, UH, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY BOARD IS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE OLD, UH, DEFINITION THERE, IT LISTS EVERYTHING.
AND IF WE EVER ADD ANYTHING, UM, WELL WE HAVE TO KEEP UPDATING IT.
SO JUST HAVING IT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO PUT IN THERE.
UM, THAT WAY IT CAN AFFECT THE WHOLE, UM, RESIDENTIAL USE MATRIX BECAUSE WANT TO KEEP OVERSIZED VEHICLES OUT OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS, RIGHT? WE GET A LOT OF CALLS.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CALLS, UH, FROM CITIZENS, UH, COUNCIL OFFICES AND JUST STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY WANTING THEM TO KEEP 'EM OUT OF THERE.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? SO MANNA, SO, SO ON ITEM TWO THERE FOR TWO C, SO IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, UH, HALF ACRE, UH, SIZE PROPERTIES.
UM, SO, SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ZONING OR ZONING DISTRICTS, SO R 20, YOU KNOW, IS WAS OVER, UM, OVER THAT SIZE.
BUT YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS THAT ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOLIS IS R SIX THAT MAY BE LARGER THAN THAT.
SO, SO DO WE WANNA GO THROUGH JUST A HALF ACRE SIZE? IS THAT COMMON OR DO WE LIST THE ZONING DISTRICT? SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, UM, BOARD, THEY'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS PART FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, I THINK WE'RE GONNA REVIEW THAT SECTION THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT, SIR, AT A LATER TIME.
AND THEN ALSO, UM, SO IT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE SCREENING.
SO THE SCREENING IS NOT CURRENTLY THERE.
AND SO THAT'S A NEW AD AS FAR AS THE SCREENING, UM, ON THAT, ON THAT PROPERTY FOR NUMBER TWO.
SO WITH THE SIX FOOT FENCE, UM, FOR, FOR SCREENING THE, THE, SO SO THAT'S A NEW AD, CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE, YES.
AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT SECTION IN THE RED RIGHT NOW ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
LOGAN, THAT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED IN IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE I DO SEE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT ALL? 'CAUSE MY, MY UPDATE ONLY SAYS THIS, SO I MEAN I CAN, YEAH, C TWO C TWO 'CAUSE C TWO, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF CODES.
SO THERE'LL BE A LOT OF 3 1 1 CALLS FOR C TWO, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S LOTS OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES ON HACER LOTS THAT DO NOT HAVE FENCING.
AND SO, SO I GUESS JUST THERE'LL BE A BIG DEMAND FOR THAT AND THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
THOSE ARE GONNA BE ADDITIONS AND CHANGES TO THE CODE BECAUSE UM, A LOT OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE, ARE CURRENTLY BUILT, RIGHT? THEY'RE
[02:25:01]
OBVIOUSLY SMALLER THAN ONE ACRE AND YOU TRY TO PARK BIG OVERSIZED VEHICLES IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY DON'T WORK.NOW WHEN YOU TALK, START TALKING ABOUT LARGER PARCELS OF LAND, WE ADDED THAT SECTION ONE ACRE.
IF THEY'RE GREATER THAN, WELL BECAUSE IT'S AN ACRE, YOU HAVE A LARGE PARCEL OF LAND AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET SOME OLD COUNTRY PROPERTIES THAT ARE, UH, BROUGHT IN AND YOU KNOW, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S, UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE, LIKE I SAID, THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS STAY RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? AND COMMERCIAL AREAS STAY COMMERCIAL.
SO THAT'S KIND SOME OF THE REASON.
AND THERE'S GOTTA BE ENOUGH INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND WHEN YOU START GETTING TOO MANY OF THESE 18 WHEELERS INTO THE, UM, PROPERTY, I MEAN INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, STARTS BECOMING AN ISSUE NOT ONLY FOR ESPECIALLY TRAFFIC, IT'S FOR TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO, UM, PEOPLE TRYING TO BACK OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS.
YOU HAVE, UM, BIG, UH, YOU KNOW, IF IF IT MEETS ONE OF THE CRITERIA EIGHT BY EIGHT FEET WIDE BY EIGHT FEET TALL OR 24 FOOT LONG, UM, TRYING TO BACK OUTTA YOUR, YOUR DRIVEWAY, THAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE DID ASK THAT.
UH, WELL I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DRIVER WAS, YOU KNOW, SO WAS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT SAID THAT WE WERE TIRED OF SEEING THEM AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT THAT? AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS THE DRIVER FOR THE SIX FOOT FENCING? UM, LET ME SEE HERE.
ALRIGHT, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FOR, FOR TWO C AT THE END.
SO THE LAST SENTENCE THERE WITH REGARDS TO SOLID SCREEN FENCE, AT LEAST SIX FOOT AND HEIGHT.
SO, SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DRIVER AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT.
UM, THE, SO FOR THOSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS OVER ONE HALF ACRE IN THE AREA, RIGHT? SO THOSE ONES THAT ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE THEM ON, WE JUST, AGAIN, WE WANTED TO KEEP THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND WE DIDN'T WANNA ALLOW RIGHT? THAT SORT OF, YOU DIDN'T WANT SOMEBODY WHO'S PARKING THEIR BIG RV JUST TO JUST TO BE THERE IF THEY HAVE A LARGE PROPERTY, WE'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, SCREEN IT RIGHT THAT WAY AGAIN, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE FACE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEP IT LOOKING GOOD AND, UM, INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES AND WHATNOT.
MR. HANLEN, UH, MICHAEL, UH, ON THE, THIS COMMENT AND ON THE FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT PHILLIP WAS TALKING ABOUT AND WHERE IT SAYS, UH, SCREEN FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH A SOLID SCREEN FENCE AT LEAST SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT HOW FAR OUT TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CURB DO WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT? WELL, AND, AND TO THAT END, SO I, I CAN GIVE A, THE LENGTH OF THE, TO THE EXTENT, RIGHT, I CAN GIVE A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
SO, SO DOWN THE STREET THERE'S A, A THREE ACRE LOT THAT HAS TWO RVS PARKED IN IT THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE PARKED IN THE VERY MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY WITH A HOUSE TO THE KIND OF OFFSET.
SO WHERE'S THAT FENCE GONNA BE? AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE ALL, IT'S OPEN FENCING IN OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
SO NOW WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, YOU GOTTA PUT A SOLVE SCREEN FENCE, YOU KNOW, AND SO, SO IS IT AGAINST THE WALL? IS IT, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO IT WOULD BE AGAINST ALL, AS YOU SEE THERE, IT'D BE FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, RIGHT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SCREEN IT FROM ALL ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO IF YOU GOT, IF YOU'RE SURROUNDED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD IT AROUND IT, OR THEY CAN MAKE THE INVESTMENT TO BUILD A PRIVACY FENCE RIGHT ALONG THEIR ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THEIR PROPERTY.
AND IT WOULD STILL BE TAKEN CARE OF THAT WAY.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD IT ONLY PARTIALLY SCREENS IT TOO, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES YOU CAN SEE OVER THAT THERE'S 8, 9, 10 FEET TALL.
ESPECIALLY IF THEY POP THEMSELVES UP AND OPEN THEMSELVES OUT.
SO I APPRECIATE THE SCREENING ATTEMPT IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.
SO, YEAH, SO I, I, YEAH, I, I LIKE THE WHOLE IDEA, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND.
SO NOW THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SCREEN THEIR RV AT THEIR OWN HOME.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT IN ORDER TO BUILD A NEW FENCE.
DO I UNDERSTAND THOUGH THE SCREENING IS REALLY FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES AND NOT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES? 'CAUSE THAT'S THE NEXT ONE WE'LL BE CONSIDERING.
OKAY, SO THIS ISN'T, SORRY, THE EXAMPLE I USED, I USED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, BUT THIS WOULD BE MORE IF YOU HAD, UM, SOMEBODY WHO HAD LIKE, MAYBE AN 18 WHEELER AND THEY'RE ON A ONE, YOU KNOW, ONE ACRE PROPERTY.
ALL RIGHT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION, BIANCA, MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM BIANCA ROBERT TAPIA.
THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THE SECOND PORTION FOR THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT, THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER BALL OF WAX THERE USED, THERE USED TO BE A LIMIT ON THAT.
AND WE HAVE A, A RESIDENT, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, WHO HAS TAKEN A 30 PLUS GOOSENECK RV AND HE WAS CITED, AND IN ORDER TO FIT THE CODE, HE HAS PUT DOWN SOME GRANITE UP TO THE WALKWAY UP TO HIS YARD AND CADDY CORNERED HIS RV UP TO THE DOOR.
WELL, IF YOU, UH, DO YOU HAVE THAT GRAPHIC THAT, UH, YOU, YOU
[02:30:01]
PULLED THAT SYSTEM THEN YOU DON'T, HE'S 15 FEET FROM THE CURB, THE GRAPHIC.UM, SO IF YOU SEE THAT, THEN IT'S GOTTA BE, UM, IT HAS TO, IT CAN'T BE WITHIN THE, UH, THE RESTRICTED PARKING ZONE.
SO THAT'S WHY A LOT OF TIME, THAT'S BASICALLY 15 FEET FROM THE CURB, WHICH IS WHY THEY ADD ADDITIONAL SPACE TO THE DRIVEWAY SO THEY CAN TRY TO FIT IT IN ON THE, ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE.
BECAUSE WHEN WE GO OUT AND MEASURE, WE MAKE SURE IT'S NOT THAT CLOSE.
NO, IT'S NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S CATTY CORNERED IN THE FRONT YARD AND TAKES UP ALMOST 50% OF THE YARD.
IS IT 15 FEET FROM THE CURB? YEAH.
THAT'S WHY IT'S, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, YOU NEED TO GIMME THAT ADDRESS SO WE CAN GO LOOK AT, THAT'S ACROSS THE YARD,
THERE USED TO BE LIKE A 25 FOOT LENGTH, WHICH REALLY HELPED.
WELL, I'LL DROP YOU MY CAR, MA'AM.
AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GET ME THAT LOCATION.
DID, DID YOU BREAK THAT AMENDMENT UP INTO TWO PARTS? SO DID WE PREEMPTIVELY APPROVE THE WHOLE THING AFTER WE HADN'T HAD ANY DISCUSSION? I THOUGHT IT WAS THE WHOLE THING TOO.
I DIDN'T, I WAS JUST CONCERNED.
I THOUGHT GABBY BROUGHT UP ANOTHER PART OF IT.
WE GOT ITEM NUMBER 20, UDC AMENDMENT NUMBER.
REAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE MS. REED WANTED TO ADD A LENGTH ONTO THE LAST AMENDMENT, AND WE ALREADY MOTIONED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
SO I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
WE'RE INTERESTED IN ADDING A LENGTH, A LINK, THE LENGTH.
OH, THE LENGTH, THE OVERALL LENGTH, DISTANCE.
UM, WELL, IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THAT LAST APPROVAL.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY MR. MAN AND A SECOND BY MS. REED.
TO RE-PUT IN THE 25 FOOT LENGTH FOR INSIDER, A RESIDENTIAL, AND YOU'RE, UM, I CAN SEE, UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANNA TAKE OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT SI LOT SIZES, BUT A 25 FOOT RV ON A R FOUR OR R FIVE SHOULD HAVE A, UM, A LENGTH TO IT.
SO YOU'RE WANTING TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'RE, YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT TO ADD, I GUESS, ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECREATIONAL PARKING VEHICLE 'CAUSE RIGHT, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NONE.
THAT'S A, THE RECREATIONAL PARKING VEHICLE AND A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
AND WHAT WAS THE SIZE THAT YOU WANTED AGAIN? 25 FOOT.
OVERALL LENGTH, INCLUDING THE TONGUE.
WHERE WOULD THE NEW TEXTS ARE YOU WANTING TO EDIT? WELL, DID YOU WANNA, AND THIS IS JUST ME, DID YOU WANT TO KEEP IT IN LINE WITH WHAT AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE IS IN OUR AND THE CODE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES, WHICH IS 24 FEET.
SO WE DON'T NEED THAT AMENDMENT.
THAT'S SO, BUT YOU, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THIS SECTION THOUGH.
BECAUSE REC RIGHT, RIGHT NOW RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE GIVEN AN EXCEPTION.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO PUT ON THERE THEY, THEY DO HAVE THE EXCEPTION IF THEY'RE, THEY'RE SMALLER THAN 24 FEET LONG.
SO DOES THAT HAVE TO CHANGE THAT FIRST SENTENCE THERE? VEHICLE? YEAH.
YOU'D HAVE TO REMOVE THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE UNLESS THEY'RE LESS THAN 24 FEET.
'CAUSE THAT ALREADY IS THE DEFINITION.
THEY WANNA MAKE THAT AMENDMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A NORMAL, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY DEBBIE CONCERNS? QUESTIONS? ARE THERE, ARE THERE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES LESS THAN 24 FEET? THOSE ARE VERY SMALL, YEAH.
SO THOSE ARE ALLOWED, THEY WOULD BE, THEY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE.
SO DO WE HAVE TO ADJUST THE DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE? I'M SORRY, I'M CONFUSED.
IT'S THE LENGTH OF A CAR, BASICALLY, I GUESS MAYBE PUT UP THE PICTURE.
WHAT, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? LIKE THAT IS 21.
THEY WANT TO KEEP THE SIZE OF THE VEHICLES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO 24 FEET LONG, CREATING A PARKING AREA THIS WAY.
SO, BUT CODE ALREADY REGULATES THAT YOU CAN'T PARK ON YOUR GRASS.
THEY IMPROVE THEIR PARK, THEIR, THEIR PARKING AREA.
[02:35:01]
BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TRUCKS THAT ARE LARGER THAN, THAN THOSE RVS AS WELL.IT'S A 30 FOOT SETBACK TYPICALLY IN SOME OF THE SMALLER INNER CITY LOTS.
SO YEAH, NOT ALL OF 'EM ARE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, FOR SETBACKS, THE CITY WILL ONLY ENFORCE SETBACKS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
R THREE, R FOUR, R FIVE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE MOST TYPICAL ZONING RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS REQUIRE A 10 OR 20 TO 10 TO 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
SO THERE'S A GOOD DISCUSSION KIND OF GOING HERE ON THE DEFINITION.
AN RV HAS TO BE A DRIVABLE VEHICLE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A CAMPER YOU PULL BEHIND YOUR TRUCK OR THE GOOSENECK.
IT'S A DRIVABLE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
I GOTTA, SO, SO WHERE ARE YOU GONNA PUT YOUR AIR SCREEN, CAROL? WELL, BUT THE, THE R SO I THINK TO DEBBIE'S CONCERN, THE GOOSENECK THAT SHE BROUGHT UP FITS IN THE DEFINITION OF AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE BEYOND 24 FEET.
SO, BUT THE MOTOR HOME THAT, YOU KNOW, I FAMILY TRUCKSTER THAT I'M GONNA TAKE MY VACATION IN IS LIKELY TO BE OVER 25 FEET, BUT IT'S DEFINED AS AN RV BECAUSE I CAN ACTUALLY DRIVE THAT VEHICLE.
I DON'T NEED SOMETHING ELSE TO PULL IT.
WE DO HAVE, HAVE A DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL ION.
I WAS GONNA SAY, CAN YOU PULL THAT UP? YEAH.
UH, CAN WE PULL UP APPENDIX? A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE? I'LL, I'LL READ IT WHILE WE PULL IT UP.
IT SAYS A VEHICLE WHICH IS ONE BUILT ON A SINGLE CHASSIS, TWO 400 SQUARE FEET OR LESS WHEN MEASURED AT THE LARGEST HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS.
THREE DESIGNED TO BE SELF-PROPELLED OR PERMANENTLY TOWABLE BY A LIGHT DUTY TRUCK.
SO LIKE A POP-UP TOWABLE? YEP.
'CAUSE SO THE AIR, MY POP-UP IS AN RV.
BUT IT CAN'T BE PROPELLED ON ITS OWN.
WELL IT SAYS D DESIGNED TO BE SELF-PROPELLED OR PERMANENTLY TOWED TOW, OR IS IT PERMANENTLY TOWABLE? LIKE ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT PLOPS ON THE BACK OF A PICKUP TRUCK.
THEREFORE, A TWO SNACK OR A POPUP CAMPER OR AN AIRSTREAM IS A PERMANENTLY TOWABLE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT SO OUR DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WOULD CAPTURE WHETHER YOU TOW IT OR DRIVE IT.
WHY ARE WE ADDING A LENGTH TO IT? THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THESE OVERSIZED VEHICLES OVER 25 FEET ARE PARKING DIAGONALLY ACROSS THEIR FRONT YARDS BY PUTTING DOWN SOME DECOMPOSED GRANITE AND IT BLOCKS ABOUT 50% OF THEIR HOUSE.
SO WE DON'T CONSIDER IT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SO YEAH.
SO, BUT I MEAN, THEY COULD, THEY COULD DO THAT WITH CARS TODAY.
SO DO WE HAVE MULTIPLE ISSUES? YOUR COMMENT OF, I DON'T, YOU BASICALLY MADE THE COMMENT, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S SMALL OR LARGE, I DON'T WANT IT PARKING ACROSS THE FRONT YARD.
I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.
D DOESN'T THIS THOUGH REQUIRE IT TO NOT BE PARKED ACROSS YOUR FRONT YARD REGARDLESS OF LENGTH OR, NO, THIS, YOU CAN PARK IT ALL ACROSS YOUR FRONT YARD AS LONG AS IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT RESTRICTED AREA AND AN IMPROVED PARKING AREA.
YOU COULD, CAN YOU PULL UP THE ONE QUICK QUESTION? AND THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA IS 15 FEET FROM THE CURB, SO IT'D HAVE TO BE PARKED 15 FEET FROM THE CURB AND AS LONG AS IT WAS PARKED ON AN APPROVED DRIVING SURFACE, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD.
SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER THAT, THEN THAT COULD BE A FIX.
REAL QUICK, MIKE, I, I KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE UPDATE AS WELL.
IS CODE SUBMITTED ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS AS PART OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE UPDATE? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.
I CAN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
CAN IT BE STATED THAT THE, UH, THAT THE, UM, OVERSIZED VEHICLE HAS TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE? SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS TO BE ON THE SIDE OR, OR BEHIND? WELL, THE, CURRENTLY, THIS IS AN EXCEPTION, THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE IT OUTTA THE EXCEPTION AND HAVE IT APPLIED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
OR IF YOU WOULD JUST WANT TO PROPOSE THE AMENDMENT OF,
[02:40:01]
HMM.LIKE YOU'S DON'T ALLOW IT IN THE FRONT YARD.
WELL, WE COULD CONTINUE THE EXCEPTION THAT THEY ARE, UM, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED IN THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE NOT LONGER THAN 25 FEET AND FOUR.
SO THAT MEANS THEY CAN PARK THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMEBODY HAVE A HOUSE.
YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THEY'RE SAYING IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A SMALL PARCEL WHEN THIS CHANGES, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE, THEY, WELL, NO, THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED.
I ALREADY KNOW 'CAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE APPROVED IT.
SO IS THAT, IS THAT EFFECTIVELY TO REMOVE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE? IS THE DEFINITION OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE TODAY INCLUDES THAT IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ARE MET, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE.
ONE IF IT'S 24 FEET IN LENGTH OR MORE AUTOMATICALLY AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE, RIGHT.
WHATEVER THE, UM, STAFF FEELS IT WOULD READ BEST.
I'M LOOKING STRICTLY AT RESIDENTIAL REC, UH, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ALL THE EXEMPTIONS HAPPEN.
SO IF YOU JUST SAY PARKING AREA PROVIDED THAT THEY'RE NOT LONGER THAN 24 FEET.
NO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WILL PARKED WITHIN 15 FEET AND JUST PUT IT IN A LINE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? EXCEPT IT'S, IT STILL BECOMES AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE.
YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY SAYING YOU'RE, THEY'RE ONLY EXEMPTING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 24 FEET OR LESS.
BUT YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY AND NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE, CORRECT.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T PARK IN YOUR FRONT YARD.
YOU HAVE TO PARK ON A, ON AN IMPROVED YEAH.
SO YOU CAN'T JUST PARK ACROSS YOUR FRONT YARD TODAY, WHETHER IT'S A CAR, WHETHER IT'S A FORD, 7,550, WHATEVER IT IS, WHAT IS, WOW, I WANT ONE OF THOSE.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN APPROVED SURFACE DECOMPOSED GRANITE.
SO LIKE IF SOMEBODY PUTS DOWN A DECOMPOSED GRANITE AREA IN THEIR FRONT YARD, DOES THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOME AN APPROVED SERVICE FOR RV? IT'S GOTTA BE CONNECTED TO YOUR, YOUR DRIVEWAY.
SO YOUR APPROACH AND YOUR MAIN DRIVEWAY, AND THEN IT CAN BE MADE OF GRANITE, IT CAN BE MADE OF, UM, BRICK, PAVER STONE, PAVER STONE, WHATEVER, UM, APPROVED TYPE OF MATERIAL YOU CAN GET IT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MAIN CONCERN HERE IS NOT THE LENGTH OF THE RV, BUT THE LOCATION THAT IT'S PARKED.
SO IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE D ONE SIMPLY TO SAY NO RV, MAYBE PARKED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE.
I'M WAY MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT WHEN THE LENGTH, 'CAUSE I'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT RVS AND GOOGLING THEM HERE, BUT, UM, RVING KNOWHOW SAYS THAT THE TYPICAL IS BETWEEN 20 AND 45 FEET LONG.
SO BY SAYING 25 FEET, WE'RE MAKING VIRTUALLY NOTHING THAT ANYBODY CAN PARK IN THEIR YARD OR DRIVEWAY.
BUT THAT'S REALLY GOING AFTER A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED TODAY.
SO LOGAN, CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID? YES I AM.
'CAUSE I THINK DEBBIE WAS HAVING A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION.
SO IF, IF WE WERE TO, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE D ONE, INSTEAD OF SAYING NO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE MAY BE PARKED WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE FRONT CURB, IF WE JUST SAID NO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE MAY BE PARKED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE CODE AS ANYTHING BETWEEN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE, NO.
ALLS YOU HAVE TO DO IS EXTEND YOUR DRIVEWAY AND NO, IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE IN YOUR FRONT YARD AT ALL.
I MEAN, ANY THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD SAY ANYTHING BETWEEN THE FRONT WALL OF YOUR HOME AND YOUR FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS OFF LIMITS FOR PARKING AN RV.
DO WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON LIKE BOATS RIGHT NOW? SO AS AN EXAMPLE, SO DON'T BOATS HAVE THAT DIALOGUE WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT WALL? I, I THOUGHT I RECALL THAT SOMEWHERE.
THEY CAN'T BE, THEY THEY CAN'T PARK IN THE RESTRICTED PARKING ZONE EITHER.
AND THEY HAVE TO BE, BE PAR BE PARKED ON A IMPROVED SURFACE.
[02:45:01]
CAN'T JUST THROW IT IN YOUR FRONT YARD ON THE GRASS.BUT YOU CAN THROW IT IN YOUR FRONT YARD ON AN APPROVED DRIVE-IN SURFACE THAT'S CONNECTED TO YOUR DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH.
SO WE'D BE SINGLING OUT RVS VERSUS BOATS.
WHAT'S THE MOTION FOR
SO LOGAN, I THINK SHE'S REFERENCING YOUR SUGGESTION.
ARE YOU GOING WITH LOGAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS? YES.
ARE WE GO WITH THE MORE RESTRICTIVE, IF THE, IF THE COMMITTEE SUPPORTS THAT, THAT'S GONNA BE A HUGE HEADACHE FOR THREE.
SO LET'S SEE THAT ON THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN.
IF WE, IF WE CAN, YES, WE HAVE IT HERE.
NO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE MAY BE PARKED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD PERIOD.
WHAT IF IT'S CONNECTED TO THE VEHICLE THAT'S TOWING IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN PREPARATION? CORRECT? TRIP PREPARATION WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED.
I MEAN, IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
WELL, IT'S THE WHOLE TRIP PREPARATION GETS ABUSED QUITE FREQUENTLY THOUGH.
I THINK YOU STILL NEED TO KEEP YOU, YOU STILL NEED TO KEEP FROM THE CURB THE 15 FEET FROM THE CURB.
THE DEFINITION OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE SAYS A MOTOR VEHICLE TRAILER OR BOAT, WHICH BY ITSELF OR TOGETHER WITH OTHER STRUCTURES OR VEHICLES ATTACHED TO IT EXCEEDS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING 24 FEET IN LENGTH.
SO THAT INCLUDES THE VEHICLE ATTACHED TO IT.
NORMALLY WHEN ENFORCING OVERSIZED VEHICLE CODE, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO PARK A BIG TRAILER WITH THEIR BIG F THREE 50 DUALLY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
AND WE MEASURE FROM THE FRONT OF THAT TRUCK TO THE END OF THAT TRAILER.
AND IF IT'S 24 FEET LONG, IT IS IN VIOLATION.
OR SORRY, MORE THAN 24 FEET LONG, IT'S IN VIOLATION.
SO WE ALSO SOLVE THIS BY SENDING CODE COMPLIANCE TO DEBBIE'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND LEAVING THE CODE AS PROPOSED.
I WAS GONNA GO GIVE HER, I MEAN HONESTLY, IS THIS A RAMPANT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE, I MEAN IS IT A KIND OF LIKE SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN ISSUE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT CAN SOLVE IT? OR I MEAN, IS THIS A RAMPANT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED BY CODE, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.
I, I THINK, WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DEBBIE'S SITUATION.
IT WASN'T ON OUR RADAR, BUT THAT'S WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE CHANGES WE'RE RECOMMENDING.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE 15 FEET.
SO THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY PUT THERE FOR A REASON.
IT, WOULD IT BE OVER PRESCRIPTIVE IF WE KEPT THAT AND SAID NO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MAYBE PARKED WITHIN 15 FEET OR THE FRONT YARD? YES.
I THINK YOU NEEDED THAT WAY OR, AND OKAY.
AND OR I MEAN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A NEED FOR THAT, THE SIDEWALK AND THE WHOLE POINT WAS HAVING 15 FEET FOR THE CURB WAS TO HAVE
THE REASON THAT WE HAVE THAT 15 FEET IS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHEN THEY'RE BACKING OUT RIGHT.
TO HAVE THAT LINE OF SIGHT WHEN THEY'RE GOING IN AND OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS.
THE 15 FEET NEEDS TO STAY IN THERE, IT NEEDS TO STAY IN THERE.
SO PEOPLE WHEN THEY BACK OUT, THEY DON'T OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.
CAUSE X WE, WE HAVE IN, IN A SEPARATE SECTION OF CLO CODE, WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED THE CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENT.
SO 15 FEET BACK INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY, 15 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING BLOCKING THAT VIEW.
IT EXTENDS TO 25 FEET AT AN INTERSECTION.
BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE 15 FOOT LANGUAGE CAME FROM.
SO IS STAFF, I MEAN THE ISSUE THAT YOU WERE SEEING THAT PRECIPITATED THIS AMENDMENT, DOES WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM? YES.
WE GET A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT RVS BEING PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD, NOT BEING WITHIN OR BEING WITHIN THE 15, UH, FOOT RIGHT.
SETBACK AREA, THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA.
AND SOME PEOPLE JUST TELLING US, HEY, WE DON'T WANT IT IN THE FRONT YARD.
LIKE, LIKE THE COMMITTEE WAS SAYING, WE, WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE WANT IT PARKED IN THE BACK.
IT SURE MAKES MEASURING IT EASIER TOO.
WE DON'T GOTTA WORRY ABOUT GETTING OUT AND MEASURING.
I MEAN, I DO HAVE SOME HEARTBURN ABOUT TREATING BOATS DIFFERENT THAN RVS.
'CAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY, IT'S THEY'RE BOTH RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
TO ME, THE BOAT PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE THE SAME BLOCK ON VISIBILITY.
WE HAVE GOTTEN REPORTS OF BOATS WITH THE SAME ISSUE.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A 14 FOOT 14 FEET.
I UNDERSTAND EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.
AND THEN I HAVE ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THIS.
[02:50:01]
SO THEY'RE PARKED ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT WE WOULD, WE CONTACT THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT SAFE UNIT AND WE WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THEM.SO IF THEY TRY TO PLAY, UM, WHAT IS IT, MUSICAL CHAIRS RIGHT.
AND PUT IT ON THE PROPERTY AND ON THE STREET.
WE'LL, WE'LL ADDRESS IT PROPERLY.
SO IF, IF, IF THE INTENT IS TO CONTINUE ESSENTIALLY TO REGULATE RVS AS OVERSIZED VEHICLES, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND WE STRIKE THAT SENTENCE FROM THE DEFINITION THAT SAYS RVS ARE NOT OVERSIZED VEHICLES.
AND THEN UNDERNEATH WHERE WE HAVE C RATHER THAN DOING ONE, TWO AND THEN D 1, 2, 3, 4, JUST HAVE THE PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES ONE THROUGH SIX.
WELL, BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE, THE, THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE A D IS BECAUSE WE WERE GONNA TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY.
BUT IF WE'RE GONNA TREAT THEM THE SAME AND JUST PROVIDE A COUPLE EXTRA REGULATIONS, IF IT ALSO MEET THE DEFINITION.
I KNOW WHEN CODE WAS DOING THIS, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PROHIBIT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES BEING PARKED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO, SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, LOGAN, IT SEPARATES AN RV FROM AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
BUT IT DOESN'T PUT ANY LENGTH RESTRICTIONS ON THE RV.
SO IT COULD BE A 15 FOOT RV AND IT WOULD FALL UNDER THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
NOW IF WE REMOVE, IF ALL OF SUDDEN WE SAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE NOT OVERSIZED VEHICLES, NOW IT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE, WHICH IS 24 FEET.
SO NOW ALL THESE RULES WON'T APPLY TO AN RV LESS THAN 24 FEET TO AN RV THAT IS LESS THAN 24 FEET.
LESS WIDE THAN EIGHT FEET AND SHORTER THAN EIGHT FEET.
RIGHT? YEAH, YOU COULD MAKE THAT RIGHT.
BUT IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TOP PORTION RIGHT THERE.
IT WOULD, UM, KEEP EVERYTHING ALL TOGETHER.
UH, IT DETER, YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT OUR OUTCOME, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO DO.
SO, UM, WE WERE TRYING TO BE A LITTLE FLEXIBLE WITH THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THAT WAS ON HERE.
SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.
UM, WE DIDN'T WANNA PROHIBIT IT.
WE JUST WANTED TO PUT A LITTLE MORE REGULATION ON IT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, WHEN WE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE, WHEN I REVIEWED IT, WHEN I REVIEWED IT WITH MY TEAM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO PROHIBIT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
BUT IT'S THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO YOU COULD STILL PUT A SMALL RV ANYWHERE ON YOUR LOT THAT YOU WANTED TO CORRECT THE AVERAGE, BUT YOU CAN ONLY PUT A NORMAL ONE IN YOUR BACKYARD.
WHICH MEANS MOST PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO KEEP IT AT HOME.
THE AVERAGE WIDTH OF A SMALL RV IS EIGHT AND A HALF FEET.
LIKE ME, YOU WILL NOW SUDDENLY GET EDGE POPPING UP.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A BOOTH AT THE TRAVEL TRAILER SHOW.
WELL, SO TAKING OUT THAT SENTENCE WOULD BASICALLY SAY YOU CAN'T PUT AN RV IN YOUR DRIVEWAY ANYMORE.
IT HAS TO GO IN YOUR BACKYARD.
THAT'S A PRETTY SPECIFIC, IF IT EATS ONE OF THOSE DIMENSIONS, AN RV RIGHT.
THAT DOESN'T, WHICH TO YOUR GOOGLE MOST ARE WIDER THAN EIGHT FEET.
IT WOULD BE VERY RESTRICTIVE AGAINST RV'S.
SO IT THIS WOULD BE VERY, VERY, VERY RESTRICTIVE.
PLUS THERE'S ABOUT WHAT, 6%, 70% OF OUR HOMES IN SAN ANTONIO DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE REAR.
WELL, YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S CORRECT.
I'D SAY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANNA LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS WITH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND ADD IN NOT PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD, I MEAN MAYBE THAT'S A ANOTHER OPTION THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO PARK ON THE SIDE YARD.
I THINK THAT WOULD FIX YEAH, FIX THIS.
AND LIKE KAT SAID, I MEAN MOST, MOST HOUSES IN, IN THE CITY, THE DRIVEWAY'S ONLY 20 FEET LONG, SO IT WOULDN'T FIT ANYWAY.
I THINK IT STILL ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERNS, DEBBIE, AND TO KEEP THE CURB APPEAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT HAVING THEM PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD WOULD GREATLY ASSIST, I THINK WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WELL THAT'S THE ISSUE, RIGHT? IS YES, CORRECT.
IS THE EYESORE OF THAT BEING THERE ALL THE TIME.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS THEN IS TO GO WHAT WITH WHAT'S IN YELLOW THERE RIGHT NOW? YES.
AND FRONT YARD IS DEFINED SOMEWHERE.
ALSO REAL QUICK, LAUREN, UH, ON, GO BACK TO THE YELLOW LAUREN ON D ONE WITHIN 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT CURB.
[02:55:01]
NOT FOR YEAH, THE FRONT CURB.I HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN RIGHT HERE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
BIANCA MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW AND A SECOND BY DEBBIE WHO LOOKS VERY FRUSTRATED RIGHT NOW.
AND FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THIS WAS THE LONGEST AMENDMENT WE'VE HAD.
SO COMMITTEE, DID YOU WANT ONE OR THE OTHER 15 FEET OR, OR, 'CAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.
WHAT THIS IS SAYING TO ME IS THAT I CANNOT PARK AN RV WITHIN 15 FEET OF, UM, FROM FRONT CURB, FROM FROM THE FRONT CURB OR THE FRONT YARD.
SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T PARK IN EITHER OF THOSE AREAS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS SENTENCE TELLS ME.
BUT SHOULD, SHOULD IT, I MEAN, SORRY, I'M IT'S GRAMMATIC.
SHOULD IT BE AND OR OR JUST OR OR JUST OR OR, OKAY.
JUST MAKE SURE, JUST LEAVE IT AS WELL.
I DON'T WANT, WE MAKE THAT MISTAKE ALL THE TIME IN CODE.
I WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT SO WE CAN ENFORCE IT PROPERLY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA, A SECOND FROM DEBBIE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
THANK I JUST HAD ONE CLARIFICATION.
DO YOU MEASURE THAT FROM THE FRONT OF THE CURB OR THE BACK OF THE CURB? MR. LEY, YOU'RE OUT OF LINE.
UH, DISCUSSION IN ACTION ON UD C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 43 AMENDMENT.
WHAT? GEORGE, CAN, CAN WE INTRODUCE THE ITEM?
SO THIS, THIS ITEM IS, UH, AGAIN, RELATED TO A WR THAT WAS ISSUED, UH, BACK IN 2017.
UH, SPECIFICALLY IT IS SEEKING TO CLARIFY THE WAY THE WR OR THE, THE CODE LANGUAGE WHICH WAS AMENDED IN 2015 WAS WRITTEN.
IF YOU READ THIS, UH, THIS SENTENCE, UH, I'LL PICK UP AT SHELBY.
SO ARRANGED THAT THE SOURCE OF LIGHT IS CONCEALED FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC.
KIND OF LIKE THE, WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THE END VERSUS, OR IT IS SIMPLY TO CLARIFY THAT THAT LIGHT STEMMING FROM SIGNS PARKING AREAS, UH, HAS TO BE ARRANGED, UH, SUCH THAT IT'S CONCEALED FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THAT IT ALSO, SO TO SPEAK, SHALL BE ARRANGED SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC.
THE REASON WE MADE THAT CHANGE, LIKE LOGAN WAS SAYING, IS BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE IN THE CODE WITH THE AND OR SO WE'RE JUST FIXING IT.
THERE'S JUST A TYPO AND WE ARE GONNA CORRECT THE SINGS.
AND THE WAY THE CODE WAS PASSED, I THINK PREVIOUSLY IN MY REC AND IN MY VIEW, WE'RE JUST CORRECTING IT BECAUSE RIGHT, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN SOUNDS LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ENFORCED LIKE THIS.
WE, OR SIX WORDS, WE APPROVE THIS IDEA.
THERE'S, THERE'S TWO, TWO WORDS HERE.
S LIKE, HE'S SAYING THE WORD SINGS SHOULD BE SIGNS, SIGNS, SIGNS.
AND THEN ON THE, ON THE THIRD, ON THE THIRD SENTENCE, IT SAYS THAT THE SOURCE OF LIGHT, NOT IF LIGHT, THE LIGHT SEEMS SO
SO THEY NEED, YEAH, SO THEY NEED MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS HERE.
SO FOR THE TEXT CIRCLE OF DEATH, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?
SO WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THOSE TWO WORDS, RIGHT? YEAH, I THINK THERE WE'RE HAVING TECHN, IT'S TECHNOLOGY PROBLEMS. WE'RE CURRENTLY WAITING ON THE COMPUTER TO CATCH UP.
AND SO AS TO SAVE A LITTLE TIME, NEITHER OF THOSE ARE TYPOS IN THE U D C POSTED ONLINE.
SO THIS WAS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY A TYPO CREATED IN THE AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL.
BUT I JUST CHECKED THE CORRECT.
WE APPROVE THIS ITEM, ROBERT HENLEY.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM KERRY TO APPROVE THE ITEM.
[03:00:01]
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I WAS JUST GONNA SHARE THE 40, UH, OF THE 43 EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS THAT THE TAC, UH, DECIDED TO FORWARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE CONSIDERED TOMORROW.UH, SO STARTING AT NOON, WE'LL HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO START GOING THROUGH THOSE, UH, THROUGH THOSE ITEMS. UH, ONCE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHICH EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS THEY WANT TO SPONSOR, WE WILL BRING THOSE BACK TO THE TTAC.
UH, AND WE WILL PROBABLY JUMP INTO THAT APPENDIX H STORMWATER AMENDMENTS AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
UH, AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'VE INVITED ALL OF THE APPLICANTS FOR THOSE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS TO BE PRESENT TO DEFEND THEIR PROPOSALS, SO TO SPEAK, ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UH, SO WE WILL HAVE AN UPDATE FOR YOU AFTER OUR NEXT TAC MEETING ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.
THAT'S ALL FOR DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
UM, IF I MAY ADD, THE APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS WILL ALSO BE IN ATTENDANCE FOR WHO ENFORCED THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
IT IS 3 34 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT? WHAT'S THAT? WHAT.