[00:00:07]
IT'S 2:03 PM UH, WELCOME TO THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 12TH, 2023.
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES? GOOD AFTERNOON.
AND STAFF, PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL.
[Plats]
TWO AGENDAS.UM, ONE WILL BE A CONSENT AGENDA WHILE ALL ITEMS WILL BE APPROVED UNDER ONE MOTION.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ITEMS TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERED.
SO ALL ITEMS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF ITEM ITEMS. EXCUSE ME.
12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, AND 24.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION RE REGARDING THE CONSENT ITEMS OR ANY ITEMS THEY WISH TO PULL? I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION APPROVED BY VICE CHAIR PECK.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.
UH, BEFORE WE GET INTO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEMS 10 AND 11.
MR. ROBINSON, IS HE HERE? YES.
WE WE'RE, WE APPROVED IT IN CONSENT, SO
[Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments ]
ARE YOU GOOD? OKAY.ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REQUEST BY BROWN AND MCDONALD FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN, CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM SUBURBAN TIER TO URBAN GENERAL URBAN TIER, LOCATED AT 15,000 809 5 SOUTH STATE HIGHWAY 16.
AND, UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OH, 82.
ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY AND OUTSIDE 200 FEET, THEY RECEIVE TWO IN FAVOR AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 13TH.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA TO GRANT THE APPLICANT'S CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 13TH.
[00:05:01]
THANK YOU.ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST BY ALVIN PETERS FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION.
AMENDING THE SA TOMORROW SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY AREA REGIONAL CENTER PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM URBAN LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THREE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE.
NO RESPONSE FROM THE PASADENA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND OUTSIDE 200 FEET, ONE IS RECEIVED IN SUPPORT.
UM, I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL FOR THIS ITEM AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 9TH.
CAN WE HEAR THE VOICEMAIL PLEASE? HELLO, MY NAME IS EDWARD SEARS.
I'M WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PASADENA HEIGHTS.
AS PART OF THE LEADERSHIP AND AFFILIATE MEMBER, I RESIDE AT, UH, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AT, UM, 3 0 4 CHICORY AND, UH, PASADENA HEIGHTS.
UM, UH, WELCOME TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF 3 27 CHICORY.
REFERENCE CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 3 1 1 6 0 0 0 22.
UH, WE VOTE IN FAVOR FROM, UH, A LOW URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO THE MEDIUM URBAN RESIDENTIAL, UH, SITE.
AND, UM, WE CONGRATULATE THE COMMUNITY FOR THE EFFORTS OF, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT OUT HERE AT PASADENA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AGAIN, WE GO ON RECORD IN FULL SUPPORT OF MR. ALVIN PETER'S ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ, UM, FOR THE, UM, PLANNING, UM, AMENDMENT FOR 3 27 SHARE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, UH, BEST OF LUCK TO OUR COMMUNITY, PASADENA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I MOVE THAT THE ITEM, UH, BE PUT FORWARD.
WHAT WAS THE DATE THEY WERE ASKING? AUGUST 9TH.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
SECOND BY, UH, VICE CHAIR PECK TO CONTINUE THE CASE TO THE AUGUST 9TH MEETING.
THERE IS A VOICEMAIL AND A PERSON THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
CAN WE HEAR THAT? VOICEMAIL? UH, VOICEMAIL FOR 17.
UM, UH, MS. EDWARDS, ARE YOU HERE? YES.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, TO SPEAK? YEAH, I'LL, I JUST, UH, SPOKE TO THE ARCHITECT RIGHT NOW.
MY MAIN REASON MEETING, MA'AM, YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE OT PODIUM.
IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
CHELSEA EDWARDS, UH, 25 15 HARPER'S BEND.
I JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FIVE MONTHS AGO AND WASN'T, UM, TOLD I GUESS BY MY REAL ESTATE AGENT THAT BEHIND THE HOUSE WAS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL.
SO I'M HERE TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT DIRECTLY BEHIND MY PROPERTY IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
YOU SAID YOU SPOKE TO, SO I DID SPEAK TO ARCHITECT.
HE DID TELL ME WHAT THE PLAN WAS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY I'M STILL OPPOSED TO IT, UM, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE ZONING'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH AND IT'S, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT I CAN DO ABOUT IT AT THIS POINT.
WE CAN TALK TO HER AFTER THE, OKAY.
UM, THIS, THIS ITEM IS, IS PASSED THROUGH RIGHT ITEM 14.
ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST BY BROWNIE MCDONALD REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SA TOMORROW
[00:10:01]
PORT SAN ANTONIO AREA REGIONAL CENTER PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, LOCATED AT OR GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 6,500 BLOCK OF OLD PIOL ROAD.ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, TWO RECEIVED OPPOSED, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TILL AUGUST 9TH.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 9TH.
SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 9TH BY VICE CHAIR PECK.
I WANNA SKIP AHEAD TO ITEM NUMBER 19 PLEASE.
CAMERON BLACKMAN ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 19 IS LOCATED AT 7 1 0 2 NORTH LOOP 1604 EAST, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE NORTH SIX SECTOR PLAN USED CLASSIFICATION FROM SUBURBAN TIER TO AGRIBUSINESS TIER.
THERE WERE 19 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM SUBURBAN TIER TO AGRIBUSINESS TIER IS REQUESTED TO REONE THE PROPERTY TO LSS LIGHT INDU INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE STORAGE.
THE PROPOSED AGRIBUSINESS TIER IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AND A BUDDING LAND USE.
THE AGRIBUSINESS DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT AGRICULTURE AND LIGHT INDUSTRY USES THAT ARE GENERALLY LOCATED IN ISOLATED AREAS.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST IS NOT APPROPRIATE ALONG NORTH LOOP 1604 AND NACODOCHES ROAD.
AN AREA PREDOMINANTLY CLASSIFIED SUBURBAN TIER THAT IS INTENDED TO BE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.
A PLAN AMENDMENT TO REGIONAL CENTER WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG NORTH LOOP 1604 EAST AND IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF NACODOCHES ROAD, WHICH IS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A STREET.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS REGIONAL CENTER NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION TO REGIONAL CENTER.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL AMEND THE REQUEST.
PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST.
WELL, I WAS ALL READY TO GET ON MY SOAPBOX ABOUT THE SECTOR PLANS.
YOU KNOW, THEY DID A ONE SECTOR PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITY AND IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY DO A GOOD JOB AND, AND REFLECT WHAT EXISTS ON THE GROUND.
BUT, UM, STAFF MADE IT A, A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ALTERNATE TO GO TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND MY CLIENT IS FINE WITH THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING TODAY IS AMENDING MY REQUEST TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO COMPLY WITH STAFF'S REQUEST.
ALRIGHT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO IMPROVE THE CHANGE TO REGIONAL CENTER.
MOTION, UH, BY VICE CHAIR TO APPROVE AS AMENDED TO REGIONAL CENTER.
COMM COMM, UH, COUNCILMAN COURAGE? AYE.
MY NAME IS ADOLFO GONZALEZ, ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 16 IS LOCATED AT 2 39 MCCAULEY BOULEVARD.
REQUESTING TO AMEND THE SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LAND USE DESIGNATION, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE.
THERE WERE 32 NOTICES SENT OUT.
EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
HARLANDALE MCCOLLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND TWO IN FAVOR.
THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE IS NECESSARY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO I D Z ONE.
LIMITED INTENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT
[00:15:01]
ZONE WITH USES PERMITTED FOR SIX DWELLING UNITS.THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED MIXED USE CLASSIFICATION IS INTENDED FOR A BLEND OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES IN THE SAME BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT AT INCREASED DENSITIES.
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ACCORDING TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN.
MIXED USE ISS DESIRED ALONG DESIGNATED CORRIDORS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT FALL UNDER.
INTRODUCING THE PROPOSED ENTITY OF SIX UNITS COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
UH, I WORK HERE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN THE SPECIAL PROJECTS TEAM AND I'M HERE TODAY TO, UH, REPRESENT MY WIFE JACQUELINE, ATE AND HER BROTHER JOHN REYES, WHO ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 2 39 MCCAULEY AVENUE.
WE REQUEST THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM NO DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE.
UH, CURRENTLY THERE IS A ABANDONED HOUSE ON THE SITE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AN EYESORE, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEEDS TO BE TORN DOWN.
UM, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR AT LEAST THREE GENERATIONS AND WE ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
UM, WE CURRENTLY, YOU CAN, WHEN YOU WALK INSIDE THE HOUSE, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
IT'S ON, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDATION'S GONE.
UM, WE'VE HAD HOME PROBLEMS WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING THERE.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO IMPROVE, UH, THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, WHEN WE STARTED THIS VISION TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY, WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT PLAGUE SAN ANTONIO SINCE, UH, WORD GOT OUT THAT SAN ANTONIO IS, UH, ONE OF THE BEST CITIES TO LIVE IN, UH, THERE WAS AN INFLUX OF PEOPLE THAT WE CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND.
UH, WE STARTED, UH, WE STARTED OUT BY TRYING TO FOCUS ON A SEGMENT OF THE MARKET THAT SEEMS TO BE FORGOTTEN, WHICH IS THE OLDER COMMUNITY.
UH, WE ARE PROPOSING SIX ONE STORY, TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH APARTMENTS WITH NO OFF STREET PARKING AS TO NOT CAUSE TRAFFIC.
CONGESTIONS ON THE STREET, UH, ALL PARKING.
WE ARE SUGGESTING TO BE ON PROPERTY.
UM, IT WILL BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED.
UH, WE WANT IT TO BE A ONE STORY, UH, APARTMENTS AS TO NOT BE IN, IN, UH, WE DON'T WANT TO BE INVASIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORS.
UM, WE ARE LOOKING TO, UH, WE ARE LOOKING TO, UH, CONSTRUCT APARTMENTS TO RESPONSIBLE MATURE ADULTS.
WE WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OUR NEIGHBORS AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE, UH, STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE HARDIN DALE MCCULLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
AND WE HAVE ALSO REACHED OUT TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, UH, COUNCILWOMAN VIA GRAND'S OFFICE.
UH, AND THEY'RE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE PROJECT.
UM, ALTHOUGH THEY CANNOT ENDORSE US, UH, THEY'RE DEFINITELY KEEPING AN EYE ON THIS PROJECT AS IT CONTINUES FORWARD.
WE HUMBLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL, UH, TO THE MIXED USE AT CHIEF MARY MCCAULEY AS WE LOOK TO SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS IN SAN ANTONIO AND IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE AS A WHOLE.
UH, I WILL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.
COULD YOU PLEASE, UH, RESPOND TO A FEW QUESTIONS, UH, AND SOME STAFF MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE FIRST ONE.
UH, UNDOUBTEDLY THERE IS A HOUSING SITUATION THAT WE NEED TO AMEND.
IS THERE OTHER ZONING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR THAT WOULD'VE ALLOWED FOR, LET'S SAY, DUPLEXES, FOURPLEXES TO GO IN OTHER THAN WHAT THEY'RE BEING ASKED FOR? UH, YES SIR.
ACTUALLY, AS PART OF THE KEEPING IT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WE HAVE, AS PART OF THE ZONING APPLICATION, WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FOR R SIX, MAINTAINING THE BASE DISTRICT AND ADDING A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR FOUR UNITS.
IF THEY GET THE ZONING THEY'RE ASKED FOR, COULD THEY PUT A BUSINESS, UH, SOME KIND OF A BUSINESS INTO THIS PROPERTY IF IT, IF THEY GO WITH A MIXED USE CLASSIFICATION OR WITH, OR KEEPING IT LOW MIXED USE? CORRECT.
SO MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR A BROADER, BROADER TYPES OF ZONING.
SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WOULD NECESSARILY PUT IN COMMERCIAL, BUT THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST ZONING FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE TO REALLY RECONSIDER, DO FOURPLEX.
IT HELPS, BUT IT'S NOT AS, UH, INTENSIVE.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW A FUTURE OWNER TO TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD A BAR OR SOME OTHER KIND OF BUSINESS THERE.
SO, UH, I'D LIKE YOU TO GO BACK AND TALK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, SEE IF YOU COULD COME BACK WITH A BETTER
[00:20:01]
OFFER THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT BEFORE US.OTHERWISE, I'D ASK THAT IT BE DENIED.
SO, SO WITH THE, WITH THE FOURPLEX THAT WAS PROPOSED TO US, UH, THE FOURPLEX, WHAT, WHAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD MEAN WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO REPL THE PROPERTY AND BASICALLY SPLIT IT IN HALF, WHICH, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S, YOU KNOW, SIX TO $8,000, WHICH IS, UM, SOMETHING, UH, THE REPLANTING PROCESS IS PRETTY EXTENSIVE.
AND, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HOPING TO AVOID.
UM, COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE'RE JUST THINKING TO ADDITIONAL SMALLER RESIDENCES, UH, WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE FROM AS OPPOSED TO FOUR, WHICH, WHAT, WHICH IS WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WAS, IS, IS THAT CORRECT? IT COST THEM MAYBE 12, 14, $16,000 THEY'D HAVE TO REPL TO CHANGE THAT ZONING.
SO PLATTING PROCESS AS FAR AS CITY FEES IS, WOULD NOT BE THAT ASTRONOMICAL.
IT'S THE ENGINEERING FEES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY THAT TYPICALLY RUN TO THE TENS PLUS.
WELL, I'M STILL GONNA BE AGAINST IT.
I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD GIVE, UH, MORE TIME TO THIS PERSON WHILE THEY CAN RESOLVE THE ISSUES AND THEN COME BACK RATHER THAN JUST DENIED.
WELL, LET'S GET THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS.
PLUS THE COUNCILMAN'S ALREADY MADE A MOTION, SO WE'LL HAVE TO FINISH THAT.
UM, I, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR, UM, THE REQUIREMENT TO REPL FOR A FOURPLEX.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE PROPERTY FURTHER.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT.
UM, BUT IT, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT, THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT AREA.
UM, BUT I CAN, I'LL KEEP THIS ONE AND I CAN, I CAN PROBABLY GET SOME INFORMATION OUT TO YOU AFTER THE MEETING.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, MY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS WERE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT, UH, COUNCILMAN COURAGE, UH, SPOKE ABOUT AND, UH, I, I, UH, GUESS I AGREE WITH HIS ASSESSMENT AT THIS STAGE.
MR. SIEGEL? WELL, THIS IS KIND OF, UH, CON CONFLICTING FOR ME BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT, UM, INCREASING GENTLY INCREASING DENSITY IN OUR CENTER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, TO CREATE MORE AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I THINK THAT A MULTIPLEX THAT LIKE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS A GREAT WAY TO HELP TO SLOW DOWN GENTRIFICATION IN OUR CENTER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THIS AREA, UM, MAY NOT BE ALREADY UNDERGOING THAT, BUT IT'S P PROXIMITY TO THE MILITARY AND PLEASANTON ROAD MEANS THAT GENTRIFICATION IS COMING TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO I THINK THAT A MULTIFAMILY SOLUTION, A RENTER BASED SOLUTION IS REALLY GOOD FOR THIS AREA.
BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE HAZARD OF POTENTIALLY OPENING THIS PROPERTY UP TO FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD, WOULD BE AN PERHAPS UNWELCOME ENCROACHMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT BEING ONLY TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM MILITARY, UM, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, COULD BE, COULD BE LIKELY, IT COULD BE FORESEEN.
SO, UM, I GUESS THAT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION.
I HOPE THAT THAT A, A COMPROMISE CAN BE WORKED OUT.
WE CAN, UM, IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD PUT A CLAUSE THAT SAYS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD GLADLY DO SO.
UM, WE'VE ONLY WANTED A RESIDENTIAL, WE'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL, UM, WHETHER IT BE APARTMENTS, WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THERE'S NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM DO WE EVER WANT ANY KIND OF LIKE STORE OR BAR OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT AS TO HAVE BE ON THAT PROPERTY.
UM, THIS BODY HAS TO CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DECADES TO COME.
THAT'S, THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.
COMMISSIONER SUKI, UM, I'M STILL, UH, YEAH, IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUEST.
IT USE, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR TO HAVE THE FULL SIX UNITS TO BE, UH, FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION MM-HMM.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST YOU RECONSIDER LOOKING INTO AND WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION AGAIN, BUT THE MIXED USE, I WILL JUST HAVE TO DENY IT AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER MILAN, HOW LARGE IS THIS PROPERTY? IT, IT'S SLIGHTLY OVER A THIRD OF AN ACRE.
AND YOU SAID SIX ONE STORY? 6 6 1 STORY, TWO BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH UNITS.
UM, DO, DO YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES TO SHOW US? I DO.
I BELIEVE I HAVE A, I TURNED IN A SITE PLAN ALONG WITH THE LETTER
[00:25:01]
OF APPROVAL FROM THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.AND I EVEN HAVE PICTURES OF THE HOUSES, UH, OF WHAT CURRENTLY, WHAT THE CURRENT HOUSE LOOKS LIKE.
I HAVE A FLASH DRIVE IF YOU WANT IT.
YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE PRINTOUT, IS IT COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? I HAVE SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO REPL.
SO THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF TWO LOTS, THREE 16 AND THREE 17.
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED R SIX, MEANING THAT, YOU KNOW, HE COULD DO A SINGLE FAMILY ON THREE 16 AND A THREE SINGLE FAMILY ON THREE 17 AND QUALIFY FOR A PLAID EXEMPTION.
UM, AND THE PLAID EXEMPTION, YOU KNOW, WOULD, WOULD GET THEM OUT OF PLATTING.
IT'S A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
WHEN YOU GO TO MULTI-FAMILY ON THESE OLD LOTS, ONE, A REZONING WOULD BE REQUIRED.
SO TO GET IT OUT OF R SIX SECOND, YOU CANNOT BUILD MULTI-FAMILY ACROSS THE LOT LINE.
SO EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT ITSELF WOULD ONE, HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
UM, YOU WOULD, HE TECHNICALLY MAY STILL BE ABLE TO DO A C O D, BUT IT HAVE TO BE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT.
SO EACH LOT WOULD HAVE TO BE SEPARATED.
THE ONLY, UM, BUT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD STRAIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, YOU CAN'T BUILD OVER A, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD REQUIRE A REPL.
EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE SIX UNITS PER ACRE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPL NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO THE, THE PLAN ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD CROSS ANY LOT LINE THAT WAS THERE.
SO, SO THE REPL IS NOT A CONSIDERATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT, BASED OFF OF WHAT I'M SEEING, I I, THE PROPERTY IS 16,800 SQUARE FEET.
UM, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS MORE IN DEPTH, BUT I BELIEVE A C O D MAY BE AN OPTION, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THREE 16 BY ITSELF AND THREE 17 BY ITSELF.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK A QUESTION OF THE STAFF.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE TO POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS TO ENABLE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MEET WITH D S D AND DISCUSS OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, OTHER POSSIBILITIES? YES.
COUNCILMAN ENCOURAGE YOU CAN SUGGEST A CONTINUANCE.
COMMISSIONER MILAM, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, THAT ANSWERS.
COMMISSIONER SIPES, I AGREE WITH, UH, ALL THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
UM, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, IF A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED OR WHATEVER IS WHATEVER HAPPENS, UM, IT APPEARS THAT, UH, CITY STAFF IS, HAS SOME ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COULD GET YOU CLOSE TO WHAT YOU ARE ACHIEVING, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AND SEE IF YOU BENEFIT FROM THE, THE OLD B TWO R CONVERSION WHERE YOU WOULD BY RIGHT.
BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP A DUPLEX ON EACH LOT, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU FOUR UNITS JUST RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND THAT IS THE END OF MY COMMENT.
THERE'S NO B A R, UH, I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID.
UH, ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING I D Z ONE CORRECT.
WITH SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL USE? CORRECT.
SO, ON THE QUESTION ON FUTURE USE, IF SAY SOMEBODY WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO A MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USE, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO A ZONING COMMISSION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE A MOTION FOR, UH, MOVE FOR DENIAL.
MAY I HAVE PERMISSION TO AMEND THAT MOTION? CORRECT.
I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THIS BE POSTPONED TO THE LAST MEETING IN AUGUST.
AND AT THAT TIME, WE GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER THE REPRESENTATIVE MORE TIME TO RECONSIDER AND, AND CHECK WITH OUR D S D STAFF, D S D STAFF.
I HOPE THAT'LL BE ACCEPTABLE TO 'EM.
THAT'S A CONTINUANCE TO THE 23RD OF AUGUST.
I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION WE'LL TAKE VO, BUT IS THAT, ARE YOU WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND YOUR, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE ZONING AND THE CITY COUNCIL? DOES THAT PUSH EVERYTHING DOWN? I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD BECAUSE I HAVE
[00:30:01]
ZONING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK.SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE TO CONT GRANT A CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 23RD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.
DID WE HEAR WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE TO THAT POSTPONEMENT? UH, CONTINUE.
I, I'M, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE WITH THE CONTINUANCE.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW I'M ABLE TO PUT THESE APARTMENTS ON WITHOUT CROSSING LOT LINES AND WITHOUT POSSIBLY RE PLATTING THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO AVOID JUST DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE COST.
BUT I DO AGREE, I IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT, UH, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF THEY WANTED TO GO WITH A MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO REZONE IT.
SO THAT, I GUESS THAT KIND OF ANSWERS, UH, CHAIR, COURAGE, COURAGE, COURAGE, UH, QUESTION.
I MEAN, I DON'T MIND GOING BACK AND SPEAKING WITH HIM.
ELIZABETH STEWART PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A REQUEST OF, FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SOUTH CENTRAL SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE, LOCATED AT 10 10 STEVES AVENUE.
THERE WERE 26 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO MIXED USE TO REZONE TO I ID Z THREE WITH USES PERMITTED FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT AND A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FACILITY.
THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES ALONG STEVE'S AVENUE, EAST OF SOUTH PRESA STREET.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TO MIXED USE IS NOT A COMPATIBLE TRANSITION FOR THE R FOUR BASE ZONING TO THE SOUTH, NORTH, AND EAST.
WHILE THE SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN ENVISIONS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES ALONG SOUTH PRESA STREET, THESE USES WERE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE PROPERTIES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
AS THE PLAN DESIGNATED THIS PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA AS LOW DENSITY CITY RESIDENTIAL, THE REQUEST WOULD CONSTITUTE COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, AND THEN THOSE ARE VOICEMAIL.
WE CAN PLAY THAT PLEASE, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL AND SOMEONE SIGN UP TO SPEAKER.
THIS IS FRANCISCO MACIAS, THE OWNER OF 10 20 16TH AVENUE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE KNOWN MY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT FOR 10 10 PEACE AVENUE.
AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
AUGUSTINE ORTIZ, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS, UH, AUGUSTINE ORTIZ.
I LIVE AT 10 14 STEVES AVENUE.
I'M THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO 10 10 AND I'M IN OPPOSITION.
BEEN LIVING IN THIS HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS.
THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING BUSINESS HERE FOR OVER A YEAR.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY KIND OF, UH, QUESTIONING OR HOW WE FELT ABOUT THEM RUNNING BUSINESS.
THEIR DRIVEWAY IN OUR HOUSE, THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
SHE HASN'T WORKED DUE TO MEDICAL ISSUES.
BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRASH, BROKEN GLASS, ANOTHER DEBRIS THAT'S COMING FROM THERE.
WE HAVE CAMERAS FACING OUR HOUSE.
WE NO LONGER USE OUR SIDE EXIT AS A RESULT OF THAT.
WE HAVE OTHER VEHICLES THAT ARE COMING IN AND OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
AND IT, THERE'S A LACK OF PRIVACY FROM THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.
YES, THEY'RE WORKERS AND I, AND AGAIN, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE FROM WHAT UNDERSTAND IS EITHER A WORKER OR A RELATIVE, BUT COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THIS.
MY FAMILY ON GRAYSON AND ALAMO, WE HAD LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 90 YEARS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GENTRIFICATION AND THEY WERE PUSHED OUT, THAT WAS DOWNTOWN.
WE, WE LIVE AS CLOSE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO DOWNTOWN.
AND THIS IS WHAT I FEEL THAT WE'RE FACING IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER FORM OF GENTRIFICATION BY PUSHING US OUT, ESTABLISHING THESE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES RIGHT ON TOP OF US.
[00:35:02]
YOU GO LOOK AT ALAMO AND GRAYSON.THAT ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOW COMMERCIAL.
MY GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE IS A BAR.
WE'LL NEVER GO BACK TO A NEIGHBORHOOD AGAIN AFTER OVER 90 YEARS.
SO I'M JUST ASKING AGAIN, WE OPPOSE THIS AND WE JUST NEED TO, UH, I I HOPE THAT, UH, YOU'LL SIDE WITH ME ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S HAPPENING TOO MUCH.
HOW MANY FAMILIES GET SQUEEZED OUT BECAUSE OF TAXES AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES COMING IN.
SO I'M JUST ASKING AGAIN FOR THAT CONSIDERATION.
MR. ORTIZ, THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, PLEASE? DO I NEED TO PRESS? I'M SORRY.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR TIME.
UM, WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REZONING AT 10 10 STEVES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH, UM, CAN YOU QUICKLY STATE YOUR NAME? OH, I'M SO SORRY ABOUT THAT.
UH, SO 10, 10 STEVES, THIS IS THE PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, MY FATHER PURCHASED THE LAND IN 1998.
AND, UM, WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE, UM, OFF AND ON.
UM, MY MOTHER AND MY FATHER BOTH PASSED IN THAT HOME.
SO NO INTENTION OF EVER SELLING THE HOME.
SO, UM, WHAT YOU HAVE NEXT DOOR IS, UM, THE PROPERTY AT 10 0 2.
STEVE'S, WHICH, UM, USED TO BE RESIDENTIAL WAS REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL.
UH, WE DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS GOING TO BE A LIQUOR STORE TILL PRETTY LATE IN THE, IN THE PROCESS.
THAT LIQUOR STORE WAS OPEN FOR A FEW YEARS.
UM, BUT THEY SHUT DOWN DUE TO, UH, LOTS OF BREAK-INS OF, OF THE LIQUOR STORE.
SO SOMETHING THAT WE DID NOT WANT.
UM, NOW THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR OVER SIX, SEVEN YEARS, MAYBE MORE.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN EXACT, UM, TIMEFRAME.
IT'S BEEN VACANT AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH BECOME A HAVEN FOR DRUG ADDICTED INDIVIDUALS, YOU KNOW, ALCOHOLICS, MENTALLY UNSTABLE, HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AS WELL.
UM, WE HAVE LIVED ON STEVE'S ON IN THE HOME, AND, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO MY DAUGHTER'S BEDROOM, THEY WOULD USE THE RESTROOM, UH, CHANGE LAY AROUND, YOU KNOW, NAKED SOMETIMES.
MY HUSBAND WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL AND CONSISTENT IN, UM, CALLING THE POLICE MANY TIMES, TRYING TO GET THEM OUT OF THERE.
OUR BACKYARD ON STEVE'S, THESE ARE MORE PICTURES OF WHAT WAS THERE FOR, UM, PRETTY MUCH A WHILE FOR A FEW YEARS.
SO, RECENT PIC, THOSE ARE RECENT PICTURES, UH, LIKE OVER A YEAR AGO THAT, THAT, THAT RECENT.
AND SO, UM, WE HAVE TRIED CONTACTING THE OWNER.
WE'VE DONE MUCH OF WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
SO WE HAVE SPOKEN TO SOME OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES AROUND THE AREA IN THAT CORNER AREA.
AND THEY'VE, UH, BEEN FEELING THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THAT PROPERTY.
THEY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THEY TRY TO, UH, DECORATE WITH, UM, L E D LIGHTS.
THEY GET, THEY RESELL 'EM AT PAWN SHOPS.
THEY LOSE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THERE'S MANY PEOPLE COMING IN TO ASK FOR AND SO WHATNOT.
AND SO IF YOU NOTICE THE HOUSE ON MY HOUSE, OUR HOUSE ON STEVE'S AND THE LIQUOR STORE BEING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, THERE'S A CARPORT THAT SERVES AS LIKE A DWELLING PLACE FOR THEM MANY TIMES.
SO WHAT WHAT HA WHAT USED TO HAPPEN MANY TIMES IS THEY WOULD JUMP THE FENCE TO OUR BACKYARD AND THEN, UM, JUMP THE FENCE AGAIN TO ANOTHER VACANT PROPERTY BEHIND US.
THEY WOULD STEAL MERCHANDISE FROM THE CON, UH, CONVENIENCE STORE FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN RUN INTO THE BACK OF OUR YARD.
UM, NOW WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE WE'VE, WE'VE POSTED A BUSINESS, AND I WILL SAY THAT I, MY MOTHER WAS, UM, LIVING IN THE HOME.
SHE GOT ILL AND, UM, LITERALLY, I, I HAD TO LEAVE MY JOB SO THAT I COULD TAKE CARE OF HER.
AND SO RUNNING A BUSINESS FROM HOME WAS SOMETHING THAT, THAT CAME, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE MY HUSBAND HAS 25 YEARS IN THE BUSINESS.
AND I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT BUSINESS LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS EXTREME, BUT IT, IT, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A MINUTE.
PRIOR TO THAT OPENING THAT BUSINESS, THIS IS WHAT THE, THE, UM, THE CURB LOOKED LIKE.
LOTS OF CLUTTER, LOTS OF CONGESTION.
AND SO WE'VE SINCE TRIED TO CLEAN IT UP, TRY TO GIVE SOME MORE CURB APPEAL.
LIKE I SAID, WE WANNA LEAVE IT AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE FRONT, BUT IN THE BACK, MAINTAIN IT AS A SHOP.
SO, UM, SO WE'RE REQUESTING THE REZONING.
SO WHERE THE FACILITY IN THE BACK IS REALLY JUST A HOLDING PLACE FOR GLASS AND DORM FRAMES, UM, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
SO IN THE BACK, REALLY WHAT IT IS, IS, UM, WE HAVE RACKS THAT HOLD THE GLASS, THE COMMERCIAL GLASS BEFORE WE GO AND INSTALL IT.
AND, UM, THERE IS NO EMPLOYEES STATIONED THERE.
[00:40:01]
THERE ARE, UH, IT'S REALLY JUST THEY GO IN, THEY LOAD UP THE TRUCK IN THE MORNING THERE, THERE TRUCKS, UM, THERE AT FORD F ONE FIFTIES, AND THEN THEY GO OUT FOR THE DAY AND DELIVER OR, UM, UM, REPAIR THE GLASS OR, OR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA DO FOR THE DAY.SO IF YOU NOTICE HERE, THIS IS KIND OF A PROCESS OF OUR WORK.
UH, WE LOAD UP THE TRAILER IN THE MORNING, AND THEN PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, WE GO TO, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE P T LABORATORIES, UM, WHEREVER GLASS, OR THEY WANNA JUST, UM, GO FROM HAVING TWO WINDOWS TO A, A DOOR WITH A SIDELIGHT IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UH, I SHOW THESE PICTURES BECAUSE, UM, IT CAN SOUND INTENSIVE, BUT REALLY IN THE BACKYARD, IN THE BACK, WHAT'S, THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH HAPPENING.
THERE'S NO FABRICATING, THERE ARE NO, NO LOUD NOISES.
I WILL SAY WHAT HAS HELPED SINCE THEN IS THAT WE DID PUT IN SOME LIGHTING IN THE BACK AND, UH, WE KEEP THAT LIT ALL NIGHT.
AND SO IT HAS KEPT A LOT OF THE HOMELESS, UH, FROM JUMPING THE GATE, FROM JUMPING THE FENCE, COMING IN, TRYING TO DISTURB THE AREAS.
UM, WE, MY HUSBAND IS THERE EVERY SINGLE MORNING, UM, MAKING SURE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS CLEAR, MAKING SURE THAT HIS, UH, HIS WORK IS GOOD TO GO.
BUT HE'S ALSO THERE, UM, VERY INTER YOU KNOW, INTERACTIVE WITH THE HOMELESSNESS AS WELL.
MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S COMMUNICATION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT WE CAN DO, UH, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE, UM, KEEPING THEM AWAY, KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS AS WELL, KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM THE AREA SO THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE THAT.
AND SO WE WOULD LIKE, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT WORK IN THE BACK PART OF THE HOME.
UM, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A HOME THAT'S BEEN IN OUR FAMILY SINCE 1998 WITH NO INTENTION OF SELLING OR GOING ANYWHERE.
WE WANNA MAINTAIN THE FRONT AS RESIDENTIAL AND REALLY JUST THE BACK USE AS A HOLDING PLACE AS A SHOP TO HOLD THE GLASS BEFORE WE CONTINUE.
WE DO OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY.
WE DID SEEK, UH, SUPPORT OF OUR RESIDENTS.
UM, WE HAVE THE PETITION LETTER.
WE, WE DID GET SIGNATURES FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS, UM, WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE AREA.
AND WE ALSO GOT, UH, SUPPORT FROM OUR ROOSEVELT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE HAVE MET WITH THEM AND, AND SPOKE WITH THEM, AND THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
WE ALSO HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE LIQUOR STORE, THE, THE OWNER THERE NEXT TO US TO SEE IF WE COULD EVEN PURCHASE THAT PROPERTY, UM, SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, UM, UTILIZE THAT AREA AS WELL IF NEED TO AND, AND PER AND SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY IN GIVING BACK IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.
HE, UM, HOWEVER, IS NOT, UM, LOOKING TO SELL.
UM, AND IF HE IS, HE, HE'S ASKING ABOUT THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF WHAT IT'S WORTH.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY IN OUR BUDGET.
SO WE ARE RESPECTFULLY, UH, REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'LL START ON MY RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER SIPES.
IT, IT SEEMS, UM, LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR IS HAVING A MUCH DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN YOU'RE PORTRAYING.
SO, UM, I'M CURIOUS HOW TO RECONCILE THAT.
WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBOR.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, YESTERDAY WE DID MEET WITH MS. LISA ORTIZ.
WE WENT, UM, AND SPOKE WITH HER AND, AND LET HER KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO BE TRANSPARENT, YOU KNOW, WE DID APOLOGIZE TO HER AND LET HER KNOW THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THE PROCESS FOR THIS CHANGE AND THAT, THAT SHE RECEIVED A LETTER BEFORE WE COULD, YOU KNOW, EXPLAIN EVERYTHING WE'RE LEARNING AS WE GO.
UM, AND WE DID SHOW HER, TAKE HER TO OUR BACKYARD AND SHOW HER, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BACK THERE.
UM, WE, MY HUSBAND IS VERY, UH, DETAILED AND VERY CLEAN WITH, WITH EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT'S GLASS.
WE'VE GOTTA BE VERY CAREFUL AND IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.
SO, UH, BREAKING GLASS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE ARE OKAY WITH.
BUT WE DID SPEAK WITH HER AND TAKE HER TO THE BACKYARD AND SHOW HER, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT, WHAT IT IS.
UM, THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE RESIDENTS BEHIND US, UM, BECAUSE THAT ONE HAS BECOME VACANT AND I THINK IT'S BECOME ANOTHER HUB FOR THE HOMELESS AND, AND DRUGS AND WHATNOT.
AND SO THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT COULD BE HAPPENING THERE.
UM, WE ARE TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF THAT OWNER TO SEE WHAT WE CAN ALSO REDUCE.
SO WE DID SPEAK WITH HER YESTERDAY.
SHE DID INFORM US THAT SHE WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF HER CONCERNS WITH TAX RATES.
SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY WITH THE BUSINESS.
IT DOESN'T REALLY, UM, A AFFECT AFFECT ME.
BUT WHAT SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE TAX RATE, HER TAXES GOING UP.
SO I DID INFORM HER, LIKE I DIDN'T, I I THINK I SPOKE WITH, UM, ELIZABETH STEWART AND JU DOUBLE CHECKED, LIKE, IS THERE, IS THIS GONNA IMPACT HER TAXES? I DID LOOK ON THE BCA WEBSITE TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT COULD BE HA YOU KNOW, WITH, WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES, I, I KNOW THAT OUR TAXES WILL BE AFFECTED, BUT, UM, AS FAR AS WHAT I'VE LEARNED, IT'S, UM, ONLY COM YOU KNOW, RES YOUR TAX RATE DEPENDS ON THE COMPARABLES, UM, OF YOUR UNIT.
[00:45:01]
SO IT REALLY WOULDN'T AFFECT THE RESIDENTS TAXES AS FAR AS I KNOW.MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
UH, WHAT KIND OF BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THIS COMMERCIAL, IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO START BEING USED AS AN APPROVED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH THE I D Z THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING? THEY, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. ECK.
SO YOU'VE BEEN, UH, PROVIDING THE SERVICE FOR QUITE SOME TIME OUT OF THAT BUILDING RIGHT NOW? YES.
SO WHAT TRIGGERED THE PLAN AMENDMENT? WAS IT JUST AN, UH, OH, OR WHAT SOMEBODY COME TO OUR DOOR.
I LIKE, THE CITY CAME TO OUR DOOR.
I GUESS THERE WAS A COM SOMEONE CALL.
FROM WHAT I LEARNED, SOMEONE MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT, ABOUT US.
SO THEN THE CITY FOUND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND THEN THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED THE PLAN MEMBER.
UM, MAY I RESPOND TO THAT AS, LET'S, LET'S, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE MR NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER GARCIA? NO QUESTION COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT PROPERTY NEXT TO YOU IS CAUSING SO MUCH PROBLEMS FOR YOU OR ANYBODY AROUND THERE.
UH, I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, WE HAVE PROCESSES AT THE CITY THAT SHOULD BE HELPING YOU ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM.
UH, IF IT'S A, A PROPERTY THAT'S BEING NEGLECTED, THAT'S DELINQUENT, THE CITY CAN FORCE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING THAT PROPERTY OR BARRING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER REFUSES, UH, THEN WE CAN DECLARE THAT A NUISANCE PROPERTY AND, AND GET IT REMOVED.
BUT IT TAKES YOUR HELP WITH YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
ALSO, WE CAN GET A NO TRESPASS PERMIT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH ALLOWS THE POLICE TO GO OUT AND MAKE SURE HOMELESS PEOPLE DON'T CAMP THERE.
SO THOSE ARE SOME STEPS THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE OR YOUR NEIGHBORS SHOULD TAKE IF IT'S A NUISANCE PROPERTY NEXT TO YOU OR, OR IN THEIR COMMUNITY.
YOU HAVE BEEN OPERATING A BUSINESS IN AN AREA WHERE YOU SHOULDN'T BE OPERATING A BUSINESS, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF D S D.
UH, AND YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE A FEELING THAT RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO LIVE IN A, A HOME AND EXPECT THEIR HOME TO BE SAFE AND A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN BE COMFORTABLE, HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT.
I HAVE A, UH, I GUESS A BIAS AGAINST ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
UH, AND YOU MAY OWN THIS NOW AND YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT GONNA TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE, SO, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW YOU MIGHT DECIDE TO SELL THAT.
BUT IF THE ZONING'S BEEN CHANGED, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD GO INTO THAT PROPERTY SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.
SO, UH, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF OF D S D STAFF THAT THIS BE DENIED THE CHANGE IN ZONING.
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION, BUT COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, CAN I, CAN I JUST SPEAK JUST A COUPLE MINUTES? GO AHEAD.
SO I, WE HAVE ABOUT 40, 40 PLUS YEARS IN THAT SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I MYSELF WAS HOMELESS FOR TWO YEARS AT THE AGE OF 16.
WHEN I TURNED 18, I WAS TAKEN BY SOMEBODY TO A PLACE, UH, CALLED THE VICTORY OUTREACH, AND I STAYED THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
NOW, I DO HAVE A HEART FOR THESE HOMELESS PEOPLE.
I JUST DON'T WANNA HAVE THEM MAINTAINED HIM THERE.
UM, AS FAR AS, UH, DEBRIS AND AS FAR AS ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT THEY WERE SAYING THAT WAS COMING OVER, WE DON'T HAVE A CURB.
AND RIGHT WHERE STEVE'S IMPRESS IS AT THE STREET ITSELF CURVE, SO THERE'S AIR BLOWING IN ALL THAT STUFF FROM THE HOMELESS OR YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR TO US.
AND IT GOES INTO NOT ONLY HERS, BUT IT GOES INTO OURS.
SHE HAS A CURVE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CURVE.
AND SO IT COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE STREET INTO OUR PROPERTY DOWN TO HER PROPERTY, AND THAT THAT'S A CONTINUANCE.
SO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO TRY KEEPING THAT CLEAN AS FAR AS GLASS BREAKING, THERE'S GLASS ALL OVER THE PLACE FROM BROKEN BOTTLES BECAUSE OF THE HOMELESS, ALL THAT OTHER, UH, ALUMINUM CANS, ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING.
BUT WE ARE LIKE A STRONG ARM THERE NOW, RIGHT? THE COMMERCIAL PEOPLE, THEY, THEY LOVE US.
THEY, THEY'RE THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET, THE FIREFIGHTERS I KNOW, UH, VERY WELL.
THE, THE OWNER OF THE, UH, TIRE SHOP THAT SIGNED ALSO, UH, JAY ANTHONY SIGNED THE OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS FROM THEM.
THEY SIGNED, THEY'RE COMMERCIAL PEOPLE.
UM, WERE THERE ALSO WE'RE ANOTHER PAIR OF EYES AND WE PUT A BUNCH OF LIGHTING LIKE MY WIFE SAID.
[00:50:01]
WANTED TO JUST, JUST SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT, THAT ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL IN THAT AREA OF THANK YOU, TRASH AND DEBRIS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.I WILL, UH, ALSO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER, UH, AND THE COUNCILMAN SAID THAT, UM, IT'S GREAT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
UH, BUT OUR PURVIEW IS, IS PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LAND USE.
AND, UM, I THINK I DO AGREE WITH STAFF IN THIS SITUATION.
SO, UM, THERE'S A MOTION, UH, FOR, UH, DENIAL BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THE MOTION? I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THE ZONING.
CAN YOU CLARIFY? CAN I SAY ZONING? CAN I SPEAK TO THE CALLING THE CITY ABOUT HELP? BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN, I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF OFFLINE.
I, I BELIEVE THE MOTION WAS TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
AND, AND JUST ONE THING WAS IT'S NOT A REZONING, IT'S JUST THE LAND USE CHANGE.
I REALIZE THAT, BUT I THOUGHT HE SAID THE WORD ZONING.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ON THE RECORD IT WAS CLEAR HE DID SAY ZONING AND SO, BUT IT IS LAND USE CHANGE.
THERE'S A MOTION, UH, BY COUNCILMAN, COURAGE TO UPHOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION DENIAL.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.
CAN I CLARIFY THAT? A YES VOTE UPHOLDS THE DENIAL, CORRECT? YES.
ELIZABETH STEWART PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, LOCATED AT 4 1 5 6 STALL ROAD.
THERE WERE 14 NOTICES MAILED ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM NORTHERN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO REZONE TWO L LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY.
PLAN OBJECTIVE TO PROTECT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS OR ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES THAT WILL RESPECT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES ALONG THE STALL ROAD.
WHILE THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE ENTIRE BLOCK, WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN, IS MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND A SINGLE DAYCARE CENTER.
THE REQUESTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION WILL CONSTITUTE COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT IN THE AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SAM, I DON'T THINK YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON.
DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT PLEASE? OKAY.
MYA BLANTON 1 6 0 8 8 SAN PEDRO.
UM, I'M A LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENT WITH E R A TROY REALTORS.
I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR THE REZONING OF A 0.426 ACRE LOT ON STALL ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
UM, I GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY WHEN A CLIENT OF MINE ASKED ME TO LOOK FOR SOME COMMERCIAL LAND FOR HIS LOCAL FAMILY OWNED LANDSCAPING COMPANY.
WE FOUND THIS PROPERTY LISTED FOR SALE BY OWNER AND SPOKE TO THE OWNER, MR. JOHN JIMENEZ.
MR. JIMENEZ IS VERY ANXIOUS AND MOTIVATED TO SELL THIS PROPERTY.
HE HAS OWNED IT FOR MANY YEARS AND CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY AS HE'S AGING.
IN ADDITION, HE NEEDS THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE TO HELP WITH HIS LIVING EXPENSES AS HE AGES.
CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY HAS A DILAPIDATED, SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME ON IT.
THE BUSINESSES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY I SPOKE TO AGREED IT IS AN EYESORE.
MR. JIMENEZ HAS TRIED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SCALE BUSINESSES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A BUYER.
I HAVE 15 PLUS YEARS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE IN SAN ANTONIO, AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU NOBODY WOULD BUILD A FAMILY HOME ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG STALL ROAD.
I SPOKE TO THE BUSINESSES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY AND WAS GIVEN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS REZONING.
IN ADDITION, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNER OF THE DAYCARE
[00:55:01]
DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR.HE IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS REZONING.
THERE IS A 4.93 ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOT NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT BORDERS TWO SIDES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THAT LOT PROVIDES A LARGE BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THE NORTHERN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I SPOKE TO THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY.
HE HAS LIVESTOCK BACK THERE, BUT HAS NO PLANS TO BUILD ON IT.
AFTER TALKING TO HIM AND INTRODUCING MY BUYER'S BUSINESS, HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REZONING.
IN ADDITION, TWO WEEKS AGO, I KNOCKED ON ALL THE DOORS OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY AND LEFT A FLYER EXPLAINING WHY WE ARE SEEKING REZONING.
UNFORTUNATELY, NOBODY ANSWERED THE DOOR.
I DID RECEIVE TWO PHONE CALLS FROM MY FLYER AND WAS ABLE TO GAIN THEIR SUPPORT SHOULD THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY HAPPEN.
THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND MY CLIENTS HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON A PURCHASE PRICE.
AS I MENTIONED, THE BUYER IS A LOCAL FAMILY OWNED LANDSCAPING COMPANY.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY LEASING LAND OFF 2 81 IN BULVERDE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THAT LOCATION BEING SO FAR FROM THE BUS LINES, THEY'VE BEEN HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING STAFFED.
THEIR EMPLOYEES HAVE TOLD THEM THEY CANNOT GET TRANSPORTATION THAT FAR NORTH FULLY STAFFED.
THEY HAVE ABOUT 15 EMPLOYEES AND WOULD USE THE PROPERTY TO BUILD GARAGES TO PARK THEIR VEHICLES OVERNIGHT.
THEY OPERATE ONLY DURING THE DAY AND WILL NOT BE CONDUCTING BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, MERELY USING IT AS A CENTRALIZED LOCATION TO PARK THEIR EQUIPMENT.
IN ADDITION, THEY WOULD BE REMOVING THE UNSIGHTLY MOBILE HOME AND ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPING TO SHOWCASE THEIR TRADE REZONING.
4 1 5 6 STALL ROAD WOULD NOT ONLY FINANCIALLY UNBURDEN THE SELLER, BUT WOULD ALSO ALLOW A LOCAL FAMILY OWNED COMPANY TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS.
BY BEAUTIFYING THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON STALL ROAD, THEY WOULD ENHANCE THE CURB APPEAL OF AN OTHERWISE INDUSTRIAL LOOKING AREA.
AS OF TODAY, I HAVE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT ONE OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS OWNS THE LAND SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER NOW, UH, WANTS TO SELL A PROPERTY AND MOVE AWAY AND HE NEEDS THAT MONEY FOR WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? UM, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HIM PER, I MEAN, I KNOW HIM, I'VE MET HIM, BUT I DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS MY PLACE TO ASK HIM WHAT HE WAS GONNA USE THE MONEY FOR.
I JUST KNOW THAT HE, UM, IT DID TAKE HIM QUITE A WHILE TO, UM, COLLECT THE $1,600 FEE FOR THE REZONING
SO, UM, JUST AFTER MEETING WITH HIM, UM, HIM AND HIS BROTHER, THEY'RE BOTH ELDERLY.
UM, I JUST GOT THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT THEY DESPERATELY NEED THE MONEY.
THEY, UM, HAGGLED ON THE PRICE QUITE A BIT WITH MY BUYERS.
UM, AND YES, THEY, THEY REALLY NEED THE MONEY.
YEAH, I THINK IT, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHERS WE'VE HAD TODAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TAKING PROPERTY, THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS DECIDED THROUGH COMMUNITY PLANNING THAT SHOULD REMAIN UNDER CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT RULES, LAND USE RULES.
AND UH, IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE FOR MY WAY OF THINKING TO SAY, WELL, THE COMMUNITY SAID THEY WANTED THAT, BUT THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THIS PROPERTY WOULD RATHER DO SOMETHING ELSE.
UH, AND I THINK IT'S HARD FOR ME NOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITIES HAVE SPOKEN, THEY'VE SAID, THIS IS THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ABOUT US.
WE WANNA KEEP THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY OR OTHERS LIKE THAT IN THE FORM OF THE ZONING THAT'S BEEN THERE, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ALLOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF ZONING TO COME IN.
SO I'M GONNA STAND WITH THAT COMMUNITY PLAN AND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE AS WE LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE HERE, THE REST OF THAT PROPERTY IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMEONE WOULD EVENTUALLY COME IN AND PUT IN MORE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL.
BUT ONCE YOU START PUTTING IN SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEN IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF ALL THAT PROPERTY AROUND IT AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHY I, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.
COUNCILMAN, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I'VE FED MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? NO QUESTIONS, NO QUESTIONS FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CAN I JUST, UM, ANSWER ONE THING HE POINTED OUT? UM, I UNDERSTAND AND LIKE I SAID, I LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULDN'T WANT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GOING IN IN MY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY LOTS THAT AREN'T, ARE VACANT IN THERE.
UM, THE ONE THING I DID WANNA POINT OUT IS THAT 4.93 ACRE LOT THAT IS AROUND THAT YOU CAN SEE, UM, IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY.
THAT HOMEOWNER, WHO THE PROPERTY'S BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR YEARS, HE ACTUALLY LIVES ON THAT PROPERTY, UM, IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS BECOMING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
SO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT SPOKE VOLUMES TO
[01:00:01]
ME THAT ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBOR, I KNOW THE DAYCARE WAS IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND THEY DO, THEY ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR AS WELL.BUT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON BEING IN SUPPORT OF IT, UM, KIND OF MADE ME BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR THIS, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, I THINK THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT LAND USE, UM, KIND OF BROADER.
AND AS THE COUNCILMAN SAID THAT THIS IS, COULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR, YOU KNOW, FUTURE.
MAYBE THAT, UH, FOUR POINT SOMETHING ACRE TRACT EVENTUALLY SELLS.
THERE'LL BE SOME PRESS, YOU KNOW, UH, PAST EXPERIENCE OF SOME INDUSTRIAL IN THE AREA.
SO WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK THIS AREA IS SUBJECT TO AN UPDATE TO THE SECTOR PLAN OR UNDER THE S H M R REGIONAL PLAN, WHICH WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR, TO ASSESS THE COMMUNITY'S DESIRES FOR OVERALL PLANNING FOR THIS AREA.
BUT, UM, I THINK I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE STAFF ON THIS.
DID COMMISSIONER PECK, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD? OKAY.
I MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
SECOND MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PECK TO UPHOLD STAFF'S.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER.
UH, BEFORE WE GET TO ITEM 24, I'M GONNA ASK FOR 10 MINUTE RECESS.
IT'S 3 0 5 AND RECONVENE AT THREE 15.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER ZUKI HAS LEFT THE MEETING.
[Other Items ]
ITEM NUMBER 24.MAYBE HE HAS NOT LEFT THE MEETING.
I JUST, I JUST SAID YOU WERE GONE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24 IS AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, UH, RELATED TO AN APPLICATION FOR VESTED RIGHTS.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE ON AN AGENDA, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING.
SO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 2 45, KIND OF, UH, REALLY ESTABLISHES HOW VESTING OCCURS WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND IT ALLOWS CERTAIN PROJECTS TO BE VESTED OUT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WE OFTENTIMES DEAL WITH THE TREE ORDINANCE, BUT IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF OTHER REGULATIONS AS WELL.
COULD BE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCES.
IT COULD BE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS AMONG OTHERS.
UH, THE RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROCESS IS OPTIONAL, SO NO ONE HAS TO SEEK VESTED RIGHTS.
BUT OFTENTIMES WE SEE THAT DEVELOPERS, IF THEY QUALIFY FOR THEM, WANT TO APPLY FOR THOSE AND GET THOSE RECOGNIZED.
UH, AND IT ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO COMPLETE A PROJECT UNDER THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT AN UNDERLYING PERMIT WAS, UH, SUBMITTED OR WHEN THE THE FIRST PERMIT FOR THAT PROJECT, UH, WAS SUBMITTED AND INITIATED.
UH, AGAIN, RIGHTS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PROJECT BASED ON THE FIRST PERMIT AND A SERIES OF PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THAT GIVEN PROJECT.
JUST TO KIND OF BREAK DOWN WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY WHEN I SAY THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
SO, P O 80 D P 48, STONE OAK, UH, PRELIMINARY OVERALL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DETAILED P O ADPS IN THE SY UH, CITY'S HISTORY.
IT'S BEEN RELIED UPON FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS FOR VESTING, UM, THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED IN 1985.
SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
THE BIGGEST IS PROBABLY THE TREE ORDINANCE.
IN 1985, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DID NOT HAVE A TREE ORDINANCE.
WE DID NOT ADOPT OUR FIRST UNTIL 1997.
UH, AGAIN, THE FIRST PERMIT IN THIS CASE IS PO 80, P 48.
JUNE 5TH, 1985 WAS THE ACCEPTED DATE.
AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION IS CONCERNED, THE APPLICANT IS KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SUNBELT INVESTMENT PARTNERS, UH, AND THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION SEEKING VESTING
[01:05:01]
FOR 11.089 ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USE, SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED A VESTING DATE OF THAT ORIGINAL P O A D P, JUNE 5TH, 1985.UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF CANYON GULF ROAD AND STONE OAK PARKWAY IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE.
WHEN WE CONDUCTED OUR, UH, REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, WE, UH, FOUND THAT PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS, IN FACT WE AGREE, INVEST, OR SORRY, INVESTED VESTED TO, UH, 1985.
HOWEVER YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, UH, ON THE LEFT IS THE ORIGINAL P O A D P.
THIS WAS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THAT P O A D P THAT WAS ACCEPTED.
AND OF PARTICULAR INTEREST, DO WE HAVE THE, I SEE THE POINTER.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND POINT TO THE SCREEN.
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY HERE INCLUDES, UH, THIS, OH, WE MIGHT HAVE A, THERE WE GO.
THAT LINE THERE SEPARATES WHAT WAS INITIALLY PLANNED FOR C TWO SLASH OFFICE.
AND THIS IS A P, PUBLIC, PUBLIC LAND USE IN 2006.
THAT P FOR PUBLIC WAS AMENDED TO MFB, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY BUSINESS SLASH C TWO SLASH OFFICE.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE C TWO SLASH O ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION, UH, REMAINED THE SAME ON THIS OTHER EXHIBIT.
AND OF COURSE, THIS THING HAS GIVEN ME TROUBLE THAT REMAINED THE SAME.
UM, WHEN YOU SUBMIT A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A P O A D P OR AN M D P, AS WE WOULD CALL THEM TODAY, YOU EFFECTIVELY HIT THE RESET BUTTON FOR THAT PORTION, WHICH CHANGED.
SO IN 2006, WHEN THE DEVELOPER CAME TO THE CITY AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA PURSUE PUBLIC LAND USE, WE WANT TO PURSUE MULTIFAMILY C TWO AND O, THEY LOST THEIR VESTING TO 1985.
SPECIFICALLY THAT'S COVERED IN SECTION 35 7 12 B, WHICH SAYS THAT WHEN YOU CHANGE THE PROJECT, UH, FOR A PLATT AREA WITHIN THE P O A D P, IT CAUSES THE RIGHTS FOR THAT AREA TO TERMINATE.
UH, OUR DECISION THEN WAS TO ISSUE AN APPROVAL FOR 1985 FOR THE PORTION THAT DID NOT CHANGE.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
AND WE ACKNOWLEDGED 2006 VESTING FOR THE PORTION THAT DID, AND THAT IS WHAT STAFF'S APPROVAL WAS.
DURING OUR, UH, BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE DESIGNATION OF P PUBLIC NEVER MEANT ANY SPECIFIC OR PLANNED USE, THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC USE, AND, AND WE, WE DISAGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.
UH, WITHIN THE P O A D P, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND THREE PARCELS THAT WERE DESIGNATED FOR P PUBLIC USE.
UH, ON THE ORIGINAL P O A D P, YOU CAN SEE THIS SMALL TRIANGULAR PORTION WITH THAT P DESIGNATION THAT IS DEVELOPED AS A SAW SUBSTATION.
IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM.
THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH A P PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THE THIRD AREA IN THIS, UH, P O A D P THAT CARRIED THAT P DESIGNATION IS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY TODAY.
BUT THAT IS BECAUSE IN 2006, IT WAS AMENDED TO L D C, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION.
SO WE HAVE TWO EXAMPLES FROM ELSEWHERE WITHIN THIS P O A D P WHERE THE PUBLIC DESIGNATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED WAS DEVELOPED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
AND WE HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE THEY MAY HAVE PLANNED INITIALLY PUBLIC USE, UH, BUT CHANGED AND THEY SAID, WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING ELSE.
WE NOT GONNA DEVELOP THIS FOR A PUBLIC USE.
WE AMENDED THE P O A D P IN 2006 TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT CHANGE.
UH, CERTAINLY, UH, THE NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WILL WILL TOUCH ON THIS AS WELL.
STAFF HAS, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, UH, ISSUED, UH, RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS TO THAT 1985 DATE FOR THIS TRACT.
UH, THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN, UH, MARCH 8TH, 2011.
WE APPROVED 12.81 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE TO 1985.
UH, RD 14, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED, UH, EARLY 2015, ACKNOWLEDGED 11.088 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY USE.
THE APPLICANT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE MULTIFAMILY, UH, VESTING TO 1985 WAS AN ERROR.
WHAT I AM TELLING YOU TODAY IS THAT BOTH OF THESE WERE ISSUED IN ERROR.
UH, TODAY WE HAVE A VERY ROBUST INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS TO ASSURE THAT, UH, MISTAKES DON'T HAPPEN.
UH, THE APPLICATIONS ARE FIRST REVIEWED BY A SENIOR
[01:10:01]
PLANNER.THOSE FINDINGS ARE CONFIRMED BY A PRINCIPAL PLANNER.
THEN THEY ARE CONFIRMED BY ME, AND THEN THEY ARE ULTIMATELY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY BOTH OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR.
UH, THIS IS A PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT IN PLACE AT THE TIME, UH, 2011 AND 2015.
AND CERTAINLY, AS WITH ANY OTHER MISTAKE, WHEN WE FIND THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE, WE DON'T PERPETUATE IT, WE FIX IT.
UM, BOTH OF THESE DETERMINATIONS, YOU MAY BE ASKING IF THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED TWICE BEFORE, WHY ARE THEY HERE TODAY? ANY RD IS VALID FOR ONLY FIVE YEARS.
IT GIVES STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REASSESS THE DEVELOPMENT, MAKE SURE THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A CHANGE TO THAT P O A D P, THAT THE PROJECT HASN'T GONE DORMANT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY HAVE CEASED TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT PROJECT TO FURTHER ITS COMPLETION, IN WHICH CASE RIGHTS COULD BE TERMINATED IN THAT FASHION AS WELL.
SPECIFICALLY, WE APPROVED ABOUT SIX ACRES OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT VESTED TO THAT ORIGINAL 1985 DATE.
THAT WAS THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT DID NOT HAVE ANY AMENDMENT IN 2006 FOR THE 5.089 ACRES, UH, THAT DID CHANGE FROM PUBLIC TO MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
UH, WE APPROVED A JUNE 23RD, 2006 VESTING DATE BASED UPON THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT.
UH, AND THE APPLICANT HERE IS APPEALING STAFF'S DECISION, UH, ASCERTAINING THAT THE ENTIRE 11.09089 ACRES SHOULD BE VESTED TO JUNE 5TH, 1980 85.
AGAIN, THIS IS A, UH, KIND OF A ROUGH EXHIBIT, BUT I THINK IT DEMONSTRATES GENERALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE FIND THAT THE NORTHERN FIVE, UH, ACRES, 5.089 ACRES SHOULD BE VESTED TO 2006.
AGAIN, YOU SEE THAT TRIANGULAR PORTION.
I'M GONNA BACK THAT UP TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS TRIANGULAR PORTION THAT WAS AMENDED.
AND THIS SOUTHERN PORTION THAT DID NOT HAVE AN AMENDMENT VESTED TO THAT ORIGINAL JUNE 5TH, 1985 DATE.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL, UH, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
IN 2006, THE LAND USES THE PROJECT ESSENTIALLY CHANGED AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE P O 80 D P AMENDMENT.
AND CHANGING THE LAND USES RESULTS IN A LOSS OF VESTING TO THAT ORIGINAL UNDERLYING PERMIT.
ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK MAYBE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK FOR QUESTIONS.
JAMES GRIFFIN, TEN TEN ONE REUNION PLACE, SUITE TWO 50, UH, HERE, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS A UNIQUE ONE.
IT'S BEEN SINCE 2011, I THINK, WAS THE LAST, UH, VESTED RIGHTS APPEAL.
AND THAT WAS KIND OF A, A ROCKY TIME, UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, HOW, UH, VESTED RIGHTS WERE, WERE TREATED, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, ANALYZED AND, AND REALLY, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT WAS, UH, A A LOT OF DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO, UM, PROBABLY TRYING TO GO A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR.
THEN, UM, BEFORE I GET TOO SIDETRACKED ON THAT NOTE, UM, I, I, I DO, LOGAN DID A GOOD JOB OF KIND OF RUNNING THROUGH THE, THE BASICS OF VESTED RIGHTS.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE.
UM, I, I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT, UH, BRIEFLY AS WELL.
I PROBABLY COULD TALK ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS AND THE HISTORY AND THE, THE CASE LAW AND THE CHANGES IN CODE FOR A COUPLE HOURS.
UM, BUT I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP IT, UH, BRIEF AND, AND HOPEFULLY TO THE BASICS.
SO, UM, VESTED RIGHTS ARE ABOUT KIND OF FAIRNESS AND, AND IT WAS CREATED OUT OF A, OUT OF A, A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, PROTECTING INVESTMENT, UH, AND, AND BALANCING THAT WITH A CITY OR ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY'S, UH, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO, TO CONTROL LAND USE AND TO, AND TO UPDATE THEIR REGULATIONS AND TO CHANGE THEIR REGULATIONS.
BUT, UH, REALLY, REALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS NOT HAVING A, A CITY OR A COUNTY OR WHOEVER CHANGE THE RULES WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROJECT.
UM, AND, AND, AND I'LL ALSO GET TO IN A SECOND HERE, THERE, THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT THERE.
[01:15:01]
UM, BUT IT IS WHEN A, WHEN A PROJECT STARTS AND YOU'RE STARTING TO INVEST MONEY AND TIME, AND THEN THE RULE CHANGES RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT CAN KILL A PROJECT.THAT COULD BE A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY, THAT CAN BE IMPOSSIBLE TO, TO PLAN FOR NOW, I THINK HOW, HOW LOGAN KIND OF DESCRIBED IT, UM, UH, SEES IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND I, I CAN SEE HOW THIS CAN BE INTERPRETED AS WELL.
AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS KIND OF ALLUDING TO ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE, UH, UH, FROM EACH SIDE, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS AGO, VESTED RIGHTS IS NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, APPLYING FOR A PERMIT TODAY.
AND I COME BACK 20 YEARS LATER AND I SAY, HEY, I WANNA BE VESTED BACK TO THIS STATE.
THERE IS SO, SO MUCH MORE TO IT.
UM, AND PROBABLY GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF HERE, BUT, UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S TO PIVOT, CHANGING THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, UH, WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF REQUIREMENTS AND STRINGS AND, AND, UH, THINGS THAT MUST BE PROVEN.
UM, AGAIN, GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF HERE, UM, REALLY, IT'S BEEN AROUND AT THE STATE SINCE 1987.
UM, IT'S BEEN CODIFIED IN THE U D C IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS, UH, SINCE THE NINETIES AS WELL.
UM, THERE'S THAT LANGUAGE, UM, IN GENERAL, I, I WON'T READ IT, BUT THE, THE BASICS, WHICH AGAIN, THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO IT, IS, YOU KNOW, VESTED RIGHTS.
ONE, VESTED RIGHTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.
WHAT, WHAT WE ASK THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR IS FOR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS.
UH, THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS ARE, BLESS YOU.
UH, YOU HAVE A, A PERMIT, UM, SUCH AS A P O A D P HAS TO BE A VALID PERMIT, HAS TO REMAIN VALID, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A, A, A PERMIT.
UH, AND THESE ARE ALL DEFINED TERMS. THE PERMIT HAS TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT.
UH, LIKE LOGAN, UH, MENTIONED, A CHANGE OF PROJECT, UH, WILL ESSENTIALLY RESTART VESTED RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH THAT IS NOT WHAT, NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
UM, THE, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE YOU HAVE TO SHOW PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT.
UH, AGAIN, YOU CAN'T JUST FILE SOMETHING, DO NOTHING FOR YEARS OR DECADES, AND THEN STILL BE ABLE TO RELY ON THAT PERMIT.
YOU HAVE TO BE ACTIVELY PROGRESSING, SPENDING MONEY, FILING PLATTS, YOU KNOW, DO DOING ALL THESE THINGS, UM, TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE PROGRESSING TOWARDS COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
UM, AND, AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE OF IT IS EXEMPTIONS.
THE, UH, VESTED RIGHTS PROTECTIONS ONLY APPLY TO, UH, CERTAIN RULES AND REGULATIONS, REALLY, THOSE THAT AFFECT LOT SIZE, BUILDING SIZE, PROPERTY LAYOUT.
UH, AGAIN, IT'S IN, YOU KNOW, IT'S BASED ON THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE PLANNING A PROJECT TODAY, UH, OF WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AND THEN TOMORROW THE CITY COMES IN AND SAYS, WELL, YOU CAN ONLY USE HALF YOUR PROPERTY.
THAT'S GONNA AFFECT YOUR PROJECT AND YOUR INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTATIONS, AND, AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE BEEN PLANNING FOR, IT DOES NOT VEST YOU ENTIRELY FROM, FROM EVERYTHING.
UH, THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXEMPTIONS FROM, YOU KNOW, HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES TO, UH, ZONING CAN'T BE VESTED FROM ZONING, UH, TO EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
UM, ALSO WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THE DISCUSSION SEEMINGLY CENTERED AROUND THIS, AND IN THE WORK SESSION, AND, AND EVEN IN THAT FIRST SLIDE, TREE ORDINANCE WAS, WAS MENTIONED TWICE, VESTED RIGHTS DO APPLY TO A TREE ORDINANCE.
THAT IS ONE OF THOSE THAT IS, THAT IS NOT EXEMPTED, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
ONE, IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE ANALYSIS BECAUSE THE U D C STATE LAW, CASE LAW, YOU KNOW, TALKS ABOUT THESE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
IT DOESN'T SAY CONSIDER HOW MANY TREES ARE ON THE SITE, BUT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, VESTED RIGHTS ARE NOT ABOUT, HEY, I'M ASKING FOR VESTED RIGHTS TO PRE 97 DATE SO I CAN, I CAN COME CLEAR THE TREES.
THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT DO THAT, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT'S THERE FOR.
THAT'S NOT MAJORITY OF THE TIME HOW IT'S USED.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT, UH, A PROJECT THAT WAS PLANNED EARLIER.
UM, AND IRONICALLY, IN, IN, IN THIS CASE, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TREES ON THIS SITE.
AND, UH, AN EARLIER VESTING DATE BECAUSE OF THOSE OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO SAVE MORE TREES.
BUT, UM, THE POINT BEING VESTED RIGHTS IS NOT JUST ABOUT GETTING OUT OF TREES.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT JUST A LOOPHOLE.
THAT WAS CREATED FOR, FOR VERY, VERY IMPORTANT REASONS.
[01:20:01]
SO THERE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THE KEY DEFINITIONS, AND, AND I PROMISE I WILL GET THROUGH THIS PART QUICKLY, UH, OR, OR TRY TO, UM, THE PERMIT, UH, HAS A VERY BROAD MEANING IN STATE LAW, AND IT IS A REQUIRED PERMIT.SAN ANTONIO REALLY, REALLY NARROWS IT DOWN TO, BASICALLY, IT CAN BE A P A D P, AN M D P A PLATT, UH, A, A BUILDING PERMIT, ALTHOUGH A, A BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
YOU, YOU ARE FAR ENOUGH ALONG, UM, SOMETIMES THE CITY RECOGNIZES A A A U S A OR A WATER SEWER CONTRACT.
UM, BUT STATE LONG CASE LAWS SHOWN THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S MUCH, MUCH MORE THAT THE PROJECT THERE IS PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT OF A TERM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN ENDEAVOR.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE KEY TERM REALLY WASN'T EVEN GONNA FOCUS ON, ON THIS PIECE OF IT FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY.
BUT MAYBE I'LL TOUCH ON IT ON IT BRIEFLY.
IT IS, AS STATE LAW DESCRIBES IT, AS CITY CODE DESCRIBES IT, AS, AS CASE LAW HAS DESCRIBED IT, THE, THE PROJECT IS THIS OVERALL ENDEAVOR TO, UH, DEVELOP LAND, TO IMPROVE LAND.
IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC DEFINED USE.
HOWEVER, HERE WE DO HAVE SPECIFIC DEFINED USES.
SO I'LL TRY NOT TO MUDDY THAT UP ANYMORE.
UM, THERE'S ONE OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS YOU SEE THE, THE PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
AGAIN, YOU, UH, HA HAVE A LIST OF, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT, UH, TEXT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS, QUALIFY AS PROGRESS.
UH, REALLY WHAT IT IS, IS SHOWING THAT YOU ARE CONTINUING TOWARDS THAT PROJECT.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE SPENDING MONEY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FILING OTHER PERMITS.
YOU ARE TRYING TO MOVE FROM THE PLANNING AND PERMITTING STAGE TO THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE.
UM, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AGAIN, UH, HAVE KIND OF MORE NARROWLY DEFINED IT, UH, IN THE U D C, UM, MENTIONED THAT, YEAH, IT'S REALLY LIMITED TO P O D P PLATT BUILDING PERMIT, SOMETIMES A, A CONTRACT, WHICH YOU SEE HERE.
UH, AND THEY HAVE EXTENSIVE PERMIT, UH, REQUIREMENTS IN AND OF ITSELF.
SO, JUST TO KEEP IT FOCUSED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, A P A D P, WHICH IS NOW AN M D P, UM, IS A PERMIT REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
UM, AND ALTHOUGH IT'S CHANGED A COUPLE TIMES BY THE CITY, UM, THERE ARE EXTENSIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING THAT PERMIT ALIVE.
AND TO HAVE VESTED RIGHTS ACKNOWLEDGED YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VALID PERMIT, THAT PERMIT STILL HAS TO BE VALID.
SO THE, THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR AN M D P WERE, UH, WITHIN TWO YEARS, YOU HAD TO PLAT 8% OF THE P O D P AREA.
UH, WITH, WITH, AGAIN, WITHIN TWO YEARS, WITHIN 10 YEARS, YOU HAD TO PLAT 50%.
AND THEN, UH, WITHIN 10 YEARS AFTER THAT, YOU HAD TO PLAT ANOTHER 50%.
THERE WERE ALSO, UH, FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS.
UM, CERTAIN MONEY HAD TO BE SPENT TO KEEP THE, THE M D P OR P O D P ALIVE, UH, NOW, UH, CHANGED A FEW YEARS AGO, UH, YEAH, FEW YEARS AGO, FIVE YEARS AGO.
UM, YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY FILE AND RECORD A PLAT, UM, WITHIN THE P O D P OR M D P AREA AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW, SHOWING THAT SOMETHING IS OCCURRING TOWARDS, TOWARDS COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT.
UM, HERE, UH, THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME FOR THAT, AND HAPPY TO GO INTO MUCH MORE DETAIL ON VESTED RIGHTS, BUT, UM, BUT I BETTER NOT.
UM, HERE, OUR, OUR EXACT REQUEST IS A RE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RIGHTS, AS, AS LOGAN MENTIONED, UM, THE, THE CODE, THE SAN ANTONIO'S U D C STATES THAT, SORRY, I GOT TOO MUCH STUFF HERE.
UM, UH, AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RIGHTS, UH, IS GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS, AT WHICH TIME YOU HAVE TO RENEW IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, DECADE OR TWO AGO, UH, YOU GOT A, A VESTED RIGHTS PERMIT.
YOU COULD ALSO GET IT FOR A MUCH LARGER AREA.
NOW YOU HAVE TO GET 'EM FOR SITE SPECIFIC, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
UH, SITE SPECIFIC APPROVALS, AND THEY'RE GOOD FOR EVERY, EVERY FIVE YEARS.
UH, THIS ONE WAS A RENEWAL OF A, UH, RECENTLY EXPIRED, UH, RIGHTS DETERMINATION.
UM, AS WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR, OUR PROJECT HERE, UM, WHAT WE REQUESTED WAS FOR THE 11 ACRE TRACT, UM, TO BE REAC ACKNOWLEDGED FOR VESTED RIGHTS AS OF 1985, A FIRM COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PROJECT.
THE PERMIT, AGAIN, THE STONE OAK, P O D P, UH, A, A VERY LARGE, UH, P O D P.
[01:25:01]
IT AS VERY DETAILED AND USED AS, OR RELIED ON FOR VESTING FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.WELL, YES, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS APPROVED BASED ON THE P O D P OVER THE YEARS, BUT THE P O D P WAS, AND STILL IS A REQUIRED PERMIT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THIS IS A MULTI-PHASE PROJECT.
UH, P O D P WAS REQUIRED AND, AND SUBMITTED TO SAN ANTONIO FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.
IT WASN'T SUBMITTED TO THE SANTO TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, SO PROPERTY OWNERS COULD USE IT, DIVEST BACK TO 85 FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS.
IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SAN CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
ONE BECAUSE IT WAS REQUIRED TWO, TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO SAN ANTONIO FOR, FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, UH, ROAD LAYOUT, UTILITIES, UM, ON, ON AND ON AND ON.
THERE'S, THERE IS A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT REASON FOR THESE ODPS AND MDPS TO BE SUBMITTED.
UM, I GUESS YOU ALREADY SAW THAT, UM, THE KIND OF HISTORY, AGAIN, YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT, SO MAYBE I'LL MOVE PAST IT.
BUT, UM, THE RECENT, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS A, A CHANGE IN, IN PRIOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, UM, STATING THAT, UH, YES, WE ARE, UH, WE DO HAVE VESTED RIGHTS AS OF 1985, UH, FOR THE, THE BOTTOM SIX ACRES, I'LL CALL IT.
UH, BUT ONLY, UH, AS OF JUNE, 2006, WHICH WAS, UM, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PO A D P, UM, FOR THE REMAINING FIVE ACRES, WHICH IS REALLY EFFECTIVELY A DENIAL.
UM, COUPLE REASONS WHY WE THINK THAT WAS, UH, ERRONEOUS.
UM, FIRST, THE, THE PROJECT WAS ESTABLISHED ENTIRELY AS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE, UH, BACK IN 1985.
UM, AGAIN, NOT GONNA GET INTO THE KIND OF RECENT CASE LAW AND, OR, OR NOT EVEN RECENT CASE LAW, SIGNIFICANT CASE LAW STATUTE INTERPRETATIONS ABOUT WHAT A PROJECT IS TO TRY TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMPLE HERE.
UM, SO OUR, OUR PROJECT WAS COMMERCIAL IN OFFICE, AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY, UM, THAT ORIGINAL STONE OAK, P O D P NUMBER 48, WHICH, WHICH I'LL KINDA SHOW YOU, SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE HERE IN A SECOND.
UM, THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF ALL THESE, UH, PREVIOUS RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS, HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, AS I'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A SECOND.
AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, IN 1998, WHEN ALL, AND, AND REALLY IT WAS ALMOST 6,000 ACRES AT THAT TIME, STONE OAK WAS ANNEXED, CAME TO THE CITY, THE CITY ZONED IT, THE CITY BASED, THEIR ZONING ON THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN.
AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, THIS WAS 1998, UM, AND THEY DESIGNATED THIS PROPERTY, SPECIFICALLY CALLED IT OUT AS COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE, UH, AND GAVE IT B TWO ZONING, WHICH IS NOW C TWO ZONING.
UM, MANY OTHER KIND OF EXAMPLES OF THAT.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, THE, THE PERMIT'S STILL VALID, THAT STONE, OAK, P O P IS STILL VALID.
THERE'S BEEN HUNDREDS OF PLASS, PROBABLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT, PAID FOR BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THERE.
UH, AND, AND MOST OF IT IS, IS DEVELOPED.
THERE'S ONLY A FEW PARCELS LEFT.
UM, ALSO, UH, PROBABLY THE LEAST LEGAL ARGUMENT I'LL, I'LL CALL IT.
BUT, UM, BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED VESTED RIGHTS AS WE'VE REQUESTED SEVERAL TIMES, MORE THAN JUST TWO TIMES, UH, FIVE TIMES FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY OVER THE PAST, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS.
UM, WELL, SOME OF THAT STAFF IS, IS STILL HERE.
THERE WAS, EXCEPT FOR EARLY ON, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, UH, WHEN THE VESTED RIGHTS PERMIT APPLICATION AND THE APPROVALS WERE A, A QUICKER KIND OF ONE PAGE REVIEW.
UM, IN FACT, THE, UH, RIGHTS DETERMINATION THAT WAS ISSUED BACK IN 2011, UH, WAS ISSUED DURING A TIME WHERE, WHERE THE CITY ENACTED A WHAT WAS CALLED THE FAIR NOTICE ORDINANCE, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE, THE COURTS.
BUT IT WAS, UH, REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THESE WEREN'T JUST GLOSSED OVER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, RUBBER STAMPED, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT REVIEW BY, UH, MORE THAN ONE PERSON HERE AT, AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, EACH TIME IT WAS, IT WAS SIGNED, UM, AND, AND ACKNOWLEDGED OR NOT.
AND, AND REALLY JUST AS IMPORTANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS, HAS RELIED ON THOSE AND HAS CONTINUED TO SPEND MONEY, UM, IN ENGINEERING AND OTHER REALLY, AGAIN, SIGNIFICANT EXPENSES
[01:30:02]
BASED ON THE PROJECT THEY STARTED AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THAT PROJECT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 19, OR DRAWN IN 1985.
UM, KIND OF A, AN ASSORTMENT OF LINES THERE.
BUT, UH, YOU SEE OUR PROPERTY, AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE PART OF IT IS, UH, LABELED P UH, UP AT THE TOP THERE.
UH, HERE'S THE ENTIRE P A P, UH, TURNED ON ITS SIDE 'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE OTHER TWO ARE.
SO, UM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ALL THE VARIOUS USES THERE, UH, WITHIN THAT FIRST PERMIT, UH, HERE WAS A, UM, WHICH IS WHEN CLAIMING THE PROJECT WAS CHANGED, UM, AND THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE PROJECT IN 2006, BUT IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE PROJECT.
SO, UH, AS, AS I'LL KIND OF SHOW YOU MORE HERE IN A SECOND.
THE ORIGINAL P O D P NUMBER 48, UH, ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USE FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
THE, THE P ON THE NORTHERN PORTION WAS AN OVERLAY, UH, WAS A SECONDARY USE AS, AS THE STONE OAK P O D P AND MASTER PLAN CALLED IT.
UH, WHAT CHANGED IN 2006 WAS MULTIFAMILY WAS ADDED AS A USE TO THAT TOP PORTION.
SO, UM, THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE WAS ALREADY THERE.
MULTIFAMILY WAS ADDED TO THAT USE, UM, OR ADDED AS A USE TO THAT PROJECT.
UM, WHAT, WHAT'S CURIOUS ABOUT THE, UM, THE TWO OTHER P PUBLIC USES THAT, UM, THAT LOGAN SHOWED DURING HIS PRESENTATION? ONE, UH, THAT SAW HIS FACILITY IN 1985, THAT PROPERTY WAS OWNED, UH, BY JAWS PREDECESSOR.
UM, THE OTHER PIECE THAT WAS SHOWN IS LIKE MANY, MANY OTHERS, WHEN YOU COMPARE 48 TO 48 A, THAT, THAT ONE CHANGED FROM P TO THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
BUT IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THIS, UH, FORMAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE, THERE'S ONLY THREE PROPERTIES OUT OF SEVERAL THOUSAND PARCELS THAT WERE SHOWN AS BEING CHANGED IN 48 A BECAUSE THOSE THREE PARCELS WERE HAVING MULTIFAMILY ADDED TO THEM, UM, WHICH IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
UH, THERE'S, THERE'S THE WHOLE 48 A AND YOU CAN SEE JUST THREE PROPERTIES THERE, UH, HIGHLIGHTED.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 1985 AND 2006, THE LEVEL OF DETAIL, UH, GOT MUCH BETTER IN TERMS OF, UM, WHERE EXACTLY THESE LAND USE BOUNDARIES ARE.
UM, A LOT OF THE ROADS WERE BUILT AT THIS TIME, JUST MORE, MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A DETAILED SKETCH AT THE TIME OF 1985, BUT STILL DIDN'T GIVE YOU A WHOLE LOT OF OF DETAIL LIKE THEY DO NOW.
UH, THIS IS THE LAST AND MOST RECENT P O D P AMENDMENT.
THIS IS 48 B ONLY APPLIED TO ONE PROPERTY, UH, EVEN THOUGH YOU'LL SEE SOME OTHERS HAVE, UH, CHANGED AS WELL.
SO THIS IS FROM THE STONE OAK LAND USE PLAN, OR MASTER PLAN.
AND STONE, OAK HAS ALMOST ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF A CITY IN AND OF ITSELF.
UM, THIS IS PROBABLY ABOUT A THIRD OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE.
UM, EXTENSIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PERMITTED USE TABLE.
I MEAN, IT IS A VERY, UH, HIGHLY REGULATED, UM, SOPHISTICATED, YOU KNOW, MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY, AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1985.
THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR ONE OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS, THERE'S SEVERAL PAGES ABOUT, UH, SETBACKS AND LOCATION OF DUMPSTERS AND ALL THESE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THIS IS ALL IT SAYS ABOUT THE, THE P AREA.
UM, AND, AND THE TOP PART SAYS, YEAH, P MAY BE, UH, MAY BE DESIGNATED IF IT'S, UH, OWNED OR OPERATED BY A VALID PUBLIC ENTITY.
UH, AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY IS WHERE, WHERE THAT BLUE MARK IS, UH, THE P UH, ANY SUCH USE SHALL BE SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE CATEGORY ASSIGNED TO THE SITE ON THE LAND USE PLAN.
UH, EXHIBIT THREE A, WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE P O D P.
UM, SO THAT, THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE P WAS, AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED A SECOND AGO, IT, IT WAS AN OVERLAY TO THE PRIMARY USE.
THE PRIMARY USE WAS THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE THAT WAS SHOWN REALLY ALL, ALL AROUND IT.
UM, MORE IMPORTANTLY, PERHAPS IS P IS, IS, IS NOT A USE.
UM, BACK IN 85, AND EVEN TODAY, IF I APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR P PUBLIC USE, I, I, I, I DON'T THINK THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH, IT'S NOT A DEFINITION IN THE CODE, WASN'T A DEFINITION IN THE CODE.
UH, WHEREAS COMMERCIAL OFFICE, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, CLEARLY WERE, UM,
[01:35:02]
ON A, ON A RELATED NOTE, HERE'S THE, BASICALLY THE COVER LETTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR, UH, MDPS AT THE TIME.SO THIS WAS OUR P O D P APPLICATION.
THIS IS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STANDARD FORM, IF YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
UM, IF I KNEW HOW TO ZOOM IN, I WOULD, BUT IT, IT LISTS THE LAND USE CATEGORIES.
THESE ARE THE LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT, THAT THEN TURN INTO THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY, YOU HAVE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY, YOU HAVE DUPLEX, YOU HAVE BUSINESS OFFICE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICE WAS, WAS WRITTEN IN THERE.
UH, AND, AND THEN YOU HAVE INDUSTRIAL P PUBLIC USE IS NOT A LISTED USE.
THERE, AGAIN, IT WAS NOT A USE.
UH, IT WAS NOT A DEFINED USE, NOT A REQUIRED USE, NOT, UM, NOT A USE AT ALL.
UH, HERE'S JUST A COMPARISON SHOWING THE TWO, UH, KIND OF SIDE BY SIDE THIS 48, 48 A.
UM, ON THE LEFT THERE IS THE, UH, APPROVAL LETTER 4 48 A DESCRIBING JUST THOSE THREE TRACKS OUT OF SEVERAL THOUSAND THAT WERE CHANGED.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THEY, THEY ALL HAD MULTI-FAMILY ADDED AS A USE.
UM, ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT, UH, SO THOSE ARE SOME NOTES FROM THE PLAN.
YOU SEE THAT BOUNDARIES ARE A GENERAL INDICATION OF LAND USE AREA.
UM, AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THERE, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES THE SONO LAND USE PLAN HAD BEEN AMENDED, UM, OUTSIDE OF, OF JUST THESE TWO, UH, MAJOR AMENDMENTS.
UH, THIS ONE, UH, LIKE I SAID, UH, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
UM, VESTED RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, REAC ACKNOWLEDGED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, UH, BEGINNING WITH, UH, WHAT WAS CALLED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PERMIT.
UH, THAT WAS WHEN VESTED RIGHTS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR A LARGER AREA.
SO, UH, THOSE TWO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PERMITS, UM, COVERED REALLY THE ENTIRE STONE OAK AREA, UH, AS DID THIS VESTED RIGHTS PERMIT IN 2002.
UH, OUR PROPERTY WAS OBVIOUSLY INCLUDED, BUT THAT WAS FOR A, A LARGER AREA.
I THINK WHAT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THESE ARE ALL THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC, UM, VESTED RIGHTS PERMITS THAT THE CITY HAD THOROUGHLY REVIEWED, UH, ACKNOWLEDGED, UM, AND, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS, HAS RELIED ON, UH, SINCE, UM, THE, THE FIRST ONE WAS, UH, A LITTLE OVER, UH, ACRE AND A HALF.
UM, IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL IN OFFICE BASED ON P O D P 48.
UM, AN ADJACENT TWO ACRES STILL WITHIN OUR PROPERTY, ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CITY BASED ON, UH, P O D P NUMBER 48 FOR COMMERCIAL.
UM, AGAIN, THE NEXT ONE, SIX POINT 12 ACRES, WHICH HAPPENS TO ACTUALLY BE THE EXACT SIX POINT 12 ACRES THAT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
THAT IS CLAIMED TO BE P IN 48.
UH, AND OR A CHANGED PROJECT IN 48 A, THE CITY ON SEPTEMBER, 2006, ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS BASED ON P O D P 48 FOR THIS 6.12 ACRES.
ABOUT TWO MONTHS AFTER TWO OR THREE MONTHS AFTER, UH, P O D P 48 A WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE CITY.
SO IT WAS NOT ONLY ON THE BOOKS THERE, BUT, BUT FRESH IN THEIR MINDS, THEY HAD P O D P 48 A IN FRONT OF 'EM, AND THEY STILL, UH, RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS BACK TO 1985.
BACK ON, UH, BACK TO NUMBER 48, UM, AGAIN, IN 2011, UM, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL BACK TO 1985, AND THEN AGAIN IN, IN 2014, UH, OR 2015, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY.
NOW, UH, IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATION AND, AND IN LOGAN'S REPORT TALKS ABOUT, WELL, ALL THESE PAST RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS WERE, WERE IN ERROR.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST FOUND OUT NOW.
SO, SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IT.
ONE, ONCE OR TWICE IS, IS A MISTAKE FIVE TIMES SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY? I, I DON'T THINK IT'S A MISTAKE.
AND, AND AGAIN, IT WASN'T JUST SOMETHING YOU, YOU BROUGHT IN AND HAD HAD STAMPED AND WALKED AWAY WITH IT.
IT WAS A THOROUGH REVIEW, UH, DONE BY MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PLANNERS AND PERSONNEL HERE AT THE CITY.
UM, THE, THE LATEST ONE WAS A MISTAKE.
UM, AND I'LL, I'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN JUST A SECOND.
UH, PARTIAL MISTAKE, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY.
UM, SO HERE ARE THOSE APPROVALS WE JUST, UH, TALKED ABOUT.
THIS IS A, A DATABASE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO USED TO KEEP, UM, TO, TO TRACK, UH, BOTH PLATS WITH A, UH, WITHIN A M D P AND, UH, RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS.
UH, SO WE ARE CHAMPIONS COMMERCIAL THAT, THAT, UH, KIND OF THE SECOND ONE DOWN.
UH, AND THIS IS ONE I TALKED ABOUT WHERE IT WAS ISSUED JUST A MERE MONTH, MONTH OR TWO, A FEW MONTHS AFTER,
[01:40:01]
UH, 48 A WAS APPROVED.UH, IN FACT, IT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A RECENT AMENDMENT, BUT RIGHTS WERE STILL VESTED BACK TO, OR GRANTED BACK TO JUNE 5TH, 1985.
UH, THE REASON I INCLUDE THESE OTHER ONES IS, IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, UH, AT THE TOP THERE, UM, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL DETAILED AND THOROUGH IN THEIR REVIEW AT THAT TIME, UM, RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR PROPERTY.
THIS WAS ACTUALLY, UH, ACROSS THE STREET, UM, AND THEY SAID, HEY, 48 A CHANGED THE USE AND WHAT YOU'RE AND THE PROJECT FROM WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING.
SO THEY DENIED RIGHTS AT THAT TIME AND SAID, UM, 48 A IS WHEN COMMERCIAL WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PROPERTY.
SO, ALL THAT TO SAY, THEY WERE CLEARLY LOOKING AT THIS.
THEY WERE CLEARLY REVIEWING THESE THINGS IN DETAIL.
THE ONE RIGHT BEFORE US, THEY, THEY DENIED AND SAID YOUR PROJECT CHANGED.
AND COMMERCIAL WASN'T ESTABLISHED, UH, UNTIL 48 A.
AND THEN THEY LOOKED AT OURS AND SAID, AND, AND AGREED JUST AS THEY HAD BEFORE THAT THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT WAS ESTABLISHED ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BACK TO 1985.
UM, HERE'S THAT 2011 APPROVAL.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, AND MAYBE YOU SEE TOO, I, I DEFINITELY HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ONE.
UM, THE RIGHTS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL, UH, AND MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, ON THE, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THERE IS FIRST PAGE OF OUR COVER LETTER.
THIS IS WHAT I, I DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AT THE TIME IN, IN LATE 2014.
UM, WHERE EVEN THEN WE, I, I THINK WE ALL KNEW THAT MULTI-FAMILY, UM, WAS NOT ADDED AS A USE TO THE PROJECT UNTIL 2006.
SO I'M SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR, UH, RE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE BACK TO 1985, BUT MULTIFAMILY AS OF 2006, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THAT PROJECT WAS ESTABLISHED BY, BY THAT PERMIT.
UM, THE, THE MISTAKE THERE WAS THE CITY GRANTED RIGHTS FOR MULTIFAMILY IN OFFICE BACK TO 85.
THAT WAS A MISTAKE, I'LL BET IN OUR FAVOR, UH, ADMITTEDLY, UM, ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE BACK TO 19 85, 4 TIMES BEFORE THAT ONE.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A MISTAKE.
UM, UH, HERE'S THE, UM, SORRY, I WILL TRY TO SPEED THIS ALONG.
UM, HERE IS THE 1998, UH, LARGE AREA OF REZONING BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UH, THE, THE PART HIGHLIGHTED TO THE, TO THE LEFT JUST SHOWS THE VARIOUS USES THERE.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC USE OR, OR PUBLIC ZONING, UH, THAT WAS GIVEN, UH, THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, UM, AND, AND ON, RIGHT? YOU CAN JUST KIND OF SEE THE AREAS AS IT MATCHES UP TO THE, TO THE PERMIT.
UH, HERE IT IS ZOOMED IN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WE ARE AREA SEVEN, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN.
UH, THE SHAPE IS, IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS IT IS NOW.
SO THIS IS 1998 ZONING THAT THE CITY GAVE IT, UH, BASED ON THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN BASED ON P O D P 48, WELL BEFORE 2006.
AND THEY SAID THIS WHOLE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL IN OFFICE, SO WE'RE GONNA ZONE IT B TWO, WHICH, WHICH IS NOW C TWO, UM, IN FACT, AND THEY KIND OF BROKE IT DOWN TO VARIOUS AREAS.
AGAIN, WE ARE AREA SEVEN IN ITS ENTIRETY.
UM, THIS WAS FROM THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN 1998.
UH, THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS OF AREA SEVEN AND EIGHT, AND THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN WERE DESIGNATED AS C TWO COMMERCIAL.
UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THE ORIGINAL STONE OAK MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION OF C TWO COMMERCIAL, UH, AND A LITTLE CONFUSING 'CAUSE THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN AND P O D P CALLED COMMERCIAL C ONE C TWO, UM, BUT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING WAS STILL B ONE, B TWO, AND NOW IT'S C TWO.
BUT ANYWAYS, POINT BEING PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THIS, YOU KNOW, YET ANOTHER, UH, DEPARTMENT, UM, AND GROUP OF, UH, QUALIFIED STAFFERS REVIEWING IT.
THEY SAW, UH, THE ORIGINAL STONE OAK MASTER PLAN P O D P 48.
THEY SAID IT'S DESIGNATED ALL AS AS COMMERCIAL.
UH, SO WE ARE GOING TO ZONE IT, UH, ACCORDINGLY ZONE IT TO COMMERCIAL.
UM, THE, IN THAT LAST SENTENCE THERE, AND I DO THAT TOO.
UH, IT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY, UH, B B THREE, UM, OR NO, SUPPOSED TO SAY B TWO.
UM, AND THEY WERE STILL HOLDING DOWN SHIFT, I GUESS.
BUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF B TWO, UH, CONFORMS TO THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS P O D P 48.
AGAIN, THIS WAS, THIS WAS 1998.
UH, I KNOW Y'ALL PROBABLY BEEN WAITING FOR THIS ONE LAST ONE.
UM, JUST KIND OF SUM IT UP, UH, THAT PROJECT
[01:45:01]
IS, IS HOPEFULLY WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN, I REALLY COULD GO ON AND PROVIDE A WHOLE LOT MORE DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION.BUT, UH, AGAIN, TRYING TO KEEP IT, UH, NOT BRIEF, NOT NOT TERRIBLY LONG, BUT, UM, COMMERCIAL OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED IN P O D P 48, THAT FIRST STONE OAK MASTER PLAN, UH, THE P DESIGNATION, WHICH YOU, YOU KIND OF SEE ON THERE WAS A SECONDARY USE AS, AS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED.
UM, IT, IT WAS A ROUGH ILLUSTRATION OF, OF LAND USES.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE P O D P WAS SUBMITTED.
IT, IT WAS REVIEWED FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE IT WAS APPROVED, UH, AT THE TIME, UM, PE PUBLIC IS NOT A DEFINED USE THEN OR NOW.
UM, AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS MULTIPLE TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, UM, AND IS NOW AT THIS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY SIXTH SITE SPECIFIC, UH, RENEWAL OF VESTED RIGHTS, UH, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN THE, THE DECISION HAS CHANGED.
UM, WE'VE RELIED ON THIS, SPENT MONEY, UH, FURTHERED OUR, OUR PERMIT PLANS, PROJECT PLANS.
AND I MEAN, THAT, THAT ALONE SHOULD BE, I, I REALLY THINK SUFFICIENT.
BUT THE, THE, THE, THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE VESTING IS, IS TO GET OUT OF TREE ORDINANCE IS, IS REALLY WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS.
I MEAN, ONE VEST OF RIGHTS IS A STATUTORY RIGHT? IT'S BEEN HEAVILY LITIGATED.
UH, CODES HAVE CHANGED, UM, EXTENSIVE REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP A PERMIT ALIVE, TO DEFINE A PROJECT, TO, UH, SHOW THAT THAT PROGRESS HAS OCCURRED.
UM, AND, AND WE'VE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS HERE.
UM, AND YES, UH, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RIGHTS BACK TO 1985, UM, ALLOWS OUR PROJECT TO CONTINUE UNDER VERY LIMITED CERTAIN ORDINANCES THAT WERE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.
MOST ORDINANCES THAT THEY'VE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AND ARE EFFECTIVE TODAY STILL APPLY.
UM, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING THIS SO WE CAN TAKE DOWN ALL THE TREES.
UM, THE TREE ORDINANCE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE, UH, UH, AN ANALYSIS AT ALL.
UM, BUT I KNOW, I KNOW IT DOES COME TO MIND.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE IT'S USED MOSTLY.
BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S REALLY SHORTSIGHTED TO THINK, WELL, IF THEY'RE, IF A IF WE GRANT A VESTING DATE TO A PRETRE ORDINANCE DATE, THEY'RE JUST GONNA GO WILD HERE.
UH, AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE, THE STEEP GRADES OF THE SITE, PROBABLY ABLE TO SAVE MORE TREES WITH THE VESTING THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED MULTIPLE TIMES THAN, THAN WITHOUT.
UM, AS FAR AS WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE, THAT'S A SEPARATE DEAL.
THAT'S, THAT'S A SAW IS WE ARE CATEGORY ONE, WE, WE'VE BEEN CATEGORY ONE.
UM, DOESN'T, DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH HERE.
UM, BUT THIS IS A STATUTORY RIGHT.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A, A GIVE AND TAKE BETWEEN CITIES, UH, AND DEVELOPERS, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW THESE ARE APPLIED.
UH, WELL, I CAN I, I CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON RECENT LEGISLATIVE, LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AND, AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.
AND LIKE IN THIS CASE, IN 2017, UM, THE LEGISLATURE, BECAUSE SOME CITIES WERE TRYING TO PREVENT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS, UM, COMPLETELY.
AND REALLY IN THAT SAME MINDSET OF, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE BEST RIGHTS BECAUSE WE THINK YOU MIGHT TAKE DOWN SOME TREES.
THE, THE LEGISLATURE PUT INTO CHAPTER 2 45, UH, A SPECIFIC PROVISION SAYING THAT THAT CITIES WAIVED THEIR GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AND ARE, AND ARE LIABLE FOR, UM, REALLY ALL ATTORNEY'S FEES DAMAGES, BECAUSE IT IS, THE REASON THEY DID THIS IS 'CAUSE IT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT, RIGHT? AND PEOPLE WERE MUDDYING IT UP WITH A, A LOOK AT IT FROM A, THEY'RE JUST BAD PEOPLE.
THEY'RE JUST GONNA CLEAR TREES WHEN THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LAST PART MADE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
BUT, UM, THE, THE POINT BEING, THIS IS A, A WELL ESTABLISHED, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT TREES.
UM, IT IS ABOUT, UH, PRESERVING INVESTMENT, BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE A PROJECT THAT HAS STARTED, UM, AND, AND IS WORKING TOWARDS COMPLETION, WORKING TOWARDS VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE RULES CAN'T BE CHANGED, YOU KNOW, MIDSTREAM, UM, RELIED ON THESE PREVIOUS VESTED RIGHTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
UH, I TRULY BELIEVE ALL THESE VESTED RIGHTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WERE, WERE CORRECT.
UM, I THINK IT'S KIND OF A, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UNDERSTATEMENT, I GUESS TO SAY THE LEAST, THAT STAFF DIDN'T REVIEW THESE
[01:50:01]
UNTIL, UNTIL NOW.UM, THEY WERE, THEY WERE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED AS THEY HAVE BEEN HERE.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, UH, MAKE A MISTAKE ONCE OR TWICE.
YOU, YOU DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE FIVE TIMES.
UM, SO, UM, NOW I WILL STOP, BUT, UH, LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS A WENT THROUGH THAT VERY LONG, UH, PRESENTATION.
BUT TRUST ME, THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE SHORT VERSION.
I'M GLAD WE TOOK THAT BREAK WHEN WE DID
UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, COMMISSIONER SIEGEL HAD LEFT AT 3 59.
UH, AT THIS TIME, I THINK, UH, IF I'LL TURN IT BACK TO LOGAN AND MAYBE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE BEFORE WE TAKE QUESTION OR PRESENT QUESTIONS TO YOU GUYS.
YEAH, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF.
JUST A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION.
UM, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT VESTED RIGHTS ENSURE THAT SOMEONE CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES HALFWAY THROUGH THE GAME, AND NOW YOU CAN'T DEVELOP HALF YOUR PROPERTY.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DEVELOP HALF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPABLE, IT'S JUST WHAT VESTING DATE IS GOING TO APPLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR HALF.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTION HERE AT ALL, THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
UM, AGAIN, MUCH I THINK WAS MADE OF THE, THE TREE ORDINANCE ISSUE.
I CERTAINLY, THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT MAY BE REMOVED DOES NOT FACTOR INTO OUR REVIEW.
THAT'S NOT A REVIEW STEP, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW.
I MERELY AM TRYING TO BRIEF THE COMMISSION ON WHAT VESTING DOES AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSION HAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING.
AND THE APPLICATION FOR VESTING DID SAY THAT THEY ARE SEEKING EXCEPTION TO ALL APPLICABLE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ORDINANCES ADOPTED AFTER JUNE 5TH, 1985.
SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE AMONG OTHERS, THE TREE ORDINANCE.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT MENTIONED SOME OTHERS AS WELL.
AGAIN, THE REVIEW OF TREES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AND OUR FINDINGS FOR THIS RIGHTS DETERMINATION APPLICATION.
UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE SLIDES ABOUT PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETION.
WE AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT'S NOT IN DISPUTE.
THE PROJECT HAS VERY MUCH SO BEEN MOVING FORWARD.
AND THAT OVERALL AREA OF THE P O A D P, UM, I THINK WHAT A LOT OF THIS COMES DOWN TO IS THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT.
THAT COMMERCIAL, UH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE? KEEP GOING UP, UP, UP, UP, UP.
SAYING THAT, THAT COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND I DON'T SEE IT.
I C P PUBLIC, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DIDN'T PUT P PUBLIC ON THIS LAND USE PLAN.
UM, HE MENTIONED THAT, UH, THE DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC IS REALLY ONLY MEANT TO BE SECONDARY OR AN OVERLAY TO WHAT IS INDICATED ON THE LAND USE PLAN, BUT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE INDICATED.
THE ONLY THING INDICATED ON THAT TRACK IS P UM, WHAT WOULD STOP THE APPLICANT FROM SAYING, WELL, WE WANNA DO INDUSTRIAL.
I KNOW IT DOESN'T SAY INDUSTRIAL, IT SAYS P, BUT WE INTENDED INDUSTRIAL FROM THE BEGINNING.
IT SAYS P THAT WAS THE LAND USE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER.
AGAIN, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DIDN'T PUT THAT TOGETHER.
AND I, I THINK THE LAST THING THAT I WILL MENTION IS P IS NOT A USE.
I, I THINK I DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.
UH, AS WELL, WE HAVE LAND USE PLANS ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
WE CALL THEM CIVIC CENTER LAND USES, UH, THAT ARE DESCRIBED AS GENERALLY FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, OR QUASI GOVERNMENTAL USES.
WE HAVE PUBLIC LAND USE CATEGORIES AND PLANS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THEY MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T COME INTO THE CITY AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR PUBLIC, BUT YOU MAY APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR A FIRE STATION OR A POLICE STATION OR A PUBLIC LIBRARY, OR IN THE EXAMPLE, I, I SHARED A PROPERTY OWNED BY SAS THAT'S USED AS, AS A, AS A SUBSTATION.
UM, CERTAINLY HAPPY TO, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT AGAIN, FOR STAFF, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT, IT SAYS THAT THE PLAN LAND USE WAS FOR PUBLIC AS IT HAS BEEN IN OTHER AREAS.
IF IT SAID P SLASH COMMERCIAL SLASH O, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE HERE TODAY.
I'LL START, UH, MY RIGHT COMMISSIONER SIPES, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER MILAM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO FORGIVE ME, BUT WE NEED A LITTLE LEVITY.
SO CAN YOU, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THIS ACTUALLY MAKE? CAN YOU TELL ME PLAINLY WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS ON BOTH SIDES? WHAT DIFFERENCE
[01:55:01]
DOES IT MAKE IF WE USE 2006 OR 1985 TO THE PROJECT? THAT, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND, AND A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.WE, WE PROBABLY, UH, GLOSSED OVER HERE.
UM, IT, IN THIS CASE, IT'S, IT'S LIKELY A, UM, A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO, TO USE OUR PROPERTY AND, AND NOT, UM, I KNOW LOGAN JUST SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S NOT SAYING YOU CAN ONLY DEVELOP HALF OF OUR PROPERTY NOW, BUT THAT IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT IT, WHAT IT POTENTIALLY COULD DO.
UM, IT, IT'S A DIFFICULT SITE.
THAT'S WHY IT STILL HASN'T BEEN, UH, FULLY, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPED YET.
UM, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE IN, IN PLACE AT THAT TIME FOR THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY IS WHAT, UM, REALLY IT'S BEEN THE SAME, SAME ENGINEER AT P DAWSON FOR, FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, UH, WORKING ON THIS SITE.
AND, UH, THEY HAVE BASED, UH, BASED THEIR SITE PLAN ON BASED THEIR, UM, UH, PLANS THAT ARE NOW, UH, KIND OF IN, IN THE PERMIT STAGE.
SO, UM, IT, I GUESS THE SHORT ANSWER, IF I CAN GIVE A SHORT ANSWER, UM, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY OR NOT, UM, OR A, A A DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS KIND OF ALLUDING TO EARLIER, UH, SAYING THAT THERE PROBABLY MORE TREES WOULD, WOULD COME OUT WITHOUT THE VESTING AS REQUESTED BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE GRADES, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT, UM, RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDABLE, UH, AREA BUILDING SIZE, ALL THAT, IT, UM, IT, IT EITHER MAKES IT A WORSE PROJECT OR MAKES THE LAND HAVE NO VIABLE USE AT, AT ALL.
SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE STILL ALLUDING WHAT SPECIFIC ORDINANCES CHANGE BETWEEN 85 AND 2006 THAT IMPACT THIS PROPERTY AND HOW GOTCHA.
UM, IT, UH, THERE IS A, UM, A, A STEEP SLOPE, UH, ORDINANCE.
UM, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT, UM, LIKE I SAID, UH, ELEVATION CHANGES HERE ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THERE, UH, THERE ARE PROVISIONS OF THE TREE ORDINANCE, AND AS Y'ALL KNOW, THE, I I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE TREE ORDINANCE IS DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PAGES LONG.
IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS ORDINANCE SAYS YOU HAVE TO PRESERVE, AND THIS ORDINANCE SAYS YOU, YOU CAN CLEAR, IT'S KIND OF HOW, UM, HOW CERTAIN, UH, TREES ARE, UH, CAN BE MITIGATED, HOW PLANTING COUNTS, THE, THE CANOPY, ALL THAT.
SO, UM, UH, UH, A LARGE PART OF IT, UM, PROBABLY IS THE TRUE ORDINANCE.
UM, BUT, UH, BUT THERE'S OTHER ORDINANCES, UM, THAT, AND I, I'M PROBABLY STILL NOT ANSWERING YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT, UM, BUT, BUT, UH, I, I GUESS TO, TO MY CREDIT, UM, THE, THE ENGINEERS AND THE ARCHITECTS ARE THE ONES DESIGNING, DESIGNING THE SITE AND HAVE BEEN DESIGNING IT.
UM, AND, AND I KNOW THEY SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THEM HERE BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, UM, IN A LOT MORE DETAIL.
BUT, UM, IT IS, SO I, I'LL GIVE YOU THE LAWYER ANSWER.
I GUESS IT, UM, ONE, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT COST, UM, ISSUE, BOTH, UH, MONEY ALREADY INVESTED AND, UH, MONEY LIKELY LOST, UM, FROM PRIOR INVESTMENT AND THE INABILITY TO, TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT.
UM, BUT, UM, IT, IT IS SEVERAL SEV SEVERAL ORDINANCES.
I KNOW THAT'S, I KNOW THAT'S VAGUE.
I, I, I CAN'T POINT TO SPECIFICS RIGHT NOW.
I, I DON'T, I'M, I'M HESITANT TO EVEN, EVEN IF I COULD ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER A SIDEWALK IS GONNA BE SIX FEET OR EIGHT FEET, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, IT IS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, BUT, BUT IT IS, AGAIN, TRYING TO GIVE YOU MORE SPECIFICS WITHOUT ACTUALLY GETTING THERE.
UM, THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WIDTH OF A SIDEWALK, FOR EXAMPLE, HA HAS CHANGED.
OR, UH, IN TERMS OF THE, THE CODES, UM, THE, UH, AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING IN CERTAIN AREAS, UM, NOT TO SAY THAT AGAIN, THE 1985 DATE LET'S US GO OUT TOMORROW AND, AND CLEAR EVERY TREE AND, AND PAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE SITE.
[02:00:03]
ALTHOUGH IT, I GUESS IT MIGHT, THAT'S NOT, UH, THAT'S NOT HOW IT, UH, THAT'S NOT HOW IT APPLIES HERE.AND YEAH, THERE, I GUESS THERE ALWAYS ARE SOME BAD ACTORS THAT GIVE THINGS LIKE VESTED RIGHTS, A A BAD PERCEPTION.
BUT, UH, AGAIN, 99% OF THE, UH, THE FOLKS AND, AND CERTAINLY THIS ONE HERE, IT IS THE MUCH MORE NUANCED AND, AND DETAILED COMPONENT, DETAILED COMPONENTS OF IT, UM, THAT HAVE FAR REACHING EFFECTS ON, ON HOW THIS, HOW THIS PROJECT PROCEEDS.
SO, OKAY, AGAIN, GOT A SIMPLE BRAIN GOING HERE, AND IT GETS KIND OF ONE TRACK, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY TO US IS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS DONE THIS WAY BEFORE, IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE DONE THIS WAY.
I'M HEARING STAFF SAY IT WAS A MISTAKE, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT IT, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT KIND OF DIFFERENCE IT MAKES AND IT, YEAH.
AND AGAIN, IF I'VE NOT GOT MUCH TO GO WITH
YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE WERE HERE, UM, ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO CERTAIN CODE PROVISIONS, I BE ABLE TO TELL YOU SPECIFICS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'D BE, WE'D HAVE MORE OF THOSE DETAILS.
UM, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD'VE ASKED FOR MORE OF THOSE DETAILS.
BUT, BUT HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, A GENERAL INTERPRETATION THAT THAT THEN ALLOWS US TO FURTHER ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, QUITE HONESTLY.
SORRY, THAT WAS ANOTHER ANSWER THAT DIDN'T ANSWER, ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE FROM LOGAN TO COME IN AND STEP, UH, HE, AND LET US KNOW, UH, A RESPONSE TO THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TO THE RIGHTS, UH, VESTED RIGHTS THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PRESENTATIONS THE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.
UH, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH.
SO I, I, AGAIN, WHEN WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE APPLICATION, WE, UH, PART OF OUR REVIEW PROCESS IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BEFORE.
UH, I WILL TELL YOU, WE WENT BACK TO EACH OF THOSE PRIOR APPLICATIONS, WE LOOKING FOR THE SMOKING GUN.
WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE MISSING THAT LED TO THESE BEING APPROVED AND ACROSS ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS? COULDN'T FIND IT.
UM, I'M CERTAINLY NOT GONNA SAY THAT BACK IN THE DAY, PEOPLE WALKED IN, SUBMITTED A V R P VESTED RIGHTS PERMIT.
WE DON'T EVEN PROCESS VESTED RIGHTS PERMITS ANYMORE.
WE HAVE A SEPARATE APPLICATION PROCESS, THE RIGHTS DETERMINATION.
UM, BUT WHAT I WILL SAY WITHOUT ANY HESITATION IS OUR REVIEWS ARE MORE THOROUGH TODAY THAN THEY'VE EVER BEEN.
AND WE DO THAT, UH, INTENTIONALLY.
UH, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ERRORS.
WE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION THAT IS ISSUED BY THIS DEPARTMENT IS, IS THOROUGH AND ACCURATE.
SO WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT STAFF WAS DOING IN THE NINETIES, IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, IN 2011 OR 2015.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE HAVE CODES, WE HAVE STATE LAWS, AND WE HAVE A THOROUGH REVIEW PROCESS TODAY THAT HAS LED US TO THIS CONCLUSION.
45 TIMES THIS VESTED WAS GRANTED.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, THE ISSUE ULTIMATELY BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY IS, WAS THERE A CHANGE IN THE PROJECT? AND WE'RE SAYING IN 2006 THERE WAS CHANGE.
NOW WE CAN, WE CAN, I THINK IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORIGINAL P O A D P INCLUDED A LAND USE PLAN, AND THE DEVELOPER WAS ABLE TO LAY OUT WHAT THEY PLANNED THOSE LAND USES TO BE, AND THEY ADDED P PUBLIC TO THIS PARTICULAR ROUGHLY HALF OF THE TRACT.
THE CITY DIDN'T SAY YOU HAD TO PUT IT P WE NEVER SAID, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANNA DO COMMERCIAL, BUT YOU HAVE TO PUT P SOMEWHERE.
THEY PUT P AND THEY DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN P PUBLIC ON THAT PARTICULAR TRACT.
AND WE HAVE TO UPHOLD OUR ORDINANCES THAT YOU ARE VESTED FOR A USE FOR A PROJECT THAT IS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE UNDERLYING PERMIT.
AND WE CAN'T SIMPLY SAY, WELL, OKAY, YOU MEANT COMMERCIAL, YOU MEANT OFFICE WHEN P WAS WHAT WAS ADDED TO THE LAND USE PLAN.
THANKS, COMMISSIONER JAKI, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, AND IT KIND OF PLAYS INTO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, JUST SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND SOME THINGS I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT SINCE I'VE BEEN NOODLING THIS ISSUE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, YOU GO BACK TO STAFF'S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE AND THEN DENIAL OF THIS ONE.
THE WHOLE THING IS COMING DOWN TO, UH, DIFFERENT PEOPLE INTERPRETING
[02:05:01]
THE, THE SITUATION IN DIFFERENT WAYS, IN MY OPINION.UM, YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE BACK IN THE DAY, SOMEONE LOOKED AT IT AND THEY INTERPRETED IT TO BE THAT, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THEY HAD VALID REASONS TO APPROVE THE VESTED RISE PERMIT.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, NOW LOGAN'S TEAM TODAY IS A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, I KIND OF READ THROUGH THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, LOGAN SAYS THAT THE, UH, UM, THE CHANGE IN 2006 TO ADD THE C TWO O M F B TO THE THING WAS, WAS A MAJOR CHANGE, RIGHT? UM, ME, I KIND OF SEE THAT AS A MINOR CHANGE BECAUSE, AND, AND I'LL KIND OF GO BACK TO THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE STONE OAK, P O A D P NUMBER 48, THE ORIGINAL ONE.
IT, IT SAYS THAT USE IN P DESIGNATED AREAS, IT SAYS ANY AREA MAY BE DESIGNATED FOR PUBLIC USE, SUCH AS IF SUCH AREA IS DEVELOPED, CONSTRUCTED, AND OR OPERATED BY A VALID PUBLIC ENTITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND SUCH USE IS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE PROJECT PLANNING COMMITTEE.
WELL, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS OWNED BY A VALID PUBLIC ENTITY AT THIS TIME.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT EVER WAS, MAYBE JAMES CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT ANY SUCH USE SHALL BE SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE CATEGORY ASSIGNED TO THE SITE IN THE LAND USE PLAN EXHIBIT THREE A, WHICH IS THE P O A D P NUMBER 48.
AND AS SUCH, MUST COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AND THE GENERAL DEEDED RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PRIMARY USE CATEGORY.
SO THERE YOU HAVE ANOTHER INTERPRETATION.
IS THAT, OKAY? WELL, NOW IF IT SAYS P AND IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY HAVE THE BACK IN TWO THOU OR IN THE ORIGINAL IN 1985, THE, UH, IT JUST SAYS P IT DOESN'T SAY C TWO O.
SO THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION THERE OF, WELL, WHAT IS IT OTHER THAN P WELL, IT HAS NO PRIMARY DESIGNATION.
IT'S JUST A, THERE'S ONLY A SECONDARY DESTINATION ON IT.
SO IN MY MIND, THE CHANGE IN 2006 WAS TO CLARIFY THAT THAT SHOULD BE C TWO O AND ALONG WITH P AND IT COULD BE DEVELOPED AS EITHER OR.
SO THE WHOLE THING IS, IS INTERPRETATION.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY I VIEW IT.
LOGAN HAS, AND HIS TEAM HAVE A WAY THAT THEY VIEW IT.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DID ANYTHING MALICIOUSLY.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.
I SEE HOW EVERYBODY ARRIVED AT THE POINT THAT THEY'RE AT.
UM, IN MY MIND, I'M KIND OF SIDING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS, AND I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THEIR, OF THEIR REQUEST.
BUT, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
WHO WAS THE MAIN DEVELOPER AT THE TIME? COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE? WHO WAS THE MAIN DEVELOPER IN 19, WHO WAS THE MAIN DEVELOPER IN 1985? THAT WAS IN, INVOLVING A LOT OF THIS REAL ESTATE? I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
WE HAVE A, WE CAN DIG INTO OUR RECORDS AND FIND OUT, BUT ALL THAT IS IN OUR WAREHOUSE.
IT, IT, IT WAS, IT WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF FAMILIAR NAMES.
THE, THE, THE MAIN ONE WAS A, A GUY NAMED DAN PARMAN, UM, WHO WAS AROUND FOR, FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND I, I THINK THERE'S PARK NAMED AFTER HIM OUT THERE AS WELL.
HE, HE PASSED AWAY ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO AGO, MAYBE A LITTLE LONGER.
BUT, UM, ANOTHER LONG ANSWER TO SHORT ANSWER IS, UH, DAN, DAN PARMAN WAS THE, UH, PRIMARY DEVELOPER.
HE ASSEMBLED ALL THIS LAND AND REALLY SPENT, UH, EVERY DAY FROM THE EARLY EIGHTIES UNTIL, UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE HIS, HIS PASSING.
I KNOW, STILL WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, COUNCILOR, I DON'T FIND YOUR PRESENTATION VERY ENLIGHTENING.
I THINK IT WAS A LOT OF, UH, INFORMATION, BUT IT WASN'T VERY INFORMATIVE TO MY WAY OF THINKING.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE STAFF, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED THAT SHED ANY KIND OF LIGHT OR GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION ON THE DECISION THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD? SO, I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE KIND OF BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS APPLICATION FOR A WHILE, AND WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MUCH OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY.
UM, THERE WAS SOME MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO ZONING, BUT THE, THE ZONING DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A BEARING ON VESTING OR NOT, UM, THAT'S ALL DERIVED FROM THE STATE CODE.
SO NO, NOTHING THAT WE SAW TODAY THAT WOULD CHANGE OUR OPINION.
I, I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT OTHER DECISIONS THAT THE DEPARTMENT MADE, UH, REGARDING SOME LAND USE, I THINK IT WAS IN THE STONE OAK AREA, THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
[02:10:01]
THAT CORRECT? DO I RECALL THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH.WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE VRPS AND RDS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WERE MISTAKES.
UH, AND, AND I KNOW I'VE BEEN UPSET ABOUT A FEW OTHER MISTAKES I'VE HEARD ABOUT REGARDING SIGNS OUT ON I 10, BUT I'VE ALSO SAID REPEATING MISTAKES SHOULD NOT JUSTIFY OTHER MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE BEFORE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY I, I KIND OF HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW ABOUT HOW STRONGLY YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I ALSO HEARD A DISCUSSION THAT SAID THAT WHENEVER A PROJECT IS, IS PUT IN PLACE, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE PROGRESS THAT IS MADE AND THAT PROGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE RECORDED AND FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THAT SAME, UH, THAT THAT SAME PLAN TO STAY IN PLACE.
I DID HEAR YOU SAY SOME PROGRESS WAS MADE, I MEAN, EVERY FIVE YEAR, WHAT KIND OF PROGRESS WAS MADE? I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL AN EMPTY WOODED AREA THAT'S 40 YEARS OLD.
SO WHAT THE STATE LAW SAYS IS THAT THE PROGRESS HAS TO BE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL UNDERLYING PERMIT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS A FOUR PLUS THOUSAND ACRE P O A D P.
SO CERTAINLY THERE'S BEEN DEVELOPMENT OVER THE YEARS IN STONE OAK.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACT.
WELL, THAT, THAT KIND OF WHAT THREW ME.
SO THE MASTER PLAN NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO SEE SOME KIND OF PROGRESS, BUT NOT A PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN.
WELL, UH, I, I BELIEVE YOU'VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK.
I THINK THAT, UH, YOU'VE MADE THE RIGHT RECOMMENDATION.
I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, OWNER'S OPPORTUNITY THEY WANT TO TAKE TO TRY AND GIVE THEM AS MUCH, UH, CLEAR, UH, GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GO.
UH, THE BIG FEAR IN MY MIND IS IF WE GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WE CAN GO BACK TO 1980 SOMETHING OR EARLIER AND CLEAR CUT THE WHOLE DAMN PLACE TO BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT THERE.
AND I'M SURE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE OWNER WOULD LOVE TO DO.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT I APPROVE THAT KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT.
UH, IS THIS ON THE AQUIFER? LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THAT REAL QUICK.
IT, IT, IT IS, AND WE ARE CATEGORY ONE ALREADY.
SO, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME, OR, OR DID, DID WE HAVE A MOTION ALREADY? NO.
BUT WE HAVE ONE MORE GUY, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO MAKE A MOTION AFTER THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE
ALRIGHT, CHAIR PROFIT BEFORE WE TAKE A, A MOTION, UM, UH, CHAIR PROFIT.
I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HELP THE COMMISSION TO RESPOND TO JUST A COUPLE THINGS THAT WERE STATED.
FOR EXAMPLE, A MISTAKE, UM, JUST IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS A GOVERNMENTAL BODY, WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THOSE PREVIOUS MISTAKES.
UM, AND TO, UH, TO, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK'S POINT ABOUT THE, UM, OVERLAY OF, OF P I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO, TO LOOK THAT UP IF WE HAVE THAT IN OUR APPEAL RIGHT NOW, BUT IT, IT SAYS THAT IT IS BASED ON, UH, IF THERE WAS A PRIMARY OVERLAY IN EXHIBIT THREE A OF THE MASTER PLAN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE.
ON, YES, ON THAT ENTIRE, I JUST THINK THAT WOULD HELP CLARIFY FOR, WE CAN PULL THAT UP FOR PERMISSION TO DECIDE THAT, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS IN TERMS OF A, IN TERMS OF OUR INTERPRETATION, JUST TO LOOK AT THAT PAGE ITSELF BECAUSE THAT MIGHT, THAT MIGHT HELP EVERYONE DETERMINE THAT FOR THEMSELVES.
YOU GO ON THE LANE, YES OR YES, JUST THAT, THAT ENTIRETY OF THE PAGE, BECAUSE THAT IS EXHIBIT THREE A.
UM, AND THE, THE STONE OAK MASTER PLAN STATES THAT AS COMMISSIONER PECK, UM, UH, PROVIDED FOR THAT, THERE, THERE IS A SECONDARY OVERLAY FOR PUBLIC, UM, THAT IS, THAT IS SECONDARY TO WHATEVER EXHIBIT THREE A INDICATES IS THE PRIMARY.
UM, IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT MAP TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT PRIMARY MAY BE.
AGAIN, I, I, I THINK JUST TO, TO SUMMARIZE THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WHILE THE PLAN MAY ALSO ALLOW THE OPTION OF DESIGNATING P AS AN OVERLAY OR A SECONDARY USE, IF IT'S OPERATED BY A VALID GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, IT'S ALSO CLEARLY LISTED AS A
[02:15:01]
PRIMARY USE IN THE LEGEND ON THE LAND USE PLAN ITSELF.SO AGAIN, STAFF ASCERTAINS THAT PUBLIC WAS THE INITIAL PRIMARY PLANNED LAND USE FROM THE BEGINNING IN 1985.
MAY I MAKE A MOTION? WELL, I WANNA MAKE A FEW COMMENTS BEFORE WE DO THAT.
UM, SO REALLY THE CRUX OF IT IS, IS A COUPLE THINGS.
UH, WHERE ARE THE VESTING RIGHTS? UH, IS THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT ENOUGH TO TRIGGER? AND I, AND I KIND OF AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PICK THAT I THINK IT WAS A CLARIFICATION.
IF YOU WERE TO GO BACK TO 1985, WOULD THAT PIECE BE PUBLIC? AND THAT'S ANOTHER CASE TO CONSIDER.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN, WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO ZONING ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW THERE'S A ZONING DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY FOR PUBLIC.
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT CIVIC USE AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, I'M SORRY, PUBLIC USE.
UM, SO IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A DECISION TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT IN FIVE REVIEWS THAT DIDN'T EVER COME UP, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS ARE DOING YOUR JOB.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOUR APPLICANT.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICANT WAS REVIEWING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BEFORE THEY BOUGHT IT AND THEY SAW THESE APPROVALS FOR VESTED RIGHTS, THAT MAY HAVE CHANGED HOW THEY'VE WANTED TO PROCEED.
AND NOW THAT'S WHY JAMES IS IN FRONT OF US TO TRY TO, TO GET THAT.
IT'S MONEY, YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP IT AND TO ASK FOR IT.
UM, SO I DON'T, THIS IS A WISH THERE WAS MORE CLEAR, CLEAR CUT.
AND I MEAN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE, WELL, SOME OF US ARE ATTORNEYS, BUT, UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA DELVE INTO THE CASE LAW, JUST, WE'RE JUST DEVALUING THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US.
SO, UM, I TEND TO, TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT I WILL OPEN THE, THIS, UH, I ASK FOR A MOTION.
CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? SURE.
UH, THE APPLICANT CAME IN ORIGINALLY WITH A PLAN TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICES.
AND THEN CAME IN, IN 2006, CORRECT ME THERE.
SO THE, THE EXHIBIT THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN WAS FROM 1985.
THAT WAS THE INITIAL SUBMISSION.
AND WHAT IS SHOWN THERE IS ROUGHLY HALF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TODAY OUTLINED IN RED ON THE LEFT WITH THAT NORTHERN PORTION DESIGNATED P PUBLIC, NOT, NOT COMMERCIAL, AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
SO THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION, IT IS STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION WAS NOT ENTIRELY FOR C TWO IN OFFICE, IT WAS FOR C TWO OFFICE AND PUBLIC.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE ISSUED RIGHTS FOR.
BASED UPON THAT CHANGE IN 2006 TO REMOVE PUBLIC AND TO ADD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, AGAIN, THAT IS STAFF'S POSITION.
SO THE SECOND AMENDMENT FROM THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST MULTIFAMILY IN 2006 DOES NOT REALLY TRIGGER ANY OF THE PROBLEM WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
THE, THE APPLICATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S APPEAL DID NOT SEEK VESTING FOR MULTIFAMILY.
IT SOUGHT VESTING FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE ACROSS THE ENTIRE 11.089 ACRES.
WE APPROVED 1985 VESTING FOR THE PORTION THAT NEVER CHANGED AND APPROVED 2006 VESTING FOR THE PORTION THAT CHANGED FROM PUBLIC TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE SLASH MULTIFAMILY.
QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE PE FROM THE PORTION OF THE LOT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, UH, NO.
AND ACTUALLY ON THAT FLASH DRIVE THERE'S A P D F WHERE IT JUST SAYS LIKE COMBINED EXHIBITS.
UM, SO THE, AND, AND I THINK MAYBE YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION FOR, FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RIGHTS THAT RECENTLY EXPIRED.
UM, SO THAT, UH, WE REQUESTED A RE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BACK TO 1985 BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THAT COMMERCIAL OFFICE PROJECT STARTED AT, AT THIS TIME WE HAD A, A DIFFERENT, UH, PURCHASER DEVELOPER UNDER CONTRACT THAT WAS LOOKING AT ADDING A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT.
SO WE WERE RENEWING, RE ACKNOWLEDGING OUR RIGHTS DETERMINATION TO INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, WE, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT IT OUT BOLD, UM, ON THE FRONT PAGE OF OUR SUBMITTAL SAYING, OKAY, YEAH, NOW WE DO HAVE A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT.
[02:20:01]
WE REALIZED THAT MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT, YOU WASN'T AN ESTABLISHED USE UNTIL, UH, 48 A.UM, SO WE WERE ASKING FOR KIND OF A, A SPLIT VESTING DATE, UM, THAT THAT PROJECT FELL THROUGH.
WE ARE NOW BACK AT OUR, OUR COMMERCIAL OFFICE PROJECT, WHICH, UM, A AGAIN, THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE WA WAS ESTABLISHED IN 48.
UH, THAT ORIGINAL ONE
BUT, BUT I, BUT I TRULY DO BELIEVE, AND, AND AGAIN, THE CITY, MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS SAW IT AS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE AGAIN GOING, YOU KNOW, ZONING ISN'T NECESSARILY, OR TYPICALLY A FACTOR IN, IN ZONING, BUT SAWS AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN 1998, WAY BEFORE THE 2006 AMENDMENT LOOKED AT THAT SAME STONE OAK MASTER PLAN AND SAID, THIS IS ALL COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
UM, IF I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SCROLL ON THIS, BUT, UM, OH, THAT ONE.
THANK, UM, SORRY, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA EXTEND THIS OUT TOO MUCH, BUT, UM, SO THIS WAS THE VESTED RIGHTS, UH, OR RIGHTS DETERMINATION APPLICATION IN 2006.
UM, YOU KNOW, HERE, HERE WAS A SITE PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED WITH THAT REQUEST THAT THAT SITE PLAN IS ACTUALLY ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT, UH, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT TODAY.
UM, SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HE JUST, JUST GOING BACK TO HERE ALONE, UH, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS AND THERE'S MANY, MANY REASONS WHY IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG.
UM, BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A, A, A PROJECT THAT, THAT THIS OWNER, AND THIS OWNER'S OWNED IT QUITE SOME TIME RECENTLY, UH, SOLD IT TO A PARTNERSHIP THAT HE'S, ANYWAY, SO THEY, THEY HAVE RELIED ON THIS, THEY HAVE PLANNED THIS PROJECT.
UM, AND THAT'S A ROUGH SITE PLAN, BUT, UM, THE, THE PIECE THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OUTTA THIS PROPERTY, UH, IS THE C V S PHARMACY ON, ON THE CORNER.
UH, AND, AND COUNCILMAN, UM, I, I DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN MY PRESENTATION.
I DEFINITELY WILL COME BACK WITH A BETTER PRESENTATION NEXT TIME, UH, AFTER YOUR COMMENTS.
THOSE, THOSE ARE GONNA STING FOR A WHILE.
UM, BUT THE, UH, WHAT I DIDN'T INCLUDE WAS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A, A UTILITY SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
THERE'S BEEN A PLAT IN CONSTRUCTION, UH, OF THE CCP C V S, WHICH WAS A PART OF THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S BEEN A HANDFUL OF OTHER, UH, PERMIT SUBMITTALS IN REALLY, IN, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PROJECT ON THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THAT ISN'T, UH, REQUIRED BY CITY CODE OR STATE STATUTE.
AND I GUESS TO KEEP, MAYBE I AM EXTENDING THIS TOO LONG, THE, THE, THE, THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, CONCEPT AND AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPLE OF VESTED RIGHTS IS NOT WHICH, UH, WHICH TREE YOU'RE GONNA KEEP, WHICH TREE YOU'RE GONNA TAKE DOWN, HOW MUCH YOU'RE GONNA PLANT.
UM, EVEN, EVEN WHAT, WHAT ORDINANCES, THE STATE LAW, THE CITY CODE, REALLY WHAT WE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE, YOU KNOW, WAS THE, WAS THE PERMIT VALID? WAS THE, YOU KNOW, HAS THE PROJECT BEEN RECOGNIZED AND, AND HAVE PEOPLE RELIED ON IT.
AND AGAIN, THE CITY HAS INTERPRETED THIS, USED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, 1998 REZONING, SIX RIGHTS DETERMINATION APPROVALS.
UH, THE LAST SEVERAL OF WHICH WERE, WERE SIGNED BY ROD, WHO, YOU KNOW, WAS THE, WAS THE DIRECTOR HERE AND, AND IS NOW THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
SO IT WASN'T SOMEBODY THAT JUST, YOU KNOW, CAME, CAME AND WENT.
UM, ANYWAYS, I GUESS, YEAH, I SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T GO ON.
BUT THE THE POINT BEING IS THIS IS, UH, WE, WE MEET STATE LAW, WE MEET CITY CODE.
THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED, APPROVED, ACKNOWLEDGED MANY, MANY TIMES OVER BY, BY MANY, MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE CITY.
UM, AND, AND A LOT OF TIME, EFFORT AND, AND SIGNIFICANT COST HAS GONE IN TOWARDS, TOWARDS, UH, FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AND THIS PROJECT REALLY IN, IN RELIANCE AND ALL THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE, THEY'VE DONE ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
THEY'VE DONE ALL THE RIGHT THINGS, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THINGS CHANGE.
SO, ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, IF THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC USE, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE PARMAN LIBRARY ON WILDERNESS OAK IS ZONED AS? BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE
[02:25:01]
THAT THERE WAS TALK THAT, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT, WHEN, WHEN IT WAS CONVERTED AND IT WAS ZONED, IT WAS ZONED AS B TWO.AND SO THAT MEANT PERHAPS THAT IT WAS NOT LOOKED UPON AS A FOR PUBLIC USE.
WE, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK UP WHAT THE ZONING IS, BUT IT'S C TWO.
UM, MY, MY IS THAT, UM, IT COULD BE STILL HAVE BEEN ENVISIONED AS FOR A PUBLIC USE, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY TO, WHEN, WHEN IT CAME INTO THE CITY FOR WHEN A ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED FOR IT, UM, A DEFAULT OF COMMERCIAL WAS GIVEN TO IT BECAUSE IT COULD STILL BE USED AS A LIBRARY OR A PUBLIC USE.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, MR. CHAIR, MAY I MAKE A MOTION? SURE.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE STAFF HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT DOES NOT PERMIT THE EXTENSION OF THE, UM, THE GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE TO ALL THE PROPERTY, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT WORDING I WOULD USE, BUT I WANNA SUSTAIN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS MADE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I MOVE THAT WE DO COUNCIL.
I BELIEVE THAT ONE HAS MADE A MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
SO, MOTION, WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL AND THEN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO STAFF'S DECISION MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PECK TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S SECOND APPROVE APPLICANT'S, UH, APPEAL.
I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MILAM.
[Approval of Minutes ]
LAST ITEM IS, UH, THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 28TH MEETING.ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES? IF HEARING NONE, I'LL WE'LL TAKE A VO VOICE VOTE.
WHO ARE THE ABSTAINS, UH, COMMISSIONER MILAM AND, AND MYSELF.
IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO.