* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] OKAY, IT IS TWO O'CLOCK. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10TH, 2024. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES? STRAIGHT. MY PLEASE. THANK YOU. STAFF, PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER PECK. HERE. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? HERE. COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? HERE. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? HERE. COMMISSIONER ZUKI. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER MILAM? HERE. COMMISSIONER SIPES? HERE. CHAIR. PROPHET. PRESENT. THE QUORUM IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. [Plats  ] TODAY WE WILL HAVE TWO AGENDAS. UM, WE'LL HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA WHERE ALL ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND DELIBERATED IN ONE MOTION WILL BE TAKEN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. TODAY ALL ITEMS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT EXCEPT FOR ITEM NUMBER 14, WHICH IS, UH, ON INDIVIDUAL. THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION AS TO THE CONSENT ITEMS, THE HEARING? NONE. I'LL ASK FOR MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FAULKNER. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. UM, [Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments  ] ITEM NUMBER 14. GOOD AFTERNOON. ANNE BETA'S PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE NEAR NORTHWEST COMMUNITY PLAN FROM URBAN LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IS LOCATED AT 1246 WAVERLY AVENUE. THERE WERE 33 NOTICES SENT WITH NINE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN IN OPPOSITION. AND THE WOODLAWN LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM URBAN LOAD DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO RM FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT TO UTILIZE THE THREE STRUCTURES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND TO PERMIT THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOURTH UNIT ON THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN A RES RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH A WELL-ESTABLISHED LOAD DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WOULD INTRODUCE AN INAPPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DENSITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON A CORNER LOT AND SIZABLE IN COMPARISON TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THESE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE IDEAL FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF SOME ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THIRD DWELLING UNIT COULD BE ACHIEVED WITH A CD CONDITIONAL USE FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE RETENTION OF THE SINGLE BASE ZONE AND THE ASSOCIATED URBAN LOAD DENSITY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. THUS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. THERE YOU GO. OH, OKAY. SORRY. BRANDON. BRANDON KINCAID. 1246 WAVERLEY AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 1. OKAY. DO YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? UM, SURE. SO THIS IS A SURVEY DONE OF MY PROPERTY. UM, OH, I BROUGHT ONE TOO. , UM, HERE, LEMME USE MINE. OKAY. SO IT IS A DOUBLE LOT, UM, OVER ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, UH, DOUBLED THE SIZE OF ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. UH, MOST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, UH, OR A LOT OF THEM DO HAVE, UH, TWO UNITS, UH, TWO DWELLING UNITS ON THEM, UH, DUE TO THE, UM, THE ZONING THAT THEY USED TO HAVE, UM, BEFORE THE REZONING IN THE NINETIES. UM, [00:05:02] MY PROPERTY IS SEVERAL BLOCKS FROM A LARGE DENSITY, UM, AREA CLOSER TO THE LAKE ON CINCINNATI, WHICH IS MF 33. NOT TOO FAR FROM THERE. IT'S, UH, ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM A CHURCH. UH, THE CHURCH IS ALSO INSIDE A R DASH FOUR, UM, ZONING. UM, AND THERE'S JUST A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, UNIQUE THINGS IN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, ONE OF THEM BEING MY PROPERTY, WHICH HAS, UH, THE FRONT UNIT THAT WAS BUILT IN THE FORTIES AND THESE BACK TWO UNITS THAT WERE BUILT IN 1980. UH, AND THEN IN A WHOLE NOTHER LOT HERE, UH, THAT IS COMPLETELY UNUTILIZED, BUT IT DOES HAVE ITS OWN DRIVEWAY THAT WAS BUILT. UH, SO IT'S ACTUALLY WAS READY TO BUILD ANOTHER UNIT. UM, IT JUST NEVER HAPPENED. SO I HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY HERE WHICH BELONGS TO THIS FRONT UNIT. UM, I HAVE A SIDE DRIVEWAY HERE, SO THERE ARE THREE ACCESS POINTS TO THE PROPERTY. UM, I EXTENDED THIS DRIVEWAY SO IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR PARKING FOR THESE TWO UNITS. UH, THIS IS THE UNIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED INCORRECTLY. UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT A, A DWELLING UNIT. UM, AND THEN THIS IS WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD, UH, ANOTHER SKINNY UNIT, UH, IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. I'LL OPEN UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS STARTING FROM THE RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SIPES QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE, UH, DESIRE OF THE APPLICANT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT? OR? AT THE MOMENT, RMM FOUR DOES STATE FOR FOUR UNITS PER LOT. UM, SO AS HE MENTIONED, HE'S GOT TWO LOTS, SO I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT HIS EXACT END OUTCOME WOULD BE, BUT AGAIN, IT IS TWO LOTS. RMM FOUR ALLOWS FOUR UNITS PER LOT. THE CONDITIONAL USE THOUGH WOULD ONLY PERMIT UP TO FOUR UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY THAT HE IS REZONING. AND SO SINCE HE IS REZONING BOTH LOTS, IT WOULD BE JUST FOUR UNITS FOR BOTH LOTS, A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS IF HE DID THE CONDITIONAL USE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER MILAN. WELL, SO TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, YOU SAID AT SOME POINT YOU WANTED TO PUT ONE MORE HOUSE, RIGHT? YES MA'AM. SO YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT. UM, NO, WELL CURRENTLY THE BACK UNIT IS NOT ABLE TO BE A RESIDENCE. THEY, THEY SAID THAT IT DOESN'T QUALIFY. UM, WHICH, AND R DASH FOUR APPLIES TO BOTH LOTS AS ONE. AND SO I, I'M NOT ABLE TO BUILD ANOTHER UNIT AS IS. I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DOESN'T QUALIFY MEANS YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT DOESN'T HAVE CORRECT PERMITTING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. RIGHT. SO I BELIEVE WITH R DASH FOUR I'M ONLY ABLE TO HAVE, UM, THE ONE UNIT AND THEN I THINK MAYBE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BUT UH, IT HAS A DUPLEX ALREADY EXISTING ON IT, PLUS THE THIRD UNIT, WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE AN ACCELERATED DWELLING UNIT. BUT LAST YEAR WHEN I TRIED TO DO THAT, THEY DENIED ME. I I DID A, UH, A, A NON-CON CONFIRMING PER PERMIT FOR MULTIFAMILY. I APPLIED FOR THAT AND WAS DENIED AND I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH WITH THE, THE ZONING DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHAT MY OPTIONS WERE AND I WAS TOLD THAT I NEEDED TO REZONE. BUT YOU SAID ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS A DUPLEX? YES, MA'AM. THE, WELL, SO THE, UH, THE FRONT UNIT, IT'S CONNECTED TO THIS SECOND UNIT BY A PATIO. UM, SO IT WAS CONSIDERED A DUPLEX. UH, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THIS SECOND UNIT WAS ATTACHED TO IT, I, I CONSIDER THEM LIKE TWO UNITS. OKAY. NO MORE QUESTIONS. VICE CHAIR, PECK. SO MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, SO WE'VE GOT THE TWO, WELL, I GUESS WHAT'S CONSIDERED A DUPLEX, THE ONE STORY SITING AND FRAME THE BIGGER BUILDING. THEN THERE'S A PATIO, THE PATIO CONNECTED TO ANOTHER ONE. STORY SIDING AND FRAME BUILDING, WHICH IS ALSO A DWELLING UNIT. THAT'S TWO DWELLING UNITS, RIGHT? CORRECT. NOW THE ONE, THE OTHER ONE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THE SMALLER ONE, THE BUILDING IS NOT A PERMITTED RESIDENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NOT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF. I, HE COULD HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. UM, SO JUST A BIT OF, UH, HISTORY WITH [00:10:01] ZONING. THIS IS LIKE HE MENTIONED, UM, AN OLDER DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WERE ZONED B BACK IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING, UH, STATE OF 1938. AND SO WHEN THEY CONVERTED TO THE CURRENT 2001 ZONING STANDARDS, IT WAS UPDATED TO R FOUR. AND WE DO ALLOW, UM, WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION FROM THESE B TO R FOUR CONVERSIONS THAT THEY COULD DO TWO UNITS, A DUPLEX, I'M NOT CERTAIN. UM, I MEAN HE SAID THAT THESE WERE BUILT YOU SAID IN THE EIGHTIES? YES MA'AM. AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, IF WE COULD FIND PERMITS AT THAT TIME, BUT AT THE MOMENT THE USE PERMITTED FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE A DUPLEX IT, HE COULD POTENTIALLY DO A DUPLEX. OKAY. AND THAT'S IT. AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE 0.3 SOMETHING ACRES, THE TWO LOTS COMBINED. CORRECT. BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE, THEY'RE CONSIDERED ONE PROPERTY. CORRECT. AS THEY'RE CONSIDERED ONE PROPERTY. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE SINGLE STRUCTURE IS IN, IS GOING OVER THE SHARED ENC PROPERTY LINE. SO, AND YOUR GOAL IS TO HAVE FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY? YES SIR. IS THAT, SO YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THE ONE THAT IS THE EXISTING BUILDING AND YOU WANT TO, I GUESS BRING THAT UP TO CODE OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S A DWELLING UNIT. IS THAT YOUR PLAN? YES SIR. AND THEN YOU WANT TO ADD A NEW ONE ON THE FAR OR WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT IS? YEAH, ON THE EMPTY SIDE, YES. YES SIR. ON THE EMPTY SIDE. AND SO IN ORDER TO HAVE FOUR DWELLING UNITS, IT HAS TO GO TO RMM FOUR. AGAIN, IT COULD STAY AS R FOUR AND ADD A CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR UNITS. OKAY. OR YES, GO FOR RM FOUR, WHICH THEN WOULD REQUIRE THE PLAN AMENDMENT. THE R FOUR WITH THE CONDITIONAL UNIT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAN AMENDMENT. RM FOUR DOES REQUIRE THE PLAN AMENDMENT CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU GEL. SO, UM, YOUR, YOUR MICROPHONE NOW, YOUR GOAL IS TO HAVE FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY AND YOU COULD ACHIEVE THAT WITH REMAINING WITH THE R FOUR PLAN, LAND USE, UH, DESIGNATION, BUT RECEIVING A CONDITIONAL USE ZONING, UM, TO ALLOW FOUR DWELLING UNITS. IS THAT AMENABLE TO YOU? UM, YES. UM, I WAS TOLD THAT WHENEVER I WENT TO BUILD THE FOURTH UNIT, I WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER REZONING OR ANOTHER, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PLAN AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME. SO. OKAY. SO THE, THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS TO, IS FOR THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE ZONING IS A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, UHHUH . AND SO YOU COULD GET THE CONDITIONAL USE ZONING DESIGNATION WITHOUT HAVING TO DO THIS PLAN, UH, THIS LAND USE CHANGE THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR TODAY. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. MR. GARCIA? NO. COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? NO OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO. SO ARE YOU FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL DESIGNATION THAT THAT I CAN BE GRANTED THE FOUR UNITS? YES. UM, WITHOUT THE RMM FOUR CORRECT ZONING AND IF THAT'S AMENABLE TO YOU, WHAT I GUESS WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT WE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PLAN AMENDMENT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, OF GETTING IT THROUGH THE ZONING COMMISSION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE. IS THAT CONDITIONAL USE REQUIRE ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL? CORRECT. OKAY. IT WOULD, IT IS A CHANGE OF ZONING AND UM, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO TO ZONING COM. ZONING COMMISSION AND YOU WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AS PER CONDITIONAL USE. OKAY. AND FOR US, IF THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, EX UH, DOING A DENIAL WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I'LL ASK FOR MOTION. I MOVE TO DENY MOTION. UH, CAN WE CLARIFY THE MOTION? IS THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OR DENY, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL? 'CAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL. SO IT WOULD EITHER BE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR A MOTION TO DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST. YOU CAN GO EITHER WAY. I MOVE TO DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST. OKAY. I JUST NEED A SECOND. SECOND. SO, MOTION TO DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER FAULKNER. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MILAM. COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS. ALRIGHT. [00:15:01] UH, NEXT ITEM [Approval of Minutes  ] IS 16, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 MEETING. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES? MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SECOND. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR PECK. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL. I WILL ABSTAIN. I WAS NOT HERE. OKAY. YOU CAN. OKAY. YOU CAN STILL ACT. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA ABS ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MINUTES PASS. OKAY. ARE THERE, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT TODAY? THERE IS NOT. ALRIGHT. IT IS TWO 16 AND WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.