[00:00:03]
IF WE COULD BEGIN WITH OUR SPANISH TRANSLATION SERVICES STATEMENT, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS ROB SIPES AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT SEVEN ZONING COMMISSIONER.
I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION INTO SESSION.
I'D LIKE TO DO A ROLL CALL BY ALLOWING THE ZONING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING WITH THE COMMISSIONER ON MY FAR LEFT.
MARCO BARROS, UH, DISTRICT NINE, JOHN BUSTAMANTE, DISTRICT FIVE, VAL ORTIZ, DISTRICT EIGHT, JOHN WITT, DISTRICT 10 TAYLOR WATSON, DISTRICT TWO.
JANELLE CHASE MAYORAL GEORGE OSA, DISTRICT THREE.
KEN HUE DISTRICT SIX STAFF IS A QUORUM PRESENT.
WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? PRIOR TO COMMENCING OUR HEARING, I'D LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE STAFF.
BEFORE I BEGIN, PLEASE TURN YOUR VOTE YOUR PHONES ON VIBRATE OR TURN THEM OFF.
THE ZONING COMMISSION IS AN 11 MEMBER BODY APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ZONING CASES UPON RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION.
YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD YOUR CASE TO CITY COUNCIL.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CASE MANAGER.
STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REZONING AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN EX INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REZONING, YOU WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU WILL BE INFORMED THAT THE THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED INTO SPEAK AND MUST ANNOUNCE WHEN THE THAT SPEAKER IS GOING UP TO THE PODIUM THAT THEY'RE YIELDING THEIR TIME.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS.
[Zoning Items ]
STAFF, IF WE COULD, UH, PLEASE GO OVER ANY WITHDRAWN OR POSTPONED ITEMS. WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT IS POSTPONED.ITEM NUMBER TWO, LOCATED AT 3 0 5 SANDMEYER STREET.
ALRIGHT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UM, IF YOU ARE HERE FOR THE PROPERTY ON UH, SANDMEYER STREET, UH, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE AS THAT ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY AND YOU WILL BE RE NOTIFIED IF AND WHEN UH, FUTURE ACTION OCCURS.
STAFF, IF WE COULD PLEASE GO OVER THE LIST OF ITEMS ON THE COMBINED AGENDA ITEMS TO BE.
UM, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE ITEMS 5, 7, 12, AND 13.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OF THESE ITEMS YOU WISH TO POOL TO INDIVIDUAL? LOOKING LEFT, SEEING NONE, LOOKING RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
UM, IF WE COULD PLEASE READ THE COMBINED HEARING NUMBER ONE INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM MF 33 TO IDZ TWO WITH USES PERMITTED IN MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 10 10 AND 10 14 EAST EUCLID AVENUE.
ZERO RECEIPT IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
[00:05:01]
FROM I ONE TO C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A CAR WASH WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.LOCATED AT 9 0 9 WEST HILDEBRAND AVENUE.
ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED AND BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NEUTRAL.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM PUD MF 18 TO C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC USE CAR SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A CAR WASH WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 1000 BLOCK OF SOUTH US HIGHWAY 180 1 8 NOTICES WERE SENT.
ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM I ONE TO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR BAR AND OR TAVERN WITHOUT A COVER CHARGE THREE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1621 QUINTANA ROAD.
ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
AND QUINTANA COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THESE ITEMS? WE DO.
WE HAVE UM, VOICEMAILS FOR ITEMS FIVE SEVEN AND THEN WE DO HAVE, UM, SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR ITEM 13.
ALRIGHT, IF WE COULD DO THE VOICEMAILS FIRST PLEASE.
MISSILE TOE CALLING IN REFERENCE FOR ZONING CASE ENDING IN 0 9 8 AT 10 10 AND 10 14 EAST EUCLID.
UH, TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST AS CURRENTLY PRESENTED.
UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR A 35 FOOT LIMIT ON HEIGHT FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
UH, THE PROPERTY SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH ONE 14 AND ONE 16 MC LANE, WHICH CAME TO ZONING IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 AND WAS SUPPORTED BY US FOR EIGHT TOWN HOMES AT 35 FEET TALL.
BECAUSE IT ABUTTED A SINGLE FAMILY USE, WE AIM TO BE CONSISTENT IN OUR SUPPORT AND SINCE THE PROPOSED PROPERTY ABOVE THE SINGLE FAMILY USE HOME 35 FEET FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT SEEMS REASONABLE.
WE ALSO ASK FOR THE FRONT FACING UNITS TO HAVE PORCHES.
WE'RE TALKING 50 TO 200 SQUARE FOOT.
I THINK TWO PEOPLE SITTING AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER KINDS OF PORCHES.
THEIR PROPOSAL IS FOR STOOPS WHERE A PERSON CAN ENTER AND EXIT BUT NOT ENGAGE WITH THE STREET AT ALL.
ALL THE PHOTO EXAMPLES THEY PROVIDED TO US ARE CURRENTLY IN TOBY HILL, BUT NEARLY ALL ARE OLD CONSTRUCTION OF SOME FORM.
THERE ARE EXCELLENT RECENT EXAMPLES OF WHAT PORCHES WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR US ON EAST EVERGREEN, ON EAST COURTLAND, ON EAST SMITH TOE AND EAST FRENCH WITH SMALL PORCHES THAT ENGAGE WITH THE STREET AND THEY PURPOSELY IGNORED THESE TO FIT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO FROM THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL AND NOT ACTUALLY REALLY CONSIDER OUR REQUEST.
UM, CURRENTLY THERE'S A PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF ST.
MARY'S AND EUCLID, A LITERAL HALF BLOCK FROM THIS ONE WHERE THEY BUILT 40 FOOT PLUS TALL TOWN HOMES.
I THINK THERE WAS 15 OF 'EM WITH TWO CAR GARAGES AND NO ELEVATORS.
THE BUILDER HAD TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY.
ANOTHER COUPLE OF COMPANIES HAVE BOUGHT AND SOLD THEM AGAIN AND MOST RECENT, MOST RECENTLY THEY REMAINED EMPTY AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS OF ATTEMPTING TO SELL AND RENT THEM FOUR STORIES WITHOUT ELEVATORS.
WE DIDN'T OPPOSE THEIR NUMBER OF UNITS.
UH, WE DON'T OPPOSE THEM PROVIDING ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT.
WE DID NOT OPPOSE THEM FOR PROVIDING, NOT PROVIDING GUEST PARKING.
WE DIDN'T OPPOSE THEM FOR PUTTING THE DUMPSTER ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE TO SEE EVERY DAY.
SO WE DO ASK THAT OUR ACTUAL REQUEST.
OPEN 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING CASE NUMBER ENDING IN 0 0 1 FOR 9 0 9 WEST HILL DEBRAND.
KELLUM AND COMMISSIONERS, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS CASE AS IT IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF ITS BOUNDARY.
HOWEVER, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY.
IT IS NOT PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OR ON MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN.
AS SUCH, WE DO NOT HAVE A FORMAL POSITION.
THAT BEING SAID, WE DO FIND THE DOWN ZONING OF THIS PARCEL FROM I ONE TO C TWO WITH A SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR A CAR WASH TO BE GENERALLY AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THAT INTERSECTION.
RESPECTFULLY, BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE.
[00:10:01]
AND, UM, THE, THOSE WHO HAD SIGNED UP ARE ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT SO THEY DO NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 13.AND THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION FROM A COMMISSIONER, MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ITEMS NUMBER FIVE, NUMBER SEVEN, NUMBER 12 AND NUMBER 13.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED GEN HEARING NUMBER ONE OF ITEMS NUMBER 5, 7, 12, AND 13 BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARDOS.
IS THERE ANY, UH, DISCUSSION? LOOKING LEFT? SEEING NONE.
ALRIGHT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, THOSE ITEMS WILL NOW BE PROCEEDING ON TO CITY COUNCIL AND YOU ARE FREE TO ENJOY THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.
WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO OUR CONTINUANCE HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS FOR CONTINUANCES TO THE JULY 16TH MEETING.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS REQUESTING CONT UH, FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE TO JULY 16TH.
ITEMS NUMBER NINE LOCATED AT 10 19 PEREZ.
ITEM NUMBER 10 LOCATED AT 10 17 AND 10 19 SOUTH SAN EDUARDO AVENUE.
AND ITEM NUMBER 14, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 10,000 BLOCK OF SOUTH SAR ZAMORA STREET.
UM, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM UM, NINE.
ALRIGHT, VOICEMAILS AND SPEAKERS OR JUST VOICEMAILS? BOTH VOICEMAILS AND, UH, SPEAKER.
WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE? YES, MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE, UH, MR. MONAL, UH, WOULD LIKE HIS VOICEMAIL PLAYED INSTEAD OF SPEAKING AND MR. MONAL, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
IF WE COULD HEAR THE VOICEMAILS PLEASE.
AND I'M AGAINST THIS CASE NUMBER Z DASH 2 0 2 4 DASH 1 0 7 0 0 0 8 1 CD AND I'M AGAINST IT.
YOUR NUMBER T NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 772-1611.
MY NAME IS BO LIM, I'M CALLING, UM, REGARDING CASE, UH, NUMBER Z 2 0 2 4 1 0 7 0 0 8 1 C CD REGARDING, UM, 1 0 1 9 PEREZ STREET.
UM, MY ADDRESS IS EIGHT TWENTY ONE WEST COMMERCE.
PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 223-1681.
UM, I DO NOT SUPPORT, UM, THIS CASE AGAIN.
UM, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS CASE.
ADDRESS 4 0 1 I PLACE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
CASE NUMBER LAST V 2024 DASH 1 0 7 8 1 CDI AM AGAINST.
I AM NOT, I DO NOT WANT THAT TO PASS.
UH, CASE NUMBER Z 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 7 0 0 8 1 CD.
THIS IS AN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING OF, UH, 10 19 PER I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO CONDITIONAL USE.
[00:15:06]
JESSE MONTREAL, 10 15 PARIS TWO TEN SIX SIX SEVEN EIGHT TWO EIGHT FOUR CASE NUMBER 0 8 1.GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMAN, PRESENT WITH US TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MYSELF TO THE BOARD OF CITY OFFICIALS THAT ARE CHARGED WITH PROTECTING AND DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
THE OTHER ONE HERE TODAY, THE TOPIC, THE REASON THE REZONING BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
FROM A SINGLE FAMILY ORIENTED CATEGORY TO A MULTIPLE ROOM HOUSING TO HELP PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT, THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL ONLY VOID THE PURPOSE WHY THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT FOR A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY.
THIS CONTINU ACTION WILL ONLY CAUSE US TO BE THE VICTIMS OF GREED.
IF A NEW OWNER SHOWS YOU THE HOUSE CAN BE ACCOMMODATED AS A DOWNSTAIRS AND UPSTAIRS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
I MADE AN OBSERVATION ON THE WEB OF INVESTORS IN ENTICING HOMEOWNERS TO SELL THEIR HOMES, WHICH IN EFFECT WILL ONLY MAKE THEM MORE SUSCEPTIBLE INTO BECOMING THE NEW WAVE OF HOMELESS PERSONS.
OUR CITY OFFICIALS CAN CONVERT THIS TREND BY NOT ALLOWING INVESTORS TO CONVERT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNITS INTO SMALL HAVEN FOR WHOLE PROJECTS INSIDE THE HOME CITY COUNCIL TO INCORPORATE A MUCH HEALTHIER AND SAFER ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS SUPPORTIVE OF GOOD LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR INTERVENTION.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN CARLO LURA, L-U-E-R-A.
MY ADDRESS IS 6 34 NORTH SABINA STREET, IT'S RESIDENCE.
MY PHONE NUMBER'S (210) 241-3163.
I AM CALLING ABOUT, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, Z 27 81, UH, WHICH IS, UH, THE ADDRESS, UH, 1 0 1 9 FE STREET.
I AM CALLING TO VOICE MY DISAPPROVAL, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT.
IN FACT, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING PRO PROJECTS IN THIS COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, I'M IN THE 7 8 2 0 7 ZIP CODE AND I DON'T, UH, THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE.
IT'S NOT SAFE TO HAVE SUCH HIGH DENSITY STRUCTURES.
AND IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A FIRE, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE A CHALLENGE FOR FIREFIGHTERS ALSO.
SO IF THERE IS A FIRE, THE LIKELIHOOD OF OTHER HOMES BEING DAMAGED INCREASES, INCREASES WHEN YOU KNOW YOU HAVE SO MANY STRUCTURES IN A CONDENSED AREA.
UM, THE TELL THESE DEVELOPERS THAT THEY NEED TO, UH, BUILD THEIR APARTMENTS OR THEIR MULTI, UH, FAMILY UNITS IN A COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT FOR THE ADDITIONAL, UM, SEWAGE AND WATER USAGE THAT'S GOING TO, UH, TAKE PLACE.
UM, OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT SUCH A STRAIN.
SO, UM, I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE THESE BELIEFS AND IF YOU HEAR ME IN THE FUTURE, BRING UP THESE SAME POINTS, UM, DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE THESE CONCERNS.
AND UNTIL ANYTHING MAJOR CHANGES AS FAR AS INVESTMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT, I AM GOING TO HAVE THIS CONCERN AND I'M GOING TO GIVE MY DISAPPROVAL FOR THESE, UH, PROJECTS THAT ARE HAPPENING, UM, WHICH INCREASE THE DENSITY OF HOUSING UNITS IN THESE RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
UH, ADDRESS EIGHT 11 AL SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO SEVEN.
UH, PHONE NUMBER (210) 723-4334.
LAST THREE OF THE CASE R 0 8 1.
THIS IS FOR 10 19 PETTA STREET.
[00:20:01]
IT'S, UH, FOR REQUEST FOR AN A DU TO BE ADDED ONTO THE PROPERTY.UM, I SENT AN EMAIL IN, I HOPE THOSE ARE ACTUALLY READ.
WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE THAT ANY OF THAT'S TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
WE DON'T REALLY SEE THAT WHEN WE WATCH THE USE LATER, BUT I'M JUST GONNA READ PART OF IT.
I LISTED EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE US CONCERNED FROM THE COMMUNITY.
I'M WITH GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP, AND SO I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY.
UH, GARDENDALE IS AGAINST PATTERNS BEING SET FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECEDENT AND PATTERN PATTERNS ARE SET THOUGH THROUGH PRECEDENTS AS THE HISTORY OF AN AREA AS VIEWED BY WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS PURE OBJECTIVEISM WITH EACH PROJECT.
EACH PROJECT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE PRODUCTS THAT HAVEN'T APPROVED OTHERWISE.
THERE'D BE NO WAY TO DETERMINE A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR AN AREA WHERE OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN ASKING FOR PRESERVATION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN OUR AREA.
AND WE ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
WE MAY NOT BE CAR AND GARVIN, BUT AT ONE POINT EVEN THAT AREA WAS RIDDLED WITH CRIME AS THEY WERE ABLE TO TURN THINGS AROUND.
AND I'VE MET WITH, SPOKEN WITH THEM, EVEN ADVOCATED ON BEHALF OF THEM WITH ZONING BEFORE.
WE HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING HARD WITH CITY SERVICES LEADERSHIP TO TACKLE OUR ISSUES IN OUR AREA.
WE ALSO HAVE GRANDPARENTS THAT HAVE LIVED IN OUR AREA AND GREAT-GRANDPARENTS FOR GENERATIONS.
WE MAY NOT HAVE ANYONE ON THE ZONING BOARD TO REPRESENT OUR AREA DIRECTLY AS COLLINS, PARDON DATE.
BUT WE ALSO SHOULD BE, UH, TREATED FAIRLY.
COME DOWN TO CALL, UH, TO GARDENDALE AND SPEND SOME TIME HERE.
OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON JULY 3RD AT 6:30 PM AT ST.
THE IDEAS THAT I HEAR ABOUT WHAT IT'S LIKE IN GARDENDALE BASED ON MY OBSERVATION OF HEARING PEOPLE SPEAK ABOUT OUR AREA ARE NOT CURRENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
WATCHING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, YESTERDAY AND HEARING PEOPLE ON THAT BOARD NOT UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH CRIME GOES ON IN CATTLEMAN SQUARE SAYS TO ME, NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE LIVE WITH AND GO TO ON A DAILY BASIS.
WORDS ARE OFTEN SAID ABOUT NOT ALLOWING EXTERNAL DEVELOPERS TO TAKE OVER AND DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
REALLY QUICKLY LAST THIS FURTHERS ALONG GENTRIFICATION DISPLACEMENT THROUGH PRICING OUT POTENTIAL NEW HOMEOWNERS AND REMOVING LONG-TERM GENERATIONAL RESIDENTS AS THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE GREATLY CHANGED THROUGH HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, GOING AGAINST THE WISHES TO COMMUNITY, HAVING A ROOM FOR RENT TYPE OF, UH, SITUATION.
YEAH, HAVING LONG-TERM, UH, HAVING, UH, ROOM FOR RENT TYPE OF, UH, PROPERTY DOESN'T UH INCREASE.
I AM PRESIDENT OF GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE CURRENT ZONING REQUEST CHANGE AREA REGARDING THE ZONING CASE.
THE 20 24 1 0 7 0 0 0 8 1 CD GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP STANDS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE REQUEST TO OPPOSE THIS REQUEST.
THE RESIDENTS IN THE GARDENDALE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN LONGTIME RESIDENTS OF THE AREA OFTEN BEING MADE UP OF GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES THAT HAVE INVESTED THEIR LIVES WORKING TO MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES.
THESE LONG-TERM RESIDENTS HAVE STAYED IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND AFTER HEARING THE PROPOSED STAND BY THEIR REQUEST TO OPPOSE THIS ZONING REQUEST, THEY SHARED THEIR CONCERN FOR THE FOLLOWING, THE SAFETY OF THEIR COMMUNITY, THE LACK OF GUARANTEE THAT THIS BOARDING HOME STYLE LIVING WILL WORK IN AN ALREADY UNSTABLE AND UNSAFE COMMUNITY.
THEY SHARED THEIR CONCERN FOR THE PROPOSED BEING A RECIPE FOR DISASTER DUE TO UNCOMPATIBLE PERSONALITIES THAT EACH PERSON MAY HAVE.
THE FACT THAT THEY ALSO SHARED THIS MODEL AND STYLE OF LIVING WILL BECOME AN OPEN DOOR FOR OTHERS PURCHASING PROPERTY IN THIS AREA WITH PLANS TO DO THE SAME.
THEY SHARED CONCERNS FOR THE FACT THAT OTHER COUNCIL AND OTHER DISTRICTS DO NOT OPENLY ACCEPT THESE TYPE OF ZONING REQUESTS SO EASILY IN THEIR AREAS.
THEY SHARED CONCERN THAT THEIR CURRENT HOMES ARE UNDER THE SAME TYPE OF STYLE OF LIVING WITHIN TWO BLOCKS AWAY, USING THE SAME TYPE OF STYLE OF RENTING THAT IS SHORT TERM.
THIS IS FOR RENT FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY.
AUSTIN THINGS MAY LOOK AND SOUND GOOD ON PAPER, BUT WHEN YOU LIVE IN IT, WAKE UP TO IT AND SEE WHAT YOU SEE EVERY DAY THINGS CHANGE.
THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER DID ATTEND ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS IN ATTEMPTS TO SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY THEIR VISION.
HOWEVER, THE COMMUNITY EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
[00:25:01]
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY SAFETY COMES FIRST.THE RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE SURROUNDING 200 FEET AND BEYOND DO NOT FEEL THE PROPOSED FITS OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
THEREFORE, 30 ZONING REQUEST FORMS OPPOSING THIS REQUEST.
WERE EMAIL TO THE ZONING CASE MANAGER.
I AM VICE PRESIDENT OF GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I AM PROPERTY OWNER OF FOUR ZERO NINE ARBOR PLACE.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN FOUR THREE ZERO SIX ONE SIX SEVEN.
AS VICE PRESIDENT OF GARDENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE STAND WITH THE COMMUNITY AND OPPOSE ZONING CASE Z DASH 2 0 24 DASH 1 0 7 0 8 1 CD.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 970-7511.
UH, CASE NUMBER IS LETTER D DASH 2 0 2 4 10 78 CD.
UH, I AM OPPOSED TO THE, UM, PROPERTY AT 10 19 STATUS STREET, UH, BECOMING REZONED FOR MULTIPLE APARTMENTS OR ROOMS FOR RENT.
UH, I WOULD PREFER FOR THAT TO STAY RESIDENTIAL RATHER THAN FOR IT TO BE, UH, ZONED FOR, UM, AT IT SEEMS ABOUT AT LEAST EIGHT ROOMS FOR RENT RATHER THAN IT BEING A FAMILY DWELLING.
AND THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE HEARING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.
A, THERE'S MULTIPLE ITEMS. UH, THREE ITEMS. YES.
UM, BE, UH, ITEMS NINE, 10, AND 14.
IS THERE, IS THERE A SECOND? THERE IS A SECOND.
THERE IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEMS NINE, 10, AND 14 TO THE JULY 16TH MEETING.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITT WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BUSANTE, UH, DISCUSSION.
SEEING NONE OR DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION? NO.
I'M GONNA KEEP IT FOR JULY 16TH.
ITEMS PASSED FOR CONTINUANCE UNTIL JULY 16TH, 2024.
ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING.
I BELIEVE ITEM NUMBER ONE IS UP FIRST, IF WE COULD HAVE, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION PLEASE.
MY NAME IS ALEXA RATANA, ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER ONE IS GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 12,600 BLOCK OF BAMBERGER WAY, GOING FROM PUD R SIX PLAN, UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH A REDUCED PERIMETER SETBACK OF 10 FEET TO PUD MF 18 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LIMITED DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT WITH THE REDUCED PERIMETER SETBACK OF 10 FEET WITH ALL OVERLAYS STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 29 NOTICES SENT OUT.
ONE IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET.
NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND FOREIGN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET.
THE EXISTING PUD R SIX IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED MPMF 18 IS ALSO AN APPROPRIATE ZONING.
THE PROPOSED IS A 32 UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SEEKING TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT REDUCED PERIMETER SETBACK OF 10 FEET AND REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO A SITE, ADHERENCE TO A SITE PLAN.
IT IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO SECONDARY ARTERIALS SUPPORTING THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE HOUSING TYPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S GROWING POPULATION AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
[00:30:01]
APPROVAL.SAS IS HERE TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF WE COULD HAVE SAS REPORT PLEASE.
MIKE ESCALANTE WITH
WE'VE REVIEWED THE ZONING APPLICATION LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BABCOCK ROAD IN BAMBERGER WAY TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE SITE IS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED WITH A CURB ROADWAY WITH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON 3.84 ACRE LOTS.
UM, NO SENSITIVE GEOLOGIC FEATURES NOR FLOODPLAINS ARE LOCATED ON THE SITE.
SAWS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE REPORT TO INCLUDE 65% OUS COVER FOR THE 3.84 ACRE SITE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS ALLOWED OPEN SPACE CREDITS TO MITIGATE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A PROVISION IN CITY ORDINANCE 8 7 1 2 4 BAMBERGER ROAD BAMBERGER PARK IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT PASSED IMPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 18TH, 1997.
AND IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT.
I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF, OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THIS 3.84 ACRES.
UM, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM BAMBERGER PARK AT THE INTERSECTION OF BAMBERGER WAY IN BABCOCK.
UH, JUST A, A CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITE.
UM, THAT'S THE PROPERTY THERE AND THEN THERE IS AN EASEMENT THAT RUNS BEHIND IT.
UM, JUST QUICKLY, THE NORTH SECTOR PLAN CURRENTLY DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS SUBURBAN TIER.
THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR LOW TO MID-LEVEL COMMERCIAL AND UP TO MF 18 DENSITY AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY.
SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
UM, CURRENT ZONING, UM, WE DID COME BEFORE YOU ALL A FEW YEARS AGO WITH A CASE TO REZONE THIS.
IT WAS AN OLD B TWO THAT CONVERTED TO C TWO.
SO IT ALLOWED FOR MULTI-FAMILY AT THAT TIME AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL, UH, RE REZONED IT TO R SIX POD, UH, WHICH IS THE CURRENT LAYOUT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T DO SINGLE FAMILY IN THE MULTIFAMILY ALLOWANCE.
SO WE DOWN ZONE IT AT THAT POINT.
UH, THAT WAS ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
AND NOW WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS ADD BACK IN THE ABILITY TO HAVE INSTEAD OF ONE HOME PER LOT, TWO HOMES PER LOT.
UM, SO THIS WAS THE PUT PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2021.
IT WAS KIND OF AN ODD LAYOUT AND ALLOWED FOR 19 LOTS, UM, THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS, THIS LAYOUT.
UM, AND THIS IS 16 LOTS AND THIS PROPERTY IS PLATTED.
IT DID GET APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THIS WAS A MINOR AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE, TO THE PUD.
UM, BUT IT ALLOWED FOR A BETTER LAYOUT, UM, OF LOTS AND IN THE COMMUNITY THAT REALLY JUST BETTER THAN THAT PREVIOUS PLAN.
SO THIS IS THE CURRENT PLATTED LOTS.
UM, WHAT THE OWNERS OF THIS COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO DO, THEY, THERE'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO OWN THIS PROPERTY AND THEY WILL ALSO LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO THEY WANT TO BUILD HOMES.
UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
IT MAKES A BIT MORE SENSE TO CONSTRUCT TWO UNITS ON EACH LOT.
UM, THESE LOTS ARE LARGER THAN THOSE THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED HERE.
A FEW OF THE LOTS ARE SMALLER, ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT THEN SOME OF THEM GO UP TO AS MUCH AS 11,000 SQUARE FEET.
UH, HERE'S THE PUD PLAN AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE HOMES WOULD LAY OUT ON EACH LOT.
UM, SO THERE'S IMPROVEMENTS THAT INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS DOWN BAMBERGER AND BABCOCK, UH, SIDEWALK THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE PUD DOES ALLOW FOR THAT.
UH, THE PUD ALSO DOES REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
SO IT WILL BE, UM, UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE, THE AUTHORITY OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS WELL.
UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS WENT OUT, THERE WERE CONCERNS WHEN YOU SEE MF 18 PUD.
UM, AS OPPOSED TO, WE HAD ORIGINALLY HOPED TO DO THIS AS AN R THREE PUD, BUT BECAUSE THOSE HOMES WILL BE EACH TWO ON ONE LOT, WE COULDN'T DO THAT.
UH, EVEN THOUGH THE PUD ALLOWS FOR ATTACHED UNITS.
SO THE MF 18 PUD IS WHAT WE HAVE TO ASK FOR.
BUT I DO WANNA NOTE THAT AMENDMENTS TO THIS PUD, WE CAN'T JUST GO OUT AND REPL THIS PROPERTY AND THEN ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT HERE.
WE ARE RESTRICTED AS AMENDMENTS THAT IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN A 10% INCREASE IN DENSITY AND IT CAN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF WHAT'S PROPOSED.
SO WHAT YOU SEE TODAY, I THINK THE MOST WE COULD GO UP TO WOULD BE INSTEAD OF, UM, 32 LOT 32 HOMES WOULD BE 35.
[00:35:01]
DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHOWING THIS AS TWO HOMES PER LOT WITH THE OPEN SPACE.
BUT I DID WANNA POINT OUT THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS WAS APPROVED TODAY.
UM, SO WITH THAT ALL END PRESENTATION, I KNOW THERE ARE, ARE IS OPPOSITION AND THERE ARE CONCERNS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND MAYBE ADDRESS THAT AFTER.
AND DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO.
WE HAVE SPEAKERS AND VOICEMAILS.
UM, FOR THE SPEAKERS, DID ANY OF YOU LEAVE A VOICEMAIL THAT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE PLAY? YES.
NO, I RATHER SPEAK, YOU'D RATHER SPEAK.
AND YOUR NAME SIR? MIKE HUMPHREYS.
SO IF WE COULD PLAY THE VOICEMAILS EXCEPT FOR MIKE HUMPHREYS AND THEN WE'LL GET TO SPEAK.
I LIVE AT 74 10 CARRIAGE BAY IN SAN ANTONIO AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY NO TO Z DASH 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 4 ERZD.
AND MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 8 8 4 6 3 5.
I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE Z 2 0 2 4 1 0 7 0 0 0 5 4 FR 2D.
LAST NAME'S HO HO I LIVE, UH, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE ACTUALLY IN MY BACKYARD RIGHT ACROSS THE FENCE.
UM, I AM CALLING TO EXPRESS MY, UH, OBJECTION TO THIS BASED ON SEVERAL, UH, ISSUES THAT I'M SEEING.
UH, ONE OF THEM, WHICH IS, UH, THE DENSITY GOING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE PROPOSED, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS 17 HOUSES.
NOW THERE'S, I GUESS 36 UNITS.
UH, THERE ARE ALREADY TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES BEING BUILT WITHIN A MILE OF THIS AREA.
UH, WHICH BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM THEY'RE OFFERING MORE THAN A THOUSAND UNITS.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE 36 MORE UNITS IS GONNA MAKE THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE ASIDE FROM, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT, UH, AS WELL AS THE, JUST THE UNPLEASANTNESS OF HAVING AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, IT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CITY PARK.
IT IS LESS THAN A FIVE MINUTE WALK FROM A LARGE OVERWHELMED SCHOOL, AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIKE THAT WHERE SEVERAL KIDS WALK TO AND FROM THE SCHOOL.
UM, YOU KNOW, ADDING THIS MUCH TRAFFIC ON THAT ON THE BABCOCK ROAD THERE AT HOUSEMAN.
UH, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IF WE PUT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT THERE, THAT IS JUST GONNA CREATE HUGE TRAFFIC ISSUES.
UM, MY OTHER CONCERN IS THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT IS SO THAT HAVE SEEN WORKING WITH THIS ALREADY.
UH, THEY HAVE BEEN SETTING THIS UP AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX FROM THE BEGINNING WITH THE, I'M GUESSING EXPECTATION THAT THEIR ZONING REQUEST WILL GET APPROVED.
UH, THEY WERE OUT THERE SURVEYING FOR WHERE TO PUT THE APARTMENTS LAST WEEKEND.
UM, THIS IS ALSO THE SAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE DONE SOME, UH, WORK ON THE TEMPLE.
THEY HAVE PUT NO RETAINING WALLS UP.
THEY'VE DUG AND TRIED TO LEVEL A PARKING LOT.
THEY CLEARED UP ALL THE TREES.
I'M AFRAID THAT THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO DO THE SAME THING RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE.
UH, THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE VERY THOROUGH AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE VERY SAFE.
THEY DO LOOK LIKE THEY CUT A LOT OF CORNERS IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK.
UH, ANYWAYS, MY NAME AGAIN IS JAMESON.
LAST NAME'S HO ONE TWO FIVE ONE EIGHT CARRIAGE BOULEVARD.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 771-8946.
HI, THIS IS IN REGARDS TO Z 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 4 ERZD.
UM, THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO APARTMENTS.
AND I'M CALLING, UH, IN AND STATING NO TO THAT CHANGE.
I'M A HOMEOWNER AT 7 3 1 8 CARRIAGE BAY IN 7 8 2 4 9.
UM, IN THE HEIGHTS OF CARRIAGE HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO, UH, LET'S SEE, A ZONING CHANGE AT THE CORNER OF BAMBERGER WAY AND BABCOCK.
IT'S BEING, I GUESS, REQUESTED CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO APARTMENTS,
[00:40:01]
WHICH I DO NOT WANT.UM, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, BUT Z 20 24 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 4 ERZD.
UM, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT IT'S GONNA CAUSE, THE ADDITIONAL, UM, UM, TRAFFIC ALONG THE ROADWAY, THE WHAT IT'S DOING TO OUR COMMUNITY, THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HEIGHTS OF CARRIAGE HILLS.
I AM, UH, VOTING, NO, I DO NOT WANT THE ZONING CHANGE TO Z DASH 2 0 2 4 DASH 1 0 7 0 0 0 54 ERZD.
MY ADDRESS IS 7 4 2 3 CARRIAGE BAY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 9.
AND I DON'T GIVE OUT MY PHONE NUMBER.
AND AGAIN, I AM THE PRESIDENT.
AND SO THAT'S IT FOR VOICEMAILS.
AND NOW I WILL CALL UP, UM, SPEAKERS.
FIRST WE HAVE MR. MIKE HUMPHREYS.
OKAY, SO I LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS OF CARRIAGE HILLS, WHICH THAT WAS THAT LADY RIGHT THERE TALKING FROM THE, UH, CAN YOU JUST, SORRY, MR. HUMPHREYS, CAN YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? OH, MIKE HUMPHREYS.
OKAY, SO JUST, AND I HAD THAT MAP UP EARLIER, BUT HERE'S BABCOCK AND HERE'S BAMBERGER WAY.
BAMBERGER WAY IS ONLY ABOUT A 10TH OF A MILE LONG.
UH, THE HEIGHTS OF CARRIAGE HILLS FITS SITS HERE.
UH, THE, UH, THE OVERLOOK SITS HERE.
I THINK THERE'S 154 HOMES, ALL SINGLE FAMILY.
SO, UH, ALL OF THESE 154 HOMES FEED INTO BABCOCK, DOWN BAMBERGER WAY.
SO, UH, ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, THEY BUILT A, UH, HINDU TEMPLE.
UH, AS PART OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT HERE.
THEY BUILT A HINDU TEMPLE JUST NORTH OF THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT LOCATION.
AND THAT JUST ADDED TO THE TRAFFIC SITUATION.
SO WHEN MY DAUGHTER AND MY GRANDDAUGHTER AND I ARE WALKING DOWN TO BAMBERGER NATURE PARK, WHICH IS RIGHT AS BAMBERGER WAY HITS BABCOCK, THAT'S A PERPENDICULAR ROAD.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE INTERSECTION THAT YOU CROSS TO THE NATURE PARK.
SO RIGHT NOW YOU GOT 45 MILES AN HOUR BOTH WAYS ON BABCOCK, A FLASHING STOP SIGN THAT HALF THE CARS DON'T STOP.
FOUR, YOU'VE GOT THE TEMPLE THAT'S ADDED A BUNCH OF TRAFFIC, AND NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT MULTI-FAMILY TO BRING IN MORE TRAFFIC.
SO IT'S ALREADY VERY PRECARIOUS TO CROSS OVER BABCOCK FROM THESE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS INTO THE NATURE PARK.
AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA ADD A BUNCH MORE.
I FELT LIKE WE WERE A LITTLE BIT DUPED BY THE DEVELOPER WHEN THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO THEY CAME BEFORE THIS GROUP AND THEY WANTED TO CHANGE IT FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY.
UH, NOW THEY'RE WANTING TO GO BACK TO MULTIFAMILY.
NOW ONE THING THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T SAY IS, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE OWNER TO OCCUPY THESE, THESE, UH, HOMES.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE YOU GOT A BUNCH OF INVESTORS COMING IN, THEY'RE GONNA BUY THESE PROPERTIES, THEY'RE GONNA RENT THEM JUST LIKE THAT ONE VOICEMAIL SAID.
THERE'S A THOUSAND UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW, LESS THAN A MILE AWAY.
WE HAVE TONS OF APARTMENTS ALL AROUND HERE.
THIS DOESN'T SERVE A NEED SINGLE FAMILY DID.
IT IS JUST LIKE THE PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
YOU HAVE INVESTORS COMING UP, THEY BUY THE LAND, THEY DEVELOP IT, THEY TURN IT INTO RENTAL PROPERTY.
AND WHAT SAN ANTONIO NEEDS IS SINGLE FAMILY AND WE CAN'T GET IT.
SO WE ARE, YOU KNOW, OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT.
UH, I KNOW IT DOESN'T ADD THAT MUCH FOR, FROM A STANDPOINT OF POPULATION.
IT DOES TAKE IT FROM 19 PROPERTIES TO 32, I THINK.
BUT THEY'RE ALL GONNA BE RENTAL WHERE THEY WOULD'VE BEEN SINGLE FAMILY.
AND I, I'M
[00:45:01]
RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THE HEIGHTS OF CARRIAGE HILLS, WE'VE GOT THE OVERLOOK, WE GOT, WE GOT, UH, EAGLE LEDGE, ALL SINGLE FAMILY.VERY NICE, VERY, VERY GOOD CRIME STATISTICS.
JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US IS OXBOW.
I LIVE AT 72 22 CARRIAGE OAKS, UH, AS MIKE WAS SAYING.
AND, UH, THINGS HAVE GOTTEN REALLY COMPACT SINCE THEY BUILT THE TEMPLE THERE.
UH, THOSE PEOPLE NOT ONLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PARK, THEY COME DOWN THROUGH BAMBERG WAY AND PARK ON EACH SIDE OF OUR STREET.
AND FOR A LONG TIME THEY WOULD EVEN PARK IN THE PARK AT BAMBERG PARK AND TAKE UP ALL THE SPACES THERE.
AND THEN THEY MOVE TO THAT, UH, APARTMENT FINDER'S BUILDING.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING DOWN THERE.
SO NOW THEY'RE SPREADING OUT MORE AND MORE.
AND LIKE MIKE SAYS, THAT STREET YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 60 PEOPLE THAT'S GONNA BE LIVING RIGHT HERE.
I DON'T CARE HOW YOU FIGURE IT.
AND NOBODY CAN TELL US FOR SURE.
IS THIS GOING TO BE RENTAL PROPERTY OR IS THIS GONNA BE PROPERTY THEY'RE GONNA LIVE IN? TO ME, IT'S GONNA BE RENTAL PROPERTY.
THEY CAN SIT HERE AND SAY IT'S NOT AND THAT THEY'RE GONNA LIVE IN THERE.
BUT THAT'S MORE RENTAL PROPERTY AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THAT AREA.
THEM PEOPLE COME DOWN, THEY COME DOWN BABCOCK AND THAT THREE-WAY, STOP SIGN, YOU'RE TAKING YOUR LIFE INTO YOUR OWN HANDS.
IF YOU PULL OUT WITH SOMEBODY COMING DOWN, UH, BABCOCK, BECAUSE THEY, AND SOME OF 'EM ARE CITY EMPLOYEES THAT RUN THOSE STOP SIGNS.
SO YOU'RE GONNA PUT 60 MORE PEOPLE AT THIS INTERSECTION THAT'S TRYING TO GET OUT ON A STREET THAT ALL IT HAS IS A THREEWAY STOP SIGN.
SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET KILLED AT THAT STOP SIGN BAD.
SO THIS NEEDS TO STOP THE AND AND THE, LIKE I SAID, WE, WE CAN'T GET ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MONITOR THAT STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NOT REALLY A PLACE FOR THEM TO SET UP.
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THERE'S PEOPLE THAT COMES DOWN BABCOCK, THEY'RE RUNNING 16, 70 MILES AN HOUR.
THEY HAVE HIT THE BRIDGE, THEY'VE HIT EVERYTHING, THEY'VE RUN INTO HOUSES.
SO WE GET NO HELP OUT THERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS HIGHWAY.
SO THIS IS, THIS NEEDS TO STOP.
I DON'T WANT IT, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.
AND THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
MS. FARMAN, DID YOU WANNA CHANCE FOR A SHORT REBUTTAL? SURE, YEAH.
UM, SO, SO WE ARE ONLY ADDING 13 UNITS.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY BE A CONCERN THAT THE IDEA OF THIS ISN'T MULTIFAMILY, BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE IDEA THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE MULTIFAMILY ZONE MULTIFAMILY, UM, YOU KNOW, CAN, CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING FOR SOME.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S ONLY 13 UNITS IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE TRAFFIC, UM, AS PART OF THE PLATING PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, THERE WEREN'T ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED.
UM, BUT THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AGAIN FOR THOSE 13 UNITS AS WELL.
UH, AND REGARDING RENTALS, I MEAN THE INTENT RIGHT NOW IS FOR THESE TO BE OWNED AND THEN ONE SIDE TO BE RENTED.
UM, THE CITY DOES NOT CONTROL THAT.
YOU DON'T CONTROL VIBRANT MY HOUSE OR SOMEONE ELSE RENTS THEIR HOME.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW PROPERTIES ARE RENTED AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK TO COMMUNITY ABOUT THAT AND, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HOMES ARE RENTED.
UM, PEOPLE NEED A PLACE TO LIVE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPTION WHERE YOU HAVE OWNERS ON SITE, UM, AND WHERE YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT, UM, HAS A PLAN AND THEN ALSO HAS RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW IT IS MANAGED, UM, AND, AND LIVED IN.
UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT EIGHT CASE, SO TO YOU COMMISSIONER ORTIZ FOR QUESTIONS.
I'M GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ASHLEY, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO ON RECORD, WILL THIS BE A HARD STOP AT 17 UNITS? UH, WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITION TO THE 17 UNITS? 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE HAVING A SITE PLAN DONE.
SO, SO THIS IS THIS, THE PUD PLAN GOES WITH THE ZONING CASE.
UM, AND SO THIS IS 32 UNITS, UM, UP FROM THE CURRENT PUD PLAN, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 19.
[00:50:01]
OF THE UNIT, WHAT THEY'RE GONNA LOOK LIKE? POSSIBLY? WE, WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING.I, IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED FOR THE GOTCHA FOR THE PROPERTY YET.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SEE, AT LEAST THE HEIGHT.
UM, AND WOULD THE HEIGHT BE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN? WHAT DO YOU PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE HAPPY TO NOTE THE HEIGHT ON THE SITE PLAN IF WE CAN.
UM, PUD HAS A HEIGHT REGULATION OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES, SO THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO ABIDE TO THE EXISTING PUD THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WOULD THAT ALSO BE PART OF THE PUD? THAT WOULD BE INITIATED.
THERE IS, UM, SORRY GIMME ONE SECOND.
YOU TALKING ABOUT THE UH, PERIMETER SETBACK? NO, HE IS TALKING ABOUT BUFFERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL, IF IT WOULD BE A BACKYARD OF THOSE HOMES.
WITH A, I GUESS EACH WITH A FENCE.
THERE WILL BE A TREE REVIEW SO THERE WILL, THAT REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED AND DETERMINED WHAT THE NEED WILL BE.
AND THEN AS FAR AS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, I'M LOOKING AT THIS, IS THIS JUST, HOW MANY ENTRANCE ARE THERE GONNA BE FOR THE RESIDENCE? ONE.
AND THAT'S JUST COMING OFF BAUMBERG WAY OR THAT BABCOCK UH, BAMBERGER WAY? YES, BA OKAY.
I'M GONNA ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO STA THANKS.
AND THEN AS FAR AS QUESTION FOR YOU, BECAUSE I WAS WONDERING IS I KNOW THE R THREE POD, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR THE, IS IT BECAUSE OF THE DUPLEXES THAT ARE ON THE LOTS? IS THAT THE REASON WHY THEY CAN, THEY'RE GOING TO AN MF 18 INSTEAD OF THE R THREE? CORRECT.
UM, THE R THREE IS MEANT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
SO, UM, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT DUPLEX USE ON EACH LOT.
AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE MF 18 PUT, WOULD THAT, WOULD THEY BE LOCKED INTO THAT AS FAR AS THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR THEM TO EXIST, LIKE ADDING ON MORE AND MAYBE JUST A DECREASE INSTEAD OF, INSTEAD OF INCREASE? THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY CANNOT INCREASE THE DENSITY OR THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT ARE CALLED OUT ON THIS PED PLAN.
AND THEN ONE MORE, AND THEN ONE MORE START WITH THE PROPERTY PLAN WITH REVISED LAYOUT.
DOES THAT ELIMINATE THEM ADDING ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE? COULD THEY ADD ON PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE? NO.
ADDING ON PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TYPICALLY THE SIMILAR PROCESS OF, UM, GOING BEFORE PUBLIC.
AND THEN THE QUESTION REGARDING THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WHERE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT, CAN THEY, I GUESS WITH THAT, WOULD THAT BE PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THEY WOULD DO, SEE IF THEY WOULD NEED A TRAFFIC LIGHT ON BARN BURGER WAY? THAT IS CORRECT.
I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I APOLOGIZE.
THE HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE 45 FEET.
BUT AGAIN, IF THEY ARE BUDDING ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE FIRST 50 FEET, THAT'S A BUDDING, THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WOULD HAVE TO MATCH THE SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT REGULATION OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET AS A STATE KIND OF WITH THE, THE, THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY LOOKS RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT, I GUESS FOLLOW THAT SAME LOOK WITH THE TWO AND A HALFS, WOULD THAT BE WELL AGAIN, ANYTHING THAT IS A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UM, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE, UH, WEST OF THE PROPERTY, UHHUH, THAT FIRST 50 FEET WOULD HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE TWO AND A HALF STORY THAT IS NORMAL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THEN BEYOND THAT IT COULD GO UP TO 45 FEET.
ALRIGHT, AND QUESTIONS? FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
COMMISSIONER WHITSETT, MAYBE I'M JUST, I NEED A LITTLE FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
DOES THAT COUNT AS THE 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL? THE CPS EASEMENT THAT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY A PART OF THIS, OR NO, I'M SORRY, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I GUESS IT'S OUTSIDE OF IT, BUT DOES THAT COUNT AS FAR AS 50 FEET? SO THEN THEY GET TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEY COULD GO MORE THAN 50.
AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ABUTTING THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
SO IF THAT IS OPEN LAND, UM, IT WOULD NOT, UH, BE APPLICABLE.
SO WHAT IS NOT APPLICABLE? SO THEY COULD, THEY COULD, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY GO UP TO 45 FEET.
AND THEN I, THIS IS PROBABLY, I GUESS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WHEN SHE'S DONE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, AS THE PERMITS ARE BEING SUBMITTED, THE MORE DETAILED REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED BASED OFF OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT IS SUBMITTED.
ARE THESE GONNA BE CONDOS OR IS STRICTLY A NO.
ONE PERSON WOULD OWN THE LOT AND THEN RENT THE OTHER SIDE AND ONE BACK TO THE STAFF.
SO COULD THEY DO ADUS HERE? NO, ADUS WOULD NOT
[00:55:01]
BE PERMITTED ON THE, UM, MF 18.MAY I MAKE ONE COMMENT? UM, AND, AND NOT UNLESS, UH, COMMISSIONER ASKS.
SO THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER MR. MIKE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME AND MAKE A COMMENT THAT'S FINE.
CAN YOU SPEAKING TO THE MIC PLEASE? SHE KEEPS SAYING OWNER OCCUPIED.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE, THESE ARE INVESTORS AND BOTH SIDES WILL BE RENTED, I GUARANTEE IT.
SO THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GIVING THE, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRING THE OWNER TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY THROUGH THEIR, UH, THROUGH THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO IT'S JUST INVESTORS COMING IN AND BUYING THESE PROPERTIES AND RENTING THEM OUT.
THE SAME PROBLEM THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS.
SINGLE FAMILY FOR PEOPLE, YOUNG FAMILIES THAT NEED HOMES, THEY DON'T NEED IT.
THEY DON'T NEED DUPLEXES AND MILLIONS OF APARTMENTS.
ACTUALLY, I JUST ONE MORE QUESTION FOR ASHLEY.
I'M LOOKING AT THE OPEN SPACE LOT.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO COUNT POSSIBLY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE LISTED IN THAT OPEN LOT TO ADD EXTRA PARKING? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS GONNA BE LIKE AN OVERFLOW POSSIBLY, RIGHT? FOR THE RESIDENTS? THERE'S, THERE'S SOME OVERFLOW PARKING IN THE CENTER.
UM, I THINK THE OPEN SPACE LOT, UM, WE COULD LOOK AT ADDING PARKING THERE, BUT IT'S ALSO NEEDED, I BELIEVE FOR DETENTION PURPOSES.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S NO RUNOFF.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NO? NO.
UH, QUESTIONS? FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT? NONE.
COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? NONE.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR SAWS, IF Y'ALL COULD.
AND THAT WAS IN, IN, AS YOU'RE WALKING UP HERE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE OPEN SPACE ALLOWED ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER AND I WAS WONDERING IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE 65% OR IT ALLOWED THEM TO GET TO 65%, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE? UM, IT, IT ALLOWED 'EM TO GET TO 65%.
FOR A MULTI, FOR A MULTIFAMILY.
THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
UH, BACK TO YOU SEEING LAST CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS? NONE.
ALRIGHT, BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER ORTIZ FOR A MOTION.
UM, FIRST OFF, I'M GO AHEAD AND START OFF WITH, I'D LIKE TO THANK SAWS AND FOR THE REPORT AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT AND THEIR PRESENTATION TODAY.
UM, ONE THING THAT WE MENTION A LOT IN THE SESSIONS IS, UH, ON DIFFERENT CASES IS THAT IT APPEARS IT'S COMMUNITY OUTREACH AMONG THE APPLICANTS.
UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND REACHING OUT TO THE VOICEMAILS AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT CAME IN TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE.
THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF JUST VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND CONCERNS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THE VOICE WITHIN THE PARTIES THAT SPOKE TODAY AND TODAY'S CONCERNS WITH THE MF 18 CHANGE.
BUT WITH THE PUD ATTACHED TO THE, UH, TO THIS PROTECTS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHILE PRESERVING THE NATURAL AMENITIES AND PROVIDING A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, UM, WITH THE SITE PLAN CHANGE AND THE RENDERINGS THAT WILL HOPEFULLY WILL BE PROVIDED BY CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND THE ITEMS SET OF RECORD, THIS WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
UM, WITH THAT I'LL BE SUPPORTING SAS AND CITY'S RECOMMENDATION AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOTTLES.
CAN I JUST ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? I APOLOGIZE.
I ORIGINALLY SAID ANY INDU ADDITIONAL DENSITY WOULD REQUIRE A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT ACTUALLY ACCORDING TO OUR CODE AND AMENDMENT, UM, THEY COULD DO A OVERALL DENSITY, UM, NO MORE THAN 10%.
THEY COULD TECHNICALLY ADD THREE ADDITIONAL UNITS AS A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC PO PROCESS JUST LIKE THIS.
AND I BELIEVE MS. FERMAN ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT THE PRESENTATION.
DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER, JUST A DISCUSSION AGAIN, JUST REGARDING THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS THAT CAME IN TODAY, HOPEFULLY THEY CAN COME TO GET WITH THE APPLICANT AND SEE IF NOW I HAD UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS REGARDING, YOU KNOW, RENTAL PROPERTIES AND STUFF, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN ADDRESS HERE AT ZONING.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH THE APPLICANT AS YOU GET TO CITY COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT? NONE.
UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, I REMEMBER WHEN MY PARENTS OWNED A DUPLEX AND WE LIVED ON ONE SIDE AND WE RENTED OUT THE SECOND SIDE AND THERE WAS WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG
[01:00:01]
AND IT WAS A CHANCE TO GIVE YOUNG FAMILIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY, UM, BUILD, UH, GENERATIONAL WEALTH.THAT'S WHY I LOVE MY COMMISSION HERE IS THEY'RE ALWAYS ABLE TO, TO KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
UM, SO I WILL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE PLEASE.
IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALEX RATANA PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS LOCATED AT 41 31 COLLAB ROAD GOING FROM R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO C TWO CD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH ALL OVERLAYS STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 30 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET.
CBRA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF C TWO NACD COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AN R FIVE CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ON THE BACK HALF OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
THE CURRENT R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED C TWO CD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
WHILE HALF OF THE PROPERTY FRONTS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL AND IS PLACED IN SIZE TO ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE, THE BACK HALF OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT AS IT IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE CAN BE ACHIEVED BY LIMITING IT TO THE FRONT HALF OF THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS COLLAB ROAD WHILE MAINTAINING THE RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF THE BACK PORTION.
THUS, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF C TWO CD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ON LOT NINE AND THE WEST 31.3 FEET OF LOT 10 AND R FIVE CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ON LOT EIGHT IN THE WEST, 31.3 FEET OF LOT SEVEN.
THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AMEND THEIR REQUEST.
ALRIGHT, IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
UH, HELLO? UH, MY NAME'S DANIEL AGUILAR.
I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE ADDRESS IS 47, MY ADDRESS RIGHT.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, OH, THAT'S THE CORRECT SITE PLAN.
THEY HAD THE WRONG ONE ON THE EARLIER UH, SCREEN, BUT, UM, YES.
UM, SO WE MET WITH THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ASSOCIATION.
UH, WE DID THE, WE SENT PEOPLE OUT TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY WAS ON BOARD ONCE WE SAID WE WOULD KEEP THE FRONT COMMERCIAL, THE REAR, UH, RESIDENTIAL, JUST ALLOW FOR PARKING AT THE REAR.
UM, AND AT THE INITIALLY THERE, THERE'S AN ALLEY OF PAPER STREET THAT, THAT IN, UH, AT THE BEGINNING IT WAS, IT WAS, IT'S BEING USED AS ACCESS RIGHT NOW AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED.
THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED.
UH, BUT WE'RE NO LONGER GONNA USE THAT AS AN ACCESS.
WE'RE GONNA PUT A, A NEW DRIVEWAY.
I'M, I'M NOT, WE'RE NOT THE DESIGN ENGINEER YET.
BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE TO PUT A NEW DRIVEWAY AND REMAIN ON THE SINGLE LOT.
NOW IT'S, I IT IS REFERRED TO AS A HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG HOME DEPOT.
THEY, THEY'RE GONNA BE SELLING SMALL MATERIALS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOMEBODY DRIVING BY.
UM, BUT WITH THAT SAID, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I I'LL ASK THEM.
ALRIGHT, SO I GUESS THE, OH, WELL FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.
THIS IS A DISTRICT SEVEN CASE, SO IT GOES TO ME.
[01:05:01]
SO FOR THE APPLICANT, THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, ARE YOU OFFICIALLY AMENDING YOUR REQUEST TO MEET STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? YES.UH, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM Y'ALL? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? NONE.
UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE WITH AS AMENDED TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR C TWO CD D IN A YES.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WANNA RECCO, THEY WANNA ADD THE NA FOR THE C TWO, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, CD PART.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? YES.
UH, THE ASSOCIATION, UH, THERE NO ALCOHOL? YES, FOR SURE.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION WHEN COMPLETED, WHEN
WELL, WHILE THEY'RE, THEY'RE DISCUSSING, UM, THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH THE COLLIBRA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, PAUL, WE JUST RECEIVED THIS THIS MORNING, SO WE DID NOT GET TO REVIEW IT.
STAFF DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REALLY REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS ON THE SITE PLAN.
UM, I KNOW THAT WE TYPICALLY REQUEST A CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS ARE SEEING THE COMPLETE ITEM, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MEETING THE REGULATIONS AND AMENDING.
BUT AGAIN, WE DIDN'T GET CHANCE STAFF DID NOT GET A TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS THERE ON THIS SITE PLAN.
AND SO I GUESS THE, THE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS WHAT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SITE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED EARLIER? THE OTHER SITE PLAN PLAN? WELL, I'M SORRY.
AND, AND THAT'S ASKING YOU WHEN YOU SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, SORRY.
I WILL SAY THAT THE ACCESS THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WITHIN THE ALLEYWAY THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED IS NOW GOING TO BE MOVED ONTO THE PROPERTY.
SO THE SITE PLAN IS GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT REQUEST.
UM, AND IF, IF THERE ARE THINGS MISSING ON THERE, WE'RE GONNA NEED A CHANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE ADDED.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE REALLY CAN'T APPROVE AS SUBMITTED TODAY AS AMENDED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
I WOULD REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.
BUT JUST SO WE HAVE THAT CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS THERE BEFORE IT IS PRESENTED TO THE COM TO THE COMMISSION.
JUST WANNA SAY THAT IT WASN'T ON MY STAFF.
UM, WELL, IN THAT CASE, UH, AM GOING TO, I CAN RESCIND MY MOTION, CORRECT? YES.
AND I WILL MAKE A NEW MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THE JULY 16TH MEETING.
SORRY, BUT IT MIGHT, IT, IT, IT'LL MOST LIKELY PROBABLY BE ON THAT MAY MOST LIKELY PROBABLY IT MOST LIKELY WILL BE ON CONSENT.
I, I UNDERSTAND IT'LL BE QUICK.
ALRIGHT, SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR A, UH, CONTINUANCE TO THE JULY 16TH MEETING FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE.
UM, IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE.
ALEX ANA ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS LOCATED AT 4 3 3 7 4 3 4 3 AND 4 3 4 7 COMMERCIAL AVENUE.
GOING FROM R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAYS STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 30 NOTICES SENT OUT.
THREE IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET.
HARLAND DEL MCCOLLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
ONE IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET.
THE EXISTING R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING
[01:10:01]
FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.THE PROPOSED MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS ALSO AN APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY USE ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITH THE MIX OF DENSITY FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED WITH THE EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME ZONING DISTRICT TO THE WEST.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE HOUSING TYPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S GROWING POPULATION AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
ALVIN PETERS, 1 0 1 6 STATE HIGHWAY 46 EAST.
BERNIE, UM, DO WE HAVE THIS EXHIBIT? OKAY, GOOD.
I'LL WAIT FOR THE EXHIBIT TO COME UP.
UH, WE'RE PROPOSING FOUR APARTMENT, I'M SORRY, THREE APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
UH, THE FIRST APARTMENT BUILDING FACING THE STREET, COMMERCIAL AVENUE WOULD BE TWO STORIES TALL.
THE ADDITIONAL TWO AT THE REAR MIDDLE, AND THE REAR OF THE LOT WOULD BE FOUR STORIES TALL ALTOGETHER.
UM, AND THAT WAS A REQUEST, UM, I THINK BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE WENT TO DALE MCCULLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS A COUPLE TIMES TWICE.
AND, UH, THAT WAS THE, AND THEY TALKED A LOT ABOUT SECURITY AND, UM, MAKING SURE WE HAD A, IT WAS A GATED COMMUNITY, UM, WHICH, WHICH WAS EASY TO DO.
THE, THE OWNERS ON THIS PROJECT, ACTUALLY BOTH LOCAL SAN ANTONIO FOLKS, UM, THEY APPRECIATE THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANNA DO.
THEIR INTENT IS TO, UM, HAVE OPPORTUNITY.
ALL THE COMMERCIAL GROWTH COMING DOWN FOUR 10.
UM, IT, IT, IT'S NOT STOPPING STARTED UP AT BROOKS CITY BASE AND IT'S HEADING, UH, WEST TO HIGHWAY 16, A AND S ACROSS THE HIGHWAY ACROSS FOUR 10, PROBABLY A MILE AWAY.
PA ALTO'S, UH, TO THE WEST, PROBABLY AGAIN A MILE AWAY.
UH, THEY FEEL IT'S, THERE'S A NEED FOR, UM, BOTH SINGLE, UM, FOLKS AND YOUNG FAMILIES, MAYBE EVEN RETIREES.
UM, THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD IS ROUGH.
IT NEEDS SOME SORT OF INVESTMENT THOUGH.
WE, WE WALKED THE BLOCKS AND WE GO TO DOOR, DOOR TO DOOR LEAVE FLYERS AND THERE WERE, UH, AT LEAST TWO, UM, UH, VACANT HOMES AND ONE HOME WHERE, UH, A VERY NICE ELDERLY LADY WAS BLIND.
AND, YOU KNOW, I TRIED TO CONVINCE HER TO SIGN THE FORM.
SHE SAID, I CAN'T EVEN READ IT,
SO THIS IS A, UH, SITE PLAN WITH THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AND, AND WE JUST HAVE COLORED, UM, THE, I THINK THE PINK, LET ME, LET ME GET ME A LEGEND SECOND.
MAKE SURE I'M NOT TELLING YOU WRONG.
UM, YEAH, THE, THE PINK, SO THREE LOTS UP ON TOP OF, OF MY SITE OF THE, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX SITE OBJECTED.
AND THEN ONE, ONE, UH, OWNER ACROSS THE STREET KIND AT BU AT BUCHANAN OBJECTED.
THE FOLKS THAT WERE FOR IT WERE IN BLUE, THAT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEN, UM, I THINK WE HAD THE, UH, PINK DASH LINES, A COUPLE LOTS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FOLKS ARE.
UM, WELL I BELIEVE ONE LOT A WOMAN.
THE OWNER JUST DIED RECENTLY, SO IT'S IN LIMBO AND ANOTHER LOT.
UM, WE, WE, WE DON'T KNOW, EVERY TIME WE GO, WE LEFT A BUNCH OF FLYERS AND I THINK THREE TOTAL AND NEVER GOT ANY RESPONSES.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE STANDING AT THE, IN FRONT OF THE STREET, FOUR TENS RIGHT THERE.
UM, UM, YOU EITHER GO UNDERNEATH, UH, FOUR 10 AND, AND AND HEAD WEST AND THERE'LL BE AN ON RAMP.
UM, NOT THAT FAR, MAYBE A MILE AND A MILE AND A HALF.
CHAO FOR SOME REASON AT THE RAILROAD TRACK AT THE REAR OF THE SITE IS BLOCKED OFF WITH, UH, CONCRETE HIGHWAY BARRIERS.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON THAT IN THAT AREA.
UM, I GREW UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I KNOW WELL, UM, IT'S, IT'S SAD TO SEE IT DETERIORATE, SO, UH, BAD.
I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE.
I DON'T CURRENTLY LIVE HERE, BUT I HAVE, I GOT SEVEN ACRES ON MEDINA ON PLEASANTON ROAD AND FIVE ON, ON,
[01:15:01]
UM, ON, UH, HIGHWAY 16 ON A MEDINA.YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY'S INTERESTED IN DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE, WE'RE INVESTED DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THOUGH I DON'T CURRENTLY LIVE THERE, BUT, UM, I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
UM, ESPECIALLY THE RAILROAD TRACK AT THE REAR OF THE SITE.
I MEAN A, A BIGGER BUILDING, A TALLER BUILDING, UM, SHOVED UP AGAINST THE RAILROAD WILL ACT AS A BARRIER TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, TO THE EAST, TO THE EAST OF IT.
UM, TO STOP SOME OF THAT NOISE THOUGH, I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE RAIL LINES AREN'T RUNNING AS FREQUENTLY AS THEY USED TO.
WITH THAT, I, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE'LL FIND OUT.
UM, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.
UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT IS IT? THERE'S A DISTRICT THREE CASE, SO YOU, TO YOU COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA FOR QUESTIONS? YES.
UH, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOURSELF.
ACTUALLY, TWO QUESTIONS, UH, STAFF.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE WITH THE DOG OR DOGS? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? THE ONE WITH THE STREET VIEW? WAS IT THE SITE PLAN? OH, ON THE PRESENTATION THEY'RE PULLING.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW IT'S GONNA BE A GATED APARTMENT COMPLEX.
UM, WILL THE GATES WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF DOGS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
I KNOW, UH, THAT WAS TOUGH WALKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WEREN'T ALL, UH, FENCED IN
IT WAS SCARY, BUT, UM, YEAH, NO, IT'LL BE OPERABLE GATE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF CARD ENTRY SURE.
BECAUSE I KNOW WE'D SEE A LOT OF PARTNERS THAT THOSE GO OUT YEAH.
YEAH, THE INTENTION'S GOOD, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT KINDA, YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, FROM THE OWNERS IS THAT IT WILL BE DATED.
UM, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU, SIR.
WELL, ACTUALLY NO, IT WAS THE SECOND ONE.
JUST CURIOUS, YOU SAY YOU GREW UP IN THE AREA, DID YOU, DID YOU GO TO HIGH SCHOOL? MCCULLUM.
YEAH, SO HIS DAUGHTER I THINK WAS ON THE HAR MCCULLUM BOARD AND THAT WAS FUN.
MY MOM WENT TO HARLANDALE MYSELF, SO I, I GUESS, WE'LL, WE WON'T GET INTO THAT SINCE YOU'RE, BUT I APPRECIATE IT.
SO WITH THE ZONING, THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, THAT HE'S REQUESTING, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT THERE? AND THEN, SO YOU SAID, UH, CURRENTLY YOU SAID YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 126.
I THINK WE'RE RIGHT AT THE MAXIMUM.
I MEAN, IN, IN REALITY, I, I THINK WE STILL GOTTA GO IF WE GET PAST THE REZONING.
WE GOT A LONG ROAD, UH, ROAD AHEAD OF US IN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, OUR DRAINAGE, UM, THE TENSION, UH, IT MAY BE REDUCED.
YEAH, JUST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THERE'S UM, IT'S 5.33 ACRES AND SO THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR THE MF 33 AND IT WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT UP TO 176 UNITS.
I THINK OUR BARRIER THERE IS WE WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.
I, I MEAN, THINK, UH, WE FIGURE 126 MAX AND IS IS THE, THE AMOUNT UNITS WE COULD HAVE THAT PARKING COULD SUPPORT.
I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 180, WE NEED 180 PARKING SPACES AND THAT'S WHAT THE PLAN REFLECTS.
AND THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION FOR STAFF, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES HE WOULD NEED? THEY WOULD NEED? UM, FOR MULTIFAMILY, THE MINIMUM IS 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT.
SO IF THEY HAD A MAXIMUM OF 176 UNITS, THE MINIMUM, UH, PARKING SPACES WOULD BE 264.
WE COULDN'T DO IT THAT WITH THE SITE.
WE HAVE NO, KNOWING THAT WE GOTTA TAKE CARE OF TRAFFIC, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE A DECELERATION LAYING ON THE FRONT AND THEN, UH, SOME SORT OF DETENTION AT THE REAR.
AND THEN REMIND ME, UM, MAYBE NOT.
WELL MAYBE STOP WHAT OR SIR, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? ALVIN.
ALVIN WHAT? AND STAFF ALSO, WHAT IS FROM YOUR APARTMENT CONFLICT OR YOUR, YOUR DEVELOPMENT SOUTH TO FOUR 10? IS IT JUST EMPTY LOTS? UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE, RIGHT? YEAH.
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, IT WAS, IS A, IS A LARGE VACANT LOT, AND THAT IS ON BUCHANAN.
IT'S, IT'S A CITY OF SAN ANTONIO RIGHT AWAY.
UM, IT'S A DIRT ROAD, UH, RIGHT NOW AND A DUMP NEAR THE END.
UH, MY CLIENTS ARE CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING WITH THE OWNERS.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THAT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, HEADING TOWARDS FOUR TENS, I MEAN, IT'S A BUNCH OF JUNK.
THERE'S A PALLET STORE OR A STORAGE YARD.
IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.
IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF A BIG MESS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I I LOVE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON FOUR 10 TO THE EAST OF HERE.
YOU'RE FINALLY SEEING, UM, NATIONAL COMMERCIAL CHANGE COMING IN AND BUILDING AND THEY'RE DOING WELL
[01:20:01]
AND I LOVE TO SEE WHAT NAVISTAR HAS DONE, WHAT TOYOTA HAS DONE, UH, AND THE OTHER, UH, FACTORIES COMING IN THAT AREA.IT'LL ONLY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE.
AND I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN OUT THERE IN THAT AREA RECENTLY.
YEAH, IT IS WHAT I REMEMBER THAT, AND I LOOK AT THE MAP HERE, THAT THAT'S THE AREA WHERE COMMERCIAL YOU CAN ONLY GO.
WAS IT EAST ON FOUR 10? THERE YOU GO.
UNDERNEATH FOUR 10 AND, AND HEAD EAST.
AND THEN, UH, THE, RIGHT NOW UNTIL THEY CLEAR CHAU, UH, FROM THE CONCRETE BARRIERS, I MEAN YOU GOTTA GO HEAD, UH, NORTH ON COMMERCIAL, GO TO VILLA RAY, TAKE A LEFT AND YOU'LL HOP OUT ON UH, SERGEANT MORA.
UH, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, UH, CHAIR.
UM, COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS? NONE COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
SO BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, UP FOR A MOTION, YOU KNOW, WITH THOSE RAILROADS, RIGHT? THOSE TRACKS RIGHT BEHIND OR TO THE LEFT OF IT, DEPENDING HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT.
UM, OR I GUESS WEST OF THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING, GOING TO FOUR 10.
UM, I DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH OF A, UM, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
SO I WILL, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
WELL, I GUESS I GOTTA MAKE A MOTION.
UM, SO I, MY MOTION WOULD BE TO, FOR APPROVAL OF THE, UM, OF THE ZONING REQUEST.
THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM FOUR.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITSETT, UH, DISCUSSION.
ITEM NUMBER SIX I BELIEVE IS NEXT IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, MY NAME IS KELLY SANDERS, PLANNING COORDINATOR WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS RE IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C TWO TO MF 33 WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED LOCATED AT 1 5 8 9 5 SOUTH STATE HIGHWAY 1682.
NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
THE EXISTING C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE REQUESTED MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS NOT APPROPRIATE ZONING AS A BASIC PLANNING PRINCIPLE.
RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE NOT COMMONLY LOCATED WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO INDUSTRIAL USES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE EXISTING C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WAS PURPOSELY ZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG POTI JORDAN HIGHWAY TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES TO EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES AND ACT AS A BUFFER BETWEEN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE INDUSTRIAL USES.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
UH, THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY, IT'S 35 ACRES.
CAN YOU, UM, JUST SPEAK YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? YES, SORRY.
FEIN OV 1901 NORTHWEST MILITARY DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU FOR APPROVAL TODAY IS 35 ACRES LOCATED IN WATSON ROAD AND HIGHWAY 16.
THE GENERAL VICINITY HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, IT'S UNDEVELOPED LAND AND HAS A CONVENIENCE STORE.
WE ARE TRYING TO DOWN ZONE THIS FROM C TWO TO MF 33.
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY, UH, POINTED WITH RED OVER THERE.
UH, THERE'S GOING ALONG, UH, WITH CAUSAL POLICIES IN CURRENT DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT MEETS HOUSING GOALS IN SOUTH OF, ON THE SOUTH CIRCUIT PLAN.
UH, THE BERK COUNTY IS SIGNING UP RESIDENTS FROM 1.1 MILLION TO 500 DWELLING
[01:25:01]
UNITS FROM 2040.THAT'S WHAT THE PROJECTIONS ARE.
THE INCREASING AVERAGE DENSITY WILL HELP REDUCE SOME OF THE DEMAND IN THE LAND AND WILL REDUCE ALSO THE TRAVEL DEMAND.
UH, WE ARE A LITTLE BIT FAR, BUT NOT SO FAR FROM THE TEXAS A AND M REGIONAL CENTER.
AND REGARDING TO THE, UH, TO THE TEXAS A AND M REGIONAL CENTER, THE FORECAST ON GROWTH IS GONNA BE FROM 1700 TO 16, FIVE NEW HOUSEHOLDS FROM 2010 TO 2040.
AND ALSO THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA, THE MAJORITY DON'T LIVE IN THE AREA AND 58% COMMUTE FROM 10 TO 24 MILES EVERY DAY.
UH, THE NEXT ONE IS JUST SHOWING YOU WHERE, WHERE WE ARE.
I MEAN, AS I SAY, FROM INDUSTRIAL, WE ARE FROM THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY OF TOYOTA, 2.81 MILES.
AND ON THE NORTH YOU CAN SEE ALSO THE TEXAS A AND M PROPERTY THAT'S GONNA COME LATER ON IS 2.93 FROM THE CENTER OF OF TOYOTA.
THEY HAVE USED SOMETIMES THE CENTER OR THE PERIMETER FOR ANY, ANYTHING THAT THEY MAKE.
THE DECISIONS HAVE TO SAY THAT BOTH PROJECTS ARE EXTREMELY GOOD AND EXTREMELY NEEDED FOR THIS AREA.
THERE'S BARELY APARTMENTS HERE.
THE NEXT ONE WILL SHOW THE TEXAS A AND M PLAN THAT IS IN, IN, IN PROCESS TO BE, UH, BROUGHT HERE IN PLANNING AGAIN.
IT WAS PUSHED BACK AGAIN IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST WEEK.
UM, I HAVE TO SAY THAT, UH, THE PROPOSED ELEMENT IS DOWNTURNING FROM C TWO TO MF 33.
IT'S PART OF THE PRESERVE OF MEDINA RIVER, WHICH IS A, THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY THAT WE BUILT OVER 20 YEARS NOW.
AND IT WILL REDUCE OVERALL TRIP FROM BY 43% ON HIGHWAY 16.
WE HAVE ALL THE UTILITIES IN PLACE AND ALSO WE HAVE FIVE BUFFERS THAT GOES FROM THE TOYOTA PLANT TO OUR PROPERTY.
UH, WHEN THEY SAY FROM PROXIMITY TO INDUSTRIAL USES, I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE ARE ACROSS FROM WATSON ROAD AND ALSO HIGHWAY 16, WHICH IS A MAIN HIGHWAY.
IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE RED, ALL THE FRONTAGE WILL BE KEPT AS COMMERCIAL.
THE BACK PART IS THE ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REZONE, NOT THE FRONTAGE.
THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, UNDEVELOPED AREA AND THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES ALREADY.
WE'RE PLANNING IN THE BACK PART ABOUT 1300 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO BUY HOMES.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING APARTMENTS TO THE PLACE.
TOYOTA, ACCORDING TO THIS IS 1.5 MILES IF YOU GO FROM THE PERIMETER, BUT 2.8 MILES, IF YOU GO FROM THE CENTER OF TOYOTA, THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM C TWO TO MF 33 AND MEET THE GOALS AND DIVISION OF SAN ANTONIO.
AND ON THE NEXT STEPS, UH, TAKE IT TO COUNCIL ON THE 8TH OF AUGUST BECAUSE THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO, TO DO BEFORE WE GO THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR CASE, SO TO YOU COMMISSIONER REYES FOR QUESTIONS.
SO THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THE FRONTAGE WILL REMAIN COMMERCIAL.
IS THAT WHAT THE, IS THAT WHAT THE REQUEST SAYS? AS YOU CAN, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE MAP, AND EVEN IF YOU SHOW OUR MAP, CAN YOU PUT OUR MAP ON? YES.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE AREA THAT IS UP FOR REZONING, THERE IS A SMALL SECTION THAT'S CONNECTED, UM, TO THE, UM, STATE HIGHWAY.
AND THEN THE BACK PORTION WOULD BE WHAT IS THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE TO MULTIFAMILY.
THAT, THAT SAYS A LOT RIGHT THERE.
AND I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THEN I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
MM-HMM,
SO ITEM TWO, UNDER RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU SAID IT DOES NOT MEET ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
SO IF COMMERCIAL STAYS ON THE FRONTAGE, DOES THAT MEET ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OR CAN YOU ELABORATE ON YOUR NUMBER ITEM TWO UNDER RECOMMENDATIONS
[01:30:01]
YOU STATE IT DOES THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.UM, SO AGAIN, WE'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY, BUT AGAIN, GOING BACK TO OUR NORMAL PRACTICES, WE TYPICALLY DON'T WANNA BRING IN HIGH DENSITY NEXT TO INDUSTRIAL USES.
YOU'VE GOT INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN MY, UH, THE STAFF REPORT TO THE NORTH, WE'VE GOT A RESTAURANT, SUPPLY STORE, TRUCKING COMPANY AND STORAGE.
YOU'VE GOT TO THE EAST, YOU'VE GOT CONCRETE P PRODUCTS SUPPLIER.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S REALLY WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, JUST TRYING TO KEEP AS MANY AND THEN ALSO ADD TO THAT BUFFER BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST TRY TO ADD MORE TO THAT BUFFER OF COMMERCIAL USES TO HELP, UM, BUFFER OR PROTECT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO GOING DOWN TO ITEM FOUR, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S AN INDICATION OF LIKELY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
I'M ASSUMING YOU MEAN THE READY MIX PLANT ACROSS THE HIGHWAY? CORRECT.
READY MIX OR THE OTHER, LIKE I SAID AGAIN, THE INDUSTRIAL, THE TRUCKING COMPANY UP TO THE NORTH, THEY'RE BRINGING IN HEAVY, UM, 18 WHEELERS THAT ARE GONNA BE DRIVING TO AND FRO.
UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE NOISE OR ANY OF THE DUST OR ANYTHING THAT CAN GET, GET INTO THE AIR, SO.
AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO FOR WITH 34 ACRES, THERE COULD BE AS MANY AS 1100 UNITS? NO.
AND I CAN SHOW YOU HERE, PLEASE.
UH, YES, I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT SURE.
NO, NO, THIS WILL GIVE YOU A GOOD IDEA ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE 34 ACRES IS IN THE BACK.
THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN IS 99 ACRES.
SO WE'RE TAKING OUT 34 ACRES OUT OF THE 99 ACRES.
AND ALL THE FRONT THAT, THAT YOU HAVE IS GONNA BE BUILT, GOD WILLING FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
THAT'S DEFINITELY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
BUT HAVING 99 ACRES ON, ON A SITE LIKE THIS, JUST C TWO, NOT EVEN IN STONE OAK, YOU HAVE THAT MANY ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN I SEE YOU HAVE ACCESS ON WATSON, SO IF PEOPLE WANT TO GO NORTH, THEY COULD EXIT ONTO WATSON TO USE THE SIGNAL TO GO NORTH INTO TOWN.
AND THEY CAN ALSO COME IN, UH, THROUGH HIGHWAY 16 AND THERE'S A CUT ALREADY IN THE HIGHWAY THAT PERMITS TO GO INTO THAT.
AND THIS MAY BE A PREMATURE QUESTION, BUT WITH YOUR PEAK HOURLY TRIPS, YOU KNOW, THE RUSH HOUR TRIPS IN AND OUT, UM, HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO TXDOT ABOUT THAT? CUT THAT CROSSOVER? WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE NOT REACHED TO TDOT, UH, BUT UH, LEMME TELL YOU, WE DID A TRAFFIC STUDY AND WE BROUGHT IN NUMBERS THAT ARE VERY, VERY GOOD FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE COMMERCIAL SITE WILL BRING MORE TRAFFIC THAN THIS TYPE OF, OF USES BECAUSE PEOPLE GO OUT AND IN JUST ONE TIME IN A DAY.
YES, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS HAVING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG HIGHWAY 16 AND THAT I AGREE WITH THAT.
SO TO THE APPLICANT, WILL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COME ALONG 16 IF IT STAYS C TWO? I MEAN, IF STAYS 99 ACRES FOR C TWO IS TOO MUCH ACREAGE, THAT'S WHY WE ARE LEAVING ALL THE FRONTAGE TO DO THAT.
UH, GOD WILLING, DEFINITELY WE HOPE THAT COMMERCIAL WILL COME, BUT YOU NEED THE ROOFTOPS FIRST.
LET ME TELL YOU TWO MILES AWAY, WE HAVE THE SOUTHWEST SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THEY HAVE TWO BEAUTIFUL SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EMPTY.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, UH, PEOPLE TO GO TO THE SCHOOLS.
WE NEED TO BUILD HERE A MIX OF THINGS, APARTMENTS, HOMES, AS I TOLD YOU, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY, BY YOU GUYS ALREADY.
AND WE HAVE 1300, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE WORKS ON ALREADY BUILT.
SO READING THE REPORT, I COULD UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S OR, OR THE STAFF'S, UH, CONCERN ABOUT C TWO REMAINING ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
THAT'S WHY I NEEDED THAT CLARIFICATION, SIR.
AND COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN JUST CHIME IN FOR A MOMENT.
UH, THE SITE PLAN THAT IS ON THE SCREEN IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE MF 33, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.
UM, SO THIS IS A, SOMETHING THAT APPLICANT PROVIDED FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S LIKE A BONUS BECAUSE IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
UM, SO WHAT, WHAT HE ACTUALLY SUBMITS, UM, WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON WHAT HIS ENGINEER IS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT IS DOABLE FOR THE PROPERTY.
AND THE OTHER THING IS THERE BASED OFF OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT
[01:35:01]
ANALYSIS STUDY OR WORKSHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION, A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WOULD BE REQUIRED.AND COMMISSIONER RAIS, IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE TYPE OF OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IN THIS AREA BECAUSE IT'S YOUR AREA.
SO I THINK YOU'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS.
SO THIS IS MORE OR LESS THE TYPE OF APARTMENTS THAT TOGETHER WITH THE DEVELOPER WE PRODUCE HERE.
AND, AND AS I SAY, UH, THE SOUTH SIDE IS, IS LOOKING BETTER EVERY DAY.
AND WE NEED TO ALSO SHOW THAT WE CAN DO THE SAME THINGS IN THE NORTH AND THE WEST AND EAST AND ALSO THE SOUTH.
UH, COMMERS, OME, COMMISSIONER HUEY QUESTIONS.
UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? YES SIR.
SIR, YOU WERE SHOWING US SOME CONS.
UH, SOME UM, I GUESS ELEVATIONS OR CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS, EVEN DEVELOPMENT.
SO ALONG THE BACKSIDE WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENTS IS RIGHT NOW, DO YOU INTEND TO HAVE THREE STORY OR TWO STORY, UH, BUILDINGS BACK THERE? IT'S GONNA BE TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS.
SO ALL ALONG THE SIDE WHERE YOU ARE BUDDING THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT'S GONNA BE TWO AND THREE STORIES.
WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE THE MF 33 AND WE HAVE NOT FINISHED THE ARCHITECTURAL BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE REALLY IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES TO, TO FIGURE IT OUT.
BUT WE WILL, UH, ALL OUR APPLICATION WILL BE IN COMMON WITH, WITH THE CITY.
A QUESTION, UH, HELP ME CLARIFY SOMETHING STAFF.
SO ON A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE 30 MF, 33 A BUDDING, A RESIDENTIAL DO, IS THERE A RESTRICTION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE UH, BUILDING? THAT IS CORRECT.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE PUD MF 18, SINCE IT IS ACTUALLY NOW A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, THOUGH THE FIRST 50 FEET FROM ALONG THAT SHARED PROPERTY LINE, WE'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET.
UM, AND THEN ALSO THERE IS NOT EXACTLY A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS REQUIRED, BUT THERE WILL BE REQUIREMENT OF A, UM, SIX FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE.
YOU ALWAYS AGREE AT PROVIDING THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.
ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER HANO, THAT QUESTIONS? YES, JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF REAL QUICK.
I, I'M JUST NOT SEEING IT VISUALLY, BUT I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T LEAVE THIS, UM, FOR THE COMMERCIAL PART WITH A BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL, DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN 16 AND UH, THEY'RE NEWLY IF THEY GET REZONED? UH, RESIDENTIAL, LIKE ON THE MAP ITSELF, IT, IT LOOKS THIN, BUT I MEAN THAT JUST, SO, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, YES THERE WOULD BE A NECESSARY BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE MF 33 SECTION, BUT THAT'S REALLY UP FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO FIGURE WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR PERMITTING.
AND JUST FOR ME THAT'S WONDERING WHAT 15 FEET I BELIEVE I CAN CHECK THAT REAL QUICK.
THERE'S NO BUFFER BETWEEN THE UH, C TWO AND MF 33 IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE IS NOT A REQUIRED BUFFER.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT QUESTIONS.
QUESTION FOR KELLY REAL QUICK.
SO LET'S SAY THIS PROPOSAL WOULD GO THROUGH, IS THERE ANY, WELL, COULD THEY COME BACK AND CHANGE THOSE C TWOS MF 33 ONCE THIS, LET'S SAY THIS DEVELOPMENT CHANGES BECAUSE THERE'S 1 2 3 C 2 0 4 THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE STREET, WOULD THEY, LET'S SAY THIS WOULD CHANGE TO MF 33, COULD THEY COME BACK IN AND TRY TO CHANGE THOSE TO MF 30 THREES AS WELL, OR THE EXISTING C TWO CLOSER TO CORRECT.
THE HIGHWAY 16? CORRECT, YES, SIR.
WHICH WOULD, WOULD CHANGE THAT.
THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME CHANCE AS WHAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER WHITSETT, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER RAY HAS COVERED A GOOD NUMBER OF MY QUESTIONS WITH THE STAFF, BUT SO I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS I, I'M SEEING YOU Y'ALL TALK ABOUT CLOSE PROXIMITY TO INDUSTRIAL USES.
YEAH, THERE IS THE PLANT ACROSS THE STREET AND THERE'S A BUSINESS PARK KIND OF TO THE NORTH, BUT I'M SEEING MOSTLY VACANT LAND.
SO THEORETICALLY THE LAND THAT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL, SOMEBODY COULD COME IN AND TRY TO REZONE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ALSO, COULD THEY NOT? IT IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT AS I MENTIONED, AND THAT'S IN MY STAFF REPORT, I DO CALL OUT USES THAT ARE ON SITE RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE TRUCKING COMPANY AND THE CONCRETE PRODUCT SUPPLIER.
[01:40:01]
PROPERTIES AND WE WOULD CALL OUT IF THERE'S UH, THERE IS VACANT LAND TO THE SOUTH AS YOU SAID.UM, BUT WE DO TRY TO CALL OUT THAT PROPERTY THAT IS IN USE WITH THE USES IN OUR STAFF REPORT.
YEAH, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A GROWING, DEVELOPING AREA AND ALL THE ZONING MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF MARKET FORCES MAY CHANGE IT DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, Y'ALL, Y'ALL ADDRESS, UH, THAT BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO THESE USES, UM, THAT THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
DO Y'ALL HAVE SOME REPORTS THAT INDICATE THAT THERE'S CONCERNS AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED OR NOT SO MUCH, UH, REPORTS, BUT JUST GENERAL PRACTICES? TYPICALLY IF WE DO SEE INDUSTRIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY, WE'RE GOING TO BE, UM, CONSERVATIVE AND JUST REALLY NOT, UM, BE HESITANT.
HESITANT TO PROMOTE, UH, MULTIFAMILY, ESPECIALLY IN HIGHER DENSITIES WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
ALSO DOWN AT RELEVANT GOALS YOU'VE GOT, YOU TALK ABOUT BUFFER ZONES IN TRANSITIONAL AREAS.
MM-HMM,
WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, THE EXACT DISTANCE.
WE JUST REALLY ARE PUSHING TO TRY TO KEEP AS MUCH COMMERCIAL THERE TO HELP BUFFER FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE EXISTING.
AND THESE ARE BASED ON ZONING PRINCIPLES.
UM, ALSO THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2010 IS A DOCUMENT THAT WE REFER TO AS WELL, WHICH IS, IT IS INCONSISTENT.
WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THERE'S SOME QUESTION, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAD WITH THE CITY.
WHAT IS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT AND WHAT IS THAT? WELL, YEAH, UH, FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THIS, THIS PROJECT WAS UNANIMOUS, UH, APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 12TH.
UH, THE, THE QUESTION TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MR. WOODS, IS WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT ANY CHANGES ON ZONING, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT.
SO AT THIS POINT, EVEN IF IT'S APPROVED BY, BY THIS COMMISSION AND ALSO BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.
SO I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE ON RECORD THAT I REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY PLANNING OR THE, THE CASE, UH, PERSON HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THIS BEAUTIFUL PROJECT IS NOT GONNA BE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO CHANGE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WE HAVE BASED ON THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE.
AND MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, ANY CHANGES TO THAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHICH, UH, THE APPLICANT IS AWARE.
I'M NOT AWARE 'CAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
SO, BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP.
WE WILL, WE'LL REACH OUT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO, TO FULFILL WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN OUR DREAMS. YOU SHOWED US PHOTOS OF ANOTHER PROJECT.
UH, IS THAT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TOO OR IS IT JUST ANOTHER UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN AFFORDABLE, THIS IS IN THE TEXAS A AND M AREA AND I THINK IT'S COMING.
I WAS READING IT AND IT'S ALSO A GREAT, A GREAT PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISTANCE FROM MY PROJECT TO THE TOYOTA, WHICH IS BASED WITH A STARBOARD AGREEMENT ON THE THREE MILES AND WE'RE INSIDE THE THREE MILES AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN ON GOING ON FOR 20 YEARS.
BUT THAT ALSO IS A GREAT, GREAT PROJECT THAT PERSONALLY I WILL, I WOULD APPROVE IT BECAUSE, UH, IT, IT BRINGS A LOT TO THE, TO THE TAIL TO THE AREA.
I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OTHER THAN SAY I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS 'CAUSE UH, TO BE CONSISTENT, I SPOKE AT PLANNING COMMISSION LAST WEEK IN FAVOR OF THIS ALSO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
UM, FIRST TO OFF, HAVE WE SEEN THIS CASE BEFORE? WE HAVE.
WHEN WAS THAT? UM, STARTED IN 2000 OR 2022.
UM, IT ORIGINALLY STARTED AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THEN THE APPLICANT WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO MULTIFAMILY AND IT'S BEEN CONTINUED AND POSTPONED A COUPLE TIMES.
BUT NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THIS BODY WITH RESPECT TO THIS CASE OR A PREDECESSOR CASE? I BELIEVE THERE WAS ACTION TAKEN, BUT IT NEVER MADE IT TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEN THE APPLICANT REVISED THEIR APPLICATION AND STARTED THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN.
SO IT'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH AT LEAST TWO OR THREE TIMES.
[01:45:01]
YOU.UH, MR. OV TO YOU SIR, IF WE CAN GET YOUR PRESENTATION UP, IF WE COULD SEE THE UM, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF PIE GRAPHS REGARDING USES IN THE AREA AROUND INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
PIE CHARTS, THAT'S A BETTER WORD.
THERE, THERE OR THERE IS ONE AT LEAST.
ALRIGHT, SO, ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT THIS PIE CHART IS ADDRESSING? IS IT THE SHADED PORTION HERE? THE, THE, THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO APPROVE HERE IS COMPLETELY ON THE LEFT.
WHAT I WAS SHOWING IS THE TEXAS A AND M REGIONAL CENTER, THE PLAN THAT IT'S IS, IS IN DISCUSSION WE BETWEEN PLANNING AND, AND AND ZONING ABOUT THE, UH, TWO, TWO MILE OVERLAY THAT WILL ALSO WILL, WILL NOT LET ME DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE.
AND I JUST, I I JUST WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR 'CAUSE I'M NOT IN MY OWN MIND YET, BUT THIS DOTTED LINE AREA THAT'S SHADED, IS THAT, ARE THE USES REPRESENTED IN THE PIE CHART COVERING THAT AREA OR IS IT SOME OTHER AREA? UH, DO YOU KNOW YOU, THE USES THAT YOU HAVE THERE IS THIS PROPOSED BY, BY BY THE TEXAS A AND M REGIONAL CENTER AND I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON THAT ONE.
SO STAFF, CAN YOU, WITHOUT EVALUATING WHAT HE HAS ON THE SCREEN, UM, I ANTICIPATE WHAT HE IS IDENTIFYING IS WHAT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TEXAS A M PLAN.
BUT HIS PROJECT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE TEXAS A M PLAN.
IT'S OUTSIDE THE TEXAS A M PLAN AND THAT PLAN HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO IF THIS, UH, IF HIS APPLICATION MAKES IT TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, THEN THERE, THERE WILL BE ACTION ON HIS CASE PRIOR TO, UH, THIS TEXAS A AND M PLAN.
I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE ON WHEN THAT WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
ALRIGHT, UM, I THINK THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR THE TIME BEING.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? LOOKING LEFT? SEEING NONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER OSA, I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, MAYBE I MISSED IT, BUT WERE THESE, UH, APARTMENTS GONNA BE MARKET RATE OR IT WOULD BE PART, PART OF THAT IS GONNA BE MARKETED? YES, SIR.
SO PART OF IT'S GONNA BE MARKET RATE AND PART OF IT'S GOING TO BE JUST REGULAR, REGULAR RATE, JUST REGULAR RATE MIX OF BOTH? YES.
ISN'T THAT MARKET RATE, I'M SORRY, MARKET RATE.
MARKET RATE, BUT ALSO, UH, THIS, THIS PROJECT IS GONNA BE ALSO, UH, FUNDED BY BONDS THAT WE'RE GONNA FLOAT ON THE MARKET AND IT'S FOR I WOULD SAY, UH, AFFORDABLE HOMES.
IS THERE A CERTAIN A MI THAT, DO YOU KNOW THAT IF THERE'S A CERTAIN A MI FOR NO, NOT YET.
ALRIGHT, MR. REYES, ONE MORE QUESTION FROM MR. AL.
SORRY, I, I WROTE DOWN ON MY NOTES AND I FORGOT TO ASK IT.
I WAS, WHAT, I WAS LOOKING AT YOUR PRESENTATION AND THERE WAS ONE SLIDE WHERE YOU SAID, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL REDUCE THE TRIP COUNT BY 43%.
DID I MISS SOMETHING? OR HOW IS THAT GONNA HAPPEN IF THERE'S GONNA BE 700 UNITS? WELL, IF WE DO EVERYTHING COMMERCIAL, DEFINITELY YOU'LL HAVE HIGH TRAFFIC.
IF YOU REDUCE IT PART OF THE PROJECT AS APARTMENTS, THEN YOU REDUCE THE TRAFFIC COUNTS.
IF THIS BECOMES COMPLETELY A HUNDRED PERCENT COMMERCIAL, THEN THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC.
I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH QUESTIONS.
SO BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER REYES FOR A MOTION.
UM, I'VE STUDIED THE FACTS, I'VE LOOKED AT THE LAYOUTS, I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UH, THERE'S, THIS IS, UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A BALANCE HERE.
I CAN SEE THE PROS AND CONS BETWEEN HOUSING NEED, BUT ALSO THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS MEANT TO OCCUR ALONG HIGHWAY 16, BUT SEEING HOW THE FRONTAGE WILL REMAIN, UH, COMMERCIAL, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S CROSS ACCESS.
I KNOW THAT'S PREMATURE, BUT HAVING CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC STREETS THAT CONNECT TO THE STATE HIGHWAY IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THOSE CROSSOVERS MAY CLOSE OR SIGNALS MAY HAVE TO COME IN.
AND SO IT'S GONNA BE A CHALLENGE TO GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF HERE.
AND I, I CAN SEE THAT, AND I KNOW THAT'S PREMATURE, I'M JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION, BUT WITH, UH, WITH THE FACTS THAT I'VE SEEN, UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
[01:50:02]
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.THERE IS A POT TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER REYES WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER A BOTTLES, UH, DISCUSSION.
LOOKING RIGHT, NONE LOOKING LEFT.
ALRIGHT, WELL I'M GONNA SAY THE SAME OLD TIRED THING THAT I ALWAYS SAY.
THIS IS A DIFFICULT CASE, UM, AT LEAST WHEN I FEEL IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE, BUT, BUT HERE'S WHERE WE ARE IN MY OPINION.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE TYPICAL CASE, UH, THE C TWO LEADING TO AN MF 33 LEADING TO A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WOULD BE SORT OF THE TYPE OF STEP DOWN IN ZONING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE.
UM, IT'S MADE A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED TO MY MIND BY THE INDUSTRIAL ACROSS THE STREET, UM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT USE IS JUST A READY MIX PLANT, BUT COULD BE ANYTHING WITH THAT INDUSTRIAL.
UM, WHICH BRINGS ME TO A SECOND SORT OF PRINCIPLE OF ZONING THAT I FREQUENTLY APPLY HERE, WHICH IS IF THERE'S EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT AN MF 33, THE BUYER WILL BE AWARE OF IT AND THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANNA BUY THERE.
THE FINAL COMPLICATING FACTOR IS OF COURSE THE INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD COVER THIS PROJECT IF IT GOES THROUGH.
UM, SO THE TIMING HERE IS PROBLEMATIC TO ME AND MAKES ME HESITANT TO SUPPORT A ZONING CHANGE THAT COULD IMPACT A LARGER AREA ISSUE.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT THE INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT EXIST AT THIS TIME.
UM, AND IT MAY NOT EXIST IN THIS AREA EVER, UH, BUT THAT IS THE REASON THAT I AM HESITANT TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AND I AM CONSIDERING, UH, WHETHER OR NOT TO DO SO.
ALRIGHT, UM, OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER OMA.
COMMISSIONER WATSON, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I FEEL THAT THE C TWO REMAINING ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, UM, ADDRESSES AND CREATES A SUFFICIENT BUFFER CONSIDERING IT'S A STATE HIGHWAY THAT'S DIVIDING.
UM, WHAT WILL BE THE PROPOSED USE FROM EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES? I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENTLY FAR FROM THE PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE AREA, UM, AND DOES PROVIDE WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S A MIX OF MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE OR MARKET RATE ALONE, THERE STILL IS A NEED FOR HOUSING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SUPPLY AND THE STEP DOWN WITH THE C TWO BUFFER TO THE MF 33 TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S PREFERABLE TO THE C TWO BACKING UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ZONED IN THIS AREA.
UM, AND FOR THAT REASON IT'S CREATING MIXED USE, UM, APPROPRIATE STAGING I FEEL BETWEEN, UM, TYPES OF ZONING, UM, AND MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES THAT MEETS OVERALL GOALS AND OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.
AND SO THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
I, UM, COMMEND KEEPING THE COMMERCIAL ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INVESTORS THAT ARE DOING ANY KIND OF MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AND THIS IS THE CLOSEST THAT WE'RE GETTING TO IT.
SO I JUST, I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE WHILE WE ARE INCREASING HOUSING, THOSE PEOPLE ALSO NEED SERVICES AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD WHERE THESE, THE EXISTING HOUSING AND THE APARTMENTS CAN WALK TO WILL SERVE THAT, THAT AREA.
UM, NOW I'M, I'M, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
I MEAN, EVERYONE HAS GIVEN GOOD COMMENTS AND, AND, AND A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
THIS IS ABOUT THE TIME FOR OUR
[01:55:01]
THREE O'CLOCK BREAK.UM, SO WE WILL TAKE, UH, ABOUT A 10 MINUTE SESSION OR, MY GOSH, I'M HAVING TROUBLE SPEAKING TODAY AGAIN.
UH, WE'LL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
UH, THE ZONING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED FOR TEMPORARILY
ALRIGHT, THE TIME IS THREE 10 AND THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS BACK IN SESSION.
I BELIEVE WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF'S PRESENTATION PLEASE.
MY NAME IS ADA GOMEZ, ZONING SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS LOCATED AT 16 0 6 EAST CARSON STREET, GOING FROM R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO R SIX CD, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
THERE WERE 34 NOTICES SENT OUT, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO EIGHT OPPOSED GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE IS IN SUPPORT.
THE EXISTING R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED R SIX CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR DWELLING UN IS ALSO AN APPROPRIATE ZONING.
HER PROPOSAL WOULD RETAIN THE SINGLE FAMILY BASED ZONING DISTRICT WHILE ALLOWING FOR THE CONDITIONAL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS, A DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DETACHED UNIT CHARACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PRESCRIBED SITE PLAN WOULD PREVENT EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND WOULD ENSURE THE ADEQUATE PARKING IS AVAILABLE FOR THE FORWARD DWELLING UNITS.
DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED DOCUMENT COULD POTENTIALLY WARRANT ADDITIONAL COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
FURTHERMORE, THE REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S STRONG POPULATION AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
UM, MY NAME IS ALBERT FUQUA, 2 0 3 TOLEDO STREET AND I'M HERE, UM, THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT FOR THE FOUR UNIT PROJECT AT 1606 EAST CARSON.
UM, I AM PROPOSING FOUR UNITS THERE AT THE CORNER OF, UH, TWO STORY FOUR UNITS AT THE CORNER OF 1606 EAST CARSON AND LAUREN STREET.
UM, THE LOT IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, MORE OR LESS, UM, DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC.
I DECIDED, UH, INSTEAD OF FACING THE UNITS ON CARSON WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED AT TO TURN 'EM FACING TOWARDS LAUREN STREET, WHICH I THINK WOULD, UH, DO A LOT BETTER FOR THE PROJECT, UM, FOR INGRESS, UM, INGRESS, EGRESS FOR THE RESIDENTS THERE.
UM, I FEEL THAT FACING LAUREN'S ACTUALLY, UM, ASSIST AND HELP THE PROJECT.
UM, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, DUE TO THE FACT THAT CARSON IS A VERY, UM, HEAVY TRAFFIC STREET IS USUALLY UNREGULATED IN, UM, HIGH SPEED VEHICLES GO UP AND DOWN THE STREET, UH, QUITE A BIT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN, UM, THE VICINITY OR A BUDDING TO THE EAST, UM, THE NEIGHBORS, UM, TO THE EAST, WHICH WILL BE I GUESS, UH, ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE, THEIR INGRESS EGRESS, UH, IS OFF OF CARSON.
UM, THE OTHER BUDDING NEIGHBORS ACTUALLY, UM, INGRESS, EGRESS WILL BE OFF OF LAWRENCE, WHICH WILL BE BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE, THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE WEST.
UM, THEIR INGRESS EGRESS WOULD BE A SMALL LITTLE DRIVEWAY FURTHER DOWN THE BACK, THE, THE FAMILY THAT LIVES THERE.
UM, THE GENTLEMAN'S WATCHING THE HOUSE FOR HIS AUNT AND HE HAS A SCOOTER, SO HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY VEHICLE.
EACH UNIT OBVIOUSLY WILL COME WITH PRIVATE PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, IT'S GONNA BE TWO STORIES.
UM, GUEST PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS.
UM, ON LAUREN STREET IT'S ABOUT 150 TO 160 LINEAR FEET OF OPEN CURB AND SIDEWALK TO WHICH, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS GUESTS COULD USE FOR, FOR PARKING, UM, FOR AFTER HOURS.
UM, LET'S SEE, UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO DISTANCES TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND PRIVACY, UM, THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST, UH, ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE A 30 FOOT, UM, STRUCTURE TO PROPERTY LINE BUFFER, SO TO SPEAK.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE ANOTHER FIVE FOOT, FIVE FEET, EXCUSE ME, UM, FROM THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO IT'S ABOUT A 35 FOOT BUFFER FROM OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST.
[02:00:01]
UM, OUR OTHER BUDDING NEIGHBORS, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH.UM, IT'S ABOUT A, MY CALCULATION HAD ABOUT 35 TO 40 FEET BUFFER FROM STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE WITH THOSE, UM, NEIGHBORS HAVING, UH, GARAGES IN THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTIES, WHICH ADD AN EXTRA PRIVACY OR SOUND BUFFER, UM, BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THEIR AND THEIR UNITS.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE, THE HOUSE TO THE WEST ACROSS THE STREET FROM LAUREN IS ABOUT 60 FEET AWAY.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THE PROJECT, UM, DUE TO ITS LOCATIONS KIND OF ON AN ISLAND OF ITS OWN, SO IT KIND OF GIVES A GOOD DEAL OF BUFFER FROM THE RESIDENCES TO, UM, TO WHICH ABUTTED.
UM, A LOT OF TIME IN THESE CASES.
I KNOW THAT THE, THE 200 FEET, UM, RESIDENTS, UM, ARE IS PRETTY, PRETTY IMPORTANT AND I THINK, UM, I THINK I POSITIONED THEM PRETTY GOOD, UM, IN ORDER TO, TO GIVE THEM, YOU KNOW, THE UTMOST PRIVACY.
PER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR GOVERNMENT HILL, UM, I BELIEVE BACK IN 2001, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR THE AREA CALLED FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO IN THAT PLAN THEY ALSO CALLED FOR, UM, THE, THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING CLASSIFIED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, AND PER THE 2001 PLAN, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, HAD DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES IN THE AREA, UM, TO NOT EXCEED SEVEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, WITH MY PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST AND THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH.
COLLECTIVELY, WE ARE JUST UNDER AN ACRE AND WITH MY UNIT OF REQUESTS, WE HAVE SEVEN UNITS, UM, SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE 2001, EXCUSE ME, 2001, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN I THINK OH SIX.
UM, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, WE GO FORWARD A COUPLE OF YEARS, EXCUSE ME, GOVERNMENT HILL AGAIN UPDATED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ONE MORE TIME.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN IN 2010 PER THIS BROCHURE AND IT HAD THEIR LOW DENSITY, UH, DEVELOPMENT OR RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT, EXCUSE ME, DENSITY IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS SHOULD NOT EXCEED NINE DWELLING UNITS.
UM, THEY INCREASED IT FROM SEVEN TO NINE AND THEN, UM, AS OF THIS YEAR, MAY 10TH, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT'S A DRAFT FROM ESSAY TOMORROW, MAY 10TH, 2024, THEY ACTUALLY AMENDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AREA ONCE AGAIN.
UM, ADDING THE WORD URBAN, WHICH I THINK IS VERY CRITICAL IN ALL OF THIS TO URBAN LOW DENSITY, UM, RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE DEFINITION FOR THEIR URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, IS, UM, URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INCLUDES A RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IN DETACHED HOUSES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, SMALL LOT RESIDENCES, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, FOURPLEXES AND COTTAGE HOMES, PERMITTED ZONING DISTRICTS.
THERE'S R THREE, R 4, 5, 6 AND OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THE RMS, THE TYPICAL DENSITIES IN THIS LAND USE CATEGORY, UH, RANGES, WHICH WAS INCREASED A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM SEVEN TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, I THINK THE INCREASE IN, UH, THE UNITS PER ACRE IS OBVIOUS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LACK OF HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY ALL TO WHICH DENSITY ATTRIBUTES TO THE AFFORDABILITY ASPECT.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE NEED MORE HOUSING 'CAUSE WE'RE LACKING THAT GREATLY HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
UM, THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.
DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO.
WE HAVE, UM, VOICEMAILS AND THEN WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
ALRIGHT, DID ANY OF THE SPEAKERS, DID Y'ALL LEAVE A VOICEMAIL? NOPE.
ALRIGHT, IF WE COULD HEAR THE VOICEMAILS FIRST PLEASE.
I AM A RETIRED US POSTAL WORKER AND A RETIREE FROM FRONTIER AIRLINES AND I'M PRESENTLY SERVING ON THE BOARD OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO PROJECT Z 2 0 2 4 DASH 1 0 7 0 0 0 5 2 C LIKE CHARLIE D LIKE DENVER.
THE ADDRESS IS 1606 EAST CARSON.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS AFFORDABLE PROJECT THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW AS WE ARE STRIVING TO BUILD OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSIAN ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT.
I'M ALSO AWARE OF THIS CONTRACTOR'S SUCCESSFUL COMPLETED PROJECTS IN A MULTITUDE OF SAN ANTONIO NEIGHBORHOODS.
[02:05:01]
SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT IN ENTIRETY.GOOD AFTERNOON, ZONING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS VERTE AND I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT HEALTH TOMORROW BOARD REGARDING AGENDA ITEM EIGHT, GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION'S POSITION ON THE 1606 EAST CARSON REZONING.
CASE IS NEUTRAL, EITHER OPPOSED NOR IN FAVOR.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY ENGAGED IN THIS ZONING CASE FROM THE ONSET.
AND APPRECIATE MR. FUQUAS INITIAL PRESENTATIONS TO OUR ORGANIZATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF 200 FOOT NEIGHBORS ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING REQUEST AT THIS TIME AND WE SUPPORT THEM.
GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW BOARD ETTE COLE 1 0 5 RENO STREET, ALEJANDRO LAURA, THREE 15 B STREET GOVERNMENT, STEVE STEIG, 1 0 5 RENO STREET.
AND THAT'S IT FOR VOICEMAILS AND WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO SPEAKER.
MY NAME IS ROSE MARIE HILL, UH, PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL ISAND ASSOCIATION, UH, 2107 NORTH INTERSTATE 35.
UM, DEAR COMMISSIONERS, UH, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY CAME TO THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION MEETING, UH, IN MAY OF 2024.
THERE WERE MANY QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ANSWERED BY THE OWNER, THIS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL DEVELOPER, BUT A YOUNG MAN WHO HAS ALREADY BUILT HOMES IN THE DENVER HEIGHTS AND JEFFERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THOSE IN THAT AREA.
THIS OWNER HAS DONE A GREAT JOB.
THIS LOT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
THERE'S BEEN HOMELESS THAT HAVE CAMPED OUT ON THIS PROPERTY CAUSING ISSUES FOR THE NEARBY RESIDENTS.
SO TO SEE THIS PROPERTY BE CREATED TO ENHANCE BEAUTY SAFETY AND BRING IN FAMILIES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL THOSE LIVING IN THE, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT HILL LINES ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A COUPLE OF THINGS, UH, TO LIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
FIRST OF ALL, UH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE GOVERNMENT HILL UHTOMORROW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT JUST FORMED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO HAD INFORMED NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SINCE AUGUST OF 1988, DID NOT EXIST.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION BEFORE A MEETING THAT THEY HAD, UH, BELIEVE IN MAY, APRIL WHEN THEY HAD THEIR MEETING.
I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
SECOND OF ALL, THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER THAT OWNED THIS PROPERTY WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO MF 33 APARTMENT COMPLEX.
THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION WAS IN, IN, IN OPPOSITION TO THAT 'CAUSE WE EITHER WANTED IN TO SEE, UH, A COUPLE OF HOUSES THERE OR POSSIBLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UH, THE, UH, THE DENSITY ACCORDING TO OUR MASTER PLAN DOES FIT IN, DOES FIT INTO THAT AREA.
UM, AND, UH, THAT AS STATED BEFORE, 2001, 2006 AND 2010, THAT IT SHOWS LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND THAT FITS INTO THE PLAN.
UH, I WANTED TO ALSO SHOW, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT WITHIN THAT SAME BLOCK THERE ARE THREE, FOUR MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES ON THAT ONE BLOCK ARE, UH, RENTAL PROPERTIES.
AND THEN TWO, I WANNA SAY TWO TO THREE BLOCKS, UH, FROM THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IT, IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING BUILT.
IT'S CALLED THE GRAYSON HEIGHTS, UH, APARTMENTS, WHICH CONSISTS OF 284 APARTMENTS.
AND SO THEREFORE THERE, THAT WAS, UH, ALSO APPROVED BY THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL AND UH, THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY, FIVE STORIES HIGH, 284 APARTMENTS.
SO WE FELT ON THIS SIDE WE DIDN'T WANNA SEE THAT SAME DENSITY HAPPENING ON THAT SIDE.
SO THIS FITS INTO THAT, UH, TO THAT, UH, PARTICULAR, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, LIKE I SAID, AGAIN, UH, WE WISH THAT WE WOULD HAD, UH, HAD MORE TIME TO TALK WITH MORE THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THEY CAME TO US.
WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FACT, UH, THAT THERE WAS A MEETINGS BE HELD AT GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW AND THAT THERE WAS MISINFORMATION.
HAD WE BEEN INVITED OR BEEN TOLD ABOUT THAT MEETING, I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN GOOD FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NEIGHBORS TO BID ON THE SAME PAGE.
I'VE BEEN ABLE TO ASK ALL THE SAME QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND POSSIBLY BEEN GIVEN ANSWERS, BUT THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU STATE FOR THE FACT WE ARE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
WE'VE BEEN REGISTERED SINCE AUGUST OF, UH, 1988.
WE ARE VERY ACTIVE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND WE DO LISTEN TO OUR RESIDENTS.
SO THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SUSAN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? APOLOGIES.
[02:10:01]
UM, NEXT WE HAVE MS. BERTHA, UH, DOMINGUEZ.AND THEN, UH, SHE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MS. MELANIE CERVANTES.
UM, I THINK YOU NEED PHONE NUMBER, UH, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER (210) 698-1654.
I COULD EVEN SAY THAT MY RESIDENCE IS GOING, IT IS IN MY DRIVER'S LICENSE AT 7 1 5 WEST LAWRENCE, WHICH IS THE ONLY HOUSE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THIS PROJECT THAT THIS GENTLEMAN IS TRYING TO BUILD.
AND, UM, BUT I DO HAVE MY SECOND, WHICH IS MY BUSINESS ADDRESS, IS AT 2 4 1 8 3 BURNEY STATE ROAD, WHICH IS THE BUSINESS ANYWAY, I AM AGAINST THE PROJECT AS I KNOW THAT I, EVEN, I MYSELF HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE IN JUST THE PARKING, JUST AT TRAFFIC.
WHEN THE STUDENTS COME OUT OF PER ELEMENTARY RIGHT THERE BY LAWRENCE, IT'S AN UNBELIEVABLE TRAFFIC.
I CANNOT PUT A SIGN THERE SAYING NO PARKING IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY.
SO THEIR, THE CARS WOULD PARK, PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET WAITING AND WAITING AND WAITING FOR THE CHILDREN TO GET OUT OF, TO MOVE OUT OF PER ELEMENTARY.
LAWRENCE IS THE ONLY AVENUE THAT THE PARENTS HAVE TO PICK UP THEIR STUDENTS FROM THE SCHOOL.
AS IN THEY HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND GO EITHER TO 35, EITHER NORTH OR WEST.
SO THEREFORE, I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED FOR THAT ONE, FOR THAT ONE REASON.
THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THE AREA ON WHERE I AM, I HAVE, I JUST MOVED A HOUSE INTO THAT PROPERTY AND I WANNA KEEP IT TO BE, TO RESEMBLE ALL THE OTHER HOMES AS THIS GENTLEMAN HAD SEEN BEFORE, WHICH IS A HOUSE THAT HE SHOWED.
THERE IS THE HOUSE, THE HOUSE THAT I SEE RIGHT IN MY FRONT DOOR.
I WANNA KEEP THE HOUSES TO BE SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHER HOMES AND NOT TO THE HOUSES THAT HE IS PROPOSING, WHICH IS THIS TWO STORY HOUSE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THIS.
AND, UH, I FEEL THAT THAT IS HOW THAT HOUSE IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLY IN ANOTHER LOCATION.
I KNOW THESE HOMES ARE NEEDED, LIKE THEY SAY, THEY WANNA BRING CHILDREN TO THE SCHOOL, UH, FAMILIES THAT HAVE CHILDREN TO THE SCHOOL, WHICH IS OKAY, BUT MAYBE IN ANOTHER LOCATION.
'CAUSE LOCATION, LOCATION IS BASICALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
I AM NOT OPPOSED ABOUT THOSE HOMES.
I HAVE SEEN THEM ON TV AND THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT BASICALLY, MAYBE NOT ON THIS SIDE OF, UM, OF, UH, 35, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS SPLASH TOWN, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE BY, BY A PERSON, ELEMENTARY TREE.
ALSO, THE FACT THAT WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO FORT SAM HOUSTON, I THINK FOR SAM HOUSTON AS THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC GOING TO THE, TO THE, UM, TO THE, TO THE, FOR, TO THE FORT ST.
HOUSTON AIR BASE, OR NOT AIR BASE, BUT TO THE BASE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP A VERY NICE, I THINK, AMBIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE US TO GO TO FORT SAM HOUSTON.
AND I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND YOUR DECISION.
AND LAST WE HAVE MS. MELANIE CERVANTES, PLEASE, BEFORE MY TIME BEGINS, CAN I HAVE THREE POINTS OF INFORMATION IN OUR POLICY PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE APPLICATION.
SO WE, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE YOUR TIME, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, BUT IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO NOT, WE CAN STEP OUTSIDE AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND CAN I GET A QUICK NON, JUST REAL QUICK, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE CHAIR OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTS TO HOLD THE MEETING AND STAFF.
CAN YOU PUT BACK THE PRESENTATION PLEASE? THANK YOU.
AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF BECAUSE THE EXCEL SYSTEM SAYS THAT THIS APPLICATION IS FOR AN R THREE.
THE NOTICE WE GOT FOR THE JUNE MEETING SAYS AN R SIX.
SO, UM, I'M FAMILIAR WITH ACELA, MY CLIENTS USE IT IN CALIFORNIA AND MARYLAND.
WHY IS THE DISCREPANCY, BECAUSE THE EXCEL SYSTEM'S KIND OF IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE SURE WE GO AHEAD.
CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND STATE YEAH, SO WE CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS? WE COULD HAVE ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOUR TIME IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR TIME YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS A BIG ONE.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS CITY.
SO IF YOU WANNA STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN WE CAN GET STARTED.
I LIVE AT 6 0 3 SANDMEYER, UM, WITH MY GRANDMOTHER.
I'M THE FOURTH OF FIVE GENERATIONS TO LIVE IN GOVERNMENT HILL.
AND ONE OF THEM IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS BECAUSE THE ACELA AND THE NOTIFICATION RECEIPT DO NOT MATCH.
UM, HAD THIS BEEN THE MAY HEARING MEETING, THE ACELA WOULD STILL
[02:15:01]
MATCH THAT.ACELA IS HOW WE DO PETITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE OTHER POINT OF INFORMATION I HAD WITH THE CITY, UM, IS, IS IT CITY POLICY FOR THE STAFF TO GIVE PRE-APPROVAL NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANTS BEFORE A CASE IS HURT? AND THERE'S A FOLLOW UP TO THAT WOULD BEING, UM, AND I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR THAT I'M NOT ASKING A POINT OF INFORMATION, UM, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION OR THE CITY STAFF HAVE ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY, ARE KNOWINGLY DISREGARDED STATE LAWS, UM, BECAUSE A STATEMENT WAS MADE AND THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF CREDENCE AND INVALIDATION OF PETITIONS THAT MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING CASES SUBMITTED.
UM, AND NOT JUST THIS CASE, BUT OTHER PAST AND PRESENT COULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.
SO WHAT DOES THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION'S OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON ADHERENCE TO TEXAS STATUTES TO ENSURE HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT DISENFRANCHISED AND SUBMITTED UNDER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE VII REGULATION OF LAND USE STRUCTURES, BUSINESS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES.
SUBTITLE, A MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY, CHAPTER TWO 11, MUNICIPAL ZONING AUTHORITY SECTION TWO 11.006.
SUBSECTION D SUB SUBSECTION TWO.
UM, IF IT'S UNKNOWINGLY DONE, THEN WE NEED TO CORRECT THIS BECAUSE IT IS DEFINITELY A MALFEASANCE.
IF IT IS KNOWINGLY DONE, THEN WHICH BODY OR AGENCY IS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS A STATE MISDEMEANOR WITH ADMINISTRATION VIOLATIONS.
SO THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, UM, I TYPE 80 WORDS PER MINUTE.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO ME ON A CONVERSATION WE HAD IN MAY 45 MINUTE CONVERSATION.
I AGREE WITH HIM ON A LOT OF THE GREAT URBAN PLANNING.
LOVE WHAT HE'S DONE SOUTH OF 35.
I ALSO HAVE A PETITION THAT I SENT YOU GUYS ON SUNDAY.
IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION, APOLOGIES, I'M A WONK.
UM, AND 86% OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE 200 ZONE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.
THE OTHERS ARE, UM, LONG-TERM RESIDENTS ARE RESIDENTS AGE FROM THE AGE OF EARLY THIRTIES TO EARLY NINETIES.
SO WE'RE A MULTI-GENERATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE ALSO VERY CLOSE AND VERY APPROACHABLE.
I WALKED THIS WITH A COUPLE OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS AND WAS ABLE TO GET THE SIGNATURES HERE, WHICH I CAN HAVE THE WET SIGNATURES VERIFIED STAFF, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE SUBMITTING TO CITY COUNCIL WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT.
UM, THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, AND YOU CAN SHOW THIS TOP, TOP AND THAT'S WHY I SAY I, I THINK IT WAS JUST STATEMENT MADE IN ERROR.
BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT THE CITY OR ZONING COMMISSION'S POLICY DO VIOLATE STATE LAWS.
I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR MY FELLOW BUREAUCRATS.
SO THIS IS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. FU ON THE 24TH SAYING THAT I TOLD, I LET HIM KNOW THAT WE'D ALREADY HAD A PETITION MORE THAN 20% OF THE RESIDENTS HAD SIGNED IN OPPOSITION.
UM, HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION AND THAT HE'D HAD OTHER CASES, ZONING CASES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AS HE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT THE ZONING COMMISSION HAS STILL APPROVED IT DESPITE THAT KIND OF PETITION BEING SUBMITTED.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS SOMETHING RELATABLE? HE ALSO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CITY STAFF HAD ALREADY TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT.
SO, YES, SO THESE ARE THE ISSUES.
AND JUST FOR VISUAL PURPOSE YOU CAN, ALRIGHT, THAT'S YOUR TIME MA'AM.
THOSE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED AGAINST.
AND THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE A OPPORTUNITY FOR A SHORT REBUTTAL, PLEASE.
UM, SO FIRST AND FOREMOST IN REGARDS TO 7 1 5 LAUREN STREET, UM, THE LADY CAME UP HERE BEFORE, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S AN ABANDONED HOUSE AS OF RIGHT NOW.
SHE SAID THAT SHE MOVED THE HOUSE THERE.
SO HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE HOW WHAT SHE HAS BROUGHT AND SAT THERE AS CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN ANY WAY.
IT'S BEEN SITTING LIKE THAT FOR SOME TIME.
UM, I THINK IT'S A NUISANCE TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF, BUT THAT'S HER OPINION ABOUT IT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE, THE OTHER LADY WHO JUST CAME UP HERE AND GIVE US ALL THIS INFORMATION, UM, I DID REACH OUT TO MY CASE MANAGER AND SIMPLY ASK WHAT IS STAFF RECOMMENDING? AND STAFF, HE SAID THAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WAS DONE MALICIOUSLY OR WRONG IN THAT STATEMENT.
IT WAS JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION AND HE ANSWERED.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE SHE WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
UM, BOTTOM LINE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I BELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONCE AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, WE ARE LACK OF HOUSING, LACK OF AFFORDABILITY.
UM, UM, THE SUPPORT TO WHOM SHE, TO WHICH SHE'S GOTTEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO POINT OUT, I DON'T DISREGARD MY ELDERS AT ALL, BUT I THINK A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE, UM, WITHIN A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC TO WHICH DO NOT CARE ABOUT HOUSING AT ALL.
UM, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, UM, TO WHICH IS GREATLY IMPACTED BY LACK OF HOUSING, LACK OF PROPERTY TAXES.
UM, THERE'S A MISEDUCATION IN OUR COMMUNITY AS IT PERTAINS TO PROPERTY TAXES AND OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM.
[02:20:01]
ONE THING THEY FORGET TO MENTION IS THAT THE SCHOOL AT THE CORNER, PERSHING ELEMENTARY WAS SCHEDULED TO BE SHUT DOWN THIS YEAR.BUT, UM, GOVERNMENT HILL AND, UM, GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE IN ROSE HILL, PETITION AND PROTEST FOR THEM TO STOP THAT, ESSENTIALLY THE SCHOOL PROBABLY COULD BE SHUT DOWN WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR DUE TO LACK OF ENROLLMENT.
SO I THINK THE PROJECT KIND OF ASSIST OR HELP THE SCHOOL FROM IN THE SENSE OF CHANGING THE, UH, CHARACTER, THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS, BRINGING IN POSSIBLY MORE STUDENTS AND JUST GIVING MORE, YOU KNOW, NEW LIFE TO THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MY ELDERS, BUT IT'S, IT IS A GOOD DEAL OF THEM THAT LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT JUST, THEY'RE JUST KIND OF OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR MARKET COST OF LIVING, HOUSING, EVERYTHING.
YOU KNOW, THAT DEMOGRAPHIC ALREADY HAS HOMES, THEIR CHILDREN ALREADY HAVE HOMES, SO, UM, THEY REALLY DON'T CARE TOO MUCH FOR HOUSING AT ALL, UM, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.
AND I THINK YOU GUYS PROBABLY SEE IT QUITE SOME, QUITE A BIT UP HERE IN THIS, THIS FORUM WHERE YOU HAVE CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC THAT COME HERE AND THEY'RE JUST ALWAYS AGAINST HOUSING FOR WHATEVER REASON.
UM, AND SAYING THAT I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO KIND OF KEEP IT MOVING FORWARD, UM, PROGRESSING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND, UM, HOPE YOU GUYS AGREE WITH ME.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT THAT'LL BE ALL.
UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE, SO TO YOU COMMISSIONER WATSON FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, I'M GONNA START WITH STAFF.
UM, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE, UH, POINT ABOUT A POTENTIAL DISCREPANCY AND HOW THAT COULD HAVE CONFUSED ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.
UM, EVEN LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, UH, BECAUSE THERE IS THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, RIGHT, THERE'S TWO LOTS.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE PLOTTING IS, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE ADDRESS IS 1606.
IT IS HISTORICALLY BEEN TWO LOTS.
SO I AM ASSUMING THAT WHAT IS ON THE YELLOW SIGN THAT TYPICALLY PEOPLE WOULD'VE PASSED WHEN IT SAID FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO UNITS WAS REFLECTING THAT THAT IS WHAT EACH OF THE LOTS WOULD HAVE, WHICH CREATES THE TOTAL OF FOUR UNITS.
SO COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT EXACTLY WAS ON THE YELLOW SIGN WHEN THE ZONING SIGN WAS PUT OUT? CAN YOU PUT UP OUR ZONING MAP? ONE MORE? THE ZONING MAP.
SO THE SIGN HERE IS REFLECTING THE REQUEST FOR FOUR UNITS, UM, BASED ON THE PROPERTY ADDRESS AT 16 0 0 6 EAST CARSON.
THE MAP DOES SHOW BOTH UNITS AS FAR AS LIKE THE NOTICE WENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC INDICATING BOTH LOTS ON THERE.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. CERVANTES AS A FOLLOW UP.
OKAY, SO THIS IS THE YELLOW SIGN.
IT SAYS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR UNITS.
CAN YOU I WENT UP THREE WEEKS AGO.
UM, THE ORIGINAL SIGN WAS FOR TWO UNITS AND I SUPPLIED THAT IN THE ADDENDUM THAT I SENT EVERYBODY ON SUNDAY NIGHT.
OKAY, MA'AM, CAN YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE UP? THANK YOU.
UM, WHEN THIS, UH, SIGN THAT WAS PUT UP THREE WEEKS AGO AND NOW DID YOU GET A NEW OR NEW NOTICE? WE DID GET THE NEW NOTICE, BUT I KEPT UP, UM, UPLOADING THE ACELA TO SEE IF ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE PACKET THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FROM THE PEOPLE AT GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW, WHICH IS THE OTHER ORGANIZATION, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THEY SENT US THE PACKET THAT SHOWED THAT, UH, THE PLOTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, THE MAPPING AND EVERYTHING.
SO, AND THAT'S WHEN WE NOTICED THAT ON THE ACELA IT STILL SAYS R THREE, BUT ON THE NOTICE AND THE PACKET SAYS R SIX CONDITIONAL USE.
SO THE CONCERN, THE DISCREPANCY IS THAT THOUGH THE SIGN WAS WHICH APPLIC CHANGED WHICH APPLICATION IS THAT? YEAH, WHICH IS THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THE SAN ANTONIO ACELA DOESN'T HAVE THE UNITS WHERE IT SHOULD SAY LIKE, WHEN AN AMENDMENT WAS DONE, WHEN IT CHANGED AND THE APPLICATION WAS DONE, IT JUST SHOWS THAT ONE SPOT AND THAT'S AN ACELA SOFTWARE THING.
SO I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY TO KNOW.
UM, NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO, UH, HAVE CLARIFI FOR THE RECORD, UM, AND I'M GONNA ASK STAFF IS CAN YOU PLEASE, UM, DISCUSS JUST A BASIC OVERVIEW OF PRO WHETHER OR NOT YOU, UH, INFORM AN APPLICANT PRIOR TO A ZONING COMMISSION OF, UH, WHETHER SOMETHING WILL BE APPROVED OR NOT? I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT, UM, ABOUT WHEN THE STAFF REPORT IS ISSUED, WHAT IT SAYS AND WHO IS TOLD THAT AND WHAT THAT MEANS.
AND SO IF WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH SORT OF THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THAT STAFF REPORT IS AVAILABLE AND WHO KNOWS ABOUT IT AND WHAT, WHAT RULES OF CONVERSATION BASICALLY ARE RELATED TO THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
UM, NORMALLY WHEN OUR PLANNERS ARE TALKING WITH THESE, THE APPLICANTS, THEY ARE MADE AWARE THAT WE CANNOT GIVE A 100% FINAL ANSWER UNTIL THESE ITEMS ARE POSTED ONLINE.
AND IT'S TYPICALLY THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING ITSELF.
[02:25:01]
UM, THEY COULD GIVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LOOKING, YOU KNOW, IT'S EITHER LOOKING FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE, BUT AGAIN, THEY DO TELL THEM, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A FINAL WORD UNTIL THESE ITEMS ARE POSTED THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING.SO WHEN YOU'RE DISCUSSING FAVORABILITY, THE FAVORABILITY IS INDICATING THAT AS THE STAFF REPORT IS BEING CREATED, THE FAVORABILITY IS TOWARDS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT OR NOT? CORRECT.
SO IT'S MORE LIKE IF WE ARE SUGGESTING THE APPLICANT, HEY, HEY, THIS IS THIS OTHER ZONING WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOU, WE WILL, AGAIN, LIKE KELLY SAID, WE'RE NEVER GONNA TELL SOMEBODY IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF, BUT IF WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, THEY'RE GONNA KNOW THAT 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA TELL THEM, HEY, MAYBE NOT FOUR UNITS, MAYBE THREE, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND ALSO, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, CORRECT ME IF THE STATEMENT IS WRONG, A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ZONING COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
JUST TO REITERATE, WE DO TRY TO SAY THAT IT IS A STAFF GIVES A RECOMMENDATION, ZONING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING LIKE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, WE ALWAYS RECOMMEND THAT THEY ALSO TALK WITH THE COUNCIL OFFICES BECAUSE IT IS CITY COUNCIL WHO MAKES, WHO TAKES THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAKES THAT FINAL DECISION.
AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTION RELATED TO THIS IS, CAN YOU PLEASE, UM, SUMMARIZE WHAT THE SUPER MAJORITY, WHEN A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED AND HOW MUCH OPPOSITION? SO THESE SUPER MAJORITY AS PER STATE LAW, UM, THEY NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEY ARE TAKING A PERCENTAGE OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
SO, UM, AND THEN WHAT WE DO IS CALCULATE WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPOSITION, WE HAVE IT, UH, BROKEN OUT OF THOSE FOLKS WITHIN THE 200 FEET, THEIR PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT BOUNDARY.
AND SO WE CALCULATE THAT AND ONCE IT HITS 20%, UM, THAT IS CONSIDERED A SUPER MAJORITY AND THAT MEANS FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW, THEY HAVE TO HAVE NINE OUTTA THE 11 MEMBERS VOTE IN, UM, AN APPROVAL OR YEAH, AN APPROVAL FOR SOMETHING TO PASS.
UM, AND BASED ON STUFF'S CALCULATION, WHILE IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY APPLY TO ZONING COMMISSION, AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED, IT APPLIES TO THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE.
UM, CONSIDERING THE COUNT, THE, UM, THE, UH, STATEMENTS OF OPPOSITION THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED AND COUNTS, WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF OPPOSITION? I'M CALCULATING THAT RIGHT NOW.
WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP SINCE YOU USED YOUR THREE MINUTES TO PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD PLEASE ARTICULATE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, AND I KNOW IT IS REFLECTED IN YOUR PETITION.
SO I'M GOING TO STATE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST MR. CERVANTES, THIS IS, I'VE ATTENDED SEVERAL MEETINGS ABOUT THIS WITH MULTIPLE PARTIES, SO THIS IS, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.
AND SO THIS PETITION DOES REFLECT MORE THAN JUST MR. ANTE'S POSITION.
UM, CAN YOU PLEASE ARTICULATE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION, WHAT IF YOU CAN PUT THAT UP, WHAT, UM, WHAT CONCERNS YOU HAVE WITH THE PROPOSED LAND USE, SPECIFICALLY NOT DESIGN? YES.
UM, IN TERMS OF HOW THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AS YOU MOST KNOW, WE KNOW THIS WAS CODIFIED THREE TIMES BEFORE COUNCIL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HILL PLAN.
AND FOR THE MOST PART, MULTI DEVELOPMENT UNIT, WHICH MR. FUQUA IS PROPOSING AS THE AUTHORIZED APPLICANT FOR THE OWNER ARE LOCATED WEST OF NEW BRAUNFELS AND SOUTH OF 35, THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY.
THAT'S WHERE WE THINK THEY SHOULD STAY EVERYWHERE FROM THE EAST, FROM HERE TO WALTERS, FROM NEW BRAUNFELS TO WALTERS, NORTH OF 35 AND A BUDDING FORT SAM HAVE ALL BEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THERE ARE ONLY THREE, TWO STORY RESIDENCES WITHIN A FIVE BLOCK RADIUS.
AND ONE OF THOSE IS STILL DESIGNATED BY THE COUNTY AS ONE RESIDENT.
SO WE'LL GO INTO CODE COMPLIANCE THERE, BUT THEY'RE ALL ONE STORY, ONE HOUSE.
UM, THE, THE MEDIAN FOR MARKET VALUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S ABOUT 200,000.
WE'RE LOSING THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE ON LAWRENCE.
WE ALREADY HAVE FOUR UM, DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE ON THERE.
THIS WOULD ADD POTENTIALLY EIGHT OR MORE CARS TO THE SIDE STREET, WHICH IS THE MAIN FEEDER FROM THE SCHOOL.
SO PERSIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM ABOUT TWO 30 TO FOUR O'CLOCK, WE'VE GOT BUSES AND KIDS WHILE COMING IN, UM, BEING DRIVEN HOME BY THEIR FAMILIES OR WALKING DOWN THAT STREET BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE SIDEWALKS ARE, ARE DESIGNED AND THE HILL THAT WE'RE ON THE LAUREN STREET, THAT WOULD HAVE TO GIVE WAY TO ALL THE DRIVEWAYS.
UM, THERE'S A SAFETY ISSUE THERE.
IF A CAR ACCIDENTALLY BACKED OUT AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WORST THE CASE SIT SITUATION THERE.
WE ALREADY HAVE TEACHERS WHO PARK ON THOSE STREETS BECAUSE THERE'S INADEQUATE PLANNING BY S-A-I-S-D FOR PARKING ON, AND THEY CAME AND TALKED TO ALL OF US
[02:30:01]
ON LAWRENCE ROPER NEW BRO ANDSO WE ALREADY KNOW THERE'S CONGESTION, THEY'RE VERY RESPECTFUL, THEY NEVER BLOCK OUR DRIVEWAYS, BUT NOW WE'RE GONNA BE LOSING THAT, PUSHING THE TEACHERS FURTHER.
UM, MR. FUCO, YOU KNOW, STATED THAT HE DIDN'T WANNA PUT THE HOUSES FACING EAST CARSON BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC.
WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING TO GET A, YOU KNOW, CROSSWALK RIGHT THERE OR LIKE A STOP SIGN OR SOMETHING TO INCREASE THAT SAFETY.
ADDING EIGHT OR POTENTIAL MORE VEHICLES IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE.
UM, PRIVACY IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE'S KIND OF CLOSE, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PRIVACY FROM THE TWO STORY INTO THE YARDS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DESIGN THE FINAL DESIGN'S GONNA BE.
SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT HONESTLY.
AND WE'D JUST LIKE TO FOLLOW UNIFIED CODE.
UM, THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T ADD MORE CONGESTION, HORMONE ZONING AND DESIGNING FOR HOMES.
THIS CLEARLY VI VIOLATES THAT.
THE GREAT THING ABOUT OUR LOTS IS WE ARE ARE ON THE HILL, WE GOTTA GET GREAT AIR QUALITY.
WE'RE 24TH IN THE NATION FOR BAD AIR QUALITY.
I DON'T HAVE TO PREACH TO THE CHOIR HERE, BUT WE'RE GONNA BE LOSING ALL OF THAT ON THE HOUSES THAT ARE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
DO WE WANT IT DEVELOP? YES, I GO, DO WE WANT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? YES, WE WOULD.
THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GET ALL THESE SIGNATURES.
SIX OF THEM ARE RENTERS, THEY HAVE KIDS AT PERSHING.
THEY CAN'T LEGALLY SIGN THE DOCUMENT, BUT THEY'RE ALL OPPOSED.
ONLY FOUR THAT WE COULD NOT GET IN CONTACT WITH ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT DID NOT SIGN OR COULD NOT SIGN OR WANT TO SIGN.
UM, SO FOR US IT IS SAFETY, IT IS HEALTH, IT IS WELFARE, IT'S ALSO KEEPING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY FRIENDLY WHERE WE HAVE LOTS WHERE WE CAN PLAY AMONGST THE KIDS.
LIKE I SAID, I'M THE FOURTH OF FIFTH GENERATIONS TO GROW UP THERE.
WE HAVE A BUDDING OR A RE YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE LOVE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON TO THE WEST OF NEW FELS.
WE WANNA KEEP THOSE MULTI UNITS THERE AND WE'RE GOOD.
OTHER THAN THAT, UM, EVERYTHING WAS STATED IN THERE AND THE CITY DID A REALLY GREAT JOB WORKING WITH THE CONSTITUENTS TO, TO DO THE PLANNING IN OUR PLAN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CODIFY NOW, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, SINGLE FAMILY ZONES.
SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU IS TO PLEASE STAY WITH WHAT THE SIT-INS HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO KEEP.
MR. FUQUA, IF YOU CAN PLEASE COME UP.
UH, FIRST COULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLETE, UM, APPROACH TO OUTREACH, WHICH INCLUDED I KNOW, UM, AND APPRECIATE, UM, OUTREACH TO THE SCHOOL AND ITS PRINCIPAL, UH, BLOCK WALKING THE 200 FEET YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR MEETINGS WITH GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND UM, GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW.
UM, INITIALLY I REACHED OUT TO GOVERNMENT HILL.
NO, ORIGINALLY, UM, I WAS ONLY AWARE OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE.
I WAS NOT AT ALL, UM, AWARE OF GOVERNMENT HILL, UH, TOMORROW.
UM, THEY JUST FORMED LIKE, I THINK LIKE A MONTH OR TWO AGO.
UM, I WAS INVITED OUT TO THEIR MEETING WHERE I MET WITH THEM, UM, BROUGHT A SITE PLAN TO SHOW 'EM THE PROJECT.
UM, AT THAT TIME THEY GAVE ME THEIR CONCERNS TO WHICH THEY HAD AND I TOLD 'EM THAT I WOULD ADJUST THE SITE PLAN, PROVIDE IT TO 'EM AND MEET WITH THEM AGAIN.
UM, UH, SIX DAYS LATER I GAVE 'EM ANOTHER SITE PLAN, ASKED TO SPEAK WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, ASKED TO MEET WITH THEM AND HE TOLD ME I COULDN'T, UM, HE SAID I COULDN'T MEET WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET REGULARLY, WHICH, UM, I FOUND TO BE KIND OF ODD, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW IN NORMALLY IN THESE PROCEDURES IT'S A LITTLE BIT BACK AND FORTH, BUT I WASN'T GIVEN A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THEM.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE MADE AWARE OF THE SECOND MEETING, UM, ON THAT MONDAY, BUT I WASN'T MADE AWARE OF IT AT ALL.
THEN WHEN I REACHED OUT TO HIM, UM, I HAD ASKED HIM, UM, NO, EXCUSE ME, HE REACHED BACK OUT TO ME AND THEN HE PRETTY MUCH HAD TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROJECT.
UM, THERE WAS SOME THAT WAS THERE IN FAVOR.
I ASKED HIM WHO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WAS.
UM, HE JUST ADVISED THAT I REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET.
I ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET AND NO ONE WOULD SPEAK WITH ME.
UM, I LEFT NOTICES ON THE DOOR AT THAT TIME I WENT TO GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE.
THAT'S WHEN I, I HAD GOT A PHONE CALL FROM MS. ROSE HILL.
I MET WITH THEM, UM, PRETTY MUCH TOLD HER, PRESENTED TO THEM THE PROJECT.
I KIND OF TOLD 'EM MY CONCERN WITH HAVING, UM, A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH TWO ASSOCIATE ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE SAME BOUNDARIES IS, IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING.
UM, SHE TOLD ME, SHE KIND OF SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THEY USED TO BE PART OF THE, THE ORIGINAL GROUP AND THEN THEY KIND OF SPLIT IT OFF.
AND SO IT'S BEEN KIND OF A UPHILL BATTLE, I SHOULD SAY, UM, IN, IN SENSE OF SPEAKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT HILL TOMORROW AND LIKE GETTING LIKE SOME REALLY GOOD HONEST FEEDBACK FROM THEM.
AND THEN, UH, YOU DID NOT GET A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, CORRECT? NO, SHE DID NOT GIMME A STATEMENT OF OF SUPPORT FROM HER, BUT, UM OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE UH, SHARE WHAT YOUR UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ANTICIPATED PRICE POINT WILL BE? UM, I KNOW WE HAVE A SITE PLAN.
I APPRECIATED THAT YOU UPDATED IT AND IT HAS DIMENSIONS, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU COULD PLEASE UM, SHARE THAT INFORMATION, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
SO FOR THE SITE PLAN AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO
[02:35:01]
BE CLEAR AS TO HOW IT WAS DESIGNED.I KNOW THAT THIS IS VERY, UM, THE PROPOSED IS SITE PLAN SPECIFIC.
SO IN THE SITE PLAN I, UM, IT'S BETTER TO GO LARGER THAN SMALLER BECAUSE I CAN ALWAYS DOWNSIZE BUT I CAN'T MAKE IT BIGGER.
SO, UM, HONESTLY ON THE SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH I THINK IT SAYS I COULD BE WRONG, 1600 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT WOULD, IT WILL BE 1600 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT'S JUST SO THAT WAY I HAVE A BOX TO WHICH I CAN DESIGN WITHIN.
UM, IT'S KIND OF TOUGH IN THESE SITUATIONS TO COME WITH THE SITE PLAN OR FLOOR PLAN OR EVEN PRICING FOR THAT MATTER JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO STICK TO WHAT YOU PROVIDE ON THERE.
SO, UM, TO BE TRUTH BE TOLD, HONESTLY, UM, I DON'T QUITE HAVE THE, THE PRICE POINT TO WHICH IT WILL BE AT.
UH, BUT YOU DID PROVIDE A RANGE AT A MEETING, DID YOU NOT? YEAH, I DID PROVIDE A RANGE, BUT COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE IT AGAIN? YES, IT WAS 2 79 AND $300,000.
AND THAT WAS FOR THE TWO BEDROOM? TWO BATHROOMS MA'AM.
UM, AND UH, ALSO FOR THE RECORD, UH, JUST WANNA CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED PRODUCT TECHNICALLY CORRECT? I'M SORRY? THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT? YES MA'AM.
UH, THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.
UM, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY ALSO, YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THE, UM, WE DID RECEIVE MS. CARSON, OR I'M SORRY, UM, MS. CERVANTES UH, PETITION.
AND UM, WITH THAT, WHEN I DID A ROUGH ESTIMATE HERE ON THE MAILING LIST, UM, WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION, IT DOES EQUAL TO BE APPROXIMATELY 50%.
UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST GOING BACK WHEN MR. FUQUA WAS SUBMITTING HIS APPLICATION AGAIN, WE ARE NOW MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE TO UM, NOTIFY ALL REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
AND SO I DID RECOMMEND THAT HE REACH OUT TO BOTH UH, ROSE WITH THE ALLIANCE AND MR. VERTI WITH THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND THEY BOTH WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS MEETING AND PRIOR MEETINGS.
AND UM, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT UH, IN MY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION, BUT UM, I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION THERE IS, IT IS PERMITTED TO HAVE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE SAME BOUNDARY AND THEY DO BOTH HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS IN TERMS OF OUTREACH, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT MORE LATER.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALRIGHT, UH, QUESTIONS COMMERS ON MY LEFT.
UM, SO ONE OF THE MENTIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MS. CERVANTES MENTIONED WAS, UH, THE PLAN FOR THIS AREA.
UH, WAS THERE A PLAN AMENDMENT WITH THIS CASE? THERE HAVE BEEN PLAN AMENDMENTS.
UM, I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS ONE RECENTLY.
SO FOR THIS CASE, WAS THERE A PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIRED FOR THIS CASE? NO, NOT FOR THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PLAN ITSELF THAT IT IS WITHIN, UM, THE GOVERNMENT HILL, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS ACTUALLY UPDATED TO UM, THAT THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED THE R SIX TO KEEP THE R SIX BASE ZONING.
AND THE R SIX BASE ZONING IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND AS MR. FUKA STATED, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY USE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER WITTEK, ARE THESE, ARE YOU GONNA REPL OR ARE THESE CONDO UNITS OR ARE THEY GONNA BE RENTALS? IT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH UH, UH, HOA.
SO IT'LL BE LIKE A LAND CONDO SIR.
IT'S ONE PROPERTY BUT FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE SOLD SIR.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, SO BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER WATSON FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION.
OKAY, UM, THIS IS A DIFFICULT CASE FOR ME FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
UM, I THINK, UH, THE GENERAL OF PRINCIPLES OF UH, ZONING HOUSING, URBAN DESIGN, THAT LITERALLY EVERYONE WHO HAS HAD AN OPINION ON THIS CASE HAVE BROUGHT UP IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH, UM, ABOUT A NEED TO INCREASE HOUSING.
UM, REFLECTING THAT WE NEED TO HAVE, UH, UNITS AVAILABLE FOR ALL RESIDENTS THAT ROOFTOPS ARE IMPORTANT FOR MAKING SURE WE HAVE A PROPERTY TAX BASE FOR SCHOOLS TO STAY OPEN.
UM, WE'VE LOST QUITE A FEW IN DISTRICT TWO IN THE RECENT SITUATION WITH S-A-I-S-D.
UM, AND PERCHING IS AT RISK, UM, IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, UM, THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR MIXED HOUSING TYPES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, BUT I WANNA
[02:40:01]
SPECIFICALLY FOCUS ON DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY HERE.UM, AS MR. FUQUA JUST MENTIONED, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE SET UP AS ITS OWN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, AS YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, WHILE THAT IS NOW WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY WAS FOR R THREE AND THAT WAS FOR A REASON.
UM, THIS IS A RECONFIGURATION BASICALLY OF TWO LOTS.
UM, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POTENTIALLY PUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN A DU THAT CREATES AN ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPE THERE OR A DUPLEX THAT CREATES DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING AT DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS.
UM, HAVING FOUR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AT A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION THAN IS THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PRICE POINT.
DOES POTENTIALLY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
AND THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE SUPER MAJORITY OF OPPOSITION WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN 200 FEET.
UM, I THINK THAT IN TERMS BALANCING ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS, UM, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE, UM, IN EITHER DIRECTION IN TERMS OF, UH, SUPPORTING SOMETHING THAT IS JUST TWO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS VERSUS MORE THE, I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS OPEN TO THREE UNITS.
THAT'S A COMPROMISE THAT WAS UNTENABLE.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND THE NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED WERE OPEN TO THIS AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS GOING TO REFLECT IN FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE AS PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED THERE THE LONGEST TO THOSE NEEDS AND MEET NEEDS FOR HOUSING FOR SCHOOLS, UM, I WOULD'VE ACCEPTED THAT.
UM, AND THEY KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER THAN ANYONE.
UM, AND WE'RE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
AND I SEE THIS AS A SUBSTANTIAL RECONFIGURATION OF THOSE LOTS AND CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HOUSING ENTIRELY THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND ISN'T GENUINELY CREATING SOMETHING THAT'S ALTERNATIVE THAT FITS IN WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I DO ALSO WANNA SPEAK TO GENERALLY PROCESS AND PROCEDURE.
UM, THERE ARE TWO REGISTERED ASSOCIATIONS IN GOVERNMENT HILL.
THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THERE IS A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND GOVERNMENT HILL TOGETHER BOTH NEED TO BE REACHED OUT TO BOTH HAVE A RIGHT, THEY ARE FOCUSED ON DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE REQUEST THAT BOTH GET THE, GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
WE CONSIDER BOTH SET FEEDBACK AND WE ALSO PRIORITIZE GOVERNMENT HILL IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH A HIGH VOLUME OF DEVELOPMENT.
THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET IN MY COLLABORATION WITH THE COUNCILMEN AND UM, OUR STAFF.
SO, UM, IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB, SO DID STAFF AND MAKING SURE EVERYONE WHO IS AFFECTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND HAD INFORMATION ON THE CASE.
UM, AS THINGS WERE UPDATED, UM, THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.
UM, I DO THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT AND SOME THINGS, UM, THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.
BUT, UM, OVERALL THE NOTICES WERE SENT CORRECTLY AS THE, UM, APPLICATION EVOLVED.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THE EXCEL'S SOFTWARE ISSUE, UM, BUT WE ALSO HAD SUPPORT FOR DELAYING THE CASE, UM, AND MAKING SURE WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL INVOLVED, UH, BOTH ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL AS AS NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET, UM, TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEEDED.
UM, I WOULD, AS YOU WERE MAKING YOUR DECISION AND EVALUATION, UM, WE HAVE OUR DIFFERENT CONCERNS AND UNDERSTANDING OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, UM, AS COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I LEAVE IT TO YOU, BUT UH, JUST THINKING THROUGH WHO IS MOST IMPACTED BY THIS, UM, I WOULD OFFER THAT FOR YOU AS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, WE HAVE, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD HERE.
UM, AND THERE WAS NOT MISINFORMATION OR MISCOMMUNICATION.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY THE GOVERNMENT HELD TOGETHER ASSOCIATION HAS EXISTED FOR MORE THAN TWO MONTHS.
IT HAS BEEN REGISTERED AT LEAST SINCE 2023.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, BOTH ASSOCIATIONS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET.
WE REQUIRE THEM BOTH TO BE MET WITH, UM, FROM THE DISTRICT.
AND UH, SO MY MOTION IS FOR DENIAL.
OKAY, SO THERE'S A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
THERE'S A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITSETT.
UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER'S ON MY LEFT, UH, COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE.
AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE COMMISSIONER WATSON IS AND OF COURSE I ALWAYS APPRECIATE HER OPINION AND HER THOROUGHNESS IN REACHING THAT OPINION.
UM, IN THIS CASE, THE REAL PROPERTY INTEREST, UH, THAT THIS IS BEING USED, UH, TO GET FOUR UNITS HERE IS TO MY MIND OF NO CONCERN.
UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING, THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
UH, THERE ARE DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, BUT AGAIN, THAT IS NO CONCERN HERE.
UH, TO MY MIND, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE, IT'S A GOOD USE OF THIS OR THESE TWO LOTS I SUPPOSE.
AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
[02:45:01]
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT? NONE.UM, I THINK THIS LAND USE OF BRINGING IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IS IMPORTANT FOR THE, FOR THE EAST SIDE.
I'M A LITTLE BIASED 'CAUSE I'M AN EDUCATOR, BUT WE NEED KIDS, UH, FAMILIES TO BE MOVING INTO THIS AREA.
UM, YOU KNOW, AN OPEN LOT HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS, KIDS WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL COULD BE LURED OR COULD BE LOST OR GETTING BITTEN BY DOGS OR SOMETHING.
UH, SO THEREFORE I WILL BE NOT SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THE USAGE OF, OF, UM, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN THIS AREA IS, IS NEEDED.
UH, OTHER COMMISSIONER? UH, COMMISSIONER HUEY.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S, UM, ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE OR HAD ADDITIONAL HOUSING STOCK TO THE EAST SIDE.
AND, BUT I ALSO LOOK AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH THE DENSITY THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT IN THERE, I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF YOUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
SO FOR THAT REASON AND FOR THE REASONS THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT, I WILL NOT, I'LL BE SUPPORTING HER MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON MY, UH, COMMISSIONER CHASE? UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION WHEN I LOOK AT WHO ELSE IS INVOLVED IN THIS AREA.
UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE BAH, WHICH IS THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE FOR LOCAL, UM, SOLDIERS.
WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM 1956 ALL THE WAY UP TO, UH, 2331 A MONTH THAT THEY'RE ALLOTTED.
AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHO'S MOVING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IF PEOPLE STATIONED AT FORT SAM COULD LIVE AROUND FORT SAM IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LIVE EITHER IN HOUSING OR IF HOUSING IS FULL.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT JUST FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, AS COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE OFTEN STATES, AND I AGREE, THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT CASE.
UM, AND, UM, IT, FOR ME, IT'S HARD TO OVERLOOK THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE.
UM, YOU KNOW, UM, AND AS A COMMISSION WE HAVE NOT VOTED ALWAYS THE WAY THAT THE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER HAS, HAS, HAS MOTIONED.
AND WE'VE ALSO NOT ALWAYS VOTED THE WAY A NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, HAS WANTED AS WELL.
UM, BUT, UM, THIS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT CASE AND WHERE I SEE BENEFITS, BUT I ALSO SEE DRAWBACKS.
AND I'M VAMPING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I'M GONNA VOTE IN ANOTHER MINUTE.
UM, BUT WITH ALL THAT SAYING, NOTHING, COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? IF THERE IS NOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, THEN THIS WILL AUTOMATICALLY COME BACK TO US IN ABOUT A IN A MONTH BECAUSE THAT'S OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
THERE'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY COMMISSIONER CHASE.
IS THAT YOU? COMMISSIONER REYES.
SORRY, I WAS LOOKING THE WRONG WAY.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY COMMISSIONER CHASE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REYES.
[02:50:01]
COMMISSIONER WHATTUP? NO.ALRIGHT, SO THAT MEANS THAT IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY COME BACK TO US IN, IN ONE MONTH'S TIME.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND REFINEMENT AND I GUESS WE WILL SEE YOU IN A MONTH.
ALRIGHT, I BELIEVE WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11, CORRECT.
IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF'S REPORT PLEASE.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA MENEZ, ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS LOCATED AT 1 24 EAST OF IOWA STREET.
GOING FROM R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO IDZ ONE, LIMITED INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH PERMITTED USES FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT WITH ALL OVERLAYS STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 26 NOTICES SENT OUT.
UM, THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE CURRENT R FOUR IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED IDZ ONE LIMITED INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONING IS ALSO APPROPRIATE.
THE PROPOSAL IS FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT, WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUNDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
FURTHERMORE, THE PROPOSED REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING STOCK TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S GROWING POPULATION.
THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
SORRY IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION PLEASE.
UM, HI, MY NAME'S JOSE SEPULVEDA.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING, UH, THE APPLICANT.
UM, WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY PROPOSING IS JUST A SIMPLE IDZ ONE, UM, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UH, BUILD A, UH, A DIFFERENT HOME.
UH, THAT, UH, PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE SETBACKS, UM, FOR THEIR, UH, PROPERTY.
UM, THE CURRENT OWNER AND WHO WOULD BE, UH, BUILDING A, A NEW HOME THERE.
UH, THERE'S CURRENTLY AN EXISTING HOME THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED.
UM, THEY ARE ACTUALLY THIRD GENERATION, UM, INHABITANTS OF THIS PROPERTY.
THEY'VE THE PROPERTY BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR WELL OVER 80 YEARS.
UM, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO STAY, UM, WITHIN THAT SAME PROPERTY.
THEY'RE JUST LOOKING TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW, UM, THAT WOULD BE MORE ACCOMMODATING FOR, UH, THEIR FAMILY, WHICH IS A LITTLE ON THE LARGER SIDE.
UM, AND, UH, I MEAN IT'S REALLY THAT STRAIGHTFORWARD, I GUESS,
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.
FULL HOUSE, NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT FIVE CASE, SO TO YOU COMMISSIONER BUSTA, MATE FOR THE GHOSTS ARE OPPOSED.
UH, AND I GUESS THAT THAT REALLY IS SORT OF THE OVERRIDING QUESTION I HAVE IS WHY, WHY ARE WE GOING FROM, UH, THIS, WHAT IS IT, R SIX TO, UM, TO IDZ ONE? IS IT JUST THE SETBACKS? UH, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF IT.
UM, THE, UH, CURRENT SETBACKS FOR LIKE AN R SIX FOR EXAMPLE, IS 20 FOOT ON THE REAR, UH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY EATS UP QUITE A BIT OF, OF THAT UM, LAND.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A, UH, HEIGHT LIMITATION I BELIEVE OF TWO.
WAS IT TWO AND TWO AND A HALF FOR R SIX TWO? THE, UM, R SIX IS TWO AND A HALF STORY 35 FEET.
I KNEW I WAS SAYING, I APOLOGIZE, I KNEW I WAS WRONG.
IT IS ALSO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET AND AS HE SAID, 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK, FIVE ON THE SIDES AND 10 IN THE FRONT.
SO THE SIZE WILL END UP STAYING THE SAME.
IT'S REALLY JUST TRYING TO GAIN A LITTLE MORE SPACE, UM, ON THE REAR, UH, FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF.
UM, THEY'RE ALSO HOPING AT THE SAME TIME TO SHIFT THE HOUSE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK, UM, TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE MORE PARKING ON THE FRONT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE, UH, THEY WANNA TAKE THOSE CAR, THEIR CARS, RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE THREE VEHICLES.
UM, AND THAT DOESN'T LOOK TO BE CHANGING ANYTIME SOON.
BUT THEY WANNA BE ABLE TO PARK THEM ALL, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THEIR PROPERTY IF, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
UM, CURRENTLY THEY'RE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED PRETTY MUCH BY, UM, COMMERCIAL USE.
SO WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING, AND THIS MIGHT BE MORE TO STAFF, IS THAT THIS WOULD BE A FAIRLY COMPLICATED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE TO ADDRESS THE SETBACKS, RIGHT.
[02:55:03]
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS DEFINITELY AN OPTION, BUT THEY DECIDED TO GO WITH THE IDZ ONE.UM, DID, DID STAFF EVER DISCUSS WITH YOU THE POSSIBILITY OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ANSWER HERE? UH, NO.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THAT, I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? ON MY RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS? AND COMMISSIONER BUSANTE HAS ANOTHER QUESTION AND, AND HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION OR YOU ASKED MY QUESTION ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO, AND AND STAFF, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
SO NO SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED HERE? THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A NOTE, UM, THAT WE FOUND LAST WEEK IN THE CODE FOR, UM, SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I QUOTE THE CORRECT PART OF CODE.
UM, AS PER SECTION 35 DASH 3 43 0.01, LETTER B NUMBER FIVE, IT DOES SAY, UM, APOLOGIES I HAD IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
REQUEST FOR AN IDZ ONE AS A BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT ONLY ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING SHALL NOT REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN STAFF'S, I'M SORRY MR. CHAIR, MAY I COMMENT AND MO AND MAKE A MOTION? YES.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE THING THAT THE STAFF'S REPORT MENTIONED WAS THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH SHIP TO INCREASE HOUSING STOCK.
WELL IN FACT IT'S NOT LIKE IT MIGHT BE MAKING THIS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, BUT IT'S STILL ONE SINGLE RESIDENCE AND THAT'S FINE.
UM, TO MY MIND AND I, I I HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE STAFF MIGHT CONSIDER THIS, THIS IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SETBACKS COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO ALLOW THIS TO REMAIN AN R SIX.
UM, AND THAT WOULDN'T HAVE REQUIRED ZONING.
I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN CHEAPER FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE.
SO AT THIS POINT I AM MOVING FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 11.
AND JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY, IS THIS GONNA HAVE A PARKING SPACE THERE IN THE, ON A LOT? YES.
UM, 'CAUSE A ZI BELIEVE ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARKING, UM, AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CANNOT ELIMINATE, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHAT WE SAW, BUT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DIDN'T TAKE 'EM THERE.
WELL, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO MOVE THE PARKING MORE FOR, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT IT'S REQUIRED, THAT'S MORE WHAT THE, THE HOMEOWNER'S WANTING 'CAUSE CURRENT, THEY, THEY LIVE THERE RIGHT NOW IN THAT EXISTING HOME AND, AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET.
I'M JUST, UH, SPEAKING ABOUT COVID.
AND I UNDERSTAND MR. RAVI AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT ONCE, ONCE THEY INDICATED THAT THEY WERE PARTIALLY MOVING TO INCREASE THE PARKING, THAT'S WHAT NAILED THIS AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, SO ANYWAY, EITHER WAY I'VE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 11.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
WAS IT COMMISSIONER ORTIZ? THANK YOU.
THERE IS A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BUS MATE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ.
UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER'S ON MY LEFT.
UM, PERHAPS THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THOSE MEETINGS ARE SOMETIMES A LOT LONGER THAN OUR MEETINGS.
AND A LOT MORE BORING, POOR EXAMPLE YESTERDAY.
AND JUST TO, YEAH, TO CONFIRM, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. AND MRS. OROZCO MAYBE HAD COME AND TALKED TO ZONING STAFF BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED THIS AND WERE MENTIONED THEIR OPTIONS, WHICH I WOULD HOPE IS THE CASE.
AND I JUST, I WASN'T NECESSARILY POINTING FINGERS, I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT IT IN THE LESSON LEARNED FOR MYSELF THOUGH.
WE HAVE, I BELIEVE MINUTES ARE THE LAST ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.
[03:00:01]
ET CETERA TO THE MINUTES? I HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THE MINUTES.COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER WHITSETT.
UH, ACTUALLY MY COMMENT IS ABOUT THE MAY 21ST MINUTES IS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THERE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT DID NOT.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT.
UM, COULD YOU MAYBE EXPOUND ON OKAY.
IN THAT MEETING, UH, THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THE, UH, COMMISSION COULDN'T DIRECT CITY STAFF SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A MOTION.
AND IT SAID A FOLLOW UP CAN OCCUR IN THE NEXT FOLLOWING MEETING.
AND IT SAID COMM COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER BUSTANI RECOMMENDS A COMMUNITY MEETING BE CONDUCTED.
COMMISSIONER BOTS RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY MEETING TAKE PLACE NEAR TEXAS A AND M.
UH, SO WE DIDN'T GET A UPDATE ON THAT.
AND I'M, EVEN THOUGH THOSE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED, THEY, THAT WAS FAILED TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE LAST HEARING.
I GUESS A POINT OF INFORMATION TO, UH, CITY STAFF, PARTICULARLY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND, AND THIS MIGHT REQUIRE SOME CLARIFICATION ON YOUR PART, COMMISSIONER WHITSETT.
UM, THE MAY 21ST MINUTES ARE NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE IN THIS CASE, AND SO WE CANNOT DISCUSS THOSE AT THIS TIME.
THAT THAT'S, I WAS OVER HERE GETTING CLARIFICATION THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MINUTES THAT WERE ACTUALLY POSTED.
WE ARE, HE'S ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT MINUTES FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
BUT I'M, HOW DO WE ADDRESS THIS SINCE IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY STAFF? SO IF I CAN ASK ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION, WHICH IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO SEEK THAT THIS BE PUT ON THIS ISSUE, BE PUT ON THE NEXT MEETING'S PUBLIC NOTICE, WE COULD ADDRESS IT THEN, CORRECT? YES.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
PROBLEM WITH THAT, THAT'S AFTER THE COMMUNITY MEETING? YES.
IF YOUR NEXT MEETING ISN'T UNTIL AFTER THAT, THEN THAT'S WORTHLESS.
WELL, BUT, BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT, I MEAN I THINK YOU, YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
IT'S BEEN MENTIONED AND I THINK OFFLINE OR I DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE CLEAR TEAM ON WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? COMMISSIONER WHITSETT FOR THE CHANGES? 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING TO BE CHANGED.
WELL, I WAS REQUESTING THAT THEY FAILED TO, THE STAFF FAILED TO UPDATE US AS TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING AND WHAT WAS GONNA BE HAPPENING AND ADDRESSED AND LET US TALK ABOUT IT AT THE LAST ONE.
IT WAS IN THE MINUTES TO DO IT AND THEY DIDN'T.
AND STILL WE'VE NOT BEEN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
SO ANOTHER POINT OF INFORMATION THEN, UH, MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, UM, COULD THIS BE PART OF A DIRECTOR'S REPORT AT THE END OF THIS MEETING? IT'S NOT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DOES NOT OVERSEE THE ICOD PROCESS.
AND I I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION TO SHARE WITH YOU ON THAT PUBLIC MEETING.
AND I WOULD ALSO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THE MINUTES ARE A VERY BIG PICTURE RECORD.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE RECORDING, WHICH IS THE LITERAL, EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID GETS CAPTURED.
AND THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE RECORD.
SO AT ANY POINT IN TIME, THE PUBLIC, THE COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ACTUAL MEETING ITSELF.
YOU'RE NOT RELYING SOLELY ON THE MINUTES FOR WHAT HAPPENED OR WHAT WAS SAID DURING THAT MEETING.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO PUT IT ON AND TRY AND CORRECT THE MINUTES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, REMEMBER MOST PEOPLE WILL GO BACK TO THE RECORDING AS OPPOSED TO THE MINUTES BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES ALL OF THE DETAIL.
AND, AND I'LL JUST ADD, UM, AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER WHIT, THAT WHAT YOU, YOUR, YOUR CONCERN, THE WAY I ORIGINALLY READ THOSE MINUTES WAS THAT THERE WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR A FOLLOW UP MEETING TO HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S, I AS WHEN I READ THOSE, I ASSUMED THAT MEANT THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT WAS TO OCCUR.
SO I I DIDN'T UNDER, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS, UM, I THINK WE PERHAPS SOMETHING DIFFERENT WAS WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD.
YOU, I THINK YOU WERE UNDERSTANDING IT TO BE IN A ACTUAL WORK SESSION.
I THOUGHT IT WAS THE PUBLIC MEETING.
BUT UM, I GUESS IF WE COULD GET BACK TO
[Approval of Minutes ]
THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.WERE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES THAT NEEDED TO OCCUR? HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THOSE MINUTES.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
THERE'S A, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
[03:05:02]
I HEARD COMMISSIONER REYES.WELL THAT WAS YOU RIGHT? ALRIGHT.
COMMISSIONER REYES GOT IN RIGHT BEFORE YOU.
THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, THE PREVIOUS MINUTES, UM, BY COMMISSIONER WHITSETT WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REYES.
NO, I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE I WAS NOT HERE.
MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECT IN THE, ALRIGHT.
SO THERE IS ONE ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONER WATSON.
AND I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT UH, COMMISSIONER BARDOS LEFT THE MEETING AT UH, THREE O'CLOCK WHEN WE TOOK OUR BREAK.
SO IF WE COULD PUT THAT IN THERE.
SORRY, 2 57 MR. CHAIR OR 2 57? YEAH, BUT HE, HE STOOD AROUND AND TALKED FOR A WHILE, SO, UM, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT.
THE MEETING HAD WAS, UH, OUT OF, WE WERE NOT IN SESSION AT THAT TIME.
OH, DO WE HAVE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? SORRY? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THE TIME IS FOUR 20 AND THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS ADJOURNED.