[00:00:03]
IT IS 2:15 PM CALLING TO ORDER THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11TH, 2024.
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES? THANK YOU.
UH, DUE TO, UH, THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENT IN TERMS OF VOICEMAILS, WE'LL BE LIMITING.
UH, CAN STAFF PLEASE DO ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER GARCIA? HERE.
[Plats ]
IS PRESENT.UH, PLANNING COMMISSION EXISTS AS A, UH, ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
UH, WE WILL, UH, CONSIDER ONE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, WHICH ALL ITEMS WILL, WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ONE MOTION WILL BE TAKEN.
ALL ITEMS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT, EXCEPT, UH, TODAY ITEMS 24 26, 27, 29 34, AND 39 WILL BE HURT INDIVIDUALLY? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND ON THE CONSENT I AGENDA, WE HAVE, UH, ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE DO THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO VOICE THE VOICEMAILS AND WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT TOO.
DO YOU WANT ALL THE VOICEMAILS FOR, JUST FOR THE, UH, ITEMS ON CONSENT CHAIR? IF, IF, IF YOU'RE OPENING THE CONSENT, IS IT, SHOULD I BE RECUSING AT THIS POINT? YES.
SO TWO 17 COMMISSIONERS, ORIAN AND ETTE ARE LEAVING THE MEETING FOR REASONS OF RECUSAL.
ALL RIGHT, SO DO YOU HAVE THE VOICEMAILS? UH, PHONE IS TWO SIX THREE.
THIS IS JIM HARNISH, 7 7 5 1 WILD EAGLE ROAD, SAN ANTONIO.
AND THE LAST THREE DIGITS OF THE CASE NUMBER ARE 0 7 9.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF AND CITIZENS SITTING THERE IN THE ROOM.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS JIM HARNISH.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HILLS AND DALES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, A VOLUNTARY HOA, THE COMMERCIAL LOT IN QUESTION THAT TODAY IS WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY.
WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH CHANGING THIS LOT TO SUBURBAN TIER, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE, A BIG ISSUE TO GIVE UP THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF NO ALCOHOL ON THIS LOT, BUT THIS IS A ZONING MATTER NOT FOR TODAY.
WE AND THE APPLICANT ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON A SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS TO INCLUDE WITH THE ORDINANCE TO BE HEARD AT NEXT WEEK'S ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
SO TO REPEAT, THE HILLSDALE'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS NO OBJECTION TODAY TO CHANGING THE LOT TO SUBURBAN TIER.
JIM HARNISH, PRESIDENT OF THE HILLS AND DALES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I THINK THE NEXT ONE'S FOR ITEM 31, CORRECT? CASE NUMBER LAST FOUR IS 0 0 9 2.
MY NAME IS JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS. I LIVE AT 63 0 2 FOR MADDEN, AND I WANTED TO KNOW THAT I'M OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE.
I ON THIS HOUSE, IT WAS LIGHT OAK.
I LIVE BY BUY HOUSE IN SAN ANTONIO.
YOU HAVE ALREADY CHANGED IT FROM LIVE OAK TO SAN ANTONIO.
NOW YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE IT FROM SUBURBAN
[00:05:01]
TO GENERAL URBAN? THAT IS WRONG.I OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A WHATEVER YOU GOT PLANNING OVER HERE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, I DIDN'T SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY IN MY HOUSE TO HAVE A, UM, DISTRIBUTION CENTER IN MY BACKYARD.
AGAIN, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 6 5 6 5 0 1 5.
AND THEN ALSO, UM, DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, WE HAVE, UH, SOMEONE TO SPEAK ON THAT SAME ITEM, 31 ON ANGELICA OR ANGELICA, UH, MERCADO.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
UM, ADDRESS IS 6 3 1 4 FORT MADDEN STREET.
I'M HERE WITH MY 3-YEAR-OLD SON, JOSIAH, AND UNFORTUNATELY MY PARTNER CANNOT BE HERE DUE TO WORK, BUT I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON MY FAMILY'S BEHALF.
WE ARE RESIDENTS ON THE STREET WITH A HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY REQUESTING THE CHANGE.
AND WE ARE HERE TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE SONY CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW MULTIPLE THREE STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT DIRECTLY BEHIND OUR HOME.
THIS CHANGE WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON MY FAMILY, MY NEIGHBORS, AND OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
ONE OF MY MOST SIGNIFICANT PRESSING CONCERNS IS A COMPLETE LOSS, AN INVASION OF PRIVACY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BRING TO OUR LIVES.
I CAN TELL YOU TODAY AS A MOM TO A TODDLER, WE ARE CONSTANTLY OUTSIDE IN OUR BACKYARD, NEARLY IF NOT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
OUR BACKYARD IS A SPACE WHERE MY SON AND MY DOG CAN PRAY, PLAY FREELY, AND WHERE WE FEEL A SENSE OF SECURITY AND PRIVACY, AS MOST PEOPLE DO.
IF THIS CHANGE IS APPROVED, THOUGH WE WOULD NOW HAVE HUNDREDS OF STRANGERS NEAR OUR BACKYARD WITH THE ABILITY TO LOOK INTO OUR HOME.
THIS ISN'T JUST AN INCONVENIENCE, THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN HOW WE LIVE IN OUR HOME.
THIS INVASION WOULD BE CONSTANT.
THE SIMPLE ACT OF SITTING OUTSIDE TO ENJOY THE QUIET OR LETTING MY CHILD PLAY WITHOUT WORRY ABOUT WHO'S WATCHING WOULD BE GONE.
IN ADDITION TO THE LACK OF PRIVACY, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE OTHER NEGATIVE IMPACTS THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE, SUCH AS A NOISE, INCREASE TRAFFIC, INCREASE PROPERTY VALUE, DECREASE IMPACT ON OUR SCHOOLS, AND OF COURSE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPROVING THIS REQUEST WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE WAY MY FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS LIVE OUR LIVES.
MY CHILD DESERVES A SAFE AND PRIVATE PLACE TO SPACE TO PLAY AND LIVE, AND THIS CHANGE WOULD UNDERMINE THAT COMPLETELY.
I ASK YOU TO VOTE TO DENY THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND SAFETY OF MY FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
OKAY, THOSE ARE ALL THE TWO VOICEMAILS FOR NUMBER 33.
8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 33, THE 2025 BIKE NETWORK PLAN.
THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS ITS SUPPORT FOR THE 2025 BIKE NETWORK PLAN AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WORKS WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP THE NEAR NORTH COMMUNITY AREA PLAN.
MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR US.
WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO ATTRACT YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND FAMILIES BECAUSE OF OUR DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE ABILITY FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO LIVE, EAT, COMMUNE, AND PLAY IN A HYPER-LOCAL WAY.
HOWEVER MUCH WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE WALKING AND BIKING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
WE HOPE THE 2025 BIKE NETWORK PLAN WILL BE AN IMPORTANT TOOL.
TO THAT END, WE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
HI, THIS IS EMILY HUTCHINSON AT 1105 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE.
MY NUMBER IS 3 2 1 6 9 5 9 9 0 2.
I'M A RESIDENT OF BEACON HILL AND I AM A COMMUTER CYCLIST AND MY KIDS GO TO SA ISC SCHOOLS AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OR APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE BIKE NETWORK PLAN UPDATE.
UM, AGAIN, MY NAME IS EMILY HUTCHISON AND I LIVE AT 1105 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE.
SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT RELATED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ASK TO POLL ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
[00:10:01]
TO APPROVE ALL.MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER MILAM.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.
CAN WE GET THE COMMISSIONER'S BACK END PLEASE? IT'S 2 25 AND COMMISSIONER ORIAN AND
[Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments ]
ETTE HAVE RETURNED.I'M CLAYTON WALLACE, PLANNING COORDINATOR WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CAMP BOLUS, UH, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION MILITARY PROTECTION AREA LAND USE PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 84 89 BUCKS.
CAN DRIVE SEVEN NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THIS PLAN.
AMENDMENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW FOR THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE, UH, FOR HIS BUSINESS.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS PLAN AMENDMENT FROM, UH, THE LOW DENSITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
UM, THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OTHER LAND USES IN THE AREA WHILE LAND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ALLOWS SMALLER INTENSITY.
COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS THE SMALL SCALE OFFICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND RETAIL STAFF FINDS THAT CONTINUED IN, UM, INTEGRATION OF COMMERCIAL USES OFF I 10 INTO AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA JOINT BASED SAN ANTONIO, UH, REVIEWED THIS, UH, REQUEST AND DID NOT, UM, HAVE ANY OBJECTION, JUST SOME CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICANT IN, UH, IN INCLUDING, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MLOD, ANY KIND OF, UM, HEIGHT USES COMPLY WITH THEIR UM, FAA STUDY STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO THIS APPLICANT HAS BEEN HERE, UM, PREVIOUSLY, UH, THIS WAS, UH, PREVIOUSLY UH, APPLIED FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION.
MIXED USE SPOKE WITH STAFF AND, UM, DISTRICT EIGHT AND HAS REAPPLIED TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
SO THEY'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL THAT WE'LL PLAY NOW.
YES, THERE'S ONE VOICEMAIL SELLER.
I LIVE AT 85 27 BUCKSKIN DRIVE.
I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROJECT.
CASE NUMBER 2 4 1 1 6 0 0 0 7 7.
UH, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ANYTHING GOING ON OVER THERE, BUT I DO HOPE THEY RESPECT AND NOT PUT A BUNCH OF LIGHTS ON THE BACK OF THAT BUILDING, WHICH WILL, ARE REALLY CLOSE TO MY FENCE AND WOULD BE, UH, SHINING ON MY PROPERTY.
I ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH ILLUMINATION FROM THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE BUILT ON MY FENCE LINE BEHIND ME, SO I JUST HOPE THEY RESPECT AND NOT PUT TOO MUCH LIGHTING THAT WOULD SHINE ONTO MY PROPERTY.
AND MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 6 1 8 6 8 8 6.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? YES, I'M MARK INKY, UH, 84 89 BUCKSKIN DRIVE.
UM, THE, UH, FIRST SLIDE IS JUST KIND OF A A, JUST TO SHOW THE LOCATION THERE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE, UH, WHERE THE STAR IS, WHERE THE LOCATION IS RIGHT THERE ON I 10.
UM, JUST TO LITTLE BACKGROUND, UH, MAX COM SECURITIES IS THE BUSINESS, UH, THAT WE HAVE.
AND WE, UH, BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 25 YEARS.
WE INSTALL SECURITY SYSTEMS, ACCESS CONTROL, FIRE ALARM, SECURITY CAMERAS, AUDIO VISUAL AND STRUCTURED NETWORK CABLING, UH, THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
UM, THIS IS, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE IS ACTUALLY KIND OF, OR THE SECOND SLIDE IS, UH, I PUT STARS IN THE LOCATION ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF OUR, UH, CUSTOMERS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, UH, IN THAT AREA.
UM, THE THIRD ONE, PLEASE, SIR.
UM, AND WE ALREADY SAW THIS, BUT, UH, WE ARE, UH, GOING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NOW, WHICH ALLOWS FOR OFFICE AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL.
UM, WE INTEND TO HAVE A TWO TO THREE PERSON OFFICE STAFF, UH, NO LARGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND IT IS, UH, JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IT'S 0.67, TWO ACRES IS THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT CLAYTON SAID IT, BUT, UH, THE JBSA
[00:15:01]
HAD NO, UM, OBJECTION TO OUR REQUEST.UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LIGHTING STANDARDS AND THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO WHICH WE WILL ADHERE HERE.
AND THEN, UH, THIS JUST KIND OF HAS THE, THE BOX AROUND THE PROPERTY AND KIND OF SHOWS IT IN, UH, RELATION TO OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE AREA.
UM, THE LITTLE PURPLE STRIP THAT COMES DOWN TO BUCKSKIN BUCKSKIN RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, UM, IS THE EXIT, UH, AND ENTRANCE FOR THE, UH, APARTMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE URBAN MIXED USE.
UM, AND THEN THE, THOSE ALSO, UH, UH, BORDER THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND, UH, I JUST TOOK SOME SURROUNDING PICTURES OF THE APARTMENTS.
UH, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS ACTUALLY DOWN BUCKSKIN ABOUT, UH, I'D SAY A THIRD OF A MILE PAST OUR PROPERTY INTO THE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BACK BEHIND.
AND THEN THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME, UH, SEPTIC COMPANIES, ROOFING COMPANIES, AND, UH, THERE'S A PROPANE TANKS OF COURSE, AND THEN THERE'S, UH, LANDSCAPE SUPPLY AND JUST EVERY, ALL THE OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESSES RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
COMMISSIONER, SIPES, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTION MR. ZUKI.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS, HOW DID YOU, YOU ALREADY STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT? SO I I DID NOT PERSONALLY, NO.
SO THIS BUILDING THAT WE SAW IN THE PICTURES, IT IT IS, IT, IT WAS PRIOR TO US, UH, GETTING INTO THE PERMITTING AND THE, THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO YOU BOUGHT THE LAND WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS HALFWAY THROUGH? NO, SIR.
IT WAS, UH, THEY HAD JUST TORN DOWN THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT WAS ON THERE.
AND, UH, THAT, THAT IS THE BUILDING THAT IS IN CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.
SO YOU BOUGHT THE LAND AND YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN SOME NON-COMPLIANCE? YES, SIR.
WELL, AS, AS YOU HEARD, THE CONCERN FROM THE CITY WAS THAT IT ENCROACHES ONTO, UH, LOAD RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OF WHICH THERE ISN'T VERY MUCH LEFT IN SAN ANTONIO.
BERNIE, UM, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO YOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS AT ALL, MR. FELLER THAT, UH, LEFT THE MESSAGE? UH, HE, I'M RELATIVELY CLOSE WITH HIM.
UM, I'VE SPOKEN WITH HIM, WE'VE HAD THE PROPERTY NOW, I GUESS FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH HIM, UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
AND, UH, THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET, I MEAN, I'VE TALKED TO THEM OFF AND ON, BUT, UH, BUT, UH, HADN'T DONE MUCH, BUT, UH, ONE TIME, UH, ONE OF, UH, ONE OF OUR GUYS ACTUALLY RAN OVER THEIR MAILBOX AND WE REPLACED IT.
MR. ROULETTE? NO QUESTIONS MR. GARCIA? NO QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO QUESTIONS.
UH, JUST ONE, ONE CONCERN JUST THAT, UH, YOU WORK WITH THE, THE NEIGHBOR LEFT THE VOICEMAIL ADDRESSING THE LIGHTING ISSUE, WHICHEVER, YES, SIR.
WHICHEVER WAY THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO GO.
AND, UM, YEAH, I'M GLAD THAT YOU GUYS ARE COMING TO US WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
IT SEEMS A BIT REASONABLE AND THAT I WILL SUPPORT, UM, BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER ORIAN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.
ITEM NUMBER 26 IS REQUESTING A SIX WEEKS, SIX WEEK CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 22ND, 2025.
AND WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE'LL START, UH, WITH THE VOICEMAILS.
ACTUALLY, JUST TO CONFIRM, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAD TWO FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WHO LEFT VOICEMAILS? MR. AND MRS. KENTU, DID Y'ALL WANNA SPEAK HERE OR DID YOU WANT YOUR VOICEMAILS TO BE PLAYED? UH, VOICEMAIL.
IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY, SO YOU, NO, YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE OR THE OTHER.
[00:20:01]
WANT THE VOICEMAIL PLAYED? YES, I'M SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO, THERE'S FOUR OF US HERE.WELL AGAIN, WE, WE CAN PLAY THE VOICEMAILS BY MS. ROSA GARCIA AND ROGER GARCIA.
CAN TOO, UH, YEAH, GO AHEAD, GET A VOICEMAIL.
THERE'S A, SOMEBODY WAS JUST, OKAY, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, MR. AND MS. KENTE, WE'RE GONNA PLAY YOUR VOICEMAIL, RIGHT? YES.
AND THEN IS IT, UM, PRISCILLA, ARE, ARE YOU PRISCILLA? YES.
AND AND DAWN, IS IT RAMIR ROMERO? CASTELLANO RAMIRO? YES.
UM, SO NOW, SO RAMIRO ALSO LEFT A VOICEMAIL.
SO DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR DO YOU WANT YOUR VOICEMAIL TO BE PLACED? I HAVE ONE TO SPEAK.
OKAY, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO THE OTHER 12, CORRECT.
SO ALL FOUR OF YOU HAVE, WE HAVE VOICEMAILS, RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? BUT INSTEAD OF HEARING THE VOICEMAILS WHERE YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK EXCEPT FOR, BUT I WANNA SPEAK EXCEPT FOR THE WE WE WANNA SPEAK.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ALEJANDRO RA.
I LIVE ON THREE ONE FIVE B STREET.
MY PHONE NUMBER'S (210) 336-0895.
AND UH, I'M CALLING, UH, AN OPPOSITION OF THE AGENDA.
USE IF TO INTENT FOR US, UH, PLEASE VOTE TO VOTE, I MEAN TO VOTE AGAINST IT FOR DENIAL AND, AND PROTECT THE, THE EAST SIDE.
UH, AND OUR NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GETTING TOO CROWDED FOR US.
UH, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE STREETS BIG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT ALL THESE BIG, UH, BUILDINGS THAT ARE JUST BEING POPPED FROM ONE DAY TO ANOTHER.
UH, PLEASE VOTE AND HELP, UH, HELP US OUT ON, ON THIS MATTER.
THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26.
BIANCA MALDONADO PO BOX 1 0 0 3 1 5 7 8 2 0 1.
I'M PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LOCATED IN DISTRICT SEVEN.
THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL, A REQUEST FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE EAST SIDE.
PLAN APPROVED ON JUNE 20TH, 2024.
SEEKS TO DISCREDIT THE ENTIRE ESSAY, TOMORROW'S PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE EAST SIDE AND ALL THE ENGAGEMENT COMPLETED WITH RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS COMMUNITY TO CREATE THEIR PLANS.
DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES EXIST, BUT THIS PLAN AMENDMENT SEEKS TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SITE.
ALSO OF CONCERN IS THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDOR TERMINOLOGY USED BY CITY STAFF IN THE MEMO FOR THIS CASE.
ACCORDING TO THE ESSAY, TOMORROW'S PLAN FOR CORRIDORS PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDORS ARE DEFINED AS PRIORITY PRIMO BUST CORRIDORS, PRIMO PLUS LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS, AND EXPRESS ROUTES, NONE OF WHICH OPERATE TODAY ON NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE OR AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION TO CHANGE A PLAN THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED LESS THAN SIX MONTHS AGO.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26 DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL CSA TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCE EFFORTS AS WELL AS HAVING SERVED ON PTA.
AND MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND IS IN REAL ESTATE.
I AM ALSO THE PLANNING TEAM REPRESENTATIVE FOR BEACON HILL AS WE WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CREATE THE NEAR NORTH COMMUNITY AREA PLAN.
AS SUCH, I BELIEVE I HAVE AN INFORMED AND BALANCED APPROACH.
I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST FOR A CHANGE TO THE NEWLY ADOPTED EAST SIDE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN.
IT IS DISCOURAGING AND DISTRESSING TO SEE THE WORK OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY SO DISRESPECTED AS I TRY TO ENGAGE THE RESIDENTS OF BEACON HILL ON THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR NEW PLAN AND THE ASSURANCES IT GIVES US IN REGARD TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CASES LIKE THIS COMPLETELY UNDERMINE THOSE EFFORTS.
I IMAGINE PART OF THE ARGUMENT BY THE LAND USE ATTORNEYS WILL BE THE EXISTENCE OF REGIONAL MIXED USE PROPERTIES JUST ACROSS THE ROAD, BUT THAT ARGUMENT ONLY LEADS TO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT BY SETTING PRECEDENCE.
SOMETHING TO COMMUNITY PLANS ARE MEANT TO PROTECT
[00:25:01]
NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE CURRENT LAYOUT OF REGIONAL MIXED USE AND URBAN MIXED USE.AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE PROVIDES THE KIND OF THOUGHTFUL TRANSITIONS AND BUFFERING THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT MEANT TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, NOT HARM IT.
I'M HEARTENED BY AND APPRECIATES STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AND ASK Y'ALL ON THE COMMISSION TO DO THE SAME.
MY ADDRESS IS 1 0 5 RENO STREET IN GOVERNMENT HILL.
I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM 26.
NO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE COMMISSION CANNOT DECIDE TODAY THAT THIS CHANGE TO A BRAND NEW SA TOMORROW PLAN IS NOT RIGHT FOR NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY WOULD THINK IT IS OKAY FOR PROPERTY THAT IS NOT JUST ON AUSTIN STREET, BUT ALSO ON A VERY SMALL LOCAL STREET HACKBERRY.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET WITH MODEST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVING A PLAN CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS FOR THE UNLIMITED HEIGHT AND DENSITY THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PURSUING HERE, THE MID DOWN PLAN ACROSS GRAYSON HAS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
WHY IS THE CURRENT MIXED USE THE SAME DISTANCE FROM BROADWAY, NOT ALREADY A HIGH ENOUGH INTENSITY? PLEASE, PLEASE PROTECT MY FELLOW GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORS AND RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR 1316 AUSTIN TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND YOUR SERVICE.
GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS DREA GARZA.
UH, FOUR 30 BUR DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO ONE AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN SIX FOUR THREE FOUR.
I AM CALLING IN REFERENCE TO AGENDA ITEM UH, NUMBER 26.
I AM CALLING TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE EAST SIDE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN TO ALLOW REGIONAL MIXED USE WHERE IT IS ALREADY DESIGNATED AS URBAN MIXED USE.
THE AREA IN QUESTION IS IN NEAR PROXIMITY TO URBAN LOW DENSITY AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
THIS COMMUNITY PLAN WAS RECENTLY APPROVED AND IS THE RESULTS OF LONG-TERM PLANNING AND COLLABORATION AMONG A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS.
THESE PLANS REFLECT WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY WANT AND EXPECT TO SEE AS PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
PLEASE DO NOT UNDERMINE THESE EFFORTS AND MAINTAIN THE LAND USE AS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED.
I'M TALKING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 26.
I SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL FOR AMENDING THE EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN.
YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS AND THE PLANNING STAFF WORKED OVER TWO YEARS TO WRITE AND APPROVE THIS PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED ACTUALLY THIS YEAR AND IT SEEMS UNFAIR TO CHANGE TO DROP IN ORIGINAL MIXED USE PLAN AFTER THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE PLANNERS WORK TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT SUPPORTS THE HISTORIC AND DENSITY CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HI, MY NAME IS LETICIA SANCHEZ.
MY ADDRESS IS 1710 VERA CRUZ AND MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 3 6 3 5 8 9 5.
I'M THE CO-CHAIR PERSON OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION AND I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF OUR ASSOCIATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26.
OUR ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE EAST SIDE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE RESIDENTS VOLUNTEER MANY HOURS TO DEVELOP COMMUNITY PLANS TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD'S.
CHARACTER RESIDENTS ALSO PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO ISSUES SUCH AS TRAFFIC PATTERNS, INFORMATION THAT NON-RESIDENTS LACK TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES ARE CONCERN FOR RESIDENTS AND ARE WIDE DECISIONS ON LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ARE MADE TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AFTER RESIDENTS HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS REVIEWING AND DECIDING ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR COMMUNITY.
NEGATES THE WORK AND THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING COMMUNITY PLANS.
OUR ASSOCIATION, OUR ASSOCIATION, ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESPECT THE WORK AND DECISIONS OF THE EAST SIDE COMMUNITY AND VOTE AGAINST CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MERCEDES ALH AND I'M A PROPERTY OWNER
[00:30:01]
AT FOUR 10 SANDMEYER IN GOVERNMENT HILL.I'M CALLING TO OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 26.
THE CURRENT URBAN MIXED USE DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA CONSIDERING ALL OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT.
SO PLEASE VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL IN THIS CASE TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
IF YOU NEED TO REACH ME, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 9 9 5 8 5 6 7.
I'M CALLING ABOUT AN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26 FOR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 1316 AUSTIN STREET.
MY ADDRESS IS 1120 EAST FROCK IN THE DITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN DISTRICT TWO.
I SERVED ON THE SAN ANTONIO TOMORROW OR THE SA TOMORROW EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN WORKING GROUP FOR THE TWO TO THREE YEARS OF COMMUNITY INPUT.
AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE WORK THAT TOOK PLACE TO CREATE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
I'M IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST FOR REGIONAL MIXED USE IN LIEU OF THE MORE APPROPRIATE AND CURRENTLY PLANNED USE OF URBAN MIXED USE FOR 1316 AUSTIN STREET.
THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO SERVE AS A FORM AND MASSING BUFFER BETWEEN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE AND BROADWAY AND THE LOWER DENSITY AND INTENSITY STRUCTURES ON THE NEXT BLOCK TO THE EAST AND INTO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A MATTER OF URBAN DESIGN BEST PRACTICES TO INCLUDE EFFECTIVE BUFFERS BETWEEN SUCH DIFFERENT USES AND THE URBAN MIXED USE IS ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SA TOMORROW EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN IS LESS THAN A YEAR OLD AND IF WE'RE READY TO CHANGE IT ALREADY, MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT THE ENTIRE EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AGAIN, UH, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF MY COMMENTS.
UH, THIS IS RAY MOR AT 2 0 3 METHOD DRIVE, UH, DISTRICT 10, UH, TELEPHONE NUMBER (210) 727-9215.
AND I'M CALLING REGARDING ITEM NUMBER 2 26 OF THE AGENDA.
REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS NOT APPROVE THE RE ZONING REQUEST FROM URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE AS THE, AS THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DENSITY, THE SCALE AND HEIGHT PER THE EAST SIDE AREA COMMUNITIES PLAN THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY APPROVED IN JUNE 2ND, 2024.
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN 200 FEET OF SIMILAR PROJECTS MUST BE PROTECTED AS ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE SHOULD INSTEAD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMPLIMENT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
MY NAME IS ROGER CANTU AND MY ADDRESS IS 1822 HACKBERRY TELEPHONE NUMBER (210) 421-7036.
I AM CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM 26.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE COMMISSION CANNOT DECIDE TODAY THAT THIS CHANGE TO A BRAND NEW ESSAY TOMORROW PLAN IS NOT RIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY WOULD THINK IT IS OKAY FOR PROPERTY THAT IS NOT JUST ON AUSTIN, BUT A SMALL LOCAL STREET LIKE HACKBERRY.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORRY ABOUT MY STREET WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVING TO PLAN CATEGORIES THAT ALLOW UNLIMITED HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
THE MIDTOWN PLAN ACROSS GRAYSON AT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
WHY IS THE CURRENT MIXED USE THE SAME DISTANCE FROM BROADWAY, NOT ALREADY A HIGH ENOUGH INTENSITY? PLEASE PROTECT MY NEIGHBORS AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR 1316 AUSTIN STREET TODAY.
MY ADDRESS IS 1822 NORTH HACKBERRY STREET, PHONE NUMBER (210) 421-6479.
I'M CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26, PROPERTY AT 1316 AUSTIN STREET.
AS A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, I AM OPPOSED OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE SHOULD NOT ALLOW REGIONAL MIXED USE CATEGORY AT THIS LOCATION THAT WOULD ALLOW DOWNTOWN TYPE USES, WHICH ARE VERY INTENSE.
URBAN MIXED USE, WHICH IS THE CURRENT PLAN ALLOWS MANY USES ALREADY AND THESE ARE FULLY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BLOCK.
KEEP THE CURRENT PLAN TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS NEIGHBORS.
LET'S KEEP THE CURRENT PLAN TO PROVIDE STABILITY TO DEVELOPMENT AND TO RESPECT ALL THE YEARS OF WORK AND CITIZEN INPUT PUT INTO THE PLAN COMMISSIONERS PLEASE VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS PLAN AMENDMENT.
[00:35:02]
HELLO, MY NAME IS SHARON GARCIA.I LIVE AT 3 1 2 WEST NORWOOD COURT AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 422-8894.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I AM CALLING ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 26.
CHANGING THE LAND USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE GOES AGAINST THE EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AND REPRESENTS, WHICH REPRESENTS THE WISHES OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WORKED TO PUT IT TOGETHER.
THE LAND USE WOULD THIS CHANGE WOULD SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE A PART OF OR WILL BECOME A PART OF THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN.
MANY SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS IN MEETINGS FORMING LAND USES AND DESIGN STANDARDS THAT FIT EACH COMMUNITY AND WILL BECOME A PART OF THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN.
OUR COMMUNITY PLANS WILL PRESERVE OUR CURRENT FUNCTIONING AND THRIVING NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE AND ALLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A SAY IN THE FUTURE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
HI, I'M CALLING ABOUT, UM, SORRY.
MY NAME IS STACY SWANS AND MY ADDRESS IS 2 0 3 RADIANT.
I'M CALLING AN OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEM 26.
THE REGIONAL MIXED USE IS TWO INTENSE.
THE CURRENT URBAN MIXED USE CATEGORY ALREADY OFFERS MANY USES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE NEAR THE URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY USES WITHIN 200 FEET.
PLEASE VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL AND PROTECT THE NEW EAST SIDE PLAN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY NAME IS STEVE STEIG, 1 0 5 RENO STREET.
I AM CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM 26 13 16.
AUSTIN STREET IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR REGIONAL MIXED USE, WHICH ALLOWS UNLIMITED HEIGHT AND UNLIMITED DENSITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP TALLER AND DENSER THAN THE TWO LARGE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON GRAYSON STREET THAT ARE ON THE TWO BLOCKS CLOSER TO THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR HERE.
THEY WANT OVER 150 UNITS PER ACRE.
APPROVAL OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS WHAT I THINK HAS GENERATED CRITICISM BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
SOME FEEL ALL AREAS OF THE CITY DO NOT HAVE THEIR MASTER PLANS DEFENDED EQUALLY.
JUST DOWN THE STREET AT EIGHT 15 GRAYSON, THIS COMMISSION APPROVED A CHANGE FROM URBAN LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ONLY ONE YEAR LATER IT WAS SOLD TO SOMEONE TO USE THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY BUILDING AND HAD THE DOWNSIZE DOWN ZONE.
THAT PROPERTY WAS IN FACT AT ITS BEST AND HIGHEST USE AFTER ALL AS SET BY THE MIDTOWN PLAN AND DIDN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED.
WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION HERE.
THIS FUTURE LAND USE IS AT ITS BEST AND HIGHEST USE.
THE EAST SIDE PLAN INCREASED A LOT OF DENSITY LEAVING NO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE ENTIRE PLAN.
IT LEFT ONLY URBAN LOW DENSITY.
THE CURRENT URBAN MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS AUSTIN STREET PROPERTY WAS JUST SET BY CITY COUNCIL THIS SUMMER AND IS CURRENTLY AT ITS BEST AND HIGHEST USE CATEGORY.
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT CHANGE FOR THE EAST SIDE AND WILL NOT BE THE RIGHT CHANGE IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OR MARCH.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE THIS CASE.
PLEASE SHOW CITY COUNCIL YOU DO PROTECT THE PLANS FOR CITIZENS ON ALL SIDES OF TOWN AND RECOMMEND DENIAL TODAY.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S ALL THE VOICEMAILS.
UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FIRST.
UH, MS. PRISCILLA HAWAII, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
HI, MY NAME IS PRISCILLA RENA AYA AND I'VE BEEN LIVING AT 1812 NORTH HACKBERRY FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MY OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE.
SOME HAVE BEEN THERE A LOT LONGER THAN I HAVE.
THIS IS WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW.
WE DO NOT WANT A 16 STORY BUILDING.
PUT THAT 16 STORY BUILDING BUILT ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR HOMES.
UM, THEY ARE, UM, WANNA PUT, UM, CONDOS AND PENTHOUSES WORTH 400, $500,000.
AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE CITY HAD A SURVEY
[00:40:01]
OVER THE SUMMER AND I KNOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS EITHER NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO.UM, ANOTHER ISSUE IS, UH, TRAFFIC.
EVERYBODY IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY CONGESTED ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, ALL NIGHT, EVERY DAY.
IT'S VERY, VERY CONGESTED THERE.
NOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED UNITS THERE.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR ALL THESE PEOPLE.
UM, CAN I HAVE MY, I HAVE SOME NOTES ON THE BACK.
SO THAT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR ALL MY NEIGHBORS AND OF COURSE TAXES.
WHAT IS THIS GONNA DO TO OUR TAXES? YOU KNOW? UM, SO WE'RE JUST REALLY, REALLY, UM, ASKING THE COMMISSION TO, UM, THIS IS, UH, THESE PEOPLE ARE THE 1%, THESE DEVELOPERS ARE THE 1% OKAY.
OR THE 99% WE'RE ASKING YOU TO OPPOSE THIS PLAN.
AND EVERYBODY, ALL OF MY, MY NEIGHBORS ARE AGAINST IT.
SO WE FIND A LOT OF, UM, ISSUES, YOU KNOW, AND THEY, THEY, THEY'RE LYING ABOUT THINGS TOO.
YOU KNOW, THEY SAY THEY, THEY'VE BEEN GOING TO OUR HOMES AND TALKING TO US AND A A COUPLE OF, I KNOW A COUPLE OF MY NEIGHBORS DON'T SPEAK SPANISH.
AND, UM, THEY STILL HAVE THEIR NAMES.
THANK YOU ON THEIR APPRECIATE IT ON THEIR LIST.
UH, NEXT IS, UH, IS IT RAMIRO? I'M SORRY? CASTANO.
HAVE YOU HAVE A TRANSLATION? YEAH.
CAN WE HAVE THE TRANSLATOR PLEASE? SO YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES, CORRECT? YEAH.
I, MY NAME IS RAMIRO CASTELLANOS.
I LIVE IN 1230 AUSTIN STREET AND I LIVE, UH, SHE CAN TRANSLATE IT.
I LIVE THERE FOR ABOUT 35 YEARS OLD.
35 YEARS WHEN BUSINESS START MOVING TO GRAYLAND ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.
I THINK NOW THAT THIS 16 STORY BUILDING OVER HERE IN, UH, GRAYLAND AND AUSTIN STREET, THAT'S, THAT'S THERE'S GONNA BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE THROWING BROKEN BOTTLES IN MY, IN MY FRONT YARD, UH, NAPKINS, EVERYTHING.
UH, FINAL PERSON TO SPEAK IS, UH, DON GEN GENZ.
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UH, MY WIFE ANGELA GENTZ COULD NOT BE HERE, BUT SHE SHARES MY SENTIMENTS.
THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT THE, JUST STATE YOUR ADDRESS.
2 1 5 QUITMAN EQUIPMENT STREET.
AND THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT THIS WAS FRIDAY EVENING.
THIS LAST FRIDAY WHEN THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE BUILDING A 16 STORY MONOLITH, HALF A BLOCK FROM MY HOUSE.
AND MY WIFE AND I WERE HORRIFIED.
THIS IS THE FIRST WE'D HEARD ABOUT IT.
NOBODY'S COME KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR.
WE ARE RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHERS WERE THERE ALL THE TIME.
AND IT'S JUST NOT ONLY WILL THIS DISRUPT AND INCREASE THE ALREADY HORRENDOUS TRAFFIC, YOU SHOULD SEE THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT THAT COMES OUT OF FORT SAM AT FIVE O'CLOCK OR UH, A COUPLE HOURS LATER, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT GO DOWN TO GRAYSON STREET, TO THE RESTAURANTS AND TAVERNS AND IT'S COMPLETELY CLOGGED.
AND BROADWAY IS CLOGGED ALREADY TO ADD A MULTI-STORY OUTFIT LIKE THIS.
IT'S GOING TO ALSO, IT'S GOING JUST THE, THEY BUILT A FOUR STORY, ONE AT EQUIPMENT AND GRAYSON, OR PARDON ME, GRAYSON AND, UM, NEW BRAUNFELS.
AND IT BLOCKED OUR STREET EQUIPMENT STREET FOR TWO OR THREE WEEKS.
[00:45:01]
WHAT'S THIS ONE GONNA DO? NOT ONLY THAT, IT'S ONLY A HALF A BLOCK AWAY AND IT'S GOING TO, WHO IT'S GOING TO BLOCK THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING SUN FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS.JUST LEAVE US IN THE SHADOW OF THIS HUGE MONOLITH.
AND IT IS JUST INCONCEIVABLE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO RUIN THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD BY PUTTING THIS HUGE, HUGE THING HERE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF INPUT OR APPROVAL FROM THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE THERE.
THANK YOU TO ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 22ND, 2025.
I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
MOVE TO, UM, CONTINUE AS REQUESTED.
SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE JANUARY 22ND, 2025 MEETING BY COMMISSIONER MILAM.
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE APPROVED.
AND I'LL JUST ENCOURAGE, UH, BOTH ALL PARTIES TO WORK TOGETHER NOW SIX DURING THOSE SIX WEEKS AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY AGAIN THEN.
ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 27 I, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BEES PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM 27 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE MEDICAL CENTER AREA REGIONAL CENTER PLAN FROM URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE LOCATED AT 8 4 0 1 AND 8 4 1 5 DATA POINT DRIVE.
THERE WERE 237 NOTICES MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET.
RIOT COM RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO REGIONAL MIXED USE TO REZONE TO MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 65 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 65 UNITS PER ACRE.
THERE ARE MULTIFAMILY USES WITHIN PROXIMITY, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANTS REQUEST EXCEEDS THE DENSITY PERMITTED WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION PROVIDES MORE APPROPRIATE MEDIUM DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA.
WHILE THE REGIONAL MIXED USE PROPOSES HIGHER DENSITY, HIGHER DENSITY LAND USES, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.
I HAVE A A, A SHORT PRESENTATION.
UM, SO JUST QUICKLY TO TALK ABOUT, THERE'S TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THIS PROPERTY.
I REPRESENT THE NEW OWNERS OF THIS, UM, PROJECT.
THE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN 1980, SO THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.
UM, YOU, YOU ALL MAY HAVE READ ABOUT THEM OR KNOW ABOUT THEM, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT, UM, DECREASE IN OCCUPANTS OF, AT AT LEAST ONE OF THE BUILDING AND ONE OF THEM IS ALMOST VACANT AT THIS TIME.
UM, I, I INCLUDED THIS EXHIBIT.
SO YOU ALL, I MEAN EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE MEDICAL CENTER, BUT THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING THERE AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
UH, SO HERE ARE THOSE TWO BUILDINGS AND THEN THEY ACTUALLY HAVE, UM, THAT PROPERTY TO THE BACK, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT SEPARATELY.
UM, SO TWO 10 STORY BUILDINGS.
UH, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS CLOSER TO I 10 HAS, UM, A LOT OF OFFICE TENANTS IN IT NOW.
IT STILL HAS SOME VACANCY, BUT THAT ONE IS, IS, IS PRETTY OCCUPIED.
THE ONE ON THE LEFT, UM, IS NOT, AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS AN MXDA MIXED USE ZONING.
[00:50:01]
CURRENTLY ZONED C3.I KNOW YOU ALL AREN'T ZONING, BUT JUST TO EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE HERE.
UM, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED C3 HIGHEST INTENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONING.
UM, MXD DOES ALLOW FOR C3 USES AS WELL.
UH, IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT'S NEEDED FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.
UM, BUT WE NEED THE MXD TO ALSO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY ON THE SITE.
SO WHAT THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO AND IS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE BUILDING, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE BUILDING, UM, IS CONVERTING THE ONE BUILDING ON THE LEFT IN THIS PICTURE TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
SO AGAIN HERE THE BUILDING JUST FROM A DIFFERENT VIEW AND THEN THE ONE ON THE LEFT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO THE HOUSING.
UM, JUST KINDA EXPLAINING OUR REQUEST AND SO THAT THAT DENSITY THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR DOES PUSH IT INTO THE REGIONAL MIXED USE.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER MX DS IN THE MEDICAL CENTER THAT ALSO HAVE, UM, THE REGIONAL MIXED USE DESIGNATION IN, IN OUR HIGHER DENSITY EVEN THAN THIS.
UM, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY MEDICAL CENTER HAS OTHER PROJECTS WITH 65 PLUS UNITS PER ACRE SO THAT WE THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING.
UM, THE OTHER THING I DO WANNA POINT OUT IS THERE IS A, A LOT IN THE BACK AND THE ONE THING IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
I KNOW ONE, ONE NEIGHBOR IS HERE.
UM, THIS PROPERTY HERE JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE IS PART OF AN OLD PUD.
SO AN OLD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THESE THREE PROPERTIES.
UM, SO THIS PIECE HAS TO REMAIN COMMERCIAL UNLESS THAT PUD IS CHANGED.
UM, SO THAT WILL LIKELY STAY PARKING FOREVER
SO IF THERE IS CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THIS GOING TO BE CONVERTED TO SOME KIND OF HOUSING 'CAUSE THIS IS WHAT'S NEXT TO THOSE CONDOS, UM, IT IT CAN'T BE, UH, WITHOUT FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THAT PIECE.
UH, AND THEN JUST FOR REFERENCE, THESE ARE TWO SAWS, CITY OWNED PARCELS HERE.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE DO THINK THE USE IS APPROPRIATE AND, AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS SURROUNDED BY URBAN MIXED USE, BUT IT'S ALSO SURROUNDED BY C3 ZONING.
SO, UH, THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN EITHER, BUT YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PLANNING DESIGNATION WAS.
UM, SO WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO FIT UNDER THE URBAN MIXED USE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T.
SO REQUESTING THAT CHANGE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WE, WE WILL, WE WILL LISTEN TO ONE, UH, CITIZEN HERE.
UH, TWO MINUTES AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? MY NAME'S LEO LA SOYA.
MY ADDRESS IS 86 33 DATA POINT, CONDO NUMBER TWO OH SEVEN.
MY PHONE NUMBER'S TWO TEN THREE SIX THREE NINE ONE EIGHT ONE.
WE LIVE IN A COMMUNITY OF APPROXIMATELY 220 CONDOS AND I'VE BEEN THERE 24 YEARS AND I HAVE GRADUALLY SEEN THE INCREASE, UM, OF THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES BY THERE.
SO AGAIN, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE LADY JUST MENTIONED WITH REGARDS TO THE BUILDING, THAT'S GONNA, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE GONNA RENOVATE OR BUILD UP SOME MORE.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT WHAT SHE MENTIONED WAS THAT PUT THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO OUR CONDO, UH, IS ALSO A, A CONCERN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, UM, AN, UH, NATURAL DRAINAGE THAT GOES BY THERE.
SO IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDING, ADDITIONAL CONCRETE THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THE, UH, UM, NATURAL DRAINAGE, UH, FLOW IF YOU WILL.
YOU KNOW, AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE AGAINST THAT.
UH, MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT NATURAL DRAIN THAT FLOWS RIGHT BY MY CONDO.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE HEAVY RAINS COME, YOU KNOW, YOU TRY TO WALK ACROSS THAT, IT'LL, IT'LL SWEEP YOU OFF YOUR FEET.
SO THEREFORE, UH, I AM OPPOSED TO THE, UH, ZONE CHANGE, UH, KEEPING IT URBAN, MIXED, UH, AND OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL MIXED USE.
DID YOU WANNA ADDRESS, UH, HIS CONCERNS BRIEFLY BEFORE WE GET TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SURE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, UM, I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO MR. LOYA AFTER THERE IS A, LIKE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT RUNS BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.
UM, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER.
UM, THE PROPERTY'S ABOUT A HUNDRED PERCENT IN PER BASED COVER RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT, AND, AND WHAT WAS PLANNED IS, IS INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND, UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE, BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, EVALUATE ALL THOSE CONCERNS.
I'LL START, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ ON THE LEFT HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES.
UH, SO WHAT IS THE EXISTING, UH, MIXED USE DENSITY
[00:55:01]
ALLOWED CURRENTLY? UM, UNDER URBAN MIXED USE? I THINK IT GOES UP TO 40 UNITS PER ACRE.AND IN YOUR PRESENT, IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU HAD LISTED A PROPOSED USE OF 75, BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS 65.
ARE YOU DOING, WHICH ONE IS IT? YES, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY, WELL IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU CALCULATE IT.
IF YOU TAKE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU CUT OUT THAT COMMERCIAL PIECE IN THE BACK, THEN IT'S 75.
BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET 75 YES.
FOR, FOR THE NON COMMERCIAL PIECE.
SO WE HEARD A, A REMARK ABOUT TRAFFIC MM-HMM
HOW MANY UNITS ARE TRYING TO GET IN THERE? WELL, THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS, IS WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY UNITS CAN GO INTO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
UM, SO UNSURE, UH, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 800 IN THAT ONE BUILDING.
IT'S ONLY A 10 STORY BUILDING, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A LOT.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN, IN PARKING TRIP OR TRAFFIC TRIPS ARE FROM WHAT'S THERE NOW FOR AN OFF A 10 STORY OFFICE BUILDING COMPARED TO WHAT IT COULD BE.
UM, IS IT GONNA BE COMPARABLE OR IS IT GONNA BE MUCH MORE OR MUCH LESS? UM, I, I AM NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND I KNOW YOU ARE SO, OR AN ENGINEER, SO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE NUMBERS.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TRAFFIC COUNTS.
UM, DO YOU KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE OFFICE SPACE? I DO, UH, TOTAL.
WELL, EACH, EACH BUILDING HAS A FOOTPRINT OF ABOUT, SO THEY'RE EACH ABOUT 110,000 TO 120,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO, SO YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PROBABLY GET FOUR FOUR.
SO YOU WOULD DO, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET MORE THAN LIKE 200 UNITS THERE, RIGHT? OH YEAH.
AND THE, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO, THERE'S ABOUT 1200 PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY NOW.
SO THAT'S THE OTHER LIMITING FACTOR.
AND YOU'RE NOT PURSUING ANY VARIANCES FOR PARKING OR ANY? NO.
MR. GARCIA? NO QUESTION MR. ROULETTE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE LOOKING AT BUILDING ONE TURNING INTO MULTIFAMILY AS OF RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN PROPOSE FOR BUILDING TWO TO STAY AS IS HEATHER THERE FUTURE PLANS FOR BUILDING TWO TO EVENTUALLY CONVERT IT OR IS IT JUST NO, NOT RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, IT, IT IT'S, IT'S PRETTY OCCUPIED AND THERE ARE SOME TENANTS STILL IN A COUPLE, A HANDFUL.
IT'S IN BUILDING ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THEIR LEASES WOULD MAYBE MOVE TO BUILDING TWO.
COMMISSIONER MARLON, UM, CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE, UH, AFFORDABILITY OF THESE APARTMENTS? I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF STAFF WITH LOW INCOMES AT THE MEDICAL CENTER.
YEAH, I, I WISH I COULD BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A BIG CONCERN, ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW PROPOSED RENTAL RATES YET.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT IS INCORRECT.
UM, IT WOULD BE NICE, UH, THIS, THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE SOME AFFORDABILITY BEFORE AND IS USED TO DOING THAT.
UM, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE ZONING PIECE BECAUSE THE ADAPTIVE REUSE IS VERY COMPLICATED.
UM, AND SO THEN ONCE WE KNOW THAT, I THINK WE'D HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF COST AND THEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE RENTAL RATES WOULD BE.
SORRY,
NO QUESTION FROM THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, SO TOWER ONE WOULD BE CONVERTED TO APARTMENTS, TOWER TWO ESSENTIALLY WOULD REMAIN HIS OFFICE.
WOULD THERE, IS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF, YOU MENTIONED THERE'S LIKE 1200 PARKING SPOTS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE TO BE OVER PARKED.
OF DEVELOPING THOSE OFFICE REQUIRES A LOT MORE PARKING THAN MULTIFAMILY.
UM, AND I, IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE DEPENDING ON THE DENSITY OF THIS BUILDING, I THINK IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME KIND OF STRUCTURED PARKING WITH MAYBE ADDITIONAL UNITS, THERE'S NO PLANS FOR THAT AT THIS TIME, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE IN THE FUTURE IF THE DENSITY IS ALLOWED.
ON, ON THE CONVERSION, IS IT ALL MULTIFAMILY? ARE WE LOOKING TO ANY RETAIL FIRST LEVEL DEPARTMENTS? NO, I DON'T REALLY THINK THERE'S MUCH MARKET AT THAT LOCATION FOR RETAIL.
I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT.
THERE'S LIKE COMMISSIONER SAYS, A LOT OF PARKING AND THE ISSUE WITH THE PIECE BEHIND THE CONDOS, UH, WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, TAKEN THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS, RIGHT? MM-HMM
TO, TO, TO CHANGE THAT TO SOMETHING ELSE.
SO THAT WOULD BE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENT ON THAT.
UM, OFFICE VACANCIES IS AN ISSUE AND THE CITY AND UH, UH, IT'S GOOD THAT SOMEBODY'S LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS.
[01:00:01]
A, A FIT, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO CONVERT AN OFFICE BUILDING TO APARTMENTS.BUT, UM, HOPEFULLY IT DOES WORK AND HOPEFULLY IT'S LIKE COMMISSIONER MILAM SAID THAT IT'S AFFORDABILITY AFFORDABLE MM-HMM
TO SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF THAT ADJACENT COMMUNITY.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I WILL SEE IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE.
SO TO MOVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER MILAM.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA.
ITEM NUMBER 29 I ALEXA RATANA PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 29 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN FROM SUBURBAN TIER AND GENERAL URBAN TIER TO REGIONAL CENTER.
LOCATED AT 1 3 5 2 7 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10.
THERE WERE 31 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, AND ONE NEUTRAL WITHIN THE 200 FEET.
NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL URBAN TIER AND SUBURBAN TIER TO REGIONAL CENTER IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO SEE THREE N-A-C-D-S, GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE CELL SERVICE AND STORAGE WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE.
THERE ARE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
INTRODUCING THE DESIGNATION TO THE AREA WOULD ALLOW HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE EXISTING LAND USES ALREADY PERMIT MODERATE COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH ARE MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA, THUS CERTAIN PROPOSED LAND USE.
CERTAIN PROPOSED USES COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AMEND THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BOUNDARY OF 39.22 ACRES TO REMOVE LOTS.
ONE THROUGH SIX BLOCK NINE AND A PORTION OF LOT 9 0 3.
HI, UM, ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUICK PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE.
OKAY, SO, SO THIS IS A, A CHALLENGE THAT I KNOW REGIONAL COMMERCIAL IS, IS DIFFICULT HERE.
UM, BUT I'LL EXPLAIN KIND OF WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS AT THIS LOCATION.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT 40 ACRES.
UM, AND, AND, AND IT DOES EXCLUDE THAT PIECE THERE, BUT IT'S NOT, UM, IT HAS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
AND SO IT'S CURRENTLY MOSTLY ZONED MF 33 WITH C TWO.
UM, AND, AND IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR THOSE TYPE OF USES, UM, IT'S EITHER VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE OR, OR JUST NOT FEASIBLE.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS AND, AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO HERE, THE OWNER AND AND PURCHASER WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SOME OUTDOOR STORAGE WITH, UM, TRUCK PARKING.
AND IN LOOKING AT, UM, THE AREA AND UNDERSTANDING THE PROPERTY, UM, THEY DON'T NEED 40 ACRES TO DO THAT.
AND SO WE HAVE TO ASK FOR THE C3 WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH IS WHAT IS TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, WE THINK THE USE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SEE HERE ON FOUR 10.
UM, BUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BUFFERS.
AND AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT GOES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT JUST TO KIND OF EXPLAIN, UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO THIS IS THE ZONING MAP, THE PLANNING MAP, AND THEN THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT GO, WOULD GO ALONG WITH OUR ZONING CASE.
AND SO WHAT THIS INCLUDES AND, AND WILL BE UPDATED ON THAT CORNER, UM, IS A 200 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO NOTHING TO BE DEVELOPED WOULD BE, WOULD REMAIN NATURAL IN THAT 200 FEET.
UM, SO THIS SIDE, THIS SIDE AND THEN THIS SIDE.
AND, AND IN TALKING WITH THIS OWNER, I THINK HIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO YOU ALL.
UM, HE HAS RESIDENTIAL LOTS HERE AND HE'S FINE WITH IT, PROVIDED THAT THAT BUFFER IS, IS THERE.
SO WE WOULD DO 200 FEET ALONG THE PERIMETER AND THEN, UM, SO THAT THE FRONTAGE LOOKS NICE, A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER ALONG
[01:05:01]
THE FRONTAGE.UM, AND SO THAT WOULD REMAIN NATURAL WITH LANDSCAPING ON THE FRONTAGE.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
AND THEN THE OVERSIZED VEHICLES, UM, WOULD BE IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY, UM, HOPEFULLY FULLY SCREENED FROM VIEW.
UM, SO, BUT OUR ZONING CASE IS TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR THE, THE HIGHER DENSITY IN TERMS OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AND, AND HOPE YOU WOULD APPROVE.
START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER S SIPES.
IT IS, IT IS ONE PLAID, BUT YOU HAD TO DO TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF THEM.
IT HAS A DRIVE THAT, THAT OR THIS, THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE IS AN ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
BUT I I, THAT'S A PUBLIC DRIVE.
NOT CURRENTLY, NO, NOT CURRENT, BUT BUT IS HOW THE PROPERTY IS DIVIDED.
COMMISSIONER ETTE? NO QUESTION.
COMM COMMISSIONER GARCIA? NO QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, NO QUESTIONS.
UH, THE, ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO I KNOW THIS IS A ZONING QUESTION, AND AGAIN, WE'RE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IN THE CONDITIONAL USE, UM, PROPOSAL MM-HMM
WOULD IT BE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ON, ON THE FENCING OR, OR SC FENCE OR, YOU KNOW, COVERED SCREENED IN FENCING OR ACTIVITIES BEFORE OR AFTER CERTAIN HOURS? GOOD QUESTION.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT IN OUR SITE PLAN NOW.
I MEAN THE, THE ZONING WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR FENCING MM-HMM
UM, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT PRIOR.
AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S ZONING, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT POPPED TO MY MIND.
AND WE'RE GONNA, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THAT BOTTOM CORNER, UM, WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST A, A CONTINUANCE NEXT WEEK AT PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THIS PLAN, SORRY, ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THIS PLAN IS UPDATED APPROPRIATELY.
UM, SO WE WON'T GO UNTIL JANUARY, SO WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THE FENCING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THAT'S OPEN FOR A MOTION.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SECOND, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AS AMENDED LEGAL.
THE AMENDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY COMMISSIONER TO THE AMENDED ME LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
I, COMMISSIONER MILAM SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ETTE.
WOULD, WOULD THAT COUNT THE REMOVED PORTION OF THE, UH, BOTTOM RIGHT COURSE? YES.
THE BOTTOM RIGHT THAT'S WE'RE AMENDING THE, THE MOTION IS INCLUDING THE AMENDED OKAY.
BEFORE WE, UH, MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, I'M GONNA REQUEST A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
3 35 AND WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER SIPES HAS LEFT
[Other Items ]
AT 3 35.ITEM NUMBER 34, I'M GONNA PUT THIS DOCUMENT.
I'M MONIQUE CORMAN, INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR.
AND FOR ITEM NUMBER 34, IT'S AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO EXEMPT A ZONING REGULATION FROM AN APPROVAL OF VESTED RIGHTS.
UM, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LITTLE OVER A YEAR SINCE YOU ALL HAVE SEEN A VESTED RIGHTS, UM, APPEAL.
SO I AM GONNA START WITH THE BRIEF BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON VESTED RIGHTS AND THEN I'LL JUMP INTO THE APPEAL APPLICATION.
[01:10:01]
SO, UH, CHAPTER 2 45.THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS CERTAIN PROJECTS TO BE VESTED OUT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TREE ORDINANCE.
THE RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROCESS ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO COMPLETE A PROJECT UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE WHEN THE PROJECT WAS FIRST ORIGINALLY INITIATED.
RIGHTS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR A PROJECT BASED ON THE FIRST PERMIT IN A SERIES OF PERMITS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT EVERY FIVE YEARS.
THE RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROCESS IS OPTIONAL AND ALLOWS AN APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO REQUEST RECOGNITION OF VESTED RIGHTS FOR AN ESTABLISHED PROJECT.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWS, THESE RIGHTS DETERMINATION REQUESTS.
THE REVIEW TYPICALLY INCLUDES, UM, VALIDATING THE UNDERLINING PERMIT, WHICH ESTABLISH THE PROJECT.
UM, THEY VERIFY CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT TO MAKE SURE THE USE IS BEING CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AND ENSURES PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT TO VERIFY THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT BECOME DORMANT.
THE REVIEW AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION IS DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UDC AND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
SO GOING BACK TO THE APPLICATION APPEAL, NEXT SLIDE.
THE APPLICANT IS ORTIZ MCKNIGHT AND THEY ARE REQUESTING RIGHTS FOR 0.46 ACRES OF LAND.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED, UM, AT 30 54 AND 30 50 MACARTHUR AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING VESTING RIGHTS FOR A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE VESTING DATE IS MAY 6TH, 2022, WHICH IS THE SUBMITTAL DATE OF THEIR UNDERLINING PERMIT, WHICH WAS MACARTHUR ONE SUBDIVISION PLAT.
AND THAT, UH, PROJECT THAT, UH, PLAT, UM, ESTABLISHED THEIR PROJECT AND THE APPLICANT.
UM, UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VESTING DATE OF MAY 6TH, 2022 TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE UDC SECTION 35 DASH THREE, 10.06, WHICH TOOK EFFECT JANUARY THE FIRST OF 2023.
THIS SECTION INDICATES THAT MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTIONS ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT TO THE UDC WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING, COMMISSION, THE ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL, UM, FOR CHAPTER 2 45.
UM, IT DOES ESTABLISH EXEMPTIONS TO VESTED RIGHTS.
SPECIFICALLY, IT STATES THAT VESTING SHALL NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT AFFECT LANDSCAPING OR TREE PRESERVATION, OPEN SPACE OR PARK DEDICATION, PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION, LOT SIZE, LOT DIMENSIONS, LOT COVERAGE OR BUILDING SIZE OR THAT DO NOT CHANGE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REQUIRED BY A MUNICIPALITY.
AND THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE DETACHED.
THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THEY SHOULD QUALIFY FOR VESTING BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT OF THE UDC REQUIRING UNITS TO BE IN ONE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A LOT COVERAGE REGULATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DISAGREES WITH THIS ANALYSIS.
THE ENTIRE LOT MAY STILL BE COVERED, SO LONG AS SETBACKS ARE MET, THE ABILITY TO COVER THE ENTIRE LOT MINUS SETBACKS IS NOT AT ALL AFFECTED BY THE ADOPTED UDC AMENDMENT.
THE APPLICANT, UM, COULD ALSO CONSIDER APPLYING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR RELIEF FROM THIS PROVISION.
UM, STAFF DID ISSUE A DETERMINATION LETTER LAST MONTH APPROVING VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE VESTING DATE MAY 6TH, 2022.
HOWEVER, IT DID INDICATE THAT THE APPROVAL WILL NOT EXEMPT THE PROPERTY FROM THE FOLLOWING CURRENT ZONING REGULATION.
MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER SHALL BE WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO APPEAL STAFF'S DECISION TO EXEMPT THIS ZONING REGULATION FROM THE APPROVAL OF VESTED RIGHTS.
AND THEN, UH, STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
YOU, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT ME TO DRIVE, I'LL DRIVE.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, JAMES MCKNIGHT ORTIZ MCKNIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, 1 1 2
[01:15:01]
EAST PECAN.AND, UH, YOU KNOW, MONIQUE, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, BUT YOU, YOU COVERED A LOT OF THE THINGS ALREADY, SO, I MEAN, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ANYWAY.
UM, SO THIS, I HAD SLIDES ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY AND YOU SAW THE SIZE OF IT.
SO THERE'S TWO LOTS, ABOUT 9,800 SQUARE FEET.
EACH RM FOUR IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ALL RM FOUR.
AND THAT PERMITS FOUR UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT, WHETHER IT'S DETACHED OR ATTACHED.
IT'S, UH, FOUR UNITS ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS.
THEY'RE ALL DETACHED ABOUT TWO STORIES, 1500 SQUARE FEET EACH ONE WITHIN A SINGLE DRIVEWAY.
AND AS MONIQUE POINTED OUT, THE, THIS WAS STARTED IN MAY OF 2022.
SO IT'S, IT'S BEEN TWO AND A HALF YEARS NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT.
SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE? UM, AS SHE SAID, UH, WE ARE SEEKING AN APPEAL HERE.
SO WE, WE WANTED A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO GO VERTICAL ON THOSE STRUCTURES, UH, FOR THOSE EIGHT INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES.
THAT'S, THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WANT.
AND THE CITY DENIED THAT PERMIT IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, AND IT WAS BASED ON THE REGULATION THAT MONIQUE POINTED OUT.
THE SINGLE STRUCTURE REGULATION, AS SHE SAID, MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR SMALLER, HAVE TO BE WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
SO THAT WAS ADOPTED, AS SHE SAID, JANUARY OF 2023.
SO WE BELIEVE WE'RE GRANDFATHERED FROM IT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS.
SO JUST WANTED TO LAY OUT THE ISSUE GENERALLY TO SAY WE DEFINITELY BELIEVE WE ARE VESTED FROM THE REGULATION AND ON A DIFFERENT GROUND THAN WHAT HAS BEEN STATED HERE.
SO I WANNA LAY OUT A TIMELINE.
WHAT YOU SEE IN RED HAPPENED BEFORE THE REGULATION TOOK PLACE, MAY 6TH.
INCLUDED IN THE PLAT APPLICATION WAS ACTUALLY A SITE PLAN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT.
AND IT INCLUDED A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWED THOSE EIGHT INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
SO IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WAS AWARE OF BACK IN MAY OF 22 FOR THAT PLAT APPLICATION.
SEPTEMBER 28TH, THAT'S WHEN A TREE, UH, OF 2022 TREE PERMIT APPLICATION GOES IN.
THAT ALSO SHOWS EIGHT INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
SO BEFORE THAT REGULATION TOOK PLACE, CITY WAS WELL AWARE OF THE KIND OF PROJECT THAT WAS BEING DEVELOPED.
UM, TREE PERMIT APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 22.
SO THE JANUARY 1ST REGULATION GOES IN PLACE JUNE 6TH.
SO THIS IS AFTER THE REGULATIONS IS PLACED, BUT WE'RE STILL DEVELOPING THE PROJECT.
WE GO TO ADDRESSING, AND IF ANYBODY'S GONE THROUGH ADDRESSING THAT IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS.
YOU HAVE TO GET A LOT OF APPROVALS TO GET IT.
IT WAS APPROVED JUNE 15TH COMMERCIAL PLAN REVIEW.
THAT WAS FOR A SITE WORK PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT.
AND AS I'LL SHOW YOU, THE CITY EVEN MENTIONS IN REVIEWING THAT PERMIT THE SINGLE STRUCTURE, BUT THEN MENTIONS IT WAS PRIOR TO THAT HAPPENED AFTER WE HAD ALREADY STARTED AND SO APPROVED IT.
SO WE GOT A SITE WORK PERMIT IN JUNE OF 2023.
IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, THE PLATS APPROVED.
SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK, AND WE AT, AT NO POINT BELIEVE THAT THIS REGULATION WOULD APPLY TO US AND STOP US FROM WHAT WE HAD INTENDED.
AND IT WAS ONLY UNTIL MAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR THAT WHEN WE TRIED TO GO VERTICAL ON THOSE UNITS, THAT WE WERE DENIED THE PERMIT BASED ON THE SINGLE STRUCTURE REGULATION.
HERE'S A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED THAT I MENTIONED FROM MAY OF 22.
THERE'S THE COPY OF THE TREE PERMIT THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND THEN APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2022.
HERE'S THE COMMERCIAL PLAN REVIEW, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE REVIEWER POINTS OUT ABOUT THE SINGLE STRUCTURE ISSUE.
BUT THE LAST RESPONSE WAS THAT THE PROJECT DATED BACK TO MAY 22 AND DIDN'T APPLY.
AND SO WE ACTUALLY GOT A PERMIT AND THE CITY WITHOUT ACTUALLY GETTING A FULL VESTED RIGHTS PERMIT, AGREED THAT WE WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT REGULATION.
AND THERE'S THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT.
SO MONIQUE ALREADY POINTED OUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE INVESTOR RIGHTS.
SO I WON'T GO INTO THE, THE FIRST PORTION.
AND SHE ALSO MENTIONED WE WERE GRANTED VESTED RIGHTS, BUT NOT AS TO THE SINGLE STRUCTURE REGULATION.
SO HERE'S WHERE THE REAL ISSUE LIES, AND THAT IS IN THE EXCEPTIONS, THE EXEMPTIONS ACTUALLY, THIS RISES INTENDED TO BE A BLANKET PROTECTION.
IF YOU'RE GONNA INVEST A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN DEVELOPING SOMETHING, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S COMING.
SO KNOWING WHAT RULES ARE GONNA APPLY TO YOU AND WHEN MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
SO IT IS A BLANKET PROTECTION.
MOST OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH LIFE SAFETY.
SOME OF THOSE HAVE TO DO WITH ZONING.
IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, CITY ZONES IT TO C TWO, YOU CAN'T BE EXEMPT.
YOU CAN'T BE, UH, VESTED FROM THAT.
AND WE KNOW THAT LIFE SAFETY ISSUES, LIKE I SAID, CAN'T BE VESTED FROM THAT.
YOU VESTING WILL NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT AFFECT LANDSCAPING TREE PRESERVATION.
AND I'M GONNA SKIP AHEAD LOT COVERAGE OR BUILDING SIZE MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT AFFECT LOTS LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SIZE.
SO THERE IS ACTUALLY A COURT CASE ON THIS FROM FORT WORTH THAT SAYS, THE PLAIN AND ORDINATE MEANING OF EFFECT
[01:20:01]
IS TO PRODUCE AN EFFECT.SO IF THERE IS A MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATION THAT DOES AFFECT THOSE THINGS, THAT AFFECTS MY LOT COVERAGE, I'M VESTED.
IT'S HARD TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT MEANS.
AND THE COURT AGREED, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM, BUT I'M PUTTING UP MY EVIDENCE ANYWAY.
SO THE QUESTION JUST BECOMES, AND THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THAT CASE, IS WHETHER THIS MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATION AFFECTS, IN MY CASE LOT COVERAGE OR BUILDING SIZE.
AND IF IT DOES, THEN YOU'RE VESTED.
SO HERE'S A A AN EXAMPLE OF THAT'S THE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAD, THAT WE SUBMITTED FOR, THAT WE ASKED FOR PERMITS FOR OF SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
WE DID SUBMIT A SITE PLAN OR CREATED A SITE PLAN OF WHAT THE BUILDING OR THE CITY'S ASKING US TO DO OF A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
AND YOU CAN SEE NOT ONLY IS IT SINGLE STRUCTURE ON EACH LOT, BUT IT ALSO HAS SIX PARKING SPACES.
WELL, THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE ONCE YOU BECOME A MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURE, YOUR PARKING CHANGES, SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE MORE PARKING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UH, ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SIX SPACES INSTEAD OF JUST FOUR THAT YOU HAD ON THE OTHER UNITS.
WELL, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS AFFECTED MY BUILDING SIZE, AFFECTED MY LOT COVERAGE.
DID IT AFFECT THOSE THINGS? YES, IT DID.
THE CITY IS MISCHARACTERIZING OUR ARGUMENT HERE.
THEY SAY IN THE REPORT THAT WE ARE CLAIMING THAT THE SINGLE STRUCTURE REGULATION IS A LOT COVERAGE REGULATION.
MY, UH, MY APPEAL IS IN THE PACKAGE.
I KNOW IT'S NOT A LOT COVERAGE REGULATION, IT'S NOT A BUILDING SIZE REGULATION.
IT IS A REGULATION THAT AFFECTS MY BUILDING SIZE AND, AND AFFECTS MY LOT COVERAGE.
YOU SEE, THE THING ABOUT THE THE VESTING IS THAT WHEN THIS, WHEN THOSE REGULATIONS WERE CREATED, THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTOOD THAT CITIES CAN REGULATE THINGS WITHOUT REGULATING THEM DIRECTLY.
SO IF I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY HAD A LARGER LOT, RESIDENTIAL, LARGER LOT, AND I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE A SMALLER LOT, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LARGER LOT, I COULD SAY EVERY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HAS TO HAVE 30 TREES PLANTED.
RIGHT NOW, THAT'S A TREE REGULATION, BUT IT HAS THE EFFECT OF CREATING A LARGER LOT.
AND THAT'S THE REASON THE REGULATION WAS WRITTEN.
THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN IS TO SAY, IF IT AFFECTS THOSE THINGS, THOSE THINGS YOU ARE VESTED FROM, THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS, MUNICIPAL, MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT AFFECT LOT COVERAGE ZONING.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A ZONING REGULATION THAT DOESN'T AFFECT MY LOT COVERAGE DOESN'T AFFECT MY BUILDING SIZE.
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SINGLE STRUCTURE IS A LOT COVERAGE REGULATION.
I'M ARGUING THAT IT AFFECTS MY LOT COVERAGE AND AFFECTS MY BUILDING SIZE.
AND THE COURT IN THAT, IN THOSE CASES, AGREED.
THEY SAID, AS LONG AS IT AFFECTS IT, YOU'RE VESTED FROM IT.
SO THE SUMMARY, I'M LOOKING TO OVERTURN THE CITY'S DENIAL, GRANT THE VESTED RIGHTS AND ALLOW US TO, TO GET THE, THE PERMITS FOR THOSE EIGHT INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE WAITING FOR.
AND I ALSO SHOWED ALL THIS TO SHOW THE GENERAL FAIRNESS OF WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AT THAT EVERY POINT THE CITY WAS WELL AWARE OF WHAT WE WERE DEVELOPING AND COULD HAVE AT ANY POINT NOT ISSUED THE COMMERCIAL WORK PERMIT, NOT ISSUED THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION THAT WE ASKED FOR.
THE ADDRESSING ALL OF THOSE THINGS COULD HAVE STOPPED AT ANY POINT IN, IN 2023 IF THERE REALLY WAS AN ISSUE.
IT WASN'T UNTIL MAY OF 2024, LONG AFTER WE HAD GONE THROUGH THESE PROCESSES.
AND SO THE EXPECTATIONS THAT WE CAN RELY ON AS PART OF CHAPTER 2 45 THAT, THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN RELY ON THOSE INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTATIONS ARE BEING UNDERCUT BY THIS.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR BASIC FAIRNESS, BUT IN THIS CASE, REALLY JUST FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW, DOES IT AFFECT MY BUILDING SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE? YES, IT DOES.
SO I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
START, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS WITH COMMISSIONER LOPEZ.
YEAH, THANK YOU, UH, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, MONIQUE, FOR YOURS.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE, UH, TO, I THINK BOTH OF Y'ALL'S POINTS.
WE'RE NOT SITTING AS, AS A, YOU KNOW, IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY.
UM, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, THERE'S MERIT, UH, IN BOTH ARGUMENTS AND READING OF, OF, OF THIS STATUTE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS DANGEROUS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, READ THE MINDS OF, OF THE BODIES THAT PASSED THESE.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THE CHALLENGE OF INTERPRETING, UH, CASES, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE GERMANE TO THIS ISSUE.
BUT, UM, I, I DO SEE THE CITY'S CONCERN, UH, ABOUT WHAT THIS COULD MEAN OR, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU, THE, THE, THE IDEA ABOUT OPENING THE FLOOD GATES TO HOW YOU CAN START TO SLIP IN TERMS OF
[01:25:01]
THE CITY'S OBVIOUS IMPORTANT ROLE IN MAINTAINING ITS PLANNING, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I I, I VIEW THE, THE, THE CHOICE OF THE WORD EFFECT AS A BROAD ONE.
UM, AND, AND, UM, AND SO I, I I, I, I TEND TO, TO TO SEE YOUR VIEW ON THIS SORT OF EX INTENTIONALLY EXPANSIVE READING OF, OF THIS PORTION.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE SIDE OF IT, I'D SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES A BODY LIKE THIS, NOT A JUDICIAL BODY, BODY LIKE THIS, UM, SHOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM A RESULTS PERSPECTIVE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, AND UH, AND AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S A CHALLENGE.
BUT WE'RE NOT A JUDICIAL BODY.
UM, WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE AS JUDGES.
UM, UM, AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT IT, UM, FROM, FROM THE, THE, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE AFFECTED BY FRANKLY, UM, I DON'T SEE A REAL DOWNSIDE IN FOUR HOUSES, UH, VERSUS TWO SOMEWHAT MONOLITHIC, I WOULD THINK, UM, APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
AND SO AGAIN, FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, I'M, I'M, I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO FROM A MUNICIPAL STANDPOINT, WHICH IS TO HOLD THE LINE, READ THE RULES.
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I'M SURE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT OF MINE.
BUT, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, OUR BACKGROUNDS, WHAT THE RULES ARE INTENDED TO, UH, CAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS A MUNICIPAL BODY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, FROM A RESULTS PERSPECTIVE, I, I, MY INSTINCT IS THAT, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS PRODUCT, THIS HOUSING PRODUCT PROBABLY DOES JUST FINE IN FOUR DIFFERENT, UH, UNITS.
SO, SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY VIEW OF IT.
UM, AND, UM, BUT AGAIN, I, I KNOW A LOT OF WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS, BOTH FROM THE DEVELOPER AND ALSO, AND ESPECIALLY FROM THE CITY.
AND I, I KNOW THIS, THESE ARE DIFFICULT THINGS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR GOALS ARE.
BUT, UM, SO MY COMMENT IS THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS.
UM, BUT I VIEW THIS AS ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS THAT THIS BODY IS DESIGNED TO KIND OF CLEAR THROUGH.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ORIAN.
SO I PERSONALLY HAVE DONE VESTED RIGHTS GOING BACK 15 YEARS OFF AND ON.
I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IT.
AND ONE OF THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THE CODE THAT DEALS WITH VESTED RIGHTS ON THE STATE LEVEL ISN'T ALL THAT LONG.
UH, ONE SECTION THAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP, UM, THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THIS COMMISSION, AND I'M READING FROM 2 45, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 45 DOUBLE ZERO TWO.
AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE, OR OF THE ACTUAL STATUTE.
AND WHAT IT SAYS IS, IF A SERIES OF PERMITS IS REQUIRED FOR A PROJECT, THE ORDERS, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, RULES, EXPIRATION DATES, OR OTHER PROPERLY ADOPTED REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THE FIRST PERMIT IS FILED, SHALL BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALL SUB SUBSEQUENT PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF A PROJECT.
AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO TO THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WE DID HEAR ABOUT FROM STAFF AND, AND FROM THE APPLICANT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALK ABOUT IS THIS, HOWEVER, WHETHER IT AFFECTS LOT COVERAGE OR BUILDING SIZE, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T INCLUDE THINGS LIKE LIFE SAFETY CODE, WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE, UH, PUBLIC WORKS STUFF.
SO IF THERE'S A, UH, A CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT FOR THE WATER CODE OR SOMETHING THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFETY OR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, THAT'S NOT COVERED.
SO IT'S REALLY TRYING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY CAN MAKE CODES AND CHANGE THINGS IF IT'S, IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC FOR A SAFETY, LIFE, SAFETY, FIRE, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
BUT THIS OTHER PART THAT IT, THAT IT'S DEALING WITH, IT DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO COVER MUCH ELSE.
AND, AND WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT DOES NOT AFFECT LOT COVERAGE OR BUILDING SIZE, I THINK IT, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWED VERY GENERALLY.
AND BECAUSE THIS, THIS REGULATION THAT CHANGED NOT TOO LONG AGO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE OR THE OTHER PREMISES OF THE EXEMPTIONS.
UH, I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT, IT SHOULD BE CITED TO WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE VESTED RIGHTS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HAVE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE REQUESTING PERMISSION FOR.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO PUT OUT THERE AS WELL.
AND SO I, I THINK THAT I'M GONNA BE IN, IN, IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS.
AND, AND IN CLOSING, THERE ARE, THERE ARE DEADLINES OF THIS STUFF.
SO THIS, THIS APPLICANT HAS A PLAT, IT'S BEFORE THE CHANGE OF CODE.
IF HE DOESN'T CONTINUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT AND THIS PROJECT BECOMES DORMANT, HE LOSES HIS ABILITY TO GO BACK IN TIME.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A PERMANENT FOREVER THING.
AND THE MOMENT HE BUILDS ON THIS, IF HE EVER DEMOS EVERYTHING AND TRIES TO REBUILD, HE'D HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW CODES.
'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PURSUED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I REALLY THINK THAT THE, THE INTENT OF THE STATE CODE IS TO, IS TO ONLY NOT, UH, GIVE A PASS ON LIFE SAFETY AND, AND OTHER SPECIFICALLY LISTED ITEMS. AND THESE THINGS IN GENERALITY NEED TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT.
[01:30:01]
THANK YOU.COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I HEARD ABOUT LISTED RIGHTS WHEN YOU WERE DEALING WITH WATER RIGHTS AND MICROPHONE.
ARE YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE MICROPHONE ON MR. GARCIA? I'M SORRY.
WHEN I HEARD ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS WAS WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH, UH, WATER ISSUES AND THAT BECAME PRETTY, PRETTY MUCH INVOLVED.
BUT I'M WONDERING, ARE WE PROTECTING HERE THE CITY OR WE PROTECTING THE HOMEOWNERS ON, ON THIS ISSUE? SO I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED, BUT I KIND OF TEND TO SIDE WITH THE CITY ON THIS ISSUE.
I DON'T WANNA RE REHASH WHAT, WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, BUT I AM IMPORTANT, UH, GRANTING THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GETTING THIS TO AN APPEAL BECAUSE I, I LOOK AT IT FROM PERSPECTIVE, BEING AN ATTORNEY MYSELF BY, YOU KNOW, BY MY OCCUPATION.
AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES COURTS GIVE PLAIN MEANING TO, TO WORDS IN THE LAW.
AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO OVERLY RESTRICT 'CAUSE THEY REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE THAT RESTRICTING, YOU KNOW, READING TOO MUCH INTO A WORD OR IN THE ADVERSE, YOU KNOW, GIVING IT TOO MUCH DEFINITION, BROADENING IT TO A POINT OF IT DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOES NOT FIT WHERE IT'S PLACED IN THE LETTER OF LAW.
AND LOOKING AT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF AND MAKING THIS LAW, I MEAN, THE INTENT IS ITSELF TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS IS TO MAKE, IS TO ENSURE THAT CERTAIN RIGHTS CARRY THROUGH AS, AS YOU'VE EXPLAINED.
BUT I DO SEE THE CITY'S ROLE AND I SEE THEIR ARGUMENT IN PROTECTING, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'VE COME FROM A CITY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WAS LIVING IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, HAD NO ZONING, SPENT MANY YEARS THERE, AND IT, IT WAS A, IT'S STILL A MESS.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S A HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE CITY IN TERMS TERMS OF ECONOMICS, UM, BUT COMING HERE AND SEEING THIS, AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ALL MY FAMILY'S HERE AND MY WIFE'S FAMILY, IS THAT I SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTION OF, OF, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY RIGHTS MM-HMM
AND BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND DEVELOP THESE AREAS OUT IN A PROPER FASHION THAT IT DOES, DOESN'T LEAVE AN INDUSTRIAL, YOU KNOW, WASTE YARD, UH, BEHIND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BUT GOING BACK TO JUST, YOU KNOW, YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD EFFECTS, YOU KNOW, I TEND TO, I TEND TO AGREE THAT IT IS USED BROAD.
I MEAN, IF THINGS AFFECT A PARTICULAR AREA, UM, OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR LOT, UM, BEING COVERAGE, BEING BUILDING SIZE, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A BUILDING SIZE ISSUE BECAUSE IT WOULD RESTRICT YOUR BUILDING SIZE.
UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING READING INTO THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LETTER OF LAW IS FOLLOWED.
SO I'M, I'M IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER MILER.
WELL, I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE READING CODE AGAIN.
UM, YEAH, I, I THINK YOUR PRESENTATION WAS VERY GOOD.
I THINK MONIQUE'S PRESENTATION WAS VERY INTERESTING TOO, AND I WISH WE'D HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS BEFORE BOTH OF THEM.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, FROM MY GRANTED CURSORY READING OF THE CODE, IT SOUNDS TO ME AS THOUGH PERMITS START AND CONTINUE ON, AND THAT ALL PERMITS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ONE, AND THE WHOLE PROCESS IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE.
UM, SO I, I AM INCLINED TO, UH, AGREE WITH YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.
AND BESIDES, I LIKE THE IDEA
OKAY, MR. ZUKI, UH, I'M NOT, UH, LAWYERS LIKE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, LOPEZ AND ETTE, BUT I LEARNED ALSO FROM WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT IN ADDITION TO COMMISSIONER ORIAN ABOUT, UH, THE VESTED RIGHTS.
AND, UH, I'M GONNA SPEAK AS A CITIZEN WHO JUST SEE THE CASE THAT, UH, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN IN CLEAR WITH THE CITY FROM THE BEGINNING ABOUT THE PLAS, THE PLANNINGS, THE FOUR SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
UH, THE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN WENT, UH, SINCE THAT TIME THAT, UH, UH, THAT'S THE PLAN FROM THE DEVELOPERS, AND THAT'S WHERE THE CITY APPROVED IT FROM THE BEGINNING.
AND THEN WHEN IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO START PULLING THE COMMERCIAL PERMIT, THINGS HAVE BEEN, UH, CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE NEW, UH, UDC CODE THAT CAME IN PLACE.
SO IF THAT CODE WAS NOT THERE IN PLACE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A CASE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, SO I DON'T THINK, UH, IT'S FAIR TO, UH, STOP YOUR PLANS, UH, FROM OR RESTARTED WITH, UH, 2022 AND NOW WE'RE 2024.
I DON'T SEE EVEN THAT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, UH, THINGS COULD HAPPEN FOR SOMEBODY TO DELAY A PROJECT.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE.
I LIKE THE CITY PRESENTATIONS TOO,
[01:35:01]
BUT I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CASE HERE.UH, I DON'T WANNA REHASH WHAT'S BEEN SAID HERE, BUT AGAIN, THIS BODY IS NOT A JUDICIAL BODY.
UH, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE LAW, BUT MY RATIONALE IS COMMON SENSE AND, AND FAIRNESS.
AND I THINK EVERYBODY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
UH, YOU, YOUR PROJECT WAS WENT FORWARD ASSUMING, NOT KNOWING THE UDC WAS GONNA CHANGE.
THE CITY, DID THEIR DUTY AND LOOKING AT IT AND CITING THE UDC AND THE, THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY, MAYBE ABOUT A TERM EFFECT.
A EFFECT, BUT WE CAN'T REALLY GET IN THE WEEDS IN THAT.
BUT, UM, THE GOOD THING IS, IS THERE'S A PROCESS FOR IT.
AND SO YOU'RE ABLE TO COME TO THIS COMMISSION AND MAKE AN APPEAL.
AND I DON'T THINK, UH, YOU'RE DOING ANYTHING, TRYING TO PULL FAST ONE, YOU KNOW, TRY TO SNEAK IN, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY PLANNED AND MAKE TENDS TO MAKE MORE SENSE.
SO, UH, IT'S A LONG WAY TO SAY THAT I TOO DO SUPPORT, UM, UM, THE APPEAL, BUT I WILL ALLOW MY COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE THOSE MOTIONS.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE, UH, APPLICANT'S APPEAL.
SECOND MOTION TO, UH, UH, GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL BY COMMISSIONER ORIAN.
[Approval of Minutes ]
APPROVAL.UH, NEXT ITEM IS OUR APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE LAST COMMISSIONER'S MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, REVISIONS, OMISSIONS CHANGES, HEARING NONE? I'LL ASK FOR A VO VOICE VOTE.
[Director’s Report ]
PASSES FOR APPROVAL.DO WE HAVE STAFF UPDATE? NOT AT THIS TIME.
DO WE NEED TO, UH, LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION PROCESS IF ANYBODY'S WATCHING ON TV? OH, YES.
I CAN MAKE A BRIEF MENTION THAT THE, UH, UH, VACANCIES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE OPEN TILL THE DECEMBER 31ST, SO THE END OF THE MONTH.
SO IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN APPLYING TO ENSURE THAT THEY GET THOSE APPLICATIONS IN, UH, BY THE END OF THE MONTH.
IT IS, WHAT TIME IS IT? CAN'T SEE.