[00:00:04]
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
IF WE COULD BEGIN WITH OUR SPANISH TRANSLATION SERVICES STATEMENT PLEASE.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, DO WE HAVE, DO WE STILL HAVE MASKS? ALRIGHT, HOW ABOUT THAT? UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO HAVE A MASK, EITHER DUE TO ALLERGIES LIKE ME OR, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE COLD SEASON AND COVID AND EVERYTHING STILL AROUND, WE, WE DO HAVE MASKS IN THE CORNER IF YOU WOULD LIKE, UH, MY NAME IS ROB SIPES AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT SEVEN ZONING COMMISSIONER.
I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICED MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION IN DE 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.
UH, MARCO BARROS, DISTRICT NINE, JOHN BUSTAMANTE, DISTRICT FIVE, AL ORTIZ, DISTRICT EIGHT.
DANIEL KELLUM, DISTRICT ONE, JOHN WHITIT, DISTRICT 10.
DISTRICT SIX STAFF IS A QUORUM PRESENT? YES, THE QUORUM IS 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.
I TOO AM UH, SUFFERING FROM ALLERGIES.
SO, UM, BEFORE I BEGIN, PLEASE TURN YOUR PHONES ON VIBRATOR 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 X INDICATES THOSE OPPOSED.
FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED IN TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSED REZONING.
YOU'LL 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'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU WILL BE INFORMED WHEN YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
FOR THOSE THAT 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 THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTES TIME LIMITATION WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS.
AND WE DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY, SO, WOW.
[Zoning Items ]
YOU.IF WE COULD GO OVER THE LIST OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA PLEASE.
WELL, WE JUST HAVE ONE ITEM THAT'S OH, POSTPONED.
IF WE COULD GO OVER THE POSTPONED ITEMS. SO JUST THE ONE ITEM THAT'S UH, REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT WHICH WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY, LOCATED AT 1 1 0 3 TO 1 1 1 1 EAST QUINCY STREET AND 2 1 2 AND 2 1 6 MCLEAN STREET.
UH, FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU ARE HERE FOR THAT CASE.
UM, AS MENTIONED, THAT CASE WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY AND YOU WILL BE RE NOTIFIED IF OR WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE ZONING COMMISSION.
SO YOU'RE FREE TO TO LEAVE AND ENJOY THE REST OF THE CEDAR FIELD DAY.
UM, IF WE COULD GO OVER THE LIST OF THE ITEMS ON THE COMBINED HEARING.
ITEMS FOR COMBINED CONSENT IS ITEMS 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, AND 14.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OF THESE ITEMS YOU WISH TO PULL TO INDIVIDUAL LOOKING LEFT, SEEING NONE, LOOKING RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
OR IF YOU COULD READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD PLEASE.
[00:05:05]
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R FOUR TO C ONE WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.LOCATED AT 7 7 1 1 MADONNA DRIVE.
ZERO OPPOSED SHEER AND NO RESPONSE FROM SHEER HILLS RIDGEVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT ONE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R SIX TO R SIX CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ART GALLERY WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
BEACON HILL, BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, AND SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET WE RECEIVED SEVEN IN FAVOR.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R SIX TO PUD MF 18 WITH A REDUCED PERIMETER SETBACK OF 10 FEET WITH ALL OF LAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH 200 FEET.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C TWO TO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FACILITY WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 94 38 SOUTH PRESA STREET.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE WITH AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINES THAT ABUT SINGLE FAMILY USE AND ALONG SAN JUAN ROAD.
THAT ALL ONSITE LIGHTING SHALL BE DIRECTED ONTO THE SITE AND POINT AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
THAT NO ACCESS OFF SAN JUAN ROAD.
AND NUMBER FIVE, A REQUIRED TYPE C 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD SHALL BE LOCATED ALONG PROPERTY LINES THAT ABUT SINGLE FAMILY USE IN SAN JUAN ROAD.
ONE ZERO OPPOSED? THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
OUTSIDE 200 FEET WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.
ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R FOUR TO R FOUR HL WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 26 0 2 WEST TRAVIS STREET.
ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR? ONE OPPOSED PROSPECT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R FOUR TO R FOUR HL WITH ALL OF LAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 4 29 HERRIMAN PLACE.
AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL FOR ITEM NUMBER 10.
ALRIGHT, IF WE COULD HEAR THE VOICEMAIL PLEASE.
19 EVERETT DRIVE ZIP CODE 7 8 2 4 0 AND I'M WITHIN THE, UH, 200 FEET DISTANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS YOU ARE WORKING ON.
I JUST WANTED TO CALL AND SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A DONE DEAL.
THEY'VE DONE IT BEFORE IN SEVERAL AREAS NEARBY US AND I'M AGAINST IT.
IT THE APPRECIATES THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY.
I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1983 AND THINGS JUST KEEP, SEEM TO BE GOING DOWNHILL AND DEPRECIATING MY PROPERTY WITH ACTIONS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN.
THIS IS FOR CASE NUMBER Z DASH 2024 DASH 1 0 7 0 0 2 9 3.
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. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 12 WITH THE STAFF.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDITIONS READ INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER 13 AND ITEM NUMBER 14.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7 8 10 12 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS READ 1314.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARDOS.
ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE IS FOR APPROVAL.
ITEMS PASSED 12 WITH CONDITIONS AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
[00:10:01]
THANK YOU.IF YOU ARE HERE FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, THOSE ITEMS WILL NOW BE PROCEEDING ON TO CITY COUNCIL AND YOU ARE ALSO FREE TO, TO LEAVE AND ENJOY THE REST OF THE DAY.
ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST CONTINUANCE HEARING.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO THE JANUARY 21ST MEETING.
IS THERE A MOTION MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER THREE TO THE JANUARY 21ST HEARING.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE, EXCUSE ME.
ITEM NUMBER THREE TO THE JANUARY 21ST MEETING BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARDOS.
ITEM PASSES FOR CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 21ST, 2025.
AT THIS TIME IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND CONTINUANCE HEARING.
WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE REQUESTING A FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE TO THE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 MEETING.
UM, ITEM NUMBER SIX AND ITEM NUMBER NINE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR THESE ITEMS, MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEMS NUMBER SIX AND NINE TO THE FEBRUARY 4TH HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND, SIR.
THERE IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM SIX AND NINE TO THE FEBRUARY 4TH MEETING BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARTOS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? LOOKING LEFT.
ITEM ITEMS PASS FOR CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025.
WE WILL SEE Y'ALL ALL IN TWO OR FOUR WEEKS FOR THOSE CASES.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING AND I BELIEVE ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE FIRST ONE UP.
ALEXA ANA ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS LOCATED AT 2 2 2 CORLESS GOING FROM R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO RM FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT.
THERE WERE 37 NOTICES SENT OUT.
ZERO IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET COLISEUM.
WILLOW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET THERE ARE FOUR OPPOSED.
THE EXISTING R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS IN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED R FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIX DISTRICT IS NOT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS TO DEVELOP FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
A DENSITY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE BUDDING PROPERTIES.
MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CURRENTLY BENEFIT FROM THE B TWO R FOUR CONVERSION, PERMITTING A DUPLEX.
THUS STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF R FOUR CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS.
THIS MAINTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY BASED ZONING DISTRICT AND ALLOWS FOR NO MORE THAN TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE AMENDING THE REQUEST TO TWO UNITS ALSO NEGATES A NEED FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AMEND THE REQUEST AS I KNOW IT.
IF WE COULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
HELLO? UH, I'M THE ENGINEER, UH, ROBERT DELGADO WITH DELGADO ENGINEERING.
AND UH, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES IN THE ZONING.
UH, WE HAVE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS UH, SEVEN OPPOSED, BUT THOSE SEVEN OPPOSED ARE NOT, UH, HOMEOWNERS.
SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I, I GUESS THE, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, GO AHEAD.
I'LL LET YOU
I THINK I, UH, THIS IS A DISTRICT, WELL HOLD ON.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO DO YOU COMMISSIONER WATSON FOR QUESTIONS? UH, YES.
SO STAFF MENTIONED, UH, IN THEIR PRESENTATION THAT THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO TWO UNITS.
[00:15:01]
YEAH, TWO UNIT, WE'D LIKE THREE UNITS TO RM FIVE.BUT IF IT'S ONLY GONNA GIVE US, IF YOU'RE ONLY GONNA LET US GO TWO, WE CAN GO DOWN TO THE TWO UNITS.
UH, THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, UH, WHAT PROCESS OR ADDITIONAL STEPS WOULD BE NEEDED AND OR IF IT'S POSSIBLE, UH, WITHIN CODE TO DO THE THREE UNITS? UM, YES, IF THEY WANTED TO EITHER RECOMMEND, UM, IF THEY WANTED TO AMEND TO RM FIVE THAT IS WITHIN THE RIGHTS AND THEN WHICH ALLOWS THE THREE UNITS.
UM, OR IF THEY WANTED TO DO THE R FOUR CD FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS.
BUT WE WOULD NEED A SITE PLAN, UM, FOR THE CD FOR THE CONDITION USE.
SO WOULD THE, THE RM FIVE WOULD NOT NEED A SITE PLAN? CORRECT.
WOULD THE RM FIVE TRIGGER PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS? NO, IT WOULD NOT.
AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THE ORIGINAL UH, PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION WHEN IT WAS FOR FOUR UNITS, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THAT DECISION OR THE RECOMMENDATION? THAT PLAN THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL, SORRY.
AND THAT WAS FOR FOUR UNITS? CORRECT.
THAT WAS FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT TO, UM, THEY WERE, SINCE THEY WERE ASKING FOR AN RM FOUR, THEY NEEDED A PLAN AMENDMENT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL ON.
UM, IF HE GOES WITH THE RM FIVE, WHICH ALLOWS THREE UNITS OR THE RM SIX, WHICH ALLOWS TWO OR THE R KEEP THE R FOUR CD, UM, THEY WOULD NOT NEED THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAY WITH THE URBAN LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
SO IF WE WERE TO, OH ACTUALLY I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH.
I WILL GIVE, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FIRST BEFORE SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? NONE, UH, COMMISSION'S ON MY RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER WATSON.
UM, SO RM FIVE IS PROBABLY GONNA BE YOUR BEST OPTION FOR THE THREE UNITS.
UM, IF WE DO THE R FOUR CD, UM, THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO PRESENT A I PLAN.
UM, I'M STILL GOING TO SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE AMENDING THE REQUEST TO THREE UNITS, UM, THAT YOU UH, WE DO A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE SO YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THAT IS STILL WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS AND YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THE FOLKS WITHIN 200 FEET.
UM, TO CONFIRM, WE DO STILL CONSIDER RENTERS BECAUSE THEY WILL BE IMPACTED BY CHANGES IN HOUSING.
SO, UM, JUST GIVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS TO DO, UH, BLOCK WALKING IS WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND AND WHAT PROBABLY THE COUNCILMAN WILL WANNA SEE BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.
UM, BUT THAT WAY SINCE WE HAVE CLARITY AROUND WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS NOW WE'RE SAVING YOU THE EXTRA STEP OF HAVING TO MAKE A SITE PLAN.
BUT YOU CAN JUST CONFIRM THAT THE TEAM AND I HAVE A SITE PLAN ALREADY SO I CAN, I CAN THAT'S NOT YES, BUT IT'S GONNA SAVE YOU ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE, UH, MY RECOMMENDATION.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT FOR TWO WEEKS, UM, AND WITH THE REQUEST BEING AN RM FIVE FOR THREE UNITS.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR TWO WEEKS BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLUM, UH, DISCUSSION.
ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF'S REPORT PLEASE.
ALEXA RATANA PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS LOCATED AT 1 3 5 2 7 SOUTHWEST LOOP FOUR 10 GOING FROM MF 25, LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO C3 AND A CDS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE SALES, SERVICE AND STORAGE WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE.
THERE WERE 31 NOTICES SENT ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE NEUTRAL ZERO OPPOSED NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET AND OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET ONE IN FAVOR.
THE EXISTING MF 25 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT R FIVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ARE APPROPRIATE ZONINGS FOR THE PROPERTY
[00:20:01]
AND SURROUNDING AREA.THE PROPOSED C3 AND A CDS GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE CELL SERVICE AND STORAGE WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE IS NOT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF LOW TO MEDIUM INTENSITY IN BOTH ZONING AND USE.
WHILE THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT IS BUFFERED BY THE C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SURROUNDING IT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR A HIGHER INTENSITY OF COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH COULD CAUSE COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
THUS STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF C TWO CD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE CELL SERVICE AND STORAGE OR C TWO CD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR STORAGE OUTSIDE UNDER ROOF AND SCREEN.
THIS WOULD KEEP A LOWER C TWO BASE ZONING AND ALIGN EXISTING GENERAL URBAN TIER AND SUBURBAN TIER LAND USE PERMITTING ONLY MODERATE COMMERCIAL USES.
THE CASE WAS HEARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AMEND THE SITE PLAN AND ACREAGE TO 38.26 ACRES OUT OF NCB 1 8 0 8 7.
IF WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.
UH, I HAVE A LITTLE PRESENTATION FOR YOU ALL.
UM, SO AND THANKS ALEXA FOR HER PRESENTATION AND, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T AGREE, UM, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT AND I'D LIKE TO KIND OF EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
UM, SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE.
UM, WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, I DO WANNA SAY WE, WE ARE GOING FORMALLY AMENDING OUR ACREAGE TO 38.26 ACRES FOR THE REQUEST.
WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTY SHOWN IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THIS SITE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST, SO, OKAY, GREAT.
UH, SO, SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE.
UM, AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED A MIXTURE OF C TWO AND MF 25.
UH, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRYING TO SELL IT FOR EIGHT YEARS AND THE, THE ISSUE IS THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, UH, WITH THE SOILS HERE.
AND SO RESIDENTIAL REALLY ISN'T FEASIBLE ON THIS PROPERTY.
UH, AND SHE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO SELL IT, BUT INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES ARE SOMETHING WITHOUT AN ACTUAL PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR TRUCK PARKING, TRUCK STORAGE, AND THEN OUTDOOR STORAGE ON THE SITE.
THE ISSUE IS TO HAVE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE BASE ZONING TO A C3, UM, BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE CONDITIONAL USE ON A PROPERTY, BUT A C3 WOULD ALLOW FOR A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OUTDOOR STORAGE.
SO YOU CAN HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE SPECIFIC USE.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT'S TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR THE C3 BASE, UH, TO TRY TO MITIGATE THAT.
WE ADDED DNA FOR THE NO ALCOHOL, UM, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE C TWO.
UM, BUT REALLY AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BUILDING ACTUAL STRUCTURES HERE ISN'T, UH, VERY FEASIBLE.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS, LET ME PULL UP OUR SITE PLAN, UM, OF ANY, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHMENT INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED ON THIS SITE PLAN IS A 200 FOOT BUFFER.
UH, SO IT'S MORE PROPERTY THAN IS NEEDED FOR THIS USE.
UH, AND IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER HERE.
AND THEN THERE'S SOME FUTURE LOTS HERE, UH, IS, YOU KNOW, THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY AND WHAT YOU SEE FROM FOUR 10, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER OFF OF FOUR 10 AND THOSE WOULD BE LOCKED IN WITH THE SITE PLAN.
UM, AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF GET AN IDEA.
THIS IS A BAKERY DISTRIBUTION FACILITY HERE.
AND SO THEY HAVE TRUCKS PARKED KIND OF UP TO FOUR 10.
AND UH, SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS PROPOSE TO BRING THAT TRUCK PARKING BACK OFF OF THE HIGHWAY.
UH, AND THEN I THINK MEDICAL USE IS PROPOSED FOR THIS CORNER.
THAT'S A ZONING CASE THAT'LL BE COMING TO YOU ALL SHORTLY.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, A 200 FOOT BUFFER ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY AS WELL.
UM, AND SO AGAIN, HERE'S OUR SITE PLAN.
OH, I DO WANNA MENTION WE DID REACH OUT TO HUNTER'S POND, HOA, OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, EXCUSE ME, UM, A FEW TIMES WERE ABLE TO HAVE SOME CONTACT WITH THEIR MANAGEMENT COMPANY BUT OTHERWISE, UH, WEREN'T UNABLE TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THEM.
SO, UH, WITH THAT WE'D UH, REQUEST, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
[00:25:01]
ALRIGHT, THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR CASE, SO TO YOU COMMISSIONER REYES FOR QUESTIONS? YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.UH, FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF ON YOUR REPORT YOU DO MENTION ADVERSE EFFECTS.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? IT, WELL, THERE IS, UM, RESIDENTIAL EITHER ESTABLISHED OR NEW RESIDENTIAL GOING IN JUST TO THE SOUTH THERE.
UM, AND SO THERE WAS JUST CONCERN OF HAVING AN INDU, YOU KNOW, IT TECHNICALLY INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL.
UM, HOW MANY TRIPS DO YOU THINK THIS, UM, SITE WILL GENERATE? SO I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF TRIPS, UM, BUT WHAT AND I HAD SHARED IS WHAT WE ANTICIPATE IS PHASE ONE WOULD BE ABOUT 60 PARKING SPACES.
UH, AND THEN SEE HOW, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES, UM, AND WHO PARKS THERE AND IF IT'S NEEDED.
AND THEN UP TO THIS WOULD ACCOMMODATE UP TO 200 TO 250 TRUCKS.
IF THERE IS DEMAND FOR THAT 215, UM, 5,250, THAT'S, IF IT'S COMPLETELY MAXED OUT, I WANNA GIVE YOU THE, THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM, SO RIGHT.
AND THERE'S NO, NO OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THAT SCENARIO.
AND YOU'RE NOT OKAY WITH THE ALTERNATE? WELL THE ALTERNATE IS PICKING ONE OR THE OTHER.
SO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT ADVERSE EFFECTS.
I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION STILL ALLOWED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL USE.
WE JUST HAD TO PICK ONE CONDITIONAL USE OVER THE OTHER E TRUCK PARKING OR OUTDOOR STORAGE.
THERE'S TWO EXISTING ACCESS POINTS, UM MM-HMM
HAVE YOU CHECKED WITH TXDOT? THEY HAVE CRITERIA AS FAR AS LOCATION, SPAC OF ACCESS POINTS? WELL, NOT ONLY SPACING, BUT IN RELATION TO THE, UH, ENTRANCE RAMP, THERE'S VERY STRICT CRITERIA AS FAR AS WHERE THE ACCESS POINT IS.
HAVE YOU? YEAH, WE'RE NOT, NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.
AND SO IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT ACCESS POINTS HAVE TO SHIFT BECAUSE OF TXDOT OR MAYBE THERE'S ONLY ONE.
UM, SO ANTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO DO THAT AND THAT COULD CHANGE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE COULD ONLY BE ONE ACCESS POINT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSION ON MY RIGHT.
NONE COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER REYES.
SO LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE, UM, THIS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THERE WAS INDUSTRIAL ANCHORS ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT FRONTAGE ROADS ARE DESIGNED FOR LARGE VEHICLES, BUT LOOKING AT THE RESIDENCE, UH, LOCATION OF, THERE'S MULTIPLE APARTMENT UNITS, THERE'S RESIDENTS HERE.
THERE'S THE TWO ANCHORS I'M LOOKING AT IS PALO ALTO AND TEXAS A AND M.
SO, AND NOT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE SOIL I, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE SOIL, THE BAD SOILS OUT THERE.
SO JUST LOOKING AT THESE PART OF TOWN RIGHT NOW WITH, UH, SAR SOMO PALO ALTO FOUR 10 AND JUST THE USE, THE CURRENT USE WITH THOSE TWO ANCHORS THERE.
UM, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND DENIAL.
ALL RIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THERE IS A SECOND.
UH, COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE PLEASE.
ALEX ANA ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS LOCATED AT 3 2 7 BEAR DRIVE.
GOING FROM R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO R FOUR CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS WITH ALL OVERLAYS.
[00:30:01]
THERE WERE 29 NOTICES SENT OUT.NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE 200 FEET AND OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET.
THE EXISTING R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED R FOUR CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS IS NOT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED.
R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, MANY OF WHICH BENEFIT FROM THE B TWO R FOUR CONVERSION, WHICH PERMITS A DUPLEX.
THE PROPOSED FOUR DWELLING UNITS WOULD INTRODUCE A DENSITY INCONSISTENT WITH THE AREA.
THE LOT SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 12,300 SQUARE FEET, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT UP TO THREE LOTS IF SUBDIVIDED UNDER THE CURRENT R FOUR ZONING.
THUS STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF R FOUR CD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY, WHICH COULD, WHICH WOULD UTILIZE THE CURRENT STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF WE COULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT'S PLEASE.
HI, UH, MY NAME IS ER NUNEZ AND UH, I HAVE A QUICK PRESENTATION REGARDING THE DENIAL.
SO FIRST OF ALL, UM, THANKS FOR THE, FOR THE SUGGESTION OF THE THREE UNITS THAT DEFINITELY HELPS ACHIEVE, UH, SOME PART OF OUR GOAL.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS ALIGNED WITH THE CITY'S GOALS OF INCREASING LONG-TERM, UM, RESIDENCES FOR ALL CITIZENS OF THE, THE CITY HERE.
UM, WE CURRENTLY HAVE ARE ABIDING BY, UH, OBJECTIVE 3.4, WHICH IS ENCOURAGING NEW HOUSING THAT COMPLIMENTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER PRESIDENTS THAT SHOW SIMILAR, UH, REZONING HAS BEEN APPROVED, UM, WITH THE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IT IS PROVIDING HOUSING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OTHER CITIZENS IN THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD.
HERE ARE A COUPLE OF SITES THAT HAVE SIMILAR, UH, STORIES IN MIND THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING FOR THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AND ARE BEING REZONED AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE HERE.
UM, SO IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY FOR THE FOUR UNITS, THE LOT IS PRETTY LARGE.
THERE'S LOTS OF LAND THAT WE CAN BUILD ON AND COMFORTABLY, UH, HAVE MORE TENANTS ON THE PROPERTY.
OUR SITE PLANS SHOULD SHOW, SHOWS HOW IT ACTUALLY CONTINUES THE, THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SATELLITE IMAGES.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE, THE OUTLINE OF NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE ALL IN THE SAME VEIN WHERE THEY SHARE A, A CONSISTENT FOOTPRINT.
UM, AND IF THIS SITE PLAN IS APPROVED, WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BRING IN MORE PARKING TO MOVE, MOVE SOME OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED OFF THE STREETS AND ONTO THE LOT ITSELF.
UM, SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE FOUR UNITS WOULD REMAIN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SUSTAIN SUBSTANTIAL, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, SO WHAT WE ARE, WHAT THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR IS WE HAVE IN THE DUPLEX SECTION, WE HAVE TWO TENANTS THAT ARE RECEIVING, UH, HOUSING, UH, AID, BOTH FROM FEDERAL, UM, HANDICAP ASSISTANCE AS WELL AS FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UH, WE ARE APPROVED LANDLORDS BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING.
WE HAVE HAD THESE PROPERTIES INSPECTED AND PASSED.
UM, SO THE TYPES OF TENANTS THAT WE ARE RENTING OUT TO, UM, ARE THE ONES IN NEED.
WE ACTUALLY DO INCLUDE IN OUR LEASING A A CLAUSE WHERE WE ALLOW THEM TO ESSENTIALLY WAIVE THE DEPOSIT.
IF THEY PAY THE RENT ON TIME, WE SPLIT THE DEPOSIT INTO THE TERM OF THE LEASE.
AND AS LONG AS RENT IS PAID IN TIME, THEY, WE WAIVE THAT MONTH'S, UH, DEPOSIT, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE IN MUCH QUICKER AND IT'S A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY.
UM, AS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, TRAFFIC AND PARKING IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
UM, THE SITE PLAN WOULD ACCOMMODATE FOR THE PARKING OF ALL FOUR UNITS.
I BELIEVE IT'S 1.5 PER, UH, PER DWELLING, WHICH IT'S ACCOMMODATED IN THE CURRENT SITE PLAN.
UM, AND AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT, THE CURRENT TENANTS THAT ARE LIVING IN THIS PROPERTY HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS DOWN THE ROAD THAT THE REASON THEY CHOSE TO COME TO THIS, UH, SPECIFIC PROPERTY WAS TO BE ABLE TO CARE FOR, UH, THEIR PARENTS WHO ARE NEIGHBORS WITH THEM.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT HELPS MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
UM, THERE ARE, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE, UH, BENEFITED FROM THAT DUPLEX AREA AS WELL AS SIMILAR APARTMENTS THAT UM, ARE ARE MORE
[00:35:01]
THAN FOUR PROPERTIES, JUST A COUPLE STREETS DOWN.SO THE, THE, THE CONGESTION OR TRAFFIC SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE MITIGATED, UM, BY THIS.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, THE AREA ALREADY HAS AND SHOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY.
UM, SO WE BELIEVE IT, IT'S GONNA BRING POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY.
UH, ALL THESE LAND, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THESE, UH, TENANTS FOR ABOUT A YEAR.
UH, WE JUST GOT A NEW ONE IN THAT WAS ABLE TO MOVE IN 'CAUSE UH, SHE WAS, UH, RECEIVING ASSISTANCE FOR TAKING CARE OF, UH, HER FOUR GRANDKIDS.
UM, SO WE WERE LO MY, MY WIFE WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF HERE HAS GRADUATED FROM INCAR WARD.
SO WE WANT TO HELP OUT THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND A LOT.
SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, UM, THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOUR, ALTHOUGH THE THREE WOULD HELP, THE FOUR WOULD WOULD HELP A LOT.
AND IT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE FOUR UNITS WOULD ALSO ALIGN WITH THE CITY GOALS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MAINTAIN ALL RESTRICTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
ANY QUESTIONS? WE'LL FIND OUT.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, THIS IS A DISTRICT SEVEN CASE, SO IT COMES TO ME FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, AND I GUESS THE, THE FIRST QUESTION I'VE GOT FOR YOU IS, UM, HOW, HOW MUCH OUTREACH HAVE YOU DONE TO LIKE DISTRICT SEVEN TO THE, TO THE DISTRICT STAFF? UH, NOT MUCH WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, WITH THE STAFF JUST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE.
THE SITE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN AMENDED A COUPLE OF TIMES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UH, COMPLYING WITH THE, THE REGULATIONS.
PARKING AND OFFSETS FROM THE, FROM THE LOT LINES WERE ALSO PART OF THEIR FEEDBACK AS WELL.
AND PART OF DISTRICT SEVEN'S FEEDBACK.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE ACTUAL DISTRICT'S.
YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY, PROBABLY, UH, CITY STAFF'S.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS, BUT I WILL, I'LL, I'LL WAIT A MINUTE AND SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON, ON THE FELLOW COMMISSIONER.
SO ANY QUESTIONS, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
UH, COMMISSIONER ORTIZ JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, THAT ALLEYWAY IN THE BACK WAY, IS IT ACCESSIBLE TO, DOES ANYBODY USE THAT ALLEYWAY ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? NO, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT OURSELVES.
WE'LL GO OUT THERE AND, AND MOW THE LAWN WHEN IT GETS A LITTLE OVERGROWN AS WELL.
UH, CITY STEP, DO WE KNOW IF THAT IT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE THAT ALLEYWAY? IS IT JUST PUBLIC? LIKE IS THERE LANDFILL PICKUP OR ANY TYPE OF, BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THROUGH THE GOOGLE MAP AND I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THAT WOULD BE AN ACCESS POINT FOR IT COULD BE A POTENTIALLY AN ACCESS POINT.
UM, IT IS, UM, RIGHT AWAY OWNED BY THE CITY.
UM, I CAN'T, CAN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY IF IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED OR NOT.
IF IT WAS TO BE DEVELOPED IT MOST LIKELY THAT THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP IT.
THEY MAINTAIN IT AS WELL, I'M ASSUMING FOR THE MAINTENANCE.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S, I'LL CHIME IN, I'LL CHIME IN.
UM, SO, UH, THE HOMEOWNERS MAINTAIN THE BED IS WHAT HAPPENS.
SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MOW IT.
'CAUSE WE HAVE AN ALLEY WE KNOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT GETS OVERGROWN YOU GET TO NOTICE, HEY, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE TRASH PICKUP, YOU GOTTA MAINTAIN YOUR ALLEY, GOTTA TRIM YOUR TREES.
UNFORTUNATELY
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT? UH, COMMISSIONER WATSON? UH, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, YOUR PROPOSED PARKING.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM WHAT I CAN CURRENTLY FIND ON GOOGLE MAPS, THAT TWO CAR DRIVEWAY AND STREET PARKING CONNECTS TO AN EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE AND IS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND ACCESS POINT.
UM, THERE IS THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY ONTO WINE CUP THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT PAVED RIGHT NOW FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.
IS THIS UH, 18 BY 31 FOOT PAD BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ALREADY PAVED AND THERE OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO INSTALL? IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE PROPOSE TO INSTALL.
AND WOULD THAT ACCESS POINT BE THAT IT WOULD BE PARALLEL TO THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY.
AND UH, THE ADDITIONAL TO CAR PARKING PAD, THE 18 BY 31 FOOT IN THE FRONT, YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE TO INSTALL THAT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND ARE YOU PLANNING FOR THAT TO BE COVERED? HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO REGULATIONS FOR THAT? UH, I BELIEVE SO.
UM, AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION, UM, IS WHAT, BESIDES, I KNOW COMMISSIONER SIPES ASKED ABOUT THE DISTRICT SEVEN OFFICE, WHAT OUTREACH HAVE YOU DONE TO, UH, YOUR NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET? UH,
[00:40:01]
WE HAVE NO HOA OR ANY SORT OF, UH, THEM.EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, YOU DO HAVE NEIGHBORS.
SO HAVE YOU TALKED TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND BLOCK WALKED AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE? UH, NOT AT THAT TIME.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER'S ON MY RIGHT? NONE.
SO WHAT I'M GOING TO, OH, BUT I ALREADY STARTED ON THAT SIDE.
COMMISSIONER WHITSETT QUESTION FOR THE FRONT PARKING.
IT APPEARS THAT MORE THAN HALF OR HALF OF IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT MAYBE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CITY EASEMENT OR THE CITY STREET.
UH, HAVE Y'ALL, HAVE YOU TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THAT AS TO WHETHER THAT'S ALLOWED OR, UH, HONESTLY, THE, THE PARKING, IT COULDN'T BE AMENDMENT.
SO IF, IF THAT WOULD CAUSE AN ISSUE, WE CAN MOVE IT.
UH, HONESTLY THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE THE TWO SPLIT DRIVEWAYS, RATHER THAN JUST EXTENDING IT'S 'CAUSE THERE'S A LARGE TREE IN BETWEEN.
UM, BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS, IF THE PARKING IS REQUIRED AND IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH ANY CITY ORDINANCES OR CITY RULES, UH, WE COULD JUST BRING DOWN THAT DEAD TREE AND JUST EXTEND IT INTO ONE SINGLE LARGE LOT.
NOW ARE YOU DOING THREE UNITS OR FOUR HERE? ARE YOU WANTING FOR, WE'RE PROPOSING FOR YOU MS. OKAY.
LAST ROUND FOR QUESTIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE.
AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, SINCE WE'RE ON THE EASEMENT DISCUSSION OR THE INGRESS EGRESS, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A, A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS IN ORDER TO USE ANY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, OTHERWISE IT ALL HAS TO BE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND I THINK IT'S LIKE 20 FEET, RIGHT? SO IT HAS TO BE 20 FEET BEYOND WHAT THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.
UM, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HAD A GOOD PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO DO SOME OUTREACH BOTH TO SOME NEIGHBORS AND DO SOME OUTREACH TO DISTRICT SEVEN STAFF.
UM, SO REACH OUT TO THEM AND, UM, I'M SURE STAFF HAS, DO Y'ALL HAVE THE DISTRICT SEVEN STAFF? CORRECT? YEAH, WE'LL GIVE HIM, WE'LL GIVE HIM FRANK'S INFORMATION.
FRANK, OUR, SO, UH, GET THEM IN, INTO CONTACT WITH THEM.
UM, SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA RECOMMEND I THINK A FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE MAYBE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
THAT GIVES YOU ENOUGH TIME TO COME BACK WITH, WITH, UM, SORRY.
UM, SO SORRY TALKING TOO MUCH.
SO THAT'S GONNA BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION FOR A FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE RATHER THAN DOING A DENIAL.
ALRIGHT, THE MOTION IS FOR FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE? YES, BRIEFLY.
YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THERE IN MY MIND THERE IS A WAY TO GET THERE.
YOU KNOW, ONE THING YOU COULD DO IS POSSIBLY GO FROM BEAR DRIVE UP TO THE HOUSE TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE LIKE THE PARKING FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BUT I THINK THE FOUR WEEKS CAN GIVE YOU THE TIME TO SORT OF THINK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES.
UM, BECAUSE CONFORMITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GONNA BE A BIG CONSIDERATION HERE.
UH, AND SO THE MORE WE MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SOME DEGREE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A DESIGN ISSUE, UM, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE BETTER OFF YOU'LL BE.
SO I THINK THE FOUR WEEKS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU HERE.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LOOKING LEFT.
LOOKING RIGHT? UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE FOR THAT.
UM, AND I KNOW YOU USED DONALDSON AS A EXAMPLE OF A STREET THAT HAS THE APARTMENTS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A BUSY STREET WITH BUS LINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON IT.
UM, WHEREAS THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, BUT A MOTION IS FOR A FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL SEE YOU IN A MONTH.
I BELIEVE, LET'S SEE, ITEM 11 IS NEXT ON THE LIST.
CORRECT? IF WE COULD HAVE A, THE APPLICANT'S,
[00:45:01]
I MEAN THIS STAFF'S REPORT MAN.I'M GLAD WE HAVE A SHORT AGENDA TODAY.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BENOA, ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS LOCATED AT 8 4 0 1 AND 8 4 1 5.
DATA POINT DRIVE GOING FROM C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PUD C3 PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND PUD MXD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAY STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 241 NOTICES MAILED OUT.
TWO IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GAVE NO RESPONSE AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
THE PROPOSED USE AND DENSITY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED MF 33 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE EXISTING C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PUD C3 PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ARE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 75 UNITS PER ACRE IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
THE REQUEST TO REZONE IS TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY AND OFFICE USES WITHIN THE EXISTING TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY USES WITHIN PROXIMITY.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST REQUESTED DENSITY EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED IN THE AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A LOWER DENSITY OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE TO STAY COMPLIANT WITH THE SA TOMORROW PLANS.
URBAN MIXED USE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPLIMENT THE ABUDDING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE A DENSITY OF 33 UNITS PER ACRE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF WE'D HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT PLEASE.
ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.
UM, SO STAFF MENTIONED WE ARE REQUESTING THE MXD, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY USES.
UH, JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA, THIS PROPERTY IS PRETTY MUCH ALMOST IN THE HEART OF THE MEDICAL CENTER ON DATA POINT NEAR FREDERICKSBURG.
UM, THE, THE PROPERTY IS TWO OFFICE TOWERS.
THEY WERE BUILT, BUILT IN 19 80 10.
STORY BUILDINGS ABOUT 150,000 SQUARE FEET EACH.
UM, AND OVER THE YEARS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OFFICE JUST HASN'T CONTINUED TO BE OFFICE.
UM, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS HERE, THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT WOULD BE JUST FOR SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, UH, BUILDING ONE THAT'S CLOSEST TO FREDERICKSBURG AND THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT IS BUILDING TWO.
UH, SO BUILDING ONE ON THE LEFT BUILDING RIGHT, UM, BUILDING ON THE RIGHT, BUILDING TWO.
SO THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT IS ALMOST ALL VACANT AND UM, THE PROPERTY HAS CHANGED HANDS AND, AND THE NEW OWNERSHIP WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS BUILDING AND CONVERT IT TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
UM, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THERE'S DEMAND FOR HOUSING EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY, PARTICULARLY IN THE MEDICAL CENTER.
UH, AND SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONVERT THIS BUILDING TO HOUSING AND THEN THE OTHER BUILDING WOULD CONTINUE TO BE OFFICE.
UH, SO THE CURRENT ZONING IS C3 AND C3 P.
UM, FUTURE LAND USE, WE DID GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IN DECEMBER AND REQUESTED A, A PLANNING CHANGE AND GOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL FOR THAT.
UH, AND THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR, UM, THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, WHICH IS 75 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, SO JUST A A A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, YELLOW BEING MULTIFAMILY, UH, AND THEN THE RED BEING COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN, UH, DID HIGHLIGHT ANOTHER MXD THAT WE DID LAST YEAR, UM, ON METHODIST HOSPITAL PROPERTY.
THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE REQUEST HERE.
UM, ONE THING I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, UH, THEY'RE ABOUT THESE TWO TRACKS HERE ARE EACH ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF ACRES.
UM, AND THEN THIS TRACK HERE IS ABOUT ONE AND A HALF OR SO.
THIS PIECE HERE HAS A POD OVERLAY.
UM, AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.
SO THIS BACK PIECE WOULD STAY MXD WITH THE POD.
UM, AND THE REASON BEING, THERE'S A HOTEL HERE, UH, IN THE OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FRONTING ON FREDERICKSBURG, BUT THIS RECTANGLE ISH, UH, IS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DONE MANY YEARS AGO.
AND SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THIS PIECE BACK HERE, IT HAS TO STAY COMMERCIAL.
SO OUR, OUR REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY FOR 65 UNITS AN ACRE ON THE WHOLE THING.
UM, BUT THEN WHEN FIGURED OUT THIS PUD PIECE, UM, WE CHANGED THAT TO 75 UNITS PER ACRE ON ABOUT 11 ACRES HERE.
SO JUST TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT, THAT BACK PORTION
[00:50:01]
YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER HERE, UH, WILL ALWAYS REMAIN COMMERCIAL.UH, SO VERY LIKELY TO ALWAYS REMAIN A PARKING LOT, UM, AS IT IS NOW.
UM, AND SO THE OTHER THING DO YOU WANNA MENTION, YOU KNOW, WE ARE REQUESTING DENSITY TO POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR OTHER HOUSING MAYBE TO BE BUILT ON THE SITE.
THE SITE IS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, PRETTY MUCH ALL IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING THERE.
UM, AND SO LOOKING AT NO CURRENT PLANS, BUT YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL HOUSING ON THIS PROPERTY, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, UH, OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
BUT HOUSING DOES REQUIRE LESS PARKING THAN UM, OFFICE BUILDINGS.
SO, BUT, BUT THE PLAN CURRENTLY IS JUST TO TAKE THIS BUILDING HERE, CONVERT IT TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, UH, AND IT IS PROPOSED TO BE MARKET RATE HOUSING, UH, AND THEN THIS BUILDING HERE, UH, TO REMAIN OFFICE.
UH, SO THIS WOULD GO WITH THE ZONING CASE.
WE, UM, HAVE TALKED A LITTLE BIT, UH, ABOUT WITH DISTRICT EIGHT ABOUT UPDATING THAT PLAN TO SHOW, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE WOULD IT GO, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE, UH, AND PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THAT.
UM, SO WE ARE COMMITTED TO LOOKING AT THAT AND DOING THAT PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING.
SO THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER ORTIZ, I BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR CASE.
START WITH, UM, LET'S SEE, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE, EXCUSE ME, THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I KNOW THEY'RE RECOMMENDING MXD AND BEING THAT THEY'RE CHANGING THE MXD, WELL THE PUTS GONNA REMAIN THE SAME.
WILL THE MXD BEING THE WAY IT'S GONNA STAY, WHAT, SO MY, MY POINT IS, I GUESS THE RECOMMENDATION YOU'RE MAKING IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IS IT JUST BECAUSE OF THE, I GUESS THE MXD IN THE AREA AND THERE, THERE'S NO MXD IN THE AREA.
THERE IS NO MXD IN THE AREA, BUT UM, MORE THAN THAT THE DENSITY IS MUCH HIGHER.
SO ANY DENSITY IN THE AREA THERE IS ALREADY MF 33.
AND IF YOU TAKE THAT TIMES THE 14 ACRES, WELL 13.5 ACRES, UM, IF THEY DID AN MF 33 THERE, THEY COULD HAVE 445 UNITS VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO, WHICH IS 75 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS 843 UNITS.
SO THAT'S LIKE DOUBLE THE AMOUNT.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT'S UM, THIS IS A NEW PLAN.
IT'S THE MEDICAL CENTER PLAN THAT JUST GOT ADOPTED IN 2019 AND THEY DETERMINED THAT URBAN MIXED USE WAS THE BEST LAND USE FOR THIS AREA.
AND SO THEY ALSO HAD TO REQUEST A PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, TO REGIONAL MIXED USE.
UM, THESE ARE REGIONAL MIXED USES.
BASICALLY WHAT YOU SEE ON THOSE BIG VA VACANT TRACKS OR EVEN DOWNTOWN BECAUSE DOWNTOWN SUPPORTS THAT KIND OF DENSITY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT MEDICAL CENTER WAS DESIGNED TO, TO START GETTING THAT INTENSE.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING AN ALTERNATE.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, I WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT BASED ON WHAT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDING? UM, SO THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE MEDICAL CENTER THAT ARE MF 65 ZONED.
UM, AND THAT OTHER MXDI POINTED OUT THAT WE DID I THINK IS 65 UNITS PER ACRE, UM, AS WELL.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME PRECEDENT FOR THAT IN THE AREA.
WE ALSO HAVE A BIT OF A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IN THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A 10 STORY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY DIFFERENT THAN IF THE BUILDING THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY JUST VACANT.
WE WOULDN'T COME IN AND BUILD A 10 STORY BUILDING HERE ANYMORE.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD DO THAT.
UM, SO WE HAVE THAT BUILDING THAT WE'D LIKE TO FILL WITH HOUSING AND THEN WE JUST SEE THAT THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR SOME ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE FUTURE.
NOW THERE IS NO SITE PLAN AS THERE IS NO SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE.
NOW, UM, I GUESS WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND THEN SO IS THERE, IS THERE ANY GUARANTEE OR ANY TYPE OF LIMITATIONS WE COULD PUT FOR THE, FOR THE AMOUNT OF UNITS YOU'RE GONNA BE PUTTING ON THIS BASED ON WHAT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDING THE TOTAL MAX UNITS THAT COULD BE ON THERE? SO I THINK THERE, I THINK THE CITY'S NUMBER WITH 40 UNITS AN ACRES LIKE CHRISTIE SAID, FOUR, 440 ISH UNITS OR SO, WHICH WAS, UM, I HAVE IT WRITTEN AND SO I, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO DO MORE THAN THAT.
UM, AND I THINK THOUGH THAT WE CAN LOOK AT LIMITING, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THERE WOULD BE A CAP, SOME TYPE OF CAP ON THE UNITS.
SO WE COULD LOOK AT DOING THAT AND, AND LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S NO SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE MXD, UM, BUT WE KNOW WHERE THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE
[00:55:01]
LIMITATION ON THE FUTURE PROJECTS? WILL THERE BE SOME TYPE AND I KNOW THERE'S NO SITE PLAN.WE YEAH, AND, AND I DON'T, UM, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING I DEFINITELY OPEN TO.
THE OTHER BUILDINGS ARE A HUNDRED AND FORTY, A HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE ISH FEET TALL, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
UM, SO IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT.
AND UH, THE OTHER THING TOO, THAT BACK PORTION, UM, THERE'S ALSO AN ACCESS POINT FROM THE BACK ONTO FREDERICKSBURG.
SO THERE IS ALTERNATIVES FOR ACCESS TO FOR FUTURE, UM, DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.
SO I ACTUALLY GOT TO MY NEXT POINT.
SO THE ACCESS WOULD NOT ONLY BE THROUGH DATA POINT, IT'LL BE THROUGH FREDERICKSBURG AS WELL.
AND I GUESS THE PARK, THE OFFSET FOR PARKING SINCE BEING SO MANY UNITS, IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THAT PUT IN THE BACK END FOR BE THE EXCESSIVE PARKING IF THEY WERE NEEDING ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THAT? IF THEY NEED, YES.
SO IT'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS ON, ON PARKING, WHICH FOR MULTIFAMILY, IF IT IS HOUSING AS A MINIMUM OF 1.5 UNITS OR 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT.
UM, SO YEAH, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT'S GOING TO BE, HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.
AND THEN, UM, AS FAR AS DRAINAGE I HAD MM-HMM
THERE WAS SOMEBODY COMMENTING ABOUT POSSIBLE DRAINAGE ISSUES OR FLOODING IN THE FUTURE, HOW, WHERE WOULD IT BE THE RUNOFF OF THE DRAINAGE? WOULD, WOULD THAT POSSIBLY THE SAME PARKING LOT WOULD BE USED FOR THAT? SO YEAH, IF THAT WAS A SITUATION.
SO AT, AT OUR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, UM, THERE WAS ONE RESIDENT FROM THE CONDO ASSOCIATION WHO CAME AND SPOKE AND HIS ONE MAIN QUESTION WAS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
UM, AND WHAT HE TOLD ME WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DRAINAGE FLOWS THROUGH THIS PARKING LOT AND BASICALLY KIND OF THROUGH THEIR CONDOS AND HIS CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE NOT AFFECT THAT? UM, AND SO YEAH, THERE'S NO PLANS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS BACK PIECE OTHER THAN PARKING.
IT'S AGAIN LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY VIABLE USE OTHER THAN PARKING.
UM, SO, AND IT'S ALL PAVED NOW.
SO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT DRAINAGE PATTERNS REALLY AREN'T GONNA CHANGE WITH THAT.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY REACH OUT TO THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT WITH ACTUALLY THE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO IT? AND HAVE THEY HAD ANY FEEDBACK ON THIS DEVELOPMENT? AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, I MET THAT GENTLEMAN WHO WAS PART OF THEIR ASSOCIATION.
UM, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HIM SINCE THEN.
WE'RE HAPPY TO MEET WITH THEM.
WE DIDN'T REACH OUT, THEY WEREN'T A REGISTERED ASSOCIATION.
WE DID REACH OUT TO THE ONE GROUP THAT IS REGISTERED WITHIN 200 FEET AND THEY DID NOT RESPOND.
AND I THINK, UH, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE LIMITATIONS RATED APPLICANT BASIS P AND, OKAY.
UH, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THEN I'LL HAND IT OVER.
IF, LET'S SAY, AND GOING FORWARD AS THE SITE PLAN WAS SET, IF THEY DECIDED TO PUT A BUILDING, ANOTHER BUILDING, OR LET'S SAY THEY WANTED TO COME AND CHANGE ANY TYPE OF ADDITIONAL UNITS, DO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO ZONING TO GET THIS APPROVED OR ONCE IT'S MXD WITH THAT SITE PLAN IS IT'S SET, IT, IT, IT'S SET BASICALLY, BUT WE WERE LOOKING AND THEY CAN ADD, UH, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND UM, THEY CAN GET AS SPECIFIC AS THEY LIKE ON THE SITE PLAN.
WE JUST REQUIRE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD WORK ON BETWEEN NOW AND COUNSEL.
UM, AND THEN IF THEY DO WANNA SUBMIT A REVISED SITE PLAN, THEY COULD DO THAT.
WE EASILY HANDLE THOSE AT COUNCIL LEVEL AND THEN BEING, IT'S ALMOST A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THIS SITUATION.
SO I MEAN, HOW, WHAT'S THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE BETTER OUTCOME FOR THEM IN THIS SITUATION? I MEAN, I, WHAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF CONFUSED HERE WHERE THE DENIAL, I'M UN UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE USED FOR, I THINK THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER GOING WITH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THAT'S WHERE I WAS JUST KIND OF JUST GETTING YOUR FEEDBACK ON, WELL, NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN, BECAUSE THEY, IT COULD TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING, COULD TEAR DOWN THE BUILDINGS IF THEY WANTED AND START OVER.
I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER, UM, TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE QUESTION.
OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST INITIALLY THE LOWER BUILDING IN THIS PICTURE, CORRECT? MM-HMM
SO EACH FLOOR IS APPROXIMATELY 15,000 SQUARE, A LITTLE LESS SQUARE FEET.
SO, YOU KNOW, TALKING REALLY ABOUT 15, MAYBE 20 UNITS PER FLOOR.
I, I THINK IN TERMS OF UNIT COUNT RANGE, 'CAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT SMALLER UNITS.
IT'D PROBABLY BE BETWEEN TWO 50 TO 300.
MAYBE A LITTLE, MAYBE CLOSER TO THE TWO 50, BUT, BUT NOT PER FLOOR? NO, TOTAL
OKAY, SO 25 TO 30 PER FLOOR OR SO MM-HMM
[01:00:01]
YOU KNOW, WHICH IS GONNA GIVE YOU AT THAT POINT ANOTHER, MY MATH COMES OUT TO ABOUT 750 UNITS.SO I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES, UM, AND I THINK YOU'VE ADDRESSED IT, BUT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ME AND I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE, THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTION COMES IN, UH, THAT THERE'S A HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR YES.
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER WHITSETT PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF THEY'RE DOING MULTIFAMILY IN OFFICE? CORRECT.
UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY IS 1.5 PER UNIT, WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO DO.
UM, AND THAT, I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN, BUT OFFICE TYPICALLY IS ABOUT ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET.
SO FOR 150,000 FEET, THAT WOULD BE WHAT? 500 SPACES MAKING ME MATH, I CAN, OH WAIT, WAS IT A ONE 50 YOU SAID? YEAH, TECHNICALLY ABOUT 500.
AND IF THEY DO 700 UNITS, THEY'VE GOTTA DO 700,000, A THOUSAND SPACES PLUS OR MINUS.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE PARKING SPACE SIZE IS? NINE BY 18? YEAH.
SO NINE BY 18 WITH BACKUP IT'S BY 250 FEET OR SOMETHING.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'D ALMOST MAX THEMSELVES OUT ON PARKING IF THEY JUST CONVERT THIS AS IS, UH, USING OFFICE.
AND, UH, THE APARTMENT WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH ROOM TO ADD OTHER UNITS.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE, YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT DURING THE PLAN REVIEW STAGE.
BUT AS CHRISTIE MENTIONED, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY TEAR DOWN THE BUILDINGS, WHICH I, AND THEN REBUILD Y'ALL.
Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS YET? JUST CONCEPTS? NO, JUST CONCEPTS.
AND I THINK, UH, AGAIN, NO PLANS, BUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE BUILT IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD PROBABLY ALSO COME WITH SOME KIND OF STRUCTURED PARKING.
UM, SO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE OFFICE CAN, YOU KNOW, RETAINS THE PARKING, THE EXIST, THE NEW MULTIFAMILY HOPEFULLY HAS PARKING.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, HAPPY TO PUT A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE AND KIND OF DEFINE THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSION ON MY LEFT.
UH, MS. FAIRMONT ON THE, UH, PROPERTY THAT'S NORTH AND WEST, UH, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE USED FOR PARKING THIS? YES.
WAS THERE A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THAT AS WELL, IF YOU WERE TO PUT IN THE PARKING STRUCTURE BACK THERE? UH, NO, I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT WE HAPPY TO PUT A PARKING, A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THAT PIECE, MAYBE MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, LIMIT THIS HEIGHT TO SOMETHING AND THEN LIMIT THIS EVEN GREATER, UM, BECAUSE I DON'T, AGAIN, DON'T SEE THAT CHANGING.
SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN JUST A NORMAL C TWO HEIGHT LIMITATION OR SOMETHING.
ALRIGHT, LAST CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS? NONE.
ALRIGHT, BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER ORTIZ.
UM, BEING THAT THERE'S NO SITE PLAN, AND I KNOW THERE'S NOT ONE, WE'RE KIND OF JUST GOING ON LIMBO, IT'S KIND OF HARD FOR ME TO KIND OF GRASP WHAT'S GONNA KIND OF BE LAID OUT HERE.
SO I'M GONNA REQUEST A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO GET TO MORE INFORMATION TOGETHER AND JUST KIND OF FIGURE OUT HOW THIS IS GONNA BE PLAYED OUT AND THEN THAT WHEN WE COME IN TWO WEEKS, WE CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.
SO I'M GONNA RECOMMEND TWO WEEK RECOMMENDATION TO JANUARY 21ST FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON DISCUSSION.
AND COMMISSIONER WATSON? YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE A MORE DEFINED SITE PLAN.
I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED TO AND YOU'RE ALREADY TALKING TO DISTRICT EIGHT, UH, STAFF ABOUT, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED TODAY, UM, HAVE GIVEN ME, PUSHED ME MORE IN ONE DIRECTION THAN I WAS BEFORE.
SO JUST HAVING AN IDEA OF WHAT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS COULD BE.
AND I THINK THE QUESTION, OR I THINK I FEEL FROM STAFF'S FEEDBACK THAT A LOT OF THEIR CONCERN LEADING TO DENIAL IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING.
SO IF THERE'S A COMMITMENT, OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR, WHAT
[01:05:01]
YOUR, UM, OWNER THINKS, BUT JUST BEING PREPARED TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT MORE AND REFLECTING WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR NEXT TIME.ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? UH, COMMISSIONER UEY.
SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE THERE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, TEARING THEM DOWN MAY NOT BE A, A GOOD OPTION.
AND, AND THAT'S MY CONCERN IS MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO IF YOU DECIDE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES ON THAT PROPERTY? BECAUSE NOW IF, LET'S SAY, UH, AND I ASKED ABOUT HEIGHT RESTRICTION, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY YOU ONLY BUILD A FOUR STORY, UH, PARKING STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
NOW YOU CAN HAVE THAT BUILDING THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE LOOMING OVER THE, UH, THE, THE RESIDENCE BEHIND YOU.
SO AGAIN, THOSE, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS AND, AND I AGREE WITH, UH, MY COMMISSIONER, UH, ORTIZ, THAT YEAH, WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AS TO WHAT, UH, WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT WILL HELP US, UH, MAKE OUR DECISIONS.
UH, MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION, BUT YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE RUNOFF AND THE CONCENTRATED FLOW.
YOU KNOW, THIS LOOKS LIKE SHEET FLOW, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO MITIGATE THAT.
IF THERE'S CONCERNS, UH, REMOVING SOME OF THE ASPHALT, PUTTING IN SOME SWALES, UH, IT MIGHT EVEN HELP WITH THE AESTHETICS AND THE HEAT.
SEEING NO OTHER COMMENT, UH, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE.
MOTIONS FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE.
WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE WEEKS.
[Approval of Minutes ]
ALRIGHT.I BELIEVE MINUTES ARE ON THE, OR THE LAST ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ANY CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS OR A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE.
[Director’s Report ]
ALMOST MADE IT.DO WE HAVE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? UH, WELL WE WILL ADD THE, UM, ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO THE NEXT AGENDA, UH, FOR CHAIR VICE CHAIR PRO.
TE UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL HOW MANY YEARS YOU'VE SERVED AS CHAIR ENOUGH? I'M DONE.
I AM MOVING DOWN TO THE END OF THE ROAD.
I THOUGHT IT HAD ONLY BEEN A YEAR, BUT NO, IT'S BEEN TWO.
TIME FLIES WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN OR SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU DON'T GET THE EXTRA PAY.
IT'S BEEN EASY WHEN WE'VE HAD GREAT COMMISSIONERS, SO THANK ALL OF Y'ALL BECAUSE YOU KNOW.
NO, NO, REALLY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HAVE NO IDEA.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SITTING THERE, IT'S LIKE, DUDE, THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION, YOU KNOW? BUT ANYWAY, SO YEP.
NOW YOU AND I CAN GO TO THE CLUB AND START SINGING OUR SMOKEY SONGS, RIGHT? I KNOW.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OR MOVE TO ADJOURN? ALL THANK YOU.
SO ZONING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED AT, WHAT IS THAT? TWO 11.