[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
UH, IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE OUR SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES STATEMENT.
MY NAME IS JOHN BUS AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT FIVE ZONING COMMISSIONER.
I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICED MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION IN THE SESSION.
UH, IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE, UH, ROLL CALL BY HAVING THE ZONING COMMISSIONERS INTRODUCE THEMSELVES STARTING ON MY FAR LEFT.
MARCO BARROS, DISTRICT NINE, ROB SIPES, DISTRICT SEVEN, AL ORTIZ, DISTRICT EIGHT.
DANIEL KELLUM, DISTRICT ONE, JOHN WHITSETT, DISTRICT 10.
ALRIGHT, STAFF IS A QUORUM PRESENT.
UH, WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, THE UNITED OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
UH, PRIOR TO COMMENCING OUR HEARING TODAY, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW THE MEETING FORMAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE.
STAFF IF YOU WOULD, BEFORE I BEGIN, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR PHONES ON VIBE OR PLEASE TURN YOUR PHONES ON VIBRATE OR TURN THEM OFF.
THE ZONING COMMISSION IS AN 11 MEMBER BODY APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ZONING CASES.
UPON RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION, YOU WILL 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 THAT SUBJECT, PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN EX INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION.
FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING, YOU WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
YOU WILL BE INFORMED THAT THE THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK AND MUST ANNOUNCE WHEN THAT SPEAKER IS GOING UP TO THE PODIUM THAT THEY ARE YIELDING THEIR TIME.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS.
[Zoning Items ]
ANY POSTPONED, WITHDRAWN OR PULLED ITEMS TODAY? WE DO NOT.STAFF, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE READ THE LIST OF ITEMS ON COMBINED HEARING.
NUMBER ONE, THE CONSENT AGENDA SO COMMISSIONERS MAY PULL ITEMS IF THEY SO CHOOSE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON CONSENT RIGHT NOW.
ITEMS 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 AND 27.
ALRIGHT, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? LOOKING TO MY RIGHT, SEEING NONE, LOOKING TO MY LEFT.
ALRIGHT, STAFF, IF WE COULD PLEASE READ THE ITEMS ON COMBINED HEARING.
NUMBER ONE, THE CONSENT AGENDA INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C3 AND I ONE TO C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A SOLAR FARM WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
[00:05:01]
AT 49 5 0 CALLAHAN ROAD 31.NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR WHEN OPPOSED.
INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND THUNDERBIRD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C3 S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC AUTHOR SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO C3 CDS WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME OVERSIZED VEHICLE, SALES SERVICE OR STORAGE AND A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 54 10 PECAN SPRINGS ROAD.
ZERO OPPOSED RIOT COMMONS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GAVE NO RESPONSE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO AMEND TO ADD TO C3.
CDS COULD WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP AND MAKE THAT AMENDMENT? HI VANESSA RODRIGUEZ.
VANESSA RODRIGUEZ WITH BROWN AND MCDONALD 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE NA DESIGNATION TO OUR ZONING AND YOU'RE AMENDING THE APPLICATION AT THIS TIME? YES.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R SIX TO RM FIVE WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 8 43 SOUTHWEST 37TH STREET.
ZERO OPPOSED LOS CARDENAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM MP 10 AND R SIX TO I ONE WITH ALL LAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1 3 9 7 6 QUINTANA ROAD 18.
SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY NEIGHBOR, I'M SORRY, SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C TWO TO C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A HOSPITAL WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 13,000 BLOCK OF SOUTHWEST LOOP.
ZERO OPPOSED VITA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM NC IDZ TO IDZ ONE WITH USES PERMITTED IN NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND A TATTOO PARLOR SLASH STUDIO WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE GIVEN FROM THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION.
ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM NP EIGHT TO RM SIX WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1 4 5 7 0 CA QUEENSLAND BERRY ROAD 18.
ZERO OPPOSED AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R FOUR C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER AND C3 R TO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR OUR HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
OPPOSED LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM I TWO TO I ONE WITH ALL OF RELATES TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 7 0 6 FROST BANK CENTER DRIVE.
ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
AND UNITED HOMEOWNERS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT GIVE A RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C TWO TO IDZ ONE WITH USES PERMITTED IN C ONE LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1606 NORTH PINE STREET.
ZERO OPPOSED AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ITEM NUMBER 19 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C3 TO C3 IDZ WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1 0 9 WEST GRAYSON STREET.
TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN
[00:10:01]
SUPPORT NO RES UH RESPONSE FROM THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION AND OUTSIDE 200 FEET WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR.ITEM NUMBER 20 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM IDZ TO WITH USES PERMITTED FOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE, INDOOR THEATER INDOOR WITH TWO OR LESS SCREENS AND OR STAGES AND STUDIO FINE OR PERFORMING ARTS TO IDZ TWO WITH USES PERMITTED IN C ONE LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND 16 DWELLING UNITS WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 7 25 AND 7 41 WEST ASHBY PLACE.
EIGHT OPPOSED ALTA VISTA DOES NOT OPPOSE.
AND THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE GAVE NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET WE RECEIVED ONE.
ITEM NUMBER 21 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C TWO S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A BINGO HALL TO C TWO S WITH SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A PARTY HOUSE RECEPTION HALL MEETING FACILITIES WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 7 1 4 2 SAN PEDRO AVENUE.
OPPOSED UM, AND NO RESPONSE FROM SHEER HILLS RIDGEVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION.
ITEM NUMBER 22 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A FOOD PROCESSING FACILITY TO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOOD PRODUCTS, WHOLESALE AND STORAGE WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 10 31 HOT WELLS BOULEVARD.
AND HIGHLAND HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
ITEM NUMBER 23 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM C ONE TO C ONE S WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A MEDICAL CLINIC LOCATED AT UH, 1 27 LEWIS STREET AND THAT'S WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
OPPOSED TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
ITEM NUMBER 25 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM I ONE TO C3 WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 1 2 4 3 8 WEST AVENUE 18.
AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
ITEM NUMBER 26 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM RM FOUR CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR CATERERS AND CATERING SHOP NO ON-PREMISES FOOD SERVICES TO C TWO WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
LOCATED AT 38 38 AND 3,900 WEST AVENUE.
NORTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE GIVEN FROM BELLEVUE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION.
ITEM NUMBER 27 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM I ONE TO C3 WITH ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 7,200 BLOCK OF NORTH LOOP 1604 EAST 10 NOTICES WERE SENT.
ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED AND THERE IS NO RESPONSE.
UM, NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
AND UM, JUST TO GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, I APOLOGIZE.
I UM, THEY WANT TO AMEND THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, INDIVIDUAL FIVE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THEIR SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ENTIRE, UM, FROM THE LOTS IS THE A, THE SOUTH 585 FEET OF LOT FOUR AND CCB 1 1 5 5 6 TO 3.110 ACRES OUT OF NEW CITY BLOCK 1 1 5 5 6.
ALRIGHT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? YES.
WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE COME UP, UH, JUST TO CONFIRM THE AMENDMENT, IF YOU WOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF, GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS.
I'M WITH INTERTECH AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH.
UM, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND YOUR UM, APPLICATION FOR REZONING? YES.
FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE? YES SIR.
WHAT IS THE AMENDMENT? CAN YOU THE AMENDMENT.
SO THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL? YEAH.
THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS TO REZONE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
[00:15:01]
IS AN EXISTING CHUNK OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL.UM, I, THAT IS WHERE OUR ACTUAL LAB IS LOCATED.
WE'RE SEEKING TO RETAIN THAT AS AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND REZONED THE REST OF IT FOR THE SOLAR ARRAY.
AND SO IT'S 3.110 ACRES OF NCB 1 1 5 5 6 1 1 5 5 6.
AND THAT'S THE APPLICANT AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE NOW? YES SIR.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, WE HAVE VOICEMAILS FOR ITEM 13, ALSO FOR ITEM 20.
AND THEN WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER 20.
IF WE COULD PLAY THE VOICEMAILS FIRST.
8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 16 FOR 3 1 9 BLANCO ROAD.
DEAR ZONING COMMISSIONERS, THE APPLICANT CONTACTED THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING AND URBAN SIGN COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER REQUESTING TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN REGARDS TO ADDING A TATTOO PARLOR USE TO THE EXISTING NC IDZ ZONING.
THIS APPLICANT CAME BEFORE BAHAMA JUST A YEAR AGO IN NOVEMBER, 2023 REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE FROM R SIX CD FOR A DUPLEX TO CD IDZ IN A VOTE BY MEMBERSHIP.
BAHANA AGREED TO SUPPORT A REZONING TO NC IDZ ONE.
ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET ARE ALL ZONED C3 ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY BEHIND IT AND TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED FOR SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS PARLA REQUIRES A C3 ZONING.
THIS WAS A CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN INTENSITY OF USE.
HOWEVER, IN COMPARING THE TATTOO PARLO USE TO OTHER C3 USES AND SEEING THAT BEAUTY SALONS ARE ALLOWED IN NC AND BELIEVING THAT A TATTOO PARLA NO LONGER ATTRACTS THE MORE PROBLEMATIC CLIENTELE OF THE PAST BUT IS MORE OF AN ARTISTIC ENDEAVOR.
THE BAHAMA GENERAL MEMBERSHIP VOTED BY A MAJORITY TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
HOWEVER, A RESTRICTION ON OPERATING HOURS WAS NEGOTIATED SO THAT NO USER SHALL OPERATE PAST 9:00 PM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP ALSO REQUESTED A BY APPOINTMENT ONLY OPERATING SCHEDULE.
I AM THE CURRENT BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF CASE NUMBER Z 20 24 1 0 7 0 0 3 1 4 FOR 3 1 9 LANCO ROAD.
DEAR ZONING COMMISSIONERS, THE APPLICANT CON CONTACTED THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER REQUESTING TO MEET WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD IN REGARDS TO ADDING TATTOO PARLER USED TO THE EXISTING NC IDZ ZONING.
THIS APPLICANT CAME BEFORE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION JUST A YEAR AGO IN NOVEMBER OF 2023 REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE FROM R SIX CD FOR OUR DUPLEX TO C TWO IDZ IN A VOTE BY MEMBERSHIP.
VNA AGREED TO SUPPORT A REZONING TO NC IGG ONE.
ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET ARE ALL ZONED Z THREE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY BEHIND IT AND TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED FOR SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS THE TATTOO PARLOR REQUIRES A C3 ZONING.
THIS WAS A CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN DENSITY OF USE.
HOWEVER, IN COMPARING THE TATTOO PARLOR USED TO OTHER C3 USES AND SEEING THAT BEAUTY SALONS ARE NOT ARE ALLOWED IN, EXCUSE ME, ARE ALLOWED IN NC AND BELIEVING THAT A TATTOO PARLOR NO LONGER ATTRACTS THE MORE PROBLEMATIC CLIENTELE OF THE PAST, BUT IT'S MORE OF AN ARTISTIC ENDEAVOR.
THE B, THE
HOWEVER, A RESTRICTION ON OPERATING HOURS WAS NEGOTIATED SO THAT THE OWNER SHALL OPERATE SHALL NO, EXCUSE ME, SO THAT NO USER SHALL OPERATE PAST 9:00 PM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP ALSO REQUESTED A BUY APPOINTMENT ONLY OPERATING SCHEDULE LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CASE Z 20 24 1 0 7 0 0 3 1 4 FOR THREE 19 BLANCO.
KAREN KO, I'M THE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE AL EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M SUBMITTING THIS COMMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF A VNA REGARDING ITEM 3, 2, 5.
[00:20:01]
I'VE BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO BY PRESIDENT JAMES GROVER.THE EIGHT MEMBER AV A BOARD VOTED SIX ZERO NOT TO OPPOSE THE OWNER'S REQUEST FOR REZONING.
HOWEVER, THE AV A BOARD DISCOVERED THAT THE LAST MINUTE THAT THE ATTACHMENTS FOR THIS CASE ON SA SPEAKUP, WHICH WERE JUST POSTED ON FRIDAY ARE INCOMPLETE.
THEY DO NOT INCLUDE A REQUIRED SITE PLAN OFFICIAL FOR IDZ ZONING.
WHILE WE WANT TO TRUST THAT THE SITE PLAN WE RECEIVE FROM THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT, WE DO NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC RECORD TO CONSULT THEREFORE A VNA REQUEST A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW A SITE PLAN TO BE INCLUDED AND INSPECTED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
IF TODAY'S HEARING PROCEEDS WITHOUT THIS DUE PROCESS AND THE SITE PLAN DISCUSSED DOESN'T MATCH WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE A VA BOARD BY THE APPLICANT, WE OPPOSE THE REQUEST.
IF A SITE PLAN IS DISCUSSED AND DOES MATCH WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE AV A BOARD BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH THE ZONING CASE MANAGER CAN VERIFY, THEN THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS APPLY.
THE DECISION TO NOT OPPOSE THIS REQUEST WAS NOT MADE LIGHTLY.
THE AV A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MET WITH THE APPLICANTS ON JANUARY 8TH AND THEN HELD AN AD HOC MEETING ON JANUARY 15TH TO DISCUSS THE REQUEST.
SEVERAL NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET WERE IN ATTENDANCE.
MANY OPINIONS WERE EXPRESSED INCLUDING CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS, POTENTIAL PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THE SUITABILITY OF MXD AND C TWO USES, WHICH WERE THE REQUEST AT THE TIME.
THERE WAS ALSO FIRM SUPPORT EXPRESSED FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT CORNER.
WE RELAYED THESE CONCERNS AND THE CASE WAS POSTPONED TO TODAY.
IN THE INTERIM, WE CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE REVISED REQUEST.
I CLEARED I PLAN THIS MORNING SO IT'S AVAILABLE TO VERIFY THE TECHNICAL DETAILS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AGAIN AT OUR FEBRUARY 5TH BOARD MEETING AND IN THAT MEETING AND IN OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WE HEARD ALMOST EQUALLY AGAIN FROM NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET WHO ARE BOTH SUPPORTIVE AND OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST.
FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS, I'LL BEIT RUSHED SEVERAL REASONS FACTORED INTO THE BOARD'S DECISION AND THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE LIST.
WE HEARD EQUALLY FROM NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY WHO BOTH OPPOSE AND SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
WE SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED DOWN FROM C TWO TO C ONE USES IN BASE ZONING THAT REQUIRES PARKING SPACES.
WE HAVE CONFIRMATION FROM THE ZONING CASE MANAGER AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT A COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY IF THE POTENTIAL NEW OWNER'S NOTIONAL VISION BECOMES A REALITY.
ASHBY IS A LOGICAL PLACE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DENSITY ALIGNS WITH THE GREEN LINE AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT VISION.
AND FINALLY, ANY MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL REQUIRE A NEW ZONING APPLICATION, HEARING AND PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS LIKE WE'RE HAVING TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THESE COMMENTS.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE SO THAT THE CASE, UH, TO THE CASE SO THAT WE CAN UM, SEE A COMPLETE PUBLIC RECORD INCLUDING A SITE PLAN.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THESE COMMENTS AND OUR REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THIS CASE SO THAT WE CAN BE SURE WE ARE COMMENTING ON THE CORRECT SITE PLAN.
THE PUBLIC RECORDS SHOULD BE UPDATED.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, ALEXA DID SPEAK WITH, UM, MS. SKO ABOUT FINDING WHERE THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE IT IS UPLOADED AND IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THEY DID RECEIVE THE ALL LIKE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC ALL THE INFORMATION INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN.
AND THE SITE PLAN WAS AVAILABLE AS OF FRIDAY.
UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, IS THAT ALL FOR VOICEMAILS? THERE'S ONE MORE VOICEMAIL.
LET'S DO THAT ONE JENNIFER BIN.
UM, MY ADDRESS IS 5 2 3 WEST AGARITA AVENUE IN ALTA VISTA AND I AM CALLING IN REGARDS TO AGENDA ITEM 20, CASE NUMBER 1 0 7 0 0 3 2 5.
AND I WANTED TO CALL IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE PLAYHOUSE FOR 7 2 5 AND 7 4 1 WEST ASHBY FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO 16 UNITS.
I WANTED TO CALL IN SUPPORT OF THAT CHANGE FOR ZONING.
AND THAT IS IT FOR VOICEMAILS AND WE DO HAVE SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ITEM NUMBER 20, MS. KATHLEEN BAILEY.
AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS KATHLEEN BAILEY.
I LIVE AT 7 22 WEST FRENCH PLACE.
UH, I LIVE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.
UH, I OPPOSE THE PROJECT DUE TO
[00:25:01]
ITS IN DENSITY AND LACK OF PARKING.I AM PAST PRESIDENT OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND PARTICIPATED IN THE 2003 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN, WHICH WAS AMENDED IN 2018.
THIS PLAN WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ALTAVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT SET THE GUIDELINES FOR THE SCALE MASSING AND BUILDING MATERIALS OF THE STRUCTURE THE LOT AT 7 25 WEST ASHBY WAS FORMALLY A TWO STORY HOME, THE LOT AT 7 41 WEST ASHBY WAS A GAS STATION THAT LATER BECAME A RESTAURANT.
THESE TWO LOTS HAVE BEEN COMBINED FOR A 16 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, 16 COMPACT PARKING SPACES, A DA PARKING SPACES, THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH PROPOSED ADDITION.
THIS PROJECT IS TOO DENSE FOR THE SITE.
FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS TO ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS AND RETAIL CUSTOMERS.
NO PARKING IS PERMITTED ON WEST ASHBY FROM SAN PEDRO TO NORTH FLORES, ACROSS FROM SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK.
VERY LIMITED PARKING IS AVAILABLE ON NORTH FLORES, WHICH WILL BE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT DRIVEWAY FOR THE PROJECT.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT OF THE CASE TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPERS TO MEET WITH THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT THEIR FEBRUARY 26TH, 2025 MEMBERSHIP MEETING TO GATHER INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
MANY NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS PROJECT.
ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
COMMISSIONER KELLUM, YOU WANT TO OKAY.
UH, IN THAT CASE, AT THIS TIME THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AS AMENDED AND READ INTO THE RECORD, CONFIRMED BY THE APPLICANT.
ITEM NUMBER NINE AS AMENDED, READ INTO THE RECORD AND CONFIRMED BY THE APPLICANT.
ITEM NUMBER 10 11 12 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, AND 27.
AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO SECOND THE MOTION.
THERE IS A MOTION AND NOW COMMISSIONER BOTTLES HAS SECONDED IT.
ALRIGHT, UH, DISCUSSIONS STARTING WITH COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
MOTION CARRIES NINE AS AMENDED AND FIVE AS AMENDED.
UH, IF YOU WERE PRESENT FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ AND APPROVED, UM, YOU ARE MOVING ON TO CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDING BODY AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL HAS BEEN MADE.
YOU CAN GO OUT AND ENJOY THIS NICE DAY BEFORE HAVING TO HUNKER DOWN GIVEN THE COLD WEATHER COMING IN.
ALRIGHT, WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND COMBINED HEARING, WHICH IS A CONTINUANCE HEARING FOR THE MARCH 4TH, 2025 MEETING.
SO WE HAVE THREE ITEMS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH 4TH MEETING ITEMS THREE, FOUR, AND SEVEN.
IS THERE A MOTION MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO THE MARCH 4TH MEETING.
ITEMS NUMBER THREE, FOUR, AND SEVEN.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEMS THREE, FOUR, AND SEVEN TO THE MARCH 4TH, 2025.
MEETING BY COMMISSIONER WATSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARROS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? LOOKING LEFT.
LOOKING RIGHT, SEEING NONE IN BOTH CASES.
ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT, UH, COMBINED HEARING, SIR.
I SAW THERE WAS THREE VOICEMAILS.
OH, ON THE UH, FOR THE CONTINUANCE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
THERE ARE THREE VOICEMAILS FOR ITEM.
WE WILL PLAY THOSE VOICEMAILS NOW.
[00:30:01]
THANK YOU.JOY RICK RI AND I LIVE AT TWENTY SEVEN TWENTY TWO PEBBLE BREEZE AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 365-7237.
I'M CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER 0 2 7 8 S AS IN SAM.
IT'S ABOUT THE PROPERTY AT 15 0 1 5 JONES BERGER ROAD.
THAT'S NEED IS LOOKING TO BE REZONED.
UM, I'M CALLING TO SAY THAT I'M IN OPPOSITION OF IT.
I LIVE RIGHT BEHIND IT AND I KNOW THEY WANNA PUT A CAR WASH THERE.
WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY CAR WASHES IN THIS AREA.
SOME HAVE TURNED INTO CAR LOTS, WE DON'T NEED THAT.
AND THERE IS A DAYCARE RIGHT NEXT TO OR RIGHT BEHIND THE MCDONALD'S, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAYCARE.
THESE CHILDREN GO OUT AND PLAY AND THEY SOMETIMES WALK THE CHILDREN IN THEIR PARKING LOT AND THAT IS NOT A SAFE ZONE AND WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY LOUD MUSIC COMING FROM A CAR WASH AT NIGHT OR WHENEVER.
UM, IF Y'ALL CAN CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE SAYING, UH, I KNOW I'M ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WILL PROBABLY BE CALLING IN SOME INFORMATION.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS LINDA SUMMERS 27 38 PEBBLE BREEZE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO THREE TWO.
WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY NO AGAINST THE CAR WASH BECAUSE OUR FENCE IS RIGHT THERE AND OUR BACKYARD IS FULL OF THINGS THAT WE DO WITH OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
AND THE CAR WASH WILL INTERFERE WITH ALL OF THAT.
WE HAVE A POOL, A SIBO, A SWING, ET CETERA, A SCREEN AND PORCH, ET CETERA.
I LIVE AT TWENTY SEVEN THIRTY PEBBLE BREEZE.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 491-0554.
THIS IS MY OPPOSITION STATEMENT REGARDING QUICK QUACK CAR WASH.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE THE SITE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A CAR WASH OF QUICK QUACKS.
OTHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING SAN ANTONIO LOCATIONS, NONE ARE NEAR NEIGHBORHOODS.
A CAR WASH SHOULD NOT BE BUILT, BE BUILT ADJACENT TO HOUSES.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN REQUIRES REMOVAL OF MATURE TREES BY THE STREET.
THIS WOULD REDUCE THE CITY'S TREE CANOPY AND RESULT IN A LOSS OF SHADE.
THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WOULD PASS THROUGH THE CONCRETE TROUGH THAT DRAINS THE RUNOFF DITCH IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ROAD TO THE CAR WASH TUNNEL WOULD RUN DIRECTLY BEHIND THE FULL LENGTH OF TWO BACKYARDS.
THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS 0.67 ACRES.
THIS IS ONE THIRD SMALLER THAN WHAT QUICK QUACK PREFERS IN A SITE PER LETTER FROM MR. DENISON.
OUR DESIRED SITE SIZE FOR EACH LOCATION IS PLUS OR MINUS ONE ACRE NOISE FROM THE EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOMERS AT A CAR WASH WOULD BE AUDIBLE IN THE YARDS OF NEARBY HOMES.
THE SOUND FROM TRAFFIC ON JONES MALTSBERGER IS VERY LOUD.
WE DON'T WANT ADDITIONAL NOISE FROM A CAR WASH ADDED TO THE NOISE POLLUTION.
PIZZA HUT WAS A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
I WOULD WELCOME A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RETAIL STORE, OR ANOTHER RESTAURANT ON THIS SITE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? NO.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TAKEN A RECORD VOTE, UH, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF ANY COMMISSIONER THINKS IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME.
LOOKING TO MY LEFT, LOOKING TO MY RIGHT THERE BEING NO MOTION.
THE PREVIOUS RECORD MOTION STANDS.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT COMBINED AGENDA, WHICH IS ONE ITEM, UH, BUT IT IS FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH 18TH, 2025 MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER ONE IS REQUESTING FOR A FOUR WEEK CONTINUANCE TO, AS YOU SAID, MARCH 18TH.
IS THERE A MOTION MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.
ITEM NUMBER ONE TO THE MARCH 18TH HEARING.
AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT ONE.
LIKE I DIDN'T EVEN LEARN MY LESSON.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATSON
[00:35:01]
TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER ONE TO THE MARCH 18TH, 2025 MEETING.UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REBATO.
ANY DISCUSSION? LOOKING TO MY LEFT.
IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO GO ON AND WE'LL SEE YOU ON EITHER MARCH 4TH OR MARCH 18TH.
ALRIGHT, WE ARE NOW GONNA GO ON TO OUR INDIVIDUAL, UH, AGENDA.
UH, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO AS WE ARE WAITING FOR THE APPLICANT TO SHOW UP.
SO WE ARE GOING TO, OH, SHE'S HERE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO.
IF SHE'S HERE AND SHE'S READY TO GO.
MY NAME IS ALEXA RATANA 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 MIX DISTRICT.
THERE WERE 37 NOTICES SENT OUT.
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 AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED R FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT IS NOT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS TO DEVELOP FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
A DENSITY NOT CONSISTENT WITH A BUDDING PROPERTIES.
MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CURRENTLY BENEFIT FROM THE B TO 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 BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND ALLOWS FOR NO MORE THAN TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AMENDING THE REQUEST OF TWO UNITS.
ALSO NEGATES THE NEED FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT BUT DOES REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AMEND THEIR REQUEST.
UH, THIS CASE ALSO WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE IT RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU WOULD COME ON UP, TELL US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
ADDRESS IS 2 2 2 COURT LIST AND I WAS INITIALLY PLANNING TO PUT FOUR UNITS AND I KNOW I WENT TO, IT WAS ANOTHER MEETING.
I APOLOGIZE, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE, WHERE I WAS DENIED FOR THE DENSITY.
UM, BUT THEN I WAS TOLD THAT A RECOMMENDED LAST TIME WAS TO DO A DIFFERENT ZONING AND I THOUGHT I WOULD PUT, BE ABLE TO PUT THREE UNITS THERE WITH ONE, ONE SLAB INSTEAD OF TWO UNITS.
BUT, UH, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO DO TODAY AT THE OKAY.
ONE NEED TO DO, I I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UH, BUT AT THIS POINT IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
UH, IN LIGHT OF THAT, THIS IS A DISTRICT TWO CASE, SO COMMISSIONER WATSON IF YOU WOULD.
MS. GONZALEZ, DOES THIS UM, SITE PLAN REFLECT WHAT YOU JUST STATED OF WANTING TO DO THREE UNITS ON ONE SLAB? YES.
UM, HAVE YOU, UH, PRESENTED THIS THREE UNIT REQUEST TO THE COLISEUM L PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? I PRINTED ONE, I PRESENTED ONE SIMILAR BACK IN AUGUST WHEN I FIRST INITIALLY WENT TO THEM TO PRESENT IT.
DEFINE OR DESCRIBE WHAT YOU MEAN BY SIMILAR PLEASE.
UM, WHAT DID YOU SHARE OR PRESENT TO THEM WITH THE, JUST A LITTLE HANDWRITTEN DRAWING, NOT ONE BY AN ENGINEER ON THIS.
I, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, SHE'S SAYING THREE UNITS, BUT WHAT SHE'S REALLY REQUESTING IS AN RM FIVE, WHICH IS A, WITH THE PLAN FOR URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH PERMITS UP TO THREE UNITS AND SHE WOULDN'T NEED A SITE PLAN.
UM, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUE NEXT QUESTION.
SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
YEAH, SO JUST TO RESTATE FOR THE RECORD, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE THREE UNITS, THE, THE REZONING REQUEST WOULD NEED TO BE FOR AN RM FIVE AND IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, HAVE YOU, SINCE THERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET AND BEYOND THAT OPPOSED YOUR INITIAL REQUEST, HAVE YOU BLOCK WALKED AGAIN TO PRESENT THIS THREE UNIT REQUEST? I HAVE NOT.
THE ONES THAT DID OPPOSE, IT'S UM, THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT HOMEOWNERS THERE.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY'RE UH, A COMPANY THAT OWNS HOMES IN THE AREA.
SO THEY'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY FROM HOMEOWNERS.
[00:40:01]
MEETINGS, MONTHLY MEETINGS.I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY GO TO THE MEETING AND EXPRESS FEELING THAT THEY OPPOSE AS FAR AS HOMEOWNERS.
UM, I WAS, I'M MORE THAN WELCOME TO HEAR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE 'CAUSE I AM FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I GREW UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M TRYING TO, THE LOT'S BEEN VACANT FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, SO I DON'T, I MEAN I DON'T SEE WHY ANYBODY WOULD HAVE CONCERN OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE NEW CONSTRUCTION? YES, DEFINITELY.
UM, AND UH, ARE YOU PLANNING ON HAVING THESE UNITS BE FOR SALE OR RENT? FOR RENT.
ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT ANY SORT OF, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, SUBSIDY OR ACCEPT VOUCHERS OR APPLYING TO ANY PROGRAMS THAT THE CITY PROVIDES TO MAKE THOSE UNITS AFFORDABLE? I HAVE NOT EVEN LOOKED INTO THAT TO SEE, BUT I DO KNOW LIKE THERE'S THE REASON WHY TOO, MY AUNT, AGAIN, I HAVE FAMILY IN THE AREA.
THERE'S A KIND OF A DUPLEX IN THE CORNER OF THE NEXT STREET OVER, UM, THAT THEY RENT OUT.
IT'S LIKE A ONE BEDROOM, VERY EXPENSIVE.
AND I WAS LIKE, I KNOW I COULD DO BETTER FOR, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE NEW SUBDIVISION.
SO I MEAN, I'M NOT PLANNING TO PUT 'EM ON ANY TYPE OF PROGRAMS. I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THAT YET.
BUT DEFINITELY, UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO HELP AS MUCH AS I CAN IS MAKE SURE IT WORKS FOR ME AS WELL AS FOR PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE DETAILS.
UM, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOUR AMENDMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S MORE DENSE THAN WHAT, UH, STAFF PROPOSED BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT, UM, I FEEL COMFORTABLE, UM, MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TODAY.
UM, I WILL REQUEST THAT BEFORE YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL, YOU DO PRESENT YOUR NEW SITE PLAN THAT THE ENGINEER HAS COMPLETED.
AND EXPLAIN YOUR PROJECT TO COLISEUM MILL PARK.
UM, JUST SO THEY HAVE INFORMATION AND CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING IT FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, UM, SINCE THERE IS GOOD PARTICIPATION IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT'S GONNA BE REQUESTED BY THE COUNCILMAN AS WELL.
AND WITH THAT I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR, UM, TO MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER WATSON.
ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? YES.
SO THE STAFF RECOMMEND THE STAFF ALTERNATE WAS TWO UNITS, BUT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR THREE.
ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
STAFF AND I TAKE IT THE THREE UNITS WOULD STILL BE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL? CORRECT.
UH, MS. GONZALEZ, UH, I'M GONNA ASK YOU, ARE YOU OFFICIALLY AMENDING YOUR REQUEST TO RM FIVE INSTEAD OF RM FOUR? THAT'S FOR THE THREE, YES.
IT'S ALL YOU TO ME, SO I'M TRYING TO NO, NO, IT'S A LOT OF, IT'S A LOT OF CODE WORDS WE USE.
YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT IS BUT BUT THIS WOULD GIVE YOU THE THREE UNITS.
UM, BUT WE DO NEED YOU TO ASK FOR THAT AMENDMENT EXPLICITLY.
CAN I PLEASE HAVE THE AMENDMENT? YEAH.
THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR A MOTION.
UM, AS UH, INDICATED EARLIER, I'M MAKING A FORMAL MOTION NOW THAT THE APPLICANT'S CONFIRMED THEIR AMENDMENT, UM, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR RM FIVE TO ALLOW THE THREE UNITS PRESENTED IN THE SITE PLAN.
THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE AMENDED REQUEST TO RM FIVE.
COMMISSIONER REYES GOT THE SECOND
UH, THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED WITH A SECOND.
ANY, UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
COMMISSIONER WATSON, JUST WANNA REMIND YOU AGAIN FOR THIS TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT COUNCIL, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU PRESENT THE AMENDED REQUEST WITH THE THREE UNITS AND THE ENGINEERED SITE PLAN TO THE VLO, UM, THE COLISEUM, LOW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI.
JUST WANNA REMIND YOU AND REITERATE THAT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WATSON.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER ON MY LEFT.
THE, UH, MOTION IS FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
GOOD LUCK MS. GONZALEZ, BUT PLEASE DO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE FOLKS FROM DALLAS
ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
MY NAME IS ALDO GOMEZ, ZONING SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS LOCATED AT 5 5 5 MORRISON BOULEVARD GOING FROM R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO C TWO NACD COMMERCIAL
[00:45:01]
NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A FUNERAL HOME OR ON UNDERTAKING PARLOR.THERE WERE 18 NOTICES SENT OUT.
THE HARLANDALE MCCOLLUM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NEITHER IN FAVOR, NOR AGAINST STAFF, DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORING LANDS IN RELATION TO THIS CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST.
THE PROPOSED IS THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE SUBJECT SITE ZONE ARE C ONE LIGHT INDUS, SORRY, LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THIS EXISTING R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED C TWO NACD COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A FUNERAL HOME OR UNDERTAKEN PARLOR IS ALSO APPROPRIATE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SECONDARY ARTERIAL PROVIDING ADEQUATE INGRESS EGRESS.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN DIRECT PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSED FUNERAL HOME.
THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIRES A PRESCRIBED SITE PLAN THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT FURTHER PUBLIC REVIEW.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME FORWARD, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
MY NAME IS JUAN, LAST NAME BASS.
I'M HERE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 5 5 MORRISON BOULEVARD.
AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO A FUNERAL HOME, UH, SLASH UNDERTAKEN PARLOR, UH, AT THIS ADDRESS.
UM, THIS, YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR NOW.
UM, WE'LL FIRST HALF PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT YOU CAN, UH, HAVE SOME REBUT TIME.
UH, BUT THIS IS A DISTRICT THREE CASE, SO COMMISSIONER OLSON, WE'LL GO TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS.
I THINK YOUR MIC IS OFF AND MY MIC IS OFF, SO, UH, I APOLOGIZE.
UM, THE FIRST TIME I TURNED IT OFF TODAY.
UM, ALRIGHT, UH, YOU WON'T GET REBUTTAL, UH, BUT THIS IS A DISTRICT THREE CASE COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, COUPLE QUESTIONS ON YOUR, UM, SLIGHT SITE PLAN.
UM, I KNOW THAT DIDN'T REALLY TRIGGER REALLY ANYTHING, BUT DO YOU THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR THE AREA, FOR THE FUNERAL HOME? IF IT IS NOT, UM, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY ALSO OWNS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
IF YOU'RE FACING IT TO THE RIGHT, UM, THERE'S ADDITIONAL, UH, PARKING THERE THAT CAN BE USED WITH THE, WITH SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT.
UM, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE.
SO THAT, THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY TAKE CARE OF THE, UH, IF NEED BE.
IN THE FUTURE, AND I'M ASSUMING IN THE FUTURE WE, IF YOU DO NEED THAT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAVE IT AND IT'S ALREADY PAVED.
UM, THE PARK, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S AN OFFICE BUILDING NEXT DOOR THAT HAS PARKING IN THE REAR.
SO, UM, THEY'RE ONLY OPEN CERTAIN HOURS, SO POTENTIALLY, AND THEY DON'T REALLY USE A LOT OF IT SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY USE IT FOR OVERFLOW IF NEED BE.
UM, WHAT ABOUT DISPOSAL OF EMBALMING FLUID AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL? SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THE PERSON THAT'S GONNA BE RUNNING IT HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FOR OVER 22 YEARS.
UM, THEY'VE WORKED WITH OTHER FUNERAL HOMES, SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY'RE GONNA FOLLOW THE SAME INDUSTRY STANDARDS OF DISPOSING, UM, AND HANDLING THESE TYPES OF, OF, UM, CHEMICALS OR, OR, UH, MATERIALS.
AND, AND THE OPERATOR OR THE MANAGER OF THE FACILITY HAS OTHER FUNERAL HOMES.
THEY DO NOT, THEY'VE WORKED WITH, WITH, UH, THREE OR FOUR FUNERAL HOMES IN THE PAST.
UM, HE'S, HE'S WANTING TO BRANCH OUT NOW.
UM, BUT UH, BUT HE DOES HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE.
HE HAS, HE DOES HAVE A DEGREE IN IT AS WELL.
SO, UM, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURES AS THESE OTHER FACILITIES HAVE BEEN IN, UH, THESE OTHER FACILITIES ARE, ARE CURRENTLY, UM, OPERATING UNDER.
AND MY LAST QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH HAVE YOU DONE? I KNOW THERE'S NO SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THAT AREA, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOUR 10 MORRISON, I MEAN THAT, THAT AREA IS GROWING.
SO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE AS FAR AS OUTREACH? SO, UM, ON THAT SPECIFIC BLOCK THERE IS, UM, THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL, UM, HAPPENS TO BE MY PARENTS.
UM, AND THEY'RE REALLY GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE, WITH THE OWNER OF THIS PERSON, OF, OF THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THE REST, THE OTHER ONE IS, IS A BUSINESS IS A, IT'S A CHICKEN RESTAURANT.
THEY, THEY SELL POS, UM, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD WANT IT TO COME IN BECAUSE THEY HAVE GATHERINGS SO THEY CAN GO NEXT DOOR AND EAT.
UM, AND THEN, THEN THERE'S A VACANT TWO ACRE TRACT THAT BELONGS TO A CHURCH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
UM, SO IN THE GENERAL, IN THE, IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE.
UM, WE ARE MEETING WITH THE MCCULLUM, HARDIN, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
[00:50:01]
ON MARCH 10TH.UM, THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED OR, OR THEY'RE NOT OPPOSING.
UM, THEY'RE NOT FOR OR AGAINST AT THE MOMENT.
UM, BUT WE ARE GONNA MEET WITH THEM ON MARCH 10TH.
UM, AND THEN I GUESS WE'LL GO FROM THERE ON THE, FOR THE, THE NEXT MEETING.
AND, AND LASTLY, LEMME JUST MAKE A COMMENT.
UH, I LOVE BOY THOSE, BUT LET'S KEEP THAT
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA.
UH, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? YES.
COMMISSIONER REYES FOR THE APPLICANT.
I SEE YOU ONLY HAVE A HUNDRED FEET OF FRONTAGE.
SO I'M ASSUMING IT'S GONNA BE A ONE WAY IN ONE WAY OUT ON YOUR AC THANK SIR.
CORRECT SIR? YES, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE, YEAH, THAT'S, YES SIR.
ANYTHING FURTHER? COMMISSIONER REYES.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? ON MY RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER ON MY LEFT.
COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA TO YOU FOR A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, FOR A CONTINUOUS FOR TWO WEEKS BECAUSE I, I LIKE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO KIND OF MEET WITH YOU, HEAR EXACTLY ALL YOUR PLANS, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE GOT ALL THE CHECKS AND ALL THE I'S AND EVERYTHING CROSSED.
UM, JUST TO HAVE THAT ONE MORE COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR THAT.
AND THEN SO YOU CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN PROCEED FOR THAT.
THEIR MEETING IS ON THE MARCH 10TH, SO IT WOULD BE ON THE 18TH 'CAUSE THE OTHER ONE'S ON THE FOURTH, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO COMMISSIONER HENO, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR MOTION? NO.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WELL HE COULD, HE COULD ALSO MEET WITH THE BOARD IN BETWEEN.
I'M SORRY, I HAVE A, I HAVE A A, UM, I'M SORRY.
I HAVE A TRIP PLANNED FROM THE 18TH THROUGH APRIL 1ST.
I'M TAKING MY WIFE TO EUROPE AND I JUST LIKE SNAPPED IN MY MIND RIGHT NOW.
SO RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW THE MOTION IS FOR MARCH 4TH AND I THINK THE HOPE IS IS THAT YOU WILL MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, REACH OUT INDIVIDUALLY OKAY.
SO NOT EVEN WORRIED ABOUT THAT MEETING ON MARCH 10TH, BUT THAT WAY YOU CAN GO FORWARD POTENTIALLY ON MARCH 10TH.
IF YOU GO OUT AND INDIVIDUALLY TALK TO PODO, UH, THE CHURCH AND FOLKS LIKE THAT.
TALK TO YOUR PARENTS MORE THAN JUST ABOUT THIS THOUGH.
THERE IS A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 4TH.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BARTOS GOT THE SECOND THIS TIME.
UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER'S ON MY RIGHT? YES.
AND AGAIN, JUST YOU CAN MEET WITH THE BOARD EARLIER IF YOU NEED TO.
AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOME SORT OF LIKE, HEY, THEY'VE REACHED OUT TO US, THEY'VE DONE THIS.
ALSO, WHEN YOU TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR PARENTS AND BO BOS, UH, GET SOMETHING IN WRITING OR GET SOMETHING IN WRITING, GIVE TO YOUR CASE MANAGER, SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVE THIS, WE, WE ACCEPT THIS, WE'RE NINE DENIAL.
I'LL PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND SO THEY CAN JUST SIGN OFF ON IT AND, AND THEN GIVE ALI.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, THE MOTION IS FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH 4TH MEETING OF 2025.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. BASS.
ALRIGHT, UH, ONTO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BEDA, ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT 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 TWO MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH THE MA UH, MAX DENSITY OF 75 UNITS PER ACRE AND PUD MXD PLAN, UNIT DEVELOPMENT, MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAYS 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 HOUSTON IN DENSITY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONE MF 33, MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ARE SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IN C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE EXISTING C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PUD C3 PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ARE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED MXD WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 75 UNITS PER ACRE AND PUD MXD ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
THE REQUEST TO REZONE IS TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY AND OFFICE USES WITHIN
[00:55:01]
THE EXISTING TWO BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY.EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY USES WITHIN PROXIMITY, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED DENSITY EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED IN THIS AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS MXD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE LOWER DENSITY OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE TO STAY COMPLIANT WITH THE SA TOMORROW.
PLAN SA TOMORROW PLANS URBAN MIXED USE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPLIMENT THE AB BUDDY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE DENSITY OF 33 UNITS PER ACRE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF MXD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AMEND THE REQUEST.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSION.
ASHLEY FAIRMAN KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.
UM, IT'S, IT IS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE WERE HERE 'CAUSE OF THE LAST MEETING BEING CANCELED, BUT I, I WILL SKIP THROUGH AT LEAST DO I HAVE CONTROL? UM, YOU OKAY.
UM, SO I'LL, I'LL SKIP THROUGH THIS, UM, QUICKLY.
SO AGAIN, THESE ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS BUILT IN 1980.
THEY'RE EACH ABOUT 10 STORIES TALL.
UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS CLOSER TO FREDERICKSBURG.
UH, AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS CLOSER TO THE CONDOS NEXT DOOR.
UM, SO WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST TIME, OUR REQUEST AS SAMANTHA MENTIONED WAS 75 UNITS AN ACRE.
YOU ALL HAD FEEDBACK ON HEIGHT DENSITY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
SO WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THAT AND SUBMITTED, UM, THIS REVISED SITE PLAN.
SO I JUST KIND OF WANNA GO THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTS ON HERE.
UM, WE WERE AT 75 UNITS AN ACRE.
WE'VE GONE DOWN TO 60 UNITS AN ACRE.
SO THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ABOUT 845 UNITS OR SO AND WE'RE DOWN TO 675 UNITS.
UH, WITH THE REVISED PLAN, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ONE EXISTING BUILDING, THE 10 STORY ONE CLOSER TO FREDERICKSBURG TO BE CONVERTED INTO MULTIFAMILY AND THEN THERE WOULD BE POTENTIAL FOR ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY PROJECT ON THE BACK, BUT IT WOULD REALLY LIMIT IT TO JUST THOSE TWO DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, AND THEN THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DID BUILD MORE APARTMENTS, WHERE WOULD THEY GO? AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ADDED TO THIS PLAN IS OF KIND OF THE FUTURE BUILDING AREA.
UM, IF THAT THOSE APARTMENTS ARE EVER BUILT IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD BE STRUCTURED PARKING AS WELL.
UM, SO IN ORDER TO TO PROPERLY PARK THE EXISTING OFFICE AND THE EXISTING APARTMENTS, UH, SO THAT FUTURE BUILDING WOULD BE IN THAT AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
WE ALSO ADDED A HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS.
UM, WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
NOT THAT YOU'RE GONNA GO IN AND AND PUT ADDITIONAL STORIES ON IT, BUT JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THOSE ARE UNDER 160 FEET TALL.
UH, THAT FUTURE BUILDING AREAS CAPPED AT SIX STORIES.
SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS IN THE STRUCTURED PARKING.
AND THEN NEXT TO THE CONDOS, WHICH IS ON THE EXHIBIT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THE TOP, UH, WE ADDED THAT WITHIN 150 FEET OF THAT PROPERTY LINE, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO STRUCTURES BUILT THAT ARE TALLER THAN TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR 35 FEET, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF, OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING HEIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE ANY BUILDINGS BEING BUILT THERE, BUT IF THERE ARE, THERE IS A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THAT PIECE.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED, UH, WE HAD HEARD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, WELL WHAT IF YOU PUT OTHER BUILDINGS FRONTING ON DATA POINT? AND WHILE, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY PRACTICAL, WE DID ADD THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEW BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED, UM, IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
SO ANYTHING NEW WOULD HAVE TO BE BEHIND THERE.
UM, ALSO, UH, LEMME SEE IF I CAN POINT OUT HERE.
THERE ARE SOME SMALL EXISTING LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, UH, THAT FRONT ON DATA POINT.
AND SO WITH THE IDEA OF, YOU CAN SEE I'M BETTER HERE MAKING THIS LOOK A LITTLE BETTER.
UM, WE ADDED THAT THERE WILL BE A NEW TREE PLANTED EVERY 25 FEET ALONG THAT FRONTAGE.
UH, AND I DO WANNA CLARIFY IN THE SITE PLAN IT SAYS, UM, 20 UH, TWO FOOT WIDE TREES AND THAT SHOULD BE TWO INCHES.
UM,
UH, SO THOSE WOULD BE UM, PUT IN ON DATA POINTS TO, TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT LOOK MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.
AND THEN ALSO, UH, THE LAST NOTE ADDED WAS REGARDING ACCESS TO FREDERICKSBURG.
UM, JUST AT, IF ANY NEW MULTIFAMILY IS CONSTRUCTED, UM, BEST EFFORTS WILL BE USED TO GAIN AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT.
UM, HAPPY TO DISCUSS IN ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. FAIRMAN.
UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS A DISTRICT EIGHT CASE.
COMMISSIONER ORTIZ TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD WAS JUST REGARDING THE DRAINAGE IF I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.
UM, SO THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD HEARD BACK AT PLANNING COMMISSION,
[01:00:01]
UM, IN DECEMBER WAS JUST REGARDING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND THEY, THEY FLOW OVER THIS COMMERCIAL PIECE IN THE BACK.UM, AND JUST A REMINDER, THAT PIECE IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL AND, AND WE'LL HAVE TO STAY COMMERCIAL.
UH, BUT IT'S CURRENTLY USED AND WILL PROBABLY FOREVER BE USED AS A PARKING LOT.
SO THE DRAINAGE FLOWS HERE AND THERE'S NO INTENT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT THAT DRAINAGE FLOW.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS ACTUALLY GOT ANSWERED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SO I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ORTIZ.
COMMISSIONER ON MY LEFT QUESTIONS? YES.
WHAT DID PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUALLY APPROVE? THE 75 OR THE 60 OR THEY APPROVED UH, REGIONAL MIXED USE AS THE LAND USE DESIGNATION WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE 75 BUT ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR THE 60.
AND ARE Y'ALL PLANNING A PARKING GARAGE WITH THE CONVERSION OF THE BUILDING OR NO? SURFACE PARK? UH, THERE'S ABOUT 1100 PARKING SPACES THERE NOW, SO THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
QUESTIONS COMMISSION ON MY RIGHT QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER REYES FOR THE APPLICANT.
AS YOU KNOW, YOUR ACCESS POINTS ARE ON A CURVE.
MM-HMM
SO WHEN YOU PLANT THE TREES, HAVE SOMEONE LOOK AT SITE DIS SITE DISTANCE 'CAUSE YOU, YOU DON'T WANNA CREATE A PROBLEM.
AND SO WE PUT IT AT AN AVERAGE OF 25 FEET SO THAT THERE CAN BE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RE YEAH, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A BEAUTIFUL CAR WRECK.
AESTHETICALLY PLEASING CAR WRECK.
UM, ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER'S ON MY RIGHT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE.
COMMISSIONER ORTIZ TO YOU FOR A MOTION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO THANK ASHLEY FOR THE PRESENTATION, PROVIDING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ZONING PROPOSAL SINCE WE HEARD IT LAST.
UM, WITH THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED, UH, WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE SUCH AS THE DENSITY BEING REDUCED FROM 75 UNITS PER ACRE TO 60 UNITS PER ACRE, UM, THIS WILL HELP WITH THE REDUCTION MAXIMUM UNITS OF FROM 8 73 TO 6 75.
UM, ALSO THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ADDED TO THE NEW STRUCTURE, UH, REDUCES IT FROM 2.5, I GUESS NOW, WHICH IS HALF OF THAT, UH, STORIES INTO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN OF COURSE, ANY FUTURE BUILDINGS WILL BE LIMITED TO SIX STORIES, WHICH IS LESS THAN HALF OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
UM, ALSO NO NEW BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, WHICH GIVES THAT, UH, SEPARATION FROM THE ACCESS, UH, FROM THE ROAD.
AND THEN ALSO JUST TWO NOTES, IF YOU COULD PLEASE TRY, UH, FOR ANY FUTURE PROJECTS THAT THE ACCESS BE MADE FROM THE FREDERICKSBURG ROAD INSTEAD OF DATA POINT.
AND THAT ONE THING THAT IS ALWAYS MENTIONED IN OUR EVERY ZONING CASE IS THAT THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, PLEASE CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES ON WHAT CHANGES TO EXPECT, UM, FROM THIS BIG PROJECT ONCE IT BEGINS.
UM, I DO RESPECT CITY'S ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT WHAT THE CHANGES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE WITH THE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, I THINK THIS PROJECT IS GREAT FOR THE AREA AND PROVIDES ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR THE MEDICAL CENTER AREA AS WELL.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, I'LL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
UH, THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON.
UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? TO MY LEFT? NO.
UH, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.
UM, I ALSO APPRECIATE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, AND THEIR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION.
UH, THAT BEING SAID, UH, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS KIND OF REUSE OF OFFICE SPACE, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY.
UH, AS WE KNOW, GIVEN THE RISE OF TELEWORK OR REMOTE WORK, UH, WE ARE STARTING TO SEE, UM, SORT OF SHELLS OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE DISAPPEAR OR JUST SIMPLY BE LEFT TO RUN FALLOW.
UM, AND SO THIS KIND OF REUSE, I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE AND MORE.
AND SO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT.
AND IF THE DENSITY THAT'S REQUIRED IS A LITTLE BIT HEAVIER THAN WE'D NORMALLY LIKE, I STILL WANNA SUPPORT IT.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
IT IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATSON.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BEA, ZONING
[01:05:01]
PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.ITEM NUMBER 16 IS LOCATED AT 7 4 1 EAST MYRTLE STREET.
GOING FROM R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO RM SIX RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT WITH ALL OVERLAYS STAYING THE SAME.
THERE WERE 48 NOTICES SENT OUT.
TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED AND NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED IDZ INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE C3 N, A GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES DISTRICT, R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT RM FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND IDZ ONE LIMITED INTENSITY IN FILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
THE EXISTING R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED RM SIX RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICT IS ALSO APPROPRIATE.
THE REQUEST TO REZONE IS TO PERMIT THE USE OF THE TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE SURROUNDING AREA IS COMPRISED OF A MIX OF DENSITIES MAKING THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE HOUSING TYPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S GROW GROWING POPULATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
RENEE RUIZ, LAW OFFICE OF RENEE REESE PO BOX 8 31 2 94 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 8 3.
MANIPULATE THIS THING WITH THE PRESENT.
I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION I CAN RUN THROUGH.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THE, THE, THE, THE, THE UNIT IN THE BACK IS A NEW ADDITION THAT WAS ADDED IN 2001.
UM, SO THERE'S A MAIN HOUSE WITH A NEW ADDITION.
IT'S A TWO AND A HALF STORY ADDITION WITH A GARAGE.
IT HAS A SEPARATE EXTERIOR ENTRANCE FROM THE MAIN HOUSE.
UH, THERE'S A CONNECTING DOOR THAT ALLOWS THE TWO UNITS TO BE USED AS ONE UNIT, BUT THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE, THE UNIT SEPARATELY.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R SIX AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO GET AN RM SIX TO ALLOW THE BACK UNIT TO BE USED AS A SEPARATE UNIT.
THE NEW ADDITION WAS PROCESSED AS A RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONAL, UH, A NEW ADDITION AND NOT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
IT HAS ONSITE PARKING FOR UP TO FOUR VEHICLES AND, UH, I BLOCK WALKED, UH, WITHIN 200 FEET.
EVERYBODY THAT RECEIVED NOTICE AND LEFT UM, LETTERS TO CONTACT ME, I SPOKE TO TWO NEIGHBORS AND UH, ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS.
UM, AS STAFF SAID, THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE MIDTOWN REGIONAL CENTER PLAN AND UH, RM SIX IS SPECIFICALLY, UH, PERMITTED FOR THAT TYPE OF URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPERTY'S ALSO IN FOCUS AREA NUMBER THREE, THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER, AND IT STATES THAT IT SHOULD HOST A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND THAT THE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED TO CHANGE.
THE RM SIX IS A TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, AS I SAID, I DID HAND DELIVER, UH, LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
SPOKE TO TWO, SPOKE TO A GENTLEMAN NAMED RICK SHELL, WHO REPRESENTS THE TOBIN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY OPPOSE, UH, THIS APPLICATION.
MY INITIAL UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT UH, UH, WELL THAT THEY OPPOSE THE APPLICATION EMAILED TO OUR DISTRICT ONE ZONING, UH, LIAISON, OUR DIS ONE APPOINTING ON THE ZONING COMMISSION.
AND UH, WE'VE, WE'VE MADE OUR OUTREACH EFFORTS.
SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL.
IF WE COULD PLAY THE VOICEMAIL PLEASE.
THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 2 1 0 7 6 0 6 6 3 1 FOR ZONING CASE ENDING AT 3 2 0 AT 7 41 MYRLE.
WE FIRST DISCUSSED THIS CASE AT THE END OF NOVEMBER, 2024 WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THEY WISH TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AND, UH, THE FRONT UNIT AS AN AIRBNB WITH A TYPE TWO PERMIT, WHICH THEY ALREADY HAD, AND THEN TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT TO USE THE SECOND UNIT AS AN AIRBNB.
IN THAT DISCUSSION, I EXPLAINED WHY WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THAT CHANGE.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS MANY AIRBNBS IN IT TO THE POINT THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS VARIOUS REQUESTS IN THE LAST YEAR TO EXCEED THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE SPR ORDINANCE.
THE APPLICANT SAID THEY UNDERSTOOD OUR POSITION BUT THEY WERE GONNA FILE THE REQUEST ANYWAY THAT THEY FILED IN DECEMBER AND TOLD US VIA EMAIL WHAT FOLLOWED WAS MANY EMAILS TO COUNCIL STAFF, CITY STAFF AND THCA TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET THE REQUEST APPROVED AND WORK
[01:10:01]
AROUND OR NEUTRALIZE OUR OPPOSITION.WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT THE EMAILS SENT AND RECEIVED WERE VERY DISMISSIVE AND ASSUMED ZONING OPERATED IN A SILO OF LAND USE OWN RULE.
IN AN EMAIL SENT TO US YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 17TH, THE APPLICANT TOLD US THEY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION FOR THEIR STR PERMIT.
WE FEEL THIS IS NOT GENUINE AND THAT THE APPLICANT EXPECTS TO REENGAGE WITH THEIR INTENDED STR IF THE ZONING IS PASSED TODAY.
WHILE THE LAND USE ITSELF IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT.
ITEM SEVEN OF STAFF'S REPORT INDICATES THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND NOT FOR STR USE.
IN ONE EMAIL TO US, THE APPLICANT QUOTED A SECTION OF THE CODE DIRECTLY AT US TELLING US, QUOTE, THE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER ON MYRTLE BETWEEN ST.
MARY'S STREET AND EUCLID AVENUE IS NOT ENCOURAGED TO CHANGE.
WE DO AGREE WITH HIM ON THIS POINT AND SO WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS ZONING CHANGE.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING US AND THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT THAT IT'S ALREADY APPLIES TO THE MAIN HOUSE.
UH, THE APPLICANT, UM, WAS UNDER THE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THE BACK UNIT COULD BE UTILIZED UNDER THAT EXISTING STR PERMIT.
UH, SO HE RECEIVED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WHICH BROUGHT THIS TO A HEAD.
UM, THE APPLICATION FOR THE STR PERMIT FOR THE NEW ADDITION IN THE BACK HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
THE MAIN, UH, CONCERN OF MY CLIENT IS THE, THE USE TO MAXIMIZE THE USE AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, IT'S MY POSITION AS HIS ATTORNEY THAT WHETHER HE APPLIES FOR AN SDR PERMIT ON THE BACK IS A SEPARATE ISSUE AND THAT HE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS.
I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE ALREADY HAVE EXCEEDED THE NUMBER OF STR PERMITS BY RIGHT ON THIS BLOCK AND HE WILL HAVE TO GO TO A PETITION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF THAT'S WHAT MY CLIENT OPTS TO DO.
BUT I THINK HIS OTHER OPTION AS AN ABSENTEE LANDOWNERS TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND A MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PERHAPS SELL IT, UH, SO THAT IT COULD BE USED AS TWO SEPARATE UNITS AS OPPOSED TO ONE.
AND AS THE GENTLEMAN THAT LEFT THE VOICEMAIL, UH, SAID IT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE, THE DSD UH, IS SAYING AS WELL.
AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS QUOTED ABOUT TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK RM SIX IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT WOULD BE JUST ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT IN THE BACK.
IT HAS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE AND IT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN, IT TALKS ABOUT HAVING, UM, UH, DUPLEXES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, IF THEY ARE HAVE A CONTACT SENSITIVE DESIGN AND SMALL SCALE INFILL HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS, IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW, IT'S ABOUT A 200 2200 SQUARE FOOT, A NEW ADDITION THAT INCLUDES THE GARAGE, UH, ON THE BOTTOM.
AND SO IT WOULD AT, IT WOULD BE A SMALL, UH, SCALE, UH, UNIT THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
UM, THIS IS A DISTRICT ONE CASE COMMISSIONER KELLUM TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS.
SO THEY'RE MAINTAINING THE, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE FRONT PART OF IT, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNIT ON THE BACK, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, WE HAVE, WE HAVE STR PERMIT ON THE FRONT MAIN HOUSE AND THE, MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LONG-TERM RENT, UH, OR POSSIBLY APPLY FOR A STR PERMIT OR, UH, FOR THE, THE NEW ADDITION.
BUT THERE, THERE IS NO STR PERMIT PENDING NOW I THINK IS MAIN CONCERN IS TO PRESERVE THE VALUE AND MAXIMIZE THE VALUE AND POTENTIAL USES OF THE HOME.
AND THAT'S THE RM SIX ZONING, THAT WILL BE ONE UNIT IN THE BACK, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, QUESTIONS ON MY LEFT.
COMMISSIONER WATSON, UH, IN TERMS OF MAXIMIZING VALUE, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A POSSIBLE, UM, SELLING OF THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE OPTIONS THAT YOU JUST INDICATED FOR LONG-TERM RENTAL OF THE BACK UNIT AND POTENTIALLY GOING THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS.
SHOULD HE PURSUE AN STR PERMIT IN THE BACK? UM, WOULD THE INTENT BE TO SELL THE UNITS TOGETHER OR WOULD IT BE TO JUST SELL THE UNIT IN EITHER THE FRONT OR THE BACK INDIVIDUALLY? SHOULD THAT SOLUTION BE PURSUED? ARE YOU, DO YOU MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF AN STR PERMIT? UH, JUST IN GENERAL, LIKE IF, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE AND THE REASON YOU WANT US TO REPORT THE RE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING REPORT THIS IS BECAUSE YOU WANNA HAVE THE OPTION TO RESELL, WHAT ARE YOU RESELLING? THEORETICAL, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND YOU COULD NOT, SO YOU WOULD BE WANTING TO SELL IT AS TWO UNITS? CORRECT.
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE THAT COULD USE THE PROPERTY AS TWO SEPARATE UNITS IF THEY SO CHOOSE OR THEY COULD USE IT AS ONE UNIT IF THEY SO CHOOSE BECAUSE THERE'S KIND OF LIKE A, A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO, TO USE IT AS ONE UNIT OR TWO SEPARATE UNITS.
AND SO TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE HE NEEDS THE RM SIX IF HE WERE TO THE
[01:15:01]
SDR PERMITS.SO REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE IF YOU SELL THE PROPERTY YOU CAN'T TRANSFER HIM.
AND SO WHAT HE WANTS TO FOCUS ON IS THIS RM SIX SO YOU CAN MAXIMIZE THE USE AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY AND FOLLOW UP ON, UH, COMMISSIONER KELLUM'S QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, THE RM SIX IS FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY INCLUDING BOTH UNITS, CORRECT? THE REQUEST? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND UM, RM SIX HAS A MAXIMUM, I'M SORRY, A MINIMUM STANDARD OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
SO HE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS IF HE WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT ANSWERS UH, MY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER WATSON, UH, COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHTS QUESTIONS.
UM, AND RM SIX IS MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 FEET STAFF, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT ALLOWS FOR UP TO TWO UNITS? CORRECT.
AND THOSE ALL HAVE TO BE ONE STRUCTURE OR NO? WELL IF HE WAS TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILD, YES IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE STRUCTURE, BUT AS HE STATED, IT WAS BUILT IN 2001 OR UM, LONG BEFORE THAT, UH, ONE STRUCTURE ITEM WAS PUT INTO EFFECT.
AND YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE THE ZONING COMMISSION, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER SIPES, UH, CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THAT YOU STATED THAT THE BACK UNIT WAS BUILT IN 2001.
I BELIEVE YOU MEANT 2021 2021, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHEN THE UH, CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED.
UM, OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LOOKING LEFT, LOOKING RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER KELLUM TO YOU FOR A MOTION.
I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE UTILIZATION THAT YOU SEEKING SO I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 16.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM NUMBER 16 BY COMMISSIONER KELLUM WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ORTIZ.
UM, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER ON MY LEFT.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER ON MY RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. RUIZ.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD LUCK AT COUNCIL.
ALRIGHT, I WON'T SAY ANYTHING.
YES, KELLY? I'M JUST SAYING ONE MORE ITEM.
UH, I BELIEVE THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 24.
BRONTE F FOR ZONING PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 24 IS LOCATED AT 69 16 PIN ROAD GOING FROM R SIX TO R FOUR.
ALL OVERLAYS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING LANDS IN RELATION TO THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.
THE EXISTING R SIX RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THEIR PROPOSED R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS ALSO APPROPRIATE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS AND IS SURROUNDED BY EXISTING R SIX RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE REQUEST WOULD NOT CHANGE THE USES CURRENTLY PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY AND WOULD ALLOW A HIGHER DENSITY OF RESIDENCES.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE HOUSING TYPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S GROWING POPULATION AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
I WORK FOR BAR ENGINEERS AND ASSOCIATES AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE CLIENT.
UM, ADDRESS IS 47 0 3 CHANO OAK SUITE 100.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN? AGUILA.
[01:20:01]
OKAY.UM, SO THE MAIN REASON THAT WE'RE ALL HERE TODAY IS TO ASK FOR THE REZONE FROM OUR UM, SIX TO R FOUR.
THE REASON JUST TO MAKE THIS PROJECT MORE FEASIBLE FOR THE CLIENT JUST THROUGH THE FRONT END INVESTMENT.
UM, THE OTHER THING IS, UH, WE, WE SEE NO ISSUES WITH THIS PROJECT.
IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN JUST GO TO ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.
OKAY, THAT'S FINE WITH ME MS. AGUILAR.
THIS IS A DISTRICT SIX CASE CASE.
UM, WE HAVE A SPEAKER, MR. JOE MARTINEZ.
OKAY, MR. MARTINEZ, IF YOU WOULD JUST TELL US YOUR NAME, UH, YOUR ADDRESS AND YOUR OPINION OF THIS CASE.
SO, UH, I'M IN JOE MARTINEZ 2046 PENN ROAD.
SO I DI I'M THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT.
THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO COME TODAY, ONE IS A 80-YEAR-OLD VIETNAM VET WASN'T FEELING WELL, WASN'T ABLE TO COME.
HE OWNS FOUR LOTS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT.
UM, WE ARE THE COMMERCIAL ONES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
SO WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL ON THAT LEFT CLIFF.
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IS, UH, I BELIEVE LAST TIME I MEASURED IT WAS 11 FOOT DROP.
SO THE REASON WHY THAT PROPERTY IS ZONED R SIX IS BECAUSE THAT AREA HAS FLOODED THREE TIMES SINCE 1980.
THE CITY SAID IT WAS SAFE, HOMES WERE BUILT IN THAT AREA, THEY WERE FLOODED OUT, WERE BOUGHT OUT BY THE CITY AND REPURPOSED INTO A PARK.
THEY REUSED THEIR PROPERTY IN 2000.
THIS IS AGAIN DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT AREA.
AND 2007, THAT ENTIRE AREA FLOODED AGAIN AND THE CITY AGAIN PROPOSED TO THE RESIDENCE OF PENN ROAD THAT WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT SAFE.
AND THEN AGAIN IN 2024, AFTER 500 K THAT THEY PUT INTO THE CITY IS NOW SAYING AGAIN IT IS SAFE.
IN 2024 IT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND THEY NAMED IT FLASH FLOOD ALLEY WAS WHAT KEN'S FIVE CALLED IT.
IT WAS ALL OVER THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS BECAUSE THAT AREA FLOODS.
THE REASON WHY IT'S PUT R SIX IS 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT NOTHING ON IT.
AND THAT IS A DAM THAT ENTIRE LEFT SIDE ON THE EAST SIDE IS A DAM.
AND WHEN WATER FLOWS AGAINST THAT DAM, IT IS GOING TO FLOW OVER IT.
SO WHATEVER HOUSE YOU PUT ON THERE OR HOUSES YOU PUT ON THERE, I HAVE A FEELING THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT VOTES IN FAVOR OF THAT WILL ONE DAY HAVE TO ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION OF WHY DID YOU PUT A HOUSE ON AN AREA THAT HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY FLOODED FOR OVER FOUR DECADES.
THE SECOND IS POPULATION DENSITY, WHICH YOU'RE NOT SEEING IN THAT AREA THAT'S COATED.
R FOUR IS THERE ARE OVER A HUNDRED TRAILER PARKS IN THAT AREA.
AND NOW WE WANNA OPEN UP AND CHANGE THAT R FOUR TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL TRAILER PARK, WHICH IS ROUGHLY TWICE THE SIZE OF THAT IF YOU ADD UP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALONE.
SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE ASKING THE RESIDENTS OF PENN ROW TO DEAL WITH MORE INDIVIDUALS IN ALREADY DENSELY POPULATED AREA.
AND THE REASON WHY IT'S R SIX IS 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD NOTHING ON IT.
SO IT IS NOT FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF PENN ROAD, IT'S FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF A SINGULAR ENTITY WHOSE ENTIRE MOTIVATION IS TO PUT AS MANY PEOPLE AS THEY CAN IN AN ALREADY DENSELY POPULATED AREA THAT HAS A HISTORY OF FLOODING.
AND ALL IT'S GONNA DO IS MAKE THE RESIDENCE OF PENN ROAD MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE AN ALREADY TWO-LANE ROAD.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. MARTINEZ.
ALRIGHT, UH, MS. AGUILAR, ANY REBUTTAL? SO, UM, JUST TWO THINGS I WANNA POINT OUT.
THE FLASH FLOOD ALLEY IS ACTUALLY IN THE HILL COUNTRY AND IT'S UM, THE DAM HELPS ALLEVIATE THE FLOODING AND WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING WITH THE CITY, WHICH WE DID A FLOOD PLAN ANALYSIS.
WE DID THIS STUDY JUST TO PROVE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO TAKE ALL THE RUNOFF THAT WE'RE INCREASING OF Q AND HOLDING IT WITHIN THERE AND WE'RE ACTUALLY HELPING THE COMMUNITY AS WELL BECAUSE OUR DETENTION POND ALSO TAKES IN SOME OF THE FLAME THAT'S OCCURRING AND IT'S ABLE TO WITHHOLD MORE THAN WHAT, UM, I GUESS RUNOFF QUEUE THAT WE'RE PLAYING ON.
I THINK I I I'D STAY THERE IF I WERE YOU.
I THINK THEY'RE GONNA MAKE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
AND THANKS MS. AGUILAR FOR COMING.
UH, ON YOUR PLAN TO UH, DEVELOP ON THIS, UM, PROPERTY.
HOW MANY RS? FOUR LOTS ARE YOU PLANNING TO PUT ON THERE? RIGHT NOW? WE'RE PROPOSING A TOOL OF 13.
13 MM-HMM
[01:25:01]
RENTALS? A SINGLE FAMILY AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO LIKE PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? MM-HMMAND, UH, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE YOU PLANNING TO PUT IN THIS UH, PROPERTY? OOH.
UM, I HAVE THE APPLY IF YOU WANTED TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
CAN YOU THROW UP ON THE SCREEN PLEASE? THANK YOU.
YEAH, I CAN'T READ IT VERY WELL.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH? HUH? 14.
SO MY ASSOCIATE SAYS THAT IT'S 14 FEET.
AND SO, UM, YOU SAID YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY REGARDING UH, UM, FLOOD MITIGATION AND, UH, THOSE ACTIONS? YES SIR.
UH, WHEN YOU DID YOUR ASSESSMENT, DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE UH, UH, FLOOD MITIGATION? ANYTIME, UH, PROPERTY IS NEAR A FLOOD PLAIN, WE INFORM THE APPLICANT AND IT DOES GO THROUGH A STORM WATER REVIEW.
AND SO IT, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY AT THE ZONING PHASE THAT ANY OF THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT THEY ARE NOTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS IF THERE ARE ANY MAJOR ISSUES OR ANY MAJOR MITIGATION THAT HAS TO BE MADE THROUGH OUR STORM WATER DEPARTMENT.
AND SO YES, WE DID LOOK AT THAT.
WE DID SEE WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN LIES IN THAT AREA AND MADE THEM AWARE AS WELL.
UM, NO, I THINK, UH, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
I'M GONNA OPEN UP TO THE REST OF MY, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, THANK, THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER HUEY.
ALRIGHT, COMMERS ON MY RIGHT QUESTIONS.
QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
YOU SAID YOU THE RUNOFF QUEUE WILL NOT INCREASE? YES.
SO WE DEVELOPED A FLOOD PLANE ANALYSIS DUE TO THE CITY'S REQUEST AND WE SAW THAT THERE WAS, UM, NO INCREASE.
LIKE WE'RE NOT AFFECTING THE FLOOD PLAIN BY AND BY DOING THAT WE PUT IN A DETENTION BASIN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
AND, UH, ONE, ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER OSA, UH, JUST ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO IF A APPLICANT FOR ZONING IN I A PREVIEW TO, TO TALK ABOUT FLOODED PLANES AND STUFF, BUT IF A APPLICANT WANTED TO REZONE A PROPERTY THAT WAS IN A PRETTY BIG FLOOD PLAIN ZONE, DOES THAT, DO YOU JUST NOTIFY THE APPLICANT OR IS THERE LIKE A PROCESS AS WELL? THIS IS A FLOOD ZONE ZONE? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
SO THAT, UM, WE LET THEM KNOW THAT IT IS A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD FLOODPLAIN, IT IS SUBJECT TO FLOODING AND A LOT OF TIMES YOU WILL, YOU ACTUALLY WILL NOT SEE THOSE CASES COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THEY REALIZE ONCE THEY START TALKING TO OTHER STAFF ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, PARTICULARLY STORM WATER, THAT IT'S GONNA BE VERY CHALLENGING AND VERY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO RAISE ALL OF THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES, ALL THOSE HOMES OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE UN FLOODED ACCESS.
SO IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GONNA DO THE RETENTION PA POND OR THE RETENTION POND? YES.
AND THEY'RE, AND IN THIS CASE IT'S NOT QUITE AS SEVERE AS WHERE WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER INSTANCES.
OH, AND UM, I LIKE TO APOLOGIZE.
I MADE A, A MISTAKE ON THAT ING INGRES QUESTION.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE GREEN PLAN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
IT'S, IT'S LIKE A BLUE DASH LINE.
IT GOES ALONG THE, UM, THE WEST SIDE OF IT AND IT COMES DOWN THE BOTTOM, THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY THERE'S A SMALL LITTLE SECTION THAT IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN FROM OUR MAPS, OUR GIS MAPS, BUT IT'S VERY SMALL SO MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, FLOOD PLAIN.
CAN I SAY SOMETHING? ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT? ONE QUESTION.
UM, I DID WANNA SAY THAT WE HAVE UNLI ACCESS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DID AFTER THE FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS.
ANYTHING FURTHER? THAT WAS IT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER'S ON MY LEFT QUESTIONS? YES.
CAN YOU POINT OUT ON THAT PLAT WHERE YOUR, THE RETENTION POND'S GONNA BE? YES.
PLACED AT, IT'S GONNA BE RIGHT HERE.
OH, CAN YOU SEE IT? RIGHT HERE? SO THOSE, OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF WHERE THE RUNOFF IS ALREADY COMING FROM THE CREEKS COMBINING.
ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT.
UM, SO UHHUH
[01:30:01]
UM, ALRIGHT, SO R FOUR IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM, CORRECT? CORRECT.IF I'M WRONG, I'M REALLY WRONG.
SO TYPICALLY THEY HAVE THAT DIFFERENCE IN CASE YOU'VE GOT LIKE A PIZZA SET, UH, SHAPED LOT.
BUT WHERE THE FRONT SETBACK IS LOCATED OF THE BUILDING, UM, IT SHOULD BE AT MINIMUM 35 FEET.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, FOR EXAMPLE, HERE ON PENN ROAD SPECIFICALLY, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 35 FEET FRONTAGE, CORRECT? AT A MINIMUM, YES.
IF IT'S A RECTANGULAR SHAPE, YES.
UM, OUR MOBILE HOME HOMES OR TRAILER HOMES ALLOWED IN R FORT? NO SIR.
UM, ALRIGHT, UH, TO YOU MS. AGUILA MM-HMM
AND THAT ROAD'S GONNA RUN ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN? UM, NO, IT'S GONNA BE OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT I KNOW IT'S OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT OH YES.
UM, ALRIGHT, UM, MR. MARTINEZ, IF I ASK, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES SIR.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS.
IT WAS NOT PUBLIC RECORD OR SHOWN SO, NOPE.
CAN YOU MR, I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE TO STAY HERE.
IF YOU NEED A POINTER WE CAN GET YOU ONE.
CAN WE GET A POINTER FORM? HERE'S ON THE, ON THE, THANKS.
SO IF THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS ON THAT LAST IMAGE AND THIS IS YOUR RETENTION POND, THIS IS CITY PROPERTY, THIS IS THE DOWNFLOW.
SO AS THE WATER COMES THROUGH HERE AND I CHALLENGE EACH OF YOU TO DRIVE DOWN THAT ROAD AND LOOK AT THIS AREA, YOU'D BE SURPRISED YOU'RE GONNA ADD MORE RUNOFF FROM THIS ELEVATION TO COME IN HERE TO STORE TO POTENTIALLY OVERFLOW.
WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENCE DOWN THAT WAY? YEAH.
BUT I WANNA ASK YOU SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
I THINK YOU MENTIONED TRAILER HOMES.
WHY DID, WHY DID YOU MENTION THAT? UH, WITHIN THE, CAN YOU PULL UP THAT ONE MR. CHAIR? I BELIEVE OFF OF, UM, MILITARY DRIVE WEST, THERE IS A TRAILER HOME PARK THAT IS NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
YEAH, NORTHEAST RIGHT HERE, SIR.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES SIR.
UM, DOES THE FACT THAT THESE ARE NOT GONNA BE TRAILER HOMES IMPACT YOUR OPINION AT ALL? NO SIR.
WHY NOT? SO IF THIS ROAD HERE, WELL, I GUESS IT COMES BACK TO YOU SAYING IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD COUNCIL SAY AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LOVE ABOUT THE THING IS THAT YOU ENCOURAGE AND IN LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE HOUSING, BUILDING SMALLER HOUSES FOR FAMILIES.
BUT THESE ARE ALL HOUSES FOR FAMILIES THAT ARE ALREADY HERE.
AND WHEN THE CITY LAID OUT THE PLAN FOR THIS AREA, THIS WAS ZONED TO BE OUR SIX FOR A REASON.
WE DON'T HAVE THIS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS FOR US TO LOOK AT TODAY.
WE DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM, BUT THERE WAS LAID OUT AND PLANNED FOR A REASON JUST AS THESE ARE LAID OUT TO BE OUR SIXES AS WELL IF THERE ARE APARTMENTS.
UM, ALRIGHT, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON MY RIGHT.
THIS IS A DISTRICT SIX CASE, AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, COMMISSIONER HUEY TO YOU FOR A MOTION.
I WANNA THANK MS. AGUILAR AND MR. UH, MARTINEZ FOR TAKING TIME OUT TO COME, UH, TALK TO US AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THIS PLAN AND I'VE REVIEWED THE CASE AND UH, I DID ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FLOOD FLOODING LEON CREEK AND ALL THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THE, UH, THE STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF REVIEWING THAT.
AND I'M ALSO EXPECTING THAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER IS GOING TO WORK FOR THE CITY TO MITIGATE ANY FLOODING THAT TAKES PLACE BECAUSE WHY WOULD YOU INVEST MONEY INTO A DEVELOPMENT'S GONNA FLOOD? 'CAUSE YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT GONNA GET INSURANCE ON THOSE HOMES.
SO AGAIN, I, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR OPINIONS MR. MARTINEZ AGAIN FOR TAKING TIME TO COME HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD YOU KNOW THE CITY DECIDED LONG TIME AGO THAT WAS GONNA BE AN R SIX? WELL, THEY PROBABLY DID AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND I THINK IT IS UP TO THIS BODY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CHANGES ARE AND IF
[01:35:01]
THE LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE TODAY TO CHANGE IT FROM R SIX TO AN R FOUR.SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALRIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION, UH, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 24.
UH, MOTION IS FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HUEY AND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REYES.
UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER'S ON MY RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER'S ON MY LEFT? YES.
SO I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE, THE MOTION.
AND, UM, ONE THING I WOULD UH, SAY TO, UM, THE NEIGHBOR IS THAT, OR NEIGHBORS OF THE, OF THE AREA THERE.
UM, AND THIS COMES FROM SOMEONE WHO LIVES CLOSE TO WOODLAWN LAKE, WHICH FLOODS QUITE OFTEN.
UM, THAT MOST OF THE FLOODING COMES FROM NOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU HAVE THESE PONDS THAT, THAT HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.
BUT MOST OF THE FLOODING IS DUE TO RUNOFF FROM NORTH OF THOSE AREAS.
SO ONCE YOU GET DOWN TO HERE WITH THE ADDITIONAL MITIGATION THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE, UM, I I I SEE THAT THERE'S, I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
UM, IN FACT THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A, UH, A NET POSITIVE IMPACT BECAUSE IT'S ALL DEPENDENT.
THAT'S WHY TOM SLICK PARK, I BELIEVE IS WHAT IT'S CALLED.
THAT'S WHY THAT IS ALL BUILT THERE IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ALL THE, ALL THE RUNOFF WAS COMING FROM WAS OVER THERE AND THAT WAS IT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIPES.
ANY COMMISSIONERS ON MY LEFT DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER ON MY RIGHT ONE LAST TIME.
UM, YEAH, MR. MARTINEZ, THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, FOR COMING AND SPEAKING TO US.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OTHER BIG ISSUE I THINK, AND PART OF THE REASON WHY I THINK R FOUR IS APPROPRIATE HERE AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS BECAUSE THE R FOURS REQUIRED SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE MITIGATION ISSUES.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING AT 13, THAT IS LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO.
JUST RUNNING THE NUMBERS STRAIGHT BY ACREAGE WITH A 4,000 LOT MINIMUM.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOSING A LOT.
I'M PRETTY SURE THEY'RE LOSING A GOOD AMOUNT OF THEIR USABLE LAND TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ACCESS THROUGH WHAT'S MARKED AS I THINK CRUISE ROAD ON, ON, UH, THE PLAT THAT WAS GIVEN.
UM, AND, AND FOR THE DETENTION AND OTHER ISSUES TO TRY TO MITIGATE THAT FLOODING.
UM, MS. AGUILA ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS.
REALLY, UH, IF THIS MOTION PASSES, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL, UH, BUT IF THIS MOTION PASSES, I STRONGLY, STRONGLY, STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO OUT AND TALK TO THESE NEIGHBORS SOME MORE.
MAKE SURE THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS GONNA BE 13.
SHOW THEM THAT PLAT DO THAT OUTREACH BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
AGAIN, THE MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 24 IS FOR APPROVAL.
I SHE'S RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, SO LET'S TALK TO HER.
UM, BUT OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM.
[Approval of Minutes ]
I BELIEVE OUR NEXT ITEM IS MINUTES.ANY AMENDMENTS? AMENDMENTS, EDITS, CHANGES, NAMES MISSPELLED ANYTHING? ALRIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALRIGHT, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
UH, MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER SIPES.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARTOS.
UH, WE'LL DO THIS BY ACCLAMATION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
ALRIGHT, UH, MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
UH, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NOTHING TO REPORT.
THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED.