[00:00:03]
ALL RIGHT, IT'S 2:11 PM APOLOGIZE FOR SLIGHT DELAY.
UH, WELCOME TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12TH, 2025.
CAN STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ PRESENT.
CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AS WELL, PLEASE? ARE YOU HERE? COMMISSIONER MILAM? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER MILAM.
SO, UM, WHEN WE GET A CHANCE, WE'LL, WE'LL TEST THAT, BUT WE CAN COUNT YOU AS HERE WITH A THUMBS UP.
YOU PLEASE HAVE INFORMATION RELATED TO SPANISH ENGLISH TRANSLATION SERVICES.
UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, WE'D LIKE TO WELCOME THE NEWEST MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER JACOB SANCHEZ, AS WELL AS THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, COMMISSIONER PECK, AND MYSELF.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING THE CITY FOR ANOTHER TERM, SUKI.
AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER SUKI.
SO, UM, AS A RECOMMENDING BODY, UH, TO THE, TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, CONSIDERS CASES IN FRONT OF IT, WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON
[Approval of Minutes ]
TWO ITEMS AND A CONSENT AGENDA.AGENDA WHERE ALL ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED, ONE MOTION AND ONE ACTION TAKEN.
AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WHICH WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY.
ALL ITEMS WILL BE ON CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF ITEM 11, 14 AND 16.
AND THEN ON ITEM SEVEN, COMMISSIONER BUSTANI WILL RECUSE.
WE CAN JUST TAKE THAT DURING THE CONSENT THOUGH.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
[Plats ]
TWO 14 AND COMMISSIONER BUSTANI SLOWLY WORKING HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR.UM, JUST A, JUST A NOTE ON SOME OF THE PLATS.
THERE WERE SOME, SOME CORRESPONDENCE.
UM, THESE PLATS, UH, ITEMS THREE AND FIVE MEET ALL THE RE REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS BY THE CITY AND STATE.
DOES, DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OR WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT? HEARING NONE.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER, UH, SIEGEL COMMISSIONER.
LET MR. MR. BONNEY BACK IN AND COMMISSIONER MILAM, WE CAN HEAR YOU BY THE WAY.
ALRIGHT, IT'S TWO 15 AND COMMISSIONER BUSTANI HAS REJOINED.
[Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments ]
11.MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BENAVIDEZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE NATOS SOUTH ZUMO COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE.
LOCATED AT 6 0 8 SOUTH PARK BOULEVARD.
THERE WERE 27 NOTICES MAILED TWO IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET, AND THREE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE 200 FEET.
COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ID Z TWO.
MEDIUM INTENSITY AND FIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH USES PERMITTED FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE ALITOS AND SOUTH SA COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION RECOMMENDS A MAX DENSITY OF ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
[00:05:01]
PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER LOT.INTRODUCING THE PROPOSED MIXED USE LAND USE IS OUT OF CHARACTER IN THAT IT WOULD BE INTRODUCING A HIGHER DENSITY THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND INCREASES THE POTENTIAL FOR COM COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT IN AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU WANT ME TO PUT ON THE CAMERA? YEAH.
IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
A ADRIAN RUSSELL FELLON, UH, 24 10 WEST COMMERCE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS PROPERTY WHEN ORIGINALLY HE WANTED TO KEEP THE PLEX AND, AND I TOLD HIM YOU CAN'T.
SO I HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESS, MET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND MS. PIERCE SAID, REDO IT, UH, AND TRY AND GET A EIGHT PLEX TO A FOURPLEX.
HE ORIGINALLY HAD JUST A DUPLEX AND I DON'T KNOW HOW HE ENDED UP WITH AN EIGHT.
SO WHAT I HAVE HERE IS HOW I'M CONVERTING THE EIGHT PLEX INTO A FOURPLEX BY REMOVING KITCHENS ON ALL THE BACK, UH, ON THE BACK UNITS, CREATING A BEDROOM AND A HALLWAY.
AND IF THE TOP PART IS THE EXISTING, THE BOTTOM PART IS HOW I'M TURNING EACH OF THE TWO.
WE'VE GOT TWO UNITS ON THE FRONT, TWO UNITS ON THE BACK, AND IT MIRRORS UPSTAIRS.
SO YOU SEE HOW I AM CREATING A HALLWAY TO GET TO THE BACK BEDROOM, WHICH USED TO BE A KITCHEN, DINING AND ENC CLOSING, WHICH USED TO BE THE BEDROOM AND CREATING A TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX.
PROBLEM IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TOLD ME THAT IT, HE DID ALL THAT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
SO I'VE ALREADY TOLD MR. UH, MR. HASSAD THAT IF WE DID THIS, I WOULD DO, MY DESIGN FIRM WOULD DO COMPLETE WORKING DRAWINGS TO DO IT AS A NEW BUILDING.
THAT WAY WE MEET TO ALL FIRE, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
I, I REALLY DON'T THINK THERE'S A ONE HOUR FIREWALL IN BETWEEN EACH OF THEM.
SO LOUIS
HE IS GONNA VERIFY THAT WE DO HAVE ONE HOUR, BUT KNOWING THINGS THAT GET BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS, THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER DO THAT.
SO I JUST TOLD 'EM WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A SAFE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHY I'VE COME UP WITH THIS QUESTIONS.
I'LL START, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
I'LL START, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER BUS.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER ROLLETTE? NO QUESTIONS.
SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE, UH, PLANS.
UM, SO THAT WE COULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, SO, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, YOUR CLIENT, UH, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UM, AS IS AND IT HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO AN PLEX WITHOUT PERMITS.
ASAN TOLD ME, HE SAID HE BOUGHT THE APEX.
BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TELLING ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO WHEN I WALKED THE WHOLE PROPERTY, UH, TO TALK TO THE INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE 200 FEET, UH, SOME OF 'EM WEREN'T OPPOSED TO FOR THE APEX.
SOME OF 'EM WERE, WERE OPPOSED OF WHAT HE WAS DOING TO BEGIN WITH.
A LOT OF 'EM DON'T LIKE HIM, PERIOD.
SO I TOLD HIM, LOOK, THE ONLY WAY WE, YOU CAN'T KEEP THE APEX.
SO APPARENTLY AT THAT TIME HE FIRED ME, GOT SOMEBODY ELSE, IT GOT DENIED.
I SAID, LOOK, IF YOU WANT THIS, YOU'RE GONNA KEEP A FOURPLEX, GO FOR SOMETHING OR TEAR DOWN.
AND THAT'S WHY HE REHIRED ME AND I DID THIS TO TURN IT INTO A FOURPLEX AND STILL KEEP A LOT OF IT, MAKING SURE IT'S A SAFE PROPERTY.
AND THEN I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE, UM, RESERVATIONS THAT ARE HELD BY THE COMMUNITY HAVE TO DO WITH ONSITE PARKING.
UM, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S PROVIDED? UH, I'M DOING, I'M DOING A, YOU KNOW, LIMITED PARKING.
HE'S GOT FIVE SPACES IN THE BACK.
AND TWO SPACES IN THE FRONT, ONE BACK END, AND THEN ONE OF 'EM HEAD IN.
SO WE, WE, AND THEN PARKING IN THE STREET.
A LOT OF PEOPLE PARK IN THE STREET.
SO I DON'T THINK PARKING'S GONNA BE AN ISSUE ON A FOURPLEX ON AN AP PLEX.
BUT WE ARE PLAYING FOR THE IDZ.
I, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I, UH, I, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU TRY TO SOLVE THE PLEX PROBLEMS TO BRING IT DOWN TO FOUR AND, UH, I'M GLAD THAT I'M SEEING THE PLANS IN FRONT OF ME NOW THAT, UH, YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM.
AND, UH, I, I, MYSELF HAVE NO QUESTION ON THAT, BUT THANK YOU.
[00:10:01]
I BELIEVE SHE SAID NO QUESTIONS.UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR PURVIEW IS LAND USE, RIGHT.
AND THE PROPOSED MIXED USE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUNCH OF LOW DENSITY MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT USE FOR THAT.
UM, BUT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOME ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO STAY IN THE SAME LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ACHIEVE THE FOUR UNITS.
UM, THE LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WOULD ALLOW THE R FIVE AND DOING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE, UH, FOUR UNITS.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT SETBACKS AND PARKING THAT IDZ ALLOWS IN, UM, COMPARISON TO KEEPING THE R FIVE BASED ZONING.
OR IS THAT, IS THAT THE REASONING FOR THE IDZ? YES, SIR.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SO, UM, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
SO IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO PURSUE THIS ALTERNATE ROUTE TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE ZONING FOR THE FOURPLEX, THEN UM, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO CHANGE THE EXISTING BUILDING, WOULD THEY? IT WOULD ONLY BE IN TERMS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN, UM, WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE PARKING COUNT REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOURPLEX? FOR A FOURPLEX IT WOULD BE 1.5 PER UNIT, SO THAT WOULD BE SIX, UH, PARKING SPACES.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE THAT, UM, BASED ON YOUR DESCRIPTION.
WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T ON SITE HE'S GOT IN THE REAR, HE SAYS HE IS GOT FIVE.
IT IS REALLY FOUR BECAUSE WHEN YOU BACK UP YOU CAN'T HIT ANOTHER CAR.
SO WE, WE LEGAL ON PROPERTY WE HAVE SIX.
AND WOULD YOUR CLIENT BE AMENABLE TO PURSUING THIS ALTERNATE OPTION WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE ZONING? TELL ME THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WOULD YOUR CLIENT BE AMENABLE TO PURSUING THIS ALTERNATE OPTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE ZONING RATHER THAN A PLAN AMENDMENT? UM, GIVE ONE MORE TIME.
THE WAY IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED IS THAT THERE ARE TWO PATHS TO GET YOUR CLIENT TO WHERE HE WANTS TO BE.
AND ONE OF THEM IS FOR US TO DO THIS LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT TO, UM, WHAT WAS THE ZONING WOULD BE IDZ RIGHT? MIXED USE IDZ WITH IDZ ZONING.
NO, I WAS JUST GONNA CONFIRM TO DO THE IDZ BASED ZONING.
THE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE MIXED USE IS, UM, REQUIRED.
BUT THE OTHER OPTION THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SIEGEL WAS MENTIONING IS THE R FIVE CD FOR FOUR UNITS, AND IT WOULD, YOU WOULD NOT NEED THIS PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WOULD YOUR CLIENT BE AMENABLE TO GOING WITH THAT LESS INTENSE ROUTE TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY ZONED R FIVE? RIGHT.
KEEP THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS IT IS, RATHER, WELL, ORIGINALLY THE ZONING WAS FOR DUPLEX ON THE ORIGINAL.
BUT THAT'S WHY YOU WOULD NEED THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE CORE.
WE'RE DOING THE CONDITIONAL USE GOING DOWN FROM WHAT HE HAD ON AN APEX TO A FOURPLEX.
SO HE WOULD JUST NEED TO MAKE A ZONING CHANGE INSTEAD OF DOING A, A PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A LAND USE CHANGE.
I WAS TOLD TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT AND THEN DO A ZONING CHANGE.
THIS IS BASED ON, ON THE, THE DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING.
BUT YOU, IF YOU DO THE R FIVE WITH CONDITIONAL USE, IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO WE NEED PLAN AMENDMENT, WE NEED ZONING CHANGE AND THEN PLAN AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD STAY WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IF YOU, YOU'RE GOING FOR IDZ TWO RIGHT NOW, ID Z TWO, UM, IT WAIVES PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND, UM, OTHER ITEMS, THE, UM, THE OTHER OPTION IS R FIVE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS AND YOU WOULD STAY ALIGNED WITH THIS EXISTING LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO DO THIS PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, SO THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE, UM, STATING TO YOU, IF YOU, SINCE YOU'RE GOING FOR AN IDZ RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE, SO IF I GET RID OF MY IDZ, THEN I'D BE OKAY.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR AN R FIVE CV FOR FOUR UNITS.
FOR FOUR UNITS, THEN CAN I MAKE, UH, AMEND MY APPLICATION FOR R FIVE WITHOUT THE RIDZ? CORRECT.
BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT YOU AWARE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA CONTINUE THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I WANT YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE BUILDING STANDARDS FOR IDZ VERSUS R FIVE BASED ZONING, WHICH YOU'RE PRO WHAT YOUR APPLICANT IS PROBABLY RIGHT.
OR THE OWNER IS PROBABLY WANTING WHY THEY'RE WANTING TO STICK WITH IDZ.
SO, AND, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE, CONTINUANCE TO SPEAK TO YOUR CLIENT.
BUT THE O OTHER CONCERN THAT THAT WAY I CAN GET WITH THE OWNER, UH, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE ON THIS SO I CAN GET WITH HIM.
[00:15:01]
NOW I'LL GET WITH SAMANTHA AND THEN MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.AND THE OTHER PART IS, SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FROM THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST I, I WAS AT A BOARD MEETING WITH THE SPEARS AND, AND THEY WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF AN PLEX.
SO I GOT WITH THE BOARD, MET WITH THEM, AND MS. SPEARS TOLD ME THAT IF YOU DO A PLAN AMENDMENT AND IF YOU CHANGE YOUR APPLICATION TO A FOURPLEX AND YOU GET THE SUPPORT, THEN WE'LL SUPPORT YOU.
SO I CALLED HER LAST WEEK, LEFT HER A MESSAGE THAT I WOULD BE HERE GOING FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES THAT SHE TOLD ME TO GO BY.
I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THAT DISCUSSION.
UM, SO THAT WHETHER IT COMES BACK HERE OR TO ZONING, THERE'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION, UH, OR A COMMEND NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE HOA.
SO HELP POSSIBLY ON THAT DECISION.
SO IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE CONTINUOUS, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO REQUEST THE APPLICANT'S MOVE TO GRANT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS WHEN IS OUR NEXT MEETING? 3 26.
MARCH CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH 26TH MEETING.
UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 26TH.
MOTION PASSES FOR CONTINUANCE.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA BEZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE NORTH NEAR NORTHWEST COMMUNITY PLAN FROM URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 1 8 3 7 SANTA MONICA STREET.
THERE WERE 36 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET.
NA AND SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM URBAN LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO N-C-C-D-S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR A ROOMING HOUSE AND A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST WITHIN THE NEAR NORTHWEST COMMUNITY PLAN, THE URBAN LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION RECOMMENDS A MAX DENSITY OF ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PER SINGLE FAMILY.
RE INTRODUCING THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LAND USE IS OUT OF CHARACTER AND INCREASES THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT IN AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.
MY ADDRESS IS 5 6 0 8 TANA AVENUE, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
THE ADDRESS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 1837 SANTA MONICA STREET.
DO DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE COMMISSION? UH, I WAS GOING TO USE THE, UM, SLIDES PRESENTED THERE.
WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT? UH, JUST GO TO THE ZONING MAP RIGHT THERE.
DOWN, DOWN ONE RIGHT THERE? YEP.
THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REQUEST IS TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL OR C ONE, UH, ORIENTATION THAT YOU SEE ALONG WEST AVENUE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE WATTS THAT ARE, UH, I WOULD SAY DOUBLE WIDE ALL ALONG THIS WEST AVENUE.
AND MY PROPERTY, UH, WAS SOMEHOW NOTCHED OUT.
UH, WHEN LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTATION, UH, IT MADE SENSE FOR ME TO AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REQUEST A UNIFORM, RE A UNIFORM ZONING SO THAT THE ENTIRE SPACE, UH, IN THAT DOUBLE WIDE LOT ALONG WEST AVENUE WOULD BE NEAR CONFORMANCE.
UH, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT MY NEIGHBOR IS
[00:20:01]
C ONE WHERE I'M GOING FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO PROVIDE STILL THAT BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN A STRICTLY COMMERCIAL AND STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL.UM, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST, NOT ONLY OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, BUT ALSO FOR THE ECONOMY TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, YOU KNOW, TOURISM STAYS, LONG-TERM TOURISM STAYS OR BED AND BREAKFAST IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE HISTORIC DIS DISTRICT, THE NATURE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT NEARBY, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO EXPERIENCE THIS AREA.
SO, UH, THAT'S KINDA MY REASONING.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL START WITH THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER MILAM? NO QUESTIONS.
ZUKI, UM, WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? CURRENTLY IT'S AN R FOUR CD.
SO THERE IS A DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY, UM, ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH ON ONE SIDE, ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH.
SO THEY ARE ON A LONG TERM RENTAL? CORRECT.
ONE IS LONG TERM AND ONE IS SHORT TERM.
SHORT TERM, ONE IS SHORT TERM AND ONE IS LONG TERM.
AND YOUR PLAN IS TO MAKE THIS BID ON BREAKFAST? UH, I WANTED TO NOT LIMIT MY ABILITY.
RIGHT NOW, MY PLAN IS TO, UH, PROVIDE LONG-TERM STAYS, 30 DAYS OR MORE WITH A ROOMING HOUSE.
UH, I FOUND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO SAN ANTONIO TO EXPERIENCE THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE.
UM, SO I HAVE SOME PRETTY GOOD MARKET DATA ALREADY FROM MY LONG-TERM DUPLEX SIDE, UH, THAT'S PERFORMING BETTER THAN MY SHORT-TERM SIDE, SO THAT'S WHY I'M PURSUING THE ROOMING HOUSE OPTION.
CURRENT ZONING RIGHT NOW DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM RENTAL FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO STAY MORE THAN THREE DAYS? NO, NO, IT DOES.
I AM ALLOWED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM RENTALS.
UM, I DO HAVE ALSO A PERMIT FOR SHORT TERM ON, IT'S CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS TWO ADDRESSES.
THE 1835, I BELIEVE IS THE SHORT TERM PERMITTED USE.
THE 1837 PORTION IS THE LONG TERM.
UH, I AM LOOKING TO PURSUE SOLELY THE LONG TERM ROOMING HOUSE USE FOR THAT AREA.
OH, COMMISSIONER, LET NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ, DO YOU FORESEE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY AS FAR AS THE LAYOUT WITH THE CURRENT TWO? THE, THE, THE, THE DUPLEX, THE EXISTING PARKING AND ALL THAT WITH YOU HAVING? YES, YES I DO.
UH, SO THE DUPLEX THAT YOU SEE IN THE FRONT, THAT LOT IS ACTUALLY BISECTED.
IF YOU SEE THAT FENCE, UH, RIGHT HERE.
THIS FENCE RIGHT HERE BISECTS THE PROPERTY ABOUT TWO THIRDS TO ONE THIRD.
SO THE FRONT THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IS WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE.
AND I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO THIRDS BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF SAMANTHA, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THE, THE PLAN THAT I SUBMITTED AS WELL? IS IT IN THIS PRESENTATION? OH, I WOULD HAVE TO PRINT IT.
UH, SO I DO HAVE, UH, THAT'S A GOOD PICTURE HERE.
SO I DO HAVE A PROPOSED PLAN VIEW TO ALLOW FOR, UH, PARTIALLY, UM, UH, BASEMENT PARKING, I GUESS IS THE BEST TERM.
UH, DEPRESSED PARKING UNDERNEATH, UH, AN ELEVATED STRUCTURE ABOVE TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPER AMOUNT OF PARKING.
SO I THINK, UH, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A MAXIMUM SEVEN PARKING SPOTS IN THE BACK WITH THE FULL TURNING RADIUS, UH, TO GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT WITHOUT BEING SQUEEZED IN AS WELL AS A GENEROUS 1600 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, A GENEROUS 1600 SQUARE FOOT, UH, MIXED USE OR NC BUILDING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, UH, MY PLAN WAS AT LEAST THREE.
UM, SO AT LEAST THREE INDIVIDUAL GUEST ROOMS BEHIND THE CURRENT, UH, STRUCTURE.
SO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS 954 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE STRUCTURE MAXIMUM PROPOSAL, WHICH I AM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE TO, UH, GO THROUGH WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT CONFORMS TO ALL OF THE REGULATIONS.
BUT THE MAXIMUM THERE, I THINK IS 1654, IF I BELIEVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
SO THAT'S HOW I HAVE ADDRESSED THE PARKING.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? THANK YOU.
[00:25:01]
SIR.MR. LOPEZ? NO QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
UH, UNDER THE, THE LAND PLAN, LAND AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING, IS THERE A RESTRICTION ON NUMBER OF UNITS IN A BED? IN A BED AND BREAKFAST? UH, NOT FOR A ROOMING HOUSE.
LET ME CONFIRM ABOUT THE BED AND BREAKFAST.
I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A STIPULATION IN OUR, UH, DEFINITION.
SO GIMME JUST ONE SECOND PLEASE.
IF, IF I MAY ALSO ADD, UH, I AM, UH, NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, BUT FAMILIAR WITH THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH HOW MANY ROOMS YOU CAN HAVE.
THAT WAS SOMETHING SAMANTHA, UH, HELPED ME OUT A LOT ON.
SO, UH, THAT IS ALSO ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IS WE, WE DON'T WANT TO OVERLOAD THE PROPERTY WITH, YOU KNOW, MORE LIVING CAPACITY THAN PARKING CAPACITY.
SO THAT IS A BALANCE THAT WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT.
YOU MENTIONED, UH, HAVING OPTIONS.
SO ARE YOU THINKING THAT SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A, LIKE A BED AND BREAKFAST IF YOU GET, UM, A DESIGNATION CHANGE? I DO NOT PLAN PERSONALLY ON IMPLEMENTING A BED AND BREAKFAST.
UM, I HONESTLY AM PURSUING THAT SPECIAL USE CASE IN THE EVENT IN THE FUTURE IF I WANTED TO SELL IT.
UM, AND SOMEBODY WANTED MORE OPTIONS AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY.
I DO NOT PLAN TO SELL THE PROPERTY ANYTIME SOON.
I DO WANT TO IMPLEMENT THE ROOMING HOUSE DUE TO MY SUCCESS THAT I'VE SEEN WITH THE LONG-TERM RENTAL ON MY CURRENT DUPLEX.
BUT A CHANGE, I MEAN, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE, SO, UH, UH, IF SOMEBODY BUYS IT AND WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE ZONING.
SO IF WE'RE GOING INTO ZONING, I MEAN, AGAIN, THE LAND USE, SO TO ANSWER YOUR, GO BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION.
IF HE GETS THIS NC BASED ZONING, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST IS 12, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STILL COMPLY WITH, UH, BUILDING SETBACKS AND ALL THE ALSO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE HE IS A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, BUT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION, IF HE, IF THE ZONING DOES GO THROUGH, UM, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DEVELOP EITHER OR THE CONDITIONAL USE OR THE SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SEE UP ON THOSE.
UM, ANYTHING THOUGH IN THE NC THAT'S PERMITTED AS RETAIL, UM, UH, RESTAURANT CAFE, THOSE KIND OF MINOR MORE LOW INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE PERMITTED OUTRIGHT AS LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, UH, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, SO I'LL LOOK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A, UH, A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SECOND, MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UH, BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.
[Other Items ]
16.KEVIN COLLINS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER.
THE ITEM, UH, BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON IS AN APPEAL OF A STAFF DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION TO EXEMPT A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PLACE A CITY SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF HEATH CIRCLE DRIVE ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE EVALUATED AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION, UH, SUBMITTED BY H AND G HOMES TO EXEMPT THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT HARRON VALLEY PHASE ONE FROM THE UDC REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF ADJACENT PUBLIC STREETS.
AS PER UDC ARTICLE 35 5 0 6, WHICH STATES SIDEWALKS SHALL BE REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL STREETS AND THE SUBDIVISION SIDE OF ALL ADJACENT OR PERIMETER STREETS EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION TWO BELOW.
SO THE EX EXCEPTION OR THE EXEMPTION THAT THE APPLICANT CITED, UM, FROM 35 5 0 6 Q 2D STATES THAT SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED
[00:30:01]
IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS.D SPECIFICALLY ON STREETS THAT UTILIZE THE COUNTY CROSS SECTION AS ALLOWED IN 35 5 0 6 B ONE.
SO THE COUNTY ROAD CROSS SECTION IS, UH, TYPICAL, UM, OBVIOUSLY FOUR ROADS IN THE COUNTY, BUT IT'S ROADS THAT HAVE NO CURBS AND HAVE BAR DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES, UM, OF THE ROADWAY FOR THE STORM CONVEYANCE.
SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, STAFF REVIEWED THAT EXCEPTION, UM, AND DID NOT, UM, APPROVE IT.
WE DETERMINED THAT HEATH CIRCLE DRIVE HAS A VARIABLE STREET CROSS SECTION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT OR AT, OR EVEN AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATION.
UH, WITH THE STANDARD COUNTY CROSS SECTION.
UM, THERE'S SECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS ROAD OR SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON EITHER SIDE OR IN SOME CASES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY.
AND, UH, FURTHERMORE, STAFF DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PLACE A STANDARD WIDTH SIDEWALK ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE OF THE ROADWAY BEHIND THE EXISTING BAR DITCH AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT INFRINGING ON THE DRAINAGE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF DENIED THE REQUEST.
I HAVE, UH, I THINK THE FIRST EXHIBIT WAS THE OVERVIEW.
THAT'S THE SECTION ALONG HEATH CIRCLE DRIVE WHERE THE SIDEWALK COULD BE REQUIRED ON THE ONE SIDE.
AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE STREET VIEW ON THE LEFT.
THAT IS THE, UH, THE SIDE THAT HAS THE CULVERT OR THE DITCH IN QUESTION.
SO, UM, WE'RE ASKING THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKED TO DETERMINE IF UH, STAFF MADE THE CORRECT DECISION IN DENYING THIS REQUEST FOR THE A A VR.
UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE TO UPHOLD OR REVERSE STAFF DECISION IN WHOLE.
UM, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL, UH, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL PERIMETER STREETS AND THAT HEATH CIRCLE IS, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH A COUNTY ROADS SECTION FULLY AND, UH, THAT WE BELIEVE THE SIDEWALKS CAN BE PLACED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE, I BELIEVE.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? MM-HMM
UH, MY ADDRESS, IT'S 1 1 8 8 2 FADING WAY SAN TEXAS.
UM, NOT, YOU KNOW, WELL I HEAR BOY HERE KINDA SHOWS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
UM, SO THE MAIN ISSUE I GUESS THINKING OF, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN, HOW THERE IS GONNA FLOW ON THE AREA TO THE NORTH.
UH, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A CONNECTION POINT.
THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN FOCUSES THAT WE CONCENTRATE ON AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THERE WOULDN'T BE A DIRECT TIE LOCATION TO EITHER DIRECTION.
UM, ASIDE FROM THAT, THE BAR DITCH, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY AT THE MOMENT, UH, THE WATER RUNS THROUGH THE BAR DITCH.
SO EVEN IF WE LOCATE, LOCATE, IF WE PLACE THE SIDEWALK ON THE SIDE OF THE BAR DITCH EITHER MOST SPECIFICALLY TO TOWARDS THE NORTH, WHICH IS A BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE, THERE'S A LASER UP THERE.
SO IF THE SIDEWALK IS ON THAT SIDE RIGHT? OR PROPERTY AND SOMEWHERE IN HERE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A EXACT TIME LOCATION TO ANY OTHER SORT OF SIDEWALK.
RIGHT NOW, THE MOMENT THERE'S AN OUTFALL RIGHT HERE WHERE A LOT OF THE WATER UPSTREAM IS ACTUALLY RUNNING TO THAT LOCATION OF THE BARAGE.
MEANING IF, YOU KNOW, WORST CASE SCENARIOS, THE PUBLIC ARE WALKING ON THE GRASS AT ANY SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ANY PORT PORTION OF THAT LOCATION, IT'LL POSSIBLY WALKING TOWARDS THE, THE WATER COMING OUT OF THAT PIPE RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS AN OUTFALL FROM THE UPSTREAM RUN UP, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT THERE'S A 2 24 INCH PIPES, I BELIEVE, IN THAT AREA.
IT'LL BE ON THE NORTH SIDE, YOU KNOW, THE SIDEWALK CAN BE EXTENDED, UH, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE SIDEWALK ON THIS SIDE, UH, OF THE, OF THE ROAD.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WHAT THIS SUBDIVISION PROPOSED WHENEVER THEY CAME IN WAS ACTUALLY TO BUILD A RAMP AND DO A CROSSWALK ACROSS HIT CIRCLE IN ORDER TO CONNECT TO ACTUALLY FULLY DEVELOPED SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE IN ORDER TO PRODUCE A BETTER SAFER ROUTE, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR PEDESTRIANS WHO SAFER WALK AROUND THE PROP AROUND THAT AREA OF, UH, SAN ANTONIO.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE PROPOSING ON DOING SIMILAR, WHERE OUR DRIVEWAY MIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT WILL HAVE A RAMP WITH A CROSSWALK THAT CAN CONNECT TO IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOUSES, YOU KNOW, WILL WANT TO GO, ALL THE FAMILIES THAT WILL LIVE IN THERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BUSTANI, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, HOW BIG IS THE SITE THAT YOU GUYS ARE DEVELOPING? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE 30 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
I CAN'T EXACTLY KNOW THE, THE ACRE EACH OTHER 30 30 PLOTTED LOTS? CORRECT.
AND WHERE THE ACREAGE IS? 30 40.
[00:35:01]
40 LOTS? YES.IN A, I GUESS A DOUBLE CROSS STREETS OR A COUPLE CUL-DE-SACS? YES, IT'LL BE FOUR, UH, TWO CUL-DE-SACS.
AND WHAT'S THE DISTANCE OF THE FRONT? THE FRONTAGE ALONG HEATH CIRCLE.
HOW MANY, HOW MANY YARDS, HOW MANY FEET IS IT? HOW MANY FEET OF SIDEWALK ARE YOU GUYS LOOKING TO AVOID BUILDING? IT'LL BE REQUIRED.
IT'S SIX FEET OF SIDEWALK THAT'S REQUIRED.
HOW MANY? SIX FEET OF SIDEWALK? SIX FEET WIDE.
AND HOW LONG, HOW LONG THE FRONTAGE, SO THIS ACTUALLY, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
THERE'S A PORTION HERE, WHICH I HAVE TO PLA THAT WE DON'T OWN.
SO WE ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN FRONTAGE, UH, THE PROPER, THE PETE CIRCLE DRIVE.
AND I THINK THE U2 C SPECIFIES THAT IF YOU FRONTAGE, THAT'S A PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK THAT WE'VE PUT IN, WHICH IS 140 LESS FEET OF THE TOTAL.
UH, I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER WITH ME AT THE MOMENT, BUT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET OF LINEAR FOOTAGE FOR THE WHOLE WIDTH.
SO JUST TAKING THAT PORTION OUT, IT'LL LEAVE US WITH AROUND 150 METER FOOTAGE OF SIDEWALK, HUNDRED 50 FEET SIDEWALK, SIDEWALK TIMES 60 FEET, FEET BY THE TIMES 60 FEET.
THAT'S YOUR WIDTH FEET? YES, SIR.
AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SCHOOL, IT SEEMS LIKE A SIDEWALK COULD BE APPROPRIATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF MY INSTINCT.
IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THE SIZE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
AND TO YOUR POINT, THERE'S SOME MISCONNECTIONS THERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WITH THE, WITH THE SCHOOL THERE AND ALL THE HOUSING, IT KIND OF FEELS LIKE A SIDEWALK IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A HUGE PIECE IN COMPARISON TO 40 PLATTED LOTS.
UM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ARGUMENT IS A TECHNICAL ONE TO WHICH I UNDERSTAND ABOUT DRAINAGE, BUT DOES YOUR ENGINEER TELL YOU THAT PUTTING A SIDEWALK ON THE PROPERTY SIDE OF THE BAR DITCH WOULD SOMEHOW IMPACT THE DRAINAGE ON WHICH SIDE? INTERNALLY ON THE PROPERTY SIDE OR ON THE RIGHT OF WAY? THE PROPERTY SIDE? UH, WE HAVEN'T GOT THAT FAR TO, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOT THERE YET AT THE MOMENT.
NO MORE QUESTIONS, MR. SANCHEZ? I JUST GOT A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, IF THE SIDEWALK WAS, IF IF THE OWNER DID WANT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE SIDEWALK, WOULD THEY WOULD BE, WOULD THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO A SIDEWALK EASEMENT SINCE IT IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE? UH, WHAT, WHAT CITY STAFF WAS KEVIN, WOULD YOU GET TO THE PODIUM? I'M SO SORRY.
WHAT CITY STAFFER WERE SAYING IS THAT THE SIDEWALK CAN BE PLACED UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE INSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT'S, AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
RIGHT NOW, YOU AND THE ENGINEER HAVE NOT GONE THAT FAR THAT FAR, BUT WE BELIEVE THEM.
BUT THERE WILL BE A CONFLICT WHERE, YOU KNOW, PLACING THAT SIDEWALK AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'LL RESTRICT THE, THE CROSS SECTION OF THAT CHANNEL, MEANING THERE'LL BE LESS CAPACITY AND THEREFORE THE WATER TO RUN, WHICH DIRECTLY IT'LL START PUSHING TOWARDS THE STREET OR THE HOUSES EITHER WAY, BY PLACING THAT SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT.
SO THERE'S MORE CONCERNS ONCE IT COMES.
OBVIOUSLY THE, THE WHOLE ANALYSIS HASN'T BEEN DONE THERE ABOUT THE ULTIMATE EFFECTS OF WHAT THAT'S GONNA DO, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S WORKING.
SO PLACING THE SIDEWALK MIGHT EVENTUALLY CAUSE EVEN WORSE IN, YOU KNOW, TRAINING STANDARDS IN THAT AREA.
SO I GO, I GO FURTHER DOWN THE, THE HEAT CIRCLE FURTHER SOUTH MM-HMM
AND I NOTICED THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS I KNOW ADJACENT TO OR RIGHT.
UH, NEXT TO IT IS, UH, JUST IS A SIDEWALK FURTHER SOUTH.
BUT THEN YOU GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, THERE'S A FENCE LINE THAT BASICALLY HAS A DITCH AND CORRECT.
DOES NOT HAVE, JUST GIMME SOME IDEA.
HOW'S YOUR DEVELOPMENT GOING TO FACE, UM, THE STREET? IS IT GONNA BE MORE OPEN HOUSING OR IS IT GONNA BE BASICALLY A FENCE LINE AND AN ENTRANCE GOING IN? I'M TRYING, I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAT.
I, IT'S KIND OF SMALL, SO I'M, HE'S GONNA PUT IT UP ON THE, YEAH, SO THERE'LL BE JUST ONE DRIVEWAY.
IT'S GONNA BE A, IT'S GONNA BE A DRAIN DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE DITCH.
IT'LL BE A DRAINAGE DITCH AND A CULVERT UNDER THAT DRIVEWAY.
AND WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO, IF YOU GO BA IF, IF WE LOOK AT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, OUR BAR DITCH IS NOT DEFINED WELL JUST BECAUSE THE CITY, I GUESS IT HASN'T KEPT UP WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF IT.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY, WHENEVER WE PUT IN THE COVERT, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE DEFINING THAT CROSS SECTION BETTER IN ORDER TO CARRY MORE WATER IN THERE, IN ORDER TO SAFELY ROUTE THAT WATER OUT OUT OF THE STREET AND PREVENT FROM PONDING.
AND IS THE FACING, GOING, FACING THE STREET, IS IT GONNA BE MORE OF A WALL OR A FENCE AND THEN AN ENTRANCE, OR IS IT JUST GONNA BE ALL OPEN TO THE IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE A FENCE.
[00:40:01]
UM, I'M SEEING THE CENTRAL DRIVEWAY MM-HMM
AND UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS PART OF A, THIS IS BEING DESIGNED WITH AN EYE TOWARDS CONTINUING THE DEVELOPMENT FURTHER WEST AT SOME POINT.
UM, SO, UH, I'M WONDERING IF THIS IS THE MAIN ENTRY AND EXIT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN, THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MM-HMM
SO THAT IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE OF CHILDREN.
WHO WOULD ATTEND THE SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET.
AND SO ONE OF THE GREAT ADVANTAGES OF LIVING ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOUR SCHOOL IS THAT YOU CAN WALK THERE.
SO LIKE HOW DO YOU ENVISION THAT THE CHILDREN THAT ARE GONNA LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT MM-HMM
THAT YOU ARE DESIGNING OR DEVELOPING ARE GONNA SAFELY GET TO SCHOOL FROM THEIR HOMES? THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
AND I THINK I BARELY, BRIEFLY ME, UH, MENTIONED THAT.
SO THE SUBDIVISION TO NORTH, WHAT THEY DID, IT'S SOMEWHERE HERE, THEY HAVE A RAMP AND THEY HAVE THE CROSS PATH.
WHAT THEY'RE MISSING IS PROBABLY JUST A FLASHLIGHT UP.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO, UH, FIND OUT AND MM-HMM
IT LEADS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION.
HOW ARE THE CHILDREN GONNA GET FROM THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE MM-HMM
TO THAT RAMP IN THAT CROSSWALK? HOW ARE THEY GONNA GET THERE? THE, THE INTERNALLY THEIR SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION LEADING.
AND, AND SO WHERE DID, WHERE DO THOSE SIDEWALKS EXIT THE SUBDIVISION? IT'LL BE TOWARDS THE, THE DRIVEWAY.
SO THEN HOW DO THEY GET FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE CROSSWALK TO YEAH, I GUESS, I GUESS THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, RIGHT, RIGHT HERE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS BASED ON THE, THIS IS YOUR RIGHT FOOT COL, UM, COLLAGE, BUT YEAH.
SO IS THAT, THAT'S YOUR DRIVEWAY.
SO YOU'RE PROPOSING PUTTING IN A CROSSWALK ACROSS THE, ACROSS HEATH CIRCLE DRIVE, CORRECT.
THAT THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE, I GUESS TO AN ALTERNATIVE.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO NOT LOCK THE PEOPLE LIVING INTERNALLY ON THE SUBDIVISION.
SO, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS A PROPOSAL, THIS IS NOT A COMMITMENT.
AS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU WOULD BE COMMITTED TO DO.
AND IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A GUARANTEE OF THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIANS, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
OR AN INCREASED SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
MR. ZUKI, WITH MY OBSERVATIONS OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC MM-HMM
I NOTICE THAT IT'S ALWAYS THE SHORTCUT.
THE SHORT DISTANCE TO CROSS THE STREET.
SO HAVING FAMILIES COMING OUT FROM, UH, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
THAT'S JUST MENTIONED FROM COMMISSIONER MEREDITH.
I DON'T EXPECT, UH, PEDESTRIANS JUST GO UP NORTH OF THE PROPERTY TO CROSS FROM THE PROPOSED EITHER IF YOU WANNA DO IT OR NOT MM-HMM
AND COME BACK AND YOU DO ASU WALKING MM-HMM
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? YOU'RE GONNA JUST GONNA GO STRAIGHT OUT MM-HMM
TO THE SCHOOL, WHICH IS THE SHORTCUT.
SO I BELIEVE YOUR PROPERTY WILL BENEFIT FROM THE SIDEWALK THAT YOU BUILT ACROSS, UH, HARRIS, UH, HIT COURT STREET.
AND IN THAT CASE, I WILL SUPPORT THE STAFF BUILDING THE SIDEWALK.
UH, FOR MANY ASPECTS OF THE SAFETY AND THE, UH, APPLICABILITY OF THESE LOTS.
I BELIEVE YOU WILL ALSO BENEFIT FROM THAT SIDEWALK.
SO IN THAT CASE, UH, THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA VOTE ON IT.
UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER.
UM, SUDU, UH, SUKI SUKI SUZUKI.
I'M SORRY, IN THE COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER LOPEZ MADE EARLIER.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY GONNA WALK, YOU KNOW, NORTH TO GO RIGHT ACROSS.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE THE APPEAL OF THE SUBDIVISION IS YOU CAN WALK TO THE SCHOOL.
SO I DON'T KNOW, IN A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, WOULD THEY REQUIRE FLASHING LIGHTS OR CRO? I MEAN, DOES THAT GET ADDRESSED DURING THE PLATTING THAT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? YES.
AT THE TIME OF PLATTING, BUT THAT'S A PART OF THE TIA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT WILL BE KIND OF WORKED OUT.
AND I'M ON THE FENCE BECAUSE IF YOU BUILD A SIDEWALK, WHERE ARE YOU GONNA GO? EXACTLY.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THERE'S NO CONNECTION TO THE NORTH.
AND MOST, YOU KNOW, THAT DRIVEWAY IS GONNA ENCOMPASS 30 OR 40 FEET.
WHEREVER THE WIDTH OF THE MM-HMM
SO, UH, I'LL WAIT, UH, TO SEE WHAT MY COMMISSIONERS DECIDE TO DO ON A MOTION.
[00:45:01]
AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION.I MOVE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD, UM, THE, UM, PREVIOUS DENIAL.
SO MOTION TO DENY THE, UH, VARIANCE.
MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL BY COMMISSIONER, UM, SIEGEL.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY DIRECTOR'S REPORT TODAY? THANK YOU.
AND WE ALREADY APPROVED THE MINUTES, RIGHT? YES.
WERE ON THE CONSENT AND NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR TODAY.
IT'S 2 58 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.