Oct 23, 2019 Planning Commission

GOOD AFTERNOON.

IT

[00:00:01]

[Call to Order ]

CAN STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER RO ALLEG GREENY.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS? HERE.

COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC.

HERE.

MR. MARTINEZ? PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER PECK? HERE.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

HERE.

CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA PRESENT.

A QUORUM IS PRESENT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SPEAK NOW OR WAIT UNTIL YOUR ITEM, INDIVIDUAL ITEM IS BROUGHT UP AT AND SPEAK.

AT THAT TIME, REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND EACH CITIZEN WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME WHO SPEAK, WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING? AND JUST TO

[Consent Agenda]

NUMBER 16 IS PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL, I MEAN PULLED OFF CONSENT.

WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 16 IN FAVOR.

THEY CAN SPEAK AT THAT TIME WHEN IT'S BEING CONSIDERED.

AND THEN WE HAVE SEVERAL CI CITIZENS SIGN IN TO SPEAK ON 18, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST.

UH, SO THAT ONE WILL BE CONSIDERED ON INDIVIDUAL.

OKAY.

SO WE HAVE ITEMS NUMBER ONE, 16 AND 18 PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND THE REST WILL BEYOND CONSENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? A CAN READ THE CONSENT AGENDA INTO THE RECORD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS CALLIE FORD AND I'M A PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NUMBER ONE AND 16, WHICH HAS BEEN PULLED FOR RECUSAL AND ITEMS NUMBER 18, WHICH HAS BEEN PULLED FOR IN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

THE BALANCE OF TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER A SINGLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, THE COMBINED HEARING, THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA ARE CASES IN WHICH, UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION.

AND NOMAN HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? IF NOT, MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER PECK? SECOND.

WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

CAN STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL FOR THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA? COMMISSIONER PECK? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

YES.

COMMISSIONER AURORA EGRIN? YES.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS? YES.

COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC? YES.

MR. MARTINEZ? YES.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? YES.

CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU.

NEXT

[1. 19-7765 180025: Request by Marques Mitchell, Brooks Development Authority, for approval to subdivide a tract of land to establish BCB-Research Plaza Unit 3 Subdivision, generally located at the intersection of South New Braunfels and Research Plaza. Staff recommends Approval. (Jose Garcia, Planner, (210) 207-8268, Jose.Garcia4@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

FIRST WE'LL HAVE ITEM NUMBER ONE, WHICH WAS PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF, OF RECUSAL.

IT IS TWO 10 AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HAS LEFT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE.

SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PECK.

A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER RAMOS.

CAN STAFF DATE THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER PECK? YES.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER ROHR RINNI? YES.

COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC? YES.

MR. MARTINEZ? YES.

CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

MOTION PASSES.

NEXT ITEM

[16. 19-7563 A resolution recommending the Downtown Area Regional Center Plan to City Council to become a component of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan. (Bridgett White, Director, Planning Department)]

IT IS TWO 11 AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HAS RETURNED.

AND COMMISSIONER ROW.

ALLIE GREEN.

HE HAS LEFT.

SO ITEM NUMBER 16, NO NEED FOR PRESENTATION, BUT WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGN IN TO SPEAK IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL 'EM UP.

YES, WE CAN DO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

WE HAVE, UH, GINA.

MS. MITCHELL? YES.

ATT ATIYA.

OH, OKAY.

.

THANK YOU.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ATTIA MITCHELL.

I'M AT 1415 NORTH AVENUE.

UH, I WAS ONE OF THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS, AND SO I WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH JACOB AND BRIDGET ON THIS, UH, LAND USE PLAN AND THEN ON THE PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.

AS A RECENT GRADUATE OF U T S A, I MUST SAY THAT OUR CITY IS SPRAWLING AND I'M DEFINITELY EXCITED TO HEAR THAT WE NOW HAVE NEW PRINCIPLES IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS OUR CITY TO BE MORE WALKABLE AND THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME DENSITY.

SO I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR

[00:05:01]

THANK YOU, CITIZEN.

TO BE HEARD IS DONE.

DO WE NEED THESE? SINCE THIS WAS PULLED FOR PURPOSE OF RECUSAL, DO WE NEED THE STAFF PRESENTATION? NO, NO, NO PRESENTATION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

UH, ITEM NUMBER 16.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER PECK.

AND I THINK MR. MARTINEZ GOT THE SECOND ON THAT ONE.

STAFF, CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER PECK? YES.

MR. MARTINEZ? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS? YES.

COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC? YES.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? YES.

CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.

MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU.

CAN YOU LET A COMMISSIONER RI HE KNOW SHE MAY RETURN? IT'S TWO 13 AND COMMISSIONER RO EGR HE HAS RETURNED.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA

[18. 19-7904 Resolution approving proposed changes to Chapter 35, the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 35-310-01 Table 310-1 Lot and Building Dimensions Table, relating to Lot and Building Dimensions in "RM" and "MF" districts. Staff recommends Approval. (Catherine Hernandez, Development Services Administrator, (210) 207-5085, catherine.hernandez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]

HERE WE GO.

ITEM 18.

SO I KNOW WE JUST DID THE PRESENTATION, UM, UH, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND WORK SESSION, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE SAME PRESENTATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PUBLIC.

UM, SO THIS IS, UM, SOME CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SOME OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS IN R M AND M F AS A RESULT OF A COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST THAT WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS, UM, THE GROWING NEED FOR HOUSING THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING, UH, REDEVELOPED IN OUR INNER CITY.

THAT, UM, SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE COMPROMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS GOING ON IS THAT THERE ARE SOME STANDARDS THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHTS FOR MANY OF THESE DISTRICTS, R M AND M M F, UH, THAT ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 35 FEET, THREE STORIES OR 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.

UM, AND THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS OUT THERE WITH, UH, LOT ZONED RMM FOUR OR MF BECAUSE OF EITHER REZONING APP, APPRO, UH, REZONING CHANGES THAT WERE APPROVED DECADES AGO OR THE 2001 U D C CONVERSION.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, OUR 1938 ZONING WAS CUMULATIVE AND MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WERE ZONE D, WHICH WAS OUR APARTMENT DISTRICT.

AND WHEN THE 2001 CODE WAS ADOPTED, THE CODES WERE CONVERTED, UM, NOT REZONED, BUT CONVERTED.

AND SO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, UH, WERE MAINTAINED.

SO D WOULD TRANSITION AND CONVERT TO MF 33.

UH, SO IT RESULTED WITH A LOT OF SUBDIVISIONS THAT WERE ZONED MF 33, BUT DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

AND SO REDEVELOPMENT NOW DECADES LATER IS, IS OCCURRING ON SOME OF THESE MF 33 ZONE LOTS, UM, AS MULTIFAMILY AND DEVELOPED BASED ON THE AS.

RIGHT.

UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOWED FOR, UM, MF 33, WHICH IS THAT INCOMPATIBLE HIDE AND RESULTING IN INCOMPATIBLE LOT COVERAGE.

UH, SO SPECIFICALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL MIXED DISTRICTS, UM, DEPENDING UPON WHICH RMM CLASSIFICATION YOU HAVE, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO DEVELOP IT WITH MULTI-UNITS ONLY UP TO FOUR.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, RMM SIX ALLOWS UP TO TWO AS LONG AS YOU MEET A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE.

AND RMM FOUR ALLOWS UP TO FOUR AS LONG AS YOU MEET A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE.

THE HEIGHT ST LIMITATIONS ARE 35 FEET AND THREE STORIES.

TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE, OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARE LIMITED TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.

SO THE RMM IS, IS ALLOWED, UH, A HALF STORY, UM, A A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTRA HALF STORY IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO PARK IT.

UH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU THINK OF RM FOUR LOTS THAT HAVE FOUR UNITS ON IT, YOU'LL HAVE A GARAGE, WHICH WILL TYPICALLY BE YOUR FIRST FLOOR IN ORDER TO MEET MINIMUM PARKING.

AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TWO MORE STORIES.

SO YOU HAVE HABITABLE LIV LIVING SPACE IN ORDER TO FIT A FAMILY.

UM, AND THAT AMENDMENT TO THREE STORIES WAS DONE IN 2012.

THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS ARE VARIATION OF HEIGHTS DEPENDING UPON THE DENSITY.

UM, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE TO REMEMBER IS THAT THE MF 33, WHICH IS A RESULT OF A LOT OF THE CODE CONVERSIONS IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, IS UH, ALLOWS 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.

THE REST OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS WERE NOT A RESULT OF CODE CONVERSIONS.

AND SO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS.

YOU'LL GET THAT PUBLIC INPUT AND EVERYONE WILL KNOW WHAT THAT HEIGHT LIMITATION IS OR NO HEIGHT LIMITATION IS, BUT, UH, DEPENDING UPON THE REQUEST.

SO, BUT AGAIN, MULTI-FAMILY ALLOWS 45 FEET IN HEIGHT BY, RIGHT.

SO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE, UM, THE C C R, WE FORMED A TASK FORCE.

IT INCLUDED 16 MEMBERS THAT INCLUDED NEIGHBORHOODS WITH, UH, PREVALENT RMM OR MF ZONING AS A RESULT OF THOSE CODE CONVERSIONS OR, OR REZONING, UH, FROM DECADES AGO.

UM, REVIEWED THEM WITH THE COUNCIL OFFICES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF, UH, WHY THEIR, THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS OR HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF R M AND MF ISSUES THAT ARE BEING EXPERIENCED.

AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT DEVELOPED ON THESE R M AND MF, UH, LOTS, SO WE COULD HAVE THAT PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE ON, ON THE TASK FORCE.

UM, THEY MET FROM MARCH THROUGH SEPTEMBER SEVEN TIMES.

UH, SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, THESE VOLUNTEERS DECIDED TO ALSO VOLUNTEER ADDITIONAL TIME TO MEET IN SUBCOMMITTEES IN BETWEEN

[00:10:01]

AND SO THEY VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME TO MEET SEPARATELY TO REVIEW, UH, DATA, UH, RELATED TO UH, LOT SIZES, HOW THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED, HOW, UM, LOT COVERAGE IS DONE ON EACH OF THESE LOTS, UH, TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS WANTED TO SEE.

AND AFTER EVERY SUBCOMMITTEE, THEY WOULD REPORT BACK TO THE TASK FORCE IN ORDER TO, UM, LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANTED TO PUT FORWARD ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND OUT OF THAT PROCESS, AND OUT OF ALL THOSE MEETINGS, UH, THEY CAME TO THREE, UH, MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WHICH WOULD HELP TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS REDEVELOPMENT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, THERE AGAIN, SEVEN MEETINGS, A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS.

THERE WERE SOME STALEMATE IN THIS PROCESS.

AND IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT AND FINALLY GET THE MOMENTUM GOING IN ORDER TO GET SOME, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS, UH, THE INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS OCCURRING, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE SENT AN EMAIL TO THE TASK FORCE TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, BUT WE REALLY NEED FOR YOU TO FOCUS ON THREE MAJOR THINGS SO WE CAN, UM, CLOSE OUT THE PROCESS AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS SO WE CAN START IMPACTING DEVELOPMENT NOW.

BECAUSE UNTIL CHANGES ARE MADE, PEOPLE CAN STILL PULL PERMITS BASED ON HOW THINGS ARE ALLOWED TODAY.

UM, AND SO THEY ASKED, UH, FOR THE TASK FORCE TO FOCUS ON HEIGHT, MASSING AND STREET ORIENTATION.

AND OUT OF THAT CAME RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK, AND STREET ORIENTATION.

WE HAD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS, ONE IN JUNE IN ORDER TO SEEK INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, UM, THAT DIDN'T HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE PER SE.

UM, AND SO THAT WAY THE TASK FORCE COULD DISCUSS THOSE AND MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN AFTER SEPTEMBER WHEN THEY, UH, BROUGHT FORWARD THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE HAD ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING ON OCTOBER TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND IT WAS POSITIVE.

UH, OUR NEXT STEPS, OF COURSE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THAT PUBLIC INPUT AS WE MOVE THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

UM, WE ALSO UTILIZE OUR ESSAY SPEAK UP TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THAT INPUT.

UM, AND WE'LL BE SENDING OUT A SURVEY, UH, I BELIEVE THIS WEEK, IF NOT NEXT WEEK, TO START GETTING THAT INPUT AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

SO RELATED TO THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, FIRST ONE, TACKLES HEIGHTS.

RIGHT NOW, MF 33 AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, ALLOWS BY RIGHT 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.

SO, AND THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS WHEN YOU'RE NEXT TO, TO HOMES THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY.

'CAUSE AGAIN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.

NOW YOU HAVE AN MF 33 LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, OF, OF A BLOCK THAT HAS A 45 FOOT HIGH STRUCTURE.

SO IT WAS RESULTING IN THIS INCOMPATIBLE MASSING.

SO THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TASK FORCE PUT FORWARD PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS BY MAKING SURE THAT THE HEIGHT WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY USE, WHETHER IT'S ON ALL SIDES, UM, IS LIMITED TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET AFTER 50 FEET.

IF THEY HAD A LARGE ENOUGH, UM, LOT, THEN THEY COULD, UM, GO UP IN HEIGHT FOLLOWING WHAT WE CALL OUR WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.

FOR EVERY TWO, FOR EVERY ONE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

ADDITIONALLY, YOU GET TWO MORE FEET IN HEIGHT.

UM, SO AGAIN, IT WAS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THOSE SMALLER LOTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MAINTAIN THE SAME HEIGHT STANDARD AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RELATED TO FRONT SETBACK.

UM, SPECIFICALLY MF 33, THERE'S NO MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK.

SO YOU COULD HAVE AN MF 33 LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOP WITH, UH, THE FIRST STRUCTURE AT ZERO FEET.

THERE'S A MAXIMUM FRONT STEPBACK OF 20 FEET, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT.

AND AGAIN, IT CREATES THAT INCONSISTENT, UM, BLOCK FACE WHERE YOU HAVE TYPICAL 10 FOOT SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THEN FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOU'LL HAVE IT AT ZERO FEET.

SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE TASK FORCE PUT FORWARD WAS THAT CREATING THAT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR LOTS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE, A SMALLER ZONED MF 33 ABUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY USE, THAT THEY WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THAT 10 FOOT, UH, SETBACK THAT IS SIMILAR TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND THEN LASTLY IS STREET ORIENTATION.

UM, RIGHT NOW, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME OF OUR RMM LOTS, UH, LIKE RM FOUR, YOU COULD HAVE FOUR DETACHED UNITS OR FOUR ATTACHED UNITS, UM, ON THE PROPERTY, SO LONG AS YOU MET A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

BUT MANY OF THESE, THEIR FRONT DOORS ARE FACING THE DRIVEWAY, THE INGRESS EGRESS, UM, AND, UH, IT'S CREATING SORT OF THESE ISOLATED NEIGHBORHOODS.

OR AS YOU WALK DOWN THE STREET, YOU, YOU'RE WALKING DOWN, UM, THE STREET AND THERE ARE HOMES WITH THEIR FRONT ENTRIES, THEIR FRONT DOORS FACING THE STREET.

AND THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SIDEWALL.

AND SO, UH, THE TASK FORCE PUT FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEIR FRONT ENTRIES AND FRONT, UH, WALKWAY, UH, BE FOR THE FIRST PRIMARY STRUCTURE BUDDING THE STREET, FACE, THE STREET.

SO YOU CAN, THAT YOU CAN, YOU CAN INCLUDE OR AT LEAST MAINTAIN THAT CONSISTENT BLACK FACE.

UM, THERE WAS OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE TACKLED BY THE TASK FORCE.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY COULDN'T GET TO CONSENSUS TO BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE THINGS HAD MORE OF A GLOBAL IMPACT, UM,

[00:15:01]

AND MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WEREN'T, WHO WEREN'T AT THE TABLE AND COUNCIL OFFICES THAT DIDN'T HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS AT THE TABLE WERE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGING CODE THAT WOULD CHANGE HOW THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS LOOK.

UH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT WAS REDEFINING HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.

UM, RIGHT NOW, UH, WE MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT, IF IT'S A GABLE ROOF OF THAT, UH, IN THE ATTIC SPACE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THE DISCUSSION WAS TO, UH, CHANGE THE HEIGHT TO THE, TO THE PITCH AT THE TOP OF THE PITCH OF THE ROOF.

UM, HOWEVER THAT WOULD CREATE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES THAT 'CAUSE, AGAIN, THE WAY WE'VE BEEN MEASURING IT FOR DECADES, UM, HAS BEEN TO THAT MIDPOINT.

AND SO FOR ANY TWO AND A HALF STORY HOME THAT WAS MEASURED TO THAT MIDPOINT WOULD BECOME NON-CONFORMING IF THE 35 FOOT WAS AT THAT MIDPOINT.

AND NOW WE'RE CHANGING IT TO THE, THE, THE TOP OF THE PITCH.

UH, SO AGAIN, THAT'S A GLOBAL IMPACT.

BUT, UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DISCUSSED.

ATTACHED VERSUS DETACHED DWELLINGS WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT, UH, HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

UH, THERE WERE, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICTS SUCH AS DISTRICT FOUR, FIVE AND SIX THAT WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT REQUIRING ATTACHED STRUCTURES, UH, FOR THESE, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE SORT OF THIS MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE, UM, LARGE, LIKE AN ARMY BARRACK STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK WHEN IT WOULDN'T LOOK APPROPRIATE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, I LIVE, I'VE LIVED IN DISTRICT SIX ALL MY LIFE UNTIL, UM, I BOUGHT MY OWN HOME.

AND THERE ARE NO ATTACHED STRUCTURES IN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE DETACHED IF THEY WERE MULTIPLE UNITS.

UM, AND SO THAT HAD A BIG DISCUSSION.

THEY DIDN'T WANNA REQUIRE IT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT NEIGHBORHOODS COULD LOOK AT THROUGH, UM, ADDITIONAL OVERLAY, UH, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS SUCH AS HISTORIC OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.

SO THAT WAY THEY WERE UNIQUE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING THAT STANDARD ACROSS THE CITY.

UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THERE WERE OTHER, UM, ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED.

THE TASK FORCE DID ASK THAT WE PUT TOGETHER A REPORT THAT I ITEMIZED THESE, THESE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

AND THAT WAY ANY ONE OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS COULD SUBMIT THEM DURING THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO HAVE A BIGGER DISCUSSION SINCE IT WOULD HAVE MORE OF AN IMPACT ACROSS THE CITY AND WOULD IMPACT OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS AS WELL.

AND THAT'S ALSO ON OUR WEBSITE.

I FORGOT TO MENTION THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE DEVOTED A WEBSITE TO, UM, KEEP TRACK OF ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS.

AND, UH, THE WEBSITE HAS, UM, EVERYTHING UP TO DATE, INCLUDING MEETING NOTES FROM EACH OF THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS AS WELL AS THIS REPORT, UH, THAT ANY ONE OF THE MEMBERS FROM THE TASK FORCE COULD USE IN ORDER TO SUBMIT DURING THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS.

UH, WE DID GO TO THE TECH ON MONDAY, UH, FOR A RECOMMENDATION AND THEY HAD TWO, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH, UH, STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING, UH, BE PUT FORWARD.

UH, SO AGAIN, RIGHT NOW RELATED TO HEIGHT, MF 33 IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT 45 FEET.

THE TASK FORCE PROPOSED THAT LIMITATION IF WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET.

UM, HOWEVER, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, IF YOU HAD A LARGER LOT LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK THAT COULD NOW BUILD, ONCE THEY CAME IN 50 FEET FROM ONE SIDE, 50 FEET OF ANOTHER COULD NOW BUILD A 45 FOOT STRUCTURE, IT WOULD STILL CREATE AN INCOMPATIBLE, UH, MASSING SITUATION, UM, ALONG THE BLOCK FACE.

SO, UH, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY PUT FORWARD, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION TO, UH, TO THE COMMISSIONS THAT WE AGREE WITH IS THAT FOR MF 18, MF 25, AND MF 33 ZONE LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE WOULD BE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.

SO FOR LOTS, FOR EXAMPLE, ZONE MF 33, THAT OR AN ACRE, THEY COULD DO TO 45 FEET, UM, USING THAT WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.

AND THEN THE OTHER, UM, RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TAC PUT FORWARD WAS MORE CLARIFYING.

UH, SO A HEIGHT LIMITATION WOULD NOT APPLY WHERE YOU'RE ABUTTING A PROPERTY THAT'S ZONE SINGLE FAMILY BUT NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE PROPERTIES OUT THERE THAT ARE DEVELOPED AS CHURCH SCHOOLS OR OTHER USES.

AND SO, UM, YOU WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO A, TO A HEIGHT LIMITATION THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO.

SO YOU COULD HAVE THE HIGHER HEIGHT BASED ON YOUR ZONING DISTRICT.

UH, SO OUR TIMELINE MOVING FORWARD, AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY, SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO ZONING COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER.

UH, THEN WE NEED TO BRIEF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, THE COUNCIL, UH, COMMITTEE, HOPEFULLY BY DECEMBER, AND THEN GET TO, UH, CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, BY JANUARY.

BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, OUR 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS STARTS IN 2020.

AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE WRAP THIS UP BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.

AND THAT'S IT.

AND I DO, UH, THERE'S CITIZENS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK, SO IF YOU WANNA HEAR THOSE FIRST AND THEN WE CAN GO TO QUESTIONS.

IT'S UP TO YOU CHAIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, FIRST PERSON SIGN UP TO SPEAK IS SIMA, VIN UH, YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

[00:20:08]

MARK SPIELMAN.

SO YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE HER YOUR THREE MINUTES? OKAY.

SO STAFF CAN JUST NOTE THAT SHE WILL HAVE THE, OKAY.

AND IF WE COULD START, OKAY.

UH, SO SOME OF YOU HEARD ME SPEAK AT P TTAC AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IN LETTING ME SPEAK HERE AGAIN.

UH, THIS PHOTO JUST TO, IF YOU COULD ZOOM IT OUT SO THEY CAN SEE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, IS JUST TO PROVIDE A VISUAL FOR THE GENESIS OF, FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT OF WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS NOW, UM, I'M GONNA READ A LETTER FROM THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION THAT WAS, IS THIS BASICALLY THE SAME LETTER READ AT PTAC WITH AN, UH, CHANGE THAT RESULTED FROM THAT MEETING? UH, DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RMM FOUR, MF 33 TASK FORCE AND OFFER SOME SOLUTIONS.

THE RMM FOUR, MF 33 TASK FORCE WAS CREATED IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS, YET THE COMMUNITY WAS CONTINUALLY UNDERREPRESENTED AND DISMISSED DURING THIS TASK.

FORCE TWO CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBERS, RICHARD GARCIA AND ALAN F WERE DENIED A SEAT ON THE TASK FORCE.

DESPITE CONCERNS DISCUSSED DURING THE MEETINGS THAT THEIR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD'S NEEDS WERE BEING UNDERREPRESENTED.

THE PROPOSED DRAFT YOU'VE RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS AN INCOMPLETE RECOMMENDATION.

THESE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, SPECIFICALLY ARMED FOUR AND MF 33, ARE ABUNDANT IN OUR INNER CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY'RE THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS MOST COMMON FOR THE SO-CALLED MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND QUADPLEXES.

THE, THEY ARE AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

BUT IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, THE WAY THESE PROPERTIES ARE BEING DEVELOPED HAS CHANGED.

INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL DUPLEXES OR QUADPLEXES, WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENTS FOR FOUR TO SIX INDIVIDUAL TOWER TYPE STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT, SUCH AS THE ONES AT NINE 30 WEST CRAIG PLACE, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT THERE.

THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE TYPICALLY SOLD AS MARKET RATE, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOMES WITH SOME KIND OF CONDO SCHEME IN THE TITLE.

THIS INCENTIVIZES LUXURY HIGH PROFIT DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE OR COMPATIBLE.

TIER ONE APPRECIATES THE WORK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO LIMIT BUILDING, TO LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHT TO 35 FEET TO AND A HALF STORIES FOR MF 33 PROPERTIES UNDER ONE THIRD ACRE.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO NODE 11, BUT WE ASK THAT THE TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE REFLECT 35, 2 AND A HALF STORIES ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS BASED ON NODE 11.

TIER ONE RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING U D C, UH, THE FOLLOWING UPDATES TO THE U D C AS IT PERTAINS TO THE RM AND MF ZONING CATEGORIES.

TABLE THREE ONE DASH ONE, HEIGHT LIMITS.

THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT IS 35 FEET.

THREE STORIES.

WE RECOMMEND 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES.

R FOUR, ARM FIVE, ARM SIX, MF 18, MF 25, AND MF 33.

CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND PUT UP THE, OH, UH, NO, IT'S A SEPARATE FILE.

THIS WILL ADDRESS A MAJOR COMMUNITY CONCERN OVER COMPATIBILITY OF THESE MIXED AND MULTIFAMILY ZONINGS IN SINGLE YES IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE REPLACEMENT OF NODE 11 SHOULD BE MOVED FROM THE HEADER OF THE TABLE TO THE FIRST COLUMN IN TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE, UNDER MF 18, MF 25, AND MF 33.

THIS WILL ALIGN, ALIGN THE PLACEMENT OF THE NOTE TO MATCH THE REST OF THE TABLE LENDING CLARITY TO ALL WHO USE THE TABLE IN THE FUTURE.

35 DASH 31 3 1 0 0 1 C AMEND LANGUAGE FROM MUST OCCUR WITHIN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED SRU OCCUR WITHIN A SINGLE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, UNLESS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE A USE PERMITTED IN THE RE R 20, R SIX, R FIVE, R FOUR RMM SIX RMM FIVE RMM FOUR MF 18 MF 25 MF 33 M F 40, OR MF 50 DISTRICTS MUST OCCUR WITHIN A SINGLE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.

35 DASH 3 1 0 0 6 A ONE B INSERT SHALL BE CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE SO THAT IT READS, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IS LIMITED TO TWO UNITS FOR R SIX THREE UNITS FOR R FIVE AND FOUR UNITS FOR R FOUR SHALL BE CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.

THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION CURRENTLY REPRESENTS 54 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COALITIONS IN SAN ANTONIO.

IT IS OUR MISSION TO PROMOTE BROAD-BASED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT, OUR MISSION ADVOCATES FOR A SENSIBLE BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE BUILT

[00:25:01]

WE, WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT, AND THIS IS THE TABLE.

IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN IN A LITTLE BIT IN GREEN, WE HAVE PUT WHERE WE ARE REQUESTING THOSE, UH, THOSE CHANGES THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE LETTER.

AND THEN, UH, ONE LAST THING.

IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE FILE, UH, TO THE SECOND PAGE.

AND SO THIS IS, ALTHOUGH CONSIDERED POSSIBLY BY SOME MONOLITHIC, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS NOW THAT HAS WORKED WELL FOR US FOR A LONG TIME AND THE KIND OF MASSING THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

NEXT WE HAVE MR. JAMES GRIFFIN.

THANK YOU.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, JAMES GRIFFIN.

UH, 1 1 2 EAST PECAN.

UM, I WAS ON THE, UH, TASK FORCE FOR THIS, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

UM, KAT I THOUGHT HER PRESENTATION WAS GREAT AND VERY DETAILED, SO IT, IT REALLY COVERED EVERYTHING.

SO I, I WON'T GO INTO MUCH DETAIL, UH, OTHER THAN THAN TO SAY, UM, AND KIND OF ECHO WHAT, WHAT KATT MENTIONED.

WE HAD DOZENS OF MEETINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS WITH THE TASK FORCE.

THEY'RE ALL VERY PRODUCTIVE, GREAT CONVERSATIONS.

THE, THE TASK FORCE, I THINK WAS VERY EVENLY BALANCED AND, AND WELL REPRESENTED BY NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS FROM, FROM DIFFERENT AREAS, DIFFERENT REAL ESTATE FOLKS, KIND OF FROM DIFFERENT AREAS.

JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

UM, AND EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY BEHAVED WELL AND, UH, GOT ALONG AND, AND, UH, HAD REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION THROUGHOUT.

AND, AND, UH, WHAT RESULTED HERE IS, UH, THREE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE, UH, I THINK REALLY ACCOMPLISHED WHAT THE GOAL OF THE C C R WAS, WHAT THE GOAL WAS IN PROTECTING, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE SOME OF THESE KIND OF ODD, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE BEEN THAT WAY FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

UM, AND, AND AS KAT MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THE, THE DISCUSSION AT IT REALLY AT MOST MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, TURNED INTO A BIGGER PICTURE, LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIAL OTHER, OTHER FIXES, OTHER AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT, UH, REALLY PROBABLY WENT WELL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE C C R.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT WORKING LIST AS WE GET CLOSE.

WE'RE ONLY A COUPLE MONTHS AWAY FROM THE START OF THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT.

SO, UH, ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT WAS, UM, UH, A LOT OF WORK BY, BY STAFF.

SO, UH, DEFINITELY I THANK KAT AND CHRISTIE AND EVERYBODY, UH, INVOLVED A LOT OF, LOT OF TIME SPENT, UH, MORE THAN MORE THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE.

BUT, UH, WE, UH, ENDED UP WITH SOME REALLY, REALLY GOOD AMENDMENTS AND, UH, SO, UM, REALLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT, UH, OF THOSE BEFORE YOU, ESPECIALLY AS THEY WERE MENDED BY, UH, T EARLIER THIS WEEK.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY HAVE.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

AND THE LAST PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY IS RUSSELL YEAGER.

MM-HMM.

.

THANK YOU.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

UH, RUSSELL YEAGER ADDRESS IS 8 1 1 0 PINTADO.

UM, I WAS ALSO ON THE COMMISSION OR THE, UH, COMMITTEE HERE.

UH, AS JAMES MENTIONED, I'M GONNA UNFORTUNATELY REPEAT A COUPLE OF THINGS HE SAID, WHILE I'LL TRY AND DO IT AS SUCCINCTLY AS POSSIBLE, WHICH WAS, I I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S, UH, PARTICIPATION IN, IN THEM SETTING UP THIS COMMITTEE.

IT WAS VERY EFFECTIVE.

WE DID SPEND QUITE A BIT OF TIME GOING OVER A NUMBER OF ITEMS, UH, AND HAD A REALLY GOOD BALANCE OF BOTH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND DEVELOPMENT MEMBERS.

UH, A COUPLE OF, UH, ENGINEERS LIKE ME WHO COULD GET ALL OF THE NERDY INFORMATION BACK TO THE CREW.

SO, UH, I THINK WE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF REVIEWING SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS.

AND I THINK WE DID COME UP WITH THREE REALLY GOOD COMPROMISES, UH, THAT WE COULD MAKE SIMPLE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES ACCORDING TO THAT C C R THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE WIDE RANGING IMPACTS, UM, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CODE, OBVIOUSLY.

UM, AS JAMES MENTIONED, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY AS KATT MENTIONED, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT WERE VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT WOULD'VE HAD DEEP IMPACTS TO THE CODE OR ACROSS MULTIPLE PIECES OF THE CODE THAT WE FELT WERE BEST, UH, UTILIZED IN THOSE 2020 AMENDMENTS WHERE BOTH STAFF AND T AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE COULD REVIEW THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T CREATE, UH, PROBLEMS WITHIN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE OR ACROSS THE CITY.

UH, SO IN REVIEW OF THAT, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A, A LIST TOGETHER TO PROVIDE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES IN 2020, UM, FOR THOSE ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED AND FOCUS ON THOSE THAT WE FELT LIKE WERE WITHIN THE, THE MAIN GOALS OF THE C C R THAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH QUICKLY.

UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE WHAT WE'VE BROUGHT TO YOU GUYS TODAY AND THAT WERE PRESENTED.

OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE AMENDED BY TAC AND, UH, I JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THOSE ITEMS AS AMENDED BY TAC.

UH, AND AGAIN, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT CONCLUDES, UM, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

WE'LL GO ONTO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS, WE'LL START AT THE VERY END WITH MR. MARTINEZ.

UH, YES.

UM, MY QUESTIONS FROM MR. GRIFFIN.

UM,

[00:30:01]

WELL, THAT WAS INTERESTING.

THAT WAS A LITTLE NEW, UM, UH, NEW TO US QUITE HONESTLY, BECAUSE, UH, EVEN SOME OF THE MORE, UM, UH, VOCAL FOLKS REPRESENTING, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

I MEAN, REALLY, I LIKE TO THINK WE ARE, WE'RE ALL REPRESENTING THE, THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT, UH, I, I GUESS I'M LUMPED INTO THE, THE, THE REAL ESTATE SIDE.

BUT, UM, UH, THEY WERE PUSHING FOR KIND OF MORE, UH, STRUCTURES, MAYBE MORE SMALLER STRUCTURES AS OPPOSED TO JUST ONE BUILDING.

I REALLY, REGARDLESS OF, OF THE NUMBER.

UM, SO, SO I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT IT, IT REALLY KIND OF DEFEATS, UH, THE PURPOSE OF IF YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE ONE IF BUILDING ON THIS LOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE MAXED OUT TO WHATEVER THOSE PARAMETERS ARE, WHEREAS YOU CAN BREAK IT UP IN DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, ACCOMPLISHES A LOT MORE, MORE, MORE OPEN SPACE, MORE, MORE KIND OF, UH, UH, ARTICULATION, THE BETTER, UH, COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

UM, SO I, YEAH, THAT WAS JUST IN THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS, BUT IN A VERY DIFFERENT MANNER, AS I RECALL.

WAS THE, I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THERE AT ALL.

WAS THE ISSUE MORE OF, UH, SINCE YOU FROM THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, WAS THE ISSUE MORE IN CONCERN OF, OF, UM, OF, OF, OF MARKETING THESE STRUCTURES INDIVIDUALLY VERSUS A, A MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE? UH, NOT REALLY.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS AN INTERESTING, UM, ROLE FOR, FOR MYSELF AND, AND I THINK RUSSELL AND, AND A LOT OF US IN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE VERY SPECIFIC PROJECTS.

I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE BECOMING MORE COMMON, THIS TYPE OF, UH, UH, REDEVELOPMENT.

UH, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE, WE SEE ALL THE TIME.

AND IT WASN'T, UH, EVER A, YOU KNOW, AN ARGUMENT OR EVEN A DISCUSSION OF, WE WANT THIS BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO PUT MORE UNITS OR, OR, OR MAKE MORE MONEY.

IT, IT, UH, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IDEAS BROUGHT UP BY ONE GROUP AND THEN, UM, THE FOLKS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, BUILDING, WHETHER IT'S THESE PROJECTS, UH, ABLE TO SAY, WELL, WELL, THIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE, OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO, YOU KNOW, HERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT.

JUST KINDA USING THAT EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE, UH, TO GET THERE.

SO, UM, AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT.

I THINK WE'RE ALWAYS KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE.

IT WAS JUST GETTING TO THAT, THAT END POINT IN MAYBE A DIFFERENT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, I, I'LL START WITH, UM, COACH MCKELVIN FROM TIER ONE.

THE QUESTION I HAVE, I ACTUALLY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR A FEW PEOPLE.

UM, SO THEY'LL PROBABLY OVERLAP.

UH, SO I, I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT BOTH OF THE REQUESTS ARE.

SO ONE IS AN AMENDMENT, SO THAT INSTEAD OF THREE STORIES, IT'S ONLY TWO AND A HALF STORIES, CORRECT? CORRECT.

BUT THE HEIGHT WOULD BE THE SAME REGARDLESS.

RIGHT.

BUT OUR CONCERN IS, AS KAT MENTIONED, THAT THIRD STORY IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE PARKING.

AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE A DESIGN REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE BACK, UM, BECAUSE THE BUILDER HAS TO BE ABLE TO PARK ON THE SITE, THERE'RE THAT'S ALLOWED TO THEN TRUMP THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND SO IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T HAVE GARAGES IN THE FRONT, YOU'RE GETTING THAT, THAT DESIGN WHERE YOU HAVE A GARAGE AND THEN THE TWO STORIES.

AND SO WE ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO VOID THAT.

OKAY.

SO, AND I'M SORRY IF THIS IS GONNA SOUND STUPID, I'M REPEATING, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR IN MY HEAD.

SO, AND I KNOW, I KNOW THE DESIGN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THERE'S GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE, THE TWO STORIES ABOVE.

UM, WHY IS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE GR PARKING IN THE BACK IN THIS SET LAYOUT? AND I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO KAT, AND I COULD BE WRONG, AND, AND SHE'LL CORRECT ME IF I AM, BUT IF IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN MANKEY PARK, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT, UM, THOSE HOMES WERE BUILT THAT WAY AND THAT THAT OVERRODE THEIR DESIGN STANDARDS, OR I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT DID, OR MAYBE IT DID NOT, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT SAID YOU COULDN'T HAVE THAT DESIGN.

SO, UM, MANKEY PARK IS CONTROLLED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT A DETACHED GARAGE BE PROVIDED IN ITS, UH, BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, UM, IN THEIR N C D REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION TO THAT REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS THAT WERE LESS THAN A CERTAIN WIDTH BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE, UM, STREETS IN MANKEY PARK WHERE PLATTED ORIGINALLY IS 25 FOOT WITH LOTS.

AND SO SOME OF THE NEW, UH, UH, HOMES THAT WERE BEING BUILT ON THAT BY IMAGINE HOMES ARE ON 20 FOOT, 25 FOOT WITH LOTS,

[00:35:01]

SO ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS THAT IT BE SET BACK, I THINK IT WAS FIVE FEET.

AND SO THE GARAGE IS SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT MAIN STRUCTURE, BUT THEY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY IN THEIR N C D.

OKAY? BUT YOU COULD STILL CHOOSE ON AN RMM LOT TO BUILD A TYPICAL HOME AND PUT THE GARAGE IN THE REAR, BUT THAT'S NOT A PREVALENT FEATURE ACROSS THE CITY.

DISTRICT FOUR, FIVE, DISTRICT SIX ESPECIALLY.

AND, AND EVEN SOME IN DISTRICT SEVEN, ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE OF FOUR 10 DO NOT, ARE BUILT LIKE MAYBE THE OLD KB HOMES WHERE YOU HAVE THE GARAGE AND THE FRONT DOOR KIND OF ON THE SAME MM-HMM.

PLANE.

AND SO MANY OF THOSE SUBDIVISIONS ARE BUILT LIKE THAT.

SO AGAIN, MAKING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE GARAGE BE IN THE REAR, UM, OR ALL IN ONE STRUCTURE TO PUSH IT INTO THE BACK, UH, DOESN'T CREATE THAT FLEXIBLE OR, OR THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT.

FOR THOSE DISTRICTS THAT DON'T HAVE THAT AS A PREVALENT FEATURE.

THEY ARE PREVALENT IN BEACON HILL, ALTA VISTA, MANKEY PARK, UH, WHICH IS WHY MANY OF THOSE HAVE AN N C D.

OKAY? SO FOR THOSE THAT HAVE AN N C D, THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.

IT'S REALLY FOR THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE THAT N C D IN, IN DISTRICT, I MEAN, I'M REALLY THINKING OF DISTRICT ONE WHERE MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES WHERE THIS IS GONNA BE AN ISSUE OCCUR, RIGHT? SO TO HAVE THAT, THAT, TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN THAT THIRD PICTURE, YOU COULD DO THAT THROUGH AN N C D.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, MONTE VISTA TERRACE IS ONE OF THOSE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS JUST NORTH OF THE MONTE VISTA AREA, UM, THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH A CREATION OF AN N C D.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT.

UM, ONE OF THE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ACTUALLY WAS ON THE TASK FORCE AND WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS RECOMMENDING THAT THEY ALL BE IN ONE STRUCTURE.

SURPRISINGLY, MANY OF HER NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT THAT.

AND, BUT THAT'S THE KEY TO THAT WAS THAT EACH NEIGHBORHOOD COULD DEVELOP THEIR OWN UNIQUE STANDARD BASED ON WHAT WAS DEVELOPED OUT THERE.

AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF, OF AN N C D.

SO THE CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE RMM BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT WOULD IMPACT CITYWIDE.

SO IT WOULD MAKE A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE IN BEACON HILL APPLY TO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN NORTH HAMPTON, UH, OFF OF IN DISTRICT TWO.

OKAY.

I, SO I GET THAT.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, SO IF I LIVED IN BEACON HILL AND WE HAD N C D OR SOME OTHER DESIGNATION THAT WOULD, WE COULD HAVE WHAT WE WANT THE TWO AND A HALF STORY, UM, BY THAT N C D RULING, BUT NORTH HAMPTON COULD, COULD FOLLOW WHAT THE OVERALL CODE IS.

CORRECT.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

UM, MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT THE SINGLE STRUCTURE.

SO IF I UNDERSTOOD RIGHT, I'M LOOKING AT, SO THE, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, UM, THAT THOSE ARE OLD STYLE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, UM, REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE VERSUS WHAT'S VERY POPULAR RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS CALLING THEM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT THEY'RE ONLY A FEW FEET APART.

UM, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL TOWER, ALL RIGHT, NEXT TO EACH OTHER, BUT NOT CONNECTED.

INSTEAD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A TERRORIST HOUSING OR A ROW HOUSING WHERE THEY'RE ALL ACTUALLY CONNECTED AS, AS ONE E OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.

RIGHT? BUT YES, THIS, THE PICTURES ON THE LEFT, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE WERE SIX CONDOS THAT WERE PUT ON THAT LOT.

SO YOU HAVE SIX INDIVIDUAL UNITS, THEY ALL ONE STRUCTURE ON THAT? NO, THEY'RE ALL INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES.

OKAY.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU, THAT'S WHAT TIER ONE WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE IS WELL, WE, WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF, A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, SO TIER ONE IS JUST A COALITION IN NEIGHBORHOODS, SO IT'S NOT IN ITS OF ITSELF THIS, THIS BEING, BUT AS YOU KNOW, MANY OF THOSE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS, LAVACCA, SOUTHTOWN INCLUDED, UM, ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS KIND OF INFIELD DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A FIX.

AND SO IN, IN OUR N C D, WE DID DO, AS KAT SUGGESTED, AND WE LIMITED, UH, THAT TO WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.

SO THEN IT COULD NOT BE SOLD AS WELL.

IT COULD STILL BE SOLD AS AN INDIVIDUAL CONDO UNIT, JUST NOT, YEAH, I MEAN, TOWN HOMES ARE CONNECTED AND OFTEN SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS, STILL INDIVIDUAL UNIT.

SO FROM A REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF IF YOU HAVE A, A SHARED WALL WITH SOMEBODY ELSE VERSUS NOT, LET ME CLARIFY, TOWN HOMES ARE PLATTED INDIVIDUALLY, SO YOU CAN BUY BOTH THE STRUCTURE AND THE DIRT CONDOS, YOU SHARE THE DIRT, SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T BUY YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PIECE OF THE DIRT WHERE YOUR STRUCTURE IS, YOU SHARE THE DIRT.

UM, FOR THOSE PICTURES ON THE LEFT, THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE HEIGHT WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU.

[00:40:01]

WELL, SO WE'RE JUST, WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT'S WORKING FOR US.

AND A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS PROVIDE A LOT OF RENTAL HOUSING AND MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING.

BUT AS IN THE LETTER IT STATED, THAT'S IN THAT MISS MISSING MIDDLE.

SO WE MAY NOT HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES OF A HUNDRED UNITS, BUT WE HAVE LOTS OF DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, QUAD PLEXES.

SO THESE TWO PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICTS ARE, ARE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

NOW YOU HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, THAT ARE, UH, PROVIDE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO INFILL, UM, AND, AND, AND YOU'RE HAVING A LOT OF THIS GOING ON IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SEEING A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER, IN THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST FOR CLARITY BY, BY AFFORDABLE, I'M, I'M MEANING ACCESSIBLE TO YOUR AVERAGE YOUNG PROFESSIONAL, NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC HOUSING I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW? YEAH.

AND THOSE ARE SECONDARY ISSUES.

AGAIN, AS WE CAN PRESERVE AS MUCH HOUSING AS WE CAN, WE PRESERVE THAT AFFORDABILITY.

AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, MANKEY PARK IN PARTICULAR, IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT IS DEMOLISHED.

THAT THEN BECOMES TWO PARCELS THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP, OR TWO LOTS THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP SEPARATELY.

AND THEY'LL PUT TWO OF THOSE HOMES ON THERE AND IT GOES FROM FOUR UNITS TO TWO.