[00:00:01]
[Call to Order and Roll Call, Board Room]
IS ABOUT NINE OH FIVE.LET'S CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER AFTER.
MS. GIBBONS? MR. NEFF? MR. THI? MS. COHEN, MS. WRIGHT? MR. BENSON? MR. FERNANDEZ.
MR. COX? MS. TACKETT? MR. LEEMAN? MR. LIONHEART? MR. BROWN.
MR. WHITTINGTON? MR. MANNA? MR. CHERYL? MS. REED.
MR. PECK PRESENT AND ALSO WHILE YOU'RE DOING ROLL CALL, UH, MS. WRIGHT AND MR. NEFF WALKED IN.
SO THEY'RE HERE AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.
UH, AS A REMINDER, EVERYBODY, UH, BEFORE YOU LEAVE OR WHENEVER, UH, MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN ON THE SIGNIN SHEET.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FLOATING AROUND THE ROOM OR WHAT IT WAS UP THERE.
WELL, THERE WAS A SIGNIN SHEET.
MELISSA, WE HAVE MS. CAUSTIC AS ARRIVED.
AND JUST AS A REMINDER, UM, WE ARE LIVE STREAMING.
JUST AS A REMINDER, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.
AND MS. RAMOS, MELISSA AND MS. RAMOS RIGHT HERE.
ALRIGHT, MELISSA AND MR. WHITTING.
[1. Approval of minutes from the September 13, 2019, meeting]
LET'S MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS NUMBER ONE.UH, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2019 AGENDA.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MS. WRIGHT, A SECOND BY MR. HANLEY.
ANY OPPOSED? AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION OF MS. RAMOS.
TWO ABSTENTIONS, MS. BELL, DO I HEAR ANY MORE ABSTENTIONS? A MOTION CARRIES MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
[2. Discussion and possible action on proposed changes to Chapter 35, the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 35-111, relating to UDC Amendments, to require a Cost Impact Analysis be submitted with UDC Amendment requests. The PCTAC may discuss and consider changes to other relevant sections of the UDC in their deliberations. (Tony Felts, AICP, Development Services Policy Administrator, (210) 207-0153, tony.felts@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.THE FIRST ITEM IS, UH, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 35, UH, SECTION 35 DASH ONE ONE, UH, RELATING TO U D C AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE A COST IMPACT ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH U D C AMENDMENTS.
UH, PRESENTATION BY MR. PHELPS.
CAN YOU START THE PRESENTATION? MORNING.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ABOUT THE AMENDMENT AND WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
THIS IS FOR THE COST IMPACT ON A U D C AMENDMENT.
UH, THIS IS THE RESULT OF A COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST THAT WAS PROVIDED BY, UH, COUNCILMAN AYAS IN DISTRICT EIGHT TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR EACH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARD THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENTS.
AND, UM, WE MOVED KIND OF QUICKLY WITH A TASK FORCE TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS READY AND HAVE IT READY FOR 2020.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THE U D C DOES ESTABLISH A FIVE YEAR UPDATE PROCESS THAT OCCURS, UM, EVERY FIVE YEARS AND YEARS BEGAN, UH, I'M SORRY, ENDING IN ZERO AND FIVE.
SO THE LAST TIME WE DID IT WAS IN 2015, AND WE'RE DOING IT AGAIN IN 2020.
THERE'LL BE A BRIEFING LATER ON IN THIS MEETING ABOUT THE 2020 U D C PROCESS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE WITH US IN 2015 FOR IT, UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE IS TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY, ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT COSTS, UM, REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAWS, AND TO REFLECT NEW INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE U D C IS NOT A STATIC DOCUMENT.
AND FROM TIME TO TIME, IN THE INTERVENING FIVE YEARS BETWEEN THE REGULAR UPDATES, THERE CAN BE A NUMBER OF KIND OF ONE OFF UPDATES THAT USUALLY ARISE FROM A COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST.
[00:05:01]
UM, SINCE 2015, WE'VE HAD 11 OUT OF CYCLE U D C AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL.SOME OF THE LARGER ONES THAT WE'VE HAD WERE SHORT TERM RENTALS, WHICH YOU ALL REMEMBER OUR MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT UPDATE, OUR HABITAT COMPLIANCE FORM UPDATE, UM, OUR ZONING SIGN AND COURTESY NOTIFICATION CHANGES.
AND OF COURSE, THE ONES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR TODAY, UM, AND I KNOW SOME OF THOSE ARE PROBABLY GIVING EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM A LITTLE BIT OF SHUTTERS BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER WORKING ON SOME OF THOSE.
BUT THE, THE BASIC PROCESS FOR THOSE OUT OF CYCLE AMENDMENTS IS WE PUT TOGETHER A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS AND INDUSTRY LEADERS, UM, TO DEVELOP THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
OF COURSE, THIS BODY, THE TAC REVIEWS, IT MAKES THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION ULTIMATELY TO CITY COUNCIL WHO ENDS UP PASSING THE ORDINANCE.
SO THE PROCESS FOR THE C C R THAT WE WENT THROUGH, UM, WE PUT TOGETHER A STAKEHOLDER GROUP OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND INDUSTRY LEADERS.
UM, THERE WERE THREE MEETINGS.
THEY REVIEWED THE CURRENT PROCESS, AND OF COURSE, IF YOU, AS YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF COST IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE U D C AMENDMENTS.
UM, WE LOOKED AT BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, UM, THEIR COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND THE LIKE, UM, ALREADY HAVE A COST IMPACT REQUIREMENT.
IT'S A PRETTY BASIC, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT WAS RELATIVELY EASY, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INDUSTRY EXPERTS, TO BE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE ENDED UP THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED TO ADD LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE COST IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THEY INCREASE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT, THEY DECREASE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT, OR HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND WHAT WE SAID WAS, WELL, IT'S NOT JUST ENOUGH TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE COST OR IT IS GOING TO INCREASE COST, BUT WE WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DOCUMENTATION KIND OF LOOKING WHAT IS THE BASE COST? SO IF A HOUSE COSTS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO BUILD RIGHT NOW, THIS NEW AMENDMENT, IS IT GONNA COST $20,000 MORE OR $20,000 LESS, OR IT'S STILL GONNA COST A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BASIC IDEA OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
UM, ALSO SOME DISCUSSION CAME UP IN THE TASK FORCE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO DATES FOR U D C AMENDMENTS.
ONE IS MAY 1ST, WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN OUR DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF U D C AMENDMENTS.
THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER DATE TALKING ABOUT JULY 1ST.
NOW, HISTORICALLY, WE'VE INTERPRETED THAT JULY 1ST DATE TO MEAN IF WE NEED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR A U D C AMENDMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT WE HAVE UNTIL JULY 1ST RECEIVE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE HOKEY.
YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THAT IN THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TASK FORCE WAS TO REMOVE THE JULY 1ST DATE, AND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO RECEIVE, UM, UPDATES TO THOSE CHANGES, EITHER AS DIRECTED BY ATTACK OR AS DIRECTED THROUGH MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT HARD AND FAST DEADLINE OF JULY 1ST.
WE'LL STILL HAVE THE, WE'LL STILL HAVE THE MAY 1ST DEADLINE FOR THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL AFTER THAT.
SO WHAT WE SAID IS IT'LL BE BASICALLY A POLICY ACTION FOR US.
WE'LL LOOK AT DOING, IF MORE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED, WE'LL SAY 30 DAYS OR WE'LL REACH OUT TO THEM.
AND IF THEY DON'T EVER RESPOND BACK TO US, THE AMENDMENT JUST WON'T GO FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION.
ESSENTIALLY, THE FEAR WAS, IS THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING A SIGNIFICANT LOAD OF AMENDMENTS THIS YEAR, AND THAT STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE TIME BETWEEN MAY AND JULY TO VET IT ALL.
SO THERE COULD BE THE NEED TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AFTER JULY ONE, ONE, FRANK, NO, NOT, NOT YET.
UM, AND FOR BASICALLY FOR EACH U D C APPLICATION, THE COST IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD CONSIDER THE INITIAL COSTS, LIKE I'VE TALKED ABOUT, LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS, CITY COSTS, WHICH IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE FORGOTTEN COSTS SOMETIMES WITH PERSONNEL AND ENFORCEMENT.
AND, UM, TO QUANTIFY THOSE CURRENT COST BASELINES AND PROJECTIONS, VERY, VERY SIMPLE.
YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE A MATTER, ESPECIALLY AS A LAY PERSON OF JUST, UH, CALLING A CONCRETE CONTRACTOR AND SAY, WELL, IF WE WANTED FIVE EXTRA FEET ON A SIDEWALK, WHAT WOULD THAT COST US? AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE U D C AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO GET THEM ON HAND FOR, UH, 2020.
AND WE, SO WE'VE GOT THE CHANGES FOR THE U D C AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE U D C UH, AMENDMENT APPLICATION FORM TO ADD THE, UH, COST IMPACT STATEMENT.
AND I THINK YOU HAVE ALL THOSE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
[00:10:01]
MOVE ON.IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, CITIZENS THAT WISHES TO TALK ABOUT THIS? HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM? FIRST
I REALLY HADN'T PLANNED ANY, UH, TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE I WAS MORE FOCUSED ON THE OTHER ITEM THAT YOU'LL BE, UH, DISCUSSING THIS MORNING.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? SURE.
OSI MCCOLLIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZIP CODE 7 8 2 1 2, DISTRICT ONE.
SO, BUT I DO WANNA SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN A SENSE, NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO, IF WE HAVE CONCERNS, IF WE HAVE CHANGES THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE MADE TO THE U D C THAT WE WORK ON THAT, THAT WE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER.
AND ALTHOUGH TONY, UM, MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SIMPLE, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, CITY COST, THE CITY PERSONNEL, HOW, HOW DO WE GET THAT INFORMATION? IS THAT INFORMATION THAT'S READILY AVAILABLE TO US? SO I AM CONCERNED, I, I REALIZE THE PRUDENCE OF REQUIRING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AMENDMENT WRITER, BUT I WOULD ALSO BE CONCERNED WHERE THAT WOULD TIP OVER INTO, UH, UNDUE BURDEN FOR THE LAY PEOPLE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE HAS A COMMENT? OKAY.
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO, OH, IT IS, UH, NINE 15 AND MS. TACKETT HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
ANYWAY, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE TAC MEMBERS.
WE'LL START ON MY LEFT WITH MR. LEY.
TONY, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THIS COST IMPACT ANALYSIS, BUT IN THE, UH, AMENDMENT OR THE HANDOUT THAT YOU PASSED OUT, IT STATES ADD LANGUAGE TO SECTION 35 1 11 REQUIRING REQUEST FOR U D C AMENDMENTS MADE DURING AND OUTSIDE OF THE FIVE YEAR U D C PROCESS TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT REGARDING COST IMPACT PROPOSAL.
SO IS IT OUTSIDE THE CYCLE OR IS IT ALL IT WOULD BE ALL, OKAY.
ALL U D C AMENDMENTS, BUT THE ONES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF CYCLE USUALLY COME TO STAFF FROM A C C R.
SO IT WOULD BE STAFF'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT TOGETHER THAT COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THAT WAS MY SECOND QUESTION IS STAFF PREPARES A COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
DOES THE APPLICANT WHO SUBMITS THE REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ALSO HAVE TO SUBMIT A COST IMPACT ANALYSIS? SO STAFF WOULD ONLY PREPARE THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CITY AMENDMENTS.
IF THEY WERE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS, SAY FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION OR SARAH OR SOMEWHERE LIKE THAT, IT WOULD BE THAT AGENCY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT TOGETHER THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
AND THEN HOW DOES THE CITY VERIFY THAT COST IMPACT PREPARED OUTSIDE THE CITY? THE CITY WOULD REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE REQUIRED DATA IS THERE.
WE WOULD NOT REVIEW THE, UM, QUALITY OF THE DATA, IF YOU WILL.
THAT WOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE TAC AS PART OF THE, THE REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE TAC.
THERE'S A, UH, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT IN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE COST.
YEAH, IT'S NOT PART OF THE AMENDMENT.
UM, SO INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES CAN SUBMIT AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE, UM, MORE THAN CLARIFYING OR EDITING.
HOWEVER, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL STEP IN THE PROCESS WHEN TAC REVIEWS THOSE.
UM, IN MID-MAY WHEN WE HAVE OUR FIRST 2020 TAC MEETING, UH, THE TAC IS GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS EDITING OR CLARIFYING OR BEYOND EDITING OR CLARIFYING IF THEY'RE BEYOND EDITING OR CLARIFYING.
THOSE WOULD GO TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR DISCRETION COULD CHOOSE TO SPONSOR THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SO THE ANSWER IS THEY DON'T AUTOMATICALLY MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN SPONSOR THOSE.
AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OF THOSE IN 2015 CYCLE
[00:15:05]
THAT THAT'S CORRECT.AN INDIVIDUAL TO THE CITY OR CORRECT.
AN AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT COME OUT OF CYCLE.
THE ONLY, UM, AGENCY THAT CAN DO OR, UH, START OUT OF CYCLE AMENDMENTS AS CITY COUNCIL.
WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE QUESTIONS, UH, MS. KOSTIC.
SO, UH, GETTING BACK TO SIMA'S COMMENT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY BEING ABLE TO PREPARE THE, UH, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, HELP FROM THE CITY TO DO THIS AT ALL, THE CITY WOULD NOT PUT TOGETHER THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
WE WOULD ONLY REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WELL, DOES THAT MEAN WHAT IT IS, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS THAT IT THAT THEY PROVIDED? CORRECT.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS PUTTING THE AMENDMENT FORWARD TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THE CITY STAFF'S ROLE AND THOSE THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY EXTERNAL AGENCIES WOULD ONLY BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION AND STATEMENT ARE ACTUALLY THERE.
AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE TAC TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR THE TAC DELIBERATIONS.
MS. JUNE, WHAT? OH, THIS IS GONNA BE BRAND NEW THAT THIS IS GOING, THIS WOULD THEN GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? YES, MA'AM.
SO ONCE TAC UM, PROVIDES THEIR RECOMMENDATION, IT WOULD GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE ULTIMATELY GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND KAT, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THIS WEDNESDAY'S PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
IT'S ON THIS WEDNESDAY'S PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ALREADY.
YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, BUT WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THIS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS THAT ARE MADE? I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER.
UM, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE TAC GETS ARE REALLY EDITING AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE U D C MATCHES, YOU KNOW, WHAT EXISTING POLICY IS.
UM, BUT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT IT WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS AT ALL.
UM, AS SOMEONE WHO DEALS IN THESE COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION ALL THE TIME, STRIKES ME THAT THAT COULD BE A PRETTY TIME CONSUMING EXERCISE TO TRY TO DO IT AND TRY TO DO IT RIGHT.
AND I WOULD KIND OF AGREE WITH A LADY THERE WHO TALKED EARLIER THAT I COULD SEE THAT'D BE A DAUNTING EXERCISE, PERHAPS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OR EVEN A SMALL GROUP TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A COST ESTIMATE.
AND THEN IT STRIKES ME AS A FAIRLY DAUNTING EXERCISE FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT IT AND OTHER EXERCISE FOR, IF I'M HEARING IT RIGHT, FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO BE LOOKING AT THAT, UH, COST ESTIMATE THAT COMES, HAS TO COME IN WITH THE REPORT AND SAY WHO, WHO THINKS THIS IS OKAY, RAISE YOUR HAND.
WHO THINKS IT IS RAISE, RAISE YOUR HAND.
I MEAN, I AGREE 100% WITH THE IDEA OF PUTTING A COST TESTIMATE TO THESE PERHAPS LET'S SAY SOMETIME FRIVOLOUS, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, EXERCISES AND LET'S MEND THIS MEN THAT.
BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE TRICKIER THAN SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK.
AND PROBABLY JUST AS TRICKY AS MELISSA THINKS IT'S GOING TO BE
2015, I BELIEVE 2015, IN 2015 THERE WAS 260 AMENDMENTS.
BUT WITH THIS, JUST LIKE Y'ALL ARE,
[00:20:03]
AND REALLY THE IDEA BEHIND THE AMENDMENT AND BEHIND COUNCILMAN ELAS DOING THE C C R WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COST OF BUILDING HOUSING DOES NOT BALLOON OUT OF CONTROL IN SAN ANTONIO.AND THAT WE STILL PRESERVE, UM, OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, STOCK AND OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS IN SAN ANTONIO.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE REASON BEHIND THE AMENDMENT, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO QUANTIFY A LITTLE BIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COSTS THAT ARE COMING FROM THE U D C AMENDMENTS.
MS. GIBBONS, MS. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE 260 AMENDMENTS THAT YOU DID 2015, WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE TIMEFRAME TO HAVE ADDED COST ON THOSE? IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THAT WELL, OR STAFF, SINCE THERE WASN'T A REQUIREMENT IN THERE, IT, IT WOULD BE KIND OF HARD TO, TO LOOK BACK AT, UH, AT A TIMELINE BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING IS THE APPLICATION, THE, WHEN THE APPLICATION COMES IN BY MAY 1ST, YOU'RE ALREADY GONNA HAVE THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS FROM, FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, WE WOULD'VE JUST BUILT IN TIME TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.
OR, OR I'M SORRY TO REVIEW THE SUBMITTALS.
UM, THE ACTUAL TIMELINE IS ALREADY SET BY THE U D C.
SO WE START RECEIVING AMENDMENTS ON JANUARY 1ST.
WE STOP RECEIVING AMENDMENTS ON MAY 1ST.
UM, THE TAX WORKS FROM MAY UNTIL OCTOBER.
BY OCTOBER YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE, UH, TAX RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND THEN BY DECEMBER 1ST, THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HAVE TO HAVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL WHO HAS TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN TIME FOR IT TO BE EFFECTIVE.
SO THE TIMELINE IS BASICALLY ALREADY SET AND THERE'S REALLY NO WIGGLE ROOM BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SET WITH THOSE SPECIFIC DATES IN THE U D C.
SO YOUR STAFF'S GONNA BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE U D C AMENDMENTS PLUS PUT A COST ANALYSIS ON EACH OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE TIMELINE, IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING FROM D S D THAT WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON, OUR STAFF THAT ARE SUBMITTING THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADVISED TO WORK ON THEIR COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE ALREADY, UM, SUCH AS T C I O H P, NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES.
I THINK I'M MISSING ONE, BUT THOSE DEPARTMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS COMING DOWN THE PIKE.
AND, UM, WE'VE ALSO NOTIFIED THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THIS IS COMING.
YOU, SO HOW DOES THAT THEN COME TO TACK? ARE YOU BRINGING IT, IT, IT DOES SOUND TEDIOUS, LIKE YOU SAY.
UM, SO HOW ARE YOU GONNA BRING THAT THEN HERE TO, TO TAC TO REVIEW? THOSE ARE IN ALL ONE LUMPS.
SO, SO TONY HAS DEBBIE REED AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ANNOUNCE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROCESS BEING ADDED TO THE U D C AMENDMENT.
AND I KEEP THINKING THERE MAY BE A NO ABILITY TO HAVE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FORTH.
AND THEN AS THEY GO THROUGH A SIFTING PROCESSES, THEN BEFORE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GET TO A COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING THAT A MORE DETAILED ECONOMIC ANALYSIS COULD BE DONE.
AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE INPUT FROM NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS PROCESS.
AND IT SEEMS THAT IT IS ELIMINATING THAT ABILITY TO SOME DEGREE.
SO, AND THEN OF COURSE, I KNOW THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A PRIMARY, UM, ISSUE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SO MANY OTHER BOTTOM LINES LIKE THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE AND HOW THAT AFFECTS, UM, COMMUNITIES AND, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CU SAN ANTONIO.
[00:25:01]
JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT, THAT FIRST POINT, UM, IT'S ALREADY A CON VERY CONDENSED TIMELINE.SO BY MAY 1ST, WHEN ALL THE SUBMITTALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, IT'S A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME THAT STAFF HAS TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
MELISSA MENTIONED THE 260 IN 2015, THAT STARTED AT ALMOST 600 AND, UH, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL 600 AMENDMENTS.
SO IF YOU WERE TO NOT REQUIRE THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND THEN COME BACK AND REQUEST IT LATER, THAT'S GONNA ADD SEVERAL WEEKS TO THE PROCESS FOR US WAITING ON THOSE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
AND THAT'S GONNA PUT A HOLD ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT TAC HAS TO MEET, BECAUSE TAC HAS TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM, UH, MAY UNTIL OCTOBER, AND IT'S MEETING EVERY WEEK, SOMETIMES TWICE A WEEK, SOMETIMES ALL DAY IN THAT WEEK.
SO WE ARE, AND WE BARELY GOT THROUGH IT IN 2015, WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE IN 2020.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO TIME TO NOT REQUIRE IT ON THE FRONT END VERSUS REQUIRING IT ON THE BACK END.
AND I GUESS IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME SUBMITTALS TIME BEFORE THEN FOR REVIEW IF THEY DON'T COME IN WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS.
IF, IF THE SUBMITTAL COMES IN WITHOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, UM, MY STAFF IS GOING TO IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THAT APPLICANT AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE NEED THAT IN ORDER FOR THE, UM, FOR THE AMENDMENT TO, TO MOVE FORWARD.
IF WE DON'T RECEIVE IT, THE AMENDMENT IS JUST NOT GOING TO BE MOVED FORWARD AND IT'S JUST GONNA DIE AT THAT POINT.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE JULY THE FIRST DEADLINE, THEN THAT'S THE MAY 1ST DEADLINE.
BUT IF WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE WOULD REACH OUT TO THEM AND GIVE THEM A, A TIMEFRAME.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY COME TO US ON JANUARY 1ST WITH THEIR PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS, WHICH BY THE WAY, FOR EVERYBODY LISTENING, WE PREFER THAT WE PREFER THEM TO COME EARLY RATHER THAN LATER.
BUT IF THEY RE, IF THEY PROVIDED US AN AMENDMENT PACKAGE THAT DIDN'T HAVE 'EM ON JANUARY 1ST, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY REACH OUT AND SAY, HEY, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? 15 DAYS, 20 DAYS, 30 DAYS? AND WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE AMENDMENTS PROCESSED.
SO CHERISE BE, UM, I AGREE THAT THIS IS A GOOD CONCEPT TO HAVE, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE.
UM, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT TO GET INFORMATION.
SO MAYBE TO HAVE AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD, THE CITY SHOULD HAVE A DATA SHEET, LIKE WHAT DOES IT COST FOR RESIDENTIAL? WHAT'S THE AVERAGE? IS IT A HUNDRED PER SQUARE FOOT? IS IT, YOU KNOW, 150 PER SQUARE FOOT? MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN IN ZIP CODES.
WHAT'S THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR SAY A COMMERCIAL? THAT WAY, AT LEAST EVERYBODY, WHETHER YOU ARE, UM, A BUSINESS OR AN INDIVIDUAL CAN LOOK AT THESE FIGURES AND EVERYONE'S ON, YOU KNOW, USING THE SAME DATA INSTEAD OF GETTING THEIR INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
SO A DATA SHEET MIGHT BE, UM, GOOD INFORMATION OR LINKS TO WHERE YOU CAN GO FOR IT.
I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.
I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST CODIFYING THAT DATA SHEET.
NO, NOT CODIFY IT, JUST TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE AS A, A RESEARCH RESOURCE.
AND I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK ON AND, AND HAVE ON THE WEBSITE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION IS OUT AVAILABLE.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS PERHAPS THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULD ASSIST THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR GROUPS, UM, WITH SOME OF THIS DATA.
NOT WRITE THE REPORTS, BUT HELP THEM ALONG.
AND THEN THAT TAKES SOME OF THE BURDEN OFF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO N H S D AND SEE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
I'M SORRY, MY LIGHT DOESN'T WORK,
UM, SO I WAS ACTUALLY A MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE THAT MET, UM, TO DISCUSS THIS AMENDMENT.
SO I'M ACTUALLY HAVING A BIT OF DEJA VU HERE.
UM, SO WE DEFINITELY DID TAKE A LOT OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE IMPACT TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS.
WE KNOW THAT, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS ARE MORE AND MORE SUBMITTING AMENDMENTS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE.
SO, UH, WE TRIED TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, GETTING THE INFORMATION WE NEED, BUT ALSO NOT MAKING, NOT PUTTING UP BARRIERS TO FOLKS WHO MAYBE AREN'T, UM, SO MUCH IN THE KNOW.
SO, UM, SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME, UH, SOME DIFFERENCES IN THE LEVEL OF COMPLEX, THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY THAT THAT OF THE ANALYSIS.
WE MAY HAVE SOME ENGINEERS THAT DO A VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS, UM, THEY'RE USING T C I UNIT COSTING THAT, THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THEN, UM, WE HAVE MAY HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS THAT DON'T HAVE THE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.
AND WHAT WE BASICALLY DISCUSSED IS THAT'S,
[00:30:01]
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TAC AND WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF EXPERTISE ON TAC AND SO THAT THEY CAN, THEY CAN REVIEW THOSE AND, AND SORT OF WEIGHT THOSE FACTORS AND, AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.SO, SO FOR, YOU KNOW, A, A BIG PART OF THE TIME WE HAD SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE A LOT MORE COMPLEX AND THEN WE ACTUALLY, UH, SCALED THOSE BACK AT THE END SO THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T PUTTING UP THE BARRIERS.
SO I THINK WHAT CAME OUT IS, IS A, IS A PRETTY GOOD COMPROMISE THAT WEIGHS ALL OF THOSE FACTORS.
YEAH, JUST ECHOING, THIS IS PHILIP, UM, MANNA, UH, ECHOING WHAT, UH, PRIOR COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID.
UM, SO I, I, I REGULARLY ENGAGE IN, WE'LL SAY, UH, MULTI-YEAR PLANNING EFFORTS, AND THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, WE'LL SAY A DAY ONE ESTIMATE WHEN YOU COME IN AND DO YOUR FIRST ANALYSIS, UH, VERSUS WHEN YOU'RE GETTING DOWN TO THE, TO YOUR FINAL ANALYSIS.
AND SO I GUESS THAT, UM, WHEN WE GO AND APPROACH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT I WORKED WITH, THE DAY ONE, YOU KNOW, WAS, WAS A FIVE MINUTE, 10 MINUTE DISCUSSION TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE COST BUDGET WAS GONNA BE.
AND SO VERY SIMPLE AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MONTHS POSSIBLY FOR THE, FOR THE MORE DETAILED ONES.
SO I'M HOPING THAT THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE THAT WE'RE EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO DO IS MORE ALONG THE LINE OF, OF BACK OF THE NAPKIN KIND OF SHORT ANALYSIS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THAT IS A PRETTY HEAVY BURDEN FOR EVERYBODY.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAY OUTWEIGH EVEN THE COST OF BRINGING ANYTHING IN.
SO I WOULD HATE TO, YOU KNOW, DENY ANYBODY OR, OR PROHIBIT ANYBODY FROM WANTING TO GO THROUGH THAT TASK.
AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
UM, AND SOME OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHO ARE, THAT WERE THERE ARE ACTUALLY ON THIS COMMITTEE, AND THAT IS ONE THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN DETAIL WAS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR KIND OF A BACK OF THE NAPKIN ANALYSIS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A 10 OR 20 PAGE PROFESSIONALLY PROFESSIONAL REPORT, BUT IT IS JUST THOSE SIMPLE COST ESTIMATES BACK TO THE NAPKIN TYPE OF THING IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
ALAN NEFF HERE, UM, I HAD COMMENTS AND THEN PHILIP JUST CHANGED WHAT I'M THINKING.
UM, I DO COST ESTIMATES A LOT FOR MY PROJECTS, AND MY PROJECTS AREN'T LARGE, THEY'RE NOT SUPER COMPLEX.
WELL, SOME OF 'EM ARE COMPLEX, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY LARGE.
UM, AND THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC TO A LOCATION AND A TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING NOW IS BACK OF THE NAPKIN TYPE NUMBERS, WHAT THOSE MEAN TO ME ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
THEY ARE NOT GONNA BE ACCURATE.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA GIVE US ANY DATA THAT MATTERS.
THEY'RE JUST GONNA BE AN EXERCISE IN WASTING TIME.
UH, BACK OF THE NAPKIN NUMBER, UH, IS NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT A PARTICULAR CODE AMENDMENT HAS TO, WHAT ITS IMPLICATIONS WILL BE ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THE SAN ANTONIO AREA BECAUSE A CHANGE IN 7 8 2 3 2 IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A CHANGE IN 7 8 2 0 5 OR SEVEN EIGHT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, WHATEVER.
PART OF THE CITY HAS A VERY DIFFERENT LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY, A DIFFERENT COST BURDEN.
UM, AND I DON'T SEE THIS ROOM IN ALL OF OUR, UH, VARYING LEVELS OF EXPERTISE, WHICH WE HAVE A LOT OF THEM, THAT ANY ONE OF US IS CAPABLE OF LOOKING AT 300 CODE AMENDMENTS AND QUICKLY REVIEWING BACK OF THE NAPKIN NUMBERS AND SAYING, YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
THERE'S JUST NO WAY THAT WE WILL BE CAPABLE OF THAT.
I DON'T THINK CITY STAFF IS CAPABLE, CAPABLE OF THAT.
AND REALLY IT'S, UH, NOT GONNA AMOUNT TO ANYTHING GOOD OTHER THAN WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.
AND THEN WHERE I WAS GONNA SAY IS PUTTING THE BURDEN UPON GROUPS THAT ARE TRYING TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT THAT WILL BE LIMITED IN THEIR CAPABILITY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE OF PUTTING COST ESTIMATE NUMBERS LIKE THIS TOGETHER.
IT'S GOING TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO ENTITIES AND GROUPS THAT CAN AFFORD THE BIG ENGINEERING FIRMS, THE BIG ATTORNEY FIRMS BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IT WOULD TAKE TO DO ONE OF THESE NUMBERS CORRECTLY.
AND I JUST DON'T SEE THAT WORKING OUT.
I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING, AND I DON'T SEE THE POINT IN PUTTING THE BURDEN ON OUR ENTIRE CITY AND ON US FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA AMOUNT TO MUCH IN THE END.
I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKED WHAT, UM, THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE.
I THINK THAT WHILE I AGREE WITH ALAN THAT TO GET TO SOME VERY DETAILED NUMBERS AS SUBSTANTIAL WORK, BOTH, I WAS AT THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE WHEN, UH, COUNCILMAN AYAS PRESENTED THIS.
AND IN TALKING TO A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE, PART OF
[00:35:01]
THE GOAL WAS NOT NECESSARILY PERFECT NUMBERS, BUT WAS TO BEGIN A DIALOGUE.SO EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT, IS THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET TO WHATEVER NEW REGULATION YOU'RE LOOKING AT? AND SO THERE ARE WAYS TO DO ORDER OF MAGNITUDE THAT MAYBE YOU START OUT ASKING FOR, I WANT THIS THING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND THIS CHANGE ARCHITECTURALLY WHEN THE REAL GOAL WAS SOMETHING MORE COMPATIBLE AND THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANOTHER WAY TO GET THERE, THIS CAN BEGIN TO IDENTIFY AND MAKE EVERYONE THINK ABOUT FROM ANYONE PROPOSING ALL THE WAY UP TO A COUNCIL MEMBER ADOPTING IT, OR EVEN A COUNCIL MEMBER PROPOSING A C C R THAT WE'RE THINKING THROUGH THAT THAT COSTS ARE PART OF THE DIALOGUE.
UM, ADDING A THIRD TREE ON A LOT MAY BE COST EFFECTIVE, BUT ADDING 10 TREES MAY NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE.
LET'S FIND A WAY IN BETWEEN TO DO THAT.
AND SO THIS TO ME WAS VERY, IT GIVES SOMEONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT DETAILS OR A HIGH LEVEL OF JUST HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO, HAVE TRIED TO ACCOMPLISH SOME LEVEL OF COST, AND THEN THE COMMITTEE TAC AND CITY STAFF GOING FORWARD WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, YES, OR THEY'RE NOT GONNA DIVE INTO GREAT DETAIL OF THIS NUMBER IS PERFECT, OR THIS ISN'T, OR IT'S REALLY $1,273 A LOT INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, 954.
IT'S THAT IT DOES COME WITH A COST.
AND ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES? I THINK IT'S A GREAT TOOL TO OPEN THAT DIALOGUE AND WE'VE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE ON THAT DIALOGUE TO BE FINDING, UM, A BALANCE.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ISN'T, AS A NEW REGULATION ISN'T GOOD AND EVERYTHING ISN'T BAD, IT'S A WHAT ARE THOSE GIVE AND TAKES AND WHERE DO WE BEGIN A CONVERSATION AROUND COST.
SO I THINK IT WAS A GREAT START.
IT IS GENERAL ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE CAN FIND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SUCH A DIVERSITY OF TYPES OF REVISIONS THAT THIS ISN'T TOO PRESCRIPTIVE, THAT IT DOES GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
MORNING JENNIFER RAMOS, UM, CONVERSATION'S BEEN GREAT.
I THINK THE CONCEPT EVERYBODY, THE MAJORITY OF EVERYBODY HERE AGREES TO THE CONCEPT IS REALLY GOOD AND PROBABLY NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.
UM, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS.
I LIKE WHAT CHERIE SAID ABOUT PROVIDING SOME TYPE OF RESOURCE FOR THE LAYMAN OR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A GREAT IDEA, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW MUCH THAT REALLY IS GONNA IMPACT.
AND SO JUST TO GET EVERYBODY KIND OF AN AN AVERAGE OR USE THOSE SAME KIND OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, UM, WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOR, UM, ANYONE WHO'S GONNA BE SUBMITTING.
SO I, I CAN AGREE, BUT I, I THINK IT DOES NEED SOME LITTLE MASSAGING ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO BE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY, UM, FOR, FOR THESE GROUPS THAT ARE, THAT HAVE A GOOD INTENT, BUT THEY ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF WHAT TAKES FOR STAFF TIME OR THE LOT SIZE OR THE EXTRA TREE AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MINOR MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW DOES THAT IMPLEMENT OR IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOODS IF, IF THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BY CITY STAFF.
UM, I WAS ALSO ON THAT TASK FORCE THAT LOOKED THIS, AND WE DID TO ECHO MICHAEL'S COMMENTS, HAD A TON OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, THE EQUITY OF, OF THE REQUIREMENT.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL FELT THAT, UH, THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PROCESS TO BEGIN, THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE NOT DO CHANGES IN A VACUUM WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE CHANGES.
AND, UM, THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE WERE APPROACHING AND THE WAY CITY STAFF WAS APPROACHING THIS, THAT WE COULD GET TO SOME REASONABLENESS ABOUT, ITS WHETHER IT WAS EQUITY AND WHETHER THINGS HAD BEEN CONS, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED, WE DID NOT EXPECT TO HAVE HARD, FAST NUMBERS IN A FULL BLOWN PRESENTATION, BUT WE DID WANT PEOPLE, EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE AN ENTITY, A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ENTITY, AN INDIVIDUAL, TO HAVE AT LEAST PUT THAT ON THEIR RADAR THAT, THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS.
AND, UM, AND THAT WE HAD ENOUGH EXPERTISE IN THIS ROOM AND ENOUGH LIVELY DISCUSSION AND OPINIONS TO PROBABLY, UH, DIRECT IT.
WHETHER THAT IS WAS TOO LOW OR, UH, OUT, YOU KNOW, A REASONABLE EXPECTATION, WE CAN GET FEEDBACK FROM THIS GROUP WITHOUT GETTING TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS, I BELIEVE.
SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS OBVIOUSLY AFTER LOTS OF DISCUSSION.
UH, I THINK IT IS A PLACE TO START AND I THINK
[00:40:01]
THAT THIS GROUP CAN BE SOMEWHAT OF A FILTER BY THE TIME IT GETS TO US THAT WILL ENABLE US TO DO A BETTER JOB OF REALLY UNDERSTANDING RAMIFICATIONS OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.UM, NOT REALLY TOO MANY MORE COMMENTS TO SAY I GUESS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, TRYING TO REMEMBER ALL THE FUN WE HAD IN 2015, IF, IF, IF I WERE TO GUESS, I WOULD SAY LESS THAN 50% OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HEARD PROBABLY EVEN HAD A COST IMPACT.
MOST OF IT WAS PROBABLY SEMANTICS, WORD CHANGES, THINGS THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO COST ASSOCIATED WITH.
IT WAS THE BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT, THAT WERE THE ONES THAT, THAT, THAT HAD A COST.
AND THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED WHEN WE HEARD THOSE ITEMS WAS, WELL, HOW MUCH IS THIS GONNA COST? AND THEN WE SPEND HOURS DELIBERATING THE COST INSTEAD OF HAVING SOMETHING IN FRONT OF US TO START WITH.
SO THERE IS PROBABLY THE KEY REASON WHY I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S MORE THE BIGGER ISSUES.
LIKE T C I COMES IN AND WANTS, YOU KNOW, FOUR INCHES OF ASPHALT INSTEAD OF INCH AND A HALF ON LOCAL STREETS.
WELL, WHAT'S THE COST OF THAT? HOW, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE COST OF A HOUSE OR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? WHAT IS IT? SO, UM, I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS, GEORGE.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU MENTIONING THAT.
UM, THERE ARE MANY AMENDMENTS THAT CAME ACROSS THE TABLE BACK IN 2015, BUT MANY OF THEM WERE CLAR, CLERICAL, OR CLARIFYING.
THERE WAS MANY THAT WERE, UM, NOT POLICY CHANGES.
I THINK THE POLICY CHANGES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT IMPACT ANALYSIS IS GONNA BE VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, AND SO WE WILL, WHEN WE PRESENT THESE, WE TYPICALLY PRESENT THEM IN THOSE TYPES OF CATEGORIES.
SO YOU'RE AWARE OF IT WALKING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, STARTING TO EVALUATE THOSE DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL KNOW.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE DOING THOSE EVALUATIONS, LISTEN, UM, WELL, WE'VE GONE AROUND THE ROOM.
IS THERE MORE? WE'LL, JUST SHOW OF HANDS, THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS MR. COX.
SO I THINK I APPRECIATE HEARING EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES AND I THINK JUST, I, I WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED, I THINK WHAT MS. TACKETT SAID AND, AND KIND OF ALIGNING WITH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IN TERMS OF THE INTENT OF THIS AND MS. WRIGHT, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AS WELL.
UM, BUT ALSO I CAN SEE THIS, LIKE, I'M LOOKING INTO MY CRYSTAL BALL INTO THE FUTURE AND I CAN SEE THERE NEEDING TO BE AN IB WRITTEN ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, LIKE AFTER NEXT SUMMER, AFTER WE GO THROUGH IT AND WE GO, OH GOSH, WE LEARNED THIS, WE LEARNED THIS, BUT GOOD NEWS IS WE'LL HAVE FIVE YEARS TO WRITE THE IB, RIGHT? JOKING,
UM, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY CLARITY OR COLOR WE CAN ADD TO THIS SOMEWHERE TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THE INTENT MAYBE IN THE NARRATIVE OF THE DOCUMENT, OR IS THERE SOMEWHERE ELSE WE CAN DO THAT? SO WE'VE GOT THE APPLICATION AND WE CERTAINLY ANTICIPATE DOING A, A BRIEF IB JUST TO LAY OUT SOME EXPECTATIONS.
AND JUST EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, WE ALWAYS REASSESS AT THE END OF EVERY TACK PROCESS.
WE DID IT IN 2016 AFTER 2015, AND I IMAGINE, WELL, IN FACT, I KNOW IN 2021 WE'LL BE DOING IT AGAIN.
UM, AND SO YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE A GUINEA PIG FOR EVERYBODY IN 2020.
UM, AND WE CAN TAKE THOSE LESSONS LEARNED IN 2021 AND MAKE TWEAKS WHERE WE NEED TO AND MAKE TWEAKS TO THE IB WHERE WE NEED TO AS WELL.
IF I CAN ADD ONE MORE THING, UM, WE ARE PLANNING TO DO, UH, SOME D S D ACADEMIES ON SATURDAY MORNING AND THEN ALSO DOING SOME ROAD SHOWS ON THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS.
THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT, UM, IMPACT ANALYSIS WILL BE A PART OF THAT.
SO WE CAN PROVIDE EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION BULLETIN AND HOW TO, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WILL ALL BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS COMING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.
SECOND, A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY MR. HANLEY, A SECOND BY MS. TACKETT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME BEING NONE? UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, LET'S DO SHOW OF HANDS.
AYES SHOW OF HANDS AND OPPOSED? RAISE YOUR HAND.
MELISSA, DID YOU GET THOSE? THE TWO, UM, WAS, UM, DEBBIE REED AND ELLEN NEFF, AND EVERYONE ELSE, I BELIEVE WAS IN SUPPORT.
UH, TONY DID, YOU HAD A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT YOU WERE GONNA MAKE BEFORE WE EVEN GOT STARTED, BUT I DON'T THAT, I'M SORRY.
I JUST WANTED TO, UH, MOST OF YOU KNOW MONIQUE, UM, SHE'S BEEN OUR SENIOR PLANNER, UH, EFFECTIVE TODAY.
SHE HAS BEEN PROMOTED TO PRINCIPAL PLANNER.
SHE'S GOING TO BE MY LEAD ON SS E P H C P.
SHE'S ALSO GOING TO BE MY RIGHT HAND FOR U D C AMENDMENTS,
[00:45:01]
AND SHE'LL BE THE LEAD ON RDS.SO YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT OF MONIQUE AND HEARING A LOT FROM HER, UM, AS WE GET INTO 2020.
SO CONGRATULATIONS TO MONIQUE.
[3. Discussion and possible action on 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. The PCTAC may discuss and consider changes to other relevant sections of the UDC in their deliberations. (Catherine Hernandez, Development Services Administrator, (210) 207-5085, catherine.hernandez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION, A POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 35, UH, SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10, TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE LOT, AND BUILDING DIMENSIONS TABLE RELATING TO LOT AND BUILDING DIMENSIONS IN RMM AND F M F DISTRICTS.GOOD MORNING, I'M CATHERINE HERNANDEZ.
I'M THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR OVER OUR ZONING AND LAND ENTITLEMENT SECTIONS.
UM, AND, UM, HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A RESULT OF, UH, C C R, UH, THAT CAME FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, UH, ONE OF THOSE OUTTA CYCLE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT Y'ALL JUST DISCUSSED, UH, PREVIOUSLY.
UM, SO THIS WAS SUBMITTED BACK IN, UH, 2017 BY COUNCILMAN TREVINO.
AT THAT TIME, WE WERE WORKING ON THE I D Z AMENDMENTS.
AND SO ONCE WE COMPLETED THE I D Z AMENDMENTS, WE STARTED TACKLING THIS ONE.
UM, THIS C C R, UH, WAS ISSUED TO ADDRESS SOME INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS OCCURRING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS A RESULT OF, UM, OLD ZONING FROM THE 1930S THAT CONVERTED TO, UH, 2001, UH, CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS.
AND, UM, THERE WAS SOME INAPPROPRIATE HEIGHT, UM, LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.
AND I'LL KIND OF TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
UH, SO SPECIFICALLY RMM FOUR, MF 33 WERE THE CONCERNS.
UH, MF 33, UM, IS IN A LOT OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE WITHIN THE, UM, ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES, UH, AS A RESULT OF THE OLD 1938 ZONING.
UM, A ALLOWED, IT ALLOWED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, B ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND WHAT THE OTHER, UM, USES THAT YOU GOT IN B, WHICH WAS DUPLEXES.
AS YOU MOVED THROUGH THE ALPHABET, YOU GOT TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE LOWER, UM, PART OF THE ALPHABET ALL THE WAY UP TO JJ, WHICH WAS INDUSTRIAL, WHICH MEANT THAT FOR JJ, YOU GOT TO DO INDUSTRIAL USES PLUS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU GOT TO DO, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A, SO D WHICH WAS THE APARTMENT DISTRICT, WAS IN A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WERE DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, SO WHEN THE 2001 U D C CODE WAS ADOPTED, THE, UH, IMPETUS WAS TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, UH, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T REZONING PROPERTIES, WE WERE JUST CONVERTING THE CODE.
REZONING REQUIRES PROPER NOTIFICATION, UM, TO DOWNGRADE THEM WOULD BE TO TAKE AWAY THOSE RIGHTS THAT THEY HAD ALREADY THROUGH THEIR CURRENT ZONING.
AND SO A LOT OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TODAY ARE ZONED MF 33, OR THEY MAY HAVE CERTAIN SPOTS WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE MF 33, BECAUSE MAYBE THEY WERE DEVELOPED AS SIX TO EIGHT UNIT APARTMENTS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.
THAT HOUSE HAS NOW GONE AWAY AND NOW SOMETHING NEW IS BEING DEVELOPED.
SO MF 33 ALLOWS FOR 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, NOW YOU HAVE AN MF 33, UH, LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DEVELOPING AS A 45 FOOT.
WELL, THE, THE NEXT DOOR, UM, HOME IS EITHER A SINGLE STORY BUNGALOW OR JUST A TWO AND A HALF STORY, UM, HOME.
SO AGAIN, WE HAVE THAT INCOMPATIBLE HEIGHT THAT'S OCCURRING.
UM, SO MOVING FORWARD, JUST TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE RM ALLOWS.
RM IS BASICALLY YOUR MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY, UH, LIMITATIONS YOU HAVE.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON WHAT THE MARKET ALLOWS.
IT ONLY ALLOWS UP TO ONE TO FOUR UNITS DEPENDING UPON WHICH RMM IT IS.
UH, ALL THE RMMS ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
RMM SIX ALLOWS ONLY UP TO TWO RMM FIVE ALLOWS ONLY UP TO THREE, AND RM FOUR ALLOWS UP TO FOUR.
UM, IT ALLOWS FOR CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THERE ARE DENSITY LIMITATIONS WHEN DEVELOPING AT AS A, AS A, AS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
UH, BUT THERE ARE DENSITY, UH, BONUSES IF YOU WILL, IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING ON A LOT.
BUT AGAIN, THERE IS A MAX LIMITATION AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS 35 FEET, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, BUT THEY DO GET THAT HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET.
ARM FOUR ALLOWS FOR 35 FEET, THREE STORIES BECAUSE AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THAT YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO PARK IT.
AND SO MANY OF THESE WOULD PARK, PARK IT UNDERNEATH AS THEIR FIRST FLOOR.
AND THEN THE NEXT TWO STORIES STILL MAINTAINING 35 FEET WOULD BE THE, THE HABITABLE SPACE ON TOP OF THE GARAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY THE RMMS ALLOW FOR THREE STORIES.
SO YOU HAVE THAT, UM, ABILITY TO DEVELOP IT AND
[00:50:01]
PARK IT.MULTIFAMILY, UH, MANY OF YOU ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THESE.
THE, UH, DENSITY LIMITATIONS ARE DETERMINED BASED ON THAT NUMBER, THAT CLASSIFICATION.
SO MF 18, 18 UNITS PER ACRE ALL THE WAY UP TO MF 65, WHICH IS 65 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE HEIGHT, IT VARIES, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, WHICH WAS IMPACTING NEIGHBORHOODS, WAS THE MF 33, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 45 FEET, MF 40, 50, AND 65.
THOSE WEREN'T CODE CONVERSIONS.
THOSE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAPPEN THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS.
SO THERE'S NOT A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
BUT MF 33 WAS A CODE CONVERSION, AND THAT'S WHERE, UM, WE WERE SEEING SOME OF THE PRESSURES THAT ARE HAPPENING ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO TO TACKLE THE C C R, UH, WE FORMED A TASK FORCE LIKE WE NORMALLY DO.
THEY REPRESENTED, UH, BOTH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAD, UM, A LOT OF RM OR MF ZONING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE FILTERED THOSE TO THE COUNCIL OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE PART PARTICIPATION.
AND THEN WE ALSO INVITED MEMBERS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COMMUNITY THAT WERE DEVELOPING ON THESE RM OR MF LOTS.
WE MET SEVEN TIMES BETWEEN MARCH THROUGH SEPTEMBER.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE MONTHLY MEETINGS, UM, THE TASK FORCE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES TO DISCUSS, AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, UM, THAT THEY DECIDED TO ALSO FORM, AGAIN, THESE ARE VOLUNTEERS.
THEY DECIDED TO MEET ON THEIR OWN THROUGH LITTLE SUBCOMMITTEES.
THEY HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE RELATED TO DRAINAGE AND LOCK COVERAGE.
AND THEN THEY HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT MORE ABOUT DESIGN REGULATIONS.
UM, AND SO THEY MET, UH, VOLUNTARILY ON THEIR OWN IN BETWEEN OUR MONTHLY MEETINGS AND REPORTED BACK TO, UH, THE, THE TASK FORCE.
UH, THEY WOULD JUST TRY TO GATHER WHETHER IT WAS DATA THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, TRY TO FINE TUNE WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WOULD BRING FORWARD TO THE TASK FORCE.
BUT DECISIONS WERE MADE AT TASK FORCE MEETINGS.
UM, AND SO IN THE END, AFTER, UM, THE SEVEN MEETINGS AS WELL AS ONE, UH, COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS HELD IN JUNE TO GATHER INPUT FIRST BEFORE THEY STARTED TALKING ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING THAT JUST HAPPENED LAST WEEK.
UM, THEY PROPOSED THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK, AND STREET ORIENTATION.
THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE THAT, UM, REALLY HAD A BIGGER IMPACT, MORE GLOBAL IMPACT THAT WEREN'T JUST IMPACTING R M AND MF DISTRICTS.
AND SO THOSE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT DURING THE 2020 U D C CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
SO, UM, LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EACH OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO RELATED TO HEIGHT, THIS WOULD SPECIFICALLY IMPACT MF 33.
RIGHT NOW YOU GET 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, SO THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS WHEN IT, WHEN NEXT TO HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY.
HOWEVER, IF YOU WANTED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, OUR CODE ALREADY, UM, REQUIRED THAT THE HEIGHT HAD TO COME DOWN TO 35 FEET, AND YOU WOULD DO WHAT WE CALL THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.
FOR EVERY ONE FOOT SETBACK FROM, UM, THE PROP FROM THE SETBACK OR THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU WOULD GET TWO MORE FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT YOU HAD TO START AT 50 FEET FROM THAT IN ORDER TO GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
UH, SO THE TASK FORCE LOOKED AT, WELL, THAT PROVISION SHOULD REALLY BE, UM, IN THE, THE TABLE PERMITTED USES AND BE THE REQUIRED HEIGHT IF YOU'RE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO YOU HAVE THE COMPATIBLE HEIGHT ADJACENT TO THAT HOME.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE JUST ESTABLISHED THE, THE SETBACKS FOR THE HEIGHT INCREASES INTO THE TABLE FOR PERMITTED USES.
IF AN MF 33 LOT PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT WAS ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME USE, UH, SO AGAIN, THEY WOULD RESTRICT THEIR HEIGHT TO THE SAME HEIGHT THAT THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME HAS IN THEIR ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
AND THEY WOULD ESTABLISH THAT FOR THE FIRST 50 FEET.
SO IF YOU HAD A LARGER LOT, UM, THEN AT 50 FEET YOU COULD GO HIGHER THAN THAT, UH, FOLLOWING THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.
PAT, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE.
AND THAT IS, IF IT'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ZONING ON THAT LOT IS CORRECT, IT'S BASED ON USE SINGLE FAMILY HOME USE.
RELATED TO FRONT SETBACK, UM, MANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS HAVE A SUB, UH, FRONT SETBACK OF AT LEAST UH, 10 FEET.
AND, UH, THE ONLY ONE THAT DID NOT WAS MF.
MF ONLY HAD A MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF 20 FEET, WHICH MEANT THAT YOU COULD BUILD YOUR HOME AT ZERO FEET.
AND SO IT WOULD CREATE THIS INCONSISTENT BLOCK PHASE.
SO ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS, EXCUSE ME, IS TO HAVE THAT, UM, FRONT SETBACK OF FOUR LOTS THAT WERE ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR SMALLER, AGAIN, ZONED MF 33 AND ONLY ABUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
SO THAT WAY, THANK YOU THAT WAY YOU WOULD HAVE THAT CONSISTENT BLOCK FACE SETBACK, UH, ACROSS THE BLOCK FACE, ESPECIALLY IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
IF YOU WERE LARGER THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE, THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY DEVELOP DEVELOPING IT AS A TYPICAL, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX.
AND SO YOU WOULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS IN MF 33 FOR APARTMENTS, WHICH IS AGAIN, THE MAX SETBACK OF 20 FEET
[00:55:03]
RELATED TO STREET ORIENTATION.UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAD A LOT OF, UM, NEW DEVELOPMENT IN RM WHERE, UH, THEY WOULD DEVELOP, UH, THE FOUR DETACHED UNITS.
AND, UM, THOSE FOUR UNITS WOULD PROBABLY FACE THE, IN THE INGRESS, EGRESS EASEMENT OR THE DRIVEWAY THAT LED TO, UH, THE GARAGE.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE THIS SIDE WALL ON THE STREET, AND AGAIN, SOME OF THESE RMM LOTS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, OF A BLOCK.
AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE A HOUSE AHEAD OF FRONT ENTRY THAT FACED THE STREET.
THINK OF YOURSELF WALKING DOWN THE STREET.
SO YOU HAVE A HOUSE WITH A FRONT ENTRY, A HOUSE WITH A FRONT ENTRY, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE THIS RM FOUR LOT WITH A SIDE WALL.
AND SO THEN YOU WOULD WALK, KEEP WALKING, AND YOU HAVE FRONT ENTRIES.
AND SO IT, IT DIDN'T HAVE THAT STREET ORIENTATION THAT WE WANTED TO KEEP CONSISTENT ON THE BLOCK FACE.
UH, SO, AND IT CREATES THESE ISOLATED LITTLE ISLANDS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.
AND SO THE TASK FORCE LOOKED AT REQUIRING A FRONT ENTRY, UM, FOR THE, FOR, FOR THOSE THAT WERE CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTING THE TWO TO FOUR UNITS ON LOTS LESS A THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS, AND ALSO PROVIDING THAT WALKWAY.
SO AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST UNIT THAT'S ABUTTING THE STREET.
IF YOU WERE ABLE TO DO FOUR, BUT THE FIRST UNIT ABUTTING THE STREET WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE FRONT ENTRY AND THE FRONT DOOR FACING THE STREET.
SO AGAIN, IT WAS ABOUT THAT CONSISTENT BLOCK FACE, UM, APPEAL WHERE YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND EVERY FRONT DOOR IS FACING THE STREET.
AND AGAIN, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE FRONT STRUCTURE THAT'S ABUTTING THE STREET.
THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER DISCUSSION RELATED TO A LOT OF OTHER AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND SO IN, UH, ABOUT JUNE, UH, WHEN THE DISCUSSIONS KEPT GOING RELATED TO ALL OF THESE OTHER AMENDMENTS, THE COUNCIL OFFICE, UH, SENT AN EMAIL TO THE TASK FORCE ASKING THEM TO KIND OF ZERO IN AND FOCUS ON THREE MAJOR AMENDMENTS, WHICH WERE THE THREE THAT, THAT THEY LOOKED AT, WHICH WAS HEIGHT, UH, BUILDING ORIENTATION, AND MASSING OUTTA THE MASSING CAME THE FRONT STEP BACK.
AND OF COURSE, THE HEIGHT IS ALSO RELATED TO MASSING AS WELL.
UH, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER, UM, CODE AMENDMENTS THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSIONS ON, BOTH IN THEIR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND IN THE TASK FORCE, UM, THAT THEY FELT WOULD WERE MORE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS DURING THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, RELATED TO HEIGHT, THE TASK FORCE TALKED ABOUT, UM, REDEFINING HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.
RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE A A GABLE ROOF, THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF THAT ROOF.
UM, AND THE, THE TASK FORCE, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE WANTED IT TO BE MEASURED TO THE, TO THE TOP OF THE PITCH.
THAT WOULD CREATE IF, IF APPROVED BY COUNCIL, THE WAY WE CHANGE HEIGHT, THAT WOULD CREATE SOME NON-CONFORMING, A LOT OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES IF THEY WERE TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
SO WE, THEY FELT THAT IT NEEDED MORE OF A GLOBAL DISCUSSION DURING THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS, UH, BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE.
THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT PERCENT OF LOT COVERAGE.
UM, THE PERCENTAGE THAT WAS FLOATING AROUND WAS 60%.
UH, BUT THEY NEVER DID GET TO A CONSENSUS BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS COULD HAVE, UH, A GLOBAL IMPACT BECAUSE THAT PERCENT OF LOT COVERAGE LED TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION RELATED TO ATTACHED AND DETACHED DWELLINGS.
UM, THERE WERE SOME, UH, TASK FORCE MEMBERS THAT WANTED TO REQUIRE, LET'S SAY YOU HAD AN R FOUR LOT, YOU WANTED TO DO FOUR UNITS, THEY ALL HAD TO BE ATTACHED, UM, SORT OF LIKE YOUR OLD QUADPLEXES, EXCEPT THAT NOW YOU'VE GOT A BIGGER STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK.
AND SO SOME TASK, UH, FORCE MEMBERS, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CREATING THIS MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK WHERE IT DIDN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND THERE WERE SOME COUNCIL DISTRICTS THAT WERE CONCERNED THAT WHILE THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS ALL ACROSS THE CITY.
AND SO, UH, AGAIN, THAT KIND OF A DISCUSSION WAS MORE OF A GLOBAL IMPACT.
AND SO THEY FELT THAT THAT SHOULD ALSO BE DISCUSSED DURING THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS, SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN ARE SITE PLANS, UH, REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS.
UH, SITE PLANS ARE, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
WE TYPICALLY TAKE ABOUT 30 DAYS TO LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL, UM, PLANS.
AND SO IF ANYONE WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THEY COULD, THEY WOULD HAVE ABOUT 30 DAYS, UH, TO REQUEST AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, AND IF THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS WANTED WITH THE DEVELOP WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER, THEY COULD HAVE THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IF THE SITE PLAN AND THE PLANS MET CODE, WE WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE A PERMIT.
SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT REQUIRING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PRIOR TO THE SITE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.
BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD IMPACT NOT JUST THE R M M F PROPERTIES THAT WOULD IMPACT ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND SO THAT HAD MORE OF A, A POLICY, UM, CHANGE THAT COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT.
AND SO THAT WAS ALSO TABLED TO THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS.
AND LASTLY, UM, THE LOT COVERAGE, UH, DRAINAGE SUBCOMMITTEE TALKED
[01:00:01]
ABOUT WATER MANAGEMENT AND LID REQUIREMENTS.RIGHT NOW, LID, UH, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FEATURES ARE, UH, ENCOURAGED.
UH, BUT THEY TALKED ABOUT MAKING THEM REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, THESE LOTS.
AND SO, AGAIN, GLOBAL DISCUSSION, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE FIVE RELATED TO WATER MANAGEMENT THAT WOULD COME IN THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS.
AND THESE THINGS COULD BE LOOKED AT AT THAT TIME.
UH, SO AGAIN, ALL OF THESE, ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS BY THE TASK FORCE, UM, IT WOULD BE A STAFF INITIATED.
UM, U D C AMENDMENTS BEEN ANY MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE COULD, UH, SUBMIT THOSE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE, UH, WE PROMISED THEM THAT WE COMPILE A REPORT RELATED TO THAT SO THAT WAY THEY COULD JUST, UM, PACKAGE IT UP IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE, UH, SUBMIT THAT THROUGH THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS AND HAVE THAT BIGGER DISCUSSION.
UH, SO OUR TIMELINE MOVING FORWARD, UM, AGAIN, WE HAD OUR GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IN 2017, OUR TASK FORCE AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
TODAY, WE'RE MEETING WITH THE TAC, WE'RE GOING ON WEDNESDAY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
THEN, UH, WE'LL GO TO ZONING COMMISSION, UH, FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
AND COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION.
SO IN NOVEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER, WE'LL GO TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOPEFULLY HIT CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL EITHER IN DECEMBER OR IN JANUARY, DEPENDING UPON THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS THAT THEY HAVE IN DECEMBER.
SO AGAIN, WE ARE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, WHAT THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS HAVE PUT FORWARD RELATED TO THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS QUESTIONS.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, CITIZENS THAT WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? OKAY.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I LIVE AT, UH, 1 25 WEST RIDGEWOOD COURT.
UM, I'M PRESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND A STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION.
I ALSO REPRESENTED NEIGHBORHOODS AS A MEMBER OF THIS TASK FORCE.
BEYOND THE SEVEN TASK FORCE MEETINGS THAT WE DOCUMENTED WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I PARTICIPATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNITY AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS WHILE WORKING ON THIS TASK FORCE, UM, LIKE C CATHERINE REFERENCED.
UM, I WOULD LE LIKE TO READ THIS STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE, WHICH ADDRESSES COMMUNITY CONCERNS OVER THIS TA OVER THESE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE R M M SS F M F TASK FORCE WAS CREATED IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS AS THE COMMUNITY WAS CONSTANTLY UNDERREPRESENTED AND DISMISSED DURING THE TASK FORCE.
TWO CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBERS, RICHARD GARCIA AND ALAN NEFF WERE DENIED A SEAT AT THE TASK FORCE DESPITE CONCERNS DISCUSSED DURING THE MEETINGS THAT THEIR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS NEEDS WERE BEING UNDERREPRESENTED.
THE PROPOSED DRAFT YOU, YOU'VE RECEIVED FROM D S D ARE INCOMPLETE, AN INCOMPLETE RECOMMENDATION.
THESE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, SPECIFICALLY RMM FOUR AND MF 33, ARE ABUNDANT IN OUR INNER CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY ARE THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS MOST COMMON FOR THE MUCH NEEDED MISSING MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING, THE MIDDLE HOUSING DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND QUADPLEXES THAT ARE AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, THE WAY THESE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED HAS CHANGED.
INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL DUPLEXES QUADPLEXES, WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE FOUR TO SIX INDIVIDUAL TOWER TYPE STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT, SUCH AS THE ONES ON NINE 30 WEST CRAIG PLACE.
THESE DEVELOPMENTS WERE TYPICALLY SOLD ARE TYPICALLY SOLD AS MARKET RATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH SOME KIND OF CONDO SCHEME.
IN THE TITLE IT INCENTIVE, IT INCENTIVIZES LUXURY PROFIT DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND COMPATIBLE.
TIER ONE HAS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATING THE U D C AS IT PERTAINS TO THE R M AND MF ZONING CATEGORIES.
TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE, THE HEIGHT LIMITS.
THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT IS 35.
UH, THREE STORIES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RECOMMENDATION BE 35, 2 AND A HALF STORIES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES.
RMM FOUR, RMM FIVE, RMM SIX, MF 1825, AND 33.
THIS WILL ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS OVER COMPATIBILITY OF THESE MIXED AND MULTI-FAMILY ZONINGS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND WE ARE ALWAYS GONNA HAVE NON-CONFORMING USES.
IF YOU LIVE IN A DUPLEX NOW AND YOU HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, IF YOU WANNA SELL THAT, IT, IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING IF YOU DO NOT LIVE ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO THE NON-CONFORMING USES ARE ALWAYS GONNA BE AN ISSUE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THE PLACEMENT OF NOTE 11 SHOULD BE MOVED FROM THE HEADER OF THE TABLE TO THE FIRST COLUMN IN TABLE THREE
[01:05:01]
10 DASH ONE UNDER MF 18, MF 25, AND MF 33.THIS WILL ALIGN THE PLACEMENT OF THE NOTE TO MATCH THE REST OF THE TABLE LENDING CLARITY TO ALL THOSE WHO USE THE TABLE IN THE FUTURE.
AND I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED THAT THIS NOTE 11 WAS LEFT OFF OF THERE.
UH, 35 3 10 C AMEND THE LANGUAGE FROM MUST OCCUR WITHIN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE TO READ MUST OCCUR WITHIN A SINGLE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE UNLESS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE.
A PERMITTED 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 MF 40 OR MF 50 DISTRICTS MUST OCCUR WITHIN A SINGLE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.
35 3 10 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 RMM.
SIX THREE UNITS FOR RM FIVE AND FOUR UNITS FOR RMM.
FOUR SHALL BE CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE AND PART OF THE TASK FORCE.
YOU KNOW, TOUCHING ON THIS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, THE TAX, WHY THE TASK FORCE WAS CREATED WAS TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY.
AND YES, THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THAT SAID, WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE IN ONE STRUCTURE.
BUT YOU KNOW, MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, OR MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD'VE BEEN, WELL AT LEAST IF, IF IT'S, IF IT STATES THAT, IF IT'S STATED THIS WAY IN THE U D C, THEN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE OKAY WITH THE SEPARATE STRUCTURES THAT CAUSES THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE TO COME TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SAY, WE'D LIKE TO DO FOUR SEPARATE UNITS, WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? AND THEN THEY CAN, THEY CAN COME TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISCUSS THE SEPARATE UNITS.
SO IT WOULDN'T MEAN THAT ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO HAVE ONE SINGLE MONOLITHIC 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 ENVIRONMENT OF SAN ANTONIO'S NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC POLICIES.
WHILE PRESUM PRESERVING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND CULTURE.
WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MARY JOHNSON.
CAN WE GET A COPY OF YOUR DOCUMENT PLEASE? WE CAN MAKE A COPY OF IT IF YOU AND I.
ALRIGHT, HAS ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE? MS. CALL PODIUM.
NAME AND ADDRESS IN THREE MINUTES.
MY QUESTION IS, IF I HAVE TWO JPEG FILES ON THE LAPTOP, CAN STAFF PUT THOSE UP ON THE, ON THE SCREEN? DO YOU HAVE A JUMP DRIVE? I CAN PUT IT ON A JUMP DRIVE.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY, SEE NONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE TACK.
WE'LL START AGAIN WITH MR. HANLEY.
MS. CAUSTIC, MR. COX POLICEMAN? NO, MS. GIBBONS.
MS. REED, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT I WAS, UM, UNDERSTANDING YOUR TABLE, UM, THREE 10 DASH ONE AND ON PAGE TWO, IT HAS THAT THE R FOUR R, UM, RMM FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THREE STORIES.
DOES THAT 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE THE WEDDING CAKE IN THE PACKET? IT'S PAGE TWO.
SO THE 35 FEET IS 35 FEET NO MATTER WHAT.
JUST LIKE AN R SIX IS 35 FEET.
IT'S JUST THEY GET THAT HALF STORY RATHER THAN DOING SORT OF LIKE THE DORMER WINDOW EFFECT OR THE HALF OF THE FLOOR, UH, FOR A FLAT ROOF HAS, UH, THE HALF STORY, THEY GET TO DO THE FULL THREE STORIES, BUT THE HEIGHT IS STILL THE SAME.
[01:10:01]
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, THAT MEANS THAT A THREE STORY STRUCTURE COULD GO UP AGAINST A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? JUST TO MAKE SURE A THREE STORY, 35 FOOT CAN GO UP NEXT TO A 35 FOOT, TWO AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE? YES.LET ME ASK THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WE'VE GOT A SINGLE STORY RESIDENT AND NEXT TO IT IS THE RM AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD THREE STORIES NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT SINGLE STORY.
SO YES, JUST LIKE TODAY, SINGLE STORY.
IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE STORY, UM, HOME AND ALL LOT ADJACENT TO YOU, YOU GET TO BUILD, IF YOU HAVE AN R SIX, YOU GET TO BUILD TWO AND A HALF STORIES IF YOU LIKE, BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR AN RMM, YOU GET THREE STORIES, BUT AGAIN, THE HEIGHT IS STILL THE SAME 35 FEET, YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED TO BUILD A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE.
IF YOU HAVE A HEIGHT, UH, LIMITATION TO GO TO 35 FEET IS BELL CHERISE BELL.
SO, UM, PART OF THE C C R WAS TO HELP WITH COMPATIBILITY AND, UM, COMPATIBILITY IS NOT JUST IN HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE ARTICULATION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
AND LOOKING AT YOUR EXAMPLES, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE ONE AND ONE AND A HALF STORIES ARE GABLED ROOF AND THE NEW STRUCTURES ARE ALL FLAT ROOF.
SO PART OF THE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY IS THE SHAPE OF THAT ROOF.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS WHY CAN'T WE REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE A GABLE OR AT LEAST A HALF SHED ROOF? UM, YES, THAT LIMITS THEIR QUOTE THREE STORY TO TWO AND A HALF STORY, BUT IT VISUALLY MAKES IT BETTER.
SO IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT HOUSES, TOBIN HILL, KING WILLIAM MONTE VISTA, THEY HAVE TWO AND A HALF STORY, 35 FOOT BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO A ONE STORY.
UM, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS SHOCKING TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE THESE GABLE ROOFS, WHETHER THEY'RE A FRONT END OR A SIDE GABLE ROOF.
SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP MAKE IT COMPATIBLE, I WOULD SAY YOU NEED TO ADD A ROOF LINE COMPONENT IN THAT.
SO THE TASK FORCE DID DISCUSS ABOUT, UH, MAKING, UH, ROOF PITCH A REQUIREMENT.
UH, THERE WAS SOME CON NOT PITCH, NOT MOVE PITCH, BUT DESIGN LIKE A DESIGNABLE, THE DESIGN.
SO THEY, THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT.
THE, THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP, UH, WAS THAT THERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, UH, IT, A GABLE ROOF WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE OF A ECLECTIC, UH, APPROACH TO ROOFING.
UH, ANOTHER CONCERN WAS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, THERE'S SOME OF THE NEWER STRUCTURES THAT ARE FLAT ROOF AND NOT GABLE.
AND SO IF YOU MADE EVERYTHING A REQUIREMENT FOR GABLE, THEN THAT WOULD PUT PRESSURE ON SOME OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WHICH WOULD PUSH 'EM INTO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE A GABLE ROOF.
SO A LOT OF THOSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD COULD DO, COULD DO THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IF THEY WANTED THE, THE VACANT LOTS OR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE A, A GABLE ROOF, THAT COULD BE A REQUIREMENT IN THE N C D, UM, RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO, UH, FULL-BLOWN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
SO SOME OF THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS TALKED ABOUT IS THAT IF NEIGHBORHOODS WANTED TO BE SPECIFIC RELATED TO THE DESIGN AND ARTICULATION OF THOSE STRUCTURES, YOU CAN DO THAT THROUGH AN N C D.
OKAY? IT WILL GIVE YOU A REBUTTAL.
HAVING BEEN THE SENIOR PLANNER IN CHARGE OF THE 36 SQUARE MILE AND DOCUMENTING OVER 60,000 BUILDINGS IN THE INNER CORE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT A FLAT ROOF BUILDING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WAS PROBABLY MAYBE 5%.
SO IT'S VERY RARE, EVEN THE 1950S, MID CENTURIES HAVE GABLE ROOFS THAT ARE VERY FLAT.
SO THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE WHEN YOU HAVE ON CORNER LOTS, UM, LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS, WHETHER THEY'RE FOURPLEX, PLEX OR WHATEVER IN THOSE, UM, IN THE INNER CITY.
UM, SECOND POINT THAT I HAD IS THE ZONING REQUESTS.
TWO OF THE PROBLEMS ARE YOU HAVE THESE GREAT DESIGNS.
YOU HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, YOU HAVE, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY, YOU HAVE ALL THESE THINGS IN PROTECTION.
AND INEVITABLY THERE WILL BE, UM, ONE, THE DEVELOPER WILL WANT TO CHANGE, UM, AND OR LIKE COMBINE,
[01:15:01]
OH, I GOT TWO LOTS AND THEY'RE ALREADY ARMED.FOUR, I WANNA PUT'EM TOGETHER AND NOW PUT IN ALL THESE, UM, INCOMPATIBLE LARGER BUILDINGS.
THE NEIGHBORHOODS AREN'T, AGAIN, DENSITY.
THEY'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THESE PROCESSES TO TRY TO MAKE THE DENSITY COMPATIBLE AND FIT THE PATTERN THAT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHATEVER IT IS.
SO ONE IS HAVING THE ZONING CHANGES, UM, ON THE PROPERTY SO A DEVELOPER CAN CHANGE OR INCREASE WHAT THEY WANT FOR DEVELOPMENT.
AND NUMBER TWO IS THE ZONING VARIANCES.
SO LIKE ON SOUTH PRESA, THE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING WAS, BUT THEY ENDED UP IN SEVEN TOWERS AND THE DEVELOPER SAID, OH, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES JUST DON'T WORK ANYMORE.
PLEASE GIVE US A VARIANCE ON SEVEN, SEVEN OF THE DESIGN CHANGES.
SO A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE THINKING, YOU KNOW, WHY BOTHER AND COMING AND TELLING THE CITY TO FOLLOW THEIR DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO I THINK A LOT OF THE, UM, PROBLEMS ARE THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING ALLOWED.
SO IF THE CITY COULD FOLLOW THE VARIANCES OR THEY'RE NOT THE CITY, BUT THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD SAVE A LOT OF FRUSTRATION AND MAKE THESE, UM, U D C CODES, UM, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY WORK.
SO WHAT CHERISE IS REFERRING TO IS THAT, UM, IF IN CASE SOME OF YOU AREN'T AWARE, IF A, UM, PROPOSED, UH, DEVELOPMENT, UH, DOES, FEELS THAT THEY CAN'T COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT, THEY CAN REQUEST A VARIANCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH, CITY CAN'T GRANT THEM THE PERMIT IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS.
BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN LOOK AT THAT REQUEST, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS.
AND MR. NEPHI IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IS A PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
IT'S SIMILAR TO A, UH, LIKE A REZONING CHANGE.
SO, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET ARE NOTIFIED.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT'S REGISTERED IS ALSO NOTIFIED.
UM, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY.
THEY ARE THE FINAL DECISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TAKES IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THEY LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THEY LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC, UM, UH, INPUT AT THAT TIME, AND THEN THEY MAKE THAT DECISION.
UM, THE VARIANCE PROCESS IS THERE BECAUSE FOR SOME, FOR FOR REASONS, UM, THERE MAY BE A, A, A DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN'T COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE STANDARDS BECAUSE OF A CERTAIN HARDSHIPS, WHETHER IT'S PROPERTY RELATED OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UM, FOR, UH, THE LOT.
UM, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS EMPOWERED TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
SO IF ONE, ONCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKES THAT DECISION, THEN UH, STAFF ISSUES THE PERMIT BASED ON THAT DECISION.
AND SO I, I MEAN, AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE IF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE VERY STRONG IN THEIR OPINION AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE TO MAKE THEIR VOICES KNOWN.
AND MR. NEFF CAN, CAN RELAY THAT THE BOARD DOES LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC INPUT.
UM, THERE'S A NEW MAKEUP OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSION, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT, UM, IS DIFFERENT IN YEARS PAST.
AND, UM, THEY LISTEN A LOT TO, UH, THE PUBLIC INPUT.
THEY QUESTION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY REALLY DIG INTO THE REQUEST.
AND SO THE APPLICANT REALLY HAS TO PUT THEIR CASE FORWARD IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE BOARD WHY THEY CAN'T COMPLY.
UH, BUT, UH, STATE LAW DOES ALLOW FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO, UH, LOOK AT THOSE VARIANCES, UH, INDEPENDENTLY AND, UH, DETERMINE IF, UM, THE, THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED SO THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FACT MEMBERS.
CAN I JUST CHIME IN FOR A MINUTE, UM, MR. CHAIR, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE TIME WE HAVE THE ROOM UNTIL 11.
THAT'S WHAT TIME WE HAD IDENTIFIED THIS MEETING WOULD GO TO.
HOWEVER, I ANTICIPATE WE'RE GONNA RUN A LITTLE LONG.
THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS THAT STILL NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.
KAT'S GONNA KILL ME, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, SO WE NEED TO RE GET THE ROOM READY FOR THAT.
BUT, UM, MR. NEFF SAID HE CAN HELP US.
NO, WE, WE ARE GETTING STAFF READY TO, TO, UH, TAKE DOWN IF WE NEED TO, UM, IN A VERY SHORT WINDOW.
SO I JUST WANTED TO JUST POINT THAT OUT TO EVERYONE.
MR. TAYLOR, JUST A COUPLE OF KIND OF IN THE WEEDS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR NOW.
UM, SO NOTE 11, THESE ARE KIND OF WORDSMITHING THINGS, UM, ON NOTE 11.
UM, UH, SO THE SECOND SENTENCE, THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL NOT APPLY.
WHERE SHALL PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL? IS THAT TALKING ABOUT THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? SORRY, I HAVE TO FORGOT.
THIS STAYS ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY.
SO YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF, UM, SINGLE FAMILY, LIKE IN THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES.
YOU'LL HAVE EITHER SCHOOLS OR CHURCHES THAT ARE BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO THAT'S, IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE ABUTTING.
[01:20:01]
PROPERTY IS R SIX, BUT DEVELOPED AS A CHURCH, THEN UH, IT DOESN'T APPLY THAT HIGH RESTRICTION.YEAH, I MEAN MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO SAY A BUDDING JUST TO, 'CAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU READ IT THE OTHER WAY, IT'S, IT'S A BIT CONFUSING.
UM, I, I'M SORRY, THAT WAS ON NOTE 11, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
UM, AND THEN ON NOTE 12, UM, SO WE HAVE A MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK EQUAL TO THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF THE ABUTTING LOT.
UM, HOW DOES THAT INTERACT WITH THE MAXIMUM SETBACK? BECAUSE ON THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS YOU HAVE THE MAXIMUM SETBACKS.
WHAT IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK IS 30 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 20.
HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THOSE? RE REPEAT THAT AGAIN, SORRY.
SO ON NOTE 20, UM, YOU BASICALLY SAY, UH, THE MINIMUM SETBACK, I'M SORRY, NOTE 12, WHAT DID I SAY? 20 NOW WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET, BUT SOON.
SO ON NOTE 12, UM, THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SHOULD BE EQUAL TO THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF THE ABUTTING LOT.
UM, BUT HOW DOES THAT INTERACT WITH THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS? UM, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF 30, IF YOU HAVE 30 FEET ON THE ABUTTING LOT, BUT THEN YOU HAVE A MAX OF 20, WHERE'S THAT BUILDING GONNA HAVE TO BE? SO IT'S BASED ON THE TABLE THREE 10.
SO IF THE MAXIMUM IS 20, THEN IT'S THE MAXIMUM IS 20 FOR THAT LOT.
SO IT'S NOT BASED ON HOW IT'S DEVELOPED, IT'S NOT BASED ON HOW IT'S PHYSICALLY DEVELOPED, IT'S BASED ON WHAT THEIR RESTRICTION IS IN TABLE THREE 10.
SO EVEN IF THE ABUTTING, EVEN IF THE BUILDING ON THE ABUTTING LOT IS AT 30 FEET, YOU HAVE A MAX OF 20.
SO THAT WOULD KIND IF IT'S MF 33.
ALTHOUGH THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ONES I DON'T BELIEVE HAVE A MAXIMUM.
UM, AND SO THEN KIND OF A GENERAL QUESTION AND THIS, UM, IS REALLY ABOUT NOTE 11.
WELL, NO, I'M SORRY, JUST ABOUT NOTE 12 AGAIN.
UM, SO WE SAY A BUDDING LOT, BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE, UM, PROPERTY, IF YOU'RE NOT A CORNER LOT, IF YOU'RE IN BETWEEN TWO LOTS, WHICH, WHICH LOT ARE YOU, ARE YOU LOOKING AT? UM, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE LOTS OF A BUDDING ON BOTH SIDES.
SO DO YOU TAKE THE, DO YOU TAKE THE SETBACK OF THE LOT ON THE LEFT OR THE SETBACK OF THE LOT ON THE RIGHT? AND SO, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT SETBACK, RIGHT? THE FRONT SETBACK? YEAH.
SO THIS MORE COMMON WOULD BE THAT THESE ARE LOTS LIKE AN MF 33 LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN R SIX OR AN R FOUR SUBDIVISION.
AND SO IT'S, UM, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD APPLY WOULD BE THE MINIMUM 10.
SO THEY STILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 20, BUT IT WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10.
SO THEY COULDN'T PUT THE BUILDING AT 0 5 7.
THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IT AT 10 IF THEY WANTED TO START THEIR, THEIR BUILDING.
IT'S BASED ON THE ZONING OF THE ABUTTING LOTS.
AND I THINK WHAT HE'S ASKING IS, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME, IS IT BASED ON WHERE THE HOUSE NEXT TO THEM IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED OR PER PLAT OR ZONING? IT'S PER THE ZONING.
SO IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
SO EVERYTHING REFERENCES TABLE THREE 10.
TABLE THREE 10 IS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY IN NOTE 12.
IT SAYS AS PER TABLE THREE 10 DASH ONE, THAT'S THIS TABLE, THAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
UH, I SUPPORT THE, THE LANGUAGE AS IT'S WRITTEN.
UM, I JUST MOVE THAT WE ENFORCE THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT TO A CITIZEN.
I THINK WE HAD ONE CITIZEN TO BE HEARD THAT WE KIND OF BYPASSED 'CAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE THUMB DRIVE.
SO WE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA BRING HER UP AT THE END, SO, OR IN THE MIDDLE.
SO, 'CAUSE IT MAY GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION AGAIN.
I HAVE A SPARE ONE IF YOU NEED ONE.
SO, UM, SECOND THING IS, UM, SO, SO UH, THE COALITION BROUGHT FORWARD A BUNCH OF NOTES HERE.
AND SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS, UH, DID THE TASK FORCE REVIEW ALL OF THAT DISCUSSION, UM, AND CAME TO THIS DECISION? OR IS THAT NEW INFORMATION OR, OR NEW, UH, I GUESS NEW TE NEW DETAILS PROVIDED THAT, UH, THAT THIS GROUP NEEDS TO CONSIDER, UM, AND THE CHANGES.
ALL RIGHT, SO LET ME GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE.
UM, SO, UM, YES, HEIGHT WAS DISCUSSED.
[01:25:01]
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE R FOUR, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE THREE STORIES.UM, AND I MENTIONED EARLIER THE REASON WHY IT'S THREE STORIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT SIZE, UM, UH, MAYBE ADDITIONAL DENSITY BASED ON THAT LOT SIZE.
AND IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IT, YOU NEED TO PARK IT AND STILL HAVE HABITABLE SPACE.
SO GET, THE REASON WHY THE RMM WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, CREATED WITH THE THREE STORIES WAS TO ALLOW THEM TO CR TO PARK IT MAYBE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN HAVE THAT HABITABLE SPACE ON THE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR.
AGAIN, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS STILL THE SAME 3 35 FEET IS JUST THAT RMM HAD THAT ADDITIONAL HALF STORY, UM, BECAUSE THE OTHER ONES WOULD ONLY BE TWO AND A HALF STORIES, SO IT WAS JUST AN ADDITIONAL HALF, BUT THEY DID DISCUSS THAT, COULD NOT GET TO A CONSENSUS TO CHANGE IT.
UM, AND SO THE, UH, THE HEIGHT, UM, RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY, BUT THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND TO CHANGE, UH, THE THREE STORIES, UM, FOR, IN RELATION TO HER MF MF 18 AND MF 25.
UH, SO MF 18 AND MF 25, UM, ALREADY HAS A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 35 FEET.
UM, AND SO THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE RMM LOTS 35 FEET.
UH, SO HOWEVER THEY BUILD IT, YOU CAN'T GO HIGHER THAN 35 FEET, WHICH IS THE SAME AS OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THE CONCERN WAS THE MF 33 BECAUSE THAT ALLOWED 45 FEET BY RIGHT, UM, ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, UM, OR TABLE 3 10 0 1 MUST OCCUR WITHIN A SINGLE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THAT'S ONE OF THE, UH, TABLED ITEMS BECAUSE THERE WAS CONCERNS, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, DISTRICTS FOUR, FIVE AND SIX HAD CONCERNS ABOUT REQUIRING THEM TO BE ALL IN ONE STRUCTURE.
UH, DISTRICT FOUR, UM, HAD SPOKEN AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS IS THAT THEY WANTED TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP, UM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF, UM, RENTAL CONCERNS.
UM, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT IF YOU REQUIRE THEM AN ALL IN ONE BUILDING, UH, THAT THE, UM, THE TREND THAT THEY SAW WAS THAT NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD START TO BECOME RUN DOWN AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT IN THEIR DISTRICT.
DISTRICT SIX ALSO HAS, UH, THE SAME TYPE OF CONCERNS 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT A PREVALENT FEATURE IN THEIR, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND, UH, DISTRICT FIVE UH, TALKED ABOUT, UM, UH, ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN DISTRICT ONE THAT A, A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE, UM, APPROPRIATE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THE, JUST THE TASK FORCE WAS THAT IF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WANTED TO MAKE IT ATTACHED, THEY COULD DO THAT THROUGH AN N C D A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
UM, AND COINCIDENTALLY, UH, MARY JOHNSON, HER NEIGHBORHOOD MONTE VISTA TERRACE IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE N C D PROCESS.
AND, UM, AT THEIR FIRST MEETING THEY TALKED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, ATTACHED STRUCTURES AND THERE WERE QUITE A FEW ON THE TASK FORCE THAT DID NOT AGREE TO REQUIRING ATTACHED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE TASK FORCE THAT'S PUTTING TOGETHER THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO AS THEY FINISH PUTTING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY'LL GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND SEE HOW THE COMMUNITY FEELS, UM, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, BUT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE TASK FORCE DISCUSS RELATED TO THE ATTACHED DETACHED NATURE.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S STILL, IT'S THE SAME ON THE OTHER ONE SHALL BE CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
SO AGAIN, IT WAS ABOUT ALLOWING, STILL ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY, NOT REQUIRING ATTACHED IN, IN COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT EITHER WEREN'T REPRESENTED AT THE TABLE OR DIDN'T WANNA SEE THAT FEATURE, UM, WITHIN THEIR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY IN A COUPLE OF CASES ON THE B O A IS B O A IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE LEVERAGING TWO AND A HALF STORIES AS A THREE STORY.
AND SO, SO, SO THERE'S KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE HONESTLY AS THEY CAME THROUGH FOR LEVERAGING AND TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT.
SO I JUST WONDER, YOU KNOW, SETTING IT FOR TWO AND A HALF WOULD MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
STILL ALLOW THEM TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I GUESS MINIMIZE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN THAT UPPER, ON THAT UPPER DECK OR THAT HALF DECK.
SO, OH, AND I FAILED TO MENTION YOU'RE PART OF OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TOO.
UM, THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
UM, I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT RMM FOUR FOR A FEW YEARS, EVEN WHEN RUDY NINO CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT LAND USE TO THE TAX SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
AND I TRIED TO GET DEEP INTO WHAT RMM FOUR MEANT AND WAS KIND OF BLOWN OFF.
UM, I DID TRY TO GET ON THIS COMMITTEE WHEN I HEARD ABOUT A LACK OF REPRESENTATION FROM DISTRICT TWO
[01:30:01]
ON THE COMMITTEE AND I WAS DENIED.UM, I'VE BEEN BRINGING UP ISSUES ABOUT RMM FOUR FOR QUITE SOME TIME BECAUSE MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS ENTIRELY RMM FOUR AND I'M ON THE NEAR EAST SIDE OF DOWNTOWN.
UM, AND IT IS A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT IS BEING EXPLOITED BY DEVELOPERS.
AND I'VE HEARD A LOT IN THIS PRESENTATION ABOUT CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THESE HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES AND THINGS WILL BE GOOD TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER, BUT THE TRUTH IS THEY'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE.
AND WHAT IS BEING BUILT WITHIN THESE CURRENT CODES IS NOT AT ALL IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S QUITE OUT OF PLACE.
UH, A PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT SHARING A PROPERTY LINE TO ME IS BEING DEVELOPED AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, BUT IT'S RIGHT BEHIND ME.
THEY ALL FACE A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND THEY'RE SURROUNDED BY ONE STORY HOUSES ON ALL SIDES OF IT.
AND THEY'RE GONNA BE SELLING THESE FOR $450,000 A PIECE IN A CONDO RELATIONSHIP.
THAT IS NOT THE INTENT, I BELIEVE, OF WHAT R M FOUR WAS ORIGINALLY.
I THINK IT WAS KIND OF A POST-WAR QUADPLEX WHERE HOMES WERE EITHER BUILT OR CONVERTED INTO FOUR UNITS, MOST LIKELY AS RENTALS AT THE TIME.
THOSE CAN STILL BE SOLD AS CONDOS IF YOU WANT TO.
UM, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE AS DESIRABLE PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT THIRD STORY REALLY CHANGES THE DYNAMIC AND THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SUCH AS MINE WHERE HOMES WERE BUILT FROM THE 1880S TO THE 1920S, UH, THE GRAPHICS CAT SHOWED IN HERE ARE VERY INDICATIVE OF WHAT IS BEING BUILT.
AND I THINK THAT WASN'T YOUR INTENT.
THE INTENT WAS TO SHOW BASIC MASSING AND NOT TRY TO INFER ANY FORMS, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING BUILT.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE CODIFYING HIP OR GABLE ROOFS NECESSARILY BECAUSE I'VE DESIGNED SOME BEAUTIFUL FLAT ROOF STRUCTURES THAT FIT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, BUT THE HEIGHTS AND THE SIZE OF THESE THINGS ARE OUT OF CHARACTER.
AND THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO AND A HALF STORY AND THREE STORY IS SIGNIFICANT.
IT REALLY CHANGES THE WAY A NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS.
TO HAVE A TOWER NEXT TO A ONE STORY HOUSE, UM, IS MUCH MORE IMPACTFUL THAN THE WAY IT IS BEING DESCRIBED TODAY.
THAT THAT SINGLE STORY HOME HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD UP TO 35 FEET.
WELL, MY HOUSE BUILT IN 1882, THAT IS SINGLE STORY IS NOT GONNA BE TORN DOWN AND BUILT AS A 35 FOOT TALL HOUSE.
SO WHY SHOULD WE BE DESCRIBING THAT THAT RIGHT EXISTS? THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL.
WE CAN ALWAYS TEAR THEM DOWN AND BUILD THEM TALLER BECAUSE THE RIGHT IS THERE.
WE NEED TO PROTECT WHAT EXISTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, IN TERMS OF THE CHARACTER, THE SCALE, AS WELL AS THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE ALLOWANCE OF R M FOUR TO BE USED AS A TOOL TO DEVELOP THE MOST PROFITABLE AND MOST DENSE AND LARGEST STRUCTURE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SIMPLY FOR PROFIT IS NOT FOLLOWING THE INTENT OF WHAT OUR CURRENT CITY IS PROMOTING IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY AND EQUITY AND COMPATIBILITY IN CHARACTER.
SO I COULD GO ON FOR AN HOUR ABOUT THIS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT A MORNING TALKER, BUT BASICALLY I THINK, UM, WHAT MS. JOHNSON HAD PROPOSED I THINK IS, UH, TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE LIMITING THESE STRUCTURES TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET.
I DO THINK THAT THE ABILITY TO BUILD THESE FOUR CRACKER BOX STRUCTURES IN A LINE ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT IS NOT IN CHARACTER AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND THEY SHOULD BE PLACED INTO ONE ORGANIZED STRUCTURE THAT APPEARS TO BE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND SOME OF THE OTHER NOTE SMITHING I AGREE WITH.
UM, AND I, I THINK THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS A, A DISSERVICE TO WHAT OUR CITY NEEDS IN THE FUTURE.
AND WE SHOULD NOT JUST BE APPROVING THIS AS IS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT IS MISSING ALL OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH R M AND M F.
AND I DON'T FIND IT GENUINE THAT THESE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE 2020 CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN NOW THERE'S GONNA BE A REQUIREMENT TO PUT A COST ANALYSIS ONTO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN A HALF STORY OF A HOUSE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE GONNA BE, IT'S GONNA BE ABLE TO QUANTIFY THAT.
MS. TACKETT, UH, KAT, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE THREE ITEMS THIS ADJUSTED IS THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM FROM 45
[01:35:01]
DOWN TO 35, BUT ALLOWS THE THREE STORIES SETS A MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK AND THEN IT DID ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FACE THE FRONT.SO THE EXAMPLE THAT MR. NEFF GAVE OF, YOU KNOW, FACING A COMMON DRIVE OR A COMMON WALK, THOSE HOMES WOULD HAVE TO FACE THE FRONT.
NOW IN THIS, SO FOR THE HEIGHT IT'S TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 FEET WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
UM, THE, UM, YOU'RE CORRECT ON THE SETBACK AND THEN THE, THE STREET ORIENTATION WOULD ADDRESS THAT FIRST, UM, STRUCTURE ABUTTING THE STREET THAT THE FRONT ENTRY NO LONGER WOULD FACE THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
IT WOULD FACE THE STREET, BUT IT'S ONLY, IT'S FOR THAT APPLIES TO THE FRONT STRUCTURES FACING THE STREET, CORRECT? IT'S ABOUT, BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE BLOCK FACE, SO IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE THE FIRST STRUCTURE.
ALLOW OUR CITIZEN, IF SHE WANTED TO SHOW HER PICTURES.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS AN OUTSIDE, UH, JUMP DRIVE, IT MAY BE A LITTLE FINICKY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA BE SUCCESSFUL.
WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND ANYONE WANNA SUBMIT ANYTHING THEY CAN SUBMIT TO US BEFORE TIME SO WE CAN HAVE IT PREPARED.
UM, THE TEAM, ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE OR THE TAC MEMBERS CAN SEND US AN EMAIL AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO SHOW IT.
UM, WE'LL DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO PULL IT UP.
UM, AND I JUST WANNA, WE GOT IT.
WANTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THE, ON THE PICTURES.
ALVIN 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE.
AND YOU HAVE ABOUT, UH, THREE MINUTES.
UM, I HAVE TWO PHOTOS THAT I WANTED TO SHOW AND I ONLY WANTED TO HAVE THESE UP HERE BECAUSE I KNOW FOR SOME FOLKS THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS.
THEY DON'T LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING.
AND FOR THOSE OF US THAT DO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU GET A SENSE OF WHY WE ARE SO CONCERNED.
SO THERE'S THIS PHOTO WHICH ARE SIX CONDOS THAT WERE BUILT ON AN MF 33 LOT AND THEREFORE ALLOWED THE 45 FEET HEIGHT.
UM, AND IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT PHOTO THAT'S FROM THE NEXT STREET OVER, SO THAT'S FROM THE NEXT STREET, THAT'S WHAT THE MASSING LOOKS LIKE BEHIND THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE FOR YOU GUYS TO HAVE A VISUAL CONTEXT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UH, IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO YES.
SO I JUST WANNA VERIFY THAT THESE UM, ARE 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, AND THEN THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT THAT I'M SEEING TO THE LEFT IS TWO STORIES, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE A SINGLE DRIVE AND YOU HAVE THREE CONDOS ON EACH SIDE FACING EACH OTHER.
MAYBE KAT, YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT.
SO IN THAT PICTURE, I THOUGHT THERE WAS LIKE A, THAT WEDDING WHATEVER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE NEXT TO THE, SO YOU COULDN'T DO THAT, YOU COULDN'T DO THAT WITH THESE AMENDMENTS.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT ANYMORE.
THAT'S BUILT TO 45 FEET 'CAUSE IT'S AN MF 33 LOTS WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SUBDIVISION.
AND SO THEY GET TO BUILD BY RIGHT 45 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO THIS NEW CODE AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY ALLOW 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES WITHIN 50 FEET OF BOTH SIDES.
I KNOW STAFF'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE, I'M SURE PLAN AND COMMIT PTAC, EVERYBODY'S BEEN WORKING ON IT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S STILL LIKE SOME ISSUES AND I JUST DON'T UNDER, IS THIS WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS? I MEAN CHERISE ALLEN, YOU'LL SOUND LIKE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, Y'ALL KNOW Y'ALL'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME TO START HAVING THAT DISCUSSION OF WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE AMENDED OR DISCUSSED OR PUT IN.
SO OPEN THAT UP AS A CONVERSATION, I GUESS HERE AT THIS POINT.
'CAUSE AREN'T WE THE RECOMMENDING BODY TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN START THAT FULL FORMAL PROCESS? SO THIS IS YOUR CHANCE,
I WAS GONNA ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT.
UM, BUT REAL QUICK, YOU, UH, CAT ON THE TABLE? I THOUGHT YOU SAID MF 33.
THAT'S MF 33, THAT'S 45 FEET THAT'S BUILT TO 45 FEET.
I JUST, UM, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT OCCUR BECAUSE IT'S REDUCING IN HEIGHT.
IF THE CODE AMENDMENTS WERE THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, IT WOULD ONLY, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
SO IT WOULD BE BUILT AT 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES WITHIN 50 FEET OF ALL SIDES.
UM, SO THAT'S NOT IN THE TABLE, THAT IS IN THE TEXT OF THE U D C.
[01:40:01]
THE PROPOSED NOTE 11.I THINK THE, UH, QUESTIONS I HAD HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.
I TOO WOULD AGREE THAT THAT IS A VERY SAD PICTURE AND UH, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THIS NEW AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS THAT AND MAXIMIZE IT AT 35.
I WOULD ASK ALAN, WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING SPECIFICALLY THAT, UM, BEYOND WHAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES? TO CLARIFY COMPATIBILITY WITH HEIGHT, I THINK SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THIS CODE ARE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER BEFORE LIKE THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, MY LOT IS 140 FEET WIDE.
SO IF SOMEONE ELSE GOT A HOLD OF IT, THEY'D TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THREE STORIES AND 35 FEET IN THE MIDDLE, 40 FEET OF IT.
AND IT WOULD BE THIS KIND OF VERY LARGELY OUT OF SCALE ALAMO, UM, WITH THE HIGH POINT IN THE CENTER.
AND THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.
I BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE SHOULD INCORPORATE INTO THIS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED THROUGH THAT ENTIRE RMM FOUR, UH, MF PROCESS, UH, WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT AND THE TABLES FOR RMM 4 56 MF 18, WELL EXCUSE ME, RMM FOUR, RMM FIVE, AND RMM SIX WOULD BE CHANGE TO 35 FEET AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
I WOULD MAKE THAT A MOTION IF SOMEONE WOULD SECOND IT.
CAN WE REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? SO THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE, UH, TO AMEND THE TABLE FOR ARM FOUR, ARM FIVE, ARM SIX RELATED TO HEIGHT TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES, REMOVING THE HALF STORY, UM, ABILITY TODAY AND MODIFYING AMENDING MF 33 TO BE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET INSTEAD OF 45 FEET.
ALSO MORE APPROPRIATE TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT.
WOULD YOU KEEP THAT AT 45, UM, 45 FEET? WOULD YOU ALLOW THREE STORIES OR DO YOU WANT 2.5? IT IT DOES NOT SPECIFY HEIGHT OR NUMBER OF STORIES IN THAT TABLE.
IT JUST SAYS THE HEIGHT, CORRECT.
BUT WE CAN ADD, UH, THREE STORIES OF 2.5.
I DO, YEAH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES BECAUSE AS KATT DESCRIBED IN THE PRESENTATION, MF 30 THREES ARE KIND OF A, AN ODD RESULT OF U D C ADOPTION AND REALLY ARE NOT LIKE THE MF FORTIES AND FIFTIES.
SO ON MF 18, MF 25, MF 33, I PROPOSE AMENDING THE HEIGHTS TO 35 FEET AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES AS WELL.
SO THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF MF 33 ALL OVER THE CITY.
UM, THAT IS, UH, NOT JUST WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS.
THESE ARE TYPICAL APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE DEVELOPED AT THREE STORIES, FOUR STORIES OR, OR THE, THEY USE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN THE HEIGHT IN THE SETBACKS FOR HEIGHT INCREASES.
SO THOSE KIND OF AMENDMENTS WOULD HAVE, UH, A GLOBAL IMPACT.
THE, UM, JUST TO MAKE MAKE IT CLEAR, NOTE 11, UM, WOULD RESTRICT YOU TO THE 35 FEET TWO AND A HALF STORY IF YOU, IF YOU ARE AN RMM FOUR LOT ADJACENT TO RMM SIX OR R SIX OR R FOUR, UM, SO YOU DON'T GET THE THREE STORY BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET.
IF YOU DO HAVE A WIDE LOT, UM, THEN YES, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE 50 FEET FROM ALL SIDES WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORY.
AND THEN WHATEVER YOU HAVE LEFT IS WHERE YOU COULD GO HIGHER USING THE WEDDING CAKE APPROACH.
UM, BUT AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF YOU'RE AN ARM FOUR LOT IN BETWEEN AN R SIX LOT OR AN R FOUR LOT, YOU'RE RESTRICTED TO THE 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET OF BOTH SIDES.
UH, SO YOU DON'T GET THE THREE STORIES BY RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT'S LIMITED TO THAT, TO THAT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR THAT SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
MY ISSUE IS THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING ONLY ONE SCENARIO AND THE SCENARIO IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS MUCH DIFFERENT IN WHICH ALL OF THE HOMES ARE RM FOUR DOWN ALL OF THE STREETS ON ALL OF THE BLOCKS, RIGHT? AND, AND, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT AT THE TASK FORCE BECAUSE AGAIN, YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS AN ARMED FOUR LOT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THESE THREE STORIES TODAY.
SO YOU, THE TASK FORCE TALKED ABOUT, YOU SHOULD KEEP THAT RIGHT AS WELL.
[01:45:01]
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THREE.SO IF I CAN CHIME IN, MR. NEFF, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THESE CONVERSATIONS DID HAPPEN AT THE TASK FORCE.
THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
WE DID ALLOW FOR CITIZEN FEEDBACK JUST LIKE WE DO HERE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I KNOW THESE DISCUSSIONS, UM, COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A GLOBAL IMPACT TO OUR CITY AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT TOOK SO LONG FOR US TO GET TO THE POINTS THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY.
CONSIDERING I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.
I KNOW YOU, WE ARE AWARE THAT YOU HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE HERE.
I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT POTENTIALLY HA HAVING THESE DISCUSSED THE 2020 BECAUSE OF THAT GLOBAL IMPACT TO THE CITY.
UM, BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN JUST THIS MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING EVERYONE'S CONCERNS AND NOT JUST, UH, DISTRICT TWO BY THE WAY, WHICH WHERE I LIVE.
I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO MENTION INSTEAD OF MAKING A GLOBAL CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR MF 33, BECAUSE THERE ARE MF 33 PROPERTIES ALL OVER THE CITY, MAYBE IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE HEIGHT LIMITATION TO BE ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMITATION TO BE ATTACHED TO NOTE 12.
SO THAT IF YOU HAVE THE MF 33 IN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT IT WOULD ONLY AFFECT THOSE AND NOT AFFECT THE MF 33 PROPERTIES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO ATTACH IT TO NOTE 12.
IF, IF YOU WOULD MODIFY YOUR MOTION ON THAT.
IF, IF, WELL DON'T WE HAVE ACTUALLY ONE LIKE MY MOTION FOR JUST THE RMS AND THEN DON'T WE HAVE NEFF WHO NEEDS A SECOND FOR HIS OR, I MEAN I JUST KIND OF THREW IT IN THERE, BUT SHE DID SECOND ME, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD LEGALLY WANT TO DO, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE SO THAT MOTION IF WE ADD ALAN'S AMENDMENTS WILL HAVE TO YEAH, WE, YEAH.
WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
I THINK CHERISE IS SAYING SHE WANTS HER MOTION JUST VOTED UPON AS IT WAS, UH, PROPOSED.
SO IF WE COULD DO MINE SEPARATE AND THEN HAVE PAT GET HIS MOTION, UH, MAKE A MOTION SECOND SEPARATELY FROM MINE.
AND I WOULD SAY GO OVER THE, THE EACH AMENDMENT SO WE CAN JUST CLARIFY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
SO WHICH ONE DO YOU WANNA START WITH? OKAY.
BUT TONY, YOU CAN JUST SIMPLY HELP ME OUT WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU PROPOSED IT AND IT SOUNDED GOOD TO ME.
SO IT'S LIMITING MF AND RMM, MF 33, MF 33 TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
WHEN, WHEN NOTE 12 APPLIES, THE NOTE 12 HAS TO DO WITH SETBACKS, BUT IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER.
OKAY, SO THEN IT'S 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORY ON THE ENTIRE LOT OR THE FIRST 50 FEET OF EACH SIDE.
'CAUSE THAT'S ALREADY A NODE 11.
I GUESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IN THAT IS THAT WHERE YOU HAVE AN MF 33 THAT IS IN A LOT, THAT IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE, WHICH WOULD BE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONVERSION HAVING HAPPENED, THEN IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE 35 2 AND A HALF.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU FIT THAT INTO THE TABLE.
THE ENTIRETY OF THAT SITE THAT IS A THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS WOULD BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
I SO WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T GET INTO TROUBLE WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.
IT'S ADDING ADDITIONAL NOTE AND NOTE 11.
YEAH, LIKE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN NOTE 12 SAYS MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER, BLAH BLAH, BLAH.
THAT SENTENCE COULD BE ADDED TO NOTE 11, CORRECT? ONLY FOR MF 33, CORRECT? YES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? MAY I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE VOTE? CAN, CAN WE MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE LANGUAGE CORRECT ON HERE REAL QUICK IF YOU DON'T MIND? YES.
AND I, I MEANT THAT THAT WAS FOR MF 1825 AND 33.
[01:50:01]
AND THEN MR. OH, YOU, YOU WANNA ADD THE TWO AND A HALF STORY LIMITATION TO MF 18 AND MF 25.AND THEN THAT WAY THEY CAN SEE IT.
I WOULD SAY USES, I WOULD SAY A ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT A DISTRICTS, BECAUSE REMEMBER IT COULD BE A CHURCH OR SCHOOL OR SOMETHING ELSE.
WE NEED TO ADD NOTE 11 ON MF 18.
AND ACTUALLY NOTE 11 IS ALREADY ON THE HEIGHT FOR ALL OF THEM.
UH, THE, OH, WAIT, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO COLUMN FOR HEIGHT MICROPHONE, CAT NODE 11 IS ON THE COLUMN FOR HEIGHT.
SO IT'S ONLY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES WHERE THEY'RE LIMITED.
SO DON'T CHANGE THE TABLE YET.
SO WE COVERED M OKAY, WE COVERED THAT ONE.
IS THAT GOOD? IS THAT LANGUAGE CORRECT? OKAY.
MR. CHAIR, I THINK MR. COX HAS A QUESTION.
RIGHT? ALL RIGHT, MR. COX? YEAH.
SO PRIOR TO MAKING THIS CHANGE, I THINK ONE THING I'VE REALIZED SITTING HERE IS NOTE 11 IS, WAS SIMPLY COPIED FROM SECTION 35 5 17.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT RESTRICTION WE WERE ADDING BY SIMPLY COPYING THIS NOTE HERE BECAUSE, SO IF YOU GO BACK TO SIMA'S EXAMPLE, WHICH IS NINE 30 WEST CRAIG, WHICH IS 45 FEET, THERE IS NO, UH, RESTRICTION DOWN TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD TO WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD, WHICH IS 45 FEET.
IF YOU, THIS RESTRICTION NOW SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE ABUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY USE, YOU'RE RESTRICTED TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET.
TODAY IF YOU, IF YOU'RE MF 33, YOU GET TO BUILD TO 45 FEET PERIOD.
BUT SO THIS NOW RESTRICTS IT DOWN TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET OF THOSE BECAUSE OF THE YELLOW WE JUST ADDED OR BECAUSE WHAT YOU NO, BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED, THIS YELLOW THAT'S BEEN ADDED NOW FURTHER LIMITS THE HEIGHT ACROSS THE ENTIRE LOT.
NOT WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET, IF THEY'RE ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS ZONE MF 18, MF 25 OR MF UH, 33.
AND MAYBE IT'S JUST MY NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPREHEND THIS, BUT IT, IT LOOKED LIKE A MERE COPY PASTE FROM 35 7 5.
SO THE FIRST, THE ONE IN BLUE WAS TAKING WHAT WAS ALREADY IN FIVE 17 AND APPLYING IT TO THIS, SO THAT WAY YOU COULDN'T BUILD BY RIGHT.
45 FEET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK.
I GUESS I ASSUME THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE, BUT, BUT MAYBE IT WAS.
NO, IT, IT'S ON THAT, THAT THAT FIVE 17 ONLY APPLIES WHEN YOU WANT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT HIGHER THAN 45 FEET.
SO IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, UM, UH, 50 FEET PROPERTY LINE OF ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
WELL, WHAT IF THE SINGLE FAMILY USE YOU'RE ADJACENT TO IS AN MF 33 ZONING DISTRICT? YOU'RE NOT REALLY RESTRICTING ANYTHING.
NO, BUT THAT'S A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT.
THIS IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
SO, UM, IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE ADJACENT TO AN R SIX OR FOUR, THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY, ARMED FOUR SINGLE FAMILY, ALL OF THOSE, THOSE, THAT'S THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
[01:55:01]
IF IT'S THE USE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.BUT IF I LIVE, LET, LET ME JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS.
SO IF I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT'S ONE STORY HIGH THAT'S ZONED MF 33 AND THERE'S AN ADJACENT LOT THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED THAT'S ZONED MF 33 DEVELOPED AS WHAT DEVELOPED AS A 35 FOOT TALL TWO AND A HALF OR THREE STORY UNIT.
SO IF THEY'RE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN MF 33 LOT ALREADY TODAY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO COMPLY WITH R FOUR STANDARDS.
SO IF YOU'RE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH R FOUR.
BUT IF YOU'RE BUILDING MULTIPLE UNITS ADJACENT TO ME, YES, BUT I'M ZONED MF 33.
MY, I'M, I'M NOT IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
I'M IN A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT BECAUSE I'M ZONED MF 33.
SO DOES THAT APPLY IN THIS CASE? WELL, I, I REALIZE THAT, BUT IT SAYS BOTH.
IT SAYS ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
WELL, I'M NOT ZONED SINGLE FAMILY, I'M ZONED MULTIFAMILY.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES.
I THINK WHAT I THINK WHERE WE'VE FIXED IT, IF I, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT WRONG IN MY MIND, WHERE I THINK WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IS WHAT THIS LANGUAGE WE'VE JUST ADDED TO WHERE IF 'CAUSE IT, THEY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY HEIGHT DESIGNATION FOR THAT USE, RIGHT? YES.
BECAUSE AGAIN, REMEMBER IT, IT, IT GOES BACK TO THE, YOU HAVE R FOUR ON YOUR SIDE.
I HAVE R FOUR THAT MAY BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP IT AS THREE STORIES.
YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT AND ABILITY TO DEVELOP IT AS 45 FEET AND SO DOES THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO YOU.
HOWEVER, THESE CODE AMENDMENTS LIMIT YOU TO 35 FEET, TWO AND A HALF STORIES IF THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY USES.
SO BOTH TOGETHER WOULD CORRECT.
WOULD APPLY TO THAT MF 33 SITUATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
OH, AND I GUESS FINAL COMMENT, ANY CHANGES MADE HERE, SHOULD THEY, I MEAN, AT LEAST I WOULD ADD THE ANNA BUDDING PIECE AT LEAST BACK TO 35 17, SINCE IT IS A MERE IMAGE OF THAT LANGUAGE.
I MEAN, THAT LAST SENTENCE MAY NOT APPLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY ON A TECHNICAL LEVEL.
YOU ADDED ANNA BUDDING THERE,
CAN YOU, DO YOU HAVE PROOF? YES, I HAVE.
I CAN MAKE UP WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SEE.
SO WE HAVE, I GUESS WE HAVE THREE AMENDMENTS ON THE TABLE AT THIS TIME, RIGHT? SO LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE.
WHO, WHO MADE THE FIRST ONE? MR. TAYLOR? OKAY, LET'S GO BACK TO MR. TAYLOR'S AMENDMENT.
CAN WE ITERATE, REITERATE WHAT THAT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY? I DO REMEMBER NOW.
IT, IT IS JUST A, IT IS JUST A CLARIFICATION.
SO IT'S JUST SAYING YEAH, IT, OH, IT'S JUST THE ABUTTING.
IT'S BASED ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, NOT A PROPERTY.
A PROPERTY WAS JUST A LITTLE VAGUE, SO ABUTTING CLARIFIES THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT ONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TAYLOR TO ADD THE LANGUAGE AS NOTED THERE.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. TACKETT.
SO WE'LL VOTE ON EACH ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS INDIVIDUALLY.
BY SHOW OF HANDS, EVERYBODY, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS BY MS. BELL.
CAN WE REITERATE WHAT THAT IS? THE AMENDMENT WAS TO CHANGE R M UH, 4, 5 6 FROM 35 UH, FEET, AND THREE STORIES TO 35 FEET AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AS STATED BY MS. BELL BELLON, A SECOND BY WAS MS. REED.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? I, GO AHEAD.
SO I'M SORRY, COULD WE CLARIFY THAT MOTION JUST SO WE KNOW EXACTLY.
IT MEANS AMENDING TABLE THREE 10.
GOING BACK UP AND MAKING THE HEIGHT LIMITATION A DROP FROM THREE STORIES TO TWO AND A HALF, CORRECT.
SO ANYTHING BUILT TODAY AT THREE STORIES, UM, IF APPROVED BY COUNCIL BECOMES NON-CONFORMING.
UM, AND LIKE MELISSA SAID, THIS WAS, THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE TASK FORCE AND IT DOES HAVE A GLOBAL IMPACT, WHICH WAS, UM, ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH THAT KIND OF AMENDMENT.
UH, CAN YOU TELL US AGAIN HOW MANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE THERE? AND, YOU KNOW, GENERAL REPRESENTATION WAS DEVELOPMENT.
NEIGHBORHOOD EIGHT, UH, REPRESENTED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAD RM OR M PREVALENT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
[02:00:01]
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER EIGHT WERE, UH, DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, UM, MEMBERS, UH, THAT DEVELOPED ON RM OR MF LOTS.SO THAT WAY THEY COULD GIVE THE REAL LIFE SCENARIOS OF WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.
UM, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AREN'T THEY RMMS OR ARE THEY USUALLY OURS FOR? SO WHEN YOU HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT, AND THE ZONING OF THOSE DISTRICTS FOR LIKE RESIDENTIAL, ARE THEY TYPICALLY R OR RMS? I THOUGHT RMMS IS MAINLY IN THE INNER CITY.
SO THERE'S, UH, LIKE, UM, ALAN WAS SAYING R RMM IS, UM, THERE'S A LOT IN DENVER HEIGHTS GOVERNMENT HILL, GOVERNMENT HILL HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD, UM, THEY WERE AT THE TABLE.
UM, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS, IS ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT THERE'S RM IN OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES TOO.
SO KAT, I I SEEM TO RECALL THAT THE RM DISTRICTS, THEY ACTUALLY WERE 35, 2 AND A HALF FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
AND THEN FAIRLY RECENTLY WE CHANGED IT TO, OR CITY COUNCIL CHANGES IT TO 35 3.
DO YOU PROVIDE SOME HISTORY ON THAT? IT, THERE WASN'T A CHANGE IN 2 20 15 TO THE HEIGHT THAT WAS ALREADY THERE IN 2010.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE HEIGHT WAS CHANGED.
I IT MAY HAVE BEEN CHANGED PRIOR TO THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW DO WE PARK IT AND HOW DO WE HAVE HABITABLE SPACE, HOW DO WE MAKE IT A FAMILY HOME? HOW DOES THIS BECOME A THREE BEDROOM HOME? BECAUSE, UM, IT WOULD, IT WAS GONNA START PUSHING PEOPLE TOWARDS THE, UH, VARIANCE PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL HALF STORY.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS, HAS A HISTORY ON THAT OR RECALLS THAT AS WELL, BUT I, I WOULD JUST CAUTION EVERYBODY AGAINST KIND OF A RUSH DECISION TO CHANGE IT BACK TO SOMETHING IT WAS.
AND I, I THINK THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION, A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT LED TO IT BEING CHANGED.
I WOULD JUST MAYBE BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT.
THIS WAS A SUBSTANTIAL TOPIC OF CONVERSATION IN THE COMMITTEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE HALF STORY, UM, ALLOWANCE FOR RM THAT, UH, ISN'T GIVEN TO THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE ENDED UP FALLING OR, UM, ON THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT WAS PROPOSED.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMFORTABLE WITH GOING BACK TO THE TWO AND A HALF WITH THE GLOBAL EFFECT AND THE NONCONFORMANCE, THAT THAT WOULD PUT WAY TOO MANY OUT THERE.
AND, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE COSMETIC LOOK AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN OUT THERE.
UH, YEAH, I'VE BEEN ON THE TECH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OFF AND ON FOR A LONG TIME.
JUST MAYBE PART OF IT'S ME BEING AN ENGINEER, BUT I THINK I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THAT OUR JOB HERE WAS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGES TO WHAT AN ORDINANCE OUGHT TO READ OR SHOULDN'T READ.
BUT OUR, OUR MANDATE WAS TO STAY.
DOES THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS WRITTEN, SAY WHAT THE WRITER INTENDED TO BE? DO WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS? YES, WE DO.
NOT TO MAKE PHILOSOPHICAL DECISIONS TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT PROPER THING TO SAY, SAYING THAT IF I WERE VOTING MYSELF ON WHAT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE READ, I'D BE VOTING WITH MR. NEFF ABSOLUTELY RIGHT DOWN THE LINE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY I THINK ABOUT IT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHO WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SAYING, DOES THAT LANGUAGE SAY WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO SAY? I THINK, YEAH.
SO JUST TO ADD MY 2 CENTS FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE LAST FELLOW, TWO MEMBERS THAT JUST SPOKE IN TERMS OF THE GLOBAL CHANGE AND CREATING NONCONFORMING USES ALSO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE GENESIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S, IT'S MY, IT'S SOMETHING MY PLACE HERE PERSONALLY TO MAKE THAT LEVEL OF CHANGE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME OTHER LARGER DECISION OR, OR BEING MADE.
SO I THINK, UH, MS. RAMOS HAD TO, UM, AND I KIND OF AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE CONVERSATION.
UM, I THINK WE'RE POINTED HERE.
I THINK WE'RE PUT IN THIS PLACE TO MAKE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS.
I KNOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN LENGTHY DISCUSSION.
[02:05:01]
WAS THE, THE VOTE ON THAT WHEN IT CAME OUT OF, UM, THE TASK FORCE? THERE WERE NO VOTES TAKEN, UM, THROUGH THE TASK FORCE.IT WAS MOSTLY ABOUT TRYING TO GET TO A CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THAT TO TWO AND A HALF, NEVER GOT TO A CONSENSUS.
UH, BUT WHAT GOT TO THE CONSENSUS WAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN WITH SOME INFORMATION THAT SOME OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD ASKED ABOUT ORIGINALLY.
R M FOUR, RM FIVE AND RMM SIX WERE TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
UM, WHEN THE DISTRICTS WERE FIRST CREATED IN 2012 AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE.
THE HEIGHT WAS RAISED TO THREE, AND THAT WAS IN 2012.
AND SO THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THE CURRENT THREE STORY LIMITATION.
THAT'S WHY I COULDN'T REMEMBER IT IN 2015.
SO, UM, I JUST THINK WE SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A GLOBAL EFFECT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE DO HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
I MEAN, THERE, THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED A PROCESS FOR EVERYTHING.
SO I THINK, UM, AT THIS POINT, WE ARE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING BODY THAT GOES FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH WILL HAVE ANOTHER LEVEL OF DISCUSSION.
IT'LL GO TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEES, WHICH WILL HAVE ANOTHER LEVEL OF DISCUSSION, MORE PUBLIC INPUT, AND IT'LL ALSO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO, I MEAN, THERE'S GONNA STILL BE ADDITIONAL, UM, FEEDBACK AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN.
SO, UM, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT.
I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF CHIME IN TO BUILDING ON MICHAEL'S COMMENT OF, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT A COMMITTEE JUST SPENT SEVEN MONTHS TALKING ABOUT, OR SEVEN MEETINGS PLUS ALL THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND CAME AWAY WITH CONSENSUS, IF NOT, YOU KNOW, UNANIMOUS, AT LEAST A CONSENSUS AT THREE STORIES.
AND IN 2012, THERE WAS CLEARLY SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION, UM, THAT CAME TO THREE STORIES AT THAT.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT IN A HALF HOUR DISCUSSION HERE, WE'RE OVERRIDING WHAT TWO PREVIOUS COMMITTEES HAVE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME, FAR MORE THAN WE HAVE ON THE ISSUE, AND STUDIED AND LOOKED AT IT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT I THINK FOR SURE, I BELIEVE THE 40 FIVE'S NOT APPROPRIATE IN BRINGING IT BACK TO 35 IS SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT.
BUT I WOULD HATE TO OVERTURN WHAT TWO PREVIOUS COMMITTEES THAT HAD THE FOCUS SOLELY TO LOOK AT THIS.
I GUESS GOING TO WHERE MATT AND BOB ARE SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE REALLY COME FORWARD WITH A POLICY RECOMMENDATION.
AND ARE WE LOOKING AT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT HERE? UM, CAN I, OH, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT, UH, DISTRICT TWO OTHER DISTRICTS MAY HAVE OFFERED MOTION TO THAT ALL, IT MAY BURDEN ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BILL, NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT.
MR. NEFF, IN TERMS OF THE COMMITTEES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT COMMITTEE HERE TODAY THAT SPOKE VERY POINTEDLY ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE SHOULD HAVE COME OUT AND WHAT WAS LEFT OUT OF THAT COMMITTEE.
UH, NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE HERE AS WELL.
WHAT I HEARD ANECDOTALLY THROUGH THE MONTHS WAS THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE EAST SIDE OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE DEVELOPING THE EAST SIDE, TALKING ABOUT HOW PRIME IT IS FOR MAKING SOME GREAT MONEY THERE.
UH, THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE IN DISTRICT TWO WERE GENERALLY NOT AT THE TABLE, AND THAT WAS WHY I OFFERED TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND WAS DENIED.
SO WE CAN'T ALWAYS SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE HAD A NO VOTE PROCESS THAT CAME UP WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION MEANS THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE BEST ANSWER OR THE ONLY ANSWER.
UM, HAVING LIVED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS IN ALL RMM FOUR DISTRICT SINCE BEFORE THAT CODE CHANGED TO THREE STORIES, UM, AND SEEING THE IMPACT IT HAD PRETTY MUCH DRAMATICALLY RIGHT WHEN THAT CODE CHANGE HAPPENED.
UM, IT HAS NOT BEEN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY.
IT HAS REALLY, UH, RUINED THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO BE TECHNICAL IN THE CODE, AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO TECHNICALLY STUDY WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO US AND MAKING
[02:10:01]
EDITS TO MAKE IT AS BEST AS IT CAN POSSIBLY BE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO.AND I THINK THAT THIS, UH, MOTION IS THE RIGHT ONE TO MAKE, AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE AT THIS TABLE TO VOTE FOR IT IF I COULD.
THERE WAS ANOTHER PART OF THE DISCUSSION, AND I KNOW, UM, UH, MR. NEFF AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, UM, IS, UH, THE DISCUSSION WAS, UM, CENTERED AROUND THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE CODE CONVERSIONS TO MF 33 TO ARM FOUR, WHERE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WERE DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, PART OF THE C C R WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INAPPROPRIATE ZONING AND HOW DO YOU RESOLVE THAT? UH, SO D ONE AS A SECOND STEP TO THIS, UH, DID A C C R TO START LOOKING AT THEIR, UH, DISTRICT ONE NEIGHBORHOODS TO REZONE THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE MF 33 AS A RESULT OF A CODE CONVERSION AND REZONE THEM TO SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
UM, DENVER HEIGHTS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THAT LARGE AREA REZONING EFFORT AS WELL.
UM, AND, UM, WE, AND LIKE MR. NEV TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE ESTATE TOMORROW PLANNING PROCESS.
AND THE SECOND STEP TO THAT SHOULD BE A REZONING EFFORT TO ALIGN THE ZONING WITH THE LAND USES THAT ARE PROPOSED.
UM, AND AT ANY TIME IN THE PROCESS, THE DI THE DISTRICT CAN INITIATE A C C R AND THROUGH RESOLUTION, WE CAN PUT THE, THE LARGE AREA REZONING IN THE QUEUE.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING ON THREE NEIGHBORHOODS IN D ONE, UM, AND TRYING TO GET THEM DONE BEFORE MARCH THAT WOULD CORRECT THOSE, UM, ANOMALIES.
AND THAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS, UM, INAPPROPRIATELY ZONED NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPED AS SUCH.
UM, AND, UM, INS, INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT GLOBAL IM IMPACT TO A DISTRICT WHERE THEY MAY ALREADY BE DEVELOPED AS, AS, AS WHAT IS ALLOWED TO THEM IN THOSE DISTRICTS, UM, IN CREATING NON-CONFORMING.
BUT I MEAN, I KNOW HIS, ONE OF HIS NEIGHBORHOODS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT, UM, SHOULD BE LOOKED AT FOR, FOR ZONING DENSITY MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS, BUT IN SOME OF THE BLOCKS THEY MAY NOT BE.
IT SHOULD BE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT LIKELY WON'T BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE BEEN LONG NEGLECTED AND ARE, UM, EASILY MANIPULATED AND TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF FOR PROFIT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEADERSHIP THAT IS STANDING UP TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR NEIGHBORS.
AND SO WE AT THIS TABLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW THAT PROTECTS THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN SAYING THAT SOMEONE AT A TABLE SEVEN YEARS AGO MADE A CHANGE TO THREE STORIES WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACT IT'S HAD.
I'VE BEEN LIVING WITHIN THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAD FOR MANY YEARS.
AND I CAN SEE THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED IT.
AND I'M GLAD MS. BELL MADE IT A MOTION.
UH, ROBERT HANLEY, UH, KATT, I APPRECIATE, UH, WHAT YOU PRESENTED WAS ANOTHER OPTION OR AN ALTERNATIVE TO ADDRESS THIS SOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MR. NEFF'S NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I DON'T WANNA MAKE A DECISION FOR THE WHOLE CITY BECAUSE WE DON'T REPRESENT INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS.
WE REPRESENT THE WHOLE CITY, AND I WANNA MAKE A DECISION THAT HELPS ONE PART OF THE CITY OUT, BUT THEY MAY PAY A PRICE ON THE REST OF THE CITY.
SO ZONING CHANGES ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING, AND AGAIN, IF IT'S NOT INITIATED BY THE OWNER, UM, IT COULD HAPPEN THROUGH A RESOLUTION PROCESS WHERE COUNCIL DOES THE RESOLUTION AS A RESULT OF A C C R, UH, TO REZONE THOSE PROPERTIES.
UH, SAME THING IN APPLYING A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IF THEY WANT ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
UH, BUT YEAH, REZONING IS, IS AN OPTION TO ADDRESS THE INAPPROPRIATELY ZONED, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT, MR. HANLEY, THAT, UH, WHERE YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A WHOLE CITY STANDPOINT, NOT JUST ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, YOU KNOW, TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE MANY YEARS AGO IN THE SPAN OF A HOUR LONG CONVERSATION, IT'S PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE WHEN THERE IS DEFINITE HUGE IMPACTS ACROSS THE CITY.
UM, I THINK THIS KIND OF BLEEDS OVER INTO A MORE, UH, DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE CITYWIDE AS WE GO INTO THE 2020 CODE AMENDMENTS, IN MY OPINION.
UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH KAT THOUGH.
THE SA 2020 IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT, UH, WITH ALL THE LAND USES AND THE LAYERS OF THE ZONING UNDERNEATH THAT BY NEIGHBORHOOD, REALLY, I THINK WE ALL NEED TO BE IN TUNE WITH HOW, WHERE THAT'S GONNA AFFECT YOU AT THAT TIME.
BUT FOR YOU TO, TO AFFECT MY AREA OF TOWN, I'M, I'M, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.
I, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I SEE WHAT YOU SEE AND IT WOULD, IT COMPELS ME TO WANNA MAKE A CHANGE TOO.
[02:15:01]
FOR 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE OR DEVELOPERS, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.ALRIGHT, SO NOW, UH, THE MOTION, WHAT DO WE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? UPDATING THE TABLE THREE 10 TO, UM, FURTHER RESTRICT THE HEIGHT FOR ARM FOUR, ARM FIVE, ARM SIX TO, UH, TWO AND A HALF STORIES, CHANGING IT FROM THREE DOWN TO TWO AND A HALF.
SO THAT'S THE MOTION RIGHT NOW.
AND MR. CHAIR, I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ONE.
SO WE HAD, THE MOTION WAS BY MS. BELL AND THE SECOND WAS BY MS. REEDEN.
WELL, AT THIS STAGE, I GUESS WE WILL ENTERTAIN, UH, A VOTE.
SO WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL, VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
MR. COX? MR. TACKETT? MR. LEEMAN.
MR. PEG? MOTION? SHE OH, MR. GUDO? UH, MR. GUDO AND ALTERNATE.
THE, UH, VOTE WAS NINE TO SIX.
SO THE THIRD AMENDMENT WAS THE AMENDMENT TO NOTE 12, OR NOTE 11 AS PER MR. NEFF.
AND WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN THERE.
I GUESS AT THIS STAGE, THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE WANTING, MR. NEFF? I THINK THAT FITS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
SO WE HAD A MOTION BY MR. NEFF TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, AND WE HAD A SECOND BY, I THINK IT WAS MS. WRIGHT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM HERE? LET'S DO, WE'RE JUST GONNA DO THE ROLL CALL.
CAN I, MAY I DISCUSS SOMETHING? OKAY.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THE RMM DISCUSSION COULDN'T BE SOMEHOW FIT INTO THIS SENTENCE WHERE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES, LIKE, INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, ADD TO THAT RM FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX? NO, I MEAN, TONY, ANY COMMENT TO THAT? BUT LIKE, WE, LIKE WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, IF YOU'RE AN RM AND YOU, THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO YOU IS RM, EACH ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD US THREE STORIES.
BUT NOW YOU WOULD RESTRICT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO TWO AND A HALF WHILE THAT ONE GOT THREE, WHICH WE'RE DOING TO MULTIFAMILY.
BUT I THINK WHAT, FOR LOTS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE.
FOR OUR SAME, IT'D BE THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE JUST FOR RMM ON LOTS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN AC.
BECAUSE WHAT IT SAYS IS WHERE A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IS.
AND BY CODE DEFINITION IN THE U D C A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IS ONE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY, THREE FAMILY AND FOUR FAMILY, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM ART RM FOUR.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL VOTE OR, YEAH, ROLL CALL VOTE.
CAN WE RESTATE THE, UM, MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE SECOND OF THE MOTION RECORD? THE MAKE THE MOTION WAS MR. NEFF AND I BELIEVE THE SECOND WAS MS. WRIGHT.
AND YOU CAN JUST DO A HAND VOTE.
IF WE SEE TOO MANY NO'S, THEN WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, UH, OF THE, UH, AMENDMENT AS NOTED.
AND MANY KNOWS ANYBODY OPPOSED? WE HAVE ONE MANY TWO.
RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION.
NOW, I GUESS WE NEED A, UH, WE NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WHOLE THING WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS APPROVED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
[02:20:01]
WILL NEED A MOTION TO, UH, CONSIDER THE ITEM.WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. WHITTINGTON.
AND I'M ASSUMING YOUR MOTION INCLUDES, UH, WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED.
UH, WE'LL DO A SHOW OF HANDS AGAIN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[4. Discussion and possible action on proposed changes to Chapter 35, the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 35-801, relating to changing the number of alternate members of the Board of Adjustment from six members to seven members. The PCTAC may discuss and consider changes to other relevant sections of the UDC in their deliberations. (Tony Felts, AICP, Development Services Policy Administrator, (210) 207-0153, tony.felts@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR.SO I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE.
UH, MONIQUE, IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE, UH, THE LANGUAGE.
UM, THIS WAS A LAST MINUTE ADDITION TO THE AGENDA, UM, RELATING TO THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, THIS CAME FROM DISCUSSIONS AT THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ON THURSDAY, ON THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK, UM, WHEN THE BOARD OF A ADJUST, WHEN, I'M SORRY, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING, UH, NOMINEES FOR ALTERNATE POSITIONS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, VERY, VERY RECENTLY, UH, OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS HAD TROUBLE NUMBER ONE, MAKING QUORUMS AND ALSO HAS HAD TROUBLE, UH, GETTING THE FULL 11 MEMBER COMPLIMENT.
THE WAY THE ALTERNATES WORK IS IF ONE OF THE 11 MEMBERS THAT ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR, UM, ARE NOT AVAILABLE, AN ALTERNATE CAN TAKE THEIR PLACE FOR THAT MEETING.
UM, WHY THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THAT BY STATE LAW, UM, IN ORDER TO PASS ANY TYPE OF MOTION FOR A VARIANCE OR TO OVERRULE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, IT REQUIRES A 70 A VOTE OF 70% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WHICH IS NINE.
SO IF THERE'S ONLY NINE MEMBERS THERE, IT REQUIRES A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
UM, AND SO BECAUSE OF THE QUORUM ISSUES AND THE ISSUES GETTING 11 FULL MEMBERS TO THE BOARD ON A REGULAR BASIS, UH, WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW FOR SEVEN ALTERNATES INSTEAD OF SIX.
SO THAT REQUIRED A MINOR U D C AMENDMENT CHANGE, PULL UP THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE.
SO IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN JUST A LITTLE BIT, WHAT YOU SEE, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE 11 MEMBERS THAT ARE, ARE APPOINTED BY, UM, EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR, WE'RE ONLY CHANGING THE NUMBER OF ALTERNATES, WHICH ARE APPOINTED BY THE FULL CITY COUNCIL FROM SIX TO SEVEN.
THIS KIND OF CHANGE WOULD HELP TODAY'S MEETING.
'CAUSE TODAY WE ONLY HAVE NINE UNTIL FOUR O'CLOCK.
UM, CHAIRMAN, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. HANLEY, A SECOND BY MS. RAMOS.
UH, AT THIS STAGE, WE'LL MOVE ON.
WAS THAT YOUR WHOLE PRESENTATION, TONY? YES, SIR.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? NO.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS BY JUNE.
I'M WONDERING WHY, IF WE'RE GOING TO ALL THIS TROUBLE, WE DON'T MAKE IT MORE THAN SEVEN.
I MEAN, YOU'RE ONLY UPPING AT ONE.
IS THAT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST ALTERNATES.
IF, UM, WHICH ARE NEEDED, IF THE REGULAR MEMBERS, UH, DO NOT ATTEND DOING NINE WOULD MEAN THAT ALL NINE WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING.
AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE.
UM, BUT IT'S THE, IT'S THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALTERNATES WHERE SOME DROP OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TERMS, UM, AND NO LONGER ARE AVAILABLE.
UH, AND SO THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A RE ADVERTISEMENT PROCESS BECAUSE THESE ARE AT LARGE APPOINTMENTS FOR THE ALTERNATES.
AND THAT'S WHERE OUR PROBLEM HAS BEEN.
SO RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE THREE OUT OF THE SIX GOOD ALTERNATES THAT WE CAN CALL ON.
UM, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY, UM, GOOD ABOUT ATTENDING.
INCREASING IT BY ONE WAS WHAT, UM, CITY COUNCIL, UM, REQUESTED.
REQUESTED BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S A MUST BE SEATED.
NINE SEVEN IS A GOOD WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD, UM, SOME ATTENDANCE.
UH, I HAD THE SIMILAR QUESTION AS MS. KOSTICK.
UM, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE STAFF TO CONTINUE A PROPER VETTING PROCESS OF PEOPLE THAT CAN ACTUALLY ATTEND AND WHO ARE, UH, PRESENT IN THE MEETING, UM, ACTUALLY BEING AWAKE DURING THE MEETINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, REALLY, UH, APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO.
UM, BUT ENCOURAGE LIKE A, A REALLY DEEP VETTING PROCESS.
'CAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO, LIKE TECH MEMBERS, RIGHT?
I GUESS FOR MR. WHITTINGTON, I'LL TRY TO STAY AWAKE TODAY.
[02:25:01]
THIS MORNING.UM, I THINK ADDING THIS ONE ALTERNATE MEMBER IS GONNA BE FINE.
I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD NEVER BE NINE ALTERNATES SERVING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
'CAUSE YOU'D BE BETTER OFF JUST CANCELING THAT MEETING.
UM, I DO AGREE THAT, UH, THE REAL PROBLEM IS FINDING PEOPLE THAT ARE COMMITTED TO BE ALTERNATES BECAUSE WE'VE HAD WHATEVER, IT WAS, SIX FOR A LONG TIME, AND THERE'S REALLY LIKE TWO OR THREE ACTIVE ALTERNATE MEMBERS.
SO FINDING PEOPLE TO DEDICATE THAT MUCH TIME IS A, A HARD THING TO DO.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? HEY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SO WE WILL, UH, TAKE, UH, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[5. Briefing related to the 2020 UDC Amendment Cycle. (Tony Felts, AICP, Development Services Policy Administrator, (210) 207-0153, tony.felts@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
ITEM NUMBER SIX, NO FIVE.SO AS PROMISED, THIS IS JUST A BRIEFING ON THE, UH, 2020 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS.
UM, THIS IS REALLY MOSTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE NEW MEMBERS OF TAC WHO DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THEY'VE GOTTEN THEMSELVES INTO
UM, BUT WE'RE DONE THIS BEFORE
UH, SO AGAIN, I I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER.
THE U D C UH, UPDATE PROCESS HAPPENS EVERY FIVE YEARS, ENDING YEARS ENDING IN FIVE AND ZERO.
UM, 2020 ENDS IN ZERO, SO WE'RE DOING THE AMENDMENTS.
UM, THE U D C WAS ADOPTED IN 2001.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, IT IMPLEMENTS THE CITY'S POLICIES RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR MASTER PLAN AND INCLUDE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ZONING, STREET AND DRAINAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION.
THE REASON WHY WE DO IT IS TO STRENGTHEN AND CLARIFY OUR REGULATIONS.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER, WORKABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT COSTS, UM, REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW AND STATE-OF-THE-ART AND PLANNING AND LAND USE, LAND USE PLANNING, AND URBAN DESIGN.
AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT WHO ALL CAN INITIATE AMENDMENTS OR SUBMIT AN AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
BASICALLY IT'S ANYBODY UNDER THE SUN CAN SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT.
THE ONLY CAVEAT WITH THAT IS IF THEY ARE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS FROM AN AGENCY, UH, LIKE SARAH OR SAWS, OR IF THEY'RE ONE OF OUR, UM, VALUED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UM, THOSE BY CODE, THOSE AMENDMENTS BY CODE ARE LIMITED TO EDITING AND CLARIFYING.
HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, UM, EVEN IF THEY'RE EDITING OR CLARIFYING, THAT CAN RECOMMEND TO THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE AT THEIR DISCRETION TO SPONSOR THOSE NON-ED EDITING NON CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO GO FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE FULL PROCESS KIND OF ALREADY JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT.
SO I'M GONNA SKIP THIS SLIDE AGAIN.
MOST OF THE DATES ARE SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT IN THE LAID OUT IN THE U D C FOR OUR TIMELINE TO FOLLOW.
SO WE ACCEPT AMENDMENTS BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1ST, 2020, AND WE WILL CONTINUE ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS THROUGH MAY 1ST, 2020.
NOW, ONCE THOSE AMENDMENTS COME IN, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY COME IN ON JANUARY 1ST OR MAY 1ST OR APRIL 13TH, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THE STAFF AT THE POLICY ADMINISTRATION SECTION, WHICH FOR RIGHT NOW IS MYSELF, MONIQUE MERCADO AND LAUREN CHAVEZ, WE ANTICIPATE TWO ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS WILL BE COMING ON BOARD, UH, PRIOR TO THE PROCESS STARTING.
WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL REVIEW THOSE AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
WE WILL DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SECTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED DON'T, UM, INADVERTENTLY CHANGE OR MODIFY OR HAVE AN EFFECT ON ANOTHER SECTION.
BECAUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THERE'S A LOT OF THAT IN THE U D C.
AND IF WE DO IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE POTENTIAL PITFALLS, WE WILL MEET WITH THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE PROPOSING THE AMENDMENTS TO SEE IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED ON THEIR REQUEST.
OF COURSE, THE STAFF WILL NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY CHANGE THE APPLICANT'S, UH, PROPOSALS ON OUR OWN.
WE WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THAT.
ADDITIONALLY, IF WE GET SOME MORE COMPLEX AMENDMENTS, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING MAJOR, WHICH WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF MAJOR IMPACT ON THE U D C.
IT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD SET UP A SMALL TASK FORCE OR A SMALL, UM, STAKEHOLDER GROUP JUST TO GET FEEDBACK, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAFF ISN'T MISSING ANYTHING ON THE POLICY ADMINISTRATION SIDE.
SO ONCE THAT'S DONE AND MAY 1ST DEADLINE HAS PASSED,
[02:30:02]
UH, POLICY ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL THE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.THE VERY FIRST TAC MEETING THAT WE HAVE IN MID-MAY WILL BE TO REVIEW THOSE AND FOR THE TAC TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER THEY'RE EDITING OR CLARIFYING.
USUALLY THIS IS A PRETTY QUICK PROCESS.
YOU DON'T GO INTO, UM, DETAIL ON THE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE, THE LANGUAGE THEMSELVES.
YOU'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT A SUMMARY AND MAKING A JUDGMENT CALL OF WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S EDITING OR CLARIFYING AND MAKING THAT, UM, RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THEN WE HAVE OUR FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THOSE EDITING AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS, AND WE GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE THE ONES THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, SPONSOR TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD IN THE PROCESS.
AGAIN, THOSE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT EDITING OR CLARIFYING THAT ARE NOT CHOSEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR SPONSORSHIP WILL DIE AT THAT POINT IN MID-MAY.
AND SO THAT'S WHEN THE REAL WORK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STARTS.
AT THAT POINT, WE WILL BE MEETING AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK, EVERY WEEK UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER, SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK, UM, SOMETIMES ALL DAY TO GO INTO DETAIL ON ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS WE WILL HAVE SET DAYS AND TIMES.
AND THAT IS OUR NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
UM, SO AS I SAID, THE THE TAC WILL DO ITS WORK, THEY WILL MAKE THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, AND BY OCTOBER 30TH, THE TAC NEEDS TO PRESENT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO EACH OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
NOW THIS YEAR, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NEW BOARDS, UM, THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO, BUT THAT'LL BE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ZONING COMMISSION, UM, PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, UH, HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMISSION, I'M SORRY, AS WELL AS THE HOUSING COMMISSION.
HOUSING COMMISSION IS A NEW BOARD THIS YEAR THAT WE'LL BE TAKING ALL THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WILL REVIEW, UM, THOSE ITEMS THROUGHOUT THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER.
AND THEN BY DECEMBER 1ST, THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
TYPICALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THE U D C AMENDMENTS ON THE LAST, UM, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS BREAK IN 2020.
THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE FINALLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL WILL GO INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST, 2021.
AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 2021, POLICY ADMINISTRATION'S WORK IS NOT DONE.
WE WILL SET UP, UM, D S D ACADEMIES, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ROAD SHOWS WHERE WE WILL AND OF COURSE, SPECIALIZED TRAININGS HERE AT THE CITY AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAKEHOLDERS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS, AND OUR, UM, DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ARE AWARE OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN 2020.
AND ONE THING I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, BEFORE WE EVEN GET STARTED, UM, IN JANUARY 1ST, WE ARE PLANNING TO DO A, UH, D SS D ACADEMY, UM, HERE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING, UM, EITHER IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER.
AND THEN WE'LL DO ONE AFTER THE HOLIDAYS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF JANUARY, UM, TO GO OVER THE PROCESS TO GO OVER HOW TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT, HOW TO FORMAT AN AMENDMENT, BASICALLY GIVE EVERYBODY THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A SUCCESSFUL PACKAGE FOR A U D C AMENDMENT.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY, VERY HARD.
MONIQUE AND LAUREN HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY, VERY HARD ON GETTING A WEBSITE SET UP.
UM, SO WE CAN TRACK ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S GONNA BE A SPREADSHEET WHERE WHAT'LL, WHICH WILL HAVE LIVE LINKS TO ALL THE LANGUAGE OF THE U D C AMENDMENTS, UM, ANYTIME TAC MEETS ON ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS, AND IF THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CHANGE IN LANGUAGE THAT'LL BE TRACKED THERE AT THAT WEBSITE.
SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE THERE.
WE AIM FOR IT TO BE A VERY, VERY, VERY TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE ALSO LIVE STREAMING MEETINGS.
SO IF, I KNOW IT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS AND PEOPLE WHO WORK TO COME TO EVERY MEETING, UM, ONCE A WEEK, BUT WE AIM TO HAVE THOSE MEETINGS STREAMED AND ARCHIVED.
SO THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE IS VERY, VERY TRANSPARENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
WE WILL BE FULLY STAFFED BY JANUARY AND WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL VERY, VERY CLOSELY.
WE'RE GOING TO BECOME FAST FRIENDS.
UM, EVEN THOUGH I WE'RE GONNA BE BESTIES BY THE END OF THIS PROCESS,
[02:35:01]
AND I WON'T BE BACK FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.AND THE REASON WHY I, I, I JOKE ABOUT THAT A LOT.
I DID GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN 2015 WITH SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE, ON THE TACK.
SO IT, IT IS AN ARDUOUS PROCESS, BUT IT, IT, IT'S A REWARDING PROCESS TO BE ON.
AND I'VE REALLY, I REALLY ENJOYED MY TIME IN 2015.
I JOKE A LOT ABOUT IT, BUT I REALLY ENJOYED IT AND I AM PLANNING TO ENJOY IT THIS TIME AS WELL.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS, RIGHT? ABOUT THE PROCESS.
SO NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER WE'LL BE DOING A D D S D ACADEMY, RIGHT? AND THAT'S FOR ANYBODY TO COME IN.
IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OF OUR OTHER D S D ACADEMIES, RIGHT? SO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS WILL, WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT 'EM AND NOT JUST CITY DEPARTMENTS, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
ANYBODY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THEM, RIGHT? UM, WE, WE DO LOOK TO, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS LIKE T C I FOR STORMWATER AND, AND, UH, H AND O H P FOR, UH, URBAN DESIGN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE DID IN 2015 IS WE TOOK THE ENTIRE PACKAGE YEAH,
WHAT WE DID IN 2015 IS WE DID A SUMMARY SHEET FOR EACH, UM, BOARD, AND WE TRIED TO IDENTIFY THE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD AFFECT THEM THE MOST.
UM, BUT WE DID ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.
JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REALLY QUICKLY.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY INTENSE TIME THE WHOLE YEAR.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY, SINCE YOU CAN ACCEPT THEM JANUARY 1ST, LIKE TO GET REGULAR UPDATES, DO YOU PROVIDE REGULAR UPDATES TO ABSOLUTELY.
SO THEY'RE COMING IN AND SURE, SURE.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
AS SOON AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE THEM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START INTERNALLY STAFF REVIEWING THEM.
THE REASON WHY WE DON'T TAKE 'EM TO START TAKING 'EM TO TAC UNTIL AFTER THE DEADLINE IS BECAUSE SOMETIMES AMENDMENTS COME IN AND YOU MAY HAVE COMPETING AMENDMENTS AGAINST THE SAME SECTION.
AND SO WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE AN AMENDMENT COME IN, GO AHEAD AND GO TO T AND THEN TWO WEEKS LATER WE HAVE A COMPETING AMENDMENT COME IN.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WAIT UNTIL THE END OF MAY.
AND I'M SORRY, THERE WAS ANOTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION I THINK I MISSED.
SO ARE THERE, SO CITY STAFF, CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE BRINGING IN THEIR OWN, WOULD THERE BE COMPETING AMENDMENTS FROM OUTSIDE AGENCIES? THERE? THERE COULD BE.
AND THAT'S PART OF OUR INITIAL REVIEW IS TO IDENTIFY WHEN WE HAVE THOSE COMPETING AMENDMENTS AND TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY IF TIER ONE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT AND SARAH PROPOSED A COMPETING AMENDMENT THAT THEY NOT NECESSARILY COMPETING, BUT THEY MODIFIED THE SAME SECTION.
AND I'M JUST, I'M LOOKING AT CYNTHIA, SO THAT'S WHY I SAID TIER ONE.
SO, UM, I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU CYNTHIA, I PROMISE, BUT, SO IF, IF THEY WERE COMPETING, WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS BRING THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM SARAH TO THE TABLE, BRING THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM TIER ONE TO THE TABLE, SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THESE AMENDMENTS ARE COMPETING.
CAN WE FIND A COMPROMISE AND MAYBE CONSOLIDATE THESE TWO AMENDMENTS? SO THAT'S PART OF OUR WORK.
UM, AS SOON AS THE AMENDMENTS START ROLLING IN, I THINK IT'S REQUIRED.
WHAT ARE THE, SO THE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE, I BELIEVE IT'S, IF THERE'S MORE THAN THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, UM, IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO, UM, REPLACE THAT TAC MEMBER.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT PEOPLE HAVE, THAT PEOPLE HAVE LIVES AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS OR ACTIVITIES FOR THE TAC AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO COME EVERY WEEK.
WHAT I WOULD ASK THOUGH IS IF THERE'S A TIME THAT YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE THERE ONCE WE GET THE SCHEDULE FINALIZED, OR IF YOU KNOW A FAMILY EMERGENCY OR YOU'RE SICK OR YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, JUST SEND ME A QUICK EMAIL OR SEND SOMEONE ON MY STAFF, MONIQUE OR LAUREN
[02:40:01]
A QUICK EMAIL JUST TO LET US KNOW.AND THAT WAY, UM, WE KIND OF HAVE A HEADS UP BECAUSE THAT'S GONNA BE REALLY IMPORTANT IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET A QUORUM.
ALSO, I THINK, UH, PREVIOUS, UH, DIALOGUES, WE ACTUALLY FORWARDED QUESTIONS IF WE WEREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE IT SO THAT WAY, UH, THEY KIND OF GOT OUR POSITION, UH, AT A TIME AND THEN COULD ADDRESS IT, ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLY ADDRESS IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID WHEN I WASN'T THERE, SO.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU THESE AMENDMENTS A COUPLE OF WEEKS IN ADVANCE, OR AT LEAST WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GIVE YOU AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
WE REALLY DO PREFER FOR TO GET THOSE A COUPLE OF DAYS IN ADVANCE.
THAT WAY WE CAN RESEARCH IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE U D C IS A TWO VOLUME THOUSAND PLUS PAGE DOCUMENT.
AND SO I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR 80 YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING IN THAT BOOK.
I'M GONNA BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH YOU.
BUT
NOW, OBVIOUSLY WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE GONNA BE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP THAT WEREN'T THOUGHT OF AND WE TOTALLY GET THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THAT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING BEFOREHAND, JUST LET US KNOW.
[6. Discuss and Take Action on Meeting Dates and Times for the PCTAC for the 2020 UDC Amendment Cycle. (Tony Felts, AICP, Development Services Policy Administrator, (210) 207-0153, tony.felts@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
SO WE'RE, AS I SAID, WE'RE GONNA BE MEETING AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK.WE WANNA RESPECT YOUR SCHEDULES AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE, UM, BEST TIME THAT WE CAN MEET.
ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THIS YEAR VERSUS 2015 IS THAT ALL OF OUR MEETINGS ARE BEING LIVE STREAMED.
AND THIS IS THE ONLY ROOM IN THE BUILDING THAT HAS THE LIVE STREAMING CAPABILITIES.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU IN 20 THAT WERE HERE IN 2015, YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT WE DID ALL THE TAC MEETINGS UP IN TRAINING ROOMS A AND B TRAINING ROOM A IS NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE, IT'S BEING UTILIZED FOR THE BUILD SA PROJECT.
SO THIS IS REALLY OUR ONLY MEETING ROOM.
SO WHAT I DID IS I PUT, WE PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF EACH DAY, THIS ROOM IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO A BORDER COMMISSION MEETING.
AND WHAT I WOULD ASK IS FOR THE GROUP TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON WHAT DAY WOULD BE BEST FOR US TO SET THE WEEKLY MEETINGS.
AND ONCE WE COME TO THAT CONSENSUS TODAY, THAT IS THE TIMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SEND OUT A CALENDAR INVITE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE DAYS BEGINNING IN MID-MAY THROUGH MID-OCTOBER.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT, IS TO DECIDE THE DAY OF THE WEEK AND WHETHER YOU PREFER A MORNING OR AN AFTERNOON MEETING.
I THINK THERE WAS A CONFLICT THAT I HEARD HEARD, UM, FOR MONDAY.
HEY, TONY, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN SEND OUT SOME SORT OF BOX WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND, AND SAY, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN YEAH.
AND DO IT AND JUST DO IT IN AN EMAIL RESPONSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW AT THE SCHEDULE, I'M GOING, OKAY, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AFTERNOONS ARE GOOD.
BUT, UH, IF YOU WOULD SEND SOMETHING OUT AND LET US ALL RESPOND AND THEN YOU CAN SEE, YEAH, I MEAN WE, WE DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE GONNA BE INCONVENIENT TIMES FOR EVERYBODY, BUT WE DO WANT TO TRY TO GET A CONSENSUS.
I'M, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO A DOODLE POLL.
SO WHAT I'LL, WHAT I WILL DO IF, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IS THE DOODLE POLL WILL BE SET UP, UM, TWO OPTIONS FOR EACH DAY OF THE WEEK, UM, EX, BUT I WILL EXCLUDE THE TIMES THAT THE ROOM IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF A STANDING BORDER COMMISSION MEETING.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, I'LL S RIGHT.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE VERY LIMITED.
AND THESE MEETINGS, IT'S HISTORICALLY, SOME OF THEM HAVE GONE MAYBE 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR.
RIGHT, SUSAN, BUT SOME OF 'EM HAVE GONE LIKE FOUR OR FIVE HOURS.
SO WE DO NEED BIG BLOCKS OF TIME.
[02:45:01]
MA'AM.WHAT ABOUT IN OTHER COMMITTEES? I'M ON WHERE THEY HAVE THAT MOBILE DEVICE THAT LIVE STREAMS, LIKE IN THE, THE SA 2020 PLANNING MEETINGS, THEY HAVE A TRIPOD MOUNTED LIVESTREAM CAMERA THAT THEY LIVE STREAM ALL MEETINGS WITH.
S DOES THAT NOT, NOT OUTKAST, IT'S A CITY YOU COULD TALK TO JERRY, IT'S A CONTACT WITH ANOTHER COMPANY TO DO THAT.
WE WILL, WE WILL SIT UP HIMSELF, UH, DURING THE, THE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UH, I KNOW THAT ON THE TRANSPORTATION AND MULTIMODAL COMMITTEE, WE WERE AT THE PRE-K SS A AND THEY LIVE STREAMED FROM THOSE FACILITIES AND THERE'S SEVERAL OF THEM AROUND THE CITY.
I WILL TOUCH BASE WITH G P A WHO HANDLES THE LIVE STREAMING AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ON THAT.
I, I THINK HE'S, WAS THAT A THUMBS DOWN? YEAH, THEY'RE GIVING ME A THUMBS DOWN FROM THE WINDOW HERE.
G P A ACTUALLY HAS STAFF HERE THAT ARE MONITORING THE LIVE STREAM.
AND SO THEY JUST GAVE ME A THUMBS DOWN ON THAT.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GONNA BE LIMITED TO THIS ROOM.
THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC PUBLIC INPUT, RIGHT.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC INPUT.
WELL, PART OF IT IS THE, IS THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THE ROOM AND UH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT PLANNING HAD OR WHERE THEY WERE ACTUALLY LIVE STREAMING TO, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THEY WERE MAYBE LIVE STREAMING TO A FACEBOOK PAGE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A FACEBOOK LIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
SO I'LL CHECK WITH THEM AND, AND SEE WHAT THEY HAD AND WE'LL, WE'LL FLUSH IT OUT IF IT'S SOME YEAH.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, WE'LL WE'LL DO IT.
AND OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY JUST DID IT FOR A LOT OF THE CLIMATE MEETINGS TOO, SO HE MAY WANNA TALK TO DOUG.
WOULD YOU ALL BE OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE MEETING DAY BASED ON THE WEEK SCHEDULE? LIKE FOR THE FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY WHEN THIS ROOM IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THAT WE WOULD MOVE IT MAYBE TO A DIFFERENT DAY.
BASED ON
WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE, OR MAYBE IT'S LIKE YOU MEET ON FRIDAYS, BUT ON THE SECOND FRIDAY THAT SECOND WEEK YOU MOVE IT SOMEPLACE ELSE.
I THINK FRIDAYS HAVE BEEN A POINT OF CONTENTION, RIGHT? DEAL.
SO I THINK WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH THAT.
SO WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL PUT TOGETHER A DOODLE POLL AND WE'LL, WE'LL CRUNCH THE DAYS AND TIMES.
WE'LL REACH OUT TO G P A AND PLANNING AND, UM, OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ONES THAT, THE OTHERS THAT YOU MENTIONED, AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN, UH, MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE, UH, IF, IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT, THAT'S THE LAST ITEM THAT WE HAD ON THE AGENDA.
MOTION? YES, THEY DID MINUTES ALREADY.