[00:00:04]
[Call to Order]
WE ARE CALLING THIS AFTERNOON'S, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER STAFF, CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREENY.
CHAIR CHRISTOPHER GARCIA PRESENT.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SPEAK NOW OR WAIT TILL YOUR INDIVIDUAL ITEM TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR THE HEARING AND SPEAK.
AT THAT TIME, REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND EACH CITIZEN WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE CONDITION.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? TODAY WE HAVE TWO AGENDAS.
THE FIRST AGENDA IS THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.
CASES THAT ARE PLACED ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA ARE CASES WHERE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND FILING.
NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE AS ASSIGNED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
ALL CASES WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD FOR ONE UNIFIED OMNIBUS MOTION.
IF SOMEONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, THAT ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA.
THE SECOND AGENDA TODAY WILL BE THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA.
THESE ARE CASES PLACED ON THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING.
INTENTION WILL BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING MODEM MOTION AT THAT TIME.
[Consent Agenda]
SO TODAY WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.CURRENTLY WE HAVE ITEMS NUMBER 9 21, 23, 26, 27, AND 30 FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON OR THAT ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? THERE ARE BEING NONE.
CAN STAFF READ THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA INTO THE RECORD? GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS JOSE GARCIA, SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE LAND ATONEMENTS DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NUMBER NINE, NUMBER 21, NUMBER 23, NUMBER 26, 27, AND NUMBER 30, WHICH HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
THE BALANCE OF TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER A SINGLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PECK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
STAFF, CAN WE DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREENY? YES.
CHAIR CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
NEXT IS THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA AND WE WE STILL HAVE PLENTY OF MEETING LEFT EVERYBODY.
[23. 19-8125 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600076 (Council District 3): A request by Brown & Ortiz, representative, for approval of a Resolution to amend the Heritage South Sector Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Country Tier" and “Specialized Center” to "Specialized Center" on 234.07 acres out of CB 4006, generally located at the intersection of Martinez Losoya and Pleasanton Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700274) (Mirko Maravi, Planner (210) 207-0107, mirko.maravi@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)]
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, WE CAN CONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 23 3.THERE WAS NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE.
OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 23.
ITEM NUMBER 23 IS A REQUEST TO, FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE HERITAGE SOUTH SECTOR PLAN FROM COUNTRY TIER AND SPECIALIZED CENTER TO SPECIALIZED CENTER, LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARTINEZ LOYA AND PLEASANTON ROAD.
THERE WERE 19 NOTICES MAILED ONE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION AND NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER THE 27TH.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE? I MOVED.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CARILLO.
CAN STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
CHAIR CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[9. 19-7945 180454: Request by Jaime Israel Trejo, Providencia Builders and Projects, LLC, for approval to replat and subdivide a tract of land to establish Trejo Subdivision Enclave, generally located northeast of the intersection of Mockingbird Lane and Fredericksburg Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Jose Garcia, Senior Planner, (210) 207-8268, Jose.Garcia4@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
YOU.NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WILL BE ITEM NUMBER NINE.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS PLAT NUMBER 1 8 0 4 5 4 REJO ENCLAVE.
THE REQUEST IS BY JAMIE ISRAEL REJO, UH, PROV PROVEN, UH, PROVIDENCIA BUILDERS AND PROJECTS L L C FOR APPROVAL TO REPLANT AND SUBDIVIDE ATTRACTIVE LAND TO ESTABLISH REHO ENCLAVE GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD.
[00:05:01]
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? YEAH, IT COMES WITH THE MIC.
MY ADDRESS IS 35 14 PINNACLE DRIVE AND WE BEEN WORKING ON THE, ON THE REPAIR OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND UH, WELL WE ARE JUST, UH, APPLYING FOR IT WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING ALL THE PROCESSES FOR THE CITY AND I THINK, YEAH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST TO, UH, TO GET IT APPROVED.
SO I DON'T, OKAY, SO THAT'S, THAT'S FOR NOW FOR MY PART.
NEXT WE HAVE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL IS WEST MEMBERS.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I AM, UH, THE PRESIDENT OF THE MOCKINGBIRD HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPERTY AT 38 0 1 WEST SONGBIRD LANE.
UM, WHILE I NOTED ON MY APPLICATION THAT I WAS AGAINST THIS, IT'S FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON AND THE REASON IS THAT WE HAD A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT WAS POSTED THE LAST TIME MR. TRUJILLO WAS HERE.
AND IN IT UNDER SECTION 14, IT SAYS THAT HE AGREES THAT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF FILING A PLAT HERE, HE WILL NOTIFY US AND HAVE A MEETING WITH US TO DISCUSS IT.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF MR. TRUJILLO, UH, OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO.
AND INTERESTINGLY, HE SENT ME AN EMAIL ON FRIDAY THAT SAID, HEY, CAN WE MEET ON TUESDAY SO WE CAN GET THIS DONE? WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY YESTERDAY.
I SOLICITED ALL MY PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AND I COULDN'T GET A QUORUM OF FOLKS TO COME AND SAY, HEY, LET'S MEET WITH MR. TRUJILLO SO WE CAN DISCUSS THIS.
SO WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT MEETING YET.
EVEN IF WE WOULD'VE HAD IT YESTERDAY, IT'S WELL BEYOND THE 15 DAYS THAT HE AGREED IN THE COVENANTS TO, UH, PROVIDE US A NOTIFICATION.
SO ON THAT GROUND, I'M REQUESTING THAT THIS BE DELAYED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE THE RESIDENTS WHO ABUT HIS PROPERTY CAN HAVE THE MEETING WITH HIM TO DISCUSS THIS.
NEXT TIME TO SPEAK IS, UM, THIS IS, THEY SIGNED IN AS 1718 ARCHITECTURE.
I WORK WITH, UH, 1718 ARCHITECTURE AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF, UH, RE'S INTENT TO CONTINUE WITH THE PLATTING AND THE APPROVAL.
AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO OF THE, UH, INTENTIONS OF THE H O A.
SO IF WE COULD SET UP THAT MEETING WITH THEM, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE MR. REJO TALK TO THEM AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE OPPOSITIONS THAT THEY HAVE, UH, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT FOR THEM.
AND THEN, UM, LAST SIGN UP TO SPEAK IS JAIME REJO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? DOES HE NEED, OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
AND THEN, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING WHAT WAS SAID? OKAY, THAT CASE, THE PUBLIC PORTION'S CODE AND WE'LL GO ON TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS.
WE'LL START AT THE LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER BROHI.
UH, DOES THIS PLATT MEET ALL ASPECTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE? IT DOES AND IT HAS ALREADY HAD AN EXTENSION.
AND, UH, FOR THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE AGAINST
[00:10:01]
A LITTLE BIT AGO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, UM, THE PLATT MEETS ALL ASPECTS OF THE CODE.SO AS A COMMISSION BY STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE PLATT TODAY.
SO WE WILL NOT BE DOING A CONTINUANCE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
UH, THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER PECK.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, CAN STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER PECK.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? NO.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL ALLEG GREENY? YES.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
AND AS AND AS AND FOR THE AUDIENCE AS YOU HEARD, UM, STATE STATUTES REQUIRE US TO PASS THE PLA MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE U D C AND STATE APPLICABLE LAWS.
[21. 19-8124 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600072 (Council District 10): A request by Villagomez Engineering, applicant, for approval of a Resolution to amend the Northeast Inner Loop Neighborhood Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Community Commercial" to "Regional Commercial" on Lot 36, Block A, NCB 8695, located at 1315 Austin Highway. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700082) (Mirko Maravi, Planner (210) 207-0107, mirko.maravi@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 21.GOOD AFTERNOON, MARCO RAVI, UH, PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, 72 LOCATED AT 1315 AUSTIN HIGHWAY IS REQUEST TO CHANGE FEATURE LAND USE FROM ON THE UH, NORTHEAST INTER LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.
22 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT 200 WITHIN 200 FEET.
ONE WAS JUST RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSE FROM THE WILSHIRE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, STAFF HAS FOUND EVIDENCE OF LIKELY, LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING LANDS IN RELATION TO THIS PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE.
THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES IS SUITABLE WITHIN TWO MAJOR MATERIAL ROADS AND USUALLY OVER 20 ACRES.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS IT NOW AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE, UH, COME UP AND PRESENT THEIR CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION? IF COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS JOSE VIA GOMEZ SEVEN COTSWOLD LANE 7 8 2 5 7 REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER, THE DUGGAR FAMILY JOINT VENTURE.
UH, ON THIS PLAN AMENDMENT, THE SUBJECT TRACK IS CURRENTLY ZONED C THREE NA AND C TWO.
PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE NORTH EAST INNER LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THE PRO PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW C THREE ZONING LAND.
THE LANDOWNER ALSO OWNS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1307 AUSTIN HIGHWAY.
UH, THAT PROPERTY ZONED C THREE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ONLY ALLOWS C THREE ZONING WITHIN REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS.
UH, THERE IS AN EXISTING PLAN APPLICATION PENDING WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE, WHICH PROPOSES TO COMBINE THE TWO TRACKS AND, UH, UH, HOWEVER, THIS PLATT MAY BE WITHDRAWN DUE TO CHANGE IN SHORT TERM PLANS.
UH, THE SUBJECT TRACK, THE 1315 IS AN EXISTING GOODYEAR STORE, WHICH IS AN OPERATION.
AND THE ADJACENT 1307 AUSTIN HIGHWAY TRACK IS A OLD TRANSMISSION SHOP, WHICH IS NOW VACANT.
UH, THE OWNER PLANS TO RENOVATE IT, UH, ONCE A TENANT IS, IS FOUND, UH, FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE FOR THE NEXT FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
THE INTENT IS TO EVENTUALLY COMBINE, UH, BOTH, BOTH TRACKS FOR ONE CORNER LOT WITH A CONSISTENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C THREE PENDING THESE APPROVALS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR USES SUCH AS CONVENIENCE STORE WITH CAR, UH, CAR WASH AND GAS SALES OR RESTAURANT WHERE ALCOHOL SALES MAKE C 30% GROSS REVENUE.
UH, THIS IS A FAMILY OWNED PROPERTY WITH ROOTS IN THE AREA.
IT'S A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT FOR THE FAMILY SINCE 1985.
REGARDING THE STAFF'S DENIAL RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY SITES, UH, THE DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE, WHICH REFERS TO ATTRACTS 20 ACRES OR GREATER IN SIZE, UH, SHOWN ON THE LAND, THE LAND USE MAP, UH, REGIONAL COMMERCIALS LOCATED ONLY ALONG A SHORT PORTION OF AUSTIN HIGHWAY NEAR HARRY WACH AND ALONG THE LOOP FOUR 10 FRONTAGE.
UM, SO THESE ARE THE ONLY LOCATIONS WHERE THEORETICALLY C THREE WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS, THE LIMITS OF THIS PLAN.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK WITHIN THE PLAN, THERE ARE OTHER, OTHER AREAS WITH, UH, THOSE THREE, THOSE THREE SITES SPECIFICALLY.
I JUST SINGLE THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE SIMILARLY SIZED.
AUSTIN HIGHWAY IS A A C THREE SITE, C THREE AND
[00:15:01]
I ONE THE SITE'S FOUR TENTHS OF AN ACRE.UH, FRANKLIN STREET IS A OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THERE'S ANOTHER SITE ON BROADWAY THAT'S RETAIL AND IT'S LIKE SEVEN TENTHS OF AN ACRE.
UH, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE TERRELL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, WE EXPLAINED OUR DESIRE TO REZONE THE TRACT TO C THREE AND EXPLAIN THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR THE, THE COMBINED TRACT, WE DO NOT WISH TO PROPOSE ANY, UH, USES SUCH AS SMOKE, TOBACCO, VAPING, ADULT VIDEO STORE.
UH, MS. MA BOYD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S PRESENT INDICATED THAT SHE SEES NO REASON WHY THEY WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
UH, IN OUR OPINION, C THREE ZONING AND A REGIONAL, UH, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION PROVIDE THE LANDOWNER AND ULTIMATELY THE COMMUNITY WITH THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE THE POTENTIAL OF THE TRACT.
THE LANDOWNER'S ALSO HERE IF THEY WANNA, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
UM, THERE ARE NO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
SO WE'LL GO ON TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS AND WE'LL START AT THE RIGHT WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND THERE? YES, SIR.
AND THEY HAD APPROVED, NOT NECESSARILY APPROVED.
I HAVE EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH THE, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE TERRELL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SHE, THE LAST EMAIL I GOT, WHICH WAS MONDAY, WAS WE SEE NO REASON WHY WE WON'T APPROVE OR WON'T SUPPORT.
NO QUESTIONS BUT DO HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, I AGREE WITH STAFF'S ASSESSMENT THAT THIS IS NOT A, A GOOD LOCATION FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THE DEFINITION FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL IS DEFINED IN THE, IN THE, UH, IN THE, UH, LAND USE PLAN.
SO I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
SO WITH THE COMBINED, UM, WHEN THE, ONCE THE PROPERTIES ARE COMBINED, WHAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL ACREAGE? 1.36 ACRES? SO RIGHT NOW THE 1315 IS 0.89.
AND YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE AN INTENDED USE, BUT SO IS THE, IS THE PLAN JUST TO COMBINE THEM AND WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE COMMUNITY DESIRES OR HOW, HOW WOULD THAT BE DETERMINED? SO WE STARTED THE PLATT PROCESS IN JANUARY AND AT THAT TIME THE LANDOWNER THOUGHT THEY MIGHT HAVE A POTENTIAL USE, BUT THAT WENT AWAY.
SO WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO WITHDRAW THAT PLAT AND MAINTAIN THE GOODYEAR STORE NOW AND FIND A TENANT FOR THE CORNER ONCE IN FIVE, 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, THEY DO DESIRE TO COMBINE THE TRACKS, DEMOLISH THOSE BUILDINGS AND CREATE A NEW USE.
AND WITH THAT FUTURE USE, YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE EXISTING, UM, DESIGNATION WOULD SUFFICE? I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GO FOR THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, BUT WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE EASIER TO CHANGE THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO THE EXISTING, THE GOODYEAR STATION? SAY THAT AGAIN, I'M SORRY.
OH, INSTEAD, THE ONE ON THE CORNER YOU SAID IS THE EXISTING C THREE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
SO, AND THE GOODYEAR STATION IS NOT C THREE, IT'S C THREE NA IN THE FRONT AND THE REAR C TWO.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO NOT ELIMINATE ANY POTENTIAL FOR, FOR THE LANDOWNER AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.
UM, THEY, THEY BOUGHT THAT 1315 PROPERTY IN 1985 AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION ON, ON FLIPPING IT.
THEY DON'T WANT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA BE PLEASING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, NICK, MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
SO ARE THERE ANY, UM, ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS IS HAVE, IF THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE ZONING CASE, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A C TWO, UM, THAT WILL LEAVE THEM IN THE CURRENT COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT.
WHERE DOES THAT, WHERE DOES THAT PROCESS LIE WITH THAT? I MEAN, WHERE DO WE FALL IN THAT PROCESS THEN? SO IF HE GO, IF HE STAYS WITH THE C THREE, HE WOULD'VE TO HAVE A PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL.
IF HE GOES WITH THE C TWO, HE CAN STAY WITH THE CURRENT, UH, UH, LAND USE PLAN THAT HE'S AT.
'CAUSE C TWO IS ALLOWED IN A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND IS C TWO IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS WANTING.
I'M JUST, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A DENIAL AND HAVE YOU GUYS COME BACK AND NO, I APPRECIATE IT AND I THINK, I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SHOOT FOR THE STARS IN LACK OF A BETTER WORDS.
AND WE ARE ANYTHING THAT, ANYTHING I
[00:20:01]
GUESS I GUESS GETTING C TWO, REMOVING THAT C THREE AND A WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE A RESTAURANT WITH ALCOHOL SALES LESS THAN 30% IN GROSS REVENUE.UH, OTHERWISE ANY OTHER USE THE EXISTING ZONING OF C THREE C THREE AND A AND C TWO IS, IS MORE, UH, INTENSIVE I SUPPOSE, THAN JUST THE C TWO.
THE CONVENIENCE STORE WITH THE CAR WASH AND WHATEVER CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A CAR WASH AND GAS, I BELIEVE IS ALLOWED IN C TO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE, I BELIEVE.
I THINK YOU'VE ASKED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS.
I I ALSO AM TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW, UH, I, I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'RE CHANGING SOMETHING FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT DO IN FIVE OR 10 YEARS AND NOT NOW.
SO WHY NOT WAIT FIVE OR 10 YEARS TO CHANGE THAT? WE COULD, SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE PLATT IN JANUARY, WE ALSO SUBMITTED THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND IT WAS HAND IN HAND GROWING THAT WAY.
AND, UM, AT THAT TIME IT WAS JUST A C V S, BUT STILL THE OWNER WAS TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THE THREE DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND C THREE IS WHAT THEY IS WHAT WE WERE GOING FOR.
WE, I DUNNO IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR NOT.
SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AT WHAT C THREE NA UM-HUH C THREE NA, THERE'S A, YOU SEE THAT YELLOW DASH LINE? OKAY.
IS THE, IS THE BREAKPOINT C TWO IN THE REAR.
I GET WANTING TO CONSOLIDATE THE ZONING INTO ONE.
WHY NOT GO THE OTHER DIRECTION IN THE ZONING.
SO CONSOLIDATE IT INTO, INSTEAD OF THAT 1307, I GUESS THE, THE ONE ON THE CORNER, WHY NOT CHANGE THAT ONE TO WHAT THE OTHER ONE? UH, IT JUST LIMITS WHAT WE CAN DO.
UM, I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WELL THAT'S ALL IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT HAS A C THREE, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THE LAND USAGE CATEGORY, WHAT'S THE LAND USAGE CATEGORY FOR THAT? YEAH, SO THE, UH, LAND USE IT MATCH GOT PLACED AFTERWARDS.
UM, I ASSUMED UNLESS SOMEBODY CAME IN HERE AND REZONED IT, I'M NOT SURE OF THE PROPERTY HISTORY OF THE OTHER LOT.
BUT IF IT'S C THREE, UM, IT EITHER GOT REZONED, UH, AFTERWARDS AND THEY CAME IN HERE AND MADE THEIR CASE OR IT WAS LIKE THAT BEFORE THE LAND USE WAS PUT IN PLACE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE.
UH, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL IS THE LAND USE AND IT GOES THROUGH THAT WHOLE BLOCK RIGHT IN THAT SECTION THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER ON THE LAND USE MAP, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS PROBABLY A USE THAT WAS THERE WHEN THE, THEY CAME THROUGH AND DID THE LAND.
UH, THE CHANGED THE LAND USE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, SO IT WOULD BE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING NOW.
I JUST WANTED TO, BECAUSE IT, IT, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT SOMETHING WASN'T MATCHING.
'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ALREADY A C THREE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS C TWO, BUT RIGHT, SO THE C THREE ON THE CORNER AND THE C THREE TO THE WEST OF IT, UH, WOULD BOTH BE, UM, ZONINGS THAT DO NOT CONFORM WITH THE LAND USE PRESENTLY.
AND SO STAFF'S CONTENTION IS THAT THEIR USE, THEIR PROPOSED USES CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE C TWO ZONING DIS DISTRICT.
WHEN IS THIS GO TO ZONE? HAS THIS GONE BEFORE ZONING? IT'S, IT'S GOING NEXT WEEK.
NEXT WEEK IT GOES BEFORE ZONING.
UM, ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? THERE? THERE BE NONE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FROM COMMISSIONER PECK.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ROYAL GREASY STAFF.
CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREENE? YES.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
UH, CHAIRMAN, WE NEED TO MAKE ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION.
UM, ON THE ITEM THAT WAS PRIOR TO THIS ON THE PLAT ITEM NUMBER NINE.
UH, WE DID NOT HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
THE CODE REQUIRES FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO APPROVE AN ITEM AND THERE WERE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE AND ONE OPPOSED.
SO WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, DOES THAT MEAN THAT ITEM NEEDS TO BE CONTIN? DO WE NEED TO BRING THAT ONE BACK? UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO NEED TO NECESSARILY BRING IT BACK.
THE ITEM WILL BE APPROVED WITHIN 30 DAYS
[00:25:01]
FROM THE DATE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS COMPLETED.UM, WHICH IS THE 20 WHICH THE DATE OF COMPLETION WAS THE 21ST OF OCTOBER.
UM, SO IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE APPROVED, UH, ON UM, 21ST OF NOVEMBER.
SO IT'S APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE OF, I GUESS, STATE STATUTE, THAT STATE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED ON THE 21ST OF THIS MONTH.
BUT WE JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT THE RECORD THAT THE DEMOTION DID NOT PASS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THE FIVE.
[26. 19-8419 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600080 (Council District 2): A request by Drought, Drought & Bobbitt, LLP, Representative, for approval of a Resolution to amend the Government Hill Neighborhood Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Low Density Residential" to "Neighborhood Commercial" on the east 3.3 feet of the south 118 feet of Lot 11 and the south 118 feet of Lot 12, Block 6, NCB 1177, located at 2551 North Interstate 35. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700208) (Patricia Franco, Planner (210) 207-5876, patricia.franco@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department).]
OKAY.I BELIEVE NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 26.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS PATRICIA FRANCO ZONING LOCATED AT 2 5 5 1 NORTH I 35.
IT'S A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING.
IT'S A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE UNITED SOUTHWEST COMMUNITIES PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
22 NOTICES WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
FOUR RETURNED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS AN AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO REZONE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIRED NC.
HOWEVER, IF AMENDED INTRODUCES THE ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES INTO A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT.
UH, WILL THE REP, WILL THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE, PLEASE, UH, COME UP AND STATE YOUR CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION? GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M MATTHEW BATTERS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND THIS IS A NEW ADVENTURE FOR ME.
'CAUSE ORDINARILY I REPRESENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS RESISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THIS ONE'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL BECAUSE IT IS UNDERSCORED BY SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN PARTICULAR, I NEED TO GIVE YOU SOME DETAILS OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE THAT GO BEYOND THE APPLICATION.
UM, THE PARTICULAR CLIENT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF HISTORIC HOME RESTORATION.
HE DOESN'T LIKE THE F WORD FLIPPING.
AND THIS WAS A RESTORATION PROJECT.
IT IS NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT IT'S STILL A HOUSE FROM THE 1920S THAT FITS WHAT THEY WORK ON.
YOU BUY IT, YOU START THE PROJECT, YOU TEAR IT UP AND YOU DISCOVERED THINGS YOU DIDN'T COUNT ON, WHICH IS THE CASE HERE.
AFTER INVESTING ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED, HE REALIZED HE'S PROBABLY NOT GONNA GET THAT KIND OF A RETURN ON THE ACCESS ROAD TO AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY.
MEANWHILE, HE REALIZED HIS LEASE AT A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING WAS COMING UP DUE AND THOUGHT, WHY DON'T I JUST USE MY HOUSE AS A SHOWROOM FOR MY REAL ESTATE OFFICE AND MY RENOVATION BUSINESS? UH, IT SHOULD BE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE OPPOSITION NEXT DOOR.
UH, THAT PROPERTY OWNER IS A FLIPPER WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.
AND ACTUALLY THERE'S A PURCHASE AND SALE CONVERSATION, I'LL SAY GOING ON BETWEEN MY CLIENT AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER.
AFTER THIS APPLICATION WENT IN PLACE, THE ASKING PRICE FOR THE PROPERTY TRIPLED AND THEY, UH, ARE STILL IN NEGOTIATIONS AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'LL NOTICE, UH, OVERWHELMING SUPPORT AMONG THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT IT FOR, FOR A LOT OF REASONS.
THE, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THE GOVERNMENT HILL AREA GENERALLY HAS SEEN A MASSIVE INCREASE IN THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.
THE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING HAMMERED EVERY YEAR AT THE BEAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT PROPERTIES LIKE MY CLIENTS THAT HAVE YOU, YOU KNOW THIS, ON A PERMIT APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO PUT HOW MUCH IS BEING SPENT ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE BASE SAYS, WOW, $250,000.
WELL, THAT INCREASES THE PRICE OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN THEY USE THAT AS A COMPARABLE FOR ALL THE POOR HOMEOWNERS AROUND THEM WHO'VE LIVED THERE 30 AND 40 YEARS.
IF THIS GETS REZONED NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, IT CANNOT BE USED AS A COMPARABLE, UM, R SIX WITH CONDITIONAL USE.
IT STILL CAN BE USED AS A COMPARABLE.
IT WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED AT ZONING, UH, R SIX WITH CONDITIONAL USE.
BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT IS THAT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE TIMEFRAME YOU CAN CONDUCT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY THERE.
MY CLIENT I EXPLAINED IS A RESIDENTIAL, UH, RES RESTORATION SPECIALIST IN A REAL ESTATE OFFICE.
SOMETIMES THEY DO CLOSINGS AT 9:00 PM ON A THURSDAY.
SOMETIMES THEY'D DO CLOSINGS AT 2:00 PM ON A SUNDAY.
UH, HE'D HE'D BE BETTER OFF JUST WITHDRAWING HIS APPLICATION, LEAVING AT RESIDENTIAL AND COMING AND GOING AS HE PLEA AND GOING AS HE PLEASES.
BUT AGAIN, HE'S HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACTUAL, UH, RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS THAT OCCUPY IT AS HOMES.
UH, THEY'RE GLAD TO SEE HIM THERE CLEANING THE PLACE UP.
AND YOU KNOW IT, IT'S RIGHT ON 35, NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
OTHER DEVELOPMENT IS PROBABLY FORTHCOMING AND THIS
[00:30:01]
WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN HIGHER LEVELS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING IT BACK IN UNDER THE PLAN TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.THERE'S NO CITIZEN SIGN TO SPEAK.
SO AT THIS POINT WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS.
LET'S START AT THE RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA FENCE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT THE RESTORATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THE CONCRETE FENCE THAT THEY'VE DONE IS THAT I WISH WE HAD BEFORE PICTURES.
THERE WAS A NOT SO ATTRACTIVE KIND OF HAND DONE FENCE FROM SCRAP MATERIAL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEY WANT YOU TO KIND OF LEAVE AS MUCH THERE, EVEN IF QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S UGLY.
SO WE WORK TO COMPROMISE WITH THEM TO AT LEAST MAKE WHAT WAS THERE GOOD LOOKING AGAIN OR, OR AS GOOD LOOKING AS POSSIBLE.
AND I WISH I HAD THE BENEFIT OF A BEFORE PICTURE TO SHOW YOU.
UH, YEAH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO STAFF HAS MADE AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF, UM, UH, R SIX WITH A SPECIAL, UH, CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
WHY DON'T, WHY DOESN'T YOUR APPLICANT WANNA DO THAT? YOUR CLIENT? AGAIN, AS I EXPLAINED WITH THAT CONDITIONAL USE, THERE ARE TIME RESTRICTIONS ON WHEN IT COULD BE USED AS AN OFFICE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
AND MY CLIENT IN INTENDS TO AND USES THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF EIGHT TO FIVE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
SO IF THAT'S THE RECOMMENDED USE, WE'LL JUST PULL THE APPLICATION AND LEAVE IT ZONED RESIDENTIAL WHERE MY CLIENT COULD COME AND GO AT ANY HOUR AS HE PLEASES.
UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH STAFF'S DENIAL OF, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IT JUST DOESN'T FIT RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO ANYWAY, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS JUST TO COMMENT.
UM, I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOUR STAFF OR YOUR CLIENT HAS DONE WITH THE PROPERTY AND KEEPING IT WITH, UM, AS A RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE, NOT, UH, CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DID, I WAS ABLE TO LOOK BACK AT PREVIOUS PICTURES AND SEE WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE.
UM, I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A DENIAL FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU'VE STATED FOR YOUR CLIENT'S BUSINESS VENTURES.
AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND I, I'D ADD A FOLLOW-UP COMMENT.
THIS IS NOT AN APPLICATION BECAUSE WE SEEK TO TEAR DOWN OR BUILD UP ANYTHING.
I MEAN, IT'S, MY CLIENT TENDS TO USE THAT PROPERTY AS YOU SEE RIGHT THERE AS IT IS, IT IS A SHOWCASE FOR HIS WORK IN RESTORING HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
I MEAN, EVERYTHING FROM HOW THEY REDO THE FLOORS ON THE INSIDE TO HOW THEY WORK AROUND PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATIONS.
AND IF HE DID ANY CHANGES FOLLOWING THE REZONING, HE WOULD BE ADDING TWO PARKING SPOTS TO THE BACK FOR A D A ACCESSIBILITY.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT UNDERSCORES THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT BECAUSE ON STREET PARKING IS SO TIGHT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORS ARE DELIGHTED THAT SOME OF THAT COULD BE ALLEVIATED WITH PARKING SPOTS AND TO BE ADDED ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOUR CLIENT IS INTENDING TO DO AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA USE IT AND WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE TO THE HOUSE, WHICH MAKES ME HOPEFUL THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA TEAR IT DOWN.
MY FEAR WITH REZONING OR CHANGING THE LAND USE IS THAT, UM, HE SELLS IT AND THE NEXT PERSON THEN IS ELIGIBLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH IT, UM, WHICH MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME VEIN OF WHAT YOUR CLIENT IS UM, SUGGESTING.
SO, UH, I, I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
THE SIZE OF THIS PROPERTY IS 0.154 ACRES.
SO EVEN IF HE SOLD IT AFTER A REZONE NEXT WEEK, THERE'S NOTHING UNDER THE U D C THAT YOU CAN DO WITH 0.154 ACRES WITH SETBACKS WHERE THEY COULD KNOCK THAT DOWN AND PUT SOMETHING THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND IT WOULD BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
I MEAN, IF HE OWNED THE WHOLE BLOCK, WE WERE SEEKING TO REDO THAT DIFFERENT STORY I'D UNDERSTAND.
BUT THE, THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOT IS A BUILT-IN PROTECTION AGAINST A FUTURE BUYER LATER.
AND, AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S AN OWNER USER.
IT'S NOT MY CLIENT WHO WANTS TO SELL IT OR MY CLIENT HAS A CONTRACT THAT WON'T CLOSE UNLESS WE GET THIS DONE.
JUST WANTS TO MAKE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF HIS PROPERTY.
I'VE JUST, I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN ENOUGH TIMES WHERE WE AGREED TO A CHANGE AND THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT APPEARS, UM, WHICH IS
[00:35:01]
A, WHICH IS A CONCERN.UM, AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THE SAME THING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I, UM, I STILL HAVEN'T DECIDED
I JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH, UH, WHETHER OR NOT TO HOPE THE CLIENT, UH, NEVER SELLS
UM, WE DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
ARE THEY STILL PRESENT? NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YOU GOT THREE MINUTES.
UM, I, UH, I'M NOT FOR OR AGAINST, I'M JUST HERE TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS.
UH, TWO, UH, TWO OF THESE, WHAT GREEN CHECK MARKS ON THE RIGHT ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE, UH, CONTRACT IN TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY TO QUICKTRIP, ELIMINATE JIM STREET AND PUT A QUICKTRIP THERE.
UH, I'M SURE THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT.
UM, THE CHECK MARK ON THE LEFT IS SOMEONE WHO RUNS A BUSINESS OUT OF HIS HOME ALREADY.
UH, SO I WOULDN'T PUT, I DON'T FEEL THAT'S A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD VOTING MYSELF.
I LIVE ON RENO STREET, SO I'M NOT WITHIN 200 FEET, BUT I'M PRETTY CLOSE.
WE TRAVELED DOWN THAT STREET ALL THE TIME.
PARKING IS A CONCERN, AS HE HAD SAID.
AND WE DID MEET, UH, THIS GENTLEMAN, I BELIEVE AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
AND, UM, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THEIR PLAN FOR THE PARKING LOT OR WHY THEY'VE WAITED.
UM, THAT'S, THERE'S OFTEN UP TO SEVEN CARS RIGHT THERE, SOME OF 'EM ILLEGALLY PARKED NEXT TO THE STOP SIGN ACROSS THE STREET AND IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO TURN ON THERE.
I, I, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PLAN IS OR THAT IT REALLY ALLEVIATES THAT.
UM, SO I'VE HEARD, I'VE HEARD SOME GOOD OPINIONS EXPRESSED, UH, THAT WOULD RELATE TO MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE REZONING ACROSS THE STREET, BUT I JUST WANTED TO COMMUNICATE THOSE THINGS.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? UH, STEVEN VERTI, 1 0 5 RENO STREET.
DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO, UM, ANSWER ANY QUE ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS? SURE.
UH, KEEPING THIS SLIDE UP ON THE PARKING QUESTION, IF IT GOES TO NC, AND IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM THIS ANGLE, BUT BEHIND THE NAVY BLUE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE BACKYARD OF THE HOUSE.
AND WE WOULD DO SPACES, UH, EITHER ONE CURB CUT THAT GOES INTO ONE OR TWO OR RATHER TWO OR THREE SPACES IN THE BACKYARD OR CURB CUTS DIRECTLY INTO THREE SPACES.
BUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE PLAN FOR PARKING THERE.
IT WAS AN EXPENSIVE FENCE TO FIX.
SO MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO CUT IT UP AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT ALSO PROVIDES SECURITY AT NIGHT WHEN NO ONE'S THERE.
UM, AND THEN IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ON IDENTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, I CAN, I CAN HELP UNPACKAGE THAT A LITTLE BIT ON THE LEFT.
HE IS CORRECT THAT ONE OF THOSE GREEN CHECK MARKS IS SOMEONE WHO CURRENTLY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT ZONING AND JUST USES IT THE WAY THEY WANT.
UH, I WOULD POINT OUT MY CLIENT DOESN'T DO THAT.
SO TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND FOLLOW PROTOCOLS.
SO PLEASE REWARD GOOD BEHAVIOR, DON'T PUNISH IT.
UH, ON THE LEFT, THE BLOCK THAT IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN JIM STREET AND I 35 IS HELD IN A TRUST IN FROST BANK, IS THE TRUSTEE.
THE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST, UH, IS A WOMAN NAMED CLMA JACKSON.
AND SO FROST BANK'S APPROVAL FOR THIS, WHICH IS IN THE RECORD, IT, THEY MUST NECESSARILY OBTAIN THE APPROVAL OF THEIR TRUST BENEFICIARY.
SO YES, THEY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THERE, BUT A LITTLE OLD WOMAN NAMED CLMA JACKSON INSTRUCTED FROST NATIONAL BANK TRUST DEPARTMENT TO INDICATE THEIR APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? THERE WILL BE NONE OR SUSTAIN A MOTION SUPPORT, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
A SECOND WITH COMMISSIONER PECK.
CAN STAFF TO THE ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
[00:40:02]
YES.CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
SO SINCE THE MOTION FAIL, DO WE NEED TO DO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? SO IF THERE IS NO MOTION TO RECONSIDER, THEN IT COMES BACK AGAIN FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AUTOMATICALLY.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NONE.
SO WE WILL SEE THIS ONE NEXT TIME.
[27. 19-7993 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600082 (Council District 2): A request by Cesar Sosa, representative, for approval of a Resolution to amend the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Low Density Residential" to "Low Density Mixed Use" on the east 42-feet of the north 134.09-feet of Lot 8, Block 24, NCB 519, located at 334 Burleson Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700258) (Lorianne Thennes, Planner 210-207-7945, lorianne.thennes@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)]
IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 27.UH, PLAN AMENDMENT 82 IS ON, UH, 3 34 BROTHERSON STREET.
UH, CHANGED ON THE ANNUITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MIXED USE.
I BELIEVE THIS ITEM WAS PULLED SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT, UM, IF THE TWO NOTICES SENT BACK IN OPPOSITION HAD ANY DESCRIPTIONS TO THEM.
WE, I DID SEE THOSE EARLIER, AS DID, UM, THE COMMISSIONER AND IT BASICALLY JUST SAID THEY DID NOT WANT ANY REZONING IN THE AREA.
AND THE OTHER SAID THEIR CONCERN WAS REGARDING WHERE THE VEHICLES WOULD BE PARKED.
IS UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS STILL THE SAME? YES, SIR.
AND NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE SETBACK.
AND GIVEN THAT THE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE SETBACK, I'M NOT SO BOTHERED BY THE TWO UNITS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT CHANGES THE, THE LAYOUT OF THE STREET AND IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA TAKE OUT A BIG TREE
AND BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, AND I AM CONCERNED THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO RESPONSES AND BOTH OF THOSE WERE NEGATIVE.
I, UM, I WOULD NOT APPROVE THIS AT THIS TIME.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? SO IF THERE ARE, UH, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT MAYBE A CONTINUANCE BE AN ORDER, SO THAT WAY THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, UH, AND MAYBE SPEAK WITH THE OPPOSITION.
UH, AND, UM, UH, THAT WAY IT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ENTERTAIN.
UH, SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FROM COMMISSIONER ROYAL EGREE AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA TO PER CONTINU CONTINUING TO THE NEXT, IS THAT A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE? NOVEMBER 27TH TO THE NOVEMBER 27TH.
PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL.
I'M SORRY, BEFORE YOU SAY THAT, DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN TWO WEEKS OR CAN IT BE IN FOUR WEEKS? PUTTING IT AT, UM, AGAIN, DELAYING IT FURTHER.
DELAYING IT FURTHER DELAYS THEM GETTING TO COUNSEL.
WE CAN TRY TWO WEEKS JUST IN CASE.
AT LEAST TWO WEEKS TO TRY TO ADDRESS IT.
WHO WAS THE SECOND? MR. GAR? MICHAEL GARCIA.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREENE? YES.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[30. 19-8478 A request by Kaufman & Killen, Inc. to appeal the staff denial of a Certificate of Determination UDC 35-430 (c) Plat Exception request for a proposed commercial structure to be located at 21845 and 21875 Scenic Loop Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Zenon Solis, Principal Planner, (210) 207-7796, zenon.solis@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department) 31. 19-8371 Discussion and possible action amending the Unified Development Code (UDC), Chapter 35 of the City Code of San Antonio, Texas, with changes to Section 35-801 relating to the composition of the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and authorizing a change to the BOA Rules and Procedures Document in order to modify the BOA Composition. (Catherine Hernandez, Development Services Administrator, (210) 207-5085, catherine.hernandez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
[00:45:01]
ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 30.UH, ZEKE SOLI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND ZONING.
THIS WILL BE A QUICK PRESENTATION.
ORIGINALLY THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR FOR CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, UH, WHICH IS A PLAID EXCEPTION GOVERNED UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AT THE TIME, THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED.
AND JUST FOR A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE CITY'S E T J, ABOUT ONE MILE NORTH OF, UH, GRAY FOREST.
AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, UH, STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION FOR, UH, COMMERCIAL USE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY USED A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE.
UM, AT THE TIME THE APPLICANTS MOVED FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION TO BEXAR COUNTY AS WELL AS C P S ENERGY.
WHEN THEY DID, UH, PERMITS WERE APPROVED, BUT DURING INSPECTIONS, THE CITY ARBORIST IDENTIFIED THAT THE THE SECTION OF CODE IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT.
SO WE HAD TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION AND WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, IN THIS CASE, THEY DID WANT TO APPEAL STAFF'S DENIAL OF THAT CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
STAFF UTILIZED ALL 17 EXCEPTIONS WITHIN THE CODE, AND UNFORTUNATELY FOR COMMERCIAL, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE COUNTY.
IN THIS SCENARIO, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY EXCEPTIONS WHERE WE COULD APPROVE.
SO AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS UNABLE TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS SOME CASE FILE, UM, TO COUNTER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND AT THIS TIME, THAT PR THAT BASICALLY, UH, FINISHES UP MY PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DON'T FORGET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR OF ZONING, COMMI PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ROB KILLEN, 100 WEST HOUSTON STREET HERE ON BEHALF OF THE FLEXER, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
I'VE GOT A COPY OF THE POWERPOINT.
IF, UH, YOU WANNA READ ALONG, IT'S A REAL SMALL PRINT, BUT, UH, GO AHEAD AND PASS THAT OUT.
I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME.
I, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS UNCOMFORTABLE BEING THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
EVERYONE'S, AND YOU GUYS DO AMAZING JOB OF GETTING THROUGH THINGS QUICKLY AND I HAPPEN TO BE A VERY SLOW TALKER, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT IN ADVANCE, BUT I WILL TRY AND KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF.
I THINK, UH, THE VERY BASIC THING THAT WE WANNA SAY IS CLEAR UP A MISCONCEPTION.
WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THAT, UH, THIS FALLS UNDER ONE OF THE PLATT EXCEPTIONS, UH, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO, 'CAUSE WE, WE DON'T NEED A PLAQUE 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT, UH, SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME.
I APPRECIATE, UH, STAFF'S REVIEW OF THIS ISSUE.
I APPRECIATE THEIR ATTEMPTS TO TRY AND FIT, UH, A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE AND TRYING TO FIND AN EXCEPTION WE FALL INTO.
BUT OUR CLIENTS FLEX ARE, UH, NOT SUBDIVIDING THEIR PROPERTY, SO WE DON'T NEED A SUBDIVISION PLATT.
SO THEY'VE GOT A 10.26 ACRE TRACKED OUT IN E T J.
AND, UH, THEY'VE GOT A HOUSE OUT THERE.
IT'S, IT'S BEAUTIFUL OUT THERE.
AND, UH, THEY'VE HAD LOTS OF CALLS.
HEY, YOU KNOW, CAN WE HAVE A WEDDING OUT THERE? AND SO THEY WANNA BUILD BARNS SO THEY CAN DO, UH, WEDDINGS OUT THERE ON THE WEEKENDS.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE NOT GONNA DIVIDE THIS TRACT UP.
IT'S GONNA REMAIN THAT 10.26 ACRE TRACT.
AND THE BARN FOR WEDDINGS IS JUST GONNA BE PLOPPED DOWN IN THE MIDDLE.
I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE IN JUST A MINUTE.
UH, AS YOU ALL KNOW, YOU ONLY HAVE TO FILE FOR A SUBDIVISION FLAT IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY DIVIDING, UH, PROPERTY UP.
SO FLEX WENT TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE NEED A CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION.
WE'RE IN THE E T J, WE NEED TO GO TO THE COUNTY AND GET COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL SIGN OFF ON IT.
CITY ISSUED THAT TERMINATION ON MARCH 6TH.
AND THEN THE CITY SENT A LETTER.
THE LETTER WAS DATED, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH, BUT I THINK THE CITY ALERTED OUR CLIENTS TO IT PROBABLY LATE SEPTEMBER OR EARLY OCTOBER, BUT STILL ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THEY'D GOTTEN THEIR CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
SO UNDER STATE LAW, AND I'LL, I'LL SHOW YOU THE SECTIONS.
A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IS A BINDING DECISION THAT CAN ONLY BE OVERTURNED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY CAN WITHDRAW THEIR ORIGINAL APPROVAL WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, BUT, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL TALK THROUGH THAT AS WE GET TO IT.
BUT AGAIN, WE THINK THAT, UH, IT'S PROPER TO GET A C O D BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
UH, YOU CAN SEE I DON'T EVEN NEED THE MARKER.
AND WE ARE WEST OF I 10 NORTH OF GRAY FOREST.
UH, RIGHT THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, BABCOCK AND SCENIC LOOP.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, STAR THERE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY CLOSER TO GRAY FOREST THAN WE ARE, UH, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO LIMITS, BUT WE ARE IN SAN ANTONIO'S E T J.
[00:50:01]
PROPERTY OF FRONTS ON SCENIC LOOP ROAD AND THIS SCENARIO.SO, UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THEY, THEY HAVE A HOME OUT HERE.
THEY LIVE OUT THERE AND SEE THIS KIND OF CLEAR AREA, THAT'S WHERE THE, UH, THE WEDDING BARN WILL, IT SOUNDS WEIRD SAYING WEDDING BARN, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE WEDDING BARN WOULD GO, LIKE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE.
BUT THIS TRACK WILL STAY INTACT AS THE ENTIRE 10.26.
UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S REAL BEAUTIFUL OUT THERE.
THERE IT LOOKS, LOOKS REALLY GREAT.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE WANNA HAVE THEIR WEDDINGS OUT THERE.
SO AS A, UH, THEY SUBMIT ON FEBRUARY 27TH, CITY ISSUED THE C O D ON, UH, MARCH 6TH, HERE'S A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
THAT'S DEBATE THAT'S STATED NOVEMBER 8TH SAYING THEY'RE DENYING IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA DEBATE WHETHER IT FALLS AN EXCEPTION OR NOT, BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO FALL UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED.
IT SAYS, UH, IS INCORRECT DETERMINATION.
SO WE'RE WITHDRAWING, UH, THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, UH, C O D.
SO ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH CHAPTER TWO 12, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE BECAUSE IT IMPACTS MOST OF THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE, 90% OF WHAT YOU DO.
AND AS YOU KNOW, WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IS THEY HAVE, UH, IN THE INTEREST OF PROVIDING CERTAINTY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR BUSINESSES, DEVELOPERS IN TEXAS, THEY'VE INSTITUTED VERY TIGHT TIMING RULES AND A HIGH LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IN THE PROCESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A PLATT IS CONSIDERED FINAL, IT'S GOTTA GO IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION, UH, IF NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS, IT'S APPROVED BY LAW.
IF YOU SAY NO, UH, THE APPLICANT CAN, UH, SUBMIT IT BACK AND THEN YOU'VE GOT 15 DAYS TO TAKE ACTION.
AND THEN ONCE IT'S APPROVED, IT'S APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, YOU GO AND RECORD IT IF THERE'S A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY.
AND SO LEGISLATURE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THESE CERTIFICATES OF DETERMINATION.
UH, THIS IS A LOT OF SMALL PRINTS.
SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA, UH, MOVE TO A SLIDE WHERE I PULL OUT THE RELEVANT SECTIONS ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
SO A PROPERTY OWNER CAN COME AND ASK CITY MAKE A DETERMINATION AS WHETHER A PLATT IS REQUIRED.
AND SO IF THE DETERMINE A PLATT IS NOT REQUIRED, THEY ISSUE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION OF THAT DETERMINATION.
NOW, JUST LIKE PLATTS, THERE'S A LIMITED TIME PERIOD FOR THE CITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
THEY'VE GOTTA MAKE A DECISION WITHIN 20 DAYS.
AND ONCE THEY'VE MADE THAT DECISION, IF THEY SAY, YEAH, PLATT'S NOT REQUIRED, THEY HAVE TO ISSUE THAT CERTIFICATE WITHIN 10 DAYS.
SO THERE'S A 30 DAY WINDOW, MUCH LIKE, UH, PLATTING.
NOW IT COULD BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT MAKES THIS DECISION, BUT THAT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO CITY STAFF TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS THAT THAT DECISION IS A BINDING DECISION.
SO IT'S BEEN DELEGATED TO STAFF IT.
ONCE THEY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, IT IS A BINDING DECISION.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK SIX MONTHS LATER AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE CHANGED OUR MIND.
WE'RE GONNA PULL YOUR CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
IN OUR CASE, THE FLEX HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE COUNTY, UH, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, PERMITTING AND ALL OF THE STUFF THAT THEY NEED TO DO.
YOU CAN'T JUST COME BACK AND PULL IT SIX MONTHS LATER.
AND IF THEY DO DIDN'T WANNA PULL IT, THEY'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME TO YOU TO PULL THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
IT SAYS, BINDING DECISION IS APPEALABLE TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING PLATTS, WHICH IS THIS BODY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF HASN'T COME TO YOU AND SAID, HEY LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE MADE A MISTAKE, WE NEED TO PULL IT.
UH, THEY JUST TOLD US, HEY, WE'RE PULLING IT.
SO WE THINK IT'S A BINDING DECISION.
BUT, UH, AND SO THIS IS WHAT WE GOT ON MARCH 6TH SAYS, YOU DON'T NEED A PLAT.
THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.
BUT WHAT I WANNA DO IS TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT WHY THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BACK IN MARCH IS STILL THE CORRECT UH, DECISION.
SO CHAPTER TWO 12, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE HAS A NUMBER OF SUB CHAPTERS.
SUBCHAPTER A OF COURSE IS REGULATION OF SUBDIVISION SUBCHAPTER.
SO SUBCHAPTER A APPLIES WHEN YOU ARE SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY SUB CHAPTER B APPLIES IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING PROPERTY, BUT YOU'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING IT.
IT'S WHAT'S CALLED A DEVELOPMENT PLATT.
SO YOU USE A DEVELOPMENT PLAT, WHICH IS BASICALLY A BOUNDARY SURVEY IF YOU'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
SO THERE ARE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX FOR REGULATING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PLATTING LEGISLATURE ANTICIPATED.
THERE WOULD BE PROPERTIES, UH, THAT MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE PLATTED, BUT YOU MIGHT NEED A TOOL FOR REGULATING THEM.
SO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A PIECE OF LAND AND YOU DIVIDE IT INTO, YOU HAVE A PLATT PREPARED, UNLESS IT FALLS UNDER AN EXCEPTION AND FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THEY, THEY KEEP CHARACTERIZING IT AS A DIVISION OF THE TRACT.
THAT LAST PARAGRAPH WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTIES OVER FIVE ACRES, IT'S A DIVISION OF LAND, DOESN'T INCLUDE DIVISIONS OF LAND IN A PARCH GRADE THAN FIVE ACRES.
BUT FLEX AREN'T DIVIDING ANYTHING.
THEY'VE GOT 10 ACRES AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP IT AT 10 ACRES.
[00:55:01]
A NUMBER OF CASES THAT TALK ABOUT THIS.UH, I'LL JUST, UH, NOTE JUST A FEW OF THEM.
THIS IS A 1985 COURT OF APPEALS CASE.
TALKS ABOUT THE COMMON SENSE MEANING OF THE TERM SUBDIVISION.
IT'S DIVIDE INTO SMALLER PARTS.
UH, 1968 CASE UNITARIAN CHURCH OUTTA CORPUS CHRISTI AGAIN, UH, THEY JUST WENT TO THE DICTIONARY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SUBDIVISION MEANS DIVIDING INTO TWO OR MORE PARTS.
AND AGAIN, THEY TALK ABOUT THE DIVISION OF LAND.
THIS CASE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FIVE ACRE EXCEPTION.
IF YOU'VE GOT PARTS LARGER THAN FIVE ACRES, YOU DON'T NEED TO PLA UH, BUT I, I LIKE WHAT THE COURT SAID IN ELGIN BANK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATURE CREATED A CATEGORY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRES A PLATT FOR DIVISION OF LAND IN THE FIVE ACRES OR LESS.
BUT THEY NOTED THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD, IF THEY WANTED TO REQUIRE PLATTS IN ANY SITUATION, BUT, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN THIS CASE, THEY ONLY REQUIRE IF YOU DIVIDE LAND AND IF YOU END UP WITH PARTS SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES.
AND AGAIN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, ANOTHER SECTION, UH, MUNICIPALITY NEED NOT REQUIRE PLATTING FOR EVERY DIVISION OF LAND, OTHERWISE IN THE SCOPE OF THE SUBCHAPTER.
THAT'S WHERE WE GET TO THE PLATT EXCEPTIONS.
SAN ANTONIO HAS SAID YOU COULD DIVIDE LAND UP, BUT WE WON'T MAKE YOU PLAID UNDER CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DIVISION OF LAND.
YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE DIVIDING LAND.
AND AGAIN, UH, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL TALKS ABOUT THAT FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING DIVISIONS OF PLAN, DIVISIONS OF LAND WHERE A PLATT IS REQUIRED AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE REQUIRED PLATTING FOR EVERY DIVISION OF LAND.
UH, THE OTHER THING I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THAT SAME ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION FROM 1993 IS THE AG NOTED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR FILING THE PLATT IS THE PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY DIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
SO WHAT DOES U D C SAY? SO THAT'S, THAT'S STATE LAW.
WELL, U D C LUCKILY FOR US MATCHES UP WITH STATE LAW.
IT SAYS IF YOU DO A SUBDIVISION PLATT, IF YOU'RE DIVIDING A TRACT TWO OR MORE PARTS DIVISION, AND THIS IS FROM APPENDIX A OF THE U D C, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION SECTION, SUBDIVISION DIVISION OF ANY TRACT AND LAND IN TWO OR MORE PARTS.
UH, SO IT SEEMS LIKE STATE LAW, LOCAL ORDINANCE, ALL KIND OF MATCHUP.
SO THERE'S ONE PIECE OF THE U D C THAT I THINK ON FIRST BLUSH CAN BE SLIGHTLY CONFUSING AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
SO IT ALSO SAYS UNDER UH, 35, 430 ON SUBDIVISION SAYS IF YOU'RE DIVIDING LAND, IF YOU REQUEST UTILITY SERVICE OR BUILDING PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO GET A PLATT.
WELL, WHY IS THAT? WHY WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH THIS WHOLE LITANY OF LAW THAT SAYS YOU ONLY NEED TO APPLY AFTER YOUR SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
WHAT'S THIS REFERENCE TO UTILITY SERVICE OR BUILDING PERMIT? WELL, THE U D C ALSO EXPLAINS THAT THE MECHANISM WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO MUNICIPALITIES TO BECOME AWARE THAT A DIVISION OF LAND HAS OCCURRED OR WILL OCCUR IS THROUGH A REQUEST FOR UTILITY SERVICE OR BUILDING PERMIT.
SO IT'S NOT THE BUILDING PERMIT OR THE UTILITY SERVICE THAT TRIGGERS THE PLATT REQUIREMENT.
IT IS JUST A TOOL FOR THE CITY TO KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SUBDIVISION.
AND SO, UH, CODE CLARIFIES THAT THIS IS NOT A LIMITATION CITY'S ABILITY TO REQUIRE PLATTING WHEN THE CITY HAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT LAND IS BEING SUBDIVIDED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE RULE FOR THE CITY.
THE CITY HAS TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT LAND IS BEING SUBDIVIDED TO REQUIRE A PLATT.
UH, OUR PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS UH, IN THE E T J.
AND SO, UH, U D C TALKS ABOUT THIS, UH, BUILDING PERMITS WON'T BE ISSUED FOR ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY, WHICH HASN'T BEEN PLANTED IN THE CITY, NOT IN THE E T J.
UH, NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MAY BE UNDERTAKEN WITHIN THE INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE CITY UNLESS YOU'VE GOTTEN ALL THE PERMITS YOU NEED.
BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
AGAIN, WE ARE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
ALL OF OUR PERMITTING GOES THROUGH THE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL.
AND AGAIN, HERE'S OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, UH, RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT GREEN STAR.
SO IN SOME, WE'VE GOT 10 ACRES IN THE E T J, WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING, SO WE DON'T NEED TO FIND A PLATT EXCEPTION 'CAUSE THE SUBDIVISION PLANNING REQUIREMENTS DON'T APPLY TO OUR PROPERTY.
WE GOT THE CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION ON MARCH 6TH.
UH, THAT SHOULD BE A BINDING DECISION.
UH, SO WHAT WE'D ASK, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY IS TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE, UH, HAVE A VALID CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, UH, MAY BE REWORDED SO IT DOESN'T REFERENCE A PLATT EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF COURSE WE DON'T NEED A PLATT EXCEPTION 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING THAT.
I'M READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THERE'S NO ONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UH, I GUESS WE'LL ON TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS AND WE'LL START AT THE LEFT WITH ROYAL GREASY.
[01:00:02]
QUESTION FOR STAFF.UM, WHAT WAS THE ERROR THAT WAS MADE FROM THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION? I'M SORRY IF I MISSED IT.
SO THE ORIGINAL, UH, DETERMINATION EXCEPTION 15 WAS USED, WHICH REQUIRES FIVE YEARS OF UTILITY SERVICE.
FIVE YEARS OF UTILITY SERVICE WAS PROVIDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL THAT WAS THERE.
SO THIS IS BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, AND IT'S INTENDED FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
SO IT ALLOWS YOU TO CONTINUE, YOU CAN, UH, EXTEND SERVICES TO THAT STRUCTURE.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS DETERMINED AT DURING INSPECTION THAT IT'S A BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE FOUND IT TO BE AN ISSUE.
AND UM, IF THEY WERE JUST BUILDING A BARN NOT FOR WEDDING OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, WOULD THIS BE THE SAME PROCESS THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH? SO WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL WITH THE APPLICANT.
IF IT WAS JUST A STANDARD BARN ASSOCIATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL, THEY'D BE FINE.
UH, THERE'S A SECTION OF CODE WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE OVER 10 ACRES, YOU'RE ALLOWED UP TO THREE RESIDENTIAL AS LONG AS IT'S UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.
UM, SO IT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE IN THAT SCENARIO.
UH, IN THIS THIS CASE IT'S STRICTLY A COMMERCIAL USE.
SO QUESTION FOR STAFF TO START OFF WITH.
UM, SO HOW CAN YOU RATIONALIZE THAT THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE PLATTED AND DOES NOT MEET ANY ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IN THE CODE WHEN THERE IS NO SUBDIVISION OF LAND OCCURRING? IT'S WITH A CONSTRUCTION, THE PERMIT'S REQUIRED AND ALSO THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES.
UH, BEXAR COUNTY AS WELL AS C P S ENERGY ARE REQUIRING IT IN THIS CASE.
UM, BUT THERE'S 17 EXCEPTIONS.
MOST OF 'EM ARE GEARED TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL.
THERE ARE A FEW TOWARDS MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL.
UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CASE WE COULDN'T FIND A S SINGLE ONE THAT WOULD QUALIFY THEM FOR A C O D.
AND AGAIN, JUST LET ME HELP CLARIFY.
THIS IS ABOUT UTILITY CONNECTION, UM, AND PROPERTY.
IT'S REQUIRED TO BE PLATTED APPROPRIATELY UNLESS IT QUALIFIES FOR A PLATT EXCEPTION FOR UTILITY CONNECTION.
SO I'M, I'M STILL, BECAUSE THE PREFACE OF THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, WHICH IDENTIFIES THE PLAT EXCEPTIONS, TALKS ABOUT RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO SUBDIVIDE, RIGHT? AND IF YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING AND THEY ARE NOT SUBDIVIDING A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THIS IS A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? SO THERE'S NO SUBDIVIDING OCCURRING, RIGHT? SO HOW CAN ANY OF THIS APPLY TO IT? IN MOST CASES, CODS ARE APPLIED FOR WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING TO CONSTRUCT, ESPECIALLY WITH VACANT LAND THAT'S BEEN SUBDIVIDED OVER THE YEARS, UM, MANY YEARS BACK.
SO IN THOSE CASES WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GET A C O D AS WELL, EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL.
I WILL, I WILL CHIME IN AS WELL THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CODS THAT WE ISSUE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A SUBDIVISION AT ALL.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS OR UTILITY CONNECTIONS.
SO NOT ALL CODS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO A SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE COUNTY.
TO OBTAIN UTILITY CONNECTIONS, YOU HAVE TO BE A PLATTED LOT OR YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR A PLATT EXCEPTION.
SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN PERMITS OR BUILD ERA UTILITY CONNECTIONS.
SO LET'S, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THEY WERE CREATING THEIR 10 ACRE TRACT OUT OF A LARGER PIECE OF LAND THAT THEY OWN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHAT THEY'RE, LET'S SAY IT WAS AS IT WAS ON THE GROUND TODAY.
THEY HAD, THEY OWNED A LARGER PIECE OF LAND.
THEY WERE CREATING THIS 10 ACRE TRACT TODAY.
OKAY? THEY COULD DO SO UNDER THE CODE WITHOUT PLATTING BECAUSE THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN THE E T J YOU MAY CREATE A TRACT, 10 ACRES OR GREATER WITHOUT SUBDIVIDING.
SO IF THEY HAD A 15 ACRE TRACT AND THEY WANTED TO PEEL OFF THIS 10 ACRES, THEY COULD DO IT WITHOUT PLATTING FOR RESIDENTIAL BY THE CODE TODAY FOR RESIDENTIAL, CORRECT.
DOES IT SAY RESIDENTIAL THOUGH IN THE U D C AND, AND THAT SECTION? IT DOES.
IT REFERENCES THREE RESIDENTIAL, UM, STRUCTURES UNDER THIS, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.
NO, THE SECTION THOUGH, IT SAYS 10 ACRE TRACKS MAY BE CREATED WITHOUT PLATTING.
SO I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SECOND EXCEPTION.
BUT THAT IS FOR THE SUBDIVISION ONLY AT THE TIME THAT YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A USE ON IT, YOU THEN HAVE TO PLAT IT THAT, THAT, THE SECOND EXCEPTION ESSENTIALLY SAYS IF I OWN 10 ACRES AND I WANNA GIVE TWO ACRES EACH TO MY FIVE CHILDREN, I CAN SUBDIVIDE IT THROUGH A PLATT EXCEPTION TO SELL OR TO GIVE AWAY.
BUT THE SECOND THAT MY FIVE CHILDREN WANNA START BUILDING ON IT, THEY HAVE TO PLAT, THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE 17 TOTALS.
SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO BREAK EACH OF THEM DOWN.
THERE ARE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS WITHIN AND WITHOUT, UH, WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USE INSIDE CITY LIMITS.
[01:05:01]
THERE ARE LIMITED NUMBER OF PLAT EXCEPTIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MULTIFAMILY USE.BUT AS ZEKE MENTIONED, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, OUR OPTIONS ARE EXHAUSTED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT THE CODE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CREATE THE, CREATE THIS TRACT WITHOUT PLATTING.
UM, NOW, SO AGAIN, CREATE THE TRACT.
NOW, UM, THE PART I REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF HEARTBURN WITH IS THAT SIX MONTHS AGO THEY WERE GIVEN A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION AND THEY, THEY BEGAN TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO, AND NOW IT GOT YANKED.
AND I AGREE WITH, UH, MR. KILLEN'S, UM, ASSESSMENT THAT THAT ORIGINAL DECISION IS BINDING.
SO, IN MY OPINION, THE COURSE OF ACTION HERE, IF THE CITY WANTED TO, UH, UH, REPEAL THAT OR REMOVE THAT CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION WAS TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GET, AND, AND BRING IT FORTH THAT WAY, NOT TO HAVE TO FORCE APPLY AND HAVE THEM COME IN WITH A VARIANCE.
SO TO ME, WE'RE KIND OF BACKWARDS HERE.
NOW, MY, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY BIGGEST HEARTBURN WITH THIS THING.
NOW, MR. KILLEN BROUGHT UP THE, UM, IDEA OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAT.
AND WHEN I READ THAT SECTION OF THE CODE A DEVELOPMENT PLAT IS BASICALLY TAILORED FOR, FOR THIS SITUATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS, THIS IS THE REASON WHY A DEVELOPMENT PLAT EXISTS WHEN A PERSON HAS ATTRACTIVE LAND THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THAT.
AND IT, IT'S IN THE E T J, IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE PLATTING.
THAT THAT IS WHY, IT'S WHY YOU WOULD DO A DEVELOPMENT.
THE MAIN ISSUE WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLATT IS THE U D C LAYS OUT THAT IT HAS TO BE ENTIRELY CONTAINED WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A SECTION OF CODE THAT ACTUALLY STATES, UM, BEAR COUNTY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE DEVELOPMENT PLATTS APPROVED BY THE CITY.
AND IT SAYS CITY LIMITS VERSUS E T J CITY LIMITS EN ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN ANTONIO IS WHAT THE CODE SAYS.
UM, WELL THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL HEARTBURN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AND THIS APPLIES TO ANY PERMIT THAT'S ISSUED, YOU KNOW, TO ISSUE A PERMIT AND THEN PULL IT WITHIN A DAY OR TWO IS, IS BAD ENOUGH.
BUT WHEN IT'S BEEN HANGING AROUND FOR SIX MONTHS, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY INDEN DISINGENUOUS OF THE CITY TO JUST, OH, NEVERMIND.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
AND I THINK THAT, UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO, UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO UPHOLD THE, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THAT BASIS ALONE.
MORE CONFUSED WITH THIS THING.
SO THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE POWER OVER US.
THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS, CERTAIN, UH, PROCEDURES THAT BEX COUNTY RECOGNIZES, UM, UH, FOR PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE E T J.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT THAT THEY, WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THEM.
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE E T J AND PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
BUT THERE'S ARE CERTAIN RULES THAT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ADDITIONALLY THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE E T J.
AND THE UTILITIES ARE THOSE, ARE THEY, UH, ARE WE SAYING SAN ANTONIO UTILITIES CAN BE HOOKED UP TO THAT, TO THAT DEVELOPMENT OR, OR NOT? YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE HAVE CITY WATER BOARD AND CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EXTEND OUT THERE OR WE HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT WATER, WATER AUTHORITY OUT THERE.
THEY DO, THEY EXTEND OUT INTO OUR E T J AS WELL.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, UH, SITUATION IS, THE PLATT IS NOT REQUIRED UNTIL THEY WANNA CONNECT UTILITIES.
IS THAT CORRECT? CONNECT UTILITIES OR DEVELOP THE PROPERTY? CORRECT.
BUT THEY WERE GIVEN THE C O D I GUESS, IN ERROR, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE, THE BASIS OF THAT? THEY, THEY,
[01:10:01]
SO I GUESS THEY PUT AN APPLICATION, RIGHT? THEY PUT APPLICATION, IT WAS REVIEWED.WE ISSUED THE C O D USING THE WRONG EXCEPTION.
IT WAS CAUGHT DURING INSPECTION TIME, MONTHS LATER.
AND, UM, WE RE-REVIEW IT AND IF IT WAS ISSUED ERRONEOUSLY, WE RETRACT IT AND THE OPTION WAS GIVEN TO HIM TO EITHER PLAT OR YOU COULD APPEAL THE, THE DECISION OF, OF PULLING BACK THE C O D, UH, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO IF THE, UM, LET'S SAY THE, SO THE, IT WAS GRANTED AN ERROR BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION THAT DIDN'T APPLY.
SO IF IT WAS THE, THE WHAT IF WHAT THE CITY CONSIDERS THE CORRECT DETERMINATION WAS MADE AT THAT TIME, WHAT DIRECTION WOULD'VE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT? SO THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO DURING NORMAL DENIAL OF ANY C O D.
THEY'RE GIVEN THE OPTIONS OF EITHER PLATTING OR APPEALING STAFF'S DECISION.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE I'VE SEEN SINCE I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY, UM, APPEALING THE DECISION, BUT THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS ALWAYS PROVIDED TO CLIENT, TO THE APPLICANTS.
SO THE ANSWER IS, IS THAT WE WOULD'VE TOLD 'EM IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR A PLATT EXCEPTION, THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO PLATT.
SO THEY JUST HAVE TO DO A PLATT AND GO THROUGH AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
UM, WE HEARD A LOT OF, UH, ARGUMENTS FROM, FROM THE APPLICANT REGARDING STATE LAW AND CITY LAW AND THE COUNTY AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL RE REBUTTAL TO ANY OF THAT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR FROM CITY STAFF? UH, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CASE LAW HE CITED.
WE WOULD HAVE TO READ THAT AND REVIEW THAT FURTHER.
BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A PLAID EXCEPTION AND WHETHER THE C O D SHOULD BE ISSUED, UH, TO STATE THAT THERE IS A PLAID EXCEPTION IN THIS CASE.
AND SO THAT IS REALLY THE ISSUE THAT THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO FOCUS ON.
UM, IF THERE IS SOME PROVISION IN STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS THEM TO CIRCUMVENT THE REQUIREMENTS AND GO TO THE UTILITY DIRECTLY AND GET A CONNECTION, THAT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE UTILITY AND SAY, HEY, STATE LAW REQUIRE ALLOWS US TO DO THIS AND YOU CAN LET US GO FORWARD.
IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO DECIDE.
YOU KNOW, THE ONLY, THE ONLY ISSUE YOU, YOU MUST DECIDE TODAY IS WHETHER THERE IS A PLATT EXCEPTION IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT CAN, SO CAN YOU JUST PLEASE CLARIFY FOR ME, CLARIFY, UM, WHY YOU SOUGHT AN EXCEPTION AND NOT DID, DIDN'T PURSUE A PLAT FROM THE BEGINNING? JUST SO I CAN
I, AND LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE'RE NOT CLAIMING THAT AN EXCEPTION APPLIES.
AND SO I, I DISAGREE WITH, WITH STAFF AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT IT HAS TO FIT WITHIN AN EXCEPTION.
WE, WE DON'T BELIEVE AN EXCEPTION NEEDS TO APPLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
THE EXCEPTIONS ONLY KICK IN IF WE'RE SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY AND WE'D BE SUBJECT TO A PLATTING REQUIREMENT.
BUT THE C O D ISN'T THAT TO, UM, FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION IS ISSUED WHEN THERE IS AN EXCEPTION.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? NO.
IF, UH, WHERE'S MY POWERPOINT STILL UP? YEAH, SORRY.
SO YOU ASK FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION, YOU GO TO THE CITY, THIS IS STATE LAW, YOU GO TO THE CITY AND ASK THE CITY IS A PLATT REQUIRED, AND THAT'S THE DETERMINATION THEY MAKE.
AND IF THEY DETERMINE A PLATT'S NOT REQUIRED, THEY GIVE YOU A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO FALL WITH AN EXCEPTION TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
AND WE'RE SAYING NOW, I WASN'T REPRESENTING THE FLEX WHEN THEY SUBMITTED INITIALLY, I WOULD'VE RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THIS APPROACH INITIALLY WITH THE C BACK IN FEBRUARY, IS THAT, HEY, LOOK, WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT COACH CHAPTER TWO 12 DOESN'T TALK ABOUT EXCEPTIONS.
THEY JUST TALK ABOUT WHETHER A PLAID IS REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED.
IN OUR CASE, WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
SO I, AGAIN, I DISAGREE WITH STAFF THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF COMMISSION IS DEFINED AN EXCEPTION.
YOUR JOB IS NOT TO FIND THE EXCEPTION.
IT'S TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE MEET THE CRITERIA, UH, FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
IN THIS CASE, THAT WAS WHAT THE, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST OF STAFF WAS TO DETERMINE IF A PLAT WAS NEEDED.
THAT'S, AND THEN IT WAS ISSUED THAT IT WAS NOT.
THE DETERMINATION SAID THE PLAT WAS NOT NEEDED BACK IN FEBRUARY.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SECOND YOU WANNA CONNECT UTILITIES IN SEA PLANET.
[01:15:01]
DIVVYING UP AS THE EXAMPLE WAS GIVEN, YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS, UH, EVENT CENTER IN THE CORNER OF YOUR 10 ACRES.WELL, IF YOU WANNA JUST HAVE SOMETHING, IF, IF YOU HAVE ACRES AND YOU WANNA HAVE SOMETHING OFF TO THE SIDE, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T NEED UTILITIES, YOU'RE GOOD.
BUT THE SECOND YOU WANT SAWS OR C P S ENERGY, NOW THAT GOES BACK INTO THEY NEED SOMETHING, THEY NEED A PLAT.
THE WITHIN THE COUNTY PLATTING IS ENFORCED THROUGH THE ABILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT TO SECURE A UTILITY CONNECTION.
SO WHAT A UTILITY COMPANY OR A UTILITY PROVIDER WILL DO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP IN THE COUNTY, IS THEY WILL ASK, WHERE'S YOUR PLAT? OR WHERE IS YOUR PLATT EXCEPTION? C O D IS PLATT EXCEPTION.
IF YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS, YOU CANNOT GET A UTILITY CONNECTION.
MR. SPARROW, UH, STATES THAT CORRECTLY.
SO, BUT TO THAT POINT, THE UTILITY CONNECTION OR THE PERMIT IS MERELY A TOOL TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SUBDIVISION HAS OCCURRED.
IT SAYS THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE U D C AND STATE LAW SAYS YOU ONLY NEED A PLATT IF YOU'RE DIVIDING PROPERTY.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THE UTILITY CONNECTION THAT TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PLAT.
IT JUST SAYS, HEY WAIT, THIS PROPERTY MAY HAVE BEEN DIVIDED AND GO LOOK AT IT.
BUT IF IT HASN'T BEEN DIVIDED, THERE'S NO PLATTING REQUIREMENT.
WE HAVE, WE'RE NOT DIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
SO THE UTILITY CONNECTION IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
WE NEED THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION TO SHOW TO THE UTILITY COMPANIES THAT WERE NOT SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
I'M SORRY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO GIVEN STAFF'S ERROR, SO WE'RE SORRY, WE MESSED UP.
WE, UM, ISSUED THIS DETERMIN DETERMINATION INCORRECTLY OR ERRONEOUSLY.
UM, WHY CAN'T THE APPLICANT JUST GO BACK AND FOLLOW THE PATH THEY WOULD'VE NORMALLY FOLLOWED? HAD BACK IN FEBRUARY, THEY HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION.
SO HAD THEY NOT BEEN ISSUED THAT LETTER SAYING, NO, YOU DON'T NEED A, YOU DON'T, YOU DO NEED A PLAT, THEY WOULD'VE GONE ABOUT SECURING THEIR, GOING THROUGH THE PROPER COURSE OF GETTING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO GET TO FURTHER DEVELOP THEIR LAND AND BUILD THIS BARN, WEDDING BARN.
SO WHY, WHY ARE THEY NOT WILLING TO DO THAT? NOW? I'M, I'M SURE NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
BACK IN FEBRUARY, HAD STAFF HAD THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ISSUED THE LETTER SAYING, YOU DO NEED A, YOU DO NEED TO PLAT THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ABOUT THEIR PROCESS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? THEY WOULD HAVE THEN STARTED TO GO ABOUT THE PROCESS OF PLATTING THE LAND.
WHY NOT? I THINK THEY WOULD WOULD HIRE ME BACK IN FEBRUARY AND SAID, MAKE THE APPEAL.
THEN SIX MONTHS AGO, THEY WOULD'VE HIRED ME.
UH, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE NO SUBDIVISIONS OCCURRED.
IF, IF UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL A PLATT WAS REQUIRED, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WERE SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY AND TO GO THROUGH IT, UH, THAT'D BE A DIFFERENT STORY AT THIS POINT.
NOW THEY'VE LOST SIX MONTHS IN THE PROCESS.
AND TO GO THROUGH A A PLATTING PROCESS COULD TAKE THREE OR FOUR ADDITIONAL MONTHS ADDITIONAL FEES TO THE CITY.
THERE'S A COST AND TIME FACTOR, WHICH IS WHY THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN SO SENSITIVE TO THIS WITH CHAPTER TWO 12.
IN FACT, WE HAVE, UH, NEW RULES THAT WENT INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER ONE, WHICH EVEN TIGHTENED FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION CITY'S ABILITY TO, UH, DELAY A PROJECT HERE.
WE HAD A BINDING DECISION BACK IN, UH, MARCH THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RELY ON NOW TO TELL THEM, WELL, YOU HAVEN'T SUBDIVIDED THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT YOUR UTILITIES, WE'RE GONNA MAKE YOU PLOT THE PROPERTY.
UH, PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FEES, GO OUT AND HIRE AN ENGINEER TO DO THIS AND LOSE ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR MONTHS BEFORE YOU CAN, UH, BUILD A WEDDING BARN.
JUST DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE, ESPECIALLY SINCE IF IT WASN'T A, IF IT WAS JUST A BARN, IT WASN'T FOR WEDDINGS, IT'S JUST A BARN.
STAFF'S ALREADY SAID YOU COULD BUILD A BARN OUT THERE.
THERE JUST HAPPENED TO BE HOSTING WEDDINGS OUT THERE.
AND, AND SO AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE, BUT I DO SEE, UH, THE FACT THAT I, YOU CAN'T AND YOU SHOULDN'T.
AND IT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SAY, WELL, AT ANY TIME CITY CAN IGNORE STATE LAW AND SAY, WELL, IF WE DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE SUBDIVIDED OR NOT SUBDIVIDING, WE'LL JUST REQUIRE A PLATT BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO PLATT.
AND THAT'S JUST, IT'S NOT FAIR TO PROPERTY OWNERS.
A QUESTION FOR, I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY FOR THE CITY.
I WANNA GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAT SECTION NATION.
SO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CODE, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS BEXAR COUNTY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE DEVELOPMENT PLATTS APPROVED BY THE CITY.
RIGHT? HOWEVER, THE SECTION OF THE CODE DOES NOT PRECLUDE ONE FROM DOING DEVELOPMENT PLATTS IN ITS E T J 'CAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE CITY, A COUNTY OR AN OFFICIAL OF ANOTHER GOVERNMENT
[01:20:01]
ENTITY MAY CHOOSE.WHERE WAS IT? UH, I'M ON THE WRONG SECTION.
THE CITY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PLANS, RULES AND ORDINANCES TO GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT, PLOT OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY, AND ITS EXTRA TER EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
OKAY? SO YOU CAN DO DEVELOPMENT PLAS IN E T J BY CODE.
NOW THIS IS PROBABLY IN QUESTION AND MAY AND MAYBE FOR MR. KILLEN, UM, THE COUNTY, THEY, THEY DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAT OR NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRING YOU TO PLAT.
UH, AND THEN THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PECK FOR THAT QUESTION.
I, I WORKED ON A PROJECT A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHERE WE DID A DEVELOPMENT PLATT AND WORKED WITH, UH, MR. BROCK AT THE COUNTY, UH, COUNTY DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THEM, BUT WALKED 'EM THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
SO WE'VE DONE A DEVELOPMENT PLATT, UH, OUT IN THE E T J AND HAVE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND IT.
THE CITY CAN'T MAKE COUNTY RECOGNIZE THE DEVELOPMENT PLATT, BUT WE CAN GO TO THE COUNTY WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLATT AND SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY IS NOW REGISTERED.
AND AGAIN, IT'S THE, IT'S THE ONLY TOOL THAT SEEMS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.
YOU'RE EITHER SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY OR DEVELOPING PROPERTY.
IF, IF SAS POSITION IS WE NEED A PLATT WHEN WE DEVELOP PROPERTY, I'LL AGREE WITH THAT POSITION.
BUT IT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION PLAT, IT'S A DEVELOPMENT PLATT.
AND THAT'S WHY STATE LAW CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED IN SUB CHAPTER A AND SUB CHAPTER B OF TWO 12 SUBDIVISION PLATTS AND DEVELOPMENT PLATTS.
SO I, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE OUR ROAD, OUR BRIDGE TO CROSS IF WE HAD TO DO A DEVELOPMENT PLATT AND WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO GET THEM TO UNDERSTAND AND RECOGNIZE THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL.
AND SO LET ME JUST HELP CHIME, CHIME IN.
IF THE COMMISSION TODAY, UM, OVERTURNED STAFFED, UH, DECISION OF RETRACTING, PULLING BACK THE C O D THEN UM, THE DECISION BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO GIVE BACK THE C O D RESULTS IN THE C O D BEING ISSUED AND HIM MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT, OR, OR UPHOLDS THE, THE DECISION TO RETRACT OR REVOKE THE C O D, THEN THE PROCESS WILL THEN BE UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE HOW HE GOES ABOUT TO PLAT THE PROPERTY.
IF HE CHOOSES TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAT PROCESS, BEXAR COUNTY IS STILL A TECHNICAL REVIEWING AGENCY AND THEY WILL HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THAT PLAT.
SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THAT PROCESS IS, AGAIN, IF A, A PLATT PROCESS WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED SHOULD THE COMMISSION UPHOLD THE, THE DECISION, OKAY, SO LET ME FINISH MY LINE OF QUESTIONING.
SO IF YOU WENT DOWN THAT PATH, YOU COULD USE YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLOT TO OBTAIN YOUR UTILITY SERVICE BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S CONSIDERED A DOCUMENT IN SAS'S EYES THAT, THAT GIVES YOU THAT ABILITY.
ALL WE WOULD DO IS IF WE, IF WE GOT A DEVELOPMENT PLATT, WE'D ALSO NEED SOMETHING FROM THE CITY SAYING WE DIDN'T REQUIRE A SUBDIVISION PLATT, WE'VE GOT A DEVELOPMENT PLATT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND THE U D C PROVISIONS.
YOU'RE DOING ONE OR THE OTHER.
SO WE CAN TAKE THAT TO THE UTILITY.
SO WE'VE GOT, WE DIDN'T DO A SUBDIVISION PLATT, WE DID A DEVELOPMENT PLAT.
WE TAKE THAT TO BEXAR COUNTY AND SAY WE DIDN'T DO A SUBDIVISION PLAT 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY.
WE'RE DOING A DEVELOPMENT PLATT.
SO THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT SPLITS THE BABY DOWN THE MIDDLE, SO TO SPEAK.
OR WE'RE NOT DOING A SUBDIVISION PLAT 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT.
WELL, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT MEETS THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.
UM, THIS IS REALLY FOR STAFF AND, AND IT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT, IT'S ON MY PART, BUT BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT HOW LAND IS USED, UM, I SEE THAT THE LAND IS LISTED AS AGRICULTURAL ONCE THE BAR WEDDING BARN COMES UP AND BECAUSE BECOMES COMMERCIAL, DOES THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW THAT'S CLASSIFIED? SO BEXAR COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING AUTHORITY, SO THERE'S NO ZONING IN THE CITY.
SO IT'S JUST A TAXING ISSUE AFTER THAT.
UM, WHAT ABOUT THE LAND USAGE CATEGORY? 'CAUSE IT'S IN THE E T J.
DOES, DOES ANYTHING NEED TO GET CHANGED OR ADJUSTED WITH THAT? THE LAND USE CONSISTENCY ONLY COMES IN WHEN THERE IS A REZONING.
THERE'S NO ZONING IN THE COUNTY, SO THERE'S NO REVIEW OF THAT LAND USE WITHIN THE E T J.
SO WHATEVER IT IS NOW, IT'LL JUST STAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERS'
[01:25:01]
QUESTIONS? NOT THEN WE CAN HAVE A MOTION, I MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
FROM, WHO WAS THAT ROI? UH, SO YOU CAN DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
AND MY DECISION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED THE C O D AND IN ORDER, AND, AND BY STATE LAW, IT APPEARS TO ME ANYWAY, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I WOULD LIKE THAT REVIEWED, IS THAT THAT IS A BINDING DECISION AND THE ONLY WAY TO REVERSE THAT IS FOR STAFF TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND REQUEST THAT TO BE REVERSED.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? UH, I'M GOING TO GO VOTE YES.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY END UP WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO NEXT WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
IS THAT CORRECT OR DOES IT JUST MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FROM COMMISSIONER CARILLO.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? AND THERE'S NO SECOND ON THAT ONE.
SO IT'S JUST AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL OF THE APPEAL APPEALS DENIED.
SO THE APPLICANT'S APPEALS AUTOMATICALLY DENIED THEN.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER ACTION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE REGARDING THIS ITEM? NOT FOR THIS ITEM, NO.
[32. 19-8113 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from October 23, 2019]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA ITEM IS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
[Director’s Report: Status of Planning Commission Appointments.]
HAVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, WHICH SAYS STATUS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS.DO WE HAVE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? OH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
I THINK I HAD THE, UH, STATUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU, UH, A QUICK BRIEFING.
THE GOAL IS TO GET THE COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL BY DECEMBER 5TH.
THAT'S KIND OF ESSENTIALLY ALMOST THE LAST MEETING OF THE, OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.
UH, SO THERE IS A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WAS APPOINTED, OR THAT WAS DECIDED UPON BY THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN.
UM, THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS TO MEET IN ORDER TO PUT FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE A MEETING PRIOR TO DECEMBER 5TH IN ORDER TO GET THE RECOMMENDED APPLICANTS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON DECEMBER 5TH.
WHEN IS THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING? UH, IT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE DOING A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT AS SOON AS WE KNOW, WE'LL, THE, THE CANDIDATES WILL KNOW.
SO WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING.
FIRST SUB COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE APPLICATIONS FIRST AND THEY'RE GONNA RECOMMEND TO GOVERNANCE? CORRECT.
AND THE GOVERNANCE WILL MEET TO DECIDE ON A, ON A SLATE OF CANDIDATES.
AND THOSE CANDIDATES WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO, UH, PLANNING, I MEAN TO CITY COUNCIL ON KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA ASK PEOPLE TO COME IN AND DO THEIR INTERVIEW, AND MOST LIKELY, YES.
SO BE LOOKING OUT FOR AN EMAIL FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
CAN WE GET A SUBCOMMITTEE TO DETERMINE WHO'S ON THE, TO DETERMINE WHO'S ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE? I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT.
I'LL, I'LL MENTION THAT TO THEM.
WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, JUST A REMINDER.
ATTENDANCE IS EXTREMELY CRITICAL, AS YOU CAN TELL FROM TODAY.
UM, SO JENNIFER RAMOS, UH, COMMISSIONER RAMOS HAS, HAS, UH, RESIGNED, UH, EFFECTIVE LAST WEEK.
UM, AND SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE, COMMISSIONER BRUNSON DON'T LEAVE YET.
UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNSON WHO ALSO LEFT, AND UH, COMMISSIONER ICK HAS ALSO, UH, BEEN ABSENT AND SHE MAY BE ABSENT FOR A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
SO PLEASE SHOW UP TO ALL THE MEETINGS.
THERE'S TWO LEFT, CORRECT? THERE'S TWO LEFT FOR THE YEAR? YES.
WE GOT ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT.