[00:00:01]
[Call to Order]
IS EVERYBODY READY TO GET STARTED FOR TODAY? OKAY.CAN WE START WITH THE INTERPRETER VIDEO? OKAY.
IT IS 2 0 3 AND WE'RE GOING TO CALL TODAY'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
CAN STAFF DO THE, UH, ATTENDANCE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
PRESENT? COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC? HERE.
HAS EVERYBODY SIGNED UP THAT WANTS TO SIGN UP TODAY TO SPEAK? OKAY.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SPEAK NOW OR WAIT FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL ITEM TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR HEARING AND SPEAK.
AT THAT TIME, REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND EACH CITIZEN WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? UH, THAT IS CORRECT.
IF YOU, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS, MAKE SURE YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND THEN YOU CAN SPEAK NOW OR WAIT UNTIL THAT ITEM IS BROUGHT UP FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND WE CAN LET THEM KNOW WHICH ONES ARE ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, EIGHT, AND 11.
THAT WILL BE ON INDIVIDUAL AND THEY CAN SPEAK THEN THAT WILL BE ON INDIVIDUAL.
YOU CAN SPEAK, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN COME UP NOW OR YOU CAN WAIT TILL WE CALL 'EM NINE, EIGHT.
[Consent Agenda]
OKAY.THE FIRST AGENDA WILL BE THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.
UH, CASES ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA ARE CASES WHERE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION.
AND FINALLY, NO ONE ON THE AUDIENCE ASSIGNED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
ALL CASES WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD FOR ONE UNIFIED MOTION.
UH, IF SIGN SOMEONE HAS TIME TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, THAT ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA.
THE SECOND AGENDA WILL BE THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA.
UH, WHICH CASES WILL BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MAKING A MOTION ON THE ITEM.
SO WE'LL START WITH THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.
AND AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, WE HAVE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION NUMBER 4 8 11 12.
UH, THAT BEING SAID, UH, IF STAFF CAN PLEASE READ THE, READ THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA INTO THE RECORD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME'S CHRIS MCCOLLINS, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NUMBER 4, 8 11, AND 12, WHICH HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
AND ITEM NINE, WHICH HAS BEEN POSTPONED.
THE BALANCE OF TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER A SINGLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA? SO MOVED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER PECK, A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ STAFF, CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL? VOTE.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREENY? YES.
CHAIR CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[4. 19-8916 180434 Request by Lloyd A. Denton, Annabelle Ranch, LLC, Hwy. 87 Communities Ltd., for approval to replat and subdivide a tract of land to establish Annabelle Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, generally located south of the intersection of Beck Road and US Highway 87. Staff recommends Approval. (Jose Garcia, Senior Planner, (210) 207-8268, Jose.Garcia4@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
THANK YOU.NEXT, WE'LL GO ONTO THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A REQUEST BY LLOYD, A DENTON, ANNABELLE RANCH, L L C AND HIGHWAY 87 COMMUNITIES LIMITED FOR APPROVAL TO REPL AND SUBDIVIDE ATTRACTIVE LAND TO ESTABLISH ANNABEL RANCH UNIT ONE.
SUBDIVISION GEN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BECK ROAD AND US HIGHWAY 87 STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
WE DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN HERE TO SPEAK.
UH, CAN WE GET KEVIN GODLEY? YES, SIR.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE RECORD.
I'M ALSO THE OPERATIONS PROJECT COORDINATOR FOR BEXAR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS.
[00:05:01]
LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH, UM, THE WAY THE PROJECT IS GOING AND, UM, THERE IS, UH, I WAS SENT THIS TO COME DOWN AND, AND TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UM, UM, PLAT, BUT THE PLAT THAT I WAS GIVEN IS FOR THE, UM, SUBDIVISION.LOOKS LIKE THE LOTS THAT ARE AT 6, 7, 8, AND NINE.
BUT I WAS TOLD EARLIER THAT IT'S DOWN BY LOTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT SHOWED A PLAT THAT SHOWED LOTS.
IF WE'RE TALKING 7, 8, 9, AND 10, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO, IN A SENSE, TO DO WITH THAT AREA.
SO IS IS THAT YOUR MAIN CONCERN? WHICH PLAT, WHICH PROPERTY? WELL, YEAH, I'M GETTING MIXED.
I'M KIND OF GETTING MIXED INFORMATION.
IS THAT, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS WITH THE PLATT? IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHICH PLATT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE GET, UH, STAFF TO PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION.
SO THE PLATT BEFORE US, WHICH HAS SHOWN UP ON THE SCREEN, IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
I I IS YOUR CONCERN THAT THIS PLATT IS INCLUDING THE PROPERTY THAT YOU OWN? NO, I LIVE, LIKE I SAID, I LIVE BASICALLY RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS, THIS IS IN MY, IT, IT'S EITHER IN MY BACKYARD OR NOT IN MY BACKYARD.
UP HERE WE HAVE LOTS, 6, 7, 8, AND NINE AND 10.
THAT'S WHY I GOT THIS PARTICULAR INFORMATION.
SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOT 2, 6, 7, 8, OR NINE OR 10? SO LOT TWO ON THAT SCREEN WOULD BE IN THE WHITE AREA WHERE IT SAYS SHEET TWO.
SO THAT AREA COMING OFF OF BECK ROAD, UH, THE STREET LABELED AS TUPELO AND THOSE LOTS TO THE EAST WOULD BE IN YOUR BACKYARD.
RIGHT? I THINK HE'S HIGHLIGHTING THE PROPERTY THAT, THAT YOU OKAY.
I DIDN'T GET THIS PARTICULAR SHEET.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE YES, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY IS WHAT'S INSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF THAT.
UM, IF YOU GO BACK UP, THE, THE ISSUE I HAVE IS WE'RE RETTING THIS PARTICULAR, THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
AND I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SOME TYPE OF, UH, WORLD WORK ON BECK ROAD TO ENTER INTO THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT ON, THAT'S PLOTTED OUT BECAUSE I DON'T SPEAKING, I DON'T SEE ENOUGH ROOM TO PUT A 100 FOOT COLLECTOR ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ROAD, PLUS SIDEWALKS, CURB, AND A BIKE LANE IN ORDER TO TURN INTO THIS SUBDIVISION.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR CORNER, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, SO BECK ROAD IS CURRENTLY LISTED AS AN 85 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THEN THE PLA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF UNDERNEATH, UM, YOU KNOW, TUPELO THERE DOWN TO THE SOUTH.
IT'S SHOWING THAT THERE IS A 13 FOOT RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, UH, TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.
SO COMING IN OFF OF BACK, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 75 FOOT RIGHT AWAY AT THE INGRESS EGRESS POINT, DROPPING DOWN TO A 60 AND ONTO A 50 FOOT LOCAL, A RIGHT AWAY WIDTH.
SO THIS PLANT IS DEDICATING 13 FEET OF RIGHT AWAY FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS COMING IN OFF OF BECK.
AND THAT WILL BE, THAT WILL BE A 100 FOOT EGRESS BIKE LANE, CURB, AND SIDEWALK WITH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLAT.
BECAUSE I, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION, UM, REQUIRED WHEN THIS, WHEN THIS, UH, PROJECT WENT INTO PLACE, ME READING THE NOTES.
SO, SO AGAIN, THIS IS SHOWN AS A 75 FOOT RIGHT AWAY, WIDTH, NOT A 100 FOOT.
IF THE ENGINEER IS PRESENT, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE THIS 100 FOOT, UH, WIDTH IS COMING FROM.
I'M NOT AWARE OF A 100 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.
I'M JUST HERE TO GO ON RECORD TO SAY THAT IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS ON THIS STREET.
PEOPLE HAVE CRASHED CARS IN MY FRONT YARD.
THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC DOWN BACK ROAD THAN I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND BEING WORKING FOR THE COUNTY.
I DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK TO SAY THAT.
WHAT'S THE COUNTY ROAD? IT'S DONE.
THAT'S WHAT I DEAL WITH AT WORK.
SO WE'RE, UH, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS FROM OUR STREETS ENGINEERING TEAM, THE, THE ENGINEER FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT IS HERE.
AND THEN AFTER THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED, THEY, WE CAN HAVE THEM TALK OUTSIDE JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT HE HAS.
[00:10:01]
THANK YOU.I WAS ALSO, SO DOES ANY OF WHAT HE WAS, UH, CONCERNED ABOUT, DOES THAT AFFECT, UM, THE PLATT MEETING, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE U D C AND STATE PROVISIONS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF? THE, THE PLATT MEETS CODE STILL.
AND SO CITY STAFF'S GONNA MEET WITH HIM AND THE ENGINEER TO DISCUSS HIS CONCERNS, IS THAT CORRECT? IS SORRY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT CITY STAFF'S GOING TO CITY STAFF AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORDS GOING TO MEET WITH HIM TO DISCUSS HIS CONCERNS? YES.
IF IT'S NOT CITY STAFF, IT'S GONNA BE THE COUNTY STAFF, I BELIEVE.
AND ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY'RE TALKING RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO THE PLAT MEETS CODE, SO THEN BY STATUTE WHERE YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT TODAY THEN.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PECK STAFF.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[8. 19-9003 18-00003.00: Request by Bo Broll, Broll Homes, L.P., for approval of a Planned Unit Development to establish Howard Crossing Townhome Subdivision, generally located along southeast intersection of Millard Street and Howard Street. Staff recommends Approval of an Alternate Recommendation. (Martha Bernal, Senior Planner, (210) 207-0210, Martha.Bernal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
OKAY.NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
MARTHA BURNELL, SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT P U D 18 DASH ZERO 3.0.
REQUEST BY BOB ROLL ROLL HOMES LP FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH HOWARD'S CROSSING TOWN HOME SUBDIVISION GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MILLER STREET AND HOWARD STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION, BUT WE DID RECEIVE ONE EMAIL IN OPPOSITION.
AND JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY, THE EMAIL THAT WAS RECEIVED WAS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GROUP WITH CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE REDUCTION OF THE PERIMETER SETBACK, NOT TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, BUT TO THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE PERIMETER SETBACK ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? OKAY.
DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? IF, IF I COULD, TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS GARRETT NEWMAN AND I LIVE AT THREE 14 CARDINAL WAY.
AND THEN, OKAY, SO HERE'S A QUICK PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACTUAL RELIEF REQUEST.
AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S LOCATED SOUTH OF OLMOS PARK ALONG MILLARD HOWARD, AND AT THE INTERSECTION AT DEL STREET, THERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE, SEE HERE THAT IT'S LOCATED WEST OF HOWARD, NORTH OF MILLARD, EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
AND IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY AN INFILL PROJECT, BUT IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME UNDEVELOPED LAND IN THAT AREA.
WE'RE REQUESTING RELIEF FROM 35 3 44 0 2 I ONE, WHICH IS THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
UM, IT'S A PUD PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL BE 20 FEET.
AND WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING RELIEF FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WHERE THE RAILROAD IS.
UH, THE 20 FOOT BUFFER WILL REMAIN ALONG THE SOUTHERN, EASTERN AND NORTHERN PUD BOUNDARIES.
HERE'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THE RELIEF.
IF WE ENFORCE OR IF THE 20 FOOT BUFFER IS ENFORCED, THEN WE'RE GONNA END UP KILLING A DUPLEX UNIT, A TRIPLEX ONE UNIT OUT OF THERE, AND ALSO TWO UNITS OUT OF A QUADPLEX.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY'S ALREADY ZONED MF 33.
AND WITH THIS LAYOUT, WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE ABOUT 35 LOTS, 35 UNITS ON 27 LOTS.
UM, AND SO IF WE WERE TO DEVELOP IT TO ITS FULL CAPACITY, IT WOULD BE NEAR 60 LOT OR 60 UNITS ALTOGETHER.
SO WE'RE UNDER THE REQUIRED ZONING AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE ALONG THE, THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACK.
AND SOME OF THE CONCERN IS THAT THE PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD TRACK, BUT WE'RE ALSO LOCATED IN A NO BLOW ZONE, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE TOO BIG OF A CONCERN.
UM, DUE TO THE UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE LAND, THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUFFER WOULD RENDER A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE LAND UNDEVELOPABLE, PARTICULARLY THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE FROM THE NORTH DIRECTION DOWN.
IT MAKES THAT AREA VERY DIFFICULT TO LOCATE A BUILDING WITH STILL HAVING FRONTAGE
[00:15:01]
ALONG HOWARD STREET.AND SO, AS I MENTIONED, WE WOULD ELIMINATE AN ENTIRE DUPLEX AND THREE ADDITIONAL UNITS AND IT WOULD DECREASE THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF THIS PROJECT.
UM, THE RAILROAD PROXIMITY IS REALLY ONLY A CONCERN IN THE CORNERS BECAUSE MOST OF THE OTHER UNITS ARE A REASONABLE DISTANCE FROM THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
HERE'S A CLOSEUP OF THE 20 FOOT BUFFER IS SHOWN IN RED, AND THE THE 10 FOOT BUFFER WOULD BE SHOWN IN BLUE SHOWING THAT UNITS 46 AND 47.
THOSE ARE LOT NUMBERS, NOT THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS.
UM, IT WOULD ELIMINATE THAT WHOLE DUPLEX.
THE SAME THING ON THE NEXT SLIDE, SHOWING THE REDUCTION OF ONE UNIT IN THE TRIPLEX UNIT BACK THERE.
AND THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE IT JUST SHOWS THE ELIMINATION OF TWO MORE UNITS.
SO ALTOGETHER WE'RE JUST SIMPLY ASKING FOR A REDUCTION SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DEVELOPABLE LAND AND LOCATE FIVE EXTRA UNITS.
AS I SAID, IT'S ALREADY ZONED MF 33 AND THE CLIENT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP A, A PRETTY SPECIAL TYPE OF PROJECT HERE.
I THINK IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 14, CAN YOU GO TO SLIDE? HE'S PLANNING ON A THREE STORY DUPLEX HERE WITH THE INTENTIONS OF BEING ABLE TO SELL THEM EACH INDIVIDUALLY.
HE'S GOT A PRICE TAG OF ABOUT $325,000 PER DOOR.
SO THAT WOULD MAKE, UM, A PRETTY NICE PRODUCT IN THIS AREA WITH, UM, $625,000 BUILDINGS, UM, RANGING ALL THE WAY UP TO $1.3 MILLION.
UH, HE WILL HAVE AN H O A CHARGING 30 TO $40 A DOOR STILL TO BE DETERMINED ON THE EXACT PRICE ON THAT ONE, BUT DEPENDING ON THE COST OF SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, THAT'S HIS PLAN THERE.
I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMMARIZES THE REQUEST FOR THE RELIEF.
UH, NEXT WE'LL HAVE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
UH, FIRST ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IS DOROTHY SAWYER.
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
8 0 2 8 DOVE TRAIL DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 4 4.
I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 3 0 7 EARL STREET.
MY QUESTION IS, ARE THESE GONNA BE RENTED OR ARE THEY GONNA BE SOLD THESE PROPERTIES? ARE THEY GONNA BE SOLD OR RENTED? CAN YOU APPROACH THE MIC PLEASE? YEAH.
CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? SORRY, WE CAN SHARE.
IT COULD BE SOLD AS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY WITH ONE OWNER ON TWO UNITS OR EVEN A, AN OWNER BUYING BOTH UNITS AND RENTING ONE SIDE OUT TO THE OTHER SIDE.
THEREFORE, THESE ARE GOING TO BE SOLD, OR NONE OF THESE ARE GONNA BE RENTED UNLESS IT'S GONNA BE RENTED BY ONE OWNER THAT BUYS A DUPLEX COULD BE PURCHASED AS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY.
BUT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE SECTION EIGHTS.
WHAT ABOUT SECURITY? GATED COMMUNITY BACKGROUND? CHECK OF THE TENANTS AND, UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THREE AND FOUR FAMILIES, WE HAVE HAD TOO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY OWNED DUPLEXES THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW.
TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE HORRENDOUS BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE OR TWO WAYS TO GET OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANKS TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR CLOSING SOME OF THE STREETS OFF OF MCCULLOUGH.
WE CAN'T COME DOWN THOSE STREETS ANYMORE.
SO WHAT ARE Y'ALL GONNA DO ABOUT THAT? THERE WILL NOT BE ANY SECURITY GATES.
UM, EVERYBODY WILL HAVE FRONTAGE RIGHT ONTO HOWARD AND MILLARD STREETS.
AND SO THEIR GARAGES WILL BACK RIGHT UP INTO THERE.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE CITY OWNED HOUSING, UH, BACKGROUND CHECKS.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO, NO, I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY PARTICULAR BACKGROUND.
WOULD YOU DO A BACKGROUND CHECK? SURE.
AND I DON'T MEAN THE, A TENANT WOULD BE LIKE A SECTION EIGHT OR JUST A REGULAR RENT OR JOIN.
'CAUSE IF YOU BUY ONE OF THEM AND YOU RENT IT TO SOMEONE, THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, CORRECT? YES.
THEY'RE NOT PLANNING SECTION EIGHT HOUSING HERE.
THEREFORE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT, ARE THESE GONNA BE SIMILAR TO THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON ALMOST DRIVE RIGHT NOW, WHERE THEY BUILT THOSE HOUSES? THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, THESE WILL BE DUPLEX UNITS.
I HAVE A, THERE'S AN EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS WHAT THE FLOOR PLAN WILL LOOK LIKE.
THERE'S A FIRST FLOOR WITH, AND YOU CONSIDERED BUYING OUT THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE ALONG THERE SO YOU COULD HAVE MORE LAND.
THE DEVELOPER, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO BUY.
IS THIS THE SAME PERSON THAT APPLIED FOR THIS ABOUT 10 OR 12 YEARS AGO? THE DEVELOPER HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A LONG TIME.
HIS NAME IS BO ROLL, SO THAT'S
[00:20:01]
HIM.UH, NEXT PERSON SILENT TO SPEAK IS ARNOLD GONZALEZ.
DON'T FORGET TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, MY NAME IS, UH, ARNOLD GONZALEZ.
I LIVE AT THREE 18 ODELL ACROSS, UH, TRACKS.
AND, UH, I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY ALL MY LIFE.
AND, UH, RIGHT THERE WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO BAIL, THAT WAS CONSIDERED A FLOOD ZONE.
SO THEY MOVED, UH, THERE WAS ONLY WAS ONLY ONE, TWO, LIKE, MAYBE SIX HOUSES, AND ALL THE WATER WAS CONSIDERED A FLOOD.
IT WAS CONSIDERED A FLOOD ZONE BECAUSE MY GODFATHER USED TO LIVE THERE.
AND, UH, WHEN YOU WOULD GO ACROSS THE TRACKS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT, UH, BOARDS OR WHATEVER.
AND IF HE FELL DOWN, WELL, GOOD LUCK, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU WERE GONNA GET ALL WET.
AND THEN, UH, SAY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, UH, ONE OF THE KIDDOS, YEAH, I DON'T REMEMBER IF HE'S THREE OR SIX YEARS OLD, THE TRAIN RAN OVER HIM AND, UH, HE WAS BEHIND, UH, BEHIND MY YARD AND, UH, ON THE, ON THE TRACKS.
SO WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FLOODING, THE PARKING, UH, THE TRAFFIC AND, UM, THE FENCING.
AND, UH, THE, THE FOUNDATION IS GONNA BREAK.
AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU GO THREE HIGH, THAT'S TOO MUCH BECAUSE, UH, I'LL GIVE IT MAYBE ONE YEAR TO TWO YEARS, THE FOUNDATIONS WILL BE BROKEN BECAUSE THE TRAIN PASSES THROUGH THERE.
AND, UH, I'VE BEEN LIVING THERE ALL MY LIFE.
AND, UH, MY LAND IS, UH, I GOT LAND, UH, UH, LOT 27.
I CONSIDERED IT, UH, DEAD LAND BECAUSE, UH, I JUST KEEP IT CLEAN AND, UH, UH, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN BUILD ON THERE THAT'S GONNA LAST.
SO THERE'S NO POINT IN TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THIS BIG.
AND THEN, UH, IF THERE'S GONNA BE KIDS AROUND, UH, THE FENCING WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE OUTTA STEEL, NOT OUT OF, UH, CHAIN LINK BECAUSE THEY WILL CUT IT AND KIDS THINK THAT 30 SECONDS, UH, THE TRAIN IS A TOY, IT IS NOT A TOY.
AND, UH, YOU DON'T WANNA SEE THAT BECAUSE, UH, THERE'S BEEN TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN RUN OVER BY THE TRAIN AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT, UH, WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT THE PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC.
AND IF THERE WAS TO BE A FIRE ON THESE, UH, COMPLEX, HOW WOULD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GET IN THERE? THANK YOU.
UH, NEXT PERSON SIGNED TO SPEAK IS VICTOR
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OH, DO YOU NEED THE, UH, HE NEEDS THE TRANSLATOR SERVICES ONE.
MY NAME IS VICTOR ROMAN, AND I LIVE ON 3 0 1 MILLARD.
I LIVE RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY.
I AM AGAINST THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I AM THE ONLY ONE, AS I MENTIONED, THAT LIVES IN THIS CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND AS IT IS, THERE HAVE ALREADY
[00:25:01]
BEEN SO MANY ACCIDENTS HERE.AND I BELIEVE THAT, OR I FEAR THAT IF THIS PROJECT IS DONE, THEN IT WILL BE EVEN MUCH MORE SO ONE INCLUSIVE AND A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO MENTION, THE MEN THAT WENT BEFORE ME ALREADY MENTIONED THEM, BUT I WASN'T EVEN TOLD ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
AND THAT IS WHY I'M HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM AGAINST IT.
AND THEN, UM, LAST PERSONS TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS IS OLGA MARQUEZ.
DON'T FORGET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
LIKE I, HE SAY HE, THE PERSON TO PASS NOW IS MY HUSBAND.
AND, UH, I LIVE IN, IN THE, THE ONLY HOUSE TO IS IN THE CORNER IS, UH, US.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, EVERYTHING THE GUY TOOK COMING BEFORE AND MY HUSBAND IS, THEY, I GO, YOU KNOW, WITH THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS, UH, IT IS TRUE.
IT IS, UH, THE CONGESTION, THE EVERYTHING TO THE GUY SAYS IS, IS, UH, THAT I COME IN FOR US.
BUT, OH, SOMEBODY SAY, WHY DON'T, DON'T STAY WITH WITH THE PROJECT.
AND I, I, I LIVE FOR 30 YEARS OVER THERE AND, AND THE CITY DON'T LOOK FOR DUET, UH, THE COMMUNITY MORE JUST FOR PUT THE, THE, YOU KNOW, MORE PEOPLE TO COME IN FOR.
UM, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE, WHAT, WHAT THE PEOPLE COMING FOR FOR LEAVE OVER THERE BECAUSE, UH, IT'S A LOT OF APARTMENTS OR DUPLEX.
IT'S, IT'S TOO MUCH FOR THIS AREA.
AND, UH, WELL, I, I, I STAY WITH MY HUSBAND AND THE RIGHT TO COMING BEFORE.
UM, THAT IS IT FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
UH, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, JUST TO REITERATE, THE ZONING IS ALREADY MF 33.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THAT.
WE ARE WELL WITH UNDER THE ALLOTTED AMOUNT OF NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE COULD BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY AT 35.
WE'RE ACTUALLY WAY UNDERNEATH THAT.
SO I THINK THE NUMBER OF UNITS BEING BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY ISN'T QUITE A BIG CONCERN.
UM, NOR IS THE ARRANGEMENT OF THEM.
WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR 10 FEET INSTEAD OF 20 FEET.
IN TERMS OF FLOODING, THERE WAS EXISTING, THERE WERE EXISTING HOUSES THERE AS PART OF THIS SUB UH, APPLICATION, WE HAD TO SUBMIT A FULL DRAINAGE STUDY ANALYZING THE PROPERTY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WOULD BE ADDED, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S BEEN APPROVED AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT THIS STAGE.
SO WE DON'T FEEL THAT FLOODING WILL BE AN ISSUE AT THIS PLACE.
UH, THERE'S PARKING, THE GARAGES, THE EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ITS OWN GARAGE, SO EVERY PERSON WILL HAVE A PARK PARKING ALONG THE STREET UNLESS IT'S AN ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
BUT THEY'RE ALSO SO CLOSE TOGETHER THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PARK ALONG THE STREET AT ALL.
UM, IN TERMS OF FOUNDATIONS, THERE WILL BE A GEOTECH REPORT THAT'S PART OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REVIEW.
SO ANY OF THE LIABILITY FOR THAT SORT OF FOUNDATION WOULD BE ON A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND IS NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION.
AND ALONG WITH THE TRAIN AND FENCING, IT'LL BE BUILT WITH FENCES ALONG ALL THE WAY ALONG THAT, THAT, THAT SIDE, I MEAN, I'M SURE THAT SOMEBODY WHO LIVES BACK THERE WILL WANT TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR DOG OUT AND NOT GO ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACK AND POSSIBLY BE HIT.
SO THERE WILL BE FENCES THERE.
I THINK THAT ANSWERED ALL OF THEIR CONCERNS.
NEXT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS.
AND WHO DO WE HAVE WE ON THE LEFT, JUNE, WITH JUNE? UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR UNITS? INDIVIDUAL? I, I BELIEVE THERE'S 1600 SQUARE FEET EACH.
[00:30:01]
SO YOUR CONCERN, IF WE LOOK, THERE'S A, THERE'S TWO UNITS THAT YOU SAID YOU'D TOTALLY LOSE, BUT COULD YOU NOT TURN THEM INTO ONE UNIT AND MAKE THEM SMALLER? UH, AND THERE'S A FEW, A FEW OTHERS WHERE INSTEAD OF THREE UNITS, YOU WOULD HAVE TWO OR INSTEAD OF TWO UNITS, YOU COULD HAVE ONE, MAYBE SLIGHTLY BIGGER.IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU COULD NOT ADAPT THOSE UNITS FOR THE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE? AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE DEVELOPER HAS THIS MODEL ALREADY BUILT OR, AND DESIGNED.
AND SO IT'S, THIS IS HIS STANDARD PRODUCT FOR THAT.
UM, I KNOW THAT HE'S LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT HE CAN PUT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND WITH THE SIMPLE VARIATION OR REDUCTION IN THAT PUD BOUNDARY, HE'S ABLE TO GET ANOTHER FIVE UNITS, WHICH MAKES THE PROJECT MORE FINANCIALLY VIABLE TO HIM.
SO HE IS LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT HE CAN PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY AND STILL BE WITHIN HIS, UH, APPROVED ZONE.
THE REASON, YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S TO PROTECT RES ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, THE CORNER, THE LOTS THAT, THAT IS ON THE CORNER THAT'S EXISTING.
IT'S TO GIVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS AND, AND WELL, AND I KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO RAILROAD TRACKS AND THAT 20 FEET MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
IS THERE, IS THERE, CAN YOU CITY EXPLAIN MORE? SO GENERALLY PUDS ALLOW FOR A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE PUD BOUNDARIES.
YOU CAN CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE, UH, DENSITY STILL PERMITTED BY ZONING, BUT THAT YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T ACHIEVE IN A TRADITIONAL SUBDIVISION.
UH, BECAUSE YOU CAN WAVE THINGS LIKE MINIMUM LOT SIZES, INTERNAL SETBACKS.
UH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF PUDS, THEY TEND TO BE MORE DENSE.
SO THE PUD CHAPTER REQUIRES A 20 FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK, NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH SOME BUFFER BETWEEN MORE DENSE HOUSING AND WHAT'S NEXT TO IT, BUT ALSO KIND OF AT THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF ZONING TO PROVIDE FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT.
UH, THE CONCERN THAT STAFF HAS HERE PRIMARILY IS THE PROXIMITY OF THOSE DWELLING UNITS TO A RAILROAD SHOULD SOMETHING EVER HAPPEN, UH, WITH A TRAIN ON THOSE RAILROADS THAT IS A VERY ACTIVE RAILROAD, UH, PLACING, UH, HOUSING 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS A CONCERN FOR STAFF.
I I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, UM, A COUPLE OF TRAINED DERAILMENTS VERY NEAR HERE THAT, UM, CAUSED SOME HOUSING PROBLEMS. SO THAT, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A CONCERN.
SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE DEVELOPER HAS A PLAN AND HE HAS NO INTENTION OF CHANGING IT, SO HE WANTS THE CITY TO CHANGE ITS RULES FOR HIM SO HE CAN MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
IS THAT A GOOD SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION? NO, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LEAP, BUT YEAH, I THINK WITH, WITH THIS MODIFICATION, UH, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S TO BRING LIGHT AND AIR INTO A, WHAT COULD RATHER BE A RATHER DENSE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD TRACK WITH A HUNDRED FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S CENTERED IN THERE.
SO EVEN AT A MINIMUM WE'RE, UH, 60 FEET AWAY FROM THE RAILROAD TRACK AT THAT POINT.
AND IF YOU DRIVE ALONG ANY OF THOSE ROADS, I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN HOUSES MUCH CLOSER THAN THAT TOO.
SO, AND LIKE I SAID, THESE HOUSES WILL BE BUILT AND THEN ANY PERSON WHO'S LOOKING TO BUY THEM WOULD BE ABLE TO TOUR THE HOUSE, LOOK AT THE HOUSE, LOOK AT THE LOT, KNOW THE PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD TRACK, AND THEN ALSO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION FROM THERE.
DID YOU SAY HOW MANY UNITS YOU'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING IN? I KEEP HEARING THAT YOU WANNA, THIS MIGHT DECREASE IT BY FIVE, BUT WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS PLANNED? IT'S 35 UNITS ON 27 LOTS.
UM, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, BUT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REDUCED SETBACK.
UM, 'CAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS FOR ASKING FOR THE REDUCED SETBACK ARE SUPPORTED BY THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT, ONE OF THE REASONS YOU HAVE TO CITE IS THE HARDSHIP RELATES TO THE APPLICANT'S LAND RATHER THAN PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ONE'S UPHELD.
AND ALSO THE HARDSHIP IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S OWN ACTIONS.
SO, UM, I WILL, UH, BE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, BUT NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REDUCED SETBACK.
CAN I RESPOND TO THAT REAL QUICKLY? I THINK IT IS IN, IT IS SHOWN IN TERMS OF THE SHAPE OF THE LAND.
THE 20 FOOT BUFFER REALLY HINDERS THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THAT NORTHERN PORTION BECAUSE OF THE TRIANGULAR OF IT.
AND THAT ISN'T ONE OF THE APPLICANT'S FAULTS.
AND THAT IS JUST THE WAY THAT THE CITY BLOCKS WERE DRAWN THEN.
THAT IS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK ON THE SETBACKS AND ON THE PROJECT.
UH, THE PROJECT, UH, PROBABLY DESERVES TO BE THERE.
THE LAND HAS BEEN VACANT FOR SUCH A LONG TIME.
AND, UM, I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHICH IS A FIRE, UH, UH, STATION THAT'S CLOSEST TO THIS.
'CAUSE I THINK IT'D BE DIFFICULT TO GET TO IT.
I WOULD HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH REAL QUICK TO SEE IF I COULD FIND THE QUICKEST FIRE STATION.
BUT, UH, HANG TIGHT AND I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND.
[00:35:01]
UH, I I HAD A QUESTION.JUNE, THE LADY WHO SPOKE BEFORE, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, BUT COME UP TO COME UP TO THE MIC.
URBAN RENEWAL CAME THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THINK IT WAS IN A 75 OR 76.
ALL LOTS HAD TO BE 50 FEET WIDE.
THEY TORE DOWN HOUSES THAT SET ON 25 FOOT LOTS.
SO WHY IS IT NOW IN 2019 YOU CAN HAVE LITTLE BITTY LOTS? BECAUSE THEY PUT PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES, PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN IN HOUSES, THEY HAD SHOTGUN HOUSES.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT SIZE OF LOTS ARE THESE HOUSES GONNA BE ON? 'CAUSE EVERYTHING OUT THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST 50 FEET ACROSS.
SO, SO TO RESPOND TO BOTH OF THOSE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
IT'S VERY FLEXIBLE, LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH DIMENSIONS.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR, ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, ALMOST PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ABOUT A QUARTER MILE AWAY TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLMOS AND MCCULLOUGH.
ANY FURTHER? COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UM, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UH, WE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC WORKING CITIZENS DIRECT THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC SITUATION IN THAT AREA.
SO TRAFFIC IMPACT WOULD'VE BEEN ASSESSED AS PART OF THIS PUD PROCESS BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SECTION.
WHO WOULD'VE DEEMED THAT IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ON TODAY'S AGENDA? OKAY.
AND IF THERE'S EXISTING TRAFFIC CONCERNS, UH, TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
UH, WOULD PROBABLY BE THE DEPARTMENT TO REACH OUT TO IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING STREET INFRASTRUCTURE.
UM, THERE WAS, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS BROUGHT UP.
WHAT ARE THE, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO A PLAN UNIT PLANNING, UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS WITHIN A POD THAT SAY THAT A HOME HAS TO BE PRICED AT A CERTAIN PRICE POINT THAT IS A MARKET DECISION DRIVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY INTEND TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SAID THE PROPERTY OWNER IS TARGETING THESE TO SELL AND THE LOW THREES.
UH, BUT THAT IS THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE.
UM, SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT, UH, ANSWERED THE QUESTION REGARDING FLOODING, THAT THAT'S PART OF THE STUDIES THAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
AND ON THE PUD PLAN, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING WITHIN THESE PRO THIS PUD BOUNDARY IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
AND HOW OFTEN ARE THE, THE FLOODPLAIN MAPS UPDATED? YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE.
I KNOW THAT WE JUST CHANGED THE WAY THAT, UH, WE LOOK AT FLOOD, UH, A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN CALCULATIONS WITH THE ATLAS 14, BUT HOW OFTEN WE HAVE THOSE MAP REVISIONS, UH, IS NOT A QUESTION.
IT CAN BE UPDATED AT ANY TIME BY SOMEONE WHO'S WORKING ON THE PROJECT.
BUT A WHOLESALE UPDATE RARELY, IF EVER HAPPENS.
LAST TIME IT HAPPENED WAS IN 2010 WHEN THE D FIRM WAS EFFECTIVE AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE BEING DONE AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE ATLAS WAR TEAM.
BUT THEY'RE NOT COMPLETE BECAUSE OF THAT.
UM, THE APPLICANT ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT, SO THE GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, IS THAT DURING THE PUD PROCESS OR DOES THAT COME LATER? I BELIEVE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE MORE TO DO WITH VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AND FOUNDATION.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE A REVIEWED, UH, IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S AFTER THIS GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS? CORRECT.
THAT WOULD BE ONCE THIS IS APPROVED AND THEY'RE READY TO START PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE TRAIN TRACK.
HOW DO THOSE ISSUES GET ADDRESSED? UM, WHEN PEOPLE DEVELOP PROPERTIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, AND YOU HAVE THE TRAIN TRACKS RIGHT THERE, WE DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS IN OUR CODE THAT ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL SETBACKS IF YOU ARE ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD.
UH, WHAT STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THIS, UH, POD IS SEEKING TO REDUCE WHAT IS MINIMALLY REQUIRED IN ANY SITUATION ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD TRACK.
UM, I SOUND LIKE THERE MIGHT BE CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING, BUT THE APPLICANT TRIED TO ASSURE THAT MOST OF THE PARKING WILL BE WITHIN THE PUD AND THAT'S ALSO FURTHER REVIEWED, I GUESS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, SO THAT IS, THAT IS LOOKED AT AT BOTH THE PLATT OKAY.
AND THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
UM, WILL THIS PUD REQUIRE ANY OTHER, UH, PUBLIC MEETINGS? DOES IT GO THAT'LL BE THE FINAL OR DOES IT GO BEFORE COUNCIL AS WELL? THIS WILL BE THE FINAL MEETING.
[00:40:01]
MY QUESTIONS.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YES, I HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THAT.
SO IF WE, IF WE GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I'M SORRY.
IF WE DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP FOR THIS PROJECT? SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
IT, IT COULD BE DENIED TODAY OR IT COULD BE APPROVED ON THE CONDITION THAT IT MEETS THE 20 FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK.
AND IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO REWORK THE INTERNAL LAYOUT, UH, TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THAT FASHION.
MY, MY QUESTION, AND I APOLOGIZE STAFF, 'CAUSE THIS MAY BE CATCHING OFF GUARD.
DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENT FOR, UH, VARIANCE ON THESE RAILROAD TRACK SETBACKS, UM, ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY, KIND OF IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS? I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAVE REDUCED OR REQUIRED SETBACK ADJACENT TO RAILROAD TRACKS.
UH, UH, SO OTHER THAN PUDS, UM, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REDUCE A SETBACK, A REAR SETBACK, LET'S SAY THEY WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT DO ALLOW A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ONLY ALLOW 20, I I CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF ANYONE'S REQUESTED, UM, A VARIANCE TO THAT REAR ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
I'M, I'M REMEMBERING THERE WAS A VARIANCE REQUEST ACTUALLY NEAR HERE OFF OF PROBAND.
UH, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS AR REAR, BUT I MEAN, IF THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF RMM ZONING ADJACENT TO RAILROAD TRACKS THAT ALREADY WOULD ALLOW THE 10 FOOT REAR.
UM, REAL QUICK FOR STAFF, JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR APPROVAL WITH A VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND TWO MOTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE IS TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
IF THAT MOTION IS APPROVED, THEN YOU DO THE SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE THE PUD AND THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
IF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DENIED IN THE FIRST MOTION, THEN YOUR SECOND MOTION FOR THE PUD PLAN WOULD, WOULD, WOULD MEAN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIMETER SETBACK OF 20 FEET.
SO IT'S TWO, IT'S TWO MOTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE SHOULD BE THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO DETERMINE IF THAT IS APPROVED OR DENIED.
AND, UM, THE LIT, THE, THE, OUR NOT OUR STUFF SAID THAT IT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE ALTERNATE.
SO THE ALTERNATE IS THAT THEY JUST COMPLY BASICALLY? CORRECT.
YES, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPROVAL OF A PUD A PUD PLAN.
SO USUALLY THESE COME TO YOU WITHOUT A VARIANCE REQUEST.
IN THIS CASE, THIS IS COMING TO YOU WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD PLAN, BUT THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
UM, IF THEY DO GET APPROVAL, LET'S SAY THEY GET APPROVAL WITHOUT THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THOSE LOTS WHERE THEY REQUEST IT, IT JUST, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN A PUT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN GO BEFORE THE B O A, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.
THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR REDUCED PER PERIMETER SETBACK IN THIS CASE IS THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THERE BEING NONE.
WE, WE CAN DO, UM, IF THE COMMISSION PLEASES, WE CAN DO THE FIRST ONE ON THE VARIANCE ITSELF, JUST TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
AND THEN WE CAN DO, UM, THE PUTT AS A WHOLE.
SO I'LL MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAG GREASY.
AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PECK TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST AFTER THE ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL LAGY, UH, YES TO THE DENIAL.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
TO CLARIFY, THIS IS FOR 20 FEET BOUNDARY ALL AROUND, CORRECT? CORRECT.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
UH, THE NEXT WOULD BE A MOTION ON THE PUD TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PUD PLAN WITH A 20 FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK ON ALL SIDES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PECK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GARCIA? MICHAEL GARCIA
IF STAFF CAN DO THE ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL EGRIN? YES.
[00:45:01]
KOSTIC? YES.CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[11. 19-8784 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600084 (Council District 1): A request by Ryan McLeaird, Representative, for approval of a Resolution to amend the San Antonio International Airport Vicinity Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Low Density Residential" to "High Density Residential" on 0.744 acres out of NCB 11882, located at 1411 East Sandalwood Lane. Staff recommends Denial. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700291) (Patricia Franco, Planner (210) 207-5876, patricia.franco@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department).]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 11.AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HAS BRIEFLY LEFT THE ROOM AT 2 48.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS PATRICIA FRANCO, LOCATED AT 1411 EAST SANDALWOOD LANE.
ITEM 11 IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
41 NOTICES WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
FIVE RETURNED IN FAVOR, FIVE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THE AREA.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS AN AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO REZONE TO I D Z TWO WITH USES PERMITTED FOR 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIRED I D Z TWO.
HOWEVER, THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN ENCOURAGES THE PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENTS, INCLUDING HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INTRODUCES TOO MUCH DENSITY MIDBLOCK FOR A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND AS NOTED IN THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY, LAND USE PLAN IS TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG OR NEAR MAJOR ARTER ARTERIALS OR COLLECTORS NOT ON LOCAL STREETS LIKE SANDALWOOD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT.
WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? OH, THANK YOU.
UH, JAMES GRIFFIN, 1 1 2 EAST PECAN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO, UH, JUST BRIEFLY SHOW YOU THE AREA, UH, AND DESCRIBE WHAT THE PROJECT ITSELF IS GOING TO BE.
UH, THIS IS 2 81, UH, OVER HERE, ANOTHER RAILROAD TRACK, UH, A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH THAN THAN THE ONE Y'ALL JUST SAW.
UH, SUNSET ROAD IS RIGHT HERE.
SO YOU HAVE THE INTERSECTION OF SUNSET AND 2 81 RIGHT HERE.
UH, BROADWAY, UH, IS A LITTLE FURTHER, UH, OFF SCREEN TO THE RIGHT.
UH, IF Y'ALL HAVE BEEN IN THIS AREA LATELY, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, SUNSET HAS, HAS REALLY CHANGED DRASTICALLY A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT.
THE, THE HOME DEPOT HAS BEEN THERE, UH, QUITE SOME TIME, BUT JUST IN OUR IMMEDIATE AREA, UH, IN FACT, THIS AREA IS EVEN, UM, OUTDATED.
A FEW YEARS AGO, THIS PROPERTY WAS REDEVELOPED AND REZONED, UH, FOR, UH, MF 50.
UH, IT DOES HAVE A SUNSET ADDRESS, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLEX THERE IS ON SANDALWOOD, UH, BACK HERE ON OUR STREET.
UM, A FEW OTHER, UM, UH, PROJECTS THAT I'LL GET TO, UH, IN JUST A SECOND, BUT LET ME, I GUESS GET, GET THIS PART OUTTA THE WAY.
UM, THE, THE PROJECT ITSELF, UM, OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT BUT WANNA FOCUS ON THE PLAN AND, AND THE AREA AROUND.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE.
UH, 0.75, I'LL ROUND UP, UM, UH, IN SIZE.
UH, IT ABUTS THE HOME DEPOT, UH, TO THE WEST AND, AND OBVIOUSLY FRONTS ON SANDALWOOD.
THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR 24 UNITS, UH, ALL TOWN HOMES, THREE STORY TOWN HOMES, UH, UP TO 24 UNITS.
UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, REVISED THAT REDUCED THE DENSITY BASED ON SOME INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH STAFF AND OTHERS.
UH, DOWN TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 18 UNITS, UM, JUST UNDER 25 UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, THEY'VE REDUCED THE HEIGHT AS WELL, UH, DOWN TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES.
UH, HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE PRODUCT ITSELF.
YOU SEE THE TWO STORIES, UM, KINDA THE HALF STORY UP TOP, UM, UH, OPTION FOR A LITTLE ROOFTOP, UH, TERRACE THERE, UH, UH, PARKING GARAGE, UM, ALL OF THAT.
SO, UM, AS STAFF MENTIONED, THERE'S UH, NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA.
THERE ARE SOME, UH, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND KIND OF SCATTERED THROUGHOUT.
UH, THE APPLICANT WENT AROUND, UH, WALKED THE, THE STREET SANDALWOOD T LANE, UH, THE STREET TO THE NORTH BELFAST.
UH, TRIED TO TALK TO AS MANY FOLKS AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THAT THERE WASN'T NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD, UH, FEEDBACK.
A LOT OF, A LOT OF INDIFFERENCE AS WELL, BUT SOME PRETTY GOOD FEEDBACK.
SO, UH, BACK TO THE CONTEXT AND KIND OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THE AREA.
YOU SEE THE, THE TAN AREAS, UH, I MEAN, UH, PLATT'S BEEN RECENTLY FILED, SO, UH, HERE AGAIN, YOU HAVE A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX, VERY HIGH DENSITY, UH, AT MF 50, UH, ACROSS THE STREET.
[00:50:01]
UH, ADJACENT ABUTTING TO OUR PROPERTY.UH, WE'RE HERE IN THE BACK, KIND OF THE LOADING AREAS.
UH, THE HOME DEPOT IS C THREE, SO MOST INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
UH, ON THE PLAN SIDE, IT'S REGIONAL CENTER, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE MOST INTENSE, UH, LAND USE CATEGORY.
UM, UH, RIGHT HERE NEXT DOOR, UH, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, UM, AND THERE'S SOME OTHER AERIALS, WE'LL GET TO THAT SHOW IT MORE.
IT'S MORE OF A QUASI INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THEY, THEY STORE A LOT OF CARS THERE, UH, KIND OF AN INDUSTRIAL LOOKING, UH, OPERATION THAT, THAT THEY'RE RUNNING OUTTA THERE.
THE, UH, RECENT PROJECTS THAT I MENTIONED.
SO, UM, UH, BESIDES THE APARTMENT COMPLEX ITSELF, UH, THESE WERE TWO, UH, SEPARATE PROJECTS.
UH, THEY WERE ALL REALLY THE SAME DEVELOPER.
THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, AND THIS ONE.
UM, STARTING IN 2017, UH, RIGHT HERE YOU HAVE, UH, A PROJECT THAT WAS REZONED TO I D Z.
UH, IT'S AT A DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, IT'S, UH, 14 UNITS ON JUST ABOUT AN ACRE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT.
MORE RECENTLY, IT WAS JUST APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, UM, LAST DECEMBER, SO A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.
UH, THAT'S ALSO AT 14 UNITS AN ACRE.
IT'S 12 UNITS ON, UH, ON ABOUT 0.85 ACRES.
UH, YOU HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE, UM, THAT'S AN R THREE PROJECT.
UH, SIMPLE WAY AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT AS DENSE AS THESE OTHER ONES, BUT, UM, UH, KIND OF MORE DENSE REDEVELOPMENT THERE.
THAT ONE'S STILL, UH, UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND, AND STILL HAS SOME LOTS FOR SALE THERE.
UH, AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET, UH, THAT WAS BACK IN 2017 AS WELL, BUT SAME THING, I D Z DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THAT ONE'S AT, UH, A LITTLE OVER 15 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, SEE A TREND THERE.
UM, THE, THE PLAN ITSELF, AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
UH, THE PLAN ITSELF, UH, A LITTLE OUTDATED AND APPLIED, I THINK, UH, INCONSISTENTLY.
SO IT IS THE SAN ANTONIO AIRPORT VICINITY PLAN.
UH, WE ARE IN THE GREATER, THE GREATER AIRPORT REGIONAL CENTER.
SO ONE OF THE NEW REGIONAL CENTERS THAT'S COMING ONLINE.
IT HASN'T YET BEEN ADOPTED, BUT IT'S COMING THROUGH PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UH, THOSE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.
UM, BUT AGAIN, WILL, WILL APPLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
DON'T APPLY NOW, UH, SHIFT THE, THE DENSITY CATEGORIES THERE.
UM, THE, UH, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE WE'RE AT 24 UNITS AN ACRE.
THE, THE CURRENT PLAN, WHICH IS SOON TO BE OUTDATED, UH, HAS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STARTING AT, UH, MF 25, UH, ON UP.
AND THEN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, IS REALLY WHAT THE CATEGORY WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SOME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN YOU HAVE, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GOES UP TO 33 UNITS AN ACRE.
SO, UH, UNDER THE SOON TO BE ADOPTED.
AND REALLY THE THE NEWER UPDATED PLAN, UH, THE REQUESTED DENSITY FALLS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, AS FAR AS CONSISTENCY, UM, IT, IT'S A LITTLE ODD.
YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE TWO CASES HERE, WHICH WERE AGAIN RECENTLY APPROVED, UH, AT 14 UNITS AN ACRE, UH, SOMEHOW WERE ABLE TO AVOID A PLAN AMENDMENT AND, AND DID HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, BUT AGAIN, 14 UNITS, A LITTLE ABOVE 14, UH, UNITS PER ACRE THERE.
UM, AND, AND I THINK MORE MIDBLOCK THAN OURS, QUITE HONESTLY, THAT, THAT IS MIDBLOCK.
WE ARE REALLY AT THE END OF SANDALWOOD.
UH, BUT THEN BORDERED BY, YOU KNOW, PRETTY, PRETTY INTENSE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTER, UH, RIGHT THERE.
UH, STAFF DID PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE, UH, AND NO PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, SIX UNITS PER ACRE IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS, UH, OF R FIVE, UM, WHICH I DON'T THINK THE R FIVE OR EVEN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS, IS APPROPRIATE THERE.
UH, REALLY SHARING A LINE WITH REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, AND THEN YOU SEE ALL THE MIXED USE, WHICH IS PRETTY INTENSE AS WELL.
SO GOING BACK, YOU, YOU SEE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AND, AND AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE PLAN, UH, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
UM, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE, UH, LAND USE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION.
YOU KNOW, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AGAIN, NOT REALLY ACCURATE CONSIDERING THE PLAN CHANGES, CONSIDERING WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON ON THIS BLOCK, WHAT'S ALL AROUND US.
UM, AND, AND EVERYTHING THAT, UH, THAT HAS OCCURRED IS THERE TODAY, UH, WILL OCCUR IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
UM, UH, REALLY THAT'S WHAT THE TRANSITION SHOULD BE IF YOU'RE NEXT TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH ON THE NEXT SIDE OF THAT IS A,
[00:55:01]
YOU KNOW, INTERSTATE, UH, HIGHWAY 2 81.UH, THE TRANSITION SHOULD BE TO, UH, SOME HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, ON DOWN AS YOU GET, YOU KNOW, MUCH FURTHER EAST AND, AND TO THE NORTH TO, TO THOSE MORE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH, UH, THERE QUITE HONESTLY ISN'T A WHOLE LOT, UH, THERE.
SO, UM, ALL THAT BEING SAID, UM, ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE CURRENT REQUEST, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AGAIN IN A PLAN THAT, UH, IS SOON TO BE OUTDATED, UH, WE WOULD BE FALLING UNDER, UM, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REALLY MORE TOWARDS THE MIDDLE AND, UH, LOWER END OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE NEW PLAN AND THE NEW ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE CATEGORIES.
UM, UH, OUR, OUR CLIENT, WE, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO SUPPORT THAT, UH, THE, THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.
UH, IF Y'ALL DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE, UH, OUR CLIENT IS WILLING IN THE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SAKE, A COMPROMISE TO FURTHER REDUCE THAT, UH, DOWN TO A REQUEST THAT WOULD BE ABOUT, UH, 18 UNITS AN ACRE OR LESS.
UH, THAT DROPS US DOWN TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN AND ACTUALLY WOULD, UH, PUT US INTO URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORIES, WHICH WILL SOON BE THE, THE FORMAL PLAN FOR THIS AREA.
SO WANTED TO KIND OF PUT THOSE TWO OPTIONS, UH, OUT THERE FOR YOU.
UM, AND, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS A REDUCTION FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF 24 UNITS THAT WOULD BRING IT DOWN TO ABOUT THE 1314 RANGE.
SO A, A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT, UH, REDUCTION IN WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS PROPOSED.
BUT, UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I'LL, UH, I'LL GO BACK TO THAT ONE JUST BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PLAN.
YOU KIND OF SEE THE, THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT, UH, IS, IS A LITTLE OUTDATED, NOT APPROPRIATE GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT'S AROUND AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND GONE ON, UH, IN, IN THE RECENT PAST.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THIS TIME WE'LL START AT THE RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
MAY STAFF PROVIDE SOME, SOME INSIGHT ON THE TIMELINE FOR THE REGIONAL PLAN FOR THIS AREA.
UH, I NEED A MINUTE TO LOOK UP, UH, WHEN, WHETHER IT'S PHASE FOUR OR PHASE FIVE.
AND THEN MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS IF, IF, WELL, IF IT'S PHASE, IF IT'S THAT FAR, THEN I'M GUESSING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, PRELIMINARY PLANS TO MATCH THIS AGAINST, AND IF IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN MEETING AS OF YET FOR THE APPLICANT.
JUST TO CLARIFY, OR ACTUALLY NO, ONE MORE FOR THE STAFF.
AND SO HE POINTED OUT AN AREA THAT'S KIND OF IN THE MID-BLOCK.
UH, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? THAT IN FACT IS, UM, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TODAY, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S I D Z, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE 28 INTRODUCTION OF I D Z ONE, TWO, AND THREE, WHICH SEGREGATED, UM, FROM LOW INTENSITY INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO MORE INTENSE, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT ZONES.
SO THAT'S, UM, STILL GONNA BE CATEGORIZED AS SLOW DENSITY, UH, RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT CAME PRIOR TO THE U D C AMENDMENT, WHICH DESEGREGATED I D Z INTO ONE, TWO, AND THREE CATEGORIES.
HOW MANY UNITS ARE ON THERE OR CAN BE ON THERE TODAY? WELL, THAT EXISTS ON THERE AS, AS WE HEARD.
I THINK THERE'S 14, BUT THAT'S PERMITTED BY AN ORDINANCE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IT UP ON WHAT THE ORDINANCE, UM, ESTABLISHED FOR THAT LAND PARCEL.
AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, SO YOU'RE LOOKING, YOUR IDEAL PLAN WOULD ALLOW FOR 24 UNITS.
UH, OUR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FOR 24.
WE, WE'VE REDUCED DOWN, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING NOW IS, UH, 18 UNITS, WHICH IS 24 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO YEAH, THE, THE NUMBERS KEEP KIND OF BLENDING, BUT, UM, OUR, OUR IDEAL SITUATION NOW, I WOULD SAY, UH, AFTER SOME INITIAL COMPROMISE AND CONCESSIONS, UH, IS 18 UNITS, UH, WHICH IS ABOUT 24 UNITS PER ACRE, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN.
UH, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO GO DOWN A, A LITTLE BIT MORE IF NECESSARY.
AND, AND JUST TO, UH, REITERATE ON THESE, UH, APPROVED IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, A LITTLE OVER 14 UNITS PER ACRE ON EACH OF THOSE, AND THAT ONE'S OVER 15 UNITS PER ACRE.
AND AND TO CONFIRM, SO YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IF NEEDED? YES, MA'AM.
AND JUST ANSWER, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN PHASE THREE, WHICH IS PROBABLY IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
[01:00:03]
UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FIRST TO FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF ON THAT ONE.SO IF THAT NEW PLAN WERE IN EFFECT TODAY, WOULD WHAT THE APPLICANT'S TRYING TO DO REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT? I DON'T KNOW.
I, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT LAND USE CATEGORY IT'S GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED AS.
UM, AND SO THOSE OTHER TWO PROJECTS HERE, THE ONES YOU JUST POINTED AT, UH, THE ONES THAT ARE KIND OF, I GUESS HIGHLIGHTED ON THAT MAP RIGHT THERE, ARE THOSE, THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY? UH, THAT, THAT, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I MEAN, THEY WERE, UM, THEY LOOK LIKE HIGH DENSITY.
THEY, THEY LOOK LIKE HIGH DENSITY.
I MEAN THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, YEAH.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S LOW DENSITY TO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHICH I, AGAIN, I I HEARD THE EXPLANATION.
I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED HOW THEY GOT THROUGH THAT WITHOUT A PLAN AMENDMENT AND WITH POSITIVE
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S GONNA BE DEPENDENT UPON THE, THE LOT SIZE, THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY.
SO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACTUALLY ALLOWS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO AN R THREE.
UH, SO IT R THREE LOOKS MORE HIGH DENSITY.
BUT IN THIS CA IN THIS OLDER PLAN, R THREE IS A CONSISTENT ZONING DISTRICT.
SO IF I D Z HAS USES AND, UH, DENSITY CONSISTENT WITH R THREE, THEN A PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE NEEDED BACK THEN.
NOW WE HAVE THE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE DIFFERENT.
SO THEN NOW EVEN THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING DONE THERE IN A SIMPLE WAY THAT LOOKS, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S I DENSITY, I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN SEE ANY GRASS IT'S GONNA BE LEFT.
SO HOW IS, HOW DID THAT GET, HOW IS THAT NOT HIGH DENSITY? IS IT THE SAME REASON? MOST LIKELY, IF IT'S R THREE TYPE USES R THREE TYPE DENSITY, THEN NO PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD'VE BEEN REQUIRED.
UM, I GUESS MY NEXT OBSERVATION, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT TOOK, I GUESS IT'S MAYBE JUST YOU COULD ANSWER FOR STAFF IS, SO, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, UM, WHEN YOU'RE HAVE A REGIONAL CENTER, WHICH IS KIND OF HOME DEPOT RIGHT THERE, ISN'T IT PROPER PLANNING TO GO TO, TO GO FROM A USE OF THAT INTENSITY TO GRADUALLY PHASE DOWN TO USES OF LOWER INTENSITY, RIGHT? SO WOULDN'T IT BE PROPER PLANNING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, TO GO FROM THAT REGIONAL CENTER ONTO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THEN ONTO LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL? TYPICALLY, YES.
THAT, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE PLANNING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE, UH, VACANT PARCELS AND YOU'RE PLANNING VACANT PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PLANNED APPROPRIATELY.
IN THIS CASE, WHAT YOU HAVE IS WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY.
UH, WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY THAT, THAT SURROUNDS THIS, OTHER THAN THE COMMERCIAL USE, UM, IS THE SINGLE FAMILY USES.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY ANOMALY HERE THAT GIVES US PAUSE, IF YOU WILL.
UH, BUT YES, IT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF TRANSITIONAL LAND USE, UH, FROM YOUR COMMERCIAL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO YOUR LOW DENSITY.
UM, AND YOU SAID UNDER THE NEW PLAN, WHICH IS STILL A COUPLE YEARS AWAY, THIS WOULD BE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
OUR, OUR CURRENT REQUEST WOULD
AND, AND NOT TO, YOU KNOW, HATE, HATE TO SPECULATE, BUT TALKING ABOUT PLANNING PRINCIPLES, AND I THINK EVERYONE WOULD AGREE THAT WHEN THIS PLAN DOES COME THROUGH IN, IN A, IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND GOING THROUGH THE UPDATES, UH, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE TRADITIONAL LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY IS, IS NOT GONNA BE WHAT'S ENVISIONED OR AGREED UPON HERE.
I MEAN, JUST SEE WHAT'S, WHAT'S AROUND THERE NOW.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND A COMMENT.
UM, SO THE PROPERTY THAT IS JUST IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YOUR PROPOSED PROPERTY, UM, YES.
THAT, IS THAT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? I, I, I THINK SOMEONE ACTUALLY DOES LIVE THERE.
IS THERE, UM, AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
I THINK THEY MIGHT END UP SELLING THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE RUNNING A, SOME SORT OF INDUSTRIAL TYPE BUSINESS OUTTA THERE.
THAT'S THE ONE YOU WERE MENTIONING, NOT THE ONE TO THE EAST.
UM, KIND OF SEE, IT ACTUALLY LOOKS, LOOKS PRETTY CLEANED UP THERE, BUT THEY HAVE A, A YARD.
THERE'S USUALLY A, A, YOU KNOW, 10 OR SO VEHICLES IN THERE.
SO YOUR, UM, YOUR PROPERTY OWNER HAS AT LEAST HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THE PROPOSED OR DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT? ABSOLUTELY.
SO I MIGHT, UM, MY COMMENT ALSO THEN IS, UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO COME DOWN.
UM, THAT AREA, UM, AS YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED IS BEING HIGHLY DEVELOPED AND SUNSET IS JUST GETTING MORE AND MORE CROWDED WITHOUT AN IMMEDIATE ACCESS ON TO 2 81.
THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, SO I DO APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO COME DOWN AND I ACTUALLY WOULD SUPPORT THAT GOING DOWN TO A MEDIUM, UM, DENSITY.
[01:05:01]
STAFF, UM, DO YOU HAVE A MAP SHOWING YOU HAD SEVEN, UH, RESIDENTS WHO OPPOSED IT? DO YOU HAVE A MAP SHOWING WHO OPPOSED IT AND WHO THANKS THATUM, AND I, I WOULD AGREE AS WELL THAT I WOULD SUPPORT IT AT MEDIUM DENSITY.
I THINK I, I FEEL FOR THE, THE NEIGHBOR, WELL, I, ANYWAY, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I WOULD SUPPORT A MEDIUM DENSITY, UM, THE HIGH DENSITY, I WOULD NOT, BUT I CAN SEE, UH, AN ARGUMENT FOR MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY HOW MANY UNITS THAT WOULD MEAN? UH, IT, IT'D GIVE US UP TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS 13.4, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LOGAN CAN CLARIFY THAT, THAT 13 WE'D, WE'D, WE'D PREFER IT TO ROUND UP 13.
WHICH WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PROPERTY ON THAT STREET.
SO MY QUESTION THEN IS THE, THE REQUEST AS IT'S WRITTEN HERE IS FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
SO DOES, IF WE WERE TO SAY, WELL, WE DON'T SUPPORT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE SUPPORT MEDIUM DENSITY, WE DENY THIS REQUEST AND YOU HAVE TO APPLY AGAIN.
OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL, UNLESS HE'S OFFICIALLY AMENDING THE REQUEST, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU STILL IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IF YOU, UM, ARE GOING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, THEN IT'S DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE OF MEDIUM DENSITY.
OH, UM, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION THEN? YES.
THE SMALL PARCEL RIGHT BELOW THIS AREA, WHO OWNS THAT? IS THAT A SEPARATE OWNER DOWN HERE? UH, NO, IT'S R FIVE RIGHT ABOVE IT.
THAT JUST LITTLE CORNER THAT THIS ONE? YEAH.
THAT'S KINDA, THAT QUASI INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY THAT I WAS, THAT I MENTIONED.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS.
UH, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
THEY, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES.
I DON'T THINK THEY WANTED TO MAIL IN ANYTHING, BUT, UM, THEY, THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY END UP SELLING THEIR PROPERTY, UM, TO THE APPLICANT TO ADD TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
ANY FURTHER, ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, DOES THE STAFF HAVE A APPROVAL OR DENIAL ON THE MEDIUM DENSITY? I JUST NEED, ARE YOU OFFICIALLY AMENDING? IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONFUSION.
SO YOU ARE OFFICIALLY AMENDING TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
SO THIS IS, AND WHAT ABOUT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BE ON MEDIUM DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL? IT'S THE SAME.
WE RECOMMEND NO PLAN AMENDMENT, MEET THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.
ONE MORE, UM, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
AND SO IN A PERFECT WORLD, I DO THINK THAT THIS PROBABLY WOULD GO BEST IF IT WAS JUST ONE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO IF THAT WERE THE CASE, UM, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REZONE JUST THAT SMALL PARCEL, UM, TO BE A PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT? YES.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION TODAY.
UM, THAT ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION, UH, THAT I D Z PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IF THAT WAS PROPERTY WAS DONE TODAY WITH ITS DENSITY, WHAT LAND USAGE CLASSIFICATION WOULD THEY NEED TO REQUEST? I, I'M NOT SURE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF OKAY.
UH, UNITS, UH, I MEAN, AGAIN, IF IT MEETS THE R THREE DENSITY LIMITS, THEN IT'S APPROPRIATE AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S JUST THAT THE, THE ANOMALY IS IS THAT THAT WAS THE OLD I D Z.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUEST COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, THEN WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S AMENDED, UH, REQUEST FOR MEDIUM DENSITY.
WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FROM COMMISSIONER CARILLO.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
CAN STAFF DO THE ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER CARILLO? YES.
[01:10:01]
COMMISSIONER CAUSTIC.CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
[12. 19-9029 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2019-11600089 (Council District 8): A request by Jean Latsha, applicant, for approval of a Resolution to amend the North Sector Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land use from “Suburban Tier" to "General Urban Tier" on 9.708 acres out of NCB 16109 and NCB 16455 and 0.231 acres out of NCB 16455, located at 6460 Babcock Road. Staff recommends Approval. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2019-10700305) (Mirko Maravi, Senior Planner (210) 207-0107, mirko.maravi@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)]
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 12.MARCO MAVI, UH, SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS PLAN AMENDMENT CASE.
UH, PA 20 19, 106 0 0 0 8 9 LOCATED ON 64 60 BABCOCK ROAD.
REQUESTED A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE ON THE NORTH SECTOR PLAN FROM SUBURBAN TIER TO GENERAL URBAN TIER 35.
NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
ZERO OPPOSED, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE TANGLEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
STAFF HAS NOT FOUND EVIDENCE OF LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING LANDS IN RELATION TO THIS ZONING OR PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE REQUEST.
THEIR OPPOSED USES CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, UM, TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OR THE ONE DO WE HAVE A, A DATE? JANUARY 8TH.
UH, THAT'S A THOROUGH QUESTION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 12 TO THE JANUARY 8TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER PECK.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA AND STAFF THE ROLL CALL.
[17. 19-9002 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from November 13, 2019]
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING? MINUTES? THERE BEING NONE.CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE MEETING MINUTES? MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER ROYAL GREE.
ANY OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
DO WE HAVE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO OFFICIAL DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS? ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? GOOD LUCK TOMORROW FOR THOSE THAT ARE INTERVIEWING.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A PRESENTATION WE'VE BEEN INVITED TO THIS EVENING FOR BANDERA, THE BANDERA ROAD CORRIDOR.
AND AS WE, AS WE HAD EMAILED YOU GUYS, WE WENT AHEAD AND POSTED IT IN CASE THE QUORUM DOES, UH, SHOW UP.
BUT YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ATTEND THE CORRIDOR, UM, OPEN HOUSE.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER PLANNING RELATED EVENT GOING ON OR SOMETHING ABOUT THE U D C.
THE TONIGHT IS THE SECOND NIGHT FOR ANOTHER OPEN HOUSE RELATED TO THE U D C DIAGNOSTIC.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO, CAN YOU JUST REMIND US WHEN THE NEXT MEETING IS? I FORGET 'CAUSE I KNOW WE ARE NOT MEETING THE 25TH JANUARY 8TH.
ME AND CHRIS SAID WE'D BE HERE ON THE 25TH
UM, I WANTED TO SAY AKA, WHICH IS HAWAIIAN MERRY CHRISTMAS.
ANYTHING ELSE? ACTUALLY, WE WANNA MAKE ONE INTRODUCTION, LOGAN.
SO OVER HERE TO MY RIGHT IS KELSEY SALINAS.
SHE IS GOING TO BE, UH, SHADOWING VERONICA OVER THE NEXT COUPLE SESSIONS AND WE'LL, UH, EVENTUALLY BE THE FULL-TIME REPLACEMENT.
WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU AND JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE MADE THE INTRODUCTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS THERE? BEING NONE.
IT IS THREE 17 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.