[00:00:09]
>> VIAGRAN: THE TIME IS NOW 2:08 P.M. ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2026, AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING AND LAND USE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
THE CITY CLERK WILL CALL ROLL CALL.
>> CLERK: MAYOR PRO TEM, WE HAVE QUORUM. >> VIAGRAN: GREAT.
THE FIRST ITEM IS TO CONTINUE CASES TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 MEETING.
THE CASE THAT WE WILL BE CONTINUING IS ITEM NO. 8. IS THERE A MOTION TO
CONTINUE THE ITEM? >> MOTION AND A SECOND. WE WILL BE CONTINUING THIS ITEM --
>> BUT WE WILL NOT BE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK BUT WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THE ITEM SO YOU HAVE TO SAVE IT. IS THERE ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE ITEM 8 PLEASE VOTE.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE CONTINUING THIS ITEM. >>
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE LISTED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: ITEMS 1, 2, 14, AND 15.
THE REMAINING ITEMS ARE ON TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. DO ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY? MADAME CLERK, IS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
JUDITH GARCIA. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL -- I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THEY PROPOSE ZONING CHANGE BE DEFIND FOR 829 WEST HARLAN.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING AT NIGHT ON THE STREET, CONSTRUCTION, AND WE'VE CALLED THE POLICE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND THEY DO NOT REMOVE THE TRAILERS AND THEY SAID THAT THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S TEMPORARY.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COULD SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT OUR PROPERTY.
WE LIVE AT 828 WEST HARLAN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH INCREASED DENSITY, REDUCED PRIVACY, TRAFFIC, PARKING, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, AND ADDED DEMANDS ON LOCAL STREETS . HARLAN IS A VERY SMALL STREET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD USES IT FROM 35 TO GET INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL THAT'S BEHIND THE PROPERTY THAT'S ASKING FOR THE REZONING.
BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY HAS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY 829 WEST HARLAN AVENUE, IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED SEPARATELY.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT ZONING FOR 829 WEST HARLAN AVENUE AND IF IT CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THE APPLICATION, I REQUEST THE REZONING BE DENIED AT THIS TIME. AS IT APPLIES TO OUR PROPERTY OR THE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS BE REQUIRED, INCLUDING SETBACKS AND THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ON THIS MATTER AND I ASK THIS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ITEMS.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MR. GARC. NEXT UP IS JACK FINGER ON
ITEM NO. 7. >> MAYOR PRO TEM, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS JACK FINGER AND ITEM NO. 7 I ALSO WISH TO COMMENT ON THAT ONE.
I LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND I FIND OUT THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS
[00:05:04]
OVER ON WEST HARLAN. LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, THAT STARTED TO GET PRETTY INTENSE. YOU'RE ADDING TRAFFIC, MAYBE MORE NOISE FROM AN EXTRA RESIDENT OVER THERE. IT'S HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET AROUND THAT SMALL STREET. I THINK ITEM NO. 7, MS. CASTILLO, THAT'S IN YOUR DISTRICT AGAIN. MAYBE YOU SHOULD DENY THIS ONE, MS. CASTILLO BECAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND MAYBE TWO UNITS BUT NOT THREE. YEAH.I ALSO LIKE THE WAY MADAME& MAYOR PRO TEM DENIED PERSONS WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK,
DENIED THEM THEIR CHANCE TO DO SO EARLIER. >> VIAGRAN: IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO NO DISCUSSION? THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE ITEMS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 16. PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL LOOK AT THE REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS. THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL. SO THE FIRST WE WILL MOVE NOW TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. PLEASE START WITH THE ITEMS NO. 1 AND 2.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. ITEMS 1 AND 2.
ANOTHER WITH CONDITIONAL USE WITH -- FOR A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE AND TRAINING AREA PERMITTED. C-2 NA CD WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR CANDY MANUFACTURING.
C-2 NA WITH SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A CAR WASH.
AND C-2 NA CD WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER .
THE LOCATION IS GENERALLY BOUND BY FRESNO STREET TO THE NORTH, WEST HILDEBRAND AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, AND EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET TO THE EAST AND WEST OF BLANCO ROAD . STAFF, ZONING COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES TO BE EXCLUDED: 82 WESTWOOD WAY NO. 6. 820 ELMWOOD DRIVE. 823 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
826 WESTWOOD WAY. 919 WEST RIDGEWOOD COURT. 914 PASADENA STREET.
AND 819 ELMWOOD DRIVE. 306 NOTICES WERE MAILED, 10 RETURNED IN FAVOR, 24 OPPOSED. NORTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED AND THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE.
LASTLY, OUTSIDE OF THE 200-FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY, AN ADDITIONAL 26 NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION . THANK YOU.
>> VIAGRAN: MADAME CLERK, I SEE WE HAVE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IF YOU COME UP AS AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU WILL BE
[00:10:01]
GIVEN THREE MINUTES. IN A GROUP OF TWO, SIX. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP IN MORE THAN A GROUP OF TWO, YOU WILL BE GIVEN NINE MINUTES.SO THE FIRST ONE UP IS JEANETTE PARA. >>
>> VIAGRAN: YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JEANETTE BARA AND I LIVE ON 810 ELMWOOD DRIVE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE ZONING REQUEST. QUICK STORY.
I GREW UP ACROSS THE STREET WHERE I CURRENTLY LIVE AND CHOSE TO COME BACK BECAUSE OF HOW SPECIAL THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS. THERE ARE A LOT OF STORIES LIKE MINE WHERE THERE'S GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES THAT COME BACK THAT LIVED DOORS DOWN FROM EACH OTHER. AND APPRECIATE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WORRY THAT THE REZONING WILL AFFECT THIS CHARACTER. NOT ONLY THAT BUT ALSO AFFECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. INCREASING THE DENSITY OF ROADS, PARKING, UTILITIES, PEOPLE, RATHER THAN PRESERVING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNATED AS A LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
I WANT TO SHARE WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND THE ZONING CODES.
IN CENSUS TRACTS, WHICH ENCOMPASS THAT AREA, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, HOMEOWNERSHIP IS 63.4%. COMPARED TO DISTRICT 1 AND SAN ANTONIO OVERALL, 52.2%.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT GOES TO SHOW HOW HARD THE PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE WORKED TO PRESERVE THEIR HOMES, STAY IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS , AND COME BACK. WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LIKE LIVING THERE.
WE LIKE THE WAY IT IS AS FAR AS BEING A PLACE THAT WE CAN CALL HOME.
AND BEING ACCESSIBLE STILL. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT ONLY 6.7% OF RESIDENTS HERE MOVED IN THE PAST YEAR COMPARED TO 16.6% IN DISTRICT 1 OVERALL AND COMPARED TO 17.1% IN SAN ANTONIO. THAT ALSO SHOWS WE LIKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE LIKE TO STAY THERE. THERE'S PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME BACK.
LIKE ME, I CAME BACK AFTER COLLEGE BECAUSE I LOVE WHERE I'M AT.
I LOVE THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW EVERYBODY ACROSS THE STREET. EVERYBODY ON MY BLOCK. I HAVE A LOT OF LOVELY NEIGHBORS WHO CARE ABOUT THE AREA AS WELL. SO FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WHILE I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY FOLKS, THE NOTIFICATIONS, THOUGH TRANSLATED, WERE NOT ACCESSIBLE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY THIS ZONING CHANGE MEANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT IT MEANT FOR THE HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE THERE. AGAIN, 63% IS HOMEOWNER -- IS OWNED BY HOMEOWNERS. AND AGAIN I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THIS ZONING REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
ATTENTION. THANKS. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.
NEXT UP, APRIL MALDONADO. >> SIX MINUTES. JULIAN? ALL RIGHT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS APRIL MALDONADO. I RESIDE AT 825 WESTWOOD.
I AM A REAL ESTATE REALTOR AND I HAVE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
SO THIS IS VERY FAMILIAR TO ME. I LOVE MY AREA.
I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. MY PARENTS STILL LIVE IN THE HOME I GREW UP IN, WHICH IS JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY. MY HUSBAND AND I CHOSE TO PURCHASE OUR HOME HERE TO PUT DOWN OUR ROOTS, TO HAVE OUR CHILD, AND TO STAY WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT RAISED ME. I'M HERE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE BLANCO CORRIDOR -- WELL, THE RM-4 TO R-4 ZONING THREATENS TO ENCROACH INTO OUR RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS. LET ME BE CLEAR.
WE AREN'T ASKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE KEPT LOW DENSITY.
OVERCROWDING WOULD DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF WHAT MAKES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE HOMES. WE WANT TO KEEP THE AESTHETICS OF THIS AND THE FEEL OF THESE STREETS. THAT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. THIS IS WHAT DREW US HERE AND THIS IS WHAT KEEPS US HERE TO THIS DAY. THE NORTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN DOESN'T SUGGEST LOW DENSITY, IT MANDATES IT. IT PROHIBITS ENCROACHMENT INTO OUR RESIDENCES. THIS PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY AND WAS CRAFTED WITH INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE REZONING TO RM-4 DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THAT
[00:15:02]
PLAN. THIS REZONING WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY A NON-RESIDENT.IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY D1. WE WERE NOT CONSULTED AT THE BEGINNING STAGES.
BY THE TIME THIS REACHED US IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DRAWN UP.
AS IF OUR INPUT DID NOT MATTER. WE'RE NOT AGAINST PROGRESS ON BLANCO, WE ENCOURAGE IT BUT THE PROGRESS -- WE WOULD LIKE PROGRESS NOT DONE TO US. RATHER, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF THIS PROGRESS.
WE DESERVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE AT THE BEGINNING STAGES OF PLANNING.
NOT AFTER EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. THIS WAS SET IN MOTION, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WITH THE CITY BACK IN FEBRUARY OF WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL JUNE ONCE IT WAS SAID AND DONE. WE ASKED THAT DISTRICT 1 DEMONSTRATE THROUGH ACTION, NOT WORDS, THAT SHE CARES WHAT HER CONSTITUENTS THINKS AND WANTS, AS STATED IN HER SOCIAL MEDIA POST WHEN SHE MENTIONED THIS WAS GOING TO START.
NOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A FEW HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF BLANCO, WHICH STARTED THIS BECAUSE THE REZONING WAS NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO PULL PERMITS. I APPLAUD DISTRICT 1 FOR LISTENING TO THEM AND HELPING THOSE RESIDENTS ACHIEVE WHAT THEY NEEDED. NOW WE'RE ASKING DISTRICT 1 TO LISTEN TO US. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE ENCROACHMENT INTO OUR RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE A STREET THAT SERVES AS A NATURAL BUFFER ON OUR SIDE. SO WE HAVE THAT BUFFER, WHICH IS PAPA BEAR LANE . PLEASE RESPECT IT. RESPECT US.
AND RESPECT THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT THIS CITY HAD ALREADY ADOPTED INSTEAD OF TRYING TO AMEND IT TO SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT WISH FOR.
I BROUGHT WITH ME TODAY THESE TWO BOARDS TO REPRESENT OUR NEIGHBORS.
I DID NOT GET TO TALK TO EVERYBODY. THIS WAS A LOT FOR ME TO DO.
BUT THIS IS THE MARKERS SHOW THE ONE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.
IT'S ALMOST ALL DUPLEXES SO YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY OF THEM ON THERE BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL RENTAL PROPERTIES. I DID NOT GET TO NORWOOD. I WOULD SAY 95% OF THEM HAVE ALL BEEN OPPOSED. I CONTINUE TO BLOCK WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO WHERE I COULD WITH MY ABILITY. AND THESE REPRESENT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST.
AGAIN, I DID NOT FINISH. IF I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, IF WE HAD MORE TIME, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE ASKING DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TIME TO HEAR FROM ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS. IN THE EDISON MEETING THAT WAS HELD THAT I DID ATTEND WITH DISTRICT 1 WHERE THERE WERE OTHER RESIDENTS INCLUDED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ASKED AND BROUGHT UP IS HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR TAXES? BOTH DISTRICT AND BOTH CITY REPRESENTATIVES STATED IT DOES NOT. OF COURSE ME BEING A REALTOR, I LEARNED THIS TO BE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE AT 100%. SO I REACHED OUT TO BCAD.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ASSESS AND THEY GUIDED ME. THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID: DOES REZONING CHANGE MY PROPERTY VALUE? IF REZONING MAKES THE PROPERTY MORE DESIRABLE IN THE MARKET, EXAMPLE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED-USE, BUYERS MAY BE WILLING TO PAY MORE AND THIS IS WHEN THE MARKET WILL RISE.
NOW, IF REZONING RESTRICTS THE USE, AS IT DOES CURRENTLY IN R-4 AND NOT RM-4, THAT COULD KEEP IT AT BAY. SO I FEEL THAT THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEED TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AS A NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHOLE WITH THE DISTRICT COUNCILWOMAN TO BE ABLE TO SEE HOW WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BOTH DESIRABLE AND A PLACE WHERE WE CAN CALL HOME. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE BLANCO REZONING BUT WE ARE ASKING HER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, JUST LIKE SHE DID THAT ONE CONSTITUENT ON THE OTHER SIDE. NOW TO TAKE INTO EFFECT ALL THE CONSTITUENTS WHO SIGNED, NOT ONLY TURNED IN THEIR FORMS, BUT ALSO SIGNED THE PETITION, WHICH I HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF ME. THAT WE DO NOT WANT THIS.
I ASK THE COUNCIL TO PLEASE EITHER DENY THE R-4 TO RM-4 ZONING OR TO AT LEAST GIVE US A CONTINUANCE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AS A NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE MANY WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. THANK YOU.
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] NEXT UP IS LISA TALLY.
LISA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> YES, MA'AM.
MY NAME IS LISA TALLY. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION . IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE RESIDENTS
[00:20:04]
AFFECTED BY THE ZONING ARE OPPOSED TO IT. AND SO THEREFORE, AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE STAND WITH THEM. WE ALSO ARE OPPOSED TO ANY ENCROACHMENT THAT GOES BACK INTO -- FROM THE BORDER STREETS LIKE BLANCO THAT GOES BACK INTO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHANGES THE AESTHETICS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERYTHING APRIL SAID WE STAND WITH TOO.WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORS TO BE RESIDENTIAL, NOT A THREE-STORY CONDOMINIUM.
AND WE ARE WANTING TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY TAX VALUES, AS MOST PEOPLE ARE MIDDLE TO LOW INCOME AND CAN'T AFFORD THAT INCREASE. MOSTLY WE DO NOT WANT THE AESTHETICS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE. WE ALSO ARE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. ESTHER DE LEON.
ESTHER, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ESTHER DE LEON, 106 HAVERHILL DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
ALTHOUGH I NO LONGER RESIDE IN DISTRICT 1, MY SON AND HIS FAMILY LIVE AT MY OLD HOUSE AT 715 WESTWOOD DRIVE. WE LIVED THERE FOR 39 YEARS. I AM STILL CONCERNED ABOUT MY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE EDISON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1999, SERVING IN THE CAPACITY OF SECRETARY AND DUE TO LOW PARTICIPATION, SECRETARY AND TREASURER AT THE SAME TIME.
WE DISSOLVED THE ASSOCIATION IN 2016 DUE TO LOW PARTICIPATION.
IT WAS ALWAYS THE SAME FIVE RESIDENTS MONTH AFTER MONTH. WE WERE ELDERLY.
I'M THE YOUNGEST ONE OF THEM ALL. THE ZONING DEPARTMENT SOUGHT ME OUT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REZONING CASE. WE MET IN COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON JUNE 11 AND 18 AT EDISON HIGH SCHOOL. THE COORDINATORS INDICATE THAT THE REASON FOR THIS REZONING WAS BECAUSE ONE RESIDENT WANTED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND FOUND OUT THAT THE RESIDENCE WAS ZONED INDUSTRIAL.
THAT'S WHEN THE ZONING DEPARTMENT BEGAN CHECKING ON THE ZONING OF ALL THE LOTS ON BLANCO ROAD FROM HILDEBRAND TO FRESNO. AT THE FIRST TWO MEETINGS, THE COORDINATOR SPOKE ONLY ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THOSE RESIDENTS ZONED INDUSTRIAL. THEY NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT CHANGING FROM SINGLE RESIDENCE TO QUAD RESIDENTIAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY IS EXPECTING 1 MILLION PEOPLE TO MOVE HERE BY 2050 AND I UNDERSTAND THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, FILL IN, YOU KNOW, THE DENSE PROPERTIES. AT THE FIRST ZONING MEETING, I ASKED ABOUT THE MAP INDICATING FUTURE RESIDENCES ON PAPA BEAR LANE, WHICH IS AN ALLEY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND EDISON HIGH SCHOOL .
THE RESIDENCES WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD OF THE EDISON HIGH SCHOOL IN AN EMPTY LOT NEXT TO THE TENNIS COURTS. THOSE PROPERTIES BELONG TO SAISD. HE TOLD ME THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE.
WITH TIME, AFTER STUDYING THE PROPOSED MAP, THE PRESENT R-1 RESIDENTS ARE PROPOSED TO BECOME R-4 WHICH ARE QUADPLEXES. THESE ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO AND THREE-STORY BUILDINGS LOOKING ON TO THE ONE-STORY RESIDENTS NEXT DOOR. THE LOTS ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH. AND THEY WOULD NOT BLEND IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WERE ALL BUILT IN THE LATE 1930S.
NO BACKYARDS, PARKING LOT IN THE FRONT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE -- IT WOULD BE EIGHT VEHICLES IN THAT NEW HOME. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, ONLY FOUR ARE ALLOWED. ANYWAY, I REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS CASE.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, ESTHER.
NEXT UP IS KENDRA SORDS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KENDRA AND I OWN AND RESIDE ON 817 EDISON DRIVE. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE RM-4 DESIGNATION PROPOSED ALONG THE BLANCO CORRIDOR .
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING UP FRONT. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGE.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO BUSINESSES COMING IN TO THE CORRIDOR AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CITIES GROW AND EVOLVE. WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS ZONING DESIGNATION THAT
[00:25:01]
FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINES CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT SIT JUST BEHIND THAT CORRIDOR. THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT MAKE THIS PART OF SAN ANTONIO WORTH INVESTING IN IN THE FIRST PLACE. I GREW UP IN THE SUBURBS OF LOS ANGELES AND I HAVE LIVED IN NEW YORK. 17 YEARS AGO I MOVED TO SAN ANTONIO AND NINE YEARS AGO I CHOSE TO BUY A HOME HERE IN THE EDISON NEIGHBORHOOD.A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THIS PLACE OFFERED SOMETHING I COULDN'T FIND IN THOSE CITIES. A TRUE SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
IT OFFERED STABILITY. IT OFFERED A STREET WHERE NEIGHBORS HAVE LIVED FOR DECADES. WHERE MULTIPLE GENERATIONS HAVE PUT DOWN ROOTS.
WHERE CHILDREN HAVE GROWN UP KNOWING THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET AND NEXT DOOR.
THESE HOMES, MANY BUILT IN THE 1940S, WERE BUILT WITH A PURPOSE WHERE FAMILIES COULD SETTLE AND STAY. AN RM-4 DESIGNATION CHANGES THAT PURPOSE.
IT ALLOWS UP TO FOUR UNITS PER LOT. LOT SIZES AS SMALL AS 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES ON LOTS THAT CURRENTLY PROTECT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S NOT A SMALL ADJUSTMENT, THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN WHAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE FOR. AND IT DEVALUES THE INVESTMENT THAT EVERY FAMILY ON THESE BLOCKS HAVE MADE OVER THE LAST 80 YEARS THEIR FUTURES, AND FOR THE LONG TERM. I CHOSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF ITS PERMANENCE, ITS PEOPLE, AND ITS HISTORY. RM-4 ERODES ALL THREE.
SO LET ME BE DIRECT ABOUT WHAT I'M ASKING. KEEP THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS SURROUNDING THE BLANCO CORRIDOR AT THEIR CURRENT SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGNATION, R-4, AND DO NOT REZONE THEM TO RM-4. IF THE GOAL IS TO BRING MORE COMMERCIAL VITALITY TO THE CORRIDOR ITSELF, I AM HERE FOR THAT CONVERSATION.
BUT THE HOMES BEHIND IT, THE FAMILIES BEHIND IT, THE DECADES OF INVESTMENT BEHIND IT, THOSE DESERVE PROTECTION. NOT A ZONING CHANGE THAT TREATS THEM AS FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT SITES. PLEASE PRESERVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING ON THESE LOTS. PROTECT WHAT WAS BUILT HERE IN THE 1940S AND WHAT HAS BEEN CARED FOR BY FAMILIES EVER SINCE.
THAT'S THE LEGACY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU TO
MY NEIGHBORS FOR COMING OUT TODAY TO SPEAK AS WELL. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU,
KENDRA. NEXT UP IS JACK FINGER. >> MADAME MAYOR, OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JACK M. FINGER.
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS IN DISTRICT 1, MS. KAUR. THAT'S YOUR DISTRICT.
IT'S ABOUT REALIGNING A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN BLANCO ROAD TO REFLECT WHAT THEY ARE RIGHT NOW COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED AS.
MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. MAYBE IT ISN'T. AT LEAST -- I'M JUST GOING BY THE DOCUMENTS TO TELL US MORE ABOUT THIS HERE. IT SAYS AT LEAST 15 PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE 200-FOOT BOUNDARY THERE ON EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD IDEA. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER USED CAR LOT ON THE CORNER THAT THEY LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM.
MAYBE THEY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT THE AUTO PAINT AND BODY SHOP IS STILL AROUND.
ONE WOULD SAY, WELL, ISN'T IT AT AN IMPROVEMENT OVER PERHAPS AN INDUSTRIAL PROPOSAL? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. IF IT'S ANOTHER USED CAR LOT, I THINK I MIGHT RELISH HAVING AN INDUSTRIAL USAGE ON ONE OF THOSE GIVEN PROPERTIES. NO. I'D SAY -- OH, I ALSO NOTICED THERE'S A CANDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY IN THAT AREA, OR BEING PROPOSED FOR SUCH. MY QUESTION IS WITH ALL ITS SMELLS AND NOISE IS IT GOING TO BE? YEAH.
I'D SAY, MS. KAUR, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT THE OTHER SPEAKERS AHEAD OF ME MENTIONED, MAYBE YOU WOULD WANT TO SAY NO TO THIS ONE. AND SAY NO TO IT TODAY INSTEAD OF JUST CONTINUING IT, LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES HAS DONE.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR ITEM 1 AND 2. ITEM NO. 1 AND 2 ARE IN DISTRICT 1.
COUNCILWOMAN KAUR IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK. >> KAUR: THANKS, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE THAT CAME OUT TO SPEAK TODAY.
MANY OF YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK AT SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT.
[00:30:05]
AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS ACTUALLY CAME FROM A RESIDENT, MS. REYES, WHOSE HOME WAS ZONED AS INDUSTRIAL BUT NEEDED TO BE RIGHT SIZED SO SHE COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MAJOR/MINOR HOME REHAB. AND SO THAT IS HOW WE STARTED THIS PROCESS.WE FIRST -- WHEN WE PUT THE -- WHEN WE FILED THE CCR, WE BLOCK WALKED THE ENTIRE AREA. THAT WAS THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26.
MOST OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WE SPOKE TO WERE EITHER NEUTRAL OR DID NOT REPRESENT ANY OPPOSITION. WE BLOCK WALKED JUST THE AREA THAT WAS BEING AFFECTED AT THE ACTUAL SPECIFIC AREA THAT WE WERE GOING TO REZONE.
OBVIOUSLY IT WENT THROUGH THE CCR PROCESS SO APRIL 30 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE RESOLUTION FOR THE LARGER-AREA REZONING TO BEGIN BY CITY COUNCIL.
ON MAY 25 THE DSD SENT OUT A LETTER TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE SUBJECT AREA AND A 200-FOOT BUFFER FOR THE UPCOMING PROJECT. ON JUNE 11 WE HAD OUR FIRST COMMUNITY MEETING. ON JUNE 18 WE HAD THE SECOND COMMUNITY MEETING.
AND THEN JUNE 25, DSD STAFF WENT OUT AND BLOCK WALKED THE AREAS.
JULY 13 WE DID OPEN OFFICE HOURS. WE TALKED TO ANY RESIDENTS THAT HAD CONCERNS. JULY 16 WE MET WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS AS WELL.
JULY 22, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD IT. AND THEN THE DAY AFTER MY TEAM WENT OUT AGAIN AND BLOCK WALKED AND LEFT FLIERS ON PROPERTIES.
AND ON AUGUST 3 WE MET WITH A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS AS WELL. AND THEN IT WAS HEARD AND APPROVED BY ZONING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 12. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THIS INTO THE RECORD.
THIS IS THE LIST OF ALL OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO.
80% OF EVERYONE THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO HAS EXPRESSED SUPPORT OR BEEN NEUTRAL FOR THIS PROJECT. AS YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESSES ON THE CORRIDOR WERE INDUSTRIAL SO WE NEEDED TO CHANGE THEM TO COMMERCIAL TO RIGHT SIZE WHAT THEY WERE DOING. THE ADDITIONAL RM-4 OPTION WAS TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME FOLKS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
RIGHT OFF OF BLANCO ROAD, THAT'S A BIG TRANSIT ROAD CLOSE TO BUSES.
JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR DSD. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY.
ANYONE WHO EXPRESSED OPPOSITION, THEIR HOME HAS BEEN REMOVED.
I DID OFFER IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE TO BE INCLUDED, PLEASE TELL THEM TO ASK US TO REMOVE THEM AND WE WOULD REMOVE THEM.
NO ONE WHO IS IN OPPOSITION IS GETTING REZONED. CAN YOU TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT RM-4? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF HEIGHT? HOW WOULD THEY -- WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS, ET CETERA WHEN IT COMES TO HEIGHTS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT FOR RM-4? >> SO RM-4 IS A DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. IF IT IS AT LEAST 4,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN ALSO BUILD DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND QUADPLEXES ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A UDC AMENDMENT THAT RESTRICTS THE HEIGHT. IT'S THE SAME AS THE
SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICTS. WE ALSO -- >> KAUR: IT RESTRICTS THE
HEIGHT? >> IT DOES. >> KAUR: WHAT IS THE
HEIGHT RESTRICTION? >> 35 FEET. >> KAUR: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF THE STORIES NEXT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT MIGHT NOT BE 35 FEET?
>> IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY AS WELL.
>> KAUR: I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT RM-4 MEANS THE HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN THE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME NEXT TO THEM. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> KAUR: SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST BUILD A FOUR-STORY CONDOMINIUM?
>> NO. >> KAUR: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE
ABOUT WHAT RM-4 MEANS? >> THE ONLY OTHER THING I THINK WORTH ADDING IS OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS AMENDED IN THE LAST UDC AMENDMENT CYCLE.
IF ONE DOES INTEND TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE UNITS IN RM-4, THEY DO HAVE TO BE CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. THEY CAN'T BE FOUR
INDIVIDUAL 35-FOOT TALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT. >> KAUR: SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD FOUR TOWNHOMES ON A LOT THAT'S OVER 4,000 FEET?
>> NO. >> KAUR: WHAT IF THE LOT IS LESS THAN 4,000 FEET?
>> IF THE LOT IS LESS THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD MORE THAN ONE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO GO THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS IF YOU DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
>> KAUR: I JUST WANTED TO CONVEY THAT THIS COMES BACK TO ENSURE WE ARE CREATING A SAN ANTONIO WHERE OUR KIDS CAN LIVE. AND ALL OF THE HOMES THERE -- WE'RE NOT GOING IN AND BULLDOZING THE HOMES. THE HOMES WILL STAY.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL STAY THAT BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. IF SOMEONE DOES DECIDE TO DEMOLISH A HOME FOR WHATEVER
[00:35:02]
REASON -- AND IF YOU DO HAVE TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING, CAN YOU TELL US THE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO?>> IF YOU INTEND TO DEMOLISH A HOME, YOU HAVE TO START WITH GETTING A DEMO PERMIT.
THAT'S REVIEWED IN EVERY INSTANCE BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, SO
THEY CAN CONFIRM IT DOESN'T HAVE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. >> KAUR: THERE'S ALWAYS A PROCESS. AND THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY -- WE DON'T EXPECT THAT A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO COME DEMO ALL OF THESE HOMES?
>> NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT'S THE CASE.
>> KAUR: THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO THANK DSD FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS.
THEY WENT OUT AND BLOCK WALKED AND TALKED TO FOLKS MULTIPLE TIMES.
I WANT TO THANK CAMERON ON MY TEAM AND KNOCK ON DOORS AT LEAST TWO TO THREE TIMES THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. WITH THAT, I MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
>> VIAGRAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON ITEMS 1 AND 2? THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON ITEM NO. 1 AND 2 TO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES.
STAFF, PLEASE PRESENT THE NEXT ITEM. >> ABSOLUTELY.
ITEMS 14 AND 15 ARE A PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONING.
AT 15234 CLASSEN ROAD. STAFF, ZONING COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE IS DOWNWARD FACING LIGHTING.
12 NOTICES WERE MAILED, ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET.
AND FINALLY, OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET, TWO ADDITIONAL NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN
FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: MADAME CLERK, I SEE WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. THE SPEAKERS, AGAIN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES INDIVIDUALLY OR IF YOU COME UP AS A GROUP, SIX MINUTES. DOUGLAS WELCH.
WILL CATHERINE BE DONATING HER TIME TO YOU? IS CATHERINE HERE?
>> MY WIFE IS SIGNED UP AFTER ME THINKING I WAS GOING TO BE LONG WINDED, BUT SHE'S NOT NEEDED. I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT.
>> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILWOMEN AND MEN.
MY NAME IS DOUG WELCH AND I RESIDE AT 14403 BRIAR [INDISCERNIBLE].
WHEN THE POSTING FOR THIS REZONING APPEARED I WAS SURPRISED THAT IT WASN'T ANOTHER SMALL OFFICE WAREHOUSE COMBO, AS IS PREVALENT ALONG THE ADJOINING STAHL PARK OR MORE STORAGE UNITS OR SUBDIVISIONS 300 FEET FROM THE CLASSEN ROAD PROPERTY SEPARATED ONLY BY A TREELINE.
THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS BROUGHT MANY CONCERNS. THE DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IS A SPECIAL CASE DUE TO ITS DISTINCTIVENESS.
CAROLYN MCDONALD, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING BACK AND FORTH SINCE EARLY LAST MONTH. WE HAVE AGREED ON THE LANGUAGE AND SIGNED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE LAND. THIS AGREEMENT ADDRESSES THE OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS, NEIGHBORHOOD QUIET HOURS, AND DOWNWARD MOD LIGHTING.
I AM PLEASED WITH THE AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE TRAFFIC SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT AND COULD NOT BE ADDRESSED AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS. NOT UNTIL A PLAT IS SUBMITTED.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT OUR ORGANIZATION STAY IN THE LOOP DURING THIS PERMIT PHASE AND TRAFFIC STUDY. THE PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE IS CONSTRAINED BETWEEN THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND THE LOCATION OF TRIBUTARY F SALADO CREEK.
[00:40:07]
THERE ARE ALSO SITE PLAN INCONSISTENCIES WITH ITS DESIGN AND THE BUFFER REQUIRED ALONG THE ADJOINING COSA PROPERTY. THIS FIVE-ACRE PARCEL WAS JUST PURCHASED BY COSA AND FINALIZED WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS.THAT PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WITH THAT, OUR ASSOCIATION FEELS THAT THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION BRINGS A SPECIAL SET OF CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS ADHERING TO THE UDC. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE TIME AND EFFORTS OF SAMANTHA. SHE IS COUNCILMAN WHYTE'S DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF. I APPRECIATE HER DILIGENCE AND ATTENTIVENESS TO THE MEMBERS' CONCERNS AND KEEPING THE BALL ROLLING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN CONTAINS TWO NATURE PARKS. WE ASK THAT THE APPLICANTS BE MINDFUL OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS. THE BRIAR WICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES SUPPORT THE 2C DOWN ZONING AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU .
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MR. WELC. THIS ITEM IS -- ITEMS 14 AND 15 ARE IN DISTRICT 10.
COUNCILMAN WHYTE IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK. >> WHYTE: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I WANT TO JUST BEGIN BY THANKING THE DEVELOPER AND THEN THANKING THE BRIAR WICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PARTICULARLY DOUG AND HIS WIFE AND EVERYBODY THAT WORKED WITH US OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE COULD MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE THIS TODAY.
SO I DO HAVE -- I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. DOUG MENTIONED SOME OF THE CONDITIONS BUT NOT ALL.
I'M MOTIONING TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE FROM 9:00 P.M. TO 6:00 A.M. OUTDOOR MUSIC AND NOISE WILL CEASE AT 9:00 P.M. BUSINESS OPERATIONS WILL MOVE INDOORS AT 10:00 P.M.
AND THEN THE DOWNWARD-FACING LIGHTING. SO THAT'S THE MOTION.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO DOUG FOR THE WORK ON THESE CONDITIONS AS WELL AS THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS. >> VIAGRAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON ITEM 14 AND 15? NO DISCUSSION? SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. ITEMS 14 AND 15. PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S ZONING AND LAND USE SESSION.
THE TIME IS NOW 2:51 P.M. AND THE MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.