* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Call to Order] [00:00:46] OKAY. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL COMING TO ORDER. WILL YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN, IN, UH, RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE STATE OF TEXAS LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC WHICH STANDS? ONE GOD, INDIVISIBLE, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE GOD ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. BEFORE WE GET PLEASE, UH, KINDLY ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES. AND I BELIEVE THE, UH, MONICA WILL TAKE THE ROLL CALL WHEN SHE GETS FREE. MR. TEAL, PRESENT. DR. TERELLI PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN PRESENT. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. ORIAN PRESENT. MR. BRITTON? HERE. MR. OZUNA? PRESENT. MR. NEFF? PRESENT. MR. MANNA? PRESENT? PRESENT. MR. KEANO? HERE. MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. PRESENT. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS FOR THE EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO THE TABLE, JUST OUT THE OUTSIDE THIS BOARDROOM. THE CASES ARE, ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT'S AND STREET ADDRESSES. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I WILL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING. BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO COUNCIL. THEY ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28.5. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE POWER TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL. UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE BOARD'S DECISIONS AND APPEALS. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT. EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL REPRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD HAS BEEN HEARD. IN THIS CASE IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH UNDER THIS BOARD [00:05:01] WOULD BE NINE VOTES BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE RESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED UPON THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE. I DO NOT HAVE, LET ME SEE HERE. MY BOARD. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE, WE ONLY HAVE FIVE CASES TODAY. FOUR OR FOUR? WE HAVE FOUR CASES TODAY. UM, ONE WILL BE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. OKAY, WELL, LET'S MAKE SURE THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE. B O A CASE. 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 A REQUEST BY CARLOS FRANCO NOVATO, YOU HERE? VERY GOOD. CASE NUMBER, AND I'LL SHORTEN THIS UP TO OH TWO, UH, BY MARK JOHNSON. YOU OH THREE IS BRIAN LIKE, HELP ME, HELP ME WITH THIS ONE. COL THE APPLICANT SENT US EMAIL WILL BE REQUESTED IN CONTINUANCE. OKAY, SO THIS IS CASE NUMBER THREE. THAT IS CORRECT. GONNA NEED A RE, UH, REQUEST FOR THAT. I MEAN TO VOTE ON THIS WHEN WE, WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM, THEN WE'LL DO THE MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE. VERY GOOD. NUMBER FOUR IN OUR, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, 0 1 3 A REQUEST BY JOHN HERTZ. PRESENT. VERY GOOD PRESENT. THANK YOU. AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S IT. VERY GOOD. SO IS ANYTHING ELSE WE'LL GO ON. OH, YOU THE, UH, CITY NOW OUR STAFF HERE WILL GIVE US A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF HOW THE, HOW THE MINUTES WILL BE DI NOT THE MINUTES. THE CASES WILL BE DR. OH, OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO REQUEST TO BE HEARD TODAY. I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA LIMIT TODAY'S MEETING, UH, EACH OF THE, UH, SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES TO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE APPLICANT, UH, TO TWO MINUTES. SO STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION, ANY ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR APPEAL. YOU'LL BE CALLED IN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL HEAR THIS WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT, YOU WILL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. GROUPS CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOTTED SIX MINUTES TOTAL. TO ADDRESS THE, UH, THE BOARD ON THE ITEM, THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO GO, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE CASES FORWARD. [1. 20-1907 BOA-20-10300001: A request by Juan Carlos Franco Navarro for a special exception to allow two additional (2) Type 2 short term rental units, permitting a total of three (3) Type 2 short term rental units, located at 2411 Pinn Road. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 6) (Kayla Leal, Senior Planner (210) 207-0197, kayla.leal@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] GOOD AFTERNOON. KAYLA AL WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES B O A CASE 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24 11 PIN ROAD. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO, TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS. THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS MF 33 MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE PLAN, UH, SHOWS WHERE THE LIVING AREAS AND THE BEDROOMS ARE. UM, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS. UM, THEY DO ALREADY HAVE ONE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY. [00:10:01] UM, IT'S LOCATED OFF OF US HIGHWAY 90 AND IS A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY FROM LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY A MIXTURE OF USES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP JUST TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE ARE EIGHT UNITS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE THE TWO, UH, UNITS IN WHICH THEY'RE REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH. THE AUTO SHOP IS RIGHT THERE, UM, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET. UM, ACROSS PIN ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF BO O A CASE 21 0 3 0 0 1. UM, BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING, FINDING OF FACT THAT THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HOLDS ONE ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT, UM, WHICH WAS GRANTED ON JANUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR. 24 NOTICES WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE ARE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CABLE WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, ORIAN. SO ON A UH, STREET VIEW ON THE REAR, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A, UH, DEDICATED METAL STORAGE COMPARTMENT IN THE BACK CORNER, AND THAT APPEARS TO BE A COVERED AREA. IS THAT A SITTING OR A BENCH AREA OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU WENT OUT THERE ON THE PROPERTY? TO THE SOUTH? N NO, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE, IN THE BACK CORNER OPPOSITE THE STREET. I BELIEVE HIS SOURCE IS GOING TO BE, UH, GOOGLE MAPS. RIGHT. PROBABLY WHEN THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE MAYBE THEY KNOW IF IT'S JUST A SITTING AREA FOR PEOPLE. SURE. AND, UH, FINALLY, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE DID YOU OBSERVE WHEN YOU WERE THERE? THE AERIAL LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE MORE THAN EIGHT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. I BELIEVE 12. WELL, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. THIS OKAY. EXCUSE ME. DID, DID I DIDN'T HEAR AN ADDRESS. I ON 70 ROAD. OH, OKAY. UM, MY NAME IS ANGIE RODRIGUEZ AND MY ADDRESS IS 1124 PIN ROAD. I WAS USING LISA'S RENTALS, SO I WAS JUST RENTING THESE OUT AS A LONG TERM RENTAL UNITS, BUT PEOPLE WERE DESTROYING THEM. THEY WERE NOT PAYING MY THE RENT AS THEY SHOULD. AND SINCE THIS IS CLOSE TO THE LACKLAND BASE, I DECIDED TO MAKE IT MORE SHORT TERM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING JUST FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS AND THEY ARE BEING MORE RESPONSIBLE, TAKING CARE OF THE RENTALS AND, UH, THEY ONLY NEED IT FOR SHORT TERM. SO THAT IS WHY I DECIDED TO TRANSFER THEM FROM LONG-TERM TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. AND THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING FOR THIS, THAT THE, IS THAT THE EXTENT, ANY MORE INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO OFFER? NO, JUST THAT EACH APARTMENT DOES HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES. [00:15:01] ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DIOCESE, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? SO, UH, CAN, CAN THE APPLICANT EXPLAIN, UH, WHAT THE USE OF THE, UH, COVERED AREAS IN THE BACK CORNER ARE? UH, AND SECONDLY, HOW, HOW LONG HAS SHE BEEN RUNNING THIS AND HOW LONG HAVE THERE BEEN VACANCY OR, AND, AND OR TENANT PROBLEMS? UH, I'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THESE, UH, PROPERTIES EVER SINCE I STARTED RENTING THEM OUT TWO YEARS AGO. AND, UH, JUST AS OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR IS WHEN I STARTED RENTING THEM OUT SHORT TERM. AND THAT IS WHEN I SWITCHED IT OUT AS SOON AS I GOT THE PERMIT TO SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND ON THE BACK AREA RIGHT THERE, I HAVE A SMALL PICNIC TABLES AND A GRILL FOR THE TENANTS JUST IN CASE THEY WANNA MAKE USE OF THOSE. AND, UH, FINALLY, HAVE YOU, UH, TALKED TO ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT, UM, WHAT YOUR AND WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS TO THE BO O A TODAY AND AND WHAT, AND IF YOU HAVE, WHAT WERE THEIR, UH, WHAT WERE THEIR THOUGHTS? UM, SEE, YES, THEY'RE HAPPY THERE, PLEASE. THEY LIKE THE IDEA. QUESTIONS. KEANA? I HAVE. OKAY, MR. KEANNA, GO AHEAD. SO IN, IN ESSENCE, HOW MANY, UH, REGULAR RENTALS DO YOU HAVE AS OPPOSED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THE PROPERTY? RIGHT NOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL LONG TERM CORRECT UHHUH, AND YOU ONLY WANNA CHANGE TWO OF THOSE RENTALS TO SHORT TERM. SO THEY'RE EIGHT APARTMENTS. ONE IS ALREADY, UH, SET AS A SHORT TERM THAT I HAVE THE PERMIT FOR, AND I WANT THESE TWO AS WELL ARE, IT WOULD BE A, A TOTAL OF, UH, THREE SHORT TERM RENTALS AND FIVE LONG-TERM. THREE. MM-HMM. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THE, UM, I SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT A, A FENCE AROUND AROUND THIS PROPERTY. DOES THAT, IS THIS A SECURE AREA OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YES, THIS IS A VERY SAFE AREA. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC GATE AND THEY HAVE A CODE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT TO THE ENTRANCE AND IT ALSO CLOSES AND THEY HAVE A WAY TO, UH, A CODE TO EXIT THIS PLACE TOO. ELLI ELLI. SO YOU ARE SEEKING, UM, ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO RENTALS, UM, RENTAL UNITS BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PRIOR LONG-TERM RENTERS AT THIS LOCATION. WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU DONE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE, THE ISSUES WITH YOUR TENANTS? UM, SHORT OF JUST SWITCHING THESE OVER TO LONG-TERM TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, NONE. ALL I'VE TRIED TO DO IS JUST TO SPEAK WITH THEM AND, UH, WRITE OUT NEW CONTRACTS AND TELL THEM WHAT, WHAT THE NEW CONTRACT CONSISTS OF, BUT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DR. LEY DID ANSWER MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, ELLI, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, I'M SORRY. AHEAD. AND THAT IS, SO YOU HAVE EIGHT UNITS. UM, ARE THE OTHER FIVE UNITS CURRENTLY RENTED BY LONG-TERM RENTERS? MM-HMM. . AND [00:20:01] SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH A TENANT, BUT I WANNA UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE PROBLEMS IN THE SENSE OF WHAT, HOW OFTEN ARE THESE PROBLEMS HAPPENING? UM, HOW MANY TENANTS HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED THIS WITH? IS IT A ONE-OFF EVENT OR TWO OFF WHERE YOU'VE HAD PROBLEMS IN THESE TWO APARTMENTS, BUT, UM, BUT FOR THE MOST PART YOU'VE GOT TENANTS THAT ARE NOT DOING THIS. I NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE S OKAY. I THINK I REMEMBER. SO I, THE, AT FIRST I HAD SIX MONTHS, UH, CONTRACT LEASES. SO I, THE FIRST TENANTS I EVER HAD FOR THE, UNDER THE SIX MONTH CONTRACT, THEY DID NOT PAY FOR THE SIX MONTHS. I HAD TO TAKE 'EM TO COURT AND THEN I HAD TO EVICT THEM FROM THE PLACE. AND THEY STILL DID NOT PAY FOR THE LEASE. THEY NEVER PAID FOR THE RENTAL. AND THEN ANOTHER ISSUE I HAD IS THAT I MADE NEW CONTRACTS AND THE PEOPLE WOULD COME IN AND OCCUPY THIS PLACE AND THEY WOULD LEAVE BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS UP. THEY WOULD NOT STAY FULL TERM AND THEY WOULD LEAVE THE APARTMENTS WRECKED AND DESTROYED. THEY WOULD LEAVE THEIR FURNITURE AS WELL, AND IT WAS ALL DIRTY, AND THEY WOULD JUST LEAVE WITHOUT WARNING ME OR LETTING ME KNOW THAT THEY WOULD BE VACATING THE PLACE AND LEAVE IT A MESS. DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING ELSE? 'CAUSE I INTERRUPTED YOU. NO, NO. IT'S STILL OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, AND, UH, SO YOU'RE, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE FULLY INFORMED THAT THERE'S A REASON WHY WE ONLY ALLOW, UH, SO MANY, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UH, IN A PARTICULAR AREA. AND WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO REALLY WAS TO TRY TO ESTABLISH A PARTICULAR REASON. THE, UM, ARE THERE, ARE THERE ANY SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THAT AREA? NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, BUT DOWN THE STREET, UH, DUE TO LACKLAND. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS, UH, TO THE PUBLIC. OKAY. AS THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANYBODY SPEAKER ON THIS? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THEN. UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, LOOK FOR A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. ORIAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 1, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. OH, I APOLOGIZE. TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 24 11 PIN ROAD APPLICANT BEING CARLOS FRANCO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIAL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE WELL KEPT AND HAS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND GATED ACCESS ACROSS, UH, TO THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED A HANDFUL OF CODE VIOLATIONS PERTAINING TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND HAS COMPLIED WITH EVERY ONE CAUSING THEM TO BE CLOSED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEREFORE, A PUBLIC NUISANCE DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO BE CREATED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE PROPERTY HAS NO PENDING CODE VIOLATIONS. WHILE THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ABUTTING TO THE WEST, THERE DOES SEEM TO BE LANDSCAPING WHICH MAY POTENTIALLY SERVE AS A BUFFER FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. D ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS, ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACULTIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THERE ARE ABOUT 12 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY A MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY APPEARED TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR [00:25:01] ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORY OF REVOCATION, CITATIONS, OR CONVICTIONS OR FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16 F. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT UNITS HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 1968 AND HAS BEEN IMPROVED THROUGH PROPERTY MAINTENANCE DISPLAYED THROUGH GOOGLE STREET VIEW, WHICH ACTS AS BEING LIMITED OFF PENN ROAD. THE SPECIAL EXCEPT IS DO NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION. END OF MOTION. SECOND. ALRIGHT, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UH, MR. THIEL, UH, MR. ORIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? YES, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS. THE REASON WHY IS, UH, THIS PLACE IS, UH, PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USE, HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, UH, IT JUST, AND WITH THE LACK OF, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE NEARBY VICINITY, I THINK THIS WOULD BE COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE. THE APPLICANT, UH, IS, HAS TRIED TO RUN THIS AS A STANDARD APARTMENT COMPLEX AND, UH, HASN'T WORKED OUT AS WELL AS SHE HAD LIKED. AND I THINK, UM, HAVING A MAXIMUM OF THREE IS, UH, NOT GONNA BE AN ISSUE AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. UH, FURTHER, BECAUSE OF THE GATED ACCESS OFF OF PRINT ROAD, UH, THE APPARENT HEIGHTENED SECURITY AND THE, THE STRUCTURAL BUFFERS THAT APPEAR ALONG THE WEST SIDE, SPECIFICALLY THE SITTING AREA AND THAT APPARENT STORAGE, UH, BUILDING ON THE LEFT, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE A SELF-CONTAINED SORT OF AREA. AND, UM, I'LL BE ALL FOR THE REQUEST. MR. WOULD YOU, YOU LIKE TO GIVE SOME INPUT? I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT. UM, I THINK THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE 12% TO THESE COMMERCIAL TYPE PROPERTIES IS, UH, INSUFFICIENT AND I THINK, UH, THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR THE AREA. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO GIVE THEIR INPUT? OH, ZOOM THAT. OKAY. YOU GO , ALL THREE OF YOU, NOT ME. THEM TWO. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL START, DOCTOR. OKAY. UM, WHILE, YEAH, WHILE I'M USUALLY QUITE CAUTIOUS ABOUT, UM, ALLOWING SOMEONE TO EXCEED THE 12.5% RULE BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW ORDINANCE AND, AND WE REALLY DO NEED TIME TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS THAT IT HAS, THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, UM, A PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH SHE ACTUALLY DID ATTEMPT TO RUN THIS AS A LONG-TERM RENTAL. SHE DID MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO WHAT SHE WAS DOING TO TRY TO HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES. AND SO, UM, I WILL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS, ALTHOUGH, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M HOPING THAT THAT OTHER PEOPLE WILL TAKE, OTHER OWNERS WOULD GO TO THE LENGTHS THAT SHE WENT TO, TO TRY TO, UM, TO ADDRESS THIS AS A LONG-TERM RENTAL BEFORE SEEKING THIS AS A, AS AN OPTION. SO BECAUSE SHE HAD TRIED SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE SHE HAD SPENT THE TIME TO, UM, TO TRY TO WORK ON THE ISSUE AND IS COMING TO THIS ONLY AT THE END, UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT. YES. SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION AS WELL. UM, BEING A LANDLORD MYSELF, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A, A BUSINESS, UM, AND IT HAS TO BE VIABLE AS A BUSINESS OR ELSE SHE MAY END UP SELLING THE PROPERTIES. AND SO I I I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT FOR THAT REASON. OKAY, VERY GOOD. AND I BELIEVE, UH, FRANK, FRANK, YOU'RE NEXT. WELL, UM, I'M KIND OF SITTING ON THE FENCE RIGHT NOW. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, HER FACILITIES ARE VERY, VERY WELL KEPT UP. I MEAN, I, I I, I CAN'T FAULT THAT SHE HAS, IT'S, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PLACE AND ALL THAT. HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE HOW SHIFTING IT FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS GOING TO RELIEVE THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS THAT YOU, YOU THAT YOUR SITE. UM, I ALSO WAS A LANDOWNER AND THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE COME AND GO ALL THE TIME AND SOMETIMES YOU'RE, YOU'RE LUCKY YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S, UH, GOING TO HAVE RESPECT FOR YOU AND A RESPECT FOR THE PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER ONES WHO JUST COME AND GO AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND YOU WIND UP SPENDING A, A TON OF MONEY TRYING TO RE RECOUP IT. YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M KIND OF LEANING TOWARD ALLOWING YOU, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR, FOR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW. SO YEAH, WE'LL SUPPORT IT, BUT YOU NEED TO BE DOING OTHER THINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE TAKEN CARE OF. YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT, WHAT IT IS. I DON'T, IT IS, I DON'T KNOW. I'VE, I'VE RUN AGAINST THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS TOO, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, THEY'RE FRUSTRATING. I KNOW THEY ARE, THEY'RE FRUSTRATING. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE DOWN HERE. YEAH, I JUST KEEP IT SHORT. I MEAN, THE NUISANCE ISSUES THAT WE SEE WITH THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, I THINK WE'RE, UH, ARE BEING ACCOMMODATED BY THE APPLICANT. THE PARKING IS CONTAINED ON SITE, SO NOT TO SPILL [00:30:01] OVER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING NOISE AND SOUND ABATEMENT. WE HAVE THE BUFFERS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USES AND THE RESIDENTIAL. SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU. UH, MR. MANDA, DID YOU SAY YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF WHY I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE PROPERTIES AROUND HERE. THEY'RE ALL MF 33, UH, OR COMMERCIAL ZONING. AND, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE'S ONLY ONE LINE OF RESIDENTIAL IN THE VERY BACK PART. UH, I BELIEVE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA. AND I'VE NOTICED THAT, UH, THE PEOPLE ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN HAVE HAD A DIFFICULT TIME GETTING, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS AVAILABLE TO THEM AS COMPARED TO OTHER AREAS. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL, AND I, UH, LEAVE THAT AT THAT. AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. MS. DORIAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. TERELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON. YES, I CONCUR. MR. UNA. YES, I CONCUR. MR. NEFF. I RELUCTANTLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I AS WELL RELUCTANTLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. KEANO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING. WE HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH HERE. YOU'VE GOTTEN, UH, TWO ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. UH, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. OKAY, THIS [2. 20-1886 BOA-20-10300002: A request by Mark Johnson for a special exception to allow a fence to be up to 8’ tall in the front yard, located at 5700 Northwest Parkway. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 8) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] IS FOR BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 2. HOLD ON. DOMINIC, BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE NEED TO MAKE NOTE OF, OF A, A RECUSAL SO THAT WE, WE CAN SEAT. THE 11TH MEMBER IS THE 11TH MEMBER. WE'RE GONNA BE SEATING. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, I JUST WANT THEM TO BOARD MEMBER ORIAN, UM, STEPPED OUT, UH, FOR RECUSAL AND WE WILL BE SEATING ANN ENGLER AS A BOARD MEMBER. ALL RIGHT, SO, UH, WE'RE NOW SET BACK WITH 11 AND SO WE GO, GO AHEAD AND PROCEED. OKAY, FOR BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 FOR THE ADDRESS OF 57, UM, HUNDRED NORTHWEST PARKWAY, APPLICANT BEING MARKED JOHNSON, THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD, UH, ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL. THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING TO ERECT A SIX FOOT TALL OPEN SCREEN FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY OF THEIR, UH, FOUR SECURITY OF THEIR CORPORATE CAMPUS FACILITY IN DIRECTING OF TRAFFIC FLOW SAFELY, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY'S I, ONE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IS UTILIZED AS COMMERCIAL USE, THE APPLICANT MUST ADHERE TO A FIVE FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE FOR THE FRONT, OR OBTAIN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE REQUESTED SIX FOOT. THE AREA IS CHARACTERIZED AS INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY IN A UNIVERSITY PARK WITH MULTIPLE LARGE LOTS FENCED IN ENTIRELY FROM FRONT TO BACK. THIS IS THE FENCE DETAIL OF A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. JEFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BO A 21 0 3 0 0 0 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED FENCE IS SIMILAR OF HEIGHT DESIGN AND AS OTHER FENCES WITHIN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND TWO, CLEAR VISION STANDARDS ARE NOT IN VIOLATION. WE MAIL 11 NOTICES, ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS. CRUZ, DO WE HAVE ANY, OKAY, MS. CRUZ, GO AHEAD. OKAY, I, I'VE JUST GOT A SILLY QUESTION IS BECAUSE THIS SAYS EIGHT FEET MM-HMM. , AND YOU'RE SAYING SIX, CORRECT? SO THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN. NO. UM, IT WAS AN ERROR IN READING THE SITE PLAN OR FENCE PLAN. THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT IS FOR THE SIX FOOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARK JOHNSON. I'M WITH BALANCED SITE DESIGN. I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER HERE IN TOWN. MY, [00:35:01] UH, ADDRESS IS 9 8 4 8 LRE LANE. MY CLIENT ON THIS, UH, PROJECT IS H E B GROCERY COMPANY. UH, THEY'RE LOOKING TO OCCUPY THIS OFFICE AND IN DOING SO, ARE INTERESTED IN SECURING THE CAMPUS. UM, AND JUST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THE, IN OUR, UH, KIND OF OUR FINDINGS, OUR, UH, UH, IN THE CASE IS BECAUSE THE, UH, UH, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTIES ZONED INDUSTRIAL, UH, BECAUSE OF THE OFFICE USE, IF WE WERE IN INDUSTRIAL USE, THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE COME, COME BEFORE YOU. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE AN OFFICE USE WITHIN THIS INDUSTRIAL ZONING, WE'RE HAVING TO COME BEFORE YOU TO GET THIS EXTRA FOOT OF FENCE SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A CONSISTENT SIX FOOT TALL FENCE, UH, AROUND THE, THE, THE PERIMETER OF THE CAMPUS. UM, JUST A, EXCUSE ME, A FEW OTHER NOTES. UM, THE, UH, PICTURE UP THERE ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS, THIS IS AN INSTALLATION ON ONE OF THEIR OTHER CAMPUS PROPERTIES. UH, THIS FENCE WOULD BE IDENTICAL TO THIS, UH, TO THE FENCE IF, UH, APPROVED ON, UH, AT 5,700 NORTHWEST PARKWAY. UM, WE HAVE IN THE PLAN, IN THE SITE PLAN, UM, ARRANGED OR ALIGNED THE, UH, FENCE SO THAT WE WOULD AVOID ANY OF THE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE BEING PRESERVED, UH, ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE, UH, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING BETWEEN 20 AND 30 FEET OF, UH, OF SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FENCE LOCATION. AND I THINK STAFF POINTED OUT THAT, UH, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER, UM, USERS IN THE UNIVERSITY PARK, UH, BUSINESS PARK. AND SO, UH, WITH THAT, I'LL, I'M HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. VERY GOOD. OR SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE DIOCESE? MR. NEFF WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION. NOTICE ON THE FENCE DETAIL THAT IT SAYS SIX FEET, BUT FOUR FEET WERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHERE YOU HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THE SITE PLAN? THE, UH, IT'S, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S GONNA BE SIX FEET IN JUST ABOUT EVERY LOCATION. THERE MAY BE A POINT, UM, INTERNALLY, UM, OR AT SOME OF THE GATES THAT MAY BE LOWER, BUT I, I, I THINK THE INTENT IS ACTUALLY TO BE SIX FOOT. I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THERE THAT THE PERIMETER WILL BE SIX FEET, SIX FOOT CONSISTENT EVERYWHERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? OTHER QUESTIONS? NO ONE ELSE. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, ANY WITNESSES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SORRY. NO ONE? NOBODY. OKAY. ALRIGHT, LINDA, I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION. CRUZ OH, MS. CRUZ, PLEASE. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO BE UP TO SIX FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 5,700 NORTHWEST PARKWAY. APPLICANT BEING MARKED JOHNSON, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION UP TO SIX FEET. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS EXTEND IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S CORPORATE CAMPUS FACILITY AND FOR THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW SAFELY. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE PRESENTED BY MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO PROTECT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, A SIX FOOT TALL PROMO, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES PROPOSED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ITS OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY AND UNIVERSITY PARK HAS SIMILAR FENCES TO PROVIDE ENHANCED SECURITY AND SAFETY. FURTHER, THE FENCING DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SAW. THE FENCING DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE FENCING IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PRE-EXISTING FENCING MATERIAL AND HEIGHT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN [00:40:01] THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS HA THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS ARE IN CURRENT USE AND A MOTION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. UH, MARIA, YOU GAVE THE MOTION AND MRNA, YOU GAVE THE OKAY. YES, SIR. UM, I, UM, GONNA APPROVE THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THE AREA, IT IS A GREAT AREA AND, UM, THERE IS, UH, DIFFERENT AREAS OR PROPERTIES IN THAT VICINITY THAT WITH THIS FENCE HEIGHT, AND I THINK IT WOULD ADD TO THE FAC, UH, FACILITY AND TO THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I, I AS WELL DRIVE IN THIS AREA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND WOULD AGREE THAT, UH, THE DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIBED WOULD, UH, BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WITH THAT COMMUNITY, UH, OF BUSINESSES. AND, UM, I DON'T SEE ANY DISTRACTIONS FROM THIS, SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE HAVE INPUT? I'M JUST, MR. UNA, JUST MENTION MY SUPPORT FOR THE MOTION I REPRESENT. VERY GOOD. YEAH, THANKS. ALL RIGHT. UM, NOW THAT IT'S BEEN CLARIFIED THAT IT'S, IT'S SIX FEET INSTEAD OF EIGHT FEET, I SEE NO REASON TO CHALLENGE THIS. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. INGLER, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR MR. NEFF WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. KEANO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION IS PASSED. UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO GET THE DIRECT PAPERWORK TAKEN CARE OF, AND THAT'S STEP, STEP FORWARD ON THE NEXT CASE. [3. 20-1905 BOA-20-10300003: A request by Brian Kolodziej for a special exception to allow a fence to be up to 8’ tall in the side and rear yard, located at 3115 Sable Creek. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 9) (Justn Malone, Planner (210) 207-0157, justin.malone@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] UM, JUSTIN MALONE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND, UM, THIS IS FOR B O A CASE, 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3. ADDRESS AT 31 15 SABLE CREEK APPLICANT IS BRIAN KLOS EDGE AND THE, UM, HE'S REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE UP TO EIGHT FOOT TALL IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO, UM, THE MARCH 16 SESSION, AND CURRENTLY THE ZONING IS, UH, R SIX RESIDENTIAL. YES. THE, THE SESSION, THE NEXT ONE IS FULL. I, I BELIEVE VERY GOOD. I READ ARE OKAY THEN. UH, AND WE DO HAVE SOMEONE SIGN IN TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO, UM, HAVE THEM COME UP, THEY CAN STATE THEIR REMARKS FOR THE RECORD IF THEY'D LIKE, OR THEY CAN ALSO OPT TO COME BACK FOR THE CASE. HOW MANY WITNESS? JUST ONE, ONE PERSON SIGNED IN FOR THIS. KEN ALBRECHT. MR. ALBRECHT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ALBRECHT. AND I'LL NEED A MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE. F I MOVE THAT CASE NUMBER B O A 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 AT 31 15 SABLE CREEK BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 16TH, 2020. I SECOND. I READY. OKAY, THIS IS B A 2020. HOLD ON A MINUTE. WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE THIS, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO LOAD UP ON YOUR PCS. LET'S TAKE A BREAK FOR A FEW SECONDS. [00:45:03] GET THIS STARTED, PLEASE. OKAY. THIS IS [4. 20-1902 BOA-20-10300013: A request by John Hertz regarding an appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s decision to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, located at 335 Trail. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 1) (Dominic Silva, Senior Planner (210) 207-0120, dominic.silva@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] B O A 21 0 3 0 0 0 1 3. ADDRESS BEING 3 3 5. TRAIL APPLICANT JOHN HERTZ. THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE. APPROPRIATENESS ZONING IS MULTIFAMILY RIVER ROAD, HISTORIC RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WE MAILED. PHOTO 1 41, NOTICES IN FAVOR. TWO SIX. ADDITIONAL IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, NO OPPOSITION. AND I'LL TURN THIS OVER NOW TO HISTORIC. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S EDWARD HALL, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1901 SOUTH ALAMO. WE MAY REFERENCE THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ON DECEMBER THE 18TH, 2019. UH, THIS SITE PLAN WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO FINAL APPROVAL. BIT OF BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION. I'LL MAINLY SKIP THIS SLIDE AND MOVE FORWARD TO A BIT OF A CASE HISTORY. THIS SLIDE IS LOCATED WITHIN BOTH THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY. UH, THEREFORE IF YOU LOOK ABOVE, UH, THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, YOU'LL SEE A NUMBER OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, CHAPTERS OR SECTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE CITED. UH, EACH OF THESE IS APPLICABLE IN THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION OR WERE APPLICABLE IN THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. UH, APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED BASED ON GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES. SIMILARLY, APPLICATIONS MAY BE DENIED BASED ON NON-CONFORMANCE WITH HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. BIT OF CASE HISTORY, THIS APPLICATION RECEIVED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ON JANUARY THE SECOND, 2019. THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR FINAL APPROVAL WAS DENIED BY THE H D R C IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, OCTOBER THE SECOND. A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WAS APPROVED ON DECEMBER THE 18TH, 2019. UH, A FEW KEY THINGS TO, TO KEEP IN MIND OR TO NOTE, UM, AND APPROVE OF THIS APPEAL WOULD RE RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. AN APPEAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A CITIZEN TO CHALLENGE THE H DRCS DECISION IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE GUIDELINES IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO ONCE AGAIN, AN APPROVAL OF THIS APPEAL WOULD RESULT IN A DENIAL OF THE PROJECT AT EACH POINT IN THE PROCESS. UH, THAT INCLUDES, UH, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS, WHICH IS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE H D R C, UH, AT H D R C HEARINGS AS WELL AS IN STAFF'S REPORT. THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, CONCERNS FROM STAFF AND THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IN REGARDS TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT, UH, AT THREE STORIES OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ON TRAIL. THERE'S ALSO BEEN A CONCERN, UH, REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND DRAINAGE FROM THE COMMISSION. O H P STAFF HAS NOTED AN INCONSISTENCY OF FRONT LOADING GARAGES ON TRAIL STREET WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT BASED ON THESE DESIGN CONCERNS. UM, IF AT ANY MINUTE, UM, I NEED TO GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL DO SO. THE APPLICANT THAT HAS SUBMITTED THE APPEAL HAS CITED TWO INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE HISTORIC AND HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH HE BELIEVES SHOULD BE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASIS FOR A DENIAL BY THE H D R C IN REGARDS TO BUILDING MASS AND HEIGHT. THE FIRST IS HEIGHT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INDICATES BUILDINGS ONE THROUGH FIVE ARE TO FEATURE FIVE STORY, OR EXCUSE ME, THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT WHILE BUILDING SIX IS TO FEATURE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, NOTE THAT HEIGHT WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS SHOULD FEATURE, UM, MASSING SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THE VICINITY AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT OF THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS BY MORE THAN ONE STORY WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE MAJORITY OF NEW CON OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES FEATURE ONE STORY AND HEIGHT. THE TIME OF CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF FOUND THAT BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX, THESE ARE THOSE THAT ARE ON TRAIL STREET, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN, BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX, UH, AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. STAFF FIND THAT THOSE STRUCTURES, UH, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES DUE TO THEIR PROXIMITY WITH THOSE STRUCTURES FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, FOLLOWING CONCESSIONS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER, INCLUDING A REVISION TO ROOF FORM AND LOWERING OF THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHTS [00:50:01] ON TRAIL, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS. THE SECOND INCONSISTENCY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CITED WITHIN THE APPEAL IS THE BUILDING TO LOT RATIO PER THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD FEATURE NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE SIZE OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA. UH, THE PROPOSED, UH, FOOTPRINT EXCEEDS THAT, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED BY THE GUIDELINES AND ITS REVIEW. O H P STAFF FOUND THAT GIVEN THE LACK OF AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK PATTERN AS WOULD BE FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, THE ADDITIONAL LIGHT COVERAGE WAS APPROPRIATE. THE APPLICANT IS INCORPORATED, THIS IS THE APPLICANT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, HAS INCORPORATED RECESS BUILDING MASSES AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING MATERIALS TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS FOOTPRINT. THE PROPOSED LOW IMPACT DESIGN FEATURES WERE INTENDED TO ALLEVIATE CONCERNS REGARDING IMPERVIOUS LIGHT COVERAGE. THE H D R C VOTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO NOTED INCONSISTENCIES OR IS CITED INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE H DRCS APPROVAL. IN REGARDS TO THE COLONIAL ASAKIA AND STORMWATER REVIEW. THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS PROVIDE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WHICH RELATE TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THERE ARE ALSO TWO INSTANCES IN THE U D C, WHICH REFERENCE SPANISH COLONIAL ASAKIA SYSTEMS THAT ARE COMMONLY LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO SAN ANTONIO'S WATERWAYS. UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER, THE H C R C IS NOT A REVIEWING AGENCY FOR COMPLIANCE OR STORM WATER. UM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THAT'S HANDLED BY T C I. THEY HAVE A STORMWATER DIVISION, T C I STORMWATER DIVISION, UH, PROVIDED FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE TO BOTH, BOTH O H P STAFF AND THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. IN REGARDS TO WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, THE APPLICANT MADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER, UH, AND, UH, DRAINAGE FEATURES SUCH AS CISTERNS, UM, AND VARIOUS IMP, OR EXCUSE ME, VARIOUS PERVIOUS SURFACES THROUGHOUT THE LOT. UM, T C I WILL PROVIDE A FULL, UH, THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY T C I WHO CONCURS THAT THE DESIGN IS GENERALLY COMPLIANT WITH STORMWATER CODE REQUIREMENTS AND DOES NOT USE THE ASAKIA AS PART OF THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE. T C I WILL PROVIDE A FULL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN. DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THE H D R C VOTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS. AND I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, THIS IS O H P STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, IS THAT THE ASAKIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THAT THE EFFECTS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO AVOID RUNOFF TOWARD THE ASAKIA WHERE THEY EXIST. THE NEXT MULTI-PURPOSE FEATURES IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAID TO U D. THE U D C REQUIRES THAT STORMWATER FEATURES BE DESIGNED TO BE MULTI MULTIPURPOSE AND BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. THE PROPOSED ATTENTION POND UTILIZES STONE AND LANDSCAPING TO APPEAR SIMILAR TO THE NEARBY COMMUNITY GARDEN. IN ITS REVIEW, STAFF FOUND THIS PROPOSAL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C. THE H D R C VOTED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AND I'LL READ STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN FULL FOR THE RECORD. UH, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, UM, THAT CITY, UH, CITY PROCESS IS THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, WHO'S THE DIRECTOR OF OUR OFFICE, SHANNON MILLER, UPHOLD THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION IN REGARDS TO A PROJECT. SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WAS THOROUGHLY REVIEWED BY THE H D R C AT MULTIPLE HEARINGS. ALL LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. ULTIMATELY, THE H D R C VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT WITH STIPULATIONS BASED ON THE APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS, THE CITY POLICY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE H D R C. WHILE O H P STAFF EXPRESSED CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AND ITS CONFORMANCE TO THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, THE APPROPRIATE ACTION WAS TAKEN WHEN THE COMMISSION ACTION LETTER WAS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE H D R C RECOMMENDATION. THERE ARE, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'LL TAKE THOSE NOW. IF NOT, THEN I'LL STEP NOW. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DIOCESE? MANNA? YES. SO, UM, I BELIEVE EARLIER ON ONE OF THE SLIDES, YOU INDICATED THAT, UH, THERE WAS SOME INDICATIONS THAT THERE WAS, UH, YOU WEREN'T IN AGREEMENT, AND THEN, UH, THEN THERE WAS SOME CHANGES MADE TO BRING IT CLOSER TO AGREEMENT, SO YOU FINALLY APPROVED IT. WAS THAT LIKE A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREEMENT THEN THAT EVERYTHING, THERE WAS NO OTHER DISCUSSION FROM HR, UH, THE, UH, H R D C PERSPECTIVE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE GOING WRONG OR, OR NEEDED, NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS OR WAS THERE COMPROMISE, I GUESS IS WHERE I WAS GOING FOR WHAT IS THAT THE CITY'S POSITION VERSUS WHAT IS THAT [00:55:01] THEY, THEY FINALLY COMMIT TO? UH, YES SIR. SO, UM, SOMEWHAT OF A TWO PART QUESTION. UM, FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT AND OUR RECOMMENDATION, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS MORE OR LESS OF A, THIS IS WHAT'S REQUIRED TO MEET THE GUIDELINES. UM, AND STAFF WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED IN REGARDS TO MASSING AND HEIGHT. UH, THE COMMISSION WHO, UH, OFTEN TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION SPECIFIC SITE INSTANCES. THE COMMISSION WAS THE BODY THAT WAS ACTING IN THE SENSE OF LOOKING FOR A COMPROMISE OR ABLE TO WORK ON, ON THE MASSING. UH, SO I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFIED A ROOF FORM AND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT TO BE APPROPRIATE. UM, FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS CONSISTENTLY REDUCE THE HEIGHT ON TRAIL. SO ULTIMATELY, SO THERE, THERE WAS A, THE, THE TWO STORY DIALOGUE VERSUS THE THREE STORY DIALOGUE. SO, SO BASICALLY THE CAP SAYS IT SHOULD BE TWO FOOT AND OR OR TWO STORIES. AND THEN YOU ACCEPTED THAT THE FRONT B TWO STORIES AND THE BACK HAPPY THREE STORIES NOW IS FINE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, NOT QUITE, NO. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR TWO STORIES ON TRAIL. THE COMMISSION TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT ULTIMATELY THE COMMISSION WENT WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR AN INCREASED HEIGHT AT THREE STORIES. UH, NOW WHAT WAS SEEN IN FINAL APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT HAS MODIFIED AND REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES ON TRAIL AND THEN A PORTION OF ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON TRAIL, UH, TO MEET THE COMMISSION MORE SO HALFWAY. AND THEN ON THE DENSITY PIECE, UM, YOU HAD THE AMOUNT OF MASSING THAT WAS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. UM, I WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT ALLOWED VERSUS THE AMOUNT THAT WENT OVER? I GUESS WHY I INTERRUPT, UM, COREY EDWARDS, DEPUTY OSA PRESERVATION OFFICER, UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WAS CLEAR. IT IS ON, I JUST NEED TO STAND CLOSER. I DON'T THINK IT WAS CLEAR ON THE, UH, MAP, BUT THERE'S, UH, TWO, UM, ON THAT MAP. NOT ALL OF THE, UH, ENTIRE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SEE HERE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, SO ONLY THE SOUTHERN HALF, UM, FACING TRAIL IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WOULD BE, UH, REVIEWED UNDER THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH FACING SATCH ARE ALSO IN THE PURVIEW OF THE H C R C, BUT UNDER RIO, NOT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES COULD ONLY REALLY BE RECOMMENDED FOR THE SOUTHERNMOST BUILDINGS AT BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX ONLY. UM, I GENERALLY, YES. I MEAN THE ACTUAL LINE IS SOMEWHERE INTERSECTING BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR BUILDINGS, THREE AND FOUR WERE NOT REVIEWED TO BE WITHIN THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THEY WERE, UM, TRAIL WAS ALWAYS KIND OF VIEWED AS THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE AREA THAT WAS RIO TREATED MORE AS FRONTAGE. YES. AND THEN THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE DENSITY, UH, ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THERE WAS QUESTIONS OR THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UH, I GUESS COVERAGE THERE, UH, THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE LOT FEATURE FOOTPRINT. UM, I DON'T HAVE WHAT THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WAS GREATER THAN 50%. AND IS THAT ALSO THE SAME DIALOGUE WITH REGARDS TO, TO THE, UM, THE, THE FRONT HALF BEING UNDER THAT GUIDELINE AND BACK HALF NOT, OR IS THAT ACROSS THE WHOLE PROPERTY REGARDLESS? UH, THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY STANDARDS WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE LOT COVERAGE. THANK YOU, RAGMAN. I I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. KIMBERLY, ON THE, UM, SITE PLAN THAT YOU THERE, UM, NEXT TO BUILDING ONE, IT SHOWS MULTIFAMILY ON BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES? THOSE ARE ONE STORY STRUCTURES ON SATCH, CORRECT? YES, YES MA'AM. THOSE ARE ONE STORY STRUCTURES. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR STAFF, ANA? YES. ANA, CAN YOU STEP US THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS AND WHO HAS STANDING TO APPEAL THE H DRCS RECOMMENDATIONS? I WANTED TO GET SOME BACKGROUND AS TO HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS AND WHO HAS A STANDING TO APPEAL? UH, YES, I'LL, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION JUST SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THE RIGHT, RIGHT. I I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND WHO HAS STANDINGS TO BRING THE APPEAL TO THE DECISION AS A RESULT OF THE STATE LAW THIS PAST YEAR. UM, THERE ARE TWO TIERS OF APPEALS. UH, THE ONE THAT IS, UH, RELATED TO THE APPEAL TODAY, THAT MEANS THAT PROPERTY, A PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT, UM, OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN, UH, SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RELATED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THIS APPLICATION DOES MEET THAT VER THAT THAT REQUIREMENT AND THE STATE LAW ALSO CHANGED IT TO 20 DAYS. SO THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT IT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THAT DECISION, [01:00:01] AND THEY DID MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU. IAN, GO AHEAD. IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IN THE RIO OVERLAY? YES. OKAY. AND, UM, IS THERE A, A, A PLA THAT'S BEING PROCESSED WITH THIS THAT WOULD HAVE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND POSSIBLY REDUCE, UH, HOW MUCH LOT IS GONNA BE LEFT OVER? IS THAT IN ANY WAY INCORPORATED IN THIS APPLICATION OR, UH, I CAN'T NECESSARILY SPEAK TO THAT. UM, IF THERE'S A PLAT CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW, I MEAN THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, YES. BUT, BUT IF, IF, WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IS YOU HAVE A 50% RULE IF SOMEBODY PROCESSES A PLATT THAT REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IS A 50% APPLIED AFTER THAT OR BEFORE THAT WOULD BE APPLIED THROUGH THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION PROCESS. SO REGARDLESS IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO MEET THAT. UH, SO, UM, IN THEORY IT WOULD BE BEFORE THAT WAY THE APPLICANT COULD APPLY OUR GUIDELINES TO THEIR DESIGN, UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE INTENT OF OUR GUIDELINES PRIOR TO GOING THROUGH, UH, ANY TYPE OF REGULATORY REVIEW WITH D S D. OKAY. AND FINALLY, WHATEVER WAS LOADED ON THESE COMPUTERS, MINE'S GONE IF SOMEONE COULDN'T COME BACK UP HERE. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE MADE A PACKET, UH, FOR YOU, SO THAT WAY YOU CAN PASS IT ALONG AS SOON AS YOU GO THROUGH. IT'S ABOUT 58 PAGES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU. NEXT WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, DO THEIR PRESENTATION AFTER THE APPLICANT WILL BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. NOW, I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER, UH, WHO'S ALL GOING TO BE PART OF THE APPLICANT HERE, BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU CAN'T, YOU DON'T WANNA NAME A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. SO WHO'S GONNA BE SPEAKING PRIMARILY FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, THE APPLICANT, MR. HERTZ AND MYSELF ON BEHALF OF MR. HERTZ. MY NAME IS MARK CANNAN. UM, MY ADDRESS, I'M SORRY. YES, YOU'RE GO AHEAD AND YOU, YOU'RE GOING ALL RIGHT. AND, AND MY, MY, I MY OFFICE IS AT 700 NORTH ST. MARY'S STREET, SUITE 1500. MR. HERTZ IS THE APPLICANT WHO IS, HAS STANDING TO MAKE THE APPEAL GIVEN HIS LOCATION, YOU KNOW, WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RIGHT. AND HE'S STANDING HERE NEXT TO YOU AND HE WILL HE BE GIVING ANY TESTIMONY WHILE WE'RE SPEAKING? YEAH, I, I WILL MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND THEN, UM, MR. HERTZ WILL SUPPLEMENT THEM WITH SOME . VERY GOOD. THEN WE'RE GONNA NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE APPLICANT. MY NAME IS JOHN HERTZ, 1 25 ANASTASIA PLACE. VERY MUCH. AND, AND AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, EXCUSE ME, AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FOLKS HERE FROM THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO, UH, SPEAK. THEY, THEY MAY ADDRESS CERTAIN OF THE ISSUES THAT, THAT ARE WITHIN THE APPEAL, UH, AS WELL AS GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF, OF THEIR, UM, FEELINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER. UH, BUT AS FOR MYSELF, I JUST WANT TO START AND, AND I'M SURE THAT, THAT EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR, UH, WITH THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TO SOME EXTENT. IT'S BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 2 81 ON THE WEST SAN ANTONIO RIVER ON THE EAST, AND BRACKENRIDGE GOLF COURSE ON THE SOUTH. NOW, IT WAS DESIGNATED HISTORIC IN 2010 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND, AND I MENTION THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I SUSPECT THAT SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO'LL BE TALKING AFTER ME ARE, ARE GOING TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT CHARACTER. I, I THINK THAT WHAT CITY COUNCIL DID 10 YEARS AGO SPEAKS VOLUMES IN AND OF ITSELF. THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WAS DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 10 YEARS AGO. AND I'LL QUOTE FROM IT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CHARACTERIZED BY NARROW WINDING STREETS OR WINDING TREE SHADED STREETS, AND A COLLECTION OF EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESIDENCES, INCLUDING BUNGALOWS, TUDOR, REVIVAL COTTAGES, AND MINIMAL TRADITIONAL HOUSES. THE CITY COUNCIL WENT ON NOTING THAT THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION ITSELF WAS BASED ON THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF LOCATION, DESIGN, MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP, UH, AND ITS CHARACTER AS AN ESTABLISHED AND GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD UNITED BY ARCHITECTURAL STYLE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT. NOW IT'S COLON, EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS DESIGNATED HISTORICAL, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL FOUND IMPORTANT 10 YEARS AGO AND IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TODAY. EXCUSE ME. NOW I'M GOING TO GO [01:05:01] THROUGH CERTAIN VARIOUS SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO AND IN DISREGARD OF THE GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IN A RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY AREA. HOWEVER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THIS PROJECT IS SO CONTRARY TO AND DESTRUCTIVE OF ALL THOSE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE THE BASIS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION 10 YEARS AGO. STARTING WITH THE SCALE AND THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, UH, IT'S SIGNIFICANT THAT IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA, AND IT'S, IT'S CERTAINLY DESCRIBED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF IT WAS DESCRIBED. 95% OF THE STRUCTURES ARE ONE STORY AND NO BUILDING EXCEEDS TWO STORIES. NOW IN THE PROPOSAL, 80% OF THE PROJECT IS THREE STORIES, INCLUDING A PORTION WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. NOW, THE SITE PLAN WAS SHOWN HERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, AND, UH, I THINK THAT THE, THE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE PORTIONS THAT WERE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE PORTIONS OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. NOW, THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICT'S READ AS FOLLOWS. HEIGHT AND OVERALL SCALE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH NEARBY HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT OF THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS BY MORE THAN ONE STORY. NOW, AS WAS NOTED IN THE PRESENTATION ALREADY BY STAFF ON TRAIL STREET WERE BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX STAND. THE ONE BUILDING HAS UNITS THAT ARE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDINGS BEHIND THAT BETWEEN THERE AND UCH UCH ARE ALL THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT. BUT IF WE ARE ONLY FOCUSED ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ITSELF, WE'VE GOT UNITS THAT ARE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT, UH, WHICH IS GREATER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE GUIDELINES. UH, I ALSO WANT TO GO BACK TO WITH THE COMMENT IN THE GUIDELINES THAT THE HEIGHT AND OVERALL SCALE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH NEARBY HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS THAT, UH, THE NEARBY HISTORIC BUILDING, ESSENTIALLY IMMEDIATELY ACROSS TRAIL STREET IS THE ZAMBRANO HOUSE. THE ZAMBRANO HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1780. IT WAS THE FIRST HOUSE BUILT NORTH OF THE ALAMO. IT'S THE OLDEST HOUSE IN BEXAR COUNTY, AND IT'S A STONE'S THROW FROM THIS MASSIVE OVERSIZED DEVELOPMENT GOING UP ON TRAIL STREET. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CONSISTENT WITH NEARBY HISTORIC BUILDINGS, WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THE ZIMBRANO HOUSE AND SEE THAT THIS PROJECT NOT ONLY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF HOUSES IN THE AREA, IT'S TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEARBY ZAMBRANO HOUSE. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT IN THE U D C UNDER THE BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES IN RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS, IT RE IT CITES THAT NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD REINFORCE ESTABLISHED BUILDING TRADITIONS AND RESPECT THE CONTEXTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS. A GENERAL SIMILARITY IN BUILDING HEIGHTS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A SENSE OF VISUAL CONTINUITY. NOW ON SSAT STREET, THE THREE STORY BUILDING WILL IMMEDIATELY ABUT THE TWO ONE STORY BUNGALOWS THAT I THINK THERE WAS ALREADY ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE TWO BUNGALOWS ON ATCH STREET, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE THREE STORY STRUCTURES. SO THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING IN THE RIO AREAS, A GENERAL SIMILARITY IN BUILDING HEIGHTS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT BEING ENCOURAGED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. THINK IN FACT IT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THAT CONTINUITY. NEXT ISSUE, LOT COVERAGE. NOW THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE SIZE OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA. NOW THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT EXCEEDS THAT, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED, AND, AND THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE H D R C SAID, STAFF FINDS THAT GIVEN THE LACK OF AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK PATTERN FOR THIS LOT, ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE IS APPROPRIATE. [01:10:01] NOW, FIRST OF ALL, TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT FINDING IN FACT WE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER HERE. HOW MUCH OVER 50% IS IT? NOW WE CAN LOOK AT THAT SITE PLAN AND COMMON SENSE COULD TELL US IT'S SOMETHING IN EXCESS OF 75% COVERAGE. NOW, IF YOU ONLY LOOKED AT THE BUILDINGS ON TRAIL AND CONSIDERED THOSE AS THE ONLY BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, JUST EYEING THAT COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL US IT'S PROBABLY ABOVE 85%. SO THE, THE ABSENCE OF A FIGURE, BOTH IN THE REPORT OF THE H D R C AND TODAY, I THINK IS TELLING IN AND OF ITSELF. NOW, THE OTHER THING IS THE FAILURE TO JUSTIFY THAT EXCESS LOT COVERAGE. I'LL GO BACK TO THE FINDING F FINDS THAT THE LACK OF AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK PATTERN FOR THIS LOT ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE IS APPROPRIATE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE NONSENSE. IT'S A NON-SEQUITUR THAT HAS NOTHING, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTIFYING THE MASS THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED OR PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED THERE. I MEAN, COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY ARE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNDEVELOPED LOTS. AND ALSO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PRE SHADED WINDING ROADS. ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN THROUGH RIVER ROAD KNOWS THERE IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK PATTERN THROUGHOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK PATTERN IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR COVERAGE 75, 80 5% OF THE UNDEVELOPED LOTS. NOW IT'S JUST SO AT THIS POINT WE HAVE EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND MASSIVE LOT COVERAGE, UH, WHICH ARE BEING IGNORED, NOT NECESSARILY BY THE STAFF BELOW BY THE H D R C, BUT OR BY THE H B O, BUT CERTAINLY IGNORED BY THE H D R C IN APPROVING THIS PROJECT. BUT THERE ARE ALSO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE OF CONCERN. THE FINDINGS BEFORE THE H D R C, UH, WERE THAT THE STRUCTURE ON TRAIL THAT IS BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX FEATURE FRONT LOADED GARAGES. THIS IS THE READING FROM THE H D R C REPORT. THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. IN FACT, THE H THE STAFF BEFORE THE H D R C DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THE EXCLUSION OR BASED ON THE INCLUSION OF STREET FACING, FRONT LOADED GARAGES AND, AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL NOT PRESENT WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD HISTORICAL DISTRICT AND INAPPROPRIATE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. SO THERE'S A THIRD PRO, THIRD MAJOR PROBLEM. NOW, FURTHER IN THE REPORTS, THE H D R C, IT WAS NOTED ELEMENTS SUCH AS FRONT PORCHES OR DISTINCT ENTRANCE. MASSING HAS NOT BEEN INCAR INCARNATED INTO THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. THESE TWO ELEMENTS ARE FOUND CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND SHOULD BE INCORPORATED. NO PORCHES. YOU DRIVE THROUGH THE, THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU SEE BUNGALOW HOUSE PORCH ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THE YOU, THE H D R C FOUND THAT ELEMENT WAS JUST NOT PRESENT. AND OF COURSE, YOU HAVE THE FRONT LOADING GARAGES, WHICH ARE JUST IMPO. THEY'RE NOT THERE IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT AND IN NOT COMPLIANCE, NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, UH, GUIDELINES OR REQUIREMENTS. SO YOU HAVE EXCESSIVE AND MASSIVE LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND GUIDELINES, IGNORED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING PATTERNS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO IT IS CONTRARY TO THE U D C HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND GOD, I COULD FIND MY PAGE HERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE U D C, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND URBAN DESIGN UNDER THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING, TO STRENGTHEN CIVIC PRIDE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION [01:15:01] TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT, AND STRENGTHEN THE UNIQUE DESIGN CHARACTER OF INDIVIDUAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AND TO MAINTAIN A GENERALLY COMPATIBLE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF BOTH HISTORIC AND MODERN STRUCTURES THROUGH COMPLEMENTARY SCALE FORM, COLOR, PROPORTION, TEXTURE, AND MATERIAL. THOSE OVERALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN IGNORED. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, VERY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, HEIGHT AND MASSING HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND DISREGARDED. AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE, THIS BOARD SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES SET OUT BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY MADE THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND PRESERVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY DENYING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AGAINST HER OWN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, FORCED TO, BECAUSE OF THE VOTE OF THE H D R C THAT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. AND I BELIEVE MR. HERTZ WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME COMMENTS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION THIS AFTERNOON. I KNOW THESE THINGS ARE SOMETIMES HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY'RE TALKED ABOUT IN ABSTRACT TERMS, AND WE MAKE REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC CHAPTERS OF OR ARTICLES OF THE U D C. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME VISUAL IMAGES OF WHAT THIS PROJECT REALLY LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT ME, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO IT FOREVER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO START AND SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT RIVER ROAD. UM, MAYBE YOU'VE DRIVEN THROUGH IT, PERHAPS NOT. THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO DRIVE THROUGH IT UNLESS YOU PURPOSELY GO THERE. UM, IT'S A SMALL AREA. IT'S NINE SQUARE BLOCKS. IT HAS ALMOST 130 INDIVIDUAL HOUSES ON IT. THE SITE ITSELF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, UM, IS, UH, BEING LOCATED ACTUALLY CONSISTED OF EIGHT HOUSES. AND, UM, IT WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY 24. SO THIS PROJECT ALONE IS GOING TO INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK IN RIVER ROAD BY 25%, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT KIND OF AN IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON TRAFFIC NOISE, ET CETERA. SECONDLY, THE ORIGINAL EIGHT HOUSES THAT WERE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT HAVE ALL BEEN DEMOLISHED, UM, CONSTITUTED ABOUT 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING THIS PROJECT HAS OVER 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING. THIS IS A 1000% INCREASE IN VOLUME. NEXT, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, AS WE MENTIONED, IS EXCESSIVE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE TWO STORY AND THREE STORY ISSUES, UM, AND WHAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SAY FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND FOR THE RIO DISTRICT, THE RIO OVERLAY AS WELL. SO UNDER BOTH, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, OR THE PORTION PROBABLY THAT'S IN THE RIO OVERLAY, THE BUILDING SHOULD RESPOND TO A MANNER THAT REINFORCES THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ARE SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS. NEXT, PLEASE. SO I KNOW IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ARCHITECTS LIKE I AM TO LOOK AT PLANS AND REALLY UNDERSTAND THE THREE DIMENSIONALITY, BUT HERE'S A BUILDING. ALL OF YOU KNOW THE ONE STOP CENTER THERE, IT IS DRAWN AND ABOVE. IT IS THE SITE PLAN. THEY'RE BOTH AT THE SAME SCALE. SO THERE'S THE ONE STOP CENTER SUPERIMPOSED ON THE SITE. THE HEIGHT OF THE ONE STOP CENTER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY TWO STORIES, IS APPROXIMATE TO THE HEIGHT OF THE THREE STORY APARTMENTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT. THIS THING IS MONSTROUSLY HUGE. YOU CAN IMAGINE BUILDING THIS BUILDING IN KING WILLIAM OR MONTE VISTA OR ANY OTHER HISTORIC AREA IN THE CITY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE UP IN ARMS. WELL, WE ARE TOO. NEXT PLEASE. HERE IS A DRAWING SHOWING THE FACADE OF THE TRAIL STREET. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT OF THE EIGHT UNITS, FIVE OF THEM ARE TWO STORY AND THREE OF THEM ARE THREE STORY. ACTUALLY, WHEN THEY DID THIS PRESENTATION AND ACTUALLY GOT THE FINAL APPROVAL, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE STATE OF THE DRAWINGS. THEY WEREN'T EVEN COMPLETE. AND YET THE H D R C VOTED TO APPROVE IT AND TO GIVE THEM A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. SO THERE [01:20:01] ARE UNITS WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY THAT EXCEED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE, UM, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE U D C. NEXT PLEASE HERE IS ATCH, WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THE RIVER OVERLAY. UM, I'VE INSERTED THE TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO THE ELEVATION PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPER. AND YOU COULD SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN SCALE TO THE RIGHT. UM, IS A PROJECT FROM DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO THAT'S VERY SIMILAR, A SINGLE STORY HOUSE AGAINST A THREE STORY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. YOU COULD SEE THE EXCESS, UM, DEFERENTIAL AND SCALE. NEXT, YOU KNOW, THIS THING IS GOING TO CAST. I KNOW THAT THE, THE U D C DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR PROTECTION FOR SUNLIGHT, UM, ACCESSIBILITY LIKE IN SCANDINAVIA. BUT I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU AN IDEA. THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS TO THE EAST OF THE EXISTING HOUSES, WILL CAST A SHADOW THE WHOLE WINTER TIME UNTIL ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE IN DARKNESS ALL WINTER LONG DUE TO THE HEIGHT, THE EXCESS HEIGHT. THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT SHOULD STEP DOWN IN SCALE SO THAT THERE'S A TRANSITION JUST AS THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES MANDATE NEXT. SO THE SCALE AND THE HEIGHT ARE PROBLEMATIC, BUT THERE ARE SOME ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES THAT THE U D C ALSO AND THE HISTORIC GUIDANCE ALSO, UM, ADDRESS. AND ONE OF THEM IS WINDOWS AND THEIR LAYOUT. I WANNA SHOW YOU WHAT THIS PROJECT REALLY LOOKS LIKE. IT IS A, A, UM, A HODGEPODGE OF WINDOW LAYOUTS. YOU COULD SEE THEY'RE PURPOSEFULLY MISALIGNED. I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, THIS THE WAY WINDOWS ARE PLACED IN BUILDINGS WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT HAS A WHOLE EXPRESSION THAT IS, UM, THE ANTITHESIS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT, PLEASE. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS OTHER PROJECT THAT'S BEING COMPLETED WITHIN RIVER ROAD THAT'S ON LINDELL, UM, THAT IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE. I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT HOW THE WINDOWS ARE, UM, PLACED IN THIS BUILDING. THERE'S ACTUALLY A VERTICAL ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE WINDOWS. THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE. THE ISSUE OF PORCHES, WHICH THE O H P AND H D R C ALL COMMENTED ABOUT, UM, IN GREAT DETAIL THROUGH ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD, INCLUDING DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS. UM, THESE ARE WHAT PORCHES LOOK LIKE IN RIVER ROAD. THEY'RE ACTUAL PLACES WHERE YOU CAN SIT ON THEM IN YOUR ROCKER AND ENGAGE YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE WALKING DOWN THE STREET. HERE IS THE PORCH IN THIS PROJECT. THERE IS AN OVERHANG OF THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR ABOVE THE GARAGES ALONG TRAIL STREET. AND THERE'S A SLIGHT NICHE THERE WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS. NOW THEY'VE PLACED A CHAIR, WHICH ACTUALLY FILLS UP ALL THE SPACE, AND YOU CAN BARELY GET BY TO GET THE DOOR, BUT I'M SORRY, A CHAIR DOES NOT A PORCH MAKE. THESE ARE PORCHES. THESE ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF PORCHES. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT O H P HAS COMMENTED ABOUT AND, UM, WERE REASONS FOR THEM RECOMMENDING NON-APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. NEXT, THE GARAGE DOORS, UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS STAFF TALKED ABOUT IT. UM, BASICALLY STAFF RECOMMENDED THE NON-APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT THAT THIS PROJECT IS, DOESN'T MERIT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 'CAUSE IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. AND YET H D R C DECIDED TO GRANT THEM A CERTIFICATE. WE MAINTAIN THAT THIS IS NOT THE PATTERN FOUND IN RIVER ROAD. THIS IS NOT SUBURBIA. THIS ISN'T THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE HOUSES WITH GARAGES IN THE FRONT. LIKE YOU FIND OUT IN LOOP FOUR 10. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE, MAYBE THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE GARAGES, BUT IF THEY DO THEIR SINGLE CAR AND THEY'RE ACCESSED ALONG THE SIDE OF THE, THE HOUSE IN THE BACK NEXT, THAT'S IT. SO, THANK YOU THERE. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR ORIAN? SO, UM, IN VERY DETAILED, UH, PRESENTATION BY THE WAY. SO IN YOUR, IN YOUR APPLICATION, UH, YOU'RE CITING TWO INCONSISTENCIES. ONE REGARDING THE HEIGHT AND THE OTHER REGARDING THE BUILDING TO LOT RATIO. UM, SO I'M TRYING TO [01:25:01] FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BRINGING UP ISSUES LIKE WINDOWS, PORCHES AND GARAGES, BUT THE, THE, THE MEAT OF YOUR, OF YOUR, UM, SUBMITTAL IS REGARDING HEIGHT AND BUILDING LOT RATIO. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT, THAT THOSE ARE THE TANGIBLE ITEMS THAT ARE IN, THAT YOU FEEL ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION BY THE ISSUE. WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE REFER TO AS ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS. OKAY. WHICH IS WHAT'S REFERRED AS IT'S REFERRED TO IN THE U D C. AND THEN THERE'S A BUILDING CALLED THE EIGHT 40 THAT'S NORTH OF HERE. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A MULTIFAMILY. AND, AND WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? ON, ON THE ONE THAT'S ON MULBERRY? I, I I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT PROJECT WHEN IT FIRST STARTED OUT WAS MUCH LARGER IN SCALE. AND THE DEVELOPERS OF THAT PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND I BELIEVE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, IT IS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY ACTUALLY ENGAGED THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A LONG PROCESS AND, UM, BROUGHT THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT, IT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE BEEN NINE STORIES. HOW TALL IS IT? HOW MANY STORIES? FOUR STORIES. FOUR STORIES. OKAY. SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF, OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA. SO YOU'RE IN THE RIVER ROAD, YOU HAVE RIVER ROAD IS IS A NICE LONG WINDING ROAD THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOME STREETS THAT, THAT STEM OFF OF IT, THIS AREA IN QUESTION. AND I'M, AND I'M AGAIN JUST TRYING TO GET A HANDLE OF, OF THIS IS, IT SEEMS TO BE, ITS ACCESS SEEMS TO BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE HOMES, UH, BECAUSE IT'S TRAIL STREET IS A DEAD END AND WE SUCH, IT APPEARS LIKE YOU COULD GO THROUGH THE PARK MAYBE AND KEEP GOING ONTO ALLISON. IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HE'S SATCH AND ALLISON IN THAT AREA? NO. BETWEEN SATCH AND RIVER ROAD, THEY ACTUALLY, THERE USED TO BE A, THERE USED TO A STREET, BUT THE CITY CLOSED IT. OKAY. AND, AND TRAIL STREET, I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF IT EVER WENT THROUGH, BUT THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN ATCH AND RIVER ROAD. IT GOES THROUGH ALLISON. YEAH, I'M, THAT GOES COMPLETELY THROUGH, I'M LOOKING AT AERIALS AND SOMETIMES WITH THE OVERLAYS IT'S HARD TO SEE IF IT'S TAKEN. AND, AND I WOULD MENTION THAT THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT YOU DESCRIBED ON MULBERRY, THAT THERE'S A BUFFER OF THE, THE EMPTY LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THE BUNGALOW HOUSES ON AND OTHER BUILDINGS BEFORE ONE REACHES IT. SO IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY A BUDDING AND IN THE DISTRICT AS, AS THE PROPOSAL IS. SO MY LINE OF QUESTIONING IS, IS I, I I, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE HISTORIC CUTS THROUGH AND WHEN I HEAR TESTIMONY FROM STAFF SAYING HOW THAT THEY'VE, THEY'VE LOWERED IT DOWN TO TWO STORIES ALONG TRAIL STREET AND KEPT THE THREE STORIES ALONG ATCH. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? NOT CORRECT. THERE, THERE'S STILL THE UNITS ON TRAIL STREET THAT ARE THREE STORIES. OKAY. 'CAUSE THE, THE PLAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CALLING OUT SEVEN OR EIGHT LOTS. ONE OF 'EM IS A DETENTION LOT. SO I'M, I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON HOW THE SITE PLAN FIT FITS INTO THE LOCK CONFIGURATION. THERE IS THIS, HERE'S A, HERE'S A DRAWING SHOWING WHAT TRAIL STREET FACADE LOOKS LIKE. THAT AS IT AS IT WAS APPROVED BY H D R C, YOU COULD SEE THAT THE THREE UNITS AT THE END ARE THREE STORIES HIGH. AND, AND THEN FINALLY, UM, A LOT OF YOUR EXAMPLES WERE FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. DO YOU HAVE ANY MULTIFAMILY COMPONENTS THAT ARE MORE THAN DUPLEXES? SOMETHING LIKE LARGER THAN A QUADPLEX, PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE, THAT MIGHT BE MORE RELEVANT TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE? YES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, COULD YOU GO DOWN OR UP, UP THAT RIGHT, RIGHT THERE. THIS PROJECT, UM, IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IT'S EVEN MORE IN THE INTERIOR OF, OF RIVER ROAD, RIVER ROAD. RIVER ROAD. HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN THERE? THERE'S AN EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE ON THE FAR RIGHT AND THERE ARE SIX UNITS WITHIN THAT PROJECT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S THE LARGEST MULTI-FAMILY. YEAH. BECAUSE PART PART OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, THIS IS ON MF 33. UM, WHERE YOU AS THAT IS AS WELL. OKAY. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER. AND, AND THANK YOU. MAY I SAY ONE MORE THING? THE DIFFERENCE IS, UM, THIS DEVELOPER WAS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVENTUALLY. DID, DID Y'ALL SHOW UP TO THE H D R C MEETINGS, BY THE WAY? WERE WERE THERE A, A PRESENT? I'M JUST, I'M, I'M WONDERING IF, IF THERE WAS A, A, A PRESENCE AT THE MEETINGS. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN VERY DILIGENT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR TRYING, TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THIS PROJECT. BUT IT, IT'S JUST, UM, GONE NOWHERE IN TERMS OF THANK YOU SUPPLEMENTING THAT. THIS IS MY FIRST APPEARANCE IN WITH CONNECT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT THAT, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN TRYING TO WORK IT OUT. I'VE, I'VE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED UNTIL WE GOT [01:30:01] TO THIS POINT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE DIOCESE? KEANU? KEANU? YEAH. YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA I USED WHEN I GOLFED. I USED TO GOLF AT BECKENRIDGE, AND SO I'M REAL FAMILIAR WITH IT AND I'VE, I'VE KNOWN SOME PEOPLE WHO'VE LIVED IN, IN RIVER ROAD. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY STILL LIVE THERE, THAT WAS MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT, UM, ALWAYS INTERESTS ME IS A HISTORICAL ASPECT OF HOW WE GOT HERE. SO I I RECALL THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT PARTICULAR, UH, AREA HAD EIGHT HOUSES AT ONE TIME AND THEY WERE DEMOLISHED. WHY? WELL, THE, UM, THIS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE RIVER. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS RIVER ROW BECAME A HISTORIC DISTRICT. I UNDERSTAND IT HAPPENED BEFORE, BUT GIMME SOME ASPECT OF WHY THEY WERE DEMOLISHED. I MEAN, WERE, THEY RUN DOWN, UH, UN UNKEPT, UH, I'M SURE YOU HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE REAL FAMILIAR WITH, UH, WITH THE PROPERTIES. WELL, I'VE, I'VE, I'VE MOVED TO RIVER ROAD IN 1984, SO, UM, I ACTUALLY TRIED TO BUY THE HOUSE THAT WAS NEXT TO ME, JUST ACROSS THE ASAKIA. UM, WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS VERY POLITICALLY CONNECTED AND HAS LOTS OF MONEY, UM, WAS ABLE TO ACQUIRE ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND EITHER DEMOLISH THEM, DEMOLISH THEM BY NEGLECT, ALLOWED THEM TO BURN DOWN AND THEN DEMOLISH THEM AND THEY HAVE BEEN ERADICATED. OKAY, THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ELIAS? ANYONE? ALRIGHT, UH, LET'S SEE. THAT'S COMPLETES YOUR PORTION. SO NOW WE'RE GONNA BE LISTENING TO NOW'S THE OWNER, UH, ROBERT PRICE PROPERTY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, MY NAME IS JAMES MCKNIGHT, 1 1 2 EAST PEON HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT, UM, I WANNA SAY ABOUT THIS. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT AS LONG AS THE OWNERS HAVE OR THE, THE RESIDENTS, BUT I THINK THAT A LARGE PART OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH CONTEXT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER A LOT OF THE CONTEXT, AND I'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT. BUT, UM, ONE OF THE CONTEXT THAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT IS THE STANDARD FOR REVIEW OR APPROVAL. DID H D R C AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER MAKE AN INCORRECT DECISION OR INTERPRETATION? IMPROVING THE PROJECT'S DESIGN AN INCORRECT DECISION. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION THAT WAS THERE WAS AN ERROR. THE PROCESS MATTERS. I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT YOUR, YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR AUTHORITY. YOU GUYS KNOW, YOU MEN AND WOMEN UP THERE KNOW HOW, WHAT AUTHORITY YOU HAVE AS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT I DO WANNA POINT OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS. WE HAVE STAFF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF THAT ARE TRAINED IN THAT. WE HAVE H D R C MEMBERS THAT ARE, THAT HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE PROCESS AND THE GUIDELINES, WHICH WERE FOLLOWED. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIMPLY DOESN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. THEY DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME, BUT WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND THE PROCESS WAS CORRECT AND IT WAS DONE RIGHT. THE QUESTION IS, WAS THERE AN ERROR? NO, THERE IS NO ERROR HERE, BUT A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REALLY. SO NEXT, THE STANDARD FOR REVIEW, LOOKING AT THE, THE WAY THAT THE U D C DESCRIBES THE PROCESS IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. SO CONSIDER THE CURRENT NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WHETHER THE PLANS WILL BE REASONABLE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CARRY OUT. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT H C R C MEMBERS LOOK AT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER THEMSELVES. IT'S NOT JUST GUIDELINES. APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY, SHALL AS REVIEW IS IN RELATION TO REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY. THE SHALL IS NOT, WE SHALL FOLLOW EVERY GUIDELINE THEY'RE GUIDELINES. THE SHALL IS THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE USED BY STAFF AND BY H D R C MEMBERS IN OBSERVING WHETHER OR NOT WE MEET THE SPIRIT OF THAT. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE, THAT MUST BE LOOKED AT, BUT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. THEY'RE NOT STANDARDS. THE APPLICATION SHALL BE REVIEWED FOR CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL RULES AND PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE GUIDELINES. APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED IF IN GENERAL, CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES, DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION BY CITY MANAGER OR CITY MANAGER DESIGNEE MAY BE BASED ON ANY, ANY INCONSISTENCY WITH THE GUIDELINES. SO YOU CAN DENY BASED ON SOME KIND OF INCONSISTENCY. BUT FOR APPROVAL, WE'RE LOOKING FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT WHAT THE H D R C MEMBERS DID. [01:35:01] NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THE APPLICANT MUST MEET ALL THE GUIDELINES. WE'RE LOOKING FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LOOK FOR. THE U D C ITSELF DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN A GUIDELINE AND A STANDARD. IF YOU LOOK AT DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES, A GUIDELINE IS SOMETHING YOU LOOK TO. A STANDARD IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO MEET. IF THESE WERE CLEAR STANDARDS TO BE MET, THEN H D R C WOULDN'T HAVE THE LATITUDE THAT IT DOES. THE PURPOSE OF THEM H D R C MEMBERS IS TO TAKE ALL THOSE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE ZONING, THE T C I DRAINAGE. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE THE GUIDELINES. TAKE 'EM ALL INTO ACCOUNT AND THEY GET TO INTERPRET WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THEM. THE PRINCIPLE, IT'S BEEN STATED, THE PRINCIPLES WERE IGNORED. THEY WEREN'T IGNORED. THEY WERE LOOKED AT IN DEPTH AND DECIDED THAT YES, WE DO MEET THEM. AND WHEN I TALK ABOUT IN DEPTH, I MEAN IN DEPTH. WE HAD NINE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THREE H D R C HEARINGS JUST TO GET, UH, CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. ONCE WE GOT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, THAT GIVES US THE, THE RIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT DESIGN TO SAY, OKAY, NOW WE'RE GONNA SPEND MONEY ON IT, REAL MONEY ON THIS. WE'RE GONNA HIRE THE ARCHITECTS, MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. SO WE HAVE THAT IN MIND TO SAYING, ALL RIGHT, WE WE'RE, WE'RE APPROVED FOR THAT. WE COME FOR FINAL AND WE START GETTING MORE AND MORE DESIGN CHANGES. BUT WE MADE THOSE CHANGES. WE MADE THE CHANGES TO FIVE MORE H D R C HEARINGS. EVERY TIME THERE WAS A D R C MEETING, MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD H D R C MEETING, THERE WERE CHANGES. WE, WE INCREMENTALLY MOVED EVERY TIME IT WAS SAID THAT, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS WORKED WITH US. NO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN DEMANDING WHAT THEY WANT FROM US. WE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN MOVING, HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET DOWN TO SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE THAT THE H D R C MEMBERS WOULD APPROVE, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED. WE WEREN'T LOOKING FOR THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TO APPROVE OUR PROJECT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR H D R C BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR PURVIEW. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE EXPERTS IN. THAT WAS THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL THAT WAS DONE. AND SO ONCE WE HAD THAT, WE KNEW, OKAY, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE UP TO. BUT FOR INSTANCE, TRAIL STREET, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE TWO STORY UNITS. THERE WERE TWO STORY UNITS IN, UM, BUILDING SIX THREE STORY UNITS AND BUILDING FIVE. SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED, SAYING, YES, GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. AND YET WE STILL HAD TO COME BACK AND LOWER THOSE TWO BUILDINGS DOWN AGAIN IN THE COMMISSION ACTION. WHEN WE, WE GOT THAT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, THEY SAID, YOU NEED TO INCREASE THE SETBACK ALONG TRAIL STREET, INCREASE YOUR SETBACK ALONG THE ASAKIA. OKAY? WE, WE HANDLED THOSE THINGS. WE DID WHAT WAS ASKED OF US. WE GOT THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. WE DID THOSE THINGS. WE, EVEN IN THE YELLOW, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WERE, THAT KEPT COMING UP OVER AND OVER. WE HAD MEETINGS WITH T C I AND O H P TOGETHER TO SEE WHAT COULD WORK FOR DRAINAGE IN THE ASA. WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS THAT MOST OF THE SITE IS CONTAINED IN, UM, THE RUNOFF IS IN CISTERNS AND IMPERVIOUS PAVING. IT GETS CAPTURED, IT GETS TAKEN THE DETENTION POND ALONG ATCH STREET AND THEN RELEASED ON ATCH STREET. WE HAVE NO PART OF THE ASAKIA IN OUR DRAINAGE PLAN, BUT REALLY THAT IS SOMETHING FOR T C I THAT'S REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE PURVIEW OF H D R C. BUT I POINT THAT OUT TO SAY WE KEPT CHANGING OVER AND OVER AND OVER. AND EVERY TIME H D R C GOT AB BITE AT THE APPLE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE MET THOSE GUIDELINES. HERE'S CONTEXT. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT CONTEXT. THAT'S A RIVER ROAD TO THE SOUTH R FOUR, YOU CAN SEE. AND IT KEEPS GOING DOWN HERE. THAT'S RIVER ROAD. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST STARK THAT I CAN MAKE IT, THAT WE ARE NOT WITHIN RIVER ROAD. THE THE PROPERTY, THE, THE PROJECT THAT THEY POINTED TO, CAN I FINISH? THERE WAS A PROJECT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS BUILDING THOSE UNITS. WE ARE ON THE EDGE, THIS PART RIGHT HERE, THIS EDGE RIGHT THERE THAT IS THE PART THAT'S ZONE OR HAS A HISTORIC OVERLAY. THIS HAS A RIO, WE'RE ON THE EDGE. THIS IS ALL MF 33. THIS IS COMMERCIAL RIGHT HERE. THIS PROJECT RIGHT THERE, THAT'S THE MULTIFAMILY UNIT. THERE'S A PARKING LOT THERE AND THERE'S OUR MULTIFAMILY UNIT. THE CONTEXT HERE IS ZONING. THE CONTEXT IS THE EDGE OF ST. MARY'S STREET. THE CONTEXT IS OTHER MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE NORTH OF US. THOSE WERE ALL TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN H D R C REVIEWED OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS JUST A MORE CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE ZONING THAT YOU CAN SEE. WE HAVE THE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE NEXT TO US HERE ARE BOTH ZONED MULTIFAMILY AT ANY MOMENT THEY COULD PUT MULTIFAMILY, THEY COULD PUT A DIFFERENT PRODUCT ON THERE IF THEY WANTED TO, RIGHT? RIGHT NEXT TO US HERE, THIS IS THE THREE STORE UNIT AREA. WE'RE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. THIS IS NOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT THERE. THERE'S TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. ALL OF THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR CONTEXT, [01:40:05] THAT'S A VIEW FROM SATCH. I'M STANDING ON SATCH STREET WITH THE, THE BUILDING, OUR BUILDING RIGHT BEHIND US. THAT'S PART OF OUR CONTEXT AS WELL. WE LOWERED, SO WHEN WE GOT APPROVED, UH, CONCEPTUALLY, THOSE WERE ALL THREE STORY UNITS, BUT WE THOUGHT WE WERE COMFORTABLE HAVING THAT THE WHOLE WAY. SO WHEN WE GET TO GET FINAL APPROVAL, WE STILL HAD TO LOWER 'EM. THE REASON THEY WEREN'T COMPLETED AT THAT, BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THAT THE APPROPRIATE, WHAT WE WERE APPROVED FOR, WHICH WAS THREE STORY UNITS ACROSS THE THE TOP. BUT WHEN WE GOT DOWN TO THE VERY END, IT WAS CLEAR, WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE IT. WE HAVE TO LOWER IT TO TWO STORY. BUT BY THAT TIME, WE HAD ALREADY SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY ON THE ARCHITECTS. THE ARCHITECT SAID, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DO THIS ANYMORE. REDESIGN THE UNITS. SO WE SAID, OKAY, WE WILL AGREE TO TWO, TWO STORY AS LONG AS THE STIPULATION FROM STAFF SAYS IT HAS TO MATCH IN DESIGN. AND THEY SAID, YES, THAT'S FINE. AND THE H D R C MEMBERS SAID THAT, AND STAFF SAID THAT. SO THERE ARE STILL THREE STORY UNITS ALONG TRAIL STREET, BUT IT'S THREE, IT'S THREE, THREE STORY UNITS AND IT'S ABUTTING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THIS IS A LOOK DOWN TRAIL STREET THAT HAS THE TWO STORY UNITS IN THE BACK. THIS WAS THE THREE STORY UNIT THAT'S GONNA BE LOWERED DOWN TO TWO STORY. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS NOT AN OVERWHELMING STRUCTURE. I MEAN, ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT WAS SHOWN IS THE ONE STOP BUILDING HEIGHT EQUAL IN HEIGHT. THAT IS A SOLID MASS OF A BUILDING THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SHOW AS PART OF THE SITE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET RIGHT THERE, YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? A GARAGE, IT'S A, A GARAGE ENTRANCE OFF A TRAIL STREET. SO THEY SAY THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE GARAGE ENTRANCES. AND YET THAT'S ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM US. THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE. TRAIL STREET IS A LOW LOW HEIGHT AREA, WHICH IS WHY WE KEPT, WE LOWERED IT ON BUILDING SIX AND EVEN THOUGH WE WERE APPROVED FOR THREE STORY, WE KEPT LOWERING IT ON BUILDING FIVE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, H D R C HAD EIGHT HEARINGS TO LOOK AT THIS AND ULTIMATELY APPROVE IT. THIS IS SHOWING THE CHANGE IN DRAINAGE. THIS WAS THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN. HOW WE CHANGED IT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING MET WHAT T C I AND O H P HAD ASKED OF US. THIS IS SHOWING SOME OF THE ASAKIA THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT IT'S FINE TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO IT. AND WE'RE NOT, THE, THE DETENTION POND IN THE NORTH WAS DONE SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY GARDENS IN THE AREA AND CAN BE USED. SO IT MEETS THE, MEETS THE CODE FOR BEING MULTIPURPOSE. YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN STEP DOWN INTO THIS AND IT CAN BE USED AS A SMALL GARDEN AS A, IN ADDITION TO A DETENTION POND, EXACTLY AS THE CODE ASKS US TO DO. THIS IS JUST A SMALL PICTURE OF IT AS WELL. BUT IN ALL OF THIS CONTEXT OF THE SITE MATTERS, BUT THE PROCESS MATTERS AS WELL. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, THE HEIGHT, THESE ARE GUIDELINES, THESE ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS. H D R C IS ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES AND SAY, WE FEEL THAT IT STILL MEETS THE SPIRIT OF IT. STAFF LOOKS AT IT VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN THAN H D R C MEMBERS DO. STAFF LOOKS AT IT AND SAY, HERE'S HERE ARE THE THE GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF. AND YOU EITHER MEET 'EM OR YOU DON'T. AND I MEAN, I'VE SPOKEN WITH STAFF MANY TIMES ABOUT MANY DIFFERENT PROJECTS. THAT'S THE PROCESS. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO H D R C, THOSE MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY AND SAY, I CAN TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT. I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES EXACTLY, BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE A STANDARD. THAT'S THE HEIGHT, THE 50% COVERAGE. UM, I'VE DONE, WE'VE DONE THE CALCULATIONS HERE, WE'VE ADDED UP THE FOOTPRINTS. 'CAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN FAR IN OUR, IN, UM, DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS. WE'RE AT 43%. WE'RE NOT EVEN THAT 50% JUST SHOULDN'T EVEN APPLY TO US BECAUSE OUR FOOTPRINT IS AT 43% OF THE SIZE OF THE, THE LOT. WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, WHEN STAFF FIRST DID THAT CALCULATION, I THINK WE WERE AT HIGHER BECAUSE WE HAD HIGHER, WE HAD LARGER FOOTPRINTS AT THE TIME, BUT WE KEPT CHANGING THEM OVER TIME, OVER EIGHT H C R C HEARINGS. SO I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR, I'M LOOKING FOR THIS BOARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THIS PROCESS WAS SO IN DEPTH AND THAT GUIDELINES ARE GUIDELINES. THEY'RE NOT STANDARDS. AND THAT H D R C MEMBERS HAD SO MANY BITES AT THE APPLE AND ULTIMATELY IN THEIR EXPERTISE DETERMINED YES, IT FOLLOWS, THOSE STAFF RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL BASED ON ONE ISSUE. THAT WAS THE, THE, THE GARAGES ON TRAIL STREET. IT SAYS IT IN THE STAFF REPORT, RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE GARAGES ON TRAIL STREET. WE DIDN'T REALLY EVEN DISCUSS THAT AT H THE TWO H D R C HEARINGS THAT I WAS, IT DIDN'T COME UP, BUT THEY FELT, THOSE MEMBERS FELT IT WASN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN THE PROJECT. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF FOR DISAPPROVAL BASED ON THAT ONE ITEM IN [01:45:01] THE END DIDN'T MATTER TO H D R C BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR PURVIEW. BUT OTHERWISE, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. AND THE PROCESS NOW IS, WAS THERE AN ERROR? WE CONTEND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO ERROR. THIS WAS JUST H D R C MEMBERS DECIDING AFTER ENOUGH CHANGES, AFTER ENOUGH COMPROMISE THAT WE MET THOSE GUIDELINES. THANK YOU. AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, IS WHAT THE OWNER AS WELL, WHAT WERE YOU WERE IN? UH, I I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, UM, AT YOUR CALCULATION ARE AT 43% YES SIR. OF THE RATIO OR IS THAT, UM, FOUNDATION FOOTPRINT OR ARE YOU INCLUDING EAVES AND OVERHANGS? 'CAUSE WE HAD SAW PICTURES WHERE THEY OVERHANG THE, THE GARAGES FOUNDATION ONLY. OKAY, FOUNDATION ONLY. DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE IF YOU INCLUDED THE OVERHANGS OVER THE GARAGE? THAT I DON'T KNOW. WE'RE RIGHT NOW, WE WERE JUST GOING THROUGH THE SITE, THE, THE, THE FLOOR PLANS TO TRY TO ADD THAT UP. SO NO, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IS THAT 50% GUIDELINE, IS THAT GENERALLY APPLIED TOWARDS THE, THE PLAN VIEW FOOTPRINT? UH, OR OF THE FOUNDATION? IF I'D, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A DISC, UM, COMMENTARY ON THAT. CORRECT. IT'S A BUILDING FOOTPRINTS CALCULATION. SO IT'S GENERALLY FOUNDATIONS EVEN, UM, AN AIR CONDITIONED SPACE LIKE ROGERS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT FOUNDATION OR THAT FOOTPRINT CALCULATION. OKAY. SO, SO IT, IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO GO FIVE, 10 FEET AS A CANTILEVER OVERHANG ON A SECOND STORY. AND THAT HAS NO PURVIEW ON THE 50% CALCULATION, NOT IN HOW WE WOULD REVIEW IT NOW. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. NO QUESTION MAY BE MORE FOR STAFF, BUT MR. MCKNIGHT YOU MIGHT ANSWER IT AS WELL. UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE U D C NOT BEING A STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE U D C IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY STATED. COULD STAFF DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN, UH, STAFF OPINION ON THAT? IS IT TRUE THAT THERE'S A OVERLAY REQUIREMENT FOR RIO OR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT STATES A HEIGHT LIMIT OR OVERALL MASSING DENSITY REQUIREMENT THAT THAT IS NOT A STRICT REQUIREMENT TO BE ADHERED TO VERSUS, UH, SOME GENERAL CONFORMITY? SO IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE HAVE THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. UM, SO THOSE ARE NOT HEIGHT STANDARDS. UM, THE GUIDELINE IS THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BURY IN HEIGHT FROM THE PREDOMINANT BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY MORE THAN ONE STORY. UM, AND BECAUSE RIVER ROAD IS MOSTLY ONE STORY, ANYTHING OVER TWO STORIES WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING WITH THAT GUIDELINE. AND RIO, THERE ARE BUILDING STANDARDS, BUT THE PROPOSED HEIGHTS IN THE RIO SECTION THAT ARE JUST RIO ONLY DON'T COME CLOSE TO HITTING THAT, THAT HIGH RESTRICTION. WELL THEN BY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUILDING NUMBER FIVE BEING THREE STORIES DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE INTENT OF THE U D C FOR THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ON HEIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. SO, BUT THAT IS UP FOR INTERPRETATION BY THE COMMISSION. D H D R C. SO WE'RE HERE AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO GIVE VARIANCES TO U D C REQUIREMENTS. AND HAVE WE EVER HAD THIS PROJECT COME BEFORE US FOR VARIANCES TO THESE CODES OR STANDARDS? NO, NOT, NOT YET. UM, BUT THAT PARTICULAR, UM, SECTION OF THE CODE IS NOT A VARIANCE, IT'S AN INTERPRETATION LIKE CORY SAID BY THE COMMISSION. SO IT'S NOT A STANDARD, IT'S A GUIDELINE, BUT, UH, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY APPLICATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FROM THE APPLICANT FOR VARIANCES. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS BECAUSE WE SEE MANY CASES COME BEFORE US FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT ARE ASKING FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER THEY'RE DRIVEWAY WIDTHS OR PAVEMENT REQUIREMENTS OR APPEARANCE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OR WINDOW PROPORTIONS. LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS WE'VE SEEN AND THOSE ARE EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES TO THAT CODE. BUT HERE I'M HEARING THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING OF THINGS GENERALLY CONFORMING AND NOT STRICTLY CONFORMING. SO I'M REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT TECHNICALLY AND NOT THE NCDS AND THE, AND AND THOSE STANDARDS. SO THOSE ARE, UH, STANDARDS BLACK AND WHITE. UM, YOU, YOU COMPLY WITH THEM AND IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU REQUEST A VARIANCE. UH, HISTORIC ARE GUIDELINES AND SO THEY'RE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL. BUT THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THOSE VARIANCES IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK AND WHITE STANDARDS, THEY HAVE MAX RESTRICTIONS AND IF THEY WANNA GO PAST THAT MAX RESTRICTION, THEN IT REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, NOW I GUESS WE'RE UP TO OUR WITNESS PHASE. THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW FOLKS, UH, SIGNED UP. FIRST I HAVE BOB BUCHANAN, FOLLOWED BY VIRGINIA VAN CLEVE. SHE'LL BE ON DECK. ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THIS, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PASSING THEIR TIME TO THE NEXT PERSON TO DO [01:50:01] THAT. UM, BE SURE AND LET US KNOW BEFORE WE GO WITH THIS SO WE CAN SAVE SOME TIME. 'CAUSE YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TWO MINUTES AND YOU'RE ALLOWED UP TO SIX MINUTES TOTAL WITH, UH, IF YOU PASS, TWO PEOPLE SHOULD PASS THEIR TIME AND IT'S JUST TO SAVE SOME TIME FOR US. SO, UM, GET TOGETHER AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE, THAT EVERYONE'S GOING TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE A A LIST. THIS MIGHT BE EASIER. SO FIRST PERSON THAT SIGNED UP IS BOB BUCHANAN. IS ANYONE GIVING HIM MORE TIME? SO WHAT'S YOUR NAME, SIR? BOB. OKAY, YOU WANNA GIVE YOUR TIME TO RALEIGH? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE, UH, NEXT PERSON IS VIRGINIA VAN CLEVE. IS ANYONE GIVING HER ADDITIONAL TIME? OKAY, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. VIRGINIA. VIRGINIA VAN CLEVE, 91 18 FAIRLAND AND I'M SPEAKING FOR THE SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY. THE, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONTINUES TO OPPOSE THE STREET FACING, FRONT LOADED GARAGE DOORS FOR THE 3 35 TRAIL PROJECT. THEY ARE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DESIGN OF THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE REMAIN CONCERNED THAT THE MANY STIPULATIONS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO REGARDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC EZA BE ADEQUATELY ENFORCED AND MONITORED. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THE CONSERVATION OF SAN ANTONIO. PATTY ZZ. PRESIDENT A SECOND. YOU'VE MADE A BRIEF STATE THAT YOU HAVE A WITNESS, ORIAN, UH, WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THEY, AT THE OTHER SIDE OF TRAIL STREET, THERE WAS A GARAGE DOOR OPENING. WHAT ARE, WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC THOUGHT, BUT I'M SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD AND THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE. WE DON'T WANNA SEE THOSE GARAGE DOOR OPENINGS WHERE THEY ARE IN THIS PROJECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, WE'VE GOT, UH, DAVID, MAUREEN, I'M WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT I, I WOULD, OR WITH THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER, BUT I WOULD CONCEDE MY TIME TO JAMES, BUT I THINK HE JUST STEPPED OUT BRIEFLY THEN HE BETTER HOLD ONTO IT. , THERE HE IS. THOUGHT HE WENT TO THE RESTROOM FOR A SECOND. THE, THE SPEAKER, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, DOESN'T HAVE TO GIVE HIS TIME TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAS TIME TO SPEAK, CORRECT? IS OH, HE'S THE OWNER. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT A, UH, BARBARA WOODHOUSE AU. ALRIGHT, WE'VE GOT, UH, WILLIAMS SIBLEY, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES GIVEN TO YOU FROM MR. MARTINEZ. DO I HAVE TWO MINUTES? OKAY, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES? I HAVE FOUR MINUTES. OKAY. UH, MY NAME IS BILL SIBLEY. I AM ONE OF THE NEWER RESIDENTS OF RIVER ROAD. I'VE ONLY LIVED THERE 15 YEARS. UM, I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE TEXAS HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, ALONG WITH KAY HINES, A FORMER CITY ARCHEOLOGIST, LOUIS FISHER, UH, WHO WAS ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS ON THE ALAMO PLAZA. WE ARE ALL CITIZENS, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HISTORY AND, UH, CULTURE OF OUR CITY. UM, WITH US TODAY, WE HAVE, UH, PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS. BARBARA HOWELL WHO JUST LEFT. I DON'T THINK SHE'D BE TOO EMBARRASSED IF I TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS BORN IN RIVER ROAD 71 YEARS AGO. WE LIKE LIVING WHERE WE LIVE. UM, I WANT TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR HISTORY. UH, ON, ON, UH, ANASTASIA STREET. WE HAVE THE RIVER ROAD COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL, WHICH WAS, UH, LIVED IN BY THE VERY FAMOUS AND RENOWNED JIM CULLUM, THE JAZZ TRUMPETEER. I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT HIS DAUGHTER, NIKITA SULLIVAN, IS HERE WITH HER DAUGHTERS. WOULD [01:55:01] YOU PLEASE STAND? AND ALSO COUSIN GEORGE NASH SITTING BEHIND THEM. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND, UH, ALL HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. ARE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ON THE WITNESS LIST? YES, THEY'RE, I THINK YOU SAVE YOUR TIME AND LET THEM SPEAK. OKAY, SO, UH, THEN, UH, THE RIVER ROAD COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL, GEORGIA O'KEEFFE PAINTED THERE. WE HAVE A LOT OF HISTORY. HARDING BLACK, THE POTTER LIVED ON MAGNOLIA DRIVE. UH, WALTER STARKEY, THE BROADWAY PRODUCER WHO, WHO WAS ONE OF THE PRODUCERS OF CABARET, LIVED ON MAGNOLIA AVENUE. WE HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HISTORY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE 18 IS THE 1780 HOME ON ANASTASIA, THE CASA ZIMBRANO, WHICH WAS SPANISH LAND GRANT STILL LIVED IN TODAY BY CAMILLE ROSENGREN, WHO'S 93 YEARS OLD, WHO SOME OF YOU REMEMBER ROSEN'S BOOKSTORE BEHIND THE ALAMO IN THE CROCKETT HOTEL. SHE STILL LIVES THERE. SHE'S VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. THE PROPERTY IS COMPLETELY CAT CORNER TO HER PROPERTY WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THE 24 UNITS ALSO ABUTTING ADJACENT TO THIS 24 UNITS THAT THEY'RE BUILDING IS OF COURSE THE, AS THE ASORBA, THE UPPER, UH, UH, SE AQUEDUCT THAT WAS BUILT BY THE SPANISH COLONIAL IN 1776. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER. ONE OF MY PET PEEVES IN LIFE IS THAT EVERYBODY BACK EAST SAYS NOTHING HAPPENED HERE IN 1776. IT WAS ALL HAPPENING BACK EAST WRONG. WE WERE THRIVING SPANISH COLONIAL CULTURE, AND IT'S RIGHT HERE IN RIVER ROAD. IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO US. I RESTORED MY HOME FIVE YEARS AGO. IT TOOK ME TWO YEARS. I JUMPED TO THE BURNING HOOPS FOR H D R C, I JUMPED TO THE BURNING HOOPS FOR O H P. I DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT I LIKE LIVING WHERE I LIVE AND I DID IT BECAUSE WE ALL LIVE IN THESE LITTLE HOMES THAT WE LOVE AND WE SPEND OUR TIME AND OUR MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REMAINS THE QUALITY BEAUTIFUL PLACE THAT IT IS. I'VE LIVED ALL OVER THE WORLD. I'VE LIVED IN LOS ANGELES, I'VE LIVED IN NEW YORK, I LIVED IN SANTA FE. I HAVE NEVER LIVED ANYWHERE IN MY LIFE WHERE PEOPLE CARE AS MUCH ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEIR NEIGHBORS, THE BEAUTY, THE CULTURE, EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMPORTANT TO US. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS THAT WAY. SCOTT ORELLI. DR. ZELLER WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. YEAH. ARE WE HOLDING QUESTIONS TILL THE END OR ARE WE, LET'S, OKAY. HAD TO COOL OFF. SO I APPRECIATE THE KIND OF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW ASKS US TO RECON TO, TO LOOK AT WHAT H D R C DID IN ITS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY CONCERNS YOU HAVE WITH THAT, THAT WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THE, THE GREATEST CONCERN RIGHT NOW ARE THE THREE STORIES ON TRAIL STREET THAT IS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. I WORKED ON THE GETTING US TO GO HISTORIC IN 2010. IT WAS SUDDENLY WE WENT 90% APPROVAL AND IT TOOK 11 YEARS FOR US TO GO HISTORIC BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. AND IT HAPPENED ALMOST OVERNIGHT. THERE WERE SOME ISSUES GOING ON WITH, THEY TORE DOWN A BEAUTIFUL OLD HOME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PEOPLE WOKE OPEN, THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS HAPPENING. IF THESE THREE STORY HOMES ARE BUILT WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON TRAIL, IT SETS PRECEDENT. THEY CAN COME IN AND BUILD THREE STORY HOMES ANYWHERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OF WHICH TODAY, NONE EXIST. OKAY, THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTION FOR THIS WITNESS? ALL BELIEVE WHO THE NEXT WITNESS PLEASE? ALL WE'VE GOT, UH, GEMMA KENNEDY. ALL RIGHT. UM, GOT CHAD. FORGIVE ME, KERRY. HELLO EVERYONE. UM, I WANTED TO MENTION REALLY QUICKLY THAT I'M HERE IN THE CAPACITY REPRESENTING MR. PRICE WHO HAD SOME PREVIOUS TRAVEL THAT TOOK HIM OUTTA THE COUNTRY AND HE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. I THINK THAT MR. MCKNIGHT, HIS, UH, WISELY SUMMARIZED, UM, UH, HOLD ON A SECOND. YEAH. I STILL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS CHAD. MY NAME IS CHAD CAREY, 1 0 2 EAST SATCH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UM, THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO YOU FOR YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND AS A FUNCTION OF CONTEXT IS THAT MR. PRICE HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR OVER 30 YEARS. HE RECEIVES LOTS AND LOTS OF OFFERS FOR THE PROPERTY. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO ALIGN HIMSELF WITH A DEVELOPER THAT WOULD DO SEVERAL THINGS. NUMBER ONE, THAT WOULD WORK IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH THEY, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE OVER A PERIOD, UH, A PERIOD THAT EXCEEDS A YEAR. THE SECOND THING WAS, AND I I THINK THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO TO THE TRANSACTIONAL COMPONENTS OF THIS DEAL, WE'VE GIVEN THAT TIME TO THIS APPLICANT SO [02:00:01] THAT THEY CAN WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY HAVE DONE SO. UM, THE THIRD THING, WHICH WAS JUST BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE EVEN WENT TO CONTRACT ON THIS, IS WE SAID THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO SEEK A ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE AGAIN, THE, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IMPORTANT TO MR. PRICE. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF IT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM. BUT, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. ORIAN. SO IT'S, IT'S BEEN ZONE MF 33 FOREVER. WHAT, WHAT WAS BEING BOUNCED AROUND? WELL, I THINK THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BASED ON, I MEAN, YOU WE'RE, WE'RE EFFECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF MULBERRY AND ST. MARY'S MULBERRY IN 2 81. THERE HAD BEEN A NUMBER OF SOLICITATIONS FOR THE SORT OF HIGHER DENSITY PROJECTS THAT I THINK YOU SEE AROUND THERE. OFFICE, MULTI-FAMILY, THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY. HE, HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN PURSUING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU MARGARET LEEDS STATE MS. LEES, PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, MARGARET LEEDS. I LIVE AT 3 0 8 KING WILLIAM, AND I'M WEARING THREE HATS AS I ASK YOU TO HOLD BACK ON THIS PROJECT. I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF FOR THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION AND FOR THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. NOTHING ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT FITS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS WRONG AESTHETICALLY. IT IS AN EGREGIOUS VARIANCE FROM THE OTHER KINDS OF STRUCTURES THERE THAT CREATE THE ATMOSPHERE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DESIGN MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, THE ROOF LINE MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN DENMARK OR A MORE MODERN NEIGHBORHOOD. NOTHING ABOUT THIS PROJECT FITS THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HEIGHT, THE DENSITY, THE DESIGN, THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES, THE, THE FEELING THAT YOU GET WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPERTY. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD IN SAN ANTONIO. AND MY CONCERN, I WAS THERE WHEN H D R C SENT THIS ON AND I WAS DISMAYED. I I WAS SO CONFUSED AND I, I DISCUSSED IT WITH OTHER PEOPLE AND THEY SAID MAYBE H D R C JUST GOT WORN DOWN BY THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY HAD TO MEET AND CONSIDER THIS PROJECT. AND THEY FINALLY JUST SAID, TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. LET SOMEONE ELSE DEAL WITH IT. YOU'RE OUR LAST BASTION TO STOP THIS PROJECT AND I HOPE THAT YOU 30 SECONDS WILL DO THAT. I WOULD NOT WANT THIS PROJECT IN KING WILLIAM AND I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME TO RIVER ROAD. THANK YOU. WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE FROM THE STAFF? NONE BEING ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHOWING UP. THANK YOU. NEXT WHAT FOR FUTURE SPEAKERS, JUST MAKE SURE NOT TO SPEAK TOO CLOSE INTO THE MIC. THEY'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FOR OUR VIDEO RECORDING. ALRIGHT, NEXT. PATRICIA. NEXT PRETT. ALRIGHT. LUCY WILSON. HELLO MS. WILSON. WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS LUCY WILSON AND I RESIDE AT ONE 30 MAGNOLIA DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE TODAY. UH, I'M SPEAKING AS A NEWBIE IN THE AREA. I'M JUST CELEBRATED RECENTLY, MY SECOND YEAR. UM, I WAS VERY EXCITED WHEN I FIRST LEARNED THAT SAN ANTONIO HAD A SERIOUS COMMITMENT TO PROTECT ITS HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEN CONVERSELY, I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED WHEN THE H D R C FAILED TO PROVIDE THE PROTECTION PROTECTION THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES. WITH REGARD TO THE TRAIL STREET PROJECT, AS HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES, RIVER ROAD IS PRIMARILY MADE UP OF ONE STORY HOMES WITH SOME TWO STORIES SCATTERED THROUGHOUT. I WAS JUST COUNTING MY OWN STREET TODAY IN MY MIND AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS. AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE, TWO STORY HOMES ON IT AND ALL THE REST ARE ONE STORY. UM, DURING ALL THE YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE, EVEN BEFORE THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION. IT'S INTERESTING I THINK TO NOTE THAT NO HOME WAS BUILT OR REMODELED TO EXCEED THE TWO STORIES AND NOW APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE FIRST THREE STORY. BUILDING THIS ACTION WILL SER SERIOUSLY ALTER THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND ONCE THAT NEWS IS MADE KNOWN, UH, OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO SEEK THE SAME OPPORTUNITY WITHIN OUR BOUNDARIES WITH THIS PRECEDENT, WHAT [02:05:01] FUTURE OBJECTION CAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAKE AND PROTEST BEAUTIFUL NATIVE TREES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE WILL PAY THE PRICE AS THE LAND IS CLEARED FOR THESE LARGER DENSER STRUCTURES. THE PLANS ON THE BROADWAY EXTENSION ARE SAYING WE WANT TO HAVE SPACE FOR PLANTING SOME MORE TREES IN AREAS FOR PEOPLE TO GATHER. AND YET HERE, UH, WHERE THIS PROJECT IS GOING IN, UH, WE'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE 30 SECONDS MATURE TREES AND WE'RE GOING TO UH, EVEN LOSE SOME. UH, RIVER ROAD IS A VERY UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK IT'S HISTORICAL VALUE LIES IN THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE AND THE QUALITY OF OUR LIFE. AND I SEE THAT IN GREAT DANGER RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT, HOLD ON. DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES? MANY YES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GEORGE NASH. HE ALREADY HAS SIX MINUTES ALREADY. BLANCA SULLIVAN A UM, MY NAME IS BLANCA SULLIVAN. I LIVE AT 8 31 EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. UM, I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTIES AT UH, ONE 20 ANASTASIA AND ONE 12 ANASTASIA, WHICH IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE TRAIL STREET PROJECT. UM, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION TODAY. UM, I WAS BORN AND I GREW UP IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JUST A FEW YEARS I'VE SPENT MY ENTIRE LIFE IN RIVER ROAD. UH, MY FAMILY MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALMOST 60 YEARS AGO. MY DAD, JIM CULLUM, MOVED TO THE RIVER ROAD COUNTRY DAY SCHOOLHOUSE IN 1963. UH, THAT'S THE ANASTASIA PROPERTY AND IT'S RIGHT ALONGSIDE OF THIS PROJECT. UM, SO WE'VE BEEN THERE EVER SINCE. UM, MY BROTHER CHRIS LIVES IN RIVER ROAD. MY COUSIN GEORGE LIVES IN RI, LIVES IN RIVER ROAD. AND UM, I LIVE THERE WITH MY THREE DAUGHTERS AND MY HUSBAND. UH, THE HOUSE WHERE WE LIVE NOW IS THE HOUSE THAT I GREW UP IN. WE TREASURE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE SEE IT AS THE MOST CHARMING AND SPECIAL PLACE THERE IS. UH, WE ARE DEEPLY ROOTED AND WE SINCERELY WANNA PROTECT AND CARE FOR THIS PLACE. WHAT BRINGS ME HERE TODAY IS MY CONCERN THAT LITTLE BY LITTLE THE BEAUTY CHARM AND WHAT WE ALL LOVE ABOUT RIVER ROAD WILL GRADUALLY BE CHIPPED AWAY WITH SCHEMES TO TURN HISTORIC PROPERTY INTO OPPORTUNITIES FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS CENTRALLY LOCATED YET SURROUNDED BY PARKLAND, IS A VERY ATTRACTIVE, UH, TARGET FOR DEVELOPERS AND THEY WILL CARE MORE ABOUT THEIR PROFIT THAN THEY DO ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS TO US, TO US THIS PLACE IS EVERYTHING. UH, THIS PROPERTY, AS YOU'VE HEARD, SITS JUST ALONG THE HISTORIC ZAMBRANO HOME WHERE THE ROSENGREN FAMILY HAS BEEN, UH, CLOSE TO A HUNDRED YEARS. UM, IT'S UM, ALONG THE, UH, RIVER ROAD COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL AND THE SPANISH QUIA, SORRY. UM, SO, UH, WE ASK THAT IF THERE IS DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LAND, THAT IT MUST SUPPORT AND MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE AS OUT OF CHARACTER FOR RIVER ROAD AND AS DAMAGING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE. THEY ARE TOO DENSE, TOO HIGH, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH GREEN SPACE. SO PLEASE ACCEPT OUR APPEAL TO OVERTURN THIS DECISION AND UH, WE PUT OUR TRUST IN YOU AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR ALL YOU DO TO SUPPORT THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? NONE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ES ESCAMILLO, WHO'S NEXT MIGHTY MORE IN A MILLION YEARS. I CAN'T KEEP MY MY THOUGHTS IN TWO MINUTES. SO I'LL SAY THE COUPLE THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER TO ME THE MOST. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A SATELLITE VIEW OF THIS. I'M SO SORRY. MIFI MOORE, 6 0 3 RIVER ROAD. THANK YOU. 7 8 200. SORRY. I WANNA SAY THANK YOU. I LOVE YOU GUYS FOR GIVING ME MY SOLAR PANELS THAT WERE RULED AGAINST BY H D R C AND MY ROOF IS FILLED WITH BOTH OF MY ROOFS ARE FILLED WITH SOLAR PANELS AND I DO GOOD THINGS FOR THE EARTH. THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. AND FOR MARY ROGERS, WHO WAS YOU, YOU, I'M SURE YOU'RE BETTER THAN HER, BUT SHE WAS WONDERFUL. ANYWAY, , [02:10:02] MY CHILDREN ARE ALL RANCHING FAMILY. WE ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS. WE HAVE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON THE RANCHES. WE LOVE THE EARTH. AND IF YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SATELLITE, I DUNNO IF YOU CAN SEE, THIS LOT IS ALMOST COMPLETELY FILLED WITH HERITAGE COUNTRIES, HUGE, MASSIVE TREES. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL DESTROY ALL OF THEM. UM, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN MOVED IN IN RECENT YEARS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS EITHER CUT DOWN OR CAUSED TO FALL DOWN SOME BIG TREES. AND THE, UH, ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE IN SAN ANTONIO, I BEG TO SAY, IS NOT ENFORCED. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH THIS LOT, BUT I DOUBT THAT THERE WILL BE ANY ENFORCEMENT PROTECTING THOSE TREES. SO MY FAMILY OF THREE CHILDREN, ONE OF 'EM IS A COLLEGE PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD PHD. SO WE LOVE YOU COLLEGE PROFESSORS. NOT TO MENTION ANY NAMES DOWN THERE OR ANYTHING, BUT Y'ALL ARE WONDERFUL. WE APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PLEASE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE PROTECT THE TREES. PLEASE PROTECT THE HISTORIC VALUED AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HOLD ON A SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, ORIAN. ORIAN, GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO, UM, AND THIS IS GOING BACK TO, I'M, I'M HEARING A LOT OF, OF PRESERVATION, UH, COMMENTARY FOR THIS, FOR THE AREA. BUT WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK DOWN AT LINDEL PLACE AND WOODLAWN AND I SEE THAT, THAT SIX UNIT, UH, TWO STORY, UH, MULTIFAMILY, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WERE Y'ALL IN OPPOSITION TO THAT? OKAY. YOU WERE. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE, IF YOU'RE TALK YEAH. THE LINDE, YES. YEAH. OH YEAH. BATTLED IT. YES. OKAY. I, I'M, I'M, I'M JUST, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S A STANDS OUT TOO. SPEAKING OF THAT, THAT PARTICULAR UNIT AND WE DID FIGHT HARD TO HAVE IT DOWNSIZED AS IT IS THIS 94 YEAR, ALMOST 94 YEAR OLD CAMILLE ROSEGREEN THAT'S IN THE OLD ZAMBRENO. IF THIS PROJECT HAPPENS, SHE WILL BE A 90, ALMOST 94 YEAR OLD WOMAN THAT WILL HAVE NO MORE PRIVACY IN HER HOUSE, IN HER BEDROOM. SHE WILL HAVE TO HAVE ALWAYS CURTAINS ON HER WINDOWS 'CAUSE SHE WILL LOSE ALL OF HER PRIVACY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RICHARD. RICHARD REED, REED, RICHARD REED 6 6 1 5 RIVER ROAD. AND I, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU AND I WON'T USE MY TWO TWO MINUTES BECAUSE, BECAUSE TIME IS SHORT AND, AND THE MESSAGES ARE PRECIOUS. BUT LET ME SAY THAT I DIDN'T, UH, I WASN'T BORN IN RIVER ROAD, BUT I GOT THERE AS QUICKLY AS I COULD. I'VE BEEN THERE 30 YEARS AND, UH, HAVE LEARNED TO LOVE IT. WE ARE, WERE ATTRACTED BY THE TREES. WE WERE ATTRACTED BY THE, BY THE BUILDINGS AND WE WERE ATTRACTED BY THE NEIGHBORS. AND WE HAVE MOVED INTO A COMMUNITY THAT'S OPENED ITS ARMS TO OUTSIDERS WITH DIVERSITY OF RACE, CLASS, ETHNICITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION ACROSS THE BOARD. YET IT, IT'S A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY THAT WAY. AND WHEN THE HISTORIC DI WHEN THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES WERE ASSERTED, I WASN'T NECESSARILY FOR THEM. I STAYED OUT OF THAT DEBATE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS GONNA HAMPER WHAT MY BUILD WHAT I COULD DO WITH MY BUILDING. AND I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CAREFUL NOT TO DO ANYTHING TO MY BUILDING, WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1923 THAT WOULD ANYWAY, INFRINGE UPON THESE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. AND TODAY LISTENING TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEVELOPER, I DISCOVERED THAT THESE GUIDELINES ARE NECESSARILY PERMEABLE IF SOMEONE HAS LEGAL COUNSEL THAT CAN EXPLAIN HOW TO GET AROUND, HOW TO GET AROUND THEM. OKAY. I GO BY THE SPIRIT OF THESE GUIDELINES AND RE REFERRING BACK TO WHAT THE, THE COUNCIL SAID, THE SPIRIT OF THESE GUIDELINES IS TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. OKAY. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO. NOW, I, I ASKED TO SPEAK BECAUSE I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE RIVER RAILROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHERE THIS PROJECT WAS, WAS FIRST ASSERTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018. AND I WAS INVOLVED IN ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER, WHERE WE SAT DOWN CLEARLY FROM THE START WHAT WE NEEDED, 30 SECONDS. AND WHEN THE LAWYER FOR THE COUNCIL FOR THE, FOR THE DEVELOPER TALKS ABOUT INCREMENTAL MOVEMENTS, YES, IT WAS LIKE SQUEEZING BLOOD FROM A STONE TO GET EVERY LITTLE CHANGE. AND I BELIEVE HE DID WEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. THE, THE IMPRESSIVE THING HERE, HE'S, HE HASN'T WORN DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND HE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO, TO REALLY BREAK THE STRONG DEFENSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS IN, IN, IN ITS OWN GUIDELINES. SO, THANK YOU, JUAN. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LARRY CLARK. AND YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. MR. CLARK, REMEMBER, WE WANT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, I'M LARRY CLARK, 1 0 2 ALLISON, AND I AM, UH, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, I, UH, I'M NEXT DOOR TO MR. JOHN HERTZ'S PROPERTY. [02:15:01] ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I WANNA TALK ABOUT THOUGH WAS, UM, I'M GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CONTEXT IN A MINUTE AND HAVE A LITTLE SLIDESHOW FOR YOU IF WE COULD GET THAT UP. BUT THIS PROJECT WENT TO HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW MANY TIMES, AND THE LAST COMMISSION VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE ALAMO SENATE CAME BEFORE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW. AND ON THAT DAY, IT WAS A LONG DAY. OUR CASE WAS DELAYED FOR HOURS. I WANNA PUT THIS IN CONTEXT OF WEARING DOWN, SQUEEZING BLOOD FROM THE STONE SORT OF THING. THERE WERE MANY CASES WAITING TO BE HEARD BEHIND OUR CASE. AND AFTER SEVERAL MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL THAT WERE DENIED CONDITIONS FAILED, UH, ONE COMMISSIONER CHANGED HIS VOTE IN MOTION FOR APPROVAL, AND THIS PASSED BY ONE VOTE. OKAY. WE THINK THE COMMISSION WENT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE ATTENDED DOZENS OF MEETINGS AND SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS ON THIS. AND WE'VE NOT HEARD ANYONE OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THESE PLANS. SO, UM, NO CALLED, IT'S ON THAT JUMP DRIVE. UM, I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY, UH, PROFESSION, AND I'M ALSO THE STEWARD FOR THE, UH, COMMUNITY GARDEN. IT'S ADJACENT TO THIS, UM, SITE. AND I THINK I LIVE IN A REALLY SPECIAL PART OF THE CITY, AGAIN, WITH MY NEIGHBORS. I WANNA TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT HISTORY TREES AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DRAINAGE. SO, UM, LET'S, CAN I CONTROL IT FROM HERE? GREAT. THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS, UM, SHOWN HERE. THE BOUNDARY, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, GOES ACROSS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THIS SITE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY EXTENDS FAR BEYOND THAT AREA, AND, UH, CONTINUES QUITE A WAYS, UM, AROUND THIS SITE INTO THE NORTH. AND I THINK THAT THE, UM, UM, THIS IS ALSO ENTIRELY WITHIN, WITHIN THE RIO. UM, ALLISON STREET IS A PARK ROAD THAT CUTS THROUGH HERE, AND I THINK THIS IS MORE THAN JUST AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD WITH AN HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE ALSO HAVE EVIDENCE OF OVER 12,000 YEARS OF HUMAN HABITATION ON THESE FLOOD TERRACES AROUND THE RIVER. WE HAVE A PARK-LIKE ENVIRONMENT THAT'S COVERED WITH TREES. AND THIS SITE IS WITHIN 650 FEET OF ONE OF THE ONLY NATURAL REACHES OF THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER THAT'S LEFT WITHIN THE CITY. UM, THE ZAMBRANO ESTATE HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, IS ABOUT 120 FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG TRAIL IF THIS IS APPROVED. UM, IT WAS BUILT IN 1780 AND THE ASAKIA WAS BUILT, UH, JUST BEFORE THAT IN 1776. WATER CAME FROM UP NEAR WHERE THE ZOO IS TODAY AND TOOK WATER TO THESE FARMSTEADS AND, UH, EMPTIED BACK INTO, UM, THE SAN PEDRO DITCH, OR SAN PEDRO SEIA, I MEAN SAN PEDRO CREEK, UH, DOWN NEAR, UM, WHERE THE COVE IS TODAY. UM, BEHIND MY HOUSE AND BEHIND IS JOHN'S HOUSE, IS THAT LAST REMNANT OF THAT ASAKIA THAT ASAKIA NOT ONLY IS A REALLY CRITICAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, A CIVIL ENGINEERING LANDMARK, BUT IT ALSO SORT OF SET THE, UM, THE WAY THE STREETS AND DRAINAGE AND, AND THINGS HAPPEN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT REMNANT AND, UH, IT SHOULD BE UNDER THE CONTROLS. IN FACT, THE U D C SAYS A SEUS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR DRAINAGE, AND WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT. COULD YOU RUN THAT MOVIE REAL QUICK? THANKS. IT'S JUST, IT'S ON THAT SAME JUMP DRIVE. OH, THERE, IT'S RAIN. GO AHEAD. U D C SAYS, ASAKIA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR DRAINAGE, BUT WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT, IF YOU CAN TURN THAT SOUND DOWN, ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ON THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING. SO YOU CAN SEE THE ASAKIA DOES HAVE WATER RUNNING INTO IT OFF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S A NON-COMPLIANT CONDITION. BUT THE ISSUE WITH STORMWATER HAS BEEN A PRIMARY CONCERN FOR US FOR TWO YEARS. AND IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT THE DEVELOPER EVEN BEGAN TO ADDRESS JUST IN SEPTEMBER THAT WE SAW DRAINAGE PLANS THAT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. IT WAS SHOEHORNED INTO THE SITE. THANKS. YOU CAN KILL THAT DRAINAGE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE DESIGN OF THIS SITE. IT'S GONNA AFFECT BUILDING PLACEMENT AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. BUT A BIG POND SURROUNDED BY SHRUBS AND PROBABLY A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ON THE MOST VISIBLE CORNER ON SATCH, IS REALLY NOT THE RESPONSE THAT WE WOULD'VE EXPECTED. THAT'S A VERY COMMERCIAL RESPONSE IN RESPONSE TO A HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH LOT COVERAGE. AND IT DOES NOT, UH, INTEGRATE ITSELF INTO THE DESIGN VERY WELL. UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING IS CRITICAL HERE. WE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH COVER, WAY TOO HIGH. THE SCALE DOESN'T FIT. YOU'VE HEARD ALL THIS. [02:20:01] UM, CITY COUNCIL'S CONCERNS ARE SIMILAR. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL HAVE CHIMED IN ON MONSTROSITY DEVELOPMENTS IN SAN ANTONIO'S QUAINT NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THOSE ARTICLES IN THE EXPRESS NEWS THAT SHOWED VERY LARGE, UH, THREE STORIES NEXT TO SINGLE STORY, UM, PROJECTS. THE EXISTING TREES ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOO. UM, THE PROPOSED BUILDING COVER FOR THIS SITE WILL NOT PRESERVE ONE TREE ON THE SITE ACCORDING TO THEIR PLANS. NOW THEY SHOW THE TREES TO BE PRESERVED ON THEIR PLANS, BUT THEY ALSO SHOW THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE TREES IS COMPROMISED BY CONSTRUCTION. THEY WILL BE BACK TO YOU FOR VARIANCES. AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THEM MOST COMPROMISED TREES. HAVE, UM, THAT'S TIME WALLS THROUGH THE ROOT ZONE. AND THAT, THAT'S SIX MINUTES. THAT'S SIX MINUTES. YOU SURE? THAT SEEMED TO GO GO VERY FAST FOR A LONG TIME. YOU HAVE QUESTION ANYWAY. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. HE DIDN'T. SIX IS THE MAXIMUM. UM, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? WE'RE RUN OUTTA TIME. I HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO. YES, SIR. MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE, UH, DRAINAGE OF THE AREA BECAUSE, UM, I NOTICED THE TREES WERE, LOOK, WERE PROBABLY GONNA BE SABOTAGED FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALMOST NO WAY YOU COULD PUT, YOU KNOW, A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE HERE. BUT, UM, HOW MANY IS ANYONE? I HAVE NOT HEARD YET FROM ANYONE HOW MANY HERITAGE TREES ARE IN THIS AREA? UM, THEY'RE IN THE CENTER OF THIS, THIS WAS, THE EXISTING TREE COVER IS ABOUT A 52 INCH LIVE OAK THAT WILL BE REMOVED. UM, ONE OF THESE SLIDES, ACTUALLY, IF I CAN GET TO IT HAS THEIR T TABULATION ON IT. THERE IT IS. UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THEY HAVE OVER 400 INCHES OF MITIGATION IN THEIR TREE PLAN. UM, AND THEY'RE GONNA PAY INTO THE TREE FUND. BUT THERE, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE HERITAGE TREES ON THE SITE. ONE OF WHICH IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER IS A BALD CYPRUS THAT WILL HAVE A BUILDING WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THAT TREE. THERE'S A BLOW UP OF THAT IN THAT LOWER RIGHT PLAN. THE 24 INCH HERITAGE PECAN TREE THAT'S ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE HAS A WALL SHOWN THROUGH IT, AND IT HAS THE DRAINAGE POND AND A BUILDING WITHIN THE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE. AND ANOTHER TREE ALONG TRAIL STREET HAS A FOOT AND A HALF OF FILL SHOWN OVER THE ENTIRE ROOT ZONE IN THE, UM, ON THEIR OWN PLANS OF THE GRADING PLAN. AND THESE ARE THE THREE TREES THAT ARE SHOWN TO REMAIN OUT OF ALL OF THOSE TREES THAT TODAY COVER THAT SITE. THANK YOU, GRAHAM. CHAIRMAN, IF I CAN'T CHIME IN AND GIVE YOU A TECHNICAL ANSWER. THE TREE REVIEW, UH, PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITH OUR TEAM. UM, AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THEM, IT WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF OUR CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED. AND SO IT'LL GO THROUGH THAT REVIEW PROCESS. ONCE IT MEETS CODE, THEN A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED MANNA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MANN. SO, UM, THERE'S TWO, UH, YOU SHOWED A SLIDE OR YOU HAD A DISCUSSION WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, I GUESS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP VERSUS HISTORIC BOUNDARIES, NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES VERSUS, SO WHAT IS, SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO? COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT SLIDE FIRST AND THEN SURE. UH, PERSPECTIVE OF, WE'LL SAY THE, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY VERSUS THE HISTORIC AND THEIR PERSPECTIVE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL? YEAH, THIS IS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY RIGHT HERE. AND THAT WAS ENACTED AS WAS SAID ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO. UM, I WAS, UH, IN FAVOR OF THAT. I WANTED TO LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY, THE ACTUAL RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY IS DIFFERENT AND IT'S A LARGER BOUNDARY, UM, THAT GOES UP, UP, UH, NORTH OF MULBERRY. UM, AND ALONG, UH, ST. MARY'S STREET COVERS THE CORNER AT ST. MARY'S IN MULBERRY AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF THAT AS WELL. SO IS THERE AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED THAT WHOLE GROUP, OR IS THERE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS REPRESENTED? WE HAVE A NON MANDATORY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE BUSINESS ENTITIES THAT ARE IN THAT ZONE, THAT ARE IN FACT IN THAT AREA OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT ARE MEMBERS OF OUR, UM, RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, LOOKING AT THAT PROPERTY THERE, THAT'S, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE [02:25:01] THE GUIDE OR BOUNDARIES COVER, WE'LL SAY FOUR OF THE PROPERTIES THERE. AND LOOKING AT THE OTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S LIKE FOUR OF THE BUILDINGS ARE ALSO WITHIN THAT. SO BASICALLY FOUR OF THE COMMUNITY BUILDING OR FOR THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE SUGGESTING ACTUALLY RESIDE WITHIN THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND, AND THAT WAS A GRAY AREA FOR ME PERSONALLY. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHETHER, IF YOU HAVE A HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A SITE, WHAT PORTION OF THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS? AND IS IT ALL OR IS IT JUST THAT PORTION AND IS IT, IF IT'S GOT A BUILDING THAT HAS THAT LINE RUNNING RIGHT DOWN THE ROOF PEAK, ARE THE UNITS ON THE SOUTH SIDE HISTORIC AND THE ONES ON THE NORTH SIDE? NOT, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL DESIGNED BY LOTS, SO OKAY. WHAT WHAT WE SEE, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE BUILDINGS THAT STRADDLE THOSE LOTS. YEAH, YEAH. THE BUILDINGS, THE BUILDINGS THAT STRADDLE, THERE'S TWO OF THE BUILDINGS THAT STRADDLE THOSE LOTS AND HALF IT SITS FROM THE MAP THAT I SAW IT LOOKED LIKE HAS SIT IN ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER. ALRIGHT. NO MORE QUESTION ORIAN. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. UM, AS FAR AS THE, THE 50% RULE, WE'VE, I KNOW IT'S FOOTPRINT, BUT BECAUSE ONLY A PORTION OF IT IS IN THE HISTORIC IS, IS IT 50% OF THE BUILDINGS THAT LIE SOLELY WITHIN THE, THE AREA THAT IS THE, HAS THE H DISTRICT ON IT OR, OR ARE YOU ALLOWED TO, UH, BLEED OVER IF THE BUILDING GOES OVER THE H AND, AND THEN LOOK AT THE, THE PREMISE OF THE, OF THAT BUILDING AND ON THE CALCULATION, UH, SOMEHOW OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, THAT QUESTION HASN'T COME UP YET. SO I'M, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO ANSWER. UM, WE REALLY CAN'T APPLY HISTORIC GUIDELINES TO THINGS THAT AREN'T DESIGNATED HISTORIC. AND SO IT REALLY IS KIND OF A GEOGRAPHICALLY, UH, GEOGRAPHIC MECHANISM. SO HOW WHEREVER THE OVERLAY IS LANDING, THAT'S WHERE WE CAN APPLY THE, THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. HAVING SAID THAT, THEY ARE GUIDELINES AND SO, YOU KNOW, 40% IS A REALLY GOOD KIND OF BASELINE FOR STARTING ABOUT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE, UM, BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHOULD BE FOR ANY LINE WITHIN A HISTORIC AREA. UH, BUT IT'S NOT THE STANDARD. AND SO REALLY THE H C R C CAN REVIEW THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE, GIVEN THOSE PARAMETERS WHEN THEY WERE, WHEN THEY WERE, UH, REVIEWING THAT AND MAKING A DECISION WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY ZONED HISTORIC, WHAT, WHAT IS THE FOOTPRINT PERCENTAGE? THERE WAS NEVER A SPECIFIC CALCULATION FOR THE SPECIFIC HISTORIC OVERLAY AND WHAT THOSE FOOTPRINTS ARE. THEN HOW DID THEY KNOW, HOW DID THEY MAKE A DECISION IF IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER THAT THEY WERE EVEN LOOKING AT? SURE. UM, I WILL SAY, UM, A LOT OF, OF ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT WERE DISCUSSED OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. UM, LOT COVERAGE AND KIND OF, NOT JUST BUILDINGS, BUT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. SO PARKING AREAS, ACCESS DRIVEWAYS WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION. OKAY. CAN, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN BRING THE SITE PLAN BACK UP AND, AND KIND OF SHOW ME WHERE THE H IS AND RELATION TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON TOP OF THAT AREA? SO THE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GOES ALONG THE BACK OF THESE PROPERTIES AND BISECTS THESE BUILDINGS RIGHT THERE. ALL RIGHT. ZOAR? YES. DR. ZARE. SO THAT LEADS ME TO SOME QUESTIONS, WHICH IS, SO WHEN, WHEN HISTORIC WAS DISCUSSING THIS, AND I KNOW THEY DISCUSSED IT MULTIPLE TIMES OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, DID THEY LOOK AT THE HISTORIC SIDE OF THIS AREA SEPARATELY? HOW DID THEY CONSIDER THAT IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS? IT'S ONE PROJECT, ALL OF IT NEEDS TO CONFORM WITH RIO. SOME OF IT NEEDS TO CONFORM WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND SO IT WAS REALLY KIND OF TREATED AS ONE PROJECT SEEKING FOR THE BEST OF ALL OF THAT. SO DO YOU, JUST IN YOUR RECOLLECTION, AS THE DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED, DID THE GUIDELINES FOR RIO OVER RIDE THE GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC OR DID HIS, I MEAN, LIKE HOW DID THEY WEIGH THOSE TWO IF THEY'RE VIEWING THIS AS A WHOLE PROJECT AND NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM BOTH HISTORIC AND THEN RIO? SO GENERALLY THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE GONNA BE A LITTLE MORE STRINGENT THAN RIO, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT, UM, MULTI-FAMILY AND KIND OF A RESIDENTIAL SETTING. RIO IS REALLY MORE, UM, DESIGNED TO ADDRESS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THIS IS KIND OF IN BETWEEN. UM, BUT THERE ARE THINGS IN RIO THAT ARE COVERED, UM, IN THOSE STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, UM, SUCH AS, UH, UH, LIKE LANDSCAPING BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET FOR RIO THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE MORE GENERAL ON. SO, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHEN H D R C WAS MAKING THEIR DEC DECISION AND WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING THIS, DID THEY DISCUSS HOW, DID THEY DISCUSS THE HISTORIC AREA SEPARATE FROM AND DISTINCT FROM RIO? OR DID THEY TEND TO DEFER TO, TO THE RIO GUIDELINES? IT WAS REALLY ALL KIND OF, OF, KIND OF REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED ALTOGETHER. UM, THAT'S WHY A LOT OF [02:30:01] EMPHASIS ON TRAIL HAS BEEN PLACED BECAUSE THAT WAS SORT OF VIEWED AS THE, THE FRONT FACING FRONT DOOR TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS A MORE FOCUSED CONVERSATION ABOUT BUILDING HIDE ON THOSE BUILDINGS. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. OKAY. SINCE, UH, WE'RE DISCUSSING THE, THE ACTUAL BOUNDARIES, UH, OF THE HISTORICAL AREA, WHICH APPARENTLY IS FOUR LOTS ON THE MAIN STREET, UM, SAYS THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE FACING AFFECT THE, THOSE LOTS OR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. UM, CAN YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION? SO THERE'S, WELL, THE AREA THAT, THAT WE KNOW OF THAT'S PART OF THE HISTORICAL AREA IS ONLY FOUR. LOTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO THE POINT ARE WE LOOKING AT ONLY THOSE FOUR LOTS OR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE CITATIONS IN THE APPEAL ADDRESS MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING HASOR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND RIO. UM, SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE ACTION TAKEN TODAY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACT ON ONE OF THE CITATIONS IN THE APPEAL VERSUS OTHERS OR IF IT'S ALL REVIEWED TOGETHER. SO THE APPEAL IS FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT THAT H G R C APPROVED. ALRIGHT. I'M READING FROM YOUR OWN PIECE OF PAPER. I'M A BOARD OF, UH, APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. TO ME THAT MEANS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE, THOSE AREAS THAT ARE ONLY WITHIN THE HISTORIC REVIEW. NO, SIR. UM, IT'S RIO AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THOSE ARE BOTH WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE H D R C. AND H D R C DOES A PURVIEW OVER THAT AS WELL. RIGHT. IT'S THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. SO THE, AND IS THE VO DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDE AND OTHER OVERLAYS THAT THEY, THEY HAVE PURVIEW OVER. SO THE AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS, UH, GOES BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES, UH, OF THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT? NO, THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA THAT YOU SEE KIND OF COLORED IN WITH A DARKER COLOR, ALL OF THIS WAS SUBJECT TO H D R C REVIEW. UM, THEY JUST REVIEWED IT UNDER, UH, RIO AS A TOTAL RIO APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE AREA THAT YOU SEE. UM, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH HAS THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THAT APPLY, UM, WAS APPLIED TO THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PROJECT. SO THERE'S SLIGHTLY MORE, UM, MORE GUIDANCE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE SOUTHERN MOST BUILDINGS. BUT ALL THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS REQUIRING H D R C APPROVAL. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLEAR ON. ALRIGHT. TERELLI, MS. DOCTOR, SORRY. UM, CAN YOU THINK OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE H D R C HAD TO CONSIDER A PROJECT THAT WAS LAYING BOTH WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT IN RECENT TIME? YES, THERE ARE TOWNHOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW ON SOUTH PRESA, UM, PARTIALLY WITHIN THE LA BACA HISTORIC HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PARTIALLY WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UM, SO THAT ENDED UP COMING TO H D R C, UM, UNDER CITY POLICY BECAUSE IT WAS RECEIVING INCENTIVES AT THE TIME. UM, BUT WHEN WE REVIEW THOSE THINGS THAT ARE MORE THAN ONE THING, WE JUST TRY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CONFLICTS IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES THAT APPLY TO IT, BUT BOTH WOULD TECHNICALLY APPLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE FINAL VOTE WITH H D R C? IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF IT WAS EIGHT OR 10 PEOPLE WHO VOTED. UM, BUT IT WAS JUST ONE VOTE, UH, THAT WAS ABLE TO PASS IT. I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX TO FOUR SIX. SIX TO FOUR. THANK YOU, BRAGMAN. OKAY. UM, WE, RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA ESTABLISH THAT THE H D R C APPROVED THIS, THIS PROGRAM. BRAGMAN. YES. MS. BRAGMAN. UM, SO QUESTION, UM, IT APPEARS THAT IN BUILDING FIVE, UM, THAT'S BEEN REDUCED TO TWO STORIES AND THAT BUILDING FIVE AND BUILDING SIX ARE BOTH IN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY. CORRECT. SO PARTS OF BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR ARE TECHNICALLY IN THAT OVERLAY AS WELL. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, THE FOCUS HAS MOSTLY BEEN ON THE BUILDING SPACING TRAIL. OKAY. AND SO, BUT ONLY BUILDING, UM, SIX, I'M SORRY, ONLY, ONLY BUILDING SIX HAS BEEN REDUCED TO TWO STORIES. BUILDING FIVE REMAINS AT THREE STORIES, UM, MOSTLY, SO AT THE MOST RECENT H D R C HEARING, UM, WHERE THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED, UM, THESE TWO, UH, UNITS TO BUILDING FIVE WERE REDUCED TO TWO STORIES. UM, THESE THREE HERE ON THE LEFT [02:35:01] ARE THREE STORIES. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THEY WERE KEPT AT THREE STORY, THOSE, THOSE THREE UNITS AT, AT THE END TO BE CONSISTENT? IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HISTORIC, AND SO WE REDUCED ALL THOSE OTHER BUILDINGS TO TWO-STORY, THERE'S A REASON THAT THE OTHER THREE UNITS IN BUILDING FIVE WERE ALSO NOT REDUCED TO, UH, TWO-STORY. THAT CONDITION WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE, UM, THE APPLICANT TO THE HT R C. AND SO WE CAN ASK HIM THAT QUESTION. SURE. SO WE, WE HAD A, WE HAD WANTED THREE STORY ON ALL OF IT. I MEAN, THAT, THAT REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT MAXIMIZING PROFITS, BUT WE GOING THROUGH THIS, OBVIOUSLY THERE HAD TO BE SOME, UH, DIVERSITY. AND THE FIRST COMPROMISE AT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WAS TWO STORY FOR, UH, BUILDING SIX, THREE STORY FOR BUILDING FIVE. THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED. THAT'S WHAT WE MOVED FORWARD WITH. WHEN THE, IT KEPT COMING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE JUST DECIDED TO JUST, WE ADDED TWO MORE UNITS TO THE COMPROMISE. SO ESSENTIALLY IT IS WE WANTED THREE UNITS. WE COMPROMISED HAVING FIVE UNITS AT TWO STORY. SO IT WAS JUST, IT WAS JUST A MIX, THAT'S ALL. BUT IN THE END, THEY DID NOT, UM, H D R C, UM, THERE, THERE WAS A SPLIT VOTE AS YOU SAW. THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLKS UP THERE THAT SAID, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM APPROVING THE THREE STORY AT THAT. AND OTHER ONES THAT SAID, I STILL THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE TWO. UM, BUT AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE ENOUGH PEOPLE THAT SAID THREE STORY IS STILL APPROPRIATE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS HERE REQUESTING FOR STAFF? YES. IF THE APPEAL WERE TO BE DENIED AND YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, DO WE HAVE A GRASP OF WHAT THE VARIANCES WOULD BE AND IF THE PROJECT EVEN COULD BE MO MOVED FORWARD? IF THOSE VARIANCES WERE DENIED AT THAT POINT FOR ANY REASON, WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES YET TO GIVE THAT DETERMINATION. BUT IF THERE ARE VARIANCES REQUIRED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THOSE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IF THOSE WERE DENIED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND, UM, THEY COULD REVISE THEIR SITE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND THOSE VARIANCES WOULD BE KIND OF THE BLACK AND WHITE VARIANCES VERSUS THE MORE SUBJECTIVE VARIANCE, OR IF THEY WERE, IF VARIANCES WOULD ONLY COME TO YOU IF THE CODE IS BLACK AND WHITE ABOUT IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION, IT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN HEIGHT, WHATEVER THOSE, UH, REQUIREMENTS ARE, UH, THEY'D HAVE TO MEET THEM. IF THEY CANNOT MEET THEM, THEN IT COMES TO YOU FOR A VARIANCE. THANK YOU. YES. WE'VE GOT THREE MORE, UH, RALEIGH WOOD AND YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. GOOD. NAME, ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES. EXCUSE ME. MY NAME'S RILEY WOOD AND MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 1 0 9 LINDE PLACE IN RIVER ROAD, AND WE'VE BEEN THERE 27 YEARS. OKAY. ONE WILL BE FINE. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND JUST START, UM, BY SAYING FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT, THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS HAS ALWAYS BEEN 24 UNITS. IT STARTED OUT AT 24. IT IS TODAY AT 24. FROM THE BEGINNING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN CONSISTENT IN WANTING, UH, STRUCTURES FIVE AND SIX, BUILDING FIVE AND SIX TO BE TWO STORY. AS WE FEEL THAT IT NEEDS A STEP DOWN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NEVER TO THIS POINT, UM, INSISTED THAT THE REST OF THE PROJECT BE MADE. TWO STORIES, WHICH I THINK WE CERTAINLY COULD HAVE. AND HEARING TODAY, AND I'VE BEEN FAIRLY ATTENTIVE TO THIS, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD THAT THE HISTORIC BOUNDARY SOMEHOW GOES INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE CENTER, WHICH I THINK CERTAINLY WOULD LEAD SOME QUESTION TO THAT. SO BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A THREE STORY PROJECT AND A ONE STORY HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS A ZIMBRANO HOUSE THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT. THESE ARE OTHER CHARACTERISTIC. ONE STORY COTTAGES, BUNGALOWS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS MR. HURTT SHOWED. THOSE ARE THE TWO HOUSES ON SATCH THAT ARE ONE STORY IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BUILDING ONE HAS NO KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL STEP DOWN OR ANYTHING ELSE TO ACCOMMODATE OR SOFTEN THE SHEARER WALL TO THOSE STRUCTURES. THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE. ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THREE STORY, ONE STORY, THREE STORY, ONE STORY. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S SUFFOCATING. THE PROJECT REMOVES 11 SIGNIFICANT AND HERITAGE TREES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THIS. THIS IS THE LARGEST TREE, PROBABLY 150 YEARS OLD IN OAK. ESSENTIALLY THE PROJECT [02:40:01] WILL CLEAR CUT AN AREA IN A PARK-LIKE SETTING DRAINAGE. LARRY HAD TALKED ABOUT STORM WATER DRAINAGE. THE APPLICANTS HAVE MADE GOOD EFFORTS IN THIS AREA, UM, BECAUSE THE SITE DOES DRAIN ONTO THE ASA. UH, I THINK AT LAST COUNT THEY HAD ESTIMATED THAT THROUGH THEIR STEPS THEY HAD ACCOUNTED FOR 90% OF THE DRAINAGE RUNOFF. EARLIER IN THE PROJECT, IN THE HISTORY OF THIS, WE WENT AND TALKED WITH, UH, SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY GENERAL MANAGER, SUZANNE SCOTT. AND HER POSITION WAS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO MEET THE CITY'S RULE, NO WATER FROM THE SITE IS TO GO INTO THE ASAKIA. AND LET ME SEE IF I CAN KIND OF PHRASE IT AS SHE WAS PHRASING IT IS THAT IF YOU INHERIT A NON-COMPLIANT CONDITION, IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING THAT CONDITION INTO COMPLIANCE. SO 10% IS RUNNING OFF STILL INTO THE ASAKIA THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. AND THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY AS I SEE IT, OF THE DEVELOPER. THE PROJECT AND CONCLUSION IS TOO TALL. IT NEEDS TO BE REDUCED TO TWO STORIES ON TRAIL. THE DESIGN JUST DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT CONTINUES TO DRAW, DRAIN, STORM WATER INTO THE ASAKIA. AND I GUESS THERE, IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HERE. IF YOU COULD STAND OR JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS. IT CONTINUES TO BE A LONG PROCESS, BUT WE REQUEST THAT YOU SUPPORT THE APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. ORIAN QUESTIONS? QUESTION? YEAH. YOU RAISED, UH, YES, SIR. UM, QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, DRAINING INTO THE AQUEOUS. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE A, A REPRESENTATIVE THAT SARAH TOLD YOU THAT IF YOU HAVE WATER THAT CURRENTLY RUNS INTO THE ASSA, YOU DO DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THAT WAS HER POSITION. IF YOU INHERIT A NON SABRINA NON-COMPLIANT CONDITION, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT FOR US? GOOD AFTERNOON. SABRINA SANTIAGO, TCI, I STORMWATER. UM, SO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS VERY UNIQUE, UH, FOR MANY REASONS. UH, DRAINAGE BEING ONE OF THEM WITH THAT THAT'S, UH, BORDERS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. UM, DURING THE REVIEW OF WHICH I REVIEWED THE PLOT, UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD TO HISTORIC WAS DRAINAGE AND ASAKIA AS WE KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SPECIAL, WE TREAT THEM SPECIALLY. UM, HOW ARE WE GONNA LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE? UM, NATURALLY AS RAW LAND, THAT'S HOW THE DRAINAGE WENT WAS TO THE ASAKIA. BUT WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY WE COULD NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL RUNOFF GOING INTO THAT . SO WE, THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, WORKED WITH THE ENGINEER TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO PREVENT THAT TRADITIONALLY CONVENTIONALLY THAT IT GOES AGAINST DRAINAGE LAW, DRAINAGE CODE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO, WE FELT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DIVERT THE WATER FROM THE ASA TO THE STREETS WITH DETENTION. SO IS IS NOT DRAINING TO THE ASA, IS THAT A GUIDELINE OR IS THAT A STANDARD? IT IS IN THE U D C, IT IS NOT IN THE DRAINAGE MANUAL. UM, THERE IS MENTION OF ASSIAS IN THERE, UM, BUT NOT PERTAINING TO HOW DRAINAGE SHOULD BE CONVEYED TO THOSE SYSTEMS. AND, AND WITH REGARDS TO THAT, IF FOR SOME REASON A PROJECT WERE TO WERE TO SOMEHOW DRAIN, EVEN IF IT'S RUN OFF FROM A DETENTION POND INTO AN ASSIA, WHOSE PERVET WOULD THAT BE? WOULD THAT GO TO THE H D R C OR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THAT CANNOT, IF IT WAS A STAFF, IF STAFF DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING AN INTERPRETATION OF, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHO, WHOSE PURVIEW WOULD THAT BE? H C R C OR PLANNING? I'M GONNA LET HISTORIC TAKE THAT QUESTION. UM, SO RIO HAS A FEW MECHANISMS, MECHANISMS IN IT THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY DESIGN REVIEW. UM, SO THERE ARE SOME, SOME GUIDANCE AS IT PERTAINS TO LOW IMPACT DESIGN STANDARDS AND DRAINAGE JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED ADJACENT TO THE CITY'S WATERWAYS. UM, SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THERE, UM, THAT MAKE IT VERY MUCH OF H C'S PURVIEW BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES IT'S RESULTS IN A DESIGN SOLUTION THAT IS ON THE SITE PLAN. AND SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT CAME TO H C C AND YOU SEE SEVERAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS THAT ARE RESPONDING TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO ULTIMATELY IT IS TCIS REVIEW, BUT WE COORDINATE IN THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM, INTENT THAT THE CODE IS BEING MET. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO. YEAH, NO, ABSOLUTELY. SO YEAH, THE SITE PLAN IS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE H C R C AND, UH, THE DESIGN AND TREATMENT OF THOSE, THOSE FEATURES. AND WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE, UH, MF 33 HAS A FIVE FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, IS THAT, IS THAT BEING METAL ON THE LOTS ALONG TRAIL [02:45:01] ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED TO YOU GUYS THAT YOU, UH, UH, ACCEPTED? YEAH, I THINK TRAIL IS A 18 FOOT SETBACK. UM, YEAH, WELL IF THEY'RE PLATING IT AS MULTIPLE LOTS ALONG TRAIL, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO HAVE FIVE FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS ALONG EACH LOT LINE? I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S BEEN PLATTED. UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, YEAH, THERE'S A PLATT SUBMITTED. IT'S IN A REVIEW. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO SEE IF THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT OVERLAID ONTO THE CYCLING POTENTIALLY IF A VARIANCE WAS NEEDED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? EITHER NONE. OKAY. ANY NEXT WITNESS? I'VE GOT, UH, TERESA LANGA TARSA. YOU STILL HERE? AH, HERE YOU GO. MY NAME IS, THERES RUTH THERESA LANGA, AND I RESIDE AT 1 6 4 EL MONTE BOULEVARD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. I AM 77 YEARS OLD AND I'M A LIFETIME RESIDENT OF THIS CITY. AND THE VERY FIRST EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD WITH THE RIVER ROAD RIVER SAN ANTONIO RIVER WAS WHEN I WOULD, UH, I WOULD, UH, ACCOMPANY MY BROTHERS TO GO WASH THE FAMILY CAR THERE. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. I'D SIT IN THE CAR WHILE THEY WASHED IT. UM, AND WITH ALL RESPECT TO YOU AND YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT SIT ON THIS VERY DISTINGUISHED BOARD, I, UH, WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I AM A PERSON THAT I, I, I, UH, UH, I'M A I'M A PERSON THAT HAS FORESIGHT, NOT HINDSIGHT. AND I'VE SAT HERE AND I'VE LISTENED TO EVERYTHING AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING, ONE THING I DO WANNA SAY THAT THE LADY THAT HEADS THIS H R D C GROUP, SHE HASN'T LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CITY. AND I DON'T THINK, I DON'T SEE HOW SHE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY MADE A DECISION TO LET THESE LOVELY PEOPLE HERE, UH, BE SO UNHAPPY ABOUT HOW PASSIONATE THEY ARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, I THINK THAT, UM, WE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO ARE MUCH, WE ARE USED TO SOMETHING MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO US IN WHAT I HAVE SEEN, AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST PLACE THAT I'VE HAD TO SAY THAT, UH, THERE WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS GONNA GO UP ON, UH, SAN PEDRO AND THE ALMOST PARK TERRACE ASSOCIATIONS WE'VE SAID NO. SO I DO WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M JUST AS PASSIONATE AS THEY ARE AND ANY ENDEAVOR THAT THEY CHOOSE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND, AND THE PASSION THAT THEY HAVE TO KEEP IT THE WAY THAT IT IS, I'M GOING TO JUDGE, I'M GOING TO JOIN THEM. IT'S TWO MINUTES. UH, I SUPPORT THE, UH, CONSERVATION SOCIETY AS WELL, AS WELL AS THEM. APPRECIATE YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS LADY? NO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WI WITNESS, PLEASE. OUR LAST SPEAKER IS ANN LAR. I BELIEVE THERE'S A GENTLEMAN SITTING OVER HERE THAT WAS WANTED TO TRANSFER, BUT HE COULDN'T, AND HE'S ON THE LIST. HE DOESN'T WANNA SPEAK, SO THAT'S TAKE CARE OF THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL THE WITNESSES. THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW, I GUESS, UM, SINCE WE ARE ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE, WOULD BE THE ATTORNEYS. I'M GONNA GIVE THEM A FEW SECONDS TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT. THAT WOULD BE YOU OVER HERE. ALL RIGHT. THIS WILL BE THE FINAL WORD ON THE MATTER. I WANT TO COMMENT ON COUNCIL'S REFERENCE TO THIS BEING A QUESTION OF PROCESS. AND HE DESCRIBED THE MANY, MANY, MANY MEETINGS, UH, WITH THE H D R C AND THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF THE H D R C I. I THINK A BETTER DESCRIPTION FOR IT IS WAR OF ATTRITION. UH, AND I THINK THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY SOME OF THE, THE COMMENTS BY THE CITIZENS. BUT, BUT THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND. UM, YOU COME IN WITH A PLAN FOR, AT THE VERY LEAST, EIGHT UNITS, AT THREE STORIES HIGH ON TRAIL WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND WE'LL, WE'LL, I'LL COMMENT ON THREE AND FOUR, WHICH ARE PARTIALLY WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION IN ANYBODY'S MIND THAT BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX, WHICH ORIGINALLY HAD EIGHT UNITS, WERE ORIGINALLY [02:50:01] PROPOSED AS EIGHT, UH, EIGHT UNITS AT THREE STORIES, WHICH WAS THEN REDUCED TO FIVE UNITS AT THREE STORIES, WHICH WAS THEN REDUCED TO THREE UNITS AT THREE STORES. AND NOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PAT THEM ON THE BACK BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCESS BEFORE THEY FINALLY STOPPED AT ONLY THREE UNITS, ONLY THREE UNITS AT THREE STORIES, CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE, THE UNIT. SO, SO WHAT YOU HAVE, FRANKLY, IS A NEGOTIATING POSTURE. YOU COME IN WITH THE MOST EXTREME SITUATION THAT YOU CAN PRESENT, AND YOU KNOCK IT DOWN TO SOMETHING THAT BY THIS PROCESS THAT IS STILL CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE GUIDELINES. AND ALL THE WHILE, WHILE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX AND BRINGING IT DOWN TO THREE, YOU SAID, OH, BY THE WAY, UH, BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR OVER HERE IN VIOLATION ALSO, UH, WHICH IS MR. WOOD SAID, UH, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT THAT'S BEEN CONCEDED. UH, WAS, IS BEFORE THIS BOARD. AS I SAID, I, I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED UNTIL THIS TIME. UH, THE, THE APPLICATION FOR APPEAL THAT WAS FILED, UH, IT SPEAKS GENERALLY. SO I USUALLY PLEAD THINGS, SPEAKS GENERALLY OF OPPOSING ANY OF THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS. THAT'S TWO MINUTES WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND, AND THAT NOW WOULD COVER NOT ONLY THE, THE THREE IN BUILDING FIVE THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PAT 'EM ON THE BACK FOR, UH, BUT ALSO ALL OF THE UNITS IN THREE AND FOUR, TOTALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE GUIDELINES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, ALRIGHT. SO NOW I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. UM, PLEASE NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A, A MOTION HERE. I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, THIS IS A MOTION FOR EITHER AN UP OR NO, WE CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER THE TWO OR THE FOUR ITEMS AT BAY ARE INDEPENDENTLY, UH, ARGUABLE. LET ME START, START FROM SCRATCH. IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING IS THE, UM, THE, IS AN APPEAL TO A DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORICAL RESERVATION OFFICER IN REGARDS TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR MEANS THAT THE PLAINTIFF, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS IT WOULD BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE CHALLENGING THE DECISION. SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE, AND THE MOTION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THIS WAY, IS THAT DO WE AGREE THAT THE CHALLENGER OR THE NE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE IS CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS, UH, MISTAKES MADE OR, OR, AND, UH, IF YOU DID BELIEVE THAT YOUR VOTE WOULD BE YES. RIGHT? IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CITY EXERCISED THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, DID EVERYTHING THAT THEY POSSIBLY DID, COULD DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE LETTER OF THE, THE RULES AND, AND THE LAWS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS. IF WE VOTE IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, WE WANT, WE WOULD SAY NO. OKAY? SO IN OTHER WORDS, YES, VOTE WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF RENTING THE APPEAL. A NO VOTE MEANS THAT, THAT WE DO NOT GRANT THE APPEAL AND WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S POSITION. DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT? NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. YEAH. CHAIR, MY YES IS NO AND NO IS YES. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, MY ONLY ISSUE WAS, IS THAT IF THIS WERE TO BE, IF THE APPEAL WERE TO BE GRANTED JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, UM, IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE H D R C. BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHAT OUR ISSUE WITH, IF IT'S A MULTIFACETED DECISION, WELL, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S NOT, DOESN'T THAT WE DON'T MAKE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS MAKING A JUDGMENT ON THE POSITION. SO IF YOU WANT TO SAY, WELL DO THIS AND DO THAT, AND WHATEVER, THAT'S OUTTA THE QUESTION IN THIS. ALL WE'RE VOTING ON IS WHETHER THE, THE APPEAL HAS JUST JUSTIFICATION. OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ANYTHING ELSE, RIGHT? AND I DON'T WANNA SIT HERE AND, AND GET, GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF YOU AND SAY, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? NOW, WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION, REMEMBER, IT'S GONNA BE VERY SIMPLE. YOU SEE HOW LONG THEY GAVE US HERE? SO ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE READ THE REPEAL APPROPRIATELY, THEN IF YOU AGREE THAT THE CITY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU WOULD VOTE NO. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT [02:55:01] THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS HAVE A CASE TO FURTHER DEAL WITH THIS, THEN YOU WOULD VOTE YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE MOTION? ELLI, DR. ZELLER. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE DO A MOTION? SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION AND WE'LL DISCUSS IT ON THE MERITS THERE REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 20, UH, DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0. OKAY, LEMME B O A UM, DASH TWO ZERO DASH 0 3 0 0 0 1 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND APPEAL FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION'S OFFICER'S DECISION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3 3 5 TRAIL APPLICANT BEING JOHN HERTZ. END OF MOTION. SECOND. NOW THE DISCUSSION. START THE DISCUSSION. NOW REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON WHAT WE WANT. WE'RE VOTING ESSENTIALLY ON WHAT THIS MEANS. OKAY? I UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY IN THE QUESTIONING OF THE CITY STAFF, IN THE QUESTIONING OF THE APPLICANT IN THE PRESENTATION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THAT WHEN THE H D R C MADE THEIR DECISION IN THIS VERY COMPLEX CASE WHERE THEY WERE LOOKING AT RIO OVERLAY AND HISTORIC DISTRICT ISSUES, THAT THEY DID NOT SEPARATE THESE OUT SUFFICIENTLY TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EACH ONE IN ITS COMPLETENESS. AND THEY POSSIBLY ALLOWED FOR RIO OVERLAY TO SUPERSEDE THE H D R, I MEAN THE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ISSUES. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I JUST HAVE CONCERNS THAT THIS MAY BE, AND IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. AND, UM, WHILE I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. AND SO I WILL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UM, APPEAL. OKAY, MR. TEAL, I BELIEVE YOU MADE THIS THE, UH, SECOND. YES, SIR. UM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE. I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ. UM, I THINK SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US TODAY, SPECIFICALLY WITH BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR, UH, STRADDLING THE BOUNDARY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, DEFINITELY IS CAUSE FOR REVIEW. AND SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD? NEFF. OKAY, MR. NEFF, THANK YOU. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AS WELL. UM, IN ALL THE TESTIMONY I HEARD TODAY, I HEAR, UM, MANY CONCERNS THAT I HAVE THAT PERHAPS WERE NOT DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY IN THE H D R C REVIEW. UH, SPECIFICALLY LOT COVERAGE WAS NEVER SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BY THE H P O AUTHORITY TODAY. AND EVEN THE APPLICANT WAS KIND OF UNSURE OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC LOT COVERAGE WAS OR HOW IT SHOULD BE DEFINED. UM, THE BUILDING HEIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, DID NOT MEET THE INTENT, IN MY OPINION, AND THE SPIRIT OF THAT, UH, REQUIREMENT. AND AS WELL, BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR DID NOT SEEM TO EVER HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED WITHIN THAT DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS STATED TODAY THAT THEY WERE, UM, AS WELL, THE FRONT GARAGES FACING TRAIL STREET IS, IN MY OPINION, NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THAT REGARD, UH, BUT YET WAS APPROVED. UM, AND THOSE ARE ALL REASONS I THINK THAT THIS WAS NOT A APPROPRIATELY REVIEWED AND VOTED UPON BY THE H D R C. SO I FEEL THAT THE APPEAL BY THE NEIGHBOR SHOULD BE GRANTED TODAY. ORIAN ORIAN. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL TODAY, UH, FOR, AND THE, AND THE REAL REASON FOR ME IS, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE TANGIBLE, UH, LATITUDE THAT THE H D R C HAS. AND FOR ME, LOT COVERAGE WAS NOT, WAS NOT DELIBERATED BECAUSE NO ONE TOLD ME WHAT THE EXACT COVERAGE WAS WITHIN THE, THE ACTUAL AGE DISTRICT. I ALSO DON'T LIKE, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE HEAR LAND IS BEING PLATTED, AND I DON'T SEE THE PROPOSED PLAT TO SEE HOW THE LOT LINES AND, AND IF THAT'S GONNA CAUSE ANY INTERPRETIVE, UM, UH, THE LIBERATION THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT, THAT DIDN'T GET BROUGHT UP. WITH REGARD TO THE ASAKIA, THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME BECAUSE I KNOW WATER HAS TO [03:00:01] RUN WHERE IT RUNS AND THEY'RE PROVIDING DETENTION. AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS, UM, UM, ATTESTED TO ACCORDINGLY. TREE COVERAGE. I KNOW THEY'RE GETTING RID OF A LOT OF TREES, BUT ANY VARIANCE TO TREES IS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND NOT THIS BOARD. SO I, I DIDN'T WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. I'M, I'M SOLELY BASING MY DECISION ON, ON TWO, TWO MAIN ELEMENTS. ONE THAT YOU HAVE IN EACH DISTRICT THAT WHILE IT ABUTS THE HIGHWAY, AND THERE ARE SOME LARGE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OVER THERE OFF ST. MARY'S AND MULBERRY AND 2 81, UH, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS SO INUNDATED WITH, WITH SMALL HOMES TO, TO NOT ONLY TO GRANT THREE STORIES ON BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR, AND TO MAKE IT THREE STORIES ON BUILDING, BUILDING FIVE, I JUST THOUGHT WAS AN OVERREACH. UM, UH, WHEN IT, WHEN IT'S LOOKED AT IN THE, IN WHEN A, WITH A TO, TO THE ABUTTING HOME. SO AS PRESENTED TO US TODAY, I AM GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, AND I HOPE THE H D R C CAN, UH, CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE, THOSE TANGIBLE ITEMS. VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? ALL RIGHT, THEN I BELIEVE IT'S TIME TO TAKE A VOTE. DR. TERELLI, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRADMAN. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? YES, MR. BRITTEN? I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. OZUNA, I CONCUR. SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. NEFF? I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. MANNA. I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. KEANU? YES. MR. MARTINEZ? I DO NOT SUPPORT THE, THE, UH, APPEAL. I BELIEVE THE COUNT IS TWO TO, TO, UH, THREE. THREE. THERE'S THREE. THREE, THREE. YES. OKAY, THEN THREE, UH, IN FAVOR. SO THE MOTION DOES FAIL. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME. DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE, UH, THE, THE MOTION PASSES. HE'S GONNA HAVE TO, NO, IT DOES NOT. SO THE MOTION FAILS, UM, BY ACCOUNT OF EIGHT TO THREE? NO, YOU NEED NINE VOTES TO PASS. SO THE MOTION FAILS BY VOTE OF EIGHT TO THREE? CORRECT. SO THEREFORE THE APPEAL IS DENIED. WE VOTED ON, YES. OKAY. SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. YOU NEED NINE VOTES TO PASS. NINE IN FAVOR ONLY EIGHT. WERE IN FAVOR. THREE OPPOSED. THEREFORE, THE MOTION FAILS, THEREFORE IT'S DENIED. OKAY. UM, SINCE NOW I HAVE SOME CONCERNS, CAN THE, IS IT OKAY? I'M, THIS IS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. CAN THE ONE OF THE TWO SIDES CALL FOR A REVOTE? JUST SO EVERYONE'S VERY CLEAR ON THE DECISIONS THEY'VE MADE. I'M BAILING SIDE. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE CHAIR, UM, I MEAN IT'S UP TO HIM, BUT HE EXPLAINED IT THREE TIMES FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. BEFORE THE MOTION WAS MADE, YOU DID NOT, YOU VOTED NO. VOTED NO. WE NEED YOU TO, FOLKS, PLEASE, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. I VOTED. SO CHAIR, IF YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, HOLD ON A SECOND GUYS, I NEED FOR Y'ALL TO JUST SIMMER DOWN SO WE CAN TALK WITH THE BOARD. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO CHAIR, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOTE AND HOW IT WAS RECORDED, YOU CAN CALL FOR A REVOTE. I CALL FOR A REVOTE. AND, AND JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, DO WE SAY I'M CONCURRENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, OR IS IT JUST A YES NO, IT'S JUST A YES OR NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OR AS IN SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DID, SAID, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. CLARIFY. OKAY. I THINK THAT THAT HELPS BE THAT CLARIFY. THANK YOU. LET'S GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SAID, IF WE VOTE YES FOR THE APPEAL, OKAY, THEN YOU SUPPORT THE NEIGHBOR. AND YET WHEN WE SAY YES OVER THERE, THEY SAID, WELL, IT DIDN'T PASS. SO, SO WAS IT, WAS IT WE'RE RAINBOW VOTE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SAY CHAIR, I WOULD CLARIFY. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS A MOTION TO APPROVE [03:05:01] THE APPEAL AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU VOTE YES. SO THEN GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THE YES AND THE NO. ALRIGHT. SO WE'LL, IF, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE APP, UH, OF THE APPEAL, IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AGAINST THE APPEAL. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S DO A REVOTE. DR. ELLI? YES, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. MR. THIEL? YES, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. MS. BRAGMAN? NO, I'M NOT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I AM SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. MR. ORIAN? YES, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. MR. BRITTON. I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. OZUNA? YES, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. NEFF. I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. MANNA. I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. MR. KEANU? YES. MR. MARTINEZ? YES. I SUPPORT THE APPEAL. SO THE, THE VOTE TOTAL IS 10 TO ONE MOTION. THE APPEAL IS APPROVED. YOU DIDN'T KNOW I'M GOING THE BAR. OH MY GOD, YOU'RE SO COMING OVER HERE. HI GUYS. WE STILL HAVE SOME BUSINESS. IF WE COULD HAVE YOU ALL GO OUT INTO THE LOBBY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE LOVE YOU. THANKS. WE STILL LOVE YOU. ALL RIGHT. [5. 20-1916 Consideration and approval of the February 3, 2020 Board of Adjustment minutes.] DID EVERYONE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? YES. YES. DOES ANYONE SEE ANY ALTERATION OR CHANGES FROM THAT MEETING? NO. NO? ALL RIGHT, THEN THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. NOW WE HAVE SOME BUSINESS WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF. UH, SO THEY'RE SURPRISING, RIGHT? THERE'S A [Director's Report : BOA Work Session: Mini MLI Training March 2, 2020] DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM. UM, JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR THOSE THAT DID NOT GET TO ATTEND THE, THE M L I TRAINING, WE ARE GOING TO HOST A MINI M L I TRAINING FOR A WORK SESSION. SO WE WILL HAVE A LUNCH WORK SESSION. WE'D LIKE TO PROBABLY START AT ABOUT 11. SO IF Y'ALL CAN GET HERE, WE'LL FEED YOU LUNCH. UM, AND, UH, AND WE'LL HAVE SOME SUITES FOR YOU THIS TIME, SINCE WE'RE BRINGING BACK OUR SUITES. SO IS THAT THE NEXT MEETING? YES. FOR MARCH. UH, FOR MARCH 2ND, THE NEXT MEETING. AND, AND THIS COUNTS AS OUR YEARLY M L I ATTENDANCE. IT, IT WOULD, COULD COUNT FOR THE YEARLY. ONE OF YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON GOING IN OCTOBER. THAT'S THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. ALL ALL WE NEED TO ADDRESS FROM THAT, THAT AREA. 'CAUSE WE HAVE SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS. OH, YEAH. UH, THAT'S IT FOR ME. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UH, REGRETTABLY, I'VE BEEN ADVISED THAT MR. NEFF IS RESIGNING IMMEDIATELY FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THANKS FOR STEALING MY THUNDER, . WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU ANY THUNDER. REGRETTABLY, I WILL BE RESIGNING FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TODAY. UM, NO, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR, I DON'T KNOW, SIX YEARS OR SOMETHING. AND I'VE ENJOYED MY TIME ON THIS BOARD. UH, I'VE LEARNED A LOT. I'VE MET A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'VE ENJOYED LEARNING ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS, AND I'VE ALSO ENJOYED TO NOT ENJOY THE PROCESS OF THIS MANY TIMES. UM, I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR EVERYBODY UP HERE AND IT, UM, IT'S WITH SOME SADNESS THAT I'M LEAVING THIS, BUT I ALSO DON'T SEE THIS AS A FULL-TIME JOB. AND AT TIMES THAT'S WHAT IT FEELS LIKE. I'VE HAD A LOT OF CHANGES IN MY LIFE. I HAVE, MY FIRST SON WAS JUST BORN A FEW WEEKS AGO. THAT HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED MY LIFE AS WELL AS THE TIME I SPEND IN MY LIFE. UM, AND I'VE BEEN PICKING UP MANY MORE ARCHITECTURAL CLIENTS AND AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS AND REMODELING HOUSES THAT I DO, I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO SPEND, UH, A HALF A DAY HERE TWICE A MONTH, UH, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER THINGS I VOLUNTEER MY TIME FOR. SO IT'S, [03:10:01] UH, IT'S WITH SOME REGRET, BUT WITH SOME EXCITEMENT THAT I WILL NOT BE, UH, ON THIS BOARD ANY LONGER. AND I'VE ENJOYED IT. AND I, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU WHEN I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT PODIUM, BECAUSE YOU WILL BE SEEING ME THERE IN TWO, TWO YEARS. WELL, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT IN WRITING TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT YOU'RE I WILL TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND YOU DO BRING UP A GOOD POINT. WE'LL HAVE TO, THEY'LL HAVE TO APPOINT HIS REPLACEMENT UNTIL THEN. WE WILL RELY ON OUR ALTERNATES. UM, BUT, UH, WE ALSO DO HAVE THE D THREE REPLACEMENT THAT IS GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL ON MARCH 5TH. UH, SO WE'LL HAVE, UH, A NEW PERSON FROM DISTRICT THREE. THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S WE WHO REPLACE REBA MALONE, CORRECT. OH, OKAY. THAT'S TRUE. BUT WE'RE ALSO, UH, WE'RE ALSO, UH, THE COMMITTEE THAT HE SITS ON, WE NEED TO ASSIGN A NEW PERSON FOR THAT. YES, FOR THE TAC YOU BRING THAT. GOOD POINT. WE'LL BRING THAT UP ON THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL. AND SO YOU'LL HAVE AN ACTUAL ITEM FOR AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH THE FACT THAT THIS IS COMING THROUGH VERY QUICKLY AND WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED ON WHO THE APPOINTMENTS AND I I EITHER ASSIGNED THEM OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON YOU HAVE TO VOTE? YES. OKAY. WE HAVE TO VOTE THEN WE HAVE TO WAIT. OKAY. ANY OTHER SURPRISES THAT WE'RE GONNA GET TODAY? I WANNA THANK ALAN FOR ALL THE YEARS THAT HE'S BEEN, UH, ON THIS BOARD. I KNOW THAT, UH, I'M NOT FAR BEHIND YOU IN YEARS, BUT, UH, IT'S BEEN A REAL PLEASURE AND I RELY, AS YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER, I RELY ON YOU A LOT BECAUSE, UH, YOUR EXPERTISE IS VALUABLE TO ME AND, UH, JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA MS. ALLEN. ALRIGHT? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS ANYTHING ELSE THEN CLEAR THE, UH, BOARD OF JUSTICE MEETING CLOSED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.