* 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. [00:00:06] OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOOD TO GO. GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, CALL TO ORDER THE JULY 7TH, UM, WORK SESSION BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION HEARING, AND THE MEETING IS NOW OPEN SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS ITEMS, UM, ON THE AGENDA. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR ITEMS THEY WOULD, UM, LIKE, UH, PULLED? GOOD MORNING. THIS IS KENI. CAN WE GET, CAN I GET THE NUMBERS FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PLEASE? YES, SIR. THIS IS CHRISTIE. THERE WERE 10 NOTICES MAILED. TWO WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THUNDERBIRD HILLS IS IN SUPPORT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I GET THE COUNCIL NUMBER 10, PLEASE? AND ALSO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING? BECAUSE IT, THE RESTAURANT IS COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS. OH, HOLD ON A SECOND. WE'RE GETTING THE COUNTS. UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT MEANS PAID VERSUS NOT PAID PARKING. OH, OKAY. DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SURE. NOW THE COUNTS ON NUMBER 10, WHICH IS THE CASE ENDING IN 1 1 5 CD. THERE WERE NINE NOTICES MAILED. NONE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER NUMBER? UM, I'M TRYING TO GET HIS, UM, HIS NUMBER, MY THIRD CASE. WAS THERE ANOTHER ONE YOU NEEDED? UM, NUM, UH, NUMBER 13, THERE WERE NINE NOTICES MAILED. THAT ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND NO RESPONSE FROM HIGHLAND HILLS. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UM, I'LL NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE CAN CONSIDER THAT SEPARATELY IN ORDER, UH, TO DO THE RECUSAL. THANK YOU. ALSO, I'M WAITING TO HEAR BACK ON, UM, NUMBER NINE ON WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THEY'RE, UH, AMENABLE TO THE NA ON THAT. SO I'M STILL WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM, UH, BRIANNA AND RT WAS TRYING TO MAKE THAT CONTACT. UH, MADAM CHAIR? YES. I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF. OH, . OH, THESE ARE WEIRD. I'LL HAVE TO JUST GET THE OTHER ONES. MM-HMM. , UM, ON ITEM NUMBER 14, I WANNA LEAVE IT ON COMBINED, BUT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. OKAY. SO ITEM NUMBER 14, COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? THIS IS COMMISSIONER JONES. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UH, PAUL, CAN WE SEE THE INDIVIDUAL, UH, LIST? THE ONLY THING NEW TO THIS LIST, UM, THEY WERE GONNA BE ON INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION. IS THAT CASE NUMBER 50 IS REQUESTING A, A CONTINUANCE, THAT'S ITEM NUMBER FIVE. AND ALSO ITEM NUMBER 12 IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE, BUT ALSO HAS A NUMBER OF [00:05:01] COMMENTS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY, UH, UPDATES, UH, FROM THE STAFF FOR US? ANYTHING UPCOMING REPORT? SORRY. NO, NOTHING TO REPORT. NOTHING TO REPORT. OKAY. WELL, IF OUT OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR ITEMS TO PULL, UM, WE ARE OKAY TO, UH, TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK ABOUT 12 57, 12 58 BEFORE THE HEARING. SO YOU, IF YOU'RE, UH, FEEL FREE TO MUTE YOUR CAMERAS IN YOUR MICROPHONES NOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT, UH, COMMISSIONER GRAU, WELCOME BACK. YES, . VERY GOOD. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. GOOD TO BE BACK WITH ALL OF YOUR CASES. YEAH, I TOOK CARE OF 'EM ALL FOR YOU. DON'T WORRY. I KNOW, I NOTICED, I NOTICED THAT ALL THE ONES I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO ESCAPE BY NOT BEING HERE. UM, WERE, WERE CONSPICUOUSLY, UM, CONTINUED UNTIL TODAY WHEN I CAME BACK. , THANK YOU FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE IT. ONLY THE ONLY THE DIFFICULT ONES, . THAT'S RIGHT. OF COURSE. THOSE ARE THE FUN ONES, RIGHT? AW. BUT, ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS JOY MCGEE AND I AM THE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT REZONING COMMISSIONER, I HEAR BY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION INTO SESSION. MAY WE PLEASE HAVE OUR INTERPRETERS READ THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR THIS MEETING? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [Roll Call:] UH, MAY WE PLEASE HAVE THE ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER GR HOUSE HERE. COMMISSIONER JOE? HERE. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN. HERE. COMMISSIONER HUEY. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? HERE. COMMISSIONER GIBBON PRESENT. COMMISSIONER WHITE. MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE, SIR. THERE YOU GO. HERE. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER HERE. COMMISSIONER BUS PRESENT AND CHAIR MCGEE HERE. QUORUM IS PRESENT MA'AM. THANK YOU. UM, PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE UH, REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT STAFF MEMBERS RIGHT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE ZONING COMMISSION IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETING ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW ANTONIO GOV DSB OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO. ONLY AT THERE ARE TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES. AND FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED. STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL. LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENT. SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTION. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, [1. (WITHDRAWN) ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700049 (Council District 8): A request for a change in zoning from "C-2 MLOD-1 MLR-2" Commercial Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District, "C-3 MLOD-1 MLR-2" General Commercial Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District, "C-3 UC-1 MLOD-1 MLR-2" General Commercial IH-10/FM 1604 Urban Corridor Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District, "C-3R MLOD-1 MLR-2" General Commercial Restrictive Alcohol Sales Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District and "C-3R UC-1 MLOD-1 MLR-2" General Commercial Restrictive Alcohol Sales IH-10/FM 1604 Urban Corridor Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District to "MF-25 UC-1 MLOD-1 MLR-2" Low Density Multi-Family IH-10/FM 1604 Urban Corridor Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District and "MF-25 MLOD-1 MLR-2" Low Density Multi-Family Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 District on 17.767 acres out of NCB 14857, generally located in the 12000 block of West Interstate Highway 10. (Victoria Castro, Planner, (210) 207-2736, Victoria.Castro@Sanantonio.gov, Development Services).] WILL WE PLEASE PROCEED WITH THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON, UH, CONSENT, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. UM, FIRST OF ALL, THE ITEMS THAT ARE POSTPONED AND WITHDRAWN, ITEM NUMBER ONE WAS WITHDRAWN. THAT'S THE [00:10:01] ITEM ENDING IN FOUR NINE, LOCATED IN THE 12,000 BLOCK OF WEST INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10. THAT ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. [2. (POSTPONED) ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700118 (Council District 5): A request for a change in zoning from "R-4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "IDZ-3 AHOD" High Intensity Infill Development Zone Airport Hazard Overlay District with uses permitted for a Recycling Facility with Outside Storage And/Or Processing (Excluding Metal Recycling Entity) on Lot 24, Block 8, NCB 2118, located at 1203 North Colorado Street. (Justin Malone, Planner (210) 207-0157, Justin.Malone@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department).] ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A POSTPONEMENT. IT'S A CASE ENDING IN 1 1 8 LOCATED AT 1203 NORTH COLORADO STREET. AND THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY AND WILL BE RE NOTED AND REPUBLISHED WHEN THE APPLICANT IS READY TO PROCEED. [Items 8, 10, 11, 14, 15] THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION ITEMS NUMBER 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, AND 15. NUMBER NINE WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR RECUSAL. AND ITEM NUMBER 11 AND NUMBER 15, HAVE A LETTER TO BE READ FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY AND WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON ITEM 14 AT THE END AS WELL. YES MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO PULL OR ARE WE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE READING 'EM INTO THE RECORD? I BELIEVE WE ARE READY TO, UM, READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C TWO NA M O TWO MLR, TWO A H O D TO MF 18 M O D TWO MLR, TWO A H O D LOCATED GENERALLY LOCATED AT 28 48 CINEMA RIDGE. THERE WERE 10 NOTICES MAILED TO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION AND THUNDERBIRD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM MP 15 M L O D THREE MLR, ONE TO MP 15 CD M L O D THREE MLR ONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT TO BE LOCATED AT 2 51 ELAINE ROAD. THERE WERE NINE NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C TWO NC D ONE A H O D C THREE N C D ONE A H O D C THREE AND A N C D ONE A H O D C TWO S NNC, D ONE A H O D WITH SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A BAR AND OR TAVERN WITHOUT COVER CHARGE THREE OR MORE DAYS A WEEK. AND C TWO N C D ONE A H O D AND THIS IS TO BE REZONED TWO C TWO I DZ NC D ONE ON 0.6591 ACRES OUT OF N C B 7 32 LOCATED AT 10 12 SOUTH PRESA AND 10 32 SOUTH PRESA C TWO S I D Z NC D ONE A H O D WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A BAR ON 0.02 ACRES OUT OF NC B 72 LOCATED AT 10 16 SOUTH PRESA AND C2 F NCD ONE A H O D WITH A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR A BAR ON THE WEST 91.4 FEET OF THE SOUTH. HUNDRED AND 11 FEET OF LOT SIX NCV 7 9 1 LOCATED AT 10 29 SOUTH CRESA, 10 35 SOUTH CRESA AND 1248 SOUTH CRESA. THERE WERE 45 NOTICES MAILED. THREE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. NO RESPONSE FROM KING WILLIAMS AND ONE RESPONSE RECEIVED OPPOSED OUTSIDE THE 200 NOTIFICATION AREA. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM MF 33 A H O D, THE C TWO A H O D, LOCATED AT 28 19 SOUTHEAST MILITARY DRIVE. THERE WERE NINE NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM HIGHLAND HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R FIVE A H O D TO MF 18 A H O D LOCATED AT 1 1 1 1 0 BALTIC STREET. THERE WERE 22 NOTICES MAILED TO RECEIVE IN FAVOR. NONE IN OPPOSITION TO RECEIVE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM I ONE A H O D AND C THREE A TWO C2 A AT 1 2 5 9 0 WEST AVENUE. THERE WERE 10 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. ONE RECEIVED DE OPPOSED OUTSIDE THE 200 [00:15:01] FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND NOW I WILL PROCEED TO READ THE LETTERS FOR ITEMS NUMBER 11 AND 15 FOR ITEM NUMBER 11 ON SOUTH PRESA. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO POSES THE CHANGE IN ZONING OF THE TACO HAVEN BUILDING AT 10 12, 10 16 AND 10 32 SOUTH PRESA I D Z ZONING IS TWO OPEN-ENDED FOR THIS BUILDING, WHICH IS AN INTACT HISTORIC STOREFRONT BUILDING FROM THE 1920S. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT I D Z ZONING WILL ENCOURAGE THE DEMOLITION OR DISFIGUREMENT OF THIS BUILDING THROUGH INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATION Z CONSERVATION SOCIETY. ITEM NUMBER 15 1 2 5 9 0 WEST AVENUE. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO OPPOSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CHANGE OF LAND USE FOR THE SITE FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO FURTHER ERODE THE OPEN SPACES IN THIS AREA. ALTHOUGH C TWO REPRESENTS A DOWN DOWN ZONING OF ALLOWABLE USES, WE CAUTION THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 1 2 5 9 0 WEST AVENUE MUST BE SENSITIVE AND NOT DETRACT FROM NEARBY WALKER WRENCH PARK AND PANTHER SPRINGS CREEK SUBMITTED PATTY ZION CONSERVATION SOCIETY. AND THEN MADAM CHAIR, YOU SAID THERE WAS COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 14. YES. COMMISSIONER UH, GIBBONS. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANNA RECOGNIZE, UH, THE DEVELOPER FOR 1 1 1 1 0 BALTIC STREET. UH, HE IS PROPOSING A, UH, UNIT FOR MARKET AND LOW INCOME HOUSING. THIS IS NOT UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY FOR BALTIC. HE HAS DEVELOPED OTHERS ON THE STREET AND WE WELCOME HIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, FULLY. I THINK IT WILL MEET QUITE A NEED AS IT IS IN WALKING DISTANCE TO THE SCHOOL. IT COULD BE WALKING DISTANCE IS FOUR MINUTES FROM H E B AND WALKING DISTANCE TO CONVENIENCE STORE THAT ACCEPTS ANY WIC OR, OR, UM, LONE STAR CARDS. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THE DEVELOPER. UM, EDUARDA QUINTANA AND HIS, UH, CONTINUED, UM, WORKING IN THIS AREA TO IMPROVE IT WITH QUALITY, LOW-INCOME HOUSING AND HOUSING FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THOSE NEEDS. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, CHAIR, UM, ITEM NUMBER 13. I KNOW THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD, BUT, UH, WE'RE GETTING AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT WHO'S REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, UH, NUMBER 13 BE, UH, REMOVED FROM CONSENT, UH, ONTO INDIVIDUAL FOR CONTINUANCE. YES, PLEASE. ALRIGHT, MADAM CHAIR. UH, IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS TO ITEMS 8, 10, 11, 14, AND 15. SECOND MR. GIBBONS. OKAY. SAY, I CAN'T TELL WHO THAT WAS. FIRST . ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK, UM, OKAY, COMMISSIONER, UH, OKAY. COMMISSIONER SIPES, YOU ARE CERTAINLY BIG AND SMILING IN MY SCREEN RIGHT NOW, SO I GUESS WE'LL PUT THAT MEANING THAT YOU CAME FIRST. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION MADE FOR APPROVAL, UM, BY COMMISSIONER BUSANTE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIPES. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMIN? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SYKE? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE AYE. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. CHAIR. OH, DID YOU WANNA I GUESS THAT, OH, I GUESS WE ARE NOT GONNA CALL IT. I THOUGHT YOU USUALLY CALLED IT AS A OH. OH. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU VOTE. OH, I SAID YES. I'M SORRY. . ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NOW WE WILL, UH, MOVE TO THE ITEM WE PULLED SEPARATE ON THE CONSENT, UM, AGENDA. [9. ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700108 (Council District 3): A request for a change in zoning from "C-3 AHOD" General Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District and "C-3 H AHOD" General Commercial Brooks School of Aerospace Medicine Historic Airport Hazard Overlay District to "IDZ-2 AHOD" Medium Intensity Infill Development Zoning with uses permitted in "C-2" Commercial District and residential uses up to 19.77 units per acre and "IDZ-2 H AHOD" Medium Intensity Infill Development Zone Brooks School of Aerospace Medicine Historic Airport Hazard Overlay District with uses permitted in "C-2" Commercial District and residential uses up to 19.77 units per acre on 5.77 acres out of NCB 10879, located in the 2500 block of Sidney Brooks. Staff recommends Approval. (Michael Pepe, Planner, (210) 207-8208, Michael.Pepe@sanantonio.gov, Development Services)] AND WE WILL SHOW FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE IS BOTH MUTING HER CAMERA AND HER MICROPHONE IN RECUSAL ON THIS CASE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE A H O D, AND C THREE H A H O D TO I D Z TWO A H O D WITH USES PERMITTED IN C TWO AND RESIDENTIAL USES UP TO 19.77 UNITS PER [00:20:01] ACRE. AND IDZ TWO H AD WITH USE PERMITTED IN C2 RESIDENTIAL USE. COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, COMMISSIONER FLORE. MS. FLORES, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWING ON THE SCREEN FOR THE, UH, PUBLIC? THERE WE GO. SORRY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TRY AGAIN. NO PROBLEM. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE A H O D AND C THREE H A H O D. THE I D Z TWO A H O D WITH USES PERMITTED IN C TWO AND RESIDENTIAL USES UP TO 19.77 UNITS PER ACRE. AND I D Z TWO H A H O D WITH USES PERMITTED IN C TWO AND RESIDENTIAL USES UP TO 19.77 UNITS PER ACRE. LOCATED IN THE 2,500 BLOCK OF SYDNEY BROOKS. THERE WAS ONE NOTICE MAILED. NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION. MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. I'M MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER NINE, COMMISSIONER SIPES. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIPES. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREENHOUSE. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER GREENHOUSE IS CUS SO COMMISSIONER JONES APPROVED? YES. MM-HMM. . COMMISSIONER KAMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE. UH, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, SIR? YOU'RE MUTED. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. AYE. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. NINE TO ZERO. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE AND TO UNMUTE YOUR CAMERA, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. WE SHOW FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE HAS RETURNED TO THE MEETING. UM, WE ARE READY TO MOVE [3. ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700085 S ERZD (Council District 9): A request for a change in zoning from “C-3 MLOD-1 MLR-2 ERZD” General Commercial Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Edwards Recharge Zone District to “C-3 S MLOD-1 MLR-2 ERZD” General Commercial Camp Bullis Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Edwards Recharge Zone District with a Specific Use Authorization for Animal and Pet Services (with outdoor training, boarding, runs, pens, paddocks) on 1.753 acres out of NCB 19218, generally located northwest of the intersection of the 22000 block of US Highway 281 North and the 20800 block of Stone Oak Parkway. Staff recommends Approval. (Justin Malone, Planner, (210) 207-0157, Justin.Malone@sanantonio.gov; Development Services).] ON TO OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THIS WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER THREE TO REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C THREE M O D ONE MLR TWO E R C D TO C THREE S ML, O D ONE MLR TWO E R C D WITH SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION FOR ANIMAL AND PET SERVICES WITH OUTDOOR TRAINING, SPORTING RUN PINS AND PADDOCKS. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE 22,000 BLOCK OF US HIGHWAY 2 81 NORTH AND THE 2,800 BLOCK OF STONE OAK PARKWAY. THERE WERE FOUR NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING LANDS. IN RELATION TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. THE BASE ZONING OF C THREE WILL REMAIN THE SAME. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MADAM CHAIR, MAY WE HAVE THE SALES REPRESENTATIVE, PLEASE? WE ARE PATCHING THEM THROUGH. IT SHOULD BE ONE MORE, ONE MOMENT. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SAWS ON THE LINE. YES, THIS IS, UH, MICHAEL ESCALANTE WITH SAWS FOR PROTECTION AND EVALUATION SECTION. UH, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ZONING APPLICATION LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF STONE OAK PARKWAY AND US HIGHWAY 2 81 NORTH TO ALLOW, UH, PET BOARDING SERVICES. NO SENSITIVE FEATURES WERE OBSERVED ON SITE SAWS IS RECOMMENDING 71% IMPERVIOUS [00:25:01] COVER FOR THE 1.753 ACRES AND A BELOW GRADE FILTRATION SYSTEM WILL TREAT STORMWATER OFF ON SITE. SOLS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'LL STAY ON THE LINE JUST IN CASE WE HAVE QUESTIONS. MAY WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT PLEASE? YES. MADAM CHAIR. UH, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN AND ORTIZ ONE 12 EAST DECON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER CASEY DEVELOPMENT. HAVE YOU HEARD, UM, THIS IS A ZONING CASE OFF OF 2 81 AND STONE OAK PARKWAY, ABOUT 1.75 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C THREE AND IF STAFF HASN'T ALREADY, CAN YOU PLEASE GO TO PAGE TWO OF THE POWERPOINT WE SENT IN, UH, PROPERTY IS ZONED C THREE AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE END USER, UH, PET PARADISE, WHICH IS A PREMIER BOARDING, DAYCARE, GROOMING, AND MINOR VETERINARY CARE FACILITY FOR CATS AND DOGS. WE ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA. ALL OF THE, UH, UPPER MENTIONED USES ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AND THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT. BUT IN ORDER FOR PET PARADISE TO OFFER ITS CLIENTS THE FULL RANGE OF AMENITIES, WE WILL NEED, UH, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. IF STAFF COULD GO TO SLIDE THREE, JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PET PARADISE. UH, FOUNDED IN 2004 WITH HEADQUARTERS IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. THEY HAVE OVER A THOUSAND EMPLOYEES, UH, 37 RESORTS ACROSS NINE STATES. AND MOST RECENTLY, THEY, UH, THEY PLAN ON OPENING A LOCATION THIS SUMMER IN GEORGETOWN. STAFF. PLEASE GO TO SLIDE FOUR IF POSSIBLE. I HOPE THE ZONING COMMISSIONERS CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA WILL LOOK LIKE ON AT THE STONE OAK LOCATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, ON THE SLIDE HOUR OF OPERATIONS, MONDAY OR FRIDAY, 6:30 AM TO 7:00 PM UH, SATURDAY SUNDAY, 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM APPROXIMATELY EIGHT TO 12 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. AND THERE'S SOME DESIGN DETAILS LIKE FENCE, UH, WALLS, ROOF, AND THE PLAY AND RUN AREAS. THE STAFF COULD PLEASE GO TO SLIDE FIVE. THIS IS WHAT PET PARADISE AT STONE OAK, UH, IS PROPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. UM, THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE STONE, OAK, P O A AND THEY RECENTLY RECEIVED, UH, APPROVAL FROM THEIR ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, UH, THERE WILL BE A SOUND ATTENUATING PERIMETER WALL, UH, ROAD AND GREENSCAPE, UH, ON THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ENCLOSED OUTDOOR PLAY AREA COURTYARD. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO IT SAW REPORTED THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE ZONING CASE WITH ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR REPORT. WE CAN WORK WITH THE 71%, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER RECOMMENDATION, AND WE WILL HAVE A BAY FILTER SYSTEM FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF THAT WILL FILTER, UM, THE LIQUID, UH, ON SITE AND RELEASE IT INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SLIDE SEVEN. THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WHERE THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA IS, THE BUILDING PARKING SPACES, ENTRANCE AND EXIT. SO, UH, WITH ALL THAT SAID, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THIS ADDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, AND WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF PET PARADISE AND THE DEVELOPER ON THIS CALL IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS CASE? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER GIVENS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. OH, WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY CASES WHERE WE'RE GOING TO, UH, ACCOMMODATE A CLIENT LIKE PUPPIES AND DOGGIES, SO THIS IS NICE. UM, AND GOOD TIMING, I THINK BECAUSE WE JUST APPROVED A APARTMENT COMPLEX UP THE STREET OR DOWN THE STREET, HOWEVER YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT. SO I THINK, UH, THIS, IT'S A PROBABLY A VERY GOOD NICHE OUT THERE. I HAVE NO COMMENTS. SAAS [00:30:01] WAS GENEROUS, UM, AND THEY SEEM TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WITH THE PREVIOUS COVER THEY WERE GIVEN. UH, SO I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, JUST A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, WHEN YOU SHOWED ON THE SLIDE, UM, IT LOOKS KINDA LIKE AN OVERHEAD VIEW OR LIKE A SATELLITE VIEW. UM, IT LOOKED LIKE MOST OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. BUT THEN ON YOUR SITE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S SOME PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY, WHAT THE USES ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE. SO YES, THERE, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, BUT IT'S PRIMARILY ZONE C THREE AROUND US. WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF MULTIFAMILY TO OUR WEST. SO I THINK THOSE WOULD BE PERSPECTIVE USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LEARNING DISTRICT. THERE, THERE, THERE'S NOTHING EXISTING THAT WE, THIS WOULD POTENTIALLY BE DISRUPTING IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. THAT'S ALL THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT THIS WAS HERE WHEN THEY'RE PLANNING THEIR DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. MADAM CHAIR, ITEM NUMBER THREE. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER GIBBONS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JONES. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? ANY COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE? ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER KATH. THERE YOU GO. GO AHEAD MR. KATH. OKAY. YOU'RE UNMUTED NOW? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SYKE? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE AYE. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ZERO I. [4. (Continued from 05/19/2020) ZONING CASE Z-2019-10700288 HL (Council District 1): A request for a change in zoning from "RM-4 AHOD" Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District to "RM-4 HL AHOD" Residential Mixed Historic Landmark Airport Hazard Overlay District on Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 30, NCB 3036, located at 214 Lotus Avenue. Staff recommends Approval. (Mirko Maravi, Planner (210) 207-0107, mirko.maravi@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)] ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R M FOUR A H O D TO RMM FOUR H L A H O D, LOCATED AT TWO 14 LOTUS AVENUE. THERE WERE 32 NOTICES MAILED NONE. NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. WELL, ACTUALLY ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. THE OWNER IS NOT, UH, DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. THREE. RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND LACA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY ARE IN SUPPORT. THE REQUEST FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT THE CI BUT THE OWNER DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION. ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2019, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVED THE FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, IDENTIFYING THAT THE PROPERTY IS HISTORICALLY, HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BASED ON CRITERIA IN THE CODE SECTION 35 6 0 7. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, MAY WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT PLEASE? HI, THIS IS DR. JENNY HAY. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YES. GREAT. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. UM, I AM THE SCOUT STATE PROGRAM MANAGER AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. UM, AND WE ARE, UH, REPRESENTING CITY COUNCIL AS THE, UM, APPLICANT FOR THIS, UH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION CASE TODAY. I DO HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION, BUT I'LL FLY THROUGH IT SINCE THIS THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU'VE HEARD, UM, THIS CASE, I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BE FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH IT AT THIS POINT. UM, UH, WILL YOU GO TO THE SECOND SLIDE FOR ME? UM, TWO 14 LOTUS IS A SINGLE STORY QUEEN AND STYLE [00:35:01] RESIDENCE. IT WAS BUILT IN 1909. UH, IT'S LOCATED IN THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, NCD ONE, THAT'S THE SOUTH PRESA, SOUTH ST. MARY'S N C D. UM, AND IF YOU'LL, UH, LOOK AT THE MAP FOR JUST A MOMENT, I JUST WANNA DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE, UM, UH, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LANDMARKS. UM, THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE KNOW HAS A DENSE COLLECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES IN IT. UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, UH, YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THE, THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE, SO I WON'T, UH, TAKE TOO LONG, LONG. UM, I WILL NOTE THAT WE DID RECEIVE, UH, A DEMOLITION REQUEST. THAT'S HOW THIS CAME TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. UM, AND STATS RESEARCH, UH, IN OUR, UM, UH, TYPICAL REVIEW OF A DEMOLITION REQUEST INDICATED THAT THIS WAS AN ELIGIBLE PROPERTY. SO, UM, THAT'S, UH, HOW IT GOT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, WHO DID FIND THAT IT WAS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. UH, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL HEARD THE CASE IN OCTOBER, UM, AGREED WITH THE, UM, H DRCS RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, ASKED STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, INITIATE THE REZONING PROCESS TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. UM, AND THE, UH, UH, THE CASE, UH, WENT BACK TO THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT DESIGNATION SPECIFICALLY. AND OF COURSE, YOU HEARD THE CASE IN MAY, UM, OF THIS YEAR. AND, UH, AS NOTED, THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES REMAIN, UM, IN OPPOSITION TO THE DESIGNATION. UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IT SHOULD BE SLIDE FOUR. UM, UH, THE CRITERIA THAT THE PROPERTY MET, UH, WERE, UM, IT'S EMBODIMENT OF DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLEAN AND STYLE, UH, THE INTEGRITY OF LOCATION DESIGN AND MATERIALS, UH, AND WORKMANSHIP AS ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES ON LOADED STREET, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1909, WHICH OF COURSE IS WHEN THIS HOME WAS BUILT. AND THEN FINALLY, FOR ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, UM, AS IT CONTRIBUTES TO A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LA BACA NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND FOR ITS LOCATION IN THIS AREA, WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, UH, AS AN ELIGIBLE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, AND AS WE'VE MENTIONED, UH, AFTER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEARD THIS CASE IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, AND THEN DIRECTED STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR THIS PROPERTY. UH, AND WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ME. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? UM, SETH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT YOU YES. WE'RE GONNA GET THEM ON THE LINE. UM, JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. OKAY. UH, WE WILL BE PATCHING IN MR. JOSE GALLEGOS, WHO IS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT. EXCUSE ME, FOR THE OWNER, FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. GO AHEAD, MR. GALLEGO. THANK YOU. HELLO. YES, SIR. GO AHEAD AND, AND SPEAK WITH THE ZONING COMMISSION. YOU'RE LIVE. OKAY. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION, HONORABLE, UH, MEMBERS AND, UH, CHAIRPERSON. MY NAME IS JOSE GALLEGO. MY ADDRESS IS TWO 14 WEST ACADEMY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 7 8 2 2 6. I WANT [00:40:01] TO, UH, SPEAK, UH, FOR THE RECORD IN OPPOSITION TO, UH, THIS CASE THAT IS, UH, BEING CONSIDERED FOR DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK. UH, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. UH, UH, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, ONGOING FOR SOME TIME. AND, UH, THE PROPERTY CONTINUES TO, TO DECAY AND, UH, EXPERIENCE, UH, CONTINUE, UH, DECAY AND, UH, AND COMPROMISE. SEVERAL FACTORS THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ZONING, UH, COMMISSION IS THAT, UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED, UH, INSIDE THE HISTORIC, UH, DISTRICT. IT ALSO IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTH PERREA ST. MARY'S CONSERVATION DISTRICT. SO IT'S NEITHER IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT OR HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED A PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO WITH THE INTENT TO REMODEL THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, UH, UPON PURCHASING IT AND, UH, CONSULTING OR BRINGING IN, UH, PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS BE COST PROHIBITED. OKAY. OKAY. UH, NOW, UH, AT THAT TIME IS WHEN HE CHOSE TO, TO HAVE IT, UH, UH, UH, TO, TO HAVE IT DEMO ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPLY IT FOR DEMOLITION, UH, PERMIT AT THAT TIME IS WHEN THE CITY, UH, INITIATED THE POSSIBLE DESIGNATION. NOW, I PRAY THAT YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT, UH, THE CITY HAS NOT, UH, ESTABLISHED OR SATISFIED, UH, THE THREE ELEMENTS OF CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION AS, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARK. ONE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE HISTORY, UH, OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH THE DISCOVERED, UH, UH, INFORMATION AND RECORDS THAT I HAVE OBTAINED FROM THE BEAR COUNTY DEEDED RECORDS. UH, SO WE, WE, UH, TAKE ISSUE WITH, UH, THE CITY'S, UH, UH, DESIGNATION OF THAT HISTORY. SECONDLY, UH, IS THAT THE INTEGRITY AND DESIGN, UH, AND MATERIALS USED FOR THIS PROPERTY HAVE, UH, BEEN COMPROMISED LONG TIME AGO. THE PROPERTY HAS UNDERGONE AT LEAST FIVE ADDITIONS FROM ITS ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UH, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOT, UH, IN MY OPINION, STRONGLY OPINION THAT IT, UH, WOULD, UH, REALLY ENDURE ANY SIGNIFICANT, UH, INTEGRITY OF A HISTORICAL NATURE. NOW, I HAVE TWO, UH, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, A LICENSED ENGINEER WHO, UH, INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF HIS LETTER. UH, AND HE IS A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, UH, AND FEELS VERY STRONGLY, UH, THAT THIS WOULD BE, UH, NOT A, A GOOD, UH, PROPERTY TO BE DESIGNATED, UH, HISTORICAL LANDMARK. I'VE ALSO, UH, HAVE A REGISTERED, UH, ARCHITECT, UH, GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF RICHARD MOORE, WHO IS HIGHLY RESPECTED AND RECOGNIZED IN THE CITY. UH, HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE TOBAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND HE, UH, HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE, UH, DESIGNATION OF HISTORICAL PROPERTIES AND THE REMODELING AND RESTORATION OF, UH, PROPERTIES IN THE MONTE VISTA TOBAN HILL HISTORICAL DISTRICT. UH, AND HE'S ALSO BEEN INVOLVED IN THE RESTORATION OF SEVERAL LANDMARKS, UH, HERE IN THE CITY, AND NAMELY SOME HOTELS. HE FEELS THAT THE COST OF REMODELING FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BRING IT UP TO SOME STANDARDS, UH, OF OCCUPANCY, WOULD BE COST PROHIBITED. UH, THE OWNER, UH, IS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE LANDMARK AND, UH, WISHES TO, [00:45:01] UH, CONTINUE WITH THE DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCT, UH, FOR, UH, UNITS WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AND AND APPROPRIATE. NOW, I'D LIKE TO, UH, POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY JUST, UH, THREE DOORS DOWN THAT WAS, UH, UH, DEMOLISHED. UH, IT'S IN THE SAME CONDITION AS OR, OR, OR ARE IN BETTER CONDITION THAN THE ONE THAT, THAT, UH, YOU'RE CURRENTLY CONSIDERING. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE A PRECEDENT OF DEMOLITION, OF, OF PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. THERE'S ALSO TREMENDOUS DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THERE IS, UH, UH, AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE, UH, DOWN THE STREET, UH, WITH HISTORICAL MULTIPLE, UH, UNITS, UH, UP AND DOWN, KNOW THE STREET. SO WITH THOSE FACTORS, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK. I, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR, UH, OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THIS, OF THIS PROPERTY. AND, UH, I DENY THE DESIGNATION OF, UH, OF, UH, HISTORICAL LANDMARK. THANK YOU, MR. GALLEGOS. YOU'LL STAY ON THE LINE. MAY HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS, UM, WITH THE, UH, DR. HAGUE, WOULD YOU LIKE TIME FOR RESPONSE? OH, YEAH, MA'AM. MADAM CHAIR, WE DO HAVE THE, UM, THE OWNER ON THE LINE AS WELL. OH, YOU DO? OKAY. WELL, WE'LL LET THE OWNER, UH, GO FIRST. AND IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT BESIDES THAT, MR. ALVO? YES, I AM. I'M, I AM HERE AND I WAS LISTENING, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT MR. GALLEGOS HAS SAID, WHICH I HAVE, UH, CONTRACTED HIM TO ACTUALLY DISPUTE THIS FOR ME. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DESIGNATING THIS AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK. I HAVE NOT ASKED FOR THAT. I DID NOT BUY THE PROPERTY LOOKING FOR THAT. UH, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS NOT A LANDMARK, UH, THAT IT WAS NOT HISTORIC WHEN I, WHEN I BOUGHT IT. UH, AND I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH ANY DESIGNATION. UH, I HAVE MYSELF SEEN THAT THE HOUSE HAS HAD, AND ANYONE WHO GOES IN THERE SEE, CAN SEE THAT THE HAD VARIOUS ADD-ONS ALREADY THAT HAS ALREADY, UH, MESSED UP WITH THE, IN WITH, WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE OLD HOUSE THAT WAS THERE. SO, UH, THIS IS NOT, I DIDN'T BUY THIS HOUSE TO ACTUALLY LOSE MONEY ON LIKE ANY BUSINESS OWNER. WE DON'T GO INTO BUSINESS TO, UH, ACTUALLY LOSE MONEY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS IN THE, IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PEOPLE LOSE MONEY. SO MY OBJECTION IS, IS CLEAR TODAY, TOMORROW, AND THE DAY AFTER THAT. I DO NOT WANT THIS DESIGNATED AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK. I YIELD MY TIME TO MR. GALLEGOS IF HE WANTS TO SPEAK SOME MORE. UH, WE DON'T YIELD TIME, SIR. IT'S EVERYONE, IT GETS THERE. TWO MINUTES, THAT'S ALL. OKAY, WELL, FINE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, UH, MADAM CARE, I DO HAVE TWO MORE CALLERS, LIVE CALLERS. OKAY. JOHNNY TARAS. ARE YOU THERE? MR. TARAS? ARE YOU THERE? JOHNNY? JOHNNY, ARE YOU THERE? YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, YES, YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE SAN ANTONIO ZONING COMMISSION. GO AHEAD, SIR. YES. UH, MY NAME IS JOHNNY RAAS. UH, I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. I LIVE AT, UH, 32 3 1 0 FLAT ROCK VIEW BOULEVARD, TEXAS. UM, AND, UH, I WAS THE ENGINEER THAT, UH, INSPECTED THE, UH, THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE, UM, OF THIS LOCATION. UM, THE, UH, WHAT I SAW WAS, UH, I, AND I OPPOSED, UH, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF SAVING THAT HOUSE. UM, WHEN I INSPECTED IT, I SAW THAT THEY HAD, UH, ADDED THREE, UH, [00:50:01] ADDITIONS TO IT. AND WHOEVER DID IT PROBABLY WERE THE, THE OWNERS. UH, AND THEY DID A REAL POOR JOB. UH, THE, THE, THE, THE ROOF HAS, UH, COLLAPSED IN ON THE RIGHT SIDE, AND IT DAMAGED THE, THE FOUNDATION AND THE WALLS. IT'S, IT, IT HAS A LOT OF WOOD ROT AND, UH, THE PEER FOUNDATION THAT IT HAS THEIR, THEIR CEDAR POST, THEY SETTLED. AND, UH, AND SOME OF THEM ALREADY, UH, IN, IN REALLY BAD CONDITION. UM, THE, THE WALLS, I SAW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, DECAY ON THE WALLS. IT'S, UH, THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE, UH, THE, THE, THE SPACING OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE PIERS ARE SO FAR APART THAT, UH, THERE'S A BOUNCE ON THE FLOOR. UH, AND IT'S, IT'S DIFFERENT LEVELS. THE, THE, ALL THE ADDITIONS, I GUESS THEY ADDED A PORTION AND ENCLOSED IT AT ANOTHER PORTION. THEY ENCLOSED IT. UH, AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IT, THAT IT RE THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS NOT IN, IN, IN GOOD CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE, THE ROOF THAT COLLAPSED. IT JUST, THAT DID A LOT OF DAMAGE TO IT. THE PORCH IS THE SAME THING THAT, UH, THE PILLARS ARE, THE COLUMNS ARE, ARE ROTTED AND THEY'RE FALLING APART. UM, I DON'T RECOMMEND, UH, SPENDING THE MONEY TO, UH, CORRECT THIS, UH, BUILDING. THANK, THANK YOU, SIR. UM, YOU MAY, UH, UH, IS HE GONNA BE ABLE TO REMAIN ON THE LINE OR, I HAVE TO GET THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS NOW. OKAY. THE QUESTIONS, UH, YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, AND, AND, AND, UM, I'M SORRY, SIR. WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME? DE OKAY. UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MR. RAS? OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS AND THEN COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UH, I DO THANK YOU FOR COMING ON AND GIVING YOUR ASSESSMENT, UH, FROM YOUR ENGINEER PERSPECTIVE. UM, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE PIERS AND, OR ARE THOSE PIERS ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE? SO WHEN THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH PIERS PUT IN TO BEGIN WITH? UH, YES, MA'AM. UM, IT'S LIKE I SAID THAT THERE WAS THREE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE TO, TO THE STRUCTURE. UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL, UH, PIERS WERE SEER POSTS AND, AND THEY HAD A, UM, A GREAT BEAM ON, ON, ON TOP OF THOSE. AND, AND THOSE WERE ROTTED AND THE SPACING OF THE, UH, THROUGH TIME SETTLED. SO, UH, THERE, THERE'S, UM, AND THE ADDITIONS, THEY, THEY ADDED PI ALSO. SOME OF 'EM WERE, UM, CEDAR AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COUPLE OF 'EM THAT WERE, THAT WERE, UH, CONCRETE PIERS. UH, BUT THEY WERE PRETTY SMALL. THEY, THEY, AND THEY WERE SPACED TOO FAR APART TO, TO REALLY, UH, BECAUSE THEY WERE, I GUESS THERE WERE PORCHES TO BEGIN WITH. AND THEY JUST ENCLOSED IT BECAUSE OF CONVENIENCE. AND DO, DO PORCHES, DO THOSE HAVE, DO THOSE NORMALLY GET PIERS AS WELL, WHEN A PORCH IS DESIGNED? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND THEN, SO YOU SAY THAT, YOU SAY THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TOO FAR SPACED APART. HOW FAR APART ARE THEY SPACED? HOW CLOSE SHOULD THEY BE? OR HOW, WHAT IS THE SPACING THAT SHOULD BE UNDER A HOUSE OF THIS SIZE? OKAY. THE, THE SPACING IS GOVERNED BY, BY THE, THE BEAM THAT GOES ON TOP OF THE HERE. UH, AND THE, THE, THE BEAMS THAT I, I DID THIS BY A YEAR AGO, AND I'M NOT IN SAN ANTONIO. I'M, RIGHT NOW, I'M, UH, DOING A PROJECT IN, IN, UH, IN DALLAS. BUT GOING FROM MEMORY, THE BEAM THAT'S ON THERE, UH, THERE, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPACED, UH, LIKE SIX FEET APART. UM, BUT THE, THE ONES THAT I SAW THERE WERE LIKE 10, 12 FEET APART. SO, UM, AND THE BEAM WAS, WAS TOO SMALL. IT WAS LIKE, UM, I WANNA SAY FOUR BY BY SIX OR FOUR BY FOUR. THEY VARIED. THEY VARIED IN, IN SIZES, DEPENDING ON WHICH PORCH I WAS LOOKING AT FOR ADDITION. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. SO WHEN YOU ADD MORE BEAMS TO ELEVATE AND LEVEL THE HOUSE, DOESN'T THAT CREATE, UM, SOME SHIFTING, MAYBE CRACKING, UH, MAYBE DAMAGE TO THE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT MANY BEAMS BEING ADDED? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION OR NOT, BUT, YEAH. [00:55:01] UM, THE, THE, UM, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROPER FOUNDATION DESIGN OR EXISTING, UH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROPER SPACING, UH, IT'LL SETTLE. UH, YOU, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPER SPACING OF THOSE PIERS TO BE ABLE TO, TO, UH, SUSTAIN OR TO HOLD THOSE WALLS PROPERLY WITHOUT HAVING, UH, TO REPAIR 'EM IN THE FUTURE. UH, THE DRYWALL, THE DRYWALL WILL, WILL, OR THE SHEAR ROCK WILL, WILL CRACK IN THE CEILINGS. AND YOU, YOU CAN SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE TOO. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, MA'AM. CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, . GREAT HOUSE. HI. UM, MR. TESO, I JUST HAVE, UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, THE FIRST QUESTION IS, SURE. UH, WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH, UM, HISTORIC HOMES AND STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT AROUND THE TIME THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT? I, I'VE DONE, UM, I WANNA SAY ABOUT 15, UH, HOUSES, UH, THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, UH, IN, IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, ALMOS PARK, TERRELL HILLS, UH, ALAMO HEIGHTS, UH, PLACES LIKE THAT. UH, KING WILLIAMS, UH, I'VE DONE FOUNDATION RESTORATION. UH, SOME OF 'EM HAD, UM, UM, BASEMENTS THAT I HAD TO GO IN THERE AND TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION TO, UH, UH, CORRECT THE, UH, THE WATER COMING IN FROM, FROM THE WATER TABLE. UH, AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE. UH, LIKE I SAID, I, I HISTORICAL, UH, HOUSES, I DON'T DO THAT MANY, UH, 'CAUSE I, I, I DON'T ADVERTISE, UH, ENGINEERS DON'T ADVERTISE. PEOPLE JUST CALL YOU RANDOM OR, UM, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I'VE DONE IT. LIKE I SAID, I'VE ONLY DONE ABOUT 15, APPROXIMATELY, MAYBE 20. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, AND I GUESS, KIND OF BUILDING ON THAT, UM, IS THIS HOUSE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OTHER HOUSES THAT YOU'VE SEEN AS FAR AS ITS, UM, SPACING OF THE, OF THE, AND THE QUALITY AND THE ISSUES THAT, THAT IT HAS? UH, YES, MA'AM. UH, THE OTHER HOUSES THAT I INSPECTED, THERE WERE HIGHER GRADES. THEY WERE, UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT BETTER CONDITION THAN THIS ONE HERE. THIS ONE HERE IS VERY DETERIORATED. THE OTHER ONES, UH, THAT I, UH, LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF 'EM, THEY WANTED, UH, TO, THEY REMOVED SOME WALLS. 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE, THE FLOOR PLANS DIDN'T CONFIRM TO WHAT THEY WANTED TO, TO, FOR IT TO BE. SO I WOULD'VE TO GO IN THERE AND TELL 'EM HOW MANY MORE PIERCED TO PUT, UH, IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE REINFORCEMENT HAD TO BE, UH, PLACED AT. UM, BUT YEAH, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT'S IN REALLY, IN, IN MY OPINION, IT, IT WAS, IS, WAS IN REALLY BAD CONDITION. AND YOU'RE SPEAKING, WHEN YOU SAY REALLY BAD CONDITION, YOU'RE SPEAKING WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PIERS AND BEAMS, OR YOU'RE SPEAKING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PARTS OF THE HOUSE? UH, SEVERAL, UH, THE, THE, THE FOUNDATION THAT I, I BELIEVE, UH, MY ASSESSMENT WAS TO REPLACE ALL THE PIERS, UH, UH, FOR, FOR THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE. AND, UH, BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE TO THE HOUSE. UH, I, I BELIEVE I TOLD THE, THE, UH, THE, THE PERSON THAT I WAS WORKING WITH, UH, MR. GALLEGOS, I TOLD 'EM THAT, UH, UH, THOSE, UH, THREE ADDITIONS IN MY OPINION, HAD TO BE TORN DOWN AND, AND RECONSTRUCTED. AND, AND THEN ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, BECAUSE, UH, THE, THE ROOF COLLAPSED, UH, IT DID A LOT OF DAMAGE TO, UH, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT, OF THE, OF THE, OF THAT STRUCTURE, UH, THAT HAD TO BE TORN DOWN AND REPLACED. AND, UH, WATER GOT IN INTO THE FOUNDATION AND IT DID MORE DAMAGE TO THE PIERS. UH, UH, SOME OF THE PIERS THAT I SAW, UH, WERE, I MEAN, SAY IF YOU HAD A 12 INCH PIER, IT, IT, IT REDUCED DOWN TO ABOUT, UH, UH, SIX, THE, THE WOOD ROT. UH, IT HAD WOOD ROT AND, AND THE DAMER JUST GOT SMALLER BECAUSE IT JUST FLAKED OFF, UH, THE CEDAR POST. OKAY. AND WHEN DID THE ROOF COLLAPSE OCCUR? DO YOU, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHEN THAT HAPPENED? I DON'T KNOW. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW MANY YEARS THAT HOUSE WAS VACANT. UH, IT, UM, IT LOOKED LIKE IT MAY COULD HAVE BEEN MAYBE 10, 15 YEARS. I DON'T [01:00:01] KNOW. THERE WAS A LOT OF DAMAGE, UH, ON THAT ROOF. IT WAS ALL THE, THE, THE RAFTERS AND THE, UH, CEILING JOISTS WERE DAMAGED, UM, IN THAT AREA. UH, IT WAS ALL FALLING APART. OKAY. BUT YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF WHEN, WHEN THAT HAPPENED. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO, MA'AM. I, I, I, I WASN'T, UH, ABLE TO TALK TO ANYBODY THAT, UH, HAD LIVED IN THAT HOUSE TO, TO BE ABLE TO, TO KNOW WHEN IT, UH, I, I ASKED MR. GALLEGOS, HE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THAT ROOF COLLAPSED. WAS IT COLLAPSED WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TOOK A LOOK AT IT? OR IS IT LIKE, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO ASK RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT STATE OF THE HOUSE THAT IT HAS A ROOF THAT HAS COLLAPSED IN, OR, OR NOT? IT, IT HAS, IT HAS A ROOF. IT, IT COLLAPSED ON, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. IF YOU FACE THE FACE, THE HOUSE FROM THE STREET ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT THE ROOF COLLAPSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. UM, ANYONE, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER KAMATH? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION OR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO THE, THE APPLICANT. WE'RE JUST DOING THE ENGINEER AT THIS POINT, SO, 'CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER CALLER. OKAY. NOW LET ME, THAT IS, UH, LEMME TALK TO THE ENGINEER. OKAY. OKAY, SIR. THE, UH, THE DESIGNATION OF THE, UH, HISTORICAL, UH, WAS INITIATED BECAUSE Y'ALL FILED THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION. IS THAT WHAT IT TRIGGERED THIS? UM, I, I BELIEVE SO. I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SURE. I WAS JUST, UH, CALLED TO DO AN ENGINEERED ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE, THE STRUCTURE AND THE FOUNDATION. UH, AND THAT'S WHEN I WENT, UH, AT THE TIME I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WERE THE REASON, UM, WAS FOR, UH, I ASSUMED THAT THE, WHOEVER, WELL, MR. GALLEGOS, I THINK, UH, I BELIEVE THEY WANTED TO JUST SEE IF IT WAS FEASIBLE TO REPAIR IT ECONOMICALLY AND, AND, UH, WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT TO A, A CONDITION THAT WOULD, WOULD BE, UH, ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY AS FAR AS, UH, GIVEN A, A PERMIT FOR THAT. GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. TORAS? OKAY. UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. TORAS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. YOUR, Y'ALL HAVE A NICE DAY AND BE SAFE. BYE-BYE. RICHARD MOORE? YES. HELLO. HELLO, SIR. YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE ZONING COMMISSION AT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. OKAY. UH, I MUST SAY IN MY 53 YEARS OF PRACTICING ARCHITECT, IT IS AN UNUSUAL WAY TO PRESENT. BUT HERE WE GO. I AM RICHARD MOORE, 1806 NCO AVENUE. I HAVE BEEN HERE AS A PRACTICING ARCHITECT 53 YEARS, RIGHT IN THE HEART OF TOBIN HILL HISTORICAL AREA. I WAS ASKED BY MR. GALLEGOS TO REVIEW THE SET STRUCTURE AND, UH, IN ALL MY YEARS, AND, AND, AND I AM KNOWN AS A RESTORATION ARCHITECT BY ALL MEANS. AND I'VE DONE RESTORATION WORK IN THE MONTEVISTA AND EXTENSIVE WORK HERE IN THE TOGAN HILL HISTORICAL, REFERRING TO THIS PROJECT. I REVIEWED THIS HOUSE. IT'S, IT'S IN DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS. IT'S BEYOND ECONOMICALLY REPAIRING IT. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S INFESTED WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE STREET PEOPLE THAT HAVE BROKEN IN. UH, THE STRUCTURE IS IN BEYOND REPAIR. I'VE DONE A LOT OF REPAIR AND I, I'M, I'M ESTIMATING THAT IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT HUN $200,000 TO PUT THIS STRUCTURE BACK IN ORDER. THE FRONT PORCH WAS, UH, RE REMOVED, AND THEN THEY REPLACED IT WITH A HOME DEPOT SHEEP PUT BAS STRAITS AND CONCRETE PORTS. THE TWO ADDITIONS THAT WERE DONE, THEY WERE BADLY DONE. WE LEANED TWO, SHE ROOFS. THE SIDING DOESN'T EVEN MATCH THE EXISTING, I I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE HISTORICAL BOARD HAS BROUGHT THIS ONE FOR A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND, IT'S BEYOND. I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THIS THING HAVING LIVELIHOOD OR AS AN INVESTOR. THE INVESTOR WANTS TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD LOW DENSITY ONLY FOUR UNITS ON THIS BIG LOT. HE WANTS TO DO A FIRST CLASS DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE AN ENHANCEMENT [01:05:01] TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS WE HAD DONE HERE IN TOBIN HILL. WE REMOVED FIVE HOUSES, FIVE HOUSES. THE HISTORICAL BOARD WANTED TO DESIGNATE HISTORICAL, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO PURSUE THE PROJECTS. AND NOW WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL HIGH DENSITY, NEW STRUCTURES IN TOBIN HILL. I THINK THAT, UH, THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND HOPEFULLY THE ZONING BOARD WILL DENY THE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL ON THIS STRUCTURE AND ALLOW US TO PROCEED TO BUILD FOUR MORE LOW DENSITY UNITS THAT WILL BE ENHANCING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I, I HEARD THE, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GIVE A DESCRIPTION OF, OF THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING. I, I, I PERSONALLY AM THE OWNER OF 34 PART UNITS HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AND I KNOW WHAT IT COSTS TO RESTORE. IT'S THREE TIMES THE, THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION BY THE TIME. AND THIS ONE IS BEYOND REPAIR. THE FLOORS HAVE COLLAPSED, THE ROOF HAS COLLAPSED. UH, THE BEST THING THAT WE CAN DO IS DESIGNATE IT NON HISTORICAL AND ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO DO, TO DO SOMETHING THAT CAN ENHANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, REALLY, UH, I, I REVIEW THIS ONE. THEY ASKED ME TO REVIEW IT. IT'S THE HOMELESS PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN IT OVER. SO I WOULD, I WOULD PROFESSIONALLY REQUEST THAT THE ZONING BOARD NOT GRANT THE SIGNIFICANT, UH, HISTORICAL AND ALLOW US TO PROCEED WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT. I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU OTHER THAN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THAT'S YOUR TWO MINUTES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. WARD. LET ME CHECK AND SEE IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UM, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES, MR. MOORE. UM, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, THE, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ROOF IS COLLAPSED AND THE FLOORS ARE COLLAPSED. I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THIS MASSIVE DETERIORATION OCCURRED. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S RELATIVELY RECENT? IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN EXISTING FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF, OF THAT? DID YOU RAISE THAT? MY OPINION, BUT MY, MY OPINION IS, AS AN ARCHITECT AND RESTORATION ARCHITECT THAT I DO HAVE THE TITLE AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK I HAVE DONE ON MY PERSONAL PROPERTIES. YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY 10, 15 YEARS AGO THAT THIS THING STARTED DETERIORATE. THEY PROBABLY TORE THAT PORCH, THAT THE WOOD PORCH IN THE FRONT THAT HOLDS THE, THE COLUMNS. AND THEN THEY, THEY POURED A, A, A THIN SIX INCH SLAB AS A PORCH. AND THEN THEY BUILT UP A BRICK BRICK BYLA JUST TO HOLD THE COLUMNS. AND THEN THE ADDITION THAT WAS DONE, THE TWO ADDITIONS THAT WERE DONE BADLY DONE, LIKE I SAID, THEY WERE, THEY DID, 'EM WAS RATHER FOLLOW THE PITCH OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE TO GIVE IT CHARACTER. THEY JUST PUT LEAN TWO PORCHES AND DIDN'T EVEN MATCH THE SIDING THAT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. UH, THE DETERIORATION, I BELIEVE ON THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS. IT'S JUST BEYOND REPAIR. I, I WOULDN'T AS AN INVESTOR, AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU I HAVE 34 HOUSING UNITS IN SAN ANTONIO. I WOULD NOT INVEST IN NICKEL IN THIS HOUSE AT ALL. I HOPE SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS REVIEWED THE PROJECT ITSELF. UM, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. SO YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE, UM, AN EXPERIENCED REAL ESTATE INVESTOR. ARE THESE ITEMS THAT A HOME INSPECTOR WOULD HAVE, UH, BEEN ABLE TO DISCERN FROM THEIR INSPECTION? OH, DEFINITELY. ANYBODY WITH QUALIFICATIONS WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW THIS, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE. AND, YOU KNOW, MY, MY RESTORATION CAREER, I DID THE O'BRIEN HOTEL DOWNTOWN ON NOVARRO STREET, AND THEN I DID THE ROBERT E. LEE RESTORATION. ALL THIS COST, A LOT OF MONEY RESTORATION WORK IS, IN MY OPINION, PROFESSIONALLY THREE TIMES THE COST OF REGULAR CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S WHY I GIVE THIS RESTORATION AT LEAST $200,000 TO PUT IT BACK IN WHAT WE CALL RESTORATION QUALITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S JUST NOT OKAY. IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT FROM ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOORE? COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. GOOD AFTERNOON MR. MOORE. THANKS FOR COMING ON AND GIVING US YOUR, UM, YOUR EVALUATION OF THIS HOUSE. I JUST WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION BASED ON WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE, UM, HISTORIC GROUP. UH, NUMBER EIGHT POINT SAYS THAT THIS HOUSE HAS, HAS THIS HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL INTEGRITY OF DESIGN MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP. WOULD YOU AGREE? AND THIS STANDS TODAY? YOU KNOW, I, I CAN TELL YOU I HAVE BEEN A RESTORATION ARCHITECT FOR 53 YEARS. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HISTORICAL HOMES, IT, IT'S BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. I'VE [01:10:01] DONE TOO MUCH HISTORICAL RESTORATION. THAT HOUSE HAS NO QUALITIES, NOTHING THAT WOULD, IN MY OPINION, AS AN ARCHITECT WOULD SAY, OH, LET US SAVE THAT. UH, I PERSONALLY RIGHT NOW RESTORED MY MOTHER'S HOUSE. IT'S 115 YEARS AND IT HAS QUALITY, IT HAS AESTHETICS, IT HAS SOMETHING THAT COMPLIMENTS MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND MY MOTHER, UH, HENRY B. GONZALEZ WAS MY NEIGHBOR OVER THERE IN FLORIDA STREET. SO I'M, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO OLDER HOMES. YES, I WANNA RESTORE 'EM, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS ONE QUALIFIES FOR THAT DESIGNATION AT ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ANY OTHER COMM UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOORE? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. MOORE. WE, UH, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. WELL, THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE, THIS NEW WORK THAT WE'RE DOING NOW. WE CAN'T PRESENT IN PERSON, BUT GOOD LUCK TO WHAT Y'ALL DO EVERY DAY, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. GOODBYE. THANK YOU. BYE. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, MA'AM. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. UH, WOULD O H P WOULD LIKE TIME TO, UH, GIVE A RESPONSE? IS, UM, O H P STILL ON THE LINE? STEPH, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'RE STILL PRESENT? HELLO? HELLO? OKAY. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OH, OKAY. GOOD. I'M SORRY. I, UM, I WAS UNMUTED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. UH, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. I THINK SOME OF THIS CAME UP IN OUR DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING. SO I'LL JUST KIND OF GO OVER, UM, BRIEFLY SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE. UM, OF COURSE, FOR A HOUSE THAT'S 111 YEARS OLD, UM, WE ARE NOT SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF THIS PROPERTY. UM, THOSE ARE, UH, LARGELY ON THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE HOUSE. UM, OUR COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY MADE A COUPLE OF SITE VISITS AND WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THOSE PORTIONS THAT WERE ADDITIONS. AND, UM, THEY ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THEM WHAT WE CALL NON-CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONS. SO THOSE WOULD BE ADDITIONS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REMOVAL BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO, UM, UH, ANY ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS WITH THOSE COULD BE, UM, SORT OF ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME, UH, IF THEY WERE, UM, UH, INTERESTED IN, IN REMOVING THOSE ADDITIONS. UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE, UH, THE POSTS AND THE FOUNDATION. I THINK ALL OF US HERE, UM, WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTIES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO COULD, UH, ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT FOUNDATION ISSUES ARE ENDEMIC TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND, UM, CERTAINLY WE SEE, UM, REQUESTS TO, UH, EITHER, UH, REPAIR OR REPLACE FOUNDATIONS, UM, INCLUDING REPLACING CEDAR POSTS WITH, UH, WITH CONCRETE, UM, UH, AT VIRTUALLY EVERY H D R C HEARING. SO, UM, WHILE I, I CERTAINLY CAN COMMISERATE THAT THAT'S A, A DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO APPROACH. IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PROPERTIES DEAL WITH. UM, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, AGAIN, OF THE, UH, THE DEMOLITION THAT WAS DOWN THE STREET ON LOTUS, AND I JUST WOULD, UM, USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISCRETION THAT STAFF, UM, USES AND, UH, TRIES VERY, UM, DILIGENTLY TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION THAT THE CODE GIVES US, WHICH IS TO REVIEW EACH PROPERTY INDIVIDUALLY THAT WE RECEIVE, UM, AS A DEMOLITION REQUEST FOR ELIGIBILITY. AND IN THAT CASE, WE DID NOT FIND THAT THAT PROPERTY MET THE THREE CRITERIA REQUIRED TO BE AN ELIGIBLE LANDMARK. AND SO THE PROPERTY WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEMOLITION. UM, IT WAS BUILT IN THE 1930S AND LACKED THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS STRUCTURE. SO, UM, THOSE WERE A COUPLE OF POINTS, UH, AGAINST THAT ONE. UM, AND THEN, UM, I THINK, UM, ANOTHER POINT THAT WAS MADE WAS THAT, UH, THE ROOF HAD COLLAPSED AND THAT, UM, THAT THIS COLLAPSE HAD TAKEN PLACE MANY YEARS AGO. UM, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY OCCUPIED UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED IT, OR A VERY CLOSE TIME PERIOD. UM, AND AT THE TIME OF OUR SITE VISITS, THERE WAS NO ROOF COLLAPSED EVIDENCE. SO, UM, I WOULD BE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT TODAY, UH, THERE CERTAINLY WAS ROOF DAMAGE, BUT I WOULD NOT, UM, IN ANY WAY CHARACTERIZE IT AS A COLLAPSE. SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR ME. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. YES. UM, SO I DO HAVE, UM, I THINK REALLY JUST KIND OF ONE QUESTION I JUST WANTED YOU TO, TO TOUCH ON, ON IT A LITTLE MORE IN DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO YOUR DEMOLITION. SO WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING THESE PROPERTIES, [01:15:01] ARE YOU TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IT THAT SOME OF THEM ARE POTENTIALLY, UM, DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT O H P LOOKS AT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PRESENCE OF BLACK MOLD OR THERE'S A PRESENCE OF, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF DANGER TO THE OCCUPANTS OR, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDATION AS BEYOND? IS THERE A SUCH A THING AS BEING BEYOND REPAIR WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES? UM, I THINK I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT BY SAYING THAT, UH, UH, WE, WE WORK REALLY CLOSELY WITH THE, UM, DANGEROUS PREMISE STAFF, UM, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND, UH, UH, THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD PROCESS. UM, AND SO WE DO SEE HOUSES THAT ARE IN, UM, REALLY, UM, UH, A, A CONDITION THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO, UM, WE DO SEE THOSE PROPERTIES AND, AND AGAIN, WE RELY ON THE EXPERTISE OF OUR, UM, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO HELP US IDENTIFY THOSE. THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT, UH, NOT A CASE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER, UH, THAT CATEGORY. AND THERE WAS ALSO A MENTION OF, UM, OF HOMELESS, UM, FOLKS BEING IN THE PROPERTY. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGO YOU GUYS WERE IN THERE, BUT DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, BROKEN WINDOWS OR THERE WERE VAGRANTS OR OTHER, UM, TRANSIENT PEOPLE INHABITING THIS PROPERTY OR HAS BUILDING STANDARDS FOR BEEN, UM, NOTIFIED OF, OF ANY OF THAT? SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO YOUR SECOND POINT. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF BUILDING SANDERS BOARD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THAT, BUT, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN, WE WOULD'VE BEEN NOTIFIED. SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. BUT, UM, TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE CONDITION, WHEN WE, UM, WERE ABLE TO MAKE OUR SITE VISITS LAST YEAR, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANYONE, UM, OCCUPYING THE HOME, UH, THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER ROMERO. THANK YOU. UM, DR. HAY, I JUST WANTED TO DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT QUESTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER RAISED, UM, BECAUSE I WAS READING YOUR BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND GETTING, GETTING BEYOND SO THAT, THAT FIRST STEP ABOUT MAKING SURE IT'S NOT A DANGEROUS BUILDING. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE ADDRESSED THAT, BUT CAN YOU KIND OF WALK US THROUGH, 'CAUSE THIS IS ALWAYS THE BIG QUESTION, UM, THROUGH YOUR PROCESS OR H D R C H, HOW Y'ALL CONSIDER THIS CLAIM THAT IT, IT MAY NOT BE AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS BUILDING, BUT IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY TO MAKE IT HABITABLE. UM, AND SO THAT IT'S, IF THE CLAIM IS, IT'S JUST CHEAPER TO DEMOLISH IT AND REBUILD THAN TO TRY AND SAVE THIS HOUSE. AND I REALIZED THAT Y'ALL DON'T REQUIRE IT TO RE BE, RE TO BE REPAIRED IN A PARTICULAR WAY ON THE INSIDE. YOU JUST WANT THEM TO SAVE THE OUTSIDE. BUT WHEN PEOPLE MAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO YOU THAT IT'S NOT A DANGEROUS BUILDING, BUT IT WOULD JUST REQUIRE SO MUCH MONEY TO, TO GET IT UP TO A POINT WHERE THEY COULD ACTUALLY LIVE IN IT, HOW DO YOU CONSIDER THAT? AND AT, AT WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS DO YOU CONSIDER THAT? OR DO YOU NOT CONSIDER IT AT ALL? IS IT JUST YOU JUST LOOK AT WHETHER IT'S A DANGEROUS BUILDING OR NOT? AND, AND THAT'S AS FAR AS YOU GO WITH THAT ARGUMENT. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. UM, I THINK, UM, THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF OUR, OUR WORK HERE IS TO, UM, PRESERVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND SO OBVIOUSLY IT DOES NO ONE ANY GOOD TO SEE A PROPERTY SAVED THAT THEN JUST CONTINUES TO FALL INTO DISREPAIR, UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. UM, I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AVAILABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT WE, UM, IT'S A, A VERY POPULAR INCENTIVE, OUR SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO HELP FOLKS THROUGH THE, UH, THE REHAB PROCESS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, INHERENT EXPENSES WITH REHABILITATING, UH, ANY STRUCTURE, HISTORIC STRUCTURES INCLUDED. UM, UH, ADDITIONALLY, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE VISIT THE HOMES AND WE, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKE CARE TO SHOW THE, UM, THE CONDITION OF THE HOME WITH, UH, THE PUBLIC AND WITH OUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION. AND I, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED THAT OUR, UM, COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY MADE TWO SEPARATE SITE VISITS. SO, UM, WE RELY ON THEIR EXPERTISE AND, UM, IN THEIR ROLE AS, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, UM, UH, APPOINTEES TO REPRESENT THEIR COMMUNITIES ON, ON OUR COMMISSION. AND, UM, AND THEY'VE LED US, UH, IN THIS CASE, UM, TO A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY. [01:20:01] UM, AND, UH, AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, JUST IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE THAT YOUR QUESTION WAS BROAD AND I, I HOPE THAT I ADDRESSED SORT OF THE LARGE ISSUES, BUT IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, UM, THIS HOME REALLY WAS OCCUPIED UP UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. IT REALLY WAS NOT IN THE, THE CONDITION THAT IT IS TODAY. UM, SO, UH, A LOT OF THIS DETERIORATION IS VERY RECENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN CAN I JUST GET A CONFIRMATION, I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSED IT. DID, UM, LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, DID THEY, UM, HAVE A POSITION ON THIS CASE STAFF? YES, THERE'S A LETTER FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. OKAY. UM, AND, AND THE LAVACCA, 'CAUSE I SAW THAT LAVACCA OPPOSED THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION A YEAR AGO. UM, BUT DID THEY HAVE A POSITION ON THE ZONING CASE? UH, THEY, THEY WERE READ PREVIOUSLY. IF WE NEED TO READ THEM AGAIN, WE CAN. NO, I JUST WANTED A REMINDER. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY, COMMISSIONER SIPES? YES. AND THIS IS, UH, JUST A CLARIFICATION FROM O H P, AND THAT IS THAT HISTORIC DESIGN DESIGNATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEMOLITION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROPERTY COULD BE D ZONED OR REZONED HISTORIC, BUT THAT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DEMOLITION. ALL IT DOES IS CREATE AN ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ON DEMOLITION. CORRECT? YES, COMMISSIONER, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM? OKAY, THANKS. THAT WAS IT. SORRY. OKAY. SO CAN, UH, CLARIFICATION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO LIKE, PART OF IT COULD BE DEMOLISHED AND NOT, I MEAN, SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, JUST OVERSIGHT WHEN IT'S GETTING TORN DOWN, OR WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UH, UM, I CAN ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT. SO, UM, A HISTORIC, UH, STRUCTURE OF THE REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, UH, REQUIRES A 60 DAY, UM, DELAY BEFORE IT'S HIS HEARD BY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGNER REVIEW COMMISSION. DURING THAT TIME, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, UM, MEETS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND NOTIFIES, UM, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COMMUNITY, UM, ADVOCACY GROUPS AND TRIES TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEMOLITION. UM, AND THEN THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION CONSIDERS, UH, WHETHER TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE. SO IT BASICALLY CREATES A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR THE DEMOLITION REQUEST. UM, THERE ARE ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE, UM, REQUIREMENTS OF DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD SHOW, UH, INCLUDING THAT THERE'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, UM, OR THAT THERE'S A, UH, SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF INTEGRITY. UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF INTEGRITY WHEN WE SEE THOSE CASES TYPICALLY MEANS THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME SORT OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT, UH, SUCH AS A FIRE THAT HAS DESTROYED, UH, SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THEN, UM, IS THERE EVER A COLLABORATION, SAY, UM, SAY FOR INSTANCE, UM, I GUESS THEY'VE HAD THEIR ENGINEER AND THEIR ARCHITECT, AND THEN YOU'VE HAD, UM, BOARD MEMBERS THERE, BUT IS THERE EVER A TIME THAT THEY VISIT TOGETHER FOR A CONVERSATION SO THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE? OR, OR DOES IT ALWAYS WORK WHERE EVERYBODY GOES INDIVIDUALLY AND DOESN'T COLLABORATE? EACH, EACH CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE WE HAVE MET ON SITE WITH, UM, A PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS THEIR, UH, ENGINEER ARCHITECT IN THIS CASE. UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE, UH, ONLY MET WITH THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE DURING THOSE TWO SITE VISITS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? UM, THANK, UH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMING AND PRESENTING YOUR CASE HERE. UM, NOW YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU'RE OUTSIDE CONSERVATION. UM, AND YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU RECEIVED THE DEMO REQUEST. DID, HOW DID YOU RECEIVE THE DEMO REQUEST? DOES THEY, THEY THOUGHT A APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, AND THEN WHY WOULD IT GO TO YOU IF IT'S OUTSIDE CONSERVATION AND OUTSIDE HISTORIC? THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEWS ALL DEMOLITION REQUESTS WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, REGARDLESS OF THEIR LOCATION, UM, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO WE SEE EVERY SINGLE, UM, DEMOLITION REQUEST. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE DEMOLITION REQUEST, DID YOU CONTACT THE HOMEOWNER? WE WERE IN TOUCH WITH THE [01:25:01] PROPERTY OWNER WHO, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS HIS REPRESENTATIVE WHO FILED THE ORIGINAL COMMISSION REQUEST. I, I MAY BE MISTAKEN THERE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN HIS CONTRACTOR, AND I APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S THE CASE, BUT YES. UM, AT THAT TIME, UH, WE WERE, UH, IN COMMUNICATION WITH, WITH THEM, UH, DURING THE 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD, THIS ALLOWED US BY THE CODE. AND WHAT WAS THEIR REACTION WHEN YOU CONTACTED THEM THAT YOU WERE OPPOSED TO THE DEMOLITION? I, I THINK THAT THEY'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN THEIR RESPONSE TO US, THAT THEY WERE OPPOSED TO DESIGNATION. OKAY. AND NOBODY HAS SHOWN UP FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OR AGAINST THIS. DID, DOES THE, DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT ENGAGE ANY ENGINEER OR ANY ARCHITECT TO GIVE A MORE SOUND REASONING OF ITS VALIDITY TO THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED AS FAR AS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND ITS ENGINEERING CAPABILITY TO STAND AS AN ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED HOME FOR SIGNIFICANT VALUE? UM, WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, AN ENGINEER PROVIDE CONSULTATION TO US. UH, OUR STAFF IS, UM, BROADLY EXPERIENCED, AND WE HAVE FOLKS WITH ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIENCE, UM, AS WELL AS HISTORIC AND CULTURAL EXPERTISE, UM, TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUCTURE BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT ARE LISTED IN THE CODE. SO NO, WE DON'T HAVE AN OUTSIDE ARCHITECT TO PROVIDE CONSULTATION. AND THOSE WITH ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIENCE, THEY ARE ARCHITECTS. DO YOU MEAN REGISTERED ARCHITECTS? I APOLOGIZE. YES. YES. WE HAVE FOLKS WHO HAVE GONE TO ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL. WE DO NOT HAVE REGISTERED ARCHITECTS. OKAY. UM, THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS CASE. OKAY. SO NO ONE, UH, OTHER THAN THE, THE PE AND THE, UH, REGISTERED ARCHITECT HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THIS OTHER THAN WHAT THE, WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AT HIS COST. SO WHEN YOU APPROACHED CITY COUNCIL OR THE COUNCILWOMAN, UM, DID YOU APPROACH IT WITH ANY, ANY ENGINEERING, UM, DATA AND ANY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ON THIS HOME? NO. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHAT, UM, SORT OF THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING HERE. AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB BASED ON THE CODE IS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY. IT'S NOT ELIGIBILITY, UH, BASED ON THE, UM, AN ENGINEER'S REPORT OR AN ARCHITECT'S REPORT ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE. IT'S JUST SIMPLY, UM, IS THIS AN ELIGIBLE LANDMARK? THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE ASKS US TO DETERMINE. OKAY. SO IT CAN BE A BIT SUBJECTIVE. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE MANY OTHER HOUSES THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD DESIGNATE ON THE STREET AS HISTORIC, CORRECT? YES. THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS BEING A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. OKAY. SO YOU SAID AREA, I SAID STREET. SO HOW MANY HOUSES DO YOU NEED TO SAVE? ALL OF THEM? I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. DOES EVERY HOUSE NEED TO BE SAVED AND DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC? SO NOBODY CAN DEMOLISH A HOUSE HERE IF IT'S DILAPIDATED AND OVER, OVER WORTH THIS TIME OF REPAIRS? EVERY HOUSE DESIGNATED STRUCTURES CAN BE, UM, DEMOLISHED. AND I WOULD SAY THAT MY ANSWER WOULD BE THAT, UM, WE, WE HAVE TO DO OUR JOB THAT'S GIVEN TO US WITHIN THE CODE. AND SO WE, UM, WE EVALUATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING'S ELIGIBLE. AND THEN, UM, THAT EVALUATION DOESN'T, UH, DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN THE DESIGNATION. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU AS THE ZONING COMMISSION ARE HEARING THIS CASE TODAY, BUT AGAIN, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE ALSO ALREADY HEARD THIS CASE. SO, UM, IT'S NOT JUST A, UH, I DON'T WANT TO, UM, TO MAKE IT SOUND AS THOUGH IT'S JUST SIMPLY A STAFF DECISION. THERE'S A, A VERY EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SAVE THE STRUCTURE. UH, I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW WHAT YOU SAID THAT THAT PROCESS WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS DOES NOT PASS, THEN YOU WOULD OVER, OR IF IT PASSED AND YOU OVERSEE THE DEMOLITION BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. PROCESS. YES. THE PROCESS THAT'S UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW TO CONSIDER DESIGNATION IS A PUBLIC PROCESS, AND THEN IF THEY, UH, WERE DESIGNATED AND CHOSE TO PURSUE DEMOLITION, THAT WOULD ALSO BE A PUBLIC PROCESS. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU USED THE WORD EXPENSIVE PROCESS. WHAT, WHAT WAS THE EXPENSE ON BEHALF OF YOUR DEPARTMENT? I SEE THE EXPENSE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAVING TO HIRE AN ENGINEER TO GET THEIR REPORT AND A ARCHITECT TO GET HIS PROFESSIONAL REPORT. BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHERE THE EXPENSE WOULD BE ON THE CITY'S PART. I, I APOLOGIZE IF THAT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. [01:30:01] THE WORD THAT I USED WAS EXTENSIVE, UM, NOT EXPENSIVE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UM, WHEN YOU USED THE WORD OCCUPIED, WERE THOSE, DID YOU SEE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OUTSIDE THE HOUSE, OR DID YOU JUST OBSERVE THAT THERE WAS INDIVIDUAL ITEMS IN THE HOUSE THAT MADE IT LOOK LIKE PERHAPS SOMEBODY IS LIVING THERE? AT THE TIME THAT WE MADE THE SITE VISIT, THE, THE HOME WAS NOT OCCUPIED. UM, AGAIN, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS OCCUPIED UP UNTIL, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO US BY, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO, UM, IT'S NOT, UH, WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SAW IN PERSON. UM, WE WEREN'T, UH, LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY PRIOR TO RECEIVING THAT DEMOLITION REQUEST. OKAY. SO PROBABLY NOT OCCUPIED AND OCCUPIED COULD MEAN ANYBODY WHO COULD JUST BREAK INTO THE HOUSE AND SIT THERE. RIGHT. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE HOUSE IS FIT FOR OCCU TO BE OCCUPIED. IT JUST AS SOMEBODY HAS GOTTEN INTO THE HOUSE TO SIT IN IT. UM, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE NON-CONFORMING, DID THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE HOUSE AT THE TIME THAT THESE WERE ADDITIONS WERE ADDED ONTO THE HOUSE? DID YOUR DEPARTMENT AT ANY TIME CONNECT WITH THE OWNERS AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE, UM, THEY WERE BUILDING NOT ARCHITECTURALLY CORRECT TO THE DESIGN OF THIS HOUSE? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE EXACT DATES THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE, BUT THEY WERE PRIOR TO OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS PROPERTY, SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME. UM, IT'S ACTUALLY VERY LIKELY THAT THEY PREDATE THE EXISTENCE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. I THINK A NUMBER OF THEM, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS AN ENCLOSED PORCH, WHICH I SUSPECT IS, UM, MANY DECADES OLD. OKAY. AND I, I, UH, MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE THANK YOU. UM, QUESTION, UM, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR REPORT AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE, UM, STRUCTURE BEING ESTABLISHED BACK IN 1909, AND THEN YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT A HISTORICAL CORE. COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THAT HISTORICAL CORE FROM 1909 STILL EXISTS FROM YOUR, UH, INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY? SURE. SO THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME HAS BEEN EXPANDED, BUT, UH, OUR, UH, SITE VISITS AND, UM, OUR LOOK, WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE, UH, FORTUNATELY TO SEE THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME TOO, WHICH ALWAYS HELPS US UNDERSTAND, UM, HOW THE HOME GREW OVER TIME. AND, UH, THE, THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME IS, UH, IS THERE, UM, THERE ARE, UH, A COUPLE OF EXTERIOR WALLS THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE OBVIOUSLY THE, UM, ADDITIONAL ROOMS. UH, BUT THAT'S WHEN WE SAY THAT THE HISTORIC COURT STILL REMAINS THAT, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN. SO, UH, IT'S STILL THERE, UH, DESPITE THE MODIFICATIONS AND SIGNIFICANT TIME THAT HAS PASSED SINCE THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. SO IN YOUR OPINION, HOW MUCH OF THE HISTORICAL CORE REMAINS LIKE, UH, 80%, 90%? I WOULD SAY AT LEAST 80%. THANK YOU. COULD SHE QUANTIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER AT 80%? I THINK THAT WAS COMMISSIONER LEE'S QUESTION. I, I THINK QUANTIFY AS AN SORT OF UNDER, YOU WANT ME TO GET MORE IN DEPTH IN EXACTLY HOW MUCH HISTORIC MATERIAL REMAINS? WELL, I THINK YOU ONLY POINTED OUT A, A LIGHT FIXTURE COLUMNS. UM, AND BUT YOU'RE SAYING 80%, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE 80%? YEAH, THERE'S ORIGINAL SIDING, THERE'S ORIGINAL WINDOWS. THE ROOF FORM IS THE SAME, ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, WOULD ASSUME THAT A NEW ROOF HAS BEEN PUT ON SINCE 1909. UM, YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THAT WOULD BE MY ESTIMATE. HOW MANY WINDOWS? I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. UM, COMMISSIONER SIP AND COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER CLARIFICATION QUESTION. I KNOW THAT, UM, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT ARCHITECTS ON STAFF. [01:35:01] THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY H D R C ITSELF AND SUBCOMMITTEES, YOU DO HAVE ARCHITECTS ON THOSE COMMITTEES AND H D R C ITSELF, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND, UM, THERE WERE ARCHITECTS AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS WHO VISITED THE PROPERTY. OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST, THAT'S ALL. UM, I'M, SO DID YOU, I THINK THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED, AND YOU DID NOT MENTION THAT THERE WAS ARCHITECTS OF H D R C THAT VIEWED IT ON SITE. DID THOSE ARCHITECTS MAKE A REPORT AND GIVE THE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL? THEY DID. THEY DID MAKE A REPORT. AND I APOLOGIZE THAT IF I LEFT THAT OUT, I THOUGHT OUR DISCUSSION WAS RESTRICTED TO THE DISCUSSION OF STAFF. UM, YES, THEY DID MAKE A REPORT. THEY REPORTED THAT, UH, BACK TO BOTH THE FULL HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, AND THEN THAT REPORT WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE CASE THAT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WELL, THAT SEEMS TO BE A DIFFERENCE OF STORY NOW. SO NOW YOU DID HAVE ARCHITECTS, SO THAT WAS THE, I'M VERY CONFUSED NOW, SO I KNOW YOU SAID THE WORD WAS EXTENSIVE AND NOT EXPENSIVE, BUT I'M HUNG UP ON THE WORD EXPENSIVE. SO MAYBE THAT WAS THE EXPENSE. I, I DON'T KNOW. SO NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU DID HAVE ARCHITECTS, AND WHY DIDN'T YOU PRESENT THE ARCHITECT REPORT THEN WITH YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, LET ME CLARIFY. I REALLY APOLOGIZE THAT THERE'S ANY CONFUSION. THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT MY INTENT AT ALL. UM, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DOES INCLUDE, UM, UH, A NUMBER OF, UH, APPOINTEES THAT HAVE A VARIETY OF, UH, EXPERTISE AND, UM, THAT DOES INCLUDE ARCHITECTS AND REGISTERED ARCHITECTS. UM, AND THEIR REPORT WAS CALLED THE, UH, I BELIEVE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S REPORT, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN INCLUDED, UM, IN THE, IN THE CASE FILE. UH, THEY DID NOT PRODUCE A, AN INDIVIDUAL REPORT THAT WAS PAID FOR, THEY WERE VISITING AS PART OF THEIR ROLE AS, UM, COMMISSIONERS. WELL, OKAY. SO YOU'RE KIND OF ADDING TO YOUR STORY FROM WHAT I ASKED ORIGINALLY. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SIPES, IF YOU WERE DONE, UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY, UM, WHAT SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION, UM, WITH RESPECT TO H D R C? SO THIS, WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC PROCESS, H D R C AND THEIR HEARING IS IN FACT A PUBLIC PROCESS AS WELL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THEN FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PRESENT ALL OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED RIGHT NOW. UM, THOSE WERE ABLE TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE H D R C AND ON THE H D R C, THERE ARE ARCHITECTS AND VARIOUS OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERTISE LEVELS. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. OKAY, THANKS. UM, AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE, UM, 80% ORIGINAL, UM, STRUCTURE OR, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE WORD THAT WAS USED, BUT, UM, IT WERE, YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT EXTERIOR FEATURES, OR ARE YOU ALSO TALKING ABOUT INTERIOR FEATURES? YOU KNOW, WAS THERE, IS THERE AN ORIGINAL WOOD FLOOR IN THE HOUSE? ARE THERE ORIGINAL, UM, DOORS, TRANSOM WINDOWS BUILT-INS, OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT YOU'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THAT NUMBER? I THINK WHAT I WAS JUST ASKED ABOUT THAT, I THINK WHAT I HAD IN MIND WAS SORT OF THE WHOLE OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT WOULD'VE INCLUDED WHAT WE SAW BOTH ON THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR. AND I, I WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NO MAGIC NUMBER HERE FOR US. UM, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH WE WOULD GO TO A PROPERTY AND SAY, OH, THIS ONE ONLY HAS 40% OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND IT NEEDS 50. THAT, UM, I DON'T WANT US TO GET HUNG UP ON THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, UM, UH, CONSIDER OR USE AS A A, THERE'S NO THRESHOLD, IF YOU WILL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY. IF, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. THANK YOU. UM, SO, UH, SO WE HEARD THIS CASE PREVIOUSLY. UM, AND UM, I DO, I DO WANNA GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS, UM, THAT I THINK ARE, UM, REALLY IMPORTANT TO THIS CASE. UM, I THINK, UH, THAT I KNOW LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ARCHITECTURAL [01:40:01] INTEGRITY IS STILL THERE OR NOT, OR IS THIS QUEEN ANN, DO WE, AS THE ZONING COMMISSION, THINK THAT THIS IS, UM, ARCHITECTURALLY OR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT? UM, AND, AND I THINK, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S OUR JOB. UM, I THINK THAT, AND, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER ROMERO KIND OF MADE THIS COMMENT PREVIOUSLY IS THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT WE'RE PUT IN BECAUSE THIS IS NOT OUR EXPERTISE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TYPICALLY LOOKING, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER MCGEE, THERE WAS A CASE IN YOUR DISTRICT, THE TO-DOS BUILDING THAT WE ENDED UP, UM, RECOMMENDING AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. UM, AND THERE WE FACED THE SAME QUESTION, WHICH WAS, IS THIS THE SPANISH ECLECTIC? OR WHATEVER THE STYLE WAS. AND THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH ON, ON THAT. AND I, I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT COMMENT THAT I FEEL THAT THAT IS OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. THIS IS TALKING ABOUT LAND USE, AND THIS IS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED HISTORIC. UM, IT'S NOT ABOUT, OUR EXPERTISE IS NOT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE. AND I THINK THAT, I BELIEVE IT IS CORRECT FOR US TO DEFER TO H D R C. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT EXPERTISE. THEY'RE USED TO SEEING THESE TYPES OF CASES. THEY, IT WAS AN EXTENSIVE, EXTENSIVE, UM, PUBLIC PROCESS, UM, WITH THE SAME, UM, ENGINEER ARCHITECT, THE OWNER WITH THE SAME THINGS THAT WE HEARD. THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE H D R C AND FOR THEM TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AND THAT IS THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE. SO IN THAT REGARD, I, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DEFER TO THEM. BUT IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, UM, STAFF, COULD I GET YOU TO PULL UP, UM, ON OUR, THE SCREEN SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT, REALTOR.COM, UM, AND, AND PULL UP THIS ADDRESS IN REALTOR.COM, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE FOR THE ZONING COMMISSIONERS TO SEE THE INTERIOR PHOTOS FROM THIS HOME FROM 2018 WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT, AT, AT THAT, AND YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE, IT'S NUMBER ONE ADVERTISED AS A HISTORIC PROPERTY THAT'S EVEN IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE HOME. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY FROM FOLKS WHO HAVE NO IDEA THAT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE A HISTORIC HOME. THAT IF YOU LOOK HERE, THE PROPERTY OVERVIEW, SOUTHTOWN LAVACCA DISTRICT AREA LIVING THIS HISTORIC VICTORIAN IS AWAITING NEW OWNERS TO GIVE IT SOME LOVE. ORIGINAL WOOD FLOORS, HIGH CEILINGS, COVERED FRONT PORCH, ORIGINAL BUILT-INS, DRAMATIC ENTRY DOOR AND FOYER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK WE DIDN'T LOOK AT LAST TIME. WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE H D R C AND O H P LOOKED AT. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. UM, CLEARLY THE HOME, MAYBE NOT ANYONE COULD HAVE BROKEN IN AND PUT THEIR SHAMPOO ON THE LEDGE OF THAT BATHTUB, BUT THE HOME APPEARS, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THESE PICTURES, TO HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED IN 2018. UM, WE HEARD FROM THE, UH, THE ARCHITECT THAT THE ISSUES WITH THE HOME WOULD HAVE BEEN THE, THE STRUCTURAL OR, UM, YOU KNOW, FOUNDATION ROOF ISSUES WOULD'VE BEEN DISCOVERED BY A HOME INSPECTOR. UM, AND ALL OF US HAVE, HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTIES. UH, I THINK, I DON'T, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW. I, I HAVE, UM, I ALWAYS EMPLOY, UH, FOLKS TO COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT I'M PURCHASING IS, IS WHAT I THINK IT IS. UM, I'VE LIVED IN FOUR HISTORIC HOMES AND I, UM, I OWN A HISTORIC RENTAL PROPERTY. UM, SO I'M, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES THAT HISTORIC HOMES FACE AND, AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT BUILT TO TODAY'S STANDARDS, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND. THE FLOOR JOISTS ARE TOO FAR APART FOR YOU TO PUT A TILE FLOOR ON TOP OF, OR, OR YOU HAVE SOME FOUNDATION ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE CORRECTED. THAT IS TO BE EXPECTED WITH A 115 YEAR OLD HOME, OR 110 YEAR OLD HOME. I KNOW. 'CAUSE I'VE DONE IT TO MY HOMES, UM, VARIOUS, VARIOUS TIMES. UM, SO I, MAYBE I SOUND A A LITTLE BIT LIKE, I DON'T HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THIS, BUT IT IS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION AND, AND I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO, WHEN YOU'RE INVESTING IN PROPERTIES, YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN A MANNER THAT IT, THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE PREPARING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE [01:45:01] AS WE SAY, IN MAKING SURE THAT WHEN YOU PAY THAT MONEY FOR THAT HOME, THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT IT'S GONNA TAKE TO PUT IT IN THE POSITION THAT, THAT YOU WANT IT TO BE. UM, AND, AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY IS, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID, I DON'T, WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PEOPLE NOT MAKE MONEY. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY ONE OF US WANTS, WOULD WISH ON ANYONE FOR THEM TO LOSE MONEY ON A PROPERTY. IT'S A TERRIBLE PLACE TO BE IN. UM, BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, IT'S NOT MY JOB AS A ZONING COMMISSIONER NOR ANY OF OUR JOBS AS ZONING COMMISSION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DO MAKE MONEY ON PROPERTIES. SO, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS WORTH SAYING. UM, AND, AND THAT'S, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT A PROPERTY IS HISTORIC. THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE, HAVE EXPERTS WHO KNOW ABOUT HISTORIC PROPERTIES, DO THEY RECOMMEND IT TO BE PRESERVED, AND FOR US TO PRESERVE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY AND TO PRESERVE HISTORY WITHIN OUR CITY, WHICH I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY, MORE THAN MANY OTHER CITIES HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ONE OF THE LARGEST, UM, LARGEST COLLECTIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND HOMES FROM THE LATE 18 HUNDREDS AND EARLY 19 HUNDREDS OF ANY CITY IN THE, IN THE US WE HAVE MANAGED TO PRESERVE THAT AROUND OUR URBAN CORE. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT THESE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE IN MY DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT I LIVE IN, OR THAT I, THAT I PARTICIPATE IN, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT OUR CITY HAS IDENTIFIED AS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY. AND OBVIOUSLY, O H P IS, IS FULFILLING, UM, THAT PUBLIC POLICY BY REVIEWING THE DEMOLITIONS IN THESE AREAS. SO, UM, WITH THAT, I WILL STOP TALKING AND, UM, MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, SECOND ROMERO. AND WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, UH, WITH A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. ANY, UH, COMMENTS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? WELL, UH, , I THINK, UH, RESIDENTS OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, WHERE I'M FROM, WOULD, WOULD, UH, DISAGREE WITH THE SAN ANTONIO HAVING ONE OF THE LARGEST AMOUNTS OF HISTORICAL HOMES. UM, SO I, I WOULD, UH, SINCE WE DON'T KNOW, THAT MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD FACT FOR US TO SAY, UM, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE ONLY DEFENDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT A HISTORIC HOME WORTH SAVING. NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. THEIR INTENT WAS NOT TO SAVE THE HOUSE AT ALL. THEIR INTENT WAS THE LAND. IT WAS A LAND THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THEM. WE DON'T OWN THAT LAND. THE HISTORIC DEPARTMENT DOESN'T OWN THE LAND. NEITHER ONE OF US OWN IT. THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT OWNS THE LAND, AND THEY DO HAVE AN INTENT TO REBUILD ON THE LAND AND FIND THAT THIS HOUSE IS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO SAVE IT. IT'S GOT ROTTED, UH, PIERS AND IT WILL NEED A LOT OF 'EM. AND THEY'RE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO IT. AND IT CAN CAUSE OTHER DAMAGE WHEN YOU LIFT THE HOUSE UP. UH, IT CAN CAUSE, UH, PLUMBING DAMAGE, WHICH, IF THIS IS OLD PLUMBING, WHICH IT STILL PROBABLY IS NOT ONLY IN THE HOUSE ITSELF, BUT OUT INTO THE YARD, THEN IT WILL CAUSE AN ISSUE THERE. IT COULD CAUSE THE ENTIRE ROOF TO THEN HAVE ITS COLLAPSE COMPLETE, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE PROBLEM THERE. UM, IT COULD CAUSE WALLS TO BUCKLE AND TOILETS TO POP UP, AND TUBS TO COME OUT, AND THE TRANSOMS TO CRACK. THOSE THINGS HAPPEN WHEN YOU LIFT A HOUSE OF THIS NATURE, THIS OLD ON THAT MANY PEERS. AND, UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT IS A HARDSHIP ON SOMEBODY WHOSE INTENT WAS NOT TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SO THEY, THEY COULD SAVE THE HOUSE. AND NOW YOU'VE ADDED AN, AN UNDUE BURDEN ON, ON THE OWNER. UM, I ALSO THINK THAT THE, UH, REALTOR.COM THAT YOU, UH, PRESENTED, I DON'T KNOW IF THE REALTOR UNDERSTOOD ANY OF THE ARCHITECTURE AT ALL. 'CAUSE THE REALTOR CALLED IT A VICTORIAN, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS QUEEN ANNE. I THINK THEY MAYBE JUST, IT WAS A CAMPAIGN OF HOW TO SELL THE HOUSE. IT'D BE CALLED HISTORIC SOMETHING. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WOULD ATTRACT SOMEONE TO IT. NOT THAT IT WAS FACT, APPARENTLY IT'S, I THINK, UH, HISTORIC TELLS US IT'S CLEAN END, AND THE CLEAN IN IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM A VICTORIAN, IT HAS MULTIPLE, UH, DIFFERENT DISTINGUISHING IDEAS AND MARKS AND ARCHITECTURAL LOOKS TO IT THAT NONE OF THIS HOUSE HAS. [01:50:01] SO, UH, WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK MUCH ABOUT THE CLEAN IN. I'M NOT, WE DID THE LAST TIME. UM, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT HISTORIC SOCIETY HAS MANY, MANY HOUSES ON THIS STREET AND IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHOOSE FROM, THIS IS NOT A CANDIDATE FOR THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE MISSING OUT ON ANYTHING SHOULD THIS HOUSE BE GONE. AND IF YOU WALK JUST ONE BLOCK, HALF A BLOCK DOWN THE STREET, WE'RE GONNA SEE A WHOLE DIFFERENT MODERN DESIGN THAT'S COMING INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF YOU LIVE IN THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU, YOU WOULD WELCOME THE YOUNGER DESIGN, NOT JUST THE OLDER, BUT THE YOUNGER. AND I THINK WE DEAL WITH THIS ALL THE TIME IN THESE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. SOME HOUSES CAN STAY AND SOME HOUSES CANNOT. I WOULD SAY THAT DUE TO THE REPORT FROM THE PROFESSIONALS OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE ENGINEER, THAT THE, UH, THE EXPENSE OF THE HOMEOWNER PROVIDED TO US, I THINK THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR US TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER. AND NOT ON BEHALF OF HISTORIC. HISTORIC, DID NOT PRESENT ANY, ANYTHING ARCHITECTURAL NOR ENGINEERING TO THAT EFFECT. ONLY A SUBJECTIVE THOUGHT THAT THEY THINK THIS HOUSE SHOULD BE SAVED BECAUSE IT WAS TAGGED OR DEMOLISHED. AND I FIND THAT ALMOST, UH, DISINGENUOUS THAT EVERY TIME A HOUSE IS MARKED TO DEMOLISH, WE GO OUT IN FRONT OF IT TO, TO IMPEDE ITS WAY AND TO, AND TO GET IN FRONT OF A, A HOMEOWNER, SOMEONE WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT, I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP. THE, UH, HISTORIC DEPARTMENT DID NOT GIVE US A GOOD CAUSE FOR IT. IT'S, I DON'T SEE 80%, I SEE PROBABLY 50%. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS, UH, COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UM, I DON'T WANNA TAKE TOO MUCH TIME 'CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS ISSUE ALMOST AD NAUSEUM, CERTAINLY AD NAUSEUM TO ME. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS I THINK THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE ZONING COMMISSION THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON H D R C THAT HAS LOOKED AT THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE THE H D R C PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ROMERO AND COMMISSION COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE THAT THIS IS AN ODD POSITION FOR US TO BE IN. BUT I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT THE ARCHITECTS THAT SERVE, AND THERE ARE MANY WHO SERVE ON THE H D R C, DO TAKE THESE ISSUES INTO ACCOUNT. THERE IS REGULATION IN THE U D C TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS THAT ARE IMPOSED IN THESE CASES. AND SO THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, THEY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE H D R C. AND SO AS A RESULT, I WILL DEFER TO THEM. THE OTHER ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LIVE, I AM CURRENTLY SITTING LESS THAN HALF A MILE FROM THIS HOUSE IN A 1910 HOME THAT HAD 80% OF ITS PEERS REPLACED IN 2006 AND ARE PROBABLY GONNA REPLACE THE OTHER 20 TO 30% FAIRLY SOON. THIS IS ONE OF THE COSTS OF BUYING INTO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND ALTHOUGH COMMISSIONER GIBBONS HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WERE BUYING THE LAND, THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO US. WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO US WAS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS HOUSE TO REPAIR IT, TO REHABILITATE IT. AND SO AS A RESULT, I WILL BE, UH, JOINING COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE AND COMMISSIONER ROMERO IN SUPPORTING, UH, THIS APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROMERO. THANK YOU. AND I, AND I DON'T WANNA, UH, PROLONG THIS TOO MUCH EITHER, BUT, UM, SINCE I SAID THAT, AND I DON'T LIKE BEING IN AN AWKWARD POSITION, SO I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE LOGIC TO ALL OF THIS, SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS OUR ROLE HERE? UM, AND SO I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT WITH, UM, WHEN STAFF PUT IN THE LINE FROM, UM, THE MASTER PLAN, UH, ABOUT THIS SAYING THAT THE ZONING PROCESS PROMOTES EFFECTIVE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S REALLY OUR ROLE IS, IS TO ASSESS IN THESE CASES, UH, WHETHER WE ARE, UH, WORKING THROUGH AN, AN EFFECTIVE HISTORIC CULTURAL CULTURAL PRESERVATION PROCESS. AND, AND THE REASONS I THINK WE ARE, UM, ONE OF THEM IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, SO TO ME IT'S NOT GETTING INTO THOSE STANDARDS AND SECOND GUESSING THEM, BUT JUST SEEING THAT THERE ARE STANDARDS IN PLACE. SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AN H D R C, IF WE JUST HAD ONE H P O AND THEY JUST DECIDED WITHOUT TELLING ANYBODY WHAT THEIR STANDARDS WERE, THAT SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO THE ZONING COMMISSION. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN OUR CITY. SO THE VERY STANDARDS THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES DRIVE PEOPLE CRAZY ARE, ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. IT'S A PROCESS THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. UM, IT'S A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS, UH, FOR THAT HEARING FOR DEMOLITION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER [01:55:01] SIPES FOR, UM, CLARIFYING THAT. I DIDN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER. SO, UH, THERE, THERE IS STILL A CHANCE, UH, TO ASK FOR, FOR DEMOLITION. UM, ANOTHER CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS THAT THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AGAIN, TO ME THAT MAKES FOR AN, THAT MEANS IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE THAT, THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT CAN, CAN LOOK OUTSIDE OF SET DISTRICTS. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EFFECTIVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION. UM, AND, AND REALLY BALANCING THE HISTORIC VALUE AGAINST THE COSTS. UM, THERE, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY. I THINK WE ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO IT, AND THE PEOPLE WHO BUY IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TOO. AND I THINK, UM, IF THESE ARGUMENTS WERE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO WIN THE DAY THAT IT'S SIMPLY TOO EXPENSIVE TO REHAB THIS HOUSE, THEN WE LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THAT. UH, AND, AND TO PUT THOSE FUNDS INTO THAT. AND, AND I DO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER THAT WE HAVE UNPRECEDENTED RESULTS. I, THERE'S OTHER CITIES THAT ARE GREAT TOO, BUT I THINK IT'S HARD TO ARGUE WITH HOW MUCH HAS BEEN, UH, ACHIEVED WITH THIS STANDARD. UM, SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROMERO. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UH, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER WHITE. I WANNA SAY I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER BUSTA MONTE'S BACKGROUND, UH, INFORMATION ON, ON SORT OF THE H DRCS PROCESSES. UM, I I, I, I SORT OF AGREE THAT TO A LARGE EXTENT WE HAVE TO, UM, DEFER TO THE EXPERTS THAT HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT, UH, MORE THAN WE HAVE. I WILL SAY THOUGH, UM, PAST CASES WE'VE HAD TO SOME EXTENT. THIS ONE, UM, I FEEL LIKE ARE, ARE PRETTY LIGHT ON MEETING THE HISTORICAL CRITERIA THAT'S, THAT'S SET FORTH. UM, I WISH THAT THE FOLKS DOING THAT WOULD TRY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, UH, UH, THAT THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY MEETS MORE, UH, OF THE CRITERIA THAN THEY DO. UH, BUT WITH THAT SAID, AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS? SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS? UH, WE'RE, UH, READY FOR ROLL CALL. VOTE. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER FOR APPROVAL, HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROMERO. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JOE? YES. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN? NO. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? NO. COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. COMMISSIONER? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSTA AYE. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. EIGHT TO TWO. THANK YOU. QUESTION, UH, FOR COMMISSIONERS, UM, READY TO GO LONGER OR DO YOU NEED A BREAK NOW? UH, THUMBS UP FOR BREAK NOW. BREAK PLEASE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT IS CURRENTLY 2 52. WE WILL BREAK FOR FIVE MINUTES. RETURNING AT 2 57 ISH. OKAY. IT IS 3:00 PM AND WE ARE COMING BACK INTO SESSION FROM BREAK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSION. CHRISTIE FLORES, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE. [5. (Continued from 06/02/2020) ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700050 (Council District 1): A request for a change in zoning from "R-6 NCD-2 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District to "RM-5 NCD-2 AHOD" Residential Mixed Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District on the east 45.82 feet of Lot 7, Block 6, NCB 1892, located at 806 West French Place. Staff recommends Approval. (Lorianne Thennes, Planner 210-207-7945, lorianne.thennes@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)] IT IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX NC D TWO TO H O D, EXCUSE ME, R SIX NC D TWO A H O D TO R M FIVE N C D TWO A H O D, LOCATED AT 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PLACE. THERE WERE 31 NOTICES MAILED, TWO RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY IS OPPOSED. AND THERE ARE TWO PERSONS OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT RADIUS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM. SO I YIELD TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. SO IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? NO, [02:00:01] THE APPLICANT HAS NOT, UM, UH, SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE MEETING TODAY AND SENT A, AN EMAIL THAT WE SENT TO THE D ONE COMMISSIONER. OKAY. REGARDING THE STATUS? REGARDING, REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE. OKAY. SO WE CAN, UH, MOVE PAST, SINCE IT'S A CONTINUANCE, IT'S OKAY TO MOVE PAST PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN YES, THAT'S COMPLETELY AT YOUR DISCRETION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR A LIVE CALL AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LETTERS TO READ, HONOR, UH, BUT IF THIS ITEM IS IN FACT GOING TO BE CONTINUED, YOU CAN, UH, RESERVE THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENHOUSE, THIS IS YOUR CASE. SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? UM, YOU GUYS KNOW I'M USUALLY, UM, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF CONTINUANCES, UM, BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO TRY TO WORK THINGS OUT. UM, HOWEVER, IN, IN THIS CASE. UM, AND, AND I, I KIND OF WOULD LOOK TO THE REST OF YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE, UM, IT'S YOUR TIME AS WELL AS MY TIME. UM, THIS CASE HAS BEEN UP TWICE NOW. THIS'LL BE THE THIRD CONTINUANCE, I BELIEVE, 'CAUSE I BELIEVE IT WAS CONTINUED LAST TIME. UM, AND WE DO HAVE, UH, UH, STAFF, COULD YOU TELL US HOW MANY CASES WE HAVE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS? YES, MA'AM. AT THE NEXT ONE, WE HAVE 17 THAT WERE PUBLISHED FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. ONE SEVEN. YOU ARE MUTED. UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. THANK YOU. . I MUST HAVE, MUST HAVE PUSHED IT TWICE. UM, I GUESS I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR INPUT FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS IF, IF THAT'S ALLOWED I TO GET, TO GET YOUR FEELINGS ON, ON A CONTINUANCE HERE IF WE JUST GO FORWARD WITH THE, WITH THE CASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE. I GUESS MY QUESTION TO SORT OF KICK IT BACK TO YOU, UM, REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT IS YOUR, HAVING INTERACTED WITH THE CASE AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED, WHAT IS YOUR FEELING AS TO THE CHANCE OF A RESOLUTION? 'CAUSE I WILL SAY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT NEARLY AS INVOLVED AS YOU, I THINK THE CHANCE OF A RESOLUTION SEEMS SOMEWHAT DIMM HERE. AND SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I DON'T SEE HOW MORE TIME WOULD NECESSARILY GET US TO A SPOT WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE. UM, I I TEND TO AGREE BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE HAD SOME, SOME MEETINGS, UM, VIA ZOOM. UM, SO I I WAS A LITTLE, WE HAD A MEETING PRIOR TO THE LAST ZONING CASE, UM, AND, AND THERE WERE SOME DELIVERIES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MADE, SOME, SOME ITEMS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE RESOLVED ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY GOING TO, UH, ALLAY THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN, UM, DELIVERED. I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM, MY COMMUNICATION WITH, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT I'VE SEEN IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THEM EITHER. UM, SO I I I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND WE'RE GONNA KEEP ON, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS CASE, UM, WITHOUT, WITHOUT GETTING MUCH CLOSER TO A RESOLUTION. COMMISSIONER GREY HOUSE, JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE, ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ASKED FOR WAS AN ENGINEERING REPORT. HE JUST SUBMITTED THAT TODAY AS WELL, UH, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE DELIVERABLES I THINK YOU WERE REFERRING TO. UH, I, YEAH. HAD NOT SEEN THAT. UM, OKAY. UM, I, I THINK THERE WERE SOME OTHER ITEMS AS WELL THAT, UH, THAT I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED, UM, THAT, THAT I'VE NOT SEEN. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF IT'S BECAUSE OF COVID AND BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE HAVING A HARDER TIME, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M JUST WANT US TO KIND OF TAKE INTO, INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE, THE ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT HE MIGHT BE FACING. UM, BUT I, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT AS COMMISSIONER BUSMAN SAID, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REALLY MUCH CLOSER TO RESOLUTION AND, AND HERE WE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN OUR THIRD MEETING. SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION THEN ON WHAT YOU WANNA DO. SO, SO, SO WE ARE, ARE WE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, HEAR THIS CASE WITHOUT THE APPLICANT PRESENT? NO, I THINK SHE'S SAYING SHE WANTS TO GO TO A CONTINUANCE AND I'M FINE WITH THE CONTINUANCE. ALRIGHTY. OKAY. SO, UM, OH, BUT MY QUESTION WAS THOUGH, HOWEVER, WITH OR WITHOUT THE PUBLIC? THAT WAS MY QUESTION WITH OR WITHOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WE WANNA RESERVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ACTUAL [02:05:01] HEARING ITSELF. UM, I, I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND IT WILL PROBABLY END UP HEARING IT TWICE BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK AGAIN, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THESE PEOPLE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE WORKING FROM HOME OR, UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY'VE TAKEN THE TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY TO, TO BE PRESENT AND ALSO TO SEND LETTERS IN. SO I DON'T WANT THAT TO GET LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. UH, PUBLIC COMMENT. IT IS, UM, MS. FLORES, WOULD YOU FACILITATE OUR, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR US PLEASE, EVEN THOUGH WE WILL BE, UH, MOVING FORWARD CONTINUOUS, IF YOU'LL JUST LET THE, UM, PARTICIPANTS, UH, KNOW THAT, UM, SO THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO SPEAK NOW OR TO RESERVE FOR THE NEXT ONE, IF YOU'LL JUST MAKE THEM AWARE OF THAT. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. UH, THE STAFF IS QUEUING UP THE CALLERS RIGHT NOW. I'LL START OFF BY READING A LETTER FROM ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DATED JUNE 1ST. DEAR ZONING COMMISSION, THE ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSE THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST CASE NUMBER 1 0 7 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PLACE AT THE TUESDAY, MAY 19TH HEARING. IT WAS DECIDED AT THAT TIME BY THE ZONING COMMISSION TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE FOR THIS CASE. SINCE THAT TIME, ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS AND SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD CONVERSATION WITH MR. JOHNNY BUCKINGHAM, PROPERTY OWNER OF 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PA PLACE, AND BUSINESS OWNER OF MILITARY CRASH PAD L L C. WE HELD A ZOOM, A ZOOM MEETING ON TUESDAY, MAY 26TH AT 2:30 PM AND AMONG THE ATTENDEES WERE SEL BROOKS, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL, ALL OF WHOM LENT THEIR EXPERTISE IN AIDING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. ALL OF THE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS WERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. BUCKINGHAM TO PROVIDE AND THERE WAS NO CLEAR RESOLVE TO ANY ISSUE RAISED. IN CONCLUSION, WE HAVE ASKED FOR A DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND DRAWING OF THE PROPERTY TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO TODAY, MONDAY, JUNE 1ST. IN PREPARATION FOR THE HEARING, WE DID NOT GET THE DETAILS THAT WE WERE HOPING FOR, BUT RATHER WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MR. BUCKINGHAM WITH COMMENTARY SHARED BY AN ENGINEER THAT MR. BUCKINGHAM HIRED TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY. THE NOTES PROVIDED IN THE EMAIL INCLUDED THE OPINION THAT THE BACK STRUCTURE IS FOUND TO INCLUDE THE FOUNDATION AND ALL THE OVERALL STRUCTURE CAN BE WORKED ON. IT INCLUDED SOME MEASUREMENTS FOR PARKING AND A COMMENT ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE. AT THE TIME OF THE EMAIL, MR. BUCKINGHAM SAID THAT THE REPORT WOULD NOT BE READY UNTIL WEDNESDAY, ALTHOUGH HE WAS TRYING TO GET IT EXPEDITED. THE TVIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD MAINTAINS THE POSITION OF OPPOSING THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE FROM R SIX TO R FIVE. WE MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL HEARING AND THROUGHOUT NUMEROUS EMAILS AND THE ZOOM MEETING, THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ZONING CHANGE WEIGHS HEAVILY, THAT WE NEED TO BELIEVE. WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE VIABILITY OF THE PROPERTY IS A MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY, WHICH IS CONTINGENT ON THE BACK, ON THE BACK STRUCTURE. TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION THAT PROVIDES US WITH THE CONFIDENCE AND ALLEVIATES THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE RECOGNIZED BY MR. BUCKINGHAM THAT THIS IS THE DANGEROUS SITUATION OF PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE WILL REMAIN WITH THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF IT IS DETERMINED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS THAT THE PROPERTY OR THE BACK BUILDING IS NOT SUITABLE FOR MULTI-TENANT. WE ALSO MAINTAIN THE POSITION OF OPPOSING THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE OUT OF THE CONCERN FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY STOCK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. CHRISTINA CARTWRIGHT, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND NOW WE HAVE MR. MR. VENA. ARE YOU ON THE LINE? APPARENTLY WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY GETTING AHOLD OF, UH, INDIVIDUAL. WE'RE GONNA GIVE IT ANOTHER TRY. I WILL START WITH ANOTHER LETTER. I WOULD SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE FIXED UP I LIVE NEXT DOOR AND IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE IT LOOKING GOOD, HOWEVER IT MUST HAVE PARKING AND UNTIL THE OWNER COMES UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THAT, I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE ICE FLOOR NEXT DOOR. IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN RENTED TO YOUNG FOLKS WHO FILLED A PLACE WITH COUCH TENANTS, PARKING PROBLEMS. I DON'T MIND SIX VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROPERTY, COMPETING FOR PARKING ON THE STREET, BUT WHEN ONE OF THEM IS PARKED, SO IT BLOCKS MY DRIVEWAY, THAT REALLY UPSETS ME. I AM FUNCTIONALLY DEAF AND WHEN THE MUSIC FROM THAT HOUSE IS SO LOUD THAT [02:10:01] I CAN HEAR IT IN MY BEDROOM, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ABSENTEE OWNER WHO IS AN INVESTOR AND DOESN'T REALLY TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN A NONSTOP ANNOYANCE IN THE 30 YEARS I'VE LIVED HERE. AND DESPITE THE NEW OWNER'S INTENT TO MAKE COSMETIC REPAIRS, I CAN SEE THE ANNOYANCE CONTINUING, THEREFORE, I'M IN OPPOSITION. AND THIS IS ROBERT LAWTON AT 8 0 8 WEST FRENCH. NOW DO WE HAVE MR. ON THE LINE? OKAY, HOW ABOUT MR. BOGLE? YES, I'M ON THE LINE. OKAY, SIR, YOU ARE ADDRESSING THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. GO AHEAD PLEASE. THANK YOU. UH, THIS IS DAVID BOGLE. I'M, I'M, UH, RESIDING AT 7 23 WEST FRENCH PLACE. UH, MY WIFE CLAUDIA GARRA AND I ALSO OWN 7 27 WEST FRENCH PLACE. AND, UM, WE ARE WITHIN THE 200, UH, FOOT RADIUS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE ZONING CHANGE. I'VE WRITTEN A LETTER, I THINK IT WAS READ LAST TIME, AND I WILL WITHHOLD, UM, FURTHER COMMENTS UNTIL THE NEXT, UH, UH, UH, UH, SESSION. WHEN, WHEN THIS WILL BE, UH, HEARD FOR DECISION. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A DECISION MADE, AND SO I'M WITHHOLDING THE REST OF MY COMMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. MR. ANOS HAS OPTED TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO SPEAK. AND SO NOW WE HAVE MINA LOPEZ. MS. LOPEZ, YES. YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE ZONING COMMISSION. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THE ZONING OF 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PLACE. MY NAME IS MINA LOPEZ AND I GREW UP AT EIGHT 12 WEST FRENCH PLACE. ONE HOUSE SEPARATES MY PARENTS' HOME AND 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH. WE HAVE SEEN OUR FAIR SHARE OF FAMILIES WHO'VE MADE 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH THEIR HOME IN THE SHORT OR LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY'VE LIVED THERE. AND WE MADE FRIENDS WITH ALL OF THE CHILDREN THAT LIVED IN THE PROPERTY. OUR BLOCK IS MADE UP OF MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 1977 WHEN MY PARENTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. CHANGING THE ZONING OF 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH TO AN RM FIVE DESIGNATION, WE'LL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR BLOCK AND NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT CHANGING THE ZONING ON 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE ALL THE WORK THAT WENT INTO MAKING ALTA VISTA. A CONSERVATION DISTRICT SEEM LIKE A WASTED EFFORT. I WAS PART OF THAT PROJECT. IT WAS A LABOR OF LOVE FOR SO MANY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S HOUSING STOCK IS WORTH MAINTAINING. THE CURRENT ZONING SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. LASTLY, IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT DRIVEN BY OR VISITED THE PROPERTY, 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH DOES NOT FACE NORTH FLORES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. UH, PLEASE HOLD LINE MS. LOPEZ. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER? ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE APPLICANTS TODAY? OKAY, I DON'T THINK, ARE WE, IS ANYBODY GONNA WANT ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE APPLICANTS? 'CAUSE I WON'T ASK ANYMORE. WE'RE NOT GONNA ASK ANY QUESTIONS TODAY. WILL WE RESERVE THEM FOR THE DAY OF THE HEARING? VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. AND NOW WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL TO, TO, UH, PLAY AND THEN ANOTHER LIVE CALLER. MY NAME IS AARON KO. I LIVE AT 7 1 4 WEST RUSSELL PLACE, 7 8 2 1 2. AND I'M SPEAKING NOW IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE PERTAINING TO 8 0 6 WEST RUSSELL, EXCUSE ME, 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PLACE. UM, AND, UH, THIS IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JULY 7TH, 2020 MEETING. I LIVE AROUND THE CORNER FROM 8 0 6 WEST FRENCH PLACE AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM R SIX TO R FIVE. MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE PROJECT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR THE ALVI CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UH, IN ADDITION TO VIOLATING STANDARDS FOR THE SIZE OF THE ANCILLARY STRUCTURE AND ALSO SETBACKS, THE LOT SIZE IS TOO SMALL FOR THE PLAN THREE UNITS ALLOWED UNDER, UH, THE REQUESTED R AND FIVE, UH, ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. MY EXPERIENCE [02:15:01] LIVING IN ALTA VISTA AND SERVING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD IS THAT PRESERVING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STOCK IS IMPORTANT TO MANY, UM, RESIDENTS HERE. UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME, UH, THEREFORE AT THIS TIME, UM, I DO NOT SEE THE VALUE IN GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE FROM R SIX FOR A PROJECT THAT WILL NOT MEET THE CODE AND DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WILL APPLY UNDER AN RMM FIVE DESIGNATION. UH, THANK YOU FOR, UM, CONSIDERING MY INPUT TODAY. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I'M NOT CURRENTLY A BOARD MEMBER OF THE ALTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, BUT I DID SERVE, UH, MANY YEARS IN THAT CAPACITY, UM, IN THE PAST. AND I KNOW THESE ISSUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO, UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE. UH, SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY INPUT TODAY. WE ALSO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY DATED TODAY. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY IS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ZONING. THE ANCILLARY STRUCTURE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODES AND APPEARS TO EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. FURTHERMORE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS EXPRESSED ITS OPPOSITION SINCE THE LOT SIZE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY USE UNDER FIVE ZONING IN ALTA, WE SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE ZION CONSERVATION OF SAN ANTONIO. AND FINALLY, I BELIEVE OUR LAST LIVE CALLER, MS. KEGLEY, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM. GO AHEAD. YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE ZONING COMMISSION, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU. THIS IS TAMMY KEGLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, A V N A CHAIR OF THE A V N A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RESIDENT AT 5 0 6 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY 7 8 2 1 2. I AM GRAVELY DISAPPOINTED IN THIS LAST MINUTE CONTINUANCE. IT'S DISRESPECTFUL AND UNFAIR TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS PERFORMED OUR DUE DILIGENCE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A LACK OF COMMUNICATION ON THE PART OF MR. BUCKINGHAM. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE ENGINEERING REPORT AS PROMISED. AS SUCH, WE REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM R SIX TO RN FIVE. WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED HEALTH AND WELFARE CONCERNS, EXISTING SETBACKS ON THE UN UNPERMITTED AND DERELICT REAR STRUCTURE OR UNSAFE IN SUCH CLOSE ENVIRONMENTS. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS REQUEST WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD USE AND IMPACT OF 16 STRUCTURES ON THIS BLOCK. 12 IS ZONED. R SIX THREE ARE ZONED RM FOUR AND ONE IS RMM FOUR R ONE SINGLE FAMILY ONSITE PARKING IS PROPOSED, BUT EXPERIENCE TELLS US THAT THIS PROVIDED PARKING MAY LIKELY GO UNUSED BY SHORT-TERM TENANTS. MILITARY CRASH PAD L L C HAS NO ROOTS IN SAN ANTONIO OR THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT DISPUTING MR. BUCKINGHAM'S RIGHT TO OPERATE AN S T R TWO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS NOT AN IDEAL USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THERE TO BE A ZONING CHANGE IN ORDER TO OPERATE HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS AT THIS ADDRESS. AND LAST, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS TOO SMALL, COULD BE REPLANTED FOR MULTIFAMILY. ACCORDING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN CD, THE FAIRLY BENIGN LIMITATIONS OF OUR N C D MUST BE CONSIDERED FIRST AND FOREMOST, WITH RESPECT. WE ARE SEEKING A DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IT'S BEEN FUN LISTENING TO THE OTHER CASES. YOUR TIME IS TRULY APPRECIATED AND YOUR TIME IS APPRECIATED AS WELL. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. SO IS THAT THE LAST, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT? THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. OKAY. AND I, I DO WANNA THANK EVERYONE WHO, WHO SPOKE. UM, AND I, THIS IS THIS AND, AND ALL MY OTHER CASES HAVE, HAVE NOT BEEN THE, THE EASIEST ONES. UM, I SEE COMMISSIONER BUSTANI LAUGHING AT ME. UM, RUDELY . I'M JUST KIDDING. UM, SO THESE, THESE HAVE NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY EASY CASES. UM, NOT THAT WE EVER HAVE EASY CASES IN OUR DISTRICT, BUT I DO WANNA STRESS THAT I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT, UM, THAT WE GIVE, UH, OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESOLUTION IF POSSIBLE. UM, AND I, IT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL BE MAKING A, A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO, UM, THE JULY 21ST MEETING, UM, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT, UM, UH, THAT THE, I I DON'T THINK THAT IT CONTINUANCES BEYOND THAT ARE, ARE GOING TO BE, UM, FEASIBLE FOR, FOR ANYONE TO, TO BE, UM, [02:20:01] DEALING WITH. SO THIS WILL BE THE FINAL TIME THAT I REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, UM, FOR THIS CASE. SO, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SORRY, ITEM NUMBER FIVE TO, UM, JULY 21ST. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, UH, BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. UM, COMMISSIONER ROMERO COMMENTS, UM, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE GOT OFF TRACK ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. UM, THAT WAS A HEARING. WE DID JUST HAVE A HEARING. UM, THE COMMISSIONER IS PERFECTLY WITHIN HER RIGHT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE. AND SHE INDICATED SHE WOULD AT THE BEGINNING, BUT I GOT CONCERNED WHEN WE, UH, SAID SEVERAL TIMES TO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TESTIFYING, WELL, THIS ISN'T A HEARING, OR YOU CAN HOLD YOUR COMMENTS TO THE NEXT HEARING. THIS ITEM WAS ON THE AGENDA. THIS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT. IT WAS A HEARING. AND I JUST FEEL THAT, UM, MAYBE SOME OF THE CITIZENS, UH, CUT SHORT THEIR COMMENTS BECAUSE WE WERE TELLING THEM THIS ISN'T A HEARING AND WE ALREADY KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT IN A HEARING THAT WE ALREADY KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING IS I JUST DON'T ALWAYS THINK IT'S DOING A FAVOR TO CITIZENS TO SAY, WELL, WE'LL LET YOU SPEAK, WE'LL LET YOU SPEAK. SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME EXHAUSTION THAT COMES IN WITH CITIZENS. AND, UM, SO, UM, I, I AGREE WITH MS. KEGLEY. UH, I DON'T THINK WE SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY WELL HERE. UM, I'LL SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE, BUT, UM, I REALLY DO THINK WE GOT OFF TRACK IN SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, UH, FOR THIS HEARING FOR WHAT WAS A HEARING. I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S AT FAULT, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THIS A LITTLE BIT. 'CAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EVER START A DISCUSSION BY SAYING, WE ALREADY KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS, EVEN IF THAT'S JUST FOR A CONTINUANCE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UH, ROMERO COMMENTS, DULY NOTED AND, UM, LEARNED. UM, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE. I THINK AT THE PARTY, THE APPLICANT HIMSELF DID NOT COME PREPARED. HE KNEW THE DEADLINE. HE WAS GIVEN PLENTY OF TIME, UH, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN PUT OFF ON JUST, UH, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT HERE. UM, I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE JUST GONE FORWARD WITH WHAT DATA AND INFORMATION WE HAVE AND HAVE HAD. UM, MANY OF US PROBABLY GOT EMAILS OF THE SORT. UM, SO I THINK THAT, UH, I I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE. I THINK WE COULD HAVE VOTED ON TODAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS? OKAY, COMMISSIONER JONES? UH, YES. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF WE COULD MAKE THE LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, COULD WE MAKE IT A LITTLE STRONGER THAT IF WE DO VOTE ON THE CONTINUANCE. THIS IS IT NOT WILL PROBABLY BE, IT. IS, IS THAT A LEGAL QUESTION? I WONDER. I I THINK THAT MADAM CHAIR, I'M SORRY. THIS IS COMMISSIONER BUSTAMONTE. I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL AT THIS POINT. OKAY. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN BIND OURSELVES, UH, IN LINE WITH KIND OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ROMERO SAID. YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T SORT OF DETERMINE HOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE PRIOR TO THE MOTION BEING MADE AND THE HEARING BEING HELD. UH, THAT BEING SAID, I THINK I WOULD BE VERY, UM, I'M GONNA TAKE A DIM VIEW OF ANY FURTHER CONTINUANCE. I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU THAT MUCH. OKAY. LANGUAGE. IT, IT, MA WORDS MATTER, DON'T THEY? SO, UM, SO WE ARE, WE ARE LEARNING. OKAY. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, EVERYONE. UH, IF THERE ARE NO OTHERS, UH, WE WILL NOW OPEN UP FOR A, UM, ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE CONTINUANCE. COMMISSIONER GRAU? YES. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HU. HI, COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? NO. COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. COMMISSIONER SI. YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE AYE. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. NINE TO ONE. YES. [02:25:12] HELLO? ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SIX. [6. (Continued from 06/02/2020) ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700059 (Council District 1): A request for a change in zoning from "O-2 AHOD" High Rise Office Airport Hazard Overlay District, "C-3NA AHOD" General Commercial Nonalcoholic Sales Airport Hazard Overlay District and "C-2 CD AHOD" Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District with a Conditional use for a Construction Trades Contractor Facility to "MF-33 AHOD" Multi-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District on the north 112-feet of the south 231.67-feet of Lot 32 and Lot 34 and the south 113.85-feet of Lot 32 and Lot 34, NCB 11880, located at 538 Everest Street. Staff recommends Approval, pending Plan Amendment. (Associated Plan Amendment PA-2020-11600014). (Justin Malone, Planner 210-207-0157, Justin.Malone@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department).] ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM OH TWO A H O D C THREE N A A H O D, AND C TWO CD A H O D WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR CONSTRUCTION TRADES CONTRACTOR FACILITY TO MS 33 A H O D, LOCATED AT 5 38 EVEREST. THERE WERE 11 NOTICES MAILED. THERE WERE FOUR NOTICE NOTICES, UH, RECEIVED IN FAVOR. TWO RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION, SEVEN RECEIVED IN FAVOR OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. 35 RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA. THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, HOWEVER, OAK PARK NORTHWOOD IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST AND THAT'S OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT RADIUS AS WELL. STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF LACK LIKELY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING LANDS. IN RELATION TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED MF 50 AND MF 33. THE PROPOSED MF 33 IS ALSO GOOD TRANSITION BETWEEN THE R FIVE ZONING TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE C THREE ZONING TO THE SOUTH STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. UH, PATRICK, ARE YOU THERE? YES. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN HERE, COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE. GO RIGHT HIT. SIR. CAN WE PUT THE, UH, POWERPOINT UP PLEASE? IS MY POWERPOINT UP? JUST ONE MINUTE. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UH, PATRICK CHRISTENSEN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPERS, THE ATLANTIC PACIFIC COMMUNITIES AND THE O C I GROUP. AS CHRISTY STATED, THE CURRENT ZONING IS O TWO AND C TWO COMMERCIAL. WE'RE REQUESTING MF 33. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, AS I STATED BEFORE, THE THE PARTNERSHIP IS BETWEEN ATLANTIC PACIFIC COMMUNITIES, A FOURTH GENERATION FAMILY OWNED COMPANY WITH OVER 36,000 UNITS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND THE O C I GROUP, A SAN ANTONIO BASED COMPANY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE SOME SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AROUND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 64 HIGH QUALITY UNITS. 50% WILL BE ONE BEDROOM, AND THE, THE REMAINDER WILL BE TWO BEDROOM. THE COMMUNITY WILL BE 80 D A ACCESSIBLE 106 SURFACE PARKING SPACES. WE'LL HAVE 2,400 SQUARE FEET OF COMMON AREA SPACE WITH AMENITIES, INCLUDING A PLAYGROUND, A BUSINESS CENTER, AND A FITNESS CENTER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE, THE SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, YOU KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF A TAX CREDIT SELECTION PROCESS. SO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CREATED A SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PLACING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THIS SITE WENT THROUGH A RIGOROUS PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS, A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AND APPROVALS FROM THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE HOUSING COMMISSION, AND THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO SELECTION CRITERIA IDENTIFIED THIS PROPERTY, EASTSIDE EVEREST IS AN IDEAL LOCATION AND IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY BOTH THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE CITY COUNCIL. THANKS TO COUNCIL SUPPORT AND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM REPRESENTATIVE DIEGO BERNAL. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL RECEIVE 15 MILLION OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. NEXT SLIDE. UM, THIS NOT A PROJECT BASED SECTION EIGHT HOUSING. THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF RUMORS BY SOME OPPOSITION OUT THERE ON THIS PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE LEVERAGING HOUSING TAX CREDITS FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. THESE CREDITS ENABLE THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH LESS DEBT, WHICH THEN ALLOWS THEM TO PASS ON TO SAVINGS TO ESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL WORKFORCE VIA LOWER RENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THERE'S MF 50, A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS EVEREST STREET. THERE'S A RIVER CITY ROOFING, A UM, UM, ROOFING COMPANY TO THE NORTH OF US, A SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY ELDERLY PROJECT TO THE, TO THE EAST. AND THE PROPERTIES ALONG SUNSET ARE PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE FROM DAYCARE AND MEDICAL USES. UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE RIVER CITY ROOFING TO THE NORTH OF US WAS OPPOSED. I DID REACH OUT TO THEM. THEY WERE, THEY RECEIVED THE FLYERS SAYING THAT THIS WAS LOW INCOME HOUSING AND THEY'RE NOW IN SUPPORT NOW THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROJECT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, THIS IS A CLOSEUP [02:30:01] SHOWING THE PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS. AND NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE LAND USE MAP. UM, THE PROPERTY'S CURRENTLY MIXED USE, WHICH CAPS US TO 25 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THIS SITE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS JUST A, A ZONING MAP WITH SOME OF THE USES, UH, AS CHRISTIE STATED IN HER RECOMMENDATION, UM, PROPERTIES ALONG SUNSET ARE ALL COMMERCIAL. WE BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY BEING REZONED TO THE MF 33 IS A NICE TRANSITION, LIKE EXISTS TO EITHER SIDE OF US. UM, SO YOU GO FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY AND THEN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY FURTHER NORTH TO THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A MAP OF THE, DID I SAY NEXT SLIDE? THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA MAP. UM, THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THIS AREA, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, I, I KNOW WE'VE RECEIVED A OPPOSITION LETTER FROM OAK PARK NORTHWOOD. WE ARE NOT WITHIN THEIR ASSOCIATION. THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF BROADWAY, WHICH IS BETWEEN BROADWAY AND THE COMMERCIAL UP AND DOWN BROADWAY. IT'S A PRETTY EFFECTIVE BARRIER BETWEEN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OURS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE DID REACH OUT TO THE ALMO HEIGHT SCHOOL DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THEY SAY THAT THEY DO HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR THE 64 UNITS THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, UM, I FORGOT TO STATE THAT WE DO, I DO HAVE THE DEVELOPERS, BOTH THE O C I GROUP AND ATLANTIC PACIFIC AND THE ENGINEER ON, ON THE LINE. I'LL HAVE THEM ANNOUNCE THEMSELVES AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. UM, BUT ON THIS SLIDE I WANT YOU TO SEE THAT THE TRAFFIC, UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW TO THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT REALLY DEVELOPS ONLY 7 37 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. UM, THE, THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUSINESS THAT GENERATES ABOUT 40 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE USES ALLOWED WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, SOME OF THOSE CAN BE QUITE SIGNIFICANT. I MEAN, A, A MEDICAL DENTAL OFFICE WOULD BE 58 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. SO THIS, THE 64 UNITS DO NOT GENERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. COULD EVERYONE ANNOUNCE THEMSELVES AS PART OF MY TEAM? SURE. MY NAME IS DAN WILSON. I'M WITH ATLANTIC PACIFIC COMMUNITIES. OUR ADDRESS IS 1 61 NORTHWEST SIXTH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. HI, THIS IS OLIVIA TSO WITH O C I GROUP. OUR ADDRESS IS ONE 18 BROADWAY, SUITE THREE 17, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 5. GOOD AFTERNOON. JEFF TORY, CIVIL ENGINEER WITH VIKING ASSOCIATE ADDRESS AT 12 9 4 0 COUNTRY PARKWAY, SAN ANTONIO. AND THAT'S OUR BASIC PRESENTATION. WE'D LIKE TO RESERVE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF REBUTTAL TIME AFTER WE HEAR THE COMMENTS AND OF COURSE WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. MR. CHRISTENSEN, UH, STAFF, IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, MA'AM. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, WE ARE GONNA START WITH THE LIVE CALLER, MEGAN SAMS. MEGAN, IF YOU'RE THERE, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AND BEGIN. HI, CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YES. YES. OKAY. MY NAME IS MEGAN SAMS. I LIVE AT 2 0 6 RIDGECREST BUILDING FIVE. UM, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I DID WANNA BRING UP IS, YES, THERE IS COMMERCIAL BORDERING ON SUNSET, BUT RIGHT TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU ACTUALLY GO INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND MANY OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE FROM THE 1960S. THEY, THEY'RE UNDER 1200 SQUARE FEET AND UM, IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH THAT CATEGORY. THEY ACTUALLY BORDER THAT AND IT'S A SMALL SIDE STREET, NOT IN THE ACTUAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. A SECOND ISSUE, I WANTED TO BRING UP 65 UNITS WITH VERY LITTLE PARKING. THERE IS A, UM, A NEWER COMPLEX FOR, UM, APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET AND UP THE STREET A LITTLE BIT FROM THE PROPOSED SITE, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A THREE TO FOUR STORY INTERNAL GARAGE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THEIR PARKING. AND STILL WITH THAT, IF YOU WANNA JUST GO TO GOOGLE, YOU CAN SEE CARS PARKED ON THE STREET. AND WE ALSO GET A LOT OF, UM, PARKING OVERFLOW FROM THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. UM, I'M ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM THE SITE. I HAVE TROUBLE GETTING TO MY DRIVE ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT. WE HAVE UM, SOME BIG BARS, THE REBAR, THE REBAR AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AREA. UM, THEN WE GOT A LOT OF BAD PARKING OFF THOSE COMMERCIAL SITES, SO I DON'T SEE THAT THOSE ARE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES FOR THE CURRENT, UM, DEVELOPMENT. UM, I ALSO, UM, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IT FOR THE LOW INCOME, BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOW INCOME COMPARTMENTS AROUND HERE. WE HAVE TWO WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THIS PROPOSED FACILITY. THE RENT, THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, NOT INCLUDING THE DISCOUNTS THAT YOU GET FOR, UM, CERTAIN INCOME BRACKETS START AT 700 PLUS DOLLARS A MONTH. SO THEY'RE NOT EXTREMELY HIGH. A LOT OF THE OLDER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL HAVE, UM, VERY LOW RENT WHEN THEY ARE, UM, RENTED OUT. AND THEN ANOTHER THING IS THEY SAID IT WAS COMPLETELY A D I OR [02:35:01] A D A, UM, ACCESSIBLE WITH BUILDINGS THAT ARE FOUR STORIES OR HIGHER. USUALLY THAT REQUIRES AN ELEVATOR. UM, THERE IS NO ELEVATOR, SO I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, IT DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING. I'M FINE WITH THE HIGH DENSITY, UM, BUT NOT, I'M FINE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING BUT NOT THE INCREASED ZONING FOR THE UNIT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, COMMENTS. ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? AND I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD BRING IT UP ON GOOGLE 'CAUSE HE'S SHOWING THE PRESENTATION, BUT YOU WILL SEE BORDERING THEIR SINGLE STORY HOUSES ONE STORY, THE HIGHEST HOUSES THAT ARE NOT IN THAT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FORWARD. THE OTHER APARTMENTS ACTUALLY BROUGHT, UM, FACE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THEY AREN'T IN THE INTERIOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, ARE TWO HOUSES, TWO STORY TYPES. UM, SO, AND I MEAN, I DON'T SEE A PLAN EITHER FOR AN EXPENSIVE GARAGE BEING BUILT, SO I WOULD ASSUME WE'D HAVE OVERFLOW ONTO THE STREET AGAIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AND, UH, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT, THANKS. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I HAD A QUESTION FOR HER MAD CHAIR. OH, I DIDN'T SEE, IS SHE STILL ON THE LINE? COMMISSIONER GIBBONS HAS A QUESTION FOR HER. THANK I APOLOGIES. I DIDN'T SEE YOUR, UH, HAND WAIT. OH, I'LL, I'LL SEND UP FLARES. , SEND UP FLARES. I, I WAS, UH, OKAY, I, I'LL BE MORE CAREFUL WHEN I'M LISTENING TO THE PARTICIPANT AFTER I'VE ASKED QUESTION FOR QUESTIONS. I'LL MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING BOTH UH, DIRECTIONS. OKAY. UM, IS STAFF, IS SHE SHE'S GONE. YEAH, SHE'S NO LONGER ON THE LINE. MM-HMM. . OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. ALRIGHT, I HAVE UH, LIKE 30 COMMENTS TO GET THROUGH SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START. UH, THE FOLLOWING, NINE PEOPLE ALL HAD THE SAME COMMENT. JAMIE, PATTY WALLACE, SUZANNE AND KEN OLSSON, GINA DILLON, AIDA WILSON, CHRISTINA GAZA, KENNETH HUEY, OSCAR MORENO AND MOLLY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION FOR 5 38 EVEREST. SUSAN BOWMAN WRIGHT. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT ON EAST SUNSET FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS AND HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON 5 38 EVEREST OF 64 UNITS, A TWO ACRE PARCEL OF LAND. THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC NOW ON WEST SUNSET DUE TO ALL THE BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE GONE UP OVERNIGHT. ADDING A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT WILL BE OVERWHELMING TO THIS COMMUNITY. THE LAND TOWER PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET HAS TENANTS PARKING ALL OVER EVEREST AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK AND NOW THEY'RE BUILDING A WASH TUB BUSINESS WHICH WILL ADD LINES OF CARS WAITING TO ENTER THE WASH TUB ON EVEREST. IT IS JUST AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN AND THERE IS THE FRANKLIN SENIOR LIVING COMPLEX A LITTLE FURTHER UP WEST SUNSET WITH TRUCKS AND CARS COMING AND GOING. WAY TOO MUCH TRAFFIC FOR THIS LITTLE AREA OF TOWN. THE LAND WOULD BE BETTER USED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR FOR THREE TO FIVE GARDEN HOMES. MY VOTE IS NO ON CHANGING THE ZONING FROM C TWO CD AND OH TWO TO MF 33. SUSAN BOWMAN, MIKE WHITE, RIGHT AS A CURRENT RESIDENT ON EAST SIERRA ALPA DRIVE, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PASSING OF ANY VOTE THAT WOULD CODIFY ANY HIGH DENSITY PUBLIC HOUSING. SECTION EIGHT, ESPECIALLY IN OUR AREA OF MOSTLY ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PLEASE CONSIDER VOTING NO ON THIS PROPOSAL. ROSEMARIE BANICK WRIGHT PLEASE LET ME BEG YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSED M MS 33 ZONING CHANGE ON EVEREST. MANY LIKE ME ARE SENIORS LIVING IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THEFT AND VANDALISM FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE ON SUNSET AND WE WOULD NOT REALLY FEEL SAFE IF YOU PERMIT THIS DENSITY AND TRAFFIC FROM TRANSIENT RESIDENTS TO BE ADDED TO OUR AREA. I HAVE LIVED AT 76 11 VINE WOOD COURT FOR AT LEAST 35 YEARS AND I WOULD BE TERRIFIED TO LIVE BY MYSELF HERE IF YOU ALLOW APPROVED OF THIS CHANGE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE ANY HELP THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE US. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CHRIS C GONZALEZ. RIGHT. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE ZONING COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE LAND USE CHANGE VOTED ON LAST WEEK AND REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 38 EVEREST, WHICH IS CASE 1 0 7 0 0 0 5 9 WITH 31 EMAILS TO VOICEMAILS THAT A PERSON ON THE PHONE HEARD IN OPPOSITION. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WOULD BE APPROVED. THERE'S BEEN NO SUPPORT FOR THESE CHANGES. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN VASTLY IMPROVED WITH THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TOWN HOMES AND OLDER [02:40:01] EXISTING HOMES. UPDATES. SUNSET NOW HAS LOTS OF MEDICAL OFFICES AND BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE BEEN REVITALIZED, WHICH HAVE REVITALIZED THE AREA. ALSO, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WILL LOWER THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE EXISTING HOMES AND THE TAXES PAID TO THE CITY. THE AREA DOESN'T NEED ADDITIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING AS THERE ARE ALREADY TWO LARGE COMPLEXES AVAILABLE NEARBY. EVEREST IS A TWO LANE STREET WHICH ALREADY HAS LOTS OF CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. THE NEW WASH TUB BUSINESS HAS THEIR INTEREST ON EVEREST ENTRANCE ON EVEREST, WHICH WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC BY THIS PROPERTY. ADDING 64 APARTMENTS WITH 106 PARKING SPACES IS GOING TO CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUES. EVEN THE CURRENT MS 25 PERMIT IS TOO HIGH FOR THIS AREA AREA WE HAVE LIVED ACROSS BROADWAY OFF OF EAST RA ALTA IN ROYAL OAKS FOR 30 YEARS. BEFORE THE OLDER LOW INCOME HOUSING COMPLEX WAS DEMOLISHED, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAD LOTS OF CRIME FROM PEOPLE WALKING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SUNSET. WE HAD CAR BREAK-INS, GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM. WE FREQUENT MANY OF THE BUSINESSES ON SUNSET DRIVE BY EVEREST EVERY DAY AND HAVE FRIENDS ON SANDALWOOD. WE HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE POSITIVE CHANGES IN THE AREA. THIS PROPERTY WOULD BEST BE BEST FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR GARDEN HOMES. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF THE DEVELOPER FROM FLORIDA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION JOE POPE WRIGHT. THE CURRENT ZONING IN THE AREA IS C TWO CD OH TWO. THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE WILL BE FOR MS TO ALLOW 65 HIGH DENSITY HOUSING PROJECTS AND THIS WOULD BE TOO MUCH IN THE WAY OF TRAFFIC AND PARKING FOR THAT AREA. COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE WASH TUB CAR WASH IS SOON TO BE OPENED ON SUNSET ROAD, THE ADDED VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL MAKE PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. IF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 5 38 EVEREST STREET, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT MY WIFE AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE SUCH A PROJECT BEING BUILT AT THAT ADDRESS OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. JAMES, MY SELECT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU A FEW TIMES AND APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU'VE GIVEN ME. OUR FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD OPPOSING THE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE AREA SATURATED BY THE FRANKLIN TERRA LAND TOWER, PECAN HILL AND MANY MORE APARTMENTS. WE NEED MORE MODEST HOMES THERE TO MAINTAIN THIS AREA AS AFFORDABLE PLACE FOR FAMILIES. MORE APARTMENTS WILL RUN DOWN OUR ENTIRE AREA. RANDY AND TINA LARSSON WRIGHT, WE OPPOSE REZONING AT 5 38 EVEREST DISTRICT ONE. A HIGH DENSITY SECTION EIGHT APARTMENT COMPLEX OF 64 UNITS IS NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AREA OWNERS AND TENANTS. THE AREA IS IN THE MIDDLE OF REVITALIZATION WITH HIGH-END APARTMENTS, TOWN HOMES, HOMES AND BUSINESSES BEING BUILT RECENTLY, WHICH WILL BRING UP THE PROPERTY VALUES. HUD HOUSING ALREADY EXISTS IN THIS AREA BUT MORE WILL NOT BE HELPFUL. EVEREST IS A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET WHICH CANNOT HANDLE HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE 7 8 2 0 9 ZIP CODE HAS SEEN AN EXPLOSION OF DEVELOPERS SEEKING TO CRAM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS GOING TO SKYROCKET. WE DO NOT NEED TO BECOME A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE SUCH AS STONE OAKS, FONTERRA EVANS OR 2 81. PEOPLE IN THIS AREA ARE PAYING VERY HIGH PRICES FOR PROPERTY TAXES, HOME PURCHASES, RENTALS, AND LANDS TO BE IN THE ALAMO HEIGHTS I S D AND SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO TAKE MORE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. PUT YOURSELVES IN THESE SHOES IF YOU PAY A MILLION, I'M SORRY, $1,100 RENT PER MONTH TO LIVE IN A SMALL 650 SQUARE FOOT ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT AT THE RECENTLY BUILT LAND TOWER OF ALAMO HEIGHTS COMPLEX JUST ACROSS EVEREST FROM THIS PROPOSED SECTION EIGHT HOUSING AT 5 38 EVEREST WHERE THE TENANTS ARE ONLY PAYING A HUNDRED. UM AND 50. WOULD YOU BE HAPPY IF YOU JUST PURCHASED A $400,000 TOWN HOME RIGHT UP THE STREET AND ACROSS FROM 5 38 EVEREST AND IT GOES SECTION EIGHT? WOULD YOU BE DELIGHTED IF YOU JUST INVESTED $1 MILLION TO BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT IN THE AREA AND SECTION EIGHT PROPERTY COMES IN NEARBY A YEAR LATER? ARE YOU GOING TO THINK TO THINK IT'S PROGRESS? PLEASE VOTE NO TO THIS REZONING REQUEST AND LET'S CONTINUE WITH UPLIFTING TRANSFORMATION OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS ALREADY BEGUN. RATHER THAN OVERDEVELOPING THE AREA WITH HIGH DENSITY AND HUD CONSTRUCTION DECISIONS ABOUT ONE PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION NOT ONLY AFFECT THOSE RESIDENTS BUT ALSO IMPACT THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. SO PLEASE LISTEN TO ALL VOICES, NOT JUST THE ONES OF MEASLY 200 FEET OF A PARTICULAR REZONING CASE. KEVIN PURCELL WRITES TO VOICE HIS OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT AT 5 38 EVEREST. OTHERS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ARE WRITING SIMILAR LETTERS. THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING [02:45:01] A LAND USE CHANGE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MY NEIGHBORS AND I HOPE THAT COMPLEMENT TRAVINO WILL NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST. WE ALREADY HAVE SECTION EIGHT HOUSING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL RECENT AND CURRENT PROJECTS ARE FOR TOWN HOME COMMUNITIES IN THE 400,000 TO 600,000 PRICED RANGE PER HOME. OTHERS AND MYSELF RECENTLY BOUGHT NEW HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE SAW MUCH EVIDENCE OF REVITALIZATION EFFORTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I BOUGHT MY TOWN HOME IN DECEMBER, 2017. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT BUILDING MORE LOW-INCOME HOUSING WILL DEPRESS PROPERTY VALUES FOR HOMEOWNERS OF THESE HIGH-END TOWN HOME. I WOULDN'T HAVE INVESTED IN A HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IF I KNEW THAT MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING WAS BEING PLANNED. OF COURSE THE PROPERTY VALUES FALL. THIS NOT ONLY AFFECTS HOMEOWNERS, IT REDUCES TAX BASE FOR THE CITY BESIDES HAVING AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES, OTHERS AND MYSELF HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PROJECT AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS THE CORNER OF EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD. EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD ARE NOT MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS LIKE SUNSET AND BROADWAY. THEY WERE NOT BUILT TO CARRY A LOT OF TRAFFIC. ALREADY THE ROADS ARE BECOMING CONGESTED DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF PARKING IN THE STREETS FROM RESIDENTS OF THE LAND TOWER LUXURY APARTMENTS. THE SITUATION WOULD BE WORSENED BY THIS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PLANNED PARKING SPACES FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS. ALSO, THERE IS A WATCH WASH TUB UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS ITS DRIVE-IN ENTRANCE ON EVEREST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS BUSINESS ALONE WILL HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON TRAFFIC ON EVEREST AS CARS LINE UP WAITING TO GET IN CARS ENTERING AND EXITING THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WOULD COMPOUND THIS OTHERS AND MYSELF ARE REQUESTING THAT CITY COUNCIL NOT CHANGE THE ZONING FOREVER. EVEREST. THIS PROPERTY WILL BE BETTER SUITED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES OR TOWN HOMES THAT ONLY ADDS 12 TO 24 NEW RESIDENCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PETER GREEN BLOOM RIGHTS REGARDING THIS PROJECT AT EVEREST, I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM C TWO CD AND O TWO TO MS 33. I AM THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF A NEARBY PROPERTY AT 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE AND I'M CURRENTLY WORKING ON PRELIMINARY PLANS TO BUILD 20 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES THAT WILL EACH BE POTENTIALLY VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY 500,000. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, NEIGHBORHOOD HAS EXPERIENCED SUBSTANTIAL IZATION WITH SEVERAL NEW HOME DEVELOPMENTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME PRICE BETWEEN 375,000 AND 600,000. THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON EVEREST OF 64 RENTAL APARTMENTS AND 106 PARKING SPACES IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROGRESS IN THE AREA. IN ADDITION, THE AREA CURRENTLY HAS AN AMPLE SHARE OF HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY COMPLEXES. ADDITIONALLY, SEVERAL OLDER APARTMENT COMPLEXES MAY EXCLUSIVELY LOW INCOME EXIST ON RIDGECREST AND LAWNDALE. DUE TO TRAFFIC CONCERNS, NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT SUPPORT ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS. LYDIA KENDRICK WRITES, MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE AT THREE 19 EAST OF SUNSET ROAD AND ARE POSTED TO THE SONY CHANGES TO M F 33 TO ACCOMMODATE 64 APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR 5 38 EVEREST DRIVE THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONGESTION. PROBLEMS AT THIS WOULD THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE ARE SIGNIFICANT. THE LAND TOWER PROJECT ALREADY CREATES SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC BUILDUP PROBLEMS ALONG SUNSET ROAD AS VEHICLES WAIT TO TURN ONTO AND OFF OF EVEREST DRIVE MOST OF THE RESIDENTS IN OUR GARDEN HOME COMMUNITY OF 15 HOMES BASED THIS BACKUP SEVERAL TIMES DAILY AS WE TRAVEL EAST ON SUNSET ROAD, JUST PAST HOME DEPOT AND LAND TOWER, THIS DANGEROUS SITUATION IS COMPOUNDED BY THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ALONG NARROW SIDEWALK SIDEWALKS ON BROADWAY AND WEST SUNSET AND WILL ONLY BECOME WORSE IF 65 APARTMENTS ARE ADDED ON EVEREST DRIVE AND THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC INCLUDES STUDENTS WALKING TO AND FROM ALAMO HEIGHTS JUNIOR SCHOOL AND ALAMO HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL. THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED REZONING IS MORE COMPATIBLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, TOWN HOMES OR GARDEN HOMES AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CURRENT ZONING C TWO CD AND O TWO REMAIN IN EFFECT. CHAD JOHANSON WRITES, I'M THE PRESIDENT, OWNER, DEVELOPER AND BUILDER OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY NEW HOME COMMUNITIES ON EAST SANDLEWOOD WHICH USED I D Z ZONING. MY COMPANY CONTINUES TO OWN 15 FOR SALE, SIX SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES ON EAST SANDLEWOOD, ALL WITHIN A CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PLUS OR MINUS 500 FEET FROM 5 38 EVEREST. I AND MY COMPANY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE TO MF 33. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING CATEGORY TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE [02:50:01] AND INCOMPATIBLE FOR THIS PROPERTY AS THE MAJORITY OF THE ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE NEWER PROPERTIES IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE UTILIZED I D Z ZONING TO CREATE LOW AND MIDDEN HOMES, WHICH WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMPAT COMPATIBLE ZONING CATEGORY FOR THE PROPERTY. HIGH DENSITY LAND USES ALONG ON MAJOR ARTERIALS LIKE WEST SUNSET ROAD AND OR BROADWAY AS MOST OF THE ALREADY PRESENT HIGH DENSITY USES IN THE AREA DO. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC AND THE STREETS ARE FILLED WITH PARKED CARS UP AND DOWN THE STREET. WE SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR IN THE CURRENT EXISTING MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AND FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS I D C MF 18 AND MF 25 IS APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE REVITALIZED COMMUNITY. MF 18 ACTUALLY IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT A CHANGE TO MF 18 BUT WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO MF 33 SINCE IT IS INCOMPATIBLE FOR THE AREA AND WILL SUGGEST THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS DENY THIS REQUESTED CHANGE. NATALIE JONES WRITES, I FEEL THE CURRENT ZONING OF C TWO CD AND O TWO IS ADEQUATE ZONING FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA BY CHANGING THE PROPOSED MF, THE PROPOSED MF 33, THIS WOULD CREATE FAR MORE DENSITY THAN THE AREA CAN HANDLE. THIS STREET IS NOT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WHICH CREATES MORE TRAFFIC IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AS A VERY INVOLVED RESIDENT IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, I FEEL THAT BY ADDING DIS DENSITY WE'RE ADDING STRESS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO KEEP ADDING STUDENTS. WE ARE MAXED OUT AS IT IS AND IN A LOST LANDLOCKED AREA WE DO NOT HAVE OPTIONS TO ADD SCHOOL WORKFORCE HOUSING WILL CREATE CONSTANT TURNOVER OF TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTS, NOT PERMANENT PROPERTY TAX PAYING HOMEOWNERS. I FEEL THAT THE PARCEL IS MORE SUITED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, TOWN HOMES AND OR GARDEN HOMES. THOSE OF US THAT LIVE ACROSS BROADWAY IN THE ROYAL OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE MENTALLY OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED AND WOULD BE GRATEFUL TO ALL WHO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE OF US THAT HAVE TO LIVE NEARBY. JESSICA WILLIAMS, I RESIDE AT AND OWN A HOME ON EAST SANDALWOOD LANE. I AM NEXT DOOR TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT HAS ENTRANCES ON SUNSET, EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD. THIS COMPLEX ALONE CREATES A MODERATE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY DISTURBANCES AS THE RESIDENTS OFTEN PARK IN A MATTER THAT DISRUPTS TRAFFIC FLOW AROUND THE ENTIRE BLOCK. I HAVE ON OCCASION ALSO BEEN BLOCKED FROM LEAVING MY DRIVEWAY DUE TO THE WAY RESIDENCE OF PARK. WHILE I AM NEW TO THIS HOME, I AM NOT NEW TO THE ALAMO HEIGHTS COMMUNITY AND ONE OF THE REASONS I HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD MY HOME FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS IS DUE TO THE DISABILITY AND GENERAL RESPECT OF NEIGHBORS. I GENUINELY ENJOY LIVING IN A BIG CITY THAT ALSO PROVIDES SMALL TOWN FEEL ALLOWING THE ZONING TO CHANGE WILL REMOVE THAT SMALL TOWN FEEL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS INFORMED THAT FIVE SEVEN COMMITTEE MEMBERS APPROVED THE LAND USE CHANGE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CHANGE WOULD BENEFIT MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE OF ZONING LAND USE FOR 5 38 EVEREST. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED WHILE I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2ND, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REQUIRED TO EXPRESS MY POINT AND ANSWER ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER'S QUESTION. CHRISTOPHER OLIVA RECENTLY BEEN MADE AWARE OF A LAND USE CHANGE VOTE AT 5 38 EVEREST ADDRESS LOCATED IN ALMO HEIGHTS DE DESPITE PROTESTS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL ALMOST GUARANTEE A SIGNIFICANT MAKEOVER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM QUIET AND PEACEFUL TO CROWDED AND NOISY. THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM FOR WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON RE ON CURRENT RESIDENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY FIVE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY AGREEING TO THIS DRASTIC CHANGE. HOW DOES THIS NEW BUILD BENEFIT MY FAMILY? ONCE AGAIN, THE FOLLOWING RE THE FOLLOWING ARE MY REASONS FOR BEING AGAINST THIS PROJECT. ONE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT MORE RESIDENTS HOMES. TWO. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY CROWDED DUE TO MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED SITE. THREE. THE HUGE FOOTPRINT IN THE NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS OR NOW IN THE ERA OF ERA OF SOCIAL DISTANCING. WHY ARE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAKING A LAND USE CHANGE THAT WILL WILLINGLY [02:55:01] PUT PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES IN CONFINED SPACES? EVEREST DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPONENTIAL RISES IN TENANTS. THERE IS NO LIGHT AT EVEREST IN SUNSET. THE ROAD IS A TWO-WAY ROAD WITH NO SIDEWALKS. THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS THE STREET THAT ALREADY HAS INCREASED PAST ITS BOUNDARIES. SOME OF THE TENANTS OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX BLOCK DRIVEWAYS OR TAKE UP BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD FOR PARKING ON EVEREST. SANDALWOOD DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A TWO-WAY ROAD. SIX INCREASED PEOPLE MEANS INCREASED NOISE, GARBAGE AND OVERCROWDING. NOT TO MENTION THE CON CONSTRUCTION CAN TAKE UPWARDS TO A YEAR. WHERE ARE THESE CONSTRUCTION CREWS SUPPOSED TO PARK THEIR WOOL TRUCKS AND HEAVY MACHINERY? SEVEN AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL SEE THE REASONS WHY PE, WHY PEOPLE MOVE TO ALMO HEIGHTS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY JUST LIKE THAT AND WHAT'S WORSE IS THAT WE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD DO NOT KNOW WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. I HAVE NEVER MOVED INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE AND COMMENTED ON HOW BUSY, CROWDED OR CONGESTED IT IS CONGESTED. IT IS AS REASONS FOR ME TO WANT TO LIVE THERE. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER LOCATION. YOU CAN PUT YOUR MIXED USE LAND DESIGNATION SOMEPLACE WITH MORE SPACE SO THAT EVEN IF IT LACKS INFRASTRUCTURE THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM TO BUILD. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT HERE. THANK YOU CHRIS. ALIBABA. RHONDA REEL. I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION. I PROTEST. THIS IS THIS INSANE PLAN. I ASK HOW MANY, I ASK YOU HOW MANY LOW INCOME HOUSE HIGH DENSITY COMPLEXES YOU LIVE BY. THIS IS CLEARLY AN ELITIST DECISION. WE ARE BEING SUBJECT TO HIGH PROPERTY TAXES ALREADY. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY JUSTIFY SO MANY LOW INCOME PROPERTIES CONCENTRATED IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE LOCAL OFFICIAL SET TAX RATES? I DON'T SEE THIS REFLECTED IN MY LATEST TAX APPRAISED VALUE. IT WENT UP AGAIN. YOU ARE KILLING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. HOUSES ARE BEING BULLDOZED ALREADY FOR EXPENSIVE APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOUSES. NOW THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING. PEOPLE ARE BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THEIR HOMES BY DEVELOPERS NOW THE COMPENSATION WILL BE EVEN LOWER IN ORDER TO SELL OUR HOMES TO ESCAPE THIS, WE HAVE ENOUGH CRIME HERE ALREADY AND NOT ENOUGH POLICE PROTECTION PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE GREATLY, NEGATIVELY IMPACTED AND HOMEOWNERS WILL BE PAYING THE BULK OF UNFAIR BURDEN OF EXPENSIVE ALAMO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT TEXAS LOGAN WALKER WRITES, I WISH TO OBJECT STRONGLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE HOUSES IN THIS LOCATION. THERE ARE ALREADY TWO LOW INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING COMPLEXES WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THIS PROPOSED THIRD. DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROJECTS CAN CREATE DYSFUNCTIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS OUTWARD, WHICH CAN DAMAGE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY VALUES. IT COULD HURT THE CITY BY INHIBITING OR EVEN PREVENTING THESE UP AND COMING AREAS LIKE BROADWAY HEIGHT, CROWN HILL FROM COMING BACK TO LIFE BY ATTRACTING HIGHER INCOME HOMESTEADERS AND NEW BUSINESS INVESTMENTS. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PROTECT THE LOCAL RESIDENTS FROM OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY IMPACT ONLY WHAT THEIR NEXT BEACH HOUSE LOOKS LIKE. MAGGIE ZAMORA WRITES, MY MOTHER MARZA RICO RESIDES AT ONE 18 RIDGECREST. SHE DOES NOT HAVE EMAILS. SHE REQUESTED THAT I SEND YOU THIS EMAIL ON HER BEHALF. SHE IS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED HIGH DENSITY UNITS PLANNED FOR 5 38 EVEREST. THE VALUE OF HER PROPERTY WILL DROP DRAMATICALLY DUE TO THE INCREASE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN THE AREA. FURTHER, IT WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON EVEREST. ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE IS BETTER SUITED TO A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA SUCH AS BROADWAY OR SUNSET. SHE HOPES HE WILL RECONSIDER THE REQUESTS MADE BY THE OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPER WHO WILL PROFIT MONETARILY FROM THE PROJECT AND LEAVE THE CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE FOR THE WORST FOREVER. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE REJECT THIS PROJECT FOR THE GOOD OF OUR CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MAR MARGARITA BRICO NANCY MORENO OWNS THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF EVEREST AND SANTA WOOD AND A SINGLE FAMILY AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IN THE COMMUNITY IS WHAT IS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE TO FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS FOR I D D [03:00:01] M F 18 AND MF 25 IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE REVITALIZED COMMUNITY. I KNOW THAT THIS KIND OF LAND USE WILL ONLY BRING DOWN OUR PROPERTY VALUE. WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE VERY INVESTED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCHOOLS. ADDING SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF NON-PROPERTY TAX PAYING INDIVIDUALS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE A NEGATIVE EFFECT. ALSO THE TRAFFIC DOWN EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD WOULD GREATLY BE AFFECTED AND I WOULD BE PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY THIS POST DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER PARKING ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY ON 1539 EAST SANDALWOOD IS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE. THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS MF FOUR MF 25, IT SEEMS ILLOGICAL TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY AS IT ALREADY ALLOWS FOR USE THAT IS MOST LIKELY MORE INTENSE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOODS HANDLE. IT'S FOR THOSE REASONS THAT I AM AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGED ON THE MAY 27TH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND SUGGEST THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS DENY THE CHANGE AND THEN THAT'S ACTUALLY SIGNED. SOMEBODY ELSE. NANCY LAURA CORTEZ. ALRIGHT, RIDGE HALSA. SO SORRY FOR BUTCHERING THAT I AM AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THIS PROJECT. PLEASE STOP THIS PROJECT. WE ALREADY HAVE TWO LOW INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING COMPLEXES WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF US AND THIS PROJECT WILL BE A THIRD. THESE ARE MY REASONS I AM AGAINST THE PROJECT. ONE DUE TO THE TWO EXISTING LOW INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING COMPLEXES ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEREST IS TWO. EVEREST IS BARELY EVEN A BLOCK FROM US. IT'S AT THE END OF OUR STREET. WE'VE ALREADY EXPERIENCED WHAT IT IS LIKE HAVING A LOW INCOME HOUSING COMPLEX ON EVEREST APP. FIVE YEARS AGO THERE WAS A LOW INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING COMPLEX ON THE CORNER OF EVEREST SANDALWOOD FULL OF GANGS. BLOODS WERE ONE OF THEM AS A RESULT THERE WAS GRAFFITI ON ALL THE MAILBOXES ON OUR STREET TRASH. BEER BOTTLES WERE THROWN IN IN OUR FRONT YARD EVERY WEEKEND, CONSTANTLY PICKING UP THEIR TRASH. I COULD HEAR THEM IN IN BED AT NIGHT THROWING BOTTLES IN OUR YARD AS THEY DROVE. DROVE BY ROCKS WERE THROWN AT OUR HOUSE, HEARD GUNSHOTS REGULARLY. WEEK, DAYS AND WEEKENDS WE HAD BREAK-INS. OUR HOUSE AND A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. TWO HOUSES FROM US WAS BROKEN INTO AND MANY ITEMS STOLEN AND A WOMAN LIVING IN A TOWN HOME A BLOCK UP FROM US ON SCOTTSDALE WAS NEARLY KILLED. A BUSINESS OWNER NOT KNOWING IT WAS LOW INCOME HOUSING DROVE BACK THERE ONE DAY JUST TO LOOK AND WITNESSED A CROWD OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTS WITH CANDLES AROUND A DEAD PERSON ON THE GROUND. SHE WAS TOO SCARED TO REPORT IT BECAUSE THEY SAW HER AND HER BUSINESS WAS JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY WALKING DISTANCE. THE WOMAN PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ON SCOTT THOUGH HAD THE ATTEMPT MADE ON HER LIFE BECAUSE SHE HAD REPORTED A GANG MEMBER. WE HAVE THE STRING OF BARS ON BROADWAY ABOUT A BLOCK, UM, FIVE MINUTE WALK FROM THE LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT WAS ON EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD BARS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF GANGS AND GANGS. WENT THERE FREQUENTLY AND SPENT A LOT OF MONEY SO THE OWNER OF THE BARS WAS RELUCTANT TO DO ANYTHING. EVENTUALLY A GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS APPROACHED CITY ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND THE BAR OWNER UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE CITY HIRED SECURITY TO KEEP THE GANGS OUT OF HIS BARN OFF THE STREET. THE LOW INCOME HOUSING ON EVEREST AND SANDALWOOD WAS TORN DOWN AND A NEW EXPENSIVE OWNER OCCUPIED COMPLEX WAS BUILT IN ITS PLACE. WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY MORE PROBLEMS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE REMOVAL OF THE EVEREST SANDALWOOD LOW HOUSING COMPLEX HAVE NOT SEEN ANY BLOOD WALKING DOWN THE STREET. NO MORE BEER BOTTLES THROWN IN OUR YARD AND NO MORE ROCKS THROWN AT OUR HOUSE. TREVOR LONG. I WANT TO WRITE TO YOU AGAIN TO EMPHASIZE MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AT 5 38 EVEREST. MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 6 0 3 SIMPLE WAY AND WE ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROJECT. THERE'S ALREADY A LARGE SCALE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS ON SANDALWOOD AND EVEREST CREATING AN INFLUX OF TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY PARKED CARS. THERE'S A CAR WASH THAT IS IN THE FINAL STAGES OF COMPLETION WHICH WILL ONLY ADD TO THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. ON TOP OF THIS, MANY PEOPLE USE EVEREST AS A CUT THROUGH TO GET TO THE ACCESS ROAD OF FOUR 10. THIS CAUSES AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION WITH STREET PARKING, UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RESIDENTS CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE AREA AND HIGHER THAN NORMAL AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF NON-RESIDENTS CUTTING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL OF THIS TO SAY THE ADDITION OF A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX WILL PUSH THESE STREETS BEYOND THEIR LIMITS OF BEING ABLE TO SAFELY ACCOMMODATE ITS RESIDENTS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN READING THIS AND WOULD LIKE AND WE READ IT TREVOR LONG. OKAY, SETH CRAIG. I [03:05:01] RECENTLY CAME ACROSS DETAILS OF THE LOW INCOME HIGH DENSITY HOUSING PROJECT PLANNED FOR 5 38 EVEREST AND WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE THE LAND USE CHANGE THE DEVELOPERS SEEKING. MY FAMILY AND I LIVE A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE AT 2 0 6 BRIDGE CRE CREST DRIVE AND FREQUENTLY WALK DOWN EVEREST. THIS AREA JUST INSIDE FOUR 10 ALREADY IS REPRESENTED BY A LARGE AMOUNT OF LOW INCOME RENTALS WITHIN RIDGE RIDGE CREST APARTMENT AS WELL AS PEON HILL APARTMENTS ON LAWNDALE. IN ADDITION, THIS AREA HAS SEVERAL NONSTOP SUBSIDIZED APARTMENTS NEARBY THAT ARE WELL BELOW THE AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT COST 4 7 8 2 0 9 WITH A SURPLUS OF AVAILABLE UNITS AT THIS TIME. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TERRA, WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN JANUARY, 2020 WITH CONCERN AS OUR HOME IS ADJACENT TO RIDGECREST APARTMENTS AND ONE STREET OVER FROM PECAN HILL. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN BEING PROPERTY VALUE AND ABILITY TO SELL IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY. WHILE WE HAVE ACCEPTED OUR NEIGHBORS RESIDING IN THE CURRENT HUD OFFERINGS, WE DO HAVE GRAVE CONCERN WITH THE POTENTIAL ADDITION OF A THIRD LOW INCOME HIGH DENSITY COMPLEX WITHIN 8.3 MILE RADIUS OF OUR HOME. RATHER THAN GROWING IN DIVERSITY, THIS SMALL CORNER OF 7 8 2 0 9 IS BEING SATURATED WITH HUD OR TAX CREDIT HOUSING. THE DEVELOPER'S INTENTIONS MAY SEEM HONORABLE HERE, BUT THIS IS A BUSINESS DEAL THAT DOES NOT HONOR THE COMMUNITY OR FILL A VOID FOR ITS MEMBERS. THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED FOR ANOTHER 64 LOW INCOME UNIT AT THIS LOCATION. WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS FROM THIS PROPERTY, PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT'S BEST FOR ALL NEIGHBORS BEFORE MAKING A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT LOW INCOME, HIGH DENSITY COMPLEX MAKES SENSE WITHIN THESE FEW RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS, STEPHANIE AND SEAN CRAIG, WILLIAM MCCLUSKEY. THIS EMAIL IS TO INFORM YOU OF MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS. ONE, EVEREST IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET BUILT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. IT IS BEING OVERUSED NOW BECAUSE OF THE LARGE APARTMENT THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE RISING NUMBER OF MULTI-HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BUILT AND ARE BEING BUILT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. TWO, PARKING IS ALREADY A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND PUTTING MORE PARKED CARS ACROSS THE STREET WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE. THREE, A CAR WASH IS BEING BUILT ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WILL BRING MORE TRAFFIC TO THE STREET AS WELL. TRAFFIC AND PARKING WILL ONLY GET WORSE IF THIS PROJECT GETS APPROVED AND IT WILL PROVIDE NO BENEFIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JAY, SUE JACQUELINE, SUE ROBERTSON, DOD AND CHARLES, RIGHT. WE WANT TO REITERATE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGES ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 38 EVEREST. WE ARE OWNERS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BELIEVE THAT THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT IS MORE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN SUPPORT. THERE ARE, THERE ARE ALREADY MANY LARGE MULTIFAMILY DWELLING SLASH APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE PARKING ON THE STREET IS MAXED OUT. A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR TOWNHOUSES WOULD BE WELCOME. OAK PARK NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATION, RIGHT AS A MEMBER OF THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND ON BEHALF OF OUR INNER NORTHEAST COMMUNITY, THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO ANY PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING CHANGE TO 5 38 EVEREST STREET. THE O P N N A BOUNDARIES ARE ADJACENT TO SAID PROJECT ACROSS BROADWAY TO THE EAST. THESE AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES ARE AN INFRINGEMENT INTO AN UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITY ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES. THIS AREA ALONG WEST SUNSET ROAD IS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY IN OUR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES. THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLAN TO HIGH DENSITY IS INAPPROPRIATE AND INCOMPATIBLE AS ADJACENT LAND USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY. THE IMMEDIATE NORTH PROPERTY IS MEDIUM DENSITY PECAN HILL ON LAWNDALE AND THAT PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE IN DENSITY AND SCALE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES. WE SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE MIX AND OR MEDIUM DENSITY USES AS SPECIFIED IN THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN FROM 2010. WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PLAN AMENDMENT NOR ZONING CHANGE. HIGH DENSITY LAND USES BELONG ON MAJOR ARTERIALS LIKE WEST SUNSET ROAD AND BROADWAY. AS YOU MAY KNOW, BOTH THE STREETS ARE EXPERIENCING A DEVELOPMENT BOOM THAT MUST BE KEPT ALONG THOSE PRIMARY STREETS IN ORDER TO AVOID DETERIORATION OF PRESENT ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. OUR RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY COPING WITH RISING [03:10:01] TRAFFIC CONGESTION AS THE AREA CONTINUES TO DEVELOP WITHOUT PROPER UPDATED INFRASTRUCTURES IN PLACE. WE SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ENVISIONED IN THE SA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TRINITY LAND USE PLAN. THIS PLAN CALLS FOR MIXED USE USE WITH NO GREATER THAN MF 25 DENSITY M F 18 ACTUALLY IS MORE APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE AS THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES. THE HIGH DENSITY REQUESTED HERE CAN GO UP TO A MS 55 DENSITY AND IS AND CERTAINLY IS NOT COMPATIBLE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE OF ROADWAY. PLEASE CONSIDER AND DISCUSS OUR COMMENTS. WE BELIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT AND MAINTAINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER CAN BOTH BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MAINTAINING A MEDIUM TYPE OF DENSITY. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, PATTY WALLACE VICTOR AND RIGHT NEXT WEEK YOU WILL BE PRESENTED WITH THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE REQUESTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 5 38 EVEREST CONSISTS OF 64 WORKHOUSE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS ON A TWO ACRE LOT WITH APPROXIMATELY 106 SURFACE PARKING SPACE. THE DEVELOPER IS THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT DURING THE JUNE 2ND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING PRESENTED A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT CALLED VISTA AT INNER PARK. YOU WILL RECALL THIS PROJECT AND THE VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON IT. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS AND OTHERS EXPRESSED STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON THE ACCESS ROAD OF US 2 81 AND INTER PARK BOULEVARD. TWO MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS. MANY OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD BY COMMISSIONER GIBBONS AND OTHERS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. IT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. SAME NUMBER OF UNITS, SAME DEVELOPER WORKFORCE HOUSING. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT ON EVEREST SITS ON A TWO-WAY VERY NARROW STREET WITH UNIMPROVED SIDEWALKS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND CONTRARY TO THE INNER PARK PROJECT, THE EVEREST PROJECT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN UP AND COMING REDEVELOPMENT AREA WHERE ALL THE PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. THERE'S ALMOST UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT FROM DEVELOPERS NEARBY NEIGHBORS AND TO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THIS PARTICULAR AREA DOES NOT HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EFFORT BY THE SPONSOR OF THE EVEREST PROJECT IN TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND TO PRESENT THEIR PROJECT AND GET FEEDBACK. I WILL NOT TRY TO RE-CREATE ALL THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTER PARK. THE INTER PARK PROJECTS SINCE I TRUST THEY ARE STILL FRESH ON YOUR MIND. BUT MANY OF THESE APPLY TO THE EVEREST PROJECT. IF THE COMMISSION IS TO BE CONSISTENT, IT SHOULD NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR ZONING CHANGE, THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ARE BEING DEVELOPED IN THE AREA ALL WITHIN PROXIMITY OF 5 38 EVEREST R AND THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS LISTED. WE HAVE CASINOS AT HEIGHTS TWO, WHICH IS 10 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CASINOS AT HEIGHTS ONE 14 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, GREEN HEIGHTS, 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 16, 18 MONTHS LAWNDALE 20 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE CORNER OF EVEREST AND ALTA ALTA SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. ALL OF THE PROJECTS HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING AND DID NOT REQUEST A PARKING VARIANCE AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE PLANNING STAGES ARE 50 19 AND 1523 SANDALWOOD FOR 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND 1411 SANDALWOOD FOR 15 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO DISCUSS WORKFORCE HOUSING. I UNDERSTAND SOME OF YOU ARE VERY VERSED IN THIS MATTER, BUT JUST IN CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU SOME USEFUL INFORMATION AND THERE'S A LINK TO THAT INFORMATION. THIS IS THE MOST CURRENT LIST OF THE APPLICATION LOG FOR THE 9% CREDIT PROGRAM FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OF BEARS. THOUGH NINE CORRESPONDS TO BEAR COUNTY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NINE QUALIFIED PROJECTS, MANY SUBJECT TO OBTAINING ZONING CHANGES, THERE ARE ONLY FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THREE PROJECTS WITH SOME MONEY LEFT OVER BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR A FOURTH PROJECT. THUS, IF THE EVEREST PROJECT DOES NOT GET ITS ZONING CHANGE, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SAN ANTONIO IS LOSING 64 UNITS OF WORKFORCE HOUSING. THERE ARE EIGHT OTHER PROJECTS COMPETING FOR FUNDING OF WHICH ONLY THREE WILL GET IT. OTHER COMPETING PROJECTS PLAN TO BUILD MORE THAN THE PROPOSED 64 UNITS AND OTHER PROJECTS HAVE FULL NEIGHBORHOODS SUPPORT [03:15:02] WITH LESS DENSITY. IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING IS SUBMITTED, THE PROJECT CANNOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY. THUS, THERE IS NO GIVE AND TAKE ON THE PROJECT TO ACCOMMODATE NEIGHBOR AND ZONING COMMISSION CONCERNS. THIS SITUATION DOES NOT LEAVE US ANY FLEXIBILITY. THE DEVELOPER COULD HAVE APPROACHED THE NEIGHBORS FIRST REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE APPROVAL, AND THEN SUBMITTED A VETTED PROJECT FOR FUNDING NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AND WITHOUT NEIGHBOR INPUT. THE DEVELOPER OPTED NOT TO FOLLOW THE CONVENTIONAL ZONING CHANGE PROCESS. THEIR ZONING CHANGE REQUEST ALSO REQUIRES A CHANGE IN LAND USE. THIS PROJECT HAS NO NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. FINALLY, PLEASE ALSO BE AWARE THAT THERE IS A WASH CUP CAR WASH UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 3 23 WEST SUNSET. THIS CAR WASH WASH WILL HAVE ITS INTEREST ENTRANCE ON EVEREST ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 5 38 EVEREST. AS YOU KNOW, THE LIONS AT THE CAR WASH TEND TO BE VERY LONG ON CERTAIN DAYS AFTER HEAVY RAIN. EVEREST IS A NARROW TWO-WAY STREET THAT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE OVERFLOW. ALSO ACROSS THE STREET FROM 5 38 EVEREST IS THE LAND TOWER COMPLEX. MANY RESIDENTS FOR THE APARTMENTS ON SAND, WOOD AND EVEREST STREET CREATING A BIGGER BURDEN ON EVEREST. PLEASE VOTE NO. THANK YOU, VICTOR AND DONNIE. THIS ONE IS FROM KRISHNA REDDY. I'M A PARTNER AT THE LAW FIRM OF MERITS REDDY, P L L C, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THREE 10 WEST SUNSET. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR OFFICE. AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, MANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS ON SUNSET ROAD SUCH AS MYSELF PURCHASED PROPERTY OR SIGNED LONG-TERM LEASES DUE TO THE QUIETNESS AND RELATIVELY LOW TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS ALLOWED SEVERAL LARGE BUSINESSES AND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE ZONED FOR THE AREA WHICH HAS CREATED TRAFFIC NIGHTMARES AND IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING THE AREA. THE AREA IN QUESTION ALREADY HAS TOO MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE CONGESTING THE AREA AND MAKING THE AREA UNSAFE FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK, RESIDE AND WALK ON THE SIDEWALK. ANY ADDITIONAL LARGE DEVELOPMENTS IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WILL ONLY MAKE THE ISSUES WORSE AND WILL ADD TO FURTHER DECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES. FURTHERMORE, THERE HAS BEEN A DRASTIC DECLINE IN THE TENANTS AND RESIDENTS THAT REGULARLY WALKED IN THE AREA DUE TO TRAFFIC CONCERNS AND DENSENESS THAT HAS BEEN CREATED. ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE PEACEFULNESS OF THIS AREA, WHICH HAS BEEN A MAJOR ADVANTAGE OF RESIDING AND OR WORKING IN THE SUNSET AREA. THE ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY NEED TO EVALUATE THE INHERENT VALUE OF KEEPING AREAS LEFT DENSELY POPULATED AND PRESERVING THE HISTORY AND QUIETNESS OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOT MAKING THEM COMMERCIAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL HUBS FOR LARGE BUSINESSES AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THANK YOU. THIS ONE IS FROM FRANCISCO ADELE. ADELE GROUP IS REPRESENTING NEW URBAN, A DEVELOPER AND BUILDER OF 12 SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOMES COMMUNITY. CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY HAS BEEN SET TO I D Z ZONING ON EAST SANDALWOOD. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS CORRECT. BOTH NEW URBAN AND MY COMPANY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ALREADY HIGH RESIDE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA WHICH WERE BUILT WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT BACK IN THE MID 19 HUNDREDS. NOT WITHSTANDING, THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE CATEGORY AND WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWING FOR I D D M F 18 AND MF 25 IS APPROPRIATE. THE MIXED USE CATEGORY ALREADY ALLOWS FOR MF 25 AND THEREFORE IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY. IN CONCLUSION AND AS OUTLINED ABOVE, WE ARE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGE. THIS ONE IS FROM ROSEMARY HARRELL. I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD APPROXIMATELY 50 YEARS. I'VE SEEN IT CHANGE FROM A VIBRANT WORKING COMMUNITY TO A RUNDOWN ICE O R. IT IS RECENTLY CHANGING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMUNITY. I REMEMBER AS NEW PEOPLE MOVE IN AND RENOVATE SOME OF THE HOUSES, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES I HAVE WITH THE 5 38 EVEREST PROJECT. [03:20:02] THE PROPOSED SITE INTRUDES FURTHER INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH CONSISTS MOSTLY OF SMALL SINGLE STORY HOUSES BUILT IN THE 1960S AND ARE LESS THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET. TWO, THE ROAD IT IS LOCATED ON IS CROWDED AND THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ADEQUATE PARKING IN THE PLAN. THE NEWER APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THE VICINITY WAS REQUIRED TO BUILD AN INTERIOR THREE-STORY PARKING GARAGE. CURRENTLY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY HAS PARKING PROBLEMS ARISING FROM BAR OVERFLOW AND OLDER APARTMENTS IN THE AREA NOT HAVING ENOUGH PARKING. THREE, WE ARE NOT IN NEED OF MORE LOW OR ASSISTED INCOME HOUSING IN THE AREA AS THERE'S ALREADY A PLETHORA WITHIN A TWO BLOCK RADIUS OF THE NEW PROPOSED LOW INCOME HOUSING. WE HAVE TWO OTHER BIG LOW INCOME COMPLEXES, THE TERRA AND APARTMENTS AT RIDGECREST. WE ALSO HAVE SMALL, REASONABLY PRICED HOUSES FOR RENT. THIS NEW ADDITION WOULD REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES OF OWNERS THAT HAVE HELD ON FOR MANY YEARS. FOUR BETWEEN THE FOUR BARS, THE HANGAR, REBAR, BENTLEY'S, AND SALUD PLUS THE TWO LOWER INCOME COMPLEXES ALREADY PRESENT. THIS SMALL WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT ABSORB ANY MORE HIGH DENSITY, LOW INCOME HOUSING. I PERSONALLY HAD MY GARAGE TAGGED AND HAD TO REPAINT AS WELL AS OTHER NEIGHBORS HAD STUFF TAGGED ORIGINATED FROM THE LOW INCOME RENTALS IN THE AREA. WE ALSO HAD A DEADLY SHOOTING AT THE HANGAR AND A GUNMAN SHOOTING 10 PEOPLE AT THE REBAR WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS. THESE BARS ARE ALSO WITHIN A TWO BLOCK RADIUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. ROSEMARY HAROLD JOSE. RIGHT. I AM A DEVELOPER FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1618 WEST LAWNDALE. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF 19 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. I'M WRITING TO SUBMIT A STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT AGAINST WORKFORCE HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. MY ISSUE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS THE INCREASED DENSITY. I BELIEVE THE DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA HAVE INVESTED TOO MUCH TIME AND MONEY WORKING ON PROJECT PROJECTS THAT ARE CONGRUENT WITH EACH OTHER FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE AUTHORIZED AND DISSOLVED. THIS SENSE OF CONGRUENCY, IF THIS PROJECT COULD BE DOWNSIZED, I WOULD HAVE IF THIS PRO PROJECT COULD BE DOWNSIZED, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TOO MANY UNITS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, JOSE. JOSE QUIN. THIS ONE IS FROM ELAINE HARDELL, C E O OF THROUGH PROJECT AND I'M WRITING TO INFORM YOU THAT WE SUPPORT THE APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO MF 33. THE DEVELOPER REACHED OUT TO THROUGH PROJECT TO SHARE THE PLAN AS OUR ORGANIZATION IS HEADQUARTERED APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILE FROM THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF VISTA AT EVEREST. I WAS ALSO PRESENT FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE THE DEVELOPER PRESENTED A DESIGN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE RESIDENCES TO THE LOCAL WORK WORKFORCE IN A CENTRAL AREA OF THE CITY WITHIN WITH A PLENITUDE OF BUS LINE THROUGH PROJECT STANDS WITH OUR DISTRICT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DIEGO AL, WHO SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND OUR COUNCILMAN , WHO HAS RECOGNIZED THIS AS A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL SERVE AS AN IMPORTANT ASSET TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS MADE EQUITY IN ITS CITY A GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND THE VISTA AT EVEREST PROJECT WILL PROMOTE THAT EQUITY WHILE ENHANCING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ELAINE HARTLE RUTH MOORE. I'M WRITING TO INFORM YOU THAT I SUPPORT THE APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO MF 33 TO BE LOCATED AT EVEREST STREET AT EAST SANDALWOOD. THE DEVELOPER MET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND PRESENTED A DESIGN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WILL BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE RESIDENCES TO THE LOCAL WORKFORCE. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED SITE FOR VISTA AT EVEREST HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY OUR DISTRICT STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DIEGO BURNELL AND CITY COUNCILMAN AS A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL SERVE AN IMPORTANT ASSET TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. BRUCE MOORE. [03:25:02] AND THEN THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SUBMITTED. COMMENTS IN FAVOR. MELISSA HOLSTER. KATE . COURTNEY GROOM DENTON. I'M WRITING TO COURT THE REZONING FOR 5 38 EVEREST. I UNDERSTAND ZONING CHANGES ARE COMPLICATED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DENSE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE A DEPARTURE FROM THE FIELD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN ANTONIO AND ESPECIALLY FOR FAMILIES SEEKING GREATER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR CHILDREN. I SUPPORT INVESTING IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE OPEN TO EVERYONE, PROMOTE EQUITY AND ADVANCE OPPORTUNITIES. VIC NICHOLSON IS IN FAVOR. JANET PV IS WRITING TO INFORM YOU THAT SHE SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO MF 33 FOREVER. EVEREST, THE DEVELOPER MET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND PRESENTED A DESIGN THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WILL BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE RESIDENCES TO THE LOCAL LOCAL WORKFORCE. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED SITE FOR VISTA EVEREST HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY DIEGO AL AND COUNCILMAN AS A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF ALAMO HEIGHTS, WHO'S BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. SHE HAS ALSO PERSONALLY HEADED UP THE SNACK PACK FOR KIDS PROGRAM AT HOWARD EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING CENTER AND KNOWS HOW MUCH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MEAN TO THE COMMUNITY AND SHE FULLY SUPPORTS IT. THAT'S FROM JANET T AND ALSO THE SAME LETTER WAS SUBMITTED BY VICTORIA EZ. MADAM CHAIR, I BELIEVE I CAN TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU NOW. THANK YOU. UM, MR. CHRISTENSEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TIME, UH, TO RESPOND? UH, WE DO, WE DO HAVE VOICEMAILS. WE HAVE NOT PLAYED YET. OKAY, WELL, WE'LL BETTER FINISH WITH THAT PUBLIC COMMENT. GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS CASSANDRA ZA. I'M AT, UM, 7 4 0 2 HUNTERS LAND HERE IN SAN ANTONIO AND HAVE BEEN A PER PARISHIONER ANTHONY DE CATHOLIC CHURCH SIX WHEN WE, WHEN I LIVE IN THE 7 8 2 0 9 AREA. UH, I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, THE 5 38 EDWARDS PROJECT AND JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I, UM, AM SUPPORTED SUPPORTING THIS, UH, PROJECT AS, UM, I KNOW THAT IT, THIS ENDEAVOR IS A MUCH NEEDED, UM, UH, ITEM, UM, NEEDED FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE HOPE, UM, THE COMMUNITY AND NEEDS TO CURRENTLY NEEDS OF THE HOUSING, UH, COMMUNITY THERE IN THE AREA. AND BECAUSE OF THIS I FULLY SUPPORT THE CHANGE AND HOPE THAT THIS IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HAVE A GREAT DAY. YOU SAID GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS TREVOR LONG. UH, MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 6 0 3 SIMPLE WAY, RIGHT OFF OF SANDALWOOD. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO, UH, 5 3 8 EVEREST. THE PROJECT THERE, I BELIEVE THE LAST FOUR FILE NUMBER ARE 3 2 8 9. UH, FULL APP IS PA 20 21 1 6 0 1 4. UM, THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, MY, UH, WIFE AND I JUST PURCHASED A PLACE, UM, 6 0 3 SIMPLE WAY, AND WE ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THIS PROJECT. UM, THERE'S ALREADY A MASSIVE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS OFF OF SANDALWOOD AND SUNSET. UM, AND SANDALWOOD IS ALREADY, UH, FRANKLY, ALREADY KIND OF OVERRUN WITH VEHICLES AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. NOW WITH THE ADDITION OF SOME MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS IN OUR AREA OFF OF SANDALWOOD, AND THEN JUST FURTHER DOWN, UM, I TRULY DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE OVERRUN. THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH PARKING, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'LL CREATE A LOT OF HEADACHES FOR, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. THEN YOU ALSO ADD IN THIS PROJECT, AND THEN YOU ALSO ADD IN, WHICH WAS ALREADY [03:30:01] APPROVED THE PROJECT FOR THE CAR WASH JUST DOWN THE STREET, WHICH EXITS ON TO PEAK, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE AS WELL. THIS IS GOING TO CREATE, UM, AGAIN, HEAVY, HEAVY TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA. UM, AND I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST, UH, THIS, THIS, THIS PROPOSED CHANGE, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT AND FOR THE ZONING CHANGE AS WELL. UM, JUST WANTED TO MAKE, UH, MAKE MYSELF CLEAR ON THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MIXED USE GOING TO THE HIGH DENSITY USE. AGAIN, THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND LISTENING TO THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING, UH, FROM YOUR, YOUR RESULTS AS THAT'S ALL OF THE VOICEMAILS THAT WE HAVE. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHRISTENSEN? YES, COMMISSIONERS, PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. CAN WE GO BACK TO MY, MY POWERPOINT AND COULD STAFF GO TO THE LAST SLIDE AND PLEASE TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE THERE. 'CAUSE I'M, I'M ON A DELAY. WE'RE THERE. OKAY. WELL, IF WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT 64 BRAND NEW APARTMENT UNITS ARE NOT GONNA CAUSE A MASSIVE CRIME WAVE IN THIS AREA. WE'LL, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO STICK TO THE LAND USE COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT, THAT KEEPS BEING REPEATEDLY MADE IS THAT THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS IN THIS AREA. IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S THE RIDGECREST APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHICH IS LITTLE BIT FEW BLOCKS, LARGE BLOCKS TO THE NORTH OF US AND PCA HILL APARTMENTS DIRECTLY BEHIND US. THE CON HILL IS 100 UNITS OF SENIOR HOUSING SAHA DEVELOPMENT. SO I, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE CREATING A HUGE, HUGE TRAFFIC OR CRIME WAVE IN THE AREA. NOW, IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY THERE ARE SO MANY COMMENTS ON, ON A 64 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, THERE WAS OPPOSITION THAT DISTRIBUTED VERY INFLAMMATORY FLYERS OVER THIS WHOLE QUADRANT OF TOWN CLAIMING WE WERE GOING TO, WE WERE BUILDING AN EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING TO INUNDATE THE SCHOOLS AND CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS FOR EVERYONE. THAT BEING SAID, UM, WE ARE NOT GENERATING A LOT OF TRAFFIC. YOU CAN CERTAINLY CREATE MORE TRAFFIC WITH THE EXISTING ZONING WE HAVE. UM, THIS IS A NICE BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, TO THE NORTH OF US. I DO NOT BELIEVE GARDEN HOMES WOULD GET SENSE ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE WE HAVE THE ROOFING COMPANY WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE TO THE NORTH OF US, AND WE HAVE COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH OF US. UM, YOU KNOW, SO I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WE'RE NOT IN INUNDATING THE AREA WITH CARS WITH CRIME. AND IT, IT MAKES SENSE FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE CASE AND SUPPORTED THE THE PLAN AMENDMENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MYSELF AND MY TEAM ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS CASE. IT, IT MAKES SENSE FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. AND THIS IS OLIVIA WITH O C I GROUP. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, IF I MAY ONE MORE COMMENT DURING OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AS NATIVE SAN ANTONIANS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN HERE FOR GENERATIONS, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO O C I GROUP AND OUR DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, OUR, UH, ATLANTIC PACIFIC COMMUNITIES, THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO ENHANCE OUR CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROVIDE OUR FELLOW SAN ANTONIANS WITH BEAUTIFUL HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE TO SAN ANTONIANS. AND SO WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED THIS SAID EVEREST WILL ABSOLUTELY DO THIS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. THANK YOU. UM, SO, UH, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, SO WE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE STREET. UM, WILL, WILL THE DEVELOPER BE MAKING ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET? AND IF SO, WHAT ARE THE SCOPE OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? CAN YOU ANSWER THOSE, JEFF? YES, I CAN. THANK YOU. UH, JEFF, ANDREW, IAN ASSOCIATE, UM, STREET IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE IN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT. UM, WE WILL, UH, MAKE NEW CONNECTIONS FOR WATER AND SEWER. WE WILL ALSO BE RECONSTRUCTING THE PAVEMENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT, ALONG WITH THE CURB LINE AND SIDEWALKS ALONG EVEREST STREET. AND AS EACH PROJECT ALONG THE, UH, ALONG EVEREST REDEVELOPED, EACH ONE OF THOSE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SIMILAR REDEVELOPMENTS, UM, TO, TO RE REVITALIZE EVEREST STREET. SO YOU'LL BE PROVIDING SIDEWALKS, UM, JUST DIRECTLY, UM, IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY, BUT THERE WON'T BE SIDEWALKS THAT CONNECT TO SUNSET OR TO LAWNDALE. [03:35:06] UH, AS, AS EACH PROPERTY REDEVELOPED SIDEWALKS WILL CONTINUE TO BE REDEVELOPED. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ONLY REQUIRE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT. RIGHT. AND, AND SO THE, AND THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY ON EVEREST, UM, WILL REMAIN THE SAME. UM, THERE'S NO PLANS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF TO KIND OF IMPROVE THAT STREET OR HELP ALLEVIATE, UM, ANY OF THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING EXPERIENCED THERE. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THOSE? SO AS, AS, AS THE PROPERTY, UH, HAS TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PLANNING PROCESS, THERE WILL BE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT. UH, VERY MUCH LIKE THERE WAS A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR LAND TOWER ACROSS THE STREET, AND JUST AS A LAND TOWER IMPROVED AND PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS AND IMPROVED THE STREET IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THEIR PROJECT, WE WOULD BE DOING THE SAME. OKAY. BUT THERE'S NO, NO PLAN TO DO THAT IN, UM, IN OTHER AREAS OF EVEREST. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU, THAT YOU WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PROPERTY WILL BE, UM, IMPROVING. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IF THE OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH OR TO THE NORTH OF THIS WERE NOT REDEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT REQUIRED RE PLATTING OR ANYTHING, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ALSO, UM, DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY OR IMPROVE SIDEWALKS. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THANKS. UM, UM, ANOTHER QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, UM, AS WE HEARD THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THIS AREA, SO JUST WOULD LIKE TO GET A BETTER IDEA. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A MEETING THAT WAS MENTIONED THAT TOOK PLACE IN FEBRUARY, BUT I'D LIKE TO KINDA UNDERSTAND WHAT, UM, WHAT MEASURES WERE TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND GET THEIR INPUT, UM, AND FOR THEM TO HAVE MEANINGFUL INPUT IN THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT? IT'S SO, OLIVIA, I CAN ANSWER THAT. SO THE MEETING IN FEBRUARY REPRESENTED A THIRD OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT, UH, ON THE USE OF THIS LOCATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH STATE HOUSING TAX CREDIT, UM, FOLLOWING THE TWO MEETINGS THAT WERE HOSTED BY THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. UM, SO WE WERE INVITING THE, UM, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE 200 FEET. WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN A HALF MILE. UM, WE HOSTED IT AT ST. ANTHONY DE PADUA CATHOLIC CHURCH, YOU HEARD FROM THROUGH PROJECT WAS PRESENT FOR THAT MEETING AS WELL. AND WE NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 LINEAR FEET AND WE FOLLOWED THE CITY'S, UH, GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF THOSE NOTIFICATIONS. OKAY. AND, AND THE FIRST TWO MEETINGS, UM, HOW WERE FOLKS NOTIFIED, UH, THAT THEY COULD PARTICIPATE IN THOSE MEETINGS? THAT INFORMATION WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE CITY. IT WAS DURING THEIR, UM, OUTREACH AND REVIEW PROCESS, BUT WE DID WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE, UM, CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT. AND ONE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, ALLISON, WAS ALSO PRESENT FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WE HOSTED. OKAY. UM, AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THE SITE SELECTION AS FAR AS, UM, OH, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT AS FAR AS NOTIFICATIONS, UH, FOR OUR MEETING, WE SENT THOSE OUT VIA U S P S PRIORITY MAIL, AND IT WAS INCLUDED IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS, UM, ALL OF THE PROJECTS IN THE 9%, UM, TAX CREDIT POOL, THOSE ALL WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AND RECEIVED THE SAME DESIGNATION, IS THAT CORRECT? HI, THIS IS DAN WILSON FROM ATLANTIC SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES. YES. ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT RECEIVED RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S CITY COUNCIL DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GET TO THE NEXT STAGE, WHICH IS THE COMPETITION AT THE STATE LEVEL. UM, AND CURRENTLY WE ARE SLATED FOR FUNDING AT THE STATE LEVEL. UM, SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT WERE BEHIND US WERE INFERIOR TO US IN A VARIETY OF SCORING CATEGORIES AT THE STATE, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE [03:40:01] IN THE POSITION THAT THEY'RE IN. UM, AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND US, UH, THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT SLATED FOR FUNDING. UM, ONE THING THAT THE STATE LOOKS AT IS HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO EXISTING HOUSING TAX CREDITS DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY'RE 0.6, UM, THREE MILES FROM AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND WE'RE POINT AND WE'RE 2.6 MILES. SO THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER SCORING ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT ARE A FACTOR. I'M JUST MENTIONING ONE. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THERE'S A CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET AT THE CITY LEVEL AND THEN THERE'S, UM, CRITERIA AND A, A SCORING PROCESS AT THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND I'LL ALSO ADD TO THAT, THAT PART OF THE, I'M SORRY IF I CAN JUST ADD, THIS IS, UM, OLIVIA, ONE OF THE CRITERIA ALSO THAT YOU CAN RECEIVE POINTS ON FOR THE TAX CREDIT APPLICATION IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING. SO WE DID NOT SUBMIT A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR POINTS ON OUR APPLICATION. WE FELT THAT THE APPLICATION WAS STRONG ENOUGH ON ITS OTHER MERITS. UH, BUT WE STILL HOSTED ONE IN ADDITION TO THE CITY'S TWO PRIOR MEETINGS BECAUSE WE VALUED THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE DID TO GET POINTS, IT'S SOMETHING WE DID BECAUSE WE GENERALLY GENUINELY WANTED TO REACH OUT AND MAKE THAT CONNECTION. OKAY. THANKS VERY MUCH. UM, FINAL QUESTION ON THIS PROJECT. UM, IS THERE ANY ANTICIPATED PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT? UH, NO, THERE IS NOT. OKAY. THANKS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UM, QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER GIBBONS, I SAW BUSTA MONTE'S HAND GO UP. I'LL LET HIM GO FOR, OH, I JUST REALLY HAD A COMMENT FOR STAFF. I THINK, UH, UH, SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD AS WORLD CLASS UNDERSTATEMENT IN THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT, MR. GIBBONS, I, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, I'D HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. UM, ON THE PUBLIC, UH, PARTICIPATORY MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD, YOU HAD THESE WITH THE, THE GROUP OF HOMES RIGHT THERE ON SANDALWOOD EVEREST, IS THAT, IS TO THE APPLICANT? IS THAT WHERE YOU, IS THAT WHO YOU MET WITH AND WHERE DID YOU MEET? WE MET AT ST. ANTHONY DEUA CATHOLIC CHURCH, UH, IN ONE OF THEIR, UM, ROOMS THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE. AND WE MADE SURE THAT THERE WAS SIGNAGE THAT WAS OUT TO DIRECT PEOPLE AS WELL. UM, BUT WE NOTIFIED IN, IN FOLLOWING THE CITY'S GUIDELINES, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE WERE UTILIZING FOR POINTS PER THE APPLICATION, WE STILL WANTED TO UTILIZE WHAT THE CITY PUT FORTH FOR THEIR COMMUNITY MEETING GUIDELINES. AND SO WE NOTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN A HALF MILE AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 LINEAR FEET. OKAY. BUT, BUT THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT THE ALMA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEMS OR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S, THAT ARE NEAR THAT SCHOOL'S INVITED TO THIS. SO YOU JUST DID A VERY SMALL NET OF 200 FEET, BUT IT COULD IMPACT A LOT MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT GOES OVER TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, WHEREAS WHERE ANYONE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS INVITED. SO WE FOLLOWED THE CITY'S GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF THE INVITATIONS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ALMA HEIGHTS, I S D DR. SHARRA, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THAT SHE, UH, WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANY POTENTIAL CAPACITY FOR NEW STUDENTS. AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY TO, UM, ACCEPT THE STUDENTS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY COME FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AS FAR AS, UH, ANY STREET IMPROVEMENTS, UM, I SEE THERE'S ALREADY WAS SOME SIDEWALK PUT IN. WAS THAT PUT IN BY, UH, DEVELOPMENT? DOES IT, I DON'T KNOW WHO COULD ANSWER THAT? WAS THAT PUT IN BY DEVELOPMENT, UH, SERVICES DEPARTMENT OR DEVELOPERS? ARE YOU I GO DOWN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ACROSS THE STREET? WELL, IF I GO DOWN EVEREST, I SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS. YEAH. SO AS JEFF SAID, THIS IS PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, AS JEFF SAID, I MEAN, AS DEVELOPERS COME IN AND, AND [03:45:01] REDEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES, THE CITY WILL REQUIRE THEM TO BRING THEIR SECTION OF THE STREET UP TO CODE AND TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS, CURBS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY EXISTING THERE. IT'S A VERY OLD ROAD. I MEAN, AS, AS A DEVELOPER, WE CANNOT GO ONTO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS UNLESS THE CITY'S GONNA GET INVOLVED AND EITHER DO SOME SORT OF CONDEMNATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PLANS TO DO IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET. IT'LL JUST HAVE TO COME AS DEVELOPERS COME IN ONE BY ONE. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION. IF ON EVEREST, THERE'S A APARTMENT COMPLEX, LIKE A THREE STORE APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT THERE AT SANDALWOOD AND EVEREST, AND THAT REPLACED AN APARTMENT COMPLEX PRIOR CALLED OLIVE TREE. SO OLIVE TREE WAS A LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT WITH LOW, LOW RENTS THAT WAS DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH THIS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RENTS ARE ON, ON, IS THIS A MARKET RENT OR THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NAME IS. I, I BELIEVE IT IS DAN. AM I INCORRECT? I BELIEVE SO. I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THOUGH. OKAY. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, IT'S MARKET. OKAY. SO WE WENT FROM LOW-INCOME HOUSING TO MARKET ON EVEREST AT THE TIME, IN 20 THOU 20,000, 2011. IF YOU GO BACK ON GOOGLE, ANY OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS CAN DO THAT. YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT PARTICULAR APARTMENT DID BRING WITH THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING, YOU'LL SEE GRAFFITI ON HOUSES AND ON FENCING BACK IN 2011. UM, I THINK IT'S SOMETIMES THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, BUT I DO THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. AND IT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE RESIDENCES. AND THAT WAS CRIME RECENTLY HAD A CRIME REPORT OF SHOOTING OVER AT THE REBAR. PRETTY TERRIBLE SHOOTING TOO. UM, WHEN YOU HAVE LOW-INCOME HOUSING LIKE THIS, AND I THINK I MIGHT'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION ON INNER PARTS, THE INNER PARK CASE, USUALLY LOW INCOME TENDS TO HAVE A, UM, A, AN OVERCROWDING ISSUE. UH, HUD MAKES REFERENCE TO THAT, NOT, IT JUST KIND OF COMES WITH THE, THAT TYPE OF, UH, NOT NECESSARILY TYPE OF RENT, BUT THE TYPE OF INCOME. SO IF SOMEBODY RENTS FROM YOUR PROJECT AND THEY, UM, QUALIFY FOR THAT, FOR THAT APARTMENT, WHO IS CONTROLLING HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE MAY COME AND STAY IN THAT APARTMENT, THAT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR THAT APARTMENT. SO THIS IS DAN. DAN, DO YOU WANT TRY FOR THAT COMMUNITY? YES. THIS IS DAN WILSON FROM ATLANTIC PACIFIC COMMUNITIES. UH, WE MANAGE OVER 36,000 UNITS NATIONALLY. UM, WE TAKE OUR PROCESS VERY, UM, STRICTLY AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT OUR TENANTS ARE ABIDING BY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN OUR LEASE AGREEMENTS. AND ONE THING THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM IS THERE'S ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ABOVE AND BEYOND A TYPICAL MARKET RATE COMMUNITY. IS PATRICK, PATRICK HAS LEFT THE CONFERENCE. ARE THE TENANTS, ARE THE TENANTS THAT QUALIFY, UM, AND THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TENANTS THERE THAT, UM, ARE NOT ON THE LEASE. AND, UH, SO DO YOU HAVE SECURITY? IS THIS A GATED APARTMENT? YES, IT WILL HAVE, UH, PEDESTRIAN, IT WILL HAVE, UM, VEHICULAR GATES AT, UH, BOTH POINTS OF EG. OKAY. SO THEY NEED, AND THERE'S ALSO A PERIMETER FENCE. OKAY. AND SECURE, SECURE ELECTRONIC ACCESS ON ALL ENTRY POINTS AS WELL. OKAY. SO THEY NEED LIKE A, A KEY CARD OR CODE TO GET IN? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, IF, IF I GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AND LOOK AT THE VALUES OF THOSE HOUSES TODAY, WHICH WERE QUITE A STEAL BACK IN 1950, I GUESS, BUT TODAY THEY'RE GOING QUITE HIGH WITHIN THE 200,000 RANGE. AND THERE'S SMALL ARRIVED, OH, HI, HI AGAIN. UH, ABOUT A THOUSAND TO 904 SQUARE FEET, WHICH COMES OUT TO ALL ABOUT, IT'S ABOUT $219 A SQUARE FOOT. SO WHEN YOU BUILD THIS PROPERTY, AND IF YOU WERE TO SELL IT AND YOU SELL YOUR 640 SQUARE [03:50:01] FOOT APARTMENT, YOU WOULD SELL IT FOR ABOUT $140,000. AND YOU HAVE 6 64 OF THOSE. SO THAT VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, WHEN YOU GO TO SELL IT, 'CAUSE YOU CAN, WAS ABOUT $9 MILLION. SOMEBODY WILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF THAT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUT THE VALUE INTO THAT AREA FOR YOU. UM, MY OTHER QUESTION IS THEN WHY IS YOUR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THE MOST EXPENSIVE OUT OF THE LIST OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WAS PRESENTED OUT OF THAT LIST? IF WE WENT TO HAMILTON WOLF? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. CAN YOU REFRAME THAT? THE VISTA INNER PARK AND THE VISTA EVEREST, BOTH OF YOUR PROJECTS ARE THE MOST EXPENSIVE 64 UNITS AT 1,000,005. HAS 92 UNITS AT 1,000,005 THAT THEY, UH, SUBMITTED. WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR 120 ON COLLIBRA, 120 UNITS FOR 1,000,005. UM, YOURS IS ONE OF THE MORE EXPENSIVE ONES. WHY IS THAT? I CAN TELL YOU ONE EXAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS, BUT HAMILTON WOLF, I BELIEVE, HAS A REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION. SO THEY'RE NOT PAYING PROPERTY TAXES AND BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PAYING PROPERTY TAXES, UM, THEY'RE ABLE TO LEVERAGE A LOT MORE DEBT, UM, AND ULTIMATELY A LOT LESS CREDITS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ON THAT ONE. UM, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF ALL PROJECTS YOU'RE MENTIONING, BUT, BUT YOURS DOES REMAIN AS ONE OF THE MORE EXPENSIVE ONES, WHICH IS KIND OF CURIOUS TO ME, BECAUSE I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT THE INNER PARK ONE WOULD'VE COST YOU MUCH MORE THAN 1,000,005 OR 64 UNITS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PUT THE SOUND ATTENUATION INTO IT. SO SOMEWHERE SOMETHING'S GETTING CUT. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S NO GARBAGE DISPOSALS, NO CLOSET DOORS, BUT YOU'RE BUILDING ONE ON EVEREST THAT DOESN'T NEED THE SOUND ATTENUATION AT THE SAME PRICE. SO I GUESS ONE IS GETTING A LITTLE MORE AMENITIES THAN THE OTHER. UM, IF THAT'S A QUESTION, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE LESS AMENITIES THAN OTHERS. IF WE DID, WE WOULDN'T BE SCORING OUTSCORING THEM. SO, UM, WE ALL HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS TO BE COMPETITIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REASON WHY OUR DEVELOPMENT IS DOING SO WELL AT THE STATE BECAUSE IT HAS SO MANY ATTRACTIVE FEATURES. SO IT, IT REALLY JUST SORT OF BRINGS INTO QUESTION, I'LL HAVE TO BRING IT UP AT ANOTHER DATE, THEN HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THE SOUND ATTENUATION WINDOWS IN THE OTHER CASE? BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION AT ANOTHER TIME. UM, SO YOU HEARD A LOT OF HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS ABOUT THIS TYPE OF A, UH, DEVELOPMENT AT THEIR DOORSTEP. UM, AND EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT GOOGLE AGAIN AND YOU GO TO 2011 AND BRINGING ON UP TO 20 20 19, YOU DO SEE THE INCREASE OF CARS PARKED ON EVEREST AND EVEREST ISN'T GONNA GET ANY WIDER. I DON'T KNOW WHY, WHY, UH, WHY NEITHER COUNCILMAN DIEGO BERNAL NOR COUNCILMAN ROBERT TREVINO HAS IMPROVED THAT STREET WITH ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IMPROVE THAT STREET. SO WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE? IF THERE'S GONNA BE MORE CROWDING ON THE STREET, THE STREET'S GONNA DETERIORATE WITHOUT MUCH TRAFFIC ON IT. AND WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OF LOWER INCOME STATUS, WHO WILL PROBABLY HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN THEIR APARTMENTS THAN THE NEIGHBORS HAVE IN THEIR HOUSES. SO WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS MAINTAINED THE VALUE OF THAT LAND OVER THERE FOR 50 YEARS? IF YOU BUILD YOUR PROJECT THERE, THIS IS PATRICK CHRISTENSEN. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY EASY TO GENERATE A LOT OF OPPOSITION WITH INFLAMMATORY REMARKS ABOUT LOW INCOME HOUSING, THINGS LIKE CRIME. UH, WE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A 2011 APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED. WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT PLACE WAS OPERATED, OR IF THEY WERE DOING ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS OR ANYTHING, OR EVEN MANAGING THEIR PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY. UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, THEY'RE GONNA GET A NEW DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THEIR TAXES. BUT IF YOU ASK ANYONE YOU KNOW OUT THERE, DO YOU WANT A ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX? THEIR IMMEDIATE ANSWER IS GONNA BE NO. BUT THE REALITY IS, PEOPLE THEY KNOW LIVE THERE, PEOPLE THEY KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT BE THEIR CHILDREN, RELATIVES, WHAT HAVE YOU. EVERYONE, MOST EVERYONE LIVES IN APARTMENTS AT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIFE. [03:55:01] AND THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THIS AREA THAT PROBABLY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE THERE. AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE AND NOT, NOT NECESSARILY BE DRIVING ALL ACROSS TOWN TO TRY TO GET TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT. UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION. UM, SO THAT'S THE OPPOSITION. IT'S BEEN A LOT OF, WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER LOW INCOME DEVELOPMENT OUR AREA, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY LOW INCOME DEVELOPMENTS IN THEIR AREA. THEY JUST DON'T WANT ANY LOW INCOME DEVELOPMENTS IN THEIR AREA. WELL, I THINK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD, DAN? I I DIDN'T ASK FOR YOUR OPINION. I DID ASK FOR SOME FACTS, DAN, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I THINK THE IMPORTANT, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, THE IMPORTANT POINT I WOULD, I WANNA MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IS ON THE TRAFFIC, CAN YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE FINAL SLIDE ON THE PRESENTATION AGAIN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE HERE? AND JEFF, CAN YOU WALK THROUGH THAT AND ACTUALLY, I THINK WE WANNA GO TO SLIDE 14. UM, I GUESS COMMISSION KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS NOT RESIDENTIAL AS MANY PEOPLE IN THIS, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT REQUESTED IT TO BE. IN FACT, IT IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL AND IT HAS AN EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUSINESS WHICH GENERATES TRAFFIC TODAY, BASED UPON MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THE CURRENT BUSINESS GENERATES A VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ABOUT THE SAME OR MAYBE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE RE REQUESTED MULTIFAMILY. IF THE ZONING STAYS AS IT IS, IT COULD BE BUILT WITH MANY COMMERCIAL USES THAT GENERATE TRAFFIC FAR IN EXCESS. A MULTIFAMILY OFFICE WOULD BE ONE OF THE LOWER USES THAT WOULD GENERATE EIGHT WOULD GENERATE ABOUT THE SAME TRAFFIC, BUT MEDICAL OFFICE WOULD GENERATE ABOUT 50% MORE TRAFFIC. A QUALITY RESTAURANT WOULD EASILY DOUBLE THE TRAFFIC DAYCARES AND FAST FOOD WOULD, WOULD ALMOST TRIPLE THE TRAFFIC. MANY REQUESTED REDEVELOPMENT AS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY OR TOWN HOMES. THERE ARE NUMEROUS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONSISTING OF CONSOLIDATING THREE LOTS, RAISING THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND IN TURN BUILDING ABOUT 14 TOWN HOMES. EACH ONE OF THESE PROJECTS INCREASED THAT TRAFFIC BY ABOUT FOURFOLD. IS THIS A, IS THIS A TIER REPORT YOU ACTUALLY DID OR WE'RE JUST, UH, ESTIMATING? SO THIS DEVELOPMENT BEING LESS THAN THE, UH, 70, UH, FOUR PEAK HOUR DRIFT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. BUT THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT THAT YOU WOULD SEE IF YOU WERE TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT WORKSHEET. AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WORKSHEET IS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STANDARDS. RIGHT. BUT I THINK COMMERCIAL, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE IN EVENING HOURS. AND I THINK THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WAS JUST NEWLY BUILT SHOWS THAT IT DOES INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ONTO THE STREETS FOR PARKING PURPOSES. AND THAT WAS THE COMPLAINT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD. UM, I, I'M, I'M FINDING IT DIFFICULT THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, MET THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU REALLY NEED TO WORK ON. THEY HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WAS CORRECTLY ADDRESSED SINCE A LOT OF 'EM SEEM TO TAKE THE TIME TO WRITE AN EMAIL. SOME OF 'EM LENGTHY ON THEIR, UM, OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. BUT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY LOW INCOME PROJECT THAT'S ON THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. UM, SO TO VOTE THIS ONE NO, IS, IS NOT, DOES NOT MEAN WE LOSE LOW INCOME HOUSING AT ALL. IN FACT, THERE ARE OTHERS THAT HAVE MORE, UH, UNITS THAN THIS ONE DOES. UM, JUST ONE LAST QUESTION, UM, ON THE IDEA THAT, UH, SOMEONE HAD BROUGHT UP, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF AN INTERESTING WAY TO SAY IT, THAT ONCE YOU START BUILDING THAT ON THERE AND YOU'RE VERY, YOU'RE SQUEEZING A A LOT INTO A LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY, KIND OF LIKE YOU WERE DOING A INNER PARK. UM, BUT, UM, IT DOES KIND OF WONDER, YOU KNOW, THAT WORD LANDLOCK, ALTHOUGH YOU'RE NOT LANDLOCKED, BUT THE IDEA OR THE FEELING OR THE PERCEPTION THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD STARTS TO FEEL IN THEMSELVES WITH THE CROWDING OF TOO MANY [04:00:01] MULTIFAMILIES HOVERING OVER THESE VERY SMALL HOMES. I ONE OF 'EM 904 IS WHAT I LOOKED UP SQUARE FEET. UM, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT YOU BUILDING AND WHAT'S ALREADY PRETTY INTENSE AND, AND AND DENSE? HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT THAT WILL MAKE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD NOT FEEL LANDLOCKED, IS THEIR WORD? I MEAN, IN LAND TERMS, THEY'RE NOT LANDLOCKED, BUT THE FEELING OF BEING LANDLOCKED. SO, SO THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE LAND LOCKING THEM, PATTY? NO, I'M ASKING THAT PERCEPTION, THAT FEELING OF FEELING LANDLOCKED. THEY GOT NOWHERE TO GO BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA GET SURROUNDED BY, UM, MULTIFAMILY. WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S PLENTY OF WAYS FOR THEM OUT, OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT JUST THIS ONE STREET EVEREST. UM, THAT'S NORMAL LAND PLANNING TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE CORRIDORS, MULTI-FAMILY SEPARATING THE COMMERCIAL FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY BEHIND IT. WE'RE JUST ASKING TO CONTINUE ON WITH NORMAL LAND PLAN PROCEDURES. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY CITY STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WELL, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE REASON. CERTAINLY IF THIS IS THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT TENDS TO PUT THE ONUS BEHIND THAT TENDS TO PUT THE PUSH BEHIND EVERYBODY. UM, BUT I, I GUESS I'M NOT HEARING THAT YOU MET, YOU LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD 'CAUSE THAT WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST HOW AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, IN FACT, JUST FROM 2011, THEY IMPROVED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE GRAFFITI IS GONE ON THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, THE FENCES ARE IMPROVED. THEY HAVE IMPROVED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW WILL THIS BENEFIT THEM? I BELIEVE AN ATTRACTIVE COMP APARTMENT COMPLEX IS BETTER THAN A, A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS WITH DIRT PILES AND EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE. BUT AGAIN, THIS, THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USE WE'RE TALKING, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MULTI-FAMILY THAT IS ALL LOW INCOME AND THE STUDIES ARE OUT THERE THAT LOW INCOME MEANS OVERCROWDING. LOW INCOME MEANS PEOPLE WHO WANDER IN WHO DON'T HAVE RESIDENTS THERE. I I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE QUOTING FACTS, BUT, UH, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, I QUOTED THE FACT THE LAST TIME AT, ON THE INTERNET PARK ON THE HUD INCIDENT. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE INTERRUPTING ME. IS DO YOU WANT ME TO STOP? MADAM CHAIR? GO. GO AHEAD. MADAM CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS SUSAN GWEN, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I JUST NEED TO INTERJECT THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING IT IS, WHETHER IT IS LOW INCOME SUBSIDIZED, OUR MARKET RATE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT MULTI-FAMILY IS APPROPRIATE, NOT THE RENTAL RATE. I THINK THAT IT DOES, IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT'S GOING TO AFFECT PEOPLE'S, UH, INVESTMENTS THAT THEY HAVE MADE ELSE. WHY ARE YOU PRESENTING IT TO US WITH THE LOW INCOME STATUS? WHY DON'T JUST TELL US IT'S MF 33. ARE WE JUST TO BE BLIND? UH, SO WHAT GOES THERE? OKAY. JUST PUT ANYTHING THERE. THAT'S WHY THE RESIDENTS CAME OUT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL BE IN MANY, MANY WAYS AND LOW INCOME WAS ONE OF THEM. BUT I I I DO LIVE IN A 50 YEAR OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, 60, ACTUALLY, THEY DO HAVE LOW INCOME. I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. IT DOES BRING CRIME, IT DOES BRING BUSINESSES AND SHARE AND BUSINESSES LEAVE. WE ALL KNOW THAT WE, I'M JUST THE ONLY ONE SAYING IT, AND I'LL PROBABLY GET WRITTEN UP FOR SOMEWHERE. ALL RIGHT. ON THE, UH, ON THE GATE THAT YOU PROPOSE, IS THIS A ROT IRON GATE THAT GOES AROUND THE PERIMETER? YOU SAID, DAN, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT ONE? YES. IT WOULD BE A, IT WOULD BE A GALVANIZED STEEL FENCE PICKET FENCE. WHAT IS A GALVANIZED STEEL FENCE? A CHAIN LINK? NO, IT'S A PICKET FENCE. WELL, YOU SAID GALVANIZED, I'M CONFUSED. IS THAT CHAIN LINK, I MEAN, GALVANIZED WOULD BE METAL, RIGHT? OR IS IT A WOOD FENCE? NO, IT WOULD BE FENCE. IT WOULD BE GALVANIZED STEEL PICKET FENCE. WE WOULD ALSO CONSIDER ALUMINUM. THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS WE NORMALLY WOULD LOOK AT. AND THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE AS WE GET CLOSER TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, BUT IT WILL BE A PICKET FENCE. OKAY. [04:05:01] SO PICKET TO ME MEANS WOOD. IS THAT A SIX FOOT, FOUR FOOT, THREE FOOT, EIGHT FOOT? DO YOU KNOW? I HOW ABOUT THE BUFFER? HOW ABOUT IN THE REAR METAL? IT'S METAL AT THIS TIME. METAL. IT'S METAL. OKAY. SO IT'S CHAIN LINK. IT'S NOT CHAIN LINK PATTY. IT'S A METAL FENCE WITH METAL BARS THAT GO VERTICALLY UP AND DOWN. I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT TERM FOR THAT. I, IT'S ESCAPING ME, BUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HE MEANS. THE TRANSPARENT METAL SCENT. OH, TRANSPARENT. SO YOU COULD SEE THROUGH IT. I, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THE BARS ARE PROBABLY SPACED ABOUT FOUR INCHES APART. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THE BAR, HOW HIGH IS IT? AGAIN? WE HAVEN'T SPECED THE FENCE YET. UM, SO IT'S STILL TO BE DETERMINED. OKAY. WAS IT PART OF THE, DID YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT IN YOUR PROPOSAL OFFENSE? WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE U D C PATTY. I MEAN, WE'LL, WE'LL BUILD A FENCE. WE HAVE TO HAVE A PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE, THE BORDERS OF THE PROPERTY AND WE'LL HAVE A GATE OUT FRONT. OKAY. UH, I'M SORRY. I CAN HEAR I'M STRESSING YOU. SORRY THAT, THAT I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE, HE SAYS PICKET AND THEN HE SAYS GALVANIZE. WELL, WHICH IS IT? I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'VE NEVER SEEN A METAL PICKET FENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I'VE SEEN A WOODEN PICKET FENCE. I, I, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FENCE. HE MEANS HE MEANS A METAL FENCE WITH POSTS, METAL POSTS AND METAL BARS IN BETWEEN. I BELIEVE THE CODE ALLOWS US TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UH, AS LONG AS IT'S TRANSPARENT PER THE U D C. OH, OKAY. AS LONG AS IT'S TRANSPARENT. OKAY. AND HOW, WELL, HOW MANY STORIES IS THIS BUILDING? FOUR. THREE STORIES PATTY? FOUR STORIES. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. SO FOUR STORIES. SO REALLY, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT REALLY, A PICKET FENCE ISN'T GONNA DO MUCH, IS IT? WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF THE PICKET FENCE? WELL, YOU ASKED, WE WERE HAVING A GATE PATTY THAT'LL BE AT THE FRONT. OKAY. SO YEAH, SO THERE'S A GATE. WE'LL DO A SOLID SCREEN FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. IS THERE, ARE YOU, UH, LEAVING ANY TREES? WHAT KIND OF, UM, WHAT KIND OF OLI WOULD YOU PLANT HERE? NO TREES. SO THIS ONE KIND OF GETS DECIMATED AGAIN. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, AGAIN, PER THE U D C. WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS GET THOSE THINGS WAVERED, BUT COMMISSIONER, WE WOULD, UH, YES. WELL, CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION? SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE COMMISSIONER, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TREE PRESERVATION AND PARKING LOT SHADING STANDARDS? IT WILL. OKAY. UM, CERTAINLY THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME TREES ON THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL HAVE A 25 MINIMUM, 25% TREE CANOPY, UH, SHADING AS REQUIRED BY, UM, BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CODE. OKAY, THAT'S GOOD. I I, I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. I DON'T THINK EVERY COMMISSIONER UNDERSTANDS ALL THOSE THINGS. UM, SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, I WANNA ASK THAT QUESTION. SO THEY DO. UM, AND THEN FINALLY, UM, SO IF ANY RESIDENT, I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, SAY, IF ANY RESIDENT OR RESIDENT VISITOR WAS TO PARK ON EVEREST TO GO INSIDE, YOU WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONTROL THAT IN ANY WAY. IS THERE LIKE A TURN LANE THAT YOU'RE GONNA DO OR DID YOU WIN THIS? WELL, I BELIEVE, WELL, THERE WE DON'T PARTICULAR ACCESS GATES, SO THEY WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, UM, ACCESS TO EVEN GET ONTO THE PROPERTY. SO THAT WOULD ALSO IMPEDE ANYONE'S ABILITY TO JUST PARK ON SITE. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS AN ELEVATOR OR JUST STAIRWAYS TO THE, IS THAT LAND USE? ARE THIS GETTING, THE QUESTION IS GOING ON? SO I'M JUST MAKING . IT HAS AN ELEVATOR RELATED. OKAY. IS THAT PART OF THE, UM, PROPOSAL OR IS THAT ADDITIONAL, I'M SORRY. I THINK THE CHAIR WAS TALKING. GO AHEAD CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ALL QUESTIONS ARE ARE, IT'S GETTING LONG NOW. I'M MAKING SURE THAT ALL QUESTIONS ARE LAND USE RELATED. WELL, THEY'RE BUILDING, AND I'M ASKING WHAT THE BUILDING RIBS ARE GONNA BE LIKE. SO YEAH, I GUESS IT WOULD BE LAND USE. NO. UH, JUST TO HELP CLARIFY, THE REQUEST IS FOR MS [04:10:01] 33, THERE IS NO SITE PLAN REQUIRED FOR AN M MS 33 ZONING DISTRICT. ALL RIGHTY. ALL RIGHT. I, I CAN SEE YOU ALL DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS. SO I'M GONNA END MY QUESTIONING HERE. THANK YOU, PATRICK. AND, AND YOUR, UH, CLIENT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS. UM, OTHER COMMISSIONER'S, UH, QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER SIPES. YEAH, REGARDING THE, THE PARKING ON THE STREET. I BELIEVE IF, IF THERE WAS ISSUES OR IF THERE BECOMES ISSUES OF PARKING ON THE STREET, UM, I KNOW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT AND ABLE TO GET THE CITY TO PUT NO PARKING ON SAY, ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE? IF THIS, IF, IF, IF THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS ACTUALLY COME, I MEAN, HAPPEN? YEAH, WE, WE ABSOLUTELY. IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S A CONCERN, WE WILL CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE COUNCILMAN'S OFFICE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. I'M NOT AWARE OF THOSE ISSUES RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, I, I WAS OUT THERE THE OTHER AFTERNOON. THERE WERE NOT THAT, THERE WAS MAYBE TWO CARS ON THE STREET. UM, BUT WE'RE, WE WILL WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY ON THAT AS OKAY. THANKS. THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SIPES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER KAMATH? UH, THIS IS JUST A, UH, COMMENT. I'VE BEEN ON THIS ZONING BOARD FOR MANY YEARS AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN SO MANY OPPOSITIONS. THIS IS UNREAL. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, WE GOTTA GIVE SOME WEIGHTAGE TO THE COMMUNITY WHO IS OPPOSING THIS. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KAMATH. UH, WELL, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, UM, SORRY. I'M SORRY. WHAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION? UH, UH, ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS? UM, FOR OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS. I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT, UM, WE HAD A, A PRETTY LONG, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION AND, AND A FAIRLY LONG, UH, QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION. UM, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE DON'T KNOW, UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE KIND OF WORK THAT I DO. UM, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS IS PROBABLY LIKE 80% OF MY PRACTICE. UM, THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS NOT A PROJECT I AM WORKING ON OR IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH. UM, OTHERWISE, AS I DO ON MANY, MANY OCCASIONS, I WOULD BE RECUSING MYSELF. UM, LIKEWISE THE OTHER PROJECTS, UM, THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER PROJECT IN THE 9% HOUSING TAX CREDIT, UH, RUNNINGS THAT I WOULD POTENTIALLY BE WORKING ON. AND THAT PROJECT HAS SCORED ABOVE THIS PROJECT AND IS, UM, AT THIS POINT IN UNDERWRITING STAGE AND IS, UM, GUARANTEED TO BE GETTING, UH, HOUSING TAX CREDITS. SO I JUST WANNA STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. UM, AND I JUST WANNA ADDRESS, UM, KIND OF, FIRST OF ALL, 'CAUSE A LOT OF, A LOT OF THE, UM, A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION WAS BASED ON SOME COMMENTARY THAT I THINK IS JUST REALLY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND I WANNA MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THAT. UM, IT MAY NOT BE REALLY LAND USED BASED, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THOSE, THAT THAT OPPOSITION AND THOSE COMMENTS, UM, COMMENTARY ABOUT CRIME, UM, IS, IS NOT, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. UM, NOR IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PROVEN TO BE THE CASE WITH TAX CREDIT PROJECTS. IN FACT, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY, UM, IT'S BEEN FOUND IN MANY STUDIES DONE BY HUD, THAT TAX CREDIT HOUSING PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY THE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE OUTSIDE INVESTORS WHO COME IN AND THEY ARE HELD TO VERY STRICT STANDARDS, OR ELSE THEIR TAX CREDITS ARE REVOKED. AND THERE ARE EXTREME, UH, ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES TO THOSE INVESTORS. SO YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE DEVELOPER, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TAX CREDIT EQUITY INVESTORS WHO HAVE, UM, A LOT OF CONTROL RIGHTS IN THESE SITUATIONS. UM, TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL DISTANCING AND, AND COVID, I THINK IS JUST COMPLETELY NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE BEING CONSIDERED. THESE ARE NOT OVERCROWDED. THEY ARE VERY MUCH, UM, REGULATED. AND, UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE 10 PEOPLE LIVING IN ONE ROOM. THESE, THESE PEOPLE, I DO NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH ATLANTIC PACIFIC, [04:15:01] BUT WITH ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, AGAIN, THERE ARE, THEY'RE VERY STRICTLY MONITORED. AND THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY THAT IS THE CASE, BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS IT HUD, YOU HAVE PRIVATE INVESTORS AS WELL, UM, HOME VALUES IN THE AREA GOING DOWN, GOING UP, I THINK THAT'S ALSO COMPLETELY NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. SECTION EIGHT HOUSING, WHICH THIS IS NOT SECTION EIGHT, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING. I COULD RENT MY HOUSE IN MONTE VISTA UNDER THE SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM IF I WAS AWARDED THAT, THAT BY, BY HUDDON. IF I PUT MY PROPERTY UP TO THOSE, DAMAGE TO ANY ONE OF US COMMISSIONERS, ANY PERSON IN THE PUBLIC CAN PUT THEIR PROPERTY AS A SECTION EIGHT PROPERTY. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT HERE. UM, IF THIS PROPERTY WAS TO BE SOLD WITH, WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CREATING THE VALUE, AND THEN THEM BEING ABLE TO BUILD IT AND SELL IT LATER FOR A HIGHER, UM, AMOUNT OF MONEY, UM, ONE OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MADE THAT COMMENT. THESE HAVE, UH, LONG-TERM, UM, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT ARE PUT IN INTO PLACE. SO THEY WILL HAVE TO BE USED FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. UM, AND AGAIN, SUBJECT TO THE SAME STRICT CONTROLS, UM, THAT THEY ARE FROM THE BEGINNING. UM, OKAY, SO THAT'S MY, UM, MY SOAPBOX SPEECH ON, UM, LOW INCOME HOUSING. AND I APOLOGIZE Y'ALL HAD TO HEAR THAT. BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE TYPES OF COMMENTS ARE UNTRUE AND UNACCEPTABLE WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS A NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY, A VERY SERIOUS NEED THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF, AND WE HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. THAT BEING SAID, UM, I HAVE OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO IT BEING A LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT. THAT BEING, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS AREA, I I I, I LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE FACTORS THAT CITY COUNCIL'S REQUIRED TO, UM, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT AS A REZONING CASE. SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA DO IN THIS CASE. UM, CONSISTENCY WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND WITH THE LAND USE, UM, CATEGORIZATION FOR THIS AREA, I, I TYPICALLY TEND TO LEAN ON THAT. I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THE, UM, OF THE ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, UM, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CONSISTENCY IN THE AREA. WE HAVE MF 50, WE HAVE C THREE, WE HAVE O TWO. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY WE HAVE O TWO HERE. I'M ASSUMING IT'S A VESTIGE FROM A PREVIOUS SITUATION. WE HAVE R FIVE ACROSS THE STREET. WE HAVE C ONE I, IT'S JUST, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CONSISTENCY IN THIS AREA. UM, SO I, I, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S, THAT'S IN PLACE WHERE I'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS CASE. UM, I, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT IF YOU GO DOWN THE STREET A LITTLE BIT, IT TENDS TO BE MORE UNIFORM. UM, AND IN FACT, THERE WAS A REZONING THAT WE, THIS COMMISSION HEARD JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT WAS ON SANDALWOOD. UM, THAT DEVELOPER WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY I WAS INVOLVED IN, UM, IN THE PROCESS. THEY HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED MF 25. THIS IS RIGHT NEXT TO HOME DEPOT, WHICH IS JUST DOWN SANDALWOOD, UH, JUST LIKE MAYBE A, A BLOCK OR HALF A BLOCK FROM HERE. UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THE MF 25. SO WE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEY REDUCED IT DOWN TO MF 18. UM, AND THAT IS DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO HOME DEPOT. UM, WITH RESPECT TO ADVERSE IMPACTS, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY BIG ISSUE WITH THIS PROPERTY. FOR ME, I DROVE DOWN EVEREST, UM, PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AGO. I CAN'T REMEMBER 'CAUSE IT'S COVID AND TIME IS A FLAT CIRCLE. UM, IT, IT IS A SMALL STREET, UH, WITHOUT VERY GOOD SIDEWALKS. LAWNDALE IS THE SAME, THE SAME WAY. UM, IF THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT BEING EXPANDED, THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT. I HAVE A CONCERN, THERE IS A LOT OF STREET PARKING IN THIS AREA. UM, THERE'S ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, KIND OF IN THE, THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE CIRCLE THAT, THAT DENOTES THE 200, UM, LINEAR FEET, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A, A PROPERTY THAT'S C THREE AND IT'S KIND OF A, AN ODD SHAPE. IT HAS A, AN ENTRANCE ON EVEREST, AND THEN AN ENTRANCE ON AN ENTRANCE ON SUNSET THAT'S GONNA BE MADE INTO A WASH TUB. UM, YOU HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. SO IT WILL BE EITHER BEING ENTERED INTO OR EXIT. I HAVEN'T SEEN A SITE PLAN, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE OF WHAT THE LAYOUT, BUT THERE WILL BE AN ENTRANCE OR AN EXIT ONTO EVEREST ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE THAT AS WELL AS MANY OTHER, UM, MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY, UH, COMPLEXES IN THIS AREA. UM, I THINK IT'S A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THIS ROAD. IT IS A SMALL ROAD AGAIN, UM, WITH [04:20:01] RESPECT TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IN OUR COMMUNITY. UM, I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS AREA. AGAIN, UM, NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE SIDEWALKS AND, AND THE SEWER AND, AND ALL OF THOSE, WHICH I KNOW COULD BE POTENTIALLY RECTIFIED, BUT IT, IT'S STILL A CONCERN FOR ME. AND ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, ISSUES THAT I HAVE HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE SIDEWALKS IS THAT IF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANNA TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WITH, WITH A LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT, UM, FOLKS WILL HAVE TO GO TO BROADWAY. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER IF SUNSET HAS ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ON IT. I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES. BUT IT, IT MAY, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION, BUT IT, REGARDLESS, YOU'RE AT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRING FOLKS TO BE GOING DOWN THESE STREETS THAT DO NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS. AND THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS AND OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC POLICY, THIS IS, THIS IS PROBABLY THE AREA THAT I STRUGGLE WITH THE MOST BECAUSE I AM AN ADVOCATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IN IT, WHICH I KNOW MY PERSONAL FEELINGS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO COME INTO THIS, BUT I, I THINK THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT WITH RESPECT TO THESE PROJECTS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE DEALS. I UNDERSTAND THE, THE SITE SELECTION THAT GOES INTO IT. UM, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE COMMUNITY NEEDS, UM, WITH THAT AND, UH, LAND USE PLANNING PRINCIPLES. I DON'T THINK THAT IF IT WAS UP TO ME, THE MF 50 WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE GONE IN ON SANDALWOOD. BUT THAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I WAS A ZONING COMMISSIONER AND BEFORE I HAD ANY, ANY INPUT OR ANY SAY SO IN THIS. UM, SO I DON'T, UM, I I I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. AND, AND I, I DON'T THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, I THINK ANOTHER, ANOTHER ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC POLICY IS THAT, AND, AND THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, UM, IN 9% TAX CREDIT DEALS, THESE UNITS ARE GONNA BE IN SAN ANTONIO NO MATTER WHAT. WHETHER IT'S THIS PROJECT OR WHETHER IT'S ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, MAYBE THE LOCATION'S BETTER. MAYBE IT'S NOT. I, I DON'T KNOW. 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT THOSE PROJECTS. AND FURTHERMORE, IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO DETERMINE THAT I SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT THIS, THIS, UH, 9% DEAL VERSUS A DIFFERENT 9% DEAL. UM, BUT, BUT IT IS A CONCERN FOR PUBLIC POLICY THAT THOSE UNITS WILL BE BEING BUILT IN SAN ANTONIO IN SOME PART OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHER TAX CREDIT DEALS THAT, THAT COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, UM, THAT ARE 4%. THOSE, IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY'RE NOT APPROVED IN SAN ANTONIO, THAT'S A STATEWIDE BASIS. AND THOSE TAX CREDITS COULD GO TO DALLAS OR COULD GO TO LAREDO OR TO ANOTHER AREA, UM, IN THE STATE. SO WITH THESE, I, I, I HAVE, UM, LESS RESERVATION BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THESE UNITS WILL BE BUILT. NOT THAT I FEEL, I KNOW THESE UNITS WILL BE BUILT, AT LEAST IN SOME PART OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, SO I THINK, AND, AND THE OTHER, UH, ONE OTHER FINAL PUBLIC POLICY COMMENT IS THAT THERE IS, THERE IS NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE PRODUCT IN THIS AREA. UM, THERE ARE SOME SMALLER HOMES THAT ARE RENTED. THERE ARE SOME APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WHY THEY, WHILE THEY NOT, MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED TAX CREDITS AND THEY MAY NOT BE SUBSIDIZED, THEY ARE UNDER WHAT THE MARKET BASED RENTS WOULD BE FOR THE AREA. SO, UM, THAT, THAT TENDS TO ALLOW ME TO BALANCE THIS AND TO SAY, IF, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY VERSUS HAVING A AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, I THINK THAT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE ADVERSE IMPACTS TEND TO CARRY MORE WATER FOR ME ON THIS DEAL. UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, I'LL BE MAKING A MOTION FOR DENIAL FOR THIS PROJECT. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, UH, COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND, UM, THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UH, I, I WON'T, UH, PRETEND THAT I'VE HAD NEARLY THE INVOLVEMENT, UH, ON THIS ONE, UH, THAT SHE HAS. BUT, UM, MAYBE I'VE HAD THE SECOND MOST INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE AS WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER, UM, THIS IS JUST A STONE'S THROW FROM, UM, FROM MY DISTRICT, FROM DISTRICT 10. AND I HAVE HEARD, AS WE ALL DID TODAY, UM, FROM COUNTLESS, UH, NEIGHBORS, UH, THERE, UM, ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AND THE OVERWHELMING, UM, MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT IT. UH, MANY [04:25:01] OF WHICH YOU, UH, YOU HEARD TODAY. UM, I I WANNA SAY, UM, AS ALWAYS, UM, TO PATRICK, YOU KNOW, GREAT WORK AND, AND, AND THE DEVELOPER HERE COULDN'T HAVE, COULDN'T HAVE HIRED ANYBODY, ANYBODY BETTER TO, TO ADVOCATE ON THEIR BEHALF. UM, I JUST HAPPENED TO, UM, DISAGREE WITH THEM AND, AND AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE THAT, UH, THE ADVERSE IMPACTS HERE, UM, REALLY CARRIED THE DEBT. I DON'T CARE IF THIS WAS NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. UM, THIS COULD BE THE MOST HIGH-END, EXPENSIVE HIGH-RISE, UM, FOR ALL ICARE, UM, WHERE THIS, UH, PROJECT, UH, WOULD BE LOCATED. AND I FREQUENT THAT AREA A LOT. 'CAUSE BECAUSE I DO BUSINESS OVER THERE ON, ON SUNSET AND, UH, THAT STREET IS TINY. THERE'S CAR CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND IT IS GETTING JUST MORE AND MORE CROWDED. THE TRAFFIC OVER THERE IS GETTING TO BE A REAL ISSUE. UM, THE WASH TUB HASN'T EVEN OPENED YET. UM, I THINK ALSO, UM, JUST MAYBE ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE WASH TUB OR ON THE NEXT CORNER, UH, DARREN CASEY'S NEW, NEW DEVELOPMENT, UM, IS IS IS GONNA BE OPENED SOMEWHAT SOON AS WELL. AND SO, UH, THIS IS A, THIS IS A DENSITY ISSUE. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY, UH, IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THERE. UM, THE, THESE FOLKS DO NOT NEED ANOTHER, UM, IDENTITY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT SITTING ON TOP OF THEM. UM, I JUST, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND, AND I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE, UH, AND I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF THE FOLKS, UM, IN THE OAK PARK, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, ABOUT THIS. AND THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. UM, AND SO, UM, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A LOW INCOME HOUSING ISSUE, UH, BECAUSE AS, AS COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE JUST SAID, JUST STATED, UH, THERE'S GOING TO BE THREE PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO, UM, THAT ARE GONNA WIN THESE, WIN THESE, UH, CREDITS, AND THEY'RE GONNA BE THIS HOUSING IN SAN ANTONIO. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. UM, THIS IS JUST, AND I CAN'T STRESS IT ENOUGH, THIS IS JUST NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION, UM, FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS. AND SO, UH, THAT'S WHY I, I SECONDED, UH, THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION AND, UM, AND I, AND I THINK THAT THIS APPLICATION SHOULD FAIL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST VERY BRIEFLY, YOU KNOW, THE LAST TIME WE HAD ONE OF THESE PROJECTS COME FORWARD, COMMISSIONER ROME BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE ALWAYS SAY WE'RE IN FAVOR OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UH, BUT WE NEVER SEEM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WE'RE ALWAYS SAYING TOMORROW AND TOMORROW AND TOMORROW. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I'M CERTAINLY FEELING THAT WAY TODAY. THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE IS AS USUAL, PUT IN A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT, UM, I'M CERTAINLY LEANING TOWARDS, UM, SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS IT'S MADE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BUSER, MONTE, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S, UH, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER ROMERO. UM, THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, I ALSO REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I KNOW YOU WERE NOT HERE THE, THE TI THE LAST TIME WE DID ONE FROM, UM, THE SAME APPLICANT. UM, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU, UM, CLEARING THE AIR FROM THE, UM, REALLY INAPPROPRIATE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD BEFORE. UM, AND AGAIN, I MEAN, I, IT'S HARD FOR ME NOT TO FEEL THIS WAY AGAIN BECAUSE LAST TIME IT WAS, OH, WE CAN'T PUT THIS ANYWHERE NEAR A MAJOR HIGHWAY NOW IT'S, OH, THIS STREET'S TOO SMALL. I, I GUESS THERE'S A STREET THAT'S JUST RIGHT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT, AND I ALSO WANNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN WHEN UH, PROJECTS ARE CHOSEN, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THE ZONING CHANGE A LOT OF TIMES. UM, AND THEY COME TO US. UM, I TO COMMISSIONER KATH'S POINT, UM, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, OPPOSITION ON THIS ONE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS EVEN CLOSE TO THE MOST I'VE EVER SEEN MY FIRST ZONING COMMISSION. I THINK WE HAD 70 PEOPLE, UH, WHO ALL SPOKE. UM, I, I DON'T WANNA , I DON'T WANNA SAY ANYTHING AGAINST SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER GIBBONS SAID, BUT I, I DO WANNA SPEAK ABOUT ONE THING ABOUT SAYING THAT WHO KNOWS WHY STAFF RECOMMENDS WHAT THEY DO. I REALLY WANNA TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. [04:30:01] 'CAUSE I THINK WE KNOW WHY STAFF MAKES THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY DO. IT'S FROM LAND USE PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND WE CAN DISAGREE WITH THOSE. BUT THAT'S, THEY WORK REALLY HARD AND THEY HAVE A REALLY STRONG PROFESSIONAL ETHIC. AND I DON'T, I DON'T AGREE WITH JUST DISMISSING THAT MADAM CHAIR. I MAKE A MOTION, A APPOINT OF, UH, ORDER. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS USING HER PLATFORM TO PERSONALLY ATTACK O? OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, I GUESS, I GUESS WE'LL LEAVE THE COMMISSIONER'S NAMES OUT OF YOU. IT'LL STICK TO, UM, WELL IT IS IN PUBLIC RECORD 'CAUSE IT WAS SAID IN A HEARING. I JUST WANNA DEFEND, I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY. I WANNA DEFEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THEY ARE BASED ON CLEAR LAND USE PRINCIPLES AND THEY ALWAYS SPELL THOSE OUT FOR US, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT. UM, AND BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER GR HOUSE'S POINT, I SEE WHAT SHE'S SAYING AND I SUPPORT IT. MY OWN, MY ISSUE HERE IS ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THIS CHANGE. AND I, AND I STILL SEE THAT THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD BURDEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M TRYING TO COMPARE THIS TO WHAT IT WOULD BE WITH THE C THREE AND THE C TWO AND THE, AND THE O TWO, WHICH, WHICH YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, HOW, HOW DID THIS END UP HERE? BUT WE HAVE O TWO HERE. SO THAT'S MAINLY WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. I, I BELIEVE THOSE TRAFFIC COUNTS 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. UM, BUT THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE HEAVIER, UH, IF WE GO WITH, WITH WHAT'S THERE THAN WITH THIS CHANGE. UM, SO I HAVEN'T DECIDED YET, BUT I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER GREENHOUSE'S ARGUMENTS ON THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, ROMERO, COMMISSIONER SIPES AND COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. THANK COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. AND, AND, UM, I'LL ECHO SOME OF THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS IN THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT CASE. UM, I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THIS AND, AND YESTERDAY AND, AND I ALWAYS OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, TALK WITH MY COUNSEL DISTRICT AS WELL AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW ON THIS. AND UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AS COMMISSIONER ROMERO POINTED OUT, I WAS LOOK, THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IS WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE RIGHT NOW AND ITS IMPACT TO, TO THE STREET. UM, I, WE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT THE WASH TUB, BUT YET YOU COULD BASICALLY DO THE SAME THING HERE. AND, AND SO IT'S, IT'S, IT IS A REAL TOUGH DECISION. AND I'LL BE HONEST, I, I'M NOT REAL SURE ON, ON, ON, ON THE WAY THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE YET. THAT'S IT. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE, , JUST TO, JUST TO, UM, TO KIND OF RESPOND TO THAT. I APPRECIATE HEARING THE COMMENTS OF THE MORE SEASONED COMMISSIONERS SAYING THAT, THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT CASE BECAUSE FOR ME, I FELT LIKE IT WAS DIFFICULT ON A, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, BUT, BUT ALSO FROM A LAND USE LEVEL. SO HEARING, HEARING THE REST OF YOU, UM, SAY THAT, UM, GIVES ME PEACE THAT I'M NOT JUST, UH, NOT JUST LOOKING AT THIS THROUGH, THROUGH MY OWN LENS, BUT UM, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT COULD BE THERE. I WILL GET WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. UM, AND IT IS THOUGH A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS AND WHILE THE TRAFFIC COUNTS, THE PEAK HOUR COUNTS MAY BE THE SAME. THE PRESSURE WITH RESPECT TO PARKING AND FOLKS COMING AND GOING. UM, I, I THINK THAT, THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THAT. AND, AND I DO THINK WHAT COULD COME IN THERE, BUT I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. UM, AND THAT, THAT'S A BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN THERE, BEEN OPERATING. IT'S NOT TO SAY IT COULDN'T CHANGE, BUT WHAT COULD BE THERE IS, IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S, I AGREE. THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT IS CUT AND DRY, BUT THAT, THAT'S HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT. COMM THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER REDHOUSE, COMMISSIONER WHITE AND COMMISSIONER PEAS. I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I I, I HEAR THE COMMENT AGAIN ABOUT, WE ALWAYS SEEM TO SAY NO, AND, AND, AND I DID IT LAST TIME AND I WANNA DO IT AGAIN THIS TIME IS PUT IT BACK ON THE RECORD THAT IT WASN'T THAT, UM, I THINK FOUR MEETINGS AGO NOW, UM, THAT WE, WE APPROVED, UM, THE, UH, THE LOW INCOME PROJECT, THE VILLAGE AT, AT PERRIN VITAL, UM, WHICH IS OVER, WHICH IS OVER IN MY DISTRICT. UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES, UM, THESE THINGS GET TURNED DOWN AND SEEMS LIKE WHEN THEY DO, WE ARE, WE'RE ALWAYS HAVING A VERY, UH, SPIRITED DEBATE ABOUT 'EM. UM, BUT [04:35:01] WHEN THEY PASS THROUGH EASILY, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE, WE TEND TO FORGET. AND, UM, MY DISTRICT, AGAIN, THE VILLAGE OF CARE AND VITAL, IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WE PASSED, UM, RATHER, RATHER EASILY. AGAIN, I LOOK AT THIS FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. UM, I, I ALSO THINK BACK, UH, TO PAST HEARINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE, HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT'S NOISE FROM, UH, FROM THE FRIENDLY SPOT, IT WAS ONE TIME, OR, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHERE THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS REALLY GONNA BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY A POTENTIAL ZONING CHANGE AND, AND HOW MUCH WE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I THINK, UM, THAT'S OUR JOB AND OUR JOB, AND WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT LAND USE AND WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THESE, THESE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE AFFECTED BY OUR DECISIONS. AND I THINK, UM, THEY'VE SPOKEN OVERWHELMINGLY ON THIS, AND AGAIN, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND I, AND I JUST, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT SPOT FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE MISSIONARY GIBBONS. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL SOMETIMES TO GO INTO PLACES WHERE WE SHAME PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR VOICE IS HEARD. I WAS ONLY TRYING TO REPRESENT WHAT I HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA IN ORDER FOR NEIGHBORHOODS TO DEAL WITH CRIME THAT MIGHT COME IN THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS THEY HAD TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET. UM, MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN, C O P TRAINED ABOUT 30 OF US ARE C O P TRAINED. WE WORK WITH OUR SAFE OFFICERS ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE GET REPORTS FROM THEM. WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. WE KNOW THE GANG SYMBOLS TO TELL THE OFFICERS. WE'VE LEARNED HOW TO LIVE AND WORK AND PLAY AROUND ALL OF THAT. AND IT IS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, DOES A LOW INCOME HOUSING BRING MORE CRIME? PROBABLY NOT, BUT WHAT IT, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NOT PREPARED FOR IT, THEN THE CRIME CAN SEEM LIKE IT INCREASED. BUT TO, TO SHAME ME OR TO SHAME ANYBODY BECAUSE WE ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT LOW INCOME HOUSING AND WHAT WILL THAT IMPACT ON MY INVESTMENT, ON MY LIFE, ON MY SCHOOL? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A HEALTHY DIALOGUE. I THINK IT JUST IS A SCARY DIALOGUE AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE WILLING TO HAVE SOMEBODY ASK THAT QUESTION, AND WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR IT. UM, AND THAT'S WHY I ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. UM, WE DID APPROVE A LOW-INCOME HOUSING TODAY. IT WAS OVER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, DISTRICT NINE ON BALTIC AVENUE. AND THAT STREET HAS MANY MULTI, UH, WELL, HE BUILT A TWO STORY ONE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DUPLEXES. THEY ARE LOW-INCOME HOUSING. THEY HAVE BEEN THAT WAY FOR MANY YEARS AND HE WANTS TO ADD MORE, AND I WELCOME IT THERE. BUT WE ARE A SEASONED NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH THOSE TYPE OF ENTITIES OR, OR, OR HOUSING. WE HAVE ALL KINDS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH HARMONY HILLS, IT'S A 60 YEAR OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM APARTMENTS TO GARDEN HOMES TO CONDOS, LOW INCOME CONDOS, TO HOUSES, TO COMMERCIAL TO SECTION EIGHT APARTMENTS. WE HAVE THEM ALL, BUT WE'VE LEARNED HOW TO NEGOTIATE AND WORK AND PLAY WITH EACH OTHER. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS READY FOR THAT. AND I THINK WE CAN HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO JUST IN EIGHT YEARS TIME OF TRYING TO GROW UP AND OUT OF SOME, UH, CRIME THAT THEY WERE EXPERIENCING OR GAIN GRAFFITI AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE GROUND. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WANNA SHAME PATTY GIBBONS, OTHER THAN I GUESS YOU LIKE TO DO THAT. THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT. IT'S JUST A DIALOGUE. BUT, UH, WE APPROVED ONE TODAY. DID YOU ALL MISS IT? WE APPROVED ONE ON BALTIC OVER IN DISTRICT NINE OVER BY LOCKHILL SUMMER, WHERE THERE'S SOME NICE LOOKING HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO A SCHOOL WALKING DISTANCE TO A GROCERY STORE. THOSE ARE IMPORTANT. WE WANT PEOPLE TO THRIVE, NOT SURVIVE IN THEIR LOW INCOME HOUSING, WANT THEM TO GROW AND, AND BECOME MORE THAN WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. I DO SEE THIS AS A LAND ISSUE, LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE SAID, UM, AND THE DENSITY IS TOO STRONG, UH, FOR THE SMALL SPACE THAT IT IS, PLUS ALSO YOU'RE ONLY GETTING 64 UNITS WHEN THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE PUT IN PROPOSALS THAT HAVE MORE UNITS, A HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR, SEVENTY FIVE, A HUNDRED AND TWENTY [04:40:01] UNITS, 92 MORE THAN WHAT THIS ONE IS GOING TO PROVIDE. AND, UH, I THINK THAT THERE IS MORE DOWN THE ROAD. I HOPE THE OTHERS WIN IT SO THAT WE CONTINUE TO GROW IN EQUITY FOR OUR CITY. COMMISSIONER LEE, THANK YOU. I JUST WANNA CHIME IN. SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE STAFF HAS DONE IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT JUST AS A, A LAND USE ISSUE, YEAH, IT CAN BE CUT AND DRY, BUT AS A COMMISSION, AS COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND BROADEN OUR SCOPE OF WHAT'S IMPACTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THE, UH, INNER PARK, UH, CASE, IT WAS, MAN STREETS ARE WIDE, BUT IT JUST WASN'T, RIGHT. NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CASE, HMM. STREETS TOO NARROW, NOT RIGHT. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB IS TO HELP UNDERSTAND AND WORK WITH THE STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT FITS AND PERHAPS THIS ONE DOESN'T FIT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE LAST COMMENT. I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT MY COMMENTS ARE NOT MEANT TO SHAME ANYONE. MY COMMENTS ARE MEANT TO HELP FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A QUESTION THAT'S ASKED INSTEAD OF A STATEMENT THAT SAID THAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING CRIME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS GOING TO, UM, CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR US. THAT, THAT IS MY COMMENT IS, IS BECAUSE I DO WORK IN THIS AREA, AND I DO SEE A LOT OF THAT AND SEE, UM, AND I DO UNDERSTAND ON THE FLIP SIDE HOW THESE PROJECTS ARE MANAGED AND THE GOOD THAT THEY BRING TO THE COMMUNITY. I FEEL LIKE YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INFLAMMATORY, UM, FLYERS TO BE MADE AND, AND THAT THERE ARE SCARE TACTICS THAT ARE USED TO, TO TURN THE TIDE AND TO CAUSE ALL THIS OPPOSITION FOR PROJECTS THAT MAYBE ARE RIGHT FOR THE AREA. THIS PROJECT, AS MY MOTION INDICATES, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA, BUT THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT IS, I THINK, FELT THROUGHOUT THE LOW INCOME HOUSING INDUSTRY. AND, AND SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS TO, I, I WANNA BE A LEADER IN OUR COMMUNITY TO SAY THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T COME IN AND MAKE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING EQUALS CRIME, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT IN EVERY CASE. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE THE LEAD TO HELP DISPEL THAT. AND YES, I THINK ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT'S THE, WHAT IS THE, THE CORRELATION BETWEEN A TAX CREDIT PROJECT AND THE CRIME AROUND THAT, THAT'S A PERFECTLY VIABLE QUESTION. AND THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO, TO THE DEVELOPERS OR TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT MAKING THE COMMENT THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING EQUALS CRIME IS INCORRECT. SO I JUST WANNA SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I'M NOT TRYING TO SHAME ANYONE FOR THEIR COMMENTS OR FOR THEIR QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS? I, UM, THIS HAS DEFINITELY BEEN, UH, A, UM, DEBATE, UH, THAT HAS BEEN , I GUESS VERY EXHAUSTIVE, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE, UH, SPENT A LOT OF TIME, UM, , UH, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, DEBATING THIS. I, AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAND USE. I JUST THINK THAT, UM, I JUST TAKE PAUSE WHEN WE START SAYING THAT LOW INCOME AND GROUPING THEM WITH A BROAD STROKE WITH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT, UH, STEREO TYPES, INCLUDING THAT THEY'RE LESS THAN AND THEY NEED TO BECOME MORE. BUT THAT IS NOT MY PLACE TODAY. SO TODAY I AM GOING TO SAY, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, UH, WE ARE READY FOR A, A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION IS FOR DENIAL. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JONES? [04:45:01] YES. COMMISSIONER KAMIN? YES. COMMISSIONER HU. AYE. IT'S GONNA BE COMMISSIONER ROMERO. NO. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIFE? UM, YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE? NO. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO TWO CHAIR. BACK TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A POINT. YES. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. I APOLOGIZE, BUT I HAVE A FILING DUE RIGHT NOW. UM, I WAS TRYING TO GET IN BETWEEN, UH, A COUPLE OF OBLIGATIONS PROFESSIONALLY THIS AFTERNOON, AND SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO EXCUSE MYSELF. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE OR SUCCESS TEAM. THANK YOU, MADAM. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. OKAY. I, I THINK IT'S STAFF, RIGHT? I DON'T, IT'S NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO, RIGHT? I THINK, RIGHT? YEAH. WE'RE GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT CASE. [7. (Continued from 06/16/2020) ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700099 (Council District 10): A request for a change in zoning from "MF-33 AHOD" Multi-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "IDZ-1 AHOD" Limited Intensity Infill Development Zone Airport Hazard Overlay District with uses permitted for twenty (20) dwelling units on Lots 29, 30, 31 and 32, NCB 11876, located at 1841 Flamingo Drive. Staff recommends Approval, pending Plan Amendment. (Associated Plan Amendment PA-2020-11600032) (Lorianne Thennes, Planner 210-207-7945, lorianne.thennes@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)] NUMBER SEVEN. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM MF 33 A H O D TO ID Z ONE A H O D WITH USE IS PERMITTED FOR 20 DWELLING UNITS TO BE LOCATED AT 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE. THERE WERE 35 NOTICES MAILED. FIVE WERE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, 11 WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. THERE ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA THAT ARE OPPOSED. ANOTHER FOUR OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER THAT ARE IN SUPPORT, AND THEN A PETITION FROM 20 INDIVIDUALS. UH, IN SUPPORT. THE CURRENT MS DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. IT ACTS AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING, THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST. THE PROPOSED IDZ ONE IS ALSO APPROPRIATE WITH THE SITE AND FURTHER LIMITS DENSITY TO 20 TOTAL UNITS. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE HELD TO THE SUBMITTED I D C ONE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ZONING CASE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HE HUNG UP. UM, IT'S PATRICK AGAIN, BUT I THINK HE GOT DISCONNECTED. HE PROBABLY NEEDED THAT TOO, TO LIGHTEN. THAT'S ACTUALLY HIS LINE. I THINK HE'S GOT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. WE'RE TRYING TO DISCONNECT HIM AND WE'LL RECONNECT HIM. OKAY. WE'LL HOLD JUST A MOMENT FOR HIM, UM, WHILE WE'RE GETTING HIM CONNECTED. UH, BUT I NEED LIKE A COUPLE OF MINUTE BREAK. UM, MAYBE WE COULD JUST ALL TAKE A QUICK, QUICK BREAK WHILE WE'RE GETTING MR. CHRISTEN ON THE LINE. SO IF YOU COULD COME BACK, YOU KNOW, UH, PROBABLY THREE TO FOUR MINUTES. IT'S CURRENTLY FIVE 50, SO WE'RE TAKING A, A MINI BREAK. CAN, CAN WE JUST GET A SENSE, ARE WE GONNA, IS THIS GONNA BE ONE WITH A LOT OF, WHOLE LOT OF, UM, PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK SO WE HAVE A SENSE OF HOW LONG? YES, MA'AM. UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMENTS TO READ AND THAT MIGHT BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT. UM, BUT WE HAVE QUITE A FEW, SO MAYBE 15 AND, AND, AND, AND JUST IF I CAN JUMP IN HERE FOR A SECOND SINCE IT'S A, IT'S A D 10 CASE. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UM, AND I SAY THIS BASED ON THE MEETINGS LAST WEEK AND BASED ON EMAILS THAT I WAS A PART OF THIS MORNING, IS THAT, UM, THERE IS A DEAL IN PRINCIPLE HERE ON THIS, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WAS AGAINST IT WAS NOT ABLE TO, UM, RECONVENE TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE, UH, YESTERDAY. SO I GUESS ON THE RECORD, [04:50:01] THEY ARE STILL AGAINST IT. UM, BUT UM, AGAIN, AS I'LL EXPLAIN LATER, I GUESS, SORRY, CHAIRMAN, GEE, I KNOW YOU WANT A BREAK . UM, BUT, BUT I THINK WE WON'T NEED TO, UM, HAVING A TWO HOUR, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. OKAY, GOOD. EVEN IF NOBODY ELSE NEEDS A BREAK. I NEED A BREAK SO SOMEBODY ELSE CAN CHAIR WHILE I'M GONE. JUST, SORRY. OKAY. SO DO YOU WANT A BREAK OR, OR Y'ALL CAN KEEP GOING AND I CAN JUST GO, UH, Y'ALL CHAIR. COMMISSIONER ROMERO. OH, THERE LOOK, THERE'S COMMISSIONER BACK. NO, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A THREE MINUTE BREAK, LIKE YOU SAID. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. IT IS 5 52, UH, 5 55. WE'LL RECONVENE. PATRICK, GO AHEAD AND, UM, DO YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. DID STAFF DO THEIRS? OH, YES, WE DID. OH, OKAY. UM, CAN YOU PUT MY POWERPOINT UP PLEASE? IT'S THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700. UM, I KNOW IT'S BEEN LATE. I'LL, I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN. KIND OF AN INTERESTING CASE. THE PROPERTY IS 1.27 ACRES. IT'S OFF FLAMINGO ROAD IN BROADWAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE SCREEN BROADWAY IS JUST TO THE LEFT AND THAT'S WHERE THE BAR REBAR AND THE RESTAURANT BETOS IS. UM, THE PROPERTY IS 1.27 ACRES AND IT'S ZONED MF 33. IT RECEIVED THAT ZONING BECAUSE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A NURSING HOME, BUT IT WAS VERY OLD. IT WAS DEMOLISHED YEARS AGO, AND IT'S BEEN A VACANT PROPERTY EVER SINCE. AT MF 33, IT CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR 42 UNITS. WE ARE ASKING FOR IDZ ONE WITH NO MORE THAN 19 UNITS. I NEED TO AMEND MY REQUEST. WE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR 20, BUT IN WORKING WITH THE OAK PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'VE REDUCED IT TO 19. I'LL EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. UM, BEFORE I EVEN FILED THIS, I KNOW THAT OAK PARK HAS ISSUES ABOUT DENSITY. I MET WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, LIKE WE BLOCK WALKED, WE PUT, UH, FLYERS OUT. WE HAD A MEETING AT TACO GARAGE AND, AND THEY WERE IN SUPPORT, SO I SAID, OKAY, IF THEY'RE IN SUPPORT, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. SO WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR OAK PARK, I KNOW THEY'RE PROBABLY LISTENING, UM, BUT THEY'RE, THEY HAVE AN ISSUE. THEY DO NOT WANT SOME OF THEIR LARGER LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THERE'S A LOT OF LOTS THAT ARE ONE ACRE, TWO ACRE IN THAT PART OF TOWN. THEY DON'T WANT DEVELOPERS COMING IN. UM, REZONING FROM MOST OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE N P 10 AND REZONING TO AN I D Z TO TRY TO PACK IN A LOT OF, LET'S, LET'S JUST CALL 'EM TOWN HOME STYLE UNIT. NOW WE'RE NOT DOING THAT HERE. THIS, THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. IT'S ALREADY MF 33. WE'RE TECHNICALLY DOWN ZONING IT AND LOCKING IT IN AT 19 UNITS, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS LIKE, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NOT, UM, 42 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? UM, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. UH, IN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID, IF YOU CAN KIND OF SEE TOWARDS THE LEFT, I DON'T HAVE A POINTER. WE REMOVED ONE OF THE UNITS, UM, FOR VISITOR PARKING. THAT WAS THE CONCERN ON WEEKEND EVENINGS WITH THE RESTAURANTS AND THINGS UP ON BROADWAY. PARKING ON FLAMINGO IS, IS AT A PREMIUM, SO WE REMOVED ONE UNIT, ADDED VISITOR PARKING. UM, WE'VE ALSO, UH, IN OUR SITE PLAN, THERE'S SOME NOTES THERE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT. THIS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, SOLID SCREEN FENCING AROUND THE PROPERTY. NO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE ALLEY, THAT'S, THAT'S TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY GATE THERE SO THAT THE RESIDENTS CAN ACCESS THE ALLEY. UM, AND WE'LL HAVE ALL THE UNITS THAT ARE ON FLAMINGO FRONT, ON FLAMINGO, ALL OF THESE ARE THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND THEY WILL BE FOR SALE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS JUST, UH, AN ELEVATION OF ONE OF THE UNITS. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE ALL THREE BEDROOM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. JUST THE SIDE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. JUST THE, THE FLOOR PLAN. UM, TWO CAR GARAGE FOR EACH UNIT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AS I STATED, YOU KNOW, WE WENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND IF YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PETITION AND THE, THE MAP HERE, AND I BELIEVE CITY STAFF WILL HAVE A LITTLE MAP WITH THE CHECK MARKS AND THE XS, ALMOST ALL OF THE IMMEDIATE, IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE IN SUPPORT. UM, NEXT SLIDE. SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS JUST A LITTLE PETITION THEY DID. I BELIEVE STAFF WILL READ SOME OF THOSE COMMENT AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. BUT LIKE I SAID, IN WORKING WITH OAK PARK, I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THEM. IT'S TOUGH TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS RIGHT NOW DURING THE VIRUS, BUT UM, WE, WE HAVE HAD SOME MEETINGS AND LIKE I SAID, THEIR CONCERNS WERE DRAINAGE, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS FRONTING UNITS ON FLAMINGO, HAVING SOME VISITOR PARKING. SO LIKE I SAID, WE REDUCED IT BY ONE UNIT. WE'RE DOWN TO 19 UNITS. AND I ALSO ADMITTED THE SITE PLAN TO STATE SPECIFICALLY NO MORE THAN 19 UNITS. UM, I BELIEVE WE'RE THERE WITH OAK PARK AND WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AND I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE CASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHRISTENSEN, UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY [04:55:01] PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, MA'AM. THERE IS PUBLIC COMMENT AND MERCEDES IS GONNA ASSIST IN READING THOSE INTO THE RECORD. SO THIS ONE IS FROM OAK PARK, UM, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ON JUNE 12TH, WE RECEIVED A LETTER IN OPPOSITION FROM OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT TODAY WE RECEIVED A MAIL OUT IN FAVOR AND IT SAYS I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DEVELOPER MEETING WITH THE OAK KEY AND NA BOARD AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NOTIFICATION AREA. ALL THREE PARTIES. PARTIES MET IN LATE JUNE AND THE DEVELOPER RESPONDED TO EARLIER COMMENTS AND PRESENTED A SITE PLAN WITH FOUR VISITOR ONSITE PARKING A TOTAL OF 19 UNITS AND HOMES, FENCING WALLS AT LEAST WEST TO NORTH PROPERTY LINE, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO ALLEY AND UTILITY EASEMENT, FOUR HOMES FRONTING ALONG FLAMINGO. THE DEVELOPER ALSO INDICATED THAT HE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY FOR RESIDENT PARKING ALONG FLAMINGO. THE PROJECT IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, HOWEVER, OUR BOARD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO, TO MEET, TO RECONSIDER OUR VOTE. IN PREPARATION OF TODAY'S ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, I'M NOT CLEAR IF OUR PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY DUE TO ILL FAMILY MEMBERS AND WORK IN THIS CONTEXT, I'M PROVIDING SOME COMMUNICATION TO THE ZONING COMMISSION, OUR BOARD HOPES TO MEET IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO RECONSIDER OUR BOAT AND INDICATE OUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE APPROPRIATE DECISION MAKING BODY. RESPECTFULLY, JACK GIDA ROBERT AND LORI EZ AT 1919 FLAMINGO DRIVE. WE PREFER THAT WE DO NOT HAVE 42 UNITS BUILT MF 33 OR THE 20 HOMES BUILT I D Z ONE A H O D ONE. THE 42 APARTMENT UNITS ARE BUILT, NO ONE IS GOING TO PAY HIGH DOLLAR FOR, FOR THESE UNITS AROUND THREE DIFFERENT BARS WHEN DOWN THE ROAD AT BA BROADWAY, THERE ARE BUILDING UNITS THERE AND NO BARS ARE AROUND THEM. THANK YOU. AND OPPOSITION IS OUR VOTE, JOE BARELLA 1915 FLAMINGO. THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST NOTIFICATION STATES THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS FROM MS 33 A TO A H O D TO I D Z ONE A H O D TO BILL 20 DWELLING UNITS BY LOOKING AT THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BLUEPRINT SHOW VERY NARROW STREETS AND CAPABLE TO FACILITATE ENOUGH STREET PARKING FOR VISITORS THAT OPPOSE 20 DWELLING UNITS. THIS MEANS THAT THE STREET OF FLAMINGO DRIVE WILL BE USED AS STREET PARKING AUGMENTING CONTRIBUTING TO THE ALREADY EXISTING BIG PROBLEM ON STREET PARKING DUE TO NEARBY BAR'S, LACK OF PARKING AND ITS SUFFICIENT PARKING AS THE BLUEPRINTS AND 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE COULD SHOW SOME ADEQUATE FREE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISITORS OF THE DWELLING UNITS I MIGHT CONSIDER, BUT FOR NOW, MY VOTE IS IN OPPOSITION SLASH AGAINST CHANGING SLASH MODIFYING THE ZONING. ALSO, I D Z IS FOR NEGLECTED SLASH BYPASS PROPERTIES AND PREMISES AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR THIS DESIRABLE LOCATION OR LOSS WITHOUT NOTHING FURTHER. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO PROVIDE TO THIS CORRESPONDENCE. JENNY SLEDGE, 1810 BROADWAY PARKING ADDED TRAFFIC JUST NOT ACCESSIBLE. CAROL WILSON, 1826 FLAMINGO. I'M OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING. WHEN WE FIRST MOVED TO FLAMINGO, IT WAS A QUIET STREET. THERE WERE NO BARS WITH THE OPENING OF ALL THE BARS ALONG FLAMINGO, WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, PEOPLE NOISE AND CRIME PRACTICALLY IN, IN OUR FRONT YARD. WITH THE ADDITIONAL 40 PLUS APARTMENTS, THE PARKING AND NOISE WOULD, WOULD MULTIPLY GREATLY. WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR PARKING? WHERE WOULD THE GUESTS PARK? WE ALREADY HAVE NO PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF OUR HOME BECAUSE OF THE BAR TRAFFIC, SO OUR OWN GUESTS HAVE TO PARK CLOSURE TO FLAMINGO WHEN THEY VISIT WITH POSSIBLY TWO CARS PER UNIT. THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF 80 PLUS CARS ADDED TO OUR IMMEDIATE AREA. APARTMENT DWELLERS TEND TO NOT CONSIDER THEIR UNITS AS PERMANENT HOME AND WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY AS HOME DWELLERS DO. AGAIN, WITH OUR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO BARS, WE ALREADY DEAL WITH OUR YARD BEING LITTERED. IN ADDITION, WE PERSONALLY HAVE NOT SEEN ANY RENDERINGS ON WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL LOOK LIKE AND DO NOT KNOW IF THIS WILL BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE STREET. WE BOTH AND HAVE NOW LIVED IN OUR HOME FOR 22 YEARS AND HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED MOVING. THIS IS THE ONLY HOME OUR CHILDREN KNOW. THIS ACTUALLY MIGHT PUSH US OVER THE EDGE TO MAKE THE MOVE, WHICH WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO ME AND MY FAMILY. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS RE VOTING TO HAPPEN. TOM WOODY, 1903 FLAMINGO DRIVE. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT AT THE FORMER NURSING HOME HAS BEEN RAISED. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT AT PRESENT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE AND ASK THAT IT BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 2018 DASH 11 DASH 15 9 13 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CHAPTER 35 IN THE CITY CODE OF SAN ANTONIO, THE USE REGULATIONS REQUIRE A ZONING SITE PLAN. ADDITIONALLY, A GROUND PLAN COMPARISON FORM IS ALSO REQUIRED. EITHER OF THESE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NOR HAVE I SEEN THEM. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO BE PERMITTED UP TO 20 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT KNOWING THE DETAILS. IT CANNOT SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AS NEITHER OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS HAVE BEEN SEEN. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT IS FOR VARIOUS SETBACKS. INGRESS EASEMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED REQUIRED DETAILS SHOWING THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF LOTS PROPOSED AREA OF OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING DIMENSION AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL PAVED OR OTHERWISE HARD SURFACE STREET PARKING. CURB GUTTERS WALK OFF ALL STREET PARKING INCLUDING NUMBER OF SPACES, DIMENSION, LOCATION, DIMENSION AND TYPE OF WALL FENCES REQUIRED IF ANY LANDSCAPE SUFFERING POST STREET SIDEWALKS, [05:00:01] NEITHER INFRASTRUCTURE ABOVE AT OR BELOW GRADE IN THE EXISTING UN PROPOSED PHYSICAL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS AND OTHER RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. JUST TO MENTION SOME OF THE ITEMS REQUIRED. MY PROPERTY IS ROUGHLY FIVE FEET BELOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GRADE. I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO WHAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED ON MY WEST FENCE LINE IF MY PROPERTY COULD BE SUBJECT TO FLOODING DURING SEVERE RAINFALL WITHOUT KNOWING I CANNOT AGREE TO ANY ZONING CHAINS. PARKING IS A PARAMOUNT CONCERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AS I AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO BROADWAY, WHERE ON THE CORNER OF FLAMINGO DRIVE AND BROADWAY, THERE ARE THREE NIGHTCLUBS WHERE ON WEEKENDS AT A FORMER TIME, THE PATRONS OF THESE BARS WALKED ALONG THE CURB OF THE HOMES ON FLAMINGOS CREATING GREAT CONGESTIONS. I WOULD NOT LIKE TO RETURN TO THAT AT AN TO THAT TIME. A PROPOSED CHANGING OF ZONING TO ID D ONE HAS NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND AS SUCH, AN INCREASE OF 20 DWELLING UNITS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS CAN COMPLETELY OVERLOAD THE STREET. THE CURRENT ZONE OF MF 33 PROVIDES THE OWNER OF THE SAME SUBJECT SIX PROPERTY TO PERMIT. THAT'S TWO MINUTES. JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S WHY WE STOP READING. I'M MCC 80 58 BROADWAY STREET. I WRITE TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CASE FROM M MS 33 TO I D Z BECAUSE SUCH ZONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FLAMINGO STREET FEATURES PRIMARILY SINGLE ONE STORY FAMILY HOME. THE STREET IS NARROW AND THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, WHICH CREATE AN AN EXCESSIVE DEMAND ON THE PARKING INFRASTRUCTURE LEADING TO HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCREASE HEAVY TRAFFIC AND PARKING NEEDS. FURTHERMORE, I DZ IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTHEAST LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. PROVIDING I DZ IS LIKE PROVIDING A BLANK CHECK FOR DEVELOPERS TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT WITHOUT TAKING IN CONSIDERATION PRESERVATION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE ENVIRONMENT. JAMES, MISS, WE ARE, WE ARE AGAINST THIS CHANGE. WE FEEL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND US. AT PRESENT, WE ARE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER WITH THE MEETING OF RESIDENTS, THE OFFICIALS, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING TO VOTE FOR POSTPONING A DECISION FOR TWO WEEKS LIKE WE GOT WITH THE ZONING COMMITTEE OR, OR AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. MEGAN HAS 26 FLAMINGO. WE ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THIS CASE AT 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE. THE SIZE OF HOUSING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE WOULD, AND IT WOULD CAUSE MULTIPLE ISSUES FOR PARKING DRIVE THROUGH THE STREET, DRAINAGE AND A MULTITUDE OF OTHER REASONS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY I D Z PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DO NOT WANT ONE. THIS PETITION WAS SIGNED BY 20 PEOPLE IN SUPPORT. I AM WRITING TO YOU REGARDING THE REZONING APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY ON FLAMINGO BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING FROM MS 33 TO I D Z. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE OAK OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CHANGE. HOWEVER, THOSE OF US IN CLOSEST PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY DISAGREE WITH HIS VIEWPOINT. WHILE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD HAS AN OPPOSITION TO I D Z ZONING IN GENERAL, THE IMPACT OF THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CHANGE WE BELIEVE WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS MOST IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THE ZONING CHANGE. OUR GOAL IS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO REMAIN A COHESIVE GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS WHO TAKE CARE AND PRIDE IN THEIR PROPERTY. APARTMENTS AND SIMILAR PROPERTIES THAT ATTRACT RENTERS ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CURRENTLY EXISTING HOME, BUT THE 20 FAMILY UNITS PROPOSED THAT THE I D Z ZONING WOULD CREATE PROPERTIES LIKELY TO ATTRACT SIMILARLY MINDED HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE INVESTED IN MAINTAINING A WELL-KEPT HOME AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE SAFE AND QUIET ATMOSPHERE OF THE AREA. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED 20 HOME PLAN WILL ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING FOR THOSE UNITS WHILE THE MS 33 CONSTRUCTION IS LIKELY TO ENCROACH ON THE ALREADY EXISTING STREET PARKING SHORTAGE. WHILE WE SUPPORT THE MISSION OF OF OUR OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEIR OVERALL GOALS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE THEIR POSITION REFLECTS WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THOSE MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE PROPOSAL. WE UNDERSTAND WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY SEEKING REZONING AS THAT YOU SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE TO I D Z KIM GIBBS 1910 FLAMINGO. I AM WRITING IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING OF 1841 FLAMINGO. SINCE I LAST EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THIS REZONING WHEN ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 16TH NOW SET FOR JULY 7TH, HE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AGAIN WITH THE BUILDER WHO CONTINUES TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS ADDRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING, DRAINAGE, AND AESTHETICS IN WAYS THAT INCREASE THE ALREADY OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THAT SAME MEETING, THE OP AND N A ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, THAT THE REFORM OF I D D ZONING IN THE LATE 2018 REMEDIED THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT I D D ZONING. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT READ A STATEMENT THAT THEY STILL OPPOSE I D Z ZONING ON A BASIS THAT ITS ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO REVITALIZE IMPOVERISHED AREAS AND WE ARE NOT THAT KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD. I HOPE THE ZONING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT ONLY IMPRACTICAL, IT IS OFFENSIVE. I D Z ZONING NOW SERVES FUNCTIONS OTHER THAN REVITALIZATION, IMPOVERISHED, IMPOVERISHED [05:05:01] AREAS AND BUILDING HOMES VALUED AT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREA WILL NOT RESULT IN PEOPLE MISTAKING OAK PARK NORTHWOOD FOR AN IMPOVERISHED AREA. ADDITIONALLY, OPPOSING I D Z ZONING FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DIFFERENTIATING A RELATIVELY PRIVILEGED AREA FROM AN AREA SUFFERING FINANCIAL DURESS IS DIVISIVENESS FOR THE SAKE OF DIVISIVENESS. THE COMMENTARY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COMES DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE. RHETORIC THAT I HOPE THE ZONING COMMISSION WILL RECOGNIZE IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. JILL RIPS AT 1914 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I I OWN AND HAVE LIVED AT 1914 FLAMINGO DRIVE SINCE 2002. OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE ENJOYED THE AMENITIES OF A FAMILY FRIENDLY AND SUPPORTIVE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AT A BUT COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ON BROADWAY. WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD OF HOMEOWNERS WHO TAKE PRIDE IN OUR PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, IMPROVING BOTH OUR HOMES AND LANDSCAPING FOR BOTH OUR PERSONAL BENEFIT AND THAT IS BRINGING EXTRA VALUE PRIOR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. EVER SINCE THE NURSING HOME AT 1841 FLAMINGO WAS RELOCATED AND THE FORMER STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED. WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE BUILT IN ITS PLACE, RECOGNIZING THAT SAN ANTONIO NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS HOUSING DENSITY AND REDUCE URBAN SPRAWL BY INCREASING INVA AND THE HOMEOWNER WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS SITE. I WANT THE I D D DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY PETER GLUM. THIS PLAN WILL BRING HIGH QUALITY INDIVIDUALLY OWNED RESIDENCES OF VALLEY THAT WILL NOT DIMINISH OUR HOME'S WORTH. WE DO NOT WANT THE PO POSSIBILITY OF 40 PLUS RENTAL UNITS UNDER THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY 33 ZONING. THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED TO I D D, WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 19 RESIDENT OWNED FAMILY UNITS. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER PETER GREEN BLE AND HIS LAWYER MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE 1841 NEIGHBORS AT AN OPEN MEETING ON JUNE 24TH. GREENLAND MADE THE CONFESSION, MADE THE CONFESSION TO REMOVE ONE OF THE 20 UNITS TO REPLACE PARKING AND TO PUT EXTENSIONS AT THE, THE END OF THE INTERNAL STREET TO PRECLUDE OUTSIDERS CUTTING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE ALLEY. HE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS AND ADDRESSED ALL PROPERTY OWNERS' CONCERNS OF DRAINAGE, PRIVACY, FENCES, ET CETERA, DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS NO OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF THE I DISEASE ZONING OF 1841 FLAMINGO BY NEIGHBORS. IT APPEARS THAT ANY REMAINING OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS BASED ON THE PRE 2018 I D Z DEFINITION, WHICH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. WE DO NOT REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS. ON 1800 1900 BLOCK OF FLAMINGO DRIVE WILL BE MOST DIRECTLY NEGATIVELY AFFECTED TO THE PROPERTY, NOT BE REZONED. INSTEAD BECOME DECIDED OF A 40 PLUS UNIT RENTAL COMPLEX AS A HOMEOWNER LIVING WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY SEEKING REZONING, I URGE A ZONING COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE TO I D D JOHN BRENNAN AND ESTHER LIO. I AM SENDING YOU THIS NOTE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MY WIFE, ESTHER, AND MYSELF, WHO LIVED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OLD NURSING HOME, FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND THE ONGOING REZONING ACTION. OUR ADDRESS IS 1830 FLAMINGO. YES. IF WE WERE THES OF FLAMINGO, WE WOULD PREFER THAT FIVE TO SIX HOMES COULD BE BUILT HERE, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. AND THE FACT THAT THE EFFECTIVE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF 33 STRONGLY, STRONGLY PLAYS INTO OUR DECISION TO ALLOW THIS PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO I D D ONE. THIS ALLOWS 20 UNITS TO BE LOCKED IN VERSUS 30 PLUS, AND FOR THEM TO BE INCORPORATED INTO AN H O A AND NOT A C O A OR EVEN WORSE APARTMENT. WE ARE TIRED OF SEEING THIS EMPTY EYESORE OF A, OF A VACANT IN FRONT OF OUR HOME WITH BAR PATRONS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BROADWAY BAR, CRAMPING THEIR CARS ON OUR STREET EVERY WEEKEND NIGHT. PLEASE NOTE, I AM THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD THAT SUPPORTS THIS ACTION. I ADD THAT I AM ALSO THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT LIVES WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY. AND I DON'T APPRECIATE FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS PASSING JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS BEST FOR US FOLKS TO LIVE WITHIN INSIDE OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL EIGHT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO LIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FLAMINGO DRIVE WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS SUPPORT THIS ZONE AND 99% OF THE PROPOSED REZONED ACTIONS WE WOULD PROBABLY BE AGAINST I D Z IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WERE WHEN SOME FIVE YEARS AGO, THE HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND US ON 1823 EAST LAWNDALE WAS THOUGHT TO BE REZONED FROM NMP 10 TO AN I D TO ALLOW SEVEN CONDOS TO BE BUILT THERE. THE ACTION FAILED AND NOW A VERY HAPPILY HAPPY FAMILY WITH SEVEN LIVES THERE ENCLOSING MR. PETER GREENLAND, THE DEVELOPER WHO OWN THE 1841 HAS RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS, WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE ALL DO ON FLAMINGOS. WE WOULD RATHER KEEP AN OPEN DOOR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM SO HE WILL COLLECTIVELY WORK WITH US AS THIS PROJECT DEVELOPS VERSUS SLAMMING THE DOOR SHUT AND POSSIBLY SEVERING COMMUNICATIONS AND AN OPEN DIALOGUE BETWEEN US. NOTED BELOW ARE THE LINK TO VIDEOS LAST NIGHT ON CHANNEL FOUR, GERALD AND ADRIANA BICKER STAFF AT 1815 FLAMINGO DRIVE AND 8 8 1 4 2 BROADWAY STREET. MY WIFE AND I ARE THE ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OWNED MULTIPLE LOT. WE'RE ALSO THE OWNERS OF TWO STANDALONE BUSINESSES, JUST ONE PROPERTY OVER FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS. THE NEEDLESS TO SAY THIS WILL IMPACT US AS MUCH AS ANYONE. ALTHOUGH ID IDS ARE NOT PERFECT, THEY'RE MUCH BETTER AND LESS UNPREDICTABLE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. A VACANT MOT ZONE MULTIFAMILY. IT'S HARD TO PERCEIVE THIS PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED AS MS WITH, WITH A POSSIBLE 41 UNITS. AS OF NOW, WE HAVE TRAFFIC CONCERNS AND WITH [05:10:01] 41 UNITS THAT WOULD EXACERBATE THE CURRENT PROBLEMS WE ARE HAVING FOR US. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WE WELCOME MORE RESIDENTS IN WALKING DISTANCE DUE TO THE FACT WE OWN A RESTAURANT , LATINA AND REBAR JUST A FEW STEPS AWAY. HOWEVER, WE PREFER AN I D Z OVER MULTI-FAMILY ANY DAY. WE'RE ENCOURAGED BY THE IDEA OF HAVING AN I D D DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR TO US AND HOPE YOU APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. WE THINK THIS WOULD BE A POSITIVE IMPACT FOR US AND OUR NEIGHBORS, ER AT 1823 FLAMINGO. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE. JERRY WAL 1846 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AT 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE, CATHERINE JOHNSON AND MALCOLM R JOHNSON. WE OWN TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE. 1907 FLAMINGO, WHERE MY DAUGHTER LIVES IN 1822 EDGEHILL, WHERE I SHARE OWNERSHIP WITH MY HUSBAND, MALCOLM R JOHNSON. I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY THE BUILDER, PETER GOLDBLUM THAT HE WILL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO ELIMINATE ANY ISSUES WHEN WE HAVE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING OF THE HOME, SPECIFICALLY DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH WHICH COULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT BOTH OF MY HOMES. I HAVE ALSO BEEN ASSURED THAT THE ALLEY WILL NOT BE OPEN TO ENTERING AND EXITING AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPMENT WHILE I REMAIN IN EASY ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF I D Z IN OUR AREA AND PRINCIPLE, I AM FINE WITH THE PLANS FOR MULTIPLE HOMES IF I UNDERSTAND THEM AT THIS POINT. JOHN CWE, 1806, EDGE HILL FOR IDZ ONE A O D. WHAT IS THE PROPOSED OR ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE OF ROOF LINE? CHECKED IN FAVOR, ELIZABETH. MORE. 1830 EDGEFIELD DRIVE. I'M A RESIDENT ON EDGEHILL DRIVE BEHIND THE AREA IN QUESTION AND WOULD STRONGLY PREFER THAT THE AREA BE DEVELOPED INTO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR 30 YEARS NOW AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CHARACTERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD UPHELD WITH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. I UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMICS OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, BUT HAVE FOUND THAT THOSE AREAS HAVE BEEN ON, HAVE BEEN ONGOING PROBLEMS WHERE THEY EXIST, SUCH AS THE ONE AT THE END OF EDGE HILL DRIVE. TRANSIENT RESIDENTS SEEM LESS INVESTED IN THE UPKEEP AND CHARACTER OF THEIR DWELLING THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED OVER THE YEARS. THIS IS A GREAT LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I'VE CHOSE TO LIVE IN AND TAKE TAXES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF RESIDING HERE. PLEASE MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR AREA WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ON FLAMINGO, JIM AND BOB, JIM, BOB AND SUSAN MERCHANT AS A RESULT OF VERY INFORMATIVE MEETINGS AMONG AFFECTED NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE DEVELOPER, AND HIS ATTORNEY, AND SAMANTHA WITH WIRE LAST NIGHT. WE ARE CHANGING OUR VOTE. WE APPROVE AND AGREE WITH THE REZO TO I D D ONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF GARDEN TYPE HOMES AT 1840 MILES AMIGO DRIVE. THIS CHANGE IN VOTE IS BASED ON COMMITMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER, THAT ONE, THERE WILL BE NO VEHICLE ENTERING EXIT TO THE ADJOINING ALLEY. TWO, THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE HIS ENGINEER ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH AFFECTED NEIGHBORS. AND THREE, THE DEVELOPER WILL REDUCE THE CONSTRUCTION TO 19 GARDEN TYPE HOMES AND DEVOTE THE, AND DEVOTE THE EQUIVALENT TO ONE HOME SPACE TO ADDITIONAL PARKING WITHIN THE PROPERTY. WE HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL INCLUDE THESE DETAILS AND HIS ILLUSTRATIONS. DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED TO THE REVIEWING COUNCIL. MARTIN P MORRIS 1850 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I THINK THIS IS GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CHECKOFF IN FAVOR ROB PRITCHARD AT 2015 FLAMINGO DRIVE AND 20 0 2 FLAMINGO DRIVE AND SUGGESTS THAT YOU VOTE YES TO REZONE 1841 FLAMINGO FOR 20 HOUSES AS OPPOSED TO 42 APARTMENTS WE DON'T NEED, NOR DO WE WANT TO SEE MORE APARTMENTS. APARTMENTS EQUAL CRIME. AND WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT AT THE BROADWAY BARS. THAT'S ANOTHER STORY THAT WE CAN REHASH FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS OR FOR ANOTHER DAY. TINA LARSSON, 1831 LAS DRIVE. I AM ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD, HOWEVER, I'M IN THE MINORITY POSITION ON THIS FLAMINGO REZONING CASE. IN GENERAL, I HAVE SUSPICIONS ABOUT THE PROPER USE OF I D D, ESPECIALLY IN OUR VERY DESIRABLE NEIGHBOR, DESIRABLE 7 8 2 0 9 ALAMO HEIGHTS, I S D AREA. HOWEVER, IF RESIDENTS CLOSES TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT ARE FOUR, THE DEVELOPERS PLAN 20 HOMES ON THAT LOT AS OPPOSED TO M F 33 WHERE THEY COULD GET APARTMENTS AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. I KNOW FROM THE PAST EXPERIENCE WITH REZONE AT 7,600 BROADWAY WHAT IT IS LIKE TO FEEL THAT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS WORKING AGAINST YOU. I'M SORRY TO SEE THAT HERE AGAIN. I HOPE FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS CLOSEST TO 1841 FLAMINGO, THAT THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT ON THIS. THANK YOU . RON AARON EISENBERG 16 GARDEN SQUARE. WE LIVE ON GARDEN SQUARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 1835 EAST LAWNDALE, WHICH IS IN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. THE ENTRANCE TO THE 11 HOMES AND GARDEN SQUARE IS LOCATED 250 FEET FROM 1841 FLAMINGO. THE GARDEN SQUARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS OUR FLAMINGO NEIGHBORS WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING OF 1841 FLAMINGO FROM M MS 33 TO I DZ ONE. WE BELIEVE 20 TOWN HOMES FIT THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF THE 42 APARTMENTS. THAT CURRENT MS 33 ZONING ALLOWS HOME OWNERSHIP INSTILLS PRIDE IN, BRING COMMUNITY TOGETHER AND ENHANCES NEIGHBORHOODS. I UNDERSTAND THE O P N NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSES A ZONING CHANGE. IT IS NOT REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORS. TOLERANCE AND EMPATHY ARE IMPORTANT QUALITIES FOR A BOARD. YOU MUST PUT, PUT YOUR BIASES [05:15:01] ASIDE AND LISTEN TO YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO WORK TOGETHER. THANK YOU FOR READING MY LETTER. WE HOPE YOU SUPPORT THE WISHES OF OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS WHO LOOK AT THIS EMPTY LOT EVERY DAY. LAURA ZAKI 2118 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I'M THE HOMEOWNER ON FLAMINGO DRIVE FOR THE PAST 18 YEARS. I DO NOT WANT APARTMENTS TO PLAGUE OUR STREET ON THE LOT. THE 1841 FLAMINGO DRIVE. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC DUE TO BARS ACROSS BROADWAY, AND TO ADD EVEN MORE TRAFFIC WITHIN AN UNSIGHTLY APARTMENT COMPLEX WILL DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY. IF SOMETHING MUST GO ON THAT LOT, MY BEST HOPE WOULD BE SMALL GARDEN HOMES. THEREFORE, I DO SUPPORT REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TO ID ONE. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE TO ENTRANCE FOR THE RECORD. MADAM CHAIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, MR. CHRISTENSEN, WOULD YOU LIKE, UH, TIME FOR OUR RESPONSE? YES. YES. I'LL BE BRIEF AND NO, I AM NOT IN A COMPETITION WITH MYSELF TO SEE HOW MANY NOTICES I CAN GENERATE ON A GIVEN ZONING CASE. BUT THAT BEING SAID, I'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, THREE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, AND WE'RE SLOWLY WORKING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES. I THINK WE'RE THERE. UM, THEY'VE BEEN PRIMARILY, AND, AND, AND THOSE NOTICES THAT YOU, THAT YOU HEARD. I MEAN, I CERTAINLY GIVE THE SITE PLAN TO ANYONE WHO ASKED FOR IT, BUT THIS TAKES TIME TO DIS DISSEMINATE INFORMATION. BUT I, I THINK WE'RE THERE. UM, IT'S A GOOD ZONING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS LIKE, IT, IT, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE HAD TO DO A SMALL PLANNING AMENDMENT COMPONENT AND, UM, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, AGAIN, I, I SAID IT ON THE LAST CASE AND I'LL, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN HERE, UH, PATRICK. GREAT, GREAT WORK AS ALWAYS. UM, I'M ONCE AGAIN, UM, IMPRESSED BY MY DISTRICT, UH, A WEEK, UH, LAST, LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS. WE HAD ONE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS LOOKING SHAKY UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT, UH, WHEN THE DEVELOPERS AND THE NEIGHBORS CAME TOGETHER AND, AND FORGED A DEAL. AND I, AND I WAS PROUD OF THEM THEN. AND I'M, I'M PROUD AGAIN TODAY, UH, BECAUSE PATRICK AND HIS GROUP HAS, UH, GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND, UH, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE THEMSELF AVAILABLE AS WELL ON THIS. THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE MEETINGS. UH, AND I'D BE REMISS ALSO IF I DIDN'T GIVE A, A SHOUT OUT TO COUNCILMAN PERRY'S OFFICE. UM, SAMANTHA HAS WORKED VERY, VERY HARD ON THIS, UH, TO BRING THE SIDES TOGETHER AND TO REACH WHAT I FEEL LIKE, UH, WE'VE GOT, WHICH IS A DEAL. UM, THERE WAS SOME TALK THIS MORNING BECAUSE THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COULD NOT MEET AGAIN IN TIME. THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY CONTINUING THIS CASE. UM, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY, UH, BASED ON WHAT I HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, LEADERSHIP AND BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, UM, APPROVE OF THIS, UH, PROJECT. UM, I, I WILL BE MAKING A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. UM, BUT I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET. AND, AND I KNOW SOME COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, UH, SO I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER WHITE, BACK TO YOU. HEY. UM, WELL, UM, AS I SAID, UH, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS. UM, IT'S REALLY TAKEN A LOT OF WORK, UH, BOTH BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS BY, UH, PATRICK AND HIS GROUP. SO I COMMEND EVERYBODY FOR THAT AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN PERRY'S OFFICE. AND SO I MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY, UH, FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WHITE A SECOND, AND, AND LEMME JUST SAY MOTION TO APPROVE IT, UM, AS AMENDED PER PER THE AGREEMENT. OKAY. AS AMENDED PER THE AGREEMENT. UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMATH. YES, MA'AM. UH, ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. UM, SEEING NO COMMENTS, ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE AND YES. COMMISSIONER JOE. YES. COMMISSIONER KAMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER, WE AYE. [05:20:01] COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBON? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER WHITE. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER? YES. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES NINE TO ZERO. AND, AND, AND MADAM CHAIR, I, I, IF I MAY, I, I, I, I FORGOT TO SAY ONE THING. I, I KNOW THERE'S, UM, JUST THE FINE DETAILS, UH, TO WORK OUT BETWEEN NOW, UH, AND WHEN THIS GOES BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND I'VE BEEN ASSURED, UH, BY PATRICK AND HIS GROUP THAT THEY'RE GONNA WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, UH, TO IRON OUT THOSE DETAILS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RENER, LETTING THAT BE KNOWN TO THE RECORD. UH, READY FOR THE NEXT CASE. THANK YOU. [12. ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700122 (Council District 1): A request for a change in zoning from "R-6 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "RM-4 AHOD" Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District on the East 12.5 feet of Lot 11, Lot 12 and Lot 13, Block 2, NCB 6481, located at 1526 West Mistletoe Avenue. Staff recommends Denial, with Alternate Recommendation. (Victoria Castro, Planner, (210) 207-2736, Victoria.Castro@Sanantonio.gov, Development Services).] THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IT'S ITEM NUMBER 12, WHICH IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R SIX A H O D TO RMM FOUR A H O D, LOCATED AT 1526 WEST MISSILE TOE AVENUE. THERE WERE 25 NOTICES MAILED. NONE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. NINE WERE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. THREE WERE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. AND JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. THE CURRENT R SIX BASE ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, WEST, AND NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE NEAR NORTHWEST COMMUNITY PLAN OBJECTIVE TO ENCOURAGE NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY'S CHARACTER. THE CURRENT COMMUNITY'S CHARACTER IS A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS PER LOT. THEREFORE, AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF R SIX CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. THE REQUESTED RMM FOUR, WHICH WOULD INTRODUCE EXCESSIVE DENSITY, IS CURRENTLY NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS AREA AND WOULD ALLOW FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF R SIX CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? I AM, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS CHARLES RILEY. I APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD HERE THIS AFTERNOON, EVENING. UM, WE'VE GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SOME OPPOSITION, UH, REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, MEET WITH THEM. HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SET UP THAT MEETING. UM, WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO GET ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER. A LOT OF THE, A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION HAS TO DO WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, LACK OF PARKING ON THE STREET AND WE ANTICIPATED THAT AND PUT IN PLENTY OF OFF STREET PARKING. SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT OPPOSITION IS, UH, HOW MUCH THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION UNDERSTAND THAT. I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM AND, AND TRY TO LAY THEIR CONCERNS. SO WE'D ASK, I THINK PROBABLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A ONE MONTH CONTINUANCE TO GIVE US PLENTY OF TIME TO, UH, REACH OUT TO THESE FOLKS. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. IF YOU'LL JUST, UH, STAND BY. WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, FOR YOU. UM, IS THERE A PUBLIC COM COMMENT, STAFF TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, MA'AM. WE HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS AND THEN, UH, AGAIN, ANOTHER STACK OF NOTICES, UH, TO READ INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. HEY, IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU WANT THEM READ INTO THE RECORD NOW OR IF THIS ITEM IS IN FACT CONTINUED, THEN IT CAN BE, UH, THEY CAN BE READ DURING THAT HEARING. OKAY. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO, UM, DEFER TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR THIS CASE. I, I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID LAST TIME, SO I PRESUME IT'LL MAY BE THE SAME THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER, UH, GREATHOUSE. OKAY. UM, SO I GUESS QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN. SO IT'S JUST UP TO US TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA HEAR THE OPPOSITION. UM, DO WE, I I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY LIVE CALLERS ON THE LINE WHO ARE, WHO ARE WAITING OR WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING? SO THERE ARE NO LIVE CALLERS TODAY. UM, THE REASON WHY IT, IT, IT, WE'RE GIVING YOU THE OPTION, IS IT SIMILAR IF WHEN WE HAVE AN IN-PERSON MEETING WHERE THE, UH, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE AND THOSE THAT ARE HERE AT THE MEETING COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY JUST WANNA WAIT TILL THE NEXT TIME TO PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS? UH, SO WE COMMIT TO READING ALL OF THEM, BUT IF THE, THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THIS MAY BE [05:25:01] CONTINUED, WE WILL COMMIT TO READING ALL OF THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING AT, BUT WE LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU. OKAY. I THINK MY BIGGEST CONCERN ON THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE LIVE CALLERS, AND I, I DON'T WANNA TAKE AWAY ANYONE'S VOICE IF THEY WANNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, EVEN IF, IF MY INCLINATION IS TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY OR TO CONTINUE A CASE, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE'S VOICES ARE HEARD. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. UM, HOWEVER, ON THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE LIVE AND, UM, AND, AND THIS, IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I, I'M COMFORTABLE REQUESTING CONTINUANCE NOW WITHOUT, UH, WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH HEARING THE OPPOSITION PROVIDED THAT WE HEAR IT NEXT TIME. AND, AND IF I MAY, IF FOR SOME REASON THE CONTINUANCE WERE TO FAIL, THEN WE WOULD END UP HEARING THE COMMENT ANYWAY. IS THAT CORRECT STAFF? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. WELL THEN I, I, I, I FEEL LIKE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TOO. I, I FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE DOES. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO HAS COME, JUST LIKE IN OUR LIVE MEETINGS, THEY'RE THERE, WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, BUT DEFINITELY THE WRITTEN, WE ALWAYS HAVE THAT TO REFER BACK TO. IT'S NOT GONNA GO AWAY. UM, SO UNLESS ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER FEELS DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT. OKAY. UM, WELL THEN, UM, WE WILL, UM, WHAT ABOUT THE, WE WILL SAVE THE VOICEMAILS. THEY'LL STILL BE PRESENT AND THE WRITTEN COMMENT WILL STILL BE PRESENT FOR THE NEXT MEETING. SO I WILL, UM, TURN IT TO COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE. UH, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. IS, UM, IS THE APPLICANT STILL AVAILABLE FOR ME TO ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION? YES, COMMISSIONER, I'M HERE. HI, MR. RILEY. UM, ARE, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH A FOUR WEEK, UH, CONTINUANCE? SO THAT WOULD BE UNTIL THE AUGUST 4TH MEETING? YES, THAT WOULD BE PERFECT. UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE I, I HAVE, YOU KNOW, REACHED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO SET UP THIS MEETING, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PANDEMIC RANG RAGING. FIND A GOOD WAY TO MEET WITH EVERYONE, EITHER, WHETHER IT BE BY ZOOM OR HOWEVER, AND THEN, UH, BE ABLE TO REPORT BACK AND, AND BE READY FOR THE, UH, HEARING ON THE FOURTH. OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WITH THAT. THANK YOU. UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, SORRY, I HAVE TO GET MY, MY NUMBER, MY ITEM NUMBER, WHICH IS ALWAYS A STRUGGLE FOR ME. 12. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S SO HARD FOR ME. UM, MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE. ITEM NUMBER 12, UNTIL THE AUGUST 4TH ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. SECOND KENNETH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE HAS MADE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. UM, AND COMMISSIONER KATH HAS SECONDED THAT, UM, MADE A SECOND TO THAT CONTINUANCE. UM, ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HUI AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE. AYE. COMMISSIONER SY? YES. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. NINE ZERO. I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR, UM, LAST CASE. UH, [13. ZONING CASE Z-2020-10700123 (Council District 3): A request for a change in zoning from "MF-33 AHOD" Multi-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "C-2 AHOD" Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District on 1.596 acres out of NCB 10979, located at 2819 Southeast Military Drive. Staff recommends Approval. (Lorianne Thennes, Planner 210-207-7945, lorianne.thennes@sanantonio.gov; Development Services Department)] WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE. WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 13, AND, UH, I THINK MR. RILEY'S GONNA STAY ON THE LINE BECAUSE THIS IS HIS, UH, ONE OF HIS CASES AS WELL. SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND READ IT INTO THE RECORD. OH, THANK YOU. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 13 TO REZONE FROM M MS 33 A H O D TO C TWO A H O D, LOCATED AT 28 19 SOUTHEAST MILITARY DRIVE. THERE WERE NINE NOTICES MAILED. ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM HIRE NATION. THE CURRENT MS IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA, HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED C TWO IS MORE APPROPRIATE ZONING DUE TO ITS LOCATION ALONG SOUTHEAST MILITARY DRIVE. PROPERTIES IN THIS CORRIDOR ARE PRIMARILY ZONED C TWO AND C THREE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM AS WELL. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, UH, IS THE APPLICANT STILL PRESENT? [05:30:03] I AM CHAIRMAN. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? AND YES, I WOULD JUST, UH, LET THE, LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT, UH, ONCE AGAIN, WE IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AFTER, UH, GETTING THAT INFORMATION FROM THE CITY STAFF. AND, UM, I REACHED OUT BOTH TO THE, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, JENNIFER RAMOS AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS, TOMMY ATKINSON. UH, I KNOW MS. RAMOS IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE RIGHT NOW, SO I EXPECT SHE'S PRETTY BUSY, UH, MR. ATKINSON, AND SAID THAT HE WAS GONNA RUN IT BY THE BOARD AND GET BACK TO ME, BUT I NEVER DID HEAR BACK. UH, IN CONSULTATION WITH, UM, CONST ONE VIAGRA'S OFFICE, UH, WE'VE DECIDED TO ASK FOR A SHORT CONTINUANCE. IT'S A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE ON THIS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T ANTICIPATE TOO MUCH, UH, YOU KNOW, OPPOSITION HERE BECAUSE WE, WE DO THINK THIS FITS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE BROOKS CITY BASED AREA PLAN AND, AND THE, THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THE CITY STAFF HAS, HAS, UH, VERIFIED. BUT ANYWAY, IN A BUNCH OF CAUTION, I'D LOVE TO MAKE SURE WE GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. UM, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY, UM, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYBODY, UM, ON THE LINE OR NEED TO BE CALLED? SO? NO. NO MA'AM. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. OKAY. GREAT. OKAY. UM, THAT IN FACT IS A DISTRICT THREE CASE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, CONTINUE THIS CASE FOR TWO WEEKS. UH, WHAT IS THAT DATE AGAIN? STAFF? JULY 21ST. JULY 21ST TO THE JULY 21ST CASE, UH, HEARING. SECOND. SECOND MTH. OKAY. THANK YOU. A MOTION, UM, HAS BEEN MADE FOR A CONTINUANCE BY, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGEE FOR, UH, CONTINUANCE TO JULY 21ST. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMATH. ANY COMMENTS? ANY COMMISSIONERS? SEE A NON ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE? YES. COMMISSIONER JOE JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HU AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBON? YES. COMMISSIONER WHITE? YES. COMMISSIONER SE? YES. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. NINE TO ZERO. SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING. UM, SO [16. 20-3912 Consideration and Action of the Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2020.] NOW WE ARE MOVING TO, UM, THE MINUTES. UM, ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? OKAY. UH, SEEING NONE. UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES HERE A SECOND. COMMISSIONER SIPES. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY COMMISSIONER WHITE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIPES. ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER GREATHOUSE ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. COMMISSIONER CAYMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HU AYE. COMMISSIONER ROMERO? YES. COMMISSIONER GIBBON? YES. DID, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER GIBBONS, CAN YOU SAY, STATE THAT AGAIN? DID YOU SAY YES? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. YES. OKAY. THERE IT IS. UH, COMMISSIONER WHITE. AYE UH, COMMISSIONER SY? YES. AND CHAIR MCGEE? YES. MOTION PASSES. EIGHT TO ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSTAIN. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? NO REPORTS TODAY. I DO HAVE ONE THING. I THINK WE ALL JUST NEED TO TAKE ONE QUICK LITTLE MINUTE TO WISH MS. PAT HERNANDEZ A VERY HAPPY BIRTHDAY. SHE HAD A BIRTHDAY YESTERDAY AND, UH, DUE TO COVID WE DON'T REALLY GET TO CELEBRATE. SO HAPPY BIRTHDAY, KAT. OKAY. AWESOME. AWESOME. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ENJOY. WE HOPE YOU HAD, YOU ENJOYED YOUR BIRTHDAY AND WE WISH YOU A I DID. THANK YOU. A BOUNTIFUL BLESSED YEAR. OKAY, WELL THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. SPEAKING OF BOUNTIFUL, [05:35:01] I DO PRAY A BOUNTIFUL HARVEST TO ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE OF SERVICE. AND I DO HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. IT IS CURRENTLY 6:41 PM THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. YOU, THANK YOU. * 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.