* 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. [00:00:10] OKAY, JEFF. WE'RE LIVE. OKAY. THIS IS, UH, JEFFREY FETZER. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR UM, SEPTEMBER 29TH. 20 JULY 29TH. 2020. YOU [Roll Call] HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. YES. FERNANDEZ. FERNANDEZ. I SEE HER HERE. FISH. HERE. GIBBS? HERE. VELASQUEZ HERE. OLA. HERE. CARPENTER. HERE. RUBE? HERE. HERE. YES SIR. HERE. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT FROM OUR TRANSLATION SERVICES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, CAN WE GET THE [Chairman’s Statement] CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT? THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I AM JEFFREY FETZER CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIR IS SCOTT CARPENTER. IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER IN ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY, AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH. FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES, THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY. APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR ALL THEIR COMMENTS. APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT. PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. NO WORK OF ANY TYPIST TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. THANK YOU. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR A SPECIAL HEARING TODAY. UM, WE HAVE JUST ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA. UM, WE'LL BEGIN BY READING THAT REQUEST INTO THE RECORD. UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE JUST ONE, WE DON'T HAVE A CASE LIST. WE ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER A VISUALS SO YOU CAN SEE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED. UM, AND WE CAN FOLLOW ALONG AS WE READ THOSE OUT LOUD. UM, THE APPLICANT WILL BE GIVEN 15 MINUTES FOR A BRIEF PRESENTATION. FOLLOWING THAT, WE WILL IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE CASE, BEGINNING WITH THE COMMENTS TO BE READ BY STAFF. UM, SINCE THIS WAS LAST HEARD, WE'VE RECEIVED, UM, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT. UM, AND IN ORDER TO KEEP THE COMMENTS ORGANIZED, WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TODAY, WHICH DIRECT US TO PROVIDE THE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED. UM, FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES REBUTTAL. UM, AS A REMINDER, TODAY'S REQUEST CONSISTS OF TWO ITEMS. THE FIRST IS A WAIVER TO CONSIDER THE ITEM WITH A ONE YEAR WITHIN A ONE YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE U D C U D C REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF H D R C MEMBERSHIP TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE WAIVER IN ORDER FOR IT TO PASS, WHICH MEANS WE NEED SIX VOTES FOR THAT ITEM IN ORDER FOR IT TO PASS TODAY. UM, THE SECOND ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APP APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH MAY BE PASSED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. UM, WE HAVE NINE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, PRESENT TODAY, SO THAT WOULD JUST BE FIVE. UM, SO [20-4333 Address/Description: 335 Trail HDRC Case No.: 2020-310 Historic District Name: River Road RIO District: RIO-1 Applicant: David Morin Request: Consideration and action of an application for a multi-unit residential development: A. Waiver of the one-year waiting period of subsequent application for multi-unit residential development as provided for by Section 35-451(f) of the Unified Development Code, and if approved; B. Consideration of a request of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Construction City Council Dist.: 1] AT THIS TIME, UM, I WILL ASK EDWARD TO, UM, READ THE CASE INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT 15 MINUTES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, H V R C CASE NUMBER 20 22 0 1 3 35 TRAIL FOR ITEM A THE APPLICANT IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A WAIVER PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 35,451 F TO ACCEPT AND REVIEW THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THE REQUEST DESCRIBED BELOW, WHICH IS ITEM [00:05:01] B. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 23 UNITS ON THE VACANT LINE LOCATED AT 3 35 TRAIL. THE PROPERTY FEATURES LIGHTS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY ONLY, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN BOTH THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY AND THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO FEATURE TWO AND THREE STORIES AND HEIGHT. ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM TRAIL STREET AND STREET. REVISED PARKING PROPOSAL IS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST FOR ITEM A. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE, THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY REVISED TO WARRANT APPROVAL OF A WAIVER OF THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMITATION. PREVIOUSLY, THE H D R C DID NOT APPROVE SUCH A WAIVER BASED ON THE DOCUMENT DOCUMENTED REVISIONS AND THE CURRENT REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED FROM THE DATE OF THIS PREVIOUS ACTION. FOR ITEM B, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES IN THE HERITAGE OAK COURTYARD BE ELIMINATED OR DESIGN DESIGNED TO AVOID ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PRESERVED TREE. THE PARKING DESIGN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH A LICENSED ARBORIST AND COORDINATED BETWEEN O H P AND THE CITY ARBORIST. TWO. THAT FRONT SETBACKS ALONG SATCH SHOULD BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED AND THAT ALL PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ONE OR TWO MEET OR EXCEED THE FRONT SETBACK ESTABLISHED BY THE PRIMARY WALL PLAINS OF THE EXISTING HOMES ON ATCH PER FINDING. E THREE THAT ALL WINDOWS FOLLOW STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING N FOUR THAT ALL GAINED WINDOWS BE SEPARATED BY UNIT AT LEAST SIX INCHES IN WIDTH IS NOTED IN THE FINDINGS FIVE THAT THE PROPOSED STANDING SEE METAL RIDGES FEATURE PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE. SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT, A CRIMPED RIDGE SEAM OR A LOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP AND A STANDARD GAL WOUND FINISH. IF A LOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP IS USED, IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO O H D'S O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADDITIONALLY, ALL OTHER MATERIALS ARE TO ADHERE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN FINDING M SIX THAT THE APPLICANT USE A FOUNDATION HEIGHT THAT IS WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON TRAIL AS NOTED IN FINDING L SEVEN, BUT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS NOTED IN FINDING O EIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLY WITH ALL TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, AUTOMOBILE ACCESS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND PARKING STIPULATION EIGHT IS IN REGARDS TO ARCHEOLOGY. IT NOTES THAT THE ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY. THE UPPER LABOR SEIA SHALL BE PRESERVED AND SHALL NOT BE IMPACTED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. STAFF HAS GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT THE SENSITIVITY OF THE SITE AND THE IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE ASAKIA. DETAILED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLANS SHOULD BE PROVI, SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. THAT INCLUDES THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION IN PROXIMITY TO THE HISTORIC ASAKIA AND MEASURES TAKEN TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. THE U D C SECTION 35 6 72 DOES NOT ALLOW DRAINAGE INTO THE ASAKIA. MOREOVER, THE FORMAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHOULD IDENTIFY NO SUBSURFACE WORK, INCLUDING UTILITIES OR GRADING WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE X ANDIA. INFILL PROTECTION OF THE ASAKIA SHOULD INCLUDE ORANGE CONSTRUCTION, FENCING, FENCING, AND SILT FENCING AT A BUFFER DISTANCE OF FIVE FEET FROM THE FEATURE. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA. ITS FENCING SHOULD BE PRESENT ON SITE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. AS PREVIOUSLY. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE ASAKIA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASAKIA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STORAGE EQUIPMENT CLEANING OR ANY OTHER USE DURING DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN IMPACT THE FEATURE AND THE APPLICANTS NOTED THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE STIPULATION. THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE CALL THE APPLICANT, I JUST WANT TO MENTION WE ARE WATCHING A THUNDERSTORM COME IN. UM, SO IF WE LOSE CONNECTION WITH ANY OF YOU, WE MIGHT DECIDE JUST TO PAUSE, JUST DEPENDING ON HOW BAD IT IS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE PRETTY SHORT. UM, SO IS THE APPLICANT THERE? YES, SIR. OKAY. I'LL START YOUR TIME NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. JAMES MCKNIGHT HERE. BRIAN ORTIZ. UM, YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE AGREEING TO BE HERE FOR THIS SPECIAL MEETING. UM, I I'M SURE YOU MIGHT BE FRUSTRATED AND WE UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WE'RE FRUSTRATED TOO. THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND UNIQUE SITUATION. ONE, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OTHER DEVELOPER HAS FACED. AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE JUST WANT A SHOT AT GETTING OUR NEW DESIGN REVIEWED AND VOTED ON. I MEAN, OUR PROJECT DESIGN WAS APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, YET WE SAW [00:10:01] THAT APPROVAL OVERTURNED, BUT IT WAS BASED ON QUALITY OF INFORMATION NOT DESIGN. NOW THE U D C REQUIRES US TO MEET AGAIN, MEET AN EVEN HIGHER BURDEN FOR APPROVAL OF THIS WAIVER. THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP JUST TO BE HEARD FOR OUR DESIGN. WHEN WE FIRST REQUESTED THE WAIVER, WE DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF HAVING NOT ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. SO NOW THAT WE DO, AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, WE FEEL IT'S CRITICAL TO HAVE THE LARGER COMMISSIONER MEMBERSHIP WEIGH IN. SO I REALLY DO THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE. UM, AS FOR WHETHER WE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE WAIVER, THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, IT'S, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS. AS I SAID, WE WERE APPROVED BY H D R C LAST YEAR AND THAT WAS BASED ON OUR DESIGN AND MEETING OF HISTORIC AND RIO GUIDELINES. B O A OVERTURNED THE APPROVAL BUT NOT BECAUSE OF OUR DESIGN NOT MEETING THE GUIDELINES. THEY STATED THEY WERE UNSURE WHETHER H D R C HAD ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO MAKE THEIR DECISION. NOW WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR A WAIVER BASED ON WHETHER WE MADE THE CHANGES INDICATED IN THEIR PLANS IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR CONDITIONS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY, AT LEAST AS IT RELATES TO DESIGN. THEIR RULING WAS BASED ON NOT HAVING ENOUGH INFORMATION. FRANKLY, THEY WERE WRONG. YOU DID HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION THEN, BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE IT NOW. STILL EVERYONE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE DESIGN. WE WERE APPROVED ONCE WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, BUT WE CAN MAKE IT EVEN BETTER. AND WE HAVE, WE INCORPORATED STAFF COMMENTS, H D R C, COMMENTS, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS, AND WE MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DESIGN FOR RESUBMITTAL. SPECIFICALLY, WE REDUCED THE PROJECT'S OVERALL LOT COVERAGE. SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED BY THE B O A PRESERVED HERITAGE OAK ON SITE MADE A COURTYARD FOR IT. WE ELIMINATED A UNIT ON TRAIL STREET. AS A RESULT, WE RECONFIGURED THE TRAIL UNITS AND INCORPORATED FRONT WALKS, SMALL YARDS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ELIMINATED ALL FRONT FACING GARAGES, WHICH HAD ALWAYS BEEN A POINT OF CONTENTION, LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF ALL OF THE UNITS ON TRAIL STREET TO TWO STORIES. PERHAPS MOST NOTABLY THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY CHANGED TO REFLECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC AND HISTORICAL ELEMENTS INCLUDING FRONT PORCHES AND COLUMN DETAILS. FINALLY, EVEN SINCE OUR JUNE HEARING, WE HAVE REDUCED PARKING ON TRAIL STREET TO MEET HISTORIC HISTORICAL AND RIO GUIDELINES. SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE LAST STAFF REPORT. AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE RECEIVED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THAT ON ITS OWN SHOULD SHOW THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DESIGN HAS CHANGED AND THAT'S ALL WITHOUT B O A EVER ASKING FOR THOSE DESIGN CHANGES. AND WHILE THE SPECIFIC TO DESIGN ARE IMPORTANT, SO IS OUR SITE CONTEXT, WHICH I KNOW DAVID WILL COVER IN MORE DETAIL. OUR SITE CONTEXT REALLY IS JUST AS COMPLICATED AS THE PROCESS TO BE APPROVED. YET WE HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DESIGNING A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT FOR A HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HEARD COMMENTS LAST TIME ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF MASSING AND DENSITY FOR THE PROJECT. MASSING AND DENSITY ARE ISSUES THAT ARE BEST ADDRESSED AT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. AND THEY WERE IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR WHERE WE WERE APPROVED FOR A HIGHER DENSITY AND GREATER MASSING. YET WE'VE REDUCED BOTH. THIS IS A TRANSITION AREA BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH, MULTI-FAMILY OF THE NORTH AND THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE, HUGE CHANGES REFLECT THAT. GIVE US A CHANCE TO PROVE IT. LET'S LET THE BUILDING'S DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT HAVE ITS DAY TO BE VOTED ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. DIDN'T OVERTURN OUR APPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN OR BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THE DEVELOPER DID WRONG INCORRECTLY OR THAT WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING ASKED OF US AND WE'VE RESPONDED WITH THE BEST DESIGN FOR THE SITE, BUT WE NEED THE WAIVER APPROVAL FIRST. WE JUST NEED THAT CHANCE. SO I'LL PASS IT TO DAVID FROM HERE. YES. HI. SO, UM, WE'RE JUST GONNA BE STARTING AT SLIDE 37. EDWARD, IF YOU COULD, UH, PLEASE ADJUST THE PRESENTATION. AND FIRST OFF, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG AND DIFFICULT PROCESS. UM, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE, FIRST AND FOREMOST IS JUST A WAIVER FROM THE H D R C TO HAVE OUR PROJECT HEARD. AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT CONFORMS WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT HAS THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATIONS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION THROUGH OUR PUBLIC SUPPORT LETTERS IS THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF IMMEDIATE AREA NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE ACTUAL SKIN IN THE GAME ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT, WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SATISFY THEIR NEEDS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING TRAIL STREET IS TO UNDERSTAND THE SITE CONTEXT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IN THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE IS TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK AND THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IN THE GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS, PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE IS WHEN CONSIDERING SPECIFIC SITE ELEMENTS, THE [00:15:01] SURROUNDING CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE INTEGRITY OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS VARIES BLOCK TO BLOCK. THESE ARE THE NUMBER ONE PRINCIPLES OF THESE TWO GUIDELINE BOOKS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'RE IN THE NORTHERNMOST TIP OF THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'RE IN A TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN A HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE NORTH TO A LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE ANOTHER ANGLE OF THIS TRANSITION ZONE WE'RE IN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS SITE HAS BEEN ZONED FOR APARTMENTS SINCE 1938. THAT'S THE DATE THAT ZONING BEGAN IN SAN ANTONIO. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. RIVER ROAD IS A CHARMING ECLECTIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REALLY DOES NOT HAVE UNIFORM ARCHITECTURE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE AND PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 53. LET ME KNOW WHEN WE'RE ON SLIDE 53. WE'RE THERE. RIVER ROAD IS A VARIETY OF DRIVEWAYS, CARPORTS, AND GARAGES. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 55. TRAIL AND ATCH ARE UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT FROM THE TYPICAL RIVER ROAD STREET. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 56. NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S ATCH. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 60 AND HERE'S TRAIL STREET. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 63. NOW HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF TRAIL STREET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU CAN SEE TRAIL STREET DEAD ENDS IS HOME TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND IS THE BACK FENCE FOR SEVERAL PROPERTIES. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 66. TRAIL STREET FUNCTIONS AS AN ALLEY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 2 81 AND HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN SHOWN, HAS HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY HOME TO SHOTGUN STYLE ALLEY HOUSES. AND THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN SANBORN, UH, FIRE INSURANCE MAPS FROM THE 1950S. PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 73. NOW THERE ARE SEVERAL ALLEYS WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PRIMARY STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE ON SLIDE 73, FUO STREET IN LAVACCA FUNCTIONS AS AN ALLEY, BUT IT'S ALSO IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT EAST HOLLYWOOD. NEXT SLIDE IN, UH, MONTE VISTA. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, ANOTHER PICTURE OF EAST HOLLYWOOD. NEXT SLIDE. AND FINALLY WE HAVE WILKES STREET IN THE KING WILLIAM DISTRICT. SO THERE'S THE CONTEXT FOR THE NEXT PART OF OUR PRESENTATION. WE NOW WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE CHANGES WE HAVE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND REMEMBER, THESE ARE THE OPPONENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT NECESSARILY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE IN THE AREA THAT SUPPORT THE PROJECT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE SKIP TO SLIDE 101. SO AS JAMES HAD DISCUSSED, WE HAVE RESPECTFUL THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WANTED RESPECTFUL BUILDING LOT COVERAGE ON THE SITE. WE LISTENED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED STORMWATER DRAINAGE THAT WOULD RESPECT THE HISTORIC ASEC. WE LISTENED AND WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND TO TRY TO BE A 100% LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED US TO REDUCE DENSITY AND MASSING ON TRAIL STREET. WE LISTENED, WE REDUCED THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 10%. WE REDUCED ALL UNITS TO TWO STORIES ON TRAIL AND WE REMOVED AN ENTIRE UNIT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED US TO SAVE TREES. WE LISTENED. WE'RE SAVING THE 58 INCH HERITAGE OAK AND WE HAVE A WALKWAY THAT OUR RESIDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN TRAVEL THROUGH TO GET TO OUR INTERNAL COURTYARD. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORRIED ABOUT CARS GOING OUT TO THE STREET. WE LISTENED AND INCREASED SETBACKS ON TRAIL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. [00:20:01] THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED US TO DECREASE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. WE REDUCED A UNIT AND MADE ROOM FOR THE HERITAGE OAK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED AND REQUESTED THAT WE HAVE TRADITIONAL FRONT PORCHES. WELL, WE LISTENED, WE ADDED PORCHES AND WE COMPLETELY OVERHAULED THE DESIGN. WE MADE IT MUCH MORE TRADITIONAL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. DURING THIS PROCESS WE ATTENDED NUMEROUS DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GET THIS RIGHT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO COME BACK AND HAVE A SHOT AT BEING HEARD. SO IN THESE D R C MEETINGS, THE RESULT WAS WE REDUCED DENSITY AND WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO SAVE THE HERITAGE OAK TREE. I REMEMBER THE MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER FETZER AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF COME UP WITH THAT SOLUTION AND IT WAS SORT OF A EUREKA MOMENT FOR THE TEAM. WOW, WE CAN SAVE THE HERITAGE TREE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS WHILE ALSO REDUCING DENSITY AND REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEW PLAN MEETS EVERY PREVIOUS REQUEST MADE BY THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS IS A LETTER FROM THE CITY COUNCILMAN DISCUSSING WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NEED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. REMEMBER, THIS IS THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN OUR IMMEDIATE AREA SUPPORT THE PROJECT, AS YOU WILL SEE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. PREVIOUSLY STAFFED WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING ON TRAIL STREET. THEY WANTED UNENCUMBERED ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOORS AND THEY WERE WORRIED THAT OUR PARKING SETUP DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FRONT LAWN SPACE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'VE ADDED FRONT WALKS, FRONT DOORS, FRONT PORCHES, AND AN AVERAGE OF 12 FEET OF LAWN SPACE FOR EVERY UNIT ON TRAIL. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF APPROVES, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS OF TRAIL STREET STAFF APPROVES THIS CHANGE AND REALLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU CAN SEE THAT PARKING SITUATIONS OF THIS NATURE ARE SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. ANOTHER EXAMPLE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND AGAIN, WHAT HAVE WE ADDED HERE TO ACCOMMODATE? WE'VE ADDED FRONT DOORS, FRONT PORCHES, FRONT LAWNS SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING FENCING, AND WE'RE SAVING THE HERITAGE OAK AND ADDING A HERITAGE OAK WALKWAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU CAN SEE OUR UPDATED SITE PLAN HERE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO DEALING WITH THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS OF TRAIL STREET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'VE LISTENED. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY. IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT. IT'S ONE MINUTE WE'VE MAKE INCREMENTAL CHANGES. WE KINDLY ASK THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND YOU PLEASE APPROVE, AT LEAST APPROVE THE WAIVER SO WE CAN BE HEARD. AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY, UM, THANK YOU. UH, LAUREN, [Public Comments] CAN YOU PULL UP THE COMMENTS AGAIN? SO AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR REFERENCE, UM, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT I'LL READ. NOW. THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN LETTERS IN YOUR REVIEW FOLDER THAT YOU RECEIVED EARLIER TODAY. UM, THOSE WILL NOT BE READ THERE LONGER, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE VOICEMAIL, SO THEY'RE THERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE. I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS. UM, SO I WILL START NOW. THE FIRST IS FROM TOM GOOGLES EIGHT 40 EAST MULBERRY. THANK YOU FOR SENDING US RENDERINGS AND THE SITE PLAN ON YOUR PROPOSED TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. WE OWN THE EIGHT 40 APARTMENTS NORTH OF YOUR SITE. EXCUSE ME IF I THAT YOUR PLAN IS APPRO AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH. PLEASE KNOW THAT WE SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS A REALITY. WE KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE A SUCCESS WITH YOUR TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT. TOM GOOGLE'S ON BEHALF OF BRACKEN RIDGE GARDENS, L T D. UH, THE NEXT IS CATHERINE HENDRICKSON, UM, 25 6 0 3 WATER STREET. I'M WRITING IN SUPPORT OF AND I'M [00:25:01] WRITING IN AN EFFORT TO EXTEND MY FULL SUPPORT FOR THE TRAIL STREET TOWN HOME PROJECT. MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO SAN ANTONIO FROM PENNSYLVANIA WITH OUR ONE-YEAR-OLD SON IN SEPTEMBER. WE KNEW THAT SAN ANTONIO HAD A GREAT REPUTATION FOR BEING A FAMILY ORIENTED CITY WITH BEAUTIFUL PARKS ALONG WITH PROVIDING A VARIETY OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. AS THIS APPEALED TO US, WE BEGAN LOOKING FOR HOMES IN AREAS THAT OFFER THESE TYPES OF AMENITIES BASED ON AVAILABILITY AND TIME CONSTRAINTS. WE ENDED UP IN A NICE AREA, BUT WE'RE DISAPPOINTED UPON DISCOVERING, UM, THAT IT IS A GOOD 30 MINUTE DRIVE FOR US TO GET TO A LOT OF THE FAMILY FRIENDLY DESTINATIONS SUCH AS SAN ANTONIO ZOO, BRACKENRIDGE PARK, AND THE MUSEUM PLACES WE LIKE TO TAKE OUR SON ON A REGULAR BASIS. WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THE PROPOSAL FOR AFFORDABLE LUXURY TOWN HOMES NEAR BRECKENRIDGE PARK IMMEDIATELY CAUGHT ME ATTENTION. TO BE HONEST, I WAS A BIT DISAPPOINTED WITH THE TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN WE WERE SEARCHING FOR A NEW HOME. IN ADDITION TO THE CONVENIENCE, CONVENIENT ASPECT OF LIVING IN A TOWN HOME, I BELIEVE THAT THE REAL LUXURY WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE IS EASY ACCESS FOR FAMILIES TO THE PARKS AND FAMILY ATTRACTIONS IN THE AREA, WHICH IS MY IDEA OF QUALITY LIVING THE COUNTY. ASK THAT YOU TAKE MY SUPPORT FOR OF THE 3 35 TRAIL PROJECT INTO CONSIDERATION. THINK IT IS GOOD FOR SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT IS BLA DAVIS, 33 1 4 ST. MARY'S STREET. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 33 1 4 ST. MARY STREET, WHICH IS LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM THE TRAIL STREET TOWN HALLS PROJECT. I BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT RESPECTS THE HISTORY OF THE AREA ENHANCES THE SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE A WONDERFUL ASSET FOR SAN ANTONIO. I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF NEW FAMILIES LIVING NEAR RIDGE PARK AND JOIN THE RICH CULTURAL AMENITIES NEIGHBORHOOD OFFERS THE DEVELOPERS PROPOSED PROJECT IS BEAUTIFUL. I CAN THINK OF NO BETTER PROJECT FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. DESIGN TAKES INSPIRATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEW PLAN EVEN SAVES A LARGE OAK TREE DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATELY RESPECTS THE ASAKIA AND IMPACT ENHANCES IT WITH A FIVE FOOT WALKING TRAIL. THE DEVELOPER HAS LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND USING LOW IMPACTED TECH DESIGN TECHNIQUES SUCH AS PERMEABLE PAVERS AND RAINWATER CISTERNS TO HEAVILY IMPROVE THE RAINWATER DRAINAGE FROM THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. I'VE HAD MY EYE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR YEARS. I HAVE ATTENDED H C R C HEARINGS. I'M SHOCKED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO BE SCRUTINIZED, DELIVERS EVERYTHING WE COULD POSSIBLY WANT ON THIS PARCEL AND IN THIS AREA, THE REST OF THE CONTENT CANNOT FIT ON. NOT FIT ON FORM. UM, PLEASE SEE THE FULL LETTER IN THE H C R C PACKET. NEXT IS FROM ROBERT PRICE, UM, 3 35 TRAIL STREET. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 3 35 TRAIL STREET. BEGAN PURCHASING THE FIRST LOT IN 1979 AND THE LAST LOT IN 1993. PROPERTY HOLDS A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART AS I'VE ALWAYS LOVED THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS FIRST INTRODUCED TO THE PROPERTY BY JOE STUBBLEFIELD, WHO TALKED ME INTO PURCHASING THE FIRST LOT SO HE COULD DESIGN MY NEW HOME. THE LAST 10 YEARS, JIM COLUM DAVID LAKE AND I HAVE TRIED TO COME UP WITH A PLAN NOW THAT I'M 72 YEARS OLD AND WAY TOO OLD TO BECOME A DEVELOPER. UM, THE PROPERTY HAS BE BEEN VACANT, DORMANT FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND IT'S TIME TO SELL THIS PROPERTY TO RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPER. I BELIEVE THAT M AND O PARTNERS IS THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEWEST DESIGN IS THE PERFECT FIT FOR THIS PARCEL PLAN. PROJECT HAS AN ARCHITECTURAL VARIETY, UM, WITH ITS FRONT PORCHES AND COURTYARDS THAT ENCOURAGES, THAT ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN INTERACTION OVER AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC. AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC I PLAN IS WELL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE DEVELOPER HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO INCORPORATE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES. I'M VERY PLEASED THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS ABLE TO SAVE THE GIGANTIC OAK TREE AND THE NEWEST PLAN. I HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL GRANT PERMISSION TO THE M AND O PARTNERS TO PROCEED WITH THE NEXT STAGE TOWARD A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL OF MY LETTER DID NOT FIT INTO THIS BOX. PLEASE SEE THE FULL LETTER IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE. UM, THE NEXT IS KEVIN DE LA GARZA. 7 1 7 LEASE RESEARCH. PLEASE SEE THE APPLICATION PACKAGE FOR THE FULL LETTER OF SUPPORT. HERE IS AN EX EXCERPT I'M WRITING IN SUPPORT OF THE 3 35 TRAIL STREET TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRECKENRIDGE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M A PROPERTY OWNER DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TOWN HOME PROJECT. I BELIEVE THAT THE TOWNHOUSES WILL BREATHE MUCH NEEDED LIFE INTO THE AREA. I PURCHASED A HOME IN THE AREA DUE TO ITS AMAZING PROXIMITY TO BRECKENRIDGE PARK ZOO AT PEARL BREWERY TRINITY UNIVERSITY IN THE ST. MARY'S STRIP. IN MY BUSINESS, IT'S EXCITING TO SEE A PROJECT THAT WILL GIVE OTHER PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN A WALKABLE, VIBRANT AREA. THESE ARE TRYING TIMES. THE CORONAVIRUS HAS AFFECTED THE LIVELIHOODS OF MANY PEOPLE AND MANY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. AS A BUSINESS OWNER THAT HAS BEEN PRESENT ON THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR FOR OVER 25 YEARS, I'M EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH FEDERAL BRING. UM, THE NEXT IS JESSICA CERVANTES, 34 0 8 NORTH ST. MARY STREET. UH, MY NAME IS JESSICA CERVANTES. WE MOVED OUR SMALL BUSINESS TO 34 0 8 NORTH ST. MARY STREET SEVERAL YEARS AGO BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATED THAT THE IMMEDIATE AREA WAS GOING TO BE IMPROVED. WE WERE SO CLOSE TO THE ZOO, THE PARK AND GOLF COURSE IN SO MANY OTHER GREAT AMENITIES. THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING US IS BEGGING TO SEE MORE PEOPLE AND WE HEARD ABOUT THE TRAIL STREET TOWNHOUSE PROJECT. WE WERE VERY EXCITED. HOWEVER, WE ARE SAD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO GET APPROVAL. MORE FAMILIES ON RESEARCH AND TRAIL WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LAND BETWEEN ATCH AND TRAIL HAS BEEN IN BAD SHAPE. TRAIL STREET IS A NICE STORE. NEW DEVELOPMENT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND HEAVILY IMPROVE THE AREA IN TO RESTAURANTS WOULD HAVE MORE CUSTOMERS AND MORE FAMILIES COULD ENJOY. THE BEAUTY OF BRACKEN RIDGE PARK. WE LOVE HAVING A BUSINESS HERE AND WE HOPE MORE PEOPLE CAN LIVE HERE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING [00:30:01] OUR NEW NEIGHBORS AND SEEING HOW OUR BUSINESS CAN SERVE THEIR NEEDS. THE NEXT IS ROSEMARY MARTINEZ. UM, 3 1 4 TRAIL STREET. UM, THIS IS AN EXPERT FROM A FULL LETTER, UM, DUE TO THE UM, UH, WOULD LIMITATION. UH, MY NAME IS ROSEMARY MARTINEZ AND I OWN THE PROPERTY AT THREE 14 TRAIL STREET. THIS WAS MY GRANDFA GRANDMOTHER'S HOME. AND WHILE IT IS VACANT AT THE TIME, I GREW UP IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING ATCH AND WOODLAWN STREETS AND APPRECIATE THE AND BEAUTY OF THE RIVER ROAD AREA SURROUNDING . CURRENTLY, TRAIL STREET HAS JUST A FEW HOMES AND IS FAR FROM THE QUAINT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I REMEMBER AND SUPPORT THE OAKS AT RIVER ROAD TOWN TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AS A MEANS TO BRING VITALITY TO THIS NEGLECTED CORNER OF THEIR COMMUNITY. AND WHETHER WE AGREE OR NOT, JUST KNOWING THAT THIS ONE ACRE GREEN SPACE BETWEEN TRAIL AND RESEARCH WOULD SOMEDAY DEVELOP, I CAN APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPERS' EFFORT TO CAPTURE THE BEAUTY AND CHARACTER OF THIS UNIQUE AREA. INITIALLY, I WAS NOT AS IMPORTANT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE DEVELOPER'S PREVIOUS DESIGN, BUT AS OF ITS LATEST CHANGES, IT SEEMS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN THE VOICE OF RIVER ROAD RESIDENTS INTO CONSIDERATION BY MEETING ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, REQUESTS TO INCLUDE, UH, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION. PRESERVING THE OLD OAK TREE AS WELL AS REPLANTING MORE TREES AND ENSURING TRAIL STREET WILL ONLY HAVE TWO STORY UNITS. I HOPE THAT STORE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION WILL TAKE THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. I HOPE THAT THEY APPROVE THE TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AND HELP MAKE TRAIL STREET HOME AGAIN. UM, THE NEXT IS FRANK NAVARRO, UM, 50 44 CAMP BULLIS. AND WE DO HAVE A VISUAL AID THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE MAJORITY OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOW IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. THIS INCLUDE MORE THAN 50% OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS O H P STAFF. ALL OF THESE GROUPS DID NOT PREVIOUSLY SUPPORT THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE WAIVER REQUEST. SO I BELIEVE THIS IS TO BE A CLEAR INDICATOR THAT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE DESIGN. THERE IS NO REASON THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE SPOKE TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN CHANGES AND MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, PLEASE PULL UP THE MAP THAT I SENT TO O H P STAFF THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. UM, THE GREEN AREA REPRESENTS ALL PROPERTIES, WHICH WROTE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT. OKAY, THE NEXT IS AUSTIN WALKER. UM, 5 37 CRAIG, I'M SUPPORT OF THE PROP PROPERTY AT THE END OF TRAIL STREET BEING DEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING THAT WORKS IN THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS WORKING TOWARD A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR ALL. NEXT IS BENJAMIN SANDERS, 67 27 COUGAR VILLAGE. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE DEVELOPER VALUES THE COMMUNITY IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE THOUGHTFUL GROWTH OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENTS LIKE DESIR SAN ANTONIO AND SPECIFICALLY THIS AREA NEED MORE OF. UM, THIS IS SURE TO BE A HIGHLIGHT OF THE AREA WHEN COMPLETE, WHEN COMPLETED, ADDRESSING THE CITY'S CLEAR HOUSING SHORTAGE. UM, THE NEXT IS CHARLES HIGHWAY. MY NAME IS CHARLES MOR AND I OWN A SMALL BUSINESS IN THE CORNER OF NORTH ST. MARY'S AND TRAIL. I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF TASTEFUL DEVELOPMENT IN OR NEAR THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS ACTUALLY ON THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD FOR A TOTAL OF THREE YEARS. ALTHOUGH THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE EXTREMELY NICE, LOVELY PEOPLE THAT WERE TYPICALLY ANTI, THEY WERE TYPICALLY ANTI-DEVELOPMENT TO THE AREA. EVERY TIME A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN OR NEAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROSE, THEY WERE READY FOR A BATTLE. IT SUED DEVELOPERS AT LEAST TWICE WHILE I WAS ON THE BOARD. ONE OF THOSE WAS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX NEAR THE CORNER OF NORTH ST. MARY'S AND MULBERRY. THE OWNER DEVELOPER WAS EXTREMELY KIND AND THAT THE ASSOCIATION UTILIZES THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO RAISE MONEY. I DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE THAT PROPERTY, BUT I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THE DEVELOPER BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO APPEASE THE ASSOCIATION. AGAIN, THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD AND FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE VERY NICE FOLKS EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE RIVER ROAD, JUDGING BY THE RENDERINGS AND MAP LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD GREATLY ENHANCED THE NEIGHBORHOOD. VERY LOW KEY AND TASTEFUL. IN MY OPINION, I'M ALL FOR IT. AND MORE. NEXT IS DR. SANDY WOLF, 9 38 EAST JOSEPHINE, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE H C C SO DILIGENTLY LISTENING TO THE SUGGESTIONS AND ADJUSTING YOUR DESIGN AND PLANS TO FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A FORMER H C C COMMISSIONER, I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS AND PATIENCE TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WORK WITH ALL PARTIES INVOLVED TO CREATE A BEAUTIFUL AND APPROPRIATE SOLUTION. YOUR ABILITY TO THOUGHTFULLY DEVELOP THIS AREA AND CREATE NEW REVENUE FOR THE TAXING DISTRICTS IS A WELCOME BOOST TO THE ECONOMY, IS A WONDERFUL AREA AND A GREAT PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. NEXT IS FRANK GARRISON. 300 CONVENT. UM, IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE TOWN HOMES AND SMALLER MULTIFAMILY SITES IN THE AREA, NOT A BIG BOX APARTMENT COMPLEX. UM, JANICE SULLIVAN THREE 10 TRAIL HAD VERY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROJECT. MR. MORGAN TOOK THE TIME TO CORRESPOND WITH ME AND EXPLAIN HIS SOLUTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEM YOUNG 7 0 4 BOWLING GREEN. UM, THESE DEVELOPERS HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE AREA THAT REALLY NEEDS IT. SAN ANTONIO CAN BENEFIT GREATLY FROM APPROPRIATE DENSITY LIKE THIS, WHICH SERVES A VARIETY OF INCOME LEVELS. UM, THE NEXT IS CHRISTIE STEIN, UM, 6 0 6 NORTH PRESA. I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS PROJECT COME TO LIFE AS THERE IS A LACK OF BLUE QUALITY HOUSING IN THIS AREA. THE CHANCE TO BRING TOGETHER A SMALL INFO PROJECT LIKE THIS AND ATTRACT MORE FAMILIES CLOSER TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA IS VISIONARY. I FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. I COMMEND THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY FOR ADDRESSING THESE NEEDS OF BRINGING HOUSING CLOSER TO THE INNER CITY. [00:35:02] UM, THE NEXT IS RONALD WARREN AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER VISUAL AID. I AM WRITING THIS LETTER IN FAVOR OF DAVID MORIN AND FRANK NAVARRO'S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE OAKS AT RIVER ROAD. MY FAMILY PRIDES ITSELF IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY. I'M A RETIRED DENTIST AND SERVE MANY PATIENTS. OVER MY 41 YEARS OF PRIVATE PRACTICE, I CURRENTLY VOLUNTEER AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE COLONIAL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT, UH, DENTAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION. MY WIFE BETH WAS A TEACHER AND JOURNALIST WITH SAN ANTONIO MAGAZINE, A SPEECH WRITER FOR GENERAL MC, WRITER FOR GENERAL MCDERMOTT AT U S A A. SHE SERVES ON THE BOARD OF K L R N TELEVISION. FATHER PHIL, UM, BEHIND US WAS THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCILMAN AND WAS SELECTED BY LULAC AT SAN ANTONIO'S 20TH, UH, FA RAY FAO AT THE 1966 FIESTA CELEBRATION. OUR SON, DAVID WARREN, WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SAN ANTONIO AND LOVES THE CITY. ANNA'S PARTNER WOULD LIKE TO BASE THEIR BUSINESS IN THIS AREA AND PARTICIPATE IN RESPONSIBLE GROWTH FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY TO DATE BECAUSE OF AN EARLY CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE CITY. THEY HAVE LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO SATISFY THEIR NEEDS. IMMEDIATE AREA NEIGHBORS SUPPORT. THE PROJECT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAS BEEN HELD DOWN FOR A LONG TIME. WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE A C R C TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. UH, THE NEXT IS TRACY ERWICK 18 CHAMPION TRAIL. UM, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPERTY AS IT IS LOCATED CENTRALLY TO OUR BUSINESS, THE AIRPORT IN DOWNTOWN. UM, THE SITE LOOKS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND ATTRACTIVE. UM, THE NEXT IS BETH BENDER, WELLS 1 0 4 EL RANCHO WAY. UM, I'VE BEEN AN OWNER OF A FIRM, UH, PROVING, PROVIDING PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR SAN ANTONIO FOR 30 YEARS. DESPITE TREE WARRANTIES AND OTHER WAYS AROUND THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESERVATION CANNOT BE MET WITH THIS OVER DENT SITE PLAN. THE VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED. EVERY TREE ON THIS SITE WILL BE REMOVED EXCEPT FOR TWO TREES THAT WILL BE SEVERELY IMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION. THE ROAD PROTECTION ZONES ARE EXTREMELY INSUFFICIENT. THIS PLAN IS REVISED SLIGHTLY. THE PREVIOUS PLAN APPEARED TO SEE THE VALUE OF THE HERITAGE LIVE OAK AS A HUNDRED YEAR OLD CID, BUT NOW THE PLAN IS TO PARK CARS OVER THE ROOT ZONE AND PLACE FOOTINGS FOR TRELLIS TO SHADE CARS. NO WARRANTY ENSURES IT'S CONTINUING, IT CONTINUING TO LIVE AND THRIVE ON THIS SITE. REGARDLESS OF THE OPINION OF A NEW ARBORIST, LARGE LIVE OAK TREE WILL HAVE MOST OF ITS ROOTS REMOVED AND THE REMAINDER COMPROMISE EXCAVATION FOR BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WILL LIKELY EXTEND, UM, AT LEAST FOUR FEET BELOW EXISTING BAY EXCAVATING THROUGH THE ROOT SYSTEM ENTIRELY. THE LARGE CYPRESS ON ATCH HAS CONSTRUCTION WITH ABOUT EIGHT FEET OF ITS TRUNK. THE DETENTION POND IN THE FRONT YARD ON ATCH STREET WILL REMOVE A LARGE TREE AND IMPACT, UM, ADJACENT PARK LAND. IT IT'S NOT A COMMUNITY GARDEN, IT IS A CONCRETE DETENTION POT. ALSO, IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS PUBLIC PROCESS IS SO CONSTRAINED. I FIND THIS PROCESS WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN ONLY SUBMIT THIS FORM HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE. I ALSO SEND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN MY EMAIL AND SO THERE IS A ADDITIONAL LETTER IN YOUR PACKETS. UM, THE NEXT IS THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, 1 0 7 KING WILLIAM. UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OBJECTS THE WAIVER OF THE REVISED PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AT 3 35 TRAIL. THE APPLICATION ITSELF DESCRIBES MINOR ALTERATIONS AND THE OFFICE OF THE STORE PRESERVATION. THE FINDING STATES THAT THE CURRENT REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED. UM, THE RELOCATION OF TWO PARKING SPOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEED TO WAIT ONE YEAR TO RESUBMIT UNLESS THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PLAN. THE APPLICATION ITSELF STATES CLEARLY THAT IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND NOT SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED AT THIS TIME. UM, MARY A C***S AT 7 42 EAST WOODLAWN, UM, ALONG MY, AMONG MY CONCERNS FOR THE PROJECT THAT THE SCALE AND MASSING OF THE BUILDINGS, WHICH HAVE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE LAST PRESENTATION. THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS ON RESEARCH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE HOMES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING THOSE NEARBY, WHICH ARE ONE STORY HOMES. THE U D C 35 6 7 4 0 1 A STATES THAT NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD REINFORCE ESTABLISHED BUILDING TRADITIONS, RESPECT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ADDITIONALLY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS STATE THAT THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS BY MORE THAN ONE STORY 'CAUSE OF THE ISSUES WITH MASSING AND SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS, THE C O A SHOULD BE DENIED. RICHARD AGREED 6 1 5 RIVER ROAD. UM, I ASKED THE H C R C TO REJECT THE APPEAL TO RECONSIDER THE PLANS FOR 3 35 CHARLES STREET AND A 30 YEAR RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEEPLY INTERESTED IN ITS FUTURE. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS, THE CURRENT REVISIONS ARE A HA HAPHAZARD ATTEMPT TO QUICKLY SATISFY SPECIFIC COMMENTS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF BASIC PROBLEMS OF MASSING SCALE AND DENSITY. FOOTPRINT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY LESS THAN 5%. TWO UNITS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY ONLY ONE STORY. IN ADDITION, AS YOU KNOW, THE THREE STORY BUILDING, BUILDING THREE SETS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND IS NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE H C R C GUIDELINES. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE GONE ON RECORD IN THE SAN ANTONIO BUSINESS JOURNAL ON JULY 13TH, 2020 THAT THEY INTEND TO RETURN [00:40:01] TO THIS BODY EVERY MONTH UNTIL THE DESIRES WERE SATISFIED. THIS IS PRECISELY THE APPROACH. THE WAITING PERIOD IS INTENDED TO PROTECT YOU AND US FROM, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON TO REJECT THE REQUEST. THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT. IN A TIME OF COVID, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE PLAN. WE HAVE APPEARED 13 TIMES TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS. OUR ATTITUDE HAS NOT CHANGED. WE REMAIN ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSAL AS THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL AND GOD WILLING, WE WILL STAND IN FRONT OF YOU TO MAKE OUR CASE IN PERSON IN A YEAR. UM, MARK CANNON 700 NORTH ST. MARY'S. UM, AND IT'S BOTH FRUSTRATING AND AGGRAVATING THAT THE H C R C NEEDS TO CONSIDER ONCE MORE OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 3 35 TRAIL. WHAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY WAS SUBMITTED TO O H P THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE JUNE 19TH BUSINESS OR JUNE 19TH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION, UM, AT THAT TIME FULLY CONSIDERED WHETHER TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM THE ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DISAPPROVED OF THE PROJECT. WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY MAKES NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS CONSIDERED IN JUNE, THAT IT IS BACK TODAY IN JULY, HERE TODAY, IN JULY. IT SHOWS A TOTAL DISRESPECT BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THE ACTION OF BOTH THE H T R C AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE DEVELOPER'S COMMENTS REPORTED IN THE BUSINESS JOURNAL THAT HE INTENDS TO SEEK A WAIVER AT EVERY SUCCEEDING HT R C MEETING UNTIL HE GETS SATISFACTION. THE WAIVER SHOULD BE DENIED TODAY AND IF NECESSARY, EVERY TIME THE DEVELOPER INSISTS ON RETURN. UM, THE NEXT IS MIFI MOORE 6 0 3 RIVER ROAD. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN CORRUPTED AND DISRESPECTFUL, DISRESPECTFUL OF OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHO HAS TIRELESS, WHO HAS TRIED TO WORK WITH THE STUBBORN UNRESPONSIVE DEVELOPER. MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE SAFETY CONCERN. THERE IS NO SAFE ACCESS IN OR OUT OF TRAIL STREET IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. THE STREET IS VERY NARROW AND IF A DELIVERY TRUCK OR A FIRE ENGINE OR AMBULANCE OR LARGE VEHICLE IS ON TRAIL, NOTHING ELSE CAN PASS. SHE WILL DIE AND THE ANGRY NEIGHBORS WILL JOIN US. JOIN IN A LAWSUIT, UM, AGAINST THE CITY FOR FAILING TO REQUIRE THE VALID, PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY ROUTE OVER TO ATCH. I KNOW MY FAMILY WILL VIGOROUSLY. H C R C IS BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES BY NOT ALLOWING THE EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES TO COMMENT AND BE INFORMED. UM, THE NEXT IS BLINKY TO SULLIVAN, 8 31 EAST MAGNOLIA. I ASK THE H C R C TO DENY THE WAIVER TO RECONSIDER THE PLANS FOR 3 35 TRAIL STREET. THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF CHANGE TO THIS PROJECT SINCE THEIR LAST PROPOSAL AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN FLAWED. I OWNED A HISTORIC RIVER ROAD SCHOOLHOUSE AT ONE 20 ANASTACIA, WHICH IS LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM 3 35 TRAIL STREET. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR NEARLY 60 YEARS AND WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE HISTORY AND INTEGRITY OF RIVER ROAD. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SCALE DESIGN AND DENSITY CONTINUES TO BE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE OVER THE TOWER OVER SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORIC PLACES IN SAN ANTONIO, SUCH AS THE SOBRANO HOUSE AND THE SPANISH DESIA. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPO PROPOSAL IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ADAPTED THEIR PLANS IN A SUBSTANTIVE WAY. WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DENY THE WAIVER. THANKS FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBOR. THE NEXT IS CHRISTOPHER CASEY COLUM, 8 26 EAST MAGNOLIA. HELLO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. PLEASE DENY THE WAIVER FOR 3 35 TRUST STREET PROJECT. THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE BEEN MISLEADING. THE H C R C, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. THERE MANY HISTORICAL HOMES AND NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACTS THAT THIS PROJECT WILL COMPROMISE. I CURRENTLY LIVE AT 8 26 EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 60 YEARS. THANK YOU FOR HELPING A HISTORICAL TREASURE IN THE HEART OF SAN ANTONIO. STATES DENIED 33 35 CHARLES STREET WAIVER. THE NEXT IS, UH, CHRISTOPHER CHRIS CRYSTAL, UM, 6 77 EAST WOODLAWN. I ASK THE A C R C DENIED A WAIVER TO RECONSIDER THE PLANS FOR 3 35 TRAIL STREET. THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF CHANGE TO THIS PROJECT SINCE THE LAST PROPOSAL AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN FLAWED. I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER SEARCHING FOR NEARLY 10 YEARS FOR THE PERFECT HOUSE AND WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF RIVER ROAD AND ITS PROTECTION FROM UNNECESSARY TRAFFIC AND FLOODING. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SCALE DESIGN AND DENSITY CONTINUES TO BE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE AND WOULD TOWER OVER SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORIC PLACES IN SAN ANTONIO, SUCH AS THE SOBRANO HOUSE. THIS NEARIA THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL IS VERY DECEPTIVE. DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ADAPTED TO THE PLANTS IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY. IT THAT WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DENY THE WAIVER. THANKS FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. SARAH CHRISTAL 6 7 7 EAST WOODLAWN. I ASKED THAT THE A C R C DENIED THE WAIVER TO RECONSIDER THE PLANS FOR 3 35 CHARLES STREET. UM, THERE HAS BEEN NO SUB NEW SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE OR CHANGE TO THIS PROJECT SINCE THEIR LAST PROPOSAL AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR RE REVIEWING THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN FLAWED. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SCALE DESIGN AND DENSITY CONTINUES TO BE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. AND HOWEVER, SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORIC PLACES IN SAN ANTONIO, SUCH AS THE SOBRANO HOME AND THE SPANISH QUI, THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL WAS EXTREMELY MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ADAPTED THEIR PLANS IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE [00:45:01] WAY. WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DENY THE WAIVER. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. DAVID SCHMIDT ONE 50 OSTROM DRIVE. WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE AGAIN? THIS PROJECT HAS NOT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED. THE PROPOSED SCALE AND MASSING ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS LAST MONTH'S VERSION. THE WAIVER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN THE EVENTS YOU DECIDE TO GRANT THE WAIVER. PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING. THREE STORY BUILDINGS NEED TO BE SCALED DOWN TO TOWARD WHERE THEY MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE RIO. MORE LY A SCALED STRUCTURES SHOULD INCLUDE ALL THE UNITS IN THE HISTORIC AREA AND THE UNITS WHICH FRONT ONE STORY HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET, THE UNITS, WHICH ABOUT ONE STORY HOMES. THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS STATE THAT THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT AT THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS. BY MINIMUM ONE STORY PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE OVERSIGHTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT. THE THREE STORY BUILT STRUCTURES ON THIS PROJECT ABUT ONE STORY RESIDENCES ON THREE SIDES. THIS PROJECT DOES NOT RESPECT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ROOF DESIGN IS ALIEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. U D C STATES. CONTINUITY OF SCALE AND ORIENTATION SHALL BE IN DESIGNS. THE C O A SHOULD BE DENIED FOR NONCONFORMITY TO THE U D C, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND RIO, THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED. THIS MONTH IS STILL NOT APP, STILL NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION. UM, THE NEXT IS MARK VALEZ, UM, 2125 WALL STREET. MY NAME IS MARK VALEZ AND I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THE TRUST STREET TOWN HOME, TOWN HOME PROJECT AND SHOW MY SUPPORT AND TO SHOW MY SUPPORT. I GREW UP AND LIVED IN SAN ANTONIO MOST OF MY LIFE. I'VE BEEN RELOCATED TO HOUSTON FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AND MOST PEOPLE I DO PLAN ON RETURNING BACK TO SAN ANTONIO AS IT IS AND ALWAYS, UM, BE MY HOME. THE LOCATION OF THE TRAIL STREET TOWN HOMES, WHICH IS SOMETHING TO BE DESIRED FOR, IS SOMETHING TO BE DESIRED FOR A HOME. WITH THE PROXIMITY TO BRACKENRIDGE PARK TWO ONE THE PEARL IN DOWNTOWN. THIS AREA IS A PLACE MOST PEOPLE DREAM OF, UM, MOVING TO, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE RESURGENCE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN SAN ANTONIO. MANY OF US GREW UP, UM, GOING TO BRACKENRIDGE PARK AS CHILDREN KATY PARK, WHICH HAS BEEN MOVED IN THE ZOO. SO THIS AREA DOES HOLD MEANING TO MANY AS A SPECIAL AREA FOR GENERATION WHO SAW THIS AREA AS JOIN. I MEAN, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROJECT IS UNDERPINNING APPROVAL. I WOULD KINDLY ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER AS SAN ANTONIO WILL BE A PLACE FOR A NEW GENERATION TO MOVE TO. THANK YOU. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM WILLIAM SIBLEY, UM, 5 35 EAST CREEK PLACE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. THE 3 35 TRUST STREET PROJECT WAS SET OFF AND DETAINED FOR ONE YEAR BY THE HISTORIC DESIGN RUBY COMMISSION ONLY LAST MONTH. IT WAS EMPATHETIC EMPHATICALLY, UM, FELT AT THE TIME THAT THE PROJECT HAD NOT EVIDENCED SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AFTER BEING DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS INCLUDED ISSUES WITH THE PROJECT'S SCALE AND MASS AND WITH PARKING DRAINAGE CREATED BY THE REMOVAL OF GARAGES FROM TRAIL STREET, THE DEVELOPERS WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO RETURN WITH A NEW PROJECT IN FEBRUARY OF 2021. WHY ARE WE NOW BACK HERE JUST ONE MONTH LATER ARGUING THE SAME PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED ISSUES YET AGAIN AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS OF CONSTANT BACK AND FORTH, UM, WITH THESE DEVELOPERS, WE'VE LEARNED THEY ONLY GRUDGINGLY GAVE A MICRO INCH EACH TIME ON SERIOUS ISSUES THAT WE THE RESIDENTS RIVER ROAD HAVE CONSISTENTLY AND ASSUREDLY IDENTIFIED AS WRONGHEADED ACCEPTABLE FOR A SAN ANTONIO RESTOR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS EXHAUSTING AND NEEDLESS FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. STICK TO YOUR FEBRUARY, 2021 MANDATE. UM, AND THE LAST COMES FROM, UH, MARGARET DAY 8 22 EAST MAGNOLIA. UM, FLOODING HAS LONG BEEN OUR CONCERN. EACH REVISION TO THE FLOOD MAP SHOWS THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN FURTHER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS PROJECT DRASTICALLY INCREASES THE IMPERMEABILITY AND WATER IS NOW VACANT THAT WATER WILL ALL GO SOMEWHERE. THE PROPOSAL IS THAT 10% OF THE SITE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO TRAIL STREET, WHICH SLOPES DIRECTLY INTO THE UPPER LA BO SE. A LOT OF WATER WILL FUNNEL INTO THE ASSIA AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE UPPER LEOR PSYCHE IS PROMINENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW, UM, STILL EXISTING SEGMENTS OF THE HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESERVATION SHOULD MATTER TO THE H D R C. THE DRAINAGE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CRITICIZED MANY TIMES IN THE C O A DENIED ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2019 OVER DRAINAGE ISSUES. ITS CONCERN HAS NOT GONE AWAY. E D C 35 6 72 B SEVEN STATES THAT A SIA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY TYPE OF DRAINAGE. SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY HAS STATED THAT THE PROJECT MUST DEAL WITH 100% OF ITS RAINWATER SITE. THAT ANY EXISTING DRAINAGE OF OFF THE SITE DUE TO NATURAL TO TOPOGRAPHY MUST BE REMEDIED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS NOT, UM, ACHIEVED HERE. HUNDREDS FINDINGS. UM, I FOR TODAY'S H C R C HEARING, THE O H P HAS UNDERSCORED THAT THE ASAKIA IS NOT TO BE USED FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE, BUT IT IS, WHILE THE ASAKIA ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THE PROJECT SIDE, BUT ON ADJACENT CITY PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT LESSEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE H C R C MUST BE PROTECTED. BUT THE CURRENT DESIGN ALLOWS FOR SUBSTANTIAL RUNOFF TO ENTER THE SAFETY OF THE TRAIL STREET ADDING TO ITS EROSION AND INCREASING THE CHANCES OF FLOODING . FOR THIS REASON, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE SHOULD BE DENIED. UM, AND NOW LAUREN IS GOING TO PLAY FOR US THE VOICEMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED [00:50:01] STARTING WITH DANIEL HARVEY. HELLO, MY NAME IS DANIEL HARVEY AND I OWN A SMALL HOME AT SIX 11 SUMNER DRIVE IN TAR HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD OF SAN ANTONIO. I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER TWO ZERO DASH 4 3 3 3 TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OAK SAID RIVER ROAD DEVELOPMENT AT 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET IN SAN ANTONIO. IN ITS CURRENT FORM, I'M AN ACTIVE DUTY ARMY OFFICER AND CURRENTLY SERVING, SERVING AS THE PROFESSOR OF MILITARY SCIENCE WHERE I COACH, MENTOR, AND DEVELOP OUR NATION FUTURE LEADERS AS THEY PROGRESS THROUGH OUR ARMY R O T C PROGRAM WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPLETING THEIR COLLEGE DEGREES. AND I'LL BE LOOKING TO UPSIZE AND RELOCATE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AS MY MILITARY CAREER SAYS IT COMES TO A CLOSE. NOW, I WAS SPECIFICALLY ATTRACTED TO THE RIVERWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AN ABUNDANCE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES, INCLUDING THE PEARL AND BRECKENRIDGE PARK. AND AS A YOUNG PROFESSIONAL, THE LOW MAINTENANCE OF NATURE OF TOWN HOME LIVING COMBINED WITH ONE OF THE MOST APPEALING RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS IN THE CITY IS IDEAL FOR ME. AS I LOOK, I LOOK TOWARD BALANCING MY CAREER WITH EVENTUALLY STARTING A FAMILY. AND AS A YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE, I'VE COME TO APPRECIATE THE DIVERSITY INCLUSION I SEE IN OUR NATION'S MILITARY. AND ALTHOUGH I AM AWARE OF OUR EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC AMENITIES AND BEAUTIFUL GREEN SPACE SURROUNDING IT WERE MEANT FOR ALL THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO TO ENJOY AND NOT JUST A SPECIFIC GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. FURTHERMORE, I BELIEVE THIS WILL IMPACT PROJECT SERVES AS A HIGHLY APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE HIGH DENSITY OFFICE PARK TO THE NORTH AND THE LOW DENSITIES RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH. AND LASTLY, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE TAXES, FEES, AND JOBS CONTRIBUTED BY THIS PROJECT AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WILL PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A MUCH NEEDED ECONOMIC BOOST DURING THE TIME OF RECESSION. I HOPE TO SEE THIS PROJECT FINALLY MOVE FORWARD AND I'M EXCITED AT THE PROSPECT OF BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE ONE OF THESE UNITS IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HELLO, MY NAME IS DEREK ALONZO SALINAS. MY HOME ADDRESS IS 9 2 2 EAST BOULEVARD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 5 8 AND DISTRICT NINE. CALLING ON BEHALF OF 20 DASH TWO OR 4 3 3 3. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE M N L PARTNERS REQUEST TO DEVELOP ON 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET. IT USED TO BE A DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT FROM 2011 TO 2014 ON TREELINE PARK. ALSO GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WARD. AND I TAKE MY FAMILY OVER TO SEE A PIPE AWAY ALL THE TIME. I GO TO THAT SIDE OF TOWN QUITE OFTEN TO SEE THE WITTY, THE SAM WITH SAN ANTONIO ZOO BOTANICAL GARDEN AS WELL AS I TAKE MY FAMILY OUT TO GO TO THE RESTAURANTS SUCH AS SMOKE SHACK, WG DELI, AS WELL AS POPS AND MANY OF THE RESTAURANTS I CAN PLANT. I FEEL LIKE I KNOW THE AREA PRETTY WELL. I TOOK A LOOK RECENTLY AND I BELIEVE THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH THE REVITALIZATION AND INCLUDING INCLUDING NEW PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, BE HELPFUL FOR THE CITY BUDGET AND THIS IMP UNPRECEDENTED TIME. ADDITIONALLY, A PORTION OF THAT A VALOREM TAX WOULD ALSO GO TO, UH, LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THAT'S A MAJOR PRIORITY FOR ME AND MY FAMILY BECAUSE MY WIFE IS A TEACHER AND THIS WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE JOBS FOR THOSE THAT ARE LOOKING FOR IT IN THE CONSTRUCTION, UH, PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. MY NAME IS GEORGE NASH. I LIVE AT 8 4 2 EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. I'M CALLING ABOUT, UH, 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET, WHICH IS CASE 2 0 4 2 2 2. I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THE WAIVER. THEY CLAIM HARDSHIP. I HAVE LOST MONEY IN FAULTY REAL ESTATE PROPOSALS. I IMAGINE SOME OF YOU HAVE TOO. NO WAIVER. THE ONE YEAR WAITING PERIOD WAS PUT THERE FOR A REASON. IT SHOULD BE INSISTED UPON NUMBER TWO, BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR STRADDLED. THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY HOUSES ON TRAIL SHOULD GO BACK ONLY TO THE THE NORTH TO THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY. HOUSES ON WE SET SHOULD GO SOUTH BACK TO THAT BOUNDARY ONLY PROTECT HISTORIC DISTRICT NUMBER THREE. YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED A SLICK AND EXPENSIVE PR CAMPAIGN. SOME OF IT IS CORRECT, MUCH OF IT IS MISLEADING AND OUT OF CONTEXT, I COULD POINT OUT A DOZEN INSTANCES IF I HAD TIME. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS, UH, [00:55:01] AND UH, UH, I'M AGAINST THE WAIVER AND HOPE YOU DENY CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BARBARA WHIT HOWE, 1 0 5 MAGNOLIA DRIVE, RIVER ROAD, NEIGHBORHOOD AND HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 42 22 30 35 TRAIL STREET. A WAIVER OF THE ONE YEAR WAITING PERIOD B, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR CONSTRUCTION. FIRST, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR SERVING ITS COMMISSIONERS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT SAN ANTONIO'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS. OUR FORMER NEIGHBOR, CITY AMBASSADOR AND JAZZ LEGEND, JIM COLUM ALWAYS EMPHASIZED THE POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE CITY DUE TO OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. RIVER ROAD'S GOAL IS TO RESERVE OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES, THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF BUILDING STREETS AND ASEC, WHILE WELCOMING GROWTH AND INNOVATION WITHIN THOSE SPACES. WE ARE A LIVING ACTIVE RECORD OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR RESIDENTS. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WE WANT OUR NEW NEIGHBORS TO FEEL INCLUDED AND PARTICIPATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. HOW THESE NEW HOMES FIT INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD IS PARAMOUNT TO THESE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDED. WE NEED YOU AS COMMISSIONERS WITH BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND A COMBINED WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE TO DIRECT THE SOLUTIONS. THERE'S BEEN MUCH WORK BY THE DEVELOPER WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THERE'S STILL AN ISSUE WITH THE REQUIRED 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. THIS CURRENT SOLUTION DOESN'T RESOLVE THAT NEED, BUT INSTEAD USES GREEN SPACE FOR CARS. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY UNITS. A, A REQUEST THAT THE WAIVER NOT BE GRANTED DUE TO THE U D C REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, WHICH I DON'T SEE SUBSTANTIVE IS DEFINED AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE PROJECT. METIS SUBSTANTIAL ANTONIN TO SUBSTANTIVE WOULD BE SUPERFICIAL PROCEDURAL B, I REQUEST THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NOT BE GRANTED UNTIL THE MASSING ISSUE IS RESOLVED. THANK YOU AGAIN AND IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND DILIGENT ATTENTION TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND MY NAME IS EMILY FERRY 3 22 TRAIL STREET IN THE RIVER ROAD DISTRICT. I'M CALLING ABOUT THE 3 35 TRAIL STREET PROJECT. I OWN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 3 22 TRAIL STREET. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I ONCE AGAIN MUST EXPRESS MY LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE ACTUAL RESIDENCE OF THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE UNIVERSALLY AGAINST THIS PROJECT FROM DAY ONE. THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN TOO DENSE TO TOO MANY UNITS AND INSUFFICIENT PLANS FOR PARKING AND DRAINAGE. THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF CHANGE WITH THE PROJECT AND CERTAINLY PRACTICALLY NO CHANGE SINCE THE DEVELOPERS WERE REBUFFED AT THE JUNE 19TH H D R C MEETING. THE MINOR ADDITIONS ARE INDEED TERRIBLY DISTURBING SINCE THEY INCLUDE, INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR PARKING DIRECTLY UNDER THE HERITAGE OAK TREE. IN WHAT UNIVERSE DOES THE PLACEMENT OF 5,000 POUND OBJECTS AT THE SENSITIVE BASE OF A HISTORIC TREE APPEAR TO BE A SOUND STRATEGY? AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SO-CALLED TURNAROUND MEANT TO BE A PLACE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO LAND AND FOR CARS ON THE STREET TO REVERSE DIRECTION BECOMES FILLED WITH VEHICLES PARKING BEHIND THE HOAX? THE FOLKS UNDER THE HERITAGE OAK, JUST FOR A MINUTE, TRAIL STREET IS MY HOUSE'S STREET, JOHN HER'S STREET, THE TEXAS HISTORIC LANDMARK, ZAMBRANO HOUSES STREET, THE STREET OF THREE OTHER HOMES, AND THE ONLY PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE HISTORIC ASAKIA, EVEN WITH THE MINOR PROPOSED WIDENING UNITS ON TRAIL ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET AND DO NOT SUPPLY ADEQUATE PARKING. AS I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS LETTER TO THE H C R C, LOOK AT THE MAP AS HAS BEEN THE SITUATION FROM THE BEGINNING. WE ARE BEING MISLED, MISDIRECTED, AND FINESSE. IN THEORY, I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS IN QUESTION. THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL HAS BEEN ILL-CONCEIVED FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION. I BEG YOU ONCE AGAIN, DO NOT GRANT A WAIVER FOR THE LATEST OF THEIR MANY RETURNS TO THIS BOARD. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN HERTZ, 1 25 ANASTASIA PLACE, FORMER HOME OF GENERAL ALLISON. AFTER COMING TO H D R C MEETINGS SINCE FOREVER SERVING AS THE COMMISSIONER FOR THREE YEARS AND PRESENTING SEVERAL SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS HERE, MY HEAD IS SPINNING FROM WHAT WE ARE WITNESSING TODAY. THIS IS A PROJECT WHICH IS FLAW IN SO MANY WAYS. IT'S TOO MASSIVE, TOO TALL, TOO DENSE, STYLISTICALLY INCOMPATIBLE, DESTRUCTIVE OF THE HERITAGE TREES, VIOLATES THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND RIO ONE GUIDELINES AND IGNORES THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY. [01:00:01] IT'S BEEN DENIED A C O A BY THE H D R C. IT'S BEEN DENIED A C O A BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND JUST LAST MONTH DENIED A WAIVER OF ONE YEAR MORE AUTHORITY. AND YET HERE I AM HAVING TO REPEAT AGAIN THE WRONGNESS OF DEFECTS THAT DEFINE THIS PROJECT. THE DEVELOPERS VOW TO KEEP COMING BACK UNTIL THEY GET THEIR WAIVER AND C O A, ALTHOUGH THEY DESERVE NEITHER. THE PROJECT IS ABUSIVE OF THE FAIR HEARING PROCESS OF THE H D R C IN THE SAME WAY IT IS ABUSIVE OF THE STARK QUALITIES OF RIVER ROAD. EACH NEW PRESENTATION TRIES TO FIX SOME GLARING FOR ON THE DESIGN, BUT CREATES EVEN MORE PROBLEMATIC ISSUES. GARAGE DOORS FACING TRAIL THAT VIOLATE THE U D C, NO PROBLEM. JUST ELIMINATE THEM RESULTING PARKED CARS IN FRONT OF THE UNITS THAT VIOLATES THE U D C. NO PROBLEM. JUST MOVE THEM BACK 30 FEET, EVEN IF IT MEANS DRIVING AND PARKING ON THE ROOTS OF THE HERITAGE OAK. THEY BOAST ABOUT SAVING THE NAME OF GENERAL ALLISON, WHO NO DOUBT MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE. SO THIS COULD GO ON. THIS PROJECT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE PROCESS IS ABUSIVE. THIS NEEDS TO STOP. THE H D R C MUST FIRMLY REJECT THE WAIVER OF THE MORATORIUM AND SAY NOT ALREADY. THANK YOU. THIS IS PATRICIA PRT. I LIVE AT 7 33 EAST WOODLAWN AVENUE, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 2 0 1 3 3 5 TRAIL. I BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION A NUMBER OF MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THIS POWERPOINT AND RECENT BUSINESS JOURNAL ARTICLES, WHICH SHOULD NOT GO UNADDRESSED. NUMBER ONE, THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF TWO STORY HOMES IN RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE FACTS ARE OTHER THAN THREE MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, THERE ARE FEWER THAN 20 TRUE TWO STORY HOMES. MANY PICTURES ARE HOUSES WITH ATTIC SPACES WITH DORMERS OR FEATURES LIKE TOURS AND TUDOR STYLE HOMES. THEY'RE NOT, IN FACT, REAL TWO STORIES. NUMBER TWO, TRAIL STREET IS NOTHING BUT AN ALLEYWAY AND NOT A TRUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, NOT AT ALL. TRAIL IS A 16 FOOT SUBSTANDARD CITY STREET. IT HAS NEVER FUNCTIONED AS AN ALLEY ASSERTING THAT IT'S NO BETTER THAN TRAIL TO THE WEST OF HIGHWAY 2 81, WHICH IN FACT MAY BE AN ALLEY IS JUST NOT TRUE. NUMBER THREE, DEVELOPERS ASSERT THAT THEY LISTENED. I HAVE TO DISAGREE. WE WOULD NOT BE AT THIS POINT NEARLY TWO YEARS LATER IF IN FACT THEY HAD H G R C AND THE COMMUNITY TOLD M AND L THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS TOO DENSE IN AN INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE LOT SIZE. MANY SUGGESTIONS TO REDUCE MASS SCALE, ET CETERA, WERE LARGELY IGNORED UNTIL THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVERTURNED THE C O A. TO THIS DAY, WE HAVE SEEN ONE STORY REDUCTIONS ON TRAIL AND ONE LESS UNIT FOR A TOTAL OF 23. NUMBER FOUR, RIVER ROAD COMMUNITY JUST DOESN'T WANT A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. AGAIN, NOT TRUE. WE WANT A SMART MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, AND IN FACT, THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS FROM VERY EARLY ON, GIVING THE DEVELOPER SUGGESTIONS AND FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT. OUR OBJECTIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT AS ARI STATED ABOVE. AND POINT NUMBER THREE, FINALLY, I AM PROUD OF RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE INTELLIGENTLY ARTICULATED SUGGESTIONS AND REVISIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. THEIR TENACITY HAS MADE IT BETTER IN SO MANY WAYS. I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS MIMI ILLA AND I'M COMMENTING ON H D R C CASE NUMBER 20 42 22 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET. I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF ONE 50 OSTROM DRIVE AND THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT NEEDS TO BE STATED OUT LOUD THAT THE RESIDENTS OF RIVER ROAD SEE THE FLAWS IN THIS PROJECT AND THE PROCESS THAT HAS US COMING BACK TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION. JUST ONE MONTH AFTER IT WAS DENIED A WAIVER BY THIS COMMISSION AND JUST FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVERTURNED APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF SCALE WITH THE ADJOINING HISTORIC PROPERTIES. THIS CASE REALLY HAS TWO PARTS AND THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. THE PETITION OF THE WAIVER OF THE ONE YEAR WAIT PERIOD AFTER THE B O A DECISION IS DISCONCERTING, ESPECIALLY SINCE AT H D R C LAST MONTH, THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THE B O A WAIT PERIOD WOULD STAND FOR ONE YEAR. REGARDLESS OF THE PLAN PRESENTED TODAY, THERE ARE MINIMAL CHANGES COMPARED TO LAST MONTH, AND TODAY'S PLAN DOES NOT SHOW IN THE WORDS OF THE U D C, ANY NEW AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE. THE DESIGN IS STILL NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE RIVER ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT. AT THREE STORIES TALL, THE BUILDINGS ARE OUT OF SCALE. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN MONTHS, [01:05:01] WE HAVE VOICED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PLAN TO THIS COMMISSION. SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, THE DEVELOPERS ARE STILL NOT LISTENING TO US AND THEY ARE HIGHLIGHTING INFORMATION THAT IS OUT OF CONTEXT. THIS CASE IS BEING PRESENTED AS A DO OR DIE BY THE DEVELOPERS. THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED BECAUSE YOUNG AND AMBITIOUS DEVELOPERS HAVE STRETCHED THEMSELVES AND ARE PUSHING A PROJECT THAT IS INAPPROPRIATELY DESIGNED FOR ONE OF SAN ANTONIO'S TREASURED ESTABLISHED HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THANK YOU. RORY SWS 1 0 2 ARMOR PLACE. ITEM NUMBER 20 42 22 TRAIL PROJECT IS STILL NOT APPROPRIATE. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS ARE THAT H D R C APPROVED PROJECT. WITHOUT CONSIDERING BUILDING HEIGHTS, ALL BUILDINGS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, INCLUDING BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT, NEED TO FOLLOW HISTORIC GUIDELINES. THEY NEED TO BE TWO STORIES TALL, NOT THREE. ONE BOARD MEMBER SAID THREE STORIES. THE BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT IS OVERREACHING WHEN LOOKING AT THE SMALL ABUTTING HOMES ALSO APPROVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING LOT COVERAGE USING BCAT INFORMATION ADJACENT HISTORIC AVERAGE LOT COVERAGE IS 21%. DEVELOPER CLAIMS PROJECT IS 47% MORE THAN DOUBLE THE HISTORIC RATIO. BUT THIS IS FALSE BECAUSE DEVELOPER USED INCORRECT HISTORIC BOUNDARY AREA TO CALCULATE USING A LARGER CORRECT BOUNDARY FOOTPRINT INCREASES FOR BOTH BUILDINGS FOUR AND SIX, MAKING RATIO CLOSER TO 50%. CLEARLY NOT APPROPRIATE. PREVIOUS TEAM HAD GARAGES FACING TRAIL STREET. NOW IT'S EVEN MORE INAPPROPRIATE. WITH CARS PARKING IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. 90% OF RIVER ROAD HAS DETACHED GARAGES IN THE REAR YARDS. INSTEAD, THIS PROJECT HAS OVER 80% OF THE FRONT LOT LINE DEDICATED TO VEHICLES, CARS, PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND, AND, AND EMERGENCY TURNAROUND NOT APPROPRIATE. AND THE MOST INAPPROPRIATE NEW BUILDING ELEMENTS ARE THE SO-CALLED PORCHES OF BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX. THEY'RE ONLY TWO FOOT SIX WIDE. THIS IS FAKE HISTORICISM. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET BEHIND THE GUARDRAILS BECAUSE THEY ARE BLOCKED BY A PRIVACY WALL AT ONE END AND JUST TRY SQUEEZING BETWEEN THE COLUMNS AND THE WALLS AT THE OTHER END. IT'S ONLY 17 INCHES WIDE. COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE USING STATE SET DESIGN. STATE HISTORIC ELEMENTS. THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO PROTECT THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD BY NOT APPROVING. I'M LEAVING IN FOR, UH, CASE NUMBER 2 4 2 2 RIVER, UH, 3 3 5 TRAIL. MY NAME IS JIMMY KENNEDY, 5 0 9 RIVER ROAD. FRANK NAVERO OF M N O PARTNERS CALLED THE BUSINESS JOURNAL ON JULY 13TH THAT THE GROUP PLANS TO RETURN TO EVERY H D R C MEETING UNTIL IT RECEIVES THE WAIVER AND APPROVAL. THIS IS AN ONGOING GAME WE PLAY. LET'S SEE HOW MANY TIMES WE CAN COME BACK TO THE H D R C. AS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER STATED ON THE JUNE 19TH MEETING THAT IT'S FAIR TO SAY CHANGES PREVIOUS TO THE PROPOSAL WERE INCREMENTAL AND PAINFUL AND RESISTED BY THE APPLICANT. AS I WENT BACK OVER NUMEROUS LETTERS AND PRESENTATIONS, I HAVE SEEN POSITIVE CHANGES, BUT THE MOST CHANGES OCCURRED AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. DENIED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ON FEBRUARY 17TH BY A 10 TO ONE VOTE. I AGREE THAT BENEFICIAL CHANGES IN THE HEIGHTS OF BUILDING ON TRAIL WERE MADE, WHICH WE HAVE ASKED FOR SINCE OCTOBER, 2018, THAT THE ELIMINATION OF GARAGES LEFT TRAIL, WHICH IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, LOOKED LIKE A PARKING LOT. THE PURPOSES OF HAVING TOWNHOUSES WAS TO REDEVELOP THIS AREA AND TO MAKE IT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ WAS RIGHT. IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MASSING AND ALSO THE DENSITY. SINCE 2018, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR FEWER BUILDINGS AS WELL AS THE STAFFING COMMISSIONERS. LESS BUILDINGS COULD ACCOMMODATE PARKING. AND WE DO HAVE ONE LESS BUILDING NOW, BUT PARKING WILL FILL THE SPACE NEXT TO THE OAK TREE. WE ALSO ASK FOR A STEP AWAY FROM THE HOUSE ON WE SET. SO A THREE STORY BUILDING DOESN'T DWARF THE SMALL ONE STORY 1930S HOME. THIS IS A PROJECT. IT'S STILL NOT READY FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ONE MORE THING. WE ARE NOT COMPLAINING. WE STUDY SITE. WE LOOK AHEAD WHAT THIS PROPERTY WE NEED. WE DO OUR HOMEWORK BEFORE WE COME. WE ARE NOT A CRYING BUNCH. 3, 3, 5 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT. [01:10:01] STILL NEEDS LESS DENSITY AND A PARKING PLAN. GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS RALEIGH WOOD. I LIVE AT 1 0 9 DALE PLACE AND I'M COMMENTING ON ITEM NUMBER 23 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS CONCERNED. THE 3 3 5 TRAIL STREET PROJECT IS RETURNING TODAY AS AN APPLICATION FIVE MONTHS AFTER ITS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS DENIED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND LESS THAN ONE MONTH AFTER ITS REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE ONE YEAR MORATORIUM WAS DENIED HERE ON JUNE THE 19TH. AT THE END OF THAT MEETING, THE H D R C CHAIR SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEN THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AND WAS TOLD ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF DISAPPROVAL AT THE B O A R FEBRUARY, 2020. YET HERE WE ARE AGAIN AND AS REPORTED IN AN ARTICLE IN THE BUSINESS JOURNAL ON MONDAY, THE APPLICANT'S STATE MAY PLAN TO RETURN TO EVERY H D R C MEETING UNTIL THEIR PROJECT RECEIVES A WAIVER APPROVAL. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF THE HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS IN NEED OF CORRECTION. SINCE THE PRO PROJECT WAS FIRST PRESENTED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S MAJOR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF ITS OVERALL SCALE AND MASS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS HAS NEVER CHANGED. IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION TODAY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE MINIMAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PARKING ON TRAIL STREET ARE PLAN TO CONVERT A PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED GREEN SPACE AROUND A HERITAGE OAK TREE INTO A MAKESHIFT PARKING AREA CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE ONE YEAR MORATORIUM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS LARRY CLARK. I LIVE AT 1 0 2 ALLISON ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND ACROSS THE HISTORIC FROM THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR IMPORTANT SERVICE TO THE PROTECTOR, OUR CITY'S HISTORIC RESOURCES. I WANT TO ASK YOU TODAY TO REJECT THE WAIVER OF A DELAY AND TO FURTHERMORE REJECT THIS INAPPROPRIATE PROPOSAL FOR 3 35 TRAIL STREET. ITEM 28. THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN THE SAME PLAN MANY TIMES AND IT HASN'T CHANGED. TODAY. THEY'RE BACK WITH MINOR PARKING REVISIONS. THE SCALE, THE MASSING SITE DISTURBANCE ARE ALL EXCESSIVE IN THEIR OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE RE THE NEIGHBORHOOD REMAINS IN OPPOSITION. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT LISTENED AND A FEW TWEAKS TO THE PLAN DO NOTHING TO RESOLVE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE TO ASK, WHY IS THIS PROJECT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION? THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF CHANGE IN THEIR PROPOSAL, AND THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT BY THE U D C FOR A WAIVER. THEY'RE WASTING OUR TIME. THIS PROJECT HASN'T CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBMITTAL OR FROM THE SUBMITTAL IN JUNE TODAY. THEIR CHANGE IS THE REARRANGEMENT OF PARKING WITH THE PLAN ACTUALLY PARK CARS OVER TOP OF THE ROOTS OF THE LARGEST HERITAGE TREE ON THE SITE. AND AS A PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR 35 YEARS IN SAN ANTONIO, I BELIEVE THIS EVASION OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS GONNA KILL THAT 2,250 YEAR OLD TREE. IT'S A TERRIBLE SOLUTION TO STORING CARS. SO THEY'RE TURNING THEIR PROPOSED GENERAL DWIGHT ALLISON HERITAGE TREE COURTYARD INTO A PARKING LOT. THEY PROPOSED TO LITERALLY PAVE PARADISE AND PUT UP A PARKING LOT. I LIVE ACROSS THE AT THE ACTUAL FORMER SITE OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ALLISON. AND I DON'T BELIEVE GENERAL ALLISON WOULD LOOK KINDLY ON ANY OF THIS. THIS IS MY OPINION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY. THANKS. UM, SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. LAUREN, IF I CAN GET YOU TO UNMUTE EDWARD'S MICROPHONE, UM, WE WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TWO MINUTES REBUTTAL? YES. WELL, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UM, EDWARD, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO SLIDE ONE 10 OR SORRY, 1 0 9. OKAY, WE'RE THERE. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE THERE. WE'RE THERE. OUR NEW PLAN MEETS EVERY PREVIOUS REQUEST MADE BY THE RIVER ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THE REASON WE'RE COMING BACK FOR A WAIVER, AND THE REASON WE'LL CONTINUE TO COME BACK FOR A WAIVER IS BECAUSE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN OUR AREA ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT [01:15:02] THAT INCLUDES EVERY SINGLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT ACCESSES THEIR PROPERTIES SOLELY FROM TRAIL STREET. THAT INCLUDES PROPERTIES ON ATCH, THAT INCLUDES PROPERTIES ON ST. MARY'S. YOU'VE SEEN THE MAP. WE THINK THAT OUR SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE HEARD AS WELL. THIS PROJECT MEETS ALL HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. THIS PROJECT HAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE MAJORITY OF THE OWNERS IN OUR IMMEDIATE AREA SUPPORT THE PROJECT AND FOR THE OWNERS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT, AND IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, IT'S ONLY THREE PROPERTY OWNERS. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SATISFY THEIR NEEDS. I'M GONNA SEGUE TO JAMES. UH, JUST A QUICK THING HERE. WE, IT'S BEEN SAID MANY TIMES, WE HAVEN'T MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF CHANGE. AGAIN, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE THEIR DECISION BASED ON LACK OF, UM, INFORMATION TO H D R C, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED. WE HAVE MADE, ABSOLUTELY MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DESIGN SINCE THEN, UH, SINCE THE H D R C HEARING, I MEAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. AND AGAIN, WE JUST WANT A SHOT TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT SO WE CAN ACTUALLY GET VOTED ON AND, UM, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS IN JUNE, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES SINCE JUNE. WE JUST, WE DIDN'T HAVE A FULL COMMISSION AT THE TIME. WE WANT, IT'S A HIGHER BURDEN. WE NEED TO, TO EVERYONE TO BE THERE SO WE CAN, CAN GET THAT REAL SHOT. THAT'S TWO MINUTES. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, QUESTION OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? MR. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? I, I HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WE'RE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY. SOME COMMENTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD BEFORE. THE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS, WELL, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED THAT IS DIFFERENT. UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THAT WAS JUST MADE RIGHT NOW THAT, THAT YOU'RE, THAT THE APPLICANT IS COMING BACK BECAUSE THEY'VE OBTAINED SUPPORT. RIGHT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, THE REASON TO, TO BE HEARING, UM, THIS APPLICANT IS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. UH, NOT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, MORE SUPPORT GAINED FOR THIS PROJECT. NOW, I SAY THAT NOT, NOT, UH, UH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT IMPORTANT, BUT BECAUSE THE, THE, UM, IT, IT, IT, IT, IT'S A BIT OF A TWIST TO SAY THAT IT'S TRUE THAT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED. THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A FACT. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED. BUT THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, IN MY OPINION, THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN OVER THE COURSE OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SESSIONS. I, I, I CAN, AND, AND, AND AS OF, YOU KNOW, I JUST FOR THE, FOR THE APPLICANT'S, UH, CONSIDERATION, I, I COME OUT OF THE, THE SAME INDUSTRY. I'VE SAT AT THE DRAWING TABLE, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, UM, TO, TO DEAL WITH, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST CALL 'EM ABSTRACT REQUESTS. BUT AT THE, AT THE VERY BASE OF, UM, WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN THE, THE, THE CRITICISM, IT'S BEEN THE MASSING AND, AND, AND THIS DENSITY. SO IF THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU REDUCE IT A LITTLE BIT, YOU MAY STILL HAVE WAY TOO MUCH. AND, AND IF IN THE PROCESS OF NOT DEALING WITH THE MASSING OR THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CREATED BY THE MASSING, AND THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE ACHIEVED, THEN I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY THE PROJECT KEEPS COMING BACK AND KEEPS COMING BACK AND KEEPS COMING BACK. IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE FINGERS ARE CROSSED TO, TO, TO CATCH THE, THE COMMISSION AT A TIME WHEN WELL, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T CARE BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME ITEM. IT'S THE SAME ITEM. AND I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S A VERY TRUE STATEMENT ON THE TRAIL SIDE THAT SOMEONE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE DISCUSSION HERE OR, OR IN THE, IN THE, UH, COMMENTS, THE SITUATION THAT IS CREATED ON TRAIL. NOW, I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU WENT THROUGH TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC. AND IT, AND IT'S A, IT'S A PERFECT PRESENTATION IN REALITY, BUT I I, I HAD [01:20:01] TO GO TO TRAIL AND DRIVE IT UP, DRIVE UP AND DOWN, AND GO BACK AND COME BACK. AND THEN ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANNA MAKE A, A DECISION THAT IS, IS, UM, EMPOWERING NOT A DECISION THAT IS, UH, UM, JUST STOPPING A PROJECT IS, OR, OR, OR, OR, OR MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PROJECT TO OCCUR. BUT I, I GOTTA TELL YOU, I CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK AT THIS AS A PERSON THAT'S AT A DRAFTING TABLE. AND IF THE, THE CHARGE TO ME IS TO REDUCE THE DENSITY, WELL THEN IF I DON'T REDUCE THAT DENSITY, I'M GONNA BE COMING BACK AND FORTH, UH, UH, UH, TO, TO, UH, A CLIENT OR A COMMISSIONER THAT'S NOT GOING TO SEE THAT THE DENSITY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCED IS THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE, OR, OR THE MASSING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I, I KNOW PERSONALLY ON MY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE NORTH END, THE THREE STORY STRUCTURE NEXT TO THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, JUST BEING THERE, GOING TO THE SITE AND SEEING THAT I, I I, I, I THINK THAT SEVERELY AFFECTS THAT STREETSCAPE. I MEAN, IT SEVERELY AFFECTS IT. AND THERE'S A GRADUAL WAY TO, TO TREAT THAT, UH, UH, THAT, THAT WESTERN ELEVATION ON THE NORTHERN, UH, STREETSCAPE THAT IS, IS, IS IT'S A DESIGN CONSIDERATION THAT YOU, THAT YOU EITHER TAKE SERIOUSLY OR THAT YOU'VE MADE YOUR NUMBERS, AND YOUR NUMBERS DON'T WORK OUT IN TERMS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN, AND YOU JUST, YOU JUST CAN'T SACRIFICE IT. BUT THAT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE DESIGN ISSUE. AND THEN WHEN WE COME TO TRAIL, UM, THAT IDEA OF MOVING THE VEHICLES TO THE STREET OR, OR TO THE STREETSCAPE, THAT, THAT THEY DON'T FIT IN REALITY, THE CARS DON'T FIT. AND THEN MESHING THAT INTO THE, THE, UH, FABRIC OF THAT AREA, UH, AND FINDING, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COMMON GROUND BETWEEN WHAT, UM, UH, HOW A CAR SHOULD BEHAVE AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STREET, HOW THEY, HOW THEY DRIVE OUT, HOW THEY DRIVE IN, UH, UH, JUST THE, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF, YOU KNOW, OF, OF PEOPLE HAVING GUESTS AND THAT BEING A FACT AND, AND KNOWING WHAT'S WHAT, WHAT PROBLEM IS BEING CREATED BY A DECISION, RIGHT? BY A DECISION TO SAY YES, THAT THAT'S APPROVABLE. THAT'S, THAT'S OKAY. AND, AND TO ME, ALL WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I ASK, AS FOR ME, IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS THE URBAN FABRIC. BECAUSE, BECAUSE BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOARD AND BATTEN AND, AND, AND STANDING SCENE ROOF, WHICH I, WHICH I REALLY DO FEEL IS, UH, MIXING EVERYTHING UP. BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS, AND THIS IS REALLY MORE TO STAFF THAN ANYTHING, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT RULES YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MASSING AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS. AND TO, TO ME, THAT JUST CONFUSES EVERYTHING TO SUCH A DEGREE, ESPECIALLY FOR THE ON, ON, FOR THE, FOR THE PART OF THE, OF THE CLIENT, UM, OR THE APPLICANT. BUT, BUT I MEAN, AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE APPLICANT'S NOT DEALING WITH AMASSING, I, I, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT CAN BE SAID, BUT THE, THE, UH, UH, THAT, THAT SITUATION IS, IF THIS WAS IN AN URBAN CONTEXT, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE. I, I DO THINK THAT THERE WOULD, THAT, THERE'S STILL SOME MASSING ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH, BUT I WOULD FIND THAT THE STREET WOULD PROBABLY BE A 50 FOOT STREET. UH, IT'D PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE A SIDEWALK, A RIGHT AWAY SECTION, WHICH THEN, UH, UH, UH, GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THE MASSING IS APPROPRIATE IN THE URBAN CONTEXT. AND, AND, AND IN THIS SITUATION, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE, OR IT'S MASSIVELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENCLAVE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS ITS OWN CHARACTER THAT IS UNIQUE. YOU COULD CALL IT ONE OUT OF A HUNDRED IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SO IT, IT, IT, IT IS A LITTLE BIT, IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DEMANDING OF A, OF A, OF A CONTEXT. SO, SO SOME OF THE, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT GAVE LETTERS THAT SAID THAT THEY'RE MOVING INTO SAN ANTONIO, THAT, THAT THEY SEE THAT ENVIRONMENT AND THEY WANT TO GO THERE AND THEY'RE GONNA MOVE THERE, AND ALL OF THAT CREATES A DIALOGUE ABOUT A CHANGING DYNAMIC. AND THEN THE DIFFICULT QUESTION, RIGHT? AND I SAY THIS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO OUR OBLIGATION, OR I WOULD SAY MY OBLIGATION AS A COMMISSIONER, AND KNOWING THAT I'M SURE THAT THERE'S, UH, UH, LEGAL, UH, IMPLICATIONS TO EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY SAY. UH, BUT THAT, THAT IF THIS AREA IS AN ENCLAVE, IF IT HAS ITS OWN, UH, FABRIC, AND IF THERE IS A, A JUST [01:25:01] A, A DELICATE ECOSYSTEM THAT, THAT, JUST ON THE SLIDE OF SOMETHING TO CHANGE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE AREA, THEN I, I HAVE TO ASK THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION TO MYSELF AS A COMMISSIONER. IT IS, UH, ARE WE PRESERVING SOMETHING THAT COULD DRASTICALLY AFFECT AN AREA THAT WE RECOGNIZE AS A CO A, A COHESIVE SPACE THAT IS, THAT, THAT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ENCLAVE OR, OR A POCKET THAT'S NOT FREE FLOWING IN THE URBAN, UM, UM, FABRIC LIKE, LIKE ON THE FRINGES OF MONTICELLO OR MONTE VISTA, OR, UH, SO WITHIN, WITHIN THAT, I THINK THAT THE DENSITY CONTINUES TO PLAGUE THE SOLUTION BECAUSE YOU, I LOOK AT THE ELEVATION, LIKE ALL THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THAT ELEVATION AND THE INTERIOR DENSITY OR THE, THE IDEA THAT THAT, THAT, THAT THIS BUILDING COULD MOVE AWAY TO SAVE A TREE AND ALL THAT. BUT THE OVERALL ENVELOPE IS STILL THE SAME ENVELOPE, UM, MAKES IT COMPLICATED FOR ME TO, TO SEE IT AS, UM, SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE THE COMMENTS THAT I, I MADE, I, I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN ADDRESSED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THERE. THERE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, SOME DIFFERENT, UM, TREATMENTS, BUT, BUT THE ENVELOPE REMAINS, UH, OVERPOWERING. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. MR. UH, CHAIR, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, SINCE WE'RE BEING ASKED ON TWO QUESTIONS HERE. ONE LEADS TO THE OTHER, IF IT'S APPROVED, UH, FOR THE WAIVER, ARE WE BEING ASKED TO COMPARE THE SCHEME THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY TO THE SCHEME THAT WAS PRESENT PRESENTED ON JUNE 19TH, OR TO THE ONE THAT WAS OVERTURNED BY THE BO O A? THAT'S ONE QUESTION. SECOND QUESTION, DID WE, OR DID WE NOT HAVE A, UH, A QUORUM FOR OUR JUNE 19TH MEETING? ALRIGHT. AND, UM, I'LL LET YOU GUYS ANSWER THE, THOSE TWO QUESTIONS, AND THEN I MIGHT FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER. OKAY. UM, SO WE ARE FOLLOWING A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT DIRECTS US WITH WHAT TO DO WITH A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOLLOWING A DISAPPROVAL AT THE BO O A. SO IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED, AGAIN BY THE H D R C, UM, THE WAIVER HAS TO BE APPROVED, UM, OTHERWISE A ONE YEAR MOR MORATORIUM REQUEST ON THE REQUEST. UM, SO IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED ON THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO FIND THE PER SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE FOR CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION THAT WEREN'T APPROVAL OF THAT WAIVER. UM, AND SO YOU ARE COMPARING IT AGAINST THE DATE OF DISAPPROVAL, NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST RECENT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO CHANGE IN YOUR MIND SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE MOST RECENT TIME THAT YOU'VE SEEN THIS. UM, BUT WHETHER AT THE DATE OF DISAPPROVAL, UM, THE CODE, UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT DIRECT US WHAT TO DO WITH SUBSEQUENT, SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS. AND SO, AS LONG AS A REVISED APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, WE BELIEVE IT'S ELIGIBLE TO BE HEARD BY DHT OR C FOR A WAIVER. UM, NOW THAT SECTION OF CODE ALSO SAYS THAT A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP NEEDS TO APPROVE THE WAIVER IN ORDER FOR IT TO PASS. UM, SO MOST, UH, REQUESTS THAT YOU REVIEW, UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK, ARE JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY, UH, REQUIREMENT TO PASS THE ITEM. UM, THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP, SO THAT'S GONNA BE SIX. AND SO YOU HAD A COURT AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT YOU DID NOT HAVE SIX VOTES PASSING THAT, THAT WAIVER REQUEST. RIGHT. I ASKED THAT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE MOTION THAT THAT FAILED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN SET UP HERE, A PUBLIC PROCESS, THAT EACH OF US AS COMMISSIONERS AND THE STAFF TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY TO TRY TO RETAIN SOME KIND OF INTEGRITY TO THIS PROCESS. AND I'M GONNA EXPRESS A LOT OF ANNOYANCE WITH, WITH THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICANT IS COMING BACK AND, IN MY OPINION, ABUSING THIS PROCESS BY HAMMERING US ONE MONTH LATER WITH ANOTHER WAIVER REQUEST. SO, UM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS FAVORABLE FOR THE WAIVER LAST MONTH, I'M JUST GONNA EXPRESS A LITTLE BIT OF FRUSTRATION ON MY END THAT, UH, THERE WAS THIS ATTITUDE THAT, OH, WELL, WE DIDN'T HAVE A FULL COMMISSION, BUT WE DID, WE HAD ENOUGH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THERE WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE. AND I FIND IT A LITTLE ANNOYING THAT THEN THE APPLICANT FEELS LIKE, WELL, WE'RE JUST GONNA ROLL THE DICE AGAIN NEXT MONTH AND SEE IF WE CAN STACK THE DECK [01:30:01] WITH MORE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE FAVORABLE TO A CAUSE. SO, I, I JUST EXPRESSED THAT AS, UH, AND PROBABLY MAYBE INAPPROPRIATELY, UH, YOU KNOW, AS SOME PERSONAL, UH, FRUSTRATION WITH THIS APPLICANT'S APPROACH TO THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS. UM, THE LAST TIME WE REVIEWED THIS FOR A WAIVER, UH, I DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER. AND I, I CONTINUE, UH, TO NOT SUPPORT, UH, GRANTING OF A WAIVER TODAY. AND I, AND I WANNA JUST TAKE A CHANCE TO D TO SPELL OUT WHAT I THINK A SUBSTANTIVE, UH, CHANGE OR A NEW SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE WOULD ENTAIL THAT THE WOULD LEAD ME TO SUPPORT A WAIVER REQUEST. AND THIS WAS MENTIONED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND I KNOW THAT WAS MENTIONED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. I TAKE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ACTIONS VERY SERIOUSLY, AND I'M NOT EAGER TO REVERSE A A, A BOARD OF AJA, UH, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ACTION THAT REVERSED ONE OF OURS AND, AND KEEP THIS CYCLE GOING TO ME AS COULD HAVE CHANGE, WOULD BE A, UH, A SIGNIFICANT IN THE MASS OR LOCK COVERAGE, UM, AS MENTIONED BY NUMEROUS, UH, TESTIMONIALS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, REDUCTION IN HEIGHT OF THE MID BUILDINGS, UM, AN APPROPRIATE PARKING SOLUTION AND, AND A STEP DOWN ON SATCH, UH, TO MITIGATE THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL. THAT'S JUST WHERE I AM AT. I THINK THOSE CHANGES WOULD CONSTITUTE A NEW PROJECT AND WARRANT A WAIVER. AND, AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T ALL CRYSTAL CLEAR AND, AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS PROBABLY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION OF THAT ISSUE. UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. UM, I, I UNDERSTAND, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S FRUSTRATION. I WAS KIND OF GONNA ASK SOME VERY SIMILAR QUESTIONS. UM, WASN'T UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS WAS PUT FOR, FOR US BEFORE. AGAIN, I, I DO STILL BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN, I MEAN, ASIDE FROM ANY FRUSTRATIONS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES AND WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I DO FEEL THERE'S A SUB SOCIAL CHANGE. AND THIS IS WHY I WOULD SUPPORT THE WAIVER LIKE I DID LAST TIME. I SUPPORTED THE MOTION BECAUSE CLEARLY TAKING AWAY ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS OR ANYTHING, OR THE PROJECT OR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WAIVER REQUEST AND JUST LOOKING AT THE WAIVER REQUEST, AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT THE PROJECT BRINGS ON THAT, UM, BELIEF THAT THERE IS ENOUGH CHANGE, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ACCEPT THAT WAIVER WAS VERY, UM, I PULLED UP THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING, UH, 'CAUSE I WAS WONDERING WHAT HAD HAPPENED. AND I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THE FOUR NAMES THAT SUPPORTED THAT, UM, THAT WAIVER. AND OF COURSE, ANYBODY CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND, BUT, UM, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN, IN THE MOTION FAILED. IT WASN'T. UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I, I, UM, I HAVING A, A, A DIFFICULT TIME UNDERSTANDING, UH, RATIONALE. UM, THERE'S A REASON WHY THE, THE PROJECT HAS FAILED OVER, OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT, OR THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE A PROJECT THAT GOES TO A DRC AND THEN COMES BACK AND THEN MAYBE IT GOES BACK, COMES BACK. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT HAPPENS. I RATHER THAN PUT COMMISSION ON THE SPOT BY SAYING, LET'S REFLECT ON OUR OWN COMMENTS, LET'S REFLECT ON THE COMMENTS THAT WOULD BEEN MADE BY THE, BY THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO THE MEETINGS EVERY SINGLE TIME, RIGHT? THEY, THEY DON'T VOTE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST, THEY HAVE A CONSISTENCY IN THEIR, IN THEIR COMMENTS. THEIR COMMENTS ARE THE SAME COMMENTS AS THEY'VE BEEN. THEY DO REFLECT OUR COMMENTS. AND TO A LARGE DEGREE, I, I, I WOULD CAUTION US, UH, AGAIN, AND THIS IS NOTHING AGAINST THIS, THIS PROJECT, I THINK I, I MEAN, I THINK THERE, THERE ARE WAYS THAT THIS PROJECT CAN SATISFY THE, THE, THE, THE, THE MAIN PROBLEMS. BUT YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT, THAT SOME OF Y'ALL ARE ARCHITECTS OR HAVE BEEN BEFORE AN H D R C IN, IN THE PAST. I HAVE MANY TIMES, I, AND I, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, [01:35:01] THAT THERE WAS A WAY TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES THAT WERE NOT, THE CHANGES THAT WERE BEING ASKED FOR. AND BECAUSE THEY DEFINE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, THE IN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. IT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT ISN'T WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CHANGES ARE RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE US. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, PLASTIC RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? BUT THEN IT BECOMES CONCRETE. IT'S JUST AN IDEA. BUT ONCE IT BECOMES A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN IT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED. DOES, DOES, DOES IT AFFECT IT BECAUSE THE WINDOWS ARE VINYL OR WOOD? OKAY, I KNOW HOW THIS COMMISSION FEELS, AND IT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN A WOOD, WHEN A WOOD WINDOW IS REPLACED WITH A VINYL WINDOW, NOW, DOES IT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT A NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THE PARKING DOES NOT FIT ON THE LOT? BECAUSE THE MASSING IN THE INTERIOR OF THE LOT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE EXTRA THREE OR FOUR FEET THAT ARE NEEDED TO GET ALL THE TRAIL PARKING ON THE LOT, WHICH REALLY IS NOT A HORIZONTAL ISSUE. IT'S REALLY A VERTICAL ISSUE REALLY, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROJECT. SO I, I WANNA RESPECT THE, THE, THE, UH, COMMENTS, UH, THE, THE OPINIONS OF THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I REALLY DO. AND I, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN A CLASSROOM AND I'M BEING EDUCATED. AND THIS LESSON DOESN'T QUITE CHECK, BUT I COULD BE WRONG. MAYBE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ARE WHATEVER THE APPLICANT SAYS THEY ARE. BUT I STILL SEE THE SAME QUESTION OVER THE LAST TIME THAT WE, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION THAT, UH, ALONG, ALONG THE LINES OF THE, OF, OF THAT IT DIDN'T FAIL, IT DIDN'T, WAS IN A DENIAL, IT WAS A FAIL. BUT I MEAN, IS IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, WE, I, I THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT BECAUSE SAYING NAY IS A DENIAL OR IT'S A NO, I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PRECEDENT THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW AND SHOULD INFORM OUR NEXT DECISIONS. AND SO I JUST WANNA COMMUNICATE THAT FRUSTRATION JUST CHAIRMAN MR. ANO WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO THERE IS NO PRECEDENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE U D C GIVES H D R C THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY ON SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS. SO IT ALSO DOES NOT LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS. THIS IS WHY YOU'RE SEEING IT AGAIN. SO BEFORE YOU CAN CONSIDER THE C O A, YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE U D C. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. SO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT NEW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS, THE U D C DOES NOT DEFINE IT. THAT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE H D R C COMMISSION. SO, UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FISH MADE SOME MENTION OF SOME THINGS HE COULD FIND THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU MAY WANNA LOOK AT. MR. UH, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST, COMMISSIONER ALA. I GUESS MY ONLY THOUGHTS HERE, AND I, I'M FEELING CERTAINLY A, A TYPE CERTAIN TYPE OF WAY. LIKE I GUESS WE ALL ARE, THAT WE'RE REVISITING THIS ITEM AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCESS AND THE WAIVER AND, AND WHY WE'RE EVEN HERE TODAY, THIS IS A PROCESS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT. UM, WHERE I HAVE POINT OF CONCERN IS I, I FEEL A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DISINGENUOUSNESS WITH, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING THERE HASN'T BEEN A COMPROMISE. I'M SEEING IT. I'M ACTUALLY VISUALLY SEEING IT. AND A LOT OF THE, THE TALKING POINTS I'M HEARING ARE JUST THE SAME, THE SAME FROM THE LAST HEARING. SO THERE IS A GENTLEMAN ATTEMPT IN MY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, UH, TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE. UM, A COMPROMISE IS USUALLY WHEN NOT ALL SIDES ARE GONNA END UP HAPPY. AND I, I, I CERTAINLY THE DEVELOPERS AREN'T HAPPY. I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HAPPY, BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING, UH, THAT'S SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MOVING FORWARD. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. SORRY. NO, THAT'S OKAY. GO AHEAD. SORRY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. UM, I THINK I, I, I WANNA KIND OF, I'M IN THE SAME CHANNEL WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. UM, UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN FRUSTRATION THAT WE KEEP ON SEEING THIS, THIS, UM, THIS CASE. UM, AND, UM, BUT MOST OF ALL THAT THERE HAS NO BEEN, THERE'S NOT BEEN A UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS FROM THE APPLICANT. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ALSO FEEL FRUSTRATED FROM THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY KEEP ON COMING [01:40:01] AND SHOWING US, UM, THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT. BUT, UM, IT IS, I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT THE MAJOR CHANGES, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS PRO THIS, THIS, UM, CASE MULTIPLE TIMES, AND WE RARELY SAW ANY CHANGES, UH, ONLY TOWARDS THE END AND SPECIFICALLY AFTER IT GOT DENIED BY B O A THAT WE SEE, UH, ACTUAL AND EVIDENCE AND CHANGE. AND, AND I AGREE WITH SOME COMMISSIONERS WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE SEEN, UM, SOME EFFORT IN THE DEVELOPER IN, IN, IN TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE TO THE GUIDELINES AND, AND TO WHAT'S BEEN REQUESTED FROM THEM. AND, AND I REALLY, UM, APPRECIATE THAT FROM THEM BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S A LOT OF HARD WORK. BUT HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT, UM, FURTHER ALONG IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OR OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU WORK ON, YOU CONSIDER TAKING THIS PROCESS NOT ONLY IN THIS CITY, BUT IN OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU WORK. THE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT. THE PROCESS IS FROM THE CITY, FROM THE COMMISSION, FROM THIS DEPARTMENT, AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND AS I TOLD YOU ONCE IN A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, THE EXPERTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR COMMUNITY WHERE YOU'RE IMPACTING OR THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO, AND I THINK YOU'VE SEEN IT, UM, WITH ALL THE INPUT AND THEM SHOWING, UM, IN THESE, IN, IN THE MEETINGS. I THINK IF YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM EARLY ON AND REALLY LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO IMPACT, INSTEAD OF HAVING 50 LETTERS AGAINST YOUR PROJECTS, YOU'LL HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT CHAMPIONS YOUR PROJECT AND IT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE YOUR PROJECT HAPPEN FASTER. SO I WOULD JUST REALLY, UM, ASK YOU TO TAKE THE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR COMMUNITY AND FOR YOUR PROJECTS A LITTLE BIT MORE SERIOUS, BECAUSE I, THEY'RE A GREAT VALUE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY WILL CHAMPION YOUR PROJECT. AND AS, AS I, I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ARLA AND I DO SEE A LOT OF CHANGES HAPPENING. UH, WE SAW THEM LO SLOWLY, BUT, UM, I DO, I DO SEE THAT YOU HAVE FOUND SOME COMPROMISE AND, AND MADE AN EFFORT TO CHANGE FROM WHAT I FIRST SAW A YEAR AGO TO WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW. SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN. UH, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF OF QUICK COMMENTS. SO, UM, I WAS NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE, UH, THE PREVIOUS JUNE, UH, HEARING FOR THIS, AND, AND SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT I, FROM THE TIME THAT I'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT DEVELOP FROM THE FIRST TIME IT CAME IN, UM, TO NOW, THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE APPLICANT REGARDING SCALE, UH, ON BOTH, UH, ON BOTH STREET FACES. UM, AS FAR AS WHAT THE SCALE APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT SCALE IS, ITS LOCATION IN THE, IN THAT JUXTAPOSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SCALE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK, UM, AS TO WHAT WE FEEL IS APPROPRIATE IN B R C MEETINGS. I FEEL THAT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN HEARD AND ACTED ON, AND I FEEL LIKE THE, EVERY TIME WE SEE THIS PROJECT, I MEAN, NOT EVERY TIME, I CAN'T SAY EVERY TIME, BUT A LOT OF THE TIMES THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE SEEN CHANGE IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION TOWARDS THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM AND TOWARDS THE, UH, THE ZONING THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE AND THE, THE DIRECTION THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM BASED ON HISTORIC, UM, GUIDELINES AND THE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO IMPLEMENT ON THIS PROJECT. AND I FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE SLOWLY MADE THOSE CHANGES AND EVEN MORE DRAMATICALLY SO HERE, UH, LATELY. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF, A LOT OF THINGS THAT DISHEARTEN ME ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS PROJECT. UM, ONE IS WHENEVER WE MAKE A REQUEST TO GET RID OF FORWARD FACING GARAGES, AND THEN WE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH THEIR SOLUTION TO THAT, AND THEN WE HAMMER THEM ABOUT THAT SOLUTION, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER WE'RE, WE'RE CONSTANTLY NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT OUR PROCESS AS WELL. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE H D R C, BUT THE COMMUNITY IS REALLY WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO THERE. UM, WE AS A COMMUNITY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO HANDLE A PRODUCT LIKE THIS, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IN MY MIND, BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS A MULTIFAMILY ZONE PROPERTY, WHERE A MUCH DENSER ORGANIZATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS TECHNICALLY ALLOWED BY ZONING. AND THEY HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO THAT IN HOPES OF MAKING, UM, THE, THE COMMENTS FROM US COME TO REALITY. AND I KNOW THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT KICKING [01:45:01] AND SCREAMING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S BEEN, UM, QUITE A CHANGE TO THE SCALE AND TO THE WAY THAT THEY'VE APPROACHED THESE STREETS, THE WAY THEY'VE ATTEMPTED TO, UM, A ADJUST STREET FACADES AND, AND TRY TO BECOME MORE OF A TRADITIONAL I CENTER OF A MORE CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO THIS. I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO CHANGE, AND WITHOUT DESIGNING THESE THINGS OURSELVES, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY OF GIVING THEM FEEDBACK THAT THEY CAN ACT UPON THAT WOULD LEAD TO A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT FOR THEM. AND, AND SO IN MY OPINION, I, I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE DONE A VERY WORTHY ATTEMPT AT WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING THEM TO DO. AND IT, IT'S A DIS, IT'S DISHEARTENING TO ME TO SEE THE, THE COMMUNITY NOT RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S DISHEARTENING TO ME TO SEE THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, GET DISHEARTENED AND, AND SAY HE'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY RAILROAD THIS THING THROUGH. SO, IN, IN MY MIND, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ALONG THE PROCESS WITH THIS PROJECT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE GIVEN FROM H D R C HAVE BEEN HEARD. THEY'VE BEEN ATTEMPTED. THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT I'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT. UM, AND I, I THINK THAT THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND I, I WOULD SUPPORT, UH, GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO HAVE THIS HEARD THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS. UM, I, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE, HAVE REALLY EXPRESSED PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WANTED TO GET ACROSS, SO MY COMMENTS WILL BE BRIEF. SO, UM, I TOO SEE CHANGES THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS RECENTLY MADE, AND THAT WE HAVE GONE IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION. HOWEVER, I STILL SEE PROBLEMS WITH PARKING THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WHERE TO GO FORWARD, UM, THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE FAMILIES LIVING THERE, BUT STILL WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, GROSSLY INADEQUATE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YET I'VE HEARD A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. SO, UM, LOOKING AT THE LAST TIME, THIS WAS BEFORE US, UM, READING OVER THE MINUTES AND THINGS OF NATURE AND HOW, HOW IT WAS PRESENTED TO US. I, MY, MY VOTES LAST TIME WAS PROBABLY, I'M LEANING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION RIGHT NOW. SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I, I REALLY DON'T SEE MYSELF SUPPORTING THIS GOING FORWARD AS IT STANDS. THANK YOU. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER, AND, UH, I WANNA THANK THE APPLICANTS FOR THE CHANGES AND THE, UH, MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY HAVE MADE OVER THE, THE LIFE OF THIS PROJECT. UH, I THINK IT HAS GOTTEN BETTER INCREMENTALLY, UM, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S STILL SOME ISSUES WITH THE PROJECT. I WANT TO THANK THE, UH, COMMUNITY FOR, UH, REMAINING ENGAGED AND, UM, BEING WILLING TO, UH, VOICE THEIR CONCERNS. AND, UM, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A, A TOUGH PROJECT FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE COMMISSION AND, AND O H P STAFF. UM, AND, BUT AT THIS POINT, UH, I DON'T SEE, UM, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ENOUGH FOR ME TO, UH, VOTE IN FAVOR OF A WAIVER. UM, I THINK, UH, ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONER FISH HAD MENTIONED, AND THERE MAY BE OTHER ITEMS THAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE THAT, UH, SHOULD A, UH, SHOULD A WAIVER BE GRANTED, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UH, STIPULATIONS ON A, UH, C O A, UM, IF THE WAIVER IS DENIED, HOPEFULLY, UH, THE COMMISSION CAN, UH, ENUMERATE ITEMS THAT, UM, WE'D BE WILLING TO, UM, CONSIDER, UH, A WAIVER IN THE FUTURE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. COMMERS, THIS IS JAMES MCNIGHT. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF I COULD MAKE A COMMENT. YES, THANK YOU. UM, I, [01:50:01] I HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING ABOUT THE, THE CHANGES NEEDING TO BE MADE AND PROBLEMS WITH DENSITY AND MASSING AND, AND THAT THOSE ARE, THOSE WERE PRIMARY CONCERNS FOR, UH, COMMISSIONERS LIKE, UM, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ OR COMMISSIONER FISH. THERE WERE, I I OBVIOUSLY PROBLEMS WITH GARAGES AND PARKING AND AND HEIGHT ON TRAIL STREET, AND WE ADDRESSED THOSE. SO I DO WANNA SAY, I MEAN, THERE WERE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT HAD CONCERN, AND WE DIDN'T ADDRESS ALL OF THEM, BUT WE CERTAINLY ADDRESSED CHANGES TO AREAS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO CHANGE. BUT MY POINT, THE REASON I WANTED TO CHIME IN RIGHT NOW IS JUST TO SAY WE CAN HAVE THOSE PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, AND AS YOU SAID, WE, WE'VE MADE BIG CHANGES, BIG STRIDES SO FAR SINCE H FROM SINCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WE CAN MAKE THOSE STRIDES, BUT ONLY IF WE'RE GRANTED A WAIVER. SO WE CAN ACTUALLY TALK I I ABOUT THE DESIGN. I UNDERSTAND, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER FETZER, WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT PROVIDING US FEEDBACK THAT THAT SHOULD A WAIVER BE, UM, CONSIDERED IN FUTURE, THAT WHAT IT WOULD BE BASED ON. UM, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE EVEN AN EASIER PROCESS IF WE COULD BE GRANTED THE WAIVER SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE DESIGN. NOW AT LEAST WE'RE FREE TO, TO DISCUSS IT AND, AND TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN, AND THEN NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FULL REAPPLICATION AND, AND KIND OF THIS FRUSTRATION OF, OH, THEY'RE COMING BACK AGAIN IN A MONTH, OR IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. BUT IF, BUT IF WE'RE FREED UP, IF WE'RE GIVEN THAT WAIVER NOW, AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN A MUCH EASIER SETTING. AND SO THAT'S MY REQUEST. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF ON HOW, HOW, WHAT THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED ON THIS, SINCE IT REQUIRES A VOTE, UM, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION. UH, CORY, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IS THE BEST WAY TO TAKE THIS? I'LL LET ALMA ANSWER THAT. . OKAY. UM, IT REQUIRES, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE NEW APPLICATION, IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO MAKE A FOLLOW NO EVIDENCE. SO YOUR MOTION WOULD HAVE TO EITHER MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE OR MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, NO EVIDENCE. SO A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UM, A MOTION THAT THERE IS NOT, UH, NEW SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENT, UH, EVIDENCE. UM, IF THAT DOESN'T MEET A MAJORITY OF THE, THE COMMISSION, WOULD WE THEN HAVE TO TAKE UP A, A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, OR DOES THAT CONSTITUTE ESSENTIALLY A DENIAL MOTION TO JUST A SECOND? A MOTION THAT FINDS THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST. NOW, THEN I'LL, AND WITHIN THAT MOTION, YOU CAN DEFINE, UH, THE REASONS AS TO WHAT SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE WOULD MEANS TO THE COMMISSION. SIR, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FOR THAT MOTION TO, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT WOULD REQUIRE A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT IT. CORRECT. OTHERWISE, THE MOTION FAILS AND THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION MUST BE TAKEN UP. CORRECT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MOST PRUDENT, PRUDENT APPROACH WOULD BE TO TAKE A MOTION, UH, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A MIX OF OPINIONS. I PREFER NOT TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, THAT I, THAT I WOULDN'T SUPPORT. SO I WOULD ASK THEM OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER A MOTION. UH, I, UM, MY QUESTION, SO I GUESS THE NEW EVIDENCE WOULD BE THE NEW PRESENTATION, OR I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? NEW EVIDENCE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS SECOND SUBSTANTIAL OR SE SECOND SUB APPLICATION AND LOOKING AT IT AND COMPARING IT TO, UM, WHAT THE B O A DENIED, UM, AND DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS FINDINGS OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO GRANT A WAIVER. ALMA IS WHAT THE BO O A DENIED THE SAME AS WHAT WAS DENIED BY THE, UM, BY THE, UM, H D R [01:55:01] C IN THE LAST HEARING? NO, THEY'RE NOT EQUAL. THEY'RE NOT THE SAME PRESENTATION. THEY'RE, NO, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION SINCE LAST TIME. I ALSO SECOND TO MAKE CLEAR. THIS IS A REQUEST OF A WAIVER WITH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF THE PROJECT THAT WE SAW LATE THIS YEAR, EARLY THIS YEAR, LIKE A LONG TIME AGO. THE PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED BY H G R C, WE DID NOT, WE DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF, NOT THE WAIVER, THE CERTIFICATE OF PERMITS, AND THEN IT WENT TO THE BOA EARLY THIS YEAR. OKAY. SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER. SECOND OLA, CAN YOU MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS PLEASE, AS TO WHAT THE SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS? WELL, I SEE SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE COMPARED TO THE PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED BY THE B O A WAY. UH, A FRIENDLY, UH, RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THE, THE, THE SCALE, UM, ALONG TRAIL AND THE, UH, I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO GIVE DETAILS BECAUSE THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT THE WAIVERS APPROVED, RIGHT? SO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. YEAH, I MEAN, I CAN TALK ABOUT BUILDING FIVE. I CAN TALK ABOUT THE YES, THE FRONT AND, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED THAT TO APPROVE THE WAIVER IF I'M DOING A MOTION. I MEAN, I THINK WE DISCUSSED WHETHER THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES OR CAN YOU, I CAN YOU SPECIFY BECAUSE THE WAIVER IS JUST FOR US TO APPROVE TO THIS PROJECT HAS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN. IF YOUR MOTION IS BASED ON FINDINGS OF, BASED ON THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AND MADE BY STAFF, YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION CORRECT. THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TODAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE MOTION PLEASE? SO, MOTION TO SUPPORT ITEM A WILL WAIVER AS PRESENTED TODAY AND ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND ARLA. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION. OH, GOSH. UM, JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW WHERE WE'RE HEADED. UH, STAFF OR, UH, SO WOULD IT BE CORY OR EDWARD OR BOTH ON THE WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? ? WELL, ON THE B ITEM, B PART OF THIS APPLICATION, WHY, WHY IN STAFF RECOMMEND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF PREPARATION, THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION. HOW, HOW COME THE, THE PARKING ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE URBAN DESIGN? NOT, NOT THE, NOT THE, NOT THE, UH, T C I, BUT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT A, WHAT AN H D R C MIGHT CONSIDER AND HOW COME THE MASSING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS? BECAUSE IT'S COME BACK FROM THE CONVICTION. I KNOW I HAVE, I KNOW MR. FETZER HAS WHY, WHY, WHY DOESN'T IT SHOW UP IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS? THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER, AND I THINK WE CAN GET IN. IF THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER IS APPROVED, THEN WE CAN GET INTO ITEM B AND TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN ITEMS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. BUT NOW ITEM A IMPLICATES B, IT IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T. THERE'S, IT'S TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. ONE, YOU FIRST HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE, THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY A WAIVER. IF THE WAIVER IS APPROVED, THEN YOU DISCUSS THE DESIGN. IF THE WAIVER IS NOT APPROVED, THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN. AND COMMISSIONER OLA, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU SECONDING THIS MOTION AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER GRUE? YES, MA'AM. WHICH FINDS APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AS A GENERAL DISCUSSION, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IN STILL IN ORDER, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE I ALWAYS HAVE A HARD TIME RECONCILING OUR ROLE IS ARE WE THE ZONING COMMISSION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKING, I GET UNCOMFORTABLE. I, I, I FEEL WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON. OKAY, THANK YOU. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS OR, SO THE PROJECT CAN PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A C OF A MAY. I HAVE A [02:00:01] ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE. FISH NAY. GIBBS NAY, VELASQUEZ NAY. ARLA AYE. CARPENTER AYE GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN. AYE. BET. SERVE NAY. THAT IS FIVE AYES. SO THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS A REQUIRED SIX. UM, SO I BELIEVE LIKE LAST TIME, ALMA, UNLESS YOU LIKE TO CORRECT ME, UH, NO FURTHER ACTION AS NEEDED FOR THE SECOND ITEM. THAT IS CORRECT. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DENY WITH CONDITIONS OUTLINED AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION? THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER WHAT, UM, YES, THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER DENIAL. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED, BUT, UM, AND IF THEY CONSIDER DENIAL, THEY CAN DEFINE NEW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. UH, ALMA, IS THERE A BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A DEFINED DENIAL IF THEY COME BACK IN A YEAR OR WHENEVER THE TIME PERIOD IS? I THINK, UH, ANY GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMISSION, UM, WOULD BENEFIT THE APPLICANT. DOES, DOES THE DENIAL FIRSTLY AFFECT THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO RETURN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM? IT COULD, IF YOU DEFINE NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. OH, IF WE KEEP DENYING A WAIVER OF SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE, THEN OF COURSE THE APPLICANT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD. SO THIS IS A MATTER OF THE APPLICANT BEING ABLE, I MEAN, CLEARLY THIS IS TWICE IN A MONTH TALKING TO THE APPLICANT. CLEARLY THIS IS TWICE IN A MONTH THAT YOU'VE BEEN DENIED FOR IN MONTH AND A HALF THE WAIVER. MOST OF THE COMMISSION DO NOT THINK THAT YOU HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW, YOU KNOW, A BIG DIFFERENCE. SO EITHER YOU GO BACK TO DRAWING BOARD, I SUGGEST WE ALSO HAVE A D R C BEFORE GOING TO AN H D R C MEETING LIKE THIS AGAIN. I MEAN, THIS WAS TWO HOURS. UM, I DON'T FEEL LIKE AS THE COMMISSION, I THINK NOW CHOICE HAS PROVEN THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. THE, THE APPLICANT CAN STILL COME BACK IN A YEAR WITH A NEW PROJECT OR FOR THIS PROJECT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT CAN STILL COME BACK FROM YOU, BUT THERE MUST BE, I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME MORE INFORMAL MEETINGS FOR THIS TO EVEN GO FURTHER. I WOULD REALLY ASK STAFF TO NOT SCHEDULE ANOTHER H D R C AS LONG AS, UH, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A D R C WITH MOST COMMISSIONERS AND THERE'S A FEELING CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. UM, MR. CHAIR, THE, THE, THE REASON WHY I, I ASKED THE QUESTION OF, UH, LEGAL IS BECAUSE IF A DENIAL DENIES IT BASED ON NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF SAY, MASSING AND, AND, UM, A, A A ACCOMMODATION OF SPACE ON SITE AS, UM, UM, AS SHOWN, RIGHT, THAT PARKING ON TRAIL, IF THAT SPECIFICITY LOCKS IN THE, THE, THE REASONS FOR DENIAL THAT STRENGTHENS THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO REAPPLY WHEN THEY, WHEN, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT OR GO TO A D R C AND ONLY HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE OVERARCHING, UH, ITEMS. AND THE REASON I SAY THIS, BECAUSE IT, IT WAS, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT SECOND PART OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THERE THAT I, I DON'T THINK WERE THERE. UH, I I I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHY THEY'RE NOT THERE, BUT IT DOES, IT DOES, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT CODIFY IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT IT DOES, I THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE BETTER, UM, UH, UH, DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT. AND ALTHOUGH I THINK THE RECORD WILL SHOW RIGHT, THAT, THAT OUR CONVERSATIONS WERE VERY CLEAR, BUT THAT IT'S IN, THAT IT'S IN A MOTION THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AND SAY, LOOK, WE WERE DENIED BASED ON THIS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT THEY'VE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY, THEY'VE TAKEN TO THE DESIGN TABLE AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR THAT ONE PROBLEM. UM, COMMISSIONER HERE, I, I THINK AT THIS POINT, ESPECIALLY THAT WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN AN ACTION, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ONLY SPECULATING WHAT THE PPLICANT MIGHT WANT OR MIGHT NOT WANT OR WHAT THEY'RE EVEN CONSIDERING GOING FORWARD NOW. [02:05:01] SO, UM, THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. UH, I DID, I DID THE BEST I COULD TO OUTLINE SOME OF THE POINTS THAT I DEFINED AS, UH, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OR, UH, SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE. AND I, AND I HEARD THAT MENTIONED A FEW TIMES, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT NO ADDITIONAL ACTION IS TAKEN, UM, I MEAN THAT COULD BE A GUIDE FOR THE APPLICANT AND I BELIEVE THE D R C PROCESS IS STILL OPEN TO THEM, UH, TO CONSULT FURTHER ON ISSUES OF THE WAIVER IF THEY SO CHOOSE. IS THAT CORRECT, CORY? YEAH, I MEAN, ANYBODY CAN MEET WITH THE D R C WHETHER THERE'S A APPLICATION IN OR NOT. UM, SO THAT IS A POSSIBLE NEXT STEP. UM, I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, TAKE TO HEART ALL OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, AND ALSO CONSIDER THAT THAT, UM, PATIENCE IS RUNNING OUT AND SO YOU, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR CHANGES AND I THINK THAT'S ALL GOOD. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I JUST WANNA YES. CLARIFY MY POSITION ON THIS IN, IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAYBE ILLUMINATE FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, A PATHWAY FORWARD. UM, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES DOESN'T MEAN I THINK IT'S STILL AT THE LEVEL OF BEING, UH, SOMETHING THAT WOULD RECEIVE IN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND SO I THINK GIVEN THAT WE'VE GONE AT THIS TWICE NOW, AND, UH, YOU HAVEN'T, UH, ATTAINED, UH, THE WAIVER THAT I THINK LOOKING AT THOSE ITEMS THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH MENTIONED IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY, NOT ONLY GAINS YOU THE WAIVER, BUT GAINS YOU, UH, MORE SUPPORT DOWN THE LINE FOR THE ULTIMATE C OF A. THANK YOU. OKAY, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER ACTIONS, UM, YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH, I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. CAN WE NOT APPROVE MINUTES COURT? UH, WE HAVE MINUTES FROM JULY 15TH. THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED ON THIS AGENDA. THEY'LL BE ON THE NEXT, SO MOTION IS SECOND FOR, UH, ADJOURNING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. * 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.