All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

So I stonly interpret in Spanish.

Gracias.

All right, thank you so much.

My name is John Bustamante, and I am the chair of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio as well as the District 5 zoning commissioner.

The time is one o'clock, and I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

All right.

I'd like to do roll call by allowing the zoning commissioners to introduce themselves, starting with the commissioner on my far left.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Marco Barrosa District 9.

Rob Sipes, District 7.

Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Witsett, District 10.

John Kelly, District 8.

George Inojosa, District 3.

Eddie Pete Rodriguez, District 4.

All right.

I and we're trying to get uh Commissioner Chase, the WebEx.

Okay.

Fantastic.

I'm sorry I didn't check that beforehand.

You're fine.

Um while we wait for Commissioner Chase.

Uh staff is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

And when Commissioner Chase uh does appear remotely, we will notice that.

All right.

In the meantime, we will begin with our pledge of allegiance as we always do.

Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the five of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for wishes and nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

Before I begin, please turn your phones on vibrate or turn them off.

The zoning commission is an 11-member body appointed by the city council to make recommendations on zoning cases.

Upon receiving a recommendation from the commission, you'll have six months from the date of the commission's recommendation to forward your case to City Council.

If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please contact your case manager.

Staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for rezoning and property within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks will indicate those property owners in favor of the request, and an X will indicate those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation and any questions by the Commission, the applicant will present their request.

For those who have signed up to speak for or against the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you are signed up to speak.

Those in support in opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

You will be informed that the three minutes are up.

For those that would like to give their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving their time for a total of nine minutes.

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak, and please announce that when that speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Staff, are there any pro postpone, withdrawn, or pulled items?

We do have postponed items.

All right.

All right.

For those in the audience, if you are present for item one, which is in District 10 and on Topperwine Road, uh, or item seven, which is on Easterling, or item eight, which is also on Easterling, uh, those items will not be heard today.

They will be re-noticed, just like you had a notice here for a date date sometimes in the future, if at all.

Uh so if you are here for any of those three items, uh you are welcome to go about your day and not spend your time in here with us.

Um if we could please list the items in combined hearing number one, please.

Item number three, number four, number five, six, nine, and eleven.

All right.

Uh Commissioners, any commissioner want to pull items on the combined hearing, the consent docket.

Looking to my left, seeing none, looking to my right, seeing none, looking remotely.

All right.

And I didn't get what time.

Oh, I was going to say, yeah.

Uh I didn't get what time Commissioner Chase showed up.

303 p.m.

303.

Thank you.

So for the record, Commissioner Chase showed up at 303.

103 p.m.

I'm sorry, 103.

I'm on Brazilian time.

Um I wish.

Uh no.

Okay, at this time, if we could please read combined hearing number one into the record.

Item number three, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to MF33, located at 9003 Somerset Road.

All over lease to remain the same.

11 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number four, a request for a change of zoning from multiple zoning districts to R4.

RM4, C2NA, C2NACD with a conditional use for auto and light truck repair, C2NACD with a conditional use for a fitness center outside use permitted.

C2NACD with the conditional use for a construction traits contractor screening required for outdoor storage from public roads and adjacent property.

C2NACD with a conditional use for motor vehicle sales, fuel surveys, and C2NACD with a conditional use for food, mobile vending, base of operations, with all overlead districts remaining unchanged.

Generally bounded by Pettus Street to the north, Watkins Lane to the west, Kuleba Road to the South.

There were 152 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Kulibra Park Neighborhood Association is in support.

Staff is amending to remove the property located at 3851 Kuleba Road from the proposed changes.

With specific use authorization for hotel, all overlays to remain the same.

Located at 110 Lexington Avenue.

27 notices sent out, one in favor, zero opposed.

Downtown Neighborhood Association and SA Texas District 1 Resident Association gave no response.

Item number nine.

27 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero post.

Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item number 11, a request for a change of zoning from I2 to C3, located at 3370 Nakadoches Road, all of releases are remained the same.

13 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed, and there is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

We do have public comment.

If we could please have the public comment.

The voicemails.

We would I'm calling for Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association.

I'm calling in support of this particular home getting their historic landmark designation.

We are so appreciative that this homeowner has done their research and found a chance to designate their home as historic thereby.

We would appreciate your support and allowing this homeowner to obtain his historic landmark designation.

Thank you.

That is it for public comment.

All right, very good.

And Mr.

Wilson, would you confirm that staff is amending their proposal as read in the record for item number four?

That's correct.

All right, thank you.

All right, the floor is now open for a motion.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval of the following items.

Items number three, number four as amended, number five, number six, number nine, and number eleven.

All right.

Is there a second?

I'll take you that.

All right.

Uh there is a motion for approval of item numbers numbers four three, four, five, four as amended.

Five, six, nine, eleven by commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Bottos.

Discussion looking to my left, seeing none, looking to my right, seeing none, looking remotely.

Commissioner Chase, could you speak for us?

Can you hear me?

Yes, perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

Again, the motion is for approval of items three, four is amended five, six, nine, and eleven uh by commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Bottos.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Barros.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Witsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here for any of those items, they are now moving on to city council.

So once again, you can go about your business and enjoy the rest of your day.

All right.

The next item.

Or the next hearing or the next excuse me.

It's that kind of day.

Um our next agenda is the continuance hearing to October 7th.

If we could please have that item.

Item number 10 is requesting continuance to the October 7th zoning commission meeting.

There are two voicemails.

Okay, let's have the two voicemails and any other public comment.

Hi, this is Janet Hernandez, 138 East Sunshine 2107106452.

And I just wanted you to know that I'm against the zoning of item number 10, hustle and state San Antonio Barbershop at 302 East Sunshine Drive.

I feel like it'll change the neighborhood, and I really don't want to see a commercial.

We have enough traffic coming through in front of my house, and I'm totally against it.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, hi.

This is O Sires Can 2.

I'm at 247 East Sunshine Drive, 210825939.

I'm calling about the zoning change on 302 Sunshine Drive.

Uh yeah, I'm I'm against that.

So if you can call me as a no, uh I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

But that is it for public comment.

All right.

This is a district seven case.

So Commissioner Sipes to you for a motion.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue item number 10 to the October 7th meeting.

All right, is there all right?

Um motion for continuance to October 7th for item number 10 by Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Bottos.

Discussion to my left seeing none.

Discussion to my right, seeing none remotely.

None.

Very good for continuance to October 7th for item number 10.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Barros.

Commissioner Callum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

If you are here for item number 10, uh, we will see you again in three weeks on October 7th.

So you can go about your way.

No one's here.

Um right.

Very good.

If we can now move on to our individual hearing docket and start with the first item there on good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavidas, zoning planner with development services.

Item number two is located at one 1730 and 1714 South Beal Street, going from R5 residential single family district to M F 25 low density multifamily district with all overlays staying the same.

There are 41 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed.

El Charo Neighborhood Association is in favor and Brady Gardens gave no response.

The proposed use is not consistent with the established development pattern of the surrounding area.

Surrounding properties are zoned R4 and R5 residential single family district.

The existing R5, however, the existing R5 is appropriate.

The rezoning is to accommodate a 12-unit development.

Although there are multifamily zones in proximity, those lots are designated for park space or are too small to develop.

All other residential zones in proximity accommodate single family residences with potential for maximum of two dwelling units, making the request for 12 units uncharacteristic of the development in the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial, and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Very good.

If we could have the applicant, please Sir, if you'd introduce yourself and give us your address, and then tell us about your project.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Charles Talbert and the owner uh at uh 1714-1730 cell deal.

Um that was a pretty basic description of what uh what the the plan is, and it's not it's not a 12-unit apartment complex, it's a residential assisted living.

It's for folks that are not uh at the end of life, however, you know, they still have some some activities and all of I no give me a second.

The statement was made that it's not uh the multifamily isn't is not uh wouldn't suit the neighborhood.

However, I believe it really would.

In this neighborhood, there's there are many older folks.

Um right behind it is a park to where the residential the the assisted living people that would be living there would have access to the park uh and you know the things in the area.

Forgive me, I'm just a little bit nervous, guys.

So uh it really would bring a lot of um uh additional business to the neighborhood we'd be using, but we'd be willing to use uh for landscapers, uh businesses that are in the immediate area.

Uh we're gonna need uh you know housekeeping and stuff like that.

If there are businesses that are in that area, we will definitely use them.

Um let me see what else was there.

As far as the uh project not being suited for the size of the lot, there's only four additional buildings going in uh on the plat, as you can see there.

Uh we've we've made uh uh room for uh you know for dog on it.

We've made room around the buildings to where they'll be able to kept be kept up.

Uh the the parking area is sufficient, and it's not really gonna create a whole bunch of new uh traffic in the area as the the elder folks are living there.

Most of them are not going to be driving, so it's not really gonna have a traffic impact.

Any would you do any of you have any questions that I can try to answer?

Stuttering here, of course.

So once you finish your uh presentation, we'll we'll open it up for questions.

I think I've stammered through enough.

All right, very good.

All right, thank you so much, Mr.

Talbert.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment for this item.

All right.

Um this is a district five case, so it is to me.

Um this is a request to go from what R5 to MF 25?

That is correct.

Okay.

Um so no site plan is required.

Correct.

What is the maximum number of units that could be placed on this site?

If he goes for the MF 25, it would be a development of 14 dwelling units.

Okay.

Okay.

Um is there any other requirement or any other issue with the multifamily housing given the intention to use it as an assisted living facility?

Not so much with the use, the assisted living.

We were just concerned of the amount, the density in uh comparison to the surrounding single family residential uses around there.

Um just so that they're aware, they would be permitted um what is permitted by right, is the assisted living up to six residents at this moment.

Um they would need a conditional use if they wanted to increase those residents.

So I'm not certain how many residents they're wanting, if they're wanting how many units versus residences, but our zoning is based off of the residents number.

Right.

And I guess that's ultimately my question is if we have 12 units and each person has one or two people in there, is this a zoning issue that might need to be addressed?

Yes, again, it would be considered off of the residents themselves, not the not the unit.

So if right now they're up to they are permitted up to six residents.

Um people.

Right.

Okay.

So Mr.

Talbert, do you understand that?

That if right now, if you have 12 units, really only six of those are allowed by right for uh assisted living.

The remainder would not be.

Correct.

One of the things that that I didn't mention earlier is the lower units, uh, it's a two-story.

So the lower units would be used for the assisted living.

The units on the second floor would be used for uh, as you know, right down the street uh is a university hospital.

There's nursing staff, doctors.

Uh there's a lot of of need for uh temporary living spaces for doctors and nurses, they're traveling nurses, traveling doctors.

So that was the plan for the upper units to have the doctors and nurses.

It would be available for them uh uh to at least short term.

Meaning, you know, at monthly at a time.

So that would be a mix of the assisted living versus a mix of multifamily.

Okay, does that raise any issues with the zoning?

Well, again, we're just concerned of the amount of the density.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

I think right now that's all my questions for the time being.

Any further questions, Commissioners to my left?

Commissioner Woodson?

Um let me see if I understand you got it.

Is your mic microphone on?

Uh you've got are you gonna use the existing house also as part of this?

Uh the house is rented out as as already, yes.

All right.

And so your four buildings are gonna have how many units per building?

Three.

Three per building.

Correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

So one full one on the second floor and then two units on the ground floor.

Is that the way uh just the flip?

It would be one on the bottom, two on top.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, staff, the with the change in the state law about density for commercial sites where they can go up to the maximum of the allowed density in the city, which is 65 units an acre.

Um is that come into play at all on the MFs?

Do they get they are still limited to what they're it is zoned residential?

That house bill that you're asking about is for properties that are zoned commercial, office, or light industrial.

Does not apply to multifamily zoning.

Correct.

Okay.

Excuse me.

All right.

Any further questions, Commissioners on my left?

Seeing none, Commissioners on my right.

Yes, Commissioner Heenosa.

So on the bottom, you're planning to have the assisted living individuals?

Correct, yes.

So you're only going to put those on the four new buildings?

Correct.

So you're only going to have four assistant living facility individuals?

That is correct, sir.

Not the six.

Correct, correct.

But I'm assuming like if there's a husband and wife or something like that, I mean you you haven't up to six.

That is correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

And upstairs.

It's basically just, I mean, I know you mentioned doctors and nurses and everything.

Um here's what I'm not gonna do, sir.

And that's I don't want that to sound wrong.

Um I'm not gonna bring in uh low-income housing.

I know that's a big concern of that whenever I spoke with the residents in the in the neighborhood, that was their main concern.

We don't want any additional low-income housing in here.

That is not the plan.

Gotcha.

So I have two questions.

So uh one of them is have you done a comparison about the uh like the rental rate for that area?

For assisted living?

No, no, no, for for the your upper neighbors.

We're well, depending on the on the bedrooms and and all that, you're anywhere from 800 to almost 2,000.

Okay.

And then my second question is.

Uh I don't know if there's a question or statement, but uh you know, if if I'm if I'm up there in age, I probably don't want a youngster upstairs banging on those ceiling walls or ceiling.

Um I'm sure you've thought about that and and between the first and second as well.

We'll we'll put in some not sound proofing, but sound reduction uh boarding and the existed existing building, the original house, that you're just gonna rent that out to that is correct.

Okay.

And it's currently rented out.

Correct.

Okay.

That's all my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hinohosa.

Any further questions?

Commissioners on my right?

Remotely.

Commissioner Chase?

I just have one.

If it's assisted living, so will you have staff?

There will be some staff.

Um actually again, something else that I forgot to mention is we will have um uh security on site uh in the overnight hours.

We'll have have security patrols.

Um there will be uh a nurse and nursing assistant on site.

Now that's 24 hours.

That'll that has to be 24 hours.

Will that person live in one of those units or where would their like workstation be out of?

Well, the workstation would be uh out of one of the one of the units, obviously.

But and uh hadn't really I don't know it would be a discussion at the at the time with the individual, you know, uh pay compensation, uh a perk.

We would have to see okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Chase.

All right.

Um I don't think I have any further questions, but I'll go once more around the horn.

Anyone to my left?

To my right?

Chase.

All right.

All right, this is a district five case as I mentioned.

Um I appreciate staff's recommendation.

Uh normally I would agree with it.

Uh it's in the middle of a block face.

It uh is a lot of density for the middle of a block face, and that concerns me generally.

In this case, however, given that it backs up against the park, and even though you know some of the MF, the multifamily in the area is part of that park complex.

I think this is a reasonable use given this lot, and is perhaps um, you know, pretty close to an ideal use given the size of the lot and the neighboring houses.

So in light of that and understanding staff's concerns regarding density, uh, I am and do move for approval of item number two.

Is there a second?

Yes, Commissioner Woodsett.

All right.

Discussion, commissioners to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Snipes.

I guess now is the time to say this is a difficult case.

Um for anyone else does it this this meeting.

Um I will be supporting the motion uh with all due respect to staff because uh I fully understand the rationale um for the the reasons that that you have mentioned.

I think it's the backing up to the park that's the the biggest um the biggest plus to the development.

Okay.

Any further discussion, Commissioners to the left?

Yes, Commissioner Kelly.

Uh I would just say that uh I'm really torn on it.

Uh being an older person myself, I realize that assisted living is probably in my future too, so I understand the need for sufficient assisted living resources in the community.

I'm a little concerned about the fact that it's in a block with a lot of single family homes.

Um the park seems like an ameliating factor there.

This would be something handy for the residents uh whether they're in the assisted living or upstairs to have access to, that would be an advan advantage, I would think.

I'm really torn on this one.

Uh I don't know.

I'm just I have I'm gonna have to really think about this one.

Understood, sir.

All right.

Any further comment?

Commissioners on my left?

All right.

Commissioners on my right, yes, Commissioner Hinohosa.

I'll be supporting this this motion.

Uh again, I think uh I'll echo that the park, I think saved you uh from the area.

There's some apartments up down between Rhodes Middle School and Barclay on Barclay.

So I I don't think it's gonna be unreasonable different.

Uh one question real quick uh for the city for the staff.

Um let's say I think I already know the answer, but I don't want to double check.

Let's let's say a couple years goes by and it uh the assisted living is not working out.

I mean he can just there's nothing that prevents him from um just making it regular apartments, correct?

That's correct.

I thank you.

Good luck.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further comment?

Commissioners on my ride.

All right.

Commissioner Chase, discussion.

All right.

Did also weigh heavily on this is the support of the Chadow Neighborhood Association.

I know you and I didn't have a chance to speak, but I appreciate that you reached out to those neighbors to get that input.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number two by me with a second by Commissioner Woodson.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Callum.

Yes.

Commissioner Noasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Nodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Siph.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

I think I'm gonna have to go no.

Commissioner Barros.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right, congratulations.

You're on your way to City Council.

Thank you, sir.

Good luck to you.

Have a good day, Joe.

All right.

The next item, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavidas, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 12 is located at 603 Purit Avenue, going from R5 residential single family district to RM5S residential mixed district with the specific use authorization for wireless communication tower with a reduced setback from residential property of 165 feet with all overlays staying the same.

There were 14 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Collins Gardens Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The existing R5 is an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area.

The proposed RM5S is not appropriate.

Although the proposed base zone will remain residential, the applicant plans on demolishing the current residential structure and develop the wireless communication tower.

The project is unable to accommodate the required 200-foot UDC setback for a tower from established single-family homes across the street, allowing potential high-rise commercial building encroachment within an existing residential neighborhood.

Staff recommends denial.

All right, if we could have the applicant, please.

Yeah, I'll yield my time.

Mr.

Chair, he's gonna yield his time to me.

You've got 10 minutes.

So I think that should be plenty.

Okay, so uh real quick, um, I'll probably forget a few things, but August 12th, we did have a neighborhood meeting with Collins Garden.

We sent out everybody within 300 feet, personal email letters, uh also inviting them to attend.

We had a really good turnout, really good meeting, talked a lot about uh the coverage issues there, um and there was at least three or four people that are concerned about the drop calls and stuff like that.

So next slide, please.

So just to show you where this is.

This is really in the corner triangle.

Uh it's the only lot that is not zone commercial.

Um we spent uh over a year looking for something that works in commercial.

No Golitos is kind of like a boundary of commercial strip, and then there's residential just right behind it.

So it is transitioned over to small commercial areas, but it looks like it's just kind of a divider between that.

I want you to see that little triangle right there where we're neighbors of I-35, neighbors of commercial, and then across the street we have uh Prude Avenue residences.

So we we pressed, we got lucky with Leon.

We found the only site, and he was willing to work out, but we pressed that site as far back as we possibly can because no other commercial track except HEB where it's gonna work.

And HEB does not want to lose six parking spaces in that store.

It's amazing.

Thank you.

Um again, the neighborhood plan, you see the small area of commercial residential mixed use.

Now, basically, our RM5 was to be compliant with the the neighborhood plan.

So it's labeled as a future land use mixed use.

So we talked about that, which also gave us a better setback of the rear to push the monopole back further to 196.5, which is almost 200 feet.

And that's what we did on that one.

Next slide.

So just bullet points here.

It is a minor waiver of 200 feet.

We're talking about three and a half feet.

On the distance to the district and the lot.

So I watched those appraisals for 20 something years ago looking at the market conditions.

I did ask Samantha to put that in your file.

I don't know if it was or not, but I've been tracking that because some of those houses, there were three or four of them in my own neighborhood that were within that 200 feet, and I want to make sure that their values didn't decrease.

Go to the next one, please.

Okay, this is the the quirk in the code where you can get uh 200 feet from the use, and right now that again a correction is not 199.

That was from the center of the monopole.

It's 196.5.

Another another minor variance.

Next one, please.

There's the site plan.

It shows you how far it is, and it shows we're surrounded on three sides with commercial and IH 35.

Really only appropriate to do something in here.

And and Leon was thinking about maybe a duplex after we build the tower site to get some affordable housing in that area.

Um next, please.

I'd been doing this a while.

I don't know if you guys ever remember me coming here.

I haven't been here in a while.

I don't, and ATT is not gonna like this.

I I don't think I've seen a worse coverage map.

That's existing coverage.

You can see in the red uh cross in the middle where our proposed site is gonna be.

You can see red is no service.

Um, and and I equate that to this tough area.

This is 95% residential in Collins Garden.

It's a beautiful neighborhood right down right down the road here, but it's all residential, so there's no way we can get anything done unless we find a residential lot and make it work with those setbacks to go to the next one, please.

That's the increased coverage.

So it's all indoor service.

And the people that were at that neighborhood meeting at Collins Garden will no longer drop any any calls.

So one thing important to mention this is being built for all three carriers.

Uh can we accommodate all three antennas and equipment?

Next one, please.

Uh this is like best server.

This is going to be increasing capacity on other sites.

You can see the little purple lines where it's giving a little bit, taking a little bit more from that area and providing it on this existing site.

That's really important to have as well.

Next, please.

Uh ATT is first net.

They will employ first net on this site for first responders.

Um they do that on all their new sites as well.

So that's a great uh asset to have.

We talked to the officer at the neighborhood meeting, and and he is well aware of this as well.

Um, next, please.

Uh RF radio waves, uh, my standard go to I I get more in front of my microwave.

I'm warming up my coffee mid-morning than you do standing underneath the cell towers.

10 times as many in that microwave.

So RF has not been uh it's non-ionizing, it's not been shown to cause any any major health effects.

Final slide.

Reminds me of how important those little things are.

Okay, we have medical devices running off them.

Um we have 911 calls, we have bear bear uh 911 dispatch can see you if you have good coverage without talking to them.

The map will come up, pinpoint that within 10 feet of where you are.

So very important to have, and again, first net's gonna be on there, and good thing I didn't use all my time, but uh I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Appreciate it.

All right, very good.

If you signed up, we can call you when public comment, which is might be right now.

Paige Johnson.

There you go.

All right, if you would say your name and your address.

Oh, Paige.

I'm sorry.

I wasn't the applicant, but you represented me.

Okay.

I guess say I guess okay.

Hi there, I'm Paige Johnson with ATT, and um we are supportive.

That's all I have.

Right, thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Anyone else?

That is it for public comment.

All right, Mr.

Hubinger.

I'm not gonna give you rebuttal to that.

So all right, but I do want you to come up if you would.

Again, this is a district five case.

Um it is to me for questions.

All right, so my first question is you discussed some of this change, but I want it to be clear.

In the original application, uh the distance between the residential use and the monopole was 166 feet, correct?

Uh that was the original application, yes, sir.

Okay.

Why was that?

Because actually it was an incorrect staff application because it really goes to the structure, not the district.

So what we did was correct that this morning, and we're working on that last couple of days to make sure it goes from the tower to the house and not to the district zone area.

In other words, the ride-of-way.

So that was 166.

When we then looked at the compatibility for the neighborhood meeting neighborhood plan with RM5, it allows us 10 foot setback in the rear instead of 20.

So we're able to slide it back 10 more feet, Chair.

Okay.

So in fact, that's what the amended application is, is to move that monopole back 10 more feet to the north.

Is that correct?

Exactly.

Okay.

All right.

And so you are amending your application in light of the site plan submitted today with that 10-foot setback.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Um, you know, the good news is we don't ever have to think about the RF.

We're we're prohibited from doing so under the telecommunications act.

So, you know, that flimsy science we don't have to worry about.

Um, I think you mentioned this during your presentation, but I I do want to make sure I understood it correctly.

Um the intention is potentially to build another property or another building there in addition to the monopole and shed.

That's uh Leon's intent, yes.

We're gonna demolish the existing residence, which isn't is in poor shape.

We could we need to do that to make sure we had that separation also since it's residential.

Okay.

All right.

Um staff, is there any concern given this application for uh building uh you know potential duplex, triplex, et cetera.

Actually, is triplex allowed in RM5?

Um yes.

Um RM5 allows up to three units.

Um there is a there is a concern though, since we were looking further into this code.

Uh basically you would have to keep um with what is being reviewed right now with the amended 199 uh distance, basically the unit, I don't believe you'd be able to build on the a house on that property because then you would be encroaching that setback that we originally were thinking about.

Um my understanding.

I'm sorry.

Um Mr.

Hubinger, if you would.

My understanding is that it can't it it it can go backwards, but it can't go forwards.

In other words, you can build a residence within that setback, you can't build a tower within that setback and and uh on an existing residence.

So we've had this happen in many communities in Texas where the owner wanted to do something, but we told him wait till the tower is built, then file your application for whatever residential apartment unit or whatever is there.

There are some codes have minor setbacks, period.

Uh San Antonio does not.

All right.

Um, so let me ask then a conditional question to you.

If for some reason it turns out that you're not able to build, is this still the application you want to make today?

And this, I guess to you is to you, sir.

Yes.

All right.

Um so as long as you're aware of that potentiality, uh that seems fine.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

To my right?

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

For staff, just uh for clarification for myself.

Um he has to be they have to be within you know, outside of 200 feet to neighboring house or the freeway, or what so bear with me.

Um if it's a resident, if it's a base zone that is residential zone, he has to be 200 feet from a residential use, aka structure, the other home.

So that would be the home across the street.

But if he was to do a non-residential base zone, then he would have to be 200 feet from the property line of a residential use.

So I hope that makes sense.

Yeah, I think so.

But he's gonna amend the uh he's gonna amend it to have an additional 10 feet or move it 10 feet.

Could if he only moved it five foot, that was still far within the 200, and would that give him any kind of leeway when he they future use of building uh house or property?

Well again, he's following the setbacks for RM5, and that's a 10-foot rear setback.

So he's pushing the monopole as far back as he can that it complies with the RM5 building standards.

Um so that's basically where he's measuring the monopole, the poll for the actual uh antennas uh from the closest uh single family home or residence.

That makes sense.

I didn't know that.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions on my right?

Seeing none, Commissioner Chase.

All right.

So just to beat that horse to death and and beyond.

Um let's talk about uh the UDC code, if we could.

So uh what is the section?

We're looking at section 35-385 and two 385 D2.

D2, correct.

All right.

So again, uh I think there are two issues that are worth discussing here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on either one of them.

One is um dealing with uh something that we're not dealing with today, which is if they were asking for a commercial use to bring it in line with the surrounding properties on that block face, then they would have to meet a 200 foot setback to the property line of the nearest residential.

That is correct.

Okay, and then what we're actually dealing with today is the second conditional in 385 D2, which is a residential use, which means we need to be 200 feet from the monopole to the structure itself, the nearest residential structure.

Correct.

Okay.

However, even with that, we're still at 196.5, correct?

To the to the structure.

Yes.

Okay.

But the last part of 35 USC 385 D2 says that city council can reduce that 200 foot setback.

That is correct.

All right.

So today's application basically asks for three things.

R5 to RM5, a specific use authorization for the monopole, wireless tower, right?

And a reduction on that 200 foot limit by 3.5 feet.

Correct.

All right.

All right.

Any further questions on my left?

On my right?

Commissioner Chase.

All right.

Again, this is a district five case.

Um so it is to me for discussion and motion.

Um I think this is a compelling case.

Uh I think I might have been willing to even look at it if it had been commercial and consider recommending approval of less of a setback on the 200 feet.

I think moving the tower back along that setback to get that 196.5 means that any variation from the 200 foot limit is de minimis.

And so uh given that and given the presentation and no comment from Collins Garden, um, at least no written comment to us, uh, and no public opposition to us within 200 feet.

I'm going to move for approval of item number 12 as amended.

Second.

All right.

Commissioner Kellum has seconded.

Any discussion, commissioners to my left.

Commissioners to my right.

Commissioner Chase.

All right.

The motion is for approval as amended for item 12 by me with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Noasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Barros?

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Congratulations, you're on the city council within six months.

Uh I believe the five final item on our agenda is approval of the minutes.

Any corrections, amendments, amendments, changes, punctuation fixes, grammar.

Anything left?

Seeing none?

Right?

Seeing none?

Commissioner Chase.

Seeing none?

All right.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

All right.

Is there a second?

Motion to approve by Commissioner Sites with a second by Commissioner Bottos.

This will be a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

The minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report?

No report.

All right.

Um before we adjourn, I do want to let uh commissioners know that we do have a current vacancy for our vice chair.

Um so next meeting we will have an election for vice chair at the very least, and we will notice for both vice chair and pro tem in the event that the pro tem is elevated to vice chair, but that will be something that will be on the next agenda.

So consider, think about it, run.

Think about nominating your friends as torture, whatever the case may be.

All right.

With that being said, the time is 1 50, and this meeting of the zoning commission of the city of San Antonio is adjourned.