All right, good afternoon.

I apologize again.

We were running a little bit late today.

Um, but I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Um escuchar esta session in Espanyol.

Aqui in la cabina tenemos uh radios para ustedes, receptores para que lo puedan escuchar in español.

Muchas gracias.

Soy Soraya con el equipo interpretist.

Thank you so much.

All right.

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 11, and I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

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

John Kelly.

Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Whitsett, District 10.

Moses Duvel, District 9.

Mia Lose, District 2.

Georgie No Hosa, District 3.

And Commissioner Chase.

Yes, the Quorum is present.

All right.

Thank you so much.

If everyone would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

And to the Republic for Ridge.

Indivisible.

Okay.

Before we begin our hearing today, I would like staff to review our meeting format for the benefit of those in the audience.

Staff, if you would.

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 will 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 that 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 and opposition will be allowed a maximum of two minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

You will be informed that the two minutes are up.

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

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak.

And please announce that when that speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit, along with an opportunity to address commissioner questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any withdrawn or postponed items?

We do not.

Okay, very good.

If you could please list the items that are currently on our combined hearing number one, our consent agenda.

Item number seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and we do have some speakers signed up for those items.

Very good.

Commissioners.

Any commissioner want to pull any of the items currently listed on consent to individual, looking left, seeing none, looking right, seeing none, looking remotely, seeing none.

If we could please read our combined hearing number one consent agenda into the record.

50 notices mailed down, zero in favor, zero post, prospect Hill Neighborhood Association and West End Hope in Action Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number nine, a request for a change of zoning from MF33 to M F 33S with a specific use authorization for support of housing campus located at 3038 Eisenhower Road.

All other overleas remain the same.

Number 10, a request for a changes on it from I2 to C2, located at 3310 North Interstate Highway 35.

All other states remain the same.

Eight notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no registered neighborhood association within two hundred feet.

Idem number eleven, a request for a change of zoning from I 1 to C three located at 4722 Redamon Road.

All other overlays are remained the same.

Twenty notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Park Village Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

Correct.

So that's amended on that basis.

No, it's not amended.

I'm just calling to make sure that y'all are aware of the request.

I'm sorry, thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

Item number 17.

A request for a change on it from R 4 to IDZ1 with uses permitted for six dwelling units located at 505 Arbor Place.

All other release remain the same.

A request for a change on it from R five to I one located at 572, 605, 606, and 607, Pop Gun Drive.

All other releases remain the same.

17 notices mailed zero in favor, zero opposed.

There's no neighborhood association within two hundred feet.

All right, thank you.

Before we go on to public comment, if I could have the applicant or applicant's representative for item number seventeen, please.

Okay.

Uh I understand you are going to be amending this application specifically.

A line in the site plan will be removed.

Yes, that's correct.

Um I'm Anissa Shell with Ortiz McKnight, representative for the applicant.

Um we would like to strike the line on the site plan uh regarding location of uses.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

So 17 will be amended such that the site plan will no longer have the line that reads location of uses, all requested uses are permitted on entire subject property.

All right.

Uh if we could have public comment, please.

Samuel Webb.

Mr.

Webb, if you would tell us your name and your address, please.

My name is Samuel Webb Senior, and I live at 1719 Arbor Place.

Okay.

This is for item 17.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm kind of a novice.

I didn't get together with uh get a lot of background information, but I've lived at 1719 Arbor Place.

As a matter of fact, I'm 81 years old.

I was born at that particular address and moved back in 07.

Now the the resident in question is 1450.

And uh that's the O Willridge uh resident.

Are you talking about building uh apartments?

Um they don't have no idea how dark it gets back there.

So if they're gonna do the lighting and all that, I guess I live next door to a well anyway.

I won't get anyway.

They strip cars next door, 1715.

And uh I'm not here to address that.

I'm here to address 1450, but I am opposed to it.

I get some more background information, but I just want to register my opposition.

Very good, Mr.

Webb.

I appreciate that.

Are we talking about 505 Arbor?

No, no.

We're talking about 1450 Delgado.

Okay, we're talking about 1450 Delgado.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh is the applicant or applicant's representative here for 1450 Delgado.

Can you talk to Mr.

Webb about this?

Um, yeah, so I apologize for not being on point.

No, no, Mr.

Webb, I appreciate it.

You know, this is a position is all excuse my opposition is all over uh I'm registering.

This is so this is a recommending body, sir.

And so we make recommendations to city council.

City council will then have the opportunity to, you know, potentially you can go speak to them again.

Okay.

Um but I would recommend that you talk to the applicant.

Who is the case manager on this case?

Forgive me, I should know.

All right.

Alexa, between these two folks, they should be able to tell you what's going to happen.

And I think your concerns uh are good, but I think given the plan, I don't think they're gonna they're gonna be a big concern once you get a chance to talk to these two folks.

Okay.

All right.

Again, I apologize.

No, no, Mr.

Webb please.

Thank you so much, sir.

I appreciate you coming down.

All right.

Next, please.

Peter Ubanks.

Good afternoon.

My name is Petra Eubanks, and I'm here to talk about my uh my address, my business is 1512 East Houston.

And the the case number that I'm talking about, it's gonna be it's uh 1510, East Houston Z two zero two five.

I don't know if I need to read all that.

But the c the case is here is that um there's a business, and this is a lot that they're trying to build on, it's not 15 feet wide, and it's 30 feet deep, and they're trying to build a single family home in there.

I don't know how, because by the time you take three feet off each side, and it's just gonna be one long and a building and it's gonna be two-story, I guess, to make it a single family dwelling.

There's pistache bar on one side, and then there's this little tiny little spot they're trying to build on, and then there's my gallery next door.

It gets extremely busy at night.

If you'll go to that pistache bar, you'll see cars lined up everywhere, loud music.

I'm not there during that during the night, because I'm gonna have a gallery, but I'm telling you that it's not uh a good place for a family dwelling.

Also, if it's gonna be a narrow little building, it's gonna be two-story, I guess, and that will hinder the light and everything from my trees and everything to my property.

And I oppose this.

Um I should have come to the first meeting and I didn't, but I'm here now.

But um any questions.

Uh Ms.

Eubanks, uh I don't think so.

Commissioner Losef.

All right.

Um do you know who the applicant is on this?

Okay.

Um who's the case manager on this one?

Alexa.

I apologize.

Alexa Ratana.

Alexa.

Alexa, who's outside.

Okay.

Uh, why don't you chat with her?

Okay.

Uh again, this is a recommending body.

Uh so you'll have another chance to you know address some of your questions with Alexa, the case manager on this case.

Okay.

And and another opportunity to address any concerns you might have after that with city council.

Well, let me ask you a question.

Is there any rules or regulations of how small you can you can build something?

Because this is just gonna be 10 feet wide.

Yes, ma'am.

Those are all in the unified development uh code, and in this case it is an R2 property.

Uh so that section regarding R2 would do it, and Alexa can help you out with uh those restrictions.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, Ms.

Eubanks.

Oh, yeah, Commissioner Luself.

I was just gonna say that there's a zoning director for District 2 in the commission in the district two office, his name is Sidel Brooks.

He can reach out to you as well to help clarify this, because after this body moves on, it'll go to city council and he he will be managing it the whole way through.

Yeah, Sidel Brooks.

Uh he's so if you go on the website for the city council, they will give that information additionally.

Alexa or some other staff member.

Okay, case manager Alexa go over that with you.

Yeah.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Eubanks.

Next, please.

Joel.

That is it for public speakers.

All right or the consent agenda.

Very good, thank you.

All right.

Um in light of public comment, does any commissioner want to pull any item for individual looking left, seeing none?

Looking right, seeing none, looking remotely, seeing none.

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

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval for items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 as amended, and 18.

All right.

I'll second.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Hina Husa.

Uh the motion is for approval of 789, 10, 11, 13, 17 as amended, and 18 by Commissioner Kellum, with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh discussion looking left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh I had a question for staff on items 10 and 11.

It's the same question.

Um, it just wasn't clear for me from the staff report what the purpose of the down zoning was and who initiated the request to rezone.

Both requests, any request basically would be th by the applicant, the owner of the property, and then for 10, they were basically wanting to do a retail and the same for item um 11.

Items that are not permitted in industrial zoning.

I see.

So the higher zoning was actually more correct.

It was less permissive than the lower zoning.

That is correct.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Any further discussion, Commissioners on my left?

Seeing none.

Commissioners on my right, seeing none.

Remotely.

Seeing none.

All right.

Very good.

Again, the motion is for approval of items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 as amended, and 18 by Commissioner Kellum with the second by Commissioner Hinohosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Wistamantham?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

If you are present for any of those items, though those items are now going on to City Council.

So if you are the applicant, good luck to you.

You have six months to take it before City Council with the recommendation of approval.

Ms.

Eubanks, again, Miss Ratana's out there.

You can speak to her.

And I believe the applicant might be out there too.

But if y'all uh were here for any of the items that we just did, good luck.

Have a good day.

Stay warm.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our continuance hearing for uh the 1216 meeting.

Items requesting continuous to the 1216 meeting are item number two, 1214, and 16.

All right, very good.

Uh do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

There is no public comment.

Um the floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to make a motion for approval for continuing items two.

12, I'm sorry, and 16 to December 16th.

Okay, very good.

And and just for clarification, this is a motion for continuance to 1216.

Yes, sir.

All right, very good.

All right.

Is there a second?

Uh he forgot to mention 12.

Uh he did say 12.

Yeah.

I'll second it.

Okay.

I'm going with Pete Rodriguez for the second.

All right.

Uh any discussion looking to my left.

Seeing none.

Looking to my right, seeing none, looking remotely.

Seeing none.

I'm going to eventually make uh there's no remote discussion.

Um I messed up the joke.

All right, very good.

The motion is for continuance to the 1216 meeting of items 2, 12, 14, and 16 by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duville?

Aye.

Commissioner Whitza.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

If you are here for items 2, 12, 14, and 16, uh, you will be continued and we will see you again in two weeks.

So you can go about and again, please stay warm.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our individual item, and we will begin with item number six.

Sauce.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number six is located at 2250, Thousand Oaks Drive, going from C3 General Commercial District to C2 C D S.

Commercial District with a conditional use for animal and pet services, outdoor training, boarding runs, pens, or paddocks permitted, and a specific use authorization for animal and pet services, outdoor training, boarding runs, pens and paddocks permitted over the Edwards Recharge Zone District with all overlays staying the same.

There were 15 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed.

There are no registered neighborhood associations within 200 feet.

The proposed use is consistent with established land use designations in the surrounding area.

Surrounding properties are zone C3, commercial district and C3S.

Commercial general commercial district for veterinary hospitals, small animal, no outside runs, pens and paddocks permitted.

The existing C3 district is an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area.

The proposed C2 C D S district is also appropriate.

The request is to permit an outdoor kennel area for the existing dog dog day care dog daycare over the Edwards recharge zone.

Given that the property is located within an established commercial corridor and is accessory to an existing use, staff finds that it meets the locational requirements to accommodate the development.

Additionally, the subject area has access to a minor secondary arterial which can handle any potential increase in traffic.

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

Additionally, SAWS is here to present their findings.

All right.

If we could please have the SAWS report.

The site is located in the Lucy's Doggy Daycare facility previous previously built in 1986.

Therefore, no additional impervious cover will be added.

No sensitive geologic features, nor floodplain were documented on site.

We recommend approval with environmental recommendations within the SAWS report.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Escalante.

It's good to see the two mics back.

All right.

Is the applicant or applicant's representative here?

Well, good afternoon.

Uh Ms.

Chair, Commissioners, I'm Rob Killen, attorney with the law firm of Killing Griffin and Ferramont, our address is 10101 reunion place.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

We're pulling up a um PowerPoint here.

Do I have control?

This is my control.

That's okay.

I'll just start talking while they're pulling that up.

Uh and when you pull up different just go to the second slide.

I don't think I have control of here.

Um about 20 years ago, I was still a relatively young uh lawyer, and I got a call from a guy named Max.

And Max had a full-time job, but he told me about his love of dogs, particularly his Australian shepherd named Lucy.

And he said, I I'd like to open up a doggy daycare.

I said that's it's very ambitious.

What do you know about the business?

Oh, not much, but I think I can figure it out.

I love dogs.

And uh we met out on site at this property on on Thousand Oaks, and he needed some zoning help.

We got him through the entitlement process 20 years ago, and and they continue to expand.

There are several Lucy's doggy daycares around the city.

Two years ago, Max called and said, Hey Rob, you're me?

I said, Of course I remember you.

Lucy's is everywhere now.

He said, Well, you know, we had a successful business and we are ready to sell.

We've got someone who's going to come in, is going to show the same dogs as kind of care that we have for the last at that time, 18 years, and so we need to go through the due diligence of selling these sites.

So he asked us to get some zoning verification letters for their existing sites, including this one on Thousand Oaks.

The very first one, the one we worked on uh initially, uh, got him started.

And so we um let's go ahead and advance the slide.

Thanks.

So this property is on Thousand Oaks.

And so we got the zoning verification letters back, and and everything was good except for this property.

So if you can see that wooded area in the front, that is it was it's just an island in the parking lot, but really nice parking lot.

And we've done this 20 years ago.

We got it entitled for outdoor dog runs, place for the the dogs to play.

But when we got the ZVL back, we discovered that we're zoned properly for outdoor dogs out front, but there's this little strip in the back where 15 years ago they built the pins and paddocks for dogs just so they could be outside some of the time.

And uh it was not zoned uh properly.

So uh we're here uh before you today to ask to be really just correct what was in uh that uh really an oversight on their part.

They thought they were zoned properly, operated for 15 years without any problem, without any concerns, co-compliance.

It wasn't until the sale and we went through the ZVL process that we discovered that it wasn't properly zoned.

So the first thing we did it was no, we're gonna go through a zoning case, reached out and started talking to the neighbor right behind us, which is let's advance the slide.

We can thank you.

So we're talking about the area outlined in yellow.

So to the left you can see the adjacent property owner, it's a little office complex.

And uh talked to the the owner there, address the concerns, questions that they had, uh agreed to build them a brand new fence.

There's a brand new fence that has been built along the rear property line, and then start the zoning process.

So we started the zoning process about a year and a half ago.

Uh so went to at that time Councilman Courage, uh Commissioner Marcos, start working through the process.

It's over the recharge zone.

So uh most of our work during this time period has been with SAW.

So, Mike, I want to thank you for all of the hard work that SAS staff did in reviewing this.

So we can we can advance.

Some pretty picture, that's just words.

Let's let's keep let's let's go back to that one with the zoning map.

Here you go.

Let me let me show them the zoning map while we've got this up.

So there it's zoned C3 user D ERZD, and then the front portion that wooded area with the dog run is C3 ERZD with an S for outdoor animal service, but it was on a it's on a different platted lot.

So the S for outdoor didn't apply to this little strip that were uh had the paddocks where that were rezoning now.

So uh started the zoning case and started working with SAW.

So uh Emily Weissner and I went out there with Pape Dawson, who represents the the property owner with the SAS team, walked the site, looked at how the water flows off the property.

That was Saw's big concern is we've got animal paddocks there.

We want to make sure that we're protecting water quality.

So did a real deep dive uh over a number of months uh to make sure that SAWs all their questions and concerns were answered.

In fact, the one note that came back in opposition to say, hey, it's over the recharge zone.

Should you look at it?

And I will tell you SAWS did uh all of their proper due diligence, uh, as did our uh folks engineer.

So that's it.

It's a simple story, but it's interesting.

It's something I started at the beginning of my career and now kind of came back in the middle of my not the end of my career, the middle of my career, uh, to come back and and really kind of close this out.

So I've got a few more slides, but uh really it's uh these are the paddocks themselves.

Uh you can see behind them that's the brand new fence that was built.

Uh and working with the uh neighboring property owner saws done uh again, we looked at the drainage and all of that.

So I think we've got it's a weird little strip.

And uh and that's about it.

Uh but happy to answer your questions that you all have.

Uh I know you've got very few things on individuals, so you probably want to get out of here early.

But uh, I do want to answer any questions you have.

Uh thank thank you, Mr.

Killen.

Uh I can't imagine you retired.

So it's probably as the middle of your career.

Um do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Then you don't get a rebuttal.

This is a district nine case.

So, Commissioner Duval, to you.

Any questions?

Couple of questions actually, first for staff.

Uh so in work session we were talking about S and C, so specific use authorizations and conditional use authorizations.

Um so just could you clarify for us why on this case is there a C D and an S being requested?

So basically the C D it's an item since they're wanting the outdoor aspect to it, the indoor is permitted by right in a C2 or a C3, but it is not permitted by right.

It is only permitted by right in like the higher industrial zoning districts.

So that's why the C D is there because it we're bringing just that one use down to that base zone of C2.

The S is needed because it's within the ERZD and the ERZD requires an S for the outdoor aspect over the ERZD.

Great.

And then just to confirm we don't have any history of code compliance issues.

Correct, no issues.

Around the use of no second depends in the back.

Okay, great.

Um so given that it's an S I have a couple of questions for the SAWS representative.

I can invite you to come back up.

Mr.

Barr, if you would introduce yourself.

Sure, uh Michael Barr with the research protection division, me and Mike work together doing the same thing.

Yes, sir.

How can I help you?

Right.

So given that we're uh you know supposed to apply additional scrutiny for the yes, um, I just wanted to ask if you could share a little bit more about what SAWS had in their report and what recommendations you placed on the pro on the project and uh which you know what was approved, what what's the plan to control and mitigate environmental impacts?

Sure.

I think Mr.

Killen actually answered it pretty well.

Um we did meet on site.

We had some current concerns because of runoff, any possible runoff from the dog paddocks.

We don't want that going off into the creeks, the waterways, recharge.

We want to make sure it goes to the proper um permanent stormwater treatment device.

Um this report is actually probably one of the first ERZD ones you've seen.

I know you're a new commissioner.

Typically the report is about five or six pages long.

This is an abbreviated version because it's already an existing facility.

Um we don't um have to uh uh talk about the impervious cover limitations.

We don't have to talk about the category determination in this one, which is a whole nother process.

I don't want to waste y'all's time on that.

It's a long, but anyway.

Uh it was pretty straightforward with the exception of the runoff of any dog waste um and we wanted to ensure it was treated properly.

Um from what I understand, it's gonna be going into the sanitary sewer, which is good.

Uh initially um it was gonna be, I think that they were talking about it running off uh surface and we didn't like that.

So uh we met on site, we had several discussions with Mr.

Killing and Emily and on the phone, on emails, and we met on site once or twice with Pape Dawson, and they kind of ran it by us what they were gonna do to ensure that the treatment was treated properly.

Great.

Thank you.

Sure, you bet.

Thank you, Mr.

Barr.

One additional question for staff.

So it's a conditional youth authorization.

So I'm I'm back to uh my my favorite question on conditional youth authorizations.

Are there any other conditions that you as staff might you know recommend we consider?

Um especially if you know the property was later transferred to uh you know sold to another operator.

Any conditions we want want to ensure um are done to minimize impacts for noise or we haven't added anything to our staff report, so we're not recommending anything, but again it is up to y'all to make to do your suggest your own recommendations.

And the should have that list if you need another copy of the items that we can add as a condition.

So that is up to y'all.

Thank you.

That's it for me.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Duval.

Any other questions on my left?

Seeing none.

On my right, seeing none, looking remotely, seeing none.

Very good.

Uh Commissioner Duval, to you then for discussion and potential motion.

So my understanding from uh you know the existing state of the uh the space of the the paddocks and run is they have some nice screening from the parking lot, which on is on the other side of it with with fencing.

Um that would be the only thought of whether to consider a protective screening to require that they maintain that protective screening.

So it's not just like an open chain link fence.

Um, but I don't know if it's you know that that much of a big deal, but interested in hearing all your thoughts before I make a motion.

Mr.

Killen?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Commissioner, we have an agreement, a written agreement with the neighboring property owner to maintain that fence.

So we installed it, and so we've got a written agreement.

I did not bring it for submission to the record, but I can provide it to you afterwards if you'd like.

I think that's probably fine unless if anyone else thinks it's a concern, but it it looks like it's you know being well maintained now.

So with that I'll make a uh motion to recommend approval um of the item.

That's okay.

All right, very good.

Uh the motion is for approval of item number six by Commissioner Duval with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

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

Again, the motion is for approval of item number six by Commissioner Duval with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Duval?

Yes.

Rather, I Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Loth?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Witsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamantin?

I.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Uh very good.

Moving on to our next item, which in this case is item number one.

Thank you, guys.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

So item number one is located at 701 Indiana Street.

Um it's going from RM4, residential mixed district, to IDZ1, limited intensity in field development zone with uses permitted for three dwelling units uh with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 47 notices sent, four received in favor, uh, three opposed.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is opposed, and there was one in favor outside of 200 feet.

So the um the existing arm 4 residential mixed district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ1 limited intensity with uses permitted for three dwelling units is also appropriate.

Properties situation situated along a local road in a residential area comprised of one family and two family dwellings.

Um the applicant is proposing to build three separate two-story dwelling units with two parking spots spots each.

The uh adjacent lot to the east is is an existing duplex, and the surrounding zoning of arm 4 allows up to four dwelling units in a single structure on lots under one acre.

Um additionally, the proposal aligns with these um goals of the strategic housing implementation plan and provides additional housing stock to accommodate the city's growing population.

The staff recommends approval and the applicant is present.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Wilson.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, please.

And if you would introduce yourself, tell us your address and tell us about your project.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is George Torres.

Um I live at uh 611 Lay Street here in uh in the Lavaca neighborhood.

Um and I am property owner of 701 Indiana Street.

Um presentation.

I uh other than what you have seen here.

Um why don't we get up the site plan and if you could just tell us what what you envision here?

Yeah, sure.

Happy to walk you through those.

Um yeah, this kind of gives you a snapshot of of what I'm proposing.

Um essentially it's three single family homes uh detached.

Um you know the the lot is uh zoned RM4, so um I could do an apartment building or a triplex.

Um however I feel like uh three individual detached units is more appropriate for the neighborhood.

Um I mean there there do exist duplexes and and uh even three-story houses.

Um I understand this is an in-fill development and within the in field development, usually density is a factor.

Um and when I purchased the lot, it was always my intent to um to develop something um other than just one uh single family home, which I understand some of the uh neighbors would prefer uh having something like that.

So um I mean that's kind of the the summary of that.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Torres.

All right.

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

Very uh yeah, sorry, I think she came in a little bit late.

She was here last time.

Yeah, so would you would you just go give your name, sign in over there?

And then we'll we'll bring you up.

Sue Perkins.

Yes, Ms.

Perkins, if you would tell us your name and your address and uh your position.

Uh my name, my name is Lois Sue Perkins.

Um my address is 200 Douglas Way.

I live right behind where this gentleman is talking about.

And I noticed that they mail out letters and all that.

I have never received a letter from anyone regarding how they was gonna do this land.

And he is saying he's putting three separate two-story dwellings.

Okay, and another one I concern is since that'll be facing this way right behind there is a property, and was always afraid, you know, if something happened, catch a fire or something.

We're all gonna suffer on that corner.

And one of the main concerns that we still do have is the children, and uh, you know, going backwards and forth to school is very congested.

If anyone ever been over there between Pine and Hagberry doing what school time is at, it's very congested.

Also, when the day when they're giving out flea stuff, the street is blocked from Indiana and Olive, all the way back up to Navarro Street.

That's just how many parents go to that school, how many parents participate in that kind of stuff like that.

And uh also our concern if it was catch a fire or something like that, you know.

My homework is now I had always wanted to have a trailer home, but the city told me no, because if the trailer home catch on fire, everything around it is going up in smoke.

Same way about, you know, we're already like real close on that area, and that's when our main concern, and you know, even they're talking about a driveway, and I'm going through trying to still try to figure out how you're gonna you know put the three houses there and then put the three driveways and parking because there's really hard for people to park on the street because of the congestion, you know, when it's school time is out or when they're giving out something, and it's very bad, but now our concern is if they're doing the where did he go?

No, he's right back here.

You're building two stories or three.

Two stories.

I can complain I have a little two-story house, but mine is is on the corner, and there's I'm not worried about it, but it's just that you know, when you're going up and this house right here is on the little fence line.

Mine is right there on the fence line.

And you know, it's gonna be some interference, so but it's really hard to visualize that many houses on that area, even though they say they can build them there.

Thank you, Ms.

Perkins.

Okay.

That's your time.

Oh, my time is that.

That's your time.

Well, I was just getting started.

That is it for public comment.

All right, Mr.

Torres, you have a brief rebuttal if you want to take it.

Uh I would suggest to you that you discuss the parking in particular.

Um okay, so to adjust the parking, just to recap the the three units.

Um there's two that face South Olive, and then one that faces uh Indiana.

All of them do have a driveway um and the houses do have a garage.

So two um two spaces on site uh for each unit.

And then I've spaced the um the houses appropriately so you can have on street parking as well.

I understand that um you know the school across the street and uh traffic is a concern.

I did call the school and I've uh have correspondence with them that they're looking into the traffic situation, but uh the front office uh never expressed any traffic issues.

Um and they say that the traffic does run smoothly.

Um across the street from the property, there are no parking signs uh during the uh pickup and drop-off hours.

Um I did propose that that is uh an option for for this development um since it is um and you know a a concern.

Um however, you know, anyone living at this property if if they do have uh small children or a young family, um the kids are gonna walk across the street and it's uh they're not gonna drive.

So um so that would be my um rebuttal to that.

So thank you, Mr.

Torres.

If you're done, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off necessarily.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Okay.

This is a district two case.

Commissioner Losef, to you for questions.

Yes.

If the applicant could come back up, sorry, should I just stay up here?

Um so I know we talked previously and this has been continued of a couple weeks and you had a I wanted to see if you had a time a chance to check in with the neighborhood association on this.

Yes, I reached out a couple times.

Um however, I have not received a response from them.

So as you're probably aware, and I bike through this neighborhood a lot.

There's a lot of cases similar to this in the Denver Heights area.

Um one of the concerns we heard at zoning commission from Denver Heights was the lack of green space and then parking and then also congestion.

I think you kind of addressed some of the parking options and congestion, but I'm wanted to know if you've considered green space in the site plan, if that's an option or if that's been something that's discussed or been brought up to you previously to this.

Um it has.

And uh in terms of green space at Unit 1 has a fairly large uh front yard which is set back uh to respect the the frontage of the the street.

Umits two and three do have a smaller front yard.

Um in order to to increase the the green space, I guess on site, uh I would probably they have to reduce the units.

So currently though they have about 1,800 square feet, which is a three-bed, two bath, um, which I feel is kind of the the market um you know desire nowadays.

Um so if I were to shrink the footprints, uh I would have to look at going potentially three stories, which again I don't think that that's the correct solution.

So again, wanted to be respectful to the to the neighbors.

That's all for me.

Thanks.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Losef.

Any further questions, Commissioners to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duble?

For staff, uh was there a uh traffic impact analysis worksheet in this case?

So because the request is for IDZ, the parking requirement would be waived.

Sorry, I say parking, I meant a traffic impact analysis worksheet.

So there was a traffic impact analysis submitted, but it won't be fully reviewed until permitting.

I see but it's and the IDZ also waives TIA reports.

Sorry, T T.

Traffic impact analysis.

We just call it TIA for short.

So it does waive the analysis.

Yeah.

So any time uh IDZ infill development zone is sought, it waives the requirement for the TIA worksheet and analysis.

But I will also tell you that three dwelling units is not enough to warrant uh any sort of public improvement to that intersection.

Got it.

So that so the the TIA deals with whether public improvements would be required.

Is that how the statute works?

Or yeah.

So the the traffic impact analysis is required in order for the city's traffic unit to determine what sort of exaction, if any, the project may have to are they gonna have to dedicate land, widen the street, provide a deceleration lane, three dwelling units is not gonna be enough to warrant any of that.

Got it.

Yeah, I haven't you know haven't reviewed one before, so I wasn't sure what the analysis was.

But I guess then so on cases like this, the city isn't doing an analysis about existing traffic conditions or you know, pain points about congestion.

That's not included within the worksheet then, is it would not be required in this instance because the worksheet itself is not required.

Got it.

Okay.

All right, that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners to my left.

Further questions.

Seeing none.

Commissioners to my right.

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hoskell.

Uh yes, I had a question, Mr.

Torres.

Did you say these are going to be rentals or are they going to be No, they will be for sale.

So okay.

And they're all going to be three twos, three bedrooms, two baths.

Yes.

Two-story.

Staff, did you I think I heard you mention because it's IDZ that waives the parking lot of the city?

That is correct.

Can you remind me again why is this going to be IDZ?

That's so I think probably one of the biggest reasons if you're doing if you try to develop it as currently is with RM4, all of the units would have to be in one structure.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions on my right?

Remotely questions.

All right, Mr.

Torres, I have one brief question.

You mentioned you live in Lavaca, correct?

Have you considered possibly having a carport instead of a garage on these buildings?

So it I mean it is an option.

However, you know, it it complicates things a little bit.

So let me tell you why that that might be an option you want to think about.

Um people tend to use garages for storage.

And so we lose, even though it's not required here under the IDZ, it is something to consider as as you go forward if you end up developing something else.

Um because that makes me feel a lot more comfortable about you know these situations where you know parking, especially around s schools is an issue.

Um but that's just something to consider.

Would you consider it in the future?

Uh yeah, so the the garages do have uh uh space for for one vehicle and then an additional depth to it for you know, quote unquote storage if there was a a workbench or something like that.

So it's not uh like minimal requirements, but um a little oversized in terms of the depth.

But um if all else fails, I I would consider it.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Torres.

All right.

Commissioner Lose up to you.

Any further questions?

Anyone else on the left?

Further questions?

On the right?

Remotely?

All right.

Again, this is a district two case, so Commissioner Losof to you for discussion and potential motion.

Yeah, I want to say thanks for taking the time.

I know we gave you the continuance and I think it benefited to help be able to talk to people.

I also I know you adjusted the the parking and kind of addresses concerns, which is great.

Um as you know the neighborhood has a lot of these lots.

We this commission saw a very similar case maybe a month ago, almost identical.

Didn't that they had green space, you did not have green space, you now have some green space.

So um appreciate the accommodations that were made and kind of the adjustments in response to neighborhood concerns.

Um I think continue to be in contact with the neighbors, especially since you don't live in the area, just to be a a good good landlord, good neighbor, or I guess the good owner, since these are for home ownership.

Um but I this is um the kind of the kind of building we want in IDZ and what we want for the area.

So I'm gonna motion to approve the request for rezoning.

All right.

There is a motion for approval of item number one.

Is there a second?

Second.

There is a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Uh all right, discussion to my left.

All right, seeing none.

Discussion to my right.

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hossan.

Uh I'll be supporting this uh basically being an educator for 20 years.

My wife and I, you know, there's a school right next door.

It's S C I Z.

We want to bring in more families to the area, especially the east and south side of town.

Um I worked at Poe Middle School, which is down the street basically from from this area.

Um it's it's um it's I I think it's great to bring in bring in um housing to to uh sometimes we get stuck on that green spaces, but who's gonna support that green space, who's gonna make money off of that, right?

It's all about money for the most part, but I think this would be a great addition to the neighborhood.

I I was kind of weighing this because I know Denver Heights Neighbor Association is against it, but uh being so close to a school, there is gonna be some challenges as far as like certain times and the day with parking, but I think that's gonna be more challenging for the actual owners of the house.

I like the fact it's not gonna be a rental, that it's gonna be a home ownership um uh property.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Commissioners to my right, Pete Rodriguez.

Discussion.

I will be supporting this, but I would definitely would consider the carport uh as Mr.

Bustamante.

Commissioner Bustamante recommended.

Um just because I have a two-car garage and I don't park my cars in there, it's all storage.

So thank you, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh Commissioner Chase, discussion.

All right.

Briefly, um, you know, I understand the concerns regarding traffic about around schools.

Um that is a tremendous concern.

But you know, that's typically two times a day during the school year, on school days.

And you know, ideally no one's stopping parking blocking these driveways.

Um so there is some hope that you know, by putting these houses and these driveways here that it will maybe even potentially keep the flow a little faster and certainly not in front of these properties.

Um with respect to uh the fire concerns that Ms.

Perkins brought up, you know, that is something that will be addressed during the code process.

That is not necessarily a zoning consideration.

But Ms.

Perkins, I really appreciate you coming down twice here, uh, Mr.

Torres.

I would encourage you to continue to work with Ms.

Perkins with the neighborhood association and all of your neighbors uh as you go forward.

All right.

Again, the motion is for approval by Commissioner Lose on item number six with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Inoce?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Dubal.

I.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Mr.

Torres, you're on your way to City Council.

Uh, you have six months to take this item there.

We are now moving on to item number three, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alexa Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number three is located at 1034 Hammond Avenue, going from R4 residential single family district to R4 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for four dwelling units with all overlays staying the same.

There were 27 notices sent out, four in favor, five opposed within the 200 feet.

Highland Park Neighborhood Association is opposed, and no response outside the 200 feet.

The existing R4 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed R4 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for four dwelling units is also appropriate.

The neighborhood, much of the neighborhood benefits from the beta-r4 conversion, which already permits duplexes for lots.

Staff finds the proposed fourplex will align with the permitted density and the development will be held to the submitted site plan, which outlines development aspects such as building size parking and building setbacks and deviation from the submitted document could potentially warrant additional public review.

The proposal also aligns with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of additional housing stock to accommodate the city's growing population.

Staff recommends approval and the applicant is here to answer any questions and amend their request to R4 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for two dwelling units.

All right.

If we could have the applicant or the applicant's representative, please afternoon, Commissioners from Bertolial, 1650 West We Seth.

Yes, we would like to amend after speaking with the property owner.

We think that a duplex would better serve the community.

So we would like to amend to two dwelling units.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any public comment?

We do have public speakers.

Okay.

Just speakers.

Very good.

Yes.

Beth Carr.

And Ms.

Carr, if you would introduce yourself and tell us your address.

My name is Beth Carr and I live at 915 Hammond Avenue.

I am the treasurer of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association.

The Highland Park Neighborhoods Association does not agree for rezoning to three or four apartments for 1034 Hammond Avenue.

The Highland Park Neighborhood Association has no opinion on two apartments at Duplex.

After we hear from the residents, the HPE will make a recommendation.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter.

Thank you, Ms.

Carr.

Diana Vasquez.

My name is My name is uh my name is Diana Vasquez.

I live in 1050 Hammond.

And as a neighbor, and as a representative of the block, and as a citizen, it is my understanding now that the landlord or the investors is in agreement with a duplex.

This understanding would be bought as Ms.

Cars says to the Highland Park Association, its community, its citizens, and neighborhood.

And I come here as a concerned citizen as to represent and to support the neighborhood association.

Thank you, Ms.

Foskis.

That is a good public comment.

All right.

Would you like any rebuttal?

Nope.

Very good.

All right.

This is a district three case.

Commissioner Hina Hosa to you for questions.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Uh make this real quick.

Basically, I think it's a great deal.

I like the neighborhood association how they worked, and I like the how they the applicants worked with the neighbor association to kind of meet in the middle, maybe a little further on their side.

But uh appreciate that.

I think this would be a great opportunity for our neighborhood for the Hydam Park neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions on my right?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Chase, questions?

Commissioners on my left questions?

Commissioner Duval.

Uh to staff, if I recall from the last meeting, um duplex was permitted by right.

Is that the case?

Or without mixing up the duplex is permitted by right, but basically he would have to tear down the structure and rebuild.

So allowing this zoning will allow a site plan.

Um, and they will be able to keep the existing structure.

And that requires the CD.

Correct.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions on my left?

Saying none.

All right.

Again, this is a commission uh district three case.

Commissioner Hina Hosa to you for discussion.

Excuse me.

And potential motion.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I just want question I forgot to ask staff.

Uh staff parking.

I know they went down from six to four parking spaces.

Uh, they would need, is it uh one point five percent to be honest?

Actually, for two units, I believe you're only permitted uh one space per unit.

Yeah, one to two clarification.

One to two spaces, so the minimum they would need is two space parking spaces for a duplex.

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh I'd like to make a motion for uh approval.

Is there a second?

As amended.

Yes, correct.

Approval uh as amended.

Thank you.

I'll second it.

All right, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez is a second.

Um further discussion on my right, seeing none.

Discussion on remote.

Commissioner Chase seeing none.

Commissioners on my left discussion, Commissioner Duval.

Just only after uh the last zoning commission meeting.

I want to really thank the uh the applicant for for being cooperative and working with the community.

Um this is how zoning submission is supposed to work.

So thank you very much.

All right, very good.

Uh any further discussion on my left, seeing none.

All right.

Um again the motion is for approval of item number three as amended by Commissioner Hina Hosa with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner I know a commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries as amended.

All right, very good.

All right.

Hopefully, you all will continue to work together.

Good luck to you.

All right, we are now moving on to item number four.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number four is located at 8880 Heath Circle Drive, going from R6 residential single family district to R5 residential single family district, with all overlays staying the same.

There were 115 notices mailed, four in favor, nineteen opposed.

Kingswood Heights is opposed.

Outside 200 feet, zero are in favor, sixty-four are opposed.

The proposed use is consistent with the established development pattern of the surrounding area.

The surrounding properties are zoned R5 and R6 residential single family district.

The existing R6 district is an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area, and the proposed R5 district is also appropriate.

The applicant's request is to subdivide the property into smaller lots.

The density with the proposed lot size is consistent with the existing surrounding neighborhoods.

Additionally, the request aligns with the goals of the strategic house housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of additional housing stock to accommodate the city's growing population.

Staff recommends approval, and the applicant's representative is here to answer any questions.

If we could have the applicant's representative, please good afternoon, Chair Bustamante, zoning commissioners.

Good afternoon, Chair Bustamante, zoning commissioners.

My name is Mia Marie Pugh with Brown and McDonald Law Firm 100 Northeast Loop 410, suite 1385 here on behalf of the applicant.

Also with me today, we have the project engineer and um some team members of HYG homes.

As you can see, it is surrounded by established neighborhoods.

This is one of the last um undeveloped lots that's zoned for single family.

Uh twice now.

Um their issues more stem from phase one, which is not what we're here.

Um we're here for the phase two.

So their issues, just to address them head on, um, is about uh the dust that's been produced by the grading and the development of the land.

Um we have already talked with our subcontractors about three times now for them to increase uh watering down so the soil won't leave.

And if you notice during staff's presentation, we still have our silt fences up, and you know, we're doing everything we can to mitigate that problem.

It's just one of those downsides with um building a new subdivision.

Um also they were very concerned about the trees that were um quote unquote ripped out.

Um our property um is not vested, so we have to follow the current UDC and the tree ordinance.

We're not any violation, we're not requesting any variances, we are following what we need to do, and we will be replanting um once we're through that process.

So phase two again is a very separate it those pictures that you saw was all graded, that's phase one.

We are not touching phase two till around 2027.

Um so just wanted to get that addressed.

So here is our preliminary site plan uh for R5.

So this is um you'll see between our kind of two lots, we're adding of 48 uh single family homes.

So really what we're asking for today is the addition of four single family homes.

Today we could go out there, we have our R6 zoning designation, and we could build 44 single family homes.

Um we are here today to ask to build those additional four, which is why we're requesting the R5 zoning.

As you can see, R5 is very consistent with the surrounding area.

All those properties highlighted in blue are R5, and two of them are also within the Kingswood Heights subdivision.

Here's just an example of kind of you know what the product will look like, uh Stucco home, and then you know, all your classic kind of finishings inside.

Uh thank y'all so much for your consideration.

Uh, we respectfully request uh your approval for an R5.

And again, we have our project engineer and some members from HYG homes.

If you all have any more specific questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Pugh.

Thank you.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

That was dramatic.

I thought you were gonna say there still was some.

All right.

Uh there being no public comment, uh, there will be no rebuttal, Ms.

Pugh.

And this is a district six case, but because Commissioner Huey is not present today, Commissioner Chase.

Uh I believe you will be handling this case.

Yes.

Um I don't have any questions.

Um with there not being any um people in person or comments left.

Um, I'm assuming I can well actually if you would come up, Ms.

Pugh.

Hello.

Hi.

So I with all of the um you know X marks on the uh around from the subdivision uh around y'all.

Um did I'm assuming that the reason they're not there to um protest anymore is you've had lots of conversation and or to be honest, I'm not sure why they aren't here.

Um we did meet with them recently on November 24th.

Maybe eight to ten people showed up, but I honestly expected people to show today.

So yeah, with all the opposition on of X marks, I was expecting uh a full room, but I I can't see the room.

So yeah.

Um without any in-person opposition and um with you addressing some of their concerns, mostly being about the downfall of you know living next to construction site.

Um I'm going to support this and allow the other commissioners to ask any other questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Chase.

All right, any further questions on my right?

Seeing yep, Commissioner Hinoza.

Uh uh the applicant, yeah, representative.

Just for clarification for me.

So I'm assuming you're asking for four more.

That's why I did downgrade from R6 to R5 to make the houses a little bit more smaller to fit in four more.

Okay, and a majority of the concerns the neighbors have were just basically on construction.

Yes, of that phase one portion of the phone.

Of the phase one portion.

Okay.

I thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions on my right?

All right, on my left questions, Commissioner Duble.

Uh yet um I'm also surprised to not see anyone here.

Um to staff, there wasn't any record of anyone reversing their opposition.

Like no one submitted amended statements.

That is that is correct.

No one is submitted an amended response.

So I I mean I'll I'll take it then that those people still oppose, even though they didn't, you know, show up to have their objections heard.

Correct.

Uh the applicant had mentioned R6 already by right, they could build with higher minimum lot requirements.

Or sorry, not uh with uh yeah, higher uh minimum lot sizes.

The R5 is to allow them to have smaller lot sizes and they're already entitled by right.

Correct.

So those are very large lots, R6.

You would have a minimum square footage of 6,000 square feet.

R5 is a 5,000 square feet lot minimum.

Uh one of the objections that struck with me from the the last uh public hearing was around the expectations that this was going to remain a green space.

Um it is zoned residential.

Um it led me to wonder you know where uh there is open space zoning in the city.

Um there, I mean that isn't a zoning designation, OS.

No, that is not a zoning designation.

Most of the time uh a park is going to be zoned of a single family residential, but again, if it was owned by the city, or if say the uh neighborhood wanted to buy it and create their own park space, but it is owned privately owned by a private owner and it is zoned residential, they are permitted by right to develop it.

Yeah, I did find that interesting when I was looking at the uh the map Brackenridge Park zoned residential.

Correct.

We do not have a park, we do not have a zoning dedicated for park.

Yeah, that that is interesting for expectations, right?

Because if a resident looked at Hardburger Park or looked at Brackenridge and said, well, that's zoned as residential, and that's guaranteed as open space.

This is also zoned residential.

You know, what's the difference?

Yeah.

So most of the time the park space is owned by the city.

So got it.

Yeah, so residents will need to look and see who owns the property, not just what it's owned.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any further questions on my left?

Saying none.

All right, Commissioner Chase, to you for discussion and potential motion or just a motion.

I I will just motion to approve if there's discussion, or we've just done discussion, but uh or questions, I mean I will leave it open to discussion now.

All right, there is a motion for approval of item number four by Commissioner Chase.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

All right.

Uh discussion to my right.

None to my left.

None?

But oh, sorry, Commissioner Duval.

Yeah.

Well only just the along the line of my my questions.

Uh I feel for the residents, especially I I remember uh I recall last meeting one of the residents said that their real estate agent assured them, you know, that the developer was not gonna develop it and it was gonna remain open space.

I do feel for them.

Um you know, if they made that purchase with that expectation, um the city may want to consider an open space designation to be clear when the zoning is open for future development and when it's not open for future development.

All right.

Very good.

Uh any further discussion on my left?

Seeing none.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number four by Commissioner Chase with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chase Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner No Hosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duble.

I.

Commissioner Woodson.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you all.

Um we are going to move on now to item number five.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number five is located at 111 Belfast Drive, going from R4 residential single family district to IDZ2 medium intensity in fill development zone with uses permitted for four dwelling units with all overlays staying the same.

There were 26 notices mailed, zero in favor, two opposed.

San Antonio, Texas District 1 residence association gave no response.

Outside 200 feet, zero were in favor, two or opposed.

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

The surrounding properties are zoned R4, residential single family district.

The existing R4 district is an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ2 district with uses permitted for four dwelling units is not.

The applicant's request is to subdivide the property into four lots and develop single family residences on each plated lot.

Although this development would provide a home on each lot, the IDZ2 base zone would waive the lot size minimum reduced setbacks and parking standards that would otherwise be required in the R4 base zone, thus making the request inconsistent with the current development in the existing neighborhood.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant's representative is present to answer any questions.

And as I understand it, amend the request to IDZ1 limited intensity and filled development zone with uses permitted for three dwelling units.

Alright, thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant's representative, please no.

I have to reach under while we get that going.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Emily Weissler with Kellen Griffin and Fairman, 10101, reunion place, seat 250 here on behalf of the applicant.

This property may look familiar.

But uh last year, or actually it might have been earlier this year.

Um it's been a long year.

Um we looked at a rezoning, you all considered a rezoning just two blocks to the north at 102 Conway, um, and that was for four units.

Um this is the same developer, um a slightly different product.

Um that before was uh two duplexes, uh so four total units.

This is for single family, traditional single family development.

Um but we are just two blocks to the south on a corner lot at Empire and Belfast.

Um in this area you can see 410 281, Broadway to the east, sunset to the south.

Um zoomed in here, um Empire Street Um is does not have uh this will have homes facing it, um, but that is a railroad tracks, and then that been there, dumped that as a large industrial commercial uh dump site.

Um and then there are single family homes uh across Belfast, and then there's a Home Depot.

Um it's a very harsh, um, pretty aggressive transition from large uh scale commercial uh straight into single family.

Um, but that's okay.

Um so you can see um actually just right north of Colton is the Conway development.

Um so we are just here two blocks south.

Um this is the entire corner lot at 111 Belfast.

This is the view from standing on Belfast, looking at Belfast from the corner lot.

So you can see uh a fairly new home, uh much larger, uh right across the street, um, and then the the orange striping in the back is the Home Depot.

Um again, this is where um just in proximity uh where the the four units are being developed on Conway.

Um those were three bedroom, two and a half bath, but again, two two individual structures.

Um this request, and I'm just gonna keep moving on here.

Sorry, there's a lot.

Uh I'll go back.

This was our original request.

Our original request came in um was for five single family lots.

Um the need for the IDZ, why we couldn't do a residential base with the conditional district, um, is because we are plotting these into individual lots.

So traditional single family here.

So our original request was for five units, these were um mid upper 800 square foot, small one car garages.

Um we amended the request, which is what is on your agenda for four units.

Um those are slightly larger units, still one car garage.

Um the opposition that is on the record um was all specific to the five unit layout.

I have personally reached out via email and calls to all of those who responded, those four folks who responded, letting them know that we have uh amended this request and what you'll see next um for a second time now, um reducing that density from five now all the way down to three.

Um this actually can you pull up the site plan from your presentation?

The amended one, yes.

Switch over so you can actually see um the individual structure.

So these homes um with the three individuals, um, these are almost double the square footage of what our original five unit request was.

So these are each um over 1,500 square feet.

These come with full-size driveways, uh two full-size car garages, um and so larger home, larger footprint, much more comparable um to kind of what is surrounding it.

Um this request did go to uh planning commission last right before the holidays.

Um so we were able to amend um our original plan amendment request was going to be medium density residential, which is what the request for Conway was.

Um but this is a new plan.

We totally don't like to amend new plans if we don't have to.

Um but with the amendment down to three units from five four to three, um, we're able to reduce the intensity of that plan amendment request to urban low density residential.

Um and then this request, this density of the three units actually allows us to bring that IDZ down from a two to a one.

So the new request before you for your consideration today is for IDZ one for three units with this amended site plan again, larger square footage, larger parking, um, much more comfortable and comparable for the neighborhood.

Um again, there is a mix.

Can you flip back to my presentation?

I'm so sorry, Bronte.

Should make this poor girl flip around screens.

Um there is kind of an odd mix of residential in this community.

There are apartments, there are duplexes, triplexes, all sorts of kind of this mix.

Um, but uh really in this bottom pocket, um, although it is within a stone's throw from a home depot, um, we wanted to try and keep that single family uh character in there as much as possible.

Um so again, request before you today is for IDZ one with three units and respectfully request your support.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Weissler.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

Right.

Very good.

This is a district one case.

So it is to Commissioner Kellum for questions.

Ms.

West one question.

Uh these are for sale, right?

Correct.

For sale, yes, sir.

Margaret Way.

Sure, that's all the questions I have.

Very good.

Any further questions on my left?

Yeah.

Uh we'll go with Commissioner Duval, then Commissioner WhatsApp.

I'm gonna.

Sorry.

I tricked you.

Applicant's gonna be uh seeking to amend the proposed zoning to I to Z one, correct?

Yes, for the three units.

We've already processed that with staff.

I'm I'm stating the amendment on the record for you all today.

That is what you are um our amendment is that is our request is to amend it.

However, we have already processed that with city staff, and that was the amendment that actually triggered the amendment that we made at Planning Commission previously.

Thank you.

So for to staff uh staff report recommended denial.

Does the amended proposal change your analysis?

No, it does not.

We are Emily had brought it up that a couple months ago we did review something that was just up the road that was of somewhat similar density, but I will state um this plan, the uh greater airport area regional center plan that staff tries to align with was just approved last month, and that's where they say they um specifically requested low density residential, which permits at a lowest density, I think is um either R 4 or R no R4, and this lot is a little over 7,000 square feet.

So they you couldn't break it into R, you know, R4 or any higher.

Um basically it only would permit one unit on this lot, and that's what staff is why staff made that recommendation.

What was uh the recommended plan change by the planning commission?

Planning commission recommended approval for the plan amendment.

And would be amended one.

Right.

And would the plan amendment so what would the requested zoning here be consistent with the recommended plan amendment by the planning commission?

Yes, this would definitely have to align with what planning commission reviewed and recommended approval on.

What is low density residential urban low density residential, which permits the higher density that matches what she is requesting?

Right, but just just to confirm would the so would IDZ one be consistent with the recommended proposal that the planning commission made?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Very good.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Questions?

Just a quick question.

Where on Conway was the other project, and y'all did it get built?

Under construction.

It was just approved by City Council earlier this year.

So I think within the last few months, quite on a couple of years.

How many units and what four units?

I'm sorry, I'm not even speaking into the mic.

Slightly slightly larger.

Slightly larger, but um, I'm sorry, you don't have I'm watching Bronte skip around here.

There we go.

Um it is just a hair larger, the Conway site is just a hair larger.

Um, but you can Oh, here it is.

What's the address?

I didn't know it had a pen uh flower here.

Um the address is 102 Conway, so it's it's right here, this corner lot here at Conway and Empire.

Um, and that's where those those two structures, four units were built, are are going to be built.

They were just approved by City Council within the last few months.

Um and so this is here just right there on that same empire drive.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions on my left?

All right.

On my right, questions?

Seeing none remotely.

Seeing none.

All right.

Uh again, this is a district one case.

So to Commissioner Kellum for discussion and potential motion.

Chair, I thank you.

Um I appreciate the applicant's um work on this particular project a couple of weeks ago.

I certainly had a lot of reticence with it.

But the idea that you've come down from five to three is is quite impressive, and I thank you for that.

I think looking at the neighborhood, uh, you know, creating three additional homes for for people to occupy and and certainly assimilate into the neighborhood is a wonderful thing, something I think we all look for.

Uh being on the end cap, I think makes this uniquely uh um appropriate for this particular development.

And so with that I make a motion for approval.

All right, there is a motion for approval of item number five is as amended.

I'll second.

As amended.

Is there there's a motion for approval of item number five as amended?

Is there a second?

A second second.

All right, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

He was faster, Commissioner Kelly.

I apologize.

Umly that the uh three units, so reducing it from five uh what was it, five to four or three?

I think looks looks a lot better.

The real improvement.

All right.

Any further discussion on my left?

Seeing none.

On my right?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Chase.

Again, the motion is for approval.

Item number five as amended by Commissioner Kellum with the second by Commissioner uh Hinojosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Noza?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Witsup.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries as amended.

All right, very good.

Uh we're going to move on to item number 15.

Also just want to make a comment that uh Commissioner Less F has left at 233.

233.

Please.

There we go.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

At other Gomez Zoning Plan or Redevelopment Services.

Item number 15 is located at 5321 Casabaya, going from C2 commercial district to C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization for fitness center, health club, gymnasium, netatorium, sports court, outdoor use is permitted.

There were 24 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed, one opposed outside two hundred feet.

The riot commons community organization did not provide a response.

Staff does not find evidence of likely adverse impacts on the neighboring lands in relation to this zoning change request.

The proposed use is consistent with the established development pattern in the area surrounding properties are C2, Commercial District, C2 C3NA, General Commercial District, non alcoholic sales, and R4 PUD residential single family planned unit development.

The existing C2 commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property surrounding area of the proposed C2S commercial district with specific use authorization for a fitness center, health club, gymnasium, netatorium, sports court, outdoors permitted is also appropriate.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning to allow development of a sports complex similar to experiences offered by Popstroke or Chicken and Pickle.

It's a paddle sport that they're proposing.

The subject property is situated between existing C2 zoning and a mix of active commercial uses, making the proposed development compatible with the surrounding pattern.

Access to the proposed development is going to be off Casabaya Street, which may help keep traffic outside of the nearby residential neighborhood.

It is noted that an existing single family residence is directly abutting the site, and appropriate buffing and screening measures can be addressed at the time of site development to ensure compatibility.

The request will be held to the prescribed site plan.

Deviation from the document could potentially warrant additional council consideration.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Diego Sanchez, and I am the general contractor and the project manager for the design team associated with this project.

Padell is a new and upcoming sport globally.

One of my first counsel is actually the head coach of the U.S.

national team.

It's something I grew up playing tennis competitively as well, and I personally play the sports as well.

It is very similar to tennis and racquetball, but with the exception that it's people sometimes compare to pickleball because it's similar court sizes, but the noise is significantly more dull.

Pickable one the nuances and the stigma is because it's a very high-pitch uh impact uh sport in that aspect.

Uh the current zoning only allows for indoor facilities of of this nature.

This would only allow us to do a courts ex essentially on the outside.

Um when it comes to the I heard there was a concern about about the neighboring mosque nearby was that uh one of the landowners is actually the one of the owners, actually one of the patrons to that mosque, actually.

My client is only long-term leasing this property right now.

So they are in favor in the in the agent later letter that we had to do for this development.

One one of the patrons from that particular um mosque is actually obviously in favor of developing this property.

It is currently C2.

The houses were intending to demolish it because there is it has been pretty much vacant for way too long, and at this point it's just better to demolish it right now.

Uh if there's any questions regarding to what this development is, I'm here to happy to answer them.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Sanchez.

Thank you.

Um any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

Uh this is a district eight case.

Commissioner Kelly, to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh yes, if I could have Mr.

Sanchez back up, please.

Um I'm very familiar with the area.

In fact, I just bought some paint at the Sherround Williams store down the street.

So uh I have a question.

I guess I have a concern because uh the street itself is really almost just kind of a wide paved alley, and it doesn't, it's a dead end street.

I'm a little concerned.

You s I'm glad to hear that you said you all have had some contact with the mosque.

I'm not sure exactly um how many occasions during a given day the mosque has activities there.

Um but I just uh I know that sometimes there's quite a bit of automobile traffic coming and going uh uh at various times there.

And I just wonder if y'all talked through how their traffic is gonna interact with your traffic and how you how you plan to address all that.

Well, um I'm not very familiar about their particular schedule, but I know that uh all the patrons that were informed, they had really had a problem with this.

Uh even the there's a hotel behind this property actually, and even they are so interested with the sport.

It's very popular if you see all of the European basketball players or Formula One drivers always playing paddle.

And uh even they're interested in having a direct access eventually to our development.

So uh if people are in are like going for like staying for like let's say a tournament, they can stay at the neighboring hotel.

It's uh we're gonna have obviously parking within the property itself, so I really see a concern is it's uh it's obviously a very low traffic.

I know there's sometimes spikes to it, but in itself, I think it's pretty quiet every time I've been out there.

There's hardly any cars, at least when I've been there that have been driving down that road.

And uh, we have no opposition from anybody that's been informed, and we have all the communication with the neighbors mainly.

So, well, uh I the proposed facility seems quite appropriate.

I don't have an issue with that.

I was really concerned about the accessibility and the fact that there may be a conflict with the access to the mosque as well as you know to your facility.

How much how much vehicle traffic would you anticipate having in your facility?

Um it's uh this sport is played mainly for four people per court usually.

It's it's uh this sport is played mainly four four people per court usually.

Um I know that it's it's growing in popularity, but I know that our parking requirements are consistent with those requests.

I think that it shouldn't be fine, it should be fine for the most part.

A lot of people play this sport is gonna be during the week, much and then obviously I I'm not familiar with the mosque schedule, but I'm I'm I'm pretty sure that their schedule revolves more around Sunday time, if I'm assuming so.

Um beyond that, we've I what other questions you have about it?

Well, uh I really I guess what you're talking about, the schedule at the mosque uh is something that the interaction of that activity with your activity is my big concern, I think.

Um I don't you know the facility you're talking about sounds fine.

It's just the streets now, it's dead end street, uh it has one-way access off the northbound frontage road of uh 10.

And uh it just seems, you know, for potential, there might be a potential there for some traffic impacts.

Did you interact with the city's traffic department?

Um this project does not require it because of its size.

In previous projects I've worked with, we've had to have more of those discussions.

But but again, the some of the owners of the LC that are the actual property owners of the land.

My client is only gonna build over it on a lease releasing agreement he has currently.

Um they are actually excited for it.

We've had no opposition from them.

They're interested in having this sort of facility.

And uh so we've beyond that, there hasn't been more discussions than that.

Nothing has been expressed by them that of a concern, if not I'm pretty sure that they would have been here present to protest this property.

Well, uh yes, I was surprised that out of the 24 property owners around you that nobody had a comment one way or the other.

That was kind of surprising.

Um, I don't want to beat a dead horse, so to speak, here, but I guess I would leave my last comment would be I would really encourage you to meet with the mosque, the folks at the mosque, and really be sure that you know that everybody's in agreement about the scheduling and you know the traffic, potential traffic interaction there, because I could see potential problems with that.

No, and and and thank you for your concerns.

Uh we'll make more efforts to communicate more than we already have.

We have obviously have a communications with them currently.

Um but yes, we can definitely make an effort to speak more on the let's say the regular patrons that are going there.

And I so yeah.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

Any further questions on my left?

Yes.

Commissioner Duble?

Uh would it be possible for for staff to get like Google Street View up for Casabella for in front of the the property?

Sure, we can pull that up.

Thank you.

I'll ask questions while we uh while we're we're getting that pulled up.

Uh the You could just go to the photo as well.

It's just in there.

Yeah, I want to be able to see both east and west on Casabella.

Um so let's see if there's photos of it.

But um uh on this case, was there a traffic impact analysis worksheet?

So a worksheet was submitted.

Um I'm just looking at the def what the item is.

So right now there's a single family detached home that typically has one peak hour, and then when I turned in um I put the use for a health fitness club of about 7500 uh square feet, what they're proposing on their site plan.

It gives you about um 20 seat 26 peak hour trips.

And so there will be in the future, most likely um permit during the permitting stage that the uh traffic team will probably ask for a full uh traffic impact analysis.

Yeah, just real quick to add on to that.

There's two things.

So right now this lot is legally described as all of uh lot eight and a part of lot nine, so there's a potential this tract will have to be replatted as well.

The traffic impact will be analyzed at the plat stage.

Um there's some potential they could get away with a plat exception based upon the layout.

Um but at the building permit stage as well, as Kelly mentioned, the traffic team would have an opportunity for a full review.

So potentially multiple opportunities for traffic to formally weigh in.

So to the uh the this well, the the Google view.

Um first thing is I think we can we can see, you know, we don't know what time of day this photo was or what day, but like that's a pretty far full parking lot at the mosque.

Uh my understanding is they're also a school.

So you know they have uh what's it called?

The uh child care facility.

Yeah, child care facility.

So there's people going in and out, you know, around the the school hours.

Um and then their day of prayer is Friday, uh not Sunday.

Oh yeah.

So it you know that that might impact that as well.

But you can see the number of cars.

I think you know it gets a substantial amount of traffic.

Would it be possible uh street view?

So you you pick up the little dangly yellow guy and drop them on the there we go.

So if you turn eastbound, that's to the right.

You know, you can see how peculiar this street is.

You know, they obviously were trying to preserve the uh the trees, and then then it turns into literally an alley to go back to the mosque.

I'm sure they're already having traffic problems when a hundred cars are all trying to get there.

So but I'm I'm happy to hear from staff, right?

That that most likely will be addressed at you know during the permitting process.

That's not necessarily something we have to address today.

Um with the yes.

That's correct.

Once they apply for permitting traffic, we'll do a review, and if they determine any queuing is needed, which means stacking of cars to access the property, they will not get an approved permit until that has been adequately provided.

Thank you.

Yes.

All right, very good.

Any further questions to my left?

All right, seeing none to my right.

Questions?

Commissioner Chase, questions.

Nope.

All right, very good.

Uh this is a district eight case.

Commissioner Kelly to you for discussion and potential motion.

I still uh I guess uh still have some reservations about the accessibility and the traffic volumes there on what's really kind of a wide alley, but I think uh that you as a as the developer you've reached out.

I would encourage you to reach out more to the mosque and make sure that there's no conflict as far as the school that was brought up.

It's uh not accessible from that street because the school's the dead end street doesn't connect into the street that goes to the school.

So that's really not an issue.

But I do think with the mosque, you know, particularly when they're on Fridays or other times when they have activities going on.

I still think there's gonna be a risk of some traffic issues there, and I would strongly suggest that more attention is paid to that and more discussion done with the with the mosque.

But given that uh I'm gonna take your word that you'll address that and on that condition, I would uh say that I will support this uh proposal.

If I if I may interject, uh when the mosque apply for permitting, they were in the same exact situation with more traffic incoming.

So just worth noting.

Um so are you suggesting that it may not actually trigger any changes to Casabella?

No suggestions at all.

All right, very good.

Uh so Commissioner Kelly, just to be clear, you're making a motion for approval of item number 15.

That's correct.

Okay, very good.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Sorry, Commissioner Woodsett.

Apparently having a right bias today.

Um the motion is for approval by Commissioner Kelly with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez discussion to my left.

Commissioner Duval.

Uh could we consider under the S any conditions related to this a question for staff related to uh traffic control at this time to increase the uh the odds that the city will uh I would engineering I I so here here's the the challenge with that traffic mitigation, traffic control, those are subject to engineering standards and they're subject to rough proportionality.

So the exaction has to be proportionate to the impact.

And without having that full analysis in front of us, I think we'd be shooting in the dark.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Commissioner Kellum?

Yeah, I would I would like to say I'm going to support this motion.

However, I do share Commissioner Kelly's concerns about traffic, and so I think the project is worthy to move forward, although I will trust the process of our city that it will evaluate the traffic flow and move you forward as indicated.

Very good.

All right, any further discussion left?

Discussion right?

Seeing none.

Discussion remote.

Seeing none.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number 15 by Commissioner Kelly with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Woods.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair with Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Chair with Samante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

I believe the last item on our agenda is item number 19, the approval of minutes for the November 18th, 2025 Zoning Commission meeting.

All right.

Are there any changes to those minutes?

Looking left?

Yes.

Yes.

Do well.

Uh just my last name as one L, not two L's.

So inconsistent spelling with my last name.

Okay.

So if we can make that amendment.

Anything further?

Left?

Right?

Remote?

All right.

The floor is open for a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

I'll make a motion for approval.

As amended.

As amended.

Thank you, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

There's a motion for approval as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

All right.

I'm going with uh Duval on this one.

Um those in favor of approving the minutes as amended, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

The minutes are approved.

Okay.

And an abstention by Commissioner Chase.

All right.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report.

All right, very good.

The time is 251.

This meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission is adjourned.