Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

As we come before you today to discuss important matters, we ask for your guidance and wisdom. You are the source of all knowledge and understanding. Therefore, we seek your direction in our decision-making process. Help us to listen attentively to one another with open hearts and minds. like to uh the pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. You may be seated. We have a we have myself, Deborah, and of course, we have Cory on the I want to u go ahead and uh do comments and I want to start off with an open forum and this is the time for anyone to address the planning and zoning commission on any topic that is not already listed on the agenda for a public hearing. Other comments are limited to three minutes out of respect of the for the time for other citizens on topics raised during the open form. Please note that the planning and zoning commission is not permitted to respond to your comments during the meeting per Texas open meetings act.

At this time, I'd like to open the form to any public. Can you use a microphone, please? Can you hear me now? I need to reread it. You're good. Do I need to reread it? You want to hear it again? Huh? She does. She says she can hear. Okay. So, the open forum at this time for anyone to address the planning and zoning commission on any topic. Yeah. There you go.

There you go. It's right. All right. There you go. At this time for anyone to address the planning and zoning commission on any topic that is not already listed on the agenda for a public hearing. Public comments are limited to only three minutes out of respect for the time uh for other citizens on the topics raised during the open forum. Please note that the planning and zoning commission is not permitted to respond to your comments during the meeting per Texas open meetings act. So, at this time, uh, the floor is open to any public comment. Okay. At this time, I'm going to close the uh public uh form. The next part on our agenda is approving the amendments for the February 4th, 20, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. Deborah has made a motion to approve. for a second. All in favor?

I next uh number three is a public hearing items.

This is a time for anyone to speak concerning their issues with a public hearing case. If you would like to speak regarding an item listed in this section, please submit your name and address to the staff. and the planning zoning commission chairman which is I will call upon you to come forward at the proper time and we'll ask anyone in the audience who would like to speak please limit all your comments to 3 minutes out of respect for the time of other citizens I understand probably nobody probably signed up their name so when you come up to uh speak if you need to speak uh please give your name and address so that um we be able to uh to take notes on this so at this time. I would like to open up A. A is hold a public hearing to discuss and consider a request by Arost Holdings LLC for the approval of a zoning change from R1 single family residential to R2 multifamily for a 19.94 acre track of land located at the 500 block of Golad Road. A 0001- 02 SNJ Arocha sir bump TR track 2A and three and take necessary action at this time I open up to the vote.

Yes ma'am there can you please stand at the mic there? Yes ma'am. And just give your name and address. Sure. I don't know how to do this. I didn't hear anything. Yeah, they know.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mallerie Molina. I'm a resident of the North Crest residential subdivision 116 richest um is my street address. My concerns um regarding the proposed reszoning is that the proposed multifamily zoning um is inconsistent with the existing single family character of the neighborhood. It creates a sharpening transition in density without appropriate buffering. For example, no gradual step down in zoning. The change may set a precedent for further incompatible reasoning in the area. Additionally, multifamily development. Sorry, I'm a little nervous because I don't I'm not a fan of public speaking, but multifamily development will also significantly increase traffic volume on streets designed for low density residential use. It raises questions about pedestrian safety, especially for our children, cyclists, and school routes. Existing intersections and roadways may lack capacity to handle higher density volumes. Current infrastructure such as water, sewage, and drainage may also be insufficient for higher density development. Increased demand constraint emergency services, police, fire, EMS, and response times, including areas of the school may experience overcrowding, which we've currently seen with the recent Floresville Independence position. Property values and neighborhood stability. A sudden change in zoning may negatively impact property values or perceived desiraability. Residents invested in a single family area may face uncertainty and reduced instability. The proposal may conflict with the city's comprehensive plan or future use um future future land use map. Um, so I think good planning requires requires for early growth. Um, but that does not include abrupt zoning changes in residential areas. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

My name is Greg Henri, 118 Crest here in Portsville. I'm not original resident. I moved down from up north. When I first came here about 18 years ago, I couldn't find a place to rent while I was looking for a house. And the reason was all these places including San Antonio had low income housing and I didn't qualify. I could not find an apartment to rent. And what I'm afraid is what's going to happen here is the developers are going to take this 30 odd acres and try to jam as many people into that 30 acres that they can for the money. Just look at the golf course how jammed that is. You can't even hardly drive down the street there with the cars parked. It's a mess. And the same thing's going to happen over there, but worse because it's multifamily housing, not single family housing. Why most of these people moved out to where we're at. So I think, you know, we're not looking at the road. Matter of fact, I don't even see a diagram what it's supposed to look like. Where's that? I mean, if we're going to talk about it, you think you would have a diagram out here? Show us exactly. I have no clue what you're going to do. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. This is for the planning development. Is the developer today? He's on his way. He's on his way. Could we wait for the developer? Can't even be here for a meeting. Could we Could we wait for the developer? to address him. Maybe he's got some diagrams, something to look at. This is crazy.

I would I would like to see that as well. Then reschedu the meeting if you can't make it here. Yeah, I was still doing public. Yeah. Can you continue? Go ahead, sir.

Good evening, citizens and members. Good evening, citizens and members of the Florida Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Samuel Martinez. My family and I reside at 116 North First Street and I have been affordable resident since 2011. I'm here tonight to respectfully oppose the proposed multi-zoning due to concerns about our community's infrastructure to public safety. First, our current infrastructure including roadways and systems is already under significant strain. The roadways in the area were not constructed to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the higher density housing. In my neighboring community of Riverbin, I have observed this density causing increased delays for wear and tear and elevate the risk of traffic accidents. Increased traffic poses a danger to our residents. We are an active, healthy, healthconscious community. Our residents, including elderly and children, often walk and run on the streets because we lack sidewalks. Second, our utilities and drainage systems currently are not designed to support this level of expansion. Increased demand of water, sewage, storm, storm water management heightens the risk of flooding, backups, and service interruptions, especially during heavy rainfalls, which we already concerns are not hypothetical. They represent tangible risks and directly impact residents safety and property. Finally, as a property crimes detective with the local police department, I believe that public safety must remain a priority. Increased housing density, if not accompanied by adequate planning, staffing, and resources, can place additional strain on law enforcement and emergency services. I personally witnessed the effects of highdensity housing on crime rates in various communities in San Antonio. Community growth should not compromise the safety and quality of our current residents. I'm not opposed to development. However, it must be responsible, measured, and supported by sufficient infrastructure.

Currently, I do not believe the necessary foundation exists. If you would allow me um to share some personal experiences. So, prior to the purchase of the land on Modi, we had a cut across to First Street. So, individuals would cut across using First Street to gain access to Fourth Street to avoid Pete Street and Fourth Street traffic. During that time, we had incidents where people would just drive crazy. We've had increase in burglaries, increase in thefts. Since that, uh, purchase occurred, that no longer is an issue. Okay. Um, but because of the speeding, uh, it posed a traffic hazard to our children. Also, I've had my vehicle stolen from my property during that time. I've been involved in an incident where I was in a struggle with a suspected car burglar in our neighborhood and he was he had he had a firearm and luckily enough with the support of my neighbors and police the police department were able to apprehend this subject. Based on my observations and prior experiences, I believe that our community should oppose this proposition. That's why I'm concerned. I'm concerned about traffic. I'm concerned about the crime rate. I'm concerned about government housing, low income housing. I support it. However, it needs to be positioned in an area where it's not hidden in the back. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'm Matthew Mendoza 116 Ridgerest and I also oppose this new zoning for a multifamily unit area. Uh we've seen the crime grow up in suburban area with breakins and just a whole bunch of different kind of crime happening and as a new resident to Forzo been there four years now. Uh we moved from San Antonio to get away from the crime and it seems like the crime is more rapid now than ever. Um, I'm from a small town down south and moving over here, I thought we'd have a better shot at living in a neighborhood where less crime and of course you see more crime. Uh, this district is being resone for a multif family when you have a an area where there's nothing but single family homes. So, of course, you're going to see increasing crime, traffic, um, burgies, death, and that's why I'm opposing this as well. I think this is the wrong decision for Fordo. Um, this is not something that's going to benefit the city of Warville, but it kind of hurts our residents of Warville. I I think there's other ways to develop and other areas to develop um outside of a single family unit area. So, that's why I

Thank you, sir.

Yeah. Go ahead. I'm not as good a speaker as the rest of these people, but I step out my front door and that's what I'm looking at is that property. I'm 1012 West Crest which my front door stares at that whole beautiful property. Sir, can you can you state your name? Uh Paul Lee and uh I'm concerned about the traffic. It's scary as heck trying to get out on 181 from the neighborhood. Uh but other than that, uh wildlife, there's a lot of wildlife that passes through there all the time. That'll all be gone. Um school,

huh? The school.

The school. Yeah. Not the school. Apparently, I can't handle it very well, but u it'd be nice to know what they're planning on doing, but like I said, I'm going to be staring at I don't know what all my front porch now. That's all I got. I guess I'm very against it, obviously. Oh. Uh, in 2021, I tried to my brother wanted to move on my property. It's 7 acres and, uh, we were told that we had to get approval from the seven or the six neighbors around the property and that didn't happen because somebody didn't approve. I hope that will be the case here also. Thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Leslie Le. I live at 117 North First Street. We moved here in 2020 to get away from San Antonio, get away from the apartments, get away from all that. We want to know raise our kids in the country environment. Um, we love going on walks in the neighborhood and seeing the cows and the deer and everything. Um, I teach at Floorsville South Elementary and our classrooms are overcrowded. We don't have enough rooms. We don't have furniture. My kids stopped riding the school bus um that comes into North Crest cuz there's three, four kids to a seat. Um, so honestly, I'm very scared if it's apartments, whatever it is, plus the Chevy dealership across from there, all those houses, we're not going to be able to serve these kids. Um, and it's scary. Thank you.

Thank you. We have any more public comment developer like to see everybody. Sorry we were a little bit late. Gabriel is better.

Is that better? Yes. Sorry about that. Uh good evening. Sorry for marching in a little late. We get a little bit of traffic. Uh Gabriel Dhoni. We're the uh MSG management with my family owns the the land that we're asking for the reszoning. Uh hopefully this addresses the primary concern. The reason that we were asking for reszoning, it's a single family development. We just need the we need 50 plus lots. Um the R1 zoning right now allows 70 foot. The 50 foot is really what uh we're seeing kind of the home builders geared towards. So we talked to city staff and we came up with the best solution given a plan uh to address this. Um I a lot of people's concerns about traffic which I'm hearing infrastructure um were brought up from kind of the preliminary versions of it. We right now own the and I apologize. I should have brought a map really, but if you look at an aerial view of uh North North Crest and Goliath Street, we're the one parcel that a public ride away right now can cut through to Goliath Street. We uh right now I do sense that that big development there's a lot of traffic concerns given that there's only one exit to 181 business. This will hopefully allow the spread of the existing neighborhood to kind of go into Goliath Street as well. We are working with the city staff to obviously have uh the infrastructure in place to not only supplement us but to hopefully increase the property values of properties nearby so they can develop as well.

Um but basically it's a single family development that we're trying to accomplish. We just want the Sony for the lot to be able to have somebody. So you're what you're asking for is the lot. You're currently at 75 ft. I believe the zoning the R1 zoning is 70 foot right now. So the the R zone the R1 zoning right now is 75 ft in the front and 100 ft deep. He his what he's proposing is going R2 offers a 50ft frontage is what they're what what it offers. So the lots are going to be smaller.

Yes, they're going to be smaller. It's a 50 foot by I believe 125 foot. Yes, 125 for a total of 6250 square ft. Right now, if you look into Riverbend or Low Night Grove, they're not even that close. Um they're probably at the the highest 5600 square ft for the for the lot. So, there isn't any multif family. The reason we he chose this zone was to not have to go through through like a a pod zoning. Um and and right now for R2 is to go just a smaller lot size. Um that's why he proposed the R2.

I have I have a question um for development staff and the developer. There's a reason the city of Floresville zone this is R1 for single family. So my question to you is you knew that when you bought the property. Correction actually it's not even zoned. I think it was recently annexed. It's recently annexed. Correct. Yes. If you look at your There's a map there on your packet. It's it the one that's kind of pinkish. Yeah. It's not zoned. So when it got zoned it when annex defaults

it default after 60 days of not changing the zone, it defaults to R1 which is the most strict zoning that we have um since because there wasn't any zoning. So if you look at our comprehensive plan, it doesn't state anything for annex areas or anything like that. So that's why there's like a app amendment with it because of that reason. So does it fall in the category? Yes and no because it doesn't have it on there um because it was it was an extent. So my question to the developer then would be rather than doing high density housing have you considered doing single family homes in this in these lots?

Correct. Uh yeah, we worked with the numbers of the current zoning. Uh it doesn't again we're we're the developers. We're not home builders. Our client or who we sell the property to when we get entitlements and build the houses are typically what what they do. Builders a property this size it doesn't uh it doesn't work out with their numbers. So they we will not the project basically it dies if we don't get something they won't be able to Um, we just I mean again we're we don't control kind of that aspect of the client's market that that is the trend that they're moving towards. I mean you guys have seen it with the golf course here. Uh what we're trying to do is accommodate the that same product of house basically in a bigger lot. That way instead of the 5 foot setbacks where everything feels uh kind of tight. It's kind of respecting with the current community next where there's 20 ft between houses 10 foot side setbacks on each.

What what studies have you done to know whether or not you would be able to fill this number? I mean what are we looking at as far as number of of apartments? Uh I think we are looking it's not apartments it's single family homes. I mean the the R2 Sony grants multi-use lots are you selling homes? We're we're selling basically paper lots. So like it's the the plat. So if somebody wanted to come in and build a a multif family home

well not necessarily because I can we we right now with our zoning case submitted to the city like a master plan and USA request for utilities. So like the density that and like the permission I'm getting from city staff is for a specific number of units to the layout of single family. I'm committed to I mean even by saying like one unit per lot per pled lot again I don't want to I'm trying to be transparent with with the other I'm just looking at other people. So you're saying one you're saying one unit is that going to be in the in the D where you restrictions? We would have an HOA and they would have D restrictions as far as the building but also we the next step after zoning is I have to go it's a two-phase development right now based on the size of it I have to get a master plan approved through development services for the UDC and then we would move into plat right whenever I'm moving into platting and all the approvals will be hinched on that density so I'm basically submitting my master plan at the end of the day I'm going to have this number of densities this number of lots one house per lot and this is what the lot lines are going to look like. If for whatever reason anybody tries to like get more density out of that parcel, the approvals that I have in there would be for you. So, I mean, we're at the very beginning of the process. There's a lot to happen, but the zoning is obviously the the first thing that we need to to make sure. Uh, again, our primary concern is the lock width. We just that the 70 does not work with with any

it's not clear of yes of course my name is Victor I'm the the developer I think there's a lot of confusion on what we're trying to do with the with the zoning change the the the way the announcement was published And it's because of the I guess the R2 the R2 allows for multif family. We are not building multif family and we are uh am I mean we've discussed this with development services to deep restrict the the the parcel to be single family by D. So no multif family will be built that we are going through to the request of asking for the R2 because of the furnish uh we want we just want 50 foot lots by than 20 125 which are bigger than other developments here in in area and uh and uh the R2 is what allows that but we discussed with development services that we will together with the granting of the of the zoning we will need restrict so that it's no multif family I know that I know the sign is that's been posted it talks about multif family but it's not multi family it's single family now uh the other thing and I think my son has mentioned it is golad. It's a totally underutilized uh street. It goes nowhere. It's it's really just a few houses access it. Uh so by connecting uh 181 uh through Crest View to Goliath, we will actually be uh providing a road into downtown that is less crowded, less traffic at 181 and and easier and safer and more direct and and diverting the traffic of the existing community to give them an option. If somebody wants to go downtown, they'll have to cross those existing streets to 181. But

sooner or later, I mean, that's a Texas road. Texa's going to come to the city and say, "Hey, there might need be a need for a diesel land because this is an outlet." I think what they're what I think what they're concerned about right now is not so much you you've answered the question about a multif family but I think even by making those lots smaller which hearing them all say that here right now city of Floresville proper the people that keep talking they're not happy with the way these other developments they have made them smaller yes that's LAR and whoever else is coming in but people are buying the golf course but those I think people are very upset right now because they can't park, they can't drive in and out, they can't do a lot of different things that they thought they could. The street wis and that are very minimal and uh that was done before our court was set up. So, we're using that tool as something that they're that's getting putting on us that we're trying to, you know, be forthright with y'all that okay, so by allowing y'all to say, okay, right out front again, you're going to start making them smaller. It just doesn't sit well with anybody because that's the first thing everybody hears.

We're here for a zoning change. Uh obviously whatever MDP we propose is going to be looked at by development services and that is the opportunity that the city has to to opine on on the width and according to UDC code and and you know uh we're here just for a zoning change and I guess those other developments were they right for

so I mean I think there were deals done with utilities versus my purpose grabbing a Bayon district. I know it's not applied is to kind of avoid the Hudson scenario where we're grandfathered into this lockown. I'm still playing by the rules of the UC and handling that permit. I I felt like that would be more comfortable for both parties of city and development.

And what and what been already mentioned, I just want to reemphasize that is uh you mentioned smaller lots, but these are actually larger than some of the current developments in in area. I mean they they u I mean you you got developments here in the 5,000 square foot lots and these are going to be 6250. So these are larger lots. Yes. You're you're talking about square footage, right? But you're not talking the width. And that's the difference that most people see when they drive up to a house. How many cars they park in front of their homes? You know, I mean, today, well, you'll still be able to fit the twocar garage and and and and but shutting it down 25 ft is

well, the the setbacks are 25 ft. So, the R1 the R1 and R2 and this is kind of why I thought the R2 change would have been amanable. Yes, the setbacks I believe they're the same R1 and R2. At the beginning of R2, basically anything granted on R1 is granted on R2. It's just the width.

It's literally the width just because that like I mean it's a at the end of the day it's 40 acres, right? Like we're I really wish I could tell you it's going to be like the million dollar home builder is the only one that's going to come in here. But that's not what we like. That's not the we don't know that yet. We just know the the kind of like in this market they go for this size slot. It could be this person or this person. I really want this to be a great piece of the community just like the neighborhood next to us, but I just can't make those. We need the lots in in Northrest the same.

You know, sir, my office is 10 over 10,000 square feet and my property values reflect the value of having a large property size. So to be buffered up against a multi-use smaller single family, this would significantly depreciate the value of my home. Yes. Is this low income housing? No, sir. None. No, it's market market. It's not subsidized housing. It's not that property would be the If you're the developer, why don't you bring something that we could look at? We have no clue what you're looking at. Sir, this is a zoning. This is a zoning planning. This is the zoning. This is the beginning stage.

There'll be there'll be subsequent hearings when the MDP when the master development plan is presented to the city in order for us before decision to allow these lot sizes. We I mean again if if we're approved on the zoning that doesn't mean the development is going to happen. We uh the zoning is going to lay the foundation for us to the to be able to come to the city and say this is what we can do with the zoning and there'll be other public hearings. The master development plan is going to be exposed to everybody. Everybody will get a chance to pre you know we'll go through the same process. This is a strictly aoning aoning hearing.

Yes. So it's not it's not we're not approving anything here. Well, with the rezoning, there's no guarantee that there would be any change. Right now, they purchased a property that they can't do anything with or their intention with because they missed the deadline as a homeowner. I'm sorry, the deadline for changing it from the annex. They said that there was a period of conversion. It was not which is why it became a default that you got restricted to this limited res. So, with that being said, with with the uh 60 days, that was when the and annexed in the city, they had 60 days to change

um the city when they annexed it in that that portion, they had 60 days to change it themselves to a zoning that they felt proper. After 60 days, it just defaults to So, what was the timeline between the new and the reszoning? No, for that there wasn't a there wave this got extended back in 201819 this it's been sitting as a default R1 because no no one's changed it which has been that's a common standard thing that happens it's right that's the default that is the default

what what they're proposing what they're proposing let me just kind of clarify for everybody because it certainly makes a lot more sense to me now um you went with R2 because you're you're wanting to ask for the smaller lot size which is covered under R2 but you are not building multifamily housing. Okay. So that that's very reassuring. How the R2 allows for multif family where what we discussed with development services. We want the R2 so we can do the 50 foot lots and we will derate the whole 40 acres to single family. So no no multi family

council feels uh more at ease. We are probably the R1 as long as we get that close. So the the actual details of the development itself will still have to come back through us again as you develop the streets and the lot sizes. Correct. So what I suggest is um taking action on this these three items contingent upon further approval based on street width and other concerns that um the public has brought forward. We will have to go through the right through and follow the the UDC code which we will.

So they still have to like you said they they still have to present the master development plan. We still have to make sure that our infrastructure can support the units that they want to have at that subdivision. We have to make sure that it's feasible for the thorough affair through that subdivision as well. And then um before it even gets platted, you know, before we bring this back to city to PNZ, before with the public hearing, we need to make sure everything is checked off. You know, it's so could the public have input on that process as well? Um with the planning process, yes, when we bring it to the plat and we do a public hearing, yes. Okay.

So, he mentioned selling the paper that as a developer, they basically act as the middleman. They purchase, they profit to someone who's facilitating the development while there your son said that I'm sorry it's not that we're flipping the the land we need to entitle it we need to get it through the the master development process we're not the home builder we're not the builder we sell the paper is what he said we basically we sell yeah the they'll come in whoever buys it comes in and builds right so to me you know my background and experience is in risk management And to me that is the risk we take because there's no guarantee that the citizens and people ofville what was

well that everything would be and materialize according to a single family using an R2 zoning. I get their intention why they're saying but it becomes and we can come to collateral damage and that I think you're mistaken and let me clarify that. No sir I understand very clearly. I understand clearly and he has support. Go ahead.

Uh the the way the process works is we we got to have zoning before we can do anything. If we don't have we need to know what the right zoning is so that we can plan uh what the what the the parcel can do with that zoning. Okay. So we we're we're intention right now is to build uh to have 50 foot lot of that's your only intention. Correct.

Right now right now so let me stop you there. So, right now, instead of asking for I understand that the city talked to you about going to uh to the uh R2 on this, what we should be doing is asking amendment to R1 that you only change the that so then they would end all this and then we could be making a decision about are people happy with the 50 foot lot versus 70. Yeah, there were two ways to go about it. Keep it R1 and ask for a variance for 50 foot lots. change it to a R2 which allow the 50 foot lots and restrict the two single family. So I mean at the end of the day it's the same. So at the end of the day

I would say the let's say we we change it. It doesn't matter what we say the city council changes. We have every good intention to do it and to develop it. But let's say you sell it and now the next guy has no intention of doing but but even if we just did the amendment then they can still say R1 with even limits it to single family even if the committee recommends the the zoning change or the variance either way and the city council approves it and we sell it the next day all we accomplish is we sold that piece of property with a different zoning that or with a different That's right.

And that's it. Whoever comes next is going to have to come again through the same process that we are willing to follow and say, "Hey, city, what can we do with this zoning? Uh, you know, can we do this? Is the capacity for the utilities there? Is the water and the sewer and the streets and the electricity. Is it there?" Yes. And we're going to have to go through the same process. We're going to have to have public hearings and people are going to get to, you know, to raise their concerns and and and the whoever is on the committee that looks into that is going to raise all the questions we're asking right now beyond zoning and then city council is assuming we cross that hurdle. Then we're going to have to go to city council again for the approval.

This is so early on the process that all we're asking is a zoning change or a zoning variance. Yes, that's understood. But accuracy matters and a class amendment is different than reszoning to an entirely different class for multi-use that you can't even guarantee the future population.

I think that we we've understand what you're you're saying. I mean the amendment the process that we're trying to to help you with would be a lot easier back with amendment and we wouldn't have then he could talk to people about how much traffic is going to be going around because all you're going to do is add 50 foot lots. You can do the calculation. Four people live in one house per how many. Then you can come back and you'll be able to settle any kind of people's uh worries about how much traffic is going to vary versus I want to see you see you right now.

Either either way works for us. I mean all we want to be able to the ability to to present a particular development that has single family homes that are 50 foot wide lots. Yes, sir. your city staff will tell you. I mean, I basically showed up with that plan in hand and asked what would be more feasible to you guys to have this happen. Can I ask Jacob?

So, with that, there could be an amendment to the R1. Uh, we'd have to go a different route. Uh, that's why you went to the R2, which was already in our ordinance for those sizes. above that. If you if you're trying to avoid that, you could uh he could apply for a pub where we can put um those kind of recommendations during that time. That's what a pub would be for. A lot of these pleds that have passed, they passed for smaller lot sizes. Um that was that preference for that project. So each project is different for each project that that's getting applied for. So we would you could ask for those things and we could try to put those on and bring a pud as as an application do but ask for a pud and it would be for a certain lot size and that would be it. So whatever lot size they want to do now they could put that in a pud and and it' be up to you to approve or recommend. Um and all of this would be out of there all of the R2 things like that. So there's really not a variance we could do either. So that's what I was going to ask the varian because I did see in the Sony request that it had a little check box for variance. So would that be in

So that application is for multiple things. Uh either a variance or zoning change. Well, I guess wouldn't that be easier than the right for everybody would be a variance on the lot. We're thinking there's no hardship for your lot size. The hardship would be not enough money, right? So that's not a real hardship. you you need a real hardship by saying this lot was done back in the 1900s before the city had restrictions or setbacks and I can never build anything like that size because I'll never meet the setbacks because my lot is so small. So a pud would be the best thing to do but not amendment to no we whatever's on here is what we have you can add something on there or amend anything. Um,

no. Okay. So, y'all can't come back and do if you wanted to do something more specific for this project for that, it would be a p so that we can add those things in there and it's just specific for him, right? So, we do know what you're talking about as far as if you're to change the zone today, tomorrow they can sell and now it's a multif family. That's what he's our intention and the purpose that we submitted the master plan along with the request of y'all is to show you like this is what this is I I see you have good intentions but unfortunately with what is going to be written it's going to be

and and it is scary I I do understand that um even though that's not their intentions to have and I can see go bankrupt tomorrow and have to sell their We talk about this with commercial. Yeah, it's happened to us commercial.

I mean the zoning gets approved the the deep restriction will be simultaneous resell to R2 with a deep restriction that it only single family I mean so you don't you don't I don't know why there's a procedure is that we're going to resone it we go bankrupt then somebody takes over and comes in and builds a multi family that's we're saying we we have the mechanism So that the multif family never happens. I mean we you know we're requesting a change for their we're the sheep in wolves clothing clothing. They're the developer. They obviously have something to gain which is not right. Their consumer is capitalist. I understand. But as somebody who deals with policy and regulation language matters. What's in the contract matters. There's no guarantee. So if there's an option for you to come and bring the facts to the table with what your amendment you're getting, start there. come with the guidelines that protect us from multif family. Reszoning doesn't help us option. He can complete what he needs to complete. Bring it back to the table. It secures it as a single family and then you can address anything after that point.

Yeah, that's been discussed with with the service with the city manager. Hey, it's single family, right? You're trying to move it to D-restricted and I'm trying to say don't put the cart before the horse. Bring your facts to the table and then we'll talk. building. No, they are doing it right. They really are. They They're doing it right. They They have They've already been in discussions back and forth. Sorry. Yes, you have. He has the floor currently right now. So, uh

yeah, go ahead. So talking about the deed restrictions and and yes deed restrictions are really tough to change except in the case where um more than 51% of the property is owned by a single individual which would be the case for y'all until you start selling lots right and so if you if something happened you own 100 I mean but the the body uh agree to the restriction and the owner.

What I'm getting at is something happened, God forbid that it does, but you all decide you have to sell. You're not you're able to do this project and you sell it to another developer. That developer now owns all of those. I'm sorry, but uh the deed restriction runs with the land, not not with the with the entity. But you can deed restrictions can be changed. Deed restrictions can be changed by approval of 51%. No, I can't I can't uh unilaterally change the deep restrictions on on on the property that uh concerning zoning or deep. You can and it has been done.

It it happened. It's happened there. They change there was a development. This is 20ome years ago. There was a development here in Floresville that was five or minimum sight built homes. They had trouble selling. They they struggled for several years and they finally went back and changed the deed restrictions because they still own 75% of the land and they changed it to one acre home sites and allowed manufacturing housing and

but that requires a different zoning. I mean our our five I think it's the 5,000 or the five acre uh my understanding and you know basically you're saying I'm wrong. My understanding is that a deep restriction runs with the land, not with the party that owns it. We have seen cases that like a HB won't buy a land restricted just like a Walmart and then sell the

they do that all the time. They they buy they buy property where they don't want Walmart to come in and they buy it deep restricted and sell it. If Walmart could come in and and restrict change it then it will be mute. But then Walmart cannot do that because it's deep restricted. It runs with the land not not with the owner. I mean that maybe that's a question for the city attorney, but uh I mean it's that's my understanding. It would be incumbent on the city I guess to maintain that.

From what I understand, Northrest is a prime North Crest Hills unit 2. Um when they develop that subdivision, they did have the restrictions in there. They do and it and it's very clear on what they are. Um but I remember reading in those deed restrictions saying that you have to have a percentage of the people who would live there to you know to property owners. Yes. So the city really doesn't have right people stand on that.

It happened in the subdivision either. We were all supposed to be 100% masonary and then towards the end they couldn't keep selling lots and so people started switching over to a hardy blank and saying that that hardy blank is masonary and there wasn't enough people to confirm that that couldn't be. So, and it's not to say that that's the world, but we're trying to help you to get this, you know, resolved because we believe you, you know, and I think the main problem right now hearing is the width of these lots and how much congestion is going to come in there. And I understand, you know, y'all are going to try to need to sell it to the right, you know, people so that homes can be built in there. But um

well I'm just trying to understand we started with the city with the thought and then we explored they they said we'll go and then say well let's go the variance route and we looked at that then and then we decided the best rout is the one we're following right now on our two with the with the restrictions. Uh, I mean, we're happy to present it the way you want to see it, but at the end of the day, it's the same product that we want to build. So, I mean, if you want us to come back with a FUD, I guess we can. If you want us to come back with a variance, I guess we can. At the end of the day, it's the same development that we want to build.

I mean, we're just following with development services. What we discussed with them, they recommended, we discussed it with the city manager as well. That's why we're here. So, I can I can tell you this. Jacob and I can both tell you this. North Crest, Riverbend, those are our two newest subdivisions in the city of Lordsville. Oh, that's not what I wrote. Those two have way different obviously lot sizes than what's in our ordinance. If you look at our old neighborhoods, they're huge. 75 maybe even 100 feet in the frontage. Yes. About maybe 200 feet depth.

But all these new subdivisions that came to the city of Floresville did come with an agreement with like a p agreement.

Yes. Like either a p agreement or some kind of agreement with the city, a developer agreement saying whatever that needs to be supporting that subdivision. With North Crest, not all the lots are 75 by 100. There are some that are small and there's some that are big. Okay, obviously we all know about the golf course, you know, and now we have LO growth. Um, apparently that's the trend right now with subdivisions. You see it in San Antonio. You see it even in our Leveria. That's that's what's happening in Leveria as well. Um, but that's what's happening with our the latest subdivisions is they all have agreements with the city of Corso on whether we can do the infrastructure, lot sizes, roads, parks, whatever is involved in it. But there is an agreement with the sub with the developer and the city of Corsa.

There there is a section on North Crest that has that alley towards the back closer to our developments. the lots that we're proposing are bigger than those lots that are currently closed.

And I'll even read this from the restrictions from the North Hill Crest Hills um subdivision. So for single family residences for lots 1 through 76. Each main resident shall contain at least 1,200 ft of living area exclusive of porches and garage. No more than one resident shall be permitted on any lot in said subdivision. Another one shows, unless otherwise stated on the subdivision flat, each building shall be set back at least 25 ft from the property line fronting on any road and at least 5 ft from any side lot line if the adjoining lot is not under common ownership. So, right there tells you what those what toes are at. Um, also

these are deer restrictions. They don't have an HOA to enforce those deed restrictions. That's why where you live there isn't we are there's no control. We can't control the view restrictions, but the HOA is not going to have We are because we're proposing a detention pond which is going to be maintained by the HOA. Uh same with open channels. Branching off what Jacob said, Northwest has 5 foot uh side separations. We're asking for what the zoning currently has, which is 10 foot. So, I mean I I really I mean Jason are smaller.

Well, and you have your your neighbor if you're thinking about density, your neighbor, you're you're able to be closer house to house on the rest of the world. We're proposing we're proposing double that distance that they currently have. 10 10 ft.

Well, 10 on each lot, but that's a 20 foot separation, which is what the code says. Make a motion. Make a motion to approve A, B, and C changing from R1 single family residential to R2 multif family for uh the various tracks with the understanding that they are building single family homes and the exception is the size of the lot and to reiterate to everybody here they still have to come back to the city with their plan, their master plan, and all those things are going to be looked at. Public safety, road width, public utilities.

Correct. And you all will have an opportunity to speak on those issues as well.

Sorry, there's a there's a motion correct. I'm Sorry, but I'm not going to second it either. So motion dies. Motion dies.

Motion. I'm sorry. At this time, if the if the paperwork says exactly what you're going to be doing, then that's going to help us to see this. What is your recommendation that we come back with a that says exactly what you're that the only thing that's going to change is it's the lot size. Everything else is going to% of the motion. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh what do we need to change? You could just re reapply reapply again. U it says go to council as well. I guess how does that work? Can we can we edit there before we go to if you don't want to go to council? You can always request to not go to

but but I guess she made a motion with with knowing that it's single family and the the lot with being the only one that gets approved when she made it under the the assumption that that's is what's going to happen. It's not she's not adding that into the the motion. Excuse me, sir. Are you saying that if we word it correctly, you would? Yeah. But that you would have to come back again and and put that in front of us. Okay.

Because at that point, I mean, we're all here. We understand WS and we understand the lots and and that. And and then also too, at that point, u your neighbors who you're going to be your neighbors here. They're going to want to help your your stuff sell. You know, it's going to change the life of everybody. But they're going to at least know too, okay, we know 100 homes are going to come in here and but not, you know, 400 because it's multi. And I understand what you're saying, but the way it's reading right now, it it's we discussed that we saw the signs that were put out the first word that comes out. Hey, we're not asking for multi. I know. We discussed that with

So, we want to make it clear that the motion dies. The motion dies. Yes, there is a um in May 28th is the for council to also approve this or do you want us to is there an opportunity to amend the language and take it to council with the tit that is something we're going to have to take it to our that would be that would be the greatest thing instead of trying to still keep pushing this when you push stuff through past us you are more welcome to go the city council and they could probably vote this yes if they wanted to because it's a whole new set. But we represent the people and what you're hearing. We want you to be successful.

I understand. Well, we're just trying to understand the process. I mean, we're not trying to No, I know you're not trying to I agree with your concerns. We're willing to follow your your recommendation. My question is, can we expedite the process by correcting the language so that when it gets to city council, they read the correct language with the tacit understand that once it's corrected, you will get it. And if we need to have a special meeting, I'm going to speak for all three of us, but we would come in and do a special meeting to confirm that that's what you want. Okay. Well, the main thing is you're just recommending, right? So, we're just recommending

it would go to council still. If you want to add that that verbiage in, you want to add more than what's already been added to this packet, you can, but I don't see them amending. Are the special meetings? Are we able to do a special meeting before the council's period or no? I mean, it seems like a very simple thing to the language thing that it's going to be the same on all three parcels. I don't want to waste council's time and say like, oh, we're going to change it later. I rather with language that you all are especially if you got our blessings on it rather.

Exactly. So regardless of it's just a lot easier to reapply and go to a pud instead of changing verbage or anything like that before council meeting a special meeting. This is just an approval. So, if it goes to council and you have those that verbiage in there saying that you're not going to do um those things ultimately it's it'll it could still be passed or denied for that R2. I guess that's because of the multif family.

Are you guys re I mean what I'm hearing is or it might just be me is the you guys rather do the R2 with the lock with description on it or do you want the putt like Jacob's saying? I don't I that's where I'm kind of confused. I don't want to make this more complicated than it is in my opinion. Does the putt change anything other than the putt is adding what you're talking about right now. Yeah, that would be simple. R2 doesn't have that in there. It does. We don't have those options to change what the ordinance is already stating,

right? So, you can only use words out of it. That's right. Everybody could put that also sign you out or into the development if we eliminate the multif family multif family out of the word including everybody. Yeah. Okay. No, I mean I want to make it as easier for council and for y'all to to get through this because it's the very beginning of the process. But does it mean that it can't happen? We don't know. Can we talk about these things? So, um, it sounds like you could you could try to take it and see what happens. We could try to keep going to council with those things. Uh, and see what they

I mean, I rather go with a special I mean, if that's the language is what you guys are recommending to that and it seems like a simple relication. I'd rather do the special meeting before we go to council if that's okay with you. with this with that pub. We'd have to couldn't because of the zoning and the the notices that we have to send out to everybody again, the signage that we have to put out. We'd have to just start all over. So, we wouldn't have a special meeting. Well, before the the next let's just do the special meeting so we can go to council because if if we go to council right now without the planning zoning commission

that or you can just pull out from it entirely and start start doing the pug right away and try to make it by June's meeting for PNZ and then make it for a council's meeting in June if you want to do it that way. But a special meeting, anything like that. What's conflicting is the time frame that we have to to we have to do it 16 days before. That's what we'll coordinate with you tomorrow. But but the plan would have those things that everyone's talking about right now. I think we have an understanding what we want to achieve. I mean, we'll work with with the development service to see whichever one of the three options uh is is

we just pivot to the p and then pivot back to R2. So, I mean, we we just it's nice knowing that that would be clarifying any the doubt of it. For real, like Mr. Anton said, the the idea isn't going to change regardless of what it is. The idea is to have those lot sizes and to have the single family home. Ideally, Yeah, the public would take that away. And then the next meeting you might still get the same individuals talking to you about it, but you'll be more clarified going I know there's 200 houses at 400 four people per house. Hopefully knowing that it's not a multif family at least some of the concerns. I know there's still something that that we need to address.

We cannot tell you it's going to be 100 or 200 or 500 bucks until we know what it's right. That's what I'm saying. Now that we at least we can and we know and we are the other way around. We we're not going to grant you special permission. We don't know if it's going to be a 800, you know. No, that's fine. I mean, like I said, the development services have shown kind of the layout that we we see you have good intentions very much. We appreciate your time and and your enthusiasm to come to Floresville and even, you know, to help us, you know, help us with our city and grow. We're not going to

I I think this is a good thing for the city. I mean, it's you have a street that is completely underutilized. You guys have a park and ride park that you guys You guys have spent a lot of money on people use it. You have a street that takes you directly into downtown, avoids the high traffic at 181, but you can't connect to it right now because, you know, there's the parcel that we own. That's correct.

And that's exactly what we saw when we bought it. I mean, we saw that the utilities were there or nearby, you know, obviously we had to study the capacity. We had to, you know, discuss that with development service to see if there's water, electricity, and and and everything else that everybody's concerned about. I mean, this is early in the process. We want to know, okay, which guideline do we need to follow to help you with that? Try to present to you our plan. Yes, sir.

And and and that's basically why we're here. I mean, I understand a lot of the people's concern and I think we're you know, there'll be plenty of opportunity to discuss it in open forums. I mean there's I mean it's we're not and I I you know one of the things we're going to maybe ask service and we're going to do the research on our own is you know the same with the restrictions and whether or not they can be changed. My understanding is they go with the land but we'll we'll research that and as long as like let's say today you said these are these restrictions a year from now you still own the way you can change that restriction. I respect respectfully disagree. But that's I'm not an attorney, but uh my understanding is those type of restrictions go with the land.

Yeah, but if you still own the land, you can change it. That's why I'm saying I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm going to research it and find out because my understanding goes with the land, not with the owner. Okay. I I don't honestly I'm not

Yeah, attorney. We all appreciate. Yes. It sounds like we're going to go with the route that also it's going to put a little more on on Forzible side because they've got to notify and make sure everybody has their days so that they can come. So you might see a bigger crowd but also maybe more of a but a crowd that is more um knowledgeable in what's going on so that you won't be now it's more about why we're putting what in that might follow up with what you're leading to and answer a few of these questions have already preliminary what

I mean we understand we're not saying anything wrong we will have the same question again but this is too early in the process for us to be able to answer a lot of the questions you have because this is just a zoning request Yes, sir. That's something change request. It's not hey because we're going to build tomorrow because because you approve it today. We're going to build this home and you won't have any say on it. This is this is just the way the process works. Yes.

Can I just um I just want to commend y'all for being so forthcoming and um and making and I would like to recommend that you make yourselves available to your neighbors and let them provide some input to you. Um we found that with another case um a few months ago and the the person developing the land he listened to the people and it made for a much nicer transition and I think that y'all can achieve that here if you talk it yeah we're going to turn here and yeah if y'all have any questions for them or want to talk to them that's the way to to start this okay so at this time I'm going to adjourn the is uh

we still got we still got two more items if you just want to read. Okay. So she Okay. Yeah. She that's okay. Did it that way. Okay. So I'm going to turn at 707. Thank you. Thank you.