 Good afternoon, commissioners. Zeke's, Louise, the Princehold Planner and his own. So what we're bringing today is Mankey Park. Now we've been working on this for a year and a half. And it is basically an update to the original document created in 2008. Matter of fact, the large number of the technical committee is here in the audience. So it was initiated because of a city council request from Councilman Ward back in 2017. Neighbor conservation distinction. This is what they do and they don't do. They protect, they empower, promote capable infill development, allows fair objective and administrative review process protected to for planning. Now it does not require property harness to rehabilitate existing structures. It doesn't enforce these restrictions. It doesn't prevent demolition. And it doesn't change underlying based on the properties. Now for clarity, this is an update. So the neighborhood is already resumed for the NCD. So we're simply updating the NCD standards and it'll be a UDC amendment. So in the city at this point, we do have nine neighborhood conservation districts as the map shows. So since October 2017, we've met with the task force which had a total nine regular meetings and nine members with nine alternates for those that couldn't attend. 13 total task force meetings. We've presented the neighborhood association twice and we had a public meeting on January 23rd. So as I mentioned, this is a UDC amendment to article three which simply updates the Mickey Park NCD standards. Mickey Park currently in their standards, there are 15 design standards that we addressed. This committee went through line by line. We looked at everything from the previous document to see what could be addressed to basically take care of the construction they're seeing now. It's been a huge change from what they envisioned back in 2008 to what's happening now with all the infill. Some of the standards were pretty easy. The committee agreed on most of them. So what I'll do is I'll go through that portion first then I'll go through some of the controversial then afterwards we'll discuss some of the comments that we've been receiving since then. So we did go through all of them as I mentioned, building night, parking, in the meeting itself we did cover dumpster screening for multifamily, things of that nature. Some of them were removed because they're already addressed in other sets of codes like the UDC, Mildox placement is already addressed by the post office, lighting wall packs which is removed. Some of the standards what we did do is we added some language in the standards currently because what we did find was a lot of non-conforming structures in the neighborhood that had wider driveways than the NCD allows, wider curb cuts, roofing, even fencing. So what we did do is we recommended language in the code right in the NCD itself that says you can replace what you have. That way you're not non-conforming and you don't have to reduce your driveway size. This is just one example in the neighborhood the standards were required 12 foot maximum driveway. This is one scenario where they can replace it if they needed to. The area was pretty much split. When I say that the area north of Harlem Place it's actually more of Funston and west of New Promples. This area was already platted. We've got flats from the early 1900s that were platted at 50 foot wide lots. The rest of the neighborhood varied. So somewhere at 25 and somewhere simply not platted at all. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna address it in that regard. So at this point we looked at platted lots. Currently the code there's a limit at 50 foot. So what we decided in the committee was you can't replat these lots less than 50 feet which they already are. The other areas as we mentioned we added language that gave them some options because in many cases you had 25 foot wide lots and they may have owned a portion of the neighboring lot. So in those cases what we decided was to allow them to replat in those scenarios to 35 foot minimums. Otherwise you'd be going to the board of adjustment for each generic case. This gives you some flexibility because like as I mentioned this whole area is either platted at 25 or not platted at all. We also added some language to add a maximum for plating. There wasn't one previously so the committee basically felt we would set it a limit at 75 feet for any replat. Some of the things we discussed were the median block face. Currently the NCD has a, you identify the median block face and then you can build within five feet of that. The committee basically felt to change it to eight feet. Staff doesn't recommend going that direction because now you've got a scenario where there's a 10 foot difference up to a 16 foot difference. So staff in that regard will recommend an item of that request. One thing to keep in mind with the committee it was 19 folks so it really came down to the most people that attended that meeting the vote could sway either way. So what we're gonna do is we'll go through each section and then we'll just simply identify support. We also identified how to measure block face. Ultimately identifying it through either the sidewalk or the curb whichever the most prevalent feature along that block. That way it'll make it easier during inspection to identify if the home, the construction actually meets the NCD standards. One of the things added was a median set back to all in line when there are minimum of five existing single family structures on the block face. Staff doesn't recommend that. Ultimately in a scenario like this you've got a large portion of the neighborhood with a zone multi-family. You're gonna end up having to do a survey of the entire block face to identify if it is single family. Ultimately that's gonna cause an expense on the developer to create a survey to identify that. So that's one recommendation staff doesn't support. Again the same as I mentioned before but this is for corner blocks changing the five foot distance to eight feet. Again jumping to 16 foot difference. One of the scenarios here is the document currently says you have a 50 foot maximum limit to your residential. So the committee came up with a solution if you have a larger lot you can extend your house if you wanna say have a room addition. This allows you to go 10 feet back behind the front facade and you can expand out. Of course it's gonna be dictated by your lots most of them are 50 foot anyway there are very few that are larger than that. Currently the NCB has a limitation. Any new construction has to be separated from the neighbor and house by 10 feet. Some scenarios that we're facing are you may have a neighbor in structure that's non-conforming that may only be three feet, two feet in some cases even on the property line. What that does is if you have a neighbor that wants to construct it limits them because now they have to push further back. Normal code requires five feet. So what we're saying here is if you do have a neighboring lot that is non-conforming and it's existing you can go ahead and utilize the current code at five feet and ultimately meet our code. Multi-family also has a limit of 80 feet. What we're saying is only those areas north of Portland and west of New Bromphills will have to adhere to that. You have a lot of multi-family south of that area that are much larger than 80 feet. So what we're saying is they're gonna be allowed to be grandfathered and continue. If they want to demolish, they can rebuild and they'd be okay. Again, there's a separation requirement for multi-family. Each structure has to be a 20 foot separation. One of the recommendations is that you're allowed to drop the structure down to you have a non-conforming side setback. You can drop it down to five feet similar to the residential. Here's another scenario we added in language. You have a lot of multi-family that are currently non-conforming. So this is along Madeline. You don't have a 20 foot separation between the buildings. By changing this section of code, you're allowed to rebuild your structures without it really adversely affecting your construction. Now we're jumping into garages which surprisingly enough took most of our time. One of the requirements was moving that the car porch shall be behind the principal dwelling for the most architectural feature. This is one where staff does not recommend. Ultimately, the scenario, the NCD was trying to prevent front-end garages. There are some exceptions if you have a substandard lot, but out of the committee, the proposal was to allow a garage. So ultimately in this scenario, you could have your roof overhang and ultimately end up with a front-end garage. Staff actually does not support that request. All of the garage doors or car porch not visible from the front facade. This was pretty easy for us. Ultimately the original document required that your garage be 36 feet behind the front facade, but we couldn't identify where that came from. So ultimately, we agreed that you could drop it down 20 feet behind the front facade. That way you could have a garage behind the facade very similar to this kind of design. There are exceptions currently in the code that state of your lot is less than 45 feet in width and less than 110 feet in depth. You're basically exempt from the current garage placement. So you can have a front-end garage in these scenarios. Basically by changing the requirement down to 35 feet, the recommendation is that we drop that 45 to 35 foot but keep the 110 foot depth. So in these cases, you could have a front-end garage. You just meet the requirements because you have a substandard lot that you just really can't fit the garage behind your front facade. Well, this one's rather minor. It's a port-of-shave. Ultimately, there was some request to remove language in scale proportion placement profile. We don't recommend that. Basically by keeping the language as it was, it gives the homeowner some flexibility in their design. So we did have quite a bit of public engagement. We sent out notices twice. In the second, 880 property owners were notified. We did a kickoff meeting with 30 in attendance. Community meeting had 65 in attendance. Zone commission, we identified in our website. All documents were posted. As each meeting ended, we would post all the comments. We had a matrix where we identified the comments from the meeting. We also identified the recommendations as well as staff recommendation at the end of it. Presentations. We presented to the Neighborhood Association in which number 40 in attendance. The community meeting, which is on the 23rd, had the 65 in attendance. We received five comment cars, 62 comments by email. Some comments received from request exemptions and NCV based on use or based zoning. Staff does not recommend these changes as it will create disparities. Some comments received from NCV should only govern street view. Basically, they felt in some of the comments, you can't tell me what to do beyond the front facade of my house. Staff does not recommend as the playful structures in the rear yard, such as detached garages and characters should be regulated. We placed a survey on SC Speakup, which is a couple hours ago, we had 43 comments received. We also emailed out to 124 recipients. And notices, as I mentioned, were emailed out to 880. So from the comments, what we did is we broke them down by the categories, whether in support or not, whatever it may have been, to try to simplify as much as we could. Define primary street. That's already addressed in the UC by address. So whatever your address is, it's your primary street. So we didn't feel that would be warranted. Maximum lawless should only apply to single-family residential. Basically, staff didn't recommend that either. Some of the concerns were somebody could buy up several lots and build huge multi-family projects and that would basically change the character of the neighborhood. Men are replete with, Harlem Place boundary should be replaced with North of Pershing. Do not recommend it, basically Pershing. Portions of it are already plated at 50 and portions are at 25 near the golf course. So we didn't feel that that would be necessary to change that. Men are replete with, Harlem Place boundary should be replaced with properties fronting Funston. We do recommend it, because ultimately, if you're familiar with Minky Park, the park itself, both sides of the park are plated at 50 foot wide lots. The only difference is south of the park is zone multi-family, the entire neighborhood. So when we're going through this process, we identified that boundary from the zoning as far as the discussions we had earlier. So the recommendations has changed that boundary to Funston to include those properties since they are already 50 foot. So that is a recommendation that we do recommend as well. Men are replete with, except for the following streets. This one wasn't very clear to us because some of these streets, as I mentioned, were 50, some were 35. So we're getting more clarification from the residents on this one as well. This is for setbacks to find the median setback by block base. One of the recommendations where the community could come together and go basically block by block and they could identify what that setback would be. A median makes it easier for the developers and makes it easier for everybody since you already have that. We do recommend it, but the only problem with that is would we have the data in time by council? And that's going to be the only question on that. Parking, keep language required in parking to be behind the direct complaint of the front facade. Again, we don't recommend it. Again, you have some lots that are shorter lots, and it's going to be very difficult to park behind the facade, especially at 25 foot wide lots. So we wouldn't recommend that. The normal code allows you to park in your driveway. Keep language, not allowing parking structures to be constructed in front yard. Again, we do not recommend it. Placement of parking structures is already regulated in other sections. Driveway from walks allow multiple driveways and allow driveways to expand beyond the front facade. Again, we don't recommend it. Currently, the UDC, where the NCD allows you one driveway for every 7 and 5 feet, by doing that you're going to increase your impervious cover and curb cuts. Driveways must extend 20 feet behind the front facade. Again, we don't recommend for those scenarios that you have a non-conforming lot or a shorter lot. Trash receptacles. This one surprisingly enough was a split. Some residents wanted the trash receptacles for multi-family against the street, and some wanted it behind the property screened. So in this case, allow apartment dumpsters to be located at the street. Again, we don't recommend it. It changes the character. Lighting, remove light trespass. UDC already addresses light trespass on some neighboring blocks, so we don't recommend removing that section either. It just simply reinforces the UDC. Building height and principal elevation features. In this scenario, some of the residents wanted the building height, which is what we're recommending to enable stories, to only apply to single family, and basically leaving it unlimited for multi-family to the current code, which is 45 feet in height. Again, we don't recommend that either. Building materials, allow flexibility, or replacing sight. We don't recommend language allow flexibility and allow replacement in scale, proportion, replacement in profile. We're trying to just keep the character in place. Principal elevation features, windows, allow flexibility or replacing existing windows without requiring light or light mattress, requiring adjusted current size or windows. We do recommend this because what we're finding is you have a lot of older homes that it's very difficult to find windows to match, so we're recommending support of that. And we received quite a few comments from that one. I believe there are 34 that supported the window changes. Building size, massing, just language, allowing existing multi-family structures separated by less than 20 feet to drop down to 15 feet instead of five. We do recommend it, maintains a distance separation for multi-family to prevent massing within 8 feet. Garages, carports, allow portacochets to be flush with the front facade. Exemptions should apply to lots less than their five feet regarding requirements for parking structures in their rear yard. We're supportive of that. Your portacochet can match up with your front facade and that's okay. So remember, this applies only to the boundaries and this is only residential. Some of the other NCDs may address commercial, Mankey Park did not, strictly residential. It applies to the properties in this boundary. You're not the mother with it. Bar road to the north, Bracken Ridge, and then you've got Fort Sam. Tenability, we're scheduled for March 21st for City Council. We are still receiving comments. So we have surveys to open. Myself, staff, we're still receiving comments as well. So we're gonna keep addressing those. Before the meeting, I did receive an email from Mankey Park. They have not officially submitted their recommendations yet. And if you don't mind, I'll read that real quickly. Mankey Park Neighbor Association will not put forward an official position on revisions to the Neighbor Conservation District until after the rezoning commission public hearing. We wish to understand feedback or comments given at the hearing before submitting our official position in advance of this go into Fort City Council. All right, I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Citizens to be heard. George Grimes, followed by Sandra Burge. Ms. Burge is giving her time to Mr. Grimes. Mr. Grimes, you have four minutes. The only person who's also giving her time. Six minutes. My name's George Grimes. I live at Fort 15 Harlem within the neighborhood conservation district. And I'm a member of the committee that has been working on the updates. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1975 and been a member of the Neighborhood Association since 1979 and served on the board and as an officer. I'm speaking today on behalf of fellow NCD committee members joining books, both Chase, Lori Sherwood, Isabelle Garcia, Francil Radman, and Scott Day. And since I was on the original conservation district program back in 2008, I'd like to give a little bit of background on that. I set out in the UBC the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation District is to protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and recognize identity and charm. NCD design standards might govern building height, building size and massing, principal elevation features, lot size and covering, setbacks, parking, roof line and pitch, architectural style and details, and a number of other issues. The original NCD was initiated in 2005 and took about two and a half years to complete. It was all under the close supervision of the city staff. The planning team included 15 members, about 13 of those were residents and of those five were architects and one was an engineer. The first questions that we asked were what the character defining elements of the neighborhood and are the elements common to the north and the south of the neighborhood? In order to determine this, we did a survey of every property in the neighborhood and it was a role to the survey, the planning team determined that there were elements common to structures throughout the neighborhood, north and south, regardless of the zone, regardless of the type of redevelopment. And these neighborhood defining characteristics were parking behind houses, few garage doors in front of houses, driveway separating houses, creating more space between the houses and the five-foot yard setback if otherwise required. Sidewalks from the front sponsor walk to the house entry, very few front yard fences, few structures in front yard setbacks, the main entries of houses, place the primary seat street, the main entries are defined by a transition space and there's a common pattern of a front facade of the windows and doors. What were not common factors were exterior building materials, roof slope overhang and roof material. So the second question was, to what extent should NCD require enforcement of character defining elements? And the range of opinion was from minimum or no enforcement to very detailed standards governing building height, size, principle features, lot size coverage, setback, parking, architectural style and details, building materials and so forth. In the end, rather than distinguishing between different parts of the neighborhood, the NCD aesthetic was minimum standards to protect only the truly character defining elements of the entire neighborhood, regardless of some of the difference in housing types. And this was adopted by the city council in 2008. Now, in 2017, neighborhood residents became concerned about demolition of existing houses and construction of new houses on 25-foot blocks, mostly on that old square month in Elmhurst, East and North New Bronx. The houses are 15 feet wide separated by 10 feet based on the side yard setback and have a single garage door on the front side. As a result of this concern and some other issues with the NCD, the Mankey Park neighborhood association board asked the city to initiate this review. The city issued a review process by a council consideration request, CCR, with the intent to preserve and protect the integrity of the design standards of the neighborhood. A meeting was held, the committee was selected to work on this and the committee met monthly from February to December 2018. It became clear that on a number of important issues, the committee did not reach consensus. Some members wanted to maintain and strengthen the standards as described in the CCR, other wanted to weaken or eliminate standards. The committee began to vote on various proposed amendments and many of the votes were decided by one or two vote margins depending on the members attending the meeting. In my view, and that of the committee members I represent, the design standards should be amended only when there's broad agreement for the change and change either strengthens the NCD or clarifies the standard and does not weaken the standards. We prepared an amended version of the residential design standards that in February 14th, 2019, I believe you all have copies of that. And we would like the zoning commission to adopt these standards. The changes from the original NCD are shown in the underlining and the strikeout contract. While we generally support the staff recommendations for movements of the NCD, there's a few sections we would like to modify. And the next speaker, Bert from Coach Hayes will talk to you about those specific sections. Thank you. Butch Hayes followed by Mary Evans. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Hayes, you have six minutes. Thank you and good afternoon to the commissioners. And I'm bad with mics. I'm too loud. So I'll stand back a little bit here to keep us all in the room. I live in District 2 at 330 Elmhurst. I purchased the home in 2013 and moved back to San Antonio to live there as a retiree. First moved to San Antonio in 1976. I served on the Manatee Park Neighborhood Association Board and both disclosure, given the times we live in, I'm on the steering committee of the Tier 1 Neighborhood Coalition, but today I speak to you as a Manatee Park resident and member of the committee. I'm going to give you, we agree with the staff recommendations included in the PowerPoint, except for the following. Look at 2.1.1. The minimum 35 replanting width for combining lots should not apply to Pershing, Queen Anne Court, Elmhurst, and Parliament Place, east of New Brown Falls. The next section I call your attention to is 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. We agree with staff that the variance from the median setback should not be changed from five feet to eight feet. Rather than using an undetermined median setback, we propose measuring the entire neighborhood and establishing the information as illustrated on the last page of that handout in exhibit A, showing the median setback for each block base. This would make it easier for staff to review the plans for the building permits. The measurement can be done with digital measuring devices and most importantly, Manatee Park residents would volunteer to make those measurements and provide the city with that data as it's outlined in the exhibit. We'd ask that you insert a new section 2.5.1 as follows. New residential structure must have a driveway that leads to the rear of the property. You'd have to remember then other sections in 2.5. Next section is 3.1.1. We object to permitting dwellings with four or fewer units exceeding 50 feet in width or section 3.1.2. We object to limiting the width of multifamily structures with five or more units to north of Parland and west of New Bromples. Continuing on with 3.1.2, the minimum setback for new residential, multifamily structures with five or more units adjacent to a non-conforming side setback. Should be changed to 15 feet. 3.6, we suggest moving sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3, which the committee talked about as you've heard for a long time. Move all sections to section 2.4 so that all sections governing parking garages and car hordes are together in the same section. On 3.6.1.1, which would be renumbered to 2.4, 3.1, we agree with staffs objecting to the proposed change and wish to go back to the original NCE language, which was when garage or carport entry faces in the same direction as from the back aid of the principal dwelling, the garage or carport shall be detached from the principal structure and located behind the principal dwelling. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it, appreciate the staff. Thank you. Bruce Martin followed by Joyce Felter. What's your answer? Joyce Felter followed by Richard Felter. I believe that, well, I'm Joyce Felter, I live at 419 Parlington, I've lived there since 1980. Before that I lived in some other locations in Mickey Park. The, my biggest concern has been addressed changing that 35 foot business to Funston. Funston and Parland are almost identical streets we border the park. To me it was very important that Funston did not be included in that 35 foot thing. But that was all part of a bigger concern. We have also been one neighborhood, just one. And this business of dividing us North and South is just not, I don't like it. And so that like the size of the loud from multifamily buildings and all, I think it should be the same. I think that's addressed in here in the kitchen notes. And just anything else actually, the fewer changes to the NCD, the better and the fewer differences between the North and the South, the better. And it looks like most of what they've said has addressed my concerns as long as the Funston thing that I saw on yours stays and nobody changes back. I'm happy. Thank you. Thank you. Richard Felter, followed by Scott Day. Mr. Day, you have four minutes. Definitely Scott Day, I own several properties within the defined district. Former resident of Mankin Park, we don't believe, a futurism. Purpose of the NCD guidelines has been to make sure that as development happens, the pieces go together, they fit, they feel like they're part of the family. And if you've been up to Mankin Park recently, you can see that we're relatively sought after area and there's a lot of new developments. So this is an important issue for the neighborhood. Two things specific to me, I want to make sure I understand and clearly take my response after my time. On the 75 foot maximum replat, I would think that we want to just keep that at 50 feet. And for reason being that if you buy three lots at 50 feet and put them together in 275s, we're going back to one of our early concerns with the NCD committee that we start to make mansions that can easily happen in certain areas of the neighborhood. So I personally, I'd like to see that stay at 50 feet. And then the other thing that Mr. Hayes brought up was the median setback. There's one issue that we have wrestled with over the last 10 years when new development has occurred in the neighborhood is where is that setback from the street? It's been difficult to administer, it's been difficult for people to understand. And what we're proposing is we go in and do one measurement for each block and that's the number. And so people understand that, the developer understands that, staff understands it, it's easy to administer. So I think that's an important piece that we get to. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Turner, followed by Tony Westridge. First of all, thank you all for serving. And I am like a part of the manky part of the neighborhood, I went to the morrow of entry, I took music lessons from Mrs. Moses on Navlin. I, my parents had their first apartment on Navlin. And so I'm part of the neighborhood, I love the neighborhood, it has a school. But some of these rules and restrictions like detached garages take up the backyard, so no kids. I just want reasonable decisions. My grandmother and I had now a duplex with a loft over a three-project. Back then, when my grandmother and these, this district was planted in 13 different plants. I am south of Manky Park and it was multifamily. So if you have, like I had three apartments, back then people only had one car. But it's okay with the committee that people park behind each other. There's no flexibility. And if you just take a little field trip, I thought we should get a field trip together and ride up and down Navlin. I drove down because of my, you know, past history in the neighborhood. And I mean, it looks like two different worlds from up near the New Bromphils that you go towards Broadway. And I concur the Buffalo District and Gorman and Queen Anne and all those districts then leave it to Beaver. But south is not. It is multifamily primarily. And you cannot totally justify one size fits all. We can't be the same as the Buffalo District. So I don't want property rights infringed upon. I'm a big property rights advocate have been all my life. And I wanna make sure it's kid-friendly. I wanna make sure the parking is reasonable. And he setbacks and personally, I think McMansions are beautiful versus some of the skinny houses and things with no flexibility that we get instead. Thank you for your time. And I do want to take you on that field trip. Tony Westridge followed by Jonathan Craig. Lye. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the board, members of developmental services. Thank you for your services. Citizens to make Mankey Park a better place. My name is Tony Westridge. We own the two houses on Funston Place, 402 Funston and 412 Funston. My wife's father built the house in 402 Funston. She's owned or her family's owned that house for 75 years. As Kay said, my wife went to the same bar. We don't currently live in Mankey Park that doesn't mean we're not a part of the association. I've helped out and served with the board of Mankey Park just to give you a little association of what I am. Also, I served on the 2006 and 2007 committee that George Bryant was mentioning and the current committee, Task Force Committee. I have a lot of respect for the ones that spoke before me. I'm glad they spoke before me the integrity of the community. George and Butch Hayes, they bring up a lot of good points. I don't have a degree with a lot of these restrictions that we're having to the property. Mankey Park is too distinctive, different pieces of land. Up there where they built the country club area, the bungalows, they're really nice little houses and potentially historic. Historic went in Mankey Park a couple, three years ago and the citizens overwhelmingly denied the use of historic in that area. And we're talking about the complete Mankey Park area. The bungalow district, maybe, maybe not. The zoning board, I don't know how you're gonna do your job today. I honestly don't. Mankey Park contains 63 subcommittees and some confusing language. I brought a little display here to talk about materials. Sounds like I only got about 30 seconds. But we don't wanna use 1920s materials on the wood, on the windows and the outside. We wanna be energy efficient. And I've got a little bit of display. I'll walk up and down the aisle here a little bit. You can't tell the difference between a vinyl siding window and a wood window from the screen. So that's kind of the display I got. I'll just do a little walking of the display. Thank you for your time. Jonathan, why? Here's the two houses. The maroon ones are wood. The white one is land. And I'm gonna make another pass with the siding. Hang on just a second. No comments. Okay. Here's the three houses. Mr. Westbridge, I'm sorry, your time. You have two minutes to pass. Thank you. You can just leave it open right where you're sitting and then they can look at it. Okay. Go ahead. Jonathan, let me catch your last name. Sorry, is your time? That's all right. Jonathan Fly, thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Jonathan Fly. I'm a real estate attorney. I was part of the task force. And I just wanna get the OPPA committing some background. Basically what you have in front of you here is what I call a disagreement put into writing. Disagreement put into writing. Because of the way Mancubark was developed in 13 different planning sessions, basically what you're trying to do is put new wine into old wineskins. It wasn't well planned to begin 100 years ago. There wasn't adequate planning. And what you see here in Mancubark is what happens when you guys don't do your jobs. Because somebody 100 years ago didn't do their job. And now we are trying to fix it. And there was a lot, a lot of conflict on the task force. And a lot of that came from people who weren't happy with the 2008 NCD. There's a Yale study that calls NCDs zoning by taxidermy. And they felt like their rights were being infringed. And we had about a 50-50 split. And on occasion it got ugly. There was even one comment in the meeting that if you wanna live in a family-friendly neighborhood, move to the suburbs. And folks as an attorney, that is a federal housing violation. So what I want you to think about in the future, we have to have rules, okay? So you're gonna have to pass something. What I want you to think about in the future is that this is a disagreement put into writing. And in the future there are gonna be people who come and ask for a variance from you. And I would encourage you to very liberally get those variances because yes, we need rules, but these rules aren't gonna work for everybody and every property because it was so poorly planned. That's all I have signed in this week. Um, are you gonna come back for a little bit? I don't know if we necessarily know a while, but if there's any questions, we'll be glad to answer them. Wonderful, okay. All right. Let's see. Commissure, okay, please. Well, of course, you know, I may be mistaken for this many people showing up, which I'm glad they did to speak on behalf of this case. I don't recall getting any emails. I have several questions in reference to this case, but before I even go into my detailed question, yeah, please start down there, I can go first. Commissure is on my right. Yes, Commissure is on my right. I don't even know where to begin. So why do I have to go first? I mean, there's a lot to look at. I'm trying to think on what actually we would be voting to approve because we saw the presentation and it's like, well, we concur with this, we don't concur with this. And so I'd kind of like to see, you know, when I was involved in another task force, we actually saw the actual language. It'd be good if we had this printed out and just... Actually, the actual language that the task force has put forward is actually in the agenda information. Is it? Yes, so it's a matrix, it's a spreadsheet. Maybe Mark will can show it on screen as well. It's one of the supporting documents that are attached. Yeah, I see that, but it's harder to understand versus seeing the actual strikeout stuff. It is, it's actually column three. It shows the strikeout language as well as the language that is proposed to be added. Okay, okay. So that gives you the actual, what the actual ordinance would look like. Okay, now I'm seeing it. Okay. So if you notice the first column, oh, okay, let's go. The first column is the category. The second column in green is the current regulations that are currently in place that was passed in 2008. Column three shows the discussion that occurred, language that occurred during the discussions with the task force. Column four shows what the final recommendations are that came out of the task force, whether it was through consensus or by votes, or if they were stalemates, then we put that into the discussion and gave what staff recommends in the final column. But that fourth column is the piece that you're gonna wanna pay attention to because everything in black is what would remain. That's currently code language. Everything in blue is what is being added. Everything in red that strikeout is what would be deleted, is proposed to be deleted. But then they're, but this is not, but y'all have recommendations agreeing with some of these proposed changes and disagreeing with the other changes. Correct, and that's what's reflected in the final column. Right, and for me, that's what's been confusing to me, unfortunately. Right, and so the zoning commissions, what the zoning commission can do today is they can either recommend what the task force put forward or they can recommend what staff recommends approval of where we have on some of those major changes that we outlined for you in the presentation, what we do recommend, what we don't recommend, or there's an option to continue it or even deny any of the changes put forward by staff or the task force and keep what's in place today. So those are still the options. And then of course, this is the opportunity to kind of clarify what that language is. Okay, thanks, that actually helped. Make that new. I'm like, what awarding dinner with those last few minutes. So, okay. So you raised, one of the gentlemen, I think Mr. Day raised a good question. And so the question is the staff, with regard to the 50-foot maximum that he recommended because the change to the 75-foot would possibly allow for management building, what's the thought on there? For the maximum, planted lots. Ultimately, what we decided was, I mean, because you have got 25-foot wide lots. So everything east of New Braunfels are, these are all 25-foot wide lots. There was mention of Pershing and Eleanor, some of the, or Ellesmere and some others. And basically, these lots are 25-foot. Some of the recommendations were, I believe, my 50. The max planted lot, ultimately what that would do is prevent any more multi-family. You've got a lot of multi-family popping up, some are asking for variances and so forth. And that still gives them an opportunity to go to the Board of Adjutants for a variance if they so choose. But this actually sets a limit. So if you've got a developer who's been by up the entire block, it's gonna limit them. It gives the board and the neighborhood an opportunity to look at it and make a recommendation based on that individual case. And let me chime in as well. So the maximum lot width of 75 that was proposed is actually in line with other NCVs. Alta Vista that we went through a revision with in Beacon Hill also has a maximum planted lot width of 75 feet. What we don't wanna create is let's say somebody owns three 25-foot width lots. If you have a maximum replant set at 50 feet, they choose not to go to the Board of Adjustment, then you'll have a development that occurs on a 50-foot wide lot and then a development that occurs on a 25-foot width lot. And so that's why if the person wanted to replant them, they could replant up to a maximum of 75 feet. Okay. Thank you. Come this way. I'm still trying to absorb zoning by taxidermy. I think this is really important but I don't completely understand. Maybe it's late in the day. But I'm having so much trouble absorbing this. I just wonder if there's a way we can maybe continue this and repackage it so that we can, I don't know if you're all feeling like you're drowning in this too, but I don't know how we're gonna get through this. And I don't know what the answer is. I just wish, first I thought, oh good, I know I get it, but then I realized there's like six more pages of what I now get. I don't know if we just need more time. I would certainly be for that. I don't know that we saw this exactly before, the matrix, it's helpful. We presented it to you, we gave it to you at the work session. Yeah, did we see it in the matrix before? Yes. Okay, because I sure didn't read it when we got out of there. So I don't know. And I would agree, it's a lot of information. I mean, this is the actual NCD document that's published, it's a lot. And that's why this took over a year because we went through a lot of the standards line by line. So I mean, it is a lot of information and we packaged it the same way we packaged it everything else, any other UDC amendment. It's just, there are a lot of standards and there were a lot of rewrites, if you will. In order to clarify and provide some flexibility to some of these standards. Okay, so I'm gonna try to do better if we continue this. I think I agree with that. There is one thing I want to talk about with respect from the information provided by Mr. Gromps and Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes, I think you mentioned this with respect to 2.1.1. 0.1. You know, the language that you proposed, I think after your explanation, I understood. So basically what you're saying is east of Northly Brownfields, on Pershing, Queen Anne Court, Elmhurst, and Portland Place, those lots are currently 50 feet and you want that standard to remain. Is that correct? Those lots are not 50, they're the 25 foot ones. Prior to these changes, the all of the lots, did they have the whole neighborhood, if you replanted a lot, it was a minimum of 50 feet. The area, this actually might be a sufficient answer to my question because I have a feeling I know where this is going. I'm not gonna try to predict the future. But my reason, the reason I ask about this is because I find that sort of introductory language, that qualification a little confusing. And if I can understand what the point is, then I can work hard to try to maybe come up with alternate language that will protect what you want protected, you know, get to that point. But the way it's written right now, I find it confusing. So I'm gonna get with you afterwards, I think, and give you my number and we can talk about it. And I move on. I think commission is really, this is a recommendation, but let me just see if any commissioners on the left have any questions. Well, I'm likewise confused by a lot of this. I see this as kind of like San Antonio. We have a lot of different standards. This is trying to build a neighborhood. Mr. Fly, I agree with you. We've got to have a lot of variances as things progress. But that's part of the process. I would not have a problem of postponing this and kind of go into it more depth. There's been at least two sides and a lot of research and they have not totally agreed. And that just kind of bothered me. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Giddens. Oh, you're always speaking my language. I like reading maps like this. I think what would be helpful is to have a platform to see the plots where you can see the lot dimensions a little bit quicker or easily so we can read the, read instead of this type of a little street lot map doesn't do anything for us, especially I guess it was 13. This is done in 13 plants. So the, and Z can actually pull it up on the website. All of the plants that we did, we did research on the task force looked at and we actually put them on the website so that anybody could see them. But originally back prior to 1938 there were a lot of the plants that were done back then and those are still in fact that may be some antiquated plants but they were planted long before we had city walls. So we can send that link to you because again we developed a website and has all the documents including all of the 13 plants and you'll be able to see that. Again, it's using that information to help create the flexible language to allow a replat that would occur for 35 feet to address those property owners that own a 25 foot width lot and a half of a 25 foot width lot. In order to allow them to replat into 37. 37.5 feet. So we're common is that this is not vacant land. There are some vacant lots in Mackey Park but a lot of them are developed and NCB does not control demolition. So there are properties that are being bought and some of the structures are being demolished and new development is occurring. But again, I mean, it's still about the ownership of the tract underneath. And so that's a lot of the plants created. I can look at a lot, a vacant lot and I know that there's a house there and understand what you're saying as far as your setbacks. And then also maybe it needs to be put into more two different type of documents. It seems like you have the land description differences and then the design description differences. Is there a way for us to cut out and work on two different ideas at a time, address the land differences that you wanna do such as the setbacks and then address all the design differences that you want, such as the garage. That would be a suggestion I have. Okay. Question. So I think the material, so basically I think one of the gentlemen that might have been trying to say is, I think here in the NCB it's saying, it has to be the exact original material when you're replacing the root for the siding and whatnot. And so is that what the question is? Whether or not it could be something that's similar for our kids room. And currently policy is that we can, if somebody wants to replace the siding, they can do that. So we didn't have to be the exact same material if they replaced the entire facade. We have that scenario in our other NCBs as well. We could very well look at language that addresses that. But at this time when we review, we do look at similar materials. So it doesn't, you don't have a mix of materials in the same facade. And that is one of the things that we put in the PowerPoint presentation that we would, because that was one of the comments we received after the community meeting, that we would recommend that language that would allow someone to replace placement, profile form, so that way it's not even exact like for like. Okay. And I think that probably have other questions, but I think it would be helpful when we come back that it's easier to do that test. It's easier to, I appreciate your presentation, so you can, it was very comprehensive. Thank you so very much. But now with these changes from the neighborhood, you know, what you are applying, what you're not applying and things of that sort. So, and I don't know if there's still a part of the discussion that you had since they presented these. So that might be helpful too if we go back and address these. And we're still receiving comments. So we're gonna be taking those comments all the way to city council. If anything stands out that could be really helpful, we're definitely looking at those as well. And we're receiving the comments. And what we can do is we can prepare in the matrix, we can prepare the additional language that we would recommend based on those comments. As we presented in the PowerPoint, so you can see what that language looks like either with the blue underline or the red strike out. With what they presented today, you're saying. The changes. May or may not include everything. Again, you know, some people recommended some changes Stephanie or may not agree with those recommended changes. And that would be up to the commission to decide what is it that you would recommend. But we would be able to tell the difference. What was presented today, but still like the markup and whatnot would be explained whether you consider there or not. Right. What we received officially, their testimony was provided today. Some of those comments we received and we did put that in PowerPoint presentation. We'll put that language as to what that proposed language would look like in the matrix. But again, there might be some things that we don't agree with, like changing the 75 foot width to 50 foot width. That would be something that you guys would have to consider independently from what we would put forward. Thank you. Commissioner Hayden. I just want to ask a quick question. So was this originally called Mankie Park Plan or was the plan called Madeline's Terrace? Each plan has its own type of, I just want to get an answer to this for you a bit, but. I'm sorry. There are a few of them on the, I guess to me that's important because other than, was the developer the same developer on all these? Okay, so that's important to me as to how do you kind of carve all of this up? And for, I mean obviously it was developed under different ideas and different concepts. So it's odd that we're going to tag it now as Mankie Park. What did it, what did it just become Mankie Park then? Definitely another history here. So this is difficult to do it in. So I mean, there's a difference. So okay, I guess it doesn't matter, right ma'am? My question doesn't matter. I wasn't asking you a question. Okay, yeah, the public hearing is closed at this point. We can ask the question. Right, so let me kind of explain. So Plats are going to have its own independent name. That's just the way it works. Mankie Park has a neighborhood plan. Mankie Park also has a neighborhood association. And that's the name that was derived. But again. I can't really say into that area. Plats were developed under different design ideas. That's how lots of these Plats were done. They were done individually. They weren't done. Where a developer, if he had a big track of land now, has to submit all the Plats or the ideas involved on that track of land and can't parcel them out little bit by little bit. So it's important to me. I'm sorry if that seems like a non-important question to you. Okay, I'm a commissioner here. First off, I like Mankie Park. I used to be an old friend of mine for about a year. Okay, so I do have major questions. And what I would like to do is Mr. Graham's and Mr. Hayes, I would like to meet with you. Ms. Mizzis on this turn. I wanted to also meet with you on taking your offer. Cause I'm sure there are some things I'm not familiar with, you know, I live there for about a year and a half. But at this time, I am going to make a recommendation that we continue. I have a question. Okay, and what I would also like to do is see if we can get a re-presentation. Question. Okay, more questions. Oh, this again. Continuance to win again? Well, yeah. April 2nd. I would like some time to work with everyone, to like to work out. I can't see doing all of this within two weeks or maybe even 30 days. Cause it's gonna take a little time for me to absorb some of this. I'm not in college at 21, 22 no more. And my brain is a lot older than what it used to be. So it's gonna take me some time to work out these details from a business perspective and a developed perspective. So I would like to see April 2nd. So let me just give you some options. There, an option is, is that we can meet between now and a meeting in March so that we don't push it all the way to April. Cause we do have a timeline that we would like to try to meet. But if that is a possibility, we can do that. And then when it does come back to zoning commission, we can do a work session briefing at the same meeting so that we can go over everything one more time, have that couple of hours to go over that information with you and then have the recommendation, the actual consideration at the same meeting. Yeah, quick point of information. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Yes. Did I see that right now the plan is for the city council to hear on March 21st? That's correct. That's our tentative timeframe. Okay, in that case then, if we can kind of do the work session by March 2nd and continue this till the 19th. So work session March 5th and then consideration on March 19th, which means it's expedited to council March 21st. We can do that. You have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion from commissioners on my right? Yes, Commissioner Woodrow. I know there's certain things you have to do when you present to us, but I would like to request that we just get a real cut to the Chase presentation. I don't need to see those slides about we did, we went to this meeting and there were this many people there, it really eats up the time. If we could just get right to this, it would really be helpful. For the work session? Yes. For the public hearing, I'm going to do that. Well, for the work session? Yes. Any discussion from commissioners on my left? Okay. We'll call vote, please. Commissioner Higgins. Yes. Commissioner Bustamante. Aye. Commissioner Kamen. Yes. Commissioner Higgins. Yes. Commissioner Sipes. Yes. Commissioner Gibbons. Yes. Commissioner Romero. Yes. Commissioner McDaniel. Yes. And Madam Chair. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you to all the neighbors and all the time that you've invested and thank you for caring. We'll see you in March.