Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell San Antonio Planning Commission they oppose denser multifamily project near Merriford Lane
Summary
Two residents told the San Antonio Planning Commission they oppose a proposed dense multifamily project identified as "case ending 56," citing traffic, speeding, crime, and a desire to preserve the neighborhood's character. Speakers asked for speed bumps, more parks and police presence.
Two residents told the San Antonio Planning Commission on Feb. 12 that they oppose a proposed multifamily development identified in the meeting as "case ending 56," saying the area is already densely populated and suffers from traffic and safety problems.
A voicemail caller who identified herself as a resident at 1614 Merriford Lane said the neighborhood has become overcrowded and that recent buildings do not reflect the area's cultural architecture. "I feel like that area in question is already very densely populated, and I'm generally against any new multifamily dense projects in the immediate area due to traffic concerns, safety, and losing the overall charm and value of the area," the caller said.
The caller described what she called increased crime in nearby apartments and said cars often speed in the evening on nearby streets. She asked the commission to consider traffic-calming measures, saying, "I would like to see speed bumps placed on Everest" and requested "a police presence" and "more parks, more open spaces for recreation and wildlife." The caller also said recent buildings are "hideous" and do not reflect the neighborhood.
Cynthia Lopez, who gave her address as 1622 Mary Ford Lane, told the commission she shares similar concerns and said the area is shifting toward commercial and denser residential development. "I feel like it's becoming a business area instead of residential," Lopez said, asking that the neighborhood remain more residential and noting street maintenance issues such as potholes.
Case ending 56 was on the meeting's consent agenda, and commissioners completed the consent vote later in the session; public comments did not prompt any separate discussion on the project during the meeting.
Speakers at the meeting asked the commission for traffic-calming measures, a greater police presence, and more open space, and they framed their comments around preserving neighborhood character. The commission did not take additional public-action steps on the record during the Feb. 12 meeting beyond the consent-agenda vote that included the case.
The commission's consent agenda and minutes were approved later in the meeting; Commissioner Bustamante was recused from item 2 and temporarily left the chamber before the consent vote.
