Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, y'all, it's six o'clock. We'll go ahead and call this meeting of the Shirts Planning and Zoning Commission to order. It is August 5th, 2026. We don't actually need any of our ultimates tonight. We have a full member base. So thanks for everybody coming out. We're gonna do the hearing of residents. Did we have anybody? Nobody, all right, moving on. Tonight we're doing the Planning and Zoning Commission elections. We will, have we done this by voice vote in the past or just hands or? Okay, well, we'll go ahead and open up nominations for chair if anybody would like to nominate.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Chairman Wallace for another term.

Second.

Were there any other nominations? No? Well, hearing none, we have a motion and a second. If we could... I will just do the voting screen. Let's do the, if we could use your screen to vote, please. All right, we have seven. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, we will move on to vice chair. Are there any nominations? I would motion to reappoint Commissioner McMaster as Vice Chair.

I don't think you really need a second, but I'll second that.

All right. Well, were there any other nominations? Hearing none, let's, if you could please vote on that. There are seven, can we publish that? That carries. All right, well, thanks, y'all. Let's move on to the consent agenda for July 22nd, the meeting minutes. Were there any questions, comments, concerns? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as submitted.

I'll second that. All right. That was a motion to approve the consent agenda by Commissioner Alas, seconded by Commissioner McMaster. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right. Moving along. Item 6A, hold a PLSPU20260130, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request for a specific use permit to allow automobile repairs and service major on approximately 1.19 acres of land located approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Borgfeld Road and FM 3009, more specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Number 67644 City Shirts, Texas.

Good evening, commissioners. PLSPU 2026-0176, proposed SUP to allow automobile repairs and services major on one acre land. Brandon Elliott, planner. Seen here, we have the subject property situated in between the intersections of Borgfeld and 3009 and FM 78 and 3009. Currently, it is zoned GB, undeveloped, and is proposed to be zoned GB with the SUP to allow automobile repairs and services major. It is surrounded on the north, east, and south by undeveloped land, all zone GB, and it fronts FM 3009 on the west. For the public notices, on July 24th, we sent out six public notices, and a sign was placed by the applicant on site. We received zero responses in favor, neutral, or opposed. This project is tentatively scheduled for the September 1st, 2026 City Council, and we will be posting in the San Antonio Express prior to City Council. A bit of background, UDC section 2158 requires an approved SUP to allow for automobile repairs and services major and in the general business district. This proposed business will offer uses like oil changes, tire alignment and repair, AC repair, driver train repair, and the other listed ones. On the slide. Here is the conceptual site plan. And we move into the criteria for approval. The first one is proposed use as specified is consistent with the policies and the adopted comprehensive land use plan. The land use plan has this as local corridor, which is locally orientated commercial and entertainment along medium to high volume collector roads. This proposed SUP is intended to serve the local community and is located along FM 3009, which is a high volume principal arterial. Thus, it meets the intent of the future land use map. The proposed use is in General Business District, which is supposed to serve retail and service establishments along principal transportation corridors, and this business is proposing to do that. The subject property will preserve the character and integrity of adjacent developments, as all the surrounding developments are undeveloped lots that are all zoned GB. This business is also consistent with other similar businesses along 3009, like the Christian Brothers and the Total True Automotive. And they will be required to meet all the Article 9 site design requirements when they come in for site planning. While this proposed use by the applicant will not adversely affect the overall health, safety, or general welfare of the city, allowing the full scope of automobile repair and services major could. So staff will be recommending approval with conditions that limit the full scope of the uses allowed in automobile repair and services major. The engineering department also reviewed the application and noted that at the time of site plan, the applicant will need to adjust their layout to accommodate for the right-of-way along FM 3009. All UDC requirements have been met for this. Shirts, EMS fire, and police departments have reviewed the application and did not provide any objection. And as we said, the proposed development will need to consider the TxDOT FM 3009 flyover project and their site layout. Staff recommends the approval of the requested specific use permit to allow automobile repair and service major and general business district condition upon the following. The following uses are not permitted. Wrecker and towing service with onsite storage of vehicles, collision services including body frame or fender straightening or repair, customizing or painting, vehicle steam cleaning, insurance estimations with on-site storage, undercoding and rust proofing, and other similar uses to be allowed on-site. And the second condition would be that a building permit is approved within three years of the adoption of the specific use permit ordinance in accordance with the Unified Development Code Article 5, Section 21.5.11.F, expiration of the specific use permit, and allowing for the development process due to the subject property's location on FM 3009 and considerations by text slot. The applicant is in attendance today and doesn't have a presentation, but it's available for questions.

Thank you, Brandon. Well, it's a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up. It is 6.07. Anybody? Everybody? Well, it's still 6.07. We'll go and close it. Commissioners, any questions? Did the applicant want to say anything? You're welcome to. You don't have to. Okay, cool. Commissioner Outlaw?

I forgot about the Schurz Auto or whatever it is there next to the retirement home, but I thought I'd remember Christian Brothers. Do those two auto repair have the same restrictions on them that we want to place on this one?

Yeah, the Total True Automotive has very similar restrictions on the uses.

So they can't do any collision repair? Correct. Okay. Correct. Thank you. That's all I had. Okay.

Anybody else? Yes? No? All right. Well, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions staff has recommended. PLSPU20260130.

I second the motion.

So that was a motion to recommend approval with conditions of PLSPU20260130 by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Loretta Reyes. If there's no other comments, please vote. All right, I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, moving along, PLUDC20260182, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on amendments to part three of the Shirts Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code to Article 5, Section 21.5.8, Permitted Use Table, and Article 16, Definitions. Daisy.

Good evening, commissioners. PL UDC 2026-0182. Propose UDC amendments to Article 5, Section 2158, and Article 16, Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner. So why are we here tonight? We have had previous discussions on data centers at the May 6, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. We got a request from Chairman Wallace to add data centers to our permitted use table and definitions. And then we had a very lengthy workshop on July 1st to discuss data centers. We looked at All our target cities, we discussed definitions, we discussed concerns of water, electricity usage, and square footage. And then at the July 21st, 2026 city council meeting, we got a request from council member Watson to bring this to the next city council meeting on September 1st. So as per UDC Section 2147, City Council and his or her designees may request UDC amendments. So this is how this is allowed. And again, this is tentatively scheduled for the September 1st, 2026 City Council meeting. And kind of just a background on why are we bringing this amendment forward? We currently do not have data centers defined in Article 16 under definitions, and it's not in the permitted use table. So starting with the proposed amendments, Article 5, Section 2158 is our permitted use table. So we would be adding this use under permitted uses, and we would be proposing a specific use permit in M1 and M2, some of our heaviest zoning districts. And again, that's manufacturing light and manufacturing heavy. And we chose to go the SEP route because when we looked at the criteria for approval under 21.511 , this is where we could really address those concerns that the Planning and Zoning Commission had that we were discussing, also that city council had and was addressing. And this way, on a case-by-case basis, we have a public hearing session. So the public can come and speak. P&Z can make their own recommendation. We can add conditions to the SUP process. With just a regular zone change, we can't add conditions. But with an SUP, we can. So if staff comes forward with conditions... PNZ can add on to that, and city council can also add on to that as well. And in addition to that, any proposal for any proposed data centers would have to go to city council, and essentially city council would have ultimate discretion over it. So everybody would be able to hear what is being proposed, add conditions, the public can speak, and at the end, city council has the ultimate say on what's being proposed. And then for Article 16, the definitions, this is essentially a hodgepodge or a marriage of a lot of the definitions we saw from our target cities. And it's a building or group of buildings used for housing and running large computer systems, storing computer servers, data storage devices, and network equipment for the processing, storing, retrieval, collection, and transmitting of information and data. And again, this is a marriage of all the definitions we saw from our target cities. And getting into the criteria of approval for UDC amendments, this proposed UDC amendment promotes the general welfare of the city, because it's defining what a data center is. We don't get to just put it under warehousing like it was before, and it also defines a process not only for the public on what they can expect if a data center is being proposed, both for the Planning and Zoning Commission and for City Council, so everyone could see it, everyone's voice can be heard, we have that hearing process, and discretion is ultimately on City Council, and we all get to add conditions that address any of our concerns. And again, the intent of the UDC is to have safe, orderly, and efficient development and expansion, and the intent of zoning is to promote public health, safety, and welfare, with the consideration and character of each zoning district and the appropriate use of land. So when we were looking at the zoning districts that would allow a data center, we were looking at the most intensive uses and what would not be essentially compatible next to residential uses, because we know that was one of the biggest considerations and concerns that people had. And as you can see here, M1 and M2, allow for industrial development manufacturing and activities and assembly and warehousing but the biggest difference between the both is is that manufacturing light district restricts dust smoke and odor to only within their property boundaries whereas m2 or heavy district allows it under controlled conditions. So essentially that addresses some of the concerns and those are the characters of the zoning districts that basically explain some of the concerns that y'all had with data centers. And then again, we chose these most intensive zoning districts that are not appropriate and are compatible adjacent to residential uses. And we did want to go more into why we're not proposing this within the General Business District 2 within SUP, because we do have some GB2 zoning that's in proximity of residential uses and zoning. and along our major transportation corridors that do not meet the current comprehensive land use plan vision. So if somebody were to propose that today, it would not be envisioned with our current comprehensive land use plan, and we would not want to provide that avenue for someone to request an SUP for that. SO AGAIN, JUST SHOWING YOU THE RECENTLY APPROVED GB2 IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND IN PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN SOME EXISTING GB2 PORTIONS ALONG IH35, AND AGAIN ALONG 1518 WITH THE APC THAT'S ADJACENT TO SOME OLDER RESIDENTIAL IN SHIRTS, AND THEN SOME EXISTING GB2 ALONG IH10 THAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. And again, these proposed amendments are not a result of error or state law changes. It's a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council due to a lot of the commotion that's been happening around data centers. And we previously did not have a definition of data center or we did not have it in our permitted use table. So this provides clarification for everyone. And again, at the request of PNZ and City Council, we brought this amendment forward. And City Council is requesting this amendment for the September 1st, 2026 City Council meeting. And all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed amendments. And then I do want to reiterate that this isn't the final say. We can always come back. If we get a proposal, we get more comfortable with what, you know, maybe we can see. what people are proposing, maybe additional considerations we want people to come with for, we can always come back and amend the UDC and look at it after maybe we got one or two proposals. That's just something to consider. And again, staff recommends approval of PL UDC 2026-0182. Thank you, Daisy.

Well, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open it up. It is 6... 16, right before. So if anyone wants to address the commission, now is the opportunity. Give it a second. A lot of activity. Well, it is 6. 17, and we'll go ahead and close it. Um, I just, if I could start, I would like to, to, to thank staff for, for your, uh, diligence and getting this turned around really quickly. Um, I'm not a fan of having an M1, um, but I do agree. I would rather see something go forward and, and get done versus punch it another month and push it down the road. So if it's something to come back with in the future, I think that would be it. And I also really like the definition that y'all came up with. So thanks for that. So that's all I had. I know Commissioner Outlaw had something.

Yes, thank you. Daisy, do you have access to Google Maps or something where we can look at something?

What are you looking for specifically, sir?

Well, I want to be able to... Look at Tri-County Park, Industrial Park with an aerial view. Can we do that?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I go down and run the map? Thank you. So let me start out with a couple of things. First of all, given all the backlash and that on data centers, I'd like to recommend one change, and that is that it only be allowed with an SUP in M2. And then as far as the definition, I have a problem with the word large. It's very subjective. So what I wanted to show you folks, remember I mentioned before about already having a data center. That's just one right here. This is a data center. It's owned by Capital Group Companies Incorporated. The building itself, along with this... Yeah, just the building is 61,000 square feet. The utility yard back here is 18 for a total of 79,000 square feet. The parking lot and these driveways and stuff are another... 75,000 square feet and then the lot itself is six point six two acres And as far as I know we've had no issues with that data center I don't really know what they do, but it seems to me. I remember when they first came in they were kind of When we back up a little bit I did a lot of research or tried to do a lot of research and And Forbes had a really interesting article, and the first thing I did, I went out to chat GBT, and I said, define data center. I used their own weapon against them. And they both talk about different types of data centers. Forbes, I think, has one extra one, but they talk about, and I'm not going to remember the names. I meant to write them down. But one of them is where it's owned by or it's used by a single customer like a bank or an insurance company to process data. And then there's another one that I think was kind of like Rackspace, but it's called Co-Located, where somebody builds a building, puts in all the infrastructure, and then individual companies put their own servers inside to... process their data like insurance and banking and credit cards. And I don't remember a couple of the other ones, but the one that everybody's upset about is called the Hyper Data Center. And that's where they specifically talk about AI. And those are the big ones that are being built out there right now because apparently AI takes a lot of resources, a lot of power, which means water and electricity. So the other thing I want to show you, just to put things in perspective, this building right here is Verizon, and it was, I call it a switch center, where that big tower in front used to hold microwave towers, and they'd use that for switching, you know, routing calls and things like that. That building, the buildings themselves are 34,000 square feet. The parking areas in that are 49,000, and that sits on 4.375 acres. And then just down the road right here, I used to know it as Sprint, but now it belongs to T-Mobile. And again, that is a... switching center. But, you know, it's heavy. It has a lot of computer processing and moving calls and stuff. That building is just over 24,000 square feet and parking is another 35,000 square feet. The lot is 4.17 acres. So, you remember one of my concerns at the last meeting was I think data centers, you know, the term data center is like this. But within that, there's different, and I was concerned about impacting like these, I wish I could remember the term, but where a bank wants to, or even a co-located. So The one on mid-cities, it's surprising because it looks smaller than Verizon, but I even double-checked the appraisal district information. And so the total, well, if you just go by acreage, that's 6.62 acres. So I thought maybe for our definition, instead of the word large, we might insert a greater than a certain square footage figure. And I know, I don't think we wanna hold this up. I don't wanna get too far in the weeds and try to delay this, but this might, if we can come to an agreement on a number It might save us the time of coming back and revisiting this in the future. And I'm not sure what to suggest. Again, this mid-cities one here is the biggest at 79,000 square feet. So I don't know if we want to go that large. cap at it or use the lot acreage, something like that. But my own suggestion would be maybe we use combined building square footage of say 75,000 square feet or maybe 80.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Loretta Reyes.

For the definition of data center, I was kind of going a little bit in the opposite direction, possibly. It's a fantastic definition, but to possibly avoid anybody doing a wordsmithing or any sort of loopholes, could we include including but not limited to and then adding the list? Or would that make it too broad?

May I add a comment real quick? In reading, because I started out looking for a definition, and staff definition is pretty doggone close to both chat GBT and the Forbes news article.

That was my only question.

Okay, real quick, just to bounce off of that, I mean, is that something that legally, do y'all feel like we would have an issue with in terms of including but not limited to?

So would it be like a building or group of buildings including but not limited to used for housing and running large computers? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, like before the list.

I don't think that would be an issue.

Okay. Thank you.

I think it's just weighing, like, does it, how much value does it add versus, and then, so that can definitely be part of the recommendation as well. Changes to the definition, if you'd like to see that. Also, if you feel like M1 and M2 aren't appropriate and just an SUP and M2, that can be a recommendation. You know, you can change, modify what we're proposing.

Thank you, Emily. Commissioner Hughes?

I mean, what we're looking at basically is the hyperscale version, and we have an enterprise or co-location or an edge. Basically right now what we have currently in the city is an enterprise or not really even a co-location. That smaller one may be a co-location. But the hyperscale is what we're concerned about because that's the one with the largest footprint. That's the one that has the most light emissions and everything else, which you won't see on these smaller ones. But if you sit there and you start doing it, the concern is, like we discussed, is they start wordsmithing the name of it. Oh, it's not a hyperscale. It's a super big one. So I think we need to be careful on being really, really narrowing the definition to where it's hard because then someone can easily go around that definition and make it simple. The definition we have here is broad enough, I think where we can work with it. But if we start going through there and start listing every single one of them, someone's going to read, read, read, um, address the name and give it a new name. And all of a sudden, well, well, you didn't, you guys didn't include this in your list. So any kind of listing of them, any kind of the types listing hyperscale, I think what they would basically take the name and they would make it's a hyperscale. It's, it's something else. It's, it's modern scale. Pick and pick a, pick a new phrase and spin with it. And that's what we need to avoid. This gives it a wide enough, having the addition of the small change and or having that inclusion in there, I think broadens that enough where we can look at it, where we force them to come in here with an SUP and we force them to present it instead of it just going through normal channels and we get a surprise. So I think this is a good thing. I think it works well, the moderate changes that we have had, but let's avoid really, really pigeonholing and naming what they are.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Hector, did you have something? Yeah, go for it.

Just to make sure I understand kind of the purpose for adding limited to in the language. Is it to make it more broader?

It would be but not limited to.

Okay. So open aperture. Right.

So like... Misinterpreting the word large in here. Well, it's not really large, it's medium. So then it doesn't count.

So the statement would be to address the word large?

Well, any of the, if they tried to wordsmith it to say, well, it's not this, it's more of this. Kind of like the hyper example.

A striker.

So strike the word large and add to not limited to but would that be a good thing?

So the new definition would be a building or group of buildings included but not limited to or used for housing and running large computer systems, storing computer servers, data storage devices and network equipment for processing, storing retrieval collection and transmitting of information and data and we'll just remove large from large computer systems.

Yes.

Is that what you're proposing?

I would actually probably put it after used for. Used for? And then put the commas in there. Used for comma including but not limited to housing, running computer systems, and so on. It's my recommendation.

Commissioner Alba?

Well, I agree that we don't want to include the The nomenclature, the typing, because you're absolutely right. Again, that's another subjective thing. What's the difference between a hypercenter and a co-located? So, no. And certainly, including but not limited to Commissioner Hector, what that does for us is in case we miss something in the list that should be in the list, that gives us an out to add it. What I would like to see is we strike the word large, we include the suggestion for the uses, including but not limited to, and maybe say a group of buildings not to exceed 75,000 square feet used for include, you know, and replace the word large with a number, with a square footage, either a square footage of the buildings or, or the size of the lot. I'm still fighting for the little guy. Okay. That, um, what's the old saying, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Um, I'd still like to see us come up with a number to put in there instead of large, whether that's bare footage or acreage. But I will agree that the expedient way to get this done is just take the word large out, put in included but not limited to, and change it, and only in M2. That's the quickest way to get this done. And then we can come back next month or in a couple months, and you listen to me browbeat you about the size of, you know, different kinds of data centers. So it's, you know, it's however, you know, I'm just one guy. Those are my thoughts, but it's really... And I do not appreciate, although I see where they're coming from, I do not appreciate council pressuring us like that. Somebody should have stood up at that council meeting and said, planning and zoning is working on it. Okay. And I don't remember them saying September 1st. I heard 90 days. Okay. So, but anyway, I don't appreciate that at all. We need time to do our thing. ANYWAY...

ANYBODY ELSE?

COMMISSIONER HUGHES? YEAH, IF WE CAP IT ABOUT 75,000 SQUARE FEET, MOST OF THEM SIT at least 100,000 square feet plus. You can get a small one in for 10,000 square feet. So 75 seems reasonable. It does give us some room to adjust with understanding that they will still have to go through the SGP process. And even though it goes through, may or may not have it. So we can look at it that way as far as size. But again, if we do size, they can come in with a very small structure at 10,000 square feet. which is a very small one, and they can still operate that 10,000 square foot. And then they can come back later and say, we want another 10,000, we want another 10,000. And by the time we realize it, they're up to 100,000 and we just got blindsided. So putting numbers still kind of puts us in a precarious situation where if they just go through the SUP process, that might give us a little better understanding and advantage where if it's not one of these large centers, one of the heavily scaled ones, we can look at it on a case by case basis.

And then that brings up the problem of you approve this one and disapprove that one. But again, these are just my thoughts and I would like to see that, but you know, there are six other people on this commission. So.

And to that end to commissioner Hughes point, I, And to your point as well, we approve this one. I mean, that's what the SOP process is for. That's why we're sticking it. I mean, it's the same thing with gas stations. I've seen countless gas stations on here and we approve some and disapprove others. I mean, I think that's the process. I will say as we're getting into the weeds, you know, and I'm sure Brian will reiterate this, is I think the goal now would be, the comments of the not, the including but not limited to, and striking large, I feel like it's a good foundation to start. If anyone has things more specific, I feel like it'd be best to come back and get that at a later date, where we can look at that closely, and if that's something we wanna do or not, so. If anybody has, oh, go for it, Brian. Yeah, if I can, just two points maybe.

And again, I appreciate being woken up when I'm back there. To maybe clarify, since I've had the conversations with some on council, I think much as the commissioners are hearing a lot about AI data centers, the impact on communities, the ability for cities to regulate. Our council members are hearing that well. I don't believe the intent was to rush PNZ. I think council would say take the time you need to look at this thoroughly and move it forward. Really what I think it stemmed from is one possible outcome of your discussion is that you all say, you know, we don't think we need to do anything. And if that's what you said, then no item would ever make its way to city council. I think the intent there, because you've had the benefit of these work sessions, is council was basically trying to say, if PNZ ends up saying, we don't need to do anything based on that dialogue, I think council would say, well, we'd like to have the benefit of that dialogue to understand the issue, understand why they chose not to do anything. It was really the intent. We don't want it to die. We would benefit from threat. So I think council would all say, take the time you need to do it. I think to the chair's point, if the real concern here, the concern is, We need to get something on the books as quick as we can, lest something come through. I think the point's well taken. You can move something forward you're comfortable with, gets it on the books, and then you have the ability to come back and better refine it. And again, as I would say, from some of the discussion, right, we have this thing with however we write ordinances. If you want to make sure nobody can find an end run or a loophole or a way around this thing, then you can write the code that way. What that will mean, though, is you will hang up people you did not intend to. And that's just part of what goes with it. I think the only thing staff would say is then don't blame us when we come in and we've got a business that comes in and they say, yeah, we've got our computer systems for our business here because you putting in a building that used for housing and running computer systems, storing computer service data, storage and network equipment, processing, storage, retrieval, and transmitting information and data. That would apply to most office buildings, right? Any company, typically, they're going to have that. So you're going to hang up. I'm not saying don't do it, but just understand that's the drawback on this. And you can get something on books. You can come back and refine it. But the flip side is you say, well, I want to make sure I don't hang up anybody that I wasn't intending to, right? And if you go that route, you could have somebody say, well, let's do this. Let's plot the lot separately. Let's put the buildings. We'll limit the building size to 74,000 square feet. And we'll have 10 of these on separate lots right next to each other. And boom, found a way around your code. So that's inherently the thing that comes. You just got to make an informed decision and know, hey, our biggest concern is having somebody find a way around it. And if it means we're going to kind of hang some people up into it, that's kind of the price we pay for that. And as the chair said, we can come back and we can refine it later. But we don't have somebody walk in the door two months from now with an application and going, there's nothing we can do about it.

So now I'm going to go back to sleep. Thank you, Brian. Commissioner Outlaw, you had something else?

Apparently, I have a lot to say tonight, but what I would like to do is make a motion, and if we get a second, we can talk about that motion and then vote on it. So... And you know, Brian, I never thought of, and I think we have no intent of a business that has a large room for their own server network. You know, like the city has a server room somewhere, right?

Yeah. Don't say where, even though you know.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of PLUDC-2026-0182 with the following changes. Number one, allow data centers with an SUP in M2. And the second condition is revise the definition to say a building or group of buildings used for including but, now I've lost the words, including but not limited to Housing, running, and the rest of the text.

And that's keeping the word large?

I'm sorry, yes, thank you for reminding me. Removing the word large from the... But see, that's... Yeah. Remove the word large. Just it would say including but not limited to housing and running computer systems, storing computer servers, data storage devices and network equipment for the processing, storing, retrieval, collection and transmitting of information and data.

So that was a motion by Commissioner Outlaw to recommend approval of PL UDC 20260182 with the following corrections into, or the following changes, into only with an SUP and then the definition including but not limited to the, I'm just gonna read the definition for the right. So data center would be a building or group of buildings used for including but not limited to housing and running computer systems, storing computer servers, data storage devices, and network equipment for the processing, storing, retrieval, collection, and transmitting of information and data. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Is there a second?

Second on the motion.

Okay. So that was a second by Commissioner Velasquez. Are there any comments on the motion?

Well, I've got one. Okay. And I don't know if it's worth... Amending the motion, whether we want to put the word, I was considering the word primary or primarily used for. But I think, again, I see he didn't go back to sleep. He's standing there watching me. If we intend to come back and revisit this and get down to the nitty gritty, I'm fine with the motion I made.

Well, we have the motion on the table. If we could go ahead and vote on that then, please. That motion carries. Oh, can we publish that? There we go, that motion carries.

And real quick, I will be back fighting for the little guy, okay?

Moving on, Item 7A, PLPP-20260176, Waiver. Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to an onsite sewer facilities for preliminary plot of the Ware-Sagin Subdivision, approximately 17 acres of land known as 11444 Ware-Sagin, more specifically known as Bexar County Property Identification Numbers 619175-1457269 and 1457270, City of Shirts, Bexar County, Texas. Brandon.

Good evening, this is PLPP 20-26-0176, waiver request for the Wears-Sagin subdivision preliminary plat, Brandon Elliott, planner. Here we see the subject property. This front's where Seguin. It is just east of the Lower Heights subdivision. And applicant is proposing to preliminary plat into three residential lots. As y'all know, there's a requirement in sections 25, 15, 3A and D to extend and connect sewer service. And this is a waiver request to those code sections. Here we see the proposed preliminary plat establishing three residential lots, all with frontage to where Seguin is. Here we have the waiver request from the applicant. This is the engineering memo we received from the engineering department approving the waiver request as the nearest sewer connection is approximately 5,400 feet away. Staff recommends the approval of the waiver with conditions, and the condition would be that the applicant will connect the sewer and abandon the OSSFs when the sewer becomes available to them.

Thank you, sir. This is not a public hearing, so we will move into commissioner questions or comments. Commissioner Outlaw.

The only question I have is, would you bring the aerial back up? That there appears to be three different owners on these lots.

Correct.

And can we... I know it's a little early to talk about the plat, but can you replant three lots into one lot? The three lots have three different owners?

So it is currently unplatted land that was sold, and those three property owners are combining into one residential subdivision to make three large lot, three large acre lots.

So you went past the application very quickly, so... All three of the, the three owners are all in agreement to do this, right?

Correct, they're all signatories on the plat.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

All right, well, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve PLPP20260176 waiver. with the condition that staff had.

I'll second that.

All right. That is a motion to approve, not recommend. Approve with conditions PLPP20260176 waiver by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Atwal. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, moving on. PLPP 20260176, consider and act upon a request for approval of a preliminary plot of the Weresagene subdivision, approximately 17 acres of land, known as 11444 Weresagene, more specifically known as Bexar County Property Identification Numbers 619175, 1457269, and 1457270. City Shirts, Bexar County, Texas. Brandon.

Hello again, this is PLPP 2026-0176, this is preliminary plat for the Ware-Sagin subdivision. Here we have the aerial, again showing the three lots fronting Ware-Sagin and just east of the Lower Heights subdivision. This is showing that it's establishing three lots. All will be serviced by OSSF, all single-family residential. This is located within the city of Schertz Sewer and Sarah SCCNs, located approximately 5,000 feet from the Wersigin and Badenig intersection over here to the west, and they are anticipated, like I said, to be served by OSSF. Here we have the proposed preliminary plat showing the three lots here, here, and here, and then all the signatories of the Property owners are right here, so they are all involved. The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the applicable requirements for the property and regulations. The plat has been reviewed with no objections by the engineering, fire, and planning departments. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as presented.

Thank you, Brandon. Again, it's not a public hearing, so we'll move right into Commissioner comments and questions. Mr. Outlaw.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve PLPP 20260176. Second.

That was a motion to recommend approval by Commissioner Outlaw, second by Commissioner McMaster of PLPP 20260176. Point of order. It's a recommendation to approve.

Correct. Well, I'm sorry, you said.

Oh, so I'd say recommend approval as we're, it'd be approving it. Any other comments, questions? Nothing else, please vote. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, item 8A, request from commissioners to place items on a future planning and zoning agenda. Announcements by commissioners, announcements by staff? Nothing, all right. Well, it is 6.50 and we are adjourned. Awesome.