Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the regular New Braunfels Planning Commission meeting. We are a nine-member commission appointed by city council to make recommendations on a variety of zoning, land use, development, and development-related requests. Please note to provide comments during the allotted time for citizen communications or for an item posted on the agenda, all individuals are asked to sign in. If you have not done so, please do so at the table located at the entrance hall. We'd like to request that all phones be silenced or turned off, along with other electronic devices, except for emergency personnel. Could we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Rudy?

Here.

Commissioner Mathis? Here. Commissioner Allen?

Here.

Commissioner Henry?

Here.

Vice Chair Alsop? Here. Chair Sonnier? Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes, motion carries, the minutes are approved. This is time for persons to address the Planning Commission on any issues not on the agenda. It is a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act for the Commission to address, discuss, or take action on any items not on the agenda. Please note each speaker is limited to three minutes and must state their name and whether they are a resident or non-resident for the record. Anyone who wishes to speak on any issues or items that are not on the agenda may do so now. Is there anyone that would like to speak? Seeing none, we will move on to the agenda. The first item is ORD 26-228, Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Amending the Dubrofils Code of Ordinances, Chapter 144, Zoning, Section 1.4, Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Section 4.2, and Section 5.5. to align home occupation definitions and regulations with the House Bill 2464 and Chapter 229 of the Texas Local Government Code. At this time, I would like to have our brand new Planner Colton Barker present this item. Congratulations, Colton.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners Colton Barker with New Braunfels Neighborhood and Community Planning. The first item for your consideration this evening, as you said, is an amendment to the city's existing home occupation ordinance in order to codify standards in alignment with local government code 229 that was amended with the passage of House Bill 2464 in 2025. The city's current home occupation ordinance was adopted before this change in state law, and the House bill significantly reshaped how cities may regulate home-based businesses. Instead of focusing on what type of business someone is operating, state law now requires cities to regulate only the impacts of that business, that that business may have on a neighborhood. Tonight's proposed amendment incorporates the state defined no impact home-based business classification and updates the city's ordinance to fully comply with the amended state requirements while continuing to protect residential character of New Braunfels neighborhoods. Before talking about the ordinance itself, it's helpful to understand what the state law considers a no impact home-based business. They are small scale activities carried out by the property owner or tenant of a dwelling that must remain clearly secondary to the home's residential use. The state has established four criteria for these businesses. In short, in order to be classified as a no-impact home-based business, these businesses must stay within the home's occupancy limits, they cannot generate on-street parking or noticeable traffic increases, cannot be visible from the street, and they cannot substantially increase noise in the area. If a home based activity meets all those conditions, it qualifies as a no impact home based business. The House Bill also limits what cities can require from such businesses. The city can no longer require zoning changes, permits or licenses solely because that business is in a residence. City of New Braunfels did not do that previously. The city can still regulate operational impacts such as traffic and parking and noise and visibility of the operation. Short-term rentals remain under separate regulations in our code and any conflict between these locally proposed amendments and the state statute, the state statute will control. Our current ordinance relies on extensive lists of allowed and not allowed uses and includes restrictions on elements such as floor area, deliveries, and equipment. State law no longer permits that approach. The proposed ordinance removes those occupation specific lists from our ordinance and instead uses the four criteria established by the state to determine whether a business qualifies as a no impact home based business. Some activities can still not be considered no impact when required by state law or applicable building or fire codes. But overall, the focus shifts from regulating the type of business to regulating its operational impacts. This amendment seeks to ensure full compliance with the Texas Local Government Code and aims to maintain neighborhood protections through impact-based regulation. It preserves the city's ability to enforce the full range of its building safety and neighborhood impact regulations. The revised framework is intended to be clearer and easier for both residents and staff to understand and aligns with a number of the goals outlined about the comprehensive plan and the strategic plan. Staff is recommending approval of these proposed ordinance amendments. The amended ordinance would replace outdated and now preempted provisions with a modern and legally compliant structure. It is expected to simplify administration as staff will no longer need to evaluate whether a specific type of occupation is allowed. Compliance and enforcement can be handled within existing resources. Overall, the update supports small-scale entrepreneurship while ensuring home-based activities remain compatible within residential neighborhoods. This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Do we have any questions of staff? Yes, ma'am.

Hard to read through this, but I couldn't really find something. Sure. Kind of a lot. But what about delivery trucks and all? Is that addressed in this?

Any kind of, the way the state law is written is based on the impact there. And one of the big criteria, one of the four criteria is that no operation of that business be visible from the street. So that would include big delivery trucks and things like that as well.

Is that sometimes where the rubber meets the road in terms of impact in the neighborhood?

Yes, ma'am. And luckily that's covered by the other one of the four criteria that no substantial increase of traffic or on street parking as well.

And delivery trucks would be considered an impact in traffic?

Is it called out? The state law, unfortunately, uses a bit of a vague language of substantially increase, a substantial increase in traffic. As this law is in place for longer, the courts will kind of decide what exactly that means. But at the moment, we have to work with what the state's provided us, which is that verbiage.

That used to be a criteria we had for the delivery trucks because it's the one thing we could control. Sure.

Yes, and that'll continue to be the case. The state law still allows municipalities to regulate traffic and parking concerns.

Okay.

Any other questions? I did.

I want to just make a comment, a recommendation from legal, and I apologize to Colton because we weren't able to connect on this beforehand. But just for the definition for no impact home-based business, I'm just recommending that we just track the state definition exactly since we are preempted.

Any question for you? Do we just send this forward or do we vote on this?

You have to strike it, right?

You could take citizens' comments, but after that, yeah, you guys can recommend however you see fit.

Okay. Thank you, Colton. You're welcome. Is there anyone that would like to come and speak for this or against this ordinance? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Could we have a motion to recommend this?

Motion to recommend to City Council.

And then I would just add, I'd recommend adding the.

To track the state's definition, exactly.

That's exactly right. Second. We have a motion and a second. Could we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Rudy?

Aye.

Commissioner Mathis? Aye. Commissioner Allen? Aye. Commissioner Henry?

Aye.

Vice Chair Alsop?

Aye.

Chair Sonnier?

Aye. Item number B, PZ26-0199, Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council, requested by Thad Rutherford, President and CEO of Sustar and Mayfair Developer LLC, regarding proposed amendments to the Mayfair Development and Design Control Documents, DDCD. Matt Green is our presenter. Welcome, Matt.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Matt Green with the city's neighborhood and community planning department. Mayfair is a mixed-use development in the ETJ in Comal County, located on both the east and west sides of IH 35 at the north end of New Braunfels. The development is subject to a development agreement entered into between the city and South Star Mayfair LLC. The Mayfair development agreement includes design standards, applications, processes, and improvements that are unique to this development. One of the exhibits to the development agreement is this development and design control document often referred to as the DDCD. It's the primary document regarding the design standards, processes, applications to which all the Mayfair development activity is reviewed and governed. Pursuant to section 1.8 of the Mayfair DDCD, the master developer may request amendments to the DDCD in accordance with the procedures and criteria established in the document. In this instance, the applicant is requesting amendments to update administrative processes, revised sections in part G, which is signage, and in part H, definitions, along with several other minor modifications that are outlined in the document attached to your agenda item packet that's titled Summary of Proposed Mayfair Development and Design Control Document Amendments. There's also a red line copy of the proposed amendments to the DDCD in your packet as well for reference. Amendments of this type being requested are considered optional rather than obligations that are established through the development agreement. As such, they require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by a formal recommendation to City Council. After Planning Commission issues that recommendation, there will be a second public hearing conducted by the City Council, at which time a final decision on the request would be made. The proposed amendments to the DDCD and associated amendments to the Development Agreement are tentatively anticipated to be considered at the City Council meeting on August 24th. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Mayfair DDCD as the amendments are consistent with the overall purpose and intent of Mayfair, its guiding principles and objectives, and aligns with goals and policies of Envision New Braunfels and objectives of the city's strategic plan. Public hearing notifications were sent to 322 owners of property within the Mayfair development or within 200 feet of the request. Staff has received two responses in favor and one opposed as represented on this map, and those were received today, and I did send out an email to you guys, so hopefully you all got that before the meeting. The applicant's representatives are present this evening to present their request or answer any questions you may have.

Does the applicant would like to come forward?

Hi, Gretchen Howell with South Star. We're the owner and developer at Mayfair.

Any questions for him?

You can go ahead. OK. I have a few questions, just for understanding. When the amendment says allowing public facilities to be located within any designated land use area, Can you elaborate on what exactly that means?

Absolutely, absolutely. In the first iteration of the plan, we were very specific about the locations of schools and transformer stations. Different things that we viewed as being a public service, we put them in a hard place on a map. And then as the ISD came to us and they said, well, we think we might like to be over here. And moving that land is a big endeavor in the structure of this existing document. So we looked at that. We looked at NBU wanted a transformer facility, but they wanted to change it around a little bit. Each one of those changes that are in the public interest didn't allow us to do it within the structure that we had. So we tried to create something that said if it serves the public in that way, and we've clearly defined what that public facility is, we've tried to allow to be able to work with them to be able to accommodate what they need.

So just to clarify what this amendment means is prior to this amendment, there were designated spots for whatever the land use was. Now y'all are asking for there not to be designated spots, but basically allowing the public use of facilities in any open space?

Correct. And that was part of the master framework plan that was approved by council last month. And yes, it allows us to be able to serve these public facilities in a broader way.

Okay, and when you when you clarify, like, what do y'all clarify public facility? Does that? Is that everything?

It's SD, it's schools, it's in public utilities.

Okay. And then my next question is the amendment says the park schedule reflects the minimum commitment. Does this change any previous obligations? Is there any park space that's gonna be minimized or is it gonna stay the same?

No, those commitments are hard-coded in the development agreement, and they remain intact. This actually just allows us to kind of clarify. There were places in the DDC, for instance, where we didn't say this is the minimum requirement of a park, so we added that language. So as people review it, they have a more clear understanding of what it means.

Okay. Does any of these amendments, does this change any of the height requirements at all in anything? No. Okay. Ma'am? I saw that. And it's just flags, right? Correct. Yeah.

We didn't have a code for it, so we felt that was appropriate that we have one.

Question, you've been working with city staff on all of these changes that you've made in here and they've kind of helped guide you as certain things that should be changed or should be updated to be more in line with the way things are currently?

Yes. Perfect. In many instances, the city would say, this is what the city's code is. We would like you to explore a more stringent code.

Yeah, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I got a question. Sorry. I was letting everybody else talk first. I'm going to go back to the parks. I'm trying to get a handle on what you're saying. You're saying that this did not affect the amount of acreage you're having for parks, but you struck out statement of proposed minimum gross acreage of parks. Why did you strike that out?

We didn't strike it out. I'm sorry.

Redlined.

I apologize. Can I refer to the document?

1-2-1. Master framework plan application submitted requirements.

looks like a lot of stuff that had parks in it got struck out i just want to understand the reasoning what's what that really means so the accountable the accountability measures are still in place where we report back to the city on how we're achieving that commitment of parks it was originally placed in the sector plan which is a more general part of the plan that outlines roads and things and what we found is as we were engineering parks we acreages would change slightly and then we would have to go back and change a sector plan which takes a lot of engineering time it takes a lot of city staff time and i think what we came to together is the sector plan wasn't the place where we needed to report that documentation because it was every time wrong. So we move that to plat where it's absolutely accurate. So the same accountability exists. It just is put in the right place.

So the number of actual acreage does decrease.

It's in the, no, no, the acreage is exactly the same. The commitment is 300, I think it's 331 is the actual acreage commitment. That remains the same. Where the city, we would report every time we would deliver a park, we report it, and they would track it against our requirement. It was in that sector to plat area that it was changing.

Thank you.

So I'm understanding correctly, it just all sounds like this is procedural, really, just about how y'all go through the steps of doing the reporting and talking to city and applying for things. You're not actually going through and changing your standards on any of the structure sizes, heights, you know, wits or anything.

You're just absolutely the same. I think as we, as we grow in this document, we recognize the city has this exhaustive code. We have 127 pages. And as we work with the city, we're learning, is this the right place? But we haven't changed the commitments in any way. Thank you.

So I guess my one broad question is the current residents that are there and a master plan has already has, y'all have designated areas for public facilities right now. When you buy into a master plan, when residents purchase the home sites, they look at all that. Typically they do. So do you guys feel like there's anything that would negatively impact the residents from changing where things are located or anything like that?

It's a good question. And I think the public facilities, I think a transformer station is not anything we would ever put in the proximity of residential because that wouldn't be deemed a value near residential. But that is a good point. But otherwise, schools and ESDs, I think there are specific areas where those operators choose to be because they understand the dynamics within residential and we wanna be able to have them part of that conversation.

right but but like you know a sewer lift station or you know things of that matter as it help us understand the way the amendment is read is the way the law reads now versus once these amendments get passed how it's going to affect that so right now to have a sewer lift station or any other public facility and set in a certain place we have to vote on that and approve that. With these amendment changes, we no longer will need to approve those, meaning that we're allowing you guys to change that location without getting any approval at all. Right? In public facilities, that means not just schools or fire stations, but sewer lift stations, like any public facility.

Lift stations are still a part of the sector submittal, so they're still reviewed.

Right, and for further clarification, there were specific public facilities that were labeled on the map with designated areas. There were no sewer lift stations. Those could be put in anywhere as part of being a utility. But those that were specifically labeled, that's kind of what they're trying to handle with this amendment is to group them into just public facilities.

Right, but what would be the positive, I guess, of this amendment? Of not needing approval from us, kind of like another checks and balances, so to speak. What would be the positive for approving this particular amendment?

The positive is when the ISD would come to us and say, we feel the time is right to put a school in a certain place. We have the ability to serve that and serve the public in that way. And in the instance that we'd already experienced with the ISD, where we'd put it in one place and they said, that's not the place that we want it. So I think it allows us to be flexible to these public serving entities, just public schools, I should clarify.

understood but knowing that you guys could come back and of course you know having a school that is good for the community good for the public i mean obviously that would not be controversial do you guys have a list of other public facilities that are low that are uh within the framework of the master plan that we're basically approving it's in the definition anywhere

from the previous plan that were labeled on the map. There were fire stations, substations, schools. Were there any other ones?

That was all of them.

County offices, city offices, possibly?

Those weren't labeled on the previous master framework.

But they'd be included in this.

In the current definition, or the proposed definition of public facilities, if I'm remembering correctly, any governmental-owned building or facility that's used for public purposes, police substations, fire stations, utility easements. I think that was all of them.

Is that list going to be coded within the amended?

It's in the definition section of the amended document.

Those definitions are already there. And that definition is controlling what's going to be allowed to be put into public use.

As well as it's also in the master framework, sorry, in the DDCD. matrix of land use table. It does also include the section of schools. It shows that they're allowed in any land use area.

So do you have a copy of that for us to refer to since we're fixing to approve?

Well, it's in your packet as an attachment.

So the whole list of public. It's in the definition.

It's part of that amending DDCD document in the red line copy. Okay.

I support this flexibility because schools typically do a lot of demographic study and they wouldn't have those demographics that fit your map necessarily. And same for fire stations need access in different ways and might not be obvious in the days when you labeled locations for them. So I know that flexibility is necessary and to have to go through and and amend your development agreement again just to address those shifts in demographics or access and things like that as your community develops I think would be obvious and easy to understand why that might be needed, for me anyway.

I'm just trying to pull that up. I don't know if you can help me or tell me where in the packet it is.

labeled as the red line DDCD amending document, I believe.

I've got location, aerial map, summary of proposed DDCD amendments, amending DDCD red line copy.

That's it, that one right there. And then the definition, let's see.

I mean, this particular document is 127 pages.

If y'all could just kinda help assist us.

I'm almost there.

Okay, that is one second.

On page 116, third item from the bottom right hand column.

Third item from the bottom.

Oh, sorry, that's public. Sorry, that's public safety facility.

We're looking what the public facilities and consists of in the.

Basically anything owned by a public

Okay, let's look at the definition of the table.

Can you turn on the overhead document? Zoom in to the highlighted area.

We can't really see that. Yeah. Do you know what? OK.

So this is the language in the amending development agreement that describes what a public facility is.

Yes, so this does include utilities, so that would be like sewer plant, right? Do y'all have more?

It would include any type of utility, but those are currently allowed in any area in Mayfair. It's just those specific ones that were on the previous master framework plan that were called out that are being combined into the group of public facility.

So the way it reads right now, if MBU wanted to put a sewer facility behind a certain section, they're allowed to do that right now?

Right, as long as they go through the appropriate approval processes through the sector plan approval and planning and whatnot.

Right, but what we're amending right now, is that gonna change that process at all in any way?

No, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward, speak in favor of this item or opposed to this item, please step forward. State your name and whether you're a resident of New Braunfels.

Hello, Angela Keller, ETJ Zone. Just having a question. I have not gotten to look over this, but I will now because it sounds interesting. The amendment that you're putting forward is to pretty much say that anything that's already aligned in your plan can be changed if they approve it. Is that what, I don't know if you all have to address this question to someone over there.

I don't know if I understand your question, Angela. Can you clarify?

Well, usually, well, in city council, I would just say the question, and I guess y'all have to address it to them to answer it. What I'm asking is, what's coming up for approval right now is giving them authority to make any changes to the original plan, whatever it is. Like, for instance, a public facility. Right now, it's in the actual plan that was approved initially, but right now the amendment is stating that it can actually be changed in the future, if that makes sense.

I think to re-pipe it, she's asking, does this basically give them carte blanche to change anything they want at any point in time after this?

Only the changes being proposed in that red line document are the changes that are being considered this evening.

Red line document, okay.

I'll have to go look it up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Anyone else would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, do we have a discussion or a motion, please?

Move to approve.

Second. A motion and a second. Could we have a roll call, please, Victoria?

Just for clarification, that was Henry that seconded. Is that correct? Thank you. Member Rudy? Yes. Member Mathis?

Aye.

Commissioner Allen?

I'm going to abstain.

Commissioner Henry?

Aye.

Vice Chair Alsop?

Aye.

Chair Sonnier?

Aye. Motion carries. and we'll go on to City Council. Item number PZ26-0216, Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council, requested by Patrick W. Christensen on behalf of Karma Enterprises NB LLC. to rezone approximately 2.7 acres out of the Bentwood Commercial Unit 3, Lot 3, from APD-SUP Agricultural Predevelopment District with a special use permit to allow a retail development with specific uses. to C-1A Neighborhood Business District, currently addressed at 2009 South Walnut Avenue. Mary Lovell will be presenting.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Mary Lovell with Neighborhood and Community Planning. The subject property consists of an approximately 18,000 square foot commercial retail building on 2.6 acres along the east side of South Walnut Avenue. And that is located about 350 feet away from the intersection of County Line Road and Walnut Avenue. The property is bordered by commercial and residential zoning and uses, as well as the right of way of Walnut Avenue along the front of the property. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from APD SUP which currently limits the site to agricultural pre-development uses with a narrow set of approved neighborhood commercial uses to C1A neighborhood business district. The existing zoning which was approved in 2016 allowed only a small subset of commercial uses which the applicant has stated that is constraining the ability to attract and retain tenants. This slide shows some of the uses that are currently allowed, office use, ice cream shop, a dance studio, and pizza pickup and delivery. C1A would allow a few additional neighborhood community serving commercial uses that are more compatible with market demand and could reduce the need for nearby residents to travel farther away for those types of neighborhood uses. Staff, let's see, I think I, did I pass the property photos? So staff observed at least two vacant spaces in a very large underutilized parking facility. And the site's configuration and existing building placement, it is important to note that there's about 75 feet between the building and the neighboring property lines of the residential uses that are abutting the property. And that provides adequate buffering to ensure compatibility. And then some of the uses that would be allowed under the C1A are things such as a sit down restaurant, health club, and a pet store are just to name a few. The proposed zoning is in alignment with Envision New Braunfels and the strategic plan's goals of increasing walkability and neighborhood uses closer to residential areas, as well as the land use fiscal analysis of improving the overall fiscal performance of the city by reducing commercial vacancies. Notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet, and 36 property owners to be exact, and staff has received three notices or responses in opposition. They were sent with no comments, and they account for about 4% of the overall area. At this time, this ends staff's presentation and the applicant is here to discuss the request and I can answer any questions that you might have at this time.

I have one. Any institutional memory as to why these restrictions or this particular zoning was placed on this property? It doesn't seem to fit.

I will revert to Matthew. He might have some background.

I have a little bit, because I was here when that rezoning took place. I think it may have been Holly Mullins who was the case manager, but I do remember the conversation surrounding that rezoning request, and it was a very engaged neighbor who was concerned about the types of uses that would potentially be allowed in a higher intensity district. I don't think that is anymore a concern, at least not the concern that it was before. And that was the primary, my primary recollection of the impetus behind setting the, having an SEP that strictly limited the types of uses that could be done, which were different than just the standard neighborhood zoning district that's being requested.

And there's more, say one, zoning in that area now maybe than there was then?

I believe that property at the hard corner is C1A, which is what they're requesting for this property.

I saw a map, but I can't see it now, but there's a CVS there, is that C1?

Yes. So yes, you can see all four corners actually are C1 zoning. Right.

Any other questions? Okay, at this time I'll invite the applicant.

Thank you, Mary.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Patrick Christensen, 315 East Commerce, San Antonio. The property is owned by a group of doctors, and they've had a very difficult time trying to get the property fully leased up. You know, what's interesting is those restrictions that we were talking about, I can only assume, because again, it was 2016, I didn't represent them back then, but I can only assume that it was, you know, prior to construction and the neighborhood was probably concerned about the unknown, something crazy was going to go in there. And normally you see the normal bad uses excluded. You know, no liquor store, no vape shop, no nightclubs. But this one, they had very strict parameters of what could be there. For example, we can have a pizza restaurant, but only if it's to go. We can have a travel agency. We can have a coffee shop that's also allowed to sell pastries. That was a concern. We can have a sandwich shop that also sells soup and salads. I mean, it was just super crazy restrictive. So all the owners are asking is just for normal base zoning, so hopefully they can get the property fully leased. and be a benefit to the community, normal neighborhood uses. We did speak to city staff before we even filed the application to see what should we be asking for, what might be supported, and that's really all we're here for today. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I kind of recall that, as Matthew does, and I think a lot of that was because of the involvement of the neighbors right behind it, and that was the way to appease them and get this approved. I really believe that's what it boiled down to.

Yes, and I think Mr. Christensen's very, very right. It was a raw site at that point. It was before it was constructed, so there was a lot of conversation about buffering and how close the building could come, and there is a... I'm familiar with, because I live over on that side of town, there is a grade change between this subject property and the homes on the east side. And I think now that it's been constructed and functioning, there's probably a lot less concern with the compatibility.

And I probably should add, we're not making, we have no plans to make any modifications to the structure. I mean, it's a good building. It just needs to be, needs tenants. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak in favor of this item or oppose this item, please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners?

I think it's worth noting, I mean, we still have some opposing residential, you know, to this. I don't know why they're not here, but, you know, there's, yeah, no comments, but there's definitely a vast difference between the current way it's zoned and changing it to C1A. I mean, it pretty much opens up anything and everything, gas station, bars, you know, whatever. So I'd

The people that were opposing it were on the other side of Walnut also, which I think is different than the last time. It was the people behind it.

And just to clarify, gas stations aren't allowed in C1A. They're allowed in C1B, but not C1A.

So is there anything outrageous that's allowed here?

I would say the most intense type use would be a restaurant that's allowed in C1A, a full service restaurant as opposed to like a coffee pastry shop that I think they're limited to now.

but there's plenty of those along that area.

There are. And as somebody who lives over there, it is vastly underserved for the highest density single family area of New Braunfels. So to provide more opportunities to everybody who lives over there is go talk to those people who live out there. I live out there, Matt was, there's nothing. We all have to drive to the other side of 35 to go do anything. And if you're worried about a liquor store, there's a liquor store right next door on a property that's allowed to have it. So, I mean, you're not really getting away from anything that isn't already there. You're just aligning it and having an APD with an SUP, I think is kind of muddy for our city. Let's get it to a zoning that makes sense, that has a clear picture going forward, provides benefit to everybody, I feel.

Another point I can make is we no longer would even accept an SUP for an APD zoning district of that type because, like Commissioner Henry said, it's kind of misleading and makes it muddy because you have a base zoning district that's not appropriate for or in line with the actual SUP.

It only makes sense in context of the feelings of the neighborhood at the time. It doesn't really make sense for today, seems to me.

Correct. Do I have a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Could you have a roll call, please, Victoria?

Commissioner Rudy? Aye. Commissioner Mathis? Aye. Commissioner Allen? Aye. Commissioner Henry?

Aye.

Vice Chair Alsup?

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonnier?

Aye. Motion is approved and will be sent on to City Council. There are no other items on the agenda. We are adjourned.