Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission this morning. It is officially 9.05 and I am establishing that we have a quorum present. I will ask, we've got quite a few members of the public here today. Some of your faces are familiar, there's some that are not. I do ask that if you have your cell phone with you, please keep it on silent and keep conversations amongst yourselves to a minimum. I know it doesn't sound like a lot where you are, but it does echo quite a bit up here, and then we have a hard time understanding some of the questions or concerns that you may be addressing. If you are signed up for public comment, when it's your turn, you will come to the podium. We need you to state your name and your single member district or your physical address, okay? All right, with that, I will turn it over. Do we have any open public comment?

Ginger Moore.

Yes, good morning. This is not exactly on the agenda. I think it's at the bottom of the agenda. I'm Ginger Moore. I am 4178 Ruby Lane, San Angelo, Texas, right next to Chadburn, where they want to put the project. But I also have listened to the Wednesday meeting for two hours. I listened to all two hours of it. I'm not in favor of the 7,700 acres that we want to put another data center on and all these other huge businesses. I'm not in favor of that. I want to make that clear. I did put it on Facebook and all the slides. I also am in favor of the park. And the new playground, I am in favor of that. And I am in favor of helping with the rail port and getting it water and sewage because I think that will help us. But we do not need that much water. I have a slide with how much water they're going to use for the 7,700 acres. I cannot water much. I mean, I have a well, but most people cannot water much already. So what water are we going to have? I think that they do not recognize that the people are not for this. They are more so against it. And they're already against the first one. They're doing a recall on two city council members. And you need to listen to the people, is all I'm saying. Please listen to the people. That... business was going to have natural gas, what kind of fire are we going to need, what kind of fire support will they need, what kind of issues are going to be, everyone needs to go back and listen to that two hours, because that was amazing. Thank you. Thank you, Ginger.

Appreciate it. And if you are not aware, that little beep was our timer, so anyone that is going to be coming up for public comment, we're allotting the same amount of time for each person to speak. Okay, perfect. So we will close public comment.

Chairwoman, I do have a public comment to make. Again, my name is Aaron Fennoy, Director of Planning Development Services. I'd like to just direct everyone's attention to the last item on the agenda, item F, and it's an update on the Northeast Sector Master Plan. Discuss and consider adopting the Northeast Sector Master Plan. we will not have that item today we did not get it on the agenda in time talking with our our team so we are going to pull that item and not have that discussion today at planning commission i do believe we have some folks that have signed up for public comment and i do think it is fair that they're able to come forward and bring their public comment to the planning commission So, Chair Roman, I would ask that you open public comment for those members of the audience that would like to speak on item F. And we will move from there. Thank you.

Wonderful. With that being said, we will open public comment back up. And this public comment is directed specifically on page two. to item F, which is the update on the Northeast Sector Master Plan, which currently states discuss and consider adopting the new Northeast Sector Master Plan. Again, there won't be discussion, but any public comment is allowed at this moment. Do we have any public comment signed up?

Liz Landers? She's in.

As a victim, I am Liz Landers, 1111 infamous Kenwood Drive. If you haven't driven down, you should. for about a year now, we've been inconvenienced. So I know what happens when a mistake is made at this level and I'm living with it every day. So I would have to say that I think that this is a, um, that for once I'd like to see our city officials listen to the public. 80% of the people in this city are not in favor. So that pretty much leaves it up to you guys. You can vote yes or you can vote no, but you know how your neighbors and friends feel about this. You may have a few. I now have Facebook stalkers. Who knew? Every time I make a comment, they come in, and I really resent it. I resent the fact that we're not being listened to. When we say that we do not want this, we don't want 7,700 more acres rezoned for another data center. There's so many other things that can be a better plan for our city, a much better plan. And I've heard a lot of them because I'm part of a group that we actually look for that. And... All I can say is that I hope you guys will really consider this carefully because you're hurting a lot of people if you vote for this. You are. And having been through it myself, I can say it doesn't get any more fun every day that passes. Thank you.

Okay. Allie Devereaux?

Allie Devereaux, I would be one of those that you're probably hurting the most with this project because I'm right next door. The Planning Commission's purpose, I got this off the website, is to ensure planned and purposeful development of the City of San Angelo and its extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the integrity of the community's natural resources and neighborhoods. And I have to ask you if you've truly assessed whether these stated objectives are being honored with this industrial park master plan, converting 7,000 acres of ranch land into mega parcel zone for light manufacturing that would accommodate massive industrial projects like data centers. These plots are specifically being designed for that, and it's pretty obvious Westwood themselves made that known. So I think all of you need to slow down. We need the state to come back with decommissioning regulations, real enforceable air and water regulations that actually protect our natural resources and our communities. And we need to wait until the state does a comprehensive energy assessment of how we're going to meet the energy needs of all of these data centers that are putting in applications to ERCOT. And most importantly, you need to ask the people if this is what they want, because the land you're playing with belongs to the people. This is where the city gets its funds. It comes from the people, and therefore the people need to be made aware of these things that are being planned, and you need to get their buy-in. This is a lot of land. You're talking about converting raw land on the Concho River watershed that's almost a quarter of the size of the city of San Angelo itself. And this gets rubber stamped through COSA and then it comes through the planning commission and you make your recommendations and nobody hears about it until it reaches the city council and they're about to vote on it. Planning commissions are supposed to actively engage with public opinion through various methods such as public hearings, surveys, community meetings to gather input on planning and development issues. You are the community's gatekeepers for the character and future of this town. And you need to present these projects of this magnitude transparently to the people of San Angelo at bare minimum that should in some way inform your decision making here. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for sharing your opinions with us this morning. On that note, we will reclose public comment and move on to approve the consent agenda. The commission may request the consent agenda item to be moved to the regular agenda for presentation and public comment, otherwise the consent agenda will be considered in one vote. All items on the consent agenda have been recommended for approval by staff with no opposition received to date. Since some items on the consent agenda may require public hearing, the Commission will accept public comment on any item on the consent agenda in one public hearing. Do we have any public comment regarding consent agenda?

Blake Wieldy, if you have any questions on the plat.

Okay. So with that, we've got the meeting minutes. Consider approving from July 20th as well as RP26-13, the first replat of ES Kirby subdivision block 6 and 7. SMD number four. Request for first replat of ES Kirby subdivision six and seven to create two lots within the CN zoning district located at 902 West 19th Street. Do I have any comment from commission or anyone like to make a motion to approve both items on the consent agenda?

I will make a motion to approve meeting minutes and item number two. Okay, motion from Linden.

Second from Liz. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so both items A and B from the consent agenda do pass going forward. And that is a 6-0 vote. And we will move on to our regular agenda. So first item on our regular agenda is the subdivision plats. The Planning Commission has final authority for approval. Appeals may be directed to the City Council. We are gonna do this a little different, so for those of you who are following along, we are gonna read in item number one under subdivision plats, and then we are also going to read in Let's see, item five, where are you? Which is on your second page, so under rezoning. So just give me one second, I'll read them for you and we'll follow along. So FPE 26-15, Central High School Addition, section one, which is SMD number five, request to final plat three lots totaling 36.76 acres within the single family residential, the RS1 zoning district around 655 Cato Street. We are also looking at the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment item which is at the top of page two, which is Z26-18655 Cato Street. Again, SMD number five, a request for zone change from single family residence RS1 and general heavy commercial CGCH to general commercial located at 655 Cato.

On to you. Good morning, Nicholas Janney Planner. This is for a final plat of... basically Central High School. It's three lots, 36.59 acres. It's in district number five, Karen Hesse-Smith. It's in the central neighborhood. Right now it's zoned RS1 Single Family and CGCH General and Heavy Commercial, but we'll talk about that in the next case. And the vision plan is campus, institutional, and neighborhood. Here is a picture of the plat. There's the zoning and there is the vision plan. All of the local roads are currently the standard. West Harris Ave, which is the road along the south, is a minor arterial. Veterans Memorial Drive, the parkway to the east that runs along the river, has 36 inches of paving, but it's missing sidewalks on the western side. So staff is recommending approval of the final plat with one condition, one note, that all road fringes will require sidewalks as part of the LDSO, and a note that the easements for the sewer lines must be included on the final plat before recordation. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Nick? No? Okay. Okay, so no questions from the Planning Commission on that item, and then are we moving to public comment now, or?

Depends on if you want to move through with a motion on this item, and then hear the rezoning. Do we have any public comment on the plat?

It's the same person for both, Russell.

Okay. Russell, you good? Okay, so let's go ahead, Commission, and we'll take a vote on this first item, and then we'll have Nick read in our next, okay?

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Second. Motion from Linden, second from Candy. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So that FP26-15, Subdivision Platt passes 6-0. And Nick, go ahead. You are good to move on to the next.

All right, staying on the topic of Central High School, again, same neighborhood, same district, generally the same acreage. It doesn't include some of those parking lots on the western side there. Same vision plan, request for a zone change from RS1 to CGCH and CGCH to CG. The reason that they're picking that zone district is because there isn't a height limit, and part of their planned construction there requires them to go much taller than 35 feet. We sent out 28 notification layers. We didn't get any in support or opposed. Again, here's the zoning map and the vision map is campus and institutional. The proposed zoning maintains the campus institutional development in this area. It's gonna allow Central High School to enact its renovation and construction plans, which is gonna include new classrooms and a cafeteria, so that'll fulfill a community need for more classrooms to accommodate more students. We're not anticipating any adverse effects on the natural environment, so staff is recommending approval of the zone change from RS1CGCH to CG. With that, I'm happy to answer any more questions.

Any questions on this one from Nick?

Okay.

All right. Thank you, Nick. And no public comment? Russell Gouley. All good? Okay. Thank you. We'll close public comment and make a motion or open for more discussion.

Make a motion to approve as presented.

All right. Motion from Lyndon, second from Mark. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, we're back to page one. Our last subdivision plot that we'll discuss this morning is item number two, which is FP26-16, Baker Ranch, section seven, which is SMD number one. a request to final plant 21 lots over 7.627 acres within the single-family residential RS1 and low-rise multifamily legacy RM1L zoning districts in a request for full variance not to extend Twin Mountain Drive.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Again, Aaron Vannoy, Director of Planning Development Services. This is a resubmission of Baker Ranch Section 7. The neighborhood here is in the bottom neighborhood. This is District Number 1, Mr. Tommy Hebert. The vision plan is neighborhood and it's request to final plat this area that is along Twin Mountain Drive and Ruth Lane. Here is the plat itself. There are 21 lots and I'm going to use the pointer for just a moment and you can see this is Ruth Lane that's already constructed here to the north as the lots to the north are already utilizing that lane. They are proposing to extend Vista Del Sol Drive down to this point and Laga Vista Drive down to this point. Breaks up this block. All of these lots here will actually have their driveways and could face either direction, but their driveways will be off of Ruth Lane. That is because Twin Mountain Drive is an arterial and our subdivision ordinance doesn't allow driveways for residential lots onto an arterial. So as you heard Chairwoman Davis read the agenda item in, there's this question about Twin Mountain Drive, and I will get more to that in just a moment. You can see here on the plat, they are dedicating the right-of-way, their incremental portion of the right-of-way of Twin Mountain Drive they're asking to not have to pave Twin Mountain Drive. And so we'll get into that in just a few moments. Here again is the zoning on the left. You can see most of it's RS1. They have some RM1 legacy. And when that was zoned RM1 way back probably four or five years ago, RM1 also allowed single family housing. And so it has the legacy title because we kept those vested rights for those zoning properties. So they could choose to do a single family home. They could choose to do a zero lot line. I'm going to go back to the plat for just a moment. We anticipate their intentions, and they probably can clarify, but these are actually very big lots. They're bigger than a standard RS-1 lot. So all of these lots are fairly big. You do have a couple of smaller ones, but they still meet an RS-1 standard, and they do meet the RM-1 standard. On the right, you can see this whole area is neighborhood, and so that's the plan kind of moving forward as it was set out in 2003 in our comprehensive plan. So I wanted to put this slide in here because what we need to talk about is this road extension from there to over to the extent of their property. So the question is, can this property here survive on its own without the extension of Twin Mountain Drive? And I'll get to the state law that speaks about that in just a moment. So when I take that off and you look at the roadways and the circulation, there is Ruth Drive that does come back to Twin Mountain Drive. And you notice that it loops all the way around and comes back this other road. I don't I don't think that's Caroline, I forgot which road that is, but it also comes down. And so you have two separate entrances to these properties that are to the north of that. I also wanna point out that through this development, they have an emergency access that goes out this way across the railroad and down the alleyway of the adjacent side across the railroad for egress during emergencies. So staff have to look at this to try to determine, can this property survive on its own without the extension? The reason being, Local Government Code Chapter 212 was modified in 2023 by the state legislature and added this section. And it basically says, us responsible for approving plats may not require the dedication of land within a subdivision for a future street or alley that is, and there's a two-part test, one and two, not intended by the owner of the tract, So they get no benefit from that road being there. It does not have to connect for people to get in and out of that neighborhood. Or two, not included, funded, and approved in a capital improvement plan by the municipality or a similar plan by the county. We do have Twin Mountain Drive in a capital improvement plan and it has some funding towards it, not full funding. So we believe it meets number two, but we don't believe that it meets number one. If I go back to this area, and if you were to not have a road right here, and since we require all the driveways to enter onto Ruth Lane per ordinance, this is not necessary. They also have water and sewer here, We have worked with them to extend water and sewer here for future development, but it's not absolutely necessary for them, although it's great for circulation for water to come back. That could have been done through Ruth Lane as well. And so that's where we as city staff, would we love for them to pave Twin Mountain Drive? Absolutely. I'm just not sure we can force them to do that. So again, can this track independently function without Twin Mountain Drive? Does it need the roadway? Does it need the water, sewer, and drainage within Twin Mountain Drive? So we've discussed that a number of times. Again, city staff would love for us to be able to require it, but we do not believe we have the ability to require them to do Twin Mountain Drive And they're willing to do the dedication of the land. They've asked for the variance for paving. So instead of actually having a variance, we believe there's not even a need for a variance for this case because we can't ask for them to pave it at this time. So with that, we recommend approval of the final plat of Baker Ranch Section 7. Prior to Platte, we asked for them to do an updated or amended drainage study. They would submit plans for approval of Lago Vista Drive and Vista del Sol. And then I left number three because it's very hazy on the installation of sidewalks on frontages of where this goes. Obviously, we have the RM1 legacy zoning. They may come back and rezone. We're not sure yet. But that implies under our land development ordinance that there should be sidewalks there. I will say to the east of them that's also RM1 legacy zoning. we gave a waiver to not build sidewalks on the Ruth Lane side. What's the street width? Street width is 40-foot paving and a standard 50-foot right-of-way on Ruth Lane. And that meets the requirement for no sidewalks or four sidewalks? Well, if you're talking just street, it means no sidewalks, but then you have to add the layer of zoning and things like that. That's why I said, again, a waiver can be sought for that item. It's not something that the Planning Commission can remove as a condition at this time. We also added these notes talking about the individual driveway access along Twin Mountain Drive. We also are just asking to know what the structure type is, particularly if it comes to a zero lot line home so that we know that that's going to work out, which side needs the easement, those types of things. And then I do think there is a discussion that's a note that if we require sidewalks, when and where? If they don't have the requirement to build Twin Mountain Drive and the city does not have the funding to build it ourselves, building sidewalks now makes no sense. That's just money that nobody's going to be able to utilize. And so we have to decide. And so we also put a note that there's no requirement on the plat process. They can move forward with their plat and then have us engage with the developer and their representative to figure out if there's a real sidewalk requirement or not. in this case. And if so, they still would have the ability to ask for a waiver as they would through any process. If city staff feels like they should have sidewalks, they can come to this commission and ask for to have a public hearing on that case. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, Aaron, can you go back to the just aerial map, please? Okay, so does the owner of the land on ruth lane are they the same owner as the owner of the other side of twin mountain currently yes so basically as a planning commission if we were to say no you do not need to develop twin mountain later on unless they sold off southwest track or south track they would essentially still have to develop it they just don't want to do it now

Not necessarily. It just depends on how they subdivide the southern portion. Now, they have a preliminary plat that's presiding. In their preliminary plat, you can see that there's a kind of a boulevard entrance right here and a road connection that goes over here to the west, I'm going to call it. They could develop it to where they don't have to, depending on number of homes in this development, that they could come and egress in and out here.

And how many homes can be adequate without having a fire safety issue? Because we've looked at this in other developments, and there was temporary turnarounds required and all sorts of stuff that weren't just glitchy. It was like paved.

Correct, yes. That would be a requirement from the International Fire Code, as well as part of our subdivision addresses that. In the preliminary plat, if I recall correctly, These areas that go to the south did not encompass anything that was further than allowing just a turnaround, a true turnaround. If you were to move over this section, there are some true turnarounds, and you can see one right there. That's a true turnaround that comes back and meets the definitions. again if i'm not sure how many houses it takes i would i would lean towards checking with our experts with our fire marshal but again we have to look at this property as an independent property this may never develop we don't know it's just like it's blank land out there in the future while they do have a preliminary plat it depends on how they choose to develop it the the state has essentially said if it's not intended for the tract of the owner Cities cannot require them to pay a portion or do something with that dedication of that roadway. Would we like that? Yes, because that takes it away from all taxpayers. But the way we interpret Chapter 212, we cannot force that on this developer at this time. Now, in other areas, it does take an arterial or a collector to connect two areas. But since they are already connected further down, it makes this to where we believe it can stand on its own.

I'm trying to load the future thoroughfare map, and of course it's Monday and my internet doesn't like me. What is Twin Mountain considered? Is that a minor collector? Is that a major collector?

It's a major arterial. Its design is to go and be all the way from Knickerbocker to Highway 67. Right. Now the challenge is, and we know, this development only has one other way out down here at Southwest, major road that goes across the railroad. We are bound by a lot of things here. You have railroad to the top, but you only get so many crossings on. What we know is we're not getting another crossing on the railroad until 67. There's one crossing up there where there's a private road that comes across, and that's the crossing in the future. there's a total number of houses in this area that we will be triggered at some point, and I wanna say that's around 275, I could be wrong on the number, but pretty high, that has a secondary egress out like this one has with the emergency road to the front, that the development of this that's a whole more than a mile over to 67 is very, very unlikely, that this could be the very end for decades until someone's able to put in that road, which is a multimillion dollar, deal to get all the way across. Or you have to find a way back to Red Bluff Road to the south, because you'll have to have two roadways to get in and out at some point.

The only reason why I'm asking the question is we always talk about not deferring development costs on to the next guy. And I just want to make sure that when we make this decision that we're not just kicking the can down the road like we discuss in every single meeting.

Well, my assertion is that there's really not a decision to make, that the state has made that decision for us and says we cannot force this on the developer. So we don't have a real option here.

All right. That's all my questions. Anything from any other members? No? Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and open up public comment.

Vicki Vines. Yes.

Good morning, Russell Gully with SKG. Thank you, Mr. Vannoy, for a very good explanation of that. So really, I guess, Brittany, to kind of answer your question regarding development of land to the south, yes, the developer owns that. They're looking to develop that. And so there potentially will be some connections between what we're looking at today. So you saw Lago Vista and Vista del Sol kind of pushing south. And so those potentially in the future with any development on the south side of that, we would have road crossings, if you will, and make that connection. So So you bring those together, and there will be that, provide for that secondary access and connection. And as Mr. Benoit indicated, 275 is kind of that number. And so that development to the south is going to get us about to that 275. So once we get there, there's really, without some continuation or tieback to the south, to Red Bluff Road, where this area is pretty well going to be peaked out once this is developed and then the southerly part of... called the homestead comes in and you can probably expect that that'll be coming down the pipe here pretty soon for that so it'll be the same request and same conversation about it and so yes there will be those connections and so we'll have connections between the two developments on the north and south side of twin mountain drive just we didn't intend for twin mountain drive it really serves us we can't access it for driveways and so the developer is willing to dedicate the land I believe he put in a large water main for the city for future connection, and so we believe he's gone kind of above and beyond, really, the ask on this. So we would just ask your approval of this as presented, as Mr. Vinoy has presented. Happy to answer any questions.

And as far as the sidewalk item number three, you guys are on the same page with city staff on this?

Yes, we'll have the conversations. We'll either look to rezone or a sidewalk waiver or something to that effect. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you so much, Russell.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, if we don't, we'll close public comment. Open for discussion or motion.

Erin, I do have a question based on something Russell said about this Largo Vista Drive. Would you go back to it? Yes. Is that the street right there?

This is Vista del Sol, and this would be Largo Vista right here, I believe. Okay. And so it sounded like their intent would be connect across at some point.

Yeah, that was my question.

So currently they're just left to stub out. They're not required to do anything additional to...

Their intent is to go ahead and dedicate and build to the extent of their property here. They will have conversations with our development team and engineering and operations on is that allowed to go across? Do we put some kind of whatever our standard, I'm going to say the word barricades, but I'm not sure that's the right word, but at the end of those, or do we allow them to go across that right-of-way for Twin Mountain Drive? That'll be a future discussion for sure. The font on your map is very small.

Okay. Thank you so much, Eric. Okay. With that, do we have a motion or any other discussion? Okay. We did close public comment. I just need to confirm that we're okay with opening public comment again. Okay. Please come ahead.

My brother-in-law and I have been developing this area for 12 years. And we're willing to give the city... what they need to build out Twin Mountain Drive in the future, whether it be next year, 10 years, or 50 years from now, we don't care. We just want to continue our subdivision. We don't need Twin Mountain Drive, as I stated. Legally, I don't think, well, I know the city can't make us build it. We've already researched it. But we can make connections across. We've got to turn around and build Margaret Street. We can make connections across Margaret and Ruth if they need additional access in and out. But we're willing to work with the city. We've already installed a 16-inch water line that we didn't need. I'm a utility guy by trade. Used to be. I'm retired now. But I know the need for looping water lines in, and that's why we agreed to do it. I think we've gone, my brother-in-law and I have gone beyond and above what we needed to do for the city, but we're still willing to give the city that property for future use. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Darnell. Okay, we're closing public comment again and open for discussion or motion from Planning Commission.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented. Motion from Liz.

A second from Jennifer, all in favor? Aye. All right, six, zero. Okay, our next item of discussion today is item B, which is rezonings and the comprehensive plan. Gosh, I can't even talk today, hello Monday. City Council's final three for approval of rezonings and amendments to the comprehensive plan. We have multiple items today to discuss on this. Our first is number one, which is Z26-13, 3 East 19th Street, which is SMD number 3, a request for a zone change from General Heavy Commercial, CGCH, to General Commercial, located at 3 East 9th Street.

Good morning. Nicholas Janney, planner. This is in the Reagan Neighborhoods, District 3, Harry Thomas. The vision plan is commercial, and it sits on .115 acres. This is a request for a zone change from CGCH to CG. We sent out 23 notification letters for this, and we received two in opposition. 11 East 9th Street didn't give a specific reason for being opposed. I was able to speak with the resident at 21 East 9th Street. They were opposed to the initial business plan that was proposed by the applicant here, which was a members-only cigar lounge. After speaking more with the fire marshal, they've decided to take back that initial plan, but they're still gonna go through with the zone change. But that same resident was generally more in favor of a residential development than a commercial development here. The existing property is, in fact, a house that was burned out and is vacant. So the zoning here, CGCH, it's in a commercial corridor. So it's generally compatible with the surrounding area. This is also looking to phase out the multi-zoning code, the CGCH code that staff is trying to phase out. The applicant is also interested in pursuing tiers funding, which as a requirement of tiers funding, you can't have CGCH zoning. So they need to get this rezone done before they can look at any tiers funding to go through any sort of redevelopment here. Zone change will also allow for the redevelopment of the vacant and fire damaged property, which should be a benefit to the local neighborhood. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the zone change from CGCH to CG. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Nick?

Would you go back to the... Yeah, that one's fine. That's Chadburn, correct? Yes. So it faces 9th Street, not Chadburn, and the property on Chadburn is... as you called it, CGCH, correct?

Mm-hmm.

And so this would be within a change, whether it be commercial. But also, you said it was a burned-out house?

That is correct. That's what it is today. And it had been a residence for a long time before it burned down recently. Okay.

So really, we're just down to them. We're taking the heavy commercial off the table for the applicant. Yes, exactly. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Nick? I know you said this, but did you say the proposed use is a members-only cigar lounge?

That is correct. This is an applicant that we'd met with in a pre-development meeting, and their initial plan was a members-only cigar lounge. But after speaking more with the fire department, they decided that that wasn't going to be the best use for them to go forward with. So they're still interested in rezoning it to a commercial use and putting a business there, but I don't think it'll be a members-only cigar lounge.

OK. All right. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any public comment on this?

We do not.

Okay.

So we will close public comment and open up for discussion or motion.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay. First from Candy. Second. Second from Liz. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, motion passes. Next item we have Austin presenting is Z26-15, 2412 Paint Rock Road, which is SMD number four. Request for a zone change from the single family residential RS1 zoning district to zero lot line twin home and townhome residential, which is RS3, located at 2412 Paint Rock Road.

Thank you, Austin Reed, Planning and Development Administrator. This request is in the Bel Air neighborhood. This is District Number 4, Patrick Healy's district. The vision plan for this area is neighborhood. The property, as outlined in red, measures about 8.3 acres. And as you said, this is a request for a zone change from single-family residential RS-1 to townhome, twinhome, and zero-lot line residential RS-3. We sent out 35 notices on this, did not receive any in support. We received one official opposition. We did take several phone calls from surrounding homeowners who were concerned about the ingress and egress of the property, as well as some flooding issues, which I'll cover just here in a second. Here's a look at the zoning and the vision plan as it stands today. The zoning, you can see that this is entirely single-family residential. The vision plan, everything north of Paint Rock there is neighborhood, everything south of Paint Rock, that is the actual Air Force Base, so that is campus institutional vision plan. So this is a slide showing you how the floodplain crosses through the property. That blue is the 100-year floodplain, I believe, and the hatch area is even more restrictive than that. So we can reasonably assume that the development will be limited to the north and the west corner of the property, probably coming off of Stonewall Drive there. Our rationale, we do think it's compatible with the surrounding area because it is surrounded entirely by residential zoning and some existing residential development. We also believe it's conducive to the need for more housing, more specifically military housing. As I said, this is just north of the Goodfellow Air Force Base, and sometimes they look for this specific kind of housing. We also don't anticipate any adverse effects on neighboring properties. It is important to mention that the development should steer clear of the floodplain, and a drainage study would be required as part of a subsequent replat. And you would hear that reply here as well. So with that, we are recommending approval of zone change. You guys have any questions for me?

Any questions for Austin?

No?

Okay. I do have a question, Austin. Sure. Just to the west of that, if you zoomed out, I guess, aren't there apartments located somewhere in that area?

As you get back to the fire station?

Yes, back to the west. Okay. There are back along the frontage of Paint Rock Road. Yes. There are older apartments through there, and there are some duplexes back towards Bell Street. Mm-hmm.

Okay. All right. Do we have any public comment, Ray? Vicki Vines?

Hi, how are y'all today? Good morning, Vicki. I actually am the little house that is the very end of Stonewall Drive, the dead end road. My really, my only concern I have is just rumors that my neighbors and I have heard where there's only going to be one entrance coming into this on Stonewall Drive. I'm concerned about the traffic. I'm not sure how many duplexes or townhouses, whatever they're planning on building. Now that I see the flood zone, which I knew was there, apparently not the whole acreage is not going to be filled. So that's really my only concern is just how much traffic is it going to increase on our little street, our little residential street. And our street, you know, other streets come into our street that also have a lot of houses that are coming off of Paint Rock Road. And we were told they couldn't access from Paint Rock Road. Maybe now that I see the flood zone, I know why they can't. So that's my only concern is just if there's going to be an increase in traffic, if that is the only entrance into the property.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Vicki.

Erin Stevens? Yes.

Hi, this is my first time.

Erin Stevens, 169 Stoneham Street. Okay, so I thought we were going to be able to ask questions, so that's what I'm going to go with. The field cleanup, it's really, really bad. Animals, bugs, everything from that field support the cleanup. But I'm wondering about the water flow. Like, there is an off flow that goes, it's If we can look at that, it goes down. If they're going to cement it or something to better water flow that, and when they build it, the water is going to be shifted towards that section because that's a big issue because it already kind of, when it floods big time, it kind of does go over there, and I'm representing my neighbor on that one. We definitely had concerns about that, about the water flow, because I was talking to this gentleman and he said that they're gonna bring the townhouses up where the water flows under that, but what about if they alter any of that water flow, if it's actually going to get worse for us? Let's see, the pipe construction on Stoneham and Stonewall, if they have to increase the pipes. FOR THE WATER PRESSURE IN THAT AREA. LET'S SEE. THE DESIGN LAYOUT, AND THIS IS AGAIN REPRESENTING MY NEIGHBOR AND HE'S NOT HERE. IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD ALL THE WAY IN THAT WEDGE, IT'S LIKE A TRIANGLE AND IF IT'S GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN OR THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD AT THAT VERY TOP. AND THEN WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BLACK line right there and why it goes over our section of houses and what actually that means because um i don't know why there's a black line that just kind of goes and curves over our houses if there's any future planning in that which is a concern to us Thank you.

Thank you, Erin. And I believe the applicant's here, but I'll do my best to answer a few things. So first off, any time you're building in and around a floodplain, and again, I'm not an engineer by any means, but I've worked alongside builders through some of these projects. you have to follow very, very, very specific FEMA guidelines. So as far as the height of the homes, disrupting actually the flow of natural water through there, it's very, very specific. If there's any... sewer lines or anything that would have to go through there. They would have to be encased per FEMA standards. So it's very expensive when you start building into a floodplain. So it will be done correctly for sure. I believe the black line is a topography line. Am I correct on that? That little line is just kind of showing height differential for the staff. We use a back system. So that's all that. You're not going to have a freeway over your house. um half of our street yes ma'am yeah completely can understand why you'd have a question on that one and then as far as um the water line size that's something that the applicant sits down with our water services and they look at the size of the lines whether it's a six inch main coming in and does it need to go to an eight inch and what do we need to do so that's all stuff

that the applicant sits down with the city goes through and make sure that there's adequate services for everyone in the neighborhood yeah we're just really concerned about all the traffic and the construction work that we would have to deal with because that is the only entrance and then they got to have plumbing of their own you know so is it going to be ours and theirs and all that yes ma'am and again what is our lives going to be you know kids in school and there is actually a bus stop right there actually thinking about it i'm sorry I don't know how the bus stop is going to be right there at that corner at Stonewall and Stoneham if there's an entrance right there and people are not going to obey the traffic with the bus.

Right. Well, and again, that's all stuff that the city will sit down with the applicant and with their specific engineer and make sure, again, the water lines are adequate, the sewer lines are adequate, you know, because the standards when... stoneham and stonewall were built compared to the standards that the city expects now are different so that's all stuff that they'll take care of for sure so and again i think the applicants here that might get up and speak a little bit so okay thank you thank you so much aaron okay roland anderson morning i'm not a speaker but uh

We bought our house brand new in 1979. I live at 1018 Stonewall, right next door to Vicki. My big question is, if you're going to build this, if you didn't have an entrance on Stonewall, would you go up there to Pint Rock Road and cut an entrance?

Again, that would be something that the engineer and the applicant would discuss. I think it's going to depend also, again, on the FEMA guidelines on what they will allow. But, again, the applicant probably can answer some of the unknowns. I'm just going off of previous floodway maps I've looked at.

You know, I believe you told me there was going to be like 30 homes in there, right? Something like that. Let's just say 30. You got two cars per house. That's 60 cars in the morning, 60 cars at night. And then plus if you got kids or other people living with, that's a lot of traffic to put on one street. Plus the school bus stops there right next door to Donna's house. And, you know, twice a day.

Right.

I'm just, you know, plus that you're building in a floodplain. If you don't believe it's a floodplain, let it rain an inch and go try to cross our street down there.

Yes, sir.

Because they block it off every single time.

So we've owned property over there. I know this. So, you know, parts progress.

I'm not against it. But it needs to be done right, and I'd hate for them to build that and then somebody lose their life. This ain't worth somebody losing their life over because it flooded.

Yes, sir. And again, anytime that you build near a FEMA floodplain, there are very specific standards as far as the grade of the home, all of that, as far as like if it needs to tear up. what you're actually allowed to dig in within the floodplain. You can't make ponds or retention or anything like that. It's very, very, very specific. And as far as your concern on level of traffic, again, we completely understand that. St. Angelo is a growing community. We do need more housing. But again, the city will sit down with the applicant and with their engineer and make sure that there's adequate infrastructure egress in and out of your neighborhood that it doesn't create issues with the fire marshal or anything whenever they do these development meetings is you know engineering services so your water people your fire marshal all of those things and they kind of hammer out all the ins and outs you know of what we might be looking at so if we have to scale up or scale back that's what they're they're here for so anyway uh at the top of the red line up there there is a water drainage that comes off and

The city says, no, it's not a dedicated drainage. But tons of water runs down it right behind my house every time it rains. It comes off the wood roof. Everything comes off Stoneham, runs in over there. So it's something that you really need to think about. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time.

We appreciate your time.

We would need that in public comment if they've signed up. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other public comment? Russell Gillespie. Okay. Mr. Russell. You can speak about drainage a lot better than I can.

Well, at this point, we don't have any development plans set in stone. They are looking to go to the RS3 zoning. There's some options of primary access would be off of Stonewall Drive. We've looked at secondary access to Paint Rock Road or maybe even kind of utilizing the alley that exists behind the homes, behind Stoneham, that's still all kind of up in the air in your right. They won't be doing, for sure, there's no development that will occur in kind of the cross-hatched area of Zone A, that's floodway. We just totally stay out of that. There may be a little bit of of homes or the backyard of lots that would be in Zone AE. So we are, we're really limited to that little bit of a sliver of a triangle there, and part of that may even have to be a detention basin. So yes, the stormwater flow from Stonewall is a streak continuing kind of back east towards the drainage floodway through there. We would allow the drainage to continue. You know, it would be it would be a continuation of a street as opposed to just overland flow, so that potentially could help any drainage or backup into Stonewall, because I know over the years, Stonewall discharging to that, all the sediment and silt and vegetation, it'll back up, and then it just makes it less efficient for the flow of stormwater from Stonewall. So yes, all of those concerns would be addressed as part of the engineering side of things. So I would be happy to answer any other questions.

Thanks, Russell.

So Russell, are you able to, you kind of touched on this, but are you able to build an access through that floodplain? You said a secondary access on Paint Rock Road?

Through the kind of the blue shaded area, we can do work within that. Anything in Zone A that's cross-hatched, we will totally stay out of that. I know there's a guardrail on the north side of Paint Rock Road there. that kind of, I think it ends real close to that alley. So we'll be working with engineering in the city and then also a TxDOT, Paint Rock Road is a TxDOT controlled roadway. So we'd have to go to TxDOT and get any kind of approval from them for any kind of access at that point. Thank you.

Thanks, Russell. OK. OK, we're going to go ahead and close public comment on this item and open up for discussion or a motion. Personally, I understand some of the public's concern in regards to this. This has been land that has sat vacant for a very, very long time. And I am happy to see some of the development on it. And I think that, again, going back to all the conversations we've had about affordable housing, um this definitely gives some options um whether you know the owner decides to keep them as rentals and rents to maybe some military families that are right there or if they decide to sell it and have affordable housing for other residents i think i think this is a great great use of the land i do have a con a concern greatly we've heard it about just the one russell the one

Stonewall being the only exit right now. So I just have a concern that there needs to be some other way to egress out of that area as a concern.

Can we go back to the slide? I agree. I think it's going to cause a lot of...

What I really want to remind you all is that we're just considering the zoning. Is the RS3 zoning appropriate for this area? Design, development, that may come later. They may change their mind and do a different style. We don't know. And we have our ordinances that dictate what's a dead end road, how far it can be, how many egresses on how many houses. Correct. That's already in our ordinances. What we're looking at today is zoning and the housing style being zero lot line, twin home, or townhome. That's what they would be allowed to build there.

And I feel like giving them the option that zero lot line, twin home, townhome, it will allow them to have better flow you know whether you know when they get to an actual development concept maybe it's a big loop that goes around that but again having some of those zero lot lines will allow them to have better placement of homes within the very unusual piece of property that they're working with so with that i'm going to go ahead and i am going to make a motion in favor of staff one second First from myself, Brittany, second from Candy. All in favor? Aye. Aye. That's 6-0, thank you. Okay, so anyone sitting in the audience? Let's see, item three on our zone change and item two under conditional uses. Those were, again, we're going to read together similar as we did earlier this morning. So item three in our zone change is Z26-16 and CP26-03. 4239 south chadron street smd number one a request for a zone change from light manufacturing to general commercial and a comprehensive plan and amendment for industrial to commercial on a four acre track located at 4239 south chadford thank you chairwoman uh did and i apologize did you actually read in the conditional use as well no i didn't know if you wanted me i'm sorry if you would please and then um we are also looking at under conditional use number two CU 26-16, 4239 South Chadburn Street, SMD number one, request for approval of conditional use to allow household living within the light manufacturing zoning district located at 4239 South Chadburn Street with low-rise multifamily, so RM1, development standards.

Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. Again, Aaron Vannoy, Director of Planning Development Services. So we have essentially three cases here, if you will. We'll take a motion on two of them together, which will be the comprehensive plan and the zoning, and then we'll do the conditional use for the household living. So the property is 4239 South Chadburn Street. It's in the Glenmore neighborhood, District 1, Mr. Tommy Hebert. The vision plan is industrial. It's a four-acre tract. And we have a request to change the comprehensive plan from industrial to commercial and request for his own change from light manufacturing to general commercial. We did send out our notices, we sent out 11 notices and we received six opposed before Friday, and then we've received one other opposed over the weekend and one in support. The reason I will bring that up at this moment, it does not impact decisions made today, but it does hit the 20% threshold in our local ordinance that regardless of your recommendation to city council, it will need a three-fourths vote or a supermajority vote at city council when this goes to council. which having seven members of council, including the mayor, that means six out of seven. So I just mentioned that here, that this does trigger that. So if you choose to deny or approve, they will still have to hit that threshold at city council. 20%.

So it was six in opposition?

We have seven total in opposition and one in favor.

Okay, so I did hear from a few people that they never actually received notices that live in that vicinity. So that's my only concern.

Again, there's only 11 properties that touch that. This is the challenge with big, big properties. So you might feel like you're very adjacent and close to it, but if you're not within 200 feet...

Okay, I just want to make that on the record.

Yes, so we feel very confident that we've sent out all of our notices. So here's the current zoning on the left. You can see as you go east, there's general commercial, heavy commercial, and then there's general commercial, and that general commercial follows all the way to the end where Chadbourne curves. And then to the west is light manufacturing all the way almost to the corner of Criss Oval and Chadbourne, and that's where there's some neighborhood center across Chadbourne to the north. The RS-1 is actually Goodfellow Air Force Base. You see on Edgewood there's RS-3, and then where the fire station is is also light manufacturing. So interesting kind of mix over there. You see to the south of the property is Ranchin Estate. So on the right is the vision plan. Everything basically south of Chadburn for the most part, and I've got some bigger maps that will show you, is industrial. So in 2003, the comprehensive plan said industrial. If you go into the comprehensive plan and look at that section for this area of Glenmore, the people that wrote the comprehensive plan said this area should be evaluated to see if it's going to stay industrial or move to a lower zoning. And so I think that's important for this. And again, the north side up there, you can even see that corner that says commercial across the road. Well, that's where the city decided to put a fire station. And clearly that's not light manufacturing. It's more of a commercial use.

So Aaron, in our cleanup project, is this an area that's going to be looked at in the future?

I believe that during our comprehensive plan, we will be looking at all areas of town and this might be an area for that. So here's just a picture of the property looking to the south, vacant property. You can see the houses. There's a house on the left that you can see, another structure on the right. This is looking back to the east. And this is looking back to the west. You can see the fire station there across the street and some other metal buildings that are operating basically as heavy commercial, not light manufacturing. They're automotive type businesses that are more than just drop off vehicles like an oil change. They're more mechanic style shops. So again, here's that bigger picture. This is, again, the vision plan. So we're right in this area in here. You can see, again, this area over here has, from 2003, said, okay, that's going to move more commercial. Some of it has not really moved more commercial. Some of it has been more heavy commercial. And so we also see commercial in our vision plan as supporting heavy commercial. And so we know that a few of these properties over here have been very good industries that have been developing and and more people are looking in that area. Here is the multifamily property that is a neighborhood center. And then, of course, across the street where we currently have light manufacturing, the vision plan says that should all turn commercial as well. SO THE QUESTION WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE HERE, DO THEY STAY INDUSTRIAL OVER TIME OR DO THEY CHANGE THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVER TIME TO SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE MORE SUPPORTED IN THAT AREA? I WILL SAY, AND I'LL TAKE THIS OFF, WELL, LET ME DO THIS. THIS IS THE DIAGONAL THAT IS CHRISTOVA ROAD. We believe that is an area that will continue to be industrial and heavy commercial. We think even on this side, the eastern side, that's even moving more and more towards potentially light manufacturing over time. And so that may lend it to be more industrial as well. So here's that zoning, the big picture you can see. Here we have that general commercial. We have a couple of spots of CGCH in there. We have ranch and estate on a big open track there. And then this light manufacturing mix that comes back in here. And then again, we have... a planned development that was created for the housing that's there currently. And of course you can see down Cristobal Road, you can see the commercial zoning and the light manufacturing behind it to allow more industrial type uses. A little bit closer, what I'm looking at from a planning standpoint is I'm looking at this line here, this transect line right here that comes across. Well, that's a property line. What happens above and what happens below? And then you have another transect line that kind of seems to go all the way across in this area where some zoning districts have been separated. And so trying to evaluate what's going on here today, what's happened in the past, and what do we project for the future? Again, we're looking at this property right here, right on the edge of CGCH, that has three houses, I believe, on this side, a house there, and then a house here to the south as well. This one is a little more removed because it's further away. These are right adjacent, and this one's a little further away as there's a property in between. So we're looking at that horizontal line there. If that horizontal line went to the north and changed to heavy commercial, general commercial over time, or if it supported more low rise or high rise multifamily, what does that do to that area? What we do know about the South Chadbourne corridor is there is not local general commercial that supports Goodfellow in this area. And that's something that's very needed. whether that's development down here at the intersection, whether that's development on the vacant properties across, which makes more sense, is how do we get that stimulated? Do we fill back in some of these properties? And then what areas start making sense for housing that actually helps support Goodfellow and the neighborhoods and even the industries to the south, that if you have employees that can work there and don't have as long of a trip to their jobs, does that make sense? We're seeing this as being kind of a break line between what could conventionally turn towards more heavy commercial, general commercial, and towards this end being more residential and then have some separation across with Chadburn and some larger parcels down here that if we had a road that went east-west, you'd have some more separation between the districts, land use districts. So with that, that's the information I have for the rezoning and the comprehensive plan. I've got some rationale that I'm going to come back with on the conditional use. So I'm going to go ahead and go forward with the conditional use unless you have a rezoning and comprehensive plan question for me at this moment.

major arterial? That's correct. Is that owned by TxDOT?

That portion is owned by TxDOT. There is Christoval Road, which is also an arterial that is by TxDOT. There's Dan Hanks Lane that does a local road. And you can just barely see a little sliver of an unimproved dedication of road that's right in this area. Actually, I think it's right here on this side between the storage buildings and this vacant track. for a local road that was intended to line up with the entrance. Not sure if that still makes sense or not, but we see some kind of connection in the future roadway-wise along the southern end, and part of the reason is connectivity for the area, having other areas that come out instead of hitting Chadburn. Say if Goodfellow Air Force Base has got to have a perimeter that's shut down and it shuts down Crestova Road, or not Cristobal Road, but Chadburn, are there other ways to get across and around to circulate? I know that bubble makes a lot of movement up there. I apologize.

Sorry, I'm trying to look on my map what that other road that you said doesn't currently connect is.

It's very, it's only, I think it's only a 20-foot dedication right now at this time.

But what would the road be it would run into?

It would be a local road that goes to the south.

Into somebody's property?

Yes, and eventually when that property develops, it'll go across their property and continue south. The limiting factor down going south is the irrigation canal. Obviously, just like a railroad, you only have so many crossings of that, and so you have to figure out circulation way in advance to make sure people know where things are, and it makes more sense to put it along property lines as well so that it's not impacting one property over everyone else. SO LET'S GO INTO THE CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOUSEHOLD LIVING TO FOLLOW THE RM1 DESIGN STANDARDS, A LOW-RISE MULTIFAMILY, AND I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE NEW RM1 STANDARDS MEANS THAT IT MUST BE ONE OWNED TRACT AND YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES THERE OR YOU CAN HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALL PUT TOGETHER. YOU CAN NO LONGER HAVE SINGLE FAMILY, JUST A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BUILT THERE. IT HAS TO BE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES OR ONE STRUCTURE THAT'S CONNECTED WITH MULTIPLE UNITS. SO AGAIN, IT HAS SETBACKS AND THINGS, AND WE THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE TO FOLLOW THE RM1 DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THAT THERE. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE SAME SEVEN IN OPPOSITION. WE HAD THE ONE FOR SUPPORT, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND SO THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. WE JUST RECEIVED THOSE TWO EXTRAS OVER THE WEEKEND, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND ONE IN SUPPORT, SO THAT IS, AGAIN, A CONDITIONAL USE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE 20% THRESHOLD. THAT'S ONLY ON THE ZONING. THIS IS A SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN. we'll go through the concept plan and then we'll go through the words on the right so south chadburn is at the front they have a main drive that comes through the middle that's a 26 foot wide drive that meets all the standard emergency services that comes down they have homes on either side with parking and then they have area between the homes and the property lines if they chose to have a backyard and fencing they're going to have open space at the front that they may do detention, they may do a small dog park or things like that. And then here at the bottom, they're looking at this configuration. We would recommend allowing that drive to continue or at least an easement to continue for utilities for future development of properties to the south and potentially when they come through with a plat that we would have some dedication of an east-west plan roadway that then they would have a driveway to whether they did a shared drive here off of one of these or something, but a configuration that would allow that to happen. So as they have it proposed currently, it would be 40 units on four acres. So that's 10 units per acre. Our current standard RM1 is 25 units per acre. And you'll see in our conditions, we're asking to stay with the 40 units to keep the density down but still allow the missing middle housing that we need. Through the conditional use, we would ask for one tree per two units so that they would have some trees. They still plan to have some yard and some open space. Again, we would ask to reserve a utility easement through the length of the property. That doesn't have to be in the middle. It could be on one side or the other. And then at the southern boundary, reserve a future local roadway. So our rationale, is it compatible with the surrounding area? The subject property is located by a major corridor alongside other existing businesses which have proven currently not to be like manufacturing. There are four to five occupied single family houses adjacent to this property, so housing since the late 80s, mid 80s, late 80s has been a thing here. In the 2018, 2019, the multifamily that's probably a good half mile, if maybe a little longer than a half mile to the west, came about. And then the surrounding properties have been slow to evolve over the years, which tells us that our zoning and our comprehensive plan that they currently are MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT ZONING. IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT HASN'T BEEN GOING ON FOR 23 PLUS YEARS. WHAT CAN WE DO OTHER THAN HEAVY COMMERCIAL THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE AREA AND I THINK THAT SLOW PROGRESSION FROM WEST TO EAST GOING FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MAYBE SOME RESIDENTIAL MAY BE THE CATALYST THAT THIS AREA NEEDS. Is there a community need for this type of development? We know that there is a community need for new commercial development along that corridor. We know that there's a demonstrated need for all types of housing and housing available specifically for Goodfellow Air Force Base. And housing brings in, rooftops bring in, we know this, that they bring in small scale retail and general commercial businesses, which we also know the South Chadbourne Corridor needs. And it would help support those commercial entities. Is it compatible with plans and policies? Our residential housing study from 2019 and 2024, both studies gave recommendations to the city to allow housing by right in all commercial and manufacturing districts. We did not adopt that. We have a conditional use process to go through, but it was their recommendations twice that if you've got a commercial or light manufacturing district, you should allow housing there by right. So we have kind of a break, but there's a study that tells us we should allow housing here and not question it. Now, at least we have an opportunity to question it. Does it make sense? The missing middle housing, say that fast really quick, missing middle housing is a need within our community, and housing is economic development for our community. IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA? THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THE AREA, WE HAVE A BARBERSHOP, WE HAVE SELF-STORAGE, AND WE HAVE A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF CHRISTOVALE AND SOUTH CHADBURN. THERE ARE SMALL-SCALE VEHICLE REPAIR AND SIGNIFICANT VACANT LAND READY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE A CATALYST FOR COMMERCIAL AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT, THE STAFF HAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONE CHANGE IS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE ZONE CHANGE FROM LIGHT MANUFACTURING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL And then once you take an action on that, we will come to the conditional use.

If you'd like us to make a motion before we open up.

Yes, let's take a motion on that. That's a good question. Before I say that, Chairman Davis, I think there's an opportunity for applicants to have public comment. So let me go ahead and just read the conditional use stuff, and then we can take it how you choose. Okay. So with the conditional use for household living, staff is recommending approval for the location at 4239 South Chabron Street that they would generally conform to the submitted concept plan. And by generally, that doesn't mean it's absolutely locked in stone. It could shift. They could move structures. They could move the drive. But we would ask them not to go more than the 40 individual housing units. That gives a density of 10 units per acre, and then they follow the RM1 zoning setbacks. They would submit an urban design review or urban design plan that encompasses the site layout, landscaping with one tree per two units, and any proposed fencing. They do have a proposal for fencing. They've talked about maybe a stone fence, certainly privacy fence. We didn't want to lock that in that it had to be a certain type of fencing, but at least have that discussion to say, how do you help preserve some more separation? And then they would just have the standard that they'd secure development or building permits within 12 months of the planning commission's approval and prepare and submit a plat for the four acres that's in abstract within 12 months of the conditional use. Okay. Now with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Well, I was just going to make a few comments really quick because I know that there's some controversy in the public. One, I just want the general public to understand that the current zoning on this property is heavy. Tomorrow, somebody could put in... a very heavy mechanic store that is doing tires and doing all the things at all sorts of hours. They don't have to follow the same restrictions as a residential area. The other thing is, I just want to say how proud we are as a community, or at least myself, I know a lot of other people feel the same way, to have Goodfellow Air Force Base here. To me, I look at that part of Chadburn as a major corridor it is the main entrance to the base it's something that I know that the people that live over there are proud of their homes we want people to be proud to drive over there we want them to see nice things as they're entering um Goodfellow Goodfellow is very important for our economy in San Angelo And we want to make sure that we're doing everything to support them through housing needs, through making sure that, you know, the areas that they drive through are prideful, just like the current homeowners are. I just think that, you know, in general, that's something that we need to consider, that the zoning is going lighter than what it is. About a year ago, we looked at a project on Edgewood that was zoned very, very heavy. It could have gone to something very industrial, and instead it went to a housing project that has now allowed people to rent, people to own, and all sorts of things like that. So that's my little to say before we open up public comment. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments for Erin before we let the public speak?

That was my thought. Have we had any heavy industrial requests in the last five, 10 years for that area to your recollection?

To my recollection, certainly not in the last five years. Since COVID, it has changed those dynamics a little bit. I would say further to the east as you get past the curve on Chadburn, we have. We've had some businesses that have expanded and done very good things over there. I believe you all voted on a plat there. that was across the street along Oleola Road here recently. And so that's a development that's coming forward. In this part of that corridor, we have not seen anything. I can't speak up to 10 years, but confidently within five years, we have not had anything significant come through.

Yeah, we had the, it was four, five months ago maybe, the Eola development. There was something that was shot down that was over on Old Christoval and Chadburn, kind of behind the stripes. It was, I think it was a storage unit. That was probably a year, year and a half ago. And the watershed didn't make sense for that project. But again, if we look at it, there's a barber shop, there's those newer apartments, but there hasn't really been any other development over there other than the Edgewood development, which I don't know, but I think there's like 10 units or so going down there.

Is this property currently for sale? Is this the current owners that are proposing this, or do we know?

Well, the representative is here to speak, but I believe it is for sale. I believe that there are folks that are interested in purchasing the property. Usually they have a contingency period that they come forward with a rezoning. That's very standard to see if they're able to get the rezoning before they put a whole lot of money into the development costs. And so I believe that's the situation here, but they could speak better to that than I could. Perfect.

Okay. So are we, Commissioner, are we good to open up public comment? Okay. All right. Who do we have first? Jim Raymond. I'm sorry, say that again. Jim Raymond. Jim Raymond. Okay. Good morning, Jim. We're almost afternoon.

Good morning, Jim Raymond. I've got the property on the west side of the subject property. And so... It's a four-acre tract as well, so we're right there where that happens. Okay, great, thank you. Yeah, so just to the left of that property there, everything that we've got, then to the west of me is the old Patterson Drilling Yard, you know, and then to the south of that would be Poole. You know, so this is a heavy industrial area. I would guess maybe the development of it has probably been limited because of those large track ownerships that they've had and the type of thing. But the problem we've got and the reason that I'm opposing this is to the residential specifically is you get a lot of dirt that comes about from truck movement up and down. I lease out my properties. You know, so we get some dirt that comes from that from tenants that are going in and out, right? And then the Patterson property closest to this currently leased out, I don't own it, but currently leased out to Moztech that's doing all of the city repair work, you know, on the fiber optic or gas line, whatever. So, and that's a lot of dirt that's generated. My fear is you put residential in here, then you're going to start getting complaints. And if you're getting complaints, then maybe that impacts the tenants that I can get that would want to be next to somebody who's going to complain. Interferring with an industrial area, and obviously this has been one for a long time, It would be a lot better if you were starting on one end of it rather than kind of starting somewhat in the middle of it. Anyway, so my opposition is to the residential of it, residential change to it that would perhaps interfere with some of the industry that's there. One other thing I might mention, all of the housing that's out there, Most of it, I think, predates when it was constructed from when the city actually had the property or was inside city limits. I know a property right there beside me the old Foreman's Ranch house for the Metcalf Ranch. So that was built probably in the 40s, if not older than that. And the one to the east side of it, I don't know about when they were, but they've been there a long time. So any questions?

Jim, what kind of tenants, what kind of businesses are you leasing your property out to?

So I've got... I don't know what you would classify them, but they do installation of car audio, radio, et cetera, et cetera, motorcycle shop, and a repair shop.

So they're all commercial leases, correct?

Yes.

Commercial building?

Yes. Now, the commercial part I think is fine. It's the residential that I think would be the problem.

Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Okay. Next up, Ginger Moore. Good morning, Ginger.

Ginger Moore. Good morning. 4178 Ruby Lane, San Angelo, Texas. I've been on that property for 40 years. I have goats. I have a picture. of my goats. I think it's right there on the noise. And you can see that the back of my goats go into this property. I am the one that's all brown. I live on 20 acres. I know everybody wants it. No, I'm not selling. But I have been there and I have worked on Goodfellow for 28 years. I know they have housing on base. They have housing, a huge housing complex across the other side of the base out the north gate. They also have traffic at 7 o'clock in the morning, at 4.30 in the afternoon that's backed all the way up. And I also know that if the people that are living in this area are coming out, They're going to have to go, and they want to go left. They're going to have to go across those lanes and turn left. This is not good for housing. If you have 40 houses and you assume two vehicles per house, you're going to have 80 people trying to come out of there, whereas the businesses that are currently there are just... along the way, and they're all high manufacturing areas, and they do process a lot of vehicles, but the vehicles come out not at 730 in the morning or 430 in the afternoon, and there's also bus stops along the way. So I just do not think this is appropriate. I have said so on the comment. I sent comment sheets. I'm one of the ones that complained. Absolutely not. This is not a good place. The other thing is, I think it's being, well, they're trying to sell it for $300,000. They couldn't get it, so now they're going to try something else. It started out as trying to sell for manufacturing area, and they have since changed that because they couldn't sell it. So it's all about the money. And I understand money, I'm a conservative Republican, but this is not the right place for these people. And also, I have a master's in early childhood, and if they have children, just think of what they're gonna be surrounded by. There's gonna be all kinds of issues here, and somebody's gonna get hit. either by their car or by the... This is not... There must be... Currently, if I turn left off of my road, which is Ruby Lane, and turn left, and I get out there, then I get stopped at 4.30 or 5 o'clock because everybody from the base is coming out. This is not the appropriate place for this, and I highly ask that you vote no. Also, I know everybody on the city council, and I assure you I will talk to each one of them if you get this passed, and you will not get 80%. Thank you.

Liz Landers. Oh, okay.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Any other? Is it Doug Wilde?

Oh, I believe it's down here, Ginger.

We're going to have to ask you to go to the podium just so that everyone else can hear.

Sorry about that. Okay. All right.

Our next. Doug Wilde. Doug Wilde. Hi, Doug.

Good morning. Yes, my name is Doug Wilde. I am the current owner of this property. Bought it about five years ago. It was a foreclosure property, and my wife and I had the dream to build a physical therapy clinic for her there. I'm sorry, my address is 3134 Old Eola Road. I live outside of the city limits, but right on the east side of the base and farm, everything inside the loop there between 765 and 388. So when we looked at this physical therapy clinic, it just was an economical building inside the city limits and new construction. So we decided to actually rent part of the Patterson drilling property there. And she had a physical therapy clinic there. And then we moved. move that location so but since that project didn't pan out we did put it for sale or rent and have had a few contacts but nothing it's still a vacant lot we've kept it clean and try to keep the weeds mowed down and But the only thing, I was born and raised here, the only thing the last owner had, maybe he installed some little dirt berms to have a remote control car racetrack or something like that. There was an old little building up front. But when we did an economic or environmental study on it, really no one could find what it, had there in the past. So I am for this and think that the, you know, I am neighbors to the base, been neighbors to the base my whole life and see the great benefit that they have in this community and if you look into the base on South Chadburn, they have a lot of temporary housing installed there and it is If we ever got bad weather, heaven forbid, a tornado or something, it would be catastrophic where they have all their temporary housing. So housing for the base is a very big necessity. Thank you.

Thank you, Doug. Brian May.

Hi, I'm Brian May, and I live on 6039 Ranch Lane in San Angelo. It's over by Country Club. A partner and I are looking at this property. We wanted to develop it as you saw the plan. And really, Fort Conn, I mean, excuse me, Goodfellow Air Force Base is a campus. And I have a lot of experience in campuses and what should be around them. And really, commercial or heavy use industrial is not a really good fit to be around a campus. What you need around a campus is residential and retail. But this is a major change. And I understand the emotions and things that have been mentioned already. And they have the right to feel that way. And they certainly have some valid points. But I think we need to start looking at additional housing for Goodfellow. And I know the existing housing is severely inadequate. There has been some big projects to the north and to the west, but they still need a lot more. And the plans for Goodfellow is to expand dramatically over the number of students that are coming in. And whether you approve this or not, but that's what we feel is important, is that we're going to provide affordable housing and would meet their rent requirements for the base, and it would be something to get started. I think it will grow from there. And Jim Raymond and I are good friends. I mean, we know each other very well. I think that we can be competitive with the things around there. We intend to put a substantial barrier around it, but that's our plan. I can answer any questions. Thanks, Brian.

I had one. So these will be potential rentals and not each individually be a sold property?

I think it would be either way. Either way. But they would have two-bedroom, three-bedroom type structures with at least two baths in each one.

And just one entry and exit?

Yes.

Brian, I have a question. Because I have no idea what the requirements are as far as

stop lights but is there potential for would there ever be a light well there'd be a text to another yeah you know city engineers would look at that you know i mean there's some valid points talking about the 7 30 and the 4 30 traffic period you know and i think you know there's another property sale for sale just to the east of that that's directly across the gate i think that could be That could make it even more difficult there, you know, to do that. But whether you put a light before this entrance, you know, like up at Edgewood or something like that. But I don't know that this city, our city is very reluctant to put lights up. I've tried to get them put up around Angelo State for years. But anyway, it is a possibility.

Thank you, Brian. Any other questions for Brian? Is that in the public?

Russell Gulley.

Russell Gulley, SKG Engineering, 706 South A. The request provides an opportunity to replace an industrialized zoning designation with a commercial zoning classification that is more appropriate to the property's location and surrounding development patterns. while allowing the proposed multifamily project to be evaluated through a site-specific condition use process. Commercial zoning provides a logical transition between the military installation, existing development, transportation facilities, and the surrounding community uses. The requested zoning does not require the city to commit the property exclusively to residential development. Instead, General Commercial establishes a flexible zoning framework that can accommodate a variety of community-serving uses while allowing the proposed multifamily development to be considered as a conditional use. The proposed conditional use provides an opportunity for the City to evaluate the specific development proposed for 4239 South Chadron Street and establish appropriate conditions addressing the characteristics of the project. The proposed commercial development zoning represents a transition away from potentially intensive industrial activity. The conditional use permit then allows the city to consider whether the proposed multifamily development is appropriate for this specific location and if approved to establish conditions that ensure compatibility. Goodfellow Air Force Base is a significant public facility and an important component of San Angelo's economy and community. The city's land use decisions in the vicinity of the installation should encourage development patterns that minimize potential conflicts with military operations. The proposed general commercial conditional use permit approach provides a mechanism for accomplishing this objective. The location being near Goodfellow Air Force Base and other employment centers provides an opportunity to place housing close to existing jobs and services. You're putting those students in very close proximity to that entry gate. That's a huge safety factor right there. The project can therefore serve military personnel, civilian employees, contractors, students, and other members of the San Angelo community while utilizing existing urban infrastructure. The project can utilize the existing streets and public utilities and can be viewed under the city's existing development patterns. So this is really an infill project. We have the existing infrastructure in place. In conclusion, the project, the request does not ask the city to approve unrestricted multifamily development through the Throughout the zoning district, rather, it establishes a commercially appropriate zoning framework while allowing the specific multifamily project to receive industrialized review. The combination of general commercial zoning and a conditional use permit provides the city with the ability to evaluate and regulate the proposed development based upon its actual characteristics, including density, building height, setbacks, parking, landscape, drainage, and compatibility with Goodfellow Air Force Base. We'd ask for your approval.

You don't run over on time very often. We got you this one. Thank you, Russell. Does anyone have any questions for Russell?

Thank you very much.

Okay, any other public comment?

And he's the last one.

Okay.

Zane Willard, 6451 Fish Hatchery. For the last several years, I've heard the continual thing, we need more, quote, affordable housing. I don't really know what affordable is. A couple of y'all are realtors, so that's kind of subjective in itself. But I do know we need more housing. And so we're both in the build them and sell them and the build them and rent them business. And I'll tell you right now, the rental business is, there's a huge shortage because of what we have happening in our community right here. I just pulled up some numbers earlier. We have about 5,500 to 6,000 employees at Goodfellow. They're our number one employer. We do less for Goodfellow, in my opinion, as a community than we do for anything. And they are a vital part of our community. That's kind of the reason we saw the vision for this. If you drive down Chadburn right there, it's as mixed use as you can get. I get it that this is a change and there's some things. There's a lot of residential that are surrounding that. How they got there and when they got there, I don't know. If you go there east, you know, from my standpoint, and I'm not going to pick on Aaron's vision plan, but I think it was written in 2003. We're 23 years later. My business changes every six months. The city's hung on to this vision plan for 23 years. I think it's got some cataracts at this point because industrial or heavy manufacturing or whatever you want to call it there, it's not coming. That's not what we need. It's not a big enough property for there. We've already looked at the property that's out there, whether it's retail or whether it's more residential down the road, to serve one thing, Goodfellow. I mean, it is very important. In addition to that, we have Shannon Hospital, which is your number two employer, which you're not a hop, skip, and a jump away from because it's an easy access to that point. I understand the emotions from some of the neighbors right there. We get it every time we do something. Obviously, the data center has been on everybody's radar lately. A lot of emotions. We get it. It's one of those things, but San Angelo doesn't like change. And I've got young kids. I hope they come back. And the thing that bugs me the most about our trend in San Angelo is we have less young people. Our median age goes up every year. I want people to want to come back and want to stay here, and that's part of what our mission is right here. We have lots of people that work on the base that live in rentals we have, and they all say, man, it would be nice to have something nice, clean, close to the base. Anyway, that's kind of our vision, why we're doing it. We get that there's some change there, and I'll take any questions if y'all have anything.

Do we have any questions for Zane?

I don't know if you're the one to address this with, but I am really concerned about just one entrance and one exit and the congestion with the traffic.

The city's got some pretty specific guidelines that they go through on how much can come in and out. The engineering gets involved. That's a tech stock road. They'll look at it. There's already a curb cut there. I kind of flip it the other way. If there was a manufacturing facility there, they could have 150 employees there. I mean, we keep talking about being residential. It could be the other way as well. People coming and going. You could have customers all day long. If anything ever goes, there's going to be some traffic. We're building those right there on Edgewood, and that was a big concern at that point as well. I think we're kind of spoiled in San Angelo. Our traffic congestion is about... five minutes and then it goes away. I mean, there's some traffic, no doubt about it. There's a peak in a valley right there. But if you go at most of the time, there's just not a lot of traffic out there. I do understand your concern about, you know, people coming and going, but they address those kind of things and you got to keep it where it's clean and clear right there.

And that might be something maybe during certain hours it's right turn only or anything. And I'm not trying to make a public joke about this, but think about the traffic jam at Chick-fil-A, like how many of us line up to take that right turn into there. It's gonna be a similar thing and it's just us getting used to the traffic pattern on a major street like that. Any other questions for Zane? Okay. Thank you. Closed public comment? All right. We are closing public comment. And this was a very long one, Aaron. So can you please refresh the commission on how we're taking two separate votes? Is that correct?

That's correct. So the first one would be on the comprehensive plan change from industrial to commercial and the zone change from light manufacturing to general commercial. And then we will, if we move forward with that, then we go to the conditional use.

Okay. And refresh our memory on the zone change. Does that stay with the land or the applicant?

The zone change stays with the land. And so it would be a permanent change with the comprehensive plan and the zoning. Okay.

Okay. Perfect. With that, I will open up for discussion or motion. for the zone change and then we'll vote on the next.

I just want to kind of reiterate what Brittany said in her opening remarks. know we just approved to the north of this off of paint rock a lot of the comments were the need for housing for goodfellow and i know that that area is a little different um it's more it's you know it's surrounded more by residential but this area off south chadburn um while traffic is a concern but you know it's also it's very much a hodgepodge right now and i think obviously that that land has set there hasn't wasn't able to be sold for commercial use, and the need is there for affordable housing. If you look at those apartments on Chadburn and Old Crystal Road, to me, those were done very well. That didn't take away from the area. I think it only maximized, made the area nicer, and We could this could be a huge commercial operation. I mean, I just drove to Abilene the other day for the first time and the amount of Trucks coming off of that highway. I'm sure it's because of the data centers I don't know but to me that is more that that's a scarier operation as far as traffic and accidents and a potential residential area so Definitely.

I agree, Liz. And, you know, if you actually meet some people that are going to Goodfellow and, like, you know, for instance, the wives call and they're distressed because they can't find housing. The amount of housing on the base is not adequate for the amount of people coming, and it's stressful. Think about moving across the country, never seeing St. Angela for the first time, and you've got a family and you need somewhere to go. I think that this is... very, very, very needed. On another aspect, if we look at the economics on this, we want to grow as a city. We want to keep our St. Angelo. We want to keep our safety. We want all of those things, but at the same point in time, if there are not homes for businesses to have employees in, St. Angelo as a community is not going to keep growing. We're going to become stagnant in the past. And so, again, part of that growth is making those homes, making the affordability, having the ability to have a rental that is nice and clean and all of those things. So I think all of this is really, if we look at it as not just, and I agree, out in those fields, the dirt blows like crazy. I completely understand that. But this is something that I think is going to be very beneficial for Goodfellow. We need to take care of those people that take care of us, and we need to give them some nice housing to be able to live in, for sure. And I'm not saying just Goodfellow lives there by any means, but it most likely will be a lot of Goodfellow residents.

So that's my... And that's why I asked earlier how many requests for industrial applications in the last five or ten years, and there's been none, at least in the last five years. So are we going to go another five years with nothing happening there and it's just sitting there? Right. And how Goodfellow goes is how San Angelo goes. And I think the people that move into these, if they are, are going to be smart enough to decide if they want to live in that. They're going to make their own choices. I think we need to leave those choices up to them and at least provide the opportunity for them. Perfect.

Okay. Any other thoughts or comments from the commission before we move forward with the motion? Okay, would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

First from Liz. I will second that. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, 6-0 on item Z26-16 and CP26-03. And now we are going to take a motion on the next item, which was C, yes.

EXCUSE ME, CONDITIONAL USE HERE. AND SO THIS WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE PROPERTY. THE DIFFERENCE WITH THIS ONE IS THAT WE DO HAVE WITHIN THE CONDITIONS KIND OF TWO EXPIRATION DATES THAT THIS, WHILE IT USUALLY CONDITIONAL USES DO FOLLOW WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT HERE WE HAVE TWO EXPIRATION DATES, ONE OF THEM BEING SECURING A BUILDING PERMIT OR A PLAT AND BOTH OF THOSE BEING WITHIN 12 MONTHS. So the plat would kind of finalize the lot and egress and water utilities and sewer and all of those things and drainage. And then the building permits really sets, this is where we're going to put structures. And so there's kind of two triggers there. They could meet one and still have the conditional use. They don't have to meet both, but they could meet one of those and have the conditional use. But to your point, Ms. Davis, that this would actually have an expiration as opposed to the rezoning. It stays with the land for sure.

Okay. And again, the applicant had already provided a rough sketch, but it will get finalized further with the city and along with the landscaping plan, which, you know, it will be nice to kind of break some of that and that will also help with some dirt.

Yes.

And those are all standard processes that we have within our ordinance. I just wanted to list it here because I knew that there would be citizens watching and listening and let them know that those are processes that we do within our city government already. Perfect.

And again, what the applicant is proposing is less units than what is actually allowed.

That is correct. Now, I would say some of that probably has to do with the size and shape of this particular tract. Obviously, they could go up to 35 feet tall, two and a half stories if they chose to. They could squeeze things in even closer by building firewalls and things like that. So it could be more dense, but they are thinking about who the end user is in this, and we are too, is how do we think about that corridor there? Again, I think traffic was one of those things in the back of our mind. If we have 40 units, we're limiting the amount of traffic that may come in and out of there as opposed to being able to do if this was 100 units and you had that many people

vehicles coming in and out of there and so that's why we've we've kind of looked at this and said okay well this makes a little more sense uh to do it this way okay thank you aaron okay and again since we did all our public comments so we're just making a motion or opening for discussion are we good with opening public okay

On the record, so one of the things that all the properties that are to the west of it, none of them have sewer to them. It's all septic at the current time. So one of the things that they're going to require us to do is bring sewer line all the way to that point.

And is that from the apartment complex down?

Basically from the fire station. Fire station. So we'll have to come either underneath and come in front of all Mr. Raymond's buildings, which he could then tie on to if he so chose, or down the road if he wants to sell the properties, it gives you much more marketability there. And in addition, it gets us closer to being able to move that to the east for any future development that way. So just so everybody knows, and that's a huge expense to do all that fun stuff. Okay.

Thank you, Zane. Okay. Closing public comment and, again, opening for discussion or motion within the commission.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

I'll second. First by Liz, second by Linden. All in favor? Aye. Okay, 6-0. Okay, we are going to try and finish getting through this morning. We are gonna read in item number four, which is Z26-17-3302, Grape Creek Road, which is SMD number two, a request for a zone change from single family residence RS1 to small lot residential, which is RS4, located at 3302 Grape Creek Road.

Thank you. Austin Reed, Planning and Development Administrator. This request is in the Riverside neighborhood. This is district number two. The property only measures about .16 acres. The vision plan here is neighborhood, and this is a request for a zone change from single-family residential to one of our new residential zoning districts, which is small at residential. We think that the homeowner here would like to subdivide their property and have a house built on the back portion of it, which is exactly the kind of situation that we had in mind when We created those zoning districts. So we sent out 14 notices on this. We did receive one in support from across the road. As far as I'm aware, we did not receive any who were opposed. Here's a look at the zoning and the vision plan. Not a whole lot to see here. You can see it's all RS1 as well as neighborhood vision plan. When we look at the staff rationale, we do think it's compatible with the surrounding area. Obviously, it's surrounded by residential. This does help to align with the community need for more housing. We just talked about the residental housing studies that we have, as well as the need for smaller scale and more affordable housing as well. We don't anticipate any adverse effects on the natural environment or neighboring properties. So with that, we are recommending approval on this one. Do you guys have any questions for me?

Do we have any questions for the commission for Austin? And again, one in support, no in opposition? Yeah. Okay. Do we have any public comment?

Julia Tovar?

Okay.

Okay. With that, we will close.

Sorry, one more.

Sorry.

Tony Thorpe?

Okay, thank you both for being here. With that, we'll close public comment and open for discussion or a motion. First from Candy. Second from Jennifer. All in favor? Aye. Okay, pass is six, zero. And we already read in item five on Cato. So we are gonna jump down to conditional uses. The Planning Commission has a final authority for approval of conditional uses. Appeals may be directed to the city council. CU 26-15, 1706 Shad Road, which is SMD number one. Request for approval of conditional use for short-term rental located at 1706 Shad.

Nicholas Janney, planner. This is a conditional use for a short-term rental in the Nasworthy neighborhood. This is district number one, Tommy Hebert. Division plan is neighborhood. We sent out 18 notices. We only got one in opposition. It's from the property over there to the west across the water. The zoning is RS1. The vision is neighborhood. They passed a safety inspection back in July. So staff is recommending approval as long as they follow the conditions in Section 406 and 804 of the zoning ordinance, which are for short-term rentals.

Okay. Any questions? All right.

Is there any other applicants within the radius?

Any existing short-term rentals? The nearest one we have is a good, it's out of sight here. It's over on Shady Point. So that's more than 500 feet away.

Okay. Do we have any public comment, Ray?

Okay. Shannon Clifford? Okay. Okay.

Yes, my name is Shannon Clifford. I live at 1712 Shad Road. And as you can see by the little diagram there, it is a very small street. It has an elbow in it. And I live right at the end of that elbow. This house has had someone in it every weekend or almost every weekend since the 4th of July. Most of them are quiet but several times you look behind we have a channel behind us we're lakefront with the channel no wake zone we have real issues with short-term rentals not understanding no wake zones we also have issues with it the short little road with people just zooming through there it's an elbow it's So small. There's absolutely no reason for all these people to go through there. Saturday, we had police out there. I don't know exactly what the issue is, but I do know that we have had to yell at people with sea dues, jet skis this weekend, doing donuts in our little no-wake channel. It's absolutely unnecessary. That house is for sale. And I don't know if the owner is asking for this or if a potential buyer is asking for this. We also have an issue with our shady point circle that goes around, that my little street is an off street of. That is a 20 mile an hour speed limit. They don't care about that either. I don't understand why more people didn't complain. I know my next door neighbor, said no. I know that the one next to him between the two had said he was going to approve it, but I do believe it was only because he was going to buy the pontoon boat that she was selling before she sold the house. There's two single women on that street. I'm one of them. Wayne next door to me is by himself. Cliff, the one that was going to say yes, he's just lost his wife. He's by himself. He's elderly. There's absolutely no reason for this to be a short-term rental on such a small street in such a small neighborhood.

Can I ask a real quick question? I know you said the police were out. Were the police at the residence that's for sale currently that's applying for the... Yes. Do we have a record of any of this? No?

Okay.

Do we know if that's currently being... I don't think it's... I think it's still for sale.

I would say this being the first we've heard of that, we don't have a record of it today, but we could check into it.

I don't believe it is transferred ownership yet, so that would have been, I believe, and don't quote me because I could be wrong, I believe it would be the current owner. Now, the jet skiers, are they, again, were they from that home, or are these just random people on the lake? Because there's a lot of random people on the lake that don't listen. No, they're not from that home.

Every weekend has been a different set of cars. When I left this morning, there were seven vehicles at that house, seven vehicles. Four in the parking beneath the canopy and three lining down the sides of our little bitty road. Is the applicant here by chance?

Is the applicant the current owner or the proposed purchaser?

A different set of people every weekend. Not the homeowner. I know who the homeowner is now. It's not her. Okay. Okay.

And how's our clock? Okay. So do we have any other public comment? Okay. Thank you so much for your time this morning. Were you able to pull that up? Yes.

Is it pending? Is it closed? It's active. Okay. It's pending, but is it things? It's funny. I looked at that a while back.

It's things, isn't it? Okay, so I'm going to just say this really quickly. Short-term rentals on the lake are some of the most controversial short-term rentals that we ever see. I've been on the Planning Commission for over seven years, and we have seen a lot of short-term rentals come through and a lot that haven't. One thing that we have to understand is a short-term rental falls – Under some specific guidelines set by the city, so they not only have to go through their safety inspection They have to pass a parking guideline to make sure that there's adequate parking and making sure that there's no off street parking now as a citizen if the owner of the short-term rental has a tenant in there that is not obeying the rules you as the owner you're supposed to have the owner's contact. I believe that's provided by the city staff. You can contact them, you can contact the police. If there are multiple offenses over that short-term rental, when their application comes back for renewal, we can deny it we don't have to as a commission or as the planning staff they can say no i'm sorry you've had two police calls we're not going to renew your short-term rental because again it is operating as a business they pay specific taxes for that on another note Part of, and I say this to anyone living on the lake, part of living on a recreational lake is there's recreation. There's people that you don't know that are going to be on jet skis and boats. We can't do anything about a no-wake zone. That would be something that you'd call the lake police on. But it's just part of living on the lake. Just like if I chose to live on the golf course, I can't control somebody parking their bike. golf cart and blaring their music by my backyard because I chose to live in a recreational area. So that's something I know people don't like hearing that, but it is something that I always make clear anytime we have a lake property. There was one approved over off of Beatty Circle that had a even narrower street than shad does And those people we have not had to my knowledge any complaints. They've kept it up And again, this is a very expensive property So I'm hoping that whoever the applicant is would make sure that they screen their tenants appropriately through the necessary channels And I'm done my rant

Erin, if approved, when would this renewal?

The renewal would be set in June. That was when they would need to come back for renewal. The renewals are annual. And so in this case, you kind of have a couple of options. One is to approve as presented. Two is approve with an additional condition of some kind, denial, or potentially a table for us to look into to see if we have any police activity or anything else that has happened at the property that would be beneficial to you guys making a decision.

So Lyndon did just look on the MLS system, and it is showing active. So that does not mean that's necessarily accurate. It could have a contract on it pending approval of this. We don't have that information. But whoever is the owner of it would be the one that is responsible for whoever has been parking and causing ruckus in your neighborhood at the moment. Well, it's whoever owns the property right now. You can look that information up on the public tax record? Yes. It is not transferred ownership yet.

Ma'am, you can visit with one of the city staff and we can get you the contact information that is the operator of the short-term rental so you have that. That is public information.

no we understand yeah no we understand we understand okay okay so we've closed public comment any other questions or is anyone ready to make a motion I just want to make a comment um I appreciate the conditional use process and the ability to review short-term short-term rentals on an annual basis

I think there's a lot of unknown information here. I also don't understand when you're applying for something like this why you don't show up and state your case and provide more information. So I have a real hard time either approving this without more information from the actual applicant.

Or is the person who is going to be managing the Airbnb, are they here?

Is there an issue with them already?

We'll have to ask, yeah, we'll have to open up public comment, unfortunately, because we're on the record. So you would have to come to the podium. You'd have to open that up.

And we're going to pause on that.

To city staff's knowledge, there's no one here to represent the applicant or the operator of the short-term rental. All right.

So that means you think it's, well, obviously it's being used as a short-term rental.

But it is still actively for sale. The status of the property per what we're able to locate right now has not changed.

Yeah, it's just showing that it's active. It doesn't even show that it's pending or under contract with a contingency.

So to our knowledge right now, From the information we have, it would be the current owner that is allowing people to come there, not the applicant, I would assume, unless they have some unwritten agreement. I do agree with Liz. I feel like if you're going to operate a business, you should spend your Monday morning with us. So let's just go back to our options. We can table this until next month. We can deny it or we can approve it.

I make a motion to table.

I'll second. Okay. I agree. And so first from Candy, second from Linden. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So CU 26-15-1706, Shad, has been tabled until the next meeting. Hopefully we have more information regarding staff. Can you work on the police phone call that apparently happened? And hopefully we can reach out to the applicant and ask them politely to come to Monday morning meeting. Wonderful. Okay. We are done with conditional uses since we have already read in the one on South Chadburn. We're going to right-of-way abandonments. Our city council has final authority for approval of right-of-way abandonments. Our first item that is actually going to be read again as a double is RO... W26-07 Adobe Drive, which is SMD number one, request for abandonment of 11,198 square feet of street right away, being at the end of Adobe Drive, generally located in block six of the Arroyo Vista addition, west of Strawberry? Sprayberry. Sprayberry Drive. Anyone want to bring me a coffee?

Okay, I will let you do your part and then we'll move on. All right, thank you. Aaron Benoit, Director of Planning and Development Services. So you can see there on red, that is a portion of Adobe Drive that we're looking to abandon through the right-of-way abandonment and the master thoroughfare plan we will get to at the end of this presentation is where Adobe actually continues to go through that property. This is in Rio Vista, District 1, Mr. Tommy Hebert. The vision plan is commercial and neighborhood, and the request is to abandon that portion of the right-of-way and to modify with an amendment to the Master Thoroughfare. So right up here at the top, that's actually part of the Red Arroyo. Just to the north of that is Jackson, and so that's kind of a limiting factor for anything going north. So out of the area is Adobe and you'll see in a couple of other slides, you'll see Petro and a couple of others that go back to the east and some of them are projected to go to the west. So we did send out our notifications. We did not receive any in support or in opposition at this time. Right here, this is what it currently looks like. It was actually never developed, although one side is actually platted currently. The other side is not platted, but it was not ever developed. And so it has not been functioning as a road or city right-of-way. This is looking up Sprayberry going to the south. You can see that it's actually a very good wide drive. It's built to standard, got curb and gutter. Here on the left side is some bigger pictures. So here's where you see Adobe and it's projected to come across these properties and come down and connect further to the south at some point in the future. So currently right there is really the end of Adobe. You can see just to the south of that is Petro, which also is designed to go across and connect over to what we call the capital, excuse me, the capital area and the these areas right over in here. What we see on this right side is just even a bigger expanded area where you see Loop 306 and Bryant off there as well as Knickerbocker. This is an area that we believe needs to be evaluated for the master thoroughfare plan because when you have this big swoop that kind of goes through the middle here as opposed to maybe shifting it over to these property lines, what might make more sense and maybe terminating it here as far as a collector and then allowing a local road to service this area. That probably makes more sense than these collectors. That's not what we're doing today, but just to give you the big picture of what we may come back with at some point.

Sorry, there's a large utility easement coming up through Dakota, right?

Yes, AEP has, they have a substation there, and then they have their overhead power that goes through that way, and of course you all know where it crosses Bryant and stuff. It goes back through the Red Arroyo all the way back to the Bluffs. area of town and the railroad tracks up further the railroad tracks is here here to the west another limiting factor of knowing that this crossing right here is probably unrealistic that we'll come back and look at this area comprehensively and probably take that away again red arroyo with floodplain and floodway in that area that we would look at because crossing that is not a simple task and so how would we do that to make sure we have good circulation in this part of town Here's that comprehensive plan. And so, again, it goes back to that natural line of right here. Over here is neighborhood. Over here is commercial, heavy commercial, Bryant, those areas. And we think bringing that collector further down, allowing this to be serviced by local roads makes more sense. It allows this area to continue to develop. as one parcel as opposed to having a road that goes through it because you have this red arroyo with floodplain and floodway area. And so it allows them more buildable area. And then it really gives that good separation between the commercial and the neighborhood section. So that's why we have that there. So with that, staff does recommend approval of the abandonment of Adobe Drive and a master thoroughfare amendment to Adobe Drive being a minor collector with the following conditions. These are fairly standard. This is the schedule of fees and charges for them to pay for the abandoned right-of-way, a quick claim deed process that goes through our city real estate division. A subdivision plant that they will plant that abandoned property into theirs. And then we just had a note that at the plant stage, the portion of the floodway and floodplain in the Red Arroyo, the city would like that to be dedicated to them so they can continue to work on our floodplain issues in that area and hopefully maybe look at that for future detention areas and what we can do with that. But we do recommend approval of the amendment to the Master Thoroughfare and abandonment of Adobe Drive. But that'll be happy to answer any questions.

Oh, my wheels are spinning there. I definitely agree with you as far as our Master Thoroughfare needs to be reevaluated. The future roads that are all over the place cutting through people's land doesn't make a ton of sense. So hopefully that will be addressed in the near future. Any other questions or thoughts for Erin before we open up public comment, if there is any? Oh, wait, do we need to read the other one in?

Yes, if you haven't read both captions, if you don't mind reading both captions. Do we have any public comment on this?

Yes, but just in general, just so I know. Okay, okay. Okay. Sorry, you want a motion on this and then?

Go ahead and read both of them. Make sure both captions are read.

So our other item is the Master Thoroughfare Plan amendments. MTP 26-01 Adobe Drive SMD number one, a request to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan for the minor collector designation of Adobe Drive and its future extension.

NOW, WE HAVE TWO CASES, AND I'M GOING TO LEAN ON OUR LEGAL ADVICE OVER HERE. WE CAN EITHER HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, ONE FOR THE ABANDONMENT AND THEN A SECOND ONE FOR THE MINOR COLLECTOR FASTER THERAPHERE PLAN. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THANK YOU.

I'll make a motion on the abandonment.

I think it's just the applicant. Did the applicant have anything to add? Nope. All good, Russell. Thumbs up. Closing public comment. Okay.

Go Red Hood. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the abandonment. I'll second.

Okay. First by Candy, second by Linden for right-of-way abandonment. All in favor? Aye. And for...

I will make a motion to approve the approval of the Master Thoroughfare. The amendment to the Master Thoroughfare. For Adobe.

Okay. First by Linden. Second. Second by Candy. All in favor? Aye. All right. So we've got two more cases today on the right-of-way abandonments. ROW 26-06, Alleys Pierce and Fillmore, SMD number 5, a request for the City of St. Angela to abandon a 0.103-acre alleyway between South Pierce Street and South Fillmore Street.

Would you mind reading in the next one as well, please?

Oh, sorry. They didn't tell me that earlier. Sorry. I apologize. Okay. And then also, ROW 26-09, alleys Fillmore and Taylor, SMD number 5, request for the City of San Angelo to abandon a 0.084 acre alley between South Taylor and South Fillmore.

Thank you, Austin Reed, Planning and Development Administrator. This is a pair of alley abandonments that are not far from each other. They are within the Santa Rita neighborhood, District Number 5 for Karen Hesse-Smith. The vision plan for this area's neighborhood, these properties are zoned RM1L. This alleyway measures about a tenth of an acre, and as you mentioned, it's a request to abandon the alleyway, and this one measures about .08 acres. So we sent out 34 notices on this one, did not receive any in support. We received two who were opposed from the nearby commercial center. They cited concerns with emergency vehicle access, parking, appearance of fencing because we think that they want to do fencing there, and a lack of information about what the applicant wishes to do with the property. The other abandonment did not receive any responses officially. There was one opposed from outside the 200 feet. They were the same who were opposed to the other case, but they were just outside the 200 feet on this one.

No, it's that old base housing looking thing by Mr. Booth. That's Borough Guard right there. Those apartments, yeah, those two-story red.

Yeah, this is the Village Apartment Complex. This is just an exhibit showing you where the two alleyways are in regards to each other. I think I've got some pictures here. This is the alleyway at Pearson Fillmore. And then this is the alleyway at Fillmore and Taylor. You can see they kind of have a carport structure up in the middle of it.

So they're just wanting it for more private use than public?

Right, and I'll talk about that a little bit here. So they plan to purchase the alleyway and just use the space to build a fence around the carports, which more or less will just become a gated entryway for the residents, for their vehicles. I think they've had some issues with break-ins, so they're looking at installing a fence. Really, right now, the alley just uses an access point for that parking and storage for the residents of that complex, and really, there's no public water or sewer lines within the abandonment either. We did check with third-party utility providers, and they wouldn't be opposed to this abandonment so long as they retain access through an easement through the subsequent replat that would be required of this. So with that, we are recommending approval subject to three conditions, and these are our standard three conditions for right-of-way abandonments, the first being remittance of payment, second being for the quick claim deed, and then number three is that replat within 24 months. And then our recommendation on the other one is identical. Do you guys have any questions for me?

Any questions for Austin?

Yes, I have a question. Go back to the... Right there. These are parking carports. The fencing, as you're calling it, is it going to be like just connecting those two carports with some kind of a gating, or is it going to be a fence all the way to the street?

My understanding, and I don't think this is confirmed, but it would just be crossing the alleyway between the two carport structures. I don't think it would be out at the street here. I think it would be further down into the alleyway to answer your question. If it was here at the street, I think there is an argument that that would have to follow building setback lines, meaning it would have to be somewhere 20 to 25 feet back.

The residents that park in there or store things in there, um is it you say fence is it going to be something that how are they going to get in there it would be gated yeah i think that's what i want to make it more private just for them that that's what i wanted to hear okay thank you you answered my question thanks austin any other questions for austin do we have any public okay uh karen maury maury

I have Karen Mowry, and I live at 2219 Colorado, and they did not put up a gate whenever they previously fenced it off. It was right up against both entrances of the buildings. There's also a laundromat in there, and people cannot get into it. So there is a fence currently? There was, and the co-enforcement made them take it down.

Okay. Did we have a record of that? I might have missed that.

Sorry, ma'am.

Having a fence previously, and they're moving it?

The T-posts are still there.

We had some code complaints, and code went out there and spoke to them, and that's what brought them to the city to figure out how can they protect their tenants.

Okay. And so you were saying the fence was right up against the property line, like at the street?

At the buildings, at the two buildings. Two buildings. Two covered parkings. Got it. But also, like, as a one between... Fillmore and Taylor, you have eight units that live there, and Beauregard is the cross street in front of it, and there's no parking there. So you have eight residents that have to park on the side on Fillmore and Taylor, and if you fence that off, then, of course, they can't get in there. And then where mine is on Colorado, it floods there. Then you have all the debris, and so whenever it rains, we have to go to the covered parking. Right. Okay. Okay.

So by them purchasing the alley abandonments, can they basically do whatever they want to on the fencing other than not going in front of the setbacks?

Is that correct? Once they purchase it, they can plat it into their property and it becomes their property.

Are you asking fencing material?

No, just in general because obviously they put the fence maybe where it shouldn't have been. Did you guys go see the fence before when it was up?

No, it sounds like they had the fence along right in front of the buildings. They would have to maintain access and they'd have to maintain parking spaces. They could not eliminate their parking spaces. And so that would be something that we would check through that process.

So if the neighbors had issues with, or the tenants had issues with the parking, then they would be contacting code enforcement or city staff?

Correct. I will say they were initially contacted by Code Compliance about their violations. After that, they did have a couple sit-down consultations with the city, and I think we came to a more complete understanding of what would be appropriate for the fencing and the property in general.

Okay. And obviously the other structures are carports, so they're corrugated metal or whatever. Do we have an idea with the fencing? I mean, it doesn't look like a compound.

No, and I don't think we would be able to regulate the material.

Okay. Okay. So if there is an issue with parking for the tenant or for you as a neighbor, you would contact code compliance or the city staff. Since they are purchasing the alleys, that would give them the ability to kind of do whatever they wanted fencing-wise on their property as long as it didn't fall in, like, where that, if you look at the,

Picture here where the white sign is they could not put a fence all the way up to that sidewalk It would have to follow where the buildings were and that would be a building setback line, which is typically 25 feet or so So your concern was whenever I used to live right over there a long time ago and so I do know that that corner floods quite a bit on Taylor and Fillmore whatever the cross street is no more and So that's what y'all were using? Is that what I was understanding? Whenever that corner floods, y'all were utilizing?

I live in Colorado. So I'm between Pierce and Fillmore. And that's the drainage from all the water. It goes right through there, down Colorado, down Fillmore, and then to Tuig. That's where the end of the drain is. And so whenever it rains, it goes over our curb into our yard. So we move our cars so that way, you know, we can... Okay. Okay.

Sorry, I misunderstood. That's why I was asking for clarification. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time today.

And they will have to maintain an easement. As you can see in the photo, there is AEP overhead lines, and so they will maintain an easement that has access for those utilities to get back there. So it is intended to be gated off, not just fenced off.

And again, the fire marshal has no issues with gates because they don't like gates. Fire is here if you want to question. Sorry.

Fire's concern is about human safety, and they're able to access all the apartments. While, yes, if there's a vehicle fire, they're going to want to access that, and so they'll have to put a Knox box for access. But that would satisfy their comments when we look at this.

Applicant here, not here. Yes.

Okay. Hi. Stephen Hale.

We have public comment if there's anything.

Oh, he had to leave?

No. Okay.

Okay. Timothy, I'm not sure how to hear. Okay.

Good morning. Barely.

I live at 112 South Fillmore. And so I was mainly here to get a better understanding of what the plan was, because my concern was, is something going to stop access to my parking space, to my storage unit? I live in that building right there in that picture. People routinely stop and park their cars in the drive space while they are visiting folks, while they're changing the laundry, whatever. And I've had cars parked there anywhere from five minutes to 30, 45 minutes. So if there was fencing on the other side, I wouldn't be able to reach my parking space because there's cars in the way. So so long as access is maintained from both sides, I don't have a problem. I do have some concerns about the cost and who pays for that. If it's going to be the condo association of which I pay into.

An item like that, that's not something that, unfortunately, the Planning Commission has any authority over, so that would be getting with the building owner on how that's set up, if it's an additional cost or if they're just doing it for additional safety for the residents.

Because I pay condo association dues. Yes. And... So how those are spent is very important to me.

Again, that would be taken up with the condo association. Unfortunately, there's multiple condo associations, HOAs in San Angelo. We don't have the bylaws or anything, and we're not able to act on that. All we're able to basically do today is say, yes, this makes sense to abandon the alley into the private structure or not. So any of those other concerns would be with the condo association and the owner or the... Yeah, I was going to say that I don't think we can put that as a stipulation, but it would be nice.

And so just make sure that I heard correctly, there is a method for remediation if

you know, through code enforcement, code compliance to ensure that, like I say, my access is not hindered. That's really kind of my personal concern.

I would like to address that. Okay. I might have misspoke, but you can call people. So the answer is it is no longer a public right-of-way. It's not an alley. It's private. Okay. They still have to maintain a paved access to parking. Okay. But at that point, if someone is parked there, that is not something the city will regulate if someone is parked in that paved driveway. Okay. That would be the police? That would be the property owners. Property owner. That is correct. Okay.

So, and I'm sure in your, and I don't know if the condo associations changed hands over the years or whatnot, but it looks like maybe there's some representatives, maybe not the owner here, that would be information that they should be able to provide you. Thank you much. Thank you so much.

Terry Jackson.

We had another seat for you today. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. I would rather be sitting in those seats than where I have been sitting. It's a little rough out here. Anyway, thank you for letting me speak. I'm Terry Jackson, single member District 5. So in this, I had spoken with the planning department and asked questions because it's very unclear as to what's going on. The abandonment, we understand, it's the fencing that is not clear at all. If it's only going to be gates on either end and allow the residents to park and have their own area, that would be great. It would be secluded and private and there wouldn't be other people in their areas. But if it's fenced all the way around and make it look like a compound, I don't think that would be aesthetically. And of course, I know we have a lot of other things all day today. Aesthetics haven't really been discussed very much. But aesthetically, in the village, it would not be a good look. So the owners have been cleaning up the area. They've been doing a very good job with the... painting and taking care of the apartments, and they seem to be looking really spiffy. However, we need to keep them that way and not make it into an institutionalized look, and I would support having gates, but also the residents need to be able to... be able to ingress, egress their carports without someone being parked in their area. So anyway, thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it. It's still very unclear. Are the applicants here? Okay, great. Maybe they can answer all our questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Terry.

Okay. I know they did not sign up for public comment, but they are sitting here if you would like to comment.

Would one of you mind coming and just kind of answering maybe a few questions for the members that have sat here with us all morning? Good afternoon, council.

My name is Andy. I'm one of the directors of the ALS group. And it's been almost eight to ten months we took over this project, and we are trying to bring it up to speed. The biggest concern with the alleyway in question was the frequent homeless infestation and breakage of the carport. So every carport has a storage associated with it. And so they were frequent loitering, and it became a true fare, and people would use drugs and paraphernalias, break into the cars.

Can you speak a little bit more into the microphone?

Oh, so there were frequent break-ins and drugs and paraphernalias around. We have at least 20-plus police complaints and resident safety concerns. There was some recent gunshots. and that brought us to, you know, we had to either put a physical barrier in terms of a gate that could be either a swipe gate or a punch code, so it won't be a throughfare for pedestrians, while the parking would be accessible on both sides. So that was the main reason this was brought in, and we discussed with the city in a couple of meetings, and this came up as the best possible option.

you guys wanting to keep the property secure and your your people residents secure so as far as and i don't know if you can show us on this or not but um are you planning like from red building left to red building right putting a fence with an operational gate that people can drive through is that the plan i think it's just there there's some confusion on clarification

Right. So our first step that we had to take when there was frequent break-ins and people trying to haul away our machines and cars, we put a chicken fence for a few days connecting the two ends of the carport. That was it. But that was temporary. And based on complaints, it was taken off. And then we met, and what should we do? Because that did deter a lot of people passing through. And the gate came up. The gate is a fantastic idea, but again, it'll be a process. So part of the process is getting the abandonment done, and then move on from there.

So I think it's more the residents are concerned that the gate will not give them access to their parking space or their belongings, from what I've gathered. Is that what everyone else has understood?

That shouldn't be the case. No. Okay. That's what we're trying to figure out. It opens up. Okay. Okay.

So just to make sure that we're clear, We're not talking about fencing. We're talking about specifically a gate on either side of those carports coming from one end of that alleyway to the other end of that alleyway for the protection of the carports, the storage, and to keep out unwanted. Is that correct?

That's absolutely correct. There could be a variety of barriers. It could be a chain-link fence that can open with a... a padlock for the city fire marshal, they can use the code. It could be a sliding gate. We will work with the various options, whichever is more economical for us. So there will be four gates total? No, just on one end. So it's not a true fare for pedestrians, because they won't have access to that. The cars can go from anywhere. From inside, it will automatically open. From outside, it will open with a punch pad.

Can you put the other aerial view of that alley on there? Because now I'm confused.

But I think unless each of those carport sides were gated off for like, oh, I thought they were concurrent.

No, they're not.

So right where Taylor, that's the end where we put our gate. where the two carports, the white...

But somebody still could walk down the alley from Fillmore and break in, right?

Right there, right there.

Right, so wouldn't it be more logical to have two gates, one on each end?

It's unlikely for somebody to use, come from the other side, get in, and then come back. It's for pedestrians only, for homeless who like to...

Right, but my question is, if a homeless person... can't access one side on Taylor, they're gonna walk around.

That's the area they conglomerate most of the times, and that's where we have seen.

So that's where the problem is starting, okay.

But again, it's all about economics.

If two is possible for us, we'll do that. I just think it would be more reasonable if it's for protection, to keep people from stealing anything, it would be a gated parking area.

Because if they can't get in off of Fillmore, they'll just walk around and go in on Taylor. Exactly. Nothing really resolved. How far into the grass on both sides do you plan to make the gate? Just past the curbs or further out?

Where the carport walls end. Okay. We can have two walls. That's it. Okay. It's the width of the alleyway.

So we're saying... We're saying...

A gate on Taylor on this end and Fillmore, so that's two gates. And then another fencing on the other section of carports on Pierce and on Fillmore. So in that case, you've got four gates. That's how we see so that the tenants can drive in from Taylor or they can drive in from Fillmore. Correct. And by closing both ends of that carport, you keep out the unwanted traffic and otherwise. So we're talking or understanding four gates and you said two.

Maximum four, minimum two. At least we want to block one end of the carport. And keep the Fillmore. That makes no sense to me. Because Fillmore, we have plenty of security cameras. It's difficult to maintain because it's spread over 10 acres. So we have cameras in specific locations. That's centered around the office.

For the safety purposes of what you're saying, you want to do is put a fence up, or a gate, I'm sorry, to protect people's belongings, their safety, parking, and so forth. It's only logical to put it on both sides of the carport. And that's what we work on. So that would equal four gates. Anyone that's going to walk on Taylor that's going to be deterred is just going to walk around half that block and go into Fillmore if they're doing something. That's right.

Well, I think we're beating the deck horse right now. I think that the biggest thing is we're either allowing the alley abandonment or we're not. What is the staff's recommendation, please? Can you pull that back up? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Oh, closing public comment. Oh, ma'am, sorry.

We're going to have to have you.

Public comment again. I'm so sorry. It's so hard to hear up here.

So the alleyway, you can only get one car going in or out at a time. So if there's a car there and they leave their car or whatever, you cannot get around them. So if there's only one guy to one side, you're stuck. Because there's no place to turn around. There's no place to go around them. There's only enough room for one car because you have cars on either side.

Okay, that's good to know. Thank you, ma'am. So I think the width of the alley and everything is up to the owner. I think it's just the fact is, does it make sense? Is this an alley that is utilized outside of the current owners and tenants? And it doesn't appear that it should be, in my opinion. It looks like that should be. You know, that's not something that... the city needs to maintain or anything like that, I think that having the owner purchase the alley makes sense. So they've got to do the quick claim deed and all the stuff through the real estate office, correct? Okay. And then as far as the fencing goes, that is still, even though it's on, they would own it, the staff can tell them they cannot put a fence or date or anything up closer to the street than what the setback is. Right. Okay. If it's taller than four feet. Taller than four feet. Okay.

If it's taller than four feet.

It can't go further than the same. Okay. With that being said, can we have a motion or further discussion?

Well, if this is about our choice today is about allowing the abandonment of two different alleyways, then I'll make a motion for both the alleyway of Pierce and Fillmore and Fillmore and Taylor. to be abandoned and then we'll have to go from there.

Yeah, because again, the applicant's only putting in for the abandonment. We don't have the ability to tell them what kind of fencing or gates or whatever you want to call it. Okay, so first from Candy. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Lyndon on both items.

Yes. That was my motion.

Yes, on both items. Okay. So we have a first and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. So we are wrapping that up. And then we've already discussed item F, update on northeast. Okay. So our last item today will be the planning director's report, Mr. Aaron.

Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. Thank you, everybody, for your attendance and dedication to the Planning Commission. So I just want to let you know that city staff appreciates you all. I know today was a very long morning because we had a lot of items, but that reminds me every time that we have a lot of opportunities in San Angelo. That means people are wanting to do things. While decisions are not ever easy, I do appreciate your time and dedication to looking at those things. We will have a new staff member starting September 1, that we have a new planner that will be coming on, and staff has been doing interviews for a planning technician, and so we anticipate that person will be coming on either September 1 or September 15 also to get us back to fully staffed, which we haven't been in some time. So we're very excited about that. Tomorrow's city council. We have a couple of cases from last planning commissions. If you have time to tune in, I hope you do. I've done some financial analysis and I will probably send that to you guys in an email. While it's not an easy analysis, but I think it's helpful maybe in some ways, but I'd like to get some feedback from you at some point to see if that is beneficial in any of the types of cases that we bring forward. So just interested in that. But this fall we have our kickoff of our comprehensive plan that's coming up. We anticipate the last week of October, and so we're going to be asking for citizens to to be part of that, as well as members of this board and other members of other boards to be part of our comprehensive plan kickoff that we have not, we haven't had a comprehensive plan update like the one we're about to do that's going to address land use, master thoroughfare, housing, lots of things, our capital improvement program, lots of things that we're trying to do. So we're very excited about that. And again, thank you guys for your time and dedication to the Planning Commission.

No, thank you guys today. I do have a question. I did get an email in regards to the subcommittee, I think on Wednesday, Development Task Force. Am I correct or incorrect stating that there can only be so many members from council, or... THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU DON'T WANT WHAT'S CALLED A WALKING QUORUM THAT YOU HAVE MORE THAN A MAJORITY THAT SHOW UP TO ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS. I'M HAVING TO EVALUATE THIS AFTERNOON AS I'VE GOTTEN NO AGENDA ITEMS FOR WEDNESDAY TO SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE MEETING OR NOT, AND I'LL BE PUTTING THAT OUT VERY QUICKLY AS SOON AS I CAN TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE COMPLIANT AND NOT HAVING ANY ISSUES.

THAT'S CORRECT. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. PERFECT. Any other items that the Commission wants to discuss openly? No? Okay. Well, with that being said, it is 1152, just in time for lunch.

Do I have a motion to adjourn? We'll make a motion to adjourn.

All right. I've got a first and a second, and hopefully everyone's got a burger waiting for them. Thank you for all the members of the public coming today, and thank you, staff, for all your hard work as always.