Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh first item on the agenda is public comment that may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium. Address all comments to the dis. Uh begin by stating their name and address or single member district number and limit their remarks to less than three minutes. Do we have any public comment, Ray? No, we do not.

Okay. So with that, I'll move on to consent agenda. The commission may request for a 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. So, looks like all we've got is meeting minutes. Consider approving the meeting minutes for October 20th of 2025. And we have uh September that need to be considered also.

Okay. Make a motion to approve the October meeting minutes. Second. Okay. Have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? All right. All right. Moving on to the regular agenda. First item is subdivision plat plat. The planning commission has final authority for approval. Appeals may be directed to city council. First case is PP2504 and FP2524. Hunter's Place section 2 preliminary and final plat SMD number two. A request for approval of a preliminary and final plat for one lot over 5.701 acres within the single family residential RS1 zoning district as well as a request for a variance for a block length greater than 2200 ft as to not construct a new road connecting Armstrong and Bloom.

Thank you. Austin Reed, senior planner. Um this is a pair of plats, a preliminary plat and a final plat. Uh their preliminary plat is 5.7 acres over one lot. Comes to you out of the Lake View neighborhood. It is district number two, Joe's district. Uh the zoning here is entirely RS1 up and down Armstrong and the vision plan as it is neighborhood. This is the final plat. It's exactly the same. So all the information still applies. Uh preliminary plat wasn't necessary in this case because it did have an approved preliminary plat on file since uh 2023. That's what you're looking at now where they wanted to subdivide the property up. Um, but that's no longer the plan. They're just coming back to plan uh plat as one lot. So, that's the updated preliminary. And then there's a look at the final plat. Like I said, is exactly the same. There is a variance request attached to the final plat um for an excessive block length. So, the maximum allowed is about 2200 ft without a street connection. um Armstrong there in blue. If you go down at the distance between East 28th and East 40th as shown by the green lines there, it's about 3100 ft. Um so a new road connection would technically be required through this plat um connecting Armstrong and Bloom Streets. Um however, we anticipate an extension of East 37th, which is shown in purple, to make more sense than a connection at this location. Um and in fact, part of that East 37th connection has already been dedicated as part of the Shriner's Point subdivision. With that, you are recommending approval of the preliminary plat. We are also recommending approval of the final plat and approval of the variance request subject to five conditions with one note. Um the conditions are as follows. Number one is for the water main and required service connections. Number two being for the sewer main and required service connections. Three for the drainage study, four for our fire statement. And then number five being for that new road connection or receive approval of a variance there. And then uh one note is just that approval from text dot is required for um access off

of Armstrong. You guys have any questions? Any questions for Austin? All right. Thank you, Austin. Thanks. Do we have any public comment on this case? Blake Wy the engineer. Okay. Good morning. Blake with Engineering and Surveying. Just any questions that just the block length change the new ownership. They're just developing the land differently. There's no need for the lots anymore. a guy just wants to build a single family residence. So that's why they're going for that variance. Any questions? Questions. Thank you. That's it.

Any more? Okay. So, we got close public comment and open it up for discussion uh or motion from the group. Make a motion to approve as presented by staff. Second. Have a motion by Britney and a second by Candy. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed.

All right. Motion passes. Second uh subdivision plat is RP 2534. First replat of B addition of block six SMD number three. a request to replplat a portion of four lots into one lot over 533 acres within the light manufacturing ML zoning district. Austin,

sorry, keep turning the mic on and off. Okay, there we go. Austin Reed, senior planner. This is a replat for four lot fragments into one lot over about half an acre. Um, Fort Concho East neighborhood. It's district number three, Harry Thomas' district. And the zoning here is light manufacturing ML. Uh the vision plan has it as neighborhood. Here's a look at the plat itself. Like I said, it's a very simple plat. It's a double frontage lot there at the corner of Baze and Spalding. There's a plat with building. You can see they've placed a few buildings on the lot. Look at the thoroughfare. North base there is actually a minor collector and Spalding Street is a local road. However, both of them meet all other standards. So on that we are recommending approval subject to four conditions with one note. The conditions are to install necessary water service lines. Number two is pro is to provide evidence of that uh private sewer easement with that shown on the plat or else they would have to extend the sewer main. Um number three is to construct an approach meeting standards on bays or abandon that approach and restore the curb and gutter where that approach is. And then number four is to construct sidewalks along both road frontages or receive a waiver and that's required because it's near a school. Uh then the one note is that all buildings on site over 120 ft will need to be permitted. You guys have any questions?

Questions for Austin on this one? [clears throat] Okay, thank you Austin. Thanks Russell Gully. Okay, go and open up public comment. Morning. Good morning Russell with SKG. Um, I would ask for your approval. I guess as presented, I'm curious what condition three means to construct an approach or abandon an approach. Is that kind of do we have one or don't we have one or is there one or I believe that came from our engineering services. I believe Colin's here to come up and speak about that.

It's just Khichi. It's a curve cut. It's Khichi now. So uh the condition three would just be that it's a a curb cut and khichi down to the road now. So it would be needs to be constructed out of concrete or closed and the curbing gutter restored. Okay. Okay. Okay. And I don't know if that's a platting issue technically or should that be a either way um we'll we'll move forward with it. So we just kind of ask for your app approval. Happy to answer any questions. And the the applicant's aware of permitting for the structure on the property. Yes. Okay. Anybody have any questions for Russell?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any more? Okay. [clears throat] Close public comment and open up for discussion or a motion from the group. Make a motion to approve as presented by staff. Okay. Second. A motion and a second. Um, any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

All right. All right. Moving on to conditional uses. The planning commission has final authority for approval of conditional uses. Appeals [snorts] may be directed to city council. First case is CU25-18 313 East 19th Street, SMD number three. A request for approval of a conditional use for an animal kennel in the general heavy commercial CGCH zoning district located at 313 East 19th. Ray,

good morning. Ray Linbury, lead planner and this is a conditional use in the Reagan neighborhood. It is district 3 Harry Thomas and it is zoned CGCH general commercial heavy commercial. It has a vision plan of commercial and the request is for an animal kennel. Um, we did notifications, 25 notifications. We did receive one in opposition and they cited parking, the smell, and the doll and the noise. So, this is their concept plan right now. Um, as you can see, the outside dog area would be closer to right up against the building. So, I'm going to go back to this one real quick. And you see the building is here and residential starts back here. Um, this is eventually what they would like to get to. This is a future concept. Um, so they would like to utilize a little bit more of the area, but again, the residential is back here. And you notice there is at least 50 feet before anything. Um but they they would like to have a children's play area, nature walk, um that type of thing. So this is the zoning map and the vision map. The zoning shows that that strip is all commercial and then the vision plan has commercial on the west side of PCON and then neighborhood center on the other with residential in the north and south. So while staff was looking at it, um there is some heavy commercial uses to the east and even or wait to the west and even the east and the residences are on the south. Um

the city at the moment doesn't have really any type of resource. So, by animal kennel, it's going to be a dog groomer and then it's going to house um I'm going to say like reptiles and other animals. Um, and I'm going to go here for a second because in our conditions, we were trying to listen to the um neighborhood and with the smell and the noise, we asked for at least 50 ft from the back property line. That is condition number two. Um, and then we wanted no more than 10 dog kennels to help with the noise. And they would have to go through a change of occupancy with will we will look at parking at that time. Um, and it will require a privacy fence between residential and their property. Um, and then any external lighting needs to be shielded. So with that, is there any questions? Do you know Ray off the end what the business?

Um, it is a welding company I believe. Ray, as far as your conditions with the 10 dog kennels only, does that coincide with the current business plan of the owners? Yes, we have spoken to the owners and they are okay with that. Um they're they're mostly dealing with the dog grooming um which is during the day, not overnight boarding, which is allowed in this zoning already. Um the conditional use is mostly for the overnight stay of the dogs, which would be 10 kennels and then um any reptile cages overnight.

And Ray, just to clarify, those are all indoor kennels. They're not going to be outdoor kennels. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. The only outside portion will be the dogs playing the play area.

It's currently a groomer. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Ray. [snorts] Any more questions for Ray? All right, I'll go ahead and open up public comment.

Good morning. So, um, I own Fancy Fluff Grooming in town and we just recently, uh, started trying to get into this new building and I'd be happy to answer any questions that y'all guys have on it. I think the only Sorry, could you say your name and if you know your single member district or the address of the property, please? Oh, sorry. No, your uh, Kayla Swatolski and it's 313 East 19th Street. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Okay. We have any Thank you. Do we have any other public comment? No. Okay. We appreciate you coming. Thank you. Thank you. I'll [clears throat] u close public comment and open up for discussion.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented. Second. Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve as presented. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Okay, passes. So, that was our only conditional use. Uh, moving into resonings and comprehensive plan amendments. City council has final authority for approval of reszonings and amendments to the comprehensive plan. First case is PD07. It's 617 East 42nd Street, SMD number two. a request for a zone change from single family residential RS1 to a planned development PD with a base zoning of neighborhood commercial CN located at 617 East 42nd Street and 4100 Buoy.

Good morning, Ray Limebury, lead planner. Um, and there was an address discrepancy. 4100 Buoie is the same from what I'm told as 4101 Crockett. It's just on separate sides of the street, so it's the same address. Um but you might re recognize this as you saw it last month um for a reasonzoning to neighborhood center. Um we have pulled it to include um this one over here. Uh last time it was just the L shape. Uh so it is in the Lake View neighborhood district 2 Joseph. Um it is zoned RS1 with a vision plan of neighborhood. Uh they are requesting a PD because this is owned by the school. They are going to use the old Lincoln school for a daycare. Um Tiny Texans I think is what it is. And then um this is [clears throat] their maintenance yard and maintenance building. So we figured a PD kind of a mixed use would be a better fit than neighborhood center. Um, it will have the base zoning of neighborhood commercial though. So, we did mail out 55 notices. We haven't received any in favor or opposed. Um, in our analysis, it is compatible with the area because it is a currently vacant building and to have a daycare around residential is um, very useful. And this PD kind of opens it up to allow them to go back to using it as a school in the future if they decide to. Um, and it is it will meet the development pattern in that area as it's still being used by the school. So with that, um, staff is recommending approval, um, to reszone it to a PD with the underlying neighborhood commercial

as the base zoning, uh, with the conditions that they obtain and comply with any necessary building permit that they need. Um, they are still a school, so they still need to follow section 422 of the zoning ordinance. And because of that maintenance yard, we want to allow up to 7.5% of outdoor storage and then opaque fencing around the outdoor state or storage areas. With that, is there any questions? Anybody have any questions on this one for Ray? I had a quick question. So, is SISD are they operating correct the actual daycare? Yes.

Okay. and they're okay with the amount of outdoor storage allowed, the 7.5. They did not respond on when we sent them the conditions. That's some 7.5% of the total. Yes. Of the total. Yes. Okay. Yes. Everybody understand what's happening here? Mhm. [laughter] Ray, will you go back just for public um to the slide that shows both the properties? So everything in red is considered in the 7.5%. Correct.

And if y'all recall from the last um planning commission, that alleyway between those properties are being abandoned and they're going to replplat that in. So they're actually gaining some more property. Yes. Uh that case is still pending in front of city council, but is if it goes through and is approved, they will go through that process. Okay. Okay. Any more questions for staff? Okay. We have any public comment? Yep. Looks like we do. [laughter] I'll go ahead and open up public comment.

Ray, would you go back to Thank you. U Russell Gully with SKG. So these are a little bit different than what the actual staff report reads like. So the follow section 422 of the zoning ordinance. We're okay with that statement as it reads, but in the actual written conditions, it talks about saying, "Thou shalt submit a landscape plan." So what's got us into this was that the school district wanted to use this as a daycare. Staff said, "Oh, that's a daycare. That doesn't fall under a school business. So, you've got a zone change. So, we're either a school and we can be there by right in the RS1 zoning or we're not. So, I'm I'm it seems to me a little conflicting information here on you have to follow 422 because it's school owned or because there's a school. Now, I think school ownership shouldn't justify and necessitate that you have to follow 422. It should be if there's a school there, then you follow 422. If it's a daycare that's technically by the city's definition not a school, then 422 should not apply. So, I've confused everybody. I see.

It was staff was thinking that since the maintenance yard is still owned by the school and used by school, it's still school property and would have to follow the school zoning. Is it a daycare or a head start? the actual well I'm gonna go back to a picture. Tiny Texans. I don't know what that means. So this over here is going to be a daycare, but this right here is still going to be a school maintenance yard and still used by the school. So would 422 not just apply to the maintenance yard then? But we are zoning it all as one. We're kind of combining the uses. That's the purpose of a PD was for the mixed use.

But But by the definitions of the ordinance, does school mean a school, not a maintenance facility or a daycare? Because that's what caught us into this was the daycare. They went in for a permit to change up the building and said he said city said, "Oh, that's no longer a school. That's a daycare. You have to zone change." And so that's why we were here last time with the zone change. And so now it's like, oh, now you've got a I think we should strike that condition and if it's technically applicable, then it's going to apply whenever they go in for permit,

whatever the permit would be associated with it. Is it a daycare that's not a school or is it a school that calls for 422? I'm lost. I don't know what I think we could agree to to that because the

I also think there's a potential that 422 may not be triggered because if there's not a site plan that changes a lot of stuff we typically don't impose okay well just because you reszone we want you to do this big landscaping plan it's really for new development so I think we're willing to work with them on that and I think at this point striking that from the plan development um might make sense um and I think Mr. Gully raises some good questions about how how things are certainly defined within our zoning ordinance. Now, I guess if that's the case, then I would also be curious about whether or not it's applicable to the maintenance yard,

right? And the maintenance yard existed for years and years. It just kind of got we're all pulling it together. A lot of this really kind of hopefully to simplify it and give them great flexibility. So, you know, the maintenance yard's going to exist. They weren't proposing any changes there. Uh, so hopefully we don't have to do anything by striking the 422 requirement as part of this. Um, so yes, the the outdoor storage you ask um 7.5% the district would live with that if if staff would give them 10% that would they would appreciate that too. But I think the 7.5 is a pretty big land area. So 7 and a half% is usable. 10% gives them a little more flexibility on how they use it. So

is there currently fencing around that in parts? The maintenance yard is fenced. The the tiny Texans are going to fence that to keep the tiny Texans fenced in, but the rest [laughter] of it will is not really currently. Okay. And what's the total land amount? Do we know offh hand? I don't remember exactly. Um, if memory serves, it was like 20,000 square feet and 7.5 was like 7,000. I mean, it was a huge number, right? [snorts]

Okay. Thank Yeah, the total area is 516,000 square ft. And so maybe I can figure out my calculator. Does that include the abandoned alleyway? Yes, it does. 16. So at the 075 that would be 38,000 square feet. So not quite an acre. Uh the 10% would be just over an acre at the 51,000 square feet.

Okay. We have any other public comment? So I'm going to close public comment and open it up for discussion or motion. Okay. I will move forward with a motion removing condition two which is um following section 422 of the zoning ordinance. [snorts] And I know you know we were just talking about 7.5 being fairly large but I also don't want to be restrictive to SISD if they do need some additional storage. So I think 10% outdoor storage is adequate. Second.

Okay. have a motion from Britney to strike the uh second condition uh regarding section 422 and expand the outdoor storage allowed up to 10%. And uh second by Lyndon. Um any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? All right. Next case [clears throat] is Z25-23 401 East Bor Guard SMD number three. A request for a zone change from single family residential RS1 to central business district CBD located at 401 East Boragard.

Good morning. Ray Limebury, lead planner. And this one is for the police station off of Bogard. It is a Fort Koncho East neighborhood, District 3, Harry Thomas. It is currently zoned RS1 and the vision plan is downtown. We are requesting to um extend I'm going to go back. extend the CBD that currently is right on the edge of it over to include it. Um, so with that, we mailed out 21 notifications. We have not heard back either in favor or opposed. Um, so you can see on the zoning map that CBD is the lighter grayish whitish area. Um, and then in the vision [clears throat] plan, downtown is the purple and it already includes the police station. So CBD is usually matched up with the downtown area. So we're just kind of extending it to include the police station. So like I said, the vision plan is already currently downtown, which um goes with the CBD, central business district zoning. Um, it meets the development pattern. There really are no adverse effects. for not really changing anything. The police have been there. They're still going to be there. Um they are asking to add on a little bit to their building. Uh so we are [clears throat] making it fit the zoning or making it fit downtown area. Um CBD is very very useful in that area when it includes the police. It'll include um the courthouse underneath them. So, with that, staff does recommend approval. If

I remember right, they're um they're going to add portable buildings. Yes. What [clears throat] are the other requirements that they've got to go through in order to be able to put those on site? Um I know they are working with building and fire um to work on the the requirements for them. There is extra parking that they're going to need. Um there is fire hydrants and that type of items. So there there are quite a few other items besides this one. So will we or will staff see some sort of like vision plan on where these portable buildings are going just so again with it being in the downtown area the aesthetic of it?

Um it should yeah they will have to be I believe they're on in river corridor. So the portable buildings will go to DHRC. Um, and then we have been I'm going to go back to the aerial. Um, and I knew know that they're going to be somewhere in their parking lot. So, are they going to extend additional parking across the street on Bard on that corner right away? We're discussing um having some parking over here, maybe having a parking agreement with um the other one. I think it's food king. Okay.

And technically in CBD, you don't have to provide parking. Okay. And this is a temporary fix for them. They have far exceeded the space in that building. And so they're just trying to do some band-aids for a little while until the community and and everybody comes together to say, "All right, where should our how do we do a new police station and where and those types of things." So, this is really just trying to buy them some more time. Um, move some staff into the portable buildings, add some more evidence room within the main structure. They're just trying to to make the current building work for what they need. Okay. Thanks, Ray. Any more questions?

Thank you, Ray. And there is no public public comment. [clears throat] Okay, I'll close public comment and open it up for discussion. I'll make a motion. Go ahead, Liz. To make a motion to approve as presented. Second. Okay. Have a motion from Liz, second from Britney to approve as presented. Uh, any further discussion? All in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? All right, that passes. And final reszoning case is uh Z25-24 and CP2501 North US Highway 67 SMD number four, a request for a zone change from ranch and estate to light manufacturing and a comprehensive plan amendment to industrial for 345.27 acres south of intersection of uh North US Highway 67 and Harriet Road. Austin.

Thank you. Austin Reed, senior planner. Uh, these requests come to you out of what's technically the Poland neighborhood and district number four, Patrick Healey's district. The zoning here is ranch and estate R& and there is not currently a vision plan designation. What we have is a request for approval of a zone change to EML and a comprehensive plan movement uh amendment to industrial. And I apologize for our lack of maps on this. This is also the edge of where our satellite imagery covers if you couldn't tell. We did notify on this. did not receive any responses out there. Under our analysis, if you couldn't tell, this is a very big area. It's about 345 acres out of a newly annexed portion of the city up to the northeast there. And it is vacant farmland surrounded mostly by other vacant farmland. Um, this area when it was annexed, it came into the city automatically as ranch and estates and did not have a comprehensive plan designation. So, we're fixing that today. Um, we do anticipate this area in general to move more towards industrial type land uses, including a potential data center at some point. Um, in generally we think that isolation from other development like this lends itself towards manufacturing. Anyways, this is city-owned land and the city is the applicant on this. So, we are recommending approval of the zone change and approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. Do you guys have any questions?

Awesome. [clears throat] Thank you. We do have a public comment. Uh, Mr. Warren, did you want to talk?

Good morning. Morning. You would state your name and sing single me member district. TJ Warren. Uh, my property is pretty well surrounded except 67. Now I'm in the blue. Does this zone change have any effect on the area inside the blue? No, sir. You were just a property that was notified of this zone change. We're required to notify you under state law. I I didn't hear you, sir. I'm sorry. I don't hear. Sure. No problem. So, we were just required to notify you that this zone change was happening. We're not actually changing the zoning designation of your property. Okay. Yes, sir.

Thank you. And I noticed you you'll have a 200 ft plus or minus boundary, correct? Yes, sir. Uh, is this going to be reserveyed? Reserveyed? Yes. Yes, sir. That property will go through the full development processes. So, it'll once we know the potential development, they will come in and plat the property, which will be a survey. Uh, and then they'll have a development plan at that point. Uh, this is just to get the resoning correct um to maybe attract some businesses to that piece of property. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Warren.

That is okay. No further public comment. I'll go ahead and close public comment and open it up for discussion. [clears throat] Make a motion to approve as presented by staff. Second. Have a motion by Britney and a second by Candy. Uh any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

All right. So that wraps up reszonings and uh next item for discussion is the LDSO and residential zoning committee update and I think um how we'll handle this. We also have comprehensive plan update in the same section. So we'll ask uh Ray and Austin to come up and discuss those two items and then open it up for um public comment on either of those. I think we have some members of the committee here to add some color to those discussions.

Yeah. So, um we [clears throat] did want to have a discussion with you guys and let you give you an update on our committees that we're meeting with and um kind of get some direction and we do have some members from the committee that wanted to speak also. So, um I'm going to go ahead and go through the residential committee and then um he'll do the LDSO committee. Um we have a few slides and like the purpose of the residential um committee was to modify and create um modify existing and create um two residential zoning districts that provide greater flexibility and support housing development um particularly the workforce housing info housing low-rise multif family options um to integrate with the traditional neighborhoods. That was the purpose and reason we were getting a residential committee together. So, our goals were to identify opportunities. We've been brainstorming. Um we're trying to figure out some diverse housing options and um another goal was the flexibility. We we are having a lot of um issues with smaller houses. Um the lot sizes, the minimum lot size we have now is 50 by 100. So there are quite a few already created um lots that are less than that. Um also, you know, with we would like some higher density, so smaller houses, smaller areas. Um so we are looking at modifying um a couple of the districts. It was really mainly RM1. Uh it is it was kind of the catchall zoning district. Um you have lots of different housing types under it. We kind of want to keep it multifamily and break some of those out into its own

zoning district. Um and then to implement these changes. So this is the chart. I have added two new zoning areas. that's in red and some of the red um in those two zoning areas are what the committee is discussing. So like I said, we would remove um single family, two family and zero lot line twin home from RM1. It would mostly just stay u multif family and we kind of split it between two different residential areas. Um we were thinking RS4 would be more of a um smaller 35 by 100 instead of 50 by 100. And then we have DHS as density housing subdivision. Uh the committee was looking at making it more like um a PD and kind of require they were thinking maybe an acre to do it and it would have um similar to I have some pictures that I'm going to go to as we're we're talking about this. So this would be more RS4. On the left is the 50 by 100 with the current setbacks. The committee is looking at the 35 by 100 and lowering the setbacks. So this is would be the buildable spaces. The setbacks are up there as 10t in the rear and 15 in the front. Um, this is a little bit more to show you. In the DHS, the smallest square foot, the minimum square footage is 2100. So, this would be the buildable space if

somebody did have an infill lot that was already that met the 2100 square foot. Um, with the 10-ft setbacks on both sides. Um, I'm using this one is uh Wolf Creek uh or no Creek 2, not Wolf Creek, Creek 27.

Creek 27. Thank you. [laughter] Um, this is to kind of give you an idea. This would be a perfect example for a DHS zoning area. Um, lots of little houses. Currently, this is an apartment complex. We considered an apartment multif family. Um but if you can imagine each of those in the little overhead um having its own little lot um the 2100 square feet and um then the little house like that. And then this one is a little bit more of the RS4 zoning. Uh it is zero lot line but the lot width is 40. So, a little bit maybe a little bit smaller for a lot width because we said 35. Um, and they have the closer they have the 15t front yard set back. So, I also use this as an example. But, so these are the the this is the direction we are heading. Um, they did want to one of the things that I would like some direction on or for you guys to discuss a little bit more is floor area ratio. They wanted to increase it across the board. Um I don't know if maybe we want to look at total lot coverage instead of far. Um there there is a difference if you know floor area ratio includes second stories third stories it includes as you go up um total lot coverage would not it would just be um the total lot coverage. So um just kind of give us what you guys were thinking. Um but these again these are the numbers they were looking at. Uh minimum front yard of 10 foot in the um higher density subdivision and then 15 front yard and that is the residential area.

I definitely think that the lot coverage makes a little bit more sense than using FAR on this because I I just feel like far can be a little bit restrictive, you know, [snorts] when especially on the 35 foot wide lots. I think you just need to allow the the builder or developer or whatever to um have a little bit more flexibility in in layout of the the home and and floor plan.

Okay. Um and then the other item um the committee is looking at is the different housing types. Um, if you notice, zero lot line and twin home are kind of categorized together currently. Um, they discussed breaking that up. Um, they they discussed industrialized housing. Uh, industrialized housing is manufactured somewhere else and brought in by pieces um and meets the building code. It is different than manufactured housing. Um so possibly listing listing that as separate. Um those are also so the types of housing are also another topic of discussion in the committee. Uh and we have not discussed adding tiny homes yet though. So, a couple things on um I mean, personally, I think breaking up zero lot line um and twin homes makes a lot of sense because I feel like um you know, when especially like you know, Bentwood was a prime example on Riviera. We had a lot of the neighborhood and I'm sure you guys had way more calls and people actually showing up here, but you know, there was a lot of people that were worried that there were going to be twin homes going in there based on the fact that they're classified under the same zoning. So, you know, I think that that would help lighten the amount of phone calls that the um the planning staff gets and it will probably alleviate a lot of confusion from from um city citizens. I also think that um when we're talking about not manufactured home, but what did you call it?

Industrial. Industrial. Industrialized homes. Are we looking at um and I know we're still, you know, trying to work some of these things out, but would that be infill lots? would that be in a certain area of town? I mean, because again, that's going to draw a lot of public concern and questions. So,

yeah, the the committee is kind of on the fence. Um, some of them want it to be just anywhere. It's like a buildable house. Um, it's very similar. Uh, others we would just put it in the DH DHS zoning. Um, so that's that's another reason we kind of wanted some feedback of um maybe certain just the DHS zoning

and we are restricted by some state laws on manufactured housing. We have to have a district for that which we currently do. and industrialized housing. They actually would fit in any zoning currently as far as residential zoning if they meet our current ordinance which has some uh property value um comparisons. Um and so that's that's one of the challenges if we still have to probably meet some of those things from the state law. Um so restricting them to certain zones or areas we may not be able to do under the state law. But we also want to make sure that house valuation, property values are not being um artificially inflated or deflated because of a housing structure type. And so that's that can be very tricky at times. So that's kind of why some of that's in our ordinance today. Um so we have to think about those things strongly. Now obviously there are neighborhoods that have deed restrictions and they may be a they may already have restrictions against a certain structure type. nothing the city regulates, but it can become very complicated when the city says yes, you can have a permit and then the neighborhood says, "No, you can't build there." So, we have to be very aware of what we're trying to do as a community together. So, we're very excited that our our housing partners are helping us through this committee.

Right. So, well, as we know, deed restrictions are definitely hard to enforce in existing areas versus a brand new subdivision. Um, but I, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a few more HOAs pop up with, you know, allowing industrialized housing in there just because it's a little easier for the developer to to regulate. [snorts] Yeah, I think it definitely it seems like one of the biggest constraints that we have for affordability and just availability of lots for new construction is uh the cost of the land. So I think if you can

provide some relief on some setbacks and minimum lot widths and that would open up the door for some more development and maybe make some some land that's been proposed to be developed a lot more feasible for somebody to come in and build out um this you know I think it makes sense uh in those cases to look at some relief on setbacks uh especially [clears throat] pushing, you know, pushing the house maybe up closer to the street.

Um, just to give some more square footage. I'm not sure. Um, I I feel like I I just need to think through and maybe hear some more comments from builders on u uh the Florida area ratio versus land use. Um, just so that I can kind of get my head around what that really kind of looks like as I think through that. Um, but those are just kind of my initial thoughts. And thank you guys for having the visuals. I think that's extremely helpful. And you can see there,

yeah, Ardan did these slides for us. Did a great job on them. But you can see there's a percentage of lot. And then you see up above what the FAR would be. Well, that FAR basically says you've got to go twotory. Um, if you've got a 50% lot coverage, then maybe there's a little bit more, but you're probably going twotory no matter what on most of these once you get a FAR or a lot area coverage based on your setbacks,

right? Like if I could maybe clarify, I know there's a lot of numbers on there. Um, a good way that I think I would think about this is like, so the left is RS1, the middle is a proposed hypothetical RS4 that's still in the works, and the far right is the proposed hypothetical DHS. And so in our classic RS1 on a minimum 5,000 square foot lot, you have a buildable space given all of the setbacks of about 2200 square feet. That's the maximum space you could take up with no variance on a classic RS1 lot. That's about 45%. And then our floor area ratio is 50. So you can cover 2200 ft of ground and you can only build a total of 2500 square ft. So you could not build a 2200 square ft base and then go two stories up. Our ordinance would not allow for that. Um on the left these little paragraphs, the largest two-story house you could build in RS1 on the minimum 5,000t lot size is 1,250 ft. And so the classic like the average lot um house square footage in RS1 is about 2,000. And so you're not really giving people room in the classic RS1 to build a 2,000T home and make it two stories unless it's larger than 5,000 ft². Whereas on the RS4 on a 3500T lot, whenever you raise the FAR, you can build more square footage of house as it stands now than you can on a 5,000t RS1 lot. you can build 2600 square f feet of house as opposed to the 2500 square ft of house. Um, and so that's kind of how that's structured. Whereas in DHS, you only get 1,000 ft of buildable space, but you can you can move up. And so to to call into question how the floor area ratio is influencing what we're allowing in that area because in DHS that very bottom paragraph on the right the the biggest two-story house you could build with those proposed setbacks and floor

area ratio in the densing density housing subdivision is 800 square f feet. You can build an 800 ft base and put two stories on it. And so calling into question what floor area ratio will look like when we already have standing requirements for a two and a half story house kind of citywide. Um that's kind of what I'm trying to get at with this. That's what the different numbers mean. So I'd be happy to talk to anyone about that otherwise. Thank you so much.

And now I'm turned off. There we go. Um, I'm gonna let Austin move on to the LDSO.

Yeah, thank you. So, just as Ray's been talking about the updates to our zoning ordinance, I'm going to talk a little about about the updates to our LDSO, land development and subdivision ordinance. Um, for those of you who don't know, the land development subdivision ordinance is what people have to go through when they're subdividing, putting in um a new subdivision, and it mostly controls our infrastructure requirements. Uh, the purpose of this committee was to research and discuss potential changes to the city of St. Angelo's Land Development and Subdivision Ordinance, LDSO, as to promote affordability and consistency. And some of our goals, I have them spelled out up there, are to promote affordable development through revised standards relating to infrastructure requirements and design guidelines to simplify development through consistency within our ordinance and with other cities ordinances. And finally, as a result of those, is to hopefully promote affordable housing and infill as a product of affordable development. And so most of what this committee has been looking at is really two tables within our LDSO and I've included them here. This first one that you're looking at actually governs our road size requirements. The things that I've highlighted in yellow here today are those that have been discussed for the most part. Um although it's it's not limited to those. And we've mostly been looking at cutting down our widths required for our lower lower road classifications like local and minor collector. Um, and we've also looked at clean uh cleaning up some of the language like standard and minimum versus new and existing there. As I've strike through in red, I think like with our local streets, we've most recently landed on somewhere around 36 ft. Well, not requiring a sidewalk as it does up there or maybe like 32 feet. We've looked at um if there's an alleyway as to incentivize the placement of alleyways and we've also discussed um for instance reducing the amount of paving required for alleyways as well. But these are all still discussions that are ongoing. This next table is the one that actually controls our rideway widths for our roads um when subdividing. Uh we've cleaned up a little bit of the language there as well and striked out the local rural street as it wasn't really used that often. Um the committee has really

looked at majorly simplifying or making this table obsolete and instead of having like specific numerical values that you see there really is just to standardize and and go in and say the amount of rideway required is equal to the paving width plus 10 ft or something like that to simplify it for developers and to make sure that we have consistent uh consistent amounts of rideway. Um I think that's really all I had today. That's just a quick rundown on what we have been discussing, but we would love to hear if you guys have any thoughts or questions on this. I think we do have some committee members here today as well. So, uh, if they want to speak, I would invite you guys to open public comment if possible.

Anybody else have anything for Austin before that? So, I'll [clears throat] um open up public comment. I'd like to hear from uh anybody who wants to add some comments from the committee or otherwise you guys want to go into. So, Russell, you want or Rocky? Rocky. Okay. Good morning.

Morning, Rocky Templan. Single member district five. Uh, I want to thank the committee for these small committee groups that are working and seem to be very productive and, uh, we're coming up with some good things. Um I'm glad that the city council and the planning is looking at ways to reduce regulatory um to help affordable housing. Um the national study right now of a medium price home uh homeowner spends 38% of their income to buy that home. And so, and then the regulatory part on single family construction development, you spend between 25 and 40% of that home to put that subdivision in and build that house. On multifamily, you spend between 40 and 60%. And so, we do want the city to look at the minimum road widths, uh, rideways, paving on the alley, and of course, sidewalks. Uh we did think that the rightway was kind of immaterial that we should come up with a common number there. Uh because I'm sure at the planning y'all seen a lot of variances where somebody built too close to the curb and if you have property pins that are anywhere from 4 1/2 ft to 17 1/2 ft right away behind the curb, some of the builders or homeowners don't even know what they're doing. And so we just appreciate y'all looking at this. Thank you.

Thank you. Russell

Russell Gully with SKG and want to echo what Rocky said and it's been a pleasure to work with staff through this stuff. Um, kind of on the F. One thing we even talked about was just eliminating it all together because we have setbacks and we just let the setbacks mandate, you know, we've got setbacks and and the typically the two and a half story limitation. So just let that be it and and reduce or or really eliminate the F alto together. If if you can build within these setbacks, then you can build all you want to be able to build. So um development, you know, it's gotten very very expensive. You know, the cost of water, sewer, and streets, the paving is just gotten so expensive. So all these developers now are talking about how can we go narrower, narrower, narrower, and narrow. You know, they used to want to build 60, 70, 80 foot wide lots. Now they're saying, "How can I get down to a 45 foot wide lot to keep it affordable?" So, so some balance in there is is a good thing. So, thank you'all for considering all of this.

Thank you. And Shane,

good morning. How are y'all? Uh, yeah, this has been fun. Uh, talking about the industrialized housing and stuff. I mean, it's a Jerry Springer sometimes. Um, but uh I think getting smaller lots is very important. Um, I'll kind of I guess follow with what Russell said. Uh, I like getting rid of the FAR altogether. I mean, we have the the setbacks. We have the maximum stories. I think that's important. Um, it's been uh it's been really fun just trying to uh get all our opinions together and uh figure out how to make things more affordable. Uh, I think that's very important. And the industrialized housing, I mean, I I we've kind of talked about putting it a little more on building permits and stuff because I think as time goes on, I think we're going to have more and more walls delivered versus a framer building stick built homes and things. Um, we uh we have to get with the times, but we don't have to get with the times. We have to be ahead of them. Uh, and if we really want St. Angelo to grow, uh, we have to be a leader on these type of things. we can't continue to stay in the past and I think that's been a big comment for the Porsche planes and all of this stuff. Um, but I think this is a big step in doing that. So, uh, any comments that y'all have and just ideas, we are down to listen and cuss and discuss. So, we're we're excited about it and it's been fun. We definitely appreciate all the subcommittee's time and effort in this because I know it's not been easy and it's probably been a lot of hours put in. So, we we definitely appreciate that.

And then Eric or Blake, did either of you want to come up and talk? I know you're both on a committee. It's up to you. Eric,

Eric Von Rosenberg. Um really I mean if I said anything I would just be reiterating what these guys have already said. I think probably the one thing that I would hit on the most is uh the appreciation with the open forum that we've had so far within our group being able to talk to you guys as well. Um, like they said, affordability is it's a challenge right now and as a developer it's a big challenge and uh being able to go smaller on things, having more options like this is uh it's it's important I think for the future. Um to be able to provide a product that this town needs um uh this right here is is what is going to get us there. And um yeah, I mean being a part of the discussion that we're able to have from a builder developer and then to the city, you know, in the past that was a huge challenge and being able to sit in the same room right now and openly discuss and be on the same same side. Um obviously there's two sides there, but I think we all have the same goal and uh it's gone well, so we really appreciate it.

Thank y'all. Okay. Anybody else have anything to discuss on that or thoughts? I want to ask a question. This is my ignorance, but when Russell suggested eliminating the F [clears throat] requirement, I mean to me, common sense, this is, you know, building is not in my repertoire. But why do you even have that? If you have the setbacks and you have the the other requirements, what's the necessity for having that?

That was our question. [laughter] Um from a planning aspect uh you have to look at it from the top view down. Um open space is is a big deal. It helps mental health. Um parks are a big huge deal. That's most of the reason why apartments usually have a a pool, a park, you know, something like that. So to have a whole subdivision houses and nothing else, it open space is a is a thing that planners look at. And so really the the reason there is is just the the availability of an outdoor area. It does seem like though to your point um that with the other restrictions that are already in place that it sort of limits that without having an additional calculation that you've got to do whenever you're trying to build a house. So I think if you're limited on how far forward, how far back you can go and you're limited to two and a half stories. I mean kind of that that kind of sets itself, right?

It it certainly does. We just have to look at our ordinance. Uh, as everyone in here knows, our ordinance is is fairly old and so we want to make sure that if we what are the impacts if we were to eliminate it. Does that impact accessory structures? Does that impact the accessory apartments on properties? Uh, because you eliminate it then you that really touches every property in town, not just new properties. And so we just have to be aware of what are the unintended consequences if we were to eliminate it. I agree conceptually. I mean, you have setbacks. You had a height limit. Okay. So, can you not build out to those? And so, maybe that's where is it a lot coverage that makes more sense instead of a floor area ratio? But I think we will work through those things and bring uh some ideas back to the to the committee and those will of course come forward uh and see what makes sense. So, I think there are some opportunities there for us to continue to look into to see what works for our community. Also, just as maybe a fun note, I just did a teeny bit of math. And if we were to take the idea of abolishing floor area ratio, just for the sake of this conversation, to add some numbers to the 30 that are up there, um, is that if you were to take that buildable space and then only constrain it by the two and a half stories, you'd be looking at a floor area ratio of 110%. which I think those those numbers can have a connotation to people of I can build on 110% of my lot. That's so frightening. Um I think that one of the biggest ideas of floor area ratio is the conception that we have about the space we're building and the life quality we're perpetuating on the RS4 lot. If we did the same thing that would be 130%. And so I think that just calling into question where it is we want to fall on that. And if if you know having buildable space constrained by a height is how we want to structure it or it do we want to just amend floor area ratio

to find a Goldilock zone between 0.5 and 1.1. Right? So just just to kind of make those numbers comparable, what they're talking about would be a change of 60% or or more than doubling it. More than doubling the floor area ratio technically, just for like a talking point, but still having the same setbacks.

Yes. With all the same setbacks, if we just took those buildable spaces and then constrained it by the two and a half stories, that would be a more than doubling of the technical floor area ratio that we have. And then I know this is kind of hard to predict, but um are we do we have like a goal date for some of these things to actually take place or are we waiting for the comprehensive plan of update or what what's the goal of the city and the task force committees? So, we are looking at having a joint meeting. Um, I believe we said April 21st. Was that right, is what I have written down, Aaron?

Yeah, we're still looking at the early spring. So, whether that's March or April, having a joint planning commission, city council meeting. We're getting in front of city manager um to make sure that that time frame works. Uh really these are what we would call kind of band-aid fixes to our zoning ordinance. Uh but we want to bring these forward now because we know we have builders, developers that need this now. Then we can get be started on our comprehensive plan and then our goal at the end of the comprehensive plan is to put together a unified land development uh code that helps everybody move forward in a unified direction. Uh but we we need some of these changes now because affordability is now. It doesn't wait every day. It costs more for something whether that's labor, materials, land, infrastructure, it just does. And so we need these solutions to come forward uh to be adopted hopefully this early spring.

Okay. So in that joint meeting, if we if these items are discussed and both planning and um city council agree, then they'd be adopted immediately or would we have a do we have a waiting window? How does that work? It would that would be the first reading. We'd have the joint meeting. That'd be the first reading. Then it would go to a second reading the next council meeting. Then they would be adopted at that time. Okay. Well, again, thank you everyone for for your time and efforts on this. I think that this is going to be a huge step forward for the city and and really help with housing affordability for the citizens.

Yeah, thanks everybody for your [clears throat] time uh working on this. Could be a big deal. Um so with that, we'll open it up for Aaron to talk about comprehensive plan amendment.

Yes. I just want to get um get you guys kind of up to speed on the comprehensive plan process. Um we did a presentation back at uh last meeting with city council about um why this is just kind of the slide of the why we are for our community behind. And as you can tell today and as you've heard over the last couple of years, there are things that are changing in our community that we need to get that we need to plan for. Uh and so we're trying to do that. Number five is one of the biggest things that we've seen is that housing study from 2019 and 2025 that we need to incorporate into our long-term plans. Um not just try to find some small fixes, but let's actually incorporate that into our long-term plans. We know that economic development is key for our community and that it's it's what's going to drive us. We've been driven a lot by housing and that's not necessarily bad, but we have to get a better balance with commercial, industrial, and other types of economic development things that are coming uh that could come to our community. Um, one of our biggest challenges as a city government is infrastructure and public facilities. It costs a lot to maintain those and we need that to be congruent with our capital improvement program. Are we spending the right money in the right places to keep water lines, sewer lines, streets, those things functioning? Um, are we targeting our grant applications to read back to our capital improvement program? And are we just doing the shotgun effect? And well, we got some money over here, so we got to go chase that down. Well, that may not be economically feasible for us in 20 years. That may be very challenging. And so that's really what the comprehensive plan can help us do. So again, this is just kind of a graphic that I use for city council and and help you guys understand that our comprehensive plan, that is the plan. That's the top plan for the community

and for the city. But it's really communitydriven. It's the community vision. Uh it talks about future development. It's our policy program. How do we set our policies together? Whether it's in the capital improvement program, um whether it's in the parks program, it really sets our policies. Our future theafare plan. Well, we know we've been designated for interstates. Are we incorporating that into our policies and into our development? So, our policy p plans turn into those special area plans. I do see that we may end up with some neighborhood plans because we have neighborhoods that may need certain types of protections that are older and they don't have deed restrictions. And so are there things that we need to do as a planning commission as planners to help those keep their character and their heritage value and things like that? Technical plans, how we do our LDSO and what are the design standards for roadways and streets and storm waters, our corridor plans, what about Sherwood and Borugard, what about Main Street and Bell Street, those things. And then it goes into those implementation tools is that all right, here's all of our plans. It's all right, this is how we're going to budget as a city. This is where our capital improvements program is going to spend money. This is our municipal code that's going to allow development maybe more freely and in an easil easier way as well as the zoning ordinance. So [sighs] the comprehensive plan is a nonregulatory document focused on land use, transportation, community character, parks and recreation, and more. And so it is a non-regulatory document, but it gives us the guide of where we're headed for the next 20 to 30 years. Um, and again, it's really going to focus on a lot on our economic development, our transportation plans, our land use plans. It's where does this community has it come from? It sets us at a baseline and where are we headed? Um, it measures us both quantitatively and qualitatively. What is our quality of life? I think all of us in here would

say we have a very good high quality of life. We have surface water. We have amenities in our community. We have a safe community. And then qualitatively, what are we doing to keep that and continue to allow ourselves to grow? Um and then with this comprehensive plan update, it will probably point to us and say, well, these are the areas you need to go and seek some additional future funding ideas, whether it's with the state or the federal government or other opportunities. So again, you have that vision at the top. We have our guiding principles. We have our goals. Then we set our policies. And then the biggest thing that we have down there, it's the action plan, the implementation strategies. Not just we have this plan and it sounds great and everybody feels good about it. What are we as a community and city staff going to do to make it happen? Um the city council's strategic priorities are infrastructure, public safety, uh economic development and workforce. [clears throat] All of those things are going to be incorporated into our comprehensive plan into the capital plan improvement policies. The economic development uh priorities, fiscal stewardship, a lot of the stuff we talked about today is about fiscal stewardship. The more lots we have on a block, the more that infrastructure cost gets spread out. And that's something that every city needs to look at is in the future, are we going to be able to replace that street, water, and sewer line in 30 years or 40 years, whatever the timeline is. Are we going to be able to do a seal coat that we don't have to go and raise more debt or put property taxpayers in a higher property tax rate because we have to continue to maintain those things. So, we have to think about that. Um, also again, you're talking about the quality of life thing in St. Angelo. Why live and work in St. Angelo? Why do we have parks and trails and connectivity to amenities? How do we get the cultural district in the downtown to connect a little bit better now that we have a

great starting to be become a a thriving cultural area around our uh fine arts museum. So, those are the things that are going to come into the comprehensive plan. Uh we have been approved by city council to go out with the RFQ which is the request for qualifications to uh different uh folks out in the in the world that do comprehensive plans. Uh we are finishing that up this week to send that out uh to the public. What I am asking today is that someone on the planning commission sit on that uh review committee that would review those uh applications that come in. Those things will be reviewed by a committee, usually the top two or three. Then we would bring them in for inface interviews that we would sit down and then we would select our top one and then we would start negotiating the price and and get that going. We feel like that process will coincide with some of these changes that we're looking at. And so we're looking at doing that in the month of December, put out the RFQ, evaluate the first part of uh January, bring them in at the end of January, 1st of February, get back in front of city council saying we want company A for this price and then get started probably in March with our comprehensive plan update. So with that, I'll ask um any if you have any questions for me and then if y'all have if you'all want to have a discussion of who might like to sit on that review committee and then I [clears throat] force you with to see a lot of emails and you have to see me more and all that kind of fun stuff. So what's your desire chairman? [laughter] Um I I mean I would be interested in serving on it, but I roll off of uh planning commission in January. So um I don't know whe

needed, but somebody else may want to as well. Yeah. No, Katie, I think you'd be a great Yeah. representative if you're good with that. [snorts] I know Erin love that.

Absolutely. Any other questions about the comprehensive plan or our progress [snorts] or where we're at? I do again just want to say thank you to our city leadership for pushing this forward in this year's budget. I think they they worked really hard to find a way to make it work. Uh as well as our city council members that said this is important. Uh so I'm very excited that they they see that and believe that. And so we hope to have a a good product at the end of this and hopefully our community will continue to come out and talk to us and uh give us their opinions. We really want to know what the community says about our comprehensive plan because we have to tailor it to our community. We can't tailor it to somebody else's community. It's got to be what our people say that we want here in our community. So with that, I'll turn it back to you. All right. Thanks, Karen.

Thank you. All right. So, uh I think that wraps us up. Um unless Aaron, you have anything else on planning director's report? The only thing I have on the report is this week is our development task force. So, Wednesday, November 19th, right here in this room at 9:00 a.m. we do have a development task force meeting. Um so, our planning staff's going to kind of give a quick update on where they're at on some of their items. Um, and I think we also have uh folks from our neighborhood uh services team that's going to come and talk about some expanded infill areas uh for infill funding. And so that'll be this Wednesday, November 19th at 9:00 a.m. here in the East Mezzanine at city hall. Okay.

Thank you. Um, next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled to begin Monday, December 15th at 9:00 a.m. uh right here at the East Mezzanine and City Hall at 72 West College Avenue. So, with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion to second. All in favor say I. I. I.