Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission to order on Tuesday, 04/14/2026 at 6PM. May I have a roll call, please? Sure can.

William Magnum? Here. Randy Bryan? Michelle Brillison? Here. David Case? Here. Libby Costilla? Here. Mariah Dunn? Here. Allison Hardy? Here. Lucy Johnson? Here. Ronnie Van Nunekirkie? Here. We have a quorum.

Just for clarification, is that like an AI bot, Fireixer is taking notes? We can move forward. I've never seen that before, so I'm just clarifying.

I'd

like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting and ask that you please silence your cell phones. The commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All their inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The commission will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. This now brings us to our assistant comment period. Each speaker may speak once during assistant comment period and may not give their time to someone else. When it's your turn, please state your name. For the record, you'll have three minutes to speak. The timer will be green when you start. With twenty seconds left, it will turn yellow, and you'll hear a ping.

When your time is up, the timer will turn red, and a bell will ring. The commission will work to help keep meetings respectful and civil without personal attacks, profanity, intimidation, or threats of violence. Do we have anybody who wishes to speak in the chambers? Sir, could you please state your name? We have three minutes.

Good evening, commission. My name is Luke Spare. I wasn't really planning to speak tonight, but I just wanted to come out as a neighbor of Chepos. I live in that neighborhood in support of that. I know it looks like they're applying for their license for the first time, and I think that that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. I know, you know, that you have the North Of Campus area, which is kinda there, but you can't really walk there or bike there even with the bike lanes because of the hill. So it'd be nice to have somewhere that you can get a drink that is walking distance to the neighborhood on top of

the hill. So that's kind of

all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the chamber wish to speak? Do we have anybody online? Alright. Seeing none, bring us to our consent agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I'll second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Dunn, seconded

by Commissioner Burleson. Any further discussion on this item? Alright. Seeing none, roll call please.

Michelle Bullison? Aye. David Case? Aye. Rupee Castillo?

Aye.

Mariah Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson?

Aye.

Ronnie Van Odegirke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. The motion to approve carries.

Now bring us to our public hearing, item number two.

Receive a staff presentation, hold public hearing and discuss the 2027 Capital Improvement Program, CIP.

Sure, I may note Commissioner Brian's online. Oh, thank you.

Bear with us for a second here. It's new technology. We're trying to get it to work for us. And I appreciate it because I'm getting to the point where I need glasses. And I hate to admit that out loud, but this definitely helps me because I cannot read that thing.

Options. Don't Sean Condor, the Director of Engineering and Capital Improvements, and I'm here to give an overview of the ten year CIP. Next slide. So today, we're actually going to hold a public hearing and discussion about the FY 2027 CIP, the capital improvements program. Next slide. So as a reminder of folks, the capital improvements program is a long range plan and schedule for capital projects and system assets. It identifies workload for departments, it identifies funding needs for the city. We actually use it to identify funding or financing options for projects and it is a planning tool in which year one is approved in the budget and years two through 10 are placeholders for planning purposes. Next slide. So what is the capital improvements project?

It's a major capital project generally involves a significant expenditure of funds beyond operation and maintenance costs for planning, design, acquisitions or construction of a need to facility or infrastructure. Total projects should exceed $100,000 and be tied to a long term asset. Projects are typically identified in master plans, operation requests, council direction, or through citizen input. Next slide. So why master plan? They document the existing system, they document capacity issues, assessment of the existing system, and identify problem areas. It's really like a wellness visit. When you go to your doctor every year, you make sure things are working out, they can identify problem areas and focus areas. It's a wellness visit for the city and for the infrastructure. It's a planning tool to support future growth and provide regional solutions.

For the CIP, we use it to prioritize a list of projects to address gaps, deficiencies and critical route. It's used for providing estimates in the budget in the CIP. So those were those first round of dollar amounts they come from these master plans. On the operation and maintenance side, we use it to direct area of focus for maintenance. On the water wastewater side, supports impact fee assessments. On the electric storm and transportation side it's used to accommodate required improvements through new development when the impact reaches a certain level. Next slide. So there's a whole list of master plans that we maintain and most of these have been updated since about 2019. I think it's the oldest one. We have the comprehensive plan, the transportation master plan, the transit master plan, storm water master plan, water, wastewater, airport, electric, parks master plan, facilities and fire.

And I realized I'm missing the reclaim master plan. We just did one just got it posted on our website last month. The the match plans are really where you go to get an overview of the major improvements needed by the city. It all stems from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan which was approved last year, it kind of dictates where the growth of the city is going and where things need to be, and we use that for those other plans that tie to make sure the infrastructure is in place to accommodate those growth.

It's that comprehensive panel then tied to the area master plans or the area plans and the master plans which then generate capital improvements projects and permitting requirements and zoning code zoning code and design standards. Next slide. So just a refresher on the typical lifecycle projects, a simple project typically 200,000 to 1,000,000 and takes about three or four years to complete. A complex project is typically ranges from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 is about five to seven years. A very complex project is typically one over $10,000,000 and typically takes eight to ten plus years and that's all the way from scope, design, funding, construction until it's complete.

Just a few notes there, the last year for construction in the CIP is typically for construction. We always program best case scenario as challenges arise, we will delay the funding of the construction until the project is ready to go out for advertisement. Next slide. So for the FY 2027, CIP we're looking at about 10,100,000.0 for the general fund, 5.2 for the storm, 36,500,000.0 for the water wastewater reclaimed, as well as 9.1 for electric, total is 60,900,000.0. Next slide.

As far as the schedule goes, we are right here in the middle. We prepared the draft CIP in the fall. We presented this neighborhood commission in March. This is our second meeting to P and Z and we'll be back again at the next meeting and then we'll submit the draft CIP to council in May, go through the budget cycle, and then we'll submit a final CIP in August with the formal adoption occurring in September. Next slide. So, today we're going to hold the public hearing discussion. At the next meeting, we'll come back and ask for recommendation that will be then presented to council. Next slide. Just for clarification on what we're actually looking for. Is the project clear?

Is the project description clear? Are there any questions that we can clarify? Are there any high priority projects that we should focus on in the future? Are there any recommendations? Or keep in mind that recommendation to years two through 10 are less impactful to the ten year CFE than request to year one projects. We're not seeking input on the budget. We're not seeking input on balancing workload. Just be aware, if there's request to move up projects something of equivalent must be moved out. And another point I do want to make, we're not asking you to take the projects in the ten year speed and narrow it down to list the Smith Ford. We've already done that.

We gave you our recommendation. We're just asking for input on those projects we're presenting forward. Next slide. This is the recommendation we got from last year and it was basically the simply just recommendation to city council to approve the ten year CEPI with no amendments. Next slide. And for those who want to locate the CEPI, you can get on our website. We got a QR code. If you like the hard copy, we keep going at the library as well as engineering office. And I believe, next slide, that might be it. Yep. So I'll pause there.

Do

we have any questions? Yes, sir. Commissioner Agnew.

Yeah, I've got a quick it looks a little embarrassing because I believe I

asked you this last year.

One second. This is a public hearing, so we need make sure we have that before discussion.

I apologize. Shut up. Well, we open the public hearing. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this permit at this time? In the chambers? Anybody online?

It's not a permit.

It's a presentation.

But I

was just told it's a public hearing.

Is agenda is a public hearing.

There's no action. You're not

doing any action, but it's still a public hearing. So we have to open it, allow folks to speak, and then you can close it.

Okay. So I wasn't on the right track. Asking anybody in the chambers, they'd like to thank you. Anybody in the chambers wish to speak at this time? Do we have anybody online who wishes to speak? Alright, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have any questions from yes sir, Commissioner Agnew.

Yeah. So I asked you this last year, Sean, and it's kind of embarrassing because I guess it didn't take. I think you probably gave me a good answer, but it didn't stay in my mind. I've never fully understood what funded means or fund means in the context of the CIP. And maybe the best way for me to ask you this is in terms of a specific project, which in this case it's project ID 771 or two, I'm not sure, The Whisper Location Fire Station.

Fire Station Number 7 At Whisper. The first previously funded $2,000,000 Okay. What does that actually mean?

$2,000,000 was listed in the previous CIPs and was approved through the CIP.

Approved? Yes. Okay, that's simple. Okay, approved.

Think we talked about probably tweaking that verbiage to be a little bit clear as well now that you say that.

Okay, but this it's been in an approved budget is what we're saying.

Yeah, approved in a previous CIP, yes.

Okay, now the $20.27 amount is what's going to be in this year's would That's be approved in this year's budget if everything stays like it is.

Correct. Correct.

And the $20.29 amount we're not taking any action on at this point.

Yeah, those are placeholders and those will most likely change in the future.

I guess one of the questions I've had, and particularly in this case, you've got $10,000,000 bond election at the end of this. How much of this well, I guess we've got $3,500,000 prior to that, that we're showing. How much, if any, that will we be spending prior to the bond election? Because we really don't know that the bond election is going to pay us. That's what worries me.

That's correct. Yeah. The money approved are basically used to prepare design. And so if it's a there's right away that's needed or acquisitions or design, that's what that funding is used for. If the bond elect you're right, bond election may not pass. The that's why we want be careful about spending too much too soon, especially on some projects that might be fire station we haven't we know there's need. There's some let's go let's pick on parks. Those might have a lot higher public influence versus the fire station. You have certain public safety needs you have to meet, which might be a little bit harder to if the bond didn't pass, I would envision that would come once that three year period expires, it's come back and have to be funded another way.

Okay. So some of that money will be spent before Yeah. Outcome of funding?

Yes, yes.

Okay. That's actually all I had there. If you tell me funding means approved, it all gets pretty easy. Yes. Okay.

Yes.

I had a couple of, I hope, pretty quick questions on some specific projects. Okay. Blanco Gardens underground. Okay. I'm assuming this is not going to involve tearing up any streets because I would have thought if that were the case, we would have done this back when we were doing the Blanco Gardens flood mitigation project.

Yeah. When we did the flood mitigation, we address the underground with those. These are locations that are outside those streets.

Okay. Okay. So no streets are going be torn up this part?

No no streets that were previously torn up.

Okay. Okay. I understand. Okay. Hopkins Street improvements project from Moore to Guadalupe.

To me, the biggest problem with that stretch of road, if you're going east, is it's two lane from Moore to, I guess, Guadalupe. Because that seems to me to create a bottleneck at certain times a day that backs way up on Hopkins way beyond Moore. But is there anything in this project that's going to make that more than two lanes? Because I really don't know quite how you could do that physically.

Yes, no, you couldn't do that. It's we've already done a preliminary injury report on that and I'd glad to share that with you as far as preliminary schematic that was done I think about a year or two ago. But what I recall, it's not adding additional lane capacity. There's just not enough space to do it.

Yeah, that's what, okay. Yeah. Okay, that's all I had on that. Police evidence storage building, and I'm probably being very naive here, but $2,300,000 for a storage building seems like a lot of money. Is this actually going to involve more than just storage, this building? Or is it just that's what it costs nowadays to build a 505,000 square foot storage facility?

Yes. It's my understanding we're going to build a new facility back behind the police station. We've exceeded the space of our current facility and there are certain rules in place that laws that we have are obligated to follow and this is what the police department submitted as far as what they need to address those concerns.

Okay, okay. Riverfront parks improvements, 5,500,000 in total. I guess my only comment on that is I think our riverfront parks are great And I'm wondering what we think needs to be improved, what significant improvements we think need to be made to.

All right. So let me pull that one up. The what was it called?

I'm sorry.

What was the name of the project?

Riverfront improvements.

Okay.

Let me go. Sorry, it's not following up.

It's number four forty nine is the project.

I tried to be technically savvy not for an old bunch of hard copies and it's killing me. Okay, River Park front there, see it now. Yes, so we're doing there is that's just enough to get some designs done so that we could put forward a bond election. So we have 5,000,000. We We don't know if it's going to cost $5,000,000 So that $500,000 is going to do is get us planned far enough that we can actually come with a good dollar amount. In the future CFPs, we're going fine tune that number to reflect truly what the cost estimate will be. At this time, we estimate $5,000,000 but those designs will give us a better number in the future.

But we don't know specifically what kind of projects we're talking about?

That's what will come out with that master plan. So that 500,000,000 is they have a master plan and they're fine tuning the details of it. And what it will get as far as the the you're showing 5,000,000?

Okay.

Yeah. So the 500, think of it as as a design. We're gonna take it to the next step. You know, we have the the master plan that was done last year. Our parks department is gonna take that and start generating some projects after that and have a a detailed design. And I remember I I have schematic in my head that I remember the parks department sharing with us that shows those improvements. But we anticipate 5,000,000 at the time at at this moment. So I don't if that answers your question. I feel like I'm all over

the No, place

not really. But it sounds like there really isn't a specific answer.

Yeah, because we don't have the design finalized.

Yeah. I was just surprised to see us doing anything that significant with the parks. As I said, I think they're great as they are. And I hope that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I mean, all positive. But anyway.

Gotcha.

Another question, and this is on Wallace edition. This would be, I guess, the on-site project, not the off-site.

Okay, the neighborhood?

ID 525. A sense at the very end says additional funding is required to replace water and wastewater lines, etcetera. Are we talking about additional funding to what's already here? Or is the amount we're looking at, is that the additional funding?

The amount we're looking at is the additional money at this time.

Okay. That's kind of what I hope. Okay. That's all I've got. You, Sean. Sure. Okay. Yes. Ma'am,

Commissioner Dunn.

Thank you. Sean, question. So kind of on the same lines with Commissioner Agnew, but Okay. For project item seven thirty two, the animal shelter, so question. It has ranked it's ranked at an eight, meaning and I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. It's met its life cycle, like the project itself. It's like about to RIP.

Yes. It's exceeded the capacity. It's been identified as as end of the life. That's the facility needs to be improved. Mhmm. And so we need we know we need to do something. Mhmm. The challenge is its location is not ideal.

Right. It's it's

in the middle of the flood plain. And so what we're doing is we're gonna do a study a facility assessment, if you will. How big does the facility need to be? Now it gives a footprint of let's say we need three acres or four acres. Then we can identify if we have any city land that we could use to do that facility or if we gotta pursue it or purchase something somewhere else.

But, so on that topic though it being in a flood plain which is a it's a pretty big deal we are the regional shelter for Hays County so is that also playing a part in the sense of urgency for a bigger facility dealing with the situation that we're dealing with the overcapacity and

I'm going to speak for the Neighborhood Enhancement Department on that since it's their project. But yeah, they believe that was one of the driving factors. And I believe it's slowed down a little bit. I think they're vastly still to take on some capacity from the short duration. So that is a driving factor. But I think we need that dust to settle as far as the regional or is it going to stay regional facility? Are they going do their own thing? I think we're still working through those questions.

So that will determine where we build our new

Yeah, where we land, what the footprint, all that good stuff is. So how big the facility needs to be because obviously if it's not if it doesn't serve the regional purpose in the future, then it doesn't need to be as big. It can be smaller.

Okay. So again, so I'm understanding this. It was previously funded 265,000.

Yep.

Okay. And then, so projecting 2,031 to do something 500,000?

Yeah. So we're going to take that $2.65 that was previously done and do that facility assessment. Then it's just really because of that regional situation where it got delays, not as big of a deal. We think we can delay the construction until the bond election essentially. It's a bond election project, it boils down to. So the bond election at the previous meeting we talked about, it's probably going be a 2032 bond election at the soonest. And so that's kinda why we tied the extra 500 to 2031 because until we know the bond election is gonna fall forward, we don't wanna spend any more money on that particular project.

So are y'all working with county on this seeing the regional situation?

Another department, the parks department and they just lost their director. Moved to Arizona. Wonderful. So but I think I probably need to ask someone else that question to answer that specifically.

Okay. So last question on that. So obviously we know that this has been a pretty big issue with the overcapacity. The now I mean, today or yesterday was the first day that they just put out their new euthanasia list of, like, eight babies on there. And usually around springtime is when unfortunately this kicks up and then we're all summer long dealing with it.

And granted, I mean, I know that I know we have no money to begin with, so I know it's silly to ask but seeing that there's so many other moving factors on this sense of urgency with it being in a flood plain and with it being a regional issue, people trying to figure out if Kyle's going get their own, Butte's gonna get their own, if we're still gonna be the hub for it, is 2032 really feasible? I mean

As of now, they can make it work with what they have. Okay. But as far as it's very possible next year we have to accelerate something up because of situations happen. And so but for now, they can make it work with what they got. We just don't wanna expend any improvements on that site is the big thing.

Gotcha.

But I know it's it's an ongoing conversation. I feel like it changes every time I hear the neighborhood enhancements discuss it. But it's definitely I can get back with the animal shelter folks and get some better details as far as what's driving their schedule. It's my understanding that it's not as critical as it used to be, that's why we bumped it out to 2,031.

Well, what I have a question is, especially now that we're getting into the hot summertime or, you know, hot heat, I mean, that I don't see how that is feasible. I mean, it is unbearable in there. I mean, I don't Mhmm. See how we don't have more unfortunate situations with how hot it gets. And, I mean, and those fans can only do so much with the capacity than being at full, which is pop up crates and any little crevice that they can put them in. So does is that a part of when you talk about life expectancy of the building, the construction, is that taken into account?

The as far as how I guess, it ranks, if you will?

Well, like, AC. There's, like, no AC in, Sallie Port.

Comes from the the neighborhood enhancement department. They're the ones that dictate. They tell us how critical it is. Does it need to go? Yes or no? And as far as comparing to other projects, the issue you have there is that the $5,000,000 project that we feel should be a bond project because we have $10,000,000 for the general fund as a whole. And so if you move that facility up, something's got to go and there's a lot of bigger neighborhood enhanced or neighborhood projects that are pretty critical that we've already have in motion. And so I think what you're trying what I'm trying to hear or hearing is how critical is that? How how long can it really last?

Yeah.

And are we accounting for these situations? And I got to go back to neighborhood enhancements and ask those questions.

I

appreciate that. Mhmm. Thank you.

Done. Commissioner Costilla?

Hi, John. How's it going? Oh, I'm okay. Trying to see how I'm going to go around this. I'm on my last year here. Okay? K. So I won't be addressing what I have continuously addressed every year, the Wallace edition, and I think you know that. And some people have already asked me in some things in regards to that. And I've tried to answer provide an answer as accurately as I possibly can.

Could you just kind of give me a synopsis as to where we are with this Wallace edition and where we started? I know that when I first got on here, was an item that was under designated as a bond election. And it was then changed over to the designation was to be addressed other than the bond election. So I was looking at the information you gave us the last Yeah. Time we were And regarding the amounts that are here. And I know that right now, a few minutes, you were outlining that anything over 10,000,000 will take about ten years. Okay? Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. So I haven't said that, and I'm thinking back to when I first saw this item and where we are now almost six years into. So how much time before this project more time than where we're at right now and what has already passed before this project? I know there are some barriers there as to what's holding up some things are. But, you know, I just I'm going to and I'm not trying to be a conflictual hero or discriminatory or critical.

It's just that this neighborhood has been so neglected for so many years. I'm just saying that as honestly as I can. So when is this project? When can these people, at some point in time, say within the next two years, within the next three years, within the next five years? How can I tell these people that within what time period they will have what needs to be addressed in that area?

Sure.

So as the last presentation is probably the better one to talk through all these So I'm gonna, I don't have that exhibit. The exhibit's the good, you know, the map that I think you have in front of you. But I'll just say this. The Wallace Edition project started several years back as a water wastewater project, utilities only. We had a public meeting with the residents and they said, hey, we have drainage issues too, not just water water.

So we stopped the project, went back into the drainage analysis and confirmed what we heard. We also found out that the volume of water going through that neighborhood is a lot and to the tune of, I think it's maybe the channel on Cape Road, how wide that is. We're going make that wider. And then if you look at the fish hatchery site, we're actually going to cut in a box culvert through the fish hatchery site. And I believe it's maybe like a four by four or four by five box, pretty big box culvert.

So the way that neighborhood drains, if you think everything off 123 is trying to get to the river, what's in the middle, the neighborhood, right. So what we're doing due to our financial constraints is we're gonna capture that water before it goes on the before it hits the neighborhood and route it around the neighborhood. Okay? Through the fish factory site around Cape Road. Where it outfalls at the pond right there, the county has a project.

They're doing the Capes Park Pond project. We are outfalling on that site with the county. We could not finalize our design until we got the clearance of the county and what they're doing on their project. So we've got that cleared through the county last year. We have the space easement, if you will, laid out that we need. So we've crossed that hurdle. The next hurdle is getting through the fish hatchery site is we have to get them to approve the easement. Now we've talked to the fish hatchery site. They have signed off on it. But there's a bunch of steps because they're state agency they got to make us go through that are above and beyond what you typically need to get an easement.

So we're going through those processes. We feel confident that we should have that easement probably the next six months or so would be my guess. The because the cost is so big, we had to break it up into two phases. So initially it was the neighborhood and off-site, now it's going to be the neighborhood off-site to the fish factory and offset on Cape Road. And the reason that is because we got more grant funding.

The Cape Road, remember the channel we're talking about, well, we know that there needs to be a shared use path. We apply for a grant, we got a grant for a shared use path. So not only are we making drainage improvements, we're going to add a shared use path along Cape Road. We got a little over 2,000,000 in federal money, but again when you add those components it adds time. So now that we've got this going, that project will be a little bit behind the fish hatchery site.

The fish hatchery site we hope to start construction over the next six to twelve months is the idea. I will tell you this, we're applying for a grant for construction dollars. We just do not have enough money to do all these projects that everybody wants at one time. And so we have to pursue alternative funding. And so we are identifying neighborhoods that have grant funding capabilities and this is a good neighborhood that we can get a lot of grants for. And so we're pursuing that. We're still moving along. So we're so go to your initial question, when will it start and be done? The off-site project on the fish hatchery side, we're hoping to start construction next six to twelve months. It typically takes eighteen to twenty four to do a project like that.

The Cape Road side, it's got some federal money in. It should start, I believe, it's in 2027 or 2027, 2028, depends on what we get to the textile because textile has a whole environmental clearance process we gotta go through. Then once those two projects are done, then we can do that stuff in the middle of the neighborhood. And really, because we're routing so much of the water around the neighborhood, the improvements are made are just basically putting trunk line up the middle neighborhood on Lucy and the Flores. So the drainage improvements are not that intensive on the actual neighborhood product itself because we're wrapping around the drainage around it.

And so that'll probably be $20.29, 2,030 for the actual improvements on the neighborhood are done. So that's the story as of today. I'd be glad if if it helps you to meet with you and walk you through it in in greater detail. I can pull that exhibit and walk you up and use some some greater detail. But I can assure you the project is moving forward. The funding has been identified and it's not going to get put on the shelf and just shelved.

Thank you, Sean. I really appreciate you outlining what you just did. And I understand the funding process. I really do. It's just that I hope that some of our city council members are listening to this and listening to the fact that this area, once again, prior to my even coming here, I didn't realize I know that we had a flood in 2015.

I mean, I experienced that flood. We have not had the issues of flooding. That's not to say that it's not going to come because we never know. So I'm just going to say it again that I hope whatever whoever's listening out there from our elected officials that they really look at this because this is not something that should just be well, know, we don't have the funding. We're looking for funding.

We're looking for grants and whatever. And that's all fine and dandy. The fact of the matter is is that this area has been neglected for a long, long, long time. And it needs to be addressed. And at some point in time, whether you know, we're looking at when you're saying twenty nine or thirty, I mean, you know, that's three, four, four years from now.

And I hope that we do reach a point in time to where it's completed. But I'm not gonna hold my breath on that. I really am not. Because like I said, I do understand the funding process, but we get people elected to address some things that need to be addressed, and it's long time incoming that that particular project needs to be addressed. And I'm just gonna leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any yes.

Yeah. Thanks.

First, Sean, I wanted to thank you so much for meeting with me and commissioner Van Odekirky last week to go over parts of the CIP and really take a deep dive into water and wastewater and storm drainage. It was really important for me to better understand the the system as a whole before I could make recommendations. That being said, I wanna look into what you're asking for and what you're not asking for. In terms of clarification, there were particularly on the communities, and we went over this last weekend, but for the public and the rest of the commission to understand. On Sunset Acres and Blanco Gardens and the Wallace edition, whenever there's a a slot for community improvements, it's not broken down into what those improvements are on the original document.

So it would be nice to be able to see those. Even if it's not a line by line, have that in a bracket somewhere to talk that that includes sidewalks, that includes curb improvements, that that includes some landscaping, just so that council members, when going over this next month, can understand what those improvements are. Secondly, I think it's important for this commission to remember that even though staff can't change the budget that they've been given by council, we can certainly recommend something different. And I'd like us to consider for next time to consider not only projects that are certainly in danger of flooding, particularly Lenco Gardens and the Wallace edition, which we discussed at length last week, were of particular danger on the East Side Of I-thirty 5 to flooding in the next rain event that we have. But also, that it could be our place to recommend additional funding sources since we're recommending additional dollars if we decide to do that.

And one of those things would be impact fees, which city of San Marcos has not increased, I believe, in multiple years despite the fact that they've increased things like water rates and city taxes. So we're not we're gonna be making a recommendation next meeting, but I would love it if y'all chewed on those things that the recommendations we give do not have to reflect the constraints that staff would be under.

Very true.

That's it.

Any further questions? All right. Thank you, sir. We look forward to the next time.

And I'll just you can hear a little volume coming out of this TV out if Dan is still paying attention.

Brings us to item number three.

CUP twenty six zero seven North Street Curry Shop. Hold the public hearing and consider a request by Chase Katz on behalf of North Street Curry Shop for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of beer and wine located at 216 North Street.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, chair commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planer. North Street Curry Shop is located on North Street, just south of the intersection of West Hutchinson Street. Next slide, please. The business was approved for approved for the restaurant CUP in 2016, and it did not become active until

in

We're new seeing a

new

the

city of York Department. Next slide. Staff use San Marcos element code section two eight three four and five one five five when reviewing the case, and this analysis was found in your staff reports. Next slide. Next slide.

This is the existing site plan. Just noting that there are 37 notices were mailed out to surrounding property owners and one sign placed on the property. Next slide. Staff recommends approval of CUP twenty six zero seven with the following conditions, with one amendment to condition number one to state the permit should be valid for three years and shall expire on 04/14/2029, provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified sound, background sound, and or acoustic music shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 10PM Sunday through Thursday and 11PM Friday through Saturday.

The occupancy was required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within a 100 feet of an exit, land development code section five one five five two d, and the permit should be posted in the same manner as the certificate of occupancy. That does conclude my presentation, and the owner should be here for any questions or comments. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. At this time, the applicant may come to the podium to speak in favor of your permit. And please just state your name and address. We have three minutes.

Chase Katz, 225 North Comanche. Comanche. I'm just here to answer any questions should the commission have any. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Mr. Katz. Anyone else in the chamber's wish to speak? Do have anybody online? We'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CEP 20 six-seven with staff recommendations.

I'll second.

You're going to test me on this one. Motion to approve by Commissioner Dennis, second by Commissioner Van Odekirke with staff recommendations. Any further discussion on this item? Sir. Commissioner Agnew.

Yeah, I do have two questions. Parking required, in a case like this where the parking requirement is being met with shared parking spaces. Spaces?

Yes,

sir. And I'm assuming in this case it's shared with Zellix. Is that correct? Is that the shared parking?

That is correct.

Do we we know that this the North Street curry shop requires 28 spaces. When we determine whether the shared spaces are adequate or not, do we combine the this establishment's requirement with Zellix and compare the total of those to the spaces that's available?

Typically when looking at shared parking, we're looking to make sure that there's an adequate amount of spaces for both businesses during their operation hours? So if there's staggered hours, there's usually available spaces for one business?

But it's not as simple a mathematic thing as I was it's not like North three Curry Shop is 28 spaces and Zellix is 30. So you add them together and it's 58. That's not how we do it. I mean, it's not that specific. That's okay. I was just really curious.

For new projects, it is typically just the mathematics of do we have enough spaces for both. And then we can also take into account the hours of operation of a business close.

I understand. That makes sense.

For Xellix, I have not done the addition for this case to see if we've met for both

businesses. Okay. Also,

and I'm sure this is okay, but the proposed use is not within 300 feet of a church. And it's pretty close to the Presbyterian Church. But is this one of these door to door things and on that basis it's okay?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Okay. That's all I got.

Yes, sir.

Any further questions?

I do want to just clarify one thing. So the parking, there hasn't been any problems from the police department or anybody complaining about parking, right? That hasn't been an issue?

Not directed to the planning staff.

Okay.

Thank you. Any further questions or remarks?

All

right. Seeing none, roll call please.

David Case. Aye. Libby Costilla. Aye. Brian Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Ronnie Van Derdegerke. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. Michelle Brillison. Aye.

The motion to approve carries. You. Item number four.

CUP2610 Cepos hold a public hearing request by Mary Cruz Alvarado on behalf of Chepos for a conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 1400 Old Branch With 12.

We will open a public hearing.

Good evening commissioners. Caitlin Buck with planning and development services. The subject property is approximately a quarter of an acre and is located on the Northwest Corner of Old Ranch Road 12 and Holland Street. Chepos has operated as a restaurant at this location since 2013. Surrounding uses include single family residential, a cemetery, and Texas State University.

The subject property is zoned community commercial and is surrounded by mixed use to the North and South, public institutional to the East, and community commercial to the West. The existing hours of operation are from 7AM to 2PM, Tuesday through Sunday, closed on Mondays. The applicant is proposing to extend those hours to 9PM. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five of the land development code. Next slide, please.

This is the existing site plan and floor plan. There is currently no outdoor seating on this establishment. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire on 04/14/2027 provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified sound, background sound, and or acoustic sound shall be permitted.

The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit, LDC section five one five five E two D. The business shall not pursue or hold a TABC late hours permit. The occupancy is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels, and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Staff has received and provided to the commission two comments regarding this case. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. If the applicant is here, would you like to speak in favor of your permit at this time? If you would just please state your name and address, and we have three minutes.

My name is Willie Garza. I represent Chepos. This is miss Maricruz Alvarado. She is the owner of Chepos. And it is her request to get a alcoholic license, beverage license. And so they are located at 1400 Old Rancho 12 in Holland Street. They've been there for actually fifteen years from 2011 is when they got there. And so they serve some rich food, obviously, and some of you all already know. And so I'd just like to see if we can proceed with this to help her get the permit that she requires.

Thank you very much, sir. Do we have anybody else in the chamber that wishes to speak? Do you have anybody online?

No, chair. I don't believe they're online.

Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second that.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Costilla. Any further discussion on this item?

Fantastic. Yes. Female I

don't think anybody's upset about this

one. No. No. I just wanted to know, is this because they never had one that we're going one year only?

Male Yes, this is their first time.

Female Okay. That's fine. That's my question.

Male But I do have one question. The sign's been on that door for like six or seven why has there been a notice on the door for so long before the permit?

He's really tired about driving by that place and seeing that notice. I think your wishes are about to be fulfilled.

That's not important.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Johnson.

Thanks.

This is not a comment for but for staff. Just for the next CUP meeting, and I I brought this up at the last meeting, but it seems like staying in conformity with the fire code should just be, like, an automatic requirement for keeping your CUP and should not come down to, like, a special staff recommendation that we would have to prove individually. It seems like the committee should consider making that standard.

Are you saying standard that is just known or standard that needs to be put on on their CUP on the wall?

No. Simply that it should be requirement for every CUP holder to maintain their building and their structure up to fire code, that it should not have to be a specialized staff recommendation. Listed on here.

Is this a specialized staff recommendation? She needs to know the background.

Female No.

Female And this might have been discussed at the last meeting, but it was a recommendation from our CEP committee that has a few P and C members and counsel and they directed us to include this. To answer your question, it's not a specialized. All businesses have to follow the fire code and the occupancy rules. And I think the intent of the committee was to reiterate, but I don't want to speak on behalf of the committee. So, if there are committee members here, you want to provide some context, but that's kind of where it came from.

Okay. Because it was not a requirement on all of the CUP recommendations for other businesses. Yes,

this is a new request. We just received approval of that matrix, I believe, in the February meeting or so. I have to check which one it was. And so you're starting to see some of these be implemented and rolled out, and so they'll be standard conditions, which we were directed by the committee to do.

Commissioner Agnew?

Yeah, just I'm on that CUP committee as is Commissioner Burleson. And my understanding is that on this and a few others like the requirement to clean keep your area clean within 100 feet of your business and so forth, all of which are I think required by the land development code or somewhere in our code. But the reason for putting them on the CUP is because the CUP has to be posted in a prominent place somewhere in the establishment. And the idea of listing these there was so employees would see them and customers would know what the requirements are. I think this is kind of what Sam McGarry, when he used our city attorney used to refer to as build and suspenders, I guess, when he used to be at our meetings.

And we realize it's redundant, but there's a

There's a need.

The reason is so it's visible to employees and visible to customers.

I think it's mainly because you might the owner knows the rules and regulations, but you might have a manager there at night that has no clue to what the rules and regulations are or what you should be abiding by. So that's the purpose of having the permit posted, and then that way no one can come back and tell Claudia or somebody, oh, we didn't know. We had no idea. Yes, you do. It's posted.

And it just keeps everybody on the same page with everything that they're supposed to be doing. Their managers and everyone else, it's anyone that came in, like if Claudia got there, their occupancy has to be listed. Everything has to be posted so that if PD or, you know, code compliance or anyone goes in, there's never confusion about what should be happening that's the main reason because we were getting a lot of feedback that we don't know like Claudia's having to go to establishments two and three times or more to try to make contact so that the owner can let their managers know what's happening, all that's ridiculous. It just needs to be posted.

Yes. And to be clear, I'm not against that. Just and it sounds like the CUP committee has already voted on this is just to include these recommendations, are right now pulled out for specific approval, to fold them in to just becoming a regular requirement for the CUP so that when we're voting on specific recommendations, they're tied to that business. And we're not

I love where you're going with this. I've doing been it for a year. Okay. It's the CEP committee. They they've been put together. They put together a matrix. Uh-huh. And that that's what they're going off of. That's what staff is going off as the matrix in the CEP committee. It's made up of council members and planning and zoning commissioners and some other people as well that I'm not sure of, but that's just where we are. And that's kinda like how it is.

Yeah. Maybe I should have restated this. When will these recommendations that are right now voted on as an addendum to the approval be included in the actual ordinance and requirements under the ordinance for CUPs?

Second to pull open the matrix itself, which is in the packet now for each item. A few of those pieces are being hard coded into the development code, which is like the sound and the background noise, and those are actually being considered by city council at the April 21 meeting. But to your point, the particular provision regarding the occupancy and that statement is not something that's in the development code nor is it currently proposed. So that could be a recommendation by counsel to, you know, require in the code that that be something that's placed on every CUP. As of right now, we don't have that direction to hard code it.

And so I think that that could be a way, I think, to maybe make the connection between what you're suggesting or I suppose not, if you didn't want it to

be hard coded. Would counsel need or would counsel like that recommendation from PNZ, or could staff post that directly to counsel?

I can't speak for counsel, but we could certainly bring this up. We do actually have a few other recommendations from the CUP committee that are we're pulling out at that April 21 meeting related to some of their recommendations on CUPs. So we could potentially bring it up that that was a discussion at this meeting and let counsel make that decision on whether they want to hard code it. But I'm not quite sure because I don't have the direction on it. Okay.

Commissioner Agnew? Yeah. Andrea, on the fire code thing, that's not in the land development code, but it is somewhere in our code of ordinances. Right?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. Let's get back to the fun stuff. We got an approval up here. Any further discussion on this item? All right. Stand down. Roll call, please.

Libby Castillo. Aye. Maria Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Brandi Van Udegerke. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Brian.

Aye.

Michelle Brolison. Aye. David Case. Aye. The motion to approve carries.

Thank you. This is item number five.

CUP2612 Sylvia Pizza hold the hearing and consider a request by Greg Zepeda on behalf of Sylvia Pizza for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of beer and wine located at 316 North Eberugary Street, Suite D.

We will open public hearing.

Good evening, chair. Good evening, commissioners. Craig Garrison, Planner. Sylvia Pizza is located in a multisuite retail space at the Southeast corner of North Edward Garry Street and University Drive. The business has held a restaurant CUP since 2025.

Surrounding uses include restaurants, retail services, offices, and Texas State University to the North. The existing zoning is Character District 5 D downtown. The hours of operation are Wednesday through Thursday, 04:30 to 9PM, Friday, 11AM to 9PM, Saturday, 1PM to 9PM, and Sunday, 1PM to 8PM. The CP expiration date is May 27, and there are no concerns from code compliance or the San Marcos Police Department. Staff has used San Marcos development code section two eight three four and five one five five when reviewing the case, and this analysis is found in your staff report.

This is the existing site plan. This is the existing floor plan with speakers shown in yellow. For notifications, there are 29 notices that were mailed to surrounding properties and two posted signs on the property. And staff recommends approval of c p twenty six twelve of the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire 05/27/2029, provided standards are met.

The business is responsible for cleaning the area within a 100 feet of any exit. Land development code section five one five five e 2 d. The occupancy is required to remain compliant with fire with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels, and the permit should be posted in the same area and manner as certificate of occupancy. That does conclude my presentation. I do not believe the applicant is here. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody in the chambers wish to speak? Do you have anybody online? Alright. We'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CEP 20 six-twelve with staff recommendations.

I'll second.

A motion approved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Any further questions on this item? Yes, sir. Commissioner Agnew?

Craig, could you put the recommendation slide up again, please? Or whoever does it. This will be familiar to you. You heard this this morning. But I'll wait till it's up there. Condition three, I mean, as written doesn't really make any sense. The occupancy is required to remain compliant with a fire code is not really correct. I'm sure that's intended to be the occupant. And I know that we talked about this this morning. I thought it would be changed. But I mean, that just is not the right word, I don't think, for what you want. It should be the occupant. And can we do that without me making a motion to amend? I mean, that's just kind of a edit, is it Staff

can recommend that the condition number three read the occupant. I

want to speak to that a little bit. The term occupancy is a building and fire code term. And so, you know, we we received this language through the CEP committee process from our fire marshal, and this was his recommended language. And so we don't actually mean occupant. We mean the occupancy, meaning how many people you can have in a space. So for example, when you came into the chambers just now, you'll see an occupancy sign that tells you how many people are allowed to be in this space for it to be safe. So that's what we mean by occupancy. Would not have guessed that.

Yes. I think maybe the way it's worded, I mean, when you say the I think it could be worded better. Mean, at the

Maybe the IMC level?

If we back The up one reason I say back up

one Or maximum second occupancy.

If we could just one second, though. We just approved one with that specific the exact same wording under CHEPO's.

Was it worded that way? I missed it on that one. I'm sorry. But I think someone who's not in the fire code business doesn't know what you're talking I mean, understand what you're saying, but none of us probably know that occupancy is used that way in that context.

It's a bit of a technical term, but it's all businesses receive a certificate of occupancy. And so that's something that's a building term.

Yeah. It's like, Commissioner, said occupancy level is really what we're talking about here, not the applicant, is what I thought we were talking about, was that the applicant has to remain compliant with the fire code.

And we're not going to use this to hold up the approval. This is just for future, right? I mean, because you're right, we did

No, wouldn't want to hold up. If we could just make that worded a little differently and just consider an edit that doesn't affect the approval of this, that would be fine. Me. If we just want to do it prospectively, that's fine with me. I mean, I think Andreas convinced me this actually does make sense if you know how people talk in that world.

But so I don't know. I guess maybe I'll just drop it right now and we can consider whether we want to do something worded differently in the future. I don't think the normal person would understand that. I guess I may not be a normal person, but I don't think most people would understand what that means. Because I don't think occupancy is normally used in that sense in normal conversation. This is kind of a technical use of the term.

And one additional thing that could maybe help your intent is so condition four is the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. And so what we do is we actually require this this certificate. After this, we write up a certificate that has all the conditions, and it's posted directly next to their certificate of occupancy, which is just like the sign at the front of the chambers. So they actually they know a certificate of occupancy as a business owner, and it tells them how many people they can have in there. So it it sort of makes a, I guess, physical connection between the term and then the certificate next to it.

Okay. Well, you convinced me this is not a gross typo. And I guess fire marshals around the world will understand this.

And I think that's, you know, I think you just talked about the average or normal person who may or may not know fire lingo, but my suspicion is the average person never sees that, never reads that.

I understand. Okay. Okay. That's enough. One other thing that's a little different, and we talked about this this morning also.

There is no condition on here related to outdoor amplified music or anything like that. And I thought that the direction we were going now was to have that a condition like that on all bar CUPs. And the matrix does provide for one. And I know kind of historically before we had the matrix, the approach sometimes seemed to be if the applicant told us they weren't going to have outdoor music, then we didn't put a condition on there. And I was always uncomfortable with that because the applicant could always change their mind.

And if they do, until they come up for renewal the next time, then outdoor music is just totally uncontrolled. Well, I guess we have the decibel levels that the city But I thought we were going to have some kind of condition on amplified music, outdoor amplified sound on all bar CUPs. It doesn't necessarily have to prohibit it, just something that was appropriate for that particular establishment. Now if an establishment says we don't want it, then I guess we could have one that says they can't have it. But I just thought that was something we're going to address from now on on all alcohol CUPs. And we have on the others in here.

Yes, sir. To staff interpretation, the CUP matrix, and especially concerning a restaurant that is not located within 300 feet of the business, gives staff the opportunity to conduct some analysis on the location of the business to see if there's any residences or multifamily nearby, which there's not for this business, and it's located downtown amongst other retail services. So staff's analysis was that the noise condition was not needed.

I guess what confused me, Craig, if I look at the matrix, you know, we've got four columns there, CBA bar, CBA restaurant, 300 feet of single family requests, which I guess really means well, I guess not all other, it's all requests, including the first three columns. But in each case, you know, it provides for an amplified sound condition. I mean, in every column under each of those, so I thought our intent was to have one everywhere. And I think we should. I mean, again, I thought the matrix was a great idea when you all came up with it, but the more we use it, the more, I don't know, it seems to be not working the way I thought it would.

Understood. And I maybe need some direction from assistant director or director, but staff did do interpretation with the Senate Bill 1,008, which says that we have certain limitations on where we can have types of sound conditions.

Is this a case

where we cannot? It's limited to the city can I'm gonna read it verbatim as or read our notes here. So city the can only prohibit amplified sound during these times. It's Sunday through Thursday only after ten. It's Friday and Saturday only after eleven, or amplified sound exceeds 70 decibels at the property line, which is from our already existing noise ordinance.

I'm confused. I don't

Let me I can maybe provide some clarification. So the reason why staff didn't put conditions related to amplified sound, background sound is because we knew that the applicant wasn't proposing some. And so that's really the main reason why we didn't add it is we knew that they they had no intention. You know, Craig asked the applicant and we we try to get that information upfront. But I do see your intent, commissioner, is that, well, what if they do propose some type of sound in between now and when they expire or need to come up for renewal?

So I think that if that is the intent of the commission, that can absolutely be a condition, and you all can place that condition on here, and that will give us our cue that that's something that's important to you. When we were looking at it, we didn't want to recommend that. But, again, we're just the recommending we're just staff recommending to you all. You all can always put that condition on. But that's really the main reason. Craig did mention the provisions on noise. And per our analysis, we can enforce our noise ordinance here. But there might be times where we will always tell you in our additional analysis and our staff report where we where we can't because it meets one of the other new provisions. And so in that case, that's

going to be

the reason why you don't see it. But to be upfront, it was that we just didn't think that that was going to be an issue in this location, and we didn't want to put that on there. But the commission can.

Okay. Actually, my concern here had nothing to do with a specific applicant. I'm not worried about Sylvia's Pizza. I'm more concerned with just consistency because we do have a no outdoor amplified sound condition on Cepos, which we've just and I I don't know what's any different about Cepos and Sylvia's Pizza in this case. My concern is just more with consistency.

And also, as I said earlier, I was never really comfortable with putting nothing in here when an applicant told us they weren't going to do outdoor selling. They can change their mind. But I was mainly concerned with consistency. And I thought that that was one of the points of the matrix was that we were consistent with the conditions we put on CUPs. You know, so, yeah, I mean, it were I don't know if there's any interest with anybody else in the commission.

But I guess I would like to propose an amendment that we add a condition just identical to Cepo's, no outdoor amplified sound, background sound, and or acoustic sound shall be permitted. And I guess I'll make a motion to make that as an amendment to the original motion.

We have a motion by Commissioner Agnew. To add the amendment, no outdoor amplified sound or background sound and or acoustic sound shall be permitted.

I don't have a problem seconding that. Okay.

We have a second from Commissioner Burleson. Discussion. I have a question real quick. From everything that was just mentioned up here, acoustic sounds shall background sound and or acoustic sound shall be no outdoor amplified. This just said no across the board, didn't it? Because didn't you say there's some certain times that we are not able to enforce this type of

I'll probably redirect to legal. Okay.

Just to

get clarification on this.

So it's Senate Bill 1,008, and it does restrict our ability to enforce across the board regulation of sound unless certain criteria are met. And so if a business, if the amplified sound at a business is not used after 10PM on Sunday through Thursday and 11PM on Friday and Saturday, and the amplified sound level does not exceed 70 dB decibels or 75 decibels when measured at the establishment's property perimeter, excluding traffic and other background noise, etcetera. And then we can't regulate that business for sound. And then, so it's a complicated section of law. And there's an exception that we can regulate it if a food service establishment is on a property that is located within 300 feet of a residence that was occupied before any food service establishment was located on the property.

So that's why when planning set this up, they decided to do that analysis at the time that they were putting it into the background for the item. And they put it on ARF so that that information would be available before we came to the meeting because we would they would have to do that analysis for each of the establishments in order to decide if they could enforce it.

And that was the difference between Chepos and this one is Chepos is next to a residential neighborhood. Yep. And this one is not.

Well, it actually isn't. It's not within 300 feet It Yeah. Because of the way that gets measured.

There's no

permit. It's a different measurement. It's a different measurement. So the state is property line to property line, whereas the local ordinance related to distance between uses is front door to front door. The state makes it real fun.

It was my understanding that Chepos does It's not too close to a residential neighborhood.

Correct.

Okay. So Okay.

Let's give Commissioner Brian a moment to join that privilege that he has on Zoom right now to ask this question.

Yes. I I was just gonna say I'm gonna vote against the motion because the the staff does their due diligence. And I and I agree. It's I believe it's our responsibility to make sure they're covering everything. But it's it's kind of obvious some places where they're they're gonna wanna underscore, hey.

No sound. Where other places where they don't need to or maybe the people don't have speakers outside. And so I I think in these cases of the CUPs, unless it's some gross violation that they're missing, I'm gonna try to typically go with the staff and trust the staff's judge on this. But I know at the same time, they learn all of us and what matters to us. But all that said, I'm going to vote against the motion.

Commissioner Agnew? Yeah, just in response, mean, I guess we've all we all grew up hearing certain things from our parents. We probably got tired of hearing, you know, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is something I heard many, many times growing up. And that's sort of how I look at this, I suppose. As far as your point about staff, I mean, you can look at it that way. I don't. I mean, I feel like we're up here to propose anything we think, you know, makes sense and we vote on it and see what happens. But no, I understand what you're saying.

Well, we do have a motion on the table right now. Do we have further discussion on this item for the amendment? Can we get a roll call,

Sure.

Mariah Dunn. Nay. Allison Hardy? Nay. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Randy Van Udekirke? Aye. William Magnum? Aye. Randy Bryan?

No. Michelle Burleson?

Aye. David Case? No. Lupi Costilla? Aye. The motion passes. Five All to

right, we are now back to our original motion with amendment that was approved to add no outdoor amplified sound, background sound, and or acoustic sound shall be permitted. Do we have any further discussion on this item? Sure.

Yes. I since we're not on the discussion on the amendment anymore, can go back to discussion on the actual item. I just wanted to reiterate that for commissioner Agnew, I felt the same way when I was reading occupancy shall follow the fire code. I just read it as occupant in my head. So it was a little confusing because I thought you were talking about the the building fire code and the structural fire code issues, not an occupancy or maximum occupancy issue.

So not that it would matter for the sake of this item, but for future future discussion or recommendations to staff, it would be helpful to have something that makes it very clear that you were talking about maximum occupancy in the fire code and not, say, the structure of the building.

We can rework that with our fire marshal, so appreciate that.

Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Randy Pindegrifti? Aye. William Agony. Aye. Randy Brand.

Yes.

Joan Perlison. Aye. David Kings. Aye. Libby Costilla. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Motion to approve carries.

Brings us to item number six.

Receive a staff presentation and hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against the North Of Campus neighborhood area plan.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair Commission. Craig Garrison, Planner, Planning and Development Services. I'm glad to present to you tonight the Northern Campus Neighborhood Area Plan. For some, this is your second time hearing this presentation from me. So as a part of the comprehensive plan, seven area plans were identified and directed by city council to be drafted.

The boundary for the North Of Campus area plan was approved by city council in August 2022 and encompasses the area between North Of Sesame Drive on both sides of North LBJ Drive, along Chestnut Street, and with the northwestern boundary of Ramsey Street. Next slide. The role of the neighborhood area planning is to look at and balance the needs and challenges to specific neighborhoods with opportunities for those neighborhoods. Studies the character of the neighborhood or its DNA, and it provides an opportunity to speak with neighborhood residents on more localized key topics. Also helps identify projects and programs specific for the neighborhood.

It fosters multiple opportunities to the the slide. Have of the new of of of of of new Council. Staff anticipates that the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for public hearing and discussion on April 21 for City Council to take action and lastly, for adoption on May 5. Next slide. Development of the plan involves speaking to a variety of different people throughout the process.

Community engagement was an integral part of the comprehensive plan, and we wanted to continue that through the development of the area plans. The intent of the plan is to listen and balance all community voices heard throughout the development of the plan process. We hosted five steering committee meetings along with a steering committee walking tour of the neighborhood. The steering committee is made of residents, business owners, property owners, and stakeholders from the plain area boundary. Three community workshops were held with postcards advertising these events that were sent to all property owners and tenants within the boundary for each event.

The workshops had over 98 attendees that presented over 200 plus comments and revisions that shaped this plan, and approximately 550 postcards were mailed for each engagement event, totaling more than 1,700 postcards overall. Next slide. The plan is broken out into seven key topics. It includes getting around, history, art, and culture, public space and amenities, streetscapes, business community, existing housing stock, and building form and development. Next slide.

Each of the seven topics is organized similarly within the plan. The plan describes key concepts and existing conditions within the North Area plan boundary. It describes community and stakeholder feedback received as part of the plan's development. It identifies specific recommendations for the plan area intended to be carried out by the city or specific property owners. It has case studies that are also included in the plan that shows similar communities to San Marcos so that the city can learn from other cities' experiences.

Next slide. We were strategic and intentional about tying what we heard as part of the community engagement back to the plan and any recommendations within the plan. On this slide, you'll see a page out of the infill development section of the plan and how one of the subsections is broken down. At the top in yellow, you see the key concepts and existing conditions are introduced, then it's followed by community and stakeholder feedback. And then at the end of each subsection, we have specific recommendations for the plan area.

Next slide. This slide demonstrates how the big ideas we heard from the community and stakeholders have been translated into recommendations. An example big idea is that the community needed to feel safe walking and biking throughout the neighborhood and to install safety improvements at key intersections. So you can find two recommendations that speak to bettering the neighborhood regarding those specific issues. Recommendation Streetscapes 1.2 states identify priority locations for incremental traffic calming and place making measures such as colorful sidewalks, bold outs, and landscape strips or medians to reduce vehicle speeds and improve the pedestrian experience so that it's enjoyable and safe.

When possible, consider the use of permeable pavers. Additionally, supporting this big idea, we have recommendation GA 2.5, which states evaluate pedestrian crossings across the plan area for safety and convenience, especially at the intersection of North LBJ Drive and Chestnut Street. Next slide. Included throughout the plan are case studies of similar communities to San Marcos that have experienced success with specific recommendations. This case study highlights Dubuque, Iowa's green alley program that rebuilt over 80 alleys. This concept could

be

similarly implemented in a few portions of the North North of Campus area to retrofit alleys to be walkable corridors that also manage stormwater in the steep area. This could be similar to the process of the reconstruction of Kissing Alley in Downtown San Marcos. And as redevelopment occurs along existing vacant alleys in North of Campus, staff and property owners could work together to implement this strategy. Next slide. So per council direction staff was directed to evaluate our city standards for permeable pavers against Hill Country Alliance's standards.

Existing city standards include our adopted stormwater technical manual. In an appendix b, it outlines best management practices or BMPs, design steps, installation and inspection criteria, and recommends maintenance of permeable pavement systems. Implementation throughout the city. We've had a few projects in the city. One is Kissing Alley, and then the other is going to be at Sesame Creek and also the street sidewalk area.

There's permeable actual pavers. And this is maintained by our public services lead crew for city projects. We've also seen this widely applied in private development. Since the city will review that private development as well. And so staff found that city standards are aligned with and exceed the Hill Country Alliance standards and that we have strong standards in place and our reviews meet or exceed best practices.

Next slide. Implementation of the plan is just as important as development of the plan, and the action plan section outlines how the goals of the plan may be achieved. For each topic and subtopic within the plan, there are short term action items that can be implemented. These items can be easily checked off the list as we move through implementation. This will become our to do list for the North Campus area. The action plan identifies potential leaders and partners as well as the driver needed to implement the plan. In most cases, it will be the city and the property owners within the area. It will be the driver implementation. This implementation will require the work from city departments like public works, parks and recreation, and engineering to work together. Next slide.

Implementation will also require financial investment. So there's a list of financing tools, which identifies outside funding sources that can be applied for by the city or other potential partners. Please note that this is not an all We stakeholders stakeholders that that

area

area of plan. It documents the factors that are contribute to the character of the pandemic. Neighborhood, like lot size, architectural styles, and building orientation. It provides descriptions of quantitative metrics and qualitative factors. It recommends how the neighborhood character can be respected and maintained.

Throughout plan development, staff was on the ground going property to property, gathering data using geographic information systems, or GIS, to provide some metrics as well. Next slide. Following adoption, the plan and neighborhood character study will become publicly accessible. Staff will use the plan during predevelopment meetings with property owners, potential developers, and architects and engineers that are exploring the area for development. As development requests occur in the area, staff will guide new applicants on how to incorporate the guidelines into a proposed development so it can be compatible with existing neighborhood character and topography.

The neighborhood character study and area plan are intended to be a tool and a resource for the change over time and the boundary will be in scale and compatible with surrounding properties and the goals of the plan. And additionally, for requests that require board, commission, city or council approval, such as zoning changes or alternative requirement requests, staff will provide an analysis of this plan within staff reports presented to these bodies. This will help decision makers be informed how to how a proposal meets or does not meet the recommendations of the North Campus area plan. Next slide. As with the downtown area plan and Blanco Gardens neighborhood area plan, once this neighborhood plan neighborhood area plan is adopted, nothing on the ground changes until it's implemented through other initiatives.

Following adoption of the plan, staff will need to evaluate and update the development code as necessary, incorporate the plan into the capital improvement program, and begin evaluating projects, plans, and policies for short term short term implementation. Pardon me. Next slide. Staff provided a survey to the seven member steering committee. And following their final meeting on December 3, four replies were received.

All members of the steering committee voted yes on recommending to planning zoning commission and city council for adoption. Three of those members did not respond. I do wanna take this time to thank the steering committee. They were instrumental, provided a great deal of input, and helped guide the plan. So next slide.

To view the draft plan and to explore past events and ongoing CIP projects within the neighborhood, please visit the project story map for the up most up to date information. You can navigate there through this QR code or the link. And next slide. So including all the edits that commissioner Agnew suggested from the previous presentation, Staff does recommend approval of North Of Campus neighborhood area plan. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like the applicant has spoken. Do we have any questions from the chamber? Anybody wish to speak? Do have anybody online that wishes to speak? All right. Seeing none, I'll provide a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Dunn. Any further discussion on this item?

Yeah, have a question.

Yes, sir.

So if this is approved, it goes to the process, it also goes to the CIP and gets plugged in somewhere there. I mean, the project to me looks really, really nice and I'd kind of like to live up there. But can't help but thinking part of a thing that's going on in San Marcos now, we just got through telling the Wallace edition, people that we don't really we'll get to you when basically, we'll get to you when we can. And then we'll do something like this that's a beautiful project. Who's going to pay for all that? And how do we explain this is a great project? Wallace addition people, you all are just going to have to wait a little bit longer?

Sure. So I can actually rely on Sean Condor's presentation a little bit is that the comprehensive plan was adopted, which will help guide the CIP programs and where to implement new development. This is an area plan. It's a smaller portion of the comprehensive plan or an element of that. So it's a guiding document, and the goal is for engineering and CIP programs to then use this document in the future when they're proposing new CIP projects.

So it's not going to create any projects immediately, but they can use this document to guide the CIP program. Secondly, for new development that's coming in when they have alleyways or streets construction or lane development code will require them to update that. And then we'll use this document for that permeable behavior section or other parts of the area plan. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. Thank you.

It's a great question. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir. Commissioner Johnson?

It's

The second time you called me, sir.

I do that all the time. I'm so sorry. Yes, ma'am.

Just to catch me up on the process. Is this the first neighborhood plan that the PNC will be recommending to council, or has there been others? Is where are we in the process? How many of these have approved?

We have approved two out of seven, which is the downtown area plan and then the Blanco Gardens area plan. I've gone all the way through and been adopted, and this is the third.

Okay. Cool. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Mhmm.

I have some questions, David.

Yes, sir.

Alright. So first off, to the city, and to the staff that worked on this, great great job. This is a, it's really good. It's really comprehensive. I guess my first question is, as a new P and Z commissioner along with Lucy and Allison, I believe were the three new people, how much input y'all want from us since y'all have already been because I have a few questions, but we've already been through the questions and those answers to those were brought tonight. So I guess first question will be to you, either to either you, David, or the staff. Do

you

am I okay bringing in questions about this tonight?

Yes, sir. Absolutely.

Okay. So my first question is an easy one, and it's there it doesn't really say how to pay for the facades, but it does say to pay for facades on private buildings. And I really want to echo what commissioner Rodney said. And that's, in a time where we're telling one neighborhood that you got to wait, You know, we're tight on funds. And I know they're saying to pay for it by by tax abatements or by grants.

What what is the city's thought on the money that's that's gonna be there and where where it will come from? That's my first question, then I'll then I have one more question.

Sure. I can answer this question. It's the attempt was to make a grant or a relief program for meeting the character of the North Campus area. And so the area plan is proposing that we create that program and look into creating that program. So it hasn't been established yet. I do wanna let Andrea get a chance to speak as well if I'm missing anything.

Yes. Commissioner, we do have an existing it's called a big grant, and it's specifically focused on facades of buildings. And so this is an opportunity. We we have a really great program. It's administered by our economic development department. And so we would be working with them to see, hey. Are there some here's what we'd like to achieve in this area. There's a lot of very unique and eclectic buildings. How can we help them business owners who might come to the table, how can we help them achieve their goals through this particular grant? So they have to apply. They have to provide justification. But we do have a really great program that we can continue to build upon for that.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

I would just I just had some concern when I saw tax abatement you know, for facade renewal for private for private buildings. And then my my other question is, b e f 1.4 mentioned exploring. There there and there's several places where the language is like explore or think about. And like I said, overall, I think this is a great document. But I am a little concerned about that because b f 1.4 says to explain I'm sorry.

It says to try to lower look at ways to lower the parking requirements to encourage infill development and which sounds great, but then later on, like, 20 pages later, talking about needing a residential parking permit pro like, program. And it's because there's already so little parking and people are parking in the neighborhoods already. And so I just had a little bit of concern. Like, I'm I'm pro infill development, like, a 100%. And I know that maybe we can't get it without lowering the the parking requirements.

But if we if we lower it to one car, I don't see how that's gonna do anything but make parking in the neighborhoods worse. So that's my question there. Like, what is the thought process on those two? And, you know, it's to me, it seems like a dichotomy almost.

Yes, commissioner. During the plan process at the open houses, there was a lot of lively discussion over parking requirements, either increasing them or lowering them. Lowering the in the infill requirements does make development easier in staff and also the community's eyes. So if you're updating an apartment complex and adding more units, that's another need of more units being there. And we were we're looking at applying kind of the downtown standards where you would be like a land development code amendment that allows for lesser parking in certain situations, which would help development.

The second is the residential parking is we do have complaints of the single family dweller dwellers or the duplex dwellers is that all of their parking is being parked up by students, and so they won't have that parking. So we were met with two different issues from all these comments from the public, and so they both made their ways into the the area plan, if that makes sense.

Thank you. That's all my questions I have right now.

Thank you, commissioner. Any other questions? Alright. Roll call, please.

Aye.

The motion to recommend approval carries.

Thank you. Brings to item number seven.

ZC 2,601, 1005 1007 Columbia Avenue and 1401 Moulton Street SF6 to SF4.5 hold a public hearing and consider a request by Lindsay Oscui on behalf of Samuel Saldanha and Adaceli Sanjanha for a zoning change from single family six SF6 to single family 4.5 SF4.5 or subject to consent of the owner another less than 10 zoning district classification for approximately point six zero acres located at 1005 And 1007 Columbia Avenue and 1401 Marlton Street.

At this time, we'll open the public hearing.

Alrighty. Good evening. Will Rugley, Planner here with the City of San Marcos. So the subject property is roughly point zero six acres. It is located at the Southeast corner of Columbia Avenue and Marlton Street.

It is indeed within the San Marcos city limit, and it is currently of number York of city We established number neighborhood of framework or context with low density residential uses within the nearby vicinity. So the existing zoning on the property is single family six, which allows for single family residential development. The applicant is requesting single family 4.5, which also allows for single family development, but at a slightly smaller lot size. The proposed zoning remains consistent with the residential use pattern of the area. So according to the comprehensive plan, the property is located within a neighborhood low existing framework.

This designation this designation recognizes established neighborhoods that are primarily made up of single family detached housing, and the proposed use aligns in particular with that vision for the area. Step two of the analysis evaluates consistency with table 4.1 and single family 4.5 is indeed an allowed zoning district within the neighborhood low existing preferred scenario map designation. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning guidance. The single family 4.5 district is intended for single family detached homes with a minimum 4,500 square foot lot size. The zoning supports smaller lots, moderate setbacks and encourages pedestrian activity.

The proposed use remains single family residential, which aligns with both the existing and the proposed zoning district and the existing neighborhood fabric. The site is located it is indeed located within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, but it is not located within a floodplain, floodway, the San Marcos River Corridor, nor

city,

including water, wastewater, and electric. Based on the analysis, staff recommends approval of z c twenty six zero one as presented and in closing. Staff sent personal notice, posted notice on the property, and published notice notice of the application in the newspaper, and a neighborhood presentation meeting was held at 10AM on twenty four March. There was no correspondence either as a result of the notification process nor the neighborhood meeting. Nothing was received in response to that. So I appreciate your time, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. If the applicant is here, would you like to come and speak in favor of your permit at this time? Thank you. You have a please state your name and address. We have three minutes.

Sure. Thank you very much, commissioner, for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. My name is Lindsey Oskwe, seventy four zero one State Highway seventy one, and I'm here representing the property in our MIS builders. Will very thoroughly covered the existing conditions. We did have two meetings with staff, predevelopment meetings, evaluating various options and zoning, and this one fits. It's with the property owner's intent to develop single family detached on these lots. There is also an intent, there is an adjacent abandoned alley that we intend to incorporate into this development. We have a concurrent replat application with the city and look forward to any questions you may have of us.

Thank you

for your time.

Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else in the chamber that wish to speak? Do we have anybody online? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing.

I'll provide a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Got a motion to approve by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir, Commissioner Agnew?

A question for Will, I think. I know the property is vacant right now, but driving out there and looking at it, it looks like there's been a structure or structures on there in the past, correct?

Yes, sir. There was indeed. And if you look at the recent aerial, you'll see structures. Those have been demolished through the demolition permit process. What was there previously? I believe there were two houses.

That's what it looks like. Yes, sir. Is this two lots that are was this originally two lots or one that we're dealing with?

It was originally three lots.

Oh, three lots. Yes, sir.

Okay. One of the questions I had, particularly if there have been houses there before, one's edge of this property looks to be right up against a creek. And if you look on the other side of the creek, there's really not any development for some distance. And it made me wonder whether there's any history of flooding from that creek. Because this property is very, very close to it.

To be candid, sir, I cannot speak to that specifically because while I was out there for the neighborhood presentation meeting, admittedly I did not notice a creek, but more importantly in looking at the city's GIS data, specifically pertaining to floodplain information, the nearest floodplain is Purgatory Creek, which is across Wonderworld Drive.

Yeah, no, I understand that. But and understand with the flooding hasn't been much of an issue here in recent years, we don't get any rain. But I was just curious, particularly at the lack of development on the other side of that creek. I guess really my question is, somewhere in the process, whether it's plotting or whatever gets done, if there is a history of flooding on that lot, will that come out? Is there any point in the process where that gets considered or looked at?

So when through the plotting process, our engineers are one of the reviewers on a plotting on a plat. And so if there are any environmental considerations, that would be there. But it's not in a floodplain currently.

No, understand that. But that doesn't mean it can't flood. And that's what I'm okay, that's fine. It sounds like one way or another, if there is some history, it'll probably come out in the process.

Yes. Our engineers will review it.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Brian?

Yes. Will, you mentioned that the I think I heard you say the property is in the recharge zone. So what does that mean as far as impervious cover requirements on on these lots that are 4,500 square feet? Or did I mishear you?

Andrea, I'm going to defer you on that one. I could've answered the other question though, I will say.

Yes. So our recharge zone has certain provisions related to impervious cover and also some extra drainage requirements, particularly based on slopes. And so those are all reviewed as part of, again, any permits that are submitted there. That is my my planner level explanation. Our engineers review for any of the recharge zone requirements, but they will, again, be one one of our reviewers through the permitting process. But it's really related to kind of limiting impervious cover kind of broadly on the site.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Commissioner Agnew. I one other question. I'm just

curious It looks like the lot sizes are going to be very close to 6,000. So it's not that they're very far off. Would it have been possible to approach this by just leaving the SF6 zoning but requesting an alternative compliance There's a lot sizes?

Yes, sir. That's a fantastic question and a really good observation. And in digging into it, what makes all of the difference are the setbacks, specifically the front and rear between the two districts.

I understand. Okay. Any

further discussion on this item?

Sure.

Yeah.

I just wanted to do and this doesn't affect my vote. Only to staff, when you are on GIS putting presentations together. Just know that by having the same slant of the streets as you do the pullout of the property, I momentarily gasped because it looked like you had subdivided into 12 lots, which I thought was kinda funny. And then also to commissioner Aggie's point, there is a creek that is right next to this property line that shows up on the topo maps of San Marcus. It is South Of Hazleton, so it it doesn't affect this property.

But there is a dry creek bed that is is nearby that where water will run off Columbia Ave towards Purgatory Creek further away.

That's it.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Roll call?

Sure. Randy Van Der Kuecki. Aye. Wayne Magnu. Aye. Randy Bryan.

Aye.

Sharpe Ellison? Aye. David Case? Aye. Luby Kossian?

Aye.

Brian Dunn?

Aye.

Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye.

Thank you. Item number eight. ZC262

Crestwood Center, F. 2CM hold a public hearing and consider a request by Hugo Alizondo, Jr, Quantrill Consultants Limited on behalf of James Umstadt, UC2 Limited for a zoning change from future development FD to commercial Centimeters or subject to consent of the owner another less intense zoning district classification for approximately 1.45 acres out of the Thomas W. Forsyth survey number two, abstract number 173 located at 1904 Old Rancho 12.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Lauren Clanton. And I'll go ahead and wait for the accompanying slides.

One second, it is frozen. Technical

Let's jump in. The property is approximately one and a half acres located along Old Ranch Road 12 between Craddock Avenue and County States Drive. The property is currently, outside the city limits and additionally is outside the extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is following a release from the ETJ in 2024. The zoning change is running concurrently with an annexation request, and that annexation request will serve to bring the property, back into the ETJ, and back into the city limits.

Existing on the property is the Crestwood retail center, and surrounding uses include warehouse and self storage. To the south, we have the Texas State Forensic Anthropology Laboratory. Up and down the corridor are a variety of retail uses and personal services. To both the east and west, you have single and multi family residential, and likewise, you have a couple churches up and down the corridor. The existing zoning is future development, which is the default zoning district with annexation, and the proposed zoning is commercial.

Taking a look at our comprehensive plan, the site is located within the mixed use low preferred scenario place type. This is characterized by smaller commercial centers. It's you expect to see walkability in or near neighborhoods, and we expect a distribution of these commercial centers throughout the city focusing on corridors and possibly near major intersections. Within the mixed use low preferred scenario place type, commercial is not preferred. And here we'll take a chance to dive deeper into the standards of the zoning district.

So looking back at the description that was just provided of the mixed use low place type, it's pretty consistent with the description of the commercial zoning district. So we see a commercial gateway focused on aesthetics, taking advantage of proximity to major roadways. We also staff took a look at the permitted uses and building types in the district, which are consistent with the retail center that exists on the property. In particular, we worked with the applicant to catalog the uses on the property and to make sure that each of these uses will be permitted to continue to operate in the chosen zoning district. This includes three restaurants, one of which offers on premise sale of alcohol, personal services, professional office, and retail sales.

According to our environmental analysis, the property is not within the floodplain or floodway, but is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone. And taking a look at infrastructure, development on the site will be required to meet the requirements of transportation master plan as well as the development code, and utilities are provided for through the service agreement. In light of all these factors, staff recommends approval of ZC 2602 as presented. Staff is available for questions. We also have a variety of folks, this includes the owner, property manager, and applicant for the case.

Thank you. At this time, if the applicant would like to do so, you may come up and speak in favor of your permit. If you please just state your name, we have three minutes.

My name is Christian Amstadt. I live on Franklin Drive and I'm the property manager of the Crestwood Center. And we've been dealing with this sewage issue for quite some time and we're ready to wrap it up and get it over with.

I can imagine.

If anyone has any questions, I'll answer what I'm able to.

Thank you very much. At this time, would anybody else in the chamber like to speak? Anybody online like to speak? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Make a motion to approve CC2602.

I'll second.

We got motion to approve by commissioner Agnew, seconded by commissioner Burleson. Any further discussion on this item? I have a question. Yes, sir. Commissioner Bryant.

So I have a question for staff. Just just because I've been on the P and Z before, and everything sounds good. But my my my question is, are we gonna give it a zoning today that if the property was sold tomorrow and everything was torn down, which none of us want that, is is is it gonna by right give them the the new property owner the ability to do something horrendous that we would regret forever. And I don't know if that makes sense, but maybe there's someone on staff that makes sense too. But we've I've seen over the years, not often, I don't think it's here, but I just wanted to ask that question.

I've seen over the years where a certain zoning was asked for, that, you know, then the property changes hands and it's a whole another ballgame at that point because the idea is don't go with the property. It's the it's the zoning that does. So if staff wanted to answer that, that would be awesome. I'd appreciate that.

Commissioner, to answer your question, we don't have concerns with the zoning district bringing in something that would be detrimental in terms of use. In fact, because it's coming into the city limits, we now have local authority over uses where properties outside the city limits we actually can't regulate use. So we do feel pretty confident that this zoning district would work really well for this site. And you might have sort of seen in our comprehensive plan analysis it was considered NP or not preferred, but you know looking at it again those are just sort of guiding principles for different areas and we do still feel like this is a good land use and zoning district for this site, especially because it's an older commercial property.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Agnew?

Yeah. Have a comment on my own, but first, Commissioner Brian's point. I think what you're talking about is a risk we have on almost every zoning case that comes before us. Agreed. Because once we've approved the zoning, the current applicant can really do whatever he or she wants regardless of what they've told us.

And if a new owner comes along, yeah, then it's a whole new ballgame. But that's just unfortunately a risk. And I guess I tried to approach it by sort of looking at all the uses that are allowed under the zoning category rather than just what the applicant is telling us they're going to do to sort to align with the question you asked, just to make The sure we weren't other comment I wanted to make, and this isn't really an issue because I don't really think there's any solution if it were. But one of the unusual things that's going to happen here is we are going to end up with an alcohol serving establishment there that doesn't have a CUP because it doesn't require one if it's not in the city limits. But it will be in the city limits when it gets annexed.

And as I understand it, there's no intent to make them get a CUP, which I understand. That wouldn't be fair to them. But we're going to have a situation I've not seen before, which is an alcohol serving location within the city limits without a CUP. And I don't if we have any others, but I'm not aware of them. The other thing that's going to be a little unusual out there is that there is going to be if I'm I if what I saw is what I think it was, there's going to be another alcohol serving location establishment out there.

There's some kind of saloon that isn't open yet. And so I presume they're going to be asking for a CUP. And if they don't do that until after this property gets annexed, then they're going have to have a CUP because they'll be within the city limits. So we would also have kind of the strange situation of having two alcohol serving establishments out there, one with a CUP and one without. And I mean, don't know I can't think of any good solution to the problem that wouldn't be, you know, bad for somebody.

But it's just it kind of bothers me and I wish there was a solution, but I don't the only thing I could think of, and this is probably something, you know, is maybe there could be a way we could give the existing business out there, which is what the I don't if it's a 3.6 general or a 36 general. I've heard it said both ways. But if there was any way we could, you know, give them an initial CUP that would be three years rather than one and waive the fee? Because I mean, I don't believe they asked to be annexed. They seem to be kind of an innocent bystander in the whole thing.

And that may not be feasible. Then after three years they'd be you have to operate the same as else. But that may not be feasible. I just throw that out. But it does you know, I worry a lot about consistency, particularly with CUPs. And here we have a situation where we're going to have at least one outlier. It bothers me, but I don't know anything else point that out so that we're all aware of it. I don't see it as any reason to deny. I don't mean it that way at all. I just think it's something we should all be aware of.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Van Hoddekirke.

I appreciate you bringing that up because I don't even think about that. But maybe I'm worried more than you are because I think it's very important that we treat everybody equally, 100%. And I like your suggestion about maybe letting them come on three years or whatever and get them on board with us. I'm not trying to penalize them because they didn't ask to be fall under our rules. So I want to be fair to everybody, but I think to be fair to everybody that we they need to play by the same rules that everybody else is playing by.

In my heart that's kind of how I feel too, but on the other hand, you know, I don't know. Guess the good thing about it is it's not within our authority anyway. I mean, we can't really do anything about it. We can just raise the issue, which is all I'm doing, and maybe hope I mean, counsel would have to do whatever even to the point of waiving the fee. We can't do that. They can't.

Well, that's a good point.

I'm just sort of throwing it out there. I think one or two of them watch us every once in a while and maybe we'll hear it and we'll give them an idea. But anyway, I just thought we should all be aware

of that. Yeah.

And I think it's just for awareness, Commissioner. Obviously, I can ask legal to weigh in on this more. Yeah, they would be advanced that ride. I will say that we will keep awareness of that. And that way in the future if something changes that would obligate them to come in for a CEP, whether it's ownership change or whatever, then they go through the process properly. So I think that's maybe the solution that we're looking for is yes, we'll be aware of that one as an outlier.

And they're not unregulated. TABC still regulates Correct.

Any

further questions or discussion? Roll

call please. Sure. William Agin. Aye. Randy Brand. Yes. Mr. Brolison. Aye. David Case. Aye. Lupi Costilla. Aye. Ryan Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Ronnie Van Udekirke. Aye. Motion to approve

now brings us to questions and answers with the press and public. Is there anybody in the chambers that wishes to speak? Do you have anybody online? Seeing none, brings us to adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. Second. Second by Commissioner Burleson. Roll call please.

Sure. Randy Bryan.

Aye.

Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Ronnie Benarderke. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. And we are adjourned at 07:58PM.