Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'll call this regular meeting of the Planning and Commission to order on Tuesday, 04/28/2026 at 06:00PM. Can we have a roll call please?

Sure can. William Agnew? Here. Randy Bryan? Michelle Burleson? Here. David Case? Luby Costilla. Here. Miranda Dunn. Here. Allison Hardy. Here. Lucy Johnson.

Here.

Ronnie Van Der Kerkicki. Here. We have a quorum.

Okay, I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. And I ask that you please silence your cell phones. The commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda, while other 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, which takes us to the citizen comment period. Do we have anybody signed up? Online. Okay. No. So we move on, correct?

Correct.

Which takes us to the consent agenda. Can we get a motion?

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

I'll

second. Okay. Any discussion? Roll call vote please.

Michelle Brolison?

Aye. Lupe Castilla?

Aye.

Mariah Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Ronnie Van Der Kerkicki? Aye. William Agnew?

Okay. That brings us to our All first public

right.

Receive a staff presentation and consider a recommendation on the twenty twenty seven capital improvement programs CIP.

All

right. Good evening. Sean Condor, the director of engineering capital improvements.

Excuse me, pardon me, so this is actually public hearing, so I need to open the public hearing.

Apologize.

I do

that every time.

Okay, we'll begin with a staff presentation. Good.

All right. One more time. Sean Condor, director of engineering capital improvements, here for the third and final meeting about the capital improvements program. Our objective today is to obtain a list of recommended capital improvements projects, will be submitted to city council for view and approval. Just a reminder, the role of PNC is established in the the charter, which specifically states that we shall submit annually to the city council not less than one hundred and twenty days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, a list of recommended capital improvements found necessary or desirable.

As a reminder, the capital improvements program, it's basically a long range plan and schedule for capital project and system assets. It identifies workload by department, identifies funding needs by the cities. We use it to identify financing options for projects. Year one is the only year that's actually approved in the budget. Years two through 10 are placeholders for planning purposes. Here's where we are in the schedule. This is our third and final meeting with the P and Z. I will be presenting the draft CIP to city council at the May 19 meeting, then it'll be formally adopted in September. So we are here we are just recapping what I said on the previous slide. Today is our last meeting, city council on the nineteenth.

This is just a screenshot of what the recommendation was last year. Essentially, was just a recommendation to city council to approve the ten year CIP with no amendments. And this is where you can find a copy of the CIP, a digital copy or hard copy, keep hard copies of the library or in our engineering offices. With that, I will pause for questions or to the recommendation.

Okay. Do we have anybody signed up to speak?

No, sir.

Anybody in the chambers that wants to speak? Okay. Close the public hearing. I'll ask for a motion.

Chair, I have a motion. I move that we recommend the ten year CIP to the city council as presented with the following suggested changes. First, that the city council evaluate and implement increases to the water and wastewater impact fees. Second, to establish transportation impact fees to ensure that growth contributes fairly to the cost of these capital improvement projects. And lastly, to move up project five twenty five, the Wallace Addition Subdivision, storm water drainage improvements from 2029 to 2027.

Second I'll second that. Okay.

Any discussion?

So I actually, have a question for Sean. Can I ask him?

Sean, I have a

question, which I just said that. Can you elaborate? So with commissioner Johnson's recommendation on the transportation fees, can you give the board a little bit of insight about like would that be beneficial? Would it not? Sure. On what the effects of that would be?

Okay. I'll start with the let me just touch on the wastewater because that was the first one. Mhmm. That's actually in motion. They will be presented to council in August for a updated impact fee analysis. So it'll be up to council whether they adopt the higher rate or not, but that is already motion and should be should be checked off in August. The transportation impact fee for transportation, that's also already in motion. We're evaluating that with the transportation master plan to evaluate right now, we currently collect fees through what we call pro rata process. We're evaluating the impacts of going to a impact fee type process. But I do want to reiterate though, when you clock on impact fees, it's only for capacity, adding capacity.

That does not do things as such as repairing old roads, fixing old water mains. It's just adding additional capacity. And so, does that answer your question?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Okay. And Commissioner Dunn, just to add on to that, since this is our one opportunity to review any kind of or a large part of the budget, I felt like it was a great opportunity for us to make that recommendation. It's great to hear that they are already moving forward, but I would think that the more voices that council hears on the impact fees, the better Yeah. Which is why I included it.

Would the is the transportation the same thing as impact fees?

Yes. It is a type of impact fee. When a new development comes in, developers are the ones who pay these impact fees. Mhmm. And right now, they pay water and wastewater impact fees. This would include a separate impact fee for the developer to pay to help with transportation infrastructure. Okay.

So my concern my only concern with that is it wouldn't benefit, though, like, your established areas, if you will, like the Wallace edition, like Blanco Gardens. So with like, for instance, you mentioned you wanna move up the Wallace edition to twenty twenty seven. Is that correct? Yes. So how would that benefit if impact fees aren't gonna benefit established, like, the Wallace edition? So it's generating revenue for the city that they can use, you're

right, focusing on new projects. But what it does is it frees up other funds that can then help pay for maintenance or repairs or large renovations of older neighborhoods, older streets.

So we're kinda counting on newer growth coming with us raising impact fees. Is it on the same page? Not necessarily. So

correct me if I'm wrong on this, but impact fees don't necessarily have to go towards strictly new, like, greenfield developments. It can go?

No. They they have to do projects that create new capacity. So you can't use impact fees for for example, rebuilding wall station, you can't use that for impact fees. It's gotta be creating a new road. The example I'll give is like Center Point extension. That would be impact fee eligible because you're adding capacity that's not there today. But

it doesn't have to necessarily be green. It can be they can go to like infill projects as well.

As long as you're adding go ahead, Terry.

Yeah. I think it has to be proportional to the project itself. Yeah. Yeah. So it does have to add capacity for that type of project.

So I think that answers your question, but also, yes, I assume that there is new growth happening and that we will see growth in the future.

Just from which this is a lot to consume, by the way. So I'm kind of understanding just like the cliff notes version. But I think just for me, what my personal opinion on this and seeing, like, where we are in the CIP budget, I just have a different perspective. I think us increasing, one, the stormwater, which we haven't done since 2023. And then I know this is probably going be the most unpopular vote, but property taxes.

I understand that there's the cons to that. But if we're banking on more growth, well, I mean, let's have an honest conversation. We've got to have something to drive that growth. And we don't really have I mean, we're not New Braunfels. We're not Kyle. We're not San Antonio. We don't have anything realistically to drive that growth. So that is one big reason why I'm opposed to the impact fee recommendation on that.

Okay. Well, I respect that. Could see that argument. I think San Marcos has been growing for a very long time, and I think that growth trend, whether we like it or not, is inevitable, at least in the near and midterm. So I don't see that growth slowing down in the next few years, at least, unless there's a major economic catastrophe.

Commissioner Johnson, did Sean respond to your point on the Wallace edition? Sean, did you I don't

Yeah, that was my next comment, if I could. You said you wanted to move Wallace Diction from '29 to '27?

Specifically, the storm water portion of that project.

So just the 5,000,000 or I think it's three point Yes. So what 3,600,000 are you wanting to push out?

Oh. Well

I understand what you're

Yeah. Yeah. No. Because it's balanced at $5,000,000 now. So

I understand that entirely. My motion and my recommendation to counsel for the CIP is specifically to increase the amount that is spent in 2027 so that we include the I think one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods and increase that the storm water drainage project sooner rather than later. And while that is certainly not a recommendation I would do to staff, which is constrained by their budget, this is a recommendation to city council. So thank you, Sean, for making that clear. I am not telling Sean.

I am my motion is a recommendation to city council that would have the power to change those numbers. I'm not putting Sean on the hook in any way, shape, or form.

You're get it? I was of the impression that we could not increase, and I assume that would mean recommend increasing the total spending for 2027.

Yeah. We're constrained. So if if I could certainly take any recommendation you have forward.

I understand if I recommend anything we want.

Yes. And so it's just being realistic. If you want to move up $3,600,000 I could tell you the stormwater fund is capped at $5,000,000 So in order to make that up, it has to be rate increases or on the storm water side or offset with general fund. That would be the way to increase that funding to help that. It doesn't mean the project will any faster, but it will definitely help get the funding there to get it done faster. So there's other constraints besides money on projects is what I'm trying to say. So

Yes. Thank and and I understand those constraints that were put on staff when creating the CIP. I am not putting those on myself when making a recommendation to counsel. But I believe we have another commissioner. I

was just gonna ask if it was even realistic to think that we could move it up two years with the way the budget and everything that's going on. I just had always been told that it was harder to move projects up.

Yeah. It's by making that recommendation, the how feasible is it that the project will actually start construction in 2027? Not very feasible. I mean, there's just too many components. We like, in everything that's required by that project to get done. On top of the funding constraint, there's the project constraint. That is, again, goes back to you got to get the outside stuff done before you do the neighborhood stuff. And so that's what's driving the schedule, not necessarily the funding at this point, is that getting those other improvements done.

I'll just add to it that when I got on this dais, the Wallace project was on a bond designation, was it not?

You're correct.

Way back.

You're correct.

Because of that discussion that we had, which was fairly lengthy, that project was moved taken out of a bond situation, a a bond designation to an actual city budget.

Yeah. That's how it is today.

Okay. So, following up on Commissioner Johnson, just this is a recommendation that is coming from us that also came six years ago to change the designation of that project. I'm just seeing it that what we're saying is we're recommending that this budget, you're already saying that it's not so much the money as it is as what the process that's taking place but I still think that I think that our city council needs to be focusing also on the fact that we have for very very long neglected that area and I think that they need to continue to focus on that and and focus on maybe getting it done and if it's gonna require more funding for that purpose to get it done sooner, I would prefer that. Now that's a recommendation that I would give to them. I understand that we don't have the power to designate budgets and say money move this or I'm just giving the city council a message.

Sure. Like I gave a message the last time that created that allowed for the project to be moved out of a bond such abundant bond designation to where it is today. That's the way I see this and thank you Commissioner Johnson for bringing that up.

Doctor. Bernard Curp.

Yes. And I kind of want to echo what you said. I think we have to send this is just a recommendation but we have to send a message to counsel that these people who live in have been putting up with this way too long. At our last meeting, one of the presentations talked about North Campus, whatever that project was called, looked beautiful. There was something said that for safety reasons, and they wanted to, the people who live in Wallace edition, when it rains, do they fear every night that their house is going to get flooded again?

They have the same right to feel safe and secure in their homes. Our vote tonight, if this passes, is just a recommendation that we think it's that important. And the council will do what the council will do. But we owe it to the people that live in the Wallace edition to keep this on the forefront. Just my opinion. Commissioner Baralta?

I just want to make sure, Sean, that I'm understanding what you said a minute ago. I understand completely everything that all of my colleagues are saying. But if I'm hearing correctly, you're saying that it's not about the money, and it's not about moving it up now. It's about that there are other things that have to be done first before you can get to that portion to complete it. That's why it's in the year that it is because you're doing other work to complete it first. And is that or am I missing No,

you've nailed it. That's exactly what's going on.

That's what I know.

With that particular project.

Mr. Johnson, you made a motion that it seemed to me to have about three or four parts to it, which would I think require us to agree with all of them to approve it. And I think that might be a problem for a few of the commissioners here. And I was wondering if maybe it wouldn't make sense for you or somebody to make a motion just to recommend and then handle your additional items as amendments to that motion. So we can vote separately on the amendments and see how each of those

I'm okay with that.

Are you okay with that? Yeah. I think it would be easier to follow what's going on also.

Yeah. Would you first allow friendly amendment for me to amend my motion just to the, say, base motion of recommending the CIP to the city council as presented? And then we can, if that's Okay with the seconder, and then I can make a formal motion to amend or no?

No, you do the amendment.

I'm not going

do course, yeah. I would think you do the amendment. I'm sorry.

I mean, I can withdraw my motion and then make a new motion.

That's how we've normally done that sort of thing. Withdraw the original amendment, then you can make a motion you or somebody can make a motion to recommend, and then you can make motions to amend for those specific items that you want to amend it for.

But if you make the motion to approve as presented, that's not what you're doing because

But then

go back and we'll amend those motions because we're getting we're going to recommend it as is, but then she'll amend it.

Well let's have somebody else make a motion to recommend as presented and then Commissioner Johnson can make her Right

normally you would just make the motion to recommend as presented then you could make your motion, Commissioner Johnson, amend it with whichever amendment you want to start with, and everyone can vote on the amendment.

And I'm okay with that? Might I and this might be me shooting for the stars here. Might we take a vote on the motion on the floor and just see if that passes? And if it doesn't, we can go back and do it the other way?

Yes. We can certainly do that.

Excuse me. But had we made a motion and then made the amendment and voted on the amendment and then come back and voted on the original motion? Is is that not the process?

Commissioner, the way she made the motion, she made the whole motion with the amendments altogether.

Okay. Okay. So she but she can retract that.

But she wants you to vote on it that way.

I want to see if it passes just as is.

Well, that's fair enough. If that's what you want to do, I believe that's fine.

And if it passes,

don't then we can want to lose the essence of it, specifically in the Wallace edition. I understand, fairly understand when they talk about the money process and the time. I do. I just want to make sure that we put out a message about this. That's fairly important to me that that message is All

you're saying is that we vote on all the amendments so we can

follow it.

That's all they're saying.

So, Commissioner Johnson, you would like to just have your original motion voted on, correct?

Yeah. On the off chance that it passes.

Okay. Well, before we do that, is there any further discussion?

Yeah, wanted to ask Sean. Sean, so just for clarity, the Commissioner Johnson's motion for since we're talking about the Wallace edition in the event that you know we go with impact fees how is that gonna I just kind of want a better explanation on how that's gonna I don't see that benefiting the Wallace edition

Yes. I mean, that's a fair statement. The impact fees conversation will not impact the Wallace edition because Wallace edition will not be impact fee eligible for those types of improvements. But I mean, they are in motion. I mean, I'll say that hits. There are no when you talk about specific transportation projects, and I'll just touch on this. Typically, way a city would handle that is we build those roads with the development. As they come in, we line up what's required by the code with those to address those extensions. And we have not historically built roads that would be impact field. Well, that could change in the future.

I'm not saying it is we're doing now, but I understand that the way you're going, it could offset the need. It's just we typically don't do that. But the roads I'm thinking of, CenterPoint Extension, State Highway 21 Extension, those are two big roads that are that would maybe your target in the future, but it would not impact specifically Wall Station in that regard.

So I have a question.

Any further discussion?

Yeah. The impact fees are already being recommended to city council.

Yeah. Water wastewater is it should be adopted in August if everything goes according to schedule.

And then the Wallace edition, we have to find something to balance it, right? Council would.

Yeah, yeah.

It is it yeah, It just seems like everything's already in motion. Right?

It it is. It's it's just a matter of if the the message is don't forget about Wallace edition.

Yeah. Right. Yeah.

I can assure you it hasn't. We talked about it in visioning. We talked about it in our presentations. That's in Sunset Acre. Those are the two key projects that I hear counsel on a regular basis. But it's definitely at their forefront, and it's definitely something they're not letting slip through the cracks. I can promise you that.

But I think, and I believe everything you say I agree with, but I think people that live in the Wallace edition need to be able, because they've heard this before, they've heard it from their elected officials, they've heard it from their commissioners and stuff, we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it, we're gonna it. I think the message needs to be we think it's important. Now we don't get to make that decision, but I think we send a message saying we need to keep this on the forefront. And I think that's the best we can hope for.

Well, if I understand things correctly, we would be making a recommendation that can't be implemented, correct? Because of the schedule that already has been determined for the Wallace Edition

Project. That's one way to word it, yes.

Which can always be changed. Schedules can always be changed.

Was Not if I

was gonna die as long enough to know that schedules can always be changed.

But not if there's other work that they have to do in order to get to that point is what he's telling you. Like, it's on it. It's not that it's not on the back burner. They put it in the forefront. They're doing other things before they can get to that point. Like, it's like building a house. You gotta put the frame before you put the roof and anything else. It's like so I understand what you're saying. I just Well I know that it's important and I agree with you.

I'm not illiterate in that situation. I'm following up exactly. I heard some comments this weekend when I was in that area and that was again approached I was approached about that. So I had not had any conversation with commissioner Johnson regarding this. I'm glad that it's on there because I think that what you pointed out Rodney is that the message should be very clear whether I understand what the proper process is going on.

I do understand but I also know that you sometimes you you put some other situations aside or you find other ways to get where you need to go. And this has been ongoing since six years ago, and this is ridiculous. And I my message to the councils once again is that if you can bump it up in any way not only money wise but in the process wise then it should be done and I think this is a message that should be made clear to them is that, hey, you know, you've put this aside long enough. Don't miss any steps along the way. It might not be done ready by '27 because of the process project, but at the same time, it needs to be done.

And if and if it's done before '29, then it needs to be done before '29. That's my that's my message.

Mister Todd?

Mister. Missus. Mister. Sorry. I wasn't done. Sean. I'm sorry. Commissioner Dungeons. I apologize.

I just get upset when people think I'm illiterate. I'm not. I understand. Completely. Completely. I don't really Okay.

One last clarification. So after reading this and then understanding, again, a little bit of it. In order to get more funding for your CIP budget, right, to get more funding, the way I interpret this is that we need to raise stormwater fees and property taxes.

That is the probably the most likely way to increase the CIP budget

Okay.

Is through those avenues. Yes.

Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that

Yeah. I understand.

I know that Sean's gonna be, like, really sick of this. But can you explain again the process when something comes to you for a project, like the process for it, because I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand where they're coming from. Yeah. But it seems like a mute point of sending some of these recommendations if they're already in the works, and if you're already in the middle of the project and you're on schedule by the way the project needs to go. I don't does that make sense?

Yeah. It's so let me I'll talk specifically about Wallace's instance we're talking about. You're basically saying, why is it programmed for 2029? And so the way we do it, the projects come in, and I go with the finance. I say, hey. What's the budget for this fiscal year? And for on storm water, they'll give me 5,000,000 for storm water, 10,000,000 for general. Water waste water is about 15,000,000. Electric is 10. I look at the last year's CFP. I shift the projects over. I say, okay. Let's look at all these projects that are programmed. What project is connected to each other? And so Wallace edition is linked to the Wallace edition off-site improvements, which is the flows around.

And so those storm lines are constructed, and then the neighborhood will connect to them. And so you can't do the neighborhood until you get those outposts connected. So then you say, okay, so how do we get those storm water those done? And it was started with the coordination with you start at the downstream, the San Marcos River. Right? It goes from the San Marcos River through the ponds that are there now, through the subdivision. When we first started this project, about that same time, the county purchased that Cape Pond for their pond project. And so they told us, don't go to the pond. Go around the pond. We want people to fish in the pond. So I said so we had to slow down. We had to let them get their design up, and they said, okay. No. It doesn't make sense to do some or route some through the pond.

So we had to

get their design in a situation that we knew how to route our flows from the subdivision to the San Marcos River. So we got that worked out finally. Now we're going through the final phases where we we would have a conversation with the fish hatchery. I think it was dealt with with the state. They're kinda like they're with the railroad as far as how difficult they are to get something approved. And it doesn't help that they they turned over staff. They're they're whoever runs place, he retired. But long story short, we have to go through the study to get their analysis to prove them on the field they agree with it. Now we got the field crew, the the folks who are actually at Fish Act, they've agreed to the project. Now they gotta go to their boss, the state legislation, and get them to sign up on it.

So that's the step we're on there. On the Cape side, so there's two sides. I I keep going like this, right, because there's two storm sewers. We have the one on the fish hatchery side and we have the one on Cape Road. That project now has grant funding from state to build a shared use path. So that drives your schedule on that project. You have to when you get grant funding, it's great to get that money, but they do dictate your schedule as far as when that money will be available to spend. And so that is that is what's driving your schedule for the subdivision is getting those two projects done. So then you can then tie in the subdivision. So, again, I just wanna set realistic expectations.

If you move over 2927, there's no way I can start that construction '27. But you can certainly send the message, and it is sending the message is important. But I just wanna be realistic. There's zero chance that project starts construction in 2029 or 2027.

Mister chair, one other thing. And I don't wanna sound like spoiled brat, but I think I'm going to. Why are we here? If all we're going to do is listen to a presentation and have to rubber stamp and say, yes, we're going to send it up, then why have we just wasted thirty minutes of being told what we're going to do? I think it's important that we do send recommendations. Whether they make it out of city council, that's fine. And they probably won't. But I think if we're going to take the time to discuss these, I think we have an obligation to if there's a possibility of sending a message, then we do that.

If I could ask staff something. Are we limited to just one recommendation on this item? Or could we make two or three or whatever we chose to do?

You ultimately have one recommendation with whatever amendments on it. I'm sorry. You would have one recommendation with amendments that you wanted that Because what I

was thinking, and perhaps this isn't doable, is maybe we just come up with some separate recommendation for Wallace edition. Because it seems like what we're trying to accomplish there is different. And then another recommendation for the rest of the budget. Because I think we're trying to accomplish something different with Wallace edition than we are we're trying to just send a message, as I understand it.

Right. But it would be That's okay.

But it need a message recommendation that doesn't

Right. And it could just be a comment. I mean, guess we could do the recommendation to, you know, to approve. Then, you know, we were going to have and I know Sean will and his staff reports going forward. We'll have discussion of the commission in there.

It'll be part of the minutes. And we can make a note that the commission wanted to, you know, send you know, to let the council know that the Wallace edition is important and they wanted to send a message that it needs to be, you know, prioritized in the budget as it moves forward, to the extent practical with the budgeting and the timing. Those things are just going to be part of that anyway. But if you wanted to strengthen it through a motion with an amendment, a motion to recommend with the amendment of that, could. But I think either way, we're going to have those comments in there. I know Sean will have those too as he takes it forward to counsel.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Terry, and Sean as well. I could hear almost nothing that either of you were saying. Really? I've had trouble in here before with the sound. And so unfortunately, I understood virtually nothing of what you

just said. Okay. So let me make it clear. Let me see. Let me put on my I'll put on my coach voice. Simple

question, I think, where I don't really need to hear all that well. Can we have a separate recommendation on Wallace's edition?

I would say you would have an amendment with your recommendation if you want to vote on it.

An amendment to the main recommendation.

Right. Or you make the you know, as we've suggested, a recommend approval with these amendments and how you wanted to, you know, talk about the Wallace addition. In the event that you don't, one thing that will happen regardless of the motion and the recommendation is, as Sean pointed out and discussed, we will have that in our staff reports, the discussion from the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know, just generally outlining to council that this was a priority, it was discussed, you know, the council wanted to convey that to the I'm sorry, the commission wanted to convey that to the council. So we can definitely do that as well, and I'm sure a few have watched or watched it probably online as well to get that message too. But I would say one recommendation with amendment would be the clearest and cleanest way to do that.

Recommendation with an amendment? With the amendment. The amendment effectively becomes part of the recommendation. Right. I mean, your recommendation becomes whatever it originally was as amended by any amendments.

Because the record yeah.

The problem that I have with that is I don't, personally, I don't really have a problem with some kind of recommendation that's a message. We're trying to send a message. I do have combining that with a recommendation that I think probably ought to be realistic. And so that's the problem I have, which is going to make it very hard for me to approve the recommendation if we have something in there that's purely a message. Because I think understand the problem with Wallace edition.

I think there's a sequence in which the work has to be performed, correct? Yes, yes. And it's not an arbitrary sequence. I mean, it's almost kind of a logical engineering type sequence.

Yes, yes. What I've heard in the past that is maybe a way to address is prioritize funding loss addition in the upcoming fiscal year.

So

it's the first project, it's the last project that gets bumped. Whenever you have a hard decision, I've got a $10,000,000 budget and I've got $15,000,000 worth of projects, which one goes first and which one goes last? That would be one that's like a ranked eleventh. It doesn't go last. It's the it stays funding whenever the project is ready. You don't want funding to be the constraint is basically what you're doing. So I don't if that made sense.

So there could be some effect of putting that in something about addition in our recommendation.

Just don't tie it to the prioritize funding when the project is ready to be constructed is what I would say.

Sure. Sean, once again, having been on a dais for twenty four years prior to here, I understand the sequence, shall we say, on projects and the amount that's tied to it. I do understand that. What I'm saying is that sometimes there have been times where you can get ahead of some things that come up and money needs to be there for that purpose. All I'm saying is that if it's gonna be possibly to push it up to 27 because there is sometimes sequences that can be two steps can be done beyond that Having that knowledge already all I'm saying is that if it's possible for the City Council to consider that you have outlined the sequence regarding what this has to be done, what you know, we've got to talk to them.

They have to fund it. I understand that completely but I also know that there's times that some sequences can be done beyond that but the money nothing can go forward because there's no the money has not been allocated for that. I understand that. All I'm saying right now is that can we make sure that if those sequences happen to be done at one or two, three at a time. And well, they can't go any further than that because there's no money allocated for that until the next budget year. I'm just following up to say that if we can get there sooner and getting those sequences done and money is there, then we need to do that. That is all I'm telling the city council.

Mister Castillo, would it make it ease would it accomplish the same thing? I think you you used the word if possible. Yeah. If we add that word to the amendment to move to move the Wallace edition, if possible Mhmm. Would that get you where you wanna be?

Well, it it stopped me.

Well, I

know. Know. It's it's it's the fact that I've you know, I I'm sitting here the first year that I'm here, Rodney, and there's this project that's on a bond. You know? We still have so many projects on a bond.

And and and I'm sitting here thinking, you know, nobody has ever done anything to Wallace edition. So And I'm very grateful for my colleagues that were on the board back then, six years ago, who understand where I was coming from and supported me in saying, city council, you need to take it out of the bond designation and put it someplace else. It needs to be addressed. Or otherwise, we'd be sitting here, Wallace edition would still be on the bond if those people that were sitting on this diocese six years ago did not see and supported that effort. So I appreciate that effort that was done and that's why now we're having this conversation.

So all I'm saying that if possible, yes, please take it from 29 to 27 if at all because these people need to be addressed. Those things need to be done And hopefully, maybe some of those sequences can be done quicker. But the only way they're going to be addressed and go forward to the next one is if there's money. And if there's no money, you're to have to wait until the next budget cycle. Right?

Well, that's I mean, you raise a good point is that and and with the motion that we have, that's not gonna get and I'm just gonna use Wallace's edition, right, since we're all talking about it. One, we have no money, which is very everyone knows that. But two, we're not gonna get where you want, and and all due to respect Commissioner Johnson on this, by raising impact fees. You heard it from Sean himself. We're not going to accomplish that by hoping and wishing that people are going to move to the city.

Okay. I thought we had two different things. I didn't realize one of them.

And there's four motions that Oh,

okay. Yeah.

I'm sorry. No. There's one single motion with four.

Okay. Would just separate the Wallace edition, you know, for my purposes. But then it's not affected me. You know, I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for people that live at the Wallace edition. That's all.

Mr. Johnson, could you repeat your motion for us? Yes. Fairly slowly because there's quite a lot in

city council with the following additions. First, that council consider increasing water and wastewater impact fees. Second, that council consider establishing a transportation impact fee. Third, that the stormwater drainage component of the project five twenty five, the Wallace Addition Subdivision be moved from 2029 to 2027?

Are you willing to add, if possible, to that, or would that dilute it from

your side? I am certainly willing to add, if possible.

You are? Yes. Okay. I that think would help consider.

But at the same time, I think you outlined three things not connected to impact fees. I think that's the way I heard you say none of it was connected to the other one.

They don't necessarily have to be connected. They're three separate items. But I will say that when you bring in new revenue, even if it's that helps funds projects that aren't like the Wallace edition, you then free up money Yeah. To spend on the Wallace edition.

I was just making reference to I understood from Commissioner Dunn that impact fees impacted the item of the Wallace edition. And I didn't see It will.

And Sean,

can you restate what you had said?

I don't think that's what she said.

Yeah. So I believe that the question or the comment is the impact fees will free up funding for projects. So that is a true statement. If the funding is identified in the CIP, does impact fee eligible? So if you look at the water wastewater projects, the projects that are pink in the spreadsheet, those are impact fee eligible projects.

So we will use impact fees before we use rate funding. And historically, we would not have to had to dip in the rate funding to offset those impact fee eligible projects. On the transportation side, you'll notice there is no pink because there are no There's no city doesn't collect an impact fee. I'll I'll go a little deeper in that saying there are no projects in the ten year CIP as presented today that would be transportation impact fee eligible, if that makes sense. So we we and that's because we typically address transportation improvements through development. We typically handle it through we put the roads to their development where we want those thoroughfares to fall.

I would say there are eligible road projects in the transportation plan.

Yes. That is a true statement. They're not in the ten year stat fee though, as presented.

Yeah. Considering this is our only budget opportunity to make a recommendation. I'm still happy to make that recommendation.

So you're still okay with your original recommendation? Yeah. With okay.

With the addition of if possible.

Yes, Okay. Because I think we're getting fairly close to calling the question time. And I was just I think perhaps it's time to just vote on this. Is that okay?

So you'll add it if possible? Yes.

Yeah. And that's okay with the seconder?

Absolutely. Okay.

Let's have the roll call vote.

Lupi Cristina? Aye. Mariah Dunn?

No.

Eilson Hardy? No. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Ryan Van Odekirke? Aye. Wei Magnu? Aye. Shelbrelson? No. Motion fails. Four to three. Need a five vote.

Now I guess we still need a recommendation.

I still need a recommendation.

So chair, I'd like to make a recommendation.

Okay.

So my recommendation is, and please staff clean this up however you will, but recommending that we increase the storm water since we haven't done that since 2023, followed by a property tax increase And seeing how important I mean, this edition with the Wallace or the Wallace edition is somehow incorporating now, I know realistically, and I'm all about being realistic and being optimistic, but we've got to have money to make things to get the So I don't see 2027 being a realistic goal. But if we can use some verbiage to send that message, whether that be '20 well, I don't want to put a time limit on it because things can change. I mean, we've all seen this our economy and everything change in a blink of an eye. And I know I have not set up here as long as you have by any means, but I can sense your frustration. I can feel it.

Thank you. I appreciate I can

definitely feel it. But we have to be realistic. But whatever we can do to the, hey, counsel, please hear Lupe Castillo here, this is something that I mean, and not just her, but the constituents that she represents. Exactly. The whole so whatever we can do to send that message that this is a very pertinent important item, along with every I mean, everything on here is important. But apparently, this has been a long this has been a long drug out.

Okay. Commissioner Dunn, could you state your recommendation?

Yes. My recommendation is to increase stormwater fees as well as an increase in property tax, and then I'm open to whatever with the Wallace edition, whatever message we can send with that.

I think it's it's a message that please keep Wallace edition in the forefront because you're already saying that money's not the issue. The money's there for this project. They just have to take steps to get to where they want to be to tie it all in to make the project to finish the project. So I just I understand what everyone is saying. I just think that it's it's maybe if we just say something along the lines of we want them to realize how important we all strongly feel about Wallace edition and think that it's important.

And if there's anything they can do, maybe not 27, maybe if it's 28, or just don't forget that it needs to stay in the forefront. And I think that's where you have it now. Am I wrong about that? It's in the forefront because you're working on it. Right? Yes.

Yes. A lot of things are being worked on and sometimes they're just not paid attention. What we could, you know, you already set your motion regarding the storm water Yes ma'am. Increasing the Property tax. Property And I'm not even writing, I'm just thinking along the lines that to address the needs of the Wallace edition and its funding as

As the project is ready to proceed?

It's Sounds great. Yeah.

Commissioner

Yeah. Along with Yeah.

Your recommendation that you just stated a minute ago did not include anything for Wallace addition?

Yeah. That's what we were just

talking about. What would be if we could you give us your recommendation again including whatever you would put in there for Wallace edition? Because we actually need a recommendation that we can be voting on. I mean not just

Staff, let's just get it done pronto.

I heard from the recommendation was a recommendation approval of the ten year CIP with a recommendation of increasing the storm water fee, property tax, and addressing the needs of the Wallace's addition and prioritizing practical.

There any more discussion on it?

Does the property tax increase not need a committee or a vote of some kind for the city?

It's a recommendation. We're not voting to raise taxes tonight.

They're the ones that did that. And

over a certain threshold, it becomes a vote of the public. So there's yeah.

A law.

It would be really awkward if we did accidentally raise taxes.

Are we ready to vote on Commissioner Dunn's recommendation? One other thing I didn't mention earlier, there's only seven of us here, but it takes five affirmative votes to pass something. So just everybody's aware of that before we vote.

Okay, do have a roll call vote? Sure. Mariah Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? No. Lucy Johnson?

Aye.

Brian Van Nuderkirki? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Michelle Brillison?

Aye. Lipa Costilla? Aye. The motion to recommend approval carries.

We're finished. Okay. So we move on to agenda item two, I guess, correct?

Number three. Correct. Yes.

Eden, CUP two thousand six hundred thirteen, Eden Barr, hold the public hearing and answered a request by David Foglia on behalf of Eden Barr for renewal of conditional use permits to allow on premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 206 West San Antonio Street.

Okay. I'll open the public hearing and ask for staff presentation.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, commission. Craig Garrison, planner of Planning and Development Services. Eden Bar is pardon me, I'm using the clicker today. Eden Bar is located at West San Antonio Street at the intersection of Fredericksburg Street. It's currently a bar. It's been established in 2024 with its first CUP. Surrounding uses include restaurants, bars, a coffee shop to the north, multifamily, retail, and a gym. The existing zoning is CD five d. Yep.

Character District 5 D. The hours of operation are Wednesday through Thursday, 4PM to 2AM, Friday through Sunday, 12PM to 2AM. The CP expiration was this month, 04/08/2026. And there is no concerns from code enforcement, but there is one police call noted on our police report.

I couldn't find it.

And during approval, staff use section two thousand eight hundred thirty four and five thousand one hundred fifty five, and that's included in your ARF. This is the current floor plan, if you know that there are speakers inside and outside. And this is the existing site plan. Staff does want to know that there are 14 spaces. And recently, there's been a food truck added to Eden Bar. And the owners have went and repainted the parking lot so that there are spaces behind where the food truck is. So it's currently meeting land development code for the number of we the the

that standards are met.

And very The occupancy foundation is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. Pardon me. No outdoor amplified sound or background music shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but no case later than 10:30PM. No outdoor amplified sound or background music shall be played before 2PM on Saturday and Sunday. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. Land development code section five one five five e two d, and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. The applicant is here, and that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, sir.

Would the applicant like to speak? Up to you. Okay. Anybody signed up to speak? No commissioner on the Anybody on the chambers want to speak? If you have a close, the public hearing ask for recommendation.

I'm motion to approve CUP 26 dash 13.

I'll second. Any discussion?

I have a question. I couldn't find the police report. What was the police report?

It was included in the registrar. It was much smaller than normal. It was only one call. Yeah. It should have been included in the RF front legislator, but it was I can describe it to you.

Put you, please.

Yes, ma'am. Yes. Across the street is the local, and staff called the police department about a noise complaint. There was no violation issued to the bar,

though. Oh, okay.

It just it says that it's attached, but we couldn't find it. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay.

I do have a question for the applicant, if you mind coming to the podium. State your name, please.

Francis Folia, 206, West San Antonio.

Yeah, Six months ago or so when you renewed this last time, things did not seem to be in particularly good shape. And looking at the last six months, things seem have gone quite well. And I guess my question really is have you done some things differently during that period? A lot. Yeah. Could you tell us what they are?

I started by replacing and basically getting new managers. I have more managers now. I've also just implemented better structure of the business. I work a full time job, so I'm not always there. But luckily, I've been able to put in place structure to where everything is taken care of and checks and balances. So

I walked by there over the weekend and noticed you've got some kind of iron or metal structure that's around your property. Is that something you've done in the last six months or so?

That is a planter box. It's just an accessory structure mainly to add some plants. I haven't had the time to do it yet.

Keep people from coming over the fence basically?

That does help with that.

Because I know that was a problem in

the past.

It was a huge issue. And we have not had that issue since.

Okay. That's really all I had. But no, did they improve did you have something?

I just have one question, and it's for Claudia to make sure that you don't have any comments or any issues with okay. Everything's good. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Follett, that's all that I had. Just it's very impressive, however. I just wanted to Thank you. Find out what you've done. Thank you. One other thing I'd like to just bring up. If I close a public hearing, I intended to.

You have not yet, sir.

You can. Not yet?

Can if you want to,

but you can. I just okay, I'll close a public hearing. I'm new at this. Do we need to make the recommendation all over again, or is the recommendation still good? Or in the motion?

A motion has been made unless we're amending, you know, not Okay,

the motion's okay. Okay, one thing I just wanted to point out to the rest of the commission. If you'll notice, this CUP is effective well, it actually doesn't say when it's effective, but you can back into the fact that it's effective on April 8, which is in the past. And the reason for that, for those who are new here, is that this establishment was a few weeks late renewing their CUP. And in that case, we backdate the renewal to the expiration date of the previous CUP.

And there's a reason we do that that I'm not going get into right now. The only reason I point this out is that later we have an agenda item later It's much more complicated in this respect. But I just wanted you all to be aware of what was done on this case because I think it will help to understand something further down the agenda. That's all that I had. So do we have any other discussion?

Should we vote? Okay. Roll call votes Allison

Hardy? Yes. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Rodney Van Der Kerkie? Aye. Wayne Magnu? Aye. Michelle Burleson?

Aye. Libby Castillo? Aye. Mariah Dunn?

Aye.

The motion to approve with Aye.

Aye. Nancy Doctor. Holmgren:

7.2B, McCarty Commons PDD Amendment, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Quiddity Engineering LLC on behalf of HEB LP to modify standards, including signage standards within the McCarty Commons Development District comprised of 259.52 acres more or less out of the Nathaniel Hubbard survey abstract number two thirty Hayes County Texas generally located southeast of the intersection between I 35 and East McCarty Lane.

Open the public hearing and start with the staff presentation.

Good evening, everybody. Julia Cleary, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services. The request this evening is to amend a planned development district or PDD, the McCarthy Commons PDD located at the intersection of McCarthy Lane and I 35. Specifically, the the area in purple that you'll see at the top of the map is the focus of this amendment, which is the proposed third HEB site. It is located within the city limits.

So the PDD was originally approved back in 2008. There were two subsequent amendments. The first one was about a year later where they added a call center as an allowed use and then about four years after that they effectively carved out specific portion for the future HEB property. The HEB property site was subject to a $3.80 economic incentive agreement which was approved by council back in 2024, but there were no development waivers included within that agreement, so it is subject to the planned development district standards. So just a bit of an overview of the concept plan for McCarthy Commons.

A lot of it is, as you know, is built out. It's it's it's kind of divided into three distinct areas. Starting on the the right or the east, we have sub areas a and b. That's approximately 72 acres with sorry, on the left, 72 acres with a general commercial based zoning of which 17 acres are carved out for the HEB site. On the other side, on eastern side, there is a community commercial based zoning, but the majority of that is built out as a combination of single family and multifamily residential.

And then through the middle, you have what's called sub area E, is about 54 acres. That has a base zoning of public and institutional, and that is predominantly an open space easement that has been, dedicated to the city. So just a bit of an overview, of the again, when we've seen the maps here, are for the entire planned development district. You'll see, for example, on the right, there is floodplain that runs through the middle of the planned development district. That does not touch the HEB site that we're discussing today.

That is predominantly part of the sub area e, which is dedicated as a conservation and open space easement. So what specifically the request is for is to amend Exhibit D which is the signage plan to allow for an additional 60 foot tall landmark sign within the HEB site. So current code and just to clarify, typically PDDs when they're approved, they are able to develop under the code that is in effect at the time of adoption. So this, developers could come in and develop under they could reference older code sections, but actually if you look at what the code was back in 2008 versus what it is today for signage, there's not really a lot of change. So the current code for signs along I 35 allows for a sign face up to 260 square feet.

So that's kind of area at the top that shows the lettering, that's your sign face, and then a height of up to 42 and a half feet. What's being proposed is four fifteen square foot sign face, although I will note that the majority of that is comprised of the the state of Texas outlined with San Marcos. The HEB part itself is only about 145 square feet and then a height of 60 feet. So the proposed sign location would be located at the intersection of I-thirty 5 and McCarthy. This was originally proposed as a fuel price location signage, but this was moved as part of the site plan because the fuel station has moved has moved further south to to the further southern part of the site.

And one of the reasons per the applicant is the sign location and the additional height will improve the visibility from southbound I-thirty 5 traffic. This is our old exhibit. A little bit of context showing kind of the obviously there are HEB signage allowed on the site but it is not as high as the one that is currently proposed. Staff is recommending approval of PDD0702B as presented. Everybody was notified.

We did send a personal notification. Usually you see the 400 feet buffer. In this instance, everybody inside the PDD was also notified. There's a large residential population. We did receive one general comment and also one objection in response to those.

Before I complete my presentation, this was not included in the packet, but I thought it would be helpful. We have taken well, not me our inspector has taken some measurements of some of the adjacent signage just in the area for context. So you've got your Wendy's there, about 35 and a half feet tall. The Taco Bell, these are all in the kind of the outlet mall vicinity is 33 feet. Of note is the premium outlet sign that is 66 and a half feet tall, which is higher than what is being proposed by HEB.

And then we have the Shake Shack, 35.5 feet. Outback is 36 feet tall. Tanger Outlet Mall, 40 feet tall. Cracker Barrel, thirty seven point five and thirty eight for Cavender's Boot City. And also for context, Buckeys sign which was recently approved not by Planning and Zoning Commission, this didn't necessarily go through the typical zoning process, but through their three eighty agreement they were given a sign of up to 68 feet which is higher than the 60 feet that is being proposed. That concludes my presentation. And I believe we have the applicant in the room and potentially online for questions.

The applicant is available.

Believe so.

Applicant would like to speak. Good

evening, commissioners. Joshua Ellich, Equity Engineering, here on behalf of HEB. HEB is here as well. I just wanted to clarify a comment. Ms. Cleary covered most of what my presentation would have been. But she stated that there was a fuel price station sign there. That one's actually being replaced by this one. So the existing approved sign would no longer be It's not an additional sign. It's to replace that one. Now I realize it's substantially taller. The main purpose of that is for site visibility, obviously, so you can see it from the highway. You've got about 25 feet of grade separation there from where the grade is at the site to the elevation of the top of the overpass there.

Okay.

Thank you. And well, I'll add something else. HEB desires to be a good community partner. I'm sure you guys are probably aware if you've been anywhere in Texas, but they're intending this to be kind of a landmark sign. I mean, you can see we're taller than the previous code allowed to account for the highway, but not quite as tall as the San Marcos sign. I think it's quite a bit more aesthetically pleasing than the San Marcos sign and also a way to landmark San Marcos, right? Kind of promote the area. And who doesn't like the silhouette of Texas?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody signed up to speak?

Jim No, Commissioner. The person online is not.

Anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this? Okay. Close the public hearing. Ask for a motion.

Jim Chair, I'll make a motion

to approve PDD-seven-02B with staff recommendations.

I'll second.

Is there any discussion?

For the record, 60 feet is very tall, and there is a nature of tackiness to large signs. But the fact that this is H E B and you are universally beloved forgives any such shackiness. And I love it.

Well, it's also not going be the tallest sign in the neighborhood.

And and we do have examples up and down, like the ones we saw at the outlet mall and stuff, and they may not be quite as tall, but it's not it's not gonna be just this monster out in the field somewhere. I I think we've we've had we've had examples up and down the highway. I it's a good thing.

I like the state of Texas.

Anybody else? Roll call vote, please. We've a motion, yes. Lucy Johnson.

Aye. Rene Vendorgricke? Aye. Wei Magnu? Aye. Michelle Brillison?

Aye. Libya Costilla?

Aye. Maria Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Motion to approve passes.

Okay. We'll move ahead to agenda item five.

CUP twenty six seventeen, Saborovi Vida, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Elvia Granados Leon on behalf of Saborovi Vida for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of beer and wine located at 311 East Hopkins Street.

To open the public hearing and ask for staff presentation.

Good evening commissioners Caitlin Buck of planning and development services. Subject property is approximately 0.2 acres and is located on the North Side of East Hopkins Street approximately 70 feet east of North Edward Geary Street. The subject business is an existing restaurant with on premise consumption of alcohol. The business has held a beer and wine permit since last year. Surrounding uses include multifamily, a bank, office, and a gas station.

The subject property is zoned and surrounded by character District 5 downtown on all sides. The current CEP expires on May 27. There are no police calls reported for this business. All criteria have been, met from both sections two as well as sections five of our land development ordinance. No changes have been made to the site plan or the floor plan.

Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Seth has not received any comments regarding this case. Seth recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire on 05/27/2029 provided standards are The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. The occupancy is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupancy loads stay at or below posted levels, and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. That concludes my presentation.

Okay. It does not appear anybody from the applicant is here.

Are they online?

Anybody Actually, is. I apologize. There's one person online, Ms. Irma Palacios. And Irma, feel free to jump in.

Okay. Good evening, esteemed members of the San Marcos Plan and Zoning Commission. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration today. My name is Irma Palacios, I'm here representing Saboorn Vita restaurant located at 311 East Hopkins Street in San Marcos on behalf of owner and manager, Elvia Granados Leon. This evening, I am presenting Elvia's request for renewal of her conditional use permit to continue selling malt beverages for on premise consumption.

I am here to provide context regarding continued operations. I appreciate the opportunity to speak during this public hearing, and I want to reaffirm Elvia's unwavering commitment to responsible management, integrity, and full compliance with all local and state regulations. Since the initial approval of this permit, Saboran Vida restaurant has operated with consistency, transparency, and strict adherence to every condition established by the city. Our environment remains welcoming, safe, and responsibly managed, and our operations continue to align with the city's goals of economic vitality and community enrichment. Throughout this permit cycle, Elvia has maintained the same high standard outlined in her original application, including maintaining adequate seating arrangements to ensure a comfortable and organized dining environment, ensuring clear and appropriate signage reinforcing responsible alcohol service, adhering to all guidelines for alcohol sales, consumption, and staff training.

We recognize the importance of a well regulated establishment, and Elvia remains proactively committed to accountability, communication, and addressing any concerns that may arise. For Elvia, Savoy En Vida is more than a business. It is a reflection of her passion for serving the San Marcos community with care, culture, and integrity. Over the past permit period, she has continued to build positive relationships with neighbors, patrons, and city staff, ensuring that her restaurant remains aligned with community values and expectations. She welcomes ongoing collaboration with city officials and local stakeholders to ensure that Savora and Vida continues to operate responsibly and contribute meaningful to the local dining experience.

Renewing this conditional use permit will allow Saboran Vita restaurant to continue providing a responsibly managed vibrant gathering space for patrons, sustain its positive contributions to the local economy, further enrich the cultural, social, and business landscape of San Marcos. Elvia Granados Leon deeply appreciate the opportunity to present her renewal request before you today and welcomes any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Okay. Close the public hearing. Ask for a motion.

I move to approve CUP 20 six-seventeen. I'll second.

Okay. Is there any discussion? One thing I will point out just for information, this CUP will not this renewal will not actually start until 05/27/2026 because the applicant is renewing somewhat early, just to let you know how we handle that situation as well. Again, the expiration of their current CUP will be 05/27/2026. So that's when this will start. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Roll call vote.

Sure. Rodney Van de Kerkirky. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Michelle Burleson.

Aye. Lupe Castilla.

Aye. Maria Dunn.

Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Motion to approve with conditions passes.

Move on to agenda item six.

CUP twenty six eighteen, Kobe Steakhouse, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Andrew Chen on behalf of Kobe Steakhouse for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 210 Springtown Way.

Okay. Open the public hearing and begin with the staff presentation.

Good evening, commissioners. Kaitlyn Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately one and a half acres and is located along I 35 Frontage Road, approximately 650 feet south of I 35. Oh, hold on. South so sorry.

The subject property is approximately 0.8 acres located South Side of Springtown Way approximately 500 feet east of Thorpe Lane. The current use is restaurant with on premise consumption of alcohol. The business has held a mixed beverage CUP since 2018. Surrounded uses include retail, restaurants, and multifamily. The existing zoning is general commercial with general commercial and vertical mixed use surrounding the property.

The restaurant the restaurant is is proposing hours of operation are from Sunday through Thursday, 11:30AM to 10PM, Friday and Saturday, 11:30AM to 11PM. The CUP expiration date is February 12. There has been one police call on the property. The criteria from both sections two as well as sections five have been been confirmed and met. The site plan and the floor plan have remained the same.

And staff is recommending approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire on 02/12/2029 with provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified sound, outdoor background sound, and or acoustic sound shall be permitted. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. 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 not received any comments regarding this case. And that concludes my presentation.

Is the applicant here or online?

No applicants online.

No. Okay. There's nobody. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. And I'll make a motion to approve CUP 20, except the term shall be six months and shall expire on 10/28/2026. And I've got some schedules I'm going to hand out that'll explain why that's the expiration date.

I'll second, Chair.

Okay. Vice Chair, we were able to sorry, take we were able Those

who have been on here a while have seen these. Do the same, just take one and pass it down.

Vice Chair, we were also able to take your handout and put it on the slide as well, if

you want

to speak

That's to that better than most people have done with that. So I guess you've got an option how you want to look at it. Okay. What we have here is a CUP that became very, very delinquent at a time in the past. And we had to come up with a way to deal with these because backdating a renewal to the expiration date of the previous CUP doesn't work if the expiration date is more than three years ago.

Because a normal renewal of a CUP is thirty six months, three years, if there are no issues. If there are certain kinds of issues staff recommend or we may recommend a shorter renewal. But typically it's thirty six months if there are no issues. Also, something no matter what term you get with a renewal, the renewal fee is the same. I believe it's $8.00 $3 right now, and that's what you pay whether you get six months, a year, or three years.

And that sort of factors into what we're doing here. But just to go through my schedule, which I think only I know how to explain it is with this schedule. This applicant had a CUP that expired September 2539, and they did not renew it until 08/12/2025. Now there were problems with the CUP process back in the early 2020s, and that's why you have some of these that went many, many years without being renewed. But so this went seventy one months without being renewed at all, which means really during that period of time that the establishment was actually operating illegally.

But also there were two renewal payments they should have made during that period that they did not. And what we are trying to do with this approach really is this is not intended to be punitive. It's meant to have the total of the renewal payments that the applicant pays whenever this process is finished, that's laid out on this schedule, be exactly what it would have been had they renewed on time each time. It's really just, as much as anything, out of fairness to people who do renew on time because otherwise there could be an advantage to being delinquent for several years. So we're trying to take that advantage away and put them on the same terms as everybody else.

So on 08/12/2025, they finally did renew the CUP. As I say, they were seventy one months delinquent at that point. And so had we backdated the renewal to September 2539, they'd still have been delinquent. So what we do in a case like that is give them a six month CUP so they can continue operating and then apply the other thirty months of what would normally have been a thirty six month renewal against the delinquency that they've accumulated, which at this point was seventy one months. We applied thirty months back to that.

And at that point, they still have an accumulated delinquency of forty one months. And then kind of unfortunately, they're two months late renewing this time, so I've thrown that back into the calculation. So now they're at forty three months accumulated delinquency. Again, I'm proposing we give them a six month renewal, take the other thirty months of what would normally have been the thirty six month renewal and apply that back against the forty three months that they're still delinquent, which would leave them still with a thirteen month accumulated delinquency. And we will catch up on that six months from now when we renew it on 10/28/2026.

In fact, at that point, we would give them a CUP that would expire on October 28 I'm sorry, 09/28/2028, which would be twenty three months from their next renewal date. But any event, at this point of the process, they would get a six month renewal and that's what I'm proposing. We've incidentally done this exact same thing with at least seven other applicants who delinquent to this extent. So this is not something we made up for this particular applicant. So that's where the six month comes from.

Yes, Commissioner Hardy.

Is there a way to have them just pay late fee?

Is there a way

Sorry. Is there a way to just have them pay late fees without having to tie up employees' time?

You know, there may be, but it's not something

we

can

do. We

had one this is basically about the only thing we can do is work with the renewal date because what you're talking about is just sort of beyond what we can do. I suppose if somebody wanted to do that, they could I don't even want to throw this out, but I guess they could appeal to counsel and propose it to them. But we don't have the authority to do that.

Right. And I would say that, you know, just going forward, we've our systems in place now are probably not going to allow the delinquencies to be this long as some of these prior ones have been. And I think we mentioned a couple of meetings ago, we actually caught every everybody's caught up now. So all that to say, we don't really have a mechanism to find them per se for the delinquency that I'm aware of. And so that's, you know, as Commissioner Angle pointed out, this is one way to do that. It's been done. It doesn't have to be done. It's not codified that it has to be done this way in ordinance. Timeline is up to the commissioner or up to the PNC commission to set that.

This might be a good item for the CUP committee to maybe review for future reference, you know, just to see how they want to, maybe would be a good thing for them to address. And bring back to us for, you know, for feedback on it and consideration being, but like you said, we don't have very many left from under this, but I think it still would be a good item for them for discussion and review.

Yeah. I'm brief. I'll note that.

Okay. Mister chair.

Mister Johnson.

Question for staff. So if they were serving liquor while their CUP had expired for a period of almost six years, why were there no consequences from the city?

I couldn't speak to that other than, you know, maybe it was a tracking issue and I wasn't wasn't here, you know. I am on month five.

And I know you

are new.

So someone who's not new. So but but, know, that process was was noted, it really was a pretty lengthy process, over a year, year and a half of work by the staff to do that. But, you know, could there have been violations written? Probably, likely at the time. But again, regardless, our main goal here is to get them caught up and get them in the system and get their CUP active.

Someone who was here for the last few years, I would really love to know why there's no it doesn't seem to have any kind of punitive process that existed.

My apologies, commissioner. I was also only here for the past three years, but that would be a great question to ask, when Andrea is back.

Right. From my understanding, this is not our first rodeo with this. My understanding was that back, like, pre COVID and during COVID, a lot of things got behind. There were a lot of staff changes and different things, and there were quite a few like this. So my understanding was it was never to penalize anyone.

It was just to make sure that they were broad compliant. And some people that's why now when you we say that we want those things listed on their actual permit for everyone to see is so that they have reminders because they may they more than likely had to have a TABC they just didn't have our CUP but had they had that little piece of paper up there on the wall that says this is when it expires. Now you understand why we printed these things that we're saying that they must post is so that they understand what their obligation is. It was just something that the city had a lot of turnover. It was right after COVID.

People just weren't tracking, and that's what happened. And we've still been trying to catch them up. Some some people have gone and they have fought us on this at council and they have appealed and they have won because of circumstances but these people would have to go to council and appeal

Commissioner Johnson, mean, just bluntly, I think what happened several years ago was that staff I mean, basically lost control of the CUP process. And what we're and that was true for several years. And what you're seeing here and what we do as far as backdating or I guess moving backdating to the expiration date of the previous CUP were kind of attempts to do what we could do on P and Z to try to deal with it to some extent. But the process just got out of control, and it's improved greatly, I'd say, over the last couple of And most of these things you see like this go back to that bad period in the early 2020s, etcetera. Go ahead.

Sorry, just to follow-up. And so when you were saying, you know, this is what we've come up with, I assume you mean like the planning and zoning commission members, not staff, because staff is recommended And three

zoning members did. Because we have the ability to determine the term of a CUP.

Yes.

That's the only tool we have. And so that's what we're trying to do is use that in order to at least, you know, what we're really trying to do here as much as anything is really fairness to those applicants who did who do renew on time, who do things the way they're supposed to do. We're trying to do what we're doing here more in fairness to them so that those who are, you know, for lack of a better word have been scofflaws, aren't benefiting from not having paid their fees for many years, which is what we're really trying to recoup here. But yeah, the term of the CUP is the only thing we really have the ability to determine.

And I'm still learning all of this stuff, but I have a problem with this particular one. Expired again, what, in February. Yeah, I know. You know, and I don't like and I know that we're not saying this, but I don't think it should be staff tracking these people down. If I have a business that depends on alcohol as part of my income, it's up to me to check that when my license is due.

It's not staff's responsibility. I I just have you know, okay. We I'll give you COVID. We had we had issues then in two thousand nineteen, twenty, whatever. But, again, just a couple of months ago, it's almost like they're laughing at us. That's what it feels like.

Well I have a question for staff. Were they late in filing there, or has it just taken y'all this long to get all the paperwork together? Because I know in the past, like, people can actually file their paperwork, but it might take some time. So I don't want them to be penalized if they actually filed it on time or filed it within a reasonable amount of time but it's just now getting to us.

I'll let you answer that question. But it's not just like the day you get it, it goes to the next P and Z. There's a timeline process you just briefly described.

That's correct. With this particular case, staff sent out the two letters letting them know that they need to renew. They still didn't come in, and that's when we sent code compliance. And they submitted their application the same day or the day after code compliance came.

But generally there's a publication period and so forth that goes with that. So it's not just like we get it and it goes right to PNC. We have to publish it at the public hearing. And those are some of the days that accumulate there.

Claudia?

Good evening, Commissioners. Claudia Cormier with Code Enforcement. To answer a couple of questions, let me make sure a little bit of clarity. But yes, Commissioner Johnson, first things first. I've been doing this for about a year and a half coming up in two years. We did have to get a process streamlined to where we were collaborating. There was transparency as what the process was going to look like. We have to give staff the opportunity to communicate with them. In speaking with COVID and staff turnover, yes, that did happen a lot. The postings, they are reminders, but there's also, I believe, yes, there is a responsibility for the applicant to make sure they are educating their employees and even themselves keeping a reminder.

But in this particular case, yes, I did speak to the applicant. I called them because it came to me. Normally, they start doing their process sixty days out. Is that correct? Sixty days out. When they don't get a response, then it it comes to me, and that's when I call the applicant. Most of the time with a phone call, it suffices the first time I did go in person just to make sure that I introduced myself and what my job was, which was to remind them they were in violation. They had certain amount of time to submit. In this case, I called mister Chen. He apologized, but I will say that staff did go in person, and somebody did sign that they received the notice.

Now the miscommunication between the applicant and his staff, I told him that's something that I cannot tell him how to do it, but I did remind him it is his responsibility to make sure he is getting mail from his staff to himself. So that's what this app with this particular applicant.

Okay. Christian? Let

me just make a few comments here. Commissioner Johnson, I got on this dais in '21. And so for a couple of years after that, it was like every time we had these discussions, it was not very pleasant because of the fact that a lot of the CUPs that were coming before us were already way late. Now, there were several factors involved. I think Commissioner Berlinson mentioned COVID, whatever.

At that time, it was just we were having a real hard time commissioners on this dais because of the fact that there were so many. I'm just going to comment on that because of the process that was being implemented at that time. The question was, is that how do you have them on the schedule? Who makes the notice to the CUP holder following up? We had discussions about, well, it should be their responsibility.

I mean, we've had these discussions way, way back. I am glad to say that there has been a lot progress made regarding this. It's good to see a CUP committee that's addressing the other issues that come up. And hopefully, at some point in time, we'll get through these CUPs that are under this magnitude as far as being this delinquent and we won't have any but I think there should be I think there should be a consequence and that's the thing is that we don't have any consequence attached to the fact other than what commissioner Agnew has now developed and you know the the diocese at this time when he first started noticing that and and and making amendments every time a a recommendation was done as to when he would say well we need to go back because of this because of the fact that they were they didn't come in time to they were maybe six months late they were maybe a year late or whatever so in synopsis in the form is that we're here, we're hopefully going forward but I do think that maybe the CUP committee needs to address. Also maybe a possible consequence should something like this come up.

You know when you have a consequence you generally don't have very many that are violating a violation and maybe we need to have that for future use, future reference. I don't know. But that's why. I mean, I'm just telling you of my experience and what it was like. It was very frustrating because of the fact that there was no really process as to how why are these people taking so long to come and renew their CUPs.

You know, it was like that for a long, long time. But I'm glad to say that, you know, like Claudia mentioned, you know, there's been a change in the processes here and who's implementing them you know I'd like to see the CUP maybe look at a consequence, have a discussion on that and bring it back to you know the diocese here for consideration or whatever but it was a learning experience for me because I didn't realize that there were so many that were, there were quite a lot of them that were delinquent. And I'm talking about one in two years. I mean, we were dealing with this for a long time. I'm glad to say that we're beyond that, and I like the process that we have the progress that we have made so far.

Hopefully, we'll continue to make and address other issues that will eliminate any future any issues that may be affected CUP.

Mr. Van Aureka?

Yes. I guess my question is to you, Claudia. Do as do we contact TABC and say, look, these people are in violation of at least our ordinance. And by our rules, they shouldn't be selling alcohol. Do we Can ever contact

I address that? Sure. So our remedy would be then to take action from our side first and then, you know, we've been told that if we revoke their CUP that then TABC might take some action after that. But we rarely have gotten to the point where we have revoked a CUP and we don't have an actual process for doing that right now in our code. We're working on that.

And that really should be the capital offense. I mean, don't need to go out there and start yanking people's license. We need to don't mind working with them. But some of this is getting it's ridiculous.

Yeah, and if I can provide some I'm sorry, director. Are you about to speak? I was gonna provide some. Okay. So if I can provide some context as that. As far as consequences go, miss Johnson, so I I can provide one example. We did have one that I went in person. They still refused. So what happened with that is we actually posted this was actually run through our legal department. We posted on the door that they had an expired CUP. Did we technically shut them down? No. They were an eating establishment. They could continue with food sales, and we posted that they could not sell alcohol, and they were also issued a citation. So that was one example, and it did get their attention because they did submit their application, unfortunately, two months later, but they realized the consequences.

They closed voluntarily, I did not tell them they could close. I don't have an authority unless there's a structure issue. So that was one example. As far as consequences, that is something that we are discussing as to are we going to, hey, you are you're expired, you are not listening at this point. You are not allowed to sell alcohol until you are renewed. That is a conversation we are going to have. I'm sure we'll schedule it that during our CUP, but that is one consequence that has happened as far as, hey, at this point you are expired and we were given the green light by our legal department to proceed with that.

So is the fine? What is the

So can I add, so this

is

a zoning mechanism, the CUP process, and the way that you enforce zoning is by issuing a citation if someone is using property in a way that's not in accordance with the zoning regulations for the city, or there are civil remedies that we pursue that are a lot more complicated and expensive for the city? So what Claudia is describing is a citation can be issued, it's just that things don't necessarily have to get to that point now because Claudia is working with people and getting a faster response, I think, is where we are right now. But I know that we're going to be discussing possible other actions.

But what is the fine? Like what is the incentive other than getting angry letters and stuff, putting it on my door, that would, as a business owner, incentivize me continue with the CUP process if you're not really stopping them from serving?

The fine would be whatever fine attaches to not following our zoning ordinance, which could be $500 up to $2,000 for certain things. I'm not sure what fine was. Do you know what the fine was on that citation?

No. Unfortunately, the permit holder did not show up, but now it's a warrant. But I know.

Well, yeah. Go they go to court, and I will just kind of mention, those fines can be up to daily for a zoning violation. Each and every day you're in violation. Yes, you can do that. And now there's court when it goes to municipal court and different things from there. But yeah, it's a land use violation. A land use violation is selling alcohol. Now can they still sell food? Sure. Does it shut them down? It just shuts down that component. And our best mechanism is zoning violations, which again can be written up to daily. Now it's a lot of work and we don't want to get there. We want compliance, right? We don't want to work it that way. So that's sort of the remedy, Bob. I mean, that's the remedy behind it.

I just have a question. In the application, the application itself, when they submitted for first time or renewal, right, is there anything of that verbiage in the application that the applicant is reading at the end saying the message to them that if you don't renew it, when you renew it, these are consequences? Is there anything on there?

Don't know that I see it in the application, but it's working with their case.

Not that I've seen

on the application. However, when I do make my visits, my in person visits, especially with new people or if they're renewing, I do review the consequences. Like, please don't let it expire. It is in land development code. Like I said, I've probably only had to do that once, and that was that. But if we are going to move in a direction where we allow less time and then we do the expired, that's gonna be an internal conversation discussion with staff.

I just think that it might be a good idea to maybe list some there so they can read and say, well, you signed that. You know, there's consequences to if you don't renew your permit at the time or your CUP when you should.

Right. They have to post their COP, and then I think we're adding a QR code to it that actually links back to a web page that also, I think, some on the committee have seen that actually shows those conditions on top of that. So there should be plenty of reminders, but we try really hard for compliance before we get there. Mr. Horner, violation.

I just have a question. I'm thankful for this, and I appreciate and I understand this. However, I'd like to understand impact on the city staff, like preparing the COP. Like, how many hours? It just seems like a lot of work. So how much

I can take one more.

It's a great question. I believe it takes, I want to say maybe eight hours and three employees. So we have someone drafting the letters, printing them, actually, like, mailing them out as well as emailing them as well as physically hand delivering them. And so depending on how many we have within that month, could be up to about eight hours of

work. Times three. So like three

I think she said three people. Right?

Yes. But eight hours, not individual work combined between the three of us.

Chairman, can I make a point, a legal point? I think we're getting a little beyond what's on our agenda for consideration right now and we're talking about a subject that you may want to put on a later agenda for the commission to discuss or perhaps refer it to the CUP committee. CUP committee, yeah.

Okay, agreed. Is there any further discussion on this CUP?

I just have one question. Refresh my memory because we had this when we were considering before. Planning can't actually charge somebody. Like, there are no additional fees for like, you ask commissioner asked, like, can we can they just pay a fine or pay a fee

and then go from there? That's against the law, right? Right. So the fees that are attached to the CUPs are basically permit fees and they have to actually permit fees have to be set by the city and they have to be, know, there's a process for doing that and we have to follow those fees and the fees have to be related to the actual cost to the city for the administrative actions that we're taking related to that permit. And there are no other fees that we can charge. The fines that I was talking about, that's a different process, that's a criminal process and it goes through the court system.

Anything else? No. Okay, yeah, the motion that we're voting on then is renewal with a six month term. Go ahead and have a roll call vote, please.

Sure. William Agnew. Oh, aye. Michelle Burleson?

No. Luby Costilla?

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

Aye.

Ronnie Van Der Kerkicki? No. Motion to approve with conditions passes. Five to two.

That's correct. It's just presentation.

I'll read into record.

PDA 25.2, Lasema eighth amended development agreement. Received a presentation regarding an eighth amended and restated development agreement with Lazy Oaks Ranch LP and its partial act assignees in connection with the Lasema development located near the intersection of Old Rancho 12 and Wonderwall Drive to align align the development agreement with city resolution twenty twenty five seventy four r and special district legislation which created the Lissima Municipal Management District number one.

Yeah. Got it. Yeah. Over the public note, it's not a public here.

Yes, sir. Good evening. Will Rugley with the Planning and Development Services Department. So tonight I'm providing an overview of the eighth or the proposed eighth amended development agreement for the project known as La Cima. So to begin, I just wanted to provide a brief overview of what a development agreement is.

And a development agreement, or for short, DA, in essence is a negotiated contract between the city and the developer that establishes expectations, standards, and long term commitments for how a property will ultimately be developed. Agreements like this give the city and the developer a certainty regarding infrastructure and land use and timing of development. So throughout the last decade, the La Cima DA has undergone, as indicated by the caption, multiple amendments. And to summarize the history of those, in 2013, the DA was first authorized. In 2014, additional acreage was added.

In 2018, modifications were made, including additional acreage adjustments to the max number of dwelling units, a reduction in the project's overall density, and 30 acres of multifamily were first introduced. In 2020, acreage increased again and multifamily entitlements were adjusted from acreage based to a cap of seven twenty units. Just continuing into more recent years, 2021 saw one amendment, which revised phase one multifamily from acreage to unit counts. Another amendment occurred which introduced film and television uses and development standards for those specific uses. And then finally, in 2022 additional multifamily standards were included and later that year another amendment brought in an extra twelve ninety five acres.

So this particular amendment, the eighth one, it does three primary things. Number one, it officially recognizes the three existing public improvement districts, aka PID. Number two, it incorporates the new municipal management district or MMD that was created through special district legislation that became effective 09/01/2025 and which was also authorized via city council resolution in 2025. And finally, it authorizes the use of all financing district mechanisms for the funding of public improvements. So the purpose for tonight's presentation is informational only, and no PNC action is necessary as this amendment comes before city council for consideration and action at their nineteen May city council meeting.

Applicant, mister Eric Willis, great guy. He is here this evening and that concludes my presentation.

Okay. Mister Willis, would you like to speak? Eric

Willis, Alumni for Lafayette Lane, Pflugerville, Texas. Thank you, Will. He always does a great job presenting it. And as he said, it's it's to add language to the development agreement consistent with the consent resolution that was approved by the city, which then led us to go to legislature create the municipal management district. And then that's really just all that's occurring with the amendment to development agreement, incorporating that language into the development agreement as we said we would when we got

the consent with the city. That's it. Okay. Thank you. There's really no action we need to take, but is there any discussion?

Chair, I have a question for Mr. Willis or your representative. These new funding mechanisms that are now available to you,

I

assume they include property tax assessment?

Correct. So public improvement districts allow assessments Mhmm. To service debt that's issued. Municipal management districts allow assessments and property taxes to service debt that's been issued. Under either scenario, per our development agreement, we also agree that we get annexed into the city. So anything we do in Lecima, you're in the city of San Marcos. If you live in Lecima, you live in the city of San Marcos. So every time we do move forward, we annex a new phase as we as we plan for that phase and that way the city is already in line before anything that we do with regard to debt being issued.

Does that debt issuance require voting property owners?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes. That's it. Okay. Anything else? I guess we move on thank you, Will. Guess we move on to questions from the press and public. Which then takes us to adjournment.

Chair, I make a motion to adjourn.

I second.

Okay. Roll call vote, please. Please.

Sure. Michelle Brillison.

Aye. Luther Castillo.

Aye. Maria Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Brian Van Der Krukke. Aye. William Agnew.

Aye. We are adjourned at 07:52 p. M.