Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this regular meeting and planning is only commissioned to order on Tuesday, May 20th. No. On June 9th. I hope I got the right notes here. 2026 at 6 p.m. Roll call, please.

Sure.

William Agnew. Here. Randy Bryan. Michelle Burleson. Here. David Case. Here. Lupe Costilla. Mariah Dunn. Here. Allison Hardy. Lucy Johnson. Ronnie Veneta-Kirkey. Here. We have a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. As you please sign your cell phones. The commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All other inquiries be forwarded to the staff. The commission will strive to ensure the meetings are conducted in a courteous manner in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. This now brings us to our citizen comment period. Brian Hardin, sir, you have three minutes after you state your name.

Chair, I do not see Ryan signed up online or online right now. Okay.

Now it brings us to our consent agenda.

Chair, I make a motion to approve our consent agenda.

I'll second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please. Sure.

Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

David Case. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Rodney Veneta-Gerke. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. The motion carries.

Brings to public hearing item number two.

CUP 2626, Tumble 22, all the public hearing and consider requests by Amber Gibson on behalf of Tumble 22 for renewal of conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 1104 Thorpe Lane, Suite D. We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner. Tumble 22 is located at the eastern corner of Hopkins Street and Thorpe Lane. Next slide. Temple 22 is an established restaurant that received their conditional use permit in 2024. Surrounding uses include retail sales and services, restaurants, a grocery store, and single family residential to the south. The existing zoning is general commercial. The hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Sunday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. The current conditional use permit will expire on June 11th of this year. There are no concerns with code compliance, and there are two calls reported with the San Marcos Police Department. Staff's analysis using San Marcos Development Code Section 2834 and 5155 is found in your staff reports. This is existing floor plan. There were 26 notices that were mailed to surrounding properties and two posted signs on the property. Staff has received zero comments for or against. and staff recommends approval of CUP 2626 with the following conditions. This permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire June 11th, 2029, provided that standards are met. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit, land development code section 5155E2D. The maximum number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels And this permit should be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. That concludes the presentation. Thank you.

All right. Do we have anybody who wants to speak in favor of the permit at this time? All right. Seeing none. Anybody else in the chambers? Anybody online? All right.

Close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2626 with staff conditions, except that condition three should read, The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels instead of what's currently there.

Would it be adequate to say that we're just going to remove maximum from that line?

We're going to remove maximum and add number of, and add number of, yeah.

If you want to look at it that way and I'll second, we have seconded by commissioner Burleson to remove maximum and to add number of, Do we have further discussion on this item? Do we need clarification on that?

Do you need clarification on where number of is being added to? Yes, sir.

Where maximum is currently, right at the beginning of the sentence.

Currently, we have the maximum number of people, so should we just remove maximum?

We're on Temple 22, correct?

Yes, sir.

What I'm looking at reads the maximum people occupying. The next one reads the way you just said, but. And in fact, when you read it, I think you read the maximum people.

On my staff report, I have the maximum number of people.

That's what I have. The maximum.

So what we'll do is we'll just note that.

If that's what we're working with, then just removing maximum is fine. I'm looking at something different. That's the official thing. Remove maximum.

Understood. Sounds great. Thank you.

In clarification, we got a motion approved by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Burleson, with staff in conditions except for removing maximum from item number three. Any further discussion on this item? Yes.

Commissioner Agnew, I have a question. So in the definition, if I'm reading this correctly, it does say maximum. I'm just curious, why would we not keep maximum?

Well, which page are you looking at?

For me, it's three or four, so the occupancy.

What this condition is trying to address is the actual number of people in the establishment and saying that the actual number has to be compliant with the maximum, which is determined by the fire marshal, correct? So to say the maximum number of people has to remain compliant with the fire code is kind of saying the maximum number has to comply with the maximum number. instead of the actual number in there has to comply with the max.

I believe commissioner Dunn is looking at the CUP matrix that does have maximum included. Yes. But we hear, I understand what you're saying, commissioner Agnew.

No, I, I, I'm looking, we've got three different things then. Cuz what I was actually looking at initially was the staff, the second page of the material we got. And if I go to the slide, yeah, it does say maximum number up there. So you've got a third thing. Okay. Okay. But anyway, I'm trying to get it worded so that we're saying the actual number of people complies with what they fill in the blank with them with that number or we just leaving it. I'm not really working from the matrix. That's the problem. I'm working from, uh, what staff has, has proposed.

The only reason why I bring it up is just because I know we talked about staying consistent with the matrix and everything. So seeing that that's what Mark fire code goes by and that's what we have in our matrix. I'm just wondering if that would confuse things.

I think, Commissioner Dunn, I think the matrix is going to get changed, correct, to agree with this wording? Is that correct?

Yes. I mean, so I can share my screen as well, but yes, the goal is to be consistent all across the board, and I believe the latest version that we had is the maximum number of people occupying, and then you had your... I think last P&Z we talked about removing maximum, and again, this is just a staff error, but moving forward, I have updated the land use matrix, and it does say the number of people occupying the building. And so we'll make sure that we're, but moving forward, that's gonna be the, the language that we have. And of course, we'll probably have to update it to reflect some of the land development code if it passes next Tuesday. Okay, thank you, David.

And I just want to be clear, and I know the commission doesn't change the number. That number of people for the occupancy rate is set, not set by the CUP, it's set by the building code. And regardless of the language, that's going to be followed.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussions?

Roll call please.

Sure.

David case. Hi. We're done.

Hi.

We're running out of cookies. Hi. Will you magnate? Hi. Show Burleson.

Hi.

The motion to approve carries. Brings to item number three.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner.

Got to read it in two. I apologize. CUP 2627, Toro Ramen and Poke Bar. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Anton Hortono on behalf of Toro Ramen and Poke Bar for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 700 North LBJ Drive, Suite 114.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner. Toro Ramen is located north of Texas State University at the northeast intersection of Sessom Drive and North LBJ Drive. Next slide. Toro Ramen is an established restaurant that has held a conditional use permit since 2019. Surrounding uses include retail sales and services, restaurants, apartments, and Texas State University. Existing zoning is community commercial. and the hours of operation are Monday through Sunday, 11 to 9 p.m. The current CUP expires June 13th of this year. In three years, there have been no concerns with code compliance and zero calls reported with San Marcos Police Department. The criteria of approval and staff's analysis has been included in your staff reports. This is the existing site plan and floor plan. And 15 notices were mailed to surrounding properties and two posted signs placed on the property. Staff has received zero comments for or against. And staff recommends approval of CUP 2627 with the following conditions. This permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire June 13th of 2029, provided that standards are met. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit, Lane Development Code Section 5155E2D. No outdoor amplified background and or acoustic sound shall be permitted. The maximum number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. And this permit should be posted in the same area and manner as a certificate of occupancy. That concludes the presentation. Thank you.

All right. Would the applicant like to speak in favor of your permit? Seeing none. Anybody else in the chambers wish to speak? Anybody online?

No chair. We'll close the public hearing. Make a motion to approve CUP 2627 with staff conditions accepted in condition four, the word maximum will be deleted so it reads the number of people occupying the building, et cetera. I'll second.

Motion approved by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Burleson, removing the word maximum from recommendation number four. Any further discussion on this item? Roll call please.

Sure.

All right. Done. Hi. Run a minute. Okay. All right. William Agnew. Hi. Michelle Burleson.

Hi.

David case. Hi. Motion to approve carries. Bring us to item number four. CUP 2628 stripes. Hold the public hearing and consider requests by Tom Yaloa on behalf of stripes for conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 3936 South IH 35.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 2.9 acres and is located along I-35 Frontage Road, approximately 250 feet north of Centerpoint Road. The subject business is an existing convenience store with gas sales. Surrounding uses include restaurants and retail. Next slide, please. The subject property is zoned General Commercial and is surrounded by General Commercial to the north, east, and south, and Character District 5 to the west. Although the store operates 24 hours per day, the business is required to remain compliant with state law and stop selling alcohol at 2 a.m. All criteria for approval have been met from sections two as well as section five. These are the proposed site plan and floor plan. 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. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire on June 9th, 2027, provided standards are met. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. The number of people occupying the building 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. That concludes my presentation.

All right. Would the applicant like to speak in favor of your permit? See none. Anybody else in the audience or chamber? Anybody online? All right. Close public hearing.

I'll second.

Motion approved by Commissioner Agnew, second by Commissioner Dunn with staff conditions. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir.

I have a question. The applicant is not requesting late hours from what I can see. So if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't mean they can only sell alcohol until midnight Sunday through Thursday and one o'clock on Friday and Saturday.

That's correct. Okay.

That's different than what's in the staff presentation, but That is, in fact, what they could do, right?

Yes, but there's nothing to prevent them from requesting a late hours permit from CABC.

No, I understand that. Yes. But they haven't yet. Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion? All right, roll call, please. Sure. Ronnie Venitakerke. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Shel Burleson. Aye. David Kinks. Aye. Mariah Dunn.

Aye.

Motion to approve carries. All right, item number five. CUP 2629, 711, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Tim Laoa on behalf of 711 for a conditional use permit to allow on-prince consumption of beer and wine located at 1550 North IH 35.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is just under one acres and is located on the southwest corner of Ocarina Springs Drive and I-35 Frontage Road. Next slide. The subject business is an existing convenience store with gas sales. Surrounding uses include restaurant, multifamily, and a health care facility. Next slide. The subject property is zoned general commercial and is surrounded by general commercial to the south and west, multifamily 12 to the north, and multifamily 24 to the east. Proposed hours of operation are from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. all days of the week. All criteria have been met from both sections two as well as section five. These are the existing site plan and floor plans. 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. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire on June 9th, 2027, provided standards are met. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. The permit shall be posted in the same area in manner as a certificate of occupancy. That concludes my presentation.

Okay. Do we have the applicant available to speak in favor of their permit? We do not. Anybody else in the chamber wish to speak? Anybody online? Seeing none, close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CEP 26-29 with staff recommendations.

I'll second.

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

All right.

Roll call, please.

Sure.

William Agnew. Aye. Shel Burleson. Aye. Davey Case. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Ronnie Van Otterkerke. Aye. The motion to approve carries.

Brings us to item number six.

CUP 2630, Craft House Kitchen and Tap. Hold the public hearing and consider a request by Sean Neal on behalf of Craft House Kitchen and Tap for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 242 North LBJ Drive.

We will open the public hearing. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner. Craft House Kitchen and Tap Room is located at the southeast corner of North LBJ Drive and East Hutchinson Street. Craft House has held a restaurant conditional use permit since 2016. And since Craft House is a restaurant and located within the central business area, it must adhere to the requirements of Section 5155 of the Land Development Code. The existing zoning is CD5D, character district 5D. The hours of operation are Monday through Sunday, 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Surrounding uses include restaurants, bars, retail sales and services, offices, and a public park, which is the downtown mobility hub. Existing CEP does expire on April 13th of 2027, but Craft House is required to renew their conditional use permit due to the expansion of its service area next door. There are no concerns with code compliance and nine calls reported with the San Marcos Police Department. Staff's analysis using San Marcos Development Code Section 2834 and 5155 is found in your staff reports. This is the existing site plan and floor plan. Note that Craft House is expanding nearby to the south to the nearby 2750 square foot suite and with 156 square foot sidewalk cafe that's been previously approved next door. were 47 notices mailed to surrounding properties and two posted signs placed on the property and staff has received zero comments for or against and staff recommends approval of cup 2630 with the following conditions this permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire june 9th of 2029 provided standards are met the business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit lane development code section 5155 e2d The maximum people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code and to include ensuring the occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. And this permit should be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. I do know the applicant is available. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. If so, the applicant may speak in favor of your permit at this time.

You don't have to. Okay.

Anyone else in the chambers wish to speak? Anybody online? All right. We'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2630 with staff conditions, except that the expiration date will be April 13, 2030, which is three years from the expiration of the current CUP. And also, in condition three, maximum will be replaced by number of. So it says the number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant.

And I'll second.

All right. Motion approved. by Commissioner Agnew, second by Commissioner Burleson. We would have an effective date of April 7th, 2027 with an expiration date of April 7th, 2030. And for item number three, we will remove April 13th. I'm sorry, April 13th. And for recommendation item three, we will remove maximum and add number of. Any further discussion on this item? All right. Roll call, please. Sure.

Michelle Burleson. Hi, David Case. Hi, Mariah Dunn. Hi, Ronnie Minerva-Kirkey. Hi, William Agnew. Hi. The motion to approve carries.

Item number seven.

CUP 2633, the kickback. Hold the public hearing and consider a request by Brian Baker on behalf of the kickback for a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 312 University Drive, Suite D. We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located on the southwest corner of University Drive and Moon Street. Next slide. The subject business is a new indoor recreation business located outside the CBA but within the downtown area. Surrounding uses include restaurants, personal services, and Texas State University. The subject property is zoned Character District 5 downtown and is surrounded by CD5D to the east, south, and west, and public to the north. Proposed hours of operation are from 1 p.m. to 2 a.m. Thursdays and Fridays. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five. This is the existing site plan and floor plan for the business. 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. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire on June 9th, 2027, provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified acoustic and or background sound shall be permitted. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. The business shall not pursue or hold a TABC late hours permit. The number of people occupying the building 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. That concludes my presentation.

All right. Thank you. I believe we have the applicant online. Um, so please state your name and address and you have 3 minutes.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Brian Baker. I'm the owner and applicant of. The kickback located at 312 University Avenue here in San Marcus. We're extremely excited about the kickback brings to the community. A live event bar and music plays for the community to gather focused on safe and well managed entertainment. For the San Marcus and Texas State University community. We've worked hard to get to this point. We appreciate the staff's recommendation for approval. We fully support conditions 1 through 3 and 5 and 6. The 1 year permit the no outdoor amplified sound requirement, the cleanliness standard and fire code occupancy limits. And the posting requirement we understand and accept those. However, we do want to respectfully raise a concern about condition for the prohibition on pursuing or holding a late hours permit. We ask that the commission consider removing or modifying this condition for the following reasons. 1st, a late hours permit is a standard tbc authorization allows a venue to serve alcohol until 2 0 am. Which is the same closing time permitted for bars across Texas and many comparable bars and areas. right here in San Marcos operate within this permit. Prohibiting us from holding one puts us in a direct competitive advantage in the local market. Second, this is a lawful permit issued and regulated by the state of Texas. We believe that operating within that framework and a full TABC oversight is actually a stronger accountability mechanism than a blanket cup condition. We're committed to being a responsible operator and a good neighbor. We were not asking for anything beyond what other establishments in the city already have, and we simply want an opportunity to compete, which we respectfully request that the condition for we removed were modified from the approval. And we're happy to answer any question the commission may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Baker. And I believe we have a Ryan Persinger online. If yes, please just state your name and addressing a 3 minutes.

Yes, thank you. My name is Ryan Persinger. I'm the co-owner of the Kickback. Brian did cover everything that I believe we had concerned. So thank you for that, Brian. I have no further statement.

And Brian, if you could just give us an address, business or personal.

Yes, sorry. It's 312 University Drive, Suite C, San Marcos, Texas.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the chambers wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. I will provide a motion to approve. I'll provide a motion to approve subject to removing item number four, the business shall not pursue or hold a TABC late hours permit.

I'll second that.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Van Hutterkirky with removing item number four. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Dunn.

Can you clarify why that is in there? Item number four, why they can't.

Yes, that's on the new CUP matrix, and it's a requirement for all new businesses within our downtown area.

Interesting. Kaylin, could you explain the intent and why we added that? And if you can't, then it's fine. I think what we were trying to do was sort of, give an opportunity for all new businesses, all new CEPs, hey, let's review their CEP, let's give them a year, let's see if they don't have any issues, and then come back and then we'll remove it for the next renewal. So that was sort of the intent that we are having. Obviously, y'all can remove that, but I just wanted to explain a little bit more on how we got there.

Okay, question for my colleagues that are on the CEP committee. something that was done before, like earlier? Did we do that? Because I don't remember.

I think it was earlier than either of us. It was just a discussion and I think a lot of this is, correct me if I'm wrong, is staff trying to, along with some of the concerns before with CEP committee in the very beginning when it very first started, with just trying to, like he said, give everybody an opportunity to get in, and then when they come back in a year, then we could remove that. So I guess it just.

I don't recall, and David, you have not been around that long, I know. Before the CUP committee started, did we have a practice here of not putting this kind of condition on first year operations?

I mean, based on the research and the history, you know, I have not seen us put something like this on there.

That's not my recollection either.

But I have seen it on others.

I think it was maybe like on a case by case that something was added. And that's why I think why we came up with sort of it landed on the matrix, right? Because we were like, oh, this is a concern. we can go ahead and put it on for new businesses, just see how they go. And then we'll just remove it on the second or that first year has passed. And so again, y'all can remove that as what the recommendation is right now.

It seems to me that for, for businesses that don't operate downtown, this condition doesn't normally seem to trouble them, but for downtown businesses, it does. And I guess the feeling is that maybe if we're operating downtown, this puts you at a competitive disadvantage.

Yeah, I would assume competitions tough out in the streets.

Okay.

Okay. Question. Isn't the whole purpose, like with the, with the one year that we put on the CUP, just isn't that the whole, the reason we did that was to see how they do just the general one year.

Yeah. Yeah. We've been doing that as long as I've been up here.

Yeah, I would just kind of piggyback along. I think not being a business owner, but I think the first year for a business is hard enough. It is so hard. And then to do this just seems like it puts them at an unfair advantage. And I think if there's problems, then we'll deal with the problems. But we're assuming they're guilty before they do anything. So I'd like to see that one go away, that part of it go away.

Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, I think particularly for downtown business, I agree.

I don't have a problem. I mean, it's hard to make it down there with the rent and everything. I just feel like we're putting them at a disadvantage by adding this restriction, especially in that industry too.

It's already just a year or two. Yeah. It's, it's, it's already a year, so I don't have a problem with it. I'm fine.

All right. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Sure.

David case. All right. We're done. Hi. Hi. We have Magnet. All right. Show Burleson. All right. Motion to approve carries.

Non-consent agenda. Item number eight. This is a non-action item. We're going to get a presentation and express our opinions.

PDA 2203, Sedona South Development Agreement. Receive a staff presentation and discuss a proposed development agreement requested by the City of San Marcos and Carlson, Briggins, and Doering Inc. on behalf of JLBC, 710 Investments, LLC for approximately 643 acres out of the Charles Henderson, Andrew Mitchell, and SAMGRR co-surveys in Hays and Guadalupe County, generally located on South Highway 123, northeast of the intersection of South Highway 123 and FM 1978.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Good evening, everyone. Julia Cleary, Senior Planner. So as Chair Case mentioned, this is an informational presentation regarding a development agreement. However, if you do have comments or concerns, these can be relayed through the notes that go to City Council next month for approval. So this is a approximately 643-acre site at the intersection of State Highway 123 and FM 1978. It's predominantly within Guadalupe County. They are not a party to this agreement. However, we have consulted with them extensively throughout the process to make sure that their concerns are addressed. are met. In terms of surrounding uses, we have Sedona North, to the north of the property, which was annexed and zoned back in about 2022. And then we also have the Cottonwood Creek neighborhood. The site is proposed for predominantly single family with some commercial and light industrial and multifamily along 123. But you'll also notice this blue parcel on the top right hand corner of the site that is actually land owned by the city now for the city's second wastewater treatment plant site. And therefore the city is technically an applicant also in this development agreement request. Next slide please. So in terms of surrounding zoning, we have predominantly single family to the north with some commercial as well within Sedona North. Future development also to the north as well. And then the vast majority of the surrounding area is going to be outside of the city limits and therefore is not subject to any zoning restrictions. Next slide, please. So this is actually quite an old application. It was actually submitted back in 2022. There have been quite a few moving parts to this. There's been a couple of mud consent agreements approved by council. There's also been a wastewater funding agreement. And therefore, because it's been in review for such a long time, the preferred scenario that we're using is not our current preferred scenario map, but rather the preferred scenario map at the time of application, which had the previous low intensity designation, which if you recall, says that even though it's in an area of stability, and so any changes, whether new developments, zoning requests, or public improvements should be carefully planned and implemented so that the character of the area remains. Next slide, please. So this is the concept plan. I will note that the majority of this site, and I'll get to it later, is not proposed for any zoning and annexation. So a lot of the time when you see development agreements, you'll see a base zoning district. With the exception of the wastewater treatment plan, this will not be annexed, this will not be zoned. And so because the city does not have land use authority in the ETJ, this is effectively going to be their determining land use document here in the concept plan. There are no conditional uses. I know we kind of are used to seeing conditional and limited uses, but rather all these uses that are specified in the concept plan are going to be allowed by right. So the brown part on the far left, That is proposed to be a mixture of either multifamily, commercial, or industrial in order to kind of ensure some commercial. There's obviously been... Concerns that there's a lack of commercial on the east of the highway, and so the council committee recommended that there be a restriction that no more than 50% of this area, shown as brown, it's about 46 acres in total, I believe, will be multifamily. So 50% of it will need to be commercial or industrial. The green part next to that, that is proposed as open space and parkland. That is predominantly, there's some of that, a lot of that is in the floodplain. The pink area, MUD standing for municipal utilities districts one and two, those are effectively financing districts and governing districts for the roadways and other infrastructure. Those are proposed as predominantly but we've also included some other uses that are compatible with single family, but it's predominantly single family uses. That little yellow triangle in the middle, that is a cemetery. No development is proposed within the cemetery. You'll see a little green park up there, and then to the far right, that is the city's wastewater treatment plant site.

Next slide, please.

So just a clarification on those specific uses. So as I said, residential uses are going to be single family homes, duplexes, zero lot line homes, town homes with one house per lot, cottage courts and ADUs. This was kind of taken from using the CD3 based zoning as a kind of a template, mainly because CD3 is right to the north in Sedona North. It also allows churches, childcare facilities, police fire and EMS, parkland, limited home occupations, home care, and community homes. And the multifamily is going to reflect our MF24 district. So multifamily and apartment residences with no more than 24 units per acre. And then the public and institutional part, which is the city's wastewater treatment plant site. The use there, that would include major utilities. The wastewater treatment plant is major utilities per our code. Normally, that would allow a that would be a conditional use permit. But this this development agreement establishes that that is a use that would be allowed by right once it is annexed and zoned. Next slide, please. And then we have our industrial and commercial uses. So you remember that everything on the plan shown in brown can be any one of these things. So an industrial use is effectively anything that is defined as an industrial use in section 5171 through 5178 of the San Marcos Development Code. That was included in your packet. So as I said, there's no conditional uses. If it's in there, if it's defined, it is going to be allowed by right. There are specific exclusions that have been included. So wrecking and junkyards, storage of flammable materials, with the exception for vehicle services. And then commercial uses, those are not typically defined in the code, it's quite broad, but that ultimately is any use involving a part and whole, the sale of merchandise, materials, or services, with the exception of adult-oriented businesses, pawn shops, crematoriums, and the storage of flammable materials, except for a gas station or a truck stop. Ultimately, if there's a commercial or industrial use that is not specified as excluded, the understanding is that would be allowed by right. Next slide please. So in terms of the processes, so this would use current code processes in terms of platting and watershed. I will say, when I say current code, we are going to have to make some very quick edits likely before it goes to council because the code is about to be updated, so we'll probably have to make some quick changes to that. But we have an adopted interlocal agreement with all of our counties regarding platting that's required by the state. We do have one with Guadalupe County and it basically says that all parcels greater than five acres, they are approved by Guadalupe County and solely subject to Guadalupe County platting standards. But anything else, we would be the platting authority and we would consult with the county. Building permits are not required by the city and the ETJ. So the type of permits that we would look at would be your platting, your watershed protection plan, and a site permit for anything larger than single family residential. One of the requests that the county had for the developer, again, this is not an agreement with the county, but we did consult with them, was that they have a separate roadway maintenance plan to be approved by the county prior to platting. So this is in a municipal utility district, and so ultimately the municipal utility district will be responsible for the maintaining of that, but the county just wanted to make sure that they were aware and that they had a plan that the county could approve. Annexation and zoning. So as I said, no annexation is proposed. This will remain outside of the city limits with the exception of the wastewater treatment plant, which is proposed as a light industrial zoning based zoning with major utilities allowed by right. And then as I said, Guadalupe County standards will also apply. Next slide, please. There's a couple of waivers and amendments to our standard processes. Specifically, we have a couple of things. One, the code typically requires that all lots 40 feet wide or less be accessed from an alley. the request is to remove that requirement. A dead end street maximum length, currently dead end streets can exceed 400 feet. In the ETJ, the request is to increase that by 100 feet to 500 feet. Landscape islands, this is actually something that we are removing in our code in this part of the updates, and so it will, it's likely a moot point anyway, but the request is to remove the requirement for eyebrows in landscape islands. And then we are introducing a minimum 50 feet lot frontage in the ETJ with the code updates. So they are requesting that that be reduced to 40 feet in the development agreement. Next slide please. Cut and fill standards, so your excavation, currently the code says that it cannot exceed four feet. Administratively, the request is to increase that to 12 feet. And then two-tiered residential blocks, the idea that you have, typically you avoid having residential lots backing up to a two-tiered residential block. typically a major thoroughfare we want to remove, they're requesting that that requirement be removed. Next slide please. Our thoroughfare plan, typically the code requires that all thoroughfares are included. This is in the ETJ and in the city limits. There is a thoroughfare that is requested to be excluded from the site plan, from the plat. You'll see that actually as proposed, the roadway thoroughfare that is circled in red, that actually is proposed to, as shown, it would run right through the middle of the wastewater treatment plant. And so that is requested to be removed. And so those thoroughfares are going to be as shown, the north-south connectors shown on that exhibit to the right there. Next slide. In terms of sidewalks on adjacent streets, we do require sidewalks along the side of all existing streets. The section currently, per the Transportation Master Plan, shows FM 1978 and State Highway 123 as boulevards, which have a 12-foot shared use path on one side. They are proposing sidewalks per the exhibit above, so specifically along FM 1978. 1978, there would be a six foot sidewalk with a 10 foot charges path along State Highway 123. And then there will be a trail, a 10 foot trail, I believe, connecting through that parkland and open space, providing the connection up, I guess, through the parkland there. Next slide. Parks and open space, I did just want to highlight that no development again is proposed within the existing cemetery. Next slide, I think I duplicated this one actually. So currently per our code, we require public parkland dedication based on the acreage. They don't have a finalized lot count yet. It's likely between 2,500 and 3,000 lots, notwithstanding the potential multifamily. We typically require that it's all publicly accessible. They are requesting a approximately three acre little parkland lot to be private and the rest of that, the open space along the western side of the development, which will include a trail, that will be provided, that will be publicly accessible. and included with the plat. And also the committee did request that the existing cemetery be provided with vehicular access and on-street parking surrounded by a perimeter fence and also identified with informational signage. Next slide, please. So as I said, this is an informational presentation. It will go to the city council next month. We have kind of upped our notification requirements as well recently for development agreements. So everyone within 400 feet will receive a notification as well as it being in the newspaper. However, any feedback you have will be relayed through notes to the council. And that concludes my presentation.

Didn't even have my hand up. I do have something. The exclusions from industrial uses, waste-related services in other contexts has usually been combined with the two that are here. And it is, it's section 5.1.7.5 in the Land Development Code, so it does fall within the parameters up above. But I would suggest, I guess, to council that they consider adding waste-related services to the exclusions.

Any other comments? Excellent presentation. Thank you. This now brings us to questions and answers with the present public. Seeing none, that brings us to adjournment.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second.

Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Burleson, seconded by Commissioner Dunn. Roll call, please.

Sure. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Ronnie Venetocruci. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. We're adjourned at 6.46 p.m.