Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I call this regular meeting and planning zoning commission to order on Tuesday, September 8th, 2026 at 6 PM. Maybe a roll call, please. Sure. William Agnew. Here. Randy Brand.

Here. Michelle Burleson. Here. David Case. Here. Lupe Costilla. Here. Brian Dunn. Here. Allison Hardy. Here. Lucy Johnson.

Here.

Ronnie Menendez. 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 forwarded to staff, the commission will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courtesy manner and in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. This now brings us to our citizen comment period. Seeing none, is that true? All right. Brings us to our consent agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve our consent agenda. I'll second.

Got a motion approved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Randy Bryan. Yes. Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Lupe Garcia. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Ronnie Van Underkirky. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. The motion to approve carries.

We're going to start a public hearing. To speak for, against, or about this item, come to the podium. You may only speak once per item. When called upon, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. The timer will be green when you start. With 20 seconds left, it will turn yellow, and you will hear a ping. When your time is up, the timer will turn red and a bell will ring. This brings us to item number two.

CUP 2635, Fairfield Inn and Suites. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Frank Chen on behalf of Fairfield Inn and Suites for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 1250 North IH 35.

We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 2.75 acres and is located on the north corner of McCoy Circle and I-35 Frontage Road. The subject business is an existing hotel with on-premise consumption of alcohol. The business has held a beer and wine CUP since 2015. Surrounding uses include RV park, a truck rental, retail, and restaurants. The subject property is zoned general commercial and mixed use and is surrounded by general commercial to the south and west and mixed use to the north and east. The current CUP expired on August 12th of this year. There are no police calls on record for this business. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five. No changes have been made to the site plan. All alcohol sales are from the hotel's concessions area between the hours of 7 a.m. and midnight. Guests are expected to consume the alcohol in their guest rooms. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices to 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 three years and shall expire September 8th, 2029 provided standards are met. The business shall be responsible for the subject property and the abutting right-of-way excluding the public street or alley pavement within 50 feet of any entrance and exit in a clean and sanitary condition free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibility shall not overlap another alcohol CUP holder's maintenance area. 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. And that concludes my presentation.

If the applicant's here, would you like to speak in favor of your permit? So please come to the podium.

We do have one signed up online. Okay.

Brandon Salcedo, if you please just state your name and address, and we'll have three minutes.

Yes, thank you. Yes, my name is Brandon Salcedo. Address is 323 Patricia Drive, San Marcos, Texas, 78666. Yes, nothing has changed. We're just requesting approval to renew our permit. We appreciate the staff's recommendation for approval, and I can answer any questions that may be needed.

Thank you, sir. We will close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2635, except that the expiration date will be August 12th, 2029, which is three years from the expiration of the current CUP.

I'll second.

Got a motion approved by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Burleson, with adjusting the expiration date to August 12th, 2029. Any further discussion on this item? Roll call, please.

Sure. Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Lupe Costilla. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy.

Aye.

Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Rhonda Bonader-Kirkey. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. Motion to approve carries. Brings us to item number three. CUP 2642, Chewy's, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Chewy's for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 1121 North IH 35. We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garris, and Planner. Next slide. Chewy's is located on a 0.956 acre parcel in the Springtown Shopping Center south of the intersection of IH 35 and Springtown Way. This is a renewal request for a restaurant conditional use permit for on-permits consumption of alcohol. Chewy's has held a restaurant CUP since 2016. Surrounding uses include retail, restaurants, and multifamily. Next slide. Existing zoning is general commercial GC. The current use is restaurant. The hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Friday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. The CUP expiration is August 22nd of 2026, and there was one police call over three years. Next slide. Staff used San Marcos Development Code Sections 2834 and 5155 when reviewing this case, and this analysis is found in your staff reports. Next slide. Next slide. Please see the proposed, or this is the current site plan. Next slide. This is the site plan continued. And 94 notices were mailed to surrounding properties, including one posted sign placed on the property. Staff has received zero comments for or against. And staff recommends approval of CUP 2642 with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire September 8th of 2029, provided standards are met. Business shall be responsible for the subject property and the abutting right-of-way, excluding the public street or alley pavement within 50 feet of the entrance and exit in a clean and sanitary condition free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibilities shall not overlap with another alcohol CEP holder's maintenance area. Land Development Code Section 5155E2C. 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 listed, and this permit should be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. I do know that the applicant is available in person and also online, and that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Paige Johnson, if you'd like to come to the podium, please just state your name and your address, and we have three minutes.

Good evening, Paige Johnson, address 1121 IH 35, San Marcos, Texas, 78666. I'm the general manager there. I'm here to answer any operational questions if you have any.

Thank you. Catherine Chambly, I apologize if I misspelled your last name.

No, that's great. Hi, my name is Catherine Chambly. I represent Chewy's Opco. My address, 511 West 7th Street in Austin, Texas. I just wanted to say we appreciate the time to present here today and thank the commission for recommending approval of this renewal. And I'm present here for any questions y'all might have. Thank you again.

Thank you. We will close the public hearing.

Make a motion to approve CUP 2642, except that the expiration date will be August 22nd. 2029, which is three years from the expiration of the previous CUP.

I'll second the motion.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew, second by Commissioner Costilla, with an expiration date of August 22, 2029. Any further discussion on this item? Roll call, please.

Sure. David Case. Aye. Lupita Costilla. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Ronnie Van Etterkirky. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. Shel Burleson. Aye. Motion to approve carries.

Brings us to item number four.

CUP 2646, Blind Salamander. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Alan Shai on behalf of Blind Salamander for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 301 North LBJ Drive. We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening, Commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 0.18 seconds of an acre and is located on the northwest corner of Hutchison Street and North LBJ Drive. The subject business is an existing restaurant with on-premise consumption of alcohol. The business has held a mixed beverage CUP since 2021. Surrounding uses include service, retail, bars, and restaurants. This business is located within the central business area. Restaurants' uses within the CBA are required to meet certain standards related to kitchen equipment, meal periods, advertisement, and cleanliness outside, outlined in Section 5155B4B. The subject property is zoned Character District 5 downtown and is surrounded by CD5D on all sides. The current CUP expires on October 10th of this year. There are 14 police calls on record for this business reported over the past four years. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five. The criteria for CBA have been looked over. No changes have been made to the 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 three years and shall expire September 8th, 2029, provided standards are met. The business shall be responsible for the subject property and the abutting right-of-way, excluding the public street or alley pavement within 50 feet of any entrance and exit in a clean, sanitary condition, free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibilities shall not overlap with another alcohol CP holder's maintenance area. The business must have a kitchen and food storage facilities of sufficient size to enable food preparation. The kitchen must be equipped with and must utilize a commercial grill, griddle, fryer, oven, or similar heavy food preparation equipment in accordance with the city's health code. The business must have meals available to customers during the hours that the business is open. A meal must consist of at least one entree. such as a meat serving, a pasta dish, pizza, a sandwich, or similar food, and a serving that serves as a main course for a meal. At least three entrees must be available during each meal service. The business must be used, maintained, advertised, and held out to the public as a place where meals are prepared and served. An eating establishment shall have a posted menu on their website and any applicable social media platforms. The number of people occupying the building 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, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. I see the applicant is here. Would you like to approach the podium? Please state your name and address, and we have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Alan Shai. I live at 2686 Black Bear Drive in New Braunfels, Texas 78132. Um, I've been doing business in downtown San Marcos for 27 years as a property owner and business owner. Um, I'm just here to request a renewal for my CUP. My only request is that for the last five years, I've had a CUP that requires me to serve food for two, four hour periods, not the entire time that my business is open. So I request that those standards be held and the way that I develop my business, be able to be continued. So other than that, I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the chambers wish to speak? Do we have anybody online? All right. Close the public hearing.

I make a motion to approve CUP 2646 with staff conditions, except that the expiration date will be October 10th, 2029, which is three years from the expiration of the current CUP.

I'll second.

Okay, motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Burleson with the adjustment to the expiration date of October 10th, 2029. This now brings us to our discussion period. And with the discussion period, if I could ask legal for clarification on what the commission can and cannot make recommendations on with the CEP, as I understand it, that we cannot recommend against the land development code, but maybe I'm not clear on this. And this is in reference to the food, the serving of the food.

Right. And if my recollection is correct, the council recently amended the land development code to require food service during the full hours of operation. And so you can impose a lot of conditions, but not one, not a condition that is contrary specifically to a requirement of the code. That would be the problem there.

Questions? Yes, sir. Sam, so you said, as I recall, are you pretty sure of that, like 99.99% positive of that? Yes.

And I'm sorry I don't have the provision in front of me, but let's see. We had looked at it this morning.

That's correct, but we can read it. Just give us one second. We can read it so everyone can hear it.

So are we saying the Land Development Code says that bars have to serve food the whole time they're open?

Restaurants do. That was a recent amendment.

The CBA, which is what we have today is a CBA, a permit within the CBA that is wanting to be a restaurant. And so the definition of a restaurant was amended by the city council to state that they must sell food during all the business hours that they're open. But I'll let Terry read it verbatim for you. It's in Chapter 5.

I'm having a little technical difficulty with my online. Yeah, so as mentioned earlier, this is going to be in Chapter 5. It's going to be in Section 5.51. 5.1.55 restaurant bar. And then B2 says the business must have permits for an eating establishment including alcohol sales valid up to three years. And number three says the business must have meals available to customers during the hours that the business is open. A meal consists of at least one entree such as a meat serving, pasta dish, pizza, sandwich, or similar food in a serving that serves as a main course for a meal, at least three entrees must be available during each meal service. So that is the provision that was adopted in the latest round of land development code.

And since that's an ordinance, you can't have a CUP that contradicts an ordinance. It takes priority over the CUP. There are situations where you have special conditions, but they're not in direct, I wouldn't say violation, they don't directly contradict the ordinance and this would not be consistent with the ordinance. Mr. Johnson.

I've got a follow-up question to that. If it is now part of the ordinance and is codified as a requirement for all businesses, all restaurants, I say all businesses that are restaurants.

In the CBA only. Yeah.

Why are we including it as a specific condition for the CUP if it's already a requirement?

So that's a good question. And there's not a legal requirement to restate things that are already required by ordinance. But it is my understanding what's happened in recent years, and I've been away from the PNZ for a while, but is that it is helpful to the police and to code enforcement and actually to the managers on site to have those conditions in a easily accessible place where they display their CUP. And it's just so it's really more of a convenience that we put those conditions in there, even though it's not necessarily legally required, because it's already in the ordinance, it's a great way for even anyone going in, they can immediately see the typical conditions without having to memorize the ordinance. They can see them right there on display. And that really has just been a practice that the commission's been following.

CHRIS RODGERS. Commissioner Agnew?

COMMISSIONER AGNEW. Yeah, two points, two comments. For those of us, for those of you who are here, last year when we had the land development code amendments come to us for approval. You probably don't remember this one because it wasn't included at that point. When we dealt with the land development code amendments, this amendment hadn't been proposed. It happened later when city council dealt with the land development code amendments, and they added it at that point. So if you don't remember it, it's because we didn't see it. The other thing I just commented, as far as Commissioner Johnson's comment, And I never thought of this, but I guess one advantage of having certain of these things on the CUP itself is when the land development code does change, it brings it to our attention. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't even know about it at this point. We wouldn't know to deal with it. So it has that advantage, too.

I just wanted to see if Claudia had any thing to say about after reading, did you have any comments or anything on this CP?

Perfect. Yes. Um, so I already had had a question about this because it was my impression that they have a 51% with the TABC. Um, Is there a 51% with the TABC? Does that mean that TABC doesn't require that they have to serve food?

No, this is just our local requirement. It's not a TBS TABC, uh, rule.

Okay. So it really has nothing to do with that basically, because if they're a bar, why do they have to get a restaurant CUP from us? Why not a bar CUP? That's probably an obvious answer, but I don't know it.

So we have two types of CUPs and this specific one is a, uh, food establishment, uh, restaurant CUP. And that's where the requirement comes.

What we have here, we have, uh, can explain this better than me really.

But in the CBA, I guess, there are limits to how many alcohol CUPs we can have. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, it's 15 just pure bar permits that are not required to serve food. And then there's another number. I don't remember what it was. There's an additional allowance for for bars if they serve food, for alcohol serving establishments that serve food.

Just to correct that, it's 14. So there's 14 total bar permits within the CBA and 25 maximum, I should say maximum, restaurants with alcohol sale permits that we can issue. And we are capped at the 14.

Right, that's what I'm going to say. Yeah, they're capped. So if all 14 of the bar CUPs are taken, And if a business wants to operate an alcohol serving establishment downtown, they have to get one of the restaurant CUPs. And then they have to comply with the food service. And that's what we're dealing with here.

But what is very unique with this is this property was constructed in the applicant, correct me if I'm wrong, was constructed in 2021-2022 under the conditions of the Land Development Code. It has now changed.

Mm-hmm.

So his business model was following the rules that was put in place for him to operate in our central business.

Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir.

To me, it seems totally unfair, but it seems like our hands are tied. We have a business that's been in business for many years, follows the rules, plays by every rule we throw at them, and then in the middle of the game, we change the rules. But I don't know how to get around it.

I don't think there is a way for us to get around it here. Is there anybody on the CUP committee that can explain how this decision even came up? Maybe some background on it?

Okay, so there were a lot of things that were happening. A lot of the restaurants that hold the alcohol CUP, they were not serving food. So in order to ensure that people are serving food, because that's really what you are, is a restaurant, not a bar. So you should be serving food at all times. And that's how this came about, because if you're a restaurant, then you need to be serving food. And that's what happens when you don't have one of the bar CUPs. And I mean, I get it, because we had so many people that were just not following the rules they thought, let's make it easy. Because at that time, there were people that said, oh, we'll just come in and serve early in the day, serve food, but then we don't have to serve in the evening. It was just all these different things. Nothing was working. So it was just a blanket that if you're open and you're a restaurant, then you should be serving food at all times. And that's kind of the gist of it, right?

Am I allowed to speak?

Yeah, I was about to give you the opportunity to respond to that, but then also explain how you were, your food operations was working at the same time too, just so you have the floor.

Okay, so I've been around San Marcos for, I've owned businesses and developed properties and businesses in this town for 27 years. I actually used to sit in that chair right there. So in the early 2000s, I wrote the current CUP code. I was on a committee that did this, so I understand this code very well. Okay. So it's, it's the fact that I, it's the fact that, you know, I took a piece of property on a corner and developed it. I put a business in it, put a whole bunch of other stuff into it, but I developed that business under this business model. And now halfway through the game, I get the rules changed on me. So I get to add $1,500 a week to my cost that I'm not sure I can make up for. because the rules got changed mid-game on me. And I get the whole legal development, you can't go against this and everything, but I also own a lot of properties downtown that I have other tenants in that also have these type of CUPs. So every time they come up, they're gonna stand here and their business model's gonna change. So I may lose tenants. I may lose my business. I may lose my tenants. So this, this ramification of changing the rules and going and making a rule that is more restrictive instead of less restrictive, because the way we used to do it. So we had the 13 or the 15, right? And then they go, Hey, Alan, we want to create something for restaurants. We said, okay, well, what do you want to do? They said, we want to do this two, four hour periods. We said, okay, we'll develop this many. Those don't affect this. So in my opinion, what the land development code should have done is said, okay, we have this many four-hour, two four-hour periods. Those are frozen the same way that the 13 or 15 bar onlys were frozen. Now, anyone else that wants to come along and do this, here's your new rules. But instead, they're taking every business downtown and saying, now the rules change. And it's not just the business owners. It's the landlords like me. that also had to worry about losing a tenant. I mean, so there's going to be some serious ramifications to this and I want everyone here to understand that.

Mr. Agnew, Mr. Shy, if I could just ask you a question, uh, and I'm completely sympathetic to what you're saying. I'm not trying to argue at all, but can you tell us how is this going to cause you to have to change your operations? What, what are you going to have to do differently now?

Well, for me, like I'll just take the blind Salamander, for example.

Okay.

So I open it. I open at 2 PM in the, in the middle, in the day, I serve food for eight hours. Now on the weekends, I serve food till 2 AM, but that Sunday through Wednesday, when I'm slow, I'm able to close my kitchen after eight hours and save all that overhead. So it's, it's, it's, it's surely an economic issue. And when I developed this building and I'm not throwing money around guys, but when I tore that corner down and built that beautiful building and spent $3 million and put that Cantina in, it was based on those parameters. And now not only them, but every other tenant I have in buildings downtown, they're going to come before you and next year and the year after and everything like that. And their rules are going to get changed. So it's going to affect the business owners incredibly. How many additional hours are you going to have to be serving food now? I mean, I would say four times... 16 to 20 a week. When you're talking about a kitchen staff and everything else, I've done the numbers. It's $1,200 to $1,500 a week in overhead that I'm literally going to have people standing in the back going like this because they just don't order food. It's not that I'm not serving food. It's just not being ordered. This isn't a market economy. Like I said, sir, Like on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, I already served food until 2. Because you know why? There's a demand for it. And everyone's wanting to order food, so I'm like, heck yeah, keep that kitchen open. Let's go. Let's serve some food. But on a Monday night, if I can close my kitchen at 10, it saves me a fortune. And you're going to multiply that by all of the people that have been issued this restaurant C.U.P., I'm not sure how many they are. I mean, I know there were 25 issued back in the day when we made this ordinance. But however many those are, everyone's going to be affected every time someone comes in here and does this. And you're going to have people go out of business because of this. You're going to have landlords lose tenants because of this. You're going to have property owners lose tenants. You're going to have people lose their livelihood because of this. I know it doesn't sound like that much, guys, but when your margins are super tight to begin with, It's a big deal. And, you know, I mean, look, I know there's problem childs out there. I know there's people saying they're serving food and they're not serving food and all this kind of stuff. Well, Claudia's really good at her job, and she can come down on them as hard as they want. I've gone through three menu changes in the last six months. I've changed my entire menu three times in the last six months because I want to sell food. because I didn't spend $150,000 putting a kitchen in to not sell food. And it's just, it's, it's, I mean, to change the rules halfway through the game, guys, it's, it's, I mean, you know, you understand, like, all right,

unlike Commissioner Agnew, we sympathize. The only and the best thing that I can say is because we didn't make this rule, so we can't change it. But as soon as possible, I think that you need to go to a city council meeting and maybe I don't know how you would appeal it, but I'm sure that staff could, you know, instruct you on how to go to council and how to talk to them and see if it's some type of way that they're able to do something because no matter what we say here, we can't do it, but they have the authority to do so.

And I understand that, and I know you guys are sympathetic with me, and I know you guys' hands are tied. I totally understand. But it's... I'm not sure if there's a committee for this, guys and ladies and gentlemen, but I'm extremely knowledgeable about this. Like I said, I was a commissioner for several years. I wrote this ordinance in the early 2000s. If there is one, put me on it. I'll help you close the loopholes. I'll be the one that says, hey guys, you can't, let's not look at it that way, let's look at it this way. I mean, I'm here to help. I mean, like I said, man, I've got $10 million invested in downtown and properties and businesses. I'm not here to buck the system.

We want to see you succeed because nobody wants to put a small business out of business. And that's not... I don't think anyone at the city of San Marcos wants to see that happen. And I'm telling you, I think it's worth the conversation at council.

Like even this, even this ordinance right now, I can poke hole. There's loopholes all over it. Even what you guys have to vote on right now because of your hands are tied legally and everything else. There's five loopholes and I can tell you what, I'm going to take advantage of them because it's not my problem.

Mr.

Chair, you guys have put me in this position.

Actually, you said two things that met, met a really good point with me. If do we not have any wiggle room? If you're serving food eight hours a day, that's a normal business day.

The problem is the way the land development code reads.

It's very specific.

I do have a follow-up question for the attorney on this. Hypothetically, if the council were to change the land development code specifically about this issue, but we had approved it with staff recommendation number four, would that hold them to the requirement, say, two years down the line if council had changed the requirement?

Well, if council actually took this issue up to... create either some sort of a carve-out or simply go back to the old rule, which you're saying, say that happens. My suggestion would be, because their whole intention was, the reason they're doing that is because they have sympathy for the situation.

And I'm not suggesting a carve-out. I'm saying if we approved that specific item, would they be beholden to it, even if council changed the rule?

Well, that's where I'm going. So if they were to even do this, it would be in response to, you know, comments from you and other owners, perhaps. And so my suggestion would be at that time is that the ordinance specifically indicate that any existing CUPs with that condition, that condition would be invalidated by the ordinance. So there's two ways to do that. The ordinance could specifically state that, that any conditions like that in a CUP would no longer be valid, or Alternatively, you could place that condition in this approval until such time as the ordinance may, you know, indicate otherwise. So there's two ways to do it. Put it in this CUP, the condition of,

We're all writing this down, so.

Yeah, but I think the easiest way, honestly, I think the best way to do it is when they adopt an ordinance and say that happens, they would just indicate that it would not be applicable to any, or that any current CUPs with this condition would no longer be enforceable as to that condition. So, yeah, so we would have a solution for that.

Okay. would it also have the same effect if we left out their item number four recommendation entirely knowing that they still have to follow the law as written now?

Yes. Uh, because it's in the ordinance, it's required by ordinance. And again, going to the issue of what's actually on the CUP, there's no legal requirement to restate everything that's in the ordinance. We put that on CUPs, again, for the convenience of people being able to see it. But there's no ordinance that mandates you put each condition in the CUP as far as when you're simply restating what's already required. So that is another approach as well. It's just not our normal practice. We like to list everything. But it's an option for the commission.

In that case, Chairman, I move to amend the approval of CUP 2646 with the staff recommendations, with the exception of staff recommendation number four.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that. And if I may, I want the record to be very clear. So that does not mean that the ordinance does not apply. The ordinance is still enforceable, and I'm just... I want it on record for the applicant and everyone else that the ordinance can still be enforced even though that's not stated on the CUP itself. And I think the applicant knows that as well because he used to be up here and knows that as well.

I understand it completely. But before you guys vote, if you don't mind, I also want it to be stated on the record that these conditional use permits are not being enforced equally in the district. in the downtown district. The rules aren't being applied equally across the board as it is written. So I just want that on the record.

All right. So just, just so you understand. So that's where we're at with that. So if the, if the ordinance is ever amended, that takes care of it down the line. Okay.

Oh, okay. Um, we are in discussion now. Yes, sir.

Yeah. A question for Sam. Uh, this CUP, hasn't expired yet, it doesn't expire until October. And at that point it's gonna get renewed immediately. Does that, unlike a lot of our CUPs that come in already delinquent, so there's a break and then we renew them and so forth. But this CUP hasn't expired yet, it's gonna get renewed immediately when it does get expired. Does that create any kind of continuity where we could claim this is grandfathered?

I don't believe it does because my understanding is that each permit actually expires and then they get a new permit. I think we're used to the terminology of renewal, but I believe the way the code is written is each permit has an expiration date and then a new permit is issued in kind of... So essentially there is no continuity you're telling me. That's correct.

Okay. All right. Commissioner Bryant? Um, so the 5.1 0.5 0.5 0.B 0.4 0.B. Um, is there, is there nothing written anywhere that, that allow, I mean, the whole thing denied is we're coming, coming for a conditional use permit. So something that code says we've got to veer off it slightly. So we have a conditional use permit. Does that section 5.1, I won't say the whole thing. Does it not have. any kind of way, that's my first question, does it not have any kind of way to get around it? And then my second thing is, if I asked y'all to take a step back, because we've done this before, I was on the PNZ before, I think I served with you back in the day. We took a big step back, something we didn't think we could solve, We took a big step back and we came up with something creative. Is there no way we could do something creative that's within the law, within the spirit of the law, or whatever, in this particular situation?

To say there's no way, let me put it this way. I can't think of a specific thing off the top of my head. But one of the things that's out there, but again, I don't think this is the long-term solution. we do have a requirement in the code, or a provision in the code for economic development purposes. Standards in the development code can be waived other than environmental standards, right? Like cut and fill requirements, you normally can't waive those because that's an environmental regulation. But setbacks, certain other things, and I don't want to promise this because there's specific provisions, but that might be an option. in a specific case, right? But what I'm hearing is more of a broader issue that maybe you have concern. So I wouldn't say that'd be a permanent solution. It might solve one case, because maybe there's an economic development situation that could possibly warrant a waiver of that requirement. But I think there's a bigger solution or bigger question to look at from a policy perspective if that's kind of what the commission is interested in exploring.

Well, I think from a policy perspective, Alan Shai did tell us about the businesses around him that are going to be coming up here running this same issue and then also the possibility of losing tenants as well. So if there is a way we could word that, that it would be an economic development issue in our eyes, I would. be more than happy to entertain with that.

That wouldn't be something the commission has authority over. It's a city council thing. Yes, sir. But I'm just saying, yeah, so it wouldn't be something the commission could do. That would be purely a city council type of issue. But again, it does seem to me it doesn't solve the, well, the issues that Mr. Shy is raising in the, as far as the broader, CBA and restaurants in the CBA.

There's a part of me that wants to decline this so you can go have a field day up there at City Council while it's election time.

I do just want to...

I don't need to get into politics, guys.

No, it's not about that. He's trying to fight for his business. Is there a way to... Well, I'm not sure because we really don't have a say, so it needs to go before the body of City Council.

If... Sorry, question. If we do decline it, then it goes to city council? Is that what you're saying?

He can take it to city council. But then he would have to pay. Then he would have to pay money to appeal our decision. It's not in his best interest. It's not in his best interest to do that.

So what would be the path forward for people that are interested as this discussion goes? What would be the path forward?

So the path forward is an amendment to the development code to change the rule. And just wanna make sure everyone understands a development code amendment can be applied for by anyone. We actually have an application for that. It can be initiated by council, planning and zoning commission, a board commission or advisory body. So that is an option and that is a path, but that is the only path besides a 380 that we can think of as actually amending the development code.

380 is an economic development agreement. So we could right now apply for an amendment I think they're saying the applicant has to do that. She said P&Z could.

P&Z could do it, but you would have to request to place this on an agenda for the next meeting because we're not posted to do that tonight, but if the commission so desired, you could put this on a future agenda as a discussion item.

But we still have the amendment that is on the table right now. And so let's vote on that one, and then we'll get back to further discussion.

Let me just say that I think that we've had a lot of discussion on this subject, and hopefully maybe several council members are listening to this and maybe taking note of this, that this is something that needs to be addressed beyond jurisdiction here. I mean, I would be looking to see what's going on. And I would definitely want to take some action.

I think they're just as surprised as we are. I don't think anybody did this intentionally.

No.

I agree. I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to speak, but guys, I get it. I think that council did something that they didn't realize the ramifications of. And every renewal that comes before you guys that has a restaurant CP, it's going to be the same thing.

Commissioner Hardy to clarify what we're voting on. We're just, we're the amendment moving this forward without with the strike of number four.

Correct. Yes. Just from the recommendations, not from the land development code. All right. Any further discussion on the amendment? All right. Roll call, please. Sure. Lupe Coste.

Hi.

Miranda.

Hi.

Alison Hardy. Hi. Lucy Johnson. Hi. Brian. Hi. William Agnew. Hi. Randy Bryan. Hi. Joel Burleson. Hi. David Case. Hi. The motion to amend carries.

Now we're back to our original motion where we changed the expiration date from October to October 10th, 2029. And we have removed item number four from our recommendations.

If I could just ask Mr. Shy one more time.

Yes, sir.

Just to clarify something that I, that I asked you previously. Yes, sir. If I understand it right now, your business is open to, at least according to what I'm looking at here, from 2 in the afternoon to 2 in the morning every day? Yes, sir. So that's 12 hours a day.

Yes, sir.

So for four of those days, I believe, you say you close your kitchen off at 10 o'clock.

Usually, depending on what's going on in town and what special events are going on, like last Sunday, two days ago, it was a holiday. So we stay open. But, yes, normally Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, we'll close our kitchen at 10 or 11 instead of 2.

So we're talking about basically four more hours a day that you would have to serve food.

A third more every day, yes, sir.

Okay, that's unfair.

Yes, sir.

That's all.

And then how, how, if it's the best thing to do, how would we get this thing we have to add to an agenda to send an amendment up to the city?

So right now we need to dispose of this item cause that's what's posted. I believe we have a future agenda items on this agenda and then bring it up at that time.

Okay. Where do we have future agenda items? Okay.

Then we can do it after you dispose of this item. You can request a future agenda.

And we have it noted so we can take it on the future agenda. Okay. I've noted it. Okay, so we're good. Set it on a future agenda, yes.

Because it will require action on it. Is that correct?

Yes.

Right.

All right, we got the original motion. Any further discussion on this one? All right, CNN, roll call, please.

Sure. Mariah Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Rhonda Van Underkirky? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Yes. Sean Burleson? Aye. David Case? Aye. Lupe Costilla?

Aye.

The motion to approve with conditions carries. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you. So we are good. We are going to add that as a future agenda item? Okay. Yes, I'm glad.

There was at least two people.

Okay.

Have we done what we need to do to make it a future? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay.

Thank you for bringing that up. Thank you. Item number five. ZC 2605, 906, and 908 North LBJ Drive, MF24 to CD4. Hold the public hearing and consider a request by Matt Lewis on behalf of Colin Vincent for a zoning change from Multifamily 24, MF24, to Character District 4, CD4, or subject to consent of the owner, another less intense zoning district classification for approximately .41 acres out of the Forest Hill subdivision located at 906 and 908 North LBJ Drive. We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner. The property is approximately 0.41 acres and is located on North LBJ Drive, south of the intersection of Walnut Street. And the property is located within the city limits. Next slide. Multifamily apartments currently exist on site. The nine unit development was constructed in approximately 1979. Surrounding uses include single family residential, multifamily apartments, restaurants, and offices. Next slide. The site is currently zoned Multifamily 24, MF24, which allows for multifamily apartments. The requested zoning district is Character District 4, CD4, which allows for multifamily apartments, limited offices, personal services, and retail sales. The request is to redevelop the site to mixed use to include 25 to 30 units and limited commercial. Next slide. According to the comprehensive plan, the property falls within the neighborhood high preferred scenario area. The neighborhood high purpose statement is to guide the development of moderate to higher intensity housing types to meet a range of housing needs in proximity to medium and high intensity mixed use centers. Adequate transportation facilities are required to connect residents to jobs and services. Next slide. Step two of the analysis looks at the consistency with table 4.1. Character district four is listed as not preferred within the neighborhood place type. Next slide. You will notice in your packet that staff did remove table 4.6. Staff went through further analysis and found that it was not necessary to use table 4.6 in this case. In staff's analysis, we found that the adopted north of campus neighborhood area plan has multiple recommendations supporting redevelopment of the site. The site is specifically used as an example within the area plan and the graphics shown on this slide. This includes small setbacks, rear loaded parking, and a building height of four to five stories, including other development standards. And recommendation EHS 1.3 states that it encourage mixed-use development to replace auto-oriented multifamily housing and commercial areas. These developments should prioritize pedestrian access and could include a range of housing unit type sizes to meet various housing needs. Next slide. The CD4 district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential options including single family, two family, and multi-family with limited commercial or mixed use. Building types allowed include houses, duplexes, town homes, zero lot line houses, cottage courts, multi-family, live work, and neighborhood shop front. The CD4 district includes build two lines instead of setbacks of five feet to 12 foot maximum. Parking is not allowed in the first layer and there's a three story maximum. The proposed use is a small mixed-use development which CD4 allows. Next slide. This property is located within the Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone. It's not located within the San Marcos River Corridor or River Protection Zone. Next slide. The project will include streetscape improvements through the site development process. The site has existing sidewalks and bicycle facilities, and water, wastewater, and electric are provided by City of San Marcos. Next slide. Based on the analysis, staff recommends approval of ZC2605, and that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Is the applicant available? Please just state your name and address, and you have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Esposito. I live at 800 North LBJ Drive, San Marcos, Texas, 78666. I am here on behalf of Simple City Design representing the applicant. I just want to say thank you so much for considering our request. We believe that this site has a lot of potential, and we believe that the space can be better utilized. The north of campus area is seeing a lot of new development that encourages pedestrian spaces, walkability, with the examples of new mixed-use development and some new redone food trucks. Furthermore, a proposed mixed-use site is , as we said, with the City of San Marcos Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted North of Campus Area Plan. We believe that this zoning change aligns with the evolution the area is already experiencing and supports the twofold benefit of adding housing types and commercial activity. This zoning change aligns with the north of campus area plans desire to add more diverse housing types in an already vibrant area. So thank you so much for your consideration. I am here as well as one of my colleagues to answer any questions you may have, thank you.

Thank you. Here's Elizabeth Esposito. Thank you very much. Ryan, and I apologize, Ryan. Ryan, Ryan, just please state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Hey, Elizabeth. Elizabeth, you can sit down.

Don't believe he's logged on, Chair.

Okay. Brianna Soto, if you'd like, you can come up. You're good. Okay, you're good. All right, we will close the public hearing.

Chair, I'll make a motion to approve ZC-26-05 with staff recommendations. I'll second that. Mr.

Chair?

Oh, I didn't know.

He had told me, Mr. Garrison. I was talking to him before. My name's Richard Giberson. I live 201 Ruby Ranch in Buda, Texas. And our family's own property, which is right next to this. It's about two pieces of property, one nine 26 chestnut and the other one's nine 18 chestnut. So, um, we've had it, I came before a meeting like this about 43 years ago when we got it rezoned to public, uh, multifamily and the city didn't really have that. So we kind of was in there and then, then since then the city's come down and done, you know, kind of a global thing, which is fine. But I guess the question I have, because I have. The house that I have at nine 26 goes from Walnut all the way down to North LBJ, which is about three quarters of an acre. And then next to it, I have nine, eight, uh, nine 18, which goes from Walnut all the way down to North LBJ. So the question I have is there's an alley that runs parallel to, uh, nine 18. So the two houses, Years ago, there was another house on the property that burned down, oh, probably in the 50s. So those lots, the houses are sitting on Chestnut, and then the lot goes all the way down to North LBJ. And so there's an alleyway that goes parallel to 918. And so I don't know, probably three or four years ago, we were dealing with a company called Gilbane out of New York and they did student housing and they were in a process of purchasing it. And so they were very interested in maintaining that alley. So I'm not sure what this development over here is doing, and I'm not sure what the city's protocol is about either using out. I think Mr. Garrison said that the plan was to, not have it traffic, but have a hike and bike or a trail or something. And when we had approached the P and Z back when Gilbane, we had said, we suggested that they do a one way street, not a two way street. Cause it's only 20 foot wide, um, from, uh, chestnut to North LBJ, but people couldn't turn up North LBJ because there's more traffic, but that it never progress past whatever they decided they got a deal, some other deal and they, they pulled out. But the question is, I guess for me, as far as a landowner, our families owned it. And, um, so the question is, what is the city planning on doing with that alley? Because I use the alley to access the property. I can go through the front and get to the back, but I've got roads all the way around it, except that alleyway gives me access to the full length of, The, the one property, which is nine, nine 18. The other one is Walnut street. So I do have access there. So I just was curious about what the future plan is. If y'all know about the alley and if the alley is abandoned, what's the protocol for them to notify me? Cause if it's abandoned, I want it and I'm sure these people want it. So I've done that before where they said, well, You can have half of it and you can have half of it. And of course you have to pay for it. So I just, that was my only comment.

Yeah. Can I get your name again? Sorry, sir. Can I get your name one more time?

Uh, Richard Giberson, G I B E R S O N. And it's owned by Giberson properties, Inc on the CAD. If you look it up. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

We have a motion on the table for commissioner Dunn second by commissioner Costilla. Do we need for the discussion this item? Yes, sir. Commissioner Agnew. Yeah, I just have a question.

because I don't think it states this specifically anywhere, but do the plans that are behind this zoning request include demolishing what's currently at 906 and 908 North LBJ?

Hi, I'm Brianna Soto with Simple City. Right now, we haven't quite gotten that far as to what's going to happen with the redevelopment. We wanted to see where the zone change went first, and then after that, then they'll establish further plans. But we don't know if it'll be demolished or not at this point.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, you can do it. I'm gonna answer the right-of-way question. One is that the north of campus neighborhood area plan adopted in May recommends that the right-of-way, it's 20 feet wide, that runs parallel to north LBJ, past Grinz and up to Walnut, be redeveloped as a green alleyway, similar to Kissing Tree, including the pedestrian and bicycle movement. That's the recommendation in the area plan. And then for right-of-way abandonment, I might have to get checked in here, but it has to be the adjacent property owner to apply for that right-of-way abandonment next to the property. So the neighbor's property would not be applied for by this developer or by this applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir, Commissioner Agnew.

One thing I just would point out to the rest of the commission, since we really don't have any, and any plans that have been presented to us here. And the applicant doesn't have to do that. That's not a deficiency or anything, but usually we do get something. But since we don't have any plans, I think we have to assume that anything that's allowed by CD4 zoning could happen on this property. Since we don't know what it would specifically be, I've looked through the CD4, through the matrix on CD4, and I really don't see anything myself. myself that would be a problem that's included in there, but I just wanted to point out what the situation is, that right now they would be entitled to do anything under CD4, which they would be anyway, even if they presented plans to us.

That is correct. In the code comparison that you have in your staff report.

But in this case, we really have nothing but the CD4 allowable uses to go by.

That's all. Any further discussion on this item? And sir, I don't think your question was dismissed. If you had a follow-up question, staff could definitely help you out with that.

I do have a question. Yes. We'll get to you on that one.

Don't go anywhere.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Brown. So, um, the CD4, does it require any kind of, like, is it 80% impervious cover? Did I read in there that there was, we were making it be a certain distance from the back?

Sure, so these are the land development code standards for CD4, which instead of your typical setback, which is 20 feet from the right-of-way, this is a build-to. So the buildings and structures have to be five to 12 feet away from the right-of-way. which adds to the streetscape and it adds to the pedestrian-friendly nature of the character districts. And that would be on the backside? This would be on the side facing the north LBJ right-of-way. And then the backside's an alleyway. Okay, so can they build right up to the alleyway on the backside? The alleyway has a different setback, and I can pull it up right now.

Okay, it's not that big a deal. I was just wondering. But it is 80% on the whole lot, right? Let me just verify that one second.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's correct. It's 80%.

It is 80%. Yes. Thank you.

It was on a previous slide.

All right, everybody good to go? Any further discussion? Roll call.

Sure. Allison Harding.

Aye.

Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Rodney Venitakerke. Aye. Lee Magnin. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. Cheryl Burleson.

Aye.

David Case. Aye. Lupe Costilla.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. The motion to approve carries. Brings us to item number six. ZC2604, La Cima Phase 8 SF 4.5 zoning, FD to SF 4.5, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Doug Goss on behalf of LCSM Phase 4 LLC for a zoning change from future development, FD to single family 4.5, SF 4.5, or subject to consent of the owner, another less intense zoning district classification for approximately 69.141 acres out of the John Williams survey, abstract number 490, generally located south of the Central Park Loop and Spiderwort Road intersection.

We'll open the public hearing. Good evening. We'll really planner. So this property consists of just over 69 acres and it's currently located within the city's ETJ. It's situated just South of the central park loop and spider wart road intersection. Um, As of today, it's currently vacant and surrounding uses include single family residential as well as vacant land. This particular application represents the continued build out of the La Cima development that is already in existence today. So the property zoning is technically considered future development, although it's not technically zoned because it's not yet within the city limit. The applicant is requesting single-family 4.5, which allows typical single-family homes on lots at least 4,500 square feet or larger. So under the comp plan, the property falls within the neighborhood low and conservation cluster designation. Neighborhood low is intended to guide the development of new neighborhoods and encourage creative housing types, and the conservation cluster designation focuses on conserving land. According to table 4.1, the proposed SF 4.5 zoning is listed as a compatible zoning type within the neighborhood low-new designation. For the single family, for the single family 4.5 district, again it is intended for single family detached houses and it features moderate setbacks and supports more frequent pedestrian activity. permitted building types, houses, civic buildings, and accessory dwelling units. For the environmental, it is indeed located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, so any development must comply with those environmental standards. The property is not located within a floodplain, floodway, the San Marcos River Corridor, nor River Protection Zone. Infrastructure improvements will include streetscape treatments, sidewalk connections, and compliance with block perimeter requirements. And utilities will be provided by City of San Marcos for water and wastewater. PEC will be the electric service provider. So, staff did indeed send personal notice, posted notice on the property, and published notice in the newspaper. And as a result of the notification process, there were three inquiries, no one way or the other was indicated, but there were three inquiries that were received regarding this particular, very particular request. And in closing staff recommends approval of ZC 26 Oh four as presented. All right.

So the applicant is with us. Would you like to speak in favor of your permit at this time? Yes, sir. Please get your name and address and we have three minutes.

Eric Willis, 1104 Lafayette Lane, Pflugerville, Texas, 78660. I'm here to answer any questions if you have them. I brought a larger map if anyone wanted to see the relationship to this annexation to the rest of La Cima, if you had any questions. But I'm here. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Seeing nobody else signed up, we'll close the public hearing.

Can we speak in the chamber without being signed up?

We'll allow it this time. Please just state your name and address, and we have three minutes.

Shauna Temple, 104 Camaro Way. And what I'm a little confused about is, I'm not an expert, but when I moved to San Marcos, that was one of the draws, is the aquifer and the recharge zone and all of that good stuff. And so I don't understand, first of all, what percent of the recharge zone has already been developed over. And... it's stating that Lasima is in the recharge zone and yet it's not protected. I mean, I just, I want a little help understanding that. How can the recharge zone, you know, not have any protections over it?

Understood. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Anybody online wish to speak? All right. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing.

I move to approve ZC. 26. I'll second.

Got a motion to approve by commissioner Kostya. Was it commissioner Dunn? We'll give it to you. Seconded by commissioner Dunn. Any further discussion on this item?

Yes, chair.

Yes, ma'am.

I had a question for staff and I appreciate a little more background on this. I was under the assumption that Losima was a planned community. in which all of the zoning and permissions for the entire build out were already approved. Obviously, that wasn't so. Can you give me some background on the process and how we got here today and why this hasn't already been laid out and approved?

Yes, ma'am. So as part of the development agreement itself, there is a stipulation within it that says upon developing the property, you have to do two things. You have to annex and you have to zone. So despite the fact the development agreement includes development regulations that are specific and unique to La Cima itself, the DA, development agreement, actually says it has to be zoned one of the zoning districts in effect at the time of the zoning application with those zoning districts being that of the city of San Marcos. It's a little confusing.

Okay, and then what is the ground cover requirements for single family 4.5, is there?

I believe it's 55% in La Cima. I believe so.

So in our development agreement, The beginning of our development agreement, we were all in the ETJ. And so what we've done is we've developed Lasima, or as we plan to develop Lasima, phase by phase, we've annexed in and zoned it as we've gone through the project. We didn't do it all at once. So that's why we keep coming through the process one time. To your point about impervious cover, we have an impervious cover bucket. We use about 19% impervious cover over our entire 3,800 acres. and then we assign impervious cover on a per lot basis as we move through the project so that we can track impervious cover as we make submittals to the city. So each lot gets impervious cover assigned to it, not as a percentage, but as an actual whole square footage number, so it's easier for everybody to track.

I don't know if that helps. Yes, it does.

Can I ask a follow-up question to that, Eric? Yeah. So you said 19%, so like your bucket is like max, what, 20% impervious cover?

It's 19, it's like 400, 300-something acres. I don't have the development year from it. It's a lot of acreage, but it's over the entire development of the 3,800 acres, and that's why. Ah, big map. Big map. Sorry, I did have to bring it out. And this map doesn't even reflect all of the SEMA that's in the development agreement. In fact, this represents, there's another 650 acres on that side of Rancho 12. And so this was the original portion of the SEMA, and it's been amended over time. And you can see all the conservation land. And then what's currently being discussed is Phase 8 right here. Phase 8. All of this and all the phases one through five have already been developed. Phase six just finished paving and has started building construction. Phase eight's on the agenda tonight, right now. The next item on the agenda is 3C and 17. And then the next item after that is phase eight when it's just open space right through here. And that's all through Sony.

And that's how y'all keep, because I think that answers the lady who came up that had the question. That's how y'all keep the impervious cover or impervious cover down is through a bucket.

Well, I think the question was broader than that about being over the Edwards aquifer. Most of San Marcos is over that we're talking for. So we follow the city's requirements on pervious cover. We originally started the development agreement for the same. We were at 20% of previous cover, which is also consistent with what TCEQ wants you to have over there, the Edwards aquifer. So we have followed that. And we also do, um, detention and water quality ponds that are consistent with the season requirements for environmental concerns and TCEQ as well. And then just over time as we've added land to our project, we were able to just kind of inch down the impervious cover requirement to 19% instead of keeping it at 20%. And that's also considering that when we do that, that takes into consideration all the city roads that we put inside our neighborhoods. The only road that's actually excluded in that calculation is Centerpoint Road. But when you see all the internal roads inside in our community, those are actually in part of that calculation. So those actually go against us. And then, like I said, that gets tracked and then the actual acreage on our square footage of impervious use on a per lot basis is actually put on the front page of every plat that we record so that when somebody does apply for a building permit, HomeBuilder does, The staff can check that and see what impervious covers on those plot plans, and it correlates to the impervious cover on the plot. And that's how we track it over the life of the project. And so that's what we know we have, and then we can plan accordingly.

Any further questions for the developer? Any further questions at all?

Roll call, please. Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. DC-2606, Lasima Phase 3C and 7E, SF 4.5 zoning, FD to SF 4.5, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Doug Goss on behalf of LCSM Phase 3 LLC for a zoning change from future development FD to single family 4.5, SF 4.5, or subject to consent of the owner, another less intense zoning district classification for approximately 165.694 acres out of the John Williams Survey, abstract number 490, and the William T.M. Smithson Survey, section number three, abstract number 419, generally located at 200 feet west of the Central Park Loop and Puppy Dog Pass intersection.

They're getting kind of long, aren't they? We'll open the public hearing.

Hi again, Will Ridgely, planner. So this property is roughly 165 acres and is located just west of the intersection of Central Park Loop and Puppy Dog Pass intersection. At this time, the property is vacant and surrounding uses include single family and additional vacant land. Again, the request continues the build out of what you already see in Lasima as it exists today. And just like the previous case right now, it's considered future development because it has not yet been annexed into the city. And the request is, again, single family 4.5. According to the comp plan, this property falls within the neighborhood low. and conservation cluster preferred scenario areas. Neighborhood low is guide development of new neighborhoods to promote creative housing types. Conservation cluster identifies areas, identifies land to conserve and focuses more intense growth elsewhere. Step two of the analysis is table 4.1 and SF 4.5 zoning is listed as compatible with neighborhood low. but it is not listed as compatible within the conservation cluster. And this is where the La Cima Development Agreement controls because it specifically states within the development agreement two things. Number one, that land is supposed to be developed in accordance with the concept plan. And number two, in the event of a conflict between the development agreement and the city's development code, the development agreement supersedes, it prevails. So single family 4.5 zoning is detached houses, 4,500 square feet or larger, and moderate setbacks, more pedestrian activity, and the same story for the types of houses that are allowed. The environmental analysis is, it is again located atop the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, and a small, very small portion does lie within the 100-year flood plain, but the property is not located within the San Marcos River Corridor nor River Protection Zone. Infrastructure, streetscape improvements, new sidewalk connections and block perimeter requirements, water and wastewater, City of San Marcos, PEC for electric, sent personal notice, published in the newspaper, posted on the property, and the same people who, actually, there were actually five people who inquired about this particular zoning application, but no feedback either way was given. So in closing, staff recommends approval of ZC 2606 as presented. Mr. Willis, would you like to come and speak again?

Eric Willis, alone of four, Lafayette Lane, Fleaville, Texas, 78660. As usual, Will did a good job. This section actually abuts an area that are already occupied by Lasima residents, so the notifications actually went out to a considerable number more people. Just for reference, whenever we have something like that and it goes out to public notice people, we do get calls. And we do have an amenity center. And this board is on display in our amenity center. This is also the same exhibit that's on our website. And so the questions that we did get were some residents that asked, well, what is this that's going on? We said, well, it's annexation of another phase of La Cima, consistent with the land plan that you've seen for years that we have on our website and that we do have posted in our amenity center. So we did get a couple inquiries. And they come to us through our property management company. They basically email us on an app called Town Square. And then we can then email them back directly. And if there seems to be more questions than normal, then we'll basically hit the entire community. But since there was just a handful of people that got the notifications in this area, we basically were specific and told them they could either come take a look or if they were satisfied with our response. We did also have a couple phone calls from people adjacent to La Cima, on the north side of La Cima, as you can see right in this area here. It's a neighboring large lot community. And we just answer their questions because when the development agreement was originally put in place, it required a 100-foot buffer between La Cima and that neighbor to the, I guess, the west of us, northwest of us. And we just told them it was consistent with the development plan. And I've met with those residents in the past, and that seemed to satisfy their concerns. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Consistent with the last time. Anybody else in the chamber wish to speak? Yes, ma'am. Can you please just come up here, state your name and address, and we'll have three minutes.

Good evening. My name's Erica Bacow. I live at 139 Lamb's Ear Path in San Marcos, 78666, which butts up against this particular property in question. I, as well as some other residents, we just had some clarification questions regarding this. We've seen this concept map that has been up, but we don't know, and we wanted to know, is the proposed development in that area going to be consistent with that map? In that particular area, there is a limited amount of development. So we didn't know if this area as well would also be developed for environmental concerns in our area. We did come to request further information. I haven't probably follow the proper channels to get environmental studies and the study of the aquifer. I'm interested in educating myself regarding all that. So we just kind of wanted clarification on how this concept map, you know... Well, hold on, hold on.

There's a whole process.

Okay. How that corresponds with what is actually going to be developed.

Okay. Okay?

Is it me or Will?

Will. It's neither of you. Is anybody online wish to speak?

No, Chair.

Is anybody in the chambers wish to speak? Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve ZC26-06 with staff recommendations.

We got a motion approved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Now it brings us to discussion. And Mr. Willis, will you please address that question of that wonderful woman right there?

Yes. I think her concern about probably... The ongoing activity is consistent with the neighborhood that she lives into that butts against it. So just like in the previous section, it's 50s and 60-foot lots. And in this section, it's mostly 60s and some 70s. And then eventually, we have some larger home sites on there. Don't know if that'll plan out over time marketing-wise. For all intents and purposes, everything we've been doing is 50s, 60s, and 70s, and some 80s. And so it's gonna be consistent with the same size lot that you live on now. And that's what's gonna go in that area.

He's definitely open to more questions and concerns if you want to just sit next to him. We have any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir, Commissioner Agnew.

I have a question on the slide that was called Comprehensive Plan Analysis. is an SMTX. Most of this property is in neighborhood loan new in the preferred scenario, but a portion of it is in conservation cluster. And if you look at that particular slide, in the conservation cluster column, it shows that SF 4.5 zoning, as I interpret it, is not permitted. It is in the neighborhood, low portion, the neighborhood, low new portion. It's say, which is considered, which I know means you can do it, but under conservation cluster, it's looks to be not permitted. So how do you reconcile that with recommending SF 4.5 zoning for that?

That is where the development agreement comes into play and it's superseding. It does. Yes, sir. Okay. It specifically States where there is a conflict. the development agreement supersedes the city's development code.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for staff, too. You had mentioned when talking about that development agreement that they are also obligated to develop their property under their own master plan, their own...

So they're... There is an exhibit within the development agreement itself that shows or portrays the areas where residential will go, commercial will go, open space, preserves will go. However, that exhibit is not specific or particular in lot layouts, where streets are going. It's just a general overall, this is where single family homes are going to go, of which is in line with the request this evening.

But that map, that development map that we're looking at, is not, they are not legally beholden to that. So like a big part of this section of zoning that we're considering tonight on this item has their Central Park open space. But they, that exhibit does not require them to have that open space.

So yes, this right here, I've never seen this before. Honestly. So what we refer to as staff is what is contained within the development agreement itself. And the only thing that I can say is this area is designated as single family. It's not designated as open space. Now, literally directly west of it, It is designated as the open space preserve, which is like 1800 acres in total, but not this particular area. It is designated single family.

So there's nothing that would stop them from taking away their park plans and creating this entire section tonight as single family homes?

Correct, with one caveat. There is floodplain within this area. and development and flood, it's not going to be developed for single family homes. It will remain as open space.

Okay, but that's just a small strip on the very west side.

Okay.

You sure?

I mean, since this is also open for discussion, because this specific item has, I mean, a third of it on their map is open space and the central park amenity area. But, you know, I've seen enough developments to know that a lot of the times these recreation areas get superseded by the desire to make more money and sell more homes. And it just, it, It bothers me that so much of this area, there's nothing in this proposal that would hold them to this open space and these amenities that they promised their residents.

The development agreement holds them to that.

No. in aggregate in certain, in types of open space, but not this specific. And this item is an important part of the amenities for these folks. I mean, I have friends who live in Lasima who they have been hearing for years about how Central Park is gonna be this great amenity space and open space. And there's nothing, there's no, it's not a separate item for zoning tonight in terms of open space. Like the next item will be that we'll have designated open space. It's literally just saying we're free to make it all single family. And that's, that's my concern.

Can I get clarification? Um, isn't there an impervious covered requirement that they have to follow in addition to the flood that would probably prohibit or

that wouldn't have the impact on that. And I understand what she's talking about is on this picture here, and Will's right to say that he's not seen this before because per our development agreement, we have a bubble plan. It's basically exhibit B in our development agreement. It says what we can do in areas in La Cima, so many units per acre density-wise. What we start running into is maximizing that density of units per acre then we would go over that allowed density if we actually developed out Central Park as single family. So that's one aspect of it. The other aspect of that is we don't show it on this map anymore, but we still have an obligation to provide a school site to the school district if they chose to. And so we have a memo of understanding with the school district as the location of that school site would be along Central Park Loop. So in that same area there could possibly be a school. but we don't show it because school district hasn't made any moves to when or if or how that would ever come to play. So we don't show that as well. She's not wrong in her statement of that, having that zoning, you can do single family, but it's just not what I've shown people. And I have HOA meetings every year, We just had an HOA meeting. We had about 50, 60 people there, which was actually light. We usually get 150, 200 people there. I'd be roasted alive if I started putting single family homes inside that central park area. Y'all would hear it for days and days. So it's just not our plan to put homes there, but we're just going through the annexation and zoning process.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Johnson, do you have any follow-up?

Not particularly, only that I do think you would be roasted alive. I wouldn't be able to guarantee your safety at that meeting. I wouldn't want to. But necessarily, it doesn't change my position that I'm uncomfortable granting that company carte blanche to, from a legal standpoint, say that they have a right to go ahead and build houses throughout the Central Park scope.

Yeah, I have somewhat the same concern as Commissioner Johnson. I'm looking at the preferred scenario map in our packet, and I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to by the central loop. And I am fairly familiar with the scene where my dog and I walk out there a lot, so I'm pretty familiar with it. But when you're talking about the central loop, are you talking about basically behind the current amenity center?

Yes, and right now they haven't they haven't completed the loop this would be the west end the northwest end of The loop plus the houses that would surround that loop Yeah, I guess what I'm a little okay, I guess what I'm a little confused by listening to all this Yeah, we are being asked to approve

SF 4.5 zoning for this entire, the entire, this entire plot track or whatever it is. And yet on the other hand, it sounds like, I think we're being told that there's some portion of this where you don't intend to build single family homes. And so I guess my question is why wasn't that portion excluded from this request for SF 4.5?

Because the land's all contiguous. So when we actually come through the preliminary platting process and then the final platting process, that's when those tracks will get separated. And the Central Park loop will actually be a separate plat as well. And that hasn't come through the process either. So it's just one contiguous piece of land. And so once we actually start dividing it, it'll start forming the picture that you see there.

At this point, if we had a map in front of us, Could you tell us which parts of it you would not intend to build single-family homes on, or is that still to be determined?

It's right in here. It's this track right here. This piece right here goes along with all of this piece of land right here. And what she just said is Central Park Loop stops right here. This portion of Central Park Loop has not been planted. And so that is, are in the city right now for, construction plans are in the city right now for review, and that plat's in the city for review. But we've not submitted, and we've actually just submitted the preliminary plat for 3C and 7E. So that's just, that's got months to go through the process before that gets to the final state. So the reason why we're here with phase eight off like we did earlier is because phase eight has already gone through the city's preliminary plat, construction plans, Let's give it over to staff here for a second. I just wanted to provide just some clarity.

When we're at the zoning stage of the process for developments and neighborhoods, it is typical that they pick just a zoning district, single family six, CD four. At this stage at the zoning level, we don't get into the exact locations of parkland, but those do come because our development code requires parkland dedication. And so that, you're hearing Eric say the words platting and subdivisions. That is often done after the zoning has been done and that's where the site layouts are being worked out. That's when the lots are being created. And you also heard Will talk about floodplain. Often that's where those lines are drawn from an engineering level to determine where the sensitive areas are, where the big trees are. And so that comes sort of later in the process. But you don't see us come and submit a zoning change parkland use, because it's very hard to know that at this stage. The only other thing I wanted to mention is that because we're in Lasima, we have another tool to use to guide parkland and to give the commission and the public assurances that parkland is going to occur. Because it's written, there's an entire section on parkland dedication within the Lasima development agreement. and they require to have a certain amount. It talks about trails. There is some language in there, which is actually a tool that we don't have in a raw land that's just doing straight zoning. So I just wanted to provide that clarification that through the process, zoning is typically just a blanket, and then that parkland is worked out because it still is required, and that happens at that plotting stage.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Agnew. When you say required, Andrea, is it Within this particular tract that we're dealing with right here, just what we're being asked to, zone SF 4.5, is there something that requires that some portion of this particular tract has to be parkland, or is that more a Lasima-wide type requirement that we're doing?

I don't want to answer that incorrectly because there is a large section here on parkland and open space, so I don't want to give you a wrong answer on the specifics. It looks like it's talking broadly about acres and looking at it from that perspective, but I think the development agreement set up some flexibility for where that parkland goes. There isn't a parkland exhibit necessarily at that granular level besides what Will and Eric mentioned about those larger areas where it would be open space.

This may not be practical, but it's not impossible that this entire tract that we're looking at right now could all be developed SF 4.5 and the parkland requirements would be met elsewhere within La Sema?

It's hard for me to answer that because I don't know when it's possible or impossible, but I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer on that.

Okay, all right. Okay. Sounds like Sam, yeah?

Because as Ms. Villalobos pointed out, this is a zoning. The whole thing about zoning is the suitability of the land use for the location, right? And... through the development agreement, which is essentially a contract between the city and the developer approved by the city council. This particular request at least appears from the staff analysis and all to be consistent with the development agreement. And that is one of the criteria for approval of zoning is consistency with an approved development agreement. So it's, it's a little additional complication, you know, so we, we, We don't do conditional zoning in San Marcos in the traditional sense, so it's either you determine it's suitable based on the criteria for the requested zoning classification or not suitable. You know, zoning does not require a specific site plan, typically. Now, it's human nature, and typically in a lot of zoning cases, we always ask, well, what do you all plan to do? And the developer would tell us, but none of that is binding in a typical zoning case, because all the zoning is saying, this is what type of thing could be built here. But a developer could pull out of that. With the development agreement, though, it's specifying. It will be this in this location. And so there are some parameters on there, some guardrails on what they can do. under their development agreement.

Okay, but since staff is recommending that we approve this zoning, does that mean that we can, that staff has determined that this entire tract is suitable for SF 4.5 or for single family housing, if that's what were to take place? Can we assume that?

With the exception of the conservation cluster area, yes.

Yeah, but that's not how we're being asked to approve it.

Conservation cluster area is a large part of this. Yeah. So I'm referencing the preferred scenario map, not the development agreements exhibit, which is a large, giant tract. And the preferred scenario map where it shows conservation cluster is areas that are within the floodplain.

Right, and some of this... Mm-hmm. The, the city worked out when all of this started, the city worked out a plan and all this is doing is following that plan and everything they've done before has gone along with that plan. And it's all part of it because they didn't annex all the land. They have to do it in Fay or they're doing it in phases. It's gotta go through planning. It's gotta come to us through this, this zoning. And like, like Andrea said, it has to be, you know, certain amount of parkland set aside or all that. Um, I mean, basically I'm just saying it's the process, and it's been going on with LACIMA for like 10 or 15 years. I'm not sure how long ago it started, but it's been a minute.

Yeah, that's right, Mr. Bryant. I guess part of the problem is we don't see the plan. We don't know the plan. It's not something that we're given. And secondly, we've been going through these periodically, zoning parts of LACIMA as it's being annexed. as long as I've been up here, but I do not remember one that had this much floodplain in it, which I guess is why I'm a little bit concerned. And the other thing, and this may have nothing to do with it, I also understand the preferred scenario we're dealing with here only is like, what, two or three years old, two years old, and the Sleeman Development Plan goes back way before that, so I mean, it's, I don't know. Okay, I think probably everyone's, tried as best they can to explain it.

So you're for the discussion on this item. All right. Roll call please.

Sure.

Run even a cookie.

Yes.

William Agnew. Hi. Randy Brian. Hi. Show Burleson.

Hi.

David Keyes. Hi. Lupe Costea.

Hi.

Mariah Dunn.

Hi.

Alison Hardy.

Hi.

Lucy Johnson.

Nay.

Motion. The motion to approve carries eight to one. Brings us to item eight. ZC2608, Lyceum of Phase 8, CD1 zoning, FD to CD1, hold public hearing and consider request by Doug Goss on behalf of LCSM Phase 4 LLC for zoning change from Future Development FD to Character District 1, CD1, or subject to the consent of the owner, another less intense zoning district classification for approximately 51.952 acres out of the John Williams Survey, abstract number 490, generally located southwest of the Central Park Loop and Spider Ward Road intersection. We will open the public hearing.

Well, we're usually planner. So this property is just over 51 1⁄2 acres. It's situated southwest of the Central Park Loop and Spider Ward Road intersection. Property today is currently vacant, and single-family uses as well as vacant land are in existence today. For just like the very first La Cima zoning case, dash 04, case number dash 04, it's considered future development, meaning it's not yet in the city limits. The applicant is requesting character district one, which allows agricultural as well as public and institutional uses. And this request reflects the intent to preserve open space and is in accordance with the La Cima concept plan. So under the comp plan, the property falls within the neighborhood low and conservation cluster areas. Neighborhood low, again, guiding new neighborhood development and promoting creative housing types, whereas the conservation cluster designation emphasizes conservation of land and reserving areas. Reserving areas. One note is that all of these areas will indeed be preserved as open space within the overall LA-SEMA development. Step two of the analysis looks at consistency with Table 4.1, and CD1 does indeed align with the intent of the conservation cluster, which prioritizes preservation of natural resources and open space. For Character District 1 zoning, it is intended for the preservation of open space, and the protection of sensitive natural resources. It may include very low density single family houses, but it is primarily characterized by extensive undisturbed landscapes. Property is in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, but not in any of the other categories that would be considered environmental constraints. Overall, the existing planned infrastructure is adequate to support the low-intensity open space preserve. And we received three inquiries in response to the public notification process. And in closing, staff recommends approval of ZC 2608 as presented. Thank you.

Mr. Willis, would you like to speak in favor of your permit at this time?

Eric Lewis, 1104 Lafayette Lane, Pflugerville, Texas, 78660. Yes, I'm in favor of it.

Thank you, sir.

I'm here for any questions.

Anybody else in the chambers wish to speak? Do we have anybody online? All right, we'll close the public hearing.

Okay, well, I'll make a motion to approve ZC-26-08 with staff recommendations. I'll second. Okay.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson and staff recommendations. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, roll call, please.

William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Yes. Michelle Burleson? Aye. David Case? Aye. Libby Costilla?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Randy Venator-Crookie? Aye. Motion to approve carries.

This now brings us to questions and answers. The press and public. Would anybody like to ask a question? Anybody in the chamber? Anybody on the line? No, sir. Any numbers to adjourn?

I move to adjourn.

Second. Motion approved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Bryan. Roll call, please.

Sure.

Randy Bryan. Yes.

Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Lupe Castillo. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Rhonda Van Underkirky. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. We adjourned at 7.43 p.m.