Zoning Board of Adjustments - Regular Meeting

Welcome to this regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustments. It is Thursday, February 19 at 6PM. I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting due to the limitations that Texas Open Meetings Act, the board may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All other inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The board will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner in an atmosphere free of imitate intimidation, defamation, personal affronts, profanity, or threats of violence. Roll call, please. Cody DeSalvo.

Here. William DeSoto. Here. Maddie Roberts? Here. Daniel Somers? Here. John and Temple? Here. We'll call.

And we have a quorum.

Is there anyone signed up for citizen comment period?

I don't believe so.

We will now close the citizen comment period. Item four, consider approval by motion of the 11/20/2025 regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. I second. Is there any discussion on the meeting minutes? Nope. May we have a roll call vote?

Cody DeSalvo? Yes. William DeSoto? Yes. Maddie Roberts?

Yes.

Daniel Sommers? Yes. John Temple? Yes. It passes.

Item five a.

Yes. We'll continue on to item five a. So good evening, everyone. Lauren Clanton, chief planner. Given that we need to start with the caption, this is VR twenty six zero one one thousand technology way fence variants.

Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Benjamin Russell on behalf of CFAN for a variance to section seven two six two g one of the San Marcos development code, which states that a fence located within the first layer along a primary frontage shall be 48 inches or less height and 50% open to allow an eight foot tall security fence in the first layer along IH 35 Frontage Road. To start with a little information on the property, this lot is approximately 53 acres and is located at the Southeast Corner of IH 35 and Technology Way. According to the comprehensive plan, the designation is commercial employment medium and surrounding uses include a warehouse and storage, including the Amazon distribution facility, professional services, single and multi family residential, vacant land, and the highway along with highway oriented retail around it. The zoning of the property is light industrial and the request tonight is for a variance to section seven two six two g one. This section of the development code states that fences or walls in the first layer must be a maximum of four feet in height and 50% open.

The request tonight is for a security fence to be eight feet in height between the building and the primary street. So here we have a site exhibit submitted by the applicant. I will also note that this permit does not cover any gates. They may submit a gate permit at a later time. However, the request tonight is for the fence surrounding the parking lot.

And as you can see, it is oriented on three sides of the parking lot. Here we can see an image submitted by the applicant. This is an example of the style of fence they proposed to build. And I will just note the height might not be exactly eight feet. This is only for the sake of showing the materials.

This request was assessed through the criteria of section two thousand eight twenty four A. And according to those criteria staff finds the request consistent with the following. So criteria one, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine. And staff had a neutral finding on criteria two and three. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions and the applicant is present as well.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

And if you

could step up then.

And can I get your name and address?

It's 1000 Technology Way. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else in chambers who wishes to speak on this item?

Just a note, and doctor DeSoto may be able to attest to this as well, I couldn't hear the speaker just then.

Okay. We may need to turn on the microphone.

I I Excellent. Did hear him okay. But but, Cody, thanks for letting us know about, you know, about your not hearing.

The applicant just stated he didn't have anything further to add that wasn't already included in the packet.

K. Thank you.

Saf, did we have anyone signed up for this agenda item?

So we did have a number of speakers who had considered speaking tonight. These included Benjamin Russell, Nate Plant, Lourdes Hogan, and Jackie Highsmith. You are certainly still welcome to do so. We can promote one attendee who is online. It's up to you.

Yeah. I believe that Jackie is online. I don't know if she has anything to say.

Alright.

Are we able to see if she's online? Let her tell us she doesn't have anything to say.

So Jackie, we are promoting you to a panelist which will allow you to speak. You will see a pop up and you will have to accept it, providing heads up and promoting you now. Alright.

Hello. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, ma'am.

Great. Good afternoon or evening, everyone. Appreciate this opportunity. Really, this is in pure safety for our employees at CFAN with the construction of nearby and all the development. We have concerns that we'd like to get in front of, and this is one that we hear our employees loud and clear on. So we also have intellectual property, and just having that secure boundary is something that we would really value and it's something that our board of directors is encouraging.

Thank you, Jackie. And could you also add your address?

This is 1000 Technology Way in San Marcos.

And that's the address that you are providing to speak? Just making sure.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you very much.

No one else wanting to speak on this item? Alright. I will now close the public hearing. And do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

I second. Is there any discussion? I did have one question. You know, I noticed my

plan is to support it. It seems like a reasonable request that has the benefits the applicant wanted. But I did wanna understand that I didn't have time to look at the the amendments or look at the original ordinance. But I just wanted to ask staff what was the reason, just so I'm understanding, for the 48 height restrictions as part of the the development code, the seven point two six point two g one, the fences and walls adjacent. So what was the reason for that shorter height?

So for the city's ordinance, due to its approximation to the frontage road and the primary road, there is a restriction for the height of the fence as well as the opacity of it. Since it is not set back far enough and it's on the primary road, the ordinance just requires it to be four feet or get an adjustment.

But what I was wondering, was it was the council thinking it would be dangerous to have the higher restriction? So I'm just wondering what the justification was. I noticed this was amended last year.

And we will allow staff to weigh in. We we have a staff member who has quite a bit of experience with the fence ordinance. So take it away.

Hi. Jack Ruth. I'm a planning technician with the city of San Marcos. So the reasoning for the fence height and openness is for safety primarily. Whenever, you know, you're in a residential lot or anywhere where visibility could be blocked by driving by a fence of that height and not open, anyone for in residential, for example, because it's where it's most common. You know, kids playing in the front yard, you wanna make sure that the fence is open so anyone driving by can see them. And it it that doesn't only apply to residential, but that's generally the justification for it.

Oh, thanks, mister Ruth. That's all I was asking. Thanks, Lauren. Yeah. That was so it seems reasonable, but I just wanted to understand what the thinking of the council behind the amendment. I don't know how it was changed, but I noticed it was changed in 2025. Thanks. That's all I had.

Reading through the packet, it seems like the staff pretty much agrees that it would be something they could grant if it was within their power. Is there anyone on the board that is against it? Is there any additional discussion needed on it? May we have a roll call vote?

Cody DeSalvo? Yes. William DeSoto? Yes. Maddie Roberts?

Yes.

Daniel Summers? Yes. Trina Temple? Yes. VR 2601 passes.

Yep. Passes five to zero. Moving on to item five b. So I'll jump into the caption. VR 2603 Park North condos vehicular access gate setback variance.

Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Lisa Baker on behalf of Park North HOA Inc for a variance to section seven two six two b of the San Marcos development code, which states the gates for vehicular access shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 25 feet to allow a zero foot setback for vehicular access gate located at 1624 Aquarena Springs Drive.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

So we'll we'll start with the staff presentation. Alright. So beginning with the property information, this property is approximately 2.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Aquarina Springs Drive and Thorpe Lane. The designation is neighborhood high per comprehensive plan, and surrounding uses include retail, restaurants, both single and multifamily residential, a motel, and personal services. The existing zoning is multifamily 18 and the variance request is to section 7,262 b.

So this section of the development code requires that vehicular access gates be a minimum of 25 feet from the property line. And the request today is to have the gate directly on the property line so that means a zero foot setback. We'll take a look at the site exhibit submitted by the applicant. Here we can see the driveway location called out with the green circle and the applicant has clarified a couple things about the fence. So this gate will be closed and will not be used for access for example by a remote.

It is meant to completely close off the driveway. Another thing to note here is that it will be flush with the existing fence. So we have a four foot fence along the property line and then to the east we have a six foot fence. And we can see that a little bit better in this photo. So this is a photo from a site visit just showing the existing fence and where the gate would be located.

When assessed under the criteria of section two eight two four, staff found that the request was consistent with criteria one and four through nine of the San Marcos development code and had a neutral finding on criteria two and three of the Development Code. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions as is the applicant.

Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

And tonight we have signed up to speak Robert Dorsey so we can enable him to speak virtually, and that will be followed by Crystal Benavides. And, Robert, I think you've joined us.

Yes. Hello, counsel. My name is Robert Dorsey. My address is 1624 Ocarina Springs Drive, Unit E 133. I sit on the HOA board for Park North Condominiums as the v VP, vice president.

We're requesting and and as a representative of this board, I'm representing about 61 units and owners in the complex as a whole. And I've sat on the board for about six years now. We've had ongoing issues with trespassing, vandalism, car thefts, furniture and items being stolen off of porches for the entirety of the time that I've actually been a board member. We've been we've tried multiple avenues to corral this issue, including increased signage. We've upgraded our security lighting across the complex.

We even added cameras, and at one point, hired a private security detail. But the reality is is that we have a lot of transient people cutting through our neighborhood to get to the twenty four hour gas station that's on the other side of our property. We're requesting this variance so that we can cage off that side where a lot of the traffic is coming from in hopes to help corral this issue for ourselves.

Thank you, Robert.

That ends my comments.

Is there anyone else in the chamber who wishes to speak on this?

Alright. And if you'll start with your name and address.

I'm Crystal Benavides. Address is 1624 Algarina Springs Drive, Unit G 155. I'm currently sitting secretary for the Park North HOA and have, been an owner there since 2017. Being a, homestead owner there for a long period

of time hear anything, Peniel?

I it's coming through on my end.

Oh, yes. I I'm hearing a little feedback too. I think you're okay.

Okay. Being an owner there for that long, I have experienced the same thing that Robert Dorsey had mentioned, high traffic area. We have vehicular traffic that is coming across our parking lot and driving over our speed stops for our parking stops, breaking them, delivery truck drivers, finding shortcuts just to kinda go across. I mean, it's just nonstop. The transient traffic, from the Motel six, is coming through a lot, in that area and from the neighboring multifamily residential communities. And so I really pray that you guys vote in favor of approving this. It would make our residential community lives so much easier. Thank you.

If we don't have anyone further signed up to speak on this, I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

I move to approve.

Is there a second?

I second.

Is there any discussion? Before we get too deep in it, the only question I've got for staff you can answer, is this mostly owner occupied or, I guess, rental housing? Would you happen to know?

That, I do not know. The applicant might have a better sense of the mix within the comments.

Ma'am, if you could step up.

All 61 units are owned by owners. And they do lease them at times, but they're all property tax units.

Okay. Thank you.

I'm glad that it was clarified that the gate will be mostly closed off and not accessed through remote, but I'm curious to know how often the gate will be opened and accessed. Never? Just closed? Okay.

I may I may chime in here too. You may have noted in the packet that the gate will require a NOx lock for the fire department, so that way it will still be available for emergency access. So that's probably the frequency in which it's opened.

Is there any further discussion or comments, questions? Okay. Can we get a roll call vote?

Cody DeSalvo? Yes. William DeSoto? Yes. Maddie Roberts? Yes. Daniel Summers? Yes. Jonah Temple?

Yes. Motion passes. Alright.

Item six is question and answer at the present public. The board and staff may respond to questions related to items on this agenda. Is there anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on this item?

Not seeing any. Staff,

do we have anyone signed up for this agenda item?

No. Nobody is appearing online or in person.

That'd be a first for me. Alright. May we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second? Second. Second. May we have a roll call vote?

Cody DeSalvo? Yes. William DeSoto? Yes. Maddie Roberts? Yes. Daniel Summers? Yes. Jonah Temple? Yes. Motion to adjourn passes.

And the meeting is adjourned at 06:23PM. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, everybody. Bye.

Thank you.