Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right. It is 6 o'clock and we will call this uh meeting of the shirts playing and zoning commission to order. Uh we don't have any alternates tonight. So it is what you see is what you get. Uh we'll move on to the hearing of residents. Uh Mr. Jesse and Guana, you want to come on up? If you'll state your name and address for the record, you have three minutes. I don't Okay. Um, I reside at 913. I own several properties on Beck 925, 926, 927, and I'm here to share my long-term vision with uh shirts. Um so the vision is to see uh how bring housing and community along with health. Uh my goal is to develop these lots into a co cohesive live live, work, train environment. Um, with the current zoning, I've come into some roadblocks with the neighborhood services, uh, especially with landing and being able to get, uh, funding on these properties. Again, because of this commercial use, the lenders are seeing it as a problem. And um again I've spoke at lengths with uh William and many members of the planning board uh so that way we can see what can be done and which way we can move uh closer in union with the city to say okay this is this is my goal this is my vision and again uh work in tangent with this with the city. Thank you. All right. Right. Well, that's everyone signed up to speak. Uh we will move on

to our consent agenda. Uh it's the minutes from the December 3rd uh meeting. Were there any comments on that? Well, if there's no comments uh or questions, if I can get a motion. Motion to pass the consent agenda. Second.

That is a motion for approval from Commissioner McMaster, second by Commissioner Hughes. If there's no other comments, please vote. Oh, hey. Uh, we have the wrong voting screen. Hold on one second. Okay. Um, well, let's do this. We will do a roll call votes. Commissioner McMaster,

I. Commissioner Hughes, I. Uh, Commissioner, uh, Outlaw, I. Uh, Commissioner Brown, I. Commissioner Hector has said I

I and I'm I as well. That motion carries. We'll move on to item number five. Uh PLSPU 2026003. Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a specific use permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 7.8 acres of land located approximately 51 ft west from the intersection of IH35 North. Access Road in FM2252, also known as 18920, IH35 North, more specifically known as Guadalupe County property identification number 114083 and Komal County property identification number 119021, city shirts, Komalt in Guadalupe County, Texas. Daisy,

thank you. Commissioners plu 2026003, a proposed specific use permit to allow convenience store with gas pumps on general business district. I'm Daisy Marquez, senior planner. Here's a subject property outlined in yellow. It is located on IH35 closer to the intersection of FM2252. It is currently zoned general business district. It does have an expired SUP that was previously approved to allow them to have a community store with gas pumps and that is what they are proposing tonight. To north is the I35 rideway. To the south is general business district. to the east is general business district and to the west is general business district. Bless you. On January 22nd, we sent out eight public notices and we did not receive any um responses. A sign was placed by the applicant along I35 and then it will be tenatively scheduled for the March 3rd, 2026 city council meeting and it will be posted in the San Antonio Express prior to city council. So why are we here tonight? UDC section 2158 requires that an approved SUP to allow community store with gas pumps in general business district is approved before allowing that use. Um you might be thinking I have seen this before. You have um ordinance 23S32 um y'all saw it as pl 20230153 was approved at city council on January 9, 2024. Um that SUP did expire on January 9, 2026. they had that condition that they needed to get a building permit within 2 years. Unfortunately, they fell a little short. Uh but they do have an approved site plan final plat and they were really close to getting that building permit approved. So shortly after if this is approved, they'll probably get their building permits. And here's the approved site plan that I was talking about. You can see um

they've already gone through the site design requirements. It meets all of our UDC requirements. So again when looking at SUPs we look towards section 21511D in the UDC for the criteria of approval one if the proposed use at the specified location is consistent with the policies of the adopted comp plan and any other adopted plan. So this area is designated as misuse center and that's higher dens higher density housing local serving commercial and recreational uses and this is intended for um being along significant transportation corridors. So this proposed SUP is located along IH35 a major transportation corridor. Thus it meets the intent of the future landings map designation and their only access points will be along that IH35 um frontage road. and two whether this use is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district. So this property in the surrounding area is zoned as general business district which is intended for retail and services establishments along this principal transportation corridor. What they're proposing at this location meets that intent. And three, the proposed use is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of the adjacent developments and neighborhood. Again, this is surrounded by general business district zoning and it will be required to meet all article 9 site design requirements and they have already proved that they have with the approved site plan. And four, whether this use will adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the city. So there's existing GB in the area and that their only access for the properties along IH35 North Access Road. So we don't see this as adversely affecting the overall health or general welfare of the city. and five whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of this SCP. All UDC requirements have been met for this proposed application. The city of Shirts fire EMS and police departments have reviewed this SCP application and do not

provide an objection and an SCP for this property for the same proposed use was already approved on January 9, 2024 and unfortunately expired January 9, 2026 before they could obtain their building permit. So staff is um proposing that the proposed specific use permit meets the intent of the comprehensive feature land use map is compatible with the surrounding area. Thus we recommend approval of this SUP to allow convenience store with gas pumps at the subject property condition upon the following that a building permit is approved within two years of the adoption of this SUP ordinance.

Thank you Daisy. This is a public hearing so we will go ahead and open it up. It is 608 for public comment. Once twice, anybody? No, it's still 608. Uh, commissioners, questions, comments, concerns? Mr. Mc or Outlaw? Um, could we see the site plane again? There you go. So, and this is just No, I was ready to make a motion.

General curiosity, we have um we're showing I think cross lot access there along the but right now they will have no access for from 22 for traffic for southbound traffic to come over and use it. Is that correct? Correct, sir. That just um yeah kind of surprises me this kind of operation. Um the only other thing I wanted to ask you any significant changes since we looked at this the first time? No sir. Same proposed use. They're proposing the convenience store with gas pumps and they're still proposing that additional retail space from the previous application. Thank you.

Anybody else? No. All right. Motions. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we um recommend approval of PLSU PLPU 2026003 contingent upon a building permit being issued within two years. I'll second that.

That is a motion to recommend approval for PLSP 2026003 from Commissioner Outlaw, second by Commissioner McMaster. There's no other comments. Uh please vote. That is six votes. Queen publisher. That motion carries. All right. Moving on. PLSPU 2026006. hold a public hearing and make recommendation on a request for a specific use permit to allow a truck terminal on approximately 4.1 acres of land approximately located approximately 600 ft west of the intersection of Bow Lane and Schwab Road also known as 23870 Bow Lane more specifically known as Komal County parcel identification number 464879 city shirts Kal County Texas William

Good evening commission plu 202600006 specific use permit request for proposed used a truck terminal on 4.1 acres of land, William Willingham Planner. For your orientation, this is a subject properties aerial view. You can see that the property is currently surrounded by properties that are currently zoned GB. This property is also currently zoned GB. And then to the north here, we have the M1 zoning district. This is where the Cisco development is. And then right over here is the QT that is existing out there along Schwab Road and 35. notification for the property. Six public notices were sent out on January 23rd, 2026. We have received zero responses. A public hearing notice will be published in the San Antonio Express prior to the city council hearing and two notification signs were placed on the property by the applicant. So, background the site and context. So, this property had an SU which was approved with ordinance 23S33 which was effective on January 9th, 2024. However, with our ordinances for SUPs, as you've heard before, they expire within two years if there's no building permit pulled. So, we have seen that there was a preliminary plat that came in. It was approved on June 10th. We have a final plat that was approved on July 11th, 2024. And then a site plan was certified on November 26, 2025, and a building permit was entered on January 8th, 2026, but the SU has since expired. So the applicant has been working through this case. UDC section 2154D criteria for approval. The first being whether the proposed use at the specified location implements the policies of the adopted comprehensive land plan or any other applicable plans. So this area is designated as regional corridor which is intended for commercial areas along major thorough affairs to serve the broader region. Uh the site is currently zoned as general business district was in which is

intended for retail and service establishments and the comprehensive land plan is a guiding document for the long range vision of the city and the requested specific use implements the policies of the adopted plan. Two, whether the proposed use is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district. So as I mentioned before, it's intended for retail and service establishments that are oriented towards serving the overall community. and the use is located along the I35 corridor and it is supporting the Cisco development. So, it is meeting that intent. Three, the proposed use is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of adjacent developments and neighborhoods. The truck terminal use is surrounded by general business district and manufacturing district M1 to the north. That M1 district is the Cisco lot and it's supporting that use located just adjacent to the north. Thus, it is preserving the character of the surrounding area. Four, whether the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. As part of promoting the health, safety, and welfare, the city should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. The requested specific use is intended to alleviate the parking situation that's going on with the Cisco lot development, and thus it is supporting the health, safety, and welfare of the city. Five, whether other factors are deemed relevant and important for the in consideration of the request. All UDC requirements have been met for the proposed specific use permit. There is a certified plan of the property which has met all the site design requirements of article 9 and there's also an approved final plat which is pending county recordation. Shirts fire, EMS and police departments have been notified of the specific use permit and have not provided any objections to the request. Staff recommendation. Due to the consistency with the comprehensive land plan and the future land use map, the support the use provides for an existing development and considering the previously approved SCP request, staff recommends approval of PLSPU 20260006

with the following condition. A building permit is approved within 2 years of the adoption of the SCP ordinance. Thank you, William. This is again a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up. It is 6:15. Um, anyone once, twice, it is still 6:15 and we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? Commissioner Outlaw. William, can you put that um those dates back up there? Yes. Let me get my dart out here and sharpen it up a little bit. Well, I'm a little confused if uh Okay, so the billing permit hasn't been approved. That's correct. They just applied for it.

Yes. Okay, never mind. Put the dart away. Thank you. Well, Mr. Chairman, if no one else has any comments. Okay. All right. I make a motion that we recommend approval of PLSPU 2026006 with the condition that a building permit be issued within two years. I'll second that.

That is a recommendation for approval with conditions for PLSPU 20260006 from Commissioner Outlaw, second by Commissioner McMaster. Uh if there's no other comments, please vote. That is six votes. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right. Moving on. PLUDC 20260015 conduct a public hearing workshop discussion and possible action to make recommendations on amendments to part three of the shirts code of ordinance unified development code UDC to article 8 section 21.8.4 home occupations and article 16 definitions. William. Good evening, Commission. PL UDC 20260015 revisions to UDC article 8 home occupations and article 16 definitions. So background on the case. On June 12th, 2025, the Texas legislature met and they passed House Bill 2464. Upon that adoption of that bill, it was effective immediately. And so that bill limits the municipal authority to regulate what they term as no impact homebased businesses. So we in the city of Schz have UDC article 8 section 2184 home occupations and it currently establishes criteria and developmental standards for home occupations conducted within dwelling units. As a result of the passage of this bill, article 8 must be revised to comply with the Texas Local Government Code section 229.902. So the proposed amendments include including an alternative name in from home occupations to also include no impact homebased businesses as described by the LGC. It also removes languages that references permits um which is outlined in the LGC. It revises or eliminates restrictions to become compliant in order with the LGC. So we can no longer regulate this activity for the most part. And it also revises the

definition of home occupation in order to comply with the LGC. So this is the LGC section and I'll just kind of highlight what are the important parts here. This is a no impact homebased business and essentially what this area is saying is that a no impact homebased business is a business that is happening on somebody's property and it is basically not being able to seen be seen by the public from the ride ofway and it's not generating any kind of nuisance like traffic or noise or smells things of that nature. And so what this ordinance uh legislation does is that a municipality may not prohibit the operation of a no impact homebased business, which would mean that we cannot require a person to get a permit or any other approval to operate that business. So in order to comply, the proposed amendment first includes the addition of a reference to no impact homebased businesses per the Texas Local Government Code. The second revision is the elimination of 10 criteria which were currently existing within section B. Those were eliminated and we have added or revised eight other criteria. Proposed amendment the elimination of section 2184 C through 2184F in order to be compliant with the Texas LGC section 229.902. And so essentially these have just been removed because those were all of the requirements that we had in order to kind of condition or enforce how we were enforcing that. But we can no longer ask for these permits. And lastly, a proposed amendment to article 16 definitions. And this definition is revised to comply with the LGC UDC section 2147D criteria for approval for UDC amendments. Whether the proposed amendment promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the city. So Texas House Bill 2464 prohibits m municipalities from adopting an enforcing ordinance that prohibit no impact homebased businesses and prohibits the requirement

of permits. So due to this change staff is recommending or therefore the proposed amendment promotes the welfare of the city by changing to in order to be in compliance. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policy of the UDC and the city. So the proposed amendment ensures that developmental policy within the city of shirts complies with the regulations established by the state of Texas. Thus the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the city. Three, the proposed amendment corrects an error meets the challenge of changing conditions or is in response to changes in state law. So as I mentioned before, Texas HB 2464 was passed on June 12th and it was made effective immediately. So this proposed amendment is in response to the adoption of this bill in order to comply with state law or whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. Staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed UDC code amendments. Shirts fire, EMS and police have reviewed the proposed amendments and have provided no objections and the proposed amendments have also been reviewed by are legal without any objection. Staff recommendation. In order to bring the UDC in compliance with the policies established in Texas House Bill 2464 adopted on June 12, 2025, staff is recommending approval of PLUDC 20260015.

Thank you, William. Um, again, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up. It is 6:21. Anyone? Well, it's still 621. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners questions, comments, concerns. Go, Commissioner uh, Ala.

Um, well, first of all, just just um, let me get this off my chest. Uh I it I I just wonder when all our um illustrious state, you know, elected state officials are going to finally just decide to do away with local government all together and run everything from Austin. Uh this is just another one of those um you know where they're you know and I don't know who was complaining about this one. understand the developers because that's money in their pocket. Um, and I would like to be on record u with staff that I disagree with you. I do not think this amendment is consistent with the goals of the city of Shirts. I think it's consistent with state law, but that's a different matter altogether. Okay. Um so the state law says not generating any on street parking or increase in traffic. So how does somebody that that wants to do hair or uh income tax? In other words, you're saying I think this is one place where the state just made it worse because at least we were allowing them to have um um on-site customers to where somebody and and we would say no more than two cars, no more than one car. Well, now you how are they supposed to do business if they if if if we can't if they can't generate on on street parking rhetorical question. Most of these are okay. Um, and I'm sorry I didn't bring my whole packet with me tonight, but it seems to me as I was reading through uh there was

still some provision to that that they had to comply with uh fire and health and those kinds of Well, um if if we can't and and this has been asked in other um in other situations too, how how are we going to How do we know we need to do inspections if we if they're not pulling permits? Okay. I don't know. Maybe we'll get lucky and one of the legislators watches our videos. I don't know. But I I I really Yeah. Um this is one of those things kind of like a memo that I sent out I sent out to our flying club the other day. It's not I don't think we really have a choice. So, okay. Enough said. Thank you for listening. Anybody else? Commissioners, questions, comments, motions?

Make a motion that we recommend approval for PLUDC 20260015. Second.

There's a motion to recommend approval by Commissioner McMaster, second by Commissioner Hughes. If there's no other comments, please record your vote. That is six votes. Can we publish that, please? That motion carries. All right. Moving forward. PLUDC 20260016. Conduct a public hearing workshop discussion and possible action. Make recommendation on amendments to part three of the shirts city or the shirts code of ordinance unified development code to article 4 section 21.4.3 notice requirements. Daisy.

Good evening, commission. PLUDC 20260016, proposed UDC amendments to article 4, section 2143, notice requirements, Daisy Marquez, senior planner. So, as per UDC section 2147, city council or at the request of the city manager or his or her design may change or modify the UDC to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desired development. Why are we here today? Uh this UDC amendment was initiated by planning staff, but we are kind of in the same situation as we were with the previous UDC amendment. Um the 89th legislative session resulted in House Bill 24, which went into effect on September 1st, 2025. Um this affected all home room municipalities and how they notice for zone changes. So these are the proposed amendments to DC section 2143. They made it specifically clear that the posted notice, also known as our beautiful notification signs, cannot be posted not later than the 10th day before. They made that very clear. So, we made that amendment to replicate what the LGC says. We modified the LGC section reference and the legislature specifically um included the language that the notice sign must be at least 24 in long by 48 in wide. So we took that directly from the LGC and UDC section 2147D is our criteria for approval for UDC amendments. Whether this proposed amendment promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. So staff proposes UDC amendments from time to time to practice and to remain current with state law changes. Again, these changes come from the 89th legislature and we're amending the UDC to apply with this Texas LGC to ensure uh general welfare of the city. And whether this proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and the policy of this UDC and the city. Again, these are in response to the

Texas LGC changes. We want to remain consistent and compliant. And three, whether the proposed amendment corrects an error, meets the challenge of changing conditions or is in response to changes in state law. Again, House Bill 24 changed LG LGC section 211.0073 again specifically stating these signs cannot be ped no later than the 10th day and that the signs must be at least 24 in long by 40 in wide. So four other factors which are deemed relevant and important the consideration of the amendment. So these proposed amendments are again in directly in line with the changes to the 89th legislature house bill 24 that went into effect September 1st 2025. And we do want to note that since its effective date, planning staff has had to change the notice sign process to be compliant. So as you can see from these images of the white signs, we no longer have our beautiful yellow signs that we work so hard to design. um our sign shop could not produce the signs that were the required 24 in long by 48 in wide. So we had to change our process and as part of the zone change process and SCP process we provided applicants with sign shops in the area that can meet this regulation and now applicants are required to purchase the signs themselves. And then uh this UDC amendment was reviewed by the shirts EMS and police department without objections and it went to legal for review and it did not receive any objections. Thus the staff recommends approval of PLUDC 20260016 to remain consistent with the state law changes.

Thank you Daisy. This is a public hearing. So we'll go ahead and open up the floor to comment. Going once. I'm sorry. It was 629 when we opened it up. Going once. twice and we will close it. All right, commissioners, questions, comments? Mr. Outlaw?

Well, just just your your uh your normal troublemaker here. Can we go back to the red lines where you had the red lines? I'm a little I'm a little confused. So sign shall be posted the by the applicant not later than the 10th day before. Okay. And ours was 11. So okay. So we were requiring it a day too soon. They they can put it out sooner if they want to, right? They just But okay. Um, and then, um, so I was going to ask you how how big our signs were, but you you kind of answered that question. They weren't big enough. Um, and and honestly, I think in some of the discussions about the notice signs, u, we had talked about the, um, the applicant having to pay for them. So, but talking about the signs, are there any restrictions in in the new um law? Um, in other words, uh, are there any restrictions against the city specifying the color and the wording?

No, sir. It was just how big it needs to be and when it needs to be posted. Okay. So, if I I know we needed to do this in a hurry, but in the future, if we wanted to say they have to be bright yellow with, you know, do do we or or is that even an issue? We can definitely evaluate that.

I think we we went with the white because it offered um a bigger option in sign shops that could accommodate um developers walking in. Basically, we give them a packet that says this is exactly what the sign needs to look at look like. These are ones we've spoken to previously. So, one, the white is a cheaper option for them since they're now eating that cost. Um, and then they can produce the white signs faster typically than the yellow. Okay. But but you so but we do specify what it has to say. Okay. They get basically a picture of this is what the sign has to look like.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all. Okay. Oh, if I could make one more quick question if if you don't mind. Once again, I don't think we're only making this change because the law changed, not because we wanted to. So again, I take issue with the statement that this is consistent with the goals of the city of Shirts. Now I'm done. Okay. Thank you. Not a problem. Uh Miss Brown, you had something? Yes. So, quick question about um how will the city know or how will we enforce knowing that the applicant has actually posted the sign?

Um so, as you can see from the pictures, we whenever we tenatively schedule it for a planning and zoning commission day, we tell them how to order the sign and we ask them to send us pictures and staff will also drive out there and that's how we get pictures of these beautiful signs. Oh, yeah. And we also tell them if they don't post a sign and send us proof and we don't see it out there, we will not send them mail their mailers. So we will um delay them coming to PNZ. Quick question. The um signs must be at least 24 in long. Is that straight from the bill?

That is straight from the house bill, sir. We understand the language is quite odd. Well, that's what 2 by4, right? So, I say I I just I just took down John's campaign sign off my off my fence and I think that was Was that a 2x4? I don't know. Yeah. I mean, it looked looking at the pictures, they look like um they're probably a lot more legible than what art what they used to be. That was always an issue for us was how could we come up with something that that people might have an opportunity to read as they drove rather than having to stop. But um

my uh comment had to do with long and wide being the same thing. That's all. Yeah. They really mean they really mean width and heights. But Right. Okay. That's what you're That's what you're pointing out. Yeah. Well, if there's no other comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion that we recommend approval for PLU DC 20260016.

Second. That is a motion to recommend approval from Commissioner Mayor McMaster, second by Commissioner Hector for PLUDC 20260016. If there's no other comments, please vote. That is six votes. Can we publish that? That motion passes. All right. PLUDC 20260020 conduct a public hearing workshop and discussion and possible action to make recommendation on amendments to part three of the shirts code of ordinances unified development code to article 5 section 21.5.7 dimensional and development standards and article 16 definitions. Daisy,

good evening once again, commissioners. PL UDC 20260020, proposed UDC amendments to article 5 section 2157 dimensional development standards and article 16 definitions, Daisy Marquez, senior planner. So again, as per UDC section 2147, city council at the request of the city manager, his or her designate may change or modify the UDC to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development. On September 17, 2024, city council had a workshop about impervious coverage and they had a very thorough discussion and as a result of that workshop, it was requested by city council to amend the pool impervious coverage requirements and exclude decorative pavers from the impervious coverage definition. So they are so we are proposing to directly amend UDC section 2157 but more specifically table 2157A dimensional requirements for residential zoning districts. Um it's located under this table where you can see all the impervious coverage requirements in the key and we are proposing to directly amend key K. Um, previously we had it that unless swimming pools are equip equipped with the water overflow device appropriate for such pool then um the water surface could be excluded from the impervious coverage limitations. But per direction from council, we are proposing to delete that and just leave it at swimming pool water service areas do not count toward maximum impervious coverage limitations. And then article 16 the def the definition for imperous coverage. Um there was a thorough discussion on this and as a result what's being proposed is adding that imperous cover means impermeable surfaces which prevent the infiltration of water into the underlying soil and bedrock such as

pavement, concrete or rooftops and not to include decorative pavers intended for residential landscaping purposes that are not used for vehicular travel. So if someone uses decorative papers in their landscaping for their residents um then it would not be counted towards their impervious coverage requirements. So again UDC section 2147D for the criteria of approval uh the proposed amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the city. Again, per UDC section 21470, city council has the right to request amendments to the UDC and as a direct result of that September 17, 2024 city council meeting. Um, they requested these amendments and we brought them here today. And two, whether this amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the UDC. Um, city council is able to request UDC amendment and this amendment is a direct result from that direction from council. Three, whether the proposed amendment corrects an error, meets the challenge of changing conditions or is in response to changes in state law. So, it does not correct an error and is not in response to state law. Again, it's a direct result of that September 17th city council meeting. And four other factors that are deemed relevant and important in consideration of this amendment. A workshop was held on impervious coverage at the September 17th, 2024 city council meeting. And that workshop can be viewed online at the City of Shorts YouTube web page. And there was a thorough discussion on impervious coverage requirements, why it's regulated for storm water management and how long the current system has worked since its imple implementation. And uh these proposed UDC amendments were reviewed by fire, EMS and police department without objections and it went to legal for review and they did not provide any objections. So again as per UDC section 2147, city council may request an amendment to the UDC. The proposed amendments are a result of the direction provided by council from the September 17, 2024 city

council workshop and staff has provided these amendments. Thus, staff recommends approval of PL UDC 20260020 per city council's direction. Thank you, Daisy. Uh, again, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open the floor at 6:39 and call it at 639 as well. Okay. Um I have a couple questions, Daisy. So, are we including a pool deck as impervious coverage still? So, the concrete area surrounding the pool

um would not be counted as like the water surface area. So, that would still be counted as imperous coverage. Um after discussion with our building official um they taught me that that's where a lot of the electrical is and that's mainly all concrete. So we're still going to exclude that area. Okay. Um and then there was was there a reason between like the timeline of September 14 September 2024 to now? Yes. Um because we were amending um article five for the pools which touches our zoning. We had to consult with legal to see what type of noticing would be required. Okay.

So that took a bit of a while. Okay. Uh that's my questions. Mr. Outlaw.

Rhetorical comment. You know, I love these that um city council holds a workshop and asks for an amendment and then it comes to us. What are we supposed to do? They ask for it, you know. Um, you know, this this is an ongoing this whole swimming pool thing started um many years ago. And it's because um we allow large houses on relatively small lots and then the resident goes to put in a swimming pool and they can't do that without breaking the impervious cover. Um and again the whole idea is with with the whole imperous cover regulation the whole idea is to prevent storm runoff. And so the the modification was made that if you put some kind of overflow device on your pool to direct the water I assume to pvious cover it was okay. And now council wants to remove that. So now the water's just going to run out in the street, run down the gutter, and add to our storm water problems. I'm not sure again where that came from or or why they felt that was necessary, but uh again, they asked for it. Um I want to go back to the pavers because I think as Emily knows, I have a vested interest in this in this whole what can we use pavers thing for? Um, why did we choose to to limit them only to residential landscape?

Yes. Well, hopefully you came prepared. Hopefully hopefully prepared enough. So I think um this workshop in conjunction with the unpaved surfaces workshop that also was taken to city council. There is clear direction from council that they do not want automobiles parking driving on an unpaved surface which in our code is strict concrete or asphalt. So that is where this is coming from that if you have a vehicle it has to be on concrete or asphalt.

All right. Well now I know who I have to go yell at. Does does anybody What does that say right there? Does that not say pavers? Okay. It doesn't say It doesn't say sand. It doesn't say dirt. It says paver. So, isn't a paver a paved surface? Well, I'll let that go because I'm arguing with the wrong people. Okay. Thank you for your comment. But you So, now I know where I've got to go stump. Okay. because it's absolutely ridiculous that I can't do it in my driveway. Yet, I can drive through Cibilo and they use them as driving. They use them in the roadway system. You know, somebody needs to go to downtown San Antonio and check out Travis Street. You know, three or four blocks of Travis are nothing but pavers. I don't understand why our council is hung up with concrete and and it's a definition thing. So, why don't we try to change the definition? I'm sorry. This is just I want to do my driveway in pavers and I can't. We're probably the only community in the entire San Antonio metro area that can't do a driveway in pavers. Okay.

Okay. Sorry, I'm done. Thank you. Just just another quick point. So technically if I wanted to take all the all of my front yard out, I could do my entire front yard in pavers. Correct. And Mr. Brian James did warn counsel about that happening in residences all over.

Yeah, that's one that's one consideration. And the other consideration is um to Glenn's point doing the u paperwork in on the city of San Antonio the only difference between a pa that is used for decorative and not and one is used for roadway is size. It's it goes from about an inch to about an inch and a half to two inches. So it's splitting hairs. I'm I'm concerned about that we're going to have streets that are going to be full of pavers instead of having grass. And I think it's going to cause issues as far as the appeal of resale value or even value as far as with the tax rules.

Yeah, David, I I I thought at one time because I I've been talking with the city engineer and um of course the planning folks because that you know their concern is this whole impervious cover thing. And um I thought where we were headed was some kind of uh because you can come by and see what I did at my house because now you've made what I did legal. Okay. I did about oh I don't know a quarter in my front yard. I replaced I had a bunch of gravel and I replaced it with pavers. But because pavers that kind of installation is not 100% it's not like concrete. It allows some permeation. And I and I thought one of the things we're working on was trying to come up and say, well, pavers are 50% or you know, they're not 100% imper you know, you but we were going to come up with a number and you know, so now I don't know where we're going right now. I mean, I did a complete back patio with pavers and there they're they're not 100% impervious, but they are

there are issues where they are impervious and they're it's a small amount and you're still going to get the runoff. And I agree with you that, you know, roadway pavers are not necessarily the same as decorative pavers. And again, I thought that's kind of where the what the city engineer working on. But um

I just think I mean I get the pool thing and I understand it, but with the pavers this I have an issue with the PA because of the fact that we can having a PA for a driveway is going to be more cost effective sometimes and but you have to have installed correctly and it does add to the value of the house by the appeal. But if you take out the entire grass and you stick stick pavers all through it, then it's going to degrade the property value and degrade the look of the neighborhood. So, we're kind of in a a point right now where this is probably the intent was good, but the design did not is not really where we're looking at.

The commission is more than welcome to recommend amendments and we can take it to council with amendments if you'd like as well. Well, and and and you know, I I don't um in in terms of excluding the pavers uh as pvious or impervious cover. I I I don't the vehicular travel thing. I think it is separate from the swimming pool. At least that's my opinion. And so I I would not recommend uh trying to change your proposal um to include the vehicular travel. Um but it's um it does seem a little counterintuitive or counterproductive that if on one hand, you know, we have impervious cover regulations to help control storm water runoff and every time we turn around, we're excluding areas from uh from counting as imperous cover. Again, I I I I think it would be much more productive if if decorative pavers counted as 50% impervious or 24 or some number rather than just saying they're totally I you come watch at at my house with with that the decorative papers I put in the front. Um and and basically I I don't know it it it's it's not a large area to begin with. Um and and so maybe there isn't a whole lot of runoff. Um but it's it's certainly not going to going to sit like

it does on a on grass. So but again, uh council asked for this. So, I'd like to make a recommendation that we recommend that pavers be allowed for driveway usage and not allowed for greater than 25% of the current pvious ground cover. Therefore, satisfying the the the aesthetic qualities that are present without making with and enhancing this the property values instead of removing the property values. Can you repeat that, Mr.

Recommend the pavers um for driveways and not allow um for greater than 25% of the current pvious ground cover to be covered by pavers? So you could have 75% of your yard is still grass and 25% can be still pavers. Would you calculate that based on the total lot size? So in terms of the Daisy, can you go to the the chart with the impervious cover limits? I'm sorry. So, of that max impervious cover, are you saying 25% of the 9,600 square f feet total of the lot? I'm looking at probably the um or 25% of the 50% 25% of the 50%.

Okay. Okay.

That way we kind of meet we strike a balance. But if Glenn was to take out his um his driveway and put pavers um again that would have to be HOA approval have to be designed to the HOA and this kind of helps this kind of doesn't help HOAs because they can come back on city says I can do it so I'm going to do it and then there's a whole there's there's way too many arguments and there's too many legal things that come into play at that point. So, just to clarify, your motion is to follow staff's recommendation except to recommend that no more than 25% of the max impervious cover be allowed for decorative pavers and that they be allowed for vehicular travel. Is that correct?

Um, for driveways. What? Okay. So, only driveways. For only driveways. Residential driveways. Residential driveways. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all clear. So just to remind everyone, so the motion is to recommend approval of staff's recommendation except to allow for no more than 25% of the maximum impervious cover be allowed for um decorative pavers and then uh that they also be allowed for residential driveways. Correct. Correct. Okay. Is there a second? A second.

That is a motion as detailed uh by Commissioner Hughes, second by Commissioner Brown for PLUDC 20260020. Are we clear? Cool. All right. Um if there's no other comments, I have Mr. Al has a comment.

Okay. uh a comment about some some of what Commissioner Hughes said when he when he I I um adamantly believe that property values are not subject they're they're not the city's purview. It's not up it's not up to the city to protect my property value. Okay. Um, and I've said that many times. Um, not recently, but but back when we had uh a couple of chairman ago, uh, I accused the city on more than one occasion of of functioning as a uh as a as a overseeing HOA. Okay. Um, that's the city is not in the business or should not be in the business of protecting my property values. That's my that's my problem. And that's why I wanted to redo my driveway in pavers because you come look at that thing and it was cracked. It was sunken. It It just looked like trash. Okay. And I wanted something that looked nicer for the neighborhood. Well, when we found out we couldn't do pavers, I paid to have it. Um uh they leveled it out. They sealed all the cracks. And a year later, the it it's still all in one piece, but everywhere they put that little ceiling stuff is a giant black mark running. My driveway now still looks like trash. Okay. Um, but the my my general comment about your your proposal, Commissioner Hughes, is that we talked about the difference between decorative pavers and, if you will, drive uh roadway pavers. Now, in my

particular case, the company I I I had do it, they're the same. Okay. Um, but for somebody that maybe they're they're it's a do-it-yourself project. So, so they run up to Lowe's and they load up on those those decorative papers they have up there. I'm not sure that those are vehicular um that they'll support that kind of weight. And so it's not that I disagree with your intent, but the way the way we finally decided the the motion was worded would allow somebody to use decorative pavers as driveway pavers. And I'm not sure that's a good thing. So,

if you look at the 2-in pavers that are at Lowe's or Home Depot, those are actually the same ones that are very similar to what is downtown San Antonio. They were designed for buses. The only difference is is the structure underneath. They use a lot more base and a lot more sand. Reason being is I helped do part of the streets. So, I remember cutting all those.

Thank you, sir. If there's no other questions or comments, then we will go ahead and vote. If you could please record your vote. I see six votes. Can we publish that? That motion carries. Okay. Uh does anyone need a break real quick? Carry on. No.

Okay, let's do it. Um item F, Main Street workshop, conduct a public hearing, workshop and discussion on the comprehensive land use plan, future land use map, designation area of Main Street and Main Street Mixed Views, MSMU, and Main Street mixeduse new development zoning district permitted uses. Daisy,

good evening once again, commissioners. My name is Daisy Marquez, senior planner, and we are here today because at the November 5th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting, we had a request for a Main Street workshop. I'm just going to let you know now this presentation is going to come to you in parts and then we're going to open up for a public hearing. We do have someone here to speak on this today and then we'll go back to the discussion and I will guide you through the discussion in parts. So, as we go through this presentation, I want the commission to think of these three questions as we go through it. What is the end goal for shirts main street? What makes you drive out of your shirt out of shirts from your home to visit another main street or downtown area? What do you want to see on Main Street? So, please think of these questions as we go through it. So before we go into our own main street, let's visit some towns all over Texas that have some very infamous downtown and main street areas. Starting with McKenna, Texas that has a very beautiful square. Um, and when you think of their main street area, you might think of a couple of blocks, but they use it more as a concept as seen in their plan to the right. Um, they've kind of broken it down as a core historical corridor and it spans multiple blocks. It spans a a large transportation corridor. And then Georgetown, which also has a beautiful block. Um, you would think, okay, is it actually located on the main street? It actually goes beyond that main street. It isn't really that close to their existing main street. And they use it as a con a concept to kind of expand on that and kind of get buy in on that idea of main street and downtown. We also have Brian, Texas. And the star is where their actual Main Street kind of curves down and goes around. And when they did their study area of Main Street before they kind of um started putting more money into it, they broke it down into two areas. The core study area and

then a general study area. And now they have a lot of successful first Fridays where businesses are open late, people are walking in the streets. And then also Cibilo, which are which y'all are more familiar with, um they have their main street area, but if you look at their comprehensive um land use plan feature land use map to the right, that blue area is actually what they consider their main street area. So again, it's used as more of a concept and expands beyond that main street area. So, now that you've seen some examples of main streets all over Texas and you're thinking of these three questions that we introduced at the beginning, let's look at the history of our future land use area for historic Main Street. We're going to travel through the comprehensive plans we've had in the past and get to what we have currently now. So in 2002, um, as a result of that comprehensive land use plan, we had the main street main street commercial designation area which went all the way up to Curtis and a two extra blocks along Shorts Parkway. So again, um, it stopped at Exchanged N78. So it kind of had those hard boundaries. And then in 2013, the sector plan came along and when they were studying the main street area, they kind of looked at it within this bigger picture that outlined yellow area is what they were considering main street when they were evaluing evaluating uh transportation without the area and seeing how people go around. And then again, they were kind of using it as a historic downtown concept. So they weren't just focusing on Main Street. And as a result of that, the main street commercial area did stay the same in the comprehensive land use plan, but we did get a different result and we got um a downtown overlay district that was um shown in our zoning maps. Another result of the 2013 sector plan were these beautiful Main Street public improvements plan. Um I do want to let

you know that we are currently working on it. I know this came out in 2013, but as you know, we have a lot of community partners we need to work with when it comes to utilities. As one of the biggest projects to start this is move all of our overhead utilities underground. And from speaking with our assistant city engineer, they're about 89% of the design phase to move those underground. So hopefully in a couple of years, we'll start seeing some work happening. And then when it came to our comprehensive plan that was adopted in April 2024, Main Street again was kind of used as this concept to expand beyond the historic Main Street corridor. Um they're proposing 35% residential and 65% non-residential, but again still considering appropriate transitional uses for adjacent residential areas that need to be considered. And some policy statements that encouraged that was um the encourage main street development. Again, creating this cultural and economic hub where people from other towns will come visit our town where you see people after 6 p.m. in the streets. And they also introduced this with the complete communities um interest topic. And again, they're saying we can utilize this to boost the success of Main Street. So this this is what the current Main Street future land use map looks like and land use designation. It goes all the way to Curtis and it stops at Shorts Parkway. So you can see it is um about a block larger than what it previously was on exchange. And here you can kind of see an overlay. The purple line represents the future land use map designation area of Main Street as it currently is in our comp plan. And if you look at the existing zoning in the area, we do have residential still, that is that orange um color, but we do have 19 parcels that are zoned MSMU ND and MSMEU. And then just to let you know, we do have another one currently coming in for the works. So, um it's kind of sporadic when it

comes to zone changes for the Main Street language designation, but it's as people get interested and they see the flexibility in it. And then the incentive area for Main Street was brought up last time. So we did want to overlay what our future land use map designation area looks like in comparison to that incentive area where people are eligible to apply for those incentives. And then kind of just looking at a side by side of what our current count plan has again kind of showing you that it goes all the way to Curtis. It surpasses that exchange avenue. Um and in our sector plan, it only stayed to exchange um but we did extend with the current one. So when it comes to the comprehensive land use plan designation of Main Street, did we go too far by extending the futures land use plan designation to Curtis? Should it go farther to Beck? Um the intent was really to take into consideration the smaller lots of the older areas of Shorts and give them that flexibility. Um but staff has discussed that and we have offered that we can always condense the main street land use designation area back to exchange and focus our efforts on Main Street and we can always come back and look at if we need to expand after we've had some revitalization on Main Street. Maybe after improvements are done we get the core bustling and hustling and then we evaluate if we need to come back and extend it to promote a growth in our main street. So that's the end of our first part of our discussion on the comprehensive land use plan designation. Now we're going to go into the main street and main street um new development permitted land uses. This is separate because this is directly related to the zoning. Uh the MSMU zoning is attractive to people because in a lot of these smaller lots and shirts, they can't really comply with the zoning that we have

because think about it, our smallest zoning is 60 by 120 or 60 by 115 and MSMU allows 50 by 100. So it takes less lots within the older parts of shirts to meet the MSMU zoning. And they do get the flexibility of being exempt from a couple of design requirements where we let them have some flexibility on landscaping, on parking. They don't have to have that 50- foot building setback. They get to be closer to the frontage to attract people to come in. Um these are just the things that attract people to that MSMU zoning. And then these are the current permitted uses um within the MSMU and MSMU ND zoning district. And as you can see, it's everything from an antique shop, a bakery, a bookstore, a bed and breakfast, a daycare center, micro brewery or brew pub, a retail store, shop, school, tattoo parlors, and taverns. Uh, tattoo parlors and studios are the only ones that currently have that distance regulation. So, I want you to think, is PNZ comfortable with the permitted uses that are currently allowed in MSMU and MSMUD? and what land uses should we add or remove from this permitted use table? And then this is a public hearing.

Thank you, Daisy. Will it is uh 7:05 and we will go ahead and open it back up um for the public hearing. Did you want to say something else? Yeah, come on up. If you'll just state your name and address again and then you'll have three more minutes. My name is Jesse Angiano from 913 Beck and thank you for allowing me to back up my first statement. So I introduced myself as a resident and owner on Beck Street. What I want to share now is my why behind my vision. So my goal isn't just to build units. It's to build a complete ecosystem that solves a major problem for shirts. We're currently facing a a housing crisis where the median income earner is being priced out of our city. By developing nine uh Beck Street into obtainable multif family housing, I'm creating a space for our teachers, first responders, local workforce. So, this isn't just growth. It's the right kind of growth, providing missing middle income housing that keeps our community whole. But the housing is only half the story. to truly revitalize the beck street. My vision incl and does include opening my boxing gym along these residential properties. These this is a personal mission for me. I want to pro a space to provide mentorship, discipline, and fitness for our local youth by integrating the gym with multif family housing. We create a live, work, train environment that keeps the the neighborhood active, safe, and engaged. Finally, I want to highlight the fiscal benefit to shirts by increasing density and adding commercial element like the gym. We are significantly increasing the tax yield per acre on these lots. We are generating more revenue for the city schools infrastructure using the land we have already have without requiring the city to expand outward. It's a smart high yield development. I am a neighbor at 913 Beck and I'm a partner to the city. I'm asking for your support to

align the zoning for these lots so we can bring vision to attainable housing and community mentorship to life. Let's make Beck Street a model for what a revitalized shirts can look like. Thank you.

Thank you. Um well, if that's everybody, it's packed house tonight. Appreciate you coming out. Um it is 7:07 and we will go ahead and close the public hearing. Turn it back over to Daisy. All right. So, let's direct this discussion. These are the two large questions for tonight. Should we amend the comprehensive plan and should we amend the permitted uses within MSMU and MSMU ND? So, if I could Are you you're good? Yeah.

Okay, cool. If I could open it on our end real quick. I I know um Commissioner McMaster and I had asked for this back in November. Um I I think my um you know, can you go actually go back to the pictures of um Georgetown and like those examples you were throwing up? Um I I think that's a great So just to start, I think the the work that we're doing with Main Street already is really great. I don't think this needs a whole lot of change. I think my biggest concern um from a lot of people living in the area is that uh is the inclusion of the tavern and the

brew um land uses. Um and really what my goal with this is to make those something that you would need to come get an SUP for. I don't think it's totally inappropriate to have uses like that. I think my fear is that this could potentially turn into like a bar condo corridor if that's the only type of development we're seeing and then people ultimately get turned off to the idea of doing like a mixeduse type of development or allowing these commercial uses to um be right next to their neighborhood because all they've seen built are bars. Um so, you know, like what the this gentleman here is talking about where you're mixing the residential and the commercial, I think this is the right area to do it. I think the um the scale of which you set it's not going to hit there right now in terms of you're you probably won't see the commercial right up onto Curtis. Is it even zoned for that right now or is it

because I know this is the land use. Correct. I mean I know that the comp plan has it as the main street mixed use is the zoning I'm sorry I'm asking you to switch between a lot of the zoning is still R2.

Yeah. So I mean you're not going to see something would still have to come in for it. Correct. So you'd still have to come in to to request that commercial if you wanted it. So I could see it definitely something in the future. So I really wouldn't change the boundary. I think my biggest goal with asking for this was for us to consider putting the um tavern and the brew pub as items you need to come in and get an SU for. um with the goal of promoting business but at the same time making it so that businesses that might come in conflict with residential um are a little more thought out and we have that process of is this a really great place to put this bar versus you know you could do a lot of things here like the the one the case we had in November I I think my was my biggest fear of if we approve this and then it doesn't his business is a workout well someone can move in and open this bar and it's right between two people's houses Um, and I don't think that would be an appropriate place to put that. So,

that's my comment and goal with it. I I don't know what anyone else thinks and if they want. So, the when it comes to the permitted uses, let's move that to the second part of the discussion. Let's keep the comprehensive land use plan, main street, future land use map designation area, a separate one because they are kind of separate in a way. Staff looks at the comprehensive plan when it comes to zone changes. M so if the areas along Curtis are within that MS or Main Street land use designation staff is going to look at that and go okay MSMU zoning is directly in line with that correct

so that's why we also brought this out because if you want to bring it back to exchange then that would be a way to bring those zone that those permitted uses back but if someone so like if we did bring it to exchange let's say it gets built out we don't change the comp plan for a couple years. Um, and then someone at like Williams and Exchange on the portion that's like an R2, if they came and said, "Hey, you know, it's the main street's getting built up. I want to apply for Main Street mixeduse zoning, but we we have pulled it back. Would they also need to do a a plan amendment to correspond?" Okay. So, correct. And I think that would be my

my comment in terms of leaving it. I think leaving the the bit along Shirts Parkway is appropriate. I I probably wouldn't touch it. And you know, as the zoning cases come in, I mean, we can consider stuff, but you know, in practice, having seen people come in with development, I I think it would be rare for someone to come in right now on Curtis and apply for Main Street mixed use. Um, but that that's just my personal opinion. So, I'll I'll open it up to the the other commissioners and I'll let them chime in. So, if y'all have comments, I don't want to be the only one with comments. Mr. Outlaw. Oh, you don't have to worry about that ever.

Okay. I'm confused. I really am. So, cut me some slack here if I stray from one end to the other. Okay.

So, what what you want to talk about right now? Um you number one you were reading my mind and because I was it was on my mind to go back when we had that zoning request up on exchange. I was I was going to go to council and voice my disapproval. Um, I think in my opinion that MSMU and MSUMD should be restricted to Main Street and the South Side of Exchange. In other words, the properties on Exchange that back up to properties on Main Street would be included in MSMU and MSMU ND. Um, now I thought what we had was um that's the zoning. Now the comp plan calls this area doesn't call it Main Street mixed use. It calls it Main Street historic or

Yes, it just calls it Main Street. Sorry.

Okay. But so we we can leave that intact uh thereby, you know, protecting some of the older uh parts of the city. Uh and and uh so my recommendation would be to leave that intact but pull the pull the zoning um potential back to the south side of Exchange and Main Street. Um, I might be open to the idea of extending MSMU and MSMU ND to Beck, but part of that when when Beck Street is not, in other words, they're not you can't go straight from Maine to Beck. you got to, you know, there's this and and so I'm not sure how that would work out, but um now the gentleman that that addressed us about um what he would like to do on Beck Street, does that fit MSMU and MSMUD, the multif family housing and all of that?

It does, but it does not fit with the neighborhood services that Beck Street is currently zoned. Beck Street's currently neighborhoods. So, but wait. Okay. Okay. So, it would require reszoning, but but my my really I wasn't sure. Um, we're going to talk about land uses the in as a separate, right? Okay. Um, so basically I think if if you look at the 2002 comp plan where we started all this. No, I go back where we show the original. Yeah, I don't know. Anyway,

no, I know it was there cuz I remember seeing maybe that was that one. It was the Sorry, that had to be in that extensive Curtis. Yes, it does. You're right. Just for that. I'm trying to remember what's on what's on that corner. I think that's still

that's still residency. That's where Connie and Jim Silvers lived right there on that corner. So, I'm not sure. Anyway, so okay. Yeah. No, again, I I think we ought to um we ought to limit it to um again Southside of Exchange and Main Street, possibly extending it to Beck. Okay. I would be open to having that discussion. Thank you. Sorry. Anybody else on the comp plan portion? Go. Mr. Hector, I'm sorry, M. Yeah, Mr.

I guess I'm just a little confused. Um, so was the original intent to include those residential homes as part of uh MSMU? Yes. The part all the way going to Curtis? Yes. for the for the current plan we currently have. Again, the comprehensive land use plan fut future land use map is a vision for the future. It's different from the existing zoning. That's why it looks more like a blob kind of highlighting a certain area instead of individually looking at the parcels.

Okay. I and I am all for anyone with a vision. I guess the part that confuses me is when I look at all the residential homes in that area, especially those that are in close proximity to the taverns and bars. Was that the intent or did we just not think about that? So the comprehensive land use plan is meant for a vision for probably the next 20, 30, 40 years. If these people stay in their residences, it can stay, but maybe in 50 years it they might propose to put a boutique there.

Okay. But as long as they're there for now, they'll just have to deal with the the noise and the rowdiness on Main Street because they're included is Yeah. I I it it was my hope that Main Street would be developed and discussed with some intentionality. Right. So, all the ones that you showed, Georgetown, Brian, all of those. What I didn't see uh were single family residences in close proximity. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any. Uh I do know the discussions in Cibilo. Uh I saw where a lot of the people that lived there on Main Street uh ended up selling their houses. I don't know if the city bought them out or what, but it at least seemed like they had some intention with what they wanted that to be, that corridor. And so my question would be, is that the same thing that uh the church wants? Uh, I just don't see where it makes a lot of sense to include all these single family homes that uh have been in some families for, you know, decades uh as part of main street uh mixed use. Uh, I could be missing it, but that would be my question and concern going forward. just to um come in with practice. Um I think the the issue not necessarily the issue with shirts is if you look at like Georgetown, can you show up the pictures again? I'm sorry. is you have like even if you consider New Bronals

main street, you have I mean we have some commercial looking buildings um on our main street, but you don't have these large historic buildings that have been there for decades already there um to kind of give it that that main street character architecturally that you what you're talking about where oh well it's a lot of homes but that's all that's ever been there. you know, there's the hospital or the old hospital that's there. Um, and then you have the those two buildings down by the insurance bank, but really, I mean, architecturally, we don't have these big storefronts that have that have been here for decades. So, in terms of the comp plan element, what staff's comment is is, you know, when we're thinking about this now, if we're putting all this effort, like what they're saying, we're burying the infrastructure underground, we're doing that work now. And I'm I'm sure if Brian was here, he'd say, "If we raise taxes, I'm sure we could maybe buy people out, and I'm sure we could maybe do all these things, but we don't do that. So, we don't have money to do that." Um, but the the goal with the comp plan element is to consider it in the future. And so, um, yes, it doesn't necessarily look like commercial and people aren't necessarily going to come in tomorrow and ask for commercial in maybe some of these areas where you have single family homes, but as things get built up over time, it might transition from the single family to these. And even if you put the uses up, I mean, it's it's some lighter commercial. There's no you it's not going to be a big warehouse. It's not going to be a big tire factory. It's it's going to be what you would think of as a main street. I'm I'm sure if you considered it more like green where you have homes that have been converted to things or um kind of older agricultural buildings that have been converted to things and I'm I'm sure that's the intention and the thought behind it. I it's hard to look at a picture like with Georgetown or McKenna and say that's what it's going to look like cuz it

probably won't. But it it's the intention of thinking if we're doing this work to bury the infrastructure. we're doing this work to try to attract businesses here. We have the incentive zone to try to attract business, you know, in 40 to 50 years, where could business potentially be with this. Um, so that at least for the comprehensive plan element, that's what I I think staff is relaying. Um, and sometimes it's just hard to sit up and and kind of picture it, you know, in terms of what does Main Street look like now versus what what are they doing with Main Street, you know? I think we would chime in that when we when William main street mixed use case on Curtis felt kind of like a shock that the main street comp plan designation went that far. Um, and I think that's okay if we if we did that through the comp plan and we thought it was good, but then when it actually came in at that first time, it's a it was actually going to feel this way. There's residents on both sides. There's residence in the back. We went too far. That's okay. We can come back and we can amend the comp plan, bring it back down to exchange, the south side of exchange. And then in 10, 15 years, if we're then ready and main street has fully developed, then we can go we need to extend or maybe that's just going to be the hard boundary shirts. We only want and that's okay. And I think staff supports that as well of you know if couns uh the commission and city council feel that we went too far in the comp plan maybe we didn't pay focus on the main street area when we were doing the full comp plan amendment we can always come back at a later time but I think leaving the main street comp plan designation all the way um up there it encourages folks to come in and submit zone change requests for main

street mix and every time they come in, it's going to be a concern that there's residential on both sides and we don't really want all the businesses that are allowed there. Then I think that's kind of a losing battle and maybe leads property owners down the wrong path. Well, um, again, it it's very hard. I I I know you folks want to talk about this in two parts, but it's it's really difficult to do. No, don't don't move off the photographs. But that's okay. Everybody's seen them

and and and and Chairman Wallace uh expressed some of my thoughts. U but to to to share some historical perspective on this whole Main Street development thing. Uh you know, it goes back many years. And what the city saw was um other than the historically commercial properties and those are primarily down around um first and uh Main Street, the the Old Bank, the Masonic Lodge, uh you know th that the old uh Ace Hardware. um if anybody remembers that. Um and then across the street um you know Melany's was a was an auto parts and repair shop. Then coming back this way you had um um trying to remember what it was called but it was basically an ice cream place. And then of course where Randolph realy is that that was the first fire station became city hall became the library. But as you come back up towards um Shirts Parkway, the the you know most of that was um single family homes and then within that you had new development where where you have the auto repair shop. Um they're on the corner um where um Mr. Del Toro owned those buildings where now you have the coffee shop and the Chicago bite restaurant and the you know so I don't remember what was there before that building was put up um but again we started to see um single family dwellings being converted

to to businesses and in response to that over over the course of years the the city responded And the end result being um this MSMU and MSMU ND to allow people to do those conversions without having to meet all the all the requirements of normal development. One of the things I think we're missing is the vision of the Main Street Committee. Okay. I mean, we we we've seen bits and pieces of their plan, underground utilities, um fancy street lighting, um and and some maybe some sculptures and stuff like that. Um but again the bottom line is um our main street is not m you know and and you know as as chairman Wallace pointed out you look at these photographs um and and they're not even close to I can think of many you know Bernie Fredericksburg um Bandera uh were they actually th those were you know thriving downtown business centers? Well, Shirts doesn't have that. Um the closest thing to Shirts is Cibilo. Uh and they don't have a whole lot over there either. You know, they've got a handful of historic businesses that they've refurbished and repurposed. Uh but again, they're a lot of what they're doing is what we're doing, converting single family homes. So, um, yeah. So, that's kind of how we got where we are today. It it just in in in in reaction to what we saw going on down there and the problems that the the the

folks were incurring and and so things evolved to try to help them. Um, so when you get back to talking about land uses, I I have some thoughts, but um, for now, if any of that made any sense. That's good. Did you have something else, Commissioner Hector?

Yeah, I just think that Mr. Outlaw brings up a great point uh, with respect to being it being reactionary because that's exactly what it feels like. That's what it seems like. We're trying to respond because we see other communities doing that uh when it clearly was not meant for what these other towns have done. Now, if we want that, how can we be intentional about creating that? And I think that's where the conversation really needs to go, right? And I know that people have vested interest in Main Street. Uh uh a lot of people own property already on Main Street and they would love for it to be thriving. I get that as a business owner. I get that part. The part that I am still stumped with is the disregard for the fact that they're residents on the back side of that. Like literally right on the backside on Exchange Street and how they're impacted by that. I don't know if there's been like a public hearing to hear them about the the the main street development uh or if that's even something that we would consider doing. But I just think that you know if I live there spouse kids we live there on exchange and they want to build you know I don't know that we're limit limiting the number of taverns or bars that can be on Main Street. So if someone wanted to build one on the back side of my property and I live on exchange, is that what we really want for the community? So I just think that, you know, that's my concern with regard to that. But I do agree that, you know, we do need to be

visionary and imagine what we want it to look like and maybe that'll be 40, 50 years from now. But we have to address the fact that we have residents that are taxpayers that are within that area now. And if we didn't talk to them, shame on us. But that's just my point. If I could, I think I think we're I don't think anybody necessarily has an objection to where the current I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think anybody has an objection to what's currently set in terms of the comp plan. Correct. Well, I mean the feeling that I got.

Yeah. Not not not the comp plan or the land use or whatever we want to call it in general. The f So this go can you go to the current map? Yeah. Not the zone. Now this is not zoning. Just everyone you got to separate it like what they're saying. This is not zoning. Correct. That that in itself I don't object to. But what that truly means is if someone comes in and requests a zone change on Curtis to MSMU, would the PNZ recommend approval of that? And do we feel like because yes, they are separate. The comp plan and the zoning are separate, but we base our zoning recommendations on the comp plan. So if okay,

if the comp plan's too far and we don't want MSMUD or MSMU all the way to Curtis, then we need to fix the comp plan. Okay, that that that's my misunderstanding. Okay. I I thought we could call that blue area uh Main Street Historic District or something and limit the the zoning to to Curtis. No. Okay. Well, in that case bec because what I'm proposing

Yeah. is that we that MSMU that the zoning MSM MSMU and MSMU ND only be allowed on Main Street and on the south side of Exchange. And that happened. Exchange got involved because some of the properties if if if you look at the zoning map there, a lot of the properties on curt on Main Street extend all the way to Exchange. Their address on Main Street. So when we approved zoning for the property, that zoning ended up on exchange. if you follow the reasoning and and and because otherwise I'd say pull it all the way back to Main Street, but I don't think that's

a feasible idea. So, just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to see, whatever it requires, is that that Main Street zoning only apply to Main Street and the south side of um Exchange. kind of the quiet side of the commission is feeling going back to to hard stop and exchange.

Yeah, I'm kind of thinking the same with I mean we can always go back and address it later. If we see a growth and basically a buyout of that area, then we can look at it and go, okay, do we want to take the next step? We could do it incrementally and smart with a with a clear cons um vision and a clear program, but just to see also what the districts want. What is the what do they want and how are they feeling with it? How are the citizens feeling about it? Because that's going to change over time. I mean, we have land that at one time was fields and it was going to be fields and it was going to stay fields and there's houses on it. So that as as time changes, the area changes and that may be one of the things to consider with and adding Beck Street may not be a bad thing just because of its location, but we also have to look at what's going to go there and be and make smart choices on what we're going to add and what we're going to allow and not allow to make sure that it does thrive because if it turns into a pub crawl, it's going to there's no purpose in it's going to be self-defeating. But if we have a combination where it's restaurants, some pubs, some small businesses, that will help the area grow and that will help as we as we incrementally and smartly move it forward where it won't be so shocking to everyone where everybody kind of basically lack of better terms freaks out whenever it happens. And I like the idea of starting with exchange, stop it there, see if it builds out, see how it grows. Okay, look at Beck Street. See how it grows. See what we can do to develop that side. Maybe not as businesses are concerned as in shops, but as in mixeduse development with um multi-use, multifamilies and kind of do a combination, but do it incrementally and slowly where we can control it and we can make sure that everyone's understanding and everyone's good with it. not only the people around the city but the people who are directly impacted

which is off of Curtis Street and Shirts North. I agree with Oh, go ahead. No, you go. Okay. So, I I would just want to piggyback on his statement, but I I agree with that. I think it would allow us time to fully develop Main Street instead of, you know, having a one or two off property scattered throughout Exchange or on Lindsay or on Coach. And so if we can just fully develop that one single like area of land first and then start to extend out if if it need be then I can get on board with that instead of it just being sporadic development.

Yeah. So uh I agree with that sentiment. Um, and I also appreciate the gentleman that came out and provided his vision for what he wants to do on Beck. I think those are the types of things and that's when when I talk about moving with intentionality, I'm talking about that partnering with business owners and developers that want to come in and actually be a part of turning this community into what the vision of the city and the citizens want for that area. Like if I were a business owner and I wanted to get involved with the main street mixed use, maybe I'll go to all the citizens on exchange and start buying up property, right? So that I could develop it to support what the city's vision is for that area as opposed to, well, we're going to put this here because someone wants to open a tavern or open a bar. So what that there's, you know, families that live on the back side of that. I just think that, you know, that's that's not very thoughtful. But, uh, but I do think, you know, pulling it back and then, you know, providing the opportunity for us to to make those decisions as they come up. Uh, yeah, because taking it to Curtis right now, that that to me is Yeah. I don't know how that happened, but yeah. Um,

do we want to talk lane? I think we're ready to talk lane use. If I can make one final comment about this, I would leave the stuff that's touching Shirts Parkway as well. Those three blue blue R2 or R4 just like it was in the previous compound. Correct. Okay. If you want to show the picture real quick so everybody can see what I'm talking about. Um, it was uh No, this one. Yeah. So you could see there was that little pocket that was left and it's basically what touches Shirts Parkway. Okay. But oh that's my two cents. All okay with that? I I I think I could be okay with that. Okay. Okay.

And then we talk land use. Correct. So here are all the permitted land uses within the MSMU and MSMU ND um zoning districts. So, the conversation can be, is the list too many? Should we take some off? Should we require specific use permits? I would require specific use permits for Microbra Pury Tavern. And I'm sure someone will say Tattoo Parlor, but I was going to say Tattoo Parlor. Even Dance Hall nightclub might be kind of teetering on that. So, yeah, I would say anything that's not family oriented. Yeah.

Or I know, but that's not that's not very specific. Not to not to jump on you, that's not very specific. I think what they're they're looking for is for us to look through this list and say ABC D. No, I appreciate that. I I wasn't trying to be not specific. I just didn't call out micro brewery and taverns and clubs and dance halls. Uh I was just making a general overarching statement. So, and what what's private club? Is that like a restaurant? Okay. And then for the tattoo parlor, would you want an SUP in addition with the distance requirement it currently has? Yeah.

So, just to point out right now, I think on Main Street with the distance requirements, I think max we can have is two. Two.

I would I mean look at it. Consider like this. It is kind of a family area. Consider the properties that would be closed by 10. if we can and that would that would kind of ex that would kind of look at some of the areas that would come out. Even the theater technically could be open past 10 o'clock to midnight. So, think of the residential area that's backing up to it and have some consideration that yes, we have it there. We're not going to shut them down or anything silly like that, but for future use, have it have like a we're almost curfewing it to a certain extent so it can it can have some chance to grow. try to get businesses that will maybe close by 8 by 10 o'clock at night. That gives the residents a little chance to breathe a little bit and as we grow that might modify too. We might be able to add back in later going, okay, the area has grown. We've now extended and it's changed so we can add more um nighttime venues.

I understand the sentiment. I think that sometimes gets a little difficult. I mean, how many 24-hour gyms are there, right? They're they're everywhere. So, if we kind of use that logic of what businesses are closed by eight, I think this list is going to dramatically change. And then are we really going to have a main street? Well, or do we just want a main street that just has like cafes that are only open for lunch?

What what I'm and what I'm thinking or my thought process is is what is the vision? I if if if we see the main street corridor, what what what are we you know are we trying to make it you know when you look at go back and look at Georgetown and McKenna and Bernie and Freddixburg um the word tourist pops into my mind. Okay. um not necessarily a tourist, but but what are people looking for? Well, you know, they they they're looking for a restaurant. They're looking for um um I guess for lack of a better term, boutique shops or specialty shops. Um and and the the the occasional tavern maybe. But, you know, we're I don't go to Frederick'sburg looking for a two family dwelling or um a school or a tattoo parlor or, you know, I basically I'm looking for entertainment, dining and entertainment. So, I don't need dry cleaning. I don't need a daycare center. I don't need a church. I don't need, you know, there's all kinds of if if you just go down the list, there's all kinds of things there that I would pull off saying, well, that's not really uh my vision of a shopping desk or if we want to call it a shopping destination or a um retail destination. Um, the the the the problem with the taverns

and and the nightclubs is they all want to have loud music. Uh, I'll I'll relate an experience with you. A couple weekends ago, um, I don't even think it was a anyway, my wife and I went down to Stinson Airport to the terminal. There's a nice little restaurant in there. And that restaurant is not half the not half the the size of half. I mean, it's even smaller than half this room. And and we're sitting there waiting for our food and there's a band setting up and we're talking about couple electric guitars, a drummer, and they're doing their sound check and I'm sitting there with my fingers in my ears. Okay? And I do not understand why all of these musicians think the vi the building has to vibrate in order for people to enjoy their music. And that's the problem we're having with um the bars and the taverns. They just make too much noise. Um so maybe that's another thing you look at here in terms of the SUPs. Maybe we look at uh the noise makers require the SUP. Um do you kind of get a the feeling for where I'm kind of where I'm going with permitted uses? In other words, why would you go to Green?

Why would I go to Green? Okay. Now, you got Green Hall, but you've got the Grismill Tavern. You've got Farmers Market. Pardon? the farmers market. I like farmers market. Um the beer garden. Yeah. The queso at um Green River Gill. But you don't, you know, you're not looking. It's not some place. Again, I keep picking on them, but I mean I can run down florist. Well, we've had two florists down there as long as I can remember.

And I But um and and that's a local thing, but um do I need a dry cleaner? Do I need a daycare center? Do I need a, you know, and and and just go down this list and ask yourself, is that really what I want? If if I'm if I'm trying to get people to come spend money, um because they probably drive right past Dutch Boy cleaners or, you know, um

so hopefully that makes a little sense. And if if I could what's the way to describe that anyway be the the the antithesis of that I I think business I don't my my goal of this was not to limit or or try and limit business because I I think what to to Daisy and and Emily's point you know with Main Street and and to your point as well commissioner I I think it the a thought could be this could be an entertainment center where people come and they spend money on, you know, they want to go out, they want to have a good time, they like a tourist type of thing. Um, but I mean, if if there is a business that sees this as a as a viable place to operate a florist or um, you know, some of these other uses they're describing. Um, I I I don't see a reason why we should necessarily say no. I'm sure when people like a Dutch boy looks at where am I going to put my facility, I'm sure, you know, if they say, "Oh, you know, there's this is there's a there's bars here, there's restaurants here, there's some entertainment stuff." I'm sure they're not going to look at that as, well, that's where I'm going to get a lot of my traction from. People are going to take their dry cleaning out with them when they go to the restaurant. So, I I I don't want to be the the barrier to business by trying to say we only want entertainment or we only want um you know, we only want certain things for for a tourism point. But I'd also for the residential aspects, I think the goal is this to also be mixed use. It is main street mixed use. It's supposed to have um the opportunity where if you wanted to have those those living aspects, you can have it. Um, you know, I those lots are, you know, you can put a small duplex and type of thing like that. I don't I think the goal and at least for what I was bringing up was

I want to feel more comfortable approving a big list. Um, and you know, to to to Commissioner Hugh's point, a dry cleaner closes by 10. I'm sure they're not making a bunch of noise. And they're not it's not a a dry cleaner minor is not the chemical facil. Correct. It's the I'm you're going to come pick up your clothes here. So, you know, I I I don't think we should go through and and and cut out half of the uses. Um I I think this is intended to be a not necessarily catchall, but you have the ability to do these things and if your business doesn't work out here, then you know, you take it somewhere else. And it really is a if people are coming to develop here, they're going to spend the money because they think that they can make money here. Um I don't think someone is going to build a dry cleaner with the intention of I'm just going to lose money to sit on Main Street. Um so that

Okay, that would be my comment. Well, I I I I think what popped into my mind was local shopping. Yeah. Um and and um I don't necessarily disagree with what you just said um in terms of being a little more open because um yeah, it could it you know in terms of being a an enter dining and entertainment destination. it it, you know, is there any reason it shouldn't be a local uh mom and pop shopping destination? I kind of think that's part of what you were saying.

Correct. And um I think I'm I think I'm okay with that.

And one thing to consider too is look at um it's not just the people in church north. Look at the cross line. They are begging for business and if that's something to draw them into that's going to help them. I mean, do some do will some of these work? Will will a furniture sale be there? Will Bob Mills stick something in a in a in a in a one-bedroom meet, 1200 square foot house? Probably not. But if they'll have unique shops, that gives them an outlet to go to because the people I know at the CrossFine, they're like, "Please, just please get us any business. We know it's we we we have buil we have houses now. We have apartment complexes. Great. Where where is our business?" And if that gives them that opportunity to draw them up, that may also help revitalize shirts north and may increase it over time. But started exchange to begin with and then move north because we can draw the crossline up here into the city and people can draw down. I mean, not everybody wants to go to a big box all the time. I mean, when Sipples was there, Simples was great because if I needed something really strange like a flux capacitor, Sipples had it in the basement.

And if they did, Ace Hardware had it. So yeah, I mean when when Sipples headed I mean if it was bizarre we I found it at Sipples. There's a bunch of weird stuff in my garage tools. I'm looking out going where did I get that? Oh yeah, Sipples when it was when it was right there. So, I mean, that's kind of a cool thing that to have and it can bring those people in because they do kind of feel disconnected being down there at the cross and they do kind of feel the people I've talked to, they they they've expressed concerns of they feel disconnected because everything's on 35 and they look out and going, "Oh, more houses, great for us. Yay, we really need this." And that's they're they're looking for anything. And they don't they they'd rather spend their money here in the city and support it than go into the forum because I mean, let's face it, with 35 traffic, I'd pretty much rather um get my fingers chopped off than have to drive 35 and go to the forum. That's why, thank God Home Depot is going through there so I never have to go to the forum again. No offense to the forum.

Yeah. Um, David, I I think you'd be very interested if to see the original and it wasn't called Crossfind, and I'm not going to remember what it was originally,

Sedona. You look at their original PDP out there, or what is it? Plan Yeah, PDD. And they had retail. They had they even had a school site out there. They had um um doctor's offices because they had a a senior portion out there where they were going to build garden homes. And you know over time as the market changed they changed their plans. Um and yes you will find I very seldom go north of 35 if I you know I don't eat at Denny's. I eat at IHOP because it's on this side of the highway. I don't go to Waterburger and Arby's because they're on the wrong side of the interstate. So I you're you know that's kind of where I'm coming from.

Yeah. I mean and if you look at homes I mean right now I'm work I'm working at a site in Castraville and you see Castraville exploding out of control. I mean I'm going into Castroville when they're leaving. I'm just looking at all the lights going man that's worse than 35. Wow that's actually terrible. 90 is a nightmare. It makes us look, we have nothing to complain about if you go down Highway 90 and go in the wrong direction at the wrong time just because of their growth. But if we can add something of value into the city and draw people in, I mean, I've said it before, I don't want to get on 35 unless I absolutely have to. I'll cross the highway. I'll close my eyes and hope I don't get hit, but I'll cross the highway to go to the other side because that's what we need to do is build up what we have. We can draw more people in here. And I'd rather spend my tax dollars here than in Cibilo, in Live Oak, in New Bronals. I mean, they did they Nebronals has had some growth. They've had some good I mean, Town Creek's really nice the way they have it set up, but still you have to get on 35, which just makes me kind of twitch and cringe. And so, I think if we draw that in, we can get Crossbine in. They'll be more connected to the city. And I think the by doing that with a quality Main Street, you're going to see a better quality of life and you're going to see happier citizens. So when they come in here and complain, at least they do it nicely.

Maybe if I could try and refocus on You could try. I I not that I want to keep talking about 35. So I I think what I've gotten just notewise is amending the future land use plan to the 2013 map. I think that was correct the previous version. Okay. And then the SUPs on the the uses described. So again the dance hall micro brewery brew tavern tattoo parlor are the four I have noted. And then you still want the distance requirement on the tattoo parlor studios. Correct. Are is this going to come back? Are we gonna is this it for us?

So this is just a discussion. No act. So we're taking all the suggestions. We'll make the changes. Bring it forward. Come with both options and let's talk about that. Mhm. Because if we could see what it would look like in practice based on the new configuration, if you're saying realistically the max there would ever be is two. I I mean I don't necessarily want to add another hurdle to but if if that's where everyone is leaning, it's not something I'm going down the hill for. Um so cool. Um anybody else thoughts? A question just popped into my mind. pawn shop. Is that where does that fit?

Yeah, because you know we have one down there in the old post office. Believe that'd be a retail storeshop. Well, I don't know. I was just I'm just asking. But did does anybody know that that was the post office? It Yeah, that is not permitted. Not permitted in MSMU. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, it's a non-conforming. Anyway, well, I don't know what the zone they may they may not have been reszoned yet. I think they're still they're still GB, sir. They're not MSM.

I did want to caution the use of an SU because we set our we're going to set ourselves up for um now what's the word now? Getting old. Man, that's a that's a pain. Uh, in other words, we approve this one but say no to this one. What's that called? Uh, it's not consistent. Inconsistent. President, no, it's not hypocrisy. Um, and and well, and I used to use the term all the time because as the fire marshall, I was very aware of setting myself up for those kinds of decisions.

It could be discriminatory. There you go. and and so we just uh you know by by requiring SUPs for certain and and and I'm not necessarily against that. But just, you know, be aware that uh we're going to set ourselves up. You know, when I made those decisions as the fire marshall, I tried to be rational so that I could say, well, I approved this one because

and this I denied this one because so we just need to be aware that. And just keep in mind that when we made the UDC amendments for specific use permits, when we bring those forward, these were two rare occasions that they've gone through the process and we can show you the site plan. But now that SUP does not require them to go through the site plan. So they could say we're going to build a really tiny tavern, but if you approve or recommend approval, city council approves that SUP for a tavern, they can build as big of a tavern as they want to, right? So keep that in mind too that you're just approving the land use with that SUP, not what that building's actually going to look like or what kind of screening they're have. That that wouldn't come into play.

So when would that come into play? So they'd have to meet all the design requirements of the UDC. But if it's Main Street mixeduse, right, we have exemptions for they don't have to build the masonry wall. They have different landscaping requirements, things like that. See, in in the good old days when when somebody wanted an SU, they had to bring us a site plan that said, "This is what we're going to this is what it's going to look like." So, why did that go away?

Well, because as planning and our assistant city manager pointed out, that's a that's a very expensive part of the process. Uh it's a it's a it's a lot of money to spend on an uncertainty that there was no so you go spend multi you know several thousand dollars on a site plan bring it to PNZ and PNZ and city council say no so you've just thrown all that money. So the theory the the thinking was to spare the developers that expense that that to answer your question that's where it came from. Now, it was it also came with the caveat that if it wasn't working, we could revisit it and change it back if we felt it was necessary. That's one of Mr. James's famous little things. Well, let's try it and if we don't like it, we can change it.

So, where does the EDC come in at? What's their vision for this city? The EDC? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. They don't. So, I don't want to speak for the EDC board. I mean, we can definitely I know there was a mention earlier, what is the main street committee? We we can ask if they would come and give a presentation, but we did have um didn't we have Scott come and give a workshop on the EDC um fairly recently?

Okay. I mean, I don't I don't run this city, but if I did, I would certainly want to have a vision for it, right? Uh, and I would want that vision to be transparent to the citizens of the city to say that we want this place to be whatever our vision is. And with that comes on 1518 in uh out near cross vines. We do want businesses out there.

So I would like to just point out that was part of the comprehensive land use plan that we just did in 2024. It was setting that vision. What is the future vision of shirts going to be like that PNZ was a part of making that document. Right. And so so taking that plan and the work that was done with that that was what freeze freeze the nickels right uh so are we following it I mean yes yes or no yes but we can't make businesses come to shirts right no no no I so that part I get and so that's I think that's the concern that I have we can't make businesses come the

who's actually out soliciting businesses to come to help be part of the vision that we're trying to build for this city.

If I can add, I did speak to Scott before this on what help they could provide to businesses along Main Street and he did make it clear that they are limited per state law on who they can give money to. Um because of our population size, we're too big to help small businesses directly, unfortunately. Um, typically when it comes to EDC, their help comes in the way of reimbursement for infrastructure. So if someone wanted to put in a lot of work to redo some infrastructure, they can help in the form of reimbursement. But it c but if a specific small business owner needed help from EDC, they're restricted per state law from helping in that way.

Yeah. No, I'm not asking for government to get involved in that necessarily, whether it's local, state, otherwise. If we gave if we gave sorry um if we gave this list to the main street committee that we were all sitting there cherrypicking off what would they say? That's that's the question from them is if here's the list that we have. Y'all are y'all y'all are the committee for this. What on this list are you looking at and what are y'all what are y'all wanting? What what is y'all's driver? I think if we heard from them like, well, we we want a whole bunch of bakeries and bookstores and and daycare centers next to a dance hall. Okay, now we know what now we know where you're going. At least we can understand what their vision is so we can start making decisions that align with it instead of right now we're kind of guessing. Um EDC is looking at bigger things down the road. They're looking at larger much larger retail. Um, but I think if we got from the committee's point of view, here's our list of things that that we can look at. What are y'all seeing? So, we can kind of start to tailor what we're what we're hearing and go, okay, we see where their plan is, we understand it, and now we can kind of it'll help us make smarter decisions.

I think that's a great suggestion. Um, we could definitely discuss it um with management and and see if we can what I'm envisioning is we almost write out all these proposed amendments, take that to the main street committee, get their feelings, see if PNZ is aligning or if they go, "No, we we want taverns by right. That's not something we're looking to change to make the SU" and get that um direct correspondence from them before we come back to the PNZ for any actual formal recommendations. Works for me. Yeah. uh members of council.

I think before we go to council, we need to kind of hear from them before we make anything mutish before we're not even in the concrete phase. I think if we talk to them and kind of get where their vision is, that'll give us a clear interpretation of how we should move forward to support their idea. And and just to to make a final point about that, not that I don't think that we should get their opinion, I don't think our opinion necessarily has to align with what they're thinking. And I think it's okay for us to have a different opinion.

Yeah. I personally I like the the suggestion and the idea that um the planners write write up what we've talked about tonight and go visit because the main street committee is basically is there anybody on it that isn't a council member? Yeah.

Uh I think it's maybe four of the council people. Um, but anyway, u and and you know, they've done a lot of work, uh, and and as I said earlier, they're the ones that have the vision, uh, of of what Main Street should be. And so, I don't think it's a bad idea to share our discussion tonight with them and get their take on it. I would love to hear their vision. So we can definitely ask if they they would come and do a joint workshop PC main street committee something like that

or or maybe just as you suggested you know write this stuff up and then maybe you meet with them and then I you know maybe just one of them come and stand there and say here's what the committee you know and present the committee's um vision if you will. I don't know that we need to get all of them together in a joint workshop, but you know what do you Yeah, sounds good. We will move forward in that direction. Awesome. Thanks y'all. Thank you. All right. Any

All right. Well, we will keep it moving. 6A. Any other requests by commissioners to place items on a future agenda? No. No. Um, any announcements?

I would like to say um I I know he's not here and if he happens to watch this, great. We would like to I would like to thank Commissioner Carbone for his time um serving on this commission and um I'm sure we all wish him the best in any future endeavors. Um we also I'm sure the application is still open for any citizens who would like to have a seat on this uh commission and uh we do have two alternate spots to fill. Um, but as you can see, we usually um they'll be serving as well. So, um, anybody else? No. Staff, anything? May have seen him sitting in the wings. Our new face, uh, Brandon Elliot is joining us. He's um, planner, just started last week, so he's been a week and a half and he's still coming back each day. So, that's good news. Um, I think this was a great first P&Z meeting to experience. He comes with a lot of experience. um both from Dripping Springs in Hayes County and we're all just very excited for him to be with us on the team.

Welcome down. Yeah. Hey everyone. Um yeah, it's been like she said, it's been a week. Um I'm originally from shirts. I went to Steel uh everywhere. So familiar with the area back then, but it's grown a lot since I've been back. So time go Buffs or something. Yeah. Steel. That would be the night. Not not another Aggie, is he? No. Texas State Bobcats. Go Bobcats. Yes, sir. Yeah, look forward to meeting you guys and work with you guys in the future. Welcome. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Well, it is 8:08. Uh, we have no further business. I will call this closed.