Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting to order. It is uh 6 pm and this is the June 4th, 2025 meeting of the shirts Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. Um and quickly uh we have two meetings this evening. This being the first uh where uh we'll work through this very short agenda and then after the capital improvement advisory commission our committee uh meeting adjourns then we'll begin the uh planning and zoning committee commission. All right. So the call to order and seat an alternate to act if required. We have uh Mr. Hughes joining us this evening. Item number three is hearing of residents. Anybody sign up to speak during the No. Okay. All right. Item number four is a public hearing. Hold the public hearing and consider and file the past two semianual reports evaluating the progress of the city on achieving the capital improvements program and identifying any problems and implementing the plans or administering the capital recovery fees. And the way we'll do this is u Kathy our city engineer will give us a presentation uh and then we'll open the floor for public comment. We'll close public comment. The committee will uh discuss it and make a recommend vote on a recommendation to city council. Okay. Kathy. All right. Thank you chairman. Um good evening committee members. Um, I don't really have a visual presentation for you, but you have the documents in your packet, and I thought I would just kind of go down the list and give a little bit more verbal update on where we are with the projects that are underway. Um, and uh, and answer any questions that you've got. So, what

we're looking at this evening, normally we come with a semiannual report. So, it's either the first half of a f fiscal year or the second half of a fiscal year. We got a little bit behind with the work on the um the master plans and impact fee updates for water and wastewater. So, we're actually bringing two semiannual reports and we did keep them separate. They're still semiannual reports, but the first covers the period from April 1st, 2024 to September 30th, 2024. So, that's the second half of fiscal year 24. And then the next one covers October 1st of 24 to March 31st of 25. So more recent, that's the first half of fiscal year 25. Uh so we'll talk about the projects that have been uh incurring costs during those periods and um and then you've got the financials to back it up. Uh so the first one is uh one of our large projects, the Corbett ground storage tank. This is down at the end of uh Ray Corbett Drive and it is a ground storage tank to provide additional storage capacity for water received from SSLg and it has a pumping station with it that pumps up into the elevated tank that was constructed a few years back. Uh for this one, the expenses in the second half of FY24 were almost $3 million. In the first half of fiscal year 25 was about 2.2 $2 million. Um, also I'll remind everyone that we did get a $3.5 million grant from the EPA for this toward toward this $8 million project. Um, we did receive that. We continue to do um semiannual reports with them. We do need to collect certified payrolls because it's federally funded. Um, so our consultant helps us with that

reporting requirement. Uh the next project is uh the citywide master plan and impact via update for water and wastewater and that was completed and um you all are are well aware of that you participated in uh the adoption of the updated impact fee rates which were um accepted and adopted by council in April. So the status with that actually is that because of some legislation that came to our attention at the 11th hour uh that would not allow us to increase impact fees within a threeyear or fiveyear um time after adoption of an increase. We had to um we actually had a a discussion with council and we ended up not going with the phasein approach because if we phased it in we would be locked in for three or five years. Um and I think Brian I'm sorry I'm illprepared which of the two um bills passed if it's the threeear or the fiveyear. Okay. but it was either three or five and council felt that that was um too long for us to be kind of stuck at that lower rate. So, they went ahead and adopted the maximum accessessible fees um which we we had kind of gotten uh the idea that you all might at least one person was in favor of of uh quickening the uh phasing period. So, no phasing period. We're currently in a grace period. Uh properties that were platted as of June 1st. So anything that was platted prior to this are going to always be under the old rates. Anything platted from June 1st on, they're under the new rates. But if someone plats and gets their plat recorded during this

month um and then they turn in a building permit that quickly before July 1st, they'll still pay the old rates. Uh I don't really see um too many plats being recorded um in the near future. Uh so chances are there won't be many folks taking advantage of that grace period. But um but July 1st everyone who platted after June 1 or whose plats were recorded after June 1st will be assessed the higher rates. So that one is complete. No more no more charges will occur um during the next period. Uh where sigene to lower sigin and great town to file loop lines. Um our expenses are not a whole lot. What what we've been struggling with and what we're working on right now is getting the easements and we got a few property owners who aren't aren't super happy about that. We're actually considering a minor adjustment to the project to reroute uh the line to perhaps ease the situation with getting some of those easements. Um but we do recognize these this project has become increasingly important. It will help with pressures in southern Shirts and um wi with with the summertime. I think Larry has has mentioned that we're already seeing some lower and lower pressures down there. So, we really need to get this project uh constructed as soon as possible. So, our expenses were fairly minimal though uh because a lot of it is waiting. So, we're not paying our consultants a ton while while we're just waiting uh to hear about these easements. So $7,300 in the second half of FY24 and 14,000 in the first half of FY25. So those are the water projects that are currently underway that are funded with impact fees. For sewer projects, we're still working on the

completion of the Woman Holler and Creek wastewater project. Uh we expended a little over a million dollars in the second half of 24 and about 622,000 in the first half of FY25. So the good news is that the lift station is operational. That project is actually working uh very well. We have flow going to the CCMA South plant. So they've started up and and things are going well. Um we've got tons of capacity to transport wastewater in the southern western southwestern part of the city. Um we have run into some uh this situation that we don't have enough capacity allocated to us in the CCMA plant to be able to serve all the folks who would like to tie into this line. So, we're working through that uh with council and with Cibilo and with Green Valley SUD as well. Uh the project still has um quite a bit of work to do. Um there were new fences put along the route of the project. It's about 5 miles long and um we had some issues with the fences. So, sounds like a little thing, fences, but five miles worth of fencing is quite a bit. The contractor's working on on shoring that up. And there's still some uh demo work to be done at the old Sedona lift station and some uh tidy up work at the the new woman hollering lift station that is along I 10. Um I already reported on the citywide wastewater and water master plan. Same report for each. Uh and the other project is a big project that we we're just starting the Cibilo West wastewater trunk main. So, it's similar to the woman hollering trunk main. It'll be closer to the Cibilo Creek and so it'll pick up a different um sewer shed

or drainage area and it does not have a lift station associated with it. But we are working on a route study to identify the appropriate route so that we can get queued up for design and to start acquiring easements for that line. And that is a joint project that we're doing with Green Valley SUD because they have some CCN in the area also. So we're collaborating on the project so we don't have to duplicate infrastructure. Uh and and so far we're working very well together. Uh so we just started the project first half of FY25. Uh we expended $28,000 for roadway. We haven't spent a lot of impact fees um in these last two periods. Uh the only thing the only charge we actually had was about $55,000. Um and that is the payback that we do annually for the um extension of RIP's Chrysler. The developer went ahead and built it and we're paying back uh I believe 30% of everything we take in in that service area each year until it's paid off. So, we're down to uh $93,000 and I think it was around $350,000 when we started. Um so, we're doing pretty well with that. Uh so, those are the projects and then um hopefully if you have any questions on the the fiscal backup uh that James Walters, our finance director, put together, I can hopefully answer that. it uh gets a little technical sometimes, but but we'll give it a try. Looks like like uh Brian has an update for us. So, yeah. So, Kathy mentioned we were tracking some of the legislature, and in fact, we just were chatting about it earlier, too. So, uh Senate Bill 1883, one of the two that we were tracking did get approved. It's been sent to the governor. Um and what it did do is it

So, I guess our calls did make a difference. Uh basically it has a a limitation that we may not increase the amount of an impact fee for three years from the later date of when the fee was adopted or mostly most recently increased. But then goes on to say nothing in the section prohibits a political subdivision from implementing an impact fee collection schedule that allows less than the maximum adopted impact fee to be collected or phased in up to the maximum adopted impact fee for a period not to exceed 10 years. So, we had told council we would go back to them uh if a provision like that got in. So, we'll see if it gets signed by the governor. I assume they'll want feedback from CIA. Uh the other bit of news, just as I was chatting with Commissioner Outlaw, though, is that the current state law says uh we may appoint P&Z uh to the CIA with a rep from the real estate and ETJ. Uh that has changed in this as well. And the new provision says um not less than 50% of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate development or building industries who are not employees or officials of the political subdivision or governmental entity. And then again we still have to have a rep from the ETJ uh if we charge in the ETJ. So, uh, if this gets signed by the governor, then we'll have to make some adjustments to kind of our makeup of CIA. So, that's the update on that. Thank you, Brian. So, we'll come back with a a report on that if if and when it's signed by the governor to sort of confirm all of this and then also request if you have a recommendation to council to go back and re-evaluate that phase in um process. So, I I did also this isn't

really part of the um presentation. And I want to give you chance to ask questions, but I'm just going to let you know that I brought a copy of our um memo that we do monthly for council that gives an update on all the city's major projects. And so the projects that I talked about are in here. And I want to kind of just remind everyone that it it does get done. It's available if you look at the agendas for city council. You it's uh at the bottom of the first agenda of the month usually around the holidays. Sometimes it gets bumped to the second or third meeting, but um if there's a third meeting, but you can find it there regularly. Um and so we give a little bit more detail about what's going on in the projects. And so you can see we do have quite a few more projects other than just the ones that we talk about here. We only talk here about the ones that are funded by impact fees, cap, otherwise known as capital recovery. So I'll hand this out, but first if you have any questions, All right. Thank you, Kathy. Um, a little bit different approach this month. Excuse me, y'all. Um, this is a public hearing. So, it is uh 6:14 and I'll open the floor for public comment if anyone would like to uh address the committee on capital improvement reports as given by our city engineer. No one. Nobody. Sure. All right. It is um 6:15 and public input portion is closed. And I'll start with a question probably two questions. Um do

we need to treat these reports separately? And are we uh re are we going to recommend exception, you know, acceptance or to in other words, do we need to do we need a a motion for each one to send it to council? Can we do them as a package? You can do them as a package. Okay. Yeah. I would say if there if there's an issue with one of them, then we'd probably want to split them apart, recommend approval of one and not the other. If there's no issue with either, you could recommend that council accept. All right. Thank you. Uh, both. All right. Anybody have any questions or comments? Going to let Kathy off easy this time. No, John, go ahead. I just have one thing. When will when do they anticipate the governor signing the bill? Is there a date? That's okay. If if the answer's if the answer is no, then it's no. Yeah, there's there's not really. And and also here's the deal. If the governor doesn't sign or doesn't veto it, then it goes through. Uh but typically he sort of does them in batches. So my assumption is we'll probably know within a month. My assumption is he'll sign this one. I there's no reason he wouldn't. Um you know I think it's part of the kind of what they've been doing. And so we're assuming it's going to go into effect, but I would bet we'll know um you know sometime this month. Um you know so when we know the adjudication of that bill, will you come back and brief us on this is the actual law now? Because what you're doing is briefing us of the bill, right here. Here's here's the bill. This is what the law. So, we know what it'll be. So, yeah, what we'll do is we'll do an update for you as to what made it through. What we will probably do is uh do a session at some point over the summer. We hear all the things that got approved that affect you and do a bunch of them at once. Brian, wait. Brian. Oh, man.

I want to be able to answer all the questions. Oh, it's it's another law law question. That's okay. Did I hear you right that what the bill does is is put in a phase in plan. Is that what it does? So, no. What the So, so the issue was right is the bill, the current law allows you to update your impact fees as often as you want and make increases as often as you want. The initial bill that was submitted, the way it was worded basically said you couldn't update your impact fees for three years or five years from when you updated it to increase them. It created a problem in a couple of different ways, right? One was this phase in that we do. The other and theoretically this is less impactful because of what the state has done with annexation and ETJ law. But as you know roadway impact fees unlike utility we can only charge in the city limits. And so as we update as we annexed property we would have to either do an agreement that they pay an equivalent to the roadway impact fee or or more preferable we just do an update to the roadway impact fee. Again, generally we kept the amount that we were charging the same, but it now brought them into the service area going forward. We'll have to again that's less problematic because we're not likely to annex much property anytime going forward because of other changes. But those were the two things that when I called Betton Court's office and staff person and said, "Hey, if it's got some issues with us, but the one I really emphasized was we do this phase in." we had proposed this three-year phase in, but if the way the bill is written, we're going to just go up to the max because we can't. I didn't get a whole lot of reaction from him. Um, and hadn't seen that that had been put in, but apparently, I guess they may

have heard from some others or it car carried some sway and and so they they added that in. So, uh, now what it lets us do is increase it as long as we don't go above the max. So I I'll have to read it in more detail, but I think the assumption is is that or my impression would be is that if we updated our impact fees and went to the maximum amount that it still prevents us from doing another study within that time frame and implementing a higher amount, right? So say for example, we have some big change in the community's costs go up, we say, "Hey, let's redo the study." We wouldn't be able to do that on my initial reading, but let me let me look at it in more detail. But it seems to specifically allow what I asked them to do, which is if you stay below and you want to do a phase in, you can do that. So, I got to look at it. There's also other stuff in there. It requires this big audit now um and and changes the makeup of CIA and some things like that. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Yeah, it sounds like based on what you what you read to us or what you thought is we establish a maximum and then and we can't exceed that maximum for five years or whatever, but it's going to allow us to take more than one year to get to that maximum. So what I think it does, you may remember when we do these updates, right, and we're coming into roadway is that when you do this study, you know, of here's our infrastructure network that is necessitated to be built by new development and here's what the estimated cost of that is. Then we do the study based on how much growth we have and how much demand it puts and we come up with that maximum accessessible impact fee. that what I think it means is you can't redo your study to go over

that and you would have to redo your study to increase from that amount. So I think I I think their frustration at the legislature was hearing from folks saying two things. Cities do these studies and we all kind of know and plan for it, but then they come back in real quick and do another one and catch us off guard and then it goes up and we want a period of certainty as to how much we would pay. Right. The other thing they've done is greater notice requirements. um basically that hey cities sneak this stuff through and we don't know about it and and so there's increased notice requirements and it says 60 days it's 120 days and this this that and the other. Um but but again we'll send the bill out when we got it with the summary. Okay. Uh kind of going for it. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a u a motion recommending city council accept uh both these reports as submitted by staff? I'll make a motion that we recommend to city council to accept both of these reports as submitted by staff. I have a second. Second. All right. I have a motion to forward these to city council recommending acceptance. Um I have a motion in a second. Is there any more discussion? Okay. Um we'll start with a this has we're still stuck in the stone age with a voice vote. So we'll start down here with Dr. Pensor. I I David. I I I I I I All right. So, what have I got? Seven

tonight. There eight. Eight. Okay. Two, four. Yeah, it sure is eight. All right. Thank you, Kathy. All right. So, it is now uh 6:23 and the capital improvement advisory committee is adjourned. We'll take just a couple minutes to reshuffle here and we'll we'll get on with P&Z. Dr. Penstor, thanks again for joining us this evening. All right, it is uh 6:24 p.m. and call this meeting to order. This is the June 4th, 2025 regular meeting of the shirts planning and zoning commission. Turn the page here. Uh item number two is to uh seat an alternate and Mr. Hughes is still with us. We just moved him down this end to accommodate our our electronic voting system. Item number three is hearing of residents. Did anybody sign up? Okay. Can I have that roster? All right. While while they're doing there, let let me explain something to you.

Um, hearing of residents, if if you're here to speak on, we have uh um three public hearings tonight. Um you're not required to sign. You don't have to sign up to speak at a public hearing. If you did, if you're on the hearing of residents roster, uh you kind of have an option. You have a couple. You can you can speak now for uh three minutes and again at the public hearing or you can it's your option you can just wait and speak at the public hearing after you hear the presentations. It's it's totally up to you. Um anyway, the hearing of residence time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the planning and zoning commission. Person should sign out. Well, you did. You filled this out. Presentation should be limited to no more than three minutes. Discussion by the commission of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry. a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry and or proposal to place an item on a future agenda. The presiding officer during the hearing of residents portion of the agenda will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. So I have two here. Uh first is John Jik. All right, sir. And uh is this Teresa Gomez? Okay, you you'll wait. Okay. All

righty. Okay. So, um, there's no one else on the note. We didn't get any emails or text or any written communications for hearing of residents. No. Okay. All right. Item number four is our consent agenda. There's a single item on that agenda and that is the minutes for the May 7th, 2025 regular meeting. There are no uh there's no discussion on the consent agenda. So, commissioners, do we need to um does that item need to be pulled for discussion? Okay. In that fact, uh can can I have a a motion to approve the consent agenda? Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. Okay. I have a motion to approve from Commissioner McMaster, a second from Commissioner Carbone. Correct. Yes, sir. Uh there's no discussion. So commissioners, if you please record your vote. All righty. I see seven votes. Can we publish that? We have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Item number five is public hearings. We, as I said earlier, we have three. Planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing related to zone change requests and replats within this agenda. The public hearing will be open to receive a report from staff, the applicant, the adjoining property owners affected by the applicant's request, and any other interested persons. Upon completion, the public hearing will be closed. The commission will discuss and consider the application and may request additional information from staff or the applicant if

required. After deliberation, the commission is asked to consider and act upon the following requests and make a recommendation to the city council if necessary. So, once again, real quick, we'll start we'll we'll start each one uh with a presentation by staff. Uh if the applicant is present and wishes to make a a presentation, we'll give them that opportunity and then I will open the floor for public comment. After public comment, we'll close the input and open the topic up for discussion by the commission and the final result will be a recommendation from this body to city council. It's only a recommendation. City Council um has final approval on uh zoning requests. All right. U item 5A, ELZC 20250105. hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to reszone approximately 19 acres of land from single family residential/aggricultural district RA to middle density residential district R5 known as Guadalupe County property identification number 68302 and 68303 also known as 1 19018 Old Weiderstein Road City of Shirts Gual County Good evening, commissioners. PLC 20250105, a zone change request to middle density residential R5 Daisy Marquez Planner. Here's a subject property outlined in green. It is located along Weedersstein Road. Again, it is approximately 19 acres. It's located in Guadalupe County and it is an existing residential uh use.

So the applicant is proposing to reszone the subject property to R5, also known as the middle density residential district to be developed into multifamily style senior housing with a proposed density of 7.5 7.65 dwelling units per acre. And just as a background, R5 is one of our straight zoning districts and it accommodates up to 12 dwelling units per acre for development of this size. Uh the zoning district does allow for attached or detached residential dwelling units and the multif family site design requirements in article 9 uh will be applied to the site and 10% of the total platted area must be used as common usable open space. So on May 23rd uh we sent out 19 public hearing notices. We received three in opposition and four in favor and a sign was posted on the property along Weersstein. So again, it is currently zoned uh single family residential agricultural district RA and they are proposing middle density residential district R5. And here are the differences between the dimensional requirements for the two zoning districts. Uh the minimum area square feet for R5 is 10,890 square ft. The front setback is 25. It's same for the same for both. The side uh setbacks for R5 is 10. So it's less than RA. And then the rear setback is 10. It it is less than RA. So when staff uh does zone changes, we look to UDC section 2154D for the criteria of approval. One, whether the proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted comp plan or any other app applicable adopted plans. So the comprehensive plan designates this area as mixed use center. So it's supposed to be a mix of residential, commercial, and entertainment. and it specifically calls out for multif family residential um where appropriate. Two, whether the proposed zone change promotes health, safety, and general welfare of the city. So, the city should encourage development

compatible with surrounding uses and the immediate area consists of a single family subdivision, Belmont Park. Um and then over here in the along Symbolo Valley and I35, we have our shirt station development that's going to have restaurant and retail and a multif family development. So, a preliminary traffic analysis was conducted. Um, and uh per our city engineering staff, the proposed increase in traffic would be considered negligible. Three, whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the media area. So, again, the media area is open space, rural residences, single family subdivisions, and a large mixeduse development in the area. Uh R5 does allow for accessory buildings, residential gated communities, golf course and country club, multif family apartment dwellings, municipal uses. Um again, attached or detached uh single family residential parks and playgrounds. And then uh the proposed zone change has uses that do align with what is currently in the area. So four, whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of this amendment. So we did notify shirts, fire, EMS and police and they have not provided any objections and SEU ISD was also notified of the zone change request and this scheduled public hearing provides the opportunity to introduce additional considerations that you may have and uh the proposed zone change aligns with the comprehensive land use plan. It is consistent with what is in the surrounding area and the surrounding land uses. So staff recommends approval of PLC 2025 0105 and then the applicant is here and has a presentation. All right. Thank you Daisy.

Good evening commissioners. Patrick Christensen 315 East Commerce Sweet 304. Nice to see you again. What we're proposing here today is a senior living community. It will be for rent. It's the the Thomas Group development. It's it's the developers um they only do senior housing. Now, I realize the city of Sher does not have any kind of a zoning mechanism to restrict the property to senior housing only, but what's very common in other jurisdictions like San Antonio, and I've told city staff is that we're willing to do deed restrictions if an HOA or some other group is willing to step up to limit it to seniors only. And the nice thing about the Fair Housing Act, you know, which doesn't allow you to discriminate, it does allow you to restrict developments to senior housing only, which would be 55 and up. Uh, and that's the goal here today. I'm not sure. What do I hit Daisy? Just the screen. Oh, sorry. Okay. So, I'm not going to read these slides verbatim, but I just wanted to show you real quick that, you know, the San Antonio Bronzeville metropolitan area has 11.7% increase in residents aed 65 and up, age 20 from 2020 to 23. As we all know, there is a lack of senior housing in the San Antonio and I35 corridor. Um, these are the the typical cottage homes that they do. Again, like I said, they're all for rent. Um, as you can see, garages. Um, and that's our, of course, our conceptual site plan. Um, I mean, staff kind of went over everything that that that you would need to hear, but I think it's important to know, like I said, that we're trying to do senior housing here. We're willing to restrict that if if that's necessary. There will be a a thorough fair on the on the western side of the property. We're going to have to dedicate right away when we plat the property on both Old Weederstein Road, which I'm sure you know, needs needs to be widened, and we will have to, of course, dedicate right away for the roadway that goes north and south. and we'll have to build half of it to serve our our development. Happy to answer any questions you have. I have the engineer here. Um I know staff

strike winning approval and we would welcome your support as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Um Okay. All right. This is a uh public hearing. It is 6:37 and I will uh the floor is now open for public comment. Anyone wishing to address the commission on this issue is welcome to step forward. All right. As you um when you get to the podium, if we could have your name and address for the record and then please try to keep your comments to three minutes, but I have some I have some discretion. Okay. Okay, sounds good. I'm John Jassik. I My address is 1 1901. She got the timer thing going. I got six, seven seconds. Uh 19018 Ostein Road is the address. Uh I've lived I've had that property. I've lived there. I was born there. I've had that property uh in our family since uh it uh since I think 1962. So, we've been there a long time. Uh I obviously support this development. I think there's a huge need in this area for senior development. uh when my when my father passed not that long ago, his wife ended up moving out of that out of out of the house that's on that property for a senior development uh community. Unfortunately, she couldn't find one around here, so she ended up having to go to New Bronals for that for that opportunity. So, again, it does strike home to me that uh there is a significant need for senior housing development. I think it fits the acreage. uh you know we talked about the traffic minimal suggestion because it's a different time frame for when these when when the senior development uh folks will be getting out and won't impact the school and the the work the work community. So I think it's a right fit. Uh I think we're ready to develop it and uh we would like your support uh for doing it going forward. So that's

again I'm in support. I think it's needed. I thank you for your time. Thank you sir. Come on up, sir. Oh, hello. My name is Mark Tudek. I live at uh 18940 Old Weerstein Road. And um I would like to say I would like to address the commiti the committee and say that uh Mr. Jassic that parcel of land that you all are considering reszoning may have been in his family but he does not live there. and his that resoning of that property has been attempted, I believe, at least twice before and has failed twice before because it has no support from the surrounding residents of the area, the people who actually live there day in and day out. This this development will represent an increased amount of stress and traffic for the area. And uh it is just not not supported and not wished for any of the surrounding residents for a development like

this. Thank you. Sure. You're welcome. Come on up. My name is uh Ruben Hernandez. I live at 18967 Old We Widerstein Road, which is on the civil side directly across from this property. Um my brother Gilbert Hernandez lives at 18975, but he couldn't be here tonight. We're both a strong No. Strong no. I I'm not worried about the traffic, the road not helling traffic. I I'm worried about the crime. We've seen I like the Tudics, we've lived there over 30 years and and it's crime has just really skyrocketed. Month and a half ago, there was a shooting in progress. CI church police responded. They blocked off the road, found shell casings. Uh about a month ago, there was an accident because they cars travel fast, hit my brother's uh fence, and then hit a tree and that car had to be towed. Um we're both as strong as as the tudics, but uh my main concern is to put yourself in in my shoes and our shoes. Along with this, it was also mentioning of the widening of the road at your house. Would you be willing to give up 20 or 30 feet of your front yard? I've lived there many years, built the fence, taking care of the fence. I I don't want to give an inch. I don't want to give an inch and I don't think that area can handle much more than uh of a load than it has right now. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Teresa Gomez and I live at 1 19094 Old Weerstein Road and this is Brandon. He's going to speak on my behalf. Yeah, so we've been there um several years and in the last year we've had two accidents in our front yard. Um so while the traffic may be negligible, that road's already rough um and can't handle anything extra. Um the mornings are chaos. Our trash cans are destroyed every other day. Um whether that's road not being wide enough or whatever the case may be. Um just the safety of the the children uh that walk up and down the street to school um is a big concern for us. Um we have a business on the property that would be affected by this. with the fence line moving in closer, having to shut off water supply to a salon puts us out of business for uh you know a substantial amount of time. So we would both be a no. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, I'll give you I'll give you a You didn't use your full time. I'll give you another couple minutes. Come. No, not from back there. I need you need you to come up here so we make sure we make sure we hear you on the record. So on the record against John John Jassik, I just want to clarify we have we have filed for reszoning previously as part of a different project, a much larger project. Uh this will be the only time we have filed for a reasonzoning permit for this for just our acreage. It was part of a bigger deal uh earlier and this will be the only time we will have filed for this 19 acre reasoning in our time. Thank you. Yeah. Anyone

else? Okay. Not not seeing anyone. It is uh 6:45 and public input is closed. And commissioners, would anybody like to start? You want me to start? Yeah. Go ahead. Are these all going to be one story? Yes, they'll be one one stories. Maybe like small upstairs studios, things like that. Okay. Correct. One story. Okay. Okay. And and repeat what you said about the roadway that you're going to be including. What? I don't remember what you said about the roadway improvements. Just mention the roadway again. Um, so the western side of the property, if you want to come up and explain the roadway, uh, you know, and again, one nice thing about a senior development is people aren't getting up to go to work at 8 o'clock in the morning. They're not taking kids to school. It's mostly going to the grocery store, going to church. But go ahead. And so to elaborate on that to give kind of some context of what the current zoning is. Our a halfacre lots uh you could get approximately 37 units to that per this site and one residential home generally is one what we call peak hour trip uh in the morning. So 35 peak hour trips. This development you see in front of you is 36. the same. Uh, and the reason for that, again, as you know, uh, if you're retired and you're 55, you're you're not waking up early in the morning to, uh, get on the roads when everybody else is and and schools and stuff. So, out of all development that we do, when it comes to traffic, uh senior development is by far the most favorable uh when it comes to putting traffic onto the the street network just because of that reason that uh typically retired

retirees just don't drive as much and they just don't hit the roads at peak hour times because they don't have jobs and don't have kids that drop off at school. And sorry commissioner to answer your question uh I don't know if I can mark on this but um what you see on the plan south there is uh the city's thoroughare uh that was being worked out and so that was going to be one half it's a a primary arterial that one half of that would be dedicated on our side and that we would build one half of that road which would be two lanes uh you know for the temporary until one day uh when the city grew it would be bigger. Um there really aren't unless it's required by the TIA which again this is so small it wouldn't even trigger a TIA that's how small the traffic is but old westein you we would work with the city of any improvements but there's no you know to address one of the uh residents questions we're not going to acquire rightaway or expand that right we're just dedicating the rideway as part of the platting process for the city to one day come expand that roadway per yster a fair plan okay thank you sir Okay. Um, Daisy, um, the R5 allows up to 12 units per acre, you said? Yes, sir. Correct. And this is 7 something 7.68. So, it's um And what are the um where is Old Westein Road on our master throwfare plan? What what is it supposed to to become? Does anybody know? And that's typically what two lanes with a center. Okay.

Um, and is that do we know where that might be in the master plan? I I see her. Oh, there she is still back there. Okay. So it's a secondary arterial which is actually two two lanes in each direction with the center median. Uh and both widerstein old Weiderstein and the um secondary arterial that would be along the western side of this property are that configuration. It's a 90 foot right ofway and it there isn't really a time frame for when the expansion of Weerstein is it's included in the CIP but it's a it's a funding issue and so as we get continue to get right ofway it gets closer and closer to so there is actually a um we don't see it on any of the diagrams but there is kind of a north south connector running through here as well. Okay. Um, can you put their conceptual plan back up? And while you're doing that, uh, yes, we've seen this at least twice, uh, but they were trying to reszone it for apartments, R4. And, um, yes, a lot I I can't speak for city council. Um, I think most of our concerns, well, my concern, let me just talk for me because I can't really talk for these folks either, was an access issue, uh, about uh, they were trying to bring it up Denot Lane from 35. It it was just it it just wasn't going to work. So, you're you're right that that has been turned down twice. Um this is a relatively new uh zoning district that this is only what the second zone request and this is the kind

of project it's intended for. Uh we're still looking at multif family but a lot less dense. We're not going to see the big uh two or threetory apartment buildings. Okay. Th this is the kind of this is the kind of community uh that we had I think that the city had in mind when they created the R5 district. Um I'm assuming uh as I've seen in in in other this will not be these will these buildings will not be individually platted. All right. as as the retired fire marshal for the city, that that gives me concern uh for building separation. Uh not so much for um you know the um let's see these will be what what are the the purplish ones? Are those uh four forplexes? Okay. And um so I believe even the residential code have some requirements in there about separating the the residences themselves. But I'm more concerned with the building with the separation between buildings. And uh we all saw the the potential that creates with the Los Angeles fires. Although I have to admit a 10-foot sideyard setback wouldn't have saved any of those structures. But that's always been one of my concerns. So when we individually plant buildings, we can enforce that 10-ft setback. How do we do that in this kind of arrangement? Daisy, what what's the plan? So as part of the R5, um when it came in, uh that actually was implemented. So uh there are some stipulations when it comes to if they're

um a joined, it it has to meet some sort of firewall requirements or they have to be sprinklers. So, it really depends on the ultimate design. Um, but we did run the R5 through the fire marshals uh when it went through. Okay. Yeah, Daisy's right, but to your point, we've had this conversation before. So, again, the the sideyard setback applies to a structure, its proximity to the lot line, right? Does not apply internal within. So again, just so everybody out there understands, if they came in and platted these each units as separate on lots, you'd have the greater setback. Otherwise, you fall back to building code and fire code with regard to separation between that. And I would say this, if the commission has concern about the building code requirements, that would be the appropriate place to to do it, right? As opposed to a case by case. And so if the concern is is that we allow apartment buildings too close to one another on the same lot or do you know towns then to me if I were PNZ I would make a recommendation to council that with the update of the building code which is going to happen this summer. Yep. That you guys weigh in and chime in with a local amendment to allow that if we're allowed to do that for state law. Yeah. And it's uh certainly that's that's the way to do it. Brian, and I I was kind of hoping maybe staff had already given some thought to this. Um, and I'd have to go back and look because the the residential code only applies to one and two family dwellings. So, anything over a duplex is subject to the standard building code, which then we get into uh building separation and things like that. So, um, and and I only see, well, just the only duplexes I see are these

two in pink and then a couple more in the back. So, and I would even argue that, you know, it it really, if it's the concern is fire, it should be done via the fire code, really, not per the building code. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Um, anybody? Yes. because I've got just a couple more, but go ahead Judy. My question is if you are intending to widen the roads, are there utility easements on Weederstein on either side where these residents would be affected by the expansion of the roadway? So let me say my assumption is based on work further down Weederstein is that when Weederstein needs to be expanded that additional right ofway and easements will need to be required and let me say this whether this project goes through or not that is going to need to happen on Weederstein because of the background growth inserts and cistein all the time. So, I don't know definitively, but yeah, to be clear, yeah, my assumption is we're going to need more rideaway that's going to push out the easements as well. And so, rightway acquisition will be needed and easement acquisition will be needed as well with it. I think that's an assumption. And those easements are already owned by the city, correct? The properties are surveyed with the easement. That gives the city the permission to come in and use those utilities or do something to that. So let me offer this up where you have an easement. Easements are particular. They can be general utility easement and thus any utility can go in or they can be particular easement. So it's a could be a water easement where only water has the right to be in there. Um and and those easements allow what

they allow based on the nature of the easement document. But to be clear, my assumption is is that Weiderstein, the rightway will need to expand out. What that means is then all the utilities that are in the way need to get pushed out as well. And and certainly there's a process to go through for that to have to happen. But yeah, I think I think I think the resident's concerns are accurate. The expansion of Weederstein is likely going to mean the city coming in and acquiring rightaway and easements. And that's that I I believe is accurate as well. I I don't disagree with them. And that would be at the expense of the city, correct? Should they have to move say water lines or gas lines, whatever it is. So again, let me offer this up. I there is there was legislation pending and I haven't gone through. Right. So typically the way it works is if the if the utilities are in an easement, then whoever the entity is doing the road, the city has to pay to relocate that utility into a new easement. So pay for the new easement, pay for the relocation. Way it currently is though is if those utilities are in the rightway, then the city doesn't have to pay for it. that utility has to pay to move. Again, there was legislation this session that basically doesn't matter if even if there's no easement that that cost would fall to the the taxpayers of the city who's expanding the road. Haven't seen where that one's gone. So, I don't know what it'll end up being at the time, but again, I I think the accurate statement is is that yep, when Weerstein's expanded, rideway is going to be needed from property owners and additional easements are probably going to be needed from property owners. Don't know how much at this time uh and and where we kind of navigate to get that in, but I would say that is going to happen whether or not this development

happens or not. As Kathy said, it's on the CIP. There isn't funding yet, but we've got it slotted for 2028 to 33. I got a couple of statements more than questions. So, uh, first one, you guys brought up the trash cans being hit and, um, the somebody's mailbox and a fence and a lot of that can be mitigated with stop signs and speed bumps. And so, and more cop patrols, let's be honest. And so, that's something that you could bring up to your city council when they have their meetings and go talk to them about the traffic that's going through your area. So, that's the first thing I want to bring up. stop sign. I get it. But we can always add stuff. Uh I've driven down like Savannah and Savannah has like 16 stop signs and between 309 and Church Parkway. It means you can't drive faster than 15 miles an hour. Either way, it can be done. Um hold on. Hold on. Um I think two things. One, the police will be more present when this community is built because there'll be more people there. And let's be honest, 55 and above, there'll be more ambulance and more fire department there, too, unfortunately. Um, and last thing, when search station opens up and we get that up and running, your traffic is going to turn into a nightmare. And so, if you don't get ahead of this with talking to the city council about the traffic and about the road, then you're going to be really complaining then. And so, I would, it would behoove you to get uh in front of the city council and talk about this uh issue to them before they start building this project. uh or search station opens up. Thank you. Okay. Well, I I I'll tell you one

um one nice thing about Shirt Station uh is the extension of Rips Chrysler. So, um you'll be able to access that from Cibilo Valley Drive and return to Civil Valley Drive. Um, so I'm not sure how much traffic that's going to put out here in old Weerstein. Um, and you know, I've never lived in a semi-ural environment like this where you folks are living. Uh, but I moved to Shirts uh, in the summer of 1989. There were 10,000 people here. FM39 was a two-lane road. four-way stop sign at the interstate, yada yada yada yada yada. Okay. And while I think just about anybody would look at this acreage and love to see it stay the way it is, uh reality is that's not going to happen. Uh something is going to be built here. That's the property owner's right is to use his property. Uh part of what you're seeing I think out on old Weiderstein is cut through traffic. You know, given the nightmare that text has created out on 35. Um I drive it occasionally. Uh if I'm up in the Northcliffe area rather than trying to circulate back to uh down 35, I'll come back down uh old Weerstein to Civil Valley Drive. So, I I I think that's where the traffic's coming from. Um, and unfortunately, there's a lot of uh folks out there, I'll just call them um well, my father-in-law was a retired Navy chief, and he used to talk about people that had their head so far up

their butt, they needed a glass belly to see where they were going. there. There's a lot of folks out there that just they're uh oblivious to the rest of the world. It's just them. You've got kids running around in, you know, BMWs and Mercedes and Mustangs and um cars I would love to have had as a teenager. Um and unfortunately, oh has not been developed to handle that kind. you know, if I'm correct, there's not even a center line down that road, is there? Let alone an improved shoulder. Um, so again, getting back to reality, something is going to go here. Um, and and part of what we try to wrestle with up here, uh, is what's most appropriate. Um certainly R4 nobody was in favor of putting in big apartment buildings on on on on this property. Um yeah, I I you know I I can I can disagree a little bit with uh the whole traffic thing because it all depends. You know, it if they're retired people, you're right. They're like me. We don't we don't have to be anywhere. We go where we want to go when we want to go. Uh so we try to avoid high traffic but but if you know typically uh senior housing is defined as 55 plus. Okay. Does that fit or do you guys use a higher criteria? So you know for the most part if if you're 55 years old chances are pretty good you're still working somewhere. Okay. Um, so I've got to I've got a feel that there's going to be some traffic impact

out here. Um, but I think I'd rather have um and you know by by the real it's not so much the the older people, the more mature people I worry about, it's their younger family members. But I don't know that these are sit are the way you're proposing it that they're really suitable for families with teenagers and bunch of cars and um you know but again what else are we going to put here? Um I think it's it's better that we put some kind of residential here. Uh because now now you're talking about people, they're really only coming and going to their house. If if if we end up trying to put some commercial venue here, now it becomes a destination for the whole city. And um so um and yeah, I mean it's it's not that we don't hear you. No, I'm I'm sorry. I mean, be more than happy to talk to you after the meeting if if you'd like to, but um it's um it's just uh and this is not the we we we've got an even more contentious one probably on the on the on the near horizon that I'm really not looking forward to. Uh but this is one of the I I and again, this is just his concept. Um, they're usually pretty close to when they get around because their their next thing will be do the plat or the master plan. What comes next? The plat. Uh, which is really just laying out the property dimensions and where the utilities are going and but eventually they have to uh they'll have

to master plan this or not? No master plan. Okay. Um, so but I I I think you'll end up seeing uh on the ground pretty close to what he what they're showing you here. And um you know, if I was going to try to make any changes to it, um let me ask the question, why the uh the forplexes um there in the front. Is that why did you decide to do that instead of Is there just not enough room to do the Yeah, I mean they just they look so much bigger. Is that what they are? They're they're [Music] bigger more floor space. They're not two story though, correct? No, sir. Not two story. Just maybe a little bit more floor space. We thought it would be, you know, normal to put more density closer to the main thoroughare versus the back kind of was the thought. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anyone have anything else, Richard? Daisy, who owns Old Weiderstein? Is it all shirts or is it shared? All shared. All shirts. Can't convince Cibilo to buy half of it. Not not likely given how we funded Cibilo Valley Drive. Well, and yeah, no, I'll let that go. Um, yeah. So, that begs the question of is all the expansion going to be on our side, you know. No, no. It'll likely be on on it. It'll likely be on both sides, but but vary as you move the length of it because they still

owe us for for giving for building that subdivision and providing access to old Weerstein without asking. They still owe us for that, you know. All right. Anybody anything else? Okay. This is u this will be a recommendation to city council and we can recommend approval. We can recommend they deny it. We can recommend approval with uh conditions. Uh no sir, I'm sorry. We're no sorry um you'll have another opportunity. This will be on a city council agenda. Okay. And they're the ones that make the final decision. And um they all will watch this video, the the video of this meeting. Uh so they will hear all your comments, they'll hear our discussion, they'll hear our questions. Uh and then you'll have just like here that'll be a public hearing and you'll have another opportunity to give them your input on top of what we've already done here tonight. Okay. So, with that said, uh I need a uh I need a motion to recommend to either re to recommend either approval or denial. I make a motion to approve PLZC20250105. Second. All right. I have a motion and a second from Commissioner Carbone, Commissioner McMaster to recommend approval. And again, it's a recommendation that said that city council approve PLZC 2025 0105. Is there any further discussion? If not, please cast your

vote. All right, I have seven votes. Would you publish that, please? All right. You can There it is. So, I have six eyes and uh one nay. That motion passes. Do you need anything from Commissioner Brown vote? No. Okay. Um so, all right. Appreciate it. So, and once again, uh, uh, this will be on the city council agenda and you'll have another opportunity to, um, and, uh, honestly, they don't always take our recommendation. Okay. All right. Moving on. Uh, item 5B is another public hearing. Um, ELZC 2024315. hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to reszone approximately 173 acres of land from agricultural district and single family residential/aggricultural district to single family residential district R1, single family residential district R2 and single family residential district R6 known as Bear County Property identification number 310012 309-425 309427 generally located 1,000 ft to the west of Cibilo Creek on lower sigin road city of shirts bear county Texas on change from agricultural district and single family residential agricultural to R1 R2 and R six Daisy Marquez planner here's a subject property outlined ing green. It is

located along Lower Sigin Road. It is uh adjacent to Cibilo Creek and it is also immediately adjacent to the Saddlebook Ranch development. It's approximately 173 acres and it's currently a rural residence and undeveloped. So, the applicant is proposing to reszone three separate tracks with straight zoning for each. So 95 acres to single family residential district R1, 51 acres to R2, and 27 acres to R six. And the purpose of this reszone is to develop a single family subdivision with a mixture of housing types and lot sizes. So on May 23rd, eight public hearing notices were sent out and we received one in favor and a sign was posted on the property along Lower Sagine. So again, the existing zoning is agricultural district and single family residential agricultural district. And the applicant is proposing three separate zoning districts, R1, R2, and R six. And here are the different dimensional requirements for R1, R2, and R six. And again, one of the biggest differences is that lot width. So R1 is 80 by120 lots, R2 are 70x 120 lots, and R six um is 60 by 120. So UDC section 2154D lists our criteria for approval for zone changes. One, whether the proposed zoning change implements the policies of the adopted comp plan or any other applicable adopted plans. And the comprehensive plan designates this as complete neighborhood. This is meant for a mix of residential lot sizes with neighborhood commercial. and the applicant is proposing three different residential districts um within the proposed development to provide different lo sizes and to provide that mix of residential that the comp plan is looking for. So two whether the proposed zoning change promotes a health safety and general welfare of the city. So, the city should encourage development compatible with the surrounding uses. And there are several single family

division, single family subdivisions either in development or currently uh constructed along lower sigin. And as you can see here, we have Ryan Valley, that's 447 uh single family residential units. We have Caramel Ranch, that's 131 lots. Saddlebook Ranch which is immediately adjacent to what the the acres um under subject tonight that's 633 residential lots and then more recently we have Monterey Red Meadows which is um approximately 174 lots and then uh what was approved last night at council ordinance 25S22 um that was proposing R2 zoning and it was approved last night. So two, a preliminary traffic analysis uh was conducted and it will increase traffic on the city's transportation system, but our city engineers uh did come to the conclusion that the traffic can be successfully mitigated by street improvements that the developer will be required to construct. Three, whether other uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the media area. So again, it's surrounded by single family uh subdivisions that allow the same type of things. So single family homes, parks, those types of things. Um again, they're coming forward tonight with straight zoning. So the proposed zone change has uses that align with what is currently in the vicinity and what would be permitted in the same area. So four, whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. So far, EMS and police were notified of the zone change and did not provide any objections and seis was also notified of the zone change request and this public hearing does provide the opportunity to introduce additional considerations. So, the proposed zone change does align with the comp plan. It's consistent with what is in the surrounding area, land uses, and uh

zoning and dimensional requirements. So staff recommends approval of of PLC 20240315 and the applicant is here if you have any specific questions for them. Thank you Daisy. Does the applicant want to make a present? You're not required have a couple comments or come on. I do not have Okay. Paul landed MTR engineers here on behalf of the applicant. um able to answer any questions that y'all may have. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Item 5B is a public hearing. It is uh 9:17 p.m. and the floor is open for public comment. Anyone wishing to address the commission is welcome to step forward. I guess folks that live out this way have pretty much given up. I don't know. Nobody. Nobody. All right. It is uh still 19 or I'm sorry, it's still 7:17 and public input is closed. Um, I have a question. Go ahead. How many units is it again in those three areas? The R1, the R2, and the R six. Uh, we just have the acreage for the Okay. 173 acres. Yes.

That's a lot of houses. We've laid out 400. I was surprised to hear Saddle Brook Ranch was what 600 and something. Yes, they do. That's uh Ashen Woods and um Starlight. Okay, y'all need a grocery store. All those people running to the Dollar General. to pick up milk and bread. Need to build something down there. Um, did you have something showing the uh the individual zoning? Now, um, these two properties across lower skiing, those are those are something else. It's just the ones north of the Yes, those three. These are separate. Okay. These were already done. So basically R six in the front, R2 and R1 in the back. Yes, sir. And I I guess PDDs are dead, huh? It um we haven't seen one in a long time. Um yeah, we we don't know for sure. We know the most they can do on an R six is 30 acres. 30 acres. And what they're proposing is just under 30. So, um, you know, I was just talking to everybody about reality and unfortunately this is reality. But I but I took a drive a couple weeks ago. I had an appointment over in Universal City. took took me almost an hour to get from my house to my house to to upper Pat Booker Road

because of that mess that Tex dots created. So I thought I'd be smart and come back down and come across um uh aviation. No, it was backed up, you know, and um underpasses closed. So, you know, at that point, you had a a planning and zoning chairman saying, "I'm not voting for another dog on development in this city until we get these streets figured out, okay? And well, I I say a lot of things, okay, but it's it's really um Do you have any idea the timeline, what what kind of timeline we're looking at this development? Do they have any plans of when they go when they want to start? Generally, from zoning to us turning dirt, it probably takes us 15 to 18 months to to go through that process. Yeah. Uh we will probably start with three different units. So maybe about 50 lots per uh zoning size. So, and then from there maybe a year, year and a half for the next ones. So, it sounds like a timeline that you know, God willing and creek don't rise for text to finish 1518. I don't see that as the problem. I see lower road as being the problem. Um, and um, I don't know what we're planning on doing about that. It was so nice when u when we could make these these developers help help develop that roadway. And yes, no those um just to speak on uh lower sigin as you know we are restricted per state law but um with all these zone changes coming in and all of

them being approved they're slowly turning in their applications and lower sigin will slowly get widened to the rightway width that it needs to be. Yeah, but you know that's all they we don't actually get any road construction out of the developers like we used to many years ago. The legislature and their infinite wisdom took that away from us just like they were going to, you know, they they they uh they they put their foot down about impact fees and without realizing that there were some people out here that, hey, yeah, we understand so we don't get it all at once. we phase it in. And um yeah, I mean it is what it is. It's unfortunate that we don't have better, you know, it would be it would be so nice if there was another lower sigin road on the north side here where we where we had some kind of circulation instead of everything using this one road to come and go. Um, and I haven't looked at the the future road plan. What do we call that? I haven't looked at it in a long time. Uh, I know what we all call the 39 extension runs does that that runs through here somewhere, doesn't it? So, Red Bird Canyon goes through Saddleberg Ranch and that's one of uh that's part of the MTP. Yeah. Okay. So, eventually maybe one of these days. Um Yeah. And and you know, the reason I feel the way I do is I as I drive I drive my son lives up in Georgetown and I drive Travis um and Williamson counties a lot and you see the roadways being built out there in the middle of

nowhere. There's nothing. But yet, here's this fourlane center median gorgeous roadway belt. And um we don't do that around here. They have more money up there. If we had about 10 computers, we could do it, but we don't have 10. It's all about cash. That's all that it's about. Yeah. No, I I understand it. It is what it is. And I I'm very sensitive to property taxes since um mine mine have been frozen for several years now. I I certainly don't want to don't want to do anything there, but it's just um you know, yeah, we see all this development on infrastructure that just I don't really see it supporting it. What you know, what are you going to do? So, um anybody else have anything, Richard? Yeah. If you haven't seen Redbud Canyon, I think it is. It's a very nice fourlane like Shirts Parkway. It's very nice and there's going to be development along uh Raft Bernett. So hopefully one of these days Raft Bernett will get connected and improved and then we've got Schaefer Road. So, you know, by the time this thing gets going, I I think there's going to be different ways to access that area and Cibilo will be developing off Hacker Road. So, maybe lower Sigin will get developed and we can sneak across through, you know, through the Cibilo area. So, I you know, Crossvine is what 10 years old now and there's and and they're still building. So, you know, this thing's not going to pop up next week. it it's going to be a while and and we've got all the other developments on the south of on the south side of lower sigin and there's one that wasn't

included the uh the big one on trainer hail uh that's what 400 600 houses so there'll be improvements it's just going to take some time but I you know if we had 10 Dell computers here we could have some roads to the middle of nowhere yeah you're probably right I I or a Spanish investor We could have a toll road. I I I forget about the um industrial base that that they have up in in those two counties and that I did not think about that. So that's just my soap box for tonight. Any comments, questions? All right. Another recommendation [Music] to city council. What's your pleasure? Make a motion to recommend to city council that PLZ 2024 whatever 0315 be approved. Second gone again. All right. I have a motion and a second from Commissioner McMaster and Commissioner Carbone to recommend approval of PLC 20240315. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Oh, you guys are two steps ahead of me again. Record your vote, please. All right, I see seven votes. Can we publish that? We have seven eyes and none opposed. That motion passes. Thank

you. All right. Uh, third and final public hearing. PL UDC 20250123. That's an interesting number. 0123. conduct a public hearing workshop and discussion and possible action to make a recommendation on amendments to part three of the shirts code of ordinance unified development code to article 8 section 21.8.9 8.9 Outdoor display and storage Daisy PL UDC 20250123 a proposed UDC amendment to article 8 section 2189 Daisy Marquez planner. So we what we are proposing tonight is to amend article 8 UDC section 2189 uh more specifically known as outdoor display and outdoor storage. We are proposing to create new categories of outdoor display and outdoor storage. amend the definitions of both these categories, clarify general requirements and expand the exceptions. And as you know, typically this happens because uh staff has to be proactive to meet the needs of the changing environment. And a lot of times it's because we get a lot of feedback from people that come in and do development with us. So currently when you look when you look at this section, we have table 2189 that shows where outdoor display and outdoor storage is generally allowed. We are now proposing um basically to simplify those two categories and it's just going to be two outdoor display or it's outdoor storage. And you'll also note here too that MSMU was added to the permitted uh use table for this. It was not a a zoning district when this was first implemented. So now this is added to the permitted use table. And then when it comes to outdoor storage, we did add a stipulation that it requires a specific use permit in uh in public use districts. So think of um if public works need some sort of outdoor storage,

they would have to come in and request a specific use permit, but it would still not be allowed in GB. And then we moved all the general requirements up to the top to make it clear what everyone would have to follow. Again, it's just making it more clear that it has to be specifically shown on the site plan. it cannot be within any required landscape buffers and adding the stipulation and making it clear that um it has to stay out of all the required ADA access points. And when it comes to the proposed outdoor display category, it should be things um actively for sale or lease that can be perused by public. Um it should be things that are seen at home improvement businesses or similar type retail or commercial businesses. And then the stipulations were added that individual items for outdoor display cannot exceed 15 feet in height and then stacked items cannot exceed 5 feet in height. And the outdoor display area shall not exceed 25% of that primary building square footage. And then uh outdoor storage is now going to be everything else that is not outdoor display. Um the definition of the things that fall under this uh remains generally the same. So use tires, railroad ties, temporary portable storage facilities, containers, semi-truckss. Um but it also uh we added the clarification that includes items for sale that are sold in bulk. So think um warehousing of like land raw landscape materials. So large mounds and wholesale businesses. And again just stipulating that it's prohibited within public rightway or fire lanes. It can't be it's not allowed in off- streetet parking spaces and it cannot exceed a maximum of 20 feet in height and it must be enclosed or at the rear of the structure but in no way should it be visible from the public right away. So it's basically the same that we had before just making it clear again um what the requirements are for outdoor storage. Uh the proposed exceptions were

expanded. So garden centers, lumber yards and outdoor sales areas are not considered outdoor display or outdoor storage. if the area is is attached to and accessible through the primary building. So, think of an home improvement store where you walk out to a garden center. Um, that's what that would be considering. And, uh, it can be it has to be enclosed utilizing a metal or steel fence material and it has to be identified on an approved site plan. So, they can't just come in and put it down one day and then the fire lane is blocked. They have to clearly identify it as going through the site plan process. And then sidewalk sales are not considered outdoor display or outdoor storage. We really want to um encourage businesses to, you know, have that sort of activation where they can have those sidewalk sales. They can put things to sell along um right outside of their their door, their sale areas, but they still have to comply with all ADA requirements. So UD6 UDC section 2147D lists the criteria for approval for UDC amendments. So the proposed amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the city. So this UDC section 2189 was last updated during the pandemic um just to include some specific stipulations if uh material wasn't available at that time but before that it had not been revised since its implementation in 2010. So you can imagine the things that were added to our UDC after that. to the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and the policy of the UD of the UDC and the city. So again, staff is trying to be proactive and keep up with this changing retail and commercial environments. Commercial businesses have shown a desire to have outdoor display. Um, as you know, uh, different commercial businesses are popping up. They come to us, they see if, you know, their business can fit our UDC or how we can work with them. And sometimes we've had we have had to say, you know, it won't work because it's just not written

in our UDC. Our UDC inherently prohibits it. Um, additionally, MSMU was not in place during the implementation of UDC section 28 218. Now, uh, so now people with MSMU zoning would be allowed to take advantage of that outdoor display and have some sort of sidewalk sale. So, think of boutiques that, you know, they're going to have a blowout spring sale. They put some racks out, but people are still able to access the sidewalk and their entrance with the wheelchair. Three, the proposed amendment corrects an error, meets the challenge of changing conditions or is in response to changes in state law. And again, we're just trying to clarify outdoor display and outdoor storage definitions and expansion of exceptions. And four other factors which are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of this amendment. So staff has ensured that the UDC meets uh the the UDC amendment meets the UDC requirements and staff recommends approval of PLUDC 20250123 just due to the changing conditions of the commercial environment and just um to be proactive with UDC amendments. Right. Thank you, Daisy. This is a public hearing. It is uh [Music] 7:35. I will open the floor for public comment. Anyone wishing to address the commission on this topic is welcome to step forward. Nobody. All right. It is still 7:35 and u public comment is closed. Commissioners discussion, comments, questions.

Um, okay. Go ahead, Richard, Daisy. Where did the numbers come from for 15 and 20 ft storage? So, the 20 ft is what's allowed now um just for outdoor display uh outdoor storage. So, we didn't want to change that. We didn't want to make anyone non-conforming. And then the 15 feet was just something that we thought was reasonable. So, the the businesses in the developments in the M1 and2, they're aware of the 20 foot already, and nobody's wanted to change anything that we know of, right? I'm just asking where they came from. So, that that's good. Uh, take yourself down doer lane off of Tahas. You know, you know where that is. Yeah. Okay. and all the all the manufacturing down there. There's no residential within I don't know two miles of that place. Why why do we care so much about how high they stack stuff out there? Is is it is it for aesthetics or is it for safety or what? Why do we put 20 feet on it? More of a mix of both, but we also don't want to make anyone non-conforming. I think one of the biggest examples of this is the mobile mini off of I35. Our max is 20 feet and they're exceeding that right now. So, it's just kind of the standard we had and we just haven't changed it. What I'm what I'm thinking about is is artificially limiting what businesses can do with their property out on Tahas Way. There's nobody out there. It's a railroad track and then it's other businesses. You know, do do we need such restrictions or can we make it more lenient? So, so what I'd say is you can certainly make it more lenient. What I would tell you is that keep in mind it's done based on the zoning district. So while you may be thinking Tahas Way do lane anywhere else we've got that zoning that may be more visible. Now you've

you've gone up with it as well. Yeah. But we could put a star and say except teas or something. You could here's and I'll give you the answer. As Daisy said, we stuck with what the current code is. Yeah. I I don't doubt that there are people out there that are in violation of it slightly. He's got 22 feet, 23 feet, something like that. What staff would recommend on this one is because we think it's a huge benefit to just make this clear distinction between the display and the garden center and the outdoor storage. What we would say is stick with what we've got on that because it's not been a problem and that's something we can always come back to, right? If we find we've got an issue, we can come back and we can revisit it. But but I think from a staff perspective, we haven't thought about it enough to say is that increased standard really appropriate everywhere else. The other which you would get into and certainly chair personnel can chime in is that you have these certain again fire kind of issues associated with it and and so part of the problem that fire is going to have is that by zoning you can go up higher but then they're going oh my god you didn't come through us and now I've got issues and things like that. So again don't disagree with you. What we would probably recommend is stick with the 20 that's currently in there. And if that's something we want to kind of do some more research on and come back to, we can come back to it and and I think we would say it's a little easier to come back to it knowing that we've made this change with regard to the outdoor storage and display and that's what we're dealing with as opposed to we're moving that while we're moving this stuff a little bit. So, and I'll transport myself into your office and and I I want to build a warehouse on Tahas Way and my product, whatever it is, is 35 ft tall. So, when

I come to you in in your office and we're discussing the development and the rules and the restrictions, if I tell you I need 35 ft, what would you do? Say go build somewhere else or we'll take it up with planning and zoning and city council. Let me say this. I mean, I think let me chime in for Daisy because we've had this. So, like you have cranes and things like that that are more than 20 feet tall that they store out there. I don't know that staff is going to say you're I think the intent is you're not stacking stuff more than 20 feet tall, right? It's remember when we had the GE facility with the liqufied natural gas things and they had those out there in the yard. Those were probably more than 20 feet tall, I would think. But we didn't consider it a violation of a code because the thing inherently was above 20 feet tall. If that if that makes sense, I think and we can clarify that you can't stack more than 20 feet tall if you want, which is really the intent. If you got these things, you're going to stack them on one another. You can't go up more than 20 feet. And all that means is you just need more area. But we can if the recommendation coming out of PNZ is clarify that the height limit involves stacking of things as opposed to the equipment itself is inherently taller than that. I don't think we've ever enforced on that. Okay. Does that make sense? And I think that covers what you're thinking about. It it it does because it you know what if my what if the product I make is 25 ft tall, a big air conditioner. Yeah. I don't think we'd ever enforce on that. I think my initial reaction is that isn't what we're thinking about. So what we can do so we're we're thinking about stacking like out outside of Lowe's or Walmart those. Okay. Or even industrial, right? If you've got product and you want to stack, that's fine. But we're we we've always had this cap of 20 ft. I think most people generally comply with it and it works. But yeah, if you've got a

piece of equipment that's taller, we can clarify that that's not the intent. That's all. Anybody else? Yeah. Secondary condition with it being stacked at 20 ft. If you're looking at multiple small items, anything above that size is going to require substantial um racking and it's going to require substantial bracing to keep that locked in. The higher you go, the more chance you have of collapse and you have also material flying off. The last thing we need is to have something material even industrial zone flying and hitting a vehicle or another building. So 20 feet does make sense. That's pretty much an industry standard and that's pretty much a governmental standard is to keep it at 20 ft so materials don't have a chance of lifting. Anybody else? guys are going to start using the push buttons. I'm going to have to learn to look. Okay. Yeah, I know. It's just uh Yeah, somebody moved my cheese and I don't like it. Yeah. Um any further discussion or questions? I want to thank you for your questions there. I was getting a little confused about the 15 ft versus the 20 ft. I'm up here going, "Well, is it 15 or is it 20?" I understand now. So, all right. Uh, if no one else has any uh questions or comments, we're um Go ahead. Let me ask for clarification. So, you would recommend clarifi

clarifying 20 feet of stacked height, right? What I would recommend if that's what you're going to is recommend approval as proposed by staff, but that staff clarify the stacking of things versus the height of a piece of equipment. We'll we'll come up with some language for it. Oh, I'm not looking at my own notes here. So, um, the special use permit exception for public works. Why just public works? Why why why are we treating ourselves differently than everybody else? Yeah, I know, Brian. So, we have uh public works essentially yards all over. Um, and if you think about it, it's adjacent to different types of zoning districts. So, we still want to give you all the opportunity to make a decision, but yeah, public use. So, it's a public use, not public work. So, it's not always Larry left. It's just So, so what you could have is you could have a piece of property zoned public use that's owned by a private. You could have circumstances where that would be problematic. So, again, it's not to give the city of Shirts a special benefit. It's to make sure we don't run into this situation where right that's a public uses schools and churches and okay could be other things. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just misunderstood that. Thank you. Anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve

PLUDC2050123 with the conditions clarifying the 20ft stacking versus 20 foot piece of equipment. That sound good, Brian? Second. All right, I have a motion. Have a motion and a second to u recommend approval of PL UDC 20250123 with clarification of the 20 foot uh height limit. Any further discussion or questions? There you go. And I'm I'm getting further and further behind. Please record your vote. All right, there's seven votes. Can you put that up for us, please? We have seven eyes and none opposed. That motion passes. Thank you all. Item number six, request and announcement. 6A, request by commissioners, place items on a future planning and zoning agenda. Anybody? Nothing. Item 6B, announcements by commissioners. Anybody? Mr. Bro, are you going to talk about it? Okay. All right. Item C, announcements by city staff. Go ahead. So, I'm sad to announce that this is Commissioner Bro's last PNZ meeting. His term ends June 30th. He started as an alternate on the commission in 2010 and became a full member on December 14, 2011. And as he has mentioned before many times, he got on this commission to be more involved in his community. Thank you so much for spending so many years with us and late nights. It is definitely not easy. And with that,

thank you so much for your 15 years of service and dedication to the city of Shirts. [Applause] I don't know what I'm going to do without you, Richard. So, yeah. No, I I mean that sincerely. I I will miss you and some of our little conversations uh after the meeting. Yeah, it's not not going to be quite the same. Um, item number can I say if you Oh, you bet. Yeah, go right ahead. Thank you, Daisy, for looking up when I started because I couldn't remember. And I think the only one here before me was Lisa. Yeah, you were fire chief, but not on P&Z. Wow. I beat you, didn't I? Yeah. Um, some folks have asked me why why am I stepping down and it's, you know, was it some kind of personal personal issue or conflict or something? Uh, it it wasn't that. Uh, if you remember when they used to hand out the envelopes and we picked them up at the police station with our agenda packet and all the stuff and it was like, "All right, what's in the agenda today?" Big surprise. Uh I the last couple of meetings I looked at the agenda that Daisy sent out and it was like h here we go again. And so for me it's just it it's 15 years for God's sake. That that's a long time. And I think I just needed a break there. There's nothing to do with people or uh people in the audience yelling and screaming at us. I I really could care less about yelling and screaming. So, it it's not

even that. It's just time. And uh uh some of you know I'm I'm busy with the water and the wastewater and that's going full speed ahead and it's not going to stop. So, I'll still be involved and I'm not moving. So, I'll still be in shirts in my house just up the hill. I'm not going to army retirement community or anything like that. So, I'm going to I'm going to stay involved. I'm going to keep my nose in in what's going on in planning and zoning in the city. So, I'm not going away. I I just need a break from, you know, doing what we do here. Uh thank you to my fellow commissioners. You guys are all great. You guys are just like I did. We're learning. You learn every day, every meeting, every week. You learn. Uh I would encourage you to keep learning and keep studying and and learn what we're doing because it's important. and thanks for being a part of the community and wanting to make change. So, keep it up and I hope you guys stay maybe not 15 years, but stick around and and continue your service. And to city staff, I think you guys have a great team going on. Uh we've gone through a lot of people in planning and zoning and and the rest of the city. Uh I I think the team you have now is good. It's strong. It's young. Uh you guys have good energy. You run good meetings and uh continue to do the good work and and thanks for the support that I've had all these years. Lisa Brian, thanks. You too. Yeah, she and Sam. Yeah, Richard. Thanks, thank you for those comments. Um all right, item number seven. um

information is available in your packet as to the our uh current projects and their status with city council. Um Lisa, you have a couple minutes. I can speak with you after the meeting. Um can I say something real quick? Well, I went right past the announcement. I know, but okay. I I saw there's a deadline to register for the conference coming up or something that and no one brought that up. So I got an email there's a deadline for that coming up, right? Or did it pass? [Music] Yeah, I'm just reminding everybody. That's all. Yeah, that's the the land use conference and that's the one you're talking about. That's what I want to talk to Lisa about. Well, the land use is in August and then APA is uh October. So, uh but the land use TML land use is the one coming up. So, um well, why don't you hang because that's what I want to talk to Lisa about. Okay. So, all right. Anybody else? Yes. No. 7:52 and this meeting is adjourned.