Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, it is six o'clock. We'll go ahead and call this meeting of the streets planning zoning commission to order. We are gonna open it up. We don't, we have a full house tonight, so we don't need any of our wonderful alternates joining us this evening. We'll move into the hearing of residents. I have Samuel McCarley. McAnally, if you wanna come up and approach, you'll have three minutes.

Reside at 1210 Bunker Street, directly within the statutory 200 foot notice boundary of the impact and notification zone. I'm speaking tonight to place on the official record my official opposition to rezoning this parcel from single family residential to civic part without binding enforceable development conditions. My primary concern is life safety. This parcel sits in an active flood zone and the low water access point adjacent to it frequently floods during routine hill country rainy events. I have a picture of that here for the council as well if they'd like to see it printed out.

Absolutely.

You see that's from June 2025, looking towards 482 from Bunker Street side. Siding a public park here invites families, children, and visitors directly into a flash flood hazard zone where rising water can cut off the sole point of egress and strand them. Replacing our natural meadow with an impervious asphalt parking lot also only accelerates stormwater runoff, worsening the local flood heights. If visitors become trapped, this creates a direct liability for the city and places an unacceptable burden on first responders and adjacent homeowners who become responsible. It is my understanding this property is now owned by the city of Schertz. Does New Braunfels retain any zoning governance over it? And shouldn't there be a published interlocal agreement because the neighborhood technically resides in New Braunfels? At least that's our address. I think a published interlocal agreement must be in place so that we know who has after hours policing, emergency dispatch, or even maintenance of this parcel. Another concern for siting a parking lot directly across from the residential frontage is that it will introduce intrusive headlight glare, light pollution, and directly impact our neighborhood. If this council considers approving any land use, I ask them to mandate five requirements. A sign-stamped hydrologic and hydraulic drainage study, proving zero net increase in flood rise. A verified all-weather secondary emergency egress route, so visitors are never trapped. An executed interlocal agreement defining primary police and swift water jurisdiction between you and the Bronfels. and a 50-foot natural vegetative buffer to preserve the meadow, sightline, and eliminate any parking lot glare, and if possible, dark sky-compliant lighting and automated dust-to-dawn security gates. I submitted my formal protest response to Daisy Marquez, senior planner, according to the required timeline last week, and this should be used for calculation toward the 20% supermajority threshold. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. That was everyone signed up to speak for the public comment section, but there will be additional comment periods on each individual item if you didn't sign up. So we will go ahead and move on to the consent agenda, the minutes for August 5th. Commissioners, any questions, comments, motions?

I'll make a motion that we accept the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

I second.

And that was a motion by Commissioner McMaster, second by Commissioner Laredo-Reyes to approve the consent agenda. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven. Can we publish that, please? That motion carries. All right, moving on. Public hearing item 5A, PLZC2026186. Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request to public use district on approximately 10.7 acres of land located approximately 900 feet northwest of the intersection of FM 482 and Schwab Road, more specifically known as Comal County, property identification number 56613, Comal County, Texas, Daisy.

Good evening, commissioners. PLCC 2026-0186, a proposed zone change to public use district on 10.7 acres of land. Daisy Marquez, senior planner. Here's the subject property outlined in green. It currently does not have a zoning district that is currently outside of city limits. It is city-owned property. It was purchased in 2023 for the purpose of parks. It is currently outside of city limits in Comal County City of Shirts, ETJ. So it is going through the annexation process as well. To the north is outside of city limits, that's a residence. To the south we have right away, that's FM 482. To the east we have right away, which is Bunker Street and then some other rural residences. And then to the west is outside of city limits, and there's the undeveloped, also the cemetery from the church. We sent out 14 public hearing notices on August 21st. We did receive foreign opposition, but they're all outside of city limits. And a public hearing notice was published in the paper on August 26th and a notification sign was placed on the property. And this will be heard at the September 15th city council meeting. And again, the subject property is 10.7 acres. It's for the plan dry Kamal Creek nature park. Again, it's going through the annexation process and it is a city owned property. And then I did want to share these proposed conceptual plans from the parks master plan for that dry Kamal Creek park. Again, it's supposed to maintain somewhat natural terrain and whatnot, but again, this is conceptual. And then when it comes to the public use district, here are some of the permitted uses within that area, place of worship, government facilities, public parks and whatnot. And then I do want to note that adjacent to any residential, we do require a 15-foot minimum of building setbacks. And when it comes to the criteria of approval, this area is designated as development deferment. It's meant for large tracks outside of city limits and in the ETJ, which this property is in currently. The proposed public use district is compatible with the comp plan because it's already designated for the Dry Kamal Creek Nature Park. It provides services to the community and the greater area, which promotes the policies of the comp plan. And again, this proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the city as it provides services to the city and it provides a public park. And the proposed zone change is consistent and appropriate with what's around there because we have parks, schools along FM 42 and municipal uses, but also it's shown in the master parks plan for the Dry Kamal Creek Park and their surrounding rural residential and schools. And again, the zone change meets UDC requirements and it was sent to fire, police and EMS for review and no objections were provided. So staff recommends approval of PLZC 2026-0186. Thank you. Thank you, Daisy.

Well, this is a public hearing. It is 6.07, so we'll go ahead and open it up. If anybody wants to approach and have any comments, this is your opportunity. Just come on up. If you'll state your name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes. And real quick before you start, just so you know how it goes, we can't respond to anything. So if you have questions, we'll write them down. And if we want to ask staff, we can. But this is more just if you want to talk and make statements, you're welcome to. I just didn't want you to think it was a question and answer. No, that's fine.

My name is Mary Wall. I live at 1551 Bunker. I've been involved with this from the beginning with Mrs. Shrum and Scott Parker when all this started going into effect. So my concern is... We were all involved. We had a meeting. Every like a lot of people on the street had a meeting about what was going to entail and the parking and everything like that. And all of a sudden we were totally left out of everything. It's not only going to affect the people closest to the park. It's going to affect all of us on Bunker Street. My concerns and I sent an email to the mayor. and I sent him like five pictures of the extreme flooding. That water gets up to six feet. It's our only way in and our only way out. And my concern is, what's going to be in the park? Are you going to have bathrooms and it floods? Is that environmental issues? Or what kind of trails are you going to use? Are you going to use wooden planks that are going to have to be replaced constantly? What about, is the park going to be closing at a certain hour? Are we going to have homeless people and vagrants in there? And I was told by Camel County commissioners that once this park, the land is annexed, that... shirts will take control of that part of the road to where the parking lot's going to end. Now, like, we've got residents here that are concerned about vehicles blocking their driveway. And the creek, we had to have Comal County Road Department come out and dredge that creek bed several times. That's all going to be part of shirts now, from what I'm told. So are you guys going to be responsible for the dredging of the creek bed when limbs and branches get stuck in there? Are you all going to be responsible for cars that are illegally parked, shirts PD? Are you all going to be responsible for vagrants that are there after hours? Has anybody taken this into consideration? And then last week, we already had like 20 bicycles going down our street. Nobody knows we're back there. And now we're going to have all these people knowing all these houses are back there. Is that going to increase all the burglaries, the robberies, because we've had some already? You know, this is just concerns that I, as a resident homeowner on that street, have. And I've been talking to other homeowners on the street, and I believe we all have the same concerns. So that's something you all, as commissioners and stuff, need to think about before this all goes forward. And the flooding, you're going to have engineers come out and do something with the flooding, you know, and then is that going to affect us because we have like a little dry creek behind our houses that the water stands and it gets flooded when it rains a lot like this. So that's why I'm bringing all these concerns ahead of time so you all can think about this before all this goes into effect and, oh, my God, it's too late. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else? Come on up. All right. Well, it is 6-11, and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open up to commissioner questions.

Commissioner Hughes. So, Daisy, I'm looking at this. This is probably going to be similarly constructed as to what Crescent Bend is, correct? We're kind of looking at probably.

It looks more like it. Again, it's in the floodplain. It's in a sensitive area, so we'll take all of that into consideration. And again, these are just conceptual drawings put together for the Parks Master Plan.

Yeah, because Correscent Bend doesn't have, has more or less gravel throughout their decomposed granite. There's small parking. It's kept in its natural state. It is a flood zone. That's why it's designated a park. So if it does flood, obviously people won't go in there. But that's kind of the purpose with it. I know shirts, fire shirts, PD shirts, EMS will take over our property in the area anyways, being the ETJ, but it'll probably be similar to Crescent Bend where the impact as far as the ground is probably going to be very minimal.

It looks like it from the conceptual plans. Yes, sir.

Commissioner McMaster. Yep. Why don't we need a park that's outside of city limits?

So it's going through the annexation process as well, and the zone change is required, so it has a zoning as it comes inside city limits.

Okay, so it is being annexed?

Yes, sir, correct.

Commissioner Allen?

Was the lady correct? Are we annexing Bunker Street as well, or just the park?

So we're going to annex our city property into the city limits, and we'll be responsible for maintaining our law, essentially.

You didn't answer my question. Let me ask it differently. Is Bunker Street... Part of our, no, Bunker Street is not part of the city property, correct?

That right-of-way is currently outside of our city limits. So we don't maintain it currently, and that right-of-way annexation is not part of the lot annexation.

So Bunker Street will remain the responsibility of Kamau County?

Correct.

Okay. Why now is my question, because the city bought this property several years ago.

Yes, so you'll see.

Are they finally getting around to spending the money to develop it?

We finally got around to annexing this one with the Aztec portion that's outside of city limits that we just purchased earlier this year, or in 2025. So we said might as well do both of them at the same time since they're city-owned properties.

So to answer one of the, I think it was Commissioner McMaster, if I remember correctly, this is all, you know, they're, not just our parks people, but the regional parks people, have this glorious idea of a trail from San Antonio to Austin. And that's why the city acquired this property, if I remember correctly, okay, to be part of that trail. I'll be honest with you. I understand your concerns. And I think, you know, Personally, I think it's better if it were to be zoned and under city control so that we have more say over what's built there rather than, of course, it's our property, so we're going to have a say anyway, rather than leave it unincorporated and, you know, although I can't imagine anybody wanting to build it. And I appreciate the flood picture. I hadn't seen those in a while. I spent 25 years in the fire department. I know what the dry come out does when we get some good rains. So I don't know that I'm necessarily against rezoning it, but I do think somewhere, and for the, you know, I hate to sit up here and preach, Okay. But zoning is just the first step. And that, you know, again, we're only recommending. The actual decision will be made by city council. But zoning is the first step. And then they actually do, you know, then they do the site plan. And then there's a lot more to come once we make this zoning decision. And I would certainly hope and strongly recommend, and I only say this because council will watch this video before their meeting, that they consider the safety issues that were raised by, I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name already, but thank you. Because, It really is, you know, that creek does flood and it floods quickly. And we need to make sure, now, you know, what structures they put out there, you know, what a waste of money if they build something that keeps washing away, okay? But I would hate like it would be a real tragedy if we didn't provide safe evacuation routes for people that have to be in the park. And then the question is, who's going to go out there and tell everybody to get out of the park? So I think those are things that city council needs to talk to. They need to put those requirements on the parks department to consider those things and come up with some satisfactory solutions.

Anybody else? I had a couple things, Daisy. The... The question about parking, all that would come up at the time where something is proposed. I know we have the renderings, but there's no actual plans in terms of what's being.

There's no site plan in at this time, sir, so we don't have any solidified plans of what this would actually look like.

So, but at the point where something is built, that would be considered, correct? Like the parking impact would be considered at the time of permitting? Yes, okay. I think Commissioner Outlaw had all my other points. So if nobody has anything else, I'll, oh yeah, go for it. Commissioner Loretta Reyes.

Can you remind me, how many notices did you send out and how many did we get back?

We sent out 14 and we received four.

14 and four were no? Or four were opposed?

Yes, we received four oppositions.

If that's it, we'll, oh, Mr. Outlaw, Mr. Outlaw.

Well, I'd just like to point out that unlike a lot of rezoning cases, the objections are not in my backyard. These folks have, I think they have some legitimate concerns. I don't know that they're necessarily, because I'll tell you, I never would have imagined a park being a controversial issue, okay? But I don't think they're opposed to the park. They just need some assurances of, you know, that we're not going to make things, number one, we're not going to make things worse for them. And number two, that we're going to have some kind of plan in place to deal with the park when it floods.

I did have one other thing, and this might be more of a Brian question. So the current, I think Mr. Outlaw compared this to Crescent Bend. That park has a gate that closes by itself at closing time, right? Yeah. And it's more, and so I guess, again, that's something that we would consider, but I just, you know, it's something that we consider for our other natural parks. And sure.

Yeah, I guess. And I'm sure parks board would appreciate planning and zoning commissions feedback on their recommendations as to that they make and work with the parks department. So certainly that's the case, right? As you're right. Crescent bend. it's entirely in the floodplain, it has gates. Pickerel Park, Thulemeyer Park is entirely in the floodplain, doesn't have gates. Mary Whitfield Burke Park doesn't have gates. Up here, Woodland Oaks Park, most of our parks don't have gates. But certainly every park is different, right? And the use is different, the nature of it's different. And so again, I think part of our concern up here is, making statements or promises that are not subject to our purview as to what will happen. But certainly we provide parks for our community, and our community is more than just the city limits, right? We have people who use Crescent Bend from all over other communities, things like that. So yeah, I think that's a bit of our hesitancy. But I think, again, certainly Parks Board would certainly appreciate the concerns or the recommendation or thoughts the Planning and Zoning Commission may have, just like y'all would appreciate their concerns on things that you guys act on.

Yeah, and I think I brought it up, well, I know I brought it up less in terms of it's something that it would be a promise or a part of a recommendation, but it's something that we have done before. And there's instances where we feel like it might be appropriate to implement stuff like what they're asking. And it's just kind of that, you know, we've considered it in the past, and then maybe it's something that we would consider again. But again, it would be on Parks Board or Parks Department or...

Right. Again, I think the concept here at this point, again, why we don't promise because we don't know for sure, is sort of a trailhead, right? I'm trying to think of maybe a park in San Antonio similar that you may be familiar of along the Salado Creek where you have parking areas and trailheads. And I don't know if those are all gated and locked down. I don't think so, right? And so, again, we manage those. We deal with those, right, our parks department. regularly works with the police department when we have issues, things like that. But again, all of that would be decided down the road. Again, I think as Commissioner Atlas sort of said, or the question was asked, why now? The reason now is because we bought some other properties and we want to bring those into the city as well. One of the benefits for the city is it does allow us and our police department working with our parks department and public works department to better manage and control those, right? If we've got somebody on our property we would have to right now call the county and get them out there as opposed to have one of our coworkers, one of our fellow officers, the police chief out there, and deal with it. So we think in a way it lets us better kind of manage some things like that by having it in the city limits. Awesome.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Hector, you had something?

Thanks. I just had a question regarding the – the conversations with the residents. Like, has there been intentional conversations? Is that something that we do, not do? And I'm just asking because, you know, I think that, you know, as things come before, you know, this commission, throughout the city, there seems to be a theme that comes to light quite often, whether or not residents feel like they've had an opportunity to have their voice be heard. like do they understand what the plan is for the future uh do we have a conversation about how this is going to impact us as residents versus what the city's plans are and i was just wondering if those have taken place yeah we we do again i think some of the folks mentioned uh lauren schramm who is our parks director they've obviously had conversations know who she is um and so those conversations have occurred um you know i'll say this i think

You know, again, the irony is we try to build these for folks in our community so that they can use and enjoy, right? And we have different perspectives on that. And it's interesting, the comment that I've never heard of a park be controversial, that they certainly are, right? And what you often get are the folks who use them, like them, want them, folks who may live nearby, maybe less enthusiastic about some elements of that, right? And so it is something that we certainly do have a mechanism for that, right? Again, as I mentioned, as you know, we have a parks board. Parks board is a public meeting. It's posted just like this. And folks are welcome to attend. They discuss those things like that. Additionally, when we've done renovations or built parks, we've worked with the neighborhoods to try to understand what amenities and things like that would like in the park. So again, I'm not going to say that At the end of the day, folks who typically, especially who live outside the city limits in a more rural condition aren't concerned about growth and development coming their way. And again, why we buy this park is our city is growing. And as Daisy said, we had Comal ISD show up and build two schools, a middle school and an elementary school. We've had zoning cases approved to allow apartment complexes over in that area. That would allow residents, and those folks are going to need parks and amenities and things like that. So it's a balancing act to try to find that, right? So I think a little bit of this, I would suspect, is, you know, the issues we have with growth in the entire region and folks who live in a rural condition, moved out there to kind of get away from things in all likelihood, right, and aren't necessarily thrilled. with all that comes with kind of growth and development and things like that. But certainly typically parks does do input meetings and things like that to get input from people. But again, this is, as I said, the proposal that council authorized is to consider the annexation of the property. As part of that annexation, we need to run the zoning because state law requires you to zone in conformance with the comprehensive plan and And so, again, ultimately, whether this is annexed will fall to council. Whether it's really developed as a park will fall to council. But, again, that was the intent when they bought it and as they sought funding and things like that. But, again, as I said, I'm sure council appreciates, as does parks boards, you know, y'all's feedback on their work.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. James. Appreciate you.

Mm-hmm. All right, thank you, sir. Well, if there's no other comments, we'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of PLZC20260186. Is there a second?

I'll second the motion.

Commissioner Velazquez. That was a motion to recommend approval of PLZC 20260186 by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Velazquez. If there's no other comment, please vote. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. And again, that was a recommendation. This will go to city council on the 15th of September. Yes, 15th of September. And that will be the final decision. All right, moving on. PLZC 20260187, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request to public use district on approximately 0.19 acres of land known as 12235 Aztec Way, more specifically known as a portion of Bexar County property identification number 308309, Bexar County, Texas. Daisy.

Good evening, commissioners. PLZC 20260187, A proposed zone change to public use district on approximately 0.19 acres of land. Daisy Marquez, senior planner. Here's the subject property outlined and highlighted in yellow. I do want to note it's part of a larger parcel that was purchased by the city in 2025. It's just these 0.19 acres that are outside of city limits in Bexar County ETJ. So it's currently not zoned. It's undeveloped. It's going through the annexation process as well. So again, as part of the annexation process, we need to bring it in with zoning. To the north is a remainder of that property, that zone general business district. And then we have FM 78. To the east, we have public use district and single family residential district in the area. Immediately adjacent is undeveloped. And then to the west is outside of city limits in the Bexar County ETJ. And then the Aztec Way right-of-way. And again, we sent out 14 public hearing notices on August 21st. We do not receive any responses. We posted in the newspaper on August 26th and a notification sign was placed on the property. And this will be heard at the September 15th city council meeting. Again, this is 0.19 acres of land that's going through the annexation process. And it's part of that larger tract, but only this portion was outside of city limits. And again, these are the dimensional requirements for the public use district. And when it comes to the criteria for approval, This subject property is actually designated as local corridor. But when it comes to considerations for zone changes, looking at the development of scale and intensity compatible with surrounding development, the proposed public use district is compatible with the comprehensive land use plan because it allows for uses that serve the community. It's surrounded by open space and floodplain, and it's shown on the park's master plan to be part of the larger trail system in the future. But again, it also allows us to maintain it. Again, this proposal on change promotes health, safety, and general welfare because the city can maintain this natural area. The permitted uses are compatible with this area, and it can be part of that larger trail network system in the future. And again, this is adjacent to small undeveloped city parks, Cibolo Creek, floodplain, floodway, and residential uses. You can kind of see here the star is the subject property. The lined portions are the floodway, and then the blue is a 100-year floodplain. And again, the uses permitted within the public use district are compatible with these adjacent uses. The zone change does meet the UDC requirements, and it was sent to fire, police, and EMS for review, and no objections were provided. And staff is recommending approval of PLZC 2026-0187. Thank you, Daisy.

All right, well, it is 6.30, and this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up if anyone would like to make any comment on this item. Okay, well, it is still 6.30, and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioners, any questions, comments? Mr. Outlaw.

Time for another history lesson. Daisy, can you put the... That one's fine. So that little park back there, there used to be a group of apartments back there that were really destroyed in the 98 flood. And the city bought those and raised them and turned that into a park area back there. And where's that billboard?

Oh, the billboard is down here under the bend with the bats.

But it's on part of the property that we're adding this to, correct? Yes, okay. I just wanted to get the history out there. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else? No? All right. Well, I will understand a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend approval of PLZC 2026-0187. I'll second.

That was a motion to recommend approval of PLZC2026-0187 by Commissioner Outlaw, seconded by Commissioner McMaster. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, moving on. PLZC20260143, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request from General Business District to General Business District 2 on approximately five acres of land generally located approximately 1,555 feet east of the intersection of FM 2252 and IH 35 North Access Road, more specifically known as a portion of Comel County property identification number 73267 City Shirts, Comal County, Texas. Daisy.

Good evening once again, commissioners. PLCC 20260143, a proposed zone change from general business district to general business district two on approximately five acres. Daisy Marquez, senior planner. So here's the subject property outlined in yellow. It's currently part of a larger tract, and it's currently zoned general business district, and then the remainder is general business district and manufacturing-like district. Sorry, this is incorrect. It's currently undeveloped, but we'll kind of go through the history of the site. And then to the north, we have the remainder, again, and FM 42, so they have direct access into FM 42. To the south, we have I-35 North Access Road. To the east, we have RDO Equipment, which is Heavy Equipment Sales Service or Rentals with an approved specific use permit. And then to the west, we have General Business District, and that's undeveloped. So we sent out four public notices for this property on August 21st. We did not receive any responses. We did post on the paper on August 26th, and a notification sign was placed by the applicant on the property. And this will be heard at the September 15th City Council meeting. So again, this is five acres, part of the larger tract. It's currently unplotted, and the applicant is proposing heavy equipment sell, service, or rental. and outdoor storage. So that's why they're coming in for the General Business District 2 as the GB2 permits for outdoor storage. And again, just kind of looking at the permitted uses for General Business District versus General Business District 2, and then the dimensional requirements between the two. So kind of diving more into the background of this, you can kind of see the FM42, FM2252, that bend, and then here we have our fire station in this hard corner. It's five acres of a larger tract. The remaining portion is zoned M1, which allows for industrial-type uses, and then that general business district. This is a proposed expansion of the RDO Equipment Co. that's there to the right, and they're asking for the GB2 because it permits outdoor storage. So some of you are already familiar with the RDO site. It is identified here by the star on the right. They have an approved SUP from 2008, to essentially establish the use of heavy equipment service cells in rental and also allowing it on the site. And then I do want to reiterate that back then, the site plans were part of that process. So you can kind of see the site plan here. We'll dive more into it. But essentially, this applicant was part of the unimproved surface tax force. We got that direction from council on June 3, 2025. This is why it's coming to light. they've been using it without the proper development permits. So they're going through the zone changes, the first step to try to bring it into compliance. But again, adjacent next door, they do have that approved SUP that identified that the equipment storage area would remain at the rear of the building. So technically right now with the approved SUP ordinance, this equipment storage should remain in the back and it shouldn't be in the front. It should be for parking and that textile drainage easement. So, again, the subject five acres that we're here for today for that GB2 request has been used as an extension of this eight-acre site that has that approved SUP without the proper development permits. So, when we look at the criteria for approval for zone changes, again, we look at everything, like the comprehensive land use plan. The plan has this area designated as regional corridor. You can see all of that in red. So again, this is for commercial entertainment along major third furrows. So think big box retail, what we're seeing at short station in this corner that's off the screen. Think what we have on 309 with Walmart and whatnot. But it also includes accommodating existing and limited industrial and logistical uses. But when looking at it, the proposed GB2 and its permitted uses are not compatible with and don't align with the intents of the regional corridor feature land use designation. because it allows light industrial along I-35, and it permits for outdoor storage. And the applicant does have M1 zoning to the rear that can support their proposed use. And when it comes to promoting health, safety, and general welfare, GB2 and its permitted uses don't promote the comp plan, which does not promote the general welfare of the community, of the city. And again, any new development is required to meet all the City of Shirts code and building requirements. And engineering did provide a memo on the TIA summary. And they did provide the conclusion that there's no adverse impact on the city's transportation system with what they're proposing. But I do want to note that that evaluation was based only on the proposed use of outdoor storage for heavy machinery, not all GB2 allowed uses. So that doesn't include warehousing, industrial uses, or anything like that. It's just for what they're proposing. currently doing now. Also, the intent of GB2 is for non-residential and light industrial uses that should not emit dust, odor, smoke, gas, or fumes past their property boundary. And even though this is for an expansion of an existing business, if the zone change is approved, all uses permitted within GB2 must be allowed, and all potential specific use permit requests are going to be considered in the future if this is permitted. So again, The uses permitted within GB2 are not consistent or appropriate with existing uses in the area or with the goals of the comp plan. We've received guidance from city council in the past that they really want to protect that GB along I-35 and I-10. That's kind of why we have kind of that giant paintbrush of GB along I-35. And you can see here outlined in yellow all the surrounding GB in the area. And then this purple is short station. So that's why it's purple, it's from the PDD zoning. But again, if you're permitting GB2 and all its permitted uses, we cannot restrict what's being allowed within or on this law essentially. So you're allowing automobile sales and service major without the storage. So we can technically almost have like a wrecking yard out there. You start permitting for automobile sales for people to start requesting specific use permits for that. Things like portable building cells requesting a specific use permit for the office warehouse distribution center. But again, this is not a cohesive list. And then the zone change does meet the UDC requirements. It was sent to fire, police, and EMS for review with no objections provided. And again, I do want to reiterate that although this proposed zone change is for an expansion of an existing business that was part of the unimproved surfaces project, that the zone change was part of that first process or one of their options to bring the site into compliance, staff is evaluating all the permitted uses within this zoning district and all potential specific use permits that can be requested. If the GB2 is approved because it's straight zoning, there's no way to restrict the permitted uses at the site or the SUPs that can be requested. We have to permit everything. And also, this expansion was done without the proper development permits. So they had the option to expand in the M15. M1 portion at the rear, and essentially that allows their use. And in previous city council meetings, staff has received the direction from city council to protect the existing GB along I-35 and I-10 to promote the commercial development compatible with the comprehensive land use plan. So with that, staff recommends denial of PLZC-2020-60143. And we do understand this is a request for proposed expansion, but the GB2 and its permitted uses are not compatible with the comp plan, future land use map, which does not support the general welfare of the community. And then the applicant is not here tonight. Unfortunately, they had some travel arrangements for work that couldn't be rearranged, but they will be at the September 15th city council meeting.

Thank you, Daisy. All right, well, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up. It is 640. Anybody? Everybody? Don't rush. Well, it's still 640, and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. On the applicant not being here, was that a staff gave them a date of this is your only option, or they picked the date and then said they couldn't be here?

No, we tell them a tentative date for PNZ and we give them, you know, the notice signs and whatnot. And then once they found out the date, you know, they were trying to get on PNZ and City Council as fast as possible. But then they realized they had travel arrangements for work prior. They were trying to rearrange them. They couldn't. So they promised they'll be at the September 15th City Council meeting.

Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Can you go back to this slide with the uses real quick? Yep, right here. So I know the SUP they got in 2008, they couldn't do the same thing now, just confirmation now? Yeah, okay.

Yeah, the SUP back then was because it was quite literally a new and unlisted use, so that's why it was an SUP back then.

Okay. I guess just a general comment then, I agree with staff's recommendation on this. And I'm not gonna hold it against them that they're not here, but, you know. Anyway, Mr. Awuah.

Well, number one, you know how I feel about the comp plan. So, is, would this use, what am I trying to ask here? Could this be an SUP and GB? I believe it is, correct?

No, so they're asking for GB2, but heavy equipment self-service and rental is permitted in the general business zoning district. But it's the outdoor storage portion that they want mainly for this lot to store all their John Deere tractor trailers and whatnot that they need for this site specifically. Okay. I know it's super confusing. It's one of our more confusing land uses.

So their SUP couldn't request the outdoor storage?

They do not need an SUP with the existing general business right now. They do not need an SUP. They could build their heavy equipment sales service and rental building on the site right now. Go through the plot and go through the development process. They cannot have the outdoor storage with GB. And that's where RDO is really hinging on. They've indicated they need to have that outdoor storage on that property, so they have to go general business too. So they could have the building, but they can't have the storage of all their equipment out there.

So there's no SUP for outdoor storage?

No. Not in general business. With that update that we just recently did, we made it clear that you could have outdoor display in general business, but no outdoor storage.

Well, I know in the past we've had lengthy discussions about what is outdoor storage versus outdoor display. And Daisy, I'm not sure, I got a little confused when you showed the existing facility and you were pointing out that the storage would remain behind the building. So what did that have to do with the issue in front of us here?

So I think Daisy mentioned it to kind of reiterate that there is this existing business. They got the SUP in 2008. But even in 2008, the city council required all of the outdoor storage to be behind the building, not visible from 35. So really just showing the site plan that that's what their existing site was supposed to look like. From that approved SUP in 2008, the storage was supposed to be in the rear. and how that relates to they have expanded without going through the development process onto their adjacent property. They have been using it for their equipment, testing their equipment, things like that on the site, and now they're trying to go through that compliance process, and the zoning would be that first piece.

Are there any options for them other than GB?

Not for the outdoor storage except going to GB2. If they want to do the outdoor storage on this front portion along 35, they have to go through the zone change. They could use their back portion of the property that's M1. They could use it for the outdoor storage. They'd go through the development process, but wouldn't have to get a zone change. But they want that storage on 35.

So they also own the M1 property?

Yes, they own the whole track that you see here outlined in blue.

It looks like they'd need some kind of, I'm sure they could access it, but that's probably, I guess that's a creek running behind there. So they probably need some kind of a bridge. Yeah, no, I agree. I don't think GB2 is appropriate. Um, and, um, but I wish we could come up with some, if there was some way, you know, RDO has been up there for many, many years. And as far as I know, they're, they're a good city partners, probably the wrong word, but, um, and then you look at that mess, uh, just to the right of them, you know, what that's the concrete plan, right. And, you know, I've noticed this before where we're playing catch-up, particularly up in the rural, what used to be the rural areas of the city, where you can look up there and say, well, why is he parking tractors any different than Vulcan or whatever they happen to be these days, the concrete guys, with all their concrete trucks? And, you know, it... comes back to, well, you know, they were grandfathered. Now, I would like to point something out to my fellow commissioners. We went through this right up on the, we'll call it north because everybody thinks 35 runs north here, but right almost on the city limits, there's an RV repair and service place, and then there's the, Right next to them, I think it's an auto repair. And we went through this whole outdoor storage with them. And they promised and they promised and they promised that, no, everything would be parked out back. Well, go up there and take a look. No, it's all parked out front. Okay. And that scissor lift is back, by the way, but without a banner on it. There's just a car on top of it. So... That's part of the problem, I guess. I used to run into this in code enforcement where you make exceptions and now it becomes an enforcement issue. I'm glad that RDO is doing so well. So if you were to, if they were to put another maintenance building in the front part of that GB, then would they be allowed or would they still need outdoor storage or would that be allowed for them to park stuff behind their maintenance building? No?

Yeah, like Emily was saying, they could build their maintenance building here and then we can work with them to figure out how they can have their outdoor storage that they want back here. for like the specific use that they want because they do let people test it out in the dirt out there.

And the last thing I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, is I'd like to thank staff for including that list of of GB2 because many times I've tried to remind, when I sat in your seat, I tried to remind the commissioners that it's not about the project, it's about the zoning, okay? That's why an SUP would be nice because you control that. It can only be for that use. And a little disappointed that that's, that we can't seem to get there from here. So thank you.

Anybody else?

Questions, comments?

Well, I will entertain a motion. Daisy, actually, I had one more question. So this was, did they submit this request or did, was this like an, did they submit the application?

Yeah, they submitted the application and we work with them. Okay.

All right, that's it.

I'll understand a motion. Was the application done after they got caught putting the stuff there or before?

Yes, sir. So they're part of the unimproved surface project we got from council. We went parcel by parcel looking at every property, looking at if they had a certificate of occupancy, looking at they have gone through the development process and unfortunately they have been using the site without going through the development process. So they did it after the fact.

Thank you. Any motions?

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we recommend disapproval of PLZC20260143 in accordance with staff's recommendation.

I second.

That was a motion to recommend denial. of PLZC20260143 by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Laredo-Reyes. If there's no other comments, please vote. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right. We are at the part of... Are there any requests? I don't know why I said that so weird. Any requests by commissioners to put anything on a future agenda? No? All right. Any announcements? Staff? Any nothing? All right. Well, there's packets of information in your...

I have a quick announcement.

Yeah, go for it.

I voted wrong on the last one, just so it's known. I meant to put yes.

I mean, we can... The motion is to... Okay. We're fine. Okay. There's information available in your packet and online about current status projects, and it is 6.51, and we are adjourned. Thank you, sir.