Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, it's six o'clock. Go ahead and call this meeting of these shirts planning and zoning commission to order. We do not have any alternates tonight. We'll move forward to the hearing of residents. Did anybody sign up to speak? No. All right, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Any comments on the minutes, commissioners? If not, can I have a motion? Make a motion to approve the uh August 6th minutes. Second. That was a motion by Commissioner McMaster, second by Commissioner Carbone. If no other comments, please record your vote.

That is five votes. Can you please publish that? Thank you. Moving forward to public hearing. Planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing related to zone change requests, specific use of permits and unified development code amendments within this agenda. The public hearing will be open to receive a report from staff. The applicants joining property owners affected by the applicant's request, any other interested persons. A public 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. Item A, PLC 20250170. hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request to public use district on a public on approximately 4.7 acres of land known as 8890 East FM 1518 North more specifically known as Bear County property identification numbers 3108 and 1061511 city shirts Bear County Texas.

Good afternoon commissioners. PLC 2025 0710 a zone change to PUB on approximately 4.7 acres Daisy Marquez planner here's a subject property outlined in yellow again it is approximately 4.7 acres it's located along FM1518 and here within this aerial you can see the closest intersection of 1518 and lower sigin these are the FM1518 aviation apartments and this is crossbine over here to the left um it is currently not within city limits. Um, but on August 19th, a resolution 25R12 was approved by city council to accept the petition to annex these properties into the city of Schz and the ordinance for annexation is tentatively scheduled for the October 2025 city council meeting. So again, the current property is currently not within city limits. It has a residence and it is undeveloped closer to FM1518. To the north is ETJ and then the PDD for the FM1518 apartments. Um this is just a pipeline easement and then the 1518 apartments. To the east we have agricultural district and predevelopment district. Again that's undeveloped and it has some residents in the back. And then to the south we have predevelopment district and it looks like a residence is there. And then to the west we have 1518 rightway and the crossbine PDD development. So we sent 15 public notices on August 21st and as of today we received one in favor and the applicant did post a sign on the property. So again when looking at zone changes staff evaluates the criteria listed in 2154D of our UDC. And again one whether the proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted comprehensive

land plan or any other applicable adopted plans. So the comp plan has this area designated as local corridor as you can see in this image here. It's meant for locally oriented commercial located on medium to high collector roads, retail, smallcale, mixeduse, multif family and residential compatible in scale and intensity with what is in the existing local neighborhood. So the proposed public use district is meant to provide services to the local community. So the proposed public use district uh does meet the intent of the local corridor language designation by providing services to the local community. Two, whether the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. So the comprehensive plan specifically stipulates that public uses are appropriate to be located within all land use categories. And as you can see here from this list, that is not exhausted of uses allowed within uh the public use district. It includes things like municipal uses, a post office, a school, public athletic stadium. Um, and the applicant to submit a TI determination form and um, our engineering department did review it and saw that peak vehicle trips on Sunday when normal traffic is light is normal for this type of development. and they came to the conclusion that no adverse impact on the transportation system by the proposed zone change would be happening. And then again the permitted uses within PUB and the site design requirements are there to promote health, safety and general welfare of the community. So protecting those surrounding uses. Three, whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with the existing uses in the media area. Again and again, we've we have heard that there aren't many um supporting uses in the southern area of shirts. So again, a public use district

uh limits the uses that are permitted to things that are more locally oriented to serve the community. Again, things like civic convention center, places of worship, municipal uses. Four, whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in consideration of the amendment. So staff has ensured the proposed zone change meets all the UDC requirements and fire EMS and police were notified of the zone change and do not provide specific objections to the zone change. So due to the proposed zone change to public use district being compatible with the comprehensive land use plan, future land use map and the existing uses in the media area, staff is recommending approval of PLC 2025170. And then the applicant is here just to support the zone change.

All right. Thank you, Daisy. Um, does the applicant want to say anything? Yeah. Do you want to come up and say anything or are you good? Okay. All right. Well, this is a public hearing. I'll go ahead and open up the floor. It is 606. If anyone wants to address the commission on this particular item. Yeah. Come on up. If you if you'll just state your name and your address for the record real quick. My address? Your name and your address? Yeah. Uh Adrian Alanise. I'm the one who owns the property right behind them at 80 East FM1518. Okay, go for it. How does that affect my yard?

So, we can't answer particular questions. Um, if you have questions, we can definitely have staff get with you on the impacts of it. Um, the zone change. I mean, correct. Well, is my property in that zone change? No, I don't just for that specific correct. It would just be the specific property that's in that was that applied. Okay. So, if you weren't part of the application, then no, you you wouldn't be a part of the zone change. Okay. Cuz I was just curious cuz I actually run parallel to 1518. Theirs is right in front of me. So, I was just wondering how if that actually affects my my land

in terms of land use, it wouldn't, but we can if if you have more specific questions for staff, we can definitely have them get with you on it. Yeah. All right. Anybody else? All right, it's 608. Commissioners, questions, comments? Mr. McMaster, how can we zone something that's not in our city yet?

So, the zone change application needs to run in concurrence with the ordinance for the annexation hearing, and the annexation hearing ordinance doesn't come to PNZ. So, the commission needs to make a recommendation so it runs concurrently with the annexation ordinance. I know it's a weird setup in the way it's scheduled, but that's how it needs to be scheduled so that it lines up with the annexation ordinance hearing. Okay, that answered my question, Mr. Alba.

No, I just I just wanted to make sure that uh Mr. McMaster got the explanation he needed. So, we're just again, this is just a recommendation tonight and then city council will do do their magic all at one time. So, I got one. Yes, sir. I got to clean ignorance here. I don't think I've ever seen the public use district used on the zoning in the three years that I've been here. So, maybe we have. I just haven't seen it. So, um is there an idea for the property? Um, yes. The applicant is proposing a place of worship for this property. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Is there a reason they're spec they're requesting this over anything else since a church would be allowed anywhere or just No. Okay. This is a property they own and they're requesting the application for these two parcels. That's cool. All right. Any other comments? No. Well, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion that we approve PLZC2025 0170. Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner McMaster, second by Commissioner Carbone to recommend approval of PLC 20250170. There's no other comments. If you please record your vote. Uh, John, my head. I did.

No, you're good. Uh, that that's five votes. Can we please publish that? That will move forward to city council with a recommendation for approval. All right, moving forward. PLCPA 20250165 consider and make a recommendation on a request to amend the comprehensive land use plan future land use map for comp from complete neighborhood and regional corridor to industrial hub on approximately 96 acres of land known as 10661 IH10 East more specifically known as Bear County property identification number 619206 city of shirts Bear County Texas. Okay. PLCPA 20250165 comprehensive land use plan future land use map amendment on 96 acres. Again, this is continued from the August 6 PNZ. I'm going to give an abbreviated presentation. Again, here's the subject property outlined in yellow. It's currently zoned GB and M1. And in the surrounding area, you can see some more GB along I35, I mean I 10 and then some M1. And then the PDD, the Grey Town PD residential development. The current land use designation is regional corridor and complete neighborhood. To the north, it is again some more complete neighborhood. And then to the east is regional corridor and complete neighborhood. And then to the south is IH10. into the West's regional corridor and complete neighborhood. Um the public notices were sent out on July 24th. Again, we haven't received any other um responses. An assign was placed by the applicant. So again, a public hearing was held on August 6. Um a motion for recommendation of denial was 33. A motion for

recommendation of approval was 33. And it was moved to tonight for continuence. And again UDC section 21460 is what we use for the criteria for approval for comprehensive land use plan amendments. Um again the comp plan is supposed to be a living document to remain relevant with the desires of the community. Um there is some existing industrial hub in the area. The proposed industrial hub is an extension of desire to create that employment center. Two is it's consistent with the goals objectives and other policies of the comp plan. It is it promotes employment opportunities in the area. It's near some pre-existing industrial hub and it takes advantage of location on I 10 and604 three again the comp plan is supposed to be a living document that allows for flexibility and it's within that focus area too that is meant to uh strategically plan to serve the adjacent residential areas and tap into business potential along the highway for again there's existing M1 zoning in this area that should have been taken into consideration with the comp plan amendment also with its prox proximity to 1604 and I 10 and the proposed industrial hub reflects that development character of this area. So it meets all the UDC requirements. It was sent to fire, EMS and police and they have not provided objections. And again staff recommends approval of PLCPA 2025165 due to the unique location of the property within proximity of6004 and the existing industrial zoning in the subject area. And then the applicant has a presentation as well.

All right. Thank you, Daisy.

Hi. Good evening, commissioners. Ashley Fairmont, uh 10101 Reunion Place. Uh I thought there may be different commissioners here tonight, so I did provide a presentation, but I won't go through the whole thing for you all again. Um, just to highlight a few things and maybe bring back up this site plan. Um, I know this is the comprehensive plan amendment portion of the request, but I did want to just bring up the map. I did look at the zoning and some of the history of the zoning in the area. I know there was concerns about the neighborhood or future neighborhood next door where that PDD is located. um looking at that property and and some of you may remember but it was reszoned and had the exact same zoning as this property with the M1 in the back in the GB portion in the front. So when that property was reszoned this M1 was there and it was actually changing from M1. Also the property to the west um has the M1 zoning too. I know there was some questions about the comprehensive plan and the designation of that piece, but that property is likely also to be somewhat industrial developed even though it was designated complete neighborhood. It seems like maybe when the comprehensive plan was done, the industrial hub should have extended over to these properties. Um, but I know that's a, you know, looking back and that's a difficult process. Um, so we we do think it's reasonable. I I appreciate what Daisy said about the document changing. I know there this may be the first amendment request that you've seen for the comprehensive plan and I think that's um I know that when I bring a request forward the goal is to try to be consistent with the plan. Um but this is a situation where we we actually think that reszoning the back and taking it down from the M1 to the PDD with GB2 restricted GB2 uses a better fit for the back portion of that property and that triggers the need for the plan amendment. So again, here's the site plan. Um on the page north of the plan, that's the dedication for the city's

major thoroughfare plan, the roadway. The blue area would be the drainage easement that is locked in as part of the PDD where it cannot be developed providing that buffer for the residential. Uh that is about 68 acres or so. So quite a bit of property. And then the developable portion is 28 acres and it would be the GB2 uses with the restrictions as well. And the goal uh would be to do the A1 and A2 buildings you see first which are a bit more retail service um focused on those pieces and then the larger buildings for the warehousing and distribution would be a second phase more zoomed in here. Um just running through it again but happy to answer any questions. I hope you will all will consider the the plan amendment so we can get to the zoning tonight. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ashley. This is not a public hearing, so we will um go ahead and move into commissioner questions, comments. Mr. Outlaw.

Well, thank you. I might as well jump in here right off the bat. Um I haven't changed my mind. Um we spent a lot of money on this comprehensive plan. Uh, and it seems like every time a developer comes around and says, "Well, you know, that doesn't really fit what I want to do," uh, we jump out here and we make an amendment. Um, the other problem I have with this is consistency. Uh, 3 4 months ago on the other end of I 10 down near Trainer Hill Road, we had a small parcel come in that uh, they asked to reszone it so they could so they could do um, something similar to this but on a smaller scale. this commission recommended disapproval and city council denied it. Um so you know in my mind I don't see anything special about this request why we should why why we should approve this one while at the same time the other one was denied. Um, oh, and the other thing, um, you probably shouldn't have shown me those pictures because there's one of them that I see 18-wheelers backed up to the front of these buildings facing I 10 and that's not supposed to be allowed. Correct? No, you know, that's a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it. Okay. So, um, anyway, I I I I just don't understand why we spent all the time and money to come up with a comprehensive plan and then at the drop of the hat, we'll we'll recommend a um a change to it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Commissioner Hughes.

Also, looking at this plan, there is a sliver of land to the to the west of it that is basically going to turn into be an unusable area that we can't have. We already have an industrial hub out there. So, we're having a disjointed industrial that's going to lose our potential for more retail on the on I10. We're already surrounded on 35 by industrial. It would be a smart move to at least have us have have an some sort of business merantile on the highway that's more present unlike what we have at I 10 right now on on 35. So, I get where you're trying to go with this, but I don't see the need or the value of it. Is there anybody else? Well, I'm going to add a couple things right at the end. Um, the the value we get out of the easement that's being granted and the rightway dedication and I I mean multi really outweighs the cuz if you built this out as a full retail all the way to the buffer of the neighborhood. I mean, the the buffer you're getting here with this um development really is I don't want to say unheard of, but I mean, it's really generous to residents that are going to be butdding up to this. You know, staff's comment that it's along I 10 near6004. I it it is a major intersection. I I see the benefits of this. Daisy, correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone wanted to develop this, they would realistically have to do a plan amendment anyway because it's split between two categories.

Um, no, they wouldn't. They would have the right to development per the zoning that's there by right right now. So, if they wanted to just do M1 and GB, then they'd be able to do it by right. I know, but like on the full site, so like cuz it's right now has two land use categories. Correct. Mhm. So if someone wanted to do a development like the not necessarily like this but between two different land use categories, if they wanted to make it the same thing, they'd still have to do a plan amendment. So correct me if I'm going the right direction, but if they were trying to come in with the zone change without a comp plan amendment, it would not be supported by the comp plan as it currently stands. Correct. So they would need to do a plan amendment.

So they have to do the plan amendment to develop it. Correct. So, I mean, I understand Commissioner Allah's point as well that we did it, but we have a plan amendment process for a reason. It they would realistically someone if they wanted to develop the full site would probably have to do a plan amendment regardless because it's two I mean there's two land use categories. It's regional corridor and what was the other one? Uh neighborhood, complete neighborhood. Complete neighborhood. Yeah. So, if you wanted to do something that was allowed in one and not in the other, you would still have to do a plan amendment, right? Um, if they wanted to just do the zoning that's there by right, they do not need to do a plan amendment. Okay. But potentially, someone would still have to do a plan amendment. Yes. If they wanted to do all of it.

Okay. GB2 or M1.

Okay. Well, I I just want to explain real quickly in my the difference is this particular use is not in compliance with the land use plan. if somebody came in and wanted to build a shopping center, um, you know, again, depending I I don't know all the nuances, but that's a use that would be compliant with the land use plan. So, it's not that any development out there would require uh an amendment. It it's whether or not what they want to do um is is com um compatible with the land plan. That's that's where I'm coming from. And so to me, you know, it's it's it's it's not the same thing. It just depends on what somebody wanted to do out there whether or not they need to to amend the plan. Okay.

Ashley, did you have something?

So, just just to address um so this zoning has been in place for a long time and then the plan came after. So, like I mentioned last meeting, my my client has owned this property for 20 plus years. and always intended to do some sort of industrial zoning um or development and that's that's what the back portion is zoned. So as Daisy was saying we could come in now or they could come in now and develop the back portion as industrial. So, we thought it was reasonable to try to reszone and downzone that piece. And with the PDD, um, we can lock in the drainage area and restrict the uses and provide something that is more of a transition from that PDD to the core five. Um, and so that was the goal. Um, we could leave the back portion in one and and just leave it as zoned and and not have to change the plan on that back piece. Um and then the front portion, the regional corridor, we are asking for GB2 uses. Some of the uses are are GB just regular GB uses. Um with the plan being, you know, again, more service and some retail in those front buildings. Um so we don't want them in the plan, but we think the zoning is a better result for the adjacent neighbor is a better result than downzoning the M1. Um, and unfortunately that takes a plan amendment. So

I got something. Yeah, Commissioner Kabal, could you go back two slides? Thank you.

I don't have a question. I just have a statement. So I'm listening to everybody up here and I don't disagree with most of what you guys are saying, but I have to put myself in the in the seat of of a resident that's going to live in this neighborhood in the back. And if I'm living in this neighborhood and I know that there's what 68 acres you said that no one's going to touch, that's basically like a mini green belt. Um, and it turns into like a a noise buffer between I 10 and that neighborhood. Yes, there will be some noise from that uh GB portion, but I think when you buy into a neighborhood like this, you never get the solitude that you would if you bought property in some rural area. But this is pretty close. Um at the same time, it's a flood area. And so knowing that that's a flood area and they're not putting concrete on top of it, it's going to be able to absorb when it rains like it does around here. um like it's supposed to and that neighborhood may not suffer some flooding because they left it undisturbed. So, I kind of appreciate them actually just leaving it alone and allowing us future easement for a road that is eventually going to connect that neighborhood to something else. Um you never get everything you want and I I understand that we spend a lot of money on a plan, but you know, like Mike Tyson said, everyone has got a plan until you get punched in the face, right? And so right now I think we're not getting punched in the face. We're allow we're we know the punch is coming and we're allowing to get out of the way and she's allowing us to get it out of the way by by giving us that 68 acres to basically say peace and quiet back here. I appreciate what the developer is doing in this instance and you have my yes vote.

Anybody else? Commissioner Hughes. So with this 68 acres that can never be developed. It's 100% guaranteed. it will never be touched. So with the PDD that we'll address with the next um item, essentially the PDD is set up so whatever within is within that 68 almost 69 acres is not allowed to be developed and we can only do that with the PDD. We can't do that with straight zoning. So we cannot come back ever and make a change and make a variance on it say in three years when we want to develop this again. So they would have to come back through the PDD process and ask for that. And I don't know how staff would support something if that's one of the main reasons why we're supporting the PDD.

So it can be changed. So the buffer that's there, there's a potentiality that if this grows, oh, we'll take the next step because we're generating business and now we have light industrial next to a um residential area. That's a potential possibility. if they want to go through the PDD process again and go through the hearing process again then and city council allows it then it could be allowed potentially. Okay. So there so the 68 acres may or may not occur. That's it. Thank you.

I I think that the catch 22 with that is they'd have to come through us and then it'd have to come to city council. And I I doubt everyone on staff and everyone on this panel and everyone at city council is going to forget that they basically gave that 68 acres up. And staff is going to do a really good job of annotating that in their briefing. And so I find it hard to believe that they're going to get a yes vote from us and the city council if they try to do that. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Anybody else? All right. Uh just a quick reminder that we need four affirmative votes either way uh for this for a resolution to pass. So I will um open the floor to any motions. I guess since I said I give him a yes, I'll say it. Um, I make a recommendation uh for a yes for PL CPA 20250165 for approval. Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Carbone, second by Commissioner McMaster to recommend approval of PLCPA 20250165. There's no other comments. Please record your vote. Can we publish that please? That motion will move forward with a recommendation for approval. And we will move on now to PLPDD 20250164. consider and make a recommendation on a zone change request from general business district and manufacturing light district M1 to plan development district on approximately 96 acres of land known as 10661 IH10 east more specifically known as Bear County property identification number 619206 city Bear County Texas Daisy

BLPDD 20250164 a proposed 96 acre reszone to plan development district again this one is also continued from the August 6 PNZ Daisy Marquez, planner. Here's the subject property outlined in yellow. Again, it's approximately 96 acres in total. We sent out public notices on July 24th, and we have not received any responses. An assign was placed by the applicant. And again, this item was also moved to the September 3rd PNZ for continuance to accompany that comp plan amendment. So, here are the existing dimensional requirements for non-residential zoning districts for GB and M1. And then for the proposed base zoning of GB2 for the proposed PDD and again just going over that proposed PDD again quickly. Um they're proposing light industrial development on 96 acres with the base GB2 zoning district. So all the prohibited uses within this PDDA include everything that requires an SUP and GB2 zoning and in addition to that truck sales heavy equipment and trailer manufactured home cells. Um, some examples of permitted uses within this GB2based PDD is automobile parking structures, office warehouse distribution, packing, mailing, truck terminal, general manufacturing, industrial use, and again this is not an exhaustive list of those permitted uses. Um, and please reference our permitted use table in our UDC for that. So, the PDD is uh proposing to give us some enhanced landscaping. Our UDC only requires 2 in diameter breast height for trees at planting, but they are um proposing uh 3 in at diameter breast height. So that's a whole um one whole inch in upsize that they would be providing. And then our current UDC only requires industrial zoning to provide six trees per acre. Uh but the applicant is proposing nine trees per acre and they are proposing to follow commercial

planting requirements. So again, we are getting more landscaping there. And then um the 100-year flood plane does encumber a lot of this property and they are proposing to preserve that. And they are still proposing to comply with the 8ft masonry wall with one shade tree every 30 linear feet adjacent to residential uses and zoning. So those 68 almost 69 acres that are completely within the flood plane are to remain undeveloped. Um, so this would provide a significantly and much larger buffer to residential areas than would be required with straight zoning. And again, just kind of showing you on the conceptual preliminary plot what that 900 law or what this uh 68 acres that cannot be developed except for infrastructure um would be coming in the PDD. So this is going to be locked in as they cannot develop anything on it. So um think no flat work, no buildings going vertical. So again UDC section 21510F is the criteria for approval for PDDDs. Um it was an it was accompanied by a comprehensive land use plan future land use map amendment. So again, the existing complete neighborhood and regional corridor is not compatible with the PDD, but the proposed industrial hub uh comp plan future land use map amendment um does support the proposed PDD. And then two, again um with street zoning, we are not able to preserve the 100year flood plane on these almost 68 to 70 acres. And again the PDD restricts that. This would not be possible without a PDD. It creates that natural buff to the residential zoning and uses. And the existing M1 would um allow for

commercial and heavy uses adjacent to residential and it would only require a 50-foot building setback adjacent to residential and GB would only require 25 foot building setback adjacent to residential. Again, the proposed PDD provides a significant barrier larger than conventional zoning um is able to provide. It also provides a restriction of uses, a restriction of development and flood pain and prohibited uses. Um so this property does have access to IH10. It's insured in SSLgC dual CCN for water. It is served by CPS for electric. And then this PDD would propose a superior development. Then could be done through conventional zoning. Again, it is a down zone of the M1 with a GB2 base zoning with a restriction of additional permitted uses. We get additional residential buffering that would not be allowed with conventional zoning, restriction of development in the flood plane that would not be allowed with conventional zoning and additional landscaping requirements. So ensures appropriate uses buffering adjacent to residential and provides increased landscaping. So um whether back back taxes are owed does not impact the planning and zoning commission recommendation to city council and staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met and the zoning application was sent to fire EMS and police. EMS did indicate that there were existing response time delays down 1518 into Bear County and PD expressed that individually the zone change does not have impact but as a whole as things keep developing it might have an impact on PD's response times. So due to the proposed amended future land use map designation to industrial hub the increased screening to residential uses and restriction of uses allowed in the proposed PDD and the increase of landscaping requirements. Staff recommends approval of PLPDD 20250164. And again, this is continued from August

6. Thank you, Daisy. Ashley, did you have any other No,

I won't talk too much. Ashley Fairmont. Um, yeah. No, thank you. You've seen the plan. Appreciate your consideration. U, Commissioner Hughes, I understand the concerns about could it be changed in the future, and that is not the intent, but you know, things happen. So I understand that. Um but any zoning can be changed or requested to be changed at any point. So someone could ask for industrial zoning on the other side of of that neighborhood. Um so that that's not the plan, but understand the concern. But with this PDD, we can provide the protection and it comes back and also the the trees um and wall. Let me see if I can that's an additional buffer that's being provided to that neighborhood. So the the road will run um along the backside of those homes and then in between the road and this property will be an 8ft wall and additional trees planted there too. So happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, this is not a item of public comment. So I'll open it up to the commissioners. Any comments? Any questions? Commissioner Cabbone. Sorry. Commissioner Outlaw. I just had uh and you mentioned it. Um where exactly would that wall be? I'm this curiosity question more than anything else. Oh, well it it has to be adjacent to all residential uses and zoning. So all along where uh it's adjacent to the Grey Town residential PDD

even even though I don't know what is that flood plane buffer couple thousand feet couple thousand feet you still have to build a wall. Okay. They can't just build it around their their developed area. They've got to go all the way to the adjacent to the residential. Okay. Um, and I apologize to to Mr. Hughes. You you know, I'm sure you noticed I changed my mind. Um, just I was kind of on the fence and um, Chairman Wallace has pointed out a couple of times the benefits from doing this. Um, you know, the preservation of the flood plane and and and some other things. Um, and again, uh, I think if, um, well, real quick, I think the property, well, we don't know. I mean, there's still frontage there that somebody could could squeeze a retail in there or something, but, um, more likely I would, you know, maybe we just we end up somebody puts another industrial and we bridge that whole area. But um I I think the PDD makes sense. If in fact we're we assume that council's going to approve the amendment to the land use plan, then I I I think the PD uh makes a lot of sense. Have something.

All right. Well, if there's no other comments, I will entertain a motion. Make a motion to recommend approval of PLP DDD 2025 0164.

Second. That is a motion to recommend approval by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Cabbone of PLPDD 2025 0164. There's no other comments. Please record your vote. That is five votes. Can we please that'll move forward with a recommendation for approval. All right. Item 7A. Any requests by commissioners to place items on a future agenda? Any announcements? City staff announcements? Oh,

hops up real quick. So, I have a bittersweet announcement. This will be my last planning and zoning commission meeting with everyone here. Uh, I took a position at a private firm in San Antonio. My last day in the city of Shorts will be at the 12th. So, I will be moving on. It's been wonderful working with everybody in staff included. And uh so, yeah, I'll be here for another week. If you want to drop by, say hello. Congratulations. Thank you. Well, thank you, Sam. Congrats. Which which firm is it? Do you want to Yes. name drop? It's called Able City. Oh, okay. Yeah. Very cool.

Yeah. All right. Well, congrats. Good luck. Uh item eight, updated information can be found in your packets. It is 6:40. We will call this adjourned.