Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody. It is 6 PM. We'll go ahead and call this meeting of the shirts planning and zing planning and zoning commission to order. Item number one, we call this to order. Tonight we are seating an alternative. We have Miss Judy Goldick joining us down here. Real quick before we get started with our agenda, I do want to make the announcement that um items 5A and 5B um have been withdrawn. We are going to hear the items, but no action will be taken. Uh this is the North Cliff cases, so if that's what you're here for, you're welcome to stay and speak. Um but no action will be taken tonight. Any further action will need to be renoticed and reapplied and will reappear at a later date if it happens. So we will move on to the hearing of residents. So anyone signed in? Perfect.

All right. Christopher Duffett. Hi. If you could please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

Sure. Christopher Duffet. 3,400 Woodland Farms. Good evening. My name is Chris Devet and uh I'm a board member of the Kensington Ranch Homeowners Association. We represent 916 homeowners in the cities of Schz and Selma. It was recently brought to our attention through public notice that a plot near our neighborhood is under consideration for reszoning from GB2 to R2. This zone change case ends 0062. Agenda item 5C for tonight. This property is currently landlocked and reszoned to be plotted to R2 and will connect three plots into a potential larger R2 community. Development of these three plots into a single community would have a significant negative impact on traffic utilities and infrastructure in our area. Unfortunately, it is our association's experience with other development planning efforts that minimal impact studies are completed prior to these plots being approved and developed. Our residents have valid infrastructure concerns as we see these areas reszoned for development. In the past, this lack of pre-oordination was recognized here at the PNZ and eventually led to the last two reszones in this general area being voted down at council. One of the pre-cor coordinated items lies with JBSA Randolph providing recommendation a positive recommendation for the impact of APZ2. The area of proposed reszone not only would have significant negative impacts on infrastructure but was specifically highlighted as an area of highest concern in the 2017 JBSA AUS study. Additionally, shirts UDC states in section 21, unless JBSA Randolph affirmatively recommends to the city

that the proposed development or zoning changes in the AUS be permitted, the development or zoning change will not be approved by the city. The applicant requested a response from JBSA Randolph twice and both requests in April and May of 2025 did not receive an affirmative recommendation as required by UDC. Additionally, our own shirts fire department has weighed in and has concerns with potential res residential development in this area. The language could not be clearer. JBSA and our own fire department does not support the development in APZ2. We understand change in development in our community will happen. However, this and any other future development cannot occur in a vacuum independent of inner city coordination, community partner or citizen desires and inputs. On behalf of the members of Kensington Ranch, we request that both the PNZ commission and the shirt city council not recommend disapprove the request for reszone of 0062 agenda item 5C. Thank you. Thank you sir. That was everyone signed up to speak for hearing of residents. Uh there will be another opportunity to speak on the individual items when they come up. So we will go ahead and move on to the consent agenda. Were there any questions, comments about the minutes? Hearing none, I'll take a motion.

I make a motion to approve it. Second.

That was a motion by Commissioner Carbone, second by Commissioner Hector. There's no other comments. Please vote. I have seven votes. Can we post that, please? That motion carries. All right. Item 5A. Hold a public I'm sorry. PLZ ZC2050166. hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request from pre-development district, general business district, and single family residential district to medium, I'm sorry, middle density residential district on approximately 81 acres of land lo generally located uh 1900 ft south of the intersection of I35 Country Club Boulevard, also known as Guadalupe County. Property identification numbers 63833 63836 63838 34548-3457734755 city assured Guadalupe County, Texas and Komal County property identification numbers 377261 and a portion of Kale County property identification number 75381 city shirts, Komal County, Texas.

Good evening commission. This is for PLC20250166 and as chairman uh Wallace mentioned this has been withdrawn by the applicant. I will give a very short presentation just for some context and some information and then we do have to have the public hearing but then no action. Emily Delgado planning manager. So to get your bearings the pro the subject property is outlined here in green here is I35 and country club. It does go on both sides of country club. So there's the 24 acre tract here and then some additional parcels located on this side of country club. This is the current and proposed zoning map. So you can see the request was for approximately 81 acres from pre-development general business and single family residential R six to middle density residential R5. So what exactly is that? R5 is intended to provide developments that offer a variety of housing types. Um it's a transition between single family residential and commercial and or denser multif family and it can be comprised of both attached or detached residential dwellings and it was intended for smaller infill track developments to offer that variety of housing types and shirts. So how that would apply here on this proposed 81 acres the UDC states that over one acre tracks are allowed to have 12 dwelling units per acre. So on the approximately 81 acres, this site could construct a maximum of 972 dwelling units. 292 public notices were mailed on August 16th. As of about 5:00 p.m. today, we've had one in favor, 88 in opposition. Additionally, a public hearing notice was published in the San Antonio Express News on September 24th for this case to be heard at the October 14th city council meeting. Additionally, the applicant placed notification signs on the property.

So, as I mentioned, kind of a status update, next steps. So, on Friday, September 26th, the applicant formally withdrew PLC 20250166. So, no action will be taken by the planning and zoning commission on this item or the city council on the associated ordinance 25S044. However, the public hearing tonight and the public hearing on October 14th will occur. After the public hearing on the item, planning and zoning commission will take no action and we'll move on to the next zone change. But then I do want to take this time to kind of give some information to the residents. Um, since these were withdrawn, if the applicant chooses to move forward and submits a new zone change application, it'll be just that. It'll have new case numbers, new public hearing notice mailers will be sent. Um, signs will be replaced on the property. It'll be republished in the newspaper. So, if a resident has submitted a public hearing response on PLC 2025166, that will not transfer to any new case. You will need to submit a new public hearing response for any future case that's submitted. We just wanted to give some additional information for the residents that may be listening. That's it.

All right. Thank you, Emily. This is a public hearing. Uh, so we'll go ahead and open it up to anyone who wishes to address the commission. You'll have three minutes. Yeah. Coming up. You just state your name and address for the record, please. Yes.

My name is DJ Thompson and I live in Northcliffe. Hello neighbors. Hello council. Sony. I have a letter I'd like to read and then I'd like to submit that. I'll give that to here or here. You can direct me. Thank you very much. We the concerned citizens of shirts stand together in petitioning our officials respectfully appeal to zoning and planning to halt all and any resoning changes voting regarding the foreign developer habi until after a third party is mandated to survey how the influx of highdensity housing tied to overcrowding can alter the social fabric of our communities. in parenthesis, thus our city with an already crumbling infrastructure. The following are just a few of the many things that need to be addressed in implementing implementing this mandate and what is already known that the city needs to repair correct before any developer should be considered to bring a high density population into our communities. I'm going to state just a few. Failing city water pipes creating defaulting pressure. Many don't have water pressure. It's very minimal. Disintegrating roads needed replacement years ago. Defective storm drainage. Many homes flooded this summer of 2025. Disruption to local ecosystems. strain on wastewater, utilities, low police presence, stressing existing public services, and so much more that I don't have enough time in my three minutes, and I'm taking the three minutes from my husband also to list them all. Sincerely, thank you as we work together

to maintain our community's infrastructures, creating a range of positive outcomes. And I just want to thank each of you all for all that you do every month coming and sitting here. I'm sure um you get beat up a lot of times, but I'm coming to bring some love to you today and just say thank you for all that you do. And I really appreciate if you would take this into consideration. There are five more of these going all around the city of Shirts who are standing with us. And in 20 2009, we won for the best place to live in Texas. And we'll never win that again because we didn't have the support of city council to keep the golf course open. And so now we're in the position that we are now. And the young lady, um, I'm sorry, I don't know your name. I Thank you. So, how can I forget, right? I just saw you earlier today. I'm so sorry. Yes, but we would like for you all to only consider R six and we're going to be more proactive instead of reactive to what's going on in our community. And so, right now, we're in the middle of drawing up a plan that we'd like to later submit to you all. We I talked to the mayor. I talked to uh some on city council and they said, you know, RS6 is coming. We said you will not get any push back for R six. We welcome Would you all remember that please? We welcome R six. We want R six. Please give us R six. Can you do that, Mr. Outlaw? Thank you. Thank you. And I'll invite you over for a homemade meal once we get RSX in our community.

It's no bribe or anything like that. It's just neighbors. You all are my neighbors first who just happen to sit on the zoning commission board. And I thank you so much for being neighbors. I want to love you well and I appreciate each one of you. Thank you, Mr. Wallace, for this time. And I'm going to pass this over there. And again, we welcome R six. You'll get no push back. You won't get 500 people coming here to keep you all night to hear their complaints. We will let you go home early. You will get no push back. R six. That's all we're requesting. Thank you so much for this time. Thank you. Real quick before you walk away, what was your husband's name for the time?

Yeah, just real quick so we have it on the broadcast. Can I give your name? His name is John Thompson. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right. Anyone else on this item? Going once, going twice. It is 6:14. We'll go and close the public hearing on this item. Just no action. Move on. No action. Roll right into the next.

Okay. So, we'll go ahead and move to 5B. Uh PLZC2050167 hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request from pre-development district and general business district to apartment multif family residential district on approximately 24 acres of land known as Guadalupe County property identification number 638-35-72500 and 72501 city shirts Guadalupe County, Texas and Komal County property identification number 81292121896 and a portion of Kell County property Identification number 75381, city shirts, Komal County, Texas.

Good evening again. PLC20250167. Again, this one was also withdrawn by the applicant, but I'm going to go through a quick um presentation on this one as well. So, here is the subject property outlined in green. You can see the I35 access road, Colombia, and it is this tract here, approximately 24 acres. The proposal was to reszone the general business and pre-development district to apartment multifamily district R4, which you can see here on the proposed zoning exhibit. So R4 is intended to provide denser apartment and multif family style developments. Um, it's supposed to be a suitable transition between single family and commercial uses. However, R4 shall not be located in areas where they would increase traffic with access through single family neighborhoods and shall be located adjacent to arterial streets. So, very similar to the previous case with R5, R4 has a maximum density that's allowable per the UDC as well. For R4, it's 35 dwelling units per acre. So, the approximately 24 acre tract could construct a maximum of 840 units. And then, uh R4 also requires that 20% of the total platted area is common usable open space. 75 public hearing notices were sent on August 16th. As of 5:00 PM today, we have 14 in opposition, zero in favor, and zero neutral. This item was also uh published in the San Antonio Express News on September 24th for the case to be heard at the October 14th city council meeting. So, very similar to the previous case, the applicant withdrew on Friday, September 26th, but we do need to have the public hearing tonight. We'll also still have the public hearing for ordinance 25S043 at the October 14th city council meeting. Um and then kind of the same spiel again. If they choose to move forward with reszoning a resone request for this property as well, we'll go back through the whole process. New notices will be sent and all of that.

Oh, okay. All right. Um well, again, this is a public hearing. Uh so we'll go ahead and open up the comment. It is 6:17. Anyone for this item? No. All right. It is still 617 and we will close the public comment. And having taken no action, we'll move on to item 5C. ELZC 20250062. to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 32 acres of land from general district general business district 2 to single family residential district known as uh Guadalupe County property identification number 64558 city shirts Texas Daisy

good evening commission PLC 2025162 a proposed zone change to R2 for 32 acres within the APZ2 Daisy Marquez senior planner here's the subject property outlined in yellow. It is currently zoned GB2 and it is currently undeveloped. To the north of the subject property, it is outside of city limits. It is actually Universal City and it has some agriculture and homes up here. And then farther up north, we have the Kensington Ranch portion that's within the city of Selma. To the east, we have single family residential district R2. It's been zoned that way for a very long time and it is undeveloped. To the south, we have this large track that's zone GB. that is the city of Shirts owned soccer fields. And then this GB2 portion to the south is a privatelyowned soccer fields. And then here um to the west of the property we have UC ETJ. So Universal City ETJ. So 10 public notices were sent on June 18th and as of today we have received three in favor, zero neutral and three in opposition. And a public hearing notice will be posted in the paper prior to the city council hearing. two signs were posted by the applicant and a notice was sent to SCUISD. So, kind of just giving you a background on um what's being proposed today. The subject property is 32 acres. It is within the APZ2. These blue dotted lines represent the APZ and you can see that all the 32 acres are within that APZ2. And all zone changes within the APZ2 um are required to receive a affirmative recommendation from JBSA like our UDC says and we'll get more into that in a bit. So um the current dimensional requirements for GB2 are listed here. Here you can see the width and depth is 100 by 100 and the width and depth for R2 single family is 70x 120 8,400 square

ft minimums. So kind of just giving you a background um on this whole situation and what's going on. So, per the letter of intent, this 32 acres that we're um discussing tonight is part of a larger multiple jurisdiction development. That larger development is outlined in black and as you can see, it crosses multiple jurisdiction lines, but what we are discussing today are only the 32 acres that are within the city of Shirts. So just as a reminder, the city of Shirts only has jurisdiction for properties within city limits and our UDC includes adopted rules and regulations for properties in the AUS. Other jurisdictions may not utilize the same rules and regulations within the AUS in the same fashion that the city of Shortz does. So in UDC section 2159 special districts, this is where our special regulations for AAS properties is. And as you can see in section two, unless Randolph Randolph Air Force Base affirmatively recommends to the city that the proposed development or zoning change in the AUAS be permitted, the development or zoning change will not be approved by the city. And here are the two letters um that the applicant received after after sending two zoning requests to JBSA. This is the April letter and you can see here um that JBSA says JBSA recommends addressing the following comments and in the May letter they received the same sort of response to their resubmitt that JBSA recommends addressing the following comments. Um we provide an example below of um an affirmative recommendation letter not received by this application by a different application in the AUS where JBSA um states JBSA affirmatively recommends the proposed zoning change is permitted. And as you can see from this

example from other um applications that the applicant did not receive that affirmative recommendation. So again, when looking at zone changes, staff looks towards the criteria listed in section 2154D. One, whether the proposed zoning change implements the policies of the adopted comprehensive land use plan and the any other applicable adopted plans. So this area is designated as complete neighborhood, which is for a mix of housing and supporting land uses. But even the comprehensive plan says we need to consider conflicts among land uses and roadway classification. And all these 32 acres are within the APZ2 and the proposed R2 zoning would allow about 5.2 dwelling units per acre. And just as a reminder, we cannot restrict density um within a property that has straight zoning. So considering the proposed residential density of R2 in the APC that encumbers the property, the proposed residential density is not appropriate at the specified location and creates conflicts among land use which does not implement the comprehensive land use plan. Two, whether the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. So this proposed zone change does not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the city because the applicant did not receive the required affirmative recommendation from JBSA as our UDC section 2159 982 requires. So it does not meet the UDC requirements. And again, the application was forwarded twice to JBSA for their review and the two letters were received in April May and affirmative recommendation was not received with either letter. And again, here's our example where JBSA um provides an affirmative recommendation to another application. Um but our applicant here tonight did not receive that. Two, whether the proposed zone change promotes a Oh, I'm sorry, I'm going backwards. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent

and appropriate with existing uses in the media area. So, uh the R2 zoning district does allow for things like school parks and single family. However, it is within the AUS um the APZ2 and although single family residential is not incompatible within the AUS, the density proposed with this R2 zoning is not compatible and um the applicant did provide a TIA determination form as is required now for our zone changes and um our engineering department was able to review it and they stated that the proposed zone change from GB2 to R2 would not have an adverse impact to the current transportation system created by the proposed development traffic. And then four, whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. So again, this proposed zone change does not meet our UDC requirements as listed in section 21592 as no affirmative recommendation from JBSA was received and police, fire, and EMS departments were notified. Police and fire did not have specific Sorry, that's supposed to say EMS. Police and EMS did not have specific concerns over the zone change request, but the fire department does have concerns with the potential residential development within the JBSA flight path and those additional potential of accidents in the APZ. So UDC section 25 2159 A2 stipulates that unless Randolph Air Force Base affirmatively recommends to the city that the proposed development or zone change in the AKUS be permitted, the development or zoning change will not be approved by the city. So staff is recommending denial of PLZC20250062 for not meeting the unified development code requirements as the applicant has failed to obtain an affirmative recommendation from JBSA as per UDC and the applicant is here with the presentation.

Thank you Daisy. Good afternoon, commissioners. Patrick Christensen, 315 East Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas. Here on behalf of the Beager family that are here today for this reasonzoning. Um, before I begin, let me just state, you know, when I talk about staff. I'm not necessarily talking about Daisy. I'm talking about other city staff. Just so you understand, we filed this case on March 10th of this year, and we're just now getting to the Planning and Zoning Commission. certain staff have done everything they can to make sure this case was never brought to the light of day. Um, and you will understand that when I start going through our our process. We've had several iterations of this. As staff said, it's part of a larger development. We're proposing 64 lots on 32 acres, two lots per acre. Um, as you can see from this proposed site plan, what we're doing here, we're shifting the homes as far away from the actual flight line as we can. We feel this is better than having homes on halfacre lots in the direct line of flight. So that's why we're trying to do this. And let me make sure I can figure out this computer here. Daisy, what do I do? Mouse.

Yeah. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Okay. Um, then this is the larger development. It's I'm here on behalf of Maritage Homes. They as you you may remember we did phase one up there on the top right oh probably almost almost probably at about a year ago now or at least maybe nine months ago. The property just to the south what's called phase three is already zoned R2 and and we have the other part on the bottom left that's in the city of Universal City. Um what we're asking for here today is the 32 acres that's highlighted in blue. The yellow hash marks that is the APZ zone. Uh the middle of the APZ zone is the actual flight path. As you can see, like I just said, we're trying to push the houses as far out of the actual flight path as we can. Um and if you look to the north of us, Universal City clearly has different standards on on the APZ. It is packed full of houses and they have no issue with the proposed houses on the on the bottom left there. Um the JBSA letters staff's being a little selective in what they're showing you. Here is what the most recent letter stated. And just you understand the first letter, yeah, we came in with R2 116 lots, 5 point something lots per acre. When we got the first letter, we said, "Okay, we need to back off. We need to have a lower density. Let's get down to that two lots per acre that JBSA is saying they want." So what they came back with was this. JBSA recommends application of the above two dwelling units per acre single family land use maximum density as applied to the subject 32 acre parcel. That's exactly what we're doing here. You know, because they didn't use the word affirmatively and I can't speak for them of why they didn't use that. You know, it may be because, you know, that staff said, could we build more houses than just the what we're the the 64 we're talking about? We could. So, we asked staff, "If that's your concern, let us do a plan development district, a PDD zoning where we can lock in a site

plan and lock in the number of homes." Well, we got a No, no, no. We can't do that. Council doesn't like PDDs anymore. We don't want to do that anymore. But that would have addressed their immediate concern, but they won't let us do it. I also asked, well, what if we did some deed restrictions? You know, we in San Antonio, we do deed restrictions all the time when we have something commercial uses and there are certain uses they don't want to have, like tattoo parlors and things like that. We said we'll happily do, you know, deep restrictions maybe with Kensington Ranch or something stating that on this 32 acres we can only do 64 lots, but didn't really get anywhere with that. And we're still happy to do that if somebody wants to step forward and be a a beneficiary of those deed restrictions. And I have to ask, I mean, it seems strange that the way staff is interpreting your development code that federal bureaucrats, JBSA, have the power to tell the city of Shirts what to do on their zone. Now, I get when you say we need to get a recommendation from JBSA, city of San Antonio, city of Bvard, all the other cities do that. Everybody wants to know what JBSA wants to do because everybody wants to keep the military happy. We're military city county USA here and I know Randolph is important to the city of shirts just like all the other cities we're in here. But to state that unless I give you an affirmation the city has no power to approve a zoning that's just not right. The city has approved their zone. Federal the federal government JBSA they don't control what shirts does. That's that's not that's really not possible. But that's the way staff are interpreting it to try to make sure we can't get approved. Um lastly, you know, the the general business district that we we are zoned, you know, it's shopping centers, it's restaurants. This property is completely landlocked. It's not on a major thoroughare. Um it basically makes the property almost undevelopable. There's really not a whole lot you can do. And that's really not fair to the Beaver family. I mean, they've been here for over a hundred years. They're one of the original Shirts families. They've been surrounded by development. Now, they've got a couple of little pieces left. They

can't farm it anymore. It's not economically viable and they would just like to be able to sell it to developers like everyone else around them did. They just got there first. So, happy to answer any questions you have about my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. All right. This is a public hearing. It is 6:31 and we will go ahead and open it up. Just a couple things before we get started. Um, y'all are allowed to you have three minutes. We can't answer questions, so please don't phrase things in the form of a question. If you have questions, we're happy to write them down and we can ask them to staff um when the public hearing is closed, but we're not allowed to respond to anything. So, um, with that, whoever, if you would like to speak on this item, feel free to come on up. Um, you'll have three minutes. Be the only hearing regarding this. Uh, I believe so. I don't think this the next item is this is it. This is your opportunity.

Yes. No. I do have a question. Yeah. If you'll just state your name and address for me, too. L Jones 30004 apostile circle. Okay.

We're in the red zone, if you will, around the property. Um, when will we see some layout of how this thing's going to work? because the only access to that quote landlock property is at the end of our street going through there. We've already endured all the construction from Meritage in phase two of the Orchard Park area and contractors are not people that drive slow through the neighborhoods. Now it's all developed. People have families with kids and how are they going to access this property? I saw a map earlier on another area that that where these two pieces intersect to this this dead zone, if you will. Have those been approved?

You know which ones I'm talking about? Uh, no. Can we go back and the Yeah. Can we go back a little bit? Yeah. I just need the map before this right here. Okay. Two areas in orange. Okay. One of them is uh they were planning on putting a road through from Savannah into that area. The original plan was for uh high-end homes, single family residents and a bunch of apartments somewhere and everybody raised a big stink about it and hopefully it was put back to our regul basically single family residents again

and we did not know about the piece where it continues through and comes into there and then the roads come into that lot. Is this part of one large development that some point in time the current 32 acres will be, you know, included and be developed as well because how are you going to get there? There's only one way and it's through our neighborhood. I'm not sure I really want to see that. Like I said, we can't we in in phase two of Meritage's development, we were the third home purchased. So, we had to watch everything else go in and be built. And a lot of times it was not uh not a good situation with the subs that were coming in and out of there and all the other people just lookers along with all the theft that was happening with people stealing stuff out of their homes and whatnot. So,

thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody? Yeah. Come on up. Yeah, absolutely. Can I ask you a question? I don't know if that's okay. Is that after? Yeah, we'll if you have question like we're writing down the question and we'll

actually my statement with Chris Duff at 3,400 Woodlon Farms on behalf of Kensington Ranch. I guess the the question on the map that's being displayed right now is uh much like the previous gentleman just mentioned about the entranceways. uh that northernmost section in the orange uh comes off of Savannah Drive which would be the Irish Creek entrance to that phase one which is referred to as Cibilo Farms. And so I guess my question would be is that in my initial statement I had mentioned about the possible connection of the three zones. Uh I was excluding in those comments the if Ciblo Farms was actually part of the overall project. I was not we were not aware of that. So, I guess that would be my question and I could probably talk with him offline and just find out if that is the case. But, uh, as the P commissioners probably remember is we've we've worked, uh, you know, to try and get the right mixture of whether it was going to be a PDD R2 to R six, you know, for civil farms. And, uh, I believe it still is currently R2. Is that correct? Thank you. Um, so, uh, that would just be something I would ask for y'all to to consider as well is if if the proposal is that phase one is including Ciblo Farms, then all of our previous discussions with regards to traffic for Savannah, uh, you know, uh, that we've actually done studies on the entrance from Church Parkway to 1518 and then also, uh, I know on those other two previous reszones, the ISDs, it'd be Pascal and such, they they actually did not offer uh an opinion at that point, but but again, you know, that that actually adds to the overall volume even more so than what my initial comments had mentioned. So, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, coming up. If you'll just state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is Janor Shaw Hicks. I stay at 3016 Leposto Circle. Um, I was told when we bought our property and we're the back end, we were the second one that moved in u in that little nook right there on Lapisto Circle. Uh, and we were told they were not going to build. That was one of the reasons why we bought our property. And so me and my husband, my son, my husband passed last year, but we were told that they were not going to build on that property after we moved in. And so I am not happy to hear this because depending on what they're going to do, I'll probably have to move again because I really didn't want anybody to be behind me or on the side or cuz I'm like I'm right next to their property. So, I see the cows, I see the frogs, I see the uh the water well, the water hole, and all I see all of that stuff. And so, for them to now come in and say, "Oh, we changed our mind. We're going to build." I'm not happy to hear that. And so, I'm just really coming to make a statement, not to ask a question, but I'm like him. You know, we had the theft. We had our door stolen three times. We had our toilet taken twice. just a whole bunch of stuff comes with moving in and trying to rebuild and having people come across your properties and stuff like that. And so I just really came to make a statement. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right, it is 6:38. We will go ahead and close the public comment section. Um commissioners Mr. Carbone, I saw your hand go up, sir. Yes, Commissioner. So, the UC portion, has that already been pro approved through the uh Universal City already?

Well, interesting you asked. I'm glad you did because I know that was brought up. What we have here in the Universal City portion, it is in their ETJ. staff said we have received notice that um they are annexing it and we've been working with them to make sure that we get the zoning so that we can do this. And just so everybody knows that little stub out that's right there above where it reads Malbeck Drive, we already received permission from the city of Universal City to actually connect to that. They had that subdivision when it was platted by Universal City create a stub out because all of you know access is important for emergency services, things like that. So that stub that connection has been approved and uh we're working with the city to you know as part of the annexation to get the correct zoning for what we're trying to do.

Okay. My second question is total acres of that blue box you said were 32 correct that we're reszoning today. Yes. And you said how many homes are going to go in that space? 64 two per acre. But that's the total volume of that blue circle. And you said was it 30 40% of it is just going to be green space. Yes. So, what we're proposing is like you see here, the home shoved to one side. Well, then what's the lot size going to be on those 8,400 square feet? So, will that meet the two houses per acre designation that Randolph is asking for, right?

Because Randolph is asking for two houses per acre to meet their requirements. But if you're trying to fit 64 homes into 32 total acres, but yet you're taking a third off the table, how how does that math add up? That math not No, we're not taking it off the table. I mean, what I'm saying is it's part of that calculation of two homes. So, you're talking about the total property is 32 acres and we're proposing 64 homes. Now, we're not doing halfacre lots, which I think is what kind of what you're thinking. What we're saying is we're going to push the homes over as far away from the flight line as we can within that 32 acres. That's what you're seeing here.

Okay. But they're not meeting the designation of two homes per acre. See, depends on how you calculate it. Understood.

Well, I know how to do math pretty well. And so that in my my gut, that's not that's not how you math, right? So if Randolph is asking for two homes per acre, then that means you take one acre and you stick two homes in it and then you do that again and again and again. You don't take the total volume and squish everything over to one side. I think you're trying to slide one past us and and so bottom line is is that if you want to get this approved, which I I'm I'm not against capitalism. I'm not against you making money, but you have to meet Randolph's requirements. And everyone in this community, including myself, understands where we get our meal tickets from. And that's Randolph Air Force Base. And so if Randolph says no, then I'm telling you right now, my I'm telling you my answer is no. And so I want I want you I want you to be able to do this project, but I want you to be able to do it right. And so that's my take. So

Understood. I believe keeping the homes out of the fly line is is important. Understood. Commissioner Hughes. Um, what would be what would you be doing with the green space area? Would that turn into another addition to the park or is that could be reserved for further use? Yes, it would be some kind of park space, dog park, things like that. We would not build on it. Okay. So, that would turn into a park that would be given over either to the HOA or to the city depending on Okay.

Uh, Mr. Uh, Commissioner Allah history, I don't remember what they were calling it, but this project really came originally came to us for multif family. And as part of that plan, this 32 acres was going to be preserved as green space, no development whatsoever in order to keep everything out of the APZ. Nobody liked that plan. Okay, so that plan was disapproved and now we're stuck with this kind of thing. Okay, that's the problem. We just, you know, Okay, I'm with M with Commissioner Carbone. the land use agreement with is poorly written and we learned that with Laura Heights or whatever that all that development out on Southwestern Shirts. Okay. Yes, it says two homes per acre. That's what the Air Force meant. Exactly what Commissioner Carbone said. One acre, two houses. One acre, two houses. Well, the developer did exactly what you're doing. They said, "Boy, we've got 32 acres. We can build 64 homes." And so that's what they did out there. And the Air Force is not happy about it. Okay. The whole idea of low density, two per acre, was more open space, less less um

well, no, it's a word. Opportunity is not the right word, but in other words, you you got an airplane coming down potential and you've got the home spread out more. Okay. So, yes, potential. There's there there's the the potential of that aircraft hitting one or more homes is reduced versus when you do this kind of calculation and bunch them all in one spot, you know, now you got what 20 feet. If you follow the setbacks, you got 20 ft between houses probability of risk.

Okay. Uh what what what they might call a target-rich environment. So I I agree with Commissioner Carbone. While that may be what the agreement says, that is not what the agreement intent and we know that because of the reaction by the Air Force of all that development that was that was done out there in Southwest Shirts. Um I don't agree about PDDs. All of a sudden be

because one or two of them were disapproved. All of a sudden city council doesn't like PDDs. I don't agree with that. Okay. I don't think that's the mandate from I haven't seen a mandate from city council that says no more PDDs. What they got upset about was using PDDs to circumvent all our rules and the and the city getting nothing in return. Okay. So, I'm not sure. But here's here's the other thing. We're not zoning the piece of property where you want to build those 64 homes. We are zoning all 32 acres. Okay? We have you you could come in here as soon as that zoning gets approved, you come in here and build 128 homes. And nothing we can say about it. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm upset about this, but we had the perfect opportunity to preserve this property. Okay? And we lost that. So, I I'm not sure a PDD would be a bad idea to to at least try one. Okay? And I'd like to clear up one thing. The Air Force is not telling the city what they can and can't do. the Air Force said, you know, and all the it's the city, the city council that enacted the ordinance that that put that caveat in a unified development code that says if Randolph doesn't give you affirmative approval, we're not going to approve it. That was the city's decision, not the Air Force's. We shake. I see a head shaking back way back in the back there, Brian. That you know, no, you don't. No, we're good. But that's my interpretation. Okay. You know, discussions between the Air Force and

the city. The Air Force, you know, said, "This is what we'd like." And the city said, "Okay, we'll we'll put that rule in place." So, the Air Force isn't tell we chose to to ask them for that. And that's my final comment. If you don't have an affirmative response from Randolph, the UDC clearly says we cannot approve this zone change.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else?

To follow what Commissioner was saying, if we could take 16 acres and zone that for parks and other development, that might clear up a little heartburn and might be able to work with Randolph. But again, Randolph needs to clarify and agree with it. So the current zoning right now, we there's nothing to stop further development into the full 32 acres. But if something if language came in where it was basically split zoned and half of the acreage would be covered for homes with Randolph approval with the other half being set up as green space and that language was there, that would probably give a better chance of approval, but right now that doesn't exist. Thank you, sir. Um, I do have a question for staff and this regards PDDs again. So, I mean, we just approved one last meeting. So, I mean, is there validity to the we can't submit this as a PDD? Because I I mean, I I think it's it's been echoed a couple times where I I mean, I do agree with with Mr. outlaw and saying that we're we're just looking at the bay zoning. So, yeah, the the math can kind of go one way or the other, but I mean, if we're if we're saying no, you can't apply for a PDD or no, we're not going to move forward with a PDD, but we're still taking them for other projects. I mean,

so just to speak on the last PD that was denied at council for Saddlebrook, that was an amendment to their PDD, the industrial park that we just approved. Oh, for flow texts. Yeah, it hasn't gone to council yet, but I know, but I mean they're still they're still taking them. I mean, clearly you can apply for Yeah, PDDs are meant to be used for special circumstances where, you know, flexible zoning is required. Okay. So, like in this scenario where I'm Yeah, come on, Brian. I mean, in the scenario where sitting in back and then calls me out back there trying to catch up on work. Yeah, I Steve

I mean it just seems like a scenario where I mean clearly we're in a situation where their recommendation is two homes an acre and so if we have a PDD that ties into the larger residential development that frankly I mean the rest of it is this is the final piece. So if if you have a PDD that shows, okay, here's what you can achieve based on what Randolph wants to do and based on what the zoning allows, I mean, I I think it's it is unfair to the development to be locked into here's a big piece that we can't use. And so I mean,

so so let me say this because the fundamental question was with PDD. So, we have a PDD provision in our UDC and folks can certainly submit an application for any zoning they want, including a PDD.

And as you know, at some point folks can say, "Staff, I appreciate y'all's feedback. I appreciate your input. I just want my case to go forward. I I certainly understand that may mean staff's going to recommend denial of it for the reasons you're going to recommend it." And at that point, we'll move it forward. And that's kind of where we got, I think, on this case going forward. So folks can certainly submit that. Now I will say is the commissioners who've been here a while understand there has been this frustration about the use of PDDs and how they are used and we have gone to city council and said hey look tell us how you want us to do this because we had had a couple of cases that seemed like based on the comments from council didn't get approved solely because they were submitted as a plan development district. Right? It seems to be this bit of a slippery slope of when you and we've had criticism from some of the residents in the past. And when you read the language about what the PDD is for that the PDDDs we're getting aren't really about achieving the purpose and the intent and we've heard that from on PNZ and council before. Um and we're just tired of kind of messing with it and tired of dealing with it and folks need to run it through straight zoning. Again, let me say the fundamental thing I think to speak from staff on this is we have this provision that council passed that I agree with Commissioner Outlaw that council in the past said, "Look, this stuff with Randolph is so important to us that unlike any other city out there, we're going to put in a provision that says unless we get a letter affirmatively supporting that they want this zoning to go through, which is the clear intent of it, then we can't approve it as city council. That's not turning the authority over to Randolph. That's our city saying that's what we want to do. And I think from staff's position, if Randolph came in and gave a letter on whatever case was up here that said, "We want this to be

approved. We think it's better for barring some other major issue, right?" Which there really isn't the fundamental thing on this is the JBSA and it's incompatibility in the AKUS, then I think staff is going to say then we're fine with it and recommend approval of it. But that's where they've struggled to get this approved with JBSA. And the only thing I'll say with that is we have done this long enough with JBSA that they are keenly aware that city of Shirts has a different provision in our code than other cities and they understand there is this requirement for this letter to affirmatively support. They are very much aware of that. So they in my opinion clearly know when they are submitting the letter that meets that intent and when they are giving a letter that doesn't that would be the kind of letter they'd give another community. So yeah, if he wants to submit a PDD, he can. If he wants to say, "Look, I don't even want to wait for feedback for staff. Just run the thing. We'll run it for him." Perfectly fine doing that.

Okay. Um Yeah. Yeah. Go for it. Yeah. So receiving the letter in the affirmative from JBSA doesn't mean that we would have to approve it. No. Right. Doesn't mean we'd have to approve it. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

Be clear. Doesn't mean we'd have to approve it. But the fundamental issue on this case, you know, I mean, you have some compatibility issues with homes backing right up to the soccer complex. Now, again, good news is the soccer complex is right there. The Lions is right there. So, anybody moving in theoretically should know what they're moving in next to, but as we've seen before, folks may move in and say, "Well, I'm here now, and so I don't like the fact that their kids making noise and lights and things like that, right?" But, you know, as as staff even did with the TIA, the TIA of the proposed zoning, the traffic is less under what's proposed than what the current zoning would be. I mean, we worked with the applicant on that to say, hey, this is what we need to understand. And sure enough, if you're if it's a traffic concern, there's less traffic from what they're proposing than what the current zoning is. So, yeah, for us, the fundamental issue is on is the Randolph issue uh on this deal. And it it the code is what it is.

I got Yeah. So for the applicants, I mean, is there a situation you think that if you went back and maybe readress this with the continuence that you could come to some like come to a a point where you could get a letter from of um affirmation? term has been thrown around.

It Oh, it means uh plan development district. So, it's it's it's a little more than base zoning. Typically, we look at it as an overall there's a site plan tied to it. There might be a mix of uses in certain areas, but it's not just our two. It's a couple different things kind of put together. Sorry. Well, correct me if I'm wrong. If I if I we get don't do not get a good result from my perspective tonight, I'm and I come back with the PD, I'm basically starting all over anyway since it's got to be noticed. And then I don't think the city will allow me to just amend my case to PDD right now or

No, I don't I don't think that's what I'm asking. I think because I mean, if Randolph's giving you certain conditions, I mean, did you submit a site plan along with the letter tool or you just say here's the base zoning? Well, I I think I'd like to find out what this commission feels today and then leave it up to the client if he wants to amend the request to PDD and come back again or try to go forward with what we have today to council. Fair enough. Okay. I think I think I have to do that with my client.

Okay. I'm just I just I wanted to get I mean I think that's the biggest hold up because I mean I reading the the the chair or the not the chair the board I think the Randolph thing I mean it's code and to be a stickler on code it it's a code section and so I just don't want to send you forward if there's something that you could reapproach and say maybe if we change something about this we could get a letter and come back in a month but I mean if you want to move forward we can definitely but up to you. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Go for it, Mr. Adon.

Just just a couple of quick remarks. F. First of all, if it wasn't for the APZ, it's a great looking. In fact, you could do all 32. Uh, you know, the single family is what's out there. It's what needs to be there. So, if it wasn't for the APZ, we wouldn't we wouldn't have an issue. The other thing I I wanted to address your remark about, you know, I work for the city for 25 years and I've been on PNZ now for nine and I I tell a story that as the fire marshall one day I drove out to Southwestern shirts out there off of uh Scenic Lake just to see what was going on and and and I turned into a brand new subdivision And I made a left and then a right to run up the side of the subdivision. And every lot on the left side of the street that backed up to a barbwire fence and open land was sold. Every one of them on the other side of the street 50/50. Okay. But there's no doubt in my mind everybody was buying on that other side just like you did. They didn't want anybody behind them. Well, what they didn't know is in my office on my desk at that very moment was the subdivision plan for the other side of that fence. Okay? And we've heard this time and time again. You're not the first to say this. Well, they told us they weren't going to build. They don't own the property. They don't control it. They couldn't make you that promise and they did it anyway. Okay? Don't feel you're not alone. You're not the you're not the first one. your party won't be the last one. So, thank you.

So, I'm sorry y'all. The public comment section is closed, so we got to keep it. Yeah.

Uh, so I just had a question. Uh, so with regard to development, and this has come up before, uh, especially with citizens that live in these neighborhoods that don't want certain things built around their property even though they don't own the land, right? So, we don't get to control that part. But as far as the development goes, uh, has there been any attempt to sit down with anyone from JBSA and with the residents from the neighboring community to try and figure out what would work? Because a lot of times, you know, we come here and it seems like uh developers want to force feed what they want without consideration for being neighborly and making sure that whatever is built there represents uh what the uh overall scheme or plan is for the city or that area and in this case JBSA. Uh and so that's something to consider as uh as we move forward. I don't know if that's been done, but uh I would uh think that that would be an acceptable approach just for the sake of inclusion because otherwise, you know, everyone's going to push back at something that they don't like. Uh and I just wanted to uh lend that before we uh make a motion, which I'm ready to make.

I think Mr. Outlaw had one last comment. Did you? Okay. Uh well, if there's no other comments, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion uh to deny PL ZC 20250062. I'll second that motion. And just to clarify, that's a motion to recommend denial. Correct. Yeah,

that's correct. That is a motion to recommend denial by I'm sorry of PLZC 20250062 by Commissioner Hector, seconded by Commissioner Outlaw. Any comments? Comments? If not, please vote. That is seven votes. Can you please publish that? That motion carries. All right. Item D, PL's. Oh, real quick before we do that, if you're here, so if you're here for that case, um if the do we have a city council hearing date? That will be the final determination. This is a recommendation that will go to city council on

November 14th. That one's a little weird, so it'll be November 14th. Thank you, Daisy. All right. Item D, PLC 202501 0215. Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on request to reszone approximately 11.0 03 acres of land from pre-development district to agricultural district generally known as 7703 Trainer Hail Road approximately 1700 ft north of the intersection of Trainer Hill Road in IH10 more specifically known as Bear County parcel identification number 339346 city shirts Bear County Texas William

Good evening commission PLC 2025215 a proposed zone change to AD on Trainer Hill Road William Willingham Planner for your orientation. This is the subject property's aerial view. You can see there outlined in yellow. That's the parcel there. It is 11.03 acres. Uh the surrounding site, you can see it's primarily an agricultural area, including the property itself, primarily agricultural. There are a couple of res residences located in the area. And you can also see this is the rightway for Trainer Hail Road. And this is a private road, Dusty Fields. Notification for the property. There were 13 public notices that were sent out on the 19th of September. As of today, we've received zero responses. A public hearing notice is to be published in the San Antonio Express prior to city council and the SEUCISD was notified of the request and and the notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. So, just uh once again background on the zone change. This is a request to change from pre-development district to agricultural district. You can see here that the surrounding area is currently primarily agricultural district. Uh there are a number of pre-development districts as well. Background on the property the history. So ordinance 10 A20 was the date or was the ordinance that allowed the annexation of this property into the city. So that happened in July of 2010. The zoning that was established at this at that time was the pre-development district PRE. Then if you all may remember, ordinance 24S24 is when a number of annexations came in with the city of Schz. Uh so that happened in July of 2024. So you can see here that at that same time when they were annexed, they also came in with the zoning districts which primarily you can see here are all AD zones, agricultural district. And so the history for the applicant, the applicant purchased this property in December of 2013. So he missed that annexation date and then you

know he already had his zoning there. The present conditions of the site are one home and then its agricultural land and the applicant intends to construct a second home on site and construct an accessory storage structure. So once again this is just more of the site in context. You can see primarily AD in the area. You can see that this is primarily undeveloped agricultural land and you can also see the conditions of the site along Trainer Hill Road. So on the bottom left you can see this is actually the applicant's driveway to his property. And then further down over here, you can actually see that's the entrance to the sewer plant zoning district dimensional requirements. You can see here that there are limited number of permitted uses within the PR zone and they also don't have any dimensional requirements in the PR zone. Whereas in the agricultural district, there are a few more permitted uses which are you know typical for an agricultural district. agricultural field crops, livestock, uh a dwelling unit, stable commercial, and then it also establishes dimensional requirements. So UDC section 2154D criteria for approval whether the proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted comprehensive land plan or any other applicable adopted plans. So this area is actually designated at this time as regional corridor. Regional corridor is intended for commercial or entertainment areas along major thoroughares. The applicant is requesting agricultural district AD. It is intended for agricultural preservation on lots over 5 acres. So it's important to remember that the comprehensive land plan is a guiding document for the long-range vision of the city and we must consider the existing conditions of the area. So the applicant is requesting a zone that is not changing the conditions of the surrounding area. Two, whether the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the city. As part of promoting health, safety, and welfare, the city should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. Agricultural

district ad is intended for areas with limited utility service. Right now, the the site is located within the shirt sewer CCN and the CCMA CCN, but right now the site as well as surrounding areas are all served by septic, so they're not connected to the CCN or the sewer system in those CCN's. Engineering has also conducted a study on this site and the potential traffic impact by the zone change will not be measurable and you can see that here. Three, whether the uses permitted by the proposed zone change will be consistent and appropriate with the existing uses in the immediate area. So, as I've mentioned before, the subject property in the surrounding area is characterized by agricultural uses. You can see that in the existing zoning districts at this time and the subject property you know uh subject property surrounded by other properties currently zoned as AD or whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the request. All UDC requirements have been met for the proposed zone change request. SCUISTD has been notified of the request and the shirts fire EMS and police departments have been notified of the zone change. Police and EMS did not provide any specific concerns. However, fire did express a concern related to accessing the structures in the rear of the property through this driveway. Staff recommendation due to the rural character of the surrounding area, the limited utility availability, and the increase in development standards resulting from the zone change. Staff recommends approval of PLZC2025215. And the applicant is here if you have any questions for him.

Awesome. Thank you, William. Is there anything you'd like to say before I open it up or questions? Okay. Yeah, for sure. Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and move forward to public comment. It is 707. There's anyone that'd like to address the commission on this item? All right. Once, twice, it is still 707. We will close public comment. Commissioners, questions, comments, concerns, motions. Oh, go for it.

Yes. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of PLZC 2025 0215. Second. There's a motion for to recommend approval by Commissioner Allah, second by Commissioner Carbone of PLZC2050215. Any other comments? If not, please vote. That is seven votes. Can we publish that, please? That motion carries. And again, this will go to the city council on the 14th. Awesome. 14th. Thank you, sir. All right. Does anyone need a break real quick? Good.

All right. So, we'll move forward um for the items for the individual consideration. Item 6A, PLRP 20250221 is a waiver. Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to on-site sewer facilities for the replot of the Samb B lift shits subdivision number nine approximately 0.76 acres of land located approximately 750 ft east of the intersection of file road in IH10 more specifically known as Bear County parcel identification numbers 618921 and 618922 city of Shirts Bear County Texas. William,

good evening commission. PLRP20250221 waiver for waiver request for the SAMP lift shut subdivision number nine replat. So for your orientation this is the location of the site outlined in green here. You can see this is IH10 access road and you can also see this is file road here. So just right away from the intersection there. So the applicant or excuse me this property is 7.751 acres establishing lot 49 block one of the SAMB lift shut subdivision number nine which will consist of one buildable lot. So right now the site is currently platted as block one lots 10 11 and 12. It is currently zoned as general business and has direct access onto IH10. It is also located duly within the shirt sewer CCN and the San Antonio River Authority CCN approximately 750 ft east of the intersection of file road and I 10 and the site is currently undeveloped at this time. There are no connections to water or wastewater. This is the proposed replat. You can see here the the lots that currently exist. You can see this is what they're requesting or proposing. Waiver request. The applicant is seeking approval of the waiver to install privately owned on-site sewer facilities on the property and not extend utilities across the property per UDC article 15 easements and utilities. Section 21153A wastewater systems wastewater connection required and section 21153D utilities. All lots within a subdivision are required to connect to public sanitary sewer systems and extend wastewater lines unless otherwise approved by the city. So based on these requirements of the UDC and the proposed installation of an on-site septic facility, a waiver is required to be requested from the planning and zoning commission as detailed in the UDC staff analysis. So as I mentioned before, um it is currently located within the Sarah CCN as well. Uh the

nearest connection is approximately 2,000 ft away. It is a Sarah Main across the other side of IH10 and there are presently no wastewater services on site. So the applicant intends to develop either a restaurant or food truck park in this area and the applicant is requesting this waiver come into compliance or the applicant is requesting the waiver as they're not connected to services nor intend to extend facilities. And then you can see here this is an engineering memo supporting the approval of this request. So, the staff recommendation, the nearest sewer connection is over 2,000 ft away across IH10 and the applicant will be required to connect to sanitary sewer once the public infrastructure has been extended to serve the area. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the waiver request as presented.

Oh, I'm not. Thank you, William. So, this is not a public hearing. So, I'll go and open it up to commissioner questions. Anybody have anything comments, concerns, motions? Anybody? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve PLRP 2025221 waiver.

Second. There's a motion to approve PLRP 20250221 waiver by Commissioner Outlaw, second by Commissioner Goldick. Any other comments? If not, please vote. There's seven votes. Can we publish that, please? That motion carries. Moving on. PLRP 20250221 consider an act upon a request for approval repat of the Sam B. Luets. L how do you say it? Lifts.

Lift shots. There you go. Number nine. Subdivision approximately 0.76 acres of land located at 11825 IH10. Shirts Texas is approximately 750 ft east of the intersection of File Road and IH10. More specifically known as Bear County parcel identification numbers 618921 and 618922. City of Shirts Bear County, Texas. William. Good evening, commission. PLRP 2025 0221 replat of the SAMB lift shut subdivision number nine. So once again, this is the same property here located on IH10 and File Road. Once again, it's the same request. Uh block one, lots 10, 11, and 12 are proposed to be replplat into block one, lot 49 of the subdivision. This is the replat exhibit here. This is the former proposal and or excuse me, this is the proposal. These are the former lots recommendation. The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the applicable requirements for the property ordinances and regulations. The plat has been reviewed with no objections by the engineering, fire, and planning departments. Therefore, staff has recommended approval of the replat as presented.

All right. Thank you, William. Again, not a public comment or not a public hearing. So, commissioners, any questions? Yes, sir. Mr. Outlaw. Uh, William, I'm sorry. Could you could you put the plat diagram back up there for me? We went through it kind of quickly. So, um, I see the lot 49, block one, but going up to the existing, I see what, five lots across there. It's just this. I know it's kind of hard to see here. It's just three of them in there, correct? So, this lot 13 is the is the one just to the

Yes. Just to the north. Uh-huh. So, this lot 13 is this one right here. That's D. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. All right. Any other questions, comments, motions? Go for it. I make a recommendation to approve PL RP20250221.

Second. That is a motion to approve PLRP 20250221 by Commissioner Carbone, second by Commissioner Goldick. Right. All right. I'm sorry. Was it Was it It was Goldick. Yeah. Okay. Um there's any other comments? No other comments. Please vote. That is seven votes. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right. Item 7A, request by commissioners to place items on a future PNZ agenda. Any items? Yes. No. Any announcements by commissioners?

Yes.

Go for it. Well, as many of you know that I put my name in the hat to run for city council place two and uh I appreciate the opportunity that has afforded me on this council as a commissioner and I look forward to hopefully taking those talents and experiences that I've had on this council and serving the community of shirts better in a greater capacity. Um, I want to tell the individuals of shirts that you'll have an opportunity to talk directly to the candidates on the 8th of October and meet the candidate at uh 6 PM in building 2. If you'd like to come and pepper me with questions, I welcome them. Uh, I love face-toface engagement. Um, there's also a civic leader lunchon on the 21st of October that I'll be there as well. And building five in the civic center. Um, and I just want to remind everyone that early voting starts on October 20th through the 31st of October and election day is the 4th of November. Um, and if you have questions about what I stand for, what I, you know, I'm looking to do as a member of the city council. There's one area where you can look is the community impact Q&A. They've already published some of the questions they've asked me. And honestly, the best way to get to know me is face to face. And so I look forward to seeing as many residents and neighbors of shirts at meet the candidate. So thank you.

All right. Thank you, John. Anybody else? Staff announcements may not have noticed in the staff report or Daisy's presentation, but Daisy is our new senior planner. So I just wanted to introduce her to Daisy. So, thank you. Yeah, we did. Well, congrats, Daisy. Very cool. All right. Item 8 A, information uh is available in the planning and zoning commission packets about the current projects and city council statuses. And with that, we are adjourned at 7:18.