[I) Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call]
[00:00:06]
GOOD EVENING. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JUNE 10TH, AND THE TIME IS 6:30 P.M. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COPELAND. PRESENT. WEBB. PRESENT. STIEGEL. HERE. HERE. HERE. HOUK. SARADA. THANK
[II) Approval of Minutes]
YOU. OKAY. MOVING FORWARD. ITEM NUMBER TWO. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH A MODIFICATION. FOR THE SECTION NOTES FOR THE DISCUSSION WITH FRIESEN. NICHOLS, THE SECTION UNDER THE ZONING REGULATION ISSUES. BULLET TWO. CAN I REPHRASE THAT ONE TO SAY SHORT TIMELINE FOR P AND Z DECISION ON PUDS. CONSIDER MULTIPLE READINGS. BECAUSE THE WAY THE WAY IT WAS WORDED, IT MIGHT BE CONFUSED WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE OPPOSITE. AND WE'RE SAYING WE NEED TO SIMPLIFY IT AND DO IT FASTER. AND I THINK WE DON'T WANT THAT. SO OKAY. SO THAT WAS THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND OKAY. MOTION BY MYSELF SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR LORI. NOT TO LORI STIEGEL. OH MY GOSH THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. GREAT. WE HAVE MINUTES. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE. CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS EARLY IN THE AGENDA OF REGULAR MEETINGS.SPEAKERS ARE PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING THIS TIME PERIOD ON ANY AGENDA ITEM OR ANY OTHER MATTER CONCERNING CITY BUSINESS, AND THEY MUST OBSERVE THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE HERE, BUT NOT FOR
[IV) Consent Agenda]
CITIZEN COMMENTS, SO WE'LL KEEP MOVING TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. MAKE A MOTION TO PULL ITEM TWO. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT FOR DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. OKAY, SO WE'LL PULL ITEM TWO. CAN WE DISCUSS THAT ONE NOW? OR ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON TWO ONE. OKAY. LET'S LET'S HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON TWO AND THEN SEE WHAT WE WANT TO DO. LET'S DO THAT. DID YOU HAVE SIMPLE QUESTIONS. YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION? NO I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS I'VE READ. THE PRESENTATION WAS QUITE GOOD AND UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THIS IS NOTABLY A SUBDIVISION THAT SORT OF STALLED OUT. THEY CAME TO US AND GOT APPROVAL TWO YEARS AGO, AND WHEN I READ THIS, IT'S A REPLAT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS AN ODD TIME TO BE DOING A REPLAT. YOU KNOW, IN TWO YEARS THEY MIGHT HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT. SO THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IT'S NOTABLE SINCE IT'S STALLED OUT. AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MAYBE THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AND THE COMMISSION EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, THAT THIS WHOLE PROJECT HAS GOTTEN MIRED DOWN THE WAY IT HAS. YEAH, I THINK FIRST OFF, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD CALL IT STALLED OUT. SO THEY DID COME IN THROUGH WITH FOR A FINAL PLAT FOR APPROVAL. THAT WAS WHAT YOU APPROVED, I GUESS LAST SUMMER OR TWO SUMMERS AGO. BUT THAT WAS THEY DIDN'T START EVEN MOBILIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THAT FOLLOWING WEEK. SO THERE WAS ABOUT 18 MONTHS OF SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS GOING ON BEFORE THEY COULD GO VERTICAL. WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CENTER TURN LANES WITH TEXDOT HAVING TO GET THAT, THAT PERMIT, THAT'S A SEPARATE PERMIT, CAN SOMETIMES TAKE A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME.AND THEN DURING THE DURING THEIR PROCESS, AS THEY WERE DOING THEIR LOT FITS, WE HAD SOME SOME KIND OF SUBDIVISIONS. THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL PUD ON THIS PROPERTY, HAD A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WENT THROUGH IT. MOST CONCEPT PLANS ARE JUST THAT CONCEPT PLANS, BUT THEY THE ORIGINAL PLAT ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THOSE BOUNDARIES. SO IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT YOU SAW SOME CURVED LINES IN THERE, MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD BASED ON THE PRODUCT TYPE THAT THEY'RE OFFERING AND CHANGING THE MARKET CONDITIONS. THEY DID MOST OF THIS REPLAT WAS BEING DONE TO DO LOT FITS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCT TYPES. SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE CHANGE IN THEIR PLAN. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM PROBABLY FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS WHEN THEY FIRST KIND OF CAME IN AND STARTED DOING THAT. SO IT REALLY WAS CONSTRUCTION OF WATER LINES. AS THEY WERE ABOUT TO GO VERTICAL, THEY STARTED TALKING TO US ON SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. AND THEN THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE HERE NOW. IS UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YES. I DON'T HAVE DETAILS ON THE PUD. IT'S NOT A, I WOULD SAY OVERLY COMPLICATED PUD. IT WAS REALLY THE LAND USES THE, THE CONCEPT. AND THEN THERE'S TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS. THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THIS PLOT, BUT THEY'RE THE SUBDIVISION KIND OF GOES AROUND IT. SO THERE'S
[00:05:04]
TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE FRONTING VETERANS. WE SHOULD I THINK THAT PLAT IS ACTUALLY IN REVIEW OR SHOULD BE CLEARING COMMENTS. SO THAT'LL BE SOMETHING YOU'LL BE SEEING IN THE FUTURE. SO IT REALLY WAS CALLING OUT KIND OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL AREAS. IS THIS GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE CONCERNS OF CITIZENS HAVE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW COMING OFF GRAY GARDENS? NO. YEAH. NO NEW DENSITY IS BEING PROPOSED. THEY'RE NOT GOING FROM 110 LOTS TO SAY 140. I MEAN, IT'S A LOT FOR LOT CHANGE. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL LOTS COMING IN. THERE'S SOME RENUMBERING OF THE LOTS TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THE CHANGES, BUT NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT THE DENSITY. SO WE DID LOOK AT THERE'S A SMALL ALLEY THAT COMES OUT ONTO GREG CLARK DRIVE THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE KIND OF A ONE WAY. SO BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONCERNS. AND THEN ULTIMATELY JUST TRYING TO GET THAT TURN LANE IN FOR ON THE TEXDOT RIGHT OF WAY, THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS PEOPLE RETURNING HOME AND THEY'RE IN TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. SO ANY PROGRESS ON ON GETTING THAT DONE WITH TEXDOT? YEAH, YEAH. IF YOU'VE SEEN THEY'VE GOT THE CONES OUT, I DON'T KNOW. THEY SHOULD BE STARTING CONSTRUCTION HERE PRETTY SOON. LAST I TALKED TO THEM IT WAS IMMINENT. THEY HAD THEIR APPROVAL FROM TXDOT. AND IT'S NOT JUST THE TURN LANE. THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDOING SOME OF THE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FOR SOME OF THOSE BUSINESSES ALONG THAT AREA. GOOD. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT ITEMS? NO. OKAY. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TAKE ACTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TWO, THREE AND FOUR FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SORRENTO. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND THEN NEXT WE HAVE CONSIDER
[5) Consider approval of a request to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 41 to 35 for a proposed Daycare Center located at 1900 Windy Hill Road in Hays County, Texas. (SD-24-0247)]
APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM 41 TO 35 FOR A PROPOSED DAYCARE CENTER LOCATED AT 1900 WINDY HILL ROAD IN HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS, SD DASH 240247 MISS SHARP. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. OKAY, THERE WE GO. THIS IS THE PRESENTATION FOR THE LAST ITEM. CAN WE GET THE ONE FOR ITEM FIVE, PLEASE? AND KAYLA, IF YOU DON'T MIND. QUICK NOTE, I KNOW COMMISSIONER WEBB AND I ARE BOTH FLYING BLIND HERE. MONITORS DON'T WORK. SO JUST AS A HEADS UP, I KNOW WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR PHONES, BUT WE MAY NOT SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO FOR THIS ITEM, WE HAVE A REQUEST TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR A PROPOSED DAYCARE USE IN THE CROSSWIND SUBDIVISION. THEY ARE PROPOSING AN APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE CENTER LOCATED AT 1900 WINDY HILL ROAD PER SECTION 5003 33. ANY REQUEST TO DECREASE PARKING COMES TO OR INCREASE PARKING, FOR THAT MATTER, COMES TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.STAFF PREPARES THAT RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THE APPLICANT PROVIDES BACKUP MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST. SO JUST SOME SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE CITY OF KYLE'S ETJ, BUT IT'S PART OF THE CROSSWINDS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH OUTLINES STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A DAYCARE AT THE CORNER OF CROSSWINDS PARKWAY AND QUEEN TOPSAIL WAY, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING AND CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES WOULD BE 41 PER CITY CODE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER TO 35. CURRENTLY, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE PARKING RATIOS SPECIFIC TO DAYCARE USES. WE HAVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE CAMPUSES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A DAYCARE WHERE YOU'RE PRIMARILY JUST GOING TO HAVE STAFF ON SITE ALL ALL DAY, AND PARENTS DROPPING OFF AND PICKING UP THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT REALLY ACCOUNTS FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE. SO THEREFORE IT FALLS UNDER THE STANDARD GENERAL RETAIL PARKING, WHICH IS ONE SPACE PER 250FT■!S. SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION ON DAYCARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA. AND THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED VERIFICATION THAT THE
[00:10:04]
PROPOSED 35 SPACES WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR USE. THEY OPERATE A NUMBER OF DAYCARES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND HAVE FOUND THAT 35 SPACES IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR USE.HERE IS THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THIS IS AGAIN, IT'S IN A SUBDIVISION. THERE'S SIDEWALKS ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FOR A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. IT'S SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL, EVEN REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE 35 SPACES IS A LITTLE OVER ONE SPACE PER 300FT■!S. SO IT'S VERY CLOSE TO OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, JUST NOT QUITE THERE. BUT 35 SPACES IS THE MAXIMUM THEY COULD FIT ON THE PROPERTY AND STILL MEET ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT, PLAYGROUND, LANDSCAPING, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED REDUCTION FOR 35 SPACES. APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS OR DENY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BASED ON THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED. IF I NEED TO RUN BACK THROUGH ANY OF THOSE SLIDES FOR Y'ALL, LET ME KNOW.
DO YOU NEED ANY? DO YOU NEED HER TO GO BACK THROUGH ANY OF THE SLIDES? NO, NO, NO I'M GOOD. I'M COMFORTABLE AS WELL. WAY TO GO GUYS. OKAY. THEY DID THEIR HOMEWORK GOOD. THAT'S WHAT WE LIKE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOT SO MUCH. OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF IN THE EVENT THERE'S A PARKING SITUATION, WHERE WOULD OVERFLOW PARKING BE SINCE IT'S ON THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION, DO WE KNOW WHERE LIKE THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR OVERFLOW PARKING IN THE EVENT THAT THAT DID HAPPEN. SO THERE'S IT'S JUST OFF OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE. THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE JUST TO PLAN NORTH OF THIS THAT HAS TECHNICALLY MORE PARKING THAN IS NECESSARY. SO THERE COULD BE POTENTIAL FOR SOME OVERFLOW PARKING THERE AS WELL AS ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THEY'RE GENERALLY ALLOWED TEMPORARY ON STREET PARKING. SO OKAY. AND THEN WHILE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT CODE UPDATES, SINCE WE DON'T SPECIFY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN DAYCARE VERSUS OTHER SCHOOL FACILITIES, MAY WANT TO ADD THAT TO THE LIST OF IDEAS. YES. PARKING RATIOS ARE ABSOLUTELY ON OUR LIST OF THINGS TO LOOK AT IN THE CODE. REWRITE. OUR PARKING RATIOS RIGHT NOW ARE ODDLY SPECIFIC, BUT IN SOME CASES A LITTLE BIT TOO NUANCED. SO DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE'LL BE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE. I HAD ONE JUST KIND OF I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION. AND THE LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM THEM, THE EXCEPTION REQUEST, THEY SAID THAT THE NATIONAL DAYCARE OPERATOR, WHO'S GOING TO BE LEASING THE SITE, GAVE THEM A LETTER THAT SAID THAT THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 27 PARKING SPACES ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE FACILITY. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE ADDING NINE MORE THAN WAS ALREADY MORE THAN ADEQUATE. I JUST I'M CURIOUS, HAVE WE TALKED WITH THEM ABOUT WHY THEY CHOSE TO GO WITH 35 INSTEAD OF BRINGING THAT NUMBER DOWN? BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE, MORE LANDSCAPE, YOU KNOW, LESS OF THE CONCRETE JUNGLE THAT MAKES EVERYTHING HOTTER, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NEXT TO A PLAYGROUND AT A DAYCARE. WERE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT? SO I THINK THEIR INITIAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION, WHEN THEY FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY HAD 27 SPACES. WE MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE PARKING RATIOS NEEDING TO FOLLOW CITY STANDARDS, AND THERE WAS SOME NEGOTIATION BACK AND FORTH ON THAT, AND THEY LANDED AT 35 AND REQUESTING THIS EXCEPTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM VICE CHAIR STEGALL. AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WEBB. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING, PLEASE SAY I. I ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S AGENDA. THERE'S NO MORE BUSINESS ITEMS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED. SO WE ARE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.