San Angelo City Council 2-17-26

[0:00:00] We wanted to make sure everybody checked in. It is February 17, 2026. Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. Uh, as we start every meeting, we'll start off with good chaplain prayer and the pledges. Mr. Gary Jenkins, please come forward. I say uh good evening everybody and to our mayor and the council members and everyone here. Will you join with me in a word of prayer? Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus, we bow before you to say thank you for this day and for this opportunity to come together and assemble to take care of the business of this city. We ask you to endow the council with wisdom and knowledge and understanding that they may operate and take care of the function of the business of the city in a way that will glorify you and be edifying to the inhabitants of this city. We thank you for all the blessings you bestowed upon us. We ask you to bless our council members, our mayor, all of the elected officials, and to remember our first responders, our firefighters, and police officers. We thank you for the people that are gathered here in this chamber today. And we ask for your blessing in Jesus name. Amen. And amen. >> Repeat after me the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Gary. So I see no proclamations or pledges on the agenda. So we will move right into

[0:02:05] public comment. So I want to make sure all of us are on the same page. There's um some specific rules we follow. There's some agenda items. Um, the one that talks about the building guidelines for the data center is item G. So, that's a non-action item. There's not going to be a vote on that, but that allows everybody public input and we will take public comment. But the discussions on item G are specifically for the building guidelines that somebody would want to propose for a data center project. Any other comment is public comment that needs to be done now. Is everybody good with that? Does everybody understand it? If somebody comes up on item G and they're giving an opinion about um a data center and not talking about the building guidelines, it's not allowed. And we'll ask you to step back, but I just want to make sure everybody's clear on that and you know where you see it because I think the last time we had this discussion, people got a little confused. All right. So, as we look at it, if you're talking about the building guidelines, you will have public comment on the regular agenda in item G. Otherwise, your public comment about anything comes up. Now, with that, I'll start off. Heather, do we have any public comment? How Let me ask you, how many of you got signed up so far? >> Approximately 10. >> Okay. So, everybody's allowed three minutes. You'll get a warning at the final minute. You will have three minutes only. So everybody needs to understand we've got at least 30 to probably 35 minutes of public comment coming up. With that, let's call the first one. Heather >> Cheryl Salvado. >> Okay. >> Don Wellen. Dawn, let me read this Don before you start. Public comment. Members of the public

[0:04:06] may raise issues or concerns not listed on the regular agenda during this time. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in order they signed in. When speaking, citizens must speak from the podium, address all comments to the dis. Begin by stating your name and address or just your single member district number and limit your remarks to three minutes or less. Don, you're on. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> My name is Don Wellen, District 5. I would like for the city council to address a letter to ICE with copies to appropriate parties. My proposed letter subject to your edits improve and improvements is follows. Dear ICE, San Angelo will cooperate with ICE. However, we expect ICE to honor the Constitution, adhere to due process, and not enter homes without proper warrants signed by a judge. I then quote the constitution's articles uh amendments five and 14. In other words, ICE will not randomly stop people because their skin or brown, they speak a foreign language, they shop for construction items or other such instances. ICE will stay away from churches, schools, and voting areas. ICE will only use properly trained agents. It will only target the worst criminals and adopt the deescalation methods practiced by the St. Angelo police. and ICE will act in a humane constitutional manner. Sincerely, letter ends. My comments, this whole situation, in my opinion, was born of a lie. We only want to get the worst of the worst lie. Only 7% of all arrested by ICE are the bad ones. Going to get the worst of the worst. The lie by 93%. But still, our president calls them murderers, thugs, rapists, or worse, they're eating cats and dogs. The lie. We are only concerned for your safety. Safety first. Another lie. The data shows that violent crimes by a margin of 2 to one are committed by US citizens, not illegals. If the main concern of these politicians is truly safety, then

[0:06:09] use ICE money to beef up local police who go after all violent criminals, illegal or not. We endure the lie of safety first while ICE erod the public trust. warrantless searches, beating people after smashing their car windows, killing protesters, mass goons pulling people off the street, and throwing good people in jail. I do not want that in St. Angelo. But the big ice machine tells us we are safer. They turn on the propaganda and add even more lies to obscure or justify their behavior. She's a domestic theorist. Lie. He was attacking ICE officers. Lie. ICE agents always adhere to best practices. lie. People are getting hurt, families are being torn apart, and children are in prison all because of one lie after another. Whatever happened to, thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not lie. I'm asking our city council to please send a letter. We don't need to hurt the people in St. Angelo by ignoring the Constitution and the enactment of one lie after another. Thank you. >> Thank you, Don. Heather. Next public comment. >> Caitlyn Wy. >> Say it again. >> Caitlyn Wy. >> I am Caitlyn Wy of district number five. Mayor and city council members. In light of tonight's discussion later about design guidelines and conditional use processes, I would like to address why codified enforcable standards embedded in zoning offer greater long-term certainty than advisory guidance. Major infrastructure projects require long-term clarity. A chapter 380 agreement can define economic participation, but it does not substitute for enforceable zoning limits. Round Rock embedded key data center protections into its planned unit development strategy. A defined megawatt

[0:08:12] cap, defined building footprint and height limits, closed loop cooling requirements, buffering and screening protections, public amendment protections. Those provisions create durable certainty. They protect residents from incremental expansion. They protect the developer from shifting expectations. And they protect the city from future disputes. By contrast, if land use guardrails are not embedded in zoning, future expansion debates become reactive and contentious. St. Angelo can demonstrate responsible governance by codifying clear enforcable limits before or alongside any incentive discussions. This approach strengthens trust, reduces friction, and stabilizes long-term expectations, and that is a prudent path forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Wy. Richard Summers. >> Call him again. >> Richard Summers. My name is Richard Summers and I live in district 5. If the city is considering a chapter 380 agreement, a state authorized economic incentive tool used to reduce project costs, then it's reasonable to ask what reciprocal community benefits are being secured and returned to the city from this developer. In other jurisdictions, large-scale data center projects receiving economic incentives included structural commitments such as workforce development partnerships with local colleges and universities, renewable energy investments, infrastructure resilience upgrades, and direct community contributions in St. Angelo. That could mean collaboration with Angelo State University or Howard College for workforce training and certification programs. It could mean targeted infrastructure improvements or

[0:10:15] renewable capacity support aligned with the long-term community needs. Incentives are not inherently problematic, but they should align public benefit with private benefits or with private investment. If the city reduces costs for this project, what tangible, measurable community returns will be secured in exchange? Also at a city summit event earlier today, a St. Angelo data center project spokesperson allegedly suggested that the proposed four and a half million square foot facility would use roughly the same amount of water as 12 homes and that diesel generators would hardly be perceptible even when a person was standing next to them. If those representations are accurate, I respectfully request that underlying engineering studies, water modeling assumptions, and noise attenuation analysis supporting those particular statements, especially be made publicly available and incorporated into any data center guideline deliberations, particularly prior to any potential conditional use public hearing. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Summers. Heather number five, >> Steph Baka. >> Steph Baka, >> Heather Wy. Good evening. My name is Heather Wy and I'm a resident of District 3. My comment concerns the Skybox data center. Data centers require enormous amounts of electricity. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas has warned that the state is experiencing rapid load growth and tightening reserve margins with peak demand rising dramatically over the next several years in part to industrial users like data centers. Somehot projections show peak demand rising

[0:12:19] toward levels that could nearly double historic norms by 2030, just four years from now. There is also concern about grid demand caused by these data centers this summer. As new projects are added to the Texas grid, the scale of increase requires substantial new generation and transmission infrastructure. The World Economic Forum has noted that rapid data center growth presents significant challenges for grid stability and pricing, especially in a deregulated energy market like Texas. Keeping this information in mind, how will the city of St. Angelo ensure that Skybox funds the transmission and infrastructure upgrades required for its operations rather than shifting those costs to residential customers. Will agreements with Skybox require that the company secures dedicated generation or on-site power solutions? How will the city protect rateayers if grid upgrades are required? What limits, if any, are being considered on the number of highloadad facilities like crypto mining or AI training allowed in our area? How are you going to continue to monitor the water demands of this facility as its water use is connected to its energy use? Will the city negotiate a community benefit agreement to offset potential impacts on residents? St. Angelo residents deserve assurance that economic development won't compromise grid reliability, water security, or household affordability. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Wy. >> Number seven, >> China Young. I know she's here. Walked in with her. >> China Young, >> mayor and council members, my name is China Young and I'm a resident of single member district 4. Um, I'm speaking today about equal access and public trust. Since before your final vote to reszone the land for the data center on January 13th, the public has been increasingly adamant about hearing directly from representatives of Skybox

[0:14:22] data centers or affiliated development investment or infrastructure partners. We the people have been consistently shut out of those conversations. At some point in recent weeks, a colleague of mine was told that a by a reputable city official that representatives of Skybox would be here tonight. Once the agenda was released, we learned that we would not have access to Skybox, but rather Westwood, a consultant group. And while I look forward to hearing what Westwood has to say, I can't help but feel deceived. Another colleague of mine attended the summit, the economic summit earlier today, uh, one in the one in which Mr. Michael Looney claimed that the community would be able to have access to Skybox uh at our own cost. Of course, my colleague that was there said that Skybox was barely even a part of that conversation. So, that just felt like another dangled carrot and more deception. I ask once again how the city is ensuring that constituents have equal access to information and engagement with Skybox or any of the entities looking to capitalize on our community's resources rather than learning about developments after decisions have effectively been made outside of the appropriate uh direct public involvement. Transparency and fairness are essential to legitimacy, especially for projects with long-term community impact. Additionally, the city of St. Angelo must begin coordinating regionally with multiple data centers, including ones in Big Spring and surrounding areas, tapping into the same aquifers that are already stressed even before these additional facilities are there to take those resources. We need to look at the impact beyond just our own community. Something to consider, the SISD board hosts um a pre-agenda workshop the week ahead of their meetings to better involve and include the community in what they discuss and what decisions they make. I've recently learned that there are city councils in Texas that use a similar formula for their city council meetings, hosting a workshop with the citizens ahead of a regular meeting. This promotes inclusion

[0:16:25] and collaboration with the citizenry. So on record, I would respectfully request that this city council adopt a similar practice so as to rebuild the public trust and reinstate what it means to be a nation and a community of the people, by the people, and for the people. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, John. Number eight, >> Jamal Schimpert. >> Jamal Jamal Shambert, SMD3. Uh, I just came up here to, uh, I guess make a correction last week. I said that the pipes weren't included in the plans. They actually were. Uh, I just had to zoom in on my stuff about a thousand. Uh, but they were included. And, uh, I also wanted to say, um, thank you guys for having this meeting in in the night. I know that people are going to fuss and and say some things you don't like, but believe it or not, this y'all are living up to who you said you were on the campaign, and I I appreciate that a lot. Uh, thank you. Thank you again. I can't stay. I do have comments. I know you're wondering. Uh, but my son is trying to have a shot put in discus this week, so I got to help him, but thank y'all. Thank you, Jamal. >> Number nine, Heather >> Joseph Phillips. My name is uh Joseph Phillips. Like she said, um I'm not entirely sure what district I'm on, but I'm over there on Spalding next to Pium, so I'm pretty close. Um, I'm just a college student that's trying to make his way in in the world and, you know, make a living for myself. And the Skybox Data Center, you know, offix offers great economic perks. Um, I saw 27 million annual fees and 100

[0:18:30] long-term jobs. That's great. Um, but corporates exploit pollution hikes. There's health risks and vulnerable spots and resource drains. Texas forces a looming water crisis. Officials warn of severe shortages by 2030 with aquifers like Ogala depleting rapidly from overuse and drought. Our limited freshwater reserves are running dry. Our children being able to thrive, not begging corporations for scraps, but harvesting their own food, food from soil that they can nurture themselves. Our precious fresh water dwindles and distant giants, these corporate giants, drain what's left. We are teaching the people and our children to depend on a system that exploits us. And for what? St. Angelo is a town that is beautiful because of its community and family-owned businesses. Getting this data center built will only be a quick solution that contributes to the thumb that keeps the majority in poverty. We need to play chess, not checkers. We the people need to reclaim our future through communityowned knowledge and skills, protecting our limited resources for generations ahead. Thank you. Thank you. >> Heather number 10, >> Jen Jesperson. Sorry if I said that wrong. >> Pull that mic down. >> Pull the microphone down. >> And you can pull it down. >> The tip down here. Perfect. >> There. Can you hear me now? I am for the AI data center. >> Your name in your district if you don't mind. >> Sorry. 284 Edinburg Road. >> Honey, pull the pull the mic closer to you and you're very soft spoken. Thank you.

[0:20:31] >> How's there right there? Is that good? >> Can you hear me now? >> I can. >> I am for the data center. And um there's a lot of positives with with that data center coming along. And one of the reasons I wanted to speak tonight because I hear the sentiments of you know our our community members and I think those are fair points that they make, right? And we'll I'm sure you will consider those. I work in AI every day all day long. Every day all day long and I can tell you that it's coming and it's here and we can't be fearful of it. We got to solve for it and we got to address those concerns behind us. But the question that I would have is how do you round up most of us and upskill us? How do you take the workforce that's in play and get them ready? Right? Because if you're over 50, you won't see the impact probably in the next, you know, 10 15 years. You're going to see it in the next three years, in the next 5 years. I think that everybody on that has an iPhone or any kind of phone right now, you've been using AI. The AI has been using you, by the way, you know, for the last 10 years. It's just now that it's front and center. So, I I do hope that you create um and you push those larger corporations that that I do think that can bring economic development to our town. Um, and I do hope that you address those concerns, but I would look to you to say, how are you going to upskill and bring St. Angelo to the 21st century, the 22nd century, because it's here. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> And Jaton Gizy. >> Jaton. by Jaton Gizy District 5. Um, if the

[0:22:37] potential data center claims to use only x amount of water, can there be a cap on them? Not a price increase, a shutting the tap off if the certain amount of after a certain amount of water. I see different state officials as recently as this month talking about water shortages, still saying that we're in a six-year drought. Uh we talked about the differences in the data centers and the AI processing, different water and electric use, not expanding in the footprint, but instead upgrading the technology. Um is there anything that relates to what they can do inside the building once they're they're per it's permitted and built? Um meaning can they upgrade and then it the water and electric uses increase significantly. Um, also has a fine particulate matter study been obtained. Uh, what guarantees do the citizens have that our water and electric prices won't increase significantly? Uh, the potential data center tax revenue has been touted as a reason for us to want it here. How much it will the citizens properties taxes be reduced? With that, um, please give us information like you want us to vote on it and we get a good outcome. All right. This is a different subject. Over the years, I've seen many items on the agenda that authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. I've tried to find out what exactly this means and entails, and is there any oversight? Does it include who gets a contract, the final pricing on a contract, including any ads or changes, or is it just purely monotonous paperwork that someone has to do? This is not personal to you, Mr. Venzila. Thank you for your years that you've committed to our city. Uh with the city manager's position being vacated this summer, I'm having a hard time seeing these items being given over to the new city manager to work out the details and award contracts when some of them may happen after some after we get the change made. Um and they no time to even learn the ropes. Uh, I'm sure the new manager will be

[0:24:40] vetted, but it just seems that business as usual in regards to this may be need some adjustments during the time of transition. It may sound like I'm anti-growth. I'm not. I'm really not. I just feel some questions need to be answered. Hopefully, the plan presentation will answer some of these questions today. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Jon. >> Number 12. >> That's all at this time. All right. So, with that, we're going to ahead and move into the consent agenda. We will go down here and I will start down with Mary. And if you have any item you would like to pull, >> Karen. >> No, sir. >> Patrick, >> item F. >> Patrick wants to pull item F. I want to pull item C. Harry, >> nothing to pull. >> Joe, >> Councilman Heert, >> all right. So, I'll look for a motion. >> I've I've got a first from Harry Thomas, a second from Joe Self. Is there any public comment on AB, D, or E? >> Uh, yes. Jaton Geese for D and E. >> Okay. Hi, Todd Keyy, District 5. Um, with the grants that the microphone, we can't hardly hear any. >> Okay. With the grants from the state being considered items DNA on consent agenda, what are we giving in return? This isn't just about money. I feel that privacy could be being compromised in the trade-off. Is that it? Okay. Any other public comment on any of those items?

[0:26:42] >> All right. So, we'll look for a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? When none opposed? Items A, B, D, and E pass 70. Now we'll move to item C. Consider approving a contract with settle partnership DBA Verizon Wireless and its related entities for purchase of a wireless services and products under direct telephone CTSA 0 or3 and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Bucky >> yes sir >> enlighten what this says. I think it's really important that maybe the public hear what we're getting out of this agreement. >> Um yeah, I really think they do should they they should know. So SAPD officers uh currently don't have smartphones as standard issue equipment. Um and they've been getting by with equipment such as iPod touches. Well, we've kind of run up against the wall with that with software updates. And um after looking around for replacement devices and the cost of those, um I I've just decided to reach out to Verizon and see how they could help us. and um they really put uh pencil to paper and they're going to lower our current existing cell phone plans um enough to give us 80 lines of service where our bill is going to be cheaper overall. So, we're still going to get DR pricing. They're just going to cut us uh they're going to lower give us discounts, I'm sorry, give us discounts on those rates so we can afford those uh same uh lines, those 80 new lines for actually our bills actually going to be cheaper. Not only that, they're going to give us a credit per line so we can afford the accessories um such as the phone cases and the and the protective screens. But as as far as uh You have anything you want to add? think it's really going to help push forward the mission of public safety and this to the point of Verizon obviously they wanted to make money and that's kind of where they started but then when they realized they tried to source products for us that we were using those

[0:28:43] iPod touches or any service phones without service and they're just they can't find them so that's where I think it really pushes forth that mission >> so now every policeman will have a phone correct >> that is correct >> right it's it will be a city phone now second question there is our current program. Some of the AT&T phones have a first net which gives them a priority in emergency situations. Correct. Or when the bloom of a tower is full, the first nets have priority. Will any of these Verizons have that same priority? Say we get into a mass event. >> Yes, sir. Verizon has their own flavor of of First Net. It's a priority service to first responders. >> Sweet. All right. With that, that's answered my questions. Anybody else have any questions? I'll make a motion to approve. Can I get a second? I got a second from Karen, first from me. Any public comment on item C? >> None. >> All right, with all that, take a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Item motion. Item C carries 70. All right, we'll move to item F. consider renewing a memorandum of understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation and Texas Parks and Wildlife for the management of public hunting at the Twin Butes Reservoir and authorizing city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Carl White, you're on the >> Do you have any questions? >> There we go. Hey, Carl. Um, how long is the uh memorandum and then what has been your feedback from it and do you think it's been a good benefit to the city to have them handle that? Yes, we we've had this in place since 2016. We had a 5-year, then we renewed it for another five years. So, it's about to expire the end of March. To be honest, this has been a perfect situation for us. Before 2016, it was much of a no man's land out there. Game wardens would go out there periodically to patrol and and our our city police force wasn't sure they could enforce ordinances out there because it's not even in the ETJ, that property. So this has been a the best thing we could do in

[0:30:48] regarding that property. So under this the properties will be managed under Texas Parks and Wildlife Department under their public hunting lands program. So people who do want to go out there to rec do recreation uh can get a general access permit. It's it's it's very affordable for the year. I think it's it's less than $20. They can get a all access permit with the the general access let lets them go out there and fish and do the trails. The full access it allows them to do hunting out there and there's different areas for different kinds of hunting. Um the game warden so TPWD and the game wardens um patrol the area. They enforce laws out there. It's been a great situation for us. I I was also told it's helped kind of keep it clean and and looks good out there and a lot of people are able to use it and not leave trash around and just dump stuff out there. Yes. Has that been your >> It it still happens, but it's a much better situation than it used to be. And they also go out there and do some controlled burnings, clear some areas around the fence to keep it the fire spreading if it does out there. So, it's been a it's been a great arrangement for the city. >> Good. It's all I've got. I move to approve. Nobody else has questions. So, I've got a first from Patrick. I need a second. >> We'll give a second to Karen. Any public comment on item F, Heather? >> None. >> With none, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Item F carries 70. That will conclude the consent agenda. We'll move into regular agenda. Comments regarding the items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To participate, please sign in when the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in order they signed in. Comments are limited to less than three minutes. Applicants, proponents, and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes. We'll move to item A. Consider approving tiers incentive requests for three south tiers

[0:32:50] private projects totaling 275,000. Uh item one, 42 West Bogard. Item two, 421 West Tuig. Item 340 West Tuig presentation by planning and development services director Aaron Venoi. >> Thank you. Good evening Mayor, city manager and city council. Uh Aaron Venoy, planning and development services director. Our first item is recommended uh recommendations for funding in the south tiers district. We had three applicants this cycle. 402 West Borgard, 421 West Tuig, and 40 West Tuig. uh the top two being a $100,000 request and the next one being $75,000 request for a total of $275,000 out of a $1.7 million uh fund availability. So, we'll go into the specifics. So, at 402 West Borgard, uh this is the Angor Hotel. They are looking at doing some safety upgrades as well as a few more aesthetic upgrades uh on their property. They have a project uh that's estimated at 143,000. Um their proposed match being more than the 25% of the 439 and the funding request of the 100,000. So they're going to do some egress, landscaping, parking lot resurface, and signage. So here's a shot of what they look like today. And you can see they've done a lot of work on this project already. Uh they did receive some tiers funding in the past uh for some items, but they continue to want to keep the property uh looking good and continuing to move uh in the right direction. You can see they're going to add some signage here for some of the cross streets so they can be seen a little bit more as people are traveling around in the downtown. They are going to upgrade some of the sidewalks and the landscape areas around here. Here you can see this is on the side where Borgard is as well as here uh on Borgard to um help the parking lot just a little bit. That's actually on um excuse me, that's on Abe Street going south. You can see the do not uh enter sign going the other way. They also have this safety item that

[0:34:52] they want to help fix for the fire marshall is the egress. The stairs are a little narrow. They're also a little older and so they're going to come back with the appropriate size stairs and get that fixed as well. So, that's going to be a great addition for their hotel. Next one is 421 West Tuig. Um, again, a project uh cost of 130,000 with a proposed match of 30,000 with a funding request of 100,000. So, they do meet their 25% match. They're looking at some paving, some fencing, landscaping, window repair, and historic preservation. So, this is a property over here on Tuig. formerly a a house and then it was a dental office at some point in its history. Now it's getting ready for some new occupancy and a a rebirth to that beautiful structure there. Uh they are going to add a wider driveway here at the front. We've already talked about the the tree there. If it has to leave, they are going to plant another tree uh in the same area so that they don't lose the tree, but they are going to widen that so that they have a little bit more parking in the front. You can see on the overhead here, they actually do have a little bit of parking here in the back, I believe. And then they're going to add this fence around here, which you can see here on the right side. And then on the uh inside, they're going to be actually um restoring all the old floors and the historic preservation of the floors and the things on the inside of the building. It's going to be occupied by multiple businesses. So, that's a plus for that that structure. The next one is 40 West TUIG, commonly known as the Spur Building. Uh it has a proposed project cost of 184,000. Um they've requested 75,000 and so the proposed match is a significant 109,000. They do have one elevator in the building, but this elevator does not go all the way to the top floor. You can see that they actually have five stories here. Their first elevator stops on the fourth floor, but they do have somebody that's looking at occupancy on that fifth floor, but they have to put an elevator in. As you know, about three years ago, the TEI board and city

[0:36:56] council added ADA items to their uh list as being very high. And so, our TEI board took that into consideration and did recommend funding for that. So, these did go to um the TEI board. You can see uh the dollars that we have currently. If we funded them uh fully today, we'd still have 1.5 in the south tiers. With that, staff did recommend approval to the TEI board and the amounts that are listed there. Uh they TEI board did recommend approval on January 27th, 2026. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> So, we'll start this off. Erin, it's it's great to see the TEI fund being used to develop and and improve what we have. There's some wonderful facilities there. Um Harry, this is in your district. I'll look for you to lead us a little bit. >> Sure. >> On how you want to take this item. >> Quite honestly, I think this is this is great. I did have one question that I visited with Shane on Friday about and that was the 421 twoe building because the background information originally had only had 115 to 130 in that uh total cost on that. Uh and I believe there was some updated information, background information that evidently didn't get in our packet. So, I'm comfortable with this, all three of them. Uh, and I'm I'm pleased to see that with these three potential approvals that we still got 1.5 in the south district because that's been a struggle for many years. So, I move to approve. >> Tell you what, we'll hold the approval. Let's see if I got questions all the way across. Heert >> Mr. South Patrick >> Karen. >> All right. So, I have a first from Harry Thomas. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Second from Joe South. Heather, is there any public comment on this item? >> All right, with no public comment, we'll go for a vote. All those in favor of approving these three items, say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Item A carries 70. Move to item B, first reading and public

[0:38:59] hearing of an ordinance for one, Z2527, a request for a zone change from general heavy commercial zoning district to the low-rise multif family residential zoning district. And item 2 CP25-03, a request to amend the comprehensive plan from industrial to neighborhood center located northwest of the intersection of East Avenue K and Dugen Street. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Aaron Venoy. >> Thank you again, Mayor. This project here comes to us um from Planning Commission. You can see the property here in red. Uh this is going to be a project that's going to reszone and redo the vision plan. Uh it's going to go from industrial um and neighborhood center to just simply neighborhood center and you'll see that split in just a moment. Um and then we're also looking at doing my slides incorrect there. That should be a zoning um that is going from that slide doesn't look exactly right but apologies for that. So the vision plan let me back up here for just a second. the it's currently let me just get to the right slide and that might help us on before I talk zoning. So we are CH CGCH and you can see that our vision plan is neighborhood center here on the right and industrial. We're bringing that neighborhood center over and we're going here with an RM1. Let me go back to the original front slide. And so you can see there's the current zoning, but we are going to RM1 um low-rise multif family on that property. This is in district 3, Harry Thomas. It is in the neighborhood Fort Concho. Um, we did send out our notices that are required to our 200 foot buffer. We received none in favor, none in opposition. Again, I'm going to go over that zoning again. This property right here, uh, below, we have reszoned that in the past few months to be RM1. Uh, we are reszoning that to RM1 as well. And you can see uh this has all been general commercial, heavy commercial, but some of the properties

[0:41:01] haven't de developed that way. We believe RM1 is a good buffer between some of the traditional two family residential. You can also see that this area was designed to go industrial and that's because of the some of the stuff that's on the other side of Metcaf, which is the next north south road, but that has just not really changed that neighborhood over time. It has stayed historically uh residential and we have more residential coming in to this what we would call a node around the Oaks Avenue L even the Chadburn and down to Avenue N area. So with that staff did bring this forward to planning commission. We do recommend approval uh changing the comprehensive plan from industrial to neighborhood center and a reszoning from general commercial heavy commercial to the zoning district of RM1 lowrise multif family zoning. Uh this is located there at the northeast u northwest intersection of Avenue K and Dugan. Planning commission did hear parts of these cases once on December 15th. They heard the zoning and recommended approval. Then in February, which was scheduled for January, but we had a weather event, heard the comprehensive plan and they recommended approval as well. And so it's forward to you guys tonight with those recommendations. With that, I'll be happy to answer any question. >> Aaron, did those go through planning 70 unanimously. >> I know that the uh comprehensive plan did because we did have a full complement of uh commissioners, but I do believe the one in December was a 60 vote. >> Okay, perfect. Once again, Harry, this falls within your district. It does. Uh I believe this developer already built some homes in that same area. Uh and I can tell you from my perspective, it is it's very well uh it's it's a great great improvement for that. So from my perspective, I think it's just great for >> All right. Awesome. So let me go down. Mary, have you got any questions? >> Karen, >> I have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um I'm having a hard time with the map. if you could go to your larger scale map, that one, and yes, ma'am. >> Use your your cursor, and

[0:43:05] tell us whether or not this is close to the cultural overlay that we created. Can you give us some relative idea of that proximity? >> Yes, the cultural overlay is going to be to the north. >> Okay. >> Uh the cultural overlays, I believe, starts at Highland on Highland and Oaks. And so that would be your cross street. I drive oaks almost every day. I'm going to say that's about a half mile to the north, but it's just south of the Fort Concho area. Uh this is in the Fort Concho, but this road that you can see these structures right here, that's actually Avenue L that goes just to the south of them. And so there's a major intersection there at Oaks and Avenue L. And then Metcaf is on the side over here. And then you actually have uh the South Concho River and you have the uh Glennmore Park uh the old uh fire trading center uh and the Lone Wolf Bridge as well. >> Thank you, >> Patrick. Questions, >> Joe? Mr. Heert? >> So, I'll take a first from Harry Thomas and Patrick had the second. Is there any public comment on that? With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Any of those opposed. Item passes 70. We'll go to item C. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z25-29, a request for a zone change from the zero lot line twin home and town home residential zoning district to low-rise multif family residential zoning district located AC across 33 lots along Sky View Lane. Presentation made by planning and development services director Aaron Venoy. >> Thank you again, Mayor. Uh this is a case out of the bluffs uh in district number six, Miss Mary Coffee. Uh we are looking at going from RS3 zoning on this tract of land right here that's highlighted in red to a low-rise multif family and RM1. Now what you'll ask is the difference between RS3 and RM1. RS3 allows town

[0:45:10] homes and single uh and zero lot lines where RM1 allows multiple structure types within its zoning uh all the way from a single family house uh single family dwelling duplexes uh zero lot lines um town homes all those types of different structure types and those are different than zoning but the zoning is will allow all those structure types the difference between RS3 and RM1 is RM1 is typically a buffer zone between commercial uh heavier uses, heavier traffic, uh like an arterial like FM2288, those things to protect the the neighborhood towards the back. Uh I know y'all will have some questions about that in the in as I go throughout. The other thing that I want you to look at is this property is already platted and you can see all those addresses and so those are the lot sizes. If the developer wanted to come back and change his housing style, say to a single family house that doesn't fit that lot size, which some of them I think most of them are uh right at 40 ft wide by about 75 ft deep, he would have to come back and replplat. That would have to go back to planning commission, go through another review process. Um, as I understand it from the developer, that's not his intent. He wants to continue on with the zero lot line housing that he has and finish out the development. Um, but we did mail out uh 15 in uh 15 notices. I know that we have three that were mailed in. Uh, I want to say that the other one was right here at 605. Uh, I I'm trying to find that. I know that uh our staff has taken a number of phone calls. Uh, and the opposition has been uh they really don't want that many homes back there primarily. and two, it oversees. This is a higher elevation than here below. And so they do oversee um over those those homes at the bottom. And then I also think that there's some

[0:47:13] opposition that the difference the also the difference between RM1 and RS3 is RM1 you're allowed short-term rentals by right where RS districts you can only have them one every 500 ft. And so that that is an important distinction uh in this in this process today. So I I do believe and I think we do have some members in the in the audience today that want to come and have some discussion about this. So again, here we go with the zoning RS3 zero lot line twin home residential. You can see the single family there along Burlington and Stratford goes back into the neighborhood. You just kind of get a little peek at some of the commercial. I've got a different map in just a moment. of course, across the street has not been developed as of yet. This property has been vacant for decades, I would say. Uh, this is just a developer that has found a way that to to try to maximize I think it's 1.7 acres. I could be wrong in the exact size, but I think it's 1.7 acres. And how does putting in a road and water and sewer, how do they pencil out enough structures to make it worth their while? Here's that bigger map that you can see. Of course, this is Sherwood Way. This is FM2288. Uh, obviously, this is what we would call the HB development. Uh, we've got a number of new developments coming across the road. Uh, I think right in this area is where the new, uh, Coleman County State Bank is. And you can see that we have this general commercial zoning district and office commercial just to the south of this property here. And again from planning principles, you try to do buffering in layers as you try to get back and protect your more your RS1. You can see uh one of the structure types here. Um you can see that this is on the what I would call the west side of the road. The east side of the road has has when we took this picture, they have not built started building structures there yet. So looking at our analysis, I did keep our analysis in here for the presentation that the proposed multif family zoning is ideal along a major

[0:49:15] arterial and allows a buffer from commercial to the south. The proposed zone change towards multif family residential does not change the type of housing as the lots are currently platted for town houses uh and zero lot line which would be allowed under the both current and proposed zonings. the multif family uh development is compatible with the neighborhood vision plan as long as it's a low-rise multifamily development. Now, again, he's not doing multiple structures per lot. He's doing one structure per lot. Uh and I'll let him kind of explain what his vision is on that if he's um signed up tonight for public comment. Um but multif family in our current comprehensive plan is compatible with the neighborhood vision plan. Um, with that, staff did recommend approval of this to the planning commission to go from the RS3 low-rise multif or excuse me, the RS uh zoning district to the low-rise multif family residential RM1 uh located on the lots uh 1 through 33 on Sky View Lane. The planning commission did hear this on February the 2nd and they did uh approve 7 to zero uh on February 2nd. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions if I can. Yeah. So, let me start on this one and then we'll kick it over. And this is in Mary's district and I know there's been a lot of phone calls on this and I've talked with the developer also, but let's go. >> They already have the right to build this. >> Correct. They have the right to build. >> We're not stopping the build here. >> Correct. >> The question is is if we change the zoning, will they be allowed STRs? >> And the answer would be yes. If that that is part of the zoning change, >> they would be allowed by right. Okay. So, as we move forward and and Mary, I'm going to kick this over to you a minute because you've had a lot of feedback from your group on that. So, I just need everyone here to understand you can't stop these from coming. All right? These are already by right zoned. And if I'm not wrong, did he have this original zoning to begin with and then it went back and we're trying to take it back to

[0:51:18] an original zoning from what it was originally? Maybe. >> That's a good question. I know we did a number of we we had to look at a couple of variances. Uh I know we went through the plat process. I believe it's been RS3 for a while now, but I'm not sure that it went from RM1 to RS3, but maybe it did. I don't remember us doing a zoning process for this yet. >> Regardless, I had that in a in a conversation with the developer about how it was zoned at one time that it moved out and yeah, >> that that's irrelevant at this point. So, right now we're looking at the zoning and what the So, what other changes other than an STR would fall into this that might create some heartburn for somebody, Aaron? Well, only if the developer chose to change his development style, meaning that houses that have not been developed yet, he comes back with a plat and maybe combines lots, and there's no real reason to do that, but combines lots together into one large lot and puts multiple structures per one lot, almost like a low-rise, like a a small apartment complex, if you would. Um, that's certainly not their intention at this time. Now, the zoning would allow that in the future whether he owned it or not. Um, but that's what the that's really the differences between the zoning districts are. And that's an anomaly we have in our zoning ordinance that we have this catchall in RM1 that allows multiple structure types. That's a challenge that we have all the time. We also two years ago said that all right, if you're RS, you wouldn't be allowed a short-term rental by right. You go through a conditional use process. If you're RM or commercial, you would be allowed to have uh short-term rentals by right. Um and so then when you get to a smaller piece of property like this that has multiple structures in a smaller area, that's when the conflict starts coming into the ordinance as well as in the neighborhood of how do we resolve this to allow the development to continue, but they still get to maximize what they're trying to

[0:53:21] do with the land. And more than likely, these will be sold prior to even completion of the buildout. So, we see that. And if the owner wants to rent them out, they can rent them out. They just can't do a short-term rental. Correct. >> That's correct. They can do a long-term rental. They wouldn't be allowed a short-term rental. >> They can do and the time frame on that, the difference between the two, >> uh, 30 days, >> right? So, if they went into and did a long-term rental, that would be 31 days and beyond. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Cool. With that, Mary, we're going to kick it over to you. It's in the middle of your home district. Yes, I do. Um Erin, you were saying the difference between R RS1 and RS3. Would you repeat that difference, too? I'm just going to go through a channel here. >> Sure. So RM1, >> I mean RS1 to RS. >> RS1. Uhhuh. >> Okay. So RS1 is just single family residential. It allows one structure, one lot. >> Okay. >> RS3. Now in our minds, we still think it has single family residential because a single family is going to live there. In the zoning ordinance, it looks at it as what is the structure type that can be on an RS3. In this case, it's uh zero lot line and town homes and sometimes twin homes as well. Um but those are those are really how the structures align to the property lines. >> Okay. Um on the RM1, there's not a limit to how many you I mean I I realize this is already platted. I'm just thinking of of setting any kind of precedence and what that could do, you know, to other other developments out there. But RM1 would also in it would include uh town homes, not reducing anybody or taking them out of that. Uh but it would also open the door for apartments uh two two or more stories, say duplexes or something like that. So that would um I just want to make make sure we're clear on that. Um, and by doing this, they could still build just like we have

[0:55:24] right here, right? But the main the main sticking point I think with STR is the STR, you know, that rental part. Okay. I want to hear what uh I think there's some citizens here and I'd like to hear what what they have to say because then I think I can answer some of these questions as as we go forward. But yeah, there's there's kind of a lot to this and want to make sure that everyone is is allowed to be heard. But thank you, Erin, for all of this. >> Thank you. >> So, there's a lot here to unpack. So, let's go ahead and start down the dice. Karen, any questions? >> Uh, no questions. I would echo that my concerns are the same as yours and Mary's. The STRs by right is concerning to me. >> All right, Patrick. Aaron, I uh um I know there's been a lot going on with talks with developers and trying to make it affordable for them to build so we can help affordable housing and things like that. With the way it's already platted and this change that would help u that would not change how much it would cost to develop them if I'm looking at correctly like the sewer, water, all that. It still supplies the same amount of homes that are currently platted. Correct. >> Correct. All those lot costs are already there, right? Um they chose to change that up based on changing the lot sizes. then that may impact their overall cost for their construction. But as far as development for that piece of land, those costs have already been sunk into that. >> Don't change it. Um, and then on your picture of the one, what is that in the background? The home apartment. What is that on your other picture? That one right hand side. Yes. >> Um, to our knowledge, it's just a a zero lot line home. >> Okay. So, that's one of them on the other side of the street already. >> Yes, that's on the um western side of the street. Yes, sir. So similar to what would would potentially could go there. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> That is correct. >> Um and then on your your diagram left hand side >> you still have RS1 below that in between the commercial. Right. So this wouldn't exactly be buffer between all of it. It is still there is still some regular >> Yes. But it's if you can see this drainage structure right there that's an unbuildable piece of land. Uh in fact

[0:57:27] they the the original developer has that designated as open space. So it's not even able to be developed on. >> Uh and so it is really just a buffer space. While yes, we have it zoned as RS1, that really doesn't impact that piece of property. >> And the left-hand side is already zoned RS. >> Yes. In 2000 it was zoned RS1. I would say that was an inappropriate zoning. Um but that's what we have. And so until we have somebody that wants to come develop it, we will leave it that way. is in with your expertise, why has that area not been developed so far? Both both those are lefth hand side and that current one we're looking at there. I I think one challenge is you've got a major arterial here that gets a lot of traffic, although it's getting more and more traffic every day. Two, this was an elevated piece that there is a lot of drainage in the area. Of course, you can see drainage that comes up there and you can see drainage that comes in there. That's challenging. it is a small piece of property and if you were to do traditional single family residentials that were these sizes um it doesn't pencil out by the time you put in a road water sewer drainage whatever that may be uh to do that and the other thing in our ordinance in our subdivision ordinance since that's an arterial you cannot have driveways directly onto FM2288 so you have to have that internal road somehow uh I know multiple people have looked at the property this develop Veler, we've went through probably three or four pre-development meetings until we got to a um a site plan that worked for all the development teams from fire prevention, engineering, uh services, uh planning, building permits to do that. And we still had to do some things there. Um, I think it's just a difficult piece of land and obviously anytime you can look at areas that are close to amenities um for people and that are looking for maybe that structure type of a smaller house, smaller yard, less maintenance, and they're closer to these types of

[0:59:30] amenities down here. I think it can be a good thing. We know through our two housing studies, this is the style of housing that we're missing in our in our community. The question is, is this the right zoning and is this the right place? >> And then a two-story property like that would still be allowed with current zoning. Correct. >> Correct. All of our zoning, whether you're RS1 up to RM2, well actually RM2 is higher, but it's all two and a half stories and up to 35 uh feet in height. Um the difference between the zoning districts might be the floor area ratio, how big a house can be, as well as the setbacks also control where those things can be. Obviously, an RS3 has smaller setbacks than an RS1, which is why the lot sizes are much smaller. Um, and so that that impacts all those building decisions by the developer as the person that may come and buy those homes, but it also impacts the neighborhood around and for them to come and and give um their what their thoughts are as well. I mean, that's why we have the open public trans uh public meetings uh for this. >> Okay. I'm I'm all for affordable housing. Um, I think what he's done in other areas has been great for that. Uh, to me, he can keep it more affordable by keeping it zoned as is and not trying to reszone it to where STRs could be allowed. That would actually drive up prices instead of keep them affordable. >> That's all I've got. >> Roll down Harry. >> Well, I'll echo some of the comments that Mary and Karen said. Uh, I'm a little concerned with the number of homes in here that are allowed by by right to possibly be be a rental. Uh, I think affordable housing, and I'll agree with Patrick, we need more affordable housing in this. Uh, the economic conference that we went to this morning, we talked about that. Uh, I think the challenge really is is if we allow this to go in on an RN1 situation, how many of these lots will

[1:01:34] end up being rentals and will that impact the rest of the neighborhood? So, my question for you, Erin, would be, how long would it take? You've already said that the RM1 is catchall. How long would it take you and your staff to come back to this particular group with different zonings that would fit between RS3 and and RM1 as today? >> Well, we have a development team that's already working on that as well as with the uh development task force. We anticipate uh this late spring that we'll be having a potential joint meeting with city council and planning commission to address some of those that we would be creating some additional RS districts that would allow smaller sizes and things like that. And so that would also look at the RM1 zoning of what structure types would we not allow an RS RM1. So it truly is a low-rise multifamily structure type. We would move those maybe to an RS structure type. Um, and so we plan on doing that here this this late spring. >> All right. Thank you, >> Jose. >> So, I set on planning for quite a few years, and short-term rentals are a fun monster to tackle. Uh, if we move it to RS3, is that what we're RM on RS3? We're >> we're on RS3. would be moving to RM1 as the request allows short-term rentals >> but within 500 ft of each other. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And that is governed by you guys. >> Yes, sir. >> If we move it to RM one, they're allowed throughout. >> Correct. >> Is that still governed through you? >> It is governed. They still have to do their uh building inspection and then they have to do their hot taxes. Um I I would say they wouldn't have the zoning mechanism as an enforcement mechanism per se. They would have potentially other enforcement mechanisms, but again it would not be the zoning mechanism

[1:03:37] >> where go back to that in our meetings with planning is okay. You you actually have more restrictions on short-term rentals than you do long long-term rentals. 30 days if the police are called they don't get that re they don't get to redo it. Did the same criteria happen for this if we move it to that? Does that make sense? >> It does not. There's not a way to revoke that. Okay. Through a zoning mechanism, >> it's just short terms allowed because it's in that. >> Yes. And I don't want to misspe Brandon, but I don't think there's anything else that zoning wise. >> You can't take it away from a hotel, which is the same type. >> Correct. Yeah. Code enforcement is correct. Noise or whatever it might be. That that's one of the wonderful things about short-term rentals is is you can revoke it in the RS1 or RS3. But uh okay, I just wanted to >> Yes, sir. >> double check that. Thank you, >> Councilman Heert. >> Erin, let's talk about parking. >> Yes. >> Um we haven't we haven't gone down that path yet. Um what is the requirement for parking in its current uh zoning classification of of RS3? I believe RS3 you're allowed it's basically two parking spaces and those have to be 9 by8 on your private property and so say a structure like this um if it has a garage that and maybe it's a onecar garage that counts as one space and then if you have a driveway that's does not encroach into the and I say encroach but the vehicle wouldn't encroach into the rightway when it's parked there then that also counts. Um, so that it these would need two parking spaces on private property >> as it exists currently. >> Yes. >> If it were changed to RM1, >> do the parking requirements change? >> To RM1, they do change down to 1.5 parking spaces. However, if it's a short-term rental, they're required two

[1:05:40] parking spaces u no matter what. And that's kind of an again an anomaly within our zoning ordinance where we drew a line at RS districts conditional use RM districts allowed by right. We have kind of a a parking anomaly there of well you must show two um two parking spaces every time you come in there. Now everybody's thinking in the back of their head if there's not a process for them to come and check do you have two parking spaces where's where's the recourse on that? And so we recognize that as an issue within our ordinance and that's something else that we're going to be bringing forward later this spring >> in a worst case scenario and this is I'll say a possibility. I'm not sure it's a high probability but nonetheless a possibility. I could see if if there are if I'm if my memory is correct, there could be as many if it were changed to uh RM1, there could be as many as 33 uh alleged STRs there. I could see if those were all rented at one time, there might not be enough parking either for the structure itself, the one and a half, much less two, but then we're we're starting to spill parking onto in my opinion possibly onto Stratford there, which have we had any comment from any of our public safety entities with respect to the parking? the possibility of that spilling over onto Stratford. >> The short answer is no. We've not had any comment. The longer answer is I'm not sure that we've fully considered what is there if there is spillover parking from a public safety standpoint. Um, so I do see your concerns there, uh, for sure. But I I would say I wouldn't put that on them for not saying that. And I would say we probably didn't ask that in one of our Wednesday meetings

[1:07:42] of, hey, this resoning is coming forward. If every one of these became an STR and we've got to add all these vehicles somewhere, is that a consideration? Is that a concern for anyone? I don't think we've asked that question. >> Fair enough. um numbers of uh individuals as it currently sits now as RS3. How many individuals can be housed at any one time in its current zoning? >> I believe our our ordinance reads as six unrelated adults uh or family unit. Um, I think that comes down to how many how many they have in their family and what the size of the structures are, but our zoning ordinance talks about six unrelated adults. You can't go over that number. If it were to go to RM1 and these were several or may maybe more than several were to become STRs, what kind of uh requirements do we have on number of individuals in the house if it's if it's an STR? >> Well, the STR rules uh while we still look at that six unrelated, but it also talks about there are basically two adults per per bedroom. So, if this was a four-bedroom structure, that implies that you could have up to eight unrelated in a short-term rental. >> Okay. All right. Um, you mentioned opposition. >> Yes, sir. >> Do we know does it rise to the level that this is going to need a supermajority vote to pass with the opposition that you you currently have >> for the written opposition that was turned in? It does not it does not reach that 20% um uh threshold and so we don't have to have a supermajority vote here to overturn uh any decision. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I've got. Mayor >> Eric, I mean uh Brandon, I want to call it audible here.

[1:09:45] Would it be okay to take public comment prior to making our motion? I think >> I think it's this one has got enough I would I won't say controversy, but it's got enough opinion on it that I would like to hear the public comment before we go ahead and make a motion. So, Heather, how many do you have signed up for public comment? >> We have eight on this item. >> Awesome. Let's start with number one. >> All right. Norman Ray Jenkins, >> I didn't ask. Are y'all good with that? >> Yeah. And I'll tell you why later, but it would sometimes it works. >> So, Mr. Jenkins, you're going to get three minutes on this one. >> My name is Norman Jenkins. I live at 6029 Kingsbridge Drive, which is in number six. I've lived in that home for 25 plus years. We looked at a lot of areas before we moved into that particular house, had it built. We selected that area because of its location within the city. We looked at all of the other available areas around the city and found the bluffs to be best primarily because it was nice homes. It was single family dwellings. There were numerous types of lots available at that time. Now there are very few lots available. Some of them are owned by private individuals who bought them just to keep somebody else from building something that they didn't want next to them. Therefore, we do not want to allow some type of a zoning change that would open up the

[1:11:50] gates to allow people to change the lots or the homes in the upper bluffs to allow short-term rentals. don't want have uh uh Airbnbs and we don't want housing up there that has multiple families living in one single family dwelling. Right now we when I moved there most of the people in our area were my age looking at are already retired since some of those have left because of age health are passing away. A number of families have moved in that have children. So the demog demographics of the upper bluffs is changing as we go. Most everybody there is family oriented. We do not need to have a bunch of people moving in and out as a rental property. We enjoy seeing the people that we have on a regular basis. We have a very low crime rate. We have very low pet problems. And if we have a lot of people moving in and moving out on a regular basis, we think it would be detrimental to our homes, our safety, and what has become a very stable, loving neighborhood. I wish that we had had more time and to allow >> Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You bet. >> Heather number two,

[1:13:51] >> Steve Hampton. >> And uh I live on Burlington. I live in one of these houses, one of these eight houses here. >> Uh there's several speakers going to come up behind me that are >> So, can we hold a minute? You're Steve Hampton? >> Yes, sir. >> Steve, we have two. >> I'm sorry. The clock, >> but by history, there's another Steve Hampton back there. >> Is there? >> Yes. >> Well, he's probably a lot better fellow than me. >> N let's just not go there. Let's not go there. But anyway, >> you keep quiet, Mr. Restart the clock and avoid the confusion. I am sorry. Uh there's there's several other folks that are that are much more versed on this. >> I thought I understood it when we walked in here. I couldn't be more confused with the different >> uh zoning uh numbers that that you've been talking about. But the the issue that I have is there's where there's eight houses in that same area, there's about to be 33. And that lot line I don't I'm not sure that that's is that the property line in that red marky. >> Yes. Few feet. Yes. >> Okay. Well, that lot line is not level. That lot line about half of it is down in the drainage area. So these houses on the east side, they're literally going to have to be up to the to the edge of that if they're going to be the same size as the eight that they've built on the west side. Um I would argue that they do not fit the um what was what was the phrase you said? I'm sorry. The they fit with the model >> character >> character of the of the neighborhood. I can't imagine anywhere else in the bluffs that there's anything like that. Okay. Did I misquote you? >> No. That's >> So your comment needs to be 3 minutes to the dice.

[1:15:53] >> I'm I I won't have much more than that. Um the road that's This is This is really not even probably relative to that, but the the new road that's put in from Stratford to where uh Skyline, is that what it is? Uh, that's a it's a it's a it's a slight rise right there. That's a blind corner for anybody pulling out right there. I'll guarantee you you're going to have a a bad accident. I pull out there every morning between 5 and 6. I know it says 45 miles an hour. It's not. Uh, it's bad enough pulling out on Stratford on the 2288. The more people you got up there, the better chance you're going to have a big problem. Uh if you put twotory houses there, I maybe that's a moot point because we can't we can't uh apparently we can't we can't fight that. I've walked up there and looked uh I've been up in the ones that they've built. I can literally see right into my my living room window from these houses. So, I can't imagine anybody up here would be in favor of this if they were going to build it behind your house. >> So, I'll I'll defer the rest of my comments to these other gentlemen. >> Thank you, Mr. Hampton. Heather number three, >> David Duncan. >> Yes, sir. My name is David Duncan. I live out in the bluffs. Uh, and I need to apologize first. Uh, I don't hear very well. So, if I repeat what somebody else has said, I hope you'll just let me talk. And, you know, uh, is that my understanding is there are two ways you can get a short-term rental. one is uh like would be would apply to RS3 and that is that you are subject to the

[1:17:57] short-term rental use uh and the 500 ft rule. Uh those apply to RS1, RS2, RS3, R& and or PD, but that you notice they don't apply to RM1. And that's the second way you can get a right to to use a short-term rental under the zoning regulations. It's a little bit of a division when it says that RM1 allows short-term rental. What that means is that whoever owns that light by law has the right to use it as short-term rental. Now what that transfer translates into is under RS3 in this subject area I calculate it would allow probably two short-term rental houses. That's it. Under RM1 it would be 33 short-term rental houses that could possibly be rented owned by 33 different people. And each one of those people is going to have a different standard. you know how how they keep a house, how they keep order in a house. Another another difference between RS the RS type, the RS3 type and the RM1 type is that if you have a short-term rental under the uh the ones that that fit into the 500 foot rule, basically you have to get what really amounts to a permit, a conditional use approval. that approval is revocable under RM. It's not revocable. It does that this rule does not apply to RM1. Uh and also under the RS3, there's a whole litany towards the end of it of things that can cause a

[1:20:02] revocation of a permit. You can't revoke an RM1 short-term rental permit. It's not a permit. What it is is it's it is a right that by the zoning law is attached to each separate lot. And that right belongs to whoever owns that that lot. And that's why there would be 33 short-term rentals uh allowed there as opposed to two. Now, I think that's concern. >> You've hit the three-minute limit, sir. >> Yeah. Thank you for your comment. >> I only have one other comment and very concerned about >> No, sir. It's it's three minutes. That's all >> actually. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir. >> Zane Willard. >> Mr. Willard. confirm if you're the applicant. >> Are you the applicant for this? >> I am. Yes. >> Thank you. >> As the applicant, he'll have five minutes. >> He's got five, >> man. I got I only have three minutes, so I better talk fast. So, >> five. >> Five. Okay. Hey, so first of all, thank y'all for serving. Appreciate y'all taking your time and doing what you do because you y'all get bombarded with lots of stuff. So, we appreciate that. Uh, I think there's a lot of confusion and and the one of the two Mr. Hampton's, you know, he it's confusing to me and we do this all the time, the RS3 versus the RM1. The reason we asked for the the request to go RM1 was strictly for the short-term rental. That doesn't mean that people will use it. It just gives them the right. The thing that I used as my litmus test on a daily is this 2024 housing study. And it asked for that. It asked for smaller houses, smaller lots, zero lot lines. So, we have followed what this recommendation is when we're looking for these properties that are they've been sitting there idle. Mr.

[1:22:04] Duncan had it for sale for for decades. And that's the reason we went with the configuration we did over there. Uh we've sold se several of these where there's multiple opportunities for short-term rentals. I can't say one way or another, but most of the time that isn't what people are doing with it. I I talked to the mayor yesterday. A lot of this will be corporate housing wherever you go with it. People are looking for St. Angelo is growing, but we have a shortage of smaller homes that fit what people need in terms of they're coming in for 3 to nine months and they need a place to stay. So that's usually whenever you go to the RM1, what we're finding is on a short-term rental, more people are going that way, meaning they're furnished. But that was the reason for the request. It doesn't change the size, the design, or any of those kind of things. Uh y'all have any questions for me? Are you getting these sold as you build them? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So, every one of them is pretty much sold as it comes. >> Not not all. There's eight of them under construction currently. We got four of them, you know, that people are going to move into. We We've had a people have a hard time seeing the finished product and we got four of them that are right to the finish line. Uh Mr. Heert was talking about parking. We've got it set up right now with three parking spots. There's one where you'll be in a garage and then two outside parking. The ones on the opposite side, we're planning on making those twocar garages on the bottom. So, we'll end up with four parking spots per per house. >> You talked about the visibility into houses from these houses. Are they able to look out these houses down into the others? >> Currently, they can look if you know there's there's two bedrooms upstairs and then there's a bedroom downstairs. The way we the our plan currently is on the because there's zero lot line the side that sets on the property line. There's no windows allowed. Our goal is to put all the windows facing the house beside it. So we we'd had an earlier planning commission meeting and there was a lot of uh conversation about not wanting any windows. So the side that would be the east side, that's our

[1:24:06] intent at this point is to delete all the windows on that side. Uh there won't be a backyard. So all we have to do is put a a fence between each of them. They're usually 10 foot apart and it pretty much blocks all the view from anybody being able to see on the bottom. So the quicker we get them big built the the less opportunity anybody to look from the top to the bottom. Currently if somebody was in one they could see down and see any of the houses in the bluffs. >> Awesome. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Will? >> I've got one. Go ahead though. Patrick, >> just a quick clarification. You um in your statement just now you talked about corporate housing and you know 3 to six to nine months. Those are not considered STRs. So, just want to make that point. >> Correct. Yes, sir. >> Zayn, are any of these on the new ones, they're going to have like a little sideyard? It's not the house isn't like in the middle of it, but they'll have a little portion of yard >> on a zero lot line. The yard is always on the side. So between one of them sits on the property line and then you have the the 10 foot from the house to the >> how's the best way to describe this Aaron? So so one of them sits on the property line that's the side that won't have windows and then in this case the front door is 10t away on the next house and so your yard instead of being in front or in the back it's on the side. >> But that sideyard would you be able to still stand there in that sideyard and look over onto Burlington? >> No. So, where's it going to be? >> Well, the garage is in the front. The windows right there on the side. >> So, that's pointing out. Burlington is Where's Burlington at? Down. Burlington is Burlington's over there. So, I mean, there's not going to be a direct window looking over out the >> I'm talking about a window. I'm talking about if you're standing in the little 10ft yard area. So, right there from right here where that's at over that's where the fence would be, but it's on the opposite side. There's no fence in this particular picture. We've already done them on on the ones that are there currently.

[1:26:09] >> Okay, that's okay. That that doesn't answer my question. Um, if that house is sitting on that lot, I don't care how many stories or anything. I don't even care about windows on this statement. That yard is at on the side of the house. Correct. >> Correct. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Does that yard go all the way back to the that end before you go off that cliff? All right. So, they could be standing in their yard and see over into the people on Burlington. >> They could. Our intent is to put a fence between the two houses. So, if you were in your yard, you couldn't see toward Burlington. >> Well, I've been over there several times. And when you even the the 10 yard 10t deal even if you had a 7 foot privacy fence I mean I'm with boots on I'm 6 feet tall and I was standing there and I saw three of them in their pool. So >> I'm talking about when we built them on the other side. >> I am too. I am too. >> No. >> No. But even if I did have even if I did have a foot, you can still see down. It's it's incredible. You don't think that it that it will with a with any kind of fence, but you can you can still see down there. >> I think when we get the fence built, you and you were standing by a seven foot fence. I think at six foot it's going to be taller than you are. that might but perhaps you're correct. >> Well, I just want to make main thing if that that they would have access on that um during on that yard part of them that 10 foot they could still get up there to it. So to follow up a little bit what Mary brought and and the reason you get to continue Zay is because we have engaged you and as pellet to continue this conversation that doesn't matter whether either zoning or not. Those people be

[1:28:13] able to stand and look whatever way regardless of what we do on the zoning here. >> Correct. It's no different. >> This whole thing boils down to >> can it end up available for multiple STRs or not. >> Correct. Yes. >> That's when all it boils down to is that one decision. >> Yes. where somebody stands, what they can see doesn't change. You have the right to build there. >> Correct. >> Any further questions for Zay, >> Zane? Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Will Barnes. Hello, I'm Will Barnes, single member district 1, and I am for them. As a realtor, >> as a realtor, I believe in choice of use and best use for your home. I do totally understand if you're in a neighborhood and you're all combined and and in a smaller or group setting like this, they're up on a hill and on the fence, the sideyard on like this home is on the opposite side of where Burlington is. So, the other home's going to be across from it. So, when the other homes get across, you're not going to look out your front and see over. And when you have a sideyard, I mean, if you stand up on the fence railing, you can look over at that time. Um, but the whole purpose is I believe it lets people have choice and it gives people the right to make sure if times get tough and there has to be something done, it gives them the flexibility to make the best use. The the short-term rentals is under 30 days. A lot of these probably will be fully fully furnished for um the professional network and the traveling nurses and doctors. And again, that ain't going to affect us whatsoever. They're still going to be there. I currently live close to two short-term rentals and I have no issues because most of the time

[1:30:18] it's a traveling nurse in there. Occasionally you will have, you know, people in and out. And as a family man, when we go on vacation, we look for a short-term rental so we don't have to get two hotel rooms to allow people to bring their whole family down. So, in a nutshell, that's all I got. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Number six, Heather >> Scott Allison. My name is Scott Allison. Um, I've had the opportunity to uh help our community and enjoy our community for over 40 years in the residential real estate division. And one thing I've learned is we don't tell the market what to do. The market tells us what to do. So, in total transparity, no matter who can build what, where, how, the reason that we're asking for this is for the short-term rentals. When I sat on the planning commission years ago, they didn't even exist. Things change. It's here. The market's still telling us we got to do it. That's why we're here. But I do want to make one point of clarification. And everybody's worried about overseeing the fence. I live in Builtwood. You know what they did next door to me? They built a two-story house. Guess what? They look into my backyard. And on any single residential lot in St. Angelo, Texas, as long as it's big enough, you can build a two-story house. If you build a two-story house, you can look in your neighbor's backyard. So anyway, but thank you'all for your consideration and I understand everybody's point of view on it, but the the market is what told us to come ask for y'all to do this. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Alison. >> Number seven, Heather >> Shelley Sturgeon. >> My name is Shelley Sturgeon. I live in Beric. >> Thank you. >> All right. Shelley Sturgeon. I live on Burlington. These houses back right up into my backyard. As they said, the

[1:32:23] current zoning ordinance is to discourage super high density housing, and I'm not sure that changing it is going to make it less, but it's violating sensible city planning. It does not protect the integrity or character of our neighborhood. I'm not sure where affordable housing and the bluffs came together in the same sentence. Um that that eludes me. Um our privacy has already been violated. The natural environment and topography have been adversely affected. It's it's the homeowners are entitled to what's called quiet enjoyment of our land. And changing the zone would further violate those rights. It's it it's just we're asking to consider us homeowners who are already there. And that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Number eight, >> Frederick Hernandez. Mayor Thompson, council members. Um, fairly new to the to the San Angela area. Bought her home a little over two years ago. We bought in the Burlington area specifically for the privacy. Uh, some of these notices I have not ever received any of it. It may be because I'm enlisted, but I I was not provided or my wife and I were not provided due process in that regard. I do want to talk about as soon as this started going up, we did put our house up for sale um just about everybody who came to look at our house uh was very concerned about what was building in the back and nevertheless we we did not sell it and we've taken the house off the market at this time. Um the other thing I wanted to mention

[1:34:25] was that um it it it has totally uh destroyed any privacy that we had. Um, if you have not been there yourself, uh, this picture, it looks like you have some type of vast open area, it is a tight area. And if you listen to the individual that was speaking earlier, if you listen to his words about maximizing this uh, this zero lot lines, they're trying to fit in as much as they can in a in an area that really, if you look at it, it's going to be very crowded. that FM2288, the traffic does go by pretty quick, especially when when it gets dark. Um there's there's not going to be if they're going to have multiple individuals living in any of these houses, um you know, that's a potential having multiple vehicles. There's not enough parking area there. They're going to end up parking in Stratford. And uh folks coming off FM2288 onto Stratford um they're they're typically especially at night they're not they're not coming off that road uh under the speed limit. Um yeah that that uh that's just a a personal testimony of myself that I can I can vouch myself because we did put the house up for sale. uh and uh it is it is uh adversely having an effect on on on on our property values. And that's that's all I have other than the fact that again if you if you have not seen that area, I would strongly encourage you to go and see it because the these these pictures right here do not give any justice to how tight that that that area is going to be. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. >> That's all. We're done. All right, Aaron, come back up. All right, Erin. So, we've heard opposition and we've heard those that

[1:36:30] are advocating for this change and both sides of those have very good points of view. Um, you where I live on the north side of town, it's a lot different than it was 20 years ago. I mean, change happens, density happens. Um, I don't think any of us here are naive enough to think that what we buy is going to protect us forever. We get that. But we do have a right to voice our opinion and move forward. Um, are there any further questions on the dis for Aaron? So Aaron, if if I understand this right, planning approved this 70. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. In favor of changing the zoning. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, with that, I'm going to I'm going to make a motion to approve as presented to make the first motion because I don't want anybody to have to take this one. I don't know. This is this is a this is a big decision and I'm going to make the first motion. >> Can I ask him a quick question? >> Sure. Erin on um planning commission. >> Yes, sir. >> Were Were they fully aware of the STR difference? Was that discussed? >> Yes. Okay. >> It was. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, I just want to go back just a while a bit and I don't want to accuse it. We're going on the record. We try not to come back and make comments after the motion. And so when I ask anybody got anything left to roll, let's go. Let's go ahead and roll with it. Mary, go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you, Tom. I do understand the need for affordable housing and you see that all over St. Angelo. I think this is a a case of just because you can, should you, you know, and this area, while I know growth happens, change happens, it's inevitable. The fact that Mr. Willard can go ahead and build those other 31 33 homes, they can still go. We're not knocking everybody out of a making a living or

[1:38:33] anything like that. Not trying to shut down construction. It's the short-term rental aspect that has everybody so up in arms. While this works in many other uh areas, other sub subdivisions and what have you, it does not fit with the with the bluffs. And I've talked to numerous people, not just on Burlington, but just all around. It changes the complex of of the the development. It changes the complex for everyone that already has established homes. But I I just wanted to make that that statement. Uh thank you Erin for your this was a great presentation and you had a lot of detail in it and it took some time. So I really appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Is everybody completed with their comments for Aaron? >> All right. We have a first on the floor that I had made. Do I have a second? I have a second from Harry Thomas. We're going to take these votes one by one as we come across. Is that all right, friend? >> All right. So, we'll start with you, Mary. In favor of the item as presented, say yay. If you're opposed, say nay. >> Nay. >> Got a nay. Karen, >> nay. >> Patrick, >> nay. >> I am a yay. Harry, >> I'm going to be a yay. >> Okay. Joe, >> nay. >> Nay. He >> nay >> nay. Item fails five to two. >> All right, let's go to the next one. >> All right, let's go to Are we on D? Somebody tell me we're on D. All right, thanks Patrick. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z2530, a request for a zone change from the neighborhood commercial zoning district to the low-rise multif family zoning district for a 1.17 acre property at the intersection of South Bryant and Century

[1:40:35] Drive. Presentation made by planning and development services director Aaron Venoy. >> Thank you, Mayor City Council. Mr. Valenuela, Aaron Venoy, director of planning development services. So, this is a track that's just 1.1 acres here off of Bryant. You can see that's also on Century right there. It's in the neighborhood of Rio Vista. It's in District 1, Tommy Heert. The vision plan is commercial. This is a request to go from the neighborhood commercial, which has not been developed as, to the low-rise multif family RM1. We did send out 10 notices. Uh we had zero in support and zero opposition. Here's our U zoning over here on the left. You can see we have an an RM1 um development here at the back. This over here is neighborhood commercial, but it's actually also an RM2 development. Just happens to be zoned uh neighborhood commercial. And then across Bryant, you see some heavy commercial, general commercial, and then you see some large vacant area that's ranching estate at this time. You can see our vision plan on the right. You can see we're that commercial swath that in 2000 all we did was we kind of painted 200 feet on either side uh of Bryant said that's all going to be commercial. But as we know development doesn't always happen that way. Uh in this case we've got neighborhood here at the back. Uh RM1 does fit with commercial and with neighborhood. And so we believe that RM1 is going to be a potential for this uh property. We did look at this. Um it does have an alleyway here. It has a road connection there and a road connection there. And the developer is going to keep it all one lot. Looking at 10 what he would call zero lot line uh structures going along there. They have I believe they're actually 110 ft deep um as far as that piece of property. And so they have lots of space for people to pull in pull all the way through if they wanted to do that or back out in the alleyway and come around. Um, as you notice, there's not a crossover here or

[1:42:37] here. That's a text dot thing. These folks, they could go through and come up here to uh Jackson if they chose to. Uh, or if they're going south, they could turn out or going north, they could turn out and go north on Bryant. We did uh talk about this as staff. Uh, the development has not moved anywhere in over two decades. Uh, almost three decades actually. Uh but now the the property has some potential with coming in with this low-rise multif family. Uh we know that we do need more housing in our community uh and this style of housing that is in an area that's close to Goodfellow, also close to ASU, uh close to Bryant, which is a major thoroughare to get to downtown uh or other places. And so staff is recommending approval for the change zone change from neighborhood commercial to low-rise multif family on that tract. This did go to planning commission on February 2nd and they also recommended approval with a 70 vote. But that'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Aaron, everybody's familiar with this as you come in South Tina Town and it also matches the existing environment. Um, whose district is this in? >> I want to say Mr. >> Heerty off. Uh, I've only had one question on this and it had to do with u architectural construction material which we can't control by by zoning. So that answered the question for them. Uh, with that mayor, I'll move approval was presented >> as we roll. Does anybody else got any questions for Aaron first? >> Just real quick. Um, >> is this the I know right in there there's been a bunch of property for sale for a long time. Usually I'm against trying to sell commercial for residential and leave it commercial for because we want to grow that um as our city. But is this the one that's been for sale or is it the one just to south that that was R& do you know off hand? I >> I don't know that. I know >> I could tell by the road view. I can't tell from a >> view. I know I know the the I say fairly new alips is just to the south of this and I know there's a pretty big wide track there that some of the property

[1:44:38] owners at the at going to the east >> own, but I don't know if those front properties have been for sale or not to be honest with you. >> Well, I know it's been for sale and hasn't been developed. So, to me, this seems like a great use of of the land now. >> Are you done? >> All right. I have a first from Tommy Heert. Second. >> Second from Joe Cell. Any public comment, Heather? >> All right, with no public comment on item D, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries 70. Let's go over to item E. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z25-31, a request for a zone change from the general heavy commercial and light manufacturing zoning district to the general commercial zoning district at 1805 South Bryant Boulevard. Presentation made by Aaron. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh this property is really kind of a cleanup so that uh there's some potential new development that's going to come in. You can see it's in a little odd shape there that is has a little arm that reaches out to Avenue in and this little piece and a structure here at the back. But today we're talking about the reasonzoning of this property. This is in the ne the Rio Vista neighborhood. It is district 3, Mr. Harry Thomas. The vision plan is commercial and it's just under uh 3/4 of an acre and we are looking at changing the zoning from light manufacturing and general commercial heavy commercial just to general commercial and I'll show you that in just a second. We did send out our notices. We did not receive any in support or any in opposed. But you can see here on the left where we have this industrial kind of blue area, this light manufacturing area that's back here. Uh some of the properties have kind of developed that way and some haven't. We know that that's a car wash. We know this is an O'Reilly's. We know that's the KFC. We know that's the Wii Snitle. And so this kind of corner here, as you would expect with a commercial corner, has really not been that light manufacturing. And so they're coming today to really clean that up. You can see the whole area is uh with the vision of uh commercial and this being a major thoroughare, they're

[1:46:41] looking at putting something there that can uh work with the traffic numbers that are coming through there. with that um we did take this planning commission uh staff also recommend approval that this fits within the area. It does remove the general commercial heavy commercial. So it does help uh zone that to a more appropriate to the general commercial. It gets rid of the light manufacturing at the back for this property and allows them to kind of move forward with a an approved uh get moving on a site plan on how they would develop that tract. Planning Commission did recommend approval on February 2nd, 2026 with a 70 vote. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Um, once again, Harry, this falls within your district. >> Well, I believe I believe this is something we needed to do for a long time >> simply because we needed to get to uh to CG. Uh, so I I certainly move to approve it. >> All right. Did anybody have any questions on this before we move? >> All right. I've got a a first from Harry >> and a second from Patrick. Heather, is there any public comment? With no public comment for item E, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Item passes. 70. Let's go to item F. First reading and public hearing for an ordinance for CP25-04, a request for a comprehensive plan amendment from neighborhood center to industrial. And item 2, Z2532, requests for a zone change from the ranch and estate zoning district to the heavy manufacturing zoning district located at 3089 East FM2105. Aaron, you're on. Thank you, mayor. This is in the Pauland neighborhood, District 4, Mr. Patrick Keley. The current zoning is Ranch and Estate, excuse me. And the vision plan is industrial and neighborhood center. And you'll see the neighborhood center in just a moment. Uh but just to kind of get your bearing straight, right here is the existing railard. Right here is our existing landfill, of course, FM2105, old old Ballinger Road. And so 277 is

[1:48:44] over here to the east just a little bit. Um so this is a city-owned piece of property and we are getting ready to have someone come in and start doing some develop and potentially sell some pieces of it off. Uh we did mail out our our 12 mailers. Um, we had zero in favor and zero opposed. None of the property owners around there gave us any feedback. Here's our zoning. Of course, our landfill, as you can say, and this is one of those that's probably the inappropriate zoning. Back in 2000, they just came and said, "Well, that'll all be ranch estate." In reality, that's industrial and should move to industrial. And you can see the comp plan. They got that right. This property here is going to be an expansion of the rail park in the future. And so we're getting ready with this resoning to allow that to happen so they can start moving forward with site plans and how they want to develop that. Uh you can see the the vision plan out there when you get past this property right here to this side that's in the ETJ and up here at the top that's also in the ETJ. So our zoning ordinance do does not control those guys, but on this property it is in within the city limits and so our zoning ordinance does control it. On the vision plan, we are changing it um this one little corner right up here um because this is where an intersection is supposed to happen in the future. Uh supposed to be a major intersection with Cington and and such. And so in 2000 they put neighborhood center but obviously it has not developed that way in the last 26 years and we don't anticipate it developing that way in the next 26 years uh with what we're doing here today. Beautiful picture uh out on the road. Um you can see uh looking down 21105 and that's that road that corner there at Cumington. With that, staff does recommend approval of the resoning from the ranch and estate to heavy manufacturing and a comprehensive plan amendment from that small corner of neighborhood center to industrial planning commission heard this on February 2nd, 2026 and did recommend 70 in approval. With that, I have be happy to answer any questions.

[1:50:45] >> Awesome. Patrick, in your district, why don't you tee us off here? >> I only had one call about it. They have some business in the area and they were calling about it and they once they knew what it was, they were fine with it. We heard about it at the economic summit today um about kind of what their plan is for the rail port and the expansion and and to bring in and and load and unload cars. So I I've got no problem with it in my area. >> Patrick, anybody else has some questions? >> I move to approve. >> So I got a first from Patrick >> and we're going to give the second to Joseph. >> Any public comment? >> All right, with no public comment, we're going to take a vote. All in favor say I. >> I. Sorry. >> Did you sign up for public comment? >> I did not. >> Ma'am, ma'am, I got that. But we have to be consistent with everybody and I'm sorry about that. >> That's >> okay. So, with no public comment, all those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? With no opposed, item F passes 70. Before we go into item G, we have set quite a while. I'd like to take a 10-minute break. Give everybody a chance to take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back with the much anticipated item G. All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order at 7:40 p.m. on February 17th. We're going to move into agenda item G. So before we go down agenda item G, Brandon, will you kind of define the lines the legality of this is a non- action item that we won't vote on? Will you kind of give a little bit of the parameters here? >> Yeah, sure. So I mean again this >> Can you talk in the microphone, sir? >> Thank you. >> Hey, we all got to play by the same rules.

[1:52:46] >> I understand. Thank you. Uh no, this is a just a discussion only item. uh there has been guidelines that were included in the agenda packet and so discussion should be limited to uh those guidelines or uh related guidelines that we're talking about that could be in this um type of district or zone. Um but beyond that, no action will be had if these guidelines do later become an ordinance. I mean, of course, that has a process that it would have to go through likely because it's dealing with zoning that has to start at the planning commission and then work its way up to city council. So, there will be more opportunities for uh public hearings on these. >> All right, cool. Thank you. I'll go ahead and read item G. Discussion direction for staff to consider design guidelines and conditional use processes for data center type projects in the Northeast Master Plan. Presentation made by planning and development director Aaron Venoi, chief project officer Rick Weiss. That's a new title. And Westwood consultant Eric Head. Aaron, you're on. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I got volunte. So, I'm very excited. >> Congratulations. >> Yes. Thank you, sir. Um, so what I want to do is, as you guys know, and this is available to the public, is that these this information is in the the council background. Uh it's about six to seven pages long that has also some landscaping information in it. I'm going to go through some of the highlights through here. Um and so if there's things you want to talk about or bring up or something, myself as well as Rick Weiss and Eric Head will be here to to discuss these items and make sure that we have some understanding of what they really mean. But as we mentioned um in meetings past that uh Westwood uh professional services was doing a northeast master plan. Part of their master plan was to look at guidelines for data centers. And we asked them to fasttrack this item so that we could get it in front of the citizens and council

[1:54:50] before the rest of their master plan came forward because it did it it was very clear that our citizens care about data centers and how they're regulated and should we add some more regulations if we choose to to our zoning ordinance. So I'm just going to go through here and talk about what we've kind what they've kind of come up with as uh recommendations for us to move forward with. So currently data centers are allowed by right in light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing. One of the options is to add a conditional use process or conditional use permit. It would provide notice uh to the surrounding properties of a light manufacturing or heavy manufacturing zoning district wants to put a data center there. It would have a public hearing at planning commission and it would also be subject to the to the design standards that may get adopted at some point that we were going to discuss uh many of those tonight. The other option uh is to create an overlay district in which an area where data centers would be allowed and subject to those design centers. So if we said all right this part of town we want data centers only in this part of town we would create an overlay district for that area. Um that has some some challenges because we haven't fully looked at all the possibilities of where or if data centers could come. We also have looked at and we'll get to another slide definition of data centers and what do they mean? as we've done more and more research, we have data centers in our community today. Uh we just do and it's actually more than I realize because they're just there being a business doing their thing. Um and so it's very interesting of what what they're they're doing. So, if we were to add a secondary process to something that we think would be allowed by right, but let's add the we would say we would recommend the conditional use process

[1:56:52] for any property that's in the light manufacturing or heavy manufacturing zoning district. They would have another step to go through, go to planning commission and be heard at planning commission if they could have a data center allowed on that piece of property with a conditional use. you're able to add conditions. We would propose at some point and we will get that to the end, but that the design guidelines are automatic. They're not something that can be varied that could be requested to go away. That those would come with that conditional use and we would have to write our ordinance that way, but that comes at a later step. But that would be one of our recommendations. So, some of the other standards that we have in here is some definitions. We've realized that our ordinance is very light in definitions when it comes to data centers as are most uh ordinances around the country. Uh the team and I say the team actually uh Westwood did the heavy lifting on this. They actually went and looked at two jurisdictions in Virginia that have lots and lots of data centers. They looked at Glenn Heights, they looked at Round Rock, and they looked at Irving. All have ordinances for data centers. and he was able to pull over information that would be potentially in an ordinance for us in the future. So adding definitions for a data center, talking about the principal use, what a data center could be used for as a principal use. Generator yards, private utilities. Um we put in here new data center over 3,000 square ft would need the correct zoning and and the conditional use. Meaning if you found the light manufacturing and uh or the heavy manufacturing, you apply for the conditional use if you're over 3,000 square ft. What we've since learned since we came up with some of those numbers, there are some data centers within town that already exceed that size. And if you think about our medical center, they have a data center. I mean, they just do because they have to keep all those medical records and data. We

[1:58:55] have other data centers. So, we're not sure that that size fits quite yet. And so do we use a do we go back with a principal use of that's their principal reason for being there as a data center or is it like a secondary use like if you're a medical center and you just happen to have a data center to manage your data. And so that's a that's a question that we kind of still have in our heads. A property could go through a planned development. So maybe they're not light manufacturing, maybe they're not heavy manufacturing, but they found a piece of property and we they say, "Well, we we want to go through a plan development." We would need we are recommending that we would still write that our design standards are would still go with that plan development for a data center. uh that they wouldn't be able to be varied or removed through the plan development saying all right we're going to remove the condition of the data the the design standards at planning commission. Now plan development gets uh three public hearings go to planning commission and they come to city council twice and so there's lots of opportunity there as a plan development. um all must do plan submitt with elevations, materials, and signage. And we'll talk a little bit more about this plan submitt just a moment, but they're really having to do everything that an urban design would would require, which is all of those. But we would codify that in our code, saying that they must do this with their plan submitt, not go through a reasonzoning or conditional use and then 10 months down the road they need to submit that. They would we would ask them to submit that ahead of time. In that plan submitt, we're going to be looking at building locations with all the setbacks. We're looking at ground mounted equipment, which is a new uh kind of definition embarr uh parking, driveways, circulation around that site, sidewalks and pedestrian routes, uh ground mounted equipment is really important. I put it

[2:00:56] in there twice. Uh fencing and landscaping screening, lights and phototric analysis. How is their light bleeding off their site? Sound studying. How much of that sound is bleeding off of their property? And what kind of sound is it? What are the decibb? Is it a is it a low rumble? Is it a high pitch? Is it, you know, one of those types of things? Again, those building elevations, materials, and signage. We we think that's very encompassing. Um, and that would be submitted at the conditional use process. Uh so that would be available to the planning commission to look at to make sure that all those setbacks and all these elements are meeting um meeting our definitions. Now staff would bring forward that recommendation to the planning commission of yes, it meets or no, it doesn't and and go forward from there. So within that uh document, you'll see some setbacks and and buffer recommendations. And I tried to break this out between residential use and just some building setbacks and some building heights. So let me know if I lose you on this because it took me a little bit to get to this. But so if this property is adjacent to a residential zoning or land use and it's inside the city limits, you got to have a 300t front yard. You have to have a 300t sideyard and you have to have a 300t rear yard. So that's a lot of property already eaten up if you're adjacent to a residential zoning or use if you're outside the city limits. So if we're looking at a property that abuts right up to the ETJ, we're saying you just have to be 200 feet. So, if the ETJ is in front of you, it's 200 feet for the front yard. If the ETJ is to one side or the other, you're 200 feet set back. Or if your ETJ is to the rear of your property, then it's 200

[2:02:58] feet there. And the reason being zoning doesn't transfer out to the ETJ. We don't really have a control over what somebody comes and does there. Where within our city limits, we're trying to protect our our citizens and our properties that we have within our city limits. So, we're going to talk about building setbacks and some of this equipment type of stuff. And so, the building setback from any property line, and this is, and I'll point out, this is if this does not trigger a residential zoning or use, your building setback is 50 ft. So, if your adjacent land is commercial manufacturing, your buffer is really only 50 feet instead of the 300 ft. But if you're residential, you're 300 feet if you're in the city limits. And it also talked about in there or a collapse zone. And so if your structure is so high that it exceeds that 50ft collapse zone, you would have to move your structure back based on the collapse zone. And that would be something we would ask for the development to turn in with their the conditional use process. So, groundmounted equipment um doesn't matter what zoning district it's adjacent to. It's 300 feet back from or within the center of the the buildings, you know, uh of where they're ground mounted equipment. And that includes generators. So, if you're wanting to know what a ground mounted equipment is, it encompasses a lot of things, but the most concerning is probably generators. And then we talk about pavement. And so, you got to be at least 25 ft from the the pavement right away. So if any of these properties develop and maybe there's a local road that goes through it, you got to be further back than that. Uh you got to be the the 25 the pavement internal has to be let me explain that better. This pavement means the internal pavement for the project. So, if you're going to have a drive aisle, if if you're a long ride ofway,

[2:05:03] say a local road happens to cut through there, you have to be at least 25 ft back to have that that internal drive to go in there. Same thing if you're off Highway, US Highway 67, we're asking for 40T back before you have any internal circulation. Again, giving that buffer there. And then on side yards and rear yards you would still have at least 10 feet uh at that time. The building height. So currently light manufacturing heavy manufacturing does not have a cap on building height. Uh we believe under what we have seen around the country for data centers and things a max height from building grade of 75 ft is more than adequate. I mean that's a very tall structure when you start thinking about that but that's more than adequate to serve our needs but having that as a restriction and then any accessory height um whether it's groundmounted equipment antennas or other things that are accessory to the main structure they would have a 30 foot maximum height. I see everybody looking at me and so I'm wondering are there any questions yet or or mayor would you like me to continue on with this for the next few slides. >> So on the accessories what if they need a radio antenna? I mean what if they have to put up something and they're trying to direct sight it as you get your glasses out there. I want to get back to that uh specific section so I make sure that I'm speaking correctly and I may ask one of the um the gentlemen that helped with this make sure that I'm not misspeaking but said accessory structures located between primary structure and property line shall be a maximum of 30 ft. And so if this is between the property line and your building here and you have the accessory structure in the middle the maximum is 30t. So I misspoke. If that accessory structure is on that side of the building in the middle, it could be

[2:07:06] higher. >> Okay. >> I want question. Anybody else? >> And I just want to make sure that our audience knows that as well as our our folks that are listening. So >> Erin, yes, sir. >> You may have explained it. I may have missed it, but you you mentioned the collapse zone. You want for the for the audience, for people on watching us on on YouTube as well, you want to explain that a little bit more clearly? >> Yes. So when you're looking at the building set back, so you're seeing how far that building is from the property line. Well, the taller your building is, while we don't want it to collapse, but there is a collapse zone around that building. And if you have a structure that's so tall, say if it does hit that 75 foot, there's a good chance that that collapse zone is going to be past your properties line. and we and we're trying to protect not only their property but adjacent properties too. And so that's the reason of saying if we have this this uh building setback or your collapse zone. If you happen to go up to something higher, you've got to have a collapse zone there um to make sure that your setback won't impact somebody else's property. >> Want to ask about collapse zones time? >> Sure. No, no, ask. Yes, Erin. on that collapse zone. Um, do we need to leave a setback on top of that just for error? I mean, I hate to have zero room for error and be right next to somebody else. >> We we certainly could, whether that's a 20 foot or 25 foot. I mean, that is that is certainly an option. Um, and so that's kind of where we have this discussion and have this like, hey, we we want to look at that. What does that look like? Um what because our intention is you know get your feedback and how can we and the citizens feedback. How can we move forward with something so that we get something in our in our ordinances in the future so we we know that we can handle data centers that may be looking at our community to to come to us. >> That's the only thing I I really saw on that is just the fact 50 or to just straight collapse zones just to leave a little bit of buffer there. Um that'd be something I'd be interested in in vetting out. And then I appreciate the

[2:09:09] fact that we put outside the city limit still gave a pretty good buffer there to try to help those people. >> Yes, sir. >> Aaron, do does that collapse zone specifically just the height of the building or does it factor in a fall area that that building would fall? I'm just curious that that may be already figured in there. I don't know. But >> it does figure in a a fall area. And I may turn to look to at Aric for for just a moment because he collapse zones is a fancy word and I know y'all are all keen on that. So I want the true expert to come and make sure that I'm not misexplaining. >> Right. So >> uh thank you councel Ahead with Westwood Professional Services. Um regarding the uh the language in the proposed uh proposed code it says building setbacks the street rideway sideyard and rear rear yards greater of 50 ft or building collapse zone. So if if the building is 75 ft, it does give you it's saying like the building needs to be back from the property line 75 ft, right? So god forbid a side of a building did fall, it would should just land at the property line and not affect the adjacent property owner. So it does two things. It pushes the building further back visually, right? And for a safety factor of it not affecting an adjacent property. That's the two things it does. No, nothing more complicated than that. >> Thank you, Eric. >> It's always good to have a a relief picture. >> All right. Well, let's move on to some other items that are within the document. And it does address parking. um one space for 500 square ft of office space and one space per data center employee which is different than our parking ordinance today. It it normally looks at gross area uh and sometimes we get overparked and I think our goal for uh development like this is to get the

[2:11:13] right amount of of parking. If after development you only have so many employees, well then that's how many employees need uh parking spaces. Um there is also discussion in there quite a bit about uh large truck parking and maneuvering zones for large trucks as they come in, whether they're coming in to change out equipment over time uh and things like that. Um I do think that we want to have some accessory parking but just not a whole lot. I'm not sure that they're going to need a whole It's not like vendors are going to be coming there and trying to sell things to the business that's there. Uh you may have these employees that come in and work on things that do the maintenance and do stuff like that. And we want to make sure that we have adequate parking for them but not an excessive amount uh that takes away from the potential green space and other things that are there. The ground mounted equipment uh basically all of it must be screened. Uh and in this case uh it was a masonry type screening. So, a a block or brick or other masonry type wall that would be screening that ground mounted equipment. Uh rooftop equipment would also be visually screened. Now, that may be with the same that would not have to be a masonry screening, but it could be something that is um uh a metal type screening uh depending on the the style of the building. Uh fencing again could be masonry, rowd iron or black PVC coated chain link. Um, and there's some more details in there, but along the street frontage, say whether it's a local street, Highway 67, whatever it may be, uh, for areas that we're looking at, is that we would want that that fencing to be masonry or rowd iron to have a little bit better, higher quality look to it than fencing that's uh, in in the back of the property. Our assumption is that most of these properties do put a perimeter fence for security of some kind. And if they're large properties, that can be very costly.

[2:13:15] The black PVC coated chain link blends in because it's a a very dark color. Now, we thought about wood. Wood just just doesn't hold up over time. And if you're doing 600 feet of a wood fence, that's probably not the best option for you uh for maintenance and things like that over time. And so we put those in as as suggestions. Um, and so we think those those work. And then we also put in there a clause about fencing not in front of landscaping adjacent to the public roads. We don't want their fence to hide the landscaping. We want that landscaping to be seen, still be a buffer, still be a sound absorber, and have those types of things there. uh it does have a lot of landscaping requirements and and um lots of details within the document and again I tried to just kind of summarize is that if there's parkways side and rear yards it addresses those areas of needing and requiring certain types of landscaping um it also talks about grass and sod and how it has to be maintained. um those types of things. And that kind of gives us some ability to go back and if we seize some kind of violation in the future, we have the ability to go back and say, "Well, we you're supposed to have seven trees here or six bushes or whatever the case may be." Then we have uh some provisions in there. If your parking lot is over 100 spaces, excuse me, 100 spaces, you must have some landscape islands. It can't just be a sea of parking. We want to break that up and have some better things in the landscape items from trees to shrubs and things like that. Lighting should be shielded and pointed downward, not to exceed a 30 foot in height. That's basically a freestanding pole. If it's on the building, the lights are still going to be shielded and pointing down, but they can only be between 10 and 18 feet high. So, they're not super high really cast in a lot of uh light. They're not super low. That's really not helpful. um those types of things. >> Question.

[2:15:20] >> Yes, sir. >> Rather an outlandish question. I realize when you're talking about the parking available and maybe this maybe I need to ask AI this first. Are you aware of many of the data centers that have food trucks come on the property um at any point during the day or is that just typically not not a thing? >> No sir, I'm not I don't know that particular detail of the operation of once it's built, you know, in operation if that's if if that's something that happens or not. Uh related to parking, I will tell you that the one the the five one space per 500 square feet of office, conference rooms, etc. that is that that was in there to mirror what St. Angelo has for its uh for its parking requirements for those types of uses. Then we added one space per employee, people working back in the data center. So that's where that uh particular language came from. >> Thanks, Erin. And again, it's probably a silly question, but it may be worth asking the question of someone that has had experience with data centers. Do they have food trucks come on the property? You know, that may be something at some point >> that might I don't Anyway, again, >> no, I I think that's reasonable to to plan ahead because they may have one and they just need to make sure that they have adequate parking for that. And I think that's where on this line item, um, while we have one space per data center, maybe we add an additional amount of spaces up to a certain number and say, "All right, well, you need to have a few extras for FedEx that shows up or for the person that, you know, got lost or is coming to apply for a job or whatever the case may be." >> They're all good questions. Well, >> all right. You hungry over there, Tom? Give me. >> Let's keep going. Aaron,

[2:17:24] >> let's talk about noise. Uh maximum sound levels. Uh we did put in there uh the 60 uh dBA at daytime and the 55 at nighttime. And if you start looking those numbers up, that's pretty quiet. Um um and we're talking about at the property lines. We also realizing that there are some noise items uh talking about uh generator testing and we we put in there conducted between 9 and 4 p.m. So, you know, during the workday unless approved by planning development services director, which means is there a time that they have to do it on a Saturday or a Sunday? Because I think we put that just five days a week. I could be wrong on that, but are there times that they've got to test something because they replaced a piece and it's 6:00 at night? Uh, is there a time that they have to do that? Um, we would require a noise study to be submitted with the conditional u use process. Uh, it and by saying this next statement, you'll see that it'll have part of it as a pre-study and then a post construction study at the at the conditions. All right, we know that we have finished conditions. Now, let's go and see do you do you have any violations here that we need to address before you do violate it and let's let's figure those out before we give you your certificate of occupancy or whatever it may be. Um, sound modeling must include all proposed development. Uh, that's either they want to build it today or in 5 years, go ahead and propose that so we know what's going on. Now, that doesn't mean they can't change that over time, but then it may mean we need to come back uh and look at some things, ask for a new sound modeling test and review that. Um, and then after those that study, within the study, it should it should include some recommendations for mitigation measures, how they're constructing their walls, how they're meeting different setbacks, how they're changing the actual tuning of the equipment so that it can change

[2:19:28] that sound from being maybe a low, rumble or hum to something different that can be mitigated differently with technology. Um, and so that has to come through back with those recommendations and we will check to see well what are you what are you implementing within your construction within your project to mitigate those things. So with that um I know there's it's a it's a big document. I know we have a group of folks that have some questions and and want to have some information but our recommendation is to move forward with the conditional use process. move forward with adopting the setbacks and the design standards in an ordinance which would go to planning commission which would then come to two hearings at city council. our timeline that we would like to do because we'd like to move this fairly quickly to get make sure that we're ahead of any any potential projects that may come our way that we're trying to treat them all the same is present this to the planning commission uh with whatever recommendations you guys have uh on March 16th. uh then present to the um the planning commission recommendation back here to city council on March 17th and have a second reading on April the 7th at the city council. And I put that there just to let you know what we think is a is a timeline that that works um that we're able to meet all of our notices. If we do put this in ordinance form, we will have to send out over 1,200 notices to people that owned light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing zoning districts because this impacts every single one of those property owners and they they by law have to know that. Uh and so it will it will be a lot of properties notified and 200 feet around each one of those properties. So just giving you all a heads up on that. With that, I think let's open up the discussion, mayor, and you tell us tell me which slide you'd like to go back to and how to explain things.

[2:21:29] >> Do you have any more slides to show or is that complete? >> I believe that's it. >> All right. So, let's go to public comment. Brandon, will you tell us it's the same threeminute limit? Correct. There's not going to be any feedback back or forth, but we are documenting recording things that. So, let's go ahead and start with public comment. Heather number one, >> Richard Summers. My name is Richard Summers. I live in District 5. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Again, a freestanding modern data center looks clean from the outside. Has trees, has neat walls, and a modern facade. But inside its digital gut, another image emerges. Massive power draws, heat, fuel, backup systems, water, cooling, circulation, and a constant mechanical pulse. All of which have realworld consequences for nearby neighborhoods. The challenge of course then is not whether St. Angelo should have legal planning and hosting such of a facility assesses where the St. Angelo will govern it with enforcable legal planning structures or allow it to operate largely by default. Therefore, fundamental structural decisions will largely drive that particular outcome. First is enforcability. If these guidelines remain within a planning document, they are aspirations. They are not safeguards. Council should direct staff to incorporate them as necessary into the zoning ordinance or other binding mechanisms so they become enforcable so that they can be applied citywide and where legally feasible attached to already approved projects. Second is timing. If the required noise study, lighting assessment, buffering, and circulation drawings are postponed to an administrative site plan process,

[2:23:33] the proposed conditional use public hearing becomes procedural rather than substantively informative to the process. These decisions uh for support materials should be reviewed publicly at the conditional use hearing and before approval. Durability is the third. Standards must be quantified and durable. Low frequency noise analysis, closed loop water requirements, groundwater testing, buffer maintenance, stepback height limits, which would be necessary for a 75- ft building, and megawatt based capacity governance publicly reviewed ahead of approval so that incremental corrective approvals do not reshape the city over time, which generates uncertainty and instability in relation to the project. Fourth is sequencing. The current data center standards draft specifies a detailed noise modeling and lighting photometrics will be submitted later at a planning stage. In short, transparency before approval is fundamentally different from review after approval. Roundrock's recent data center approval demonstrates enforceable quantitative standards can be adopted through zoning tools without defaulting to a chapter 380 structure. St. Angelo can do the same. These land use protections should neither be part of nor hinge on a chapter 380 agreement. A 380 is an economic incentive contract. A city's zoning laws govern land use. Therefore, if these guard rails matter, put them in code. Thank you. >> Thank you, Richard. Number two, Heather >> Steph Baka. >> I don't think she was here earlier. >> She wasn't. Wade, Mayor >> Wade Meyer from uh Karen's district. Um I grew up here and I'm old enough to remember when St. Angelo got the fickle

[2:25:35] finger of fate award twice in the 70s for building a pipeline to a dry lake. And then I believe it was in the last decade we were down to like 90 days of of water if I'm not mistaken. I wasn't living here but I heard about it so I don't know if that's true or not. So that was a great presentation by Aaron but it didn't talk about the two most important things which is water and energy. I've also read I've read a lot of stuff and I'm not here to say all that. I'm neither for or against this. What I'm for is the city of St. Angelo and the cost of living and how it would affect um the citizens of St. Angelo. Um so Wade, are we talking about construction guidelines here or are you giving some philosophy and opinions because this agenda item as we talked at the very first needs to be about the construction guidelines with suggestions? So, so guidelines, I guess, include quality of life, and that's kind of what these guidelines are are doing. >> We're talking construction guidelines. Brandon, I'm going to look for you for guidance. >> Oh, it has to be construction guidelines. >> Well, maybe calling them guidelines at this point because we're proposing something to council, but the intent is that this would be in the zoning ordinance as we've discussed. um the schedule for uh going to planning commission and to city council. I mean the conditional use process is a zoning process. So that has to be by ordinance. Um but yes, we've referred to them as guidelines for purposes of this presentation to >> Are we legal? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> Are we legal to discuss? >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we've presented it um on the agenda for as a discussion item for >> And you've got your time. You've still got your Um, so are you saying that water use and energy use would would not be in the guidelines? >> Well, we were looking for construction suggestions and input on what we need to do to improve our construction or make comments. Go ahead. Feel free. Go on. >> Um, okay. So, um, and one of the one of

[2:27:39] the things that I mean there are lots of I mean I I've heard they're building a great big one further out in West Texas that is going to use so much energy you could power the state of Rhode Island, but it's not um the thing that keeps going through my mind is why here? First of all, these things need to be cooled and they lo use a lot of energy. Uh, and water seems to be the way to cool it. But why would you do why would you build these in a 100 degree area where we have multiple uh triple digit days? Why don't they go build these in Alaska? Um now I'm not against this because I would like to see our city prosper and get some taxes from it, right? But I also don't want so and there are other experts that are saying that these things may be getting out ahead of themselves and there's going to be a a bunch of them are going to fail until the rest of it catches up. So, what happens if this place um turns into a ghost town? And I and I only asked that because I read something about a tax abatement. Does that mean that we delay the taxes? So, what if they go out of business before we get collected? >> That's not in the guidelines. Okay. I'm getting too far out of >> this discussion yet. >> Okay. So um you covered noise and but water pollution I mean and then when the the energy in this state to me is um scarcity is rewarded. In other words, when there's less energy and more people want it, it costs more. And these things uh from what I've read are energy, you know, they but they're also I think in in Texas they ask the data centers to cut back sometimes and then that means they turn on their generators and they may run for a day or two in that one winter Armageddon we had. They would have been running for you know five or six days and that's either natural gas or diesel running generators generators running the whole time. Um also electronic waste. or we going to put it in our our waist. >> Thank you, Wade. >> China Young.

[2:29:50] >> Hello again, mayor and council members. Uh, China Young, single member district 4. Uh in the context of tonight's discussion and direction regarding design guidelines and conditional use processes, um I do want to address again how meaningful participation depends on enforcable standards that define the project's true limits. Public comment is an important component of participation, but meaningful participation requires that citizens understand the data center structural choices facing them. In this context, RoundRock recent their recent uh data center actions provides a clear reference point for us. They recently codified developmental standards, measurable caps, buffering, cooling requirements, and amendment protections within zoning. Those standards define what the data center project in that community can and cannot become. And St. and Angelo now faces a similar structural decision. Economic incentives may address cost sharing, but zoning determines the physical impact on surrounding neighborhoods and infrastructure. By embedding enforcable limits directly into zoning, this council can provide durable clarity, reduce future conflict, and demonstrate responsiveness to community concerns. specifically restricting the data center to what we have been told it would be a data storage center so that it would not suddenly transition to uh an AI or cryptocurrency mining data center could be part of those guidelines in good faith negotiations uh in in sorry in good faith negotiations Skybox agreed to these standards in RoundRock San Angelo can adopt a similar structure framework including any opportunities for the public to participate in developing those policies to ensure the citizens have the knowledge they need for peace of mind are welcome and encouraged.

[2:31:54] These policy decisions would demonstrate a clear commitment to good governance and not an opposition to growth. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, John. Russell Gully Russell Gully 706 South Abe Street Mayor Council um in reading this and Aaron touched on it 3,000 square feet I I I guess we qualify as a data center and so many businesses are going to now qualify as data center is is that really the intent of this? So I think the fear of these data centers is they're extremely large scale. So maybe that 3,000 square ft needs to be 50 or 100,000 square ft. So we're looking specifically at the standards. I I my encouragement would be that number needs to move up so we don't catch all of us small people that are just trying to operate and run a business here. So So my ask is that number moves 50 100,000 somewhere and then certainly need to keep an exception for Shannon because they they really are a data center. Um, looking through it, the flipping over through your landscaping, I I'm hearing all of this concern about water consumption. This landscaping usage is probably more intense and going to require more water than what the facility will require once it's started up. So, so be careful about what what you do for the landscaping. We're out on the edge of the Chihuahuan Desert here. So, so let's maybe see and we can scale back a little bit on some of our landscaping requirements. Uh, there was some verbiage in there that the that the planning development services can request at any time a noise study. So, I guess he could go out there every day and say noise study today, noise study tomorrow and the next day and every day. So, so maybe that needs to be scaled back to maybe once a year or something. um maybe look at that if your desire is to

[2:33:58] uh to encourage a data center to go elsewhere. That's what these standards will do. They will require a data center to go and look outside the city limits of Stantelo. They they are they are very cumbersome and I I realize guardrails and protections are needed. you just approved a rail yard that's going to be more impactful than what a data center would be potentially with that. So, so I I I think there there being a need for a conditional use in these zoning districts, I don't believe that's necessary. These zoning districts, go look at what's happening in these zoning districts districts currently. A data center is nowhere near intensive use probably as what's happening in some of these current zoning districts. though. So, I don't know that that uh conditional use is the right thing. If you're wanting to encourage a data center to come to St. Angelo, let's scale this back and let's look at what really protects St. Angelo and it and its citizens. So, thank you for your time and cons consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, Russell. >> That concludes public comment >> number six. And there's no more Aaron. Could we bring up our chief project officer, Rick Weiss? >> Been waiting all night to say that. >> I have been waiting to pull the trigger on that from the word go. I all night. Okay, Rick, we put this on here to give people some input and and you were very stern over the last 30, 45 days about letting people have input on the guidelines that you've seen here. Have what you've seen provided the input that you think for the first round of input and there is is there place to provide additional rounds of input as we move forward. >> Right. So yes, this was perfect. The intent was to have the discussion to

[2:36:01] gather public input as well as from y'all to give staff direction. So, I think y'all kind of gave it as we went along. If there's something you didn't mention, we'd love to hear that now so we can add it to our notes. And then what we'll do is take that um and draft the the um policies a little differently from what we heard tonight. And then the next step will be to take those to the planning commission and have the same discussion again. um based on a final draft of what we would propose. So if there's anything else y'all can think of as we've had the discussion you want to share with us tonight, please do um so we can incorporate that. >> All right. So is there a way for if the public wants to contribute some more other than tonight? Can they contribute more or additional things or we putting the cap on it tonight? >> Really? Um they can, you know, they can contact me. um we need that pretty quick because we're fixing to turn around and start putting that information into what would go to the planning commission. But I will say that at the planning commission they can also give input. They can alter what just because we're bringing a draft to the planning commission doesn't mean it has to be approved as we're bringing it. So they can also come at that meeting and say you know if there's something in the planning commission agrees then we can make those alterations as a suggestion coming from there before they come back to you. So that would be the best place to to bring it. >> Going back to Erin's first statement, there's almost five places to make input as something was to move through the guidelines from conditional use all the way through planning. So there's five opportunities to make, adjust, mend, bend, whatever we need to do. So number one, I I want to thank you for doing this. I think it's important um and we we'll stick to this agenda guidelines. But with that, I'll open it up to the dis. Any questions, Mary? Miss Karen, >> can those of you presenting tonight confirm to us that the conditions placed on the data center ordinance in RoundRock were scrutinized carefully

[2:38:03] before you produced this document for us? >> You want to speak to that? But they looked at a variety of ones. I can't say Round Rock was scrutinized, you know, extremely, but >> it's been brought up repeatedly. So, I just >> Right. Right. We did actually learn more about that. >> We we did uh look through Round Rock's ordinance. There were there were not a whole lot of, you know, examples uh for that of ordinances around the country that regulated data centers specifically. A lot of communities just regulate data centers through their existing code. They might have a landscape ordinance, a noise ordinance that are all separate from that and industrial standards. But the uh I'll just repeat what Aaron mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. Um we had uh two ordinances from Virginia that that has seen a lot of data center development over over recent years. Uh we looked at Glenn Heights that was a planned development, a PD. We looked at Round Rock and that was a plan development. Um and we looked at the city of Irving's uh ordinance that was a conditional use permit process. So we had created a matrix of those those five different ordinances and looked at um things like that are in the proposal ordinance. Setbacks, uh noise, lighting, building height, um landscaping, um I think I mentioned light, off- streetet parking, those types of things that are in this proposed language. We we we sliced and diced and compared and we we chose, you know, we kind of lifted some of the the language in those ordinances we we thought were best fitting for the for this community for for St. Angelo. So, and we pulled u other regulations from different ordinances, different uh landscape and setback guidelines we see in Fort Worth or Mansfield or Berles, Texas. So, we've looked at more than just these five to bring in some of those regulations that we felt like would best um address some of the concerns that the citizens had and the council had. >> You you may also notice as they went through that, you know, some of the

[2:40:05] cities in the portions pertaining to data centers may not reference landscaping because they have their own landscape ordinance. They have those in other areas. So, they had to go through each of those knowing that it in some cases in St. Angelo didn't have any of that. So, they're trying to pull that in and incorporate it because we don't have a landscape ordinance. So, we're trying to incorporate those kind of things as well as others that aren't referenced necessarily in ours. >> Thank you for that. >> Patrick, >> on the landscape, um, a lot of what's been brought up is some of the same questions I've had and I think some of it was put in there. This does not take away the option to zerocape, zero escape, things like that, right? To help conserve water if they wanted to do that. >> Correct. So the the type of plant materials was actually put together by Carl White, our parks and rec director. So it's based on plant material that actually works here. I would strongly suggest as we go through these, I mean, I think it's going to make sense for the the city to explore with whoever the if there's a data center there, you know, we've got a water treatment plant out there. Are we going to try to get them to use gray water that goes back into this area? We've also got to reserve, and this is something I can talk to Shane about, certain areas for discharge for the city. Well, can we take some of that discharge area and reallocate it along this landscape area where we're using some of that? And so, there's creative ways like that I think that can actually help us at the end of the day. But, you know, as we go through, those are things we'll have to explore as we're as we're doing it. I think that's the intent. Um, we talked about the the the principal use makes most sense to me at least looking at it. But on that would someone be allowed to skirt the system and say build a 2 million square foot warehouse and 990,000 is data center and the other part that uses warehouse and so it's not considered a principal use data center. Is that does that make sense? Could they script the system?

[2:42:07] >> I I think I understand your question but my my first answer is no. I don't believe so with the multiple review processes that they would have to go through and they have to submit a floor plan and all of those things. And so while yes, there can be shell buildings built um they still have to come back for a certificate of occupancy for what they actually are. And that involves city staff going in and doing an inspection of what are they what are they from fire marshall from building permits planning will be out there for the site. engineering services will be looking at water sewer connections, all those things. There's multiple folks looking to make sure that no one's trying to pull the wool over our eyes. >> Yeah. Principal use or just a quite a bit larger than the 3,000 ft. Um, like I said, I think we already have some that are pushing that and there's been no issues. And so, yeah. Um, on on the lighting, and this is something I just heard today, but it's something I have thought about and I brought it up to Shane when we talked about lighting. Uh, dark skies compliant lighting was something that was brought up today. I think the ordinances that are talked about kind of basically already allude to that. Um, so that no lighting is shining above the horizon of the light. >> Oh, good. >> I think that's something >> that is the intent. Yes. Maybe that's a way that we need to just reward that part of that as we bring it forward in an ordinance, but we can certainly look at that. >> And and to the point of of Russell, I don't we don't want to run anybody off if we can. And that's with any business, right? We don't want to run businesses off because we have too many oranges, too many restrictions on things that shouldn't matter as far as quality of life around it. So, that's something that I feel like a lot of what was put in there already fits that, but if that could be vetted out a little bit. Um, are these guidelines where we need to put something about water usage? Do we need to have that cap so that any data centers going in the future knows that they can only use this much water to run their facilities? >> I think that's actually a great suggestion. It's something I think we've talked about in the past. So I think uh

[2:44:10] we can do some research and confirm you know what that amount is that um you know is reasonable for the facility and safeguards a little cushion and and maybe there's some language in there that also gives a you know in some unique circumstance they have the ability to come to to council or whoever and and request but I think so >> yeah uh I think uh with with all the not to do a pun with all the data they have they should know how much water they be having to use. So, give them a little extra for Yeah, something crazy happened. Yeah, that seems like that would be something we could put in there. >> Um, >> and then I think that would fix my other question about putting a different style of system. So, as long as they're not using a crazy amount of water, then to me it doesn't really matter the style because the electricity is not really us. That'll have to be permitted, all that vetted out by Cotton AP. Um, but the water is if we have put a cap on that, then there's only so much they could do. Um, I think another one I heard that y'all might be interested in was the limiting from changing to some other use. I think I heard that one tonight, which I think I've heard y'all mention as well. So, >> and that's and that's where I don't know I don't know if we're going to have that ability to um because u Gabe's here, he talked about it the other day. basically um they can do AI computing with the regular data centers. Like there's really nothing to change. It's the crypto mining uses more power, uses more water. So I think that's where that water use would kind of limit anything else that they could do. >> And I guess we've kind of got that controlled because they can't, you know, you've already limited them like you said on the water, you're limited on the noise, you've, you know, all these various things are going to control what they could change to. And then on the on the building designs and setbacks and things like that, Eric, is that is that what you've seen predominantly in the other ones? Is that pretty close to their standards? >> Right. Uh several of the ordinances were consistent in terms of the architectural, you know, articulation of the building facade and the the you know, side and rear.

[2:46:13] >> So it's it's it's not something um that should run them off like it's something that most of the data centers they've adapted to in other areas already, >> right? It it seems to be that way. Yes. from the from the ordinances we've reviewed. >> Thank you. Thanks for your work on it. That's all I got. >> Harry, >> just briefly, I want to say thank you to Aaron and Chief Pro projects riwise uh and for reaching out uh to Westwood last year uh to get ahead of this curve. Uh, I think there's some opportunity for the citizens if they still got concerns to have a conversation with Erin or Rick uh by the 1 of March and then they can come to the planning commission and then they can come back to the two city council meetings if they've still got they got questions. I think we're way ahead of the curve on this and I think we'll be ready when a data setter decides to come here. >> Mr. reiterate what he said. Good job. Uh I I do agree with Mr. Goalie. We need to probably increase it square footage. And and one example that I know of personally is 2320 Sunset Drive. It's it's Sunset Nickerbacher. Uh ASU owns it now, but that's been a data center for 30 plus years right in our backyard that nobody even knew about. Four generators there sitting there, a cooling tower. Nobody knew about it. Nobody ever had a problem about it. right in the middle of town. Uh so that being said, we we also we we need to set those parameters, but still be open to getting them to come. So, uh that's my only good job. We and and we can limit the use of water. Uh that doesn't mean they can't go get a tanker truck next door outside the city limits and bring more water in, but it does limit what we expose ourselves to. So, I think that's a good idea as well. So, that's all I have. >> Thank you, Joe. Mr. Heert.

[2:48:15] >> Good. >> Excuse me. >> I'm good. >> All right. Um, sum it up. Consensus was Thank you for the input. Appreciate it. Um, there were suggestions that that Patrick brought up that came from the data center. Um, Skybox people today. I mean, they they have a lot of suggestions about things that we can add to the construction guidelines. You know, they've built things from the west coast to the east coast. I I don't think at lunch I asked them if they had heard or seen anything today that they hadn't seen already. and they were they were no and it didn't seem to bother them either way. I mean, the rules are the rules and we set forward with that with the 380. So, number one, we'll draw this to the close. So, Brandon, let me you know, at this point, do we close this? We don't have to take a vote on anything. Correct? >> Nope. No vote. If there's nothing further, then I think we just go on to executive. >> All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. >> All right. We're going to move into close session. Executive session under the provision of government code title five open government ethics subtitle A open government chapter 551 open meeting subchapter D exemptions exceptions to requirements that meetings be open under the following sections. A section 551072 deliberations about real property regarding 605 Rio Control Drive and B section 551072 deliberations about real property regarding 70 East 43rd. Section C551-071 consultation with attorney regarding platting and zoning issues related to the July 4th flood disaster. We're going to go into executive session for probably about I'm not going to say every time I say that it's twice as long. We're going to executive session as long >> order on item number eight followup and administrative issues. Consider items discussed in executive session if needed. None is needed. Item B, consider approving various board nominations. Civic Advance Advisory Board, Michelle Garcia, SMD4, to an unexpired term ending December 2027. Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Michael Spencer, SMD1, to a third term ending February 2028.

[2:50:18] Economic Development Corporation, Lorenzo Lacier, SMD1, to a second term ending February 2028. Fort Koncho Museum Board, Michael P, SMD4 to a second term ending January 2028. Um, with that I'll look for a motion on all those appointments. >> I have a first from Tommy and a second from Mary Coffee. >> There you go. >> My phone second. >> All of those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? >> None opposed. All appointments A and items uh, excuse me, items B pass 70. Item C, announcements and considerations for future agenda items. Anything from the dice? We >> anything over here? All right. So, I have a motion to adjourn from Tommy Heert. Do I have a second, Mary? >> Yes. >> And I have a second from Mary. Let's go home. Meet is closed.

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=AWUySGO3L9o