San Angelo City Council 7-18-23

[0:00:00] 8 31 a.m on this fabulous July 18th hot day in paradise we welcome you here I think it's only going to get to 109 today so we will appreciate the cool air in here this morning we will start as usual with our chaplain prayer and pledges and chaplain Gary and Marcella Jenkins will lead us in both morning everyone will you buy your hair with me as we pray dear God we pray over our city leaders who recognize we recognize that your grace is sufficient to keep them we ask father that through your power they will be made whole perfect and their weakness so Lord let your divine wisdom rests on them giving them even when they are insulted criticized and persecuted it is their weakness then they are strong I pray for the agenda that is set before them the city council leaders today please give them all the wisdom that they need and what would and what is Beautiful To You Lord those who have worked in and around our city father also give our First Responders wisdom and strength and compassion as they perform their duties and from all and keep them safe from all hurt harm and danger in Jesus name I pray amen I pledge allegiance to the fact of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and

[0:02:04] justice for all honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to thee Texas foreign we have two proclamations today and the first one will be our proclamation of July 26 2023 As Americans with Disabilities Act and I know there's many people in the audience here today to celebrate this July 26 event so if you could please come forward welcome guys come on you can come on back here and then we'll move up from we'll get ready yeah sure okay on July 26 1990 President George H bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act for Ada to ensure the civil rights of people with disabilities this legislation established a clear and comprehensive National mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities the Ada has expanded opportunities for Americans with Disabilities by reducing barriers and changing perceptions increasing full participation in community life however the full promise of the Ada will only be reached if public entities remain committed in their efforts to fully implement the Ada on the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act we the city of San

[0:04:08] Angelo celebrate and recognize the progress that has been made by reaffirming the principles of equality and inclusion in recommitting our efforts to reach full ADA compliance now therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas do hereby Proclaim July 26 2023 As Americans with Disabilities Act day who do I hand the proclamation to minute multiple speakers if you want we're very happy to receive this Ada Proclamation it means a lot to us as ours as we are a Center for Independent Living here in San Angelo and we serve people with disabilities so thank you thank you for everyone for being here to support this and even though there are a few of us up here this is three different organizations that support people living with disabilities we have disability connections um San Angelo advocacy for Access and our new non-profits accessibility first to really help families and address the needs that they have so if you need help with disability anything with a disability or you would love to Advocate then please consider joining us because we're here to support you yes um yes that's a good question you can call any one of us I only know my number by heart but it is 325-710-9968 and we're on Facebook as well and we're all actually on Facebook now and disability connections they have you can Google them but they have their number as well they can share with you sure sure oursism 325-227-6624 and then we're at dcciltx.org and we also are on Facebook laughs

[0:06:32] [Applause] I know there's also individuals and the audience for our national Buffalo Soldier Day weekend surely I saw you earlier if you have others joining you Bob you want to come forward Harry you want to come down yeah and who else Carl get up here come on Carl Carl on July 28 1866 after the end of the Civil War Congress enacted legislation allowing African-American men to serve in segregated units in the United States Army these units consisted of former slaves and African-American soldiers who fought in the Civil War these soldiers were nicknamed quote Buffalo Soldiers by the Native Americans against whom they fought because of their reputation for toughness and bravery in battle and the Buffalo fur coats they wore in the winter in 1868 the first black troops reported Fort Concho in San Angelo Texas the initial infantry regiments reporting were the 38th and 41st infantries in the 9th and 10th calvaries the regiments worked in numerous campaigns during their time at the Fort until 1885. 23 Buffalo Soldiers received the Congressional Medal of Honor besides their impressive military contributions the Buffalo Soldiers also had a significant role in the expansion of the west by escorting settlers cattle herds and railroad Crews exploring and mapping vast areas and stringing hundreds of

[0:08:34] miles of telephone lines Buffalo soldiers were some of the first Park Rangers in the newly created national parks and generally facilitated the civilization of the center of the nation a joint resolution was proposed and adopted as Buffalo Soldiers day during the second session of the 102nd Congress of the United States of America and was held in Washington DC on Friday January the 3rd 1992. each year on July 28th this day is observed the San Angelo chapter of the National Association for the advancement of colored people in double ACP and a core team of dedicated community and Business Leaders have completed the construction of a new Memorial dedicated to honor these drape these brave men it is the only Memorial in Texas with this Focus the new San Angelo NAACP Buffalo Soldier Memorial will be dedicated on July 28 2023 and over the course of three days a number of events and awards will be given out to celebrate and recognize their contributions as well as involve young people in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts as Buffalo Soldier youth ambassadors therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby Proclaim July 28th through the 30th 2023 as National Buffalo Soldier Day weekend right thank you very much your Proclamation and the microphone okay well good morning everyone I am so glad that we have this Proclamation this year and I want to allow our councilman to to come up here and stand with me in case any of you are taking photographs he told me to make sure that I got this Memorial opened in his lifetime so I think we've been successful to do that and I want to thank everyone who's standing here with me and of course you all know we have a lot of other members who are not able to be here this morning but this means a great deal San Angelo will be on the map to have the one and

[0:10:38] only Buffalo Soldier Memorial in the state of Texas and we look forward to seeing all of you next Friday at 9 00 a.m as we open our grand opening for the memorial thank you surely do you like to talk through what those events are sure thank you next Friday we want everybody who has children or grandchildren or nephews and nieces and what have you to come on out at nine o'clock we'll have the dedication all the activities at the memorial are free uh it is at the corner of Avenue D and Oaks directly across the street from the fort Concho parade grounds and then Friday night we will have a dinner to honor all of those people who have worked on the project over the last year uh Saturday a repeat of the same a lot of activities free at the memorial site we will also have a fishing Excursion on for on the Concho River we will have a canoeing experience a private swim party we will visit the state park to see our new baby buffalo bison and also to see our Longhorns that are there so we have a lot of fun things that are planned that are free or four and five dollars depending on your age like you have to have a fishing license I think that's five dollars and so we want the community to come out and support this historic opportunity for all of you to have a great time in the west Texas Heat next Friday and Saturday and Sunday thank you foreign [Applause]

[0:13:29] we will now move into the public comment portion of the agenda let me remind everybody that issues are concerns not on the regular agenda may be raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium address all comments to the Diaz Begin by stating their name and address or single member district number and limit their remark to less than three minutes do we have individuals in the audience this morning who would like to come forward and offer any public comment hey Cena and I hear none a count to three to see if I if somebody's late coming in one two three it's closed done we'll now move into the consent agenda I will ask each council member if there's anything from the consent agenda that they would like to have pulled for further conversation so I'll start with Larry no ma'am Karen Lucy yes I'd like to pull item C Harry oh man Tom I was thinking of pulling the e but I'll let it fly [Laughter] think about it I'll let it fly and then a Tommy no ma'am okay with that may I have a motion to approve all the consent agenda items with exception of C I moved by Tommy seconded by Tom public comment concerning any of the agenda items with the exception of item C we will take a vote all those in favor of approving the consent agenda without with the exception of vitamin C play say I I with none opposed motion passes 7-0 item C is considered proving an agreement between the city of San Angelo and Peter haydenger heidinger to instruct Aikido classes at Carl Ray recreation center

[0:15:33] and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents Lucy I just wanted for the public to hear what the opportunity would be once approved well or excuse me first uh good morning John Henry Perez assistant Recreation manager um basically this is a program that's going to help you know bring more um public to call Ray Johnson also as well as offer different programs there so with his experience you know he can teach his class uh teach his program and just helps him helps both sides to bring people into our facility and also improve his program as well age limit that I believe it's going to start as it's I think anywhere from four to to almost adult if you wanted to go to adult programs as well okay and the price the price I do not know that off the top of my head we're still in the process of trying to get everything together first so we can try to figure out what the price will be once we get this approved can you tell us what it is I believe all of us who don't know what Aikido I believe is a form of almost karate type of um you know learning that experience there by far so I really don't know myself because I never I haven't learned that but had something that we're trying to you know try to bring also to people the community so they can learn as well have they been asking for this kind of a program uh he's came to us multiple times but we told him we had to get it approved first he wanted to also you know he's trying to find a facility for himself to start his program up let me see further questions no ma'am I moved to approve did anybody else have a question or comment I was just going to say just Googling uh Aikido it is a modern Japanese martial art form thank you now we know you see going to attend and I will second that thank you if you are absolutely do it now the first and the second so Lucy has pulled item C and has made a motion to uh for us to consider

[0:17:36] approving item C may I have a second okay on the second by Tom any public comment on item C on the consent agenda Carl no okay with that let's take a vote all those in favor of approving item C please say aye motion is approved seven to zero we will move into our regular agenda comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above applicants proponents and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes item a is considered approving a memorandum of understanding what the alcohol and drug awareness center for the Concho Valley this and the city of San Angelo to receive funds in the amount of 188 thousand dollars for the placement of the playgrounds at Mountain View and Bell parks and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents Carl Carl white Parks and Recreation a quick orientation of the location of these Parks Bell Park is south of the Loop East of Bell Street and North of Pulliam in Shirley a landmark that everyone knows is the restaurant at Dunbar East so the park is right behind that just to the north and it the park serves this neighborhood here closer look it's a moderately sized neighborhood park it was built in the 70s it has a little playground at this location courts picnic area and a practice ball field and a walking trail closer look on the ground two optional places for where we could put the playgrounds it looks better on the ground level nice and green it's nice and green compared to that other picture wasn't very appetizing one location is on this end uh

[0:19:39] we have freedom very to use that space but doesn't have quite as much shade we could come into this area where it has more shade but we would have to move this Live Oak Tree a younger tree and remove that we could reuse the Live Oak but we'd have to don't move you can't move the live oak tree find another strategy I understand the other Park Mountain View Park again the loop Sherwood Way Arden Road it serves this neighborhood here there's Belvedere Cemetery a little bit larger neighborhood park has basically the same amenities it does have an older restroom at this location look at some of the equipment it has some of the old equipment again this park was developed in the 70s it does have a new ish playground but it's approaching 30 years old and needs to be replaced look at what new playground equipment would look like using the budget that we have so we have a composite unit and we have different vendors we could work with through the Cooperative purchasing programs another example it's an overview shows to be larger than the other image and then just example toys that would go with the playground budget for each Park is ninety four thousand dollars this includes the playground equipment the concrete for the curbing for the fall zone material the fall zone material and accessible connections from the parking lot making sure we have connections from the parking lot accessible parking to the playground as well as signage and Associated materials and these would be installed in-house with City staff we have a crew that does that work let me ask you a question so it's an mou and

[0:21:44] and it's it what is describe what this mou is because you're showing the budget is that budget out of the city your funding and if so then what is this mou so where's the funding coming from it's going um I can read a statement that explains that um this is a Mau with the alcohol and drug awareness center of the consulate Valley the alcohol and drug awareness center of the constant value will pass through funds to the the city of San Angelo that were received from a grant from the Texas Health and Human Services Agency the funds have been awarded to the alcohol and drug awareness center for the Concho Valley for the specific purposes of reducing anxiety and stressors in our community caused from and continuing due to covet 19. these funds that are funneled through the alcohol and drug awareness center of the Concho Valley should be used to implement community-wide activities and projects that reduce stress reduce trauma and or promote Behavioral Health and Wellness funds were made available through H.R 33 coveted 19 funds and as part of the mou um there would be some time some Milestones to hit the first player going to have to be finished fully installed open to the public by March of 2024 and the second one in October 2024. is that timeline create a problem for you no [Music] okay uh what questions does council have regarding this Karen first and then Lucy you'll be next uh Carl can you share with us a little bit of background on the choice of of amenities you showed us a picture of several items bright colors Plastics Etc is there a reason why those kinds of things are preferable to Natural materials this is even recycled materials I know there are some new playground models that use shredded tires uh

[0:23:51] there are National playgrounds now um not all of them have met all the the safety guidelines and not like some of these composite units that we're working with a little more traditional playgrounds that meet all the requirements for safety and manufacture and um others have to do also with wear and tear and what works in our area from the heat being one that we just mentioned so like tires okay well the black heats up gets very hot the colors that they select sometimes are based on what wears better for the fading caused by the Heat and all those things so we have some harsh conditions here sometimes you see as far as the natural materials that we've seen in some of our original playgrounds where you use wood instead of other things then it deteriorates and the maintenance is much more intense for their department so we try to select what lasts well here Lucy my question was Carl in our packet it stated that there was going to be an increase of two thousand dollars a year to add falls on material does that mean every year yes every year every year and what exactly is fall zone material there's different types but we tend to use is the engineered wood fiber of the inside of trees that really porous part of the trees which is soft and cushiony if you put it about a foot level it does provide the the cushioning required if for children if they fall from the playground onto the ground there's other things we could use but this is the best that we've seen to use that the best to use is the like the what we use at year that Park but it's very expensive it costs as much as the playground equipment questions for Carl on this item seen none let's have a motion for approval so move so moved by Harry seconded by Larry public comment concerning this item take a vote all those in favor say aye

[0:25:57] aye none opposed that item a is approves seven zero you'll move into Item B first reading and public hearing of an ordinance to abandon the approximately 20 by 105 feet of unimproved alley running North and South parallel to North Main Street and located half a block west of North Main Street and south of East 14th Street John thank you John James director planning and development services as you read there there's this is a request for abandonment of an alley you can see here in sort of a pink color this is an alley it does not go all the way through and so it's basically a dead end alley it is not used it's it hasn't been constructed as an alley it was planted years ago but but never constructed and the applicant is planning to move any utilities that are in that alley and basically the the purpose of this is to combine all of these Lots into one larger lot for redevelopment which is related to your next case there is no opposition from the surrounding Property Owners there's no public need for the alley as I mentioned it's never constructed as an alley and it doesn't go through anywhere so it would just be dead end in any case staff does recommend approval with normal conditions paying the the required City fee per the fee schedule getting a quick claim deed where the the city disclaims the property so that the owner can then fulfill the number three which is replatting the properties altogether is there a plan for what is going to happen with that property once this abandonment takes place yes in fact that's the subject of the next item which is the rezoning to Commercial and so this did go to the Planning Commission at their June meeting and they approved it unanimous recommended approval uh unanimously with that I'd be happy to answer any questions the questions for John James Harry

[0:27:59] this is in my district so I moved to approve as presented there's a motion is there a second second by Tommy any public comment concerning this item saying none hearing none will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye any opposed with not opposed motion passes seven zero we'll move into item C first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for z23-05 to rezone property from the single family residential zoning District to the neighborhood commercial zoning District located at 1065 North Main Street you're on John thank you this is the companion to that item you just saw this would rezone that property uh as I mentioned the plan is to replant all of that into one lot the plan is to or the the request is to rezone from a single-family residential to Neighborhood commercial this is identified in the city's comprehensive plan as Neighborhood Center which is sort of a neighborhood commercial designation it's a future land use plan this is the property in question right there it is part of this larger Neighborhood Center which is a defined commercial uh designated area at this intersection um I'll note that this is a major arterial this is a monor collector and then a major collector so this is at the intersection of two major streets and so that's one of the reasons that it makes probably more sense for commercial rather than residential these are as you can see platted Residential Properties but they have gone undeveloped for a number of years decades really and so again given the high traffic at this major intersection the applicant has come forward with this commercial rezoning request here's the zoning you can see that the the rest of the intersection is already zoned some type of commercial it's just this one

[0:30:02] quadrant of the intersection that's not and as I mentioned this this corner is undeveloped there are some homes here and then of course the rest of the homes in the neighborhood but again the at the corner of a major intersection it does make sense for this neighborhood oriented commercial I just will note this this isn't General commercial or heavy commercial that would allow more obnoxious or higher intensity kinds of commercial development but the neighborhood center or neighborhood commercial designation is smaller scale that's intended to be neighborhood compatible neighborhood friendly as I mentioned it is consistent with the future land use plan which already designates this as Neighborhood Center it has been been vacant and it's at the intersection of two major thoroughfares staff does recommend approval at their June meeting the Planning Commission also recommended approval unanimously there was no opposition in response to our notifications for this uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions are the questions for John yes are you aware of the developers plans more specifically for that corner because it is indeed surrounded by single-family homes and what is shown in purple to the lower right hand corner of your screen is the Baptist retirement community is it not so that's also quiet residential as well so curious well possible the applicant I believe has a representative here and they can probably expand on that more my understanding is the intent is for a dollar store of some sort having said that you are approving the zoning so you're approving anything that's allowed in that neighborhood commercial zoning and so there's no guarantee that this will actually be the development but again the purpose of the neighborhood the neighborhood commercial zoning is intended to be friendly and compatible

[0:32:05] with adjacent residential or within or at the edge of neighborhoods and so I think if if they were asking for General commercial or heavy commercial staff would likely not have supported that request but with the neighborhood commercial designation that was gave us the Comfort level of supporting commercial that would be nearby to residential for the questions Tommy well I would point out I drove over there and looked around a good bit um there's a manufacturing facility not 200 feet away from that major intersection there where 14th um I guess turns into 19th where Maine connects right there Atmos Energy has a big yard has just put up a large commercial building there there's remodeled that area right because it was already and there's a there's a business across the street from the subject property a small uh bookkeeping tax service over there so um just as way of orientation for the council I'll point out one more thing that our ordinance requires where commercial is adjacent to residential there are some screening requirements so either landscaping or fencing that would have to be between the commercial business and the adjacent residential that's another protection that Memorial did not um reply in a negative way and they would have been notified about this development and there was no response from Baptist Memorial regarding this change of zoning correct that's right in fact they sold them the property yeah yeah that's what I assumed all right with that let's take do I have a motion for approval so move by Harry seconded by Tommy public comment good morning good morning my name is Jim

[0:34:13] Gunn excuse me I am the owner one of the three owners of the development company that is proposing to build a project at that location uh we're planning on building a Dollar Tree at that location uh in lieu of a Family Dollar or a Family Dollar combination store uh we've are in the process of closing on the land here within the next week to 10 days we're in the process of finalizing our plans to be submitted to the city for approval um we like this location a lot uh the family Dollar Tree likes it also and so we're looking forward to for approval and uh getting started in construction probably in October could be centered depending on how long it takes for the plants to go through the permitting process of the city once we start we should be open for business probably within five months and again that depends on Dollar Tree when they start to fixture and merchandiser stores but construction should be through within five months at the um and the longest does anyone have questions for Mr Gunn Larry Mr James mentioned a separation and something that separates the family housing from this area do you have any plans on that yes sir we we normally try to do that when we're adjacent to residential or uh living areas there's a an abandoned house that is right below this project uh we'll we will fence that property

[0:36:16] line and what we do there is in order to come in with a six foot uh your fence also along the alleyway of the abandonment there is a single house there that's basically at the very back of the property and we will isolate that corner store basically we'll be putting up fencing on two of the four sides of the property so that we are isolated a little bit as far as sound and Light also there's Landscaping that will be done to meet and to comply with the city we're pretty we're pretty much open to trying to maintain the neighborhood because it's a neighborhood business and we do get a lot of walk-on business there and so we try to to get this as friendly as possible to the community as the construction of the dollar store allow for other businesses convenience stores many I I'm not sure I understand how the the oh sure there's such a competition dear it's just it'll be a single store it's about ten thousand square foot uh it may be 9 400 it depends on the configuration of of being able to get the building in there with the parking requirements but it will only be a single freestanding building there will not be additional uh facilities there all right with that there is a motion and a second any public comment with that we'll take a vote all those in favor of approving item C say aye any opposed motion passes seven zero item D is first reading thank you sir item D is first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for z23-06 to rezone property from the

[0:38:20] single family residential zoning District to the two family residential zoning District located at 2153 Valley View Drive you're on John thank you as you mentioned this is a requested rezoning from rs1 single family to rs2 to family and I'll describe some of the differences for that for the most part the uses allowed are all the same with the exception of the housing types and I have a slide that will explain that so um this is the area and this is the property in question right there um and so I'm not going to read through all of this but basically this describes what's around it and part of the reason for staff's recommendation of approval is the zoning that's around it everything in Orange you see is a multi-family residential zoning everything to the South here is two family residential zoning there's zero outline townhome zoning RS3 a little farther south and then everything over here is also RS3 the one exception is this one cul-de-sac which is residential single family and the subject lot and so given its location on an intersection where there's Town Homes across the street there are Apartments caddy cornered across the street and then zero lot line homes across the street to the north staff felt that the rs2 zoning was appropriate given the surrounding zoning I will mention even though this has the RS two zoning all of that is currently developed as single family so even though it was originally zoned for duplexes it was actually constructed as single family so I won't read through all of this but there were some questions at the Planning Commission on what is the difference between rs1 rs2 and RS3 and basically this kind of summarizes the differences that slight differences in how close the building can be to property lines um RS3 actually has quite a bit smaller lots and so as you'll notice on the previous slide

[0:40:24] these lots are much smaller because they're townhouses on very narrow Lots these lots are actually a little bit smaller than normal single family lots because there's zero lot lines so that allows the home to be shifted to sit one side sits right on the property line that allows the the lots to be a little bit narrower and smaller as well and basically the the primary difference between rs1 and rs2 rs1 only allows a single family home and then rs2 would also allow for a duplex on the property and then if you heard the discussion at the Planning Commission a few of the planning Commissioners who voted against the rs2 said that the rs-3 zoning they felt like they could possibly support given the amount of RS3 zoning in the area that would allow those zero lot line homes like a to the north across the street it would also allow Twin Homes which is basically a duplex that's split by a property line so that each side would could be owned separately I think part of the part of the concern or addressing the concern the Planning Commission believed that if if you had basically a duplex but that could be owned separately you would be more likely to have owner occupancy rather than rental occupancy which I think is one of the concerns that was raised at the Planning Commission this is just a picture of that vacant lot and here's looking this is the vacant lot here you can see the town homes across the street and then the apartments as well I will point out however that um that quick as the opponents of this pointed out the this street Westway is kind of a dividing line between the more intensive multi-family uses and then as you go east of there you see almost exclusively single family and so that was part of their concern about introducing a duplex across that street that is kind of a dividing line

[0:42:30] both zonings rs1 rs2 or RS3 in fact are consistent with the neighborhood designation of the city's plan as I already described the the area is kind of a mixture but Westway does create sort of a a boundary of sorts Valley View is a heavily traveled roadway and so it's also the location one of the things staff considered if you've been out there they've just installed the mailboxes the the group mailboxes for the neighborhood are right there on the right-of-way in front of this property with a large brick enclosure and so part of the thinking was a single family home owner might not want that basically in their yard and so something like a duplex might be something that would help the property owner overcome that obstacle pointer and I'm not sure how that happened over there um and this is just a little bit of a zoom out showing the uh that basically everything in this area here with the exception of just this piece is Zone something other than rs1 and so that that was part of the logic for staff's recommendation of supporting the applicant's request on his property to go to rs2 the back of the um of that red triangle or box whatever is called they share the Alec backyard right so that cul-de-sac those homes in the cul-de-sac their front door all faces into the cul-de-sac not into Valley View I believe so I'm not sure about that corner lot I assume it faces the cul-de-sac but I actually don't mayor that that is correct that is correct it's verifying that we did send out our notices 28 notices to the properties within 200 feet we received none in favor and five in

[0:44:32] opposition and you can see the locations of that opposition staff did recommend approval as I mentioned at their June meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial that vote was 6-0 I think one of the notes in your packet mounted mentioned 4-3 uh it says it's four three yeah that was a typo it was it was 6-0 at the Planning Commission uh as I mentioned some of the Commissioners indicated that they would likely support RS3 instead of rs2 if the applicant wanted to come back for that uh but and then finally based on that denial by the plant recommendation by the Planning Commission this will require a three-fourths majority vote by the council in order to approve you want to go back to the slide that goes through the details of rs2 versus RS3 because it would seem to me that the higher density would have the greater opposition than an rs2 so I'm a little confused about the desire to say they would approvative an RS3 not an rs2 because again I would think rs2 would be the preferential yourself and I think the main difference for that is the RS3 each home is on its own lot even though it can be attached like in a town home or a twin home given that they're each on their own individual lots that there was a there would be a greater likelihood for owner occupancy versus a duplex which is typically uh even if the owner may live on one side and rent out the other side or rent both so the likelihood of it becoming a rental unit is greater in rs2 at least that's the concern of the Neighbors in the Planning Commission so we're voting today on whether to allow it to go from rs1 to an rs2 that's correct okay I'm going to start with Tommy with questions you mentioned the mailboxes there as far as you know those are going to remain there because you mentioned that that in y'all's as y'all thought through it and

[0:46:35] worked through it that might be a problem for a single family residents there would be have because that that's a fairly significant size of mailboxes there it is it's in the right-of-way so it's it's not technically on their property although it is in the area people think of as their front yard but yeah I don't foresee any plans to remove that by the post office is that a post office thing they they they're the ones that come to us to be able to put that in in our right-of-way well they don't have to come to us but they can just do it yeah okay I and I don't know how all that works and and I honestly maybe someone from Public Works knows if there are any approvals by the city needed for that um but they don't come through Planning and Development Let's Ask Shane Kelton Shane do you have a comment on that do they come to you to ask for approval of putting in um this mailbox structure on the lot good morning Council um most of the time yeah in this case no these those were put there without our without notifying the city we have been working with them to change that so in the operations of where they're going because we did have some side restrictions excuse me and the property owner who owns that lot what was his point of view as it relates to when he saw those mailboxes being put there we were not contacted on this specific one and I don't know if this was a Bentwood property or not I'm not sure who actually owned that property because there's a nice big brick fence around it that the U.S Postal Service didn't put up so it just shows as as a a business name on Tom Green County Appraisal District website so I don't know if Bentwood sold it and uh I don't know I tried to find two I don't know I said they sold it

[0:48:38] years ago okay so they don't own it anymore they don't own it now yeah I know I know the post office did not put up the nice brick wall around the the actual boxes themselves so but most of the time they do not um well in the past they have not necessarily contacted us when they put up those structures those group or Community mailboxes but we do have we've had one or two uh in the here recently that have actually been in the right way and were view obstructions so we've contacted them and now we are partnering a lot more on where they get placed now not necessarily as far as the general area of placement but to make sure that there are no view restrictions or anything like that that would that would be a traffic safety issue do you have any idea if it were to stay rs1 and the person going to build on the lot did not want that is that just too bad it's it's there right away it's in the right-of-way so there's there's nothing that's a property adjacent Property Owners can can do to have it removed so the idea is really rs1 is not going to work on that property it doesn't look like there would be potential for that to happen and how long is it we know when Bentwood sold it and how long this lot's been empty yeah maybe we could drill down on a tax appraisal district website if they've got that much detail on there I didn't go that far down I will say I spent a good bit of time would be an overstatement but I went out there three times over the weekend because when you look at our maps and the one that was in our packet um when you see the the different zoning around there you view that one way when you look at that map and say yeah something other than rs1 might be appropriate but I will say when you go out there and look at the houses out there those are all single family residential homes that in on the

[0:50:44] appraisal district even if they're the zero lot line across Valley View and especially in the cul-de-sac there to the east those houses are valued on the appraisal district from on the on the lower end 300 000 up to almost a half a million on the upper end there so it gives me pause for anything but rs1 but now having the mailbox there gives me pause for someone that would develop that or someone that would buy that and want to put a single family home on there with that mailbox and having people come up there onto your uh it's not your property it's the right-of-way but come there and get their mail so this one kind of that threw me for a loop the the the um the mailbox thing um all gone I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna ask the council uh this this is something you know y'all y'all uh weigh in on this and and um I hear what I think what you're saying mayor you think it might be something more appropriate rather than rs1 is what I hear you I think have leaving it as rs1 is probably going to very much limited it'll be an empty lot and it'll stay an empty lot for a long time as an rs1 I can't imagine my my business to to do but I can't I looked at it and I said I don't see that being developed as an rs1 I can see it being developed as an rs2 or an RS3 and I know sometimes when we say the word townhouse or duplex there's a negative reaction to it but let me say two things number one there's a huge demand for duplexes and townhouses in this city and many of those people have gotten let me just say many people have gotten out of the big homes and want a smaller home and want the advantages of a country club lifestyle it's golfing

[0:52:47] it's pickleball it's all those things there are townhouses on Colorado and Jefferson as you turn off a Colorado to the left and there's townhouses on the left those homes are beautiful and you would never know their townhouses they fit they're very nice they're well cap but the same thing on Bishop in Colorado there are townhouses as well that look very nice so sometimes it's about how it's designed and how it's um designed in terms of how it unpacks a neighborhood but I don't see leaving it as rs1 as the right decision now whether it should be an rs2 or an rs-3 is questionable again I'm not the developer I don't own the land I don't know what the conversations have been with people who might want to build there but I don't think rs1 is the right Zoning for that particular location it's my opinion who else has an opinion Tom it seems as though this post office box it's a fly in the ointment is that correct in terms of it being RS considered for rs1 it is rs1 now and it seems as though that this post office box was constructed without the city being involved in the process is that correct is there any opportunity for the mailbox to be moved elsewhere so it can be retained as rs1 I don't know the answer to that but I might probably be a question for the I guess for the post office I you know I don't know Federal I doubted I don't think we can require them to to move it um you know as far as that I'm pretty sure that that's the case I was looking at Teresa Walla gun she was not in as

[0:54:49] well I really do believe that that's not something the city can tell the federal government we want that move at this point I think it'd be a long time and a lot of money on a lawsuit that we wouldn't win so I don't think that we're going to go there John a question for you back on this this may not have a bearing but the question just came to mind um assuming it were approved as rs2 for a duplex um would that allow a front entrance onto both Valley View and Westway if so it might give more of an appearance of two single family homes could could they have two separate entrances the short answer is yes I've seen some very nice neighborhoods where that's done and that's a design choice where one front door faces each street so from the front either side looks like a single family home but there's no there's no way we can require that but that would be a a good design Choice from their standpoint with the exception of you know maybe the mailboxes preclude that option because then one front door would basically be facing a mailbox um so I didn't watch this on planting but why did planning come through with the 6-0 against this I think largely the neighborhood opposition the argument that even though the surrounding zoning a lot of it is rs2 or RS3 that that Westway really was kind of a dividing line from higher intensive stuff to the west of that and then he really transitioned to even though its town homes or rs2 zoning it's all single family uh zero lot line detached single family on that side of the street well so I see Tommy's point and I see the marriage point on this but I was like if we if if we want to see this developed and put it on the tax roll it doesn't make sense as an rs1 a two or a three and I'm kind of agree with them on a three but this is all about you know Revenue property and go it's easier to

[0:56:52] sell it as two properties and more Revenue but I'm kind of leaning that way too I was curious about what planning had said and why they were wrong with the 6o and honestly there were some neighborhood opposition that spoke there wasn't a whole lot of discussion from the planning Commissioners themselves uh and so some of that speculation about what they heard from the opposition as you work with them let's say it gets approved to an rs2 you work with them is there a way in the development of it that we can ask the two-door thing one on Valley View one on West way as conditional in order to quote make it feel more single family oriented can that be conditional no we can't require that we we could talk to the owner and developer and say and home builders and say we'd really like you to consider this but with this type of zoning we can't require that so let's go the next step so if we say no to moving it from rs1 to rs2 developer could come back and then ask to have it move to an RS3 they could or can we as a council say we won't approve an rs2 but we'll approve an RS3 zone change you can't do that today what you could do is send it back to the Planning Commission I believe without a decision and have them consider RS3 instead we'd have to send out new notices and to the surrounding properties but we could take that back to them at their next meeting for consideration before you make a final decision on it that would save the developer or the owner sometime they wouldn't have to reapply with a new fee

[0:58:55] and all of that so that is is an option for you to remand it back to the Planning Commission I don't think that would change the neighborhood opposition at all in fact it might intensify I'm thinking a little bit intensified the opposition there for RS 3 because they would that could even be I guess you'd say more more intensive than what maybe the rs2 was and they were opposed to the rs2 um the only difference is is that there would be an Alleyway not an Alleyway but distance between the two buildings so it would appear just like a single family home where you would have land and yard or fence separating the Townhomes is that right they could develop it that way but with Townhomes well if they do town homes they would be attached and on that lot haven't done the math but you could at most get three or four adjacent Town Homes attached on that property or you could do a twin home as I mentioned which is basically a duplex but with a lot Line running down the middle so that each half of the duplex would be owned separately and that could happen on the rs2 no the rs2 would be a single lot with a duplex RS3 would allow them to maybe split the lot in half it would still be a duplex but each side would be its own and potentially if you picture these lots and how narrow they are right over here you could maybe split this into three or four side by side narrow lots for Town Homes but not for duplexes you'd get two duplexes on this piece of property is that what you said if you did a duplex you could only get one duplex so two units the density would be better with the rs2 than the RS3 so in that sense your density issue is less impactful if you look at it in

[1:00:59] that sense right it's a trade-off between density versus potentially greater chance of owner occupancy but there's nothing that I mean I don't want to play that up too much because you could create this as as two separate lots and then somebody could still buy the whole thing and rent them out so um that's always an option I mean well there's always an option to rent I mean but that's part of the concern I don't want to overplay that because there's some there are some reasons that that's not a great way to look at owner occupancy versus renter occupancy as a decision Factor but that that's what some of the opposition was I was going to say I think some of the opposition that they stated that the Planning Commission was you know they were concerned about it being not owner occupied that it would be a a rental when everything around there is owner occupied regardless of the zoning that on which it was built there was a concern about the lack of owner occupied in in it being a rental but on the other the townhouses that you talked about that currently exist on Valley View right do we know if they're owner occupied or rented we we don't um my guess is throw a lot of things out there right but the reality is the following are they rented or are they owned I guess is given that area they're likely to be a greater likelihood of owner occupancy than maybe other parts of town uh just given the property values and home values but we've not looked into that I think looking at the Tom Green County tax appraisal website these first maybe four or five lots that are on Westway in the corner of Valley View and Westway are owned by a

[1:03:02] uh I can't tell I couldn't tell if it's for sure if it's private Equity Firm or just a real estate investment firm out of Austin so again three or four four or five of those were owned outside San Angelo I'm assuming those would be rentals I'm just looking at that company's website and I think some of those others going back to the West there towards the stripes could be more likely owner occupied as town homes so is there opposition to what those look like and how they fit into that Community yes that was some of the opposition was the they were not as well kept as what the neighbors did take care of their single family homes yeah may I ask a question or two using your cursor can you point out for us on this this map where the mailboxes have been installed yeah it's you can see it right there it's the the little bit of discolored smudge spot that's um and I wish we would included a picture of that but it it if you look on the if you've been out there it's it's the the mailbox with a brick wall around it and then there's kind of some some raw um right but yeah you can kind of see the the lighter colored spot right there on Valley View so residents of that area would typically drive up yes I can see it here as well I just thought people in the audience might like to see it um thank you Daniel they would typically drive a pop out of their car while their car is running and collect their mail and drive on is that correct by the way happens all all day long at Bentwood on all other streets just FYI of course so uh I've had a lot of conversations about this I also have driven out there and looked multiple times and I also did some research about

[1:05:05] the owners and and I furthermore want to publicly agree with the mayor's assessment of two properties in Santa Rita which are lovely however the conversation has sort of veered off into territory that we have no control over we have no design Authority we have no idea what the developer will choose to build what quality of materials they will use whether or not it will be compatible with homes that have been there in some cases 30 years once I stopped looking at numbers and letters that designate zoning codes it was a very clear solution for me to keep it rs1 regardless of the mailbox and the reason is if if you look both to the right on your map and to the bottom word portion of the map the south portion and the West Fort I'm the East portion of your map those are all single family homes the ones to the South even though they sit in an rs2 zoning area the developers of those properties chose to build single-family homes and all of those homes back up if I'm not mistaken to a golf course is that correct so it becomes cleaner and neater and tidier if you look at it from that point of view the answer seems obvious I also think that it's likely that the Planning Commission saw that as well it's very compelling when you have a 6-0 vote it should be compelling when it's here in this body or in any other body that we've appointed to provide expert assessment of a situation we have a very interesting situation because you can see and it's it's rather unique you have almost every possible residential option on that corner so it's easy to get mesmerized by what's across the street One Direction or the other direction so if if we could somehow be the kings and queens of development of this piece of property and guarantee that something

[1:07:07] as lovely as what's on Jefferson and Colorado is built there I would be voting yes but we cannot conversation with the Planning Commission was very specific about voting rs1 to rs2 but there was consideration for moving from an rs1 to an RS3 is that correct there were at least one or two Commissioners that specifically mentioned that I'm voting no on rs2 but I might support RS3 I don't I can't say that that was a majority of the commission they didn't all speak to that but there were at least a couple that that mentioned that so can we as a council make a decision today to not vote on the rs-1 to rs2 but send it back to them for consideration reconsideration for an RS3 yeah I believe that that you do have the authority to do that and that will allow further conversation on um whether that Planning Commission was very specific about the rs2 but supported an RS3 perhaps they did right and we didn't know that it would come back to you and you would be able to make the decision to go to rs2 that would still be on the table or RS3 or just deny it and keep it as rs1 I will point out one more thing because of the discussion and looking at the the street view of this area if if I were developing this lot I would have the home face towards Westway and then what you would end up if you look at this property here you're going to have just a backyard fence all along that where the mailbox is so it's it's not like that mailbox would be right in their front yard it would be behind their backyard fence because they're not going to put the front of their house right and if you go through Bentwood again all of those mailbox complexes which exist all over Bentwood they're generally at the back end of a fence and close to the golf course more than to a house

[1:09:11] John I'm sure somebody wouldn't put a front door on Valley View here they would put it on West way because they're not going to do that and particularly if they're building them to sell you can't even get a car parked yeah I agree with John's design solution since we're just having fun uh imagining architecture in this part of town that I think it's kind of realistic to say no one's going to put a front door next to the mailbox no facing Westway solves the problem it makes the mailbox irrelevant so John go back to what you just said you were saying if it remained rs1 in a single family home that's what you were talking about the front door facing Westway yes and and I mean and the applicant may be here to speak to this more than I don't want to speculate too much but there's been some discussion about how this may not be developable as rs1 and I I don't think I think that's maybe an overstatement that that if if we keep it rs1 it'll never develop we don't know that but but and it has been taken a long time yeah is the owner of this property here or the person who wants to purchase this property here to come forward and offer any comment foreign I did not attend the Planning Commission meeting I watched it a couple of times on on YouTube but no one spoke no in in favor uh or as as the applicant uh okay I'll tell you what I'm gonna do just to see where this goes folks um because of the opposition and because of the single family home surrounding that I'm going to make a motion that we deny uh this for an rs2 in in that would be in keeping with what the Planning Commission did so my motion is to deny the rs2 and leave it rs1 second any public comment

[1:11:14] can I be a public comment oh you cannot you had an opportunity to be vocal before you're done it was before the motion all right so there's a motion on the floor and a second to um keep it as an rs1 and not change the zoning to an rs2 we will go council member by council member and take a vote so we'll start with Larry no so hold up the motion is to deny so if you want to deny it you would be a yes vote yes thank you John appreciate it it's like those tricky ballots we're like wait a minute uh yeah I'm voting with Larry what he said Lucy yes mayor no Harry no no Tom no Tommy yes so it's four to three is that 'll be super majority a super majority to approve so I think a 4-3 to deny would would pass as a denial I don't want to know about what you think yes that's correct so the denial goes for three so it is denied four to three even though it was a yes vote it's denied so it goes back and the applicant can go back to the Planning Commission and ask for reconsideration for an RS3 is that correct or not could they could reapply yes they couldn't go back for I think it's either six or 12 months they couldn't ask again for rs2 I think they could come for RS3 as a separate request if if they choose to moving on to the next item which is item e consider resolution amending the schedule of fees and charges to amend charges for Cemetery fees thank you mayor you read that too fast

[1:13:19] for me I was ready okay so we're bringing back Cemetery fees for you we went back and we met with a few of the cemetery board members and we scrubbed our projections and our calculations and so we're back now we did end up removing a couple of our proposals our proposed fee increases as well as adjusting one or two as well so now for concrete boxes our current fee is 600 in proposing 7.95 the concrete vault is 675 dollars proposing 8.95 opening and closing regular is at 12 50 and proposing 1500 opening and closing infant is now 300 and proposing 500 and opening and closing stacking is at 13 15 and we're proposing 16.50 it's the first group if there are any questions if not all questions on this first page move on outside container setting is at 100 I'm proposing 200 lot transfer at 75 proposing 150 marker survey at 100 proposing 150 overtime hourly at 175 proposing 250 in overtime weekend at 325 proposing 500. oh there's two more the the tent setups uh proposing both at 500 for first and second tents questions for Tina on these Cemetery fee proposals Lucy I just wanted to make a comment Tina and I wanted to thank Jeremy that with this um the Fairmont analysis yeah that they gave us that it made a lot more sense and it showed us how in comparison the the they were to the other Cemetery so I appreciate that yes ma'am move approval as presented motion for approval second by Karen any public comment and you've been a funeral home speakers this may be an opinion

[1:15:24] feed Steve Hampton SM d-6 uh I wasn't clear on this agenda item that whether it was going up or down I find out now that it's gone up um and I feel that this is a bit of gouging I've witnessed some of the I've witnessed some of the service that have received over there and I found it wanting uh I think that that most of these fees are are not bad but the opening and closing regular and opening closing over time I think are are too high we are caught in a situation where the uh uh we have a corporation that bought uh a new Corporation moved in bought one Cemetery you have a old corporation that never sees the seems to get enough uh that they they have gone up but I think that the uh I think they're moving these prices too high and that the uh you're pushing people into alternative situations of uh that they may not religiously believe in so uh I would suggest that you reconsider some of these fees I comment on that would be the following that is is that if we did not have comparisons to the rates charged by the other three cemeteries saying that it's gouging might be viable but it can't be viable when in fact you compare it to these other three Cemetery Fields just because one person goes up and they're all corporations trying to make a profit doesn't mean a city-owned cemetery should be doing the same now we I know you have to keep up you have to

[1:17:28] pay but you're going to put yourself out of business eventually is what I'm saying and if you if you keep sticking it to the employee the the citizen which you are sworn to represent and act on their behalf I would uh say that you're you're pushing the line now whether you do it all the time I don't know all the facts I I agree I don't know all the facts but I think in in my witness and an experience that I think that you're you're you're you're pushing it too far on some of these now some of them you're not uh and and so we can live with you can live you can go up on some and that's a compromise we're in a we're in a time of financial uproar and upheaval and uh where you have appraisals going up you're sticking to everybody you want to raise salaries and do and push and push and push and when does it break so I would uh beg you to reconsider and thank you thank you I think a lot of work has been put into this analysis um I I if it was just somebody putting numbers on the pages without relationship to what other people fees are but this has been really looked at and studied and analyzed it isn't just someone putting numbers on a sheet of paper increasing the fees at this point in time so yes ma'am and I would point out one important fact and that is that currently the general fund is supporting and supplementing the cemetery by 125 000 in the current budget so I really don't think there's any room for saying that there's any gouging going on well and I don't think that that's the property tax responsible for covering the cost right so yes are we responsible for making sure that the cemetery is in a positive state that we

[1:19:33] take care of it that it looks I hate to say welcoming because I don't think anyone wants to be welcomed out there necessarily but I think we need to create a great environment for what happens at a cemetery and again there's been a lot of work and effort that has gone into this analysis and I think I would stand behind the work and effort here better understanding it and I would make a motion to accept these fees as presented today and a second by Harry public comment with that we will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye with none opposed the current Cemetery free fees as presented will be accepted and put into practice thank you mayor with that we will now move into our closed session of which there is none we will do a follow-up and administrative issues consider items discussed in executive session which there were none consider approving Barry's board nominations the construction Board of adjustments and appeals Gary Cortese to smd4 to first term ending February 2025 and the tax increment reinvestment Zone board Gianna Owens smd6 to the first term ending July 2025 may I have a motion for approval of these two still moved by Tom second by Harry any public comment on these two nominations seeing none will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye none opposed those two nominations are approved announcement's a consideration of future agenda items are there any I need an update on Kirby Park where we're on that one

[1:21:35] perfect any other all right with that motion one I have a motion and a second by somebody bye Lucy you're good you're in I'm sure there's no public comment concerning that so we'll take a vote all those in favor say aye all right we are formally adjourned at 9 53 a.m on this July 18th day

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=uENip59Frro