Sep 03, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

UH, ADRIAN ALANISE.

I'M THE ONE WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY RIGHT BEHIND THEM AT TRIPLE EIGHT ZERO EAST F 1518.

OKAY, GO FOR IT.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT MY YARD? SO WE CAN'T ANSWER PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.

UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE STAFF GET WITH YOU ON THE IMPACTS OF IT.

UM, THE ZONE CHANGE, I MEAN, CORRECT.

IS MY PROPERTY IN THAT ZONE CHANGE? NO, I DON'T IT, THIS WOULD JUST BE, IT, IT IS JUST FOR THAT SPECIFIC CORRECT.

IT WOULD JUST BE THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY THAT'S IN THAT WAS THAT APPLIED.

SO IF YOU WEREN'T PART OF THE APPLICATION THEN NO, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T BE A PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE.

'CAUSE I WAS JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE I ACTUALLY RUN PARALLEL TO 1518.

THEIRS IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

SO I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW IF THAT ACTUALLY AFFECTS MY, MY LAND IN TERMS OF LAND USE.

IT WOULDN'T, BUT WE CAN, IF, IF YOU HAVE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THEM GET WITH YOU ON IT.

OKAY, THANKS.

ALRIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, IT'S 6 0 8 COMMISSIONERS.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS MR. MASTER, HOW CAN WE ZONE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN OUR CITY YET? SO THE ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION NEEDS TO RUN IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ORDINANCE FOR THE ANNEXATION HEARING AND THE ANNEXATION HEARING ORDINANCE DOESN'T COME TO PNZ.

SO THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

SO IT RUNS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE.

I KNOW IT'S A WEIRD SETUP IN THE WAY IT'S SCHEDULED, BUT THAT'S HOW IT NEEDS TO BE SCHEDULED SO THAT IT LINES UP WITH THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE HEARING.

THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION, MR. ABBA? NOTHING.

NO, I JUST, I JUST WANTED, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, MR. MCMASTER GOT THE EXPLANATION HE NEEDED.

SO WE'RE JUST, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT AND THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL DO, DO THEIR MAGIC ALL AT ONE TIME.

SO I GOT ONE.

YES SIR.

I GOT A CLEAN IGNORANCE HERE.

I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT USED ON THE ZONING IN THE THREE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.

SO MAYBE WE HAVE.

I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

SO, UM, IS THERE AN IDEA FOR THE PROPERTY? UM, YES.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PLACE OF WORSHIP FOR THIS PROPERTY.

GOT IT.

IS THERE A REASON THEY'RE SPEC THEY'RE REQUESTING THIS OVER ANYTHING ELSE SINCE THE CHURCH WOULD BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE OR JUST NO.

2 0 2 5 0 1 6 5 CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR COM.

THIS IS A PROPERTY THEY OWN AND THEY'RE REQUESTING THE APPLICATION OKAY.

FOR THESE TWO PARCELS.

THAT'S COOL.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO.

WELL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE PLZC 2 0 2 5 0 1 7 0

[00:10:05]

SECOND.

THAT IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARBON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PL LZ C 2 0 2 5 7.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, IF YOU PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.

UH, JOHN, I HAD, I DID.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD.

UH, THAT, THAT'S BY VOTES.

CAN WE PLEASE PUBLISH THAT? THAT WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT.

MOVING FORWARD PCPA

[A. PLCPA20250165- Consider and make a recommendation on a request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan- Future Land Use Map from Complete Neighborhood and Regional Corridor to Industrial Hub on approximately 96-acres of land, known as 10661 IH 10 E, more specifically known as Bexar County Property Identification Number 619206, City of Schertz, Bexar County. Continued from the August 6, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting]

FROM COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL CORRIDOR TO INDUSTRIAL HUB ON APPROXIMATELY 96 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS 1 0 6 6 1 IH 10 EAST, MORE SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS BEXAR COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 6 1 9 2 0 6.

CITY OF SHEZ, BEAR COUNTY, TEXAS.

OKAY, P-L-C-P-A 20 25 0 1 6 5 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT ON 96 ACRES.

AGAIN, THIS IS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST SIX PNZ.

I'M GONNA GIVE AN ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION AGAIN.

HERE'S THE SUBJECT.

PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED GB AND M1.

AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

YOU CAN SEE SOME MORE GB ALONG I 35, I MEAN I 10 AND THEN SOME M1.

AND THEN THE PDD, THE GRAY TOWN PD, DD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS REGIONAL CORRIDOR AND COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH.

IT IS AGAIN, SOME MORE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN TO THE EAST IS REGIONAL CORRIDOR AND COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH IS IH 10 AND TO THE WEST IS REGIONAL CORRIDOR AND COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, THE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT OUT ON JULY 24TH.

AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OTHER, UM, RESPONSES AND A SIGN WAS PLACED BY THE APPLICANT.

SO AGAIN, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON AUGUST 6TH.

UM, A MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL WAS THREE THREE.

A MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WAS THREE THREE AND IT WAS MOVED TO TONIGHT FOR CONTINUANCE.

AND AGAIN, UDC SECTION 21 4 60 IS WHAT WE USE FOR THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS.

UM, AGAIN, THE COMP PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT TO REMAIN RELEVANT WITH THE DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY.

UM, THERE IS SOME EXISTING INDUSTRIAL HUB IN THE AREA.

THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL HUB IS AN EXTENSION OF DESIRE TO CREATE THAT EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

TWO IS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND OTHER POLICIES OF THE COMP PLAN.

IT IS, IT PROMOTES EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE AREA.

IT'S NEAREST SOME PRE-EXISTING INDUSTRIAL HUB AND IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF LOCATION ON I 10 AND 16 0 4 3.

AGAIN, THE COMP PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND IT'S WITHIN THAT FOCUS AREA.

TWO, THAT IS MEANT TO, UH, STRATEGICALLY PLAN TO SERVE THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TAP INTO BUSINESS POTENTIAL ALONG THE HIGHWAY FOUR.

AGAIN, THERE'S EXISTING M1 ZONING IN THIS AREA THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.

ALSO WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO 1604 AND I 10.

AND THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL HUB REFLECTS THAT DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF THIS AREA.

SO IT MEETS ALL THE ITY REQUIREMENTS.

IT WAS SENT TO FIRE EMS AND POLICE AND THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED OBJECTIONS.

AND AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF P-L-C-P-A 20 25 0 1 65 DUE TO THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN PROXIMITY OF 1604 AND THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE SUBJECT AREA.

AND THEN THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU DAISY.

HI, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

ASHLEY FAIRMONT.

UH, 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE.

UH, I THOUGHT THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT.

SO I DID PROVIDE A PRESENTATION, BUT I WON'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING FOR YOU ALL AGAIN.

UM, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS AND MAYBE BRING BACK UP THIS SITE PLAN.

UM, I KNOW THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION OF THE REQUEST, BUT I DID WANNA JUST BRING UP THE MAP.

I DID LOOK AT THE ZONING AND SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING IN THE AREA.

I KNOW THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR FUTURE, NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR WHERE THAT PD D IS LOCATED.

UM, LOOKING AT THAT PROPERTY AND, AND SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER, BUT IT WAS REZONED AND HAD THE EXACT SAME ZONING AS THIS PROPERTY WITH THE M1 IN THE BACK, IN THE GB PORTION IN

[00:15:01]

THE FRONT.

SO WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS REZONED, THIS M1 WAS THERE AND IT WAS ACTUALLY CHANGING FROM M1.

ALSO, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, UM, HAS THE M1 ZONING TOO.

I KNOW THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DESIGNATION OF THAT PIECE, BUT THAT PROPERTY IS LIKELY ALSO TO BE SOMEWHAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DESIGNATED COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS DONE, THE INDUSTRIAL HUB SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED OVER TO THESE PROPERTIES.

UM, BUT I KNOW THAT'S A A, YOU KNOW, LOOKING BACK AND THAT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS.

UM, SO WE, WE DO THINK IT'S REASONABLE.

I I APPRECIATE WHAT DAISY SAID ABOUT THE DOCUMENT CHANGING.

I KNOW THERE THIS MAY BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUEST THAT YOU'VE SEEN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I THINK THAT'S, UM, I KNOW THAT WHEN I BRING A REQUEST FORWARD, THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.

UM, BUT THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE, WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT REZONING THE BACK AND TAKING IT DOWN FROM THE M1 TO THE PDD WITH GB TWO, RESTRICTED GB TWO USES IS A BETTER FIT FOR THE BACK PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY.

AND THAT TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE SITE PLAN.

UM, ON THE PAGE NORTH OF THE PLAN.

THAT'S THE DEDICATION FOR THE CITY'S MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THE ROADWAY, THE BLUE AREA WOULD BE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS LOCKED IN AS PART OF THE PDD WHERE IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.

PROVIDING THAT BUFFER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, THAT IS ABOUT 68 ACRES OR SO.

SO QUITE A BIT OF PROPERTY.

AND THEN THE DEVELOPABLE PORTION IS 28 ACRES AND IT WOULD BE THE GB TWO USES WITH THE RESTRICTIONS AS WELL.

AND THE GOAL, UH, WOULD BE TO DO THE A ONE AND A TWO BUILDINGS YOU SEE FIRST, WHICH ARE A BIT MORE RETAIL SERVICE, UM, FOCUSED ON THOSE PIECES.

AND THEN THE LARGER BUILDINGS FOR THE WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE A SECOND PHASE MORE ZOOMED IN.

HERE'S THIS, UM, JUST RUNNING THROUGH IT AGAIN, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I HOPE YOU WILL ALL WILL CONSIDER THE, THE PLAN AMENDMENT SO WE CAN GET TO THE ZONING TONIGHT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

ASHLEY.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE WILL, UM, GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO COMMISSIONER.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MR. OUTLAW? WELL, THANK YOU.

I MIGHT AS WELL JUMP IN HERE RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

UM, I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND.

UM, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, AND IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME A DEVELOPER COMES AROUND AND SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T REALLY FIT WHAT I WANT TO DO.

UH, WE JUMP OUT HERE AND WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

UM, THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS IS CONSISTENCY.

UH, THREE, FOUR MONTHS AGO, ON THE OTHER END OF I 10 DOWN NEAR TRAINER HILL ROAD, WE HAD A SMALL PARCEL COME IN THAT UH, THEY ASKED TO REZONE IT SO THEY COULD, SO THEY COULD DO, UM, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.

BUT ON A SMALLER SCALE, THIS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL AND CITY COUNCIL DENIED IT.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

WHY WE SHOULD, WHY, WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS ONE.

WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THE OTHER ONE WAS DENIED.

UM, OH, AND THE OTHER THING, UM, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN ME THOSE PICTURES BECAUSE THERE'S ONE OF 'EM THAT I SEE 18 WHEELERS BACKED UP TO THE FRONT OF THESE BUILDINGS FACING I 10.

AND THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED.

CORRECT.

NOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT.

SO, UM, ANYWAY, IIII JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE SPENT ALL THE TIME AND MONEY TO COME UP WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN AT THE DROP OF THE HAT WE'LL WE'LL RECOMMEND A, UM, A CHANGE TO IT.

AND I, I MEAN, MULT REALLY OUTWEIGHS THE, BECAUSE IF YOU BUILT THIS OUT AS A FULL RETAIL ALL THE WAY TO THE BUFFER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I MEAN THE, THE BUFFER YOU'RE GETTING HERE WITH THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT REALLY IS, I DON'T WANNA SAY UNHEARD OF, BUT I MEAN IS REALLY GENEROUS TO RESIDENTS THAT ARE GONNA BE BUTTING UP TO THIS, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S COMMENT THAT IT'S A LONG I 10, NEAR 1604 I, IT, IT IS A MAJOR INTERSECTION.

THANK YOU SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER HUGHES ALSO LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, THERE IS A SLIVER OF LAND TO THE, TO THE WEST OF IT THAT IS BASICALLY GONNA TURN INTO BE AN UNUSABLE AREA THAT WE CAN'T HAVE.

WE ALREADY HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL HUB OUT THERE, SO WE'RE HAVING A DISJOINTED INDUSTRIAL THAT'S GONNA LOSE OUR POTENTIAL FOR MORE RETAIL ON THE, ON I 10.

WE'RE ALREADY SURROUNDED ON 35 BY INDUSTRIAL.

IT WOULD BE A SMART MOVE TO AT LEAST HAVE US HAVE, HAVE AN SOME SORT OF BUSINESS MERCANTILE ON THE HIGHWAY THAT'S MORE PRESENT, UNLIKE WHAT WE HAVE AT I 10 RIGHT NOW ON, ON 35.

SO I GET WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THIS, BUT I DON'T SEE THE NEED OR THE VALUE OF IT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, I I'M GONNA ADD A COUPLE THINGS RIGHT AT THE END.

UM, I, THE, THE VALUE WE GET OUT OF THE EASEMENT THAT'S BEING GRANTED AND THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.

[00:20:02]

I I SEE THE BENEFITS OF THIS DAISY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DEVELOP THIS, THEY WOULD REALISTICALLY HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT ANYWAY 'CAUSE IT'S SPLIT BETWEEN TWO CATEGORIES.

UM, NO THEY WOULDN'T, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT PER THE ZONING THAT'S THERE BY RIGHT, RIGHT NOW.

SO IF THEY WANTED TO JUST DO M1 AND GB, THEN THEY'D BE ABLE TO DO IT BY, RIGHT.

I KNOW, BUT LIKE ON THE FULL SITE, SO LIKE, 'CAUSE IT'S, RIGHT NOW IT HAS TWO LAND USE CATEGORIES, CORRECT? MM-HMM .

SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THE, NOT NECESSARILY LIKE THIS, BUT BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES, IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT THE SAME THING, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO CORRECT ME IF I'M GOING THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT IF THEY WERE TRYING TO COME IN WITH THE ZONE CHANGE WITHOUT A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, IT WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE COMP PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

CORRECT.

SO THEY WOULD NEED TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO THEY HAVE TO DO THE PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP IT.

CORRECT.

SO I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER ALL'S POINT AS WELL THAT WE DID IT, BUT WE HAVE A PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR A REASON.

IT, THEY WOULD REALISTICALLY, SOMEONE IF THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP THE FULL SITE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDLESS.

'CAUSE IT'S TWO, I MEAN THERE'S TWO LAND USE CATEGORIES.

IT'S REGIONAL CORRIDOR AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? UH, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS ALLOWED IN ONE AND NOT IN THE OTHER, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

RIGHT? UM, IF THEY WANTED TO JUST DO THE ZONING, THAT'S THEREBY RIGHT.

THEY DO NOT NEED TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

BUT POTENTIALLY SOMEONE WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT YES.

IF THEY WANTED TO DO ALL OF IT.

GB TWO OR M1? OKAY.

WELL, I, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN REAL QUICKLY.

AND THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS PARTICULAR USE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND WANTED TO BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, DEPENDING, I I DON'T KNOW ALL THE NUANCES, BUT THAT'S A USE THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

SO IT'S NOT THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE WOULD REQUIRE, UH, AN AMENDMENT.

IT, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

UM, IS, IS COM UM, COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND PLAN? THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

AND SO TO ME, YOU KNOW, IT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO OUT THERE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO, TO AMEND THE PLAN.

ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER HUGHES.

ASHLEY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? SO JUST, JUST TO ADDRESS, UM, SO THIS ZONING HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME AND THEN THE PLAN CAME AFTER.

SO LIKE I MENTIONED LAST MEETING, MY, MY CLIENT HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR 20 PLUS YEARS MM-HMM .

AND ALWAYS INTENDED TO DO SOME SORT OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING, UM, OR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE BACK PORTION IS ZONED.

SO AS DAISY WAS SAYING, WE COULD COME IN NOW OR THEY COULD COME IN NOW AND DEVELOP THE BACK PORTION AS INDUSTRIAL.

SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS REASONABLE TO TRY TO REZONE AND DOWN ZONE THAT PIECE.

AND WITH THE PDD, UM, WE CAN LOCK IN THE DRAINAGE AREA AND RESTRICT THE USES AND PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE OF A TRANSITION FROM THAT PDD TO THE CORE FIVE.

UM, AND SO THAT WAS THE GOAL.

UM, COULD LEAVE THE BACK PORTION IN ONE AND, AND JUST LEAVE IT AS ZONED AND, AND NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THE PLAN ON THAT BACK PIECE.

UM, AND THEN THE FRONT PORTION, THE REGIONAL CORRIDOR, WE ARE ASKING FOR GB TWO USES.

SOME OF THE USES ARE ARE GB, JUST REGULAR GB USES, UM, WITH THE PLAN BEING, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MORE SERVICE IN SOME RETAIL IN THOSE FRONT BUILDINGS.

UM, SO WE DON'T WANT 'EM IN THE PLAN, BUT WE THINK THE ZONING IS A BETTER RESULT FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR IS A BETTER RESULT IN DOWN ZONING, THE M1.

UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT TAKES A PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO I GOT SOME, YEAH.

COMMISSIONER CARON, COULD YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES? THANK YOU.

SURE.

I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST HAVE A STATEMENT.

SO I'M LISTENING TO EVERYBODY UP HERE AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING, BUT I HAVE TO PUT MYSELF IN THE, IN THE SEAT OF, OF A RESIDENT THAT'S GONNA LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD

[00:25:01]

IN THE BACK.

AND IF I'M LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S WHAT, 68 ACRES YOU SAID THAT NO ONE'S GONNA TOUCH, THAT'S BASICALLY LIKE A MINI GREEN BELT.

UM, AND IT TURNS INTO LIKE A, A NOISE BUFFER BETWEEN I 10 AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

YES, THERE WILL BE SOME NOISE FROM THAT, UH, GB PORTION, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU BUY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS, YOU NEVER GET THE SOLITUDE THAT YOU WOULD IF YOU BOUGHT PROPERTY IN SOME RURAL AREA.

BUT THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE.

UM, AT THE SAME TIME IT'S A FLOOD AREA.

AND SO KNOWING THAT THAT'S A FLOOD AREA AND THEY'RE NOT PUTTING CONCRETE ON TOP OF IT, IT'S GONNA BE ABLE TO ABSORB WHEN IT RAINS LIKE IT DOES AROUND HERE LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO.

AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MAY NOT SUFFER SOME FLOODING BECAUSE THEY LEFT IT UNDISTURBED.

SO I KIND OF APPRECIATE THEM ACTUALLY JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND, AND ALLOWING US FUTURE EASEMENT FOR A ROAD THAT IS EVENTUALLY GONNA CONNECT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO SOMETHING ELSE.

UM, YOU NEVER GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT.

AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON A PLAN, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE MIKE TYSON SAID, EVERYONE'S GOT A PLAN UNTIL YOU GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE, RIGHT? AND SO RIGHT NOW I THINK WE'RE NOT GETTING PUNCHED IN THE FACE.

WE'RE ALLOW WE'RE, WE KNOW THE PUNCH IS COMING AND WE'RE ALLOWING HIM TO GET OUTTA THE WAY AND SHE'S ALLOWING US TO GET IT OUT OF THE WAY BY GIVING US THAT 68 ACRES TO BASICALLY SAY PEACE AND QUIET BACK HERE.

I APPRECIATE WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS DOING IN THIS INSTANCE.

AND YOU HAVE MY YES VOTE.

SO WITH THE 68 ACRES THAT COULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED, IT'S 100% GUARANTEED.

IT WILL NEVER BE TOUCHED.

SO WITH THE PD DD THAT WE'LL ADDRESS WITH THE NEXT, UM, ITEM, ESSENTIALLY THE PD D IS SET UP.

SO WHATEVER WITHIN IS WITHIN THAT 68, ALMOST 69 ACRES IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED.

AND WE CAN ONLY DO THAT WITH THE PD DD WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH STRAIGHT ZONING.

SO WE CANNOT COME BACK EVER AND MAKE A CHANGE AND MAKE A VARIANCE ON IT, SAY IN THREE YEARS WHEN WE WANNA DEVELOP THIS AGAIN.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PDD PROCESS AND ASK FOR THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW STAFF WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING IF THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE'RE SUPPORTING THE PDD.

SO IT CAN BE CHANGED.

SO THE BUFFER THAT'S THERE, THERE'S A POTENTIALITY THAT IF THIS GROWS, OH, WE'LL TAKE THE NEXT STEP BECAUSE WE'RE GENERATING BUSINESS AND NOW WE HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEXT TO A, UM, PRESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT'S A POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY.

IF THEY WANNA GO TO THE PDD PROCESS AGAIN AND GO TO THE HEARING PROCESS AGAIN, THEN YES, AND CITY COUNCIL ALLOWS IT, THEN IT COULD BE ALLOWED POTENTIALLY.

OKAY, SO THE, SO THE 68 ACRES MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR.

THAT'S IT.

NOW TO P-L-P-D-D 2 0 2 5 0 1 6 4.

I I THINK THAT THE CATCH 22 WITH THAT IS THEY'D HAVE TO COME THROUGH US AND THEN IT'D HAVE TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL AND I, I DOUBT EVERYONE ON STAFF AND EVERYONE ON THIS PANEL AND EVERYONE AT CITY COUNCIL IS GONNA FORGET THAT THEY BASICALLY GAVE THAT 68 ACRES UP AND STAFF IS GONNA DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF ANNOTATING THAT IN THEIR BRIEFING.

AND SO I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET A YES VOTE FROM US AND THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY TRY TO DO THAT.

I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I WOULDN'T PUT MONEY ON IT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, UH, JUST A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE NEED FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES EITHER WAY, UH, FOR THIS, FOR A RESOLUTION TO PASS.

SO I WILL, UM, OPEN THE FLOOR.

ANY MOTIONS, I GUESS SINCE I SAID I SAID GIVE HIM A YES.

I'LL SAY IT.

UM, I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR A YES FOR PL UH, CPA 2 0 2 5 0 1 65 FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, THAT IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARBON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PL CPA A 2 0 2 5 0 1 6 5.

THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS.

PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.

CAN WE PUBLISH THAT PLEASE? THAT MOTION WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

AND WE WILL MOVE ON

[B. PLPDD20250164- Consider and make a recommendation on a zone change request from General Business District (GB) and Manufacturing (Light) District (M-1) to Planned Development District (PDD) on approximately 96 acres of land known as 10661 IH 10 E, more specifically known as Bexar County Property Identification Number 619206, City of Schertz, Bexar County, Texas. Continued from the August 6, 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting]

CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND MANUFACTURING LIGHT DISTRICT M1 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 96 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS 1 0 6 6 1 IH 10 EAST, MORE SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS BEXAR COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 6 1 9 2 0 6 CITY ASSURES BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS DAISY, P-L-P-D-D 20 25 0 1 6 4, A PROPOSED 96 ACRE REZONE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

AGAIN, THIS ONE IS ALSO CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST SIX P AND Z DAISY MARQUEZ PLANNER.

[00:30:02]

HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

AGAIN, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 96 ACRES IN TOTAL.

WE SENT OUT PUBLIC NOTICES ON JULY 24TH AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES.

AN SIGN WAS PLACED BY THE APPLICANT AND AGAIN, THIS ITEM WAS ALSO MOVED TO THE SEPTEMBER 3RD PNZ FOR CONTINUANCE TO ACCOMPANY THAT COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO HERE ARE THE EXISTING DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR GB AND M1, AND THEN FOR THE PROPOSED BASE ZONING OF GB TWO FOR THE PROPOSED PDD.

AND AGAIN, JUST GOING OVER THAT PROPOSED PDD AGAIN QUICKLY.

UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 96 ACRES WITH THE BASE GB TWO ZONING DISTRICT.

SO ALL THE PROHIBITED USES WITHIN THIS PDD INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT REQUIRES AN SUP AND GB TWO ZONING.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, TRUCK CELLS HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND TRAILER MANUFACTURED HOME CELLS.

UM, SOME EXAMPLES OF PERMITTED USES WITHIN THIS GB TWO BASE.

PDD IS AUTOMOBILE PARKING STRUCTURES, OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION, PACKING, MAILING TRUCK TERMINAL, GENERAL MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL USE.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF THOSE PERMITTED USES.

UM, AND PLEASE REFERENCE OUR PERMITTED USE TABLE IN OUR UDC FOR THAT.

SO THE PDDS, UH, PROPOSING TO GIVE US SOME ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, OUR UDC ONLY REQUIRES TWO INCHES DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT FOR TREES AT PLANTING, BUT THEY'RE, UM, PROPOSING, UH, THREE INCHES AT DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT.

SO THAT'S A WHOLE, UM, ONE WHOLE INCH IN UPSIDES THAT THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING.

AND THEN OUR CURRENT UDC ONLY REQUIRES INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO PROVIDE SIX TREES PER ACRE.

UH, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NINE TREES PER ACRE AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO FOLLOW COMMERCIAL PLANTING REQUIREMENTS.

SO AGAIN, WE ARE GETTING MORE LANDSCAPING THERE.

AND THEN, UM, THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DOES ENCUMBER A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE THAT AND THEY'RE STILL PROPOSING TO COMPLY WITH THE EIGHT FOOT MESA WALL WITH ONE SHADE TREE EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND ZONING.

SO THOSE 68, ALMOST 69 ACRES THAT ARE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN ARE TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.

UM, SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANTLY AND MUCH LARGER BUFFER TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH STRAIGHT ZONING.

AND AGAIN, JUST KIND OF SHOWING YOU ON THE CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLOT, WHAT THAT 900 LAW OR WHAT THIS, UH, 68 ACRES THAT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED EXCEPT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, WOULD BE COMING IN THE PD DD.

SO THIS IS GONNA BE LOCKED IN AS THEY CANNOT DEVELOP ANYTHING ON IT.

SO, UM, THINK NO FLAT WORK, NO BUILDINGS GOING VERTICAL.

SO AGAIN, UDC SECTION 21 5 10 F IS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOR PDDS.

UM, IT WAS IN A, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.

SO AGAIN, THE EXISTING COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL CORRIDOR IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PDD, BUT THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL HUB, UH, COMP PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, UM, DOES SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PDD.

AND THEN TWO AGAIN, UM, WITH STREET ZONING, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PRESERVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN ON THESE ALMOST 68 TO 70 ACRES.

AND AGAIN, THE PDD RESTRICTS THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT A PDD.

IT CREATES THAT NATURAL BUFFALO TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND USES.

AND THE EXISTING M1 WOULD, UM, ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY USES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

AND IT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND GB WOULD ONLY REQUIRE 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

AGAIN, THE PROPOSED PDD PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER LARGER THAN CONVENTIONAL ZONING, UM, IS ABLE TO PROVIDE.

IT ALSO PROVIDES A RESTRICTION OF, USES A RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT IN FLOOD PAINT AND PROHIBITED USES.

UM, SO THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE ACCESS TO IH 10.

IT'S INSUREDS AN S-S-L-G-C, DUAL CCN FOR WATER.

IT IS SERVED BY CPS FOR ELECTRIC.

AND THEN THIS PDD WOULD PROPOSE A SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT THEN COULD BE DONE THROUGH CONVENTIONAL ZONING.

AGAIN, IT IS A DOWN ZONE OF THE M1 WITH THE GB TWO BASED ZONING WITH A RESTRICTION OF ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES.

WE GET ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL BUFFERING THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITH CONVENTIONAL ZONING RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITH CONVENTIONAL ZONING AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

SO ENSURES APPROPRIATE USES BUFFERING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND PROVIDES INCREASED LANDSCAPING.

SO, UM, WHETHER BACK ACT BACK TAXES ARE OWED DOES NOT IMPACT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

[00:35:02]

AND STAFF HAS INSURED ALL UDC REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET AND THE ZONING APPLICATION WAS SENT TO FIRE EMS AND POLICE EMS DID INDICATE THAT THERE WERE EXISTING RESPONSE TIME DELAYS DOWN 1518 AND TIM BEAR COUNTY AND PD EXPRESSED THAT INDIVIDUALLY THE ZONE CHANGES DOES NOT HAVE IMPACT.

BUT AS A WHOLE, AS THINGS KEEP DEVELOPING, IT MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON PDS RESPONSE TIMES.

SO DUE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION TO INDUSTRIAL HUB, THE INCREASED SCREENING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND RESTRICTION OF USES ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED PDD AND THE INCREASE OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF P-L-P-D-D 20 25 0 1 64.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 6TH.

THANK YOU DAISY.

ASHLEY, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? NO, I WON'T TALK TOO MUCH.

ASHLEY FAIRMONT.

UM, YEAH, NO, THANK YOU.

YOU'VE SEEN THE PLAN.

I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

UH, COMMISSIONER HUGHES, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT COULD IT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE AND THAT IS NOT THE INTENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAPPEN, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.

UM, BUT ANY ZONING CAN BE CHANGED OR REQUESTED TO BE CHANGED AT ANY POINT.

SO SOMEONE COULD ASK FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, SO THAT, THAT'S NOT THE PLAN, BUT UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.

BUT WITH THIS PDD, WE CAN PROVIDE THE PROTECTION THAT IT COMES BACK AND ALSO THE, THE TREES, UM, AND WALL.

LEMME SEE IF I CAN, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER THAT'S BEING PROVIDED TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THE, THE ROAD WILL RUN, UM, ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THOSE HOMES AND THEN IN BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THIS PROPERTY WILL BE AN EIGHT FOOT WALL AND ADDITIONAL TREES PLANTED THERE TOO.

SO, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A ITEM OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

ANY COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARONE? SORRY, COMMISSIONER OUTLAW.

I JUST HAD, UH, AND YOU MENTIONED IT.

UM, WHERE EXACTLY WOULD THAT WALL BE? UH, I'M, UH, THIS CURIOSITY QUESTION MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

OH, WELL, IT, IT HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO ALL RESIDENTIAL USES AND ZONING.

SO ALL ALONG WHERE, UH, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE GRAY TOWN RESIDENTIAL PDD, EVEN, EVEN THOUGH, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT IS THAT FLOODPLAIN BUFFER? COUPLE THOU THOUSAND FEET, COUPLE THOUSAND FEET.

YOU STILL HAVE TO BUILD A WALL.

, THEY CAN'T JUST BUILD IT AROUND THEIR, THEIR DEVELOPED AREA.

THEY'VE GOTTA GO ALL THE WAY TO THE A ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

UM, AND I APOLOGIZE TO, TO MR. HUGHES.

YOU, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU NOTICED I CHANGED MY MIND.

UM, JUST I WAS KIND OF ON THE FENCE AND, UM, CHAIRMAN WALLACE HAS POINTED OUT A COUPLE OF TIMES THE BENEFITS FROM DOING THIS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE PRESERVATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND, AND, AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

UM, AND AGAIN, UH, I THINK IF, UM, WELL REAL QUICK, I THINK THE PROPERTY, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, THERE'S STILL FRONTAGE THERE THAT SOMEBODY COULD, COULD SQUEEZE A, A RETAIL IN THERE OR SOMETHING, BUT, UM, MORE LIKELY I WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE JUST, WE END UP, SOMEBODY PUTS ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL AND WE BRIDGE THAT WHOLE AREA.

BUT, UM, I, I THINK THE PDD MAKES SENSE.

IF IN FACT WE'RE, WE ASSUME THAT COUNCIL'S GONNA APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN, THEN I, I, I THINK THE PD UH, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

YOU HAVE SOMETHING? OKAY.

ALRIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF P-L-P-D-D 20 25 0 1 6 4 SECOND.

THAT IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONE OF P-L-P-D-D 2 0 2 5 0 1 6 4.

THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS.

PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.

THAT IS FIVE VOTES.

CAN WE PLEASE PUBLISH THAT? THAT WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT.

ITEM SEVEN

[A. Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda]

ANY REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS TO PLACE ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA? NO.

ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?

[B. Announcements by Commissioners City and community events attended and to be attended Continuing education events attended and to be attended]

[00:40:02]

CITY STAFF

[C. Announcements by City Staff. City and community events attended and to be attended.]

ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OH, POPPED UP REAL QUICK.

YEAH, SO I HAVE A BITTERSWEET ANNOUNCEMENT.

THIS WILL BE MY LAST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WITH EVERYONE HERE.

UH, I TOOK A POSITION AT A PRIVATE FIRM IN SAN ANTONIO.

MY LAST DAY IN THE CITY OF SHORTS WILL BE THE 12TH, SO I WILL BE MOVING ON.

IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL WORKING WITH EVERYBODY AND STAFF INCLUDED.

AND, UH, SO YEAH, I'LL BE HERE FOR ANOTHER WEEK IF YOU WANNA DROP BY, SAY HELLO.

CONGRATULATIONS.

WELL, THANK YOU, SAM.

CONGRATS.

WHICH, WHICH FIRM IS IT? DO YOU WANNA YEAH.

NAME DROP.

IT'S CALLED ABLE CITY.

OH, OKAY.