[3:59] It's 5:30. Welcome to the November
meeting of the Planning and Zoning
[4:04] Commission. Thank you all for being here
tonight to call this meeting to order.
[4:07] The first up is the citizens general
discussion. There's anybody here who
[4:11] would like to speak to the commission
regarding something in general regarding
[4:14] planning and zoning, not something
specific to any agenda item tonight, now
[4:18] would be the time to do so. Does anybody
wish to speak? All right, I'll go ahead
[4:23] and close the citizens general
discussion. Next up is the approval of
[4:27] minutes. We need to consider the
approval of October 15, 2025 meeting
[4:32] minutes. Commissioners,
>> so moved.
[4:37] » Second.
>> All those in favor of approving the
[4:41] October meeting minutes. Say I.
>> I.
[4:45] » All right. Next up, uh, application
number RZ, uh, 9272. Applicant Lee
[4:52] Bristo representing Summer Moon Equity
is requesting a resone for property
[4:56] located at 957 Prey, parcel R3220
being block one, lot 2B of the kite
[5:04] second edition of the city of
Stevenville County, Texas from R1 single
[5:08] family residential to R3 multifamily.
Mr. Kellen,
[5:12] » thank you madam chair and commissioners.
Um Mr. Bristo is requesting R3 zoning in
[5:19] his application. He indicated that he's
looking to build town home style energy
[5:24] efficient housing. Uh because he
mentioned town home, I did reach out to
[5:30] the applicant and mention to him that
the R3 zoning is more for multif family
[5:36] and the R2.5 would be the zoning
requirement for town home construction.
[5:42] He indicated at that time that um he was
pretty comfortable with the R3 zoning
[5:46] and wanted to leave it as um presented
on the application. And so just wanted
[5:51] to make that point that he and I have
had that that conversation and I believe
[5:54] he's here tonight and he can speak to
that in more depth. Uh relating to the
[5:59] type of construction. The future land
use for this property is complete
[6:03] neighborhood and the intended project
would fall within that designation. GIS
[6:07] is showing this portion of Fry to have
approximately 44 foot of rideway. 50
[6:12] foot is required. So there may be
additional rightaway dedication uh based
[6:15] on the survey once he gets to that
point. Um, it's a flag shaped property
[6:21] with 75 ft of frontage. The depth is
approximately 224 foot deep. Contours
[6:27] indicate the property is fairly flat.
Sewer is shallow but at 56 in deep. So
[6:33] we believe um based on you know what I
learned through my meetings with public
[6:38] works that the connection to that sewer
line because of the depth should give
[6:43] them adequate fall without having to
consider any type of lift station or
[6:48] anything of that nature. Um
again applicant is present tonight and
[6:53] I'd be glad to answer any questions of
the commission and thank you madam
[6:58] chair.
>> Thank you sir. Any questions for Mr.
[7:00] Kellen?
With this being a multif family, the
[7:06] amount of parking that's going to be
there is going to need a retention
[7:10] area for water. Uh during the review
process, he will be required to provide
[7:15] a drainage analysis and u
possibly a full civil plan set with
[7:21] detention. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. [snorts]
[7:25] » Other questions?
>> Well, it's not a question. I went by
[7:28] there and it it just so it'd be the only
town home
[7:34] in that on that street in that area. It
looks like I'm just saying from it it
[7:39] would look like a really tight
>> spot. We'll save that for discussion.
[7:43] Yes.
>> Yes, sir. Okay. Uh any questions for Mr.
[7:49] » All right. I'm going to go ahead and
invite uh Mr. Bristo
[7:54] come on up and um give us a description
of what you're planning on doing doing
[7:57] on this property.
>> Yeah, it's really just a six unit uh two
[8:01] floor uh uh town home apartment style
building is what we're going for, but we
[8:09] just wanted to make the most of the
space because it is a bigger lot.
[8:12] » Okay. So, you're looking to build
apartments, not town homes,
[8:15] » correct? Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh so, six units, how many beds?
[8:19] Uh, three bedrooms each, two and a half
bath.
[8:22] » Six units with three beds each.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[8:25] » Okay. Um,
all right. Other questions?
[8:31] Where are you thinking of putting the
parking?
[8:33] » Uh, on the front because it is a flag
shape. So, the buildings will go on the
[8:37] back.
>> Back and then the parking would be Yes,
[8:39] ma'am. Where where the house is right
there.
[8:41] » Yes, ma'am.
>> All right. Thank you, sir.
[8:45] » Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open a
public hearing. Is there anybody here
[8:47] who wishes to speak in favor or against
this reszone request?
[8:53] All right, I'll close the public
hearing. Commissioners, we need a motion
[8:56] and then we can discuss.
[9:00] » I recommend a council denial of RZ
20225-9272.
[9:06] » Second.
>> Okay.
[9:10] Uh thoughts?
How many parking spots would that be?
[9:16] six
>> uh depends on the type of operation. So
[9:20] if it's student housing, we're releasing
it by the bed, it would be 1.5 spaces
[9:26] per bed, so 27. If it's if it is uh just
straight rental, not necessarily for
[9:36] student housing, it is two parking
spaces per dwelling unit. So that would
[9:42] be
[9:45] at six. So you have 12 12 if it's just
straight.
[9:52] » I don't think there's enough space for
just the parking alone there.
[9:55] » We have on our preliminary
>> sorry
[10:00] » um
>> any other
[10:02] » I think
>> I just noticed the say it just seemed in
[10:06] my opinion a little out of place for the
other residents around and it's such a
[10:13] crowded area. That's just my opinion.
>> Any other uh thoughts?
[10:18] » I think it's uh 2.5 will fit better in
this situation and the parking
[10:24] really needs to be in the back from here
on out with any kind of property shapes
[10:28] like these because the parking up front
is going to end up on the street and
[10:32] that's a very busy street to be done.
So,
[10:36] » all right. Any more discussion?
All right. Uh all those in favor of
[10:41] recommending to council denial of this
reszone request say I.
[10:47] » I.
>> Those opposed.
[10:49] » All right, gentlemen. So, this goes
forward to city council uh the first
[10:54] Tuesday of the month. So, you want to
present your case to them there and uh
[10:59] they'll make the final decision on this.
Thank you for coming tonight. All right.
[11:04] Application number RZ 9272
consider approval of Oh, excuse me.
[11:14] Uh, application number A9119.
Applicant Earl Ingram representing South
[11:19] Texas Cement LLC is requesting the
assignment of industrial zoning for the
[11:24] recently annexed property known
[clears throat] as 365CR177,
[11:28] parcel R78588
being approximately 5.01 1 acres of the
[11:34] A0804
Williams MR survey of the city of
[11:38] Stevenville County, Texas. With the
assignment of zoning, the commission is
[11:42] requested to recommend extension of the
ETH ET ETJ and subsequent revision of
[11:49] the Steven 2050 comprehensive plan. Mr.
Keller.
[11:53] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners,
this parcel was voluntarily annexed on
[11:57] August 5th, 2025 by the city council. Uh
we went through the legal notice
[12:02] requirements for that hearing. Um and
the council again did vote to annex this
[12:07] property based on the voluntary uh
petition.
[12:11] Based on chapter 15404C
of our city ordinance, once a property
[12:17] is annexed into the city, uh we have six
months to assign zoning and we are not
[12:23] able to issue any building permits until
we do have assignment of zoning. looking
[12:28] at the way that area is developing and
the type of projects that we see uh
[12:33] coming to these properties, uh we are
recommending industrial zoning. Um the
[12:38] future land use is complete
neighborhood, but that's just not how
[12:41] it's been developed up to this point.
And so as we work our way east and and
[12:46] north, uh that future designation would
probably be something to to give more
[12:52] consideration to. But given the
development along 281 and on this side
[12:57] of the railroad tracks with the high fam
industrial park, we feel industrial is
[13:01] an appropriate designation. Be glad to
answer any questions.
[13:05] » Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Khan?
>> Is this where the current railsburg has
[13:09] been added into?
>> That's correct. And they've already been
[13:12] working on this area.
>> That is correct.
[13:14] » Okay.
>> Why are we being asked to recommend an
[13:18] extension of the ETJ? Isn't the ETJ
automatic when you annex property?
[13:25] » Great question. Um, you can go every
time you annex property, you have a onem
[13:31] distance, right,
>> from the edge of the property that is
[13:34] annexed.
>> So that's automatic, right?
[13:37] » We don't have to decide it.
>> Well, with the comprehensive plan, it's
[13:40] good to include it in the recommendation
so that I see it's part of the Yes, sir.
[13:45] So the the motion if when it goes
through needs to include the extension
[13:50] of the ETJ.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[13:52] » And uh and we are approving. We're not
recommending to council,
[13:57] » but we're recommending to council.
>> You're recommending it's a
[14:00] recommendation to the city council for
the zoning and the extension of the ETJ
[14:05] and also the update to the comprehensive
plan which is a land use document. So
[14:10] technically needs to have a public
hearing.
[14:13] » Okay, got it. Thank you. Um, uh, is Mr.
Ingram here tonight?
[14:18] All right, we'll go ahead and open a
public hearing. Is there anybody here
[14:21] who wishes to speak in, uh, favor or
against this resone or this zoning
[14:26] request?
Close the public hearing, commissioners.
[14:29] We need a motion.
>> I recommend a council approval of a 919.
[14:35] » Second, as recommended.
>> As presented
[14:38] » or as presented.
>> Thank you. And, uh,
[14:41] » I'll second.
All right. Uh, any discussion?
[14:49] » All those in favor of re recommending to
council um application number A9119 as
[14:56] presented say I.
>> I.
[14:58] » Those opposed.
>> All right. Next up,
[15:02] uh,
[15:06] » the [cough]
committee assignment. Correct. Um,
[15:11] The development services committee has
uh committee assignment 111-92025.
[15:17] The development services committee has
tasked the commission with the review
[15:20] and subsequent recommendation regarding
the home occupation guidelines of
[15:24] section 154.03 of the zoning commission.
Mr. Keller.
[15:28] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners,
HB 2464 became effective upon the
[15:33] governor's signature on June 12, 2025.
And this bill established parameters for
[15:39] for what is referred to as a no impact
homebased business. And that designation
[15:46] prohibits local government from being
able to provide or regulate a no impact
[15:52] home occupation. And so reviewing our
current home occupation guidelines,
[15:59] there's an opportunity to where we could
step across that um new regulation from
[16:06] the state that we cannot regulate those
homebased businesses. So what we are
[16:10] recommending is an amendment to our
existing code. And so I have in here
[16:15] your existing home occupation
guidelines, which basically uh in
[16:19] essence what that's been meant in the
past is that if you have a home
[16:23] occupation that doesn't violate these
seven criteria, then you could operate
[16:28] that homebased business without having a
conditional use permit. If you did
[16:33] violate one of those seven criteria, you
would have to come to the PNZ and city
[16:38] council uh to request a home with our
occupation conditional use permit.
[16:45] Because of the new language in this
bill, which is now a law, effective June
[16:50] 12th, again, this definition, what we're
recommending is that we repeal our
[16:54] existing lang language, add a no impact
homebased business definition, which
[16:59] I've le listed there for you, which is
directly out of the state code, and then
[17:03] add a violation clause that if you have
a business, basic basically, I'm going
[17:08] to paraphrase, if you have something
other than a no impact homebased
[17:13] business, uh in operation without a
conditional use permit. It's a violation
[17:18] of city ordinance. This has been
reviewed by our city attorney and also
[17:21] by our development services committee
and uh they again assigned it to PNZ for
[17:27] review and re recommendation back to the
full council. With that be glad to
[17:31] answer any questions.
>> Thank you sir. Any questions for Mr.
[17:33] Cohen?
>> Um so when we make the recommendation we
[17:38] need to say that it's amending the
section 154.03
[17:43] 03.
>> Uh, Commissioner, I believe I I would be
[17:46] comfortable with just um making a
recommendation to um adopt the proposed
[17:52] amendments as presented.
>> Okay.
[17:57] » Any other questions?
>> We'll go ahead and open a public
[18:01] hearing. Is there anybody here who
wishes to speak for or against these uh
[18:05] proposed
u recommendations?
[18:11] Close the public hearing. Commissioners,
>> I recommend that we or I propose that we
[18:17] recommend a council approval of
assignment 111 92 025 with proposals. Is
[18:27] that right?
>> That work.
[18:30] » As presented.
[18:35] » Okay. All those in favor of recommending
to council as presented. this committee
[18:41] assignment and uh uh recommended
amendment say I
[18:48] » those opposed.
>> I'm I'm going to abstain. I'm an
[18:51] affected party.
>> Bruce is going to abstain. Got it. Thank
[18:55] you. That goes forward council with
positive recommendation. Last up, uh
[18:59] application number PD 9339 PD update.
Troy Kungl, owner of 598 Westwood LLC,
[19:06] and co-owner Ree Flanigan are providing
an update to the plan development PD for
[19:11] property located at 817 West Washington,
parcel 29583 of city edition, block 62,
[19:18] lot 6A7,
parts 14 and 17, 855 and 865 West
[19:24] Washington, parcel R29 581 of city
edition, block [snorts] 62, locks four,
[19:30] part of five and 6B and 873. West
Washington parcel R29580
[19:36] of city edition block 62 lot 3 of the
city of Steenville US county Texas Mr.
[19:42] Yeah,
>> Madam Chair, I'm so glad you read those
[19:45] in.
Thank you for that. Uh, commissioners,
[19:49] on August 15, 2021, the applicant
presented a conceptual plan to the
[19:53] planning and zoning commission for an
intended town home development. PNZ
[19:57] recommended the city council approved
the PD, which occurred on December 2021.
[20:03] In March of 2023, city council approved
a modified development schedule and a PD
[20:08] update was also provided in November of
2024 and accepted by the commission
[20:13] that's attached in your uh packet this
evening. The applicant is now returning
[20:19] with his annual update as required by
city ordinance and I will be happy to uh
[20:26] announce and steal some of your thunder.
Um the civil plan set has been approved
[20:31] for this project and they are uh
actually starting construction at this
[20:34] point which I'm sure is in his his
schedule. Uh but Mr. Rearen uh was
[20:40] authorized to speak as a representative
for 598 Westwood LLC by the owner, Mr.
[20:47] Tory Kungl. And I have that email in my
file. Um so with that, Madam Chair, be
[20:53] glad to answer any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kell?
[20:59] Mr. Rearen, would you like to
>> Sure.
[21:09] Um, so do you guys want me just to go
over the schedule? Is that what we want
[21:14] to do?
>> Yeah. Yes. Just give us an update.
[21:16] » All right. So, we've um, like I said,
we've just gotten approved to proceed
[21:21] and, uh, we have, uh, people on site
right now. for involved with the site
[21:26] utilities. Um so we've got I don't know
if you guys have that schedule that I if
[21:32] that's handy if you're if you're looking
at it but anyway so um one of the things
[21:36] we got approved from public works uh is
a kind of phase one phase two uh because
[21:42] these are going to be for sale and so um
we are going to do all of the horizontal
[21:48] construction
everything in one shot phase one and
[21:51] two. So, right now we're doing site
utilities,
[21:55] uh, the turn lane, all the all the
public improvements. Then we'll be
[21:59] grading, surveying, getting ready to set
form boards and pour our concrete, our
[22:03] site concrete, all that stuff. Sight
concrete, foundations
[22:08] east to west, the whole property we're
going to do, but we're only planning
[22:12] right now for phase one going vertical
on those buildings five and six. And so
[22:17] that's that's what we plan to have um
completed uh by that um May May 8th of
[22:24] 26. We should have all of the 11 units
in FA shown in phase one completed by
[22:31] then. And you know hopefully um shortly
thereafter we'll begin vertical
[22:37] construction on phase two. So
>> thank you sir. Do commissioners you have
[22:41] any questions for Mr. Ren?
Uh, I'm kind of wondering about the
[22:45] rideway easement that's supposed to be
in included in this. How long will that
[22:49] construction last?
>> Um, so are you just talking about like
[22:54] uh in the text dot rightway?
>> No, into the uh property behind
[23:00] » property behind um
>> believe he's speaking about the access
[23:04] to
property.
[23:06] » Yeah, the temporary road access that we
have going into the mobile home park. Is
[23:09] that what you're saying? Well, how long
till the
[23:12] » Oh, till the 40 foot shared access is
done. Yes. So, that should be um let's
[23:17] see what we got here. I have to blow
this up a little bit.
[23:23] Concrete. So, we should be done by I
would say mid uh midFebruary. So,
[23:32] be a few months we'll be done. So, we'll
get that first that phase one concrete
[23:37] complete, which includes that 40 foot
shared access easement straight shot
[23:41] back into their uh their development
there, the mobile home park. And we'll
[23:46] we'll leave a little bit of a a
turnaround for the fire marshal in
[23:49] [clears throat] case they have to get in
there and turn around and then so we're
[23:52] going to pour that, let it be curing
out, and then we'll start forming the
[23:54] rest of the site concrete. So, um I
would hope by midFebruary
[23:59] we're done and they they've got that
opened opened up, you know, clear
[24:04] access.
>> And then the access that you have around
[24:07] right now, is that going to be able to
support a fire truck?
[24:10] » Uh yes, yeah, we just got that approved
by uh Brandon Lockenour.
[24:15] » And uh I didn't see his email yesterday,
but I just answered that before we came
[24:18] in that we're good. Um it should hold up
just fine. We're going to reassess it
[24:23] after this bout of rain we're getting
ready to get next week. We'll look at
[24:26] it. If we need to bring in more base and
recompact, we will. We'll keep that
[24:29] maintained. So, um you know, it's safe.
And we're also planning on uh I guess on
[24:36] the south side on our side of the road,
we're going to put more construction
[24:40] fencing up so nobody's, you know,
wandering off into construction. We're
[24:45] not impeding under the road. We'll leave
that just basically for the the mobile
[24:49] home park.
>> Yeah.
[24:52] I think he's
>> madam chair if I may. Um
[24:56] » city staff on the preconstruction
meeting we did uh mention to the
[25:00] developer that we were adamant about
site safety and working with Missto on
[25:06] access. Um the all road all weather
access to the back of the property has
[25:12] been reviewed by the fire marshall as he
mentioned and so we have a path forward.
[25:18] Mr. Rearen received a call from Miss
Sceto on Monday. I reached out to Mr.
[25:24] Rearen and put the two of them in
communication and uh they had a great
[25:28] conversation from my understanding and I
think they have a a good path forward
[25:34] with Miss Aceto on accessing her
property, making sure that her her
[25:40] residents are not impacted negatively
other than this temporary construction
[25:45] part that they're going to have to deal
with. But absolutely appreciated you
[25:48] making that phone call.
>> Yeah, you bet. Yeah, we'll make we'll
[25:51] make sure we can uh you know stay on
good terms with them and uh you know
[25:55] minimize the disruption to their their
property. So
[25:59] » absolutely.
>> Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time.
[26:01] » You bet.
>> Uh I'm going to go ahead and open up a
[26:03] public hearing. Is there anybody here
who wishes to speak in favor against
[26:07] this um request to uh or this update?
Is there going to be a turn into that
[26:15] property?
>> Yeah,
[26:18] » that's very
>> sir, if you can come up to the um come
[26:21] up to the podium so that the people
online can hear you and state your name
[26:25] and your address.
>> Dean Scott and I'm representing my
[26:28] stepmother. She lives on 782 West Green
Street behind that the street over from
[26:34] We got a letter in the mail and I just
wondering if there I don't know are
[26:38] y'all going to put a turn in off the
highway into the property cuz that's
[26:42] right in front of the school that thing
when school that's out it's very
[26:47] » it's a nightmare down and that's why I'm
just asking.
[26:51] » Yeah. And plus the parking, are those
people going to be able to park on that
[26:57] access going into the trailer park? You
know, you know that.
[27:03] That's basically what I'm wondering.
>> All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate
[27:06] it. I'm going to go ahead and allow
Steve to answer that.
[27:09] » Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. So, during
the review process, uh, yes, the
[27:14] Washington Street has a 100 foot
rideaway requirement. the developer was
[27:20] required to dedicate additional rideway
and we'll be making road improvements
[27:24] along that dedication
and that will include the turn lanes as
[27:29] you mentioned the access easement itself
is a private access easement and the
[27:35] what I recall on how that was drafted
many many years ago I believe at the
[27:39] turn of the century it is uh it cannot
be blocked um by residents of the town
[27:46] home development so all of that the
actual access easement and I'm going to
[27:52] use the term policing of that is not
really a city function. It would be a
[27:57] civil matter. But again, we have a good
working rapport with the developer and
[28:02] the owner of that property currently.
>> That's highway though. That's 377.
[28:07] » Well, I understood you were asking me
about the access from 377 to the the
[28:12] trailer park and that's a private
access.
[28:16] » I was just wondering if there going to
be turn
[28:19] » along 377. Yes. Yes, sir. Along 377
>> along Washington Street, there will be
[28:25] an improvement of the roadway to allow a
wider road and a turn lane.
[28:32] » All right. Thank you, sir. All right.
Uh, anybody else wish to speak?
[28:37] » I'll go ahead and close the public
hearing. Commissioners,
[28:40] » recommend the council approval of this
update.
[28:45] All second.
>> All those in favor of
[28:50] » Madam Chair, just kind of rule of
procedure here for this um after
[28:55] reviewing the ordinance more and the way
we've handled it recently. The only
[29:00] reason this would have to go to PN or
I'm sorry to city council is if the
[29:04] commission chose to not accept the
update.
[29:07] » Okay.
>> Okay. I'll amend it. Just approving this
[29:10] update.
>> Thank you.
[29:12] » All right. So, do we have to we have to
vote on that amendment first or can we
[29:17] vote on the whole
>> uh vote on the amendment first?
[29:19] » Okay. Okay.
>> All right. So, uh
[29:23] the the uh
the amendment that stands is uh simply
[29:29] um we are approving the update as
stands. All those in favor say I.
[29:34] » I. Those opposed and then the original
motion of uh recommendation of approval.
[29:41] All those in favor say I. I.
>> All right. So that is our entire agenda.
[29:48] Ladies and gentlemen, I need a motion to
adjourn.
[29:53] » Second.
>> Thank you everybody for coming out
[29:54] tonight.