[1. Call to Order.]
          [00:00:11]
          P.M. AND THIS IS THE THURSDAY, MAY 28TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF LEANDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT. AND 
          [3. Director's report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on action taken by City Council on the May 21, 2026 meeting.]
SO WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, DIRECTOR'S REPORT. GOOD EVENING. I'M REPORTING ON ITEMS THAT WERE FORWARDED FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          DURING THE MAY 21ST COUNCIL MEETING, WE HAD A JOINT WORKSHOP WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE ALL STILL VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PLAN AND THE NEXT STEPS, SO THAT WENT REALLY WELL. SO THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR ATTENDING. WE ALSO HAD A MEETING LAST NIGHT WHERE WE HAD THE CONSULTANT PRESENT, THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN TO THE COUNCIL. THIS PLAN WILL ALSO BE COMING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. SO I'M GOING TO SEND OUT A LINK TO THAT SO Y'ALL CAN WATCH IT AND KIND OF BE FAMILIAR AND SEND THE PLAN SET OUT, BUT THAT'LL BE COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. AND THEN MY FINAL ITEM IS THE LEANDER SPRINGS CASE IS BEING POSTPONED BECAUSE OF A NOTIFICATION ERROR. SO THAT'LL BE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THERE WAS ONE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS LEFT OUT OF THE OUTREACH THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND THAT'S IT FOR MY REPORT. THANK 
          [4. Review of meeting protocol.]
YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL REVIEW THE MEETING PROTOCOL. IT'S UP ON THE BOARD TO OUR LEFT. YOUR RIGHT. AND NOW WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA. IF THERE'S ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA, NOW IS YOUR TIME. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE 
          [ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO PULL OUT AND DISCUSS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. COMMISSIONER COATES HAD ASKED FOR THAT. SO WHEN WE GO TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, IT WILL BE FOR SIX, SEVEN, NINE, TEN AND 11. AND WE'LL DISCUSS EIGHT AFTER. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRAY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. UNANIMOUSLY. NOW 
          [8. Approval of the extension of the application expiration for Subdivision Case PICP-24-0124 Bagdad Retail Outlet Construction Plans; on one (1) parcel of land 2.044 acres ± in size; more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District parcel R031686, generally located northeast of the intersection of N. Bagdad Road and Middle Brook Drive, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]
WE WILL DISCUSS AGENDA OR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF THE APPLICATION EXPIRATION FOR SUBDIVISION CASE PICP-24-012 FOR BAGHDAD RETAIL OUTLET CONSTRUCTION PLANS ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND 2.044 ACRES IN SIZE. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, PARCEL R 031686. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH BAGHDAD ROAD AND MIDDLEBROOK DRIVE, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND COMMISSIONER BRAY, NOT COMMISSIONER BRAY, COMMISSIONER COATES. YES, AND THANK YOU. SO JUST HAD ONE QUESTION REGARDING THIS CONSENT ACTION ITEM HERE. 
          IT SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS FOR THE APPLICATION IN ORDER TO FINALIZE APPROVAL ON THE ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. AND SO READING THROUGH THIS, AND ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ONE SIX MONTH EXTENSION. BUT THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TWO WITH THIS ACTION. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO THE CONCERN OF THE OF THE COUNCIL HERE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REVIEW THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT AND JUST KIND OF LET IT GO. SO, OKAY, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DOES IT SEEM LIKE IT'S ON YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO EXTENSIONS FOR THE SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT ONLY ALLOWS ONE SIX MONTH EXTENSION. THE SUBDIVISION, THEY ALLOW INFINITE NUMBER SO THEY CAN KEEP EXTENDING IT WITHOUT A LIMIT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ACTION, WE CAN DO IT ONE AT A TIME INDEFINITELY. RIGHT? BUT WE CAN'T DO TWO OR 3 OR 4 LIKE IN ONE AS ONE ACTION OR ONE VOTE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YOU CAN WE WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE. WE'VE BROUGHT SEVERAL AT ONE TIME. SO IS THERE AN ORDINANCE THAT SUPPORTS US DOING IT THIS WAY? BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU CITE IN HERE SAYS ONE SIX MONTH EXTENSION. IT WOULD IT WOULD BE THAT ORDINANCE. THERE'S NO LIMIT. USUALLY THE SITE DEVELOPMENT LIMITS IT TO BE A MAXIMUM OF UP TO ONE YEAR. THIS ONE DOES NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM. OKAY. SO THEN IT ALSO SO I JUST READ IT. IT SAYS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GRANTS ONE SIX MONTH EXTENSION. IF THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS IN OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN, SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS SHALL CONSIST OF AT MINIMAL RESUBMISSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS BY THE APPLICANT THAT ADDRESS ALL INITIAL STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS FOR ALL REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS. 
          IT SAYS NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, ACCORDING TO WHAT I JUST READ. 
          SURE, IF THERE'S A CONCERN, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DELAY ACTION TO THE NEXT MEETING AND CONSULT WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO SO. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY 
          [00:05:03]
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION. IS IT THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE ONE SIX MONTH EXTENSION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE TWO SIX MONTHS? RIGHT. SO WE DO ONE ADMINISTRATIVE AND THE REST ARE BY THE COMMISSION. OKAY. SO THAT, I GUESS WOULD BE THE REASON FOR THE CONFUSION. WELL, I MEAN, THE REASON THAT I'M CONFUSED IS BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING THE ORDINANCE THAT SUPPORTS US AS PLANNING AND ZONING, BEING ABLE TO GRANT MULTIPLE OR LACKING LIKE THIS TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE. I'M NOT SEEING THAT FROM FROM THE PACKET. YES. WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ACTION AND FOR FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW. AND THEN WE'LL, I GUESS TABLE AT ANOTHER TIME. WE'LL COME BACK ONCE WE GET CLARIFICATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DELAY ACTION ON THIS. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORALES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES 4 TO 3. DID ANYONE WHO. SORRY, COMMISSIONERS. MEHAN, MORALES, COATS AND BRAY WERE ALL FOUR. AND THEN COMMISSIONERS LEWIS, OLIVER AND LANTRIP WERE OPPOSED. ANYONE WHO OPPOSED WANT TO SAY WHY. NO, I'LL JUST I MEAN, I, I LOOK AT THE STAFF AND I TRUST THE STAFF. AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS, WAS TO APPROVE, BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF THEIR EXTENSION AND THAT IT DOESN'T DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY TO, TO NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION. SO THAT'S WHY I DECIDED TO NOT GO FOR IT. ALL 
          [12. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Case OR-26-0036 to amend the Composite Zoning Ordinance to update Article I, Section 6 to add definitions, modify Article III, Section 20 to update the use matrix, and update Article IV to add use standards for In-Home Day Care regulations, and to provide for related matters; Williamson & Travis Counties, Texas. Applicant: City of Leander.Discuss and consider action regarding Ordinance Case OR-26-0036 as described above.]
RIGHT. OKAY, MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ORDINANCE CASE OR-26-0036. TO AMEND THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SIX TO ADD DEFINITIONS, MODIFY ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 20 TO UPDATE THE USE MATRIX AND UPDATE ARTICLE FOUR TO ADD USE STANDARDS FOR IN-HOME DAYCARE REGULATIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS. WILLIAMSON AND TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. KARINA CASTILLO, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ORDINANCE PROCESS. WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD IN APRIL TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF IN-HOME DAYCARE FACILITIES. CURRENTLY, THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR IN-HOME DAYCARES TO TAKE CARE OF FIVE OR FEWER CHILDREN, SO THE LIMIT IS FIVE. TODAY, THE USE WOULD BE ALLOWED. THE USE IS ALLOWED IN ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THEN WE HAVE THE DAYCARE CENTERS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN LOCAL COMMERCIAL, AND THAT WOULD HAVE ALSO MORE INTENSE USES IN THAT DISTRICT. 
          SENATE BILL 599 WAS PASSED IN SEPTEMBER OF 25, AND THE INTENT WAS TO ESTABLISH REGULATORY UNIFORMITY FOR IN-HOME DAYCARES, THE CITY BUILDING AND FIRE CODES REGULATING FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR A FAMILY HOME WILL BE PREEMPTED BY THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN CHAPTER 42 OF THE HUMAN RESOURCE CODE AND THE HUMAN HEALTH SERVICES REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE FOUND IN TITLE 26. CHAPTER 742 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. SEVERAL OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED DURING THAT WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS, STAFF DEVELOPED UPDATES TO THE CODE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ON THIS SLIDE. 
          IT'S WHAT WAS USED FOR COMPARISON AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE LAST TIME, BUT THIS IS THE OPTION THAT WE CHOSE. WE ADDED A DEFINITION OF IN-HOME DAYCARE AND AN ALLOWANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL SIX CHILDREN FOR AFTER SCHOOL DAYCARE, AFTER SCHOOL CARE WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ADDRESSING PARKING CONCERNS. SO THAT MEANS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOME AND THE DAYCARE USE. MAINTAINING TRAFFIC FLOW. THIS WOULD INCLUDE DROP OFF AND PICKUP TIMES, PROVIDE HOURS OF OPERATION SO THAT THEY DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUIET HOURS AND CREATE STANDARDS FOR OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS. AND THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSING THAT. THEY'RE NOT TOO CLOSE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS AND THAT YOU HAVE THE APPROPRIATE SPACE FOR THEM. SO IN THE REPORT, YOU DO HAVE A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF WHAT WAS UPDATED. WE DID ADD THAT DAYCARE CENTER USE ADJUSTED IT TO HAVE FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN, KIND OF INCLUDED THE DWELLING AND DWELLING UNIT DEFINITIONS TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF DWELLING VERSUS A DWELLING UNIT. ADDED SOME INFORMATION ON THE STATE STATEMENT OF INTENT AND CONFORMING USES FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RURAL, WHICH IS WHERE THE IN-HOME DAYCARE IS INTRODUCED, AND THE LOCAL OFFICE, WHICH IS WHERE THE DAYCARE CENTER IS INTRODUCED. 
          WE ALSO GO OVER PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES FOR DWELLING UNIT. THAT'S 
          [00:10:01]
THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS. IT INCLUDES TWO OFF STREET PARKING AND TWO ENCLOSED GARAGE SPACES. 
          AND FOR ANYTHING THAT IS TWO OR LESS BEDROOMS, IT IS ONE GARAGE AND TWO OFF STREET. AND THEN FOR DAYCARE USES, IT IS ONE FOR EVERY 400FT■!S. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES FOR THE IN-HOME DAYCARE, THE DEFINITIONS. AND THEN THERE'S A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE IN-HOME DAYCARE AND THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GO INTO THE DETAILS ABOUT THE BEING LICENSED BY THE STATE MEETING, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS, EQUIPMENT POOLS AND DAYCARE FACILITIES, AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS HAVING THE HOURS OF OPERATION, THE PARKING SITE REQUIREMENTS NEEDING TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF SO THAT WE CAN CONFIRM THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS AND ANY ADDITIONS AS WELL. AND THEN WE ALSO TALK ABOUT BEING FOR SIX OR FEWER CHILDREN, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN IS GOING TO BE ONLY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. AND THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE AGES OF FIVE AND 13. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST, THE COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. YOU CAN APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, DENY THE AMENDMENTS OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MIGHT INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE AMENDMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS CASTILLO. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. 
          COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH. SO A QUICK QUESTION ON THE I GUESS, THE STATE BILL FIVE NINE, NINE. 
          WHAT IS THE LIMIT ON ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE BILL? IS IT 12 IN THAT OR MORE, OR DO WE KNOW HOW CLOSE THIS. OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE ALIGNS WITH THE STATE. SO THE SENATE BILL DIDN'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN. NO, LIMITED HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT ORDINANCES. SO IT SAID YOU CAN'T ENFORCE FIRE REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BRING OUR ORDINANCE IN LINE WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS. SO CURRENTLY THEY ALLOW FOR 12 CHILDREN IN AN IN-HOME SITUATION. OKAY. AND I KNOW LIKE THIS KIND OF CAME UP IS, IS THE ORDINANCE MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THIS ONE PARTICULAR CASE THAT CAME UP OR MORE BECAUSE OF THE STATE BILL. THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED IT. WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE AND DID A THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE. AND THAT TRIGGERED THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THIS, ESPECIALLY MULTIPLE DAYCARES IN THE CITY, AND IT'S IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE BILL, TOO. OKAY. I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ON THIS ONE. YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF CHILDREN IN A RESIDENTIAL HOME. 
          LIKE SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I DESIGN BUILDINGS, YOU LOOK AT SAFETY AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES AREN'T REALLY BUILT TO BE SMALL SCHOOLS. THEY DON'T HAVE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING. THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESTROOM REQUIREMENT. THEY DON'T HAVE. THERE'S A LOT OF EXEMPTIONS WHEN YOU GO TO RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL. THEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL PLAYGROUND AND A RESIDENTIAL PLAYGROUND THAT THERE'S THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENCES THERE. AND, AND A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH CHECKING THE EXTRA BOX. LIKE, HAS THIS MET THE ASTM STANDARDS FOR SAFETY? IS THIS THE BEST ENVIRONMENT? ARE WE PROVIDING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT? BUT SO THIS ONE I, I UNDERSTAND LIKE THIS NEEDS FOR MORE DAYCARES FOR CHILDREN IN THE CITY. BUT YEAH, I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS. AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF THAT, SINCE THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR SIX MORE AFTER SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FOCUSING ON A SHORTER TIME SPAN, YOU KNOW, SO I DO SEE MORE CARS COMING IN IN A MORE SHORTER TIME. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT LIKE THE ONE CASE WE HAD BEFORE, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC BOTHERING NEIGHBORS. I JUST THINK IF THIS IS MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND THEY'RE RUNNING LIKE A SMALL SCHOOL NEXT DOOR, IT IT JUST WOULDN'T BE TOO EXCITED ABOUT IT. SO YEAH, I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THIS ONE, BUT THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. I'M KIND OF THE SAME WAY. I DEFINITELY HAD A HEART FOR THE PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT WAS CAME UP UNDER THE ORDINANCE. AND I AGREE IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS HAVING TO GO TO A FACILITY THAT THEY'RE NOT WATCHED AS. I DON'T THINK AS CLOSELY SOMETIMES, BUT THEN INCREASING THE SIZE. YEAH, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S A REALLY TOUGH ONE BECAUSE WHILE I LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT ALSO MAKES SOME ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND DON'T NECESSARILY WANT A DAYCARE NEXT TO THEM. SO I'M REALLY UNDECIDED ABOUT IT. I'M JUST NOT QUITE SURE WHICH WAY MAKES 
          [00:15:06]
SENSE. COMMISSIONER COATES. YES. THANK YOU. I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS, MAINLY AROUND PARKING AND TRAFFIC. JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND LIKE WHAT TYPE OF OBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE CRITERIA MAY BE IN PLACE TO CONTROL TRAFFIC IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN ALSO AS FAR AS OFF STREET PARKING AND SPACES REQUIRED FOR FOR 12, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT LIKE KIND OF CONCERN ME AND SOME OF THE STUFF THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR KIND OF FLESHED OUT AS WE, WE CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OLIVER, QUESTION ABOUT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LINE. I NOTICED THAT IN ITEM NUMBER FOUR UNDER SECTION C AND AND IT TALKS ABOUT OUTDOOR PLAY AREA SHALL BE LOCATED TO THE REAR OR THE SIDE OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE AN ACTUAL DESIGNATED PLAY AREA OR THE ACTUAL PLAY SCAPE? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BOTH PLAY AREA, PLAY AREA? BECAUSE LIKE IN, IN THAT CASE, LIKE I COULD WALK OFF MY, MY BACK PORCH AND I'M, I'M PROBABLY 25FT FROM THE, THE FENCE LINE, THE PROPERTY LINE AT THAT POINT. SO I'VE GOT MAYBE, MAYBE FIVE FEET TO WORK OFF THERE. IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? SO THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE PLAY AREA. AND THEN WHAT IF THERE ISN'T? THEN IF THEY, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE THEY CAN'T USE THE BACKYARD SPACE AT ALL AT THAT POINT. THEY'D BE THEY EITHER HAVE TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WOULD THAT TRIGGER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE FOR US TO REVIEW AT SOME POINT? SO THE INTENT OF THIS, THE SPECIAL REGULATIONS THAT WE WERE ADDING IS THAT MAYBE NOT ALL THE SITES ARE COMPATIBLE. SO IT WOULD BE DEPENDING ON IF YOU CAN MEET ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT. GOT IT. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE AN IN HOME, YOU KNOW, EITHER PRESCHOOL OR DAYCARE, WE NEED TO PROBABLY HAVE A LOT MORE THAN 20FT, YOU KNOW, BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR BACK PORCH AND THE PROPERTY LINE. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, I THINK INCREASING IT FROM 5 TO 6 IS, IS RESPECTABLE. AND THEN OFFERING THE, THE SIX IN LINE WITH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, LIKE ROUND ROCK, GEORGETOWN, HUTTO, TO NAME A FEW THAT YOU PROVIDED EXAMPLES FOR IS IS FINE, NOT TO MENTION, SINCE THE STATE SUPPORTS THIS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC AND THE CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHAT WE'RE NOT REALLY DISCUSSING IN IS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HAD FEDEX GO THERE. YOU ALREADY HAD UPS THERE. YOU'VE GOT NOW YOU GOT DOORDASH AND YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, AMAZON DOING DELIVERIES EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND YOU CAN EVEN TRACK THEM ON THE APP AND KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE WITHIN FIVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE BLOCKS AWAY FROM YOU. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN REALLY DO TO LIMIT THAT. AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKING. I MEAN, LIKE, I KNOW, I MEAN, PEOPLE KNOW, PEOPLE KNOW FOR ME, I DON'T LIKE STREET PARKING IN GENERAL BECAUSE I THINK IT'S, IT, IT, IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD. IT'S CLUTTERED, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALREADY SAYING THEY CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET HERE ANYWAY. AND MOST OF THESE, THESE PICKUP AND DROP OFFS ARE SHORT, SHORT PERIODS OF TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH OF A BURDEN BEYOND WHAT AMAZON DROPS OFF OR DOORDASH DROPS OFF AT YOUR HOME. YOU'RE GOING THERE, YOU'RE PICKING UP YOUR KID AND THEN AND THEN YOU'RE MOVING. AND THEY ALSO HAVE TO HAVE SPECIALIZED PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS WHY WE DID NOT VOTE ON THAT LAST CASE, WHICH I KNOW WE WERE ALL VERY SYMPATHETIC FOR AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE USING THEIR GARAGE. AND SO THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN, I'M I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS, IS PERFECTLY FINE ON THIS. AND SO, BUT YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME MORE CLARITY ON THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK. AND SO I'M, I'M GOOD AT THIS POINT. VICE CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE 12, THE SIX AND SIX. SO EVERYONE IS REFERRING TO IT AS AFTER SCHOOL CARE. BUT IN THE SUMMER TIME, WOULD THEY THEN BE ALLOWED FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL SIX OLDER CHILDREN TO STAY ALL DAY? NO, IT WOULD JUST BE FOR THE AFTER SCHOOL. IT WOULD ONLY BE DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. SO IN THE SUMMER THERE WOULD BE SIX YOUNGER CHILDREN ON PREMISES. 
          HAVE. HAVE YOU ALL HEARD OR HAS ANYBODY RESEARCHED HOW MANY SPECIAL USE PERMITS THIS. THIS KIND OF THESE KIND OF NUMBERS TRIGGER. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT SIX AND SIX. WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE LOST SO SO MAYBE THIS TIME OF THE YEAR, THIS PERSON, THIS BUSINESS IS ONLY GOING TO HAVE FOR THE YOUNGER ONES. SO CAN I HAVE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT OF THE OLDER ONES AND, YOU KNOW, DO THEY WANT TO DOES IT TRIGGER VERY MANY SPECIAL USE PERMITS TO TRY AND MIX THOSE AGES? WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT WHEN WE'VE TALKED TO OTHER CITIES. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP. BUT I KNOW WHEN THE DAYCARES THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH, USUALLY THEY HAVE LIKE THE GRADUATING CLASS AT THE END OF LIKE MAY, LIKE THE ACADEMIC YEAR, AND THEN THEY ENROLL FOR THE AUGUST START TIME. SO I THINK IT KIND OF FOLLOWS THAT SCHEDULE FOR THE MOST PART. YEAH, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE FIVE 
          [00:20:04]
TO THE SIX BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE FIVE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT ADDITIONAL SIX. IF I WERE LIVING NEXT DOOR, I WOULD WANT TO MOVE. THE PROBLEM IS I WOULDN'T I WOULD HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE SELLING MY HOUSE WITH WITH A DAYCARE NEXT DOOR TO IT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO I'M REALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE FROM 5 TO 12. I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO FROM 5 TO 6 ON THE YOUNGER CHILDREN, AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. COMMISSIONER BRAY YES, SO JUST A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IN IN UNDERNEATH PROPOSED DEFINITIONS HERE, I BELIEVE IT'S I THINK IT'S PAGE THREE. IT STATES INCOME AND IN-HOME OR DAYCARE IN-HOME IS A CHILD CARE OPERATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE CAREGIVERS PERSONAL RESIDENCE. IT MAY SERVE UP TO SIX CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 14, PLUS SIX ADDITIONAL SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN AGES 5 TO 13. WHEN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE MET. BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT THAT'S AFTER SCHOOL CARE. THAT IS NOT, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. IT'S NOT SPECIFIED. THERE'S NO TIME TO THAT. THERE'S NO SPECIFICATION UNLESS I'VE MISSED IT. SO IF YOU'RE NOT SAYING WHEN THAT HAS TO OCCUR AS IT READS, THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 12 KIDS ALL DAY LONG AS IT READS. SO THAT THAT'S ONE THING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE. THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IS FURTHER, FURTHER DOWN. IT SAYS UNDER SEE UNDER SECTION NINE, UNDER C, UNDER TWO. AND THEN IT SAYS ADDITIONAL SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ARE PERMITTED. IF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR IN-HOME DAYCARE THAT EXCEEDS SIX CHILDREN. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD KNOW THAT? LIKE THE PUBLIC WOULD KNOW THAT? YEAH. HOW WOULD HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED? SO JUST LIKE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO GET A PERMIT FOR A BUSINESS, WE DO GET A LOT OF INQUIRIES FOR WHEN THEY WANT TO OPEN A BUSINESS AS AN IN-HOME OCCUPATION, BUT WHEN IT'S AN IN-HOME DAYCARE, WE DON'T USUALLY IF THEY'RE JUST DOING IT, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW? WE WOULD FIND OUT BY CODE ENFORCEMENT? WELL, THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT THROUGH FIRE WITH THEIR STATE LICENSING AND FIRE COULD TELL THEM. AND WE CAN ALSO ADD IT TO OUR WEBSITE FOR INFORMATION. WHAT IF THEY'RE NOT LICENSED? WHAT IF THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT ALL OF THAT IS EVEN REQUIRED? I MEAN, MOST DAYCARES KNOW THEY HAVE TO HAVE A STATE LICENSE, THEY GET STATE FUNDING AND STUFF. SO I THINK THEY HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS THAT THEY RELY ON. OKAY. BUT IF YOU'RE JUST PROVIDING. I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT DAYCARE BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY TRIGGERS SOMETHING LIKE TRIGGERS, LIKE SOME OTHER LIKE SORT OF LEGAL, LEGAL THING. I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU'RE BABYSITTING SEVEN KIDS, IS THAT THE SAME THING? I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF SETUP YOU HAVE. DO YOU HAVE REGULAR KIDS? IS IT JUST A ONE TIME THING? IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU DO EVERY SINGLE DAY, FULL DAY? OUR DEFINITION DOES TALK ABOUT LIKE THE AMOUNT OF HOURS AND AMOUNT OF CHILDREN, BUT I GUESS IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. I THINK WE RELY ON PEOPLE TO ALSO KNOW THE PROPER STEPS. SO WE CAN'T FORCE IT ON EVERYBODY. BUT WE DO GET A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SAY, I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T OPERATE A BUSINESS. SO KIND OF JUST EDUCATING AS WELL. THE REASON, THE REASON I ASK, AND I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM VOTING FOR THIS REASON, IS BECAUSE THERE'S AN IN-HOME DAYCARE NEXT DOOR TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SPECIFICS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY KIDS SHOW UP. I CAN HEAR THEM WHEN I'M WORKING AT HOME, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS MY NUMBERS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PROPER THING TO DO, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY KNOW, NOR DO A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THIS. THEY HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE A LOT OF A LOT OF INTERNATIONAL FOLKS IN MY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, A LOT LIKE 80%. AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU A LOT OF THEM HAVE NO IDEA THAT THERE'S ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THIS. THEY'RE DOING THIS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS OR THEIR WORK OR WHATEVER, JUST TO HELP THEM OUT. AND THEY'VE ADVERTISED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW, IT GIVES ME LIKE, I'M REALLY KIND OF ON EITHER SIDE OF IT BECAUSE OF THAT AND HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT THEM. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GOING TO, I'M NOT GOING TO PARTAKE IN ANY VOTE, BUT I DID FOR THAT OTHER CLARIFICATION, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS. BECAUSE YOU YOU BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT WHEN IT COMES, WE CAN ASK THE HOURS. 
          YEAH. SO I JUST I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, BUT OTHERWISE I'M, I'M NOT AGAINST IT OR NOT FOR IT, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER BRAY, I ACTUALLY 
          [00:25:04]
HAD THE SAME QUESTION THAT I HAD TO AROUND. IT DIDN'T DOESN'T MENTION ANYWHERE AROUND THE AFTER SCHOOL SPACE. SO REALLY WE'RE WE WERE MOVING BY THE WAY, IT READS FROM FIVE BY RIGHT TO 12 BY RIGHT. IF YOU MEET SOME CERTAIN STANDARDS, I, I ECHO SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO REITERATE REHASH THOSE. I'M, AS VICE CHAIR SAID, I'M GOOD WITH GOING FROM 5 TO 6 BY. RIGHT. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH GOING UP TO 12 BY. RIGHT. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER. I WILL. SECOND JUST SO WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THE MOTION FAILS. YEAH. OH YEAH. 
          AND COMMISSIONER BRAY RECUSES HIMSELF. SO IT WAS FIVE ONE OPPOSED I GUESS JUST TO TO GIVE STAFF SOME CLARIFICATION. SO COUNCIL KNOWS AS WELL. FOR ME IT WAS ABOUT THE NUMBERS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHY THEY WERE AGAINST THAT. LIKE IF THE IF THE NUMBERS WERE A BIT DIFFERENT, I THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN, I WAS OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE, A LOT OF THE PIECE IN HERE, BUT GOING FROM 5 TO 12 WAS JUST A, A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR ME. SO ANYONE ELSE. YEAH, FOR ME IT WAS THE NUMBERS AS WELL AS SAFETY FOR THE CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, LIKE THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE GETTING IN AND OUT OF CARS, THE STREETS, HOW THINGS ARE DESIGNED, HOW IT'S LAID OUT, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NOT REALLY DESIGNED FOR THAT. BUT THAT'S. AFTER HEARING EVERYBODY. THE NUMBER MADE THE MOST SENSE AS FAR AS NOT SURE I WANT TO DO THAT. SAME HERE. AFTER LISTENING TO EVERYONE'S COMMENT, DEFINITELY THE NUMBER. BUT FOR ME, IT'S THE PARKING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH A, YOU KNOW, EXPANSION IN INSIDE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT. I JUST DON'T THINK IT WAS READY RIGHT NOW FOR CURRENT APPROVAL FROM US TO SEND FORWARD VICE CHAIRMAN THE NUMBERS. I KNOW THAT IT'S STILL GOING ON WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WITH FIVE RIGHT NOW. AND I WOULD FAVOR EITHER STAYING WITH THAT OR MOVING IT UP SLIGHTLY, BUT NOT NOT ALL THE WAY TO 12. OKAY. BEFORE WE GET TO AGENDA ITEM 13, MISS GRIFFIN ACTUALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO LEGAL, AND SHE HAS AN UPDATE FOR US ON. BEFORE WE DO THAT, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER ACTION THAT MIGHT GET PASSED? DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE REQUEST? THANK YOU. DO DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WHICH WOULD MODIFY IT. I'LL I'LL DO A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. SIX OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE UP TO. SIX SECOND. OKAY. SO THAT MIGHT TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES. SO IF WE'RE DOING THAT, WE PROBABLY WANT TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. WHEN YOU GO OVER SIX. SO IT CAN WE SAY IT THAT WAY LIKE YOU ARE APPROVING UP TO SIX AND THEN MODIFYING THE REMAINDER TO TAKE OUT THE EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WHEN YOU EXCEED IT? YES. AND MODIFY THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE ADDITIONAL. SO SECOND AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORALES, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED. AND IT PASSES 5 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER OLIVER OPPOSED. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHY YOU'RE OPPOSED, I THINK YOU WERE GOOD WITH THE 12 OR THE SIX AND SIX. YEAH, I WAS GOOD WITH THE SIX AND SIX. AND I'LL JUST NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK UNDER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. IT SAYS ALL DAYCARE FACILITIES SHALL BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH FACILITIES. SO I MEAN, THESE ARE THESE ARE STILL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A CERTAIN REQUIREMENT, STATE STANDARDS, CITY STANDARDS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I THINK YOU CAN'T LIKE OVERSTEP AND ASSUME THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING THE RIGHT THINGS AND SO FORTH. AND THEY ARE BEING REGULATED. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHY I DECIDED TO VOTE THE WAY I DID. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MISS CASTILLO. AND WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. YEAH. SO WE GOT CONFIRMATION FROM LEGAL THAT YOU CAN PROCESS TWO EXTENSIONS IN ONE ACTION, BUT THAT'S SPECIFIC TO SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS. SO YOU SAID THAT SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. CORRECT. SO IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BECAUSE THOSE ARE LIMITED TO ONE EXTENSION. BUT IF IT'S ANYTHING IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THEN YOU COULD DO MULTIPLE AT ONCE. WE ARE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING READY TO SAY. SO THEN I 
          [00:30:10]
WILL PUT CONSENT AGENDA, ACTION ITEM NUMBER, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT BACK UP FOR A MOTION. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR LANTRIP. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEWIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, SO NOW ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13 ADJOURNMENT. THE TIME I
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.