Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order on Tuesday, August 25th, 2026 at 6 p.m. May we have a roll call, please? Sure.

William Agnew. Here. Randy Bryan. Here. Michelle Burleson. Here. David Case. Here. Lupe Costilla. Here. Mariah Dunn. Here. Allison Hardy. Here. Lucy Johnson. Here. Ronnie Van Underkirky. Here. We have a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. I ask that you please sign your cell phones. The commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All inquiries be forwarded to staff. The commission will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner in an atmosphere free of intimidation, defamation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. Now it brings us to our citizen comment period. Do you not see anybody signed up? Anybody in the room wish to speak? Do you have anybody online that wishes to speak? You wish to speak? Okay, if you please come to the podium, state your name and address, or just state your name, and you'll have three minutes.

May I begin?

Yes, ma'am. Sorry.

My name is Saria Cochran, and I'll start here with my speech. It says, good evening, commissioners. My name is Saria Cochran, and I'm here representing I Don't Know Bar, located at 650 East Hopkins Street. First, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak regarding our conditional use permit renewal. I understand there have been concerns about noise complaints and calls for police service associated with our business. I want you all to know that we take those concerns seriously. We are not here to dismiss the complaints or say that there have not been any issues. I want to explain what we are doing to address them and how we'll continue to address them moving forward. Regarding noise, we have had calls come to the police, and we do have sound level meters, and we have tested it and always been in code. However, we like to keep our neighbors happy, so we always get with the DJ and have them turn it down if a complaint comes in from the police or to our direct bar phone. We do not have outdoor speakers and we do not want to disturb our neighbors. We are also paying closer attention to noise coming from our customers outside of the building and making sure our staff addresses excessive noise when it occurs. As far as police calls, we understand why the number and nature of calls may concern the commission. The staff are all working together as well as SMPD to prevent situations from escalating. We spoke with Mr. Duane, poor boy, and we have all agreed on working together to make sure our staff and customers are safe. Our goal is to identify problems early, maintain control of the premises, and make sure our customers and surrounding communities are safe. At the same time, when our employees believe police assistance is necessary for someone's safety, we will continue to contact law enforcement. Our goal is to be proactive rather than waiting until someone has to make a complaint or call the police. We have our parking lot lit with lighting and all new cameras in all areas to make sure we are covered inside and outside. Our staff understands the importance of responsible alcohol service. We take identification requirements, intoxication, and TABC regulations seriously. We will continue reinforcing those responsibilities with our employees. I also want the Commission to understand that I Don't Know Bar is more than the complaints that may appear on a report. We have regular customers of 32 years, employees who depend on their jobs, and people who come to our establishment to play pool, darts, listen to music, watch games, and spend time with their friends and family. If mistakes have been made, we want to learn from them. We are willing to work with the city law enforcement and our neighbors to correct legitimate concerns. We are not asking you to ignore our past concerns. We are asking you to consider the steps that we are taking moving forward and allow us the opportunity to do better. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. I don't see anybody else signed up for citizen comment period. This now brings us to our consent agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Motion to approve by Commissioner Dunn, second by Commissioner Bryan. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, roll call, please.

Sure. Randy Bryan. Yes. Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Lupe Garcia.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson. Aye. Rhonda Vinodaker-Key. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. The motion to approve carries.

This now brings us to public hearing item number two.

CUP 2638, I don't know bar, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Soraya Cochran on behalf of I don't know bar for a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 650 East Hopkins Street. We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Craig Garrison, Planner. Next slide, please. I Don't Know Bar is located at East Hopkins Street, approximately 214 feet northwest of the Cheatham Street intersection. Next slide. I Don't Know Bar is currently a bar use with on-premise consumption of alcohol. This is considered a new conditional use permit request because of the name change. There's been a bar located at this site since approximately 1993. Surrounding uses include retail sales and services, auto repair, single-family residential to the rear, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the northwest. Next slide. Existing zoning is general commercial. The proposed use and current use is bar. Hours of operation are Monday through Sunday, 12 p.m. to 2 a.m. And this is a new request for conditional use permit. And for the police report, there's been 50 calls over the last three years. Next slide. Staff use criteria for approval, section 2834. Next slide. Next slide. And Section 5155, that was found in your staff report. This is the site plan and floor plan. And staff recommends approval of CUP 2639 with the following conditions. This permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire August 25th of 2027, provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified sound. And the business shall be responsible for the subject property in the abutting right-of-way, excluding the public street or alley pavement within 50 feet of any entrance and exit in a clean and sanitary condition, free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibilities shall not overlap with another alcohol CUP holder's maintenance area. Land Development Code Section 5155E2C. The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels. And this permit should be posted in the same area and manner as a certificate of occupancy. Staff wants to make one revision to condition number two to state that no outdoor amplified sound is permitted. And that concludes the presentation. I do know the applicant is here. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. If the applicant would like, you may come and speak. And please state your name and address, and you have three minutes, if you so choose so. Are you good to go? We'll make an exception if you want to speak again. Anyone else in the chamber wish to speak? Anybody online wish to speak?

There's no one online.

All right. We'll close the public hearing. I'll provide a motion to approve per staff conditions.

I'll second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Further discussion? Commissioner Agnew, yes, sir.

Yeah, I've got a question for the applicant, if I could. Could you come to the podium, please? Yeah, I heard your remarks on the police calls, which we appreciate. And, you know, there have been a lot of them in the last three years. And there's sort of some good and some bad. There are really very few... alcohol violation type calls, which is very good. We normally see a lot more of them, frankly, so that's good. But there are a lot of assaults. Apparently this year we've had eight. Last year only five. The year before, 14. And I guess my question is, in the remarks you made, You really didn't say anything about what kind of security you might have on premises, your own security? Yes. Do you have plans or do you have anything like that or do you plan to have anything like that?

Yes, so previously we only had limited door staff, floor staff. We now have three floor gentlemen that go out and they patrol the parking lot and the inside of the building. And then at the end of the night as well, we are on top of it as far as outside. I know that we have had eight of the assaults. It's not necessarily, like you said, from the alcohol or inside of the building. It's something that happens outside of the building. I did talk with the chief, Dwayne Corboy, today. He came by. And we have a meeting that we're gonna have with him and some of his staff and then with our staff as well to see if the things that we can do moving forward to try to help fix that. One of the things he said that he would try to do because mainly it happens on Saturday nights is have one of his people patrolling by or out in the parking lot at 2.15 a.m. So that way it would help get the people out of the parking lot because it's not necessarily happening inside of our establishment, but it's happening outside of our establishment.

Okay. As far as the people you have patrolling, are these trained people, trained security people?

Yes, they are.

Okay. All right. Thanks very much.

I appreciate it.

I also have a question. Yes, sir.

So what is the trigger when you have your security out there in the parking lot? What's the trigger that causes them to contact the police department and not handle it on their own?

The thing is, we do try to handle it on our own. But if it becomes that these two people are assaulting each other, of course, we're going to try to separate them. But if it's going to cause one of us to be in harm's way or the customers to be in harm's way, it's just safer to call law enforcement rather than to get ourselves harmed or the other people continue to be harmed.

And I just want to emphasize, I would never suggest that you not call police. Call them whenever you feel like they're needed. That's what they're there for.

Right. It's just the safety of the customers and of the staff.

And do you think that it's mostly at closing time that you're seeing these problems out in the parking lot?

Yes, it is. It's never, I can't say never, but it's unlikely to be inside the establishment. It's usually out in the parking lot or across the street or across the way. Okay.

Commissioner Burleson?

Yes, I'd like to, considering that Officer Poulpour just got here, if he could please talk to us along with Ms. Claudia and see... Just get some feedback.

Good evening, Commissioners. Claudia Cormier with Code Enforcement. At this time, I don't have a lot of comments. What I will do, I will say is we will probably schedule a meeting with our staff and the permit holder for a collaborative approach, but I will pass the microphone to Assistant Chief Duane Poorboy since he did submit report calls for service.

Good evening, everyone. Dwayne Poorboy, Assistant Chief of Police Operations. And so I'm here this afternoon, this evening, to basically ask that you all do what you did with the other bar. I don't really want to name them, but you had a series of assaults, and we all talked and we said, hey, you know, we need to have a collaborative approach to... Claudia's point, we need to work with them. And so I was hoping to get to, I don't know bar earlier, but I talked to them this afternoon. I said, Hey, listen, this is alarming. The number of assaults are alarming. We don't want you not to call the police, but we need to dig in to figure out what is it that are causing these assaults. And I gave, you know, the typical kind of examples of, Hey, maybe it's over serving. Is it overcrowding? Is it, um, problem patrons. And we all know those people. Like, hey, when that person shows up, and they kind of grin whenever I said, you know that guy that once he has three beers, he's like, you got to get him cut off? Those are the kinds of things that I think, you know, using the collaborative approach, we could actually figure out kind of how to move forward. And so I believe the city's asking for that year renewal. The police department is supportive of that with the understanding that I spoke to the manager, the assistant manager, and just like Claudia said, we want to sit down and have a meeting with them and see how we can help each other out. And I'll just speak for the police department having to come up here and address these things. I would love to see this plan that we put in place come out through the year or however long it is and say, hey, they did everything. I don't have anything else to say. That's the goal is to have people be successful. I think you all want that as well. And so I think that's the best way to go about it.

I agree with that 100%. I think that's why you protect the neighborhood in the back by this one-year probation period and they continue to work with you and code enforcement to make sure they're good stewards of I don't know bar next to a residential area. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Bryant. Yes, sir. So how many of the calls were initiated by the establishment versus initiated by like a neighbor or something like that? Do you have that data?

I don't have it off the top of my head, but I do know that they do call us a lot, you know, and rightfully so. Again, my understanding is, you know, at least the manager and the assistant manager I met, they're, you know, two females trying to do their best. Like, hey, we're trying to push people out. We're trying to do that. And so I believe they're calling mostly, but I don't have that in front of me.

Okay. Yeah, the reason I ask, Rodney brought it up a few times ago, like we don't, and even mentioned it tonight, we don't want to make, you know, the shame for calling the police and that being a thing against you. So, you know, I say, keep calling as much as you got to call and work with them to maybe mitigate some of that.

No, I mean, absolutely. They have to call, but I think where we can work together is, is trying to get to those underlying, why are we having these issues? Not you know, call or not call. It's like, no, how can we prevent these things from occurring? And so one of the promises that I told her I couldn't make to her, just given all the things that are going on, and she said, hey, could we get a police officer there around closing time? That's what we're going to shoot for, but I'm not going to sit up here and tell you all or tell her, hey, guaranteed I got you. But I will try to get officers out there because they're probably right. They're less likely to do things if one of us is in the parking lot. And so that's kind of the first step. But to me, that still doesn't get to the underlying concern that we all have of why we have this many assaults besides the obvious alcohol.

I have another question. So I know it's going to come out wrong, but every neighborhood has that one neighbor that calls for everything. Do we? And I'm not it, I promise. But are... Is that a significant number that we need to kind of take that number out? Because, you know, it's 1001 and the noise level's too high or something, and it seems like it's the same complaint over and over and over again. You want to be fair to them, but you also need to take that with a grain of salt sometimes.

Yeah, and I would argue that's kind of what the officers are doing, but to your point, it is showing up in the call date, but I'm hoping that, you know, 1001 is much different than 301. Right. I want to take the complainant out of it completely, and I would hope that the officers are actually independently verifying whatever it is, right? And that happens a lot, but then that would be considered unfounded, which you all would know, hey, this is not founded versus like, hey, we went there. No matter if this person's called 17 times, hey, we went there 17 times, they were complaining. And then I would say, I think you'll have the times that they're happening. That may be a better kind of thing that you all say, hey, I'm going to use my common sense. These are verified, but come on. Any further? Yes.

I have a question for staff. This has been technically out of compliance since 2016 because of the name change. Why did it go 10 years? And what was the discovery process for y'all to realize that this has happened? And are you looking into any other... say lifetime CUPs to check if there's any other owners out of compliance?

Sure. The discovery process for this bar specifically was they didn't have a certificate of occupancy, which then requires the use to be allowed to get approved. And so there was no CUP on file for on-premise consumption of alcohol or a bar. So then the CUP had to be applied for.

But when did that process take place? I mean, that, I'm kind of confused as how a business would be operating without a certificate of occupancy.

Absolutely. So it seems through our records in about 2015, 2016, Bum's Billiards turned into I Don't Know Bar. There was a name change. Same owner, though, and it didn't apply for the administrative CUP approval or the certificate of occupancy. So they went 10 years without a CFO.

Well, then how did you, when did y'all realize that they didn't have a COO?

This was sometime this year. I'm not sure who reported it to the planning department, but then planning took action. And then concerning the second question, staff is regularly looking at existing conditional use permits. And in our GIS data, we have old certificates, old SUPs dating back to the 90s and 80s. So we're fact-checking to make sure that they have a current CUP.

Have you approved a new COO for the business?

It is waiting for a conditional use permit approval.

Okay. But otherwise, is there any reason that you would not approve a new COO?

There's a series of departments that are in the review for the CFO. So it'll be up to the health and fire. So there'll still be the CFO reviews and inspections.

So there are several things that have not taken place yet?

That are under review.

Okay.

Any further discussion on this item?

Roll call. Sure. Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

David Case. Aye. Libby Costillo.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy.

Aye.

Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Ronnie Venetakirky. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. The motion to approve carries. Brings us to item number three. CUP 2643, True Texas Barbecue, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Joshua Elledge on behalf of True Texas Barbecue for conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 1074 East McCarty Lane, Suite 102.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, Commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is a little over 17 and a half acres and is located on the southeast corner of East McCarty Lane and I-35 Frontage Road. The subject business is a proposed restaurant to be located inside the new H-E-B. Surrounding uses include hotel and conference center, single family restaurant, warehouse and distribution, and an aquatic resource center. The subject property is zoned general commercial and is surrounded by general commercial to the north and south, heavy industrial to the east, and public to the west. Proposed hours of operation are from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. all days of the week. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five. True Texas Barbecue is proposed as part of the new HEB grocery store and will be accessible only through the interior of the store. The applicant has stated that there will be no live music, acoustic performances, stages, or designated dancing areas associated with the restaurant. Instead of ambient background music will be limited to the same in-store music played throughout HEB. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices to the site in compliance with state law. Staff has not received any comments regarding this case. Staff recommends the approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire August 25th, 2027, provided standards are met. The business shall be responsible for the subject property and the abutting right of way, excluding the public street or alley pavement, within 50 feet of an entrance and exit in a clean and sanitary condition, free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibilities shall not overlap with another alcohol CUP holder's maintenance area. The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupancy loads stay at or below posted levels. The permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. That concludes my presentation.

The applicant is here. You may speak in favor of your permit at this time. No presentation, but happy to answer questions. I see that we don't have anybody else signed up for public hearings. We will close public hearing.

Make a motion to approve CUP 2643 with staff conditions.

I'll second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew with staff conditions, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir, Commissioner Agnew.

I actually had one question. Now I have two after Caitlin's presentation. The term of this CUP, you gave a specific end date, which I think was August 25th of 2027, which is a year from today. But it becomes effective upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, correct?

You are correct, Agnew. I misspoke.

OK, so it should be as it's written in here?

Yes, it will be effective upon the issuance of the CFO.

And one year from then, from whatever that is? Yes. The other question I had, the CUP technically applies to the entire property, right? Not just to the area where the restaurant is.

In this case, the CUP is attached to the suite unit, which is 102, which is just the unit for True Texas Barbecue.

Oh, it is? Yes. Okay. All right. In that case, I know we talked about this a little this morning. The... Condition three, the number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant. Should that be reworded? Well, first, I guess, should that be reworded to apply only to the space where the restaurant is? And if so, I don't know that there's really a specific occupancy limit for just that part of the restaurant. So I'm kind of wondering how we go about this.

No, it would have its own. I mean, the building itself would have an occupancy. Yeah, I know that. That would be the occupancy, correct. And, you know, you think about that space, it's logical to think, I don't know how many people go just to True Texas Barbecue and also aren't as part of that occupancy count of the actual store itself, right? I guess the question is, would there be a designation of that? as an occupancy, I don't believe so.

It's picky and it's just technical. I was just wondering because the building, I guess, is actually the entire HEV store. I guess what you're saying is there is an occupancy level for that and we'll just go with that. Okay, I guess.

Actually, on the safety plan, on the life safety plan that was provided in our packet, they do have independent occupancy levels for each space. And for the restaurant space, it is 165 occupants.

Where does that come from?

That is their life safety plan included. I think it's page 57 in the packet.

Should we reference that rather than just say the building?

You could reference that, although, yeah, I mean, that's one way to look at that.

That's kind of what I was looking for, but I didn't realize that information existed.

Okay. And that could be the condition just based on that.

Should I make a motion of some sort to amend it for that, or can that just be handled?

No, I think we can handle it just on that because it does have its own, no different than any other building.

Okay, fine. Thank you.

That's all. So we are fine how it's written? Okay. Any further discussion? I have a question.

Yes, sir. It's more like a comment. So this is HEB's brand. It's not really a new business. This is like their brand that's inside their store, wherever they build a big store. I guess I just don't really understand why the one-year short leash. I don't know. I mean, because... I don't, but I'm thinking that way.

If I could make a comment on that, I guess. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. H-E-B is H-E-B and so forth, but it is a new C-U-P, and this is what we do with new C-U-Ps one year as a standard term. I guess if we start treating certain applicants different than other applicants, I think sometimes it might be obvious in this case, but it isn't always, and I could see We would get into inconsistency that I don't think would really be good in the long run. Honestly. I'm a big believer in consistency. Yes, sir.

Chair, I have a question for the applicant, if that's okay.

Sir, if you just state your name and address.

Joe York with Quiddity Engineering, 601 Northwest Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas.

Thanks. You might not be able to answer this because it's an HEP question. Because I've certainly seen HEBs with the barbecue component, but never a sit-down restaurant that's serving beer and wine. Do you know if there are current HEBs that have this layout and serve beer and wine?

Yeah, so this is a newer, I'd say within the last four to five years, this is a newer standard for all of their large format stores. But yes, there are several open across the state. I can tell you the one... in San Antonio at Bolverde in 1604 has it with the sit-down component. There's also the new store in Pflugerville off of SH-130 that also has that format and a handful of others. I didn't work on that one, but I'll take your word for it. Essentially, any store that's been built within the last four or so years and is upwards of 100,000 square feet is likely going to have the barbecue.

And will there be wine, or am I limited to just beer with my barbecue?

Yes, so there would be beer and wine options only in the barbecue restaurant.

I don't drink beer.

See you soon. Any further discussion on this item? All right. Roll call, please.

Sure. David Case. Aye. Luke Castillo. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy.

Aye.

Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Ronnie Minota-Kirkey.

Aye.

William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Yes. Shel Burleson. Aye. Motion to approve carries. Brings us to item number four. CUP 2644, Cheatham Street Warehouse and the Thrift Store hold a public hearing and consider requests by Kevin Ream on behalf of Cheatham Street Warehouse and the Thrift Store for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 119 Cheatham Street and 390 South LBJ Drive. We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 0.4th of an acre and is located on the north side of Cheatham Street between South Guadalupe Street and South LBJ Drive. The subject businesses are two existing bars, both with on-premise consumption of alcohol. The Cheatham Street Warehouse has held an alcohol use permit since 1999. Surrounding uses include office, retail, multifamily, and a transit hub. The subject property is zoned Character District 5 downtown and is surrounded by CD5D to the north, east, and south, and public to the west. The current CEP does not expire until September 2nd of this year. There are two police calls reported on the business. All criteria for approval have been met from sections two as well as section five. Next slide, please. Please note this permit is for the entirety of the site, which includes both Cheatham Street Warehouse occupying the building to the west, as well as the thrift store, which is a bar occupying the building to the east. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Staff has not received any comments regarding this case. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire August 25th, 2029 provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. all days of the week. Outdoor background sound is permitted but should not be plainly audible at the property line after the closing of the business but in no cases later than 11 p.m. all days of the week. The business shall be responsible for the subject property in the abutting right-of-way, excluding the public street or alley pavement within 50 feet of any entrance and exit in a clean and sanitary condition, free from litter and refuse at all times. The maintenance responsibility shall not overlap with another alcohol C.P. holder's maintenance area. The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupancy loads stay at or below posted levels. The permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. That concludes my presentation.

If the applicant's available, you may speak in favor of your permit. All right. Seeing no one else signed up, we'll close the public hearing.

Make a motion to approve CUP 2644, accept that the renewal shall expire September 2nd, 2029, which is three years from the expiration of their current CUP.

Second.

We got a motion approved by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Bryan with a new expiration date of September 2nd, 2029. Any further discussion on this item?

Chair?

Yes, Commissioner.

I have a question for staff. I noticed there were no police reports included in the packet on this property. Is that meaning that there were no calls related to Cheatham Street in the last three years?

There was two there. There were two. Let me see if I can find the page number for you.

Okay.

I missed it.

I apologize. Oh, but there were two.

2,000 points buried in there.

It's after the notification list.

Okay, looking at the notifications.

It looks like one was during a city-sanctioned concert and another was a trespass assist.

Oh.

So almost nothing.

Thanks. I got it now. For a second, I had a missing packet page. But thank you. I apologize.

Any further discussion on this item? Yes, sir.

Yeah, I've got two things. I've got this one I've been kind of dreading getting into because I had trouble explaining it this morning. But condition three on outdoor background sound, as it's written here, I don't think says what we want it to say. The way it's written right now, well, outdoor background sound is permitted. And then it says, but should not be plainly audible at the property line. which is actually part of the definition of outdoor background sound. So that's kind of redundant. But it then goes on to say, after the closing of business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. all days of the week. If you take out that clause or whatever it is about, but should not be plainly audible at the property line, then the sentence reads, outdoor background sound is permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. all days of the week. And I don't think we're intending to allow outdoor background sound after the closing of the business, which is what I was talking about this morning. And I think what we really want is something almost identical to condition two, except in this case, applying to outdoor background sound. So that would say no outdoor background sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. all days of the week.

I think if it's, oh, sorry. I was just going to say, I think if it's just a grammar, we don't have to revote or make an amendment if it's just a grammar fix, right? Is that basically what you're saying? So it's clear.

It's yeah, I think it's a word. I don't know if it's grammar technically, but it's wording wording. I'm just trying to get the wording to reflect what I'm pretty sure the intent is here. So yeah, if we could do it without amendments, that would be wonderful. I was prepared to go through that song and dance, but if we don't have to, well, I think if you're looking for precision,

Cause you think there's some uncertainty. It'd be better to have everyone agree on it with the vote on what the wording is. You're looking forward to eliminate any doubt.

That's what I was expecting to do. I was just hoping maybe I would get off the hook. Okay. But no, I'll do that then. Right. Okay. Thank you. I wish that had flown. Uh, yeah, I guess in that case, I will propose an amendment to condition three so that it reads, No outdoor background sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. all days of the week. I'll second that.

Any further discussion on the amendment? So the reason I did second that is because this will hopefully provide some consistency in our CUP matrix that the city is going off of. This is wording that's specifically from that. So what you see in your packet, those are only recommendations. So this is a way to actually formalize this by case by case basis. So the vote's a good idea. Any further discussion on this item?

Roll call? Sure. Lupe Garcia?

Aye.

Mariah Dunn?

Aye.

Allison Hardy?

Aye.

Lucy Johnson?

Aye.

Ronnie Benedergerke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Aye. Sean Brillison? Aye. David Case? Aye. The motion to amend carries. The amendment was approved.

Now back to our original motion with the approved amendment. I've got one more. Possible amendment. This is a lot easier, I think. Condition five, the number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with a fire code. There's actually two buildings here, which I presume each have their own occupancy limit. And at least I would think they should, because they're two completely separate buildings. And I would think this would be better to read the number of people occupying each building is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupancy loads stay at or below posted levels. So we would change the to each? The building to each building. OK. We have two buildings.

So are those buildings separate? So if a 911 call came in tonight and it was at the front building, I think it's the thrift shop, how would EMS know which building to go to? Or is it just one building? According to this, it's just one building.

They each have their own addresses. One is actually addressed on South LBJ Drive, the thrift store, and then Cheatham Street Warehouse is addressed on Cheatham Street.

Okay, so they really are purely two separate buildings.

Okay. Did you make a motion?

I thought I had.

Maybe I didn't. Should I go ahead and do it again? Yes.

Okay, I'll make a motion to amend item condition five so that reads the number of people occupying each building is required to remain compliant with a fire code to include insurance and ensuring that occupancy loads stay at or below posted levels. I'll second it. All right.

Motion to approve the amendment by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. We are chasing away from D to each. Any further discussion for item number five? Any further discussion on this one?

I mean, I'll probably vote, I guess, for the amendment, but I don't really see a point because you can just print two copies of this and put one up in one building, one in the other, and number five says occupant loads have to be at or below posted levels.

But how on earth would they not know there's another building on there? I know.

Well, what I'm actually concerned about is you could have one building exceeding their occupancy, and the other one not. And then maybe you can say, well, overall, we're OK. But that's really not how that's supposed to work. That's my concern.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Roll call.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. Alison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Randy Benederkerke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Yes. Cheryl Burleson?

Aye.

David Case? Aye. Lupe Costilla? Aye. A motion to amend carries.

Now we're back to our original motion with our two amendments. Is there any further discussion on this item?

Roll call. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson?

Aye.

Randy Benederkerke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Aye. Cheryl Burleson? Aye. David Case? Aye. Lupe Costilla? Aye. Mariah Dunn? Aye. A motion to approve carries. Brings us to item number five.

Chair, real quick before public comments. After discussion with the city attorney, as one of the options on this one concerns my family, I will be recusing myself from this item. And per City of San Marcos, I have to leave the room. So I'm just going to say bye.

Thank you. We do expect you back.

All right, SNC 2601, El Camino Way temporary street name change. Hold a public hearing and consider request by the City of San Marcos to temporarily rename an approximately 1,100 foot square section of El Camino Way commencing at the intersection of El Camino Way and South Highway 123 to either Old Johnson Farm Road or Crested Caracara Way until such time as the road is connected to the other existing segment of El Camino Way.

We will open the public hearing.

Good evening, everybody. Julia Cleary, Planning and Development Services. So this is a request to temporarily rename an existing street that was recently constructed as part of a multifamily development at the intersection with State Highway 123. It's within the Cottonwood Creek neighborhood. No lots are currently addressed off of this portion of the street. I think that's important to note. And it was constructed back in 2023 as part of the plat for the multifamily apartments to the north. Next slide, please. So this is a copy of the plat that was recently approved for a multi-family development. The developer constructed the street, not because they take access from it, they take access and are addressed off of State Highway 123, but because that road is within the city's thoroughfare plan, they were required to construct that segment as part of their development. and they were also requested by staff actually to name it El Camino Way with the understanding that it would eventually connect to the other existing segment of El Camino Way which is an existing county road. Next slide please. So this just shows kind of a little bit zoomed out where this falls within the city's thoroughfare plan requiring that dedication. You'll see that there is, one lot between the existing street on the left there and this proposed segment. We don't have any plans for development at this time but when that site comes in to develop they will be required to make that connection and dedicate additional right of way as part of their development and eventually that will connect as one through street. There will probably be a little bit of a adjustment in the alignment that's required, but ultimately the majority of those improvements will fall on that development, that multifamily development there. Next slide, please. So in June, city council had received some, expressed some concerns about this, the lack of connection, and so had given direction to staff to temporarily rename the street until such time as the road connects. The street name change would only apply to this existing section, to the new section of El Camino Way. The remainder, or the old, I'll say the old road, that will not be impacted. It's just this new street segment. Next slide, please. And council actually gave, they proposed these five names as options for staff to review. We do have street naming guidelines that are put together in conjunction with CAPCOG standards as well as county review. So of the five, two of them were deemed to have met city standards. So if a developer came in and proposed these streets, we would approve two out of five of them. I do want to note that, so Wild Wind Way proposed by council, there is already a Wild Wind Cove. And so generally speaking, we're looking at street names from a 911 public safety capacity. So if someone is panicked, if they're calling emergency services, are they able to clearly communicate you know, communicate where they are and not get, not have confusion. And so any type of similar sounding name, um, even if it's not exactly the same, we would typically recommend denial. So the same with, with heritage lane, there's already heritage trail lane and a heritage drive. Carlita's Way was also proposed, but there's already a Casita Cove and Carly as the prefix, meaning that there could be a drive or a lane, etc. That's been reserved, I think, on the other side of the highway in Legacy Square. So there were two that remained, Crested Caracara Way and Old Johnson Farm Road. Next slide, please. This is what a Crested Caracara looks like, just for context. I didn't have a picture of the Old Johnson Farm... But yeah, that's the classic Caracara bird. These are the criteria that staff review, and also the Planning and Zoning Commission would be required to see if it's pertinent. But generally speaking, the main thing is to make sure that we're not having streets that sound the same as other existing streets. Next slide, please. And so staff does recommend approval of the temporary street name change, but we'll leave the recommendation of either Crested Carrow Carrow Way or Old Johnson Farm Road to the discretion of the commission. Regarding notifications, I will note that this did go in the newspaper, and the surrounding property owners, the landowners, were given a courtesy notification. It's not required. If people were addressed off of this road, there would be a lot more work we would have to do, but we did send a courtesy notification, and we have not received any response to those notifications. And that concludes my presentation. Well, we are the applicant, so we're in the room for any questions.

That was my next question. Would you like to speak in favor of your permit?

We'll leave that up to the discretion of the commission and council.

Okay. We do have two people signed up. If you'd like to please state your name and address and we have three minutes.

Howdy, y'all. Commissioners, thanks for giving me a moment today. So I'm the one that actually brought this up because, and I don't know, city staff, would it be appropriate for me to ask for y'all to put up the slide showing where the two roads do not connect? Would that be all right? Anyway, so we have lived off of what used to be Route 1, Box 15, San Marcos, Texas, since 1977, somewhere in the 90s. Is that about right, Daddy? In the 90s, with 911, the road needed to be named. So because we are off of the Old Kings Highway, which is 266, anyway, they came up with El Camino Way, and our family has resided there for almost 50 years. We are the part down, the apartment complex is right on the other side of my fence. So the part of the road where it's yellow, We live right on the other side of that fence. Our address is 808 El Camino Way. My dad's address is 802 El Camino Way Drive. My concern is that there is a gate. So if you come off of 123, there's a gate that is controlled by GBRA. And the two roads do not connect. When she says there might be some alignment, basically, you will have to come and jog pre-left. There is that new subdivision that century, whatever it's called, that Rattler Road, Wild Bark Way, this way. They have one called Wild Leaf, and this road, this new road, would actually align with that. So anyway, we are asking for the road name to be changed so that there's not confusion, so that if we you know, have to call 911 that they don't come off of 123 and cannot get to us because the roads don't connect. That's my biggest. The other thing, it's kind of nice when Amazon and DoorDash can find us. And we were there first, just almost 50 years. So it'd be nice for us not to have our address messed up. So I'm asking you all tonight to consider. I would also like you to go back to the slide where it says that Carlita's Way that there are two others. I do not think that Cosita Cove sounds anything like Carlita's Way, nor does Carly whatever they're gonna do. So I would like y'all to reconsider Carlita's Way, because that was the one I suggested. So that is why I'm here tonight. We would like y'all to rename the roads so we don't have confusion. There's no problem with 911 if we need to call them. The other thing, I will say Crested Carrot Care Away. The reason I suggested that one is because there's a pair of Mexican eagles that come back every year. Unfortunately, the apartment complex cut down their tree in their home, in their nest. However, they found refuse at our place. And so anyway, I think about the Mexican eagles coming back and their little babies every year when they have them. So that one would be all right too. Lucy and I did have a conversation. I think it's okay for me to share that's her family, but she said that her granddad really didn't like a lot of recognition, so there's just a little tidbit as well. Any questions?

There's no questions. It's just a one-way communication.

Okay. Thank you for your time and your consideration, and thank you all for all your service. I know these meetings are not easy, and especially when they run long.

Thank you. Cliff Caskey, if you'd like to speak, if you'd please state your name and address, and we'll have three minutes for you.

My name is Cliff Caskey. I live at 802 El Camino Way Drive. I think it was back in the 80s when we changed from Route 15. But anyway, the fact is we named it El Camino Way. There's another one somewhere around. I don't know exactly where it's at because there was two Route 15s and we had problems. The county or the post office, one, put the drive on the end of that to keep them separate. But I suggest that since they put a cul-de-sac across the fence by my house, that they take that and go ahead and turn and go back out to 123 with the street and name it Luke Street and just have it Luke, all those. I moved out there in 77 to be away from all of what I've got now. You know, if I didn't have a tree in the right place, one of their lights would keep my bedroom lit up all night. So we already got problems, and... It seems silly to be arguing over the name of a street. But that street's on the city side. When you cross the fence, you're in the county on my side. And we don't need that making some stupid jog and adding and making more traffic on our street when it could be turned back out to 123 because We already got one neighbor that's already asked the county commissioner to put speed bumps on El Camino Way Drive coming down to our house because of fast driving. We just don't need any more. So I'm begging you, have them turn, the city engineer or whoever's responsible, turn and from that cul-de-sac turn and go back to 123 and just call that straight a loop. And I think it'll solve a lot of problems. And I won't talk any longer. I worked for the city eight years in Parks and Rec and put up with a lot of stuff. And, you know, give me a little something. I saved the city more than my salary every year that I worked. Did a lot of good. I appreciate it. But anyway, thank you very much for y'all listening. Oh, man.

Thank you, sir. Seeing no one else, I'll close the public hearing. I will make a unique motion to see what you'll think. My motion is to recommend approval of a temporary street name change, but leaves the recommendation of Crested Way or Old Johnson Farm Road to the direction of Council. I'll be approving both names to go to Council for further direction.

I agree. I second that.

Got a second by Commissioner Costilla. And now we have discussion. Yes, sir. Commissioner Agnew.

Yeah, I'm okay with that if that's what the commission wants to do. The one thing that struck me and some of what I think Julia referred to 9-1-1 calls and her remarks makes me somewhat partial towards Old Johnson Farm Road of these two choices. And the reason for that, I was out there Saturday looking at this. And unless I missed something, if you want to leave those apartments or if you want to get back on 123 off of this new stretch of road, there's no protected turn of any kind. I mean, you're looking at making, if you wanted to go into town, you're looking at making an unprotected left hand. turn across, I think it's four lanes of traffic with a speed limit around 55 miles an hour out there. And that's nothing we can do anything about, but it makes me think this is kind of a dangerous traffic situation out there right now, which makes me feel there's probably going to be some accidents, which means there's going to be some 911 calls. And it would just seem the simpler and clearer the name of that road was, the better. And to me, Old Johnson Farm Road is a lot clearer and a lot easier to understand than Crested Caracara Way or even Carlita's Way. And I just would like to see the most simple street names selected out there just so the 911 calls would be easier and clearer to deal with. Because I think we're going to have them. But that's just... But if everybody wants to leave it up to council, I can go that way. I just wanted to throw this out. Mr. Federer, Kirkkey.

And along those same lines, if we're not able to send it back to council, I mean, our charge was to pick one of these two, basically. But I'm thinking for simplicity's sake, and again, I'm thinking when a person calls 911, there's a crisis going on. And I think Johnson, Old Johnson Farm, whatever, Johnson Road would be a whole lot easier for a person to get that out whenever, in the event of a crisis.

that was going to be my question to staff is if we send this back to council god forbid there is an emergency tonight tomorrow would you know the the confusion of the name i mean i know you can predict the future but us sending it back with that obviously would delay the the name and then

It goes back to council. They'll make the decision via resolution. I just want to clarify.

So it would be the same as the winning ordinance. So you guys have the recommendation. Normally, it's the applicant that comes. So you have, say, a developer comes in and said, hey, we want to do this. For this, it's almost like council is the developer. So they say, we want to do this. We take it to you guys. And then your recommendation will then be forwarded to council for approval.

Consideration in the same way as zoning change would be Well, and I and Terry may have to add to this but my understanding is that there were lists of names and this motion is

I think council of pride and expectation recommend one name, but the proposal is we've narrowed it down to two names that you feel comfortable recommending. It sounds like your motion is you're recommending either name with equal, uh, you know, zeal or whatever, but, um, that's the pending motion. Of course you heard their arguments the other way. So it's really your discretion. Uh, it does. put council in the position having to choose among those two. But, uh, again, even with your recommendation, they could still go against it, right? They stopped because it is a recommendation. So it's whatever the commission feels comfortable with.

Can I finish chair before I was interrupted by commissioner? Um, no, just for the, for the record though, I don't feel comfortable sending it back to council. Um, one, the, God forbid something does happen, I just don't feel comfortable with that. And then two, what is your name? Mr. Aguirre. With them kicking it back and they're notorious to do what they do up there, I just feel comfortable doing what's proposed in front of me and voting for a name tonight.

Okay. Just for clarification, I guess we're on the same page. What is the current name of the road right now?

Current name is El Camino Way. It has a name now, so our responders would know.

Yeah, they'll know. If people know that you run into a dead end, there's no connection there.

Are we just sending it to council anyway? This is our recommendation, either one or two.

No, so right now you could... They still have the final decision.

Yeah, we could decline the motion I made, and then we'd come back to the original approval here.

Just to make sure I understand Commissioner Dunn's comment, you're saying you think we should resolve it now rather than let it linger into the future? Correct, yes, sir.

Yes, sir. That's exactly what I was gonna say. We've been given a direction, no matter what they do, I'd like to give a recommendation on the street name, and I agree with you, in light of that Carlita's Way does not meet the criteria, I'm sorry. then I'd like to propose that we do the Old Johnson Farm Road. I think that it's just a good name and it fits and I'd like to send that recommendation.

Yes, ma'am. I'm along the lines of Commissioner Case as far as letting them name it. I'm not sure what they even send it back. There is a name already that uh, responders can find already since it's already noted by that by L coming away. Is that correct? Is that correct? They can find that space today. They can find it, yes.

Correct.

And so by us using a name, I have no doubt because of the fact that the things that have happened in the past that the city council is going to get it, more than likely they'll change it. And so whether there is an option, I can support either way. I really can. It's just that I just feel that by letting them do their homework and their job because there are the elected officials to name a street there. I just feel more comfortable in that direction because we can decide tonight on Old Farm Road, whatever Johnson Road, and then they might decide they want to change it to somebody else, something else, and that's fine. But I can go in either direction, David, so I'm not going to follow my cross for anything of that because it's just something that I just see happening and find if we wanna name it, we can go ahead and name it so I don't have a problem.

Okay, I'm confused because I thought the whole purpose that we were here was because the streets did not connect and they had a hard time finding y'all and y'all were concerned about 911 getting there. Am I missing something?

Do we wanna bring them up for a question? Please. Okay. Thank you.

The whole reason that I brought this up is because we live on El Camino Way, which is a county road that comes off of Old Bastrop Highway. So our road, El Camino Way, if you haven't been out there to drive it, runs parallel with Rattler Road. Our road was there first. But for them to have this one, but there's no outlet. There used to not be an outlet. Now you can turn on Wild Bark, but El Camino Way does not connect to 123 until they just put in this new road that they just finished literally a couple months ago. And so there are no addresses, but the fact that the road doesn't connect, that they're not coming across our property, and our neighbors don't want it either. That's the other thing I forgot to tell y'all is that we do not want El Camino Way, the road that we have lived on for 50 years, connecting to 123 because next thing you know, when there's an accident, whatever, the trucks will be coming. Like my dad said, they've already put speed bumps on, and the other thing too is that El Camino Way is a county road. This is gonna be in the city, And you know how well the city and the county coordinate on road upkeep. But the main thing is that if daddy has another heart attack, he just had heart surgery, if he has another heart attack and I have to call 911 and they try to come off of 123, they will not be able to get to us. There is a gate that is locked that is controlled by GBRA. and that is the main issue.

Thank you. I knew that there was a reason that we were here, and I know that this is a temporary name or whatever. Thank you.

But I will say, I'd like El Plano Zoning to know, and I'd like the city to know, that the 10 people, residents that live on El Camino Way that have been out there for the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years, we don't want an outlet. There is one now. You can turn on Wild Bark, and you can go to Rattler Road, and you can go to 123. I think Daddy's idea... that y'all request that when that next lot is developed, that they make it into a loop to go back to 123 might be a great idea. But we don't want to have name confusion, two roads that don't connect with the same name, and they call 911 and the ambulance or the fire police don't know how to get to us.

Thank you. Thank you.

But tonight we're not, discussing or taking any action on when or where the streets will connect. It's just a name of a piece of road. That's it. Let me say it.

Commissioner Harding.

No matter what we do tonight, it goes to council for a recommendation, right? So it's not changing. Well, for approval. Yeah.

For approval, right. They'll consider a resolution. They'll take your recommendation upon advisement and vote on a name.

Or not. Who knows?

Yes, sir, Commissioner Ackley. I mean, I know it's just a recommendation, but if enough of us, I think, feel strongly enough that one or the other names is better, I mean, I think we should recommend it. Otherwise, we're just sort of acknowledging like we don't matter or something. I don't really feel that way. So I think if we feel there's a specific name that we think is better, I think we should recommend it. to run a name of the flagpole and see what happens. We got a motion right now.

I want to resolve this motion and then see where it goes.

I guess what we're really discussing right now is whether to make the recommendation ourself or kick it back to council. That's really what we're talking about.

So to be clear, my motion is to approve both names as recommended to go to council for a decision. So we couldn't do an amendment to approve one?

Yeah, if it doesn't pass, we can do another one.

So what we can do now is we can just Um, I don't want to say call a question yet, but if y'all kind of agree, like we can do a roll call right now.

Yeah.

If you agree with sending two up for council to vote on and make the decision, you'd say yes. If you don't, you say no. Then the motion either is approved or denied. Okay. Then we make a motion for a specific name. Okay. Is everybody clear on that? Yes, sir. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Roll call, please.

No. William Eggman? No. Randy Bryan? No. Michelle Burleson?

No.

David Keynes? Aye. Libby Castillo?

Aye.

Mariah Dunn?

No.

Allison Hardy?

No.

The motion fails. All right, we're back.

I'll make a motion to recommend to Council that this stretch of road temporarily be named Old Johnson Farm Road. I'll second it.

Okay, we got a motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Berthelsen, in favor of Old Johnson Farm Road. Any further discussion on this one?

I have a question. Yes, ma'am. So I like the other names, so do I vote no or yes? You'd vote no. Okay. I like the bird. I do too. It's pretty.

It was the image, wasn't it? It was. Good job. Any further discussion? All right, so we vote yes. We're voting for Old Johnson Farm Road. If you vote no, you're not voting for Old Johnson Farm Road. All right.

Roll call, please. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Yes. Cheryl Burleson. Aye. David Keynes. Aye. Lupe Costilla.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn.

No.

Allison Hardy.

Aye.

Ronnie Vinodigrichi. Aye. Motion to approve the amendment carried. Go team.

We made it exciting. We did.

This now brings us a question and answer session with Press and Public. Anybody?

Do I have to say thank you?

Ma'am? I just want to say thank you all because that was the main thing is that.

Carly, you can come up here. We need to record it.

Well, I just want to say thank y'all. That was the main thing, that it didn't have the same name so we don't have confusion. So thank y'all for sending that back. I appreciate that. And thank y'all for your service. I serve on another board. I know, again, it gets long. It can get tiring. And so thank y'all for the time that y'all spend to help try to keep and make our city a better place.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, it brings us to adjournment.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. I second.

Motion adjourned by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Burleson. Roll call, please. Randy Bryan. Yes.

Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

David Case. Aye. Lupe Garcia.

Aye.

Ryan Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Ronnie Venegro-Kirkey. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. We adjourned at 7.08 p.m.