Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

It was cool. It was a good time. I learned some different things. I definitely recommend it.

I'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, July 28th at 6 o'clock p.m. May we have the roll call, please?

Sure can. William Agnew? Here. Randy Bryan?

Here.

Michelle Burleson? Here. David Case? Lupe Costilla? Here. Mariah Dunn? Here. Allison Hardy? Here. Lucy Johnson?

Here.

Randy VanOterkerke? Here. We have a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting and ask that you please silence your cell phones. Due to limitations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All other inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The Commission will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of intimidation, defamation, personal affronts, profanity, or threats of violence. That brings us to the citizen comment period. Do we have anybody signed up?

No, Chair, we do not.

Okay, so that takes us to the consent agenda. Do we have a motion?

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

Okay, a motion from Commissioner Dunn, second from Commissioner Burleson. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Sure. Randy Bryan. Yes. Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

Luke Wicoccia.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Ronnie Veneta-Crookie. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. The motion carries.

Okay. Brings us to our public hearings. First is agenda item two.

All right. CUP 2609, Siren San Marcos. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Manuel Alfau on behalf of Siren San Marcos for a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 801 Chestnut Street.

Okay. Open the public hearing and begin with a staff report.

Good evening, Commission. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately half an acre and is located on the southwest corner of North LBJ Drive and Chestnut Street. The subject business is an existing restaurant. Surrounding uses include restaurants, convenience store with gas sales, multifamily, and Texas State University. The subject property is zoned neighborhood commercial. Proposed hours of operations are from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturdays. All criteria for approval have been met for both sections two as well as section five. The subject property is located within the north of campus area plan It meets recommendations written in the plan, such as to encourage diverse land use along North LBJ Drive and convert strategic portions of the parking lot into public patio spaces. Next slide, please. Sirens occupies the existing building and also operates within the food truck park on the property. As part of this request, Sirens proposes to sell alcohol from both the existing building and its own food truck. It is important to note that this permit request applies only to Siren's operations on the property. The approval would not extend to any other business or food trucks operating within the food truck park. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire July 28, 2027, provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified acoustic and or background sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. No outdoor amplified acoustic and or background sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11 p.m. Friday and Saturdays. Next slide. The business shall be responsible for the subject property and the abutting right of way, including the public streets or alley pavements within 50 feet of any entrance and exit. 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. The permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. 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. That concludes my presentation, and we have an applicant both on Zoom as well as one in the room to answer any questions.

Okay, would they like to speak at this point? Yes.

Okay. Commissioner, we do have online a manual, I apologize, alfalfa online to speak.

Okay, go ahead.

Yes. Good evening. My name is Manuel Alfau. I'm one of the main partners of Tyron San Marcos, address 801 Chestnut Street, 78666. I wanted to just come out and introduce myself as the business owner with a background in restaurant operations. I bought the business from the previous owner a couple years back and recently moved brought in a new partner with much needed capital to improve the property, clean it up, refresh the look and feel of what the old food truck park looked like, and make it a thriving place for the community, make it family-friendly, host events, and just be, you know, available to everybody. Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Larry Kelly. I'm the new...

partner he was referring to that came in a little less than a year ago. My experience is I live in Austin, but I commute daily down here to work on the park. And I have come in, I have a lot of experience. I have 32 years with Sterling Events Hospitality in Austin. And so, and a lot of different restaurants and catering and So I like the project, I like the location, I think it's a great project. So my intent was to come in, redesign it, give it a new face. And so we redid a new DBA, Sirens, as opposed to what was previously, you might know as Red Bus Park. And so it is now a lot of, San Marcos Blues and Greens and referring to the illustrious, the wonderful background of the sirens and all of the history that San Marcos has there. So we kind of wanted to piggyback on that and to kind of celebrate that. So it's gonna consist of four probably, eventually five food trucks. Right now we have two Mexican food trucks, we have a new Hawaiian truck trailer coming in, and we'll probably get one or two more. I'm trying to get a nice diverse array of food for people to enjoy. And we have, this is for the beer and wine, so we're gonna be a simple kind of have a glass of beer, a glass of wine, some along with your food. I put a nice sound system in there. Eventually, very soon, we'll have a video screen so that we can show show things that are entertaining. We want people to relax. So far the people that have been coming in are exactly what we're all happy with. A lot of families, a lot of people from the neighborhoods just seeing all the new design and seeing all the work we put in. We put quite a lot of money into it and we're still putting in more and designing more. And so I'm probably my three minutes is about up. But anyway, I'm happy to take any questions, but it's really not to build another bar or something, but the bar, we actually rent the spaces and then we will be running the bar of which I have a lot of experience in that.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Anybody else signed up to speak on this?

None of their signed up.

Anyone in the chamber wish to speak on this item? Okay. Close the public hearing. Ask for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve CEP-26-09 with staff recommendations. I second that.

Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Dunn. Second by Commissioner Costilla. Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner Dunn.

I don't know if this is for staff or for the applicant, but I noticed that the TABC license is soon to expire on the 30th. Has the applicant already submitted for renewal?

Yes, we have. I can answer that. We actually got our receipt for renewal this afternoon for both beer and the wine on premise.

Okay.

Is the license that's in our packet, is that from the previous owner of the establishment?

Yes. So Manuel is an ongoing owner of the establishment, and then Larry came on this year, and that's when the business name changed.

Okay. Now that answers my next question. Thank you. Do you have any more?

I just want to say I am, like, super excited about these cake jars. They look so decadent. I am, like, salivating over here. So I'm just, I cannot wait to. come and try every single one.

Any other discussion? I've got a couple questions for Caitlin. And I think you explained this earlier, but it went a little fast for me. As far as where they're going to be able to sell, where they're going to sell alcohol from, as I understand it, it's the permanent building at the front of the property. And the bus?

Yes, so the applicant had explained to me this morning that they're trying to go away with the bus. So they're planning on having their own sort of food truck or little station there within the food truck park that they would like to sell alcohol as well as the main structure on the property.

Because that's why the name isn't the blue bus. The bus is just temporary, I guess. Okay. Also, we talked about this this morning. The condition that the occupancy in the building has to comply with the fire code, which building or buildings are we referring to there?

There's only one building actually constructed on the property. Okay.

Okay. Okay. I understand. Okay. I don't know anything else either. Are we ready for a roll call vote? Okay. Sure.

Michelle Burleson. Aye. Lupe Costilla. Aye. Mariah Dunn. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Brian Ibnotukurki. Aye. William Agnew. Aye. Randy Bryan. Aye. The motion carries.

Okay. That takes us to item, get the number right. Oh, shoot. Item number three. Item three.

Sounds good. CUP 2634, the Cigar Vault. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Jeff Beal on behalf of the Cigar Vault for renewal of a conditional use permit to allow on-premise consumption of beer and wine located at 122 North LBJ Drive.

Okay. I'll open the public hearing and ask for staff presentation.

Good evening Commission, Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. Craig is unavailable tonight and so I will be presenting his cases. The subject property is approximately 0.14 of an acre and is located on North LBJ Drive south of Hopkins Street. The subject business is an existing bar located within the central business area. The business has held a beer and wine CUP since 2022. Surrounding uses include restaurants, bars, tattoo studios, banks, and Hayes County Courthouse. The subject property is zoned character district five and is surrounded by CD5D on all sides with the exception of the courthouse. The current CEP expired on June 27th of this year. There are four police calls recorded on this property which range from 2023 through current. All criteria for approval have been met from both sections two as well as section five. No changes have been made to the floor plan. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire July 28th, 2029, provided standards are met. The business is responsible for the subject property and 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 another alcohol CUP holder's maintenance area. The number of people occupying the building is required to remain compliant with fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices in compliance with state law. Staff has not received any comments regarding this case. That concludes my presentation.

Okay, is the applicant here?

Good evening, my name is Laura Schaffner. I am here on behalf of the Scarfold at 122 North LBJ San Marcos, 78666. I am the business manager and have been since before it opened. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Basically, we're renewing our beer and wine permit. We're not changing anything about the way we're doing business. And just keep it on, keep it on. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Of course.

Anybody else who wishes to speak on this item? Okay. Close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to approve CUP 26-34, except that the term will expire on June 27, 2009, which is three years from the expiration of the previous CUP. Okay.

I'll second that. Okay.

Motion. Commissioner Agnew, second. Commissioner Van Otterkerke. Any discussion?

Ready to vote? Sure. Libby Garcia? Aye. Mariah Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson? Aye. Ronnie Van Otterkerke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Yes. Michelle Burleson? Aye. The motion carries. It takes us to item four. That's correct. CUP 2636 Nelson H. Pouet. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Killen, Griffin, and Faramond on behalf of Nelson H. Pouet for a conditional use permit to allow the warehouse slash office and storage use located at 930 Luciano Flores Boulevard.

Okay. Open the public hearing with a staff presentation.

Good evening, Commission. Caitlin Buck with Planning Development Services. The subject property is approximately 1.8 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Luciano Flores Boulevard and Cape Road. The subject property was formerly a UPS warehouse with office and storage space and now sits vacant. Surrounding uses include restaurants, car rental, hotels, and single-family neighborhood. The subject property is zoned general commercial. The applicant is proposing to continue the warehouse office and storage use on the property. All criteria for approval have been met from sections two as well as section five. The site plan shows the existing layout of the property. 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. No tractor trailer parking permitted on the site, and the permit shall not expire provided standards are met. That concludes my presentation.

Okay. Is the applicant here?

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. Emily Weissler with Killian, Griffin, and Fairmond. Thank you for having us tonight. As staff mentioned, as Caitlin mentioned, we are here. This was a former UPS facility. We are working very hard to get a new tenant in the building and respectfully need zoning that conforms to its previous use. We've been working with staff on trying to clear that up. But we would like to be able to bring in a new user Prevent this building from sitting vacant any longer. It's two buildings almost 20,000 square feet And respectfully request your support of the CUP We're happy to answer any questions and at this time we do accept the proposed conditions by staff if there are any Questions or concerns with those conditions. We'd be happy to talk through those.

Okay. Can we have your address, please?

Yes, sir 1 0 1 0 1 reunion place, San Antonio, Texas

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item?

No.

Okay. Okay. Let's close the public hearing. Ask for a motion.

I move to approve CUP 26-26. I'll second. I'll second.

Okay, a motion by Commissioner Costilla, second by Commissioner Carlson. Any discussion? I do have one question.

Well, I personally have no problem with the condition, no tractor trailers or semi-trucks. Does that include, like, large boats, RV homes?

I don't believe so. I believe the definition of tractor trailer is more like the semi with the trailer that it's pulling.

I was making an assumption just because you didn't want to. big vehicles parked out there. So if I want my boat out there, I'd have no, they wouldn't get in trouble. I wouldn't get in trouble if to park a boat out there.

Yes. That's the understanding. Okay. Okay.

I have a question for the applicant. If I could, something I didn't quite understand that you said is the applicant here looking to sell this property to somebody else who would run a warehouse operation here.

It's under contract by our client to purchase it and put in a new tenant in the facility.

When you say a tenant, you're talking, okay. I mean, a warehouse like this has tenants, right? I mean, you would have tenants for the individual.

Our goal is to have one tenant for the entire property, one company for the property, occupying both buildings, the full space.

who would use the entire space and not be renting it out to other. Correct. Oh, okay. That's completely different than what I expected.

Yeah, that, that's our goal. Correct. Sorry.

So we would, we would lease it to a tenant.

Yes, we would lease it to a tenant, but our goal again is one tenant for the entire property.

I'm glad you clarified that on, uh, semis or large trucks. Uh, this is at the locate. This is really not at the location of interstate 35 and, and, an interstate or Highway 123 like the packet says. This is at the intersection of Luciano Flores and Cape Road, which are two relatively narrow secondary type roads. I would prefer that we have a condition that says that there would be no semi-truck access to the property rather than just parking. Would you be all right with that?

Unfortunately, we don't have a firm answer. We can't commit to that tonight. We're working on that. They've agreed to the no parking, but we haven't gotten an ability to agree to that. We can continue working on it. If this commission would allow us to push this to another agenda, we'd be happy to come back with a firm answer on that. Just at this point tonight, we can't commit to that.

Well, to me, that's important. I mean, it's probably the most important factor to me about this location. So, yes, if the commission is agreeable to postpone it until we get an answer on that, yes, I would like to do that. I mean, one of the things, this location, if you are from, it's the old UPS facility, which most of you probably know. I mean, there are motels right across a relatively small drive or alley from this. And... Also, facilities like this often have overnight activity, and the combination of overnight activity and semis particularly in a location like this could be problematic, particularly to the motels. I'm sure UPS probably operated overnight. I don't know how they do things, but I'm sure there were overnight things going on there. So if there was going to be overnight activity here but it didn't involve semis, I would not see that as a big problem. if we were going to have semis, if you look at the place, I know semi drivers can do amazing things, but it would be, if you look at that location, it would take quite a lot of skill to back a semi up to some of those bays. But no, that would be very, very important to me, that we have a condition that there would not be any semi traffic on the property or any access. And also, as much as we could keep semi traffic off of Cape Road and Luciano Flores would be good too because those roads aren't designed to handle that. You go right ahead.

Well, I was going to ask, it was a question for you, I'd have a question for staff in a minute, but didn't UPS have 18 wheelers that came in there?

I don't know.

Because I think they brought in deliveries for San Marcos on 18 wheelers and unloaded them and then

Probably, yeah, they probably didn't try to back them up to bays. They just probably drove them onto the property.

Probably why they moved, but you're right. It was a lot getting in and out of there, but they had trucks coming in and out of there. They had a pickup office at one point for the public.

Yeah.

I'm sure you're right about that. I've been curious about the same thing, but I looked at it and I thought, no, you can't really operate semis on that property. But you could drive them on and back them off. They figured out somehow, whatever they did.

There were semis that would back up. They would back up. My memory was when Chuck Nash was still on the front part, and it would come down, I guess that's Cape Road? Yes. And there's a tingling fence there, and the large trucks would, actually back the trailers up to the warehouse. And you're right, it's amazing. It would take me 40 acres to turn one of those things around. And my other concern about this, I understand why, and so for the hotels, those hotels are close to IH 35. Do they really expect a whole lot of quiet, I guess is a lack of better words?

Well, the hotels that are adjacent to this are a fair distance from Interstate 35. Okay. They're not, they're not really on 35. They're probably, I don't know, a hundred yards or more from 35. Okay.

But I mean, this is in between the properties, but I know that UPS had bigger trucks. I just, I'm not quite sure exactly who your tenant is, but I couldn't imagine doing the same thing without at least having 18 wheelers coming and going at some point. I just don't see how you would be able to operate otherwise. Is that incorrect or?

No, that's correct, Commissioner. And the expectation is to be able to receive you know, delivery or two throughout the day so the products are being stored in the warehouse. The facility is such that it would only accommodate one loading bay for an 18-wheeler. All the other loading areas for the facility facilities are ground level. So it doesn't accommodate the level of 18-wheeler traffic that was stored on the site previously.

I'm familiar with the space, and I think any of us that lived here long enough would see the UPS and it worked. I personally don't have an issue with it because I just don't see how you'd be able to operate otherwise, but I can't speak for everybody else, but I don't have a problem with it.

And you're probably not anticipating like an Amazon warehouse type, right? No, I don't.

I cannot see that. Go ahead. I have a question for staff. Um,

Somewhat of a moot point at this point, but why have just a condition not allowing parking of semi-trucks?

I believe, and Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, that was a previous condition on the property when it was previously through for a CUP sometime back.

Or by parking, like if you are at the loading dock, is that considered parking? If they're going to unload and leave, like...

Yeah, I mean, I'm not aware, I don't think we had a CEP for UPS and their condition. I think the conversation that we had was We looked at the site. We looked at the proximity to the residential. We were just trying to somewhat help not just keep it. If you look on the older Google view, you would see a bunch of cars just parked there. And so we were just trying to somewhat keep that clean in a way. And I think that was a discussion I had with Craig at the time of writing this staff report.

We probably wouldn't see if they were in the active. and the act of delivering that the stopping long enough to unload is parking, but more along the lines of a longer-term parking, whether they're permanently. And I will just point out, Chair, that Commissioner Johnson does have her hand up to speak as well. I'm sorry.

Sorry, Commissioner Johnson, go ahead.

thanks um i i just wanted to um agree with commissioner burleson that i have no problem with allowing access for semi trucks or 18 wheelers i don't know how a warehouse would work without access to trucks for deliveries and pickups i also know that we frequently are i mean Maybe staff can correct me, but I don't know if that's something that we could even ban. I mean, I had an 18-wheeler show up at my residential street delivering furniture a month ago. You also have U.S. food 18-wheelers delivering packages to restaurants on all sorts of narrow streets. All sorts of businesses that aren't warehouses in San Marcos rely on the access to deliveries from 18 wheelers or semi trucks.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just, just to clarify, I was coming from a very erroneous assumption on this. I assumed looking at the property and all the various bays and so forth, I assume that this was going to be something I think along the lines of what are described as flex type warehouses or something where you flex space, where you're going to be renting out individual bays to tenants, where the owner of the property was going to be doing that, not that there was going to be one single tenant. So I was envisioning a completely different type of operation. And also, to Commissioner Johnson's point, yes, what she's saying is true about 18 wheelers, but they create problems. I mean, if you go downtown and you've got an 18 wheeler parked on the right of way on South LBJ or on Hopkins, which you often have. I mean, I guess it's something we have to live with in those cases, but that's, yes, it happens, but it's not a great situation.

And that was, uh, I guess people have been used to it for many years with UPS being there forever.

So another, another thing as well, you know, UPS, I think was, yeah, they were there forever. I agree. That's what I've always, and I suspect UPS was there well before the motels. I'm pretty sure. So, So that's another situation. I mean, now we have the motels that are there as existing uses. And this facility has been sitting vacant for a period of time. And so I think my perspective is a little different than it might be otherwise. Mr. Costello?

I just wanted to add that, following up on Randy, that area sits right in between a neighborhood. and of course the hotels that are there now. And that area has always been, I live right across River Road, so I utilize River Road quite often from my home to get to 123. So, I mean, I've been there almost 50 years. So, you know, seeing the big trailers there coming in and how they maneuver it, God knows, I have no idea. But they have to dispense of, whatever merchandise that they're delivering. So it's always been there. The hotels moved in there quite knowingly what was going on in there. So to me, that's not a concern at all. And, you know, those big trailers, they come down my street, just like Commissioner Johnson mentioned, to deliver. I think that whether as much as we might not like it, That's that's what it is now. And until such time, somebody comes up with another idea of how to deliver anything that comes in into our homes or someplace else. It's going to be hard. And I would, I myself would not like to penalize anybody for that, you know, so I'm quite supportive of that. Thank you.

Okay. Is there any, any further discussion on this?

Mr. Chair, just to clarify, I want to make sure, if the motion originally was inclusive of what staff had on the screen that talked about the semis or did not have that condition, just so we're on the same page. I think it was, but go ahead.

The motion was to, the motion was to approve it with those conditions. I think commissioner Agnew was talking about maybe adding another condition about that, but I don't think it's come to the floor is my understanding.

Okay. So that one of the conditions I think was on the screen earlier is included. No semi trucks. If I, I saw something on the screen earlier. That's what I want to make sure.

Let me make sure because I thought that it only said for parking purposes.

Okay, that's just what I want to make sure we're on the same page. That's the understanding.

And while we're at it, maybe we need to clarify about maybe say something about maybe overnight parking or something like that. so that there's never confusion when our long-term parking.

When they're loading and unloading. Exactly. Would not be considered parking.

But unless I'm reading this wrong, and I read it wrong the first time, the applicant has stated that no tractor-trailer semi-trucks will access the property. Right.

That's true.

We need to change that because this is a problem for what I think.

That's in the background information. And then below it has the recommendations with the no tractor trailing parking. Yes. So it's clarified in there.

I think it's very clear. Right.

So what's on screen is everyone's understanding on the motion, correct? Correct. OK. So from there, if there are further amendments or changes, we'd amend that. I just want to make sure. Sometimes even I was getting a little lost, so I'll just make sure we're on the same page. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan, did you have something?

Yeah, so a question that Rodney had made me think about this. I have a question for city staff. So does the zoning allow, like what he mentioned, like a storage facility where there are boats and RVs? Does the zoning allow that, and or does the CUP allow that?

the CUP request is for both the warehouse as well as the storage facility.

So, but does that, does that allow, I mean, like what he was saying about what you had mentioned, I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it. Like, can there be a bunch of boats parked out there and RVs and stuff like that? I'm just wondering, is that zoned and does the CUP change that at all?

But can we ask the... We have different rules too about open storage. That's different than using a warehouse space to store a boat. I'm not... So I don't see that there's an intention for open storage like what you have at, say, Home Depot when they put a fence on their parking lot for landscaping materials. I don't think that would be allowed under just...

It's probably not intention, but it's a CUP that never expires. That's why I'm asking it.

but I think, I guess what I'm saying is I believe open storage is different than warehouse under our ordinances.

Well, can we ask the applicant if they plan on using this as some type of a, my understanding is this was not like a storage facility where people store their stuff and come and go. This was more of warehouse storage for whatever they're selling or whatever their tenants selling. or they're, that's my understanding. Is that correct?

And my, my concern is only like, what about the next tenant? Since we're doing a CUP that never expires.

To answer your question, commissioner, um, the land use matrix, the line item for the land use matrix is an, I quote mini warehouse slash self storage units. And that is what requires a CUP. So it's all lumped into one use.

Did you say mini warehouse?

It says mini warehouse.

Is that what this is intended to be?

No.

But I'm just saying the intent right now doesn't matter if it's five years.

The CUP would not allow a use that's not allowed. In other words, open storage in itself is a whole different category. So I don't think that this is important. suggests open storage is a permitted use, but if there's a concern, you know, you can certainly. Another question. Just to addification.

Would it not be true that another tenant would have to come and get a whole new CUP if they move in and they're trying to do something different than what this applicant's doing?

Yes, ma'am, that's correct, because the conditions apply to the property, not to the individual units.

I think this is all getting so convoluted with so many ifs here, you know. So, yes, the new tenant, but a new tenant would also have to come in if it's a new tenant, requesting a new CUP. So that would throw everything new into, even though this is, and maybe the question should be, if this is done with, what is it called? Should not expire because I think that's what you were focusing on. But that's for this individual, right? If it was sold or somebody else acquired it, they would have to come in with a whole new thing. So this would not apply anymore.

That's correct. And just to clarify, we do have two different terms, a mini storage and an open warehouse term. And so, again, if they were to ever sell the property, we would catch it in a change of certificate of occupancy, which would then trigger a new CUP if it didn't match that term.

But this one would say, yeah, I see where you're going.

And to her point, though, you said that the CUP is tied with the property, not the tenant. Not the owner, not the tenant, but the property. The CUP is tied to the property. OK. So tenant can change. Owners can change.

But it won't be always that way. Is that what you're saying?

The CEP is tied to the property. So again, if they were to find a tenant that completely changes the use of the building, we would then require them to come in with a new CEP. And so if they were to sell to, let's say for instance, they would sell to a mini warehouse, one of the ones that we have everywhere, then we would catch that with a change of occupancy because then we're like, wait, hold on, the CEP says this, and now you're changing this use. And so then we would require them to come in with a new CEP for that use because it's a separate term in our land use matrix.

And the criteria for this CUP would not be applicable?

The criteria for the CUP should be the same criteria that we have for both, as far as the overall CUP. The conditions, I think maybe that's what you're asking?

Yeah, I'm more so, not so much the conditions, but I think that, you know, I'm stuck also in the fact that it shall not expire. And I think that's where some of us are stuck in, that it's not going to expire. At some point in time, it does not expire, or does it expire? Or does it always stay the same?

it would be no different than UPS being there for years and never changing their operations so it wouldn't expire because they're doing the same thing. The only time they would have a problem is if they got a new tenant and they wanted to do something other than what they're asking us for today. If they get a new tenant and they want to do something different, then what they're asking us for today, they have to come in then and get a new CUP. Because it's...

But that's what I was asking him in that regard, is that this is pertaining to them and not pertaining to somebody else. Somebody else would have to come in for a new CUP. That's correct. Okay. And I think you were trying to...

Sorry, I wanted to clarify some other things, but that's correct.

And I think that's where it was getting convoluted, very convoluted here. So I think that, to be simple, maybe what I need to hear, I mean, what is it? I mean, it's in here, so what they're going to use it for, but it's kind of like now we get boats coming into the storage room, and we have people... It is getting to the point to where, I mean, can we be simplified here? What is it that they want? What is it that we are required to do and go forward from that? Because we cannot control the future. We cannot control the semis that are out there and everywhere in the streets. So we just need to be simplified here and maybe do forward, go forward with what we can. and hopefully the best, and I hate to say that, but we can stay here all night long and imagine all kinds of scenarios. Really.

But see, this is the problem. He threw that out there, but that's not even what they're asking for. We're down the rabbit hole. We need to vote. Excuse me. We need to vote.

Can I just ask one question before we vote? The sentence that, I don't know, Commissioner, Odukirki quoted a while ago. The applicant has stated that no tractor trailers, semi trucks will access the property. That statement is apparently not true.

I wanted to clarify that statement. The intention is that this facility is not going to accommodate that's not going to be the primary vehicle. The expectation was, and as always will be, or was always that we would expect deliveries of, of, of goods, but that the trucks delivering or moving those goods would not be tractor trailers because of the, the accommodations of the facility. Um, and, and there's, we don't anticipate, we're not proposing outdoor storage that wouldn't be permitted under the CUP. Um, when the project initially came up, the type of tenant was, for example, a medical supply company who would receive their goods at the warehouse facility and then be able to distribute that from the site. That's just a clarification of the statement, not that there would be no access, but that 18-wheeler deliveries wouldn't be the primary vehicle activity.

Okay. Okay. So, so effectively it really doesn't mean what it says. I mean, honestly.

Okay. And that's, that's fair enough.

Okay. Are we ready to vote? Yeah, please. Please. Okay. Let's vote.

Sure. Miranda. Aye. Alison Hardy.

Aye.

Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Right. I have another cookie. Aye. William Agnew. Nay. Randy Brand. Aye. Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

Lupa Castillo. Aye. The motion to approve carries seven with one day. Okay. That takes us to item five. And once again, CUP 26, eight and a half. Okay. Rise and shine tattoos. Hold the public hearing and consider requests by Brandon Smith on behalf of rise and shine tattoos for conditional use permit to allow on the allow the use of studio tattoo located at five Oh one West San Antonio street.

I'll open the public hearing, get into the staff report.

Good evening, Commissioner Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 0.167th of an acre and is located on the south side of West San Antonio Street, approximately 50 feet west of North Street. The existing use on the property is personal services, with Blooming Day Spa occupying the majority of the building. Surrounding uses include multifamily, duplex, and single-family residential. The subject property is zoned mixed use and is surrounded by mixed use to the east, duplex to the south, single family, 4.5 to the west, and multifamily to the north. All criteria for approval have been met from section two. Next slide, please. Rise and Shine Tattoo is proposing to occupy a small portion of the rear of the existing building and is proposing to operate by appointment only. No expansion of the building is proposed as part of this request. Under Chapter 5 of the Land Development Code, both massage therapy and tattoo parlor fall under the broader personal service use category. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Staff has received one letter in opposition of this request. This letter was emailed to you earlier today. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The operating hours shall not exceed 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Sunday, and the permit shall not expire provided standards are met. That concludes my presentation.

Is the applicant here? Yeah, go right ahead.

Hi, um, my name is Rebecca Bosma and this is Brandon Smith. Uh, we are both, um, tattooers who have been doing this quite a few times. And Brandon is a trail crew volunteer and he sits on the board of the San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance and is a Hays County master naturalist and alumni of the university and has been tattooing 60 years. My name is Rebecca Bosma. I am a local. I went to high school here, so very invested in San Marcos. And I have been tattooing almost 20 years, and I am a volunteer with multiple PTAs, and I'm a very community-driven member of all of my kids' schools, and really anywhere where I find a need, I try to fill it. I say all this to say that we are a very community-driven couple. who is trying to run a high-end private tattoo studio. I don't really like the term tattoo shop or tattoo parlor for what we're offering. We tend to only see between two to three clients a day. We have very low noise, as all we're doing is working inside of a closed building. We wouldn't be doing anything outside other than maybe photographing a tattoo. We also typically only work while our kids are in school, so at the most latest, realistically, we really would only be there till five. As far as the concern of traffic to the area, I don't think there'd be any more traffic than what's really already there, being that we are only two people who don't even always work at the same time, and we have two parking spaces in the rear of the building to use before we would ever need to ask somebody to park on the street. And having worked downtown in San Marcos for 17 years, I guarantee parking was infinitely more of a nightmare there for our shop owner and the difficulties that caused that business and are ongoing. I just wanna also advocate for us as very responsible members of the community and parents that we are not interested in doing anything to the building or the area that would lower the experience for anyone around us. Unfortunately, there is no legal delineation between a tattoo shop and a private tattoo studio. But I would say that we operate something akin more to a med spa and maybe even less traffic than that because our appointments are typically between two to five hours if we're taking somebody. We have lots of experience and incredibly good reputation. And one thing that I did include that I hope everybody took a chance to read was a letter from our previous landlord. Anna Bowling, who worked next to us and got to experience what it's like to rent to people like us. And she loved having us there. And the only reason that we left and are here asking for this was due to expansion of a highway system that was going to come upon our property. So we just thank you for your time. And of course, we'll answer any questions or concerns that you have.

Thank you. Is there anybody else signed up to speak for this?

Yes, we do have one person signed up to speak, Christopher Merle.

Yes, my name is Christopher Murr, and I live at 509 West San Antonio Street, and first I want to thank the Commission for their time, and I really hate to be up here in opposition to potential neighbors and entrepreneurs, but my wife and I have lived at our residence, which is right next to the property being discussed tonight, and we've lived there for 25 years, and we moved into the area because it really is a very unique area in and around the historic district, and it's a very livable, walkable residential community, and the city has enforced that quality of life by appropriate zoning. And while the residence, really more of a subdivided home, at the property does have businesses and residents, those businesses have traditionally conformed with the nature of a residential setting. For example, an architect office, a day spa. However, I don't believe that a tattoo shop necessarily conforms to that in a residential setting. I do think that it will continue to add traffic to the area, exacerbate the existing parking problems, and increase the noise. And I think it will also produce other problems, which is why such businesses are typically confined to a commercial zone or corridor and not in a residential setting. And while I appreciate the mitigation effect of not operating between 6 and 11, I think the reality is at some point that could be expanded and amplify the issues for residents. I also think there's a concern that I have about setting a precedent and that is once a tattoo shop is introduced into the neighborhood that does, it creates a reasonable expectation and likely potential for other similar oriented businesses to be moving in and that has the potential to erode the potential I would say the residential experience and unique character of the neighborhood. And I think that unique character is pretty important in a healthy and multifaceted city. And so that's why I'm asking the commission not to approve this request. And again, thank you very much for your time and have a good evening. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak on this?

Uh, so my name is Becky Smith and I own the property. I also own blooming day spa, um, and I'm a massage therapist. And, um, like Becca said, um, I really don't see it, um, causing any more noise. I, any tenants. So there are two apartments on the back. They're going to be moving into one. And any tenant I bring in, I tell them that we have a big bubble around the spa and that there's no noise allowed. And so I was stoked to have them move in because getting random college students, I'm always very nervous that they won't be respecting those boundaries. And Becca and Brandon have already talked about some improvements making around in the backyard and on the side. And so I just, I really feel like basically it took a stress off of me because I think they'll be there for a while. I don't think anybody will even notice that they're there. And we grew up together and we know each other and we both respect each other and just kind of have the same values and want, we want to be there for the neighborhood. You know, we put in the garden and like people, all of, our neighbors or any clients who come in and yeah, they just, they love the space. Um, and so we've talked about this before and we just feel like it's, you know, it's not a strip mall. We don't want a strip mall. It's a neighborhood feel still. And I really want my neighbors to be happy about it. I want all of our neighbors to be happy. So I just, I can't foresee any serious issues. Like they said, the parking is in the back. And really there's not gonna be very many people coming in and out. I'm more than a college student would have. So I think that's it.

OK, thank you. Anybody else?

Hi, I get nervous when I speak, so I need to read. My name is Elizabeth Emberson. I, along with my husband and our two small children, he's the bigger one, own the property at 503 Harvey Street. I'm here to speak in favor of and urge Planning and Zoning to approve the conditional use permit for Rise and Shine Tattoos at 501 West San Antonio Street. I do not, nor does anyone in my family have any tattoos. We only have freckles, but we do appreciate artists and their contributions to our society. We are also self-employed individuals, and so we're fans of small businesses, micro businesses, if you will, that employ like one or two people. Blooming Day Spa that operates out of the same building is such a beautiful asset to our community and neighborhood. Anytime we're walking around, it just makes you smile. And honestly, you wouldn't know they were there if they didn't have a little sign out front that told you it was a business. They're very quiet and mindful of everyone. Let's see. I guess there'll be two artists that will be working within the space by appointment only, generally between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., and all parking will be on the property around the back. So again, I don't see an issue with any business that happens there currently, and I think that'll fit right in with it. Essentially, I urge you to approve the CUP request. Please add these two artists and little tiny business to our already artistic and inspiring neighborhood. Thank y'all for your time and energy.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, close the public hearing. I ask for a motion.

I'll make the motion. to the way it's presented. I do have one thing I'd like to say is, you know, I looked at this when I, through the eyes of a historian and I got to tell you, I was really happy what I saw because we're not asking to tear down historic structure. We're not asking to modify anything. We're asking, I think it's a great reuse, if you will, of a structure that's already there. And to the owner of the building, thank you, because whoever said it, unless you know there's a business there, you drive right past it. And I think you all have done a great job of keeping the integrity of that historic structure. And so I intend to vote in favor of this. Mr. Dunn.

I have a question for Ms. Becky. Oh, can you come to the podium, please? Does she have to give her address?

Pardon me?

Does she have to give her address?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

Question, Becky. So two questions. One, I love your spa. I'm definitely an addict. But one of the concerns that I do have, and just because I feel guilty of doing this because You do have a very successful spa. So parking is always kind of troublesome over there. I mean, I do drive like a really large vehicle. So I'm kind of like in the road. But I do have to sometimes I have to park in front of a house because my vehicle does not fit through your back way. And so that is a concern that I do have with the parking, with adding that. And then my other concern is you have a beautiful spa-like environment. So is the tattooing going to be outside or is it inside your spa?

Yeah, we have your map.

Can we pull up the map, the drawing of her?

So have you been on both sides? So on the left side, you know, the massage.

With the two tables?

Yeah. So there's the massage room and then there's the waiting area. So then behind that wall is a kitchen. And then your bathroom. Yeah, a bathroom over to the side.

Can y'all put up the map of the inside of the building?

Yes, the drawing that they had.

It was up there, just right there.

There we go. Okay, so basically where it says clean room, that's a kitchen. On the other side of that is like the waiting area to the spa, and then the massage room is actually on the front. So if you're getting a massage, um yeah the tattoo room is on the very back so i don't there won't be any noise is that not the question traffic or so you're at your front door right and you've got two doors yes so the left side you have the massage room you have um the like the waiting area then there's then it's the next apartment there is a the clean room the drawing room and the tattoo room and then okay this helps me um so on the tattoo room is the back of this the building and the two parking spots are basically right behind the tattoo room And so that's where people will be coming in.

So they won't be coming through the main two doors. Correct. Okay, that was going to be my concern is how that would work.

So where it says porch up there, that's where they come in. So it's on the side. And it's like the little... Yeah, it's not the side... Yeah, it's the left side.

Okay, yeah, I'll follow. Okay, so yeah, that was going to be my concern is how, you know, when your therapists are working, you know, how would their clients enter and without disrupting any services?

Yeah, so we've definitely, I mean, I'm the most concerned about all of that. And we've definitely talked a lot about that and signage because in, texting clients because people don't read so often. So we've talked, yeah, like I, yeah, there's been lots of discussion about that. That was one of my main concerns. And then parking wise, like I said, most people will be parking behind.

So going in your driveway where your back parking is. Yes. Yes.

Like we don't like our, the massage clients are not supposed to park in the back. Cause that was always like the residential parking. Um, and then, I mean, parking is like, they just, I mean, I live two houses down across the street from the spa and, um, Um, I never, like, there are always cars in front of my house and I don't know anybody who is in those cars. So it's just, it is what it is. I mean, it's like street parking for the neighborhood and I mean, right there that, uh, I don't know what they call like on the other side that the. I think they're trying to turn it into like a boutique hotel.

To the left.

Yeah. Nobody ever parks over there. And so I've told people like you can park right there too. Yeah. I mean, I don't like it's, it's, there's even more space there. I don't know why people aren't parking so much over there, but yeah, that's.

So then just to clarify, their clients will be parking in the back and not on the sidewalk.

Correct.

Okay. Or in front of people's.

Yeah.

So it's just the massage clients that are parking along the sidewalk.

Okay.

Well, unless it's me. Yeah. Cause I don't fit in your mind.

Okay. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me point out commissioner Johnson.

Um, I think Lucy had her hand up. Oh, Lucy, Mr. Johnson. Sorry.

Yeah. Thanks. Um, I don't know if it was a sound issue, but I did not hear commissioner Van Otakirky's motion.

motion to approve with staff conditions, right? Correct. Yes.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure he said he was for it, but I could not hear it.

Thank you. I have one question that's sort of a technicality, but if I look on the zoning map, it looks like there's a portion of this property that's actually in SF 4.5. Is that correct?

That, Could just be our data is a little off sometimes?

If it's correct, does it make any difference? Well, I guess the first question, is that accurate?

Yeah, it might be just like Caitlin said. It might just be an issue on our end where it's not following to the exact measurement. But it should solely be on mixed use.

It should be entirely mixed use. OK. Is there any other discussion? I have a question for staff.

So what is the reasoning for a CUP that doesn't expire? Because my understanding is the CUP is for rise and shine tattoos. It just says for rise and shine tattoos to be in that location. Why wouldn't it have like a one year, since this is new, or three year or something like that?

That's a great question. So the land development ordinance only restricts the amount of years to alcohol CUPs specifically. All other conditional use permits are for the life of the property. We just put that on there so that everyone is aware when we're making this decision tonight that that is what we're voting on.

Okay.

So I guess the answer is the land development code says so.

But the change is if there's a new tenant and they're trying to do something else that requires a CEP, then they have to come back.

If the CEP is for a different use, then they would have to come back, yes.

But, I mean, if the business was sold, because the way it's stated is it's the conditional use for studio rise and shine tattoos. Tattoos. It's my understanding of the CUP.

No, the CUP is for the tattoo use, and then that use would be for the life of the property.

So if somebody bought this business and was going to continue to be a tattoo parlor, the CUP continues? Yes. Okay. Is there any further discussion? I mean, so... Oh, I'm sorry, there is further discussion.

Yeah, I mean, so... What Rodney said, I feel exactly like he said, but 45 years from now, when everybody's passed away, or maybe some of the younger people are still here, but you're old, exactly, 45 years from now, we have a permanent CUP here to allow, and it doesn't really have a lot of stipulations on it where they want this right now, That's just my concern. It's forever.

But it sounds like we have no choice if the expiration is only for alcohol. I mean, I don't think we have an option.

So one of the things that is worth noting with these types of zoning matters and whatnot, you do have legally non-conforming uses, things like that. But one of the things that happens is If a use discontinues, and I believe under our code, I believe it may be six months, then the use is no longer allowed. At that point, you have to come in new. So we have other rules. So you'd have a situation, you'd have to have a continuous a perpetual use of tattoo parlors from one owner to the next with no gaps in between. But if there are gaps for a certain time period under our code, then the approved use expires and they'd have to come in a new.

So then, then what I'm wondering is, so do we need to put in the motion or in the make a motion or something to say that it's always by appointment only or can't have more than a certain amount of customers. Like I said, in 45 years, all y'all young people will be retired. I'll be gone, dead and gone, but we still will have, y'all will sell it when you get to be my age or a little older or whatever, right? And so someone else will own it. They can keep the same name, so the CUP still stays, right?

I might just point out the hours and the other conditions that you approved should hold. Now, if you make a specific motion to that, that

You know, I don't know how that would work out exactly, but they've made the commitment to that for sure.

And do we really want to tell a business you can only have two customers a day?

Well, I hate doing anything like that, but I'm just saying, like, these are things we're passing that last a long time. And all of us will be retired and or dead.

I'm gonna allow applicant to come forward and I think she wants to, could you please clarify what we're talking about?

Yeah, I do wanna clarify. Part of the reason that other than the zoning restrictions that this is needed is we cannot get a license to operate without it. We are not buying the building from Becky and it's not a building. We're renting out a portion the size of a small apartment One, we are opting to operate essentially off the map. We are not visible by the street. This is like kind of, it's not ideal for your average tattooer. The only reason this works is because we have impeccable reputations. We've been in the town since I was 10 years old. We are very invested in the community. And with my husband being a master naturalist, for those of you who've been on the property, We have bettered every property we have ever been on. We have made it more natural and more safe. I don't think Becky, who is the owner, would sell it or even allow someone else to just come in. And she has no intention of selling anytime soon. And I appreciate that you're calling me young, but I'm not that young. I'm in my 40s. Maybe that feels young to some of you. I will get there in time. But my point being that the amount of effort that it's taken us and the privilege that we've had to even be able to acquire the space while we wait on the city with a bated breath on whether or not we can continue to take care of our family in the way that we're used to. It's a complete privilege and we're only able to do that because of Becky's kindness. I cannot tell you how impossible this situation would be for the average tattooer. This is not your surly sailor tattoo shop. I tattoo predominantly soccer moms. I predominantly tattoo women who work from home on Zoom. I have all clientele that are mostly in my age, my husband tattoos people that are into the things that he's into, that work in the city government, that work on land. I just would ask that when considering these things and thinking about it, to know that we are not your average business model and someone else probably cannot come in and fill our shoes. And so the likelihood of there being continual use to keep the permit going is the most unlikely scenario. And of course we could all get caught up in a ton of what ifs because we all have prejudices and beliefs about tattoo studios. But I would ask that you suspend those and just consider the fact of who's actually in front of you and what we're trying to offer. We both have made art for the community before for different reasons, especially my husband. And I just hope that you can kind of understand the, many humps and hurdles that a shop has to get through because it's not just you guys it's not like we can just open tomorrow even if you approve it we still have to go to the health department we still have to apply with all those things and it just it's not as simple as it might seem as just opening up and operating thank you um i got a question not so much a question maybe um a comment so just following up on on our speaker mr roar the regarding the the neighborhood

But the question that I have, I'm assuming that this property is commercial. Is that correct? For there to be a mixed use. Well, what I'm saying is that we're already there. And so this particular property. right, has a spa in there, right? Now it wants to rent out to an individual that wants to have a tattoo, is that correct? Is that what I'm seeing? But overall, it's a mixed use property. So, um, yeah, I live in a neighborhood myself and I'm, I would be somewhat cause maybe concerned as well. Maybe others would be too with in their own neighborhoods, but we do have already a property that's designated as mixed use with a business there. Now I can, I can understand the concern about traffic and all that being, whether it's now or 45 years from now, but at the same time, I'm going to go back to once again, what do we have before us? And does it fall within the parameters of what needs to be approved at this point in time? You know, I think we can debate this as long as we want to, but, um, I think that for me, it's the, a business as designation is already there mixed use. Um, I, I just don't see a problem with, uh, okay. With, uh, denying this at this point in time.

Okay.

Anybody else ready to vote?

Okay. Let's let's go. Sure. Alison Hart. Hi, Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Right. I'm another cookie. Aye. William Magnet. Aye. Randy Bryan. Yes. Michelle Burleson.

Aye.

Lupe Costilla.

Aye.

Mariah Dunn. Aye. The motion to approve carries.

Okay.

It brings us to questions from the press and public. Do we have anybody for that? It brings us to adjournment. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to adjourn, Chair. And I second.

Okay. Okay. Motion from Commissioner Dunn, second from Commissioner Burleson. Sure. Vote. Lucy Johnson.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.