Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

okay everybody it is two o'clock let's call the august 26 2026 planning commission meeting to order would staff please do a roll call commissioner sanchez president commissioner desuki president commissioner lopez commissioner cooper here commissioner miller commissioner waterstead here commissioner orion here commissioner siegel Here. Commissioner Proffitt.

Present.

Chair Peck. Here. A quorum is present.

Thank you. Can we have the Spanish-English interpreter, please?

Good afternoon. Buenas tardes a todos. Si hay alguien acá presente que necesita escuchar esta junta en español, puede pasar a la cabina de la entrada por sus aparatos. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, today we're gonna have two agendas. We're gonna have the combined hearing agenda. Cases on the combined hearing agenda are cases where staff recommends approval. Uh, planning commission doesn't require further detailed discussion and nobody in the audience has signed up to speak on the item. All those cases will be read into the record in one uniform motion. Anything not on the combined hearing agenda will be on the individual hearing agenda. Those cases will be heard separately before the commission takes any action. So what I have right now is I have everything except for items 10, 12, 14, and 17. Those will be on individual hearing agenda. And items 11, 13, and 15 have been withdrawn.

That is correct.

Great. All right. At this time, we will entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

Motion to approve consent agenda.

I second.

Motion by Commissioner Proffitt. Second by Commissioner Wallerstedt. Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Proffitt? Yes. Commissioner Wellersted? Yes. Commissioner Sanchez? Yes. Commissioner DeSuki? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Commissioner Stegall? Yes. Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Thank you. Item number 10.

Thank you, sir, for that reminder. Good afternoon. Item number 10, landscape variance ending in 0744. Our quick overview, Bill Miller barbecue project number 39800272, located at 4102 North Loop Fort, 1604 East. Unified Development Code Section 35511C6B, irrigation states that an irrigation system will be required on projects when any one of the following are used to meet the requirements of this chapter. An area greater than 2,000 square feet of new landscape. More than 10 trees will be installed. Projects which exceed 4,300 square feet of impervious surface. General information owner applicant, Bill Miller Barbecue. Applicant consultant, Cooper-Lottke Landscape Architecture, Hardship. Due to water conservation and expansive soils, the owner is unable to install the required landscape irrigation system. DSD staff does not support the applicant's request to waive the landscaping irrigation requirements. An irrigation system is required to sustain landscape plantings. The proposed variance fails to meet the intent and spirit of the ordinance. Staff is unable to identify a unique hardship related to this project. Staff recommends denial.

All right. Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? Do they wish to address the commission? Name and address for the record, please.

Daniel Knightsley, 5330 State Highway 151. 78-227-San Antonio. We spoke about this last, so I didn't know where you guys were at at this point, but I was actually at the site, so I didn't have time to bring this. But today we did receive a letter from SAWS, and I was just going to read it to you guys. It's from the Conservation Department, Nathan Riggs, and it's addressed to Carol, my counterpart, who was here last week. Any SAWS customer with an active water account is eligible for rebate offers on their irrigation system. If you were required by an ordinance or code to install an irrigation system at your site, you would immediately be eligible for a rebate from SAWS to permanently remove it. In fact, SAWS just completed several irrigation retirement rebates with your company. Removing the irrigation system saves more than water. Removing the backflow assembly as part of the rebate saves on annual testing costs and expensive repair or replacements. While we are happy to rebate the removal of a brand new irrigation system, it is much more cost effective to avoid installing the irrigation system at all. SAW supports the installation of native, resilient landscapes that can be hand watered under responsible maintenance contract. And it just goes on to say that these rebates range from 2150 to 3650. So this is kind of where we are. We haven't installed the system yet. We're probably going to open at the end of September. And from this letter, if we do install it, we're going to get a rebate to turn it off anyway. So the question is, why do we need to install it at all? Furthermore, we talk about the cost of the installation of the landscaping. So a benefit to us to make sure we maintain it. One, because you'll come and say, you didn't maintain your landscaping, you've got to replace it, or maybe even fine us. Two, we'll have to pay the cost to replace whatever we don't maintain. So that's just where we're at right now.

Thank you very much. Nobody has signed up to speak on this item, so we'll move to Commissioner questions. We'll start on the left with Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Orian? Nothing at this time. No questions.

No questions. Does Bill Miller have a maintenance agreement with the city? Would you be willing to submit a maintenance agreement with the city?

Can you please?

Say that into the microphone.

We would be willing, yes. And staff would be watering the plants.

Just to confirm, you said you will be willing to enter a maintenance agreement with the city and that staff will be watering the plants?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Did that letter from SAWS, as if there is an ordinance, then that's what triggers being eligible for the rebate program? Did I miss, maybe I didn't hear that.

If you had to install it due to an ordinance.

Okay.

Yeah.

Interesting, okay. Just confirming that. No further questions.

Okay.

No questions.

No question. All right. Any further discussion by the commission at this stage? Well, if not, we'll entertain a motion.

I move to deny the applicant's request for an appeal or for variance. Second.

We have a motion for denial by Commissioner Siegel, and the second was Commissioner Cooper. All right. Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Siegel? Yes. Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez? Yes.

No.

Commissioner DeSuki?

No.

Commissioner Lopez?

No.

Commissioner Miller? Commissioner Wallersted? Yes. Commissioner Orian?

No.

Commissioner Proffitt?

No.

Chair Peck?

No.

Motion fails.

Motion to accept the applicant request.

Okay, we have a motion to accept the applicant's request for the variance by Commissioner DeSuki and a second by Commissioner Miller. Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner DeSuki?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cooper?

No.

Commissioner Wallersted? No. Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

No.

Commissioner Proffitt?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Thank you.

presenting let's see 10 12 item 12 landscape variance ending in zero four one nine overview small sliders project number ending in 0648 location 8743 state highway 151 unified development code section 3511 c 6 b irrigation states that an irrigation system will be required on all projects when any one of the following are used to meet the requirements of this chapter An area greater than 2,000 square feet of new landscape. More than 10 trees will be installed. Project which exceed 4,300 square feet of impervious surface. Owner applicant is HGR 151 LLC, applicant by Brown and McDonald. Hardship, due to existing soil conditions, watering restrictions, water conservation and financial hardship, the owner is unable to install the required landscape irrigation system. Staff recommendation, DSD staff does not support the applicant's request to waive the landscaping irrigation requirements. An irrigation system is required to sustain landscape plantings. The proposed variance fails to meet the intent and spirit of the ordinance. Staff is unable to identify a unique hardship related to this project. Staff recommends denial.

Thank you, Mark. Would the applicant like to approach the Commission?

uh... ken brown one ten northeastern port and sweet thirteen eighty five uh... we received that the same letter as the bill miller people did we do have uh... a watering schedule uh... that we have a person responsible at each location uh... we have submitted a uh... maintenance agreement for this site uh... it is in the portal and we're prepared to sign it We have 23 sites that we went through the SAWS program that had already been built and we've taken out the irrigation systems and put in drought tolerant, established those and have watered them, hand watered them. We do follow the rules, we know the rules. We had two last year that the variances were approved administratively. We did the same thing with a management agreement. And now we had three this time, two were in the ETJ, and so those were obviously removed. So we have the one today. We spend about $45,000 to $50,000 on each site for landscaping to comply with the ordinance, and we take it very seriously. I mean, we don't want to replace it, and that's why we do the hand watering as prescribed in the agreement. We think it works, and I think we're saving water, and we're consistent with what SAWS is asking us to do. So I would respectfully request your support, and if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Thank you.

Ken, you said you had a maintenance agreement in the portal already? Was that the portal with SAWS or DSD? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, nobody signed up to speak, so we'll move to Commissioner questions. We'll start on the right this time with Commissioner DeSucchi. No question.

No questions.

No questions. No questions.

What were the hardships that were cited by this applicant again?

Very similar to the previous. the the variances that were granted administratively spoke to expansive soils staff said that they didn't feel like that was unique enough to each individual site ours is economic hardship expansive soils and I can't remember the third one but ours are the same as the previous

But, I mean, they're correct that having expansive soil is not site-specific. It's a geographical condition.

Right.

Yeah.

I agreed with them, and that's when they said if you go to the Planning Commission, which we started this all, sorry, they said you can claim economic hardship. And we think putting in $50,000 worth of landscaping, $50,000 worth of irrigation just to take it out is economic hardship.

So the construction project landscaping will cost $50,000. And the irrigation will cost an additional $50,000? Is that what you're saying?

With installation of key maintenance, yes.

Well, your maintenance is going to have to be done anyway, right? With in-watering, you're going to have to pay somebody to do it.

Not to the irrigation system.

Right. Okay.

That's what I'm, yeah. Thanks.

Commissioner Wellingston?

No questions? Yes.

Just had a recommendation just for the owner. If water is the actual interest, is there any way that Bermuda can be removed from the plan since it's not regulated by the city? I don't believe we have Bermuda in our plans, but if we do, yeah, we will remove them. It's there. And ground cover would just be a competition for the other for the trees and the shrubs. But just a recommendation doesn't you know, it's just if you're on the second is who exactly will be maintaining the who will be watering the trees who will be watering the shrubs? What does that look like? Is that a separate contractor? Is that going to be in house?

That's it's our in house staff.

And what are the other – what are the last two sites that were approved? Was it another – was it the same business, the slides? I'm not familiar with it.

No, it was a – I think they were both IHOPs.

Okay, the most recent was.

Yeah, I think we have pictures.

Thank you. That's what I was hoping, just some – thank you.

Okay, yeah.

No other questions. Thank you. All right, thank you.

No questions.

All right, if there's no more. I have one more question. Sure thing.

So this variance was approved in 2023, but when was this picture taken? Last week. So it was a recent picture?

Yeah, our office is, you can see our office building right there.

Okay.

All right, any other commissioner questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the applicant's request for variance. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Orian.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Sanchez, was it? Yes. Okay. Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSuki?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Wallersted?

No.

Commissioner Siegel?

No.

Commissioner Proffitt?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Item 14.

Item number 14, landscape variance, ending in 0376. overview asco equipment pavilion improvements project number ending in zero nine three two location 1920 southeast loop 410 unified development code section 35 511 c 6b irrigation states that an irrigation system will be required on projects when any one of the following are used to meet the requirements of this chapter An area greater than 2,000 square feet of new landscape, more than 10 trees will be installed, projects which exceed 4,300 square feet of impervious surface. Owner I-40 partner group partnership applicant MP Studio hardship due to location of proposed improvements, location of existing irrigation, and proposed site usage, the owner is unable to install the required landscape irrigation system. Staff recommendation, staff does not support the applicant's request to waive the landscaping irrigation requirements. An irrigation system is required to sustain landscape plantings. The proposed variance fails to meet the intent and spirit of the ordinance. Staff is unable to identify a unique hardship related to this project. Staff recommends denial.

Thanks again, Mark. Is the applicant present? Would they like to address the commission?

My name is Bryce Beckwith. I represent ASCO located at 1920 Southeast Loop 410. And I'm here today to represent the intent to approve a variance for the landscaping, or sorry, for the irrigation for this property. A couple reasons why, one being economic hardship. The location in which we are building this project is about 750 feet behind the existing street frontage building where we have access to irrigation water. And so that is what's posing the economic hardship for the irrigation system itself. And then secondly, the use of this facility that is behind the storefront on the front of the property is for large kind of machinery and construction equipment demonstration. And because of that and kind of the nature of the equipment that's going to be traversing the groundscape in front of the building where we have our landscaping, We believe that the irrigation system would be at risk of damage. And then lastly, we do have, similar to I think the last two applicants, the contract with the city arborist that's been signed for a water management. And we are fully intending to comply with that and obviously would be beholden to you know, the enforcement of that. So that is what I'm here to present today.

Thank you. All right. We'll move to Commissioner questions. We'll start on the left with Commissioner Lopez.

No questions.

Just one question. Who's going to be doing the watering on site?

It will be the ASCO property management team.

Thank you.

No questions.

Don't have any questions this Plan is unique to me because of the distance that the new site will be from where the current water tap is So I'll be supporting this one as opposed to the other ones for that reason No questions No questions No question, okay, there's no more discussion we'll entertain a motion I

Motion to approve applicant's request for irrigation system variance.

I'll second. And a motion for approval of the applicant's request for the variance by Commissioner Proffitt, a second by Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Proffitt? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSuki? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstedt? Yes. Commissioner Orian? Yes. Commissioner Siegel? Yes. Chair Peck? Yes. Motion passes for approval.

Thank you. All right. Item 17.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Clayton Wallace, Interim Principal Planner with Development Services. Item number 17 is a plan amendment amending the Camp Bullis Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Military Area Protection Plan. The applicant is requesting to go from residential state to urban low density residential for an assisted living facility with seven or more residents. We've mailed 14 notices, zero in favor, one in opposition, and there's no registered neighborhood association. Like I said, they're requesting this to go to Urban Load Institute Residential for that use of assisted living with seven more residents. in general staff's position is that we don't want to encourage multi-family expansion into existing residential neighborhoods so we are recommending denial the applicant is here with the property owner i believe we have people signed up to speak as well thank you the applicant like to address the commission

That's not even on. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. Emily Weisler with Killen, Griffin, and Fairman, 10101 Reunion Place, here with Victoria Tejeda. She is a property owner. I'm going to give a brief overview of the context for this request, and then we'll turn it over to Victoria. um so yes the property is located on tp lane you can see it's west of i-10 tb lane dead ends and this is at the southern dead end of tp lane at just south of flint rock which has direct approximate access to the frontage of i-10 this aerial image shows kind of the variety of uses the different lot sizes the different functions of this side this side of i-10 is very different than the east side of i-10 in the development pattern and the land uses there. You can see commercial businesses spread throughout the neighborhood, heavier, more intense commercial uses along the frontage, and then this varied swath of residential uses. And what we are proposing, to be very clear, is a residential use. Zooming in, you can see, again, this is the dead end, southern dead end of TP Lane. Immediately across TP Lane, immediately across the dead end next door, is the Hummingbird Assisted Living Home. And the intent here is to allow for a second location, not functionally an expansion, we're not physically expanding anything, but allow for additional housing to allow the elderly, ideally, to age in place in a safe, caring home. This is just zoomed in more. You can see the existing single family home here. You can see the existing single family home next door and this kind of variety of lot sizes here. This is the actual property boundaries. This property is outside of city limits. There is no zoning. It is in the ETJ just under an acre. The currently in use is residential estate, which residential estate allows for in theory, large lot single families, 10 acres, 25 acres, one acre minimums, or at the lowest end, 20,000 square foot lots. So these are intended for really large lots, really large properties. The farm and ranch designation under residential estate allows for commercial and ag. uses there so with all due respect understanding that the urban low density residential we are requesting is the least intense option residential estate is not the most appropriate for what is actually existing there is a large variety of lot sizes and uses in this area This is a unique request, as passionate as Victoria is about her use and the home that she has built and the way that she serves this community. I am equally passionate about each EJ plan amendments. This is for a military protection area. You can see here this is the JBSA response. We would not be here in front of you if JBSA had an objection. We cannot come before you until JBSA has reviewed because they are the authors of the joint land use study which governs the land use controls in the ETJ. This is from state code, state law, excuse me. the authority to adopt and enforce an ordinance regulating land use in the area in a manner recommended by the most recent joint land use study, which is authored by the military. They are the authors. This was enacted in 2017, and this is our code today. This area, there are two areas, Voters were given the option to be annexed into city limits, which then they would have full standardized zoning and official land use controls like we do have inside city limits, or they can remain in the ETJ and be subject to land use controls governed by the joint land use study and as stated very explicitly in the code in order to protect a military mission. Again, we wouldn't be here if the military had an objection because they are the ones. who have the land use controls here the city is enforcing those but it is very explicitly here to protect the military mission there are lighting sound tree preservation aquifer protection a lot of other controls in place in the etj and as through the et the mpa excuse me this is a copy of the joint land use study which again, we would not be here if the joint land use. I'm gonna quickly go through this. We are asking for low density, urban low density residential. That is the least intense option that we have that maintains, as you can see here, Truly traditional. This allows for all single family, all variety of lot sizes to allow this to remain residential in nature because this is a residential home. This is where people get their mail. This is where people eat. This is where people sleep. This is where people live. People are living here. And again, the residential estate is meant for extremely large load. excuse me extremely large locked single family residential and that's not really what's in play here so the residential estate is not the most appropriate urban low density residential is not inappropriate by any means this is thoroughly compatible and if this was not compatible first and foremost with the military's mission and their protection area and their joint land use study we wouldn't be here asking for your support today and just to clarify The code codifies assisted living facilities. I think facility is a harsh word, assisted living home, but that's what it's codified as. It is allowed in one way, shape, or form in almost every single, with the exception of resource protection, which is the zone zoning district situation, every residential district, because it is a residential use in the staff report it very explicitly claims that they do not support the extension of commercial use this is not a commercial use there are many residential uses that are allowed in non-residential zoning districts that do not inherently make that a non-residential use an apartment is not a non-residential use this assisted living this care home this private care home facility is a residential use and it is allowing people to gracefully and supportively age in place in their communities and that is a housing need that we desperately need to continue to fill and with that respectfully request your support but i'm going to allow victoria

to explain her hi thank you for your time so we currently uh it's my husband and i that own this home and i like to say it as when your mom can no longer age in place um safely in her own home with you guys that's usually when she needs to move out to a safer place and that's usually when she would come to me the only options that there are right now are these really large 80 bed facilities that you don't want your mom in because they smell like urine and they're stinky and they're smelly and they're dark and they're incredibly depressing and so my husband and I who's a physician we tried to build something that was special and unique so when your mom and your grandmother need a home they can live in a neighborhood in a residential setting with home-cooked meals with deer outside their window and hummingbirds and not feel like they're going crazy living in a facility so it's really important our community does need these and I don't believe that we have enough so with further due respect this is exactly what we do so yes it is for seven or more residents it is a home We have the home next door and we're just going to copy and hopefully paste exactly next door what we already have. We had a lot of neighbor support. Actually, a lot of neighbors brought their moms to us who initially weren't in favor of it. And then they saw that it was just a one story home. Nothing scary. It literally looks like this. It's just a one-story home, right, a residential home. And they actually ended up bringing their mom to us when they learned that we were just down the street from them, and mom could live in the neighborhood with them safely in our home. So I do believe that we need more of these, and we don't have enough, so that's our request to you guys. So you can see where it is. It's on a dead end. So it does not disrupt the other neighbors. Nobody's coming through that street. It's just us. There's a dead end. There's nowhere else to go. So no one's coming down that street, which is intentionally why we bought this land, because we don't want to be a disruption to the neighborhood. I recognize that that may be frustrating for people. So we wanted to be a little bit more out of the way. So this is an intentional location. So this is what it would look like. And this is what the inside looks like. It's just a house. And you can see loved ones with their mother. We bathe them. We feed them. We give them showers. We take care of them as they're aging in place through end of life. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. We do have one person signed up to speak, Linda Guerrero. Name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Yes, thank you. My name is Linda Guerrero. My husband George and I live right across the street from where all these changes are going to happen at 8515 Flint Rock Drive. TP, which is the side street, does dead end right where that property is. But the entrance to our little subdivision is only one way. There's no through traffic. You only go in one way, you gotta go out the same way. So it's not like it's set up for any kind of heavy traffic. She's right about that. But it is a one lane unmarked street that the county maintains. When we moved there 27 years ago, there was no infrastructure for us. We had to dig our own water well and dig our own septic tank. And every business that comes in is going to put more strain on it. And I understand she doesn't view it as a business, but she's making money at it because it's a medical business. I understand that. And I have sympathy for elderly people. I took care of my mom in my own home for six months before she died on hospice care. So I understand that. But there's going to be a lot of traffic in and out. They already use the easement for parking. Now, we had a fire maybe, I don't know, five or six years ago down our street. There were eight fire trucks that showed up. Where were they going to go if there was no easement available? Those easements are necessary for utility, for emergency workers, and not for parking. And they use it for parking, and it's just not a good idea. So if they're going to do the same for that one across the street, I don't think it's good for the Bexar County. I don't know. They're going to have to maintain it. The city doesn't maintain it. And what about our water wells? So, you know, I have sympathy for what she wants to do, but I guarantee you that if this was moving in across the street from each and every one of you, you wouldn't like it either. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And that's everybody that signed up to speak, so we'll move to Commissioner questions. We'll start on the right with Commissioner DeSucchi.

Can you run through the current structure number of, no, the number of bedrooms, the number of guests that you host for the existing structure and the future structure that you're going to build?

Existing and future will be exactly the same, identical. Nothing will be changed. It's going to be an exact copy and paste replica of what we have now. The structure is 16 beds. Nobody drives in our home. We don't accept drivers. So if your mom is active and she needs assisted living and she's a driver, she's not a candidate for my home. I'm a little bit more end of life, aging in place. So if they drive, they're not a candidate for me. So there's no 16 car traffic. The traffic or the cars that are there are two staff cars on any given shift. So always two staff cars at any time. We're not medical. We're not a skilled nursing facility. We're not a medical business. None of that. It's literally like mom needs care in a house. Toileting, bathing, grooming. There's nothing medical about what we do. Can you ask, what was the rest of your question besides the structure?

The future building is going to mirror the existing one. Correct. You're adding 16 additional beds?

Correct. That's correct.

Okay.

Yeah, to the new structure. Yeah, so we're not adding on to what we have. It's just copying and pasting that onto the other side of the dead end.

So we're moving towards a 32 at the most residents plus two staff members. Correct. At the maximum capacity. Correct. At single point.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes. And again, there's not 32 cars.

How you respond to the question that just raised about access to the alley and the concern for future, you know, for case of emergencies.

I think that was a great point that she brought up. So we don't park on the easements. I would like to see pictures or videos or photographs where we have parked in the easements. I have, if you see the white concrete, we have more than enough parking. There's two cars right there. You can fit another eight cars just in the front parking lot. So I don't ever have a reason to use an easement unless we have a Christmas party once a year, just like any other neighborhood would use an easement. but I'm not using that on a daily basis. So I don't know why an ambulance or a fire truck, if there were to be one, if there was a fire ever, I don't know why they would not be able to turn around. That has nothing to do with me because I'm only on my lot. I don't go outside of my boundaries. Yeah, by easement I assume, do you mean the streets?

Yeah, can we speak into the microphone up there? Can you please go up to the microphone?

Yeah, we don't use those.

You know, that easement right there, there are no curbs or sidewalks on these properties, none. And so the easement is the area that's left there so that the utility truck, the electrical company, I had to call them out when a vulture landed on the transformer and blew up, and they had to take part of the street because they couldn't fit all on the easement the way it was structured there. So it is cramped. It is a one lane unmarked. no line down the middle of the road county road and it's you're just pushing the space that we do have available there and yes they do come and park on the easements i'm sorry i did not bring any pictures but i will i will start taking them now thank you so are you referring to this the gravel the part before the gravel lot is that the easement you're referring to That is my property. That's my property line.

That is my property line. There's a survey to show that.

Do you have a time where you allow visitors to come in at some point to visit all the guests?

Between 10 to 6. 10 to 6.

10 a.m. to 6 p.m. And usually they come like almost for all the residents or usually?

No, most families don't come. I think once we earn their trust in the first few weeks and they know mom is safe, they're not. I mean, they may become, some come once a month. Every now and then you have someone that may come weekly, but they're not there all day. They're coming in just to check in on her and make sure she had her breakfast and then they leave.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

So the current parking at your current facility is going to accommodate the new facility. That's correct.

We will not touch parking on either side. Meaning these cars would not park on the other and we wouldn't need extra parking.

So you. That's what I'm asking.

Yes.

For 16. Correct. People.

but again they don't drive so yes right but I think I think our focus is on visitors because you know you have like you keep describing moms that are there so sure if you know you had visitors you have a son and a daughter that came in two separate cars you know sometimes more I was asking I guess my question was I'm is asking if the current parking spots are also going to accommodate What you're asking for across the street or it'll have its own but she's saying different I

The new proposed will have its own parking.

That's what I'm asking. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Sorry. And how many spots will it have on the new property?

I like to keep what we have because we have no issues with what we have. We have more than enough. I think it's eight spots is what we have right now. So we probably would do that. If we need to increase, we absolutely can just to keep everything on our lot lines. But we haven't needed to overflow past the eight.

On the new property that you're asking for, There are eight spots on that property. That's what I'm asking. Yes. Okay. Okay.

We will be able to accommodate all of the parking for the second home on the second one. Yes.

Yes. You're welcome.

No questions here.

Okay. Well, these are hypothetical questions because, again, we're dealing with the ETJ. And I do agree with what Emily said, that it's kind of a unique situation. If this was not in the military protection area, we wouldn't be considering this. But our purview is land use. Parking, I think, is related to zoning or UDC regulations, right? So does the city have any...

authority over parking requirements so in terms of the actual permitting aspect um as a part of this they have to get a certificate of compliance with us where where we review the exterior lighting but any other permits would go to the bear county fire marshal we wouldn't we wouldn't be the reviewing body for that so they wouldn't be subject to our parking requirements

So the question about streets and parking is a Bexar County issue, correct?

Correct. And as far as easements go, I mean, there's the right-of-way, but that's the only platted portion that we're aware of. Right.

And then just to kind of continue to cut down the rabbit hole, in your presentation, the slide that shows the permitted uses in the UDC for assisted living facilities, I was unclear because we saw – Residential use and then commercial use. And it said something right there. Well, so assisted living facilities with seven or more residents. Okay. This is our multifamily. Okay.

Or single family under conditional use.

Under conditional use. Okay.

But the non-residential. use has the 16 bed cap for what that's worth i think right but it's a really interesting distinction um the under the residential use matrix it is six or fewer is allowed across the board it is seven or more and the state differential is 16 versus 17 beds that's where the state licensing differential is but that aligns more with

the proposed land use a DESE purpose, right, is that multifamily. So again, I think it's, you know, I think what some of the issues have brought up are not city, are not really related to our bodies, so we kind of don't really have an opinion, but just wanted to point those out, so I don't make my determination from there, but thank you.

Commissioner Siegel.

No, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. This is for the young lady back there. Thank you for saying that. So how long has the other facility been there? And what was the, I'm sure you talked to your neighbors. What is the feedback that you've heard about the existing facility?

Well, when they first were going to do this, the neighbors on the other side across the street from us, we kind of got together, but we didn't have enough money to hire an attorney because we felt this was a violation of the covenants already on the land. You can't have a business now. I know she's saying it's not a business, but if you're making a profit and you're charging money, then it's a business. It's just the way it is. And we didn't want them there because we felt we had to hold on – we didn't violate the covenants so you have to respect them too but they just ignored us and went forward with it and um so no none of us liked it there some may have changed their mind since then but they haven't told me about it the neighbor that lives on that other where you see 8602 the the house that they purchased They used to line up logs right outside their fence and any other thing they could put there to keep the traffic from turning around or parking there. They were so unhappy with it, and they sold out. And I understand. I, too, feel like I've been there 27 years. We're within two years of paying off our mortgage, and we feel like we're being pushed out. We're just being pushed out. And this is our home. This is a neighborhood. You said there's covenants. Do you have an HOA? There was one many years ago back in the 60s, and it died out. It had been an HOA, but HOAs are only in use if you maintain them. You have to pay your fees. By the time we bought the property, there was no HOA in force.

Were there notices sent out?

Notices were sent out. There is not a registered neighborhood association within 200 feet that is distinct from the presence of a homeowners association. So if there were an HOA, they are not registered with the city to receive notice.

But were there any feedback from any of the neighbors?

We did get a letter in opposition, and that was sent to you all earlier today. But that was the only. So out of the 14 notices we mailed, that was the only thing I got back.

No more questions.

How long has the existing living home, how long has that been in operation?

Three years.

And when that was first approached, did you reach out to anybody in the city for tree preservation or inquire on that if that was required?

we yeah i actually i don't know if logan remembers but i remember coming to the city like every single day without stack of questions because it was very new for me and i was trying to figure out what we needed to do so i don't remember that detail i just know that we got all the permits that we needed to be able to move forward and then i think it ended up getting grandfathered in but we did everything according to what the state asked for us because we got a city and county permits

Is the owner going to be required to come in and submit any kind of permitting for tree removal?

Not that I know of. Certainly, if their construction plans involve the removal of tree, our tree ordinance would apply. This may be clarification, Emily, for you. If this facility is only three years old, our ETJ MPA is a lot older than that. So how did they open the initial facility with grandfathering?

September 2019, do you remember me, Logan? I used to come, back when you were working here, I used to come every day with like a stack of questions, because I was trying to find a facility, and I have a whole email thread with you of like, can we open this, can we open that, and I remember you saying like, oh, that's small peanuts, like don't worry, like our plans are much bigger than that, and so we ended up moving forward, and then at that time, we had pulled permits in 2019, septic, all of that, and then I think later in September of 2019, there was some rule that was put out, and basically we got stopped, construction and then I end up getting a call from the city attorney that basically said we're so sorry actually you can get grant you can move forward you're gonna get grandfathered in so notices had already been sent to the neighbors we had kind of gone down that process I don't know if you remember that yeah thank you is there a is there a site plan that you have for the future parking If I'm understanding the question correctly, it's again a copy and paste of what we have. So site plan, everything stays the same. We can add more if we need to, but what we have hasn't been an issue, so it would be a copy and paste across the street.

I'm looking to see what is that parking lot going to look like? Where's the egress going to be? It'll be the same.

It'll just be a mirror of what's already there. I don't know if that answers the question.

Thank you.

all right so can you bring up that uh chart that shows what allowable zoning is is for the in this land use plan so mf18 okay an mf18 can you put a nursing facility there let me take a look the reason why i ask is i'm president of my hoa and we've been having assisted living facilities move into our neighborhood but they're also kind of secretly running as hospices and things that you're not allowed to do in an r6 zoning and so my i'm just curious you know with this land use plan designation the nursing facility right donald Well, I'm wondering if a hospice or a nursing, you know, a skilled nursing is allowed because that's different.

So based on our residential use matrix, nursing facility would be allowed in RM4, MF18, MF25, MF35, MF40, 50, and 65 in ERZD.

Yeah, the assisted living doesn't, you know, that use doesn't bother me. The hospice is a completely different, which would also be allowed with this change. And there's no other alternative other than this land use plan. That's the minimal lease intensive.

This urban low density residential is the lowest multifamily category. If you just look at low density residentials, it's just the Rs. It's none of the RNs. There's no MF. There's nothing that allows for the multifamily aspect.

Okay, yeah, that's what I'm curious about. So that'll be a matter for the UDC amendment to see if there's something we can do to try to put some kind of a limit, but.

So I will say this, the challenge before the commission today is that we are allowed to regulate broad land use categories. If we were inside of city limits, we may have mechanisms to really limit this merely to assisted living, not boarding homes, not the other things. But because this is a function of state law as an alternative to a full annexation, we can regulate the land use category but not the minutia of zoning. So I will tell you right now, without a change in state law, there is no UDC amendment that's going to give

Well, unless you remove MF18 from a skilled nursing or a hospice as a permitted use, that would be what I was thinking. Because that's the one that is causing the ruckus in our community. So that's what I was wondering. But you have no intent to do that? You just want to do assisted living?

Yeah. I mean, that's a totally separate ballpark to be hospice. I mean, that's medical. I'm not medical.

Okay. Just checking. All right. Thank you.

yeah i'll just say that i think this analysis to logan's point would be different if it was in the city and there are I'm a real estate lawyer, so I believe in real estate rights, land rights, and I think our task here is to take a narrow focus about what this particular land use set of rules is about, and that's to protect the Joint Base San Antonio and the military mission. It's not to provide the type of neighborhood protections and interactions that one would enjoy in the city of San Antonio. So my view and all support is this change because I think what we're only trying to do is protect the military. And I don't think there's anything about this request that would endanger that mission.

This may be a dumb question and I think I already know the answer. So there's no mechanism, somebody, I don't remember who, maybe Commissioner Miller, somebody asked about a site plan. There's no mechanism in any form or fashion on down the line for the city to see that, correct?

We will, as part of the certificate of compatibility, we'll review exterior lighting, which often comes in the form of a site plan, but we're not looking at parking requirements, tree requirements. We're not looking at anything else other than exterior lighting.

And that's just the military mission is what that's going back to? Correct. Okay. That was my only question. Any other commissioner questions? If not, we will entertain a motion.

I move to approve the applicant's request. Second. Second.

We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Siegel and a second by Commissioner Cooper.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSuki?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Wallersted? No. Commissioner Orian?

Yes.

Commissioner Proffitt? Yes. Chair Peck? Yes. Motion passes for approval.

Thank you. All right. Is there a director's report?

There is not.

You said no?

No.

Awesome. Thank you. All right. Well, if there's no further business, it is 2.55, and we are adjourned.