It is two o'clock.

Let's call the August 27th Planning Commission meeting to order.

Would staff please do a roll call.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner DeSuki.

Present.

Commissioner Lopez.

Here.

Commissioner Mylam.

Here.

Commissioner Orion.

Here.

Commissioner Bustamante.

Here.

Commissioner Siegel.

Here.

Commissioner Prophet.

Present.

Chair Peck.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we get the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a todos.

Las personas que prefieren escuchar esta audiencia in Espanyol.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh today we'll have two agendas.

We'll have the consent agenda.

Cases that are placed on the consent agenda are cases where staff recommends approval.

The planning commission does not require further detailed discussion, and nobody in the audience is signed to signed up to speak on the item.

Everything on consent will be read into the record in one unified motion.

If someone has signed up to speak on an item, it will be placed on individual hearing agenda.

Second agenda is the individual hearing agenda.

Those cases will be heard individually before a motion is considered.

All right.

So right now, um, so we have uh Commissioner Orion needs to recuse from item six.

Commissioner Bustamonte needs to recuse from item eleven.

Those two will stay on consent and those two can exit the room.

Uh the only thing on individual is item 13.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Awesome.

Thank you.

It is 202, and Commissioner Orion and Commissioner Bustamante have left the meeting.

All right.

So we will move on with consent agenda.

If there's any questions, comments, or a motion.

I move to approve consent agenda.

Second.

Staff please do roll call.

Commissioner Prophet.

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia.

Yes.

Commissioner Dezucki.

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Yes.

Commissioner Mylam.

Yes.

Chair Pro Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Someone please let the two commissioners know they can come back.

All right.

It is 202.

And Commissioner Orion and Commissioner Bustamante have re-entered the meeting.

Um we will move on to item 13.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Clayton Wallace, interim planning or principal planner with development services.

Item number 13 is a request for approval of a resolution to amend the Camp Bullist extra territorial jurisdiction military protection land use plan from low density residential to community commercial located at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail.

There were 15 notices mailed, seven in support, two opposed within two hundred feet.

Outside the 200 feet, 46 were opposed, one in support.

Community commercial is intended to be located in proximity to major enter intersections and along existing commercial corridors.

While the event venue itself could be compatible with the existing neighborhood, it's the other uses that are allowed in community commercial that would be detrimental to the existing character of the neighborhood.

With no way to limit the specific use through zoning, staff recommends deny the request.

JBSA has reviewed for condition it's detrimental to their ongoing mission and does not object to the proposed plan amendment and has provided their standard comments about development and the MLOD.

Staff recommends to Mile and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Clayton.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Emily Weissler with Killing Griffin and Fairman, 10101, Reunion Place, Suite 250 here on behalf of the property owners, um, who are also here.

Rico and Genevieve are also here with us.

So if you have questions for them, um they are here.

Um so yes, as staff mentioned, this property is at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail.

Um this I really like this aerial image.

Um you can see Bernie Stage Road to the east, scenic loop to the west, cross mountain trail goes across and connects between the two.

This property, this eight and a half acre property is on the south side of Cross Mountain Trail.

And I think it's really important to note that while this is a residential community out here cross mountain ranch, where this property is located is eight and a half acres.

You can see in stark contrast to Goodnight Loving, Central Prairie, Up Mountain Road, where those are really defined, very obvious concentrations of residential, and that's not what you have in and around where this actual property is located.

This is a zoomed-in aerial.

This is an existing micro wedding venue.

It's been in operation for over a year.

When the owner started this, they were told by the county that if they were residents of the property, which they are, they live and own there, that this was not commercial.

That narrative has changed, and here we are.

So, but um, this is the micro venue right here.

Um, this is their existing single family home with their family at Adams Crossing and Cross Mountain Trail.

Um, our plan amendment does not include their single family residence, so it's just for the eight and a half acres, not the total 11 that they own, but just the eight and a half acres with the micro venue on it.

Uh, this is another aerial image.

Um, as staff engine, this is outside city limits.

There is no zoning here, which limits our options on what we can request.

Um, but um let me scooch forward.

This is the plan amendment map.

Um, this property is within the Camp Bullis ETJ military protection area plan.

This is not a traditional plan amendment to a sector plan or a community plan or a regional center area plan.

This is a very limited scope plan amendment tied to the protection of the military's mission.

Um, not here to argue that low density residential is inappropriate.

Um, we are having to ask for community commercial because that is our only option to allow the existing venue that has been there for over a year without issue to remain in operation.

Um you can see just to the east, um, these are very large parcels, that's why it's kind of zoomed out.

Um, there's urban mixed use in the area.

Community commercial is our only option.

We understand that there are concerns with other uses that may be permitted under community commercial.

There are plenty of concerns about uses that are not permitted otherwise.

An outdoor live music venue, a bar, those are things that can't be permitted with either designation on the table today.

Um, but we are more than happy to continue to work with our neighbors and the community on restrictive covenants.

I understand that's outside of your purview, but that is our only functional way to limit those uses, and we are more than happy to limit those uses and take those less desired uses off the table.

So the Vineyo 88 is the existing micro wedding venue, micro venue, meaning less than 100 people indoors, 120 total capacity.

We are talking about 2600 square feet of outdoor space, 1500 square feet of covered space.

This is a very small, very controlled, uh very limited venue.

It has been in operation for over a year without issue.

Um, and we're not looking to change anything.

We're not looking to expand, we're just looking to being able to continue to operate.

Um, there are several other wedding venues in and around the area with importance noting.

You can see venue 88 up here at the north, um, the divide at Scenic Loop and excuse me, Babcock, the Villa at Cielo Vista, Lascondita, the Scenic Springs, and I note these because these are also in areas that have nearby residents, um, and that they're operational.

This is a very, very small venue.

Um, again, we're not looking to expand that.

Um, we're just looking to be able to continue to operate.

So really want to focus on community commercial is our only option.

Um, that is the least intense option that we can ask for to allow the venue to continue operating.

But again, this is not a um a plan amendment in the traditional sense, there is no zoning attached to it.

This is very, very specific to the city's authority to regulate land use with respect in five miles of the military base.

Um before I really get to this is that map again.

Um, Rico and Genevieve have done a lot of engagement with their neighbors and really focused on the folks that are most in direct proximity to the property, most immediately impacted by the venue.

Um, and we have that support around us.

So the city's authority, um, this is from the 2017 legislature.

City is authority is limited to controlling land use in the ETJ within five miles of the base in protection of the military's mission and the military installation.

The voters in this area had the opportunity to be annexed, where zoning would be in play, city would have full authority, um, or have these military land use controls in place.

Um, and the code is very clear that what the parameters of this plan amendment um and these land use controls are in order to protect a military mission.

And I understand that it is hard to take off the hat uh of traditional planning, traditional zoning, and look at this, um, but this is governed by the joint land use study um by Camp Bullis, um, which is done to identify, address, and resolve encroachment issues with the military and civilian to prevent irresponsible growth, make sure incompatible uses are not there.

But this is governed by the joint land use study by Camp Bullis, which is done to identify, address, and resolve encroachment issues with the military and civilian to prevent irresponsible growth, make sure incompatible uses are not there.

This is these applications cannot move forward before you guys without a JBSA response, and quite honestly, without a JBSA response of no objection.

Wouldn't be here if JBHBSA had an objection to the request.

JBSA does not object to this request.

Even in the staff report, it mentions incompatible land uses in the vicinity of JBSA are minimized in order to safeguard operation operational military mission requirements.

It's a very limited scope.

We would ask for something less intense if we could.

We are happy to restrict those less than desired uses on the property and limit it just to the venue that already exists and has been in operation for a year.

But respectfully request your support in line with JBSA, in line with their joint land use study, and in line with the city's authority to regulate land use here.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emily.

Okay, we have several people signed up to speak on this item.

First on the list is Sheila Mira.

If you could Sheila here.

If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes.

I'm Sheila Gomez.

I don't know.

I won't get to three minutes.

I'm Sheila Gomez Mira, and I live in East Range.

Um the reason most people moved out of the Ma'am, can you please provide your address?

Oh, sorry.

22626 East Range, 78255.

We moved there, I think 22, 23 years ago.

Most people moved out there because they love, they love the lay of the land, they love the quietness, the beauty of the landscapes, the birds, the nature that you can see.

The fact that we don't have uh we don't request lights on the streets at night means we can see the sky at night, which is getting less and less every time you build commercial things or anything.

Um the rim, we lost a lot of that.

La Cantera, we lost also a lot of that.

Um if you have if you have this this thing, you're going to have people coming.

We we are supposed to be a non-entry.

You can't go in and out.

But you're gonna have people coming into this venue.

And I this venue, which is gonna have maybe um uh a liquor store, it said, or a shop or something like that.

You're gonna have a lot more people coming into the area.

You're going to have a great great deal of volume coming in.

You're gonna have lots of extra noise.

Um we're a we're a small community.

People walk their dogs along the road.

I can see people rushing into the liquor store to get something for their evening entertainment.

Have around three minutes.

I so the lighting, the noise, um, the amount of traffic.

And it seems to me that when people start building on commercial property, they build more and more and more.

And it doesn't just stay at that.

How can we be sure that that's going to just stay in that area?

And the rest of us living in the low density uh housing will be left in peace.

That's what I want.

That's what I that's what we moved out here for.

And I don't want to lose that.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next is George Richmond.

George Richmond, 22830, Central Prairie.

Uh I've lived in Cross Mountain for 37 years and no plans on moving.

I was president of the homeowner's association in the distant past.

I've witnessed the growth of Cross Mountain and especially the area surrounding Cross Mountain.

Cross Mountain is a quiet community and has been a great place to live and raise our family.

I strongly object to what is being proposed.

Appreciate the opportunity to listen to me.

Cross Mountain is a real community with one to three acre lots with uh low density.

99% of the homes are surrounded by other homes, although there's roughly just a 100-yard section uh of non-cross mountain property bordering cross mountain trail.

This 100 yards is mainly used for entrances to other private homes, not legally in Cross Mountain.

However, you should not be allowed to run commercial businesses within it within the community boundaries.

They may not have to follow HOA rules, but based upon the proximity of the residential area and on many sides should not deviate to the extent of what's being requested.

The area cannot tolerate event venues, oil change, lubes, tire sales, which is the category that they're requesting.

This would destroy the community environment, lead to diminished property values and be dangerous as is noted below.

Essentially, all the homeowners in Cross Mountain live off of a water well.

We've been in a drought for the past many years.

I've learned over the past several months a number of homeowners whose wells have gone dry and had to drill new wells.

Some are still trucking in water from the outside at $600 a week to fill the storage tanks.

It's my assumption that this property in question also operates on a water well.

The community cannot tolerate high volume usage of water in this area.

Cross mountain vehicle traffic has been significantly increased over the many years.

There's been significant residential development off the Cine Cloop Road, and Cross Mountain Trail has been a shortcut to get to these areas.

There's been various accidents on Cross Mountain that I will uh also Cross Mountain Trail that I'll uh detail below.

There's been significant speeding issues on the road as well.

Based upon the the county, I believe, they put up two stop signs along Cross Mountain Trail to slow down traffic.

They've also installed uh meters to uh assess your speed.

Cross Mountain Trail recently has been designated a no-through traffic zone uh as noted by the sign entering Cross Mountain Trail off of Burning Stage Road.

Changing the zoning of the lot in question will significantly increase the volume of traffic and go against what the city or the county is concerned about on traffic on that road already.

The address in question is right between two very significant curves or turns in the road, both a curvy 90-degree turn.

The first 90-degree turn coming off a Burning Stage Road is less than three-tenths of a mile from this lot.

The other curve is actually at the property in question.

About a year or two ago, from what I understand, there was a multi-vehicle accident and destroyed the mailbox at 8877 Cross Mountain Trail.

This location is less than a tenth of a mile from the lot in question.

There was another wreck on a curve closer to Burning Stage Road less than a couple of months ago.

The lot in question is in the most dangerous area, in my opinion, of Cross Mountain Trail due to the curves.

The rest of Cross Mountain Trail is relatively straight.

Any commercial business will only increase the risk of the residents of Cross Mountain Ranch and those using Cross Mountain Trail for other reasons.

These are the points, and my time is up, and I thank you very much for listening.

Thank you.

Next is Judge Edward Butler.

Good afternoon.

I'm Edward Butler.

Live at 8830 Cross Mountain Trail, one lot between me and the property in question.

Hold on, sir.

We want to get the beeper stuff here.

Some welcome.

There you go.

Sorry about that.

First of all, I want to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for taking your time to do this job for the community.

I'm going to tell you a little bit about Cross Mountain Ranch subdivision because you probably don't know about it.

I it's a it's a wooded retreat.

I think on our lot, we have over 200 trees.

The minimum square foot for any home is 2,000 square feet.

The homes run between 500,000 and 2 million dollars.

So to think about putting a commercial enterprise in the midst of this residential area is anathema to those of us who live in the area.

I also want to comment, you may have heard me earlier.

We're listed as a low density residential area, which is three to twelve homes per acre.

You have a listing residential estate, up to two dwellings per acre.

Yet our subdivision is two acres per dwelling.

Shouldn't be any commercial.

Now it says in here that under the category they seek, there could be oil, lube, and tune shops, tire sales, liquor stores, large-scale retail gas stations.

Can you imagine the traffic on this single lane road?

Just last week, we had a delivery truck on this single lane road, and his rear tire went off in the gravel and he went into the ditch beside the road.

So this is not the kind of area that would be conducive to this area.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, Robin Butler.

You could run over me.

Robin Butler, I live at 8830, Cross Mountain Trail.

We have been there 27 years, and we've watched some changes there.

I I believe everybody has freedom to do what they want on their property.

But you can't noise.

We're very close to the venue.

We can sit on our deck and we can hear them when they're having a venue.

And you hear loud music, and I think it sometimes we go, oh my gosh, we have to go inside.

We can't stay on our own patio because there's so much noise coming from the venue.

So I just don't think you can do whatever you want on your own property without considering your neighbors that have lived there.

So and there's so many deer, the deer that run out in front of cars and trucks.

It's just asking to have one more accident after another.

We have sat out there and heard uh a car just not make that uh curve and crash.

And everybody went, oh my gosh, call 911, somebody has just crashed.

And that happens.

We we've heard it a lot.

So it's dangerous where they want to do this.

Very dangerous already.

So thank you.

Thank you for hearing us.

As you can tell, we're a little upset that this could happen to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Massey.

I'm Mary Massey.

I moved into Cross Mountain Ranch at 23724 up mountain trail and moved in in 93.

So that makes me a resident for third for 33 years now.

32.

And I'm opposed to for four reasons.

The first one is safety.

Um, everyone's addressed the road safety.

In addition, during the venue, it is not correct that it has not that it has caused problems in the neighborhood.

I'm aware of two instances.

One where someone came out drunk and um almost hit one of my neighbors in the car, and the other one where there's some drunk teenagers hanging out on the road in the middle of the night about 2 a.m.

and almost got hit by the blind curve.

The curve itself that they mentioned has a 20 mile an hour speed limit through that area, the rest of the neighborhood is at 30.

The second reason I oppose it is because it overloads our public infrastructure.

It is impossible to expand the size of that road or to straighten it out.

The topography of the area is hilly and curved, and it did there just isn't any more room.

And the third reason is that it reduces the revenue for the county.

That venue of eight acres pays a revenue of about five thousand dollars of property taxes a year.

My house alone is at 11,000.

So if you look at the reduced property values once this big commercial venture goes in, the entire neighbor would will drop in value price.

And then the last, quite a number of my neighbors and me are very concerned about the aesthetics of the area.

And if you have this in the middle of the neighborhood, you've got an entire difference in what the neighborhood value system is.

It separates the north and the south sections of the neighborhood, and we can no longer walk across the street.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Richard Camaro.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks for allowing us to speak on this issue.

Just raise it up a little bit.

My name is Richard Camaro, as you mentioned.

Uh I have a property uh on Adams Crossing.

Pardon?

23137 Adams Crossing.

And uh everybody else has already pretty much spoken on most of the the main topics.

But the one uh topic that I'd like to reiterate on is just the safety of having more vehicles coming out of this particular area.

Uh cross mountain trail is a two-lane roadway with no shoulders.

It's a windy road, it's 30 mile per hour, like somebody else has already mentioned.

And uh this particular location is a limited side distance issue.

And if if I know that this property is a venue now, but in the future it could uh increase the the type of commercial usage and increase the amount of volume through that area, and that roadway can't even handle the amount of traffic and speed that people are using it at this time.

So I just think that um if it were to be approved that the safety concerns need to be addressed along with the limited ride of way, and if it were to be expanded, uh there's a lot of trees, there's ditches, there's uh there's challenges, let's say, in order to expand the roadway if if it gets expanded as it might need in the future.

Thank you.

Okay, uh Natalie Nathan is it.

Good afternoon.

I'm Natalie Nathan, and my address is 23225 Eagle Gap.

I'm very emotional about the situation.

My husband and I bought our house in Cross Mountain Ranch 13 years ago, and we bought it with the idea of it being our forever home.

He was a prominent surgeon here in San Antonio, and unfortunately passed away after we bought the home.

But we bought the home because it was a wonderful place when we used to ride our bikes and rock marathons, and it was a training place, and we had animals.

That's my nickname, Snow White, because we're a refuge for animals cross mountain ranch.

I have a resilient land tortoise.

There are people there that have horses, goats, chickens, all kinds of animals, and it was a lovely, lovely place, and that's why people live there.

Just about, yes, the trees, and it's beautiful, but we protect animals, and it's two, three miles away from I-10, which was a great, great shot from my husband to go to the medical center.

But it's a beautiful, beautiful place.

A place that families live, a place where we protect animals, and I just have a really hard time understanding why one person or one company, whoever they are, they own a house and they decide they want to make a property until wedding or a special event venue next door.

I just I don't understand that.

If they can do it where we live, then what's to stop it from happening in other neighborhoods?

Because that's why we have neighborhoods.

And I know this lovely lady behind me talked about the property taxes we pay.

We pay a lot.

I pay over 10,000 for my property taxes, and I'm a widow.

And these people are gonna maybe pay 5,000 and have a wedding, and they're also marketing it as a um glamping.

So they're also trying to promote having people come out there to do camping and um spend weekends and have weekend parties.

That speaks to how beautiful the place is that we live, but I don't think it's appropriate for one couple company, however, they've set themselves up to disrupt a whole community.

And I really really appreciate your consideration and thinking about this as it's a community.

Community for animals and people.

Thank you.

Okay, uh Lee Kyle Kyle Keel.

Rile.

Oh sorry.

First of all, thank you for letting us come out today.

I I think I might be the last speaker.

Uh my name is Lee.

Last name is Ryle.

I live at 9015 Cross Mountain Trail.

I've been a resident in Cross Mountain for 34 years.

We bought there many years ago.

It's a very nice place to live.

I don't know if you've ever been there or visited.

I think the testimony from all the residents will give you an idea of what it's like in Cross Mountain.

Um, the reasons that we can't move forward with this the situation, this zoning request is because of uh the traffic on Cross Mountain in the last 10 years has gone up dramatically.

Um we've had um many issues.

And they certainly don't bike on Cross Mountain anymore.

It's because of the traffic that's running through the neighborhood.

If you agree to this proposal, that's going to cause more traffic, more issues, more concerns, which leads us to safety.

About we had a truck that came through and down Cross Mountain Ranch or Cross Mountain Trail.

The trailer turned over, it was full of rebar.

I think y'all might have a picture of that, you guys.

There it is right there.

That happened on our road.

Quarter mile from my house.

Now, if you've been walking along Cross Mountain Trail there, what do you think would have happened?

If he had been turning the other way, and there are many turns on Cross Mountain, that trailer would have turned over, going the other direction, probably would have hit somebody head on, seriously injured them or killed them.

That's what we're dealing with in Cross Mountain right now.

Approving this will make us less safe in Cross Mountain Ranch.

Equally as important as the environmental issues.

Any commercial building of any type is gonna have a negative environmental footprint, whether it's runoff from hazardous materials or oil spills or uh coolant spills, you name it, that's gonna happen.

It happens inherently.

As a result, the environmental footprint that they will leave.

They can say, hey, it's only for a wedding venue, or it's only for a little party every now and then.

The reality is once you change it to C2, then anything can go in there.

Oil change, who wants a discount tire sitting on Cross Mountain Trail?

I don't think any of you would want that.

We certainly don't.

Wildlife.

Some of the folks have talked about wildlife.

We have everything from white-tailed deer, cotton tail bunnies, porcupines, raccoons, uh hawks, Cooper's hawks.

Uh last night, believe it or not, on cue last night outside our bedroom with a hoot out.

We haven't seen one or heard heard of one like three years, but there he was hooting outside my window, woke up my wife, didn't wake me up.

But that's what we're dealing with here.

It's not just houses and land.

The Bear County situation.

Bear County has done a great job of installing uh stop signs.

Um through traffic signs and solar-powered uh traffic signals for us or speed limit signs.

They've done a lot for our neighborhood to mitigate traffic, not to increase it.

As a result, you should vote no for this proposal.

Water.

If not, okay.

Sorry, sir, that's three minutes.

Thank you.

I only have two more things.

That's three minutes, sorry.

She didn't get well.

The applicant is allowed as much time as they need.

The last thing is homeowner values.

Yes, sir.

Please say don't okay.

That is everyone signed up to speak.

Uh we will close the public hearing and move on to commissioner questions.

Uh first I want to give uh Emily a chance to rebut.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I'll be very brief.

I have Genevieve with me, uh, one of the owners.

Um so just wanted to say a couple of quick things.

Again, this is a military plan amendment protection area.

Um, so uh a very limited scope here.

Um County has done a lot of improvements on the road there.

Um, this is an existing wedding venue, so um we are just looking to continue to operate it.

This is one, maybe one and a half uh weddings a month.

This is very low traffic, um, extremely low water usage.

This property is not irrigated.

This is eight and a half acres um with less than five thousand square feet of improvements.

Um Genevieve and uh Rico were married here, did their Val renewals here, and would like to be able to continue to share this beautiful space that is very secluded, private, wooded, um, and predominantly in its natural state with other people.

Um Jennifer Hello everybody.

My name is Genevieve Zayas.

I am the owner of the property in question, along with my husband Ramon Zayas.

Um we moved to your address.

8860, Cross Mountain Trail, lot number eight.

Uh we moved to Cross Mountain Trail in 2008 with our then 11-year-old daughter.

She called it the ranch house.

Um it was always our dream to own a beautiful piece of land with a pool for my daughter and a separate space for my very independent loving mother-in-law with a Catholic church nearby.

And her husband.

However, we had to find something to help cover the cost of such a large purchase for a family like ours from humble beginnings.

We told them our vision of offering glamping and to build a small venue on our property so that one day we may renew our vows.

People attending our events have never parked outside of our walls, and we have never hosted any minors at our venue without parental supervision, and most of our events have stopped at 10 o'clock PM.

We have not had one noise complaint from any of our neighbors.

This is our forever home.

We will see each other at the next HOA meeting at HEB at church.

Our daughters will inherit our property.

Are we allowed to do that?

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll move on to Commissioner questions, and we'll start with Commissioner Mylam.

Ma'am, please there were a lot of errors in which you decide.

Okay, that's fine.

But the public hearing is over.

Please remain silent.

Commissioner Mylan, questions.

Commissioner Marlum, can you hear us?

Commissioner Mylam, can you try and uh speak for us really quick?

Commissioner Mylam, can you hear us?

I can hear you.

Can you hear me?

We can now, but it's very faint.

Okay.

How about we try to get that resolved and we'll come back to Commissioner Milan?

We'll start with Commissioner Dosuki.

What stopped the operations of the venue after a year?

And why you are here today for amendments?

So the operations, there's not a wedding happening, you know, obviously right now today, but the operations haven't stopped.

Um we are in pursuit of the permit through the county, um, which requires that we proceed with the plan amendment prior to that.

Um but the the functional operation has not stopped.

We're still in pursuit of the permit.

So you were able to operate without permit at this point.

So when they built this venue, when they built this venue, they worked for the county fire marshal's office and were told that as long as they resided on the property that it was not commercialized.

Um that was the advice they were given.

They've been operating without issues since.

Um and then recently that narrative has shifted.

Um they were informed that there are land use controls attached to being within five miles of the military base, and they needed a certificate of compliance um compatibility uh from the city for the plan designation, and so that's what's triggering the plan amendment.

Uh question to the uh the amendment in front of me here is to community commercial, and there have been some talk about the C2.

Commercial zoning.

That request would cover the eight plus acreage for that C2 to be granted.

It is not a portion of that parcel.

It's the whole thing.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So there the request for the community commercials for the whole parcel, not a portion of it.

Okay.

Thank you.

No further question.

And just for clarification, there is no zoning because of DTJ.

So the C2 isn't there's no C2.

It its use is allowed in C2.

That would be allowed in community commercial.

Commissioner Prophet Yeah, it's good to see a lot of the community out here and obviously very passionate about your community, which uh I wholeheartedly respect.

You know, it kind of seems like the issue or one of the issues is what the property is and what it could be.

So I hear we hear a lot of talk about other commercial uses and from our perspective, um, you know, we're considering the land use.

So I mean that is a bit of a concern from my perspective.

If if we put it community commercial, it could be uh sold and developed as something else.

But um Ms.

Weissar, is there is there something that the owner can do that would provide some sort of uh covenants or restrictions against any type of uses other than the venue?

Yes, and we're very happy to do that.

Um so whether that's with Cross Mountain Range HOA or another AGOA, um that's a willing party holding party for the covenants.

Um we are more than happy to that is our only function, unfortunately.

That's our only way to limit those uses.

Um legally, the city doesn't have any sort of function here um to do that.

We don't have a conditional use site plan or anything like that.

Um but we are happily um willing to enter into restrictive covenants to limit those uses on the property.

Um so things like a liquor store cannot go there.

We're happy to do that.

And the level of community engagement, are they is the community aware of that option of of restrictions?

I mean, has there been discussions with the neighbors?

Um I haven't been a part of those discussions, um, but there's been there's been a lot of community engagement and a lot of discussion.

Um, and um we're happy to continue to have that.

Um this is as you guys know, public hearings are always a really good opportunity to get some FaceTime with people where maybe outreach hasn't been successful or engagement hasn't been um reciprocated.

So um this is a really good opportunity um to continue to have those conversations and we are going to continue to have those conversations.

You know, the the questions of roads and all that, again, I I don't necessarily think that it's directly related to this venue.

Um in its current land use designation, um if this was to be developed as residential, how many units of residential could be potentially before?

So um low density residential um staff correct me if I'm completely wrong, but I believe it's the equivalent of R4, 4,000 square foot lots, um, over eight and a half acres.

Um George would probably be better at that math um than I am.

Um but I mean I think roughly 40, 60 residential homes um single family manufactured, HUD code manufactured as well.

So those are so my you know, my question is that you know if that was done, then what you know, what would be the impact to the roads, to the water, to the to the life uh to the to the wildlife, et cetera.

Uh question for staff.

Um what is the interplay?

This is a very unique thing for the planning commission to consider, and the only reason we're taking it up is because of the proximity to Camp Bullis.

Um we do understand that uh joint base San Antonio is not in uh a position, they want to preserve their mission with the downlighting noise, et cetera.

Um what is the interplay with if if does the fire marshal need the city's plan amendment change to issue the certificate of compliance or whatever they refer to?

I mean, I know that you can't really speak on behalf of the county.

I'm just trying to understand.

Uh so um our portion of this and the ETG MPA is that certificate of compatibility.

So typically when we we catch that is an applicant is that permitting with Bear County.

So commercial, industrial, multifamily, um anything that has to pull permits with the Bear County's fire marshal's office in this area requires a certificate of compatibility.

So we'll review the lighting on the land use designation to ensure it complies with the ETJMPA and the ML the MLOD in the area.

Um other than that, like building requirements is totally with the county.

So single family residential doesn't require permits with Bear County.

So that's probably where this originally, like what Emily is saying, where it originally was allowed to go.

Um but that's typically where it comes into play, is at permitting.

It's a part of the permit process in Bear County.

So if this was originally developed as commercial, it would have been caught in the permitting initially.

Okay.

All right.

Well thank you.

Uh again, thanks for the community involvement.

Thank you, Ms.

Westler.

Um no further questions or comments.

Okay.

Commissioner Siegel?

Chair, can we pause for a minute just to check uh Commissioner's Commissioner Mylam's audio?

Sure.

I think it's coming off the computer.

It's coming off the computer.

I can I can hear it, but it's really faint, and I don't know if it would make the recording.

Can they have removed one mics?

Is it asked?

Can you hear us, Commissioner Mylan?

Okay, now we can't hear it all.

Commissioner Milan, can you hear us?

Can you say something?

We're trying to test your end.

Okay, she now.

Say something again, Commissioner Milan.

Nope.

Okay.

For the record, it is 247.

Commissioner Siegel is leaving the meeting.

Commissioner, can you hear us?

Can you try to take a speaker to us one more time?

I can hear you fine.

Yes.

I can hear you.

All right.

Now we'll go to Commissioner Mylam for questions before it breaks again.

Any questions, Commissioner Milan?

Um I don't have any specific questions.

This is a very I I think I understand that the county said everything was fine based on the fact that they were doing this on their own land.

And I don't quite understand how that came to our purview at that point and not before, since they've been in operation for over a year.

Um it's it's very confusing, I guess.

And I I understand that all of the neighbors are very confused too, and that there's been a lot of engagement with it.

I haven't heard a whole lot about how the owners have reached out to uh meet with the HOA to create covenants and to see if that would be okay.

And I I wonder if maybe that could possibly happen first and then bring it back to us.

I mean, I guess that's a question for the applicant.

Um they're willing to do that.

At least put it on the table.

Uh the short answer is yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Um we're happy to enter those covenants.

We're happy to have those conversations if the commission would like us to come back and report on that again.

I realize that covenants are not strictly within your approview.

Um, we have to have a willing party, but we're we're we're willing to do that.

Okay.

Just to clarify is that it can continuance.

Or if the commission would like a continuance, the commission recommends, yeah.

Okay.

Any further questions, Commissioner Mylon?

No, no further questions or comments.

Thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Garcia.

My concern is for staff.

Uh have you all been in touch with the Air Force in terms of this?

Did they initiate it?

Are you all initiated?

They're so as part of this process, we do have to get a letter from JBSA.

Um so we reach out to uh Joint Base San Antonio when we get an application for a plan amendment, and then we have to get a response back before we can proceed with anything.

So they did respond that they don't object to the overall request, but they typically don't object to any of these requests.

Thank you.

Commissioner Orion.

All right.

So first of all is for staff, is there is there a registered uh neighbors uh homeowner association for this area?

There's an HOA, but it's not registered with the city since it's in the ETJ.

Okay.

So a question for the applicant.

Um is he is is the HOA it's a mandatory HOA from what I understand?

Are you is there are are you all aware of that?

Um yes, but this property in question is not part of those boundaries.

Okay, because uh and that's why I'm a little confused because uh in the in the report it shows that this is in unit one of of Cross Mountain.

And I found deed restrictions for unit one for Cross Mountain that don't appear to have expired or are expired in it and and the way they're written, it it just looks like that there are deed restrictions that would uh uh make this aneligible for any sort of a commercial entity or for replatting uh for that matter without going through the HOA.

So is there an HOA that this is over?

I mean, I really it looks like there is.

Because it this is in unit one, correct?

Yes, better than me check my other file.

Yeah, I'm I'm looking uh it's an instrument dated April 12th of 2011.

I would like to see that.

No, I'm I'm I'm okay.

Uh but it has uh it's volume 14928, page 553, and this thing says it encompasses all of unit one, and that's that's what I'm confused at, because it looks like it predates unit one or it's created after unit one.

So I just want to make sure whether or not you are in an HOA.

And if so, and if so, should I would like me personally, if you were to come back after a continuance, I would like to see you go through the ACC process as outlined in those restrictions if you are subject to that.

And happy to get into more detail on the boundaries, but this eight and a half acres, so um the size's own um over eleven acres here, um, where their existing single family home um is subject to those restrictions.

This eight and a half acres is not part of those boundaries, is not subject to those restrictions.

Um but that's again part of the reason we are willing to encumber the property with restrictions um to limit those kind of undesirable uses.

Okay, so this so this is not part of the it's not part of the unit one.

It's it's just an outside of cross mountain.

Correct.

This eight and a half acres.

And it's not part of uh any of the cross mountain units.

Because there's different restrictions recorded for unit five, unit three, unit eleven.

Yes.

Okay.

I I would just like some clarification on that, you know, personally.

And so the this request is not in any way using the existing lot that is within unit one as part of the conduction of the business.

It's a separate lot.

Okay.

And then for staff, um I know that the the zoning commission can and and city council can ask for covenants and restrictions.

And can we when when we're looking at amendment of a plan, I know this is kind of an extreme thing, but can we create a new use that wouldn't allow C2 or some aspect of what everyone's against so that we could we could potentially consider something that isn't going to include something intensive?

So this plan was created um back in 2019.

Um I want to say through probably the planning department.

Um so this is not uh you know, creating a whole new category in that plan would not be under our jurisdiction.

I'm just gonna do that.

So it's yeah, it would be the planning department, I believe.

Okay.

That's correct.

That would most likely cause some sort of city council action to change the plan itself.

I'm just wondering.

I'm looking for some option avenue that we could entertain.

But uh those are the questions I had, is that if this does come back, I would like to see some real information on whether or not this isn't an HOA, how if there is any involvement with the HOA and to have make see engagement from them.

Uh right, that's all I have.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Orion.

Commissioner Sanchez?

No questions.

Commissioner Lopez?

No questions.

Commissioner Bustamante?

I believe Commissioner Profit asked the questions I was gonna ask.

So no questions.

And I will reiterate that.

Commissioner Prophet had a very thorough set of questions that he wrote down over here.

And uh also uh learned a lot from Donald.

So I don't have any further questions other than what's already been asked.

Um Is there any more questions from those commissioners that have already spoken to?

It's not the question, it's just a comment.

Uh I have uh 46 opposition here in writing, and I have five six people showed up today in opposition to this.

I would love for the applicant to have the time to spend to work with the neighbors on how we can resolve this.

Try to find an agreement to solve some of the issues of the homeowner association if it exists, and I would like to see a continuous in this.

Uh next time.

Uh just to have a confidence on which direction I should vote for.

I do actually have one question.

So the property that contains the venue currently.

Is it different than so is it platted currently?

I'm assuming so.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And is it the same lot or is it a separate lot than the parcel that contains the residents?

Separate from the resident.

So it's separate.

It's separate from the residents.

So they own so the home itself is right here at the corner of Adams Crossing and Cross Mountain Trail.

This is we are combining it to this separate lot where the venue actually is.

Okay.

And do you know where that one was platted?

Was it platted on its own, or was it also part of the It was on its own document?

It was its own plat.

Correct.

Separate from any cross mountain correct.

Correct.

Chair, can I uh I'd to answer your question?

Uh volume 9523, page 132 created this lot.

Uh it appears to be a replat out of unit one.

Which would be for the eight and a half acres.

Yes, which would mean that at one time it was part of unit one, which would mean it should be subject to the restrictions.

But that's that's what I like to find out.

Well, I guess the question there is unless the restrictions were deeded out of it by legal document, right?

I mean, which could have happened.

I don't have a divinitive answer.

Right, I know.

I'm just brainstorm.

Okay.

All right.

That was my question.

I didn't realize it was two separate platted parcels.

Okay.

All right.

Any further questions from Commissioners?

Any motion?

Mr.

Chair, I move to continue this item to September 24th.

Okay.

Is that second?

Second.

We have a motion for a continuance to the September 24th Planning Commission meeting by Commissioner Bustamante and a second by was it Commissioner De Succi?

Well, I think it was tied.

Commissioner Dusucki, Commissioner Mylon, whoever.

All right.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bustamante.

I Commissioner De Succi.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Mylam.

Yes.

Commissioner Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Prophet?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

All right.

Um we already approved minutes as part of the consent.

Is there a director's report?

No, sir.

Okay.

No other items on the agenda.

It is 258 and we are adjourned.