Ladies and gentlemen, if we could please have our Spanish interpretation statement complete.

Good afternoon.

Gracias.

Thank you.

My name is John Bustamante, and I am the chair of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio as well as the District 5 zoning commissioner.

The time is 101, and I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

I like to do roll call by allowing the zoning commissioners to introduce themselves, starting with the commissioner on my far left.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Rob Sipes, and I represent District 7.

I'm John Kelly, I represent District 8.

Moses Duval, District 9.

John Witsett, District 10.

Kim Louis, District 6.

ADP Rodriguez, District 4.

All right.

Staff is a quorum present.

Yes, a quorum is present.

Thank you so much.

If everyone would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right.

Prior to beginning our hearing, I would like staff to review our meeting format for the benefit of those in the audience.

Staff, if you would.

Before I begin, please turn your phones on vibrate or turn them off.

The zoning commission is an 11-member body appointed by the city council to make recommendations on zoning cases.

Upon receiving a recommendation from the commission, you will have six months from the date of the commission's recommendation to forward your case to city council.

If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please contact your case manager.

Staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for rezoning and property within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks indicate those property owners in favor of the request, and an X indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation and any questions by the commission, the applicant will present their request.

For those who have signed up to speak for or against a proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order of that you have signed up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak.

And please note when that person is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

All right, staff, just for everyone's information, we are moving item number four to individual.

Are there any postpone, withdrawn, or pulled items?

Yes, item number 17 is postponed.

Okay.

So ladies and gentlemen, if you are here for item number 14 on West Jones Avenue, uh that item will not be heard today.

It will be re-noticed.

You will get something in the mail that says 17 or 14.

I'm sorry, 17.

Thank you.

I'm already checked out for the holidays.

Mostly because I haven't done any shopping.

Um but item number 17 will not be heard today.

It will be re-noticed.

Uh so if you are here for that property on West Jones Avenue, uh, feel free to go about and enjoy the rest of your day.

Maybe finish your holiday shopping as I should.

Uh but otherwise, let's go on.

And if we could please see what's on our first consent agenda combined hearing number one.

If we could just list those items.

Item number three, five, six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, and nineteen.

Sorry, did you read six on there?

Six is on there.

Six is on there.

So just to refresh, we have items three, five, six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, and nineteen on the consent agenda.

All right.

Any any further items to be pulled.

Commissioners on my left.

All right.

Commissioners on my right.

Looking remotely, Commissioner.

All right, thank you.

All right.

If we could please read the items into the record for the consent agenda.

Item number three, a request for a change of zoning from O two to MF33, located at 104 Ogden Street, all overlays to remain the same.

24 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed.

Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association is in favor.

SA Texas District 1 Resident Association gave no response.

The applicant will be amending the request to C2.

Item number five, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to C2, located at 7038 branching court.

All overlays to remain the same.

Nine notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no registered neighborhood association within two hundred feet.

Item number six, a request for a change of zoning from O two to I one, located at 9625 Broadway Street, all other overlays to remain the same.

18 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed.

There was no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number seven, a request for a change of zoning from C three C D with the conditional use for outdoor flea market to C3 C D with a conditional use for vocational trade, outside storage training area permitted, located at 9333 South West Loop 410, all of other overlays remained the same.

Eleven notices were mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

There was no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number eight, a request for a change of zoning from C2 to C2 C D with a conditional use for tattoo parlor, located at 1449 Culeva Road, all other overlays to remain the same.

25 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed, West End Hope in Action Neighborhood Association, Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association, Woodlawn Lake Neighborhood Association, and SA Texas District 1 Residence Association did not provide a response.

Item number 10, a request for a change of zoning from O2 C2 and MF33 to TMX 3 located at 602 West French Place.

All other overlays to remain the same.

23 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed.

Alta Vista Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Monte Vista Historical Neighborhood Association, Tobin Hill Neighborhood Community Association, and SA Texas District 1 Resident Association gave no response.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to IDZ 1, located at 219 Keller Street.

All over the latest remain the same.

This is for two dwelling units.

Calling Gardens Neighborhood Association and Lone Star Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

And three dwelling units located at 2024 South Florida Street.

All other overlays remain the same.

26 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Collins Gardens neighborhood association is in favor given that more parking is provided and Lone Star Neighborhood Association did not give a response.

Applicant has submitted an amendment to the site plan.

Item number 14.

A request for a change of zoning from I1 to C2, located at 2324 Blanco Road.

All overlays to remain the same.

36 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

North Central Neighborhood Association and San Antonio, Texas District 1 Residence Association gave no response.

Setbacks for height increases.

Located at 308 East Evergreen Street.

All other releases remain the same.

43 notices mailed, two in favor, one opposed.

Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association and SA Texas District 1 Resident Association gave no response.

Lastly, item sorry, two more.

Item number 18, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to RM6, located at 136 University Avenue.

All other overlays to remain the same.

24 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The uptown neighborhood association is in support.

All other overlays remain the same.

Twenty notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The Springville Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Is there any public comment?

We do not have public comment for those items.

Very good.

If I could please have the applicant, Dr.

Striblin, for you for item number three.

Yes.

Wanted to amend our zoning to uh C2.

Very good.

Thank you so much.

Welcome.

And Mr.

Vega, if you would come up for item number 13.

With respect to item number 13, you did submit an amended site plan, correct?

All right, very good.

And that reflects what you want to go forward.

All right.

Thank you so much.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Move to approve the following items.

Number three has amended.

Number five, number six, number seven, number eight, number ten, number eleven, thirteen as amended, number fourteen, number fifteen, number eighteen, and number nineteen.

I'll second.

Very good.

So with 13 is just an amended site plan, correct?

Amend the site.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

There is a motion for approval of the items as read on the record by Commissioner Huey with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Any discussion looking left?

Yes, Commissioner Duball.

See there's a historic property on the lot.

I was just wondering if you guys could give a quick summary of the historic preservation review that's done subsequent subsequent to this hearing.

So any um any construction or any site plans would have to go through HDRC.

Just because it is a historic landmark.

And they'll review it to, you know, do they look to preserve the structure?

What's what's their charter?

I'm that would be a question to OHP, sadly.

Okay.

Yeah.

But there will be historic district review on this project.

That is yes, sir.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Commissioners on my left.

All right, seeing none.

Commissioners on my right.

Seeing none, looking remotely.

Commissioner Chase, seeing none.

Very good.

Uh the motion is for approval of items number three as amended 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 with amended site plan 14, 15, 18, and 19 by Commissioner Huey, with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Lothap arrived at 105 p.m.

Thank you.

For the record.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Lotheff?

Aye.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipz?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Witsup.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Abustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries as amended.

All right.

Very good.

If you were any of those people who had those items that were just read, you are now going to City Council with a recommendation of approval so you can go about the rest of your day and enjoy it.

Finish up whatever holiday shopping you need to do.

But uh you have six months to go before city council.

So you all can head on out.

Thank you.

I'd love to see Patrick.

All right.

Our next docket is a continuance docket.

Um I do want to bring to attention, I believe item number four was pulled to individual, but the applicant is not here.

So I would recommend that we put this on the continuance docket.

Since they will not be here to answer any questions.

Commissioner Loser.

I have heard that perhaps there's representation for that person here.

Um is there a representative for the remount?

Item number four.

Any representative here present for that item?

116 remount drive.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

In that case, let's go to our first continuance docket.

Um so we can either move item number four to the uh for five weeks to the January 20th meeting or seven weeks to the fet February 5th meeting.

What would you prefer?

Sorry, can you repeat that?

I was concerned that no one is here for them.

That's fine.

Item number four.

So we have a five-week continuance to the January 20th meeting.

And I don't know if you'll notice at the top of this agenda, but we do have about almost 30 items scheduled for that meeting.

Brand new.

Or it can be seven weeks to the February uh February 3rd meeting.

I think you should finish that with wink wink nudge nudge.

I'm just making everyone aware.

Let's let's move it to the seven week.

Yeah, that sounds good.

To the seven week for February third.

Okay, so just so you all are aware, they we are putting in a request for a seven-week continuance for item number four located at 116 remount drive to the February 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Okay.

Um there's no public comment on that one.

And there's no public comment on it.

All right, great.

Uh Commissioner Losef to you for a motion.

I actually have a question.

Sorry.

Well, go ahead, please.

It sounds like we're looking for neighborhood support, and it sounds like staff has info on it.

Can we still do the like can I is it possible to hear the item and see the staff or the neighborhood support from staff and then approve it?

Or does that have to I know the owner's not here?

I'll chime in on that.

I'm the case manager.

Um so yes, he did get uh neighborhood support across the street.

Um so that counts for three, and then he himself sent submitted one, which accounted for four total.

So they're the only residential that are directly across the street from him.

That is great.

I'm sure this is not process correct.

Can I can I approve that?

Can we move to consent agenda?

What we can do is we can take it up in individual uh without the applicant present, and we can make a motion at that time.

Yeah, and uh just so Park Village Neighborhood Association did not give a response if that's what you were needing.

I I did know that I was more just trying to make sure the neighborhoods uh the across the street neighbors, that's all I want to see.

Okay, so we'll move it, we'll leave it on individual then.

Sorry.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So disregard that continuance request.

We're gonna move straight to individual.

When I say so.

Okay.

You got it.

Uh we are now gonna move on to our individual uh docket at this point.

Uh sorry for the little bit of confusion, but we are now going to begin with item number one, please.

Good afternoon, Bronji Freyer, zoning plan road development services.

Item number one is located at 1514 Rigsby Avenue, going from R4 to C2 C D with a conditional use for motor vehicle sales, all overlays to remain the same.

38 notices were sent for received in favor, zero opposed.

Outside 200 feet, six receives in favor, zero opposed.

There's no registered neighbor association within 200 feet.

Staff does find evidence of likely adverse impacts on neighboring lands in relation to the zoning change request.

The existing R4 residential single family district is appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2 CD commercial district with a conditional use for motor vehicle sales is not appropriate.

The subject property is located within the middle of an established residential block and introduce commercial uses that would adversely impact the residences.

The proposed conditional use for motor vehicle sales would further permit an intense commercial use within the block, which is contrary to commonly used land use principles.

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

All right, if we could please have the applicant or applicant's representative, please afternoon.

Back again.

So actually it was my understanding from Dr.

Hina Hosa that this was gonna be on the consent agenda.

So I'm a little surprised he's not here.

Did that discuss?

With a recommendation of denial, it will always be on individual.

Okay.

Dr.

Hina Hosa um came down ill, and so he is not with us today.

However, his case will be handled by Commissioner Chase, who is prepared to do so.

And um were his thoughts on the project discussed with anyone, or do I need a continuance for him?

You do not need a continuance.

Okay, because his thoughts were discussed.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Um and so um, although when it's directed that this is an established neighborhood, I do want, I I did provide some videos.

Were those I provided them to you before the last hearing.

Um so this neighborhood is about three blocks from the corner of Roland and Rigsby.

And um I think all of us know that intersection well because of the barbecue restaurant and the tamales that are available there.

I know I've gone there since I was a kid.

And um this block of Rigsby, although this particular block does have some more residential properties.

The characteristic of this area is mixed use.

There's both commercial properties and residential properties all within the three-block radius.

Ms.

Russell, I'm sorry.

Would you introduce yourself?

Oh, I am so sorry.

I do this half about half the time I'm here.

Elizabeth Russell, I represent the applicant from the law office of Elizabeth Russell, 101 Stumburg, San Antonio, Texas, 78204.

Thank you.

Um so there is um quite a bit of mixed use in this area.

There's already been two properties that have recently been approved for commercial that are within two within the two-block radius of this area.

And um this particular property has always been used for industrial use.

Um you see a picture of the property, you'll know it because it's this bright yellow metal building.

Um so I actually knew this property before I even received this case because of the bright yellow building.

Um it has always been used for industrial, it was rezoned and a massive rezoning.

I want to say around 2008, um when there everything was just being redrawn and rezoned.

But this property has always been industrial.

Um directly across the street is a I think it's either Vid Via or City of San Antonio, but it's some type of fleet, um, like a fleet lot.

There's nothing directly across the street, and there's quite a few neighbors that are in support of my client developing the property here.

Um because of those requests, we would request um for the committee to approve.

Additionally, we did provide Dr.

Hina Josa with um the his two requests on the um signage and the lighting.

So downward lighting only with no um no overnight lighting, no um spectrum lighting, and then um no monument signs, no flags or waivers, only um the building sign on the bright yellow building.

Um we will have to proceed with a variance if approved, because the yellow building does not quite have the appropriate setback from the front.

Um but again, it has been there for quite some time.

Um I think at least 10 years.

My I'm not quite done with the research.

I'm we're once one step at a time, um, but it has been there for at least the last six years.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Russell.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment for this item.

All right, very good.

As was mentioned earlier, uh this is a district three case, uh, but as Commissioner Hina Hossa is not able to join us today, it will go to Commissioner Chase for uh questions.

Hi, Ms.

Russell.

Hi.

Um I don't I don't have any questions.

I talked to um Commissioner Himahosa, and he poured me the email that you sent with the agreement, the stipulations for download lighting and all the other work points he had.

Um I don't have any questions.

I'll open it up to the other commissioners if they have any.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Chase.

Uh Commissioners to my right, questions Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, yes.

Why did staff why is staff recommending the denial?

So as per the staff report, um basically we saw notice that there is a bunch of residential on this block face according and directly to the South, and that is why we were recommending denial for such an intensive commercial use.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Huey, questions?

Nope.

Commissioner to my left questions.

All right.

Uh let's go with Commissioner WhatsApp first.

I was just looking at the bear appraisal district records, and it shows that the building apparently was built in 1992, and it shows it as a shed.

Um do you all have any other history of operations on that property?

We do not.

We do we try to do a prior history search on any C of O's or anything, but we could not find anything within the last 20 years, like I want to say the last 10 years or so.

So no violations of the Well, there they built a fence that requires a permit, and so that was why there is an open investigate investigation, but otherwise it was just the fence.

Yeah, not not the building or the use that was ongoing.

Correct.

Again, there's no ongoing C of O at the moment, so we're not aware of any ongoing use.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Duval.

I was hoping it would be able to find its way to the uh planning commission calendar.

Um, but I guess they haven't met it was continued to the January uh, I believe 15th meeting.

Or 14th meeting.

Yeah.

By request from the applicant.

Um I typically my custom is to handle zoning first and then planning.

And so that's the only reason.

Um we tackle one project at a time.

Yeah, I'm disappointed you uh chose to do that.

Um staff mentioned in the staff report consistency.

It's not consistent uh with the existing comprehensive plan element.

And uh until the planning commission changes that and recommends a change to it, uh we're put in a little bit of a difficult position to try to imagine what the planning commission might do.

Um yeah.

I was I was hoping uh we we wouldn't be put in that position.

Um but uh the uh zoning across the street, so across Rigsby, uh uh to staff it's C3, correct?

That is correct.

Um I believe we rattle we recognized last meeting.

Yeah, it's a mix of C3 and I one as um Miss Russell did mention, and I believe it is the school yard or the school bus um location um holding storage of school buses for one of the ISDs.

But if the school district were to sell the land, the land could be developed along Rigsby with other C3 uses, correct?

That is correct.

Yep.

And could you give you know an example of some of the kind of uses that might you might see potentially across the street?

I mean it would definitely allow a lot of the retail or the service uses, but it also goes into more in uh commercial intensive items like car sales or automotive uh sorry, repair those kind of items.

Yeah.

So and to be clear, we we don't have any indication that the school district is looking at selling like surplus land.

Yeah, but it could potentially though, you could theoretically have auto sales on the other side of the it is always a possibility, yep.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Any further questions?

Commissioners on my left.

Seeing none.

All right.

Um Commissioner Chase to you for discussion and potential motion.

For discussion, yes.

I was going to go ahead and recommend approval for this.

Um the it the current setup that it's at and also the surrounding area.

Um although they're residential, the residents are in support.

Um Dr.

Uh Isa spoke with the surrounding area, and they are in support and in favor of seeing something there instead of an empty lot.

Um so with resident support and with how the street is already set up and even though it's not approved by planning commission.

Um I believe it it's one of those cases where it's um maybe it goes against staff recommendation, but it goes alongside with what residents want and what kind of already exist.

All right, very good.

So is there a motion for approval with conditions?

Yes, sorry.

Okay.

Motion to approve with conditions that Ms.

Russell emailed.

Okay.

Can you read those for the record, please?

Can we ask Ms.

uh the applicant to maybe read the conditions?

Mr.

Russell can get it sooner.

It's a race.

This is how these things get exciting.

This is the pinnacle of excitement.

It's kind of lengthy.

Sorry, I'm an attorney.

We're known to be wordy.

Um we agree to use the existing structure if a variance is approved.

Am I okay?

That's that's that's not one we're worried about.

Downward facing lighting, sign it.

Okay.

Um on the lighting plan, downward directed lighting only using fully shielded fixtures, no upward lighting, floodlights, or glare-producing fixtures, lighting levels limited to what is necessary for safety and security, no spillover lighting into adjacent residential properties.

I got downward facing lighting, yep.

Yep.

Am I going to that should work all of that?

And then on the signage commitment, no monument signs, no spinners, feather flags, banners or annual.

No temporary signage.

Okay, all right.

Perfect.

No monument signs, no temporary.

So no monument signs or temporary signs.

Yes.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Chase, that is your motion.

Yes.

Thank you.

So the motion is for approval with the conditions as stated on the record.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez seconds it.

Discussion, Commissioners to my right.

Seeing none.

Commissioners to my left.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes and then Commissioner Duval.

This is actually more going to be more of a question for Commissioner Chase.

Noticing that there's other commercial on that block that are either in A for non-alcohol or R restricted.

I was wondering if uh Commissioner Hina Hosa had discussed anything about adding that to the to the zoning change.

He did not.

All right.

All right.

Technically, shouldn't ask questions of other commissioners.

But offer a friendly amendment.

Um, I'll wait till Commissioner Song.

Uh oh, I'm in trouble now.

In that case, um I would like to uh let's see, an R would be restriction for alcohol, correct?

They could sell alcoholic drinks, but you could not consume on property.

Okay.

That would be basically like your convenience doors.

Okay.

I would like to make a friendly amendment to add R, which is which matches a um property down the street on that same block, I believe.

Okay.

All right.

Nope, that's fine.

I just needed you to nod your head.

Uh Commissioner Chase, do you accept the friendly amendment?

Accept it.

All right.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, accept the friendly amendment?

Accept it.

Very good.

All right.

Any further discussion, Commissioner Sipes?

All right.

Commissioner Dubell.

Wait, sorry.

One second.

City Attorney's Office.

Yeah, I just had a quick question.

Related to the um conditions.

I heard something along the lines of lighting except what's needed for health and safety.

So we are calling that downward facing lighting, and we are stopping there.

Okay.

So it's a no downward facing lighting or only downward facing lighting.

Only downward facing lighting.

What did I say?

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Can I say the opposite?

Man, I'm not doing well.

All right.

Sorry.

Commissioner Duval, to you for discussion.

Again, disappointed.

Um we're in the situation to be asked to review the consistency with the um comprehensive plan when the planning commission could have had the opportunity to review it.

Um I suppose the the right thing for us to do is to think about you know, put ourselves in their shoes and imagine what we think they should do.

Um I'm not entirely sure what I think that they should do.

That is the planning commission.

Um, but I could imagine the planning commission going with the staff recommendation and uh denying the proposed plan amendment just on the basis that the Southeast Community Area Plan was only adopted back in December 2022.

It's pretty recent.

So community input, neighbors are all engaged.

They thought it should be neighborhood mixed use.

Um I don't think on its face that they got it wrong.

I think it's there's a fair argument to be said that it should be neighborhood mixed use.

So I mean I for that reason I'm gonna be uh unfortunately voting no.

All right, very good.

Any further discussion, Commissioners to my left?

All right.

Briefly, uh, while I understand and frequently agree that planning should occur before zoning, uh we are a recommending body.

Um and our purview is land use, one of the elements of which is uh conformance to the area plan.

But the good news is planning will hear this next month.

Um will make a recommendation, just as we make a recommendation, and those two recommendations can be reconciled by the ultimate arbiter, which is city council.

So uh there being no further discussion, the motion is for approval with conditions read on the record and amended to R.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Nay.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries as amended.

All right, very good.

Our next case is item number two.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

And is it Adio Gomez, senior planner with zoning, land development services?

I don't number two is located at 6227 Southwest Loop 410, going from R6 residential single family district to C2NACD, commercial non-alcoholic sales district with the conditional use for oversized vehicle storage and sales.

There were 10 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet of the property.

Staff does not find evidence of likely adverse impacts on the neighboring lands in relation to this change of zoning request.

The proposed use is consistent with the established development pattern in the surrounding area.

The current R6 residential single family district is not appropriate for the zoning property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2NACD commercial non-alcoholic sales district with the conditional use for oversized vehicle storage and sales is more appropriate.

The requested zoning would serve as an appropriate transition between Southwest Interstate 410 and the existing residential neighborhood to the west.

While the adjacent properties are sown MF 18 and R6, the current use consists of vacant land and a church.

Given its location along the Interstate 410 access road, the proposed commercial zoning is suitably positioned to accommodate a higher intensity uses while maintaining adequate separation from nearby residences.

The applicant's representative is here to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I am Marcus Salas, uh representing Cesar Ramos, the owner of the property.

So yep, we're we're trying to change this from R6 to C2NA.

Uh we kind of had to go with large vehicle sales as well as storage because we do plan to host food truck storage there within the gated area.

So uh I think there was some concern from the school that was nearby, uh, but I've been unable to track down exactly who has the issue with that that zoning change or with that condition.

Um I was in touch with Thomas Krueger at Southwest ISD.

Uh he knew that there may be an issue, but was uh recommending approval because again he he we saw no concern with parking food trucks.

Obviously, uh I would see concern parking 18 wheelers next to a school, um, but that is not going to be the case.

We'd be willing to put that in writing uh if necessary.

So the other plans for this space are also to have a retail uh in the front and then have storage units in the back.

Uh my client does have an agreement with some food uh food truck maker in Eagle Pass, who is also expanding to San Antonio.

So that is the primary use of these uh or the primary reason for storing these vehicles there at the property.

Um he also for the the retail space uh is planning to host P.O.

boxes uh and sell outdoor activity goods such as coolers, water bottles, backpacks, clothing, and related other related items.

Uh one of his main brands that he sells is Yeti Coolers.

Uh of course, you know, with these plans in mind, he obviously wants to create more jobs in the surrounding area and provide more stability as well.

We have been in touch with the church that is next door.

We did buy that property from them and are in the process of getting a support letter from them.

And I am also in the process of getting a support letter from Thomas Krueger as well from Southwest ISD.

All right, very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Solester.

All right, is there any public comment?

There is no public comment for this item.

All right, very good.

You don't get any rebuttal, Mr.

Salas.

Nothing to rebut.

All right.

This is a district four case.

Uh so Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for questions.

No questions.

All right.

Uh questions to my right.

Questions remotely?

Commissioner Chase?

No.

Questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh the uh site plan shows along Lake Valley Drive and um loop four ten access a proposed concrete walk and a current concrete walk.

Uh would the uh applicant be able to give a little bit more context about um a little bit more explanation.

What uh first off, what's the the current concrete walk along loop four ten access?

When I looked on Google Maps, I don't think I saw any sidewalk there.

I want to say there was, but I can clarify that and and provide an updated plan if that is incorrect.

Uh but I I could have swore there was when I went out there and walked.

Um what's that?

It's on the satellite image.

Is it on yeah, it is on Google sidewalk.

It's on Google along uh the Southwest Loop 410.

There is a sidewalk, but it's undeveloped.

That's all I can see from the um from Google images.

But the so I guess to clarify with staff, the site plan would buy you know require the applicant to put in a proposed concrete walk.

That's the sidewalk, right?

Along Lake Valley Drive.

Is that correct?

If it's part of the proposed scope of work.

It has that maintain it or repair it if as needed.

I suppose the question would be would the site plan obligate them to do that?

No.

Okay.

Um then uh I see.

So the satellite image that we have up shows yeah, what looks like an undeveloped sidewalk.

When I looked at Google Street, so this is Bing Maps.

When I looked at Google Street View, um, I don't think I saw um a walk, but maybe I it looks pretty white, so maybe it's new.

It's not on the street view because that picture is from 2020.

Thank you.

Okay, good.

Um so the uh I guess a question then for staff.

Um when I looked at Google Street View, you know, I saw some some kids in their or a kid uh child and is and his father walking with the backpack from the school.

I also saw what it looks like there's uh an access point, stairs and a uh gate from the school into the church parking lot.

Um I'm gonna guess families from the neighborhood down Lake Valley Drive, cross across uh what is now an empty field to make it to the church parking lot to reach the school.

Um how could we ensure um that they continue to have a safe way to reach the school from the neighborhood?

Really, I mean what what would we need to do to uh ensure that there we we you know have a uh concrete sidewalk along Lake Valley Drive and and that there is a concrete sidewalk along loop 10 for access.

Well, I was just I was asking um city attorneys for their option.

It's not really within a zoning purview, it would be more like a transportation maybe uh in information with the transportation department.

So we wouldn't the ingress egress uh conditions under the conditional use authorization, those wouldn't cover sidewalks?

No, sir.

And I guess so the the um in in what under what conditions would um public works be requiring a sidewalk.

That would really depend on technical review and if they see it necessary, but not until then would we know, and nothing we would do in the site plan would be able to force them to include any of that.

Okay.

Um if I recall under the uh list of uh the cheat sheet of conditions of approval in the UDC, there was one related to uh landscaping for for site non for beauty non-butification purposes, so landscaping for for site and access.

The existing landscaping, I don't at least I don't see any existing landscape, but the the landscaping that's shown on the um uh site plan, would we be able to include a condition of approval related to line of sight for the entrance and exit?

Or is that also something that uh would be done in later review?

Those would typically be handled at permitting, yes.

Our traffic team, they have to look at these things for visibility with all traffic and also when you're talking about buffering.

Um there is landscaping that would be required as well for any kind of development, especially considering this is a commercial um if it gets rezoned to the commercial base zoning.

There are specific land um landscaping buffer uh requirements.

Okay, all right.

That that answers my questions.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Any further questions to my left?

Seeing none.

All right, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you.

Uh so this is a district four case for discussion and potential motion.

I'll make a motion for approval with conditions with uh downward lighting.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Discussion to my right.

Discussion remotely, seeing none.

Discussion left, seeing none.

All right.

The motion is for approval with a condition as read on the record by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with the second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duville?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamanth?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Good luck.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh the next item is item number four, which you know.

Whoever the case manager is, can you speed talk it?

Because this can be very short.

I'll try my best.

All right.

Good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavidas, zoning planner with development services.

Item number four is located at 116 remount remount drive, going from R6 residential single family district to L Light Industrial District, with all overlays staying the same.

There were 21 notices mailed, four in favor, zero opposed.

Park Village Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The proposed use is consistent with the established land use designation in the surrounding area.

Surrounding properties are zoned L, I one, C3, C three, and C3NA.

The existing R6 district is not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed L district is appropriate.

The applic the applicant proposes to replat uh 108, 112, and 116 remount drive to construct a warehouse.

Though there is residential residential zones and structures in the area, some are non-conforming, vacant are being used as offices.

The ones being utilized as residences are out of character for the development in the area.

Additionally, most of the uses and zones are similar to the request, thus making the current residential zone inappropriate.

Staff recommends approval and the representative is not here to answer any questions.

All right, thank you so much.

This is a district two case, so Commissioner Losef to you for any questions.

No questions.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh only I was surprised to see that there was no comprehensive plan element like sector or regional or neighborhood plan for this area.

Um I was surprised to see that.

Is that I'm new here?

So is that is that common?

There are pockets within the city that do not have an adopted plan.

Yep.

I are they going to get one with the uh essay tomorrow?

Eventually, yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Questions remote?

All right.

Uh motion, discussion and potential motion to you, Commissioner Losef.

Yes.

Thanks, staff, for doing the work.

Um I we were really concerned with neighborhood input, which is important for district two.

So thanks for taking the time on that.

I'm in a motion to approve this item.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

There is a motion for approval by Commissioner Losef with a second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Discussion left.

Discussion right.

Discussion remote.

Hearing none.

Uh motion is for approval of item number four by Commissioner Losef.

Second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Losep?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duville?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Wilson?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Our next item is item number nine, please.

Oh, and Miss Benavidas, good job.

That was fast.

Good afternoon.

Alex Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number nine is located at 1530 Lamar Street, going from R4 residential single family district to R4 residential R4 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for two dwelling units, with all overlays staying the same.

There were 24 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed within two hundred feet.

Harvard Place East Lawn Neighborhood Association gave no response and no response outside the 200 feet.

The existing R4 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed R4 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for two dwelling units is also appropriate.

The rezoning is requested to develop two separate dwelling units on the property.

The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood with a mix of housing densities, including duplexes, single family homes, and multifamily apartments.

Additionally, the rear of the property at Butson Alley, which can potentially allow for more flexible setbacks to accommodate the additional density.

The proposal would also contribute to the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan by providing diverse housing choices.

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

Sold.

Oh Begard.

She spoke so fast I said sold.

Yeah, well, we're done with the speed now.

If the applicant or applicant's representative is present.

Thank you.

If you would please introduce yourself and tell us your address.

Hello, my name is Fred Hobbes, the managing member of the owner of the property.

I reside at 102 Longbow Road in Chavanau Park, Texas, 78231.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Do you have do you want to just give us a quick overview?

Yes, we we own the old house.

You saw the picture there just a minute ago.

For about the last eight or nine years.

It is in bad disrepair, needs to be torn down, and the highest and best use for that property is a multifamily type arrangement.

And that is what we wish to do.

The ha the property uh immediately adjacent to us was rezoned to a similar zoning, and the property across the street also is is zone MF33 and has I think four units on it.

All right.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Hobbs.

Um any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right.

This is a district two case.

Commissioner Losef to you for questions.

No questions.

All right.

Uh Commissioners to my left questions?

Yes, Commissioner Woodsett.

I have a couple questions.

Um in 2024, this was very Commissioner What's that?

Can you talk into the mic?

Sorry.

Thank you.

In 2024, this whole area was part of a large area rezoning, and they downzoned this from MF 33 to this R4 uh designation, but they left MF 33 on certain sites.

Uh so I'm I'm trying to sort of understand why 16 months ago or whatever it was justified to change this and remove the multifamily and now all of a sudden multi-families acceptable uh at this point.

I assume that the site next door must have been existing.

They got the C D to accommodate the fact that it was there at the time.

Um I can you just clarify that we rezoned based on the way the property is being used at the time and to accommodate the requests as it's presented to us by city council, um, which in this case was to re zone the current use properties at the time, it was being multi-family.

Okay.

Um second part of my question is there's looking at Google Maps, uh, the back alley I'll show access off of there.

The back alley to I think it's uh back toward Givers uh there's a Geevers Court that doesn't apparently exist and the alley on the portion from the property back toward Gevers does not appear to be paved.

Uh so how's that going to be developed uh you know from a fire standpoint uh et cetera and access is that going to be required to be paved for them to get this approval?

If they were to if they were to utilize the um the alleyway, they would have to meet certain standards which would be dictated by our street team during the permitting phase.

Um but at the moment their access is off Lamar.

So Gethers and the alleyway would only come into effect again if they needed access from those during the permitting stage.

So you're saying there's no curb, there's no access, no cut to uh the uh alley in the back.

I can't say right now if there's none because I'm not on the site.

But there's no access.

We have a fence across the back.

We have no plans to use the access road.

Okay, so you all just back have the cars back out of the whole driveway.

Ingress and egress both from Lamar Street.

I guess that's cover what I've got.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

What's that?

Questions?

Duval?

Yes?

Commissioner Duval?

The um large area rezoning, that was interesting.

I didn't know about the background of it.

Do uh does any do any of staff have uh able to recollect what what what was the grounds for that large area rezoning?

Was it an attempt to decrease all of the intensity of the uses in that area, or was there some other reason for it?

No, it's uh as I said, just to rezone to match the current use of properties.

The issue.

Um there are a lot of properties and and this is a common thing with large area rezoning where properties don't have they're nonconforming.

They don't have the correct zoning that matches their property, so they have issues sometimes when they're trying to get building permits or or other things from the city.

And so um not every project is like this, but it's pretty common for the city council to say, you know, we want to help um the residents in my area, and so if we do this large area rezoning, that will most likely help a large number of them be able to get the permits that they need to get to improve their properties.

And this was before my time, but only like one meeting before my time.

Uh the commission had considered a large area rezoning in uh also in in D1.

Um, and that was related to decreasing the intensity of the of the uses.

That was that was different from this.

Yeah, that that one was D2.

And that one had um uh its own specific requirements.

Okay, but it I'm I'm just trying to be cautious that the this was a different kind of large area rezoning, right?

It wasn't the same kind of large area rezoning.

They had different motivations.

They're all they're all different, they're based on the request from the council officer.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Any further questions left?

Yes.

Commissioner.

Well, we'll come back around to you once we do the once we go around the horn.

Commissioner Kelly.

Uh yes.

Looking at the site plan, uh the back home.

Uh the two parking spaces there.

That looks like it'd be really tight if the back is fenced off.

Looks like it would be very difficult for a vehicle to pull in and out of those.

At least the back further spacks slot, parking slot.

Can you explain how that would work?

Well, that that was drawn by our designer, so I'm assuming that it's that it's adequate space.

If I can jump in quickly as well.

The unified development code provides for some design flexibility when it comes to approved site plans.

There are certain percentages that can be adjusted.

So what you are uh looking at before you, I wouldn't treat it as the last word in engineering of spots.

That will be handled at the building permit stage.

And we do have flexibility built in for amendments to say you know you might need 10 percent reduction in the building size or 10 percent increase in the impervious cover to account for those.

Um certainly building permits will not be issued if it doesn't pass uh the required uh codes.

Okay, well, it does look like potentially the the rearmost uh building could be moved slightly more toward Lamar Street and give a little more space for the driveway.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

Any further questions?

Commissioners to my left commissioner what's that will come back to you once we go around.

Yeah.

Uh to my right questions.

Commissioner Chase, questions.

Now we're back to you, Commissioner Witsett.

Um back to the parking uh issue.

That's nine feet between the for that driveway.

And I agree that that is going to be a real difficult if they don't have access to turn out into that alley, it's almost impossible.

And I've got 16 feet when I back out of my carport at home and I have to back around uh to do that, so I can see where that would be a real challenge.

And then the last would just be what is EP-1?

I've seen that and I have no idea what that means.

It's uh overlay district called the event parking overlay district.

It was adopted 20-ish years ago as a means to try to regulate the proliferation of uh property owners allowing people to park on lawns for events at the Frostbank.

Frost frost bank, I would say at the time, what was it called?

But the frostbang center today.

SPC.

Okay.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Questions remote?

No.

All right.

This is a district two case.

Commissioner Losef to you for discussion and potential motion.

Yeah, thanks for the um information and presentation.

Um I think for district two, we feel like this is a pretty modest increase in density and matches a lot of the surrounding area, and um also want to see uh a non-use building go into use, especially if it's used for housing.

So um no issues on our end for district two.

I'm in a motion to approve this item.

All right, there's a motion to approve item number nine.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Sipes.

Uh discussion left?

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

I I agree.

This uh um especially in the older areas, a lot of times we've heard about the the B to R conversion where you get the ability to do a duplex just out of right.

Um so I think this is a very good um uh use for this property.

Um I did want to make two points.

One I wanted to compliment staff for saying for using the alley as an additional almost as a buffer or you know, the the I uh um where that allows the additional separation because we've heard a lot of times when we've had um additional units being built, although it's too close, it's only five feet away from from an additional unit from the from the neighbor, and this way by saying that, oh well, you have an alley, there's an additional buffer.

I think that was a excellent point that I had never thought of before.

Um and I also wanted to uh alleviate some of the concerns about the the parking.

Um if I park in my garage, I have to back out 150 feet on a single lane driveway because it's an old house to get out of onto the street.

So um it can be done.

So um but other than that, I think this is a excellent use for this uh property.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh discussion right.

Discussion remote saying none.

Uh the motion is for approval by Commissioner Losa for item number nine, second by Commissioner Sipes.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Losef.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duvel?

Aye.

Commissioner Woodson?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Hi.

All right.

Very good.

Good luck.

Thank you.

You're on your way to City Council.

All right.

We are now moving on to item number 12.

Good afternoon.

Bronte Freire zoning planar development services.

Item number 12 is located at 141 Castillo Avenue, going from R form to IDZ2 for six dwelling units.

All overlays to remain the same.

There are 42 notices sent zero in favor, zero.

Two opposed.

And Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association is in support.

The existing R4 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ2 medium intensity infield development zone district with uses permitted for six dwelling units is not appropriate.

Well, the surrounding area does have multifamily dwelling units.

The density is limited to four units per property.

A request for six units would introduce a density that is uncharacteristic of the surrounding area.

Staff recommends an alternate recommendation of IDZ1 limited intensity in field development zone with uses permitted for four dwelling units, which aligns with the existing land use and would permit additional housing consistent with the established neighborhood.

Staff recommends denial with an alternate recommendation, and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

If we could have the applicant or applicants representative, please introduce yourself, give us your address.

Perfect.

So this house has been has been vacant since maybe 2021 since the last uh Lisi was there.

Uh the lease was kind of let uh it was expired with the in was uh with the in intent to renovate it, but obviously COVID hit and so things got delayed.

But now that um we're you know we're in the process of uh renovating it, um no walls have moved.

We're basically taking what was there and we're just trying to clean it up.

Um what really sparked this was uh at the you know the the light that CPS was turned off and when we came to actually pull permit um they yeah they said well you know because you've been without light for more than 90 days you gotta go and get this basically to match the reason uh the zoning.

So here we are.

Um with that being said, we you know we've been uh in contact with the neighborhood association, uh Mr.

Uh President uh Jeff Hunt and the Vice President Jacob.

I don't want I don't know the gentleman's name, but we've canvas the neighborhood Stenham, yeah.

We've uh we've been in contact with them.

Um we've canvassed the neighborhood with left notifications uh for the past you know been working with them for the past two and a half weeks.

And then this last Saturday, uh the owner Renaldo Randa uh walked the property with both um Jeff and and Jacob.

These units are pretty large.

I mean, the first, you know, it's a pretty big house, but the first un the first floor is two units that account for almost a thousand square foot each, and then the second floor is four units that are plus or minus six fifty, probably more you know the smallest one being almost like six six fifty square feet.

But oh sorry.

Um I do want to point out that we did miss a blanket zoning.

It was uh not too long ago, so that was uh that was on us.

The the neighborhood actually went through a uh uh upzoning on a lot of these uh units because as you see, there is a lot of multifamily already in this block.

Um, in meditated to our front and even so and then that's the house right there.

That's a survey, and as you'll see from the survey to the IDZ site plan, nothing is changing.

The only thing we're doing is we're adding six uh parking spots, which you know weren't, you know, we a lot of people were kind of parking in the front, but now with kind of speaking to the neighbors and letting them know that these six units will be back online.

They requested we added these six units, so we're you know, adding the to the back.

Um this was just you know some information we wanted to give the uh neighbor association.

I know we explore several ideas of how to not do IDZ, right?

Sometimes IDZ gets people a little scared, I even though I think uh throughout the years has been great progress on how to kind of get that nice and tight.

But yeah, I'm I'm here to answer any questions and the owners here as well.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Is there any public comment?

No public comment.

I thought Jeff left a message.

Sorry, there is a voicemail.

I apologize.

There's no one signed in to speak.

My bad.

My name is Jeffrey Hunt.

I'm the president of the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association.

I live at 121 Loretta Place, 78210, 210, 387, 7919.

I'm calling in the case regarding uh number 279 on 141 Caspio Avenue.

Um our neighborhood association has approved a motion to conditionally support the change of zoning.

Um we have met the current owner of the property and agree uh to the changes with good faith in his future intentions.

Our support is conditional with his assurance that he will provide at least six parking spots behind the house with alley entrance.

This will provide at least one parking spot per apartment and not street parking.

Um we believe this zoning change can provide affordable housing for at least six San Antonio citizens citizens.

And for these reasons, the RPNA is supporting this project.

Thank you.

All right.

You don't get a rebuttal to that.

Sorry.

Um this is a district five case.

Uh in fact, this is my neighborhood.

I am a member of the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association board.

However, I recuse myself from any discussion or consideration of zoning matters, so I can consider them here.

Um, you know, I think one of the things that I did not know, and I've lived in that neighborhood since 2014.

I lived on that street until a couple of years ago.

Um, is that these were already six established units?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Because it's been empty since 2021.

Yes, sir.

Was any attempt made to make it uh single family residence?

No, sir.

Okay.

Because it doesn't make economic sense, does it?

Well, I think it's always been six, so we said, hey, we'll just you know, well, probably about not back in 1920 when it was first built.

Of course, yeah.

The house next door is sold for a million dollars.

Yeah, you know, not too long ago.

So beautiful home.

Right.

Big magnolia tree in the front, so yeah, I get it.

Um, you know, the neighbors are concerned about parking.

Yes, sir.

And so your site plan does provide six total spots on the back with access from the alley.

Correct?

Yes, sir.

All right.

All right.

Any questions, Commissioners to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh for to staff, the staff report refers to um the surrounding area having some multifamily with density limited to four units per property.

Um what what where does that restriction come from?

Where does that limit come from?

Um just based off of the zoning, I believe it's a mix of R4 C D or RM4s that permit only four units.

So the base zoning on the nearby only uh allows up to uh four units.

Maybe well, I mean within the 200 feet, there is a small MF33 to the edge all the way to the east, but that would be considered off of their um acreage times 33.

I'm not certain how many units they'd be permitted, but again, where we were just going off in pro within proximity.

And then the um comprehensive plan use designation is urban low density residential.

Could you speak a little bit more about what does that entail?

What's the vision for for that designation?

So with the urban low density residential, it is going to be a mix of your lower um your a lot of your single family, but also mix in some of the densities of like I think RM 5, RM six, and even MF 18.

Um the six units just goes above that density a little bit, and hence why they're needing to request the plan amendment to medium density residential to permit that higher density.

Which does bring up right this is one of those where the planning commission is going to have to hear it after us as well.

Correct.

And it is scheduled for tomorrow.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions?

Commissioners on my left?

Yes, Commissioner What's it?

Gotta remember to push the button.

I noticed that it's uh consists of three lots.

And I know that the city in the past doesn't allow building across lot lines.

Are they going to be forced to replat with this issue that they're dealing with here into a single lot or it's an existing building, so they're only limited over the counter residential repair permits, which would not um call for a new plot.

Okay.

So the zoning change doesn't uh No, it wouldn't affect in this case.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Questions remote.

All right.

I don't have any questions.

Any further questions?

Um discussion to me uh for a potential motion.

Uh I appreciate staff's um recommendation.

I I, however, do not agree with it.

I I would have preferred not to use IDC in this case, but given the number of units at six, um, I think it is appropriate because otherwise we would be looking for nine parking spots, and that would be tough.

Um but you know, having lived in the neighborhood, having somewhat been responsible for the last large area rezoning in the neighborhood and surveying the neighborhood for various multifamilies that were nonconforming to try to bring them into conformance.

Uh I will tell you that we do have in that neighborhood a number of five and six unit buildings that largely follow this format.

Uh a grand old house that you know is incompatible economically with the neighborhood, uh and so has been divvied up and divided to allow hopefully generally affordable housing.

Uh I love to see these projects.

You know, this is one of the cases where Commissioner Sipes and I disagree to some degree, to some degree.

But you know, we have the back alley parking.

Uh but I view this kind of reuse of some of these houses as a good entry point for people to join a neighborhood to set down routes and become part of that community.

So as a result, uh I'm going to move and do so move for approval of item number 12 as submitted.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, second by Commissioner Chase.

Discussion, Commissioners to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

All right, I'm I'm actually going to support this.

Um and uh primarily because um of the the neighborhood's involvement and and uh approval.

Um yeah, I'm not a big fan of accessing parking from an alley, but but I but I much prefer having the parking in the back versus parking in the front.

And so you know that's why we that's why we're here.

It's every every case is different.

Every case you have to decide individually.

So um so yeah, I'm I'm fine with that part of it.

Um uh usually I would be in support of um of staff's recommendation for only four units.

Um but uh uh again, you know, these are case by case neighborhood support.

Um it's uh a huge house that that's been divvied up into to six units.

Um I've had I've I have a family member who used to live in in one of the in in a similar case, just a little bit north of here, um, that was years later um converted back into a single family house.

Um so that that the preservation of the um existing condition to me is is very important.

So I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Preservation of the structure.

Um it doesn't didn't appear to me that it has any historic designation, but it's uh it's a beautiful building, and it's not lost on me that with the current R4 zoning, it could be torn down and built into something that's not as beautiful.

Um so this is one way to keep that um as well, just you know, to express express the desire, planning commission is meeting tomorrow.

Whatever their decision is, this is another case where it would weigh heavily on whether I'd support or oppose, which is unfortunate.

Um but in this case though, given the information about there being other units similarly situated in the neighborhood that have five, six units in it, um, and the fact that the Roosevelt um Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association is in support.

Um I'll be you know supporting this.

All right.

Any further uh discussion left?

Discussion right?

Discussion remote.

All right, and thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

That was a point I meant to make.

Um that you know I do hope, you know, that this does preserve it if the market allows to be repurposed back into some of its neighboring houses.

And there are some great examples of the early 1920s, the original Beatty Mansion, who developed the person who developed this neighborhood.

His house is I think either two doors down or one door down, and it has been redeveloped into a single family, and it's beautiful.

All right.

Enough commentary for me.

Uh the motion is for approval of item number twelve as submitted with a second by Commissioner Chase.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Whitzip.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

See you tomorrow.

Bright and early.

Don't forget.

Yes?

Brighton.

9 a.m.

Got it.

All right.

Our next item is item number sixteen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number sixteen, located at 725 Montezuma Street.

It's going from R4 residential single family district to C2PNA, commercial pedestrian non-alcoholic sales district, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 50 notices sent, zero received in favor, zero opposed, and the historic West Side Residence Neighborhood Association is in support.

The existing R4 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2PA commercial pedestrian non-alcoholic sales district is not appropriate, and the property is located behind several commercial properties along Guadalupe Street, but the abutting property to the east and west are primarily residential.

The applicant is proposing to expand the existing building that fronts on Guadalupe Street to the Montezuma property.

Staff proposes an alternate recommendation of C1 Light Commercial District, as it would allow for the proposed food service establishment, limit the building size to 5,000 square feet, and limit future uses that could negatively impact the established residential neighborhood.

Staff recommends denial with an alternate recommendation to C1 and the applicant is present.

Thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant, please, and if you would please state your name and your address.

Hello, my name is Raimundo Scamilla, 1926 Guadalupe Street, uh San Antonio, Texas 78207.

We are proposing uh change of zoning because we want to expand the the building, like Forrest said.

And just uh we're new to this whole thing of zoning, so we don't know about the setbacks and uh all that kind of stuff.

So we we're just worried about the setback on the back of Montezuma Street, 30 feet.

So uh I don't know uh the we want to be uh sorry about my English.

We want the the Commission to have a rezoned the way they they uh plan.

They they think that is okay, but we want to expand the building, the how do you say hasta donde podamos uh on as far as we can on the on the on the land, yeah.

So the the setbacks that would are we we are worried about it.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Ascamia.

Is there any public comment?

We do have speakers signed up.

Okay, very good.

Mr.

Escamia, if you could sit back for a second while we call up some people.

Leticia Sanchez.

Hi, my name is Leticia Sanchez and I'm the co-chairperson of the Historic West Site Residence Association.

Uh my address is 1710 Veracruz, 78207.

And this property at 725 Montezuma is within our boundaries.

Um our association has been working with the property owner, Mr.

Martinez and the family to ensure that the zoning um that is selected is the best option for them and our community.

Mr.

Martinez is the owner of the Colonial Tortilla Company, which is a legacy business in our community.

Um their business is on the property directly behind 1725, which faces Guadalupe Street.

Um their goal is to expand the business to the back property, and our association supports their zoning requests for a C2P and A zoning.

Although our association would not typically support this type of zoning on Montezuma, we do support this request because the Colonel uh Tortilla Company is a legacy business.

Um also parking for this business is on Guadalupe Street, so there would not be an issue for residents on Montezuma.

And finally, Mr.

Martinez uh has agreed to submit a deed restriction uh letter to us to our association ensuring that if the property would ever be sold, it could not be sold to any business, anyone wishing to start businesses listed on C2 zoning that the association has not um that the association has indicated it does not want on that property.

So we therefore ask that you vote to support Mr.

Martinez's application for C2P and a zoning.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Sanchez.

He's the uh the owner of the property.

Yes.

Okay.

Um futuro de la tortilleria, que es el negocio que tenemos alita.

He wants to enlarge the property where the enlarged the property uh where he has his tortilla factory.

Uh it's a building that has been integrated into the neighborhood and we've kept it as uh good condition as we can.

We want to keep doing that.

Yes, they they want to be able to uh enlarge their business, so it's uh tortillas and food service.

This is all thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any further public comment?

That is it for public comment.

Uh Mr.

Ascamilla, anything you want to say further?

Yeah, the like that is it.

Uh I am the third generation of tortilla, the uh of tortilla makers, I don't know.

Uh and this building has been on the family for three generations.

So we just want to do whatever is right to the community, uh the zoning.

But uh hope uh hopefully well well we we've been growing the the business uh thankfully and we we want to keep on growing and keep doing business and giving jobs and everything to the community that that we are in.

And we yes, we just want to do what is right uh for the zoning uh commission and uh have the building uh bigger.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Stay right there, please.

Stay right here.

Yeah.

All right, fantastic.

This is a district five case, uh so it is to me for questions.

Um that you mentioned is that there is an alternate recommendation for C1.

If C one were to occur, what would be the setbacks?

So with C1 it would have a 30-foot rear setback and a ten foot side setback.

Okay.

And Mr.

Escamilla, to you now, 30 foot rear setback would impede what you're able to do with the property.

Yes.

Yes, it's uh you're taking like the half half of the property.

Because it's 30 feet from the back and 10 feet from the side, so it's a lot.

And you want to connect the two buildings.

The building facing Guadalupe existing, yes, and a future building on Montezuma.

Yes, and we we we will have to replot, but that's another Yeah.

All right.

And so uh Mr.

Wilson, sorry, I called you forest earlier.

Um would C2P allow them to have no rear setbacks such that they could connect those two buildings?

That's correct.

Because there's not uh it doesn't the property does not abut residential in the rear, the 30-foot rear setback would be weighed with the C2P.

Okay.

Uh and the only setback would be if you're facing the property from Montezuma, a setback on the right hand side, is that correct?

When you're facing the property from Montezuma, correct.

And how much is that?

Ten feet.

Okay.

And you're okay with that 10 foot right side setback.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Uh I will save everything else for discussion.

Uh but any questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner WhatsApp.

So you are replatting?

Yes.

And when they replat, that gives the option to build all the way back, and then they only have that setback from the street back there.

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Questions to my right?

Commissioner Chase?

All right.

Okay.

Um, like I said, this is a district district five case, so my discussion.

Um, I probably would have liked to have seen IDZ here.

Uh as we've discussed, Mr.

Escomia, briefly.

Uh I think we probably could have even gotten you a little bit more space on this property.

Uh but you know, as we discussed, you you want to go forward.

C two P appears to be the best option.

I appreciate staff's alternate recommendation of C one.

Um, but given the neighborhood support and given the desires for this property and its use, um, I'm going to recommend approval or move to recommend approval of item number sixteen as submitted, including the NA designation.

I move for approval of item 16 as submitted.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Woodson.

Uh discussion to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Well, so from the staff report, and hadn't hadn't been clear to me the distinction with the setback between C one and C2.

Um, that would have been helpful when I was when I was re reviewing it for the hearing uh because I was prepared to come and ask, okay, why why don't we do C1 and you know prevent uh a future you know owner, if there ever was a future owner from you know not being able to have the uses in C2.

But now that I I understand the issue around the setback, that's a lot more clear why the applicant was requesting C2.

Um so for that reason I'll be supporting.

Very good.

Any further discussion left?

Seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

Commissioner Chase, discussion?

Nope.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item 16 by me with a second by Commissioner Witsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Wits.

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Saibs?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ms.

Comia, good luck.

Thank you.

All right.

Our next item is item number 20.

Good afternoon.

Mr.

Zone's in your planet with development services.

Item number 20 is located at 1460 West Hildebrand Avenue.

Going from C2 commercial district to C3 General Commercial District.

There were 36 notices sent, one in favor, zero opposed.

The Keystone, Los Angeles Heights, San Antonio Tessa, Texas District 1 resident association did not provide a response.

Staff does find likely adverse impacts on the neighboring lands in relation to the zoning change requests.

The proposed use is not consistent with the established development pattern in the surrounding area.

The surrounding properties are zone C3 general commercial district, C2 commercial district, and R for residential single family.

The existing C2 commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area.

The applicant is requesting the higher intense zoning district to allow for a broader range of potential tenant opportunities.

While the property is currently zoned for commercial use, the request of C3 district would permit more intense uses, including nightclubs, auto and light truck repair, and other higher intensity commercial activities.

Given the existing residential neighborhood directly abutting the subject property to the south, the introduction of these higher intensity uses could result in adverse impact to the adjacent residents, and is therefore a compatibil compatibility concern.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

All right, very good.

If we could have the applicant, please, our applicant's representative, and if you would introduce yourself and tell us your address.

Wes Holderbrand.

If you would tell us about your request and why you want it.

Parking was always an issue, so we kind of had tenants coming in and out.

So this, I think it was about four months ago we decided to renovate a little bit.

We did some paint work and uh opened up the inside a little bit.

Um I'm in the motorcycle business, ideal vintage, like BMW, Harley, um Indian.

So I was looking for a kind of a showroom, and in order to allow for that type of sales, it they it was made clear to me that I need C3.

So that's pretty much the entirety reason.

We're not planning on selling or moving out, but um I did want to make this my um like a showroom.

Okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right.

Uh this is a district one case.

Um and so it is because Dr.

Kellum is not here, it is to Commissioner Chase for questions.

I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner What's it?

We'll go down the line here.

What's that to Sipes?

Okay.

Um I see that next door it's C3NA, C3NA.

Uh so there is C3 existing, it just has a no alcohol.

That is correct.

Um is that something y'all would accept within the no, I'm not yeah, I'm not interested in any alcohol, but basically left or right.

Yeah, you that's what I was saying.

There is C3 already, so that would be more than enough to cover the sales of my motorcycles.

And next door is bad boys machine shop and car repair and uh so I guess this is bad motorcycle, uh, yeah.

All right.

Commissioner Duval, to you.

Yeah, uh step and identified potential adverse impacts.

Um what were the uh impacts staff identified?

So as I mentioned in my little brief report there and in the staff report, uh C3 does allow for other more intense uses in the current C2.

So while they're not proposing that currently, a future owner could potentially open up other businesses that might impact the neighborhood in the in the south.

But just for context, next door is already C3.

So what additional uh negative impacts like specifically more of the C three would be there would be more C three that would be the potential adverse impacts.

Right, but I'm just when I was reviewing the staff report and I was trying to think through okay.

I understand you were correct.

There are some existing, but it's something that staff from principal land use or basic land use principles that we would not support.

So that's why we're recommending denial.

Understood.

But I suppose the trouble is.

Would you like examples?

Yeah, yeah, I can't think of it.

So that's why I was looking for the question.

Well, just a few that I mentioned uh just now uh would be auto and light truck repair.

Uh you could do a nightclub use as well.

In the bar?

A bar.

Right.

Okay, all right.

With those two examples, um this isn't a CD or uh an S, so we can't be talking about time of day restrictions.

Could we consider the NA to prevent you know potential future uh yeah?

Like I think that would be good with the NA to mitigate any of that concern, and like I said, there's really no parking, so I don't think like a nightclub or anything else like of that nature would be doing very well there anyway.

Great.

Great, thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Sipes.

My fellow commissioners have already like asked and and gotten a good response.

My questions were specifically gonna be about the in a um, but I do have a one question for staff, and if the desire is for a showroom, could that be handled in a C2CD?

And if so, is that available at this time?

It is available, yes, and it could be an option, but we don't have a site plan, so we would have to put this item on hold until we get that site plan.

Okay, that's understood.

All right.

Uh that's all my questions.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Questions right?

Questions remote?

Wait, you've already done you've already asked your questions, Commissioner Chase.

Um or how to your first round.

Okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and I think ask sort of the very direct and question of you know, are you amending your request now to add non-alcoholic sales in a um I mean I didn't really give that any thought until it was like made brought to me, but like I said, personally I have no intent or use with anything of the alcohol.

Okay.

So if Commissioner Chase were to recommend uh approval with an amendment to NA, you would be acceptable.

Sure.

That would be acceptable to you.

Yeah, as long as I could sell motorcycles.

Okay.

All right.

All right, those are my questions.

Commissioner Chase questions.

No questions.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Right?

Commissioner Chase to you for discussion and potential motion.

I have no discussion, but out of uh respect to Dr.

Hillum, he did ask me to um ask for a a two-week continuance on this.

So that would be my motion.

But we don't have two weeks.

The next meeting would be five weeks from now.

I'm sorry, five weeks.

Okay.

There is a motion for uh continuance to the January 20th meeting.

Is there a second?

Looking left, seeing none.

Uh second.

All right, Commissioner Sipes is the second.

All right.

Uh discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Oh, how many weeks?

Five.

Five.

That's a very long time.

Uh was there any reasons given as to the uh what why there was going to be a request for a continuance?

There was not any reason, no.

He just wanted to have some time with the applicant.

Oh, I'm I'm sensitive to the impact of time on the application process.

Um I'm gonna be voting no on the continuance.

All right.

Very good.

Any further discussion left?

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

I guess this would be a question to staff how much of an impact does that make to uh consideration for council?

Because council will be off as well.

Well, basically, if it was if it was voted on today, they would go to council potentially on 115.

Um but if this is continued to the 120 city council, it would not be able to go to city council until the February the second meeting in February, which I believe would be February 20th, I believe as well.

Okay, so it would there is an impact.

Yes, about a month impact.

All right.

Question uh sorry, discussion right?

Discussion?

All right.

I'm gonna see what happens.

I'll see where I vote.

All right.

The motion is for uh continuance to January 20th.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

No.

Commissioner Huey.

No.

Commissioner Kelly?

No.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

No.

Chair Bustamante.

Wait, did we skip someone?

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Commissioner Duvel?

Sorry.

We did skip someone.

Commissioner Duval.

What's your vote?

Nay.

Nay?

All right.

Chair Bustamante?

I am a no to.

Motion fails.

Okay.

The floor is now open for a motion for reconsideration.

Motion to reconsider.

Second.

Okay.

Uh discussion left, seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

Looking remotely, seeing none.

All right.

All those.

I'm sorry, roll call vote.

Motion for reconsideration.

The first one was by Huey and the second.

Sorry, first was by Huey, and the second was by Duval.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Losaff?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

The floor is now open for a motion.

I move for approval of item number 20.

Uh with the amendment of C3NA.

I second it.

Oh.

Who uh Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, I'm going to give it to you.

All right.

So the motion is for approval of item number 20 as C3NA by me with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Discussion left.

Discussion right.

Discussion remote.

Seeing none.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Very good.

You're going on to City Council.

I would recommend that you do get in touch with the council office and start working with them.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Good luck.

All right.

The final item on our agenda is approve consideration and approval of the December 2nd, 2025 zoning commission minutes.

Any corrections, amendments, amendments, additions, subtractions.

No multiplications.

Looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

Looking remotely, seeing none.

Um the floor is open for a motion.

Move to uh approve minutes as presented.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Duval has moved to approve the minutes as submitted.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh this vote shall be by acclamation.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

Any abstentions?

I abstain.

Okay.

Commissioner Huey abstains.

Uh minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report, but I just wanted to wish everyone a happy holidays for since I won't see y'all until the new year.

Oh, you'll see me.

I'll see you.

Yes.

Very early.

Yes.

All right.

Yes.

Thank you everyone for your service this year.

Uh it's been a pleasure serving with all of you.

I hope you and your families have a happy holidays.

Uh members of the commission, staff, thank you all.

And to all a good night.

Time is 2 43.

This meeting of the zoning commission of the city of San Antonio is adjourned.