Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement, good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a todos.

Las personas que preferen escuchar esta audiencia in Espanyol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

One preliminary matter before we begin our hearing.

There was some information going around that this meeting would be an appropriate forum to talk about the property at 542 Southeast Loop 410.

That item will not be heard today, and so no public comment will be heard on that item.

So if you are here for that item, uh you are welcome to go about your day and look forward to hearing what you have to say about it later.

But it will not be heard today by this commission, nor will it be heard by this commission under the binding constitutional, state and federal legislative, and our local regulatory items.

So if you were here for that, enjoy the rest of your day.

I think it's pretty nice outside.

All right.

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.

I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

The time is 102.

All right, I'd 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.

I represent District 7.

My name is John Kelly.

I represent District 8.

My name is Danny Kellum.

I represent District 1.

John Witsett, District 10.

Moses Duvel, District 9.

I'm Mia Losef, District 2.

Georgie Nohosa, District 3.

Eddie Pete Rodriguez, District 4.

Janelle Chase, Mayor's Office.

Staff is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

All right, thank you.

Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, individual liberty and justice for all.

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.

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 the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the m in the order that you are signed up to speak.

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

You will be informed that the two minutes are up.

For those who would like to give their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving their time for a total of six minutes.

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

And please announce that when that speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding their your time to them.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much.

At this time, are there any withdrawn postponed or postponed items?

Yes, we have three withdrawn items.

Item number eight, number nine, and thirteen.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are present for items eight, nine, or thirteen, which are are on Gwenda Lee, Virginia Boulevard, and South Alamo Street, those items will not be heard today.

And in fact, we'll have to begin the process of zoning all over again.

So those three items, eight, nine, and thirteen are no longer active.

If you are here for them, uh presuming someone initiates a new application to start the zoning process, you will then get notified about that change and that application.

But for right now, those are no longer before this commission.

All right.

If we can go on now to our combined hearing number one and read uh just the items.

Item number seven, ten, and fourteen are the combined hearing.

Okay.

Does any commissioner want to pull any of the items seven, ten, and fourteen looking left?

Seeing none, looking right, seeing none.

If we could read those items into the record, please.

Located at 322 Tarasco Drive.

All other overleas are remaining the same.

The staff is recommending approval with conditions.

One installation of 15-foot type B buffer along the northern property line that is closest to single family residential, and two, vehicular ingress egress not to be permitted along Tarasco Drive.

There were 24 notices mailed, two in favor, zero opposed.

Rainbow Hills Area Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item number 10, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to R6HL, located at 1041 West Agarita Avenue.

All other overleaves remain the same.

29 notices mailed.

One in favor, zero post, Beacon Hill Area NA is in favor.

Item number 14, a request for a change of zoning from I1 C3R and NP 10 to R 4, located at 4621 Cassen Road and 9233 New Laredo Highway.

18 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero posts.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet outside 200 feet to opposed.

We do have speakers signed up for that item.

Very good.

Not for these items.

Excuse, excuse me.

We do have for item 10.

Okay.

Did anyone leave a voicemail for items 7, 10, or 14?

All right.

Let's start with the voicemail for item 10, and then we'll go to the speaker for item 14.

I'm calling the referee to page number 1070 332.

HL.

I would like to read into record a letter from the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association.

Dear Zoning Commission members, Beacon Hill not only approves the landmark designation for 1041 West Aguarita, we encourage such designations.

We are proud and grateful to the property owners for protecting Beacon Hill's unique history and architecture that is disappearing quickly.

We respectfully ask the zoning commission to approve this request.

Thank you.

Cynthia Walker, Chairman of the Zoning and Urban Design Committee for the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association.

That is it for voicemails.

Marvin has not.

I'm sorry.

Let's go into speakers.

Yeah, we're going on speakers.

Marvin has a seat.

Marvin.

Marvin on item 14.

Okay.

Marvin, last chance.

If you want to talk about 14.

All right, very good.

Julie Manfu.

Sorry, I can't get the last name.

Julie.

Julie, item 14 still.

Julie, last chance.

All right, next.

Yeah, let's go out.

Marvin and Julie outside, please.

Okay.

Marvin, if you'd like to come up.

Yeah.

Marvin, if you would, please state your name and your address for the record and tell us uh your feelings about the property at Casson Road and New Laredo Highway.

Sure.

My name is Marvin Hassani.

Um my address, I do have several locations, but I want to announce one of the locations I have, and it's uh 9194 New Laredo Highway.

I am uh heavy industrial uh facility I have.

I do recycling and a salvage.

Only thing is uh imposing or coming against uh property that is about to develop a bunch of houses out there, just to do to our industry.

I mean, it's it's kind of hard.

Um thing is uh you do not want to live next to a heavy industrial uh area due to we do have heavy equipments that it makes a lot of noise, uh creates a little dust here and there.

Uh kind of we do have a lot of regulations uh that we have to obey and uh having houses really back to us, it it hurts our industry, not our industry only.

I think it hurts the houses that they're about to live in.

Uh one thing is I don't know if they uh they want to go through or not, but if it goes through, I mean I wish it would give us a little buffer, uh 50 feet, 100 feet away from our industry to just keep our industry safe.

Um that's that's literally what I have.

Okay, thank you, sir.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Sami.

Julie?

Julie.

Good.

Sorry.

Julie, if you'd introduce yourself and tell us your address.

Yes, uh Julie Mata, I'm at 9603 New Laredo Highway.

Um we also have other uh properties on that same highway.

Uh just to not uh sound as repetitive as Mr.

as Mr.

Haas.

You know, there are some uh uh things we want to bring up as what what bringing that uh neighborhoods into the community that we are now.

Uh the construction that's gonna take, it's gonna take from our businesses because you know the traffic it's gonna cause cause and um you know there uh it's I don't want us to have the same issue as St.

Mary's did when they were we had all that construction going on.

As long um some other points I spoke to uh with uh with one of the reps.

Um so sorry, it was just not revered right now.

I'm so uh along with the construction.

Uh Mr.

Haas touched on a lot of the points I was thinking of as well.

Was you know, the I don't want it to be later on, you know, where Monterey Metal is at now, you know, all the issues they're having with the neighborhood that you know that surrounds their business, that's something we're gonna have problems as well.

Uh ten years down the line, these these uh this neighborhoods are gonna complain about the noise, the uh I guess pollution, if you want to say, you know, they're gonna complain about everything basically what Monterey, the problems Monterey is having right now.

I foresee that happening to us.

You know, we've been there before that before, and uh businesses before us, you know.

Uh basically District 4 is known for having uh all the salvage art and metal recyclings were known as that.

But yeah, I just don't want to foresee the problems that Monterey is having now.

We're gonna have those problems.

All right, thank you so much, Ms.

Mata.

Thank you.

Any further public comment?

That is it for public comment on this item.

All right, very good.

Um any commissioner want to pull items from 7, 10, or 14 looking left?

Looking right.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

On 14.

I would like to pull just to have one more discussion.

Item 14 is no longer on the consent combined agenda.

All right, very good.

Uh the floor is now open for a motion.

I'll move to uh recommend approval of combined hearing one items seven and ten.

There is a motion for approval of item seven and ten.

Is there a second?

Oh second.

Commissioner Hina Hosa is the second.

Discussion looking left.

Seeing none.

Discussion looking right.

Seeing none.

The motion is for approval of item seven and ten.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Nota?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Lotha?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Wetzap.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

For those of you who are here for item seven and ten, those items are now moving on to City Council.

You have six months to get there, and good luck to you.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our continuance hearing docket.

Uh to February 17th.

If we could read those items.

Item seeking a continuance to the February 17th meeting are three, four, five, eleven, and twelve.

You do have speakers for item 11 and voicemails.

Very good.

And we have voicemails on a number of the items, correct?

Did anyone hear sorry, Ms.

Mata?

Are you going to stick around?

Okay, perfect.

Um here who left a voicemail for four, five, and eleven.

Are you here today?

If you left a voicemail and you're here today, would you raise your hand?

All right, seeing none.

Let's start.

Commissioner, I believe uh there was some discussion for item number five requesting four weeks instead of two.

So it'll just be items three, four, eleven, and twelve.

Pete Rodriguez.

Item five to four weeks.

Correct, yes, four weeks.

All right.

Uh so the items are three, four, eleven, and twelve.

So if you were here and left a voicemail for four and eleven, raise your hand.

Seeing none, let's start with the voicemails and then let's have speakers, please.

My name is Emilio Flores Jr.

I reside at 371 Bank Street, San Antonio, Texas, 78204.

Telephone 2102591374.

Case number Z-2025-1070 295.

Uh, like I said, my name is Emilio Flores, and I reside at Bank Street.

I've resided here most of my life, which is 65 years old.

I could not be with y'all today to hear this case.

I would like to express my concerns about three 731 Pro Band becoming extremely congested with vehicles and human traffic, creating an atmosphere for possibly panhandlers and prostitution like other areas have become my neighborhood is already loud and will only worsen with uh added renters and customers at 371 ProBent.

The previous business ended their day at 5 p.m.

And it was quite after that.

They had specific hours in the area just quieted down.

Hopefully, 731 does not have extended hours.

Uh they will have multiple renters, so it could be continuous noise and cars, car traffic, who knows.

My health and the health of others will be affected due to interrupted sleep.

My property faces two sides of 731 Pro Pro Band property.

The property at 731 ProBen is being remodeled to have other businesses renting for the owner.

Now just happening after the owner has already spent hundreds or thousands of dollars remodeling the building.

Hello, this is Michelle Vineyard at 8631 Pendragon Street, San Antonio, Texas, 78254.

Uh phone number 361 537 2709.

Calling about case number Z is in Zeta 2025 107-00333, Charlie Delta.

Uh we are going to vote no on the rezoning for 8504 Old Hesle Road.

Again, we are not in favor of that.

Thank you.

My name is Larry Raper.

I live at 8515 Braun Noel here in San Antonio, Texas.

Phone 210867-8149 case number ending in 0333.

I'm calling to object to the zoning change from property address as 8504 Old Tesla Road.

A property 200 feet from my location.

It appears that this zoning change will include a conditional use provision.

Allowing for full service motor vehicle sale business to operate within it.

I believe this to be a devious move.

This property is too small for an auto sales business.

I am a 24-year resident of my address.

So I've had an opportunity to daily observe this property for years.

It's been I for several years ever since the car wash facility there went out of business and was abandoned.

A lot became worse when it was then filled with used cars or broken cars or cars that seemed to be coming and going all the time.

The city was notified, and they closed that lot and put up the chain leak fence to prevent further auto storage.

That made it even more horrible.

I saw it's been that way until now.

This attempt to rezone this single lot as an auto sales operation will result in this property becoming a used car storage and transfer point and the worst kind of residential community addition.

There is an automobile dealership on Old Tesle, where it intersects Braun Road.

It is an ISOR and was the source of the vehicles that were moved to this lot in the first time.

It appears that once they were denied doing this by the city, probably because of zoning.

Now they're trying to change the zoning.

This attempt to rezone is this single lot to an up.

Hello, Mrs.

Francisco Garcia.

I'm calling for the property 8631 pen Dragon, San Antonio, Texas 78254.

Phone number area code 361-227-1282.

Calling in regards of case Zero Two Five-1070-333C.

I would like to provide the opinion, but no, I am against this happening.

I do not want this near my property.

Uh I would prefer that we find a different location.

Thank you.

Our names are David and Mary Martinez.

Our address is 9318 Wendover Street.

Our phone number is 915250727.

The zoning case number is Z-2025-107-003 C D.

We live within 200 feet of the zoning change location.

We are against the zoning change because of the traffic situation in that particular area.

The intersection of Gilbo and Old Tesle is located within 200 feet of the zoning change, also.

This intersection is very congested and is hazardous to pedestrian traffic.

There is a school nearby, and this presents a danger to the children walking to and from school.

In addition, there is currently a proposal before the city planning commission to build a 65-unit four-story apartment building in the immediate area.

The traffic will be a mess, and the safe and peaceful character of our neighborhood will be forever changed.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinion.

Have a good day.

Hi, this is Christy Harden, H A R D I N.

I live at 9218 Oxd, San Antonio, Texas, 78254.

Um 210 3263836.

I'm calling McGard to the proposed zoning change to car wash on the corner of Old Tesla and Gilpo.

I am in opposition.

We already have a lot of traffic at that area.

It's already a tight intersection, if you will, very difficult to turn right and left.

We have an elementary school not far from it.

We have a proposed 65-unit housing unit, four story going up.

Not far from that at all.

In fact, I think it's next door to it.

We have the incarnate word satellite classrooms at the shopping unit across the street.

We have a gym uh gym there, uh goes gym.

We don't need any more cars.

I don't think that's a car wash can be supported there economically.

I don't think it's gonna last even if it was built, and then we're gonna be stuck with an ISOR.

So I'm definitely in opposition to that.

This is for Alex Ratana selling planner.

It's 033 0333.

Um oh seven oh zero three three three.

Thank you.

My name is Anita Garcia, and my home address is 8411 Braun Path.

My phone number is 66140549 zoning case is Z 2025, 10700333.

And I'm calling um regarding 8504 Old Tesle Road, which is going in for a rezoning request.

And um 8504 old TESL Road is a very narrow two-lane road, one lane each way, and approximately 12 to 15 steps crossing from 8504 to our neighborhood.

And then next door to 8504 old Tesle Road is home as well, right next door.

And this proposal of rezoning jeopardizes the peace and the safety that our neighborhood has deeply enjoyed, and this car lot not only clashes with our resident nature of the area, but it also poses a significant risk to our quality of life.

With three schools within a three-mile radius, the introduction of a car dealership will intensify traffic congestion during peak school and work hours.

All right, can we move on to speakers, please?

Janet McCart.

And which item is this for?

Item 11.

Item 11.

And just for everyone's reference, this is actually a district seven case, although I think on the summary it does say district two.

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

Our clubhouse is 8630 Tesle Road.

I live at 9322 Wickersham.

Um I'm here to represent our community, which is 1,153 homes, and over 3700 souls.

In other words, the immediate properties that are close within this property received a notice in their mailbox.

Upon finding that, and we're a very close-knit community.

Upon finding that uh information out, we went out and started gathering petitions.

I'm not a guru on the computers, so I have with me a signed petition of over a hundred people.

We're not happy with the abandoned car wash that it's there, and we don't have a recommendation for something that should be there.

But what we are concerned about is that the immense amount of traffic I recommend that everyone stay off of Gilbo at all possible.

That is at the corner of the old Tesle property.

Within a mile, less than a mile away, there are four, sometimes five, full service car lots that are at the corner of Braun and Old Tesle.

These have already demonstrated that they pose a problem.

They park cars on the side of the road.

Thank you, Ms.

McCartney.

James Stopper.

Mr.

Stoker, same rules.

Name and I'm sorry.

I'm James Stopper.

Stopper.

I'm sorry.

It's this how it's spelled.

And uh I live at 8500 Pendragon, and I'm closer than 200 feet within the property that is currently in abandoned car wash.

Um, however, I am in opposition to having this made a car sales lot with uh possibly um some light maintenance work on um oil changes and things like that.

So the proposed business will create excess excessive noise during the day.

The residents directly next to the property works from home.

I'm three houses, four houses from that property.

I work from home, my wife works from home.

A required buffer does not exist to shield the homeowners.

The property is small.

There is concern that vehicles from the business will be parked, rotated throughout the day, and are stored on the street with horms with uh with homes around the corner and old Hesle Road, blocking driveways, mailboxes, and sidewalks.

The business will cause further traffic congestion on Old Hesle Road and close in the close by intersection at Gilbo Road.

There is a concern that the business will create litter and have discarded parts laying around, uh not and not not properly disposed of.

There has been a debris pile on the property for months.

It's littered with trash.

If the owner is not keeping the place clean now, there's no guarantee it will be kept clean in the future.

With four open-ended bays, a concern that inadequate material such as plyboard or other inexpensive inexperienced inexpensive material be used to create a makeshift walls to enclose the current cedar block structure.

An environmental concern.

There's water drainage through the property.

Oil spilled from vehicle vehicle maintenance will make its way into the San Antonio waterways.

There is no proper structure for oil containment and or storage on the property.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Stopper.

That is it for public comment.

All right, very good.

Uh ladies and gentlemen, this is on the docket right now for a two-week continuance, which means it will come back in two weeks.

You will have the opportunity to address this commission again at that time.

Uh if it is continued, at this time, the floor is open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for a continuance to the February 17th meeting for items number three, four, eleven, and twelve.

All right.

There is a motion.

Is there a second?

A second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa, he beat you.

Um the motion is for a continuance to February 17th for 3411 and 12 by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion to my left?

Seeing none.

Discussion to my right.

Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Busamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

I made this announcement a little bit earlier in the meeting at the outset.

Um.

For those of you who are present for the property at 542 Southeast Loop 410, that item will not be heard today at this zoning commission meeting.

And so no public comment will be heard on that item.

Further, due to constitutional considerations, federal and state legislations, that item will not become before the zoning commission.

All right.

So if you all are here for that, you can go about your day and enjoy it.

All right.

Thank you.

We're going to move on now to our continuance hearing for the March 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Items sorry, before we do that.

And just I skipped a step.

Anyone who is here for the uh items three, four, eleven, and twelve, we'll see you again in two weeks.

All right.

You all can go about your day too.

Take care.

Thank you.

Now items requesting a continuance through the March 3rd meeting are item five.

Okay.

And we have a voicemail.

We do have a voicemail.

All right.

If we can play the boys, it's going to be items five and six.

And we have voicemails for uh five.

All right.

Let's hear the voicemails for item five.

Ms.

Ronnie Hernandez, I'm with Mighty Portress Church in San Antonio, Texas.

We're located at 725 Cedarhurst in San Antonio.

7827.

Um is 210 667 8767.

It's in reference to case V.

2025.

1070297.

Uh, we're calling to let you know that we agree with uh what our neighbor is trying to do, the zoning change.

And if you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at your convenience.

Uh again, my number is 210678767.

Thank you.

Uh this message is for cementes.

Thank you so much.

God bless.

That is it for voicemails.

All right.

Are there any speakers for five or six?

No speakers signed up.

All right, very good.

Uh the floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for continuance to the March 3rd hearing.

For items five and six.

Is there a second?

Sure.

I'll take the second.

All right.

There is a motion for continuance of items five or six to the March 3rd meeting by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Woods up.

Discussion looking left, seeing none.

Discussion looking right, seeing none.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Witset?

Yes.

Commissioner No Safe?

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

So if you are here for item either items five or six, we'll see you in a month on March 3rd.

Thank you.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our individual hearing docket, and we are we will begin with item number one.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

My name is Either Gomez Zoning Planner with Development Services.

Item number one, located at 5251 Old Pierceau Road, is requesting a change of zoning from RM4 residential mixed district to C2C D commercial district with a conditional use for manufactured home oversized vehicle sales service vehicle storage.

There were 14 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The Southwest Community Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

The current RM4 residential missed district zoning is an appropriate zoning for the property surrounding area.

The proposed C2 C D commercial district with the conditional use for manufactured home oversized vehicle sales service and storage is not appropriate.

The introduction of high intensity commercial activities such as oversized vehicle sales and storage on the property with an active residential use creates a fundamental land use conflict.

Granting the request would create a residential island scenario, isolating a single family dwelling within a commercial and industrial zoning districts, which is detrimental to the public health and safety or welfare of the current and future occupants of the residents.

Well the surrounding area is commercial and industrial, retaining a single residential unit within the zoning change creates an irregular development pattern.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

All right.

If we could have the applicant, please.

If you would introduce yourself, tell us your address, and tell us about your project.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Ryan Plaggins with Bowman Consulting Group.

I'm representing the owner for this zoning case.

Addresses 111 Tower Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 78232.

I have a couple of slides, brief slides for you to walk through.

So the property is outlined in green here.

It's currently zoned RM4, as our audio mentioned.

The owner has lived and operated at this location with his business for thirty over 30 years with no required zoning change.

Similar circumstances do exist on adjacent properties to the east and even on the manufactured home sites.

There is a tire business that pops up on Google Earth.

He is unable to continue his daily business operations for fear of additional code compliance violations.

So he is adhering to not continuing his continuing his business until we can get this squared away.

Just for the record, it was the entire site, and we reduced it to include only his operational areas.

And it does provide opportunities for live and work options which are permissible under that land use plan.

That's really all I can kind of resolve on that.

But thank you for your time and available to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Ms.

Plugins.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right.

Well, Ms.

Plugins, that means you don't get a rebuttal.

All right.

This is a district four case.

So Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for uh questions.

Is the owner here?

Can you step up to the podium, please?

Can you state your name, sir?

Nicanoro Trevenino.

I live at 5251 Peso Road.

I'm the owner and I run a small business there.

And I've been there for about 30 years.

Well, 31, because I'm going on 31 right now, but I've been operating no budget for complaining or anything, you know.

And now this came up that I wasn't compliance and that it was a I didn't even know when I bought the property that it wasn't a commercial area.

And it's always always I mean I see everything there that's a commercial I didn't ever thought about trying to find out with the zoning or anything.

But uh ever since this came up, you know, now I'm having uh problems sleeping and with my health and I'm having all kinds of problems now with this and stressed out and all that because I mean I've had this business even when before I I moved in there and now there's they're giving me from my livelihood.

So I would I'm just wanting to say that up at the mercy of you all in old city and everything, you know, see what you all can do for me so that I can continue operating.

As I was have been operating.

Thank you, sir.

You answer all my questions while not even having me to answer uh ask you.

Thank you.

Can I have a seat?

I have no other questions.

Very good.

Commissioners to my right questions.

Commissioners to my left questions.

Commissioner Dubal.

Uh to staff, uh, could you share with us a little bit more about the uh comprehensive plan element for this area?

What is what's the vision for this area?

And just as as context, I uh I went to the brought my kids to the park uh across the street, like just last week, and I was surprised to see new development.

There's some apartments, the palladium apartments look like really nice apartments down the street on the road.

Um there's been a lot of upgrades on that park there.

So I'm curious what the uh comprehensive plan has for the long-term vision of this street.

You have zoning with industrial next door, but increasing number of neighborhoods being built around it.

So I will state that um the zoning there is a mix of commercial, industrial, residential.

There is established MH manufactured homes there, um the RM4, I mean he the applicant, the owner does live on the property.

This was as for the comprehensive plan, it's an urban mixed use land use, which is meant to be a contain uh a mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses at a medium level of intensity.

Um as the um as Ms.

Ryan did say that the um even though the existing C3 and the I1 are not really aligned with the established uh land use, that land use most likely came into place after the zoning was already there.

Um but again the land use they do want something of a medium level of intensity.

And staff just has concerns for the higher intensity of the use of the um storage of the oversized vehicles.

To stick to the zoning rather than looking at the proposed use, could you share what kind of other uses would be allowed under C2 hypothetically?

Hypothetically, it's mostly retail uh service, conditional or I'm sorry, service commercial uses.

So a lot of your uh again retail uses, uh service uh uses.

That's basically the typical um items that are permitted in the C2.

And generally though, to confirm the staff report said it, but I want to make sure I understand.

C2 is permitted under the comprehensive plan element generally.

It does align with the uh the urban mixed use land use classification.

Okay, thank you.

All right, very good.

Any further questions to my left?

Seeing none.

All right.

Um Pete Rodriguez to you for discussion and potential motion.

I have no discussion, but I do make a motion for approval for the rezoning.

Oh second.

All right.

There is a motion for approval as submitted by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Um discussion to my right.

None.

Discussion to my left?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Yeah, it it does seem like there's uh little bit of a disconnect between a little the vision in the the comprehensive plan versus some of the prevailing uses.

Probably should be worked out sooner rather than later to avoid conflicts in the future.

I can totally imagine this area, especially with those apartments, the palladium apartments down the street.

This area continuing to you know be developed as um residential and and and multifamily.

So at some point we'll have to figure out you know what the character, the intended character is.

Um with this project now before us now, um C2 is allowed within the comprehensive plan.

Maybe this is uh reflective of a larger issue with just the uses in the use table for C2.

If we if we're okay with C2, but we may not be okay with C2 in this specific instance.

Um but that's not shouldn't be this applicant's problem.

Um that's a change for the UDC.

So for with that, I'm gonna be supporting the project.

All right, very good.

And any further comments left?

Seeing none briefly, Mr.

Chair.

Yep, yes.

Of course.

Uh the reason that I approved it is he's been there for 31 years.

Uh there hasn't been no issues.

And you know, we uh I don't think it's right to uproot them and move them.

So that's why I approved it or consider uh recommended for approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

All right.

Uh briefly, I am also going to support the motion.

Uh the biggest issue that staff raised in their report to my mind is the isolation of a residence on the island.

However, given the historic use of this over the past 30 years, with this individual being in that home running this business on the fort first uh front portion, uh I'm gonna support the motion.

Uh there being no further discussion, the motion is for approval as submitted by Pete Rodriguez, by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, and seconded by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamant?

I motion carries.

All right, very good.

You all are on your way to City Council.

Good luck.

You have six months to get there.

It's not that far down the road.

Um, moving on to item number two for individual hearing, please.

Good afternoon, Alexa Retana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number two is located at 4131 Kalebra Road, going from R5 C D residential single family district with the conditional use for non-commercial parking lot, and C2 and ACD commercial non-alcoholic sales district with a conditional use for home improvement center to C3 general commercial district with all overlays staying the same.

There were 33 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed within 200 feet.

Kleber Park Neighborhood Association is opposed and outside the 200 feet, no response.

The existing R5C D and C2 C D are appropriate zonings for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C3 is not.

The subject property is within an established residential block and is abutting existing residential uses.

This property was rezoned in 2024, where staff recommended the portion of property abutting Calibra maintain a commercial zoning and the remaining portion of the property maintain the residential base zoning district to limit commercial encroachment and preserve the residential nature of the area while still permitting commercial uses.

The requested C3 would introduce more intense commercial uses to the area and contribute to commercial encroachment into an established residential block.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant is here to answer any questions and amend their request and boundaries of the property.

Alright, thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant, please.

And if you would, your name and your address, please.

Excuse me, sorry.

Andrew Hajali, 4131 Collebra.

And this is my son, Ian Hajali.

If you would tell us about your project and maybe focus on the amendment and why you made the amendment.

Yes.

So uh originally I had uh hired uh representative to uh make the property to uh use card dealership and uh I had some one because I'm not experienced, and I think the uh representative went to the extreme or requesting uh a C3 uh saying that that's the only thing that's allowed to sell cars, but the purpose of me is just for an approval for zoning to have car sales.

So with uh being here several times with further discussion, we had amended the request to where uh keeping only the properties that face collebra, which were approved uh in 2024 for commercial use to stay commercial use C2 and changing the CD from home improvement to just uh full cursor service, which we have rec uh we have done and amended it to the request of in agreement with everyone for what's been done, and the back property will stay as is.

All right, thank you so much.

All right, is there any public comment?

No public comment.

All right, very good.

Thank you, sir.

Uh this is a district seven case, so Commissioner Sipes to you.

All right, sorry, don't don't head off too far.

Um couple questions for you, and um forgive me if my mispronounce it's hide highjali.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Got it right.

Um Have you have you reached out to Calibra Park with this new proposal?

Uh well we we reached out to them twice, and uh we've uh uh basically specified that the purpose of the property is just for car sales.

And uh we reached out again when uh the amendment was uh basically the new proposal to eliminate the back properties and keeping them residential and only keeping the front as it is, and uh but we never get any response.

But yes, sir.

Okay.

Um the front property would only be used for car sales and full service?

Yes, sir.

Full service.

Okay.

And I guess.

Okay, that that that's it for me for right now, thank you.

Uh question for staff.

Um what would staff's opinion be then of the change to just to the the to the C2?

To a C2, it'd be a C2.

So what we've been what the amendment is is changing the just for lots 9 and the 32 point three five feet of lot 10, which is the southern section facing Calebra Road.

Um, and then the request is amendment to C2NA C D with a um conditional use for motor vehicle sales full service.

So this would include um additional work, you know, they could work on the cars and whatnot.

Um staff again, it's okay with the C2 C D just because it is along Calebra, a um arterial street, and there is plenty of commercial uh uh uses along the road.

All right, thank you.

Um there's always the option.

I'm just putting it out there.

Uh Logan brought if you wanted to remove the full service aspect, they could still work on the cars doing smaller items like um lube tire change, those kind of items.

They just couldn't do like full-blown mechanical work or auto body kind of items.

Okay, got it.

Thank you for that extra information.

At this time that's all the questions I have so commissioners.

Commissioners to my left questions.

Yes, Commissioner Witza.

I guess this is for staff looking at the map it looks like either that's an alley next to them and it doesn't appear to exist and it appears to be closed off either on this property or the adjacent property.

Is there anything y'all can tell me about that?

It's basically what I believe we would call like a paper alley.

Basically it was designed developed that way but it has never been developed as a full blown alley so right now it just looks like vacant land.

So if there is any setbacks and things their setback would be from the property line their property line the Allen would not benefit them one way or the other.

To be honest though when you are a butting an alley the um setback is um you get to use half of the alley and I believe with a C2 there's no setbacks if you're not a butting a single family residential which wouldn't be which would be this case.

All right thank you.

Commissioner Duvall questions the C3 so one of the lots is the request zoning is still C3 for one of the lots, correct?

No, they're wanting to amend from C three to the C2NA C D.

So they're bringing down the base zone from C3 to C2, which staff is supportive of because C3 is when you get into more of your larger scale items and then you've got your bars, you know large scale more motor vehicle sales, more of your um car repair items.

Well I'm glad I asked so the planning commission met on January 14th did they review the prior C3 request or this the new proposal?

They um the original request for C3 was going to mandate or require a plan amendment be but because he wants to amend and do only the C2 that plan amendment is no longer needed and that item was withdrawn because C2 aligns with the existing land use.

Great.

Thank you.

All right questions to my right seeing none briefly questions for me to staff just for the sake of absolute clarity or as close as we can get we're really at this point with the amendment to the property designation talking about I don't know what color that is 4131 on the map that's up here.

Is that green or not?

The 4131?

Yeah yes we're talking about that boundary whether we're talking about lot nine and however other many feet of lot 10 we're talking about that area.

Correct.

And the remainder the R5 C D above that is no longer part of this request.

It is outside of this request now removed.

All right very good any further questions commissioners to my left seeing none commissioners to my right seeing none this is a district seven case Commissioner Sibes to you for discussion and potential motion all right so this is um the the proposed change kind of throws a wrench into everything because as a strict C3 it was it was a pretty easy denial.

But I still have some issues with the introduction of additional auto uses I know that Calibra Park neighborhood association that's their big concern is they're they're kind of tired of seeing car lot after car lot along their you know uh along their corridor um and so when there was a couple years ago when it was proposed to be to change from a uh CD for a home improvement it was like okay well that's a smaller that that's not a car lot that's something that a store that people could actually you know uh patronize um and so I'm kind of just talking because I'm trying to decide whether I want to ask for a continuance or not.

But at at this point and I thank you for the for the change that you have recommended or that you're seeking I I think that's excellent which is why I'm struggling with this right now.

Um so what you did great idea.

Um but I think just because the neighborhood is so against additional car use or auto use on on the corridor, I think I still am going to recommend or make a motion for denial.

Okay, there is a motion for denial of item number two by Commissioner Sipes.

Is there a second?

Looking left?

Looking right?

All right, Commissioner Losef provides a second for denial of item number two.

All right.

A discussion to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

I I'd I'd like to see a continuance just to see if what the status of the neighborhood association hate to knock it down if it was still possible to make it happen.

Um but interested in hearing what the rest of the commission's thoughts are on that.

All right.

Left discussion?

Yes, Commissioner WhatsApp.

Uh I think I'm also in favor of continuance to talk about it further.

Okay.

Anyone else to the left?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Uh I think I'll join the uh also like to have a continuance.

All right.

Anyone else want to get in that boat?

No, I'm kidding.

Uh yes, Commissioner Kellum.

No.

Right?

Discussion?

I'll jump on that bad one.

Bag bag bandwagon for continuance.

All right.

Same, Commissioner Chase?

All right.

I could officially join that.

All right.

The band is closed.

Uh the wagon is closed.

The ship is closed.

No.

Um, that's very good.

Uh staff, one quick question.

Our public comment is over, sir.

I'm sorry.

Um, but how many times has this case been continued so far?

Has the zone the zoning case has been continued once.

Okay.

So if in fact, just to let you know, and you can talk to your case manager about this.

If in fact this continue if a continuance occurs, it would be they could move on to city council with a deemed recommendation of denial.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

So that's just for everyone's information.

Yeah.

Staff, if you can explain that better than I can, please.

So the the code um obviously requires that a recommendation from the zoning commission be forwarded to city council.

If this body has continued a case twice, the applicant retains the authority to at that point in time skip further consideration from the zoning commission, but they would proceed to counsel with a presumed recommendation of denial.

That was a much better explanation than mine.

All right.

Okay.

But nonetheless, that's not what we're talking about right now.

I just wanted that information to be available both to the applicant and to this commission.

Uh what we are talking about now is a denial uh by a motion for recommendation of denial by Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Lose.

Roll call vote.

Okay.

No.

The uh well uh uh it would not be a friendly amendment at this point unless you're I I don't know.

Is there a friendly amendment to denial?

I don't think there can be, right?

No.

Yeah, it would be a different motion, so we need to go through with this motion uh at this point.

So rolling.

So just to say for everyone, if you say if you vote yes, you're voting for the denial.

If you vote no you're voting against the denial.

Just wanted everybody aware.

All right.

Roll call vote.

Motion is for denial.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose, yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

No.

Commissioner No Hotham.

I'm sorry, can I get clarification, Chair?

Yeah.

If you are against the denial, say no.

If you want to continue, say yes.

Yeah.

So yes would be denial.

Yes is denial.

No could be continuous.

Could be anything.

So depending on what happens next.

No.

No, Commissioner Hinoz.

No, for Commissioner Hosum.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

No.

Commissioner Kelly?

No.

Commissioner Duval?

Nay.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

No.

Commissioner Chase?

No.

Chair Bustamante?

No.

Motion fails.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion for reconsideration.

That motion may be made by any member of the Commission that voted no on the previous motion.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for reconsideration.

There is a motion for reconsideration by Commissioner Kellum.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

Discussion.

Left, seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

The motion is for reconsideration by Kellum with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Noosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Move to continue the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting.

All right.

There is a motion for continuance to the February 17th meeting of the zoning commission by Commissioner Duval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Chase.

Discussion.

Left.

Seeing none.

Right.

Seeing none.

The motion is for continuance to the February 17th meeting by Commissioner Duval with a second by Commissioner Chase.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner No Holse?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Get with your manager, see what your options are.

All right.

Good luck.

All right.

We are now going to move on to the next item on our individual docket.

Item number 14.

Good afternoon.

Item number 14 is located at 4621 Cassian Road and 9233 New Laredo Highway.

Going from I1, General Industrial District C3, sorry, I 1 and C3 R, General Commercial Research of Alcohol Sales, and NP 10, Neighborhood Preservation District 2R4, single family residential district.

There were 18 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Outside of 200 feet, two opposed.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Staff has not found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health or safety or welfare.

The current I-1 C3R and NP 10 districts are not appropriate zonings for the property surrounding area.

The proposed R for residential single family district is more appropriate.

The subject property is currently a vacant parcel that has remained underutilized for an extended period.

Developing this site represents an opportunity to create a neighborhood and revitalize the area.

By introducing much needed housing stock to the City of San Antonio, this project could not only put land to use, but could also improve the visual and visual and economic character of the immediate surroundings.

Furthermore, given the absence of existing residential developments along New Laredo Highway and Cassian Road, the proposed change can be accommodated with low impact on current traffic patterns.

The proposal would also contribute to the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan.

Providing this separation is critical to reducing negative interface interface impacts and ensuring long-term compatibility.

It is worth noting the planning commission recommended approval on January 28th for the plan amendment.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Oh.

Thank you.

No, you're good.

This is a property off of Cassandra and New Laredo Highway proposed for development by D.R.

Horton for a single family residential subdivision.

And really do appreciate everyone that is here today.

Particularly Julie and I have been speaking for the last week and will continue to be speaking and working with each other on uh compatible coexistence for this project and the existing businesses in the community.

Um I just want to walk you quickly through the site.

Appreciate a radio's presentation.

Um so we are here in the kind of southwest corner of the city, um, right at the 41035, just up from the 4935 intersection.

This is about 75 acres with frontage on Quintana Road, New Laredo Highway, and Casson.

So a lot of access points, um, which makes it a reasonable accommodation for uh residential development and particularly without creating massive impact for the surrounding property owners, surrounding businesses as well.

Um let me skip through yes, planning commission recommended approval.

I think this visual is very, very helpful.

So the west side, left side of the property, that 38 acres is currently zoned I1.

It is vacant, it is underutilized, it has not been developed.

The NP 10 fronting on Cassandro, that is single family residential zoning.

Those are 10,000 square foot lot minimums.

We are proposing 4,000 square foot lot minimums that allows for a variety of lot sizes, and I'll kind of show you a little bit of that mix here that D.R.

Horton is proposing.

But the this the president of single family residential, not inappropriate for this area.

Again, with all of this frontage, um, multiple access points allows us a way to sufficiently and efficiently get traffic in and out with these new homes without disrupting everyone and everything.

Um we are looking, DR Horton is looking at um a mix of lot sizes 40 by 110, 35 by 115, they have 20, 25 foot setbacks.

Um the zoning case itself.

We are proposing to rezone all 75 acres to our four.

This property, this zoning request does not have a site plan.

We do not have a functional way in a traditional single family residential zoning district to create any sort of otherwise zoning buffers to create any sort of site plan with buffers in this request.

Um but we're happy and we'll continue engaging with the community, continue engaging with the council office and the property owners and community members around here on making sure with respect to also staff's report, uh cohesive coexistence and compatibility here for for everyone.

New residents, existing businesses here.

Um but new Laredo Highways, 120 foot right of way, Cassen Roads an 80 foot right of way.

Um these are these are large roads um that have the capacity to serve a development like this.

Um and you can see the the unit one side, this is a very preliminary layout, but the unit one side it's a much easier shape to lay lots out on.

Um the unit two side is a little bit more complicated.

Um we have detention area, we have floodplain area, a lot of easements, um, which this you can see in this layout does have those kind of built-in buffers where we're not just sticking residents on top of these commercial businesses, industrial businesses as well.

Um we're very aware um and want that peaceful coexistence.

Um and this is just a snippet kind of really zoomed in.

It's a very hard map to read.

The city's major thoroughfare plan map.

Um but just to show you, and I'm gonna let you look at that for a second, but we go back to this image.

You can see um to the northwest of the property, there is a ton of vacant land.

Um, but that has a major thoroughfare going right through the middle of it.

I will go back.

I'll switch back.

Um there is actually in reality very limited opportunity right in this area for residential development based on a lot of other factors that go into site development, including the major thoroughfare plans.

So just want to note that there are existing communities.

This is also an opportunity that this property is in reasonable access to major employers and also schools.

Um with the existing businesses, but also proximity to a lot of additional employers in and around the area with highway frontage that makes that accessibility possible.

So respectfully request your approval of this today, and again, we will continue to engage with the property owners and the business owners in this community and the council office on this request as well.

Happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Wassler.

Uh public comment?

There is no public comment.

Uh there is.

Sorry, I am mistaken.

There is.

We're going to bring them back up for another round.

Yeah, they have previously spoken.

Uh let's start with Miss or Mr.

Hajami, Martin.

Marvin.

All right, come on up.

Name and address again.

We're going to be a whole song and dance.

Yep.

My name is Marvin Hassani.

I'm uh owner of several uh properties around the area.

And one of them or two of them that budded to the property up there that are about to develop.

I just want to bring something very minor, and I don't know.

There's a train track that runs behind one of the tracks up there that track the big track that's square looking.

So there is a train track up there that runs.

I think that makes it a little bit hard on I guess houses noise.

Again, we are recycling.

We have equipments, we have excavators, we have a crushers that is squashes cars metal all day long.

It does make a lot of noise right now.

We don't have nobody around us, no complaints.

I am pretty sure you don't want a big old uh hundred thousand pounds of excavator running up and down all day, even at night, we have those equipments running.

And while you build 40 feet away from us, that means we can't run our business.

Would definitely shut we have to shut down.

That's kind of what it comes to.

Uh there is a pipeline that goes into that property.

Really truly, you don't want to live next to a pipeline.

So I mean it is a hazard.

That's that's to me I see it, it's a hazard.

Uh that area up there, it is big portion out of it.

It's a flooded.

I understand that they were saying there is a lot of roads that can enter to that.

I have been up there for going on 25 years, a little bit of rain, and it slows down the rain, and we will have underneath that bridge on Caston Road, about 30 feet of water.

We got so many people actually get stranded, and some of them passed away underneath that bridge.

Um it's not a easy uh access.

Once it flooded.

Um again, I I don't have no issues as a residential.

Just as far as the residential understand, they're coming in to industrial.

They're about to hear some noises up uh in the around surrounding area.

Uh I think that's that's the major.

I'm not gonna live out there, but I don't want others to live.

I don't want them to face that pain that they want to go later on, they want to try to sell their house, and they can't.

And that's one of the major issues as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Sazani.

Julie Mata.

All right.

Ms.

Mata, once again, go on back through it.

I think uh Julie Mata, uh 9603 Needle Redo Highway.

Uh again, we do have about three properties ourselves there on that highway.

Um not to be repetitive, but the traffic there.

When when it floods, it floods.

There's only one way you can go.

Um that's an another huge concern, the traffic.

I don't see where you are gonna where that's gonna go.

It's just gonna be congested throughout that area.

Other than what Mr.

The points Ms.

Rasson brought up, you know, that's exactly where I am.

I stand.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Matha.

All right, brief rebuttal.

Brief.

Thank you.

Um yes, very, very brief.

Um appreciate Marvin and uh Julie coming out here today.

We will continue to engage with them on this.

Um work with them on traffic, the construction timeline, how that all functions so that we can peacefully coexist um with a vacant 75 acres.

Um that is a lot of infrastructure that is missing to manage the water um in and around this area.

So we would I am not an engineer.

I think that's probably pretty obvious by any means in the account, but um I feel confident that the infrastructure that is going to be necessary to support um a single family residential community like this um is going to uh improve hopefully that flooding situation and put infrastructure in place that doesn't exist now.

Um and again, work towards um continue working towards uh peaceful coexistence here.

Happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh this is a district four case.

So Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for questions.

How many homes are they going to build on the property?

Approximately 350.

Yes, and you can see on that unit two side cast in the new Laredo is where that, you know, the major detention functionality is there.

But approximately 350 homes.

Thank you.

If I may, for the uh Commission's consideration, this is a case where the new legislation, SB 15, may come into play.

It already comes into play on the portion of the property zoned NP 10.

As a brief reminder, that legislation said that if there is a tract of land that is at least five acres in size, zoned single family, and has never been platted, the city cannot require lots to be greater than 3,000 square feet.

So that already applies to the portion of the land zoned NP 10.

It would apply to the entire tract with a successful rezoning.

Okay.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, any further questions?

With that information, does that change anything?

Sorry, I accidentally turned my mic off.

Um no, not at this point.

So that would only apply to that that portion that exists at NP 10 right now.

But again, we are looking at minimum 4,000 square foot lots.

Appreciate that flexibility awarded by the State.

That's not something we are pursuing right now.

All right.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Questions to my right?

Seeing none.

Questions to my left.

Commissioner Duval?

Staff, would it be fair to say that this area along I-35 is uh in transition?

Uh there are certainly a variety of uses out there.

Um there are existing non-conforming businesses that operate in the vicinity, and that is why staff in its report recommended that the layout be sensitive to uh you know sharing property lines with what are generally incompatible uses.

The reason why I ask, I look on on Google Maps and I I see at least, yeah, no new development.

Lenar um has a new subdivision, it looks like.

Legend Homes has a new subdivision.

So there's there's new, there's a lot of new residential development coming up here, right?

Is that accurate?

Yes.

But you have a lot of these in you know, existing industrial uses.

That's what I meant by in transition.

Um that uh yeah, that sounds like the the risk for potential conflict, so I'm glad that we're you know talking it through and everything.

Uh by the way, what if it was uh the current uh comprehensive plan has it as agribusiness?

What is agribusiness?

Like what does that entail?

What are the uses that are envisioned by that?

If I remember right, it is part of this one of the sector plans which were um adopted in 2011.

So we're looking at a plan that was adopted 15 years ago approximately.

Agribusiness, it was meant to be a mix.

Thank you.

Um it was meant to be a mix of large tract residential meant for like farm homesteads, along with non-residential agricultural and light industry uses.

So again, that's what it was meant to be.

If there were residential, they wanted it to be larger tracks that would allow space to be a space from the industrial light industrial uses permitted on in that area.

And and for reference, the um uh junkyards, uh truck repair, are those encompassed within light industrial, or is that a different zoning?

Well, the related zoning districts for agribusiness are more like um farm and ranch I-1, MI-1, which is mixed industrial.

I believe that the UAPRs and the MREs need usually will need a specific use authorization to be in an I-1 or an I-2.

So Yeah, those those uses metal recycling entities and used auto parts recyclers are uses that are authorized by right uh in an I2S.

That is the most restrictive zoning district in the city.

The vast majority of locations that operate in town operate on nonconforming uh registration.

Believe the property uh in question here is zone C3.

I will briefly highlight for the Commission's consideration that Marvin, how long ago was it?

Last year, a year and a half ago, uh Marvin participated on a task force to update some of the regulations for metal recycling entities and used auto parts recyclers to make them you know a little less um of a nuisance.

Uh you know, we called for different fencing requirements, different operating standards, more frequent inspections, but again, not putting all of the onus on the business, again asking that the developer for this property sensitively design the site uh to uh buffer those those uses.

And uh just last question.

So as of 2011, when the general plan element was adopted as agribusiness, those um wrecking facilities and um junkyards were not in line with the agribusiness land use element.

They presumably they were grandfathered in.

Correct.

Uh the vast majority of them were established outside the city limits and were annexed into the city and became non-conforming at that time.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Yes, Commissioner Woodsett, and then Commissioner Sipes.

I guess it's probably for both.

Um if you can tell me how you plan to sort of protect the industrial from not getting the complaints in five years from now, people trying to force them out of business.

I worked for a developer years ago that we had stuff out near the military bases, and there was a clause in their deeds that said there was ordinances that have been found around their property and they had to agree that when they bought it, they were aware of those kinds of issues.

And is that something you can consider adding to because it will happen that they will be complaining night and day about these uses?

That is not something I can personally commit to at this point.

I am happy to talk with Dear Horton and follow up with you about that.

So like what about buffering, fencing, like a solid eight-foot fence or a 10-foot fence, something to give some significant buffering.

Yes, and that's something that buffering and fencing is something that we're in discussion on figuring out what is the best use for those existing um businesses on the perimeter of this project as well, and finding finding what works for everyone.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Sipes, questions?

Thank you.

Question for staff.

As far as, you know, we we have talked about buffering, we have talked about trying to be sensitive to the industrial uses.

If the property is rezoned for um R4.

What impact would it have on future expansion of I'm thinking primarily of the industrial use that's on the Western side?

Um the southern boundary of the western side.

And uh what uh what I am wondering, or or I I guess the other across the street as well, both sides of the of uh New Laredo Highway.

Um if those owners decided, hey, we're gonna expand, we're gonna do something, would that impact setback requirements or anything like that?

Are they gonna have to are they going to have to be responsible for providing a buffer in the future?

So the property uh to the southwest on that corner is zone C3R.

It looks like it's a UAPR yard, a used automotive parts recycler yard.

If that's the case, it's operating on a non-conforming license and you cannot expand a nonconforming use.

The same would apply to the property on the north side.

It's also C3.

That's not the zoning that you need for that.

So you can't you can't expand onto adjacent property.

Uh when we updated the code, we did allow for the expansion within the existing property lines.

That is the only two uses in the city that are allowed to expand their nonconforming uses.

Um if they, those businesses wanted to put up another building, they could put up a building, but they would have to comply with setbacks.

Um but they could not expand on to adjacent parcels.

Okay.

I am I'm I think I'm talking about the one that's all that's it's zoned I-I-1S.

Give us a second so I can see what the I-1, what the S is for some homework on that one.

All right.

Um I think while let's see if I have any other questions.

I I will start off kind of high level, regardless of what the S is for.

Whatever the S is for is going to be held to the site plan for the S.

So they would not be able to do a dramatic expansion of that facility inconsistent with the approved site plan without having to come back through this body and city council.

So according to the um the ordinance from 2003, it is a specific use authorization for wooden truss manufacturing business.

Interesting.

Not one of the UAPRs at the or the MRE metal recycling.

Okay.

But as Logan said, they will they would be impacted by their ordinance site plan or whatever that was attached to the ordinance when it was approved back in 2003.

Okay.

That's good to know.

All right, thank you.

That's all my questions.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Pete Rodrigus questions?

Yeah.

This is for staff.

If approved, can we put any conditions that they put a 10-foot wall or some type of buffer to help with the noise from the construction site?

No, sir.

Any further questions, right?

Any further questions left?

All right, seeing none.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for discussion and potential motion.

First, I'd like to thank the two people that came up here to give your feedback.

I'm pretty sure that when they bought the property and they decided to uh build these homes that they took into consideration the flooding.

Uh also the uh the noise from the train tracks.

Um but with that said, I am I am going to recommend for approval.

There is a motion for recommendation of approval by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez for item number 14 uh with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion to my right.

Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Obviously I'm going to be supporting this motion.

Uh just because you know the they're not making any more new land.

And uh Southside, it's been so uh underdeveloped or developed in a certain way that now we're they're starting to move in.

The only thing I can say is it it's better to have homes than apartments because of the transition stuff for the school system and and and for the community.

I do see where there's issues with the road and other issues that hopefully the city can can provide.

Uh and again to um echo my fellow commissioner here.

Uh the flooding was brought up with the area, but I'm assuming they're not they've looked into this.

They're they're not gonna build homes in a flooding capacity uh to cause issues.

But I'll be supporting this.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any further discussion right?

Seeing up, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

One last uh comment here.

Uh for the potential buyers, uh I'm sure that uh they're gonna do their due diligence and investigate where they're gonna want to live, and your business is already there, so they know what they should they're gonna be getting into, so there shouldn't be complaints.

So my left discussion.

Uh Commissioner Duval.

Uh had the comprehensive plan previously allowed for or envisioned these kind of existing industrial uses.

Um I think it would probably come out differently uh for me.

The analysis would come out differently.

The fact that they were not uh would not be conforming with the agribusiness uh land use designation, I think is important because zoning for us our job is a predictability, uh reasonable investment backed expectations.

Um for these business owners who have been operating these businesses, um they they should know that they're they've been operating with uh non-conforming permits at least since 2011.

Um I had mentioned before this is an area of transition.

You have a lot of new development.

Um it's I don't think the uh uh property interest on the part of those industrial uh users would require that new residential development to give way because the plan at least since 2011 has been to move towards more towards residential and and away from those higher intensive uh industrial uses.

So for that reason I'll be supporting the uh motion.

All right, very good.

Uh Commissioner Woodsett.

I'm gonna take a little bit of opposite approach.

Uh I I'm while I'm in favor of the residential, I think that growth is good.

I'm concerned about the protection of the existing businesses regardless of their reasoning, and but they've been there a long time and we don't want to be pushing businesses out uh for something like this, and I don't feel like they've really worked with them, the residential enough to uh justify me supporting it.

All right.

Further discussion left?

Commissioner Sipes.

So I I completely understand where uh Commissioner Witsit is coming from, and I agree a lot with it.

But I think um for me the deciding factor is what uh Commissioner uh Pete Rodriguez said just a minute ago, where he was saying these businesses are existing.

Um if this was currently zoned, if there were no businesses there and they were currently zoned as uh like the I1 and everything, I I would have actually more concern than I do that they're already there.

Um because we hear often of of neighborhoods they come, they come to the zoning company, they're like, we didn't know that that was zoned that.

And it's like I mean, a lot uh you know most people when they buy a home, they don't check the zoning map.

And so I would I would kind of feel for them that they would not know that there was industrial zoning and then all of a sudden something pops up.

Here, at least driving by, they're gonna see, oh, that's an industrial site, that's an auto-recycle.

Okay, I know what I'm getting into.

So I think with that um I'll be supporting the motion.

All right, very good.

All right.

The motion is for approval as submitted for item number 14 by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Dubal?

Aye.

Commissioner Woods?

No.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Continue to work as you go towards City Council.

This is not over.

We are a recommending body, which means we simply make a recommendation to City Council.

City Council can do with it what they will.

So good luck to you.

And we're going to move on now to our yes.

Okay.

The time is 2 36, and Commissioner Whitsett is leaving the meeting.

We are now moving on to item number 15, which is nominations and elections for chair, vice chair, and pro 10.

At this point, uh the floor is open for nominations for chair.

I nominate.

Chair Boost Damonte for the Chair.

I second that.

All right.

There is a nomination for me by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Are there any other nominations?

All right.

I think going once, going twice.

All right.

Nominations are closed.

If there's only one, can we go acclamation?

All right.

In that case, all those in favor of the nomination of Commissioner Bustamante as chair say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

Motion carries.

Congratulations.

To me.

All right.

The floor is now open for vice chair.

Nominations.

I nominate uh Commissioner Huey.

For question.

I second that.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Are there any further nominations for vice chair?

Going once, going twice.

All right.

The floor the uh floor is now closed for nominations.

All those in favor of Commissioner Huey as Vice Chair, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Huey is our vice chair, and that's what you get for being absent.

Um finally, nominations are open for chair pro tem.

I nominate Commissioner Kellum.

Uh second.

Second by Commissioner Kelly.

All right.

Any further nominations?

Going once, going twice.

Floor is now closed.

Uh all those in favor of Commissioner Kellum as pro tim, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

Motion carries.

Congratulations, Commissioner Kellum.

You didn't even have to be absent.

Um at this point, we are now moving on to our approval of minutes.

So uh it is time to consider and potentially approve the January 20th, 2026 zoning commission minutes.

Are there any changes, any errors, anything we need to address in those minutes?

If not, the floor is open for a motion.

I'll move to approve as submitted.

All right.

There is a motion for approval as submitted by Commissioner Duval.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

Motion carries.

Minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report?

Um just what I noted in work session that they will cease to um accept voicemails starting April 1st.

So we will be listening to voicemails for the meetings in February and March, but after April 1st, no more voicemails for public meetings.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

There being no further business before the zoning commission for the City of San Antonio.

The time is 2 39 and we are adjourned.