All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes.

Las personas could prefer an escuchar esta audiencia in Espanyol, passing por favor a la cabina del lado derecho atrás para que les proporcionemos un apparato de interpretación.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

All right.

My name is John Bustamante, and I am the Chair of the Zoning Commission for the City of San Antonio, as well as the District 5 zoning commissioner.

The time is 1 o'clock.

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

Thank you.

Um John Thank you for being Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Whitsett, District 10.

Moses Duval, District 9.

Mia Losef, District 2.

Kianhoe, District 6.

Moj Gun Panna, Mayor Oll Appointee.

Georgie Nohosa, District 3.

ADP Rodis, District 4.

Staff is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

All right.

Thank you so much.

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.

All right, thank you.

She will bring invaluable insight, I'm sure, and we really appreciate you being here.

I'm happy to be here.

So prior to beginning our hearing, if staff would please 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 eleven 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, 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 will indicate those property owners in favor of the request, and an X will indicate 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 the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you 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 must announce that when the speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

Thank you.

All right.

We will begin with any items that are postponed or withdrawn.

Items number one is postponed.

Item number 22 is postponed as well.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here for item number one or item number 22 of those properties on uh Pleasanton Road and West Paluma Boulevard, as well as the property on Pereida Street.

Uh those items will not be heard today.

Uh they may be heard at a future meeting, but if they are, you will receive a further notice in the mail.

Uh so I cannot tell you when those will come back, but you will receive a mail notice uh for those items.

And if you're here for them, enjoy this rather warm weather.

Um to our combined hearing number one, if we can have the items listed on that agenda item.

Items on the combined hearing are 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21.

We do have speakers for those items as well.

All right.

Commissioners on my left.

Any items to be pulled from that list at this time?

Seeing none.

Commissioners on my right.

Any items to be pulled from that list at this time?

Seeing none.

All right.

If we could read those items on the combined hearing number one, the consent agenda into the record, please.

Item number four, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to C2, located at 735 Cedar Hearst Drive.

All other overleas remain the same.

Ten notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Spring Vale Neighborhood Association is opposed.

The applicant is amending the request to C1.

Item number six.

A request for a change of zoning from C2NA C D with the conditional use for home improvement center to C2NACD with a conditional use from Mortar Vehicle Sales Full Service located at 4131 Kuleba Road.

All other overleas remain the same.

33 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Kulever Park Neighborhood Association is in favor contingent on the resident development of 5030 5026 Rita Avenue.

Item number eight.

A request for a change of zoning from O2 to RM4, located at 1817 East Houston Street.

All other releases remain the same.

36 notices mailed zero in favor, zero opposed.

Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 12.

A request for a change of zoning from I2 to 01, located at 238 West Street.

All other overleas remain the same.

25 notices mailed three in favor, zero opposed.

Calling Gardens Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item 13, a request for a change of zoning from C3 and I1 to C2 CD, with the conditional use for truck repair and maintenance located at 6464 historical to Highway 90.

All other overlays to remain.

22 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

No registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item 14, a request for a change of zoning from I1 to IDZ1 with uses permitted in neighborhood commercial, generally located in the 700th block of East Myrtle Street.

All other overleas remain the same.

57 notices mailed, two in favor, 10 opposed.

Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association is in favor.

So Joe Crossing, HOA is opposed, and San Antonio, Texas District 1 residence association gave no response.

Outside of 200 feet, two opposed.

Item 15, a request for a change of zoning from C2 to C3NR, located at 1632 Northeast Loop 410.

All other overleas remain the same.

16 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Oak Park North Neighborhood Association Association is in favor.

Item 16, a request for a change of zoning from NP8 to R5, located at 1451-8 Watson Road.

All of other overleas remain the same.

Item 18, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to C2, generally located on the 8,000 block of Gilbo Road.

All other overleas remain the same.

Fifth notices mailed, one in favor, three opposed.

Braun Station West Community Improvement Neighborhood Association is not opposed.

Item 21, a request for a change of zoning from C3NA and C2NA to C3R, generally located on the 100th block of Morrison Boulevard.

All other overleas remain the same.

17 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Harlandale McCullum Neighborhood Association gave no response.

All right, very good.

Do we have any voice any public comment on these items?

We do have a speaker signed up for item six.

Okay.

Um item 14.

6 and 14.

Very good.

If we can have those two speakers, no voicemails.

Perfect.

All right.

Don Rios.

Mr.

Rios.

Or Miss Rios.

All right.

Not present.

Next speaker, please.

Jim Pelotes.

Sir, if you would please state your name and your address for the record and tell us what you think about the project you're here to speak about.

Hit the button.

There we go.

Hi, Jim Plett.

I live at 1128.

East Euclid.

Which is directly across the street from the project as proposed.

I represent the Sojo Crossing is the name of our townhome project.

27 units represent, if not all, the majority of the people there.

President of the board.

The project creates a big congestion for us.

Primarily, there's already a traffic congestion in that particular area.

If you go down to the Pearl, which most people have, this is one block away from the Pearl.

Residents all around it.

They're proposing a two, three-story building, no on-site parking.

If she'll flip that, you'll see that that's directly across from our complex.

So when you drive out of our complex, it's already very congested because you're right near the intersection of Euclid and Myrtle, which is a if you've ever been down there, which I'm sure many people have, is very congested.

There's already allowed parking, which we are also against.

So that we're kicking that can down the road for future future work or objection.

You can see the number of cars.

I just took some pictures.

One weekend, and it is jam-packed.

So with them proposing office, a restaurant, a rooftop bar, uh too close to our residents.

Um that's number one issue.

Number two, no on-site parking.

That creates even a more of a problem.

Um you can see some of the pictures.

So that's primarily uh get cut short.

But that's primarily the the objection.

So thank you, Mr.

Pletz.

All right.

Okay, any further public comment?

That is it for public comment on these items.

Hearing none.

Uh Commissioners, any items to be pulled for individual consideration?

Yes, Commissioner Kellogg.

Can we pull item 14?

Okay.

If we can move item 14 to individual, uh, I'd appreciate it.

Okay.

All right.

Uh any further items to be pulled looking left, seeing none, looking right, seeing none.

All right.

We uh the floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

Like to make a motion to approve the following items.

Item number four has amended.

Item number six, number eight, number twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, eighteen, and twenty-one.

Okay.

Is there a second?

No second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Um right, very good.

Uh any discussion looking left.

Seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

Uh the motion is for approval of items four as amended 6812, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21.

Uh by Commissioner Huey, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Syibes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witsap?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you were present for any of those items that were just listed, um, those are now moving on to city council with a recommendation of approval by this body.

You have six months to go to city council and take up those items.

But most importantly, you do not have to stay here today.

So if you are here for any of those items, you can go along and enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Our next agenda item will be the continuance hearing for March 17th, 2026.

Item 19 is requesting continuance for two weeks.

Okay.

Very good.

Is there any public comment?

We do have voicemails.

Okay.

We have a number of voicemails, and do we have speakers as well?

No speakers.

No speakers.

Okay, awesome.

All right.

Then I don't have to give my little speech about not doing voicemails and speeches.

Um, we will now listen to the public comment, please.

Hello, my name is Elaine Dagend, and I live at Chateau de John 7709 Broadway in unit 124.

My phone number is 502807494.

And I'm calling regarding the case Z 2026 107015.

I have lived at Chateau de John for over five years.

It is a beautiful community.

We have many older people.

I myself am approaching 80.

And it is very important that we have the park lights area that we live in, the clean area, the convenience of going across or shopping at HEB.

And we cannot look at having a huge building immediately adjacent to where our pools and the tennis court are.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Good afternoon.

My name is Gary Rain, and my address is 7711 Broadway, number 22C.

I've been living there for 34 years.

My phone number is 210826-3288.

I am against the zoning change for case number Z two zero two six-107015.

This zoning will have a negative impact of construction and a high volume of residents not only living on a small area of property, but also using the same area I use to access my home.

This will be uh cause potential harm on the safety of elderly residents such as myself walking to the shops of Lincoln Heights.

Other potential harm is a loss of privacy from a four-story building looming over our community, especially the pools, and the potential damage to our property from having construction in such close proximity.

Thank you for this help for your help in this matter.

Hello, my name is Gloria Coughlin, C-A-U-G-H-L-I-M.

I am uh an owner of the Chateau Dijon unit number 11 at 7707 Broadway.

My cell phone number is 210716-6840.

I'm calling in regards to zoning commission case Z-2026-107-00015.

But I am medium violently opposed to having uh uh construction happen uh with this uh and having this construction move forward.

I'm worried about the harm it's gonna cause the Chateau Dijon community, the status of uh elderly residents and the community living there, loss of privacy and uh the noise and the pollution that would come with such a large construction endeavor and potential existing potential damage to uh our property from having construction in such close proximity to our unit.

So I am very much against this zoning issue.

Thank you very much for your time.

Bye-bye.

My name is Jeff McKittrick.

I live at 7709 Broadway, part of 116.

I'm calling about base number Z two zero two six one zero seven zero zero zero one five.

I'm concerned that the construction or the planned zoning for this construction is going to cause problems with our access to the building, as well as it's going to cause problems potential damage to our property, and because it's close proximity to other units being directly crossed, the caller building will take the natural light away from the homes in the area.

And we do have a large older population in the building.

It's gonna impact their ability to move back and forth between their condominiums and ATP.

Thank you very much.

Yes, good morning.

Uh my name is Ken Such.

And my wife and I are owners of the condominium in the 7707 building at Chateau de Jon.

Um I would like to make a comment regarding zoning case number Z 2026 107015.

Wause a great deal of harm to our established community.

And that harm includes potential impact on the safety of our elderly residents.

Walking to the shops at Lincoln Heights.

The loss of privacy from a four-story building moving over our community, especially for our units and patios and the pools.

The noise pollution that comes with construction, the potential damage to our property from having construction in such close proximity to our units, and many units being directly across from a taller building and losing natural light in their homes and so forth.

So I ask that you consider changing the particular zoning or decreasing the height of the building from four stories to two stories.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Leslie Gotrow, and my phone number is 2106361375.

My address is 7707 Broadway number 25, San Antonio, Texas, 78209.

The case number I'm calling in regards to is Z 2026-107015.

Um it's in response to the four-story condominium building that is proposed for the corner of Broadway and Nottingham.

And I'm just calling to voice my concern and disapproval of construction at this site.

Um constructed, and it would definitely present a loss of privacy and a loss of light to my unit, not to mention the amount of noise pollution that comes from construction.

Um that took multiple years to construct, as well as all of the construction that has happened at HEB at Lincoln Heights.

And so that has been a damage to our property and it creates a tremendous amount of noise and dust and dirt all the time that we have lived through for years now.

Um the other thing, too, these units are extremely close to our property and would present problems with the light that we depend on in our property.

I also want to say that I particularly live at this location because it's a walkable neighborhood.

Um my girls, I have three daughters and I.

We walk to my name is Linda Cornwell.

My address is 7711 Broadway, Unit 2C, San Antonio, Texas, 78209.

I am calling in reference to public hearing, our zoning commission's public hearing case Z-2026-107015.

I am calling to protest the planned construction of a 50-unit four-story condominium building on the northwest corner of Broadway and Nottingham Drive in Alamo Heights.

The construction process alone threatens to disrupt our daily lives with excessive noise, dust, vibration, and construction traffic, which will negatively affect my quality of life and undermine the peace and quiet of a 200 unit condominium complex that has fostered a sense of stability and safety for the neighborhood since its construction in 1966.

Beyond construction, the addition of 50 new units in such a limited space will dramatically increase traffic volume and congestion in our neighborhood.

The streets surrounding Chateau Dijon are already busy, and accommodating so many more vehicles will create not only dangerous driving conditions, but also hazardous conditions for walkers.

Moreover, the density of this new development on such a small area of land is concerning.

Packing a high number of units into a compact footprint will strain.

Hello, my name is Maria Teresa Francisca Martinez de Murgia.

I'm the owner of 313 Chateau Dijon, located in 7709 Broadway Street in San Antonio, Texas.

I'm calling to oppose sunning sun 620 3610 7015.

This case is about the sunning the property on Nottingham where Fioras and Hanson and the current parking lot are located to allow a four-story condominium building for around 50 residents.

Even though this property is outside our gate, it's immediately next to Chateau Dijon, so the impact on our community will be direct and serious.

Chateau Dijon is long established community with many seniors and long-term residents.

We chose to this neighborhood because it's walkable relatively quiet and feels a close and safe.

Our buildings, foods, patios, walk away, some parking areas and the gates to Nottingham are all very close to the proposed sites.

So any chance there affects us every day.

My strongest concern is 60, especially around our parking area.

In the past year, we have already experienced several small thefts and incidents in the parking sun.

Adding a dense four-story project next to our property means more people, more vehicles, and more circulation near our gates and parking spaces and a long construction period with many outside workers.

This clearly increased the risk of theft, trespassing, and unsafe situations, particularly at night.

A four-story building would Marie Dalstrom, 7709 Broadway, number 114 San Antonio 78209.

Calling about the V2026 107015.

Currently, traffic has increased significantly on Nottingham.

There are no safeguards in place for pedestrian safely safety.

And the city must ensure compliance with Vision Zero and complete streets elements to protect pedestrians that live here in Chateau de Jon Dijon, including a significant percentage of older people.

Chateau Dijon residents request being able to provide input.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Norma Neckerboker.

I'm a senior residing in a Chateau de John condominios located on 7709 Broadway Street, Unit 320, Call 78209.

Uh this zoning construction of four-story and 50 person occupancy condominiums building will impact our gate access to Nottingham Street in addition to a negative noisy massive construction of a large building uh obstructing our units.

Please consider our concerns.

We are a large number of seniors residing in Chateau de John condominios.

Thank you.

My telephone number is A307768692.

Hello, this is Sarah Benavides Trotman in reference to Broadway condominium AC at the Chateau de John.

And I know you're gonna have a public hearing on um trying to get a train zone change on um tomorrow, and I am against the zone change.

I would not like to see a an addition to a complex being built.

High rise four four stories.

The case number is Z and Cebra hyphen 2026, hyphen 107015 for condo HC for Alonso Benavides Family Trust.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Tina Turnipseat.

I'm calling in regard to case Z 2026 107015.

And I live at Chateau de Jon 7707 Broadway.

I am in number 27.

And um, so I will be directly impacted as my neighbors will be uh now the new uh occupants of this uh proposed building.

And some of my other concerns about this that I think should be taken into consideration is that there will be uh huge impact to my home and to our community, with the building being so close uh to our property, and we have just lived through that type of noise for a year and a half while AGB expanded and then through the building and changes to uh 76 and 100 Broadway, and it is very very disruptive.

And so I'd like you to consider that.

Second of all, having 50 uh occupants in that small of a location is certainly going to be intrusive.

It seems excessive, and I think it should be uh taken under consideration in that that is not a very large space to put uh condominiums that would house that many people, and it would definitely impact our community.

And thirdly, where I live, adding a building of that height would certainly take the sunlight away from my home.

Um it would filter it out just by way of shade, and um that would be very dissatisfactory to me, as that is one of the reasons they purchased this home is was for the light that comes through all of my windows, and um I would really hate to see that go away.

So I appreciate your that is it for voicemails.

All right, very good.

Sorry, apologies for more.

Hello, my name is Olenka Vale.

I am the owner of 7709 Broadway unit number 211.

This is regarding case number Z-2026-107015.

Um my phone number is 808-399399.

And um I would like to have my comment included here, and I am in opposition of the uh zoning commission uh that is proposed.

Thank you.

All right, we have six more voicemails on this item, so we're gonna listen to them.

Let's go.

Five now.

We're making progress.

My name is Ann Schneider.

I am a longtime resident of Chateau de Jon Minnex.

I live at 7707 Broadway, number one A.

My telephone number is 2109128218.

I've lived at this complex for many years.

Um, I ask that you vote an unequivocal no for this zoning case Z 2026-107-00015.

The density of the proposed project is too much for the property to handle due to its size and its narrow configuration.

There is no room to provide for appropriate setbacks so that the Chateau de John complex is not negatively impacted by a looming four-story building.

It creates a lack of privacy for Chateau de John, creates noise popular pollution, as well as blocking all natural light on the north side.

Adding a high volume of residence to this small patch of property will create a traffic and parking nightmare.

Where are these 50 to 100 or more people going to park?

How are they going to access this property without creating a dangerous situation on our entry easement that is used not only by cars but also our residents who walk their dogs, go to the neighboring HEB for their groceries, and in many cases our elderly people and are handicapped.

How will these new 50 to 100 new residents access this property?

The corner of Nottingham and Broadway is already a very busy intersection with a left turn lane that has.

And I live at the Chateau Dijon apartments on Broadway, apartment number 305B.

And I'm calling about the case number Z 2026 1070515.

Not only was the noise and dust during all of this building increasing unceasing during the day with large construction vehicles coming and going and staged along Nottingham.

This will be even worse, especially for the tenants that back directly onto the proposed site.

The increased traffic will make the already tight turn on Broadway worse and cause a danger to our walkers.

I have recently retired and I often walk to the AGB.

I can't imagine what dangers this will cause for us.

Also, the lack of concern for our historic and well-respected community needs to be taken into consideration and not be hidden behind another boring apartment building.

Please reconsider this rebuild.

Thank you.

Chris Leek, L I E C K Chateau de Jon 36B 7711 Broadway, 78209, case number 2026 107015.

I V V, I I oppose the building of a new building in the parking lot.

It does not match the established our French architecture of Chateau de John and our condominium property.

The parking lot in question that they're building it on looks like part of our building.

I oppose it.

Constructing something new the people will think will match Alamo Heights, the motif of our building and the history of the Alamo Heights buildings that are established.

It never happens.

They always build something that doesn't match like a adjacent across the street, the large sore thumb that sticks out like a sword thumb, the building that they build the condominiums.

Um it's gonna hurt hurt our value.

It is an eye sore.

I also think it's kind of the construction of it's gonna create havoc.

It's in our parking lot, it's in our entrance.

It makes it look like we're at that building's attached to our building.

Um, you know, right next to Florio Froyo's Pizza, it's unnecessary construction, it's uh you know, traffic congestion, light intrusion.

It'll never it'll negatively impact our you know our our property, enter our property, and so forth.

And so um Alamo Heights is known as something that you know keeps its integrity and it's eroding, and this is just adding to that uh erosion.

So I uh respectfully uh oppose the building of this of this condo, four-story condo in the parking lot of what I call Chateau Dijon's parking lot.

Um thank you very much Hello, my name is Delores Mollish.

I own unit 37 C at 7711 Broadway.

My phone number is 210 668 6937.

Email Dolores Mollish one at gmail.com.

I'm calling regarding zoning commission case number Z and Zebra 2026 107015.

I have been a resident at Chateau Dijon for 14 years.

Please note that I'm passionately opposed to this proposal for the following reasons.

First, traffic at Broadway and Bassi on Nottingham Drive and entering and exiting the easement at Florias and Hansburg is already a nightmare.

As a visually impaired senior citizen who walks to buy groceries at Lincoln Heights Shopping Center, because I do not own a car, I must be extra cautious when engaged in walking in the neighborhood.

If the proposed building has 50 units, there will be many more than 50 cars entering and exiting the new property, counting visitors.

There are also two people in motorized wheelchairs from Dijon North, just north of us, who exit through our easement in order to go to the shopping center.

Our mobility situation is treacherous enough without adding more traffic in the area.

Please consider our special needs population when deliberating your decision.

Next, this new building would be so close to Chateau Dijon that our residents would be exposed to long-term noise pollution during construction.

A number of us are retired and either stay at home or work at home part-time or even full-time.

How are we to work at home in the middle of continual cacophony day after day for many months?

Traveling to an officer school for work would require at least two buses per trip for me, including during punishing summer months.

Working remotely for me is a must, and I expect to be begin searching for my third part-time job in retirement within the next couple of months.

Please do not block at-home job prospects for those of us who want to work for the extra money.

This time that is all the voicemails.

This time we mean it.

Um all right, very good.

At this time, the floor is open for a motion regarding item number 19 set on the continuance hearing docket for March 17th.

I'll make the motion to continue.

And I'm sorry about the emails since I got misinformed.

So let's uh move it to the 19th.

All right.

Um very good.

There's a motion to continue item number 19 to the 17th.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Second, uh, Commissioner Kellum.

I'm gonna give it to you.

All right.

Um discussion?

Seeing none?

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All right, roll call vote.

Motion for continuance of item number 19 to March 17th.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Lose.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoce?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

I.

Commissioner Panna.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

I motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Um we're going to hear that again in two weeks, hopefully, with correct information this time.

But we are now moving on to our continuance hearing for the marry April 7th, 2026 meeting, item number 11.

Correct?

That is correct.

All right.

Uh is there, please say no.

Uh there's any public comment.

There is no public comment.

Very good.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion for item number 11, which is on the continuance hearing for April 7th, 2026.

I'll make a motion to uh continuous to April 7th.

Very good.

I second it.

Motion by Commissioner Hina Hosa with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to continue item number 11 to April 7th.

Any discussion?

Seeing none?

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

Very good.

Roll call vote on motion to continue item number 11 to April 7th.

Commissioner?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Loosef?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Uh we are now going to move on to our individual docket.

If we could have the first item, please.

If you are here for item 11 or 19, you may go along your way.

You'll have a good day.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Say other goals Mrs.

Odin, senior planner with development services.

Item number two is located at 2031 eight Hevener Road, going from C2 commercial district to C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization for laundry and dry cleaning services.

There were 16 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The Stone Oak and Sunterra Property Owners Association did not provide a response.

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

The current C2 commercial district is inappropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2S commercial district with specific use authorization for the laundry and dry cleaning self-service is also appropriate.

The proposed use is consistent with the established commercial nature of the surrounding block.

The specific use authorization is being requested to satisfy the requirements of the Edwards Recharge Zone District ERZD overlay, ensuring all environmental and impervious cover standards are met.

The requests the request of specific use authorization represents a compatible expansion of the allowable activities rather than a fundamental change in land use intensity.

SAUS is here with the report as well, and the applicant is here to ask any questions.

Very good.

If we could have the SAWs representative, please wait up after all those voice else.

Allowing for a self-service laundry bat.

The site is currently a 0.9 acre existing uh business suite located in the creek at Stone Oak uh Retail Center.

The business was built, uh business suite was built in 2018 and is classified as a category one.

The proposed zoning change will occupy an existing 11,392 square foot suite consisting of washer, dryer, and dryer machines with uh folding stations.

Therefore, no increase to the existing impervious cover.

Stormwater runoff is being treated by an existing water quality basin and was found to be compliant at the time of our site visit.

No portion of the site is in a floodplain and no sensitive geologic features were documented nor observed on site.

We recommend approval with all environmental recommendations within the SALS report to include no increase to the existing 70 percent impervious cover for the point nine acre lot.

Thank you, Mr.

Escalante.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, please for item number two.

Hi if you would introduce yourself, tell us your address, and tell us about the project.

Yeah, my name is Amalomista.

Um my office is in 1717 and North Loop 1604 east.

Um the project is already existing.

It's uh it's uh 11,000 square feet uh building.

Uh we are fully leased that we are we have on inquiry uh one of our uh future tenants, hopefully it's uh very um high-end laundry with uh sales service as well as with um um full service uh so I'm not sure um we would love to to for the case to be approved.

Uh thank you so much, sir.

All right, why don't you sit in the front row though in case someone has any questions?

All right, is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

This is a district nine case, so Commissioner Duval to you for questions.

And I'll be brief with the number of items on the individual hearing docket.

Uh to uh staff, so existing impervious cover, existing building space, existing water quality basin.

Um I understand the S requirement comes from the use table, right?

Additional scrutiny because this is a laundromat.

We'd be concerned in the Idwood's Aqua for resarge zone, so we want to put additional scrutiny on it.

But this kind of a case where there's no public comment or feedback, there's no opposition, everything's already existing.

Uh is there like a lower level of review with SAWS and staff, or is it all treated the same?

Because there might be a mismatch there policy-wise, compared with like greenfield projects where there's much higher you know risk of water intrusion and everything.

Uh no, they're all treated the same.

That that's it for me.

All right.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Duval.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

Right?

Seeing none.

All right, very good.

The floor is now.

I'm sorry.

We're gonna go to Commissioner Duval for discussion and potential motion.

Uh only that we we may want to consider uh addressing the uh the the requirements about combined calendar versus individual calendar for the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, just because like this is a perfect case where I mean this should have been on this should be on combined, you know, when it's under these circumstances.

Um with that I'll I uh uh move to recommend uh approval.

All right.

There is a motion for oh, sorry, Commissioner Witson.

Second.

Oh, very good.

Uh I was afraid we're gonna move backwards and I'm gonna do some more voicemails.

I was in shock for a second.

All right, very good.

Uh there is a motion for to recommend approval for item number two by Commissioner Duval with a second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Discussion looking left, seeing none.

Discussion looking right, seeing none.

Very good.

Again, the motion is for approval of item number two by Commissioner Duval with the second by Commissioner Witsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Duval.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Hi.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

I.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Congratulations.

You're going on to City Council with the recommendation of approval.

All right.

Uh, our next item is item number three.

Ooh, hand ups.

Okay.

Uh good.

Good afternoon, uh, Commissioners.

My name's Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

So item number three is located at 21607 Rowan Bluff.

It is going from PUD R6, Plan Unit Development, Residential Single Family District, to PUD R6 CD, Plan Unit Development, Resident Residential Single Family District with a conditional use for three dwelling units with all overlays remaining the same.

Uh there were 20 notices sent, six received in favor, zero opposed within two hundred feet.

The Cavallo Creek HOA previously indicated support, although I think they um also expressed some concerns after that.

The um there were three opposed outside of 200 feet.

The existing PUD R6 plan unit development residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed PUD R6 CD for three dwelling units is also appropriate.

The subject property is within an established residential neighborhood, and the change of zoning would preserve the residential nature of the property, but allow two additional units rather than uh the two additional units that are currently planned.

The conditional use request requires the submission of a site plan that cannot be changed without further public review.

The proposed zoning is also consistent with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of alternative housing types to accommodate the city's growing population at all income levels.

Additionally, the SAWs identified the subject property as a category one property and recommends uh approval of the zoning request, provided that impervious cover shall not exceed 50 percent.

Uh staff recommends approval, and I believe the applicant is present.

All right, very good.

If we could have the SAWS report, please.

Okay.

Mike Mike Escalante with SAWS October Protection Evaluation uh section.

We've we reviewed the zoning application located at uh 21607 uh Rowan Bluff, allowing for a duplex unit.

The suite, I mean, I'm sorry, the site is currently a 2.27 acre residential lot with an existing house, uh cover patio, gazebo, pool, walkways, and a driveway.

The house was previously built in 2004 and is classified as a category one.

The proposed zoning change will allow for a 1600 square foot duplex with a garage and driveway to be built uh to the rear of the house.

The western boundary of the property lies in the West Elm Creek of floodplain.

The floodplain and creek are located within a one-acre naturally vegetated lot.

No sensitive geologic features were documented nor observed on site.

We recommend approval with all environmental recommendations within the SALS report to include the imperious cover after the construction of the duplex unit shall not exceed the 15% on the overall 2.27 acre lot.

A floodplain buffer shall be provided along the western boundary of the property as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Scalante.

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

And if you would give us your name and address the good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Veronica Coretti.

I live at 21823 Prospect Hill.

I'm here today to represent a family who is respectfully requesting your support for a rezoning application at 21607, Rhone Bluff, to allow the construction of a duplex on the property.

This request is not driven by investment, short-term leasing, or commercial use.

It is driven by family.

The homeowners are seeking to build a duplex that will house both sets of their parents.

As they age, they want to ensure they're close to them, not just geographically, but relationally and practically.

This arrangement would allow them to provide daily support, assistance with medical needs, companionship, and stability while still preserving their privacy and independence.

They're not seeking to increase traffic, create rental turnover, or alter the character of the neighborhood.

This duplex would function as a family residence.

Essentially one extended household under one ownership on this 2.67 acre lot.

It will be owner occupied and maintained at the same standards as a single family home.

From a community perspective, this approach offers several benefits.

It keeps aging residents within the family structure.

It strengthens multi-generational living, something that has long been part of strong communities.

It preserves neighborhood stability as the property will not be used for transient rental purposes, but for long-term commitment.

Architecturally, the design will be compatible with surrounding homes in scale, materials, and appearance, and are committed to ensuring that it enhances, not detracts from the neighborhood aesthetic.

We understand that zoning decisions must balance private needs with public interest, and we believe that this request does both.

It supports family care while maintaining responsible development and with the support of the neighboring residents and HOA as well as our district nine.

We respectfully ask for your support in allowing us to build a home that keeps parents close, cared for, and connected to the family and the community they love.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Is there any public comment?

Oh you're gonna have a little rebuttal, I'm sure somebody can sit in the front row.

We do have public comment.

All right.

Any voice voicemails?

No voicemails.

Very good.

Antonio Doming.

And sir, if you would say your name and your address.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, how are you?

My name is Antonio Domit.

I leave in 1803, Ron Cross.

I I I do not agree with the rezoning of the zone because I think it's going to change the whole idea of the community.

That's all.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, sir.

All right, next.

Jamie Holder.

Hi, I'm Jamie Holder.

I live at 2802 Rhone Creek.

Um if this cannot be denied today, I'd like to ask for a continuance so our HOA attorney is able to be present.

It's my understanding that what was a proposed to the architectural committee was not a duplex.

Our bylaws state there is only to be one single family structure on our properties.

It also states there should be no structure over 1,300 square feet.

The ACC have stated they would not have approved a duplex, and since learning that it should be a duplex, they have rescinded the approval.

This is not personal.

I'm all about family.

We just don't want to set a precedent because we only have one entrance and exit, and our neighborhood was not built to allow for more structures.

I don't understand why they are asking for rezoning.

What does this mean for future owners?

Could they sell this property separately?

Thank you, Ms.

Holder.

Sawyer, Lindsay?

Ah, excellent.

And good good teaching moment.

So if you want to give your time to someone, you have to do it beforehand.

So to whom do you want to give it?

All right, who are you?

All right.

Ms.

Sawyer is giving it to Sorry, last name again.

Mengel.

Got it.

All right.

Um very good.

Thank you, Ms.

Sawyer.

That's all right.

I should have I should have reminded everyone.

Nicholas Brown.

Mr.

Brown.

Good afternoon, good afternoon.

Nicholas Brown, 21911, Rowan Bluff.

Um, I'd just like to put my voice as opposed to this.

The reason being is I do believe it sets a precedence of operating, bringing more residential into our community with uh renters, possibly.

I mean, under the skies of uh family, it's awesome.

But once they move, or if they move, it does open up an opportunity to sell it as a another uh renter structure.

So I would like to just put my oppose on it.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Vicky Mangal.

Hi, my name is Vicky Mangal, and I live in uh Cavallo Creek.

Our HO board is our HOA is not on board with this.

They they have sent a letter to our lawyer saying they resend it because he did not apply for a duplex.

He is a realtor, Mr.

Lack has a realtor.

He applied for a uh an ADU, which all of you know what that is.

I I asked in our um I asked, and he said, I'm I'm doing uh uh guest house on our community.

We're doing a guest house, and and it has just two sides.

That's why it has to be rezoned.

Never was the word duplex mentioned because it's not allowed in our HOA.

HOA was contacted by me, and they said we never would have approved it had he filled out the right form.

He as a realtor, I think he would have known to put that it was a duplex, not an ADU.

Um he will only speak to people in our neighborhood if they go to his house.

I I printed everyone a copy of um of what was stated how he does he never says that it is a duplex.

I asked.

And also we have to imagine I know probably not everyone in our neighborhood can afford to do a duplex, but let's say 40 families can.

That doubles the size of our community, and it one way in, one way out, one lane in, one lane out.

It's it it it just opens Pandora's box.

If you cannot say no, this zoning doesn't go through, I'm asking that you um postpone it because our lawyer we do have lawyers, it's not one person that is against this, it's it's more than one person.

We have lawyers that are are trying to get this out.

The HOA is not on board with this.

Um our our board members, I we I've spoken to a couple of board members.

They said we never would have approved this had we known that it had to be rezoned or that it was a duplex because that is not allowed in our neighborhood.

And that's all I have to say.

Thank you guys.

Thank you, Ms.

Mangal.

Excellent timing too.

Um next.

Navin Mangal.

All right, Mr.

Mangal, you will have four minutes.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Nav Mangal, and I'm a neighbor in Cavallo Creek Estates.

I have been since 2017.

Your address, please.

Uh the address is 21502 Rone Chase.

I do not support the rezoning for multiple reasons.

The neighborhood was built to this to sustain less than 100 residential homes.

Rezoning to allow duplexes could potentially triple triple our neighborhood.

So it not only affects the neighbors within 200 feet around Mr.

Laka's resident, it affects the whole neighborhood because of the rezoning.

We as you've heard, we've had one single lane location to enter and leave, which the whole neighborhood must use.

The intersection we have to use is riddled with traffic in the mornings and afternoons, oftentimes forcing drivers to take alternate routes to go to work and their final destination.

This is mainly because we border a middle school.

A traffic feasibility study is already required for this intersection without any increase in population entering or exiting our neighborhood.

We do not have sidewalks in our neighborhood, which means young children, athletes, dog owners, joggers, and everyone else must share the same road as automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles.

We have many people that exercise on the streets in our neighborhood at all times of the day and walk their dogs morning and night.

We also have plenty of young children whose parents feel safe knowing their kids are playing outside in Cavalo Creek.

My daughter is a soccer athlete going to Tennessee in a scholarship next year.

Two of our neighbors are preparing for a marathon this month.

I would love for my daughter to be able to continue to train safely in our neighborhood when she comes back from university for visits.

With the addition of unknown families living in duplexes in backyards, the main plus the main resident, that trust factor will be drastically reduced.

Our neighborhood is simply not built to triple in size if the floodgates are open and everyone is allowed to have duplexes with multiple families in our backyards.

This brings me to the next point, which is the application process.

Our architectural control board was misled.

Our neighborhood board was misled.

Our HOA was misled, and our neighborhood was misled.

Is very concerning to me as the application for rezoning was granted under false premises, which has been confirmed.

This meeting should have never taken place.

The applicant has made multiple attempts to win approval and failed.

The applicant is both retired military and a licensed realtor, and it is very disturbing that he just tried to disguise a duplex with the verbiage it is simply a guest house with two sites.

Any licensed realtor would know it is a duplex, and any retired military person would also know it is a duplex.

So the question is why did he try to so hard to hide it?

Why did he openly say that it is not a duplex but a guest house with two sites?

The applicant claims they would never do anything to affect the neighborhood in negative way, but immediately attacked the first person on our community forum who asked a question.

Last week the applicant's rezoning sign was down for five days, and he was informed day after day online and by the city.

The applicant's response was if you have a problem, pick it up for yourself.

And that is in the handout that you have.

What kind of answer is this when it is a legal requirement of the city and an obligation to the neighborhood that he would never hurt?

Pictures of the applicant and his wife and the driver completely neglecting the down sign can also be provided.

We are seeing the applicant manipulate everything and everyone in his way to get what he wants from the start of the process, yet he has been extremely defensive when questions are asked, to the point that he will openly insult all of us neighbors and accuse us of being cowards.

I am extremely worried about his real intentions and behavior, knowing that he's manipulated his way to the current situation we're in this far.

No to rezoning, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mungo.

You weren't as good at timing as your wife.

Um and congratulations to your daughter.

Next, please.

Mr.

Charles Stayas.

Mr.

Hayes.

Uh good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Charles Dayas, and uh my wife and I live at 22022 Rhone Bluff.

And we've lived there uh 18 years.

We're approximately uh point six miles beyond this location.

And I won't take your time to reiterate again all the objections that have been raised.

I completely agree with them.

But I do want to stress one thing that uh uh I think we have touched on slightly, and that's one of safety.

As you know, that's the one uh Rhone Bluff is the uh only access and egress uh into the subdivision, and at this location that we're discussing, there are no street lights, there are no sidewalks.

Street lighting, uh since this is a uh a private uh subdivision, uh street lighting is minimal, and uh and there are no sidewalks, so I'm concerned about the traffic that'll that will occur at this at this particular site.

Um a lot of people in the morning and in the evening when it's nice and cool, will walk and jog in that area.

I've done that be uh myself.

I still need to do that again.

And um, but I'm concerned about the safety.

And uh, and so this house has a little bit of a history of approximately 10 years ago, maybe a different uh ownership.

There were several families that live there, and the the front of the house looked like a parking lot.

Now, maybe that might be resolved um with what the these uh the the new homeowners tend to do.

I don't know.

But again, um I'll still go back to the safety issue.

No sidewalks, no street lighting.

I could be uh a really problematic area.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, sir.

Next, that is it for public comment.

All right, very good.

Um I'm gonna butcher your name.

I apologize, Miss Cruetti.

Uh brief sorry, sir.

You've you've had your time, I apologize.

But maybe, maybe uh Commissioner will ask you some questions.

Okay.

All right, Miss Cruetti, uh brief rebuttal.

Uh I'll allow it in this instance.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Lotka, please.

Good afternoon.

Philip Latka 21607, Rome Bluff.

Phone numbers area code 334 4703961.

As you guys have heard, I am retired military.

I am a realtor, which I don't understand.

I was a pilot before, which once again doesn't really make sense to this case.

Um, I I applied for this back in October.

I did not start the process until fully approved by the zoning committee or the HOA committee.

There's false things coming on right now.

The HOA committee approved this back in October with the exact same documents that I uh presented to the zoning committee.

Architectural scans, um, engineering designs, all that stuff.

This was approved fully by the ACC.

Nothing was an issue until a sign got put in my neighbor in my my land by people that aren't even near us.

I'm gonna try to save you some time.

Sir, the HOA is outside of our purview.

Okay, we're just about land use.

Okay, so land use.

Sorry about that.

We we're doing a we're not going outside of the um 1,800 square feet maximum for a single resident.

800 or 1600, sorry, going 800 foot side east side.

zoning committee architectural scans um engineering designs all that stuff this was approved fully by the ACC nothing was an issue until a sign got put in my neighbor in my my my land um by people that aren't even near us I'm gonna try to save you some time sir the HOA is outside of our purview okay we're just about land use okay so land use sorry about that we we're doing a we're not going outside of the um eighteen hundred square feet maximum for a single resident was 800 or 1600 sorry going 800 foot side east side we're doing independent residence for my my mother she's a single female my wife's parents are still married so we need our independence they are older we do want to take care of them for the duration I'm retired here my son's at UTSA so we're not going anywhere I know that 10 years ago I don't know how the house was we bought the house five years ago we've done nothing but continuously improve we sit on more acreage than that there's only six people within our our HOA that have like kind of acreage or one of those properties the other people are roughly around one acre our our house is also on a sloping land you cannot see that you cannot see the residents from our property let alone anybody else so there's no there's no distance we also made a we also have to increase the driveway all the way to the back for EMS services to ensure that there's ample parking so we live in a five bedroom house meaning that the the traffic if I put my parents inside my house would not change at all they just it would be upstairs and they cannot go up and down the stairs this is the reason we're making independent living so it's nothing about rental there's nothing there's nothing hidden yes I did tell people to come by my house this is because I want to talk to them explain that there's nothing hidden.

I tried to do the right thing all the process has been going since October there was no issues you probably have in front of you Facebook messages which I don't operate on social media so I do apologize for that um but outside of that that is my rebuttal I do understand but I've walked face to face to everybody within 200 feet talked individually to every one of my neighbors explaining the situation and all of them are on board these people live a mile away from me thank you.

Thank you Mr.

Lockham all right very good at this time this is a district nine case so Commissioner Duval to you for questions if I could have the applicant come back up again so I know that the uh councilwoman's staff spoke with you yes sir prior to the hearing my understanding is that the councilwoman staff recommended that you reach out to your HOA correct and I got them all the stuff I provided the councilwoman and her um her assistant the documents from the HOA as well as the documents from my neighbors with a printout with them signed on each one with their address everything was presented to her she's the one who expedited my case as well so yes that so my understanding is is that what was represented was that the HOA was on board they were on favor uh that was my understanding until I received from staff the feedback from the neighborhood this is just after our HOA meeting could two days ago yeah so could you help me understand here right yes so I was coming in preparing for the meeting with the understanding that the HOA was supportive yes sir it sounds like it wasn't so how how sir it was and and sorry go ahead sir realize I might have made too broad a statement when I say we're not concerned about the HOA the HOA's opinion on the zoning case matters of course but the internal machinations and governance of the HOA is outside of our yes sir I understand yes sir so in October everything was approved by them when I talked to the councilwoman and her uh our assistant everything was approved by them we had an HOA meeting on Friday I'm I'm sorry so I I I I didn't speak with you directly but I was in communication with Jacqueline sorry I was talking to Jacqueline I believe yeah I understand so in my communications with Jacqueline my understanding from her speaking with you I understand it's a little bit of a game of telephone I wasn't the one speaking but my understanding was that she communicated to you clearly that it was very important for the process to get consensus from the HOA as well early on I know Jacqueline so the councilwoman staff reached out with you about the distinction in your first letter that you provided in that first letter we identified that that letter didn't refer to the zoning change it only referred to the ADU guys gave further assurances at that point that the HOA was on board you provided an additional letter I think it was from the property manager.

It was from that yeah that did say that they were in favor of the zoning change so that's what all I had until a couple of days ago yeah my impression was that that was the end of the story.

It was so what I'm trying to understand is how how did this happen so many members of the HOA are coming here today opposed some you know people so let me if if if I may just to give you everything so you can answer it.

You know we have letters from other members of the HOA saying that you bullied your way through the process you know alleging about the sign that you you know weren't being fair about posting of the sign so how how do I make sense of that?

I can tell you exactly and I'm assuming you guys have the Facebook course that's probably what she's doing.

So once again I don't I don't operate on Facebook I did I did say like hey and if you look at those a lot of those are anonymous so nobody wanted to say who they were so I did announce say hey it wasn't a threat it wasn't nothing like controversial.

That is what they said on the Facebook, right?

Which is not, once again, I'm not the one bullying anybody.

I just respond and say, hey, come talk to me if you have questions about it.

They wanted to know that the details about my my parents' illness that ails me, which is not their business by any means inside the HOA.

So at the HO meeting on HOA meeting on Friday, Tyler Smith, which is our HOA representative, our HOA board, he specifically said to these people that are saying something right now, that has already been approved.

If we want to change anything in the HOA documents, we need two-thirds vote, and we can put it for future reference.

But this one was already approved because there's nothing in the HOA guidelines that stops it.

Hence the reason it was processed back in October.

So I don't know if that answered your question why why other people now, why are people coming to here?

I mean, just like anything else, their people are going to oppose certain changes.

I do agree with that.

So I guess just uh one additional question.

Is there no?

Because I want to be sensitive of time on you know for the commissioners.

Yes, sir.

Um the the question is when did you learn that there was opposition in the community?

Because again, the representations of councilwoman's office was that there was consensus.

So at what point did you the first day that that was posted on Facebook?

I I I would have pulled the Facebook post.

What day was that?

And once again, I I don't think opposition on Facebook is is a relevant.

But you're yes.

Yeah, I I think I'll maybe I could ask who who shared this from the yeah, if you could look up just the date, that'd be great.

Um couple of questions for staff.

Thank you.

You know, for standing.

So to staff, um the proposed zoning is a uh conditional use authorization that allows for three dwelling units.

Correct.

Uh so ADUs an ADU would be by right, right?

We wouldn't have to go through this process for an ADU.

Correct.

So why in this case did the applicant need to ask for a conditional use authorization for three dwelling units?

Because they wanted a total of three for the whole property.

So if it was a primary structure and the ADU, it would be two, and so he basically wanted that third one puts them outside of the ADU rules.

And what other differences are there in the AD ADU rules that wouldn't apply in this case for the So if you basically you're you're only allowed one ADU by right on a single family residential property.

So he's wanting to do uh technically two.

Are there other size requirements, size requirements?

Size shared type of distinctions.

Sure.

So an ADU requires um again, it's allowed by right on any residential single family district.

It can be up to 800 square feet or 1600 square feet if uh or 50 percent of the main structure.

So if you have you know a 3,000 square feet property, you can go a little bit bigger.

And then are there occupancy requirements for the main structure with ADUs?

No.

So like nothing outside of the normal occupancy requirements that go for any residential unit.

So I mean, for example, with an ADU, could you lease out the main structure and the ADU?

So he wouldn't have to follow the ADU rules, so one of the main rules sorry, let me add that is to qualify for an ADU, you have to live in either the ADU or the main structure.

So that rule wouldn't apply with if this with the zoning that he's requesting.

So with an ADU, the owner would have to occupy one of the one of the units on this lot.

Right.

With this, it would not be a requirement.

Correct.

Okay.

Are there any differences in parking requirements for the CD with the units versus an ADU?

No, he would say well, if so, if he did an ADU, it's one space per unit, so he would only be allowed two with what he's requesting, he would be required one space per unit, so three total.

Okay, got it.

Um and then the nature of zoning, right?

We have to look at the land uses and not the stated uses by the applicant, because if the property was sold, that CD would run with the land, right?

Correct.

Um so could a subsequent owner lease out the units to anybody else.

Like would there be restrictions on it about the intent of the current applicant?

Not from the city.

So and I say it that way because it sounds like from what I've heard is the HOA may have some restrictions that we would not enforce.

Um can I uh I'll just add a little bit about the HOA if you don't have to.

Actually, yeah, so go ahead.

Please do share.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

So um I did speak with the HOA president Tyler Smith.

Um from my understanding, uh we so we did receive an approval letter that did list it as an ADU.

We spoke with the council office as well.

They expressed the same concerns that you had spoken about.

And um subsequently the HOA president has reached out and discussed on the phone with me some concerns, but I have not received an official you know, they haven't rescinded their initial approval.

So I I I know that I'm aware of the situation, but officially they have not said we're either opposed or in favor since the original uh support that they gave.

Got it.

Uh in regards to the uh deed restrictions.

So my understanding, zoning commission, it's not our responsibility to check for consistency with the restrictive covenants.

Correct.

Um the one thing that is I am trying to wrap my head around though.

Um we are responsible for checking for adverse impacts.

And in that analysis, we're supposed to check for consistency with the prevailing uses in the surrounding area.

Wouldn't the C C and Rs be relevant to that analysis?

So if there are C C and Rs that say that the prevailing area is supposed to be limited to say one dwelling unit per lot and not three, wouldn't that wouldn't that be relevant to that analysis?

Yeah.

So we did look into the platted, so the plat uh because it is a planned unit development to see if this would somehow exceed the total number of units in the area, and it didn't, but um as far again, as far as the deed restriction goes, we just don't have any legal authority over that.

Well, no, so I uh again to clarify what I'm trying to parse out here.

I know that we're not responsible, not allowed, right?

That's the purview of the courts, it's not the purview of the municipality to review consistency with the restrictive covenants.

We can't enforce them, we shouldn't be looking at them, we shouldn't be reviewing them.

I understand that.

But just for the analysis that we have to do about the prevailing uses in the surrounding area, wouldn't the C C and Rs be relevant to understanding what those prevailing uses are?

Like I so let me explain what I'm thinking.

We can look at the zoning of the surrounding area and see that it's single family.

But if we're not even aware of the fact that in this neighborhood there's a limit in the C C and Rs on the number of dwelling units per lot, um if we're not even able to be aware of that, it would seem to be a big blind spot about what the existing uses in the surrounding area are.

Um can you guys have I I think uh Commissioner, you've almost answered your own question.

I mean, you you've hit everything nail on the head.

It's not the purview of this commission, it shouldn't be discussed by this commission.

So I would encourage the commission to consider the land uses and the regulatory regime that we have as a city, not private restrictions which will be enforced as a separate matter by the HOA.

Okay, I so I understand again definitely I totally understand not our responsibility, consistency with the private restrictions.

What I'm looking at is when I'm doing the analysis on adverse impacts and I'm considering the prevailing surrounding uses, and I look and I see okay, you know, if I'm just looking at the neighborhood, it's all single family.

Um wouldn't it be a relevant factor that in this neighborhood the surrounding uses are limited to one dwelling unit per lot?

Isn't that relevant in that analysis?

Not not in the sense that we're enforcing the C C and Rs, but just when we're trying to look at adverse impacts.

Like in the in this neighborhood, wouldn't it be an adverse impact to have a lot that's not consistent with the prevailing uses on the surrounding lots?

So I would answer that because those documents are the purview of those individual HOAs and they can be changed, they can also be interpreted by those HOAs differently than what we as the city might potentially interpret them.

And so we don't involve ourselves in in trying to interpret their documents in any kind of way.

So what may seem obvious as far as uh residential housing kind of uh criteria, they may enforce in a way that is not obvious to us because of their practices, because of their interpretations, because of their rules, their policies, whatever.

So no, we don't I understand what you're saying, and it might be relevant overall, but from the city's perspective, we don't involve ourselves in trying to interpret their documents.

I suppose what is difficult for me is members from the HOA are coming, they're saying that they see potential adverse impacts on their neighborhood from the increased density, and they're coming and saying that you know they're concerned about the project for that reason.

They mentioned that their expectation when they purchased the properties was that it was only going to be Mr.

Sparrow before you talk.

Let me see if I can I think I I can maybe thread this needle, cut this Gordian knot.

Um I think one thing that we can look at is while we don't we don't need to be involved in the you know the deed restrictions or any homeowner restrictions, et cetera.

I think we can look at what the use is.

So, you know, the way I'm looking at it is ignoring any outside private agreements or private restrictions.

We can look at what's happening.

Now we see this in the inner city all the time.

So for example, use is not the exact same thing as zoning, right?

And so in this case, use is not the exact same thing as the restrictions or whatever.

It's just what is there.

And so I think for the adverse impact, you can look at, you know, look at Google Maps, because we don't have street view.

Uh look at the satellite image and say, okay, these seem to be single family houses, and you can judge adverse impact in adverse impact on that without going into the C C and Rs.

Does that make sense?

I I mean I I appreciate that.

That's useful, right?

And you know the analysis works out the same.

Um, so just to also we go with basic plan use principles that we do for the entire city.

And so this city, this doesn't matter where it's located, but basically, yes, I understand they're single family residential, but they're keeping a base zone of single family residential and they're asking to add two more units.

We support these kind of items throughout the entire city.

And so that's basically what it is.

We looked at the land use.

It is still a single family zoning district.

And I will also add on to that, while the city staff might not necessarily get into the HOA and the documents and all that kind of stuff.

When it reaches the council level, the council woman is free to look at all different aspects of the case.

Um so she is certainly able to listen to the HOA and the concerns that they bring up related to the the issue.

Understood.

Um so are we?

Or only the council?

The commission is not able to.

I'm talking about what city staff recommends.

So and and again, from the viewpoint of as a commission or board, it's really not within your purview either.

But when it reaches the council level, again, the councilwoman is free to take into account whatever she believes is appropriate related, related to the case.

Okay, interesting.

Okay.

Well, that that's enough questions for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Duble.

Any further questions on my left?

Yes, Commissioner WhatsApp.

I I think it was you.

And then I yeah.

I guess I have several, but maybe one that's just kind of along this lines.

So what I'm hearing is that uh if 30 other property owners within there came up next week and said they wanted a duplex on their property, uh, y'all would approve it.

Recommend recommend approval subject to coming to uh No, these are case by case, but this is of a common nature that we see, but I can't say that we would guarantee approval for that.

So this is a one-off for this situation.

Correct.

We're looking at the size of these lots.

I mean, this is a two-acre lot.

Um, and so there's a lot of other items that go into context.

I can't say it's going to be the same, but again, we're looking at basic land use principles.

Now, going back to the idea that if the parents move out at some point, they can then rent these on short-term rentals or has to be monthly rentals.

They would need uh a short-term rental permit uh to be able to do that.

Though as far as the long-term normal rent or the city wouldn't dictate how they rent them out that way.

But for short-term rental, they would need to come apply for a permit.

So there's no option where if both the parents left they sold the property that there would be a requirement to be converted back to a single uh AD unit?

No, not through the zoning process.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Witsett.

Commissioner Sipes.

All right.

Uh thanks.

Uh a couple questions for staff.

One, um reading through the the uh social media posts.

Um I'll say I don't participate on Facebook either.

Um but um I did read the copy.

Um it is the reason that there is the need for the three units because of the double kitchens.

If in other words, is is is that the you know that that's what I'm saying?

I think that was a big uh a big part of why they were made that request, made the request the way that they did, because um typically a unit is you know a kitchen, a living space, and a bathroom.

So thank you.

And then um does the the the granting of the three units on the property, does that um then uh prevent an actual ADU being constructed later on?

Or or could an ADU still be constructed because it's the property plus an ADU, but you've got the duplex.

Yeah, you could you could still do an ADU as well.

I see.

Okay.

Um I think that's all the questions I have at this time.

All right.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Sipes.

That's a UDC item in my mind.

All right.

Uh any further questions on my left.

Uh not yet.

We go around the horn.

All right.

Uh questions on my right.

Uh yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

I have questions for the HOA.

Uh, but we don't have purview over those uh they have to do with the C CRs.

Yeah.

Right.

So uh we do have a lot of people that are opposing, uh especially the board is there a board member here.

No board members?

They were all their law that we don't allow it.

Oh, okay.

Well, HOA board members are not allowed.

It's why they have why we might fix up the tower.

Sorry, Ms.

Mungle.

Uh let's uh do you have a question of Ms.

Mongol?

Go ahead, Matt.

Why don't you just ask whatever questions you have of her?

The board said today that they were not allowed to come here as well as Tyler because we had b Tyler told them that they were not allowed to come here because we had hired lawyers, because our HOA had hired lawyers and they said that it was um I can't think of the word right now.

A liability.

They said it was a liability for them to be here because we had hired lawyers.

And I was like, it's kind of more of a liability for the owners here with him.

We live with him, you know.

Nothing personal against him.

We would be against a duplex because you still can put in an ADU on a property.

I mean, and it it technically is three properties, like I asked in the email and he said no.

And February 18th was the date that this all be that he knew.

Where the 18th is the date that he knew that the that it was not.

Where are your lawyers?

Where are the HOA lawyers?

I'm sorry.

We don't know any.

We they're not gonna have to yes, we got a new lawyer yesterday.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, let's just limit to whoever can answer up here.

The lawyer was we they changed lawyers yesterday, and so we just got a new lawyer today.

Our HOA sent out the letter to the lawyer saying we resend this today, all of that happened today.

Thank you.

We have been trying to do this since February 18th.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Uh no no further questions.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Pete Ross.

I will nope.

No statements.

Statements after we do after we finish questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh I'm gonna go to Commissioner Huey, but Commissioner Hinohosa first.

Just a question for staff.

Uh uh I I'm a little confused with everything here, but if if we make a dis uh recommendation for City Council, could that recommendation change with their current status that they have going on?

Yes, yes.

Uh City Council could make.

I mean, but depending on what the change is, it could require you know a restart of the case or anything, potentially.

Uh but yes, City Council could make an amendment.

I'm sorry, I just kind of misread like once zoning commission makes a recommendation, that recommendation cannot change.

It'll be final vote.

So city council makes their own decision.

Sure.

It's not the zoning commission recommendation.

I just wanted to confirm that.

Understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Commissioner Huey.

Uh Mr.

Wilson, calling back.

So help Milton stand.

Uh in your initial statement, you talked about this was technically two units.

And I think um you mentioned you know, from uh Commissioner Seipes comments, questions that was based on the fact to have two kitchens.

Was that the reason why you assessed it as two units?

No, that was what the applicant requested was for the three a total of three units.

So I didn't make that determination.

Typically the department considers a unit, you know, a space that has a kitchen, living space, and restrooms.

And so that's how we would consider a unit.

But again, I I wasn't the one making that determination.

This is just the way that the applicant requested the case.

Okay, great.

Thank you for clear that clarification.

And also just saying also with the coming from an architectural decision, you have separate entrances.

So basically, if this was all connected inside, we would from a plan review, I believe it would be considered one unit, but because they have to exit to get to the other unit, that's gives it that separate unit.

That is correct.

There's not a limit on number of kitchens or bedrooms you can have, provided you stay within the allowable square footage of the ADU.

But if you have to exit one portion of the building turn to another, that becomes a duplex.

Excellent.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wheat.

All right, which leads me to my fun questions.

Uh one, this is why we're going to look at dwelling definitions in the in the UDC in our next revision.

So we're probably going to mess other stuff up, but we're going to try to fix this.

All right.

But my question is okay.

One thing that was raised amongst some of the neighbors' concerns was the ability to sell these separately.

Now, that would not be allowed, correct?

They would technically have to replat or if they wanted to do some sort of fee simple transaction, they would have to re-plat the property first.

Or even a life estate if you wanted to go back to my property law in law school.

Sorry.

Okay.

So selling is not really a thing, but you know, if it was an R6 with three units, three dwelling units, they could each be rented individually or leased individually, correct?

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

And so again, with respect to the ADU, if there was a door in between these two units in the back, that would be sufficient to bring this into the ADU as of right, correct?

I would I would want the opportunity to confer with our folks in plan review on that little loophole before I answer that one.

Fair enough.

If then I'm going to keep going down this rabbit hole.

All right.

If there was a central kitchen that connected the two units with sort of two different bedroom suites on either side with independent bathrooms, uh that would be a single unit.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

I just wanted the answer I wanted.

Um I think those are all my questions at this time.

Um, we are now going to go back around the horn.

So to the left first, uh, Commissioner Duval, I'm going to give you the last but me on your terms if you want to have more questions.

So Commissioner Woodsett.

Regarding the uh question of set dividing, my understanding to re-plat is just to be to 20 feet of frontage, so they could cut it into two lots unless there's some kind of further deed restriction against you know minimum lot size.

Uh there may be, I'm not sure, but you know, that yeah, the idea of being able to replatt, whether they did just straight through the middle or a flag lot of some kind, um it'd be possible.

So there as long as they follow the rules on flatting, they carve it up.

Potentially, correct.

Yeah.

Let me just offer though that should that happen, this zoning case would be a conditional use approval tied to a site plan, and to go chopping up the lot after the fact would invalidate that site plan, so we would be right back here to authorize or reauthorize a duplex on a standalone lot.

You'd have a house in the back and a house in the front that they could then ask for ADUs.

Yeah.

So so if if you got uh conditional use approval for three units and then cut the lot in half, that does not give you the permission to have six.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Woodsett.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none, questions right?

Seeing none.

All right, Commissioner Duval to you.

Yeah, my question was actually answered.

The February 15th or was it 18th?

18th.

18th, yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

Um in that case, I don't have any questions at this time.

So the public hearing is now closed.

It is time for discussion and potential motion.

Commissioner Duval.

So I I'm uh disappointed on this case.

Um I was involved with the uh council uh woman's staff through the process in reviewing the application.

Um I was actually the the one who identified uh that the original ACC letter uh referred to an ADU and not a duplex.

So I know that the council office was aware of that discrepancy because I was the one who found it.

Um so when the councilperson's office went back to the applicant and asked them to confirm that the HOA was in favor of the zoning change with all of the implications of the zoning change as opposed to an ADU.

Uh we were you know, I I encouraged the uh councilwoman staff to be very clear about that.

Uh because we wanted to avoid this situation, the you know, upset neighbors.

Um the perspective was that there was consensus within the neighborhood on this zoning change, um I was at that point inclined to support it, even if I wouldn't want it in my neighborhood.

If the neighborhood's in favor, then fine, go for it.

Um but it it it really uh is a different situation when the neighborhood is opposed to this kind of zoning change.

Um while I understand the city staff's concerns about crossing the line into interpretation of C C and Rs.

Uh reasonable investment backed expectations on the part of neighbors is something that does really weigh on me when considering adverse impacts.

So to that end hearing about their CC and Rs and expectations about density within these lots.

These are large lots, but they were you know, people buy them with the expectation that it's not gonna be higher density.

Uh that really weighs on me.

And I, you know, on future cases would really want to see uh the neighborhood in support um before you know looking to support a project like this.

So uh with that I uh move to recommend denial of the uh case.

All right.

There is a recommended recommendation of denial for item number three by Commissioner Duval.

Is there a second?

I second it.

Uh Commissioner Hinojosa, second.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

I'm sorry.

I I saw I saw movement out of the corner of my eye.

Uh all right, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez is second.

All right.

Discussion to my left.

Yes.

Sorry, Commissioner Sipes.

Um I get to use the the the first time this meeting.

Um this is a difficult case.

Um because uh, you know, living in a neighborhood which has ADU, everybody in my neighborhood has an ADU just because we're old.

Um, you know, uh the the idea of having a second unit um behind a main house is not foreign to me, nor um offensive in any way to me.

Um I think where it shifts is that I I recognize that the idea of having a duplex is is different than an ADU.

Um and uh if this were a single ADU, obviously we would not be here if it was like um rezoning for two units because of the way that we do the ADU where you can't rent and stuff like that.

But anyway, we'll fix that, right?

Um I I uh would not have an issue with that.

It is, however, it's that extra unit that that gives me pause in regards to um the the current layout, I guess you might say, of of the neighborhood.

So I will be supporting the motion.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Slipes.

Any further discussion left?

Commissioner Woodsett and then Losef.

I'll just reiterate what he said, and I think my biggest concern is that it would, even though they say it doesn't, it would set sort of a precedence for others to come in and say, hey, we want the same thing and change the name.

All right, thank you, Commissioner.

What's it?

Commissioner Losoff?

Um I this is gonna be phrased strange, but I'm going to be deny I'm in express opposition to the denial.

I would rather see a uh continuance or an approval.

I think I want to push back a little bit against the precedent.

I understand there's neighborhood concern.

We do have to review every single zoning that comes before us.

So I don't see this as um you know opening floodgates to a bunch of duplexes.

I do think looking at the aerial view, um, looking at the lot, it it's you know, I always am in support of more housing opportunities and more different variety of housing options in our neighborhoods in San Antonio.

I think somebody said earlier this is how we apply, this is my mentality for almost every neighborhood in San Antonio, and uh these lots are pretty large and definitely have the space to accommodate.

I obviously want to be sensitive to the neighborhood in the HOE perspective, and I know you guys have your own rules, which is why I would be pushing for a continuance to hopefully figure out a better solution.

Um but since that's not on the table right now, I'm just um going to express my denial, uh my opposition to the denial.

Thank you, Commissioner Losef.

Uh discussion right.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, you want to really quick.

Um I would support this if the HOA was on board with it.

Uh but no, sir, the public hearing is over.

Thank you.

All right, sorry, Commissioner Rutherford.

If you lived in an in a neighborhood that had no HOA, then I would vote for approval.

But in this case, I'm gonna have to go with the pro uh was recommended for denial.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh any further discussion, Commissioner Huey, to you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I'm very sympathetic to what the applicant is trying to do.

And I think it's a uh a laudable approach to housing for your senior parents.

But uh given the what a zoning commission and we have to look at land use, that having a duplex, I don't think it's going to fit into this area.

And you know, again, had this been an ADU, I don't think it would have been an issue.

But as a duplex, I I cannot support it.

So I'll be supporting the denial.

All right, very good.

I will have the last word.

Uh I am not going to support the motion.

I think uh for a couple of reasons.

Um I don't know that I would necessarily support uh a recommendation of approval.

Um I certainly would recommend I would support a continuance at this time.

I know that you moved to expedite this or the council office did.

Umeth, uh I I think there are a number of concerns that uh could be addressed between the applicant and the homeowners association.

Uh what concerns me more is some of the neighborhood fractures that I see coming here.

And I I would prefer to see y'all work through some of these issues in a continuance mediated by perhaps Commissioner Duval or someone like that to address sort of these bigger problems.

I also think that you know, and this is not anyone's fault but the developer, this could have uh been a residential estate.

These could have been one acre plus lots.

There was all sorts of possibilities potentially here that would have been in the zoning context.

Um, you know, I you know I understand why everyone's calling it three units.

I I think a single connection door would make it an ADU that would be potentially allowed by right.

Um but uh but I am concerned sort of about the fraying of our communities as we each get dug in uh uh lobbing accusations, and I think a continuance could have potentially helped that, and we could have possibly gotten to a resolution that everyone could have been happy with.

But that's not on the table, so not my problem.

All right.

So at this time, the motion is for denial of item.

Yes.

If I may just uh have a just quick quick rebuttal that um to the applicant, um if a solution with staff's review could come simply from adding a door between the two to make it an ADU, which you know, if that is in fact the case, um that's an easy solution that wouldn't require uh the zoning commission to make an approval.

Um the recommended of denial here, my understanding is would not limit the ability for one to make an ADU application separately, independently, although staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay.

Uh so with with that in mind, I I don't I don't see the the the need for a continuance.

Um what I had been looking for going into this hearing was to try to understand how it broke down with the HOA and if I you know misunderstood what the nature of that disagreement was, and if in that case I would have said, okay, that's something that maybe we need to work through.

Uh but as it is now, at least you know for I know for the uh uh you know it's it's an on-starter for the neighborhood to be opposed.

Um respectfully, just in response to Commissioner uh Losef.

I think the the the city staff's policy of treating every neighborhood similarly um is uh uh needs to be revised in this instance, just in that our city is very large.

Um it is very diverse.

Some areas are very different than other areas, and where that policy might be appropriate in some areas of the city, in other areas not appropriate.

Um and here is one of those places where uh again I think it uh it it makes it an on-starter if the community doesn't want to see that change, or at least should make it an on-starter.

So I'm gonna briefly address something since we're rebutting.

Um, I think the idea that the city should be treated the same is that we should apply the same principles.

We should apply the same principles across.

And so use in certain areas uh do take does take advantage or does take into account rather uh what the neighboring uses are, what the areas are in various plans, for example.

And so that being said, we are well away from what we need to be doing right now.

And so the motion is for denial for recommendation of a denial for item number three by Commissioner Duval with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Lotha?

No.

Commissioner I know?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana.

No.

Chair Bustamante?

No.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

This is a recommendation for denial.

The applicant can move forward to City Council.

This is only a recommendation.

And so you have six months to go to City Council and figure out what you want to do.

But I wish you all the best of luck.

I hope that this does not end up with a SISM schism.

I don't know how to pronounce it.

Of your community, and that you can remedy some of those issues.

But best of luck to all of you.

Take care.

All right.

And thank you to the mics for coming out.

You are now released.

We're releasing the mics into the wild.

All right.

The time is 10 minutes till 3.

Commissioners.

This is pretty close to our traditional break time.

Yes.

All right.

We are going to take approximately a seven minute break.

The time is 2.51.

We will try to reconvene around 2.52.

We are in recess at 251.

Sorry, 258.

That's what I meant to say.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time is 259.

This meeting of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio is back in session.

Oh, we're still missing Commissioner Losef.

Uh but the time will be 259, and Commissioner Losef has rejoined the meeting.

I apologize, and that's my fault.

Um we are moving on to our next item on the individual agenda, which is item number five.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number five is located at 305 Heartline, going from MF33 multifamily district to C2CD commercial district with a conditional use for record service with all overlays staying the same.

There were 22 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed, no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

The existing MF 33 district is an appropriate zoning.

The proposed C2 C D district with the conditional use for record service is not appropriate.

Well, similar similar zoning districts and land uses are present in the surrounding area.

These uses are non-conforming and exceed the intensity recommended for the this location under the San Antonio International Airport Vicinity Land Use Plan.

Established land use principles further support the placement of commercial and industrial uses along major arterial road rate roadways in order to minimize congestion on local streets and reduce potential conflicts with adjacent residential residential areas.

Given this that the subject property is located on a local street and directly abuts an established residential neighborhood.

Staff finds that it does not meet the locational criteria necessary to support the proposed use.

Staff recommends denial.

The applicant is uh present to answer any question, and as I understand it, he would like to amend the request their request to NC neighborhood commercial district.

All right, thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, please was it on already?

Okay, sorry.

Hi, uh, I'm Aldo Uribe, is my father Arnold Duribe.

Um we are hoping to change to neighborhood commercial for this.

Um at the moment, the property is being used uh for parking and storage, and so that's why I think it was misinterpreted that it would be used for a record service.

Uh I guess that's how it sort of looks on the pictures at the moment, but um that is not our intention.

Um we have a small management company, and we're looking to make better use of that sort of vacant land and uh put a small office there for us uh you know personally to take advantage of that property.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Uribe.

Um public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, you don't get a rebuttal.

Sorry.

Great.

Uh all right, this is a district two case.

Commissioner Losef to you for questions.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks for mending the request.

Um, were you able to reach out to neighborhood to get support or like surrounding neighbors in the area?

Yes, we did get support from the neighbor behind us at 103 Northgate.

Um uh it's in the emails somewhere on on her name.

Um I'm blanking at the moment uh because I forgot the folders, so let me chime in really quick on that.

So I did receive notification of point of contact where they were discussing it, but there's no explicit I'm in support of this.

Yes, yes.

So the conversation veered into uh her offering for us to buy that property.

So uh it went in a different direction, but we did uh speak uh with her in general.

We had just reached out to the community for 422, which is right next door, so it felt uh a little invasive to keep just knocking on doors when a lot of people seemed hesitant to um to speak to us in the first place, and that was only like two or three months ago.

Um but um as I understand there there isn't any opposition at the moment for this, especially in consideration for what the use will be now and uh yeah, that's it.

Great, thank you.

Thanks.

All right, any further questions?

No.

Any questions left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh to staff uh staff report says uh indication of likely adverse it effects.

Could you just clarify what what did you uh identify?

So the adverse effects were for the original use for the record service, and it was due to the intensity of the use being so close to residential as they abut it to the rear.

And as proposed, does it?

So now they're amending to NC, which reduces that intensity all the way down to neighborhood commercial, making it more appropriate.

It is already designated land use as neighborhood commercial.

Um and you know, they're doing an office there instead of a record service.

Thank you for clarifying.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

Questions right?

Saying none.

I'm just gonna do this for belt and suspenders.

But you are in fact amending your request right now to neighborhood commercial.

Yes.

All right, perfect.

All right.

Uh there being no further questions, Commissioner Losef, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Uh thanks for amending the request formally.

I move to approve this as amended.

Uh change to NC.

Okay.

All right.

There is a motion for approval as amended to NC.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Woodset is the second.

Discussion looking left, seeing none.

Discussion looking right, seeing none.

Motion is for approval as amended of item number five uh to NC by Commissioner Losef, second by Commissioner Witsett.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Witza?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner I know some Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sypes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries as amended.

All right, very good.

We are moving on to our next item, please.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Come on, y'all.

Good afternoon.

Alexa Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number seven is located at 731 Probant Street and 134 King Roger Street, going from I-1 General Industrial District, MF 33 multifamily district and R6 residential single family district to IDZ2, medium intensity infiltral development zone with uses permitted in C2 commercial district and IDZ1 limited intensity infill development zone with uses permitted for a non-commercial parking lot with all overlays staying the same.

There were 37 notices sent out, one in favor, one opposed within the 200 feet and Lone Star Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The applicant intends to utilize the existing building, accomplishing goals of adoptive free use.

Uses permitted with the C2 commercial district align in intensity with surrounding commercial uses and can serve the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed IDZ1 limited intensity info development zone with uses permitted for a non-commercial parking lot is not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

Additionally, proposing this site as parking for the commercial building could cause an influx of traffic on King Rogers Street and contribute to commercial encroachment into the established neighborhood.

Furthermore, there is existing parking on the proposed IDZ property, which would be further aided by the IDZ base zone, which relieves parking requirements by 50%.

Staff recommends approval for the property located at 731 ProBand Street, and staff recommends denial for the property located at 134 King Rogers Street.

The applicant's representative is here to answer any questions and amend their property boundaries from lot twelve and lot 19, block 4, NCB 3531, and lot 22, block 1, NCB 6170, 2, lot 19, block 4, NCB 3531, and lot 2, or lot 22, block 1, NCB 6170, removing the parcel located at 134 King Roger from the request.

All right, if we could have the applicants representative, please.

If you would come up, tell us your name and your address.

And you can keep it short.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Juan Marmolejo, and my address is 21743 Andrews Garden.

Okay, you want to tell us just briefly about this project?

We heard about it last meeting.

So you want to hear that story again.

Well, actually I'm here representing uh Javier Yu, he's who is taking this uh uh request.

But uh basically uh what we have is an existing building uh and the owner wants to uh change the you do actually the rezoning for for putting a uh convenience store uh along with two other uh lease bases right now I'm sorry, we're just gonna be uh applying for the convenience store.

Okay.

Okay.

So um thank you.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

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

All right.

You heard uh the uh case manager mention that you are amending the boundaries for your request, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And so you are only seeking changes to lot 19, block 4, NCB 3531, and lot 22, block 1, NCB 6170, located at 731 Pro Band Street, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

You are not asking for any uh change to lot twelve, block four, NCB 3531, located at 134 King Roger Street, correct?

Correct.

And you are amending your request at this time.

Yes.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

Staff to you, Ms.

Ratana.

Um staff recommended approval for the two properties.

I I now I'm trying to go too fast.

Staff recommended approval for the request as to the two properties that are addressed at 731 ProBand, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And they recommended denial on the address or the property addressed at 134 King Roger Street.

All right, very good.

Uh no more questions from me.

Questions left.

Questions right?

All right.

Very good.

Uh then it's to me for discussion and potential motion.

Um the biggest issue with this application was the use of commercial parking or sorry, non-commercial parking in a residential area.

Uh, you have dropped that from your request.

Staff recommends approval for those portions that remain.

At this time, I move to recommend approval for item number seven as amended.

Second.

There is a second by Commissioner Duval.

Discussion to my left, seeing none.

Discussion to my right, seeing none.

Very good.

The motion is for approval as amended for item number seven by me, and with the second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Witset?

Yes.

Commissioner Pannman.

Yes.

Motion carries as amended.

Very good.

You are heading to City Council with the recommendation for approval as amended.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We are moving on to our next item, please.

Item number nine is located at 519 B Street, going from R6 residential single family district to R6C residential single family district with a conditional use for four dwelling units.

There were 35 notices sent out to in favor, zero opposed.

The government hill lands and government hill tomorrow.

Neighborhood solutions did not provide a response.

We do have some emails though.

I'm sorry, a voicemails.

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

The current R6 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The reposed R6CD residential single family for with a conditional use for four dwelling units is also appropriate.

The subject properties located within an established residential block characterized by existing duplexes.

The requested zoning change maintains the area's residential character while permitting an increasing density that is consistent with the surroundings and multifamily land use.

Additionally, the C D conditional use request requires the submission of a site plan that cannot be changed without further public review.

The proposed zoning is also consistent with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of alternative housing types to accommodate the city's growing population.

Step does recommend approval on this request, and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alvin Peters, 1016, State Highway 46, East Bernie, Texas, Representative.

Vacant lot, big, 15,000 two hundred and thirty-two square foot.

100% that neighborhood is rentals.

I mean I walked it myself.

I think yeah, it was interesting.

But um I I think the proposed project would really greatly improve it, kind of um shield the the background of Fort Sam Houston, which isn't entirely beautiful, and I'm a military brat.

But um so I'm here to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Peters.

Is there any public comment?

Yes, we have voicemails and a speaker.

Okay.

Uh how many speakers do we have?

One in one.

One in one.

All right, Ms.

Hawkins, you didn't leave a voicemail, did you?

Did you leave a voicemail?

No.

No.

Different people.

No, go ahead, sit down.

Forget it.

I I got an answer to my question.

Thank you.

All right, let's play the voicemail.

2107 North Interstate 35, phone number 2104204320, calling regarding case number D 2025 107, 00250.

Uh property address is 519 B Street.

Um I the Government Hill Alliance Neighbor Association isn't supporting this uh uh zoning request.

We hope that you know the zoning commissioners will approve this.

We feel that this is an area where it is definitely needing some new development in on the other side of Walter Street, and so therefore these um uh the representative for this particular project has come to our neighborhood association meeting in the committee is also in favor of this.

So again, please uh approve 519 BG.

Thank you.

That is it for voicemails?

All right.

Speakers, please.

Marlene Hawkins.

I have communicated by email with Alvin to express what I'm gonna express to y'all today.

And I'm very surprised at the uh the staff recommending approval of this based on our comprehensive and our side community uh side community plan.

Ms.

Hawkins.

My name is Marlene Hawkins.

I live at 601 East Carson, and I'm with Government Hill Community Association, which is a 501c3 corporation, which means that we have fiduciary responsibility to work in the best interest of our of our members.

The East Side Community Plan uh was adopted in June 20th uh 2024 and became part there of the comprehensive plan.

The plan designates neighborhood land use as being low density with arterial cardio as mixed use.

The four units the four units proposed for the 519 B Street definitely are not low density.

We have a map.

If you look at the very top of the map, that's where B Street is, and you see the golden colors.

It says urban lower density.

This comes, I'm sorry.

This comes from our community uh area plan.

They all also the uh comprehensive plan has uh criteria for y'all to use in making decisions also.

And uh some of those are comprehensive consistency with the with the uh comprehensive plan and also the compatibility.

I'm sorry.

It's all right.

Please vote no this issue to save our neighborhood and uh to protect our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hawkins.

All right.

Mr.

Peters, a brief rebuttal.

Um I apologize, Ms.

Hawkins.

I I've never met you.

Um and I'm sure the problem with my office, I don't get all my emails.

And so typically I'm compassionate and uh I don't I I mean I'd certainly like to talk to you about your objections.

Um I I think any anything can be worked out.

Um that's what I'll say.

Uh you know, if if if if if the board is considering or the commission is considering not supporting this, I mean let me know, and and we'll quickly uh regroup and and meet with this young lady and and hopefully uh talk it through.

Thank you, Mr.

Peters.

All right.

This is a district two question.

So sorry, this is a district two case, so it is to you, Commissioner Loset for questions.

Uh can I get the applicant to come back up here?

Sure.

Thanks.

Uh so as you probably know there's multiple neighborhood associations in this area.

Um there's two we heard from today.

I think there's actually a third.

Um it's also an area with a lot of changes.

Um wanted to know what it looked like, what your outreach looked like to the neighborhood associations.

Did you end up talking to the voicemail and as well as the one represented here?

What did that look like in terms of No, no, no.

Um my staff attended.

I didn't personally go two different meetings, and it was uh very positive.

I mean, full support.

I mean ex excitement, etc.

If you look at the neighborhood, it's it's dilapidated.

It needs it needs something.

Um I mean, any sort of new construction would help.

Any sort of new tenants would help.

Um there were there were there are units.

I mean, I personally walked it uh to talk to people about everything.

There are units with pit bulls.

I couldn't even get to the front door.

Um the only two individuals I talked to in the units were renters.

And one said, hey, I'm going to Honduras.

I don't care what happened.

You know, I'd love it to happen.

I'd love to stay here.

And the other guy was a uh first Aztec I've ever met uh met in my life, most interesting last name.

But he he was a um a contractor of a tree trimming service.

He was a nice guy.

And the only thing he told me.

And we talked for a long time.

I like to talk to people.

And um he just told me, um, I just want it to be two stories, Alvin.

Whatever you do, make it not not two stories, one story.

I I don't want I'll seem like uh I'm dwarfed here.

Okay, we'll talk about it.

But you know, I'm proposing uh the owner, the client would is proposing a two-story structure, two two-story structures.

Um uh two duplexes, a total of four units, to be clear.

So including your staff, you did actually attend those neighborhood association meetings, both for my staff did.

Your staff did.

Yes.

And then I would for which neighborhood associations?

I'm sorry?

Just which neighborhood association?

I don't know.

I'd have to look through the notes.

I don't have them.

Government Hill Alliance and Government Hills.

Rose Hill uh representatives, yes.

Okay.

And so um who you just met?

I just met.

Who represents Government Hill Community Association?

Did you guys end up chatting before this meeting?

Or is this Okay.

Thank you.

And then I have a quick question for Marlene.

Ms.

Hawkins, I should say.

Sorry.

Uh wanted to check in to see.

Do you guys hold regular meetings that um the applicant could attend to?

Do you guys hold regular meetings that the applicant could attend to talk about this project to get approval or denial?

I didn't really get to finish.

There were other things in the elements that are not in like for example the garages in the front are not part of the plan.

They're supposed to be on the side or the back.

The whole front is conquered.

Ms.

Hawkins, I'm sorry.

But the question was about whether or not your association has meetings that the applicant can attend to.

Has meet meetings, regular meetings or special meetings.

We are working on getting a place to meet.

We've uh used to meet at one place and couldn't meet there anymore, so we're trying to get a place and we're working with the Episcopal Church to get a meeting there.

Yeah, and I was actually going to ask if you wanted to finish anything else about um stating your opposition to the to the um application.

If you want to finish anything that the timer cut you off for, just to state it.

This same is event came up previously as your chairman mentioned, and it was voted down because it doesn't fit the neighborhood.

It the design, the size, and the character of the neighborhood.

They're people are beginning to fix up their properties.

It's a very low economic area, and they're beginning to fix up their properties, and they're all one-story properties.

And uh and uh single fam in one structure on each lot.

And that's what we would what that's what our plan asks for.

Also the cement in the front and one driveway.

And the city, the UDC, requires at least 50% of the front long front yard to be green.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me extra time.

Wow, make me look like the ogre.

Thanks.

All right.

Commissioners to my left questions.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Staff report refers to uh surrounding multifamily land uses that this increase in density would be consistent with the surrounding multifamily.

Help me uh help me maybe if we could pull up the map just to I you know I I looked on Google Street View and I'm not sure what I uh I understand.

So if you take a look at the zoning map here, there's a several CDs around the area for duplexes.

The size of this lot specifically is quite large enough to accommodate two and still maintain the general character.

So if uh if we could look on Google Street View for the uh the actual uses Well, that wouldn't really classify the allowance.

Right, but if we're looking at surrounding multifamily land uses, aren't we looking at the actual uses and not the potential uses?

So you can see on there that there are duplexes, yes.

And again, this is R6, so that means you're a minimum square footage of six thousand square feet.

This lot is 13,000 square feet, meaning it could be subdivided into two.

And if you're going to stick with the duplexes throughout the entire community, so that's why staff was supporting the four units.

Okay, so do duplexes are not I mean as far as zoning is concerned, duplexes are not multifamily though.

Or are they?

No, it is not.

They're considered like as per um he was just saying multifamily as per like more than just one.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Duval.

Any further questions left?

Yes, Commissioner What's it?

Um first one for staff.

It looks like there's a street behind there from the zoning map, but then when you look at the Google map, just a visual of it, does the street does not exist?

There wouldn't there's not a street behind the property, there's uh the military bases back there.

Okay, and why does the zoning map sh what show what looks like a street?

Just paper lot or do you know?

So the question is whether they could have access back there if they built something.

Uh no, that was fenced up.

When we saw if you go to the images from the side of the I don't I don't think you want to head back there.

That's an active military base.

Yeah that is not an entrance.

The only access observed was off of B Street.

I think it's a weird artifact of the zoning map.

Yeah.

Uh the other question is it sounds like there's two neighborhood associations here.

One's are they do they overlay each other?

There are two, yes.

Um it's going to be Government Head Alliance, which is Rose Hill, and Government Hill Tomorrow, which is Ms.

Hawkins here.

So they both have say in this specific lot.

We would accept responses from both of them, yes.

We would accept responses from both associations.

Sir Are you sure?

Commissioner Sipes questions Have we heard this case before?

There was uh Ms.

Huntman said that we've heard this before, and it does sound awfully familiar, and I was wondering when uh when I saw this, I was like, I thought we talked about this exact case and decided.

Not in the four years I've done this.

Really?

Definitely have.

It might have been longer than four years ago.

But you and I, Commissioner Huey, any memory?

Then you and me.

Okay, so we have covered this before.

All right.

So for being that long ago, then Okay, that makes sense why.

I was just curious why we had I thought it had been like either postponed or okay.

No questions.

All right.

Uh any further questions left?

Seeing none, go back around the horn.

Wait one second.

Any further questions?

Right.

All right.

Commissioner Duval, questions.

I just could somebody help me make sense with the uh different homeowners associations.

Uh some are registered, some are not.

So who's in support, who's opposed?

Okay.

So we have both neighborhood associations and community organizations.

The neighborhood association is government hill alliance, which is in support.

The government organization, which is Government Hill tomorrow, is opposed.

But technically, this is Government Hill Community Association.

So not on the registrar.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hawkins.

All right.

But there are in fact three different associations for this neighborhood government house.

And as per state code or UDC, we will accept registered.

Um in the counts.

But we do accept outside groups, they would just be put with the outside 200 feet notice.

And uh including uh the uh the speaker during public comment, there are three organizations to step outside of the user.

So there's three organizations.

Two were in support, one was opposed.

No, that we haven't heard from the third one.

Correct.

All right.

All right.

I apologize.

So if she's not representing government hill tomorrow, negate what I just said about that.

So sorry.

Government Hill Community Association.

They all have similar names.

Correct.

They all start with Government Hill.

So we have that going for us.

All right.

Ms.

Sanders.

One of the issues that Ms.

Hawkins brought up was about some of the what she sees as discrepancies between the plan and uh the recommendation by staff.

Can you address some of those concerns, please?

Um she is correct that the Eastide plan uh was recently adopted, but it is noted as urban low density residential.

And with that urban low density residential, it does allow up to a density, it allows a mix of single family residential and low density uh multifamily, including MF 18.

And so looking at the size of this property, even if they went with MF 18, which aligns with the East Side plan that was recently adopted, they would be permitted up to five units.

Okay.

All right.

I'm not gonna ask any more questions.

Thanks.

All right.

Uh any nope, I think we've gone around the horn.

So I think we're done.

All right.

So Commissioner Lose, it's to you for discussion and potential motion.

Thanks.

Um for folks not familiar with Government Hill, there's a lot going on, um, which is fine.

And we love engaged neighborhood associations.

Um I will say, just for awareness, regardless of the specific rules as in terms of um neighborhood associations outside organizations feedback for the district two office.

We will hear everyone and kind of consider them all equally since you guys are all neighbors.

Um to the multiple associations involved, and also since we haven't even heard from government hill tomorrow, I'm inclined to um continue this item so that you two can work together.

You four actually, the applicant and the three organizations.

I wanted to ask that the not a question, but my hope is that the applicant can get support from all of the neighborhood associations and have those conversations.

I think as you probably just have had the one-to-one face-to-face conversations are really helpful.

Um, just to get clear on what's the proposal is um my stance, I mean I live very close to this neighborhood, vacant lots are kind of the worst outcome for any land use.

Um so I'm in support of using it for housing and developing it in generally, but I do want to make sure there's neighborhood support.

So I'm going to motion for a two-week continuance in hopes that you guys can um spend that time talking and getting folks on board.

All right.

There is a motion for continuance to March 17th.

Is there a second second?

Uh Commissioner Hino Hosa is the second.

Uh discussion left, seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

Uh motion is for continuance to March 17th by Commissioner Lose, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Hi.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Hi.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

We're going to move on to our next item, please.

Good afternoon, Alex Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 10 is located at 7439 West Military Drive, going from C3 General Commercial District to C3 C D General Commercial District with the conditional use for manufactured home oversized vehicle cell service and storage.

With all overlays staying the same.

There were 30 notices sent out, six in favor, zero opposed within 200 feet in Lochland Terrace Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Additionally, common land use principles recommend that intense land uses are separated by lower intense uses to buffer and reduce the impact on residential areas.

Permitting the requested industrial use will remove this buffer.

Staff recommends denial, and this case was heard by planning commission on January 14th, 2026, where it was recommended for approval.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Thank you for listening, Mr.

Chairman and uh staff members.

Thank you very much.

Uh this is the second time I come here.

Um yes, um as it it said the current zoning is C3, which is for sure commercial and intense.

We are really adding to it.

Um to uh make it as uh uh more use as is.

Um I would like to start by having the the uh talk about the previous condition of the property.

It was really uh unfortunately uh open land, a lot of uh trash, dumping place, uh traffic, drug traffic, people and homeless, unfortunately.

As it shows in the in the pictures, we really uh had it uh fenced, cleaned up and uh prepared with lights and uh security fencing.

Uh I like to s really emphasize that I went the right right way and went by the uh conditions first.

I contacted uh home uh home association.

I attended the meeting and thank God I got uh the approval.

I was in contact with the district six, Mr.

Derek, all the way, and I I got his recommendations and changes.

And most important, I went home to home to the neighbors.

Uh there is I believe eight homes in that area.

I uh I got approval of six.

I could not get a hold of the other two.

I went even to other homes.

They are my customers.

I have a mechanic shop very close to it.

Um that's really what I would like to say.

Um I would like to uh oh by the way, I'm sorry, on the on the plan, uh before I even was asked.

I I have a 20 uh 20 feet buffer zone between me and the neighbors.

Uh behind me, there is uh apartment complex.

We also provided a 20 feet buffer zone.

Uh on the right, there is uh commercial uh buildings.

It's all commercial.

As noted in that area, it's really high traffic, uh already commercial uh Marback and Military very contents.

So I believe uh in the vision of San Antonio City, the help develop the city help small businesses.

That's what I'm trying to do.

Thank you, Mr.

Bull BC.

Uh is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

Very good.

This is a district six case to so Commissioner Huey to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh so I actually don't have any questions because uh Mr.

Bulisi and I had uh uh communicated on this case for several weeks now.

And I I do want to commend you for taking your time to meet with your neighbors.

Because we talked about that, right?

Let's make sure that you have supporting your neighbors.

So um and you know, I'm gonna do a uh commissioner SIPES.

I do have a story time.

I've driven by I have driven by this location hundreds of times.

And when I looked at this case, I had to figure out where is this lot?

And again, you know, we talked about how it how uh developments need to blend in with a neighborhood.

With the way that this lot is situated.

You have to go drive really slow to look and see that if this is going to be a uh oversized vehicle storage, you better slow down and look.

So again, I'm about making sure that how you know businesses and developments fit within a neighborhood.

But again, this lot is tucked into the back.

And you're gonna go really slow to look for it to find it.

So again, I I do commend you for taking your time to talk to your neighbors and talk with your um neighborhood association.

So I'm gonna open it up for the rest of my commissioners for their questions.

But um I'll hold my uh recommendation after that.

Very good.

Thank you, Commissioner Huey.

Uh you also, Commissioner, you also were emulating uh Commissioner Bottles.

But um in any event, uh to the right questions.

None?

Left questions.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh staff mentioned likely adverse impacts.

Um this is a conditional use authorization, so we can talk about conditions.

So, what uh likely adverse impacts were identified.

So the adverse impacts would relate more to the industrial use.

So we're talking about a use only permitted by right in an industrial zone, so that's where that comes from.

It's um nothing really with the conditions that could be added.

It's with the use itself, um, introducing oversized vehicles near residences.

Uh just to you know, it it sounds like the applicant was already working um with the councilperson's office on buffering and everything like that, but like uh downward facing lighting is like you know, would lighting be one of the potential impacts more so than commercial use or I would say it's more the introduction of the big box trucks to that area rather than any potential could conditions that could be added, like buffering, downward facing lighting, hours of operation.

Uh so it would be outside of the scope.

Well, but so like uh I guess the question would be if we're talking about impacts from the trucks, hours of operation, if they're driving trucks in and out early morning.

Um could that possibly be um so when looking at this specific request, would the request is for the use of the oversized vehicle and industrial use.

Um, say if this was a request for straight I-1, that's something that we wouldn't recommend approval for.

So because the use in nature is industrial, that was the reason for the adverse impacts.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Questions left?

Seeing none.

All right.

Commissioner Huey, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And Chair, since you invoked the former um Commissioner Bottles, I just want to say as long as this development does not impact my dairy queen north of there.

Uh I I that would be uh impact of civilian.

But since they're not, I'm going to make a motion to approve.

Okay.

There is a motion for approval of item number 10.

Is there a second?

Second.

By Commissioner Kellum.

He beat you all.

Um discussion right.

Seeing none.

Discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

All right.

Well, Commissioner Huey brought it up.

Um I grew up in a in the subdivision just over southwest of here called Lackland City.

So anyway, um, but uh one of the questions brought up was about um downward facing lighting.

I just wanted to address that I believe this is in the MLLD, so downward facing lighting is already going to be just part of the normal part of it.

So we don't have to worry about that.

Um other than that, I I appreciate the outreach that you've done, and so I'll be supporting the motion.

All right.

Any further discussion left?

Seeing none.

The motion is for approval of item number 10 by Commissioner Huey with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wits.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Congratulations, sir.

You're on your way to City Council with the recommendation for approval.

Uh item number 14, I believe, is next.

Good afternoon, Oliver Tana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 14 is generally located in the 700 block of East Myrtle Street, going from I1 General Industrial District to IDZ1 limited intensity infield development zone with uses permitted in NC neighborhood commercial district with all overlays staying the same.

There were 57 notices sent out, two in favor, ten opposed within 200 feet.

Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Sojo Crossing Homeowners Association is opposed in San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association gave no response.

Outside the 200 fee, there are two opposed.

The existing I-1 general industrial district is not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ1 limited intensity infield development zone with uses permitted in NC neighborhood commercial district is appropriate.

The current industrial zoning is incompatible with the existing commercial and residential uses in the surrounding area and would allow for intense activities intended to be removed from residential developments.

Alternatively, the proposed zoning change would allow for feasible development of the subject property with uses more compatible with the area.

Additionally, the uses permitted in NC neighborhood commercial district would allow for small-scale retail and service uses that are able to serve the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

The base zone of IDZ1 would also limit the scale of the development to a maximum height of 35 feet, the same height limitation for single family residential properties.

And alleviation of parking requirements would encourage development at the pedestrian scale.

Staff recommends approval, and the applicant's representative is here to answer any questions.

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

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Anisa Shell with Ortiz McKnight, 112 East Pacan, representative for the applicant.

This property next slide, please.

This property is located in District 1.

It is east of North St.

Mary's, um near the Pearl, and it's within the boundaries of the Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association.

The property is about one point, I'm sorry, 0.161 acres.

Um generally it's surrounded by townhomes, single family homes, vacant land, and the Pearl, as well as other commercial developments.

The request is to rezone this property from I1 to IDZ1 with uses in NC.

Um again, it is surrounded by other residential and commercial uses as well as high-intensity infill.

Um you can see that property caddy corner is IDZ3, and I think it has a max density of 325 units.

The featured land use here is an urban low density residential.

Um, this is within the Midtown Area Regional Center plan.

Um the permitted zoning districts include NC uses and IDZ.

IDZ1 is consistent with this plan, and no plan amendment is required.

I also want to mention the Tobin Hill Neighborhood Plan.

Um, this plan was adopted in 2008 and incorporated into the 2019 Midtown Regional Center plan.

This area was identified by the neighbors in that community input process as low density mixed use, and they also wanted to see mixtures of low-intensity commercial mixed in with residential in this area.

This is the site plan.

Um, as you saw before, our height will be limited to 35 feet to keep this at a neighborhood scale.

And um, the next slide includes a concept drawing of what it could look like.

Um is I'm sorry, if we could go back.

The proposed use is um small scale office retail, um, maybe some co-working space, um, which we there's been a lot of demand for that in this area.

Um we've done some outreach uh on this project before um the applicant came to us in 2025.

They met with the Tobin Hill Community Association zoning committee.

Initially, they were proposing a mixed use development that included residential because of the size of the property and parking uh for this area.

They felt that was too much.

Um so the applicant sharpened their pencils, went back to the drawing board and came back with this proposal.

Um initially, we were going to ask for C1 uses, um, but NC is more in line with the land use plan, so we amended to the NC uses.

Um we sent emails to Tobin Hill Community Association and to the Sojo Crossing HOA, which is nearby.

We did not receive a response from Sojo Crossing, um, although the case manager who's been very helpful did pass along their responses to me.

Um I did email 10 individuals uh that all live at Sojo and did not receive responses from any of them.

Tobin Hill Community Association uh did review the request and they asked that we add bike racks that were publicly accessible because that was in alignment with their priorities for keeping this area bikeable and walkable.

Um the applicant has agreed to do that.

So, in summary, we are asking to rezone the property from I-1 industrial to IDZ1 with neighborhood commercial uses.

The Tobin Hill Community Association is in support and staff is recommending approval.

I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Michelle.

All right, is there any public comment?

Yes.

Mr.

Plutz.

Any anything further you want to add?

I would just maybe draw attention to their plan.

And if you look, and again it's it's a one, I can't remember what she said one three six.

Is that correct?

As far as size.

And so look at the the footprint.

You know, they want to put something on every inch of that.

Um one of the pictures that I put up earlier is our driveway access is directly across the street from this.

Um we already again.

I'm gonna bring up my favorite word, congestion in that area and the parking along the street.

And if we actually look at one of those pictures that I uh brought, this is on a Saturday or a Sunday where I went out and just took some pictures of um the parking along the streets, and you can see when they park where she has her hand on that bottom right.

So that's parking along Euclid.

Um if you notice that property also has a real strange corner.

So when you get people parking on what I'll probably call the east side of the road, uh you get cars coming both ways.

Um I've taken video of people stopping and waiting, and uh they just don't know what to do.

It's so congested in that area.

So then via the 311, there are enough complaints in that area about pedestrians trying to get to the Pearl area, which is popular now, uh, that they finally put four-way stop signs up in those areas.

So we were very happy to see that, and it has helped.

As far as use within everything around there is residential, and the Oxbow, which is the Pearl Development Arm, um is caddy corner from this, and that all of the commercial that are gonna that's going on that particular block is gonna be on Elmiro, which is right next to the Pearl area.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Plutz.

Just looking at it and going, you know, it just they say it fits, it doesn't fit in the time.

Um thank you.

All right.

Uh quick rebuttal, Michelle.

Quick, let me stress.

Thank you.

Um if you could go to the second slide.

So if you look at this larger area that um going it's that aerial this slide to you.

Yes, thank you.

Um so you can see the property here in blue.

Um highlighted in yellow on the left of the screen are the via bus stops for the number eight bus, which runs up and down North St.

Mary's.

That bus comes every 10 to 15 minutes.

Um those bus stops are approximately 800 to 850 feet from the subject property, um, depending on which stop you're getting off for on.

Um, so part of the reason why um IDZ1 is a great fit for this lot, besides removing the industrial, which would allow you know material storage or oversized vehicle parking, is it um is something that can keep this area walkable?

It can provide retail um in a walkable way.

It's prioritizing pedestrians over additional cars and not going to be bringing additional cars into this area.

So um that's part of why the association was supportive and why they have asked for bike racks.

All right, thank you, Michelle.

Thank you.

All right, this is a district one case.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for questions.

Commissioner Dr.

Kellum.

Ms.

Shell Mask question.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just to speak to the restaurant, the I mean restaurant.

So um initially they talked about doing a rooftop restaurant.

Um, it would be allowed in the neighborhood commercial.

They do have to comply with the height requirements and the noise requirements that are ordinance with the city.

So it's gonna be mainly retail shops, and you said uh office space.

Co-working spaces.

Yes.

Okay, that's all the questions I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kellum.

Uh questions to the left.

Questions to the right.

All right.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Well, appreciate y'all's time and waiting through today.

I I like the project.

I think it's something that would be helpful for the neighborhood.

I completely understand the congestion and and um is sensitive to that.

But I do think that we need to improve the uh industrial zoning to something less intense.

So I'm okay with the IDZ.

When you look at the one stop, it's completely surrounded by IDZ zoning with varying degrees.

I do think that the uh at some point you're gonna have to build something that creates walkability in the neighborhood.

And I think that this this particular development may be that start.

So it's for that reason I'm going to motion for approval.

All right.

There is a motion uh for approval by Commissioner Kellum on item number 14.

Is there a second?

A second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh right.

Um discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh just that uh with respect to the um gentleman came up during public comment from the uh uh apartments or condos across the street.

Town homes, thank you.

Umly that you know I I see this area is in transition with the new development on the other side of the San Antonio River from the Pearl.

Um it's it's an area that's changing.

Um, I think probably the the vision and the hope is that the residents of the uh the townhome development can benefit from that and you know hopefully uh redevelopment on this lot will also provide amenities for the people that live across the street.

Uh so with that I'll be supporting the motion.

Very good.

Uh Commissioner Sipes.

I used up my story on the last one.

Um but um uh I am a living in an older neighborhood as well, seeing um properties that that you know that are very difficult to develop.

Um that's what IDZ was meant for.

Um so I I am uh appreciative that uh the neighborhood association is in support.

Um in just the last couple years to see all of those apartments being built.

It is just incredible.

Um my kids come home from college because they went to school right there at Hawthorne, and they're like, there's a new apartment complex.

So in just the last, you know, you know, eight years.

Um I think this is a good location.

I think that that the people that will park will m may end up parking at the at off of El Myra, you know, in those parking lots.

Um I mean, we always just parked over it at the school itself and walked.

Um so I I think that this area of San Antonio right there is is is an ideal site for this for this project.

So I'm kind of excited to see how it turns out.

All right.

Uh any question, sorry, discussion to my right.

Seeing oh, sorry, Commissioner Loss, up to you.

Yeah, I'll be brief.

I just wanted to say that um industrial does not feel like the correct use of this at all.

Um yeah, I'm very surprised it's industrial.

I've run around here by ground here, definitely not meant for industrial, so I appreciate the intent to activate it.

Um the parking concern is real.

I think it's a general thing where we need more people on the bus and more people biking, and that's not like what's gonna be solved here.

So I'm gonna support.

Um just uh wanted to name that industrial feels really non doesn't fit.

So I appreciate the rezone.

All right, very good.

Discussion right?

Seeing none.

Briefly, uh Michelle, I do hope you continue to work with Mr.

Pletz should this go forward uh to City Council.

Uh I am gonna support it as well.

I think we also need to, and this is not in the purview zoning, so everyone can yell at me afterwards for breaking my own rules, but look at permitting parking to alleviate some of the parking issues in these areas and others.

All right.

Motion is for approval of item number 14 by Commissioner Kellum with the second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witza?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Our next item is number 17.

Commissioner Sipes, are we losing you?

Um trying to stick out.

All right, let's do it.

I'll try to be quick.

I'll try and Good afternoon.

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

Item 17 is located at 601 Pruitt Avenue, going from R5 residential single family district to RM5S residential mixed district with the specific use authorization for wireless communication system with a reduced setback from residential property of 24 feet with all overlays staying the same.

There were 16 notices mailed, zero and fair zero in favor, zero opposed.

Collins Garden Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Is present to answer any question.

Ken Brown 100 Northeast Lou 410, Suite 1385.

If you were on this commission in September of last year, then this will look familiar to you.

Do you have my does someone have my presentation?

That's up.

Oh okay, go to the next one.

Or what do I hit?

This all right.

So general location.

We're in a uh a corridor uh highway uh with commercial around us.

Uh there are also other communication towers in the area.

Um we did not need a plan amendment uh last time or this time.

Uh we're sticking with the RM5 base district.

Um the reason why we initially uh submitted it, I'm not uh an expert on this, but we have someone is is that there's low connectivity in that area?

There's uh there's there's gaps with commercial single family and schools in that area.

Uh so the original site plan that you looked at last time is on the left.

Uh the new site plan is on the right.

Um in this case, the new site plan site plan, we're preserving the single family structure on the lot.

Um we have a letter of support from the current tenant who will remain living in the structure.

Uh we still have support from Collins Garden Neighborhood Association.

Uh we have a sealed letter from the engineer uh detailing the maximum 20-foot fall radius uh for safety purposes.

I'm trying to go quickly.

Um so for those reasons we would respectfully request your support.

Uh the council woman did uh fast track this item, so we are on city council on Thursday.

If you have any questions, more than happy to answer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

All right.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, this is a district five case.

Um it is to me for questions.

I don't have any questions.

Questions to my right.

Questions to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Double.

If there was already towers in the area, uh, what made co-location not possible Commissioner's uh uh co-applicant Vince Hebinger for the uh uh tower owner ATT.

Uh the question was were there any other towers in the area?

Well, I believe in the presentation there was other towers in the area.

So what made co-location not possible?

They're the closest tower in the area is the Verizon Tower, 3100 feet to our northeast.

It doesn't cover the neighborhood like uh that plan shows.

I've got uh some RF documents here if you need to show those as well.

But the the that's almost over a half a mile away.

It doesn't work.

So we've tried every vertical opportunity.

All right, Commissioner Duell.

Any further questions?

Any further questions left?

All right, very good.

Uh this is a district five case, so to me for discussion and potential motion.

Uh we have heard this case before.

Uh nothing has changed except for the person who's living there has support.

Uh the neighborhood still supports it.

It fills a need.

It is right along 35.

I move to approve item number 17.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

I'm going to give it to him.

Sorry, Commissioner.

What's it?

All right.

Discussion to my right.

Discussion to my left.

All right.

Motion is for approval of item number 17 by me with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Loso.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana.

Yes.

Motion carries.

You're going to city council?

Thursday.

All right.

Next case, please.

Item number 20 is generally located on the 3,000 block of city-based landing, going from C3 General Commercial District to C3S General Commercial District with a specific use authorization for auto paint and body repair with outside storage of vehicles and parts permitted, but totally screened from view of adjacent property owners and public roadways.

There were 12 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

There's no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Steph has found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare.

The current C3 general commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed or requested C3 NAS General Commercial District with a specific use authorization for auto paint and body and repair outside storage of vehicles, parts permitted, totally screened from view of adjacent property owners and public roadways.

It's not appropriate.

The guided vision of the Brooks area regional center plan explicitly states that many of these commercial areas are intended to evolve into mixed-use areas to create a vibrant corridors and small-scale centers connecting local neighborhoods, permitting a new auto repair facility with cement a heavy commercial presence directly hindering the corridors intended transition into a vibrant mixed-use environment.

Additionally, a multifamily development to the north may be adversely impacted by potential noise odors associated with the requested use.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Emily Weissler with Killen Griffin and Fairman, 10101 Reunion Place Suite 250.

I will do my best to be brief.

I know it has been a long day.

So thank you.

This case is located along City Based Landing in the Brooks area.

We did that before filing.

We have done that since filing.

Myself directly with Brooks as well as our client, Pinnacle Development, who is the developer for this project.

They have also been engaging with Brooks so much to the point of site plan review, monument sign review, and that should this case continue to move forward at the time of permitting for construction.

All of those plans would go to Brooks ACC for their review and approval.

So a lot of engagement with Brooks.

I would not be here if Brooks was a concern.

So want to start with that on the outset.

This is, I'm going to continue.

Do I have control?

Oh I do, sorry.

This is just over two acres.

Um, but and this will be replatted separately.

Um we have the Anderson to the rear, um, and then a spay and neuter clinic next door.

There is also um Walmart, uh self-storage unit, Hampton Inn.

Um there is also a significant amount of commercial land that is vacant and undeveloped here.

Um, with all due respect to staff, we completely understand the the guiding vision of the Brooks area for mixed use development.

Um I think this is a very small component with a really lovely use.

So we are requesting to rezone from C3 to C3NA, so no alcohol sales for on or off consumption, um, with a specific use authorization functionally for the paint booth inside of this collision shop.

This is the only codified use that allows that paint booth.

Um, and so that's why we have to request it.

Um, but and I want to remind everyone that the S does not mean that a use is not allowed in the C3, it just means that additional oversight is warranted, and that is what is triggering the site plan.

Um so this is consistent and compatible with um and I'm gonna scroll through here, um, with a significant amount of land zone C3 all throughout the Brooks area.

Um, this use is consistent and compatible with that.

Um we are just asking for the specific use to allow for the interior paint booth.

Um the user is Gerber Collision and Gas.

They are a national company over 80 years experience.

This is an entirely interior development.

Um this is an original site plan.

There was one small change, um, not necessarily enough to debatably warrant a site plan amendment, but since I'm here, um we have sent staff an updated amendment.

Um that just shows through our PPR and engineering, we no longer need this large detention pond um that was on the original site plan.

That area, however, is going to remain open space.

There's a large electrical easement going through it.

So that is the only difference.

This is about a 16,000 square foot building out of an almost 90,000 square foot piece of property.

Gerber autocollision functions on an appointment basis.

So you have a collision in your vehicle, you make an appointment through your insurance company, you come and deliver your car, they make the body repairs.

There's no internal, there's no leaking of oils, there's no engine repair, there's none of that.

This is strictly exterior uh collision repair.

You make the appointment, you drop off your vehicle, they fix it, you pick it up, and that's that.

Um very, very straightforward, very quiet, very controlled.

Um most standard operations are Monday through Friday with small I I'm hurrying, Commissioner Bugamante.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm hurrying.

Um this is uh example of a completed project, and then I will also show you exterior renderings of the property so you can see that gate.

Um this will be well shielded, well screened, um, and well protected for those residents of the Anderson, so there's no impact um on their no adverse impact on their quality of life.

Um and so respectfully with that, I request your support.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Weissler.

All right, this is a district three case.

Uh Commissioner Hino Husa to you for questions.

Uh yes, uh applicant.

Uh so what's the buffer between paint booth and the apartments?

Is there a specific like uh 15 feet, 20 feet?

What is that?

So um sorry.

There it goes.

And also between because I actually take my pets to that spay and neuter clinic.

Yeah.

I don't know how many times I can neuter my pet, but um just kidding.

I think I said that wrong.

But um but yeah, so what what's the uh buffer?

There you go.

Okay.

So let me go to the site plan.

Is this our special?

Yes.

So here you have a uh six-foot wooden privacy fence along the property line.

There is also an interior fence in here.

So there is a minimum 16 feet um on all sides.

This is from the rear corner, and this is uh almost 40 feet, and then this is a si almost 60 feet on the side to the building.

The paint booth is entirely inside.

All work is done on the vehicles inside with those door closed.

The doors are there for vehicles to come in and out of, but all of that work is done completely inside.

So we have again, it's 16 feet from the exterior privacy fence along the property line, and then there is a secondary interior fence for additional security to where you get to the vehicles, the dumpsters.

Um this is 25 feet on the interior from that interior fencing to the building itself.

So 50 and 60 feet well insulated.

Gotcha.

And how many spaces or how many cars can this area hold?

So this is 42 parking spaces.

There are 12 on the exterior.

So again, people are just this is very appointment-based only.

Um people are coming in and out, so 12 on the exterior of the gates and 30 on the interior.

So, and they take on average about five appointments a day.

So we are not storing, um, we're not repairing cars, certainly not selling them.

Um repairing on the interior, excuse me.

We're not doing engine repairs, those kind of things.

Um, so this is this is well sufficiently parked.

You mentioned the I I just don't know, maybe for clarification for myself.

You said they make appointments.

Are cars going to be towed to the facility as well?

Or is it just like because you mentioned they drive into their appointments?

Um very, very rarely is there a tow because all that should be done to my understanding, all that should be done here is exterior body work repair.

So um the intent is, again, to my understanding, that the cars are drivable.

This is just for exterior body repair work.

And I'm assuming all vehicles will be behind the fencing in the back.

Yes.

There'll be no storage outside of that area or course on the street or anything like that.

Correct.

Absolutely.

I like the fact that you know you've you've may have a district three, and then also with Brooks and Brooks obviously is the overlining factor here, I guess I believe, uh, since you're within their their area.

But okay, thank you, Chair.

Um I'm done.

Very good.

Any further questions?

Right.

Seeing none.

Questions left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh to staff current zoning is C3.

Right.

That's correct.

Um, so to talk about what other uses would be allowed within C3 would auto repair be allowed by right?

Uh muffler repair.

Auto.

Yes, yes.

So a lot of the auto uses are provided.

Uh approved by right and C3.

So just to clarify then the the specific request is because paint is set apart from those other auto uses.

That's correct.

Ms.

Weisler explained the S is not because it's out of character, but simply because it's part of the process for this use.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none, Commissioner Hinohosa to you for discussion and potential motion.

Sure.

Again, I like the fact that uh Brooks is kind of not fighting us on this, I believe.

It's within their their area again.

You've you've reached out to District 3.

Um I don't see a big problem.

I I know a lot of people in our area.

We recently had another uh paint paint shop that had been in the area for 60 years, and there was some complaints and to some comments about well, this wouldn't be a lot of Brooks.

Well, this is Brooks.

We're here.

This is a mixed use area, and we're gonna bring in a paint and body shop.

So I like the fact I'd like to make a motion for approval.

Thank you.

All right, there's a motion for approval of item number 20 by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh discussion right seeing none.

Discussion left, seeing none.

Motion is for approval of item number 20 by Commissioner Hinojosa with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Inojosa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

The next item on our agenda is approval of the minutes.

Any changes, amendments, amendments, revisions, other words for changes.

Looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

Floor is open for a motion.

Motion to approve.

All right.

There's a motion to approve the uh minutes as as submitted by Commissioner Woodsett.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

All right.

Uh this can be done by acclamation.

All those in favor of the motion approving the minutes as submitted, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

Abstain.

Uh one abstention by Commissioner Duval.

Minutes are approved.

Director's report.

Just going to say it again, starting uh April 1st, we will no longer be accepting voicemails.

Thank you.

Would have been great today.

Those 18 were tough.

All right.

Uh very good.

Thank you all for your time.

The time is 4 15.

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