We're going to call the Wednesday, April 22nd Planning Commission meeting to order.

Would staff please do a roll call.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Present.

Commissioner Cooper?

Present.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Commissioner Bustamonte?

Here.

Commissioner Siegel?

Here.

Com Chair Peck?

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we get the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Las personas que preferen escuchar esta audiencia in espanhol.

Thank you so much.

Great, thank you.

Before we move on with the rest of the agenda, I want to take a moment to uh honor uh ex-commissioner Michael Garcia, who was on the planning commission uh until this past well, until I guess today.

Uh Michael has been on the or was on the commission for 13 years.

Um I think he got on there in 2013, if I remember, if I remember right.

Um and served the commission well for all those years.

Um I want to you know take a moment to thank you for everything you've done.

It was a pleasure working with you all that time, and uh it was great having you on the commission.

Thanks for all your valued insight and participation and uh consideration during your time here.

So thank you.

Give me a round of applause for Commissioner Michael Garcia, all right.

So today uh we'll have two agendas.

We will have the combined hearing agenda, cases on the combined hearing agenda or cases where staff recommends approval.

The planning commission doesn't require it any fur doesn't require any further detailed discussion, and nobody uh has signed up to speak on the item.

All those cases will be heard in uh one unified motion, and um anything not on the consent agenda will be on individual hearing agenda.

Those cases will be heard individually before any action is taken by the commission.

All right, so what I have today is I have everything except items nine, ten, eleven, and twelve are on the consent agenda.

That's correct.

Okay, and Commissioner Bustamante will be recusing from the consent agenda because he has to recuse from items two, five, six, and seven.

That is correct.

Okay, and I also believe items nine and ten are requesting a three-week continuance to the May, whatever it is, thirteenth.

So items nine and ten, yes, are requesting continuance to um five May 13th.

May 13th.

Uh do we need to read those continuances in before or you they will have to be voted on, so we can just leave them.

We'll just leave them on individual.

Okay.

All right.

So at this point in time we will entertain a motion or discussion on the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Siegel, a second by Commissioner Sanchez.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Yes.

And Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Great.

Item nine.

Somebody call Commissioner Bustamante back in.

It is 206, and Commissioner Bustamante has re-entered the meeting.

Just for the record, Chair, Commissioner Bustamante stepped out of 205.

Thank you.

Item number nine is requesting a three-week continuance to the May 13th meeting located at 1139 New Laredo Highway.

Okay.

Is there any discussion or a motion on that continuance?

Move to continue item nine to the May 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bustamante and a second by Commissioner Siegel.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bustamonte.

Aye.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Item 10.

Item 10 is requesting a three-week continuance to the May 13th meeting, generally located in the 3200 block of South Foster Road.

Okay, any discussion or motion on continuance for item 10.

Motion to continue.

Continues for May 13th.

You have a motion to continue to May 13th by Commissioner Sanchez.

Until second.

A second by Commissioner Miller.

That please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper.

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamonte?

I.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Thank you.

Item 11.

Good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavides, Planner with Development Services.

Item number 11 is a request for approval of a resolution to amend the Nogalitos and South Sasamoto plan from neighborhood commercial to regional commercial located at 1904 Nogalitos.

There are 47 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed.

The Palm Heights Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The applicant seeks a plan amendment to regional commercial to rezoned to C3RS General Commercial Restrictive Alcoholic Sales District with a specific use authorization for tobacco store, retail, hookah lounge, smoking room, vape shop, or consumable hemp products retailer within a thousand feet of a public or private school daycare or institution of higher learning.

The proposed regional commercial land use is not consistent with the surrounding properties.

The request would permit the encroachment of a vape shop within a thousand feet of Collins Garden Elementary School located at 167 Harriman Place, which is in direct conflict with UDC Section 35-398.02.

Prohibition of tobacco and our vape shops within certain uses.

Additionally, the proposed regional commercial classification is inconsistent with the existing land use.

Designation designations in the surrounding area.

Properties designated with regional commercial typically consist of larger tracts, generally 20 acres or more.

Given the subject property size and its proximity to protect to the a protected use, staff finds that it does not meet the established locational criteria for the requested change.

Staff and zoning commission recommend denial, and the applicant is not present.

Thank you.

Nobody signed up to speak on this item.

The applicant is not here, so we will move directly on to Commissioner questions.

We will start on the left with Commissioner Bustamante.

Uh Ms.

Benavides, uh, was the applicant informed about today's meeting?

Yes, they were.

Uh he was aware he was supposed to attend.

Yes, I spoke to him on the phone this morning specifically.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

No further questions.

Commissioner Miller?

No questions.

No questions.

Uh no questions, but I'd like to go ahead and move to deny the applicant's request.

Second.

Okay, just for the record, we do have a commit a motion by Commissioner Siegel for denial of the request, and we have a second by Commissioner Sanchez.

We'll continue with Commissioner questions with Commissioner Wallerstead.

Any questions?

No questions.

No questions.

Okay.

I don't have any questions, but I'll echo Commissioner Siegel and Commissioner Bustamante that you know the applicant is aware of the meeting is not here, then I don't see a point in uh belaboring the issue and would support staff's recommendation of denial.

So we have a motion and a second.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Siegel.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstein.

Commissioner Bustamonte?

Aye.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 12.

Good afternoon, Commissioners at either Gomez Center Planetwood Development Services.

Item number 12 is a request for approval of a resolution to amend the IH-10 East Corridor Plan from regional commercial and low density residential to community commercial located generally at 3730 White Child Road, and there were 33 notices mailed out.

Zero in favor, two opposed.

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

The proposed plan amendment from regional commercial to end low density residential to community commercial is requested to rezone the property to C2 commercial district.

The proposed community commercial land use is consistent with the surrounding properties.

The proposed change facilitates a logical info development consistent with the established character of Stanouche Road.

By positioning commercial activity at the periphery, the request serves as a functional transition between higher intense uses in the interior of single family neighborhood to the south.

Furthermore, the designation could could facilitate neighborhood serving amenities while shielding residents streets from through traffic and commercial encroachment.

Staff does recommend approval on the item, and the applicant's representative is here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Would the applicant like to address the commission?

Presentation.

Commissioner Members, Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Trey Jacobson.

I'm with Momentum Advisory Services here in San Antonio, and I'm recommend uh rec uh representing the developer of the subdivision who is actually the applicant for this portion of the property.

And so staff did a good job covering the presentation.

But let me just kind of further give you some uh oversights about the project.

This is far out east toward the end of the city limits at 1604 and I-10.

This is a site uh this is an old site aerial.

Uh this shows the site that is it's juxtaposed against some of the more intense commercial development closer to the intersection.

Just for a sense of scale, uh that properties are the subject property is less than 750 feet from the highway intersection.

So it's it's really close to the right-of-way.

And it it's again right next to some fairly intense activities.

Now, the reason that's not a good aerial is because it's adjacent to a residential subdivision.

This is a area that was open space and not developed as part of it.

And so that that's and it it there's two uh roads that uh border it.

If you look at the overall zoning, and this is what the associated case is related to this, the overall zoning there is fairly intense at C3, it's I-1.

There's some other commercial development in the area which is not inconsistent with what's out there in that part of I-10 and at that interchange.

And again, the developer of the residential subdivision adjacent to it is the one that's actually hoping to bring commercial development to help serve the area, which is in large part developing.

And so the the zoning case, which is not being considered today is actually stepped down to change the zoning of that small tract from a less intense zoning that's surrounding it, which is more of a C2, more of a traditional, I mean a uh transitional type of use.

Staff pointed out, but this may illustrate a little bit more.

Because of the highway interchange, uh historically plans around highway interchanges have fairly intense commercial development.

The bulk of this site is actually intended to be regional commercial according to the land use plan.

We're proposing to actually step that down to a less intense use to community commercial and to unify it.

There is a portion of it you can see, which is already part of a low density residential uh over in the area.

This would unify it and reduce its scale again.

And so our plan or amendment request is to uh again unify the site to community commercial.

And um I will leave it at that.

If there are any other questions from the commission, I'll be happy to address them now or in a rebuttal format.

Thank you, Trey.

Appreciate it.

Uh we have one person signed up to speak.

It looks like it's Gwen Vanderpool.

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

Yes.

Gwynn Vanderpool.

My address is 3015 Sellhurst Street, Converse, Texas, 781092588.

And if it pleases the committee, I do have the HOA address and contact information to submit to y'all.

Okay, thank you.

And uh so there is an HOA and I also sent uh like 20 some odd pictures of the uh property actually facing in because of all the pictures that y'all saw there are actually facing out.

So you don't really see the property.

All right.

So the uh so there is a homeowners association, and uh the proposed planning would uh drastically impact the residents of Paloma Park subdivision and the surrounding area, and this parcel directly abuts the backyards of that subdivision.

Now, in the proposed plan that he had, there is an easement on the front and on the sides of the proposed change, but there is no easement on the back of that whole property between uh our subdivision back fence, which are the homeowners back fence, and the property.

So they could pave all the way up to it or build all the way up to that as well.

So with uh maybe just planted trees or something.

So with no buffer and no plans to amend that or ameliorate that, uh, this would create difficulties within the subdivision that share the affected property lines.

And already there is uh noise and site pollution and a lot of traffic from the 24-hour operation of the gas station there and the water burger, and there is increased traffic through the other subdivisions coming through there because there is no through traffic for Wycold Road or Stanish Road or I-10 or 1604, so they cut through the our neighborhood to get into there as a shortcut.

So other roads would have to be built, and of course, that would be the city would have to develop that.

So traffic is already concerned light and sound pollution there.

And um we were asked, we were asked by the proposal of if it was changed to this uh other zoning change or rating change, what we would like for it to be built onto there.

So I had proposed either that the land be used as a community park with fitness trails, uh jungle gym equipment, things like that, or if it had to be used something commercially, perhaps a garden center or a nursery, so that you could make best use of that irregularly shaped uh parcel, because as it is, it would have to be two strip malls, and he said there would be 154 parking spaces there in that very small area, plus that natural gas pipeline going through there, so it would have to be bifurcated.

So I thought if it had to be developed, a nursery or something like that would be uh good for that use of that land.

So also additionally, this proposal change would be proposing to change the entire parcel to community commercial, in which case that would change the zoning on the existing homeowners land underneath them instead of low density residential, it would be turning it into community commercial, and that would uh affect their tax base.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Jacobson, would you like a moment to rebut?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to I think more importantly than anything was kind of the last comment is uh the request today is only applicable to the five-acre tract that is being contemplated for commercial development, and it would not change the low density residential of the neighborhood at all.

Um if there is particular questions with respect to the development project, I can give you some answers to that if there are particular questions.

But I did want to clarify that this is only subject to the rather this is only particular 5.7 acre tract subject to the plan amendment today.

Thank you.

All right, that is everybody that signed up to speak, so we will close the public hearing and move to Commissioner questions.

We will start on the right with Commissioner Cooper.

No questions.

You have to hold the button.

Oh okay.

Um what have you planned for the buffers?

I can kind of answer Trey.

Um with zoning, there are required buffers.

So any C2 property with development would be required about a 15-foot buffer that has to have a certain amount of plantings and whatnot.

And then also they would also have to build a solid six-foot fence.

Again, these are code items that they would have to comply with with any future development if the zoning was to go through.

And sorry, Trey.

And then also in addition to that, we actually have a graphic that we try to put put together and we share this uh neighborhood briefing.

So there's also a 30-foot rear setback, so from any building there, and then there's a 15-foot uh landscape and buffer between the two uh with significant tree bush shrub plannings between the two.

So that's that is what is the requirement out of the C2 against residential zoning.

So Commissioner Siegel.

Um, this diagram answers any of the questions that I had.

Um I guess uh what I would like to ask staff is what are some examples of what might be developed on the part of this property that's regional commercial currently so with regional commercial that is suited for more higher intense uses, which would include bars, nightclubs, also auto sales, uh full service mechanical work, those are some of the common items that are permitted by right in uh uh C3 aka regional commercial uh zoning or land use.

Uh residential?

Correct.

Thank you.

Now I have no questions.

With the buffer provided, are there any intentions in the future during permitting that you the owner come in for administrative variance to try to reduce that in any way or reduce the planting or or the size of that?

Uh Commissioner, I the this is a concept plan based upon the normal setbacks requirements, some of the historic, I mean the uh tree preservation requirements and access points.

This is a concept plan based up of a strip center or of a retail center that could be developed there, or that is the developer and applicant's intention.

But uh I don't know that they would be the developer, and I don't I can't represent what another developer might come in and do.

I I don't think it's necessary given this the the way this property shape from my experience, but I I don't know if there's if it could happen.

Anything is plausible, but I can't represent what somebody might do in the future.

So if I may, the development standards that Kelly spoke to earlier, the requirement that a that a setback be provided, the requirement that a landscape buffer yard be provided, those would be required unless and until they were granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment, which would be another public input process.

So Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Bustamante.

And so looking at at this conjectural site plan, because this is we're getting into zoning a little bit and seems like a lot of our conversation has been about zoning.

But because this is simply a C2, this is not, they're not going to be bound to the site plan, correct?

The request for C2, yes, would not require a site plan.

This is something like Trey said, a conceptual item just to show.

But as we've already said twice, the buffers are part of the development code and are required any time a commercial use is abutting a residential use.

Correct.

So that's going to be required no matter what.

No matter what.

And then finally, that uh strip at running at an angle to the intersection of Wycold and the other street.

That is the 50-foot natural gas pipeline easement.

Is that correct?

Trey?

Yeah, for the record commissioner, that's correct.

There's a 50-foot wide uh natural gas uh pipeline that runs through that and through the subdivision.

So no building can occur there.

That's correct.

All right.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Okay.

Uh I don't have any questions.

I would, you know, kind of in conjunction with Commissioner Siegel's comment about what could be developed under the uh regional commercial.

To me, this is a uh lesser intense effort than what could go there if it was if this was denied and it was left regional commercial.

Um to me that's better for the situation than than that.

So um I will be in support.

Is there any other commissioner questions?

Now we entertain a motion.

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

Motion for approval by Commissioner Siegel.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Sanchez.

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Siegel.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Commissioner Wallerstein?

Commissioner Mustamonte?

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Great, thank you.

Um that's it for our regular agenda.

Is there a director's report today?

There is not.

This is going to be the first time I haven't asked about planning commission appointments in like six months.

That is correct.

Okay.

No further business.

It is 226 and we are adjourned.