All right, everybody.

Are we ready?

Staff ready?

Okay.

It is two eleven two twelve, and we're going to call the Wednesday, May 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order.

Would staff please do a roll call?

Commissioner.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Present.

Commissioner DeSucci.

Present.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Cooper.

Here.

Commissioner Miller.

Present.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Here.

Commissioner Orion.

Here.

Commissioner Bustamante.

Present.

Commissioner Siegel?

Here.

Commissioner Profit.

Here.

Chair Peck.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we have the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Para todas las aquellas personas que requieran de personal español.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Okay, today we're going to have two agendas.

We have the uh consent agenda.

Cases on the consent agenda are cases where the planning commission doesn't require further detailed discussion.

Nobody in the audience is signed up to speak on the item, and staff is recommending approval.

All those items will be heard in one motion.

Um the next agenda is the individual hearing agenda.

Anything on individual hearing agenda will be heard individually before action is taken by the commission.

What I have right now, first of all, is uh items 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 are all on individual.

That is correct.

Everything else is on consent, except for items 20, 21, and 22.

That is correct.

Okay.

Awesome.

So before we move forward with the consent agenda agenda, I'm going to turn the meeting over to uh Nikki Salinas to handle officer elections.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh so first up for business.

Uh we are going to um start do our election of officers for the year.

I'm gonna start with nominations for chair, and then we'll do uh a vote on that.

We'll do nominations for vice chair, and then we'll do nominations for pro tem.

So we'll do a motion after each one of those.

So I will go ahead and open the floor for nominations for chair.

I nominate George Peck for Chair.

Second.

Uh are there any other nominations for chair?

Hearing none, I'm gonna call for a vote.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Congratulations, George.

I'm now going to open nominations for vice chair.

I will nominate Matt Prophet, and I'll second.

Any other nominations?

Hearing none.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All any opposed?

And lastly, our nominations for Pro Tem.

Nominate uh Meredith Siegel.

I'll second.

Any other nominations?

Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Do I have the meeting back?

Are you giving me control of the meeting back?

Thank you.

Okay.

We're going to move to item 21, which is the selection of the nominating committee.

Um for the PC TAC applicants.

This whoever ends up on this committee will be responsible for reviewing the applicants to the planning commission technical advisory committee and making a recommendation to the full planning commission for those appointments.

Believe that applications are open for that, and deadline is what is it, June 8th or something like that.

So it'll be sometime in late June, early July by the time it comes to this commission.

That's correct.

All right, so can you nominate uh I'm gonna nominate myself, nominate myself, I'll nominate Commissioner Wallerstep.

It's three, correct?

Correct.

Three plus an alternate.

So we need one more for an alternate.

For the PTAC nominating committee.

Alternative, I nominate myself.

So we have Peck Sanchez and Wallerstatt as primary, and we have DeSuki as alternate for the nominating committee.

Does that need to be a motion or was that just okay?

Yeah, motion.

Uh motion to approve as presented.

And a second.

We have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay, next thing.

So uh Commissioner Oulette, who was uh no longer on planning commission, was the planning commission alternate to the technical advisory committee.

Um since he's no longer on planning commission, we will need to uh re reappoint someone to take his spot or appoint someone to take a spot.

So at this point in time, we will take either a volunteer or a nomination.

You can self-nominate for uh the alternate planning commission representation on the tech.

I nominate Commissioner Sanchez.

We have second.

I'll second.

Oh, I think it needs to be a is that a motion.

I'm Sanchez, I believe Sanchez is already a primary member.

I believe he's a primary member.

Oh, yeah.

So currently, primaries are Jesuki, me, and uh Sanchez.

So he's already he's already stuck for UDC.

That is correct.

We need somebody else.

Need another voluntole.

I'll volunteer, all right.

Commissioner Wallersted.

Um, we have a second.

I'll second.

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Carries.

Welcome aboard, Commissioner Wallsted.

You're going to really enjoy it.

You're gonna be sick a lot, right?

All right.

That all being done, we're going to move on with the regular agenda.

So we'll start with a consent agenda, and I'm going to ask.

He left.

Okay.

It is 219, and Commissioner Bustamante has left the meeting for purposes of recusing from items one and five.

This point in time we'll, if there's any questions or a motion on the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda with the amended minutes.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion to approve the consent with the amended minutes from Commissioner Profit and a second with by Commissioner Sanchez.

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner De Succe?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes as amended.

Thank you.

Can someone retrieve Commissioner Bustamante?

I guess he is uh moved on.

Okay, anyway.

We will uh move on to item number 11.

Item 11.

I'm sorry, item 11, generally located in the 3200 block of South Foster Road is requesting a two-week continuance to the May 27th meeting.

Awesome.

We do have one person signed up to speak.

I believe it's Jane Schaefer.

Um the applicant has requested a continuance, but you are more than welcome to speak today.

It is 220, and Commissioner Bustamante has re-entered the meeting.

Please state your name and address for the record.

You'll have three minutes.

Need it.

505 Costano Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, 78209.

I oppose this zoning.

This is a one-acre track that is requesting the highest level of commercial zoning in a residential neighborhood.

It's presently zoned R6.

Nonetheless, this property owner purchased the property November 2022.

The lot had been the one-acre lot had been completely cleared by January 2023, and it was being used to store oversized trucks by 2024.

And it also received a UDC violation in 2024.

Nonetheless, the owner continues to operate his oversized truck business on this lot.

And he has also installed a large corrugated metal fence surrounding the lot that doesn't even cover the tall trucks, which is also a UDC violation.

This zoning seeks to legitimize these violations and undermines the purposes of the planning and zoning commissions.

Approving the zoning would set the precedent that zoning and UDC laws can be ignored and corrected after the fact, and that spot zoning is lawful in San Antonio.

I request that you deny the rezoning and the motion for continuance.

It is incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood, which you may see, those are all houses, and the red dot going into the entrance of Foster Meadows is where this trucking operation has been and is currently being held.

This property should be brought into compliance with its residential zoning for the safety of the area's residents and children to avoid the noise, traffic, and visual blight, and protect the surrounding properties, property values.

It is not the right use, it is not in the right place, and approving it will send the wrong commit message.

It's incompatible, it's spot zoning, and it would reward a violation.

If I may point out, I don't know how to use this.

Okay.

This is where the trucking operation currently operates.

Ma'am, if you can speak into the microphone.

Thank you.

The red dot is where this trucking operation exists.

These are all residences.

And as you may see, there's no entrance to all of these homes other than right here going by the trucking operation.

There are school buses, children, families in this area.

He is violating the law and it should be brought in compliance, and the continuance should be denied because I don't think it's fair to take your time or my time.

He continued the zoning commission hearing.

He's continuing this one, and he's not coming into compliance.

Nothing has changed.

I respectfully request you oppose the zoning and continuance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Schaefer.

All right.

So as per staff, the applicant is not present as per staff.

The applicant is requesting a two-week continuance to May the 27th.

Is there any commissioner questions?

We will start on the left.

With whoever is down there.

Yeah, I got a question.

So is what they're asking for uh is this the weakest less lease intensive uh land use that that would accomplish what their goal is.

Regional commercial because they're trying to get a C3 uh C D.

I believe that they could do a C2 CD for the oversized uh vehicle sales service and storage, and um I will also state that this did go to zoning commission last week and they recommended denial.

Okay, um but the but regional commercial is what they would need to accomplish the C2 or the C3.

No, for the C3, not a C2.

Okay.

What would what would be the land use for the C2?

I believe it would be community commercial, okay.

Okay, just curious.

I'll be I'm not gonna be in support of this.

I'm ready to vote no today, just so in case anybody's wondering.

Commissioner Miller, I don't know if you would any questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Uh motion to deny the request.

We have a motion of a motion to deny by Commissioner Sanchez and a second to deny by Commissioner Siegel.

Yes, you can.

Was the applicant aware that today was the continuance day?

Yes, they've always they've been notified.

It was continued back from April the 22nd.

Also, they are requesting a second continuance, so it originally was continued from April 22nd to today.

So this would be their second request.

Was the applicant president of zoning commission hearing or was that?

Yes, they were.

Okay.

Is there any other commissioner questions?

Okay.

Will we have a motion and a second?

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Dezucki?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallersted?

Yes.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Vistamontes.

Commissioner Profit.

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 12.

Item number 12, located at 1139 New Laredo Highway is requesting a two-week continuance to the May 27th meeting.

All right.

Uh nobody has signed up to speak on this item, so I'm just going to ask if there's any commissioners commissioner questions on this one.

Motion to uh to grant uh continuance to May 27th.

We have a motion.

We have a motion by Commissioner Prophet to grant a continuance to May 27th.

And a second was that Commissioner Sanchez.

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Profit.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamante.

Commissioner Siegel.

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Thank you.

Item 14.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joel Polimas, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 14 is a request for approval of a resolution to amend the Greater Airport Area Regional Center Plan land use classification from community commercial to regional commercial located at 12139 Joel and Smaltzberger Road.

There are 19 notices sent out, three in favor, six opposed within 200 feet.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Outside 200 feet, seven received in favor and one opposed.

The proposed plan amendment from community commercial to regional commercial is requested to rezone the property to C3S General Commercial District with a specific use authorization for auto paint and body repair with outsized storage of vehicles and parts permitted but totally screened from view of adjacent property owners and public roadways.

The surrounding area is primarily comprised of community commercial, low density residential, and medium density residential land uses, which accommodates more moderate commercial activity and a neighborhood-oriented development pattern.

The proposed land use would permit uses more intense than what is characteristic of the area as a subject property directly abutts to the north, a multifamily zone and district with established single family residential uses.

Resonance of C3S with a specific use authorization for auto paint on body repair, even if screened, would introduce an in an intensive commercial use with potential external impacts as a distance is insufficient to adequately buffer the livability of the nearby residents.

Therefore, approving the regional commercial land use classification would not support an appropriate transition between land uses and protecting of adjacent residential neighborhoods from incompatible commercial encroachment.

Staff recommends denial.

Thank you.

And the advocate would like to address the commission.

Sorry.

Pardon me?

Oh don't small murder.

Oh, my actor?

Sorry.

318 East Nacoma.

Suite 112, San Antonio, Texas, 78216.

Okay.

Okay.

Um this particular business that has been there already doing stuff.

This particular business, the only thing that they were asking for, and that is, is the paint booth that they use.

And the paint booths are now, have been in the city of San Antonio, there's over a thousand of them, and they are very well regulated by the city pollution place, farm marshal.

And so they the how should I say it?

They have come a long way.

They are no longer like the old ones that they were.

There is no lead paint, there's none of that stuff that happens.

And they want to be part of the community, and they have actually started talking to some of the people in the back.

In fact, one of the residential deals is now a customer of the business.

And they wanted to try to become part of the part of the community.

And they have with the other businesses, but also with the people in the back, because this, as you can see, the the residential is behind it, which they'll they will have a fence and everything that you won't be able to see.

And some of the ladies, the their older people are in that little cul de sac in the back.

And I personally myself has talked to several of them.

Um we feel that we would have a he would have a viable business and be part of the community and with people in the back.

So that's what we're asking for, sir.

Just common sense.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

Okay, there's nobody signed up to speak, so we'll start with Commissioner questions.

Start on the right with Commissioner Bustamante.

No questions.

No questions.

Do you currently have a permit for operating a collision business?

A repair shop.

The uh a repair um for small vehicles and truck and pickup trucks, and that's what that is for.

The addition, which is what requesting, if you the way it was explained, is a little S for just the paint booth to do the painting, and it's all enclosed.

You mean repair body repair?

Yes, yes, body repair.

For example, and as an example, they have no, they've gotten a contract based, hopefully it is, from Prime, Amazon Prime.

You know, their their little trucks that they run around, of course, they get into accidents.

Well, to clarify with staff, is the collision complied with the current land use as of now.

Again, the uh so they do have an active C of O for auto and light truck repair that is not supposed to permit like the paint and auto body.

It would basically be for mechanical work, only.

So the body work he's mentioning is allowed within that uh.

No, no, it's not no again, the auto and light truck repair is meant to be just for mechanical work, and work correct.

Exactly.

Yeah, and so the only other I just wanted to clarify is what you're doing body work or mechanical work?

It seems to be different.

Mechanical work.

We want to be able to do the body work, body work and paint.

That's what you're requesting.

Yes, yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

That's what we're asking for to add to it.

Okay, and yet you re rename the business to a collision center, which a collision facility, which means it's a body work, the way I understand it.

Yeah, okay.

Name for the wrong way.

That okay, sir?

Thank you.

So staff question, please.

Uh in its current use, is this conforming with community commercial?

The current use, I mean it it could be allowed with a C2 C D or um like a conditional use or a um with the existing community commercial, but again, right now they are allowed, um they are zoned C3, which permits that use by right.

Right, by right, but does not allow it in community commercial as it is, it's not a permitted district currently in community commercial, is it C3?

C3 is not a zoning district that would be permitted aligned or aligned with community commercial, but again, the zoning was established before this plan was adopted.

Um, so a potential, but but for the paint and collision, C2 conditional use is not an option.

I believe it would be, I'm just cons confirming.

So if I'm not mistaken, auto painting body is permitted with an S specific use authorization in the C3 district, it's also permitted by right in the general industrial district, which means it could be conditioned down to a C2 C D, which would be consistent with the community commercial land use designation and thus not require a plan amendment in the first place.

But I I will state also there's always been that concern.

Collision repair typically is not meant for folks to bring in for usual typical mechanical work.

Typically, when you go to a collision repair, you're going there because your car has been in an impact, an accident, and needs to be repaired.

People do not go to these locations for their oil changes or whatnot, so he would not be permitted that that use would not be permitted.

It would have to straight be a collision repair if they were to go with that zoning.

Okay.

But with that C3S, it would permit both the collision repair along with mechanical auto and light truck repair.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Listening to what she's saying.

So if we get the S for the paint, right?

Or we don't, but does that mean we can't do the oil changes and you know the minor repairs that we're still doing?

That's staff.

Let me approach this one from a different angle.

Is the ultimate goal to be able to do mechanical work, body work, and paint?

Yes, sir.

Then they need the plan amendment and they need the C.

That's exactly right.

Okay.

Because it's all what it's all one thing.

When they bring a car from the insurance that is had a 10, it you gotta replace the light or do the old chain or a brake, you know, on the one on one wheel.

So you do do mechanical stuff.

Yeah.

From a land use perspective, that's for you know, it gives us pause.

Uh especially because I believe the buffering and uh setbacks are our grandfathered, correct?

Because this is a butt's residential.

So because it's an existing structure, they would not need to add in any um brand new uh buffers or anything like that.

Only if they were building something new, would our current code apply.

Okay.

There are buffers currently.

Is there existing buildings and there's a fence in the back, and the actual neighbor in the back is now a customer.

And we actually trying to trying to be with the community.

We said, what do you guys want?

Do you guys want us to build a fence and everything?

He says, Oh, don't worry about it.

But I'm sure that's him, but the people next to each other.

So we've been trying to hopefully we s we'll have a success in being part of them.

Oh, sure.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Siegel.

Um, sir, before you sit back down, can you describe to me the buffer that's provided at the back of the site to protect the residences?

What buffer is exists?

Actually, it's the resident behind us is his backyard, and there is a fence.

And the fence, which would be their the building fence, is grass on on the build on our side is grass before the concrete starts.

Okay, so you're saying that there's a fence at the property line.

Oh yes, ma'am.

Cyclone.

Um please just allow me to continue my statement.

So you're saying that there's a fence at the property line and there's grass on the business side of the fence, as well as whatever's in the neighbor's yard.

Yes, he says the same thing.

Can you describe the fence for me?

Yes, it's a cyclone fence.

It's only six.

So it's chain link fence.

I'm sorry.

So in other words, any kind of noise or vapors or liquids could pass right through it.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Now, staff, can you describe for me what kind of buffers would be required if this were to be um a situation where a new business was wanting to make a new site plan to do these kind of functions?

So they would be required, say if they were to rebuild or need to do put in the applicable buffers, you would be required a C type uh fifteen-foot buffer and then a solid um fence.

Six up to six feet.

A solid fence could be a wood fence or cinder block or stone.

Yes, but then they would need 15 feet of landscape buffer, and then that's not just grass, right?

Correct.

Um a C type buffer typically permits um a variety of different canopy trees, um, understory, large, medium um shrubs.

Okay, so that's not something that's likely to be done by the property owner if they get permission to do the things that they're wanting to do now without already having provided that buffer.

No, we asked to see if whatever they want us to do, we would specifically do it.

But agreements between property owners are not the same thing as what's required by law.

And also whatever we decide for today is not just for whoever's living in the house and whoever's owning the business now.

We're we have to think 20 years, 50 years down the road.

I understand.

Okay.

Alright.

May I say something?

Sure.

We would actually, like we always usually do, we'd have to go to the building department and say here is this, and we want to build this fence and get a building permit for it.

But that's only if you want to make changes.

We do want to make the changes.

Thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner Wallership?

No questions.

Commissioner Sanchez.

No questions.

Okay, so I'm looking at this.

Um this plan was adopted in 2025.

Um, is it is it I thought the city when they adopt these plans, or they their goal was to try to match the existing zoning that's there.

Is that am I off on that?

Or that's not true?

With some exceptions, the planning department is not processing large area rezonings to align existing zoning with the adopted plan.

Uh we have at development services a large area rezoning team that is instructed by CCR in defined areas to align zoning with land use and existing uses, but there are plenty of properties where land use plans have been adopted where the zoning still does not align with the new plan.

Okay, I'm um I was just asking about the history because uh this area's kind of been in the city limits for a little while, and and it if it's been C3 for a little while, did the sector plan support the C three or any of the previous plans that were in effect prior to October of 2025?

If you just give me a moment, I can see what it what the prior land use was.

Okay, I believe it was not regional commercial either.

And this applicant uh who someone else may answer this.

So according to this Google Street View, their use as a as a collision repair has been around since at least 2024, and um, you know, they've been they've been operating outside of their allowed zoning the since then.

I assume again the um C of O that I have here from 2024 is for auto and light truck repair, oil lube and two tune-up, entire installation.

I will state that it did um there was a um inspector that goes out just to make sure that they require match those uses.

So I'm assuming when the inspector had gone out there, they did not find any other collision items like auto and paint and body.

Okay, yeah, because the name of the business was budget collision.

Uh and then lastly, when you change when you get a brand new C of O for a completely different use, I know that the city looks at parking and they look at different things.

Do they look at buffers during that type of C of O change?

No, they do not, they typically just look at the um the parking for no construction C of O application.

All righty.

Commissioner, no questions, okay.

I don't really have any questions, but you know, I would say that this is a little challenging from a perspective I get what the applicant's trying to do and you know improve his business and move forward, and it isn't really a lot different from the outside looking in as to what he's doing now because most of the differences would be inside, but I do have quite a bit of heartburn over regional commercial in on a 0.5 acre tract in an area that is not um really suitable for regional commercial, therein lies the heartburn, and um I don't know if I can you know the every time I see a regional commercial on a small tract in the middle of an area like that, you know.

My my gut is denial because it doesn't fit the bill, and uh just because I don't really have a problem with what the guy's trying to do, doesn't mean I can deviate from that tenant that I have.

So uh I'm going to have to maintain with staff's recommendation for denial based on that.

And I will state just to answer uh Commissioner Orion's question.

This was part of the older San Antonio International Airport vicinity land use plan and it was community commercial as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Entertain a motion, I move to deny the applicant's request.

I'll second it.

We have a motion for denial by Commissioner Siegel and a second by Commissioner Wallersted.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes, Commissioner Wallersted?

Yes, Commissioner Swanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

No.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes, Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Orion.

No.

Commissioner Bustamonte.

No.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 15.

Item 15, located at 2814 Vera Cruz Street is requesting a two-week continuance to the May 27th meeting.

All right.

Any questions or a motion on this item?

No.

Nobody signed up to speak.

Motion to grant applicants request for continuance to May 27th.

May 27th, that would be it.

Yep.

We have a motion for continuance to May 27th.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Lopez, was it?

Cooper.

Oh, Cooper.

Sorry.

Okay.

Uh please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper.

Yes.

Commissioner Sunchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallerston.

Yes.

Commissioner Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamonte.

Commissioner Siegel.

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Thank you.

Item 16.

Item 16, located at 223 East Petaluma Boulevard is requesting a two-week continuance to the May 27th meeting.

Okay.

We do have two people signed up to speak on this item.

If you would like to address the commission, keep in mind this is being continued.

Okay.

So you don't want to speak today.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being here.

Okay, so that takes care of the people signed up to speak.

We'll move on to any commissioner questions or motion.

Motion to grant applicants' requests for continuation to the May 27th PC meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Prophet to uh approve the continuance to May 27th and was the second Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Dezuki?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamonte.

I.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Thank you.

And item 18.

Good up to our new commissioners and other government senior planner with development services.

Item 18 is a request for approval resolution to amend the northwest community plant from low density residential to community commercial located generally at 5995 Heath Road.

There are 4040 notices and mailed zero in favor, one opposed.

There is no registered neighborhood association with interim defeat.

The proposed plan amendment from low density residential to community commercial is requested to rezone the property from C1 like commercial district to C2 commercial district.

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

Changing the designation to community commercial doesn't just allow large buildings, it entitles the land to broader range uses.

Software Commissionell and the applicant's representative is here answering any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant like to address the commission.

Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners Ashley Fairman with Killin Griffin and Fairman.

Uh my address is 10101 reunion place.

Thank you.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm here today on behalf of the property owners.

Um Dr.

Prashan Throwe is here in the back.

He is the owner of the property and uh would be the owner and manager of the business that I'll talk about in just a little bit.

Um so as a radio mentioned, the property is located on Heath Road.

Um there's a it is next to single family, but we actually think that it's a good location for what we're looking at today.

Um there is a wide variety of other uses in the area, and the proposed use here is a pickleball and paddle ball facility, so it would be a space that includes indoor buildings uh that have pickleball courts and then also paddle ball courts.

Um, really, we think that it's a community amenity.

Uh it's an opportunity for something that's nearby uh homeowners to visit.

They can be members or they can rent a court, and then it creates you know an opportunity for people not only to do something healthy, but also to have a place where they can meet up with their friends and family and do something fun as well.

Uh so here again is the property.

Um what you see outlined in yellow is what we're requesting the plan amendment for.

Um it also does have access to Heath Road.

There's an additional parcel.

We're just not rezoning that piece, it's already zoned C1.

Um, and so we're not requesting a plan amendment for that, but I'll show you a map of that in a second.

Um so again, the property that we're asking for the plan amendment on is 4.3 acres.

The entire site uh that Dr.

Rao owns is about 5.6 acres.

Um the current zoning is C1.

So just to point out that that zoning is already inconsistent with the land use and the land use plan.

So the plan calls for low density residential, but again it's it's zone C1.

Community commercial is also consistent with C1 zoning.

So we do think that that is appropriate even just based on the existing zoning.

As staff mentioned, we are requesting the change to allow for not a use difference.

Pickle and paddle ball courts indoor facilities are allowed in C1 zoning.

So that is already permitted by right.

But what C1 does is it restricts building size.

So you can only have 5,000 square foot buildings in C1 and only up to 15,000 square feet total.

So we understand the limitations that come along with C1, but I think the intent of C1 is really to be on smaller properties.

If you go 15,000 square feet on 5.6 acres, that's 6% of your property can be a building.

So here we're just asking for the C2 and we're adding the NA to allow for multiple buildings to be larger than 5,000 square feet.

If you do something smaller than that and you have maybe two courts in a building, you're gonna have multiple buildings scattered across the property, which from a construction perspective isn't really efficient, but also from this idea of community in a place where people want to go.

People don't necessarily want to play pickleball on one court in one building alone.

Um so it allows more courts in the same building.

Here again is the the property and the zoning map.

And then there is C2 and A and C3 and A across the street.

So commercial zoning does exist in the area in higher intensities.

Just a little bit more.

Again, asking for the community commercial.

The properties to the north that are commercial are also not designated correct in the plan, but there is business office park that has been changed across Heath Road.

It included this slide just to show kind of the different uses in the area.

There is a soccer facility, so some precedent for fitness, just to the northeast or so, but that is a more intense use because it is outdoors, and this would all be again indoors.

Just gonna skip along.

So here's a conceptual plan, and so that again you can see the access from Heath Road.

Um and just to point out that is floodplain.

So, you know, the idea of this being single family with one access point to Heath Road through floodplain is probably not ideal either.

Um, but that will have to be addressed when you know a new driveway is built to the property.

Uh, and then this is just again the conceptual plan with a couple of different buildings that are larger than 5,000 square feet with a couple of courts in those buildings, and then just some of the highlights.

I know this is not land use discussion, but some of the details on the business, seven to ten again, membership or drop-in.

There is an existing um office on the property that would be converted to kind of the office for the facility as well.

Um, all again, all inside with even C1 or C2 zoning, it cannot be outdoors.

Um the smaller buildings or sorry, consolidated buildings allow for some tree save areas.

There will be six to eight foot privacy fence constructed, and then again, more than enough parking uh for the business.

So with that, we hope you will recommend approval of the request.

We think it's reasonable.

And again, from the zoning perspective, just C1 to C2.

Again, we are adding the NA, so there's gonna be no alcohol use.

Uh, and then also there there aren't that many different uses between C1 and C2, and then in terms of feasibility of property that doesn't really have frontage from visibility from a commercial business standpoint.

We actually think this is a really good use of the property.

So happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley.

We do have one person signed up to speak.

Uh Janie Benavides.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay.

Uh no one else signed up to speak, so we'll move to commissioner questions.

Start with Commissioner Miller.

Okay, so I noticed on the staff report that they're pursuing IDZ zoning.

That's what it said in the with the uses allowed in the C2.

Is that true?

I do not see IDZ, I'm sorry, but it all they're requesting is C2.

Okay.

I was looking at um, I hope I'm not in the wrong one here, but I was uh the last page of the zoning commission supplemental information.

I'm in the wrong one, okay.

So they are asking apologize.

Keeping me on my toes.

Okay, that's fine.

I haven't.

I don't have any more questions.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, Commissioner Sanchez.

I just want to go back to the site plan just to verify those buffers that would be provided with the U construction.

Yeah, I can get back there.

And and I'm sure you know it by heart.

Um, but between C1 and C2 zoning in the R6, it's a 15-foot uh type B landscape buffer.

Um what's proposed here is gonna be bigger than that.

There's enough room on the property.

Yeah, I think just to confirm what Ashley said, C1 and C1 and C2 request are require the same buffer.

Um and so 15 foot B buffer along any properties that's abutting the R6, but I think there's an MP 10 to there, and that does require a C buffer, same distance, just a little bit more landscaping, and also with being a commercial use, they would be required to put in a six-foot uh solid fence.

So there is one being provided on the NP 10 side as well.

Sorry.

Sorry, it's a larger residential track uh just behind building A.

Yeah, I think behind building A, it looks like this is conceptual, it's a little bit narrower behind building C, so we'll have to make sure that accommodates the 15 feet there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Waller said, um I have a question.

Why did the um it was uh recommended as denial?

Why did the staff recommend recommendation?

Typically, based as a radio said um basically C1 has a um maximum on building sizes, so you have a maximum of one building is 5,000 square feet, and then a overall of 15,000, whereas C2 does not have that maximum.

That's all.

Um I have a semi-pertinent question.

I'm seeing a designation for septic systems in the site plan here.

Can you tell me about that?

Yeah, I don't have too much detail, but the plan right now is for it to be on septic.

Um, I don't think in Dr.

Bao can confirm, but I don't think there's sewer nearby.

Thanks.

Uh Prashanthrow, 5995 Heath Road, San Antonio, Texas.

Um, so there is no city sewage that runs to the property, so it's currently on uh a septic system.

Um, and uh in discussing with developers, there are larger septic systems that could accommodate um the intermittent uh use that uh these players would have.

Thank you.

Sure, Commissioner Crawford.

Not a lot of questions.

I mean, as far as I think the septic that will be up to this TCEQ to make sure you get the necessary permits, um I understand staff's position, but I find as Ms.

Ferram mentioned that being at the flood zone is probably never going to get developed into single family homes, and it sounds like uh you guys have gone to some pretty good lengthy um or thought about it very lengthily about how to be good neighbors and uh seems like some of the community here's seems uh mollified by your comments.

So um if it moves forward, good luck.

But no questions or more comments.

Commissioner De Suckey.

Um potentially C2 and A in the future.

What would be the potential use of it if you decided to leave this for a next, or do you sell it to somebody else?

Um I can address that.

So we took a look at what's the difference between C1 and C2, um, anticipating that might be a question uh with the NA.

So I do have a list for you.

Um, and here are just the main differences.

And again, a lot of these I think um would never go here.

So to me, the most intense differences are the auto uses, and that would be in a C2, you could do um like a JIFI loop.

That's kind of the most intense auto use you could have in a C2.

Um and then the other uses here are things like a parking lot, which I'm not really sure why you would do a parking lot here, but that is a difference as well, and then some of the others if you want to take a look.

Um convenience store you could have here, umsery where you grow your own plants, tamali preparation, school, uh a business school, you could do a regular school here already by right, a bank.

Um, keep scrolling.

So the highlighted ones are the only the difference medical clinic and storage.

So there is a 45 additional permitted use under C2 have this amendment being approved.

Yes.

And one of them could be a problematic to the residentials cross from them, which is like the auto auto-use, which can be allowed by it again, it would have to be like a oil change place.

And you don't have to come to the city for approval to get that permit from that business to operate.

That is true.

We did, and Emily can elaborate on this, we did reach out to the Misty Oaks Neighborhood Association because Dr.

Rao is perfectly willing to restrict against these uses, but we're never able to receive response.

There is any restriction from the city that we can put in place to limit the use for this particular purpose of rocket play or no, if we we cannot.

So right now they're permitted any use in a C1, and if it is approved by City Council for C2, they would be permitted any right any use permitted in a C2 based zoning.

And so, Commissioner, we also looked at was there any other could we condition it?

Can we do a specific use permit?

Could we do a different zoning district?

Uh and as Kelly mentioned, we went through all of that, and this was really the only option.

We can't condition it because it the only option would be an office, and you can't condition into an office zoning.

Um, and then we looked at, you know, could you do an IDZ and restrict uses, but this is not the location for that.

Um, and so there really wasn't any way to do it.

Have been uh any communication with the residents um or the homeowner association about the potential future use of this.

So again, we we tried before, even before submitting the application multiple times to engage with the registered association and received no response.

We're able to talk to the previous president of that group and they tried to help um, but we we couldn't get anyone to engage.

Um we're able to did then send out letters um to the property owners within 200 feet.

I'm happy to chat with people here today.

Maybe they can help us get somebody to engage.

Sorry, just just some clarification, Mr.

De Suki.

So uh I mean, this is like a passion project for me.

I love to to play these racket sports.

I mean, it's the difference between playing outside right now and playing inside.

There's just not that many places to to play in an air-conditioned, comfortable facility.

I wouldn't be constructing something with the intention of it going anywhere anytime soon.

These are gonna be like tournament grade courts, both the pickle and pedel ball, and I'm hoping they'll last for decades.

So just wanted to clarify this isn't some like uh transitional sort of thing.

I'm I'm hoping to do that.

I I totally agree.

I have no problem with the use you're proposing today.

Um putting this into perspective in the future.

Have you decided to sell this for whatever reason, which is always an option on the table that somebody might take advantage of the C2 new residentials for a use that's allowed by the city to be used?

I'm not questioning, I agree.

I'd love to play it as well.

I'm just questioning this.

It is a completely different aspect.

No further question.

Thank you.

All right.

Um next commissioner.

Uh what's the status of the associated zoning case at this time?

It is um supposed to go to zoning commission next week on Tuesday the 19th.

Thank you.

No other questions.

Briefly, Miss Fairman, you already addressed it, but I'm going to hit it again.

Miss Benavidas is here.

Uh, talk to her before zoning, please.

Yes.

See if there's something we can do.

Thank you.

Another question.

Yeah, uh, this is for uh for the applicant.

Are you gonna be platting this into multiple lots to where you could take advantage of multiple individual buildings under C one?

Yeah, I thought about it.

We could plat it into different lots and then have 5,000 square foot buildings, but it that is feasible on that it's an option.

The the issue there is it it allows for like two courts in a building, and just doesn't kind of create that community vibe goal um that going for here when you know again it's it's people come here to play, but also to be with other people.

So and a question for staff uh could this applicant go to the BOA for an exception for the square footage?

I believe that could be the case.

I was about to confirm with my team.

I mean, because that you can get that answer.

I think we're out four weeks before we have our meetings.

If they were to apply by by this Friday, you could be heard in about four weeks and maybe we table this uh until then just to see if people are if we don't think we have the votes today.

That's one avenue that could happen before we vote on it, just a thought.

Okay.

Um I don't have any questions, just kind of some thoughts.

Um when I first read the agenda, I was like, wow, this sounds kind of shady, right?

Um, but then after you know hearing the presentation, it really changed my perspective on it.

You know, and I guess what I'm trying to say is is that you know, I I think staff could have done a better job of describing the project on this one.

Honestly, it really kind of threw me for a loop because I mean you guys usually do a great job, but this one I was like no when I wear when I read the agenda.

You know?

Because it was like, oh, they're just trying to circumvent something.

Well, that's a that's a trigger, you know.

But then you hear what's really happening, and the project makes sense to me.

And I get what they're trying to do.

And it's changed their presentation changed my mind.

So I'm gonna be in favor of this item.

Understandable, but I just like Desuki was saying, this could be something else later on.

I get it, but I just think that maybe a little more detail about what was going on could have been in there, other than they're trying I and I just read it again.

They're trying to circumvent the rule.

Uh it's not really what's going on.

I have a I haven't that was not the intent of the report.

It was just clarifying what was written in the application.

I get it, but it didn't give me any information to base my decision on.

Thank you until now.

Okay, thank you.

I'm just telling you what I thought.

But don't think, you know, you guys always do a great job.

I just on this one, it was just really weird for me.

So putting that out there.

I have a I'll take that to heart.

I have an additional question.

Sure.

Could you tell me what kind of structures they'll be?

Will it be something that is that blends in with the neighborhood or are they just gonna be big ugly metal buildings?

Ma'am, I'm hoping they won't be big, ugly metal buildings.

Um I'm we've got an excellent architect uh that we're communicating with um I think he's uh we're all aesthetically oriented.

I want people that come there to you know not get that industrial vibe.

So that's certainly something we're gonna take into consideration, make it as appealing as possible.

So they're going to be metal buildings, I assume.

Um I wish I had the expertise to to tell you I think there's a range of options that include like prefabricated um structures to uh actual um different options that we could use to accommodate like the heights for paddle courts versus pickleball courts and things like that.

I'm not sure if there's prefabed buildings for that.

So uh I just don't have enough info to give you an accurate answer.

I'm sorry.

I can elaborate just a little bit to not unnecessarily materials, but you know, you talk about what they would see.

Um so I don't think anything will be visible from Heath Road.

Um but neighbors that back up to the property, I mean the goal would be that there's a large enough landscape buffer, and then these are technically one story structures, just taller one story.

So it you know it's it's not even as tall as a two-story house.

Okay.

Any other questions?

If not, we will entertain them out one more.

I'm pa I apologize.

Okay.

Uh can the zoning commission impose any sort of conditions or city council that would help us lose uh any heartburn over this?

No, they cannot.

If sorry, if they were to ask for a conditional use or a specific use authorization, we could look at conditions, but that is not the case.

Well, for NA and R.

Or not even R.

Except for NA, which they've already got.

Well, they are requesting the NA, so that means they can't have alcohol sales there.

Question on uh for new development area, when uh the developer would decide to make swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, and a building.

Does this specific location would have a a different land use or a zoning use different than the residentials nearby?

I'm sorry, what I meant they are requesting a different land use, so yes.

Is that what you were asking?

No, I'm asking would would the develop would the developer would need at this point this to be zoning differently than the residentials nearby.

It is it is currently different is zoned commercial right now.

Yes, it's zone C1.

So again, they're updating, they're requesting the C2 so they can rearrange the um that's not what I'm asking.

Are you trying to clarify it if it if a a residential subdivision was coming in and wanted to build a an amenity center?

Correct.

That would fall under residential zoning, so it would still have to be rezoned.

Yeah, it would have to be rezoned if it's some kind of residential use.

It is zoned commercial, like commercial right now.

So any time a like a residential subdivision comes in and there's an amenity center or a park included within that plat, it is the same zoning as what it the residential zoning is.

It's just designated as park space.

Correct.

If they would ask to make the building larger than the size that allowed by C1, they would have to go through the same process of C2 or community commercial to make it a bigger building and full throughout the whole process.

So the right now C one, yes, has the maximum of 5,000 square feet for one building, 15,000 for up to multiple buildings.

So they either have to rezone, or as Orion was requesting or asked, inquired, they could go to BOA and request a variance from that piece of code.

Okay.

I think I understand what you're asking.

Um like the I believe Misty Oaks has a community center that's zoned residential.

So they don't have a size limitation there, like a neighborhood doesn't have that, and you can do it in an R6 zoning if it's associated with a neighborhood.

Only if it's associated with this particular one is not associated with it, right?

But still it's very close by.

Right, and we hope that the neighbors are members.

I mean, that's the idea is that it's amenity for the community.

Okay, that's clarified.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

No, we'll entertain a motion.

I move to recommend approval.

I'll second.

We have a motion.

Uh by Commissioner Cooper for approval and a second by Commissioner Siegel.

Would staff please do a roll call vote?

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

Yes.

Commissioner Sonchez?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Wallerstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamante?

I.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh I think that is finally.

Uh, quick point of personal privilege.

Correct.

Because I wasn't able to give him a hard time at zoning because I forgot.

Uh this is Aradio Gomez's last planning commission meeting, and his last zoning commission meeting was last week.

So I want to thank him for his work.

Uh, unfortunately, he will be leaving DSD, correct?

That is correct.

And where are you going?

Economic development.

All right.

Well, he's staying with our city, but he is leaving us.

So good luck to Oradio and thank you for all your work.

Congratulations on the move.

And don't use the word circumventing anymore.

I'll keep that in mind.

All right.

Uh, we have made it through the agenda.

Is there a uh director's report?

There's not.

There is not.

Okay.

Well, it is 317 and we are adjourned.