All right.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Good afternoon.

Gracias.

All right, thank you so much.

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

The time is one o'clock, and 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.

I represent District 7.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Kelly.

I represent District 8.

Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Witsett, District 10.

Moses Juvell, District 9.

Can the Wee District 6?

George Inojosa, District 3.

ADP Rodriguez, District 4.

Mojgan Panda, Mayor's appointee.

Staff, is a quorum present?

Yes, the quorum is present.

Alright, thank you so much.

Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

It stands one nation under God.

All right.

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

Staff, if you would.

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

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

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

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

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

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for rezoning and property within 200 feet of that 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 in to speak for or against the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you signed up to speak.

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

You will be informed that the three 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 nine minutes.

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak and to announce that when the speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal, limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit, along with an opportunity to address commissioner questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Yes, we have two items one and twenty, and they are withdrawn.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here for items one and twenty on Wild Eagle Road and Babcock Road on the one hand, and East Houston Street on the other, those items will not be heard today.

You can go about your business.

It's zoning and meteorology here today.

Um in any event, uh, those two cases, items one and twenty will not be heard.

Staff, if we could please list the items on our combined hearing one agenda, the consent agenda, please.

Items on the consent agenda are items 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

Commissioners, uh any items to be pulled for individual consideration that are currently on the consent agenda.

Looking left, seeing none, looking right, seeing none, staff.

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

Item number nine is a request for a change in zoning from R5 to R5 CD with a conditional use for four dwelling units, located at 82 10 McCullough Avenue.

27 notices were mailed, zero in favor, zero posed.

Shearer Hills Ridge View Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 10 is a request for is a request for a change in zoning from R6 to R6 CD with a conditional use for two dwelling units, located at 10523 Mount Baker Drive.

19 notices mailed, six in favor, zero opposed.

Mountain View Acres Neighborhood Association.

Item number 16 is a request for a change in zoning from MF 18 to MF 33, located at 8210 Pine Brook Drive, 39 notices mailed, zero in favor, nine opposed, no response from the San Antonio, Texas District 1 Resident Association, and the applicant is amending their proposal to MF 25 low density multifamily district.

Item number 17 is a request for a change in zoning from I 1 to C2, located at 1711 Citadel Plaza.

15 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed, no response from the San Antonio, Texas District One Residence Association.

Item number 18 is a request for a change in zoning from C2 to R4, located at 306 Ward Avenue, 37 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed, and River Day or I'm sorry, Riverside Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item number 19 is a request for a change in zoning from C2 CD with a conditional use for theater indoor permitting over two screens and C2 to C2 CD with a conditional use for a home improvement center, generally located in the 24,000 block of West Interstate Highway.

Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions that an eight-foot solid fence is installed along the rear property line, and that a 15-foot type C buffer in the rear yard is installed abutting the residential uses.

Item number 23 is a request for a change in zoning from R6 to C2, located at 7701 Wood Chase Drive, 12 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero posed, and there's no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number 24 is a request for a change in zoning from C1 to C2, located at 3939 Medical Drive, 11 notices mailed, two in favor, zero opposed, and there was no response from the Riot Commons Community Organization.

Item number 25 is a request for a change in zoning from IDZ1 with uses permitted in for three dwelling units to IDZ1 with uses permitted in NC and a parking lot commercial and non-commercial located at 311 East Ashby Place.

Thirty-nine notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed, and there was no response from the Tobin Hill Community and Monte Vista Historical Neighborhood Associations or the San Antonio, Texas District One Resident association.

Item number 26 is a request for a change in zoning from C2 to ID Z two with uses permitted in C2, located at 2625 Broadway Street.

18 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed, and West Ford Alliance Neighborhood Association is in support.

Item number 27 is a request for a change in zoning from C1 to IDZ1 with uses permitted in 01 in a wine boutique located at 935 South Alamo Street.

Forty-four notices were mailed, zero in favor, two opposed, one was not opposed, but just has concerns with parking and music.

King Williams Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 28, a request for a change in zoning from C2S to with a specific use authorization for a bingo hall to TOD MX3, located at 7142 San Pedro Avenue.

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

Shearer Hills Ridgevie Neighborhood Association and San Antonio, Texas District One Resident Association gave no response.

Outside 200 feet, we received four in favor and 13 opposed.

And we do have public comment for one of our items, item number 10.

Okay, if we could have the public comment, please.

Anyone else?

That is it for public comment on the consent agenda.

Very good.

The floor is open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the following items.

Items number nine, 10, 13, 16, as amended, 17, 18, 19, with the amended site plan and conditions as stated.

Item 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

Alright.

Is there a second?

No second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion to my left, seeing none.

Discussion to my right, seeing none.

Again, the motions for approval of items 9, 10, 13, 16 as amended 17, 18, 19 as amended with site plan and conditions 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 by Commissioner Huey, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Commissioner Nihosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries.

All right, very good.

If you were here for any of those items, you may go.

You can make a little mouse.

Not too much.

But enjoy the rest of your day.

You have six months to go to City Council.

Good luck to you all.

All right.

Our next uh agenda is the continuance hearing agenda for June 2nd, 2026.

Staff, if we could have those items, please.

We have five items.

Items four, six, eight, twelve, and fifteen are requesting a two-week continuance to the June 2nd meeting.

All right.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

Move to continue to follow items to the 2 June 26th zoning hearing.

Item number 4, 6, 8, 12, and 15.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duble, and I forgot public comment.

We do have public comment.

We have um we have a few speakers.

Okay.

So for uh first two speakers are for item number eight located at Frio City Road.

First speaker is Miss Trisha Faye to be followed by Miss Deborah Ponce.

Okay, are you Miss Faye?

That's Trisha.

Yes.

And then Ms.

Pont.

Okay.

Thank you.

And that is it for public comment on the continuance items.

Very good.

Alright.

We do have a motion for the continuance of four, six, eight, twelve, and fifteen by Commissioner Huey, and a second by Commissioner Duval.

Any discussion to my left, seeing none.

Discussion.

To my right, seeing none.

All right.

Again, the motion is for continuance of items four, six, eight, twelve, and fifteen by Commissioner Huey with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Hi.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner I know some?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamantin?

Aye.

Motion carries.

And for the record, I did want to make one thing clear.

On item number four.

I requested that continuance for two weeks.

As a result, I don't want to see any piling on regarding any violations for that property in the intervening time between now and either we hear it or the council hears it.

As I feel that's inequitable.

And I should have said that during discussion.

Oops.

Sorry, everyone.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our individual hearing items.

Okay.

And uh for the record, Commissioner Huey is recusing himself for item number two, which is our first individual item.

The time is 1 15, and Commissioner Huey has left the hearing room.

If we could have the applicant's representative, please or applicant.

Oh, sorry.

Nope, nope, sorry, staff first.

I'm doing great today.

I didn't sleep wonderfully on Sunday.

It's my fault.

Uh if y'all were here for items four, six, eight, twelve, or fifteen, y'all can go about your day, and we'll see you in two weeks.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alexa Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number two is generally located in the 2200 block of Stone Oak Parkway, going from C2 Commercial District to C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization for party house reception hall and meeting facilities with all overlays staying the same.

There are 29 notices sent out, zero in favor, zero opposed within 200 feet, and Stone Oak Homeowners Association gave no response.

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

The proposed C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization for party house reception hall and meeting facilities is also appropriate.

The applicant intends to develop a cultural event center that will consist of a flexible banquet hall, food preparation area, and meeting rooms.

The site is located among other commercial zonings with established residential properties on the opposing side of Stone Oak Parkway.

The proposed commercial intensity is consistent with the block phase and the specific use authorization would be regulated by the prescribed site plan.

Additionally, the site's location over the Edwards Recharge Zone would require an additional level of compliance with SAW's recommendations.

Staff recommends approval and saw staff and the applicant are present to answer any questions.

Alright, if we could have the SAWs report.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Is there any I'm sorry, applicant now?

Good afternoon, esteemed um members of zoning commission.

Uh I understand we have a PowerPoint.

My name is Elisa Chan, and I serve as the president of the Asian Resource Center of San Antonio, which is a 501c3 non-profit organization, and we are planning to build a new Asian resource center that will serve as the community hub for cultural education but also community activities.

And we were asked to give you a short presentation and which I'm happy to do so.

As mentioned earlier, the property is uh undeveloped 4.2 acre plus site on Stone Oak Parkway, and uh currently zone C2 seeking for C2 special use.

I wanted to mention that we have reached out to the Stone Oak POA early on in the project.

I wonder if um and here is the aerial view.

As you saw before, uh we are going to try to preserve as many existing trees as possible, and the proposed development will be well under below the maximum allowed in purpose coverage, which is 65%.

We also will have water filtration system that is designed to support the proposed development.

Uh very quickly about the project.

The project is about 10,000 square feet, as mentioned earlier.

We'll have Banquet Hall, full preparation area offices, but we also will have a front plaza and also a garden in the rear side.

This is we I get I'm giving you a lot of renderings.

Hopefully, my presentation will be a little bit more interesting.

Uh, this is the front wheel of the building, and we have reach out to the Stone Oak POA, and we are going to ensure that um the the aesthetic of the building will complement to the surrounding area.

Um, can I have the previous previous one?

Uh this is uh a view of the entrance, and we will also have our wall that uh will welcome people to coming into the building.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is the a little uh the rendering of the reception hall.

This is a multi-purpose.

We could host arts and exhibitions, we could have receptions um, you know, hosted under this hall.

And we also have this is the banquet hall we were talking about, it will be multi-purpose.

We plan to have festivals, performances, language classes, educations, wellness programs.

It's a very multi-use uh facility.

And this is a little view about the back view.

Uh it will before we um develop the garden, the design, we will keep it as the green space.

And this could be the future garden.

This is only one of the proposed design conceptual design rendering.

And uh obviously we respectfully ask for your consideration of our request and for your favorable recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Alright, is there any public comment?

No, public comment.

All right, very good.

Uh, this is a district nine case, so commissioner duval to you for questions.

One question for the applicant.

Yes, Commissioner.

Uh so I see that uh Stone Oak Parkway here is uh uh the lanes, the directions are separated.

Right, and the property is gonna be on on one side.

Correct.

Um so can you just briefly talk to me about the the circulation plan?

Sure, given that.

Um so if you uh yeah, that the other slide will be good.

So we plan to have two entrances.

One entrance, you see that crossover tree.

It will have both the entry and also the exit, but we also plan in the design.

So here we will have the entrance, which will have the entrance in and out, but we are proposing another entrance here that will only have the exit to the right.

So, in that case, we understand I live in Stone O and understand traffic is a big issue, so we thought about it, and we would like to minimize as much of a traffic issue as possible.

Great, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh to staff.

Right.

So uh question about the the zoning.

Um why was uh s required?

Why was a special use authorization required on this case?

I see that the zoning is C2, C2, so why why the S.

Uh so the use of the public meeting facility uh reception hall use that's not permitted by right within C2.

So the S is treated very similarly to a something comparable would be a conditional use, and so in the same way some zoning districts might need a conditional use, our use matrix requires that.

Um this use within C2 requires a specific use authorization.

So I uh looked in the uh appendix of the UDC for definitions, and under um non-residential uses and the category social, I saw club private, and clubhouse private, including lodges and meeting halls.

Um why would this not fall under the definition of a clubhouse including meeting hall?

Um so pretty much the clubhouse is they're different categories.

Um clubhouse is a private club, met with membership dues, and so that's just a different type of use.

I just we well, we looked at it specifically.

They're renting this out as a reception hall.

That was what they stated in their notice when they told us what the use is.

So that was the use that we selected that would be best to apply to this use.

I see.

So if a um if they were it would the way that it would be interpreted be that if it was only being used by members, dues paying members, that would be a clubhouse.

I would be more leaning towards yes, if it was used for only club relation uh events.

So if it was a uh say a rotary club or a lions club were to rent out to another organization, might that compromise the zoning as a clubhouse meeting hall?

I don't know if there are any in the city that are zoned that.

Yeah, I I think we'd need to take a look at whatever hypothetical issue came up in in the future and make a decision at that time, but what's before us today I think is the appropriate zoning and it gives the operator of the facility more flexibility.

So right, that that's that's important as well.

Um and then just last question, just so I understand this for the future.

With an S, what um, in terms of process for the applicant, what what difference does an S make?

Does it is the process take longer?

Other than like the potential for us applying additional conditions, what what else does it entail?

No, it's the same process as as a regular rezoning.

Um, the biggest difference is it requires a site plan, like Alexa mentioned with the conditional use.

Got it, okay.

So it would not have required a site plan had it, I mean, it wouldn't have had to be a reason anyway.

Club under C2, it uh requires an S as well.

Oh, is that is that right?

A clubhouse requires an S under C2?

Private club.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I thought I saw that it's uh I'm not sure if you meant club or club house, but the club does, but clubhouse does not.

Right, I see.

So the clubhouse does not um just in the future for applicants.

Um, so I guess the key goes into that application.

If you apply and say predominantly it's a membership-based organization that was running events for its members, that might come down differently in what the staff interprets under the use table, right?

Correct.

Uh yeah, that's tricky.

Okay.

Alright, thank you so much.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Duble.

Uh any questions left?

Saying none.

Any questions right?

Saying not, sorry, Commissioner.

Uh question for the applicant.

What was your um outreach?

I mean, I see.

I mean, there's an apartment complex and there's a medical facility.

I guess there's no housing behind it, correct?

No, there's no housing that's a flat plan on the apartment complex actually has a higher elevation, so it will not have any noise issues, and also on the the west side of it, it is actually a medical facility.

And uh, and uh and we have quite a bit of buffer.

If you look at the site, it has parking.

And we, as I mentioned, all in all development in Stone Oak is part of the Stone Oak POA.

So reaching out to Stone O POA essentially they send out information to all neighborhoods.

Every subdivision, every commercial development belongs to Stone Oak POA.

Gotcha.

And then my last question uh I may have just missed this, but this venue would be for anybody to rent it out as far as corporations uh down to somebody who wants to have a quintineta at the yes, absolutely, and we love commissioner.

If you have your family members, if you have a cancellera, please consider our facility.

But we are very sensitive to also uh the type of events we want to make sure that it is appropriate, not just for the center itself, but also for the community and for the neighborhood, and also for the city of San Antonio.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

It looks very fancy.

I mean, me personally, my family, and we would just have it the backyard.

If we go fancy, we'll give you a huge discount.

Growing up on the southeast side of town, maybe we'll have it at Comanche Park, but but it looks beautiful.

Thank you.

We also have free activities that we plan, uh cultural related heritages, also exhibitions.

So I would extend the invitation to all zoning commissioners to please join us, and also our um groundbreaking event is in on June the 5th, so you are all invited.

By the way, if I may, I would like to also recognize Dr.

Melinda Rodriguez, who is the secretary of our uh our organization.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none, right, seeing none.

All right.

Uh the floor is, I'm sorry, Commissioner Duval to you for discussion and potential motion.

Uh I think this will be a welcome addition to the community, and really is a uh pretty excellent use for the land.

I can't imagine with the existing zoning.

What better use for this space?

So with that, I uh move to recommend approval.

No second.

All right.

Um the motion is for approval by Commissioner Duval of item number two with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion left, seeing none, discussion right.

Seeing none roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Peter Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sight.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

I motion carries.

All right.

Let's uh try to find Commissioner Huey if we can.

Um all right.

We are now gonna move on to item number three.

And this time we're gonna start with staff as we should.

All right, and the time is uh two, I'm sorry, one thirty.

And Commissioner Huey has returned to the meeting.

Good afternoon, every good afternoon, everyone.

Speak slowly.

My name is Kelly Sanders.

I am the planning manager of the zoning division.

Item number three is a request for a change in zoning from MF 33 to C2 with all overlays to remain the same.

15 notices were mailed, one in favor, zero opposed, and there's no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

The existing MF 33 is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2 is also appropriate.

The subject property is located within a cluster of established commercial-based zoning districts, ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding context.

The request seeks to facilitate the development of commercial and office space office space, which serves as a logical extension of the existing corridor.

Furthermore, the properties location along US2 281 provides direct access to major thoroughfare, effectively channeling commercial traffic towards the property and maintaining a clear buffer from nearby residential neighborhoods.

Staff recommends approval.

Saws is here to give their presentation, and the applicant is here also here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Sauls, please.

Mike Mike Escalante with Salzok for protection and evaluation section.

Review of the zoning application located north of Redland Road and U.S.

Highway 281 north intersection.

Allowing for a commercial and office uh development.

The site is uh two undeveloped lots divided by an asphalt driveway with uh native trees and understory vegetation on 9.32 acres.

The property is currently classified as a category one.

The proposed zoning change will consist of commercial retail and office development with parking areas.

No portion of the site is in a floodplain and no sensitive geologic features were observed on site.

We recommend approval of all environmental recommendations within the SALS report to include allowing 65% priorities cover on the overall 9.32 acre track.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, please.

Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners.

Ashley Fairmon with Killing Griffin and Fairmont, 10101 reunion place.

Um yes, thank you, staff.

We're requesting C2 on this property.

Uh it may be familiar to some of you who were here a few years ago.

Um I I was here rezoning the property from C3 at the time to multifamily.

Uh, that project was never built, and so now we're here requesting C2 zoning to allow for medical office.

Um, just a quick uh so and just to note the the property to the east is a church.

Uh the church's driveway does go through the middle of the site.

That is a recorded easement.

So for that um driveway, I'll show you on the site plan.

We're proposing to shift it a little bit.

Uh the church has to agree to that, and we are working with them on that.

And they did uh return their notice in support of the rezoning.

Um I'm just go through it pretty quickly, but here's the proposed site plan for what would be phase one, two-story medical office building, uh, and then again that driveway through the center of the site.

Uh once that is built, then it would be a second phase on the northern part of the tract.

So happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Vernon.

Is there any public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

Uh again, this is a district nine case, so Commissioner Duvall to you for questions.

Uh on the staff report.

Could you go back to the slide slides of the staff report?

Um, I was trying to orient myself when we were seeing some of those photos, and I just wanted to make sure uh up uh on the higher slides, like number seven, eight.

How about ten?

You can start at 10.

Yeah, so I um so like that one.

I'm not can you help me with orientation?

I'm not entirely sure where I was looking on Google Maps.

I I'm just trying to orient myself.

Where is this looking from?

Ms.

Can you?

Oh, who's who's this?

Oh, who did site visits on this one?

Oh, all right.

So, yeah, some of the photos I just wasn't sure what um whether it reflected, I just wanted to make sure for the record that I mean it seems to be the right.

Oh, from what I remember on site visits, that are you talking about where we place the signage?

We place the signage on the road higher up.

The shopping center is like within that parking area, so you see the driveway behind my hand.

Oh, sorry, I I I can't see on this screen.

Again, the driveway goes down into the shopping center.

Maybe we could look on Google maps just to make sure we're all on the same page.

Because I I see a driveway going to the church, but I don't I can't identify the shopping center.

Uh while we're while we're while staff is looking.

If I could ask the applicant's representative, um the uh I could see existing signage on the access road for the church.

Um has has that been discussed with the church whether signage would be permitted or there's no intent to move it.

No intent to move it.

Okay, great.

And then I I mean the other thing was it it looked somewhat temporary.

So how would that be approached if if they wanted to do that?

Um it seems to be a pretty good working relationship.

With the easement and being neighbors and the way that the church sits up behind.

Um so if if they did need to move any signage, they would have to ask.

Right.

Okay.

And then uh uh the uh that one driveway looks to be you know the main entrance, right?

There's visibility to the church from the access road, but it looks like there's another um access road to the south.

Yes, what is is that impact your guys' project, or is that outside the scope of the project area?

No, it doesn't impact the project, it's um a driveway.

I mean, that could still stay as is.

That would stay so and then uh the second phase to the north.

This zoning only would permit this is only for the bottom half of that parcel, right?

No, we're requesting C2 for the whole C.

Okay.

And uh, but I'm sorry, this was just C2, there wasn't a C D or anything, right?

Nope.

So just C2.

So to other staff, maybe I could ask what other things, because we're you know, we're zoning in on the uh the uh medical office use.

What other uses would be allowed in C2 by right on the top part of the parcel?

I mean C2 would support a variety of uh kind of medium intensity commercial uses, restaurants, retail, um, the provisions of SB 840 would not apply to this property because it's located within a thousand feet of a heavy industrial use on the other side of 281, so it would not include the the multifamily density allowance in this case.

Um but C2 is largely uh, you know, medical offices, office buildings, restaurants, light retail, those sorts of uses.

And uh and then uh so sorry for for staff on the question about the photos.

Did we we come to a resolution of the?

Yeah, so what's currently up?

Um all that vacant space is what the site is.

I'm assuming we put it closer to the shopping center to the north.

Are there, I mean, not to cause problems, but notice requirements.

Does that is there a requirement of how close it has to be to the parcel?

Is that are you asking just is that the property the sign would need to be on the property, but um sometimes there are you know conditions on the property that make that challenging.

Right.

I I'm just saying if the sign was placed in the shopping center to the north of the property, is that an issue or uh I'm not sure.

It's our it's not in the shopping center, it's just right before it.

So if you see to the north there's like a driveway, the property starts over here.

I see where the auto zone was.

Is that right?

I I would believe so, yes.

Okay, all right.

That that helps me more.

Thank you.

Great.

I that's it for me.

Thank you guys for looking into that.

All right, thank you.

Questions to my left, yes, Commissioner.

What's it?

Uh quick question.

I just heard uh Mr.

Sparrow say that the uh multifamily zoning can't be, they can't build multifamily on the site because it's closer than a thousand feet.

That's correct.

So that was the provision.

Multifamily ban or sorry.

Mr.

Sparrow.

So as you may recall, in the last legislative session, the Texas legislature passed SB 840, which says that any tract of land zoned office commercial is allowed by right the highest multifamily density that the city has on file.

For us, that's 65 units per acre.

Unless, and they adopted exceptions, it does not apply to property within 1,000 feet of a heavy industrial use.

There is a quarry on the other side of 281, so this property would not be able to qualify for that provision.

So what's defined as heavy industrial?

Just quarry or I2 or anything involving explosions, uh, other it's defined in the statute.

But it does include explosions, anything that would increase uh smells or other sort of pollutants of the I was gonna say in the law, I think it's defined, it's very broadly defined as any use that emits odors, noises, vapors, etc.

I could get the actual definition, but it's in the bill.

But it is an SP 840, and it's a defined term within that.

Alright, any other questions to my left?

All right, seeing none to my right?

Seeing none.

All right.

Uh, this is a district nine case.

Commissioner Duval to you for discussion and potential motion.

Seems straightforward.

I'll move to recommend approval.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Wood.

Who could Kellum?

Alright.

Alright, Kellum B.

All right.

Uh the motion is for approval of item number three by Commissioner Duval with the second by Kellum.

Uh discussion to my left.

Seeing none, discussion to my right.

Seeing none.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Dual?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner I know some?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodigas?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Science.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Witsett.

Oh, yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Alright, very good.

We are now going to move on to item number five, please.

And thank you to Sauls for coming.

Goodbye to the two mics.

Till next time.

All right.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

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

Item number five is located at 1139, New Laredo Highway.

Is a request from C2 commercial district and C3 general commercial district.

And then they believe they have an amended request to C2 C D for commercial district with the conditional use for motor vehicle sales full service with all overlays remaining the same.

Twenty-four notices were mailed, four notices received in favor favor, zero posed.

The Quintana Neighborhood Association gave no response, and outside 200 feet, uh there were 24 notices received in favor.

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

The proposed C3, currently amended to C2 C D is not appropriate.

The subject property is currently maintains a split zoning of C2 and C3.

C2 portion serves as a buffer, providing a more appropriate transition to the active residential properties to the north, then a C3 base district would.

While C3 zoning does exist along New Laredo Highway, these properties are inconsistent with the Kelly slash South San Pueblo Community Plan adopted in February 2007, which designates this area as a neighborhood commercial.

Expanding to C3 zoning would permit the high-intensity commercial uses that could be compatible, incompatible, and detrimental to the abutting residential neighborhood.

So just to clarify, the original request was for C3 and their amending to C2 C D with the conditional use for motor vehicle sales.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant's representative is present.

Okay, if we could have the applicant or applicant's representative for item number five.

And it is motor vehicle sales full service.

You said full service.

The first time.

Do we have the applicant or applicant's representative?

Okay.

All right, and if we could get interpretation services, please.

Let's keep you on reserve just in case.

Are you going to speak for the applicant?

Yes.

See, it is to tell me.

Very good.

Come on up.

Give us your name and address and tell us about the project.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Carlos Aldava with Alamo Consulting Services, and I'm assisting the property owner, Mr.

Carlos Jimenez, with his uh rezoning project.

And yes, uh I don't know if the exhibit um we can go to the exhibit that shows the dual zoning.

I think that uh there's uh a portion that is already zoned for C3, and while the rest is C2, and that's part that that's a portion that uh Mr.

Jimenez is is trying to rezone, however, uh we want to before we proceed any further, um he uh uh coordinated with uh the uh the council district in to try to come to um a solution that would be more congruent with the surrounding area.

So uh we're proposing an amendment instead of the C3 uh to keep it a C2 conditional C D for the specific use of uh conditional use of uh auto auto sales and auto repairs full service, and I'm just gonna again repeat that really quickly just for the record.

You are officially amending your request for from C3 to C2 with a conditional use for motor vehicle sales full service, correct?

That is correct.

Okay, very good.

All right.

Uh do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Alright, this is a district four case, so Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for questions.

How long has have you all been in on this property?

If 2022, and 2022 I apply on the city for certificate of occupancy, and I and it's approved.

I already have my certificate of occupancy, but by the end of the by the end of the last year, 2025, I tried to change the name of the on my business.

So you've been there since 2022.

And I still work it.

Okay, I I just need to know how long you've been there since 2022 or BC.

To now.

All right, thank you.

Yes, and this the current six certificate of occupants issued by DSD is displayed there since 2023.

If he can you speak into the microphone, please, sir.

I I say I I I'm there from science since 2022, and I apply on 2022, but I pass on the expectations on January 26, 2023.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Can I clarify a little bit more too?

Yes, he was granted a C of O for the C3 portion, but as you can see in that map that the C2 kind of buffers that, and he had expanded into the C2 section, which was an issue.

Why is staff denying this?

Uh the the biggest reason is the underlying land use designation uh does not match that use.

Plus the kind of use we feel is too um intense, stating that it's neighboring those single family homes without proper buffer or anything.

If you look along the corridor, the majority of the properties there have an underlying land use designation of neighborhood commercial, which is not compatible with C3.

I have no further questions.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Questions to my right?

Yes, Commissioner Hina.

Also, uh how long is he owned the property?

Since 2022?

Okay.

Uh and staff, do we uh who's the case manager?

Is it oh, for who owned it before?

Prior to this, what what was it?

I don't have that information.

Okay.

How long has it been a C3 that that particular part?

I mean I'm assuming it's been there for a while.

Yeah, it would get converted.

Um so that C3 was a B3, so since uh the that was always the original zoning of B3, but it converted in 2001 to C3.

And the other property that uh looks like it's north of it, the other CD property um uh at the corner, what is what is that?

I I currently do you know, I mean, obviously, C3, but there you want to be the question is like C3, the property at the corner going north, not on price, but the other what is it above it?

With new Laredo and McLaughlin, that is also C3, yes.

Okay, that looks like there's a tax preparation office there.

I can make a leave for North Mighty.

Hold on, sir.

Yeah.

And then further up, is there another?

Because when I visually, when I like when I look at New Laredo Highway, like when I drive down there, to me, it doesn't seem like this would be uh out an outlier, right?

Because it looks like all the properties, I mean I could be wrong are C3 across the highway as well.

Not the highway, but new Laredo Highway Street.

Am I correct in basically all along New Laredo Highway is C3?

It's a mix of C3 and C2.

Okay, and then the reason why City was seeking denial was because of the properties to the north of it, that the neighborhood that's on the left side of it.

Well, again, we do take land use principles into notice, and as Forrest did state this property is part of a plan and it is all neighborhood commercial, which actually is not they would like nothing higher than C1 along New Laredo.

I get it that there is existing C3, but that was the plan that was adopted, and so um that is one of the items that we were taking into account, and then also again how it is a butting single family residential.

We felt that it was out of character and out of place.

Got it.

Thank you.

We also wanted to mention No, sir.

A lot unless you ask a question.

Let me let me ask him.

Uh what were we gonna say, sir?

Yeah, I think it's important that the the property owner uh was very diligent in communicating this to the neighbors, and he has 31 signatures in support of his request.

Got it.

And then I'm sorry, uh, one more question for City.

Um the question is going to be um I just I forgot the question.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Any further questions right?

Questions left.

Yes, Commissioner Doodle.

Those uh 31 letters or or signatures.

Do you have it?

Do you have a copy?

Yes, could we can we see it?

Yes, those were shared already.

They were shared in our um email this morning to the commissioners.

Sure, sure.

But could can we still see it?

Yes.

I mean, I think of the presentation, right?

We didn't get any letters.

I think the staff uh uh PowerPoint said no uh responses and support, no responses opposed, right?

Yeah, though the these were just uh identified early this morning, so we didn't get a chance to update that.

Um but yeah, I I I'd still be interested in yeah, seeing it.

Um the uh while we're while we're getting that um the oh you've got it okay.

Let's see.

Is that need for that is it?

So we yeah, we weren't able to confirm, right?

Staff wasn't able to confirm the uh or were you guys able to in time?

Yeah, we we were able to look through these and see which ones were within 200 feet, and what uh we found were four that were uh within 200 feet and 24 were outside.

Great, okay.

Uh about the uh Pueblo community plan is that the comprehensive element, I think it's or the Kelly Cell San Pueblo community plan, yes.

Uh so it was updated in 2007.

Is with that say tomorrow, are we doing another run on it?

Yeah, so that that's something the planning department's working on, but um it's not currently been updated.

Okay.

Um how do we, you know, how do we deal with that?

Like every lot, every every use on new Laredo Highway is gonna be non-conforming.

How does that how does that work?

Uh, with the existing plan, yes.

In a perfect world, um definitely when the planning department has these plans adopted, they would go in and do large area rezonings to rezone the properties to match that land use.

It's not done all the time.

Um it's very rarely done, but again, we're just gonna have to pick and choose, and that's where we make these decisions on uh land use, what is proposed, the context surrounding uses.

So, yeah, well that's that's really the job of uh comprehensive plans, you know, is to have debates over the right use and existing uses.

So, you know, man, for planning staff and and uh you know the the council member staff to get out there and speak with the existing property owners to make sure that it's a a good comprehensive plan.

Because when I look at it now, it's uh it's it's hard to fathom how all these uh it seems incompatible, it seems inconsistent, right, with the existing uses.

Especially when you have you know letters of support from neighbors, I'm gonna presume at least some of the residential neighbors.

So I'd wondering like who who was participating in those public outreach in 2007 who, you know, whose voice was so strong to say get rid of all these businesses.

Yeah, we can't I can't do that, but I would say that um like like Kelly mentioned, you know, we do still have concerns about you know being that close to the residences behind that.

Right, yeah.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Woods up question.

Uh I think uh Kelly, you mentioned something about proper buffer.

Uh one of the reasons was there was not a proper buffer between the C3 and the houses.

What is proper buffer?

And if they added a buffer, would that make it more supportable?

I mean a buffer, a required buffer for any brand new development when you have a C3 use, a budding, some uh residential would be basically about a type C 15 foot buffer.

So you would have to have um significant amount of landscaping.

Also um those are one of the biggest items also any um wall would have to be proposed, but again, this is this would be for a brand new structure, not something that is existing.

It's they're existing, so they're just asking for a zoning so they wouldn't have to build a wall when you say a wall, what's uh a six foot barrier like a six foot solid fence, wood fence?

AKA wall, yes.

Okay, and a 15 foot landscape on the land that's adjacent to the residential.

That is current code for again like a C3 base zoning, a butting something of a residential nature.

Okay, any further questions left?

Yes, Commissioner Science.

Looking looking at Google Street View, um, just trying to um understand when things were were done.

I see that in 2019 there was an existing building there, and then by 2024 there was a um what appears to be a garage, you know, multi-car garage built.

And I'm a s I was trying to figure out what was the C of O issued for the the building was there previously it in 2019, or was it issued for the garage in the back that seems like it's right on the property line.

I couldn't say for certain about the C of O which building it was meant for, but again, when they looked at that, they saw the C3 section, but I'm not certain if they checked that that C2 section.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

All right, staff.

This is a conditional use.

Do we need a site plan?

Yes, we do have a site plan, and they've got the uh site plan that was um provided by the applicant.

There should be one there in the presentation.

Well, it's been amended to a conditional use.

This is no longer a request for C3.

It has been amended to C2 C D with motor vehicle sales, full service.

Um okay, that's it, all right.

Now, staff, you mentioned that if this were a new build, we could um the buffers would be required by code.

If we wanted to, we could ask the applicant to put buffers in at this point, correct?

As a condition, okay.

Yes, sorry, okay.

All right.

Uh let's do one more round of questions to my right.

Questions?

None questions left?

None?

Alright.

Yep.

Uh again, thank you.

The public hearing is closed.

You all may sit down.

Um, this is a district four case.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for discussion and potential motion.

I want to make a motion for approval.

Uh, because he's been there for four years.

Uh he does have uh letters of support.

Um I'm gonna request that they do put the buffers uh the six-foot fence and uh landscape.

I I just wanted to sorry, I'd love it.

Yeah.

Just foreshadowing a couple issues.

So the buffer that would be required would be along the north property line.

So we would need to know number one, what is the depth of that buffer, but even at that, if you look at the location of the main building and at least one accessory building, it's in the buffer, the code says we can have a little bit of flexibility in the depth of the buffer, but it can never be reduced by more than 50 percent.

So if it is a type C buffer, that's 15 foot deep.

If those are parking spaces, those are 18 feet deep.

So my recommendation if we're going to go that route is we get a continuance and get a site plan that this commission can review that has a prayer of meeting code.

One second.

All right, so um, all right.

So we're gonna I think put a pin in that right now.

First off, would you agree to the buffer and or a continuance to look at the site plan and get the buffer in place?

I was gonna say if that existing structure is there, I can't imagine how a buffer would be.

Possible.

Correct.

Yes, the the owner has agreed to uh work with staff to come up to as well as you on the buffer.

Okay, if that's possible, which we don't know if it is.

Some of us are deeply skeptical.

Yeah, I'm gonna reopen the public hearing questions.

Um, but we're gonna we're gonna start over here again, then we'll come back over here.

Sorry for the confusion, but I uh should have asked some of these questions myself.

Alright, uh Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, do you have any questions?

Okay, all right.

Any questions on the right?

Uh anyone on the left, Commissioner Duval, then Commissioner Sipes.

Uh clarification about the point about the conditional um condition of approval for buffer.

It seems peculiar to me that the two outcomes could be no buffer or a full buffer.

It seems peculiar that the code would not allow a partial buffer over, say, part of the areas and not over other areas.

Can you give some more context?

So what you are alluding to is exactly why I think the continuance is appropriate, so we can come up with a site plan that maybe shows the provision of a buffer along some of the property, because what the code says today is that when providing a required buffer yard, just we'll keep math simple.

Let's say it has to be 20 feet deep.

You can do 30 feet deep in some areas, 10 feet deep in others, so that it averages out, but you can never reduce the required depth by more than half.

So where that building is, it would have to be shrunk by 90%, which is not code compliant.

So we may be able to come back with an alternative site plan that shows some sort of a buffer, even if it's 10 foot along sections of that northern property line, maybe compensate that with eight foot tall fencing and other areas, just some alternative that's gonna pass muster at plan review.

And then if I'm understanding correctly, then we would not at that point, because it's incorporated in the site plan, even require condition of approval.

Right, because they would have to meet the at the conditions shown on the site plan.

Thank you for clarifying.

Good solution.

All right, Commissioner Sipes.

All right, Commissioner Sipes, sorry.

I was just gonna ask staff to zoom in a little bit at the northern part of that, because I see dimensions, and I was wondering if if that would.

All right, I see the four foot.

Alright, that's all I needed to know.

Thank you.

Sorry, thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

All right.

Well, that's a good reason to move on to a continuance, but we'll see what Commissioner Pete Rodriguez wants to do.

Yes, Commissioner Watson.

Uh so the existing metal building that's built is 6.7 feet, and you're talking about a 10 foot buffer, so it meets it might be there.

15 feet buffer.

So that's within a foot and two inches or something.

Uh and then the portable building could be moved.

Resolve that.

Uh now, uh, but on otherwise, this is a the proposed what they were proposing was the C D C2 C D.

Would that solve this problem too?

Or y'all are denying the C D.

No, we we were denying the C3.

They work with the C2 C D.

We could certainly help them come up with a site plan that would be compliant, but we still recommend denial of putting what is ultimately a C3 use conditioned or otherwise in this location.

All right, any further questions left?

All right.

This time I mean it.

We're closing the public here.

Uh thank you.

Y'all may sit down.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Um I didn't let you finish your motion, so currently I don't believe there is any motion pending.

Uh so you can do whatever you want to do.

Discussion and motion.

I want to take staff's recommendation uh for continuance so that they can work together and come up with uh an amendment that would work for them.

And that continuance is to June 2nd?

Yes, all right.

There is a motion for continuance to June 2nd for item number five.

Um, is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Duval is the second, all right.

Discussion left?

Discussion right?

All right, seeing none.

Motions for continuance of item number five to June 2nd.

By Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellan?

Yes.

Commissioner Inahoosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

Chair Pistamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

We'll see you in a couple of weeks.

Works with staff to figure out that site plan issue.

Good luck.

All right.

Next item is number seven.

Do we see the applicant for number seven?

Have we spoken to them?

This might be my fault.

Is the applicant for number seven here?

All right.

I think there might have been a miscommunication.

I saw the applicant for number seven two Saturdays ago.

Please read into the record.

I'll make a motion.

All right, good afternoon.

Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number seven is located at 2814 Vera Cruz Street.

Is a request from R5 residential single family district to IDZ3 high intensity in field development zone for four dwelling units with all overlays remaining the same.

Forty-nine notices were mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The El Charo and Brady Gardens Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The existing R4 residential single family district is not appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ3 high intensity in field development zone with uses permitted for four units is not appropriate either.

The property's size does not currently meet the minimum size requirements for an R4 district, but could be exempt from lot standards since it was developed before the zoning standards were adopted.

A request for four dwelling units would represent excessive density for an already undersized lot.

Furthermore, all immediate surrounding properties are zoned and utilized for single-family residences.

While the flexibility of IDZ is appropriate for the construction of one single family home, introducing this level of density would increase traffic on a local street situated in the heart of an established neighborhood.

Staff recommends an island and I don't think the applicant is present.

Alright, the last call for the applicant on item number seven.

All right.

Again, I believe this might be my fault.

I met with the applicant on site uh two Saturdays ago.

Um we have discussed an amended site plan, and I think perhaps between my own actions and uh the absence of Mr.

Gorman's uh we are going to move.

Sorry, I am moving for continuance to the June 2nd meeting for item number seven and so move.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right, second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, discussion left seeing none, discussion right seeing none.

Motion is for continuance of item number seven to June 2nd by me.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Inahuasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Hewey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Alright.

Thank you so much.

Sorry for that everyone.

Alright, uh moving on to item number 11, please.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number 11 is located at 223 East Petaluma Boulevard.

Going from R4, residential single family district to MF 18, limited intensity, multifamily district with all overlays staying the same.

There were 30 notices mailed, zero in favor, twelve opposed.

Harland uh neighborhood association is opposed.

Outside 200 feet, zero in favor, one opposed.

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

The proposed MF 18 district is not appropriate.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning to allow three duplexes.

While they intend to develop a minimum of six units, the one acre site could potentially accommodate up to 18 units under the requested zoning, which exceeds the recommended density for the area.

Much of the surrounding area currently benefits from the beta R4 conversion under UDC Section 35-D101J, which permits a two-family duplex residence despite the single-family zoning designation.

As an alternative, staff recommends approval of R4 CD residential single-family district with a commercial uh conditional use for four dwelling units.

This alternative would maintain the R4-based zoning, eliminating the need for a plan amendment, while the conditional use designation would allow to four dwelling units.

This approach would reinstate the development potential that would have permitted would have been permitted had the property remained in its previous configuration of two separate lots while maintaining a density more consistent with the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial with an alternate recommendation of R4 C D for four dwelling units.

Planning commission recommendation is pending the May 27, 2026 hearing, and the representative is present to answer any questions.

Alright, very good.

Before we get to the representative, I do want to note for the record that Commissioner Pete Rodriguez left at 2 11.

And is returning at 2 13.

So good news.

All right.

If we could have the applicant's representative, please.

Both microphones?

Just one.

We can return that one to that.

Yes.

Elizabeth Russell, Law Office of Elizabeth Ann Russell, 101 Stumberg, San Antonio, Texas 78204.

We are actually going to ask for a continuance.

So we received feedback from the letters that the notices that were sent out just prior to the last planning meeting that was scheduled last week.

Since that time, we attended the neighborhood association meeting and addressed a lot of concerns.

So most of the neighborhood seems concerned about their being built an apartment complex.

Obviously, that's not an apartment complex, but that seems to be a majority of the concerns.

If there was a way to ask for a less than MF 18, we would, but unfortunately, there is not, so that's kind of what we're stuck with.

But we would like an opportunity to go back to the neighborhood meeting, address the concerns that we got because we didn't get the note notices got sent to the city before the neighborhood meeting, but we got them after the neighborhood meeting.

So there's just been some timing issues.

So we'd like an opportunity to address that.

I'd like to reset for 30 days because we have obviously some stuff to work out with planning and zoning, and that's the request 30 day continuance so that we can meet with neighborhood again, address the concerns, reassure that it is not an apartment complex.

Alright, thank you, Miss Russell.

And so I just want to say the date we would have is June 16th.

Is that let me confirm because we all know that I have this very crazy schedule?

But we can let's go ahead and move on.

Do we have any public comment?

And Miss Russell will call you back up.

Yes, we have a couple speakers.

First, we have Miss Rachel Martinez.

And she is to be followed by Miss Ruby Ramos.

Okay.

Ms.

Martinez.

If anyone is giving Miss Martinez their time, please speak up now.

All right.

Miss Martinez, you will have three minutes.

Would you say your name and I ask for the record?

Rachel Martinez, 206 Langford Place.

I've lived in the residence for 34 years.

And I've had I have a what do you call it?

A multi behind me, two people on either side.

Don't like it, have had issues forever.

Finally, a single person moved in, thank goodness, and they moved it back to a single home.

But we dealt with issues for 15 years.

It's not good.

It's not good.

I don't care if it's a duplex, I don't care it's four units.

You still have that many problems to deal with for the people behind you on the side of you.

It doesn't matter.

When you're dealing with one family, it's different.

When you're dealing with multiples, it does make a difference.

So I mean listen, she's planning on moving into one of these.

Hey, great, if she's going to be my neighbor, but if she's not, then I I don't I don't agree with it, and I don't want this.

I wish the neighborhood could go back to just a single residence.

Grandfather, whoever's in there inn like that, and move it back to just a single residency would be my wish.

But you know, I don't so I just wanted to just voice my opinion on that.

Thank you, Miss Martinez.

Next we have uh Miss Ramos to be followed by Jamie Ramos.

Ms.

Ramos again, if you would just say your name and address for the record and what you think.

My name is Ruby Ramos.

My address is 215 East Peraluma.

I would be right next door to this property that would be built.

I'm against it for the simple reason we already have duplexes on both sides, and let me tell you they have exchanged hands so many times, and the upkeep of these residents, nobody keeps track of the tenants.

They rent them up, they don't keep up with the properties, and they go.

I have pictures of these duplexes.

This is a fourplex.

It was beautiful when they build them.

Beautiful.

When downhill, this is another one.

This is another one.

It's a fourplex.

Beautiful when they start it.

They've sold them three times already from one hand to another.

I know that the they're building a six pix right next door to me.

That's what their intent is.

Build it, and they're gonna sell that outright.

Who's gonna run these six picks?

Who's gonna control it?

Who's gonna rent them out?

Who's the tenants gonna be living there?

Who's gonna maintain the the land?

No, we want to keep it residential.

We've had it for years.

Why can't they build a residential?

Cut the land, build one here, build one here.

No, they're doing their pockets.

We need to stop it.

I have a duplex here, I have a duplex here.

Nobody's controlling it.

We don't need that in our neighborhood anymore.

We want to keep it residential.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Ramos.

And then Mr.

Ramos.

My name is Jaime Ramos.

I live at 215 East Perlumba.

I'm also opposed to uh rezoning this area.

Most of everybody that lives around there is up in their age.

This is just gonna bring noise.

Uh it uh it it brings in crime, and like uh, like the property sits right now, the grass is like five feet tall right now, and he has never cleaned that that property.

So, what makes you think once he gets his uh property going or whatever, uh whatever he's gonna build, he's gonna care about it, so that's my main concern.

Thank you, Ms.

Ramos.

Sure.

Any further public comment?

That's it for public comment.

Ms.

Russell, do you want a brief rebuttal or do you want to just so respectfully?

The way people use their properties, the American way is for people to get to choose how they they get to utilize their own properties.

And so I understand that they might not want tenants, but the proposal is not for tenants, it's for the current owner to build three duplexes, six units, and to sell them.

The market the expectation is for the units to be around $300,000 a piece.

So the type of owner purchasing the property is actually at a more expensive rate than the area is currently selling to live next to beautiful things.

So a higher income level, but there is not an expectation of putting tenants in these properties.

And but unfortunately, whether it's a single family or six families, we cannot control the way that people maintain their property.

And I don't think that's what this body is made up to do.

It's to make sure that the area stays similar to what it already is and to continue progressing and to work out some disagreements between you know neighbors and potential developers.

And I get that.

But at the end of the day, there's no one that can guarantee that a single family is going to be any better than six families.

I understand more more neighbors equals more problems.

But my client does expect to be at a higher income rate, so than the two properties that were shown.

And so we would hope that when you have a more expensive piece of property, you're more willing to maintain it because you don't want it to depreciate.

We are willing to continue to have conversations, but it kind of sounds like some people's minds are already made up.

But we're gonna we're gonna try.

Um at the end of the day, it is a one, it's just over an acre, one point zero acre lot, and so there are other duplexes as you heard in the community, and so it is not outside of what has already been developed and how the structure of the neighborhood already looks like.

Um again, my client actually wanted four buildings of eight units, and this was a compromise because I knew that that was absolutely not going to fly.

Um and the way that it's proposed with a site plan, which has been shared with the neighborhood association, parking will be all internal.

So there's actually a uh road that will be built on the right hand side of the property so that um guest parking and resident parking will be all internal to the lot, so to not increase traffic, to not um increase just the impact on the neighborhood.

But we we can address all those concerns, we'll ask to go to the next neighborhood meeting as well and continue to have those conversations.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Russell.

Uh, before you leave, uh, June.

No, I've lost my paper.

June 16th.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

As long as there's a neighborhood association meeting in June.

I know sometimes they take breaks in the summer, so I'll reach out right away and I'll let staff know if but that would be our only request.

If I mean you can come back.

Um very good.

All right.

This is a district three case, so Commissioner Hina Josa to you uh for questions.

Thank you.

Ms.

Russell, real quick.

Uh, why are you coming up?

Uh, what was the engagement for the community?

Did you walk?

Did you talk to the neighbors?

So you talked to these people over here.

I didn't talk to these people.

We went to the neighborhood association community and then we did some um block walking.

My client specifically did it.

Um, does your client live in in the area or uh across no?

So um my actual client is the builder, the one that's gonna build and then manage the property um until it's sold to completion.

Um her client is the owner of the property, the owner actually lives in Mexico.

Gotcha, thank you so much.

Uh and the Miss Ms.

uh Romero, can you come up here?

I'm sorry, Ramos, Miss Ramos.

Sorry.

And just for everyone's uh everybody to know the Harland Dale McCullum meeting will be June 8th, uh at the uh Civic Center right there.

Uh Ms.

Romero, did someone come to your house to talk uh uh about the property next to you?

No, I went to everybody's house.

Okay, and then uh have you were you at the uh last uh neighborhood association meeting?

No, I went and spoke to Becky, uh the home association.

Yes, and I spoke to her and I talked to them, and I'm going to the next meeting because I wasn't aware of her meetings.

Gotcha.

Okay, okay.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Romero.

Uh, and then question for for staff.

Um, so for MF 18, uh, what would be the uh total maximum number of units that would be allowed uh taking into account the developable uh development the development acreage uh at this parcel.

So what could they be the max?

So at one acre, they could potentially have 18 units given that they can develop it and adhere to all city standards, building standards.

Gotcha, gotcha.

And then uh one more question.

I'm sorry, Miss Russell, real quick.

Um I know you're gonna get with Miss Miss Uh Ms.

Becky uh Reese uh to come talk to the neighborhood association meeting, but did you say you're you or your client are gonna come out and walk and talk to the neighbors just to kind of clarify what you guys are wanting?

Most likely my client, um we'll see what the neighborhood meeting, how many people come to the neighborhood meeting that are on the list.

But here's the thing.

Here's my concern, and you know me.

Uh only certain people go to the neighborhood association meetings, right?

And then there's some people that live next door, and those are the people that are mostly impacted, right?

Sometimes they have jobs and they can't work or they gotta take care of kids or it's too late, too dark to travel.

Um, so I would I would really like for our next meeting after the continuous to let me know either yourself or or your client has knocked on those doors.

Their neighbors, if they're gonna be a great neighbor, right?

I guess you don't have to be a great neighbor to have zoning, but uh give us that olive brand that says you've done outreach.

And I get what you're saying.

I I completely appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr.

Ms.

Russell.

Um, and we live in America, and we could get to choose whatever we want.

And I know you want to sell these uh properties for you know, 300,000.

Is it gonna sell?

Probably not, but that's my opinion.

It'll sit there until they want to sell it for 100,000, and then who goes in?

Somebody who buys it and then wants to rent it out, and then you got four plexus, six plexus, whatever you have, and that's the issue.

Okay, so thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Any questions to my right?

Seeing none.

Questions to my left.

Oh boy.

Uh all right, this time we're gonna go backwards.

Commissioner Sides, to you.

All right, uh, questions for staff.

Um, staff's recommendation or alternate recommendation was uh R4 C D for four units.

That since it's a CD, that would require a site plan that would lock in for you know I mean how the parking and everything is done.

Correct.

Correct.

Sorry, it's okay.

It's not looking to you, sorry.

Um the other question is is with a R4 C D, um since it's a one-acre lot, which is more than 4,000 square feet, um 10 times, almost 11 times 43560.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um you could not re-plat this into multiple lots and still get on each lot an R4 C D, could you?

Um, so ultimately it would be the CD would be for the total amount of units that could be had on the lot.

So even if they subdivided, they would only be able to have that amount, and in addition to if it's owner occupied, they could potentially have an ADU.

Yeah, I was just gonna say the CD is for the subject property, even if they subdivided, replatted it, um, they would only be permitted the amount of units that is part of this ordinance if it was approved.

All right, thank you.

That's all my questions.

Alright, Commissioner What's that?

I guess mine's kind of along the same lines with an R4, they could do 10 units.

They could do 10 lots.

Correct.

They could plat replatted into 10 lots.

Correct.

Um, so R Ford is it just one unit, it's not a duplex, it's not like RM4, I think, is a duplex, isn't it?

The RM4 would allow up to four units actually, but you're correct.

The R4 would it just be one single dwelling unit, one single unit?

Yes, and as Samantha said, if the owner was living on the property, they could potentially develop an accessory dwelling unit on the site as well.

Okay.

So the minimum thing is they could come in carve up six lots on here, and get six units by individually having six platted lots.

Correct, they could get that density if they did um plating, but again, it would have to go through that whole plating process.

Um, you know, the engineers getting involved.

I'm not certain how much of the space could be utilized, taken or actually used, so but it is a possibility.

Commissioner Duble.

Uh also along the same lines, uh staff's um alternate recommendation.

How does it work process-wise with with notice, um, with letters of support and opposition?

So if if uh if hypothetically at the uh after a continuance, um if the commission were to consider the alternate recommendation, um, is that alternate recommendation noticed to the neighbors?

Is uh are the neighbors uh given the opportunity for letters of support or opposition to the alternate recommendation, or do we just work off of the notice for the uh proposal from the applicant?

So the solution to this, and staff can always correct me if I'm wrong.

The the inquiry becomes whether or not it's in range.

Okay, so what we look at is the existing uh zoning and the requested zoning.

And you know, you can't say, let's take this example.

Uh R4 to MF, what was this?

18 was the request.

So you can't say okay, I want C2 now, right?

That would trigger a new notice, a new period to get notice out, to repost, to do all sorts of stuff.

But because in this case, between the single family of R4 and MF 18, R for C D with four or six units is in there, uh, that is still well, you can't do six units with the R4 C D, sorry.

I talk without thinking sometimes.

Uh, but say R4 C D for four units with is within range, so no notice provision is triggered at that point.

Correct.

Yeah.

Thank you for that explanation.

Is isn't it possible though that neighbors, even though the the uh alternate recommendation, if that was what you know was the central discussion at the next hearing, um, even though it's less density than the uh proposal than the applicant proposal, isn't it true though that the neighbors could have different concerns around the R4 C D alternate recommendation than they would have had?

It it just seems like there's a gap there in the public response process.

Hello.

Okay.

My other mic wasn't working.

So ultimately, if they were to um agree with the alternate recommendation, there would be notices sent out to city council with that alternate rec uh alternate recommendation.

So it would technically give the neighborhood uh a chance to change their minds.

Right.

So the the key being is is that it would be re-noticed before the council meeting.

That that's that's where that opportunity would come from.

Not the zoning commission meeting.

But the okay, yeah, that's a good point.

Yeah.

All right, that's it for me.

Thank you.

Right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

All right.

Um discussion infinital motion to you, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Thank you.

Hope my passion for the South and Southeast side of San Antonio doesn't go uh a little heavy sometimes, but my mom mom graduated from Harlandale, my dad went to Sam's and they kind of met in the middle, so I'm from the area.

So um I I think communication is always going to be the best part going forward.

We need to have a consensus with the neighborhood association and the direct neighbors and the developer and the representative, so that we can all come uh we can all come to some sort of a middle ground, hopefully, because what I don't want to see, uh or let me say this.

What I see is I think this is too much of a it's too dense for this area.

Um so if we had to make a decision right now, my vote will be for denial, um, because all of a sudden we got Brooks, we got the university on South of 410, we got all this great development going on on the South Side, which is great, but then all of a sudden these develop developers want to come in and start renting these places out for for our lovely south side, and then all of a sudden B and B barbecue gets full and I can't eat there during lunch.

I'm sorry, I digress.

But uh that being said, I'd like to make a motion for continuous for four weeks for the June 16th uh meeting.

All right, that's a motion for continuance.

Wait, did you you said June 16th?

Okay, thank you.

For item number 11 to June 16th by Commissioner Hina Hosa with the second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

All right, discussion right, seeing none discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duble.

I just uh uh I think it's a great opportunity to be able to open up the box and think creatively.

I noticed that, or actually I'm gonna give credit to Commissioner Winston.

Notice that there's the lots uh uh abutting Petaluma and uh coplo.

I'm sure I'm pronouncing that wrong.

I you know, one solution might be to consider replatting and uh having individual lots uh facing Petaluma and then individual lots facing Coplo and having separate units.

So I think it's great extend out the time, talk about creative solutions that could make everybody happy.

Alright, any further discussion left?

Alright, motion is for continuance to June 16th for item number 11 by Commissioner Hina Hinajosa.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Wistamonte?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

We have two cases left.

Shockingly.

Um we're gonna try to power through.

Let's go with item number 14, please.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Joe Palima's zoning planner with development services.

Item number 14 is located at a 114 Glenwood Court.

Going from R4 residential single family to R4 CD with a conditional use for four dwelling units.

With all overlays remaining the same.

33 notices were sent, two received in favor, and two opposed within 200 feet.

Preferred side neighborhood association is in favor.

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

As the property is currently undeveloped, the property owner is requested a conditional use to construct four single family homes on the lot.

Although the properties along Glenwood Court are primarily single family nature, two family or duplex residences are also allowed by right, provided a lot configuration remain unchanged and was not the subject of rezoning per UDC Section 35-D 101J, the B residence district conversion to R4, single family residence district.

The submitted site plan indicates the minimum setbacks and the minimum parking requirements are met.

However, increasing the density from the permitted two dwelling units or single family unit to four would likely result in overcrowding on the lot and not traffic to a local street within this established residential neighborhood.

Alternately, staff recommends a conditional use for three dwelling units.

This would allow the property owner one additional unit beyond a permitted two units by right, while limiting overcrowding on the lot and mitigating potential traffic impacts.

Staff's recommendation is denial with an alternate recommendation for three dwelling units.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alright, if we could have the applicant's representative, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Patrick Christensen, 315 East Commerce.

Um I'll be quick.

I know you've had a long, long morning already.

This is basically the street view of the property.

My client, Craig Henry, is there with me in the back.

He lives in the house on the right.

Um he's not some out of town developer coming in to do something and leaving.

He actually is going to stay here and live here and wants to do a very nice development next door.

Um, what happened?

There we go.

Okay.

So you saw our site plan.

I mean, this is the elevation.

He hired a top-notch architect.

He's just trying to do four dwelling units on the vacant lot next door.

There is um, you know, we did meet with Riverside as a part of this process, and you know, they are in support.

I believe what opposition there is is there's a vacant property across the street, a very large one that used to be an apartment complex that apparently had all kinds of problems from crime and everything else.

I think the neighbor is just a little or some of the neighbors are a little gun shy about that, but as you can see, uh my client wants to do a really top-notch development.

Staff's recommending three.

We would still like to be able to do four if you could support us.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Um, this is a I'm sorry, do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay, this is a district three case for Commissioner Hina Hosa to you for questions.

Um not really too many questions.

Let me just make a comment.

Uh I know the outreach here has been I I walked the area and talked to the neighbors, Riverside Neighborhood Association uh is in support of this.

Uh almost kind of opposite where the engagement has been dealt with uh with the city, or excuse me, with the neighbors and the community and the neighborhood association.

Um that's all I have, thank you.

Alright, any questions to my right?

Saying none questions to my left, yes, Commissioner Dougal.

Uh just uh from staff clarification.

So um the neighbor is there's one neighborhood association.

Yes, the Riverside Neighborhood Association.

And they were in sport.

Did we I missed it if we but did we have the uh the map with the check marks and the X's?

Okay, so split to two.

Um, to the applicant, do we do we know the story of uh uh 116?

What their concerns were, what's part of the the apartment complex that used to be across the street, I believe is just fear that he might try to do something riddled with crime, but I don't think that's the case.

He's he's going to stay there, so I see.

And then uh uh and then equally was there anything different you can give for the Clifford Street property?

Was there any other context?

Or was it just generally the same concern?

Probably the same concern.

I don't know.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Questions?

One quick question.

Commissioner What's it?

There seems to be a diagonal kind of overlay.

Is there some sort of overlay through that area that cuts through the uh part of this property on looking on the notification plan and on the zoning map?

It's a metropolitan corridor overlay.

South President.

There's one on Roosevelt uh on these two seconds.

No, it's mostly signage, things like that.

Yeah.

All right, any other questions left?

I yeah, Commissioner Duke.

Yes, sorry, uh uh the uh staff recommends three instead of four.

What uh would uh how would that impact the project for you guys to have three?

That's if that's what you could get.

Uh it affects the viability of the project.

You know, it's clear we're gonna have to do some engineering, some things that are gonna have to be done, and it's it's not gonna be cheap.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I do have one quick question.

Uh there is no alley on the back of this property.

No, there is not.

Okay.

So when we look at the site plan, if we could.

Um, you know, that's just gonna be a turnaround dead end, right?

Correct.

You notice the way they they back in and even the property that's up against the back there, um, they can back out a little bit and go straight.

Okay, but that's what that is.

It's not it's not an exit.

No, it's not an exit, it's a backup.

Thank you, Mr.

Christian.

All right.

Uh any further questions, right?

Left?

All right, seeing none.

Uh this is a district three case.

Commissioner Hina Hosa to you for discussion and potential motion.

Oh, I can make a motion for approval.

All right.

There's a motion for approval.

I'll second it.

Uh by Commissioner Hinaosa, second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez for item number 14 as submitted.

Uh discussion right, seeing none.

Discussion left.

Seeing none.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellan?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

I.

Commissioner Science?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

We are now going to move on to item number 22.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number 22 is located at 5995 Heath Road.

And is a request from C One Light Commercial District to C2NA, commercial non-alcohol alcoholic sales district with all overlays remaining the same.

Forty-two notices were mailed, zero received in favor, two opposed.

Misty Oaks neighborhood association gave no response, and outside 200 feet, there was one opposed.

The existing C1 like commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property and the surrounding area.

The subject property's current C1 zoning is compatible with the proposed indoor sport court use and serves as an appropriate tran transition to the R6 residential single family district to the south.

Unlike C2 zoning, which is no building size restrictions, C1 limits individual structures to 5,000 square feet.

This limitation is critical for maintaining neighborhood scale.

It prevents the development of a massive uh block-long structures and encourages architectural breaks that harmonize commercial and residential interfaces.

Furthermore, the presence of a floodplain on the property may present significant site accessibility.

Challenges that must be addressed during the development process.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant's representative is present.

Alright, if we could add the applicants' representative quarters.

Good afternoon, Ashley Fairmon, Killing Griffin and Fairman, 10101 reunion place.

Thank you all.

Nice to talk to you again.

I do want to make a quick introduction.

Dr.

Prashanth Rao is here in the back.

He is the owner of the property and will be the developer, and can also answer questions that I cannot.

What we're proposing today is the C2NA zoning on the site.

Currently zoned C1.

Here's just a map of the general area.

You can see the property outlined in yellow.

I include this just because up and down Heath Road, there is a variety of uses from single family to C3 soccer fields north of there is industrial and to the south towards Grissom is more intense or commercial, light industrial type uses.

So the yellow outline is what we're requesting be zones C2 and A.

The green is also part of the property, but are separate appraisal district parcels.

We do not need to rezone those, so they are staying zone C1.

So it just includes this to show that there is access to Heath Road, and also there is a small office on the property that has been a medical clinic.

Dr.

Rao's dad has owned this property for or owned it before he did for 40 years, so has been in the neighborhood for quite some time.

So again, the request to C2 and A.

The purpose of that is to allow for indoor fitness facility, a pickle and paddle ball option for the neighbors.

We think it's a good healthy community type business that could go here.

There are concerns about building size, and building size is the only reason why we're asking for this zoning district.

So C1 does allow for indoor fitness facilities, but it limits building size to one building can be no more than 5,000 square feet.

Multiple buildings, the entirety of the whole property can have no more than 15,000 square feet of building space.

So we're over, again, five acres total, so that's essentially 6% of the whole property could have a building on it with C1 zoning.

So again, here's the zoning map just to show the C1 currently zoning.

The property to the north is C3, also C1, there's C2 across the street, so there is precedent for commercial.

And again, this site is already commercial.

But the reason for the larger or the more intense zoning, the C2NA, is again to have buildings that are a bit bigger.

So I'm going to skip forward just a minute.

So here's a conceptual site plan.

The idea is if if buildings are limited to 5,000 square feet, then you can have three buildings on the site, and minimal courts in each building.

So the idea is to have a couple of courts in the buildings, so you're having again kind of that atmosphere of what pickle and paddle ball is intended to be.

It's exercise, but it's also community, friendship, family, and those sorts of things.

So here we have potential for four buildings on the site, existing office building would be part of the development as well, kind of like the clubhouse for the pickleball facility.

So the other thing is you know, staff mentioned that C2, the buildings would be, you know, potentially more looming, or I don't know what the correct word is, but just larger building on the site.

So a couple of things.

C2 and C1 have the same landscape buffer, both 15 feet.

C1 and C2 have the same building height.

So what you see potentially from say the back of a residential home or the back of you know fence line is the same building height, so just potentially more building.

We also don't have much frontage on Heath Road, so you're not going to see this project from Heath Road either.

A few of the things just to highlight for ideas to call the Leon Valley Racket Club, hours of operation limited from 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Uh the idea would be a membership, or you can pay for a court, rent a court.

Again, that existing office on site would be remodeled into the clubhouse, uh, multiple courts in each building, climate controlled, acoustically dampened.

So for sound purposes, again, everything's inside, but these buildings would have walls that are a little bit more thicker, more intense to make sure that there's no noise that escapes from there.

So it would be a new fence installed there, no outdoor courts, and then ample parking on the site as well.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Hope you'll support this request.

We think it would be a good business for this area.

Alright, thank you, Ms.

Vermont.

Public comment.

We do.

We have a few speakers.

All right, Miss Benavides.

If you would please tell us your name and address for the record, and then what do you think?

Oh Janie Benavides 7823 Dove Flight.

Pull the microphone down a little bit.

There you go.

7823 Dove Flight.

Is the proposed thing.

And forgive me, but I I last week was the first hearing that I came to.

And I didn't know how it worked.

I heard a lot of interesting things that directly spoke to our concerns.

And I I'm here also have to respect speaking to some neighbors and uh a retired, I'm around retired north side teachers.

I'm I just retired from Northside myself.

And one neighbor who's been there 47 years since that neighborhood was developed.

They have the same concerns about the lighting, the the noise, but I think one of the main things after hearing the information last week about kind of not knowing what C2 means and all that, about what can happen.

The pickleball and all of that isn't the worst thing.

But what can happen should this facility fail and and Dr.

Rao wants to sell, and I know with all due respect, he mentioned it's a lifelong dream, but if in the event that it fails, what falls under C2 and hearing all the different things that can happen, you know, and that once it's issued, my understanding is that you can't add conditions to it.

Um, so we're not clear on what rights we have as homeowners to say, okay, can we, you know, can we have certain conditions on this being issued?

Um the other thing is that back to the beginning when we received these city of San Antonio notices.

Um we don't know what we're supposed to vote for or against with no information and the description that's given.

You know, unless you call and ask, and I called and you know, had to ask, but it was kind of misleading when hearing um Dr.

Rao's uh attorney speak last week about what was uh what feedback did they get from the community.

We received a notice, a letter from them describing what they were proposing on the day of last week's hearing.

So we don't know what we're supposed to vote for or against.

Now I called and found out.

I gave the case number and they said oh they they're proposing a pickleball.

Uh but uh but um most of the neighbors all expressed the same concern that we had no information, and that would be nice to have more specifics and I I think you know, but the other concerns it's gonna be the censure time all right thank you Hilary Lareto um one speaker at a time but you can give your time either way if you want six minutes you can have it ma'am what's your name your your Hillary Hillary is giving your time too Adrian Moreto Adrian and I live at uh 7827 Dove Flight San Antonio Texas 78250 um I as well back up to the um the establishment that is being proposed um and I have a lot of concerns about what is going to be put there I have lived there for about 10 years now uh the the owner of that property definitely doesn't take care of the property that's already existing so I'm afraid what can happen to this next development that he's gonna going to you know perhaps do um there's a few things um one thing that kind of rings a bell to me is emergency evacuation if something were to ever happen there's nowhere really to go um heath road is very very small so the in and out of traffic that this establishment would bring can cause concern um I do I do realize that there is other um businesses C3 all the way around it um but really the back side of all this if you look is all residential um and I think it's you know I'd like the you know the the support from the commission and of course the the city and see if you know we can get this denied um for one the gate and the separation between us all we have is an eight foot fence and honestly it's falling down so you know I'm I have concerns on that um crime that can happen you know the noise the lights our children's uh bedroom backs up to that uh area so that's also a concern um I didn't know operation plans elevation plans nothing was given to us we have no idea perhaps of whatever she said today is all we know um no one's knocked on our door no one's told us what's going on so uh I'm I'm pretty concerned and and I want my voice to be heard along with some of the older folks excuse me in the neighborhood I'm one of the younger ones but I am speaking for them as well some of them couldn't make it today um at the end of the day this also affects my home value I'm a real estate professional and I feel that if I ever to sell this home who wants this big establishment backed up against them honestly.

And that's that's pretty much it that's what I have today and I appreciate you guys for letting me speak.

Alright thank you sir all right that's it okay uh ma'am did you sign up Maria Gonzalez Maria Gonzalez Gonzalez come on upon you didn't recognize my voice like probably good afternoon I'd like to thank you for your public service you're not always gonna please everyone I know that uh but I want to say your name and address please Maria Gonzalez 5218 Dovness Street.

Thank you uh first of all my commissioner is sitting right here for D6 and Commissioner right here thank Dual Dubell.

Thank you so much for your probing questions we have a system here but it really doesn't work as you it doesn't work as good in real life as it does on paper.

I do want to thank Forrest because this map if you could put it up there is it up there okay oh yeah can you just amplify it a little bit more um I live at 5218 Dovness and this new business this proposal to change from C1 to C2.

Um, these are all residential homes.

So I'm not right and next to it, but I am affected by it more than I thought.

Like they said, this business has one lane going into back there.

I don't know what back there is because there are a lot of trees and a lot of foliage.

There's only one lane to come out of that area and one way to go in.

We also were concerned with all these many cars and all these many people and the business that we think it might uh the type of people it might attract.

If you have a safety issue such as was mentioned fire, how is how are the firemen gonna get in there?

How are they going to extract these people to safety?

Um, it's not clear.

They need more space, and Heath Road is one lane in and one lane out coming from Grissom Road.

It's a very busy road, it's very narrow.

Um, and these houses that are that share the um the property line, they're gonna be impacted by this.

You have all sorts of um intrusions now.

You're going to have light pollution, sound pollution.

I'm glad they said they were going to re uh what do you call it?

Save some of the trees, because it's a lot of foliage, and I would suggest that for us or whoever the planner is actually go to that physical location.

This doesn't do justice.

And I did reach out to homeowners association, the treasurer, and the homeowners association was not aware of aware of it.

I don't know if they were notified or not.

I'm just giving you the word that he said they were not notified.

So what do I have?

21 seconds.

Okay.

So thank you for your probing questions.

There's more than is on paper, and I just suggest make time to go.

And uh, Mr.

Inojosa, thank you for uh your questioning and his questioning is what we need.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Gonzalez.

All right, uh Ms.

Ferriman, brief rebuttal.

Yes, and I'll be brief.

Um on the on the traffic issue.

So what we're proposing is 12 courts.

So 12 courts and four people on each court is 48 maximum people playing at the site at the time.

This isn't like chicken and pickle, it's not where people go to hang out or eat or things like that.

It is just to play pickleball.

So we think that traffic will be at a minimum, but that will be addressed in the development process.

Um, also on noise and lights and those things, you know, those are all obviously have to comply with all city requirements, um, but that will all be addressed as well.

There's no intention of creating any problems for neighbors.

Um, I do want to ask, I didn't tell her, but ask Emily to come up and speak a little bit about the outreach that we've done.

We tried, Mr.

Oakes is a neighborhood association.

We've tried for several months to contact them because we understand that there could be things that are concerning and like we do in a lot of zoning cases, enter into an agreement with the neighborhood, restricting uses, providing for um you know what the site actually looks like.

Unfortunately, C2 is the only option that we have that allows for buildings like this.

We can't condition it, we can't do a specific use.

Um, you know, we can't do anything else that would allow you all to place conditions on it.

So I'll let her speak really briefly.

Thank you, Commissioners Emily Weissler with Killing Griffin and Fairman.

Um, just very briefly.

So outreach started to Misty Oaks um in mid-February.

Um they received uh they elected a new board president.

Um I spoke with the most passport president who put me in touch with the new board.

The new board um since end of February um and beginning of March has yet to respond.

Um they've yet to engage in any way, shape, or form.

So um we have followed up.

We have also re-enlisted the past president um to try and elicit a response from the neighborhood association and the current board um and their members.

So um they have been made aware, they have chosen not to engage.

Um, we'd be more than happy to meet with them.

Um, and then in addition to that, um, we also sent out our own mailers um directly from our office from me um to everyone within 200 feet of the project, explaining giving some details about the project, the proposed rezoning, the pickleball facility, um, and provided, excuse me, provided all of our contact information for that as well.

Um, and we've only received we have received a few calls, um, so we know that those were delivered to at least the people that called us.

Um, so happy to continue those engagements, but we have been trying to elicit a response specifically from mystioaks um since February thank you thank you misseless all right thank you um all right uh this is a district six case Commissioner Huey to you for questions thank you Mr.

Chair uh Ms.

Benavides can you come up and I have some questions for you.

Thank you for taking a long drive from down here.

Thank you.

Uh you mentioned in your statement conditions.

What conditions were you interested in?

Um I probably the main one is um that and it's probably too much but uh like in the event that he sells I guess there's no way to control what can happen after if somebody else wants to put like a last week there was a heavy discussion about an auto business and or apartment complexes and things like that.

Like I don't know what I they gave a quick PowerPoint of different businesses that fall under the C2.

So we didn't get a handout or anything which I meant to call the attorney's office to ask if we could get those handouts of even those buildings because I guess that would be a condition or maybe with if it's approved what can they uh what can we get that there's not gonna be a lot of lights into our backyards and then you know and what I wanted to add is Heath Road I I agree that it's misleading because Heath Road is a main thoroughfare for Northside ISD buses that come in and out of there and El Rod Elementary is down the street I know there's a church I haven't been down Heath Road I want to because I think it's misleading to say that there's a lot of commercial businesses yes commercial businesses on are on grissom but not off of Heath Road I think there's a soccer field there but I don't I wouldn't qualify that as like heavy to me it's misleading.

Okay thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah I live not too far from there.

And I drive down Heath Road all the time.

Yes.

So I understand what you're saying.

Did you get a mailer?

Uh the one from the city or from the uh from the attorney's office the attorney we got it on the day last Wednesday the day of the hearing.

You're talking about the planning the one that said that it was from that they were the attorneys representing Dr.

Rell and the property.

So you actually had a meeting with the attorneys is that right no I met with them here after the hearing was over they stopped me and they gave me their cards but to say that they had uh reached out to the community they said that they talked to Misty Oaks like they're saying today my understanding from someone in the neighborhood is that there was no reach out to Ms Dioaks so there's a I don't know who's who okay so help me understand what meeting are you talking about?

Oh I'm sorry the commission meeting the hearing the planning commission.

Okay planning commission.

Yes got it thank you thank you very much.

Um Mr Laredo question for you please yes sir.

So help me verify that you didn't get an emailer so I did get a uh a letter in the mail but all all it was explaining was who who the owner was and who he was being represented by and um I guess somewhat a very very brief of what they wanted to do.

Like I said, there was no site plans, elevation plans, anything.

It was just this is who I am and this is who I'm representing and that's it.

Okay.

One more question.

So the property behind you, they just said the fence is not uh being so it's yes it's it's an eight foot fence and uh you know it's falling down on most on mo pretty much most of the fence is falling down.

They have trees that are falling into our yards um it's it's not taken care of basically and it's a huge concern you know they're gonna build something and who's gonna take care of it you know who's gonna run it actually you know who's gonna manage this property what is it gonna look like in ten years or five years down the road okay thank you uh question for Miss Gonzalez can you come up please?

Uh earlier you said you spoke to someone from the Misty Oaks HOA and they didn't know anything about this.

Right.

But they did refer me to a Miss Reina and I don't know who that is but they told me that she would be aware of any zoning changes that would affect Misty Oaks.

Okay.

Staff do you guys know who Miss Raina is again the name?

Reina R-E-Y-N-A.

No I'm not familiar with that.

We're looking up give us a moment we're looking up the point of contacts for the uh neighborhood association.

But I spoke to the treasurer and he's usually pretty up on everything.

And what is his name?

Uh Cole is the last name.

Al Cole, yes he's a treasurer and he was out of town that day that I spoke to him.

Okay.

And he's on the current board.

All right.

Sir.

Who's asking.

Yes he is current treasurer.

Thank you.

Just for clarification it looks like the neighborhood association contacts is uh Mary Cardenas.

Alright thank you.

Uh question for staff can you just remind um everyone here what the allowable uses are for C2?

Uh yeah I'll just give a couple examples um so uh liquor store retail sales alcohol wine boutique um video game stores animal clinics auto and like truck oil lube and tune up auto rental auto parts retail typically things like restaurants convenience stores things like that.

Alright great thank you questions for the applicant.

So I guess I'm a little surprised that um we have a number of residents here that didn't seem to have received the information from you guys.

And I noted you guys do a great job.

So I don't know where that miscommunications took place.

I think they all received the letter they all said they received the letter from us I believe.

Right.

But what was in the letter did it it doesn't appear to me that they received enough information to understand what the project was about.

Uh it describes a pickleball facility is what the letter describes.

Okay.

All right.

So but it did mention it it did not include a site plan with the letter.

So um and we it I mean as you alluded to we're up here a lot asking for zoning changes and we work with neighborhood associations quite a bit um and we reached out to Mr to the contact as Emily mentioned before even filing the case uh which is what we typically do and we're always happy to work with associations particularly on cases like this because we think it's the business is a really good fit and the use is already allowed and so we're just trying to stop plating the property into multiple lots um and to allow for these structures to be built.

We understand there are concerns about uses and lighting and all those things, and so that's why we want to engage with the neighborhood too, so they know what's happening and that we can maybe enter into an agreement to restrict against that.

And so that's always been our goal from the beginning, and I apologize if people don't have that information.

If there's a better contact, and we did ask Miss Benavidez after planning commission if she had a better contact, and and they didn't at that time, but you know, we're always happy to talk to people and do what we can to mitigate concerns.

Thank you.

Sure.

So um like I said, I I travel up and down Heath Lane for the last I don't know, forty some odd years, and um that property has been there occupied, oh no, since I've been there.

Right.

Forty some odd years.

So uh you know, to the north of you got the nursery and then you have the um auto repair shop just to the east of you, and I'm just wondering.

And I and I don't know where that miscommunications took place, and I guess I have a question for you again.

I'm sorry.

I shouldn't know that.

Do you think it would be uh acceptable for you to try to reach out to the neighbors at least to the south of you to make sure that they understand because I I believe the information that we received was fairly clear, but I'm just not sure that that was communicated and received.

Would you consider doing that?

Yeah, we're always happy to do that.

It's just who I mean in and we I can chat with everybody here, but in terms of a neighborhood association contact, I think we we would need some help with that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think I ran out of time.

I think you ran out of time.

That's the first for you.

All right.

Just if I want to see Nancy Raina is with the district six city council office that she was mentioning.

Okay, okay.

Ah, okay.

Thank you.

Right.

All right, that's some clarification.

All right.

Uh questions to my right.

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh for the applicant, uh uh just I think I've alluded to this earlier, but uh again, it's great to communicate with the neighborhood association, but I I always like to see a more door to door knocking, you know, maybe you know, talk to the neighbors.

So when you come up here, say you have to talk to these neighbors.

I know there's little X's and and check marks when they get back, the city gets back their um uh approval and and all or not approval, but when they talk for when they get the feedback back from the neighbors, uh but maybe doing that, but also a third option would be uh sometimes there's not a neighborhood association, so maybe you could send out another letter or deliver a letter to the neighbor surrounding that area that says hey, we're gonna meet somewhere, you know, and we're gonna discuss this maybe in the future when you send out notifications to say, hey, we're representing this person, this is what they want to do.

Maybe s submit a site plan, submit as much information as as you guys can just so that we don't get the well we didn't know, you know, and as far as an educator, you know, it's always that it's always that fallback button.

We didn't know, right?

But if you give them that information and say, Well, I mean it's on this packet, that that always helps.

But uh, that's it, and then thank you.

Uh and then for Miss Uh Dominguez, did you say you're a retired teacher?

Um, I don't know what I'm oh human resources.

Well, thank you for uh thank you for being patient.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Questions right saying none.

Questions left.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Woodson and then Commissioner Duval.

Could you put the site plan back up that showed the buildings?

And I guess I have some questions of you that so my understanding each one of those buildings is gonna be the pickleball for courts.

Pickleball or paddle.

Um why in multiple buildings, or they someday think they might have to lease them out for something else.

Is that kind of the No, I think the idea with this site plan was to not be too much larger than what C one allows in terms of building size.

Um but the C two you could do that in two buildings.

You could do that in one building.

Okay, so the the buildings are bigger than five thousand feet, is that the issue?

How much bigger are they?

I think these buildings here on this site plan are six to seven thousand square feet.

Okay.

And so you're not rezoning a small portion of that down there C one I'm looking on a zoning map.

That's yes that that piece there's um that building there is the existing doctor's office.

And so that building is about two thousand square feet.

So the clinic is there that's a Leon Valley Women's Health Center.

It was there.

I think that it's it's maybe still used a little bit but I don't think they have patients come there.

Okay I was just looking at a photo on a side doctor Rao's dad.

Okay.

Okay.

All right Commissioner Duble uh for staff would you remind us um what uses would be allowed by right under the current zoning um it's currently C1.

I mean the light like commercial districts are um usually limited to um less intense arcade boarding house yeah so commercial athletic field yeah so d so some to just clarify athletic fields indoor and outdoor um fitness centers.

Grocery store grocery store is yes so okay uh for Mr.

Laredo sorry to ask you to come up again but you know so important with land use it's currently zoned C1 so an applicant you know uh a property owner right now would not have to come to us to get it rezoned as a uh as a grocery store for example to develop it as a grocery store or as a uh you know rug and carpet sales factory warehouse understood so question for you and uh not holding you to it I I just mean to illustrate the point here uh would you prefer it to be say hypothetically a grocery store or you know uh rug and carpet sales or prefer to for it to be uh uh the applicant's proposal for the pickleball well if you're asking me I would prefer it the way it is I mean oh no no that's that's not the so the the the issue there right is that uh the applicant is proposing to develop it as a pickleball court correct if the applicant if we say denied that rezoning request the applicant could sell the property tomorrow somebody else who wants to build a grocery store.

Correct so important question for me to understand about your guys' your expectations as a as a neighbor would you prefer it to be a grocery store over a pickleball court would that be a preferable outcome?

Well that's that's a hard question to answer um and I wouldn't be able to answer it at this point but what I feel like is even if he does rezoning he's doing the hard work and then we'll eventually you know sell the property and we don't know what what's going to be developed there so the reason question yeah the the reason why uh you know you don't have to be a afraid to answer it it's not a gotcha because the the inference is that the proposed use is is less intensive than say a grocery store shopping complex you know because it it's a large enough uh property that you could have a small grocery store and a rug and carpet sales you know store right I just don't think those would make sense there that that's thank you that's what I was that's what I was looking at uh to staff um this this trouble of a subsequent owner um because I uh I mean I I believe the the applicant when they express what their plans are and their intents are with the uh proposal but with a say subsequent owner um is there really nothing we could do uh to impose limitations on a subsequent owner because i i if if we could do that it sounds like it's a lot easier of a case no.

Not from a city perspective as I believe Ashley was mentioning there could be covenants that would be an agreement between the owner and the uh neighborhood association but that would be a civil matter and we would not enforce any of that all right so let's let's talk about that um oh and by the way IDZ like we couldn't use IDZ to I believe this property is um outside of the boundaries that would permit that be so could you just explain for our benefit what you know what are those uh restrictive covenants those deed restrictions look like what what what hypothetically could be negotiated between the parties to address that that wouldn't be something that I would feel comfortable going into that would be something between those the the property owner and the neighborhood we don't handle those at all so I can't say any yeah we do not know what they would look like okay or if it's even possible but I guess in the past like on because I haven't seen that before as the time I've been yeah we we have seen that uh that you know applicants that engage in those sort of agreements but like again we have not been privy to or a part of those discussions at all do they um is it common practice when those negotiations are being made for the applicant or the neighborhood association to tell the commission as as a general rule I would consider that not germane as the chair um if the uh applicant and a neighborhood association for the property in which uh they are asking for a rezoning come to a private agreement uh I don't have a problem necessarily knowing about that agreement I think that's germane to the extent it leads to a neighborhood association or neighbors saying that they are now in agreement or now support that yeah right because the city can't enforce it right so it's not relevant to the zoning we're if we rezone it to C2 from our perspective as a city it's C2 but still relevant as to whether the neighborhood association and the neighbors are in support would it uh and then I guess the last question since we don't have the neighborhood association here city attorney's office j generally opine like who who can enter into that kind of an agreement does it can it be a neighbor or does it need to be a homeowner's association any any idea there that would be fact specific.

Okay yeah yeah for sure all right thank you that's that's it for me all right thank you Mr.

I think you may sit down um all right uh my quick questions so now I know and I know what you mean but I want to be clear about it.

When you say you can't limit anything there is in fact as part of this request a limitation on C2 correct yes the non the NA the non alcoholic sales so when we talk about C2 uses uh generally in this case any of the alcoholic sales uh uses would be excluded correct right so C one with a grocery store as currently zoned could sell alcohol yes let me go C2 if the zoning request were to pass no alcohol sales that's correct runs with the land correct correct thank you all right um briefly with respect to platting and Miss Loreto if you want to head up because you wanted to speak and I was gonna ask you that same question.

Yeah come on up but but wait till you get to the microphone to answer.

I'm gonna ask one more question in the meantime as you head up.

Now one thing that I think has been alluded to is this is a five acre plot of land theoretically the applicant could replat keep it a C1 build I mean depending on how you want to do it potentially build exactly what they want here under a multi unit C1 plat it is a possibility, but I will admit this has to go through some guidelines through the plating.

Like you have to have an immediate um street frontage and width of the property.

These are items that could be of concern.

So I'm not gonna say it's an end-all, but it is a possibility in the realm.

Sorry, Miss Loreto.

Since I rudely raised my hand at you uh I did want you to come up and I'm gonna pose the same question that Commissioner Duval posted to your pose to your husband, which is, you know, which would you prefer?

A grocery store back there or the pickleball court, paddle ball court, or Padel.

I don't even know how to pronounce it.

Um, excuse me, everyone.

Uh court that is being requested here.

Okay.

My name's Hillary.

Um that's a what if, right?

A what if.

Right now we're based upon the what if of what if this pickleball would be there?

Our HOA already has a pickleball.

We just installed it within this last year.

Our dues went up because of that pickleball.

So Misty Oaks, HOA does offer pickleball.

So why are we putting a new establishment there as well too?

And we can go on all day saying about the what ifs, what ifs, what if this is here, what if this is here?

But right now, we're subject to this.

We're here.

He has never took care of his land for as long as we live there.

I have my family living there, my child.

Everybody who comes over.

Who this is not a man of his word.

So how are we gonna know that this pickleball is gonna be what they say it is?

All right, thank you, Miss Loreto.

Alright.

Thank you.

Um let's talk to Miss Ferramont again.

Okay.

So one of the issues that was raised was traffic along Heath Road.

Uh you have pointed out that there are two uh uses to the north, the church and the soccer fields, correct?

I don't know about the church, but yes, it's okay.

Okay.

Well, the soccer fields acts accessible through Keith Road, correct?

Okay.

How many fields are there there?

I have to pull up an aerial for that existing soccer facility.

Does four sound about right?

That's what I've seen on an aerial, but I didn't want to check.

How many people play soccer at a time, typically?

11 on a team.

So 20 22 folks.

Typically, I said I I had a limitation.

Um, and so four courts, eleven people, no subs, eighty-eight people.

Okay.

On the field.

God, guys, come on.

Anyway, sorry.

All right.

I need to quit messing around.

Uh okay.

So, you know, right now we do have a fairly intense use.

Yes.

Similar use, but more intensive than what you're asking for, correct?

Correct.

All right.

I think those are all my questions.

Um, one more go-round.

Left, I'm sorry, right?

Seeing none questions.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Don't make it about soccer.

Well, it depends.

Are you talking about you would anyway?

Never mind.

It's been a long time since I've done that.

Um just a quick question for staff, and that's um uh primarily because I think this is why the there is the need to change to a C2, and that is the floor area.

What is the floor area?

It's 5,000 for C1.

It is uh well, one building is 5,000 square feet, and you can have an aggregate size of 15,000.

So you could technically have multiple buildings, just can't go for 15,000 square feet.

And for C2, what would be the building area?

There is no okay, so you're not gonna get an H E B.

You're not gonna get a large grocery store.

If it's a if a grocery store move there, it would be a small grocery store as currently.

As long as it meets the yes, if it's if it's one structure, five thousand square feet or multiple structures, fifteen thousand.

Yeah, um, which is relatively small.

Okay, that that was all my questions that I had.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, any further questions left.

I mean just see if I clarify clarify.

So if the buildings in what counts as a 5,000 square foot building if it's enclosed on all sides, or if it's open.

Based off of architectural rules that are enclosed, air conditioned.

I mean, I could turn to our architect.

And I forget because we changed it in the UDC last time.

Yeah, we did.

And I don't remember what it is.

Basically, yes, enclosed inside walls would be.

If they they did pickleball courts that were open on the sides, that would that would require an S actually.

So they would not be permitted outdoor courts.

They would only be permitted indoor.

You can't do outdoor pickleball courts?

Correct.

Not in C1.

It would need a C1S.

It would even need a C2S.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Duball.

Questions.

Uh just to explore possibilities while we're here.

Could I ask the applicant's representative?

So we we haven't made contact with the homeowners association.

But uh first, do you think with the uh the applicant do you think there'd be any willingness to consider?

Yeah, we're happy to do that.

I mean, yeah, and then uh you know uh forgive me, Chair, but any willingness to consider uh deed restrictions if that's what that's what the homeowners association wanted to negotiate.

Yes, we're we would be happy to do that to restrict um to answer some of your questions from before.

Sorry, Chair, I'll be very brief.

I re-answer, re ask my questions to you.

Go ahead.

We can restrict uses, some of the extra uses in C2 that would be allowed.

Um, and we can also put limitations on the business, yeah.

They would be willing to do that, willing to, yeah.

That's private private negotiation.

So then, but we need an entity to deal with right.

So that brings us uh maybe I could ask one of the residents of Misty Oaks to come up.

Well, Miss Gonzalez, I think might be a goodz.

Would you political uh because she said she talked to the treasurer?

Yes, even if you know who the treasurer is.

Alcohol.

Uh so we we have to find the I mean, at least from the way I see it, we we gotta find that HOA.

Um I I believe I take the word of the applicant's representative that they tried and weren't able to reach them.

Um would would you be able to help us get in contact and I will make every effort?

This is very important, yes, and I'll also talk to my neighbors here, the young and uh, and then did somebody did somebody from the residence who could speak with the HOA take notes of what the applicant's representative just said about things that we'll have a discussion with them, but I I think the fact that they're here, they're very interested and they would be willing to work together.

I'd be you know, I I definitely want to hear uh.

Anyways, that's just to explore the possibilities before deliberation.

So thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Double.

All right, I don't have any further questions.

Public hearing is now closed.

Uh Commissioner Huey, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So again, I want to thank my neighbors for coming down and um letting us hear what your opinions are.

Um so typically for this kind of cases, we tend to have a better understanding of what your opinions are prior to coming into here to this hearing, and um, and perhaps I needed to do a little more homework to figure out what your concerns were.

And so, again, uh, like I said, I don't live far from you, I travel on Heath all the time, and um so myself I've had communications with the applicant representatives, so I was able to get some of those um questions I had cleared up, but apparently that information, what it was mailed out to you, didn't make it through.

So what I would like to see, and I would offer this to you, is I would facilitate a meeting between all interested parties in you know, district six, we have a field office right on TESL, and I'll get with the staff there to make sure that we have the conference room available so we can have this conversation.

Because again, I think there is a way ahead that is acceptable to all parties.

You know, leaving the property undeveloped, I don't believe it's appropriate for landowner because they have rights as a landowner, but at the same time, you as residents also have rights.

Okay.

So again, there is an answer there that I believe would be acceptable to all parties.

So again, to a residents and to an applicant, please let me allow to allow me to facilitate a meeting between you, and I will work with the district staff, district six staff, to find out and bring in, if possible, your HOA representatives.

So Mr.

Chair, at this time, I move to continue this case for two weeks to the second of June.

Right.

There is a motion for continuance of item number 22 for two weeks to June 2nd.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Second by Commissioner Pana.

All right.

Discussion right?

Seeing none.

Discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval, and then Sipes.

Only uh because we haven't, or because we because the parties have not identified the homeowners association yet.

I'd only uh only contention would be to well, only question would be if four weeks would be more appropriate in order to schedule it with all the parties after you identify the parties.

Do you want to state that as a friendly amendment?

Yeah, yeah.

So I'll uh move to amend uh for a four-week continuance.

Alright, there's a proposed friendly amendment.

Commissioner Huey, do you accept?

I accept.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Pana, do you accept?

Yes.

All right.

The motion is amended to a continuance to June 16th for four weeks.

Uh discussion right.

Seeing none.

Discussion left, Commissioner Sipes.

I'm I'm glad you changed it to the four weeks.

Um, and I know we're not supposed to talk about deed restrictions.

And um, don't even get an apology from you for that.

Everyone else apologized, at least.

But um, I would caution, I would I when or I'm just gonna sh opinion when when we have people come up and they talk about deed restrictions, I think that's great.

However, um those involve lawyer fees and can be expensive depending on how they're worded.

Um my neighborhood association has had uh deed restrictions that we've enforced.

Those have cost significant amount of money.

Um, and so sometimes I know I know it's uh and I and I am not trying to disparage the applicant at all because I I know them as a very reputable firm, but uh sometimes I don't kind of look at that as the end all be all of how to solve the problem.

Um, and that's just my two cents.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Any further discussion left?

Seeing none, all right.

The motion is for a continuance to June 16th by Commissioner Huey with a second by Commissioner Pana for item number 22.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes, Commissioner.

Yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, yes, Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Aye, Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes, Chair Bustamante.

I motion carries.

Alright, we'll see you in four weeks.

Good luck.

Miss Gonzalez, if you would pass along potentially Mr.

Cole's number to Miss Barrymond, or Miss Weissler.

And they'll probably give you their cards if they're better than me and carry them with them.

Um all right.

The next item on our agenda is item number 29.

Consideration and approval of the May 5th, 2026 zoning commission minutes.

Anyone have any changes, amendments, things that need to be fixed on the minutes?

Hearing none.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Move to approve the minutes.

All right.

There's a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Alright, this can be done by acclamation.

All those in favor of approving the May 5th, 2026 zoning commission minutes say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign?

Any abstentions?

Motion.

One abstention, Commissioner Sipes.

Motion carries.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report.

No director's report.

Thank you all so much.

The time is 3 38.

This meeting of the Zoning Commission of the City of San Antonio is adjourned.