All right, everybody, it is two o'clock.

We will call the Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order.

Would staff please do a roll call?

Commissioner Sanchez.

Present.

Commissioner Lopez?

Commissioner Cooper?

Here.

Commissioner Miller?

Here.

Commissioner Wallerstead.

Here.

Commissioner Bustamonte.

Present.

Commissioner Prophet.

Yes.

Here.

Chair Peck.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we have the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Tenemos los audiculares and el cuartito que está aquí enseguida.

Thank you.

Alright, today we're gonna have two agendas.

First agenda is the combined hearing agenda.

Cases on the combined hearing agenda are cases where staff recommends approval and the planning commission does not require any further detailed discussion on the item.

All cases will be read into the record in one unified motion.

The next agenda is the individual hearing agenda.

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

So right now we have on individual items eight and nine.

That is correct.

Okay.

We do have people signed up to speak on item one and item ten.

We're gonna leave those on consent.

Because the person signed up on item 10 is actually speaking for the item, and the commission doesn't have any questions on the item.

Item number one, I'm going to ask a couple of questions first, but um staff, I just wanted to ask this is a plat.

Does this plat meet all requirements specified by the unified development code?

Yes, it does.

Okay, thank you.

Um just for everybody's information, state law says that if the plat meets code as per uh the city of San Antonio code, the planning commission has to approve it by law.

So we are obligated to approve the plat.

So with that, we're going to uh tell Commissioner Bustamante to step out.

He is recusing from items four and five.

It is 202, Commissioner Bustamante has left the meeting.

We're gonna move on with people signed up to speak on item number one.

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry, just a correction on that.

It's items two and six.

Two and six.

Oh, yeah, right.

Sorry.

Um we're gonna move on with the people signed up to speak on item number one.

First is Lewis, I can't read the last name.

Uh Bubick.

Yeah, okay.

Please state your name and address for the record.

You'll have three minutes.

My name is Luis Babiac.

I'm the attorney for um Eileen Wygam.

She lives adjacent to the subject property.

Um the property that's being replatted is a big undeveloped portion behind her lot, but also what I want to point the um attention of the commissioners to is the portion of the replat that involves lot 11.

It's a 30-foot lot uh residentially zoned that they're trying to make a right-of-way for ingress and egress from Chestnut Bend, which is right in front of her property, to go from that lot into the big development that they're subdividing.

They're planning on building, you know, what we believe to be at least three to four houses on that, and that would be lot 11 would be the main point of ingress and ingress into the lot.

Um, this poses many issues for the city of San Antonio and uh my clients and her her neighbors.

The lot itself is 30 feet long or thirty 30 feet wide.

It from the reading or my understanding of the UDC, and I and I have it in my objection letter.

There's only a few types of roads or pathways or thoroughfares that the city of San Antonio could designate this right of way as.

Oh, thank you.

My client's lot is this lot right here.

Oh, yes.

This this lot right here, lot 10.

If you go and look at exhibit E, um, in our objection letter, you'll see that's a photo of what the lot currently looks like all the homes on this development are on zero lot lines in that photo you can see that window there that is my client's bedroom they're trying to one make this small 30 foot path the main ingress and egress to all those lots if you look at where the easements are going to run on their replat here they're right here you'll see on the zoomed in portion of this on the second page that this is roughly 20 feet across and right behind our client's lot you can see where they're going with this they're going to have access B from Chestnut Bend into that subdivision and I would like to call it like pitching the straw you have a city street that's already dedicated to the city meets the UDC's requirements for for right of ways and pavement widths that then goes into this 30 foot lot and expands back into something that's more than 50 feet or at least 50 feet that would feed into four other houses the issue with this in the UDC is that the UDC if this was to be a local A road would require 50 feet for a right of way that's not this is a 30 foot lot if they were wanting to expand this to 50 feet they'd have to take my client's house there's no room for them to expand this lot if they want this to thank you very that was three minutes thank you very much thank you okay next person is Gary Flores.

Good afternoon if you brought up that particular property again you'll see I oh excuse me Gary Flores 2634 Chestnut Bend and I live next door to Eileen Wygham I've lived there for 15 16 years rather and my disapproval is total opposition to this because her bedroom is adjacent to that access I measured it by myself and it was 28.3 inches from her bedroom her house the back of it to the next door neighbor's lot or the through the lot and then to the next neighbor's fence now if you have multiple cars coming in how are two cars going to actually enter or exit that particular property I've there's a excuse me there's a street further down north of us it's called Chestnut Bay and that has a road which is 30 feet it has two sidewalks which are almost four feet each and you'll see that if they keep the integrity of our neighborhood the same way there's no way they're going to be able to put a road and two sidewalks which go into their subdivision it's extremely extremely dangerous for her knowing that her bedroom's right there I don't understand how we can allow a road to go through with building trucks with neighbors if they have four or five houses houses in there with multiple multiple family or friends coming in all hours of the night per se and then her bedroom right there there's just it's it's extremely extremely dangerous there are multiple or rather two uh dead ends on the west side of that property which comes off of Silverhorn and Chestnut excuse me uh will whisper hollow subdivision and they they butt into or dead into the other side of our property if they can come through that way or there is a driveway on excuse me on Jones Maltzberger adjacent to that whisper hollow and they could come in through that way if they if they have their right of way to uh build these this build a subdivision again I oppose this extremely due to our neighbors's safety.

And I just can't understand how the city of San Antonio can approve that, knowing that we've had a woman lived there for 20 some odd years, and now they're gonna propose this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have, I can't really read their first name.

Is it B Landry?

20.

2618 Chestnut Bend, Sam Chiny, Texas.

My question is, I have lived in my home, which I'm on the other side, but Eileen.

I've lived there for 25 years, and now I'm gonna have to knock down my fence because 13 inches of his property.

I've been on there for 13 for 25 years.

I didn't know that.

When I bought the house, the builder had the fence, and so now he wants to take my fence down, which he said he would.

I don't know what he's gonna do.

We don't have anything in writing.

So that's kind of dangerous too, because I mean I have a dog, I have you know, I can't just have the fence knocked down.

So he wants 13 inches in the back, 19 inches in the front, and I've had it surveyed already.

But this has been going on since 2008, and it's just a mess, and I don't know, it's not it's not safe to do that.

It's not safe for the other neighbor, and it's just not safe to I don't know how the uh first responders can come in before that's that was the problem that the fire trucks EMS all could not come in because they can't turn around.

So that's that's my that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you very much.

But again, I let me tell you I had talked to a doctor uh a lawyer and he said that it was adverse possession because I've been there for so long, but I haven't signed anything or gone to the city to redo it.

So I'm against okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh Ramiro Morales.

My question was asked on the okay, thank you.

And last one on item number one is Tracy Naylor.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, that's everybody sign up to speak on item one.

Uh we have one person sign up on item 10, Bianca Maldonado.

Good afternoon, Bianca Maldonado, Monotello Park Neighborhood Association, PO box 100 315 78201 offering comments in support of the redevelopment of what is occurring here on the 1900 block of Fredericksburg Road.

It is something quite phenomenal to be honest.

I tell everybody it's a unicorn.

We had a historic landmark building that's currently landmarked today.

Our neighborhood supported that in 2007 and 2008.

Maybe 40, 50 years ago, half of it was chopped off.

So we have a very uh invested owner who is going to recreate the missing portion of that building along Fredericksburg Road directly across from the Woodlawn Theater, and to be able to do that is uh hence why you have the application before you today.

So I just wanted to highlight it because it's a very unique situation.

Um, it is a rezoning to our replatting essentially for the uh land use category so that the two properties can be on the same page and support the the future land use in this area, and the applicant has worked significantly with us through the redesign as it goes to the HDRC process, and also as it goes through the zoning and platting process.

So I just wanted to come and offer our comments in strong support and also highlight it for you because it is a redevelopment in the urban core on one of our major uh corridors along Fredericksburg Road, so you don't see somebody stepping forward to do this all too often.

And the fact that this remaining half was saved, it also received a grant from the Conservation Society for preserving the roof, the tile roof.

So it's a very unique building and and very unique location, and we're just very thankful and very supportive and offering our support and thank you for your support.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Bianca.

Appreciate the the information on that.

Alright, uh, that is all the public input on the consent agenda.

Um we will now move to any commissioner questions or a motion.

I have a question.

Uh what is the standard width of the a street that should be um done?

Kevin Collins, DST traffic, sorry.

So for clarification, that is not a street, that is an ingress egress easement, specifically a platted irrevocable ingress egress easement.

So the standards are not the same as what you would have for a street classification.

Um essentially it is a drive.

Uh it is a private drive, which in the UDC has to be at least twenty feet wide.

What they proposed for this one is a 26-foot wide paved drive with curbs on both sides.

So there will be two feet of additional space between the curb and the property lines on both sides.

So I heard I would heard that she's getting her fence taken down.

Are they going to be putting up a new fence?

And how far away will that be from her home?

So the planning commission would not be the appropriate entity to weigh in on that.

That is their decision as the property owner, the claim of adverse possession.

Similarly, that is something that would be resolved in courts, not before the planning commission.

Any further commissioner questions or motion?

Motion to approve consent agenda.

Motion to approve consent agenda by Commissioner Prophet.

Second second.

Second by I think it was Commissioner Sanchez.

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Prophet?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallerstein?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Thanks.

All right.

Item number eight.

It is 216, and Commissioner Bustamante has re-entered the meeting.

Item number eight, located, generally located in the 4400 block of Nieto Drive, is requesting a continuance to the August 12th planning commission meeting.

Great.

Thank you.

Is nobody signing up to speak?

Is there any commissioner questions or a motion on the um continuance?

Motion to approve applicants' request for continuance to August 12th PC.

Second.

We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Prophet and a second by Commissioner Cooper.

Commissioner Prophet?

Yes.

Commissioner Cooper.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Wallerston.

Yes.

Commissioner Bustamante.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for continuance.

Great.

Item nine.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sean Shele, Planner with Development Services.

Item nine, located at 3857 East South Cross Boulevard as a request from community commercial to regional commercial.

18 notices were mailed.

Zero in favor, zero imposed were received, and the Pecon Valley Neighborhood Association did not respond.

The proposed plan amendment from community commercial to regional commercial is requested to rezone the property to C3 General Commercial District.

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

The current property is split zoned into three different zonings of C3 General Commercial District and the front half of the property.

C2 commercial district and the middle of the property and O2 high-rise office district at the rear of the property.

The only portion of the property that is currently compliant with the current land use is the C2 portion.

The applicant wants to unify the zoning to give the current existing strip center a wider array of uses in order to fill vacancies.

Although there is current C3 zoning in the immediate area, they are out of compliance as they are all listed as community commercial future land use.

This plan amendment would be an increase of intensity for the overall area, which is not appropriate.

Staff recommends denial, and the applicant is present.

Thank you.

Would the applicant like to address the commission?

Hello, Commissioners, Alan Yesinov with uh representing the owner F9 properties.

So uh the property uh that we are seeking a plan amendment for is uh 3857 East South Cross.

The property is currently uh it currently contains three different zoning codes C2, C3, and O2, as um Sean mentioned.

Our goal is to unify the zoning of the property into one district, namely C3.

A little bit of history about the property.

It was built in 1985 by Henry Minton, and he owned it for 40 years.

Uh, the new ownership bought it last year and has since taken care of the deferred maintenance on the property.

Uh, they've done new paint, replaced old HVAC units, new deck boards where they've got an old.

We've signed new leases with new tenants who have brought life back to the center.

Why we are changing and requesting for a change now is we ran into an issue a few months ago when we had a prospective daycare tenant, and they sought to apply for their C of O a few months back, and they were rejected due to improper zoning.

That a raised a huge alarm to us as to why they were rejected because uh daycare would be an awesome use for the center.

The uh prospective daycare tenant was told by the DSD staff that the O2 overlay touched a portion of the prospective daycare space and therefore was denied a C of O, which led us to being here.

So our current tenant mix is the following we have a head shop, a tattoo shop, a nail salon, a Christian church, an Italian restaurant, namely Caparelli's, and a game room.

The tenants that have a C3 zoning are in the C3 area.

Recent prospective tenants that we've received interest from have been a laundromat group, beauty aesthetics group, an appliance store, staffing agency, and a cell phone store.

I'd like to bring to your attention the UDC statements for the purpose of a C3 zoning.

It's uh C3 uses are typically characterized as community and regional shopping centers.

C3 districts should incorporate shared internal circulation and limited curb cuts to arterial streets.

We see the Pecan Plaza as a community commercial shopping center and therefore aligns with the C3 zoning.

I'd like to bring your attention to the nearest C3 property zone property, namely it's actually us, uh, and then the next nearest is the convenience store, but then the next nearest is if you can please put this on the is a uh the uh let me get the address.

It is the property on 3939 East South Cross, which is the El Brocero Mexican restaurant.

That is and it is approximately 432 feet from the property.

So there's a precedent that there are nearby C3 uh district uh properties nearby our center.

Uh it makes the most sense because our uh property already contains a C3 zoning.

Um, and a what a recommendation of approval would mean for the property in district three is you'd be promoting uniformity in this district.

Owners familiar uh with similar problems that we are facing, will be confident that their requests may go through, as there's been as you can see the O2 sliver extends to multiple properties.

Uh plus you, namely it's it's outdated.

I was told that the O2 was used as a buffer uh between residential and commercial districts.

Now that has caused issues when we've uh tried to get tenants aligned with our uh uses.

Uh so then you promoting uniformity and a portion of the property already contains the desired use.

It would be a signal of confidence.

So the real estate and business market that district three supports small businesses.

Uh, this area of of the southeast area of San Antonio has a lot of local local brand tenants and and uh several regional brand tenants.

Um the property contains no national or regional franchises and only one local franchise, namely Capparelli.

So you'd be supporting uh local businesses being able to come into the area.

As a result, property values will also appreciate boosting tax revenue as a higher zoning means higher value of the property, and you'd be upholding the spirit of the purpose of a C3 zoning, namely community commercial.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we don't have anybody signed up to speak, so I'll move to commissioner questions.

Start on the left with Commissioner Bustamante.

No questions.

No questions.

No questions.

Uh for staff.

Can you so some of the pro some of the tenants require a C3 zoning?

And can there be conditional use applied to different tenants to stay in the uh current plan?

That is correct.

Um certain uses that he was explaining, like uh the tattoo parlor and I believe the head shop, they could be uh down zone to like a C2 CD that would stay aligned with the existing community commercial.

Is the O2 necessary for any of the businesses?

No.

Okay.

O2 is very tricky situation.

It's basically meant for office uses, hence why the daycare would not have been permitted.

I do, if I may, I want to add one other thing just based on the testimony.

So there was discussion about the head shop and the daycare.

I suspect we don't really have any head shops in the city, we don't have C of O's issued for head shops.

Those, if you may recall, were related to the breath ordinance from a couple years ago.

We added the hemp retail to the code.

Regardless of what happens today, you're not allowed to have one of those within a thousand feet of a daycare, so that would always trigger a rezoning process for city council as well.

I just want to make sure that's on the record.

And for clarity, a head shop means a smoke shop.

We have separate, yeah, we have separate uses where a smoke shop is more for tobacco uses.

Head shop is meant for a legal uh drugs like cannabis, weed.

Then I'm referring to I'm referring to the legal use of it's a head shop, it's not tobacco, right?

Okay.

So again, just yeah, let me reiterate head shop of which we have none in the city is defined as a business who deals in paraphernalia related to illegal drug use.

Then it's not that.

It is, but you're saying it is also not a tobacco store.

No, they sell tobacco products.

It's a it's a smoke shop.

So whatever the city's verbiage of what a smoke shop is is do they sell consumable hemp?

Yes.

Then that would not be allowed within a thousand feet of a daycare without specific authorization from city council.

Got it.

So that's a separate issue.

But to solve but to solve the uh because regional commercial generally, you know, we like to see, you know, I know South Cross is a big intersection, but it's uh this road here is not a major artery, and it's kind of smaller than the size you'd like to see for regional centers.

So my suggestion would be see if we could maybe possibly do content conditional use, which will be zoning, so they can not have to make the plan amendment.

What would can I ask a question?

Uh what would a conditional use mean for the O2 overlay?

What would we do with the O2 overlay?

You would still be getting rid of the O2, but you would be zoning it to C2 with conditional use rather than C3.

Understood.

Now, one area that should also be highlighted is you can only have one conditional use tied to a given piece of property.

But what we have seen in the past is an applicant gets field notes to describe a particular suite, and they can do a conditional use tied to those.

So you don't need the entire property to be zoned with conditional use for a tattoo parlor.

You can condition that only to the suite in which they occupy.

Understood.

So then our our current c three tenants are conforming because they are in the C three zoned area of the property.

If we were to uh provide meets and bounds descriptions of the O2 area, then we can rezone that area into C2 conditional use, which would only apply to one extra tenant that would be into one of the spaces that we have vacant on that C2 area.

One use for that defined area meets and bounds in the field notes.

One use so it would be for example one use that is not permitted in C2 your permit you would be permitted everything in a C2.

Which includes a lot of items understood yeah and then that conditional use does not apply to the C3 section it would apply to the C2 section.

Only that you're rezoning correct understood understood even if the sorry even if the O2 has a sliver uh because the O the problem is that the O2 encompasses only a sliver of the back portion of the of the building area we'd be getting rid of that O2 portion.

Okay.

It'd be C2 C D from the C2 portion up through the O2.

Understood that's all my question it is 228 and Commissioner Sanchez has left the meeting no more questions.

No questions I don't have any questions but I just agree with Commissioner Profit's I don't know call it solution I guess.

I think that's because you know I'm on the same boat as you is that yeah I don't necessarily have a problem with the C3 but the the uh regional commercial uh doesn't necessarily fit in this location it is two twenty eight and commissioner Sanchez has rejoined the meeting doesn't really fit in this location to me because uh one the location and two the size it's only one point eight acres doesn't meet the requirements of regional commercial in my book so I would kind of agree with uh commissioner profit's assessment that's my comments any other questions at this point I mean what would if you're amenable to that continuance or a further discussion before we take action here I'm just trying to yeah so I I think we have a couple options one option is just to request a continuance if you're able to draft up meets and bounds and we can proceed with C2 C D and keep the C three then you could just not come back to planning commission and withdraw the plan amendment at that time potentially I that's probably the best course of action is for us to go uh in front of the zoning with this uh revised plan agreed move for continuance to August 22nd I'll second it so we have a motion by Commissioner Bustamani for a continuance to what did you say August 22nd do you mean july 22nd or what day am I no I it's December December 22nd yes july 22nd okay that's two weeks from today is that sufficient time zoning I think zoning meets the 21st is two weeks sufficient or would you rather a month or longer I believe we have a we we have a meets and bounds description already so if that's all we need to provide then we should be fine.

And talk to your case manager for the zoning case right to figure out what exactly the zoning requirements are to bring down from C three or whatever.

Understood I think we have enough time to be able to do that.

All right so your recommend so your motion Commissioner Bustamani is for July 22nd.

July 22nd or some other made up month right 2026 2026 yes sir so we have a and I don't even remember who the second was at this stage.

Commissioner Waller stat was the second can staff please do a roll call vote please Commissioner Bustamante Commissioner Wallerston aye commissioner Sanchez yes Commissioner Lopez Commissioner Cooper?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller Commissioner Profitt?

Yes Chair Peck yes motion passes for continuance.

Thank you okay that is everything except uh director's report nothing for today thank you very much it is two thirty one and we are adjourned