The San Antonio Zoning Commission on Wednesday continued a controversial rezoning request for 3371 Roosevelt Avenue after lengthy public comment and questions from commissioners about noise, parking and allowable uses.

Staff presentation and applicant proposal: Samantha Benavides, the city planner assigned to the case, said the site is in a commercial corridor and that staff’s packet recommended approval of an Infill Development Zone (IDZ 2) designation to allow event uses that are not permitted in the existing C-2 zoning. The presentation noted 23 mailed notices with two letters of opposition within 200 feet and several letters of support from business owners, and described the property as currently vacant.

Mitsuko Ramos, representing property owner García Properties Inc., and applicant Peter García told the commission the project would renovate the existing building, add a rooftop terrace and make landscaping and lighting improvements. Ramos said the proposal would create jobs and programming linked to schools and neighborhood groups, and she described an estimated investment of roughly $2.5 million in renovations and site work.

Neighborhood opposition and concerns: Jane Henry, president of the Mission San José neighborhood association, and several other residents testified in opposition. Neighbors said they had consistently opposed certain uses — specifically bingo and late-night nightlife — that they believe the requested IDZ could permit. Henry raised parking capacity concerns (citing “158 parking spaces” compared with large event capacity claims) and said neighbors had not expected outdoor music or rooftop amplification. Other commenters mentioned existing homeless encampments behind the property, potential spillover parking in residential streets and the area’s historic character.

Commissioner questions and legal/administrative issues: Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on a range of issues, including:
- What uses remain allowed in C-2 and what new uses IDZ 2 would authorize (staff confirmed that some uses, such as a liquor store, are allowed by-right in C-2);
- Whether the commission can place conditions limiting hours or outdoor amplified sound as part of an IDZ approval (staff said some limitations can be added by conditional use but that certain conditions may not be enforceable solely through IDZ language and could require additional approvals such as site-plan or historic-design review);
- How noise ordinance limits would apply and how enforcement typically functions (staff and commissioners noted the city’s municipal noise ordinance applies and that enforcement is handled by code implementation teams, but details vary by location and context);
- Historic review: staff confirmed the project had been routed to historic preservation for elevations and that further technical review would occur with final plans.

Applicant responses and compromise options: The applicant’s representatives said they had reduced the request from IDZ 3 to IDZ 2 after discussing neighborhood concerns and expressed willingness to continue working with neighborhood groups. Staff and the applicant discussed possible approaches that could narrow permitted uses (for example, removing certain high-intensity uses or limiting exterior amplified sound), but staff cautioned that some restrictions would require a different zoning mechanism or could trigger a need for re-notification.

Commission action: After extended discussion, a commissioner moved to continue the case to Nov. 4 to give the applicant and neighbors more time to resolve outstanding issues. The motion to continue carried on a unanimous vote.

Ending: The hearing was continued to Nov. 4. Commissioners said they hoped the additional time would allow the applicant and neighborhood associations to meet and produce a narrowed set of uses or concrete conditions that could be considered at the next hearing.