Zoning Commission approves UDC updates and eight rezones in consent vote

The City of San Antonio Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve a package of unified development code changes required by state law and a group of zoning requests on the meeting’s consent docket.

The commission approved amendments to Chapter 35 of the Unified Development Code to conform to recent state legislative changes, and recommended approval of individual rezoning requests listed on the consent agenda: Case numbers for items 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15. The motion to approve the consent package was made by Commissioner Ken Huey and seconded by Commissioner Marco Barros; a roll-call vote recorded every commissioner present as “yes.”

Staff said the UDC amendments implement changes from the 89th Texas Legislature and are required to keep city regulations in compliance with state law. For the individual rezones, staff read each case into the record and summarized notification results, overlays and whether neighborhood associations had responded. Examples include: - Item 1: amendments to Chapter 35, Unified Development Code — staff recommended approval. - Item 2: rezoning at 11625 Old Corpus Christi Road to MXD with maximum density 25 units/acre — 19 notices sent, 1 outside-200-feet in favor, 0 opposed; no neighborhood association within 200 feet. - Item 6: rezoning at 2512 Southwest Loop 410 to C2CD with conditional use for lumber yard/building materials — 27 notices, no responses. - Item 9: rezoning at 126 Groveland Place to R4CD with a conditional use for studio interior decorating — 107 notices, 1 opposed. - Item 11: adoption of MC4 Northeast Metropolitan Corridor overlay and related zoning changes — 179 notices, 2 in favor, 5 opposed. - Item 12: rezoning at 307 Montezuma Street to IDZ1 for 1 dwelling unit — 32 notices, no responses. - Item 14: rezoning at 7622 Louis Pasteur Drive from C1 to C2 — 11 notices, no responses. - Item 15: rezoning at 3218 Thousand Oaks Drive to C2CD with conditional use for auto paint/body repair with outside storage fully screened — 6 notices, 2 in favor, 1 opposed.

A prerecorded voicemail from a speaker identified as Sarah Jones (caller provided phone number on the message) requested more time to review one of the cases (case ending 0181), saying she had not had adequate notice or time to consider the proposal.

Because the commission is advisory, approved cases will move to City Council. The commission chair reminded applicants and neighbors that the commission’s vote is a recommendation and that applicants have up to six months to forward a case to council.

For transparency, the commission recorded the roll-call vote with each commissioner announcing their vote; the chair declared the motion carried.