Zoning commission continues proposal for high‑performance auto repair on I‑10 after neighbor opposition

The San Antonio Zoning Commission on March 18 continued a request to allow auto and light‑truck repair uses, including service for motorcycles and off‑road vehicles, at 23293 West Interstate Highway 10 after neighbors and nearby property owners voiced opposition.

Staff presented the case and said the applicant asked to amend the application so the conditional use would apply only to a 2.35‑acre portion of the parcel and to add an “NA” (no alcohol) designation. The applicant’s representative, Erin Sandoval of WGI, said the proposal would remain in the C‑2 commercial district with a conditional‑use (C2‑CD) overlay limited to five specific automotive uses: auto and light‑truck repair (including motorcycles and ATVs), auto glass sales/installation, muffler installation, upholstery sales/installation and related high‑performance services. Sandoval said the applicant envisions three buildings (two likely to be subleased) and described a high‑end service concept with enclosed, air‑conditioned bays and landscaping to preserve buffers and trees.

Nearby property owners and the Dominion Homeowners Association, represented by Rob McDaniel, and tenants/owners from Dominion Place Office Park, represented by Jacques Benatar, opposed the conditional use. Speakers cited incompatibility with the existing high‑end office park, concerns about noise and vehicle testing, fears that the use would attract street racing or high‑performance testing, and potential effects on property values and traffic. Resident Norm Mueller said he feared the change would “put the fox in the hen house,” describing repeated speeding and racing on I‑10 and expressing safety concerns.

In rebuttal, Sandoval said there would be no broad C‑3 rezoning and argued the conditional use was narrow and consistent with surrounding uses; she noted an existing Tesla dealership nearby and said TxDOT driveway and median requirements are part of the design. The applicant, Manny Taren, said he intends to operate typical business hours (he stated 9 a.m.–6 p.m.) and described a clientele of higher‑end vehicles; he said the site would be gated outside business hours. He declined to commit to formal hours restrictions at the hearing.

Commissioners questioned outreach to opponents and whether site‑plan conditions such as hours, landscaping and gates could be required as part of a conditional use. Staff said conditional uses can include conditions like business hours, landscaping and fencing; they also said that if the property were rezoned to C‑3, hours could not be limited in the same way and enforcement would rely on other city codes (noise, etc.).

After discussion, Commissioner Roland Gonzales moved to continue the case to the April 15 hearing to allow an in‑person meeting between the applicant and opponents; Commissioner Marco Barros seconded. Roll call resulted in seven yes votes and three no votes; the motion to continue passed.

Votes at roll call for continuance: Gonzales (yes), Bottos (yes), Kellum (no), Watson (yes), Nejosa (no), Healy (yes), Sipes (yes), Whitsett (yes), Chase (no), Chair John Bustamante (aye). Item continued to April 15 for further neighborhood meetings and any revised site plan.