Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 125 Stonewall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission denies rezoning for auto-repair and long-term vehicle storage at 125 Stonewall Avenue
Summary
The San Antonio Planning Commission on Feb. 25 denied a request to reclassify 125 Stonewall Avenue from low-density residential to community commercial, blocking the applicant’s bid to allow auto and light-truck repair and long-term vehicle storage; staff had recommended denial citing incompatibility with the neighborhood plan.
The San Antonio Planning Commission voted Feb. 25 to deny a proposed amendment to the South Central Community Perimeter Plan that would have changed 125 Stonewall Avenue from low‑density residential to community commercial, a move that would have allowed rezoning for auto and light‑truck repair.
Samantha Benavides, a planner with Development Services, told commissioners staff recommended denial because the proposed commercial designation would be “out of character with the adopted land use plan” and would place a single‑family home directly between higher‑intensity uses. Benavides told the commission 30 notices were mailed for the case, with one in favor and two opposed within 200 feet.
The applicant, who provided a San Antonio address for the record, said the parcel would be used primarily “just for parking and just in case we need to do some light work that has that makes no noise so that we don't disturb the neighbors.” The applicant added the intent was to move cars off the street to improve sight lines.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about whether a less‑intense zoning or conditional use could permit parking only, and whether on‑street parking and parking enforcement already in effect would address the neighbors’ concerns. Planning staff said long‑term parking and storage of vehicles associated with repair businesses is typically treated as an industrial use and that on‑street parking rules do not necessarily address business storage of vehicles.
Commissioner Siegel said enforcement and an outstanding final inspection for a fence installed in November had not been completed and that the effect of placing vehicle storage and an auto repair use directly adjacent to an existing single‑family residence would be “really unpleasant.” He told the commission he was “not gonna be inclined to support this plan amendment.”
Siegel moved to deny the applicant’s request; Commissioner Bustamante seconded. The motion to deny carried in a roll‑call vote.
The denial concludes the commission’s consideration of the plan amendment request; the record shows staff will continue to enforce permitting and inspection requirements that were raised during discussion.
