Planning Commission approves West Southwest plan amendment at 439 West Military Drive over staff objections

The San Antonio Planning Commission voted Jan. 14 to approve a plan amendment that would reclassify 439 West Military Drive from the general urban tier to a mixed‑use center, clearing the way for a rezoning to an IDZ‑3 intensity that would permit commercial vehicle storage uses.

Planner Alexa Ratana told the commission staff recommended denial because the proposed land‑use classification is out of character with surrounding properties and could allow more intense commercial encroachment into adjacent residential areas. The applicant, Hassan Bal B. C., said he bought the vacant lot in 2019, secured the parcel, removed trash and intends to operate long‑term vehicle storage for work trucks serving local contractors; he said the site would not host RVs or 18‑wheelers.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on several operational details. Commissioner Siegel asked whether the proposal would allow oversized vehicles such as 18‑wheelers or RVs; the applicant said those uses were removed from the site plan and that the storage would be limited to work trucks with proper identification. Commissioners also questioned setbacks and noise buffers between the lot and single‑family homes to the south, hours of operation, lighting controls and whether future property owners might change uses if the land‑use designation were granted.

Staff and stormwater personnel said the lot would require a permited, hard‑surfaced parking area (concrete, asphalt or approved pervious pavement) rather than merely a compacted base; they warned that compacted base alone would create dust and would not meet the city’s standard for a commercial parking lot. Stormwater staff said a full stormwater management report would be required at the permit stage to address increased impervious cover and runoff mitigation.

The commission also heard that some work on the site had been done without permit; a staff member said city records showed an investigation for work without a permit on Nov. 19, 2025. The applicant acknowledged contractor errors on prior site work and said he was working to resolve permit and code issues.

Commissioner DeSouki moved to approve the applicant’s requested plan amendment; Commissioner Ouellette seconded. The motion passed by roll call (recorded as 5 yes, 3 no). Commissioners who voted in the majority said they were persuaded by the applicant’s outreach to nearby neighbors and by site restrictions shown on the submitted site plan; commissioners in the minority cited the staff recommendation and concerns about future intensification and runoff.

With the Planning Commission’s approval, the case will proceed under the city’s land‑use and rezoning process; site plans and any permits will be subject to further staff review and possible City Council consideration. The commission’s action does not itself authorize construction or occupancy, and staff said required permitting and stormwater review remain outstanding.

The commission moved next to other items on its agenda and to continuances for several cases.