* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] OKAY, EVERYBODY, IT IS TWO O'CLOCK AND WE WILL CALL THE MAY 14TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING TO ORDER. WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? HERE. COMMISSIONER ETTE? HERE. COMMISSIONER MILAM? HERE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? HERE. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? HERE. COMMISSIONER. PROFIT. PRESENT CHAIR. PECK HERE. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, CAN WE DO SPANISH ENGLISH INTERPRETER PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL [Election of Officers  ] RIGHT, I'M GOING TO TURN THE MEETING OVER TO LOGAN SPARROW FOR OFFICER ELECTIONS. ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, WE ARE GONNA DO OFFICER ELECTIONS. TO START OFF, WE HAVE THREE POSITIONS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT NEED TO BE, UH, FORMALLY APPOINTED. THE FIRST WILL BE CHAIR, THEN WE'LL DO VICE CHAIR AND PRO TEM. SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WILL ACCEPT NOMINATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CHAIR. I NOMINATE GEORGE PECK. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? I'M SORRY, WHO? JACOB. JACOB. JACOB, JAKE. OKAY. I HAVE BRIAN . I'M CONFUSED. IS IT, IS IT BRIAN OR JACOB THAT WE'RE NOM ARE YOU NOMINATING BRIAN COM? BRIAN? OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, CAN I GET, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER PECK? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. SO THAT IS A MAJORITY RIGHT THERE. SO COMMISSIONER PECK WILL TAKE, UH, CHAIR FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. I'LL NOW ACCEPT NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR. I'LL NOMINATE MATT PROFIT FOR VICE CHAIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? CAN I GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR THOSE IN FAVOR? TWO, THREE. THAT'S ALL 10. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, CAN I GET NOMINATIONS FOR PRO TEM OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I'LL NOMINATE MEREDITH SIEGEL FOR PRO TEM. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? AND CAN I GET A SHOW OF HANDS IN FAVOR FOR COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS AGAIN. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE. THANK YOU, LOGAN. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. LOOK FORWARD TO A FRUITFUL YEAR AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY. [Plats  ] TODAY WE'LL HAVE TWO AGENDAS. THE FIRST AGENDA IS THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA. CASES THAT ARE ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA ARE CASES WHERE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT RE REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND NOBODY HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. ALL ITEMS ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD IN ONE MOTION. THE SECOND AGENDA IS THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA. ANYTHING NOT ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA WILL BE ON INDIVIDUAL. SO RIGHT NOW I HAVE ITEMS 10 AND 11 ARE ON INDIVIDUAL. THAT IS CORRECT. UM, 13 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM ALL CONSIDERATION FOR TODAY'S MEETING. AND, UM, ITEM 10, WHICH, UH, WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL ON ITEM 10. CORRECT? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, I'M GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER SIEGEL AND COMMISSIONER ORIAN TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA FOR, UH, RECUSAL PURPOSES. OKAY. UM, ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON ANY ITEM THAT IS ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA 12 ON? YES, I MOVE TO PROOF CONSENT AGENDA. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROPHET AND WAS IT SECOND? UH, OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILAM STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER PROPHET? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER ILET? YES. CHAIR PECK? YES. MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL. GREAT. SOMEBODY LET OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS BACK IN THE ROOM? YEAH. [00:05:05] ALL RIGHT. IT IS 2 0 5 AND COMMISSIONER UM, ORIENT AND COMMISSIONER SIEGEL HAVE REENTERED [Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments  ] THE MEETING. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALEXA RATANA PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE MIDTOWN AREA REGIONAL CENTER PLAN FROM EMPLOYMENT FLEX MIXED USE AND URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE LOCATED AT 19 0 8 19 12 19 16, 19 20 19 24 AND 1942 NORTH ST. MARY STREET AND 10 0 9 10 15 AND 10 19 EAST EUCLID AVENUE. THERE WERE 62 NOTICES MAILED SEVEN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET. TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. SOJO CROSSING HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AND SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION GAVE NO RESPONSE OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. THERE ARE FOUR IN FAVOR. THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM EMPLOYMENT FLEX MIXED USE AND URBAN MIXED USE TO REGIONAL MIXED USE IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO IDZ THREE HIGH INTENSITY AND FIELD DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH USES PERMITTED IN C TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND UP TO 575 DWELLING UNITS. THE AREA IS COMPRISED OF VARIOUS MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITH SEVERAL REGIONAL MIXED USE PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, THE 3.101 ACRE PROPERTY SPANS MOST OF THE BLOCK AND IS NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES MEETING GENERAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THIS ITEM ON MAY 20TH. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? GOOD AFTERNOON. ASHLEY FAIRMONT KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE. UH, THANK YOU ALL. I I DO HAVE A, A QUICK PRESENTATION. UM, PERFECT. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, SO AS CITY STAFF MENTIONED, THIS IS ABOUT THREE ACRES. IT'S IN WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE THE PEARL DISTRICT. UH, IT'S JUST WEST OF THE PEARL AND IT IS BASICALLY ALMOST AN ENTIRE BLOCK. SO IT'S BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY ST. MARY'S, UH, AND THEN PART EAST PARK TO THE NORTH AND EUCLID TO THE SOUTH. UM, WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THIS SITE IS INDUSTRIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NO LONGER USED IN THAT WAY. UM, THERE'S A MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING ON THE CORNER. SOME SAPD TRUCKS ARE STORED THERE. UM, IT'S IN A, IT'S A SITE THAT'S IN NEED FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND I THINK EVERYONE WOULD AGREE ON THAT. UH, SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO CHANGE FROM THAT EMPLOYMENT FLEX MIXED USE AND URBAN MIXED USE. IT'S A COMBO OF THE TWO TO THE REGIONAL MIXED USE. UH, THE PURPOSE OF THAT, WE ARE ASKING FOR AN IDZ THREE ZONING REQUEST FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION. UM, THE IDZ THREE WOULD BE LIMITED TO C TWO USES, SO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING, UH, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR MULTIFAMILY ON THE SITE. UM, THE EMPLOYMENT FLEX MIXED USE IS CAPPED AT 33 UNITS AN ACRE. THE URBAN MIXED USE IS CAPPED AT 40 UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR UP TO 120 ISH UNITS OR SO ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. UM, WHICH IN THIS AREA AS IT'S REDEVELOPED, MOST OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE, ARE FAR MORE DENSE THAN THAT. AND SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS MAP IS A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, UH, EXISTING ZONING, UM, INCONSISTENT, MOSTLY WITH USE, BUT A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND MIXED RESIDENTIAL ON THE SITE NOW. UH, SO I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF HEADWALL INVESTMENTS. THEY ARE THE DEVELOPER AND WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT. UM, AGAIN, IT IS PROPOSED FOR MIXED USE. HEADWALL DOES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ALSO HISTORIC REHABILITATION. THEY OFFICE IN TOBIN HILL, THEY ARE A LOCAL, UH, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FIRM WHOSE INTEREST IS INFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS AREA. JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR, ACTUALLY THEIR CURRENT OFFICE BUILDING. UH, SO HERE'S A, A SITE PLAN. SO THE, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES. UM, AGAIN, SO PHASE ONE WOULD BE A MIXTURE OF THIS. THIS IS A PARKING GARAGE, UM, MULTIFAMILY ON TOP OF THAT PARKING GARAGE. AND THEN COMMERCIAL FRONTING ON ST. MARY'S. SO A LITTLE LESS THAN 9,000 SQUARE FEET [00:10:01] OF COMMERCIAL. AND IT'S PROPOSED FOR 350 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. UH, THIS HERE WOULD BE PHASE TWO. RIGHT NOW IT'S PROPOSED FOR OFFICE. UH, THERE IS POTENTIAL THOUGH THAT IT COULD BE MULTIFAMILY JUST DEPENDING ON DEMAND AND WHAT HAPPENS IN PHASE ONE. UM, AS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE ARE IN NEED OF, OF MORE HOUSING IN SAN ANTONIO, AND THIS AREA IS ACTUALLY IN, IN DEMAND STILL FOR MULTIFAMILY COMPARED TO SOME OF THE AREAS THAT AREN'T ANYMORE. UH, SO HERE IS, IS JUST THE SITE PLAN OF PHASE ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE MULTIFAMILY. UM, BASICALLY A FEW STORIES UP ABOVE THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE COMMERCIAL. SO HERE'S, UH, A RENDERING OF THE BUILDING AND A FEW THINGS THAT I WANNA POINT OUT. UM, SO THIS CORNER CURRENTLY IS A GAS STATION THAT IS THERE NOW, AND IT'S NOT PROPOSED TO BE PART OF THE PROJECT, BUT IF IT COULD BE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT CURRENTLY NOT. UM, SO THIS WOULD BE THE GROUND LEVEL RETAIL, AND THEN ABOVE THAT WOULD BE THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE PARKING, WHICH YOU, YOU CAN'T SEE. UH, WE WORKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH TOBIN HILL. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION TODAY. THEIR MAIN POINT OF OPPOSITION, I THINK YOU WILL HEAR, BUT FROM WHAT THEY'VE EXPRESSED TO US IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT. UH, THEY, THEY THINK IT'S TOO TALL. WE THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE AND WE THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'RE SEEING AT THE PEARL. UM, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST VERSION OF THIS RENDERING. UM, HEAD WALL HAS WORKED REALLY HARD WITH OUR ARCHITECT TO STEP THE BUILDING BACK FROM ST. MARY'S. SO IT'S, I KNOW IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW, BUT PART OF THE ZONING AND PART OF THE IDZ INCLUDE, UH, REQUIRED SETBACKS, UM, AND BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. SO IN ORDER TO KIND OF OFFSET WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE FROM ST. MARY'S AND THE IMPACT, THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE PEDESTRIAN SPACE AND LIKE, UM, LANDSCAPING OPEN SPACE ALONG ST. MARY'S LIMITATION ON BUILDING STORIES OF THE COMMERCIAL. AND THEN YOU TAKE A STEP BACK AND A STEP BACK AND A STEP BACK. UM, AND SO THAT'S THE IDEA BEHIND THIS RENDERING. AND THEN, UM, THAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED AND HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ZONING REQUEST. JUST A FEW MORE VIEWS. UH, THIS WAS JUST A, A MAP THAT WE HAD PUT TOGETHER ABOUT PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND UNDER DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE PEARL AREA. AND AGAIN, WE ARE THE, THE STAR ON THAT MAP AND WE THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OF THE AREA. UM, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND AND WHAT'S COMING. UH, THIS IS THAT IDZ PLAN I MENTIONED. JUST SO WE HAVE IT, I KNOW WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO THAT DETAIL, BUT IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. UH, SO WITH THAT I WILL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. JUST REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU ASHLEY. UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO THE VOICEMAIL THIS TIME. UH, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, CALLING ABOUT CASE NUMBER 0 2 3 ON EAST PARK AND EAST EUCLID, UH, AND NORTH ST. MARY'S. UH, THIS IS OUR OFFICIAL STATEMENT AS PRESENTED TODAY. WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE REQUEST FIRST. WE THINK THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE COMPLETE TO INCLUDE 1928 NORTH ST. MARY'S. IT'S PURPORTED TO BE UNDER CONTRACT AS OF TODAY, BUT IT'S STILL NOT PART OF THE PROJECT REQUEST. AN ELDERLY WOMAN CURRENTLY LIVES THERE AND IF IT IS NOT PART OF THE PROJECT, SHE WILL BE LIVING NEXT TO A TOWER OF A STRUCTURE ON THREE SIDES OF HER PROPERTY. THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THIS PARCEL OR HAVE AN APPLICATION FILED CONCURRENTLY TO SHOW IT IS UNDER CONTRACT AND PART OF THE PROJECT OR THE PROJECT NEEDS TO BE WITHDRAWN AND RESUBMITTED. AS TO THE ACTUAL REQUEST, THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS 185 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS THREE TIMES WHAT IS ALLOWED IN REGIONAL MIXED USE OF MF 65 AND FIVE TIMES. WHAT IS ALLOWED IN URBAN MIXED USE. MF 40 AND FLEX MIXED USE MF 33. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED DOWNTOWN NEXT TO SOME HIGH RISE BUILDINGS AND IT IS NOT LOCATED AT THE PEARL COMPLEX OR EVEN ADJACENT TO IT. THIS PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON EAST PARK AVENUE TO THE EAST AND DIRECTLY TO THE WEST. ACROSS NORTH ST. MARY STREET IS OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE NEWEST SITE PLAN AND HEIGHT RENDERINGS SH THAT THEY PROVIDED SHOW NINE STORIES OR 92 FEET TALL ABOVE GRADE WITH A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THIS IDZ CHANGE THAT BECOMES 101 FEET. THIS IS FAR AND AWAY TOO TALL AT THIS LOCATION. IT'S PERFECTLY FINE. THREE BLOCKS EAST AT THE PEARL OR WOULD STAFF LOOSELY REFER TO AS IN THE AREA, QUOTE UNQUOTE IN THEIR ANALYSIS, BUT NOT AT THIS LOCATION. TWO BLOCKS DIRECTLY NORTH OF THIS GROUP OF PROPERTIES. WE SUPPORTED A PROJECT LAST YEAR THAT DIRECTLY ABUTS NORTH ST. MARY'S AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 78 FEET. WE DID THIS BY USING LOWER HEIGHTS, 35 FEET ALONG NORTH ST. MARY'S AND STEPPING IT UP [00:15:01] PROGRESSIVELY TALLER, GOING TOWARD THE RIVER. WE WOULD SUPPORT A PROJECT. AND THE 70 TO 75 FOOT RANGE AT THIS LOCATION DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS SITE IS A 50 FOOT PLUS APARTMENT BUILDING THAT WE SUPPORTED LAST YEAR, AS WELL AS SOME SIMILAR SIZED TOWN HOMES. AND THEY FIT WELL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF THE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN HIGH INTENSITY TO THE EAST OF ST. MARY'S AND OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CORE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST OF ST. MARY'S. WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT DENSITY PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WE SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE TO ALLOW 195 UNITS TO BE BUILT ALONG WITH THE MIXED USE COMPONENT FOR COMMERCIAL AND TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 72 FEET. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. SO WE'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND WE'LL START ON THE LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER LOPEZ. UM, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR ON THE HOLDOUT? 'CAUSE I, THAT'S AN INTERESTING, I OBVIOUSLY WE ALL SEE IT IN THE, IN THE MAP, BUT, UM, UH, I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS A HOLDOUT. UM, WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH HER AND HER FAMILY, UM, AND HAVE ACTUALLY WORKING ON AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE. UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T BRING THEM ALL FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT'S COMPLICATED AND WE HAVE CON CONTRACTUAL DEADLINES WITH ALL OF THE OTHER OWNERS. UM, BUT WORKING WITH HER SHOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON THAT SOON SO THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT. UM, AND SHE DID RETURN HER NOTICE AND SUPPORT OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE REZONING. SO, AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE HEIGHT, I MEAN, THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'VE, I'VE, I'VE WATCHED THIS AREA DEVELOP OVER THE LAST 10 PLUS YEARS AND THEY MAKE A INTERESTING POINT ABOUT HOW THEY'RE, THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT AT ST. MARY'S AND JOSEPHINE IS WHAT, 70 SOME ODD FEET AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF 50 FOOTERS. THIS IS A BIG JUMP ABOVE IT. AND I ASSUME THERE'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT YOU'VE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT THE, THIS PROJECT IS FEASIBLE ONLY AT THAT HEIGHT. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING? UNFORTUNATELY, YES. AND, AND THE PROJECT ACTUALLY STARTED A LITTLE WITH A 10TH STORY . WE ORIGINALLY HAD, UM, WE ARE DOWN TO NINE WITH THAT TOP STORY. CAN I SURE. UM, BEING ALMOST 50 FEET, NO MORE THAN 50 FEET SET BACK FROM ST. MARY'S TO TRY TO LESSEN THAT IMPACT. THE ECONOMICS OF IT ARE A CHALLENGE. UM, IF WE COULD DO IT AT A LOWER HEIGHT, THEY'D DO IT AT A LOWER HEIGHT. UM, PERFECT. CAN I, OKAY, SO THIS IS AN EXHIBIT THAT, UM, THE ARCHITECTS PUT TOGETHER JUST SHOWING, SO THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS BLOCK WOULD BE IF THERE WAS A SIX STORY BUILDING BUILT UP ON ST. MARY'S. UM, AND THEN WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE AND, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AND ACTUALLY WOULD BE MORE IMPACTFUL. UM, AND SO THEN THIS IS KINDA SHOWING HOW WE'VE STEPPED IT BACK AND THE MAJORITY OF THAT NINTH STORY IS, IS BACK HERE AT THIS LINE. SO, UM, YEAH, I MEAN, WE UNDERSTAND THE, THE QUESTIONS CONCERNS ON HEIGHT AND HAVE, HAVE WORKED, TRIED TO WORK WITH TOBIN HILL ON IT AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S BEEN A VERY CORDIAL AND PRODUCTIVE PROCESS. UH, THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, BUT UH, UNFORTUNATELY THEY JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS, THIS TALL. SO NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ. NO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO, UM, WHAT IS THE, FOR STAFF, WHAT IS A MAX HEIGHT, UH, FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, UM, WITHOUT A VARIANCE. IS IT A HUNDRED FEET OR 150 FEET OR SOMETHING? DOWNTOWN AND IDZ THREE, WELL, NOT D BUT THIS IS, BUT FOR WHERE THIS WOULD BE, IS THERE A MAX HEIGHT? UM, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, JUST TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, THE HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE PURSUING, IS IT, WHERE IS IT IN RELATION TO WHAT THE MAXIMUM YOU COULD BUILD WITHOUT A VARIANCE? UM, THE, SO THEY'RE GOING FOR IDZ THREE, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A, UM, HEIGHT MAX. UM, IT COULD BE ANY HEIGHT AND THEN THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER OVERLAYS, LIKE AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY. THAT'S THE ONE I'M GETTING AT. WHAT ISN'T THAT ONE? LIKE 150 FEET OR SOMETHING? I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY TALLER. 200. 200. SO, SO EVEN AT 70 OR 80 FEET, YOU'RE STILL WELL BELOW THE SAFETY PROVISIONS FOR THE AIRPORT. I WAS GONNA SAY THE, THE AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY IS GENERALLY 200 FEET NEAR THE AIRPORT. THE FARTHER AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT, THE HIGHER THAT INCREASES, SO YOU'RE PROBABLY HUNDRED SIX FEET. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO, JUST WANTED TO GET THAT IN PERSPECTIVE. AND THEN WOULD IF WHEN THIS CONTRACT, IF THIS CONTRACT FOR SALE GOES THROUGH, DO YOU HAVE TO COME BACK HERE TO DO ANOTHER PLAN AMENDMENT TO GET, OR OR CAN THIS THING MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT, WITHOUT THAT SMALL PIECE? SO, SO THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE SMALL PIECE, UM, WORKS AND HAS BEEN SITE PLANNED. OKAY. IN THE EVENT WE DON'T GET IT. WHAT THE OTHER THING TO, I DIDN'T POINT OUT THAT I DO WANNA POINT OUT, AND IT'S PART OF OUR IDZ PLAN IS [00:20:01] ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HEARD FROM TOBIN HILL WAS WE'D LIKE EASY ACCESS, EXCUSE ME, EASY ACCESS TO THE PEARL, EASY WALKING ACCESS. WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BLOCK. SO THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE, UM, A PEO THROUGH THE PHASES. SO THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK THROUGH THE MIDDLE, AND THAT WOULD BE KIND OF AT LEAST RIGHT SOUTH OF HER HOUSE IN THE EVENT THAT THAT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD. UM, SO THERE WOULD BE A BREAK THERE AND A, A SETBACK THERE. WE DO HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, BUT ON YOUR OTHER QUESTION, WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A PLAN AMENDMENT AND A REZONING OF THAT PIECE. OKAY. THAT'S THE INTENT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? NO QUESTIONS. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. YEAH, I THINK A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP TODAY ARE GONNA BE, HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT ZONING. UM, FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, I CONCUR WITH WHAT THE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL SUPPORT. AND I'M CURIOUS, ASHLEY, IS IT GONNA BE MF 65 THEN NO FOR 575 APARTMENTS? WHAT DOES THAT WORK OUT TO? UM, IT WORKS OUT TO, I THINK IT WOULD BE 185 UNITS AN ACRE. SO, AND I KNOW THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT MF 65 IN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE. UM, NOTHING AT THE PEARL IS MF 65. NO, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT DOES IT. UH, IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL WELL OVER THAT AND MOSTLY OVER A HUNDRED UNITS AN ACRE. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE REGIONAL MIXED USE IS FOR. YEAH. I JUST ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT'S WHY THE IDZ THREE TO NOT HAVE THAT MINIMUM OR THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW, UM, HIGHER DENSITIES. RIGHT. OKAY. AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING US THAT GRAPH WITH THE SETBACKS THAT, THAT REALLY ADDRESSED MY ONLY CONCERN, WHICH WAS LOOMING YES. LOOMING NESS OR IF THAT'S A WORD, . YES. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. WELL I'LL SUPPORT THIS TOO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEAUTIFUL. YEAH, NO QUESTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, NO, I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. I THINK THAT THE REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT MAKES SENSE FOR THE AREA AND IT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL END RESULT. SO CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT. IF ANY, IF THERE'S NO MORE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MILAM. STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER ILET? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES. CHAIR PECK? YES. MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 11. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO THE MAY 28TH MEETING. OKAY. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON ITEM 11 AT THIS TIME? MOTION TO, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THEY'RE STILL CONTINUING IT. , I BELIEVE, UM, THAT THEY'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN PROXIMITY, JUST TO MAKE SURE CLEAR UP ANY CONCERNS. OKAY. DO THEY, DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? I'M GONNA GIVE THIS TO THE CASE MANAGER. YEAH. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS A LITTLE BIT WORRIED SINCE THE REQUEST IS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. UM, AND SO, UH, MUCH OF THE AREA IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, SO THEY'RE TRYING TO JUST MITIGATE ANY, ANY OF THOSE ISSUES WITH NEIGHBORS. OKAY. WELL, I'LL, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE IT THE CONTINUANCE SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONTINUANCE BY COMMISSIONER MILAM AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT. THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES. COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER ROULETTE? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. CHAIR PECK? YES. MOTION PASSES FOR CONTINUANCE. GREAT. OKAY, I GUESS THAT'S EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT? NO STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. GREAT. WELL THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS. IT IS 2 24 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.