"Or at SanTan" plan seeks mixed‑use rezoning to add 366 multifamily units; staff and commissioners question commercial floor‑area metrics and parking reductions

Sandra Childers, planner, presented a general plan amendment and rezoning study session for a project referred to in the hearing as “Or at SanTan” (the transcript used a variant spelling). The applicant proposes to change about 4.05 acres from Regional Commercial to Residential >25–52 du/acre and rezone to Mixed Use Large, yielding approximately 366 multifamily units with a gross density of about 25.7 dwelling units per acre. The project includes three buildings totaling roughly 460,000 square feet of multifamily and about 9,100 square feet of office space (about 98% multifamily by floor area).

Why it matters: The request would substantially increase residential intensity on a site currently planned for regional commercial uses in the Vela Vista Square PAD and raises questions about the extent and location of non‑residential uses required by the LDC for mixed‑use rezonings.

Key staff points and deviations: Childers explained two principal deviation requests: one revises how the code’s required 20% non‑residential “floor area” is calculated (applicant proposes to measure only ground‑floor commercial area and to exclude garage slabs from the denominator), which reduces the apparent share of non‑residential space to approximately 7.5% of ground floor or roughly 1.9% of total building floor area using staff’s interpretation. Staff emphasized that the LDC language refers to floor area (total building floor area), and if interpreted literally the provided non‑residential square footage amounts to about 1.9% rather than the 20% floor‑area target. The applicant also seeks a modification to the build‑to line because existing easements prevent placing buildings closer to the right‑of‑way.

Parking and other outstanding items: The applicant has requested minor parking reductions relying on a parking study; staff said that a parking analysis has not yet been submitted to justify reductions and that staff is still coordinating how to count deferred parking spots (a previous administrative use permit placed an extra 45 parking spots obligation on the subject site to serve a nearby project). Childers said some aspects — including a fire variance to achieve certain building orientations and parking justification — remain outstanding and will be addressed in subsequent reviews.

Commission reaction: Commissioners were concerned the proposed calculation substantially reduces the required commercial component for a project that staff said is about 98% multifamily by building floor area. Commissioner Simon suggested staff and the commission may need clearer code guidance on whether “floor area” for the 20% commercial expectation should mean total building floor area or only ground floor; staff said they interpret the code to mean total floor area. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide a robust parking justification and to consider increasing the ground‑floor non‑residential program if the intent of mixed use is to include active street‑facing uses.

What’s next: This was a study session; no vote was taken. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the deviation requests, the parking analysis and the fire‑access variance. The commission asked staff to clarify code interpretation for floor‑area calculations in future hearings or code amendments.

Ending: The project proposes hundreds of multifamily units in a location currently designated for larger commercial uses; the commission sought clarity on LDC interpretation for required mixed‑use commercial floor area and asked for a parking study and other outstanding analyses before a formal rezoning hearing.