Planning Commission backs rezoning for Midtown block near Pearl, despite neighborhood opposition

The San Antonio Planning Commission on May 14 voted unanimously to support an applicant request to amend the Midtown Area regional center plan and pursue IDZ 3 (high‑intensity infill) zoning for a roughly 3.101‑acre block bounded by North St. Mary’s, East Park and East Euclid avenues, a project the developer says could include up to 575 dwelling units. Staff recommended approval and the zoning commission is set to review the rezoning request on May 20.

The plan amendment would change the property’s land‑use designation from a mix of employment‑flex mixed use and urban mixed use to regional mixed use and would allow zoning to IDZ 3 with uses limited to those allowed in a C‑2 commercial district. Alexa Ratana, planner with Development Services, told the commission 62 notices were mailed for the case, with seven responses in favor and none opposed within 200 feet; four additional responses in favor came from beyond the 200‑foot notice area. Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association registered opposition, the staff report said.

Ashley Fairmont, representing developer Headwall Investments, said the site is “in need of redevelopment” and described the project as a two‑phase mixed‑use development with ground‑floor commercial fronting St. Mary’s and multifamily above. Fairmont said phase one is proposed as a parking garage with multifamily above and about 9,000 square feet of commercial space and would deliver roughly 350 units; a second phase is currently shown as office but could become multifamily depending on market demand. The applicant said the employment‑flex and urban mixed‑use designations limit densities to about 33 and 40 units per acre, respectively, and that the IDZ 3 request is intended to allow a density consistent with recent development in the Pearl area.

A voicemail submitted by the Tobin Hill Community Association’s zoning and development chair said the association cannot support the request as presented. The voicemail argued the application’s site plan should include 1928 North St. Mary’s (reported in the voicemail as purportedly under contract) or be withdrawn; it also said the proposed density equates to about 185 units per acre and that the building mass and height (a rendering showing nine stories, roughly 92 feet, with a minor IDZ amendment pushing a portion to 101 feet) are too tall for the location next to single‑family homes. The voicemail offered an alternative proposal allowing about 195 units and a 72‑foot height limit.

Commissioners questioned the applicant on two recurring concerns: a single parcel not yet under contract (characterized by the applicant as being under negotiation and whose resident had returned a notice in support) and the project’s height. Fairmont said the applicant had reduced the scheme from an earlier 10th story to nine stories, stepped the massing back from St. Mary’s, and planned pedestrian access (a paseo) through the block to improve walking connections to the Pearl even if the remaining parcel is not included immediately.

Commissioner Lopez said the discussion reflected familiar neighborhood concerns about “loomingness” and asked whether the project’s economics required the taller building; Fairmont replied that economics make lower heights challenging. Staff noted IDZ 3 has no specific height maximum in this location, though projects must still comply with overlays such as the airport hazard overlay.

After discussion, Commissioner Meredith Siegel moved to support the applicant’s request; Commissioner Milam seconded. The motion passed on a roll call vote with all commissioners voting yes.

Votes at a glance • Consent agenda — Motion to approve the consent agenda passed by roll call (approval recorded in meeting transcript). Specific items included on the consent agenda were not specified on the record. • Case 10 (plan amendment / rezoning for 1908–1919 East Euclid Avenue block) — Motion to support the applicant’s request passed (mover: Commissioner Siegel; second: Commissioner Milam). Outcome: approved; staff had recommended approval. • Case 11 — Request for a two‑week continuance to May 28; motion to continue passed on roll call (mover: Commissioner Milam; second: Commissioner Prophet). Outcome: continued to May 28.

The commission’s action advances the applicant’s plan amendment and rezoning request to the next stage of review. The Zoning Commission will consider the rezoning request on May 20; the record shows neighborhood concern about height, density and the status of one parcel remains unresolved and could be addressed in subsequent hearings or in the zoning review.