Good afternoon. We are going to call this, regular meeting of the city plan commission to order. Today is Tuesday, 08/19/2025. It is 04:48PM. We will call this meeting to order and do a roll call starting with Noel.
Noel Sanchez. Charlotte Lipchitz. Sid McKenna. Miguel Casado.
Sharion, manager card, DPD staff. Bob Ezar, DPD staff.
Sharon Gardner, legal counsel.
And I am Michael Gasdaco, chair. Next up is approval of minutes from the 07/15/2025 meeting. Hopefully, you all received them in advance, had a chance to review them. If you have any changes, edits, concerns with the the meeting minutes as drafted, please voice them now. If not, I'll take a motion to approve as drafted.
I'll make a motion to approve. Right. We have a motion. Do have a second?
K. We have a we have a fully formed motion.
All in favor of approving the minutes from July 15 as drafted, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay.
The minutes are approved. And next up is the director's report.
Okay. The only thing I wanted to, talk about is our design standards committee that continues to meet. We have a meeting tomorrow. We have planned for this to be the last meeting, although there may be some additional cleanup, and we hope to have some draft, design regulations to you, if not next month, then the month after. So that that's, moving along very well.
Good. That's exciting. Yeah.
Alright. Then with that, we will jump into the first agenda item, which is a request for extension. It's case number 23Dash065MI125TobyStreet.
If you don't call me on behalf of, the applicant. Specific to, 125 Toby.
to 125 Toby. This project is, basically earmarked to be an
affordable project as part
of a commitment that the client made to the council person. The challenge with the affordability has been identifying what programs will be applicable and, whether or not eight law will be applicable. Our request for an extension, there is no limit in the extension time period, so we would request a two year extension. Even in the absence of, eight law, the in practice, the TSA procedure is remarkably long to the point of indefinite. There is no way for us to actually get a formal hearing.
We can keep requesting it, but it will be scheduled at the council's pleasure. It is also going through finance committee. Finance committee in and of itself is undergoing a structural change. We've been pursuing on each of the projects I'm here in front of you today. One form of a TSA or another is involved, and we have absolutely no clarity on when that process will conclude.
So we're kind of caught between you're required to get entitlements in order to process a TSA. There's a deadline for, taking action on the entitlements, but no deadline for when the council needs to review the TSA application. So they can kind of not hear us indefinitely, and there's not a lot we can do about it. And we don't know whether or the project pencils. Well, we know it doesn't pencil at market.
We don't know, depending on the TSA that they grant or the final form of eight law, we don't know whether or not the project pencils.
Okay. So the what is the reason you haven't recorded the final plan or submitted the final final plan? Because once you do that, it's proof. There's no expiration. Right?
Then it's recorded, and it's it's good.
Basically, the same outline. It it's how much more funds do we want to expend with the uncertainty of whether or not we can ever actually build it. And when I say whether or not we can build it, I mean, from a financial standpoint.
Now this was this I think most of these were put through because you have the are you on two and three as well? We're we're just talking about one anyway. So let's I
believe all the one engines.
This was in 2023 before the regulations changed as far as, dimensional, the size of the building, the height when when we updated our regulations. Right?
I am very confident that applies to '20 America and '64 America. I am not a 100% sure how that applies to 01/25, Toby, but I I don't dispute it. They're all on the same time period.
Because this this is basically the 125 Toby is building on the the left, if I'm looking at it straight from Toby Street. It's building another building on the left side next to the building that's already been built as I recall. Correct? Yes. Okay.
And how many units was that?
I believe we were at 16. But that number may reduce depending on what the tax handling of the.
this is zoned, I believe, this portion are lower. Yeah. Mister chair? Mhmm. Yeah.
So so just to just to kind of elaborate for the commission's benefit,
All three of these projects sought a zoning change to r four, and, this preceded the comprehensive plan. This preceded the larger upzoning that that we did in the city. For all of these projects, all around them now is r four. So these would have been rezoned r four had they not been previously. I believe the only difference between the r four that was granted in conjunction with each of these land development projects and what r four would afford today is that for these, the dwelling unit density is higher than what would be allowed today.
And I believe that they're seeking so so, also, there's been a change in the land development regulations in a way that each of these projects, if they came in today and they were fully compliant with r four, they wouldn't have to come to the city plan commission. They would be approved administratively. Yeah. So if you had a project that was vested under today's r four regulations, and you needed more time and it expired, all you'd have to do is reapply and get it administratively approved. I think what's happening here is that these projects have vesting for something that's more more, intensive than is permitted under the existing regulations.
If these expire, they can't come back and get the same thing reinstated. Yeah.
I think that's kind of what I was asking because the we updated the comp plan and and the dimensional regulations, to better fit based on a lot of products that were coming in with this new r four that we had started utilizing to sort of right size everything and make it feel like it was appropriate. And and and I'm wondering
if that applies to these loss. And I'm
I'm just asking the question like this. This is not the this is not I think for each of these, it's not the outrageous scenario that was posed in at least one other project that that you might be thinking, oh, yeah. But you should know that this is different than what the comp plan and the zoning says today. And, you know, I would argue that one of the reasons for having these expirations is so that if the city decides it wants to go in a different direction, it's not, you know, bound forever to accept a a project. Like you mentioned earlier, all you gotta do is record final plan, and you're vested forever.
Correct. So they don't wanna do that. These projects have been in the pipeline since since late twenty twenty three. Right. I sympathize with with mister Conley with respect to the tax stabilization plan.
I think there is a, it is something that's not predictable. You can't count on the council to hear something within a certain amount of time or approve something, for any or or or deny something for any reason or no reason. Right. And there is some if this if these were one or more of these were to be an affordable project, it's unclear if they would qualify for APWA today or under a new law that might be approved. So, you know, if you feel like the if you feel like you you're still supportive of these projects because they're good projects because they're adding housing housing in the neighborhood, then I think an an extension is appropriate.
My personal opinion is that two years is too long. That's just what I wrote here. Maybe one year.
Yeah. I I don't think this should go on forever indefinitely. I I think I mean, I empathize with your your your, trouble with the the council and and having them, you know, solidify any financial incentives. But, again, it's it's not I don't think it's a heavy lift to to file final plan. And and I think that if you're serious about the project, I think that's what should happen.
Or the project goes away and, you know, someone else comes in and builds something that's within the regulations today, it's and much easier to do today than it was two years ago when we heard you the first time on this one. So this is 16 units or less on Toby? Yes. And you can say unequivocally that this is intended to be mixed income or moderate or low income housing? Yes.
Some some sort of threshold income threshold? Yes. Okay. Well, then with that in mind, I I definitely am I'm supportive of continuing this, especially if it wouldn't it may not meet that requirement or threshold if it were under today's, but I do say one year, I think, is more than enough time.
Can I ask one question? Do folks from the planning department know what how many units would be allowed by today? Our four Okay. For
That that's a good question. So what we have just I'm just looking back at our records. We have this as a 14 unit apartment building and 125 Toby. Bear with me just just a minute here. This is a little, I can't give you This is hard because it's kind
of splitting the parcel down middle.
