[00:00:07]
ALL RIGHT.THANK YOU, AMY, FOR HELPING US OUT.
[ Reading of the Agenda]
OH FIVE ON TUESDAY, MAY 12TH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.WE HAVE A QUORUM, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, VERSUS OUR, UH, COMMISSIONER LAYTON, BURWELL MENDOZA AND TYKE ARE ABSENT AT THE MOMENT.
UM, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CHANGES FROM LAST TIME COMMISSIONERS WHO RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM YOU, INCLUDING BOBBY LEVINSKY ABOUT US BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF CITIZENS WHILE THEY'RE PROVIDING TESTIMONY ON DISCUSSING CASES.
AND SO, UM, WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO DO DIFFERENTLY TODAY IS TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE A DISCUSSION CASE AND ALLOW, UH, AB AND THE CALLERS TO GET LINED UP AND IN QUEUE.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE UP THE DISCUSSION CASE, BUT WE'LL DO THAT BEFORE EACH DISCUSSION CASE AND WE'LL HAVE THE CHANCE TO JUST ASK THEM QUESTIONS, UM, UH, AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
AND, UH, WE CAN ALSO, UM, SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU WRITE THEIR NAMES DOWN.
AND SO IF YOU KNOW WHO YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.
UH, ALSO WE HAD SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES LAST TIME, SO A COUPLE OF IMPROVEMENTS WERE DONE.
WE JUST WANT TO BE, UH, AWARE THAT THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF SECONDS LAG IN THE AUDIO AND A COUPLE OF MINUTES OF DELAY ON ATX AND WHETHER YOU'RE ON WATCHING ON THE WEBSITE OR ON TV.
OTHER THAN THAT, I'M MUTE WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING.
UH, HAVE YOU READ IN GREEN ANDY FOR ANA AND I WILL BEGIN BY, UH, READING THE AGENDA.
SO ITEM EIGHT ONE IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 28 ITEM B ONE SP 20 1402 SIX TWO C X T TO CA LANTANA BLOCK P THREE IS A DISCUSSION CASE ITEM B TO REZONING A C 14 2019 ZERO ZERO ZERO THREE THE ANTENNA BLOCK PILAT THREE.
THIS IS ALSO DISCUSSION CASE AND TYPE TWO B ONE B THREE IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT 1485 TO 88 AT EIGHT RCA FIVE LANTANA BLOCK P LOT THREE IS ALSO A DISCUSSION CASE RELATED TO B ONE AND B.
SEE 14 2020 OH OH SEVEN, 2001 GUADALUPE.
NPA, 20 2003 ONE DOT OH ONE 88 OH THREE NORTH MOPAC.
THIS IS ON CONSENT ITEM SIX RESULTING.
SEE 1420 2001 THREE 88 OH THREE NORTH MOPAC.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO ON CONSENT
THIS IS POSTPONED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAY 26TH ITEM B EIGHT REZONING C 14 2019 OH 98 SHADY LANE MIXED USE.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO POSTPONED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAY 26TH ITEM NINE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT.
20 1702 ONE DOT OH ONE 45 30 EAST BEN WHITE.
THIS ONE IS A DISCUSSION CASE B.
10 REZONING C 1420 1901 SIX SEVEN 45 30 EAST BEN WHITE.
THIS ONE IS ALSO A DISCUSSION ITEM RELATED TO BENIGN.
11 C EIGHT 1420 1801 TWO ONE TWO 18 SOUTH LAMAR.
B12 C 14 2020 OH OH THREE TO A FREEDMAN'S.
13 C 1420 2003 SIX EIGHT 27 WEST 12TH.
THIS IS ALSO ON CONSENT ITEM B 14 C 1420 1901 OH SEVEN DOT S H DIAMOND 42 THIS WAS POSTPONED BY STAFF TO JUNE 23RD ITEM B 15 AS A RESULTING.
SEE 14 2020 OH OH ONE NINE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT EAST SIDE.
THIS IS ON CONSENT ITEM 16 B 16 IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN.
C EIGHT 20 1901 ONE TWO TWILIGHT GARDENS PRELIMINARY.
CA 20 1903 FIVE OH EIGHT, UH, RE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 34 WALNUT HILLS SECTION FOUR.
[00:05:01]
RESUB DIVISION.CA 20 1901 FOUR ZERO DOT OH EIGHT BUT A LITTLE KENNY SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS ON CONSENT ITEM B 19 IS A RESUB DIVISION.
CA FOUR OH FOUR THREE DOT OH NINE DOT THREE EIGHT DOT S H A BIRKMAN TOWER.
THIS ONE IS POSTPONED BY STAFF TO MAY 26TH.
UH, ITEM 20 IS APPLIED VACATION.
C EIGHT S 78 OH 98, UH, VAC SELLS, UH, SPEAR EDITION.
ITEM 21 IS A SITE PLAN TO P SPC 20 1905 NINE ZERO EIGHT 76 THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BOND WITH THE APPLICANT THROUGH MAY 26TH ITEM B 22 IS A SITE PLAN EXTENSION SPC 20 1404 FOR C X TWO TO SUNSET RIDGE COMMISSION IS 10TH MAN.
AND FINALLY BE 23 RANDOMLY VACATION ONE DEPUTY SIX DASH ONE NINE ZERO ONE THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND WE HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS OR CHAIR? THIS IS SUBMITTING YOUR SHAW.
UM, I, THE REQUESTED THAT WE, UH, DISCUSS, UH, BEFORE IT WAS ON, UH, FOR DISCUSSION LAST TIME AND NOW IT'S BEEN PULLED FOR CONSENT, BUT I STILL HAD QUESTIONS THAT, UM, I FEEL LIKE IT JUST, I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT.
THAT ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER SEEGER PLEASE UNMUTE.
YES, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I SECOND COMMISSIONER SHOT'S REQUEST.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR RECUSALS? MR. ANDERSON? GOOD QUESTION.
SO, UM, I'M GLAD STAFF FIGURED OUT A WAY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SPEAKERS SPEAK ON THE ITEM THAT'S ALSO GOOD THAT HOPEFULLY SPEAKERS DON'T HAVE TO WAIT AROUND TOO LONG.
UM, THEY CAN JUST JOIN FOR THEIR ITEM.
BUT I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE EACH DISCUSSION ITEM AND I'M COUNTING NINE ITEMS. I KNOW SOME OF THESE ARE TOGETHER, BUT IS THE 10 MINUTES, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT 10 MINUTES COULD BE FIVE MINUTES? I'M JUST WORRIED THAT IT'S A LOT OF, A LOT OF RECESS.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO ANDERSON.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY THE FIRST ONE WITH THE 10 MINUTES.
IF, IF STAFF TELLS US THEY ARE, THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IT IN THREE, THEN WE'LL DO FIVE OR SOMETHING.
WE'LL JUST EVOLVE THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT.
THANKS FOR MAKING THAT COMMENT.
ANY OTHER, I'M RECUSING FROM ITEM AND BE 23.
UH, MY STAFF IS WORKING ON THAT RIGHT AWAY VACATION.
SO LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR RECUSALS WELCOME CHEMISTRY AS OUR, ANY OTHER, OKAY.
UM, SO LET'S TAKE UP THE CONSENT ITEMS. I'M GOING TO REFER REAL QUICK TO MY SPEAKER LIST.
[Consent Agenda]
SO THE CONSENT ITEMS, COMMISSIONERS ARE ITEMS, UH, B SIX, UM, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 AND 22 AND THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.DID I MISS ANYTHING? A AND I'M FINE.
DID I MISS THAT INCLUDES FIVE AS WELL.
UH, SO THAT'S THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, I HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNUPS AND NOW WE GET JOSEPH TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
IS MS. JOSEPH ON THE LINE
NO, WE HAVE PLAQUES AND WE'LL WAIT HERE FOR A SECOND.
I INITIALLY SIGNED UP FOR 14, BUT I SENT COMMENTS ON B TWO, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
14 IS POSTPONED AND TWO IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, SO IF YOU'LL MMM.
IF YOU'LL HANG AROUND FOR THAT.
WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET TO THE CONSENT AGENDA DISPOSED AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE DISCUSSION
[00:10:01]
CASES.MS FERRIS, IS THE CONSENT AGENDA CLEAR? IS THERE A MOTION MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SEEGER? SECOND BY MR. ANDERSON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR GREEN ITEM ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS RIGHT ALONG.
WE HAVE TO, IF, IF, UH, IF OUR STAFF LIAISON ANDREW IS ON, WE NEED TO DO 10 MINUTES FOR THIS FIRST ONE AND CAN WE JUMP RIGHT INTO IT? I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL PARTIES AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU ONE, TWO
[Items B1 - B3]
AND THREE ALTOGETHER AND WE HAVE STAFF START US OFF WITH THE PRESENTATION OR, OR JUST THERE AUDIO PRESENTATION.IS ANDY OR WENDY ON THE LINE?
CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU, MICHAEL.
WE'RE UM, STAFF TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
HAPPY TO GIVE THIS PRESENTATION.
WE'RE JUST WAITING ANOTHER MINUTE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS SORTED OUT.
AND SO, UH, I'M GOING TO STEP OUT HERE AT EIGHT 15 AND VICE JERRY CANDY WILL TAKE OVER FOR A FEW MINUTES.
[00:15:06]
ARE THERE ANY STAFF CALL ENTERS.ENTER YOUR ACCESS CODE OR MEETING NUMBER FOLLOWED BY ENTER YOUR ATTENDEE ID NUMBER FOLLOWED BY POUND.
I THINK WE HAVE REESTABLISHED THE CONNECTION.
WE SHOULD BE HEARING THE CALLING STAFF.
WE SHOULD BE HEARING MITCHELL WITH ATD.
THE MISSIONARIES WERE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS.
IT'S SIX 39 WE HAVE A COURTROOM.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANDERSON SHAW AND HOWARD, UM, AREN'T BACK ON YET.
I'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, ITEMS BE ONE, TWO AND THREE.
ANY WOULD YOU, UH, GET US STARTED? YES, SIR.
I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
TODAY WE'RE GOING TO RESUME OUR DISCUSSION OF THE LANTANA BLOCK P LOT THREE PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT.
UM, THERE'S A SUMMARY LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP, UM, THAT OUTLINES THE TERMS. THIS IS A PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT IS USED TO AS A WAY TO SETTLE A DISAGREEMENT, UM, WITH AN APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR VESTED RIGHTS AND IN THIS CASE DAVE MONTANA BLOCK THREE AND BLOCK THREE PROJECTS, UM, HAS FIVE PHASES.
THE FIRST FLOOR HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
UM, AND OUR DISAGREEMENT IS ABOUT ADDING A MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY TO THE
[00:20:01]
PROPOSED SITE PLAN.UM, THE TERMS THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH, UM, ARE THAT PHASE FIVE WOULD BE LIMITED TO 17.6 ACRES THAT ADDS 0.1 ACRE TO THEIR EXISTING ENTITLEMENT, UM, WHICH THEY WILL PROVIDE TREATMENT FOR, UM, TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A DECK FOR THE RESTAURANT.
UM, AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSALS TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY 6.3 TO SIX ACRES KNOWN AS LOT EIGHT BLOCK P, UM, WHICH WILL BECOME PARKLAND.
UM, WE'VE WORKED HARD WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE THE CREDITS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED.
UM, IT'LL BECOME A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FOR THIS.
THE APPLICANT ASKED TO EXTEND UM, BY TWO YEARS THE LIFE OF THE SITE PLAN, UM, TO GIVE THEM TIME.
GIVEN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS, THEY ASKED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS, UM, WHICH WOULD BRING THE LIFE OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OUT TO APRIL 30TH, 2024.
UM, AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT DEDICATE ADDITIONAL LAND TO ACHIEVE A 25% NET SITE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE PHASE FIVE.
THE AFRICAN HAS WORKED TO FIND THAT FINDING AN APPROXIMATE AREA THAT THEY CAN USE.
UM, AND WE'LL BE DOING THAT PRIOR TO RELEASE OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MULTIFAMILY.
UM, IN ADDITION, THERE IS HIS OWN CASE ON THIS AGENDA WITH IT.
UM, THERE WOULD BE A LAW OUT UNDER THE, UH, UNDER THE PCA
I THINK THERE'S A MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSION FROM MR LAVINSKY.
UM, AND STAFF PRESENTS AS A RECOMMEND YOUR APPROVAL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO ITEMS TWO AND THREE? YES.
UH, THIS IS WHEN HE ROSE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S A REZONING REQUEST TO ADD MIXED USE TO UH, THIS PROPERTY AND THAT WOULD BE FOR DEVELOPING UP TO 400 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY AND UH, SO THERE'S TWO TRACKS.
ONE WOULD BE GRM, YOU NP AND ONE WOULD BE CS AND
UM, THERE'S ALSO A RELATED AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO REMOVE THE PROVISION THAT ESTABLISHES THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY OR FAR.
AND UM, STAFF IS SUPPORTING THESE APPLICATIONS, BOTH OF THESE ZONING AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BASED ON THE, UH, SURROUNDING AND SUPPORTING OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES AND ACCESS TO TWO ARTERIAL STREETS AND, UH, COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN APARTMENTS AND THOSE USES.
AND WE FIND THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR UNDER THE PROD UNDER THE TERMS OF THE RELATED PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT.
UM, MICHAEL WHELAN'S LINE IS STILL NOW TO THE AUDIO CONFERENCING CENTER.
PLEASE ENTER A CONFERENCE ID FOLLOWED BY POUND.
UM, SO LIKE I WAS SAYING, MICHAEL VILLAINS LINE IS STILL NOT WORKING.
UM, IF YOU'RE THE MEETING ORGANIZER, PRESS STAR NOW AS ANDY AND WENDY SAID, PROBABLY THE LEADER DUE TO THE MEETING.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SKILLED PATIENTS.
UH, YOU ARE NOW JOINING THE MEETING.
IS THAT TRUE? MR WHELAN? SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE CALLED IN AND WE CAN'T HEAR THE MEETING.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MEETINGS ONGOING.
[00:25:01]
YOU HEAR IT? NO, I CAN'T HEAR IT EITHER.I WAS KIND OF SHOCKED TO HEAR THOUGH MEETING GOING ON.
SO SORRY, ANOTHER 15 MINUTE RECESS OR KNOW WHAT TO DO.
UM, WE'LL SEE YOU BACK AT SEVEN OH ONE MANDY HAND.
UH, AND WENDY ALREADY, SO, OH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW? YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.
MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I AM NOT GOING TO ASK, UH, FOR ANY UH, EXHIBITS.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY A FEW WORDS AND WE WILL MOVE ON.
UH, MICHAEL H WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR AGENDA ITEMS B ONE B TWO AND B THREE.
THIS PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT, AS YOU ALREADY HEARD, IS PART OF A PACKAGE OF THREE CASES ALL RELATED TO ONE PROJECT KNOWN AS LANTANA PHASE FIVE ITEM B ONE ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT.
A B TWO IS THE REZONING AND B3 IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.
EACH OF THESE CASES IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ALLOW LANTANA PHASE FIVE IT'S THE FIFTH OF FIVE PHASES OF A SITE PLAN.
IT'S ALREADY APPROVED PHASES ONE THROUGH FOUR ARE EITHER DONE OR THE LAST HOTEL IS ABOUT TO BE COMPLETED.
IT WILL ALLOW PHASE FIVE TO CONVERT FROM AN OFFICE TO A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, SO STARTING WITH THREE ZONING TO THE SITE TODAY IS ZONED GRN P AND C, S ONE C O N, P, AND WE'RE REQUESTING ALLOWING MULTIFAMILY BY ADDING THE MIXED USE OVERLAY OVER THE ENTIRE SITE.
ALONG WITH THAT, AS YOU HEARD FROM MS. RHODES, WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING IT ITEM B3 WITH ITEM B3 THAT THE CITY DELETED PROVISION FROM A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT PREVIOUSLY LIMITED LEASEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT FIXES THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO IT WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE MULTIFAMILY HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE LEASEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT WE ARE NOT INCREASING THE, WE'RE FIXING IN TIME THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE MAIN ITEM I'LL BE DISCUSSING TODAY THOUGH IS THE PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT BE ONE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
THIS PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT PROVIDES SOME MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENTS.
IT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES TO REPLACE THE TWO PROPOSED OFFICES ON THE SITE PLAN.
IT SETS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE 35.67 ACRE SITE.
THAT AND DEDICATE 6.32 ACRES OF LAND TO THE CITY.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT GETS BUILT OR WHETHER ANYTHING FURTHER GETS BUILT, WE'LL BE DEDICATING 6.32 ACRES SIX MONTHS AFTER THE PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENTS, EFFECTIVE DATE.
UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE ALSO CODE MODIFICATIONS THAT REPRESENT PRIOR AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
AND THOSE ARE LISTED IN MR. LYNN SEASON'S MEMO, WHICH IS PAGES ONE AND TWO OF THE BACKUP.
SO, UH, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE, UH, MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE NEGOTIATION.
THERE WERE SEVERAL PIECES OF THE NEGOTIATION.
ONE PIECE INVOLVED, MAKING SURE THAT WE ADDED LAND SO THAT WE WOULD HIT 40% NATURAL AREA, WHICH IS PART OF THE 6.32 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT WE'LL BE DEDICATING TO PARKS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS, UH, PROJECT CONSENT AGREEMENT.
THE SECOND AGREEMENT, UH, AND THAT WAS, UH, PRIMARILY, UH, UH, INITIATED BY AND CHAMPIONED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF, CHRIS HARRINGTON AND EIGHTH OF PHILLIPS.
AND THEN SECOND, WE AGREED, UH, WORKING THROUGH WITH BOBBY LEVINSKY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE FIVE WOULD REACH 25% NET SITE AREA.
UH, WHICH MEANT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND ADDITIONAL LAND TO REACH THE 25% NET SITE AREA FIGURES 25% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE FACE BOT TO DO SO ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE'S ANOTHER TRACK ACROSS RIALTO AND WE HAVE ADDED, WE WILL BE ADDING A, I THINK IT'LL BE UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL ACRES.
SO IT WILL BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN NINE AND 11 ACRES OF TOTAL LAND
[00:30:01]
THAT WILL BE DEDICATED.THE 6.32 ACRES ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF WILLIAM CANNON AND RIO ALTO AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL, UH, THREE TO FIVE ACRES ACROSS THE STREET IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THAT PARKS HAS DONE TO, UH, MAXIMIZE OR PUT A MAXIMUM LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WILL BE AT THE PARKS, UH, TO FORT.
I'VE AGREED WE'VE AGREED TO 14,100 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE PARK TOO, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I HAVE TO ACHIEVE THE CLIENT HAS TO ACHIEVE 25% NET SITE AREA.
SO ANY ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER BY PARKS MEANS WE HAVE TO FIND ADDITIONAL UPLANDS, ADDITIONAL NET SITE AREA ACROSS THE STREET TO OFFSET THAT AS WELL.
I DO WANT TO A SHOUT OUT CAUSE IT'S TAKEN LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME AND ENERGY.
UM, TO CHRIS HARRINGTON AND NATHAN PHILLIPS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF FROM RANT, RANDY SCOTT, ROBYN HYMENS, THOMAS RAWLINSON FROM PARKS, ERICA LOPEZ FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND UH, ANDY LYNN SPIES IN KIND OF COORDINATING AND LEADING ALL OF THIS.
IT WAS A LOT OF EFFORT AND WORK AND THE STAKEHOLDERS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
BOBBY LAVINSKY SPENT COUNTLESS OF HOURS ON THIS WORKING AND UH, ON THIS TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET TO THIS, UH, 25% NET SITE AREA.
AND ALSO CYNTHIA WILCOX WAS OH HAN, UM, WHO HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER WHICH IS IN YOUR BACKUP.
SHE, UH, DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
SHE WOULD LIKE ME TO SAY, CAUSE SHE COULDN'T BE ON TONIGHT, THAT SHE WOULD HOPE THAT THERE'LL BE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PARK PLANNING AND THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WILL BE USED.
ALTHOUGH SHE RECOGNIZES THAT THE 14,100 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE DEDICATED PARK WILL BE, IS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO HIT THAT MAXIMUM.
SO SHE'S LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH PARKS AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND ANDREW RIVERA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WELL AND GETTING US ALL, UH, HERDED TOGETHER ON THIS.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WELL.
UM, UH, IS THERE, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP IN FAVOR OTHER THAN BOBBY LEVINSKY.
I KNOW THAT HE HAS SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE, UH, ONE OF US TO READ.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
ACTUALLY I CAN JUST, I'LL JUST SAY IT REALLY FAST.
THIS JUST PROBABLY LEVINSKY SABRE SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
UM, ONE OF THE, UH, FIRST THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE NEW PROCESS.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S WORKING OUT, SO I HOPE YOU DON'T CURSE ME TOO MUCH AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, BUT, UM, I DO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SIDE OF THINGS.
BUT, UM, WE SOS IS SUPPORTING THIS, UH, PCA ALONG WITH THE SOS AMENDMENT THAT'S WITHIN IT.
UM, I WANTED TO GET IT ON RECORD THAT THIS IS, UM, BASED ON STRATASYS COMMITMENT TO PRESERVE AS MUCH LAND AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 25% NET SIDE AREA.
MICHAEL HAS WORKED REALLY HARD, UM, TO GET US THERE AND UM, AT THAT 14,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, KEPT IN THE PARKLAND, UM, WAS NOT EASY FOR HIM TO GET.
SO I'M REALLY HOPING THAT THIS CAN MOVE ALONG WITHOUT, UM, MUCH MORE UM, DIFFICULTY.
UH, IT HASN'T BEEN AN EASY PROCESS, UH, FOR SOMETHING THAT IS LARGELY A CONSENT PROJECT.
UM, AND THAT THEY ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT, UM, WHILE THIS ISN'T AN IDEAL SCENARIO, WE OF COURSE PREFER THAT THEY DEVELOP UNDER CURRENT CODE.
UM, GIVEN THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S LOCATION AND UM, THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S REALLY NO BETTER OUTCOME THAT WE COULD GET HERE THAN WHAT THE DEAL IS THAT IS BEFORE YOU.
UM, I THINK THAT IT IS A REALISTIC OUTCOME THAT THEY COULD JUST WALK AWAY AND BUILD AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AND WE WON'T GET IN ANY MORE LAND, UM, PRESERVED IN THE AREA.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO AUSTIN TO PUT THROUGH THIS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WELL.
IF ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP IN FAVOR, I KNOW THAT MS. JOSEPH, I THINK I HEARD THERE SAY B TOO.
MS. JOSEPH STILL ON THE LINE? YES, MR CHAIRMAN, THIS IS AN ELVIA.
JOSEPH, DID YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK NOW? GO AHEAD.
ARE YOU SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF NEUTRAL OR YOU ARE OPPOSED? I'D SAY NEUTRAL.
I'M ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO COMMISSIONER TODD SHAW'S COMMENTS THAT HE HAD IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL.
GO AHEAD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY COMMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO PAGES 24 AND 25 OF 51 IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REVIEW SHEET AND UH,
[00:35:01]
MR. TODD SHAW, THE COMMISSIONER, ACTUALLY APRIL 28TH HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSIT.SPECIFICALLY, HE REFERRED TO AUSTIN UPROOTED STUDY AND I WANTED TO MAKE COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE HIGHER DENSITY.
THE RESPONSE THAT WAS GIVEN BY COUNTY BY THE STAFF SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT HIGHER DENSITY WOULD EQUATE TO ADJACENT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS TO CITY USES AND JOBS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION ON PAGE SIX IT TALKS ABOUT THE AREA BEING CAR CENTRIC.
SPECIFICALLY AN EXAMPLE IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN IS THE DESKTOP PALMER CORRIDOR WHERE YOU HAVE DENSITY AND IT IS ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CORRIDOR IN IMAGINE AUSTIN BUT THERE'S NO TRANSIT SO THE DENSITY DOES EXIST.
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY FIVE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS.
THERE ARE TWO DEVELOPMENTS, PIONEER CROSSING AND PIONEER HILLS.
THERE'S 425 ACRE DEVELOPMENT EAST OF SAMSUNG THAT WILL BE COMING IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND THERE IS NO TRANSIT.
SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THE RESPONSE THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE STAFF WAS A BIT DISINGENUOUS.
IT SAYS, ALTHOUGH THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED ON ANY OF THE CORRIDORS DESCRIBED ABOVE, ONE BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED HIGHER DENSITY APARTMENTS AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS THE ADJACENCY, SAM EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND RETAIL.
AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO REQUEST IN THE FUTURE THAT YOU RECEIVE A MAP FROM CAPITAL METRO THAT SHOWS THE DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN.
AND SO THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO COMPARE TO THE CASES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.
IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT CAP REMAP.
AND THE REASON THAT I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE CAPRI MAP TO THE TRANSIT, UH, EXPERT MEG MERIT.
ON OCTOBER 30TH, THERE WAS A JOINT PROJECT CONNECT A MEETING AND SHE SAID WE'D BEGIN WITH THE LOCAL BUS SERVICE.
THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL GLUE TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
SO WHILE YOU HEAR ME TALK ABOUT TRANSIT, OFTEN THAT'S THE GLUE TO THE SYSTEM FOR HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT.
AT ONE POINT YOU HAVE TO GET OFF THE RAIL AND YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THE BUS NETWORK.
SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT AS YOU MOVE FORWARD, YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS AND YOU ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THE FREQUENT NETWORK IS AT.
IT'S IN SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, AND I AM A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA.
THERE'S, UM, RIALTO IS ABOUT 3.7 MILES FROM CONVICT HILL AND BRUSH COUNTRY AND THERE'S A WATERSHED RESTRICTED AREA THERE.
THERE'S ROUTE THREE 33 THAT RUNS THERE FOR 2.9 BOARDINGS AN HOUR AND RE ALSO IS APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILES FROM OAK HILL SHOPPING CENTER AND THERE'S A NEW SOUTHEAST WEST BUS THAT RUNS THEIR ROUTE THREE ONE FIVE IT'S AN EQUITABLE BUT AT LEAST THE PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY EVENTUALLY HAVE SOME TYPE OF SERVICE AND THERE'S A FREQUENT BUS ROUTE THREE, THREE, THREE ON WILLIAM CANNON AS WELL.
BUT JUST FOR CONTEXT, I JUST WANTED YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE ANSWERS THAT WERE RECEIVED AS IT RELATED TO DENSITY, EQUATING TO GREATER ACCESS IS JUST DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD HAVE GREAT TRANSIT RIGHT HERE IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN ON DESKTOP, PALMER BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG AND THAT'S NON-EXISTENT TODAY.
THE LAST THING I'LL TELL YOU IS THAT THERE WAS A PROJECT CONNECT NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY WHICH SHOWED THE GROWTH IN THE NORTH AREA AND THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL WHEN THEY DID CAT REMAP.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.
IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS, THEY'LL THEY'LL CALL ON YOU.
NOT QUITE AT THIS TIME THOUGH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHERS ON MY LIST.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING LIKE WAYLON, MR. WILSON, DID YOU WANT IT TO USE YOUR REBUTTAL TIME? YEAH, 15 SECONDS AND SHAME ON ME.
THE ONE PERSON I LEFT OUT WHO HAD TO SUFFER WITH ME FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS ON THIS PROJECT IS WENDY RHODES AND SHE DESERVES A SHOUT OUT BECAUSE HE'S MANAGED TO KEEP US MOVING FORWARD AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE FOR HER EFFORTS AS WELL AND CORRALLING US
THANK YOU FOR THAT AND MR WILDLAND AND THANK YOU WENDY.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ONE MORE TIME AND MAKE THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ZIMMER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR GREEN ITEM ANY OPPOSED? CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR THE APPLICANT ATTORNEY OF THE SPEAKERS OR STAFF?
YES, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON THE PARKING FOR THE TENNIS COURTS AND THE TRAILS.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP IT TO A MAXIMUM, BUT IN MY QUESTIONS PER STAFF, I, I ASKED IF THEY HAD CONSIDERED, IF STAFF HAD CONSIDERED ANY OTHER WAYS OF PROVIDING THE PARKING, WHETHER IT BE OFF STREET OFFSITE OR FURTHER, YOU WON'T PAVERS GRAVEL
[00:40:01]
OR SOME COMBINATION BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A HIGHLY SENSITIVE AREA AND I DO OR THAT THEY CONSIDER REDUCING THE NUMBER OF THE PARKING SPACES.AND THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WELL, AND I'VE ACTUALLY CAN ANSWER THAT BECAUSE OF OUR AGREEMENT THAT I'LL LET STAFF
SO COMMISSIONER THE, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, UH, RANDY SCOTT WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND MR WHALEN AND CHRIS HERREN.
TODAY I HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND THEY HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF PARKING, UM, AND ARE PROPOSING TO REALLY JUST HAVE IT FOR ACCESSIBLE USE.
UM, THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT LAST TIME WE WERE COMMISSIONED WITH THIS, UM, HAD A LOT MORE PARKING.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACT SPECIFIC NUMBER.
MR WAYLON CAN PROBABLY TELL YOU, BUT IT HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED AND THE MOUNTIE IN PROGRESS COVER PROPOSED ON THE PARKSIDE WAS ALSO REDUCED.
ANY OTHER FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS OR ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS?
WHAT'S YOUR MOTION? MY MOTION IS ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD VERY GREATLY SUPPORT THIS.
IT'S CAME IN AS A VERY BAD SITUATION THAT ALL THOSE PARTIES, ALL THE PARTIES WORK TOGETHER TO REMEDY IT AND COME OUT WITH THE BEST SITUATION FOR EVERYONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU THE SECOND ON THAT? UH, COMMISSIONER.
SO YOU GUYS, THAT'D BE ONE, TWO AND THREE.
COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER? IF NOT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
MY SECRET SECOND ABOUT HOWARD.
WHERE'S YOUR DREAM? THANK YOU.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
STAFF, APPLICANTS AND SPEAKERS.
[Item B4]
RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM BEEF.MR. SHAW AND COMMISSIONER SEEGER, YOU PULLED THIS ITEM.
DID YOU WANT AN ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION OR DID YOU WANT IT? UH, WELL THIS IS TODD SHAW.
I THINK, UM, I COULD JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I'LL SEE IF, UM, COMMISSIONER SEGER WOULD LIKE ANYTHING PRESENTED WHAT I WAS, YEAH.
AM I UNMUTED AT THIS POINT? NO, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS, UH, THE SIXTH, UH, THEN HEIGHTS ABOVE THE 60 FEET, BUT YET THERE'S NO MENTION OF THE AGREEMENTS WITH AN HCD FOR, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WAS WONDERING WHERE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMES IN THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO BUILD AS HIGH AS HE'S PROPOSING HE OR SHE IS PROPOSING.
STAFF ON THE LINE IS MY GRANDMOTHER LINE.
MARK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT AND SORRY, YES, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT.
UM, THERE ARE NEW PLANS, NEW SITE PLANS, NEW BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR CLOTHES.
UM, THEY TOLD US THAT THEY INTEND TO DEVELOP 66 UNITS.
UM, AND UH, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
UH, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF LETTERS AND CONVERSATIONS.
THE TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, UH, BOTH, YOU KNOW, AND THE, UM, AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED PROGRAM, THOSE PROGRAMS WOULD ALLOW, UM, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, UP TO 65 AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, UH, 75 AND 90 FEET DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEY PROVIDED.
UM, IT IS NOT MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY PLAN TO BUILD, UH, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO REZONE TO PROVIDE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH THOSE PROGRAMS. UM, SO IT IS MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DEVELOP, UM, HOUSING, UH, WITHOUT THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT.
SO THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD HOUSING AT THE 60 FOOT PIPE.
[00:45:01]
HEIGHT IN THE EXISTING BASE ZONE DISTRICT, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, THE CS ZONINGTHEY HAD OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS AND, UM, THEY'RE WILLING TO EVEN ENTER INTO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THAT PURPOSE.
BUT, UM, ON READING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY INTEND TO BUILD ABOVE THE, UH, 60 FEET OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE AFFORDABILITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES.
JUST THERE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS PROJECT AND THAT'S BEEN IN, SIR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SECRET ABS.
TRYING TO DO THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY IF WE CAN SPEAK THROUGH THIS.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, THAT WAS
MR. SHAW, DID YOU WANT TO QUICKLY COMMENT ON YOUR CONCERNS AS SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT? WELL, IT'S JUST FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THE WAY, IN A SIMPLE WAY, WE'RE GIVING ENTITLEMENTS TO, UM, UH, UNDER THE ZONING CHANGE, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, I WOULD PREFER THAT IF WE'RE GIVING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER THIS, NO NEW CHANGE FOR TODAY, WE ARE, UH, WE, UM, WE GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUT OF THIS, UM, OUT OF THIS CHANGE.
UH, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU GET FROM UNO AND, UM, UNDER AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED.
BUT I JUST DON'T SEE A COMMITMENT FOR ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, IS JOHN JOSEPH ON THE LINE? I'M ON THE LINE.
HELLO? HELLO? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TURN THAT SIX MINUTES.
DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS? YES.
UH, WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS AND I THINK THE SALIENT OF THAT IS THAT ON THE SECOND PAGE IT SAYS, I'M FINDING IT QUICKLY.
ADDITIONALLY, ANY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK BONUS PROGRAM.
AUSTIN LDC 25 DASH ONE ARTICLE 15 DIVISION FOUR 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN 2325 DASH ONE SEVEN 25 AND 25 DASH TWO DASH FIVE 18 IT WAS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT AFFORDABILITY WAS A BIG ISSUE TO, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A BIG ISSUE TOO.
UM, THE AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED BONUS PROGRAM.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO COMPLY WITH AND WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, INCORPORATE THAT INTO, UH, A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WILL RUN TO THE LAND.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE THE, YOU KNOW, DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, WHEN WE USE THE EXACT LANGUAGE AND STREETSCAPE INTO THE PROGRAM, INTO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
SO PART OF THIS PROPERTY AND RUN WITH THE LAND.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
IF NOT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS IT FURTHER AND WE MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
I WANT TO USE THOSE TO, UH, THE STAFF AND, AND UM, AND MR. JOSEPH AS THEIR PRESENTATION.
AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER, THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING?
KENNY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR GREEN EYES.
THERE'S FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR, UM, MR. JOSEPH
I GUESS THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I THINK I HAD IT RIGHT HERE SAYING THAT THE HORRIBLE REQUIREMENTS GOING FORWARD WILL BE UNLOCKED, WOULD KICK IN IF YOU DO MIXED USE.
BUT IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DO MIXED USE THAT SOMEONE HELPED ME.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE? RIGHT? SO YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DO MIXED USE WITH INCREASING DIVESTMENTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE INCREASE IN DIABETES IN THAT CASE WITH NON-PARTICIPATION IN DIVORCE PROGRAM.
THIS CAN BE A QUESTION TO THE STAFF OR DO APPLICANT
[00:50:04]
I THINK STAY CLEAR OF THEIR INTENT.SO, UM, MR. JOSEPH, DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT?
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
SO, UH, MR. JOSEPH DO, UH, I'M SORRY, LET ME TRY THIS.
YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK.
SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU, HOW FAR ALONG ARE YOU WITH GETTING THAT FOUR-LANE, UNLOVED APPLICATION IN AND GETTING THAT CLOSE TO EXECUTED? WE HAVE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT IN YET.
WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO REACH THE AGREEMENT WITH UNO SO THAT WE CAN GET THE MIXED USE ADDED TO THE PROJECT.
YEAH, IT SEEMS REAL FUZZY TO ME.
AS I'M SAYING, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT YOU DO HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF BUILDING HOUSING ON THIS SITE
DID YOU WANT TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF THAT UH, MR JOSEPH'S UNDERSTANDING WAS CORRECT? YEAH, I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE 4 MILLION UNLOCKED ONCE HE GETS THE ZONING.
SO WE DID GET CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER.
I'M SORRY THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS GOING TO REQUIRE US TO COMPLY WITH THE AFFORD TO BE UNLOCKED BONUS PROGRAM.
LET ME, LET ME FINISH WITH THOSE ARE AND THEN WE'LL GO TO KENYA AND THEN DO BACK TO SHOW JUST ONE FOLLOWUP TO THE AFRICAN, WHICH IS TO SAY, YEAH, CAN YOU REPEAT THE LANGUAGE FROM THE GOVERNANCE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY FOR YOU TO NOT DO HOUSING AT ALL AND MOVE AHEAD WITH THE PROJECT IN THE FUTURE?
IF YOU CSM USE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES OF TIMES THE OWNER SHELL ONE, THE PROPERTY COULD BE IMPRESSED WITH A WRITTEN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT EXECUTED BY MY CLIENT AND RECORDED IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, WHICH SHALL REQUIRE THE PROPERTY TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERNET DESIGN, STREETSCAPE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AS SET FORTH YEAR END ON EXHIBIT D, THE COVENANT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS SOLD TO SUCCESSOR OWNER.
SO IF YOU'RE SICK, THE COVENANT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND TO ANY FEE PAID BY THE OWNER IN LIEU OF ANY ONSITE AFFORDABILITY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO YOU FROM THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, ANY MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED BONUS PROGRAM, AUSTIN LDC.
AND THEN WE WERE SAD OF THE PROGRAMS AS SUCH.
IF THE PROPOSED CSM USE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS APPROVED, CITY COUNCIL AND THE PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPED AS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
ANY FEE IN LIEU OF ON THE SIDE AFFORDABILITY MONEY WILL BE PAID TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND RESTRICTED FOR USE IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY AREAS.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KENNY AND THEN CHICAGO.
UH, WITH THE UNIVERSITY, UH, AREA PARTNERS, UM, SAYING THAT IF YOU DO GET THE REZONING THEN YOU WILL DO AN RC.
AND UM, I WOULD, ARE YOU JUST GAMING OUT THE TIMELINE HERE? UH, DO YOU INTEND TO HAVE THIS, UM, RC PREPARED, DRAFTED, POTENTIALLY BEEN SIGNED, UM, CONDITIONAL UPON ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE, UM, PRIOR TO COUNCIL TAKING UP APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST.
AND, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS THAT I THINK THAT FOLKS ARE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CERTAINTY ON THAT AND UH, WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HORSE DOESN'T GET OUT OF THE BARN WITHOUT REALLY LOCKING IT IN.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAST, THE SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH SAYS SPECIFICALLY BY SIGNING BELOW, THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE FOREGOING OFFER OFFERS ACCEPTABLE TO EIGHT UAP AND THE OWNER THAT USA WAS DRAWS OPPOSITION TO THE MAY 12TH, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSIONING AND THAT UAP AND THE OWNER WILL FINALIZE THE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE FORM OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PART OF SYDNEY COUNCIL FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING APPLICATION AND THEN UPON THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO CSM ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY THEY WERE SICK.
SO IF THAT IS YOUR QUESTION, THEN THIS SAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES
[00:55:01]
PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL UPON WHICH TIME THAT WILL BE RECORDED.YEAH, I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT.
AND, UH, I WOULD JUST EXPECT CITY COUNCIL TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THAT AND, UH, MAKE SURE TO HAVE IT READY BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THAT.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
NUMBER ONE IS, UH, IS THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LANGUAGE ACCEPTABLE? LEGALLY? CAN IT BE DONE? UM, YOU KNOW, A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK.
AND SECONDLY, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT UAP HAS A IN, YOU KNOW, UH, IT HAS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THIS AGREEMENT.
I MEAN, THEY READ IT AND, AND ARE THEY IN FAVOR OF IT? I JUST HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THEM.
SO STAFF MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THOSE TWO QUESTIONS.
I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION IF I MAY.
I'M SORRY, MIKE, ARE YOU STILL ON MARK GRAHAM, MARK ROOM STAFF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION? LET ME SEE.
SO THE LAST ONE FIRST, YES, WE HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT, UH, BY THE PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY, UM, THREE PARTNERS AND UH, THE OWNER, UH, FOR THE, UM, THE TRAP.
UM, YES, YES, A PRIVATE COVENANT BETWEEN, UM, THE OWNER AND INTERSTATE INDUSTRIAL YOUR PARTNERS.
AND THAT, UH, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN.
AND UM, IF I MAY JUST MENTION THAT OUR CONCERN WAS THE MENTION OF CNU OF ONSITE AFFORDABILITY A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE AGREEMENT.
UM, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
UH, MR. JOSEPH, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND AS WELL? THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS HAD BOTH SIGNED THE LETTER AGREEMENT.
THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HADN'T BEEN PREPARED YET.
AND SO THE ACTUAL TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT YET TO BE NEGOTIATED, UM, IT WILL BE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE.
AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE, UH, UNIVERSITY OF YOUR PARTNERS WILL, UH, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT SAYS WHAT THEY WANT IT TO SAY AND THAT WE SAY WHAT IT WANTS, BUT WE WANT IT TO SAY HAPPY TO PROVIDE IT TO STAFF FOR THEIR REVIEW AS WELL.
AND OF COURSE IT WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.
MR SHAWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP? WELL, UH, YEAH.
UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE BACKUP UNLESS THERE'S A MISSING IT THAT I DON'T SEE THE, UM, ANYTHING SIGNED BY THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS.
I, I, THERE'S A BLANK THERE IN THE SIGNATURE BLOCK SO I DON'T HAVE THAT RECORD.
IF ANYBODY ELSE DOES, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I THINK I HEARD MY GRANDPA SAY THAT HE HAS, HE SEEN US.
IT'S THE VERY LAST PAGE OF THE LATE BACKUP.
MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BEING USED AS THE INSTRUMENT TO ACQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT? WHY WASN'T THIS TAKEN THROUGH CITY OF AUSTIN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED RATHER THAN THE THIRD PARTY PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OF WHICH THE CITY IS NOT A PART TWO
WHY IS PRIVATE AND NOT PUBLIC? IS THAT DIRECTED TO ME? YES, YES IT IS.
MR. JOSEPH, THE UNIVERSITY OR YOUR PARTNERS WANTED US TO IMPOSE THE AFFORDABILITY, AFFORDABILITY ON LOT BONUS PROGRAM BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GOING TO USE THE UNIVERSITY OR YOUR PARTNERS, YOU KNOW THE PROGRAM THEY WANTED US TO AGREE BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO USE THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK BONUS PROGRAM.
AND THE REASON THAT THEY'RE, THE REASON THAT IS IS BECAUSE I KNOW THE HONORS PROGRAM ONLY ALLOWS 65 FEET OF HEIGHT AND THE AFFORDABILITY UNMARKED BONUS ALLOWS 93 TO FIVE WHICH RESULTS IN A CONSIDERABLY MORE AMOUNT OF DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BY DOING SO.
AND I'M ALL FOR THAT, BUT I JUST WAS WONDERING WHY YOU WENT THROUGH A PRIVATE AND THAT'S A DRAG RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA STEP IN HERE JUST FOR MENTION SENIOR.
SO, SO THE FORMULA LAB RESTRICTED COVENANT
[01:00:01]
THAT THE CITY DOES, THE TIMING FOR THAT IS WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS REALLY CLOSE TO GETTING APPROVED.SO THEY WOULDN'T APPROVE THE SITE PLAN UNLESS THIS OFFICIAL RESTRICTIVE COMING IN WITH THE CITY IS SIGNED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO DO AT THIS TIME AT ZONING UNLESS THEY'VE REVIEWED THE SIDE PLAN.
BUT STABBING AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHY TAKE THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ROUTE RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC IS THE BASIS OF A MIKE QUESTION.
AND MARK DID YOU WANT TO ADD THAT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, UM, MIKE'S MCKOWN FROM BRUNO URGE THEM TO USE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THROUGH UNO AND AVOID THE REZONING ENTIRELY OUT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HEIGHTS INCENTIVES AND SO FORTH.
THE SAME WOULD HOLD TRUE OF, UM, THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED LOCKED PROGRAM.
THEY DON'T NEED TO REZONE IN ORDER TO USE THAT PROGRAM.
IT PROVIDES THE USE OF, IT PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL USES ON THIS PROPERTY BY PARTICIPATING IN THAT PROGRAM.
MR KENNY, DID YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT? WELL, UH, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, UH, THE ZONING CHANGE WAS NECESSARY TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEN ONCE A RESIDENTIAL USE WAS ALLOWED THAT AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED WAS GOING TO GET YOU THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS.
BUT DID I JUST HEAR SOMETHING CONTRARY FROM STAFF THAT THEY, THAT AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED ACTUALLY ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL USE ON A COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTY AND THAT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NEED THE ZONING CHANGE TO DO AFFORDABILITY ON LOCKS? IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT, UM, THEY, THE ORDINANCE IS BOTH ON PROVISIONS, WHICH SAY YOU CAN USE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR UNO TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL IN OTHER ZONED DISTRICTS.
SO IF YOU'RE GETTING A RESIDENTIAL USE THROUGH AFFORDABILITY ON LOCKS, UH, IS IT ENTITLEMENTS OR THE ABILITY TO DO A COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR THAT IS BEING SOUGHT THROUGH THIS ZONING CHANGE? THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE COMMERCIAL GAMES FLOOR UNDER EITHER OF THE PROGRAMS BECAUSE THE BASE ZONING IS CS.
SO I GUESS I'M TO LIKE THIS ROUND OF QUESTIONING, UH, COMMISSIONER KENNY, IF YOU CAN GET ALL THIS THROUGH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHY.
I DON'T THINK THAT, EXCUSE ME.
I THINK THAT THAT YOU HAVE TO USE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK BONUS PROGRAM.
IF YOU WANTED TO DO A HUNDRED PERCENT MULTIFAMILY UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK BONUS PROGRAM, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT ZONING AS A MATTER OF, RIGHT.
UM, AND THAT'S WITHOUT THE MBO.
UH, COMMISSIONER SEGA, YOUR TIME IS UP.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO ASK A QUESTION? THIS, THIS IS PRETTY, UH, YOU'RE CONFUSING HERE.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT READY FOR A MOTION YET.
UM, BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, I WAS GOING TO PULL UP AFFORDABLY ONLINE, JUST SO YOU CAN TAKE A QUICK LOOK HERE.
SO I THINK STAFF HAS, GREG, MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO THAT THERE IS A SECTION IN THERE THAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS
I DON'T, YOU CAN'T DO A HUNDRED PERCENT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY ONLINE BONUS PROGRAM.
[01:05:01]
OKAY.UNLESS YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I AM AND THAT I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY CLEARER THAN THAT.
YOU CAN DO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER EITHER.
I KNOW OUR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED IF YOU CAN'T DO A HUNDRED PERCENT MULTIFAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE IT IS AND I DUNNO, I GUESS STAFFING THAT'S I ONE IS THERE IS NOT ALLOWED, IT MIGHT BE INVOLVED, BUT AS I READ THIS, WHAT I CAN SEE IS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED BUT THE 25% IS IF YOU WANT TO DO GO ON SHOW, NOT THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO COMMERCIAL.
SO YOU CAN DO A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL IN ANY ONE OF THOSE BASIS ZONES.
AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DO COMMERCIAL YOU CAN NOT EXCEED 25.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF, UM, YES, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I READ IT ALL.
SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE SAME SECTION.
UM, NUMBER TWO, THERE IS COMMERCIAL BASED ON DISTRICT AND SEE AND THE NEXT SECTION HAS THE 25% AS FAR AREA, UM, OF UH, MAYBE COMPRISED OF COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS LOOKING TOO.
SO I QUITE, I THINK COMMISSIONER HAS ASKED QUESTION TO YOU, MARK, IS, WHY ARE WE, WHY ARE WE, WHY DO WE HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US IF EVERYTHING CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT THIS REZONING?
IT'S SUPPORTED BY ALL OF THE PLANS FOR THE AREA AND THERE WE'RE ABLE TO ASK FOR THAT.
AND IT WOULD BE SILLY FOR US TO DO NOT SUPPORT A PROPOSAL TO DENSIFY THAT, UM, THAT PROPERTY.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE PERHAPS THOSE OTHER OPTIONS HADN'T BEEN EXPLORED.
UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ZONING.
I THINK THAT WAS PRECISELY COMING THROUGH STRAWS POINT WAS IF WE GRANT THE CMU, WE LOSE ANY, UH, CERTAINTY ON THE, ON THE AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE IT COULD CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT.
BUT, UM, WE'RE STILL IN QUESTION, SO WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANTING TO ASK QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GO TO THE EMOTIONS.
IS THERE A MOTION, MR. ANDERSON WITH APPROVAL? IS THERE A SECOND? THINKING ABOUT COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DID YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YEAH.
SO, UH, I WORKED WITH MANY OF YOU PRETTY ON AFFORDABILITY, ON LOCK.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO BE ACTUALLY GETTING AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE SIGNING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH THE ONE GROUP THAT WAS GOING TO BE HERE SPEAKING POTENTIALLY AGAINST THIS WAS, THIS WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, THIS AREA OF UNO IS, THIS IS THE PORTION OF UNO THAT WHEN WE RECENTLY LOOKED AT UNO AND WE BROUGHT THE HEIGHTS UP IN A LOT OF AREAS.
THIS WAS THE ONE AREA THAT WE LEFT OUT.
I THINK A LOT OF THE THOUGHT THERE WAS THE UNIVERSITY MIGHT ACQUIRE THIS ONE DAY AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY BRING UP THE PRICE OF THAT FOR THE UNIVERSITY.
UM, RIGHT NOW THOUGH, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM 65 FEET TO 90 FEET WITH MNR OR WITH, UH,
EVEN UNDER AFFORDABILITY, I LOCKED IN A HUNDRED FEET.
SO THIS LOOSENS UP A LITTLE BIT MORE HEIGHT FOR THEM IN A PLACE WHERE HEIGHT MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD.
SO I HOPE THOUGH, BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL THAT THEY 100% LOOK AT AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKTON MAKES SURE THAT THEY MEAN TO BE DOING THIS.
BUT WITH THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AGAINST
I JUST, UM, IT'S, I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT CLEANER.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE AFFORDABILITY QUESTION.
INITIALLY WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION, THERE WAS NO COMMITMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND I THINK
AND UM, WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITHOUT THE REZONING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
[01:10:02]
THANK YOU.COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR
UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS, UM, WHEN I HOPE THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT, UH, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A BALANCE OF COMMISSIONERS HERE SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT AND UM, THAT UH, I AT LEAST WILL BE COMMUNICATING WITH, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS ISSUE.
SO I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE UM, INTERPRETED AS, AS LICENSED TO BACK OFF, UM,
UM, SO, UH, BUT I'M WILLING TO LET IT MOVE FORWARD AND, AND LET THE, THE CONFUSION BE HASHED OUT BEFORE COUNCIL
MR SPEAKER, I'M SPEAKING AGAINST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S A CLEAN PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE PEDIMENT IS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THIS PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT UAP ASKS TO SUE THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IT'S NOT THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PRODUCED.
I THINK THAT'S CLOUDING EVERYTHING AT THIS BEEN A STRAIGHT, UH, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED WITH GRADLE GLADLY SUPPORTED IT.
CAUSE I THINK IT'S WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
BUT THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT'S A WHOLE LOT OF DOUBT ONTO THE WHOLE PROCESS.
SO THAT IS THE REASON THAT I'M VOTING AGAIN, THE LAST COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR
I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY CLEAN.
UM, BUT ON PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANTS, I MEAN IF, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'D BE DIFFERENT.
I THINK THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY IN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ADHERE TO IT.
BUT UAP UM, IF ANY BODIES ARE ABLE TO, UM, UAP WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY CLEAN, BUT I'M ALSO, UOP I THINK WAS THE ONES WHO REQUESTED THAT THEY FOLLOW UP WITH A RESTRICTED COVENANT AND PUT THEM ON IT.
LIKE THAT AND LET SEE, MAYBE THEY CAN HASH IT OUT LATER.
LAST COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST
I'M NOT NECESSARILY SPEAKING AGAINST THAT.
I WILL BE STAYING NEUTRAL AND I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
I THINK A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDING GOING INTO THIS BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED BY A BUNCH OF COMMISSIONERS.
I HOPE THAT THE APPLICANT ALSO UNDERSTANDS THE AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLD FOR AFFORDABILITY AND LOFT, WHICH IS MUCH, MUCH HIGHER THAN MOST DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, WHICH IF THEY WANT TO GO FOR IT, GREAT.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING TO AIM FOR.
HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THERE'S A BUNCH OF CONFUSION WHEN YOU SIDEWALK, YOU'RE STANDING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAZARA.
SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THREE, FOUR AND THREE AGAINST ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR GREEN ITEM.