Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order ]

[00:00:03]

THIS MEETING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:07 PM.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE PRESENT TONIGHT.

WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS AZHAR YOU JUST WANT TO RAISE YOUR HAND? COMMISSIONER SEGER COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, COMMISSIONER SHEA, COMMISSIONER SHAW, MISSIONARY EYES, TOLEDO MISSIONER THOMPSON COMMISSIONER FLORES, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

DID I FREEZE UP? ALL RIGHT.

UM, ABSENT COMMISSIONERS.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXIT FEE, UH, PHYSIOS TONIGHT.

SO, UM, ABSENT OUR COMMISSIONER, DON LAYTON, BURWELL AND RICHARD MENDOZA.

ALRIGHT.

UM, JUST A REMINDER, OUR, A BIWEEKLY OR BIMONTHLY REMINDER HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS READY FOR VOTING MEMBER TO STAY MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.

I SEE COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY'S HERE.

GREAT.

UM, IF I MISS YOU JUST TRY AGAIN AND LET ME KNOW VERBALLY, IF, UM, IF I STILL DIDN'T HEAR YOU AND, UH, REMEMBER THAT SEVEN VOTES ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE A MOTION.

UH, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS TONIGHT THAT WILL REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY, THOSE BEING, UM, THE ITEMS THAT ARE SEEKING HISTORIC DESIGNATION.

SO FOR THE PARTICIPANTS SELECT STAR ON SIX TO MUTE, AND IF YOUR ITEM IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMAIN ON THE LINE.

WE'LL SEE IT.

WE'LL SEND AN EMAIL WHEN WE'RE ABOUT 15 MINUTES AWAY FROM TAKING UP THAT ITEM.

SO, UH,

[Reading of the Agenda ]

WE'RE GOING TO READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA AND, UM, I'LL READ THROUGH ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS, THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR CONSENT APPROVAL, UM, WHICH WILL INCLUDE CONSENT POSTPONEMENTS AND NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO, UH, THE FIRST ITEM I HAVE TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

SO, UM, DO YOU, DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE A CORRECTION TO THE LAST MEETING'S MINUTES? ALL RIGHT.

HEARING NONE.

WE'LL MOVE INTO THE, UM, AGENDA ITEM B PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO TONIGHT WE'VE GOT PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO FIVE DOT OH ONE MONTOPOLIS ACRES.

NPA.

THIS ITEM IS, UM, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

WE HAVE B2 REZONING, C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO NINE MONTOPOLIS ACRES, REZONING.

THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION OF AND P BY STAFF, BOTH FOR DISCUSSION.

WE'LL TAKE UP ITEMS B ONE AND B2 TOGETHER.

ITEM B3 IS A REZONING.

SEE 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE FIVE FOUR DOMAIN RETAIL RETAIL DISTRICT ONE BLOCK Z.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IT'S OFFERED FOR CONSENT ITEM BEFORE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE TWO EIGHT N B G AUSTIN ENERGY SUBSTATION, REZONING.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO GO, UM, FROM NBG TOD AND P TO P.

IT IS OFFERED ON CONSENT AND WE HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED UP AS A NEUTRAL TO PROVIDE REMARKS, UH, ITEM B FIVE FREE ZONING, C 14 H DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE THREE SIX.

THE ELLEN WIFE'S HOUSE.

WHY IS ACRE? THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UM, IT'S PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'LL NEED A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF NINE VOTES, BUT ITEM B6, REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE ONE TWO, THE DELTA KAPPA GAMMA SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL.

THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF OF DMU DASH C O.

THIS ITEM IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM B SEVEN IS A REZONING C 14 H DASH 2021 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO SIX, DELTA KAPPA GAMMA SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED TO GO FROM GEO TO DM YOU DASH H BY STAFF.

AND THIS IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION AND WE'LL TAKE UP ITEMS

[00:05:01]

B SIX AND B SEVEN TOGETHER.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WOULD NEED A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF NINE VOTES.

UH, ITEM B EIGHT AS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ONE FIVE.ZERO FOUR DOT S AGE LOT AVENUE.

THIS IS IS, UM, COLD, OR THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 9TH.

AND THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT ITEM B NINE AS A REZONING C4 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE THREE FIVE AS AGE LOT AVENUE.

UM, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TOO UNTIL FEBRUARY 9TH AS WELL.

ITEM B 10 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE THREE ZERO 56 13 PATENT RANCH ROAD.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED, UM, OR, SORRY, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TILL FEBRUARY 23RD.

AND THE APPLICANT IS AN AGREEMENT.

YOU HAVE ITEM B 11 A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO FIVE.ZERO ONE.

THIS IS THE THOMAS SPRINGS OFFICE SLASH WAREHOUSE.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO GO FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE AS AMENDED IS ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM B12 REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE ZERO TWO.

THOMAS SPRINGS OFFICE SLASH WAREHOUSE.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UM, THIS ITEM IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION AND WILL BE TAKEN UP AT THE SAME TIME AS THE 11 ITEM B 13 DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS S P C DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ONE TWO ONE C DASH 90 92.

RAINY.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO GRANT ADDITIONAL FAR FROM 15 TO ONE TO 31.7 TO ONE.

THIS ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM B 14, PRELIMINARY PLAN C H J DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ONE THREE WEST BELLA FORTUNA.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

AND THEN FINALLY, THE 15 IS A FINAL PLATFORM IMPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT DASH 2018 DASH ZERO ONE SIX FIVE W DOT TWO, A CASCADES AT ONION CREEK PHASE TWO FINAL PLAT.

THIS, UH, IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

THAT WAS A LAST MINUTE CHANGE, UM, TO THE AGENDA.

SO LET ME GO OVER THOSE AGAIN.

UM, SO V1 V2 PULL FOR DISCUSSION B3 CONSENT BEFORE IS CONSENT WITH A SPEAKER.

SIGN THAT TO PROVIDE A COMMENT IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION A SIX AND B SEVEN WILL BE TAKEN TOGETHER.

AND THOSE WILL BE FOR DISCUSSION AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS COMMENT ON FEBRUARY 9TH, BENIGN NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT OF FEBRUARY 9TH, B 10 NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT OF FEBRUARY 23RD, B 11, AND B 12, UH, BOLD FOR DISCUSSION.

WE TAKEN UP TOGETHER B 13 FULL FOR DISCUSSION BE 14 AND BE 15 FOR CONSENT.

UM, SO, AND THEN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANY CORRECTIONS TO THOSE.

SO THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OH, I FORGOT.

SO SORRY.

SEEING ADS.

WE HAVE QUITE A FEW DISCUSSION ITEMS TONIGHT.

UM, WE WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE BRIEFING C1 BEING POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 9TH.

THIS IS THE, UM, GOALS, PROGRESS AND INSIGHTS FOR THE 2017 AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, WHICH WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THAT BRIEFING.

UM, SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS THERE? OKAY.

SO THAT WAY THE STAFF WHO WAS GOING TO PRESENT THAT CAN GO AHEAD AND DROP OFF THE CALL.

OKAY.

UM, SO TO CLARIFY, THAT MEANS C1 IS ALSO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE POSTPONED UNTIL FEBRUARY 9TH.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE RECLOSING THEMSELVES FROM ANY ITEMS TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE.

NONE.

UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL

[00:10:01]

ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON 75% BODY.

IS IT BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING A MEMBER THAT WE ONLY NEED NINE? OR DID WE ASK FOR ME, ANDREW? DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? THE QUESTION IS, UM, IF, IF, UH, CAUSE WE'RE MISSING A MEMBER, IS THAT WHY WE ONLY NEED NINE VOTES OR NOT 10 BECAUSE OF THE VACANCY? YES.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

UM,

[Consent Agenda ]

CAN I GET A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA MOTION FROM COMMISSIONERS OUR SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SEEKER.

ALL RIGHT.

DO WE NEED TO COMMENT BEFORE WE, OH, I'M SORRY.

YES.

UM, WELL I JUST GOT A, UM, I'VE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT, UM, THE COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE FROM MR. TOM WALD AND HE'S NOT SPEAKING BUSY THING.

CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? SURE.

I JUST WANTED TO REALLY THANK STAFF FOR, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

UM, AND, AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A, A BIKE PLANE OR A BIKE PATH.

THAT'S GOING TO GO ALONG THAT AND, AND SORT OF, YOU KNOW, PROMISING AND WORKING WITH, UH, THE BIKE COMMUNITY IN AUSTIN.

THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UM, UH, CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, OUR CONSENT AGENDA LOOKS LIKE, UH, WE HAVE 11 GREEN GREENS, UH, COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY.

ARE YOU GREEN? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SORRY.

I WAS LOOKING FOR MY GREEN ITEMS, SORRY.

OKAY.

THAT MOTION PASSES AT 11.

SO TARA, JUST TO CONFIRM THAT WAS TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

BOTH RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

UM, OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE ON INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[Items B1. & B2. ]

THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING THE APP TONIGHT IS ON, UM, CAN YOU ONE AND B TWO, THIS IS A MONTOPOLIS ACRES REZONING.

UM, AND DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION MEREDITH OF HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER ONE IS NPA 2020 ZERO ZERO 5.01 ON TOPLESS ACRES.

PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 10, 13 AND 10 17 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE.

IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.

THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY LAND USE.

IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM AND OPPOSITION.

THANK YOU.

UM, SINCE WE'RE TAKING THESE UP TOGETHER, UM, MS. CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? I GUESS KATE TALK THERE.

OKAY.

WELL, UM, LET'S MOVE TO, UM, THE APPLICANT CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON IT FOR MS. CLARK IS ON THE LINE.

UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE'LL HAVE HER DIAL BACK IN.

OKAY.

STILL HOLDING.

[00:15:19]

UM, IS MS. CLARK THERE YET? WE JUST ADMITTED HER.

SO SHE SHOULDN'T BE UNMUTING AND SHOULD BE READY TO GO ANY SECOND NOW, MS. CLARK, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? HELLO? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME NOW CONFIRM, OKAY.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT WOULDN'T LET ME UNMUTE, UM, I'M K KARCH WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I'M PRESENTING CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO NINE.

METROPOLIS ACRES REZONING.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 10, 13 AND 10 17 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 3.12 ACRES IN SIZE.

IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS FITZ THREE MP, AND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MONTOPOLIS DRIVE ADJACENT TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, AS WELL AS ACROSS MONTOPOLIS DRIVE OUR PROPERTY ZONED SF THREE EMPTY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH IS AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES ZONED L O M U C O N T.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX WITH UP TO 200 UNITS.

UM, SPECIFICS ABOUT THE BUILDING DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT SITE LAYOUT ARE UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME.

THAT'S IS RECOMMENDING TO REZONE TO MS. THREE EMPTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BETWEEN THE TRACKS DOWN FELL O M U T O N P TO THE NORTH AND TRACKS ZONED TO THE SOUTH EAST AND WEST TO CROSS MONTOPOLIS DRIVE.

ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES HAVE A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, AND, UM, MANY OF THEM CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY USES FURTHER NORTH ALONG THE TOP OF THE STRIDE IS ATTRACT ZONES T U D N P.

AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THAT PROPERTY IS 40 FEET.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN AN AREA THAT HAS MAINTAINED A CONSISTENT, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES.

REZONING THIS PROPERTY TO MS. THREE MP WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS SURROUNDING LAND USES AND PROVIDE A TRANSITION IN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LAND USE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIALLY AND RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.

SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, BUT I AM HERE FOR, FOR THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UM, NOW FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, MY ALYSSA STORY, I HAVE A LAST NAME.

HELLO? HI, IS, IS TORI.

YEAH.

YES.

UH, THIS IS VICTORIA HASSEY WITH BREWERY DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 10, 13 AND 10 17 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE.

UM, LET ME KNOW WHEN THE PRESENTATION IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

HERE WE GO WITH GUTS.

OKAY.

UM, PDF OF A LETTER FROM THE MANA, UH, MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOODS AND CONTENT TEAM.

NO.

UM, THE PRESENTATION IS A PDF WITH THRILLER DESIGN IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER.

WE'RE WAITING ON THAT TO COME UP.

I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN I SEE IT.

JUST A SECOND.

10 MORE SECONDS.

[00:20:19]

HEY, MISS ASSAY.

WE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION NOW.

OKAY.

UM, YOU CAN, UH, HAVE IT ADVANCE TO THE SECOND SLIDE.

UM, THE SUBJECT TRACK IS A LITTLE OVER THREE ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND LOCATED JUST SLIGHTLY OVER A HALF MILE NORTH OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN TOWN CENTER, AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE THE RED DOTS ON THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU REPRESENT CAPITAL METRO BUS STOPS IN THE AREA.

NEXT SLIDE.

UM, THIS, THIS MAP IS, UH, TAKEN FROM THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MAP OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE NETWORK AND IS VERY NEAR A COMMUTER TRANSIT NETWORK AS WELL.

ALSO, THERE'S A MOBILITY HUB.

THAT'S ABOUT A HALF, HALF A MILE AWAY OFF OF GROVE BOULEVARD, KIND OF HARD TO SEE.

UM, BUT IT'S THERE OFF ON THE WEST SIDE OR THE LEFT SIDE OF THE MAP, EXISTING TRANSIT AND PLAN FOR A MORE ROBUST, MORE ROBUST TRANSIT NETWORK WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT BLUE LINE IN THE FUTURE.

WE'LL SUPPORT GREAT, UH, DENSITY AT THIS LOCATION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MULTIFAMILY AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO MS. DIX, TO ALLOW FOR UP TO 200 DWELLING UNITS AT THIS LOCATION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN TABLETS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUPPORTS RESIDENTIAL USES ON REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND.

AND WHILE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES NOT DESIRE IN FIX AT THIS LOCATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS 20 YEARS OLD AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA HAVE CHANGED TO WARRANT A CONSIDERATION FOR AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AT THIS LOCATION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WE COMPARE THE AVERAGE DENSITY YIELD AS WELL AS THE REALISTIC DENSITY YIELD IN THE TABLE.

ALSO INCLUDED AS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCES AS COMPARED TO WHAT IS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE LENS OF COMPATIBILITY.

NOTE THAT FOR NSX, THE NUMBER OF UNITS POSSIBLE ARE UNLIMITED PER CODE.

YET THEY ARE LIMITED AND DETERMINED BY HOW MANY UNITS CAN BE ACHIEVED IN A BUILDING THAT MEETS THE HEIGHT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT FOR STANDARD MS. FOUR IN A SIX DEVELOPMENT.

THIS, THIS LOCATION MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO COMPATIBILITY.

HOWEVER, DEVELOPMENT WITH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED IS NOT LIMITED BY COMPATIBILITY RULES AND THUS CAN ACHIEVE GREATER DENSITY AND GREATER CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR CONTEXTUAL SENSITIVITY AT THIS LOCATION, PLEASE KNOW THAT AN MSX DEVELOPMENT WITH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED WOULD BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN FIVE STORIES OR, UM, 75 FEET IN HEIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS JUST A QUICK VISUAL SHOWING HOW COMPATIBILITY APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT TRACK.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, THE NORTHERN PART PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS THE PORTION THAT WOULD, UH, BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE UP TO THREE STORIES.

UM, AND THE SOUTHERN SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE IS THERE'S A CHURCH THAT'S THROWN TO SF THREE THERE, AND, UM, THERE IS A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER THERE AS WELL AS TO THE EAST.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO JUST THIS WEEKEND, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE, UM, VERY CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES WITHIN THE FOUR ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THIS PLAN HERE SHOWS AN IMAGE THREE DEVELOPMENT YIELDING, UM, THREE, THREE STORY BUILDINGS WITH SURFACE PARKING.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THIS IS JUST A 3D RENDERING OF AN DEVELOPMENT AT THIS SITE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR AN MF FOR DEVELOPMENT, BOTH SOLUTIONS ACHIEVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE STORIES, HOWEVER OPTIONS TO PRIORITIZE A STRUCTURED PARKING RATHER THAN SURFACE PARKING.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN THIS IS WHAT A 3D IS A 3D MODEL OF WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD LOOK LIKE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND A STANDARD AND A SIX PROJECT AT THIS SITE WOULD BE SEVERELY LIMITED DUE TO COMPATIBILITY.

AS I SAID EARLIER, HOWEVER, AND AFFORDABILITY ON LARC PROJECT CAN REALISTICALLY ACHIEVE A DEVELOPMENT WITH THREE RESIDENTIAL FLOORS, ABOUT TWO LEVELS OF PARKING I'VE SEEN HERE IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN THIS IS A 3D RENDERING OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THANKS TO VARIOUS MODALITIES THROUGH OUR DESIGN HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY AWARE OF THE ISSUES OF THIS PLACEMENT AT THIS COMMUNITY THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS EXPERIENCING.

AND WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONCERN FOR LOSS OF CULTURAL IDENTITY THAT COMES ALONG WITH THIS PLACEMENT OF ITS MEMBERS.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND

[00:25:01]

THE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIRE TO MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE TWO MATTERS OF DISPLACEMENT AND, AND, UH, RETENTION OF SINGLE FAMILY, LOTS THEY'RE WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE PROPERTIES PROPERTIES THAT ARE AT THE POINT OF REDEVELOPMENT.

THIS PLACEMENT IS A VALID CONCERN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND OTHERS.

AND WHILE THE CITY WORKS TO MOBILIZE SOLUTIONS, THE HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY CRISIS CONTINUES TO GROW AT AN ALARMING RATE TAKING ACTION IN WAYS THAT CAN HELP EVEN PARTIALLY IS BETTER THAN TAKING NO ACTION AT ALL.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF, UH, SEVERAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS IS GOING TO DO FAR LESS DAMAGE TO THE AREAS IN A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH HOUSES THAT WILL SELL FOR AT LEAST 600,000 AND MORE.

WE HOPEFULLY WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR SUPPORT TO APPROVE OUR HOUSE MORE HOUSING AT THIS LOCATION, AND WE REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I'LL PASS IT ALONG THE WRONG.

THANK YOU.

UM, IS RON THROWER ON THE PHONE STAR SIX TO UNMUTE COMMISSIONER IS RON THROWER HERE? I JUST WANTED TO JUST REITERATE A FEW ITEMS THAT I THINK IS ESSENTIALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS, THAT THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF A PARK, A VERY LARGE PARK MONTOPOLIS.

THEY HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER THERE.

UH, THE MONTOPOLIS ROADWAY ITSELF IS A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK.

UH, VICTORIA SHOWED YOU A SLIDE THAT HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE GOING ON THAT ROADWAY TODAY.

THE BLUE LINE IS A HALF MILE AWAY.

THAT'S PROPOSED ALONG RIVERSIDE DRIVE.

UM, DENSITY HERE I BELIEVE IS VERY APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SCALED CORRECTLY AND COUPLED WITH THE VOLUNTARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE'RE OFFERING WITH US.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO REITERATE AGAIN, THE SCALING OF THE PROJECT UNDER A MULTI MULTI-FAMILY SIX DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE 90 FEET IN HEIGHT.

THAT WOULDN'T BE 135 FEET IS WHAT W WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE ALLOWED UNDER AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK.

WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR FIVE STORIES HERE AND ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCEPT A CONDITIONER, RESTRICT YOUR CABINET, THAT WOULD LIMIT IT TO THE FIVE STORIES AND THE HEIGHT LIMIT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

I BELIEVE THE PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA AND WE ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM THOSE OPPOSED.

DO WE HAVE, UH, NO EIGHT ALIAS ON THE PHONE STAR SIX TO UNMUTE? YES, I'M HERE.

THIS IS NOAH.

HI, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

YES.

UH, I'M CALLING, I'M OPPOSING, UH, THE UPS OWNING OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, AT 10, 13 AND 10 17.

WHEN TOPLESS, I BELIEVE THAT ANY UPS OWNING IN A LOW-INCOME COMMUNITY LIKE MONTOPOLIS, UH, SHOULD NOT BE, UH, VOTED ON, UH, UNLESS THERE ARE PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISPLACEMENT, HOW WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO THINK BIGGER, UH, AND PRIORITIZE HOUSING, UH, TO THOSE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THE LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE, UH, WE NEED TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES FROM BEING FORCED OUT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THIS STARTS WITH LISTENING, LISTENING TO THOSE THAT LIVE HERE, THOSE THAT WORK HERE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A LOT OF HOUSING AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO LOWER THE PRICES IT'S GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE, BUT DEVELOPERS WILL NEVER BUILD ENOUGH HOUSING TO MAKE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

UM, IT'S NOT IN THEIR INTEREST.

UH, SO WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY HERE AND, UH, BEGIN TO TACKLE THESE HOUSING ISSUES.

BY LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE A WORKING TEST COMMUNITY.

THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY BLACK, BROWN, INDIGENOUS FAMILIES.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN PEOPLE BEING FORCED OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHAT'S SAD ABOUT THIS IS THAT A LOT OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR CAPITAL METRO AISD THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT MAINTAIN OUR PARKS, PEOPLE THAT REPAIR OUR STREETS, UH, THAT KEEP OUR BUSES RUNNING.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

AND I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL JUST MAKE IT EVEN WORSE.

IT WILL FORCE MORE PEOPLE OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WHENEVER YOU'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS, I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE OUR VOICES ACCOUNT.

YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY.

UH, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE LOW-INCOME HOUSING.

THAT'S AFFORDABLE TO THE WORKING FAMILIES OF MEN TOPLESS.

SO YOU NEED TO DENY THIS REQUEST, YOU KNOW, INTO THE DEVELOPER, COMES TO THE COMMUNITY IN GOOD FAITH AND LISTENS TO WHAT

[00:30:01]

WE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY.

UH, SO WE ARE READY TO WORK WITH, WITH, UH, THE DEVELOPER, IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY CAN PROVIDE A LOW-INCOME HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, WHO ARE THEY BUILDING THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR? AND IT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE COMMUNITY OF MONTOPOLIS.

THANK YOU.

UM, IS PETER SINAI ON THE PHONE HERE? STAR SIX ON YOU? HELLO, THIS IS PETER SIMON.

I, UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU GO AHEAD.

OH, OKAY.

HI.

YEAH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, UH, I'M, I'M CALLING IN, I LIVE IN MONTOPOLIS AND I'M CALLING INTO, UH, OPPOSE THIS AND ASK THAT YOU, UM, YOU KNOW, IT REINFORCED THE VOICES OF, UH, OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.

I'M LIKE, NO, HE SAID, I THINK YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.

UM, AND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, I THINK WE SHOULD, UM, BE REAL.

UM, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT DEVELOPERS ACROSS AUSTIN WOULD LIKE TO CO-OP THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT DISPLACEMENT AND PRETEND THAT I'M ASKING FOR MORE FROM YOU IN TERMS OF ENTITLEMENTS WILL SOMEHOW TRICKLE DOWN TO THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S JUST NOT REALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.

UM, I THINK IT SHOULD BE, UH, UPON YOU TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THEM, TO WORK HARDER WITH COMMUNITY, TO TRY, UM, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY IF THEY WANT THESE ENTITLEMENTS.

UM, I REALIZED THAT THE BIAS OF THE CITY PLANNERS AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMISSION IS TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, MORE HOUSING AT ALL COSTS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE, WHAT NO, HE SAID IS TRUE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND GOOD PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN MONTOPOLIS WHO ARE BEING PUSHED OUT BY RISING TAXES.

AND A LOT OF THE RISING TAXES ARE HAPPENING FOR FIVE, UH, FORCES OF SPECULATIVE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THIS W WE KNOW THAT.

AND WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, REJECT THIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

IS ERIC PAULA ON THE PHONE? MY NAME IS ERIC.

HI.

HELLO.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO JUST ECHO SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF MY NEIGHBORS.

UM, I DON'T THINK THIS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MONTOPOLIS COMMUNITY.

I THINK THESE, UH, UNITS ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T CURRENTLY LIVE IN MONTOPOLIS.

AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND, UH, THE EXCUSE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED BY NOW IS NOT REALLY AN EXCUSE.

UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CLEAR THAT THIS ISN'T IN THE INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS, UH, THERE HAS BEEN SEVERE FLOODING ISSUES IN THIS AREA IMMEDIATELY IN THAT AREA, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STREETS DRAIN AND MANY HOUSES WERE FLOODED ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND, UH, I KNOW TALKING WITH WATERSHED OVER THE YEARS, THAT THIS IS A, UH, WHAT THEY CALL A WICKED PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE BUDGET TO FIX THE DRAINAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY BIG MISTAKE TO ADD A LARGE PROJECT LIKE THIS AND CREATE A LOT MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, PARTICULARLY ON A LOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TO BEGIN WITH.

UM, SO I'D LIKE, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO JUST TAKE SERIOUSLY AND STOP PAYING LIP SERVICE TO ANTI GENTRIFICATION.

AND, UM, I SAW A LOT OF LIPS, UH, HEARD A LOT OF LIP SERVICE FROM THE DEVELOPER AND, UH, THIS, THIS PROJECT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

AND I URGE YOU ALL TO DENY IT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, VICTORIA HAS SEEN, DO YOU EVER REBUTTAL HI HERE? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

UM, RON CHAR WE'RE HERE, VICTORIA GOT DISCONNECTED.

[00:35:01]

SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DIAL BACK IN.

OKAY.

I'LL SHARE IT ABOUT 10 SECONDS.

AND WHILE I HAVE MS, UM, BECCA ON THE TELECONFERENCE, SHE SHOULD BE IN MEETING NOW.

OKAY.

YEAH.

I'M SORRY.

I GOT DISCONNECTED.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

AS I WAS TRYING TO GET BACK ON.

UM, YEAH.

SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.

I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN A PREDICAMENT SITUATION.

UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO HOLD ON TO THEIR CULTURAL IDENTITY.

UM, THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITY FROM BEING FORCED OUT.

AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE SOME READING AND LOOKING INTO THE UPROOTED STUDY, UM, TO, TO TRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

UM, WE DID WHERE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INVITED TO A MEETING WITH THE CITY OF WHICH NO ONE SHOWED UP, BUT WE DID GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR A MEETING, UM, THAT THEY, UM, PUT INTO PLACE.

AND, UH, WE LISTENED TO THE CONCERN AND THE REQUESTS, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF REQUESTS.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, TRUTH BE TOLD.

WE JUST, THERE'S A LOT OF THE REQUESTS THAT THEY ASK FOR THAT JUST CAN'T BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE THING, THE THING IS IS THAT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT, THEY WANT, THEY WANNA RETAIN THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND THEY ALSO WANT HOUSING THAT'S AFFORDABLE, BUT IN THIS KIND OF MARKET WITH WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW, THAT'S, THAT'S A REALLY HARD THING TO ACHIEVE.

AND IF WE CAN'T GET A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT HERE AND, AND THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN A SINGLE FAMILY, AS YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD BEFORE, THE ONLY THING TO DO IS TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND WITH THE MARKET THAT'S HERE, THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SO MUCH MORE HARSH, AND THERE WILL BE NO AFFORDABILITY TO EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE TODAY.

AND WE UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT A PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, OUR CLIENT IS AS WILLING TO DO AND AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK PROJECT WITH 50% OF THOSE UNITS BEING ACHIEVABLE.

UM, AND, AND MANY OF THOSE UNITS ARE A GOOD PORTION, BUT IT WAS BEING AVAILABLE TO FAMILIES THAT EARN, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.

SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY IS GREEN.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT ON IT.

SO WE'RE NOT DIRECTLY DISPLACING PEOPLE.

ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THAT.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BRING MORE HOUSING HERE.

THE MORE HOUSING WE CAN GET HERE, THE GREATER AFFORDABILITY AND THE GREATER NUMBERS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WE CAN OFFER IT IS ON IT.

IT ISN'T A GREAT LOCATION THAT WOULD ALSO HELP PEOPLE, UM, WHO HAVE LESS INCOME TO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A CAR BECAUSE IT IS CLOSE TO TRANSIT.

UM, THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WILL SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY, UM, HERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION.

AND, UM, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND, UM, JUST PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

LET'S VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC, HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

SEE GREEN.

ALL RIGHT.

GOT 12 FOR CLOSING.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, WE'LL GO TO, UH, QUESTIONS, UM, WHO WANTS TO START COMMISSIONER SHEA? OKAY.

SO, UM, I'M GOING TO KIND OF HIT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES CAUSE I, UH, THOSE ARE THE TWO I'VE BEEN KIND OF HEARING QUITE A BIT.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE DEFINITE NEED FOR SOME TYPE OF AFFORDABILITY.

RIGHT.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE ALL AGREED, YOU KNOW, HEARD ABOUT S3, NOT PROVIDING THAT, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, TO SEE, SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS MF THREE.

SO STAFF, CAN YOU TELL ME, LIKE, SO UNDER MF THREE, ARE WE GETTING ANY AFFORDABILITY? IS THERE ANY AFFORDABILITY, DENSITY OR BONUS, OR

[00:40:01]

IS THERE ANYTHING UNDER MP3 THAT WE CAN GET THAT GIVES US AFFORDABILITY? UH, YES.

UH, THIS IS KATE CLARK.

UM, WITH TYPICAL CONVENTIONAL ZONING, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY AFFORDABILITY INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE ZONING IF THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO APPLY FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

UM, AND THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PROCESS AND NOT PART OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR CASE.

OKAY.

BUT, BUT IT SOUNDS OKAY.

SO UNDER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THERE THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UM, AND LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT UNDER .

DID YOU EXPLORE TRYING TO SEE ANY AFFORDABILITY IN THAT OR IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT'S THE YIELD IN THAT VERSUS AFFORDABILITY UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK? I THINK YOU SAID WE'LL GET LIKE 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD WE BEGIN A HUNDRED UNITS.

SO WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? IF YOU TRY TO DO SOME AFFORDABILITY THAT'S TO RON THROWER OR VICTORIA HOSPITAL, COMMISSIONER'S WRONG THROWER HERE.

UM, THE TABLE THAT VICTORIA PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION SHOWED THAT UNDER MF THREE, WHICH WOULD BE A COMPLYING PLAN TO COMPATIBILITY.

THE, UH, THE MAXIMUM UNITS WOULD BE 80 AND THE, UH, AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD BE ZERO UNDER MS. FOUR.

UM, IT WOULD BE TOUGH TO ACHIEVE ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UH, UNDER BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY.

UH, WOULD NOT ALSO PROVIDE ANY AFFORDABLE UNITS, UNLESS IT ALSO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF, UH, AFFORDABILITY ON LOCKED, BUT UNDER MF FOUR WITH AFFORDABILITY ON LOCKED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT, UH, THAT, UH, THE FIVE FLOORS CAN BE ACHIEVED AND THE HIGHEST NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

UH, BUT COULD USE AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK, BUT IT WOULD BE LESS AFFORDABLE UNITS THAN WHAT CAN BE ACHIEVED UNDER WITH AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

GOTCHA.

OKAY.

UM, AND YOU DON'T KNOW A QUANTIFICATION APPROXIMATE OF THAT UNDER THE EMF SIX, THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IS 200 UNDER MF FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS MAX OUT AT 124, I BELIEVE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'D BE AT 60 MINUTES.

OKAY.

SO THE NEXT QUESTION I'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE, THE, UH, OF THE, UH, I GUESS, UH, UH, FORCING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GETTING FORCED OUT AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT AND BEING DISPLACED.

UM, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF MECHANISM TO GET SOME TYPE OF, UM, LIKE RIGHT TO RETURN? I MEAN, THE THING IS, AND WE'RE NOT REALLY DISPLACING ANYBODY, BUT TO ME, ANYTIME WE START LEVERAGING SOME TYPE OF AFFORDABILITY STUFF AND THE COMMUNITY THAT IS HOSTING THAT SOMEHOW I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME, I DUNNO, SOME PREFERENCE OR SOME CONSIDERATION TO HAVE A RIGHT TO COME BACK.

LIKE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO RETURN, BUT THAT'S USUALLY WHEN WE DISPLACE, YOU'RE NOT DISPLACING, BUT HOW CAN WE ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO BE BENEFIT TO BENEFIT FROM THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS? BECAUSE AS WE'VE HEARD THAT THESE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT REALLY NEED IT, AND BY PUTTING THIS MUCH DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN START SERVING THIS, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'VE ALSO HEARD THAT THEY'RE AFRAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU'RE BUILDING THIS FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

WELL, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMUNITY'S GETTING THAT.

I MEAN, IS THERE, IS, IS THERE, IS THERE SOME, SOME ISSUE OR IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP, YOU KNOW, PUT THE COMMITMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY? MR. SHAY, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

UM, I WOULD LOVE TO EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO, UM, HAVE THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH THE SAME ZIP CODE TO HAVE FIRST CHOICE IN HOUSING, IN AN AREA, IF IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE.

UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NOT A PROGRAM AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THAT.

UM, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE THAT ANY WAY THAT WE CAN, UH, BUT THERE'S A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STEP UP WHEN UNITS DO BECOME AVAILABLE TO, TO APPLY FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OBVIOUSLY UNDER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BE HOUSING.

THAT'S BUILT FOR THE PEOPLE MOVING HERE FROM CALIFORNIA.

SO THERE'S ZERO OPPORTUNITY AT THAT POINT.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR IF I KNOW MY TIME'S UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW STAFF COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.

CONTINUE COMMISSIONER SHANE'S QUESTIONS, OR I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, COMMISSIONER SINKER.

[00:45:01]

I WOULD LIKE TO REFER BACK TO JAMES CHAISE COMMISSIONER SHAY'S QUESTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES.

AND THEN I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED TO BE ASSURED THAT AS WELL, APPLY AT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SHOULD THEY GET THE ZONING? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, SHOULD I, UM, SO MY QUESTION WAS BACK TO STAFF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, CAUSE TH THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT RIGHT TO RETURN AND A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH DISPLACEMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS LARGER CONVERSATION.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE ABOUT ANY OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY AS IT COMES INTO A COMMUNITY.

AND IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT TO HELP SERVE THAT COMMUNITY? UM, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME PREFERENTIAL BASIS, BUT STILL, YOU KNOW, NOT BE HIT BY FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

UM, THIS IS KATE, UH, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

UM, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK IT DOES WARRANT A LARGER DISCUSSION.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WITH OUR STAFF, I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, REGARDING AFFORDABILITY UNLIMITED, WHAT GUARANTEES IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOING TO HAVE, SHOULD THIS APPLICANT ZONING THAT A HALF, ONE, HALF OR 50% OF THESE UNITS WILL BE AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE.

AND I'D LIKE TO READ THIS AT THE MFI THAT APPLIES.

IF THE, UM, IF THE APPLICANT IS APPROVED FOR NSX, ZONING, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED HERE.

KATE, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER? YEAH.

UM, SO COMMISSIONER SENIOR, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT WHAT GUARANTEES YOU ALL HAVE OR WILL THERE BE, AND BEFORE WE GET TO COUNCIL, UM, WE WILL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT, UH, PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THIS WILL BE, UH, AN AFFORDABILITY PROJECT.

UM, FURTHER, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WAS A, UM, IN OUR PRESENTATION, WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS PROJECT BEING MINDFUL OF THE CONTEXT, UM, ALONG THE TOPLESS AND, UH, NOT BEING ANY MORE THAN FIVE STORIES OR 75 FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND IF IT IS THE WILL OF, UH, THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT INTO SOME SORT OF A, PROBABLY A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT I WOULD LOOK TO STAFF TO CONFIRM THAT THAT, TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT, UM, TO, UH, TO 75 FEET 70, IT WAS, UH, PROPOSED IS 70 FEET.

YOU JUST SAID 75.

COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? UH, I, I BELIEVE SINCE THE TIME I CREATED THAT PRESENTATION, WE FOUND THAT IT'S ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 75 FEET, NOT 70.

OKAY.

75 FEET AND FIVE STORIES.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

IN YOUR DESIGN.

AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS SITE PLAN, YOU HAD THE MF THREE M FOUR DESIGN WITH A SEPARATE BUILDINGS OR BETTER DESIGN.

HE, MF SIX IS JUST ONE LARGE BUILDING.

IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF SPENDING MORE TIME ON THE DESIGN OF THIS BUILDING OF THESE BUILDINGS? ABSOLUTELY.

UM, PLEASE, PLEASE CONSIDER THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE CAME INTO THIS UNDERSTANDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION, AND WE KNEW THAT THE, THAT THIS MATTER WOULD ALSO COME UP AT COMMISSION.

SO WE DID OUR BEST TO TRY TO GET SOME RENDERINGS TOGETHER TO REPRESENT WHAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD LOOK LIKE.

UM, BUT IT'S VERY EARLY ON IN, IN THE PROCESS.

UM, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF TIME TO RECONSIDER AND LOOK AT, UM, DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS, BETTER DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THINGS FOR THESE TRACKS.

YEAH.

AND PLEASE RECONFIRM THE MFI THAT YOU'LL BE APPLYING FOR.

I DON'T HAVE THE PARTICULAR BREAKDOWNS, BUT I KNOW THAT UNDER, UNDER TYPE TWO AFFORDABILITY ON PROJECT PROJECTS, 50% OF THOSE UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE.

AND THE BREAKDOWN, UM, I'D HAVE TO REFER BACK TO CODES SPECIFICALLY.

UM, CAN WE GET ONE SECOND YEAR, AT LEAST AT LEAST 20% OF THOSE UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, AVAILABLE TO INCOMES OF 50% OR BELOW 50% MFI OR BELOW,

[00:50:02]

UM, 50% HAPPY, UH, AVAILABLE TO 60% NSI OR BELOW.

AND OUT OF THAT 50%, 20% HAS TO BE, UM, AVAILABLE TO LESS THAN LESS THAN 50% MFI.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THERE ISN'T THAT CONCERNS MAY IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE INCOME OF THE RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA, IF IT'S NOWHERE NEAR SOME OF THOSE FIGURES.

SO WE, UH, I KNOW THAT THIS IS AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP THAT THIS IS A VERY LOW INCOME AREA, AND I'M NOT SURE IF AFFORDABILITY BELLY UNLOCKED WILL HELP 50% OF THE UNITS I'M THROUGH WITH MY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTIONS FIRST FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT I'D LIKE TO IF POSSIBLE, CLEAR A FEW THINGS UP, BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT, UH, YOU, YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE, THAT COULD NOT BE DONE OR THAT WERE NOT, I DON'T THINK YOU SAID REALISTIC, BUT YOU SAID THAT COULD NOT BE DONE.

I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON THAT.

UM, AND IF YOU COULD GIVE US SOME SENSE OF WHAT WERE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKS FOR AND WHY THEY WERE NOT, UM, DOABLE.

UM, SO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UH, CAUSE I'D HAVE TO SCRAMBLE THROUGH AND FIND MY NOTES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS CAME ABOUT WITH, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THEY WANTED, UH, UM, I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS, IF IT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OR SOMETHING ACTUALLY GREATER THAN THAT TO BE PERFORMED FOR THE SITE.

UM, IN ADDITION TO WANTING TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY, HOW MANY BEDROOMS, HOW MANY UNITS, UM, WITH THIS MANY BEDROOMS AND, AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

AND WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS LINED OUT JUST YET, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WITH AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECT, UM, YOU KNOW, SITE, AREA REQUIREMENTS DON'T APPLY.

AND SO THERE'S, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, DESIGN THAT HAS TO GO INTO DETERMINING SOME OF THAT.

SO, UM, WE GAVE THEM A BEST GUESS AT WHAT WE COULD COME UP WITH AT THIS POINT.

UM, AND IF FOR SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, IT IT'S A LOT OF EXPENSE BEYOND WHAT THIS, WHAT THIS PROJECT COULD, YOU KNOW, HANDLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE ZONING OR NOT, UM, TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND STUDIES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS REQUESTING.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DID DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO, UM, WE DID DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO ENSURE, OR, OR LET THEM KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS, UM, STRICT REGULATIONS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE MATTERS CAME UP ABOUT, UH, THIS AREA OF MONTOPOLIS HAVING ISSUES WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER AND DRAINAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, W YOU KNOW, WITH CITY OF AUSTIN, CITY OF AUSTIN ADOPTING THE ATLAS 14 DATA AND, AND MORE STRICT REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THIS SITE IS GOING TO HAVE TO, UM, DO THEIR PART TO NOT MAKE THE MATTER, ANY WORSE, UM, THAN IT ALREADY IS.

AND THEY WILL HAVE TO CAPTURE AND, AND, UM, PUT IN WATER QUALITY FOR ANY RUNOFF THAT THIS SITE PRODUCES.

SO IT CERTAINLY WON'T MAKE THE AREA ANY WORSE.

UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I WONDER IF AT LEAST HAVING SOME SORT OF DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE PUT IN HERE MIGHT, MIGHT HELP IN SOME WAY.

UM, BUT DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DOESN'T ALLOW THOSE ISSUES TO BE MADE WORSE WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT COMING IN.

SO, UM, SOME OF THE THINGS WE KNEW WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF FLIGHT PLAN, AND THEY'RE JUST THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, DUE TO EXPENSE AND, AND TIMES, UM, WE JUST COULDN'T PRODUCE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

UM, WOULD IT BE REALISTIC TO PRODUCE, UM, A MORE FLESHED OUT, UH, PLANS, UM, AND POSSIBLY PROVIDE SOME MORE CONCRETE ANSWERS TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS? UM, IF A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME WAS PROVIDED, UM, YOU KNOW, I REALLY, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER BACK TO OUR CLIENT ON THAT.

AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW VERY GENERALLY THAT IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO GO INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, UM, TO GET, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S SITE PLANNING IS

[00:55:01]

WHAT IT IS, IT'S IT'S SITE PLANNING, UM, AND IT'S VERY COSTLY, VERY EXPENSIVE.

UM, BUT I DO WANT TO ALSO COMMENT TOO, THAT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BROUGHT UP WERE WITH REGARDS TO ECONOMIC JUSTICE IMPACTS GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT FOR, UM, DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS, UM, BOTH DURING THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT AND AFTERWARDS, UM, UM, THERE, THERE WERE, THERE WERE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT CAME ABOUT THAT WE DO, YOU KNOW, THIS DEVELOPMENT JUST CAN'T DO THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THERE'S THIS DESIRE AND NEED FOR THE MOST INFORMATION POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S DEVELOPMENT, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

I THINK MAYBE THE QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH JUST A QUESTION OF INFORMATION, BUT OF, UH, SOMEHOW PROVIDING GREATER REASSURANCE TO THE COMMUNITY, THAT THERE WILL BE A COMMITMENT, UH, TO, TO SORT OF WORK WITH THEM.

AND I WONDER IF MORE COULD BE DONE IN THAT REGARD, BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION THOUGH.

UM, ON THE MF FOR INITIALLY, WE WERE INFORMED THAT, UH, FOR AFFORDABILITY ON LOCKED WOULD ONLY WORK UNDER MF SIX, BUT THEN WE HEARD RIGHT NOW THAT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED COULD BE A POSSIBILITY UNDER MF FOUR.

SORRY, I RE I RAN OUT OF TIME.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO CONTINUE THAT QUESTION, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED COULD WORK UNDER MFR.

YES.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, BEFORE YOU USE YOUR TIME.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE, UH, THERE'S A REMINDER THAT WE CANNOT REQUIRE PARTICIPATION IN AFFORDABILITY ONLINE, SO IT SHOULDN'T NOT BE CONSIDERED JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER MISSIONARY DID, UM, WAS THAT INFORMATION FORTHCOMING VIA THE APPLICANT? UM, TO FOLLOW UP WITH COMMISSIONER PAULO'S QUESTION AND IF NOT, THAT'S OKAY.

NO, IT'S JUST TO ALL OF US AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT QUESTIONING.

OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

I WAS ASKING THE APPLICANT, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER PAULO SAID THAT HE HEARD ABOUT UM, IS THAT INFORMATION COMING FROM THE APPLICANT? YEAH, YOU'RE ASKING ME, I GUESS I'M ASKING THE APPLICANT OR SO MS. MS IS A PROCESS IN ITSELF CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED, UM, WITH AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK, UM, THE PROJECT NEEDS DUE TO IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO EVEN THOUGH, UM, IF YOU GUYS WERE TO GET AN F FOR YOU, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFORDABILITY AND IS, UM, IT'S THE PROJECT COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, RON THROW WE'RE HERE.

HI, YOU'RE HAVE SIX MSX DOES, UH, DOES PROVIDE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, UH, OPPORTUNITIES, BETTER PLANNING COULD ACHIEVE MORE UNITS UNDER MSX BECAUSE OF THAT.

UM, M F FOUR WITH AFFORDABLE, UM, UNLOCK AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK IS CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY.

YES, IT WOULD JUST BE LESS THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER MS. SIX.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU.

AND I BELIEVE HER ONE OF YOU TWO TALKING A MOMENT AGO THAT BEFORE THIS WERE TO GET TO COUNCIL, IF YOU HAD THE, FOR EXAMPLE, MS. , THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A PRIVATE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN PLACE BEFORE COUNCIL, CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND IF YOU'VE GOT THE ZONE EVEN A SIX AND YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABILITY AND YOU WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD IT FOR ABILITY ON LOCK, DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE BASED ZONING IS NOW THAT'S AT THREE, OR I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU OR STAFF.

I BELIEVE IF WE DID NOT PRODUCE A RESTRICT TO CABINET, UH, THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MS. THREE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE WITH NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING SAFETY, MY WAY IN, ON THAT DATE, WE WILL PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITH WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THIS EVENING.

AND IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS , THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE FOR.

UM, THE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE AT THAT TIME WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MSX OR AMENDED TO MS. THREE, BUT WE WOULDN'T.

UM, IF THERE WASN'T THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN PLACE, STAFF WOULD NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO REVERT TO WITHOUT IT GOING TO COUNCIL AND BEING TOLD TO DO SO.

THANK YOU.

AND COULD YOU REMIND ME THE DESIGN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR? I FORGOTTEN THEM.

I THOUGHT WE'D BE DONE WITH THREE AND FOUR BY NOW.

UM, THE HEIGHT IS THE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS, UH, IN MS. THREE, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD UP TO 40 FEET AND MS. FOUR THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD UP TO 60.

UM, THE FRONT SETBACK FOR MS IS 25 FEET FOR 15 FOR THE SIDE STREET, UM, AND REAR THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.

THE MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE IS DIFFERENT THAN MS. THREE IT'S 55% VERSUS

[01:00:01]

60%.

THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

IT IS 65% IN MP3 VERSUS 70% IN MF FOUR.

AND THE FAR IS THE SAME.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHAW.

HELLO.

UH, SO THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT IF THEY CAN'T ANSWER IT, THEN IT WOULD BE STAFF.

SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, UH, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO BASE OUR DECISION, UH, OR REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY, BUT ON THE MF THREE, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT SAID COMPATIBILITY RESTRICTED THE HEIGHT ON THE , BUT IF YOU GO WITH AN AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, I THOUGHT THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO, THAT, UH, THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS APPLY.

UM, SO YOU WOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED DUE TO COMPATIBILITY.

IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK THAT IT GETS YOU, IT GETS YOU OUT OF THOSE, UH, COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, I GUESS WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO IN THAT THREE, UM, IN THE THREE, WOULD THAT IN AFFORDABILITY ON LOTS PROJECT HERE UNDER NSF, CORRECT.

THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH COMPATIBILITY, BUT AS RON STATED EARLIER WITH AN MFP PROJECT, THERE ISN'T A PLAN TO DO AN AFFORDABILITY AND LAUNCH PROGRAM, UM, TO APPLY FOR THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK PROGRAM, UH, WITH AN MS. THREE, UH, DEVELOPMENT.

SO IN THAT SENSE, IF MS THREE, IF STAFF WERE TO, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL WERE TO GO WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S THREE, UM, COMBAT COMPATIBILITY WOULD APPLY, UM, BECAUSE IT IT'S, IT'S NOT PREPARED TO BE AN AFFORDABILITY AND PROJECT AT THAT TIME AND COMMISSIONER, THIS IS RON THROWER.

IF I COULD JUST ADD, I'M GOING TO TRY AND SIMPLIFY THIS UNDER MS. THREE, IF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED WITH THOUGHT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A PROJECT WITH LESS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, BUT AT A MAXIMUM OF 60 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND THEREFORE COULD ACHIEVE THE HEIGHT THAT IS PROPOSED UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU'VE SEEN THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS LESS UNDER INBEV FOUR.

SO THE UNITS WOULD BE LAST MF SIX WITH A AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, LIMITING IT TO FIVE STORIES WOULD PROVIDE UP TO A HUNDRED UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THANK YOU.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T, IT'S JUST, I GUESS, FOR THE, UH, THE APPLICANT, IT'S JUST NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, UH, WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON NET MP3 ZONING.

THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING.

OKAY.

UM, THAT'S ALL I, THAT'S ALL I HAD.

YEAH.

COMMISSIONERS ARE.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

AND I GUESS WE CAN CIRCLE BACK TO COMMISSIONER CGD GONE WITH LIKE A SECOND SPOT, HOPEFULLY.

UM, SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

THIS IS FOR STAFF, STEPHANIE, PLEASE CONFIRM.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FINDING OF THE GOURD IS CORRECT THAT THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM REQUIRES 50% OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.

20% OF THOSE HAVE TO BE AT 50% MFI AND LORE AND 30 HAVE TO BE AT 60% MFI IN LORE.

AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, 25% OF ALL THE UNITS HAVE TO DO OR MORE BEDROOMS OR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OR HOUSING FOR SENIORS.

AM I CORRECT? MR. SORRY.

I'VE UM, I'VE JUST FOUND THE AFFORDED PLAN, LOTS OF ORDINANCE.

AND I'M READING THROUGH IT, UM, AT THIS, AT THIS TIME, I CAN'T CONFIRM YOUR, UM, THOUGHTS RIGHT NOW, BUT I WILL, I WILL TRY AND CATCH UP AND READING THE ORDINANCE.

UM, AND IF YOU COULD CIRCLE BACK TO ME, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, MY OTHER QUESTION WAS FOR STAFF IN THE AFRICAN BOAT, CAN YOU ALL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE FLOODING ISSUES THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS AND MENTIONED, CAN YOU SPEAK TO SORT OF WHAT IS BEING DONE? WHAT ARE THE FLOODING ISSUES AND WHAT IS BEING DONE TO COUNTER THEM? UH, THIS IS KATE, UM, WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING INTO THE FLOODING ISSUES AT THIS TIME.

I DO KNOW THAT WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION IS PART OF THE SITE PLANNING STAGE, AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THAT REVIEW PROCESS AT

[01:05:01]

THAT POINT, BUT THERE ISN'T A STUDY BEING CONDUCTED CURRENTLY.

AND IF I AM GRANT, THIS IS NOT WITHIN THE FRONT LANE.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S THE QUESTION.

AND SO WHEN CONFIRM THAT THIS IS NOT WITHIN THE, IT IS NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THEN IF WE CAN CIRCLE BACK ON THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY OR RECONSIDERING, WHATEVER WE TALK ABOUT , UM, COMMISSIONER I SAW IN THE AREA THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING WITH THE 50% AT 50% OF THE TOTAL UNITS WITH 60% MFI AND 20% AT THE 50% MFI I'M HAVING TROUBLE LOCATING.

I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING WITH 25%, THAT WAS FOR BEDROOM GOWNS.

I THINK THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT 25% OF ALL UNITS HAVE TO HAVE TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS. I THINK, UM, I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.

I KNOW THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THIS ORDINANCE, BUT, UM, LOOKING AT IT, WHAT YOU'VE STATED, IT LOOKS CORRECT FOR TYPE ONE DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE READING FOR TYPE TWO AND SEE IF IT CHANGED AT ALL.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LEVEL HE WASN'T GOING.

IT SAID 60, 40% OF UNITS SAID 50% OF THE FIGHTING.

THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.

SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

TWO MORE SPOTS.

ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, JUST YOU'RE MUTED COMMISSIONER SENIOR YEAR MUNIN.

OKAY, SORRY.

UM, TYPE TWO IT'S 50% ARE TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS. AND, UH, MY CLARIFICATION QUESTION, IS THIS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR A PUBLIC RESTRICTED COVENANT? I'VE HEARD BOTH TERMS USED.

COULD STEP, PLEASE CLARIFY THAT IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT TO WORK WITH THE THIRD PARTY FOR 4 BILLION UNLOCKED, IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

IT WOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC ONE.

SO IT'D BE A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BETWEEN THE THIRD PARTY AND THE APPLICANT.

YES.

OKAY.

IS, UH, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE A PUBLIC IF THERE'S A CEO TO RESTRICT THE HEIGHT OR THE FLOORS? YES, IT BE, UM, THERE WOULD BE A CEO TO RESTRICT TYPE AND FLOORS.

UM, OKAY.

I DO NOT KNOW ANY OTHER RESTRICTION.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE PUBLIC REALM.

OKAY.

YEAH.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT.

GOT ONE MORE SPOT FOR A QUESTION, MR. CENTER.

I HATE TO KEEP COMING BACK.

UM, BUT I JUST HAD ANOTHER QUESTION IF, UM, I THINK THIS IS FOR STAFF, BUT THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ASK IT