[00:00:05]
[Call to Order]
I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING THE MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER FIRST.I'M GOING TO TAKE THE ROLE, UM, COMMISSIONER KOSTA.
UH DINKLER COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
COMMISSIONER WOODY HERE AND COMMISSIONER BOON HERE.
[Consent Agenda]
ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA.FIRST IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SUGGEST FOR THE MINUTES LOOKING IN THE TV? I SEE NONE.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER WOODY WAS PRESENT FOR A PORTION OF THE MEETING.
SO HOW IS THAT REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES WE HAVE HIM AS ABSENT AND , I DIDN'T HAVE HIM PRESENT DURING THE CONSENT AGENDA OR FOR THAT MEETING.
THERE WAS A SHORT, YEAH, I THINK HE CA HE CAME IN AT THE DISCUSSION ITEM.
IT WAS JUST, IT WAS A FULL CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE AGENDA.
SO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, B ONE IS A REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 61 WEST WILLIAM CANNON HOUSING.
AND THAT APP, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 1ST, B TWO ZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 8 4 7 2 0 1 FM ROAD, 2222.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THAT'S TODAY, FEBRUARY 1ST.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MARCH 1ST, THE 15TH.
UH, B3 IS A REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 4 2.
AND THAT'S BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 8 9 4 8 3 3 SPICE WOOD SPRINGS.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH.
UM, B FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 20 19 0 1 6 6 PARMER BUSINESS PARK.
AND THAT THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED A POSTWOMAN UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH, B6 RESTRICTED COVENANT TERMINATION OF C 14 20 16, 0 1 2 4 RCT PARMER BUSINESS PARK, RCT, AND THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH.
SEVEN REZONING, C 14 20 21 0 1 9 5 HOWARD LANE RESIDENCES TO, AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IS RECOMMENDED B EIGHT, REZONING C 14 H 20 21 0 1 6 4 CHRYSLER AIR TEMP HOUSE.
THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 1ST, BENIGN FINAL PLAT OUT OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT J 20 18 0 2 1 THREE.ONE EIGHT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IS RECOMMENDED B 10 PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT TO 20 20 0 1 4 1 VELOCITY PRELIMINARY PLAN IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISAPPROVAL APPROVAL FOR REASONS.
B 11, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 20 0 1 1 2 BREAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION, A PRELIMINARY PLAN DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C, UH, B12 FINAL PLAT C 8 20 21 0 1 7 NINE.ZERO EIGHT, CADENCE COUNTY RANCH, FINAL PLAT, AND IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL WITH A RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS A POSTPONEMENT FOR B ONE TILL MARCH 1ST, POSTPONEMENT FOR B2 UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH, A POSTPONEMENT FOR BEFORE, UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH, A AND B FIVE AND B6 FOR UNTIL FEBRUARY 15TH, B SEVEN IS CONSENT.
B EIGHT IS POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH 1ST, BENIGN CONSENT, B 10 AND 11 DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AND B12 CONSENT.
UH, JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE, IS THAT, COULD YOU CLARIFY OR REPEAT THE POSTPONEMENT DATE OR BEFORE? SURE.
JUST TO CLARIFY ITEM TWO AND ITEM FOUR, BOTH POST ALMOST TO FEBRUARY 15TH MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
SORRY, YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY ITEM TWO AND FOUR ARE BOTH POSTPONEMENTS TO FEBRUARY 15TH.
IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, THANK YOU.
[00:05:01]
YES, NOPE.BULK NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONE WITH YOU, RIGHT? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ, AND THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, YOU'RE APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO ITEM A, B SEVEN, IF THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MF FOUR.
I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY, VERIFY THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND YET MOST OF US ALSO HAVE CLOSED PUBLIC AREA THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS.
OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO
[B3. Rezoning: C14-2021-0142 - Perfect Cuts Landscaping; District 6]
OUR DISCUSSION ITEM OF B3.COMMISSIONERS SHERRY'S OR WITNESS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
I GUESS I HAD THE WRONG THING.
THIS IS CASEY 14 21 20 21 0 1 4 2.
THIS IS LOCATED AT 1 3, 5 6 1 HARM PALM SPRINGS ROAD.
THE REQUEST IS FROM GRC ZONING TO CS AND UCO ZONING.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT GRM, UCO, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE A 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE TWO TO COMBINE, TO COMPLY WITH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THE CODE THREE TO PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING USES AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE SALES AUTOMOTIVE, WASHING DROP-OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, PAWN SHOP SERVICES AND SERVICE STATION AND FIVE TO MAKE RESTAURANT GENERAL AND RESTAURANT LIMITED CONDITIONAL USES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY UTILIZED AS THE LANDSCAPING COMPANY, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A CONSTRUCTION SELLS AND SERVICES USING THE CODE BESIDE IT WAS DEVELOPED WITH A PLANNER FREE TO USE, WHICH WAS THE HILL COUNTRY GARDEN CENTER, UH, WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN 1998, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CSM UCO ZONING TO BRING THE CURRENT USE, WHICH IS A CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES USE ON THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHED RECOMMENDING GRM UCO ZONING.
THE PROPOSAL A PATIENT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY FRONTS ONTO A MINOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY, HAN SPRINGS ROAD GRM UCA ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING PATTERNS IN THIS AREA.
AND IS THERE A GRCS ZONING TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THIS SITE? THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SURROUNDED BY OFFICE WAREHOUSE USES TO THE NORTH AND AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE TO THE WEST SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IS TO THE EAST AND A LARGE WATER TOWER TO THE SOUTH ACROSS SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL MAINTAIN THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES APPLIANCE WITH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND THE 50 FOOT WIDE VEGETATED BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE COUNTY FROM THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STAFF IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO SEE US ZONING AT THIS LOCATION.
AS WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES MIXED USE ZONING AS APPROPRIATE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALM SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS IN MAR MINOR ARCIERO ROADWAY AND SHADY OF STRIVE OR RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST GRM UCF ZONING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ALONG POND SPRINGS ROAD, AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER GRC ZONE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST.
THE SITE DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE CS DISTRICT.
IT IS NOT LOCATED ON A MAJOR AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BACKS UP TO RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE EAST.
THE STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF THE COMBINING DISTRICT AS THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
THE MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT WILL PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL CIVICS AND COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NEXT, JUST A POINT OF INFORMATION.
CAN THE RECORD REFLECT THAT MR. BRAY COMMISSIONER BRAY JUST JOINED US? HI, UH, SO MICAH KING WITH HUSH BLACKWELL AND BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL
[00:10:01]
VIRTUALLY AND IN PERSON.SO IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE THE SECOND SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY, UH, PERFECT PETS, LANDSCAPING.
UM, BRANDON CROUSEY WITH THE COMPANY IS ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 2016.
THE PROPERTY IS IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN, ADJACENT TO THE ETJ AT STONE GR CEO.
AND WE'RE ASKING TO GO TO SEE SMU IN ORDER TO BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING USE, WHICH IS A HISTORIC USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT USE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1987.
YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING USES WE'RE RIGHT OFF OF 180 3, ABOUT 700 FEET FROM IT.
UH, HAVE A MIX OF USES AROUND IT, INCLUDING, UM, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL WATER SUPPLY TOWER AND ANOTHER LANDSCAPING BUSINESS, RIGHT ON THE STREET.
AND NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, THE CITY AND EXCESS PROPERTY, UH, NOT TOO LONG AGO, 1998.
UH, IT WAS REZONED AT THAT TIME OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN ORDER TO MAKE THE USE OF CONFORMING.
UM, WHAT WASN'T CLEAR BACK THEN THOUGH, IS THAT THE, THERE WERE MULTIPLE USES OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, ONE OF THOSE WAS LANDSCAPING SALES AND SERVICE, UH, WHICH IS, UH, THE SAME THING AS WE HAVE TODAY.
UH, HERE YOU HAVE JUST TO PROVIDE A HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IN 1991 YELLOW PAGE AD FOR THE HILL COUNTRY LANDSCAPE BUSINESS, THAT WAS THERE FOR MANY YEARS.
UM, IN FACT, THE FAMILY THAT HAD THAT BUSINESS, VERY HISTORIC, UH, LANDSCAPING FAMILY IN AUSTIN, UH, WORKED ON THE ZILKER BOTANICAL GARDENS AND FIESTA SHORES, UM, AND EVEN, UM, PART OF, UH, THE PARK.
UM, AGAIN, MORE JUST EVIDENCE SHOWING THE HISTORIC OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THIS ONE FROM 2011, TALKING ABOUT THE INSTALLATION OF TREES, WHICH IS PART OF LANDSCAPING SERVICES.
AND WE EVEN HAVE, UM, A LETTER FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL.
IT GOES INTO THE USES OF THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1987.
IT WAS THE SUPPLY YARD, UM, AROUND THEN, AND THEN FOR THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS, AUSTIN ROCKS AND CONTINENTAL CUT STONE, BOTH OF WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE USES JUST LIKE A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS.
UM, AND SO REALLY YOU SEE AN UNINTERRUPTED, UH, USE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION SELLS AND SERVICES FROM THE EIGHTIES THROUGH THE PRESENT DAY.
UM, THIS IS A IMAGE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ANOTHER EXACT SAME TYPE OF BUSINESS WITHIN 300 FEET.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS STRETCH OF PONDS TO BRINGS ROAD, UH, INCLUDES A LOT OF RELATED TYPES OF BUSINESSES, INCLUDING OTHER LANDSCAPING BUSINESSES, UM, AND SIMILAR TYPES OF COMPANIES.
THE NEXT SLIDE WE ARE AGREEABLE TO CARRYING FORWARD THE EXISTING CEO THAT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY.
THIS INCLUDES A 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER, UM, ON THE ONE SIDE THAT IS ADJACENT TO SOME RESIDENTIAL USES AND WE'RE ALSO AGREEABLE TO CARRYING FORWARD ALL OF THE PROHIBITED USES AND THE NEXT SLIDE ADDING EVEN ADDITIONAL USES TO THAT LIST OF PROHIBITED USES, UM, TO MAKE SURE IT'S COMPATIBLE.
I'M HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY, I THINK THAT'S IT.
SO DOES ANYBODY WANT TO START WITH THE QUESTIONS OR, OH, YEP.
SO WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO CLOSE.
THERE'S A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER SMITH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER BRAISE, ARE YOU IN FAVOR? THERE YOU GO.
SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY BESIDES S ZONING TO MAKE THIS CURRENT USE LEGAL DID SHE, MR. GRANBERG COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YEAH.
IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY, BESIDES CSA ZONING TO MAKE THIS CURRENT USE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES IS FIRST PERMITTED IN THE CS DISTRICT, IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE GR DISTRICT, THE CURRENT OR THE PREVIOUS USE, WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR IN 2014 AS A PLANT NURSERY WAS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GR
[00:15:01]
DISTRICT.I, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT, SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT THE DISTANCE FROM 180 3 AND THE DISTANCE FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES THE ROADWAY.
I LOOKED AT THE SMP, I LOOKED AT ALL KINDS OF THINGS TO TRY AND, UM, SQUARE THIS IN MY MIND.
I MEAN, I THINK WHAT I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH IS THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, 800 FEET FROM 180 3, IT'S A MAJOR HIGHWAY AND LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER USES AROUND THERE, THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, COMPARING COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, YOU KNOW, ACTIVITIES, YOU KNOW, THE IT'S NOT, UM, IN MY MIND, IT'S NOT A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AREA.
IT'S A COMMERCIAL, MORE OF A COMMERCIAL IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
YOU HAVE AUTO USES ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, AND NEXT TO IT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE'S A WATER TOWER NEXT DOOR TO THEM.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S A AUTO SHOP.
SO I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S KINDA, THOSE ARE KINDA MY THOUGHTS.
GRANTING THE CSA ZONING FOR THAT REASON.
I THINK IT'S EXPENSIVE TO ASK SOMEONE TO MOVE AND THAT THEY'RE A NON-CONFORMING USE.
UM, I KNOW IT'S KIND OF BACKWARDS LOOKING AT THE USE AND THEN DETERMINING THE ZONING, BUT AGAIN, THEY'VE BEEN THERE SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
UM, THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
UM, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THIS BUSINESS MOVE.
UM, THEY'RE NOT JUST CLOSE TO 180 3 ON A VISIT TO THE PROPERTY.
UM, BUT THEY ARE ALSO ADJACENT TO AT LEAST ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO I THOUGHT SORT OF A REASONABLE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THE C S M U C O UM, REQUESTED WITH THE CEO.
UM, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS A 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER TO CONTINUE.
UM, BUT TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, ONE-TO-ONE FAR AND PROHIBIT THE USES THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED, I THINK, I THINK HE GOT PRETTY MUCH ALL THAT'S ADDITIONAL CS USES THAT, UM, ARE NOT IN GR THAT ARE SORT OF CONCERNING.
UM, SO THAT'S WOULD BE MY MOTION TO GRANT THE C S M U C O WITH THE 50 FOOT BUFFER.
UM, THE ONE TO ONE FAR TO MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES.
WHAT I HAVE FOR PROHIBITED USES ARE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE, WASHING CAMPGROUND, COMMERCIAL, BLOOD PLASMA, CONVENIENCE STORAGE DROP OFF RECYCLING EQUIPMENT, SALES, EQUIPMENT, REPAIR, EXTERMINATION SERVICES, KENNELS, LAUNDRY, OUTDOOR SPORTS, AND RECREATION, PAWN SHOP, AND SERVICE STATION.
IT'S A LOT, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF USES THAT I WOULDN'T WANT NEXT TO ME IF I WAS THE ONE HOUSE NEXT TO THE C CS PROPERTY AND KEEP THE RESTAURANT LIMITED AND RESTAURANT GENERAL CONDITIONAL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE CONCERN I'VE GOT WITH THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE WITH THAT, I LACKED THE MOTION, BUT THE ONE-TO-ONE THE ONE POINT O F I R GIVES ME CONCERN.
IF THEY GO AND USE THIS AS A MIXED USE MULTI-FAMILY TYPE FACILITY AND BRING IN MORE HOUSING, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE HOUSING.
CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED IN THE CITY.
SO IT WAS OUR, A WAY TO COUCH THIS, THAT IF IT STAYS AS A LANDSCAPE FACILITY, THE 1.1 ONE-TO-ONE FIR REMAINS.
BUT IF THEY GO TO MORE OF A MULTI-FAMILY USE, THEN THESE ZONING FAR LITERALLY WILL, WOULD REGULATE WELL, GRM, YOU AND CSM.
YOU HAVE THE EXACT SAME SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD REALLY LIMIT HOW MUCH HOUSING THEY CAN PROVIDE WITH THE S THAT THE FIR WOULD LIMIT THAT IF THEY HAD TO GO VERTICAL.
SO IT WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS IF THEY DO GO GO MULTI-FAMILY, IT DOESN'T LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MULTI-FAMILY COULD POSSIBLY LIMIT TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE FIR WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MULTI-FAMILY THAT'S WHAT FIR WILL DO.
I TOO WENT AND LOOKED AT THE SIDE.
IT'S A VERY DEEP LOT, UM, 585 SQUARE FEET AND LENGTH.
AND I TRIED TO LOOK AT THE HEIGHT
[00:20:01]
ISSUES AS WELL.WHY I LANDED ON THE ONE-TO-ONE FAR IS THAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY NOT ONLY MAKING THIS GENTLEMAN WHOLE.
AND I THOUGHT THE CASE WAS MADE THAT HE, THIS WAS AN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES USE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT I DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO ADD MORE THAN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD HAVE.
UM, IT'S A HUNDRED FEET, UH, IF YOU HAVE 40 FEET AND THEN THEY COULD GO UP EVEN FURTHER, ONE INCH FOR HEIGHT FOR EACH 10 FEET OF SETBACK AND FOR 585 FEET IN LENGTH, UM, YOU CAN GET TO THAT 60 PRETTY, PRETTY QUICKLY.
SO I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE ONE-TO-ONE FAR.
I DO WANT TO ASK THE MOTION MAKER.
WAS THERE, DID YOU MENTION THAT YOU WANTED TO PROHIBIT ACCESS TO SHADY OAKS DRIVE? I DIDN'T MENTION THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PREVENT ACCESS TO SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS IN A WAY OF ALSO ADDRESSING A NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS.
I'LL, I'LL MOVE THAT AS A, UM, MOTION IS TECHNICALLY, IT'S A SUBSTITUTE CHAIR.
IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALSO IF THE, THE SECOND TO THE MOTION AND WE'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I MEAN, I STILL HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE ONE-TO-ONE IF THEY GO MULTIFAMILY, BECAUSE THE MIXED USE IS THERE TO GET MORE HOUSING.
AND IF WE LIMIT IT TO ONE-TO-ONE FIR YOU WON'T GET AS MUCH HOUSING AS WE DO.
IF YOU GO TO THE SIESTA, WHICH ALLOWS TWO TO ONE.
UH, SO I'M AFRAID WE'RE LIMITING HOUSING BY LIMITING IT TO ONE-TO-ONE.
AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE IF THERE'S A WAY TO GO ONE-TO-ONE IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL USE, GO TWO TO ONE, WHICH IS THE CS BASED ZONING.
IF IT'S GONE WITH, IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD DO THAT? I'M LOOKING AT LOOKING AT STAFF COMMISSIONER SMITH, THERE, THERE IS NO WAY TO, TO PUT A CONDITION I USE.
SO, YEAH, I THINK THE REASON THE OTHER ISSUE, IF I MAY COMMENT ONE MORE TIME, I DON'T WANT TO OVERLY SPEAK HERE, BUT THAT WHOLE STRIP IS SO COMMERCIAL.
I DON'T SEE HOUSING GOING IN THERE FOR, WELL, I THINK GOING TO SEE HOUSING GOING IN A LOT OF PLACES, WE WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE, IT COULD BE A MIX AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, SINGLE MULTI-FAMILY ABOVE.
AND SO I THINK IT'S TOTALLY RIGHT, RIGHT.
I HATE TO RESTRICT IT AND SAY, WE CAN'T GO WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY USE BY EFFECTIVELY GOING TO THE ONE-TO-ONE.
THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE ONE-TO-ONE BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATING OR GREATLY REDUCING THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANY KIND OF MULTIFAMILY IN THERE OR MIXED USE DOES NOT RESTRICT YOU FROM MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S BASICALLY THE BULK OF THE, YOU CAN'T GO AS, AS TALL, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE RATIO HAS 0.7, FIVE TO ONE AND THEY ARE, SO IT'S NOT RESTRICTING FROM, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MIXED USE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE RETAIL FIRST FLOOR.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MIXED MULTIFAMILY ABOVE YOU NEED THE MORE AT THE HIGHER FIR TO GET THAT DONE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT JUST MULTIFAMILY OUT OF GREED.
TRY TO ENCOURAGE THE MIXED USE, WHICH IS WHAT THE CSM U IS FOR TO GET THE TRUE MIXED USE TO REALLY ALLOW IT.
WE NEED TO INCREASE THE FIR ABOVE THE BASE ONE TO ONE IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY OBTAIN THE TRUE MIXED USE, WHICH I THINK THE SITE IS THEN WE CAN ON IT.
I MEAN, I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE GO WITH THE CSM SMU WITH THE SAME CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AS, UH, IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION, THE ONLY CHANGE WOULD BE WE'RE LEAVING THE TWO TO ONE FAR BASED ON THE CS BASED ZONING, AS OPPOSED TO THE LIMITING, THE ONE-TO-ONE AND KEEPING ALL THE PROHIBITED USE ALL THEIR PRIVATE JUICES WOULD REMAIN EXACTLY AS IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION, THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND IF REALLY AMENDMENT AS WELL, WE'RE STRETCHING THIS OUT.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE CHANGING IS THE FIR ALLOWED IT TO GO TO THE TWO TO ONE SO WE CAN GET SOME TRUE MIXED USE IN THERE AND SOME TRUE HOUSING POS POTENTIALLY.
SO THAT'LL BE MY STUFF TO DO MOTION.
SO DID WE VOTE? WE VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION FIRST AND THE SUBSIDY BUSH.
I SAID, SO I NEED A SECOND FIRST.
DO I HAVE A SECOND SECONDED? OKAY.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOON.
SO DO WE NEED ME TO REVIEW, REVIEW THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION AGAIN? OR DOES EVERYBODY HAVE IT? NO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALTHOUGH AS OPPOSED, I MEAN, AND ANY ABSTENTIONS, SO THAT PASSES SEVEN TO FOUR.
YOU DON'T GO BACK TO THE FIRST,
[00:25:02]
UH, CHAIR, I'M TAKING NOTES HERE FOR THE MINUTES.COULD YOU PLEASE, UH, THE VOTE WAS SEVEN TO FOUR.
TELL ME, UH, WHO VOTED FOR THE MODE OR THE MOTION? UH, KOSTA BRAY, THOMPSON, WOODY, MYSELF.
WHO VOTED AGAINST? I'LL JUST TAKE THE SHORTER LIST.
OH, UM, GREENBURG DINKLER KIELBASA AND KING.
SO MOVING ON TO ITEM C, ONE ITEMS
[Items C1 & D]
FROM, FROM THE COMMISSION.I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT UNLESS WE DO BY SHARE.
UM, THIS KIND OF BRINGS UP A PROBLEM THAT'S CONSISTENT THROUGH THE CITY.
I GUESS IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION TO THE PEOPLE ON CODES AND ORDINANCES TO PERHAPS ADD LANDSCAPE SERVICES AS A COMMITTED USE IN GR CAUSE THIS IS A REALLY, YOU KNOW, TORTUROUS PROCESS TO HAVING TO REZONE PROPERTIES, TO SEE US JUST FOR LANDSCAPING AND EVEN THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WATER TOWERS, A LANDSCAPER THAT'S BASICALLY I GUESS, AN ILLEGAL USE.
SO WE THINK THE CODE SHOULD BE FIXED.
I, I THINK I WILL BE TALKING TO AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER AND SEEING IF WE CAN ADD THAT TO THEIR AGENDA.
WHAT STRUCK ME IS IT WASN'T JUST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
HOW MANY FEES WERE LOCATED, THE AREA THAT WE'RE IN PROPERLY ZONED.
AND THE OTHER THING I NOTICED AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE WHOLE USE QUESTION IS HOW MANY POTENTIAL VARIATIONS LANDSCAPING WE HAD.
WE HAD BUILDING SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE.
WE HAD ONE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO TREES.
WE HAD THE CONSTRUCTION SALES, AND I WAS LIKE, I'M GETTING A HEADACHE AND I'M NOT EVEN HAVING TO LOOK AT THIS NEARLY AS OKAY.
SO MOVING ON TO ANYTHING ELSE FROM C1.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET A BRIEFING FROM THE, ON THE AUSTIN'S STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AMENDMENTS? I SEE IT AS SLATED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, IN MARCH.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS A TIMELINE FOR US CHUCK AND MISSION LIAISON ON WE'RE ALL DISSEMINATE THAT DATE TO THE COMMISSION.
I HOPE THEY'RE NOT SCARED OF COMING IN FRONT OF US.
SO MAYBE WE WANT TO BE THE SCARY COMMISSION.
IT NEVER HURTS TO HAVE LOTS OF EYES LOOKING AT A DOCUMENT SO THAT YES, COMMISSIONER KING.
I, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BEING A PRIORITY.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE WHEELS ARE TURNING ON THOSE AMENDMENTS AND, AND THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS IN MANY, IN MANY WAYS ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON, ON OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT AND A PRIORITY FOR OUR CITY, BUT ALSO WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THAT UPDATE AS SOON AS WE CAN.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANYTHING ELSE ON THERE? UH, YES.
I I'LL, I'LL FOLLOW UP MORE DIRECTLY WITH ANDREW, BUT THE LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT WE KIND OF COORDINATED TO SEND OFF TO WATERSHED ENDED UP NOT MAKING IT ALL THE WAY TO THEM, FOR THEIR PRESENTATION TO US.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO RE REQUEST IF YOU HAVE BRIEFINGS ON SOME OF THOSE TOPICS THAT WE IDENTIFIED.
SO I'LL JUST, REFORWARD FORWARD THE SAME LIST AND, UM, BEING COMMUNICATION.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT GET SCHEDULED, YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE TIME CHECK COMMISSION-WISE ON ANDROID.
THAT IS STILL ON THE PLANE AND, UH, THERE'S, UH, INTERNAL, UH, MEETINGS TAKING PLACE.
AND THEN, UM, WE, UH, HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT.
IT'S STILL SCHEDULED FOR OUR OPINION MEETING DATE.
WE HAVE A NEW, NEW ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, RIGHT.
SO THAT'LL BE EXCITING MAYBE TO MEET HER.
UM, ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, SHE WAS VERY GOOD ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, MOVING ON TO
[E. COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS]
E COMMITTEE REPORTS AND WORKING GROUPS.I KNOW WE DIDN'T MEET CODES AND ORDINANCES WAS CANCELED LAST TIME.
SO IT WAS A CONFERENCE, THE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND THE SMALL AREA PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, DID THEY MEET? WE HAVEN'T MET YET CHAIR, BUT A BEATING IS AS, AS, UH, UH, MAY BE SCHEDULED FOR HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.
UH, THERE APPARENTLY IS AN ITEM FOR OUR SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND TRYING TO GET THAT MEETING SCHEDULED.
[00:30:01]
LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP.UM, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET A PRESENTATION IN THE, NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE ABOUT THE LOCALIZED FLOODING MAPS AND THE EXHIBITS AND HOW TO INTERPRET AND READ WHAT THOSE MAPS ACTUALLY MEAN.
SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP SOON.
I DID WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS OUR LAST MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER BRAY.
DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? SURE.
I'LL SEE SOME OF Y'ALL AGAIN A LOT SOON.
SO, UH, UH, GOOD LUCK AND SORRY, I COULDN'T BE THERE IN PERSON, BUT I HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL, ALL AROUND.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING? THANK YOU.
I'LL BE JOINING, UH, THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER, CHEETO BAYLOR'S OFFICE.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON THEIR BEAR.
AND ON THAT NOTE, IF I COULD GET SOME DIRECTION OF WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WANTS THAT VACANCY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFLECTED ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA, OR HOLD OFF UNTIL YOU HAVE A, UM, FULL COMMISSION.
FOR INSTANCE, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO NEEDING TO VOTE AGAIN ON COMMITTEES.
I THINK IT'S IN MARCH AND, UH, THAT WE DO THAT AND MY PREFERENCES, WE JUST DO THEM ALL AT ONE CITY BECAUSE IT JUST IS A LITTLE TRICKY WHEN WE DO IT PIECEMEAL.
SO THEN WE'LL WAIT UNTIL SOMEONE'S ON.
UNLESS IT'S, THAT'S IT ACTUALLY SAYING NOT ON, BUT WHEN, WHEN, WHEN ARE WE DO IT WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL.
COMMISSIONER IS ON THEIR VERUS.
SO ACTUALLY, UM, YOUR, YOUR TERMS ARE NOT ANNUAL.
I DO HAVE A YEAR TERMS, A NUMBER OF YEAR TERMS, UM, ON EACH, UM, COMMISSION, UM, JOINT COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE IT'S, UM, IT'S ROUGHLY, UH, NO, IT DOESN'T RUN A CONSECUTIVE WITH YOUR, UH, TERMAN AND CAPACITY AS A, UH, AS ANY PLAN COMMISSIONER.
SO, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR TERMS FOR EACH COMMITTEE.
WELL, YEAH, MAYBE THEN THE SIMPLEST THING WOULD JUST BE TO HAVE THIS ON OUR NEXT MEETING AGENDA.
IT'S I MEAN, I'M JUST SUGGESTING IT BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR WHAT KIND OF AGREE BECAUSE THOSE COMMITTEES HAVE TROUBLE GETTING QUORUMS. OH YEAH.
I THINK THE SOONER WE GET THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE COMMITTEES FIELDS AND, YOU KNOW, ALSO THOUGH I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF HAVING EVERY DISTRICT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED ON THESE COMMITTEES.
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOOD TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET, YOU KNOW, INSERT, YOU KNOW, TO GET A FULL COMMISSION.
YOU'RE I APPRECIATE THAT PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, BUT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT IS WHETHER THAT COMPREHENSIVE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION SOON OR NOT.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE ABOUT TO TAKE SOME SERIOUS ACTION.
AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO GET THAT VACANCY FIELD, YOU KNOW? UH, BUT IF NOT, THEN IT MAY GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
COMMISSIONER BRAD, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE WELL, SO THEY CANCELED THE LAST ONE.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN APRIL'S THE NEXT ONE.
IS THAT RIGHT? COMMISSIONER SMITH.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING PERTINENT ON THE AGENDA.
AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRAY FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH YOU AND THANK YOU FOR TEACHING US ABOUT THIS ZOOM AND ALL THESE TECHNOLOGY.
YOU'RE GOING TO MISS YOU, HELPING US OUT WITH THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA.