[00:00:07]
UM, DATE IS FEBRUARY 22ND, 2022.
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
AND I'M GOING TO BRING, UH, THIS PLANNING MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6 0 7.UM, UH, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL AND, UM, TODAY ON THE DAYAS I'VE GOT, UM, I GUESS WE'LL JUST SAY, RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY PRESENT, BUT WE'VE GOT, UH, START OVER HERE WITH THE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND, UH, VIRTUAL, UH, JUST THE ORDER.
UM, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER, UM, AS OUR, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR.
HEMPEL COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, COMMISSIONER MOSHE TODDLER HERE.
COMMISSIONER COX HERE, COMMISSIONER CONLEY HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE AND COMMISSIONER FLORES HERE.
SO, UM, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 11 COMMISSIONERS, SO WE HAVE GOOD FOR QUORUM.
AND, UM, LET'S SEE, GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO, OH, I LOST.
I'LL SELECT TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE EX-OFFICIO CHAIR OF THE BOA, JUST, UH, UH, CHAIR COHEN HERE THIS EVENING.
AND I DON'T SEE I'M LOOKING ON THE SCREEN.
YEAH, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS.
UM, REAL QUICK, THIS IS A HYBRID.
UM, WE'RE GETTING BETTER AT IT.
UH, BUT WE, I SEE GLAD A LOT OF YOU ARE WEARING MASKS.
STILL GOT SOME, UH, COVID OUT THERE TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IF YOU ARE.
UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL, UH, DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING, UM, TO SPACE OUT OF THE LAB, PLENTY OF ROOM.
YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE ATRIUM AND, UH, WHEN YOUR CASE COMES UP, UH, YOU'LL GET, UM, IT'S, UH, EMAIL TEXTS.
UH, BUT YOU WILL, THEY WILL BE ALERTED.
AND THEN I THINK, ARE YOU STILL GOING OUT THERE TO ANNOUNCE OKAY.
THAT WAY WE CAN KEEP MAXIMIZE THE SPACE HERE.
UM, BUT, UM, ANYWAY, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA AND YOU'LL KNOW WHICH ITEMS WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING, UH, AFTER WE DISPOSE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, OH, AND WHEN YOU COME UP, IF IT'S, IF IT MAKES YOU MORE COMFORTABLE, UH, YOU CAN REMOVE YOUR MASK AT THE PODIUM HERE.
SOMETIMES IT MAKES WORDS A LITTLE CLEARER, SO, UH THAT'S OKAY.
SO, UH, TODAY, UM, I'M JUST CHECKING COMMISSIONER FLORES.
AM I GOING TO, I DON'T KNOW IF I, WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
AM I GOING TO DO THE READINGS OR DID YOU WANT TO DO THE FIRST READING? I RECEIVED IT FROM ANDREW, SO I'M HAPPY TO DO IT.
UM, SO REAL QUICK, I THINK WE'VE CONFIRMED.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, NONE.
[CITIZEN COMMUNICATION]
WITH IS SOME COMMUNICATION, CORRECT? UM, MS. BENEVIDEZ, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.THANK YOU, MR. RIVERA FOR GETTING THIS SET UP CORRECTLY TONIGHT.
UM, I FIRST OF ALL, WANT TO COME IN WITH ACCOMMODATION FOR Y'ALL.
WE JUST CAME OFF THE RAGING ROAD CASE.
ALL OF YOU KNEW HOW COMPLEX THAT CASE WAS.
UM, I JUST WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU ON BEHALF OF THE EASTERN MLK CONTACT TEAM FOR ALL THE WORK AND THE DIRECTION THAT YOU TRIED TO GIVE IT.
UH, WE DIDN'T LEARN A LOT OF LESSONS.
UH, BUT IN IT, WE, WE MET A LOT OF POSITIVE HERE AND I, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL NORMALLY GET COMMENDATIONS, BUT ON BEHALF OF OUR TEAM, WE WANTED TO COMPLETELY COMMEND Y'ALL FOR ALL THE HELP THAT Y'ALL GAVE US WHETHER IT WAS BY PHONE OR IT WAS BY BEING THERE.
UM, AWESOME, MR. ROBERTO'S, UM, KINDNESS THAT HE ALWAYS GIVES US WHEN WE GET THERE AS WELL.
UM, AND WE DEFINITELY ARE GOING TO WORK ON NOT PUSHING THROUGH ANYTHING WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, UNLESS WE HAVE A CLEAR, UM, CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN HIS FUTURE.
BUT I'M GOING TO SAY OVERALL THOUGH, OVERALL, THAT PROJECT ENDED UP BECOMING ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX PROJECTS THAT ENDED UP, UM, AT THE END GAME, WE HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING SAINTS AND WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE,
[00:05:01]
UM, COMMENDING THIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALL OF YOUR INCREDIBLE WORK WITH IT AND EAST MLK CONTACT TEAM.[A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND LET ME SPEAK REAL QUICKLY ON THAT.UM, WE HAD A VERY BUSY NIGHT LAST MEETING AND, UH, PASSED QUITE A FEW WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, VERY PROUD OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN ON THE, UH, 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS PUD AND, UH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, YOU GUYS TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE AND YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE SHOWN, WE MADE A FEW RIVETS, A FEW REVISIONS.
UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO THE, THE MINUTES, ESPECIALLY THE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT PASSED ANYTHING? UH, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD.
I DID REVIEW THE MINUTES AND THOUGHT THEY WERE GOOD, BUT IF THERE WERE LAST MINUTE CHANGES TO THE MINUTES, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD RE RECAP? WELL, WE CAN'T GET INTO ANY KIND OF DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ABOUT, BUT WE CAN, IF THERE'S, IF THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE NOT CORRECT, THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN THOSE AMENDMENTS, WE NEED TO MAKE THE CORRECTIONS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IF THEY'RE NOT.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? COMMISSIONER COX? NO, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT I REVIEWED THE MINUTES AND WAS FINE WITH IT WHEN ANDREW FIRST ISSUED THEN, BUT THEN YOU INDICATED THAT SINCE ANDREW HAD ISSUED THE MINUTES BEFORE FOR US TO REVIEW THAT THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO THE, WELL, THEY WERE POSTED AS REVISED MINUTES.
DID YOU RE REVIEW THE REVISED MINUTES OR THE ORIGINAL VERSION? I THINK THEY, THEY SHOW UP IS THE NEWEST ONE IS REVISED.
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT, WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.
SO ANY OTHERS HAVE ANY OH, COMMISSIONERS ARE OKAY.
AND THANK YOU FOR ENSURING BIGGER ADVISEMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE SMALL LANGUAGES THAT FOR THE DISCUSSION WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, WHERE WE WENT THROUGH THEM SORT OF SEPARATELY IN WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, NUMBER ONE, THE MOTION, UM, WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY, BUT IS REQUIRED TO MEET REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH PROVIDING AT LEAST 4% OF ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONSITE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THEN WE SAY 4% OF ALL UNITS.
WE DON'T MEAN 4% OF RENTAL OR 4% OF OWNERSHIP.
WE SAY 4% OF ALL RESIDENTIAL SITE.
IF THE WORD RESIDENTIAL, IT CAN BE ADDED THERE.
I THINK THAT WOULD ADD TO THE FLAG.
IS THAT, UH, EVERYBODY AGREEING THAT WAS THE INTENT OR THAT IS OKAY.
UM, ANDREW, HOW SHOULD WE, IS THAT NOTED FOR THE RECORD? NOTED.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? NO, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THEM IN.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ROLL THAT INTO, YEAH, WE'LL ROLL THAT INTO OUR, UH, MOTION.
UH, SO AT THIS POINT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UH, FIRST
[Reading of Agenda]
READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, COMMISSIONER FLORES, IF YOU WANTED TO LEAD US THROUGH THAT AND A LITTLE RELEVANT MINUTES AND THEN APPROVAL.SO WE'LL ADD, UH, A APPROVAL OF MINUTES, UH, OF FEBRUARY 28TH, 2022, A B ONE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.02 ON TOP BULLETS.
82 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 5 0.01.
AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY, B3 REZONINGS C 14 20 21 0 1 25 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY.
UM, FAILED TO MENTION ON THE B ONE IS, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 22ND.
UH, BEFORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT C 14 0 2 0 1 8 3, RCA 1118 TILLERY STREET AND DISCUSSION CASE B FIVE REZONINGS C 14 9 9 0 0 6 9 0.01 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE IT'S CASES ON CONSENT V6 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 0 0.0 1 2400 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ PARKING EXPANSION.
THIS CASE IS STUFFED POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12TH, THE 73 ZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 2 1 2400
[00:10:01]
EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.THIS CASE HAS ALSO STEP POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12TH, B EIGHT, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 9 0 3000 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.
THIS CASE IS UP WE'RE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 8TH, BENIGN PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.01 ALPHA POINT 95.
THIS CASE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B 10 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 2 8 ALPHA 90 POINT 95.
THIS CASE IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION B 11 REZONING C 14 H 20 21 0 1 8 0 CASA MCHA MCMATH.
UM, THIS CASE IS ALSO DISCUSSION B12 SITE PLAN SPC 20 21 0 1 2 9.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B 13 TOTAL PLAT VACATION, C A S 87 0 0 8 VAC AT WELL TRACT NUMBER TWO, SUBDIVISION.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT, B 14 TOTAL PLAT VACATION, C EIGHT SIX C A S 84 0 6 5 VAC AT WELL TREK SUBDIVISION.
THIS CASE IS A POOR CONSENT AND THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
UM, WANT TO, UM, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT ITEMS? UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TODDLER, GO AHEAD.I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT, UM, ITEM B FIVE.
I WAS HOPING WE COULD ACTUALLY PULL THAT AND HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, YEAH.
JUST, UM, I THINK, IS IT A KIND OF A QUICK QUESTION OR IS IT A MORE, YOU THINK A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? UM, I DON'T KNOW.
I GOT SOME INFORMATION BACK FROM APPLICANT, WHICH WAS HELPFUL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DRAWING VISUAL, AND I THINK WE NEED SOME STAFF INPUT TO UNDERSTAND, CAUSE WE JUST DID A WHOLE TRAFFIC DISCUSSION ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF BARTON SPRINGS.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THIS IS MAKING SENSE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT.
AND, UM, SO THAT ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA? UM, MAYBE HELP, UH, QUESTION MERCY DOLLAR REAL QUICK.
JUST MAYBE HELP HER, UM, ON THAT.
SO THE PROJECT IS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT, SO IT'S NOT REALLY LIKE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S REALLY JUST TAKING AND KIND OF TWEAKING LIKE, UH, ALMOST LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, RE RE USING WHAT WE HAVE THERE.
SO VERY LITTLE WORK HAS REALLY DONE.
SO ANYWAY, BUT WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT TOO MUCH.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YEAH, THIS IS MORE ON THE, THE REQUEST TO PULL THE, UM, THE JOINT USE ACCESS EASEMENT.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND MOVE THROUGH THAT QUICKLY.
UM, SO I'M COUNTING, JUST DO A QUICK COUNT.
THAT BRINGS US TO, UH, WE'LL TAKE, UH, TWO AND THREE TOGETHER.
UM, THAT'S ONE AND WE GOT BEFORE THE FIVE, UH, THE NINE AND 10.
SO THAT SAYS I'M COUNTING SIX DISCUSSION CASES.
UM, I WOULD, UM, I'LL MAKE A PROPOSAL, I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE UPFRONT MAYBE, UH, SUSPEND OUR RULES JUST TO MAYBE LIMIT SOME Q AND A, UH, BUT THEN IF WE GET ON A CASE AND WE NEED MORE, WE CAN SUSPEND OUR, THE RULES WE JUST MADE TO, UH, GET A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AS, BUT I'LL, I'LL BRING THAT MOTION UP HERE ONCE WE GET DISPOSED OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION CASES, UM, OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AND READ BACK WHAT I'VE GOT HERE.
SO YOU WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT? SO WE'VE GOT, UM, UH, WE'RE GOING TO PRIVILEGE THE MINUTES, SO IT'LL BE ON CONSENT WITH THE, A MINOR CHANGE TO THE WORKING GROUP.
NUMBER ONE AMENDMENT, UH, WE'VE GOT, UM, B ONE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 22ND.
[00:15:01]
ITEMS B TWO AND B THREE TOGETHER.THAT'S THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A REZONING.
THAT'LL BE OUR DISCUSSION CASE THIS EVENING.
UH, WE HAVE BEFORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT, UH, THAT IS ALL SO UP FOR DISCUSSION B FIVE.
UM, THAT IS NOW ALSO REZONING.
THAT IS ALSO FOR DISCUSSION, UH, B6 PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT, APRIL 12TH, B SEVEN.
UM, THESE SEVEN, UM, IS REZONING.
STEPH HAS FROM IT TO APRIL 12TH, B EIGHT, UH, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH EIGHT.
YOU HAVE B NINE AND B 10 WILL TAKE UP TOGETHER.
UM, THAT'S, UH, THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND, UM, ACCOMPANY REZONING, AND THAT'S DISCUSSION, UH, B 11 NOW THAT'S DISCUSSION, UH, REZONING CASE AND B 12 IS ALSO DISCUSSION, UH, B 13 IS ON CONSENT AND B 14 TOTAL BLATT VACATION IS ON CONSENT.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DOES SOMEBODY HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA? UH, SEE COMMISSIONER AZHAR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
SEE IF THERE ACTUALLY, I CAN TELL IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY GREEN TODAY.
SO WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE FOLKS HERE.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
SO WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER OF PRACTICES.
DO YOU HAVE, UM, SOMETHING TO VOTE WITH OR ARE YOU WAIT? OKAY.
OKAY, SO THAT'S UM, 11 ON THE SCREEN AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON PASSED.
SO WE'VE, UH, GOT THE CONSENT AGENDA TAKEN CARE OF.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE, WHICH IS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
[Items B2 & B3]
UP B2 AND B3 TOGETHER.UH, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF RE MEREDITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER TWO IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 5 0.01 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1, 1, 3, 8 AND A HALF.
AND 1, 1 4 0 GUNTER STREET WITHIN THE EAST MLK COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MIXED USE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EAST MLK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM, AND IT HAS NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION AT EVENING HEATHER CHAPLAIN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THE ASSOCIATED TERMING CASE C 14 20 21 0 1 2 5.
THE REZONING REQUEST IS TO GO FROM AND P TWO CS, M U C O M E A.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.8 ACRES STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING LAND USES THE, UH, PROHIBITED AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES AUTOMOTIVE WASHING OF BAIL, PAWN SERVICES, COMMERCIAL BLOOD PLASMA CENTER, CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES DROP OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, EQUIPMENT SALES, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, GENERAL SERVICES, KENNELS, LAUNDRY SERVICES, OFFSITE, OFFSITE, ACCESSORY, PARKING, OUTDOOR SPORTS, AND RECREATION, PAWN SHOP SERVICES, VEHICLE STORAGE, VETERINARY SERVICES, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES, ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATIONS.
UM, AS STATED IN THE ISSUES, UH, SECTION, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ASKED TO PROHIBIT COCKTAIL LOUNGE, BUT THAT'S NOT PERMITTED IN CS.
SO, UH, WE DID NOT ADD THAT AS A CONDITION.
UH, THERE IS A PETITION REQUESTS CURRENTLY IN WITH 16.95 OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, SIGNING WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND VENTURE STREET.
AND IT HAS FRIENDSHIP ON BOTH.
UH, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE MP AND HAS TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE REZONING TRACT, CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE TWO STREETS.
[00:20:01]
SORRY ABOUT THAT.IT'S ALSO, UH, IT'S DONE CSM U C O M P.
AND IT'S ALSO WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, UH, PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTHEAST OF, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTIES, SF THREE MP AND HAS ONE HOUSE FURTHER NORTH OR UNDEVELOPED LOCKS ZONE C S M U C O M P.
AND SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ZONED SF THREE MP.
THESE PROPERTIES ALL HAVE FRIENDSHIPS ON COUNTRY STREET IMMEDIATELY NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT HAS ACCESS TO AIRPORT.
ALL OF OUR, OUR PROPERTIES AND ZONES, CSM, U AND P THAT INCLUDE A RESTAURANT AND AUTOMOTIVE APPARENT USES ACROSS COUNTER STREET TO THE EAST ARE PROPERTIES ZONED TO SF THREE AND P AND THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES ACROSS AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO THE WEST ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CSCO NPG, RMU, NP, C SMU COLP, AND HAVE A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND USES A STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE REZONING REQUEST, UH, WITH THE PROHIBITED USES LISTED.
UH, THERE ARE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE CSN UCO, C SMU AND P AND, UH, THE LOCATION ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD IS DESIGNATED AS A TRANSIT PRIORITY ORDER.
ONE, THE INFORMATION WE HAVE RECEIVED AT THIS TIME IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, LEARNED THAT, UH, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND WILL TAKE ACCESS TO VENTER STREET.
UH, THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM THAT, UM, WITH THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THIS BLOCK, UH, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR, FOR THE SITE AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS CHAIR.
NOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. KENNETH BROWN, THE APPLICANT 45 MINUTES.
MY NAME IS KEN BROWN, ONE 12 EAST PECAN, UH, SUITE 1360 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
UH, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT.
UM, UH, STAFF DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB ON THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING CASE, IF YOU'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, THAT'S AN ARROW OF THE AREA THAT THE ANCHORAGE, UH, AND THE, UH, ADDRESS NEXT SLIDE, UM, AS STAFF SAID, UH, WHAT THE EAST MLK FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS CURRENTLY IS SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE THERE ARE, UH, TWO, TWO SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOMES ON THE, ON THE LOT.
AND WE ARE REQUESTING MIXED USE.
WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS A MIXED USE CORRIDOR, UH, AS DETAILED BY ZONING STAFF, UH, THE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES AND USES UP AND DOWN AIRPORT IN THAT AREA.
UH, UNDER THE, UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIRPORT BOULEVARD IS AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR, UH, WAS WITH MIXED USE ACTIVITY AND A VARIETY OF TYPES OF BUILDINGS AND MIXED USES WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.
UH, NEXT SLIDE, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ZONING MAP AND ON THE LEFT SIDE, THESE ARE, THOSE ARE THE LISTS OF USES THAT WILL BE PROHIBITED.
UH, THE ZONING MAP SHOWS THAT ALMOST EVERYTHING ALONG THE CORRIDOR IN THAT AREA IS EITHER COMMERCIAL.
AS YOU GO SOUTH IS PROBABLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S A MIXTURE OF, UH, ALL KINDS OF USES AS FAST FOOD.
THERE'S A CHURCH THERE'S, UM, IT'S JUST A MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF USES, AND WE BELIEVE THE USE THAT WE'RE INTENDED TO THE PROP FOR THIS PROPERTY FITS IN.
UM, WE WOULD, UH, LIKE, AND I'D PROBABLY HAVE OUR ENGINEER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIENTATION OF OUR, OUR PROJECT AND ACCESS TO AIR AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
UH, NEXT SLIDE IS THE SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE IT, UH, ORIENTED TOWARDS GUNTHER STREET, UM, WITH SETBACKS, UH, SCREENING, UH, UH, A WALL OUT FRONT.
I'LL HAVE RENDERINGS HERE IN A SECOND.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS GUNTER.
WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ACCESS, UH, TO AIRPORT AND ARE STILL FOLLOWING
[00:25:01]
THAT, UH, PROBABLY WOULD TAKE A, UH, A JOINT USE, UH, INGRESS EGRESS POINT WITH THE PROPERTY TO OUR I'M GOING TO SAY SOUTH, BUT I AM DIRECTIONALLY CHALLENGED.UH, ON, ON THE SITE, WE WERE PROPOSING TWO BUILDINGS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET, TOTAL SQUARE FEET.
SO STARTED THIS, UH, I THINK WE SUBMITTED IT OUT IN, UH, JULY IN THE SUMMER.
UM, WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING THAT THE CITY SET UP WITH, UH, WITH THE INTERESTED NEIGHBORS, UH, AND THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED.
UM, THERE WERE, UH, TWO IN PARTICULAR THAT IT SAID THAT THEY, UH, WILL DO ANYTHING THEY COULD TO STOP THIS PROJECT AND TO THE WORD THEY HAVE.
UH, UH, THE SECOND MEETING ON NOVEMBER 2ND, UH, WAS WITH, UH, TWO OF THE INTERESTED NEIGHBORS THAT ARE MOST CLOSE.
UM, AND THAT WAS ABOUT A ONE OR TWO HOUR MEETING.
UH, THE THIRD MEETING WAS ON NOVEMBER 15TH, UH, WITH THE EAST MLK PLANNING CONTACT TEAM THAT INCLUDED, UH, NEIGHBORS.
AND THAT WAS THREE PLUS HOURS.
THE PRIMARY CONCERNS DURING ALL OF THESE MEETINGS WERE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY ON GUNTER STREET, UH, THE SOUND OF THE NOISE AND THE USE.
UH, YOU WILL HEAR THAT, THAT WE HAVE CHANGED THE USE AND EVEN BY, UH, THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE PROJECT IS ON THE AGENDA, UH, IT IS NOT A SPORTS FACILITY.
THAT IS WHAT WE INTENDED TO USE IT AT FIRST.
UM, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A UNIQUE SET OF AMENITIES, INDOOR AMENITIES, UM, SIMULATORS, UH, BOWLING ALLEYS, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, VIDEO ARCADES, STUFF LIKE THAT.
IT, IT WAS FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND HIS CLIENTS THAT WERE COMING TO THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH WAS VERY SPORADIC.
AND WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE VERY MINIMAL.
UH, THIS ISN'T A PLACE THAT ANYONE WAS GONNA LIVE.
UM, SO, UH, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS ON THE RIGHT NEXT SLIDE IS OUR RENDERING OF, UH, THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS AND HOW THEY WOULD BE ORIENTED IF WE DON'T GET ACCESS TO, UM, TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
I THINK THE NEXT SLIDE, IF THERE IS ONE MORE.
SO, UM, DOES THAT MEAN SOMETHING STOPPED TALKING? WELL, FINAL THOUGHTS IF YOU WRAP IT UP FINAL THOUGHTS ARE I, I, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND, UH, THE REZONING REQUEST.
WE FEEL LIKE IT, UH, IT IS A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CORRIDOR, UH, THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD CORRIDOR.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF OUR ENGINEER, UH, OR OF THE OWNER APPLICANT, UH, THEY ARE HERE.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. HALLMARK DOES THE MONEY UH, YEAH, STARTING OFF.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE CITY EMPLOYEES AND EVERYONE FOR THEIR TIME TODAY.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT KENNETH HAS NOT EVER BEEN ON ANY OF THE PHONE CALLS THAT WE'VE BEEN ON WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER IN QUESTION, THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE ACTUALLY WITH THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY.
UH, IT WASN'T UNTIL THE THIRD CALL.
I BELIEVE THAT THE OWNER HIMSELF, I THINK MICHAEL LAURA SACK WAS HIS NAME WAS ACTUALLY ON THE PHONE CALL.
UM, SO I THINK HE PROBABLY HAS A VERY ABBREVIATED VERSION OF WHAT THOSE PHONE CALLS WERE ACTUALLY LIKE, CAUSE HE DIDN'T SIT IN ON HOWEVER MANY HOURS OF THEM.
THERE WERE, UH, SO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNERS AND HISTORICAL RESIDENTS IN EAST GUNNAR HEIGHTS WHO LIVE ON GUNTER BETWEEN AIRPORT AND OAK SPRING, AS YOU SAW ON THE MAP, AS WELL AS MUNSON STREET UP TO SPRINGDALE, UH, WE JUST COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE REQUESTED BY THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO A COMMERCIAL MIXED USE.
UH, WE DO UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER HAS REACHED OUT TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS, WHO THEY SHARE PROPERTY LINES WITH IN AN ATTEMPT TO REACH THE JOINT ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED.
BUT, UM, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT AS THIS GOES ON, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE CITY BY USING BUZZWORDS LIKE AIRPORT BOULEVARD, AIRPORT FRONTAGE, ACCESS TO AIRPORT ACCESS FROM AIRPORT.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND HUMBLY REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTY IS ON GUMTREE STREET, AND I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THE CITY EMPLOYEES TO JUST TAKE A FIVE MINUTE DRIVE DOWN EAST, DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET.
AND TELL ME IF YOU THINK THAT THE PLACE THAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT BUILDING THIS THING IS GOING TO FIT THE STREET ITSELF
[00:30:01]
AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC.UM, AS IT STANDS TODAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT A TECH STOCK CODE A RESTRICTION IS PREVENTING THE ACCESS FROM AIRPORT.
BUT, UM, AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO OR FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD, NOR IS IT PHYSICALLY LOCATED ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY APPROPRIATELY ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL.
UM, TO FURTHER EXPLAIN TO THOSE WHO ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE STREET OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN QUESTION, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF TRAFFIC ON THE BLOCK IN THEIR CURRENT STATE ARE BORDERLINE INTOLERABLE.
UH, PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAFFIC IS NOT ACTUALLY BY RESIDENTS ON GUNTER OR MUNSON, BUT RATHER PEOPLE WHO USE THE STREET AS A SHORTCUT BETWEEN AIRPORT AND OAK SPRING OR SPRINGDALE OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE THREE.
UH, THIS SITUATION IS EXACERBATED BY OVERCROWDED STREET.
PARKING PAUSED BY RESIDENTS OF A NEIGHBORING APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE END OF THE STREET, UH, CALLED LUPINE TERRORISTS, UH, SINCE PURCHASING THE HOME IN MARCH OF 2020, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN OVER A DOZEN CAR ACCIDENTS, UH, DUI ACCIDENTS HIT AND RUN ACCIDENTS AND COUNTLESS SMALLER INCIDENTS CONCERNING VEHICLES BEING REAR-ENDED WHILE PARKS, UH, SIDESWIPED AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, NOT TO MENTION A BUNCH OF NEAR MISSES THAT OCCUR ON A DAILY BASIS WHEN SIMPLY TRYING TO BACK OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, UH, DUE TO A LACK OF VISIBILITY FROM TRAFFIC TURNING ON AND OFF OF THE STREET.
UH, INITIALLY WE WERE TOLD BY THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY CAROLINE MCDONALD, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN MAYBE A HANDFUL OF CARS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY ON A DAILY BASIS, BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED FOR PRIVATE USE THAT WAS DOCUMENTED ON THE INITIAL ZOOM CALL THAT WE HAD, UH, THIS LATER CHANGED TO 200 CARS GOING IN AND OUT WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, WHICH WAS NOT DOCUMENTED ON THE SUBSEQUENT ZOOM CALL.
UM, WHILE FOLLOWING UP ON HOW THEY PLANNED TO ADDRESS THIS, THEY STATED TRAFFIC EASEMENT WAS THE CITY'S PROBLEM AND NOT THEIR OWN STICKING TO THE FUNDAMENTALS ALONE.
AGAIN, IF YOU SIMPLY LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY SITTING ON THE STREET AND THE BLOCK IN QUESTION, YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS ALL HOUSING, IT'S SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AB SPLIT UNITS AND A PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
THAT WAS REZONED FROM, UH, SF SIX, UH, FROM SF THREE, SORRY, THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T PROTEST THE ZONING CHANGE AT THE TIME BECAUSE ON PRINCIPLE AUSTIN IS, AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME NOW IN A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
AND MOST OF US ARE AWARE, UM, THE MOST RECENT STATS SHOW THAT THERE'S AN AVERAGE OF 180 RESIDENTS MOVING TO THE CITY ON A DAILY BASIS, UH, THROUGH THE PANDEMIC THERE'S BIDDING WARS AND LINES AND OPEN HOUSES AT TIMES THAT STRETCH AROUND THE BLOCK DUE TO A HISTORICALLY LOW HOUSING INVENTORY.
AND WHILE THIS HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL FOR MANY MYSELF INCLUDED, IT'S ALSO DISPLACED THE CITY'S BLACK AND LATINO RESIDENTS.
UH, THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE WILL NOT ONLY NOT FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, IT'S GOING TO WORSEN AN EXISTING HOUSING SHORTAGE, UH, BY THE CITY'S OWN DESCRIPTION IN THE INITIAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO US CONCERNING THIS APPLICATION, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE IS CONSIDERED UNSUITABLE FOR RESIDENTS, UH, OR A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
SO WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING YOU TO JUST TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE ON THIS.
UH, IN ADDITION, THERE'S BEEN ZERO PROACTIVE OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY AND ZERO TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHAT EXACTLY WILL BE BUILT ON THE LOT IN QUESTION.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY CONCERN TO ADDRESS THE USE OF A PROPERTY.
A CHANGE IN ZONING DOES IMPLY AN INTENT FOR A SPECIFIC USE, AND IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING WILL FIT OR NOT.
UM, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, UH, JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD, A MAN CAVE, A BACHELOR PAD, BOWLING ALLEY, GYM SAUNA, ART GALLERY, AND A PLACE FOR CLIENTS TO STAY WHEN THEY'RE IN TOWN, AN OFFICE FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND STORAGE FOR AN EXOTIC CAR COLLECTION.
UM, FOR ADDED CONTEXT ON THIS, UM, JUST TO WRAP UP, WE SAT THROUGH A CALL WHERE WE LISTENED TO OTHER DEVELOPERS PITCH THEIR PROJECT, AND THEY HAD JUST A TON OF DETAIL.
THERE WAS A TON OF DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO GO UP AND HOW MANY UNITS THERE WERE GOING TO BE, WHAT THE USE WAS LIKE THINGS THEY WERE DOING TO HELP EASE TRAFFIC.
AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM THE DEVELOPERS IN QUESTION HERE.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. MATTHEW WONG.
UH, TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ALSO SLATED TO SPEAK THIRD DIALING IN VIA TELECONFERENCE, THEY SAY THEY'RE IN THE WAITING ROOM.
IS THAT AS INTENDED THEY SUPPOSE TO BE SITTING IN THE WAITING ROOM WITH THAT? SURE.
UH EVERYTHING'S WELL, OKAY, CAN PROCEED.
I'M A SEVEN YEAR RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER OF COUNTRY STREET.
I WANTED TO TAKE THE TIME TO EXPAND ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS INTERACTIONS THUS FAR WITH DEVELOPER.
WHEN OUR COMMUNITY FIRST RECEIVED NOTICES FOR THE AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY, WE WERE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL UPTOWN BEING PROPOSED IN OUR HISTORICALLY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE IDEA OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH COUNTRY EGRESS COSTS TREPIDATION DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND DANGEROUS TRAFFIC, UH, CONCERNS THAT ALREADY EXISTED AS A RESULT.
MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS UP TO SEPTEMBER CITY HEARING AT THE HEARING, CAROLYN MACDONALD, THE DEVELOPERS' LAWYER PRESENTED THEIR PLAN.
WE WERE INFORMED THAT WHILE THE FACILITY WAS INITIALLY CONCEIVED OF AS A PRIVATE GYM, IT WOULD NOT BE USED AS A PRIVATE OFFICE, LIVING RESIDENTS, BOWLING ALLEY, AND SAUNA FOR THE DEVELOPER AND HIS TEAM, MS. MCDONALD CALLED IT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF A LUXURY MAN-CAVE.
[00:35:01]
THEY ALSO MENTIONED THAT ACCORDING TO THEIR ANALYSIS, THEY COULD NOT BUILD THE EGRESS OFF AIRPORT.NEEDLESS TO SAY THE COMMUNITY WAS IMMEDIATELY UNIFIED IN ITS CONCERNS, NOT JUST REGARDING THE HISTORICAL TRAFFIC ISSUES, BUT ALSO REGARDING THE UNCLEAR NATURE OF THE FACILITIES USAGE.
AFTER SPEAKING TO THE CONTACT TEAM, WE WERE ADVISED TO DRAFT A PETITION TO ENSURE AS MUCH LEVERAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY, UM, AS THE CASE PROCEEDED.
SO, UH, THE ROUTE THE PETITION DRAFTING WAS SWIFT OVER WEEKENDS, WE RECEIVED SIGNATURES OF NEARLY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO CONSIDERED GUNTER IN MONTHS IN THEIR HOMESTEAD AROUND 30 SIGNATURES IN TOTAL TO KEEP THE AREA RESIDENTIAL UP TO SF SIX.
WELL, NOT ALL SIGNATURES ALL WITHIN THE 200 FOOT REQUIRED RADIUS.
THE HOMESTEADS, THE HOMESTEADER SENTIMENT WAS A UNIT VOCAL FURTHER.
WE HAVE VERBAL COMMITMENTS THAT COULD BRING US OVER THE 20% PETITION REQUIREMENT.
I THEN TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO SET UP TIME WITH THE DEVELOPER ON MY OWN ON NOVEMBER 2ND, TO EXPLAIN OUR PETITION AND CONCERNS.
THIS MEETING WAS ATTENDED BY MYSELF, MR. NAVI, MS. MACDONALD DEVELOPER, MICHAEL, OR SAC, AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES OF EAST HALL MCKAY CONDUCT EAST MLK CONTACT TEAM.
IN THE END, WE WERE EFFECTIVELY TOLD THAT WHILE THE DEVELOPER WOULD TRY TO FIND SHARED EGRESS OFF OF AIRPORT WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS TRAFFIC ISSUES WERE ULTIMATELY OUT OF THEIR HANDS FURTHER.
WE WERE TOLD BY THE DEVELOPER THAT THEY WERE NOW GOING TO LEASE THE FACILITY OUT TO BUSINESSES SO THAT THE PROJECT COULD MORE EASILY AND EFFECTIVELY TURN A PROFIT.
WHEN ASKED WHAT TYPES OF CLIENTS THEY WERE LOOKING TO LEASE OUT TO, WE WERE TOLD BY MR OR SACK THAT IT WAS QUOTE UNQUOTE, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
THIS IS ALL DOCUMENTED ON A ZOOM CALL.
ADDITIONALLY, WE ARTICULATED THE CONCERNS OF OUR HISTORICAL MUNSON STREET NEIGHBORS.
WHEN WE ARTICULATED THE CONCERNS OVER HISTORICAL MONTHS, THE STREET NEIGHBORS, MR. ORSAK WAS DISMISSIVE SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ON THE CALL.
THEIR CONCERNS COULDN'T BE THAT IMPORTANT IN THE END.
THERE WERE NO PROMISES MADE ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER.
WE NESS NEXT ON MRS. MCDONALD AT THE NOVEMBER 15TH ECL MARY KAY CONTACT TEAM MEETING, WHERE THEY REPRESENTED THEIR PROPOSAL.
THE PROPOSAL WAS NEARLY EXACTLY THE SAME, EXCEPT THAT THE FACILITY'S USAGE WAS CHANGED FOR A THIRD CHANGED FOR A THIRD TIME BACK TO PRIVATE USE BY THE DEVELOPER, THE CONTACT TEAM UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THE PROJECT DOWN WITH SOME NOTING THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS ONE OF THE MOST UNDER BAKED THEY'D EVER SEEN BEFORE I CONCLUDE I WANTED TO REEMPHASIZE THAT MR OR TEAM HAS NEVER, EVER PROACTIVELY REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVERY MEETING WITH THEM THUS FAR HAS BEEN INITIATED BY MYSELF OR BY THE CITY, FROM THE VANTAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DEVELOPER SHOWS NO EARNEST INTEREST IN HEARING RESIDENTS' CONCERNS CONSISTENTLY CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN A FASHION THAT IS PERFUNCTORY AT BEST AND DISMISSIVE AT WORST.
WHILE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO SEE THE AREA DEVELOPED, WE WANT TO SEE IT DONE WITH SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
WE HOPE THAT YOU RECOMMEND AGAINST THIS PROJECT ALONG WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE CONTACT TEAM.
THANK YOU LIKE YOU NOW ON THE TELECONFERENCE, WE'LL HEAR FROM, UM, JEANETTE VALDEZ, MS. VALDEZ, YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX.
MY NAME IS JEANETTE DURAN AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO, UM, HEAR ME SPEAK.
UM, I AM A LONG, LONG LIFETIME RESIDENTS OF MUNSON STREET.
WE'VE LIVED HERE FOR 65 YEARS AND, UH, WE HAVE MANY BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND NIECES AND NEPHEWS WHO LIVE ON THIS BLOCK AND WE DO NOT WANT A BUILDING PLACE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE ACCESS.
WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BE ON VENTURE STREET.
WE HAVE NIECES AND NEPHEWS THAT ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR HIGH THAT CATCH THE BUS AT THAT CORNER OF GUNSHOT AND MUNSON STREET.
AND WE HAVE CHILDREN THAT PLAY ON THE BLOCK, MY NIECES AND NEPHEWS THAT RUN UP AND DOWN THE STREET THAT PLAY ON HIS BUCK EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PARTS THAT ARE PARKED UP AND DOWN THESE STREETS FROM THE APARTMENTS NEXT DOOR.
AND THEN THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE ALSO NEW TO THE BLOCK THAT LIVED THERE AS WELL.
AND IT'S JUST A BIG ROCK THAT WE ARE HAVING.
SO WE, YOU ALL WILL OPPOSE, UM, THIS DECK THAT IS REALLY BUILT BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL IT'S ARGUED WITH IT IN OUR RESIDENTS, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT WHO HAVE LIVED HERE ALL THEIR LIVES, WE WOULD RATHER SEE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BET THE ENTITY AND NOT ENDANGER OUR CHILDREN THAT HAVE BORN AND RAISED IN THIS COMMUNITY.
BEAR WITH ME JUST ONE SECOND WHILE WE PULLED THE NEXT SPEAKER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME PROCEED TO YOUR REMARKS? THANK YOU.
UM, YES, MY NAME IS NICK AND I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE FRANCIS
[00:40:01]
FACTOR.UM, SO WE ARE ALSO RESIDENT OF CENTER STREET, UH, NEIGHBORS OF OBAR MATTHEW, UM, RIGHT, RIGHT THERE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, UM, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC ON THE STREET AND THE STREET PARKING.
UM, SO YOU, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS LIKE A MAJOR ISSUE, UM, GOING FORWARD, UM, WITH NEARLY ANY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL, UM, GIVEN, UH, THE POTENTIAL, UH, NUMBER OF CARS THAT COME IN AND OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ON TOP OF THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A CONCERN OF NOISE POLLUTION, LIGHT POLLUTION, UM, CAN, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THROUGH TRAFFIC AND THEN POTENTIAL STREET PARKING COMING FROM THAT, UM, PARTICULAR, UH, COMMERCIAL SPACE AS WELL.
UM, BUT YEAH, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO ADD IS, YOU KNOW, WE ARE VERY MUCH AN OPPOSITION, UM, FOR THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT MAINLY FOR THOSE REASONS.
UM, BUT ALSO AS, AS, AS MATTHEW HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD MUCH COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, THERE STILL SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF, UM, UNKNOWN.
UM, AND, AND IT'S NOT, UM, DOESN'T INSTILL A LOT OF CONFIDENCE AS A NEIGHBOR, UM, AND YOU DON'T KNOW KIND OF, WHAT'S GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY GOING UP AT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, ESPECIALLY GIVEN ME, UH, SEVERITY OF THE REQUESTS IN TERMS OF GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. BETTY MARTIN FOR ONE MINUTE.
ONCE YOU GET IT FIGURED OUT, HELLO, I'M A RESIDENT ON MUNSON STREET, ABOUT FOUR HOUSES FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I WON'T BELABOR THE ISSUES THAT EVERYONE HAS ALREADY BROUGHT UP.
I'M JUST HERE TO SUPPORT THE OMAR AND MATT AND EVERYONE WHO'S AGAINST THIS CONNECTORS AND MONTH'S CENTER, TERRIBLE TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW.
AND HAVING THE ACCESS POINT ON GUNTERS GOING TO, UM, ON, UM, GUNTER IS GONNA CAUSE SOME, A LOT OF ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM CANDICE FOR ONE MINUTE.
THANKS FOR GIVING US A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
UM, THE PROPOSED USE, WHO REALLY KNOWS WHAT THAT IS, UM, DOES NOT GO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE HAS NEVER BEEN A PART OF THESE MEETINGS.
I JUST WANNA LIKE CLARIFY LIKE A FEW THINGS THAT WERE LIKE PUT OUT THERE THAT ARE JUST NOT TRUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TRAFFIC IS REALLY, REALLY BAD.
I LIVE ON MUNSON STREET RIGHT IN FRONT OF BETTY'S HOUSE IS ABOUT THREE PROPERTIES DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE.
I HAVE TWO KIDS, A THREE AND A FIVE-YEAR-OLD.
THEY CAN'T GO OUT IN THE STREET.
UM, IT'S SAD LIKE OUR, OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC, IT'S LIKE, UH, IT BECOMES DANGEROUS.
ALSO, IF IT IS A LUXURY MAN-CAVE I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR LIKE MR. JOHNNY AT THE END OF OUR STREET, COLLECTS CANS TO LIKE PUT MONEY TOGETHER.
JEANETTE WHO HAS ALREADY SPOKEN, GIVES OUT FOOD TO THE HOMELESS THREE DAYS EVERY WEEKEND, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY, A LUXURY MAN-CAVE DOESN'T BELONG ON THE PROPERTY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM HIS ENGINE ON HIM, BEND TO VENUS FOR ONE MINUTE.
I FEEL SO LIKE STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH ARAMARK'S.
UH, I AM WITH THE EPMO PAY CONTACT T COMBINED CONTACT TEAM.
I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF HAS NOT ASKED FOR POSTPONEMENT THEMSELVES.
SECONDLY, I DO WANT TO COMMEND OMAR AND A GENTLEMEN AT WORK.
THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THE BLIGHT BILINGUAL PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE WORKED WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS TO GENTLY SPEAK WITH THEM AND ENGAGE THEM.
AND THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, THE APPLICANT LIVES IN SPANISH TONIO.
SO HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW IT REALLY WORKS IN AUSTIN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE, WE LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR NEAR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE BEEN AT A FIVE GENERATION NATIVE, UM, JEANETTE IT'S GENERATIONAL NATIVE AS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHY IF THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW AND DON'T KNOW IN THAT AREA.
NOW, I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE WILLING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IF THEY ARE, UM, AT ANOTHER DISCUSSION, COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND THEY'RE WILLING
[00:45:01]
TO GET AN EGRESS GOING TOWARDS AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BUT NOT INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.THERE'S SO MANY REASONS WHY THEY CANNOT NOT HAVE THAT GO INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU'VE HEARD HIM STATE IT TONIGHT, BUT I DO WANT TO COME AND TALK TO YOU FIRST GENTLEMAN FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE ON THE GROUND TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY.
AND AS HE STATED, THE MEETING WENT NOT WELL, IT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT WHEN THE CASE CAME TO THE EAST AND WENT, OKAY.
IT, WE DO HAVE A RECORDING OF THAT IF Y'ALL NEED THAT AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE FOR MR. BROWN FOR, UM, THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER THE REBUTTAL AND I DO HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE AND THE ENGINEER, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, UM, I'LL JUST GO OVER WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
UH, WE DID HAVE THE THREE MEETINGS.
I DIDN'T SUGGEST THAT THEY DID THAT.
THE BIGGEST ISSUE OBVIOUSLY IS THE TRAFFIC.
UH, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRIED TO ADJUST THE USE.
UH, WE THINK IT'S A VERY LOW INTENSIVE USE.
UH, VERY LITTLE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED FOR DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS.
UH, WE THINK IT, UH, IS A, UH, UPGRADE TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UH, WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO WORK ON AN INGRESS EGRESS POINT, UH, TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
UH, I THINK THAT HELPS EVERYBODY.
UM, I DID DRIVE IT TODAY, UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE AND, AND THAT WE CAN PEACEABLY COEXIST.
AND SO, UM, FOR THOSE REASONS I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS, UM, SUPPORT.
UM, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND, UH, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, UM, WANTING TO GO INTO CLOSE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHAY.
WE HAVE ALL 13 NOW OF OUR ERA, SO WE'RE ALL HERE.
GOING TO SHOW ME YOUR CARDS, MR. HOWARD, YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SHOW ME.
UM, SO, UH, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS ON THIS, I'M NOT GOING TO LIST THE LIMIT QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, LET'S, LET'S TRY TO KEEP THEM SHORT AND TO THE POINT, IF WE CAN.
UH, SO I'M NOT GOING TO OFFER THE SPEND RULES AT THIS POINT.
UH, SO WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I THINK EVERYTHING, I ASSUME EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW WHY CAN'T WE HAVE ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO, TO, UH, RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
SO IF THE APPLICANTS, IF EITHER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT ENGINEER CAN ADDRESS THAT, ABSOLUTELY.
I'M THE ONLY PERSON I HAVE REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM IS THE APPLICANT.
SO THE, UH, WE, FIRST OF ALL, A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH EVERYBODY'S STATEMENT THAT WE WOULD PREFER FOR THE PROPERTY TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ACCESS.
UM, THE ISSUE CURRENTLY HAS TO DO WITH TECH STOCK.
AND I THINK THE, THE PRIMARY ISSUE IS THE NUMBER OF DRIVES WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE.
SO WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT I THINK, UH, MAYBE IT WAS OMAR, SOMEBODY EARLIER MENTIONED, WHICH IS TRUE, WHICH I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO, TO JUMP ON, WAS THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE THROUGH TXDOT BY USING A SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WHO OWNS THE THREE PARCELS DOWN ONTO THE CORNER.
AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S A PROBABILITY THERE, AND THAT, I THINK WE ARE OBVIOUSLY GONNA, GOING TO TRY TO PUSH ON AS WELL TO TRY TO GET ACCESS TO AIRPORT FROM THAT SIDE, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE HE AND I, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT TOGETHER, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, IS IN BOTH OF OUR INTERESTS TO DO, I SECONDARILY DID WANT TO JUST POINT OUT VERY BRIEFLY REGARDING THE TRAFFIC THAT THESE, THESE FOLKS WERE MENTIONING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'VE VOICED A LOT OF CONCERN OVER THAT.
AND, UM, SO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT I DON'T THINK THAT OUR PROPOSED USE IS GOING TO BE A VERY HIGH INTENSITY, UM, ISSUE FOR THEM.
AND THEN IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, SINCE TIME IS SHORT, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO YOU'VE GOT WHAT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT 200 LINEAR FEET OR SO OF FRONTAGE ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT TXDOT IS NOT ALLOWING YOU TO HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY ACCESS OR NOT AT THIS MOMENT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF JOINT USE.
THAT'S SURPRISING TO ME, UM, CAUSE I'VE DONE TXDOT ACCESS PERMITS IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.
AND I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT THE REASONING IS RELATED TO THAT.
UM, I GUESS, I GUESS THE FOLLOW ON QUESTION TO THAT IS, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS COMMISSION'S GOING
[00:50:01]
TO VOTE TONIGHT, BUT IF IT WAS, IF THIS COMMISSION VOTED TO POSTPONE THIS, TO GIVE YOU TIME TO ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER A JOINT USE ACCESS SO THAT WE KNOW YOU WILL ACCESS FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND HAVE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL FACING DEVELOPMENT ON AIRPORT RATHER THAN TO GUNTER.UM, W I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT Y'ALL WOULD MAYBE NOT PREFER, BUT, BUT ACCEPT, UM, VERSUS VERSUS A DENIAL OR A RECOMMENDED REJECTION, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN CERTAINLY WE WOULD GO BACK, BUT, UM, IN OUR PREFERENCE, OF COURSE, WOULD BE TO, TO HAVE ACCESS, YOU KNOW, WITH AN APPROVAL TO TRY TO WORK FOR THAT ACCESS WITH AN APPROVAL SO THAT THE PROJECT COULD AT LEAST PROCEED IN THE ORIENTATION COULD CHANGE.
BUT, UH, AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, IF THE ANSWER WAS NO, OR GO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW, THE TIME AND MONEY AND RESOURCES, IT WOULD BE COMMITTED, NOT KNOWING FOR SURE WHETHER WE'D STILL BE GRANTED APPROVAL, EVEN IF I GOT THE ACCESS ON THOSE GROUNDS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S SORT OF AN ORDER THAT I WOULD HOPE WE'D BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE, BUT ABSOLUTELY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
AND, UM, BUT AGAIN, I JUST, ULTIMATELY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE A HIGH IMPACT, UH, TRAFFIC ADDITION TO A PROBLEM THAT MAY ALREADY, YOU KNOW, THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND I DID CERTAINLY WOULD AFFECT MY VOTE.
UM, I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY IT'S MIXED USE IF, IF THE USE THAT'S PROPOSED IS SOME SORT OF INDOOR RECREATION THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT CAN EXPLAIN THAT, OR IF STAFF WANTS TO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A MIXED USE ZONING, I CAN ON THAT.
AND THE, A LOT OF THE TERMINOLOGY THAT ARE BEING USED, I THINK, WERE BEING ADDED TO THE PROJECT JUST BASED ON THE ELEMENTS THAT WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED TO SORT OF BE KIND OF A FLEX OFFICE SPACE ENVIRONMENT WITH JUST REALLY, REALLY GREAT AMENITIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, A GYM, UM, YOU KNOW, SIMULATORS, ARCADE TYPE STUFF FOR THE USERS.
UM, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY, I THINK THE WORD, YOU KNOW, MAN-CAVE GETS GETTING TOSSED OUT.
IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE GREAT AND ENJOYABLE, BUT, UH, CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY THAT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT.
UM, AND SO WE FEEL THAT THIS IS THE BEST, SORRY, THE BEST USE, UH, FOR WHAT WE INTEND, SORRY.
COMMISSIONERS WITH, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER, AND THEN COMMISSIONER IS OUR, UH, JUST TO FOLLOW ON, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER COX'S IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU, UH, TALK ABOUT, UH, UH, STEPS THAT YOU TAKE AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER TO SECURE SOME SORT OF JOINT EGRESS, UH, AGREEMENT PENDING, WHATEVER TEXDOT HAS TO DO? YES, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM AND DIALOGUE, UM, NOT AS INTENSELY AS WE WOULD HOPE TO, SHOULD WE GET, YOU KNOW, THE APPROVAL, BUT, UM, HE'S DEFINITELY INTERESTED.
HE TRIED TO GET IT PREVIOUSLY.
SO, AND THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, I BELIEVE ALREADY HAVE ACCESS AT TROPICANA.
SO WE WOULD SORT OF NEED TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THAT DOWN TO THE SOUTH.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT ABOUT HOW EXACTLY THAT WOULD WORK, BUT, UM, HE ACTUALLY SPOKE TO ME IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, AND HE MENTIONED THAT IF, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER AND GET A VARIANCE FROM TXDOT THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S DEFINITELY INTERESTED, WHICH IS GREAT.
SO, CAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW HOW, HOW WILLING FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE TO WORK WITH YOU NECESSARILY, BUT HE WAS FANTASTIC.
AND SO, UM, I MEAN, I'M DEFINITELY COMMITTED TO TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, A CURB CUT IF YOU WILL WORKED OUT WITH TEXTILES SO THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE THAT AS A POSSIBILITY OR AT LEAST FULLY UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES MAY BE.
SO IS THAT DONE TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS ON PAPER? OR ARE YOU JUST TALKING NO, WITH HIM AT THIS POINT, IT'S JUST TALKING.
UM, CAN WE COMMISSIONER DISHONOR YOUR NET AND CAN GET CHAIR AGAIN THEN I KNOW YOU'RE WALKING THIS THE SOMEWHAT AND PLEASE CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL USES OF THE SPACE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL USES OF THE FACILITY? YES.
WHAT IS BEING PLANNED AT THE MOMENT? THE PLAN AT THE MOMENT IS A, IS SORT OF A,
[00:55:01]
A FLEX SPACE THAT WOULD INCORPORATE ELEMENTS OF, YOU KNOW, WORKOUT WITH, YOU KNOW, A GYM SAUNA.WE WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SIMULATOR IN ARCADE.
UH, BUT THE MAIN FOCUS WOULD BE SPACE FOR OFFICE AT THIS POINT.
AND OBVIOUSLY OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT WE'VE STRUCTURED, THIS HAS HAD TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, THE, JUST THE COVID ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN, YOU KNOW, SORT OF CHANGED THE WAY THAT WE'VE HAD TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, BUT AT THIS POINT, MY INTENT, AND I THINK YOU GUYS SAW THE RENDERINGS, WHICH WE WOULD LOVE TO TAKE TO THE NEXT LEVEL.
SHOULD WE GET AN APPROVAL WHICH WE WOULD NEED, YOU KNOW, TO FIT THIS PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY, GIVEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE RELATIVELY SMALL NATURE OF THE TWO PIECES, UM, OUR OFFICE SPACE, THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY THERE'D BE, I SAY POSSIBLE, THERE'D BE A KITCHEN ELEMENT FOR FOOD.
AND, AND SO MY MAIN FOCUS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A FLEX OFFICE SPACE, THE MAIN, USEFUL ROMAINE OFFICE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, CORRECT.
AND THOSE CONCERNS WERE VOICED WITH THE COMMUNITY WHEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING MAYBE A BAR OR SOME CRAZY STUFF, LIGHTS GOING ON NEXT DOOR.
AND SO PART OF WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON LIMITATIONS, UM, WE'RE BASED ON NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT I APPRECIATE THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I CAN ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FROM STAFF STAFF.
IF SOMEBODY WAS TO DO OFFICE WITH, LET'S SAY FACILITIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE OFFICE ZONE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES CSO HEATHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IF IT HAD A, AN OFFICE KIND OF ZONING CATEGORY OR OFFICE AS THE PRIMARY USE THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD BE AN ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN OFFICE USE WOULD BE VERY LIMITED.
UM, IT WOULDN'T ALLOW THE KIND OF SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU WOULD NEED FOR BOWLING ALLEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
ACCESSORY, BT, MS. CHAFFIN FEELS LIKE WE LOST YOU THERE FOR, YEAH, I THINK WE LOST SCARF.
UM, SHORT ANSWER IS THAT SHORT ANSWER IS THAT ACCESSORY LAND USES ARE VERY LIMITED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE MAIN NEWS.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES.
UM, ANYBODY CAN SPEAK TO THIS ANY, PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WOULD WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT IF THERE WAS ACTUAL EGRESS ONTO AIRPORT BOULEVARD OR DOES THAT NOT SOLVE ALL THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? YEAH, PLEASE DO.
AND YEAH, WE'RE A OKAY COMMISSIONER.
THIS HOUR IS TRYING TO MAKE GOOD USE OF HIS TIME HERE AND GET A LOT OF INPUT.
UM, I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT WE SAID PRETTY EARLY ON FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE OPEN TO IT HAD, THEY'RE NOT, IT'S NOT JUST AIR AIRPORT EGRESS, RIGHT? IT'S A LACK OF EAGERNESS ON GUNTER AS WELL.
AND AGAIN, LIKE I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE DRIVE FOUR MINUTES EAST AND JUST LOOK AT IT AND TELL ME IF YOU THINK IT'LL FIT.
BUT MORE THAN THAT, THE OTHER PART OF IT IS JUST SIMPLY THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE.
WE HAVE LIKE LITERALLY NO IDEA JUST CAUSE IT'S CHANGED A BUNCH OF TIMES.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED USE FOR IT MAYBE HAS CHANGED, BUT, YOU KNOW, HE BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE TERM MAN-CAVE WAS THROWN AROUND THAT WAS LITERALLY THROWN AROUND BY THEIR ATTORNEY ON THE FIRST CALL.
WE DIDN'T JUST MAKE THAT UPPER AND SET THAT ON OUR OWN.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT WAS THE TERM THAT THEY USED ON THE VERY FIRST PHONE CALL THAT WE HAD WITH THEM, WHICH IS THE GENESIS OF WHERE WE GOT THE WORD ON OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT I'M HEARING IS EVEN IF THERE WAS AN, I THINK I RUN A FOUND, BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS NO EGRESS ONTO, UH, UNDER, AND THERE WAS ONLY EGRESS ON AIRPORT, YOU ALL STILL HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE ACTUAL BUDGET ITSELF.
UM, IS IT OKAY IF I ADD SOMETHING? UH, NO.
HE'S NOT OUT OF TIME, RIGHT? THEY'RE TO GO RIGHT AHEAD.
I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT YES, THE PRIMARY, IF THERE WAS AIRPORT EGRESS, THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE TO BEGIN THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN LACK OF GOOD FAITH COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMUNITY MAKES IT SOMEWHAT TROUBLING FOR US TO TAKE ANYTHING THEY SAY WITH ANY MODICUM OF TRUTH.
UM, SO IT'S REALLY TOUGH FOR US TO JUST SAY LIKE, YEAH, WE'D BE OKAY WITH IT.
THAT SAID A LOT OF CONCERNS WOULD BE ALLEVIATED IF THERE WAS AIRPORT AGGRESS.
AND THEN IF I STILL HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR
[01:00:01]
THE AFRICAN, UH, WE, OH, LET'S LET, UH, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO WHO'S WHO HAS QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN, UH, PICK UP OR ON MISS, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR'S QUESTION, IF YOU WANT COMMISSIONER CONLEY.I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE JUST HEARING THE ANSWER TO COMMISSIONERS ARE AS QUESTION AND YOU USE YOUR TIME.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER AS OUR AND TEACHER, I GUESS MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WAS JUST TO UNDERSTAND ANY, PLEASE SPEAK TO THE FACT IS THE EGRESS ON GUNDER BLAND SOUTH OF MUNSON OR ALONG MONTHS.
COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? SO IF THE EGRESS IS CURRENTLY IN THE PLANS, IGRAS HAS TWO YOUNG GUNTER, IS IT SOUTH OF MUNSON OR IS IT GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY ALIGNED WITH MUNSON STREET? UH, I THINK MUNSON IS TO THE NORTH, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
OUR PROJECT IS SOUTH OF MUNSON AND, UM, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID SLIP MY MIND AND IT, IT, IT ANSWERS PART OF YOUR QUESTION ON EGRESS AS WELL AS, UH, MR. COX IS QUESTION FROM EARLIER ABOUT THE ACCESS WITH TXDOT AND HOW WE GET THAT DONE.
JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, PUTTING THIS ON HOLD WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SOLVE IT BECAUSE FOR TXDOT TO GRANT AN ACCESS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAT AND WE CAN'T GET A PLAT WITHOUT THE REZONING.
SO THAT JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, ULTIMATELY WE WOULD NEED A REZONING APPROVAL OR, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO GET THE PLAT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT STATING THAT CLEARLY EARLIER.
AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GONE, LUKE, PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION.
UM, WELL THAT ANSWER, UM, UH, PROVIDED ME WITH, WITH, WITH A QUESTION FOR STAFF, I THINK, UM, WHICH IS, IS THIS IN FACT, THE CASE, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS A PLAT IN ORDER TO, UM, UH, REQUEST, UM, ACCESS, UH, FROM TXDOT.
AND IF SO, UM, IS IT TRUE THAT THIS REZONING WILL, IN FACT, I'M SORRY, I HAD A VERY LONG DAY.
IS IT TRUE IN FACT THAT THIS REZONING, UH, WILL BE ABLE, UM, TH TH NO PLOT IS POSSIBLE UNTIL THIS REZONING IS GRANTED UNTIL A REZONING IS GRANTED OTHER TRAFFIC, HOUSING AND PLANNING, SINCE THIS IS A TXDOT REQUIREMENT, I CAN'T, UH, ANSWER A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT I CAN SAY THAT WE HAVE AN ORDER OF APPROVALS.
REZONING HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE REPLANTING IF IT'S FOR THE ZONING NEEDS TO MATCH.
SO IT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE, BUT COULD IT BE DONE WITHOUT REPLANTING OR WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE REZONING? COULD, COULD THAT REQUEST STILL BE MADE WITH THE CURRENT PLANNING? NO.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU'LL HAVE MY TIME.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
YEAH, LET ME, UM, I THINK, UM, W COULD YOU, I GUESS, UH, MR. RIVERA, DO WE NEED, UM, SPEAKER TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE REQUESTING? CHAIR COMMISSIONER YES.
COULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS MICHAEL OR SACK? THE DEVELOPER? OKAY.
UM, SO, UH, WE ARE AT, UM, LET ME KEEP TRACK HERE.
CAN YOU ASK FOR MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA, LET'S GO AND SEE, UH, LET EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE AND THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK.
SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO KIND OF ASK THIS QUESTIONS BECAUSE I, UM, OKAY, SO QUESTION TO STAFF.
SO IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PLANTED IN ORDER TO PRESENT IT FOR A VARIANCE FROM TXDOT, AND THE REASON THAT WE CAN'T DO IT NOW IS BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I WAS TRYING, I WAS TRYING TO THINK ON MY FEET.
UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
UM, SO TALKING ABOUT, SO LET'S, LET'S SAY IF WE DID GET A, IF WE, IF IT DID GET THE ZONING OF A COMMERCIAL, SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL, IT COULD BE THE MOST MINUSCULE COMMERCIAL.
THEN, YOU KNOW, WITH VERY, VERY LIMITED COULD LOOK WHAT ELO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO GO FOR REPLANT AND TRY TO GET A VARIANCE FROM TEXTILE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YES.
AND THEN IF THEY WANTED TO WORK IT BACK THROUGH AGAIN, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS,
[01:05:01]
THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AND ALSO REQUEST THE NEW REZONING TO CS IF THEY WANTED TO.IS THAT CORRECT? AND AT THAT POINT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS.
SO WOULD THAT BE, IS THAT KIND OF THE PROCESS THAT WE COULD DO ALONG THE WAY? OKAY.
UM, THEN AS FAR AS FOR TRAFFIC COMING ONTO, UH, GUNTER, UM, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF LIMITATIONS OR TRIP LIMITATIONS ON THIS, UH, OR IS, IS THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC BASED UPON THE USE? CAUSE I MEAN, SEE US IS PRETTY HIGH, BUT IS THERE, IS THERE A TRIP LIMITATION THAT WE, THAT COULD BE PLACED ON THIS TO KEEP IT DOWN? UH, THE TRAFFIC INFORMATION WILL BE DONE WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR A TIA AT TIME OF SITE PLAN.
AND AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE USES.
UH, IF THE USE IS 80% OFFICE AND 20% RECREATIONAL THINGS, THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE BASED ON THOSE USES AND THEY HELP WITH THOSE TRAFFIC LIMITATIONS COULD CONTRIBUTE LIMITATIONS, BE PLACED AT THIS TIME ON THE SITE.
IT IS NOT CITY POLICY, UH, TO DO THAT.
WE DID IT MANY YEARS AGO, BUT WE'VE BEEN ADVISED FOR DO IT AT TIME.
SO THERE'S NO WAY, IS THERE A TOOL RIGHT NOW THAT WE COULD PUT IN TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO IT AT THIS POINT THAT WE CAN DO THEM TODAY VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE USED TO DO? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
I MEAN, YOU COULD ALWAYS HAVE THAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND THEN OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS IN ATD COULD REVIEW THAT, BUT THE PRACTICE HAS MANY YEARS THAT WE DON'T DO THAT.
THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS IF I'M NOBODY ELSE'S AND THEN WE CAN CIRCLE BACK WITH THOSE THAT HAVE REMAINING QUESTIONS.
UH, I'LL GO AND TAKE ONE SPOT.
SO, UH, JUST PRINCIPALLY, UH, LOOKING AT THE PLANS FOR THIS AREA, IT WAS, UH, TO BE MORE RESIDENTIAL, MORE HOUSING, AND, UH, GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT, UH, GREATER ENTITLEMENTS WHEN THERE'S MORE UNIVERSAL BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I DON'T SEE THIS REALLY MEETING THAT CAUSE.
UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE OFFICE SPACE MAYBE, UH, PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, UH, USE THERE, BUT I GUESS FOR STAFF, UM, WHAT CAN WE IS THERE? AND THIS MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION, ANY CEO'S THAT MIGHT, UM, TIME THE ZONING WITH, UM, ONCE THEY OBTAINED THAT JOINT YOUTH ACCESS AGREEMENT, IS THERE ANY WAY TO PUT IN ANY KIND OF CONDITION ON, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR, UH, IN THAT WAY, IS THAT ALLOWED FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LOT DEPARTMENT, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THE ANSWER IS NO.
AND, UM, AND JUST HEARING, SO WHAT, ARE THERE ANY, JUST HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT, ANY, UM, I MEAN, WOULD THIS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY OR WHAT WOULD BE, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC BENEFITS, UH, THAT MIGHT ACCOMPANY THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS ENTITLEMENT THAT WE'RE BEING, I THINK THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY, IT WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER, UM, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE, THE MEETING THAT WE HAD, AS I SAID TO NOT GO WELL, PRIMARILY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO THERE, THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT.
UM, WHICH IS THE REASON THAT WE'VE PUT A LOT OF LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE INTEND TO DO THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE OF WHAT WE'RE ASSURING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO TO, YOU KNOW, ENSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE A BENEFIT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP IT FROM BEING, YOU KNOW, A BAR AND SUPER NOISY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THERE IS BENEFIT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY.
IS IT A, IS IT A CIVIC CENTER? NO, UH, CERTAINLY NOT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S FOUL AND GONNA BEGRUDGE THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GREATNESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CERTAINLY NOT.
AND, AND WE'RE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS THAT WE SUBMITTED, I THINK THAT IT FITS STYLISTICALLY BEAUTIFULLY IN WITH THE AREA.
I THINK IT WOULD ADD VALUE BECAUSE THE HOMES THAT ARE THERE NOW ARE BOARDED UP FOR DEMOLITION THEY'RE IN TERRIBLE CONDITION.
UM, I GET CALLS EVERY OTHER WEEK THAT THEY'RE BEING BROKEN INTO AND USED BY HOMELESS PEOPLE FOR A VARIETY OF,
[01:10:01]
OF RESOURCES AND REASONS.SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT INTRINSICALLY DOES HAVE GREAT VALUE AND WE CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD DEFINITELY KEEP IT OPEN FOR THAT.
BUT, UM, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
DO YOU HAVE, AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE KIND OF HEARD, I THINK IN EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT, UH, HOW MUCH WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THESE ACCESSORY USES IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT WOULD BE BOWLING ALLEY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WHAT I MEAN, BOWLING ALLEY IS A LOT OF SPACE.
UM, SO I MEAN, WHAT IS KIND OF THE, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, BUT I DON'T THINK BASED ON THE SPACE THAT WE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY HAVE NET USABLE, UM, WHICH IS JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, WHICH IS ALSO THE REASON THAT THE COMMERCIAL MIX USES YOU IS, IS YOU BEING UTILIZED BECAUSE IT GIVES US, UM, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH SPACE TO, TO GET THE, THE, THE PLACE AND THE WAY THAT WE NEED IT.
BUT THE BOWLING ALLEY, IT WAS CONSIDERED EARLY ON AS A CONCEPT.
AND IT GOT BROUGHT UP AS, YOU KNOW, A PASTA, JUST KIND OF A TOSS IN, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REALISTICALLY BELIEVE WE CAN DO.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT THAT WAS, UH, A CONCERN WITH NOISE AND DIFFERENT THINGS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.
YEAH, WELL, IT WAS, I WAS EXCITED WHEN I HEARD THAT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT, OH, THAT COMMUNITY WILL HAVE A GREAT REC CENTER, BUT I GUESS THAT'S NOT REALLY THE WHOLE THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO MAKE THAT WORK, UNFORTUNATELY.
WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE, UH, YEAH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF AN ACCESSORY USE, BUT THE MIXED USE GIVES YOU THE ABILITY MAYBE TO EXPAND THAT, TO MAKE THESE OTHER, UH, TO ADD THESE OTHER FEATURES IN.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, SO WE'RE CIRCLING BACK.
I'M GONNA LET COMMISSIONER COX GO AND THEN, UM, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I JUST, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, I, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS CORRECT.
UM, ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ACCESS YOU HAVE FROM WHERE AS ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT, THAT YOU WOULD DO WHEN YOU'RE DETERMINING WHAT YOU CAN DEVELOP ON A PROPERTY.
SO THE IDEA THAT THERE HAS TO BE A PLAT AND WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S ACCESS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY CORRECT.
UM, SO MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IS YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH THAT YOU INDICATED THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, EXIST.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THIS TRIANGULAR PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT, FINDING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT FOR THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH, OR TRYING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE SOUTH, ALL OF THAT CAN BE DONE NOW.
AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT STEPS YOU'VE TAKEN, WHERE YOU THINK YOU'RE AT AND WHAT YOU THINK IS POSSIBLE IN TERMS OF GETTING ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD, IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
UH, I WOULD, I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR FIRST POINT.
UM, AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO BRING MY CIVIL ENGINEER DOWN TO DESCRIBE THAT IN AN INFINITELY MORE ARTICULATE WAY, WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT.
IF YOU GUYS WOULDN'T MIND, WE CAN'T DO THAT HERE FROM YOUR ENGINEER.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU SPEAK TO HIM NOW, IF POSSIBLE.
UH, HE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS HE'S HERE.
SO A QUICK, THANK YOU AND HAVE, UM, UM, ORDER HERE.
UH, CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE, I SEE NOTES.
WE NEED TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS, UH, CHARITY COMMISSION ON DENVER.
UH, WE COULD DO SO AFTER THESE SPEAKERS.
SO, SO THIS SPEAKER IS OKAY, AND THEN WE'LL GO AND, OKAY.
I WAS ON WAS PARKWAY SUITE 200 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
UM, YES, THE, THERE CAN BE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING ACCESS WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORS WITH TECH STOCK, BUT THE ACTUAL FORMAL APPROVAL OF LOCKING SOMETHING, LOCKING A ACCESS LOCATION IN HAPPENS WITH THE PLAT IT'S.
AND I, SORRY, I'M NOT SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.
I, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO GET ACCESS APPROVALS.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ACCESS IS POSSIBLE AND THAT ACCESS IS EITHER POSSIBLE THROUGH A NEW DRIVEWAY WITH TEXTILE APPROVAL ON AIRPORT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT OR YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT YOU COULD DO AN ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, OR POTENTIALLY TRY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT AND SEE IF TXDOT WOULD ACCEPT SOME SORT OF JOINT USE FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
AND SO NONE OF THAT REQUIRES A PLAT OR US TO APPROVE A REZONING FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THOSE MOTIONS.
AND SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT, WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND WHAT YOU THINK IS POSSIBLE RELATED TO THAT.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE IS EXPECTING YOU TO ACTUALLY GET AN ACTUAL ACCESS PERMIT FROM TECHSTOP BEFORE YOU EVEN HAVE ITS OWN.
UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT EXISTING ACCESS TO THE NORTH ISN'T ON OUR PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE OR ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE, UM, AN EASEMENT FROM THE, UH, NORTHERN PROPERTY OWNER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE FEEDBACK THAT I'VE RECEIVED FROM TEXTILE PREVIOUSLY IS THAT COME, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY COME TO US WHEN
[01:15:01]
YOU HAVE A PLAT.AND THAT THAT'S HARDLY WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THEM BEFORE.
AND SO IT'S REALLY, WE CAN HAVE THESE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, BUT UNTIL THEY SEE A PLAT THAT HAS AN ASSOCIATED USE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA AGREE TO ANYTHING.
WELL, I THINK WE'RE RUNNING IN CIRCLES HERE.
WE'RE NOT EXPECTING TO NEXT STEP TO DO, TO AGREE TO ANYTHING.
W WHAT, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE IS JOINT ACCESS TO USE AGREEMENTS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE NORTH OR SOUTH, WHICH MAY HELP YOUR CASE WITH TXDOT.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THAT REALLY HASN'T MOVED FORWARD.
THAT Y'ALL WOULD RATHER JUST HAVE THE APPROVAL AND THEN MAYBE DO THAT IF YOU WANT TO LATER.
UM, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN ADD TO THAT, BUT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, SO THAT THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
WE HAVE A SLOT FOR ONE MORE, BUT, UM, IF ANY MORE QUESTIONS, IF NOT, WE HAVE A LITTLE PROCEDURAL CLEANUP TO DO, THEN I'LL GO THROUGH HERE IN A MOMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, ANYBODY WANT TO ASK QUESTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT NEIGHBORHOODS RATES IN THERE FOR YOU VIRTUALLY.
UM, OKAY, WELL, I'M GOING TO GO AND RE YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M GOING TO APPROACH THE, THE PODIUM HERE, AND IF YOU CAN MAKE IT BRIEF, WE'VE GOT A BIG AGENDA TO GO AHEAD.
UH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR GO AHEAD AND, YEAH, JUST, I JUST, LIKE, IN CLOSING, WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEIR OWN PROPERTY SITS BECAUSE MUNSON DEAD ENDS DIRECTLY INTO WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THIS THING.
THEY'RE NOT TO THE SOUTH OF IT, THE MUNSON STREET, LITERALLY DEAD, DEAD ENDS TO THE CENTER ABOUT, OF WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THIS THING.
UM, AND SO LIKE, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GIVE SOMEONE AN ? THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINE SITS, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO.
UH, I THINK THAT, UM, MR. OR SACS DESCRIPTION OF THE SECOND MEETING, WHICH AGAIN, I ARRANGED NOT HIMSELF IS PRETTY INACCURATE.
HE SUGGESTED THAT WE WERE NOT OPEN TO OR COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO ACTUALLY CREATE COMMUNITY BENEFIT OR SOLICIT IT.
UH, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE EAST MLK CONTACT MEETING THAT OMAR AND MYSELF ATTENDED OF ANOTHER DEVELOPER, DOING EXACTLY THAT, DOING A LOT OF LEGWORK AND DUE DILIGENCE OVER A YEAR.
AND I THINK HIS PR HIS PROPOSAL IS STILL VOTED DOWN.
MR. WARRICK SACK HAS LITERALLY DONE NOTHING IN TERMS OF OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY.
NOT A SINGLE NEIGHBOR HAS BEEN OUTREACHED BY MR. ORSAK, OMAR, MYSELF, RECEIVED AN EMAIL ABOUT PROHIBITING BAR USAGE ON THE PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL OVERLAY OR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
TO SUGGEST THAT WE WERE NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION IS JUST UNTRUE.
UM, SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, IF I CAN GET THE HELP HERE IS, UM, UH, WE NEED TO GET, UH, THE ONE SPEAKER REGISTERED, UM, AND, UH, THE DEVELOPERS.
SO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, UH, UH, RICAN, WE HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE A VOTE TO RECONSIDER THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO CAN I GET A MOTION TO SECOND? UH, WE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER.
IT'S OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
LET'S GO AND VOTE TO RECONSIDER THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S EVERYBODY IN THE DIOCESE.
SO THAT'S, UM, GOT 11, 12 AND COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? OKAY.
I COULDN'T, IT WAS BEHIND YOUR BAG.
SO NEXT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, VOTE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER TO REGISTER.
SO IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, GOING TO MOST OF MY COMMISSIONER COX SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THAT.
AND THEN LASTLY, UH, SO WE HAVE HIM, UH, THE DEVELOPER REGISTERED.
WE NEED A MOMENT FOR THAT, OR CAN WE GO ON VOTE? OKAY.
NOW I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSIONER COX CENTER BY COMMISSIONER ZAR.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE, OUR RIGHT THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
THANK YOU FOR, UM, GETTING THROUGH THAT.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE, UH, UH, DO WE HAVE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, ME OR YOU MADE IT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU HOPEFULLY, SO, OKAY.
SO I'M GOING TO THROW THIS OUT AND THEN, BUT IT ENDED UP FOR DISCUSSION THAT WE COULD KIND OF TALK THROUGH IT, BUT I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR, UH, WHERE'S THE FIRST LINE, SECOND
[01:20:01]
WITH SCREEN.UH, MAKE A MOTION FOR L OH, ZONING.
UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR ELLOS ZONING? I WILL SECOND IT, CAUSE I'D LOVE TO HEAR WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION SO WE CAN LEARN A LITTLE MORE? SURE.
SO, UH, ELLA XONE LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT IS DESIGNATION FOR AN OFFICE USE OF SERVES NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND THAT IS LOCATED IN OR ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AN OFFICE AND AN ELA DISTRICT MAY CONTAIN ONE OR MORE DIFFERENT USES SITES ON REGULATIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO AN ELO DISTRICT USE ARE JUST DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE USE IS COMPATIBLE AND COMPLIMENTARY AND SCALE AND PARENTS WITH A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT.
SO, UH, THE REASON BEHIND THIS IS LIKE GIVING THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO, SINCE HE WANTS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET A PLAT, THIS WILL GIVE HIM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT PLAT.
IF HE DOESN'T GET IT, AT LEAST THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS.
AND IT SAYS, I CAN SAY IT COULD BE INSIDE A NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, IF, IF THEY HAD ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD, THIS IS, IT WOULD BE A COMPLETE DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT AT THIS POINT, LIKE THIS IS THE ONLY PATH I SEE, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO TRY TO GET FURTHER ALONG, MAYBE GET THE PLAT, GET THE ACCESS.
IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK LATER, THEY CAN COME BACK LATER.
BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THEY JUST SAID THEY WANTED OFFICE.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH THAT.
UM, SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SAY THAT IF, IF THERE WAS ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD, THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION.
UM, AND MY, MY INTENT, UH, JUST SIGNALING BEFOREHAND IS, IS IF, IF THIS MOTION OR WHATEVER, MOTION FAILS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO POSTPONE SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT THEIR ACCESS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISGUIDED HERE.
YOU DO NOT NEED A PLAT TO GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ACCESS YOU CAN HAVE, WHETHER THAT'S ACCESS ON YOUR PROPERTY, OR WHETHER THAT'S NEGOTIATING WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES, FOR JOINT ACCESS DISAGREEMENT.
THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S MULTIPLE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS APPLICANT CAN EASILY GET INTO SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO AT LEAST GET A DRAFT IN CONCEPT OF WHAT JOINT ACCESS USE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO ACTUALLY PULL PERMITS WITH TXDOT BEFORE THEY GET AN APPROVED ZONING CASE TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY THAT USUALLY COMES WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING WHEN YOU'RE THE SITE, UM, TO CON TO, TO A CONSTRUCTION TYPE STANDARD.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WE'RE NOT HOLDING THE DEVELOPER HOSTAGE BY DENYING HIM A PLATZ TO FIGURE OUT IF HE CAN DO A DRIVEWAY OR NOT.
AND I WOULD PREFER TO GIVE THEM TIME TO FIGURE THAT OUT BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT ACCESS TO AIRPORT BOARD.
DOES, UH, THAT WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, SPEAK ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST BEFORE WE GO? OH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
I GUESS I'M JUST, I'M LOOKING AT A MAP AND I SEE, YOU KNOW, THE CSM YOU NORTH OF THE SITE, SOUTH OF THE SITE, YOU KNOW, WEST OF THE SITE, I SEE IT EAST OF GUNTHER, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT TO ALL THOSE, YOU KNOW, SF THREE ZONE LANDS.
I SEE IT, YOU KNOW, IT ON GUNTER NORTH OF THE SITE.
SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, IF WE TALK ABOUT SPOT ZONING, WHAT I DO SEE ARE TWO SF, THREE SPOT ZONED HOUSES ON AIRPORT, WHICH ARE, IS A CORRIDOR.
AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM AN INAPPROPRIATE USE TO PUT C SMU, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST, UM, AT THAT SPOT.
AND YOU SPEAK FOR ITS, UH, COMMISSIONER.
I MISS YOU AS FAR AS COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, COMMISSIONER MOOSE DOLLAR SPEAKING AGAINST YOU AS FIRST AND YOU ANYBODY? NO.
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, GO AHEAD.
I NEED TO SPEAK FOR, OH, YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST, UH, OKAY.
ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER,
[01:25:01]
MR. DOLLAR? OKAY, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT SLOT.UM, I, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE, THE ZONING THAT'S AROUND, BUT I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE AERIAL MAPPING.
IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK, WHAT'S REALLY THERE, UM, VERSUS WHAT'S ZONED THERE.
UM, I'M REALLY JUST HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THE CSM YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THAT, THE OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND ON THE SIDE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A BUFFER AND A PERIMETER WHERE THERE'S THE, I GUESS, MIXED USE SPACE AGAINST THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN THERE'S A CORNER THERE THAT GETS IN THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD, AND THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A TRANSITION CORNER, BUT I'VE JUST, I, I'M NOT SEEING IT THERE.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT A WALKABILITY PEDESTRIAN AREA YET, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE.
THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL, BUT THIS ISN'T EVEN A C S M U THAT'S GOT PUBLIC USE.
SO I'M, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING IT.
AND I SUPPOSE IF THEY GET THE ACCESS OFF AIRPORT, THEN THE WHOLE THING WOULD BE ORIENTED A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE, BUT I CAN'T SEE IT COMING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AT LEAST WHEN I LOOK AT THE AREAS WHERE THE HOUSES ARE AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY LIVING, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THERE TO ME.
SO THE MOTION WAS FOR ELA, NOT THE CS, JUST, YEAH.
SORRY, BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE IT'S HEADED.
UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SPEAKING, UH, LAST SPOT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
SO, UM, UH, I THINK THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME SHARED CONSENSUS, UH, THAT WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IF THERE ARE INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF, UH, AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
I THINK MY, AND ORIGINALLY I WAS THINKING THAT THIS CASE NEEDED TO BE POSTPONED, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT REALLY PROVIDES ANY GUARANTEE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THERE WON'T CONTINUE TO BE GRASS ON THE SIDE STREET.
UM, W W WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF BAD BLOOD BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S THAT LEVEL OF TRUST TO, TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THIS CASE FORWARD, EVEN IF WE GOT SOME JOINT AGREEMENT AND WE GOT SOME PLEDGE FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO GET, UM, UH, TXDOT TO APPROVE.
SO I THINK THAT THE ONLY THE BEST GUARANTEE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO PROTECT AGAINST INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE SIDE STREETS IS TO APPROVE A VERY LIGHT ZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IF IT, IF THE PLAQUE DOESN'T GO FORWARD, UH, SORRY, UH, THE TEXTILE, UH, APPROVAL DOESN'T GO FORWARD.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE STILL HAVE A VERY LIGHT FOOTPRINT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVEN IF THEY'VE RETAINED INGRESS IN THE GRASS ON THE SIDE STREETS.
SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S A GREAT SOLUTION.
IT FEELS LIKE THE BEST SOLUTION TO ME.
UH, COMMISSIONER SHADES, UM, UH, MOTION.
UH, WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT FOR COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK NEUTRAL HERE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT CHANGE TRYING TO DO HERE.
AND I THINK I HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT I ALSO HAVE TO BE AT THE SAME TIME, SAY, I THINK APPLICANT HAS HONESTLY NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT THE CASE OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
I DON'T THINK THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK WE'RE HEARING YOUR BREATH CONCERNS THAT ARE REALLY BE, UM, AND REALLY RELATED ITSELF TO THE USES AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
AND I ACTUALLY ALSO BE SHARED WITH COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
YOU WERE SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK A LOT OF FOLKS WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHERE YOU BACK ONTO YOUR BACKYARD OPENS ONTO AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
SO WE HAVE TO FIND A PROPER USE FOR THIS SITE MOVING FORWARD.
BUT I CANNOT SAY, I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT IS THINKING FITS THAT BILL FOR ME.
SO I'M LIKELY TO, UM, EITHER OBTAIN A VOTE AGAINST BOTH MOTIONS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS PROJECT, UH, AND MOVE FORWARD AS IS IF THESE FROM ME.
I'M HEARING NO OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE SUBSTITUTIONAL.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UH, SO THOSE QUICKLY, I'M GOING TO THOSE IN FAVOR.
LET'S DO THAT FIRST COMMISSION LEADS LANDOWNER.
DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE THE NPA? OH YEAH.
I THOUGHT I INTRODUCED IT THAT WAY, BUT WE SHOULD BE CLEAR.
YOUR MOTION INCLUDES THE NPA AND REZONING.
UM, SO LET'S GO AND SEE THOSE IN FAVOR.
SO I'M COUNTING 1, 2, 3, AND THEN ON THE DYESS, THOSE IN FAVOR.
SO THAT'S THREE, UH, THOSE VOTING
[01:30:01]
AGAINST, UH, SHOW ME YOUR RED CARDS.UH, YEAH, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE DYES.
AND THAT IS VOTING, UH, ABSTAINING ONE, TWO.
I'M MISSING ONE, UH, COMMISSION EITHER.
WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE? GREEN MAYBE.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR ONE MORE TIME.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING AT THREE.
UH, THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
THERE TRIED TO DO A BETTER JOB.
UH, ANOTHER MOTION COMMISSIONER COX.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? OH, COMMISSIONER.
I SAW COMMISSIONER COX'S HAND FIRST.
UM, WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO DO WHAT I SAID I WAS GOING TO DO.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PUT US BONUS ITEM TO OUR APRIL 12TH MEETING APRIL 12TH.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER MOTION TODDLER.
I JUST, I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME.
I THINK THEY'VE HEARD US PRETTY CLEAR IN TERMS OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS.
THEY'VE HEARD THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRETTY CLEAR.
UM, I THINK, I THINK AIRPORT ACCESS WOULD MITIGATE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
AND SO I'M JUST GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO GET THAT SORTED OUT, COME BACK TO US.
UM, AND IF THEY CAN'T GET SORTED OUT, THEN MAYBE WE DON'T RECOMMEND THE ZONING AT ALL, BUT AT LEAST I'M GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT THAT OUT.
AND YOU WANT SPEAKERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS MOTION? OR WE CAN GET ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUALLY.
YOU WANT SPEAKING IN FAVOR? YES.
I, I AGREE WITH, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER OF BAY SO THAT IT'S, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE AN SF ONE THEY'RE BACKING UP AGAINST AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
I COULD DEFINITELY SEE MAYBE SOME DENSER HOUSING.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS A TRANSITION INTO THERE.
AND IF THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDABLY, IF THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DO, AND THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT WITH THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY'VE REALLY GOT IT ORIENTED THE OTHER WAY AND SHOW US THEY CAN DO THAT.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, THEY GET A BETTER BUFFER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT'S, WHILE I'LL GIVE THEM MORE TIME TO SEE IF THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT AND WE CAN GET THEM WHAT THEY NEED.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO GO AND VOTING ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, GO AHEAD.
SPEAK IN FAVOR AGAINST AGAIN, I'LL JUST SAY A FEW WORDS AND OPPOSITION, WHICH IS JUST, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE POSTPONE THE CASE, AND THEN WE GET TO HEAR THE CASE IN A MONTH OR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
AND WE HEAR BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME CASE OVER AGAIN.
AND I, YOU KNOW, MY BIGGEST OP YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS KIND OF MY BIGGEST CONCERN AROUND POSTPONING IS JUST MY QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT JUST BY GIVING A LITTLE EXTRA TIME TO THIS CASE, IT WILL IN FACT SORT ITSELF OUT, OR ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP TO HEAR SORT OF THE EXACT SAME FACTS REPEATED OVER AGAIN, THE SAME POSITION BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE SAME POSITION BY THE APPLICANT.
AND, AND, AND SO MY, MY QUESTION IS WILL THIS CASE EVOLVE REALLY MEANINGFULLY BY THE APRIL DATE SUGGESTED, UM, AND, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT THAT WILL FORCE US TO LISTEN TO THE SAME CASE OVER AGAIN.
ANY OTHER VOTES FOR, AGAINST HER SPEAKERS FOR AGAINST HER? CAN WE GO AND VOTE ON THIS MOTION? SO THE MOTION IS TO GO AND POSTPONED APRIL 12TH.
WAS THAT THE DATE YOU PROPOSED COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, BY COMMISSIONER COXEN AND BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE TELLER.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN DO A BETTER JOB AT COUNTING.
LET'S SEE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
I'VE COUNT SIX IN FAVOR OF THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR, AND THEN, OKAY.
THERE'S VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION.
LEAVE IT UP JUST FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
[01:35:04]
ALL RIGHT.AND THOSE NEUTRAL OR ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM? I'M COUNTING.
LET'S SEE ONE YOU'RE AGAINST I'M SORRY.
UH, AND THOSE, SO THAT'S 7, 5, 1.
UH, THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN, FIVE TO ONE.
SO, UM, IF I'LL JUST DO A PROCEDURAL MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN POSTPONE THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING TO THE APRIL 12TH.
SO MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CAN WE DO THAT ALL AT ONCE AND RECONSIDERED TO APRIL, UH, APRIL 12TH.
SO THOSE IN FAVOR, UM, SHOW ME YOUR GREEN THAT'S 10, UM, ON THE DAYAS 12 AND THOSE AGAINST, IS THAT WHITE OR YELLOW? WHAT COLOR ARE YOU AGAINST HER? IS THAT YELLOW? OKAY.
ARE, ARE WE GOOD THERE, MR. RIVERA? OKAY.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE NEXT DISCUSSION CASE CHAIR.
UH, I KNOW WE'VE GOT AN ITEM WAY LATER IN THE AGENDA.
UH, I THINK MS. TELFORD, UH, FROM STAFF IS SUPPOSED TO DO A PMU BACKGROUND PRESENTATION, BUT, UH, ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT? LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE STAFF HAVING TO SIT AROUND ALL NIGHT WHEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GET THERE, UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WE HAD, AND I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE SPEAKERS ON SOME OF THESE OTHER CASES THAT I FELT WE NEEDED TO KEEP WITH OUR RULES.
UM, WOULD WE CONSIDER KEEPING OUR QUESTIONS? UM, THIS WOULD BE A SUSPENSION OF A RULE AS TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH.
DO YOU THINK WE COULD DO THAT FOR THE REMAINING CASES? I SEE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE REMAINING DISCUSSION CASES TO LIT LIMIT OUR Q AND A TO MAYBE HELP US GET IT ALL IN? I GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOTION TODDLER.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SPEAK THE MOTION.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION THE MOTION REMINDED EVERYBODY THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE AGAIN TO SUSPEND THE RULES THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
IF NEED BE, WE CAN CHANGE THEM, BUT THIS GIVES US A GUIDANCE AS WE MOVE TO.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE CAN ALWAYS REVERT BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL RULES.
IF WE'RE, WE JUST REALLY NEED TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS.
SO WITH THAT, I'M POINTING TO CLARIFICATION.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON SUSPENDING THE RULES FOR THE REMAINING DISCUSSION CASES, UH, ON THE DIET I ON THE SCREEN, I SEE NINE.
AND ON THE, ON THE DYESS SUSPENDING THE RULES, THAT'S 10.
AND I'M THE DICE? THAT'S TWO AND THOSE, UH, NEUTRAL OR STANDING THAT'S ONE.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES TEN TWO TO ONE.
EACH THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS THAT THREE MINUTES EACH.
YES, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, WHAT IS THAT CLEAR? IS THAT WHAT YOU ALL UNDERSTOOD? IT WAS FIVE TO THREE MINUTES.
AND DO YOU WANT TO VISIT THE DEBATE ROLE? UH, NOT AT THIS TIME.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THERE.
SO, UM, YEAH, CAUSE THAT WOULD LIMIT, WELL, ARE YOU SUGGESTING LIMITING TIME OR NUMBER THE THREE MINUTE, TWO MINUTE OR THE NUMBER TWO FOR TWO AGAINST ISN'T BEING TALKED ABOUT AS AN OPTION.
ANY COMMISSIONERS WILLING TO LIMIT DEBATE, UH, ON OUR FUTURE CASES TO GET THEIR CASE LOAD AND STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL IS, UH, SO SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT ALL TO THIS IDEA? VICE CHAIR? NO, I DON'T NEED TO SPEAK TO IT.
SO IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? THIS WOULD BE, WE HAVE THREE EACH FOUR, AND AGAIN, SO THIS WOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO SPEAKERS, FOUR AND TWO AGAINST.
AND IF WE KEEP IN FOR AND AGAINST, AND KIND OF AVOID SOME OF THE ABSTAINING DISCUSSION, I THINK WE COULD MAYBE KEEP IT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ADDITIONAL LIMITATION TO GET US TO OUR CASELOAD, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY, OKAY.
LET'S SO THAT'S SIX COUNTING ON THE SCREEN AND THEN THOSE ON THE DIOCESE.
THAT'S ONE, UH, THOSE AGAINST THIS ADDITIONAL MEASURE,
[01:40:01]
THREE ON THE D THAT'S FOR THOSE ABSTAINING.AND WHO ELSE? OKAY, THIS IS 7 41.
ALL RIGHT, THEN THAT MUST'VE BEEN ONE AGAINST, I MISS THOSE AGAINST DID EVERYBODY VOTE? CAUSE I AM, I'VE GOT 7 41.
ARE WE MISSING ANYBODY? OKAY, SO THAT'S 7, 5 1.
AND, OKAY, SO THAT MOTION PASSES.
AND AGAIN, IF ANY, DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVENING, IF SOMEONE FEELS THAT WE NEED TO REVERT TO OUR REGIONAL RULES, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE CAN TAKE A VOTE TO GO BACK TO OUR NORMAL RULES TEAMS, NOT SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT.
UH, ANDREW, I THINK THAT IS, IS THAT THE CASE? RIGHT? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SUSPEND THE RULES ON THAT.
LIKE WE DID AT THE OTHER HEARING.
I PROCEED WITH THE Q AND A I REDUCED.
DID WE GET IT THERE? IT'S 10 21.
LET'S PROCEED ON WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE Q AND A, OKAY.
UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S STILL SOLVES FOR US HEARING A BRIEFING AT THE END.
WE STILL HAVE FIVE DISCUSSION CASES TO GO AND IT'S TAKEN US ALMOST TWO HOURS TO GET THROUGH ONE.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE BRIEFING TONIGHT.
UM, UH, MR. RIVERA, CAN WE, UM, HAVE THE BRIEFING MOVED UP IN OUR AGENDA? WE CAN CAN'T WE WITH THE VOTE SUPER MAJORITY REORDER CHAIR, CORRECT? YEP.
SO WITH THE SUPERMAN, UH, SO I WOULD CONSIDER THIS EVENING, WHAT TIME VICE-CHAIR WOULD DO YOU THINK WE MAY WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO BRING STAFF UP AND, AND CHANGE THE ORDER? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR.
SO IF WE, WE WANT TO TRY TO HEAR STAFF AT NINE OR NINE O'CLOCK, WOULD THAT BE FAIR BY I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THAT.
UM, IS THERE A REASON, CAN I MAKE A MOTION JUST TO HEAR THE BRIEFING NOW YOU COULD, WE CAN VOTE ON IT AND SEE IF WE WANT TO MOVE IT UP.
IS STAFF READY? THIS IS GETTING OUT OF THE WAY.
CAN WE DISCUSS, AND I GUESS I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY OF THE DEBATE OR AT THE BRIEFING.
UM, SO REAL QUICK COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A TIMETABLE, UH, WITH THE WORKING GROUP AND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO HEAR NOW? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
UM, JUST SO THE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND WE ARE, I WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD REQUIRED, BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE WILL BE TAKING ACTION ON THIS ITEM ON THE EIGHTH WITH THE WORKING GROUP, SENDING YOU ALL OUR RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE FOURTH.
AND WE REALLY FELT LIKE IT MADE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND ASK AFTER YOU PRESENT.
NOW, IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HEAVY VISITATION.
THERE'S MULTIPLE ITEMS IN THERE.
ONE, I THINK IT WOULD HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENTS AND WHERE, WHAT DIRECTION THAT WE'RE ALL GETTING TO.
I THINK WE JUST WANT TO HAVE DIAMOND DEEDS.
WE NEED TO DO GO THROUGH A FULL PRESENTATION AND GO TO ALL THE ACTIONS AND NEED TO TAKE, TO ASK THE ITEM.
SO WE FELT LIKE IT MIGHT JUST BE BETTER TO SPLIT IT SO WE CAN DO THE PRESENTATION AND JUMP DIRECTLY INTO DISCUSSION AND ACTION NEXT NIGHT.
SO DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THIS? IT MAY NOT PASS, BUT IT MAY, WE CAN SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION IS.
UM, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
I GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON, ON THAT ITEM.
SO I HAVE NINE GREEN AND ON THE DIOCESE ONE THAT'S 10 IN FAVOR.
THAT'S AGAINST THIS MOTION TO HEAR STEP PRESENTATION ON BMES.
NOW I'M NOT SEEING ANY, I SEE ONE ON THE DICE AGAINST, SO THOSE THAT ARE, UH, ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM ONE, TWO.
SO WE DO HAVE THE SUPER MAJORITY ON THAT.
SO WE'LL HEAR, WELL, HOPEFULLY STAFF IS READY OR THEY'RE READY FOR US.
[01:45:01]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND STAFF, YOU CAN KEEP THIS WITHIN 10.IF YOU NEED A FEW MORE MINUTES, UH, WE'LL GIVE YOU UP TO 15, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS DONE AND INTENT.
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU STILL HAVING SOME TECHNICAL.
SO DO WE, IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN RESOLVE QUICKLY? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE JUMPED BACK ON OUR CASES AND COME BACK TO YOU.
MAYBE THE NEXT ON THE NEXT TIME IS, ARE WE, WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS? NO CHARITY.
UM, WE BELIEVE IT'S ON THE USER END.
SO, UH, ANYBODY WANT TO VOTE TO GET BACK ON OUR CASES? CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN.
I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT ONE MORE CHANCE BEFORE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A SECOND COMMISSIONER CZAR.
LET'S GO AND VOTE TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION CASE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL COME BACK AND TRY IT AGAIN.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THAT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY RESULT.
[B4. C14-02-0183(RCA) - 1118 Tillery Street; District 3]
OTHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THIS IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT C 14 0 2 0 1 8 3 RCA.THIS IS AT 1118 TILLERY STREET.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 3.78 ACRES STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST TO REMOVE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES OR REMOVE TRACKS WENT TO FOUR AND FIVE FROM THE EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
UH, THEY ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE REMAINING TRAP IT'S DEVELOPED WITH A PLANT NURSERY LAND USE AND WAS REZONED FROM SF THREE TO CSM UCO AT THE TIME OF THE GABELLI NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IN 20 23, 20 20 2002 AND OR TWO, 2003, THE PLANT NURSERY USE WAS IN EXISTENCE AT THAT TIME, NO CHANGES TO THE ZONING OR PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC RC WAS CREATED CONCURRENT WITH THE 2002, 2003 REZONING AND STATES THAT IF YOU SET THE PROPERTY AS A PLANT NURSERY USE IS DISCONTINUED FOR 90 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN REZONE, RESENTING THE PROPERTY TO SF FOR A, AN A P.
AND AGAIN, UH, THE APPLICANT OWNS, UH, FOUR OF THE FIVE TRACKS.
I DO WANT TO ADD SOMETHING, UH, SOME INFORMATION, AND THIS IS S UH, INFORMATION THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
THIS PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM EXERCISING PROTESTS, PROTEST RIGHTS, OR APPLYING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY.
MOREOVER, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE CITY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO SFR NP.
SO MOVING ON, UM, THERE THERE'S ALSO BEEN A PETITION FILED, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A REZONING, IT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT, UH, A VALID PETITION THAT THE FORMAL VALID PETITION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THIS REQUEST.
BUT THE, UH, PETITION INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED SO FAR IS ATTACHED WITH THE REPORT.
UH, THE PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF TILLERY BETWEEN GO VALLEY AND GOODWIN, UH, NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS ANOTHER CSM, UCO AND P PROPERTY.
UH, THIS ALSO, I SHOULD SAY, THIS IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS TED'S TREES.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA FURTHER NORTH IS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND AN SF THREE NP EAST OF THE PROPERTY ACROSS TILLERY IS RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND S3 MP THERE TO THE WEST.
ALSO SFD MP RESIDENTIAL, AND ALSO THE ACC EAST VIEW CAMPUS, WHICH IS AN A P TO THE SOUTH ARE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SF THREE MP, UH, OTHER LAND USES AND ZONING CATEGORIES IN THE AREA ARE UNDEVELOPED RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES, TOWNHOUSE CONDO WITH A MF GREEN MP RESPECTIVELY, UH, AT THE TIME OF THE REZONING
[01:50:01]
IN 2002, 2003.IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHERE ALL TED'S TREES AND UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
AND SO THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME STRICT OF TENANT.
UM, THE CONDITIONS ARE THAT IF A ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS OFFICE OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICER DEVELOPED, THEY CANNOT EXCEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S A VERY LONG LIST OF PROHIBITED USES.
I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH THAT.
AND, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT LONG LIST OF PROHIBITED USES, THE ONLY LAND USES CURRENTLY PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY ARE SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, DUPLEX, RESIDENTIAL PLANT NURSERY, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND BUSINESS OFFICE, AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
AND AGAIN, THE LIMIT ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE OFFICE USES THERE WAS A PREVIOUS REQUEST, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH REQUESTED WHEN MOVING THE RC, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY STAFF THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, UH, DENIED THE REQUEST.
WE ARE SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME, UM, DUE TO, UH, THE STATEMENT THAT I READ FROM OUR LAW DEPARTMENT, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO NOT EXERCISE PROTEST AGAINST THE REZONING AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MS. LEE, ABOUT JOE FOR FIVE MINUTES.
BOGGIO HERE REPRESENTING THE LONG-TIME OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY.
MARIANNE TED LOPEZ, WHO ARE ALSO HERE TONIGHT.
I'LL GO QUICKLY THROUGH THIS SINCE HEATHER COVERED MOST OF THE FACTS, AND OF COURSE WE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE END.
UM, THIS IS AN AREA JUST TO SORT OF CLARIFY WHAT HEATHER DESCRIBED THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THE TURQUOISE PORTION.
UM, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES COVER ADDITIONAL THE ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE SITE IN RED.
YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL OF THE NURSERY MORE CLOSELY.
SO AS THE FLOM, WHICH IS SF, WHERE WE ARE NOT REQUESTING TO CHANGE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND THIS IS THE ZONING, UH, CS, M U C O N P ALSO NOT REQUESTING TO CHANGE.
AND THIS IS WHERE THE, REALLY THE MEAT OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS WORKED THROUGH AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN STAGE.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE CONDITIONAL RELAY THAT HEATHER DESCRIBED.
UM, IT IS A LONG LIST THAT IS VERY MUCH SARAN WRAPPED AROUND TED'S TREES AND THE USES THAT ARE THERE TODAY, OR A LIST OF, UM, SINGLE FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES.
UM, THIS IS A SNIP OF THE COVENANT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE, I THINK IT'S IN YOUR BACKUP AS WELL.
UM, WE DID, UH, ALSO ASK THE LAW DEPARTMENT EARLY ON, UM, WHAT THEIR INTERPRETATION IS AND JUST LIKE HEATHER SAID, WE WERE TOLD THAT, UM, THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES NOT ACTUALLY PREVENT THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM OPPOSING A REZONING.
IF THE CITY WERE TO INITIATE SUCH, UM, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE CITY MAKE THAT INITIATION.
UM, AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU ASKED THEM TO, BECAUSE AS A RECORDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT DOES SHOW UP ON TITLE.
UM, AND IT DOES RAISE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS OR BUYERS.
AND SO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT ANYWHERE ANYWAY, WE'RE HERE TO ASK THAT IT JUST BE RELEASED TILL IT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM TITLE.
UM, AS YOU HEARD FROM HEATHER STAFF IS MAKING RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR OF OUR REQUEST.
UH, THIS IS JUST, UM, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW WHY THIS HAS A RESTRICTIVE COMMANDED AMENDMENT AND NOT DETERMINATION.
UM, THAT LITTLE RED SLIVER IS A PART OF THIS EXACT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
AND SO THAT'S THE TRACK THAT WOULD BE LEFT, UM, WHICH IS WHY IT'S AN AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S PETITION, WHICH I DID SEE ONLINE AS WELL.
UM, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A BLANK CHECK TO DEVELOP ANYTHING AT ALL.
LIKE I SAID, THAT'S CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THAT IS REALLY WHERE ALL THE PROHIBITIONS ON USES AND THINGS LIE.
UM, AND UM, IF, IF THE STATE STATE, EVEN WITH OUR REQUEST, GRANTED AS A SITE THAT'S TODAY, THE ONLY THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN WOULD BE ANOTHER TREE NURSERY, EXACTLY LIKE THE SIZE AND EVERYTHING THAT TED STREETS IS TODAY, OR ONE OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT THE NEIGHBORS WORKED IN LEFT AS PERMITTED ON THE SITE IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
THE GOAL HERE DEFINITELY IS A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
AND I WILL JUST CLOSE AT THAT POINT AND, UH, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. JESSICA HALEY NOTED.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. DANIEL YON IS
[01:55:07]
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.I CHAIR THE GO VALLEY JOHNSON TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM PLAN.
UH, I'M ONE OF THE 100 PEOPLE WHO SPENT THREE YEARS WRITING THAT PLAN.
THAT PLAN IS A VISION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WAS A, UH, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY, UH DEGRADATED UM, AND, UH, UM, UH, BLIGHTED NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MANY, MANY YEARS UNTIL WE, WE CREATED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH CREATED A VISION FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE ON PAR WITH ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CENTRAL CITY.
UH, SO OUR VISION IS ON STILL UNFOLDING.
WHEN WE DID THAT, WE DOWN ZONED OVER 600 PROPERTIES IN GO VALLEY JOHNSON, TERRORISTS FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO INDUSTRIAL.
DURING THAT EXERCISE, WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT MANY, MANY OF THE USES WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING TED'S TREES WAS ONE OF THOSE TED'S TREES WAS OPERATING A COMMERCIAL OPERATION ON SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
HE'S PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF HIS BUSINESS.
SO WE CREATED THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND I TAKE ISSUE.
AND I DISAGREE WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IT ABSOLUTELY IS UNENFORCEABLE.
THE, THE ADJACENT LOT THAT WAS IN RED THAT YOU SAW THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ONLY UPHELD THE COVENANT UNANIMOUSLY, THEY'VE HELD A COVENANT, THEY ARE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AND THEY ARE POLITICALLY ENFORCEABLE IF THERE'S A WILL.
SO HERE WE ARE NOW, TED WANTS TO LEAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY CAME TO THE CONTACT TEAM RECENTLY AND WE ASKED, WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING? THEY HAD NO PLANS.
SO FOR US IN THE FUTURE, WE CANNOT RE RELINQUISH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT'S LIABLE TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HA HE'S ALREADY HAD TWO, AT LEAST TWO CONTRACTS WHERE PEOPLE WANTED TO DO HUGE DEVELOPMENTS HERE.
I WANT YOU TO ALSO LOOK AT THAT MAP AND SEE THAT ALL AROUND TED'S TREES IS SINGLE FAMILY.
AND I ACTUALLY, UH, UM, I HAVE TO SAY I'M SURPRISED.
AND I RESENT A LITTLE BIT THAT STAFF IN HER PRESENTATION SOUNDED LIKE SHE WAS PROMOTING THIS RATHER THAN JUST STATING THE FACTS REPEATING TWICE, THAT IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE.
THE CITY COUNCIL ALREADY ENFORCED THE NORTHERN PART.
WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF A TED'S TREES.
HE'S BEEN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
THEY, I PERSONALLY HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH THEM, BUT IF THEY LEAVE AND MAXIMIZE THEIR INVESTMENT, THAT LEAVES THE REST OF US WITH IT.
AND, UH, MR. LOPEZ, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT YOU TAKE US INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU BENEFIT FROM OUR HAVING, UH, UM, UH, AGREED WITH YOU TO, TO LEAVE YOUR BUSINESS ON A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS ALL ABOUT.
IT'S JUST SAYING IF HE LEAVES, BRING IT BACK AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THESE BIG DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING INTO, INTO GO VALLEY JOHNSON TERRACE.
WE ARE THE MOST GENTRIFIED AREA IN TEXAS, SECOND MOST IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS A VISION TO KEEP IT A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, LOW INCOME.
I MEAN A, A MODERATE INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ON THE EAST SIDE, I DON'T WANT THIS TO TURN INTO A, UM, APARTMENT COMPLEX ISOLATION WITH NO POLITICAL, UH, CLOUT OR ANYTHING, THE WAY THAT WE HAVE ON, ON, ON LAKE SHORE.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ON LAKE SHORE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THAT CATCH TREES HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEY AGREED.
THAT'S WHY THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS THERE.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AS I SAY, I'M ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
IT IS A VISION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME UP TO SNUFF WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CENTRAL CITY, NOT TO BECOME APARTMENT, UH, ISOLATION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
LIKE YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM MISS JESSICA ELEY.
HI, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU THAT, UM, TO DANIEL YANNIS, UH, MY NAME IS JESSICA ELEY.
I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF THE GO VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
[02:00:01]
HE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, AND IT'S A GOOD PLAN.IT'S A PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN SUPPORTING.
IT PUTS THE DENSITY ON SEVENTH STREET AND ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
BUT THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO IT HAS CON IT HAS GENERATED CONSIDERABLE CONCERN AND ATTENTION FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? OH, UH, AS STATED BEFORE, AND IF YOU HIT NEXT, THIS HAS BEEN DENIED IN THE PAST.
UM, THE CITY OF AUSTIN WOULDN'T HAVE DENIED IT.
IF IT WAS ILLEGAL AT THE TIME, I DON'T KNOW SOMEONE CHANGED IT, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND NOW THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT FEELING, BUT I DISAGREE.
WE DISAGREE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
COULD YOU GO FORWARD, SEE DENIED.
UM, THESE ARE THE TRACKS THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO AMEND, AND IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE, UH, SFR, LIKE SHE SAID, OKAY, NEXT ONE.
THE AGREEMENT MAY BE MODIFIED AMENDED OR TERMINATED ONLY BY A MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? OKAY.
SO HERE'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION.
UM, WE HAD THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE CONTACT TEAM MEETINGS.
UH, IT'S BEEN A DIFFICULT CASE TO DISCUSS BECAUSE NEIGHBORS ALWAYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ZONING THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THERE AND THE WORRY THAT THEY HAVE, AND WE ARE WORRIED AND CONCERNED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS, UM, DOWN ZONE TO SF FOR THE CITY DOWN ZONES ALL THE TIME.
IF A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO INITIATE DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME, THE CITY ROLL BACK ZONING THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
SO WHY THEY THINK IT'S ILLEGAL IN THIS CASE? I'M NOT QUITE SURE ALSO CODE NEXT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CITY INITIATING A ZONING CHANGE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO INITIATE A ZONING CHANGE TO SF FOR THEY CAN SELL THE LAND.
AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE, WHICH IS WITH, UH, SOMEONE WHO INTENDS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND HOW CAN THIS PROPERTY BE DEVELOPED? UM, WHAT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEEDS IN MIND.
SO IF IT'S AT SF FOUR, THAT GIVES US LEVERAGE, WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND GIVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SIDE? YEP.
SO WHEN WE HAVE LEVERAGED, WE GET DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE LENNOX ON SEVENTH STREET, WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR DONATIONS TO EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY, WHICH HELPS FAMILIES PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES, FAMILIES WITH HISTORIC TIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SIDE WITHOUT LEVERAGE? WE GET DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE GUTHRIE, RIGHT? THIS WAS WHERE THE WOOD, THIS WAS ALREADY SIMILARLY TO TED'S ZONE CSM.
YOU, UH, WE TRIED AND REACHED OUT TO THE DEVELOPER REPEATEDLY.
WE HAD CONCERNS AND THE DEVELOPER TOLD US, LITERALLY, WE DON'T NEED YOU.
SO I'LL JUST WRAP UP AND SAY, PLEASE DENY THIS AMENDMENT INITIATE THE ZONING CHANGE, ALLOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER SO WE CAN ADVOCATE FOR AFFORDABILITY AND GET A MIX OF DENSITIES THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION, WHICH IS NOT ON A CORRIDOR, BUT AT THE HEART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN IF YOU COULD JUST CYCLE THROUGH THE LAST SLIDES, THESE ARE ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION.
WELL, I'LL HEAR FROM RYAN PARTS, LIKE THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS FOR LISTENED TO US.
UM, I'M ALSO OPPOSING, UH, THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, I AM ACTUALLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
UM, IF YOU PULL THAT UP ON THE MAP, THAT'S ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE, UH, UH, TED STREETS PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.
UM, RIGHT NOW I COULD SAY THAT LIVING THERE, UM, IT'S ALREADY KIND OF NOISY.
AND WHEN I SAY KIND OF IT WAKES ME UP IN THE MORNING EVERY DAY, UM, AND ANYTHING THAT WILL BE MUCH LARGER, UH, I CAN ONLY SEE THAT BEING EVEN NOISIER.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
I AM A BIG PROPONENT FOR DENSITY.
I HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN IT.
UM, BUT IT'S ALSO, UH, DENSITY DONE INTELLIGENTLY.
UM, AND I THINK BRINGING THAT INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD DISCUSSION IS VERY IMPORTANT.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE BUY-IN, UM, FOR SOMETHING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
UM, AS JESSICA ALLUDED TO WITH THE LENNOX PROPERTY, UM, IT SEEMS TO BE A WIN FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, IF YOU LOOK, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT, BUT GO VALLEY AND TILLERY STREETS ARE VERY WIDE STREETS.
UM, THEY ARE LIKE DRAG STRIPS RIGHT NOW, UM, AND ADDING MORE CARS TO THAT PRESENTS A LOT MORE DANGER.
UM, IT'S, UH, AS NOTED BEFORE IT'S ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AROUND THIS PROPERTY, UM, KIDS, UM, ELDERLY PEOPLE,
[02:05:01]
UH, I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE INSTANCES WHERE, UM, TRAFFIC FATALITIES COULD HAVE BEEN, UM, OCCURRING BECAUSE CARS HAVE JUST FLOWN THROUGH STOP SIGNS.UH, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON THE STREET ALREADY IS PRETTY HIGH.
UM, AND WHEN KIDS ARE OUT THERE AND, UM, THERE'S NOT, UH, ISSUES, UH, WHEN THERE'S ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC, IT COULD BE PRETTY DANGEROUS.
UM, I NOT GOING TO REITERATE, REITERATE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT DANIEL AND JESSICA SAID.
I THINK YOU ALL GOT THE NOTES ON THOSE.
UM, BUT I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE PROPERTY, UM, OR MOVING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS, UM, PRETTY MUCH TAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUT OF PLAY THERE, UM, IN A WAY THAT THAT COVENANT WAS DESIGNED FOR, UM, THAT IS ALL I NEEDED TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. BASHO FOR BOTTLE FOR THREE MINUTES.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE A FEW QUICK POINTS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT CAN BE BUILT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
UM, WE'RE NOT REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THAT ZONING.
AND IF IN THE FUTURE, IF A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER OR THE LOPEZ'S DID WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE ZONING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE, UM, AND THE STANDARD RULES WOULD APPLY.
AND WE'RE ALSO NOT REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE FORUM.
UM, SIMILARLY, IF FOR SOME REASON, UM, THEY DID WANT TO DO A MORE INTENSE, UH, USE LIKE MULTI-FAMILY FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY PROHIBITED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RE REZONING PROCESS.
AND SARAH, DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER, MR. JEFF BROOKS? HELLO, FIRST I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK DANIEL AND JESSICA FOR ALL THEIR GREAT WORK ORGANIZING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHO'S LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE CORNER OF CHILLER AND KABALE FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHY I FEEL SO STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DEFEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN PLACE, UM, ON TED'S TREES AND WHY YOU SHOULD AGREE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2013, UH, WHO RIGHTLY BELIEVED THIS WAS AND IS A DEFENSIBLE DOCUMENT.
I REALLY LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT OUR FIRST AND ONLY HOUSE HERE AFTER I FOUND OUR, UH, I STARTED DISCOVERING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS WITH MY FRIENDS.
I LIVE WORK AND WALK MY FOUR MONTH OLD BABY DAUGHTER HERE.
IT'S AN ACTUAL FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
PULL IT UP ON AERIAL IMAGING ON GOOGLE MAPS AND SEE FRUIT.
SEE THE PROPERTY FOR YOURSELF.
THE CORNER OF CHILDREN KABALE SITS BETWEEN TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, AN ACTIVE BUS ROUTE, A MULTIPLE FIELD SOCCER PARK AND A NEW HIGH SCHOOL STREET.
PARKING IS ALREADY LIMITED AND TRAFFIC AT THE CORNER OF SPRINGS, NEAR THE SOCCER FIELDS.
AND GAVALIN WEAVERVILLE NEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL IS ALREADY DANGEROUS.
WE HAD A FATAL ACCIDENT AT THE CORNER AT MY CORNER JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.
THAT SAME CORNER WAS CLOSED JUST YESTERDAY TO, UH, TO REPAIR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A DIFFERENT TRAFFIC ACCIDENT.
RAMPANT DEVELOPMENT, UH, PRESENTS A REAL RISK TO OUR FAMILIES AND ALL THE FAMILIES THAT SEND THEIR CHILDREN INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO LEARN AND PLAY.
AS MY NEIGHBORHOODS POINT OUT, THE HISTORY OF THE RC REFLECTS THE FORESIGHT OF THE FAMILIES WHO WERE HERE LONG BEFORE I MOVED IN BACK WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, TED SSRI'S WAS A LOCAL BUSINESS THAT WAS OPERATING AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INCONSISTENTLY WITH ITS RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN ORDER TO HELP KEEP THEIR NEIGHBORS BUSINESS OPERATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNED PLANNERS, PUT IN PLACE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FUTURE.
UH, WHILE GIVING A UNIQUE CARVE OUT TO THE BUSINESS, IT IS NOT AN OUTDATED UNENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT.
IT IS MORE RELEVANT TODAY THAN IT WAS AND WAS UNIQUELY PRESCIENT.
THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS WRITTEN EXPLICITLY FOR THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY FOR YEARS AND YEARS, TED'S TREES HAS RECEIVED ALL THE BENEFITS THEY WANTED FROM THAT AGREEMENT.
AND NOW WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD FINALLY GET ITS BENEFIT, UM, FROM THAT AGREEMENT, TED IS MOVING, UH, IS MOVING TO HAVE THAT AGREEMENT PARTIALLY DISMANTLED FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.
TED'S FAMILY WILL MAKE MILLIONS ON THAT PROPERTY, EVEN WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT WITHOUT IT, IT STANDS TO MAKE MILLIONS ON TOP OF MILLIONS BY DRIVING DENSITY IN THE HEART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON ITS WAY OUT THE DOOR.
THE ONLY ONE WHO WINS IN A RESTRICTED COVENANT FREAK VALLEY IS TED AND DEVELOPERS.
NEITHER OF WHOM HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.
ALL THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES IS GIVE HER IS GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD A SEAT AT THE TABLE WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
SOME POINT OUT IN THIS AREA, UH, AROUND US HAS CHANGED AND IN MANY EXCITING WAYS, IN SOME DEEPLY TROUBLING WAYS.
THAT'S TRUE, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A UNIQUE, UH, PROTECTION THAT OTHERS DON'T THAT CHANGE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE CHANGE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN UNGUIDED PROCESS, UH, UH, WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM OUR NEIGHBORS.
I'M BEGGING YOU ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS TO RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUENESS OF THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US, AND TO VOTE, TO UPHOLD THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WE CAN AND SHOULD BE PARTY TO THE INEVITABLE CHANGE THAT WE CO-EXIST WITH.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC, HEARING A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
[02:10:03]
UH, LET'S SEE.I, UM, WE'RE HAVING, UH, HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU IS THAT COMMISSIONER COX IT'S ACTUALLY, I HAVE A MEMBER ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
UM, BUT DID WE, HE'S A MEMBER IN SUPPORT AND WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
DO WE NEED GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO LET THEM IN? OH, YES, PLEASE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE TO, UM, RECONSIDER THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, EVERYBODY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
AND THEN, UH, LET'S TO NOW NEED TO OPEN THE HEARING AGAIN.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IT'S ARE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
UM, LET'S ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, WE'LL GIVE YOU A GREEN, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES YOU FOUR AGAINST.
OUT HERE FOR MR. EDGAR HANDLE, MR. HANDLES, YOU'RE PROCEEDING WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UM, HI, MY NAME IS EDGAR HANDEL.
I'M A RESIDENT OF THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH MY ONE SON.
AND, UM, I LIVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE STREETS AND, UH, I'M NOT REALLY AN EXPERT ON ANY ZONING CASES.
AND THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT COVENANT, THE HOUSE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE THE OVERLAYS RESPECT, WHATEVER COULD BE BUILT THERE TO RESIDENTIAL OR CRADLE LIMIT OFFICE SETTING.
AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I DON'T REALLY SEE THE APPEAL OF AN OFFICE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRIMARILY AFFORDABILITY.
AND IN THAT SENSE, I FEEL LIKE THE CURRENT STATUS QUO OF MAINTAINING SS THREE AND SS FOUR ZONING THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ISN'T REALLY WORKING.
WHEN I SEE, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE AND I, WHEN WE WALKED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO SEE A BUNCH OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, OLD HOUSES BEING REPLACED WITH NEW HOUSES.
AND EVEN WITH THE CURRENT ZONING RULES, REALLY, YOU SEE MOST OF THE HOMES ARE SELLING FOR NEARLY A MILLION DOLLARS NOW.
AND SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PATH THERE REALLY IS, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE MY 2 CENTS AND SAY THAT I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN NEED OF SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST AT THE LEVEL OF DENSITY THAT ASSET THREE-YEAR SF FOUR PROVIDES.
UM, EVEN IF IT MEANS, UH, INCREASED DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I UNDERSTAND, UH, TRAFFIC CONCERNS, BUT I REALLY FEEL THAT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC CALMING OR A ROAD DIET FOR THE GO VALLEY IN LIONS ROADS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION HERE, BUT IT FEELS LIKE THAT WOULD BE USING THE WRONG TOOL TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE, UM, I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE THIS PATTERN OF LEAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMING INCREASINGLY INCREASINGLY UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES.
IF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED IN A MORE DIRECT WAY.
UM, IN, IN GENERAL, I DO FEEL THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE AS AUSTIN DEVELOPS MORE AND MORE.
AND PEOPLE EITHER ATTRACTING THIS, THE FIELD VALUES AND NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE AND ALL THE AMENITIES GOING ALONG EAST SIXTH STREET.
UM, THE SITUATION IS ONLY GETTING WORSE.
SO I REALLY JUST ASK THAT WHATEVER THE PATH IS TO GETTING SOMETHING MORE AFFORDABLE AND MORE DENSE THERE THAN WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
AND, UM, I KNOW THERE'S SUPPORT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT.
SO IF THAT MEANS THAT THE COMMISSION GIVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR THAT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEN I DO SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
BUT MY PRIMARY PRIMARY THING HERE IS THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND, UH, THAT'S ALL I WOULD LIKE TO SAY.
NOW THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND I SEE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DESIRE.
THAT'S GOING TO VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SHOW ME YOUR GREEN START WITH, UM, ALL RIGHT.
SO LET'S, UH, GO AND START WITH A QUESTION FOR COLOR.
WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH WHO WANTS TO ASK THE FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER SHAY, AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX QUESTION FOR
[02:15:01]
THE APPLICANT.SO, UM, CAN YOU TELL US IF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT IS REMOVED? WHAT EXACTLY AT WE CAN PUT ON IT? I MEAN, CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S, IT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONING, BUT IT'S SO CHOPPED UP.
SO CAN YOU CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT CAN BE PUT ON IT? YES, I CAN.
UM, THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED ARE ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL USES EXCEPT FOR TREE NURSERY AND OFFICE UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S ON THE SITE TODAY.
ALL THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OUT IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
UM, ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED OF NCS HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OUT.
UM, THE AGRICULTURAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED OUR COMMUNITY GARDEN, INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION AND URBAN FARM.
UM, AND THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE, ARE ALL AVAILABLE EXCEPT FOR MULTIFAMILY IS NOT, HAS ALSO BEEN STRIPPED OUT.
SO IT'S REALLY NOT A TYPICAL CSM USE SITE BECAUSE SO MUCH HAS BEEN REMOVED.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, IS IT BASICALLY JUST UP TO SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BASICALLY JUST UP TO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN MF, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SF SIX AND, AND THEN TREE FARM WILL TREAT PLACE WITH THE ASSOCIATED RIGHT.
WHATEVER OFFICE AND THAT'S IT.
AND THEN IF THE CITY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, IF THE CITY WON'T DOES, DOES THIS, WHO HAS RECOURSE ON THIS? CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO REZONE OR YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T WANT TO ACT ON ANYTHING.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT GIVES THE CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECOURSE? CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WHO, WHO CAN FORCE THIS THING? THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT CAN ENFORCE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT BELIEVING THAT THEY CAN ENFORCE IT, IT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED.
SO THE COMMUNITY WHO HELPED WRITE IT THEN HAS NO TEETH IN THIS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER, I THINK WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS TEETH IS THAT IF WE WERE TO NOW OR LATER, TRY TO PROPOSE TO CHANGE THE ZONING OR CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THAT THE STANDARD PUBLIC PROCESS WHERE THE NEIGHBORS, OH, I SEE.
SO IF IT GOES THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THEY, THEY HAVE THEIR STANDARD.
IS THAT WENDY? UH, ONE DAY I CAN TAKE THIS.
UM, THIS IS, UH, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ENFORCEABLE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ENFORCEABLE IN A COURT OF LAW.
UM, STATE LAW ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO FILE A VALID PETITION.
SO IF, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT, BUT IF IT WERE TAKEN TO COURT, A STATE LAW SAYS THAT THERE'S THE PROPERTY OWNER STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO DO A VALID PETITION.
SO AS YOU, SO CITY CITY CAN'T JUST COME IN AND SAY, BOOM, YOUR SF FOUR.
THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CASE.
THERE'S A HEARING, IT OPENS IT ALL UP AND THEN IT BECOMES PETITION RIGHTS OR THE PETITION RIGHTS THAT IT HAS ENDS UP BEING SUPER MAJORITY.
SO THAT'S SUPER MAJORITY ANYWAY.
UM, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT CITY LEGAL HAS TOLD YOU THAT THEY DON'T THINK THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS A ENFORCEABLE OR A CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED SOLELY ON THE MERITS OF WHAT THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN TO THIS PROPERTY FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, IF THE RCS REMOVED BOTH, UH, AS, AS I OUTLINED AND AS LEAH OUTLINED, THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED SIGNIFICANTLY TO RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE AND THEN A FEW, UM, KIND OF AGRICULTURAL ISH, UH, CATEGORIES THAT ARE, UH, ALLOWED IN PRETTY MUCH ALL THE CATEGORIES, UM, LIKE COMMUNITY GARDEN.
SO IT'S, IT'S ALREADY SO SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, UH, IS NOT,
[02:20:01]
UM, INCREDIBLY INTENSE AS THE CMS MAKES IT SOUND.AND THEN ALSO, UH, KNOWING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY LAW DEPARTMENT, THAT IS ALSO A FACTOR.
WHICH IS INTERESTING SINCE IN 2013 COUNCIL DECIDED TO UPHOLD THIS.
AND THEN IN 2003, OBVIOUSLY STAFF COUNCIL, WHOEVER DECIDED TO ACTUALLY CREATE THIS, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OWNER, I GUESS, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE THIS ISN'T A COURT OF LAW, AS FAR AS I KNOW, NONE OF US ARE LAWYERS.
AND SO WE, WE CAN CERTAINLY LISTEN TO THE ADVICE OF CITY LEGAL, BUT, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS ENFORCEABLE OR NOT IN A COURT OF LAW.
AND SO THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH THIS AND MAYBE ANY STAFF CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND IS THIS RC IS CERTAINLY A PLANNING INTENT.
IT INDICATES A PLANNING INTENT.
AND ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS SAID IT BEST THAT THIS WAS A CARVE OUT OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT IF THAT EXISTING BUSINESS GOES AWAY, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THIS ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN AGREED TO BY CITY COUNCIL, PROPERTY OWNER, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, GROUPS, ALL OF THAT.
AND SO WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY, WHY WOULD STAFF SUPPORT REMOVING THAT CLEAR INTENT OF WHAT EVERYONE AGREED SHOULD BE THE PLAN FOR THIS NEIGHBOR? UM, AGAIN, THE ZONING THAT WAS ENFORCED AND CURRENT WITH THE ZONING THAT WAS CHANGED CONCURRENT WITH WHEN THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS CREATED, IT SEVERELY LIMITS REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT IS PERMITTED ON THE SITE? THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENED 20 YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS, UH, CREATED AND MAYBE DIFFERENCES IN LEGAL INTERPRETATION.
AND MY LAST QUESTION BEFORE MY TIME'S UP IS, IS THERE SOME SORT OF LIKE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? ARE THEY ALLOWED TO COME BACK? IF WE, IF WE REJECT THIS RC? CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS HAPPENING EVERY NINE TO 10 YEARS.
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT THAT QUESTION BECAUSE COMMISSIONER COX OUT OF TIME, SEE ANY COMMIT COMMISSIONER MITCH TODDLER.
STAFF, GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
THERE ARE LIMITS ON HOW LONG YOU MUST WAIT TO REFILE A ZONING APPLICATION, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE AREN'T LIMITS ON THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIT TO DO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION.
CAN I REDIRECT QUESTION TO, UM, DANIEL YANIS I'M OR, OR SOMEBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD I'M WHEN I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS IF WE WERE TO, I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S PROBLEM, THEY HAVE THIS RC THAT'S CONFUSING.
IT CREATES, YOU KNOW, SELLING ISSUES.
IF WE REMOVE THE RC, WHAT IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNED ON THE NEGATIVE? I'M JUST STUCK ON, YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS LIKE WANTING TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT ARE YOU GUYS WORRIED ABOUT? WHAT PROTECTIONS ARE YOU LOSING? WHAT COULD COME IN THAT REALLY JUST DOESN'T FIT? WELL? LIKE I SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES, UH, SURROUNDING TED STREETS ARE SF THREE AND, UM, CITY LEGAL IS AN OPINION.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT CITY LEGAL LOST AT CODE NEXT.
SO, UH, MS. CANNOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT WOULD OR WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN COURT.
I, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M WANTING TO KNOW FROM YOU IS IF, IF WE WERE TO DECIDE TO TAKE THIS RC AWAY PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS WORRIED IS GOING TO BE THE NEGATIVE OUTCOME FOR YOU? HOW DOES THIS NEGATIVE AND HOW DOES THIS NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOU? WHAT COULD COME IN THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE AS THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN GOING? ACTUALLY I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS AND IT'S NOT THAT I WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING, BUT I THINK THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN, UM, SOMETHING, IF WE VISITED THAT, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY COULD BE IN PLACE.
WE COULD FILL THAT WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD HARMONIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WOULD BE WILLING, WELL, I AM ONE PERSON.
I CAN'T SAY THAT UNLESS I GO BACK TO MY CONTACT TEAM AND WE VOTE ON IT.
BUT JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD AS THIS CONVERSATION IS MOVING, YOU KNOW, UM, THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE TED IS ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS.
YEAH, NO, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THE ONLY THING THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD COME IN THAT THAT MIGHT NOT FIT IS, IS SOME OFFICE USE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT OTHERWISE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S LIMITING IT.
EVEN IF WE REMOVE THE RC, THE WHAT'S, THERE IS SO HEAVILY DOCUMENTED THAT YOU'RE STILL GETTING VERY LIMITED AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD FIT IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVEN IF THAT PIECE IS REMOVED ADDITIONAL OVERLAY,
[02:25:01]
UM, IF IT STAYS IN PLACE.YEAH, IT WOULD GO TO SF FROM THE APPLICANT IS THAT THAT'S NOT THE PART THAT'S BEING ASKED TO BE REMOVED.
IF I GOT THAT WRONGLY, I PLEASE CORRECT ME.
UH, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
IF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT STAYS IN PLACE AND MR. LOPEZ AND HIS FAMILY SELL THE PLACE OR IN THEIR BUSINESS, IT WILL REVERT TO SF FOR A, WE HAVE APPROVED SFO FSA FOR A, UM, A PROJECT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DON'T LIKE TO GO BEYOND THAT.
AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I TALKED TO HIM WITH MR. LOPEZ BEFORE THIS HEARING, AND I SUGGESTED TO HIM AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO MAXIMIZE HIS INVESTMENT.
HE SHOULD KEEP THE PROPERTY TURNING INTO A LAND TRUST THE WAY G N D C DOES IT.
AND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS CUTTING EDGE.
NOBODY'S DOING IT EXCEPT YOU IN DC, BUT, UH, THERE ARE JUST TO FINISH, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE COULD EXPLORE.
I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO KEEP THIS COVENANT IN PLACE AND HAVE US TALK TO TED'S TREES AND COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTION.
SO WE HAVE, UH, LET'S SEE, I SEE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
I HAD A QUESTION IT'S ALL RIGHT.
BUT IS, UH, IS ANYBODY FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT ON CHUCK EMISSION ON AMBER? IF THERE'S A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED, WE CAN CERTAINLY POSE IT TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND SOMEBODY WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT OKAY.
WHILE THEY'RE THERE IN THE MEETING.
W CAN WE GET SOMEBODY ON? UM, AND, AND WHILE, WHILE WE'RE TRYING THAT, UH, CAN I ASK, UH, MS. BO JO? SO WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE CITY THAT THEY, THEY, AT LEAST THE CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT THINKS THAT THAT IS UNENFORCEABLE.
IS THERE SOME REASON WHY YOU'RE NOT SIMPLY PROCEEDING ON WHATEVER ZONING CASE THAT YOU WANT TO PROCEED ON? LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING, WHY DON'T YOU JUST PROCEED ON THAT? YEAH, IT'S FREE.
UM, I THINK I GOT THE QUESTION THOUGH.
AND SO I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT COMMISSIONER IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A ZONING CHANGE.
THERE ARE A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON THE SITE.
SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST REMOVE THE RC SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT WHERE WE CAN START WORKING THROUGH A PROJECT WITH SOMEONE.
AND I THINK THERE'S A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT WE COULD DO THE KIND OF SINGLE FAMILY ARE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT IS PERMITTED ON THE SITE TODAY.
AND IF WE, IF THAT'S, IF THAT PROJECT WORKS, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED TO ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE.
WE WOULDN'T NEED TO CHANGE THE CEO.
UM, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THAT FAR ALONG BECAUSE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOWS UP ON TITLE AND IS KIND OF STRANGE AND MAKES PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONFLICT HERE IS REACHING SOME AGREEMENT WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IF THERE COULD AT LEAST BE SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN THERE MIGHT BE AN OKAY TO REVISE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR REMOVE IT OR CHANGE THE ZONING.
AND THEN IT, THEN YOU CAN GET YOUR MONEY TO MOVE FORWARD.
IS THAT NOT A POSSIBILITY AT THIS POINT? WHAT WE WOULD, WHAT WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD, WOULD AT LEAST AT THIS POINT, NOT NOW, NOT EVEN THINK WE NEEDED TO CHANGE WHAT THEY WORKED HARD TO PUT INTO THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS APPROVED.
SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T, WE JUST DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, IF WE WOULD NEED A ZONING CHANGE, IF WE DO, WE WOULD FILE THAT APPLICATION.
AND WE WOULD OF COURSE, WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND SEE WHAT WE, WHAT KIND OF AGREEMENT WE CAN COME TO.
BUT, UM, I THINK WE'RE MOVING AHEAD THINKING MIGHT LIKELY COULD COMPLY WITH THE ZONING AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
UH, DO WE HAVE A LOT DEPARTMENT ON OR SOMEBODY FROM, WELL, YOUR COMMISSIONER WILL POSE THE QUESTION, THEN WE'LL PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
UH, IS IT, IS THIS SOME SORT OF, IS THIS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE? IS THIS LIKE THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT? IS THAT WHY THE LAW DEPARTMENT THINKS THAT IT IS UNENFORCEABLE? AND IF SO, DID THE COUNCIL NOT GET THAT ADVICE IN 2013? AND DID THEY JUST LOOK FORWARD ANYWAY, CHECK COMMISSION-WISE ON IT.
UM, OR THE QUESTION WILL PROVIDE A RESPONSE SHORTLY.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST QUESTION FOR OUR CHANGING RULES.
UH, SO WHO HAS ONE MORE SPOT? ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS UP WE'RE SO I GUESS WE'RE KIND OF, I GUESS WE'RE INTERESTED COMMISSIONERS ARE, GO
[02:30:01]
AHEAD.ARE YOU UN-MUTED THANK YOU, JERRY.
UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU PLEASE CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO US WHAT IS THE NEED FOR REMOVING THIS? WHAT IS THE TITLE ISSUE THAT WE ABOUT? YES, THE, UH, THE NEED TO REMOVE THIS AS, BECAUSE, UH, IT SHOWS UP ON TITLE AS A REPORTED DOCUMENT.
UM, AND WHEN POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS AND LENDERS AND OTHERS, UM, SEE THIS AND SEE THAT WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY AT ANY POINT FOR ME, THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO INITIATE A REZONING.
BUT WHEN THEY SEE IN A DOCUMENT THAT, UM, THE OWNER IS NOT ABLE TO OPPOSE THAT REZONING, UM, AS AN OPEN SORT OF PERPETUAL OPEN DOOR, UM, IT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SPOKESPEOPLE AND, AND IT, AND IT CAUSES AN ISSUE WITH BEING ABLE TO GET TO THE NEXT STEP OF HAVING A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER AND THEN GETTING TO THE, TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE IT DOES SHOW UP ON TITLE.
IF WE'RE ABLE TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM IT, UM, VIA COUNCIL APPROVAL, THEN IT WOULD NO LONGER SHOW UP ON TITLE.
SO ARE WE GOING TO MOVE IN DEBATE OR DO WE NEED TO WAIT ON AN ANSWER FROM OUR ATTORNEY, MR. RIVERA? IS THAT FORTHCOMING OR, OR I JUST DON'T KNOW FOR THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE WAY WE VOTE ON THIS.
IF I'M NOT CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAS ON EVERY OF THE RESPONSES FORTHCOMING.
UH, WELL, WE'RE OUT OF QUESTIONS.
YOU WANT, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION SO WE CAN KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD UNTIL, OR UNTIL LEGAL.
OH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENIED THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR DENIAL OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? DOES THAT MEAN REMOVAL? UH, COULD YOU CLARIFY YOUR, YOUR MOTION G UH, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, THE MOTION IS TO NOT APPROVE OR RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY ALL THIS STUFF IN THE BACKUP.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOTION TODDLER.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
AND I APOLOGIZE IF I GET A LITTLE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, UH, I'M GETTING INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED WITH APPLICANTS COMING TO US AND SAYING, WE NEED YOU TO DO THIS.
WE NEED YOU TO APPROVE THIS, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN.
UM, THEY'RE ASKING US TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOME SORT OF LEGAL DOCUMENT.
UH, STAFF IS TELLING US, OH, WELL THIS, WE RECOMMEND THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE.
I DON'T REALLY CARE IF IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
THIS DOCUMENT WAS CREATED BY A PLANNING GROUP.
IT WAS AGREED TO BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT WAS AGREED TO BY CITY COUNCIL.
IT WAS AGREED TO, BY EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS, IT HAS A VERY, VERY CLEAR INTENT TO IT.
WHAT EVERYONE AGREED TO AT THAT TIME SHOULD BE ON THIS PROPERTY.
IF THIS BUSINESS DID NOT EXIST.
AND NOW THIS APPLICANTS TELLING US, OH, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO REMOVE THEIR CIGNA COVENANT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH BUSINESS PARTNERS HAVE TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
WELL, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TELLS THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DISCUSSING WITH BUSINESS PARTNERS ON HOW TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN'T BE MORE CLEAR IF WE WANT NEIGHBORHOODS TO ENGAGE IN PLANNING PROCESSES.
IF WE WANT NEIGHBORHOODS AND DEVELOPERS AND COUNCIL, AND THIS LAND USE COMMISSION THAT WE'RE ON TO BE ABLE TO FIND AGREEMENT, WE CAN'T JUST WILLY NILLY START BLOWING UP DOCUMENTS, WHETHER THEY'RE OUR SEAS OR ANYTHING ELSE, JUST BECAUSE A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH A BUSINESS PARTNER, UM, WITHOUT ANY SORT OF PLAN, THEY'RE NOT COMING TO US WITH A LAND USE PLAN.
THEY'RE COMING TO US WITH SOME SORT OF LEGAL BUSINESS DECISION.
AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MAKING THE MAKING, UH, LAND USE VOTES BASED ON THOSE THINGS.
AND SO I HOPE THIS COMMISSION SENDS A SIGNAL THAT SAYS TIME, DOING LESS WITH LAND, USE PROPOSALS, ZONING, OTHER, WHATEVER, AND WE'LL REVIEW ON BOAT ON THAT.
I, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ON, ON WHETHER SOMETHING'S LEGAL.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I HOPE WE BOUGHT THIS.
ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER CODDLING? YEAH.
UM, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE CONTRADICTION, BECAUSE IF WE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ON WHETHER THIS IS LEGAL OR NOT, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING AGAINST IT.
UM, AND, AND SO I, I COMPLETELY AGREE.
THIS DOES SEEM TO BE MORE OF A LEGAL PROCEDURAL QUESTION AND
[02:35:01]
NOT APPLYING IN QUESTION, BUT THE FACT THAT IT COMES TO US ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPEAKS TO THE KIND OF ABSURDITY OF THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOPES TO ACCOMPLISH.IT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH IN THE WAY OF TEETH, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO IMPOSE THIS KIND OF WEIRD PROCESS WHERE THIS KIND OF LEGAL DECISION WILL CONSTANTLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S SIMPLY GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I AGREE.
I THINK THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A PLANNING DECISION.
THIS IS A LEGAL PROCEDURAL DECISION FOR THAT PRECISE REASON.
I DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AGAINST IT UNLESS WE ARE IN FACT WILLING TO WEIGH IN ON A LEGAL PROCEDURAL DECISION.
UH, ANY MORE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR COMMISSIONER, MR. DOLLAR, I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER COX SAID, REALLY THIS, THIS, THE PARTIES ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT.
I'VE HAD PEOPLE PULL OUT ON THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH ME AND NOT, AND, AND THE, AND THE RESPONSE I GET FROM THE PARTY WHEN I SAY ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO ADHERE TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE ALL SIGNED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH.
AND WHEN THE ANSWER IS, I HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU DO.
SO I'M GOING TO OUTSPEND YOU AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO.
SO I'M I, WHAT I HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THEY ARE WILLING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
THEY'D LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND FIGURE IT OUT, COME BACK TO US WITH THAT.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THE DEVELOPER'S POINT OF VIEW, WHEN TITLES AREN'T CLEAN, IT GETS MESSY.
AND SO I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR A WAY TO GET YOU OUT OF IT.
BUT I, I THINK WE HAVE TO HONOR THE AGREEMENT THAT EVERYBODY SIGNED.
PEOPLE NEED TO BE PEOPLE OF THEIR WORD.
UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION IN FAVOR COMMISSION TO SHEA.
SO, UM, EVERYBODY ALREADY TALKED ABOUT ALL THE LEGAL ISSUES AND STUFF, BUT I MEAN, UNDER THIS, THIS AGREEMENT, IT ALREADY, I MEAN, WHAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO ALREADY IS QUITE IMMENSE.
I MEAN, IF IT GOES BACK TO SF FOUR, YOU'RE LIMITED ON THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT UNDER THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY THAT IS INTO THIS WHOLE AGREEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, THEY COULD BASICALLY GET LIKE A, THERE WAS LIKE ATTACHED TO UNITS THAT COULD GET DUPLASS.
THEY COULD GET TOWNHOMES, THEY COULD DO ALL OF THAT.
AND THEY, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MENTIONED TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING THINGS THAT THE NUMBER ONE, IT PER RESIDENTIAL.
SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE, AS FAR AS FOR TITLE AND USES, IT ALLOWS THOSE USES.
SO TO ME, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A LENDER, TITLE COMPANIES, LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, HEY, THIS USE IS ALLOWED ANY WAY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S LIKE, I DON'T SEE WHAT, WHAT IT'S LIMITING THEM AT THIS POINT BY KEEPING.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONER COX.
SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER MOOSE TELLER.
AND WE'VE GOT, UM, EVEN THOUGH LET ME COUNT COUNTING SIX ON THE SCREEN.
OH SEVEN WITH, UH, THE VICE CHAIR.
HOLD THEM THAT THEY KEEP GROWING.
WE GET KICKED INCREASED NUMBER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
EIGHT ON THE SCREEN AND ON THE DYESS.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, THE EMOTION.
THAT'S 10 DOES AGAINST, UH, FROM THE SCREEN, ANY AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, ON THE DICE AND AGAINST ALL RIGHT.
ZERO, ANY, UH, ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE 1, 2, 3, 4.
SO IF NOBODY COUNTED, THAT MUST BE NINE TO FOUR.
UM, DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK OR CAN WE KEEP PLUGGING ALONG? YOU CAN, UH, I GUESS TAKE A BREAK FROM THE DICE.
I MEAN, ON THE DIOCESE, I GUESS THAT WE NEED TO, UM, I HAVE TO STAY HERE.
IT, YOU ALL CAN TAKE A BREAK IF YOU NEED TO, UM, LET'S GO ON AND CONTINUE IN THE NEXT CASE.
SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, WE'RE OVERDOING B FIVE.
[B5. C14-99-0069.01 - 200 S Congress Avenue; District 9]
ALL RIGHT.STAFF, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE, BUT THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, THIS, THIS IS ITEM B FIVE AT 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH CONGRESS AND WAS PLANTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE THERE.
UM, THERE WAS A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO
[02:40:01]
SOUTH CONGRESS AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DEPARTMENT SPRINGS ROAD.UH, IT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON I PDA AND P THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THEIR PDA IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND, UH, THAT THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS ARE DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE CONCLUDE, UH, REMOVING A DATE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH EXISTING CODE OR MOVING INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT PRIVATE FAST-FOOD USES REMOVE REMOVAL OF ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AND REMOVAL OF A, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, LANGUAGE WITH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT, UH, A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
UH, STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH ATD THAT THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PDA RELATING TO ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS CAN BE REMOVED, AND THAT THE, UH, TBM WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
THIS IS A COMMERCIALLY, UH, DENSE AREA IS ADJACENT TO A PUD THAT ALLOWS FOR BOTH THE ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT USES.
AND SO THE REZONING OF THIS TRACT WOULD ALLOW THOSE USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA.
UH, SO THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE CHANGE.
UH, THIS DID GO TO THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE 9TH OF FEBRUARY, AND THEY RECOMMENDED THE CHANGE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO PROHIBIT DRIVE THROUGH AS AN ACCESSORY USE, TO REQUIRE ADA ACCESS TO SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS CUPBOARD AND TO EXPLORE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SITE THROUGH THE SITE, TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AFTER, UH, AFTER HOURS.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
UH, AS I EXPLAINED IN THE ISSUE SECTION, UM, THEY REPORT THAT ADA ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM SOUTH CONGRESS AND AN ELEVATOR WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT IS A METAL TO PROVIDING ACCESS THROUGH THROUGH THE SITE, TO THE BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
UH, THEY CAN NOT COMMIT TO AFTER HOURS ACCESS, THEY ARE STILL EVALUATING THE REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND LASTLY, JUST PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, A FEW HOURS AGO, I DID RECEIVE OBJECTIONS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE STAFF IS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A ZONING PETITION MATERIALS.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL AS STAFF FROM ATD.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. LEE BUDGET.
UM, I WILL JUST SKIP TO THE ACCESS QUESTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE, IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO GET INTO THOSE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, IF YOU COULD GO ONE MORE SLIDE FORWARD, PLEASE.
UM, I THINK THIS MAP IS HELPFUL.
SO RIGHT NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, IT'S KIND OF AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED SITE WITH, UM, A FLAG EASEMENT THAT GOES OUT TO BARTON SPRINGS, BUT OUR ACTUAL ACCESS THROUGH THE JOINT USE ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THE HYATT IS IF YOU WERE DRIVING SOUTH ON CONGRESS AND YOU TURNED RIGHT ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, YOU WOULD GO PAST OUR SITE AND TURN RIGHT INTO THAT DRIVEWAY THERE AND LOOP BACK AROUND AND GO INTO AND GO INTO OUR PARKING LOT.
THAT'S HOW THAT, THAT'S HOW THE VEHICULAR ACCESS WORKS TODAY.
UM, IF YOU COULD ALSO NOW SKIP AHEAD TO SLIDE 17, PLEASE.
UM, SO, SO WENDY, I THINK ALSO DESCRIBE THIS, SO THAT JOINT USE ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT WE ARE, UM, A PARTY TO AT THE HYATT IS AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE AGREEMENT.
USUALLY TODAY, IF WE ENTERED INTO, UM, A JOINT USE ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THIS, WITH A PRIVATE PARTY THAT THE CITY HAD AN INTEREST IN THE CITY WOULD BE A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT AS WELL.
AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THEN THE CITY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT, THAT ACCESS EASEMENT NEVER GOES AWAY OR CHANGES IN A WAY THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.
UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHEN THIS JOINT USE ACCESS WAS PUT IN PLACE, AND THIS PDA WAS APPROVED WITH THAT LANGUAGE, UM, THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
SO WE HAVE A PRIVATE AGREEMENT AND WE HAVE THAT, THAT ACCESS TODAY, BUT WE ARE NOT GUARANTEED OF HAVING IT, UH, IN PERPETUITY.
AND IF THAT ACCESS WERE EVER TO GO AWAY BECAUSE THE HYATT WERE TO TERMINATE THAT AGREEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE PDA TODAY, WE WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT ACCESS, WHICH IS ILLEGAL.
UM, SO, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT SORT OF CONCEPTUAL DESCRIPTION, I WOULD ADD THAT, UM, THE HYATT, THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH THE HYATT IS VERY PREFERENTIAL TO THE HYATT, AND IT HAS THESE VERY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN IT THAT ALLOW THEM TO TERMINATE.
AND TH THE ONE THAT I WILL POINT OUT AS THE, AS THE BEST EXAMPLE, OR, OR MAYBE THE WORST EXAMPLE IS THE THIRD BULLET THERE ABOUT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, WHICH STATES THAT IF OUR PROPERTY IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES CURRENTLY EXISTING ON OUR SITE, HYATT CAN TERMINATE THAT AGREEMENT.
AS YOU KNOW, MANY OF, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM DISCUSSING
[02:45:01]
THIS PROJECT AND FROM THE SMALLER AREA PLANNING MEETING, UM, ONE OF THE PROPOSALS IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THREE PARKING SPACES AND TURN THEM INTO ACTIVATED OUTDOOR SPACE, UM, THAT IS ENTIRELY IN KEEPING WITH THE WATERFRONT OVERLAYS VISION.AND IT IS MUCH MORE, I WOULD SAY IN KEEPING WITH THE, WITH THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY VISION THAN WHAT IS ON THE SITE TODAY, BUT THAT DOES PUT THIS AGREEMENT AT RISK.
AND SO WE ARE ASKING TO REMOVE THAT ACCESS PROHIBITION FROM THE PDA.
UM, I THINK TODAY WE DON'T REALLY PUT ACCESS PROHIBITIONS IN ZONING CASES.
I THINK WE FIGURED OUT THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY A BEST PRACTICE.
UM, SO WE'RE ASKING TO REMOVE IT.
WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH HYATT AND HOPE THAT WE DON'T LOSE THAT.
UM, BUT ON THE CHANCE THAT WE DO, THAT'S WHY WE WOULD, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE CHANGED.
CHAIR, NOT SURE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO.
WE MOVE ON INTO THE QUESTIONS NOW.
IS THAT OKAY WITH THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UH, SO IF WE CAN KIND OF SPEED THIS ONE ALONG, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UH, BUT I'D LIKE, I THINK COMMISSIONER MOOSE TODDLER, UM, I'M GONNA, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU'RE THE ONE, I THINK THAT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, KINDA MOTOR MIKE SCHNEIDER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DESIRE TO TAKE A VOTE, VOTE TO CLOSE PUBLIC CARING.
SO THAT'S, UH, 11 AND THEN ON THE DIET, WE GOT TWO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
OH, WELL THAT'S, WE'RE MISSING COMMISSIONER PRACTICES, SO I GUESS WE'RE DOWN TO 10 AND ONE 10 AND TWO.
WELL, UM, WE ONLY HAD 12 ANDREW, RIGHT? SO IT'S 12 VOTES.
MICHELLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, I WAS GOING TO START WITH THESE SINCE YOU THINK.
THANK YOU FOR FOCUSING ON THE TRANSPORTATION STUFF.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF, IF WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING WORKED OUT WITH THE HYATT, WHERE DOES THE ACCESS COME IN? HOW DOES THAT PROBLEM? LET'S SAY HIGH, IT'S NOT A GOOD, GOOD NEIGHBOR AND A GOOD PARTNER.
THEN WHAT HAPPENS? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A STAFF QUESTION ON WHERE THAT COULD COME IN, OR IF THAT GOES BACK TO APPLICANT, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT YOUR CON YOUR CONTINGENCY PLANS, WE JUST SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT BARTON SPRINGS ROAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, OF CONGRESS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY I WANTED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND MAKE SURE ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO MAKE SENSE AS WE LOOK TO REALLY REACTIVATE THIS AREA, COMMISSIONER MICHELLE R I THINK IF, IF, UM, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH HYATT FOR SOME REASON, EITHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, UM, THE ONLY AVAILABLE ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE THROUGH THAT FLAG THAT GOES TO BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO PULL THAT MAP UP AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BUT THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT A LOT OF CHOICES.
IT WAS PLANTED IN THE 19TH CENTURY.
IT'S THE EASEMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN, I THINK 1940.
UM, THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES.
LIKE I SAID, WE, WE ARE HOPING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE HYATT, BUT WITH SUCH WITH AN AGREEMENT DRAFTED THE WAY THAT THIS ONE IS DRAFTED, UM, WE HAVE TO HAVE A BACKUP PLAN AND THE CITY HAS TO HAVE A BACKUP PLAN ACTUALLY AS WELL.
SO I WAS GOING TO THROW IT BACK AT CITY AND SAY, YOU'RE COMING RIGHT INTO A MAJOR INTERSECTION THERE.
I'M CURIOUS WHAT OUR TRAFFIC FOLKS ARE THINKING IS GOING TO BE THE RIGHT SOLUTION THERE.
THANK YOU, BRIAN GOLDEN AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
SO AT THIS POINT, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SORT OF SITE PLAN OR PROPOSAL, UH, CONCRETE PROPOSAL, UM, WE'D HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT, UM, WOULD PROPOSE.
UM, HAVING SAID THAT THOUGH, OUR TCM WOULD DICTATE, DICTATE WHERE, UH, DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT, UM, WOULD BE.
AND THAT INCLUDES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT DRIVEWAY.
UM, SO SPACING TO THE INTERSECTION, THE WIDTH, THE CURVE RETURN, UM, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE, HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WITH A PROPOSAL.
AND THAT'S, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH VERY, VERY LIMITED AIR, I'M JUST WONDERING, DO WE NOT HAVE A WAY TO LEAN BACK ON THE HYATT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THEIR ACCESS? BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE PULLING THEM OUT OFF CONGRESS OR RIGHT INTO THE INTERSECTION IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SPACE THERE.
I GUESS, COMMISSIONER MOOSE TELLER, ARE YOU ASKING IT? THERE CAN BE A KIND OF THE CITY KIND OF MAKE THE HYATT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M JUST, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IF, IF THE HYATT IS NOT A WILLING PARTNER AND THEY HAVE TO GO TO THEIR OWN ACCESS POINT, WHERE DOES THAT ACTUALLY REALLY GO? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO GO RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION POINT.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS MULTIMODAL, WE'RE ADDING BIKE
[02:50:01]
LANES AND PEDESTRIAN STUFF AND GREAT STREETS ON THE OTHER SIDE.I'M, I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT HOW THIS COMES TOGETHER.
I'M NOT THE ENGINEER THAT'S GOING FOR THE SOLUTION.
SO BEFORE I SAY, YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
SO IN YOUR RESPONSE, I'M NOT OKAY.
WELL, AND OUT THE CLOCK ON THAT ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? GO AHEAD.
I AM AN ENGINEER, SO I CAN ANSWER THAT THE DRIVEWAY EXISTS.
SO, AND, AND THE DRIVEWAY CAN ONLY BE IN ONE SPOT AND THAT IS THE SPOT THAT IT ALREADY EXISTS.
SO THE WHOLE THING ABOUT WHAT WE'D HAVE TO WAIT TO SITE PLAN AND REVIEW IT, AND THAT SORT OF STUFF IS, I DON'T WANT TO SOUND RUDE, BUT IT'S ALL KIND OF MOOT BECAUSE IT'S THERE.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE.
BUT, BUT MY QUESTION IS TO, UM, MS. MS. UH, BOGGIATTO THE APPLICANT.
UM, IT SOUNDS TO ME IF I'M PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER CORRECTLY, THAT THE WHOLE REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE JOINT USE ACCESS TO THE HYATT PROPERTY IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ACTIVATE SOME PARKING SPACES FOR PEDESTRIAN TYPE USES.
BUT THE EFFECT OF THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY, IF, IF HYATT DOESN'T AGREE TO THE JOINT USE, UH, THE EFFECT OF THAT WOULD BASICALLY TO DUMP YOUR AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC IN A SPACE THAT WAS RECENTLY ACTIVATED FOR PEDESTRIAN USE RIGHT NEXT TO THE BAT SCULPTURE.
I WOULD SAY THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
UM, I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HYATT THAT CAN BE TERMINATED AT THEIR DISCRETION FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
THE PARKING SPACE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO TERMINATE IT BECAUSE WE TURN A FEW PARKING SPACES OVER.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO TURN A FEW PARKING SPACES OVER IN ORDER TO DO OUR PROJECT.
IT JUST MEANS THAT WE ARE IN A TENUOUS SITUATION, THE HYATT WITH A, AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER.
AND YET THE CITY IS RELYING ON IT AS OUR ONLY SOURCE OF IT, OUR ONLY ACCESS.
SO, WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY PUT THAT IN THERE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS.
AND I COULD SEE WHY SINCE THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS YOUR PROPERTY DOES BASICALLY DUMP RIGHT OUT INTO THE INTERSECTION OF BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, CONGRESS AVENUE, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE YETI STORE, WHICH THAT WHOLE SPACE WAS KIND OF TURNED INTO A POCKET PARK.
AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE A KIND OF, NOT THE SAME USE IF WE TURN THAT INTO A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY AGAIN, INSTEAD OF EMERGENCY USE, ONLY MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, UM, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED BEST PRACTICES.
UH, DOESN'T STAFF AGREE THAT THE BEST PRACTICE HERE WOULD BE TO COMBINE DRIVEWAYS, ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS, WHEREVER WE CAN AND NOT HAVE DRIVEWAYS CLOSE TO INTERSECTIONS AND, AND DUMPING OUT INTO PEDESTRIAN ARCS, BRIAN GOLDEN AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION PERMIT.
UM, SO THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THE CITY CANNOT COMPEL A PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE JOINT USE ACCESS TO ANOTHER PROPERTY.
UM, SO WE, WE COULDN'T ENFORCE OR REQUIRE THE HIGHER PROPERTY TO BEST.
UM, AND, AND IF WE WERE TO PROHIBIT, UM, WELL, IT, IT, IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE CITY TO PROHIBIT ACCESS AT ALL FOR THE SITE IN, IN, HOLD ON WHERE WE'RE AT, YOU'RE OUT OF TIME.
SO WE NEED TO GO AND, UH, MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO LET DEFINITION OF COX CONTINUE UNDER THEIR TIME, UH, LOOKING AT HANDS, UH, COMMISSIONER ON HIS PALITO.
AND, UH, SHE'S GONNA GIVE YOU HER TIME COMMISSIONER COSTS.
UH, IT'S TOUGH GIVING ME TIME.
UH, NO, JUST A QUICK QUESTION TO MS. BOJACK, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE HYATT PROPERTY OWNER, UH, ABOUT THIS? AND DO YOU, HAVE THEY EXPRESSED ANY SORT OF UNWILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE THIS JOINT ACCESS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME VERY, VERY EARLY CONVERSATIONS.
WE DO NOT HAVE A REASON TO THINK AT THIS POINT THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW THEIR AGREEMENT, BUT EVEN IF THEY DON'T WITHDRAW IT RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE AGREEMENT IS DRAFTED, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THEY COULD, THEY COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE AGAIN, IT IS AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY IS RELYING ON.
BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T, WE THEN BE BACK HERE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN WE HAVE NOW WE WOULD BE BACK HERE AS WELL.
SO, SO WE WERE PLANNING, WE FILED THIS PDA APPLICATION FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
UM, WE ADDED, UM, USES WE, UM, WE REDUCED THE PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
[02:55:01]
THERE WAS A, THERE'S A, A HANDFUL OF THINGS IN THIS PDA AMENDMENT THAT WE WERE REQUESTING, INCLUDING THIS ACCESS ALMOST AS A CLEANUP ITEM, BECAUSE, UM, WE REALIZED THAT, LIKE I SAID, THAT THE, THE ACCESS THAT WE'RE USING THAT ALLOWS US TO PROHIBIT ACCESS ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD IS SORT OF TENUOUS.UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN ALWAYS REMOVE IN THE FUTURE IF IT'S NEEDED.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'D CHARACTERIZE IT AS A CLEANUP ITEM.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS PUT IN THERE FOR A VERY, VERY SPECIFIC REASON, BUT THAT ACTUALLY RAISES A GOOD QUESTION TO STAFF.
UM, AND, AND MAYBE THIS IS TO ANDREW, BUT KIM, IF, IF WE END UP, UM, VOTING ON THIS, CAN WE APPROVE CERTAIN REQUESTS, BUT NOT RE APPROVE OTHER REQUESTS? SO IF WE WEREN'T COMFORTABLE ELIMINATING THE PROVISION ABOUT THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, COULD WE APPROVE EVERYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THAT YEP.
UM, SO, UH, LET'S, THERE ARE SOME MORE TIME, UH, COMMISSIONER YANEZ.
PLAY-DOH DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR WITHIN YOUR TIME? OKAY.
NO, YIELD IT TO, UH, WHAT'S NEXT COMMISSIONER.
AZHAR I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND.
I DID NOT HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR CAN WE MOVE THIS ALONG TO EMOTION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, HEAR YOUR EMOTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THREE REQUIREMENTS COMING FROM A SMALLER YEAR PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT DRIVE-THROUGH AS AN ACCESSORY USE THAT WE REQUIRED EDX IS FROM SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, AND THAT WE EXPLORE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SITE, THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AFTER BUSINESS HOURS, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, UM, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL WITH, WITH IN BUSINESS HOURS, OR I DIDN'T THE BUSINESS HOUR PART THREW ME OFF.
WHAT WAS YOUR IT'S HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AFTER BUSINESS HOURS? THIS IS RELYING ON THE SMALLER YEAR PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO IT'S BOTH, UM, THE APPLICANT WANTED TO RESTRICT THAT TO BUSINESS HOURS ONLY.
YOU'RE SAYING IT SHOULD BE AFTER BUSINESS HOURS AS WELL.
DOES THAT CLARIFY? I GUESS I'LL JUST TAKE IT AGAIN.
SO EXPLORE ACCESS TO THE SITE, TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AFTER BUSINESS HOURS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OF VICE-CHAIR AND HEMPEL AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION COMMISSIONERS ARE SURE.
I THINK OURS WAS GOT A GOOD IDEA ON WHERE YOU HAVE TO SORT OF GENERAL IDEA OF WHERE THIS IS GOING.
I, AND I THINK WHAT THE SMALLER YOUR JOINT COMMITTEE IS THAT THAT MADE SENSE.
THE ONLY THING I'M TAKING OUT IS THE REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AS MR. SHE HAD EARLIER MENTIONED, THIS IS A REHAB SITE.
THEY NOT BE DEVELOPING, SO THERE WILL NOT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
SO I'D WANT TO GET THAT OUT, BUT THE OTHER FEW REQUIREMENTS OR RESPECT WHAT SMALL AREA SAID AS REQUIRING IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS, YOU KNOW, AS OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS TOLD US THAT WE CANNOT DELL IN OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE THE ACCESS.
IF WE DO NOT EVEN ACCESS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT NEGOTIATION YOU CAN EVEN HAVE, RIGHT? HOW DO YOU GO AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PARTY WHEN YOUR ONLY OPTIONS ARE EITHER NEGOTIATE WITH THEM, OR LITERALLY YOU HAVE NO ABILITY TO GO INTO AND OUT OF THEIR SITE? I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NEGOTIATION.
SO IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A PROPER NEGOTIATION WITH THE HYATT AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IS WORKABLE FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO MOVE AHEAD, PUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, OF COURSE OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF WOULD LOOK INTO THE ISSUES RELATED TO ANY, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPACT ON THE INTERSECTION.
IF THAT IS INDEED WHERE THIS MIGHT EDIT SOME FUTURE, OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, COMMISSIONER CUTS AND MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, DO YOU WANT TO AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE? I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION EXACTLY LIKE COMMISSIONER AZHAR HAD, EXCEPT TO REMOVE THE REQUESTED DELETION OF ITEM D UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT.
SO IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, UH, ACCEPTING ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED EXCEPT FOR THE ACCESS CHANGES.
AND THEN ALSO, INCLUDING IN THE MOTION, THE ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE INCLUDED FROM THE, UM, THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO I THINK TO KEEP THIS IN KINDA THE S THE AMENDMENT OR THE SUBSTITUTION, TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF INSURANCE ARE.
I THINK THIS IS MAYBE ADDING TO WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED.
SO WE WOULD JUST VOTE ON THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS THE REMOVAL OF THE, UH, REMOVING THE REMOVAL OF
[03:00:01]
THE ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED.AND SO DO WE, UM, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND LET'S DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? LET'S SEE ANYBODY WANT A SECOND COMMISSIONER EMOTION TELLER, GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR, UH, SPEAK TO OUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, IF YOU WANT.
NO, I THINK BECOMING REPETITIVE WITH THESE THINGS, THIS ACCESS PROVISION WAS PUT IN THE AGREEMENT FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASON.
AND IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT, THE REASON IS OBVIOUS.
WE DO NOT WANT THIS DRIVEWAY DUMPING OUT INTO THE INTERSECTION OF BARTON SPRINGS AND CONGRESS AVENUE, WHERE WE'VE TRIED TO ACTIVATE THE SPACE AROUND THE BAT SCULPTURE WITH PEDESTRIAN USES.
WE JUST DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT IS THAT THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ISSUES CONTINUING THE JOINT ACCESS AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THERE ARE ISSUES, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THIS, UM, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT EXCELLENT.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP THAT ACCESS AUTOMATICALLY JUST BECAUSE THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO ELIMINATE THAT PART OF, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT? UH, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER IS OUR, I'LL JUST MAKE THIS QUICK.
IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THEN DARCIE SAYS THAT THEY WANT AN ACCESS BE OPEN.
IF WE TAKE IT AWAY, ESSENTIALLY WHERE THIS IS NO ACTION.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE.
YOU COULD HAVE JUST VOTED DOWN THE ITEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY DOING.
THE ONLY THING THAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS REALLY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ITEMS THAT THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
AND SO DURING THAT, WE ARE NOW SEEING THAT THEY CAN NOT DO THAT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY MAKE A MOTION AT ALL.
LIKE I'M SEEING FOR MY OWN SELF, BECAUSE THE OTHER THINGS ARE JUST ADDING TO IT, BUT NOT GRANTING ANYTHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED FOR, EXCEPT FOR VERY MINOR CHANGES.
AND AGAIN, I THINK OUR STAFF HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN HANDLE ON THEIR, AND SO THANK YOU.
UM, ANY MORE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR AGAINST, OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION? LET'S, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MO UH, AMENDMENT, UH, BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE TELLER TO REMOVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UH, TO REMOVE THE ACCESS, UH, LIMITATIONS.
LET'S GO, UM, COUNTING 1, 2, 3, 4 IN FAVOR, UH, ON THE DYESS THAT'S ONE.
THOSE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT GUN, SHOW ME A RED 7, 7, 8, AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
I THINK WE'VE GOT, I'VE GOT FIVE AND EIGHT AND WE'RE ALL HERE.
UM, SO THAT, UH, AMENDMENT FAILS.
SO WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS, UH, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR AND IT WAS, UM, OH BOY, WHO WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT HELPED ME OUT COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WHO WAS THE MOTION MAKER ON THAT? I'M SORRY, WAS THAT COMMISSIONER IS R OKAY.
UH, OKAY, SO THAT MOTION WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO INCLUDE, UH, THE THREE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE, UH, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, REGARDING, UH, REMOVE RESTRICTION OF DRIVE-THRU USES, UM, ADU ACCESS FROM CONGRESS AND ALSO ALLOWING ACCESS THROUGH THE PROPERTY, UH, TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AFTER BUSINESS HOURS.
AND WE DID, I DON'T KNOW, DID WE GET THROUGH, WE JUST HAD COMMISSIONERS, AZHAR SPEAKING FOR THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER COX, ONE LAST THING, IF THIS COMMISSION APPROVE THIS, AND IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THEN WE'VE JUST INTRODUCED A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF A POCKET PARK THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACTIVATE IN ONE OF THE BEST SPOTS, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO THE PUB THAT WE APPROVED.
SO I JUST THINK THIS IS WELL, IT'S ONE TO SAY THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
LET'S GO AND SEE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
I NOTICE AGAINST THIS MOTION FOUR,
[03:05:01]
SO THAT'S NINE TO FOUR, THE MOTION PASSES.LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, LET'S SEE.
I NEED, UM, A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, TAKE A BREAK UNTIL NINE 17.
UH, PLEASE RETURN AT THAT TIME AND WE'LL PICK UP THE NEXT CASE AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THIS DONE BEFORE 10.
YOU CAN BRING, BRING EVERYBODY BACK HERE TO GET A CORE ON, AND THEN WE'LL OKAY.
UH, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET A COMMISSIONER, JUST COME ON BACK.
UM, FROM THE VIRTUAL VIRTUAL WORLD, WE CAN GET THIS THING GOING IF WE GET A ONE, TWO.
[Items B9 & B10]
PLANNING COMMISSION IS BACK HERE TO HEAR CASES, UM, NINE AND 10.UM, IF WE CAN GO, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THESE TOGETHER.
IF WE CAN GO OUT AND GET STAFF TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
MARIE MEREDITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER B NINE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.01 ALPHA POINT 95.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2,404 THRASHER LANE WITHIN THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE AGAIN WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING.
UH, THIS IS PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THRASHER LANE.
UH, ADJACENT ZONING TO THE SOUTH IS CSMP TO THE WEST IS CSMP.
AND, UH, TO THE NORTH IS SF THREE NP.
THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY REQUESTED SF SIX NP.
HOWEVER, THEY DID AMEND THE REQUEST TO THE CS, M U N P DISTRICT IN NOVEMBER OF 2021.
UH, THE STAFF IS SUPPORTING THIS CASE OF FOUR CS, M U C O N P.
THE CEO IS FOR A MAXIMUM OF 10 UNITS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD PROVIDE A TRANSITION IN LAND USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY BETWEEN THESE PROPERTIES.
UH, OTHER NOTES ON THIS, UM, THERE IS A CURRENT PETITION THAT IS VALID AT 20.6, 6%.
I DID, UH, RE RESPOND TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ABANDONED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ON THE PROPERTY POLIER.
AND, UH, WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS, IS HERE AS WELL AS, UH, AS AN ADJACENT RESIDENCE.
I WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. MIKE KING, YOU BEING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE SO LATE, UM, ON THIS TUESDAY EVENING.
AND, UH, MY NAME IS MICAH KING.
I'M WITH TOUCHBACK BLACKWELL, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, UH, MARINA AND GINO'S CHEVETTES, UM, HUSBAND AND WIFE HOME BUILDER.
UM, IF YOU COULD GET TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S JUST UNDER AN ACRE FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SERVICES MAKES USE, UM, AND TO CHANGE THE PHLEGM DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE, UH, SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE HOUSING ON THIS SITE.
UH, THIS IS A SITE THAT HAS NEVER ONCE BEEN DEVELOPED IN ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE.
UM, AND WE ARE HOPING TO PROVIDE SOME MUCH NEEDED HOUSING AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO, UM, CAPITAL METRO RESOURCES.
UH, WE ARE IN THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, BETWEEN RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND EASTBOUND WHITE BOULEVARD.
AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE SURROUNDING ZONING, UH, COMMERCIAL.
PRIMARILY WE HAVE THE THREE TO THE NORTH, UH, CS AND CSM YOU AS WELL AS GR M YOU AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UH, AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING, UM, CURRENT CONDITIONS, UM, SINCE
[03:10:01]
THIS CASE, UH, THIS PROPERTY WAS FIRST, UM, BEFORE YOU IN 2017, UM, CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON SOME SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS, UM, SURROUNDING MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDES, UH, DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND SOUTH, AS WELL AS TO THE EAST.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AGAIN, JUST SHOWING THE PATTERN OF ZONING IN THIS AREA.
UM, IF YOU DREW AN IMAGINARY LINE ALONG CARSON RIDGE DRIVE, UM, ESSENTIALLY ALL COMMERCIAL GR OR L I, UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE PUBLICLY ZONED PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE AGAIN, UM, WHEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS APPROVED AFTER MUCH WORK BY THE CONTACT TEAM IN 2001 OR 2002, UH, THIS WAS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL, UH, AND MUCH OF THE RESIDENCE AREA SOUTH WAS, BUT THE SOUTH WITH ITS INDUSTRIAL, UH, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS THAT HAS BEEN TRENDING, UH, TO MIXED USE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, A VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY, LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE MUCH LARGER SCALE THAN WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING.
UH, ANOTHER VIEW, UH, FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, LOOKING EAST OF SOME OTHER MULTI-FAMILY THERE.
UM, AN EXAMPLE OF THE OTHER, UH, ANOTHER ONE THAT PROJECTS, UH, HERE IN TOWN, UM, SMALL SCALE, UM, LOWER INTENSITY TYPE OF HOUSING THAT PROVIDES A TRANSITIONAL TYPE OF HOUSING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY USES.
WE THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY GOOD, UH, SOLUTION FOR TRAFFIC.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT USES ARE ALREADY PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, THERE'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE IN WHAT TRAFFIC COULD BE GENERATED.
UH, THERE'S ALSO NEW CONNECTIVITY PLANNED, UM, INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE EXTENSION OF VARGAS ROAD, UM, AT THE INTERSECTION OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND, AND THRASHER LANE.
UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME OTHER CHANGES TO THIS AREA IN RECENT YEARS, INCLUDING IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
UM, THE CITY COUNCIL REDUCED SPEED LIMITS ON THIS STRETCH BY FIVE MILES PER HOUR.
UM, AND THERE'S ALSO BEEN A NEW BUS ONLY LANE ADDED TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE ON THIS SIDE OF HERBICIDE THAT HELPS TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN AND PROVIDE ENHANCED TRANSIT OPTIONS.
UM, AGAIN, WE'RE SEEKING A DOWN ZONING, WE ARE PROPOSING AND WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LIST IS READY YET.
UM, HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET THOSE IN AND CONVERSATIONS LEADING UP TO COUNCIL.
UM, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO RESTRICT USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED USES.
UM, AND IN ADDITION, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY, UM, REDUCING THE MAXIMUM AND PERVIOUS COVER OF THIS PROPERTY BY 20%, UH, GIVEN THE SORT OF IN WATERSHED LIMITS FOR MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS COMMERCIAL USES, UM, SUBCHAPTER E DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY.
NEXT SLIDE APPLICATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD ALSO COME INTO PLAY WITH THIS PROPERTY, UH, UPON APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING.
UM, THERE WOULD BE DEDICATION OF PARKLAND.
UM, AND LIKE I MENTIONED, THE BEGINNING, UH, IMPORTANT NEW HOUSING SUPPLY.
THAT'S NOT JUST THE BUSINESS AND NOT JUST AN SF THREE TYPE HOUSE, UM, BUT HOMES FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 FAMILIES, UM, TO LIVE IN AND WORK IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TOGETHER.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
MY NAME IS FRED MCGEE VICE-CHAIR OF THE MONTOPOLIS CONTACT TEAM, A VICE-PRESIDENT OF MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT CARSON RIDGE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT MONTOPOLIS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AUTHOR OF THE BOOK AUSTIN'S MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT MY FAMILY.
UH, I'M THE PRIMARY, MY WIFE AND I ARE THE PRIMARY SIGNATORIES TO THE VALID ZONING PETITION.
WE ARE HOMESTEADING AND RAISING OUR FAMILY AT 2316 THRASHER LANE.
SO FOR ME, THIS IS NOT THEORETICAL.
UH, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT ISN'T REALLY COMMERCIAL.
[03:15:01]
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE ALL ALONG THRASHER LANE AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF DISPLACEMENT THAT OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING.
WE THINK THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT THE MONTOPOLIS CDC PUT ON THE TABLE THREE YEARS AGO, WHICH YOU REFER NOURISHED WOULD BE A BETTER BOTTOM UP COMMUNITY-BASED PROPOSAL FOR YOU TO GET BEHIND.
UM, WE DID A LOT OF PRE-PLANNING FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT IS HIGHER AND BETTER THAN THE PROPOSAL YOU JUST HEARD, WHICH BY THE WAY, WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO OUR CONTACT TEAM.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE ARE SEEING SOME OF THE THINGS IN THIS PRESENTATION, BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN PRETTY CONTENTIOUS OF ANY COMMUNITY, TRUE COMMUNITY VOICE IN THEIR PLANS.
SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO.
AND I NOTICED ALSO THERE ARE NO AFFORDABILITY STIPULATIONS HERE.
OUR PROPOSAL IS HIGHER AND BETTER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BUILT ON A 100% AFFORDABLE, UH, BASIS ON A NON-PROFIT BASIS AND TO A SUPERIOR GREEN BUILDING STANDARD AND WOULD BE BUILT FOR OUR PEOPLE BY OUR PEOPLE.
SO THAT REALLY IS THE MAIN POINT WHEN THE GIST OF WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
WE'RE NOT HERE FOR MISSES ON ALMANZA GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS SUSANA ALMANZA AND I AM THE BIN HAS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM PRESIDENT, AND ON SEPTEMBER OF 2021, THE CONTACT TEAM, UH, REVIEWED THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND WE VOTED NOT TO SUPPORT, UH, THE ZONING CHANGE.
AND I MIGHT ADD, UH, THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME ALSO THAT THIS CASE HAS COME BEFORE THE CONTACT TEAM, AS DR.
FRED MCGEE SAYS, THIS IS A DEAD END STREET.
UH, SO THAT MAP THAT YOU SEE IS NOT REALLY TRUE, UM, THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY DEAD ENDS AND EVERYONE ALONG THAT STREET IS SINGLE FAMILY.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE UPROOTED REPORT, THE 2018 UPROOTED REPORT DONE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND COMMISSIONED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE EQUITY TOOLS PLAN FOR THE PROJECT CONNECT, THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THAT ONE MILE ZONE AREA WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO STOP DISPLACEMENT AND STOP GENTRIFICATION.
AND SO WITH THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY WHO HAD ACTUALLY, UH, MOVE, UH, WELL, THIS IS IN GENTRIFYING OUR COMMUNITY MORE BECAUSE THIS WILL NOT BE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY WILL NOT BE USING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EQUITY TOOLS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $400,000 AND UP ON 10 HOUSES GOING ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT.
AND SO FOR US, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF IS PUSHING THAT THE PROJECT CONNECT IS ALSO ENCOURAGING.
UH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UH, THE MONTOPOLIS COMMUNITY, WHICH HAS A 32% POVERTY RATE, WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVE AT A 30 TO 40 TO 50% MFI, AND WE'RE BRINGING IN, YOU KNOW, A 200% MFI HOUSING INTO OUR COMMUNITIES.
UH, AND SO, UH, WE HAVE A VALID FOR A REASON, UH, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT, AND WE KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROJECT CONNECT SHOULD INVEST IN, IN.
WE WERE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE, WITH THE OWNERS TO, UM, MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE SO THAT WE COULD USE, UH, THE PROJECT CONNECT, UH, DISPLACEMENT FUNDING.
UH, BUT THEY'RE NOT BUDGING BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AFTER MAXIMIZING THEIR PROFITS AND THEY'RE REALLY LOOKING AT, UH, HOW CAN THEY MAKE MONEY, UH, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE POVERTY AREA.
I THINK WE'LL KNOW HERE FROM NO ALLIES UH, IN PERSON OR PERSON.
UM, WELL I'M HERE FROM THE AFTERNOON FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS SOME FALSEHOODS AND MISDIRECTION HERE.
[03:20:01]
UM, NUMBER ONE, WE MET WITH THE CONTACT TEAM TWICE AFTER WE WERE HIRED AND A KILOMETER AND I WERE HIRED, UH, TO HELP WITH THIS CASE.AND THE VERY DAY THAT WE WERE HIRED, I PERSONALLY CALLED DR.
FREDMAN GEEK AND, UM, SUSANA ALMANZA MYSELF AND LEFT MESSAGES FOR THEM.
AND SO TO, TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT WILLING TO ENGAGE OR NOT WILLING TO TALK IS FALSE, AND IT'S A FALSE ACCUSATION, AND I'M TIRED OF THESE ACCUSATIONS BEING MADE.
SECOND OF ALL, THERE'S NO DISPLACEMENT.
THIS PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED.
FRED MCGEE, WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF.
AND I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT REGARDING THE TIMELINE.
SO IN HIS PERSPECTIVES FOR DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY, AND BY THE WAY, HIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAS NEVER DEVELOPED ANYTHING.
SO THE PREVIOUS OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2017, THAT ZONING CASE FAILED FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN.
THE PROSPECTUS DATE WAS SEPTEMBER OF 2019.
MY CLIENT, THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2021.
SO THERE WAS NINE MONTHS AFTER THE PERSPECTIVES WAS STAMPED AS HAVING BEEN CREATED BETWEEN THEN AND BETWEEN ME AND MY CLIENTS CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SO THAT TIMELINE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN TERMS OF, THEY SAID THAT A LOT OF FREE PLANNING HAS GONE INTO THIS PLAN FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THE, THAT DOES NOT REFLECT IN THE TIMELINE HERE.
IT DOES NOT REFLECT IN THEIR ABILITY TO GATHER THE FUNDING, TO EXECUTE THEIR PROJECTS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND THEN HE TALKED ABOUT A VALID PETITION.
ONE OF THEM BEING THE PERSON WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY BY THE WAY, WHICH WE REQUIRE A REZONING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND THEY HAVE OBJECTED TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SF THREE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A MORE, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE, YOU'D HAVE TO INCREASE THE COST COMMISERATE WITH THE ZONING AND NUMBER OF THE CAPACITY OF THAT PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S ALL I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY, ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UH, YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
REMEMBER WHERE IT FIVE AT THREE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM, BUT WE GOT THEM.
HE WANTS TO START MISSION OR SHAPE.
UM, HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO ANY, LIKE PROVIDING ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING? CAUSE I MEAN, I LOOK AT IT, UM, I SEE YOU HAVE SUCH A HIGH ZONING, A CS, WHICH IS WHICH BASICALLY IF YOU DEVELOP IT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS FOR RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY IN MORE OF AN MF TYPE, UH, DENSITY, WHICH COULD REALLY HELP GET MORE UNITS AND ACTUALLY EVEN GIVE SOME BACK TOWARD AFFORDABILITY.
I MEAN, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, UM, EVEN UNDER JUST STANDARD, LIKE ZONING, YOU KNOW, W WOULD HAVE BEEN 11 UNITS.
AND I THINK, UM, THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT, THE NEIGHBOR HOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP ACTUALLY WANTS TO DO MORE THAN THAT.
SO I SEE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE AREA WITH MORE AFFORDABILITY, BY BRINGING MORE HOMES AND EVEN PROVIDE LIKE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, WITH, AT A CERTAIN MFI BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE CS ALREADY.
SO HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THAT? YES, COMMISSIONER.
SO FIRST OF ALL, YES, WE HAVE LOOKED INTO POSSIBLE FUNDING FOR THIS, UM, THE CITY, DESPITE HAVING A YEAR AND A HALF TO, TO PULL TOGETHER FUNDING FROM PROJECT NET FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS.
IT'S NOT HAVE, CANNOT PROVIDE ME WITH ANY FRAMEWORK OR PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS OR THAT POT OF MONEY AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE YET.
UM, THIS IS A QUESTION BETWEEN DENSITY AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM.
YES, WE CAN PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MAKE THOSE NUMBERS WORK IF WE INCREASE THE DENSITY, BUT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A VERY DENSE PROJECT.
WE'RE PROVIDING A VERY PROPOSING, A VERY MODEST DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO I THINK IT'S ONE WAY OR
[03:25:01]
THE OTHER REALLY.SO WHY THEN I GUESS THE MESSING WITH EVEN TH TH THE 10 UNIT LIMITATION, I GUESS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, I MEAN, I KEEP THINKING ABOUT LIKE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK POTENTIAL OF, YOU KNOW, CAUSE IF YOU HAVE A CS THAT CAN BECOME AN MF SIX, WHICH IS STILL A DOWNLOADING, AND THEN YOU GO TO AFFORDABILITY AND LUCK AND THEN BANG, WE GOT LIKE, WE REALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DENT AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ISSUES IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW.
AND SO, UM, I KNOW THOSE ARE THINGS THAT KIND OF GOING THROUGH MY HEAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE CS AND WHY YOU GOING DOWN TO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE JUST, YOU KNOW, EVEN LESS SINCE, YOU KNOW, UM, SO, UH, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT I FEEL LIKE COULD BE, SHOULD BE EXPLORED.
UH, CAN I GET A QUICK QUESTION TO STAFF? WHAT DOES CS TRANSLATE TO WHEN IT COMES TO KIND OF MF TYPE IN SEVEN YEAR, IF IT WENT INTO, IS IT A MF FOUR OR SIX? WHAT IS IT? IT'S APPROXIMATELY AN NMF FOUR TO MFIS RANGE.
THAT'S 36 TO 54 UNITS PER ACRE, SO WE COULD GET POTENTIALLY 30 SOMETHING UNITS ON THIS THING.
SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, BUT, UM, ALL RIGHT.
UM, NEXT SEMESTER WITH QUESTIONS.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AND TAKE ONE, BECAUSE I ASKED A QUESTION OF STAFF AND I WAS CURIOUS IF THIS IS WONDERING HOW WE ENDED UP GETTING THIS CSS ZONING.
CAUSE IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT GOOGLE MAPS, IT'S A DEAD END ROAD.
WE HAVE ALL THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THEN YOU HAVE ALL OF THIS COMMERCIAL AND THEY SAID, NO, THIS IS NOT TYPICAL.
SO WE HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE ALL OF THIS DENSITY AT THE END OF A, A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET.
AND THEY'RE REALLY, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE ANY WAY TO ACHIEVE CONNECTIVITY, BUT I WILL PUT THAT QUESTION TO STAFF AT THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF IS HERE.
IS THERE, ARE THERE PLANS OR IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET INCREASED CONNECTIVITY TO THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? AT THE END OF THIS RESIDENTIAL STREET, WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM, UH, ATD AVAILABLE.
I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, TRANSPORT ATD STAFF IS HERE FOR THAT.
I HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION OF THEM.
I'VE JUST HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE YET.
AND, UH, WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IT JUST, THE COMMISSIONER DOES HERE IT'S A PROPERTY WAS REZONED AS PART OF THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONING, WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY CHANGED FROM SF THREE, WHICH I FIND VERY CURIOUS IS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.
SO I JUST DON'T KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT THERE AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED AGAIN, THIS, UH, IT SEEMS SO WE'RE, WE'RE HERE, WE'RE LEFT WITH THAT PLANNING PROCESSES WAS CHANGED TO SEE US.
UM, SO, UM, DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS ANYBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WERE YOU PART OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS? I WOULD JUST, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS FROM THE CONTACT TEAM.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT STAFF HAD A VERY HEAVY HAND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
IF YOU REMEMBER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, GOT TRUMP BY THE RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN, WHICH DID NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE A SAY IN THE ZONING CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN, TRUMP, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN EAST AUSTIN.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN THEY THOUGHT, OR THEY PLAN THE CARSON RIDGE WOULD GO THROUGH, BUT IT'S PRETTY MUCH LANDLOCKED NOW.
UH, SO THAT WAS STAFF AGAIN, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVING THEIR OWN VISION, BUT THAT BEING A COMMUNITY STREET AND WHAT HAPPENED THAT PROPERTY OWNER, UH, FOUGHT THE CHANGE.
SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WAS IF A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SAY, NO, I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT TO ZONE IT NOW THAT YOU'RE CHANGING THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD LET THAT HAPPEN.
AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT BACKGROUND.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? ARE WE OKAY? COMMISSIONER? YOU HONEST, PALITO.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MY, UH, MR. KING.
[03:30:01]
COMMENT ABOUT THE, UM, ABOUT THE QUESTION OF DENSITY IN THE HYPOTHETICAL OF MONTOPOLIS CDC DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY, YOU MENTIONED THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE THE PRICE.COULD YOU FINISH THAT THOUGHT AND YOUR LINE OF THINKING? NO, SORRY.
I MINGLE MY WORDS SPENT A LONG DAY.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, WHAT I WAS REFERRING MORE TO WAS, UM, IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION ABOUT, WOULD WE BE DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND MY RESPONSE, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS LIKE, MY CLIENTS ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
THEY'RE A SMALLER COMPANY AND, UM, AND IT, BUT THEY ARE NOT RESISTANT TO IT, BUT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT SPECULATIVE AT THIS POINT.
AND WITH ONLY 10 UNITS, IT'S HARDER TO DO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT.
UM, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT EASIER IF YOU PROVIDE MORE DENSITY.
UM, BUT I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HAD SAID THEY DON'T WANT MORE DENSITY.
SO, UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY ONE OTHER THING TOO, IS THAT THE ASM P CALLS FOR, UM, THRASHER LANG TO BE EXTENDED TO BEN WHITE BOULEVARD? UH, I'M SORRY, THE, THE US A STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, BUT GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE, UM, HAVE YOU RECEIVED SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON HOW THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CREATE CONNECTIVITY ON THIS INGRESS AND EGRESS? YEAH, SO IT WOULD CREATE A NEW POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.
SO THRASHER, THRASHER LANE ALL THE WAY TO BEN WHITE.
AND COULD I ASK EITHER IT'S ON MONZA OR DR.
MCGEE ABOUT, UM, UH, WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, HOW THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED AND WHAT THAT POTENTIAL ASAP, UM, NEW THOROUGHFARE, I GUESS, WOULD POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE WHAT'S FEASIBLE IN THAT SENSE SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ATD, I'M JUST CURIOUS FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE.
WHAT'S ON MONTHS, I MENTIONED IT WAS LANDLOCKED.
WELL, THRASHER LAID OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS HAS UNDERGONE TREMENDOUS CHANGE.
YOU PROBABLY WILL RECALL WHAT HAPPENED AT THE THRASHER LANE TRAILER PARK, WHERE OVER 24 FAMILIES WERE DISPLACED FROM THAT TRAILER PARK.
UH, WHAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED THERE NOW IS FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES NOW BECAUSE ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND THE DIRT TRUCKS ARE BLOCKING OUR ABILITY TO INGRESS AND EGRESS ON A DEAD END STREET.
A LOT OF US HAVE TO SHOW UP LATE FOR WORK BECAUSE THESE TRUCKS ARE BLOCKING THINGS.
SO AS FAR AS EXTENDING THRASHER LANE TO BEN WHITE, THAT SPECULATIVE LEAH BOGGIO, WHO WAS HERE EARLIER, WHO REPRESENTED THE DEVELOPER FOR THE MONTH, WHICH IS THERE NOW AGREED THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THRASHER LANE AS A DEAD END STREET.
MATTER OF FACT, THAT WAS A CONDITION FOR OUR NON OPPOSITION TO THE MOCK DEVELOPMENT.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A DONE DEAL.
UH, THIS STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, WE ACTUALLY WERE GOING TO RESPOND TO, UH, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS ABOUT CARSON RIDGE, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY CUT THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING A POOL, A PIECE OF MY PROPERTY IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE REALIZED IT CONNECTED WITH MONTOPOLIS AND MAXWELL I COULD GO ON, BUT ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S THE END OF MY TIME.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A COMMISSIONER, MR. TODDLER, SORRY.
I'M I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I WANT TO ASK MY QUESTION.
I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON? I THINK COMMISSIONER SHAY BROUGHT IT UP THAT UNDER CS, THEY HAVE A LOT MORE POTENTIAL.
SO IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON NOT TO EXPAND A BIT AND SEE ABOUT GETTING AFFORDABILITY? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS CAN BRING INTO THE PROJECT? RIGHT? YEAH.
AFFORDABILITY IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN EXPLORING AND ARE WILLING TO EXPLORE.
UM, AGAIN, JUST DOING 10 UNITS UNDER CSM ZONING, AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, MAKES IT HARDER TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THEN THE QUESTION FOR STAFF IS THAT LIMITING TO 10 UNITS.
WAS THAT, WAS THAT COMING FROM THE STAFF SIDE? SORRY, I GUESS I WAS CONFUSED WHERE THAT LIMIT WAS COMING FROM.
UM, AND YEAH, LOOKING AT WHAT'S GOING ON FROM THE AERIAL VIEW, YOU'VE GOT A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET THAT DOES NOT HAVE CONNECTIVITY AND I'M SURE PEOPLE KNOW BY NOW I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THROWING HIGH DENSITY
[03:35:01]
AND INTO DANGEROUS PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T GET IN AND OUT.SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT TAKING IT UP HIGH.
I UNDERSTAND STAFF LIMITING, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE NEEDED TO LIMIT IT QUITE THAT MUCH.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION ACTUALLY HAD A PLAN IN PLACE THAT WOULD HAVE INCREASED DENSITY.
SO I'M REALLY KIND OF CONFUSED ON HOW WE ENDED UP WHERE WE ARE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE POTENTIAL HERE TO OPEN UP WITHOUT CREATING DANGER.
I THINK THE RED HERRING IS AS TRAFFIC BECAUSE THEIR MONTOPOLIS PLAN IS TO ACTUALLY ADD MORE UNITS THAN WE'RE PROPOSING.
AND SO IF THEY ACTUALLY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING THAT.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, SPEED LIMITS HAVE DECREASED.
THERE IS ALREADY A NEW ROADWAY EXTENSION ADDING CONNECTIVITY IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
AND THE SITE PLAN FOR A PROJECT AT THE CORNER OF RIVERSIDE AND THRASHER ATD SAID IN THAT SITE PLAN THAT, UM, EVEN UPON BUILD-OUT OF THAT PROJECT, THE THRASHER LANE WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE WELL WITHIN THE OPTIMAL LIMITS FOR THAT, WITH THE ROADWAY.
SO TO STAFF, UH, I GUESS QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF THEN, UH, I I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS COME UP A LITTLE BIT AND GET SOME AFFORDABILITY IN THERE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY WE'RE AT 10 UNITS AND WHAT WE'VE BASED THAT ON, UH, THE, THE 10 UNIT CHAP THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED WAS, UH, WITH THE IDEA OF WRITING A TRANSITION IN LAND USE AND SITE INTENSITY BETWEEN THE S3 TO THE NORTH AND THE CS TO THIS NOW.
BUT THEN I GUESS, BASED ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS, OBJECTION, THEY WANTED SOMETHING.
THEY ACTUALLY WANTED SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE, SIR, WAS I, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO BRING THROUGH.
UH, YES, I, I DID NOT RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION UNTIL, UM, AFTER THE STAFF REPORT HAD BEEN PREPARED, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY ATTACHED IT TO THIS.
YOU KNOW WHAT, FOR THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, I DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T HAVE IT AT AN ADVANCE OF MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATION.
IF ANY COMMISSIONER DOES HAVE QUESTIONS OR WE CAN, UH, MOVE TO A MOTION.
I'M JUST CURIOUS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I MEAN, IF, IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE ZONING CHANGE, WHAT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE PROPERTY YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOT CF ZONING.
W WOULD YOU BUILD APARTMENTS? YEAH.
SO THE PLAN WOULD BE FOR 10 TO 12, APPROXIMATELY, UH, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
THE PROPOSAL OF THE APPLICANT IS TO REZONE, TO BE ALLOWED, TO PROVIDE MULTI-FAMILY.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU DON'T GET THE REZONING, YOU'VE GOT CSMP, WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU REALISTICALLY DO WITH THAT? I MEAN, ZONING, WE THERE HOMEBUILDER, SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY BECOME NEGLECTED AND UNDEVELOPED FOR EVEN LONGER.
SO COMMISSIONER COX, JUST TO CLARIFY THE STAFF, IT, US DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.
IS THAT CORRECT? STAFF? THE CSN, HE DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, UH, UNLESS I BELIEVE, UNLESS THEY, THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER EXERCISES, THE AFFORDABILITY OF.
SO THEY NEED THE M YOU TO DO THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UNLESS THEY DO AFFORDABILITY.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAD.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU.
I MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON DENYING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST? UH, I'VE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YONIS.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. THOMPSON? I DO.
WE SAW THIS SAME PIECE OF LAND, I THINK FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, UM, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I VOTED THE SAME WAY AT THE TIME.
IT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO PUT DENSE HOUSING.
UM, AND, UM, I, I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONNECTED AND I THINK IT WILL BE CONNECTED SOMEDAY.
AND, AND IF SO, THEN WE SHOULD PUT SOME, SOME GOOD HOUSING THERE.
UM, BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT HAVING THE CS ZONING WILL KEEP IT FROM DEVELOPING INTO, UH, LARGE SINGLE
[03:40:01]
FAMILY ZONE HOMES THAT WILL THEN SELL FOR HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE AND NOT BE ABLE TO BE REDEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE.SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, EITHER TO COME BACK TO THE, TO THE COMMISSION WITH A MORE CONCRETE PLAN THAT SUPPORTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE, OR TO WAIT UNTIL THAT CONNECTIVITY IN THE ASAP IS DONE RATHER THAN SORT OF LOCK IN SOME INAPPROPRIATE ZONING AT, AT THAT TIME.
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, ANYONE SPEAK IN FAVOR? UH, COMMISSIONER BE IS PLATO JUST BRIEFLY.
UM, FIRST I WANNA, UH, THANK MR. KING ALSO FOR MEETING WITH ME AND EDUCATED ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHERE THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AT.
UM, RIGHT NOW, UM, I THINK WE HAD A GOOD, GOOD CONVERSATION.
WE WERE ABOUT, WE WERE ABLE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT VALUE CAPTURE AS WELL, WHICH IS A MAJOR CONCERN OF MINE, ALWAYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE MONTOPOLIS, UM, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN THE HISTORY THAT WAS REFERENCED TODAY.
SO I THINK ANYTIME WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING, I AGREE WITH ALL THE CONCERNS AROUND TRANSPORTATION I REALLY DO.
UM, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IN FOR US BY US.
AND I DO BELIEVE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, UM, FOR US TO SIZE UP THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE VALUE THAT'S BEING, UM, EXTRACTED OUT OF NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MONTOPOLIS AND RE-INVEST THEM, UH, BACK WHERE WE CAN IN DIFFERENT WAYS THROUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABILITY LOCKED OR SOMETHING LIKE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEVELOPING THE ENTIRE THING IN A WAY THAT THE COMMUNITY ENVISIONS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
WHAT CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR, OH, GO AHEAD.
WE'LL SEE IF IT'S A SUBSTITUTE.
I MEAN, I HAVE AN IDEA BREAKING MY HEAD, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING.
THAT'LL PRODUCT, THAT'LL BE A SUBSTITUTE.
SO POSTPONE TILL WHEN, SO THE NEXT, UM, I GUESS THE FIRST ONE IN MARCH, THAT'LL BE, UM, MS. RIVERA WITH DAYS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, FOR THIS TO BE A SUBSTITUTION FOR A POSTPONEMENT, IF WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, JUST SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND YOUR RIGHT AND GOOD NEWS IS I THINK WE MAY HAVE A SHORTER, NEXT PICKUP.
UH, ONE OF THEM MAY GO FASTER, SO, UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 11 NOW TO SERVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER AS OUR, SO LET'S GO AND VOTE ON EXTENDING TO 11.
UH, 11 AND THEN, UH, SAYING TWO 11 ON THE DAYAS, UM, AS 12 AND AGAINST IT NEUTRAL.
COMMISSIONER COX FOR YOU, YOU SECONDED THIS, RIGHT? AND NOW YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION OR YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER SHEA.
SO, SO THE REASON I'M MAKING THIS AS RIGHT NOW IS I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS HEARD THAT AFFORDABILITY IS A KEY THING THERE.
WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING IS LESS UNITS THAN WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS EVEN PROPOSING.
THEY HAVE CS ZONING, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PICK LIKE OTHER TYPES OF DENSITIES.
THE STAFF DIDN'T CONSIDER BRINGING AFFORDABILITY AND THEY CAN COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL.
I MEAN, THE THING IS WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO IF THEY, YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER IT, THEN MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THEY COULD GO BACK TO THE TABLE AND THINK ABOUT LIKE WHAT THEY CAN OFFER.
MAYBE NOT TRYING TO DO THE FULL DENSITY, BUT SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN LIVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN LIVE WITH.
I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE PROPOSING 12 FOOT, 14 UNITS OR SOMETHING.
IT'S STILL DEFINITELY, IT WAS STILL MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE OFFERING, UM, OF THE 10 AND WHO KNOWS, MAYBE THEY, WE CAN GET SOME AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THAT.
SO AT LEAST THIS ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE, THINK THROUGH IT, PUT SOME PEN TO PAPER AND SEE IF THEY CAN MAKE THIS WORK.
UM, ANY MORE DEBATE OR CAN WE GO AND VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONING ON ITS KALITA BEFORE AGAINST, UM, AGAINST.
UM, JUST BECAUSE BASED ON THE EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD THUS FAR, AND JUST WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN, UM, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO GET THIS TO A PLACE WHERE, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDING.
[03:45:01]
I MEAN, I'M GETTING LIKE, JUST EVEN THE MISCOMMUNICATIONS AND I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE MORE POSITIVE CONVERSATIONS ON THIS.UM, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE APPLICANTS ARE PREPARED TO, TO, TO PUT TOGETHER AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, PROPOSAL AT THIS POINT.
SO, UM, I WOULD RATHER SEE THIS COMEBACK EITHER MUCH LATER, UM, OR DENY THAT THIS.
UM, SO HERE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION, I'D LOVE TO GO TO THE BOAT ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY SHEA SECOND BY COX TO POSTPONE TILL MARCH EIGHT, SIX COUNT OF SIX ON THE DYESS, UM, SIX PLUS ONE THAT'S SEVEN DOES AGAINST THIS MOTION FOR, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
ARE YOU AGAINST, OKAY, SO THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO FIVE, UH, OH, HOLD ON.
I DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST IT OR FOR IT NEUTRAL.
I DIDN'T OFFER THAT CHOICE AND HOW I THOUGHT I HAD 13.
SO WE'LL, UH, HERE THIS CASE AGAIN ON OUR TAPE.
I WANT TO DO SOME HOUSE, UH, JUST SOME CLEANING, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, ON ITEMS D SIX AND B SEVEN, THE POSTPONEMENT IS STILL APRIL 12TH.
I MIGHT HAVE MISSPOKEN, UH, THAT IT WAS ON APRIL 22ND, THAT IT IS APRIL 12TH.
UH, AND ALSO, UH, WE DO NOT HAVE A SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION FOR, UM, B12.
SO, UH, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, IF WE CAN JUST GET, UH, JUST TAKE A VOTE AND SKIP ANY STAFF PRESENTATION Q AND A, AND JUST GO RIGHT TO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, COLUMN THE QUESTION I THINK WE CAN DISPOSE OF THAT ITEM.
SO, UH, THAT WILL BR THAT BRINGS
[B11. C14H-2021-0180 - Casa McMath; District 10]
US TO CASE NUMBER B 11, IF STAFF IS READY TO PRESENT ON THAT CASE.THIS IS ELIZABETH GROMMET WITH THE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, BEFORE I START, I, I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU, UH, PARTICULARLY THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER SHEA FOR TAKING THE TIME AT YOUR LAST MEETING TO, UH, REMEMBER STEVE SEDOWSKY THE LAST TIME I APPEARED BEFORE YOU WAS THE EVENING BEFORE HE PASSED AWAY.
UH, I CERTAINLY WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM THAT NEXT DAY AND HAVE EVERY DAY SENSE.
IT'S, IT'S A HUGE LOSS TO THE CITY.
SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THAT TIME TO REMEMBER HIM.
UM, LET ME REGAIN MY COMPOSURE.
UM, I'M HERE TO MAKE THE STAFF REPORT ON ITEM NUMBER B 11, CASE NUMBER C 14 H 2021 DASH 0 1 8 0 CASSA.
MCMATH AT 25 0 1 AND WOULD PLACE A BOTH STAFF AND THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, COMBINING DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, NEIGHBOR, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, HISTORIC LANDMARK, COMBINING DISTRICT SIGNING.
UH, THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE NINE MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
THE BUILDING IN QUESTION IS IN 1948 HOUSE SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS ARCHITECTURE, HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ITS LANDSCAPE CASTLE MCMATH WAS OWNED AND OCCUPIED BY HUGH AND FRANCIS MCMATH FROM THE TIME OF ITS CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THEIR DEATHS.
HE MCMATH WAS, UH, UH, EXCUSE ME.
UH, HUMIC MATH WAS A PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS WHO SPECIALIZED IN THE STUDY OF MEXICAN ARCHITECTURE AND WAS PROMINENT AND INTEGRATING MEXICAN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE AND TO THE LARGER SPHERE OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES.
MCMATH TAUGHT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOR 44 YEARS.
HE ALSO SERVED AS CHAIR OR DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR VARIOUS YEARS, BETWEEN 1946 AND 1956.
DURING THAT TIME AT MATH ENCOURAGED JOHN CHASE TO APPLY TO THE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM, TELLING HIM ABOUT THE PENDING SWEAT VERSUS PAINTER CASE THAT DESEGREGATED THE UNIVERSITY.
JOHN CHASE WENT ONTO MANY FIRST, UH, BUT HE WAS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENT TO ENROLL AT THE UNIVERSITY.
UH, DURING THE 1950S, MCMATH ARRANGED ANNUAL SUMMER TRIPS OF US STUDENTS
[03:50:01]
TO THE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGICAL OF MONTEREY MEXICO.HIS SPONSORSHIP HELPED THAT, UH, THAT INSTITUTE TO GAIN ARCHITECTURAL ACCREDITATION, UM, MCMASTER SERVED IN OTHER LEADERSHIP ROLES IN ARCHITECTURE, INCLUDING SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL TEXAS CHAPTER OF THE AIA.
HE WAS HONORED BY A FELLOWSHIP FROM THE WORLD SOCIETY OF ARTS OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR HIS WORK TO DEVELOP INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL RELATIONS.
PRINCESS MCMATH IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT.
SHE HELD MULTIPLE POSITIONS AT UT AND SUPPORTED WOMEN AT THE UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING SPONSORSHIP OF A UNIVERSITY CLUB THAT WELCOMED FEMALE ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE, CASSIE MCMATH ECLECTICISM, AS PART OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE, THE HOUSE RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY WITH ALTERATIONS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE MASS OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, IT'S A ONE-STORY IRREGULAR PLAN HOUSE WITH ELEMENTS OF MID-CENTURY MODERN DESIGN PLUS THE ECLECTIC MODIFICATIONS THAT MEANT BATH MADE, WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED THROUGH THE LENS OF CRITICAL REGIONALISM.
IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1948 WITH 1952 AND OTHER UNDATED ADDITIONS.
THE ORIGINAL DESIGN MAY BE THE WORK OF ARCHITECT, NED COLE AND ASSOCIATION WITH PLANNED CON UH, THE BUILDERS OF THE HOUSE COLE WAS A SOLE ARCHITECT ON THE BOARD OF PLAN CON AND THE COMPANY FABRIC CON UH, PLAN CON, UM, BUILT AND FINANCE, LOW COST HOUSES AND FABRIC ON MANUFACTURED WALL STORAGE UNITS THAT WERE MEANT TO MAKE INTERIOR FINISH OUT OF HOMES.
MORE EXPEDIENT COLT GRADUATED FROM UT IN 1939.
HE LIKELY STUDIED UNDER BANK BATH.
I LOOKED FOR SOME CLOSER CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO, A TWO TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP.
AND UNFORTUNATELY CAME UP SHORT.
UH, COAL WAS SIGNIFICANT FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT NATIONALLY WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE HOUSE DESIGN DURING THE POST-WORLD WAR II BUILDING, BOOM CHANGES TO THE HOUSE APPEAR TO REPRESENT MCMASTER EVOLVING, ARCHITECTURAL ENTRUST, AND EXPERIMENTATION, AND HIS OWN HOME.
BRINGING IN INFLUENCES FROM MEXICAN ARCHITECTURE AND GROUNDING THE HOUSE AND ITS SIDES MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSE INCLUDE THE EDITION, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, GEOMETRIC WOOD MEDALLIONS, VINTAGE LIGHTING FIXTURES, A BRIGHT COLOR PALETTE AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS.
CRITICAL REGIONALISM IS A TERM THAT'S MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH SAN ANTONIO ARCHITECTURE AND YOU'LL AFFORD.
IT WAS KNOWN FOR INTEGRATING REGIONAL ARCHITECTURAL TRADITIONS AND TO MODERN MORE MODERN FORMS AND ALSO USE OF TEXTUAL LOCAL MATERIALS.
WELL MCMATH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGN THE HOUSE IN TERMS OF ITS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, HIS MODIFICATIONS INTEGRATED INTO THE LANDSCAPE AND BORROWED FROM REGIONAL TRADITIONS, HIS STUDY OF MEXICAN ARCHITECTURE AND TRADITIONAL BUILDINGS, AND JUST A GENERAL SENSE OF CREATIVITY AND REINVENTION ARE EVIDENCE.
AND THE CHANGES, SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE FEATURES INCLUDE A WOODBRIDGE, UH, CURVILINEAR STONE, RETAINING WALLS AND CONCRETE AND TILE PATIOS.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT I HEAR FROM MISS AALIYAH BUZZER HELLO, COMMISSIONERS AND LEO JOE HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 25 0 1 INWOOD.
WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSIONS INITIATION OF THIS, OF THIS PROPERTY IS HISTORIC.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT, THE SITE IS IN TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN ENFIELD ROAD AND WEST 12TH STREET.
YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE CLOSER.
LOOK THAT THE 0.4 ACRE TRACT IS THE FIRST TRACT ON A CUL-DE-SAC OFF OF INWOOD PLACE.
AND SO INTO SF THREE, YOU CAN SEE SIMILAR TO THE ZONING NEARBY AS WELL AS A LITTLE BIT OF MF.
UM, THE BUILDING IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE BACK OF A PARCEL ABOUT 90 FEET FROM IT STREET FRONTAGE FROM THIS PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS AND THAT THE BUILDING IS ESSENTIALLY INVISIBLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW.
THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND DUE TO SOME DANGEROUS CONDITIONS, IT WOULD NEED TO REMAIN VACANT UNTIL LENGTHY INEXPENSIVE REPAIRS ARE COMPLETED.
I WILL DELVE INTO THIS IN MORE DETAIL, BUT THE SITUATION AS A RESULT OF THE MCMATH MAKING CONTINUOUS UNPERMITTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSE OVER THE YEARS THAT THEY LIVED THERE CREATING A STRUCTURE THAT HAS SLOWLY BECOME LESS AND LESS COMPLIANT WITH CITY CODES.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC ZONING, THE PROPERTY MUST BE AT LEAST 50 YEARS OLD AND REPRESENT A PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OF AT LEAST 50 YEARS AGO.
IT ALSO MUST RETAIN A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY, AND WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH STAFF THAT THE PERIOD ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS, UM, THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IS UNKNOWN BECAUSE AS THE STAFF REPORT SAYS, THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1948 AND 1952, AND OTHER UNDATED ADDITIONS.
[03:55:01]
ADDITIONS MAKE UP MUCH OF THE STAFF REPORTS, COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF PRESERVATION, AND THEY WERE MADE FROM THE DATE OF THE FAMILY PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE PROFESSOR'S DEATH IN 1992, BECAUSE THESE ADDITIONS WERE UNPERMITTED.IT IS UNCLEAR WHEN THEY WERE ADDED IN, WHICH WERE MADE DURING THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
WE ALSO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AS FAR AS THE BUILDING'S INTEGRITY.
THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF LISTS THE MODIFICATIONS AND ALTERATIONS MADE BY THE MATS, INCLUDING WIDER ROOF OVERHANGS, VERTICAL WOOD SIDING, PLANTERS, LIGHT FIXTURES, ET CETERA.
AND THE REPORT NOTES THAT THESE CHANGES DID NOT MATCH THE MID CENTURY MODERN DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.
AND INSTEAD REPRESENT THE PROFESSOR'S EVOLVING ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST AND EXPERIMENTATION ACCORDINGLY.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS BUILDING MEETS EITHER OF THESE TWO GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC ZONING.
IN ADDITION TO MEETING THOSE TWO CRITERIA, THE PROPERTY MUST ALSO MEET AT LEAST TWO OF THE FIVE REQUIRED CRITERIA SET UP BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
AS YOU HEARD FROM ELIZABETH STABBER, SUGGESTING THAT THESE ARE ARCHITECTURE, HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE BEGINNING WITH ARCHITECTURE.
THE STAFF REPORT ASSERTS THAT THERE ARE A RANGE OF CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THAT RANGE OF OPTIONS IS LISTED HERE ON THE SLIDE.
UM, THE REPORT GOES ON TO STATE THAT CAS CUSTOM MCMATH BRIDGES, THESE CATEGORIES WITH ITS ECLECTIC ISM, ECLECTIC ISM, AS PART OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OUTLINING THESE CRITERIA MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE IDEA IS TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS.
UM, BUT STAFF ARE RELYING ON SEVERAL BECAUSE NO ONE HAS REALLY CLEARLY MET.
THE HOUSE MAY HAVE HAD SOME ORIGINAL MID-CENTURY MODERN ELEMENTS, BUT IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED SIGNIFICANTLY SO THAT IT NO LONGER MEETS THAT CRITERIA.
AND THE OWNER HAS TRIED TO DISPLAY ARTISTIC VALUE IN THE ETHNIC AND FOLK ART, BUT THE APPLICATION IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF A PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND DOES NOT SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT.
IT DOES NOT REPRESENT A RARE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, NOR IS IT AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CITY AT BEST.
IT IS AN ARCHITECTURAL CURIOSITY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MANY OF THESE MODIFICATIONS THAT MAKE IT ONE OF A KIND WILL HAVE TO BE MODIFIED OR REMOVED IN ORDER TO MAKE IT HABITABLE, WHICH I'LL GET INTO MORE DETAIL ON SHORTLY.
THE STAFF REPORT ALSO MENTIONS THAT THE BUILDING COULD BE VIEWED AS BOTH MID CENTURY MODERN AND AS CRITICAL REGIONALISM AS ELIZABETH DESCRIBED.
AGAIN, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE REALLY MEETS EITHER CATEGORY.
UM, IT PURPORTS TO INCLUDE INVOLVING ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES AND EXPERIMENTATION.
UM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF CRITICAL REGIONALISM IS THAT IT WOULD REFLECT THE REGION WHERE IT'S LOCATED.
SO IF THIS HOME WERE IN MEXICO AND THE MODIFICATIONS WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF MEXICAN CULTURE, THEN THAT WOULD BE HOW THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED.
THE REPORT MAKES EXTENSIVE REFERENCES TO THE INTERIOR, WHICH CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A HISTORIC ZONING CASE, AND ALSO REFERENCES ANOTHER ARCHITECT, NED COLE, WHICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, PROFESSOR MCNAUGHT DID NOT DESIGN THE HOUSE.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HIS MODIFICATIONS WERE ALMOST ENTIRELY UNPERMITTED HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE LARGE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT IS THE RESULT OF THE UNPERMITTED ADDITIONS.
WE FOUND NO PERMITS BETWEEN 1949 AND 2015, THE CITY'S GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES DISCUSSED DISTINCTIVE STYLISTIC FEATURES OR EXAMPLES OF SKILLED, SKILLED CRAFTSMANSHIP, WHICH CHARACTERIZE A PROPERTY SHALL BE TREATED WITH SENSITIVITY.
BUT THESE NON-PERMITTED FEATURES ARE ECCENTRIC, BUT NOT SKILLED CRAFTSMANSHIP DESIGNATING A BUILDING BASED ENTIRELY ON IMPROVEMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND WERE NOT PERMITTED SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT WITH RESPECT TO OUR BUILDING CODE AND ENFORCEMENT, AND ALSO BEGS FOR AN INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED AND POTENTIALLY UNWORKABLE PROCESS FOR BRINGING SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND STRUCTURES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CODE DUE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COMMITTEE, HAVING AUTHORITY OVER BUILDING PERMITS FOR DESIGNATED STRUCTURES.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FOUNDATION, AS A COMBINATION OF SEVERAL UNPERMITTED ADDITIONS, UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL WRAP UP QUICKLY AND I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT, UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES WHERE, UM, THE WORK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE TO BRING THE BIGGEST STRUCTURE UP TO CODE WOULD POTENTIALLY COMPROMISE THOSE, THOSE ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE WIDE ROOF OVERHANGS AND LOW GABLED ROOF ARE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT.
UM, THERE, THERE STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND, IT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED OR REDUCED.
SO THEREFORE THE, THE PARTICULAR CRITERIA WOULD BE, HAVE TO BE MODIFIED.
SO WE CAN, UM, KIND OF DELVE INTO THESE CHALLENGES.
SO HOPEFULLY THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS.
YOU WILL NOW HEAR FROM CHARLIE DORSON.
IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDES PLEASE.
SO I THINK LEO HAD JUST FINISHED WITH THIS ONE, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO FOR AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE, UH, ADDITIONS, THE STAFF REPORT RECOGNIZES AND PRAISES THE HOUSE FOR ITS LOW GABLED ROOF, WIDER ROOF OVERHANGS AND TURNED WOOD COLUMNS
[04:00:02]
AND PER THE ABOVE PHOTO PHOTO, THIS LOW GABLED ROOF AND EXPANSIVE OVERHANGS WERE THE RESULT OF UNPERMITTED AND IMPROPERLY INSTALLED ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING.SO AS TO THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS, IT, THAT PROFESSOR MCMATH WAS A WELL-LIKED PROFESSOR.
AND AT VARIOUS TIMES, DEAN AT THE UNIVERSE UNIVERSITIES ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL, UM, BUT HE WAS RECOGNIZED FOR HIS TEACHING AND INTERNATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS, UNRELATED TO HIS CREATION OF A NOTED STYLE OR THE VISION OF THE STYLE AT HIS HOME.
FINALLY, THE STAFF REPORT POINTS TO SIGNIFICANT DESIGN LANDSCAPES, STONE WALL STONE STAIRS OF THE WOODEN BRIDGE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO, UH, AND NATURAL DRAINAGE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THESE FEATURES BEING INVISIBLE FROM THE STREET, OUR ENGINEER'S REPORT CONCLUDES THAT THE BRIDGE SHOULD BE REPLACED IN ORDER TO BEAR PROPER LOADS.
AND THE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE DOES NOT, DOES NOT FUNCTION IN ORDER FOR THE SITE TO MEET CODE.
THESE ELEMENTS WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED OR REPLACED.
SO OUR ENGINEER'S REPORT IS IN THE BACKUP, BUT HIS GENERAL CONCLUSION WAS THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE LEFT TO BE WORTH KEEPING IF IT WOULD NEED TO BE REPAIRED.
FINALLY, WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A CONSULTANT WHO GAVE A BID FOR THE COST OF REPAIRS TONIGHT HERE.
UH, AND THE ESTIMATE TO DO THESE REPAIRS WOULD BE ABOUT $1.5 MILLION.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HOUSE HABITABLE AND CODE COMPLIANT, IT WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, MUCH AS MUCH OR MORE OF THE LAND VALUE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE BY POINTING OUT THAT THIS LANDMARKING IS OPPOSED BY THE OWNER.
AND WE HOPE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT LANDMARKING A PROPERTY WITH OWNER OPPOSITION SHOULD ONLY DO IN THE ONLY BE DONE IN THE MOST IMPORTANT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PUBLIC BENEFIT IS HIGH AND UNDENIABLE HERE'S TO GO BACK ONE SLIDE.
THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION HERE.
THERE'S NOT A NEED, THERE'S NOT THE NEEDED EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE CRITERIA PROVIDED.
AND THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS LOW CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS NOT A PROPERTY THAT, UH, THE PUBLIC WILL REALLY GET TO SEE.
SO WHILE THIS STRUCTURE IS UNIQUE IN CERTAIN ASPECTS, MANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT PROFESSOR MCMATH MADE TO IT, AREN'T SAFE AND CAN'T BE PRESERVED AS WELL.
SO WITH THIS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE HISTORIC ZONING RECLASS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM LAURA BERKHART OKAY.
LAURA IS THE LAND OWNER AND SHE'S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.
WHAT, UH, WHAT, WHAT AREA? OR IT'S THE EXPERTISE IN A CERTAIN AREA OR LANDOWNER? WHAT'S HIS, HE'S A BUILDER.
UH, WERE YOU THE ONE THAT DID THE COST ESTIMATE? OKAY.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THE PLUCKING HERE.
UH, SO FOLKS, UH, WHO WANTS TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOST EMOTION SAY COMMISSIONERS ARE SAYING ABOUT COMMISSIONER VICE-CHAIR HUMBLE.
LET'S GO AND VOTE 9, 10, 11, A FEW PEOPLE UP THE DICE.
LET'S GO AND MOVE ON TO, UM, QUESTIONS.
HE WANTS TO BE THE FIRST, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
UH, I THINK THIS IS FOR, UH, MS. BRUMMETT.
UM, SO, UH, I WONDER IF, UH, YOU HAD HEARD BEFORE THE, THESE CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, THE COST OF BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO CODE COMPLIANCE, UH, AND, OR I THINK I HEARD THIS, UH, THAT KOKOMO, THAT MEETING COMPLIANCE WITH CODE WOULD REMOVE SOME OR SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE, UH, PROPERTY THAT ARE CONSIDERED ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.
I WAS WONDERING, YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE GENERAL DISCUSSION THAT, UH, UM, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE MADE.
COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT PLACE? UH, THE COST TESTAMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE, UH, THE TIME IT CAME BEFORE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
UM, BUT THERE WAS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE
[04:05:01]
PROPERTY.UM, I, ALONG WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS ALSO VISITED THE SITE.
UM, IT'S A DIFFICULT, UH, HOUSE TO UNDERSTAND JUST BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHS.
UM, SO WE, WE MADE AN EFFORT TO GO AND TOUR IT.
AND, UM, THE OWNER WAS VERY GRACIOUS TO OFFER THAT, UM, IT'S SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED, LIKE THE ROOF OVERHANGS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THAT THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS IF THIS WERE LANDMARKED.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE WOULD BE A DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY TO, UM, TO TRY TO, TO KEEP THE ARCHITECTURAL VISION INTACT WHILE PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT IS SAFE AND CODE COMPLIANT.
UH, THERE'S ALSO SOME NON-COMPLIANT, UH, LIGHTING WHERE LIGHTING WAS SIMPLY RUN.
UM, LIGHTS WERE PUT UP, THERE ARE NOT EXTERIOR GRADE FIXTURES.
AGAIN, I THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO TRY TO, TO KEEP THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY INTACT WHILE BRING IT, BRINGING IT UP TO CODE.
AND COULD YOU, UH, ALSO RESPOND TO THE, THIS IDEA THAT, UM, BECAUSE, UH, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, I KNOW POSSUM TROT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF LIKE NOBODY HAS DONE IT SPRAYED SORT OF STUCK BACK IN THE WOODS THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULDN'T SEE IT AS THAT.
SO IT SORT OF LOSES THAT ABILITY, UM, TO, TO BRING SOMETHING HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT TO THE COMMUNITY.
IS THAT A CRITERIA FOR YOU OR FOR, UM, IN OUR, IN OUR CODE? IS THAT RELEVANT OR DO YOU HAVE ANY RATHER RESPONSES TO THAT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO, TO YOU AND TO COUNCIL AS, AS PUBLIC SERVANTS AND WHAT IS GAINED THROUGH THIS LANDMARKING PROCESS? UM, I WILL SAY WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT IS A DEMOLITION REQUEST AND REALLY THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS TO RESPOND TO POTENTIAL DEMOLITIONS AND THE IRRETRIEVABLE LOSS OF A POTENTIAL HISTORIC PROPERTY IS TO INITIATE AND RECOMMEND HISTORIC SETTING.
UH, SO THAT'S HOW, HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
UH, THERE'S ANOTHER CRITERION AND, AND THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION SECTION OF CODE THAT NECESSARILY INDICATES IT NEEDS TO BE VISIBLE.
UH, NEXT COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS COMES FROM A SHELTER.
WHAT IS, UM, UH, I I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.
WHAT WAS THE TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM, DO WE HAVE A HISTORY ON THE TRANSACTION? LIKE, DID IT COME FROM MCMASTER TO THE CURRENT OWNER OR, YOU KNOW, BUT ANYWAY, BUT THAT HISTORY, YES.
CURRENT OWNER BOUGHT THE HOME FROM A FAMILY MEMBER.
I, IT WAS THE DAUGHTER MOST RECENTLY.
SO THEN THE MCMATH FAMILY HAD FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY AND PRESERVE THE PROPERTY IF THEY FELT IT HAD VALUE FOR THEIR FAMILY.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY RESPECTED, UM, PERSON OF OUR COMMUNITY.
AND SO I DON'T WANT TO INSINUATE ANY DISRESPECT, BUT ARE WE, I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE HISTORIC COMMISSION THEN, ARE WE SOMEHOW MISSING, UM, SOME KIND OF SPECIFIC DESIGNATION THAT, THAT PROFESSOR MCMATH INTENDED FOR THE PROPERTY OR ARE HIS GIFTS, UM, MAYBE ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOME AND NOT PARTICULAR TO THE HOME? UM, AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY THE, THE RESPONSE THAT WE HAVE TO A POTENTIAL DEMOLITION REQUEST IS TO LOOK AT WHETHER IT MEETS THE DESIGNATION CRITERIA.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF, OF THAT PERSON? UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF OTHER, LIKE OTHER MEMORIALS OR, UH, ATTRIBUTES TO, UH, THAT MASS, UH, THAT WAS NOT PART OF MY RESEARCH.
UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR MOST SCHALLER WOULD JUST THINK I'M SHOWING INSTALLER.
THERE'S A, UM, ARCHIVE ASSOCIATED WITH, UH, MR. MCMATH WORK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AND THAT IS A COMMEMORATION OF THE LAST YEAR OF HIS WORK.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER CZAR OR YIELD YOUR TIME? OKAY.
UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT GOING TO COUNT THAT ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE STAFF, UM, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE HISTORICAL ZONING DESIGNATION? THE PRIMARY BENEFIT IS, UH, THE VEIL, THE AVAILABILITY OF A PARTIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION, UM, AND EXCHANGE FOR MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND
[04:10:01]
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDMARK REQUIREMENTS.AND HOW IS THAT DETERMINED? YOU SAID PARTIAL IT'S, IT'S A PERCENTAGE BASIS.
UM, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE AMOUNT THAT THAT WOULD BE.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SOMEWHAT OLD INFORMATION FROM, UH, T CAT AND THAT IT WAS LISTED AS A HOMESTEAD IN THEIR MOST RECENT, UH, RECORDS THAT WE BASED THAT OFF OF.
SO, UM, THE EXEMPTION IS, UH, KEPT FOR HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES AT A TOTAL OF $8,500 OF WHICH 2,500, THE CITY OF AUSTIN TAXES.
AND THEN QUESTION FOUR, THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO THE DEED RECORDS SHOW THAT IT WAS PURCHASED IN MAY OF 2021.
UM, COULD YOU SHARE THE PURCHASERS, I GUESS, ORIGINAL INTENT, UM, IS, IS THE INTENT TO DEMO THE PROPERTY AND THEN BUILD, I GUESS, A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS TO BUILD ONE OR POTENTIALLY TWO, IDEALLY NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE LOT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE MOTION, UH, COMMITTED HERE? HEMPEL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE HISTORIC ZONING, RIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY? ALRIGHT.
YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION BY SIR? YEAH.
UM, I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF, BUT I THINK THAT THE REASONING FOR THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION IS, IS NOT THAT TIGHT OF A CASE.
AND I, I WONDER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATING THESE SITES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE, THE HISTORICAL SURVEY THAT WAS DONE AND NOT SEEING A CLEAR COMMUNITY BENEFIT FOR, UM, RECOGNIZING, UM, THIS SIGNIFICANT CITIZENS, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS.
I THINK THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO DO THAT.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THE COST TO THE CURRENT OWNER OF GETTING IT BACK UP TO CODE.
UH, SPEAKING AGAINST AN EMOTION, UH, ANYBODY WANTS TO COME FAVOR OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE? YEAH, LET'S SEE.
THERE'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND SET THE MOTIONS TO NY THE REQUEST FOR HISTORIC ZONING, UH, DESIGNATION.
UH, MY VICE CHAIR, HANDFUL OF SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR GOING, AH, SURE.
UH, SO THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST EMOTION, NOT IN FAVOR, SHOW ME YOUR RED ITEMS ONE.
AND THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING ONE, TWO.
UH, NOW, UM, SO WE HAVE, UH, WE'VE MOVED
[B12. SPC-2021-0129C - Rainey Tower; District 9]
TO ITEM D 12, AND I WOULD OFFER THAT WE'VE MOVED TO, JUST TO VOTE ON THIS ONE.UM, AND, UH, IT WAS, WE PULLED IT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPEAKER THERE, NOT HERE.
SO IF I'M DON'T HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM.
WE HAD SOMEBODY IN OPPOSITION, BUT THEY THEY'RE NOT HERE.
SO ANY OPPOSITION TO GO AHEAD AND VOTING, UH, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, ANY SECONDS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, WE'VE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UH THAT'S UM, I'M NOT, LET'S GO AND VOTE.
THERE'S SOME FAVOR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
AND, UH, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE DYES TOO.
IT WAS AGAINST, AND THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING ONE, SO 11 ONE, OKAY.
CONGRESS, UH, MR. GANNON'S PLEADED OUT THE DYES, SO THAT'S 11, 11 TO ONE THAT MOTION PASSES.
[04:15:01]
UM, SO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, ARE WE THROUGH WITH OUR DISCUSSION CASES, MS. RIVERA? WE ARE DONE WITH OUR DISCUSSION CASES.AND WE ARE, UM, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE AGENDA HERE, BRIEFING, UH, WE WERE GOING TO POSTPONE THE BRIEFING.
UM, BUT DUE TO THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY DIFFICULTIES STAFF HAD, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL HAVE TO BUNDLE ALL OF THIS WITH OUR, UH, LED THE PRESENTATION.
WE'LL TAKE Q AND A AND ACTIONS ON THE ITEM WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US.
SO THAT'LL BE A BUSY EVENING, UH, AND THEN ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION,
[D. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION]
UH, UNDER .UM, THIS IS, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE MEMORANDUM FROM, UH, STAFF, I GUESS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY SOMETIME BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 31ST, WE CAN, UM, WE CAN FORM A WORKING GROUP TO MAKE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, YOU ALL CAN ALSO DO THIS INDIVIDUALLY AS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I'LL ALSO REMIND, YOU KNOW, UH, WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GROUP THAT LOOKS AT THE, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER, ARE WE IN THE CYCLE? UM, COMMISSIONER PRACTICES DO, ARE WE IN THE CYCLE WHERE WE ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY WENT ON A TWO YEAR CYCLE OR COMMISSIONER FLORES ON THE COMMISSION, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GROUP IS THIS YEAR WE ACTUALLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR, UM, YOU KNOW, ON THE BUDGET, THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC PLAN AND YOU GUYS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE ALIGNED TO THAT PLAN.
IS THAT, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR, EVERY TWO YEARS.
SO THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO, AND ALSO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, IT CAN BE OTHER BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF, WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF WORK IN GROUPS, BUT, UM, THE, THE ITEM THAT I'M SPONSORING AND, AND A VICE CHAIR IS TO ACTUALLY GET A WORKING GROUP TOGETHER THAT MIGHT PULL TOGETHER BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS BETWEEN NOW AND DECEMBER.
UM, SORRY, WHERE AM I? UH, MARCH 31ST.
SO, UM, I JUST, UM, I'M GOING TO LOOK AROUND THE ROOM, UH, CAUSE WE NEED SOME VOLUNTEERS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, STEER IT, UM, CHAIR AND PARTICIPATE.
DO I HAVE, IT'S KINDA LOOKING AT THE VIRTUAL SCREEN THAT IS, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, UH, IN THIS WORKING GROUP? ANY QUESTIONS LET'S GO WITH THAT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE, DO YOU HAVE, UH, YOU, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE OR DO YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE.
I CANNOT LEAVE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE VIETNAMESE GROUP, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE BY CALLING.
UH, I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE THREE, UM, TO KINDA BE OF SOME FUNCTION.
SO I HAVE ANY OTHER VOLUNTEERS, DO WE NEED TO GO ON THE VOTE ON THIS? UH, NO.
UM, I AM NOT VOLUNTEERING FOR THE WORKING GROUP, BUT, UH, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD OFFER THAT WE COULD ENTERTAIN JUST SUPPORTING, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT THE ZAP PASSED.
UH, I DID READ THROUGH THAT AND, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DOCUMENT.
SO IF WE DON'T HAVE THE INTEREST ON THIS COMMISSION TO DIVE DEEP INTO THIS, THAT THAT IS AN OPTION, WE COULD JUST SUPPORT THEIR RESOLUTION.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY JUST AN EXAMPLE FROM A PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR.
SO THAT WASN'T EVEN THIS, NEVERMIND.
OH, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU COULD DEFINITELY USE IT AS INSPIRATION.
UM, SO I'M, I'M NOT SEEING, UH, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN VERY BUSY.
UH, WHAT IF WE DON'T HAVE AT LEAST THREE, UM, PROBABLY GOING TO, UM, VICE CHAIR.
I'M NOT DOING A GREAT JOB OF SELLING THIS OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO, UH, ON THIS WORKING GROUP? UM, NO, I, I THINK IT WAS, THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO SHARE THE LOAD BECAUSE YOU TOOK CARE OF THIS MEMO SOLO LAST YEAR, RIGHT? SHARE SHOT.
UH, WHEN I DONE IS THE ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH I HAVE TO DO EVERY YEAR AND YOU NEED TO GET THAT DONE, BUT NO, THIS IS THAT MORE ACKNOWLEDGES THE GREAT WORK THAT WE ALL DO.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT DONE.
SO, UM, IT WOULD BE SO TRY SELLING THAT AGAIN.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU SELLING? CAUSE
[04:20:01]
NOBODY'S BUYING.I'M GOING TO GET ONE MORE CHANCE.
SO LET'S, THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE HANGING OUT WITH FRIENDS AND YOU'RE HAVE SOMETHING TO SUGGEST, AND YOU'RE SAYING, GOSH, DARN I WITH THIS, WHICH THE CITY WOULD FIX THIS SIDEWALK, OR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING YOU JUST WANT TO IMPROVE AND ADD TO THE BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, NOW IT'S YOUR CHANCE AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO ADD SOME GRAVITY AND WEIGHT TO THAT ARGUMENT INSTEAD OF JUST TALKING TO YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT IT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FOR PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE THOSE IDEAS AND MAYBE WANT TO PULL THIS TOGETHER IN A FORMAL DOCUMENT THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT HERE BLESSED BY THE REST OF US AND SENT ON TO, UH, COUNCIL.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FIX THE CRACKS IN THE ROAD IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE PLEASE.
AND YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT COUNCIL'S GOING TO ACTUALLY LIKE TAKE OUR SUGGESTION.
NO, BUT UH, NO COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
DO YOU HAVE A, I'M HAPPY TO, TO PARTICIPATE AND I'M WORKING GROUP.
I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CHAIR.
SO HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
WE GOT COMMISSIONERS ARE COMMITTED AND THOMPSON AND MYSELF WILL BE ON THIS WORKING GROUP.
AND, UM, I THINK, UH, THAT WILL GIVE US A LEAST THREE.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN VERY GOOD COMPANY IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO JOIN ON YES.
I HAVE TO DO THIS FROM MY BOARD TOO.
SO YOU GUYS HAVE ROOM I'LL JUMP IN WITH Y'ALL.
SO WE'LL HAVE AN EX-OFFICIO JOINING US, UH, FROM THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, SO, OKAY.
WELL, WE WILL, WE WILL HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'LL HAVE TO BRING THOSE BACK BEFORE ON WHAT DATE THAT WHAT'S OUR MEETING IN MARCH, IF IT'S DUE AT THE END OF MARCH.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON HANDOVERS.
SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR MARCH 22ND, UM, DATE.
SO WE'LL BRING A SET OF, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, YOU COULD JUST MAKE A MOTION ON THAT, ON THE APPOINTMENTS.
SO THE MOTION IS TO FORM A WORKING GROUP READ FROM HERE, UM, OR GROUP TASKS WITH PROVIDING AND FISCAL YEAR 20 22, 20 23 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, CONSIDERATION TO BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
AND SO ON THE WORK GROUP, UM, I WILL SERVE AS THE LEADER.
UH, I DON'T THINK THE OTHERS WANTED TO LEAD.
WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER CZAR AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND, UH, OUR CHAIR FROM THE BOARDS OF THE TESTAMENTS, UH, COMMISSION, UH, CHAIR KOMEN.
UH, SO THAT'S THE SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE FORMATION OF THIS WORKING GROUP 10 AND TWO.
AND, UH, LOOKING AT THE TIME HERE, 10 36.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, LET'S SEE, WE'RE MOVING
[E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
TO E FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.UH, LET'S DO A QUICK UPDATES ON BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND WORK GROUPS, UH, CODES AND ORDINANCES, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, WHAT DID WE COMMISSIONER HEMPEL WHAT VICE CHAIR HEMPEL BUT, UM, I KNOW WE HAD A MEETING, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I MISSED IT, BUT IT WAS ABOUT THE EIGHT WE'VE HAD A MEETING, UM, UH, RECENTLY AND WE HAD OUR ZAP COMMISSIONERS GOT A SEWER PROBLEM.
THEY HAD FACED ON THEIR CONDITION IN RELATION TO SORT OF THE WAY NURSERY AND FLAT SERVICES HAS CATEGORIZED.
SO WE WERE WORKING WITH STAFF TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAYBE WORK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO, UM, OUR DIFFERENT USES AND DO EXPECT LIKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR INITIATING A CODE CHANGE GOVERNMENT.
AND THEN WE ESSENTIALLY JUST GOT AN UPDATE ON WHERE THE OTHER COACHES THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE UPDATES, ANYTHING.
UH, ANYTHING FROM THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSIONER PRACTICES? IS THERE ANY ACTIVITY WITH THAT GROUP? UM, YEAH, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING COMING UP AND THERE'S A WORKING GROUP TO IMPLEMENT THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
UM, THAT WORKING GROUP IS RUNNING INTO SOME ISSUES, SO I'LL KEEP YOU ON.
A SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, SO WE, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE REPORT LAST TIME WE HAD THE, UM, THE PUB THING, BUT WE REVIEWED THE PROJECT WE'VE LOOKED AT TODAY, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STATESMAN TRACT AND YOU GOT OUR RECORD.
[04:25:01]
YES.UH, AND SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
ANY, ANYTHING TO REPORT THEY'RE ACTUALLY MEETING TONIGHT OR MET TONIGHT? UM, OH, OKAY.
AND WE HAVE OUR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION WORK GROUP, UH, MR. THOMPSON, AH, NOTHING, NOTHING NEW IN THERE.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I'LL TRY AND TYPE UP.
AND THE VMU CODE AMENDMENTS WORKING GROUP.
UM, WE MET BRIEFLY AND WE GOT AN IDEA OF THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF IS WITH THIS ITEM.
WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND I WANT TO SAY IT IS BEEN GOOD THAT WE HAVE TO DO MORE WEEDS BECAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES OUR GROUP SOME TIME TO REALLY DELVE INTO SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
I WILL MAKE DUE REQUESTS TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE.
ONE IS IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER, PLEASE SHARE THEM WITH ANDREW.
SO HE MIGHT SHARE THEM WITH US.
AND SECONDLY, I WOULD ALSO SAY IF THEY'RE PREDICTABLY THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER OR STAFF EITHER ANSWER OR WALK US THROUGH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I CAN TRY TO SEE HOW MUCH WE CAN STREAMLINE THE PRESENTATION.
NEXT TIME YOU KEEP IT TO THEM.
WE ANSWER ALL THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS.
UH, BEFORE YOU, UH, ADJOURN, IF I COULD JUST, UH, ANNOUNCE REAL QUICK.
UM, SO, UM, WITH YOUR GREAT WORK THAT YOU ALL DID TODAY, UM, YOU CAN SCRATCH THAT WEDNESDAY 30TH SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OFF YOUR CALENDARS.
UM, WE DID QUITE THE WORKLOAD, SO, UH, THAT'S NO LONGER NEEDED.
UM, AND THEN, UM, UH, JUST FYI FOR THE PUBLIC, UH, BEGINNING WITH OUR MEETINGS AND MARCH, UH, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO REGISTER UP TO NOON THE DAY OF THE MEETING, UH, TO PARTICIPATE VIA TELECONFERENCE.
UM, AND THEN, UM, ONE FINAL, UH, ACT, IF I CAN, UH, ASK YOU, UM, IF YOU CAN, UH, UH, VOTE ON A SUBSTITUTE SECRETARY TO SIGN POTS THIS EVENING, UH, MR. THOMPSON IS HERE IN PERSON.
WE NEED A SUBSTITUTE SECRETARY.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IS, ARE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
MICHELLE ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE, UH, TO HAVE A SUBSTITUTE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, SO I THINK NOW IT'S SAFE TO SAY, UH, WE CAN ADJOURN THIS IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, UH, WE'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 10 41.