[Call to Order ]
[00:00:03]
SO WANTING A PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER IT IS 6:01 PM ON TUESDAY, MARCH 1ST AND FIRST, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE ROLE, UH, COMMISSIONER KOSTA.
COMMISSIONER DANGLER, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HERE.
COMMISSIONER SMITH, COMMISSIONER STERN HERE, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODY IS NOT HERE.
UM, I DO WANT TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER STERN AND IF HE WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE INTRODUCE YOURSELF BRIEFLY, UH, SURE.
AND, UM, IT'S AN HONOR TO BE UP HERE WITH YOU.
UM, MY NAME IS LANI STERN AND I WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TEAM, UH, FOR THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP.
I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN SINCE 1999 AND I'VE WORKED IN A VARIETY OF ROLES, UM, WORKING IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, UH, THINK TANKS, TRANSPORTATION, UH, AND I'M ALSO A REALTOR.
SO I HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THE LAND USE CODE AS WELL.
SO I'M EXCITED TO GET STARTED AND, UM, AND I'M HOPEFUL TO BE ABLE TO BRING A TRANSIT ORIENTED FOCUS TO, UM, MY SERVICE HERE ON THE COMMISSION.
[Public Communication]
SO, UM, LET'S SEE.DO I DO CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS FIRST OR IS THAT CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW RIVERA? YES, WE'LL TAKE A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
JENNIFER MESH TALLER AND I'M A RESIDENT IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN.
UM, AND I HAVE THE HONOR OF SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING ON OUR SISTER COMMISSION.
UM, BUT I'M HERE AS REGULAR CITIZEN.
I WANTED TO BRING FORWARD TONIGHT BEFORE THE ZAP, UM, AND CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A CASE THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS HEARD BY ZAP IN JULY OF 2019, THE ZONING CASE WAS C 14 2 0 1 8 0 1 2 4.
THIS CASE INVOLVED A PROPERTY IN OUR DISTRICT AND SHERRY AND OUR CITY STAFF CORRECTLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE CASE BE ZONED IN SF ONE WITH RESTRICTIONS, THE OWNER APPLICANT REQUESTED AN SF SIX.
THE CASE ULTIMATELY WENT BEFORE OUR CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2019.
IT WAS A COMPLICATED CASE INVOLVING A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE SF SIX ZONING CHANGE.
BUT AS A CONDITION OF THAT ZONING CHANGE, THEY ENTERED INTO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE OWNER APPLICANT WERE BOTH PARTIES TO THAT AGREEMENT.
THE SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL OF THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS CONTAINED IN AN NTA CITED IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DATED MARCH 13TH, 2019, THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND AT THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNCIL AND THE OWNER APPLICANT SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT.
AND IT WAS FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2019.
PLEASE NOTE A PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH OF THAT RC PARAGRAPH 10 STATED THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COULD ONLY BE MODIFIED AMENDED OR TERMINATED BY A JOINT ACTION OF THE MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE OWNER PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, ON AUGUST 17TH, 2020, ALMOST A YEAR LATER, AT LEAST NINE MONTHS LATER, A CITY STAFF MEMBER AND THE OWNER APPLICANT FILE, THEY CHANGE TO THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEY FILED THE COVENANT TO USE A DIFFERENT NTA THAT WAS DATED JULY 22ND, 2019 IN SO DOING, THEY SUBMITTED A CHANGE EFFECTIVELY CHANGING THAT DEVELOPMENT FROM 45 UNITS TO 134 UNITS.
THAT IS A MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT IS ILLEGAL ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND IT IS IN BREACH OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND ON BEHALF OF OUR PUBLIC.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT ZAP ASKED TO POST THIS AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM ON OUR NEXT, ON YOUR NEXT MEETING SO THAT THE COMMISSION DOES THAT COMMISSION MAY CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND HOLD A
[00:05:01]
PROPER PUBLIC HEARING FURTHER.I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT ZAP MAKE A MOTION TO STAFF THAT NO FURTHER ACTION BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE ON THIS SITE UNTIL THE MATTER IS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
[Consent Agenda ]
OKAY.I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO A APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
UM, I, WELL, FIRST I WANT TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY, UH, RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE MINUTES.
NO, AND OH, ALSO, UH, COMMISSIONER KOSTA IS HERE WITH US.
LET THAT REFLECT ON THE FUTURE MINUTES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE MOST UPDATE UPDATED REVISED MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF, UH, THAT WAS MADE.
I SAW THE VERSION THAT WAS RECENTLY EMAILED.
IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE REFERRING TO? THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS RECENTLY EMAILED ABOUT MAYBE 30 MINUTES AGO.
WE WILL NOW REVIEW THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES THE MINUTES.
B ONE IS UP FOR IT'S C 14 20 21 0 0 0 3, SUN AUTO DISTRICT SIX THAT'S.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING POSTPONE MENTAL, APRIL 19TH, B TWO, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 41.
A STAFF IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 5TH.
UH, B3 WILL BE PULLING FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE, UH, C 8 1 4 2009 0 1 3 9 0.03 BULL CREEK PUD AMENDMENT STAFF IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 19, B FIVE A IS UP FOR DISCUSSION C 14 20 21 0 1 6 1 B6, UM, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 9 3 DASH 7,400 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SEEKING US POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 29TH, B SEVEN, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 0 4 AT 1501.
DAMON ROAD IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B EIGHT C 14 H 20 21 0 1 6 4.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 29TH, B NINE.
UH, CONSENT, UH, IS SITE CLAN SP 20 20 0 4 0 0 D HEB AUSTIN, B 10, UH, C EIGHT J 20 19 0 1 46 BAXTON ROAD.
PRELIMINARY PLAN IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS EXHIBIT AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND B 11 AND PRELIMINARY PLANS, C EIGHT J 20 21 0 1 6 3 EASTERN PARK FOUR B E'S PRELIMINARY PLAN IS ALSO APPROVED, UH, REQUESTING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C.
SO TO REVIEW, WE HAVE B ONE SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 19TH, B TWO SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 5TH, B3 WE'LL DISCUSS BEFORE SEEKING POSTPONEMENT TILL APRIL 19TH, B FIVE.
WE'LL DISCUSS V6 SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 29TH, B SEVEN WILL DISCUSS AND BE EIGHT SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH 29TH BENIGN CONSENT AND BE 10 AND 11 CONSENT WITH APPROVED CONDITIONS CHAIR.
YES, IT JUST, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON A B NINE.
THOSE ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES.
IS THAT CONSIDERED STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS, IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS AS LISTED IN THE BACKUP FOR THIS, CORRECT.
I KNOW WE HAVE TO REFERENCE EXHIBITS IN THE OTHER CASES, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO BROOD APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM WITH ITEM NINE SPECIAL NOTATION AT THE ADAMS IN THE BACKUP OR THIRD AS PART OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER SMITH MOVES TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSE ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS.
DINKLER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, MR. STERN.
[B3. C14-2021-0159 - Vaught Ranch Rezoning; District 10 ]
YOU VERY MUCH.SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST, UH, B3 AND THAT IS, LET'S SEE, WHO IS OUR STAFF MEMBER THERE? OH, YES.
COMMISSIONERS HEATHER CHAFFIN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, I'M BRINGING TO YOU THE THOUGHT RANCH REZONING.
THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE AND GOSH, PETER AS BEING TROUBLED.
OF COURSE, UH, IT C 14 20 21 0 1 5 9.
[00:10:01]
UM, REQUEST IS TO GO FROM INTERIM RR TO G O M U UH, 65 29 VOLT RANCH ROAD AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.UM, THE COMMISSION ENCOURAGED TO THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES TO MEET AND DISCUSS THE CASE.
AND THEY'D HAVE, UM, THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING L O M U C O WITH A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES THAT WERE FORWARDED TO YOU.
THAT INCLUDES MEDICAL OFFICES, EXCEEDING 5,000 SQUARE FEET CLUB OR LODGE COLLEGE, AND A UNIVERSITY FACILITIES, DAYCARE, A COMMERCIAL GENERAL OR LIMITED HOSPITAL SERVICES, LIMITED PRIVATE SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITY.
SO THERE HAS BEEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORS REGARDING THAT WE'VE COVERED.
UH, MOST OF THE CASE BEFORE THAT, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS IN A WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TYPO OF FM 9 69, BECAUSE I'M SO USED TO TYPING THAT NUMBER.
UM, I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE SITE PLAN COMMENTS TOWARD THE BACK OF THE REPORT, IDENTIFY THIS AS A MEDIUM INTENSITY SECTION OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT IT IS A LOW INTENSITY, UH, SECTION OF THE HILL COUNTRY REDWAY, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP.
MR. HART, IS HE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
IS HE THE OWNER? MR. HART? DO YOU STILL WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY.
SO THAT THE OWN, THE JIMMY CLOSE LOOK HERE IS CLOSE.
WE CLOSE IT LAST, CLOSE THE LAST TIME.
OH, WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM, YEAH, HE CAN STILL SPEAK.
MY PURPOSE IN COMING IS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE, UH, RESOLVED ALL SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH MULTIPLE MEETINGS.
IF IT'S HELPFUL, YOU'RE HOPING TO CLOSE EVERYTHING UP FOR A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU MR. HART FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WORK SO DILIGENTLY WITH THE NEIGHBOR.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS SINCE I'M THE ONE THAT PULLED IT? I HAD A QUESTION BECAUSE IN, UM, FIGURING OUT THAT IT WAS NOT THAT THE BACKUP HAD SAID IT WAS MODERATE INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT AND HAVING SAT NEXT TO THE AUTHOR OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROAD RATE ORDINANCE, FORMER VICE CHAIR, JIM DUNKIN, AND SO MUCH OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE RUBBED OFF ON ME.
SO I NOTICED THAT, AND THEN I WENT TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND IT SAYS THAT NO ZONING CHANGE SHALL BE APPROVED AND NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED UNLESS THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION, UM, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THAT, AND THAT, UM, CAUGHT MY ATTENTION BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD THAT THESE THINGS ARE DELAYED OR WILL BE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED AT SITE PLAN.
BUT I HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED A QUESTION A MONTH AGO ABOUT ACCESS, AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE IF TXDOT WAS GRANTING ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL OFF OF 22, 22.
AND ALSO, UM, I ASSUME, UNLESS WE HEAR OTHERWISE THAT THIS RULE EXISTS, THAT THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE EXISTS.
AND I TALKED TO, UM, FORMER VICE-CHAIR DUNCAN TODAY, AND HE SAID, AS FAR AS HE KNEW IT STILL DID.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT, ABOUT ACCESS AND ABOUT THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT, HEATHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, YES, UH, A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN.
IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
THAT IS AGAIN AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE.
SO I'M NOT EXTREMELY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS, BUT YES, THAT REQUIREMENTS STANDS AND THE TXDOT ACCESS, THE INFORMATION I'VE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT THEY'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH TECHSTOP.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS FORMALLY DETERMINED AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ENGINEER PLANS AT THIS STAGE.
[00:15:01]
IF, IF TECHSTOP DOES NOT APPROVE IT AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, THEN I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE.WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A SITE PLAN BEFORE THE ZONING IS APPROVED, BECAUSE IF THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ACCESS GRANTED BY TXDOT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO APPROVE THE, UM, ZONING OR IN OUR CASE TO RECOMMEND THE ZONING.
SO I JUST KIND OF THINK WE SHOULD POSTPONE THIS SORT OF LIKE THE SUN AUTO CASE TILL THE ACCESS IS RESOLVED.
HEATHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TECHSTOP WILL NOT REVIEW UNTIL THEIR END UNTIL WHAT PROBABLY SAYING ENGINEERED PLANS, RIGHT? I MEAN, ZONING GENERALLY PRECEDES THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT, BUT NOT IN THIS, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR ZONING IS BEFORE YOU DO A SITE PLAN.
YOU CAN'T DO A SITE PLAN WITHOUT ZONING, BUT THIS HAS NO ZONING CHANGED.
SHE'LL BE APPROVED UNLESS THE SITE PLAN IS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION HAS BEEN APPROVED.
IT'S NOT A FORMAL APPROVED SITE PLAN.
IT'S A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN.
IT'S JUST A SITE PLAN THAT ACCOMPANIES IT.
IT'S NOT ONLY A PERMITTED SP NUMBER SITE PLAN.
AND IT'S SAID THAT IS IN THERE IN THE BACKUP, UM, SORRY, REALLY QUICKLY.
UH, MS. SHAMAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN AND A REGULAR SITE PLAN? UM, I HAD OUT THERE FOR AWHILE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD HEAR ME OR I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
UM, I, I WAS A SITE PLAN CASE MANAGER BACK IN THE NINETIES, BUT I HONESTLY, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT THIS STAGE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN IS WHAT WE CALL A PART, A SITE PLAN.
AND, UH, MR. SMITH CAN CORRECT ME ON THAT.
UH, WHICH MEANS IT, UH, SHOWS THE LAYOUT AND LOCATION OF THINGS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD IN THE BACKUP.
AND THAT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL ALONG WITH THE ZONING.
IT WILL BE APPROVED ALONG WITH THE ZONING.
I MEAN, UH, IT WILL, YES, IT WILL BE IN THE BACKUP, UH, THAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT'S NOT THE FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE HILL.
SIDE PLAN PROCESS IS DIFFERENT, A TRUE SITE PLAN PROCESS WHERE YOU GET A SP NUMBER.
SO I GUESS I'M STILL A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE IT SAYS FOR TWO REASONS, AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ACCESS IS.
AND IN TALKING TO, UH, JIM DUNCAN, THAT HE SAID THAT HIS, HIS MEMORY WAS THAT SINCE HE WROTE IT, THAT THERE WAS THIS INTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS AND THAT YOU COULD BUILD BEFORE YOU DID ANYTHING BEFORE YOU DID THE ZONING, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT AREA.
AND SO HE, SO I'M JUST BASING IT OFF OF THAT.
AND ALSO READING THIS WHERE IT SAYS NO ZONING CHANGE SHE'LL BE APPROVED AND NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED.
AND UNLESS THE SITE PLAN HAS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTION FIVE, 10, UH, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
AND THE SIDE PLAN IS IN THE BACKUP.
SO WE'RE APPROVING THE HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN ALONG WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING, THE, UM, OTHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE SECTION THAT YOU READ IS NOT BEING, UM, PRECLUDED OR, UM, CIRCUMVENTED BY DOING THE ZONING.
FIRST, AS I SAID, THE ORDER OF PROCESS IS THAT THE ZONING ESTABLISHES THE PERMITTED LAND USES AND THE, UH, THINGS LIKE SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS COVER ALL OF THAT COURSE.
THIS ONE IS AN, UH, A WATERSHED THAT HAS PRODUCED IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT THE PHYSICAL DESIGN IS NOT DETERMINED AT TIME OF STONING.
SO IT'S ABOUT ESTABLISHING POSSIBLE LAND USES REGARDLESS OF HOW THE SITE IS DISPLAYED.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR INFORMATION ON THIS.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE TWO, TWO PARTS OF MY QUESTION, ONE, I'M LOOKING AT THE BACKUP AND I'M NOT SURE I SEE WHAT, WHAT'S A SIDE PLAN IN THE BACKUP FOR THIS CASE.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE A SITE PLAN IN THE BACKUP.
[00:20:01]
OR PART A OR A PART, I GUESS, A PART LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PART, EITHER TYPE A WHATEVER, UH, YOU KNOW, SITE PLAN FOR THE HILL COUNTRY? UH, YEAH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SEEING IT EITHER.SO I JUST WORRY THAT IF IT, THAT IF THAT WAS MISSING OR SOMETHING, CAUSE I DON'T SEE THE LAYOUT HERE AND IT'S, IT'S, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE HAD THE LAYOUT THAT KIND OF SHOWS THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS AND THE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE LAID OUT, THAT WOULD HELP IN US MAKING THE ZONING CASE DECISIONS.
SO, UH, I JUST WANT, I JUST WONDER ABOUT THAT, IS THAT, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT? WE KNOW IT IS, IT IS NOT PART OF THE ZONING CASE, UM, FROM ALL THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, ZONING CASES, A SITE PLAN OR EVEN A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT IS NOT AT TIME OF ZONING.
I BELIEVE IN THE PRESENTATION AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, I THINK THEY PROVIDED AN EXHIBIT.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE REPORT.
I SEEM TO BE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION.
I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THE HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN, BUT STAFF IS SAYING IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
UH, HOUSING AND PLANNING, HEATHER CHAFFIN, A HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED AT TIME OF CYCLING.
OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER STERN.
UH, I WAS, UM, BEING NEW TO THE COMMISSION.
I WAS WONDERING AT WHAT POINT THERE WOULD BE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THIS SITE.
UM, GIVEN THAT IT'S NOT SERVED BY TRANSIT AT ALL ON 22, 22.
IF TRIGGERED, IF IT MEETS THE THRESHOLDS THAT TRIGGER A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, IT WILL BE DONE WITH THE SITE PLAN.
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT THEY WILL KNOW WHO THE USER IS, WHAT THE LAND USE IS, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET AND THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO IT'S BEEN DEFERRED TO TIMELESS SITE PLAN.
THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FLOOD PLAIN AND WATERFALL TO CONTROL ALL THOSE WERE AGGRESSIVE SITE PLAN, LAND USE.
WHAT MAKES SENSE ON THIS PROPERTY? LIKE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED ONE THING, BUT THE APPLICANT WENT AND MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THEY AGREED ON A LOWER ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.
SO UNLESS THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING TO L O M U C O WITH PROHIBITED USES FROM EXHIBIT A AS APPROVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT.
I ACTUALLY WANT TO KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK FOR CORRECTIONS IN THE BACKUP LANGUAGE, JUST TO, YES.
I CAN ALSO ASK, ASK WITH THE BACKUP, GOING TO CITY COUNCIL TO REFLECT THE CORRECT, UM, INTENSITY OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
AND THE CORRECT ROADWAY IN MY FIRST PARAGRAPH ON YES.
I TYPED 9, 6, 9 PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER DAY.
INCLUDING BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. THANK YOU.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? OH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? YES.
I WAS GOING TO ASK SOMETHING RIGHT QUICK, BUT I, UH, I'M SORRY, I JUST SLIPPED MY MIND HERE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WITH THE, ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE ADDED, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ALL THOSE OPPOSED THAT'S ONE AND THEN ABSTENTIONS.
SO DID WE GET THAT? OKAY, SO THAT PASSES.
[B5. C14-2021-0161 - West William Cannon Housing; District 5 ]
VERY MUCH.SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER B FIVE, WHICH IS MRS. RHODES.
I'M CHAIRING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS CASEY 14, 20 21 0 1 61, KNOWN AS WILLIAM WEST WILLIAM CANNON HOUSING.
UH, THIS IS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SIX PLATTED LOTS, UH, AND A VACATED RIGHT AWAY.
AND THAT COMPRISES APPROXIMATELY 1,450 LINEAR FEET ALONG WILLIAM CANNON.
UH, THE WESTERN, MOST OF THESE LOTS HAS ACCESS TO STAGECOACH TRAIL, WHICH IS A PUBLIC STREET THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE PERSIMMONS CONDIMENT PERSIMMON HOLLOW CONDOMINIUMS TO THE WEST.
THE PROPERTY IS ON LOC OH, BY NIGHT BY 2 19 95 96 CASES.
UH, AND THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY,
[00:25:02]
UH, IS LIMITED TO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, AND ALSO PROHIBITS VEHICULAR ACCESS TO STRAIGHT TO STAGECOACH TRAIL.UH, THERE IS A CREEK BUFFER AREA THAT RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH THROUGH THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE AND CONTINUES TO THE A 147 ACRE STEVENSON PRESERVE TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE MF FOUR DISTRICT SO THAT IT MAY BE DEVELOPED WITH UP TO 300 APARTMENT UNITS.
UH, THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHOWS THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SITE, EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OPPOSITE EXISTING APARTMENTS ON THE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILLIAM CANNON.
AND THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS WOULD BE LOCATED TO WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE.
UM, I SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE BARTONS THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE.
IT IS WITHIN THE RECHARGE ZONE, WHICH LIMITS AND PERVIOUS COVERED AT 15%, WHICH IS A GREAT SITE, A SIGNIFICANT SITE CONSTRAINT ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE MF FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
WE BELIEVE IS APPROPRIATE ON WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE, WHICH IS AN ARTERIAL DESIGNATED IMAGINE AUSTIN ART ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.
AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILLIAM CANNON.
AND, UH, AS WELL AS TO THE EAST, UH, MULTIFAMILY WOULD ASSIST TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING HOUSING GOALS.
AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPACT DUE TO IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE.
UH, THIS CASE WAS FIRST ON THE AGENDA BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS OR POSTPONEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THIS.
UH, AND THE APPLICANT, I SHOULD SAY, THERE WAS AN AGENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED THAT IS NO LONGER INVOLVED.
HOWEVER, THE, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS CONTINUING WITH THE MF FOUR ZONING CASE.
UH, THERE IS A PETITION I, AND I RECEIVED ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES TONIGHT.
I HAVEN'T, UH, CALCULATED THOSE YET.
UM, BUT THEY WILL INCREASE, UH, AS THIS CASE GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK IT WAS MY PRESENTATION.
SO I GUESS WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APP.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DON'T SEE HIM LISTED.
UH, MR. SEAL, UH, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN TO ME THE GROUND RULES AND MUST SPEAK IN THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, SIX MINUTES.
AND THEN WHEN THE OTHER CASES COME UP, I HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEIR OBSTACLES.
SO THE, YOU, UM, AFTER THE OTHER SPEAKER SPEAK, THEY'LL HAVE ABOUT THREE MINUTES EACH AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE DONE, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO, OKAY.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.
I AM JIMMY SEAL IS A LONGER TIMEFRAME TO DUMPY ANDREW THE, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHOEVER'S IN THAT.
COMMISSIONER, LISA MAY HAVE THERE, IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP, I HAVE A PROBLEM HEARING YOU.
I THOUGHT THE PROCESS AND THE FIRST DAY I DON'T HAVE THE RULES IN FRONT OF ME THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME.
AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A LARGER TIMEFRAME THAN THREE MINUTES AS WELL.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER WAITS ON EVER.
SO PRIMARY SPEAKERS ON EACH SIDE, UM, THE APPLICANT AND THE, UH, PRIMARY OPPOSER WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES, ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
SO THIS IS THREE MINUTES HERE.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'M JIMMY SEAL.
I'M, UH, HERE IN REPRESENTING THE JUBILEE CHRISTIAN CENTER, UH, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.
UH, I CAME TO AUSTIN IN 89 AND FOUNDED THE CHURCH.
UH, WE PURCHASED THE LAND THAT IS NOW, UH, THE PROJECT, UH, IN JANUARY OF 89.
SO WE'VE HAD THE PROPERTY FOR 33 YEARS WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WAS SF TWO.
AND IN 96, WE HAD IT REZONED TO L O C O WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF 2000 CARS THAT WAS TO GIVE THE CHURCH BETTER PARKING RATIO THAN THE SF TWO, BECAUSE CHURCHES CAN BASICALLY BUILD AN INDY SITE.
UH, WE ARE TRYING FOR ZONING INTO MF FOUR AT THE TIME, AND THAT IS TO PUT APARTMENTS, UH, RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BECAUSE IN THE WISDOM AND THE WELL PLANNING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE ZONING, UH, YOLA DOES SUCH A GOOD JOB THAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, EVERYBODY WANTS TO COME HERE.
AND SO THERE IS A TREMENDOUS HOUSING SHORTAGE.
AND SO, UH, THE SKETCHES UP ON THE, UH, BOARD THERE, THE CONCEPT PLAN, UH, THAT HAS BEEN THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, MOST OF THE QUESTIONS
[00:30:01]
AND THE LETTERS I'VE READ, ALL THE LETTERS, UH, HAD TO DO MORE TO DO WITH A CITY CODE.UH, MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME UP TO YOU IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS, MOST OF THEM ARE COVERED BY IMAGINE AUSTIN ARE COVERED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, BUT I WILL SPEAK TO, UH, ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE, UH, THAT IS THE PRESERVATION OF STEVENSON'S PRESERVE.
UH, THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S VERY SERIOUS.
AND SINCE WE'VE HAD THE PROPERTY FOR 33 YEARS, I'LL SAY THIS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS HAS BEEN THE HOMELESSNESS.
AND, UH, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMERTIME OR ONCE THERE WAS A DROUGHT SEASON, WE'VE HAD AS MANY AS 22 CAMPS IN THE, UH, WESTERN LOTS, 22 CAMPS, THERE WAS CUTTING DOWN TREES, THEY'RE STARTING FIRES TO COOK WITH AND WE'VE GET THE POLICE, GET THEM OUT.
UH, WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED SO MANY TIMES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO START A FIRE.
AND BECAUSE THAT IS THE LOWEST POINT, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ELEVATION DROP FROM 8 0 7 ON THE RIDGE OF THE TOPOGRAPHICAL DIVIDE BETWEEN WILLIAMSON CREEK AND BARTON SPRINGS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE HEEL OF 90 FEET.
AND SO IF THERE WERE TO BE A FIRE START, IT WOULD GO UP THAT HILL AND BURN UP THE WHOLE STEVENS PRESERVE.
SO I SUBMIT TO YOU THE BEST POSSIBLE THING WE CAN DO TO PRESERVE, UH, THE STEVENSON RESERVE AND NOT IT CAUSED IT TO BE BURNED UP BY THE HOMELESSNESS IS PUT A PERMIT, A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THERE WHERE THEY CAN REVIEW THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
UH, THE OTHER THING THAT THERE WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THE PROPERTY FOR 33 YEARS, PEOPLE LOVE TO GO WALK IN AND HIKING AND BIKING BACK IN THE, IN THE PRESERVE.
UH, THEY WANT TO KNOW THERE'S STILL ACCESS RIGHT NOW.
THE MAIN ACCESS IS WHERE THE PROPOSED RANCH ROAD WAS.
IT'S BEEN VACATED, BUT NOW, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE COPPER FEE OF THE SETTLEMENT, UH, THE F THE FLATTEST GROUND, WHERE WE DO THE LEAST DISTURBANCE OF LAND, WE DON'T WANT IT TO SERVE THE LAND.
WE'RE VERY ECONOMICAL OR NOT DIRECTOR LEVEL.
WE'RE VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, AND WE WANT TO DO THE BEST THING.
SO THE FLATTEST PART IS RIGHT THERE BY RANCH ROAD.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE.
BUT JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT, THERE'S SOME VERY FLAT AREAS, AND WE WILL OWN THE PLANS I'M PERSONALLY HANDLING AND WORKING WITH ENGINEER.
WE WILL GUARANTEE YOU THAT THERE IS ACCESS, UH, TO THE PRESERVE.
UH, WE'LL PROBABLY BE AT A GATEWAY.
WE'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PUT CRUSHED GRANITE, WHERE THEY CAN GO THROUGH WITH THEIR BIKES AND EVERYTHING.
BUT ANYWAY, UH, THE NEXT THING THAT I WANT TO SAY IS THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN FROM OUR FRIENDS ON THE TOP OF THE HEALD IMPACT CHURCH, ABOUT THE UDA RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THE UDA RESTRICTIVE, UH, DESIGNATES THAT THERE WILL BE AN EX A, A ROAD THAT GOES BETWEEN THE PROPERTY, OUR PROPERTY LAW, 55 AND THE PROPERTY OF THE DRIVEWAY, LOT 56, ADJOINING THEM FOR RECIPROCAL PARKING, UH, THE RECIPROCAL PARKING.
I DREW A DRIVEWAY ON THIS CHART THERE AT THE TOP RIGHT-HAND PART THAT WILL GIVE RECIPROCAL PARKING.
THE UDA, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WILL BE FULFILLED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, DEPARTMENT AND THE LAND, UH, CODE WILL ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF.
WE ALSO WILL BE HANDLING BECAUSE IT'S APOSTROPHE ALL OF THE WATER ON TOP OF THE HILL WHERE IMPACT FAMILY CHURCHES NATURALLY FLOWS DOWN THE HILL TO US.
WE WILL BE TAKING ALL OF THEIR WATER AND WE WILL BE PUTTING IT IN OUR WATER QUALITY PONDS.
AND SO THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME UP IN THE CONCERNS IS JUST A FEW MORE, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO, UH, ANSWERING ALL THOSE AS WELL.
I CAN SHARE NOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM, UH, SO MS. MITCHELL WAS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER, BUT SHE WAS, UH, TRAVELING AND, UM, MAYBE DELAYED WE'LL HAVE MR. DOGGETT SPEAK AND THEN MR. DOGGETT, IF YOU CAN INFORM US, IF YOU DON'T WANT THE THREE MINUTE OR SIX MINUTE POSITION, SELECT STAR SIX PROCEDURE, ARTHUR MARKS, MR. DOGGETT ALMOST.
UM, HOW ABOUT, I'LL BE PROBABLY THE THREE MINUTE FIVE, BECAUSE I THINK MS. MITCHELL WILL MAKE IT NOTED.
UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS, UM, WEST WILLIAM CANNON HOUSING, I'M SPEAKING FOR THE WESTERN HILLS CHERRY CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE STAY IN THOUGHTFULLY AGAINST THIS ZONING CHANGE.
WE BROUGHT UP A PETITION THAT WENDY TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT IS, HAS BEEN DELIVERED.
AND THERE'S CURRENTLY ABOUT 50 SIGNATURES
[00:35:01]
ON THE POSITION.I THINK IT'S CONTINUING TO GROW OUR OBJECTIONS TO THIS ZONING CHANGE ARE AS FOLLOWS.
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ADDITIONAL RUNOFF INTO THE AREAS ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES.
AT THE END OF WESTERN DRIVE BACK UP TO A DRAINAGE AREA THAT RUNS SOUTH TO NORTH FROM WILLIAM CANNON DURING HEAVY RAIN LIKE THE HALLOWEEN FLOOD A FEW YEARS AGO, THE PROPERTIES THERE WERE THREATENED BY WATER RISING TO THE POINT OF ENTERING HOMES.
THE DRAINAGE CONTINUES THAT IN BERKELEY DIRECTION UNTIL THE INTERSECTS LITTLE WILLIAMSON CREEK RECENTLY FLOOD MAPS WERE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE INCREASED POTENTIAL OF FLOODING ALONG LITTLE WILLIAMSON CREEK, WHICH IS AT THE WESTERN END OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED DRAINAGE AREA.
EVEN MORE PRESSURE WOULD BE PLACED ON THE CAPACITY OF THE CREEK TO MOVE WATER EFFICIENTLY AND REDUCE THE CHANCE OF FLOODING ALL OF THE HOMES ALONG THE CREEK, INCLUDING THOSE ON BOTH THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD ALSO BE AT GREATER RISK OF FLOODING.
IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT DURING TORRENTIAL DOWNPOURS, WILLIAM CANDIDATE SPELT IN SOMETHING PASSABLE AT THE LOW WATER SPOT ON THE ROAD, JUST EAST OF STAGE COACH, RIGHT? THIS BOTTOM WAVE CANDIDATE IS ALSO THE BEGINNING OF THE DRAINAGE AREA.
SECONDLY, IS THE INCREASED BREATH TRAFFIC ON A ROAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.
SAY FOR SOME REPAVING, OUR AREA HAS GROWN SO MUCH THE TRAFFIC REGULARLY BACK, UH, FROM BRODY, THE WELL PAST STAGE COACH TRAIL IN THE MORNING, SOMETIMES AS LATE AS 10:00 AM.
SO THEY INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ALSO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CRAP.
IT IS COST A PROLIFERATION OF TRAFFIC MISHAPS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN AUTOS LOSING CONTROL IN CRASHING PROOF FENCES ALONG WILLIAM CANNON.
THE MOST RECENT OF WHICH WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2021, WHEN A DRIVER WITH THREE FREE BACKYARDS AND ENDED UP TWO FEET FROM A NEIGHBOR'S LIVING ROOM.
NOW A FEW YEARS AGO, A CALL AUSTIN FRO INSTRUCT A GROUP HOME AT THE CORNER OF STAGECOACH TRAIL AND WILLIAM CANNON KILLING A SLEEPING OCCUPANT IN THAT HOUSE.
IT AUTOMOBILE THAT AN MF FOUR PROJECT WILL GENERATE WILL ONLY ADD TO THE DANGER AND CONGESTION THAT WE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MUST ENDURE MOST.
THIRD, THE ZONING CHANGE TO MF FOUR WOULD ALLOW TO A 60 FOOT BUILDING TO BE BUILT.
IT WOULD BE A TALLEST BUILDING IN THE AREA PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AREA, EVEN THE APARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY THAT WENDY MENTIONED IT IN WELL WITH THE VIBE IN THE WAY THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PREDOMINATE THIS AREA IN CLOSING, WE THINK THAT ZONING CHANGE WILL LAST A ZONING CHANGE WILL ALLOW CONSTRUCTION.
YOU HAVE WILL INCREASE FLOODING, INCREASED TRAFFIC, WHICH WILL DECREASE THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PERMANENTLY OFF OF THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, EXCUSE ME, FIVE, THAT THIS AREA BOYS.
NOW, IF IT PULLED OUT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR TIME IS OVER, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM JOLENE BARCLAY.
MS. BARKLEY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I LIVE AT 3, 2, 1 3, A WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE.
WELL, I RECOGNIZED THAT THE OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPER TAPE.
I OBJECT TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
FIRSTLY, THESE LOTS ARE TOO SHALLOW TO CREATE A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX.
THEIR LIVING UNITS WILL BE SITUATED VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET.
THE OCCUPANTS WILL HAVE CONSTANT NOISE AND AIR TRAFFIC, UH, AIR QUALITY ISSUES DUE TO THE HEAVY TRAFFIC ON WILLIAM CANNON.
TRUST ME, I KNOW I LIVED THERE FACTOR IN THE INABILITY TO MAKE A LEFT-HAND TURN IN OR OUT OF THE COMPLEX.
AND THESE FOLKS WILL LIKELY MOVE OUT.
AS SOON AS THEIR FIRST LEASE IS UP.
THIS CONSTANT CHURN OF PEOPLE WILL DESTABILIZE.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW FOLKS COMING AND GOING AND NEVER STAYING LONG ENOUGH TO CREATE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
NOW, APARTMENTS ARE FINE PLACES TO LIVE, BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
THEY ARE NOT THE MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE NEED SUCH AS DUPLEXES, QUADS, AND TOWNHOMES.
ALTHOUGH INSTANT MULTIFAMILY MAY SEEM LIKE A GREAT IDEA RIGHT NOW, THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, DOESN'T HELP OUR CITY'S HOUSING SITUATION IN THE LONG RUN.
ALSO, IF YOU GRANT THE CHANGE TO THE LUCRATIVE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, THEN THE ONLY ENTITY THAT WILL MAKE MONEY OFF OF THIS AND THE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE
[00:40:01]
IS A REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, NOT FUTURE LOCAL OWNERS, ADDITIONALLY, A TEXAS DONUT OR WRAP STYLE BUILDING AROUND A PARKING GARAGE, ADJACENT TO A NATURE PRESERVE NEED SERIOUS CONSIDERATION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CASE STUDIES HAVE INDICATED THE FIGHTING FIRES AND THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS CAN BE DIFFICULT.AND SO THERE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH DEFENSIBLE SPACE BETWEEN THIS TALL TOWER AND THE PRESERVE TO FIGHT A FIRE.
IF EITHER ONE OF THEM GOES UP, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DAMAGE TO BOTH.
LASTLY, THE NARROW STRIP OF PROPERTY WAS ZONED OFFICES FOR A REASON.
IT'S TOO SHALLOW FOR RES, UH, IT'S JUST TOO SHALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
PLUS THE CURRENT OFFICE ZONING ALLOWS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES.
THEREFORE THE CURRENT ZONING IS MOST APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD STAY HASS MY SINCERE THANKS TO THE CITY STAFFS FOR WORKING ON THIS.
AND I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS IN ADVANCE FOR VOTING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. MITCHELL, MISS MOLLY MITCHELL, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I AM COUNSEL FOR IMP IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH.
UM, I AM HEARING AN ECHO OF MY VOICE.
IS THAT NORMAL, MS. MITCHELL, PLEASE.
UH, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO OTHER, UM, STREAMING OF THE MEETING, SO PLEASE, UH, MUTE THAT AND THAT SHOULD RESOLVE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER STREAMING, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO WITH THIS.
UM, I'LL JUST PROCEED, BUT I'M HEARING MY VOICE ECHO BACK AT ME, SO WE'RE NOT HEARING IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS HELPFUL.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M ON THE LANDLINE, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
SO, UH, I AM COUNSELOR FOR IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH, AND I'M GOING TO USE MY TIME TO ADDRESS PRIMARILY THE LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, UH, THAT ENCUMBERS THIS PROPERTY, BUT THE ONE, UH, ISSUE FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE AS WELL AS FOR THAT OWNED BY THE NEIGHBOR IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH.
UM, IN JANUARY OF 2005, A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS PUT ON THIS PROPERTY OF STANDOFF UP BY THE APPLICANT YOU BELIEVE WHO OWNED ALL OF THE LOTS AT THAT TIME, 50 THROUGH 58, UH, AGREED TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AS WELL AS CERTAIN ENTITLEMENTS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY SIGNED OFF ON THE DOCUMENT AS WELL.
AND THIS DOCUMENT FOR REFERENCE IS AT PAGE 34 OF EVERYONE'S PACKET.
NOW, IF JUBILEE WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE 50 TO 58 TRACK, 50 TO 58, A LOT, CERTAINLY COULD SIT DOWN WITH THE CITY TO MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES HE WANTED TO FACILITATE A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT THAN WAS ANTICIPATED AT THE TIME AND COULD MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE K UM, THE APPLICANT GAVE UP THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE UNDER THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
WHEN THE PROPERTY, UH, THE 56 57 AND 58 ACRES, UM, LOTS WERE SOLD FOR $3 MILLION TO IMPACT CHURCH.
AND THAT HAPPENED JUST OVER 18 MONTHS AGO.
UM, WHEN UNDER THAT AGREEMENT, IT PROVIDES A NUMBER OF THINGS, INCLUDING COST PARKING, INCLUDING A SHARING OF THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE TO TRACK ON A PERVIOUS COVER.
UM, THAT ALSO MAKES THEM REAL IMPORTANT PROVISIONS.
THAT DON'T, THAT DON'T JUST, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT CAN SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT.
IT GIVES MY CLIENT AS OWNER OF PART OF THAT ORIGINAL PRAC AN ABSOLUTE STATE OF THE TABLE.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST AGAIN TO CITY COUNCIL, YOUR COUNCIL, AS WELL AS TO THE MEMBERS TO LOOK AT PAGE, UH, AT PAGE 35 OF YOUR PACKET, PARAGRAPH TWO, THAT MAKES CLEAR THAT WHAT THE CITY CONSIDERS ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER TO THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S GOT TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE BLOCKS, THESE DIFFERENT, THESE LOTS WITH ONE'S OWNED BY IMPACT AND THE ONES THAT ARE BY THE APPLICANT AS A SINGLE SITE, UM, AT PAGE THREE OF YOUR PACKET, UH, PARAGRAPH NINE, A MAKES CLEAR ALL RIGHTS RUN WITH THE LAND AND THEY WRITE IN YOUR, TO THE BENEFIT OF EACH OWNERS, BUT THIS ANTICIPATED, IF THERE WERE A BUNCH OF OWNERS OR MULTIPLE IN THE FUTURE, IN THIS CASE, THERE'S TWO, BOTH OWNERS HAVE THE SEAT AT THE TABLE, THEY HAVE ALL THE SAME RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT AS THE ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH, K OF THE RESPECT OF COVENANT.
AND THAT'S AT AGE 38 OF YOUR PACKET OF MS. VERY SPECIFIC THAT SAYS IT CAN'T, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CANNOT BE CHANGED OR CANCELED OR TERMINATED UNLESS ALL OF THE OWNERS AND IT USES PLURAL OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AGAIN AT PAGE 38, THE CITY OF AUSTIN SIGNED OFF ON THIS INDICATING
[00:45:01]
ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS TO THE PROSPECTIVE COVENANT.SO I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY I, I CAN'T GO INTO DEPTH WITH THE COVENANT IN SIX MINUTES, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHEN THIS APPLICANT SOLD THREE OF THE LOT OUT OF THIS ORIGINALLY ENCUMBER PROPERTY TO IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH.
UM, HE LOST THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS BECAUSE MY CLIENT IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH GOT SEVERAL THINGS FOR THE 3 MILLION THAT PAID IT, GOT THE PLAN.
IT GOT THE CHURCH BECAUSE I DISCUSSED, I JUST JOINED THE CALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN COVERED YET.
IT WAS NOT JUST A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION.
THIS WAS REALLY THE MERGER OF TWO CHURCHES.
IF IT CAME IN AND PURCHASED AND MERGED THE CHURCH AND A COMMUNITY, A CHURCH COMMUNITY, AND ALSO IT PURCHASED FOR THAT $3 MILLION, THE RIGHT TO HAVE INPUT ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REMAINING LOTS THAT JUBILEE KEPT.
THOSE ARE THREE IMPORTANT RIGHTS.
AND SO I KNOW THE CITY IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ENFORCING OR REALLY WORRYING TOO MUCH ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY COVENANT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT JUST A PRIVATE PROPERTY COVENANT, IT'S A COVENANT THAT INVOLVES JUBILEE, MY CLIENT IMPACT AND THE CITY.
AND SO, UM, AS THE CITY CONSIDERS, SHOULD WE ALLOW A CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT, THE FIRST STEP BEING ZONING? UM, IT HAS GOT TO LOOK AT THIS COVENANT IN WHICH EVERYBODY AGREED, NO CHANGES WOULD BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY LIST.
ALL LOT OWNERS HAD TO THE TABLE.
ALL LOT OWNERS WANTED IT TO BE DONE.
AND MY IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH CLIENTS ABSOLUTELY IS NOT ON BOARD WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT I THINK OTHER SPEAKERS, UH, OTHER SPEAKERS WILL ADDRESS IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT JUST A COUPLE MORE POINTS.
THE BIG ONE REALLY IS THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE APPLICANT ONLY OWNS PART OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S GOTTA BE DEVELOPED AS ONE SIDE.
THE OTHER APPLICANT, AS I POINT OUT IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH ABSOLUTELY IS NOT ON BOARD WITH THE ZONING CHANGE.
UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I NOTICED IN THE, IN THE STAFF MATERIALS THAT I WANT TO JUST BRING TO THE MISSION'S ATTENTION HERE WITH ME A SECOND.
ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH THE NOTION AND I GET THE IDEA THAT THIS PROPERTY IT'S IT'S, I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE USED, UM, AS PART OF A COMMUNITY TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S COMMENTS MADE ABOUT BEING IN THE CORRIDOR UP THE SOUP BASE.
WILLIAM CAN IS PART OF THE CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
BUT I DO NOTE AT PAGE FIVE OF DISAGREEMENT, UH, IT KNOWS THAT THERE IS NO CURRENT OR PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ALONG THIS AREA OF WILLIAM CANNON.
I ALSO NOTICED IN THOSE GOES THROUGH THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR WHETHER IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE THIS CHANGE JUST IN TERMS. AND ONE OF THEM THINKS THAT STAFF NOTED IS THAT WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING 300 FAMILIES TO THIS TRACK, THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES.
UM, AND THERE IS VERY LIMITED.
THE MULTIFAMILY THAT HERE IS LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY.
UM, THIS IS LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RESTARTS.
WE CHARGE THEM, UM, AND THE STAFF SAYS THE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY IS ONLY AVERAGE.
SO IT'S NOT A PARTICULARLY CONNECTED SITE.
THE NOTION OF THE, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM OTHER SPEAKERS AS WELL, THE NOTION OF ADDING THE 300 FAMILIES, UH, TO DISTRACT WITH THE TRAFFIC THE WAY IT IS WITH THE CONNECTIVITY ISSUES THAT THERE ARE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT THERE ARE AND OVER THE STRONG OPPOSITION OF MY CLIENT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JOHN LARKIN FOLLOWED BY MR. RICK DAVIS.
I'M A NATIVE AUSTINITE AND I'M THE SENIOR PASTOR OF IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH HERE IN AUSTIN.
IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH PURCHASED LOTS 56 TO 58 FROM JUBILEE CHRISTIAN CENTER.
AND THEN THE TWO CHURCHES MERGED OUR CONGREGATIONS TOGETHER IN JULY OF 2019 AS PASTOR JIMMY SEAL STEPPED DOWN FROM HIS POSITION AS THE FOUNDING PASTOR OF JUBILEE CHRISTIAN CENTER.
AND I BECAME THE PASTOR OF THE TWO CHURCHES COMBINED.
THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN THE AUSTIN AREA FOR ABOUT 36 YEARS AND IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AT 2,909 WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE FOR ANOTHER 26 YEARS OR SO, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THIS PROPERTY.
AND WE WERE, WE'RE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO BEING A PART OF THE WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE COMMUNITY.
THE PROPERTY BEING DISCUSSED THIS EVENING IS LOTS 50 TO 55, WHICH ARE THE LOTS OF JASON TO IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH TO THE EAST AND HIS NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH OPPOSES THE REZONING OF LOTS 50 TO 55 FROM ELO TO .
[00:50:02]
AS MOLLY ARE DESCRIBED, THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT REQUIRES COORDINATOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUBILEE PROPERTY AND THE IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH, PROPERTY IMPACT FAMILY CHURCHES.NOT SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED, BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE DEVELOPED IN CONSULTATION WITH AND AN AGREEMENT WITH IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH AND CHANGING THE CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING TO A MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY.
ZONING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS RIGHT FOR THE CHURCH OR FOR THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WILLIAM ALREADY EXTREMELY BUSY.
AND SOME OF OUR PRESSURES HAVE EXPRESSED ME THAT THEY FEEL IT'S VERY DANGEROUS TO COME TO CHURCH DURING THE WEEK AND THE WEEK NIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC BARRELING UP THE HILL TOWARDS OUR CHURCH AT 40 TO 50 MILES PER HOUR, WHILE OUR PRESSURES ARE TRYING TO TURN INTO OUR PROPERTY, THERE'S ALSO A U-TURN THAT MUST BE NAVIGATED THROUGH THE MEDIAN FOR THOSE COMING FROM THE EAST.
AND ONE OF OUR PRESSURES WAS RECENTLY HIT AT THE U-TURN AND HER CAR WAS TOTALED.
THAT WAS JUST ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.
AND THE PROPERTY IS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS AS YOU HAVE TO SPLIT THE GAP BETWEEN CARS TRAVELING 40 TO 50 MILES PER HOUR, AS THEY COME UP THE HILL CRABBING A FIVE OR SIX STORY APARTMENT OR CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ONTO THE PROPERTY, RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US AND ADDING ANOTHER APPROXIMATE 300 VEHICLES TO AN ALREADY PRECARIOUS SITUATION WAS CERTAINLY BE TREACHEROUS.
ADDITIONALLY, I, AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE HERE TODAY WOULD HATE TO LOSE WHAT HAS BEEN AN OASIS OF PEACE AND BEAUTY TO DEVELOPER WHO HAS NO REGARD FOR THE NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARTISTS SET UP THEIR EASELS ON OUR DRIVEWAY AND PAINT PICTURES OF THE SUNSET PHOTOGRAPHERS SET UP THEIR TRIPODS AND TAKE TIME LAPSE PHOTOS OF THE BEAUTIFULLY PAINTED SKIES THAT GOES DOWN OVER THE CITY.
PEOPLE COME IN THE EARLY MORNINGS AT LUNCH IN THE EVENINGS JUST TO SIT AND ENJOY THE TRANQUILITY.
AND I'M ONE OF MANY WHO WOULD HATE TO SEE THE BEAUTIFUL AND SERENE STEVENSON PRESERVE BE TRAMPLED DOWN AND OVERRUN BY AN ADDITIONAL 300 TO 450 PAIRS OF BOOTS IN AN AREA THAT SIMPLY IS NOT DESIGNED FOR HIGH TRAFFIC AND HIGH DENSITY.
FINALLY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM THAT OF LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY WITHOUT THE CITY, EVEN KNOWING FOR SURE WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY TO ME SEEMS COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE.
THREE DEVELOPERS IN PARTICULAR HAVE TOLD ME THAT AFTER LOOKING CAREFULLY INTO THE PROPERTY, THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE BEST SUITED FOR THE CHURCH TO DEVELOP FOR THE ORIGINAL LAND USE PLAN.
AND THAT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE MANY CHALLENGES THAT IT PRESENTS, INCLUDING THE SHAPE TYPOGRAPHY AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LIMITS.
YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. DAVIS FOR THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I RESIDE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR REZONING AND, UH, COME TO SPEAK, UH, IN OPPOSITION.
THE, UH, STEVENSON CREEK PRESERVE.
UM, NEXT SLIDE, UH, IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THIS PROPERTY AND IS A HISTORIC PIECE OF AUSTIN, UH, HIKE, HIKE, AND BIKE TRAILS, AND, UH, A LARGE CONCENTRATION OF WILDLIFE IN THE AREA, MAKE IT AN URBAN GYM, THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC KITCHEN VILLE, WHICH, UH, WAS, UH, OCCUPIED OR, UH, SETTLED A COMMUNITY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BY FREED SLAVES.
UH, THERE WAS, UH, A FARM ON THE PROPERTY THAT SUPPLIED EGGS AND BUTTER TO, UH, HOUSTON TILLOTSON COLLEGE.
UM, THE COMMUNITY WAS REZONED IN THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN IN 1928.
UM, AND THE RESIDENTS WERE FORCED INTO EAST AUSTIN, UH, UH, BEING DEPRIVED OF SCHOOL AND, UH, AND, UH, WATER UTILITIES.
NEXT SLIDE THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEAUTIFUL.
UM, THERE'S EVEN A HISTORIC WELL ON THE PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, AND A HISTORIC STONEWALLS ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, SOME ARCHAEOLOGIC, UH, IMPORTANCE IS PLACED TO THIS AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, UH, IS A CONTIGUOUS PART.
UH, ADDITIONALLY WILD WILDLIFE ASPECT OF THE PROPERTY IS IMPORTANT AS A WILDLIFE CROSSING HERE.
NEXT SLIDE, UH, DEER NEXT SLIDE, UH, FOXES, UH, RABBITS, ALL KINDS OF WOP, WOP, WILDLIFE, AND THE PROPERTY IS A WILDLIFE CROSSING ZONE INTO THE SUNSET VALLEY AREA.
PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT, UH, THE PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX AND IT'S 294
[00:55:01]
UNITS WILL, UH, BLOCK, UH, PUBLIC ACCESS ON THE NORTHERN PART OF, UH, STEVENSON NATURE PRESERVE.UM, NO OTHER ACCESS IS AVAILABLE ON THE NORTH SIDE, EVEN THOUGH A COUPLE OF TRAILS CONNECT NEXT SLIDE.
UH, WE WOULD HOPE THAT THAT THAT WOULD BE DEALT WITH NEXT SLIDE.
AGAIN, TRAFFIC TRAFFIC IS A SEVERE PROBLEM ON, UH, ON OUR ROADWAY.
I THINK YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM CHARLES BRANDT FOLLOWED BY MR. SEAL FOR ABOUT MR. BRANCH.
I'M A RESIDENT OF AUSTIN, MY WIFE AND I ATTEND IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH.
I DO NOT AGREE THAT MF FOR ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
OTHER SPEAKERS TONIGHT, AND THE PETITION AND INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW SHEET HAVE ADDRESSED VARIOUS CONCERNS, SUCH AS THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA, INCLUDING THE GREEN SPACE, FLOOD ZONE, CHARACTERISTICS, TRAFFIC, AND SAFETY, UH, ASPECTS OF DENSE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT CONCERN OVER COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, MFR ZONING, LITTLE OUT, UP TO 54 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE, OR POSSIBLY UP TO 450 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.
IT ALSO ALLOWS STRUCTURES UP TO 60 FEET TALL.
THIS PROPERTY IS DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED.
THE SHALLOW LOTS LESS THAN 400 FEET DEEP, AND THE CREEK BUFFER AREA ON THE WESTERN LOTS LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA.
THIS DICTATES A DENSE VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LIMITED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
EVEN THE SUBMITTED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR ONLY 300 UNITS IS A FIVE OR SIX STORY UNIT THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SITE PLAN.
AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IS STATED ON PAGE 10 OF THE REVIEW SHEET, FOR EXAMPLE, MOST STRUCTURE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND DRIVEWAYS GREATER THAN 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
PAGE THREE OF THE REVIEW SHEET ITEM, NUMBER THREE OF THE BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STAFF STATES ZONING CHANGES SHOULD PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
I SUBMIT THAT MFR ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
PAGE THREE OF THE REVIEW SHEET ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MF TWO IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY ZONING NEARBY ON WILLIAM WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE BETWEEN BRODY LANE IN WEST GATE BOULEVARD.
THERE ARE NO OTHER UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE REZONED FOR GREATER THAN MF TWO.
AND ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT ALONG WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE FROM TO US TWO 90, A DISTANCE OF ABOUT FIVE MILES ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY OTHER STRUCTURES, RESIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THAT ARE OVER THREE STORIES TALL NOR ANY THAT ARE BUILT UP TO THE SIDEWALKS.
THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY MFR ZONING IS CLEARLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
PLEASE SERIOUSLY, CONSIDER THAT MFR ZONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL.
DO I HAVE LIKE A MINUTE PER EACH ONE OR IS IT THREE MINUTES? TOTAL, THREE MINUTES FOR EACH ONE, THREE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES TOTAL.
THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL THINGS MENTIONED, FIRST OF ALL, UH, THE IDEA FLOODING, UH, I WORKED WITH THE CITY TO ME FOR THE FIRST THREE TIMES BECAUSE I'M A PASTOR, BUT I WAS ALSO THE SUPERINTENDENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOP OF THE HILL FOR THE, YOU KNOW, UH, I TOLD THEM HOW TO PUT SOME BERMS IN THERE TO CHANGE THE FLOODING.
IT WAS AFTER THREE TIMES THAT THE FLOODING OF WILLIAM CANNON WAS CURED TEMPORARILY.
THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE ADVICE, BUT THAT CAN BE HANDLED REAL EASY.
UH, THE NEXT LADY MENTIONED THAT ONLY THE DEVELOPERS WERE GOING TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF THIS.
THE FACT IS 100% OF THE FUNDS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SELL THIS PROPERTY ARE EARMARKED FOR MISSIONS AND MINISTRY FOR DIGGING WELLS, FOR FEEDING ORPHANS, CLOTHING, ORPHANS, UH, IN
[01:00:01]
MALARIA IN AFRICA, LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD A LITTLE PILL.100% OF THIS IS FOR EARMARK FOR MISSIONS MINISTRY.
SHE DIDN'T GET TO HEAR THE FIRST PART I MENTIONED, AND WE ALL GO TO 100% FULLY APPLY THE UDA AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THE CITY OF AUSTIN LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DEALING WITH THEM.
THEY WON'T LET US DO ANYTHING, BUT, BUT THAT WE WILL GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT UDA.
THERE WAS THE FACT OF THE STEPHENSONS PRESERVE.
THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT WAS MADE THE STEVENSON'S PRESERVE BECAUSE T U BRIGHT, UH, MET TIM'S AN OLD MAN LIVED ON OLD TURF.
HE OWNED LAND ALL AROUND SOUTH AUSTIN, THE FORUM PUD AT WILLIAM KENNAN MOPAC OVER TO BRUSH COUNTRY THAT WAS PUT UP AS, UH, AS IN LIEU OF HIM BUILDING OUT FULL CAPACITY ON THE, UH, WILLIAM KENNAN.
AND SO, UH, THAT JUST HAPPENED.
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN HOUSES ALL OVER THAT.
IF THEY HADN'T BUILT THE FORUM, PUDDLE WILLIAM KENNAN AND MOPAC, UH, THE 400 UNITS, IT'S NOT 400 UNITS IS 294 UNITS.
AND THE FACT IS WITH ELMO ZONING, MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS, TRAFFIC, WHATEVER HAS, WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING COMPARED TO ELO, WHICH ALLOWS 2000 CARS TODAY WITH THE ZONE, WITH THE CHANGE TO THE MF.
FOR IF EVERYBODY THERE TAKES SIX TRIPS A DAY, IT'LL STILL BE LESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE A LOT FOR NOW LAST BUT NOT LEAST.
UH, MY GOOD FRIEND AT IMPACT FAMILY CHURCH, THEY HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR WANTING THE LAND.
UH, I HAVE ON MY PHONE AND EMAIL, IF JUST THAT CAME IN BEFORE WE CAME TO THE CONFERENCE THERE, WHEN TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, I HAVE ANOTHER EMAIL WHERE HE ASKED IF I WOULD GIVE HIM THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN FOR ME TO BELIEVE GOD, THE SUPPLY OF THE MISSION TRIPS ARE FOR ALL OF THE ORPHANS AND THE WELLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I HAVE OFFERED HIM THE LAND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IF YOU'VE JUST MAKE A DEAL, SIGN A CONTRACT, BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE ABSOLUTE BEST.
IT'S GOING TO THE STEVENSON PRESERVE IS GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
THERE'S GOING TO BE ENTRYWAY INTO IT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE BETTER THAN THE ENTRYWAY NOW BECAUSE THERE'S CONSTANT DUMPING.
THERE THERE'S HOMELESS PEOPLE, CONSTANT THINGS HAPPENING THERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH BETTER WHEN BETTER WHEN IT'S ALL TAKEN CARE OF.
THAT CAN GO INTO THE SPEAKERS.
MOTION TO CLOSE IT FOR MOST OF THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER SMITH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU SECOND AND SECOND, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
COLOSSAE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING LOOKS NANA MISS.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER POSTPONE OR DENY THIS BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT'S LIKE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY BUSINESS IN ZONING THIS RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS A SQUABBLE AMONGST SIGNATORIES AND THEIR ASSIGNED ERRORS AND ALL THAT TO THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WHICH DOES SAY RIGHT AT THE TOP, UM, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REGARDING UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGED MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
AND THEN IT GOES ON FOR, AT THE ON PAGE 35 OF OUR BACKUP.
UM, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITE, SINGLE SITE.
I MEAN, IT'S, I DON'T WANT TO STEP INTO A MESS, UH, NOT OF OUR MAKING OF THE MAKING OF WHOEVER PUT TOGETHER THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT BINDS THESE PEOPLE TOGETHER.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE OR DENY.
AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY DENIAL.
I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO RIGHT INTO EMOTION.
WE TEND TO WANT TO GO IMMEDIATELY INTO EMOTION.
AND INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT THINGS, I WOULD LIKE BEFORE I SEE YOUR HAND, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF ABOUT THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I ALSO, I MEAN, IT SAYS HERE PAGE 35, NUMBER TWO, IT DOES SAY FOR PURPOSES OF SITE PLAN, REVIEW, MODIFICATIONS, OR APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THAT MEANS ZONING.
IT DOESN'T FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE UNIFIED OR WORKING AS A SINGLE SITE, SO SURE.
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE? OH, WE DO HAVE A MOTION OR, OKAY.
AND THEN I JUST WANT TO SECOND IT, AND I'M GOING TO SAY, I MEANT TO TALK TO YOU BEFORE, BECAUSE YOU OBJECTED LAST MEETING ABOUT MOTIONS BEFORE DISCUSSION, BUT THAT IS THE NORMAL PART IS THE PROCEDURE.
SO I SECOND THAT MOTION AND THEN WE'LL OF COURSE WE'LL DISCUSS.
UH, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT IS, THAT WOULD BE EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
SO THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST
[01:05:01]
AND THERE IS A SECOND.IS THERE OTHER DISCUSSION? NO FAIR.
YOU CAN DISCUSS, OH SHIT ON THE TABLE TO DISCUSS.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT GLENN, THE MEETINGS YOU'VE BEEN IMMEDIATELY JUMPING IN AND MAKING A MOTION, DENYING EVERYTHING BEFORE ANYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING I'M WITH YOU ON THIS MOTION, BUT I'D LIKE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE WE GO IMMEDIATELY TO EMOTION.
BUT APPARENTLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE A MOTION.
MIGHT'VE BEEN OUR NORMAL PROCEDURE TO DO THAT.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT.
THAT'S NOT BEEN OUR STANDARD PROCESS.
DO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND KNOW? OKAY.
I DID NOT MEAN TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM SAYING IT.
I JUST WANT IT TO HIGHLIGHT THE RESTRICTIVE HAVING SENTENCE AND PROBABLY, AND IT GOES TO PSYCH LAND, NOT TO ZONING.
IF WE'D HAVE HAD DISCUSSION, WE COULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WE CAN DISCUSS, WE CAN, WE'VE ALREADY GOT A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT YOUR MOTION.
WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE ADAMS IN GENERAL.
YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SHOULD WE DISCUSS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTION? SO THEN WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE MOTION.
JUST CLARIFYING IT IS THE MOTION TO DENY IT.
AND THAT'S ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, BUT YOU CAN.
MS. RHODES, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? UH, YES.
I JUST WANTED TO, IF THIS CASE IS POSTPONED, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT I WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING WHAT THOSE ARE SO THAT I CAN BRING THAT INFORMATION BACK.
SO DO WE NEED TO, SO THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE OTHER OPTIONS.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY REQUESTS FOR THE ZONING.
CAN I, BECAUSE ONCE WE MAKE OUR DECISION, IF IT GOES, IF THERE'S A MAJORITY AND WE CAN'T DISCUSS, BECAUSE WE'RE DONE WITH THE AGENDA ITEM, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO, HEY, COMMISSIONER SMITH, I'D BE HAPPY TO SECOND, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF YOURS.
I'M NOT MAKING A SECOND MOTION.
SO, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, 2, 4, 5, AND ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED TO DENYING THE REQUEST IS THREE.
AND THEN IS THERE AN EXTENSION? COMMISSIONER? KOSTA IS ABSTAINING.
SO WERE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS, OR IS THAT, AND WE CAN DISCUSS SOMETHING BESIDES THE MOTION.
THE CONCERNS I'VE GOT WITH THE PROJECT ARE LOL ZONING IS IT IS TOO MUCH.
I THINK THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS THAT HAS THIS KIND OF HEIGHT.
THAT GIVES ME A LOT OF CONCERNS IN TERMS OF GOING THAT HIGH.
THIS SITE IS VERY UNDEVELOPABLE.
UM, I'VE HAD CLIENTS LOOK AT IT AND PASS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ON HERE.
BY THE TIME YOU GET THROUGH ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS.
HOWEVER, WE'RE THE LAND USE COMMISSION.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING ON THIS PROJECT.
I DO THINK MULTIFAMILY IS APPROPRIATE.
I DON'T THINK MF FOR IT IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY, AND STS MY CONCERNS IS THE HEIGHT, THIS TOO MUCH.
THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THE DENSITY THEY WANT ANY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO THE DENSITY REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
UM, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING IS REALLY STRICTLY TIED TO HEIGHT.
THEY NEED THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE LIMITED AREA.
UH, BUT I DO THINK THE HEIGHT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS AREA THAT HAS THAT KIND OF HEIGHT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CONCERNS I'VE GOT WITH THE PRODUCT.
DO YOU WANT TO PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT? I WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION TO APPROVE MF TWO AS A POSSIBILITY, WHICH WOULD HAVE LESS HEIGHT AND LESS DENSITY ON THE SITE AND MATCHES WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET IS MF TWO.
AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR A BASIC QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS THE DENSITY DENSITY OF UNITS PER ACRE FOR VERSUS ? UH, MF FOUR IS PICK HIM UP AND GLASSES ON SORRY, 36 TO 54 UNITS PER ACRE.
EMIT TWO IS 23 UNITS PER ACRE.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER CAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIT THAT MANY UNITS ON THEIR UNITS ARE ON A GROWTH SIDE AREA BASIS.
SO OVER HALF OF THIS LAND IS IN FLOODPLAIN.
QUALITY IS ON SETBACKS ARE SIMPLY NOT ACCESSIBLE.
SO THE DENSITY REALLY IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS
[01:10:01]
IT IS THE HEIGHT.THE HEIGHT OF IS 40 FEET OR THREE STORIES, RIGHT? THE HEIGHT OF MF FOUR IS 60 FEET, WHICH COULD GO FIVE STORIES.
SO AN MF TWO WAS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
SO WHAT WAS IT UP TO 23, 23 UNITS PER ACRE? OTHERWISE WE'RE BASICALLY THE SAME GREENBURG.
UM, SO IF WE THINK MULTI-FAMILY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE HERE IS APPROPRIATE.
ARE WE ABLE TO RECOMMEND ELLO DASH M U OR BECAUSE IT WAS POSTED FOR MF, WE HAVE TO CHOOSE AN MF LEVEL.
IN ORDER FOR LOM, YOU, UH, YES, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE RE NOTIFICATION TO RE NOTIFICATION, INCLUDING MAIL NOTICE TO REPOST THE ITEM IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE IT IS ONLY BEEN, UH, NOTIFIED FOR MFR AND LOM U IS, IS, UH, HIGHER THAN MFR.
THEN I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION FOR MF TOO.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT ACCESS B UM, PROVIDED TO THE PRESERVE.
I WOULD THINK THAT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT IN ITS ENTIRETY HAS TO BE MET AND THE RESTRICTED CUT.
IT ADDRESSES ACCESS TO THE PRESERVE.
WERE YOU THINKING? SORRY, GO AHEAD.
WERE YOU THINKING ANYTHING ABOUT ACCESS IN TERMS OF RIDING RIGHT OUT ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC? NO, I JUST MEANT LIKE PRESERVE.
BUT IF THAT'S IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE IN FORCE, I WOULD, WE CAN JUST GO WITH MF TO SNOWBOARDING.
NOW THIS, THIS IS PART OF THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING A PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON AT THIS LOCATION.
SO I THINK THERE IS POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA FOR TRAFFIC.
UM, SO I DO, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH MFQ.
I THINK THAT IS A NICE COMPROMISE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHERS THAT WANT TO COMMENT, I'M JUST GOING TO BE VOTING.
NO, I ACTUALLY LIKED THE IDEA OF THE LMU, UM, THAT GAVE MULTIPLE OPTIONS.
I THINK IT'S A HARD TO DEVELOP PROPERTY.
I THINK WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISPUTE.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT BEFORE THIS PROPERTY WILL BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED.
I, I THOUGHT, UM, THAT THE SUGGESTION OF THE YELLOW M YOU MADE THE MOST SENSE IS IT GAVE THEM TWO OPTIONS.
UM, AND I WAS SEEING YOU AS BEING MF TO, UH, TO, SO THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT.
Y'ALL I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DINKLER YEAH, I DO TOO.
SO IS THERE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE WE'D HAVE TO, WE VOTE ON THE MF TWO AND IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE'D GO FORWARD WITH NO MOTION AND THEY CAN EITHER PROCEED THE COUNCIL, LIKE COME BACK AT A FUTURE DATE WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING, RIGHT.
CAN'T THEY CHANGE THE REQUEST ANYWAY? YES.
THAT'S A SUPPORT DMS. THE APPLICANT MIGHT DECIDE AT THIS MOMENT, HE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT HIMSELF AND DETERMINE WHETHER HE WANTS TO TAKE THAT TACT OR NOT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER KING? YES.
UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, UH, SO THIS SITE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, TO PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
AND ALSO, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST TO REITERATE, IT'S IN THE EDWARDS OPERA FOR RECHARGED ON THE BARTON SPRINGS RECHARGE ZONE, THE CRITIC AND THEIR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE AREA, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING AND, UM, AND IT'S, IT'S WITHIN 150 FEET OF A WHILE AND AREA, SO IT IS SUBJECT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WILD LAND, URBAN INTERFACE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME, SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, I GUESS SOME MITIGATION AGAINST POTENTIAL FIRES.
I THINK THERE WAS A CONCERN YOU MENTIONED BY NEIGHBORS ABOUT FIRES AND THE RISK OF FIRES OR WILDFIRES.
AND, YOU KNOW, I, AND, AND THERE IT IS ON, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WILLIAM KENNAN, A BUSY CORRIDOR THERE, AND, UH, THERE'S, THERE ARE BUS STOPS RIGHT THERE.
IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE LIKE TWO RIGHT, UH, RIGHT ADJACENT TO THIS SITE.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AND I DO SEE THAT WE, MORE
[01:15:01]
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS NEEDED IN THIS AREA TOO.SO, YOU KNOW, I COULD SUPPORT THE MF TOO, BUT, UH, BUT ALSO WHAT WHAT'S CONCERNING TO ME IS THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A UNIFIED AGREEMENT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL THE PARTIES ARE GREAT.
I I'M VERY CONFLICTED ABOUT THIS AND I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE AND MAYBE SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS COULD, COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, WELL, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC.
UM, I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KING ABOUT THE, UM, ACCESS TO HIGH-FREQUENCY TRANSIT ON THIS CORRIDOR, AND THEN IT'S, UH, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
UM, BUT I HAVE TO WONDER IF MIXED USE, WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BRING MORE AUTO TRAFFIC TO THE SITE THEN, UM, A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, I KNOW LIVING IN A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY BICKERING OVER THE PARKING FOR PEOPLE WHO VISIT OUR BUILDING, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE BUILDING.
UM, IN ADDITION, UM, GIVEN THE 15% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HAMSTRINGING THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE MULTIFAMILY RESONANCE IF WE'RE KEEPING IT AT TWO STORIES.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT WOULD GIVE THEM AN EXTRA STORY, AT LEAST A THREE STORY BUILDING IN THIS AREA.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA THAT IS CLOSE TO MEDICAL OFFICES AND A BOWLING ALLEY AND A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS, UM, ONLY A STOP OR TWO AWAY FROM A MAJOR HGB, UH, IN THE AREA.
SO IT REALLY COULD SUPPORT A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS SITE AND BENEFITING FROM THE NEARBY PARK FACILITY.
SO, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CAN STAY ON THE MULTIFAMILY SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND I WOULD, UM, CONSIDER, UM, MF THREE, RATHER THAN , I'M JUST VERIFYING HEIGHTS ON THESE THINGS.
I'M AT THREE WILL GET US TO 48, 36 UNITS PER ACRE.
I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT DISNEY IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE HEIGHT IS WHAT'S RESTRICTING THEM.
SO I, I STILL THINK THAT MS. I STILL THINK THE MS. FOUR IS GOING TO BE BETTER FIT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE HOPING WOULD BE BUILT IN THIS AREA.
ARE WE READY TO CALL THE QUESTION EVERYBODY? OH, SORRY.
SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MF TO ZONING CHAIR, MAY I JUST CLARIFY THE MOTION IS THE MOTION IS FOR MF TWO ZONING AND ALSO A COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UH, STATED THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PRESERVE.
SO CONTINUING TO PROVIDE REQUIRING ACCESS TO THE PRESERVE, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S INCLUDED.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I DO SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL HERE AND I DO, I THINK MF TWO GIVES A GOOD BALANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY OF THIS LOCATION AND, YOU KNOW, AND PROVIDES ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY THERE.
I THINK MS. RHODES HAS A COMMENT WITH REGARDS TO ACCESS TO THE PRESERVE THAT THAT IS A LAND CONTROLLED BY THE CITY.
AND, UH, SO, AND I THINK PARKS WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, HAVE, UH, THEY WILL WANT TO WEIGH IN ON HOW ACCESS OCCURS TO STEVENSON PRESERVE.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN CERTAINLY TAKE DOWN AS PART OF THE MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE LEGAL LOOK AT HOW, HOW, OR WHETHER WE CAN REQUIRE THAT IN AN ORDINANCE.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION OF STAFF SO YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO COUNCIL.
CAN YOU GET BACK TO US WITH JUST LIKE AN EMAIL, LETTING US KNOW HOW STAFF DID INTERPRET THAT? BECAUSE I DO THINK OF TRAILS AS A TRANSPORTATION FEATURE.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW IT'S COMES DOWN AFTER YOU TALKED TO YES.
I WILL HAVE TO UPDATE THE STAFF REPORT WITH, WITH THIS INFORMATION.
SO THAT WOULD BE EASY TO, TO SEND OUT.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS SEE IT WHEN IT HITS COUNCIL.
SOME OF US ARE, OH, I CAN SEND THAT OUT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ZONING, UH, WITH INCLUDING ACCESS TO STEVENSON PRESERVE, PLEASE READ IT ALOUD BY LEGAL, AS ALLOWED BY LEGAL.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND THEN ALL THOSE OPPOSED
[01:20:02]
AND ABSTENTIONS TWO ABSTAINING.WOULD YOU MIND RE JUST GOING THROUGH THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO VOTED FOR AND AGAINST AND ABSTAINED? I WILL TRY AND REMEMBER.
SO IT WAS COMMISSIONER SMITH, MYSELF, COMMISSIONER STERN, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, AND COMMISSION COMMISSIONER ACOSTA IN FAVOR, OPPOSED WAS DINKLER AND KIELBASA AND ABSTENTIONS WERE THOMPSON AND KING.
[B7. C14-2022-0004 - 1501 Damon Rd; District 5 ]
OKAY.WE ARE MOVING ON TO BE SEVEN, MS. RHODES, IS IT AGAIN? GOOD EVENING AGAIN, WINDY ROADS, HOUSING AND PLANNING.
THIS IS A, A LOT THAT IS ZONED DVR.
IT'S AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAMON ROAD AND ALBERT ROAD.
IT CONTAINS A 1500 APPROXIMATELY SQUARE FOOT VACANT CHAPEL ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE OF HIS OWN, DR.
WHICH WAS ASSIGNED UPON ANNEXATION AND THE 1980S.
UH, THIS IS, UH, ALBERT ROAD TERMINATES INTO A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, UH, THAT SERVES THE HOSPITAL USED TO THE SOUTH, UH, DAMON ROAD, UH, HAS SEVERAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT ARE ALSO ZONED.
UM, THERE ARE A LARGE LOTS ON ALBERT TO THE NORTH THAT HAVE DR AS WELL.
UH, THERE IS A CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO THE SOUTH THAT IS OWNED SF SIX.
IT TAKES US PRIMARY ACCESS TO DITMAR ROAD, WHICH IS FURTHER TO THE SOUTH.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SF THREE.
THEY WOULD EITHER LIKE TO BUILD A DUPLEX OR A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE HERE.
UM, THERE WA THERE IS A PERMANENT APPLICATION THAT IS IN REVIEW RIGHT NOW TO DEMOLISH THE CHAPEL, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 1970, UH, THAT WAS FILED IN ER, IN ON THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SF THREE FOR, TO ALLOW FOR UP TO RESIDENCES ON THIS PROPERTY.
UH, SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON A LOCAL STREET.
IT'S WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS ADJACENT TO CONDOMINIUMS ON THE SOUTH, AND THERE ARE OTHER S3 LOTS ON DAMON ROAD, ALBERT ROAD, AND OTHER STREETS IN THE VICINITY.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL AS A NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES.
SO OUR FIRST SPEAKER WOULD BE MR. IS IT STAR IT'S CAR? GOOD EVENING ZONING, UH, PLATTING COMMISSION.
I AM THE OWNER APPLICANT FOR 1501 DAMON ROAD.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO, UH, REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR, I THINK, 15 PLUS YEARS.
UM, IT'S A, IT IS THE SITE OF A LOT OF DUMPING IN THE AREA.
SO I'VE HEARD FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY ARE HAPPY SOMEONE HAS, IS STEPPING IN, IN ATTEMPTING TO KIND OF REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
OUR GOAL HERE IS TO ADD A COUPLE OF HOUSING UNITS IN AUSTIN.
UH, WE'RE SIMPLY GOING TO SF THREE ZONING.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A DUPLEX AND, UM, YEAH, I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO YEAH, I MENTIONED THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ABANDONED.
IT HAS BECOME A NUISANCE JUST SINCE IN OUR SHORT OWNERSHIP.
THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS DUMPINGS THERE.
AND THEN, UM, LIKE I SAID, OUR GOAL IS TO INCREASE HOUSING UNITS.
WE BELIEVE THAT BY GOING TO SF THREE, WE'RE MAINTAINING SORT OF RESIDENTIAL SCALE.
UM, AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT, THE LAND AREAS ABOUT 13,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT'S ABOUT DOUBLE THE SIZE OF A STANDARD, A LOT OF 57 50.
AND YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GREAT SPOT FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. SUTTON.
I'M PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MATTHEWS LAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF 1505 DAYMOND'S.
I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 50 YEARS.
UH, THE PROPERTY IN 1501, DAMON CURRENTLY HAS THE LITTLE IN CHAMPION SHANNON CHAPEL ON THE, ON THAT AREA.
THE BUILDING WAS USED BY THE BROWN RANCH FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES INTO THE SEVENTIES, AND HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN ABANDONED SINCE THEN, TEXAS NEURO REHAB HAS KEPT THE BUILDING SECURED SOMEWHAT, BUT THE PROPERTY LIKE MR. CARSON HAS BECOME A DUMPING GROUND BY RESIDENT ACROSS THE STREET.
HE INDICATES THAT HE IS A SCRAPPER AND HIS YARD IS FILLED WITH APPLIANCE, ET CETERA.
AND TWO VEHICLES ARE ALSO COVERED UP WITH DEBRIS
[01:25:01]
CO COMPLIANCE AND CAMERAS HAVE FAILED IN MODIFYING THIS BEHAVIOR.THE RECENT PURCHASE OF 1501 BY MR. CARR WAS MET WITH HAPPINESS IS THIS WOULD DECREASE THE POSSIBLE DUMPING AREA.
MATTHEW IS WAYNE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A SINGLE FAMILY AREA WITH A MIXTURE OF HOMES ON LARGE, LOTS, UP TO THREE ACRES, AS WELL AS A SIZEABLE CONTINGENT OF MOBILE HOMES.
REZONING IS OCCURRING ON THE BOUNDARIES WITH GREATLY INCREASED UNIT DENSITY, SEVERAL OF THESE INVOLVED DUPLEXES, 9 11, 9, 15 DITMAR.
HOWEVER, REZONING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AVERAGING FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, 1103 AND 1105 MATTHEWS LANE, MATTHEWS PARK, AND NUMEROUS PROPERTIES ARE BEING DEVELOPED ON WHEN LANE, WHICH YOUR SF THREE DAMON ROAD CONSISTS OF A MOBILE HOME.
IF DEAN OH ONE AT SIX HOMES THAT ARE OCCUPIED BY OWNERS, A RECENT PURCHASE OF 15, 12, DAMON WAS ALSO REZONED SF THREE LAST YEAR.
AND THE NEW OWNER HAS PLANS TO BOLT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN AN ART STUDIO.
ON THE 0.75 ACRES, SOUTH STONE IS BUILDING THEIR 231 UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITH A D MY ROAD ENTRANCE THAT WINDS UP THE RAILROAD TRACKS BEHIND DAMON, AND THEN ALONG SHERWOOD, THE NORTHERN PORTION ALONG DAMON AND SHERWOOD IS RESTRICTED OVER 55 WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND RENTAL NUMBERS ARE KEPT AT NO MORE THAN 25%.
OUR OUTREACH GROUP HAS MET WITH MR. CARR AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT PRESS F THREE, OUR PETITION, WHICH WE'VE GATHERED, SPEAKS TO SINGLE FAMILY ON OUR SINGER FAMILY.
HE SEEKS TO BUILD A DUPLEX, WHICH IS NOT VIEWED AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD DUPLEXES EXIST ON MATTHEW'S LANE AND NEW PLANS FOR 7,306 COOPER, UH, INCLUDE DUPLEXES.
HOWEVER, THE CONFINES OF THE ASSOCIATION ARE BETTER SERVED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SEEM TO NAD USE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS ON 1501 DAMON LIKEWISE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THE CONCERNS OF THE RESINATE AT 1,503 DAMON, THE LARGE LOT SIZE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS GENERATED GREAT DEVELOPER INTEREST AND ONGOING SALES.
WE VIEW SF THREE REZONING AS APPROPRIATE WITHOUT DUPLEXES.
AND THEN YES, WE'RE RATTLED BY THE OWNER.
AND TO SPEAK TO THE IDEA OF A DUPLEX, THAT IS OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
WE FEEL THAT THE SIZE OF THE LOT WARRANTS, TWO UNITS THAT ARE LARGER OR COULD BE LARGER WE'RE PLANNING ON ROUGHLY 1800 SQUARE FOOT UNITS.
UM, AND WE COULD DO AN ADU IN THE REAR, ALTHOUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBOR, SHE MENTIONED THAT IF YOU PUT AN ADU IN THE REAR THAT SHE, SHE PROBABLY WOULD RATHER NOT BE THERE GIVEN THAT THE ADU WILL THEN BE LOOKING IN HER BACKYARD.
SO SHE LIKED THE IDEA OF CERTAINLY OF KEEPING THE STRUCTURE UP AT THE FRONT, EVEN WITH ALL THE HOUSES ON THE STREET AND THROUGH A DUPLEX WE'RE ABLE TO PROPERLY DO THAT.
THERE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO MADE BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY DINKLER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING LOOKS UNANIMOUS.
ANY QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION? IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THE SPEAKER HAVE CONSENSUS ON SF THREE BEING APPROPRIATE SYSTEM.
UM, I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT BEYOND THAT.
I THINK THE SF THREE IS APPROPRIATE.
THAT THAT LOT STREET IS VERY SHORT.
IT'S EITHER DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, IT BACKS UP TO SF SIX.
THAT HAS AN SF THREE AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
SO SF THREE SEEMS TO BE APPROPRIATE.
AND WAS THAT EMOTION? OH, KING, I'M SORRY.
WELL, I DID WANT TO, UH, ASK ABOUT, UH, TH THIS ONE IS THIS SITE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE WILD LAND, URBAN INTERFACE CODE.
IT'S WITHIN 150 FEET OF A WILD LINE AIR, WILD LAND AREA.
MS. RHODES, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION SHE'S COMING UP.
AND WHILE THAT'S COMING UP, YOU KNOW, I, UH, ALSO, UH, JUST WONDER IF THE STAFF CAN ALSO MAYBE SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE, THE DONK I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S THERE ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW AND, AND HOW THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.
UH, YOU KNOW, IF IT, WHEN IT'S REDEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M HOPEFUL THAT IT WOULD BE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WOULD CLEAN IT UP FOR SURE.
AND THAT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT HERE.
AND I ALSO AGREE THAT SF THREE SEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE AS WELL, BUT MAYBE THAT GAVE STAFF SOME TIME TO ANSWER MY QUESTION OR TO PROVIDE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTION.
I DON'T SEE THAT THERE, THAT THIS IS WITHIN
[01:30:01]
150 FEET OF A WILD LAND AREA.THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE SINCE THIS CASE WAS FILED, THAT THERE IS DUMPING ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, I BELIEVE WOULD SOLVE THAT OR CUT CODE COULD CODE BE CALLED OUT BEFORE THEN, OR I DON'T KNOW THE STATUS OF CURRENT CODE VIOLATIONS.
THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE NOTHING IS TO HAVE A HOUSE, TO HAVE A COFFEE.
COMMISSIONER DINKLER I, IF THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WANTING TO TALK, I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE SFU.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AND THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS.
WE ARE ON TO SEE ITEMS FOR THE COMMISSION.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THE C1 THERE'S ANYTHING TO REPORT
[C2. Discussion and possible action establishing a working group tasked with providing Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget recommendations for Zoning and Platting Commission consideration to be forwarded to Council. (Sponsors Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioner Smith) ]
C TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP ARE TASKED WITH PROVIDING FISCAL YEAR 20 22, 20 23 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS.UM, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN A WORKING GROUP LOOKING AT THE 20 FYI 23, MR. KING, YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YES.
ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO JOIN COMMISSIONER KING IN HIS? I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW MANY OF THE ONES WE HAD LAST YEAR WENT THROUGH.
I HAVE SUCH A SIMPLE AMBITION.
I JUST SAY THAT, THAT IF I CAN JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I CAN DO IS THERE, IS THIS EMOTION OR SOMETHING? NOPE, NOPE, NOPE.
I WAS JUST PUTTING TOGETHER WORKING GROUPS SOUNDS LIKE YOU AND COMMISSIONER DINKLER WILL, UH, UH, PUT TOGETHER THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND WHEN WERE THOSE AWESOME? I THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
I WOULD JUST SEND THAT LAST YEAR.
WHAT WE DID IS WE PULLED TOGETHER THE DRAFT AND SEND IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, ON ZAP.
AND SO THEY HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT BEFORE THE MEETING AT WHICH THEY, YOU KNOW, WE CONSIDERED THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO, SO I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR COMMISSIONER DECKLER, BUT READY FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO THE COMMISSIONERS COULD REVIEW IT PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND HAVE IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, BY NOON MONDAY BEFORE AND EARLIER, IF WE CAN.
UH, AND THEN ALSO IN THE MEANTIME TO RECEIVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AND, AND, AND AS WELL, UH, I WOULD, UH, COULD I ASK ANDREW IF HE COULD DISTRICT DISTRIBUTE LAST YEAR'S RECOMMENDATION? SO Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT TO SEE WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR.
SO YES, IF HE JUST ALWAYS SHOULD WITHDRAW THE ITEM YOU CAN DO SO IN, I'M HAPPY TO PASS ALONG THAT, UH, THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, ANDREW, UH, WAS, UH, I WAS NOT SAYING THAT WE WOULD JUST FORWARD LAST YEAR'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT W W I WOULD SEND TO, YOU KNOW, ASK THE, ASK YOU IF YOU COULD SEND TO THE COMMISSIONERS, THE CURRENT COMMISSIONERS, UH, WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR, JUST SO RIGHT NOW, WITHIN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO, JUST SO THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE DID, WHAT WE RECOMMENDED LAST YEAR.
AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME, THEN COMMISSIONER DINKER AND I COULD, COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, RECEIVE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM, FROM, FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND THEN COMPILE THAT AND GET THAT READY FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
ARE YOU WILLING TO STAY ON I'LL STAY ON, DID A GREAT JOB LAST YEAR.
WE, WE WERE REALLY, WE DID WORK VERY HARD ON IT.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON A WORKING GROUP OR DO WE NEED TO VOTE IF YOU'RE ESTABLISHING WORKING GROUP? YES.
UH, Y'ALL HOOKED ON THE ESTABLISHING AND THE MEMBERSHIP MAKE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH A TWO PERSON WORKING GROUP ON THE BUTTON AND NAMES WITH PART OF THE MOTION.
MR. DINKLER AND COMMISSIONER MR. KING.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DINKLER KING WORKING GROUP BUDGET BUDGET WORKING GROUP 23.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO D AND WE WILL NEED LOTS OF HELP ON TRANSIT.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK.
[D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
SO I'M ONTO NUMBER D LETTER D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ARE THERE ANY PROPOSED FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? YES.UM, I THINK WE FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE MILKY WAY, RESTRICTIVE
[01:35:01]
COVENANT.UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THE RIGHT, THE PUBLIC SPEAKER THINKING THE SAME THING IT HAS TO GIVE US A BRIEFING NEXT WEEK, NEXT MEETING ABOUT KIND OF WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT.
SO I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND COMMISSIONER SMITH WOULD LIKE TO SPONSOR CO-SPONSOR A ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME.
MAY I ASK THAT I BE THROWN IN ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S A POINT I HAVE RAISED, WE ARE INCONSISTENTLY, UM, TREATING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND ZONING CASES TOO OFTEN.
WE HAVE A ZONING CASE AND THERE WAS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, UH, ATTACHED TO IT.
AND I'M FINDING STAFF WILL GO, OH, WELL, THAT WILL GET TAKEN CARE OF IT.
AND IT'S NOT OTHER TIMES WE HAVE VOTED ON, UM, UM, THE COUNCIL HAS ADDRESSED BOTH SEPARATELY.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENTLY HANDLED.
AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE SOME EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THIS CONSTRUED AS CLERICAL.
UM, I, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT.
SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO HAVE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
I JUST REALIZED, I SAID, NAT, NEXT TIME, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW QUICKLY STAFF CAN PUT TOGETHER THEIR REPORT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
A COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I THINK SINCE THE NEXT MEETING IS FOUR WEEKS AWAY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTINUING, WHETHER STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS OR NOT.
I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE INTERESTED PARTIES WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
SO I'D LIKE THIS ON THE NEXT AGENDA REGARDLESS.
COMMISSION LIAISON AND VALUE TO MEMBERS CAN CERTAINLY CO-SPONSOR ANY ITEM.
UM, BUT, UM, I, UM, I CANNOT GET GUARANTEED STAFF AVAILABILITY.
WE CAN HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA IS TO ASK, NOT READY.
THEY'RE NOT READY AND THAT RIGHT.
MAYBE THE PRESENTATION, BUT JUST TRY TO GET IT DONE.
KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA COMMISSIONER KING.
JUST TO CLARIFY IT, THAT'S IT THAT'S EMOTION FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.
BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO WRITE ON, RIGHT.
BECAUSE THAT WAY, IF WE WANT INPUT, WE CAN GET IT.
IF WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, WE CAN DO IT.
IF IT'S A BRIEFING, WE CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.
SO WE'RE OH, COMMISSIONER KING AND THE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, WITH CHAIR, I WOULD W UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, I'M SEEING A LOT OF, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT THE, UM, AUSTIN'S STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AMENDMENTS.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE MIGHT BE ON THE LIST THERE'S OWNING A PLANNING COMMISSION IS ON THE LIST TO GET A AND UPDATE FROM STAFF.
WE ARE, I THINK IT'S MARCH 29TH, MARCH.
AND THEN WILL THAT BE POSTED AS A, UH, UH, IF NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT IT'D BE POSTED AS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED FOR THE PAST DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, SAME OLD THING, JUST CHECKING IN ON THE WATERSHED BRIEFINGS AND MAKING SURE THAT IT DOESN'T DROP OFF, CHECK YOUR MICHELINS IN A MANNER OF STAFF IS AWARE OF THE REQUEST.
[E. COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS ]
WE'RE GOING TO E COMMITTEE REPORTS.UH, WE HAD A GOOD CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE LOOKED AT, WE TALKED ABOUT LANDSCAPING SERVICES.
WE HAD A SPEAKER AND WE WILL BE ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK AND PROVIDE US MORE INFORMATION, PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON NEXT STEPS.
I THINK THAT'S, I'M SET UP THAT THE CONCERN WAS OF COURSE, THAT WE HAVE SO MANY OF THESE THAT ARE IMPROPERLY ZONED.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO, UM, GO DOWN TO USE, GO UP, COMMISSIONER BREWER SUGGESTED DOING, UM, SMALLER, UH, AREAS FOR THIS.
UM, I WOULDN'T WALK OUT OF THE MEETING GOING, WHY AREN'T WE DIFFERENTIATING WHERE IF THEY'RE NOT USING A BOBCAT OR A DIGGER FOR ELEVATED TERRITORY, THEN WHAT WE HAVE IS TRUCKS WITH MOWERS IN THEM.
SO ISN'T THAT REALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER? SO, UH, WE WILL HEAR FROM MR. RUSS TOBIN IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE USES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND THEN TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS ON IT.
UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND YOU HAVE A MEETING ON THE 10TH NEXT WEEK.
AND SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANOTHER MEETING SINCE LAST TIME.
[01:40:01]
ONION CREEK AND LOCALIZED FLOODING, WORKING GROUPS, STAFF IS WORKING ON PUTTING TOGETHER A PRESENTATION FOR US AND THEY WILL HAVE THAT FOREST FORTHCOMING.WELL THAT IS THE END OF THE AGENDA.
THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH FOR A GREAT DISCUSSION.
I'M SURPRISED YOU STAY THE WHOLE TIME WE SPENT A GAME.