Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[Call To Order]

[00:00:05]

11 AND I'M GOING TO CALL THIS, UM, ZONING IT, THE HAVING A QUORUM PRESENT.

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT SIX 11 ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29TH.

FIRST, I'M GOING TO TAKE ROLL, UH, COMMISSIONER KOSTA, PRESENTER AND ME UH, COMMISSIONER BOON IS NOT WITH US.

UH, COMMISSIONER DINKLER COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HERE.

COMMISSIONER KING HERE.

WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T SEE YOU.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON.

OH, THERE YOU ARE.

HI, VICE-CHAIR CABASA HERE.

DIMINISHER SMITH HERE.

COMMISSIONER STERN IS NOT HERE.

UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE AND COMMISSIONER WOODY ALSO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE HERE.

OKAY.

SO, UM, LET'S SEE.

DO WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZENS COMMUNICATION DO WE NOW? OKAY, SO FIRST WE'LL GO THROUGH APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

UM, ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? NO HEARING NONE.

OKAY.

WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE AGENDA.

UM, SO B ONE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION IT'S C 14 20 21 0 1 5 5 LINDHURST REZONING.

UM, IT'S LET'S SEE.

YES.

AND THEN B TWO IS, UM, OH, WAIT, AM I BREAKING FROM THE RIGHT ONE? YEAH.

SORRY.

SHEETZ APOLOGIES.

LET ME PULL UP.

ALL RIGHT.

SO B ONE IS UP FOR CONSENT? YES.

OKAY.

AM I LOOKING AT THIS? SORRY.

THAT'S A FAST CHANGING WORLD OVER HERE AT ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

ITEM ONE WAS MOVED OR APPLIED TO ONE OUT OF 5 29.

IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER IS, UH, FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO GOING BACK B ONE C 14 20 21 0 1 5 5.

LINDHURST.

REZONING IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B TWO IS NOW CONSENT AND IT'S C 14.

OH, SORRY.

I, I HAVE HAD A REQUEST TO PULL THAT ONE, SO IT WILL ALSO BE A FOR DISCUSSION.

SO THAT'S UM, C 14 20 22 0 0 1 FOR SPRINKLE CUTOFF REZONINGS.

SO WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THAT ITEM.

B3 IS C 14 20 21 0 1 9 3 AT 7,400 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.

AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 14TH, 19.

THANK YOU.

BEFORE IS, UH, C 14 20 22 0 0 0 7 10 TO 58 OLD WOCKHARDT ROAD.

AND THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 3RD, B FIVE IS A REZONING AT C 14 H 20 21 0 1 6 4 CHRYSLER AIR TEMP HOUSE.

AND THAT IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION B SIX IS S P 20 19 0 1 0 9 C R ONE, WATER OAK APARTMENTS.

AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

B SEVEN IS A SITE PLAN S P 20 20 0 2 6 5 C SOUTH AUSTIN, REGIONAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, B EIGHT SUBDIVISION OUT PRELIMINARY PLANS, C A C 8 20 21 0 0 7 EIGHT.ONE, A SERIALLY COMMUNITY SUBDIVISION AND THAT'S DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, UM, LISTED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS AS SHOWN IN THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEET B NINE SUBDIVISION OUT OF PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 20 0 0 3 THREE.ONE EIGHT SADDLE RIDGE AT WILD HORSE RANCH.

SECTION ONE IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, ALSO LISTED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS, UH, SHOWN IN THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEETS, B 10 IS A PLAT VACATION, C EIGHT S 7 7 1 3 6 VAC AT LARRY JAMISON SUBDIVISION PLAT VACATION.

THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION B 11 AS A REPLAT, UM, C EIGHT J 20 21 0 0 8 0 DOT OH, A HIDDEN OAKS ESTATE SUBDIVISION, DISAPPROVAL DISCUSSION DISCUSSION, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS.

SO THAT IS ALSO ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA.

SO TO RECAP, WE HAVE SORRY, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, B3 POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 19TH BEFORE POSTPONEMENT TIL MAY 3RD, B SIX B SEVEN B EIGHT B NINE.

[00:05:01]

AND THAT'S IT? YES.

COMMISSIONER DINKLER NO ADAM CHAIR.

UH, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, I PULLED THE SPRINKLE, UM, CUTOFF ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM TWO.

I WANTED TO POSTPONE THAT CASE UNTIL WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO POSTPONE THAT CASE UNTIL MAY 3RD.

I'M ASSUMING A MONTH TO GIVE US TIME TO GET THAT, BUT I HAVE NOT TALKED TO TRANSPORTATION STAFF OR ABOUT THAT.

OKAY.

DO WE THINK THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET STAFF FEEDBACK, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, ALWAYS ON EVER, EVER, IF WE COULD HEAR FROM STAFF MS. HEATHER SHAVEN, THANK YOU.

UH, HEATHER CHAFFIN, UH, HOUSING AND PLANNING.

I DO HAVE A TRANSPORTATION STAFF HERE AND MTA REQUIRES, UH, TRAFFIC COUNTS AND SEVERAL STEPS.

IT IS NOT REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF THIS ZONING OR ATV.

AND I BELIEVE MR. BEATTY COULD ADDRESS THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.

UM, I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT IT CAN COMPLY IN ZONING REQUEST.

SO, UM, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS ITEM WITHOUT THE MTA.

THIS IS 185 UNITS.

UH, THAT'S MORE THAN 300 TRIPS.

IT ADJOINS A SUBSTANDARD ROAD OF 22 FEET.

IT'S SURROUNDED BY, UH, INTERIM ZONING AND PEDS ZONING DEVELOPED AS, UM, RESIDENTIAL.

AND, UH, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN NTA.

OKAY.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT KEEP IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM THEN.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? UM, IF IT GOES THROUGH THE SAME LAND PROCESS, IT LOOKS LIKE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE ROADWAY HAS BEEN WIDENED AND INCLUDES A BIKE LANE, AT LEAST ON THE PAR SOUTH IS A LIKELY THAT DURING THE SITE PLAN PHASE, THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO IMPROVE SPRINKLE CUTOFF ROAD, OR DO WE KNOW, UH, THIS IS CURTIS BEATTY WITH THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE APPLICABLE TO THE STREET IMPACT FEE, IF THEY ARE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE PROPERTY, THE, UH, FURNITURE OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY CAN MAKE AND USE AS A CREDIT TOWARDS THEIR STREET IMPACT, THEY, YES, THEY CAN.

OTHERWISE THEY WILL PAY INTO THE STREET IMPACT FEE FOR THIS SERVICE AREA.

OKAY.

SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT DONE WOULD BE TO GET IT TO THE SITE PLAN PHASE, WHICH REQUIRES US TO GO THROUGH IS ONLY FIRST.

UH, WE HAVE HAD NDAS DONE AS PART OF ZONING YEAH.

WHERE THEY HAVE ASKED FOR RIGHT LANE IN RIGHT LANE OUT.

FOR EXAMPLE, MR. THROWER HAD A CASE ON COOPER LANE WHERE THE NTA REQUIRED A, A RIDE TURN IN RIGHT TURN OUT ON COOPER LANE.

UM, IT IS A LONG STRIP LONG STRIP.

IT'S FIFTEEN, A HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE UNITS, 15 ACRES SUBSTANDARD ROAD.

THE ONLY ACCESS FOR THIS PROPERTY WILL BE ON THAT SUBSTANDARD ROAD.

NOW THERE ARE PLANS TO IMPROVE IT.

I ASKED THAT QUESTION IN FIVE TO 10 YEARS, BUT, UM, I THOUGHT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO, I THOUGHT BEFORE WE APPROVED A HUNDRED, 5 85 UNITS, WE SHOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSED PLAN AND KEEP IT ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA FOR NOW.

AND WE'LL MOVE ON.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

UM, I HAVE A COMMENT AND SUGGESTION ABOUT B6.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT I WAS UNHAPPY TO LEARN THAT THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE FOR WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT.

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS A RESULT OF A STAFF ERROR, AND I'D LIKE TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF REVIEW AND REVISE THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

OKAY.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

OKAY.

WHY NOT THIS AGENDA ITEM? I MEAN, I JUST, OKAY.

DO YOU WANT TO PULL IT TOO? WE CAN'T JUST BY CONSENT, ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF REVISE THE APPROVAL PROCESS.

THIS IS A ZONING CASE, NOT, I MEAN, THIS, I'M SORRY, THIS IS LIKE, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST, RIGHT.

SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DO, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM MISS TALI, UH, PAMELA AB TOTALLY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND, UH, SO YES, WE ARE WORKING ON MAKING SURE THAT THIS KIND OF THING DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT'S, UM, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND, UH, UM, YEAH, IT WAS, YEAH,

[00:10:01]

KIND OF, UH, IT WAS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE, I THINK IT GOT CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A REORG AND GOT SLIPPED SO THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT IT, DIDN'T LOOK AT IT OR, AND IT, ANYWAY, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED.

UM, OKAY.

WELL, IF YOU'RE WORKING ON THAT, DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY.

WHERE I ASSURE YOU, WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN, THEN I'M SATISFIED CAN LEAVE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

YES, COMMISSIONER KING.

THANK YOU.

AND THIS IS ALSO ABOUT B6 AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, CONSENT AGENDA THAT WE RECEIVED AND A PDF, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT DIRECTLY REFLECTED THAT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT NEED THE FINDING OF FACT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

AND IS THAT ACCURATE? ARE YOU STILL TALKING ABOUT THESE SIX? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT B SIX IT'S SHOWN ON OUR CONSENT PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BUT THE BACKUP FROM STAFF ON THIS CASE SAYS THAT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND IT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WANT IT ON THE RECORD, WHETHER STAC RECOMMENDS THIS VARIANCE OR NOT.

I UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDED IT, BUT I'M ASKING ABOUT STAFF.

OKAY.

PAMELA WOULD BE TOTALLY AGAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND, UH, YES.

UH, DAVID, UH, COMMISSIONER KING IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, UH, AND IT GOT ONTO THE SCHEDULE INCORRECTLY AND, UM, MY FAULT, NOT, NOT ANDREW'S, UH, BUT, UH, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, UH, RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDED EXPERIENCE AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO, IF THIS IS GOING TO STAY ON CONSENT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS VOTING AGAINST B6 AND ABSTAINING.

ARE WE PULLING B2? YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT I NEED TO BE SHOW ME AS SUSTAINING ON ITEM B EIGHT SECOND.

OKAY.

SO MOVE.

SO MOVE FROM COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.

CABASA DO I NEED TO READ THEM AGAIN SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING OVER.

EVERYBODY EVERYONE'S CLEAR.

THAT'S A PROJECT WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON OUR, OUR FARMERS.

SORRY, THIS CHAIR.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO READ IT AGAIN.

OKAY.

SO WE HAVE B3 POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 19TH, BEFORE POSTPONED UNTIL MAY 3RD, B SIX IS ON THE CONSENT CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT STAFF ADDRESSING ANY, UM, ISSUES WITH THE PROCESS AND THAT IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF B SEVEN IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, B EIGHT AND B NINE.

OKAY.

CHAIR.

I JUST NEED A CLARIFICATION.

SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS TO PROVE IS ON B6 IS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS.

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE TO APPROVE IT, TO APPROVE IT.

OKAY.

SO COMMISSIONER , IT SHOULD BE NOTED AS A APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND ALSO THAT, SO I DO WANT TO BE SHOWN IS VOTING NO ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

OKAY.

AND I'M SORRY TO HEAR ONE MORE THING.

UH, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH ABSTAIN ON WHICH ITEM I'M RECUSING MYSELF.

NOT TO BE A VA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER SMITH.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR.

I'M SORRY.

I ALSO WANTED TO ABSTAIN ON B6.

YOU'RE GETTING INTO NOT APPROVAL.

THEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO PASS THAT ITEM CONSENT AGENDA COMMITTEE PEOPLE REFUSAL OVER WITH YOU'RE ABSTAINING STAINING.

SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, WHO ALL IS ABSTAINING ON ADAM B6? JUST KING AND THOMPSON.

OH, AND WOODY.

SO THAT'S BUT WE'RE ON 2, 3, 4, 6 OF US ARE VOTING.

OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THAT'S OKAY.

UH, OKAY.

LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH, UM, SO UNION MIS WITH, UM, THOMPSON AND KING ABSTAINING ON B6 AND SMITH.

OH, AND WOODY, SORRY, SORRY.

COMMISSIONER WOODY.

UM, OF STANDING ON V6 AND SMITH RECUSING HIMSELF OF V8.

YES.

OKAY.

LET'S GO ON TO BE ONE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER, DID WE VOTE? YES, WE DID.

WE DID.

OKAY.

MR. WAITRESS.

[B1. C14-2021-0155 - Lyndhurst Rezoning; District 6]

OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS SHERRY.

SERITA'S FROM THE HOUSING AND

[00:15:01]

PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS ITEM B ONE, WHICH IS KC 14, 20 21 0 1 5 5 LINDHURST REZONING.

THIS IS LOCATED AT 1 3, 4, 2, 4 LYNN, HER STREET, AND 1 3, 4, 4, 3 NORTH ROAD.

THE REQUEST IS FROM GRC O AN INTERIM SF TWO TO CSME ZONING.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS GRM U C O ZONING TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.

THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING USES ON THE PROPERTY AUTOMOTIVE SALES BAIL BOND SERVICES, COMMERCIAL OFF STREET, PARKING DROP-OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, OFFSITE, ACCESSORY PARKING, PAWNSHOP SERVICES, AND PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS AT 1.73 ACRE AREA THAT CONSISTS OF TWO UNDEVELOPED, LOTS THAT FRONT ONTO LYNN, HER STREET AND NORTH FM SIX 20 ROAD ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYNDHURST AND FM SIX 20.

THERE IS A FORMER SERVICE STATION THAT IS NOW BEING UTILIZED FOR A LONG CARE COMPANY AND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COURSE, NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH.

THERE'S A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED ELO AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE IN THIS REVISED PER ZONING CASE.

THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING CSM USE ZONING TO DEVELOP A CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES.

AT THIS LOCATION, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GRM UCO OR THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT.

ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERNS.

AS THERE IS EXISTING GRC ZONING TO THE EAST AND ELO, AND ZONING TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE, THE TRACKS OF LAND TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED AND PROVIDE A TRANSITION IN THE INTENSIVE USES ALONG NORTH FMCS 20 ROUTE DOWN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH ON LAND, HER STREET, GR ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE.

AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A LOCAL COLLECTOR AND WAY AT THE ENTRANCE TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS LAND, HER STREET FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THE PROPOSED CEO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST ACROSS LYNN, HER STREET THAT WAS APPROVED IN CASEY 14, 2009 0 1 1 0, WHICH WAS AMERICAN ADVENTURES RENTALS, WHICH WAS A RV RENTAL BUSINESS THAT HAS NOW GONE OUT OF BUSINESS, WHICH HAS BEEN REPLACED BY A LANDSCAPING COMPANY.

GRATZ WORKS.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING THE MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY.

AS THESE USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USES AND ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL.

THE SITE DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE CS DISTRICT AS IT IS NOT LOCATED AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION.

THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE ADDITION OF THE IMMUNE MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT ON THIS PROPERTY, AS THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, THE PROPOSED IN YOU GRM UCS ANYMORE, PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH RESIDENTIAL OFFICE CIVIC AND LOW-INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES THAT WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, JERRY.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MS. VICTORIA, HASI GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER, AS SHERRY WAS MENTIONING, THE SUBJECT SITE IS ABOUT 1.7 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND.

IT DOES HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY.

THAT IS A SIX 20 AS WELL AS FRONTAGE ON LYNDHURST.

THE REQUEST FOR REZONING WAS SOUGHT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION NEEDS OF A LOCAL PEST MANAGEMENT AND LAWN CARE COMPANY HERE IN AUSTIN.

THE SUBJECT, THE SUBJECT SITE IN BLUE SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS.

THE SITE IS WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER, UH, THAT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE GREATEST DENSITY AND VARIETY OF USES.

THIS IS A MAP ZONING MAPS, SHOWING CONTEXT WITH THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THE REQUESTED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH SIMILARLY SITUATED, SITUATED PROPERTIES WITH FRONTAGE ALONG THE COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY, AND EXTENDING AWAY FROM THE COMMERCIAL FROM THE HIGHWAY WITH A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE.

THIS IS GOING REALLY FAST.

HERE WE GO.

SO THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT HAS

[00:20:01]

GR ZONING TODAY WAS ESTABLISHED WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 1994, THERE IS A CEO THAT RESTRICTS, UH, THE SINGH, UH, SQUARE FEET OF CERTAIN VARIOUS USES.

AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS INTERIM SF TWO, WHICH HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE IT WAS ANNEXED IN 19 70, 19 97.

THE SITE IS ONE, A FEW REMAINING PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE PERMANENT ZONING.

OKAY.

I APOLOGIZE.

SO THE ZONING REQUESTED FOR THE SITE IS AS PER THE BUSINESS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, PET CARE AND LAWN PEST CONTROL AND LAWN CARE, THE CITY CLASSIFIES PEST CONTROL AS EXTERMINATING SERVICES, WHICH REQUIRES GR ZONING OF WHICH A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE TODAY, AS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVOLVED, UH, THEIR CONCERNS FOR PEST CONTROL CHEMICALS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF OUR CLIENT REVEALED GREATER DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE SITE WAS PROPOSED TO BE USED, WHICH IS A SECOND LOCATION INTENDED TO HOUSE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES RELATED TO LAWN CARE.

UH, THE LAWN CARE BRANCH OF THEIR BUSINESS, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR 85% OF SERVICES RENDERED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY CLASSIFY LAWN CARE AND LANDSCAPING USES.

AND IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY STAFF THAT CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE IS THE USE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, UH, USE ASSOCIATED WITH LAWN CARE.

AFTER FINDING THIS OUT, WE APPROACHED THE CITY, OR WE APPROACHED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE PURCHASED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THE IDEA OF, UH, APPLYING FOR C US ZONING, BUT ADDING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WOULD PROHIBIT PEST CARE OR EXTERMINATING SERVICES, PEST CONTROL SERVICES BY WAY OF CEO.

AND THAT WAY THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY AS THEY ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO.

UM, AND ALSO ADDRESSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COME TO A WORKABLE SOLUTION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THIS IS A MAP SHOWING PROXIMITY OF THE SITE TO THE NEARBY CREEK AND CREEK BUFFERS, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, SHIFTED THEIR CONCERNS TOWARDS LAWN CARE FERTILIZERS, AND THE IMPACT THAT THOSE HAVE ON THE CREEK SYSTEM.

AND I QUESTION IF THE PROPOSED, UH, USE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE HAS ANY GREATER IMPACTS THAN ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE WATERWAY SETBACK AND USE LAWN CARE PEST MANAGEMENT CHEMICALS BOUGHT FROM LOWE'S OR HOME DEPOT ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, CHEMICALS OF THAT KIND ARE SAFER BEING HANDLED BY LICENSED PROFESSIONALS OVER THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER OKAY.

THIS IS A LITTLE ODD CAUSE EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE OUT OF ORDER.

I THOUGHT THAT THIS WASN'T INCLUDED IN HERE.

SO THIS IS A 1997 SITE PLAN THAT WAS COME RU APPROVED FOR THE SITE.

UH, AND IT DOES IDENTIFY TWO STRUCTURES ON THE LOW ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BOTH WAREHOUSE, UH, COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.

SO THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE MORE HOMES AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS COMING TO THE AUSTIN AREA AND ALL OF WHICH HAVE A NEED FOR SERVICES THAT OUR CLIENT PROVIDES, WHICH IS EVIDENT AS THEIR BUSINESSES THRIVING.

AND THEY DO NEED ROOM FOR EXPANSION.

OUR CLIENT SERVICES, NEARLY A HUNDRED PROPERTIES IN THIS ZIP CODE ALONE.

THIS SITE WAS PURCHASED FOR THE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE LAWN CARE USE.

AND IF CS CAN BE ACHIEVED, OUR CLIENT IS WILLING TO PROHIBIT THE PEST MANAGEMENT USE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD CONCERNS ABOUT.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE, UH, OPPOSITION, MR. MARTY COCHRAN, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS,

[00:25:03]

SURE DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE HIM ON THE LINE.

UM, SHOULD HE CALL IN? UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, BRING IT BACK ON IF YOU NEED BANK.

OKAY.

SO WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION AND THEN YOU'LL LET ME KNOW.

HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR IF THEY, IF HE CALLS BACK OR CORRECT? YES, THEY'LL APPEAR ON MY SCREEN NOW.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO THEN SINCE THERE'S NOTHING TO REBUT, WE'LL HOLD THAT REBUTTAL UNTIL IN CASE HE CALLS WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE CASE, IS THIS EXTRAORDINARY? YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.

MR. RIVERA, JEREMIAH.

HI.

YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE UP THE REBUTTAL AT THIS TIME.

OKAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.

OKAY, WELL, LET'S START WITH THE DISCUSSION THEN.

WELL, WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NO, WE CAN'T.

YEAH.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OKAY.

I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE DIAS OR ON THE TV? OKAY, GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER SMITH.

NOT EXACTLY, BUT VERY SIMILAR TO CASE.

WE HAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHERE SOMEONE, THEY HAD AN EXISTING SITE, THIS WAS NOT AN EXISTING SITE.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

UM, BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, DOESN'T FIT INTO A SINGLE ZONING CATEGORY.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S FRUSTRATING THAT WE CAN'T FIND ONE CATEGORY TO PUT THEM INTO, TO DO, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF FACILITY THAT DO PESTICIDE AND LAWN CARE TOGETHER BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

I MEAN, WE DO THE SAME THING IN OUR HOUSE.

WE HAVE ONE COMPANY THAT DOES BOTH, BUT THEY CAN'T RUN OUT OF ONE FACILITY WITH ONE SINGLE ZONING.

THAT'S A PROBLEM.

UM, THE ONLY THING THAT SEEMS TO WORK AS THEY SUGGEST WOULD BE TO DO THE GR, BUT ALLOW THE EXTERMINATION SERVICES IN THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'D BE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH AS OPPOSED TO GOING TO THE CS.

CAUSE THE CS IS A HIGHER ZONING, BUT DOING THE GR, BUT REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS ON EXTERMINATION SERVICES, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LEANING.

YES.

LEAVE THE MUN, BUT NOT INCLUDE THE EXTERMINATION SERVICES IN THE EMU.

MR. LADIES, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO? I THOUGHT WE HAD TO GO UP AND THEN RESTRICT DOWN.

SO EXTERMINATING SERVICES IS A USE THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE GR DISTRICT.

THIS SIMPLY RECOMMENDING THE CONDITION IN THE CONDITIONAL AVALANCHE PROHIBITED.

RIGHT? HOWEVER, IT IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW OF COURSE, TO RECOMMEND GRC L G R M U C L, BUT PERMIT ADD BACK, UH, EXTERMINATING SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE ADDING A BACK OR NOT REMOVING IT, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS IS ALLOWING THE GR, WHICH IS WHAT'S ADJACENT, INCLUDING THE, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, BUT NOT INCLUDING EXTERMINATION SERVICES AS PART OF THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

AND, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU.

OKAY.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KING.

THANK YOU.

AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, WILL THIS, UH, SITE BE REQUIRED TO, UH, PARTICIPATE IN THE STREET IMPACT? THE WILL? I WOULD ASSUME SO AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, AS WE ARE NOT REVIEWING SITE PLANS AT THIS TIME, I CAN NOT SPEAK TO THEM.

OKAY.

AND THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMENT IN THE BACKUP WHERE THIS, THAT THIS SIDE IS WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY SB 1396.

THAT IS TRUE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE DOES THAT MEAN IT'S STILL, IT'S NOT EXEMPT FROM THE STREET IMPACT FEE THEN I, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY TRANSPORTATION.

OKAY.

SO, UH, IN CASE THE, YOU KNOW, AND I HOPE EVERYBODY GOT A CHANCE TO READ THAT IS THAT, UH, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY MAY NOT DENY LIMIT DELAY OR CONDITION THE USE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT LAND BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC OR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND.

SO, SO I'M NOT THAT MY READING OF THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE STREET IMPACT FEE, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

I JUST, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT THAT DEFINITELY WILL IMPACT THE TRAFFIC.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW WHETHER THAT, WHETHER THAT BILL, THAT BILL THAT'S LEGISLATION PROHIBITS THE STREET IMPACT FEE FROM BEING COLLECTED FOR THIS SITE.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT IN CASES THAT COME FORWARD THAT ARE IN THIS SAME AREA WHERE THIS BILL APPLIES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO KNOW AS PART OF THE STEP BACKUP.

SO I HOPE WE CAN GET THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE BILL FROM THE HISTORY THAT WE'VE HAD WITH CASES IN THIS AREA, THE STATE BILL AFFECTS THAT WE CANNOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TRIPS ON THE SITE.

[00:30:02]

WE CANNOT REQUIRE A TA IN ZONING AND THE LAND USE DETERMINATION.

I DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT FOLLOWS AT THE SITE PLAN PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY, WELL MAYBE WE COULD GET SOME INFORMATION ON THAT FROM STAFF AS A, AS AN LETTER TO US, MAYBE FROM, FROM, YOU KNOW, UM, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, FOR FUTURE CASES, JUST GENERALLY HOW THIS BILL INTERACTS WITH THE STREET IMPACT FOR YOU JUST GENERALLY I CAN GET WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE CURTIS BEATTY WITH US HERE, BUT I'M SURE HE'S NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PAINT.

CAUSE IT WAS NOT ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.

HOWEVER, I CAN ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THAT STATE BILL ON THE IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE AT THE TIME OF CYCLING.

OKAY.

AND, UH, MR. WADE, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.

I'M JUST SAYING ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, IF WE COULD, MAYBE WE COULD GET SOMETHING FROM LEGAL THAT SAYS YAY OR NAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, ZONING CASES IN THIS AREA THAT ARE COVERED BY THE SB.

THIS BILL WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM STREET IMPACT JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, NOT ANY SPECIFIC CASE.

THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMATION.

AND ALSO I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

IT SAYS THAT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY PROFILE ON THIS, THIS SIDE, WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL AS OUR CHAIR HAS REPEATED, HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, UM, THAT THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THIS SIDE HAS GREATER THAN 15% SLOPE.

AND SO I WONDER IF, UH, IT IS THE, IS A VARIANCE MAYBE ANTICIPATED OR REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AGAIN, YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT CYCLING.

OH, OKAY.

I SEE.

YEAH, JUST LAND USE RIGHTS AT THIS POINT, WE'RE LOOKING AT USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT THE SLOPES WILL BE LOOKED AT AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY.

AND MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE 2021 ASM P STREET NETWORK AMENDMENTS.

AND I WAS WONDERING HOW, UH, LYNN, HER STREET IS GOING TO BE, UH, AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED, UH, S AND P AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN STREET NETWORK AMENDMENTS.

AND MAYBE IF THEY MAYBE COULD ADDRESS THAT, UM, I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT.

THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE SITE OR THE TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS ON THIS CASE.

OH, IS THERE SOMEBODY FROM TRANSPORTATION HERE THAT MIGHT KNOW THAT, UH, CURTIS BEATTY AGAIN FROM ATD IS HERE, HOWEVER, HE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, HE'S HERE ON OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

AND IF THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF, THAT'S WHERE THAT WOULD COME FROM.

OKAY.

MR. WADE, THANK YOU AGAIN.

AND I THINK AGAIN, GOING FORWARD, IF WE HAVE CASES THAT, WHERE THERE ARE STREETS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE ASAP AMENDMENTS, THEN I THINK THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION TO KNOW, AND I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE FUTURE CASES WITH EMAILS IN ADVANCE ON THAT.

SO THANK YOU, MR. WADERS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMATION.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER KING.

AND MR. RIVERA HAS INFORMED ME THAT WE HAVE THE SPEAKER ON THE LINE, SO HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIX MINUTES.

I'M SORRY.

SIX MINUTES.

WELL, MR. HALL FELLOW, THIS IS BARKHORN.

HELLO.

THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE.

MY CELL PHONE DROPPED THE CALL EARLIER THAT I'M CONNECTED TO YOUR NOW ON MY LANDLINE.

I'M THE OWNER OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, 1 0 4 AND THE CONDO BUILDING CLOSEST TO THE TRACK SUBJECT TRACK.

UM, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL SEEN ON THE PICTURES.

WE HAVE EIGHT BUILDINGS, UH, 68 CONDOS.

I MAINLY WANT TO MAKE THE POINT HERE IN CASE THERE'S ANY DOUBT THAT WE ARE A RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE WEST BEYOND THE STATE FARM OFFICE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REVIEW, THERE'S ACTUALLY A LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEX.

UM, AND THE INVITATION INVITATION TODAY'S MEETING ACTUALLY SAYS QUITE PLAINLY THAT THE CFMU THAT THE OWNER REQUESTED IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS.

I'M READING THAT AS A LAYMAN, I'M TAKING IT LITERALLY.

AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE ARE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT.

UM, I'M THE OWNER I'VE BEEN HERE 12 YEARS AND, UM, WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE LIVING HERE IN THE CONDOS EVERY YEAR.

IT GETS HARDER TO GET OUT UNDER THE, OR ACCESS TO THE, UM, SIX 20 TOLL ROAD.

UM, CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE JUST NORTH OF US HERE.

AND SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT FINDING A WAY TO, UM, USE A LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING, BUT STILL PROHIBIT THE, UM, THE MOST INTENSIVE USES.

SO I'VE JUST POINTED EVERYBODY TO WHAT THE STAFF SAID THAT THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LESS INTENSIVE USES.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER DINKLER DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? OKAY.

UM, I'M JUST GOING TO, THERE WE GO.

UM, THIS, UH, SUSPECT THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THIS.

DOES THIS TRACK ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO SIX 20 OR IS THERE A SIGNAL AT LYNDHURST OR IS THE ACCESS

[00:35:01]

YOU'VE MENTIONED? THERE WAS FRONTAGE ON BOTH SIX 20 AND LYNDHURST.

I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE'S ACCESS ON SIX 20 CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NOT ACCESS DIRECTLY FROM THIS TRACT TO SIX 20.

HOWEVER, THE SUBDIVISION OF THESE TWO, UH, OF THE SUBJECT AREA, UH, REQUIRED THAT THERE BE A JOINT USE ACCESS TO SIX 20 WITH THE PROPERTY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WEST.

UM, AND I THOUGHT I HAD INCLUDED A SLIDE IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT IT WOULD, IT WAS HIGHLIGHTING THAT AREA THAT THE JOINT ACCESS WOULD COME FROM.

I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

AND THERE IS CS ON THE, ON A LONG SIX 20.

I WASN'T SEEING IT IN THE BACKUP AT YOUR MAPS SEEMED TO INDICATE THERE WAS MORE OF IT TO THE WEST THAN I REALIZED, CORRECT? YES, YES, YES.

AND I APOLOGIZE, SORRY.

UM, WE WENT ALL OUT OF ORDER.

SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THREE MINUTES REBUTTAL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT NOW.

YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE JUST TO SAY THAT, UM, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE'RE OPPOSED TO GR SO LONG AS WE CAN ACHIEVE OUR CLIENT NEEDS TO ACHIEVE EITHER THE ABILITY TO DO LAWN CARE, UM, MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, STORAGE OF THEIR, UM, EQUIPMENT THERE, OR THE ABILITY TO DO PEST MANAGEMENT.

UM, SO AS SO LONG AS WE CAN GET ONE OF THOSE THAT WILL WORK FOR OUR CLIENT, UM, THERE IS A DESIRE FOR MIXED USE WITH THE REQUEST.

AND WHILE THAT'S NOT THIS PARTICULAR CLIENT'S DESIRE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL USES ON THIS TRACT, WE KNOW THAT MOVING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THAT IS BEING REQUESTED WITH THE CASE, BUT IT IS, IT IS A PROPERTY THAT'S ON A COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY.

AND I FIND IT REALLY INTERESTING THAT, UM, IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION THERE WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A LAWN CARE BUSINESS ON THE OTHER CORNER OF LYNDHURST AND SIX 20.

UM, AND THEY HAVE GR ZONING.

SO IF WE CAN GET GR ZONING AND DO YOU KNOW THAT AND DO THE SAME THING THAT THEY'RE DOING, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD WORK FOR OUR CLIENT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

SO WE NEED A MOTION NOW TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC.

SO MOVED AND SECONDED BY.

UM, SO THAT WAS BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KOSTA, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT LOOKS UNANIMOUS.

AND THEN DO I HEAR A MOTION? SO YOUR OTHER QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY OTHER YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? UM, UNLESS THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

I KNOW THERE WAS A CASE, UM, A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT MAY SEEM SIMILAR.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS IS UNDEVELOPED AND I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE SHOULD DEVIATE FROM WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS APPROPRIATE ON THIS LOCATION.

WHEN THERE THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING USE.

SO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IN THE EXTERMINATION SERVICES BEING PROHIBITED.

YES.

OKAY.

IF THERE'S A SECOND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.

I SEE NONE.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

I'M SORRY.

UM, I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION.

UH, SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD REQUESTED THAT ACCOMMODATION AND THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT ACCOMMODATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

YEAH.

YES, I BELIEVE SO.

AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THIS COMMISSION WOULDN'T SUPPORT AN ARRANGEMENT THAT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I GUESS I, I DON'T KNOW, UM, THE RIGHT MOVE HERE, I GUESS I, I CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WOULD BE APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, G R M U C O.

UM, BUT I DO THINK, AND THEN INCLUDING WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION ON NO EXTERMINATION SERVICES, SO RE SO REMOVE THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

I DO AGREE WITH THE ADVOCATE SAYING THAT HAVING CHEMICALS IN THE HANDS OF PROFESSIONALS IS BETTER, I THINK, THAN HAVING THEM HOME DEPOT AND PUT ON THE GROUND.

AND YOU DO HAVE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY IS ON ACROSS THE STREET.

SO YOU NEVER GOT A SECOND ON YOURS.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

OKAY.

SO I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DO STAFF RECOMMENDATION, GR M U C O WITH THE ONLY CHANGE THAT ALLOW EXTERMINATION SERVICES, UM, WITHIN THAT MIXED USE WITHIN THE CEO.

AND DOES THAT ADDRESS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGREEMENT? SO I'M NOT, I'M UNCLEAR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGREEMENT.

SO MS. HASI IS GOING TO TELL US WHAT THEY AGREED TO.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR CALLING ME UP HERE.

UM, SO TO BE CLEAR,

[00:40:01]

WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE TRY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT.

UM, THERE ARE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UH, GR ON THE INTERIM SF TWO PORTION OF THIS LAND.

UM, THEY BROUGHT FORWARD A CONCERN ABOUT STORAGE OF PEST CONTROL RELATED CHEMICALS AT THIS SITE.

SO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, WE THEN, AFTER WE FOUND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE PROPERTY WOULD BE USED MORE FOR LAWN CARE, RATHER THAN PEST CONTROL, THEN WE KIND OF DIVIDED THE TWO USES AND SAID, OKAY, WELL, WE'LL ASK FOR CS AND WILL PROHIBIT OUT PEST CONTROL TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD.

HOWEVER, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOODS STILL DIDN'T WANT TO SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE THEN THEY SHIFTED THEIR FOCUS TOWARDS NOW WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS INVOLVED WITH A LAWN CARE LAWN MANAGEMENT TYPE OF, UM, BUSINESS.

AND TO THAT POINT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BUSINESS THAT IS LICENSED BY THE, YOU KNOW, AGRICULTURE, THE TEXAS, UM, AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION, OR, UM, NOT THE COMMISSION, BUT, UH, BOARD APOLOGIZE.

CAN'T FIND MY WORDS.

UM, THEY ARE LICENSED, THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS.

THEY KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

AND, UM, I, I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, MUCH BETTER TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS USING THESE TYPES OF, UM, ITEMS VERSUS ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE CREEK BUFFERS THAT USE THESE TYPES OF SERVICES AS WELL.

SO ON THEIR OWN.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? SO CAN I CLARIFY A STAFF THAT AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT, THEIR COMMENTS ARE EXHIBIT F IN YOUR BACKUP.

OKAY.

AND THE GRASSWORKS BUSINESS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WHEN HER STREET TO THE EAST IS AN ILLEGAL USE IN THE GR DISTRICT.

OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER KING.

SO CHEER.

DID WE GET A SECOND ON THAT LAST SUBSTITUTE MOTION? WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED A SECOND ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH WOULD, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PROVIDE FOR, SO IT'D BE G R M U C O INCLUDING EXTERMINATING SERVICES.

SO THE ONE, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT EXTERMINATING SERVICES.

AND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS, UH, WOULD PERMIT EXTERMINATING SERVICES.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OKAY.

NOW, OKAY.

SO LET'S VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KING YOU'RE OPPOSED? NO, I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY.

SO IT'S JUST COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THAT WAS OPPOSED.

UM, AND SO WE WILL MOVE

[B2. C14-2022-0014 - Sprinkle Cutoff Rd Rezoning; District 1]

ON TO B TWO.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY, KITCHEN COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS SUPPOSED TO ALL ELSE ALL UP BEFORE FOUR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MS. SCHAFFZIN.

GOOD EVENING, HEATHER CHAFFIN.

HOW'S IT GOING? PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

NOPE.

THIS IS CASE C 14 20 22 0 0 1 4.

SPRINKLE CUTOFF REZONING.

IT'S AT 11,000 SPRINKLED CUTOFF ROAD.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY SIX 16 AND A HALF ACRES.

UH, PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPRINKLE CUTOFF ROAD, ABOUT 500 FEET NORTH OF SAMSUNG BOULEVARD.

IT'S ZONED IRR IT'S HEAVILY VEGETATED PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST AND SOUTH ARE PRIMARILY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ARE ZONED I S F TWO AND PUD IT'S THE PIONEER CROSSING PUD TO THE EAST ACROSS SPRINKLE CUTOFF ROAD TO THE WEST IS END DEVELOPED PROPERTY.

THAT WAS REZONED WITHIN THE PAST 10 YEARS TO SF SIX.

UH, FURTHER WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS IRR PROPERTY.

THAT'S ALSO DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STAFF TO SUPPORTING THE REZONING REQUEST.

UH, ONE OF OUR ZONING PRINCIPLES IS TO TREAT LIKE PROPERTIES IN A SIMILAR WAY.

IT'S A GRANTING SF SIX ON THIS PROPERTY IS EQUAL TREATMENT TO THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE ROAD WEST.

IT ALSO PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES IN THIS AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE SF SIX

[00:45:01]

ALLOWS TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

AND WE ALSO HAVE STAFF HERE FROM HPE.

THANK YOU.

UM, THERE IS ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

NO.

OH, OKAY.

I HAD IT IN AN OLDER EMAIL, I GUESS.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

SO I GUESS WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, WAIT, HOLD ON.

I'M GETTING AHEAD ON MY MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SAID, UH, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY, LIKE, UM, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT.

THERE WE GO.

OKAY.

I KNEW THERE WAS SOMEONE SIGNED UP.

MY APOLOGIES, MR. SOSA TO BE THAT'S CORRECT.

YES, MA'AM RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING.

PLANNING, ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

I'M JONATHAN SO-TO-SPEAK WITH, KIMLEY-HORN REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

UM, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THANK YOU.

SO, UM, THERE IS A RED LINE THAT OUTLINES THE PROPERTY, BUT HEATHER DID A GREAT JOB OF INTRODUCING OF, UH, WHERE IT'S AT.

IT'S AT SPRINKLE CUTOFF ROAD, NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH, UM, SAMSUNG BOULEVARD.

YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

AND SO, UM, LIKE HELLER SAID, IT IS ZONED R R RIGHT NOW, AND WE ARE PROPOSING AN SF SIX REZONING WITH, UM, VERY SIMILARLY TO THAT SF SIX, JUST ACROSS THE STREET.

AND WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

UM, OF COURSE WE WILL ADHERE TO ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THAT'S INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY, WHICH DOES PROTECT AGAINST THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY USES TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.

AND THEN WE ARE ABOUT, UM, OVER A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY TO THE, UM, THE PIONEER WEST OVER THERE.

UM, AND I DID WANT TO MENTION OF COURSE, UM, SPRINKLE CUTOFF ROAD.

I KNOW THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD AND IT IS SLATED FOR IMPROVEMENT, UM, ACCORDING TO THE CITY.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AS THE D AS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COMES ALONG, UM, WE WILL BE PAYING INTO THAT, UM, STRAIGHT IMPACT FUND.

AND THEN IF, IF THE TIA WARRANTED ANY SORT OF, UM, IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY, SHOULD IT BE TRIGGERED AND, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD INCLUDE, UM, UH, DIESEL LANE OR, UM, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT, UM, MAYBE, UM, CALL FOR.

AND I KNOW THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DID REACH OUT, UM, SENDING LETTERS AND WE'RE ABLE TO TALK WITH THEM.

THEY WERE, UM, I THINK ASSUMING IT WAS, UM, AN, A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT AND THAT'S NOT, UH, THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT, IT IS A TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUM USE.

AND, UM, UH, TYPICALLY THOSE GENERATE A LITTLE BIT LESS TRAFFIC THAN A SINGLE FAMILY PER UNIT.

AND SO IF THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THERE COULD BE MORE TRAFFIC GENERATED.

UM, JUST BE, I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT THAT'S JUST BASED OFF TYPICAL TIA STANDARDS.

AND SO, UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY, UM, AND THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OH, OKAY.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, KOSTA, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THAT'S MOSTLY UNANIMOUS.

THERE WE GO.

OKAY.

UM, QUESTIONS CHAIR.

YES.

I'M SORRY.

WHO MADE THAT MOTION? I DIDN'T COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THANK YOU FOR SURE.

I, UM, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.

I WENT TO THE CODE OF COURSE.

AND LET ME READ THIS TO YOU.

UM, IT'S FROM 25 6 1 1 4, AND A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IS ONE 14.

SHELL CONDUCT SHALL CONDUCT A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, UH, FOR A PROJECT PROPOSED IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT YET, OR A ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATION.

IF THE PROJECT HAS ACCESS TO A RESIDENTIAL LOCAL OR COLLECTOR STREET, WHICH SPRINKLE CUTOFF IS, AND ONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES THE PROJECTED NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY, GENERATED BY EXISTING USES BY AT LEAST 300 TRIPS PER DAY.

THIS IS PROPOSED FOR A 100 IT'S UNDEVELOPED NOW IN IS PROPOSED FOR 185 UNITS.

I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW, AND IT'S A SUBSTANDARD STREET.

THE ONLY ACCESS WILL BE UNDER SPRINKLE RED CUTOFF, AND IT IS NOT PROPOSED FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR FIVE TO 10 YEARS, WHICH MAYBE IT'S ON THIS IN THE CIP, BUT IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE IT'S IN THE LONG-TERM CIP.

SO GOSH KNOWS WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I THINK WE NEED THE NTA.

SO, UM, I MOVED TO POSTPONE IF MR. BETTY CAN TELL ME HOW LONG AN NTA USUALLY

[00:50:01]

TAKES.

I WAS THINKING IT WAS A MONTH, MAYBE SIX MONTHS, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE HIS COMMENTS ABOUT HOW LONG THEY NORMALLY TAKE MR. BEATTY, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION? YES, I AM.

UM, IT DEPENDS TO TAKE THE TRAFFIC COUNTS.

WE TYPICALLY, WE TYPICALLY DO THAT DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR, SO TO GET THAT SCHEDULE COULD BE POSSIBLE BEFORE MID-MAY, WHEN TRAFFIC PATTERNS START CHANGING.

AND THEN WHEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT OFF TRAFFIC COUNTS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING FALL, UH, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE DONE AND TIED TO THAT, UH, FOUR TO SIX WEEKS COULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT I COULD NOT PROMISE THAT IT COULD BE DONE IN THAT TIME.

UM, ALONG WITH ALL THE ZONING CASE THAT THEY HAVE PAID THEIR REVIEW FEES.

I'M SORRY.

UM, I MAY NEED A FIST TO DO.

I THINK I'D STILL LIKE TO POSTPONE IT TO ME.

17, THAT GIVES US SIX WEEKS.

UM, SCHOOL IS IN SESSION.

WE PAST SPRING BREAK.

I KNOW THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRANSPORTATION, BUT EITHER TRANSPORTATION OR PUBLIC WORKS AND PUT THE TUBES DOWN.

I REALIZED THERE ARE OTHERS IN LINE, BUT I WANT THE CITY TO FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES.

THE CODE WERE WELL, THE PARENTS ROTATION DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT TAKE THE COUNTS.

IT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

AH, THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION, MR. BEATTY.

UM, I STILL WANT TO POSTPONE THIS TILL MAY 17TH.

IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN COME BACK AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION, MR. BEATTY, ARE YOU, WERE YOU, UM, STATING THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE TWO COUNTS IN THE SPRING AND IN THE FALL? NO, IT'LL BE TYPICALLY IT'S SOME TYPE OF TUBE COUNTS OR THEY ARE NOW USING SENSORS THAT DO NOT LAY THE TUBES ACROSS THE ROAD.

WELL, YOU WOULD JUST NEED A 24 HOUR COUNT.

IF WE DO THAT BEFORE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS CHANGE TOWARDS THE END OF SCHOOL, WE CAN DO IT THIS SPRING.

OTHERWISE WE WOULD NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THE FALL SO THAT WE HAVE ACTIVE SCHOOL ACTIVITY GOING ON WHEN THE COUNSELOR TAKE IT.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KING.

I SECOND THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DINKLER.

OKAY.

SO THAT WAS THEIR MOTION.

WAS THAT A MOTION TO POSTPONE TESTS? OH, UNTIL MAY 17TH, WHICH GIVES IT SIX WEEKS.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KOSTA, JUST REGARDLESS.

THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, WHETHER IT'S NOW WHERE SITE PLAN.

AND THEN IF THEIR COUNT IS HIGH, THAT WILL IMPACT THE ROLE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT POINT TO, SO I BELIEVE THE TIA THRESHOLD IS 2000 TRIPS NOW.

OH, NO.

A NEIGHBORHOOD TIA THRESHOLD IS 300 TRIPS.

NO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AND YES.

SO THERE WAS A CHANGE TO 1500.

I CARE MAY HAVE BEEN CHANGED A THOUSAND.

LET'S LET MR. BEATTY COMMENT IF I'M PRONOUNCING THAT.

YEAH.

YES.

RIGHT NOW, BASED ON THE LAND USE AND INTENSITY IS BEING PROPOSED.

THIS WOULD NOT TRIGGER TIA.

THAT THRESHOLD IS 2000 DAILY TRIPS.

THIS IS NOT ESTIMATED TO BRING, UH, EVEN BY 1500 DAILY TRIPS AT THIS TIME.

THAT'S WHY WE TYPICALLY DEFER THE FINAL DETERMINATION UNTIL TIME OUTSIDE PLAN SO THAT WE HAVE THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF THEIR EXCELLENT ZACK INTENSITY THAT THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING.

THANK YOU.

I THINK MY PURPOSE IS TO ENCOURAGE REALLY STRONG TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS WHY I'D LIKE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, TIA, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS NOW RATHER THAN LATER.

AND THE ASM P DOES IS DESIGNATE IT AS A SUBSTANDARD STREET.

SO I DO THINK THAT THAT'S OF INTEREST TO THE CASE AND IT'S 22 FEET PAGE, UH, COMMISSIONER KING AND THEN COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

UH, AND I JUST, I WANTED TO SPEAK TO MY SECOND THERE AND THAT WORKED BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT WE NEED THAT INFORMATION.

UH, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

AND ALSO TARA, THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THAT IT IS SUBSTANDARD AT, UH, THERE ARE NO BICYCLE LANES AND THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ALONG THIS STRETCH OF THE ROAD THERE.

SO I THINK IT IS, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.

THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HELP US INFORM OUR ZONING ON THIS.

AND I HOPE WE CAN GET THIS DONE QUICKLY BECAUSE WE KNOW WE NEED HOUSING.

SO I HOPE WE CAN GET THE PROCESS GOING AS QUICKLY AS THIS DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND GET INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP INFORM OUR ZONING DECISION ON THIS CASE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SMITH.

OKAY.

YEAH.

I MEAN, A PART OF MY CONCERN IS I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE EARLY, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS AT THE ZONING PHASE.

I THINK THE ZONING ACROSS

[00:55:01]

THE STREET AS SF SIX, WE'D BE ASKING FOR THE SAME THING.

IT'S INTERIM ZONING RIGHT NOW.

IT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED SOMETHING PERMANENT.

I DON'T SEE US REZONING ANYTHING OTHER THAN INTERIM SF SIX.

I DO SEE AN NTA BEING NEEDED AND IT MAY GENERATE COMMENTS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS HIS OWN COMMENTS.

THEY WOULD ADDRESS SITE PLAN COMMENTS AND WHAT WILL BE NEEDED AT THE SITE PLAN PHASE, NOT WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED AT THE ZONING PHASE.

UM, SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'RE, WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO THROW WHAT ROADBLOCKS AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME IN AND PUT UP HOUSING.

WE DO NEED THE INFORMATION.

WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PHASE.

UM, BUT THIS IS GOING TO DELAY THE PROJECT MONTHS, UH, IN ORDER TO GET THINGS STARTED, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION, UM, HOWEVER NTA IS IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO DEFINE THE ACCESS POINTS FOR THIS SITE.

THAT'S TYPICALLY NOT AN ITEM DEDICATED, UH, DONE AT TIME OF ZONING, RIGHT? AS WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW THE NUMBERS, THE DRIVEWAYS, HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THOSE DRIVEWAYS, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MTA THAT IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME.

SO THEY WERE CONVEYING INFORMATION.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW UNTIL WE HAVE A SITE PLAN PHASE.

CORRECT.

SO THAT'S AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE JUST JUMPING AHEAD OF OURSELVES TRYING TO DO THIS AT THE ZONING TASTE.

PRETTY SURE GREENBERG.

UH, THIS IS JUST A COMMENT, BUT WHEN THE SITE ACROSS THE STREET WAS REZONED TO SF SIX, THERE WAS AN NTA IN THE BATHROOM.

THERE WAS OKAY.

AND WAS FOR ZAP IN OUR BACKUP PART OF THE SONY.

OKAY.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ARE WE READY TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL MAY 17TH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND THOSE OPPOSED.

OKAY.

SO IT PASSES AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU READ THE NAMES OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR? SURE.

IT WAS A GREENBERG DINKLER KIELBASA, WOODY THOMPSON, I THINK.

OH, NO.

THOMPSON SENT THEIR KING.

DID YOU VOTE? BECAUSE SHE DID.

OKAY.

SHE DID.

ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE VERY MUCH SURE.

MOVING ON TO

[B5. C14H-2021-0164 - Chrysler Air-Temp House; District 7]

THE OBESE.

OH, GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ELIZABETH .

I'M THE MANAGER OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.

THIS IS CASE NUMBER B FIVE C 14 H 2021 DASH 0 1 6 4.

THE CHRYSLER AIR TEMP HOUSE AT 25 0 2 PARKVIEW DRIVE.

THIS IS A HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING CASE WITH A VALID PETITION AND OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UH, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND AND TRANSPARENCY.

I WROTE MY MASTER'S THESIS ON THE AUSTIN AIR CONDITIONED VILLAGE.

UH, I ALSO AUTHOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NOMINATION FOR THE AIR CONDITIONED VILLAGE.

UH, THAT NOMINATION IS NOT MOVING FORWARD TO BE LISTED DUE TO OWNER OPPOSITION.

UM, IT'S A PROJECT THAT I STARTED PRIOR TO MY TIME AND COMMITTED TO PRIOR TO MY TIME AT THE CITY, UH, WHILE THAT NOMINATION WAS UNDER PREPARATION AND REVIEW, BEFORE IT BECAME CLEAR, IT WOULD NOT BE LISTED STEVE SEDOWSKY AND HIS CAPACITY AS HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER MADE ALL DECISIONS REGARDING THE CASE AND REPRESENTED IT TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.

UM, THIS IS A HISTORIC ZONING CASE THAT WAS INITIATED IN RESPONSE TO A DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION, FOLLOWING A PROCESS OUTLINED IN CITY CODE, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF REVIEW DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BUILDINGS OVER 45 YEARS OF AGE.

THOSE THAT MAY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION ARE REFERRED TO A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION BASED ON THE LANDMARK CRITERIA.

UH, THE COMMISSION MAY INITIATE A HISTORIC ZONING CASE THAT THEN GOES ON TO THE LAND USE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

UH, THIS PROCESS PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEIGHBORS AND THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF A PROPERTY AND OFFERS A POTENTIAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE LOSS OF A SIGNIFICANT PART OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY.

UH, THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND, UH, JUNE OF 2020 FOR A FULL DEMOLITION, THE OWNER AT THAT TIME, RECONSIDERED THEIR PLANS AND PROPOSED A PARTIAL DEMOLITION THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION, UH, GIVEN THE, HIS OPPOSITION, THE COMMISSION AGREED NOT TO PURSUE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AT THAT TIME, UH, WHILE RESERVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING A CASE FORWARD AND THE FUTURE, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER IS NOW SEEKING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THEN RESPONSE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REPRESENTED, UH, RECOMMENDED BY A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL NINE MEMBERS PRESENT AT THAT MEETING TO RECOMMEND

[01:00:01]

HISTORIC ZONING FOR THE HOUSE, UH, ON THE BASIS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE, HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY VALUE.

THE CHRYSLER AIR TEMP HOUSE AT 2,502 PARK VIEW DRIVE WAS BUILT AS A DEMONSTRATION HOUSE FOR THE AUSTIN AIR CONDITION VILLAGE AND NATIONAL EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF AIR CONDITIONING, UH, TO INSTALL AND OPERATE AIR CONDITIONING AND MIDDLE-CLASS HOMES.

THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE IS THE MOST ARCHITECTURALLY DISTINCTIVE AND BEST PRESERVED EXAMPLE OF THE HOUSE WITH ANDY AIR CONDITIONED VILLAGE IN TERMS OF ITS HISTORY.

UH, THIS 1954 EXPERIMENT IS NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT.

IT WAS AN EFFORT TO PROVE THAT AIR CONDITIONING WAS AFFORDABLE, NOT JUST AFFORDABLE TO INSTALL, BUT ALSO AFFORDABLE TO OPERATE FOR MIDDLE-CLASS HOME BUYERS.

IT WAS CONCEIVED IN NO SMALL PART IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, LOAN PRACTICES THAT PENALIZE BUYERS SEEKING AIR CONDITIONED HOMES REQUIRING HIGHER INCOME LEVELS FOR A HOUSE OF THE SAME PRICE DUE TO A LACK OF DATA ON OPERATIONAL COSTS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE LENDERS WERE CONCERNED.

HOME BUYERS COULD NOT AFFORD THEIR UTILITY BILLS.

THE EXPERIMENT BROUGHT TOGETHER THE EFFORTS OF A NATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS WITH LEADING RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND NATIONAL MANUFACTURERS AND A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT.

THE FINAL REPORT FOR THE EXPERIMENT NOTED THAT THIS RESEARCH VILLAGE WAS THE FIRST OF ITS TYPE ON.

SO LARGEST SCALE.

THE EXPERIMENT INVOLVED ONE YEAR OF TECHNICAL TESTING, ANOTHER YEAR OF MONITORING COST DATA AND A PSYCHOLOGICAL SURVEY.

THE 22 TESTS HOUSES WERE BUILT BY MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE WORK OF AUSTIN'S MOST PROLIFIC BUILDERS OF THAT ERA.

THE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATED THAT CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING WAS INDEED FEASIBLE FOR USE IN BALDUS RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

THE PROJECT PROVIDED VALUABLE INFORMATION TO HOME BUILDERS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE.

IT ALSO INFLUENCED FHA LOAN PRACTICES.

NEWS COVERAGE OF THE EXPERIMENT INDICATED THE FHA AND VA WOULD ACCEPT THE FINAL RESEARCH FINDINGS AS THEIR AIR CONDITIONING STANDARDS.

AND IN 1957, THOSE LENDERS BEGAN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF AIR CONDITIONING IN THEIR PACKAGE MORTGAGES.

TODAY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET ALONE FOR A NON AIR-CONDITIONED HOUSE IN TERMS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE.

UH, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE HAS AN EXCELLENT AND REMARKABLY AND TACTIC SAMPLE OF AN ARCHITECT DESIGNED MID-CENTURY MODERN RESIDENCE, UH, IT'S FRONT AND BACK FACADES WITH WINDOWS IN HIS BESTEST PANELS ARRANGED IN THE METAL FRAMEWORK SHOW THE EXHIBIT, UM, SHOW THE INFLUENCE OF THE CALIFORNIA CASE STUDY HOUSES, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED A PINNACLE OF AMERICAN MODERNISM.

THE HOUSE WAS DESIGNED BY FRED WIND FOR A DAY JUNIOR.

HE WORKED FOR PROMINENT ARCHITECTURE FIRMS FAIR IN GRANGER, JUSTIN JESSEN, MILLHOUSE, AND GRIEVANCE, AND HAD HIS OWN PRACTICE DAY ONE MULTIPLE DESIGN AWARDS FROM THE AUSTIN CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND THE TEXAS SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS.

HE WAS GIVEN AN HONORARY LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP ON THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND ALSO SERVE THIS PRESIDENT OF AIA AUSTIN.

THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED BY WANG BURNS THE DEVELOPER OF THE EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION, WHERE THE EXPERIMENT IS LOCATED IN TERMS OF ITS ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY.

UH, THE EXTERIOR OF THIS HOUSE IS REMARKABLY INTACT WITH ONLY A SMALL UTILITY ROOM ADDITION.

THE ORIGINAL AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS ARE GONE AND ALL OF THE HOUSES, UH, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE HOME SIGNIFICANCE.

UH, IT'S IMPORTANCE IS, UM, THE, THE, UM, EXCUSE ME, UH, THE EXPERIMENT'S OVERALL IMPACT ON THE HOUSING INDUSTRY, WHICH WE CAN UNDERSTAND WITHOUT NECESSARILY NEEDING THAT ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT.

AS A COMPARABLE EXAMPLE OF THE WARM AIR RESEARCH RESIDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS IS NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE, DESPITE NOT HAVING ANY ORIGINAL HEATING AIR CONDITIONING OR, UH, TESTING EQUIPMENT, STILL INTACT BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF ITS ARCHITECTURE AND THIS ASSOCIATION WITH IMPORTANT ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTATION, THAT HOUSE WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HISTORIC INTEGRITY FOR PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

AND THOSE SAME STANDARDS ARE WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLIES.

UH, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ALSO FOUND IT TO HAVE A COMMUNITY VALUE, AGAIN, TIED TO THE NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AIR CONDITION VILLAGE EXPERIMENT, UH, TO CONCLUDE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED HISTORIC STANDING ON THIS HOUSE AS THE BEST REMAINING EXAMPLE TO REPRESENT THE OVERALL HISTORY OF THE AUSTIN AIR CONDITION VILLAGE, AS THE MOST ARCHITECTURALLY DISTINCTIVE AND MOST INTACT HOUSE,

[01:05:02]

THE AIR CONDITIONED VILLAGE IS NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FOR, UM, DEMONSTRATING THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS FEASIBLE FOR MIDDLE-CLASS HOME BUYERS, PIONEERING THE WIDESPREAD USE OF CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING IN AUSTIN AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JERRY.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. MARY KALEY FOLLOWED BY MR. JOE REYNOLDS AND WE EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES.

GREAT.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? I THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

MY NAME IS MARY KALE.

I'M A GRAD STUDENT AT TEXAS STATE AND AN INTERN WITH PRESERVATION AUSTIN.

TONIGHT.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PRESERVATION, AUSTIN.

OUR ORGANIZATION HAS ALREADY COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF HIS