Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]

[00:00:07]

AND, UH, IT'S YOUR CHAIR.

I'M BRINGING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6 0 9.

THE DATE IS MAY 24TH, 2022.

UM, WE CAN DO A QUICK ROLL CALL AND I'LL START WITH THOSE ON THE DIOCESE AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THOSE, UH, ON THE SCREEN.

SO STARTING HERE WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE, AND I'M YOUR CHAIR, TODD SHAW.

AND I'M PRESENT AND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.

AND THEN IN THE ORDER, I SEE YOU GUYS ON THE SCREEN.

I SEE A COMMISSIONER IS OUR COMMISSIONER YANNIS, PALITO, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER COPPS, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE.

AND CURRENTLY THOSE ARE SO THAT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8.

UH, SO WE'RE JUST AT QUORUM WE HAVE OUT TODAY.

UM, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

MR. RIVERA, UH, COMMISSIONER MOOSE, TODDLER, COMMISSIONER SHEA.

AND I THINK WE HAD ONE MORE.

OH, I'M SORRY.

VICE CHAIR PAMPHLETS OUT.

SO THOSE THREE.

SO WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A FEW OTHERS JOINING US HERE SHORTLY.

UM,

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]

ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS, UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND IT'S A VERY SPECIAL, UH, UH, WE HAVE A VERY SPECIAL GUESTS TODAY.

WE HAVE, UM, THE SCOUT DEN FIVE FROM PAC 81 AND THE DEN LEADER IS, UH, ROBERT MOORE AND WE HAVE SCOUTS, AIDEN TALLEY, LUCAS BROWN, AND TREY MOORE.

UM, PLEASE COME UP AND, UH, YOU CAN COME UP HERE TO THE FRONT AND JUST LINE UP AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME AND WHATEVER ORDER, UH, INTRODUCED.

SO JUST TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU SPEAK AND, UM, YEAH, YOU GUYS EACH HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES, SO WHOEVER WANTS TO GO FIRST.

HI, MY NAME IS TREY MOORE AND, AND I WOULD LIKE MORE RECESS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I THINK WE ALL NEED A LITTLE MORE RECESS.

THANK YOU.

HI, MY NAME IS LUCAS AND I WOULD LIKE MORE, I WOULD LIKE BENTYL LUNCH.

UH, I, MY NAME IS AIDEN TALLY, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

GOOD EVENING.

UH, I WANTED, UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS TALLEY AND I WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR HAVING US OUT HERE TONIGHT.

UH, AS A NATIVE OF AUSTIN, UH, I'VE WATCHED IT GROW AND PART TO, UH, NOT JUST THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT TO ALL THESE COMMISSIONS AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, DAN FIVE, UH, FROM PACK 81.

YEAH.

AND FEEL FREE.

UM, IF YOU WANTED TO STAY A LITTLE WHILE, UH, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO, AT WHATEVER POINT YOU GUYS NEED TO GO, WE UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION MR. RIVERA ON THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC AREA? ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THROUGH KIND OF SETTING UP OUR, UM, CONSENT AGENDA HERE AND, UH, OH, OKAY.

JUST, UH, WANT TO ANNOUNCE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER PRAXIS JOINING US.

THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.

AND I GUESS, UM, UH, MR. RIVERA, I'M GOING TO GO AND READ THROUGH THIS, UH, THE FIRST READING AND CAUSE, UH, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME JUST TO CONFIRM.

SO LET'S SEE, UH, WE'RE ON ITEM B AND,

[Reading of the Agenda]

UH, WHAT I'M DOING JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WE'RE GOING TO READ EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY ON OUR AGENDA.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THESE.

UM, WE WILL PASS ON CONSENT THROUGH A VOTE ONCE I GET THROUGH READING THEM, BUT WE'LL ALSO IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE POSTPONED OR THAT WE WILL, UH, HANDLE AS A DISCUSSION CASE.

AND THERE'S TWO TYPES, A FEW OF THEM WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD POSTPONE THEM ARE HERE THIS EVENING.

AND, UH, ONCE WE MAKE THAT DECISION, IF IT'S DECIDED TO HEAR THEM THIS EVENING, WE WILL TAKE THEM UP IN THE ORDER THAT THEY SH UH, TYPICALLY SHOW UP ON THE AGENDA HERE.

UH, SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THOSE,

[00:05:01]

UH, THIS EVENING, AND THEN, UH, WE'LL ALSO THEN MOVE INTO THE, UH, FORMAL DISCUSSION CASES AFTER THAT.

SO THE FIRST THING WE'RE DOING, AS I SAID IS JUST STABLISH THE CONSENT AGENDA.

UM, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT.

I'M GOING TO READ IT ONCE AND THEN WE'LL CONFIRM IT AND THEN WE'LL GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON IT AFTER THAT.

SO, UH, I'M GOING TO GO AND READ THROUGH THE ITEMS IN, UH, A AND WE'RE GOING TO ROLL THIS INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WELL, OR THE MINUTES TO THE LAST MEETING WE HAD ON MAY 10TH.

SO COMMISSIONERS, DO WE, UH, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE AND DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE, UH, MINUTES POSTED IT'S IN THE BACKUP? SURE.

YES.

I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER A VOTE FROM LAST MEETING AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHEN IS THE BEST TIME REQUEST THAT, UM, FOR, SO IS THAT ON THE AGENDA? I'M, DON'T HAVE MY PARLIAMENTARIAN.

SO MR. RIVERA MIGHT NEED SOME HELP FROM YOU.

IS THAT AN ITEM THAT'S CURRENTLY? WELL, IF WE DID WE VOTE ON IT LAST TIME AND DID IT, UM, WHAT WAS THE STATUS OF THE ITEM? DID WE, OH, THE ITEM WAS THE ASN P VOTE AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS, BUT I HADN'T, I WAS GOT REALLY CONFUSED IN THE PROCESS.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME, BUT I'D LIKE TO RECORD MY VOTE DIFFERENTLY IN A COUPLE OF PLACES.

OKAY.

SO THE PROCESS IS WE, IT HAS.

OKAY.

SO WE ALL VOTED ON IT.

SO YOU'RE IN THE MAJORITY.

JORAH THE, SO GO AHEAD AND RUN THAT PROCESS THROUGH WITH US ONE MORE TIME, MR. RIVERA CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAYS ON WHILE ROBERT'S RULES HAS ITS OWN PROCEDURES.

THIS FALLS UNDER YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND YOUR ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE.

THE IRA NEED TO BE NOTICED PRIOR TO THE MEETING FOR RECONSIDERATION.

CORRECT.

SO WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION.

CAN WE TAKE ACTION THE FOLLOWING MEETING, OR IS THAT TOO LATE? THAT'S TOO LATE.

OKAY.

SO WHAT I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER YOU AND IS BLEEDING, IS THAT, WOULD IT NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP SOONER SO WE COULD GET IT ON THE AGENDA? SO WE CAN'T TAKE THAT UP THIS EVENING NOR CAN WE TAKE IT UP IN FUTURE AGENDAS? CORRECT.

OKAY.

OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

YEAH.

SO JUST FOR ALL OF YOU, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT YOU WANT RECONSIDERED, PLEASE LET MR. RIVERA KNOW AT, UH, BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR POSTING THE AGENDA.

OKAY.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD.

I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THESE ITEMS. UM, SO WE HAVE THE FIRST APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

UH, WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, READING THROUGH THE ITEMS AND SECTION B PUBLIC HEARINGS, UH, B ONE PLAN AMENDMENT@MPATWENTYTWENTYONEZEROZEROZEROFIVE.ZERO TWO ON TOP LIST MULTIFAMILY.

THIS IS, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 12TH.

IT'S NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ITEM B TO REZONING C 8 1 4 0 6 DASH 0 1 7 FIVE.ZERO THREE EAST AVENUE, PUD, UH, STAFF, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, UH, RECOMMENDATION IT'S PENDING ITEM B3.

THIS IS ZONING AND REZONING.

UH, SEAT 8 1 4 DASH 2 0 2 1 DASH 0 9 9 DASH BRODY OAKS PUD STAFF, INDEFINITE, POSTPONEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION IS PENDING ON A BEFORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

THIS IS A 14 R DASH EIGHT ONE DASH ZERO, I'M SORRY.

0 3 3 RCA BRODY OAKS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UH, THIS IS A STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS PENDING ITEM B FIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 1 SEVEN.ZERO 2 7 3 0 1 BURNETT ROAD.

UH, THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND IT HAS BEEN, UH, PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

SO WE WILL HEAR THAT ONE THIS EVENING, B SIX PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 1 9 DASH.ZERO ONE DOT S H K D LOSS.

AND THIS IS, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, UH, FROM THE HANCOCK CAN PACT.

UH, THEY WOULD LIKE IT POSTPONED IT JUNE 28TH, BUT THE, UH, APPLICANT DISAGREES.

SO WE'LL BE HEARING THIS UPFRONT IS ONE OF THOSE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENTS I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, AND THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF,

[00:10:01]

UH, ITEM B SEVEN.

THIS IS THE ASSOCIATED, UH, ZONING CASE TO ITEM B SIX.

IT IS A C 14 DASH 2022 DEVS.

THERE WAS 0 1 9 DOT S H D LOSS.

AND THIS IS ALSO ON DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.

AND THIS IS RECOMMENDATION, A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF .

SO AN A B EIGHT PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 2 ONE.ZERO TO 14, 0 6 THROUGH 1506 PARKER LANE.

THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 12TH.

RECOMMENDATION IS PENDING ITEM B NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 3 9 DASH 14 14 0 6 3 15 0 6 PARKER LANE.

UH, THIS IS THE REZONING IT'S ALSO POSTPONE TILL JULY 12TH, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING ITEM B 10 REZONING C 14, TEST 2022 AS SARAH 0 3 8 DASH.

UM, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS AT 2320 EAST RIVERSIDE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UH, THIS IS, WE HAD A COMMISSIONER PRACTICES RECOMMEND, UH, REQUEST THAT THIS BE POLLED.

SO WE'LL HAVE THIS AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AS WELL.

IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF B 11 REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DEATHS.

THERE ARE 0 1 1 WEST FIT WITH, UH, SORRY, WEST 15TH, 16TH, UH, LAMB.

AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO DMU DASH C O.

UM, THIS IS ON CONSENT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, B 12 FREE ZONING, C 14 20 22 DASH 0 0 0 9 50 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES.

UH, THIS IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UH, THIS IS A DISCUSSION CASE, SO IT WOULD BE TAKING THAT ONE UP THIS EVENING, B 13, REZONING C 14 DASH 20 22 0 1 7 HUDSON PLACE.

THIS ONE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS MP3 AND HE, UH, IN HIS ON CONSENT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, B 14, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 3 1 RE MOVE VEHICULAR ACCESS RESTRICTION TO MORA STREET.

UM, THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THIS IS, UH, FOR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING, B 15 SITE PLAN HAD A ABILITY WAIVER REQUEST SP 20 21 0 1 0 2 C AT 1400 CEDAR AVENUE.

UH, THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

UM, WE HA IT'S DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT APPLICANT WANTS TO HEAR IT THIS EVENING, CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, CONTACT TEAM ONCE POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JUNE 28TH.

SO THIS'LL BE OUR SECOND, UH, DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT CASE COMING UP HERE SHORTLY.

UH, B 16 PRELIMINARY PLAN S C H J 20 21 0 0 6 6, WHISPER VALLEY MULTIFAMILY PARCEL 65.

UH, THIS IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C B 17, FINAL PLAT C EIGHT DASH 20 20 0 1 9 ONE.ZERO, A WALTON WOODS SECTION TWO FINAL PLANT.

UH, THIS IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT C.

UH, THAT IS, YEAH, THAT IS ALSO ON CONSENT.

UH, B 18 LONG RANGE CIP PLANNING, UM, 2021 THROUGH 2023 LONG RANGE PLANNING MEMO.

UH, RIGHT NOW I JUST WANT TO NOTE THIS, THIS WAS, UH, REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU ALL THAT ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE.

AND THIS IS ALSO ON CONSENT.

SO MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS, UM, THIS EVENING THAT HAVE BEEN THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSION ITEMS? SURE.

THE PROPOSED CONSENT IS READY AS PRESENTED.

OKAY.

UM, IT'S REAL QUICK.

LET'S JUST RUN THROUGH D ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY OF THE ITEMS, THE SAME THING.

OKAY.

I DON'T SEE ANY, UH, SO WE'RE MOVING ON.

UM, I'M GONNA READ THESE OUT QUICKLY.

ONE MORE TIME.

YEAH.

MISSION LAYS ON ANDOVER.

MY APOLOGIES.

UM, PLEASE NOTE THAT B 13 WILL BE A DISCUSSION CASE.

I HAVE TWO SPEAKERS PRESENT IN OPPOSITION OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A, SO THAT'LL BE JUST PULLED FORWARD DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

NO.

OKAY.

[00:15:01]

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT WILL ADD TO OUR DISCUSSION CASES IT'S EVENING.

OKAY.

LET ME GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY TO CONFIRM WHAT'S ON THE CONSENT AND WHAT'S ON DISCUSSION OKAY.

UH, SO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE FIRST, OUR MINUTES FROM MAY 10TH.

UM, WE HAVE, UH, IS, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 12TH, BE TO REZONING STAFF, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT V3 SONIAN RE UH, ZONING AND REZONING IS STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT BEFORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT STAFF, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT B FIVE, A DISCUSSION THESE SIX PLAN AMENDMENT.

UH, THIS'LL BE OUR FIRST DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT AND I'LL RUN THROUGH THE, UH, KIND OF THE RULE LIST OF THAT BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, B SEVEN REZONING.

THIS IS ALSO DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT B EIGHT STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JULY 12TH, BENIGN REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENTS, JULY 12TH, B 10 REZONING.

THIS ONE IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION B 11 IS REZONING CONSENT STAFF, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, B 12 IS FOR DISCUSSION.

THE 13 IS FOR DISCUSSION.

THE 14 IS FOR DISCUSSION B 15.

UH, THIS IS OUR SECOND DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, UH, B 16.

THIS IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, UH, SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C 17, UH, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND B 18 IS THE LONG RANGE CIP PLAN, WHICH WILL GO ON CONSENT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM,

[Consent Agenda]

COMMISSIONERS, IF WE'RE CLEAR ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, WHICH INCLUDES THE MINUTES, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'D SEE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

LET'S GO.

AND THAT WAS ON THE DAYAS THAT APPROVED, UH, THAT'S EVERYONE AND THOSE, OH, YES, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, YELLOW AND RED CARDS SO I CAN GET AN ACCURATE COUNT.

THANK YOU.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND THREE HERE.

SO THAT'S NINE VOTES IN FAVOR, UH, OF THAT ITEM.

OKAY.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT CASE.

AND LET ME JUST, UH, THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT MEANS, UM, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, UH, THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND, UH, COULD BE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

IT COULD BE OTHERS THAT WANT TO DELAY IT.

SO THERE'S MORE TIME TO DISCUSS THE CASE.

AND SO, UH, THIS FIRST, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE HEARING, UM, ARGUMENTS, UH, FOR DELAYING HEARING THE CASE, BUT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS CASE THIS EVENING, IF THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, DO NOT VOTE TO DELAY THE CASE.

SO THIS IS, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MERITS OF DELAYING VERSUS NOT DELAYING, NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE ITSELF.

SO, UH, WE STARTED OUT WITH THE ENTITIES THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? MR. RIVERA.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP INTO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT ITEM.

LET ME GET BACK TO MY LIST HERE.

AND THAT IS, UM,

[Items B6 & B7 (Part 1 of 2)]

ITEM B SIX AND, UH, MR. RIVERA, WE HAVE TWO, UH, SPEAKERS THAT ARE FOR THE POSTPONEMENT AND TWO THAT ARE SPEAKING AGAINST, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT CHAIR.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, I HEAR HER FROM MR. COHEN, DELLA HUNTING.

MR. DELEHANTY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

OKAY.

I BELIEVE I HAVE SOME SLIDES AS WELL TO GO WITH MY PRESENTATION.

UM, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT.

HI EVERYONE.

I'M COLIN DILLAHUNTY, PRESIDENT OF THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO A CLOSE BY NEIGHBOR OF THE PROPOSED KATIE LOFTS DEVELOPMENT.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A FORUM TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

SO TO UPDATE YOU ON WHERE WE ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, SINCE OUR FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 10TH, WHERE POSTPONEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS WAS GRANTED, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THROUGH A MEETING AT KANPAK, UNFORTUNATELY,

[00:20:01]

THAT HASN'T RESULTED IN A WORKABLE CONSENSUS WITH THE DEVELOPERS SINCE THE STATE FUNDING APPLICATION PROCESS FREEZES THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND UNIT MIX.

FORTUNATELY, WE'VE RECEIVED WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM SAFE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS.

MEANING THE STATE FUNDING IS NO LONGER THE ONLY SOURCE OF FUNDING, AND THERE'S NO LONGER A SCARCITY OF FUNDS DRIVING US TO MAKE THE HARD CHOICE BETWEEN KATIE LOFTS AND THE LANCASTER.

WE CAN DO BOTH.

PERHAPS THIS CAN ALSO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE TIMELINE AND AN ABILITY TO FINALLY ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT COMPATIBLE DENSITY AND A MIX OF SRO AND FAMILY UNITS.

FOR THE NEXT SLIDE, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AN EXPERT ANALYSIS HAS REQUIRED SEVERAL EMISSIONS BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WEREN'T FURTHER ANALYSIS.

THE STAFF FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY TRANSIT REPORT OR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ANALYSIS.

THE STAFF REPORTS MENTIONED A BIKE LANE ON ANOTHER STREET AND QUICKLY GLOSSES OVER THE LACK OF SIDEWALKS ON 39TH STREET, WHICH IS A NARROW STREET WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.

THIS ALSO RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

MANY OF WHOM COULD BE RESIDENTS OF KATIE LOFTS.

A CIVIL ENGINEER IS REQUIRED TO ANALYZE THE TRUE PLANNING ISSUES INVOLVED FURTHER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE ISSUES ARE ALSO OF A CONCERN, ESPECIALLY GIVEN ANOTHER EMISSION IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THIS PROJECT IS FOR PEOPLE FORMERLY EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, A PUBLIC SAFETY EXPERT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR INCREASED CRIME RISK BY PLACING VULNERABLE A VULNERABLE POPULATION IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A CRIME IMPACTED LOCATION, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CORRIDOR.

AND FINALLY, FOR DUE PROCESS IN THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT NOTIFICATION THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN RESEARCHING FOR US.

IT SEEMS THOSE HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT FURTHER ALSO MULTIPLE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE CITY BY OUR GROUP.

ONE REQUEST WAS FULFILLED LAST WEEK, BUT ANOTHER REQUEST MADE ON THE SAME DAY WILL NOT BE READY UNTIL JUNE 16TH, THEREFORE H AND A NEEDS TIME TO REVIEW IT.

WE ALSO NEED TIME TO WORK WITH OUR EXPERTS TO ANSWER SITE-SPECIFIC ZONING CONCERNS AND LEGAL ISSUES, INCLUDING POTENTIAL ISSUES.

ALEXA, RELATED TO THE TEXAS STATE LAW FOR ZONING, INCLUDING SPOT ZONING AND CONTRACT ZONING POTENTIAL ISSUES.

AND FINALLY, OUR REQUESTS POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE JUNE 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME FOR EXPERT ANALYSIS AND WOULD PROMOTE COMPROMISE FOR THE BEST PLAN INDEPENDENT FROM EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS FOR STATE FUNDING.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM KEN PAC REPRESENTATIVE BART'S WATLEY.

MR. WALTON, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M BART WILDLY WITH CAM PACK IT'S CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, NEIGHBOR PLANNING TEAM.

AND, UH, WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A POSTPONEMENT, UM, BECAUSE IT IS A BIG ZONING CHANGE.

AND, UM, SINCE THE TAX CREDIT APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED AND A PERMANENT CHANGE TO THE ZONING AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN JUST SEEMS PREMATURE BECAUSE THE ZONING OF COURSE GOES WITH THE PROPERTY AND NOT WITH APPLICATION.

UH, SO AT THIS TIME WE ASKED AN APRIL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING CHANGE BOTH BE POSTPONED SO THAT THEY CAN BE RECONSIDERED ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND HAD THEIR PROJECT, UH, APPROVED.

THANKS CHAPTER ONE OUT HERE FROM THE OPPOSITION TO THE POSTPONEMENT BEGINNING WITH MS. MEGAN LASH FOLLOWED BY MR. PAUL COLA.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, MEGAN LASH.

I'LL BE HONEST.

I'M A LITTLE SHOOK TONIGHT BASED ON THE NEWS THAT CAME OUT RIGHT BEFORE I LEFT THE OFFICE.

UM, FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY, I WAS GIVING BIRTH TO MY SON RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT ARE GRIEVING RIGHT NOW.

I JUST WANT TO TAKE A COUPLE SECONDS TO GIVE THEM A MOMENT OF SILENCE OUT OF MY TIME.

I HOPE THAT MOVING FORWARD, WE WON'T BE SILENT.

WE FACE ISSUES LIKE THIS ON A DAILY BASIS.

AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION, I AGREED TO DELAY THIS CASE AND EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

WE SENT SEVERAL EMAILS AND ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL MEETINGS.

WE HAD THE KANPAK MEETING.

WE SPENT TWO HOURS THERE PRESENTING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE KANPAK GROUP WHO ARE QUITE LOVELY, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE A QUORUM.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK

[00:25:01]

TO OUR SITE PLAN THAT OR ANY REQUESTS OTHER THAN THEY NEED TO GATHER MORE EVIDENCE AND NEED MORE TIME TO HAVE THEIR OWN EXPERTS ANALYZE THE ZONING CASE.

WE WERE SPENDING MORE ENERGY FIGHTING THIS MUCH NEEDED HOUSING THAN WORKING TOGETHER.

I'M SORRY FOR THAT.

I WISH IT COULD BE DIFFERENT.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ZONING CASE SO WE CAN HELP HOUSE PEOPLE AND GET TO WORK.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JOHN POLLOCK ON LINE.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

NOT GOING TO GET RID OF ME ANYMORE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ONLY DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT, BUT THIS IS REALLY A UNIQUE CASE WHERE A POSTPONEMENT REALLY JEOPARDIZES THE CASE ITSELF, JEOPARDIZES A PROJECT THAT THIS COMMUNITY DESPERATELY NEEDS.

AND IN ANY CASE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE WHILE AGO, I REMEMBER A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK, I WAS AT A CAMPSITE TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TOLD ME WAS, YOU KNOW, TO LIVE ON THE STREET IS LIKE LIVING IN THE 18TH CENTURY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR WATER FROM BUCKETS.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE BUCKETS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE EXPOSED TO A WHOLE RANGE OF DISEASES, UNSANITARY CONDITIONS, HEALTH RISKS, YOUR LIFE EXPECTANCY IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER FOR EVERY YEAR.

YOU SPEND ON THE STREET.

SO FOR THOSE FOLKS, THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION.

THIS IS A LIFE OR DEATH DISCUSSION, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS ISSUE VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

SO MY PLEA IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME LOVELY SIGNS BACK HERE.

THOSE WHO ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY CAN'T SEE THE SIGNS.

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS CASE MEANS A LOT TO A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE WAITING, WHO HAVE CALLED IN TO TESTIFY, WHO HAVE SHOWED UP IN PERSON AND TAKE TOOK THEIR TUESDAY NIGHT OFF TO BE HERE.

AND TO POSTPONE THIS CASE MEANS TO SEND EVERYONE HOME WHO IS READY TO TESTIFY, WHO CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THIS CASE.

SO I ASK YOU TO PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, OUT OF RESPECT FOR EVERYONE'S TIME AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR THIS COMMUNITY AND OUT OF A SENSE OF GENUINE URGENCY FOR THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW, LET'S HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

IT'S READY FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.

COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN THE SUDDEN INCREASE IN THE CASE LOAD AND THAT WE HAVE, UM, TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING.

UH, IF I, IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO, UH, SUSPEND OUR RULES TO GO WITH FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH THREE MINUTES EACH, UH, IF THERE ARE OPPOSITION TO THAT, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MATTER AS ANYBODY.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REDUCING TO SECURE AND A, UM, FOR THIS CASE, GIVEN OUR LARGE CASELOAD THIS EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONER AND HIS ARE SURE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A QUICK REQUEST OF OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IF POSSIBLE, CAN WE PLEASE REDUCE DEBATE AND QUESTIONS TONIGHT? SO WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY SEVEN CASES, SEVEN DISCUSSION CASES.

AND I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DO NOT HAVE SUPER MAJORITY PRESENT TODAY SO THAT WE CANNOT EVEN CALL THE QUESTION.

YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE FULL CASE UNLESS OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DECIDE TO COME TOGETHER AND MOVE FORWARD WHEREVER WE CAN, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A DINE CRUNCH AND I WILL SHARE WHAT I SHARED WITH MR. RIVERA BEFORE THAT I DO HAVE A TIME LIMITATION.

SO I WILL HAVE TO LEAVE AT WHICH POINT THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS WILL BECOME SEVEN.

SO NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO LEAVE WITHOUT, AND YOU WILL REQUIRE ALL VOTES NOT TO MOVE FORWARD IN ANY ACTIVE.

SO JUST LOOKING AT THAT, I HOPE WE CAN SPEAK TO THINGS TO ME IN COUNCILMAN.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO I'M NOT HEARING ANY OPPOSITION AT THIS POINT JUST TO REDUCE QUESTIONS.

SO WITH THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE Q AND A, UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, I'M SORRY, NOT STAFF FOR EITHER THE, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES OR THE APPLICANT, ANYBODY, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.

UH, THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT PLEASE, MS. SLASH.

YES, SIR.

UH, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, INDICATED THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING OF THIS PROJECT.

UM, YOU DIDN'T COMMENT THAT, UH, ON THAT WHEN YOU SPOKE, CAN YOU, UM, TALK ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS A VIABLE SOLUTION OR, UM, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR VIEW OF THAT IS PLACE THAT IS BEING DERIVED FROM AN EMAIL THEY RECEIVED FROM SAFE.

I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE FUNDS.

UM, SAFE IS A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.

UM, I, DON'T NOT FRANKLY KNOW WHAT THOSE FUNDS ARE, UM, NOR CAN I SPEAK TO THEM.

WE ARE PROCURING

[00:30:01]

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, 9% HOUSING TAX CREDITS.

THAT IS THE PRIMARY TOOL, UM, FOR CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND IT ALSO GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEVERAGE OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING OTHER THAN THE CITY OF BOSTON'S TO HELP CREATE THIS HOUSING.

SO THE BURDEN DOESN'T FULLY LAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF CITY OF BOSTON, BUT THOSE ARE FUNDS THAT I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

UM, AND, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT WAS PHRASED THAT WAY, BUT I'M HOPING THAT THEY DO HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE, UM, FOR THEIR PROJECT.

SO JUST A REMINDER, LET'S JUST KEEP THIS ON THE MERITS OF COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, JUST WANT TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON OUR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

SORRY, CHAIR.

OKAY.

[B7. Rezoning: C14-2022-0019.SH - Cady Lofts; District 9]

AND JUST A REMINDER, WE, AND IF IT WASN'T CLEAR, UM, WE'RE TAKING UP , WHICH ARE BOTH, UM, IT'S THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING.

UM, SO WE'RE TAKING UP BOTH THOSE ITEMS. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? UH, COMMISSIONER BIZARRE.

IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT AND HERE THE CASE TONIGHT, RIGHT.

UH, HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UM, JUST, I THINK LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE, YOU THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO AT LEAST MAKE A DISCUSSION TODAY, FORWARDED TO COUNCIL.

IF WE THINK THAT THIS IS READY TO GO FORWARD, UM, DISCUSS IT, TRY AND LET COUNSEL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TIMELINE BETWEEN COMING TO US AND GOING TO COUNSELING.

I THINK SOME OF THOSE ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED WITH MEAN THAT I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE NEWSROOM.

ALRIGHT.

UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE FAR AGAINST ANY LESS SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, TAKE A VOTE.

THIS IS TO NOT DENY THE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT.

UH, FREIDMAN'S B SIX AND B SEVEN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER.

IT'S OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

LET ME GO ON AND GET THE, UH, VOTE OF THOSE ON THE DIOCESE FOR DENIAL AND THOSE LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU PRESENT? ALL RIGHT.

UH, SO WE HAVE, UH, YEAH, THERE WE GO.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND THREE.

SO THAT NINE TO ZERO.

SO WE'LL BE HEARING THIS CASE LATER THIS WEEK.

SECOND DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.

LET ME FIND IT TOO HERE.

OKAY.

UH, THIS IS

[B15. Site Plan - Compatibility Waiver Request: SP-2021-0102C - 1400 Cedar Ave; District 1]

THIS ITEM, UH, E 15 SITE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WAIVER REQUEST.

UH, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, START WITH, UM, CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM OR THOSE TWO WE HAVE REPRESENTED.

AND THEY'RE THE ONES REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT THIS EVENING, MR. RIVERA.

SURE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

UH, DO I HAVE MR. DAVID CARROLL PRESENT ON THE TELECONFERENCE OR PRESENT? UM, TH THIS IS IAN'S OR ZOLA? I BELIEVE I WAS DESIGNATED, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD TO RESPOND.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.

I HAVE YOU AS THE SECOND, UM, REQUESTER FOR THE POSTPONEMENT AND YOU CAN PROCEED MR. ZOLA.

YEP.

DAVID, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE IN THERE, BUT YOU CAN GO AFTER ME IF YOU ARE.

UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYONE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO, TO HEAR OUR THOUGHTS.

UM, I SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS YESTERDAY.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT, BUT IT OUTLINES A LOT OF THE REASONS WHY WE BELIEVE NOT ONLY DO WE NEED A POSTPONEMENT, BUT, UM, IT ALSO SPEAKS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

UM, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION AS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PURSUING AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT MET A LOT OF THAT SAFETY CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD EXPRESSED DURING THE FIRST CALL BACK IN APRIL.

UM, THERE WERE TWO POTENTIAL PROPOSALS, ONE, INCLUDING A, UH, SEVEN UNIT BUILDING PROPOSAL WITH A 15 FOOT SETBACK AND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDED FIVE UNITS WITH THE ORIGINAL 25 FOOT SETBACK.

UM, HOWEVER, WE WERE SURPRISED TO LEARN JUST THE OTHER DAY THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NO LONGER PURSUING THOSE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS.

THAT

[00:35:01]

WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OF A COMPROMISE WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN REVERTED BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN FOR SEVEN UNIT BUILDING PROPOSAL.

UM, WITH, UH, I BELIEVE NOW A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIVE FOOT STEP BACK FROM THEIR PLAN BACK IN APRIL, UH, THIS WAS A COMPLETE SHOCK AND A SURPRISE.

AND QUITE FRANKLY FELT LIKE WE WERE HOODWINKED BY THE APPLICANT.

UM, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GENERALLY VERY COMMUNICATIVE, UM, THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

AND WE FEEL LIKE WE WERE LED ON BY THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH GENUINELY IN GOOD FAITH, LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND PROVIDE A ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL.

SO WE WOULD LIKE MORE TIME AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS SEVEN FOOT SETBACK PLAN, WHICH AGAIN CAME AS A COMPLETE SHOCK TO US JUST THE OTHER DAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND OPPOSITION TO THE POSTPONEMENT.

MS. FLORES.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M ALEJANDRO FLORES.

I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT? UM, THE REASON WHY I'M AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT IS BECAUSE WE ALREADY GRANTED A FOUR WEEK POSTPONEMENT AND WE TRY TO IMPROVE THE PLAN.

SEVEN FOOT IS THE MOST WE CAN DO SO THERE'S NO POINT OF US POSTPONING IT ANYMORE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. TRAVIS.

HALLUC MR. LACEY YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'M THE ARCHITECT, UH, FOR THE GROUP.

UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO INTENT TO DECEIVE ANYBODY WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES.

WE TESTED A FEW OPTIONS JUST TO SEE WHAT WOULD FLY AND WHAT WE COULD GET DONE.

AND IT ENDED UP BEING THAT A RETURN TO VERY MUCH THE ORIGINAL SCHEME WITH MORE SUBTLE IMPROVEMENTS WAS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO GO FORWARD WITH NOW.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THIS ITEM IS WRITING FOR TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

SIMILARLY TO OUR LAST DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO LIMIT OUR, UM, QUESTIONS TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH.

UM, ANY, ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT SEEING NONE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE QUESTIONS, UM, WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION AND AGAIN, MARITSA THE POSTPONEMENT, NOT THE CASE ITSELF.

ANYONE, ANYONE HAVE EMOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I MOVE THAT.

WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRACTICE.

ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. ANDERSON? YEAH, IT JUST SEEMS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

IT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONE SITE AND IT'S READY TO GO AND WE'VE ALREADY POSTPONED THIS FOR FOUR WEEKS AND IT'D BE GOOD TO GET THESE HOMES MOVING IF WE CAN.

OKAY.

UM, ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST, UH, DENYING THE POSTPONEMENT? SORRY.

DOES THAT INCLUDE, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS SPEAKERS, OR ARE YOU ONLY REFERRING? NO.

THIS, THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS FOR, I'M SORRY FOR THE COMMISSION.

I'M SORRY.

WE'RE BEYOND QUESTIONS.

WE ARE NOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO, UM, DENY THE POSTPONEMENT, WHICH WOULD, WE WOULD THEN HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT.

IT'S A MOTION THAT WAS BROUGHT BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PRACTICES.

AND WE ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE REASONS WHY WE SUPPORT THIS MOTION OR WE DON'T.

AND SO I'M GOING TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT SUPPORT HEARING IT THIS EVENING, UH, UH, TO SPEAK ANYBODY THAT IS AGAINST THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, IF NOBODY'S OPPOSED, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

I'M GOING TO GO, OH, COMMISSIONER CZAR D OH, YOU'RE VOTING.

OKAY.

LET'S START WITH THOSE ON THE DYES, JUST TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT.

UM, IT, THIS IS MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRACTICES TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENT, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD HEAR THE CASE THIS EVENING.

AND THAT'S EVERYBODY ON THE DICE NOW, UH, LOOKING TO THE SCREEN TO SEE, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

I HAVE FIVE HAS THAT YELLOW OR GREEN COMMISSIONER YANNIS POLITA IS THAT YELLOW? OKAY, SO WE HAVE EIGHT IN FAVOR.

[00:40:01]

UH, WE HAVE NO ONE OPPOSED, AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, MY COMMISSIONER ON HIS POLITO.

SO THAT MOTION PASSES, WHICH MEANS, UH, B UM, WE WILL HEAR THAT CASE LATER THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR, IF THE TOP OF

[B5. Plan Amendment: NPA-2022-0017.02 - 7301 Burnet Road; District 7]

ONE, OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE, LET ME FIND IT, UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE.

I THINK THAT, UH, ITEM B FIVE, IS THAT CORRECT? SO HERE FROM STAFF TO START THINGS OFF RAIN, MEREDITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER B FIVE IS NPA 20 22 0 0 1 7 0.02.

PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 73 0 1 BURNET ROAD WITHIN THE CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.

THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE.

IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CRESTVIEW PLANNING CONTACT TEAM.

AND , I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT IF WE COULD PLEASE PAUSE, UM, NOT ENOUGH MEMBERS ON THE DICE.

WE'VE GOT, WE HAVE SEVEN TOTAL.

DO WE NEED MORE THAN THAT PRICE PROCEED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CRESTVIEW PLANNING CONTACT TEAM OR FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL.

THERE HAS BEEN NO ZONING APPLICATION FILED AT THIS TIME.

AND STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR MIXED USE LAND USE BECAUSE BURNETT ROAD IS AN ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR DESIGNATED AS AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR ON THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CONCEPT PLAN WHERE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ARE ENCOURAGED.

THE CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUPPORTS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ON ANDERSON LANE AND BURNET ROAD.

AND THAT'S CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION WITH JERRY.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS MR. WAYLAND, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOLLOWED BY A REBEL.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

I'M HERE TO DISCUSS OUR REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS A PLANNING TOOL THAT ESTABLISHES HIGH-LEVEL POLICY DIRECTION FOR WHAT TYPE OF FUTURE GROWTH THE CITY DEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR EACH SITE.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT SETS EXPECTATIONS FOR HOW A SITE SHOULD BE USED IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS NOT A REZONING REQUEST.

WE ARE SEEKING TO AMEND THE FLUME TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN THE FUTURE.

OUR REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL AND CITY PLANNING POLICY AND BRINGS THE SITE INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO WHY BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MERITS OF OUR REQUEST, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WHY IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADVANCE A FLUME CHANGE WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING REZONING REQUEST.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINES A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS A QUOTE BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT END QUOTE, AND ESTABLISHES A ZONING DECISION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IN OTHER WORDS, A FLUME DESIGNATION AND A REZONING REQUEST ARE TO HAVE SEPARATE COMPONENTS OF LAND USE IN THE FLUME SETS THE EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT A REZONING REQUEST MAY LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE.

ADDITIONALLY, STATE LAW REQUIRES IT ZONING REGULATIONS ALIGNED WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN, SINCE THE FLUMES ARE CODIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAW REQUIRES A REZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FLINT, WITH THE FLUME.

AS YOU KNOW, CITY POLICY REQUIRES FLUME CHANGES WEST OF TO BE SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY AS PART OF THE TYPICAL PROCESS.

THUS, WE FILED THIS REQUEST IN FEBRUARY AND ARE HERE WITH YOU NOW, AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS, GRANTING A FLUME AMENDMENT AHEAD OF A REZONING REQUEST, FOLLOWS GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND SETS EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SITE'S FUTURE, WHICH IN TURN WILL HELP SHAPE FUTURE PROJECTS AND PROVIDE CLARITY AS TO WHAT IS POSSIBLE ON THE SITE.

AND OF COURSE, ANY REZONING REQUESTS WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND CONVERSATION, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

HERE'S A LOCATION MAP OF THE SITE.

SO YOU CAN ORIENT YOURSELF THE SITE.

UH, THE SITE IS OF COURSE ON BURNET ROAD, ABOUT HALF A MILE SOUTH OF ANDERSON LANE, NEXT SITE.

AND HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE SITE TODAY.

IT IS CURRENTLY USED AS A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER STRIP MALL.

NEXT SLIDE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, BURNET ROAD IS AN IMAGINED AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.

THIS CITY'S LAND USE POLICIES, INCLUDING IMAGINE AUSTIN ENCOURAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THESE CORRIDORS.

NEXT SLIDE.

THE SITE ALSO HAS AMPLE TRANSIT ACCESS.

IT'S LOCATED ON AN ASN P TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY AND HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO MULTIPLE BUS ROUTES, INCLUDING ONE OF ONLY TWO METRO RAPID ROUTES IN THE CITY.

NEXT SLIDE, MOREOVER, THE TWO PRIMARY BUS ROUTES THAT SERVE

[00:45:01]

THE SITE ARE IN THE TOP 10 ROUTES CITYWIDE IN TERMS OF RIDERSHIP LEVELS IN THE ZOOMED OUT MAP ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT SEVERAL BUS STOPS EXIST WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE.

THESE ROUTES GO BOTH NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST AND TAKES FOLKS AND TAKE FOLKS FROM DOWNTOWN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DOMAIN.

NEXT SLIDE HERE ARE THE CURRENT FLUME DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA.

YOU CAN FIND THE KEY AT THE TOP LEFT OF THE SCREEN.

THE CITY'S MAPPING TOOLS SHOW THAT NEARLY TWO THIRDS OF CREST VIEWS BURNET ROAD FRONTAGE IS DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE ON THE FLUME.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THAT OUR SITE IS SURROUNDED BY THE MIXED USE, WHICH IS THE BROWN COLOR ON THE MAP THAT OUR SITE, UH, EXCUSE ME ON THE FRONTAGE AND IS THE ONLY FRONTAGE PROPERTY CURRENTLY NOT CATEGORIZED THIS WAY.

ADDING MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS TO THE CORRIDOR IS A CLEARLY DEFINED GOAL WITH THE CITY CONTINUOUSLY TAKING STEPS TO ACHIEVE THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PASSED IN 2004, ONLY ABOUT ONE THIRD OF CREST VIEWS, BURNETT FRONTAGE WAS MIXED USE AS THE CITY UPDATED ITS LAND USE POLICIES.

COUNCIL BEGAN UPDATING THE FLUME DESIGNATION FOR THESE FRONTAGE, LOTS TO ALIGN WITH ITS PLANNING PRINCIPLES TODAY ABOUT A DOZEN OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL TO CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE.

OUR REQUEST FOLLOWS THAT TREND IN FURTHER ADVANCES.

THE CITY'S GOAL OF INCREASING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE CORRIDORS.

FINALLY, TO RECAP THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS SITE IS LOCATED ON AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND AN ASAP TRANSIT NETWORK PRIORITY ROADWAY WHERE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED.

NEXT.

THE MAJORITY OF CREST VIEWS BURNET ROAD FRONTAGE IS ALREADY DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE ON THE FLUME AND OUR REQUEST.

WE'LL ALIGN THIS SITE WITH THE REST OF THE AREA AND A FLUME CHANGE AT THIS STAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN AND OTHER CITY PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE FOR ANY FUTURE REZONING REQUESTS IN PROJECTS.

OF COURSE I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. CHIP HARRIS, MR. HARRIS ON TELECONFERENCE SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR MARKS.

MY NAME IS CHIP AT THE CITY HEALTH COMMUNITY.

MEANING PUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THE APPLICANT'S AGENT EXPLAINED THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL LEASES AND THE SHOPPING CENTER.

IT WOULDN'T EXPIRE FOR SEVERAL YEARS GIVEN THAT, AND THAT THE CITY IS GOING THROUGH A COMPLICATED TRANSITION AT THIS TIME, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO AMEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

CITY STAFF STATED THAT IS VERY RARE TO HAVE AN NPA WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS WAS RESOUND RECENTLY, NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY LOST OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET AUSTIN'S VISION FOR ITS FUTURE.

BEING ALL RESIDENTIAL.

THERE WAS NO RETAIL TO MEET CONSUMER NEEDS AND NO RESTAURANTS FOR PEOPLE TO DINE AT THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY WITHOUT OFFICE SPACE.

THERE WAS NO PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK WITH HER COLLEAGUES WITHOUT ANY ONSITE PARKLAND.

THERE WAS NO PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO RELAX OR PLAY.

THAT'S NOT THE VISION OF AUSTIN'S FUTURE THAT MANY PEOPLE IN BREAKS IN AN ATTEMPT TO PLAN THIS PROPERTY TO BE EXCEPTIONAL.

LET US PAUSE THIS AMENDMENT UNTIL IT IS ACCOMPANIED WITH THE RELATED ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

AND ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND PLAN SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WILL BENEFIT FROM SOMETHING THAT WILL MEET THE MANY AND VARIED NEEDS OF OUR GROWING COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I'VE JUST, UH, ADD, UH, TWO THINGS.

ONE I THOUGHT, UM, MR. HARRIS MADE A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS SHOULD BE A MIXED USE SITE, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY COMMERCIAL.

SO I THINK REZONING IT, OR EXCUSE ME, CHANGING THE FLUME TO MIXED USE SO THAT IT WILL ENCOURAGE A MIX OF USES THERE AS THE FUTURE GUIDANCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

AND WHEN WE COME BACK WITH ZONING, UH, WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT MR. HARRIS DESCRIBED MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY, COMING BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND OBVIOUSLY THE CHALLENGE HERE IS YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS ONE TIME PER YEAR, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, UH, IF YOU DON'T COME FORWARD AND OUTLINE WHERE YOU'RE HEADING, ULTIMATELY, AS WE HAVE JUST DONE BY COMING HERE WITH A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, UH, IT, IT PUTS YOU AT A DISADVANTAGE.

YOU CAN'T REALLY DO THE TYPE OF PLANNING, UH, ULTIMATELY, UH, THAT WILL BE NEEDED IN THE REZONING PROCESS CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER ON THE SPEAKERS ON THIS SIDE OF THINKING.

OKAY.

UM, A MOTION

[00:50:01]

TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

UM, IT'S FUN VOTE WAS ON THE DIETS, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S EVERYONE THINK EIGHT? YEP.

OKAY.

NINE ZERO.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO QUESTIONS.

UM, I AM PROPOSING AGAIN, UH, ON THIS CASE THAT WE IT'S JUST, UH, THE PLAN AMENDMENT.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO KEEPING IT TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH THREE MINUTES EACH, AND WE CAN ALWAYS SUSPEND THE RULES AND REVERT BACK IF WE DO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, HEARING NO OPPOSITION, I WOULD LIKE TO START THAT WAY.

SO, UH, WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? ANYONE? ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

ANY EMOTIONS PROPOSED? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

UH, FINISHERS ARE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE APPLICANT REQUESTS.

I HAD A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT MOTION? I THINK THERE, THE REASON FOR, I THINK MOVING FORWARD THIS CASE IS REALLY AS MEAN, AS AN EXPLAINED, I THINK IT'S LIKE A BLOCK ISSUE THAT SAID YOU NOT GOING TO THROW THEM IN AT THIS POINT, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET, AND OF COURSE, AS MENTIONED BOTH BY THE APPLICANT AND BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE, THIS WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR THEM TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THE NOTIFICATION AND THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT OR ANY FUTURE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF REZONING.

SO REALLY THE FARM, I THINK IN SOME WAYS, FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, IF I WERE TO TAKE MY ROLE AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE OVERALL PLAN FOR BURNETT.

SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS STANDARDIZATION OF HOW WE SEE THAT CORRIDOR AND STILL ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT IN ANY FUTURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS ALONG.

SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, THIS SIDE ITEMS, WHICH I THINK STAFF RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? YES.

RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR THE, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT OF AT 73 0 1 BURNETT ROAD.

UM, IT'S A, MOST OF MY COMMISSIONER ARE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

UH, LET'S GO.

AND THOSE ON THE DICE, UM, THAT'S ALL THREE OF US AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UH, I'M COUNTING 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND COMMISSIONER PRACTICES THAT YELLOW JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S YELLOW.

SO WE HAVE FIVE, EIGHT VOTING IN FAVOR, UM, ONE ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONER PRAXIS.

SO THAT MOTION PASSES 8 0 1.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ALONG.

WELL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THE NEXT SIDE.

I'M UP.

UH, THAT WOULD BE, IS THAT ITEM B TIN? IS THAT OUR NEXT ITEM? OH, YES.

SORRY.

WE, UH, WE VOTED ON IT.

YES.

UH, ITEMS SIX AND SEVEN

[Items B6 & B7 (Part 2 of 2)]

AND SEVEN WERE TAKEN TOGETHER.

LET'S GO HEAR FROM STAFF ON THE, ARE WE GOING TO HEAR ON THE PLAN AMENDMENT FIRST? OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

GREEN MEREDITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER B6 IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 1 9 0.01 DOT S H.

KATIE LOFT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 AND 1 0 0 8 EAST 39TH STREET IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.

THE HANCOCK SUB-AREA THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY AND MIXED USE OFFICE TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A FORMAL LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CANNED PACK, NIPPER, EXCUSE ME, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

SHERRY'S HER WITNESS WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

ALONG WITH THAT, THIS IS ITEM B SEVEN, WHICH IS KC 14 20 22 0 0 1 9 POINT S H.

KATIE LOSS.

THE ADDRESS IS 40 1004, 1008 EAST 39TH STREET.

THIS REQUEST IS A REZONING FROM N P AND L O M U C O M P TO MFC O M P I'M SORRY.

THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR MF FOR NP

[00:55:01]

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE, MODERATE TO HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.

THE CA THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION CONSISTS OF THREE LOTS THAT CONTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND OFFICE AND A VACANT PROPERTY.

THESE LOTS WERE ZONED AND L O M N P THROUGH THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, REZONING CASE C 14 0 4 0 0 2 3.

THE PROPERTIES ARE LISTED AS TRACKS FIVE, FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX, FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX, A AND 536 B ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONINGS ORDINANCE CHART AND ARE SUBJECT TO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND FAR LIMITATIONS IN THEIR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

THE LOTS TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE ARE DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE AND A DAYCARE SERVICES USE TO THE SOUTH ACROSS EAST 39TH STREET.

THERE'S A DAYCARE SERVICE AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE TO THE EAST.

THERE A FINANCIAL SERVICES USE THE LOTS TO THE WEST ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING NP ZONING TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A A HUNDRED UNIT MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX THAT WERE PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM FOR THE DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT BONUSES.

THE STAFF HAS VERIFIED WITH THE REAL ESTATE DIVISION OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED APPLICATION, BUT HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED AT THIS TIME.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR NPS ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE FOUR DISTRICT.

THE SITE TAKES ACCESS TO A LEVEL ONE COLLECTOR ROADWAY AND IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY.

RESIDENCE IS CIVIC AND LOW DENSITY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES MF FOUR MPS ZONING IS MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION, AS IT WILL ALLOW FOR MODERATE TO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN THIS CENTRALLY LOCATED AREA NEAR LOWER DENSITY.

RESIDENTIAL USES THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF MF FOR MPS ZONING WILL PROVIDE IT FOR A TRANSITION IN THE INTENSITY VISAS FROM THE COMMERCIAL CAS IN P M U M P AND G O M U N P ZONING FRONTING INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 TO THE EAST TO THE ZONING TO THE WEST ALONG EAST 39TH STREET AND WILBERT ROAD.

THE PROPOSED MF FOUR MPS ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY LOCATED BETWEEN AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY RED RIVER STREET TO THE WEST AND NEAR A MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TO THE EAST.

ACCORDING TO GIS, THERE ARE SUPPORTING TRANSIT SERVICES IN THIS AREA, AS THERE IS A CAPITAL METRO BEST ROUTE TO THE SOUTH, ALONG EAST 38TH AND A HALF STREET TO THE EAST AND ALONG IAH 35 SOUTHBOUND SERVICE ROAD, THE REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, WHICH IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2017.

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

THANK YOU.

WELL, I'LL HEAR FROM THE ADHAN THIS LAST YEAR AT FIVE MINUTES.

HELLO, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS AND YOU'RE CONTROLLING THE SIGNS, CORRECT.

NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

THIS NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SGI VENTURES, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF AUSTIN, AND, UM, SAGE DEVELOPMENT AS CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRIES AS CONSULTANT AND NEW HOPE HOUSING.

THIS TEAM HAS 20 PLUS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE BUILT OVER 700 AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND THAT DOES NOT COUNT WHAT HAKA HAS DONE OR NEW HOPE HOUSING HAS DONE IN THEIR OWN CITY, BUT WE ARE JUST SWIMMING UPSTREAM AND NEED THIS PROJECT HELPS ANSWER THE NEED FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE THAT WE SEE IN AUSTIN.

THOSE THAT WE SEE STRUGGLING TO FIND STABLE HOUSING AS WE DRIVE THROUGH OUR GREAT CITY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

NEXT TWO SLIDES.

KITTY LOFTS IS A PROPOSED HUNDRED UNIT SRO DEVELOPMENT.

IT WILL BE A HUNDRED PER CENT CONTINUUM OF CARE UNITS AND AN AREA THAT WE ARE SO EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION IS VERY CLOSE TO MANY AMENITIES, HEALTHCARE, AND SO MANY SERVICES THAT ARE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RESIDENCES, UH, RESIDENTS, UH, STRIVE TO BE NEAR NEXT SIDE.

THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE DATA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, FROM THE HOUSING BLUEPRINT LAST YEAR AND THE NEED AND GAP STUDY FROM ECHO.

TYPICALLY WE DO FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

THERE'S OVER TWO, ALMOST 3000 UNITS SPECIFICALLY NEEDED FOR SRO IN THE CITY.

AND THERE'S ALMOST 3000 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS NEEDED IN DISTRICT NINE ALONE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS OUR PROPOSED SITE

[01:00:01]

PLAN FOR KATIE LOFTS.

UM, THIS DOES ENCOMPASS AN EMMA FOR ZONING, SO WE ARE HAPPY WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MFR.

WE WERE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH, UM, OUR ORIGINAL SITE PLAN AND MAKE IT MEET THE MFR DESIGNATION.

THIS SITE PLAN IS JUST A STARTING POINT, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON DETAILS.

IF WE WERE TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK SINCE THE SITE PLAN IS NOT TIED TO THIS ZONING CASE, YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY, NEXT SLIDE.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS ALLOWED WITH MF SIX.

AND WHAT'S WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND EMMA FOR.

WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT MY FOUR, AGAIN, AS COMMISSION, AS NOTED BY STAFF, NEXT SLIDE, WE RECEIVED SOME REQUESTS, UM, FROM A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORS TO JUST BUILD ON WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING ALLOWS.

AND WITH AFFORDABLY UNLOCKED, YES, WE COULD BUILD A SIX STORY BUILDING THERE, BUT IT, FRANKLY, IT'S NOT SMART.

IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE.

IT WILL CAUSE MORE CITY RESOURCES.

AND WE WILL DO THAT IF WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, BUT WE PREFER TO BUILD A LOWER DENSITY PROJECT FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND ONE THAT IS MORE COST-EFFECTIVE AND A LESS STRAIN ON THE CITY RESOURCES.

NEXT SLIDE.

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE RENDERING THAT WE'VE PROVIDED.

OF COURSE, THIS WILL CHANGE AS THE SITE PLAN CHANGES.

NEXT SLIDE.

HERE'S JUST TWO OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE COMPLETED IN AUSTIN, UM, FALLS KIND OF ALONG THE SAME CORRIDOR THAT YOU MIGHT'VE SEEN AS YOU TRAVEL UP AND DOWN THROUGHOUT, UH, URBAN CORE AUSTIN, NEXT SLIDE, NEW HOPE HOUSING IS SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE PARTNERSHIP THAT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE OF THEIR, UM, THEIR EXPERIENCE SPECIFICALLY WITH, UM, DEVELOPING AND OPERATING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

THEY'RE ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN THE STATE AND HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1993.

NEXT SLIDE, THEY'VE SERVED OVER 2000 PEOPLE AND WITH A STABILIZATION RATE OF 80%, WHICH IS JUST AMAZING.

NEXT SLIDE.

OUR COMMUNITY AMENITIES INCLUDE LAUNDRY, A COMMUNITY LAUNDRY ROOM, A COMPUTER CENTER, A WARMING KITCHEN, OUTDOOR COMMUNITY SPACE AND RECREATIONAL SPACE ELEVATOR SERVED BUILDING.

AND WE WILL ALSO BE CONTROLLED ACCESS AND HAVE 24 HOUR ONSITE MANAGEMENT.

NEXT SLIDE, BECAUSE WE OWN THESE PROPERTIES.

LONG-TERM THE, THE SUPPORT SERVICES AND THE SORRY, THE MATERIALS THAT WE USE FOR OUR DEVELOPMENTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US HAVING MATERIALS LIKE, UH, RESILIENT FLOORING, NO CARPET, HARD SURFACE COUNTERTOPS, GRANITE, A STYLE STONE, UM, BOTH IN THE BATHROOM AND IN THE, THE, UM, KITCHEN AND THEN ENERGY EFFICIENCY, LIGHTING, AND APPLIANCES.

THESE UNITS ALSO WILL BE FULLY FURNISHED.

NEXT SLIDE.

I MENTIONED RESIDENT SUPPORT SERVICES.

WE WILL DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF SUPPORT SERVICES FOR OUR RESIDENTS AS IT IS ON THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEN MANY OF THEM WILL COME WITH CASE MANAGEMENT AND WE WILL BRING IN ADDITIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT FOR EACH ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

NEXT SLIDE, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

UM, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS ZONING CASE.

WE DO, UM, HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT BEING THE NUMBER ONE RANKED DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION SEVEN FOR FUNDING.

UM, THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION.

THANK YOU.

YOU WILL NOW HEAR FROM MR. CHESMORE.

MR. MORGAN HAD THREE MINUTES.

UM, I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO BE FIRST.

UM, I WAS ALSO TRYING TO NOT EVER COME TO A PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT HERE WE ARE, AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF DOING THIS WORK, UM, JP AND SOME OTHER FOLKS ARE GONNA COME UP AND SAY SOME VERY ELOQUENT STUFF AROUND, UM, LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE INTELLECTUAL POLICY ARGUMENTS, WHY WE NEED THIS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST AT A POINT TO WHERE I AM.

UM, I'M QUITE FATIGUED WHEN THESE TYPE OF CONVERSATIONS COME UP, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE LIVE IN A CITY WHERE, WHEN FOLKS ARE ON THE STREET CAMPING, YOU KNOW, WE SAID, OOH, AND GROSS.

AND WE, WE SAY, OH, WE NEED HOUSING.

CAUSE, CAUSE WE COULDN'T STAND TO LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE THAT WERE SLEEPING ON THE STREET.

NOW THAT WE HAVE A PLACE WHERE WE CAN BUILD PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE SAYING, OH, NOT HERE, RIGHT? LIKE THIS WHOLE NOT IN MY BACKYARD THING.

AND IT JUST, IT'S JUST, UM, IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME THAT, UM, WHEN WE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS IN CERTAIN ZIP CODES WITH CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHICS THAT GET THAT RIGHT.

THEY GET THAT PRIVILEGE.

RIGHT.

UM, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING AND NOT TOO MUCH WHEN I, AND I HATE TO BRING UP OLD STUFF BECAUSE WHITE AMERICA HATES, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HISTORY ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

[01:05:01]

BUT IN 1928, UM, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE MASTER PLAN AND I THINK ABOUT THE BLACK FOLKS THAT LIVED IN WEEKSVILLE IN CLARKSVILLE THAT FOUGHT FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY WERE PUSHED OUT TO THE EAST SIDE AND NOW, YOU KNOW, 20, 30 DECADES LATER, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOW PUSHED OUT OF THE EAST SIDE THAT THEY WERE TO OUT TO MAINER AND ALL THESE OTHER PLACES.

UM, IT JUST BEGS TO LIKE, IT BEGS THE QUESTION OF LIKE WHO ACTUALLY GETS TO PRESERVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, AND, AND IT'S CLEAR TO ME, UM, FROM JP, WHEN HE WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRIPING ABOUT THE CASES THAT CAME UP, UM, TH TH IT, IT IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT DEMOGRAPHIC OF PEOPLE THAT ONLY GET TO, UM, FIGHT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REALLY IT'S BASED ON NOTHING.

YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PRIVILEGED PEOPLE, UM, I'M GOING TO GO ON A LIMB AND SAY, PREDOMINANTLY WHITE