Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

JUNE 14TH, 2022

[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]

MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE HAVE A QUORUM AND GOING TO GO AND BRING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

UM, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL AND THEN WE'LL START OUT WITH THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.

UM, I'LL JUST START WITH THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, TO MY LEFT.

UH, I'LL JUST SAY YOUR NAME, JUST SAY PRESENT, UH, STARTING WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PRESIDENT AND, UH, VICE CHAIR.

HEMPEL HERE AND WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA PRESENT AND I FORGOT THIS IS YOUR CHAIR, TODD SHAW, AND ALSO ON THE DIET.

SO WE HAVE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN, AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO OVER TO THE SCREEN HERE AND, UM, JUST THE WAY I SEE YOU GUYS, I'LL GO IN THAT ORDER.

UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS OUR COMMISSIONER YONIS, PALITO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, EAR, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE.

UH, WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER PRACTICES, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, AND CURRENTLY THOSE ARE ALL THE MEMBERS THAT I SEE ON THE SCREEN.

SO, UH, WE DO HAVE QUORUM, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, WE WILL START WITH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UM, UH, ON PUBLIC, UH, COMMUNICATION.

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SURE.

COMMISSION LIAISON, AND VERY, THAT IS CORRECT.

WE HAVE MR. SOTO, UH, PRESENT TO PROVIDE, UH, REMARKS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND OH, HOW MANY MINUTES? THREE MINUTES.

THREE MINUTES.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME'S CARLOS SOTO, I'M RESEARCH ANALYST AT COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT NETWORK.

AND I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION TODAY CAN, IS A PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTAL NONPROFIT, PRIVATE AND FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH LEVERAGE MUTUAL RESOURCES TO COLLECTIVELY IMPROVE SOCIAL HEALTH, EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE PARTNERS FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT AREAS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND PFLUGERVILLE ARE PARTNERS.

AND TRAVIS COUNTY IS, UH, ANOTHER PARTNER WE HAVE, UH, CAP METRO IS A PARTNER AND SEVERAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND TOGETHER OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS, UM, WE'VE PROMOTED AND SUPPORTED THE POWER OF COLLABORATION BY IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES TO COORDINATE AND ALIGN SERVICES AMONG OUR PARTNERS TO SUPPORT EFFORTS, TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CHALLENGES THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTION, CREATING CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CIVIC DIALOGUE AND CIVIC ACTION, AND A VARIETY OF OTHER WAYS, UM, TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE ACTION AND EXPAND EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY.

WE'VE DEVELOPED TOOLS THAT INFORM INCLUDING THE CANNED COMMUNITY DASHBOARD, WHICH INCLUDES 18 DIFFERENT INDICATORS, INCLUDING HOUSING COST BURDEN.

AND I BELIEVE, UH, VEZ ACTUALLY SERVED ON OUR DASHBOARD STEERING COMMITTEE FOR AWHILE.

UM, WE'VE ALSO DEVELOPED THE RACE EQUITY ACTION FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS LOCAL NEEDS AND IDENTIFY WHERE MORE ATTENTION IS NEEDED.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY, UM, ORGANIZING RACE EQUITY PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE.

UM, IT'S A SERIES OF FOUR WORKSHOPS WHERE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN, UH, TRAININGS LIKE BEYOND DIVERSITY OR UNDOING RACISM CAN LEARN WAYS TO APPLY THOSE PRINCIPLES IN THEIR DAILY LIFE AND IN THEIR WORK.

WE'VE ALSO CREATED OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE.

UM, AND WE LAND, WE LAUNCHED THE WEEKEND ATX AS PART OF A COVID-19 RESPONSE TO GET CRITICAL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC DURING TIMES OF CRISIS AND MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, AS WELL AS TO HELP ENSURE, ENGAGE AND CRISIS RESPONSE.

UM, WE ALSO HAVE OUR PODCAST, WHICH IS WEEKLY AND IT'S SHORT, AND IT FILLS YOU IN ON THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE AT HIGHLIGHTS OPPORTUNITIES TO GET ENGAGED ON EFFORTS AIMED AT ADVANCING EQUITY OPPORTUNITY AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING.

AND, UH, WE ALSO MAKE STRATEGIC CONNECTIONS.

UM, WE LAUNCHED THE LANGUAGE ACT ACCESS ACTION TEAM, AND, UH, WE LAUNCHED THE CENTRAL TEXAS LANGUAGE ACCESS FUND, WHICH IS NOW, UH, FOCUSING ON AN EFFORT TO INCREASE, UM, MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH.

AND WE ALSO HOSTED OUR REGIONAL SUMMIT LAST FALL.

UH, I'VE GOT A FEW SECONDS FOR QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S BETTER IF YOU EMAIL ME CSOTO@KENNYTX.ORG.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

[00:05:01]

SO, UM, MR. FLORES, ARE YOU ABLE TO ASSIST ME WITH THE FIRST READING AFTER I GO AHEAD AND, UH, TALK ADDRESS, UH, ITEM A ON THE, UH, THE PRIVILEGED MINUTES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU JUST REAL QUICK THEN.

UH, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MAY 24TH, 2022 MEETING MINUTES? UM, IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THOSE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES,

[Reading of the Agenda]

I GUESS.

YEAH, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE FIRST READING.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

UM, WE HAVE BE PUBLIC HEARINGS, BE ONE SITE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WAIVER REQUEST AS P 20 21 0 1 0 2 C 1400 CEDAR AVENUE.

OPTUM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B TWO REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 4 6 RUTLEDGE CENTER, MS. UPPER CONSENT B3 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2 7 1 0 1 Q WEST 35TH.

THIS ITEM IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 28 BEFORE REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 21 S H Q W UH, WEST 35TH.

SORRY.

UM, THIS ITEM IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POST.

I WENT TO 28, B FIVE REZONING C 14 20 21 0 0 8 3 3001 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.

THIS ITEM IS A APORT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT BY THE APPLICANT B6 REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 4 7 7 0 1 AND I'M 703 HIGHLAND AVENUE RESULTING.

THIS ITEM IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 12TH.

REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 4 2 BOLSON NORWOOD CORNER C O AMENDMENT.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT S P 20 19 0 4 6 5 C 20 21 1 6 2 2 43 L M.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT BEING PARTIAL PLAT VACATION C 8 81 0 2 7 0.0 2 180 2 VAC SOUTH AUSTIN ACRES.

SECTION A.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT BEING TENDON FINAL CLAPPED, C H J 20 21 0 1 0 4 0.08.

TAUGHT SUBDIVISION.

THIS ITEM IS OF POOR CONSENT AND RECOMMENDED PER CONDITIONS AND EXHIBIT C AND RECOMMEND WAIVER FOR APPROVAL.

B 11 FINAL PLAT FROM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLANS, C H J 2008 0 1 6 8 0.0158 AND CHARTER PHASE SIX.

A SMALL LOT.

SUBDIVISION IS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND B12 PRELIMINARY PLANS, C H J 2 20 19 0 0 9 0 STONY RIDGE ISLAND.

UM, THIS ITEM IS NOW FOR DISCUSSION AND THAT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, MINISTERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ANY, ANY OF THE ITEMS? DECEIVING.

OKAY.

UH, AND LET'S SEE, WE'VE GOT, UM, DO WE HAVE, UM, UH, JUST WANT TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE YOUR, UH, COLORS.

IT MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO COUNT BOATS, GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW.

AND THEN, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET'S SEE.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, AFTER, UM, READING THE AGENDA, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WANT TO PULL INTO THE ITEMS? YES, I BELIEVE ON B SEVEN WE HAD, UM, MR. GARRETT WANTING TO SPEAK.

OKAY.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THAT FIRST.

AND THEN WE'LL, UH, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS AFTER THAT HAVE ANY, UH, ITEMS THEY WANT TO PULL ALL THAT TAKE CARE OF THAT NEXT.

THANK YOU, MRS. AGAIN, I FEEL SO LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

[00:10:11]

IF YOU WILL SELECT STAR SIX, THAT SHOULD I MEET YOU? GOOD AFTERNOON HERE IN COUNTDOWN COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS .

I CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASA NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL PAID.

I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR OR ON THE BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL.

I'M THE IMMEDIATE PAST YOUR EPISODE, THIS COMPANY WHO HAS BEEN CONTACTING AND SPEAKING ON THE BEHALF OF THE CONTACT TEAM ON ITEM B SEVEN, THE CONTACT TEAM VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FOR 80 16 BRODERSON ROAD PROVIDED THAT THE OWNER BRING LOUISVILLE BAPTIST CHURCH AT RECEIPT, PRIVATE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, ALLOWING NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON SITE AND OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM NEARBY RESIDENTS.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN NOT CONSIDER OR CONDITION THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT EVEN THE PROXIMITY GET THIS PROPERTY TO EXIST IN RESIDENTIAL HOMES, WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE OWNER ON A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

ON THIS SITE, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT MUSICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE STORED HERE, BUT THE FACT THAT THIS CAN LAND TO FUTURE POTENTIAL STORIES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE IS ADDRESSED.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF'S REPORT ON OUR DEPARTMENT SEARCH AT THE ADDRESS RANGES FROM 4,300 TO 46 18 NORWOOD LANE AND 7,800 TO 81 99 BURLESON ROAD IDENTIFIED FIVE LOCATIONS WITH PERMITS FOR A BOOK.

GROUND HAS ITS MATERIALS AND HIGH PILOTLESS COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE.

WE WANT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY BY REQUIRING PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

THAT WILL AGAIN PROHIBIT THE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON SITE.

THESE RESIDENTS HAVE LIVED IN THESE HOMES FOR MANY YEARS, AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, AS EARLY AS THE 1940S, THE CONTACT TEAM ASSAULTS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR EAR, OUR WATER IN OUR SLOW TO ALL THE RESIDENTS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND SOUTHEAST SCOTLAND, INCLUDING THE WORKERS IN THIS AREA, BUT ALSO AS TO OUR CONCERN.

AND IF YOU WILL NOTE ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE STAFF'S REPORT, THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS MAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS AT THESE COMPANY PLANT AREA, BUT IN OUR REPEAT, BUT THE CLOSEST FIRE PATIENTS EQUIPPED TO ADDRESS HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPIRES ARE LOCATED AS FOLLOWS STATION 14 AT 43 0 5 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, TIME HILDER STATION 20 X, 66, A ONE MAIN CHOCO ROAD IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN STATION 28, 20 14 WITH PALMER LANE IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN AND STATION 32 AT 28 TO FOUR MONTHS TO BUILD A ROAD IN WEST LAKE HILLS.

WE HAVE NO FIRE STATIONS IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN THAT ARE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, WHICH IS ALARMING TO US.

AND ANOTHER REASON FOR THE URGENCY OF OUR REQUEST FOR THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WE HOPE BRAINLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH WILL WORK WITH US ON THIS PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY.

UH, MOVING ON, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS TO WISH TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS OR PULL THEM FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW? WE HAVE ITEMS TO BE ONE IN B12.

OKAY.

OH, UM, COMMISSIONER PRACTICES.

YES.

YES.

SO, UM, B SEVEN E CASE MENTIONED BY, UM, MISS IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.

OKAY.

NO, UM, IT IS NOT OKAY.

UM, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT OUT FOR DISCUSSION IF POSSIBLE.

OKAY.

UM, NOTED.

WE WILL PULL ITEM B SEVEN FOR DISCUSSION.

DO WE, UM, MR. RIVERA? SHH.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, MR. GARRITY IS STILL ON THE PHONE WITH WHICH WOULD SHE BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR SHE DID NOT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR THAT ITEM.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ENVER.

UH, SO, UM, AS SHE PROVIDED HER REMARKS, UM, THAT HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, BUT SHE COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, UH, ONCE THE ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY.

THE CHAIR, SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

UH, JUST A REMINDER, UH, THAT, UH, THAT ITEM IS PULLED.

UM, THE INTERVAL WOULD NOT HAVE TO REMAIN ON THE LINE.

WE'LL SEND AN EMAIL TO WHEN WE'RE ABOUT 15 MINUTES AWAY FROM TAKING UP THAT ITEM.

OKAY.

THANK ALL RIGHT.

YES.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE ITEMS. UH,

[00:15:01]

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THEM IN ORDER B ONE, B SEVEN AND B12.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE WAITING ON ONE OF THE ITEMS AND YOU WANT TO WAIT, UM, OUT IN THE ATRIUM, YOU CAN, UM, MR. RIVERA, WE'LL GIVE YOU A NOTICE WHEN WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY HERE.

IT'S NOT MANY FOLKS HERE IN CHAMBERS THIS EVENING.

OKAY.

UH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE CONSENT

[Consent Agenda ]

AGENDA HERE.

SO THE FIRST SIDE, AND WE HAVE ITEM, UH, A APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 24TH MEETING, UH, ITEM B ONE, WE HAVE, UM, DISCUSSION ON THAT B TO REZONE IT'S ON CONSENT B3 PLAN AMENDMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 28TH ITEM BEFORE, UM, IS NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TILL TWO, JUNE 28TH, THE FIVE REZONING INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, AND IS THAT, OH, BY THE APPLICANT, UH, ITEM B SIX FOR ZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TWO JULY 12TH, B SEVEN, UH, PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

THAT'S A REZONING CASE ITEM B EIGHT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS ON CONSENT.

BENIGN.

PARTIAL PLAT VACATION IS ON CONSENT.

B 10 FINAL PLAT CONSENT CONDITIONS, UM, EXHIBIT C AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL LABOR.

UM, LET ME SEE.

YEAH, JUST FOR REFERENCE, UH, THE CONDITIONS AND EXHIBITS C UH, ITEM B 11, UH, FINAL PLAT FROM APPROVED FILAMENTARY PLAN.

IT'S ON CONSENT AND THEN ITEM B 12, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN ITEM.

WE HAVE PULLED THAT FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? UM, GET A MOTION BY THE VICE CHAIR OF A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA.

UH, LET'S GO AND VOTE.

UH, LET'S START WITH THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, IN FAVOR MOTION.

THAT'S EVERYONE.

AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR GREEN CARDS.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

I'M TRYING TO GET A SIX TO 10.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD

[B1. Site Plan - Compatibility Waiver Request: SP-2021-0102C - 1400 Cedar Ave; District 1]

AND MOVE TO OUR FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING DISCUSSION CASE ON ITEM B ONE, AND STAFF WANT TO GO AHEAD AND START US OFF.

UM, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS HAS COME BEFORE US, BUT WE NEED, WE ARE, UM, WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF AND THEN WE'LL, WE NEED TO THROUGH GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SURE.

COMMISSION LIAISON, ANDRA.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SO PREVIOUSLY YOU HAD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SO ON BECAUSE IT WAS MORE THAN 14 DAYS.

UH, YOU RECONSIDERED TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION TO THIS DATE.

SO BEGIN WITH THE STAFF FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, FOLLOWED BY SPEAKERS, UM, FOLLOWED BY ACTION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ZACH LOFTON AND I AM THE CASE MANAGER FOR SP 20 21 0 1 0 2 C OR 1400 CEDAR AVENUE.

THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, AND ALSO LOCATED IN THE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO AS MR. RIVERA JUST MENTIONED, THIS ITEM WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE APRIL 12TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THE APPLICANT MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.

SO IT WAS AGAIN, A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE MAY 24TH MEETING, WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME UNTIL THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

THE APPLICANT IS STILL PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP AS TWO LOTS WITH COMMERCIAL LAND USES ON CS U THE CEO IMPEDE INTO A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL LAND USE WITH PARKING, BIKE, PARKING AND PUBLIC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM 25 TO 10 63 OR SETBACKS.

SO THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO A 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.

AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENCROACHING INTO THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTH END ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINES.

SO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ABUTS AN ALLEY WITH AN SF THREE PROPERTY WITH A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ALLEY AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE ABOUT SOME SF THREE PROPERTY WITH A FIVE FOOT INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SO AS MENTIONED AFTER THE APRIL 12TH MEETING DISCUSSION APPLICANT IS NOW PROPOSING THE TWO UNITS ON THE NORTH SIDE TO BE SET BACK SEVEN FEET FROM THE CHURN NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND

[00:20:01]

THE UNITS ON THE WESTERN SIDE TO BE SETBACK 18 FEET FROM THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE.

BUT IF APPROVED THIS WAIVER WILL NOT IMPACT SIGHTLINES LINES AT THE INTERSECTION OF 14TH STREET AND CEDAR AVENUE.

AND SO FROM THE, FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STANDPOINT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK WAIVER REQUEST, AND THE SITE COMPLIES WITH ALL OTHER COMPATIBILITY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS LIGHTING SCREENING, AND BUILDING RIGHTS.

THAT'S IT FOR MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU, CHAIR.

WELL NOW HEAR FROM THE FIRST SPEAKER, UM, FOR THIS ITEM AND THAT'S A MR. ZACK SEVEN, UM, GREETINGS COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

UH, MOST OF YOU HAVE SOME DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT.

UH, I'LL SPEND MY TIME SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN OUR PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS.

UH, THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN PROVIDES SOME CONTEXT.

THIS IS A SMALL QUARTER-ACRE SITE OCCUPIED BY VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND WE'RE PROPOSING SEVEN ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

NEXT SLIDE HERE ARE ADDITIONAL IMAGES FOR CONTEXT ON THE TOP ROW.

YOU SEE THE SITE IN ITS CURRENT STATE AS SEEN FROM CEDAR AVENUE ON THE BOTTOM ROW.

YOU CAN SEE CLOSE UP IMAGES FROM THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS AT THE BOTTOM, RIGHT IMAGE SOUTHWEST CORNER NOTE, THE UNIMPROVED CONDITION OF THE ALLEY AND THE EXISTING THREE TO FOUR FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL ON OUR LOT.

I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THIS LATER.

NEXT SLIDE.

HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING MAP ALONG WITH THE 1999 CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BOTH SHOWING FOURTEEN HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN OH TWO CEDAR ZONED AS C S M U C O N P.

THE V WAS ADDED IN 2009.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN OUR PREVIOUS HEARING WAS WHAT KINDS OF USES ARE PERMISSIBLE WITH CSI ZONING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU'LL SEE A PARTIAL LIST OF CS CHARACTERISTICS AND USES IT IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE INTENSIVE BASED ZONING DESIGNATION IN AUSTIN AT TWO TO ONE FAR FOR OUR SITE, THIS AMOUNTS TO APPROXIMATELY 24,200 SQUARE FEET.

WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING ABOUT 13,000 SQUARE FEET.

NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE EXISTING SITE DIAGRAM WITH ITS TWO VACANT STRUCTURES, VARIOUS COVERED OUTDOOR WORK AREAS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

NOTE THAT THE LOTS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY PAVED AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS ABOUT 97% OR MORE.

ALSO NOTE THAT BOTH STREET FRONTAGES ARE DOMINATED BY CURB CUTS, APPROXIMATELY 154 LINEAR FEET WITH HEAD IN PARKING.

NEXT SLIDE.

OUR PROPOSED PLAN INCLUDES SEVEN ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS TWO AND THREE STORIES RANGING IN SIZE WITH GARAGE PARKING AROUND A SINGLE MINIMUM WIDTH DRIVEWAY THAT EXITS TO CEDAR AVENUE.

EACH UNIT WILL HAVE PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE AND FIVE OF THE SEVEN WILL HAVE FRONT DOORS FRONTING ONTO THE STREET.

ON CEDAR.

WE REQUEST MODIFICATIONS TO COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS TO THE NORTH FROM 25 DOWN TO SEVEN AND TO THE WEST FROM 25 DOWN TO 20, IT IS CRITICAL TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS REQUEST IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOUSING.

IT'S NOT RESTAURANT OR RETAIL.

THIS IS LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS IN OUR MAY HEARING AND INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION.

THERE WERE A FEW OTHER, WHAT IF COMMENTS POSED THAT I'LL TOUCH ON QUICKLY? WHAT IF YOU USE THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS? IT DOESN'T WORK DUE TO THE SITE GRADING BECAUSE OF THE RETAINING WALL STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE ALLEY IS NARROW AND UNIMPROVED.

WHAT IF THE DRIVEWAY WERE NARROWER? THE DRIVEWAY IS ALWAYS IS ALREADY THE CODE REQUIRED MINIMUM FOR VEHICULAR MANEUVERING IN TWO-WAY TRAFFIC.

WHAT IF YOU JUST BUILD FIVE UNITS ON THE FRONTAGE AND PUT THE DRIVEWAY AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, WE TRIED TO MAKE THIS WORK, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, OTHER LDC RESTRICTIONS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE.

ALSO THIS WOULD RESULT IN FIVE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER UNITS, ALL 2300 SQUARE FEET OR BIGGER.

OUR CURRENT UNITS, OUR CURRENT SEVEN UNIT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A GOOD RANGE OF SIZES, 1,250 SQUARE FEET TO 1900 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WILL START AT A LOWER PRICE POINT AND AT A MUCH BETTER MATCH FOR THE EXISTING ORIGINAL HOUSING STOCK IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

NEXT SLIDE WE'VE INCLUDED BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO AGAIN, EMPHASIZE THAT THESE ARE JUST ATTACHED HOUSES, SAME LOOK, SAME USE, SAME OCCUPANCY, JUST SLIGHTLY DENSER THAN TYPICAL.

SINGLE-FAMILY NEXT SLIDE HERE.

YOU SEE THE VIEW FROM CEDAR LOOKING AT THE EAST SIDE OF OUR SITE AND THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO THE NORTH.

THAT PROPERTY HAS A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND WE'VE PROPOSED TO MOVE OUR NORTH SIDE DUPLEX UNIT SEVEN FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE FOR AN EXTRA

[00:25:01]

BREATHING ROOM.

THE AREA BETWEEN THE DUPLEX AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IS ENTIRELY COMPRISED OF PRIVATE BACKYARD SPACE FOR THOSE UNITS.

AND WE WILL PROVIDE FENCING.

IN SUMMARY.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT WORK AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF WILL BE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

ONE OTHER ITEM I'D LIKE TO BRING UP TO THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION IS THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN LAST WEEK BY CITY COUNCIL TO REDUCE COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

THESE NEW RULES ARE SET TO TAKE EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WHILE IT DID NOT COVER THE TYPE OF PRODUCT WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT.

I THINK WE CAN USE THIS AS A VIEW INTO THE FUTURE OF HOW THE CITY INTENDS TO UNLOCK MORE HOUSING OPTIONS AND COMBAT THE SHORTAGES WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. WILLIAM LUCY, MR. LAZY.

YOU'RE ON THE TELECONFERENCE.

SO LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

MY NAME IS TRAVIS LUCY.

I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.

UM, EVERYONE KNOWS THE ADAGE.

UH, IF THE ONLY TOOL YOU HAVE IS A HAMMER, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL.

UH, COMPATIBILITY IS AUSTIN'S WAY TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM LITERALLY ANY TYPE OF DISSIMILAR DEVELOPMENT, SHOPPING MALL AUTO REPAIR NIGHTCLUB, HEADING ZOO.

IT IS DESIGNED WITH THIS KIND OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO IN MIND.

UH, OUR PROJECT IS A VERY, VERY LONG WAY FROM ANY OF THAT.

WE'RE PROPOSING HOUSINGS, UH, COMPATIBLE HEIGHT, SIZE AND CHARACTER ON A LOT WITH APPROPRIATE ZONING, UH, LDS.

HE PROVIDES EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMISSION TO GRANT WAIVERS FOR COMPATIBILITY.

WHEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONTEXT.

AND I BELIEVE OUR PROJECT IS EXACTLY THAT.

UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I'LL HANG AROUND IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM DENISE LIBYA, MISS MARIA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP ALL THREE MINUTES.

UM, JUST GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S DENISE FIA AND I AM THE CO-OWNER OF URBAN GRAVITY DEVELOPMENT.

I HAVE BEEN PART OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS NOW, AND I'VE SEEN THIS TOWN GO FROM ODD.

I USED TO CALL IT A TOWN BACK IN THE 1990S TO NOW A BUSTLING CITY.

AND I DO BELIEVE AS SUCH THAT APPROVING THIS WAIVER ALLOWS FOR THE DENSITY THAT THIS BUSTLING CITY REALLY DOES NEED.

UM, AND JUST FOR EVERYBODY TO NOTE AS WELL, URBAN GRAVITY HAS BUILT IN THIS AREA BEFORE THE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, WE'VE HAD THREE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA, AND WE'VE ALSO PARTNERED WITH ZACK SAVAGE HOMES.

WHO'S ALSO DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OF BUILDING IN THIS AREA.

WE'VE TAKEN ALL OF THAT INTO, UM, GREAT EXTENT OF LOOKING INTO IT.

SO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY WITH THE KIND OF THE FACADE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S IT I'LL BE AROUND FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

HEY, WE'RE NOT HERE TO THREE MINUTES.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M MONAGHAN THAT I'M WITH CIVILLY TODAY.

UM, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING TEAM ON THIS PROJECT, I'M JUST HERE TO CLARIFY A FEW TECHNICAL ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO CONFIRM TODAY.

UH, FIRST ONE IS TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA, MANUAL DISCOURAGES ACCESS TO AND FROM UNIMPROVED ALLEYS.

UM, THE SITE IS ZONE CS, M U V C O N P.

THE CS PORTION ON THE CODE IS DESCRIBED AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS.

WE ARE USING THE MIXED USE COMPONENT ON D ON THE ZONING TO DEVELOP THE SEVEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAXIMUM ALLOWED PRE-SITE AREA IS 10 UNITS.

UM, AND THEN JUST THAT THE INTENT OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IS TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT THE SAME CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOWS THE LAND USE COMMISSION TO GRANT WAIVERS TO REDUCE THIS THANK YOU.

NOW WE'RE HERE FOR MR. EONS OR ZILLOW AND THE OPPOSITION ON THE TELECONFERENCE SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS HELLO, THIS IS EONS OR ZILLOW, UH, RESIDENTS

[00:30:01]

IN THE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE SAME BLOCK AS THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

UM, I'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THIS COMMITTEE MULTIPLE TIMES NOW REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

AND, UH, WANTED TO FIRST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT.

UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO ADD BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, EXCEPT TO LEAVE YOU IF THIS, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER AND, UM, THE PROJECT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN FAIRLY DISINGENUOUS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HAVE NOT, UM, TAKEN, YOU KNOW, OUR CONVERSATIONS IN GOOD FAITH.

THEY PRETENDED THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER A FIVE-MINUTE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE AMENABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS MOST IMPACTED, WHICH IS NOT MY OWN HOUSE, BUT ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS.

UM, AND THEN THEY DECIDED TO SCRAP THAT PROJECT WITHOUT COMMUNICATING THAT ALL WITH THE PLANNED CONTACTING OR THE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND FRANKLY, I JUST HOPE IT'S ON YOUR CONSCIENCE TO, UM, GRANT A WAIVER TO A DEVELOPER THAT ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND NOT WANT TO USE, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIKE, WE'VE ALWAYS SAID WE'RE PRO DENSITY, BUT WITHIN REASON AND WITH THE RIGHT TO BE SPIRIT, AND THIS IS JUST NOT IT.

THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD DAY.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE FOR REBUTTAL THREE MINUTES, AS FAR AS BEING DISINGENUOUS, WE'VE ONLY BEEN OPEN AND HONEST WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

UM, THE, THE FIVE UNIT CONCEPT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE CAME UP WITH AND PRESENTED TO CITY STAFF, AND THEY BASICALLY TOLD US THAT IT JUST WASN'T POSSIBLE WITH THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

AND THERE'S NOT A, YOU GUYS ARE NOT ABLE TO GRANT A WAIVER, I GUESS, ON A HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

IT'S JUST, WASN'T POSSIBLE THE LAYOUT WE WERE DOING.

SO IT WASN'T OUR INTENT TO SHOW THEM SOMETHING AND THEN TAKE IT AWAY AT ALL.

IT JUST WASN'T POSSIBLE TO DO IT IN THAT CONFIGURATION.

UM, IF ANYTHING, WE WERE BEING MORE UPFRONT TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF IT.

UM, BUT WE'VE NEVER BEEN ANYTHING BUT UPFRONT WITH THEM.

AND THAT'S ALL, I'LL SAY, CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UH, PUBLIC KAREN.

OH, THANK YOU.

UH, AT A SECOND, UH, VICE VERY HUMBLE.

OKAY.

LET'S GO AND VOTE ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S IN THE DIOCESE AND THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN.

OKAY.

THAT'S EVERYONE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO QUESTIONS.

UM, COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION, UH, MR. UH, COMMISSIONER COSTS? YEAH.

UM, SO I, I, I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF TALKING WITH ZACH EARLIER TODAY, JUST TO GET SOME CLARITY ON, ON, ON ALL OF THIS.

UM, I GUESS ONE THING THAT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF IS THAT IF, IF THIS COMMISSION APPROVES THIS WAIVER, THE SETBACK, UM, THAT WAIVER ONLY APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER, IF HE CHOSE TO CHANGE HIS PLANS OR CHOSE TO SELL THIS SITE, THE WAIVER THAT, THAT THIS COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IS TIED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS SITE PLAN AND ONLY THE SITE PLAN.

IS THAT CORRECT? BUT THAT IS CORRECT CONDITIONER.

AND WHAT WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE? SO THE ZONING ON THIS SITE, UM, IS A BIT INTERESTING AND WOULD ALLOW FOR, I'VE BEEN QUITE A FEW THINGS TO HAPPEN DEPENDING ON HOW COMPATIBILITY AFFECTS THAT.

UM, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER, IF IT WAS JUST A STRAIGHT UP RESIDENTIAL TYPE ZONING, WHAT WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS? AS I KNOW ZACH AND I WERE TALKING THAT MAYBE IT WOULD FIT WITHIN LIKE SF FIVE.

UM, IS THAT KIND OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS, IS ABOUT AN SFI RESIDENTIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT.

SFI, AS I'VE SAID, SOMETHING LIKE THAT ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, UM, OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN 10 UNITS, SO THAT'S CONSEQUENTIAL FOR HOW IT WILL BE DESIGNATED, BUT YEAH, GENERALLY SFI AS OF SIX.

AND WHAT WOULD THE NORMAL KIND OF CODE REQUIRED SETBACK BE BETWEEN EIGHT? THIS SITE WAS ZONED SF FIVE.

WHAT WOULD THAT REQUIRED SETBACK

[00:35:01]

BE TO ITS ADJACENT SIDE PROPERTY? SO IF IT'S ZONED SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE, GENERALLY IT'S ABOUT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK.

I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT AT THE LAST MEETING.

ORIGINALLY THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SETBACK OF FIVE FEET RATHER THAN 25 FEET.

AND THEN AFTER THE DISCUSSION HAD, YOU KNOW, MASSAGE THAT A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT 70 FEET.

SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THEY WOULD BE SET BACK FURTHER THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED BY CODE FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, BUT SETBACK.

YEAH.

AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO, TO, TO CLARIFY MY MIND, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSING AN SFI TYPE DEVELOPMENT AND IF THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED SFI, BUT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, THEN THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY THAN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ACTUAL KIND OF MULTI-USE OR COMMERCIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT SETBACK FROM NSS ZONE PROPERTY.

UM, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE SITTING HERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS WAIVER SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THIS SITE'S ZONING THAT ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

CORRECT.

UH, WELL, I GUESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF THE COMPATIBILITY SET, RIGHT? SO FROM THE COMMERCIAL USE IT'S CS AND IT'S IN, AS I REFERENCED SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THE ZONING THAT IT HAS, THE BASE ZONING IS CS.

SO YEAH, I GUESS SUCCINCTLY TO SAY WE'RE DISCUSSING IT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE, UH, THE SETBACK WOULDN'T BE SO MUCH OF A CONCERN AS YOU KNOW, AT 25 FEET, UH, COMPATIBILITY SETBACK FOR COMMERCIAL USES THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS NOW PROPOSING TO BUILD IN THIS SITE PLAN.

WELL, YEAH, BUT, BUT COMPATIBILITY APPLIES TO ANYTHING THAT'S LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN SFI.

SO THAT COULD BE MULTI-FAMILY THAT CAN BE S OF SEX.

IT COULD BE ANY VARIETY OF THINGS, LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN SFI, BUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD IS CLOSER TO AN SFI TYPE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

I THINK WE'VE MADE IT FULL CIRCLE, SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT NOW, BUT, UH, BUT YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT THING.

ABSOLUTELY.

ALL RIGHT.

LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM.

DO WE HAVE, UH, ADMINISTRATORS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, I'M GOING TO GO OUT AND ASK A FEW.

WHO DID WE HAVE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, AGAIN, UM, CHAIR, WE HAVE MR. EONS OR ZILLOW ON THE TELECONFERENCE.

OKAY.

UH, IS THAT LIZ ZOLA? ZOLA, ZOLA.

UM, YES.

UM, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THE PROPOSAL FOR THE FIVE UNITS SOUNDED LIKE IT WOULD, UM, WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A, UM, A HIGHER UNITS.

SO WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENABLE TO, UM, HIGHER UNITS? IF THE UNIT COUNT WAS LESS THAN THEY MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

MR. ZELLA, YOU MAY HAVE TO SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH A RESPONSE.

HI, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

UM, I THINK WITH THE FIVE MINUTE PLAN AS WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THE BIG ADVANTAGE REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT WAS THAT THE, UH, THERE WERE NO UNITS TOWARDS THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING THE SETBACK TO GO FROM 25 TO NOW SEVEN.

UM, THAT WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE.

AND THEN ALSO FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, IN TERMS OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, PARTICULARLY AROUND HAVING, UM, INGRESS AND EGRESS THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY, SINCE THERE'S ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY HAVING SEVEN UNITS IS A, IS A REAL SAFETY CONCERN.

UM, UH, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH HEIGHT LIMITATION, WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, A HIGHER PROPERTY, IF IT MEANT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FIVES UNIT PLAN.

ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE TWO STORIES INSTEAD OF THREE.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO COMPROMISE.

SO THAT'S, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

OKAY.

AND I HAVE A UP QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, SO I, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT THERE IS A WAY TO GET A WAIVER FROM THE HEIGHT, UH, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE THE CASE FOR, UM, IF THEY WANTED TO SEEK A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY?

[00:40:02]

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THERE IS A PATHWAY FOR A SMALLER UNIT COUNT AND TALLER BUILDINGS, NOT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THROUGH OTHER CHANNELS.

AND I'LL, I SEEM TO RECALL WE HAD ANOTHER CASE THAT ON WHERE DUVALL DID ENDS INTO RESEARCH FOR THAT.

I THINK, UM, THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO, UM, REQUEST A VARIANCE AND I THINK GOT IT.

SO THERE IS A PATHWAY IT'S JUST, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE TONIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION THAT, UM, THERE IS, THAT IS A FEASIBLE OPTION.

UH, WELL, LET ME ADD FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, WAS THAT FIVE UNIT COUNT? WHAT WAS THE HEIGHT? UH, WHAT WAS, WERE THERE FINANCIAL ISSUES? IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION, WAS THAT A FIVE UNIT ABLE TO TENSILE OUT OR WHAT WERE ISSUES WITH THAT? UH, SO THAT THOSE UNITS WERE, WERE TALLER AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

AND IN ORDER TO, AS MY UNDERSTANDING TO GET THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HARDSHIP AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY AS A HARDSHIP.

OKAY.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

I'M FINISHED.

UM, JUST FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERSPECTIVE, THIS CASE HERE COULD HAVE COME TO US AS WELL, BUT THAT'S THE SAME PROBLEM.

THEY HAVE TO SHOW A HARDSHIP FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT FOR PC, IT'S JUST A REQUEST.

IT'S AN ASK.

YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO HAVE ANYTHING DIRECTLY AFFECTING IT.

IT'D BE A STRETCH, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE ZONING ITSELF THAT VERY STRANGE TSA ZONING STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THIS RESIDENTIAL MIGHT BE VIEWED BY SOME, AS A HARDSHIP, BUT THERE'S A BOARD OF 11 AND THAT'S JUST ME, SO.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

I'M FINISHED.

UH, WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS.

UM, DO COMMISSIONERS WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? OKAY.

THAT'S YOUR HEMPHILL.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, UH, APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE COMPATIBILITY WAIVER, UM, PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR SECONDS? I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MESSAGING.

SURE.

UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN COMPROMISE, UM, FROM BOTH SIDES WITH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT UNIT COUNTS GOING FROM FIVE TO 12 OR 10, AND NOW DOWN TO SEVEN, UM, A REDUCTION OR AN INCREASE OF THE SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORING, UM, UH, HOUSE TO THE NORTH.

AND, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT ANSWERED ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, UH, GETTING OUT ONTO THE ALLEY SO THAT, THAT ALL MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

AND ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, VOTE WITH OUR CONSCIENCE.

MY CONSCIENCE IS TO, UM, INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UM, FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO.

ALRIGHT.

UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

UH, I'M NOT, I ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER.

OKAY.

UH, WE KIDS, WHICH IS, DOES, DOES YOUR MOTION, THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL INCLUDE THE SEVEN FOOT SETBACK OR IS THAT JUST, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S GOTTEN, IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT? I THINK THAT'S, IT'S PART OF THE RIGHT STUFF.

RECOMMENDATION SEVEN FOOT.

YEAH.

THAT'S PART OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE SEVEN FOOT.

OKAY.

SO I, THAT WAS JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, MEMBERS SPEAKING UP AGAINST THIS MOTION? ANY COMMISSIONER JUST WANTED TO SPEAK FOR, UM, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SHEA.

YEAH.

I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR THIS.

I MEAN, A COUPLE THINGS, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY.

I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE IS TWO UNITS.

AND WHEN YOU SEE THAT THIS HAS GOT A COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THIS THING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRIPS THAT TWO UNITS GENERATE COMPARED TO WHAT POTENTIALLY THIS COULD BE WITH A FULL CS.

I MEAN, IT IT'S, IT'S NOT MANY, IT'S NOT MANY MORE TRIPS BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT TWO UNITS VERSUS A BUNCH OF COMMERCIAL USES.

THE OTHER THING IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT AS A BUILDING FORM, THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE IT SET UP, IF IT IS SOME OF THE SFI BUILDING FORM WITH COMPATIBILITY,

[00:45:01]

I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S COMPATIBLE.

I MEAN, IT'S MEANT TO BE THIS MISSING MIDDLE, UM, YOU KNOW, UP AGAINST A SINGLE FAMILY, HOW IT WORKS AND TAPERS THROUGH THAT.

SO, UM, THE CLARIFICATION OF THAT REALLY HELPED OUT.

AND THEN FINALLY, THE OTHER, UM, REASON I'M SUPPORTING IS THIS ALSO BECAUSE AS WE SAW IN THE PAST WEEK WITH THE NEWS, WITH, WITH THE COUNCIL EASING UP ON HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, UH, TRYING TO INCREASE MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY IN, IN THINGS LIKE THIS, WHERE WE HAVE A HIGH USE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY.

SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS.

THANKS.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.

WE HAVE ANY, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR AGAINST, IF NOT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST SPEAK, SORRY.

I'LL JUST SPEAK NEUTRALLY FROM MR. PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

I JUST APPRECIATE THAT.

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS LOOKING FOR OPTIONS TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT LESS OF WHAT APPEARS ON PAPERS, SPOT ZONING TO ME, I DO APPRECIATE THE MODERATE DESIGN AND I, UM, SUPPORT A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER, THE, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY MORE MODERATE UNIT UNIT SIZES COMPARED TO SOME, UM, AND GETTING MORE UNITS ON THE SPACE.

UM, BUT JUST IN TERMS OF THE PRECEDENT, THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE FOR US TO HAVE SOME OTHER OPTIONS, UM, THAT COULD HELP REFLECT THAT TRANSITION.

SO THAT'S, UH, BUT I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AS FAR AS, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE, OH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON REAL QUICK.

I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.

I JUST, I FEEL IT'S PAINFUL.

HOW DIFFICULT SOMETIMES WE MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING IN THE CITY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHERE WE DECIDED THAT HOUSING IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HOUSING, BUT WE'VE MADE THIS APPLICANT COME BACK NOW THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES.

AND THEN WE HEAR FROM THE ONE SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION SAYING, HEY, THEY'RE DISINGENUINE.

THEY SHOWED US THIS AND THAT'S NOT TRUE, BUT THEY WERE ON OUR AGENDA AT ONE POINT WITH FIVE.

SO THEY WENT TO A LESS EFFICIENT PROJECT WITH FEWER HOUSING UNITS IN A TIME WHERE WE DO NEED HOUSING.

AND THAT ONE TIME THEY WERE POSTED AS FIVE, THEY LOST STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND SO THEY TRIED, LIKE, THEY REALLY DID TRY MULTIPLE TIMES.

I VISITED THE SITE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE VISIT THE SITE AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WE MAKE HOUSING SO DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN THIS CITY, BUT I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO EACH AND EVERY CHANCE WE GET TO WAVE COMPATIBILITY BECAUSE IN THIS CITY, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT COMPATIBILITY AND PRIVATE VIEW CORRIDORS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOUSING AND THAT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OATH.

COMMISSIONER COX.

YES.

YEAH.

I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK CAUSE I'M GOING TO BE CHANGING MY VOTE FROM LAST TIME WE VOTED ON THIS.

UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AT LEAST TO KNOW THAT THIS IS, THIS IS ATTACHED TO THE SITE PLAN AND NOT THE, NOT, NOT THE ACTUAL PROPERTY ZONING.

UM, AND, AND SO UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY KIND OF AN SFI TYPE, UH, PROJECT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING.

UM, AND THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR THAT TYPE OF PROJECT.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE SINCE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES, I WOULD VERY MUCH CAUTION US, TRYING TO EXTRAPOLATE OUT A COUNCIL ACTION ABOUT US.

VERY SPECIFIC THING LIKE VMU AND JUST START BLANKETING THAT ACROSS ALL OF OUR DECISIONS RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY.

UH, THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS THAT WE'RE MAYBE STRETCHING WHAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HOPE VERSUS WHAT COUNCIL, UH, INTENDED.

BUT ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, BUT I'LL BE, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THEM.

OKAY.

LOT OF THE FOLKS SPEAK IN FAVOR.

OKAY.

SO LET'S, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

LET ME START WITH THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, IN FAVOR THAT'S EVERYONE.

AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT IS IN FAVOR.

SHOW ME YOUR GREEN.

OH, THAT'S GREAT.

WE HAVE 10 ZERO.

THANK YOU.

TENDED TO FAVOR.

WE'LL HAVE TO MARK THAT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

WE FINALLY DID IT.

APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING BACK SO OFTEN APOLOGIZE.

OKAY.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM.

UH, DO WE NEED TO GIVE A FEW MINUTES FOR ANYONE TO JOIN US? OKAY.

THIS IS ITEM B SEVEN

[B7. Rezoning: C14-2022-0042 - Burleson - Norwood Corner CO Amendment; District 2]

AND, UH, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM STAFF

[00:50:27]

WE WAITING ON SOMEBODY FROM MR. RIVERA CHAIR.

YES.

A WEDDING ON STAFF TO PRESENT.

ALL RIGHT.

JUST CHECKING SILENCE, TARA, WHAT, WHAT ITEM ARE WE ON AGAIN? WE'RE ON B SEVEN.

OKAY.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

COMMISSIONER.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS WENDY RHODES.

I'M SORRY.

I HEARD THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO UNMUTE UNTIL JUST NOW.

UH, I'M HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO HEAR ME, MS. RHODES.

UH, WE'RE ABLE TO HEAR YOU.

WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

IS THERE A CAMERA ON, DOES IT STILL DON'T HAVE ISRAEL.

OKAY.

AND EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

UH, MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS REZONING AREA CONSISTS OF ONE FLAT A LOT AT THE NORTH CORNER OF BURLESON ROAD AND NORWOOD LANE.

IT IS, DON'T SEE US M U C O AND P, AND IS UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, UH, TO THE NORTH, THERE ARE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON NORWOOD LANE.

UH, AUTOMOTIVE USES TO THE SOUTHEAST A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO THE NORTHWEST AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE SOUTHWEST, UH, IN APRIL, 2003.

THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE REMAINDER OF BLOCKS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF NORWOOD LANE WERE REZONED TO SEE US M U C O N P FOLLOWING COUNCIL DIRECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

THESE PROPERTIES ALONG NORWOOD LANE ARE WITHIN THE AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE THREE.

AND, UH, SO NEW DEVELOPMENT, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO OCCUR OUTSIDE OF RECORDED FINAL PLATS, MUNICIPAL UTILITY UTILITY DISTRICTS, OR CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNED THE MOU AND THIS ON THESE LOT ALLOWS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON NORWOOD LANE, BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE AIRPORT OVERLAY ORDINANCE BY SEVERAL DECADES, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT APPLIES TO THIS PROPERTY AND ALL PROPERTIES ALONG NORWOOD LANE ALLOWS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, BUT ALSO PROHIBITS A BROAD RANGE OF USES, INCLUDING MOST, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT, MOST RESIDENTIAL USES AND SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES THAT TYPICALLY GENERATE A LOT OF TRUCK TRACK TRAFFIC.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, UH, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF REMOVING LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION FROM THE PROHIBITED USE LIST.

THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT IF THE AMENDMENT WERE GRANTED THAN A 32,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ONSITE FOR THE STORAGE OF STAGE AND LIGHTING EQUIPMENT ACCESS WOULD BE TAKEN TO BURLESON ROAD BY WAY OF THE PLATINUM THAT APPLIES TO THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO NORWOOD LANE.

UH, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS, UH, RAISE OUTING REQUESTS BY THE APPLICANT, AS IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A LIMITED WAREHOUSING DISTRIBUTION ON THE SITE.

UH, IT IS IN PROXIMITY TO A HIGHWAY AND THE AIRPORT, UH, RE ACCESS IS REQUIRED TO AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY.

AND THERE ARE ALSO, UH, USES OPERATING THAT ARE SIMILAR OPERATING WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

AND, UH, THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY CONTINUES TO PROHIBIT OTHER INTENSIVE TRUCK GENERATING USES.

WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING REMOVING THE CA THE MOU IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE SITE IS UNDEVELOPED AND LOCATED WITH AN ZONE, WHICH DOES NOT HERMIT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

[00:55:02]

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UH, NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.

UM, THE, AS WENDY WAS SAYING, THE SUBJECT TRACT IS SEEN HERE IN THIS IMAGE, UM, OUTLINED IN BLACK, IT IS WITHIN THE AIRPORT OVERLAY THREE, WHICH IS AN AREA THAT DOES NOT, UM, THAT THE CITY DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES.

UM, THE SUBJECT TRACT IS UNDEVELOPED IS UNDEVELOPED AND IS 2.3 ACRES COMBINED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN RECOGNIZED 20 YEARS AGO THAT THIS AREA WAS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND WAS APPROPRIATE FOR WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.

BUT AS WENDY SAID, THERE ARE SOME EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.

AND SO RECOGNIZING THOSE USES, THERE WERE SOME MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE, WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THIS, THIS AREA IN THIS PARTICULAR TRACT IS MIXED USE.

AND AGAIN, AS WENDY STATED, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES AT THAT TIME, THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE USES WERE, UH, LEGAL AND COMPLIANT.

UM, EVEN THOUGH IT IS IDENTIFIED THAT THIS AREA IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES ANY LONGER STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO REMOVE THAT MIXED USE OVERLAY.

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT NEXT SLIDE.

AND THEN THE ZONING ON THE SITE, UM, WAS CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS, CSM U C O AND P IS THE ZONING TODAY.

WE ARE NOT ASKING TO AMEND THE BASE DISTRICT ZONING.

WE ARE ONLY ASKING TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ALLOW FOR WAREHOUSE AND LIMITED DISTRIBUTION USE ON THIS SITE.

NEXT SLIDE SO THE CASE THAT WENDY WAS TALKING ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THIS IS FROM THE ORDINANCE OF THAT CASE AND THE SUBJECT TRACKS ARE SHOWN IN GREEN, AND YOU CAN SEE LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION WAS A USE THAT WAS PROHIBITED.

AGAIN, WE ARE ASKING TO GAIN THAT USE BACK NEXT TIME.

AND THIS IS THE 2015 REESE SUBDIVISION WHERE, UM, THE, THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND, UM, AS, UH, AN AGREEMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION, UH, ACCESS TO NORWOOD LANE IS PROHIBITED AND THEREFORE ALL ACCESS TO AND FROM THIS SITE MUST COME FROM BURLESON ROAD.

AND IT IS THAT REASON THAT WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE AND THE CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRACT SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, UM, I KNOW YOU HEARD FROM, UH, ANNA GARY EARLY, EARLIER, AND SHE AND I HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THIS CASE SINCE MARCH, WHEN WE FILED THE CASE.

AND, UM, WE WERE INFORMED LAST NIGHT AT THEIR SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT WE'VE BEEN TO, THAT THEY WOULD, THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT AND WE WILL REMAIN IN CONVERSATION THROUGH ANNA GARY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, WE, WE DO WANT TO LOOK INTO MATTERS RELATED TO THEIR CONCERNS BEFORE, UH, BEFORE WE DECIDE HOW TO, UH, WHAT THE SOLUTIONS COULD BE TO ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERNS.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW, UH, SHE AND I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION TODAY THAT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD.

UM, AND WE WILL HAVE TIME TO ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS BEFORE WE GET TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE END OF JULY AT THE EARLIEST, IT MAY BE LATER THAN JULY BY THE TIME WE GET TO COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. RON BREWER, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, RON THROWER, REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER AND THE INTENDED BUYER FOR THE PROPERTY.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT AS TO WHAT THE INTENDED USE IS FOR THE PROPERTY.

WHILE IT'S CLASSIFIED AS LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR AN AUDIO VIDEO EQUIPMENT STORAGE PLAYS, AND THEY MOBILIZE WHENEVER THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT TO GO TO A CERTAIN LOCATION.

AND WHEN IT'S NOT IN USE, IT IS STORED IN THE FACILITY.

UH, THERE'S NOT ANY, UH, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR OPERATIONS.

THEY DO HAVE NORMAL, UH, HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS CHEMICALS ONSITE.

THEY ALSO HAVE A DIESEL ADDITIVE THAT THEY PUT INTO THEIR TRUCKS THAT HELPS TO CLEAN THE EMISSIONS.

UH, THOSE ARE THEIR ONLY PLANNED, UH, MATERIALS, UH, THAT, THAT THEY PLAN TO HAVE ONSITE.

UM, THEY ALSO, UM,

[01:00:01]

WE'LL HAVE SOME SPRAY PAINT WHICH WILL BE PUT INTO APPROVED CONTAINERS AS WELL.

UM, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT WITH THIS PARTICULAR USER, THEY DO PLAN ON SOME LEVEL OF HIGH PILE STORAGE INTERIOR TO THE STRUCTURE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MORE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE OF THINGS, BUT HIGH PILE STORAGE IS JUST WRACKING THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN THE FACILITY, AND THEY HAVE A HIGH REC, UH, PERMITS IN THEIR OTHER LOCATIONS.

THEY EXPECT TO HAVE THE SAME HERE.

THEY DO NOT FORESEE ANY ISSUES WHERE IT'S GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FROM THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT.

THEIR RACKS ARE, UM, OPEN AND WATER FLOWS THROUGH FREELY THROUGH THEM.

SO THERE'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, FIREFIGHTING NEEDS FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

UM, AND WITH THAT, I'LL JUST SAY WE ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

THE ONLY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION THAT WAS MISSING.

SO IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO, IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO, UH, PROVIDE, UM, REMARKS BEFORE A REBEL WERE AVAILABLE AGAIN.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

UH, MR. ANDERSON BRUSHING ACROSS PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.

LET'S GO AND VOTE, UM, THE DYESS.

OKAY.

THAT'S EVERYONE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, I GUESS I'LL GET THE FIRST QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER PRACTICES.

UH, SINCE YOU PULLED THIS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO FIRST ASK A QUESTION OF MS. , IF SHE'S STILL ON THE LINE, I'M NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

NICE TO GET IT.

IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED, UH, OR JUST, UH, AWAIT THE INQUIRY FROM THE COMMISSION.

THANK YOU.

UM, YES.

SO, UM, WE JUST HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO HAVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE SITE.

SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE, UM, YOUR CONCERNS? ARE YOU MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CURRENT USE OR FUTURE POTENTIAL USES ON THE SITE UNDER, UH, UNDER A DIFFERENT OWNER? THAT IS CORRECT.

WE KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT, WHAT THERE, THE CURRENT BUYER OR THE CURRENT OWNER OWNER IS PROPOSING TWO STORES.

SO THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN.

OUR CONCERN IS LIKE IF THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD LATER ON, OR IF THE OWNER LEADER CHANGES HIS MIND OR WHAT CAN BE STORED THERE, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN, IN THE, ON THIS PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU'RE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU.

AND I HEAR YOUR CONCERN ON THAT.

UM, SO MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS, UM, IF YOU ARE NOT PLANNING TO STORE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HOLD YOU BACK FROM A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, UM, SPECIFICALLY LAYS OUT THAT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL NOT BE STORED ON THE SITE JUST TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE, IN THE FUTURE? UM, RON THROWER, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO FIRST POINT OUT THAT WE HEARD ABOUT THIS 24 HOURS AGO.

SO WE HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS RIGHT NOW.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, THE FIRST CONCERN THAT CAME TO MY MIND IS HOW HAS THE RESTRICTED COVENANT GOING TO BE ENFORCED BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A PRIVATE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE IF THIS COULD SOMEHOW BE A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, SO THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CAN BE CALLED INTO 3 1 1, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, WHICH WE WILL NOT ANTICIPATE, BUT IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, SO THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT COULD DEAL WITH THIS.

AND BY THAT, YOU'D HAVE FIRE MARSHALS THAT WOULD COME OUT AND VISIT THE SITE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF, UH, WRONGDOINGS GOING ON WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPERTY, IN THE INSTANCE OF A PRIVATE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

IT DOES CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE FROM US.

HOW ARE HOW'S THAT GOING TO BE ENFORCED? ARE THEY GOING TO BE HIRING A FIRE MARSHALL TO COME KNOCK ON THE DOOR, THE FACILITY TO ASK, TO ENTER THE FACILITY? AND THERE'S JUST SOME COMPLICATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE HIGHLY REGULATED BY THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT.

AND IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN FIND THIS TO BE INTO A PUBLIC RESTRICTED, RESTRICTED COVENANT, THAT WOULD BE A FAR MORE PREFERABLE SITUATION.

UH, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF IT BEING A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND THE SITUATION THAT, THAT THEY PUT ON, UH, THESE TYPES OF ISSUES.

BUT, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT A PRIVATE RESTRICTION COVENANT FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

AND IT'S, UH, IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW WE CAN WORK THIS OUT.

UM, I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE AGAINST IT.

I'M NOT GONNA SAY WE'RE FOR IT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOGUE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, AND MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO A CEO, UM, REGARDING, UM, HAZARDOUS

[01:05:01]

MATERIALS AS, AS A USE THAT CANNOT BE DONE ON THE SITE, UH, WHEN HE RODE STAFF? UNFORTUNATELY, NO, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LIST THAT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE NOT ALLOWED, BUT IT IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LAND USE.

UM, ALSO I BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN PELVIC RESTRICTIVE CABINETS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE PAST, BUT THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN, AND THIS IS, THIS IS AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AND THERE ARE, UM, HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN THE IMMEDIATELY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THAT WOULD, THAT TRIGGER THAT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH, UM, QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

UH, I, UH, I THINK THIS IS FOR MRS. MS. IDRA.

UM, I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT I THINK THEY APPLICANT SAID THAT YOU HAD AGREED WITH THEM, THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE THESE DISCUSSIONS, BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT MOVING THIS FORWARD TONIGHT.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR, UM, COULD YOU, UH, MAYBE YOU SET UP IN YOUR REMARKS THAT I MISSED THAT.

YEAH, NO, ABSOLUTELY.

UM, NO, THAT IS CORRECT.

UM, WE DID ALERT, UM, MS. UM, HASI ABOUT OUR CONCERNS REGARDING HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS, UM, FROM THE ONSET, BUT OUR CONTACT TEAM DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM UNTIL YESTERDAY WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT THIS WAS COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THAT'S HOW THIS HAS TRANSPIRED, BUT YEAH, SO WE WERE WHATEVER SOLUTIONS WE CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, WORK ON AND RESOLVE.

UM, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, UH, WE'RE JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN OUR AREA.

UM, SO, AND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FIRE STATION THAT IS EQUIPPED TO ADDRESS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FIRES, UM, AND WHEN WE TO STATIONS HAVE EMERGENCY EMS PERSONNEL