[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
SINCE I WILL NOW CALL THE MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER IT IS 6:01 PM.
AND I'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
UM, COMMISSIONER KOSTA IS NOT HERE.
I'M HERE ABOUT
I'M GOING TO SHARE A DINKLER PRESENT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS HERE.
CAN I SHARE KING YOUR COMMISSIONER KIELBASA HERE? COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE.
CAN I SHARE A THOMPSON AND COMMISSIONER WOODY? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO ON TO
[Consent Agenda]
THE CONSENT AGENDA FIRST WE HAVE.ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? SORRY.
IF YOU COULD BEAR WITH ME JUST ONE SECOND.
COULD I REFRESH THE EXCEL SHEET? OKAY.
AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, I AM POOLING A SUBDIVISION.
I HAD A QUESTION OUT TO THE, TO THE CASE MANAGER AND DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER BACK.
I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH ANDREW ABOUT IT.
IT'S THE I GO THROUGH ALL MY PAPERS.
UM, IT IS, UH, 15, UH, THE SON CHASE MIRADOR PHASE ONE SECTION ONE.
AND THAT LOOKS LIKE MISS SOME NURSE.
SO MAYBE SHE'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER LIAISON AND VERA, UM, UH, REACHING OUT TO THE STAFF ON THAT MATTER AND, UH, JUST CONFIRMING, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ON TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES THEN.HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO APPROVE, UM, LOOK AT THE MINUTES AND ARE THERE ANY REQUESTED CHANGES? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO, UM, MEDICARE, UM, LOOKING AT THE CONSENT AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO, UM, UM, ABSTAIN FROM ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ABOUT THE EXPO CENTER PARKING LOT.
I WILL BE ACTUALLY, I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE ITEM AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING IT.
UM, SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM.
NUMBER TWO HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
I HAD NUMBER THREE AT C 14, 20 22 0 0 1 6 23 0 1, OAK VALLEY, DRY ROAD.
AND IT'S WEIRD CAUSE THERE'S NO LETTER.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THE NUMBERS.
THREE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION THAT C 14 20 22 0 0 6 7 VIAS AS AT SOUTH AUSTIN.
NUMBER FOUR IS A REZONING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
C 8 1 4 2009 0 1 3 9 0 3 BULL CREEK PET AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, UH, ITEM FIVE.
REZONING IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
C 14 20 22 0 0 7 5 AT 75 0 1 CAPITOL, TEXAS.
NUMBER SIX IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6TH.
IT'S A REZONING FOR C 14 20 22 0 0 5 0 0 ALLENDALE VILLAGE.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER EIGHT C 14 20 22 0 0 3 9.
PEACEFUL HILL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20TH.
ITEM NINE, REZONING WILL BE UP FOR DISCUSSION C 14 20 22 0 0 5 3 SWANSON'S RAMPS, SINGLE FAMILY.
I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE THAT ONE IN ORDER.
UM, ITEM 10 IS A REZONING FOR JUST UP FOR DISCUSSION C 14 20 22 0 0 5 6 74 15 ALBERT ROAD, REZONING.
NUMBER 11 IS A REZONING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, C 14 20 22 0 0 6 6 12 1 9 5 METRIC ITEM 12 AS A SITE PLAN VARIANCE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, SP 20 21 0 1 27 C MERCEDES-BENZ SOUTH AUSTIN, 13 CONSENT, FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C OH, OH, I WROTE IT WRONG.
SO THAT ONE IS SO ITEM 13 IS DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND ALSO ON THE CONSENT.
UM, SO C 8 20 20 0 1 1 TWO.ONE EIGHT BREAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE ONE FINAL PLAT.
UM, 14 IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, BUT WE ARE APPROVING THE VARIANCES AS SHOWN.
SO PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH VARIANCES C 8 20 21 0 1 5 2 PINNACLE AT WILD HORSE RANCH AND THE REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF
[00:05:01]
REPORT.UH, ITEM 15 COMMISSIONER KOBASA HAS ASKED A POOL FOR QUESTIONS.
SO THAT'S UM, CAJ 2008 0 2 1 TWO.ZERO ONE.ONE, A SON CHASE MIRADOR PHASE ONE, SECTION ONE, A, UM, ITEM SIX 16 IS A PARTIAL PLAT VACATION ON CONSENT, C EIGHT S 79 0 1 7 VAC CIRCLE, RANCH ESTATES VACATION OF LOTS, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE ITEM 17, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
FINAL PLAT C 8 20 22 0 1 4 7 0 8 AND MAXWELL SUBDIVISION DISTRICT THREE, ITEM 18 ALSO DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
FINAL PLATFORM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 18 0 1 65 DOCK FOR A CASCADES AT ONION CREEK EAST.
AND THEN THE FINAL ITEM IS 19 THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING.
SO TO REVIEW, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
THREE WILL BE DISCUSSION ITEMS, 4, 5, 4, AND FIVE ON CONSENT.
SIX IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER SIX, SEVEN HAS CONSENT.
EIGHT IS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN MET.
SO SEPTEMBER 20TH, EIGHT, NINE AND 10 ARE DISCUSSION 11, 12 ARE CONSENT 13 AND 14 IS DISAPPROVED FOR CONDITIONS.
15 WE'LL BE PULLING FOR DISCUSSION.
16 IS CONSENT 17 AND 18 ARE DISAPPROVAL DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT AND 19 WILL BE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER KING.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO VERIFY, UH, ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS THERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? THERE ARE NONE.
WE SEE PEOPLE RAISING THEIR HANDS.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE STAFF.
IF THEY'VE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM WOULD BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
OR WE CAN ALWAYS PULL IT IF MADAM CHAIR.
CAN IT BE PART OF, UH, THE COMMUNITY COMMENT INSTEAD OF PULLING IT? NO.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING COMMISSIONER KING.
VANDERVEER THE SPEAKERS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM.
UM, SO YEAH, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK IF IT'S ALREADY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
NO, THE SPEAKERS DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DO I SEE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ WITH THE DISAPPROVALS BASED ON EXHIBIT C AND THE STAFF BACKUP.
AND ONE NOTE THAT'S A LITTLE ODD IS THAT ITEM NUMBER, UM, 14 IS WE'RE DISAPPROVING IT FOR REASONS IN THE, OF AN EXHIBIT STABLE, WE ARE APPROVING THE VARIANCES.
SO IT'S JUST A LITTLE ODD THERE.
I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON AS RED AND, UH, CHAIR.
UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAS HER HAND UP AND THEN WE'LL WELL DISAPPROVING AND THEN APPROVING THE VARIANCE.
I'M SORRY, CAN WE JUST POSTPONE THE VARIANCE? SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCES APPROVED SO THAT YOU CAN, WHEN YOU COME BACK ON THE NEXT TIME, YOU'LL JUST BE ON CONSENT AGENDA AND IT GOES TO THE PROCESS.
THERE'S THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES.
CAN WE SHARE A KING? NO, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
SO IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
UH, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM
[3. Rezoning: C14-2022-0067 - Villas at South Austin; District 2]
DISCUSSION, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, CHAIR.COULD, COULD YOU TELL ME WHO'S TALKING TO THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER KOBASA VICE-CHAIR KOBASA THANK YOU.
UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I WORK WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DIVISION.
I'M PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER THREE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
UH, THE CASE NUMBER FOR REFERENCE IS C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 7 IS THE VILLAS AT SOUTH AUSTIN PROJECT.
UH, THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD AND CONSIDERED AT THE JULY 19TH COMMISSION MEETING, UH, WHERE IT WAS POSTPONED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
HOWEVER, FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY, UH, JUST TO
[00:10:01]
MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN HERE, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 73, 11 AND 73 13 BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS A TRIANGULAR LOT.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.28, FIVE ACRES IN SIZE IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF OR A C O.
AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.
UH, JUST SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK YELLOW TRAIL.
THERE ARE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS ACROSS BLUE SPRINGS ROAD.
AND THOSE ARE ZONES C S M U C O.
AND THERE'S ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND EAST BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE SITE.
AND THOSE ARE ZONED SF FOR ACO, UH, AS WELL AS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE SOUTH, WHICH IS ZONED I R R A.
IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THERE'S A RECORDED GAS EASEMENT ONSITE REQUIRING A 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BACKUP TO THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SF SIX ZONING TO CONSTRUCT SEVEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY SIX UNITS PER ACRE, UH, SPECIFICS ABOUT THE BUILDING DESIGN AND THE SITE LAYOUT ARE NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, TO REZONE TO SF SIX.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED BETWEEN A, A C S M U C O ZONE TO THE WEST, WHICH ARE THOSE APARTMENTS.
AND THEY ALLOW A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
AND THAT DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE SF FOUR, A C O ZONE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST, WHICH HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, IF THE SUBJECT SITE WERE TO BE REZONED TO SF SIX, IT WOULD MAINTAIN THE SAME 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
I REZONING THE PROPERTY, BUT ALSO PROVIDE A TRANSITION ALONG BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD, UH, BETWEEN THE DENSER APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, AS WELL AS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS YOU GET INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE SF SIX DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CLUSTERING OF HOMES, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT RULES UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE SUBDIVIDED IN EACH NEW LOT.
REBEL WOULD REQUIRE FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED ROAD.
HOWEVER, WITH THE CLUSTERING RULES, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT WITH THE SF SIX ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE SEVEN UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN, UH, BEEN PROPOSED, EXCUSE ME, UH, GIVEN THE GAS EASEMENT LOCATION AND THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, UH, THE CLUSTERING OF RESIDENCES, UH, DOES SEEM TO BE A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN STAFF'S OPINION.
UH, JUMPING AHEAD TO THE JULY 19TH MEETING, THE COMMISSION DID PRESENT, UH, MULTIPLE CONCERNS.
UH, THE FIRST ONE WAS THAT THE PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY RUN A FOUL OF CHAPTER 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS PIPELINES.
UH, IN, IN SPECIFICS CONCERNS WERE PRESENTED THAT THE PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY VIOLATE THAT CODE AS THE SITE WOULD END UP, UH, LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE AFTER EXCLUDING THE RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA.
AND THE CODE DOES SPECIFY THAT RESIDENTIAL LOTS CAN NOT BE LESS THAN ONES THAT ONE ACRE IN SIZE WHEN YOU EXCLUDE THE PIPELINE AREA.
SO AGAIN, THE SITE IS 1.285 ACRES, BUT IF YOU WERE TO NET OUT THE PIPELINE AREA, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE ONE ACRE SPECIFIED IN THE CODE.
HOWEVER, A STAFF WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THIS CODE SECTION IN QUESTION, A ONLY APPLIES TO SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
THE CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2003, THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTION I SHOULD SAY.
AND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LOT ORIGINALLY OCCURRED IN 2016.
SO AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THAT CODE, UH, WHAT, EXCUSE ME, UH, THE SITE'S ALREADY APPLIED LOT.
AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 2016, WHICH IS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE, UH, STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY NOTATIONS OR VARIANCES FOR THE SUBJECT SITE TO THAT CODE.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROPOSED TO RE SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.
THEY'VE NOT, UH, PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE LOT LINES IN ANY WAY AS SUCH A, THIS LOT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING W UH, LAWFULLY EXISTING THAT IS RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH THE PIPELINE ON IT.
AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO STAFF THAT THE, UH, THIS, THIS PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION CODE WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE.
UH, THE SECOND THING THAT, OR SECOND CONCERN THAT THE COMMISSION BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE JULY 19TH MEETING, UH, WAS THAT, UH, POTENTIALLY REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH RIGHT NOW THERE'S JUST ONE CONDITION WHICH RESTRICTS, UH, CUMULATIVE VEHICULAR TRIPS.
AND, UH, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS PARTICULARLY RELATED TO HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTIES REMAINING IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SO IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR THIS PROPERTY, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THOSE THAT ARE STILL GOVERNED BY THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? UH, THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY ATD FOR POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
STAFF ALSO DISCUSSED THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH THEM.
UH, ATD DID NOTE THAT THE, UH, THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE THAT ESTABLISHED THAT CEO HAS ALREADY BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED NOW, UH, WITH 135 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AN ESTIMATED 1,330 CUMULATIVE TRIPS PER DAY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SEVEN DETACHED CONDOS WOULD GENERATE AN ESTIMATED 87 TRIPS PER DAY.
UM, THAT SAID IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN THE FUTURE OF THE SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED TO THE MAXIMUM, UH, DENSITY ALLOWED, WHICH WOULD GENERATE ABOUT 143 TRIPS PER DAY.
UH, THAT BEING THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY FULLY BUILT OUT, ATD
[00:15:01]
DID INDICATE THAT A VEHICLE TRIP RESTRICTION IS NOT PRODUCTIVE IN THIS INSTANCE.AND THEY, AGAIN RECOMMENDED A REMOVAL OF THE CEO FROM THIS PROJECT.
UH, STAFF WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR REMOVING CEO'S AS PART OF REZONING APPLICATIONS WHERE THE SAME CUMULATIVE RE VEHICULAR TRIP RESTRICTION WAS APPLIED.
UH, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEVEN UNITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY ATD.
AND AS SUCH STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CEO, UH, AS PART OF THIS REZONING EFFORT IS WARRANTED.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY CASE SUMMARY WITHOUT OF IT, WITH THAT SAID I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU MIGHT HAVE THE AGENT, MR.
WILL I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MR. MINECON? SEE FOR FIVE MINUTES? YEAH.
UH, I'M HERE TO SEEK ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION BEGINNING WITH, UH, MS. BRANDON MCKINNEY, MR. MCKINNEY, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SO I'M IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WANTED TO BRING UP A FEW POINTS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UM, UH, PROPERTY, ONE BLUFFS RINGS AND WILLIAM CANNON IS ALREADY A MAJOR CHOKE POINT.
IT'S A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY FOR EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THAT POINT.
UM, IT'S ALREADY INCREDIBLY OVERSTRESSED.
UM, I REALIZED THAT THIS IS ONLY SEVEN UNITS, BUT COULD BE MORE AND SETS PRECEDENT FOR, UM, NOT HOLDING DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR DEALING WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO THE AREA.
UM, SO ANOTHER UNIQUE INTRA, UH, UNIQUE PROBLEM WITH THIS AREA IS, UM, IT'S GOING TO CREATE A NEW, DANGEROUS SCENARIO.
UM, WE HAVE AN EXISTING ONE JUST NORTH OF THIS COMING SOUTH ON BLUFF SPRINGS AT BLUE MEADOWS.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS TRAFFIC COMES SOUTH.
SO THE LEFT LANE AT THE LIGHT GETS BLOCKED UP.
SO PEOPLE JUMPED TO THE RIGHT LANE.
AND THEN THOSE OF US THAT LIVE ON A LATER I PASS HAVE TO TURN LEFT JUST AFTER THAT LIGHT.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE COME SOUTH JUMPED TO THE, TO THE RIGHT LANE, JUMP IMMEDIATELY BACK TO THE LEFT, AND IT'S A NEAR REAR END EVERY TIME.
AND IF YOU RIDE A BIKE, WHICH I DO, IT'S ESSENTIALLY SUICIDAL TO SIT IN THAT LEFT LANE.
SO THIS, UH, FROM BLUE MEADOW TO ALLEGRA PASS IS 400 FEET PAST THE LIGHT.
THIS PROPOSAL COULD BE AS SHORT AS 250 FEET, IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THE NEXT PIECE IS THAT, UM, THE CASE FILE FOR THIS INDICATES THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE APARTMENTS ALREADY BUILT ACROSS THE ROAD ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS, HAVE A SIDEWALK THERE.
IT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS, AND THERE IS NO SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE AT ALL WITHOUT PEOPLE CREATING AN INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS SCENARIO AND CROSSING A FOUR LANE ROAD THAT HAS TRAFFIC AT HIGH SPEED.
UM, THE CASE FILE ALSO INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ALL NORMAL TREE PROTECTIONS.
AND, UM, AS WE CAN SEE ON GOOGLE MAPS FROM APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEAR-CUT.
SO WE CAN'T PROTECT THE TREES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT DOWN.
UM, I ALSO READ THAT THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF CAP METRO BUS STOP, AND IT'S VERY CLOSE, BUT IT IS AT 0.3 OF A MILE TO THE STOP AT BLUE MEADOW.
SO IT'S VERY CLOSE, BUT, UM, FOR SEVERAL OF THE, THE REGULATIONS HERE, WE'RE SORT OF HAND-WAVING AND LETTING THEM GO FOR ONE OF THOSE, THAT CAN BE OKAY, WE'RE DOING THAT FOR SEVERAL THINGS HERE.
AND THEN THE LAST MAJOR POINT THAT I WANT TO BRING UP IS THAT THE ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM DID NOT INCLUDE THIS CASE.
SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THIS ONLINE, OTHER CASES BEFORE THE SPORT ARE THERE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT.
[00:20:01]
YOU.WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. MOSES FOR THREE MINUTES.
IS IT TRUE THAT IF 20% OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THAT IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE? OKAY.
SO ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER, THE RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER COMPLETELY OBJECTS, AND THAT'S 50% AT LEAST OF THE PROPOSED REZONING ON THE NORTH SIDE.
MOST OF THE RESIDENTS WHO I SPOKE TO DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE PROPOSED REZONING UNTIL LAST NIGHT, AT WHICH POINT THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO.
SO, UH, MANY OF THEM FILLED OUT THE, THE FORMS THAT WERE, THAT WERE SENT TO US.
SOME OF THEM ALREADY HAD COPIES AND FILLED THEM OUT.
UM, DO YOU HAVE THEM? YES, WE DO HAVE THEM.
THERE'S ABOUT 15, WHICH IS THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ON THE NORTH SIDE, THAT OBJECT AS WELL.
SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO TAKE THAT INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION THAT BY FAR 20% OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS DO OBJECT TO THIS.
SO I'M ALSO A HOMEOWNER IN THE SUBDIVISION.
AND I PURCHASED IN RELIANCE ON MY OWN FAMILY'S PEACEFUL AND QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOME.
AND IT IS INCOMPATIBLE TO HAVE A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT JUST ABUTTING OUR BACKYARDS.
WHY IS THAT? WELL, WE KNOW FROM THE MULTIFAMILY HOMES AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? IT'S SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING SIX, SEVEN UNITS.
SO IT'S NOT MULTIFACETED SF SIX.
SO THAT WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR DOCUMENTS THAT CAME TO US AS MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUMS AND UP TO 60 FEET IS WHAT WE WERE JUST TOLD.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO, SO WHAT, THE PROPOSAL THAT WE GOT IN THE MAIL WAS IT SAID, I'LL TELL YOU JUST A SECOND.
I THINK IT'S 35 THAT YOU WANTED TO MOVE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SMALL LOT DISTRICT TO TOWNHOME AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENT DISTRICT.
SO YES, THAT'S STILL, IT'S STILL SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY.
WHAT I CONSIDER MULTI-FAMILY OKAY.
SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU S WHEN YOU BUILD A CONDOMINIUM, HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN, IN IT? SO I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT THERE'S.
SO EACH ZONING TYPE HAS, UH, IT'S, IT'S LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF SPACE, RIGHT? SO THERE ARE SO MANY, AND THIS PARTICULAR, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS CONSTRAINED BY A GAS LINE.
SO THERE HAS TO BE, THERE WILL BE A HUNDRED FEET SEPARATING YOU FROM THIS, FROM THE PEOPLE, AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET SEPARATING YOU FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WILL LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THERE'S 50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE GAS LINE.
SO THE LONG-TERM CONCERN IS THE PRECEDENT.
IT SETS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST ON THIS SMALL LOT, BUT ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR AND ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR AND ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 FEET.
SO NOTHING WILL BE 60 FEET IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE'RE AT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
AND WHAT'S CONCERNING IS THE LONG-TERM PRECEDENT OF OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONES, MOVING INTO CONDOMINIUM, UM, RESIDENT DISTRICTS, WHICH THIS IS PROPOSED, AND THOSE LOTS COULD BE BIGGER AND THE PROPERTIES COULD GO UP HIGHER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF EMPTY LAND.
SO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS FROM THE MULTIFAMILY.
HIGH-RISES ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS.
THEY'RE NOT ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET.
WE ARE BUFFERED BY BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.
WHAT HAPPENS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IS EXTRAORDINARY.
I INTERRUPTED YOU SEVERAL TIMES, WHICH IS HIGH CRIME.
SO WE'VE HAD FIVE MURDERS IN THE, UH, IN THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX, RIGHT ACROSS FROM BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.
[00:25:02]
I DON'T SEE IT GETTING BETTER, BETTER.UM, THERE'S, THERE'S NO INDICATION CRIME HAS, HAS BEEN REDUCED.
UM, SO AS, UM, MY NEIGHBOR BRANDON MENTIONED, WE HAVE TRAFFIC JAMS ALREADY.
IT TAKES ME A HALF AN HOUR JUST TO GET FROM MY HOME A MILE, UH, FROM 35, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ON, UM, BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST GETTING OUT FUNNELING IS VERY DIFFICULT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE AUSTIN.
WE, WE WANT TO PROTECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT JUST FOR THE TREES THAT WERE, UM, ILLEGALLY TAKEN DOWN.
WE HAD SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE TREES, BUT FOR OUR ANIMAL BRETHREN AND FOR OURSELVES.
SO I HOPE THAT THE, YOU CONSIDER VOTING AS A SUPER MAJORITY AND CONSIDER GIVING US MORE TIME TO GET THE OPINIONS OF EVERYBODY THAT IS AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER LAND OWNER.
CAN I, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, SO EVERYBODY THAT LIVES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PREP, HOW MANY, 500 FEET.
IT SHOULD HAVE, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING IN THE MAIL NOTIFICATION IN THE MAIL.
WELL, TO RECEIVE IT, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON TRANQUILLO TRAIL THAT ABUTS TO THE NORTH END OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY DID NOT GET NOTICED.
THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED IT IN THE MAIL, BUT, UH, BUT FOR, FOR THEM, THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, SO MAYBE THEY COULD BE NOTICED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT ANYWAY, YOU HAVE THEIR OPINIONS, HEAR THEIR OBJECTIONS.
AND AS FAR AS THE HOMEOWNER ON THE SOUTH SIDE, HE'S NOT WITH US TONIGHT, BUT I KNOW FROM KNOWING HIM IN PERSON, HE OBJECTS.
AND WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER WALKING.
NOW IT'S JUST GOING TO CORRECT.
CAN YOU ALL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND JUST SF SIX HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 57, 50 SQUARE FEET.
UM, MY MOTHER AND I HAVE LIVED ON A SPEEDO COVE FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS NOW.
AND, UM, MY MOTHER IS MEXICAN AND, UM, A LOT OF THE HOMEOWNERS RIGHT HERE ON CHUNK WILLOW TRAIL ARE MEXICAN AS WELL.
AND, UM, I THINK THEY WERE PRETTY UNAWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT COMING, HOWEVER LONG THE PROJECT IS.
UM, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT MORE AWARE TO THEM ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
UM, IT SEEMS, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT MOST OF THEM ARE JUST SPANISH SPEAKERS, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, THEY CAN'T VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 1ST OR FOR, UM, FOR THE CITIES FROM, UH, FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, I THINK THAT GIVES ME SOME MORE TIME TO, TO GET MORE OPINIONS ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PROJECT.
SORRY, THE PROCESS IS WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL THAT MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
YOU JUST MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.
UM, I ALMOST, I'M OBVIOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT.
UM, I ALSO RIDE A BICYCLE ON BLUFF SPRINGS AND IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
THERE'S NO BIKE LANE AND TRAFFIC HAS ALMOST, I DON'T EVEN KNOW QUADRUPLED IN THE LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC BY A LOT MORE.
UM, I JUST, I THINK THAT, UM, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THOSE HOMES NEED TO BE MADE A LITTLE BIT MORE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON OR WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN RIGHT BEHIND THEIR HOMES.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT THREE MINUTES REBUTTAL, MR. MCCANEY AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, WE ARE NOT BUILDING ANY TALL APARTMENTS OR HIGH-RISES THE LOT CURRENTLY IS 1.3 ACRE AND CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS TO BUILD
[00:30:02]
PROBABLY 12, 13 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SINCE 3,600 SQUARE FEET.IT'S A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, BUT THERE IS THE 50 50 IS MEANT ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE GAS LINE.
AND ALSO 25 FEET AWAY FROM THE 50 IS MEANT IS THE BILLING RESTRICTION.
THE ONLY REASON TO BRING DOWN THE 14 UNITS TO SEVEN UNITS IS TO STAY AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE PIPELINE AND CLUSTER ALL THOSE UNITS.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE ARE PROPOSING OR REQUESTING REZONING.
UH, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS UP ON THE NORTH AND THE PROPOSED UNIT WOULD BE 78 TO 80 FEET.
THAT'S AS WIDE AS BLUFFING STORE AND ALSO IN THE PREVIOUS SESSION AS, UH, ATD RECOMMENDED, UH, THERE WILL BE WIDENING ON THE BLUFF BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD FOR A HUNDRED FEET AND FUTURE.
SO THEY RECOMMENDED US TO LEAVE THAT AND LEAVE THAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ARE ACCOMMODATING BIKE LANES, BUT EXCHANGE PROFIT INTO THAT FUTURE PLANS.
BUT IF THIS PROPERTY CAUSES OR CREATES ANY MORE ISSUES, WE ARE DEFINITELY OPEN TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE MEASURES.
I MYSELF WANTED TO MOVE TO AUSTIN ALONG WITH MY FRIENDS.
SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THE PLACE SAFE, UH, TO REINSTATE THAT, UH, SEVEN SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS THAT'S SAME SINGLE FAMILY.
ONE STORY UNITS WILL BE DEVELOPED, BUT LET'S START INTO ONE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE ARE REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM
UM, SO DO I SEE, UM, WELL, DO WE WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AREA.
SO COMMISSIONER SMITH MAKES A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'M NOT LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT MY COMPUTER AND NOT LOOKING AT, OH, IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER KING IS SECONDING.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, DISCUSSION, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. DATES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED AFTER THIS, THE REQUIREMENTS FROM SECTION 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34 WERE PART OF THE CODE.
SO IT WAS SUBDIVIDED INCORRECTLY OR ILLEGALLY.
UM, BUT IT WAS, UM, IT WAS IN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS AND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION WAS DONE WITH PERMITS AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE DONE, BEEN DONE LAWFULLY.
I CAN'T SPECULATE, UH, AS TO WHETHER SOMEBODY MISSED SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL LOT AS IT IS TODAY WITH THE, WITH THE PIPELINE ON IT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT THE TREES.
SO WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS A HEAVILY WOODED AREA AND IT'S NO LONGER THAT WAY.
HOW, WHAT, I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OR DO WE ASSUME THAT THEY WERE ALL LESS THAN 12 INCHES? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU HOW'S THAT? UM, YEAH, I TH I THINK IT, UH, I THINK PERHAPS IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF WE, UH, HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THERE'S AN EXPLANATION OFFERED THAT I COULD NOT CERTAINLY LOOK INTO REPERCUSSIONS FOR THAT.
UM, VERY PRESSURED, UH, THE PRE SERVICES AND THEY WENT BACK AND THEY DID A SURVEY AND THE SAID, UH, THESE ARE THE TREES THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CUT DOWN OR BRING DOWN.
AND THESE ARE NOT A TREATMENT.
THEY USED LANG TECHNOLOGY SAYING THAT NOT PROTECTED.
AND, UH, THAT'S BASED ON THE TRUNK WEIGHT.
AND, UH, THEY COUNTED THREE, FOUR TREES THAT ARE WIDER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT REQUIRES PERMIT.
AND THEY DIDN'T TOUCH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SMALLER BANQUET THREES.
THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK, WHERE IS YOUR TREE SURVEY? UM, YOU SHOULD'VE HAD A TREE SURVEY DONE FOR THIS BEFORE YOU REMOVED ANY TREES? NO, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH.
THEY MANUALLY INSPECTED WHEN I WAS PURCHASING THEIR ROBERT REED SERVICES.
UH, WE OFFICIALLY HIRED THEM TO INSPECT AND CLEAR WHATEVER IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT.
SO YOU GOT A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE TREES.
[00:35:02]
I MEAN, NO.THEY MENTIONED, UH, ANY TREES THAT ARE CERTAIN DIAMETER, MORE THAN 39 METER.
THEY SAID, UH, THEY ARE NOT TOUCHING ANY OF THOSE PRIESTS, BUT WHICH ARE SMALLER TREES.
OH, I WASN'T SURE ON THAT, BUT FOR VALUE, BUT THEY DID CHECK THAT AND THEY MARK, WHICH ARE WIDER THAN THAT, THEY JUST LEFT THEM.
DID YOU CALL ON ME? I'M SORRY.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION, UH, BUT, UH, IT DOES, THE WOODEN STAFF MAKES, SO I UNDERSTAND STAFF WAS THERE WITH THE APPLICANT AND I COULD, I'M NOT SURE.
IS HE SAYING THAT THE STAFF GAVE HIM THE VERBAL OKAY.
TO CUT DOWN TREES? I THINK HE WAS WORKING WITH AN ARBORIST AND THE ARBORIST USED HIS BEST JUDGMENT WHEN DECIDING WHICH TREE OR A TREE COMPANY OF SOME SORT.
SO DID THE CAN, IS THERE ANY, UH, TH TH TH THE TREE COMPANY WOULD, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DIDN'T THAT, THAT, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING TO ME THERE, UH, THAT SO MANY OF THE TREES WERE CLEARED THERE, A TREE COMPANY TO SUBMIT, UH, WHATEVER EVALUATION THEY PERFORM, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT RIGHT.
WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR THEM MEETING TONIGHT.
SO WE COULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR CLEAR CUTTING OR CUTTING, YOU KNOW, REMOVING A LOT OF THE TREES THERE, VEGETATION.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS IT GETS TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A POTENTIAL CONCERN, BUT I DO WANT TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION HERE.
UM, AND THAT IS THE, UM, THE CEO AND, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, AND I RAN THROUGH THE MATH HERE.
I, IN FACT, I REALLY WANT TO THINK STAFF ARE GOING IN AND FOLLOWING UP ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE'VE MENTIONED.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN GOING AND TAKING TIME TO REALLY GET INFORMATION.
I CAN SEE THAT STAFF WORKED HARD TO GET THIS, THIS INFORMATION.
THAT'S GOING TO BE SO HELPFUL TO US IN MAKING OUR DECISION TONIGHT.
UH, HOWEVER I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, EFFECTIVELY DECREASING THE SIZE OF A, OF A CEO, UH, THAT LIMITS IT TO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, AND ESSENTIALLY DECREASING THE SIZE OF THAT AREA, WHERE 2000 TRIPS PER DAY ARE ALLOWED.
SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE GOING TO SHRINK THAT AREA AND SAY, YOU CAN STILL DO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY NOW, ONLY IN A SMALLER AREA.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT DOING THIS ABOUT STRIPPING THIS PART OFF OF THE CEO? I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT TO DO THAT.
I THINK IT JUST PUTS MORE EMPHASIS ON PUTTING TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN ANOTHER PART, BUT NOW IT DOES HAVE THE CEO.
SO I JUST, I WORRY ABOUT THAT AND I'M NOT SURE A HUNDRED OAK.
SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF WANTS TO REPLY.
I'LL BE HAPPY FOR STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE.
I THINK I'VE UNDERSTOOD THE POINT.
UH, ESSENTIALLY IT'S, IT'S THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTH AND EAST.
THAT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THE CO THAT IT'S NOW ESSENTIALLY BUILT OUT ASIDE FROM THIS ONE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CEO, UH, YOU WOULD BE MAKING THE AREA SMALLER, BUT MY PERSONAL TAKE ON IT WOULD BE YOU BE REMOVING THAT MUCH POTENTIAL FOR TRAFFIC, BECAUSE YOU'D BE TAKING THIS PROPERTY OUT OF THE EQUATION AS WELL, AND GETTING THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY BUILT OUT.
SO I THINK THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT YOU'LL GET FROM THEM IS MORE OR LESS KNOWN, OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FAMILIES MOVE IN AND YOU COULD HAVE MORE TRAFFIC.
UH, BUT I, I THINK THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN MY OPINION.
WELL, THANK YOU, NEVERTHELESS, MY CON APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU DID.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING THIS INFORMATION.
MY CONCERN REMAINS THOUGH ABOUT ALLOWING, UH, ESSENTIALLY THAT TRAFFIC TO NOW BE PUT ONTO THIS OTHER PART, WHERE THE CA WOULD CONTINUE IF THE CEO GETS REMOVED FROM THIS.
UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN THERE.
AND, UH, I ALSO WONDER ABOUT THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE GAS LINE.
UH, UH, COULD STAFF JUST VERIFY IS IT IS, WELL, WHAT IS THE CLOSEST THAT IT BUILDING ON THIS, ON THIS SITE COULD BE TO THAT GAS LINE? WHAT IS THE CLOSE NUMBER OF FEET? HOW CLOSE CAN THE, CAN A BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE TO THAT GAS LINE? UH, YOU'D HAVE THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE GAS LINE EASEMENT, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE BUILDING SETBACK RULES.
UM, IT'S TOUGH TO SAY FOR A BUILDING TO BUILDING, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO BUILDING SETBACK RULES ON THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 75 FEET AS I CALCULATE IT.
SO, SO, AND FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT ON THIS SITE, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT.
I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ON THIS
[00:40:01]
SIDE.IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 50 FEET AWAY, PLUS ANY OTHER BUILDING SETBACK BURGERS.
SEE, I, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A 25 FOOT EITHER ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PIPELINE.
SO YOU HAVE A PIPELINE RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE AND THEN 25 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
IS, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING HERE I CAN RUN AND CHECK THE SURVEY REAL QUICK? I MAY BE HELPFUL.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT.
I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT WHAT WE'RE, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN TELL I'M CONCERNED.
AND I THINK THE REASON WHY THAT, THAT, THAT SUBDIVISION RULE WAS CHANGED, APPARENTLY THIS ONE GOT IN UNDER THE WIRE, UH, YOU KNOW, IS TO TRY TO AVOID HAVING HOUSING TOO CLOSE TO THESE PIPELINES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NO DANGEROUS PIPELINE.
AND I JUST WANT TO, IF WE, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TIME TO GO LOOK, THAT'S FINE.
I'LL, UH, I'LL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET, UH, YOU KNOW, VERIFICATION, IS IT 50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THAT GAS LINE? IS THAT THE EASEMENT, IS THAT THE CLOSEST THAT A BUILDING COULD BE? AND SO THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT STAFF THERE, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED ABOUT ONLINE FEEDBACK FOR CASES IS, UH, THAT, THAT APPARENTLY ON CASES THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA, UH, THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT FEEDBACK ONLINE, BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT ON THIS CASE.
UH, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS.
IS COULD SOMEBODY CLARIFY THAT FOR ME, FROM STAFF? UM, YEAH.
THERE, SO THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS YOU CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
THERE'S A QR CODE, WHICH WILL TAKE YOU TO AN ONLINE, UH, DOCUMENT WHERE YOU CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ISSUE.
UH, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, TO BE HONEST, THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I DO, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SUBMIT AN EMAIL.
UH, YOU CAN, UH, GIVE ME A CALL AND GIVE ME YOUR FEEDBACK OVER THE PHONE.
SO THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES YOU CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK WITH, BUT I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE QR CODE IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE.
WELL, IF STAFF WOULDN'T MIND, WOULD YOU, WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TOUCH BASE WITH THAT, THAT, UH, THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THEY'RE THEY'RE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO US, YOU KNOW, UH, THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS THE CITY PROVIDES.
AND THAT THOSE MEANS ARE CON THEY WORK CONSISTENTLY.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE YOU'RE ON, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID HERE FOR THE PUBLIC.
COMMISSIONERS AND LIAISON ENVER, UM, IT IS A FAIRLY NEW PROCESS AND I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO, UH, ANY DEFECTIVE ISSUES WITH IT AND, UH, FORWARD, UH, THE DOCUMENTATION TO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER, I THINK CLAIRE, QUICK QUESTION, MR. DIETZ, UM, HOW WAS THIS NOTICE? DID WE NOTICE TELLING FOLKS THAT THE CEO WAS GOING TO BE REMOVED? UH, TH THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UM, IT'S IN THE NOTICE AND IT GOES OUT IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
AND THEN, UM, I'LL EMAIL YOU TOMORROW ABOUT WHO TO CONTACT IN WATERSHED ABOUT THE CLARE CUTTING, SO THEY CAN EVALUATE IT FROM THE PICTURES TO WHAT'S EXISTING AND THEY'LL CONTACT THE ARBORIST, UH, AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF HE'S IN VIOLATION OR NOT.
AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH TO THE NEARBY HOMES THAT HELPS TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
FIRST, ARE THERE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ADJACENT TO THE PIPELINE? UM, CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT, THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH HOMES, BUT THOSE HOMES WOULD BE A DECENT DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE BIBLE.
SO, UM, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON TRANQ, UH, KILO COVE TODAY, UM, HOW FAR AWAY ARE THEY FROM THE PIPELINE? OKAY.
50 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE PIPELINE.
AND HOW FAR AWAY WOULD THESE HOMES BE FROM THE PIPELINE? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE EXISTING HOMES FROM A WHILE BACK NOW, I GUESS THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT OLDER AND THEY'RE ALREADY 50 FEET SETBACK AND THAT'S ALLOWED, AND THEN THESE HOUSES WOULD BE REPLICATING THAT YES.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO CASA, KAREN THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, IS THAT ALSO THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE PIPELINE? YES.
I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE FIVE CODE, IT SHOULD BE 50 ENABLING SHOULD BE 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE, AND THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS INSTALLED MORE RECENTLY THAN THE HOUSES THAT AND DRINK HILO COVE 2016.
AND THE CODE IS STILL THE SAME AS WHEN WE BUILT THOSE APARTMENTS.
UH, THE CODE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THEN.
I HAVEN'T A SURVEY FOR THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THE CODE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 2016 THAT I LOOKED INTO.
AND THEN TO CLARIFY THE, UM, THE APARTMENTS AT KAZA, KAREN, IS THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF INTENSITY OR IS THIS A MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AT 73 13 BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD? YEAH, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, SORRY.
THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WOULD BE MUCH MORE DENSE.
THESE ARE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED CONDOS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A BIT OF THE CONFUSION ABOUT, ARE THESE HOUSES
[00:45:01]
OR ARE THESE APARTMENTS THEY'RE DETACHED CONDOS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THEY WOULD SHARE ONE LOT, BUT THEY FUNCTION MUCH LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.SO HOW MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD FUNCTION LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY? GIVEN THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS, UH, THE MATH FOR THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, WE'D GET THEM UP TO 15, UH, 15 UNITS ON THE SITE.
I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THEY COULD REALISTICALLY GET 15, JUST BECAUSE OF, UH, THE, THE SHAPE OF THE SITE THAT YOU'VE GOT, THE GAS SIGN EASEMENT, AND YOU'VE GOT, UM, BUILDING SETBACK RESTRICTIONS.
I, MY GUESS IS PROBABLY MORE IN THE 10, 11, MAYBE 12.
UH, BUT THEORETICALLY UP TO 15, IF YOU COULD FIND A WAY TO SITUATE THEM.
SO IF WE DO SF SEX, WE CAN GET 10 TO 15 HOUSEHOLDS HOUSING IN THIS AREA.
AND THEN IF WE DON'T DO SF SIX, HOW MANY HOMES WOULD HE BE ABLE TO CREATE ON THIS PROPERTY? AND THAT WOULD BE A MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER, BECAUSE IF, IF IT WAS TO REMAIN WITH THE SF FOR ACO ZONING, THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS, YOU WOULD NEED TO SUBDIVIDE TO CREATE ANY NEW LOTS OF FIRST FROM THE ONE EXISTING LOT.
AND TO DO THAT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, YOU NEED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET THAT STREET THAT ISN'T THERE ASIDE FROM BLUFF SPRING.
SO YOU'D MOST LIKELY BE CONSTRUCTING A NEW ROAD.
AND MY GUESS IS YOU FIND THE PROJECTS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
AND, UM, AND SO WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A BENEFIT TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DRIVEWAYS LEADING OUT INTO BLUFF SPRINGS, GIVEN THE CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC IN THE AREA? UM, MY, MY PERSONAL VIEW IS, UH, WE NEED HOUSING AND I THINK THIS SITE COULD BE WELL-EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE THE, THE DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS. UH, SO THAT'S WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS 25 FEET FROM THE PIPELINE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN SAY 50 FEET, LIKE, BUT IT'S OH, THERE WAS A 25 FOOT EASE, BUT IT'S A 50 FOOT STEP AFTER THE FIRE.
SO THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO THINGS OUT THERE.
YOU HAVE LIKE 50 FOOT WIDE EASE, BUT AT 25 FEET YOU DECIDED THE CENTER LINE.
BUT IN ADDITION, THE CODE SAYS THE BUILDING'S GOT TO BE SET BACK 50 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE PIPE.
SO YOU HAVE A BUILDING SETBACK DUE TO THE FIRE CODE, NOT DUE TO THE ELAN ITSELF.
KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK LIKE, SO IT WOULD BE IN THE FIRE CODE PART CODE.
I'M I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, BUT YES.
I JUST, JUST WANTED TO THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THE 50 FEET, UH, IN THE FIRE CODE.
UM, AND, AND, UH, BUT I DO, YOU KNOW, I, I DO AGREE, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SAY THIS EARLIER, BUT I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED MORE HOUSING AND I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PARTICULAR STRATEGY OF SF SIX COULD ACTUALLY LEVERAGE THAT LIMITED AMOUNT OF LAND THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
SO, AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE NEED MORE HOUSING, SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED HERE BECAUSE THAT CEO REMOVING THE CEO REALLY DOES FOR ME, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IF I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, IT'S 2000 TRIPS IS A LOT OF TRIPS AND SEVEN UNITS IS GOING TO CAUSE MAYBE I DON'T NOT THAT MANY.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS GOING TO EXCEED THE CAP.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE STRATEGY, THE, THE, THE PRECEDENT OF NOW SHRINKING AN AREA WITHOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF TRIPS AND ALL ALLOWED IN THAT SMALLER AREA.
NOW THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE MOVING TRIPS FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT AREA THAT'S CAPPED AT 2000 TRIPS PER DAY.
THEY'RE SHRINKING THE SIZE OF THAT AREA AND SAYING THAT NOW THAT SMALLER AREA CAN HAVE 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, ESSENTIALLY BY CARVING THIS SECTION OUT OF THAT CEO.
AND THAT'S MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN ABOUT DOING THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE DO THIS, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT.
SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE HAVING THIS AS ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN AN SF SIX, BUT I JUST, THAT, THAT BOTHERED ME.
SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THAT REASON, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE NO EITHER.
I MEAN, THE CEO DOESN'T BOTHER ME AS MUCH CAUSE THEY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS BUILT OUT AND WE RARELY EVER SET PRECEDENCE WITH WHAT WE DO.
UM, I KNOW WE ALL TALK ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENTS, BUT WE GO AGAINST PRECEDENTS ALL THE TIME.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE HOUSING, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED.
IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF DURING THE REVIEW.
UM, THE TREE ISSUE IS NOT REALLY A ZONING ISSUE.
IT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS.
[00:50:01]
I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO TALK ABOUT APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ZONE THIS TO, UM, SF SIX AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, LIKE AN EMOTION.SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOON.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WE'LL BE OPPOSING THIS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PIPELINE SF FOR CEO.
AND I DO THINK THAT THERE IS THIS RATIONALE THERE OF NOT BUILDING TOO DENSELY NEAR PIPELINES.
AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY HARD, UM, PROPERTY TO BUILD ON ANY WAY.
AND ALSO PERSONALLY, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THE TREES WERE ALREADY TAKEN DOWN.
I THINK THAT IS THAT SETS A REALLY BAD, THAT'S A BAD SIGN FOR A SMALL LOT, RIGHT? SO BY THAT CODE, WITHOUT THE ACRE MINIMUM, YOU COULD FIT A WHOLE LOT MORE HOMES THAN
AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR SMALL LOT MORE HOMES, UM, HAS BEEN TRUMPED BY THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT WAS INTENDED FOR MULTIPLE LOTS.
AND I WISH TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE HERE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I KNOW THAT THE, THE NOMENCLATURE LIKE SF SIX CONDO IS VERY CONFUSING.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT SINGLE FAMILY THREE.
THERE YOU CAN HAVE TWO UNITS ON A LOT.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S CONFUSING.
BUT, UM, SO YOU'LL, UNFORTUNATELY YOU'LL EVENTUALLY LEARN.
SO, AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE SUPER MAJORITY WILL TAKE PLACE AT CITY COUNCIL.
UH, IF YOU CAN BACK THAT UP, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE IT WILL BE HEARD AND REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY I'M ALSO GOING TO VOTE.
NO, UH, THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS THAT SOMEHOW THIS BECAME A RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT HAS EFFECTIVELY LESS THAN AN ACRE, WHICH VIOLATES 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34, WHICH IS CALLED HAZARDOUS PIPELINES.
SO WHEREBY A HAZARDOUS PIPELINE, I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBDIVIDE.
UM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY, UM, ADHERE TO THE, UM, THE SECTION OF THE CODE.
WE READY TO VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE FOUR OF US, STERN SMITH, BOON, AND MYSELF.
ALTHOUGH AS OPPOSED, THAT'S KIELBASA, GREENBURG AND DINKLER AND ABSTAINING IS KING AND THOMPSON.
NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ON THIS TRAGIC.
OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.
WE'LL HAVE LESS HOUSING FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
HOUSING WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING IT MIGHT CHANGE OR MIGHT NOT CHANGE, UH, EVEN THREE UNITS, FOUR AND FIVE UNITS.
IF WE GO THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND IF THEY DID REMAIN ONLY TWO UNITS OF THREE UNITS APARTMENTS, THEN THAT'S THEM, THAT'S THE UNITS WE WILL BE GOING WITH.
IT'S PENDING FIGHT OPERA APPROVAL, AND THEN TO WORK WITH A FIGHT TRUCK AROUND RADIOS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO SEVEN UNITS IS ME PUTTING IN THE NUMBER ON THE CAR, BUT IT'S NOT ANY FIXED NUMBER.
AND EVEN THOUGH SEVEN UNITS THAT I'M ASSUMING WILL BE EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH THE PROPERTIES IN FRONT OF IT.
SO THERE'LL BE ONE HOUSE BEHIND THE HOUSE WITH 75 FEET DISTANCE.
THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION BASED ON THE OUTER VIEW.
IF FIRE DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT CLOSELY AND REVIEW RATE AND IT SAYS ONLY THREE UNITS ARE PERMISSIBLE, I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE UNITS.
THE REASON FOR SF SIX IS NOT PUTTING MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS AND NOT PUTTING FLAT LOTS ON THE DOCK DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE REQUEST REPORTS OF SIX OR SEVEN IS NOT MAGICAL NUMBER THAT WE'RE GOING WITH.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, NO NINE.
[9. Rezoning: C14-2022-0053 - Swansons Ranch Single Family; District 5]
THANK YOU.MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS WINDY ROADS WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A CASE OFF OF, UM, SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
IT CONSISTS OF THREE PLATTED LOTS, UH, WITH OVER 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON BOTH SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD AND BILL BURKE PLACE.
THE TWO NORTH LOTS ARE ZONED SF TWO, AND THE QUAD IS ZONED SF ONE.
UM, THE TWO NORTH LOTS CONTAINED ONE SINGLE FAMILY AT PEACE AND THE SOUTHWEST UNDEVELOPED AND WAS FORMERLY OPERATED AS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE.
[00:55:02]
UM, THAT PRE-EXISTED AN ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY LIMITS.PRIVATE ACCESS IS TAKEN TO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD AND THAT, UH, ROAD CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, AND ON BILL BROOKE TO THE WEST, THERE IS A SERVICE STATION, UNDEVELOPED LAND, AND A CHURCH.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE SS THREE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO RE SUBDIVIDED THE THREE LOTS AND REDEVELOPED.
THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITH EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WOULD BE TAKING ACCESS VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD OR BUILD WORKPLACE.
UH, THEIR PROPOSAL IS UP TO SEVEN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OR, UH, 14 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BECAUSE THIS SITE SITS ON A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET.
IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER, UM, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS, UH, ALONE SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
AND SO IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
AND, UH, IN THE BROADER CONTEXT, THREE ZONING IS A REASONABLE OPTION FOR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT AS RESIDENTIAL INFILL.
THERE ARE, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH THE TEXAS OAK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, THERE IS CORRESPONDENCE AND A DETAILED SET OF QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE STAFF AND, UH, REZ AND RESIDENTS OF TEXAS OAKS.
UH, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, CHAIR ONE OUT HERE FROM THE APPLICANT, MISS VICTORIA HASI AND SAUCY YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER SUBJECT TRACK IS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT IS A LITTLE OVER ONE AND A HALF ACRES BETWEEN THE THREE TRACKS IT'S LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AND IT IS ABOUT 300 FEET FROM AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND EXISTING CAPITAL METRO BUS SERVICE.
NEXT SLIDE, AS WENDY WAS SAYING, THE ZONING TODAY IS SF ONE, NSF TWO FOR TWO OF THE LOTS.
OUR REQUEST IS SF THREE, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, UH, IN THE AREA.
AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IN A, IN A CITY WITH, OR A METRO AREA OF THIS, OF THIS SIZE AND THAT'S GROWING.
UM, IT IS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FIND WAYS TO HAVE INFILL DENSITY IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S NOT CONTINUING TO SPRAWL TO OUR OUTER AREAS.
THAT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
UM, SO IF WE CAN GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY HERE, I DO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS EVENING.
UM, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR NSF THREE ZONING CHANGE HERE.
SO THIS IS A COMPARISON OF
UM, SF TWO IN SF THREE ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE AS WENDY WAS STATING IS SF THREE ALLOWS FOR A TWO FAMILY, USE A ONE.
YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT.
UM, AND IN A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WITHOUT A ZONING CHANGE, YOU WOULD SEE A TOTAL OF EIGHT, LOTS AND EIGHT UNITS WITH THOSE UNITS BEING ABLE TO ACCESS BILL BROOK OR SWANSON'S, UM, RANCH ROAD.
UH, IF, IF, UH, SF THREE IS TO BE APPROVED, WE CAN ACHIEVE UP TO 10 LOTS.
UM, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT 10 LOTS DOES NOT FULLY EQUATE TO 20 UNITS BECAUSE THERE ARE STORMWATER AND, UH, DETENTION, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND SO IT'S LIKELY THAT A GOOD CHUNK OF LAND WOULD TOWARDS PUTTING IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S A PRETTY SHORT PRESENTATION.
UH, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSING IN THIS AREA.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. BILL MEACHAM.
MR. MITCHUM, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND OPPOSITION.
I LIVE IN TEXAS OAK SOUTH, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE TEXAS SUBJECT TRACK.
[01:00:01]
THREE BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONCERNS.IF THE DEVELOPMENT ENDS UP WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS TO BILL BROOKE, IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION INCREASED TRAFFIC WOULD ENDANGER EVERYONE IN 623 ACRES, WHICH HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED ACCESS.
A VIABLE COMPROMISE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR BIDDING VEHICULAR ACCESS ON BILL BROOKE.
THE SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE LARGER CONTEXT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SUBJECT TRACT IS A SMALL PORTION OF A VERY LARGE POCKET OF LAND OUTLINED IN RED ON THIS IMAGE THAT IS COMPLETELY ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES, SUBJECT TRACTORS, THE LITTLE GREEN AREA AT THE TOP, RIGHT? THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER TRACKS IN THE POCKET, SOME IN THE CITY, SOME IN THE ETJ, THIS POCKET COMPRISES ABOUT 623 ACRES AND OVER 1800 HOUSEHOLDS IT'S BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE SOUTH BY SLAUGHTER CREEK ON THE EAST, BY MARY MORRISSEY, WRIGHT PARK PREJUDICE.
MIDDLE-SCHOOL IN SOME DEPARTMENTS AND ON THE NORTH BY SLAUGHTER LANE, THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS WHOLE AREA IS TO THE NORTH SURROUNDED BY TWO LITTLE YELLOW CIRCLES, WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE BECAUSE THERE'S AN OVERLAY, BUT JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT GREEN THING, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO WAYS OUT.
UM, THERE'S NO WAY OUT TO MANSHACK ON THE WEST, NO WAY OUT TO 16, 26 TO THE SOUTH, NO WAY OUT TO SOUTH FIRST, THE ONLY ACCESS POINTS ARE BILL BROOKE PLACE AND DAVID MOORE DRIVE TO THE NORTH.
AND THE 90% OF THE TRAFFIC IS ON BELLBROOK.
BY THE WAY, GENOA DRIVE DOES NOT CONNECT TO SLAUGHTER LANE AS SHOWN ON YOUR ZONING MAP IN YOUR PACKET, GENUINE DRIVE ACTUALLY GOES UNDER A BRIDGE.
THE MAPS WERE ON THE 2020 MESSENGER.
TIA IS THE MOST RECENT STUDY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TIA ACKNOWLEDGES A FAILED INTERSECTIONS.
THEY'VE GOT A GRADE OF F AT BILL BROOKLYN SLAUGHTER, EVEN AFTER INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.
THE NEWLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AND GENUINE DRIVE WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 62 CONDOS AND OVER 400 DAILY TRIPS, THERE WERE SEVERAL LARGE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE 623 ACRE POCKET THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AND WOULD ALSO RELY ON, RELY ON BELLBROOK.