* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] MEETING OF THE, UH, [Call to Order] ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. IT IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4TH, AND THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO DO IS CALL ROLL, AND I'M THE ONLY ONE UP HERE TONIGHT. SO HERE WE GO. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE CELEBRATING AND ARE NOT WITH US. UM, COMMISSIONER A COSTA. YEAH. PRESENTING. I'M HERE. BAR RAMIREZ. COMMISSIONER BOONE PRESENT. UM, COMMISSIONER DINKLER IS NOT HERE. AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS ALSO OUT. UH, COMMISSIONER KING HERE. VICE CHAIR KOBASA HERE. UM, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE. AND COMMISSIONER WOODY. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY LIAISON? ANDRE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA THEN. THE FIRST IS, UH, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES AS SHOWN? YES. COMMISSIONER KING? YES. CHAIR. THERE ARE A FEW CHANGES. UH, CORRECTIONS, UH, THE MINUTES SHOULD REFLECT THE DATE OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20TH, UH, 2022. AND THE, THAT'S THE SAME DATE THAT IT WAS CONVENED. SO THOSE DATE CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE. AND ALSO, UH, COMMISSIONER KING CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ALSO ADJOURNED THE MEETING. AND COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR BARRE RAMIREZ WAS ABSENT AND, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODY WAS IN ATTENDANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. AND THEN ONE OTHER FINAL THING. I BELIEVE AT THE, UH, LET'S SEE, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MINUTES, THE SECOND TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH, I THINK IS REDUNDANT. IT ABOUT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE MINUTES, UH, APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED ALSO FROM THE, FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES. THOSE ARE ALL THE CORRECTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? [Consent Agenda] OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS ON CONSENT. IT'S C 14 20 22 0 0 9 7 15 0 7, AND 1515 BASTROP HIGHWAY. UM, IT'S RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE AND FOUR ARE ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA. UH, ITEM FIVE IS IT'S, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS SEEKING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 18TH AND IT'S C 14 20 22 0 0 7 7 2 20. RALPH ADO REZONING AND IT'S RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS. UM, NUMBER SIX IS ON CONSENT C 14 20 22 0 0 6 9 87 0 2 COLON. UM, AND THAT'S RECOMMENDATION OF A G M U C O. UM, ITEM SEVEN IS STA SEEKING STAFF POSTPONEMENT FOR UNTIL OCTOBER 18TH. THAT'S C 14, 20 22, 4 9, 500 VFW ROAD. ITEM EIGHT IS A SITE PLAN FOR CONSENTS. P 20 21, 34 D, BKO, PARER, AND ITEM NINE IS, UH, SITE PLAN. ALSO SEEKING STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 18TH. SP 20 21 0 4. 63 C COLONY PARK DISTRICT AQUATIC FACILITY, OH, SORRY. ITEM 10 IS, IT SAYS NA, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS. CHECK COMMISSION, LA AND I RUN. THAT ONES POSTED IN ERROR. NO ACTION AS NEEDED. NO ACTION. GREAT. OKAY, SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES. COMMISSIONER KING? UH, YES. CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT ITEM A IS STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. IT'S NOT SHOWN THAT WAY ON THE, ON THE AGENDA, BUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. BUT, UH, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT IS SHOWN THAT WAY AS WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. RIGHT. IT SAYS, UM, REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 3 42 TO ALLOW FILL UP TO FOUR FEET, UP TO 12 FEET. AND I READ THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. RIGHT. SO, SO OUR RE OUR CONSENT WOULD BE STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. MM-HMM. , THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. OKAY. CHAIR COMMISSION. LADIES LIAISON. WE COULD PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAD NUMBER FOUR IS, UH, SET FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT SET FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. OKAY. OH, SO WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE POSTPONEMENT. SO IT'S REMOVED FROM THE, OKAY. SO WE'LL BE DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENT OF THAT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, YES, COMMISSIONER KING [00:05:02] CHAIR. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE TIME, UH, BUT I SEE COMMISSIONER WOODY HAS JOINED US, SO I'M MAKE A NOTE OF THAT. SO NOW I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE, UH, SEVEN COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT. YES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UH, THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA IS READ. OKAY. YOU DOING THAT RIGHT? YES. THAT WAS GREAT. SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER A COSTA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THE CHANGES TO THE MINUTES CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THANK YOU. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. SO THEN THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO'VE COME. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON [3. Rezoning: C14-2021-0003 - South Lakeline Residential-Mixed Use; District 6 (part 1 of 3)] TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. AND, UM, MR. ES CHAIR CONDITION LIAISON ACTUALLY WILL FIRST HEAR THE [4. Rezoning: C14-2022-0039 - Peaceful Hill Residential; District 2 (part 1 of 2)] DISCUSSION POSTPONE AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR. OKAY. I, AS THAT WILL SET YOUR AGENDA FOR THE EVENING. OH, I SEE. OKAY. GO AHEAD. UM, IS THAT MS. RHODES OR DO WE OH, NO, NO, NO. SO WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE POSTPONED. CORRECT. SO WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM THE REQUESTER. AND SO, UM, MS. STOKES, I MEAN, MR. STOKES AND MISS VALENTI WILL PROVIDE THE REMARKS FOR A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT THREE MINUTES EACH. OKAY. YEAH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. HOLD ON. I'M SORRY. NEVERMIND. HI, I'M JOHN STOKES. I'M, UH, SORRY. I'M GONNA INTERRUPT YOU REALLY QUICKLY. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS JUST TO DISCUSS YES. WHETHER OR NOT SHOULD BE POSTON. THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I APOLOGIZE. OH, THAT'S OKAY. I'M STILL CLARIFYING FOR MYSELF. SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ITEM SHOULD BE POSTPONED TONIGHT UNTIL, WHAT'S THE DATE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE IT? THE 18TH OR LATER. OKAY. BASED ON, AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE REASONS FOR THAT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M JOHN STOKES. I'M A D TWO CONSTITUENT. I LIVE ON PEACEFUL HILL LANE. I'M ALSO A CONTACT PERSON FOR THE PEACEFUL HILL LANE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION. UH, WE'RE EAGER TO SHARE OUR THOUGHTS AND THE OPINIONS WITH ZAP, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS PROPOSAL FOR UP TO A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE UNFORTUNATELY NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME TO MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON SEVERAL OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLICATED BY THE APPLICANT'S VERY SLOW RESPONSES TO OUR CORRESPONDENCE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT. BOTH SIDES ARE NEGOTIATING, ALTHOUGH OVER A PROTECTED PERIOD OF TIME AND TIMING OF THE APPLICANT RESPONSES HAD MADE IT DIFFICULT TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION AND ASSESS REACTIONS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO VARIOUS PROPOSALS OF THE APPLICANT IN A TIMELY FASHION. IN SPITE OF THE SLOW APPLICANT RESPONSES, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE IN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED IF THE MATTER WERE POSTPONED. WHILE FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS TAKE PLACE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO GIVE PEACEFUL HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING DIFFERENCES PRIOR TO THE ZAP MEETING. AND HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE DISTINCT ZONING APPLICATIONS ON PEACEFUL HILL LANE GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH ALL OF THE CORRESPONDENCE AND ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS AND ALL OF THE NECESSARY MOVES THAT ARE REQUIRED, UH, TO KEEP UP WITH THESE, UH, THREE ZONING CASES IN AN, AND PARTICIPATE IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER. SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING THESE ONE AT A TIME IS A HUGE HELP TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALLOW US TO DISCUSS THIS MORE INTELLIGENTLY WITH, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I'LL HERE FOR MR. VALENTI TEAM. MS. NCCI, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND THERE. THANK YOU. UM, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARGARET LENTI AND I LIVE ON PEACEFUL, PEACEFUL HILL LANE, AND I'VE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR OVER 15 YEARS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. I'M REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORS OF THE PEACEFUL HILL PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION. AS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, THERE ARE THREE ACTIVE ZONING CASES ON PEACEFUL HILL LANE, TWO OF WHICH WERE ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING. ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED AND WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT THE, THE CASE I'M TALKING TO YOU ABOUT RIGHT NOW. UH, CASE, UH, 79 0 1 PEACEFUL HILL LANE, CASE NUMBER C 14 20 22 0 39. AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS CASE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO PRESENT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FROM THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK. WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS RESPONDED TO OUR CONCERNS AND REQUESTS, WE HAVE BEEN BURDENED WITH VERY SLOW RESPONSE TIME, WHICH HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS IN [00:10:01] A TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MANNER. AND MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE APPLICANT WITH THE GOAL OF COMING TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT IN ADVANCE OF, OF ZAP HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL HEARING. UH, WE BELIEVE THIS IS POSSIBLE, AND WE BELIEVE WITH MORE TIME WE CAN COME TO CONSENSUS AND HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM THAT IS READY TO GO ON CONSENT. UM, WHILE WE THEORETICALLY AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED LAND USE OF S F SIX, THE REQUEST FOR S F SIX ZONING, WE HAVE REQUESTS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT THAT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THE FEEL AND THE CHARACTER AND THE CONNECTEDNESS OF THE NEW HOMES KNITTING TOGETHER WITH THE CURRENT HOMES ON PEACEFUL HILL LANE. UM, AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR US. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THERE ARE THREE ACTIVE CASES ON OUR STREET. THIS, THESE ARE ALL, UM, NEW CASES THAT WILL FOREVER INFORM THE, THE WAY THE STREET IS, UM, BUILT AND FIELDS. AND WE CARE ABOUT HOW OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO INTERACT WITH OUR FUTURE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT, UM, PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT, THAT WE CARE ABOUT. UM, AND ESSENTIALLY WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVEN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE SOME MORE TIME TO DO SO BEFORE, UM, A ZAP HEARING AND A CITY COUNCIL HEARING. SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING A POSTPONEMENT. UH, MR. STOKES AND I ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. THANKS. WELL, NOW HERE FROM, UH, THE OPPOSITION TO THE POSTPONING WITH VICTORIA HASSI. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, VICTORIA HASSI ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. UM, SO WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH POSTPONEMENT. UH, THIS CASE WAS FILED BACK IN MARCH. IT HASN'T BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A YEAR. UM, I STARTED HAVING COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. VALENTI, UH, BACK IN APRIL, AND WE DID HAVE TWO MEETINGS ON MULTIPLE EMAIL EXCHANGES BACK AND FORTH, UH, SINCE, SINCE THAT TIME. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT IN AUGUST, AND WE AGREED TO THAT REQUEST FOR A POSTPONEMENT, AND THEN TWO ADDITIONAL WEEKS WERE ADDED TO THAT TIME BECAUSE OF A NOTIFICATION ERROR, UM, ON THE CITY'S PART. SO THAT PUTS US HERE TONIGHT. OUR MOST RECENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN, UM, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENTS ON SOME MATTERS, BUT NOT ALL. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON MEETING SOME OF THOSE MATTERS AS WE MOVE TO COUNCIL. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD THIS EVENING AND HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW HERE FOR MR. RON THROWER, COMMISSIONERS, RON THROWER REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST IS THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE SAME AGENDA. UH, ONE OF THE ITEMS Y'ALL HAVE POSTPONED FOR TWO WEEKS, SO WE'RE READY TO GO TONIGHT AS PER THEIR REQUEST. THANK YOU CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE POSTPONE. OKIE DOKE. ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS? I, I KNOW I HAVE ONE, SO, UM, OH, WELL, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER COSTA. THANK YOU. UM, JUST CURIOUS FROM WHAT THE, UM, NEIGHBORS HAD SAID THEY HAVE, THEY'RE GENERALLY OKAY WITH SF SIX, BUT THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LAYOUT AND, AND, UM, I'M GUESSING SOME OF THE OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE PROJECT, WOULD THOSE BE ADDRESSED IN ZONING OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING ONE SITE PLAN QUESTION FOR WHO'S THE QUESTION DIRECTED TOWARDS COMMISSIONER? IS THAT STAFF STAFF ABOUT THAT? I, I GUESS YEAH, STUFF. CAN, CAN ANY OF THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS BE, BE ADDRESSED BY ZONING OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD REALLY BE HANDLED AT SITE DEV DEVELOPMENT STAGE? UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS, MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THIS, WITH THE, UH, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SOME OF THE, AND I I IDENTIFIED IT IN THE ISSUE SECTION. SOME OF THE ITEMS, UM, THAT ARE UNDER DISCUSSION ARE IN A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. I, BUT IF THERE ARE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN CHAPTER 25, 2, THOSE COULD CERTAINLY BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. BUT I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC SITE VIOLENT REGULATIONS ARE, ARE UNDER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE, BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE AT LEAST A FEW ITEMS THAT BELONG IN A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS THANK YOU. THIS, THIS, UH, COULD ALSO BE, BE, UM, ADDRESSED TO THE, A APPLICANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [00:15:02] I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU COULD COME TO A AGREEMENT IF WE GAVE YOU THESE NEXT TWO, LIKE NEXT TIME WE WON'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM, IT'LL JUST BE ON CONSENT BECAUSE YOU ARE THAT CLOSE TO, I MEAN, THEY HAVE CLEARLY LISTED THE FOUR THINGS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. ARE THESE THINGS THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN, UH, APPROVING THESE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THE FIVE FEET OF VEGETATION, THE SINGLE STORY UNITS IN THE FRONT, THE ATORY LIGHTING, ET CETERA? UM, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON. I BELIEVE SOME OF THOSE DETAILS ACTUALLY DON'T, DON'T DO THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE IN TERMS OF HAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT KNIT WELL WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. SO I, THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS. I MAP TO GO AHEAD, MS. HI, MARGARET. LINDY AGAIN. WELL, WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE REQUEST FOR STANDALONE UNITS, I, I KNOW THE, THE, UM, THE LANGUAGE WAS WRITTEN AS SINGLE. UM, WE, WE MEAN STANDALONE UNITS, NOT, UH, WE NEED, UH, DETACHED UNITS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. OUR HOMES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT ARE SINGLE DETACHED UNITS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS PART OF THE DESIGN OF, UM, OF THIS PROJECT. AND, UM, I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT FEELS LIKE THEY CAN'T FIT THE DESIGN OF THEIR PROJECT, UH, ON THE SITE, GIVEN SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT THEY'RE, UH, SPEAKING ABOUT PRIMARILY TREES. AND WE THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO WORK AROUND THE TREES OR EVEN REMOVE SOME TREES TO MAKE, UH, STANDALONE UNITS WORK. UM, SO THAT'S OUR, YEAH. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WILL BE AN IMPASSE AND THAT WE WILL BE STUCK IN THE SAME SITUATION ON OCTOBER 18TH IF WE, IF WE CHOOSE TO POSTPONE, IS WHAT I'M HEARING. SO IN THAT CASE, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PUT FORTH A MOTION TO MOVE US FORWARD? DO WE, DO WE WANT TO POSTPONE OR DO WE WANT TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT? COMMISSIONER COSTA, I MOVE THAT WE DENY POSTPONEMENT AND HEAR THE ITEM TONIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? ONE SECOND, MATT. OKAY. SO THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY THOSE POSTPONEMENT. HE'LL HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT. SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER BOONE, ALL THOSE, ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THEN OF DENYING THE POSTPONEMENT, HEARING THE CASE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST ME, A COSTA BOONE AND WOODY. THAT'S FOUR OUT OF SEVEN. AND THOSE OPPOSED TO DENYING THE POSTPONEMENT. THAT'S THREE. SO THEN WE DO HEAR THE CASE. YEAH. SOUNDS LIKE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO FIRST WE'LL FINISH VOTING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, RIGHT? SO CONSENT IS THE MINUTES. ITEM TWO, ITEM FIVE, SIX THROUGH NINE AND 10, WHICH WAS NA SURE. I BELIEVE YOU DISPOSED OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. OH, WE DID? YES. I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF THAT DISCUSSION WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD GO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING ME ON TRACK. IT'S GETTING LONELY UP HERE. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA GO WITH ITEM [3. Rezoning: C14-2021-0003 - South Lakeline Residential-Mixed Use; District 6 (part 2 of 3)] THREE THEN. UM, HEARING FROM MR. WHEATUS. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, UH, SHERRY ES WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS ITEM B THREE, WHICH IS CASE C 14 20 21, 0 0 3, WHICH IS THE SOUTH LAKELINE RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE. THE REQUEST IS FOR THE, UH, PROPERTY AT 26 10 AND A HALF SOUTH LAKELINE BOULEVARD. AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM LR TO GM UCO ZONING. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS GM, UCO, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING USES AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE WASHING, BAIL BOND SERVICES, DROP OFF RECYCLING, COLLECTION FACILITY, FUNERAL SERVICES, HOTEL MOTEL, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION PAWN SHOP SERVICES, SERVICE STATION AND CLUB OR LODGE USES ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNDEVELOPED AND MODERATELY VEGETATED. THERE IS FLOOD PLAIN ALONG THE [00:20:01] EASTERN PORTION OF THE TRACK. THIS SITE IS LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE LAKELINE MALL ON SOUTH LAKELINE BOULEVARD. THE FRONT PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND TAKES ACCESS TO SOUTH LAKELINE BOULEVARD. THE REAR PORTION OF THE TRACK IS WITHIN THE CITY OF CEDAR PARKS JURISDICTION AND HAS ACCESS OFF OF WEST RIVER AREA CIRCLE, A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET. THERE IS AN UN THERE IS UNDEVELOPED LAND AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE ALONG LAKELINE BOULEVARD. THERE'S, THERE'S A FLOOD PLAIN AND A MULTI-FAMILY USED OR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE WEST. THERE IS AN UNDEVELOPED LOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK. AND THE PARCEL TO THE SOUTH ACROSS LAKELINE BOULEVARD IS ZONE P AND IS PARKLAND. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS GM UCO ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT MEETS THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AS IT IS LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CONSTRAINTS, UM, AS ONLY THE CORNER OR WESTERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE OF FLOOD PLAIN GR UCO ZONING WILL PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP OFFICE, CIVIC AND COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SITE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. TO THE NORTONS, TO THE SOUTHWEST, GR ZONING IS APPROPRIATE. FRONTING AND ARTERIAL ROADWAY, LAKELINE BOULEVARD ACROSS FROM A PUBLIC PARK AND THE LAKELINE MALL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN 0.75 MILES OF THE LAKELINE STATION REGIONAL CENTER, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE IMAGINE AUSTIN'S GROVES GROWTH CONCEPT MAP THAT IS FOUND IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. WAITES. UM, SO WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS CHAIR, COMMISSION LAY ONO. YES. SO WE'LL HERE FOR THE APPLICANT, MS TO HASI. MISSI, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI THOROUGH DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. JUST WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION. REAL QUICK CHAIR, WE CAN ADD EASE OR JUST A FEW MINUTES AS I WILL, WILL GET THIS PRESENTATION. OKAY. I'M GONNA GO GET ANOTHER PAIR OF READING GLASSES. OKAY. [00:26:16] CHAIR COMMISSION ONLY ON ANDREW. YES. WOULD THE COMMISSION CONSIDER PROCEEDING TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR? SURE. AND THEN, UH, TABLING THIS ITEM FOR THE TIME BEING. OKAY. OH, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? NO. [4. Rezoning: C14-2022-0039 - Peaceful Hill Residential; District 2 (part 2 of 2)] GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS, UH, WENDY ROSE, AGAIN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UH, THIS IS A ZONING CASE LOCATED AT 79 0 1 PEACEFUL HILL LANE. UH, THE REZONING AREA IS CONSISTS OF PLATTED LOT THAT HAS A DR, WHICH IS DEVELOPMENT RESERVE ZONING, UM, ASSIGNED IN ASSIGNED WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN 1984. AND IT CONTAINS A FEW STRUCTURES AS WELL AS OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. THERE IS AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, UH, THAT IS ALL PROPOSED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IT'S ONE OF THE CASES THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE REFERRING TO THE, UH, VERADO COMMUNITY. CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY IS LOCATED EAST AND SOUTH AND HAS S F SIX CO ZONING. AND THEN THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS IN BEACON RIDGE TWO ACROSS PEACEFUL HILL TO THE WEST. UH, THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE SF SIX DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 33 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE BASIS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT SF SIX ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE FILMING RESIDENCES IN THE VICINITY. THIS IS A CASE OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL THAT HAS, UH, ZONING CASE APPROVALS WITHIN THE PAST 15 YEARS THAT, THAT ALLOW FOR MORE COMPACT DEVELOPMENT. THAT INCLUDES THE PARKRIDGE GARDENS, WHICH HAS S F FOUR ACO ZONING, AS WELL AS THE, UH, S F SIX CO ZONED VERRADO CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY. UH, S F SIX ZONING IS A REASONABLE OPTION FOR MULTIPLE APRIL PARCELS, SUCH AS THIS ONE, UH, TO BE REDEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL INFILL. AND SF SIX CAN BE A TRANSITION TO SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH REFLECTS IT AS AN APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE USE. SO IN CONCLUSION, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SF SIX ZONING AND BELIEVE THAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER OF THE AREA, AND IT INCLUDES A SIMILARLY SITUATED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, UH, TO THE, UH, EAST AND SOUTH. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR ONE OUT HERE FROM THE APPLICANT FOR SIX MINUTES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI BERO DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. THE SUBJECT TRACT, UH, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE IN THE IMAGE BEFORE YOU. IT'S 2.73 ACRES. CURRENTLY, THE SITE HAS A COMBINATION OF CONSTRUCTION, SALES AND SERVICE USES, AS WELL AS, UH, WHAT SEEMS TO BE STORAGE FACILITY TYPE OF USES. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A MAP THAT SHOWS THE CONTEXT WITH THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS AS WELL AS TRANSIT ELEMENTS. THE SITE IS ABOUT A MILE FROM A TOWN, UH, THE SOUTH PARK MEADOWS TOWN CENTER, AND IS 0.4 MILES FROM EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE ON SOUTH FIRST STREET. WE ARE AWARE THAT ATD HAS A DESIRE TO EXTEND, FOREMOST DRIVE TO THE WEST OF SOUTH CONGRESS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE THERE, UH, IN THE DASHED BLUE LINE. UM, WITH THAT CONNECTION, HOPEFUL CONNECTION IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL ALSO [00:30:01] PLACE, UM, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THESE RESIDENTS IN CLOSER, UM, PROXIMITY DISTANCE TO OTHER TRANSIT ROUTES AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE ZONING TODAY IS DR. DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, AND OUR REQUEST IS FOR SF SIX, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT SF SIX ZONED LANDS AND IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE SF TWO THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT SLIDE. THE SITE HAS DR ZONING, BUT IT DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF DR ZONING. FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, WE'VE INCLUDED SF TWO AND SF THREE IN THIS TABLE, ALONG WITH OUR SF SIX REQUEST. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE THE SAME BETWEEN SF TWO, SF THREE, AND S F SIX, WITH EXCEPTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND S F SIX DOES NOT REQUIRE THE NEED TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND AS AN SF TWO OR AN SF THREE, UH, PROJECT WOULD. NEXT SLIDE. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THIS SITE AT 2.73 ACRES WILL ALLOW AT MOST 33 SF SIX UNITS. THAT IS, IT'S COMPARABLE TO THE DENSITIES AS SF TWO OR MORE CLOSELY TO SF THREE. IT WILL ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY UNITS THAT OFFER VARIETY FROM THE TRADITIONAL STANDALONE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. SF SIX WILL, UH, DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON THE EXISTING TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AS THE SALE OF THESE NEW HOMES WILL NOT BE COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S, UM, APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY FOR TAX ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. CONVERSELY, SF TWO AND SF SIX WOULD HAVE A MUCH GREATER IMPACT ON THE EXISTING HOMES IN THIS AREA, UH, WITH THE SALE OF NEW UNITS ON THIS TRACK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND WILL REQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, UH, AND WILL, WHICH WILL ALSO, AND IT WILL ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE 25 FOOT STEP BACK THAT ALL THE HOMES ENJOY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PEACEFUL HILL AND WILL CONTINUE THE SIDEWALKS ON THIS STRETCH OF PEACEFUL HILL. MOVING NORTH. THE TWO CIRCLES HIGHLIGHT HERITAGE TREES THAT ARE AN ASSET TO THE PROPERTY AND THE COMMUNITY AND WILL BE PRESERVED AND WORKED AROUND IN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, HAS BEEN, UM, QUITE A BIT OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. THEY DO WANT BIGGER SETBACKS FROM PEACEFUL HILL. THEY, THE CODE REQUIRES 25 FEET. UH, THE VERRADO DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, THEY SET THEIR DEVELOPMENT BACK BY 25 FEET. AND ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF PEACEFUL HILL ALSO HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK. WE REQUEST THAT THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK BE MAINTAINED, UH, INCREASING THAT SETBACK WILL ONLY END UP CAUSING EITHER A FOR LESS UNITS OR B, THE UNITS THAT WE DO ACHIEVE WILL BE SMALLER IN SIZE AND MAY NOT ACCOMMODATE FAMILIES AS WELL. BY THE TIME RIGHT AWAY IS DEDICATED AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS CONSTRUCTED, THERE WILL BE ALMOST 110 FEET OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE WEST SIDE OF PEACEFUL HILL AND THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE EAST SIDE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS STANDALONE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON THIS TRACK, UM, IN AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE THEIR TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. BUT WE CHALLENGE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME VARIETY. THERE SHOULD BE SOME VARIETY AND A TRANSITION IN THIS AREA BETWEEN PEACEFUL HILL AND SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THIS CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND WILL CAUSE FOR, UH, ONE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY. THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TODAY, AND THERE'LL BE ONE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON THIS 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE. IN TERMS OF SF TWO OR SF THREE, THERE COULD BE AT LEAST SIX DRIVEWAYS OR MORE IF THERE ARE FLAG LOTS. AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS STATED IS A CONCERN. SO WE ARE LIMITING DRIVEWAY ACCESS BY DOING AN SF SIX DEVELOPMENT, AS IS SHOWN. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS ANOTHER RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE TREES THAT YOU SEE THERE ALONG THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN ARE THE, UM, SUPPOSED TO BE IN PLACE OF THE HERITAGE TREES. NEXT SLIDE. SO OUR MEETINGS AND EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ARRIVED AT THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENTS THAT WE SEEM TO AGREE ON. UM, AS YOU HEARD, UM, IN THE POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION, UH, THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENTS ON, AND I BELIEVE WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE, THOSE ELEMENTS ACTUALLY TAKE AWAY FROM INVITING THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT TO BE A PART OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. UM, WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MASONRY WALL DOES WALL OFF THESE NEW UNITS, UM, IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR, THE LAND OWNER AND DEVELOPER HAVE [00:35:01] AGREED THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE. UM, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS, UM, WE JUST, WE CAN'T, WE SEEM TO BE AT AN IMPASS ON, UM, WE HAVE MADE STRIDES TO GET TO THESE COMPROMISES AND WE REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING AT THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW, I ALSO HAVE A SUSAN HARKEY, UH, REGISTERED IN FAVOR, UH, TO BE IN PERSON. OKAY. UM, MOVING ALONG TO, UM, MR. STOKES. MR. STOKES, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. THANK YOU. HI, I'M JOHN STOKES AGAIN. UH, I WANNA MAKE CLEAR RIGHT UP FRONT THAT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SF SIX ZONING. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ENTIRE, THAT ENTIRE SIDE OF PEACEFUL HILL LANE, UH, ZONED SF SIX. THERE IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO CHALLENGE THAT, WHICH I'LL GET INTO. BUT ON THE SLIDE YOU CAN SAY ONGOING ZONING, CASE TWO, THAT'S TWO OF THREE THAT ARE GOING ON. UH, THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT THAT WE GOT AND IT SHOWS ALL VARIOUS UNITS AND IT SHOWS THE, UH, UH, TREE TREES AS, UH, TAKEN FROM A TREE SURVEY, WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO US ALSO. NEXT, HERE'S A SUMMARY. UH, THE CEOS AND PRCS WE'D LIKE TO SEE. AND SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN AGREED TO THE ADDITIONAL, WELL, NOT THIS ONE, I'LL START WITH WHAT HASN'T BEEN AGREED TO. ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER, LONG, PEACEFUL HILL LANE WITH A NEW MASONRY, SIX FOOT WALL ONLY, UH, STANDALONE UNITS PERMITTED ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE. CLEAR STORY LIGHTING ONLY ON SECOND STORY BUILDINGS ON WALLS FACING PEACEFUL LANE, WHICH IS FOR PRIVACY PURPOSES. AND A PRC LIMITING THE BEGINNING TRUCTURE HOURS TO 7:00 AM SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE GOING ON RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. NICE. UH, THIS IS, UH, THE, IN THE INSPIRATIONAL, UH, IT'S BEEN TAGGED INSPIRATIONAL BY THE, UH, DEVELOPER. UH, SO WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS GONNA LOOK LIKE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AREA FOR A SEVEN CAR OVERFLOW PARKING. SO SOMETHING'S GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE ABOUT THIS PLAN. NEXT, HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING TREES HERE. UH, THERE'S A LOT. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE DEVELOPER. THEY'VE MANAGED TO AVOID CRITICAL ROOT ZONES IN MOST CASES. THAT'S GREAT. WE'RE HAPPY WITH THAT. BUT YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A, A PLETHORA OF ASH TREES HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO WHY SOME OF THOSE ARE PROBLEMATIC. BUT, UH, THE HERITAGE TREES AND PROTECTED TREES HAVE ALL BEEN, UH, DEALT WITH. THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE ASH TREE THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN. WELL, I'LL GET INTO THAT NEXT SLIDE. UH, THIS IS THE EMERALD, UH, UH, UH, ASH BOER. UH, MARGARET'S GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS AND THE THREAT IT POSES TO ASH TREES. AND WE'LL JUST MOVE ON FOR NOW. THESE ARE ASH TREES THAT THE APPLICANT ALREADY PROPOSES TO CUT DOWN. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WANNA PRESERVE EVERY ASH TREE ON THIS LOT. THEY'RE CUTTING DOWN SIX EXISTING ASH TREES THAT FALL INTO THEIR, UH, DRAINAGE AREA. AND ONE THAT YOU SEE WITH A STAR WAS, UH, IS CUT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THAT GREEN BUILDING THERE. NEXT, UH, WHAT I'VE LISTED HERE ARE SIX ASH TREES AND AN UNKNOWN TREE THAT COULD BE ELIMINATED. UH, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, UH, MUCH GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THIS, UH, PROPOSED LAYOUT. UM, AS I SAID, WE'RE TRYING TO GET, UH, STANDALONE UNITS UP, UP ALONG, NOT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING. WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR STANDALONE UNITS UP ON THE FIRST FOUR BUILDINGS IN, UM, IN, IN, IN THE TRACT. RIGHT NOW. THERE'S TWO. WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT TO FOUR NEXT. UM, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, THERE WE GO. THIS IS SOMETHING I DID AND IT TOOK ME ABOUT TWO HOURS. AND I'M SURE SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S A BETTER ARCHITECT THAN I AM COULD DO MUCH BETTER. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, CAN YOU MOVE THIS TO THE OTHER SIDE PLEASE? THANK YOU. THIS IS A DESIGN THAT HAS FOUR STANDALONE UNITS UP FRONT. THIS IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE WANT. I DID THIS, I CUT AND PASTED. EVERYBODY'S GOT A BACKYARD, EVERYBODY'S GOT A DRIVEWAY, EVERYBODY'S GOT A REAR YARD. EVERYBODY'S GOT AN ENTRANCE TO THE REAR YARD. IT CAN BE WORKED OUT. THIS IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK ON IT, THEY CAN DO. A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WORK OUT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. THE REASON WE WANT EVERYTHING PUSHED BACK FROM PEACEFUL HILL LANE, UH, IS FOR VERY GOOD REASON. THAT'S NOT APPARENT IN THIS PLAN. THERE'S AN APPLICANT TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH OF THIS PLAN WHO HAS 43 ACRES. HE WANTS TO [00:40:01] ADD 1200 APARTMENT BUILDINGS, 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, OVER 43 ACRES THAT'S BUDDING RIGHT ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE. WE FEEL IF EVERY SQUARE INCH OF PEACEFUL HILL LANE IS NOT PROTECTED AGAINST SUCH DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE, UH, THAT THEY COULD VERY WELL BE GRANTED AND THEY WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF PEACEFUL HILL LANE. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID NEXT. I THINK THAT'S IT, RIGHT? OH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES HERE. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR DESIGN. NUMBER ONE, THERE'S NO ALLOWANCE FOR SEVEN, UH, OVERFLOW PARKING SPACES. NUMBER TWO, THEIR WALL RUNS THROUGH A CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IN ONE OF THE HERITAGE TREES. NEXT, UH, THIS REPRESENTS FIVE FOOT OF ADDITIONAL SETBACK. THAT IS A PUNY, MINUSCULE PART OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S EASILY DONE IF YOU HAVE THE WILL TO DO IT. IT'S FIVE FEET. IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE. NEXT, THIS IS A, AN ILLUSTRATION OF PART OF THE BUILDING FROM THEIR CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWS US A ONE STORY STRUCTURE. THOSE ARE ALSO POSSIBLE TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THIS TO MAKE IT MORE, UH, COMPATIBLE WITH PEACEFUL HILL LANE. AND FINALLY, THIS IS SHOWING, THIS IS THEIR CONCEPT PLAN, AND IT SHOWS CLEAR STORY WINDOWS FACING PEACEFUL HILL LANE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, BUT WE WANT TO GUARANTEE OF THAT. WE DON'T WANT JUST A PROMISE OF THAT, BUT CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING AN ARCHITECT CAN DO AND SHOULD DO. NEXT. IS THAT IT? SO IN SUMMARY, LET ME JUST TALK ABOUT OUR REQUESTED CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS. THE ADDITIONAL FIVE FOOT OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE WITH NEW MASONRY WALL ONLY, UH, STANDALONE UNITS PERMITTED ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE. AND AS YOU SAW, TWO OF THEM ARE ALREADY THERE. WE JUST WANT THE OTHER TWO TO BE THERE AS WELL. YOU, YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THESE AND I'LL CLOSE OUT MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. BE MS. VALE. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. CAN THANK YOU. MARGARET VALENTI AGAIN. HELLO. THANK YOU. UM, JOHN DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPRESSING OUR CONCERNS. IT'S REALLY LANDS ON HAVING THOSE STANDALONE UNITS ALONG, UM, PEACEFUL HILL LANE. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND MOVING BACK TO SLIDE FOUR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ANDREW. UM, SO THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, KNOWN TREES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT. AND, UM, MR. STOKES, UH, OVERLAID THOSE TREES ON THIS, UH, CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND HAS CALLED OUT ALL OF THE ASH TREES, UM, ASH TREES. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT. I CURRENTLY, I AM A CITY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE AND I WORK IN THE URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UM, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S TRUE, I'M NOT HERE TALKING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, I'M JUST HERE ON MY OWN ACCORD. AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, WE ARE AWARE OF THE PEST A DISEASE THAT'S COMING INTO CENTRAL TEXAS. THIS IS A MAP OF THE, UH, SPREAD OF THE EMERALD ASH BOARD DISEASE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ALREADY COMING INTO THE STATE OF TEXAS WHEN ASH TREES BECOME INFECTED WITH THIS PEST. IT WILL DECIMATE ALL OF THE TREES IN, UM, AUSTIN AND CENTRAL TEXAS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. UH, THIS IS AN INVASIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES. UH, I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE WORKS PLANS, UM, TO HAVE THE ASH TREE, ARIZONA ASH TREE REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF CITY TREES THAT REQUIRE MITIGATION BEES WHEN REMOVED. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S MOVING THROUGH THE, UM, CHAIN RIGHT NOW, AND I BELIEVE IS SET FOR, UM, A, A CHANGE TO THE CODE COME NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR. SO, REMOVAL OF ASH TREES, OTHER THAN THE EXPENSE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THE TREE BY, UH, BY A CERTIFIED AOR, UM, THERE WILL NOT BE ANY, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL NOT BE ANY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THESE TREES. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMOVE THESE TREES. THEY BECOME INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS IF THEY REMAIN STANDING. SO, UM, THIS IS WHAT, THIS IS WHY JOHN AND I, UM, HAVE SPENT SOME TIME LOOKING AT THIS DESIGN TO, UM, THINK ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD GET THOSE STANDALONE UNITS ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE. UM, AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, ANDREW, UM, MOVING TO SLIDE EIGHT, I JUST WANNA, UM, POINT OUT AGAIN THAT, UH, THE STANDALONE UNITS ARE THOSE PINK [00:45:01] STRUCTURES THAT ARE, UH, TO THE WEST OF THE PROJECT NEAR THE, UH, THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXITS OF THE PROJECT. SO IT'S JUST REMOVING ASH TREES, I BELIEVE SEVEN OR SIX ASH TREES, UH, COULD GET REMOVED, AND A SLIGHT REDESIGN OF THE PROJECT COULD ACCOMMODATE FOR TWO MORE STANDALONE UNITS ON PEACEFUL HILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, NOW I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. UH, VICTORIA HASI AGAIN. UM, SO ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WHY, UH, WE CANNOT GIVE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST TO HAVE ONLY STANDALONE UNITS, UM, SIMPLY COMES FROM A SPACE OF NEEDING THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY. THE PLAN THAT YOU SAW IN FRONT OF YOU IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. IT'S NOT A PLAN THAT'S BEEN LOOKED AT BY A, AN ENGINEER. IT'S NOT A PLAN THAT'S TAKEN IN ALL THESE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIRES IN A SITE PLAN INTO CONSIDERATION. SO WE NEED TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY. AS I TOLD THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN OUR COMMUNICATIONS, THE LANDOWNER IS NOT, NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO TRYING TO MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST TO HAVE STANDALONE UNITS ALONG PEACEFUL HILL, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT, UM, THEY CANNOT REQUIRE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE PROVIDING, OR WE ARE AGREEING THROUGH PRIVATE AGREEMENT, THAT WE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL PARKING, UH, ABOVE WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS. SO WE NEED TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE AS WE MOVE INTO A SITE PLANNING PHASE. AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GIVE THEM CERTAINTY THAT YES, THE ONLY UNITS ALONG PEACEFUL HILL WILL BE STANDALONE. BUT I HAVE TO SAY, I DO QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE WHY IT MATTERS THAT THOSE UNITS ALONG PEACEFUL HILL ARE STANDALONE BECAUSE FROM THE STREET, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK THE SAME WHETHER THEY WERE BY THEMSELVES OR ATTACHED TO ANOTHER UNIT. AND ESPECIALLY BEHIND A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL AND TREE CANOPY THAT IS INTENDED TO NOT, THAT IS INTENDED TO BUFFER ANY VISUAL, UM, UH, SIGHT LINES ACROSS THE STREET. SO I I, I'M NOT SURE WHY, WHY THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE STANDALONE UNITS FROM THAT SENSE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS SAID THAT THEY WILL TRY TO ACCOMMODATE, BUT THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY. UM, ALSO REGARDING THE 25 FOOT STEP BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S A MATTER OF NEEDING TO BE AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE. UM, AS WITH REGARDS TO THE ASH TREES, UNTIL CODE PROVISION IS PASSED, THAT, THAT GIVES OUR CLIENT AND LANDOWNER CERTAINTY THAT THERE WON'T BE MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR REMOVAL OF ASH TREES. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN COMMIT TO AT THIS POINT IN TIME. UM, BUT ALL OF THAT SAID, THEY ARE AGREEING TO PLANT MORE TREES ALONG PEACEFUL HILL THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY CODE. UM, THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO THE MASONRY WALL. THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO TRY TO FLEX, TRY TO ACCOMMODATE STANDALONE UNITS IF IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO AGREE TO ON A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. UM, THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY AGREED TO QUITE A FEW THINGS SUCH AS THE MASONRY WALL. UM, WE'VE AGREED TO, WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU. SHARE. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, DO I SEE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO, MOVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. IS THERE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? I, I'M GONNA GO FIRST BECAUSE I JUST, I'M UP HERE BY MYSELF AND I HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS AND SO I'M JUST GONNA GET IT OUT. UM, 25 FOOT STEP BACK IS STANDARD. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S SOME, IT'S JUST THE WIG. YOU LOOK DOWN THE STREET, IT HELPS WITH SIGHT LINES. IT'S STANDARD. SO I, I JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT WE WOULD COMPROMISE ON FIVE, AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET. THAT'S, I'M AL I'M FIVE FEET TALL. THAT WOULD BE LIKE A CO A COUCH WITH ME PUTTING MY FEET OUT. THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL. I LIVE IN A 900 SQUARE FOOT HOME. FIVE FEET IS A LOT. OKAY. SO THERE'S THAT. YOU CANNOT SAY YOU WANT SEPARATE BUILDINGS, BUT YOU DON'T WANNA CUT DOWN THE TREES THAT YOU, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THE BUILDINGS TOGETHER, IS THAT YOU'RE SAVING GREEN SPACE. SO YOU CAN'T ASK FOR TWO THINGS AT ONCE. UM, BUT THEN IT'S OKAY TO CUT DOWN SOME [00:50:01] TREES, BUT NOT OTHER TREES. UM, WHAT ELSE? UM, THE, YEAH, I THINK THE WINDOW, THIS IS AN AESTHETIC THING. I, I THINK A LOT OF THESE THINGS SHOULD BE WORKED OUT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU GET HERE. I JUST, I'M, UM, THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS, ALL THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT, AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR 10% MORE PARKING ON TOP OF IT. I JUST, I'M, I'M, IT'S JUST, I'VE NEVER, UH, UM, OKAY. SO THAT, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS THAT YOU'RE, YOU CAN'T ASK FOR MORE PARKING, PROTECT THE TREES, PUSH EVERYTHING BACK. YOU'RE JUST CONSTRAINING THEM INTO THIS LITTLE THING. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT NORTH OF THERE YOU'RE VERY CONCERNED. IT'S A LOT OF PROPERTY THAT IS, IS RIGHT FOR DEVELOPMENT. UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND. I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THE 25 FOOT STEP SETBACK. I MEAN, I THINK WHO NEEDS A WALL? IF IT'S GONNA MAKE YOU GO INTO THE ROOT ZONE OF A HERITAGE TREE, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE A WALL. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME WHETHER OR NOT THE PEOPLE CAN SEE THE STREET. I WANT PEOPLE TO SEE THE HOMES THAT ARE THERE. UM, SO, UH, I'M SORRY IF I'M RAMBLING, BUT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHTS THAT I DON'T CARE IF IT'S SEPARATED OR NOT. I DON'T CARE. I PREFER TO BE A 25 FOOT STEP BACK CUZ THAT'S THE STANDARD. UM, I SAY PROTECT THE TREES AT ALL COSTS, CUZ THAT'S, WE'RE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND, UM, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WINDOWS EITHER. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? UM, COMMISSIONER KING AND THEN COMMISSIONER BOONE. WELL, THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, UH, I AGREE WITH MANY OF YOUR SENTIMENTS THERE, CHAIR. UH, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROTECT THE TREES. YOU KNOW, I, I'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE CALLING THESE ARIZONA ASH TREES. IS THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YOU KNOW, I HAD ONE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ONE AROUND OUR HOME HERE AND IT FINALLY DIED IT FIND, BUT IT WAS A MAGNIFICENT TREE AND IT PROVIDED GOOD SHADE AND IT'S PART OF IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CANOPY HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I SHARE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT JUST CUTTING DOWN THE TREES AND ALSO THE 10% ADDITIONAL PARKING. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO, I WANNA MAKE SURE THOUGH, THAT WE DO HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING ON SITE HERE. SO NOW I GETTING INTO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PARKING AND ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT'S UNDERWAY OR ABOUT TO GET UNDERWAY ON THAT STREET, AND I JUST SAW IT, I HAVE THIS, I GUESS A QUESTION FOR, UH, TRANSPORTATION STAFF ABOUT THAT, ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN HAS, WAS IT DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE UNDERWAY OR ABOUT TO GET UNDERWAY? HI, UH, THIS IS JUSTIN. GOOD. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. YES. HI, UH, THIS IS JUSTIN GOOD WITH THE CHAIR COMMISSION. JUST A MINUTE. UH, MR. GOOD. IF YOU CAN, UM, TURN ON YOUR CAMERA PLEASE. YEAH, SURE. OKAY, SURE. AND, AND MR. GOOD, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG PEACEFUL HILL THERE, THAT, THAT ROAD. YEAH. UM, THANK YOU. SO YOU MEAN THE ONE JUST NORTH OF THE ZONING CASE IN QUESTION, RIGHT, RIGHT. ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT ROAD. YES. UM, SO THE TIA THAT WE PERFORMED FOR THAT ZONING CASE, UM, DID NOT TAKE THE ZONING CASES ALONG PEACEFUL HILL ROAD, THE OTHER ONE'S INTO ACCOUNT. UM, SOLELY BECAUSE FOR A PROJECT TO QUALIFY AS A BACKGROUND PROJECT, UM, IT HAS TO BE WITH AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN SOMETHING CAN BE, UH, BACKGROUND PROJECT FOR A T. OKAY. WELL, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION AND I KNOW THE COMMUNITY HAS A, UH, YOU KNOW, A BALLET QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES FINALLY, UH, COME TO FRUITION AND FOLKS WHO ARE LIVING IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS, HOW WILL THAT IMPACT THIS, THIS ROAD? IT LOOKS LIKE A SUBSTANDARD ROAD HERE. PEACEFUL HILL. MM-HMM. PEACEFUL. YEAH. YEAH. UM, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THE KIND OF ZONING CASE IN QUESTION, UM, WAS UNDER THE ANALYSIS THRESHOLD MM-HMM. , UM, WHICH IS WHY, UH, TIA, NORA AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING CASE TO THE NORTH. LIKE I SAID, A TIA WAS PERFORMED, UM, THAT INCLUDED AN NTA WITH IT. AND, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE, THE MEMO FOR THAT ONE. OKAY. WELL, IT, IT, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE TH THIS DEVELOPMENT, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN, YOU KNOW, PUT INTO THE MIX YET. UH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG OR HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THE DEVELOP THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS NOW BEEN FACTORED INTO, UH, THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG PEACEFUL HILL LANE HERE. YEAH, SO LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE THE ONE TIA THAT WE HAVE THAT'S TAKING ACCESS TO PEACEFUL HILL LANE [00:55:01] ONLY LOOKS AT APPROVED SITE PLANS IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND PROJECTS, UM, IT WASN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. UM, AND THEN THE SUBJECT TRACKED, UM, DID NOT TRIGGER AN NTA OR A TIA. UM, SO, OKAY. UH, SO THE, THE, I QUESTION ABOUT, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THE, THE PARKING QUESTION TOO. YOU KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT ON SITE PARKING SO THAT IT, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T IMAGINE PARKING ON PEACEFUL HILL LANE THERE. SO CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, HOW THE PARKING, UH, WILL BE ADDRESSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? I SAW AMBER POPPED ON, I'LL DEFER TO HER. SHE'S MORE THE, UH, SITE PLAN REVIEW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUSTIN. MR. GOOD, THANK YOU. HI, AMBER HUTCHINS WITH THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. SO WHEN YOU MEET YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, THROUGH TANDEM PARKING, LIKE THEY LOOK TO BE PROPOSING, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, SO IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE 10% OF UNRES RESERVED PARKING SOMEWHERE ELSE ON SITE, SO OKAY. VISITORS CAN COME AND, AND PARK EASILY, SO, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE ADDITIONAL 10% IS, SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ALREADY REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. SO, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION AND, AND ALSO, UH, THAT PARKING WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON PEACE HILL LANE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT YOU COULDN'T PARK YOUR CAR ON PEACE HILL LANE AND BE A RESIDENT OF THIS OR A VISITOR TO THIS SIDE? I DON'T, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STREET TO SEE IF THERE'S A SIGNAGE ON IT FOR NO PARKING. RIGHT NOW, MY GUESS IS THE PAVEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S SUBSTANDARD, MIGHT BE THIN ENOUGH THAT THAT'S THE CASE. OKAY. UM, IF THE ROADWAY EVER IMPROVED ON STREET PARKING MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY. OKAY. UH, THEN YOU GOT, YOU GOT WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT AND I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I HOPE THAT THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AND BE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH. SO, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SORRY. OH, YOUR, YOUR NEXT MIS UH, COMMISSIONER BOONE. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. BOONE WAS NEXT. YES, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER BOONE. I'M SORRY. OH, SURE. THANK YOU. UM, I GUESS IN IN GENERAL, I, I WOULD ECHO A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN STATE BY THE COMMISSIONERS ALREADY. UM, I WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY THE, THE WRITTEN REQUEST HERE FOR THE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY SAYS ONLY SINGLE STORY UNITS. WELL, VERBALLY THE STATED THAT THE RE UNIT, UM, I THINK FOR ME THE POINT IS KIND OF MO I WOULDN'T WANT TO AGREE THE OTHER ONE OF THOSE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE DISCREPANCY IN THE, UM, IN THE STATEMENT THERE. UM, AT THE RISK OF CONTINUING OUR REPUTATION OF BEING THE SHADOW TRANSPORTATION BOARD HERE, I, I'D WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS KIND OF RUNS THE FOUL OF ONE OF OUR PET ISSUES, UM, OF KIND OF HAVING TWO EXITS THAT ARE REALLY JUST ONE EXIT AND NOTE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UM, HAS A STREET THAT GOES UP TO THE PROPERTY, UH, LINE, I GUESS THAT'S, UH, VIRTU BOULEVARD. AND THEN ALSO BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AROUND FOREMOST DRIVE, THERE PROBABLY BE ANOTHER, UM, ADJACENT, UH, ROADWAY. AND SO YOU, WE THINK OF CONNECTIVITY, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR CARS OR FOR PEOPLE OR RIDE OR WHATEVER, JUST KIND OF WANT A NOTE THAT THIS IS A, A CHANCE TO AVOID A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. IF I CONJUGATE THAT CORRECTLY. UM, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPERS TO CONSIDER THAT. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, OTHER THAN MAKING THE ADDITION OF CLEAR STORY WINDOWS HERE TO, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT FURTHERS INTEGRATION THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEEMS LIKE IT GAVE ME OUTTA DIRECTION. UM, AND SO ECHO THE COMMENTS ALREADY STATED ON THOSE NOTES, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSION. YES. UH, VICE CHAIR KOBASA IN MIND. YEP. OKAY. I, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, THE ROAD TOO BECAUSE I NOTICED IN THE RALPH BLEANO CASE, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE BY, THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD ROADS. AND IT MAY HAVE EVEN SAID IT IN THIS CASE THEY'RE, CUZ THEY'RE BOTH INCLUDING THE SAME ROADS. BUT I WAS ALSO, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND THAT WE'RE AGAIN, GETTING AHEAD OF UPDATING INFRASTRUCTURE AND I REALIZE THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, BUT THAT JUST DOES SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM. BUT I LOOKED AT THE OTHER CEOS FOR THE ADJACENT PRO, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UM, WENDY FOR APPOINTING ME IN THE DIRECTION OF THOSE. AND THE COS WERE FOR APPROXIMATELY LIKE 10 UNITS PER ACRE ESSENTIALLY TO LIMIT, UM, FOR THIS SF SIX. THAT'S AJA THAT'S NEARBY AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE VERDO ONE. I'M NOT POSITIVE. AND SO I WAS HO I WAS THINKING THAT THE, IT WOULD THEN, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THERE'S SF SIX THERE, THEN YOU SHOULD POINT OUT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SF SIX CO AND THAT WOULD BE A MORE COMPARABLE, UM, AND APPROPRIATE ZONING [01:00:01] THERE. AND THE CO FOR THE SF FOUR IS TO HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF ONE STORY FOR OUR HOMES ADJACENT TO VILLE, PEACEFUL HILL STREET OR ROAD. AND I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE TOO, IS TO HAVE A CO DALE LIMIT THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND UM, AND THOSE WOULD ALSO SOLVE PROBLEMS OF SAVING TREES. AND IT WOULD BE ALSO AN EASIER FIT OF OVERFLOW PARKING CUZ I NOTICED IN THE INSPIRATIONAL DESIGNS THAT IT DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THE OVERFLOW PARKING WOULD GO. SO THOSE ARE JUST MY CONCERNS AND SO I'M INCLINED NOT TO SUPPORT THIS UNLESS WE HAVE UM, SOME COS IN PLACE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER COSTA? SO I ASKED THE QUESTION WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING, UH, POSTPONEMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS WOULD FALL UNDER ZONING BECAUSE IT IS THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD OR THIS COMMISSION TO SEE IF ZONING IS APPROPRIATE. AND I STILL SAY THE ANSWER FOR THAT IS THAT YES, S OF SIX, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THERE WASN'T S OF SIX IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS ONE, IT'S WITHIN HALF A MILE OF A REGIONAL CENTER. THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR S OF SIX ARE THE SAME AS THE SF TWO AND THE SN, THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ROUNDED THAT. RIGHT? REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S ONE STORY OR TWO, IT'S 35 FEET HIGH MAXIMUMS ON, ON ALL SIDES. SO I THINK THAT WE ARE SEEING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A KIND OF DENSITY THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITH WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED. AND I THINK THAT THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR CONCERN, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE AESTHETICS IS NOT AS, YOU KNOW, CAN BE WORKED OUT LATER OR NOT, BUT LIKE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TYPE OF ZONING FOR THE AREA, I THINK IS THE MAIN QUESTION. AND I THINK IT IS. AND YEAH, I JUST FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE QUESTION OR SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE MOSTLY AROUND LIKE WHETHER NEIGHBORS CAN SEE INTO BACKYARDS AND I THINK THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY, UH, IT'S A VALID CONCERN FOR PROPERTY OWNER, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AS A BOARD, DO WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY? I THINK, YOU KNOW, WEIGHING THE TWO, I THINK WE, I THINK S OF SIX IS AN APPROPRIATE THING OR AN APPROPRIATE ZONE AND THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT CAN BE PLACED IN THE AREA FITS THAT. AND ADDITIONALLY THIS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE MEETING WITH THE RESIDENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. THEY ARE ADDING A WALL, THEY ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING AND I THINK THAT THOSE ARE SHOW GOOD FAITH THAT THEY WANNA WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS THOMPSON OR WOODY, ANYTHING? I GUESS LET'S SAY IT, IT WON'T CHANGE MY VOTE AND I'M CURIOUS WHY THE PREFERENCE FOR THE FREESTANDING UNITS ALONG THE FRONT OF THE STREET. I I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT REQUEST, SO COULD I ASK THAT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION? PEACEFUL HILL FOLK. HI JOHN STOKES AGAIN. UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAINTAIN A SINGLE UNIT LOOK SO THAT THE NEXT DEVELOPER COMING DOWN THE LINE, WHICH IS HAVING THIS MASSIVE GARINE PROJECT CANNOT POINT TO THE MULTIPLE, I'M GONNA CALL IT MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY MF THREE, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE UNITS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE FAMILIES IN THEM. AND WE THINK THAT IF THERE'S A VISUAL BUFFER OF SINGLE UNIT, SINGLE UNITS AT THE FRONT OF THAT, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT REALLY HARD FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPER TO COME ALONG AND SAY, I WANNA PUT A FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT. I KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE MAY SEEM LIKE A TRIVIAL POINT, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF WENDY AND THEN I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER WOODY MIGHT HAVE HAD A COMMENT OR QUESTION. OH, I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. OH, GEEZ. YES. HELLO. WENDY, IF, DO THEY, DO THEY HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE IF THEY ARE S F SIX AND THEY, THEY'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING? UH, LET, LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE PARKLAND COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED HERE. SO YES, PARKLAND DEDICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND IT LOOKS LIKE AT THIS TIME, UM, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE MET WITH EITHER FEES IN LIE OR DEDICATED LAND. OKAY. OKAY. THANKS [01:05:01] TARA. CAN I JUST MAKE A FOLLOW UP COMMENT ON MY QUESTION? UM, WELL WOODY WAS NEXT AND THEN YOU CAN GO OH, OKAY. OF COURSE. YES. UH, GO FOR IT. I'M STILL TRYING TO FIND ONE THING REALLY QUICK. OKAY, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. OH, OKAY, GREAT. WELL I, IT'S UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK THIS KIND OF PREFERENCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A, IS THE KIND OF THING THAT APPEARS IN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T HAVE, DOESN'T HAVE THAT. AND SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. MM-HMM. . CAUSE I THINK THAT THEY, OUR AT A VISIT THE DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE OF THAT, TRYING TO THINK MORE COMPREHENSIVELY. RIGHT. I I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND IT'S ABOUT, UM, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK CONFRONTING YOUR PROPERTY. THAT IS CORRECT, YES. OKAY. AND SO, UM, THE, THE AS S P I SAW THAT THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SEE IT'S LIKE SEVEN FEET OR SOMETHING. SO YOU WOULD BE MAKING THE ROAD WIDER TO COMING. UM, I'M NOT, IT'S UP TO A D WHETHER THEY WANNA MAKE THE ROAD WIDER, BUT WE, THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO DEDICATE SOME OF THE LAND, THE FRONTAGE ALONG PEACEFUL HILL TOWARDS RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN ATD WILL DECIDE WHAT THEY DO WITH IT, WHETHER THEY EXPAND THE ROADWAY OR IF THAT ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY BECOMES SPACE FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTECTED BIKE LANES OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT, UM, WE WILL, ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEDICATE SOME RIGHT AWAY. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THAT'S JUST GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF PEACEFUL HILL AND THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. SO, OKAY. I GU I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS IT, WILL IT BE ROAD OR WILL IT JUST BE LIKE A GRASSY UNDONE SPACE? LIKE YOU'LL HAVE YOUR CURB AND GUTTER AND YOUR SIDEWALK AND THEN THERE'LL BE THAT EXTRA RIGHT. ALL OF THAT WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. IT OKAY. IT'S REALLY WHAT THE, WHAT ATD TELLS US HAS TO BE DONE. MM-HMM. . YEAH. OKAY. CAN WE SHARE WOODY? YES. UM, DOES ANYONE KNOW, UM, ANYTHING ABOUT THE, THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS THAT ARE COMING IN? UM, CUZ I'M LOOKING AT THE ROADS FOR PEACEFUL HILL, UH, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY WOULD BE, UH, EXITING IF THIS IS NORTH. THEY'D BE GOING MORE TOWARDS DIMAR VERSUS GOING SOUTH, UH, ALL THE WAY SOUTH, ALL THE WAY TO WHAT RALPH? CUZ THAT'S A, THAT'S A LONG DRIVE, RIGHT? SO I'M ASSUMING THEY WOULDN'T BE ON THAT MUCH OF PEACEFUL HILL, IS MY THINKING. AND UM, AND ALSO I, YEAH, IT'S, IT IS TOUGH, TOUGH ON THIS ONE TO NOT GO WITH IT CUZ CONGRESS IS A BIG AVENUE FOR TONS OF BUSINESSES AND THERE'S HEB AND IT'S JUST LIKE, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. . BUT DOES ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE APARTMENTS COMING IN? UH, YES, THAT IS A ZONING CASE THAT WILL LIKELY, UH, COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION LATER THIS YEAR. UM, AND IT INVOLVES 41 ACRES OF PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ON PEACEFUL HILL AS WELL AS DMAR AND CONGRESS. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WON'T BE TAKING ACCESS TO DMAR, BUT ACCESS TO PEACEFUL HILL AND CONGRESS ARE PROPOSED AND IT, AND THAT'S, UH, IT, I, I HAVEN'T, THE CASE IS STILL UNDER REVIEW AT THIS TIME, INCLUDING WITH ATD. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY, OH, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER KING. AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN PUT A MOTION TOGETHER. YOU, I JUST WANNA JUST FOLLOW UP ON A EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT CONNECTIVITY HERE AND JUST MAYBE THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF CAN JUST CONFIRM THE EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT THE, THE EXTENSION OF FOREMOST THROUGH, THROUGH THIS SITE HERE AND OVER TO PEACEFUL HILL LANE. WILL THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE FACILITATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT IN SOME WAY? SEE, I ADJUST GET HERE WITH, UH, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGAIN, UM, THE EXTENSION OF FOREMOST THROUGH THAT PROPERTY, IT'S NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE A, S AND P AS AN EXTENSION. UM, BUT WE DID REVIEW IT AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANT, UM, WHO IS DEVELOPING THAT TRACK. UM, SO IT WASN'T KIND OF A REQUEST FROM US TO EXTEND IT FOREMOST, IT WAS MORE THEY OFFERED THAT AND WE REVIEWED IT AS SUCH. OKAY. AND SO I JUST WANNA, I WANNA UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS, HOW IT'S GOING TO, IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THIS IS DONE, THE ONLY ACCESS IS GONNA BE TO PEACEFUL HILL LANE. NO. WILL THERE BE ANY ACCESS TO VERTI, I GUESS BEND OR VIVID SKY LANE? UM, UH, ALL I HAVE IS WHAT THE APPLICANT [01:10:01] SHOWED, WHICH LOOKED LIKE KIND OF A, A KIND OF A U-SHAPED, UM, ROUTE, JUST SELF-CONTAINED IN THEIR PROPERTY. OKAY. SO, UM, THE, THERE IS, LIKE I SAID, BASED ON THE AS AND P, THERE'S NO CONNECTIVITY NEEDS TO THAT, UM, YEAH. VIVID SKY OR VERTI. OKAY. UM, WELL, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE JUST EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT AND THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST HAVING A COUPLE OF WAYS IN AND NOW THERE'S BE VERY IMPORTANT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR HELP. THANK YOU. OKAY. OF COURSE, UH, THIS, JUST AS, AS INFORMATION, THIS TRACK ONLY HAS ACCESS TO PEACEFUL HILL, UH, LANE. SO IT, IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS ANY EXTENSION TO FOREMOST MM-HMM. . AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. THROWER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT HE'S GONNA TELL ME WHAT IT IS. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE DID LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN FOR THAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THAT'S TO THE, UH, EAST AND TO THE SOUTH. AND, AND THEY, THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SORT OF ACCESS EASEMENTS INTERNAL TO THAT PROPERTY. AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DRIVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SOMEDAY FOLKS WOULD, COULD COME OUT AND TURN ON TO FOREMOST AND GET TO AGB OR WHATEVER. UM, OKAY. ANYONE, IT SOUNDED LIKE VICE CHAIR KOBASA HAD SOME IDEAS. YOU WANNA PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER? YEAH, I WOULD JUST VOTE ON A, I WOULD OR I WOULD, UM, PROPOSE AS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF, UM, APPROXIMATELY 10 UNITS PER OF, OF 10 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE OTHER PROPERTY HAS. AND THE MOTION WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF ONE STORY BUILDINGS ALONG PEACEFUL HILL ROAD. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THOSE TWO COS. AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND, AND IF NOT, IT DOESN'T FLY. OKAY. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S A SECOND. DOES ANY, DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA GIVE IT, GIVE IT A WHIRL CHAIR. YES, CHAIR. MAY I JUST POINT OUT? I, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION ABOUT ONE STORY, BUT THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS 35 FEET ON THIS SIDE. THEY CAN'T GO ABOVE 35 FEET. AND I CAN TELL YOU IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD 35 FEET ONE STORY LOOKS LIKE TWO STORIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT'S STILL ONE STORY. SO I I THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS WHERE I'M KIND OF HAVING A LITTLE ISSUE THERE. THANK YOU. AND I'M HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THE 10 UNITS CUZ 2.7, THAT'S ONLY 27 UNITS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DO 33. SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LIMITING, UM, THAT, SO COMMISSIONER BOONE, I, I WOULD SET BACK RECOMMENDATION. OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER A COSTA. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? UH, TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OKAY, THAT LOOKS LIKE SIX OF US. AND THEN ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OH SEVEN ALL OF US. OKAY. THAT WAS UNANIMOUS THEN. AND ANY ABSTENTIONS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM [3. Rezoning: C14-2021-0003 - South Lakeline Residential-Mixed Use; District 6 (part 3 of 3)] NUMBER THREE. BACK TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THANK YOU CHAIR. AND WE WERE AT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. OH, GOOD EVENING AGAIN, VICTORIA HASSEY ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. UM, SO THIS, UH, MAP IN FRONT OF YOU, THE SUBJECT TRACK IS IN BLUE AND THE PINK BRIGHT PINK LINE IS THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN. UM, THE SITE IS ABOUT A HALF MILE FROM, UH, THE REGIONAL IMAGINE AUSTIN REGIONAL CENTER RIGHT THERE AT, UM, AND ABOUT A HALF MILE FROM EXISTING BUS SERVICE AS WELL. IT'S ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF FROM THE LAKE LAKELINE STATION TRANSIT HUB, WHICH IS MORE ALONG THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS TRACK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR A REZONING OF IS THE LR TRACT IN RED. AND, UM, RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND THAT IS THE PRIMARY GAIN, UM, TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE REZONING. UM, BUT IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT ONE TRACK WITHOUT ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER THAT'S IN THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK JURISDICTION. SO I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT, UM, IN THIS PRESENTATION. BUT, UM, ONE OF THE BENEFITS TO REZONING THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACK WILL THEN [01:15:01] BE ABLE TO ABSORB A LITTLE MORE DENSITY AND TAKE SOME OF THAT DENSITY OFF OF THE MOST NORTHERN PIECE OF THE CEDAR PARK TRACT, WHICH IS AGAINST, UH, ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. NEXT SLIDE. SO WE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE, WE TOOK OVER THIS CASE AND STARTED WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN JANUARY OR HAVING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN JANUARY. AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT THESE TWO TRACKS OF LAND HAD, UM, HAD A, A LARGE HOMELESS CAMP WITHIN THE TREES AND IT CAUSED, UH, SAFETY CONCERNS BECAUSE THERE WAS A BIG FIRE THAT BROKE OUT ONE DAY. SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN PRIOR TO REALLY TALKING ABOUT THESE PROPOSED PLANS. BUT OVER TIME WE, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE TALKED ABOUT VARIOUS PLANS TO TRY TO FIND THE BEST PLAN. THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER EXISTING ZONING. UM, UNDER EXISTING ZONING, THE CEDAR PARK TRACT ALLOWS FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS ONLY TOWNHOUSE UNITS, AND THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS HAVE TO BE, UM, IN COMBAT IN CL UH, CLUSTERS OF AT LEAST THREE AND UP TO NO MORE THAN SIX PER BUILDING. SO YOU SEE THAT LAYOUT. UM, BUT ALSO THE BIGGEST PIECE OF A DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING ZONING IS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC STREET TO BE DEDICATED AND CONSTRUCTED, UM, FOR THE TOWNHOUSES TO ACCESS, WHICH WOULD THEN NATURALLY ALSO GIVE ACCESS INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACT HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME FLOOD PLAIN THAT, UH, ALIGNS WITH THAT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND SO ACCESS, TYPICALLY ATD WOULD SAY THAT ACCESS WOULD NEED TO COME, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. OR I GUESS IT WOULDN'T BE ATD, IT WOULD BE THE, UM, WATERSHED, OTHER DEPARTMENTS AT THE CITY WATERSHED. THANK YOU. UM, BUT ATD WOULDN'T ALLOW ACCESS SO CLOSE TO WEST RIVIERA. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME CONSTRAINTS THAT IF WE WERE TO DEVELOP UNDER EXISTING ZONING WOULD WOULD MAKE IT SUCH THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACK WOULD THEN TAKE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC STREET ON THE CEDAR PARK TRACK, WHICH WOULD THEN PUSH ALL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC TO WEST RIVIERA. THAT IS A MAJOR CONCERN THAT WE HEARD THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD. SO OUR CHARGE WAS FINDING A PLAN THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THAT CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALLOW THIS, THESE TWO TRACKS TO BE DEVELOPED A LITTLE MORE COHESIVELY. NEXT SLIDE. SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE ARE ASKING FOR A REZONING OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACK. THE GR IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD ALLOW A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE, UH, USES, MU WILL ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO MOVED FORWARD WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WILL PROHIBIT VARIOUS USES. YOU SEE THERE, UM, A LOT OF THOSE USES ARE USES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXPRESSLY, UM, STATED THEY DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW ON THIS TRACK WITH THE PREVIOUS AGENT AND LANDOWNER. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS PLAN TWO A. UM, THIS PLAN, ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME IN TERMS OF PROPOSED USE IN BUILDING ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN SIDE, BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT, UM, HAS SOME CHANGES ON THE CEDAR PARK TRACT SUCH THAT THERE IS SOME, UH, DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE UNITS FURTHEST NORTH ARE NOW INDIVIDUAL STANDALONE UNITS. THEY'RE NOT ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS. UM, AND WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT ALLOWS FOR, UH, THE LOWER HALF OF THE CEDAR PARK TRACK TO THEN ACCOMMODATE SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. SO IT CREATES A TRANSITION WHICH THIS AREA DOESN'T CURRENTLY, UH, HAVE. AND WITH THAT, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOPEFULLY, UM, WE CAN COME TO AGREEMENTS, THE IDEAS THAT WE WOULD THEN TAKE ACCESS TO THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A, AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON, UH, LAKELINE BOULEVARD AND THE ACCESS THAT YOU SEE ALONG WEST RIVIERA, WHERE WEST RIVI WOULD BE FOR EMERGENCY USES ONLY. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE FINAL PLAN, VERSION TWO B. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO A AND TWO B IS THAT, UM, TWO TWO A UH, I BELIEVE HAD THREE STORIES ABOVE PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, OF CEDAR PARK. TWO B HAS TWO STORIES ABOVE PARKING. SO A FLOOR IS LOST, UM, ON THE CEDAR PARK TRACK, BUT IT GAINS A LITTLE BIT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE RIGHT ALONG THE CORNER OF WEST RIVIERA. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE [01:20:01] RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHAIR. WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, BEGINNING WITH MR. TREY ES MRES, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS. HELLO, MY NAME IS TREY ES AND I'M THE PRIMARY SPEAKER FOR THE RIVIERA SPRINGS RESIDENCE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS ZONING CHANGE. I LIVE IN ONE OF THE HOUSES THAT BACKS UP TO THIS PROPERTY AND I'M VERY INVESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF B ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, AND THERE ARE A FEW THAT WERE UNAVAILABLE BUT WANTED TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION. ALONGSIDE ME THERE ARE KATHERINE COPE, CAROL DAVIES, SHIRLEY ATWORTH, SHIRLEY ASHWORTH, CYNTHIA BRA, DEBORAH LOCHE, PAUL AND EZ, ALL FROM AERA SPRINGS. PLEASE NOTE THEIR OPPOSITION IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU HEAR TONIGHT. MY OVERARCHING POINT IS THAT, UH, THE LR ZONING ALREADY PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE, FAIR, AND ONE THAT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE IS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE DESIRES OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTS AND THE DESIRES OF THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER. THE START, THE GR M UCO ZONING BEING REQUESTED IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE FOR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS. ONE IS THAT THE DR ZONING GENERALLY REQUIRES ACCESS TO A MAJOR ROADWAY. I DON'T THINK THE SITE, THIS SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE, UH, ACCESS FROM LAKELAND BOULEVARD, THE MAJOR ROADWAY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE THAT EXISTS ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE PREVENTS ACCESS AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. THIS MEANS ANY DEVELOPMENT AS THINGS STAND AGAIN, WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACCESS FROM WEST RIVI OR DRIVE. THIS IS A SMALL SEMI HIDDEN RESIDENTIAL STREET THAT IS ALREADY DANGEROUS AND OVERBURDENED. ANY ADDITIONAL STRAIN ON WEST RIVIERA DRIVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY IN THE PROBLEMS THAT THIS STREET WOULD ONLY INCREASE WITH THE LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING. TO MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, AS THEY PRESENTED THE DEVELOPERS' PROPOSED WAY TO GET AROUND THIS AND TO ACCESS LAKELAND BOULEVARD IS THROUGH THE CONCEPT OF BUFFER AVERAGING. THEY WANT TO CUT THROUGH THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND REPLACE THE SECTION THAT THEY CUT OUT WITH A SECTION OF EQUAL SIZE IN CEDAR PARK. I URGE THE COMMISSION TO PLEASE LOOK AT THIS ASPECT OF THE PROPOSAL CAREFULLY. TO MY EYE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NATURAL CURVE OF THE WATER QUALITY ZONE WOULD ALREADY PUT IT WELL INTO THE CEDAR PARK PORTION OF THIS TRACK. IF THEY WERE TO ALLOW, IF THEY WERE TO FOLLOW THE AUSTIN STANDARD, IF THAT'S THE CASE, TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENTS THEY'RE SEEKING WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AS IT'S MEANT TO EXIST IN MULTIPLE WAYS. EVEN IF ON PAPER IT MIGHT INCORRECTLY APPEAR TO BE EQUAL OR LIKE A FAIR EXCHANGE. I KNOW AUSTIN HAS NO, UH, CONTROL OVER WHAT CEDAR PARK DOES OR DOESN'T DO TO PROTECT THEIR WATERWAYS. BUT IF THIS IS DETERMINED INTO A COORDINATED EFFORT BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES THAN THE STANDARDS FROM AUSTIN SHOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY AND FROM THE BEGINNING AS THEY ARE THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ONES HERE, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE HEALTH OF THE WATERWAY WHERE AUSTIN ENDS SINCE CEDAR PARK BEGINS. AND SO IF AUSTIN IS SINCERE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PROTECT IT, THE BUFFER AVERAGING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THIS CASE. UH, THE NEW PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST IS GEARED TOWARDS DEVELOPING A VIEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SIDE COULD AGAIN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC BURDEN ON AN ALREADY UNIQUELY AND ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL STREET. IT WOULD ALLOW ALSO FOR EVEN MORE RESIDENTS ON A PIECE OF LAND ALREADY DEEMED PARKLAND DEFICIENT FOR THE AUSTIN GIS MAT. ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS WOULD ONLY SERVE TO INCREASE THAT STRAIN. TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE CURRENT ZONING OF L R MEANWHILE IS ALREADY COMPLETELY FAIR TO THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT OWNER IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. THEY WERE AWARE OR HAD THE CHANCE TO MAKE THEMSELVES AWARE OF ALL OF THE LEGITIMATE CONSTRAINTS PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE CURRENT ZONING OF EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL. THERE'S NO COMPELLING REASON THEN FOR THE CITY TO ADJUST THE ZONING OUT OF A SENSE THAT THEY ARE OTHERWISE BEING OVERLY RESTRICTED TOWARDS SOMEONE WHO PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO OWN THIS PIECE OF LAND. THESE CONSTRAINTS EXISTED PRIOR TO THE NEW OWNER AND IT'S THE OWNER WHO SHOULD ADJUST TO THEM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE WHEN EACH CONSTRAINT IS THERE WITH A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. AS FOR THE CURRENT ZONING OF L REPRESENTING AN IDEAL COMPROMISE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANTLY ESTABLISHED FOR EACH SIDE IS ACTUALLY STARTING FROM MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WOULD PREFER THAT NO DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN ON THIS LAND AT ALL. IT IS CURRENTLY SERVING AS A GREENWAY CONNECTED TO ROSEMARY DENEY PARK AND PROVIDE THE SMALL BUFFER TO OUR COMMUNITY AGAINST THE EXPANSION OF LAKELINE BOULEVARD AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S SPREADING UP AROUND US. IT SUPPORTS LOCAL WILDLIFE, PROVIDES GREEN SCENERY AND IS HONESTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF SOMETHING BOTH CEDAR PARK AND AUSTIN LAYOUT IN THE MOST RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT NOT ALL GREEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND THAT UNDEVELOPED LAND LIKE THIS IS AN ASSET TO A CITY THAT TAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION SERIOUSLY. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF COURSE HAS A GENUINE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND I'M AWARE THAT THE CITY CAN'T PRESERVE EVERY PIECE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT CONTINUES TO GROW. THEREFORE, THE CURRENT LR ZONING SUITS OUR SITUATION PERFECTLY. TO MY MIND, IT ALLOWS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS THAT PUTS LIMITED ADDITIONAL STRAIN IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS THE OPINION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ITSELF IN 2013, THE LAST TIME IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THIS PROPERTY BE MOVED TO GR IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT. VICTORIA HASSI FROM THRO DESIGN HAS STATED MULTIPLE TIMES IN EMAILS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THERE ARE MANY DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS SITE WITH THE ZONING AS IS. WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW THE DEVELOPER IS BEING UNFAIRLY RESTRAINED FROM ADDING GENUINE ECONOMIC VALUE TO THEIR PROPERTY. WITH THE LR ZONING, THERE ARE ALREADY [01:25:01] PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO SUMMARIZE. IF SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE BUILT, IT SHOULD BE BUILT WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE AND PREEXISTING CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LAND SHOULD REMAIN MUCH MORE LIMITED THAN WHAT THORO DESIGN IS PROPOSING. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO ME AND I APPRECIATE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK, YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM DEBORAH CHILDRESS, MISS CHILDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, SO LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DEBORAH TILLS AND I LIVE IN THE RER AT SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK UP TODAY SAYING THAT I CHOSE THIS ZING REQUEST. JUST LIKE TREY WAS SAYING, I DON'T THINK THE CURRENT SOUNDING IS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND WHAT IT'S GONNA DO FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. UM, YOU KNOW, RIVIERA SPRINGS HAS A HISTORY OF FLOODING AND AS WE SEE DEVELOPMENT AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, THE FLOODING HAS INCREASED. SO I DO HAVE CONCERNS AROUND THAT. UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS AROUND THE TRAFFIC AND UH, I FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY IS UNMUTED HERE. I, MOVING ON ANYWAYS, I DO HAVE CONCERNS AROUND THE TRAFFIC AS WELL AND I WOULD LIKE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH EXITING WEST RVE. THERE ARE ACCIDENTS THAT IS A DOUBLE BLIND CORNER. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN OUT TO THIS PROPERTY, IT IS HARD TO PULL OUT. MOST RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, WE SOMETIMES TURN LEFT BUT MOSTLY TURN RIGHT. AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, IT'S GONNA BRING IN A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE ALREADY CUT THROUGH LAKELINE, YOU KNOW, FROM LAKELINE THROUGH OUR DEPART THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO 180 3. SO, UM, I DON'T THINK THEIR PROPOSAL MAKES SENSE. AND WHAT THEY INITIALLY SHOWED US WHEN WE ASKED FOR SOME, UH, NEW OPTIONS WAS THE 24 TOWN HOMES EXITING ON WEST R BUT THEY INDICATED ON THE AUSTIN SIDE, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY BUILDING A FOOD SALES, YOU KNOW, WITH DRIVE THROUGH. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A MULTIPLE, YOU KNOW, MULTI RESIDENT SLASH RETAIL, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT ON THE AUSTIN PIECE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY DON'T GET THIS, UH, ZONING REQUEST. SO I DO HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'VE FULLY EXPLAINED SOME OF, UH, OUR CONCERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK UP AND LET YOU KNOW I AM OPPOSED AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY THAT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ALONG WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY, UM, BECAUSE TRAFFIC IS A REAL ISSUE, ESPECIALLY ON A DOUBLE BLIND CORNER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD EVENING CHRISTMAS. THANK YOU. WE'LL ALL HEAR FROM TWI GRACE. MISS GRACE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TWILA GRACE. I HAVE LIVED IN RIVIERA SPRINGS FOR 33 YEARS. I'M OPPOSED TO THIS ZONING CHANGE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE LR ZONING. I AM ALSO OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF VARIOUS THROUGH THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. I'M ASKING THAT IF ANY OF THIS KIND OF ZONING GOES THROUGH OR EVEN IF IT DOESN'T THAT THEY CLOSE OFF THAT YOU, THAT WE ARE PROPOSING OR I AM THAT WE CLOSE OFF WEST RIVIERA, SOUTH LAKELINE BOULEVARD AND MAKE THAT AN EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS MAINLY SIGNED UP TO CONCEDE ALL MY ADDITIONAL TIME TO OUR LEADER TREY MAN. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. WHEN I'LL HEAR FROM MISSA ADAMS, MS. ADAMS. SO STAR SIX, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. YES. THANK YOU. UM, I JUST WANTED TO STATE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS CHANGE. I DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS AND FACTS. I AM THANKFUL TO TREY THAT HE IS DOING ALL OF THAT ON OUR BEHALF AS A NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE PRIMARY [01:30:02] PROBLEM WITH THIS IS AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE THAT APARTMENT BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON THAT TRACK OF LAND, WHETHER IT'S THE CEDAR PARK AREA OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AREA, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WILL RESULT, UM, CERTAIN, UH, SOLUTIONS TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, UM, THAT IN MY BELIEF ARE NONE OF THEM ARE INEFFECTIVE. METHOD IS DEALING WITH THE EXTRA TRAFFIC. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD JUST NOT ALLOW THE BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO BEGIN WITH. AND CONTINUING WITH THE EXISTING ZONING, I BELIEVE WILL PREVENT THE BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR, UM, OFFICE COMPLEXES WITH APARTMENTS ON TOP. SO THAT IS MY PRIMARY COMMENT AND I DEFER TO TRI FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, I'LL HEAR FROM DEBBIE, LOIS, MS. LOIS, I HAVE THREE MINUTES. HI, MY NAME IS DEBBIE LO AND I'VE LIVED IN RIVIERA SPRINGS FOR 23 YEARS. MY SON, MY DAUGHTER, AND MY SON-IN-LAW, AND MY THREE GRANDDAUGHTERS LIVE THERE AS WELL. UM, AND WE'RE ALL WHOLLY OPPOSED. I'M SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF TOO BECAUSE THEY ASKED ME TO . THEY CAN'T GET OUT BECAUSE OF SCHOOL. UM, WE'RE WHOLLY OPPOSED TO THE THIS PROPOSAL, UH, FOR VERY IMPORTANT REASONS. AND HERE ARE REVIEW. UH, IT'S ADJACENT TO A CRITICAL WATERWAY, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, AND THAT WATERWAY FEEDS DIRECTLY INTO BRUSHY CREEK. UH, THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING GREEN AREAS LEFT AND WHAT USED TO BE A VAST EXPANSIVE GREEN AREA. UH, WILDLIFE IS GREATLY DISPLACED FROM OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE BUILT ALL AROUND THIS TINY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND IT'S HOME TO A LOT OF WILDLIFE, EVEN THAT LITTLE TRACT. UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF IS SMALL. IT'S OLDER WITH FEW OR NO SIDEWALKS, VERY NARROW CURVING STREETS ON WHICH SETS A PARK WITH A NATURAL POND AND A WALKING TRAIL. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FULL OF CHILDREN ON BIKES, CHILDREN WALKING, AND PEOPLE AND DOGS OF ALL AGES WALKING AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE OF THE OLDEST IN CEDAR PARKS IN CEDAR PARK. AND THE HOME SIT ON QUARTER ACRE LOTS IN THE OPINION OF EVERY NEIGHBOR I KNOW. WE FEEL THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNIQUE AND RARE AND HOMES AND LOTS LIKE THIS ARE NOT BEING BUILT THIS CLOSE TO TOWN ANYMORE AND IS WORTHY OF PROTECTION FOR ALL OF THE REASONS LISTED. AS FAR AS I KNOW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ADDITIONALLY, A TRAFFIC STUDY HAS NOT BEEN DONE. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS KIND WILL CAUSE RUNOFF AND POLLUTION TO THE WATERWAY, AS WELL AS AN EXTREMELY DIS UH, DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORISTS ALIKE. ALREADY, CARS AND TRUCKS ARE SPEEDING THROUGH THIS LITTLE ENCLAVE, SOMETIMES AT 60 AND 70 MILES AN HOUR PAST MY HOUSE EVERY DAY. THE MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS 30 MILES AN HOUR AND MANY PARTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SPEED LIMIT IS 15 MILES AN HOUR. I'M HON, I'M, UH, HONESTLY NOT SURE. YOU KNOW, HOW AUSTIN CAN, YOU KNOW, RULE AND IN FAVOR OF HELPING OUR LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD IN SIERRA PARK, BUT I HUMBLY ASK THAT YOU RULE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL, UH, FOR ALL OF THE REASONS STATED, UM, THIS PROJECT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT ALL AND IT'S BEING IMPOSED UPON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NO REGARD TO OUR SAFETY, OUR QUIET ENJOYMENT, OR OUR PROPERTY VALUE. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. WHEN I HEAR FROM DEBORAH HANSEN, MS. HANSEN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. OKAY. I DID NOT COME PREPARED. I'M A TEACHER AND I SPEND MOST OF MY TIME DOING LESSON PLANNING, SO I'M SORRY. UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK TO YOU AS A NEIGHBOR. UH, I LIVE IN THE RIVI SPRINGS AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT. THE MAIN REASON FOR ME IS, UH, SAFETY AND OF OF COURSE THE, UH, IMPACT IT HAS ON THE, UH, THE QUALITY OF LIFE, UH, IN OUR AREA. UM, I WOULD, UH, LIKE THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY GO OUT TO THE AREA IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. LAKELINE BOULEVARD IS A VERY, UH, IT'S A HEAVY TRAFFIC AREA. MANY TIMES WHEN I EXIT THAT AREA, THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC [01:35:01] COMING, UM, THAT I'M AFRAID TO MAKE A LEFT CUZ I HAVE TO ACTUALLY MOVE MY CAR, UH, IN, IN HARM'S WAY. UM, SO MANY OF US TAKE THE RIGHT TURN AND THEN MAKE A U-TURN ON THAT LAKE LINE. UM, THERE'S MANY, THERE ARE MANY THINGS, MANY BUSINESSES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA. UH, BESIDES OUR HEB. WE ALSO HAVE, UH, DELL'S CHILDREN HOSPITAL BEING DEVELOPED, UM, UM, WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO LAKELINE. UH, LAKELINE ITSELF HAS INCREASED THROUGH ALL THE BUSINESSES THAT COME THERE. AND SO THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY INCREASING, ADDING MORE TRAFFIC TO THAT SHOULD BE, UH, CONSIDERED. UM, WHEN YOU CONSIDER CHANGING THIS, UH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, UM, I'M ALSO, UH, I'M SUPPORTING TREY, WHO'S SPEND AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME GETTING, UM, ALL THE HIS FACTS TOGETHER. UM, THERE'S A, A CLAIM FROM THE, UH, THROWERS DESIGN THAT THEY, UM, MET WITH THE COMMUNITY. UM, THEY DIDN'T MEET WITH ALL THE MEMBERS. THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION BEING SENT OUT. UM, THIS COMMENT ABOUT THE HOMELESS POPULATION LIVING THERE AND THAT, THAT WAS A CONCERN, THAT'S A CONCERN FOR EVERY AREA. UM, THIS AREA IS NOT FREE OF THAT, BUT THAT IS NOT OUR MAIN CONCERN. OUR MAIN CONCERN IS, AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC AND THE QUALITY AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON OUR LIVELIHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ANY CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. WELL, NOW I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. HAI. I'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. VICTORIA HASI THROUGH OUR DESIGN. UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT I, I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER STATED THAT, UM, THE, THAT THE HOMELESS CAMP ON THE PROPERTY WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S PRIMARY CONCERN. AS I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S PRIMARY CONCERN WAS TRAFFIC ACCESSING WITH WEST REVERE DRIVE. UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID TELL US THAT IT WAS A CONCERN. THEY WERE THE ONES TO NOTIFY US THAT THERE WAS A, A FIRE OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE LANDOWNERS WERE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT. AND THE FIRE WAS BECAUSE OF, UM, CAMPING, GOING ON, ILLEGAL CAMPING, GOING ON ON THIS PRIVATE PROPERTY. UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT ZONING IS APPROPRIATE, THAT GR ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TRACT OF LAND. UH, REZONING, THE WAY WE SEE IT REZONING THIS TRACT LAND CAN ONLY HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERN FOR TRAFFIC AND INGRESS AND EGRESS NOT ACCESSING WEST RIVI AND BEING PUSHED TO LAKELINE BOULEVARD. UM, WE ARE TRYING TO EXTEND THE PROTECTIONS, UH, THAT AUSTIN'S WATERSHED DEPARTMENT HAS REGARDING CRITICAL CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND I'LL LET RON SPEAK MORE TO THAT IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE DISCUSSION. UM, THE LAND IS ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL AND IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM A PARK THAT IS SLATED TO START CONSTRUCTION, UH, IN 2024. SO WE BELIEVE THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT MORE PEOPLE IN PROXIMITY TO AUSTIN'S PARKS. UM, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT EQUATE TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS OR, UH, DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES. UM, DO YOU KNOW, THE SINGLE FAMILY LANDS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THESE TWO SITES. UM, AND AGAIN, NEW DEVELOPMENT, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MEAN UNSAFE CONDITIONS NECESSARILY. UM, 2013 WAS ALMOST 10 YEARS AGO. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT OUR CITY IS IN A MUCH DIFFERENT, UH, LANDSCAPE THESE DAYS IN TERMS OF HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY. UM, AND SO WE MAINTAIN OUR REQUESTS THAT ADDING MIXED USE, UH, GM U TO THIS SITE WILL ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE MORE UNITS ON AN ARTERIAL AND CLOSE TO TRANSIT. UM, THE PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO HAVE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE CITY, CITY OF AUSTIN TRACT, UH, WITH COMMERCIAL POTENTIALLY RESTAURANT RETAIL, UM, WITH UNITS ABOVE. UM, TRAFFIC AND ENGINEER STUDIES WILL BE REQUESTED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN IN THE SITE PLANNING PHASE. THE CITY WILL REQUIRE THOSE THINGS. UH, AND AGAIN, I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. SURE. THAT CAN COMMIT THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WOODY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEN LET'S GO TO DISCUSSION. ANY [01:40:04] QUESTIONS? ? YES, COMMISSIONER KING. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M GOING, I JUST RAISED MY HAND JUST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING HERE. THANK YOU. BUT I DO, I DO SHARE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE, THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE, TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES ZONE THERE, UH, AS PART OF THIS PROJECT PLAN. SO I JUST, THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN TO ME AND I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THAT. CAN STAFF EXPLAIN THAT, PLEASE? THERE IS NO STAFF HERE. THE STAFF HAS GONE , I'M SORRY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF WITH US. OKAY. WENDY? YEAH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. WE DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF WITH US TO ADDRESS WHAT IS BEING CALLED ACCESS THROUGH A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. THERE IS A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY ON THE WESTERN SIDE THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. SO I'M NOT SURE YOU RIGHT NOW, THIS PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED OFF OF SOUTH LAKELINE BOULEVARD. IT IS NOT ADDRESSED OFF OF WEST REVERE CIRCLE, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S JURISDICTION. SO WE CAN'T TAKE, UH, WE CANNOT SPEAK TO ACCESS TO WEST RIVI BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR ATDS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER. SO THIS WILL BE PLAN, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT, AT THE TIME OF, OF SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN. CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND IF THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR VARIANCES, THAT IS THE TIME THAT THAT WILL BE DEALT WITH. SO, OKAY. SO, UH, MAYBE YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND, AS, AS I RECALL FROM THE APPLICANTS, UH, DISCUSSION EARLIER TONIGHT, UH, THAT THEY, THERE'S SOME KIND OF AVERAGING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES AND THEY COULD OFFSET IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. IS THAT, IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT OUR CODE ALLOWS? UH, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DEALT WITH AT WATERSHED PROTECTION AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. WADES. I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. SEEMS LIKE MR. THROWER MIGHT KNOW, BE ABLE TO ILLUMINATE US A LITTLE BIT ON CRITICAL WA WATER QUALITY ZONE QUESTIONS. UM, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, RON THROWER, UM, CHAIR, OR EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER KING IN RE IN DIRECT RELATION TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BUFFER AVERAGING. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINITELY ALLOWED IN THE CODE. WE'VE DONE IT ON PROPERTIES BEFORE TO HELP SQUARE UP PROPERTIES. BUT THE KEY FACTOR TO THAT IS, IS THAT YOU CANNOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING WITH THIS PLAN IS, UH, IF WE COULD PULL UP THE SLIDE, UM, THAT WOULD SHOW TWO B, I THINK IS THE, UH, SLIDE. BUT THE IDEA HERE IS, IS THAT THERE'S ALREADY A DRIVEWAY CUT AND A MEDIAN OPENING IN LAKELINE WHERE ACCESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLANNED. AND THE IDEA HERE IS TO GET THAT ACCESS PUT IN, WHICH IS GONNA REQUIRE US TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE, UM, BUT NOT FOR A VARIANCE TO DO BY FOR AVERAGING. THE VARIANCE WOULD BE TO TRY AND WORK A TRADE WITH, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS CITY OF CEDAR PARK TO OFFSET SOME OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ON THE CEDAR PARK PORTION TO GIVE THE CREEK IN THAT AREA SOME, UH, LEVEL OF PROTECTIONS FOR A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE THAT CEDAR PARK CANNOT REQUIRE. UM, THERE HAS BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY DONE ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES IN THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT. THE, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY LOOKS AT, AT DEVELOP, OR EXCUSE ME, LOOKS AT AREAS 150 FEET AROUND THE PROPERTY. THE CEDAR PARK PROPERTY IS 200 FEET DEEP, SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY DID NOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING WITHIN 150 FEET ON THE CEDAR PARK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. UH, BUT AGAIN, OUR PLAN, OUR OVERALL PLAN WITH THIS IS TO GET A DRIVE OUT TO LAKELINE AT A MEDIAN OPENING, WHICH IS A FAR SAFER SITUATION FOR ALL OF THE TRAFFIC. CEDAR PARK AND CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT. RATHER THAN TRYING TO GET A DRIVEWAY SHOVED IN VERY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF RIVIERA AND LAKELINE OR TO HAVE CITY OF AUSTIN TRAFFIC GOES SOLELY OUT TO RIVIERA. UM, YOU KNOW, IN OUR OPINION WE ARE HELPING THE SITUATION BY MAKING SURE THAT RIVIERA DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE, UH, TAKING ISSUE WITH. THANK YOU MR. THOROUGH. APPRECIATE IT. I, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT JUST CUZ IT'S SINKING IN, WE ARE REALLY JUST THINKING ABOUT THE LAND USE AND Z OR THE ZONING THAT'S PLANNED FOR [01:45:01] THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACKS. SO WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TOWN HOMES OR LUXURY CONDOS OR ANY OF THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER EXCEPT FOR THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT AVERAGING, UH, DISPLACEMENT FROM OR SET AVERAGING SETBACK FROM THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO STAY TO STAFF. THESE ARE THE FIRST TIME, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THESE PLANS, LAYOUT PLANS PLAN A TWO A AND TWO B. THEY HAVE, THEY WERE NOT FORWARDED TO THE STAFF SO THAT WE DID NOT TAKE THAT ON CONSIDERATION WHEN WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING FOR THE SITE. AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF THE OTHER CITY RIGHT. TO SAY WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE OR IF THEY'RE ANY DIFFERENT FROM AUSTIN'S. UM, THIS ONE'S HARD. YEAH. INITIALLY THE FORMER AGENT FOR THE CASE HAD STATED THAT THEY WERE SEEKING OFFICE ZONING FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS SITE IN CEDAR PARK. UM, I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR CEDAR PARK AND THERE IS NOT A, THERE IS NO ZONING CHANGE THAT IS PROPOSED IN CEDAR PARK. SO THE CURRENT ZONING OF RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND THIS, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS TRACT LAND. OKAY. SO THE RESIDENTIAL WILL STAY LIKELY AT THIS POINT? YES. THERE'S NO WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. OKAY. I'VE TALKED TO MS. DULA CANERO AND SHE HAS TOLD ME THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO APPLICATION MADE IN CEDAR PARK FOR A OWNING CHANGE. GOTCHA. AND I AM CURIOUS, IT LOOKS LIKE MISS LO LU LOCHE, UM, MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME, UM, SURE. GO. UH, I KNOW, I REMEMBER IN THE PAST THERE WAS THIS DESIRE TO HAVE A 30 FOOT SETBACK WITH WHEN IT WAS OFFICE. DOES IT MATTER NOW THAT IT'S A HOUSING? IS THAT BETTER OR IT DOESN'T NEED THE SETBACK? I MEAN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT MAP, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT HOUSING STRUCTURE IS BASICALLY IN THE BACKYARDS OF THOSE EXISTING HOMES. UM, I MEAN, THAT'S HOW IT APPEARS TO BE ON THE MAP. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BASICALLY GONNA BE NEIGHBORS. YEAH. YOU KNOW, GO FROM DEER AND WOODS AND TREES TO, YOU KNOW, THREE STORY OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA BE. AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC CUTTING THAT ROAD INTO LAKE LINE, IT LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER. BUT IN ACTUALITY, IN ORDER FOR ANYBODY THAT LIVES THERE, IF THEY WANT TO GO TO CEDAR PARK OR TO AVERY RANCH BOULEVARD, THEY'RE GONNA CUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE TO DO SO, THEY'LL AVOID ABOUT FOUR LONG LIGHTS AND THEY DO IT EVERY DAY. THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE, THERE'S APARTMENTS ALREADY ALONG THAT STREET, LAKELINE FURTHER DOWN, FURTHER I GUESS TOWARD THE BUS STATION AND ALL OF THE FOLKS IN THOSE APARTMENTS, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT TONS OF THEM CUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO ACCESS AVERY RANCH AND TO GO INTO CEDAR PARK TO AVOID THE LIGHTS. BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE, IT IS DANGEROUS. IT'S NOT TO GO, THERE'S NO LIKE THROUGH AND THEN LEFT. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE MUCH MORE MOTIVATION FOR THEM TO TURN. THERE IS THOUGH, LIKE IF THEY THEN TO GO ON RIVIERA, IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTE MO MOTIVATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN, NOT HAVE TO TURN AGAINST TRAFFIC, MAKE A, YOU KNOW, MAKE A RIGHT OUT OF THAT ROAD THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND THEN ANOTHER RIGHT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, GO THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COME TO THAT LIGHT. UH, THEY CAN CUT AROUND AND GO TO THE LIGHT AT AVERY RANCHER. THEY DO IT EVERY DAY. YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING THEY ALREADY DO IT, RIGHT? THEY ALREADY DOING IT, BUT ADDING 80 MORE UNITS OF WHICH PROBABLY AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE IN THOSE UNITS HAVE CARS. THAT'S 160 MORE PEOPLE SNEAKING AROUND A NARROW LITTLE ROAD THAT'S 15 MILES AN HOUR AND PEOPLE ARE ALREADY GOING 40 DOWN THAT ROAD. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. THAT'S SO IS THIS THE CEDAR CITY OF CEDAR PARK? OKAY. YEAH. OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE IT A AUSTIN. RIGHT. IT'S KIND OF, I SO MAYBE YOU NEED TO TALK WITH YOUR ENGINEERS ABOUT SOME YEAH, WE, WE WILL TRAFFIC MITIGATION. YEAH. BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT THE ROAD PROPOSAL TO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF IT GOING FROM RIVIERA, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CUT A, A ROAD ROAD FROM LAKELINE. SO YOU, YOU WOULD PREFER IT, IT'S NOT REALLY GONNA HELP OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD PREFER IT ACCESSING FROM RIVIERA THEN? NO, I WOULD PREFER 80 UNITS IS NOT, NOT, NOT GOOD TO CHANGE THE ZONING [01:50:01] AND PUT 80, THEY TOLD US THAT THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS 24 UNITS. WE ASKED IF THEY WOULD BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT. WE NEVER GOT A CLEAR ANSWER, BUT, AND SUDDENLY, I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT BECAME 80 UNITS. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE. SO, BUT AGAIN, IF YOU HAD TO, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WOULD PREFER ACCESS ON WEST RIVIERA? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU'D PREFER NO, I MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER THAT WAY. OKAY. BUT I'M JUST SAYING, AND I WILL ADDRESS IT WITH CEDAR PARK. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S REALLY NOT A CONCERN OF AUSTIN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT OUR ROAD. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. IT'S NOT THE ROAD. EXACTLY. WELL, I APPRECIATE JUST BEING HEARD ANYWAY. SURE, THANKS. YEAH. UM, ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE AND TV LAND? I GUESS I JUST, UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UM, AND SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL AND I WONDER IF ANYONE WOULD WANNA COMMENT ON YEAH. I, WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE IF NOT THIS? AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THESE PROBLEMS ARE GONNA KIND OF PLAGUE THIS SITE NO MATTER WHAT IS BUILT THERE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. MS. ES, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT QUESTION? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I MEAN, IT IS ZONED FOR LR COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS A LESS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL CATEGORY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO ADD SOME COMMERCIAL USES AND MIXED USE BY RESENTING IT TO GMU. BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE THE, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING UNDER THE G M U TO UH, DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. SO THEY'RE PROHIBITING, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAW IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, SOME OF THE MORE OBNOXIOUS OR MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE GR DISTRICT. MISS THROWER, DID YOU HAVE AN, I I MEAN, SORRY MISS HASSI, DID YOU HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT YOU COULD DEVELOP TODAY UNDER LR ZONING? IS THAT YOU'RE GONNA HA VICTORIA HASSI THROWER DESIGN? UM, YES. SO UNDER LR ZONING, THERE COULD BE A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES. UM, IT COULD BE, UH, ANYTHING FROM A SMALL RESTAURANT. IT COULD BE AN OFFICE SPACE, IT COULD BE PET SERVICES, IT COULD BE, UM, PERSONAL SERVICES, A DRY CLEANER, A BARBER SHOP. I MEAN ALL KINDS OF THINGS. UM, AND, AND I ECHO, UH, OR I CONFIRM WHAT MS. ES SAID. THE REQUEST FOR GR IS NOT NECESSARILY TO GAIN ADDITIONAL USES, IT'S MORE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDING MIXED USE AND THE DENSITY THAT G M U PERMITS, UM, WHEN COMBINED IN ADDITION TO A FEW OF THE OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERING BETWEEN THE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. SO, SO THEN I'M CLEAR WE ARE, BUT WE ARE STILL JUST TALKING ABOUT, SORRY, ZONING THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN TRACK. CORRECT. SO YOU ARE, BUT YOUR, THE MIXED USE IS HAPPENING ON THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK TRACK. WE ARE PROPOSING THAT. AND YOU, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING FILED WITH THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK BECAUSE THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK CODE IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. AND THERE'S ZONING TODAY WILL ONLY ALLOW TOWNHOUSE UNITS TO BE BUILT. UM, AND THEIR MIXED USE, THEIR MIXED USE IS NOT APPLIED LIKE IT IS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN WHERE IT'S AN OVERLAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BASE DISTRICT. IT IS MIXED USE IS THE DISTRICT AND IT HAS SOME PRETTY STRICT REGULATIONS THAT WOULD BE HARD TO ACHIEVE ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND THE CONFIGURATION. SO WHAT THAT MEANS, UM, IS WE'RE ESSENTIALLY GOING TO ASK, ASK FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK TRACT IN ORDER TO MAKE ALL OF THIS WORK AND FUNCTION COHESIVELY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS, GETTING THE TRAFFIC TO FLOW TOWARDS THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRACKED AND AWAY FROM WEST RIVER. SO YEAH, IT'S COMING. WHEN YOU SAID PLAN DEVELOPMENT, IT CAME BACK TO ME. YEAH. AND THAT, THAT THAT'S, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO A POD HERE IN AUSTIN. SO VERY INVOLVED, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THIS PIECE FIRST BEFORE WE THEN HANDLE THE PIECE IN CEDAR PARK. COMMISSIONER KING. SO, UH, I, I WONDER WHY WOULD L L R M U WORK ON THIS SITE? AND I GUESS THAT'S FOR STAFF. OH, WELL, , I WOULD THINK IT'S MORE FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF COURSE WHAT WE STATED WAS THEY'RE SEEKING [01:55:01] THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER GMU, GMU EQUATES TO MF FOUR IN TERMS OF UNIT DENSITY. AND SO, UH, I IMAGINE FOR HYPE, FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR BUILDING AREA, THEY'RE SEEKING THE GR INSTEAD OF THE EXISTING LR INSTEAD OF ADDING JUST AN MU TO THE EXISTING LR Z. BUT I'LL LET MS. HOSIE SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU. UM, YES, SO IT L R M U M U WOULD INDEED ALLOW RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BUT IT'S GOING TO ALLOW HALF THE DENSITY THAT G M U WOULD ALLOW. AND IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THE LAND, UH, THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE NIGHTMARE HEADACHE OF GETTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE TO TAKE ACCESS TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE. UM, WHICH MEANS ALL THE TRAFFIC IS GONNA FUNNEL TOWARDS WEST R WITHOUT THE DENSITY THERE ISN'T, THERE'S A LOT LESS TO WORK WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, I I, I DO APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. I ALSO, UH, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION AND, AND YOU KNOW, BUT I DO, I DO BELIEVE THAT BOTH CITIES CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER'S RESIDENTS AS WELL, ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY COME TOGETHER AT THESE NEXUS POINTS HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE MR. WAITES. I SAW THE BACKUP WHERE YOU CONTACTED MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN CEDAR PARK. I APPRECIATE THE CITY STAFF REACHING OUT AND TRYING TO MAKE THIS A MORE COORDINATED EFFORT HERE FOR BOTH SIDES. AND TO THAT END, I WONDER, UH, THIS CAN'T BE THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE HAD KIND OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE EDGE OF OUR, YOU KNOW, WHERE BOUNDARIES TOUCH AND, AND IS THERE SOME KIND OF A PROTOCOL OR A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, OR SHOULD WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT MAKES THAT MORE OF A COOPERATIVE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA DO ANYTHING ON THIS AUSTIN SIDE THAT REALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CEDAR PARK RESIDENTS AND NEITHER DO THEY. I BELIEVE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TO AUSTIN RESIDENTS EITHER. SO I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, THAT FOR ME TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND HOW THESE CITIES KIND OF WORK TOGETHER IN THESE, IS IN THESE SITUATIONS. SO USUALLY CITIES OR CITIES IN THE COUNTY WORK TOGETHER IN TERMS OF WHEN IT COMES IN FOR SUBDIVISION. SO, BECAUSE USUALLY THAT'S WHEN WE'RE DOING THE LAYOUT OF STREETS, UTILITIES, THINGS SUCH AS THAT. WE USUALLY LOOK AT WHEN IT, IN TERMS OF SUBDIVISIONS. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A JOINT OFFICE THAT BRINGS US BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL. WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING, GOSH, IN THE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE, I HAVEN'T HAD THIS ISSUE BEFORE. MM. UM, USUALLY IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE ADJACENT TO THE COUNTY MM-HMM. . AND SO THERE IS NOT ANOTHER JURISDICTION THAT ACTIVELY ZONES THAT IS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE REACHED OUT TO CEDAR PARK TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE TRACK THAT'S IN CEDAR PARK TO THE NORTH TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A ZONING CHANGE PROPOSE OR WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS. AND LIKE I SAID, TO OUR RESIDENTIAL, IT ALLOWS FOR TOWNHOMES. THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO CHANGE IT. ORIGINALLY, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE AN APPLICATION FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING. SOUNDS LIKE MS. HASI SAYS THERE STILL WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. UM, BUT AT THIS TIME, THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK HAS NOT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON THE OTHER PORTION OF THIS TRACK, WHICH IS IN CEDAR PARK TO THE NORTH. SO WHAT WE CAN ONLY CONSIDER TONIGHT IS THE LOWER PORTION FRONT'S, UH, LAKELINE BOULEVARD THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S JURISDICTION. SO I APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU FOR WORKING SO HARD TO, WORKING SO HARD TO COORDINATE WITH CEDAR PARK ON THIS. I APPRECIATE IT. OKIE, DO ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? HMM. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT HAS BEEN VERY NICE TONIGHT TO SEE, UH, SO MANY ADORABLE CHILDREN AND DOGS LEARNING ABOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS, . SO WHILE YOU ALL ARE CONTEMPLATING AND COMMISSIONER BOONE'S PLANT OH, I'M SORRY. AND PLANTS. THANK YOU. PLANT BABIES. IT, IT REMINDS ME OF WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO. . YES, EXACTLY. FINE. WELL, UM, I, I MEAN, I GUESS I, IN LACK OF ANY OTHER ACTIVITY, I WOULD PROBABLY MOVE TO, TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE IS A DIFFERENT MOTION. I WAS GONNA SAY THE SAME. I'M INCLINED TO DO THE SAME JUST DUE [02:00:01] TO THE COMPLICATIONS AND, UM, AND TRUST THAT THE STAFF ARE THE BEST EQUIPPED TO NAVIGATE ALL OF THESE COMPLICATIONS. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I, I INVITE YOU, YOU INVITE ME TO MOVE AS AS YOU WOULD, DID YOU MAKE A MOTION? I, I DID NOT. I JUST SPOKE TOWARDS ONE, UM, , BUT I, I, I MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS, AS GIVEN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY A COSTA. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF STAFF, UH, APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION? THAT'S 6 0 7. THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO THE PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT ALL THE WAY FROM CEDAR PARK. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK AND THIS WAS A TOUGH CASE. WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE LIKE THIS BEFORE, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE LOST. I HOPE YOU DRIVE SAFELY ALL GETTING ALL THE WAY HOME. I'LL MR. THROW WILL LET YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. ITEMS FROM [11. Discussion and possible action regarding matters related to any proposed revisions to the Land Development Code including but not limited to staff updates, presentations and scheduling. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa)] THE COMMISSION. UM, I DO WANNA SAY WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 11. I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY THAT I MISSED LAST TIME AND UM, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK BACK OVER THE DISCUSSION. UM, BUT I DID WANNA ASK WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE, UH, YOU GUYS PASSED THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION RECOMMENDATION AND I WANTED TO ASK WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT ABOUT PERHAPS BRINGING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, AS AN ITEM, WHETHER I PRESENT IT AND MAYBE A COMMISSIONER KOBASA OR COMMISSIONER STERN OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY WOULD COME WITH ME OR WE COULD SEND AN EMAIL, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT WAS SENT ON TO COUNCIL, BUT I THOUGHT THAT SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ANOTHER BODY THAT ALSO CREATES AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER BRINGING OUR RESOLUTION THERE. CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDREW THERE? YES. IF I MAY. SO A APPROPRIATE AVENUE WOULD BE AS THE CHAIR OF THE CODE AND S JOINT COMMITTEE. MM-HMM. TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA HAVE, UM, UH, THAT, UM, DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT S JOINT COMMITTEE. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, TWO MEMBERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, SHOULD THEY CHOOSE, CAN PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA. SHOULD YOU HAVE LIKE A FLOW CHART THAT SHOWS ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT CODES AMENDMENTS GET APPROVED? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE AS THE CHAIR I SHOULD HAVE THAT, IS THERE SOMETHING LIKE THAT I CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE YOU, YOU CAN PROVE SOME DOCUMENTATION. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. OKAY, SO NEVER MIND. I I WILL TAKE THAT ROUTE FOR OUR SUBDIVISION RECOMMENDATION. [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? NOPE. LET'S SEE. SO WE, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM. CONGRATULATING COMMISSIONER OR COSTA ON HIS BABY. YES. IT'S SO CUTE. OH MY GOODNESS. HI. SORRY. SO CUTE. CONGRATS . I SO MOVE. . . AGREED. SECONDED. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. AND, UH, STILL JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THE CITY OF AUSTIN ALLOWING VIRTUAL COMMUTING TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE. SO YES. NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT THAT. AND, UH, AGREE. I KNOW NOT ALL CITIES DO, SO THANK YOU. YEAH. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO [COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS] WE DID MEET CODES AND ORDINANCES LA I THINK IT WAS LAST WEEK AND WE HEARD ABOUT A HISTORIC, I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER. IT WAS A HISTORIC ORDINANCE, PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING. IT'S IN THE BACKUP IF ANYBODY WANTS TO READ ABOUT IT. AND THEN THE PROJECT CONNECT TEAM DID COME, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM CUZ I HAD TO RECUSE MYSELF. BUT THEY WILL BE PRESENTING TO ZAP AT OUR OCTOBER 18TH MEETING. SO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT PRESENTATION FROM THE PROJECT CONNECT TEAM ABOUT, UH, SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND DID THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE MEET? NO, BUT WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK. THAT'LL BE MY FIRST ONE. GREAT. OKAY. AND SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER THE 19TH. OKAY. AND ONION CREEK. LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP. NOTHING ON THE CALENDAR NOW. WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING, BUT WE ARE, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE A, LIKE A CLOSEOUT MEETING SO WE CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA AND NOT MUCH IS TAKING PLACE THERE. YEAH. BUT I, WE'LL [02:05:01] GET THAT OFF, OFF THE AGENDA. GOOD, THANK YOU. OKAY, WELL THAT'S THE LAST ITEM. THANK YOU GUYS. DRIVE SAFE, . SEE YOU LATER. WE'RE ADJOURNED. NICE JOB. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE BYE. TAKE CARE ALL. SEE YOU EVERYWHERE. GETTING WITH MY FRIENDS. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.