[00:06:18]
[00:06:18]
RIGHT.[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
IT IS 6 0 6.WE'RE GOING TO, WE HAVE QUORUM.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, BRING THIS MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, TODAY'S DATE IS JANUARY 10TH, 2023.
EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD BREAK? UM, GO AHEAD AND DO A QUICK ROLL CALL HERE.
UH, I'M GOING TO START, UH, AND WE'LL MOVE, UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS.
UM, WE, WE HAVE OUR, UH, START WITH EX OFFICIO.
WE HAVE, UH, BOA CHAIR, UH, JESSICA COHEN, AND THEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
AND WE HAVE THE, UH, VICE CHAIR HERE.
UM, AND LET'S SEE, GOING TO THE SCREEN, UH, WE'LL START, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER GIANNIS POLITO PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX HERE.
PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER MOOW PRESENT.
OKAY, SO THAT BRINGS US TO 6 7 8 9, 10, 11.
UH, SO NEXT, UH, JUST A QUICK, OR, I'M GETTING HELP THIS EVENING.
UM, COMMISSIONER FLORES, ARE YOU GOING, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THE FIRST READING OF THE AGENDA? YES.
AND I'LL HAVE HELP FROM, UM, MR. RIVERA.
I'M JUST, UH, CALLING SPEAKERS AND ALSO THE VICE CHAIR HEMPEL IS GONNA HELP ME WITH, UM, JUST TRACKING VOTE COUNTS AND Q AND A THIS EVENING.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HELP.
UM, GOING AHEAD AND MOVING INTO, UH, JUST A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT.
UH, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING, SO WE'LL HAVE BOTH, UH, PARTICIPANTS ON THE COMMISSION THAT ARE VIRTUAL, AS WELL AS HERE ON THE DIAS AND AS WELL AS SPEAKERS, UH, THAT CAN SPEAK VIRTUALLY.
AND THOSE HERE IN, UH, COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
UH, ONE THING I DID WANT TO CONFIRM MR. RIVERA, IS, UH, ARE, ARE THEY GO SINCE WE HAVE A FEW CASES THIS EVENING.
UM, ARE YOU GOING TO SEND OUT AN EMAIL? WHEN DO THEY NEED TO WAIT HERE IN CHAMBERS? UM, WHAT'S OUR PROCESS THERE? I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A FEW CHANGES.
CHAIR COMMISSION LAY ON ANDREW.
SO, UH, APPROXIMATELY 50 MINUTES PRIOR TO, UH, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERING THE ITEM AND EMAIL WILL BE SENT TO, UM, PARTICIPANTS.
SO IF YOU SIGNED UP HERE TO SPEAK, THEY COULD WAIT IN THE ATRIUM AREA AND THEY SHOULD RECEIVE AN EMAIL CORRECT BEFORE THEIR ITEM COMES UP.
BECAUSE IT, UH, IT WILL LIKELY BE, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY ITEMS, UH, WE HEAR TONIGHT, IT COULD BE A LONG EVENING.
I NOTICE ALSO THAT WE HAVE A PACKED AGENDA.
SOMETIMES WE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALLOW THE EIGHT QUESTIONS.
SOMETIMES WHEN WE ONLY USE FIVE, WE THEN OFFER FOLKS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANY WAY MAYBE WE COULD FOREGO THAT AND JUST TRY AND BE REALLY EFFICIENT WITH THE TIME WE USE IF WE'RE ALREADY ONE OF THOSE FIVE SPEAKERS? UH, I AGREE.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE ALL, WE MAY WE'LL SEE HOW MANY ITEMS WE END UP WITH.
WE MAY ALSO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE LENGTH OF TIME JUST TO GET THROUGH THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
[00:10:01]
HOW MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS WE HAVE LEFT.UM, JUST QUICK, UH, HOUSEKEEPING, UM, FOR COMMISSIONERS, THOSE, UH, ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW CARDS AVAILABLE.
MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO COUNT VOTES, AND I'LL RECOGNIZE THE NUMBER OF VOTES, UH, VOTING AGAINST OR AN ABSTENTION.
UH, AND LET'S SEE, UH, PLEASE REMAIN MUTED.
UM, WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED, BUT PLEASE, IF I FAIL TO SEE YOU, I DO HAVE HELP HERE, UM, FROM FOLKS AND, UH, THEY'LL TRY TO RECOGNIZE YOU AS WELL AND BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION.
BUT, UH, YEAH, IF YOU'RE BEING FEEL LIKE YOU'RE BEING IGNORED, PLEASE SPEAK UP.
DO WE HAVE ANY, ANYTHING? UH, NOPE.
DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES FROM OUR, UH, MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 20TH? OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE APPROVAL OF THOSE MINUTES TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND WITH THAT, UH, I'LL LET COMMISSIONER
[Reading of the Agenda]
FLORES KIND OF TAKE US THROUGH THE FIRST READING OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA.WE HAVE ONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20TH, 2022.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2 9 ANDERSON LANE MIXED USE APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT THREE.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2 1 0.0 1 28 0 1 SOUTH I 35.
THAT ITEM IS APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT FOUR.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1, 0 22,000 EAST SIXTH STREET AND 2000 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
AN ITEM IS APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 15 0.05 1811 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 15 0.01 TCO LANE N P A APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT SEVEN.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P 20 22 0 0 1 15 0.03 DARBY YARD 700.
STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH EIGHT.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1 15 0.04 HUDSON NUMBER THREE, THAT ITEM IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH, NINE.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P 20 22 0 0 1.
5.06 GLA GLOUCESTER DWELLINGS.
UM, THAT ITEM IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH 10.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1 4 0.05 BERGSTROM SPUR TRAIL MIXED USE.
UH, STAFF POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 14TH 11.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1, 0 0.0 1 26 15 TO 26 17 EAST SIXTH STREET STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 12.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 0 9 0.01 1007 AND 1021 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
STAFF POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 28TH 13.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 0 5 0.01.
VARGAS MC VARGAS MIXED USE THAT ITEM IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 0 8 0.0 1 31 17 TO 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 15.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P 20 22 0 0 1.
16.02 BOARD AND TRACKED STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 16.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2, 3 0.02, EAST 51ST AND CAMERON, THAT ITEM IS STAFFED POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 17.
PLAN, AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2 1 0.02.
BURLESON AND BEN WHITE STAFF POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 28 18.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1 4 0.03.
CHAPMAN 71, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 19 REZONING C 14, 20 22 0 1 4, 1 12 AND WEST REZONING.
APPLICANT REVISED REQUEST TO THE CO TO 90 FEET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGREES AND IT IS STAFF RECOMMENDED, UH, 20 PLAN
[00:15:01]
AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2, 2 0.0 1, 4 0 6 AND 4 28 EAST ALPINE ROAD.THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
4 0 6 N 4 28 ALPINE ROAD REZONING.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION 22.
PLAN AMENDMENT N PA 20 22 0 0 0 5 0.02.
SECOND ALPHA POINT 95, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 23.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 24.
PLAN AMENDMENTS N P A 20 22 0 0 0 7 0.0 ONE TEN EIGHT TEN NEWMONT ROAD, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
25 REZONING C FOURTEEN TWENTY TWENTY TWO ZERO ONE THIRTY SIX TEN EIGHT TEN NEWMONT ROAD.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P 20 22 0 0 1.
6.0 3 49 27 EAST FIFTH STREET.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 27.
REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 0 3 49 27 EAST FIFTH STREET.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 28.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2, 9 0.01.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 29.
REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 9 4 76 0 1 CAMERON ROAD, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH 30.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2, 3 0.03 BERKMAN RESIDENTIAL, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 0 4 BERKMAN RESIDENTIAL.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION 32.
REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 7 6 3100 GUADALUPE, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 33.
REZONING C 14 20 22, 0 1, 0 2, 5 0 6, AND 5 0 8 WEST REZONING.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 34.
REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 8 4 7 0 5 BROWNLEE CIRCLE REZONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION 35.
LINDA VISTA, ELROY WEST INDUSTRIAL PARK AT MOORE'S CROSSING MUD.
36 REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 93 S D C M L K ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JAN, UH, TO FEBRUARY 14TH, UH, 37 REZONING C 14 20 22 116 SOCO COFFEE AND ART GARDEN.
FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 19 0 0 5.
7.2 PEARSON RANCH, PHASE TWO, A FINAL PLAT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS IN EXHIBIT C.
FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 19 0 0 5 7 0.3 A PEARSON RANCH, PHASE TWO B FINAL PLAT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISAPPROVAL FOR RE REASONS PER EXHIBIT C 40 VARIANCES SP 20 21 0 0 9 1 C OLTORF SITE PLAN.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH, 41.
IMAGINE AUSTIN AMENDMENT C P A 20 22 0 0 0 1 PALM DISTRICT PLAN.
THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AND THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION 42.
CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 22 15 REGULATING PLAN FOR THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
A FEW ITEMS. UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, DO YOU HAVE, UM, A QUESTION ON NUMBER 19 OR WE'RE KEEPING THAT ONE ON CONSENT? THAT'S THE, UH, 12TH AND WEST REON.
AND THEN JUST QUICK, UH, 18 WAS ACTUALLY, UM, MR. RIVERA, IS THAT APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH? THAT IS CORRECT.
[00:20:01]
A SECOND.AND THEN I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE, UM, ITEM 41.
IT'S ALSO, WE HAVE ITEM 43, DISCUSSION OF A WORKING GROUP.
UM, RECEIVED A, A LETTER TODAY FROM THE RED RIVER, A CULTURAL DISTRICT, UH, JUST POINTING OUT SOME THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT.
UM, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND ON THIS ONE, AND WE CAN GET, HAVE STAFF COME UP IN A MOMENT, UH, IS TO, UH, AS I'M TOLD, THIS WILL BE TAKEN UP BY COUNCIL.
THE NEW COUNCIL, MARION COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 23RD IS CURRENTLY PLANNED.
WE HAVE A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 14TH.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, UH, TO GIVE US SOME TIME AND MAYBE IF WE WANTED FORMAL WORKING GROUP, IS BRING THIS BACK, UH, ON THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY AND POSTPONE UNTIL THAT DATE, UM, DO ANY DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION, UH, STAFF.
DO YOU WANT TO LIKE, TO KNOW HOW THIS MIGHT IMPACT YOU OR CONCERNS? AND WE CAN DEFINITELY MOVE THIS, I THINK, TO DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT IF WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.
YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE, UM, DIVISION MANAGER HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN, UM, POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH WITH A WORKING GROUP.
SO, UM, WHAT WE'LL DO IS, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THAT TILL, UH, FEBRUARY 14TH.
UM, AND WE'LL TAKE UP THE WORKING GROUP ITEM LATER THIS EVENING.
LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THIS CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LEISEN? YES, SIR.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE MAY HAVE SPEAKERS ON ITEM 37.
UM, I JUST WANT TO, UH, UH, CONFIRM WITH THE PARTICIPANTS PRESENT.
DO, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? DOESN'T APPEAR.
SO WE CAN LEAVE THAT ONE ON CONSENT, CORRECT.
MR. CANTU? MR. CANTU IS IN SUPPORT.
SO LET ME TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND READ THROUGH THIS THING.
[Consent Agenda]
ALL RIGHT.SO WE HAVE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 20TH, 2022.
ITEM TWO, PLAN, AMENDMENT, UH, APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH.
ITEM EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH.
ITEM NINE, WE HAVE STAFF POST AS PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH.
STAFF POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 14TH.
STAFF POSTPONEMENT FEBRUARY 28TH, UH, 12.
PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT.
PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH 14.
PLAN, AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT.
PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 28TH, 16.
PLAN, AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 17.
PLAN, AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT.
PLAN, AMENDMENT, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, UH, 19 IS ON CONSENT.
UM, JUST A NOTE, APPLICANT REVISED REQUEST TO CO TO 90 FEET.
NEIGHBORHOOD AGREES AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS AS WELL.
20 PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, THIS IS, LET'S SEE, BOTH 20, UH, 20.
THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ITEM 21 REZONING ARE JUST, WE'LL TAKE THOSE UP TOGETHER.
THAT'S, UH, UP FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THEN WE HAVE ITEM 22 PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND THE CORRESPONDING ITEM 23 REZONING CASE WILL BE, UH, THAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 28TH.
THEN WE MOVE TO, UH, ITEM 24, PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED, UH,
[00:25:01]
ITEM 25 REZONING CASE.ITEM 26, PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH.
AND THEN THE CORRESPONDING REZONING CASE ITEM, UH, 27 NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 28 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH, 29, REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH.
THEN WE HAVE THE, UH, ITEM 30 PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED ITEM 31 REZONING WILL BE TAKEN UP TOGETHER, UH, FOR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
ITEM 30 32 REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 24TH.
ITEM 33 REZONING, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY, UM, 24TH AND APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT.
ITEM 34 REZONING, THAT'S A DISCUSSION CASE THIS EVENING.
36 REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 14TH, 37 REZONING, NO ITEM IS ON CONSENT.
FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS FOR EXHIBIT C AND 39 FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVAL APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS FOR EXHIBIT C 40 VARIANCE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT FEBRUARY 14TH.
UH, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, ITEM 41, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, POSTPONE DISCUSSION TO FEBRUARY 14TH.
THE ALISON, UM, IMAGINE US AMENDMENT TO THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN.
AND, UH, LET'S SEE, 42 IS A CODE AMENDMENT AND THAT ONE ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? YES, MR. THOMPSON? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE, THE SECOND ALPHA ONE, ITEM 22 AND 23, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS OKAY WITH THAT POSTPONEMENT.
CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON ANNE.
UH, SO WITH THAT ONE, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA GET A LITTLE, UH, FURTHER OUT BECAUSE OF THE 60 DAY, UH, REQUIREMENT.
UM, THE FURTHER DATE AT THIS TIME THAT YOU CAN POSTPONE OUT TO IS FEBRUARY 28TH, AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME AFTER THAT FEBRUARY 28TH DATE.
UM, AND, AND THEN I GUESS THE OTHER ONE, I, I HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERNS ON THE, UH, THE BURNETT GATEWAY, UM, IN TERMS OF THE, THE BICYCLE ACCESS TO THAT, THE, THE RED LINE PARKWAY ACCESS TO IT.
AND I I I JUST WONDERED IF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN POSTPONING THAT TWO WEEKS TO SEE IF THEY COULD WORK SOMETHING OUT THERE, UM, E EITHER WITH THE LEGAL OR OR, OR WITH THE COMMUNITY.
I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE THAT I DON'T THINK, UM, WERE ANSWERED IN THE Q AND A IN THE BACKUP.
SO MAYBE WE STILL TALK THROUGH THOSE, HAVE A Q AND A ON IT, AND THEN DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
I, IF IT'S, IF IT'S GONNA BE A LONG NIGHT, UM, AND IF WE'RE NOT REALLY GONNA ACTION ON IT, AND IF WE COULD DO THE Q AND A VIA EMAIL, IF, IF YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD WORK OR I GUESS YOU WE TRIED THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ANY DISCUSSION POINTS ON POSTPONEMENT THAT WOULD BE ITEM? I'M, I'M FINE IF IT, I MEAN, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT MAYBE STAFF COULD TELL US IF THERE'S AN URGENCY FOR THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER ZA, I HAVE MS. HUNTER JORGE RUSSLYN WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT ITEM.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER.
EVENING WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN HOUSING AND PLANNING THE PERMIT.
UH, MR A QUESTION ON THE TIMING.
I I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET THE QUESTION.
YEAH, YEAH, I GUESS THE, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERNS THAT THE, THE PLAN DOESN'T, THAT THE NEW BONUSES DON'T PROPERLY ADDRESS THE RED LINE PARKWAY.
AND WE'D WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THE BONUS, JUST, JUST LIKE DOWNTOWN, YOU HAVE TO DO GREAT STREETS OR, YOU KNOW, OR, OR IN THE, THE UNO YOU HAVE TO DO GREAT STREETS THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD TO DO THE RED LINE PARKWAY.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S NOT IN THERE NOW.
AND, AND SO JUST GIVING AN EXTRA TWO WEEKS TO SORT OF FIGURE
[00:30:01]
OUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN, WHAT A, WHAT A PLAN WOULD LOOK LIKE, EITHER WHAT LEGALLY WE COULD DO OR WHAT WE'D HAVE TO RE-NOTICE, UM, AND SORT OF THINK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE THINGS.I THINK THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS IN THE BACKUP, BUT I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
SEAN, COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN ADDRESS THAT THE, THE WAY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED THIS CODE AMENDMENT ITEM 42 ON YOUR AGENDA DID NOT INCLUDE CONDITIONS TO, UH, THE INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS FOR FLORIDA AREA RATIO OR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WHEN USING A DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
CERTAINLY THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE AND WE CAN CERTAINLY RUN THROUGH, UH, POSSIBLE SCENARIOS IN YOUR DISCUSSION AS WELL AS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH CITY LEGAL.
IF YOU PREFER A POSTPONEMENT IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE FOR US TO GAIN CLARIFICATION ON THOSE ITEMS IF YOU SEE FIT.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION ON BECAUSE THE WAY IT WAS NOTICED AND ALSO POSTED ON YOUR AGENDA WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO INCLUDE OTHER CONDITIONS TO THE CODE AMENDMENT AS CURRENTLY ON YOUR AGENDA OR NOTIFIED.
AND, AND I GUESS I JUST WOULD WONDER IF, IF THERE WERE MORE CONDITIONS, WHETHER THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH CODES AND ORDINANCES.
AND I, I GUESS I, IF, IF WE COULD TALK THROUGH THOSE ISSUES TONIGHT AND, AND THEN POSTPONE IF, IF WE THINK WE'D, WE'D LIKE TO DO THAT, OR MAYBE WE JUST POSTPONE TWO WEEKS WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE A PRETTY BUSY NIGHT AND, AND, AND HOPEFULLY SOME, YOU KNOW, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND, AND LEGAL AND STAFF COULD WORK THAT OUT SO THAT NEXT TIME WE WOULD HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE.
BUT I I BUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY URGENT TIMING OF WHY WE WOULD NEED TO DO THIS TONIGHT AS OPPOSED TO DELAYING TWO WEEKS.
IF, IF I MAY CHAIR MY APOLOGIES.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE, UH, ANOTHER AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EASEMENTS ALONG THE RAIL LINE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE DIRECTION OR ADVICE ON HOW THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED, UH, INTO THE REGULATING PLAN.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS EVENING AND THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO, UM, LOOKING AT, UH, HOW LEGALLY WE COULD INFUSE SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS, IF THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE.
SO IT, IT, WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THIS AND MAYBE OFFLINE GET ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT CHAIR, IF I MAY, THAT THIS ITEM IS ALSO ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR ACTION ON THE 26TH.
SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR POSTPONING THAT AT COUNCIL AS WELL, WHICH FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW, THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
WHAT, WHAT DATE WOULD YOU RECOMMEND MEN WE POSTPONE TOO? I, I WOULD THINK TWO WEEKS WOULD, WOULD HELP US SORT OF RESOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GONNA GET THEM RESOLVED.
IT MAY BE WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT IS AS IT IS NOW.
AND THEN DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE RED LINE.
BUT I GUESS I SORT OF WANT SOME PEOPLE TO HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT AND, AND, AND BE PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THAT BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND, AND STAFF ON, ON WHAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE.
BUT WE MAY HAVE SOME FEEDBACK ON IF WHAT WE WANT, WE HAVE TO START OVER THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IF HAVE THAT AND IF THAT'S, IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
BUT I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE HAD THOUGHT THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
SO BRING THIS BACK ON JANUARY 24TH.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? POSTPONE COMMISSIONER OF WHO'S GOT THERE? COMMISS COX? UM, MAYBE I MISHEARD, BUT, UH, STAFF MAY HAVE MENTIONED A POSTING LANGUAGE ISSUE.
SO DO WE HAVE TO GIVE DIRECTION RELATED TO THAT OR DO WE JUST STRAIGHT UP POST POSTPONE IN, IN MY MIND IT'S, WE'RE JUST POSTPONING RIGHT NOW, SO WE CAN SORT OF HAVE SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS WHEN THEY COME BACK OF, OH, WE WILL HAVE TO RE-NOTICE OR IT'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH CODES AND ORDINANCES AGAIN OR WHATEVER THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ARE.
AND AT THAT POINT WE MAY RE-NOTICE OR WE MAY MOVE ON WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US AND, AND START A DIFFERENT OPTION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE MR. ZA? UM, WHILE WE'RE POSTPONING, I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT TO MR. ROSALYN, THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS.
I JUST WANNA SAY, I THINK AS THIS CAME TO PLANNING COMMISSION, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO I HOPE THAT AS THIS COMES BACK, IT GETS MORE ALIGNED WITH THAT OR WE CAN GET AN EXPLANATION ON WHERE STAFF IS.
JUST, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ANSWER OF THE ACTION THAT HAPPENED HERE AND WHAT WE'RE,
[00:35:01]
WHAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING HERE.SO SOUNDS FOR A FEW REASONS WE MIGHT WANNA POSTPONE THIS TO, OKAY, SO WHAT I HAVE ON THEN ON ITEM, UM, 42, UH, INSTEAD OF DISCUSSION, WE WILL POSTPONE THAT UNTIL JANUARY 24TH.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD.
UM, MR. ROSALIN, I KNOW THAT THERE'S ALSO A LARGER CODE AMENDMENT MOVING THROUGH.
IT'D BE AWESOME TO KNOW IF MAYBE THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO ADDRESS WITH THE POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED FOR THE REDLINE PARKWAY, IF THAT COULD MAYBE BE ADDRESSED IN THAT WORK AND NOT NECESSARILY THIS WORK.
IT'D BE GREAT TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN TWO WEEKS.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UM, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? I SEE COMMISSIONER AZAR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN, UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS, START WITH THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S EVERYONE AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN, SHOW ME YOUR COLORS.
THAT'S QUITE A PALLET YOU GOT THERE, MR. COMMISSIONER COX? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S EVERYONE.
MR. RIVERA HELP KEEP ME ON TRACK.
OUR FIRST ITEM HERE, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? POSTPONES, CHAIR, COMMISSION? LADIES, AVERA? NO, WE DO NOT.
UH, SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE OF THE EVENING.
[Items 20 & 21]
UM, SO WE WILL, UH, BEGIN HEARING FROM STAFF IN REGARDS TO ITEMS 20 AND 21.I'M KATHLEEN FOX WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT'S A PLAN AMENDMENT M P A DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2, 2 0.0 1, 4 0 6, AND 4 28 EAST ALPINE ROAD IN DISTRICT THREE.
THE REQUEST IS FROM OFFICE TO MIXED USE.
UH, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST FOR MIXED JUICE, UH, UM, LAND USE.
THE BASIS FOR THIS IS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ST.
EDWARDS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, WHICH SUPPORTS NEW HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT.
UM, THERE IS MULTI-FAMILY LOCATED TO THE NORTH.
THE REQUEST IS MOSTLY FOR MIXED JUICE MULTI-FAMILY.
BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T ADD THAT.
UM, THE STREET EAST ALPINE IS NOT RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S FILLED WITH MOSTLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO IT WOULD FIT WITH THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT BY ADDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
THIS IS NOT, AGAIN, IN A JOB CENTER.
THIS IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER, WHICH DOES ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY AND VARIETY OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS ALSO LOCATED NEAR ST.
EDWARDS AND WITH AN HALF MILE OF A PLANNED METRO STOP MAKING THE SITE ACCEPTABLE LOCATION FOR HOUSING, DESPITE BEING A DAY ADJACENT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE WEST AND SOUTH.
UH, DID NOTE THE LACK OF SIDEWALKS.
THE CONTACT TEAM DID REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH WE DID DO.
AND THEN THERE WERE TWO LETTERS FROM TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, UM, WHO HAD ISSUES WITH WATER QUALITY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEXT TO BLONDE CREEK AND THERE WAS GOING TO, UH, THAT THERE WAS AN EXISTING 50 FOOT CO, WHICH WENDY RHODES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF GREATER SOUTH RIVER CITY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DO REQUEST AND SUPPORT A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES.
AND WITH THAT, THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH OUR DURING OUR Q AND A? THANK YOU.
[00:40:01]
COMMISSION MEMBERS.MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS, UH, REZONING AREA CONSISTS OF A PLATTED LOT.
IT CAN AND AN AND AS WELL AS AN UNPLATTED TRACT.
IT CONTAINS A VACANT VFW POST AS WELL AS, UM, AN UNPLATTED AND UNPLATTED AREA.
UH, BLUNT CREEK FLOWS THROUGH THE EASTERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY AND CONTAINS A DOCUMENTED CREEK BUFFER.
UH, IT IS ZONE G O C O N P THAT OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF THE SOUTH, THE GREATER SOUTH RIVER CITY, UM, CITIZENS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONINGS, WHICH WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2005.
AND THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THE ONLY ONE FOR THIS PRO FOR THIS PROPERTY, IS A 50 FOOT WIDE VEGETATIVE BUFFER, BEGINNING AT THE CENTER LINE OF, OF BLOOD CREEK.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED, HAS FILED A REQUEST TO THE GO M U C O N P DISTRICT IN ORDER TO BUILD UP TO 40 TOWNHOUSE UNITS OR UP TO 90 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING G O M U N P BECAUSE THE LOCATION IS, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR MIXED USE AND GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO MAJOR ARTERIALS RESIDENTIAL USES AND ST.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A TRAFFIC, UH, SIGNAL BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL, UH, SIGNAGE AT THE EAST ALPINE SOUTH CONGRESS INTERSECTION THAT IS, UH, UNDERWAY ALREADY.
AND SO, UH, THE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USES IN THE VICINITY.
UM, I DID WANNA NOTE UNDER THE ISSUE SECTION THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DID CHANGE FROM THAT, THAT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED IN, UM, LAST YEAR AND LATE LAST YEAR.
UM, WE DID, UH, HEAR FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF AND THEY, UH, REQUESTED THAT WE REMOVED THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REGARDING THE VEGETATIVE SETBACK.
UM, THEY DID A CURSORY REVIEW OF THIS SITE AND IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, UH, CURRENTLY MAY BE GREATER THAN THE SETBACK AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
UH, SO THEY ARE RECOMMENDING REMOVING THE SETBACK SO THAT IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
UM, SO I DID WANNA NOTE THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS J NOW JUST G O M U N P.
UH, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T OBJECT TO THAT.
AND, UM, THERE IS, THERE HAS BEEN CORRESPONDENCE, UM, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
JUST QUICK QUE DO WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM WATERSHED HERE THIS EVENING? YES.
UH, LIZ JOHNSON, SHE IS, UM, PARTICIPATING REMOTELY.
WE'LL NOW BEGIN WITH SPEAKERS.
UM, WE'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, THE APPLICANT, MR. DAVID HARTMAN.
MR. HARTMAN, YOU'LL HAVE, UH, FIVE MINUTES.
UH, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE LINE AS WELL AS, UH, DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, THIS, UH, CASE IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE'RE JUST SIMPLY ADDING MIXED USE TO, UH, A COUPLE OF LOTS, TWO ACRES AT THIS ADDRESS.
UM, CURRENTLY ZONE, ZONE GEO OFFICE PLUM IS OFFICE ADJACENT ZONING IS MF.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICATIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED.
WE'RE ADDING M MU AND MIXED USE.
OUR CURRENT PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT IS, UH, COMPRISED OF PROB PROBABLY, UM, 40 TOWN HOMES OR 90 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
UH, GIVEN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE THE 90 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, UH, APPROXIMATELY TWO TENTHS OF THE MILE.
ED'S CENTRALLY LOCATED AND IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER, UH, ALONG, UH, NEAR AND IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR, ONE-THIRD TO A METRO RAPID ROUTE, UH, NEW TRAFFIC LIGHT AS MS. RHODES SAID AND IS RECOMMENDED BY HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF.
THIS TIMELINE CAN BE SUMMARIZED BY STATING THAT WE'VE HAD FIVE MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPS, INCLUDING, AS YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY HOSTED VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
THAT IS NOTICED AT THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOVEMBER 8TH REQUESTED A POST AMENDMENT THAT WE DIDN'T OPPOSE TO THE DECEMBER 13TH HEARING THAT WAS CANCELED.
SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BEFORE YOU AND THIS LOCATION, JUST THE NORTH OF BEN WHITE.
UM, AGAIN, YOU SEE THE STREETS, UH, WILLOW SPRINGS, EAST ALPINE ROAD, CONGRESSMAN WOODWARD AND WAREHOUSE ROAD IS ANOTHER STREET TO THE SOUTH BEN WHITE.
THIS IS JUST KIND OF ZOOMED IN SHOWING THAT THE ADJACENT, UM, LAND USES OR TOWN HOMES, APARTMENTS, APARTMENTS, APARTMENTS.
UM, SENIOR LIVING IS SOCO VILLAGE ST.
AGAIN, MF ZONING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TRACT OFFICE OF PLUM.
UH, THIS SHOWS AT A THIRD MALL FROM THE THE CAT METRO RAPID BUS ROUTE AND
[00:45:01]
STOP AND DEAD CENTER IN THIS, UM, IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER.AND THEN, UH, THE CORRIDOR, IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR IS CONGRESS AVENUE.
UM, ALPINE ROAD IS ON THE AS P, UM, AS WELL AS ADJACENT STREETS.
AND I WAS SUPER EXCITED WHEN THE CLIENT CALLED, UH, ABOUT THIS TRACT AND LOOKED IT UP.
AND CERTAINLY IT, UH, FOUND OUT, UH, UNDER RESEARCH THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE 10 MINUTE, UH, WALK SHED AND THREE MINUTE BIKE SHED OF ESSENTIALLY TWO NEW PROJECT CONNECT STATIONS.
UM, AS MS. ROAD SAID, UM, THIS IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE SATURDAY ON THE GROUND UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH BACKHOES AND FENCING.
UM, AGAIN, SIMPLEST CASE, UH, ADDING A MIXED USE.
THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ON THE LEFT, ON THE RIGHT IS ARE PROPOSED.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZING HOUSING THE BACKUP.
THERE WERE STATEMENTS ABOUT, UM, BASICALLY RAINWATER HARVESTING RAIN GARDENS AND STORMWATER RUNOFF.
AND FAST FORWARD TO BASICALLY OVER THE HOLIDAYS OR, YOU KNOW, LATE LAST YEAR.
IN, IN ESSENCE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE COUNCIL APPROVED, UM, THIS PROVISION IS REQUIRING GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND STORM WATER WITHIN PARKING LOTS REQUIRED TO DRAIN.
AND THAT WAS THANKS TO, UM, UH, IT WAS PROPOSED, OBVIOUSLY A, A WHILE BACK AND DURING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION, UH, THIS CURRENT ITERATION UNDER INVOLVED IN MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, MULTIPLE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INCLUDING THIS, UH, BODY HAD THE GREAT WORK GROUP AND THEN OBVIOUSLY OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL SUPPORTED BY ENVIRONMENT TEXAS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS.
THIS IS JUST A BLOW UP OF, UM, THE DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER'S STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING CREEK SETBACKS BEING NEGOTIATED VIA ZONING OVER OVERLAYS.
AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTIVE, AND I JUST THINK OF IT IN MY CONTEXT OF A ZONING CONTEXT AS YOU DON'T, THERE'S REASONS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE BUILD ZONING BUILDING SETBACKS ON A PLAT, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, UM, THAT COULD CHANGE OVER TIME AND I THINK SIMILARLY.
SO IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THE CITY'S DEPUTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS RECOMMENDING AND HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REMOVING THAT, THAT, UM, CO UM, OF THIS IS JUST THE FINAL SLIDE.
REASONS TO SUPPORT MUCH OF NEEDED RESIDENTIAL INFILL HOUSING IN CENTRAL AUSTIN IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE FOR MORE HOUSING IN ALL AREAS.
UM, ALL THE REASONS TO SUPPORT THE BULLETS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY ADDING MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT.
ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REMAIN IDENTICAL TO EXISTING ZONE ZONING, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. SARAH CAMPBELL IN OPPOSITION.
UM, I SIGNED MYSELF UP AS A PRIMARY SPEAKER.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME REMOTE SPEAKERS ON THIS.
WILL THAT FOLLOW ME OR BE LATER? OH, FOLLOW.
UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I AM SARAH CAMPBELL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING CHAIR OF THE SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS S R C C.
IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS IS AN INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE MANAGER THAT STATES, I QUOTE THE S R CCC NA IS DEMANDING THAT THE CO, WHICH PROHIBITS ANY DEVELOPMENT FROM 50 FEET FROM BLUNT CREEK NOW GO TO 200 FEET IN QUOTE, WE DID NOT DEMAND ANYTHING.
THE CASE MANAGER WAS NOT AT THE MEETING WHEN WE PRESENTED TO THE APPLICANTS WHAT WE DESIRED FOR CREEK PROTECTION.
SO I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE APPLICANTS TOLD HER THAT WE DEMANDED CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE S R C C SEEM TOTALLY UNREASONABLE.
WE MADE OUR DESIRE, OUR DESIRES, KNOWN FULLY EXPECTING NEGOTIATIONS AND COMPROMISE TO FOLLOW.
WE WERE TOLD BY THE APPLICANT'S AGENT THAT THEY WOULD GET BACK TO US.
CONSEQUENTLY, SCC HAS NOT VOTED ON THIS REZONING, NOR HAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM VOTED ON THE FLU CHANGE.
STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF BOTH CASES WITH I THINK NO MENTION OF OUR LACK OF SUPPORT, I MEAN OR INPUT.
S RCC IS ONE OF THE OLDEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THE CITY FORMED IN THE EARLY 1970S,
[00:50:01]
AND WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING SINCE THEN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.IT HAS BEEN JUST ABOUT AS LONG THAT S R CCC HAS WORKED TO IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY AND DOWNSTREAM FLOODING OF ONE CREEK WITH WHAT WE ALL KNOW NOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE EAST ALPINE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE HEADWATERS OF BLONDE CREEK.
OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO, S RCC HAS, HAS NEGOTIATED SUCCESSFULLY WITH A I S D, HOME DEPOT AND WALMART, ALL LANDOWNERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA FOR ENHANCED CREEK PROTECTIONS.
WE FIRST MET THE APPLICANTS ON SITE ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2022, DURING WHICH WE SAID THAT PROTECTIONS FOR BLONDE CREEK WOULD BE OUR MOST PRESSING CONCERN.
THEN WE LAID OUT OUR SPECIFIC DESIRES FOR CREEK PROTECTION TO THE APPLICANTS IN A TEAMS MEETING ON THE AFTERNOON OF OCTOBER 17TH, 2022.
WE FULLY EXPECTED THE APPLICANTS TO GET BACK TO US FOR NEGOTIATIONS.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD, BUT THEY NEVER HAVE.
AS LATE AS DECEMBER 5TH, I CORRESPONDED WITH MR. HARTMAN ABOUT GETTING BACK TO US.
HE SAID HE WOULD PROBABLY AFTER THE HOLIDAYS, AFTER LAST TUESDAY WHEN MOST PEOPLE WENT BACK TO WORK, I THOUGHT WE WOULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS TO WORK OUT SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE BEFORE TODAY, LAST FRIDAY, MR. HARTMAN SENT US ATTACHMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR TONIGHT AND BACKUP MATERIALS FOR ITEMS 20 AND 21, MAKING CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT GETTING BACK TO US FOR NEGOTIATIONS.
STAFF HAD ALREADY SENT US THIS INFORMATION.
I WONDER IF THIS IS REALLY MR. HARTMAN'S IDEA OF GETTING BACK TO US.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
HOUSING IS MENTIONED AS A POTENTIAL USE.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE ARE AWARE OF THE CITY'S NEW FLOOD MAPS AND THE RECENTLY PASSED, UH, ENHANCEMENTS, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, I'M SORRY, THAT WILL APPLY TO DEVELOPMENTS GOING FORWARD.
WE DO HOPE THESE CHANGES WILL PROTECT THE CREEK IN THE WAYS THAT WE DESIRE AND IN THE WAYS OUR OTHER PARTNERS HAVE.
AT THIS POINT, WE REQUEST THE FOLLOWING TO KEEP THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH THE REZONING.
FOR NOW, THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT REQUESTED IT BE REMOVED.
THE CO WAS PLACED ON THE SITE AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.
TO REMOVE IT WOULD BE TO ACT UNILATERALLY WITHOUT INFORMING OR THE CONSENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
SO JUST GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
NUMBER TWO, STATE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY WILL INFORM AND INCLUDE S R CCC AT THE TIME THAT A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS SITE IS SUBMITTED.
SCC IS NOT NOTIFIED ROUTINELY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTALS NUMBER THREE, PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING ALLOWED USES UNDER GEO ZONING ON THIS SITE.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SEVEN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, MEDICAL OFFICES EXCEEDING 5,000 SQUARE FEET, GROSS FLOOR AREA, COMMUNITY EVENTS, HOSPITAL SERVICES GENERAL.
I WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
HAVE MR. TODD REGISTERED AND ON THE, UH, PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE.
UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE HE IS ON MR. UH, TODD, ARE YOU PRESENT ON THE TELECONFERENCE? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO MR. JEFF KESSEL.
UM, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I AM A, UH, RETIRED CIVIL ENGINEER.
I'VE LIVED IN THE SCC NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS WATERSHED FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS AND HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH ALL THE PROJECTS THAT SARAH MENTIONED.
OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATION WITH LARGE PROJECTS THAT WERE, UH, DEVELOPING LARGE TRACKS UP IN THE HEADWATERS OF THE WATERSHED, WHICH IS A REAL CRITICAL AREA IN TERMS OF PROTECTING THE WATERSHED, WATER QUALITY, EROSION AND FLOOD FLOODING POTENTIAL.
THESE ARE ALL MISSIONS OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
AND I, MY CAREER HAS BEEN SPENT, UH, WORKING FOR WATERSHED AS, UH, A SUBCONTRACTOR.
SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THEIR PROCEDURES AND ANALYSES.
AND, UM, I WAS, I WENT OUT TO THE SITE WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME UP JUST TO SEE HOW FAR BACK FROM THE CREEK WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PROJECT STAND.
AND, UM, I, I THINK THAT'S, UH, I PROPOSED THAT WE STEPPED
[00:55:01]
BACK, KEEP AT LEAST 200 FEET BACK FROM THE CREEK BASED ON JUST WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE GROUND.IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH MUDDY FLOODPLAIN ALL THE WAY UP THAT TRACK OF THE ROAD, ALPINE ROAD UNTIL WE GET TO THE BEND IN THE ROAD, WHICH IS ABOUT 200 FEET.
UM, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE CITY HAS BEEN, HAS INSTALLED A LARGE REGIONAL STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
AND, UH, SO WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT MOVES IN JUST ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THIS FACILITY.
WHAT IS THE FLOODING POTENTIAL AND WHAT IMPACT WILL IT HAVE ON THE CREEK? AND, UM, I AT THIS POINT, UM, I I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE WATERSHED PROTECTION IS GOING TO DRAW THE LINE.
UH, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH JUST A SIMPLE 50 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE CREEK AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE CREEK.
THEY WANT SOMETHING MORE BASED ON THE ACTUAL FLOOD PLAIN DIMENSIONS AND WHAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING AS THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
SO MAYBE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT IN THE SAME WAY.
AND SO I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, UM, AND, AND SEE THIS PROJECT GO FORWARD.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION TO PROVIDING THIS, THIS HOUSING.
I THINK THIS COULD BE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THEIR PLANS SHOWING, UH, STARTING THEIR PROJECT AND PARKING LOT 50 FEET OFF THE CREEK IS TOO MUCH OF AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE, THE WATER ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
IT'S GOING TO COMPLETELY, UM, CHANGE THE REPAIRING CORRIDOR THERE.
RIGHT NOW THERE IS A REPAIRING CORRIDOR WITH A LOT OF TREES AND VEGETATION.
THIS PROJECT'S FOOTPRINT WILL TOTALLY ELIMINATE THAT.
SO THERE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE NO BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR SITE AND THE CREEK.
AND THE CREEK HAS VERY LITTLE CAPACITY TO CONVEY FLOW.
AND THE BIG PROBLEM IS, IS THAT AS SOON AS WATER LEAVES THIS SITE, IT'S GOTTA TAKE A HARD, HARD 90 DEGREE TURN TO FOLLOW A MANMADE CHANNEL PATH TO, IN ORDER TO DEFLECT AROUND AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
AND YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY, THE, THE ZONING CHANGE IS GOING TO ALLOW MUCH GREATER IMPERVIOUS SIR COVER THAN WE SEE TODAY.
BUT YOU, MR. THE ARIEL, YOU'LL SEE THAT.
UH, MR. TODD, WE'RE WE'RE OUTTA TIME.
YOU COULDN'T HEAR THE BUS? I, SORRY.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO STAY INVOLVED AND HEAR FROM THEIR ENGINEERS.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO STEP BACK FROM THE CREEK AND UH, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM.
CHAIR COMMISSION LEADS ON ANDREW RIVERA.
SO, UM, I'M BRINGING MR. TODD ONLINE.
UM, HE HASN'T CALLED BACK IN JUST YET.
UH, DO YOU WISH TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS? UH, WHO WAS JUST, WHO WAS SPEAKING? JUST MR. KESSEL.
UM, I REFERRED TO YOU AS MR. TODD.
SO, UH, WHILE WE'RE BRINGING MR. TODD BACK ON, DO YOU WANNA HEAR FROM THE, UH, APPLICANT FOR HIS REBUTTAL OR JUST, UH, PAUSE FOR A MINUTE? YEAH, LET'S PAUSE A MINUTE.
WANNA, THIS IS JEFF KEK CALLING BACK.
I'M HAPPY THAT HE RECOGNIZED AS DAVID TODD
WELL, AND I'LL TAKE HIS TIME IF HE DOESN'T USE IT.
OH, LET'S, WE'LL GIVE A SHORT PAUSE, SEE IF WE CAN GET MR. TODD ON THE LINE.
MR. TODD, ARE YOU ON THE TELECONFERENCE? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO TO THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL AND THEN MAYBE WE WILL, WE'LL GIVE MR. TODD A CHANCE IF WE'RE ABLE TO PATCH HIM IN.
MR. HARTMAN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
EXCUSE ME, CHAIRING COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I GUESS I'LL HIT ON ABOUT FOUR ITEMS, ONE OF WHICH WAS JUST KIND OF MY RESPONSE OR, UH, LIKE THEREOF.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE CODE LANGUAGE THAT ABOUT THAT WAS ON ONE OF THE SLIDES ABOUT RAIN GREEN REQUIRING GREEN STORM STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, AGAIN, IS, IS WHAT WE'RE
[01:00:01]
SUPPORTIVE OF.IT WAS PAST ONLY LATE LAST YEAR.
THEY HAD A WHOLE LOT OF PUBLIC HEARING, UM, GOING BACK TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CO CODE REVISIONS ABOUT WHAT THE, THE PROVISIONS WOULD BE.
ALTHOUGH, HOWEVER, WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE LANGUAGE UNTIL THE VERY END OF LAST YEAR.
IT TOOK OVER THE HOLIDAYS TO KIND OF DIGEST THINGS AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS THE, THE BEST, THE BEST ROUTE FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS TRYING TO ONE OFF KIND OF NEGOTIATE RAIN, RAIN GARDEN STANDARDS LIKE WE WERE KIND OF ATTEMPTING TO MAYBE THINK ABOUT DOING BEFORE THAT GOT ADOPTED.
UM, UH, IS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BEST PRACTICE.
SO SOME SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD MOVE AWAY AND, AND EMBRACE ACTUALLY SOME OF THE GOOD WORK THAT THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND THIS BODY DID.
SO WE'RE IN FAVOR OF STICKING TO THAT PLAN AND NOT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE SEPARATELY.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION ABOUT KEEPING THE CO I MEAN, I, I WOULD MAYBE LEAVE THAT TO THE DEPUTY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER TO MAYBE, MAYBE, UH, LOOK AT THAT.
BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON SCIENCE, UH, CODE PROVISIONS RATHER THAN, UH, UH, JUST KIND OF OBSERVING A TRACK AND SAYING THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU LOOKED AT, THE THE SETBACK NEEDS TO BE 200 FEET.
AND THEN I WOULD JUST SAY MOST OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS SITE PLAN ISSUES AND, AND WILL CERTAINLY BE FULLY ADDRESSED AT TIME OF SITE PLAN.
AND BY THE WAY, WILL BE, THE SITE PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO, UH, COMPLY WITH ATLAS 14 REGULATIONS.
SO THIS SITE'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE, THE PREEMINENT REGULATIONS THANKS TO YOUR GOOD WORK AT THIS BODY AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL REG LAST CHAIR.
AND, UH, UH, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIR COMMISSIONER HAS ANY WAY? I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE MR. TODD PRESENT NOW.
NO, SORRY, MR. TODD, IF YOU'LL PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
YEAH, UH, I HOPE THAT, UM, THAT I CAN PARTICIPATE.
UH, WELL, GOOD, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I AM THE PARKS ENVIRONMENT CO-CHAIR, UH, FOR THE SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, AND I'M THE COORDINATOR FOR A NON-PROFIT GROUP CALLED THE BLUNT CREEK PARTNERSHIP.
UM, I'VE WORKED ON CREEK AND PARK ISSUES IN THIS AREA FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.
UM, I APPRECIATE MR. HARTMAN'S, MR. FENWICKS, MR. FENWAY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS AND AS WELL THE WORK BY KATHLEEN FOX AND WENDY RHODES ON THIS PROPOSAL.
UM, HOWEVER, I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE ZONING AND NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY.
UH, WHILE WE CERTAINLY APPLAUD THE PROSPECT NEW HOUSING IN THE AREA, I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE SERIOUS IMPACTS ON UPON CREEK AND ASK THAT THE COMMISSION WORK ON THE SOLUTION TO PROTECT THE CREEK AND THE DOWNSTREAM PARKS AND COMMUNITIES AND STREAM EFFECTS IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS HAVE COOPERATED IN THIS EFFORT OVER MANY YEARS, INCLUDING WALMART, HOME DEPOT AND AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
I THINK IT'S GOOD TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE VERY LAST IN THE BLOOD WATERSHED THAT HAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE.
AND SO IT IS CRITICAL THAT IT BE SENSITIVELY DEVELOPED.
UM, I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL PRO PROPOSED PROJECT, MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 200 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE, THE CREEK, TO PROTECT AGAINST DOWNSTREAM FLOODING, NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION, AND TO, UM, MAINTAIN THE MATURE TREES DURING THE REPAIRING CORRIDOR THERE.
AND TO, UH, ALLOW FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR ANY FUTURE HIKING BIKE TRAILS THAT MAY BE, UM, POSSIBLE.
UH, WE URGE THAT OTHER GREEN STORMWATER MANAGES STRATEGIES ALSO BE ADOPTED AT THE EAST ALPINE PROPERTY, INCLUDING RAINWATER COLLECTION AND RAIN GARDENS.
UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS AND THOSE OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATES.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, CLOSE, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, SECONDED BY, I SEE A SECOND.
SECOND, UH, BY LAST YEAR, HEMPEL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S EVERYONE THAT IS ON THE SCREEN.
UH, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND KEEP THAT WE'VE WHITTLED DOWN OUR NUMBER OF CASES.
I THINK FOR NOW, LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP IT AT EIGHT AND AT FIVE.
WE DON'T NEED TO USE ALL THAT TIME, BUT, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP IT THE SAME FOR NOW.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, HE WANTS US TO START US OFF.
UH, WE'LL START WITH, UH, VICE CHAIR.
HE THE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER GIANNIS POLITO.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I MADE NOTE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, SUGGESTED PROHIBITIONS AND WHICH IS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER.
[01:05:02]
UH, AND I CAN'T EVEN READ MY OWN HANDWRITING.BUT THERE WERE FIVE ITEMS ENDING WITH HOSPITAL SERVICES.
WHAT IS EITHER YOUR, UM, YOUR POSITION ON THOSE ITEMS? YEAH, I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH THEM ALL MYSELF.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING THOSE, THESE, MY, OUR OUR GUT RESPONSE IS THAT WE'RE NOT INCLINED TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE PROPERTY.
IT'S, UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT TOPIC, UM, I THINK IS BASICALLY UP TO THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION.
MY QUESTIONS ALSO FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I'M TAKING A LOOK AT THE, AT THE LAW PARTICULARLY, UM, 4 28 ALPINE ON FLOOD PRO.
AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT IS RIGHT IN THE WATERSHED.
DO YOU KNOW, UM, THE, SO THE, THE BUFFER THAT WAS MENTIONED, UM, IS 50 FEET, AND CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE WHERE THE FLOOD PLAIN IS AT THAT LINE? I WOULD DEFER TO OUR CIVIL ENGINEER WHO'S ON THE LINE OR PERHAPS MS. UM, MS. JOHNSON.
UM, SO THE, THE CREEK STAND LINE IS RUN AT THE EDGE OF THE, IN THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S NO FE OF FLOOD PLANE ESTABLISHED, UM, BUT AT THE TIME OF SITE PLANE, WE MAY HAVE TO DO A, A DRAINAGE STUDY AROUND THE CREEK IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ANY CITY OF AUSTIN CONVEY IN BROOKLAND.
UH, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE CURRENT CODE, WE WOULD ESTABLISHED THAT THE CREEK SETBACK BACK COULD BE THE MINIMUM 50 FEET OR MASS FLOOD LANE.
SO WE WOULD DO THAT AT THE TIME OF SUB LANE.
SO IN THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE UNITS AND THEN THE FIRE LANE DIRECTLY UP TO THE CREEK BUFFER.
SO IS THAT FAR LINE, UH, THE 50 FOOT MARK FROM THE CENTER OF THE CREEK, UM, DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE CONCEPTUAL MAP IS SIMPLY THAT IT'S, IT'S A POTENTIAL MASSING OF THE SITE.
UM, WHAT'S BEFORE THIS BODY AND BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, WHAT WE APPLIED FOR WAS TO SIMPLY ADD MIXED USE, AUTHORIZED RESIDENTIAL, UH, THE, THE IDEAS ABOUT EXACTLY WHERE THE BUILDING LOCATION IS, WHERE FIRE LANES WILL BE DECIDED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
UM, BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE FIND THAT NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THEY REQUEST AND REQUIRE IS JUST A VISUAL OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
SO WE PREPARE THAT, BUT IT'S CONCEPTUAL IN, IN, IN NAME ONLY, SO, YEAH.
AND, UH, THAT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU WOULD ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE AT THE SITE PLAN, UM, PHASE, BUT DO YOU ALL HAVE, UH, SOME ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OR HAVE YOU DISCUSSED ADJUSTING THE, THE LAYOUT OR THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN BASED ON, UM, SOME OF THAT STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OR POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE, THE SETBACK FROM THE CREEK? UH, BEST ANSWER IS NO.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR, UH, MS. JOHNSTON.
UM, SO I, I WAS READING THE BACKUP INFORMATION, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE IF, IF ANY OF THIS IS WRONG, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CO THAT'S ON THE EXISTING ZONING WAS 50 FEET OF BUFFER SPACE CENTERED OVER THE CREEK.
AND IN YOUR EMAIL YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WAS, UH, A 50 FOOT MINIMUM BUFFER FOR THIS CREEK FROM THE CENTER LINE.
SO AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT JUST UNDER CURRENT CITY CODE, THE BUFFER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE EXISTING CO IS VERSUS CURRENT CITY CODE, THAT BUFFER IS ALREADY DOUBLING IN DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK? UM, I MIGHT HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH OUR ZONING STAFF WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL CEO WAS.
I BELIEVE THAT BOTH WERE FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK.
UM, RIGHT NOW THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS THE MINIMUM 50 EXCEPT WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS SHOWN TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT.
SO IN SOME CASES IT GOES, YOU KNOW, UP TO 70, 75 FEET.
UM, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, OR THE ENGINEER MENTIONED, IT'S POSSIBLE DURING A SITE PLAN REVIEW THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL MODELING TO DETERMINE IF THE FLOODPLAIN IS GROWN WITH ATLAS 14.
AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS AT LEAST MINIMUM 50 FEET.
IT WILL NEVER SHRINK BEYOND BELOW THAT, BUT IT COULD GO UP TO 400 FEET.
SO WHERE THAT, THAT LINE IS DEPENDS ON, UM, SOME ENGINEERING WORK.
SO AT A MINIMUM UNDER CURRENT CITY CODE, THE, THE, THE
[01:10:01]
EXISTING CO BUFFER, IF IT'S 50 FEET FROM THE CENTER OR 50 FEET CENTERED, THEY'RE GONNA GET THAT UNDER EXISTING CITY CODE NO MATTER WHAT.UM, AND, AND WHAT I NOTICED, WHICH WAS KIND OF SURPRISING AND MAYBE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE, UM, SINCE THIS IS AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS, UH, WATERSHED, THE, THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE BASICALLY DISCHARGING INTO THE VERY TOP OF THIS CREEK AMONGST THREE OR FOUR OR MAYBE EVEN MORE OTHER DETENTION FACILITIES THAT ARE ALL SURROUNDING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, UM, DOES THAT, DOES THAT IMPACT YOUR REVIEW AND, AND HOW YOU DETERMINE SETBACKS WHEN YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF, OF MULTIPLE DETENTION FACILITIES DISCHARGING INTO GENERALLY THE SAME AREA? IT, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE SETBACKS.
UM, SO A SITE PLAN WILL HAVE A DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY REVIEWER AND A SEPARATE FLOODPLAIN REVIEWER.
SO THERE'LL BE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ENGINEERING REVIEWS THAT THAT HAPPEN.
AND, UM, SO THEY WILL LOOK AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT DOWNSTREAM.
UM, THE TWO YEAR STORM CONTROL ALSO HAS A EROSION CREEK EROSION PROTECTION ELEMENT TO IT.
AND SO THAT SHOULD ALSO HELP WITH THE CREEK EROSION, WHICH IS, UM, CORRECTLY, UH, A CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THAT HARD TURN.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I SAY THIS A LOT, BUT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES DO GET REVIEWED DURING SITE PLAN AND ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO NEGOTIATE AT THE ZONING STAGE.
MY MY MY LAST QUESTION IS, UH, FOR YOU IS IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING FOR DETENTION.
I THINK WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO BUILD MAYBE DOESN'T REQUIRE DETENTION, UM, SINCE THEY'RE AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS WATERSHED, THAT DOES CONCERN ME A LITTLE BIT SINCE THE DE DETENTION BECOMES MORE VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT AS YOU GO UP THE WATERSHED.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT DETENTION FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT? UM, YEAH, I MEAN I, THE DE DRAINAGE REVIEWER WILL REVIEW IT AND YOU'RE CORRECT, MOST OF THE TIME IF IT'S, IF THERE ISN'T ALREADY A DETENTION FACILITY LIKE REGIONAL POND, WHICH I SEE AS ACROSS THE CREEK AND UPSTREAM, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS WOULD BE FLOW INTO, SO IT'S LIKELY THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF DETENTION POND.
WOULD BE REVIEWED AT SITELINE.
AND IF, AND IF I GOT ANY MORE TIME LEFT FOR THE APPLICANT, I, I'LL JUST FOLLOW ONTO THAT QUESTION.
UH, I DON'T SEE ANY, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING RELATED TO DETENTION IN THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
I KNOW THAT'S INTENDED TO JUST BE MASKING ONLY, BUT Y'ALL, ARE Y'ALL ANTICIPATING DETENTION FOR THIS PROPERTY? I'LL DEFER THAT TO THE CIVIL ENGINEER.
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, AND WE WILL MEET ATLAS 14, I THINK THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN JUST WOULDN'T LABEL, UH, ACCURATELY.
AND THERE WAS ONE PARTICULAR POINT THAT I JUST THOUGHT I'LL MENTION AS WELL IS OKAY, WE, WE, WE APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.
ARE YOU, UH, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU.
YOU SAID THE SHORT ANSWER IS, AND THEN YOU BLANKED OUT.
SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOUR SHORT ANSWER WAS.
YEAH, THE, THE SHORT ANSWER IS WE WILL COMPLY WITH DETENTION AT THE TIME OF THE SITE PLAN AND CURRENTLY IS ADLIS 14.
AND WE WOULD ALSO COMPLY WITH ANY CO AMENDMENT RELATED TO GREEN FUEL CONDITION DEVELOPMENT AS NEEDED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
I CAN ELABORATE YOU BEING MY TIME'S UP, SO THANK YOU.
UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS LOOKING AROUND.
OH, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK.
UM, WAS THERE A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT YET ON THIS? UH, YES.
THERE WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT ON THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER OF 2022.
THAT WAS TO THE 13TH OF DECEMBER.
AND THEN THAT MEETING WAS CANCELED BECAUSE OF AN ELECTION DAY.
AND THEN WHILE YOU'RE, UM, HERE, DO YOU WANNA GO, DO YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE ON THE CO? YES.
JUST, UH, ILL GO AHEAD AND YOU WERE INQUIRING ABOUT, IT'S, IT'S IN, IT'S IN THE BACKUP, BUT IT'S SEVERAL PAGES IN AND IT SAYS, AND THIS WAS, UM, AGAIN, THIS WAS DONE IN 2005, A 50 FOOT WIDE VEGETATIVE BUFFER, BEGINNING AT THE CENTER LINE OF BLOWN CREEK ON TRACT 1 21.
SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED ON THE TRACT IMPROVEMENTS PERMITTED WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE OR UNLIMITED TO DRAINAGE UTILITY UNDER, SORRY, UNDERGROUND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS OR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY THE
[01:15:01]
CITY OF AUSTIN OR SPEC SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS STANDARD BUFFER.THAT IS STANDARD VEGETATIVE BUFFER LANGUAGE, UM, IN, IN A ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND THEN, UM, FOR MS. CAMPBELL, UH, DO YOU, I WANTED TO GET, UH, WELL, SOME WHO PROVIDED THE LIST OF USES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE REMOVED WAS THAT, I'M AFRAID I DID.
I JUST WENT THROUGH THE USE TABLES AND CAME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT WHAT THESE, HOW THESE WERE DEFINED AND CAME UP WITH THIS LIST BASED ON WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S, UM, MULTIFAMILY RIGHT BEHIND IT.
COULD YOU JUST REPEAT THOSE AND THEN STAFF, IF YOU CAN JUST CONFIRM, I JUST WOULD LIKE CONFIRMATION THAT THESE ARE INDEED INCLUDED IN, YOU WANT ME TO DO IT RIGHT NOW? YOU WANT ME TO SAY THIS? YES.
YOU COULD READ 'EM AND THEN I'LL ASK STAFF JUST TO TELL US IF THOSE ARE INDEED ALREADY INCLUDED.
TELE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER, THE, THE NUMERAL SEVEN FOLLOWS.
I'M NOT, MAY, MAYBE THAT'S A FOOTNOTE.
UH, COMMUNICATION SERVICES, MEDICAL OFFICES EXCEEDING 5,000 SQUARE FEET, GROSS FLOOR AREA.
THERE'S ALSO A MEDICAL OFFICES FOR SMALLER, UM, COMMUNITY EVENTS AND HOSPITAL SERVICES GENERAL.
AND THEN FOR STAFF, ARE THOSE ACTUALLY IN INCLUDED AS USES IN THIS ZONING DESIGNATION? UH, YES.
HOWEVER, THE, WE HAVE RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO NOT PROHIBIT TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, GIVEN THAT THEY ARE, UH, DIFFICULT TO CITE ALREADY.
RIGHT BEHIND FA RIGHT BEHIND MULTIFAMILY
ANYTHING ELSE DOESN'T MEAN IT'LL HAPPEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WELL, LET'S, UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR CHAIR MOVE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION? RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UM, ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE, GO COMMISSIONER SHA UM, CLARIFICATION.
SO DOES THAT MOTION INCLUDE THE, UM, THERE'S ITEMS FROM THE CO LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE TOWER COMMUNICATION SERVICES MEDICAL GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET HOSPITAL GENERAL.
IS THAT PART OF THE MOTION OR NOT THAT NO, I THINK GO, NO STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT COMMISSIONER SHEIK.
SO YOU'RE LEAVING IT CLEAN WITHOUT ANYTHING.
SO, YEAH, AND YOU ALL KNOW, I MEAN, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A SUB AN AMENDMENT, THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT OKAY.
TO INCLUDE THOSE ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS.
SO WHAT I READ, WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN HERE IS COMMUNICATION SERVICES MEDICAL OFFICE, GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET, GROSS FLOOR, UH, AREA, UH, COMMUNITY EVENTS, HOSPITAL SERVICES GENERAL.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT AMENDMENT? UH, COMMISSIONER MUTO SECOND SET AMENDMENT.
YEAH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SHAY.
SO, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF IN A, UM, I MEAN, WHERE, WHERE IT'S KIND OF LOCATED IS NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CHARGE FOR ACCESS IS NOT AS EASY.
AND SO I FEEL THAT COUPLE OF THESE THINGS DO, DO HELP LIMIT IT IF THE, UM, IF THE SITE DOES BECOME SOME TYPE OF BUSINESS ASPECT THAT INCLUDES THOSE COMPONENTS.
AND I FEEL THAT BY ADDING THE, UM, RESIDENTIAL PORTION, I THINK IT'S, UH, GONNA BE MORE COMPATIBLE BY TAKING THESE, UH, PIECES OUT.
SO, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE WITH, UM, THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? UM, I, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS IS IN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN, IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
UM, AND THAT ON THE ASMP, THEY, THERE ARE, THERE IS CONNECTIVITY, UM, IN TERMS OF, OF ROADS.
I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT BEING WITHIN, YOU KNOW, A, A WALK SHED OF, OF A PROJECT CONNECT STATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, SO I DON'T SEE WHY THIS
[01:20:01]
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR, YOU KNOW, A A, A MEDICAL OFFICE OR, OR A COMMUNICATION SERVICE OFFICE.UM, AND IT, I'M ALSO SLIGHTLY CONCERNED THAT THESE ARE SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY STATEMENTS THAT THEY WERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM DID NOT VOTE ON, ON THIS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF SUPPORT.
SO THIS ISN'T AN OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM LIST.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A VOLUNTEER CAME UP WITH AND, AND I, I, I THINK THAT SEEMS ARBITRARY AND, AND SOMETHING I CAN'T SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
OH, AND DID YOU FOR HAND RAISE COMMISSIONER YS POLITO? SHE DID.
TO SPEAK NEUTRAL, I THINK YOU WERE FIRST GO AHEAD AND GO NEXT.
I, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SAY THAT I, I DO, FOR ALL OF THE REASONS STATED AROUND IMAGINE AUSTIN AND, UH, AND OTHERS, I THINK, UM, REALLY GOOD IN FULL HOUSING CAN BE DEVELOPED HERE.
I'M CONCERNED LOOKING JUST AT BLUNT CREEK FROM A SATELLITE VIEW, AND I KNOW THIS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TRUST IN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND, AND BODIES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS GOES, UM, UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, OVERSIGHT AT THE SITE PLAN LEVEL.
AND THAT JUST DOES GIVE ME PAUSE, UM, FOR SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND QUALITY REASONS.
SO I DO SUPPORT, UM, A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT HERE.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PLUSES TO THIS, BUT I AM, UH, THAT'S REALLY WHERE MY, MY CONCERNS ARE, JUST KNOWING THAT WE ARE FACING INTENSIVE RAINFALL AND THERE IS SO MUCH CONVERGENCE OF RUNOFF HERE.
UM, AND ALSO JUST HAVE KNOWN A LOT OF FOLKS WHO HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO GET ONE CREEK TO WHERE IT IS.
IT'S BEEN, IT WAS NEGLECTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING NEUTRALLY.
SO, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER YAS PLATO, WE ARE, WE ARE, UH, DOING FOUR AND AGAINST FOR JUST THE, UH, AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE PROHIBITED USES, BUT YOUR, UH, YOUR DISCUSSION IS STILL VALID.
I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW,
YOU WOULD'VE, YOU WOULD'VE GOT A RIGHT.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ADDED IN, SO, OKAY.
SO I WANT TO HEAR FROM, UH, I GUESS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
THIS DOES FEEL VERY ARBITRARY, JUST KIND OF ANOTHER CO SO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL ZONING CATEGORY FOR ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND JUST MAKING OUR CODE THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
SO I'M, I'M GONNA HAPPILY VOTE NO ON THIS ONE.
UM, WORKING IN THIS AREA FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT A CAR.
I'VE WALKED THIS PROPERTY, I'VE WALKED THIS ENTIRE AREA, AND I DON'T SEE HOW ANY OF THESE USES WOULD BE IN ANY WAY OUT OF PLACE HERE, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY HOUSING WOULD BE BEST AND THAT IS WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THIS SITE.
BUT JUST TO, TO THROW ON MORE COS AND RESTRICTIONS, I THINK WE'VE DONE ENOUGH OF THAT OVER THE YEARS.
ANYMORE FOR, AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? LET'S, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER MISTO, I'M FOR THE AMENDMENT.
UM, I JUST, I DON'T, IT, IT'S PART OF THE PLAN, BUT I'M NOT SEEING VERY GOOD CONNECTIVITY BACK IN THERE.
UH, AND WE ARE AT THE, THE CREEK HEAD THERE.
SO AGAIN, I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THOSE USES.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE GOOD LAND CODE
UM, HOPEFULLY THAT'S GONNA CHANGE.
UM, AND I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER WAY TO HELP GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL AS AN OPTIMAL USE FOR THAT.
SO I, I THINK IT, I'M IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
UH, SO THOSE ON THE DIAS THAT ARE, AND AGAIN, DO I NEED TO READ THOSE USES AGAIN? ANYONE PROHIBITED USES? OKAY.
THIS IS THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE PROHIBITED USES FROM THE ZONING.
UM, THOSE ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UH, THOSE IN, LET'S GO AND STICK WITH THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE, UH, VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR.
I JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME.
THOSE ON THE DIAS, UH, AGAINST IN THIS MOTION.
AND THOSE VIRTUALLY, UH, VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION, THIS AMENDMENT, SCHNEIDER.
[01:25:01]
THINK THAT'S EVERYONE ACCOUNTED FOR.THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND WHO IS THE SECOND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
UH, THOSE, OH, YES, THANK YOU.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND SPEAK FOR I WAS GONNA SAY, YEAH, I DIDN'T GET TO SPEAK TO MY MOTION.
IF YES, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I HEARD SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND FLOODING CONCERNS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE MOVING AHEAD AT THIS POINT, CONSIDERING MULTIPLE FACTORS.
THE FIRST ONE, OF COURSE, IS THAT OUR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF IS SAYING THAT THE WAY WE HAVE CHANGED THE CODE SINCE HAS ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR THAT CO OF COURSE, THAT C O P DATES, THE TIME WHEN WE HAD THESE PROTECTIONS IN OUR CODE.
THE ENTIRE NOTION OF PUTTING THESE PROTECTIONS IN OUR CODE OVER THE YEARS IS THAT WE CODIFIED THOSE ISSUES RATHER THAN TRY TO DO THEM PARCEL BY PARCEL.
SO THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NOW BUILT IN.
OF COURSE, THAT ALSO MEANS THAT AS THIS GOES TO, UM, UM, SITE PLAN REVIEW, IT WILL STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF OUR, UH, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, OUR FLOOD LANE REQUIREMENTS, OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND THE VARIOUS OF THE SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS THAT ENSURE THAT THOSE PIECES ARE BEING MET, UM, AND RESPOND MEANINGFULLY TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF THE, UM, WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TODAY.
AND LASTLY, I'LL JUST SAY, I THINK, AGAIN, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE DO ALL SUPPORT.
THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO ACTUALLY MOVE AWAY FROM THAT COMMERCIAL ASPECT AND BRING IN SOME OF THE MIXED USE PIECE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL WAY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, THE LAST THING I'LL SEE ON THE USES IS, AGAIN, I THINK, UM, OTHER FOLKS SPOKE IT.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT, SO I REALLY HOPE THAT WE STILL FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING AHEAD WITH IT, KNOWING THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OR, UM, THINKING ABOUT AT THIS MOMENT.
DOES, UH, WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? THOSE IN FAVOR? ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK? OKAY.
LET'S, UH, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THIS, UH, VOTE UP FOR, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE DIOCESE.
THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN? OKAY.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER SHAY, COMMISSIONER FLORES IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER MUTO AND COMMISSIONER GIANNIS POLITO ARE ABSTAINING.
IS IT, UH, ITEM 31, MR. RIVERA.
OKAY, SO NEXT WE HAVE THE REZONING CASE AT, UH,
[Items 30 & 31]
OH, THIS IS ITEM 30 AND 31, THE PLAN, AMENDMENT AND REZONING AT, UH, BURKE, UH, FOR BERKMAN RESIDENTIAL.GOOD EVENING, MARINE MEREDITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 30 IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2, 3 0.03.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 63 0 5 BERGMAN DRIVE WITHIN THE WINDSOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM HIRED ENTITY SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
WE DID GET A LETTER IN SUPPORT FROM THE WINDSOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
THEY SUPPORT THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND THEY SUPPORT THE ZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF MF THREE, HEATHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, ON THE ZONING CASE, C 14 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 4 BERKMAN RESIDENTIAL.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM S SF SIX NP ZONING TO MF FIVE NP.
UH, IT'S LOCATED AT 63 0 5 BERKMAN DRIVE.
IT'S APPROXIMATE, OR IT'S 0.86 ACRES.
AND STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE REQUESTED MF FIVE ZONING.
AND WE DO SUPPORT AN ALTERNATE OF MF THREE ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF BIRKMAN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET NORTH OF WHEELIS LANE.
IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND ZONED SF SIX.
NP HAS FRONT FRONTAGE ON BOTH BIRKMAN AND HICKMAN DRIVE THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, IS ALSO SF SIX, AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
[01:30:02]
UH, FURTHER NORTH.THE NEXT LOT UP IS A FIRE STATION, AN UNDEVELOPED LOT DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM, UH, USES THAT HAVE P N P SF THREE N P AND SF SIX N P ZONING.
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS MULTI-RESIDENTIAL OR LAND, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX, UM, AND IS ZONED MF THREE FURTHER SOUTH.
I'M KIND OF TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, IF WE CONSIDER BIRKMAN, THE FRONT, UH, FACING HICKMAN DRIVE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT SF THREE.
FURTHER SOUTH IS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY ZONED G R M U C O N P AND FACES BERKMAN DRIVE AND TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM LAND USES THAT FACE HICKMAN AVENUE, AND THEY ARE ZONED S F SIX NP AT THE INTERSECTION WITH WHEELIS.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED MF THREE NP.
THAT ALSO IS DEVELOPED WITH MULTI-FAMILY AND ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.
ACROSS WHEELIS LANE TO THE SOUTH IS HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, P N P, AND ACROSS BERGMAN DRIVE TO THE WEST AND ACROSS HICKMAN DRIVE TO THE EAST ARE, UH, RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF THREE ZONE PROPERTIES.
WE HAVE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST, AND IT IS ATTACHED.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT MF FIVE NP AT THIS LOCATION AND SUPPORT MF THREE NP.
UM, AND AS STATED BY MS. MEREDITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM SUPPORTS THE MF THREE REZONING THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE MF FIVE ZONING.
THAT LETTER, UH, WAS IN EXTRA LATE BACKUP, SO IT'S IN YOUR EMAILS NOW.
I IF YOU HAVEN'T CAUGHT IT ALREADY.
UH, THE PROPERTIES ON THIS BLOCK ARE ZONED AND DEVELOPED WITH A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES AND INTENSITIES, INCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, THE ZONINGS ON THE BLOCK INCLUDE SF THREE, SF SIX, MF TWO, MF THREE, AND G R M U C O.
UM, MF FIVE N NP IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE INTENSE THAN THOSE OTHER ZONING CATEGORIES.
UH, G R M U C O N P IS GENERALLY COMPARABLE TO MF FOUR ZONING.
UM, I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THIS, BUT I WANT TO READ THE DEFINITION FROM CODE OF, UH, WHAT MULTI-FAMILY, UH, FIVE IS, AND IT'S THE OFFICIAL NAME IS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT IS THE DESIGNATION FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 54 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE UNIT SIZE.
AN M F FIVE DISTRICT DESIGNATION MAY APPLY, MAY BE APPLIED TO A USE IN A CENTRALLY LOCATED AREA, NEAR SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION AND COM COMMERCIAL FACILITIES, EXCUSE ME, AN AREA ADJACENT TO THE CBD TO THE CBD OR MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL OR EMPLOYMENT CENTER, OR AN AREA FOR WHICH HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY USE IS DESIRED.
AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
SO WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND, UH, BE NOTED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THE, UH, APPLICANT MAY WANNA UTILIZE THEIR REBUTTAL.
JUST, UH, A CONTINUOUS EIGHT MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UH, THE SITE, UM, THE SUBJECT TRACKED, UM, 60 63 0 5 BERKMAN, UM, IS SHOWN IN BLUE IN THIS IMAGE.
UM, AS YOU HEARD, IT'S, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO EAST HIGHWAY TWO 90.
UM, IT'S CLOSE TO A LOT OF OTHER AMENITIES INCLUDING SCHOOLS, SOME GROCERY STORES.
AND THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE SITE AND HOW IT RELATES TO IMAGINE AUSTIN ELEMENTS, UH, AS WELL AS CAPITAL METRO STOPS AND ROUTES.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE SCHOOL THERE.
UH, THE SITE IS LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM THE HIGHLAND MALL STATION.
IT'S ALSO LE UH, SIX MILES FROM THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND A RESTAURANT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S, UM, ABOUT A QUARTER MILE NOR OR SOUTH OF A GROCERY STORE.
AND AS YOU HEARD, OUR REQUEST IS FOR, UH, TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND, YOU MAP TO SINGLE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY AND TO REZONE THE
[01:35:01]
PROPERTY FROM SF SIX TO MF FIVE.SO WHAT THIS EQUATES TO IS ON THIS POINT, EIGHT SIX ACRES TODAY, YOU COULD GET, UM, LOOKING AT AN AVERAGE OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS.
YOU COULD GET ABOUT 10 UNITS TODAY VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR UNDER MF FIVE WOULD ACHIEVE 34 1 AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MF THREE, UH, ALLOWS UP TO 22, UH, AVERAGING 22 1 AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS.
UM, BUT ONCE YOU FACTOR IN ALL OF THE COMPLEX COMPLEXITIES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY COMPATIBILITY, UM, THIS SITE IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTED ON ITS, UH, THE AREA AVAILABLE TO DEVELOP AND THE HEIGHT AVAILABLE TO DEVELOP.
SO WHILE MF FIVE ALLOWS, UM, 60 FEET IN HEIGHT, THE SITE WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THAT HEIGHT BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY.
THIS IS A, AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE COMPATIBILITY AND, AND HOW IT IMPACTS THE SITE.
SO MAJORITY OF THIS SITE, UM, IS NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE ANY MORE THAN 40 FEET.
UM, MAXIMUM, UH, THREE STORIES.
I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME AREA THAT CAN ACHIEVE UP TO 44 FEET.
UM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, IT'S GOING, IT'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT WHILE MF FIVE, WE ARE ASKING FOR MF FIVE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE THE HEIGHT OF MF FIVE, BUT MF FIVE DOES ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, LEEWAY IN TERMS OF, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING COVER.
SO THOSE THINGS MAY ALLOW US TO GAIN SOME OF THE UNITS THAT THE YIELD THAT WILL LOSE DUE TO THESE OTHER COMPLEX MATTERS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CO CODE.
AND THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BETWEEN SF SIX AND ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH GR.
UM, AS YOU HEARD, THERE WAS A PROPERTY JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARTICULAR TRACT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR GR, M U AND G M U HAS THE SAME DENSITY AS MF FIVE.
UM, AND IT HAS, IN FACT, IT HAS MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND MORE BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWED UNDER GR THAN MF FIVE.
SO WE DO FEEL LIKE CONSIDERING ALL THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE NEEDS FOR HOUSING, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD LOCATION TO PUT 34 UNITS.
UM, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. RON THROWER, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, RON THROWER REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER AS WELL.
UM, WE HAD HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS INTERNALLY WITH OUR, OUR CLIENT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND IS MF FOUR A ALTERNATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY? AND YES, IT DEFINITELY IS, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE, UH, VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE.
MF FIVE ALLOWS FOR A ONE-TO-ONE F A R.
MF FOUR HAS THE EXACT SAME SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE EXACT SAME DENSITY, BUT ALLOWS 0.75 TO ONE F A R.
I THINK THAT ONE-TO-ONE F A R IS IMPORTANT.
AND HERE'S WHY IS THAT WE HAVE A MASSIVE A BUILDING THAT'S GONNA BE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN OVER THIS WITH THE COMMISSION BEFORE ABOUT ALL THE WHITTLING AWAY OF DEVELOPABLE LAND THAT'S OCCURRED OVER TIME WITHOUT ANY BALANCE TO ANY SORT OF DENSITY THAT'S BEEN LOST BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MASSIVE A BUILDING THAT'S GONNA BE ALLOWED, AND THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AS MANY UNITS AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR BASICALLY MF FOUR M F FIVE DENSITY ON THE PROPERTY AND THE ONE-TO-ONE F A R.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND I MEAN, NO DISRESPECT TO STAFF BY THEM MENTIONING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT MF FIVE IS, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT DEFINITION HAS EXISTED SINCE 1984.
IT'S REMAINED UNCHANGED, AND IT'S, IT'S ARCHAIC.
IT'S 38 YEARS OLD, AND IT'S REALLY NOT APPLICABLE TODAY.
WE NEED TO GET HOUSING, AND THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BRING HOUSING ON THIS PART PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOW HERE FOR THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
HAVE A MOTION CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSION SCHNEIDER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHAA.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THOSE ON THE DIOCESE AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION, UM, FOR STAFF, AND MAYBE THEY CAN HELP GUIDE US TO BE ABLE TO CRAFT SOMETHING.
SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE MFI, I MEAN, A LOT OF HOW YOU'RE APPROACHING IT IS THE DEFINITION OF WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FORMS AROUND IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, CONSIDERING LIKE COMPATIBILITY ALREADY LIMITS IT, UM, AND THEY'RE
[01:40:01]
WANTING THE MF FIVE BASED UPON MOSTLY THE ONE-TO-ONE AND SOME OF THESE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.UM, I MEAN, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO TO DO SOME TYPE OF CO TO CRAFT IT TO SOMETHING THAT, UM, I MEAN, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA HIT THEIR 90 FEET, SO WHAT CAN WE DO? I MEAN, IS CAN WE DO AN M F FIVE CO? I MEAN, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE M F FIVE THAT THAT MAKES IT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, BESIDES JUST THE WORD M F FIVE, HEATHER CHAFF AND HOUSING AND PLANNING, AS YOU SAID, A LOT OF WHAT WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WAS THE PA PATTERN OF ZONING IN THE AREA THAT MF FIVE IN THIS SPOT, IN THIS LOCATION IS SURROUNDED BY LOWER DENSITY, UH, COMMERCIAL, THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.
UM, I THINK ONE WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE APPLICANTS CONCERNED, WE WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE, WE DON'T KNOW THEIR, UH, SITE PLAN, THEIR DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT AND WHERE THEY INTEND TO PUT THINGS.
SO WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, UM, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
UM, I DON'T IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PROVIDING A CO, PERHAPS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING A CO.
SO I DON'T REALLY WANNA SAY STAFF SUPPORTS, BUT, UH, MAYBE A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO CAN I HAVE THE APPLICANT, UM, COME UP, MR. ROWER? WE'RE BOTH HERE.
UM, YEAH, I CAN'T SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN, BUT, OKAY.
SO WHAT WAS THE UNITS, I KNOW THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT UNITS PER ACRE, BUT THE REALITY IS WITH THE COMPATIBILITY, HOW MANY UNITS WERE YOU LOOKING AT WITH WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO? WAS IT, YOU SAID 34 UNITS? CORRECT.
UH, AVERAGING ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 34 UNDER MFI.
AND THEN, UM, THE HEIGHT THAT YOU WERE HITTING WITH COMPATIBILITY WAS YOU ENDED UP, LIKE, YOU CAN'T EVEN GET TO 60 FEET, RIGHT? NO, THE MAXIMUM I BELIEVE IS 44.
SO IF WE DID SOME SCAFFOLD, UM, SO IF WE LIMITED YOUR HEIGHT AND ALSO LIMITED YOUR UNITS, I MEAN, I, I KNOW RATHER THAN SLICING AND DICING, I'M TRYING TO FIND A SIMPLE WAY TO GET, YOU KNOW, TO, TO BE ABLE TO HELP ACHIEVE MORE AS, AS MANY UNITS AS WE CAN BASED UPON THE GENERAL PATTERNS OF WHAT, UM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND COMMITTING TO RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN IS THAT ALSO BASED UPON THE, THE SETBACKS OF THE MF FIVE, BECAUSE THERE'S A 15 VERSUS 25, WAS IT? YES, CORRECT.
MF FIVE HAS A 15 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
UM, KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO LOSE 10 FEET OFF THE FRONT OF THE SITE DUE TO RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
UM, SO THAT'S 10 FEET, WE'LL LOSE AT LEAST 10 FEET.
AND THEN UNDER MF FIVE SCENARIO, WE WOULD BE SET SETTING BACK 15 FEET FROM THAT, FROM THAT POINT UNDER AN MF THREE SCENARIO, WE WOULD HAVE TO SET BACK AT 25 FEET.
AND HOW MANY, HOW MANY ACRES AGAIN IS THE SITE? 0.86.
AND MF FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, AGAIN, WAS, WHAT WAS IT 50, WAS IT 50 SOMETHING MF FIVE? UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT AVERAGING ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, SO IT'D BE 34 UNITS.
NO, NO, I THINK, YEAH, NO STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT MF FIVE WAS A TYPICALLY X NUMBER UNITS PER OH, 54 UNITS PER ACRE.
THOSE WOULD BE EFFICIENCY UNITS.
ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSION COX? OH, COMMISSIONER COX, AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? OKAY, YOU'LL GO NEXT.
YEAH, I WAS HOPING TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF, AND I'M SURE THIS IS IN THE BACKUP AND BURIED IN ALL OF OUR WONDERFUL PLANNING DOCUMENTS, BUT, UM, CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT BERKMAN DRIVE BETWEEN TWO 90 AND EAST 51ST STREET IS INTENDED TO BE? UM, AND, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE GENERALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COLLECTOR STREET, UM, VERY, VERY LITTLE COMMERCIAL.
THE COMMERCIAL THAT IS THERE IS, IS SMALL
[01:45:01]
AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED.WE HAVE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, A CHURCH, SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND A FIRE STATION.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, IF BERKMAN DRIVE IS INTENDED TO BE SOMETHING A LOT MORE IN THE CITY'S FUTURE PLANS, UM, TO SUPPORT MORE DENSITY, TO SUPPORT MORE MIXED USE, UM, OR OTHER MORE INTENSIVE USES, OR IF BERKMAN DRIVE IS ESSENTIALLY INTENDED TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR STREET? YES, HEATHER CHAFF AND HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THOSE, UH, DEFINITIONS OF COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED AWAY FROM THOSE.
BUT, UH, THEY CONSIDER BERKMAN DRIVE LEVEL OF, SORRY, LEVEL TWO, WHICH IS LOCAL MOBILITY.
IT IS GENERALLY WHAT YOU CALL A NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR.
UH, HICKMAN AVENUE IS LEVEL ONE.
THAT'S ROUGHLY HOW THEY EQUAL OUT.
UM, I, I DID A LITTLE QUICK RESEARCH.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THE DETAILS IN THE REPORT.
I DIDN'T GET THAT FROM AT D BUT THIS IS, THERE'S ONE BUS ROUTE ON, ON THIS COURT OR, UH, NUMBER 10 BUS.
AND IT, IT IS LABELED AS A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK, WHICH I DON'T HAVE DETAILS ON THE TIMEFRAME OR WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS, IS PROPOSED FOR THE AREA.
UM, I GUESS MY, MY MY LAST QUESTION IS DO, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OR PRECEDENTS OF ZONING M F FIVE ESSENTIALLY WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS ALMOST ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY SF ZONED LOTS? NO, UH, WENDY AND I CAN'T RECALL ANY, ANYTHING COMPARABLE.
UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND THEN COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU PLEASE, UM, HELP ME UNDERSTAND, SIR, OF THE DENSITY LIMITS QUESTION AND THE SIDE OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS? UM, YES.
AGAIN, MF FOUR AND MF FIVE HAVE THE, HAVE THE EXACT SAME DENSITY LIMITATION.
THE PROPERTY THAT IS A HUNDRED FEET TO THE SOUTH, IT WAS REZONED AND THIS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED IT IN 2018.
UH, REZONED A G M U ALLOWS FOR ONE TO ONE F A R AND ALLOWS FOR M F FOUR M F FIVE DENSITY.
AND THAT'S NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN WE'RE ASKING FOR OTHER THAN PUTTING MF FIVE ON THIS MAP.
UM, MR. THOR OR MS. HASI, IF I COULD ALSO ASK YOU, CAN YOU HELP US SORT OF THIS QUESTION OF WHERE WE, IF WE'VE SEEN SORT OF SIMILAR CASES IN OTHER PLACES, IF WE'VE SEEN THE USE OF MF SIX OR OTHER ZONING IN SIMILAR SCENARIOS ELSEWHERE? I KNOW OUR STAFF SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT, UM, FULLY THINK THROUGH THAT.
NO, I, I, I DON'T RECALL ANY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
THAT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY MF FIVE, BUT LIKE RON SAID, THE SITE JUST TO THE SOUTH, UM, FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES IS MF FIVE.
IT'S JUST ALLOWS COMMERCIAL IN ADDITION TO RESIDENTIAL AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR RESIDENTIAL.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THANKS.
I THINK A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO MAYBE WALK THROUGH THE ILLS OF SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS.
SO CAN YOU HELP WALK US THROUGH KIND OF WHAT ROUGHLY CAN BE BUILT UNDER BOTH OF THE TWO ZONING CATEGORIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, MF THREE VERSUS MF FIVE, ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN THE UNIT COUNT, AND THEN WHAT THAT HAPPENS TO DO TO THE UNIT SIZES AND POTENTIAL COSTS.
UM, THANK YOU MS. UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, FIRST OF ALL, UNDER ONE TO ONE F A R 37,460 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREAS ALLOWED UNDER MF FOUR OR THREE, IT'S A REDUCTION OF 9,500 SQUARE FEET THAT'S ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY SIMPLY BY JUST THE F A R LIMITATION.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, THEN, YOU KNOW, A ONE BEDROOM UNIT, YOU GOTTA HAVE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF SIDE AREA FOR EVERY UNIT.
AND A TWO BEDROOM IS 1200 SQUARE FEET.
AND TO ME THIS IS, THIS IS RATHER SIMPLE QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION, WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE 34 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND A BUILDING THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE 37,460
[01:50:01]
SQUARE FEET? OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE 22 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND A BUILDING THAT CAN BE 28,000 SQUARE FEET? THE UNITS WOULD BE BIGGER UNDER THAT SCENARIO IF, IF IT COULD BE PARKED, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S UNDER MF THREE, THIS IS LIKELY TO BE A SURFACE PARK PRODUCT UNDER MF FOUR OR FIVE.IT'S LIKELY TO BE A STRUCTURED PARKING PRODUCT.
SO I, I HEARD EARLIER THE MENTION OF, UM, LOOKING AT THE PATTERN OF ZONING AS BEING A VERY, UM, SOMETHING TO HELP DRIVE THE RECOMMENDATION HERE.
UM, WHERE IF ANYWHERE DID WE ALSO LOOK AT THE LACK OF HOUSING THAT WE HAVE IN AUSTIN AND THE NEED FOR HOUSING IN ALL AREAS OF AUSTIN? WE ARE SUPPORTING A MULTI-FAMILY CATEGORY.
WE JUST DON'T FEEL THAT MF FIVE IN THE MIDDLE ON A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A SUITABLE LOCATION.
UM, YES, WE DO LOOK AT HOUSING, UM, UNITS, BUT WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW THEIR YIELD.
THAT'S NOT INFORMATION AT THE ZONING STAGE.
AND MAYBE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE BIT SOUTH HERE.
THERE'S A GIGANTIC TRANSWESTERN DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
WE'RE ABOUT TO BREAK AROUND AT BERKMAN IN BRIARCLIFF.
DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF UNITS IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT THERE AT THAT SITE? NO, I DON'T.
IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THE APPLICANT HAS AN ANSWER TO SOMETHING I JUST ASKED.
THAT WOULD BE WINDSOR VILLAGE.
UM, THAT'S A SMART HOUSING PROJECT AND THEY HAVE 398 UNITS PERMITTED FOR THAT SITE.
A COUPLE, LOOKS LIKE TWO BLOCKS SOUTH OF YOU.
UM, I THINK WE HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE IF WE NEED IT.
MU YEAH, WE HAVE ACTUALLY FOUR MORE.
SO COMMISSIONER MUSH TYLER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA FIX ALL THE CODE PROBLEMS TONIGHT,
UM, CAN YOU DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO WITH AN MF FOUR? UM, WE CAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT QUITE AS GOOD AS AN MF FIVE, BUT WE CAN GET, WE CAN GET MORE UNITS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE OUT FOR.
UM, THE MORE UNITS, THE BETTER TO HOUSE MORE PEOPLE.
BUT, UM, AS RON SAID, IT, IT MEANS A DIFFERENCE OF LOOKING AT STRUCTURED PARKING, SURFACE PARKING.
IT'S A, IT'S THE F A R, THE DIFFERENCE IN F A R ALMOST 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING IS, IS WHAT WE WOULD MISS OUT ON.
BUT COULD WE ACHIEVE MORE UNITS THAN, UM, MF THREE? YES.
YOU'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THAT ONE TO ONE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU GET WITH THE MF FIVE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVE APPROVAL ON APPLICANT REQUEST? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, SECOND, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. ANDERSON? OKAY.
JUST CLARIFY, THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND OBJECT? OH, YES.
UH, WE'RE VOTING ON BOTH THE, UH, ITEMS, UH, 30 AND 31 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE ZONING.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE FOR THE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON 30, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THEN THE REZONING, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LOOK UP AND DOWN THE, THE, THIS MAP.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY DIVERSE ZONING ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THIS ROAD.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING ISN'T CHANGING THAT MUCH BETWEEN THESE TWO ZONING CATEGORIES, BUT IN ONE OF THESE YOU ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE MUCH LARGER UNITS.
SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU WANNA MAKE POSITIVELY SURE THAT WE PRICE OUT A GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLE, LET'S MAKE SURE THESE UNITS ARE 30% LARGER THAN THEY NEED TO BE.
I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AT THIS BODY.
AND IT'D BE GREAT TO ALLOW FOR SMALLER, MORE EFFICIENT UNITS THAT ARE MORE AFFORDABLE TO A DIVERSITY OF INCOME EARNERS.
SO THIS REALLY SEEMS LIKE A SLAM DUNK CASE, RIGHT? COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR YOUR SUBSTITUTE.
UM, PRETTY MUCH THIS, THE MFI, BUT WITH A LIMITATION OF 35 UNITS AND A 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION.
SO THERE, THEY'LL STILL BUILD EXACTLY
[01:55:01]
WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO, BUT, AND THEN, BUT WE'LL SEE IF I'LL, I'LL SPEAK ABOUT IT IF THERE'S ANY.ALL RIGHT, LET'S START AND SEE IF YOU HAVE A SECOND.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GIANNIS POLITO, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER SHAY.
SO I COMPLETELY AGREE THE THING ABOUT THIS WHOLE PATTERN, JUST BECAUSE THE PATTERN IS THERE, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING THESE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE DONE SO LONG AGO, WHAT, WHAT COULD BE NEXT TO ANOTHER THING? AND SO USING THE DEFINITION OF THE NAMES DOESN'T REALLY WORK BECAUSE WE GOTTA CONSIDER COMPATIBILITY AND ALL THAT STUFF AND HOW IT FORMS INTO WHAT THE FINAL BUILDING'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
THEY'RE ALREADY COMMITTED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE AFTER, AND I LIKE WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BUT MY CONCERN IS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IF THEY, THEY SIT ON THIS THING AND THEY SIT ON IT, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE YEARS, SIX YEARS OR WHATEVER, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPATIBILITY IS GONNA CHANGE, BUT WE'RE, BUT THEY'RE COMMITTING THIS TO US AT THIS POINT, AND WE FEEL THAT IT WORKS WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE STREET AND THE PATTERN, YOU KNOW, BASED ON FORM, NOT BY NAME.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO.
AND IT PROTECTS THE FUTURE IF THEY WANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT LATER, IF THE CODE CHANGES, THEN THEY'LL COME BACK.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE COMMITTED TO SUPPORT THEM WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO.
UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER CHAIR REAL QUICK.
COULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT THINKS ABOUT THIS.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS A CO WITH A, UH, LIMIT OF 35 UNITS AND A 40 FOOT, 45 45 FOOT TYPE.
UM, I THINK I'VE EXPLAINED TO THE COMMISSION MANY TIMES THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT COS YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY, 95% OF THE COS ARE MEANT TO LIMIT HOUSING.
THIS ONE IS A DIRECT LIMITER ON HOUSING BY CAPPING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE EVER AGREE TO PUTTING A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR A PROJECT THAT IS EQUAL TO THE SAME PROJECT THAT IS A HUNDRED FEET TO THE SOUTH? I CAN'T AGREE TO IT.
SO I'LL RESCIND BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS IS, I THOUGHT THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE WANTING AND COMMITTING TO, SO, OKAY.
UM, SO THIS BELONGS TO THE BODIES, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO VOTE.
CAN I, CAN I MAKE A, CAN I, CAN I MAKE ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE MOTION? WELL, WAIT, WE GOTTA DEAL WITH THIS ONE WITH, IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE OR, UH, ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE? THIS IS ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE.
AND, UH, SO WE CAN RESCIND THIS, BUT IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
SO ARE THERE ANY, LET ME PUT IT, MAKE IT QUICK.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO RESCINDING THE MOTION? I MEAN THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER SHAY.
ANY OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO AND MOVE TO ASCEND AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER COX BEING PROPOSED.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MOTION, UM, THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR STAFF? UH, THAT'S BOTH.
SO THAT'D BE ON THE ITEM 30 AND 31.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MO.
TYLER, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COXS, UM, I, I MF FIVE DOESN'T BELONG HERE.
WE CAN ARGUE ALL DAY ABOUT TITLES AND DEFINITIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
UH, OUR CODE WILL EVENTUALLY BE CHANGED AT SOME POINT, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, MF FIVE DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS LOCATION.
THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN IN THE SAME FAMILY SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
AND SO I THINK, I SUSPECT, WHICH I'M SURE RON, MR. THROWER WILL, WILL SHOOT THIS DOWN AND TELL ME I'M WRONG, BUT I SUSPECT IS THAT THEY DON'T WANNA ACCEPT ANY LIMITATIONS EVEN ON AN MF FIVE BECAUSE THERE'S OPPORTUNITY HERE IF, IF, IF MORE OF THESE LOTS BECOME MF LOTS OR WHATEVER, THAT THOSE COMPATIBILITY RESTRICTIONS ARE GONNA GO AWAY.
AND SO IF THEY HOLD THIS LOT FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS WITH AN MF THREE DESIGNATION, THEY MAY ACTUALLY GET THE YIELD THAT THEY WANT
AND SO I THINK PUTTING M F FIVE ON THIS LOT IS, IS, IS A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND I ASKED STAFF THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OR PRECEDENTS WE DON'T, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CREATE THIS ONE, UM, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE WAY MORE OF THESE ON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE STREETS.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE FIGHT THAT WE WANT TO AVOID HAVING WHEN WE WANT TO TRY TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY ON CORRIDORS.
YOU KNOW, TELL THESE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT INTENSE DEVELOPMENT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS IF YOU LET US PUT INTENSE DEVELOPMENT ALONG
[02:00:01]
CORRIDORS.AND THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.
AND, AND SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A PRECEDENT THAT WE SHOULD SET IN THIS LOCATION.
I THINK STAFF'S CONSIDERATION OF THAT IS A GOOD ONE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THAT.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I DO FIND IT PRETTY DIFFICULT TO CALL A 35 HOME DEVELOPMENT, INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER LIVED IN A BUILDING THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THAT SMALL
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, TH THIS AREA IS JUST REALLY RIPE FOR, FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S GOT GREAT BIKE LANDS, GREAT ACCESS TO MILLER JUST SOUTH OF IT.
AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, JUST A MOMENT AGO WE WERE CONSIDERING A CEO THAT I WAS PROBABLY GONNA RELUCTANTLY AGREE TO, BUT THAT WAS LIMITING TO THIS, TO 35 HOMES.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC LIMIT TO NOW 22 HOMES, 22 MUCH LARGER HOMES THAT ARE JUST GONNA COST A LOT MORE AND A TIME WHERE WE DON'T NEED LARGER, MORE EXPENSE, NOT WHAT THE MARKET'S WANTING.
RIGHT NOW, THE MARKET IS WANTING SMALLER HOMES, MORE EFFICIENT HOMES, AND THIS IS A BIG STEP IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THAT.
SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER, SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, MORE AGAINST, WE WANNA TAKE A VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOCH.
TYLER, UH, THAT ON THE DIAS IN CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAY ON FAIR, AND THAT INCLUDED THE NPA INCLUDED THE NPA AS WELL? YES.
UH, SO THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, ON THE DIAS.
OKAY, THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR, PLUTO.
OKAY, THOSE ON THE DIAL IS AGAINST THE MOTION AND THOSE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION VIRTUALLY.
AND COMMISSIONER SHA VOTING IN EXTENSION FE, SO WHAT'S THAT COUNT 51.
SO THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE, WHERE ARE WE? UH, BACK TO THE BASE MOTION.
AND THAT WAS COMMISSION HAS SECOND.
OH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SHAY.
OH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION MF FOUR.
SO WE HAVE ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER SHANK? SO THIS IS TRYING TO GET BACK TO SOMEWHERE THAT IS LIMITING THE MF FIVE.
IT'S SLIGHT BUMP, UM, FROM WHERE STAFF IS, UM, CONSIDERING WHERE THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED FROM WHERE CODE STARTED, UM, AND AS A CENTRAL AUSTIN CONTINUES TO GROW THAT AREA WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF MF FOUR SOON.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M HEADED.
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I, I GUESS I'M JUST, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERN THAT WE TRY TO SORT OF LIMIT THE, BASICALLY THE NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS THAT WE CAN MOVE IN HERE.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE THOUGHT THAT MAY BE 30 YEARS FROM NOW, SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL BE REZONED TO MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.
AND SO THAT COMPATIBILITY WILL NO LONGER BE NECESSARY.
AND, AND IF THAT'S A PROBLEM, I, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, IS MAKE SURE THAT NEIGHBORING USES ARE COMPATIBLE, THAT'S WHAT COMPATIBILITY BRINGS US.
AND, AND THAT'S PROTECTING, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT NEXT DOOR SINGLE FAMILY
UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE IS RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL THERE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NICE RESTAURANTS.
THERE USED TO BE A BELLS I BELIEVE IN, IN, IN THAT DEPARTMENT STORE.
I, I THINK IT WASN'T SUPPORTED AND IT, AND IT, IT FAILED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T THE, THE, THE DENSITY AROUND THAT TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF, OF, OF COMMERCIAL AREA.
SO I THINK THAT AREA WOULD BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IF THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE.
THIS IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF A GROCERY STORE.
IT'S WITHIN, YOU KNOW, WALKING DISTANCE OF, YOU KNOW, MAJOR TRANSIT CENTERS IN INCLUDING A, A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK JUST RIGHT OUT THE FRONT DOOR.
SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLACE FOR MORE HOMES AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD TRY TO LIMIT HOW MANY MORE HOMES BEYOND THE STANDARD COMPATIBILITY
[02:05:01]
RULES WE ALREADY HAVE.THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, THE M FOUR COMMISSIONER PS, UH, SPEAK IN FAVOR, JUST A AS AS A POINT OF COMPROMISE, UM, ALTHOUGH IT STILL MAKES ME A LITTLE UNEASY, BUT, BUT TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHY WE WOULD NOT WANT MF FIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPATIBILITY IN MY MIND THAT IS ONE OF THE PRECISE REASONS.
THE, THE AREAS WHERE WE'RE APPROVING ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT FAR EXCEED WHAT COMPATIBILITY ALLOWS, INTRODUCES OTHER FACTORS LIKE SPECULATION AND LAND BANKING, WHICH ARE REAL THINGS.
AND, AND IF, IF WE APPROVE A ZONING CATEGORY THAT HAS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FAR EXCEEDING WHAT COMPATIBILITY ALLOWS, WHY WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNER NOT WAIT TO SEE IF HE HAS OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE THOSE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS BEFORE HE BUILDS VERSUS ALLOWING A ZONING CATEGORY THAT HAS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE GENERALLY ALIGNED WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT AND GENERALLY ALIGNED WITH COMPATIBILITY.
AND YOU'RE MORE LIKELY IN MY MIND, TO ACTUALLY GET A REAL PROJECT THEN RATHER THAN SOMEONE SPECULATING LAND BANKING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO TRY TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE IN REALITY, THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE APPROVING BASED ON ZONING THAT ARE, THAT ARE JUST OUTTA WHACK WITH COMPATIBILITY.
SO I'LL SUPPORT M F FOUR AS A COMPROMISE, BUT THAT IS THE EXACT REASON WHY I DON'T THINK M F FIVE AND OTHER CATEGORIES ARE, ARE REALLY APPROPRIATE HERE.
UM, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
OKAY, MR. HEMPLE, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, I WANTED TO SAY THAT I USED TO LIVE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THIS AREA.
UM, WINDSOR PARK IS A REALLY WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT HAD THE BONES WHEN I WAS LIVING THERE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO OF BECOMING THE PLACE THAT I THINK A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WOULD HELP IT GROW TO BE.
YOU'VE GOT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRE DEPART OR FIRE STATION RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, THIS GREAT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING.
AND THEN MUELLER EVEN FARTHER SOUTH ALONG A BUS LINE PROTECTED, UH, BIKE LANES ON BERKMAN.
I JUST THINK WE NEED MORE HOMES IN THIS AREA.
ANY OTHERS FAR AGAINST? OKAY, COMMISSIONER AZAR SPEAKING, I'M GONNA WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME AND JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT I HOPE THAT IN 30 YEARS WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH THE SAME REGULATIONS BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN A 40 YEAR OLD GOLD WILL BE A 70 YEAR OLD CODE.
SO I, I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT.
AND COMMISSIONER MITCH TYLER, YOU'LL HAVE A LESS SPOT.
I SHOULD, YEAH, DITTO WHAT HE SAID.
I MEAN, IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE, WE WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO SPECULATE OVER WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH THIS PROPERTY.
WE'D HAVE A GOOD PLAN IN PLACE ABOUT HOW TO GROW OUR CITY SMARTLY AND HOW TO HAVE A VARIETY OF HOUSING.
UM, I THINK I, I'M, I AM IN FAVOR OF, OF THE COMPROMISE FROM A FOUR BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS YET THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE.
UH, THAT INCLUDES THE COMPATIBILITY, THAT IT CONCLUDES HOW WE'RE GONNA PLAN THESE THINGS.
AND I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE HAPHAZARD BE ALL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE IN HOUSTON.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING AROUND AT SOME OTHER CITIES AND HOW THEY DO IT.
I THINK WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO IMPROVE, BUT YEAH, I, I'D RATHER COMPROMISE ON THIS AND, AND GET TO WORK ON REALLY FIXING IT AT A BIGGER LEVEL.
LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, CHAIR REAL QUICK.
I THINK THAT WAS OUR LAST, UM, IN FAVOR.
IS THERE ANY WAY I, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT HOW MANY UNITS THIS IS CUZ WE HAVEN'T HAD AN ANSWER TO THAT.
SO REAL, REAL QUICK, IF YOU CAN JUST SHOUT THAT OUT FOR US.
WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? HOW MANY UNITS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? SO WE KNOW WITH MF THREE, WE'RE TALKING 22, MF FIVE, WE'RE TALKING 35 OH M F FOUR I I GET IT THREE.
SO IT'S, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN EQUAL NUMBER OF ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, THEN IT'S 35 ON MF FIVE AND MF FOUR BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME DENSITY, BUT MF FOUR HAS LOWER F A R SO GETTING THAT NUMBER OF UNITS IN A BUILDING IS GONNA BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
AND, AND IF I, IF I CAN JUST NO, YOU CAN'T, I'M SORRY.
SO REAL QUICK, UM, YOU KNOW, I HEAR THIS WORD COMPROMISED, RUN OUT A LOT AND IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE WE'VE GOTTA TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'VE COMPROMISED OURSELF OURSELVES AS A CITY FOR FAR TOO LONG AND WE'VE COMPROMISED FAR TOO MANY AS A RESULT.
AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S OUR JOB AS A BODY TO LIMIT HOUSING.
UM, BAD DECISIONS FROM THE PAST HAS DONE THAT VERY WELL FOR US.
AND AT THIS POINT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE HOUSING EASIER TO BUILD.
[02:10:01]
REASON, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.I'M GONNA GIVE OUR EX OFFICIO A CHANCE.
I I'M GONNA JUST TAKE 30 SECONDS TO JUMP ON THIS BANDWAGON AND EX OFFICIO FUN FACT.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS ONE YEAR OLDER THAN THE TEXAS STATE SEATBELT BALL AND FIVE YEARS OLDER THAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE JAMES TELECO AND CONGRESSMAN GREG KASAR.
THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT OF REFERENCE.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, SO THIS IS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHAY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOSH TALLER FOR LET'S IT'S TO, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND MF FOUR FOR THE ZONING, UH, REZONING.
THOSE ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND THOSE ON THE, SO THAT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND THOSE ON THE, UH, ON DIAS AGAINST THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND THOSE UPSTANDING COMMISSION I WAS AGAINST, YOU WERE OKAY.
SO THAT MOTION, WHAT DO WE HAVE IS OUR COUNT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 FAILS, RIGHT? SIX.
THAT'S SIX, RIGHT? EXHIBIT SIX.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE BACK TO, AND SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO REFRESH MY MEMORY.
DID WE TALK ABOUT, UH, FOR AND AGAINST ON THE BASE MOTION? NO, WE DID NOT.
WE JUMPED RIGHT INTO SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS.
WE HAD A, UH, MOTION FOR MF, UH, THE NF MPA STAFF RECOMMENDATION M F FIVE FOR THE REZONING.
AND THAT WAS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANZAR.
WE HAVE HAD TWO FOUR, AND WE NEED TO DO, DO FOUR AND THREE AGAINST.
SO WHO WANTS, I GUESS WE'RE KIND OF NEXT IS THE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THOSE IN FAVOR.
ANYONE WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR? DON'T
SO I SEE IT IS A TPN, THERE ARE NEARBY ZONINGS, UH, FOR INCREASED HOUSING.
I JUST THINK THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE MAP AND WHAT'S AROUND IT, I THINK THIS, UH, PROPERTY, IT, THIS ZONING IS SUPPORTED BY WHAT WE WANT IN OUR FUTURE.
IT JUST LOOKS LIKE, UM, THERE'S TOO MANY THINGS HAPPENING AROUND IT.
UH, WE GOT A BUS LINE, A LOT OF GOOD REASONS.
UH, AND FOR THE COMPETITIVE LIMITATIONS ON SOME OF THE SITE RESTRICTIONS, UH, I THINK WHAT'LL END UP HERE IS A GOOD HOUSING PROJECT UNDER THIS M F FIVE.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL SUPPORT IT.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON, OH, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SPEAKING.
FOUR OR AGAINST, UH, SPEAK FOUR.
UM, UH, I, UH, I, I READ THE, UM, THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING GROUP, AND, UH, I APPRECIATE THEIR CONCERNS.
I THINK WHEN IT, IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE HERE IS A PROJECT THAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE ABOUT THE SCALE AND THE MASS OF THE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ALONG IN, IN AN AREA WITH MUCH LOWER LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT.
N NEVERTHELESS, AS WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFFING, UM, AND FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THIS SORT OF SCALE THAT I THINK WOULD TYPICALLY, UH, BE OF CONCERN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MF FIVE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA VOTE FOR IT.
WELL, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
OH, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, WE'RE KIND OF OUT AT A FOREIGN AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
WE'VE, I THINK WE'VE BURNED, BURNED UP OUR SPOTS HERE.
THOSE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
THOSE EVERYONE, THOSE VIRTUALLY VOTING IN FAVOR.
UH, THOSE VOTING AGAINST HOLD, THOSE RED ZIP, YOU KNOW, MUK OR COX AND THOSE ABSTAINING SHA, WHAT DOES THAT RAISE TO 6 31? UH, OKAY, THAT MOTION FAILS.
UM, SO WE'VE TRIED, CAN I TRY MY ORIGINAL ONE THAT I TOOK BACK THEN? OH, THE,
[02:15:01]
UH, WELL, WE, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE NEVER CONSIDERED IT RIGHT? IT NEVER DIED.NO, WE RESCINDED IT, WE RESCINDED IT WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THAT MEANS WE ALL VOTED AGAINST IT.
YEAH, I THINK BY, BY VIRTUE OF US VOTING TO RESCIND, UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, THEN IT WASN'T CONSIDERED.
MOVE TO RECONSIDER
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, I CAN YOU REPEAT IT? IT WAS A 35 UNIT CAP WITH A 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
SO WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON, YEAH, GO AHEAD.
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA COMMIT TO THE BUILD.
SO COMMISSAR, DO YOU AND I ASK A QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER? SURE.
COMMISSIONER COX, I, IS IT POSSIBLE AND WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE OPPOSITE DOING LIKE M F FOUR? BUT THEN YOU CAN'T GO UP.
IT'S GOTTA BE UP AND THEN YOU CUT IT DOWN.
DID YOU HAVE A CLARIFICATION? COMMISSIONER ZA THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION.
SO THIS IS, WE ARE VOTING RIGHT NOW FOR A RECONSIDERATION, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN A SECOND, SO HE COULD, HE THERE HASN'T BEEN A SECOND.
ONCE THE RECONSIDERATION IS DONE, I'LL MAKE MY MOVE.
THIS IS TO RECONSIDER THE RESCISSION, IS THAT CORRECT? OH, OH, OKAY.
SO TO BRING THIS BACK, GIVE IT DAYLIGHT, WE NEED TO GO AND VOTE ON THIS.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST TAKE A VOTE TO RECONSIDER, UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS.
UM, THAT'S EVERYONE, THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
NOW WE CAN GO AHEAD AND YOU WANNA SEE IF YOU CAN GET A SECOND ON THIS? COMMISSIONER SHA YEAH, SO THIS IS, IT'S, UH, I GUESS THIS IS MY AMENDMENT THAT, AND IF THERE'S NO SECOND, ANYBODY COULD ADD WHATEVER AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.
UM, IF I CAN HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE MOTION MAKER, WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO DOING A MOTION? I'D BE HAPPY TO SECOND IT IF WE REMOVED THE UNIT GAP.
SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE LIMITATION ON HEIGHT, AS YOU SAID, WE WOULD JUST REMOVE THE 35 UNIT GAP.
ARE YOU AMENABLE TO THAT? YES, I AM.
SO WE, THE MOTION THEN IS, IS THIS RIGHT NOW THAT GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZA, IS JUST A 45 FOOT CO FOR A FI 45 FOOT HEIGHT CAP.
EVERYBODY CLEAR? ANY, DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS? ANY SPEAKERS YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER SHAY? UM, SO TO ME, I THINK, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBILITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN, OH MY GOSH, IT'S THIS HIGH, THIS HERE, YOU KNOW, AROUND ME.
SO IF WE TOOK CARE OF THAT, THEN FINE.
BECAUSE AS FAR AS FOR NUMBER UNITS INSIDE OF IT, I DON'T CARE IF THERE'S AN EXTRA PERSON OR WHATEVER, A FEW PEOPLE HERE OR THERE, THE SIZE OF THE UNITS IS GONNA DEPEND ON WHAT'S BEST FOR THE MARKET OF THAT AREA.
SO IT GIVES 'EM SOME FLEXIBILITY IN, IN THAT SENSE.
AND THEN BECAUSE IT IS ON A TPN, UM, YOU KNOW, THEN I, I THINK IT, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE, WE HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.
DO WE HAVE IT SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION AND BE CLEAR, THIS IS M F FIVE WITH A 45 FOOT.
I IS IT IS THE HEIGHT NOW THE ONLY, YES.
HEIGHT IS THE ONLY THING BEING, YES, THAT'S IT RIGHT NOW AND IT'S IN THIS MOTION.
ANY MORE SPEAKERS FOR AGAIN CLARIFICATION? IT'S STAFF OR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT? THANK YOU.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR CAN WE TAKE A VOTE? COMMISSIONER MO TYLER FOR, AGAINST.
UM, AND I'M PROBABLY GONNA GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THIS, BUT MY THOUGHT IS I LIKED, I LIKED THE UNIT COUNT.
THE REASON WAS, YOU'RE RIGHT CLOSE TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY MISSING IS MULTIPLE BED ABOVE TWO BEDROOMS FOR FAMILIES TO LIVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR SCHOOLS WHERE THEY CAN WALK TO THEM.
I WAS JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE CUZ I'M REALLY HOPING WE'RE GONNA PLAN A BETTER CITY.
I'M STILL GONNA VOTE FOR IT, BUT THAT'S MY ONLY THING.
ANY OTHER FOLKS YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
OH, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER COX.
AYE I, I WILL ALSO PROBABLY VOTE FOR THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IS LIKE THE NUMBER ONE GOAL OF NIXING, UH, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING
[02:20:01]
PROBABLY HALF THE PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION, SO TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, MF FIVE'S OKAY, BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, I THINK, I THINK COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS ARE LIKELY THE FIRST THING TO GO.UM, SO IT JUST BE CAREFUL IF THAT'S YOUR REASONING, BECAUSE THAT MAY CHANGE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
OKAY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER DESAR.
I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER COX IS CORRECT THAT I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
AND I THINK THAT IS WHY WHAT COMMISSIONER SHEA'S SUGGESTING HERE IS A TRUE COMPROMISE IN THAT WE REALLY ARE LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH COMPATIBILITY.
SO EVEN IF TOMORROW WE GET RID OF COMPATIBILITY CITYWIDE, THE HEIGHT WOULD STILL REMAIN TODAY WHAT IS ALLOWED WITH THE COMPATIBILITY APPLIED.
AND THAT'S THE ENTIRE NOTION OF LIMITING THAT HEIGHT WITH MF UH, 5 2 45.
SO I THINK THAT PROTECTION REMAINS IN PLACE REGARDLESS OF THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES.
AND I THINK ONE THING I'LL JUST ADD WHILE I'M SPEAKING IS REALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, CHAIR, YOU HAD MENTIONED THIS, THIS IS A TRANSIT PRIORITY, UM, LANE.
THIS IS WITHIN OUR, AS YOU KNOW, IN ASMP, THIS IS CONSIDERED A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UH, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ON THESE CORRIDORS.
SO I THINK REALLY THIS DOES BECOME A PLACE FOR US TO CONSIDER.
OF COURSE, I RESPECT WHAT STAFF IS SAYING BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT AGAIN, WHAT IS IN OUR EXISTING CODE, BUT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUPPORTED BY THE HOUSING AROUND IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST ANOTHER CEO, IT'S ANOTHER ZONING CATEGORY.
IT'S ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE HOUSING DIFFICULT.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WANT TO GET RID OF COMPATIBILITY FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING RID OF COMPATIBILITY.
PEOPLE WANT TO LEGALIZE MORE TYPES OF HOUSING ALONG TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE DENSITY, TRANS SUPPORTIVE ROUTES.
IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH DOWNTOWN.
IT GOES RIGHT DOWN SOUTH FIRST.
AND WE NEED MORE HOUSING HERE.
WE DON'T NEED MORE LIMITATIONS HERE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS WAS HELP ME OUT HERE, UM, WHO THIS MOTION WAS, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER, SHE BY COMMISSIONER AAR.
AND IT'S, UH, WE GOT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR NP, UH, THE NPA AND THE M F FIVE WITH A 45 FOOT HEIGHT CAP, CORRECT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THOSE ON THE DIAS FIRST IN FAVOR.
AND THOSE VOTING AGAINST, SO WE HAVE NINE ONE NINE HUNDRED TEN NINE HUNDRED TEN.
UH, MR. RIVERA, WHERE ARE WE? UH, WHERE ARE WE NOW? GOT ITEM
[34. Rezoning: C14-2022-0084 - 705 Brownlee Circle Rezone; District 9]
34 AND 30 34.IS THAT CORRECT? CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES ON INTERVIEW? DID I ASK? CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
ITEM 34 7 0 5 BROWNLEY CIRCLE RESIDE.
WHAT TIME DO GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS? MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS A REZONING AT 7 0 5 BROWNLEY CIRCLE.
UH, THE REZONING AREA CONSISTS OF A PLATTED LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BROWNLEY CIRCLE.
UM, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SF THREE NP AND CONTAINS A DUPLEX.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE MF THREE DISTRICT.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD A THIRD UNIT ON SITE AND THERE, THEREBY CONVERTING THE STRUCTURE FROM A DUPLEX TO A TRIPLEX.
UM, THE MF THREE ZONING OFFER ZONING DISTRICT OFFERS A INCREASED BUILDING COVERAGE OF 55% AND A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 65%.
AND, UH, THAT ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE MAY BE NEEDED TO CREATE THE THIRD UNIT.
UH, THE MF THREE AS REQUESTED WOULD ALLOW FOR A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE CONDUCTED ON THIS RIGHT ON, ON THIS SITE BY RIGHT, INCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, THE, WE, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BECAUSE IT IS, UH, THE LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR MULTI-FAMILY, DOES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, AND IT WOULD, UM, ADD GREATER COHESION TO THE EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA.
THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BOTH TO THE EAST AND THE WEST HAVE MF FOUR ZONING.
UM, I DO NEED TO NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE WEST HAS A DUPLEX ON IT, NOT A, NOT A TRIPLEX, BUT A DUPLEX.
AND THE PROPERTY OF THE EAST IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, SO WE ARE REQUESTING, OR THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING MF THREE NP.
UH, THERE IS A LATE, UH, BACKUP
[02:25:01]
WAS UPLOADED TODAY.IT WAS A LETTER FROM THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND, UM, STATING THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE, TO THE CASE.
THERE IS A PETITION, UM, NEARLY AT 40%, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY.
SO IT IS A VALID PETITION AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER ARE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. RICA KEEPERS.
MS. UH, MS. KEEPERS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I OWN KEEPERS LAND PLANNING AND PERMITTING, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS.
UM, THE OWNERS ARE ALSO HERE AS WELL, UM, WITH THEIR SON PETER, WHO, UM, IS SPECIAL NEEDS.
AND THE REASON FOR THE REASON, UM, WANNA TALK ABOUT THE LOCATION FOR A SECOND, BECAUSE THEY DID LOOK AT QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES.
THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND A SPOT WHERE THEY COULD REALLY, UM, LIVE THEMSELVES, HAVE A SEPARATE UNIT FOR A CAREGIVER THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE FOR PETER AS WELL AS HAVE PETER HAVE HIS OWN SEPARATE SPACE, UM, FROM HIS PARENTS SO THAT HE COULD HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCY, ALTHOUGH HE CAN ONLY HAVE SOME SO MUCH INDEPENDENCY.
UM, SO THEY LOOKED AT QUITE A FEW LOCATIONS AND THEY FOUND THIS LOCATION.
UM, IT'S, IT'S WALKABLE TO A LOT OF THE AREAS THAT THEY VISIT AND GO TO.
SO THEY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO IT.
THEY COULD ACTUALLY JUST WALK WITH THEIR SON.
THE SPACE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADA COMPLIANT.
UM, OF COURSE, THE REASONS WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS IS, SO IS FOR THAT THIRD UNIT, WHICH WENDY DID, UM, SAY THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER AS WELL AS NEEDED.
UM, THE RE THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE REDONE, WHICH ADDS TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER NEEDS.
LET'S SEE, THEY ALSO NEED HEIGHT ALLOWANCES, UM, SO THAT HE CAN HAVE THAT SECOND STORY SO THEY CAN BUILD WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
UM, THEY HAVE MET, I WILL ALSO SAY, I WANNA ADD THAT THEY HAVE MET WITH OHANA A FEW TIMES, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HOSKINS IS GONNA SPEAK TO THAT NEXT, BUT HE, UM, BUT HE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE DISCUSSED AND TRYING TO COME TO SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE, UM, IN SUPPORT OF, OF HAVING THIS THIRD UNIT FOR THEIR SON.
BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, ANY DISCUSSION YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM BRAD HOSKINS.
MR. HOSKINS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, HI, UM, BRAD HOSKINS, A PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, SO YES, AS RICK MENTIONED, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A HOUSE WHERE WE CAN LIVE, UH, TOGETHER.
UM, CURRENTLY WE SHUFFLE BETWEEN HOUSES AND I LIVE, HAVE A HOUSE THAT, UM, IS VERY INACCESSIBLE.
PETER CANNOT STAY THERE OR LIVE THERE.
UM, AND THE PROPERTY THAT I DO OWN AT 7 0 5 BROWNLEE, UM, THERE IS, UH, A WAY WE CAN INCORPORATE AN EXTRA UNIT THAT WOULD BE ON A LEVEL.
UM, AND BEING ON A SINGLE LEVEL IS IMPORTANT FOR US, UM, AND TO MAKE IT FULLY, UH, ACCESSIBLE.
UM, WE DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE, UH, THE EXISTING, UH, SET, UH, SETBACKS THERE.
UM, AND THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS, UM, ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AS RICK MENTIONED, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH AHANA ON THIS.
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO HELP US UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE AND THE PROS AND CONS OF, UM, REZONING.
UM, AND TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS THAT THIS COULD BE DONE WITHOUT A REZON.
SO OUR REAL ISSUE HERE IS HOW CAN WE HAVE THIS ONE EXTRA LIVING SPACE, UM, BUT ALSO THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE WHAT'S THERE.
AND WE ALSO, UM, WANT THE, THE SPACE THAT WE HAVE FOR ON-SITE CAREGIVING.
UM, SO THAT PRESENTS A VERY SPECIFIC USE, UM, THAT WE HAVE THAT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND A WAY THAT WE CAN DO THAT, UM, WITHOUT THE REZONE.
UM, THE REZONE ISN'T TO SCRAPE AND BUILD THE REZONE ISN'T TO INFRINGE UPON THE SETBACKS OR BUILD SOMETHING, UH, THAT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, UH, BIGGER IN, IN, UH, FOOTPRINT.
UM, BUT JUST SORT OF GIVES US A POSSIBILITY OF DOING THIS EXTRA LIVING SPACE AND THIS, UM, EXTRA UNIT.
UM, HAVE MET WITH, UM, SOME OF, UH, OUR FUTURE NEIGHBORS, UH, WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT.
AND I'M, I'M GLAD TO SAY THEY'RE WELCOMING, UM, US TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THEY'RE KEEN TO SEE UNOCCUPIED, UH, UH, AT THE, AT THE HOUSE THAT'S BEEN RENTED OUT PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND SO IT'S BEEN GOOD TO SPEAK TO THEM ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS AND
[02:30:01]
ALSO, UM, GET THE HELP FROM OHANA TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE IN A, UH, PREDICAMENT HERE OR POSITION AS, AS RICK MENTIONED, OF HOW DO WE HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL UNIT.
UM, AND SO THAT THE PATH THAT SEEMED TO ENABLE THIS WAS, UM, TO REZONE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MELISSA SKIDMORE.
MS. SKIDMORE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, HI, MY NAME IS MELISSA SKIDMORE.
I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF CENTRAL AUSTIN.
UM, WE BOUGHT OUR FIRST HOUSE IN CLARKSVILLE IN OLD WEST AUSTIN IN 1997.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO LOOK, UM,
UM, AND, UH, WE HAD TO MOVE TO AN ACCESSIBLE LOCATION WHEN I COULDN'T CARRY PETER UP THE STAIRS ANYMORE.
UM, WE'VE BEEN LIVING DOWNTOWN IN, UM, IN A FULLY ACCESSIBLE ALL UNIT AND A HIGH RISE FOR A WHILE, BUT IT CAN'T ACCOMMODATE OUR WHOLE FAMILY.
WE ARE, UM, TRYING TO MOVE TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN HAVE ALL OF US TOGETHER, TOGETHER, UM, THAT PETER IS ABLE TO ACCESS THE ENTIRE HOME, UM, THAT IS IN A EASY TO NAVIGATE PART OF THE CITY, ACCESS TO TRANSIT THAT HE CAN USE, UM, ACCESS TO ACTIVITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND IN CENTRAL AUSTIN.
UM, WHAT WE'VE REQUESTED IS NOT TO CHANGE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OTHER THAN, UH, REBUILDING A CURRENT CARPORT INTO A GARAGE AND ADDING A SECOND STORY.
SO WE WOULDN'T BE CHANGING HOW FAR THE STRUCTURE IS FROM ANY OF THE SETBACKS.
AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A WAY TO DO THIS AND BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADDRESS ALL OF OUR NEEDS.
AND, UM, WE REALLY HOPE THAT, UM, WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO THIS.
WHILE I HEAR NOW HEAR FROM DANIELLE SKIN, NOR GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M DANIELLE SKIDMORE AND THIS IS PETER.
I THINK PETER MIGHT BE SIGNED UP NEXT, BUT I'LL SPEAK FOR BOTH OF US.
SO 13 YEARS AGO, PETER LEFT OLD WEST AUSTIN BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIND A PLACE TO LIVE THAT ACCOMMODATED HIS MOBILITY NEEDS WHO SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST IN WEST AUSTIN.
NOW HE'S GOT A CHANCE TO RETURN.
MF THREE ZONING IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR BRAD AND MELISSA TO BUILD WHAT THEY AND SO MANY FAMILIES NEED FAR FROM DESTROYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A CHANCE FOR SOME REAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IN OLD WEST AUSTIN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE SADLY ALL WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD RECENTLY ARE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR MANSIONS.
BUILDING HOUSING IN OUR CORE IS SIMPLY THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE THING WE CAN DO, BOTH AS INDIVIDUALS AND COLLECTIVELY AS A CITY.
IN 2010, PETER APPEARED IN EVERYBODY'S UTILITY BILL ASKING OUR COMMUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON IMAGINE AUSTIN.
WHAT HE SAID WAS WHAT HE SAID THEN, AND WHAT HE SAYS NOW IS THAT HE WANTS TO LIVE IN AN AUSTIN THAT'S MORE ROLLABLE AND FUN, COMPACT AND CONNECTED TO BE THOSE THINGS.
WE NEED TO HAVE MORE HOUSING OF ALL TYPES FOR FAMILIES OF ALL TYPES.
NEAR TRANSIT 7 0 5 BROWNLEE IS LESS THAN 500 FEET FROM THE NUMBER FOUR BUS, A HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
IT'S ALREADY SURROUNDED BY MF FOUR ZONING ON BOTH SIDES AND COMMERCIAL BEHIND.
SO COMMISSIONERS, I ASK YOU, IF NOT HERE, WHERE, HOW CAN WE CALL OURSELVES A TRULY PROGRESSIVE CITY IF WE CAN'T BUILD MORE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE RIGHT HERE IN OUR CORE? SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD?
NOW WE'RE HERE FROM LINDA GLISI.
I LIVE AT 6 0 6 OAKLAND, WHICH IS A FEW BLOCKS FROM THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE IN 1979, LIVED THERE, LIVED AWAY, UH, IN AUSTIN, AND THEN PERMANENTLY SINCE, UH, 2014 AT THAT LOCATION.
I MENTIONED THAT DATE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHEN I BECAME INVOLVED WITH
[02:35:01]
THE, UH, OR WENT TO MEETINGS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP.ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT CAME UP THAT WAS KIND OF SHOCKING TO ME WAS A PROPERTY ON WINDFLOW, WHICH IS THE STREET THAT CONNECTS, UH, AT TWO AT THE ENDS OF BROWNLEY CIRCLE.
AND, UH, IT WAS A LARGE LOT LARGE FIRE AREA.
THEY HAD THE ENTITLEMENT, THEY THOUGHT FOR THREE UNITS.
IT WAS A FAMILY THAT HAD A, UH, DISABLED SON.
UH, THEY WERE, UH, WANTING THAT HE WAS NOW A YOUNG ADULT.
THEY WANTED TO BUILD, UH, THREE UNITS AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE EXCEPT AND AFTER THEY HAD SPENT.
AND THE THREE UNITS INCLUDED, ONE THAT THEIR SON COULD LIVE IN WITH A CAREGIVER AND LIVE INDEPENDENTLY, AND ONE FOR THEM AND THEN ANOTHER TO RENT.
THEY SPENT, THEY SAID A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS BEFORE THEY GOT TO THE POINT THAT SOMEONE IN THE CODE FOUND THIS CERTAIN OVERLAY OR CERTAIN SOMETHING WHERE THEIR LOT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ZONED PROPERLY, WAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET SHORT OF ALLOWING THEM TO BUILD THE TRIPLEX.
AND THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSED AND THEY BUILT, UH, MCMANSION IS THERE.
NOW THE POINT IS, AND I'M SORRY I'VE RUN OVER, BUT I, THESE FOLKS WOULD BE MY NEIGHBORS.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE TRIPLEXES ARE BECOMING SINGLE FAMILY.
THE DUPLEXES ARE BECOMING SINGLE FAMILY.
THIS IS A CHANCE TO RIGHT ZONE THIS.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MF FOUR, I DON'T KNOW, OR THREE, I DUNNO WHY IT WASN'T 7 0 1 DOWN ZONED ITSELF TO SF THREE.
OTHERWISE THE WHOLE STRIP IS MULTI-FAMILY ZONED.
AND, UM, I WANT MORE NEIGHBORS.
SO PLEASE HELP US GET I IT ONE UNIT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. MARY BLACKLEY.
MS. BLACKLEY, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY ANGIE NERON BECKLEY, OR TO BE FOLLOWED BY, WAIT, SHOULD I BE HERE? JUST THIS.
HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS MARY BLOCKLEY.
I LIVE AT 7 0 2 BROWNLEE CIRCLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM 7 0 5.
I'VE LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS FOR 30 YEARS AND I RENTED ON PALMER PLAZA FOR SEVEN YEARS.
BEFORE THAT I LIVED ON BROWNLEE CIRCLE WHEN TOM BRAYS PROPERTY AT 7 0 7.
BROWNLEY WAS AN EMPTY LOT COVERED WITH BAMBOO.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION NONETHELESS TO THE ZONING CHANGE FOR MF FOR THE REASONS THAT OTHERS WILL GIVE IN MORE DETAIL.
TODAY WAS MY FIRST DAY OF TEACHING AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY
SO EXTREMELY CLOSE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ALREADY, UH, VERY SMALL.
I WOULD ALSO ADD, UM, I WORRY ABOUT THE LACK OF SPACE FOR PARKING.
ALRIGHT,
I WORRY ALSO ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO OUTLIVE ALL OF US.
UM, TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS ADDITIONAL PAVING TO THE HERITAGE OAK, UH, LOCATED AT THE EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY SHARES WITH TOM BRAY'S PROPERTY AT 7 0 7.
UM, I'M NONETHELESS SENSITIVE TO MORE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, I'M CONCERN IS REALLY WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGING THE ZONING TO MF THREE.
UM, IF AT FS FIVE WERE POSSIBLE, THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE LEEWAY ON SETBACKS AND ON SQUARE FOOTAGES AND OTHER ADVANTAGES THAT I HOPE WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
UM, SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY AT THE MOMENT.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
UH, AND IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IN.
WELL NOW HEAR FROM ANGIE NE BICKLEY.
MS. BICKLEY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
YOU'LL BE FOLLOWED BY KIM OVERTON.
I LIVE AT 7 0 1 BROWNLEY CIRCLE.
UM, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 13 YEARS AND YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, WE'VE, WE'VE MET WITH MR. HOSKINS AND THE FAMILY AND, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM AS OUR NEIGHBORS.
I THINK OUR ISSUE IS, IS WITH THE, UM, ZONING.
SO I OPPOSE THE ZONING CHANGE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO LOOK AT CREATIVE WAYS TO HELP MEET THE SPECIAL NEEDS FAMILIES NEEDS, AND MAINTAIN THE,
[02:40:01]
UM, THE SF UM, UH, ZONING.AND, AND ONE OF THE KEY REASONS THAT I'M CONCERNED IS BASED ON THE PLANS THAT MR. HAWKINS HAS SHARED WITH US AND WHAT THEY NEED TO DO FOR, UM, THEIR SPECIAL NEEDS FOR TO MEET THEIR FAMILY'S NEEDS.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WOULD BE A, A, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT VARIANCES AND ACCOMMODATIONS THAT THE FAMILY WILL ALSO HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND ALSO GET APPROVED.
AND IF AT SOME POINT THOSE DON'T GET APPROVED, THEN, THEN THEY CAN'T BUILD WHAT THEY NEED TO BUILD.
AND WITH AN SF ZONING, THEY, IF WE CAN FIND SOME VARIANCES THAT WE COULD WORK WITH THEM ON AS PART OF AANA AND AS PART OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY IN WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE PROPERTY.
THEN, UM, THEN THEY DO WITH A, AN MF ZONING.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEIR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WOULD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, UM, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT ARE STRICTER THAN THE SF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO THERE, THERE IS SOME CONCERN.
I WILL BE HONEST WITH ALL OF US.
IT IS VERY NARROW AND IT, IT IS A BLIND TURN AROUND THAT CORNER.
THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT PARKING AND, AND ENSURING THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE THERE.
I THINK, AGAIN, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH, UM, BUT WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE, UM, AGAIN, THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK WITH US ON HOW WE CAN MEET THIS FAMILY'S NEEDS WITH, WITH, UH, THEIR CURRENT ZONING OR MAYBE AN SF FIVE ZONING AS OPPOSED TO AN MF ZONING.
THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, MS. KIM OVERTON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I OWN THE HOUSE AT 7 0 3 BROWNING CIRCLE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR MELISSA, BRAD, AND PETER BUILD A HOUSE THAT ACCOMMODATES THEIR FAMILY.
AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THEM AS A NEIGHBOR.
BUT I AM OPPOSED TO THE UPZONING 2:00 AM F THREE RIGHT AT THEIR CORNER.
OUR BLOCK IS A UNIQUELY BUILT BLOCK IN THAT IT IS A BLIND CORNER.
IT'S SHAPED SIMILAR TO AN IN EAR.
SO IF YOU'VE SEEN IT ON A MAP, IT IS THE MOST UNIQUE SHAPED BLOCK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT CORNER CREATES VERY DANGEROUS TURN.
AND WHY IT'S A MAJOR CONCERN FOR ME, I HAVE KIDS WHO RIDE BIKES TO SCHOOL SCOOTERS TO SCHOOL, TO THE PARK AT THE MOMENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS PERMIT PARKING, THERE ARE A TON OF CARS FROM THE RESIDENCE ON THAT BLOCK.
AND GUESS WHAT? WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS.
SO IT WOULD BE A VERY DANGEROUS BLOCK ALSO FOR THIS FAMILY.
AT THE MOMENT, PETER'S UNIT HAS TWO CARS PER UNIT THE HOUSE AT THE MOMENT.
SO WITH MORE UNITS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE CARS ON THAT VERY DANGEROUS TURN.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED AND THE WANT FOR DENSITY.
I WENT TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT MY KIDS WENT TO.
I WENT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL THAT, THAT THEY'RE GONNA GRADUATE FROM.
MY GRANDFATHER'S NAME IS IN THE PARK, ALMA OVERTON SENIOR PARK.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR A CHANGE.
BUT THAT PARTICULAR BLOCK, PLEASE JUST TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO FOR THIS FAMILY TO HELP THEM BUILD A HOUSE THAT'LL ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.
ONE OUT HERE FROM TOM BRAY, FOLLOWED BY MAUREEN MATAR.
TOM BRAY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M THE OWNER AND RESIDENT AT 7 0 7 BROWNLEY CIRCLE, UM, DIRECTLY NEXT TO 7 0 5 BROWNLEY.
AND, UH, I LIKE, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS THAT JUST SPOKE, YOU KNOW, UH, PRIDE OURSELVES IN BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS, SO VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF MR. HOSKINS AND HIS FAMILY, MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS IN TERMS OF INCLUDING VARIANCES TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, THEIR SPECIAL NEEDS.
SO VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AND HOPE WE CAN DO THAT WITH VARIANCES UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, DESIGNATION, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE, UM, THE, UH, CHANGE TO A MULTI-FAMILY FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
UH, BIGGEST BEING IS THE REMOVAL OF COMPATIBILITY FOR HOMEOWNERS, UM, WHICH WILL ALLOW AND MAYBE EVEN ENCOURAGE TALLER, UH, BUILDINGS WITH MUCH LESS OF A SETBACK.
SO BUILT PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ON TOP OF THE
[02:45:01]
ENTIRE, UM, BACK OF OUR STREET.UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, AS YOU KNOW, LIVES CHANGE, FAMILIES GROW, PLANS CHANGE.
UM, THE ADDITION, IF THE, I GUESS THE ADJUSTMENT TO A TRIPLEX, IF, UM, THE HOSKINS FAMILY NO LONGER LIVES THERE, THEN UM, THERE WILL BE THREE UNITS VERSUS TWO UNITS.
SO A BIG CONCERN IF THAT DOES HAPPEN IS TRASH MAINTENANCE, UPKEEPING UPKEEP AND, UH, PARKING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AN ISSUE WITH THE, UH, TENANT OCCUPIED DUPLEX, FEEL LIKE THAT WILL BE, UM, YOU KNOW, FURTHER EXAGGERATED WITH, YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA UNIT AND ADDITIONAL TENANTS IF THAT IS THE CASE.
I'M HOPING WE CAN FIND A WAY UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY, UM, CODE THAT WE CAN, UH, GET THE HOSKINS IN, WE CAN ACCOMMODATE.
AND, UM, YOU MAKE THAT HOME A, UH, SPECIAL HOME THAT MEETS ALL THE FAMILIES AND NEEDS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FOR MAUREEN METOW.
MS. METOW, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I AM MAUREEN METTO AND I AM A RESIDENT.
I'M A NEIGHBOR OF MR. HOSKINS.
UM, I I JUST WANNA SAY WE ARE SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION, HOWEVER, I I DON'T OPPOSE THIS CASE.
I THINK THERE IS PERHAPS A THIRD WAY HERE THAT HASN'T BEEN LOOKED AT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ALL TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH THAT.
AND PERHAPS CITY STAFF CAN DO THE SAME.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 DASH 2 9 0 1 IS ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
IT ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY UNITS TO SINGLE FAMILY USE, WHICH THIS BUILDING IS, IT'S SF THREE, IT'S A DUPLEX FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ELDERLY OR PHYSICALLY DISABLED.
THIS POSSIBLY COULD GIVE AN OPTION TO THIS FAMILY TO ALLOW FOR A THIRD UNIT BOTH.
SO THE COUPLE CAN BE HOUSED, THEIR SON CAN BE HOUSED, AND POTENTIALLY A CAREGIVER, LONG-TERM CAREGIVER FOR THEIR SON, WHICH IS DEFINITELY A, A NEED.
UM, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND, UH, A WAY TO WORK THROUGH THIS.
THIS LOT IS VERY TRICKY BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS AND BECAUSE OF, OOPS, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
UM, ANY, ANYWAY, I JUST WANNA CLOSE BY SAYING THERE ARE A LOT OF PECULIARITIES WITH THE SLOT EITHER WAY IN UPZONING OR A BASE ZONING, THERE WOULD BE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES, ET CETERA.
SO THE DEVELOPMENT RULES HERE ARE GONNA BE VERY TRICKY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT HOW WE CAN TO HELP THIS FAMILY.
UM, AND WE THINK IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT WITH THE BASE ZONING, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, AS FAR AS THE REASON THEY WENT THROUGH REZONING IS TO GET THIS THIRD UNIT.
AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, FOR A SMALL FAMILY TO TAKE ON THE COST OF REZONING, IT'S, IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.
SO TO GO THROUGH AND THEN SAY, OH WAIT, LET'S CHANGE AND DO VARIANCES THAT, THAT ARE MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROVED IS SUPER RISKY.
IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH OANA AND I RESPECT EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THIS AND WANT, UM, THEIR NEW NEIGHBORS TO FEEL AT HOME AND FEEL COMFORTABLE THERE.
UM, HOW WE GET THERE IS A CONUNDRUM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE ZONING AND THE COMPATIBILITY.
BUT THE TREES, THERE ARE TREES THAT ARE PROTECTED, OF COURSE, THEY'RE GONNA BE PROTECTED AND WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
BUT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT.
WHERE THE CARPORT IS, IS WHERE THAT, UM, ADDITIONAL UNIT WOULD BE THE GARAGE AND THEN, AND YOU GET IT.
UM, IN ADDITION, TALKED ABOUT THE VARIANCES, THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL VEHICLES AT ALL BECAUSE HE DOES NOT DRIVE.
UM, YEAH, SO THE ADDITIONAL TRASH, ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE WOULDN'T BE THERE BECAUSE THESE ARE GONNA BE OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS, UM, WITH THE PARENTS, WITH PETER AND WITH THE CAREGIVER.
AND CUZ HE DOES REQUIRE THE 24 HOUR SERVICE AND, AND CARE CARE.
UM, I KNOW THAT, UM, MAUREEN ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE CODE, HAVING THAT, UM, SPECIFIC ACCESSORY APARTMENT THERE, UM, FOR SPECIAL NEEDS.
I ALSO REACHED OUT TO STAFF AND SAID, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO OUTSIDE OF A REZONE FOR THIS CASE? AND KNEW ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SENIOR FOR SENIORS, UM, BUT DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE SPECIAL NEEDS WAS ALSO ADDED TO THAT.
BUT WHAT IS THE CERTAINTY OF THAT? UM, THAT'S WHAT THE OWNERS ALSO ARE TRYING TO GAUGE THE RISK LEVEL THERE.
[02:50:01]
HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HERE.THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZA.
SORRY, I MIXED FOLKS VIRTUALLY.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
UH, WHO WANTS START US OFF QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX, THEN COMMISSIONER YS POLITO, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, POLITO HAD HER HAND UP FIRST.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SWITCH IT.
UM, I WOULD JUST LOOK LIKE TO, UH, CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION, UM, ABOUT THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UH, I MEAN, WELL, OKAY, APPLICANT HAD QUESTIONS.
SO MAYBE FOR STAFF, I GUESS COULD STAFF WEIGH IN ON WHETHER THIS, UM, DESIGNATION WOULD MEET THOSE NEEDS? UH, A A A THIRD UNIT ON SITE DOES TRIGGER THE NEED FOR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING HERE.
EVEN IF IT'S, SO IS THERE, IS IS THAT BECAUSE, UM, UH, SF SF THREE COVERS TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
SO BE SINGLE FAMILY OR MULT OR DUPLEX, BUT WHEN YOU ADD A THIRD UNIT AS MULTI-FAMILY, OKAY, SO THE CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY USE AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT THEN WOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A SECOND UNIT AND NOT A THIRD UNIT ON THIS.
UH, I, I, I WILL GO REVIEW THE CODE SECTION, BUT THAT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE THEN, OR WOULD NOT BE? IT REQUIRES THE NEXT MULTI, IT REQUIRES MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FURTHER REFINE THAT QUESTION, SO I'LL JUST, JUST STOP THERE.
COMMISSIONER COXS, UM, HEY, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND STAFF, BUT I, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY SF FIVE, IF YOU'RE MAINTAINING THE SAME FOOTPRINT BY SF FIVE WOULDN'T WORK.
I'M LOOKING AT THE TABLE RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S A BLANK, UM, AT SF FIVE, SF SF FIVE IS FOR, UH, TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM USE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, IS THAT, THAT IS, THAT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TRIPLEX.
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRIPLEX AND CONDOMINIUM USE? UH, THE, THE TRIPLEX IS, UH, IS, IS THREE UNITS.
I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF I, I, I WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUESTING A TRIPLEX USE HERE AND THAT THAT'S TRIGGERING THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
SO I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION TO, TO THE APPLICANT IS I, I'M NOT SEEING A MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER LOT UNDER S F FIVE.
UH, S F FIVE ALLOWS UP TO 10 UNITS.
UM, AND, AND IF YOU'RE MAINTAINING A SIMILAR FOOTPRINT, I'M, COULD, COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY S F FIVE WOULDN'T WORK? UH, APPLICANT EXCUSE.
MAYBE JUST PUT A SIGN THAT SAYS EKMAN CONDOS OR SOMETHING, AND THAT WOULD SATISFY THE DEFINITION.
SO YEAH, THE DIFFERENCE YOU GET, YOU GET 10% MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, I THINK.
YEAH, 45 TO 55, UM, FROM SF THREE TO SF FIVE, BECAUSE THEY, CUZ WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IS A CONCERN THAT BY TURNING ALL THESE LOTS INTO MF, YOU'RE REDUCING THE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERS.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO ACHIEVE WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS UNDER SF ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS SAID, UM, TO US.
AND I, I'M, I JUST DON'T SEE WHY SF FIVE WOULDN'T WORK, EVEN THOUGH STAFF IS TELLING US THAT THREE UNITS IS NOT A CONDO, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IF, IF THE APPLICANT CAN ADD ANYTHING THAT MIGHT ENLIGHTEN US, THAT'D BE GREAT.
[02:55:01]
SF FIVE, UM, WENDY BELIEVES IS 50 TO 55%, WHICH SHOULD BE ENOUGH IMPERVIOUS COVERS.SO THE OWNERS ARE AMENABLE TO THAT FOR SURE.
DID WE JUST SOLVE EVERYONE'S PROBLEM?
YEAH, NO, THAT'S OKAY AS WELL.
HOWEVER, I'M, I'M FINISHED CHAIR.
SORRY IF ANYONE'S WAITING ON ME.
COMMISSIONER SHAKE, UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO, UM, I REMEMBER SOME CODE ABOUT A LOT THAT IS OVER 10,000 SQUARE FEET ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, UM, CARETAKER'S QUARTERS.
SO THIS WAY IT'S AN ASSOCIATED PERSON, RIGHT? SO THAT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S MORE OF AN ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
I MEAN, COULD THAT BE USED? I MEAN, IT'S OVER 10,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, THAT I I BELIEVE THE, THE CARETAKER WOULD BE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S ACTUALLY TAKING IT.
YEAH, IT, IT, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
WHEREAS THIS WOULD BE A RE A RESIDENT.
NO, BUT IT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO HELP TAKE CARE OF A PERSON OR SOMETHING.
IT'S AN ASSOCIATED, I MEAN, THE THING IS, WHEN YOU GO TO LIKE A TRIPLEX USE SOMETHING, IT'S, IT'S THREE COMPLETELY UNASSOCIATED PEOPLE.
THE POINT OF THE OTHER ONE WAS THAT IT'S AN ASSOCIATED, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, PERSON, YOU JUST, LIKE THE SECONDARY APARTMENT WITH THE ELDERLY, ALL THAT STUFF WAS BECAUSE IT WAS CREATED BECAUSE IT WAS SOME ASSOCIATED WITH SOME LARGER, UM, INDIVIDUAL OR PURPOSE, YOU KNOW.
SO COULD THAT BE USED IN THIS CASE HERE? I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I, I'D HAVE TO GO STUDY THOSE.
THAT GROUP OF, UM, I, I, I REMEMBER THE EXHIBIT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I NOT CONSULTED AND THEN IN A WHILE, SO I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THAT ANDERSON IS NEXT.
YEAH, I HAVEN'T, I MEAN, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT USED MUCH EVER BECAUSE, UM, OTHER CODES ALLOW IT AND MOST PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET DISASSOCIATED INDIVIDUALS, YOU KNOW, TOGETHER.
I MEAN, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW.
I, HERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE EVEN TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING, UM, WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO DO THE CODE REWRITE ABOUT HOW TO ALLOW THESE SECONDARY APARTMENTS AND STUFF.
AND, UM, SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE AT ONE POINT, BUT WHEN THE CODE KIND OF DIED, IT KIND OF DIED WITH IT.
AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT AND COME BACK TO.
HEY, MS. RHODES, UM, ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP A ZONING MAP OF THIS HOME AND THE AREA AROUND IT? UH, YES.
I'LL, ANDREW RIVERA WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT, UH, SHORTLY.
WHEN, WHEN THAT COMES UP, I'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT HOW THE ZONING REQUEST COMPARES TO THE ZONING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT.
WOULD THIS ZONING REQUEST BE GREATER THAN IT'S LESS? LESS THAN, YEAH.
LESS THAN QUITE LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT TOUCHES IT, IT, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE BOTH MF FOUR, HOWEVER, ONE IS BUILT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY AND ONE IS BUILT WITH A DUPLEX.
THEY DO HAVE MUL, UM, MF FOUR ZONING, UM, THAT, THAT'S LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED MULTI, MULTIPLE DECADES, UM, OLD.
BUT YES, THEY ARE, THEY, THERE ARE MF FOUR ZONING IN, UH, DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND IN THIS OVERALL OLD WEST AUSTIN AREA.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A MOTION, UH, IF YOU HAVE A MOTION, DO YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD.
THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, UM, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ADUS AND STUFF? I THOUGHT WE HAD AN ORDINANCE COME THROUGH ON ADUS.
I THOUGHT WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE SOME OF THIS, SO I THOUGHT IT PASSED.
I I CAN BRIEFLY COMMENT ON THAT.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IS, IS FOR, DOES BELONG UNDER THE SF THREE, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT IS ONCE YOU ADD A THIRD UNIT, YOU'RE INTO MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
UM, THERE WAS A RECENTLY PAST RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL AS OF DECEMBER LAST YEAR REGARDING, UH, MISSING MIDDLE.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT KNOW THAT THAT, UM, WORK HAS STARTED YET.
THAT DOES ADDRESS UNIT, UH, TRIPLEX, I THINK UP TO 16 UNITS, UM, THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY COUNSEL LAST YEAR.
UM, BUT AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY, UM,
[03:00:01]
AND THAT, THAT THAT RESOLUTION IS INTENDED TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD, UM, TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES TO, TO RESIDENTIAL REVIEW AND CREATING SITE PLANS.A, A LIGHTER TYPE OF SITE PLANS FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSES DEFINED AS FIVE TO 16.
I'M SORRY, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M UNDERSTANDING AND I, NO, I'VE GOTTEN THIS QUESTION OUTSIDE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE ABOUT HAVING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, UM, ON, ON SOME OF THESE SF PROPERTIES.
AND SO I KNOW THIS IS A QUESTION AT LARGER THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO IN ADDITION TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE THAT MIGHT HELP THIS CASE.
I MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ASKING MY QUESTION PROPERLY, BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD, I THOUGHT WE HAD SOMETHING NOW THAT ALLOWS FOR ADUS UNDER SF THREE ZONING.
SO UNDER, SO UNDER SF THREE, AND SO WHAT'S AVAILABLE UNDER SF THREE, MAXIMUM TWO UNITS UNDER THE PROP ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE A DUPLEX, DOESN'T CHANGE IF IT GOES TO AN SF FOUR.
BUT THEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION THAT COMMISSIONER COX BROUGHT UP ABOUT GOING, TAKING IT TO SF FIVE.
SF FOUR IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT ZONING.
UH, YOU KNOW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S UP, IT'S ACTUALLY SINGLE FAMILY SF THREE HAS THE MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS.
SF FIVE HAS A TOTAL OF UP TO 10 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
THEY'VE APPLIED FOR MF THREE AND, SORRY.
AND SF FOUR IS NOTHING REASONABLE IN THE MIDDLE.
UH, SF FOUR, SF FOUR A IS REALLY FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY.
IT, IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON THE PROPERTY.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
I KNOW YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT'S AROUND MM-HMM.
ARE THOSE, ARE THEY ALL COMING FROM APARTMENTS? UH, THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND I THINK DUPLEXES IN THIS AREA, UH, PRIMARILY AND, AND MAYBE SOME TWO FAMILY, BUT THEY'RE JUST, IT'S MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MF FOUR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE MF FOUR ZONING, MOST, MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED WITH EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR A, A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ZONING, SORRY, THESE ARE EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ME.
IF THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS MULTI-FAMILY, BUT IT'S BEING USED AS SINGLE FAMILY, WHAT IS THAT DOING WITH COMPATIBILITY AND TRIGGERING? UH, IT, DOES IT TRIGGER BY THE USE OR DOES IT TRIGGER BY THE ZONE? THIS ONE WOULD TRIGGER BY THE, BY UNDER THE PROPOSED MF THREE FOR A TRIFLEX THAT WOULD TRIGGER, THAT WOULD, UM, COMPATIBILITY WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED ON THIS PARTICULAR REZONING AREA TO THE DUPLEX AND THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT ARE NEXT DOOR ON EITHER SIDE.
SO IS EITHER SIDE OF THEM ZONED SINGLE FAMILY? I THOUGHT YOU SAID THEY WERE ZONED MULTI-FAMILY.
THEY, THEY ARE ZONED MULTI-FAMILY, BUT THEY'RE BOTH, ONE IS DEVELOPED WITH A HOUSE, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND ONE IS DEVELOPED WITH A DUPLEX, BUT THEY DO HAVE MF FOUR ZONING, WHICH, UM, THIS AREA, THIS OLD WEST AUSTIN AREA HAS A LOT OF M F FOUR ZONING THAT HAS, YEAH, NO, WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS IF YOU'RE D IF YOU'RE TAKING A PROPERTY AND DEVELOPING WHAT'S TAKING THE COMPATIBILITY, HOW IT'S ACTUALLY BEING USED OR WHAT IT'S ZONED FOR, IT'S, IT IS ZONING OR USE.
SO EITHER, SO CURRENTLY THEY'VE GOT THESE.
UM, IS, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MUSH? TYLER? NO.
UH, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO ASK, BUT IT SOUNDED TO ASK, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE WE WERE GETTING CLOSE WITH THAT SF FIVE SOLUTION.
WELL, BUT I DON'T ASK IT, SO I'M DONE.
UH, REAL QUICK, WE HAVE, UH, OUR CHAIR COHEN HAD A QUESTION.
UH, MR. RIVER, COULD YOU PULL UP THE ZONING MAP PLEASE? BECAUSE WITH ALL THIS GETTING THROWN AROUND, I'M GETTING A LITTLE BIT LOST.
WHAT, WHAT IS IT? BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING, I'M SEEING COMMERCIAL DIRECTLY BEHIND AN MF ON BOTH SIDES.
THERE'S, CAN WE PLEASE PULL IT UP SO EVERYONE CAN LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK? I GUESS I'M JUST CONFUSED.
AND THIS ZONING STUFF IS PRETTY COMPLICATED.
BUT MF, S F M F M F M F C O G O'S LIKE THE TRAIN CS THERE.
THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SF AROUND IT.
[03:05:01]
HELLO? OH, I'LL BURN UP MY ENTIRE FIVE MINUTES.JUST LIKE I SAID, I'M SORRY TO KEEP EVERYBODY WAITING, BUT I JUST REALLY WANNA GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS.
SO THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S THE ZONING MAP.
CAN WE BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT PLEASE? OKAY.
SO WEST SIXTH STREET IS, IS TO THE SOUTH THAT'S HAS THE COMMERCIAL ZONING CS RIGHT BEHIND IT, IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND THEN YES, MF THAT HAS ACCESS TO SIXTH STREET.
AND THERE'S SF THREE AT THE CORNER OF WINDFLOW AND BROWNLEY.
AND THEN THERE'S MF FOUR ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S SF THREE FURTHER ACROSS THE STREET NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ON THE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF BROWNLEY.
SO IT IS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY OR SF THREE AND, AND, UH, MF FOUR, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT OTHER CURVE THERE IN THE STREET, MAYBE NOT QUITE AS SHARP A CURVE, BUT PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS.
I WAS, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THIS.
I JUST NEEDED TO KNOW, UH, COMMISSIONER, WHAT COMMISSIONER THOMPSON GO TO, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS BILL OF THIS HOUSE, THERE ARE MULTI-FAMILY ZONES 70, BUT ONE'S A DUPLEX AND ONE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CORRECT? YES.
SO BOTH OF THOSE WILL TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY? YES.
BECAUSE SO TWO UNITS OR LESS? YES.
SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD BE DONE WITHIN THE FIRST 25 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS? UH, IT'S, AND I, I DID TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE SITE PLAN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO THERE ARE 16 FOOT, UM, SETBACKS AND I THINK THAT WAS, THAT WAS SHOWN ON, UM, IT'S BASED ON THE STREET FRONTAGE OF A 55.7.
SO THERE ARE 16 FOOT SIDE SETBACKS.
SO WHY ON EITHER SIDE 16 FEET AND NOT, I THOUGHT IT WAS 25 FEET.
I, I THINK IT'S REDUCED BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOCK.
THE, THE, THE STREET FRONTAGE.
AND, AND IS THAT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR THE APPLICANT TO BUILD ON WITH CHURCH IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
WE DON'T WANNA GET ANY CLOSER TO WHAT'S THERE ALREADY.
SO THAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA NEED AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK EVEN IF YOU DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT PROPOS PROPOSING TO GO THIS WAY.
WE JUST UP, BUT, BUT YOU'RE ALREADY SORT OF NON-COMPLIANT.
WELL, YEAH, I THINK IS THE PROBLEM.
BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA MAKE US YEAH, EVERYBODY'S HOUSE IS NOT COMPLIANCE.
EVERYBODY'S AT FIVE FEET CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ENVA.
IF WE HAVE SPEAKERS, THEY'LL HAVE TO, UH, COME TO THE LET'S GO AND, UH, KEEP IT ORGANIZED HERE.
DO YOU WANNA CALL THE SPEAKER? UM, SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR NAME.
UM, I'M SURE WE PROBABLY HAVE A PICTURE FOR YOU.
UM, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS, AND, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT IF, IF THE BUILDING IS ALREADY ENCROACHING INTO WHAT WILL BE THE NEW COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS ONCE, ONCE THIS IS ZONED COMMERCIAL, THEN ANY, WE'RE NO, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A COMMERCIAL, SORRY.
ZONE MULTI-FAMILY UHHUH IN ANY, ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THAT WOULD REQUIRE EITHER A VARIANCE OR YOU, YOU CAN'T BE IN THAT SETBACK.
IS THAT, IS THAT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND.
I, UH, NO ONE'S HOUSE ON ANY, NO HOUSE ON THIS STREET IS 25 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE.
THEY'RE ALL GENERALLY FIVE FEET FROM THE LOT LINE.
BUT YEAH, WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE NEXT TO, WHEN YOU'RE A MULTI-FAMILY NEXT TO TO SINGLE FAMILY, YOU, YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.
IT'S, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME CHANGE THAT.
IT NO LONGER TRIGGERS BY USE IF, IF YOU'RE ON A CORRIDOR, THIS IS NOT ON A CORRIDOR.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER? UM, IF, IF I CAN TAKE THE LAST QUESTION.
UM, IN, UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO GO AND OPEN IT UP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
[03:10:01]
VICE CHAIR HEMPLE, AND THEN I CAN'T REMEMBER COMMISSION STO.SO I, I THINK MY QUESTION IS FOR MS. RHODES, AND, UM, I'M SORRY IF WE COVERED THIS ALREADY.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN AROUND, BUT IF THERE WAS, UM, AN SF FIVE OR SO, UH, ZONING DESIGNATION WITH THIS ACCESSORY, UM, ACCESSORY APARTMENT FROM 25 DASH TWO DASH 9 0 1 ADDED, DOES THAT ACHIEVE THE THREE SEPARATE UNITS POTENTIALLY? IS THAT IT STATES, UH, THAT IS AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
IT IS A SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT.
UM, IT, IT SAYS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY A PERSON THAT'S AT LEAST 60 YEARS OLD OR PHYSICALLY DISABLED.
UM, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION.
I'D REALLY HAVE TO LOOK INTO THIS SECTION MORE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING AGAIN IS THAT THAT ACCESSORY APARTMENT IS CONNECTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
ISN'T, THIS IS A DUPLEX REQUESTING FOR A TRIPLEX FOR THREE UNITS, AND THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
SO MAYBE THE QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT WITH THE, THE REMODEL OF THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE, IS IT BEING TURNED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY FROM A DUPLEX? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING TALLER? NO.
IT'S STILL A HOUSE THAT'S STRUGGLING.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE, AND THE REASON IS, IS THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SPACE FOR THEIR, THE PARENTS TO LIVE AND THEN FOR A CAREGIVER.
BUT THEY WANT PETER, SINCE HE'S 21, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE HIS OWN SEPARATE HOUSE OR SPACE OF HIS OWN.
SO THEY NEED THREE UNITS, RIGHT? I, I REMEMBER DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE GARAGE BEING CONVERTED INTO A UNIT.
SO WOULDN'T THAT NO, THAT'S CARPOOL TWO GARAGE EXISTING.
IT WOULD BE A GARAGE IN THE SAME PLACE IF WE HAVE THE SPEAKER COME TO THE MIC.
AND, UH, JUST TO HELP THE, SORRY, I AM REALLY CONFUSED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS NOW.
CAN WE THREE UNITS, IT'S GONNA BE THREE SEPARATE UNITS.
AND THERE ARE TWO, THERE'S A DOUBLE CARPORT AT THE BACK WHERE THAT DOUBLE CARPORT IS, WOULD BECOME A THREE CAR GARAGE.
AND THAT'S, THEN THAT'S THE FOOTPRINT AND THE UNITS ON TOP.
AND ARE THESE CONNECTED UNITS? NO, NO, THEY'RE ALL SEPARATE.
SO THE UNIT, THERE'S ONE UNIT THERE NOW.
I'M, I'M, UM, YEAH, YEAH, THERE'S TWO UNITS NOW.
OH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ATTACHED.
I'M SEEING COMMISSIONER SHAY HELP ME.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A DUPLEX AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SEPARATE UNIT FROM THE DU IT'S ALSO ATTACHED IN THE SENSORS ON TOP.
SO IT'S NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT.
DO YOU HAVE, I YOU DID GO FIRST.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING QUICK? I, I DON'T, I, DID I SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YOU DID.
I GUESS I'VE ALREADY, I'M JUST, I'M REALLY STILL UNCLEAR ON THE ASSOCIATED OR ON THE, ON THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT PIECE.
UM, SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION OF WHETHER LIKE A CARETAKER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN A, IN THE ADDITIONAL UNIT.
I'M, AND I'M JUST, I'M, CUZ I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS IS NOT A DUPLEX.
SO I SEE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HAS HIS HAND UP.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SO LET'S GO AHEAD.
I'M GONNA MAKE THIS THE LAST QUESTION AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET TO A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, GO AHEAD.
UH, UH, SO IT, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND
[03:15:01]
SUGGESTIONS AS ALTERNATIVES AND I THINK THIS IS A PARTICULARLY BLING CODE CASE AND IT SOUNDED LIKE STAFF MAY NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESEARCH THIS.I, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S AN ANSWER IN THE CODE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND THAT WOULD HELP.
OR IF WE WANNA POSTPONE THIS UNTIL TWO WEEKS FROM NOW AND TRY TO GET CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.
CUZ I FEEL LIKE WE'RE SORT OF STUCK AND THERE'S NOT REALLY A GOOD PROPOSAL THAT ANYBODY IS GONNA BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THAT'S GONNA SORT OF ADDRESS WHAT COULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE CODE.
IF, IF WE HAD A LITTLE, IF STAFF HAD A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR SOME RESEARCH.
SO THE QUESTION TO STAFF IS, DO YOU NEED 10 MINUTES? DO YOU NEED TWO WEEKS? DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE BETTER, UM, ALTERNATIVES FOR US? I I, I HAVE A COUPLE ANSWERS RIGHT NOW.
SO I'VE GONE BACK TO THE CODE.
SO THE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT A CARE, UH, UM, A, A CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE AND THAT IS FOR A PEOPLE WHO ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE SO THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD NOT WORK IN THIS CASE.
UM, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE.
AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT SF FIVE.
THERE IS A CODE PROVISION, WHICH I'VE FORGOTTEN ABOUT, BUT IT DOES EXIST, UM, UNDER SF FIVE.
IS IT PROHIBITED, UM, WITH ACCESS ONLY TO A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET.
AND UM, THIS IS BROWNLEE CIRCLE IS A LOCAL STREET.
IT'S A LEVEL ONE STREET BY THE MF, BY THE, UM, A S M P TABLE.
UH, OKAY, SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP O ON, ON YOUR FIRST RESPONSE ON, UH, CARETAKERS, UH, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE HERE.
UH, THE CARETAKER WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO, WHO CARE, WHO TAKES CARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR, OR THE FAMILY RATHER THAN A RESIDENT WHO'S LIVING THERE.
IT'S, UH, DO THEY'RE CARETAKER.
DO WE JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THIS IF TO FIGURE OUT POSTPONEMENT WOULD, IF CARETAKER REPLI WOULD, WOULD, WOULD BE FINE.
I MEAN, AND THEN I CAN COME BACK WITH, UM, ADDITIONAL ANSWERS IF YOU'D LIKE.
CAN I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T WANNA PLACE ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS POSTPONE AND THEN IF WE SWITCH TO ANOTHER ZONING, IS THAT GONNA PUT ANY ADDITIONAL COST OR ON THE APPLICANT? I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHT NOW THE REQUEST IS FOR MF THREE.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OTHER, YOU KNOW, LESSER MF ONE OR MF TWO THAT WOULD, THAT, THAT WOULD NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A RE-NOTICE.
AN SF FIVE, WHICH I DON'T THINK WORKS HERE, WOULD NOT REQUEST, WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE NEED FOR ANOTHER NOTICE.
SO WE ARE, WE ARE NOTIFIED FOR MF THREE.
AND, AND, UH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION.
UH, IT'S, WELL I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
LET'S SEE, I, WELL LET'S SEE IF COMMISSIONER COX, I GUESS HE OFFERED FIRST.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS ARE THINKING THE LIGHT, SO GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER COX.
WELL, I GUESS, UM, YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
I I WAS CURIOUS IF THE APPLICANT HAD AN OPINION ABOUT THAT CUZ I THINK WE'RE ALL GENERALLY SCREAMING BEHIND OUR MUTE BUTTONS TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT,
UM, FORTUNATELY THOSE VIRTUAL HAVE MUTE BUTTONS, BUT, UM, I'M JUST MAY WHY? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T MESS UP SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT FOR THEM.
IF WE POSTPONE ANYONE OF YOU CAN SPEAK OR MORE THAN ONE.
WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE ON A PATH FORWARD HERE.
AND IT'S FUNNY CUZ IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY, IT'S BRAD AND MELISSA'S, BUT I, I CAN'T HELP MYSELF BECAUSE I GUESS I WEAR MY HEART ON MY SLEEVE.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY IS BUILD BASICALLY THREE HOUSES, RIGHT? A
[03:20:01]
HOUSE FOR BRAD AND MELISSA, A HOUSE HOPEFULLY FOR ME, AND THEN A PLACE WHERE PETER CAN LIVE WITH HIS CAREGIVER.AND WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THIS PUZZLE OF A BLENDED FAMILY, HONESTLY, AND MAKE IT WORK, RIGHT? THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE DO IN OUR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES THAT ARE COMPLICATED TRYING TO MAKE WORK.
AND THIS WAS THE MECHANISM, THIS MF THREE ZONING THAT WAS EXPLAINED BY STAFF TO SOLVE THAT PUZZLE TO BUILD A TRIPLEX, RIGHT? WHICH IN LIKE MOST CITIES IN THE WORLD, I MEAN PETER WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SPEND TWO WEEKS IN VIENNA THIS SUMMER AND IT'S LIKE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND IF MF THREE ZONING ACHIEVES THAT IT'S NOT GONNA DESTROY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S GONNA BE CONSISTENT WITH BASICALLY WHAT WE AS A CITY KEEPS SAYING WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IT'S LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO APPROVE THE REZONING.
AND, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
I GUESS WE, WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO AS A COMMISSION AND I THINK WHAT STAFF MIGHT IS HOPING TO DO IS TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF OUR OPTIONS HERE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO, TO THE ONE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
UM, AND I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT, THERE ARE A LOT OF LANDMINES IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING SF FIVE LAND LANDMINE OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WOULD KIND OF CAUSE ISSUES WITH WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO.
BUT YEAH, WOULD, WOULD POSTPONING TWO WEEKS, UM, DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR DEADLINES OTHER THAN WANTING TO BUILD A HOUSE, UM, THAT, THAT YOU WANNA MAKE US AWARE OF BEFORE WE POTENTIALLY VOTE ON POSTPONING THIS TWO WEEKS SO THAT WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE?
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE HASN'T BEEN SECONDED.
WE HAVE A QUESTION Y'ALL WERE ALLOWED TO ANSWER.
WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TIL FOR TWO WEEKS TILL OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD WHILE YOU GUYS, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THIS.
WELL, DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU WANT TO COME TO THE MIC? YES, PLEASE.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN RACKING MY BRAIN FOR THEM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THEM.
UM, IF THERE IS A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT'D BE GREAT IF WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT BECAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS ARE AS FRUSTRATED AS WE ARE.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THREE UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY, WHAT ZONING IS BEST.
WE REALLY DON'T WANNA DO, HAVE TO DO A CONDOMINIUM REGIME AND HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, SPEND MORE MONEY ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THE SF FIVE.
CLEARLY THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ZONING, BUT YOU KNOW, IF TWO WEEKS WOULD COME UP, CREATE A RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, SURE THEY'RE OPEN TO IT, BUT WHAT RESOLUTION WOULD COME IN TWO WEEKS TO THIS SITUATION? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DISCUSS.
I HAVE A, YEAH, AND, AND I WAS HOPING TO ADDRESS HOLD HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
WE'RE ON THE D YOU HAVE CLARIFICATION? UH, YES, I HAD A QUESTION.
UM, MA'AM, YOU REPRESENT THE APPLICANTS.
ARE YOU IN A B POSITION OR ARE YOU VOLUNTARILY DOING THIS? UM, DAVE, THEY'VE HIRED ME TO DO THIS REZONE, BUT THANK YOU.
UM, MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULD YOU, UH, CHARGE EXTRA FOR COMING TO MULTIPLE MEETINGS? NO.
ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, SO WE HAVE, UH, MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL OUR NEXT MEETING SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MITCH TYLER, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK YOUR MOTION IF NEEDED.
YEAH, SO I, I I WANNA SAY SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT, AND IT GOES BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE ABOUT LANDMINES AND THE CODE.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE SETTLED COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S CONCERN AND, AND NOW I'M CONCERNED THAT WHAT YOU'VE COME TO THE COMMISSION FOR, FOR MF ZONING AND IF THIS, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THEN THEY CONSIDER YOUR PROPERTY TO BE MF, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A WHOLE LEVEL OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE GONNA COME INTO EFFECT THAT WILL ACTUALLY PREVENT YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO NOW.
AND SO I THINK BOTH THE DELAY WOULD ALLOW US TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS IF THERE IS ONE, TO ALLOW YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
THAT MAY NOT BE MF ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALSO MAKE YOUR NEIGHBORS HAPPY AND MAYBE THEY WOULD MAKE THEIR VALID PETITION MOOT, BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT IS A, A VALID PETITION, AND IT DOES REQUIRE MUCH HIGHER VOTING THRESHOLD AND COUNCIL, BUT ALSO PARALLEL TO THAT, THE TWO WEEKS MAY ALLOW US TO MAKE SURE THAT IF MF ZONING ENDS UP BEING WHAT WE VOTE ON THAT, THAT YOU DON'T END UP GETTING TRIPPED UP BY THESE LANDMINES THAT ARE ALL BURIED
[03:25:01]
IN OUR CODE, AND THEN YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ANYWAYS WITH YOUR NEW ZONING.SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THE TWO WEEKS, AND I'M REALLY HOPING THAT STAFF AND LEGAL CAN DO A BANG UP JOB AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS MAZE ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE FOR US.
THREE AGAINST, WELL, LET'S SAY, LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
LET'S KEEP IT DOING THE BACK AND FORTH.
SPEAKING AGAINST, BUT ALSO A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE ON THIS NEW MOTION.
SO, UM, EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST LAID OUT BY COMMISSIONER COX, ARE THOSE THINGS YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO BEFORE YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY AT MF THREE, COULD YOU SAY YES OR NO INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? SORRY, COULD YOU ASK THAT AGAIN? SURE.
SO THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE FOR TWO WEEKS FOR YOU TO DO MANY THINGS.
UM, SO THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER COX CON SUGGESTED THAT YOU GUYS WORK OUT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOU COME BACK TO US.
COULD YOU LOOK TO WORK OUT ALL THOSE THINGS BEFORE YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT? YES.
SO I WILL DEFINITELY BE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT PETER OUT.
I KNOW FOR A FACT PETER IS NORMALLY NOT OUT THIS LATE
AND I THINK THESE ARE REALLY GREAT CONCERNS.
OH, UH, I, I, I DO NEED TO MENTION THAT THIS IS MY LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
I'M MOVING ON TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND, UH, SO IF, IF, IF I COULD CONTINUE THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT, THAT WOULD, UM, I COULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT FOR COUNSEL.
BUT THIS IS, THIS IS MY LAST CASE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO, UH, I'D RATHER NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME OR MONEY OF THIS FAMILIES, AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THEM BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS HOME FOR PETER.
SPEAKING IN FAVOR, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TAYLOR.
I STILL DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE MY CLEAR ANSWERS REGARDING ADUS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT.
AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND AT LARGE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, I, I WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF THIS FAMILY AND THEIR TIME.
I THINK THAT ANSWERING THIS QUESTION IS VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT HOW WE HELP ANY MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY AND THEIR NEEDS, WHETHER IT BE AGING PARENTS AND CARETAKERS OR, UH, UH, A SIBLING, UH, THAT'S DISABLED OR WHATEVER.
AND, AND I HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF COMMUNITY QUESTIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE AND THAT KIND OF THING.
SO I DO THINK WE NEED THAT ANSWER, AND I, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ANSWER COME AND HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THIS FAMILY WILL BE OUR, OUR PINUP FAMILY FOR HOW WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE SOME OF THIS, UH, SF HOUSING BLEND BETTER FOR LOTS OF FAMILIES.
UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I'M, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS.
UM, I DO HAVE CONCERNS OF, IF YOU GET THE MF ZONING, ARE YOU ACTUALLY GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT YOU WANT TO AND, AND YOUR PROJECT? AND, AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A CHALLENGE.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, MORE OF HOW OUR BROKEN CODE IS, THAT IT'S GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO BUILD A, A A, A TRIPLEX IN BETWEEN TWO OTHER MF ZONED, ZONED PROPERTIES.
UM, BUT I THINK YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BETWEEN NOW AND CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY.
THERE'S NOT ANOTHER OPTION OUT THERE.
THERE, THERE IS NOT A SOLUTION WITH ADUS.
ADUS DON'T HELP WITH THREE UNITS.
THERE'S NOT ANOTHER SOLUTION WITH SF FIVE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW SF FIVE AND TO, TO BUILD ON, ON THIS PROPERTY, ON THIS STREET, UH, WITH THESE LOT SIZES.
SO I THINK THIS IS NOT, I THINK MF IS THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR THEM.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT WILL WORK, BUT THERE'S NOT A REASON THEY NEED TO COME BACK TO HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ANSWERS FOR THEM.
THEY NEED TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT IF THEY CAN WORK ON THAT PROJECT WITH THAT ZONING.
I JUST STILL DON'T FEEL LIKE WE GOT A FULL ANSWER ABOUT OUR OPTIONS.
AND I HEARD SEVERAL TIMES, UM, YOU KNOW, IN RESPONSE TO THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT 25 DASH TWO DASH 2 0 1 ON, UM, AN ACCESSORY USE, I MEAN, I, OR ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
UM, I'M, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT COUNTING A CARETAKER AS A SERVICE AND, UH, I, YOU KNOW, I HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF THE CODE MORE CLOSELY.
AND SO I FELT LIKE THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN MAYBE 10 MINUTES TONIGHT.
I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED BY THAT.
UM, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO FIGURE OUT THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE DO HAVE.
AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY DELAY,
[03:30:01]
UM, FOR THIS FAMILY.BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MUELL.
I THINK OTHERS NEED TO KNOW WHAT OPTIONS THEY HAVE HERE.
SPEAKING AGAINST, OH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZA.
SO I'LL BE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, AND I JUST WANNA REST THIS ACCESSORY UNIT CONVERSATION TO REST, BECAUSE HONESTLY, I HAVE AN ANSWER.
AN ACCESSORY UNIT CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH A DUPLEX OR CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH ANOTHER EDU.
WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE TWO UNITS ON A LOT UNDER AN SF THREE CATEGORY.
YOU CANNOT GO TO THREE UNITS FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CHANGE IN ZONING.
WE ARE WORKING ON ALLOWING THAT WITH THE REMINDER THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO A PRIMARY HOUSE WITH AN ACCESSORY UNIT AND AN EDU, BUT THE AD WILL REQUIRE OWN PARKING.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN AND BUILT ANEW WITH THOSE THREE NEW UNITS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS.
WE CAN MOVE TO THE SF FIVE CATEGORY QUESTION.
I THINK MS. RHODES HAS CLEARLY TOLD US THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE WITH THE FRONTAGE THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERING THIS RULES ON HOW WE CAN DO THIS.
THE OTHER THING, AGAIN, WOULD BE, IN ORDER TO DO IT THAT WAY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE HOMES BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SIDE BY SIDE THREE DUPLEXES OR OTHER CONFIGURATIONS.
YOU CANNOT DO AN EXISTING HOUSE AS THAT CONFIGURATION UNDER OUR CURRENT RULES, BECAUSE THERE'S RULES ON HOW PARTY WALLS WORK.
THERE ARE RULES ON HOW THEIR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNITS.
AGAIN, THIS IS IN OUR CODE TODAY.
THE LAST CATEGORY TODAY IS IF WE CAN ACTUALLY GO AHEAD AND DO SOMETHING IN THE MF WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CONCERNS AROUND COMPATIBILITY.
AGAIN, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND UTILIZE THIS AND THEY CAN RESOLVE THIS GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
IN MY LAST FEW SECONDS, I'LL JUST SAY, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FIXING THIS WORK WITH US ON THE CODE.
WE RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT BLENDED FAMILIES AND INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILIES.
FOLKS, SUPPOSE THAT IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON THAT SOLUTION, WORK WITH US ON A NEW CODE OR ADOPTING CHANGES TO THE CODE, OR INITIATING THOSE, OUR CURRENT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW THIS.
MS. RHODES HAD SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES.
IF WE POSTPONE THIS, ALL WE'RE DOING THIS IS MAKING THIS FAMILY MARCH DOWN HERE AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS, AND THEIR NEIGHBORS MARCHED DOWN HERE IN TWO WEEKS FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN OUR OWN DISCOMFORT.
AND NOT ALLOWING MS. RHODES TO DO THIS AND PASS THIS ON TO COUNCIL SO THEY CAN BE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION.
I WILL HIGHLY NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
LET'S, LET'S GO AND TAKE, LET'S GONNA TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS TO, UH, POSTPONE TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
MY COX BY COMMISSIONER MU IS GONNA TAKE A VOTE THAT'S ON THE DIAS CHAIR.
DID WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE DID, YES.
THOSE VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR, THE POSTPONEMENT.
UH, THOSE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT ON THE DIAS.
AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN, TRYING TO GIVE THE COLORS.
SO THAT'S, UH, THAT FAILS WITH ONE.
WITH THE REMAINING THE EIGHT VOTING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND.
WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER LAZAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER AZAR? I'LL JUST SPEAK TO IT BRIEFLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I COVERED MY POINTS, UM, IN THE BVIS COMMENT.
AGAIN, I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS I THINK OUR APPLICANT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR WHAT THEIR INTENTION WITH THIS PROPERTY IS.
THEY'RE NOT WANTING TO TEAR IT DOWN.
THEY'RE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BLENDED FAMILY HAS THE ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER UNDER ONE ROOF, AND THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO STAY WITHIN THE SAME STRUCTURE.
I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PUSH FOR TEARING DOWN THAT HOUSE AND BUILDING A NEW, SO THAT'S MY FIRST POINT.
MY SECOND POINT WOULD BE, AGAIN, I REALLY WANNA MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THIS FAMILY OF THIS WORK.
WE HAD FAMILIES IN HOUSEHOLDS CRYING FOR CHANGES BECAUSE OUR CODE CURRENTLY CREATES THESE BARRIERS TO HELPING FAMILIES.
AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY IS MAKING IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS WITH EXPENSIVE APPLICANTS COMING IN AND HELPING THEM DO THIS WORK AND GO THROUGH PERMITS AND VARIANCES.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HELP FAMILIES LIKE THE ONE TODAY IN FRONT OF US.
SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN FORWARD THIS.
THE NEXT THING I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS A REMINDER AGAIN, THAT I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, ACTUALLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS AND THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS, THERE'S MF FOUR, A HIGHER ZONE CATEGORY.
SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS THAT WE'RE HEARING SHOULD APPLY TO THOSE AS WELL.
I ALSO WANNA SAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING, UH, MAP ALTOGETHER, THERE'S MF FOUR AND MFT THROUGHOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING RIGHT BEHIND THIS BEING A GIANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH A V DESIGNATION, ALLOWING UNDER VM U TWO TO GO TO 90 FEET REMINDER.
THAT IS WHAT IS IN OUR CODE TODAY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ALL VOTED ON.
[03:35:01]
WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT SOMETHING WHERE WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE IT MUCH MORE HARDER FOR THIS FAMILY TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.WE SHOULD FORWARD THIS TO COUNSEL.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS TO BE REMAINED THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO RESOLVE TO HELP THEM, THEN REALLY THEY CAN RESOLVE THAT AS THEY GOES TO COUNSEL.
AS WE HAVE DONE MULTIPLE TIMES, WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD, PUT THIS TO REST OF PLANNING COMMISSION, TAKE IT TO COUNCIL.
WHETHER COUNCIL VOTES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IS A DIFFERENT THING.
WE SHOULD NOT DRAG OUT A FAMILY AND MAKE IT MORE HARDER FOR THEM TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR NEEDS.
THEY'RE OUT HERE TELLING US TODAY WHAT THEY WANT FOR THEIR FAMILY, WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THEIR UNIT.
WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND RESPECT THAT AND MOVE THIS FORWARD.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? I'M SPEAKING NEUTRALLY.
UM, BECAUSE I'M NOT FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT'S MAKING FOR THIS.
I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD IN SAYING THAT I REALLY HOPE THE APPLICANT HAS THE STAFF ASSISTANCE AND THE CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE THAT THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO WITH MF ZONING.
BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET TO MAKE THIS WORK UNDER AN MF ZONING.
AND EACH VARIANCE HAS A VERY HEFTY FEE.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRAGGING THEM OUT FOR A SECOND MEETING TO TRY TO FIND SOME SORT OF SOLUTION THAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE CONFIDENT DON'T EXIST.
AND THEY MAY BE CORRECT, BUT THE IDEA OF TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION WAS TO AVOID ALL THOSE VARIANCES AND POTENTIAL LANDMINES OF THE REQUESTS THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY GIVEN US.
SO I'M NOT OPPOSED, FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE REQUEST THEY'RE GIVING US, BUT I WANT TO JUST SAY IT WITH EVERYONE IN THAT ROOM THAT I CAN'T SEE ON THE SCREEN, UH, THAT I, I HOPE YOU REALLY INVESTIGATE THIS BECAUSE YOU MAY BE IN FOR SOME, SOME SURPRISES ONCE YOU ACTUALLY GET TO THE SITE PLAN.
SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
SO, I, I THINK THERE'S BROAD SUPPORT FOR BEING ABLE, THIS FAMILY BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
UH, AND I'M IN FAVOR, UH, THE, UH, OH.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, MS. RHODES.
YOU'VE BEEN A CONSTANT PRESENCE IN FRONT OF US DOING A GREAT JOB.
I ALSO FEEL LIKE BEFORE THIS GETS MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN THE PROCESS, IT'S NOT ONLY, UH, UP TO THE FAMILY AND THE, UH, FAMILY'S, UH, ADVOCATE, BUT ALSO I, I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO NAIL THIS DOWN.
UH, I, I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF BOTH OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND, AND I WORRY THAT THIS, THIS ISN'T GONNA BE A SOLUTION THAT THAT NECESSARILY WORKS.
LIKE, UM, THEY HOPE IT'S GONNA WORK.
SO, AND, AND THAT TO ME IS THE CONCERN THAT I HEAR THAT WE'VE BEEN ARTICULATED.
I KNOW PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S GETTING LATE IN THE EVENING.
PEOPLE ARE GETTING A LITTLE UPSET.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK EVERYBODY, THERE'S CONSENSUS AROUND THAT.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS WORKS.
SO I WOULD JUST ASK IF IT'S, IF NOT, MS. RHODE, SOMEONE ELSE FROM PLANNING AND HOUSING, PLEASE CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND, AND TRY TO GET SOME CLEARER ANSWERS.
ALL UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IN FAVOR.
IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE AGAINST, OH, YEAH.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS SPEAKING AGAINST, NO, GO AHEAD.
SO, UH, WE JUST SPENT AN HOUR TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW A TRIPLEX IN THE MIDDLE OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, A CITY THAT IS KNOWN FOR NOT HAVING ENOUGH HOUSING.
THANK YOU STAFF FOR A GREAT RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, MS. ROSE FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.
UM, I'VE KNOWN PETER NOW FOR 14 YEARS.
I DO BELIEVE, AND I KNOW THAT PETER IS INCREDIBLY RELIANT ON A WONDERFUL FAMILY AROUND HIM AND PEOPLE THAT REALLY CARE FOR HIM.
AND I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN AVOID MAKING THEM COME DOWN HERE IN TWO WEEKS JUST TO, OR I GUESS WE'RE ALREADY THROUGH THAT, BUT LET'S PASS THIS AND LET'S, YOU KNOW, HOPE THAT COUNCIL CAN PASS THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE FIXED THIS IN A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT AUSTIN'S DESPERATE FOR.
AND SO FOR ANYONE WATCHING THIS, I'M WONDERING WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO BUILD HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WANTS A HOUSING CRISIS, AND IT'S VERY GOOD AT DELIVERING JUST THAT.
AND UNTIL WE FIX IT, THIS IS GONNA BE WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
WE'RE GONNA HURT MORE AND MORE FAMILIES.
WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO DISPLACE PEOPLE.
WE ARE AMAZING AT DISPLACING PEOPLE IN THIS CITY, AND IT'S ALL DRIVEN BY OUR OUTDATED PIECE OF JUNK LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND I HOPE THAT WE AS A CITY CAN FIND THE VISION AND LEADERSHIP TO CHANGE THAT.
WITH THAT, I, I CAN'T WAIT TO VOTE YES FOR THIS.
ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST, THAT'S A LAST SLOT AND I'LL OPEN IT UP.
UH, COMMISSIONER SHAY, GO AHEAD.
[03:40:01]
UM, SINCE I CAN'T SPEAK ONE OR THE OTHER, I GUESS I'LL JUST SPEAK, UM, NEUTRALLY, BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT, UM, UNDER, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH THE NEW ZONING, UH, THERE IS A WAY TO, UM, KEEP AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND STILL BUILD TO THE NEW, UH, CATEGORY WITHOUT INCREASING THE NON-COMP COMPLIANCY.SO WITHIN THE NEW FRAMEWORK OF AN M F F FOUR, M F FOUR, THERE IS A PATH TO, TO GET SOMETHING CLOSER TO WHAT YOU WANT.
UM, AND THEN I WANNA REITERATE SOMETHING WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER OZARA HAD MENTIONED, AND LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, WE REALLY WORKED HARD AND WE THOUGHT THROUGH THIS, OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF HOUSING WHERE IT'S A BLENDED, WHERE THERE'S CAREGIVERS AND WE THOUGHT HARD THROUGH IT.
AND IT BREAKS MY HEART THAT WE DIDN'T GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS THROUGH.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IF WE'RE GONNA SIT HERE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DON'T WAIT FOR COUNCIL TO DO IT CUZ WE TRIED BEFORE.
AND MAYBE THE REST OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AND, AND US, WE CAN, UH, MAYBE CONSIDER, UH, INITIATING A CODE TO CONSIDER THINGS LIKE THIS.
BECAUSE THERE'S SOME TWEAKS THAT WE COULD EASILY DO IN THE CODE TO ALLOW THINGS LIKE THIS, UM, TO, TO BE ALLOWED.
AND I KNOW I KIND OF FEEL SHAME ON US.
SO ANYWAY, I'LL BE SUPPORTING YOU.
ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND THIS WAS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, WE ARE, LET'S SEE, WHAT TIME DO WE HAVE? I KNOW WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO 10 O'CLOCK, 9 41.
WE ARE DONE WITH OUR DISCUSSION CASES.
UH, REAL QUICK, I WANT TO, UH, WE'VE SAID A LOT OF GOOD THINGS, BUT, UH, BE BEFORE STAFF LEAVES.
UH, MS. RHODES, I WANNA ALSO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, YOUR COMMITMENT.
UH, YOU'VE BEEN A REGULAR HERE AT OUR MEETINGS.
YOU DO A VERY PROFESSIONAL JOB.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND GOOD LUCK IN YOUR FUTURE ROLE.
[43. Discuss and consider establishing the Palm District Working Group tasked with providing the Planning Commission amendments for consideration. (Co-Sponsors Chair Shaw and Commissioner Azhar)]
TO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.WE HAVE A, UH, ITEM 43, UH, WHICH IS DISCUSS AND CONSIS CONSIDER ESTABLISHING PALM DISTRICT WORKING GROUP, UH, TASKS, PROVIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO THESE COMMENTS WOULD BE DUE, TRYING TO THINK OF THIS, IF WE ORGANIZED THIS EVENING, UM, WE WOULD HAVE COMMENTS WOULD BE DUE BY MID-FEBRUARY TO GET THIS TO COUNCIL BEFORE FEBRUARY 23RD, WHICH IS THE DATE THAT THE LAST COUNCIL IN MAYOR, UH, SAID THEY PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR US.
SO WITH THAT, I KNOW POLLING, WE GOT, UH, MYSELF, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AND WE THINK COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
IF, UM, THERE'S A SPACE OR AN INDIVIDUAL, UM, UH, UM, SPACE ON THE WORKING GROUP, HE, HE COULD, UM, BE ON A, OKAY, SO, SO I'M, I JUST WANT TO
SO WE, I THINK, UH, WELL, I JUST WANNA HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.
I DON'T, THOSE OF YOU, DO YOU THINK, UM, AS WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON THE PLAN, DO, DO WE THINK WE HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OR WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK IN THE SHORT TIME, UH, WHAT DO WE THINK? ARE WE GONNA DO ANY OUTREACH, OR IS THIS JUST GONNA BE INTERNAL MEETINGS? ANY IDEAS ON THE FORMAT? OUTREACH? LOTS OF OUTREACH.
I ALREADY GOT A LOT OF THAT COVERED.
UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT STAFF, UH, NO DISRESPECT, BUT IMPLIED THAT MOST OF THE VENUES ON THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT, WERE ON BOARD WITH THIS IN, IN FACT, THEY AREN'T.
SO I'LL, I'LL BE BRINGING THAT INFORMATION TO THE WORKING GROUP WITH A COUPLE REPRESENTATIVES, UH, OWNERS AT THE VENUES.
DO WE HAVE, UM, DO WE, I GUESS WE NEED TO FIRST, ARE WE IN FAVOR OF WORKING GROUP? I MEAN, OKAY.
UH, DO WE HAVE OTHERS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING? UH, JUST TO CONFIRM, I'M INTERESTED.
WE HAVE COMMISSION CHAIR COHEN AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER HOLLAND? YEAH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, UH, PLACE HIM ON IT.
I THINK THAT, UH, WE CAN SCHEDULE LIVE MUSIC FOR, FOR THE WORKING GROUPS, IF IT'LL MAKE IT FUNNER TO JOIN, I
[03:45:01]
CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.WELL, UH, ANYONE ELSE? CUZ WE CAN'T, IT'S REALLY HARD TO ADD JOHN LATER AND KEEP THIS ON TRACK.
SO IF YOU'RE EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTED, RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, CUZ IT'S GONNA BE, IT'LL BE HARD TO ADD JOHN LATER.
SO DO WE, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? YES.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, FOR, UH, FORMULATE A MOTION AND INCLUDE THE, UH, MEMBERS TO BE PARTICIPATING ON THAT WORKING GROUP.
SO I'LL JUST, UH, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO IT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE MOTION.
UH, SO WE'RE GOING TO FORM A PALM DISTRICT WORKING GROUP TASK FOR THE PROVIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, AND THIS WILL CONSIST OF MYSELF, THE CHAIR, UH, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER HOWARD COMMISSION, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AND, UH, OUR EXIT OFFICIATE CHAIR COHEN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, VICE CHAIR.
HEMPEL, LET'S GO AND TAKE A, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE THAT'S ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS? SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE ONE ABOUT ADUS, TRIUH, GOSH, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD SOMETHING ON, IT'S KIND OF IN THE WORKS, RIGHT? I'LL SECOND THAT IF IT NEEDS A SECOND.
WELL, LET'S, I I THINK IT'S IN THE WORKS WITH COUNCIL'S, UM, ACTION FOR MISSING MENTAL HOUSING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T WORK ON IT AND SPIT IT UP TOO, THOUGH.
I, I WOULD ACTUALLY, I'M, I SURE I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER MARSHAL IS SAYING.
I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENT THING IN WHAT IS IN THE WORKS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW IT APPLIES TO THE WORK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE ON THE COMMISSION.
SO WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE AGENDA ITEM? IS IT TO, UH, HAVE A PRESENTATION OR IS IT TO FORM WORKING GROUP? WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE DESIRE HERE? LET ME SHARE
WELL, I, I OBVIOUSLY NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN EXISTENCE SO THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT EITHER HOW TO MAKE A CODE SUGGESTION OR A CODE REVISION SUGGESTION.
SO, UM, MR I THINK, I THINK, I THINK A WORKING GROUP IS GOOD BECAUSE SOME OF THE STUFF THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIAN
BUT THE PART THAT WE'RE TRYING TO OPEN IT UP IS THAT SPECIFIC THING WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE A CAREGIVER, SOMEBODY WHO'S ASSOCIATED, WHICH, WHICH TO ME IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF THING, THE SAME THING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS ACCESSORY TO SOMETHING VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S INDEPENDENT.
I THINK WE, WE NEED TO FIGURE A WAY TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON WHEN IT'S DEFINED AS ONE THING VERSUS ANOTHER.
AND WHEN IT EXISTS WITHIN, UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE EVEN DONE THIS LIKE WITH THE SECONDARY APARTMENTS OR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS, IT'S WITHIN ANOTHER STRUCTURE.
SO IT WOULD ALLOW THAT EXTRA UNIT TO BE IN THERE WITHOUT MESSING UP WHATEVER CODE SPECIFIC DEFINITION IT IS BECAUSE IT'S ASSOCIATED.
AND I DON'T THINK OUR CODE SPEAKS TO IT RIGHT NOW.
WE TRIED TO DO IT WITH THE NEW CODE, BUT WE DIDN'T GET THE NEW CODE THROUGH.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD START AT THAT POINT, MOVE FORWARD AND PRESENT SOMETHING BACK TO THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
SO IS THAT A MOTION TO MAKE A, UM, A WORKING GROUP, A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? YES.
SO I AM MAKING A MOTION FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO VOTE ON FORMING A WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES, AND ANDREW RIVERA.
SO THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A MOTION.
I'LL JUST TAKE, UH, TWO MEMBERS.
DOES CO-SPONSOR THE ITEM ON YOUR, UH, NEXT AGENDA NOTE.
ALL YOU GOT PLENTY OF SECONDS.
AND THEN WE'LL INITIATE SOMETHING
SO CAN I SAY ONE THING THOUGH? IT TO MUNCH ON? I FEEL LIKE IF IT'S A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF DURING THE MEETING, THEN WE MAY ACTUALLY GET MORE INFORMATION THAN IF WE'RE HAVING A WORKING GROUP MEETING AND THEN TRYING TO BEG STAFF IN LEGAL TO ANSWER WORKING GROUP QUESTIONS.
MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
WE MAY WANT TO DO A PRESENTATION IN ADDITION TO FORMING A WORKING GROUP, JUST SO WE HAVE THE STAFF SUPPORT AVAILABLE TO US TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
[03:50:01]
MY SUGGESTION AS I AND SEVERAL OTHER, I THINK COMMISSIONERS WILL PROBABLY BE CYCLING OFF SOON.YOU, YOU, YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK THROUGH WHAT PRESENTATIONS YOU MIGHT WANT FROM STAFF, UH, AND SORT OF SCHEDULE THOSE WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR NEW COMMISSIONERS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION.
UH, I KNOW IT'S UNUSUAL FOR B O A TO JUMP IN ON THE END LIKE THIS.
SO LAST NIGHT WE HAD, UH, ANOTHER, WHAT WE CALLED DE MINIMUS CASE, WHERE WE HAD A VERY EXPANSIVE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NINE INCHES.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS, BUT I WAS HOPING MAYBE PLANNING COMMISSIONER COULD TAKE IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, I KNOW MY BOARD DIDN'T SEEM OVERLY INTERESTED IN HANDING THAT TYPE OF DECISION OFF AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, UH, UN WITH A CONCERN THAT I'M, THAT IT MIGHT BE FLAGRANTLY ABUSED.
BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT SOMEHOW BECAUSE HAVING TO PAY ALMOST A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR NINE INCHES AND WASTING AN ENTIRE NIGHT BEING DRONE TO DEATH BY VERY, VERY DRY LAND USE CODE IS, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO ME.
SO, UM, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THAT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FUTURE ITEM BE? DO WE EVEN START WITH A STAFF Q AND A OR, OR IS IT A FORMATION OF SOME KIND OF THERE? I MEAN, ULTIMATELY THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CODE CHANGE, I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE WE COULD SET SOMETHING IN MOTION, KICK IT OFF TO LIKE CODES AND ORDINANCES OR, I'M, WELL, YOU CAN, UH, JUST, YES, WE CAN INITIATE CODE CHANGES.
SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE, CAN, CAN I, CAN I MAKE THAT TYPE OF SUGGESTION, MR. RIVERA? I DON'T THINK I CAN CHAIR COMMISSION LAY ON EVERY WELL, UH, BEFORE WE EVEN, UH, GET TO THAT, UM, JUST A REMINDER THAT, UM, YOU'RE JUST GENERALLY, UH, PROVIDE A, A, UH, ITEM AND NOT DELVE INTO THE ISSUES SPECIFIC.
UM, BUT I CAN, UM, COMMUNICATE WITH, UH, CHAIR COHEN AND THEN, UM, CONVEY THE INFORMATION TO, UH, BOTH OF YOU AND VICE CHAIR TO SEE IF THERE'S, UH, INTEREST.
UM, CAN IT BE, LET'S JUST LIKE MAYBE, UH, UM, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM TO POTENTIALLY FORM A WORKING GROUP.
WHAT I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS YOU'RE GONNA PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE CODE, UH, JUST GENERALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AND THEN WE'LL GET, UH, TWO PEOPLE TO SUPPORT IT.
AND JUST A QUICK LITTLE REMINDER THAT WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE NEW CODE, WE ALLOWED CERTAIN PROVISIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TWEAKS IN IT.
SO WE WON'T BE STUCK IN THINGS LIKE THIS.
SO WE HADN'T NOW IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, YEAH.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, WE ARE CONSTANTLY REMINDED OF HOW MUCH TIME WE WASTE ON THINGS THAT WE HAD ACTUALLY SOLVED IN A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT UNFORTUNATELY IS SHELVED.
SO, UH, FOR THE MOTION MAKER OF THE ITEM THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING A MOMENT AGO, I'M, I'M, I'M CURIOUS IF THAT WAS JUST FOR UP TO TWO HOMES BECAUSE NOW WITH SO MANY CENTRAL CITY LOTS GOING FOR 500,000 TO A MILLION WITH NOTHING ON THEM, I DON'T KNOW THAT TWO HOMES REALLY DOES IT ANYMORE UNLESS WE'RE JUST SIMPLY OKAY TO SERVE THE TOP 20% OF INCOME OWNERS.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TRIPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES OR IS THAT JUST UP TO TWO HOMES? OR IS THAT TBD? TBD BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS, I MEAN, THIS IS A PROBLEM.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOUR INCOME LEVEL IS.
IF YOU WANNA HAVE THIS ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE JUST SAW CASE IN POINT, IF WE ONLY FIX IT ONE WAY, WE THIS FAMILY WOULD'VE STILL HAD A PROBLEM.
SO I THINK, BUT THE WORDING ON THE WORKING GROUP WAS RIGHT SPECIFIC TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT'S CHAIR COMMISSION, LAY LIAISON, ANDREW VERA.
I CAN, UH, WORK WITH THE CO-SPONSORS.
SO TO FORMULATE THE, UH, LANGUAGE FOR THE WORKING GROUP.
I CAN WORK WITH THE WORKING GROUP OR THE, UM, CO-SPONSORS OF THE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP.
CAUSE I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING MORE BROADLY THAN JUST AD YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT CALLING HOMES, THE PRIMARY HOME, NOT HAVING THAT AND JUST, YOU KNOW, LEGALIZING HOUSING.
ANY OTHER FUTURE ITEMS? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ZA, UM, FOR, UH, I DUNNO HOW TO SAY THIS, BUT I'VE HAD A REQUEST ON OUR HISTORIC, UM, ZONING AND THE TAX ABATEMENT THAT
[03:55:01]
COMES WITH IT FOR, I'VE HAD A SERVE REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION.I KNOW IT'S SOMEWHAT DELAYED BECAUSE OUR STAFF WAS FIGURING OUT, I DO WANNA SAY IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
UM, SO I HOPE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, UH, VISIT SOMETIME THIS YEAR.
SO IT'S SORT OF JUST A, I'M PINGING AGAIN ON SOMETHING I HAD SAID EARLIER.
I'M INTERESTED IN THAT AS WELL.
DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND ANOTHER 10 MINUTES OR SO? YOU KNOW, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS DONE.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
WE ARE ONTO, UM, BOARD'S, COMMITTEES, AND WORK GROUP UPDATES.AND I THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY.
SO, CORDS, NOS, YOU HAVE AN UPDATE ER UM, YES.
WE MET, UM, IN DECEMBER RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAY.
AND, UM, THAT ITEM WAS, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THAT MEETING WAS POSTPONED TONIGHT, UH, FOR OUR NEXT MEETING ABOUT THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, IF ANYBODY HERE.
ANYBODY SPEAK TO THAT ONE? UM, THEY ARE MEETING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LATER THIS WEEK, I THINK GOT POSTPONED TO AN INDEFINITE TIME BY STAFF.
UH, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, UM, BY NOTHING THERE? YES.
IS THERE, SO THE, UH, THERE, YEAH.
SO, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL MEMBERS ADDED TO JOINT SUSTAINABILITY.
THE ORIGINAL, UM, FOCUS WAS JUST ON THE CLIMATE PLAN NOW REFERRED TO AS THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
UM, SO, UH, ON JANUARY 25TH, THERE'S GONNA BE AN IN-PERSON STRATEGIC THINKING MEETING.
UH, AND UNFORTUNATELY, UH, I'M GONNA BE OUT OF TOWN, SO I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE WANTS TO, UH, OR EVEN CAN GO IN MY STEVE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I I THINK IT'S JUST A PAUSE TO RETHINK, UH, WHAT THE GOALS ARE FOR THIS YEAR IN THE UPCOMING YEARS.
IN ADDITION TO THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN REVISIONS.
UM, MR. RIVERA, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH US HAVING SOMEBODY REPRESENTED, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT APPOINTED.
CAN SOMEBODY ATTEND THAT MEETING? UH, I'LL TALK TO YOU OFFLINE SO WE CAN GET OUTTA HERE.
SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE ARE MEETING, UM, EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS AND, UM, JUST WORKING THROUGH, UM, COMMENTS.
OUR, MY PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP'S MADE UP OF FIVE OR SIX INDIVIDUALS FOCUS ON THE OPEN SPACES.
UM, AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE FOR THAT IS ABOUT FOUR TO SIX MONTHS TO IN TOTAL.
UM, SO WE'RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH THINGS.
MR. SHAY ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? SO WE'RE GONNA, I, I WAS TALKING TO, UM, ANDREW ABOUT, UH, I GUESS WE'RE GONNA PRESENT PROBABLY DURING THIS TIME SLOT OR SOMETHING.
UM, OUR MEETING WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AIA.
SO WE KIND OF PRESENT THAT ABOUT THE LOW HANGING FRUIT, UH, PIECES AND THEN SOME OTHER IDEAS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR CODE CHANGES.
I HAVE ONE MINUTE AND I NEED TO ASK.
THERE'S A, AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A THIRD MEETING IN JANUARY TO CATCH UP.
UH, I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE NOT LOOKED AT YOUR CALENDARS, BUT, UH, CODE, JUST SEE A SHOW OF HANDS AND WE'LL DO A FORMAL SURVEY OF, UH, WHAT, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT DAY THAT IS? THE 31ST.
UH, SO THOSE THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, SEE IF WE MIGHT HAVE QUORUM IF WE NEED TO MAKE UP SOME CASELOAD.
CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE ON 31ST AFTER SIX? AFTER SIX.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE COULD HAVE QUORUM IF WE NEED THAT SPACE TO HAVE PRESENTATIONS OR CATCH UP ON SOME CASES.
[04:00:19]
A.