[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
[00:00:05]
I'M BRINGING THIS MEETING TO ORDER, AND WE DO HAVE QUORUM.
UH, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL, AND I WILL MAKE A FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT.
UH, WE HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, AND I'LL GO, I'LL IN AS I INTRODUCE THEM.
WE'LL MAKE THAT ROLL CALL AS WELL.
WE HAVE, UH, ALICE WOODS PRESENT AND DISTRICT TWO, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU.
UH, AND THEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE AND, UH, YOUR CHAIR, UH, CHAIR SHAW.
AND NEXT TO ME IS A FAMILIAR FACE.
IT'S, UH, RETURNING, UH, IT'S A LOT OF GREAT EXPERIENCE.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER, UH, CONNELLEY HERE, AND I WILL ADDRESS YOU AS COMMISSIONER WOODS FROM THIS POINT ON.
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING THAT.
AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO AROUND THE VIRTUAL ROOM.
I SEE COMMISSIONER AZAR HERE, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE HERE, AND WELCOME COMMISSIONERS CONNOLLY AND WOODS.
AND WE'VE GOT, UH, COMMISSIONER COXS HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE.
AND, UH, I SEE, UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE PRESENT, UH, YOUR CAMERA IS OFF, BUT, UH, JOIN US WHEN YOU CAN.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, CONTINUE.
SO THAT, UH, GIVES US 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, MAYBE NINE, UH, WHICH IS A GOOD NUMBER.
UH, AND WE ARE NOT READY FOR PUB OKAY.
NOT READY FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
WE'LL TAKE THAT UP A LITTLE LATER.
[Reading of the Agenda]
SO, UM, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023.DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, CHANGES TO THE MINUTES THAT WERE POSTED? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO CHANGES, WE'LL MOVE THAT TO APPROVAL OF THOSE MINUTES TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND I'M GONNA GET HELP FROM THE VICE CHAIR HERE AND DO THE FIRST READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND KICK US OFF VICE CHAIR.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 5 0 1 VARGAS, MIXED USE NUMBER THREE, REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH 0 1 0 7 VARGAS MIXED USE.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 2 0 5 DENNY'S CONDOS.
REMINDER THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT OUR LAST MEETING.
ITEM FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22, 9 0 1, 10 0 7, AND 10 21 EAST SEVENTH STREET IS ON CONSENT.
ITEM SIX, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 1 49, 10 0 7, AND 10 21 EAST SEVENTH STREET FOR CONSENT.
UH, ITEM SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2022 DASH 0 0 1 0 0 1 26 15 2 26 17 EAST SIXTH STREET.
THAT'S ON CONSENT NUMBER EIGHT, REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH 1 12 26 15 TO 26 17 EAST SIXTH STREET.
THAT IS ON, UM, CONSENT ITEM NUMBER NINE, REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH 0 1 0 2, 5 0 6, AND 5 0 8 WEST REZONING.
THAT IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM 10, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2022 DASH 0 0 16 0 2 BOARD AND TRACK.
THAT IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
NUMBER 11, REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH 0 1 21 BORDEN TRACT.
THAT'S UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
NUMBER 12, REZONING C 814 DASH 2021
[00:05:02]
DASH 1 75 6 14 SOUTH FIRST STREET, PUD.THAT IS OFFERED FOR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM 13, REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH 1 32.
THE CHARLOTTE BEING OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 14, E T J RELEASE, C E T J DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 0 2.
RELEASE OF 48 ACRES OF E J TO THE CITY OF MAYNARD SLASH OOPS SLASH EJ IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT IN ITEM NUMBER 15, SITE PLAN LATE HOURS PERMIT S P 2022 DASH 5 69 C MACOS TENCO RESTAURANT IS BEING OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM 16 REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH ZERO 70 SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL TRACKED TWO AMENDED.
IT'S BEING OFFERED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONE TO MARCH 28TH.
AND LAST ONE IS NUMBER 17, REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 2015 SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL.
IT'S BEING OFFERED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I WANNA RECOGNIZE YOU.
I THINK YOU HAD A FEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
IS IT ITEM 15? YES, I WAS, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS ON, UH, UH, LOOK AT THE, YEAH, IT'S ON DEFINITELY ON
UM, NO, I WASN'T SURE, YES, IF WE NEEDED TO PULL IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT I DID HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR ITEM, UH, FOR STAFF ABOUT ITEM 15.
AND IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A COUPLE, WE MIGHT PULL IT, BUT LET'S GO AND SEE IF WE CAN ADDRESS THIS RIGHT NOW.
UM, I JUST WANTED, THE FIRST CONCERN WAS, UH, SOME FOLKS, UH, REACHED OUT AND MENTIONED THAT THE, THERE'S A LOT OF RENTERS IN THE AREA AND THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO GET NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS OR THAT THIS WAS COMING.
AND SO I WAS WONDERING IF, IF THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, ANY ATTEMPT, UH, TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE TENANTS IN THE AREA.
AND THEN I ALSO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT, THAT, THAT WERE RAISED ARE AROUND, UM, SORT OF THE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CITY'S CORRIDOR PROGRAM IN THAT AREA, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF, UH, TRAFFIC FATALITIES THERE.
AND SINCE THEY'RE APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT IN THE AREA, UM, TO ENCOURAGE SAFER DRIVING.
AND YOU KNOW, ABOUT, I THINK THE, THE, THE FACT THAT IT'S A VERY DRIVING A DRIVER DEPENDENT SITE, UM, LOCATION.
SO I WAS JUST, I WANTED TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET SOME ANSWERS FROM STAFF AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR IF IT'S NECESSARY TO PULL IT.
UM, I GUESS, STEPH, DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON INTERVIEW? I DO HAVE MS. UH, DAVIS ON THE LINE.
UM, BUT, UM, FOR THOSE QUESTIONS, MAY CONSIDER PULLING IT.
UM, YEAH, IT'S UP TO, I THINK THOSE ARE, UH, PRETTY COMPLEX.
I'D SAY WE'D DO BETTER IF WE PULL IT AND, AND HAVE STAFF NOW THAT THEY'VE HEARD WHAT YOUR INTEREST IS, MAYBE A LITTLE TIME FOR THEM TO PREPARE.
UH, SO LET'S GO AND PULL THAT ITEM 15.
UH, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY, UM, TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS.
SO WE'RE GONNA PULL ITEM 15, UH, FOR DISCUSSION.
AND WE MAY ABBREVIATE THE Q AND A JUST TO GET THROUGH IT IF, UH, TO HELP OUT.
UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, JUST A REMINDER, I'M SORRY, CHAIR IS, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, IS THAT YOU SPEAKING? YEAH.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA BE A LONG ITEM, BUT I, I DON'T RECALL AT LEAST ON MY TIME ON THIS COMMISSION, A RELEASE OF E T J TO AN ADJACENT CITY BEING ON THE AGENDA.
MAYBE IT HAS, AND I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER.
BUT I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF ON THAT ITEM.
AND PARTICULARLY KIND OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN REVIEW AND A AND APPROVAL OF THAT.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY IT WON'T TAKE THAT LONG, BUT I THINK IT'D BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT.
UH, JUST REAL QUICK, DO WE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT ITEM THIS EVENING? OKAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND THAT IS NUMBER, WHICH NUMBER IS THAT? 14.
SO WE'RE GONNA PULL 14 AND 15 FOR DISCUSSION IN
[00:10:01]
ADDITION TO ITEM FOUR.ANY OTHERS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
UH, JUST A REMINDER FOR THOSE VIRTUAL, UM, CUZ I FORGOT TO MENTION, UH, STAY ON MUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL TRY TO RECOGNIZE YOU IF I DON'T.
YES, SPEAK UP AND HAVE YOUR, UH, VOTING CARDS.
UH, GREEN, RED, YELLOW TO HELP ME TALLY UP THE VOTES.
AND, UM, JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE, UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, IT'S A HYBRID MEETING.
SO WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU CAN SEE, BOTH PARTICIPATING ON THE DIAS AND VIRTUALLY AS WELL AS SPEAKERS, UH, IN THE AUDIENCE.
UM, AND ALSO SPEAKERS THAT CAN PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY.
SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO, DO WE HAVE, UM, THE SPEAKERS UNDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AVAILABLE YET? CHAIR, COMMISSION, LAY? NO, I DID NOT.
SO WE COULD, UH, PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION CASE.
SO I'M GONNA GO AND READ THE, UH,
[Consent Agenda]
WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.UH, WE HAVE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
ITEM TWO, PLAN, AMENDMENT, UH, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM THREE, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM FOUR IS A DISCUSSION CASE THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, BUT I WILL, UM, ASK FOR, UM, IF, UM, THE COMMISSION'S OKAY WITH OPENING UP FOR THAT FOR Q AND A.
UH, WE'LL DO THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM.
ITEM FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM SIX, REZONING ON CONSENT.
ITEM SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM EIGHT, REZONING ON CONSENT.
ITEM NINE, REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM 10, PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM 11, REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH, 12, REZONING STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
WE'VE PULLED THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 15, SITE PLAN FOR LATE HOURS PERMIT.
WE'VE PULLED THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
16, REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
ITEM 17, REZONING, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 28TH.
AND, UH, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? UH, MOTION BY COMMISSION SCHNEIDER.
UH, WELL, I'M THE MOTION, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THAT IS ON THE DIAS, UH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING THE, UM, MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, THAT'S EVERYBODY.
SO, UH, REAL QUICK ON THE, UM, ON THE
[4. Rezoning: C14-2022-0205 - Denny's Condos; District 1]
ITEM, UH, FIRST ITEM FOUR, WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, BUT WE LEFT WITH I GUESS SOME QUESTIONS AND, UM, GIVEN THE APPLICANT, I GUESS AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO BRING BACK SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO.YES, I DO HAVE SPEAKERS, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT.
UH, UM, IF YOU WANT TO, UH, PRONOUNCE A TIME THAT EACH, UH, SPEAKER, UM, WILL BE PROVIDED, I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT STAFF AND ONE MEMBER IN SUPPORT, UH, APPLICANT AND STAFF, JUST TWO SPEAKERS TOTAL, AND A MEMBER IN SUPPORT.
SO THREE TOTAL, SO THREE TOTAL, THREE TOTAL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GIVE HIM TWO MINUTES.
AND I MAY GIVE, UH, THE APPLICANT A LITTLE MORE TIME IF NEEDED.
UM, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME, UH, NEW COMMISSIONERS AND THIS IS A BIT OF A COMPLICATED CASE.
SO, AND I AM GONNA OFFER UP ONCE WE GET PAST THE SPEAKERS TO OFFER UP ADDITIONAL Q AND A AS WELL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE SPEAKERS, UM, AND CHAIR.
UM, THAT, UH, TIME CAN BE PROVIDED DURING THE Q AND A, UH, BUT NOT DURING THE TESTIMONY.
THAT ADDITIONAL TIME CAN BE PROVIDED DURING THE Q AND A, BUT NOT DURING THE TESTIMONY.
SO TWO MINUTES EACH SPEAKER AND THEN YES.
I'M JOY HARDEN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 22 0 2 0 5.
DENNY'S CONDOS LOCATED AT 1601 NORTH IH 35.
[00:15:01]
C H C O N P TO L I P D A N P.THE STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS C H V C O N P.
THE CO'S UM, OR CONDITIONS ARE OUTLINED IN YOUR BACKUP.
YOU HEARD THIS CASE, I KNOW THEY'RE NEW COMMISSIONERS, BUT, UM, YOU HEARD THIS CASE, IT WAS PRES PRESENTED BY HEATHER CHAPIN AT YOUR LAST COMMISSION MEETING, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
AS A REMINDER, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT REINTRODUCING ALLY IN THIS AREA.
IT DOES NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION, AND IT'S NOT, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE BASE DISTRICT.
THEREFORE, AGAIN, STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS C H V C O N P.
AND I WILL JUST ADD, UM, THE LITTLE BIT OF TIME I HAVE.
UM, THERE WAS A CODE AMENDMENT PASSED BY THE COUNCIL ON MARCH 9TH THAT WOULD REMOVE THE, UH, 10 ACRE PROHIBITION, UM, FOR CH AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSED FOR THE MARCH 23RD COUNCIL MEETING THAT WILL JUST TAKE OUT 5 82 C.
UM, THOSE ARE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TO THE P D A THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE CH REZONING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. ALICE KLASKO.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO THE BEGINNING.
CAN YOU TAKE YOU TO THE BEGINNING, FROM THE BEGINNING, FROM THE TOP? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS.
I'M ALICE GLASGOW, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN REALLY SAY IN TWO MINUTES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, UH, FOR THE NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS, UM, MS. WOODS, I DID SEND, UM, MY PRESENTATION TO ALL OF YOU.
SO, BUT I'LL JUST GO THROUGH VERY QUICKLY AS MS. UM, AS JOY HARDEN JUST INDICATED LAST THURSDAY, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW OUR CASE TO, UH, NOT HAVE A 10 ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CH H V P D A.
THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHT IN RED UP THERE IS ZONED C H V TODAY, N P UH, HOWEVER, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IS THE ZONING MAP.
WE, UM, APPLIED FOR ZONING CHANGE TO CH H V PDA, UH, BUT AFTERWARDS FOUND OUT FROM STAFF THAT IT NEEDS TO BE 10 ACRES TO HAVE THE PD OVERLAY, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO ADD USES.
IT ALLOWS YOU TO SUBTRACT, USES THE PDA ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO, UM, MODIFY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
YOU CAN INCREASE HEIGHT, RE UH, REDUCE SETBACKS.
IT'S SORT OF AN A TOOL TO ADD, ALLOW YOU TO ADD, SUBTRACT, AND MODIFY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UH, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.
UH, WE CALL IT CONCEPTUAL BECAUSE THE CITI CODE DOES NOT ALLOW ZONING A TIME OF SITE PLAN SO THAT, UH, WHAT YOU DO IS CAPTURE WHATEVER CONDITIONS YOU NEED TO ADD ZONING, AND THEN PROCEED WITH YOUR SITE PLAN AT THE TIME OF AT, AT THE NEXT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT SO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU'RE DOING AND NOT, UM, AND YOU'RE NOT GUESSING.
SO THIS PROJECT JUST SHOWS YOU CONCEPTUALLY SOME TOWN TOWNHOMES FACING EAST 16TH STREET, UM, ON MANITY DECK.
AND, UH, A 200 FOOT RESIDENTIAL TOWER TO THE BACK IN THE DARK GRAY.
UH, THIS TABLE JUST SHOWS YOU, UH, A BREAKDOWN OF EACH ZONING CATEGORY.
THE CH ZONING, WHICH IS THE CURRENT ZONING TODAY AT 120 FEET.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF, UH, CH H V, IT'S NOW VM U ONE.
IT GIVES YOU, UH, YOU HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VM U ONE AND VM U TWO IS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE VM U ONE, UH, APPROVED UNDER YOUR ZONING BASE.
I'LL WRAP UP AND I CAN JUST PAUSE HERE AND YOU AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS DURING YOUR Q AND A.
WE'LL HAVE FULL Q AND A, SO, WE'LL, I'M SURE WE'LL BRING YOU BACK UP THEN.
YOU ONE OUT HEAR FROM MR. TOLLISON.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE TOLLESON.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE 16TH STREET PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SWEET HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, YOU HAVE A LETTER, UH, WE ONLY HAVE A MOMENT, SO I'LL BE BRIEF AND, UH, POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE A LETTER, I THINK IN YOUR MATERIALS THAT EXPLAINS OUR POSITION.
UM, BASICALLY WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT INCLUDES A 200 FOOT RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND THE TOWNHOUSES ALONG 16TH STREET WITH 10% OF THOSE UNITS MEETING THE CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND, UH, TO ACHIEVE THIS, UH, WE, UH, AND ASSURE THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS, UH, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT OUR
[00:20:01]
A SO OUR SUPPORT FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT INCLUDES A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY ON EAST 16TH STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET BACK FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY.AND THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE THINK THAT, UM, THIS PROJECT, UH, WOULD, UH, GO A LONG WAYS TOWARD ACHIEVING, UH, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL DIVERSE HOUSING FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE ALREADY, UH, HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, WE DON'T NEED TO USE ALL THE SLOTS, BUT, UH, I IMAGINE WHERE WE LEFT THIS LAST TIME, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, UM, OF THE APPLICANT AND PERHAPS OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND ALLOW, UH, EIGHT AT THREE, UH, MINUTES TO START.
I THINK THAT SHOULD GET US THROUGH OUR, UH, BRING IT EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED AND, AND GET THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE NEED.
SO HERE, IF THERE NO, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX, WE DOING QUESTIONS NOW? YEAH, WELL I WAS JUST, WELL FIRST, UH, NO OBJECTIONS TO THE EIGHT AT THREE.
EVERYBODY COMMISSIONER'S OKAY.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO WITH THAT FORMAT.
I, I NOTED
IS THAT FIRST COMMISSIONER COXS, IF YOU WANT THE FIRST QUESTION? SURE.
UH, FIRST FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, UH, SOME FOLKS AT CITY HALL, THEY'RE MUCH SMARTER THAN ME.
UH, AND INFORM ME ABOUT ALL THE STUFF THAT'S GOING ON WITH, WITH THIS P D A C H L I STUFF.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH SOME COUNCIL OFFICES AND ARE AGREEABLE TO CHANGING YOUR APPLICATION AS CH IF AND WHEN THE, UH, 5 82 C IS BASICALLY DELETED FROM THE CODE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND YOUR INTENT IS TO, IS TO CHANGE YOUR APPLICATION OF CH AND THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO COME BACK TO US, CORRECT? CUZ IT'S A LOWER INTENSITY? WELL, I THINK THE WAY TO ANSWER THAT IS I WAS HOPING THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE CA THE 10 ACRE RULE STILL IS THERE TODAY UNTIL THE COUNCIL AMENDS IT, THAT THIS CASE, WHEN IT SHOWS UP AT THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, THEY WOULD, THEY CAN THEN ZONE IT C H V P D A, WHICH WE DON'T OBJECT TO.
SO, OKAY, SO I, I COMPARE THIS CASE WITH ANNEXATION AND ZONING.
SO WHEN YOU CITY COUNCIL ANNEXES LAND AND THERE'S A REQUEST TO ZONE THE PROPERTY, THEY CANNOT ZONE THE PROPERTY UNTIL THEY ANNEX IT.
SO THIS WOULD BE, SO THEY ANNEX THE PROPERTY FIRST IN THE MORNING AND IN THE AFTERNOON AT TWO O'CLOCK, THEN THEY ACT ON THE ZONING BECAUSE IT'S NOW IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THE CODE AMENDMENT WOULD SERVE THE SAME WAY.
SO WHEN OUR ZONING CASE WOULD SHOW UP ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, WHEN THEY CONSIDER THE CH CODE AMENDMENT, THEY APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENT AND THEN THEY ZONE OUR PROPERTY C H V PDA NP, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I ENVISION IN MY MIND, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHEN THEY'LL DO IT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
I JUST NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, ACCEPT COUNCIL CAN ZONE UP OR DOWN AT THEIR WILL SO THEY CAN JUST SAY, WE'RE NOW GONNA ZONE YOU C H V PDA.
AND I AS THE APPLICANT ACCEPT.
AND I, AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I PERSONALLY AM NOT GONNA SUPPORT ALLY ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR MY CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME FOLKS AT CITY HALL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCIL DOESN'T SUPPORT ALLY ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE WHOLE REASON BEHIND THE, THE CH AMENDMENT THAT'S WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH ITS PROCESS.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT TONIGHT YOU DO NOT WANT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO POSTPONE THIS, KNOWING THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.
YOU'D RATHER US DO SOMETHING TO PUSH IT THROUGH SO THAT IT RUNS A PARALLEL TRACK WITH THE CODE AMENDMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN, UH, APPROVE THE L I P D A WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE ROLLED BACK TO C H V P D A, THAT IT, IT'S GONNA MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL CAN HEAR BOTH ITEMS, CHANGE THE CODE AND THEN ROLL THE ZONING BACK FROM L I P D A TO C H V P D A.
NOW, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT I, I, I, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE ON RECORD SUPPORT SUPPORTING THE ALLY ZONING.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, HOW, HOW THAT NECESSARILY WORKS KNOWING THAT THE INTENT IS TO CHANGE THIS TO CA OR CH UM, AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL.
BUT, UM, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER COX, WE'RE UNFORTUNATELY, UH, OUTTA
[00:25:01]
TIME.SO LET'S, UH, DO WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UM, I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO NEXT.
SO THE QUESTION FOR I HEARD STAFF APPLICANT SAID THAT COUNSEL CAN ZONE UP OR DOWN.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT COUNCIL, IF WE, CAN THEY ZONE UP OR WHAT CAN THEY DO? OKAY, SO THEY CAN ONLY ZONE DOWN.
SO, UM, MRS. KLASKO STATED THAT SHE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR CH THINKING THAT SHE COULD DO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNDER CH AND, UM, WE, AND THEN SHE HAD TO MENTOR HER REQUEST AND WE REIFIED UP FOR ALLY.
SO IT IS ALLY AND THE COUNCIL COULD GO DOWN TO CH I DO WANNA CLARIFY ONE THING THAT MRS. GLASGOW SAID.
YOU CANNOT PUT THESE BOTH ON THE AGENDA AT THE SAME TIME.
IF A CODE AMENDMENT IS PASSED BY COUNSEL, IT IS 11 DAYS BEFORE THAT ORDINANCE GOES INTO EFFECT.
UM, AN ANNEXATION IS DIFFERENT, SO I HAVE A TENTATIVE TIMELINE JUST IN CASE.
UM, IF COUNSEL INITIATES THE AMENDMENT ON MARCH 23RD, UM, THIS COULD, UM, THIS IS A TENTATIVE, UM, WE WOULD BE IN FRONT OF PC ON APRIL 11TH.
WE COULD SET THE, SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNSEL ON THE ADDENDUM FOR APRIL 20TH, AND THEN WE CAN CONDUCT ON MAY 18TH.
AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE TWO, IF THE, UM, IF THE SECOND ONE WAS INITIATED MARCH 28TH, UM, AND THEN WE COULD COME BACK THE NEXT MEETING.
I THINK IT'S JUNE 1ST, UM, WITH HER REZONING CASE.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WITH THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE TIMELINE.
WE CANNOT PUT THOSE ON, ON THE SAME AGENDA AS WE DO AN ANNEXATION AND, BUT CORRECTLY THE COUNCIL CAN ZONE UP OR DOWN, BUT IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE RE-NOTICE ALLY IS HIGHER IN THE HIERARCHY CHART THAN CH SO THE COUNCIL, WE WOULD NOT NEED TO REIFY, THE COUNCIL COULD DO THE, UM, COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONING WITHOUT A REUNIFICATION.
UM, AND COULD, UM, FOR THIS IS GONNA BE FOR, UH, MS. KLASKO.
SO THE CON, JUST TO GO OVER THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING THAT WERE AGREED TO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO THE VDA, I GUESS THERE WAS A HEIGHT LIMIT FOR TOWN HOMES WITH A SETBACK.
IS, IS THAT, ARE WE STILL WHERE WE WERE LAST TIME WITH, UM, THE AGREEMENT? I THINK YOU ASKED FOR 30.
THEY ASKED, UM, YOU SAID 36 FEET, UH, BECAUSE THE DECK AMENITIES, YOU WANTED THE FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE THAT AROUND SO YOU WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE 50 OR 70 FEET SETBACK.
DO WE HAVE AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE 36 AND WITH THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT ON THAT SETBACK? YEAH, WELL CHAIR SHOW THE, UH, YOUR RECOLLECTION IS CORRECT THAT, UM, UM, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ASKING FOR A 70 FOOT DEPTH, 40 FEET, AND I SUGGESTED THAT
AND, UH, SINCE THEN, UH, MR. TOLLESON ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBOR REACHED OUT AND SAID, WELL, THEY'RE AGREEING TO REDUCE THE DEPTH TO 50 FEET, SO OKAY.
AND IT'S UP TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WE ALL RIGHT, EITHER WAY.
SO I WILL SEE WHO HAS MORE QUESTIONS.
OKAY, I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, SO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS LI PDA, AND AS I UNDERSTAND PDAS, THEY CAN SUBTRACT N MINUS.
IS THAT CORRECT? DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? YES.
IS THAT HOW THIS IS BEING USED? UM, THAT WAS A YES FROM MS. HARDEN.
SO, UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE SOMETHING ALLOWED WITH THIS ZONING AND THIS PARTICULAR PDA THAT IS STILL ALLOWED UNDER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THAT STAFF IS AGAINST? OR IS IT SIMPLY THE LABELING OF LA ALLY? IT IS, YES, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THEY ARE, I KNOW IN A PDA YOU DON'T HAVE COS, BUT THEY ARE, FOR THE LACK OF A BETTER TERM, CONDITIONING OUT, UM, I GUESS THE BAD USES.
BUT IF YOU HAVE TO CO OUT EVERY SINGLE USE, THEN THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING.
STATE THAT IT'S REALLY THE ALLY THAT'S ON THE MAP.
IT'D BE GREAT IF WE'D BE NICE IF WE HAD BETTER ZONING TOOLS, BUT I GUESS WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE, SO
[00:30:01]
MM-HMM.SO THROUGH THIS PDA, WE HAVE CONDITIONED OUT YES, YES, YES.
SO THEN WE'RE LEFT WITH, I GUESS, SO IF COUNCIL WASN'T ACTING, AND OF COURSE THEY HAVE YET TO ACT MM-HMM.
I, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK LIKE, IS THIS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WAIT THREE MONTHS TO, TO DELAY JUST TO HAVE A, A BETTER, BETTER TWO LETTERS ON A MAP, UM, AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE WHAT AMOUNT OF HOUSING WOULD HELP MOVE THE NEEDLE SINCE WE'VE ALREADY CONDITIONED OUT THE BAD USES, IF WE'RE GETTING A LOT MORE HOUSING UNDER ONE THAN THE OTHER, LIKE WHAT AMOUNT OF HOUSING WOULD'VE MADE THIS BETTER TO WHERE LETTERS ARE SOMEWHERE, BUT THEY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING, BUT WE CAN GET MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY THE INCOME SUBSIDIZED.
UM, WELL, I THINK THAT I WOULD SAY LETTERS MEAN SOMETHING TO SOME OF US, AND HAVING INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE MAP AT THAT LOCATION DOES MEAN SOMETHING TO SOME OF US.
UM, SO HOUSING IS IMPORTANT AND, UM, IT IS IMPORTANT.
BUT, UM, THE ALLY IS A PROBLEM THERE.
AND WE HAD ANOTHER TOOL A PUT, THE APPLICANT CHOSE NOT TO DO A PUT, AND SO IT'S NOT ABOUT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT AS AN EQUATION OF HOUSING.
STAFF IS NOT LOOKING AT THAT AS AN EQUATION OF HOUSING.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING NOT BEING APPROPRIATE AT THAT LOCATION.
UM, AND THEY WOULD HAVE CHV, UM, AND THEY'D HAVE TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, I LOOKED AT THE COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE ON ROADWAY ORDINANCE THAT, UM, MRS. GLASKO MENTIONED LAST MEETING.
I KNOW THERE'S A FEE LIEU OPTION.
I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE ORDINANCE AS SHE, BUT, UM, I GLEANED AT IT TODAY, BUT IT'S, UM, SPECIFICALLY THE ALLY ON THE MAP.
SO HUD ALSO HAS A 10 ACRE MINIMUM, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, BUT YOU CAN MODIFY IT CAN'T, AND THIS, YOU CAN'T, CAN'T MODIFY THE SEATS RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT UH, YES IT DOES, BUT I THINK, UM, MOST OF YOU'RE AWARE, UM, WE'VE DEFINITELY DONE PUTS WITH LESS THAN 10 ACRES, UM, NOT FAR FROM HERE.
UM, BECAUSE YOU CAN MODIFY THE ACRE REQUIREMENT IN A PUT THANK YOU CHAIR.
BUT IT IS INTERESTING HOW MANY HOUSING CASES WE HAVE WITH LI BUT YET THIS ONE'S IN, THIS ONE'S A PROBLEM AND OTHER ONES ARE OKAY.
I'M, I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE ARE NOT REINTRODUCING ALLY.
SO WHEN YOU SEE A L I P D A CASE, IT IS LI AND THEN YOU'RE JUST ADDING THE PDA.
WE ARE NOT INTRODUCING IT, AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.
UM, COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER CONLEY FOR THE APPLICANT FOR MS. GLASGOW, COULD YOU JUST HELP PROVIDE SOME CLARITY, UH, SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HEARING ABOUT SOME OF THIS, ABOUT WHY THE PUT WAS NOT DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE OR WHY IT WAS CHOSEN NOT TO USE THE PUT WELL, THE, UM, THE P U D PROCESS, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S COMPLICATED.
AND, UH, IT, IT'S, UM, IT CALLS FOR, UM, SOME CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE SUPERIOR, THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET THE TEST OF BEING SUPERIOR.
AND, UM, AND USUALLY PREFERABLE IT'S PREFERRED THAT IT'S ON 10 ACRES ALSO, ALTHOUGH THE, THE 10 ACRES, IT, IT'S A PREFERENCE, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO BE, IT'S NOT MANDATORY.
SO IT, IT FROM THE LA SUPERIORITY WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY YOUR CRITERIA AND THE EXPENSE INVOLVED.
IN FACT, THE P FEE HERE IS ALMOST $60,000, WHEREAS A NORMAL ZONING CASE THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE PDA OVERLAY IS ABOUT $11,000.
AND, AND YOU, YOU PROBABLY AWARE OF THE PART P D FEES ARE VERY EXPENSIVE.
SO YOU WERE NOT HERE AT THE MEETING, THE LAST MEETING OF THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT THEN THAT MEETING OF, UM, UH, FEBRUARY 28TH MM-HMM.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AGENDA, THERE WERE EIGHT CASES YOU CAN PULL IT UP ON ONLINE.
THERE WERE EIGHT CASES THAT WERE ON THE AGENDA FOR L I P D A.
UM, THERE WAS, UH, UH, THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE THAT WERE BEING ZONED FROM CS TO LI.
AND THERE WERE ITEMS NUMBER, GIVE ME A MINUTE HERE, I HAVE THEM RIGHT HERE.
ITEMS NUMBER 28, 29 AND 30 MM-HMM.
AND THEY WERE BEING ZONED FROM CSM U V N P TO PDA, UH, P N P, ALL THREE OF THEM.
THAT'S ALL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ALL OF THOSE CASES.
AND THERE'S ONE TONIGHT ON YOUR AGENDA.
ITEM NUMBER 11, IT'S ANOTHER PDA FOLKS FROM ALLY TO LI PDA, BUT, UH, AGAIN, YOU GO, IT'S PROPOSING TO
[00:35:01]
HAVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 11 ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.AND ALL THE APARTMENTS ON, UH, WEST FIFTH STREET AND, UH, WEST FIFTH AND WALSH, ALL THE WAY TO MOPAC, THEY'RE ALL ZONED L LAP P D A IN, UH, CLARKSVILLE.
AND, AND I, I WILL NOTE, I THINK IT THE, YOU KNOW, A A PER PROLIFERATION OF SMALLER PODS IS ALSO I THINK CONCERNING AND SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD THINK THROUGH.
I THINK FORCING ANY APPLICANT WHO NEEDS TO APPLY FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR MORE ZONING ON A SITE TO GO THROUGH, THROUGH A POD PROCESS JUST SEEMS INCREDIBLY ONEROUS.
COMMISSIONER CONLEY THROUGH THE LACK OF THE TOOLS THAT THE TOOLS WERE THAT CREATED 40 YEARS AGO.
AND SO AS OUR, OUR LAND USE HAS EVOLVED, AND AS OUR NEEDS HAVE EVOLVED, OUR CODE HAS NOT EVOLVED ACCORDINGLY.
SO WE FIND OURSELVES USING TOOLS THAT, THAT WE DON'T, DON'T APPEAR TO BE NORMAL.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, IT SEEMS TO BE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED CITYWIDE OVER THE YEARS THAT HAVE L I P D A THAT HAVE A MIX OF RESI OF USES RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, ALL ON ONE SITE, UM, IT'S THE TOOL THAT IS NOT LIKE A POD THAT I APPRECIATE THAT.
I BELIEVE WE, COMMISSIONER ARD, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGOW AND MS. GLASGOW.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY IN YOUR RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER COX, YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE FACT THAT EVEN IF WE MOVE AHEAD WITH L I P D A, IF WE'RE ABLE TO ADOPT THE NECESSARY CODE CHANGES, YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THE C H V PDA A AT A LATER DATE AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
JUST WHENEVER IT'S APPROPRIATE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO WANT THE C H V P D A, THAT'S A PREFERENCE.
WE, WE DON'T WANT THE L I P D A, WE JUST REVERTED TO THAT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT 10 ACRE RULE WAS, WAS MANDATORY.
SO WE, WE WILL REVERT BACK WHENEVER WE SHOW UP AT COUNCIL, WHENEVER THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN THE CODE HAS BEEN AMENDED.
SO WE'LL JUST MOVE FORWARD AS, AS, AS YOU WISH, REALLY, AND, AND TO GET TO COUNCIL SO THEY CAN THEN, UM, ZONE IT CH CH HV P D A AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
AND JUST THE SECOND QUESTION IS, I KNOW YOU HAD MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, AND I KNOW IT'S IN OUR BACKUP, BUT EVEN AS PART OF I P D A, WHETHER YOU DO CHP, WHETHER YOU DO I P D, YOU ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE SITE.
I KNOW THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES SPOKE TO AS WELL.
CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT W WELL, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT YOU REALLY, THE THE, UH, UM, EXCUSE ME, THIS THING MOVES THE, UM, AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS, IT'S THE V WHEN IT'S USED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSE BECAUSE YOU'RE USING THE DENSITY BONUS IN THE, UM, WITH, WITHIN THE V.
SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKS ALL THE TIME.
SO THIS IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE OTHER CASES THAT COME THROUGH THAT HAVE A V OR ALL THE COMPATIBILITY AMENDMENTS.
SO THE, WHEN YOU SHOW UP WITH YOUR SITE PLAN AND YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT, UH, YOU ARE USING THE DENSITY BONUS, AND IN THIS CASE WE WOULD, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE COMPATIBILITY BONUS, AND IF YOU USE THE V YOU HAVE YOUR, YOUR MIXED USE AND YOU, UH, ADJUST YOUR STANDARDS, THEN YOU AFFORDABILITY IS TRIGGERED AND STAFF REQUIRES YOU TO, TO SIGN A COVENANT THAT THE CITY ENFORCES.
AND WE, THE AFFORDABILITY WE REQUIRE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT THAT IS A COMMITMENT AT THIS TIME THAT YOU DO INTEND TO HAVE 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, CORRECT.
THAT AT THIS POINT YOU ALL DO HAVE, YOUR APPLICANT DOES HAVE AN, UH, COMMITMENT TO DOING THE 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
THE, THE, THE PROJECT THAT'S PROPOSED AND THE, ALL THE, UH, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE TRIGGERED ON THE SITE, IT, IT, IT'S CLEAR THAT, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO, TO, UH, TO, TO TAP INTO THOSE RELAXED REGULATIONS THAT OUR PROJECT WORKS WITH THE RELAXED REGULATIONS, WHICH THEN REQUIRE YOU, YOU TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BENEFIT FROM THE STANDARDS.
AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, THAT IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A CONVERSATION ON THE TOWN HOMES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE AS PART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN CURRENTLY, THERE IS A CONSIDERATION YOU ALL ARE KIND OF COMMITTING TO DOING TOWN HOMES ON 16TH STREET.
I'M SORRY, THE, THE, THE BUZZER.
GO AHEAD, ASK THE QUESTION AND WE'LL FINISH THIS LAST ONE AND THEN, UH, WE'LL WRAP IT UP.
COMMISSIONER ZARE CHAIR, COMMITTING THE TOWN HOMES ON SIXTH STREET.
CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN? COMMISSIONER AZAR? YES.
SO THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY TO SAY THAT YOU ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT RIGHT NOW TO DOING TOWNHOMES ON 16TH STREET, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THAT'S INTENT THAT THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS
[00:40:01]
TO ACCOMMODATE THE TOWNHOMES FACING EAST 16TH STREET.UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. GLASGOW, ALTHOUGH MAYBE IT NEEDS TO GO TO MS. HARDEN, BUT IS IT ACCURATE THAT C H V C O N P TO C H V P D A WOULD BE AN UPZONING? NO.
YOUR UP ZONING IS YOUR ZONING CATEGORIES.
YOU GO FROM YOUR, UM, I WISH I HAD THE CHART TO SHOW YOU.
SO THE ZONING CATEGORIES GO FROM, UM, O ALL THE WAY TO, TO PROBABLY MI CATEGORIES.
SO YOUR HIERARCHIES DOWN HERE, YOU GO UPWARDS.
SO CH IS YOUR BAY ZONING, ALL THE OTHER ALPHABETS THAT FOLLOW ARE NOT YOUR PAY ZONING.
SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT ZONING TO CHV PDA? WOULD YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION? NO, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION? NO, THE, THE, UH, THE, THE, YOU MEAN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD, CAN CHANGE IT? CAN APP APPROVE CH WELL, IT DEPENDS ON REALLY ON WHEN IT HAPPENS.
SO IF, IF, IF, IF THE CASE IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE CODE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED, THEN WE, THEN THE CASE GETS TO BE HEARD AFTER THE CODE AMENDMENT AND CAN BE THEN BE ZONED C H V P D A, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO AMEND ANYTHING.
SO IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF TIMING ON WHEN THE CODE IS CHANGED AND WHEN OUR ZONING CASE ENDS UP AT THE COUNCIL.
SO I THINK THEY'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO BE SORT OF, UH, STAGGERED AND THE CODE AMENDMENT GETS APPROVED AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE, AND THEN COUNCIL GETS TO HEAR THE CASE THEREAFTER WHEN THE THE CODE HAS BEEN, UM, IMPLEMENTED.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES.
UM, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. HARDEN.
IS THERE ANYTHING TO STOP US FROM RECOMMENDING CH H V PDA AND LETTING COUNSEL MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S ALLOWED OR WAITING TO MAKE A DECISION? UM, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY TAKE AN ACTION.
I WOULD PROBABLY SAY C H P D A.
NO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED PER CODE.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, I WOULD AGREE THAT, UM, THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE FOR YOU TODAY.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WE HAVE, UH, TWO MORE SPOTS IF WE NEED 'EM, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, AND, UH, IF NOT, UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION THAT WE'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN? COMMISSIONER AZAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH L I P D A, SO THAT WILL BE APPLICANT REQUEST WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
UM, THE FIRST CONDITIONS OF ZONING IS THAT WE PROHIBIT THE USES THAT ARE LISTED, UM, ON PAGE TWO OF OUR BACKUP.
I'LL THERE A LOT, BUT I'LL JUST DO IT FOR THE SAKE OF IT.
SO, UM, WE WOULD BE PROHIBITING AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE WASHING CAMPGROUND, COMMERCIAL BLOOD PLASMA CENTER, PAWNS SHOP, COMMERCIAL OFF-STREET PARKING, CONSTRUCTION, SALES AND SERVICES, CONVENIENCE STORAGE, DROP-OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, ELECTRONIC PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, EQUIPMENT SALES, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, FUNERAL SERVICES, COMMUNICATION SERVICES, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, SAFETY SERVICES, KENNELS, LIQUOR SALES, LAUNDRY SERVICES, MONUMENT, RETAIL SALES, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, TRANSPORTATION, TERMINAL VEHICLE STORAGE, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, PET SERVICES RESTAURANT, UM, DRIVE-IN FAST FOOD SERVICE STATION, CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, HOSPITAL SERVICES, LOCAL UTILITY SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES, BASIC INDUSTRY RECYCLING CENTER, RESOURCE EXTRACTION, GENERAL WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, AND SCRAP AND SALVAGE.
IN ADDITION, AS PART OF THIS CONDITIONS OF ZONING, WE WOULD ALSO LIMIT RAILROAD FACILITIES, UH, BILL BOND SERVICES, PAP STORAGE AND DISPATCH, AND RESTAURANT LIMITED AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY, UM, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO, AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING, WE WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE APPLICANT CANNOT EXCEED MORE THAN 40 FEET IN HEIGHT, 36 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, AT THE EDGE OF 16TH STREET.
SO AT A DEPTH OF 36 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON 16TH STREET, THEY CAN ONLY GO UP TO HEIGHT OF 40 FEET MAXIMUM.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THIS MOTION.
UM, YOU HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE A CLARIFICATION POINT HERE.
DO THE USES THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED ARE, DO THEY INCLUDE ALL THE USES THAT WERE REQUESTED,
[00:45:01]
UH, BE REMOVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR WERE THERE SOME EXCEPTIONS? NO, CHAIR, THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THAT BECAUSE I CONFERRED WITH STAFF IN THE, UH, TODAY.ONE IS GROUP HOME TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER.
I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM LAW DEPARTMENT IN THE PASSING THAT WE CANNOT LIMIT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER BECAUSE THAT IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL GUIDELINES AND WE CAN'T DO IT LOCALLY.
AND THEN I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST GROUP, HOME AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, WE CANNOT PROHIBIT IT BECAUSE OF A VIOLATION OF FAIR HOUSING CLAUSE.
UH, SO WE WERE RELIEVING THOSE ITEMS BASED ON STAFF FEEDBACK.
WE HAD A SECOND ALREADY BY VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IN CASE FOLKS WERE LOOKING AT, UH, WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED IT'S, UM, ITERATION AND DIDN'T SEE THOSE ON THERE, THAT'S WHY.
UH, SO, UM, LET'S, UH, SO WE HAD A SECOND, UM, COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER COX, YOU GET YOUR HAND UP.
I WAS GONNA OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT I THINK, UH, DOESN'T, COMMISSIONERS ARE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO HIS MOTION FIRST.
UH, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR YOUR SUBSTITUTE, UH, AND THEN WE CAN GO DOWN THAT PATH.
YOU SOUND LIKE IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE YOUR MIND.
AND, AND THIS MAY BE OBVIOUS BASED ON MY COMMENTS BEFORE, UH, MY, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION I'D LIKE TO OFFER IS TO ACTUALLY PASS THIS ALONG TO COUNSEL WITHOUT A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
AND, UM, IF I GET A SECOND, I CAN EXPLAIN MY REASONING FOR THIS.
DOES ANYBODY, WE GOT A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER AAR, DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION ON ANYTHING? I WAS JUST GONNA CLARIFY ONE THING.
COMMISSIONER COX, IF MY AMEND, UH, MY MOTION FAILS AND IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES FORWARD TO COUNSEL WITHOUT A, UM, WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY A RECOMMENDATION.
AND I, I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I ACTUALLY DIDN'T FINISH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UH, YOU WANNA RESTATE YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, THAT'S IT.
SORRY, I'M, WHAT I'M MEANT TO SAY WAS, SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS PASSED ALONG WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IF POSSIBLE IN, IN THE COUNCIL BACKUP, INDICATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SUPPORT FOR, UH, THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING AGREED TO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND, UH, AND STAFF AND NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, IF WE HAVE A SECOND, UM, I SEE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER CUTS.
YEAH, SO I, I AGREE WITH STAFF.
UM, EVERY SINGLE TIME AN APPLICANT GIVES US A PRESENTATION, THEY SHOW A ZONING MAP.
IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS ONE AS WELL.
WE DO NOT WANT, I DON'T WANT THIS COMMISSION TO BE ON RECORD REINTRODUCING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR ANY INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO, TO EAST AUSTIN.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY DESIRED BY ANYONE ON THIS COMMISSION, NOR IS IT DESIRED BY STAFF, NOR IS IT DESIRED BY THIS APPLICANT.
UM, WE'VE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH THE CODE WHEN IT COMES TO C H P D A.
UM, AND COUNCIL HAS A GENERALLY, THUS FAR AGREED THAT IT'S AN ISSUE.
SO THEY'RE FAST TRACKING, UH, A CODE CHANGE TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE.
UM, I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THERE'S SUPPORT EITHER ON COUNCIL TO REINTRODUCE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO EAST AUSTIN, UH, WHERE WE'VE DONE, UH, A LOT OF WORK TO TRY TO REMOVE THAT.
SO BY PASSING THIS ALONG, WE ARE, WE ARE HOPEFULLY MINIMIZING THE DELAY OF FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE IF, IF, IF THE CODE AMENDMENT WAS IN PLACE, BUT AT LEAST BY PASSING ALONG WITH NO RECOMMENDATION, WE ARE NOT ON RECORD REINTRODUCING OR RECOMMENDING THE REINTRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
UM, BUT ALSO ALLOWING COUNSEL TO DO THEIR THING FAST, TRACK THE CODE AMENDMENT, AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGE OF THIS, UH, APPLICATION TO, UH, TO CH OKAY.
DO WE HAVE, UH, MEMBERS WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF OR YEAH.
IS IT IMPORTANT TO MAKE A DECISION HERE? IT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
WE NEED A, I DON'T WHO, WHO THIS QUESTION GOES TO.
SO IF, IF THIS WAS TO BE PASSED, DOES THIS ACTION IN ANY WAY MAKE COUNCIL'S JOB HARDER? LIKE, DO THEY SUDDENLY NEED A SUPER MAJORITY OR DO WE TRIGGER ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR DOES IT STILL A SIMPLE MAJORITY ON WHATEVER CASE ZONING THEY LOOK TO LAND ON, REGARDLESS IF WE DO WITH A NO DECISION.
SO, UH, ANY MEMBERS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? SPEAKING IN FAVOR? ME, UH, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHAT AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT HOW GARBAGE OUR LANE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE ALL WE WANNA DO IS BUILD HOUSING.
[00:50:01]
THERE'S A TOOL TO DO IT, BUT IT'S LABELED SOMETHING SO BAD WE DON'T WANT TO USE THAT LABEL.SO WE'RE GONNA DELAY HOUSING ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS, BUT IT WAS GONNA BE DELAYED ANYWAY, AS THIS PROCESS UNFOLDS, THAT COUNCIL'S ALREADY ENACTING.
SO, TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE APPLICANT ON WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
SPEAKING AGAINST, UM, SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE FOR YES, WE'RE TALKING YES.
DISCUSSING THE SUBSTITUTE SO WE HAVE A SPOT FOR SPEAKING AGAINST, AND THEN, UH, TWO MORE FOREIGN AGAINST IF WE NEED EM.
UM, CHAIR, COMMISSION LIAISON, IRA, SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
UM, BEFORE YOU, UH, DELVE ANY FURTHER, UM, THAT RECOMMENDATION'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
YOU, IT SHOULD BE AFFIRMATIVE AND, UM, IF THE MEMBERS ARE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL MOTION CAN VOTE AGAINST THAT AND I'LL GO, UH, IF, IF THERE'S NO OTHER RECOMMENDATION, THEN IT MOVES FORWARD WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN PER SE.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING, UH, MR. RIVERA IS, I GUESS THAT WAS FROM LEGAL? CORRECT.
SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND, MR. COX.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE CAN'T, UH, VOTE ON A NO RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS TO KIND OF HAPPEN THROUGH AN ACTUAL VOTE.
WE CAN'T JUST VOTE TO SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA RECOMMEND IT.
IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
SO YOU CAN, UM, I GUESS YOU CAN, UM, STIPULATE THIS AS A NON RECOMMENDATION, UH, BUT NOT, UH, STIPULATE ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, UH, SENTENCES TO THAT.
WE WERE, I THINK MERELY, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER COX JUST SAID WE WANT TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING, BUT IT, IT WOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF THAT.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE ENCOURAGING, UH, THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL, LOOK AT THOSE CONDITIONS OF ZONING THAT WE'RE AGREED TO.
IS THAT STILL A PROBLEM? YOUR MINUTES WOULD'VE REFLECTED? IT'S A NON, UH, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION FORWARDED TO COUNSEL, UH, WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION FROM LINE COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE A NO, I THINK I, I, I THINK SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, THE LEGAL ISSUE IS THE SECOND PART OF MY MOTION.
WHICH WAS SHOWING THE SUPPORT FOR THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
WE JUST CAN'T, WE JUST CAN'T DO THAT.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE BASE OF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, UH, FOR AGAINST, UH, JUST FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
I, I THINK IN THE PAST WE'VE, UH, INFORMALLY ASKED THE CHAIR TO WRITE A LETTER OR WRITE SOME KIND OF NOTE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND OR THE MAYOR, UH, SORT OF EXPRESS EXPLAINING WHY WE DIDN'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
CHAIR COMMISSION NOT DEPARTMENT, THE RECORDS, UH, CHAIR COMMISSION LEAVES ON ANDREW.
UM, IT'S THE BEST TO NOT MAKE THAT HABIT.
LET'S, UH, KEEP IT CLEAN HERE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO, UM, BY COMMISSIONER COXTON, MY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, TO, UM, TO COUNSEL, UH, PUTS THIS ON WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.
UH, AND LET'S GO AHEAD IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, GO AHEAD.
I, I, I WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE, OH, SORRY.
DID A, DID COMMISSIONER AAR HAVE HIS HAND RAISED FIRST? I, RIGHT NOW, DID YOU ALREADY SPEAK FOR, AGAINST COMMISSIONER AAR? I'M LOSING.
WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER DID NOT, BUT IF WE HAVE A SLOT, I CAN COME TO LET COMMISSION YES, GO AHEAD, MR. CONWAY.
WELL, I'LL JUST SPEAK AGAINST REAL QUICKLY, AND, AND, AND MY ONLY THOUGHT AGAINST, I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME PAGE.
THE CODE IS BROKEN, WE'RE GIVEN BROKEN TOOLS AND TOLD TO WORK WITH THEM.
AND SO WE CAN SORT OF THROW OUR HANDS UP AND SAY, LOOK, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO.
COUNCIL HAS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AND FIX THIS.
FOR ME, THAT'S NOT A VERY STRONG STATEMENT OF SUPPORT.
NOBODY WANTS, UM, YOU KNOW, TO VOTE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HERE.
BUT WHAT WE DO WANT TO SUPPORT IS THIS PROJECT AND WHAT THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY MEANS.
AND WHAT WE DO WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT TO COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A VERY BROKEN TOOLBOX AND THAT COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE TO PROACTIVELY IMPROVE OUR TOOLS TO IMPROVE OUR OUTCOMES.
AND THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THIS UP WITH URGENCY AND GET IT DONE.
SO FOR ME, US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE, WITH, WITH THE OTHER MOTION, UM, WHICH, WHICH WAS TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE, THE COS, KNOWING THAT THAT'S IMPERFECT, KNOWING THAT DOESN'T GET THE JOB DONE SENDS TO COUNSEL THE STRONGER MESSAGE THAT WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND OF THIS OUTCOME.
AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, HERE, HERE'S A THING THAT WE MADE WITH VERY BROKEN, FLAWED TOOLS, YOU FIX IT FOR US.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE ON, IF WE WERE IN COUNCIL'S ROLE,
[00:55:01]
I WOULD APPROACH THIS DIFFERENTLY, BUT RECOGNIZING OUR ROLE IN THE PROCESS AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION.I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER COX IS SAYING, AND I THINK OUR STAFF HAS RAISED, WE'RE SORT OF STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HEART PLACE.
SO I THINK PROCEDURALLY I'M GONNA BE WANTING TO CONSIST, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE HAVE INITIALLY, WHAT I INITIALLY LAID OUT IS THE PRIMARY AMENDMENT, UH, MOTION STILL ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNSEL WITHOUT US SORT OF HOLDING IT OFF, UM, IN ANY CONVERSATION, BUT REALLY FURTHERING THAT CONVERSATION AND SAYING WHERE OUR INTENTION IS, WHAT ARE THE LIMITERS THAT WE WANT TO PUT IN PLACE, WHETHER IT GOES THROUGH C H P D A OR L I P D A, IT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, LAYS IT OUT IN A WAY THAT COUNCIL CAN ACTUALLY HOLD ON TO THE ZONING CASE AND NOT PASS IT AS L I P D A IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO ZONE IT AS ALLY.
SO IT STILL ALLOWS THIS PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD FOR IT TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR.
AND I THINK WE HAVE A CLEAR INDICATION FROM THE APPLICANT, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED IT.
I THINK THEY'RE CLEARLY INDICATING THAT IF THAT OPTION BECOMES OPEN, THEY WILL SWITCH THEIR REQUEST TO C H P D A.
NOW, THE, THE CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T GO WITH L I P D A AND IT GETS NOTICED IN A CERTAIN WAY, THEN IT WILL HAVE TO BE UNNOTICED BEFORE IT CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
THIS ALLOWS IT TO MOVE FORWARD, GET ITS NOTIFICATION, NOT HAVE TO COME BACK FOR RE NOTIFICATION, ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
MY HOPE WOULD BE, KNOCK ON WOOD, THAT THIS TRULY BECOMES A WIN-WIN WIN SITUATION AS THIS GOES.
SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS, THE APPLICANT'S CONCERNS AND STAFF'S CONCERN, AND REALLY HAVE A PROJECT THAT SUPPORTS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHILE ALSO REALLY ADDRESSING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT REMAIN WITHIN OUR CODE.
AND JUST TO BE FAIR, WE DID HAVE ONE SPOT SPEAK IN FAVOR IF ANYONE WISHES TO TAKE IT.
CAN I ASK AN IMPORTANT CLARIFYING QUESTION OF STAFF? YEAH, BUT LET'S MAKE THIS THE LAST ONE PLEASE.
UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER ARE A REFERENCE NOTIFICATION IF THE COMMISSION PASSES OR MOVE THIS ALONG WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, WOULD, WOULD THE APPLICATION HAVE TO BE UNNOTICED IF COUNSEL WANTED TO CHANGE THAT, OR IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO CHANGE THAT TO, TO CH THE BASE ZONING? NO, NO, NO.
REUNIFICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED EITHER WAY.
EITHER RECOMMENDATION, NO NOTIFICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED UNLESS THEY DID SOMETHING HIGHER THAN ALLY.
BUT THAT'S NOT GONNA HA HAPPEN.
SO EITHER MOTION, NO NOTICE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
SO AGAIN, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A VOTE? SEEING NONE.
UM, SO THIS IS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SEGMENTED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER TO PASS THIS ON TO COUNSEL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, UH, ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UH, UM, IF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UH, LET'S SEE.
UM, VOTE IN VOTING IN FAVOR ON IN THE VIRTUAL SPACE.
AND THEN VOTING AGAINST ON THE DIAS, UM, UH, THIS MOTION SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CONLEY, ARE YOU VOTING? WE'RE VOTING AGAINST, UH, SUBSTITUTE.
AND THEN ON THE SCREEN WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER MAZAR, VICE CHAIR, HOWARD.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS AND LET ME GET MY COUNT.
SO NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UM, AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, WHO WAS, IS THAT VICE CHAIR? IT WAS ME.
UM, AND I THINK THERE WAS THREE THINGS YOU WANNA REPEAT.
YOUR, YOU HAD, UH, CONDITIONS THERE THAT I'D LIKE TO RE IF YOU COULD REPEAT THOSE, COMMISSIONER AZAR, I THINK WE'D GET IT FROM YOU.
AND I'LL MAKE THIS A MORE BREACHED VERSION.
SO WE'RE REMOVING AHEAD WITH LAP D A WITH ONE CONDITION OF ZONING RELATED TO PROHIBITED USES.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE FULL LIST THAT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE TWO OF OUR BACKUP, WHICH INCLUDES THE, THE, THE STAFF REPORT.
AND THEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED USES, WE WOULD ALSO BE PROHIBITING RAILROAD FACILITIES, BAIL BOND SERVICES, PET CAB STORAGE AND DISPATCH RESTAURANT LIMITED IN LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WE WOULD'VE A SECOND, UH, CONDITION OF ZONING, WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET OR UP TO 36 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON 16TH STREET.
SO SPEAKING IN FAVOR, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? I DON'T THINK WE GAVE YOU A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
[01:00:01]
COMMISSIONER ZAR, IF YOU WANT TO START, I APPRECIATE THAT CHAIR.MY HOPE REALLY IS, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS BEING SUPPORTED, UM, BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.
I DO WANNA REALLY APPRECIATE HONESTY, THE GOOD FAITH EFFORT MADE BY THE NEIGHBORS HERE IN REALLY WORKING ON A PROJECT THAT SUPPORTS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS WHILE ALSO, UM, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING SORT OF LARGER GOALS AROUND HOUSING AND OTHER THINGS.
I DO REALLY APPRECIATE BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR WORK ON THIS.
SO MY HOPE IS TO FORWARD IT THIS TO COUNCIL WITH THE L I P D A, REALLY SHOWING OUR INTENT THAT WE SUPPORT THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, WHILE ALSO CLEARLY UNDERSTANDING IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. GLASGOW, THAT AS THEY MOVE FORWARD, I, IF THE OPTION OPENS UP AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT ALL THE DETAILS THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY REVERT BACK TO, UM, THE C H V P D A OPTION SO THAT WE HAVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WE'RE NOT REZONING SOMETHING BACK HERE TO LA.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT I THINK IF INDEED THAT OPTION DOES NOT BECOME AVAILABLE AND THIS MOVES FORWARD WITH ALLY, I KNOW I WILL BE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MY APPOINTING OFFICE TO REALLY SEE HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD SO WE'RE NOT INDEED CREATING ALLY.
I THINK THE IDEA HERE TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LI PDAS IS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT AND CLARIFY INTENT ON WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING THAT WE WANT TO APPLY TO APPLY TO MAKE THIS CASE MOVE FORWARD.
UH, DOES ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, THE MEDIA HEADLINE AND THE AUSTIN MONITOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS REINTRODUCTION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO EAST AUSTIN.
UM, I TAKE AN, I TAKE AN ISSUE WITH THIS STRATEGY, UM, OF SHOWING SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT BY, UH, RECOMMENDING LI UM, WHAT'S THE POINT OF FIXING OUR BROKEN COAT IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO REZONE EVERYTHING, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PD D IN ORDER TO GET A BUNCH OF CONDOS AND APARTMENTS BUILT.
UM, THAT'S JUST, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE BEST STRATEGY TO FIX A BROKEN CODE.
UM, SO HONESTLY, I FEEL LIKE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE, HAVE, UH, MORE WILLINGNESS AND EAGERNESS TO FIX THE CODE IF WE KEPT SENDING THINGS TO THEM WITHOUT RECOMMENDATIONS, BECAUSE TO ME, THAT'S THE MOST OBVIOUS WAY TO INDICATE IT'S A BROKEN CODE.
THEREFORE, WE CAN'T GIVE YOU A RECOMMENDATION ON A, ON A BROKEN CODE.
SO, I, I JUST, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS STRATEGY, UM, BOTH FROM A PERCEPTION STANDPOINT AND A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.
AND I DON'T THINK THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE RECOMMENDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN EAST AUSTIN IN ORDER TO GET SOME CONDOS AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S, UH, ONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE AUSTIN MONITOR A BIT MORE CREDIT, AND MY GUESS IS IT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF OUTDATED CODES, SHOWS ITS UGLY FACE, AGAIN, AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS HERE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION, KIND OF THE BEST NUMBERS YOU CAN GET IS 130 HOMES AND THE APPLICANT'S TRYING TO BUILD 220 HOMES.
SO TWO LETTERS ON A MAP WHERE WE HAVE CONDITIONED OUT THE NUISANCE USES CAN GET US 90 MORE HOMES, NINE OF WHICH ARE INCOME RESTRICTED.
IS IT A ABILITY TO PUT 220 HOMES HERE? YES.
CITY COUNCIL'S FIXING IT, THANKFULLY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, LET THIS BE AN AMAZING EXAMPLE FOR EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE JUST DESPERATE FOR A NEW LANE DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND HOW DO WE REVISIT ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER? ALL RIGHT.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? I, I, I, I, I THINK LIKE EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PROJECT ITSELF, AND IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.
UH, SO THAT'S NOT REALLY THE POINT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SURFACED WITH COUNCIL, COUNCIL IS GOING TO ADDRESS IT, BUT I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PERSONALLY, AND I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO CAST DISPARAGE DISPARAGEMENT ON ANYBODY ELSE.
I DON'T FEEL COMFORT, COMFORTABLE VOTING IN FAVOR OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ANY SAUCE, AND, AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PUT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REINTRODUCE LIGHT INDU INDUSTRIAL INTO EAST AUSTIN.
THAT'S THE REASON THAT I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT IT.
IS THERE A SPOT IN FAVOR? YEP.
UM, YEAH, I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT WE ARE NOT VOTING FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN EAST AUSTIN, AND NOBODY IS VOTING TO REINTRODUCE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THIS IS SIMPLY THE TITLE WE'RE USING.
THE CO CLEARLY RULES OUT ANY INDUSTRIAL USE ON THIS SITE, SO THAT THAT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MONITOR'S, UH, HEADLINE IS GONNA BE, BUT I DON'T THINK OUR JOB AS COMMISSION IS TO VOTE BASED ON WHAT WE THINK THE HEADLINE WILL SAY.
OUR JOB IS TO RECOMMEND WHAT WE THINK IS THE BEST POLICY FOR THIS CITY TO MEET ITS GOALS AROUND HOUSING.
AND SO I THINK THE BEST POLICY RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE
[01:05:01]
FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT GETS US THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF HOUSING UNITS ON THIS SITE WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CODE THAT WE HAVE.AND IF COUNCIL WANTS TO STEP UP AS IT MUST AND FIX THE CODE THAT WE HAVE, THEN, YOU KNOW, AS THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE.
THAT IS WHAT WHAT COUNCIL SHOULD DO.
BUT OUR JOB IS TO WORK WITH THESE TOOLS AND, AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE TOOLS ARE INSUFFICIENT, AND YET WE SUPPORT THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I'M GONNA RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, WE DID HAVE ANOTHER, UH, SLOT FOR SPEAKING AGAINST, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHICH DIRECTION YOU WANNA SPEAK, BUT I'M GONNA PERMIT IT IF YOU WANT TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, JUST SAY YOUR FOUR AGAINST.
UM, IT FEELS KIND OF NEUTRAL, BUT I'M GONNA SPEAK FOR ONLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, I MEAN, THIS IS A PERPLEXING SITUATION, UM, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO, AND IT FEELS LIKE THE LESSER TWO EVILS, BUT I, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE COUNCIL WAS RESPONDING TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF SOMEONE APPLYING FOR ALLY ZONING.
AND THE OUTCOME ULTIMATELY SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL BE BETTER BECAUSE THERE'LL BE A TOOL IN PLACE TO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN.
HOWEVER, I FEEL LIKE WITH THE INTENTION OF WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN, I FEEL OKAY WITH THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT PROBABLY WAS THIS CASE, OR MAYBE SOMEONE ULTIMATELY SAID, HEY, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO NOT ALLOW THIS ALLY TO CONTINUE IN AREAS WHERE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT IT.
AND, BUT WE'RE, IT'S STILL THERE.
SO I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT IN ALL DO FAIRNESS AND WELL-INTENTIONED, SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND NOT BE CAUGHT IN THIS MAZE OF, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTA LET COUNSEL WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHEN THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TIME AGO.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE JUST DISCOVERED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE, UH, ZONING DESIGNATION.
SO I FEEL LIKE WE KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS.
WE KNOW WHAT ESSENTIALLY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
WHY DELAY THIS AND ALLOW THAT NOT, NOT ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO, I MEAN, NONE OF THIS SOUNDS GOOD.
NONE OF IT FEELS GOOD AS A PLANNER.
I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ENCOURAGE THIS EITHER, BUT I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT'S WHERE THE CODE IS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF GERRYMANDER SOMETHING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S BETTER.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
AND, UH, BUT I WILL SUPPORT US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TENSION OF THE ZONING CHANGING SUBSEQUENTLY.
ANY OTHERS WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UH, I'M GONNA GO AND TAKE, UH, A LITTLE BIT, UH, LIBERTY SIERRA AND TAKE ONE MORE SPOT.
I, AS YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS VOTE, UH, SAFETY FIRST WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING.
IF THIS WAS INDUSTRIAL WITHOUT ANY OF THE PROHIBITED USES, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UM, SO WE HAVE ELIMINATED THOSE.
UH, I KNOW THERE'S A PERCEPTION ISSUE HERE.
UH, I DO, I SUPPORT STAFF'S CONCERNS, BUT THEY'RE THE, WE'RE KIND OF IN A TOUGH SITUATION HERE.
WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS AND WE HAVE A VERY POOR TOOLKIT, AND WE HAVE SOME ZONING CHANGES COMING UP THAT, UM, SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE 10 ACRE, UH, REQUIREMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, BUT ON THE PUDS, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WAIVED THAT COUNCIL HAS, WE HAVE.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT CODE, BUT I THINK THIS ACTUALLY GIVES US THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MOST HOUSING, WHICH IS THE ISSUE OF THE DAY.
UH, I THINK IT WILL BE A SAFE, UH, DECISION.
SO I'M GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THIS TO A VOTE.
THOSE ON THE DAIS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ZAR, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HEMPLE.
UH, THOSE ON THE, UH, VIRTUAL SPHERE, THOSE IN FAVOR.
AND THOSE VOTING AGAINST, OKAY.
SO THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COX VOTING AGAINST AND COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER ABSTAINING.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES, IF I'M COUNTING CORRECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
AND NOW IF WE, WE HAVE TWO MORE, UM, THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THROUGH.
I THINK THERE ARE JUST SOME QUESTIONS, UH, I WOULD OFFER, IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THESE QUICKLY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
UM, BUT WE, WE WON'T AMEND THE Q AND A TIME PERIOD.
[14. ETJ RELEASE: CETJ-2022-0002 - Release of 48 acres of ETJ to City of Manor / ETJ]
AND MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS ITEM 14, THE E T J RELEASE.UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
[01:10:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION.MY NAME IS ANDRE LUU, AND I'M THE CASE MANAGER FOR THE PROPOSED D T J RELEASE TO THE CITY OF MAINER.
UH, AND I'M WILLING TO, IS WERE YOU JUST, UH, EXPECTING KIND OF A GENERAL PRESENTATION OR WERE THERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? UH, LET'S, LET'S SEE, WHO ASKED, UH, WAS IT COMMISSIONER? I THINK YOUR QUESTION.
WE HAVE, DON'T SEE THESE CASES, SO IT MAY BE GOING INTO OUR, KIND OF OUR OBLIGATION, YOU KNOW, THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS IT RELATES TO THESE E T J CASES.
AND, UM, BUT COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANT TO HEAR, WHAT DID YOU WANT TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY? YEAH, I, I HAD TWO PRIMARY THINGS I WAS HOPING TO GET CLARIFIED BY STAFF IS, IS KIND OF WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE COMMISSION'S ROLE ON THIS? AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING WITH THESE E T J RELEASES? BUT THEN ALSO, UM, THERE'S A LOT IN THE BACKUP DOCUMENT ABOUT, UH, KIND OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF EQUIVALENCY WITH THE JURISDICTION THAT WE'RE, UH, RELEASE RELEASING THIS EJ PROPERTY TOO.
UM, AND I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW Y'ALL REVIEWED THE EQUIVALENCE EQUIVALENCY WHEN IT COMES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, AND THEN HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED AFTER THE RELEASE OF, OF, OF THE E T J.
SO LET ME JUST START WITH A OVERVIEW OF E T J RELEASE CASES, AND THEN I HAVE A COLLEAGUE, UM, FROM THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, WHO MAY WANT TO SPEAK MORE IN MORE DETAIL ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND THE EN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
UH, SO TO PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT, IN 2007, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN E T J RELEASE POLICY THAT GUIDES OUR ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED E T J RELEASES.
WE USED TO HAVE A LOT MORE E T J RELEASE CASES AND LARGER AREAS BEING EXCHANGED BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES.
THE BOUNDARIES ARE A LITTLE MORE FIXED.
UM, IN RECENT YEARS, THE E T J RELEASE POLICY, UH, RE SUGGESTS THAT WE STAFF WILL REVIEW THE, A PROPOSED RELEASE AND THEN BRING IT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY, AND THEN ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS THAT ARE DEEMED, UH, RELEVANT TO THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RELEASE.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY, IF YOU'RE YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONNECTION IS, IS THAT IT'S A NAMED PROCESS IN OUR E J RELEASE POLICY.
THE E T J, UH, IT IS IN GENERAL CONSIDERED PART OF AUSTIN'S PLANNING JURISDICTION.
AND SO IT IS KIND OF GOVERNED BY OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR GENERAL LARGER PLANNING FOOTPRINT AS A CITY.
HOWEVER, UH, I THINK THE, THE SPECIFIC PLANNING ASPECTS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BECAUSE, UH, WHEN WE USED TO REVIEW E T J RELEASE CASES, WE WOULD LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT IMPACTS ON FUTURE POTENTIAL ANNEXATIONS.
SO THERE'D BE KIND OF A DIRECT NEXUS ON, UH, WHAT AREA WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ZONING AND DIRECTLY UNDER THE CITY'S REGULATORY CONTROL.
AND NOW THINGS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ANNEX ANYMORE DUE TO A, A CHANGE IN STATE LAW IN 2017.
AND SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE, WE, WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR REVIEW A LITTLE BIT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, THAT THIS AREA IS NOT PROPOSED TO EVER BECOME PART OF OUR ZONING JURISDICTION OR OUR CITY LIMITS.
IT'S FOUR 4.25 MILES FROM THE FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.
AND THERE'S JUST NO WAY THAT WE WOULD EVER CONCEIVABLY MAKE IT OUT THERE IN OUR CITY LIMITS UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATIC CHANGED UNDER STATE LAW.
SO THAT, THAT HAS KIND OF INFORMED THE TYPE OF REVIEW THAT WE DO AS STAFF.
AND, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT CHANGE IN STATE LAW, THE JURISDICTIONS REVIEW THAT I DO AS PART OF HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF, UM, IS FOUND TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS RELEASE AND NOT, UM, THREATENING OR QUESTION OR POSING CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF THE CITY OR OF OUR PLANNING FUNCTIONS.
THE, I'LL SEGUE INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THEN, UH, I'LL, I'LL INVITE MY COLLEAGUE, LESLIE LILLY TO, TO CHIME IN IF, IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.
THE, THE POLICY ALSO CALLS FOR A REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMP COMPARABILITY OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE RELEASING TO THE ENTITY THAT WILL TAKE ON THE AREA AS A RESULT OF THAT RELEASE.
AND SO WE DO A CODE COMPARISON WHERE WE LOOK AT THE, UM, THE DIFFERENT ANALOGS IN OUR E T J REGULATIONS THAT COMPARE TO THE, UH, THE RELEASING ENTITIES REGULATIONS, SO THAT, AND WE WORK TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A COMPARABLE LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
[01:15:01]
REVIEW AS A RESULT OF THAT.UM, I, I SEE MY, MY COLLEAGUE IS ON NOW, SO I'LL, IF SHE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD, BUT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE RELEVANT FRAMEWORK WE USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS FOR THIS RELEASE IS THAT MAYNARD IS, IT IS, UM, WORKING ON A PUD WITH THE APPLICANT.
UH, AND THE RESULT OF THAT PUT WILL BE, OR IN, IN ADDITION TO THAT HUD IS, IS A PLANNED AND FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION.
SO THIS AREA WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO MAIN MAINERS FULL PURPOSE CITY LIMITS.
AND SO THAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW THAT WE'RE COMPARING TO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN CONSIDERING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RELEASE.
SO I'LL JUST, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY MY, I'LL ASK THE NEXT QUESTION WHEN WE RUN OUTTA TIME, SO THAT WAY, MISS, UH, LILLY, YOU DON'T NEED TO STOP IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT FROM HERE.
SO, UH, REGARDING THE CODE COMPARISON THAT WE DID, WE LOOKED AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, REGULATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IMPOSED ON THE AT TRACT OF LAND BEING PROPOSED FOR THE RELEASE INTO, UH, MAYER'S, UH, FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION, AND THEN LOOKED AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR MAYER.
AND WE WERE CONSIDERING WHICH ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE EASY TO ENFORCE ON MAYER'S END.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO JURISDICTIONS, BUT THE ONES THAT WE KIND OF LEANED TO WERE ONES THAT WERE GOING TO BE EASY TO ENFORCE, AND THE MECHANISM FOR ENFORCING THEM IS LIKE MULTIFOLD.
SO ONE WOULD BE, UM, INCORPORATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS INTO THE DEED OF THE TRACT LAND.
SO IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THERE WAS NOT, UM, GOING FORWARD, UH, THE, FOR WHATEVER REASON THE POD WAS, WAS NOT GOING TO BE FULLY REALIZED OR, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CHANGED THAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS WERE GOING TO BE, UH, TRACKED WITH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OF LAND THAT'S GOING TO BE RELEASED.
AND THEN THOSE RESTRICTIONS WERE ALSO GOING TO BE BAKED INTO, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE POD FOR THE ATTRACTIVE LAND.
UH, SO THOSE WOULD BE REQUIRED, UH, ADDITIONALLY, AND, AND ONE THING THAT WE THOUGHT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE IS, UH, MAYER'S, UH, FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION HAS A, A TREE ORDINANCE, UM, THAT IS NOT, LIKE AUSTIN'S TREE ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE E T J, UH, JURISDICTION.
SO, UH, THE MAYNARD WOOD AND HAS STAFF THAT WOULD BE, UM, ENFORCING THE TREE ORDINANCE AND THE PROTECTION OF TREES IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
UH, AND LIKE I SAID, THE, THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT WE ADDED AS KIND OF TRACKING ACROSS THE, ACROSS THE JURISDICTIONS, WE PICKED THOSE AS ONES THAT WOULD BE EASY, EASILY ENFORCEABLE ON THE MAINER, UM, THE MAINER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
I'M DOING EVERYTHING I CAN TO CONFUSE FOLKS.
SO THIS IS JUST THE STAFF PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT.
UH, MR. RIVERA, DID WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? UM, CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES AND ANDREW? SO I DON'T HAVE SPEAKERS, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, UM, UM, AND IS AVAILABLE TO, UM, ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, MS. KATHERINE NICELY AND IS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
UH, LET'S GIVE HIM, UH, SOME TIME, PLEASE.
UM, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OR ANSWER THE QUESTIONS? BECAUSE I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I DON'T WANNA MAKE YOUR PRE YOUR MEETING LONGER THAN WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
UM, I'M LOOKING AROUND, UH, FOLKS, YOU WANNA HEAR THE PRESENTATION ON THIS PRESENTATION? OKAY.
I'LL JUST SAY CHAIR, THAT, THAT, UH, STAFF'S, UH, EXPLANATIONS WERE EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
SO MY PARTICULAR CURIOSITIES AND QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AT THIS POINT.
UH, IF, IF YOU STAY HERE, UH, WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP THE Q AND A.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UH, WHEN WE MOVE TO THIS, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE COMMITMENTS IN THE PUT AS WELL.
SO, UM, I FEEL LIKE, UH, WE DO, WE HAVE A MOTION TO GO AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE.
THE COMMISSIONER CONLEY SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HEMPLE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A QUICK VOTE ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND STEP, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, I FEEL LIKE WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ALREADY ANSWERED, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? UH, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FROM MS. NIGHTLY.
UH, MS SAYS YOU'RE WALKING UP IN THE STAFF MEMO.
WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS RELATED TO, UH, FROM A WATERSHED DEPARTMENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE FORWARD IN THEIR DOCUMENT, HOW WE PUT IN, ARE THOSE ALL FOUR AGREEABLE TO YOU,
[01:20:01]
OR IS YOUR INTENTION RIGHT NOW TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THEM? UM, AND THEY'RE TO FOLLOW SUBURBAN WATERSHED AND BUR COVER RESTRICTIONS, QUAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL TO TREAT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME, ESTABLISHING A 300 FEET GREEK SETBACK AND PROTECTING EXISTING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES WITHIN 150 FEET SETBACK.IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO AT THIS MOMENT? YEAH, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON IT.
AND IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD REGARDING THE PROJECT THAT YOU THINK WOULD HELP US MAKE THIS DECISION? UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOMETHING THAT ANDRE, UM, TALKED ABOUT.
THE E T J RELEASE PROCESS GOES THROUGH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, AND THEY HAVE ALL ANALYZED THIS REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF MAYER IN ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, FOLKS RECOMMENDED THAT.
SO IT DID GO THROUGH TRANSPORTATION, THROUGH HOUSING AND PLANNING THROUGH AUSTIN WATER.
UM, AND SO WE DID GO THROUGH ALL THAT PROCESS AND NOW WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.
WE WENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND THOSE GOT ADDED AS THE REQUIREMENTS.
WE WILL BE ADDING THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR POD FOR THE SECTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING RELEASED AND ALSO IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN THE EJ, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BE ANNEXED AND ZONED POD.
AND MS. LEE, UM, I KNOW YOU'D ALREADY SORT OF MENTIONED THAT, BUT TO CONFIRM, SO, BUT MS. NICELY SAYING THIS WILL BE PART OF THE PUT AGREEMENT AND THEN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEMORIALIZE THESE COMMITMENTS.
YEAH, WELL, THE CITY OF MAYER WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ACCEPTING THOSE COMMITMENTS, BUT THEY SEND A LETTER, IT'S PART OF YOUR BACKUP WHERE THESE, UH, ITEMS WILL BE ADDED IN THE ANNEXATION AND PUT I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I KNOW MS. LIL, YOU WERE GONNA SAY SOMETHING AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT, UM, ALL OF THOSE DETAILS, UH, AND, AND TALKING WITH THE STAFF IN MAY, UH, JURISDICTION HAS, IS TRUE.
THOSE ARE THE, THE, THE PROCESS FOR, UM, MEMORIALIZING ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, REGULATIONS THAT WILL BE IMPOSED UPON THE TRACK THAT'S BEING, UH, RELEASED TO MAYER.
SORRY, I DO WANNA APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY OF MAYER WASN'T ABLE TO CALL IN OR BE PRESENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TODAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? NO, I ACTUALLY, MY, UM, MY QUESTION WAS COVERED BY, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT ASARA ASKED.
ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER COX REAL QUICK, CUZ I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE BACKUP.
UM, THIS WENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
AND, AND WHAT WAS THEIR, WHAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE ITEM? LESLIE, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER OR DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER? YEAH.
UH, IT WAS UNANIMOUS A VOTE OF SUPPORT.
SO JUST CLARIFICATION, WAS THAT CITY OF AUSTIN OR CITY OF MAYER? CITY OF AUSTIN.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, ANDERSON SECONDS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A QUICK VOTE.
UH, SPEAKING FOR AGAINST OR CAN WE MOVE FORWARD? ANY OBJECTION? WE'VE TAKEN A VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
THOSE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE ON THE SCREEN? OKAY.
[15. Site Plan (Late Hours Permit): SP-2022-0569C - Mariscos Tampico Restaurant; District 4]
CASE IS ITEM 15, AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, LATE HOURS PERMIT STAFF.YOU WANNA BRING US UP TO SPEED ON THIS ONE? UH, UM, YES.
UH, MY NAME IS CLARISSA DAVIS.
I'M THE CASE MANAGER AND THE SITE PLANNER ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, THIS IS A LATE HOURS PERMIT, UM, AS WE'VE KIND OF COVERED FOR A RESTAURANT THAT IS PREEXISTING WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER ZONE.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I THINK I REMEMBER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
ONE WAS PERTAINING TO, UM, SOME TRAFFIC CONCERNS.
UM, AND I TOOK A LOOK AT, AT D'S, COMMENTS ON THE MATTER AND SEE IF THEY KIND OF MENTIONED ANYTHING THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING.
BUT THE ONLY THING THAT THEY WERE REALLY TALKED ABOUT WAS REALLY JUST PARKING THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE, UH, FOR THE USE.
SO THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY TALK ABOUT ANY, UH, FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED OF THEM VIA, YOU KNOW, THE TCM OR A R S, UH, NMP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, I BELIEVE YOUR OTHER QUESTION WAS NOTIFICATION.
UM, WE REQUIRE ALL OF OUR NOTICES TO BE SENT OUT TO, UM, UH, NAMES ON THE UTILITY BILL AND LANDOWNERS.
UM, SO EITHER WAY WE TRY TO CAPTURE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO, UM, THE, UH, SUBJECT SITE WITHIN 500 FEET.
AND THEN WE ALSO CAPTURE THE RENTERS WHO ARE IN THAT AREA AS WELL.
UM, I TOOK A LOOK INTO MY EMAIL TO MAKE SURE I GOT A, UH, CONFIRMATION FROM OUR NOTICE TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A NOTICE
[01:25:01]
GO OUT, AND I DID GET A CONFIRMATION FOR THAT, SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY NOTICED.UM, THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
I DO NOT REMEMBER YOUR OTHER, IF YOU HAD ONE THAT I HAVE NOT, UH, ANSWERED FOR YOU.
LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, WE'LL GET TO THE Q AND A.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY, UM, STAFF ON AD BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ENTERTAIN SPEAKERS? NO.
DO WE HAVE APPLICANT? UH, YES.
WE'LL, AFTER WE, UH, GO AHEAD AND GET THE APPLICANT AND SPEAKERS AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
UM, I HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S THE SAME AS A STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SEE IT OR I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I WOULD DEFER TO COMMISSIONER CONLEY IF YOU WANNA SEE THE PRESENTATION.
UH, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA SAY? WE'LL, WE WILL MOVE INTO Q AND A AND PROBABLY HAVE QUESTIONS.
WELL, JUST, NOTHING'S CHANGING.
WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR LATE HOURS.
IT'S AN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
UH, SO DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, MR. RIVERA CHAIR? NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, YOU HAVE A SECOND COMMISSION SECONDED BY COMMISSION.
SCHNEIDER, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE DIAS AND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, AND WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
YEAH, SO MY, MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR STAFF.
UM, SO I THINK THE, THE, THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE, WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND, UM, SOME OF THEM THOUGHT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS TOOK PLACE ON FRIDAY NIGHTS
UM, SO THEY, THEY WERE NOT, UM, ADEQUATELY, UM, INFORMED WHETHER THEY WERE OFFICIALLY NOTICED OR NOT AS KIND OF BESIDE THE POINT.
THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF RENTERS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REALLY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THIS CASE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS KIND OF A FUNCTION OF THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS.
UM, HOWEVER, THE MAIN CONCERN THAT FOLKS BROUGHT UP IS NOT TRAFFIC PER SE, UM, BUT ACTUAL TRAFFIC FATALITIES BECAUSE OF VERY DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS DRIVING, PARTICULARLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH LAMAR AND RUDBERG AND OF, UH, DANGEROUS DRIVING INSIDE THAT LARGE PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS.
SO THE, THE, THE MAIN CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY PLAN OR ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TRAFFIC CALMING FEATURES COMING TO THAT PART OF TOWN SOON, OR ANYTHING TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, IN IMPROVE THE, THE, UM, THE, THE, THE DRIVING CONDITIONS MAKE IT, UH, SAFER EXPERIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS, FOR FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT WALK AROUND THAT AREA.
IT'S ALREADY A VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION, UM, WITH A LOT OF HIGH SPEED VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
SO I THINK THAT'S MORE THE CONCERN IS THAT ADDING A, A LATE NIGHT, YOU KNOW, AND YEAH, AND LATE NIGHT LIQUOR LICENSE TO THAT.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF A VERY RICH IRONY THAT OUR PRIMARY CONCERN WHEN GRANTING A LATE NIGHT LIQUOR LICENSE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN CAR USE IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? NOT THE LIQUOR LICENSE.
BUT ANYWAY, SO I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF, UM, THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.
IS THIS, YOU KNOW, CORRIDOR INCLUDED IN OUR CITY CORRIDOR PROGRAM? ARE THERE ANY TRAFFIC CALLING MEASURES PLANNED FOR THAT AREA? THE CONCERN IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT PARKING, SO I JUST WANTED ABOUT, ABOUT TRAFFIC.
SO IT'S MY QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM STAFF THAT CAN DISCUSS, UH, PERHAPS TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT OR OTHERWISE WITH ANY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS? UM, I, I'M LOOKING TO RAN.
DO WE HAVE, WAS THIS LOOK, UH, MS. DAVIS, UH, DO YOU HAVE A, A RESPONSE? DO I NEED TO REFRAME THE QUESTION OR SOMETHING TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR? I DON'T, OH, SHE'S ON, NO, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT I'M SAYING.
I GUESS, LET ME REITERATE, UM, IN, AT D'S COMMENTS WHEN IT WAS, UH, GIVEN TO AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION, UM, THEY DID NOT LIST ANY FUTURE, UM, DRIVING PRECAUTION MEASURES TO BE, UM, ADDED TO THAT AREA.
UM, THAT IS NOT MY EXPERTISE IN REVIEW.
UM, SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY DRIVING MEASURES OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THAT AREA IN THE FUTURE.
SO I'M UNFORTUNATELY NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WOULD OKAY.
BUT, BUT I'M SURE THAT TRAFFIC, JUST PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, FOR INSTANCE, IS A CONCERN IN SITE PLANNING.
[01:30:01]
AGAIN, I'M A SITE PLANNER.I AM NOT WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION, SO THAT IS NOT PERTAINED TO MY DISCIPLINE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM AT D UH, PRESENT THIS EVENING.
I MEAN, I, I, I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM A T D BECAUSE THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT JUST BASIC, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CALMING FEATURES WHEN WE MAKE THIS KIND OF DECISION.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANNA HOLD THIS UP, BUT I DO THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE'S THIS KIND OF REAL SERIOUS CONCERN IN THAT AREA, AND, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.
UM, I, I JUST WANNA QUICKLY, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE TRAFFIC DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVE ON? OKAY.
IF, IF NOT, I DON'T KNOW IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS DOING ANYTHING TO ADDRESS, UH, TRAFFIC SAFETY OR NOT.
IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S AN EXISTING RESTAURANT.
UM, IT'S JUST THE RESTAURANT OWNER JUST LEASES A SPACE WITHIN THE ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER.
IT'S ONLY ABOUT 5,000 SQUARE FEET OKAY.
OF THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
SO THERE'S NO REDEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION LOOKING AROUND? COMMISSIONER DESAR? I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE APPROVAL.
MOVE APPROVAL, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UM, VICE CHAIR HEMP.
DO WE, CAN WE WAIVE, UH, PROS AND CONS ON THIS ONE? OR DOES ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK? DO, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST I'LL MAKE THIS VERY, VERY QUICK CHAIR.
WE'LL START, I THINK WHAT IF, IF I CAN SPEAK QUICKLY, I, I APPRECIATE WHAT THE, SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY HAS RAISED, I GUESS, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN RAISING.
I JUST REALLY HOPE, AND I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF, UH, PRESENT HERE.
WE DO WANNA MOVE THIS CASE FORWARD.
I REALLY HOPE THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH TRANSPORTATION STAFF AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL TO SEE OVERALL UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS.
I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF BOND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE ON THE CORRIDOR HERE THAT MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED, UH, AS THIS HEADS TO COUNCIL.
I'LL GO AND GIVE, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY IF YOU WANNA SPEAK.
I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M NEUTRAL ON THIS.
UM, I, I WILL, I GUESS I HAVE TO TAKE IT AGAINST SPOT.
UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNFORTUNATE.
UH, THERE'S THIS KIND OF VERY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC FATALITIES IN THE AREA.
A NUMBER OF NEWS STORIES HAVE COVERED IT.
AUSTIN HAS VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC FATALITIES.
UM, WE HAVE VERY UNSAFE STREETS, AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF WILD THAT WE DON'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING GRANTING LIQUOR LICENSES.
AND YET WE MANDATE, WE HAVE PARK MANDATED PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ESTABLISHMENTS TO SELL LIQUOR.
SO IT'S LIKE WE ARE ENCOURAGING PRECISELY THE WORST KIND OF BEHAVIOR AND TAKING NO THOUGHT FOR THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS WHEN WE MAKE THIS KIND OF DECISION.
AND IT'S ALSO UNFORTUNATE THAT THE, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN, AT LEAST AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT COME AND SAY SOMETHING TO JUST SORT OF ASSUAGE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT ARE REALLY NOT OPPOSED TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE OR FROM THEIR COMMENTS TO ME, BUT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT JUST TRA BASIC TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY REASONABLE THING FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO LIVE THEIR LIVES.
SO I'M GONNA REMAIN NEUTRAL ON THIS ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD JUST REALLY QUICKLY, UM, IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT CERTAIN DISCIPLINES OR CERTAIN, UM, ISSUES ABOUT THE APPLICATION, IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO CONTACT ME BEFOREHAND.
UH, THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE PRESENT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, SO IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU DO FIND ANYTHING ENVIRONMENTAL HAPPENING WITH THE SITE PLAN, OR IN THIS CASE A T D, UM, PLEASE CONTACT ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND THAT WAY I CAN SUPPLY THE PERSON WHO IS ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IT'S MY, MY FIRST NIGHT BACK ON THE COMMISSION AND, AND FOLKS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CALLED ME AT FOUR 30, SO I APOLOGIZE.
AND I WILL, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, STAFF COMMENT.
WE KNOW THAT STAFF IS HAVING REAL CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW.
UM, THERE'S A TREMENDOUS CASELOAD AND JUST NOT THE NUMBERS.
SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO HELP THEM PREPARE FOR THE MEETINGS AND THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, THAT WILL, THAT REALLY HELP ALL OF US.
SO TRY TO DO A LITTLE THINKING AHEAD ON, YOU KNOW, USE THE CUTE QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME THAT KIND OF CLUES STAFF IN TO THE THINGS THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO YOU.
SO IF WE CAN, UH, YOU CAN SUBMIT THOSE QUESTIONS
[01:35:01]
IN ADVANCE AND I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO DO THAT.UM, BUT THANK YOU, UH, SO MUCH FOR, UM, YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT COMMENT.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND ON THIS ONE, I THINK ANY MORE SPEAKERS FORWARD AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
THOSE IN FAVOR? UM, THAT'S THREE, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE, LOOKING AT THE SCREEN.
AND THOSE, UH, AGAINST THIS MOTION ON THE DIAS OR ABSTAINING? ABSTAINING.
SO THAT PASSES WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY ABSTAINING.
TAKES CARE OF ALL OUR DISCUSSION CASES.
UH, I HAVE ON THE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
ARE THEY, ARE THEY READY YET? I ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT 'EM.
CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON, ANDREW VERA.
UM, UH, WE CAN, UH, FOREGO THE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS AS I DON'T HAVE THEM PRESENT.
UM, WE ALWAYS GET EXCITED WHEN WE HAVE, UH, PEOPLE SPEAK TO US UNDER THAT AGENDA ITEM.
UM, SO THERE'S NOTHING ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS? UH, I DO HAVE ONE.UH, IF WE CAN PUT ON THE AGENDA, UM, LET'S SEE, TO, UM, LET'S SEE, UH, YEAH, RECOMMENDATIONS, A RECOMMENDATION TO OPEN UP, UM, TO FILL THE JOINT COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS.
IF WE COULD JUST HAVE THAT ON THAT WE MAY WANNA FILL IN SOME OF OUR EMPTY SLOTS AT THE NEXT MEETING, OR AT LEAST MAKE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND, UH, JUST FROM THE NEW FOLKS, UH, COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, YOU'RE AWARE, UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, WE'LL HAVE SOME OPENINGS ON THE JOINT COMMITTEES.
I THINK OUR CODES AND ORANGES IS, THAT'S FULL, BUT I THINK WE DEFINITELY WILL HAVE OPENINGS IN, UH, SMALL AREA PLANNING AND, UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.
AND, UH, THERE, THERE ARE LIKELY OTHER SPOTS AS WELL IF PEOPLE WANNA MOVE AROUND FROM ONE TO ANOTHER.
SO WE'LL TAPE THAT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? ALL RIGHT.
I GUESS I MIGHT NEED, DO I HAVE SUPPORT FOR MINE? I THINK I NEED JUST A SECOND.
OH, DO YOU HAVE AN, AN AGENDA ITEM? OKAY.
UM, CHAIR, I JUST REALIZED SINCE WE HAVE ACTUALLY VACATED TWO OF OUR OFFICERS, I KNOW WE HAVE REGULAR OFFICER ELECTIONS COMING UP SOMETIME SOON, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE MEANWHILE WHILE WE GO THROUGH A REGULAR ELECTION PROCESS.
SECRETARY AND PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENTARY.
DO WE NEED GOOD TIMING TO PUT THAT ON OR DO WE WAIT TILL AFTER THE CHAIR COMMISSION LEASE ON? SO WHAT, UM, I DO IS, UM, ONCE A MEMBER HAS BEEN, UM, CERTIFIED, THEN UM, WE CAN PLACE THAT ON AN AGENDA, UM, SHOULD IT AFFECT THE OFFICERS.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE INTERIM OFFICERS UNTIL, UH, WELL, WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION.
THOSE INTERIM OFFICERS WILL SERVE TILL MAY, I BELIEVE.
SO WE WANNA PUT THAT, I WAS ONLY SPEAKING TO THE JOINT COMMITTEES.
WE ALSO NEED AN ITEM FOR OFFICERS AT THE NEXT MEETING.
IS THAT WHAT I'M, DEPENDING ON THE CERTIFICATION OF, UH, SUCCESSORS.
AND CHAIR, I WOULD SAY, I THINK AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WHENEVER OUR STAFF SAYS THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT ON.
UM, ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
UH, WORKING GROUP UPDATES.UM, DO ANYTHING ON CODES AND ORANGES? VICE CHAIR? YES.
WE'LL HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT.
UM, AND ON THAT AGENDA, UM, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ACTION, UM, THE CALENDAR.
UM, THE SECOND ONE IS WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WITH A PRESENTATION, UM, FROM AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THAT.
AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE CAPITAL DOMINANCE OVERLAY.
UM, AND SO THAT'S ON TOMORROW AT 6:00 PM SO LET'S JUST REAL QUICK, WHO, UM, I HAD SAID I COULD BE THERE, I GUESS THEY NEED SOMEBODY RUNNING THE SHOW.
DID YOU? I THINK WE ALL NEED TO BE THERE CAUSE WE'RE THERE NOW.
I'LL BE THERE IN PERSON COMING BACK FROM FORT WORTH, BUT I'LL BE THERE.
I THINK WE HAVE EVERYBODY THAT'S CURRENTLY FROM THE PC SIDE.
IT'S JUST ZAP ONLY HAS ONE MEMBER.
[01:40:01]
WE WE'RE GONNA BE PRESENT.THAT'LL GIVE US FOUR, THAT GIVES US QUORUM, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO I GUESS VICE CHAIR, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE RUNNING LATE OR NEED ME TO GET, UH, IF YOU CAN GIVE ME ABOUT 30 MINUTES NOTICE, UH, IF PERHAPS YOU'RE RUNNING LATE, I DON'T KNOW IF, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD EVEN JOIN US IF YOU WERE, BUT
ANYWAY, LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED, IF YOU NEED HELP, I WILL.
BUT YOU'RE PLANNING ON BEING THERE? YES.
UM, CON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX OR COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, ANY UPDATES? UH, UM, I THINK BOTH.
I THINK I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE LEFT
UM, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MEETING NEXT THURSDAY, BUT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY I JUST REALIZED I CAN'T ATTEND, SO WE MAY NOT MEET QUORUM FOR THAT, SO.
HOPEFULLY, UH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADD SOME PEOPLE ONTO THAT JOINT COMMITTEE SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HIT QUORUM.
AND WE HAD, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON KIND OF FILLING IN FOR THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? UM, YEAH.
ANYTHING?
AND LASTLY, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
I THINK WE LOST OUR MEMBER THERE.
IS THAT STILL ACTIVE? THAT BOARD.
SO WE'LL NEED TO PUT SOMEBODY ON THAT.
AND WE HAD, UM, YEAH, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DUPLEX IS WORKING GROUP.
UM, WE KICKED THAT OFF THE LAST TIME.
ANYTHING TO UPDATE ON THAT WORKING GROUP? NOPE.
DESIGN GUIDELINE, UPDATE, WORKING GROUP, ANYTHING THERE BY SHARON HEK? UM, NOTHING NEW TO SHARE, BUT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE, THE SECTIONS OF THE, THE, UH, OKAY.
DRAFT AND PALM DISTRICT WORKING GROUP.
I'LL SAY WE'RE WAITING TILL SOUTH BY TO END.
UH, A LOT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS ARE VERY BUSY RIGHT NOW, BUT WE WILL ENGAGE WITH THEM PROBABLY NEXT WEEK OR THE FOLLOWING WEEK.
UM, SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THE UPDATES.
AND DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FROM COMMISSIONERS, CHAIR, COMMISSION, LAY LIAISON, ANDREW RIVERA.
IF WE CAN, UM, SELECT A MEMBER, UH, TO BE A TEMPORARY SECRETARY FOR THE EVENING.
I'M GOING TO RELY ON MY SENIOR MEMBER HERE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
UM, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? WE DO.
LET'S TAKE A VOTE FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UH, TO THE ROLE OF SECRETARY.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. RIVERA? ALL RIGHT.
I AM ADJOURNING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.