[Call to Order]
[00:00:07]
FOR THE TUESDAY, APRIL 4TH, 2023.
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE ARE MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
OKAY, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES.
COMMISSIONER DAVID FOUTS HERE.
AND IT'S DAVE, NOT DAVID? YES.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, VICE CHAIR GREENBERG.
COMMISSIONER CHAIR HANK SMITH.
AND COMMISSIONER SECRETARY THOMPSON? YES.
UM, GOING THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM
[Consent Agenda]
ONE, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21ST, 2023.UM, ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 22 DASH 1 59, STANDING ROCK RESIDENTIAL IN DISTRICT 10 AT 57 15 STANDING ROCK DRIVE.
IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM RR TO SF ONE C AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM THAT WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, ITEM THREE IS A REZONING C 14 20 22 DASH OH 1 43 76 11 JESTER BOULEVARD, REZONING DISTRICT 10 AT 76 11 JESTER BOULEVARD.
THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AS WELL.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS SF FIVE.
THE REQUEST IS FROM SF TWO TO SF SIX.
ITEM FOUR IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 AT 98 15 AND 98 17 ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
THIS IS, UH, FROM L R C O TO CS STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS L R C O AND THAT IS THE DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM FIVE C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 0 6 WIND LANE, SINGLE FAMILY AND DISTRICT FIVE.
THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM MH TO SF THREE.
AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM SIX S P 2018 DASH 0 92 C R ONE THE GREENS AT COOPER LANE REVISION DISTRICT TWO.
THAT IS A APPROVAL OF A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
ITEM SEVEN S P ZERO ZERO DASH 2186 C R FIVE CENTER PARK AT TECH RIDGE DISTRICT ONE THAT IS AN APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LARGE RETAIL USE SITE REVISION THAT IS ON CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM EIGHT HAS BEEN POSTED IN ERROR, SO I WILL NOT READ THAT ONE INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NINE IS CJ 2022 DASH OH 3 51 WHISPER VALLEY MULTIFAMILY PARCELS THREE AND FOUR.
UH, THAT IS A RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS PER EXHIBIT C AND THAT IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN.
ITEM 10 IS THE SUBDIVISION C8 20 23 0 36 0 8 VERANDA APARTMENTS APPROVAL OF A SERVICE DETENTION REQUEST FOR 250 FEET OF 12 INCH WATERLINE AND 200 OR 270 FEET OF EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FOR A ONE LOT FINAL PLAT ON 18.04 ACRES.
AND THAT IS DISAPPROVAL WITH THE REASONS AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT C.
SO DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE THE MINUTES.
ITEM SEVEN, ITEM NINE IS RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT C.
ITEM 10 IS DISAPPROVAL WITH, UH, COMMENTS PER EXHIBIT C.
AND THEN ITEM EIGHT WAS POSTED IN ERROR, SO IT WAS NOT BE DISCUSSED.
AND THAT IS S P 2021 DASH OH TWO EIGHT C.
YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE ITEMS AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE COMMISSION, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED.
[2. Rezoning: C14-2022-0159 - Standing Rock Residential; District 10]
TWO, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH OH 59, STANDING ROCK RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10.DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
SHERRY CERIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS CASE C 14 20 22 1 59 STANDING ROCK RESIDENTIAL.
THE REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 57 15 STANDING ROCK DRIVE AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SF ONE CO ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WILL LIMIT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL RR ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
[00:05:01]
IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE LIMITED TO 31.6% AND THE FOLLOWING USES WILL BE PROHIBITED ON THE SITE BED AND BREAKFAST AND CONSERVATION.THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SF ONE CO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LARGE LOT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND ARE OUR ZONING SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SF ONE CO ZONING TO BRING THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH IN REGARDS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS, THIS STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SF ONE ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE SF ONE ZONING DISTRICT AT IS AS IT IS LOCATED IN A LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT SLOPES IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS.
THE LOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A 1.08 ACRE, UH, PROPERTY THAT WILL MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT AT, OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE SF ONE DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED SF ONE ZONING WILL PERMIT A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 40% VERSUS THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 25%, WHICH IS PERMITTED IN THE RR DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ADD A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO LIMIT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE PROPERTY TO 31.6% TO BRING THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN THE CODE.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'LL HEAR A SIX MINUTE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT UP TWO SIX MINUTES.
UH, VICTORIA HASI WITH THOROUGH DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UM, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE ZONING MAP.
UM, THE REZONING IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY, UM, TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH REGARDS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE PROPERTY ACHIEVED BUILDING PERMITS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN 2017 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS.
AND IT'S BEEN FOUND THAT, UM, THE ARCHITECT AND THE BUILDER FOR THE PROJECT SUBMITTED PLANS ALLEGEDLY WITH MISCALCULATIONS AND IMPERVIOUS COVER RESULTING IN DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT IS OVER THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT ALLOWED BY THE RR ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, SO THIS, UH, THIS IS A TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE HAVE, SO WE'VE APPLIED FOR, UH, REZONING TO SF ONE.
UM, BUT AS YOU HEARD STAFF SAY, WE ALSO ARE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL KEEP ALL OF THE RR SITE DEVELOPMENT S SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITH EXCEPTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVERS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE COLUMN ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, IT MATCHES THE COLUMN ON THE FAR RIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH EXCEPTION OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SF ONE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF I 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THAT IS THE NUMBER NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ONSITE TODAY IN ADDITION TO, UH, FIXING A DRIVEWAY ISSUE, UM, THAT HAS BECOME A MAINTENANCE ISSUE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE NEARBY LANDOWNERS.
SO THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT TRACT OUTLINED IN BLUE.
UM, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND A FEW OF THE OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STANDING ROCK IS THEY DO HAVE A SHARED USE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT THAT IS THE WHITE ROADWAY THAT YOU SEE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LOT.
UM, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO A PERSONAL DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS UP TO THE HOUSE.
AND THE, UM, YOU CAN TELL THAT PERSONAL DRIVEWAY HAS TWO DRIVEWAY STRIPS AND THERE'S A, UM, SPACE IN BETWEEN THOSE STRIPS.
THAT SPACE IS WHAT IS NEEDED, UM, TO BE REPAIRED.
AND IT IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF, WE'RE ASKING FOR 31.6% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, AND I'M, I'M GONNA PASS IT OVER TO RON AND HE'S GONNA ACTUALLY WALK YOU THROUGH THE SURVEY AND SOME OF THE NUMBERS AND THE CALCULATIONS AND WE ARE AVAILABLE.
UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS RON THROWER REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR SURVEY CAME TO, UH, US ABOUT, UH, A MONTH AGO.
AND WITH IT IS SIMILAR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREVIOUS SURVEY.
THE PREVIOUS SURVEY THAT WE HAD SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION UNDER ACTUALLY APPEARED TO HAVE SOME ERRORS IN IT.
UM, AND THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.
AND SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE IS CLEARLY THIS IS A MAYA CULPA SITUATION.
PRIMARILY, OUR CLIENT DID NOT MAKE THE CHOICES TO HAVE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BUILT ON HIS PROPERTY.
OUR CLIENT DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICES TO HAVE, UM, A, A MAINTENANCE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY.
[00:10:01]
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOLVING WITH THIS REZONING REQUEST AND CAPPING THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AT 31.6.SO THERE'S A LITTLE NOTCH DOWN AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S SHOWN IN PINK, AND THAT IS AN AREA WHERE CARS ACTUALLY PARK.
THAT IS ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT THE SURVEYOR DIDN'T PICK UP, BUT WE WANT TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE IT.
WE ACTUALLY PARKED THERE WHEN WE WENT, WENT AND DID OUR SITE VISIT.
AND THEN THE AREA IN GREEN IS THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY.
THERE'S GRAVEL IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THE GARAGE AREA INTO THIS DRIVEWAY, YOU KINDA LOSE SIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT'S A HILL TOO.
AND SO CARS ARE CONSTANTLY DRIVING OVER THESE GRAVEL AREAS AND THEY'RE JUST ROLLING DOWN THE HILL EVERY WEEKEND.
OUR CLIENTS OUT THERE WITH A BUCKET AND A SHOVEL HAULING GRAVEL BACK UP THE HILL.
AND WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO SOLVE THE SITUATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT GRASS IS GOING TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE HERE, JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU HAVE CARS THAT KINDA LOSE THE SIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY AS THEY'RE COMING OUT AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE DRIVING IN THE GRASS.
AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A DIFFERENT KIND OF MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE FOR OUR CLIENT.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR 31.6 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO SOLVE THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE TO SOLVE THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ISSUE.
AND THAT GIVES US A BUFFER OF 159 SQUARE FEET.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THIS SHOULD BE A VARIANCE.
UM, WHY DIDN'T THIS CASE GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON SITUATIONS LIKE THIS? UH, WE, WE ADVISE OUR CLIENTS TO TRY AND SOLVE IT BY ZONING INSTEAD OF GOING TO GET A ZONING VARIANCE VARIANTS.
IT SEEMS LIKE A MISUSE OF THE ZONING PROCESS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A QUESTION.
UH, QUESTION IN THE SIMILAR VEIN.
YOU KNOW, YOU DID STATE THAT, UH, THIS IS A SORT OF MEA CULPA SITUATION AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, THAT YOUR CLIENT DID NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE A, A HIGH MAINTENANCE DRIVEWAY.
UM, BUT I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, DID THE CLIENT NOT CHOOSE OR APPROVE ANY ASPECTS OF THIS DESIGN? AND, AND SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHY ISN'T THIS BEING SOLVED THROUGH DESIGN, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO A VARIANCE OR ZONING? WHY NOT SIMPLY REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE? FIRST OF ALL, OUR CLIENT IS A OPTOMETRIST OPHTHALMOLOGIST.
HE'S A, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY NOT DEALING IN THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY.
HE PUT HIS, HE PUT THE DESIGN OF THIS IN THE HANDS OF PROFESSIONALS THAT HE TRUSTED.
I IMAGINE THE CLIENT WAS PROBABLY MORE INTERESTED IN THE HOUSE THAN HE WAS THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS HOW TO SOLVE THIS OUTSIDE OF GOING THROUGH ZONING OR EVEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING A PORTION OF THE HOUSE TO TRY AND MAKE THIS TO BE INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, ZONING OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I GUESS WE COULD GO EITHER WAY.
UH, BUT AGAIN, MY CHOICE IS TO SOLVE IT BY ZONING VERSUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AND, UH, I, I IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, I I DISAGREE NE YOU KNOW, THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE REMOVING PART OF THE HOUSE.
UM, LOOKING AT THE AERIAL PHOTOS YOU SHARED AND THE SURVEY, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARDSCAPE ON THE SITE.
THERE IS THE PARKING AREA ADJACENT TO THE SHARED DRIVE THAT YOU MENTIONED.
SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR REDUCING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BY REMOVING, UH, CONCRETE OR, OR FLAT WORK OR OTHER HARDSCAPE ON THE SITE AND NOT NECESSARILY IMPACTING THE, THE HOME ITSELF.
THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION, FEEL FREE TO RESPOND, BUT MORE A COMMENT.
I AGREE, LIKE IT SOUNDS VERY INCONVENIENT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS LIKE AN EASY WAY OUT TO SOLVE THESE ISSUES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, I MEAN THE R R ZONING, I'VE ALWAYS KINDA LOOKED AT IT AS, AS VERY RURAL ZONING.
SF ONE IS THE LEAST IMPACT OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND, UM, IT'S A MORE, MORE COMMON ZONING IN THESE AREAS.
[00:15:01]
R R IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL ZONING, IT'S ALMOST A TEMPER INTERIM WHEN YOU FIRST BRING IN, YOU BROUGHT IN AS INTERIM OR R CUZ RR IS JUST KIND OF A, A BEGINNING ZONING.UM, SO SF ONE IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE SOMETHING NEEDED.
A, A WALKWAY TO A STORAGE SHED, A STORAGE SHED, A AC PAD.
THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE NEEDED.
SO HAVING THAT LITTLE FLUFF TO ME IS APPROPRIATE.
UM, SO I I AGREE WITH THE SF ONE ZONING, UM, COMMISSION CHAIR.
I'M ALSO COMFORTABLE WITH THE SF ONE ZONING.
AS FAR AS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT BUILD, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE EXTRA PERCENTAGE.
I THINK EVEN WITH THE EXTRA PERCENTAGE, THERE'S STILL A EXTRA 150 SQUARE FEET OF WIGGLE ROOM.
AND MAYBE MR. THROWER CAN CONFIRM THAT.
BUT 625 SQUARE FEET, IT'S THE HIGH, IT'S THE SIZE OF A SMALL HOME.
UM, THAT STRIP OF GRAVEL IS 624 SQUARE FEET, I BELIEVE.
AND, AND I DO THINK THERE ARE PERVIOUS SOLUTIONS FOR PROBLEMS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT ON AS A PROJECT TO SOLVE A LANDSCAPING INCONVENIENCE.
AND, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE SF ONE WITH CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, BUT NOT THE ADDITIONAL 624 SQUARE FEET FOR THE DRIVEWAY STRIP.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND AGAIN, THE, THE ONLY CAUTION I WOULD HAVE IS IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE SOMETHING ADDED ON A STORAGE SHED A WALKWAY TO THE STORAGE.
SHE AND I SAW A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHERE A WOMAN WAS TRYING TO ADD A WALKWAY TO A STORAGE SHED AND SHE COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THE ZONING WAS, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS SO TIGHT THAT THEY HAD LIMITED HER AND SHE WAS UNABLE.
SHE WAS AN MELODY WOMAN AND JUST WANTED A CONCRETE WALKWAY SO SHE DIDN'T SLIP AND FALL.
UM, AND SO I'M TRYING TO AVOID THOSE THINGS IS WHY I, I THINK THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, IS JUSTIFIABLE IN THIS CASE, BUT IT'S OVER, THAT'S MY OPINION.
14,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALREADY IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO I HEAR A MOTION
I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR SF ONE WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS IT'S OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FLOYD.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SO THE MOTION IS APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO RESTRICT IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, AS OUTLINED IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL.
CHAIR COMMISSION, LEE AND ANDREW, IF WE COULD STATE IT FOR THE RECORD? THE PERCENTAGE.
UH, 30 POINT 31.6% IS THE PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 OPPOSED? SO THE MOTION FAILS.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE, WHO MADE THE MOTION AND WHO, UH, VOTED YES.
COMMISSIONER STERN MADE THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER FLOYD, UM, SECONDED IT.
AND THEN THE SUPPORT WAS COMMISSIONER STERN, COMMISSIONER FLOYD, CHAIRMAN SMITH AND COMMISSIONER FAU WERE IN SUPPORT.
OPPOSED WAS COMMISSIONER FLORES, COMMISSIONER, UM, GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
AND THEN ON THE TV COMMISSIONERS BOONE, UM,
UM, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE THEN WE NEED TO HAVE IT CAN GO FORWARD WITH, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, IT CAN GO FORWARD WITH NO MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A DIFFERENT ONE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR SF ONE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS PROPOSED WITH ONE MODIFICATION FROM 31.6 TO 30.6 WITH THE INCLUDED PROHIBITIONS FOR BED AND BREAKFAST AND CONSERVATION SINGLE FAMILY.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SO IN FAVOR IS COMMISSIONER FOUT, COMMISSIONER FLORES, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER FLOYD, COMMISSIONER STERN AND ON TV COMMISSIONERS KIELBASA AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
[00:20:01]
IS COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.COMMISSIONER SMITH AND COMMISSIONER STERN IS, I MEAN, I'M SORRY.
UM, COMMISSIONER BOONE BOONE BOONE.
SO, UH, GREENBURG SMITH AND BOONE OPPOSED? BOONE ABSTAINS.
[3. Rezoning: C14-2022-0143 - 7611 Jester Boulevard Rezone; District 10]
C 14 20 22 DASH OH 1 4 30 76 11 JESTER BOULEVARD, A ZONING CASE FROM SF TWO TO SF SIX.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SFI AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF
AGAIN, THIS IS CASE C 14 20 22 1 43 LOCATED AT 76 11 JESTER BOULEVARD.
THE REQUEST IS FROM SF TWO TO SF SIX ZONING, THE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDING SF FIVE, WHICH IS THE URBAN FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHOUT BUILDINGS.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST AND UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHICH IS MOSTLY THE BAR COUNTY'S CANYON LAND PRESERVE WITH SLOPES TO THE EAST.
IN THIS APPLICATION, THE OWNER IS REQUESTING SS SIX OWNING TO ADD A SINGLE SECOND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE BASIS OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AS FALL AS THE PRO PRO ZONING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT'S SLOT.
THE URBAN FAMILY RESIDENT OR SF FIVE DISTRICT IS INTENDED AS AN AREA PREDOMINANTLY FOR MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WITH A MINIMUM OF 57 50 SQUARE FEET IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS, LIMITED TO TWO FAMILY DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE, AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE STANDARDS THAT MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS.
THE ZONING CHANGES SHOULD NOT PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY OR SHOULD PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES AND SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
THE SF SI SF FIVE ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FRONTS ONTO AND TAKES ACCESS TO JESTER BOULEVARD, WHICH IS A LEVEL TWO COLLECTOR ROADWAY.
ACCORDING TO THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO ACCESS MORE THAN A RESIDENTIAL STREET, A LEVEL TWO OR ABOVE, WHICH THIS DOES AND IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
AND THEN ZONING SHOULD ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED SF FIVE ZONING DISTRICT WILL BRING THE PERMANENT, WILL PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR A FAMILY MEMBER.
THE ADDITION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THIS SITE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS ALLOWED AS OUTLINED IN THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT AND OTHER COUNCIL APPROVED ACTIONS WERE THERE CURRENTLY ENCOURAGING MORE DENSITY IN THE CITY.
AND SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I'M GONNA MAKE ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION THAT ON MARCH 9TH, 2023, THE PROPERTY HONOR AMENDED THEIR APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE REZONING CASE FROM 11.929 ACRES TO 0.8647 ACRES.
SO WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS JUST THE 0.8647, NOT THE ORIGINAL 11.92 NINES IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
WE ARE CONSIDERING UNDER AN ACRE NOW INSTEAD OF 11 PLUS.
AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT THERE WOULD BE, UH, I'M SORRY,
IF YOU HAVE QUESTION, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO THE, I I JUST, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS.
I, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO THE S F FIVE WOULD APPLY TO THOSE 0.8 ACRES AND, AND AN 11 UNIT, 11 UNITS OR SOME MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF UNITS.
THE MAXIMUM FOR THIS YES PROPERTY, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS YOU CAN GET UNDER THE SF FIVE DISTRICT, WHETHER IT BE SINGLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM OR TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL, IF YOU LOOK AT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 10 UNITS.
SO THIS PROPERTY, I'M SORRY, BUT THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IT WAS LIKE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN ADU SITUATION.
SO I, I'M A LITTLE CON, I'M JUST CONFUSED BY THE PRESENTATION AND THE MATERIALS.
SO I DID PULL THE APPLICATION PER UH, THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WAS MENTIONED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IN HER EMAILS TO ME.
I PULLED THE APPLICATION, THAT'S WHAT I COULD FIND.
AND THE REQUEST WAS FOR A GUEST HOUSE, WHICH IS A FULL RESIDENCE.
UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 1,800 SQUARE FEET WAS WHAT THE APPLICATION WAS REQUIRE REQUESTING FOR.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE REQUESTED THROUGH RESIDENCE.
THIS STILL BE UNDER THE ADU LIMIT, RIGHT? 11 HUNDREDS.
THE AU UH, 1100 IS THE ADU LIMIT.
SO I THINK IT WOULD EXCEED THAT.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A, ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, BUT THEY WANT ZONING FOR 10 UNITS.
[00:25:01]
SO THE REQUEST IS FOR SF SIX ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE UNITS? YES.AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR CLUSTERING TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY.
IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR 10% MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO I, YOU WOULD NEED TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT IS TO THEIR REASONING FOR THEIR REQUEST FOR SF SIX INSTEAD OF A LESSER DISTRICT.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING AT THIS POINT.
AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES.
THERE IS BALCONES PRES PRESERVE LAND, WHICH IS FURTHER TO THE EAST.
UM, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THEY'VE SHRUNKEN THE BOUNDARIES DOWN TO THIS LESS THAN ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, UH, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT QUALIFIES AS A CENTRAL URBAN, UH, YEAH, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT DISTINCTION OF UH, UH, CENTRAL URBAN INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD SF FIVE VERSUS THE FAMILY ZONING OF SF THREE.
SO SF FIVE AND SS SIX DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY, HONESTLY.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THESE DISTRICTS IS TO DEAL WITH PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR HAVE ISSUES.
A LOT OF TIMES IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CLUSTER THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE IDEA BETWE BEHIND USING AN SF FIVE OR AN SF SIX DISTRICT IS THAT THEY CAN HAVE A JOINT ACCESS DRIVEWAY FOR UNITS.
AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE ONE PRIMARY ACCESS ONTO THE ROADWAY INSTEAD OF IF YOU DID A LESSER SF FOUR, SF THREE, SF TWO DISTRICT, THOSE WOULD REQUIRE TO HAVE, EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE PRIMARY ROADWAY.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR CLUSTERING OF UNITS AND THEN NOT HAVING AS MANY ACCESS POINT AND NOT HAVING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS.
BUT THAT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR AN ADU SETUP.
SO, BUT IN THIS CASE, LIKE I SAID, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE IT'S AN A D U, BUT ONCE I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT, IT WAS OVER THE ADU U REQUIREMENT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR COMMISSIONER KLAA
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
YES, SCREW KEEPERS, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
I THINK I CAN DEFINITELY SHED LIGHT ON, UM, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP ALREADY.
UM, I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, AMAN BOND, WHO IS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY, UM, AND IS BUILDING A GUEST HOUSE FOR HIS MOTHER WHO, UM, NEEDS EXTRA CARE AND FULL-TIME HEALTH AND SUPPORT.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED FOR THAT.
UM, SO THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ADU.
SO SHE DOES FIT INTO THAT AFFIDAVIT CATEGORY.
UM, WE HAVE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE, UM, WE HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
EVERYBODY'S HAPPY WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO DO IS REALLY JUST GET THE ZONING, UM, ACROSS THE BOARD AS SF SIX.
WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED WHEN WE SPOKE WITH MAYOR PRO TEMS TEAM, UM, SPECIFICALLY MR. KURT, UM, HER CHIEF OF STAFF IS TO PUT TOGETHER A DEED RESTRICTION.
NOT THAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING THIS, BUT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY, UM, IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UM, BUT WE'RE PUTTING, WE'VE ALREADY DRAFTED A DEED RESTRICTION JUST STATING THAT NO ADDITIONAL UNITS OUTSIDE OF THE TWO UNITS WILL BE BUILT IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
UM, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S DRAFTED AND WE CAN GIVE TO SHERRY ONCE IT'S, UM, RECORDED UNDER, UM, TRAVIS COUNTY.
UM, WITH THAT, THE CITY, UM, MAYOR PROTON'S OFFICE AND THE COMMUNITY SEEM TO BE VERY HAPPY WITH US AND, UM, COMFORTABLE WITH THE REZONING CASE.
AND WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY SIX OR FIVE, WE WOULD PREFER SIX, BUT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIVE.
UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO JUST THE ZONING CASE IN GENERAL, THE DRIVEWAY, UM, FROM A FIRE SAFETY ASPECT, I JUST WANNA MENTION BECAUSE IT IS AN EASEMENT RIGHT NOW, AND IN ORDER TO EVEN HAVE MORE THAN TWO HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY AT ALL, HE, THE OWNER WILL HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT A COMPLETELY NEW DRIVEWAY THAT'S NOT AN EASEMENT AND SHARED, UM, AND WOULD COST QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.
AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE COULD BE DONE.
AND HE'S NOT ANTICIPATING DOING ANYTHING WITH HIS PROPERTY FOR 10 YEARS.
SEE IF, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, THAT'S REALLY WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU GUYS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HAPPY THE OWNER IS HERE AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER.
JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAY MAYOR PROTE, WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? UM, ALLISON.
[00:30:01]
NOW, BUT, SORRY,BETWEEN DISTRICT EIGHT AND 10 IS LIKE, NOPE, NOT EIGHT.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, THE OPPOSITION MR. JOHN COOK.
MR. COOK ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES IN 1988.
I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE KEY HISTORY HERE.
THE HOUSE IS SET ON A LANDFILL.
IT WAS BUILT BY JESTER LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE LATE EIGHTIES AND EARLY NINETIES.
IT WAS BUILT BADLY AND NOT ENGINEERED.
ON PAGE TWO, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY PROFILE AND I DON'T HAVE ANY DISPUTE WITH THIS.
ON PAGE THREE, THIS TRACT IS PART OF A TRACK THAT HAS EXTREME FIRE RISK TO MY HOUSE, MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES, AND ALL THE PARTS OF ADJUSTER THAT ARE NORTH OF US BECAUSE OF THE PREVAILING SOUTHERNLY WINDS AND THE STEEP SLOPES ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
DESPITE WHAT THE CITY SAYS, THERE ARE JUSTER WILDLANDS, I'M SORRY, AUSTIN WILDLAND TRACKS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
ALSO, THE AREA ADJOINING THE UH, AUSTIN WILDLAND TRACK IS VERY STEEP.
IT'S A GREATER THAN 15% SLOPE.
IT SHOWS UP IF YOU TURN ON THAT FILTER IN YOUR TOOL.
KEY POINTS ABOUT THE TRACK, THERE'S A 40 VERTICAL FOOT DROP FROM JESTER TO THE 900 FOOT ABOVE SEA LEVEL CONTOUR BOUNDARY AND LEFT AN 80 FEET HORIZONTALLY.
THE CURRENT ACCESS TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY RUNNING ALONG JESTER HAS A GUARDRAIL PUT UP BY THE CITY IN THE EIGHTIES BECAUSE OF THE STEEP SLOPE.
THE THE EASEMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
YOU COULDN'T GET A GARBAGE TRUCK DOWN THERE.
IT RUNS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
THE OWNER IS BUILDING A LARGE HOUSE.
UH, Y'ALL SAID 1800 SQUARE FEET.
OUR RECORDS SHOW IT'S 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
I ADJUSTED THE PROPERTY PROFILE TO HAND DRAW ON PAGE FIVE, A BOUNDARY THAT SHOWS ROUGHLY THE AREA OF THE LANDFILL.
THIS LANDFILL WAS PUT IN BY JESTER LAND MANAGEMENT WHEN THEY BUILT OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY THE MORE NORTHERN PARTS.
IT HAS MORE THAN 80 VERTICAL FEET OF SOIL, ROCKS, TREES, TRUNKS, BRUSH, TRASH, CONSTRUCTION, TRASH, NOT ENGINEERED, NOT COMPRESSED.
THE CURRENT HOUSE THAT, UH, IS THERE IS BUILT ON COLUMNS THAT EXTEND 25 TO 45 FEET DOWN TO HIT EXISTING SUB SOIL.
AND IT'S JAMMED WAY BACK AS YOU SEE ON THE LEFT, WHICH IS WEST AWAY FROM THE VIEW, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THAT STEEP DROP OFF BECAUSE IT WAS HUGELY DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE TO BUILD A SLAB THERE.
ANY MORE CONSTRUCTION ON THERE IS ALL GONNA BE BUILT ON THIS UN ENGINEERED SOIL.
THE ONLY REASON THERE'S SS SIX ON THIS PROPERTY AT ALL IS BECAUSE OF LAZINESS AND HISTORY FROM THE EIGHTIES.
THIS LAND WAS ZONED SS SIX DECADES AGO.
IT WAS A LANDFILL THAT WAS UNDER DR AT THE TIME.
AND SOMEHOW WHEN IT GOT TURNED INTO A LOT AND SOLD BY JESTER LAND MANAGEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL BUYER, KEVIN KANEY, THEY SOMEHOW SLIPPED IN THAT IT WAS AN FF SF SIX LOT.
THE ADU ON THE SLOT IS GOING TO SIT ALSO ON DEEP FILL AND IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE SAME KIND OF SLAP COLUMNS AS THE OTHER HOUSE ON PAGE SEVEN.
THERE'S A LOT OF RISKS OF HAVING CONCENTRATED ZONING, WHETHER IT'S S F FIVE, SS SIX OR OR MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE OF THIS LANDFILL, YOU GUYS NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS THIS PROPERTY IS TO ANYBODY THAT BUYS IT AND EVERYBODY THAT LIVES AROUND IT.
DESPITE WHAT MS. SWA SAID, OR, OR I'M SORRY, MS. KEEPERS, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT ALL HAPPY ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT PACKAGE, YOU HAVE A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WROTE IN AS PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT HOW BAD THIS IS AND HOW MUCH THEY OPPOSE IT.
I HAVEN'T MET ANYBODY WHO'S HAPPY WITH IT.
SHE MUST RUN IN DIFFERENT CIRCLES THAN ME.
THERE'S EVEN WORSE FIRE DAMAGE.
IF THEY BUILD MORE HOUSES, THERE'S MORE CHANCES TO CAUSE COMBUSTION, WHICH WILL THEN SWEEP UP THE HILLS AND CAUSE OTHER DAMAGE.
THERE'S DANGEROUS INGRESS AND EGRESS THROUGH THAT EXISTING EASEMENT AND IT'S GONNA BE HUGELY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD ANY KIND OF DRIVEWAY OR
[00:35:01]
OR EGRESS FOR FIRE TRUCKS.THERE'S ALREADY A DEPARTMENT COMPLEX NEAR US ON 360 THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BASICALLY SAID Y'ALL CAN'T EVER REBUILD THE UNIT THAT BURNED DOWN CAUSE THE STOKES SLOPES TO SLIPS STEEP AND WE CAN'T REACH IT.
THE OTHER DANGERS THOUGH ARE THE SEWER, WATER, AND ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FOR ANY NEW HOUSES.
THAT LANDFILL IS DANGEROUS TO PUT CONDUIT WATER PIPES, SEWER PIPES INTO IT.
SO MY RECOMMENDATIONS IS THIS IS NO PLACE FOR ANY TOWNHOUSE, ANY CONDO, ANY ADU U ANYTHING NEW.
IT'S DANGEROUS, IT'LL HAVE UNSAFE FOUNDATIONS.
UM, YOU NEED TO PLEASE DENY THIS CHANGE.
I THINK YOU SHOULD GO FURTHER THAN JUST DENYING THE CHANGE.
I THINK YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE REST OF THE LOT, WHICH WAS INCORRECTLY DONE.
IF THAT'S NOT IN YOUR CHARTER TONIGHT, PLEASE SPIN THE CITY UP AND ASK THEM TO GO LOOK INTO THAT.
UM, I ALSO THINK THAT YOU SHOULD PUT A, UH, A CO ON THIS PROPERTY TO RESTRICT BED AND BREAKFAST AND SHORT TERM RENTALS ON THE CURRENT HOUSE AND ON ANY ADU THAT MIGHT GET BUILT.
I ALSO HAVE AN OBJECTION TO A 10-YEAR DE RESTRICTION THAT GOT POPPED OUT ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT WASN'T IN ANYTHING UNTIL TONIGHT.
IT'S SOME TRANSACTIONAL OFFER TO Y'ALL THAT I THINK SHE SAID IF YOU APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE, THEY'LL THEY'LL BRING THAT AND GET IT RECORDED IF THEY'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN VAGUE ABOUT HOW LONG HE'S GONNA STAY THERE.
I HEARD 20 YEARS FROM HIM TODAY, BUT HE'S ALSO TOLD ONE OF MY THANK YOU MR. COACH, TWO YEARS.
WE'LL HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT.
I'VE BEEN TO THIS PROPERTY IS BEAUTIFUL.
THE REASON WHY THE OWNER BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IS BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL.
HE WANTS TO PRESERVE EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE.
THERE'S NO LANDFILL THAT'S EVER BEEN THERE.
THAT THAT'S, AND HONESTLY, THERE'S NO TRASH AT ALL.
JUST PICKING UP WHAT WAS THERE.
UM, THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE VERY BEGINNING AND I APPRECIATE YOU MR. SMITH BRINGING THAT UP.
UM, THE APPLICATION WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THAT 0.86 ORIGINALLY.
SO WE, UM, CORRECTED THAT AND THAT'S I THINK WHAT MR. COOK IS ALLUDING TO IS WHEN WE ORIGINALLY, WHEN ORIGINALLY THE COMMUNITY SAW THAT APPLICATION, THEY OF COURSE THEY WERE UPSET CUZ THEY THOUGHT, OH, SOMEONE'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.
SO WE MADE SURE TO REFINE THAT.
AND THEN IN ADDITION, WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO, TO KURT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT THIS DEED RESTRICTION AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND, AND DID THAT FOR, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY'S SAKE SO THAT THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE.
UM, AND SO WE FIXED THE APPLICATION AND OUT OF THAT 0.86 ACRE, UH, THERE REALLY 0.5 IS ONLY PART THAT'S BUILDABLE BECAUSE OF THE SLOPES ON THE LAND AS WELL.
AND HE ACTUALLY HAD TO MAKE SURE TO BUILD IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ELECTRICITY ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS SAFE AND WE DID CONFIRM THERE IS A FIRE HYDRANT IN THE FRONT OF THE LAW OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FEET SO THAT IT'S SAFE ENOUGH FOR THESE TWO BUILDINGS AND A BUILDING ADDITIONALLY WOULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT QUITE A BIT OF WORK.
OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR SF SIX OVER SF FIVE.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF, YOU SAID YOU'RE OKAY WITH BOTH, BUT FOR, FOR SF SIX, UM, AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONCERNED, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THERE? HONESTLY, SINCE SF SIX IS ALREADY THERE, IT WOULD REALLY JUST BE A MATTER OF KEEPING IT THE SAME.
AND I KNOW THAT THE STAFF REALLY LIKES TO KEEP, UH, ZONING THE SAME IN GROUPS, BUT WE'RE OPEN TO BOTH.
THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.
UM, WE DID LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND, AND CLUSTERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT UM, WE'RE OPEN TO SINGLE FAMILY FIVE AS IT STANDS WITHOUT ANY CONCERNS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? I STATE COMMISSIONER KIELBASA.
YEAH, I WAS HOPING I WAS TRYING TO DEFER, BUT UM, I'M STILL HAVING A HARD TIME UNTANGLING, BUT THE PROMPT, THE ISSUE, THE PROMPTS, THIS REQUEST IS THE NEED TO BUILD A UNIT FOR AN ELDERLY FAMILY MEMBER.
BUT THEN WE'RE, BUT WE'RE ZONING FOR A 10 YEAR OUT HYPOTHETICAL 10
[00:40:01]
UNIT DEVELOPMENT.THAT, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
SO WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO ZONE FOR, FOR THAT HYPOTHETICAL WITH THE JUSTIFICATION OF NEEDING TO BUILD THIS HOME RIGHT NOW? I I'M JUST STILL, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT OR APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.
WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY FOR THE CLIENT, UM, AND WE REACHED OUT TO STAFF, WE DID NOT, UM, HEAR BACK FROM STAFF THAT WE COULD DO THE AFFIDAVIT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING OR WE WOULD'VE WENT THAT ROUTE.
SO WE COMPLETED THIS APPLICATION SO THAT WE COULD GET THAT SECOND HOUSE FOR THE, UM, OWNER'S MOTHER AND THEN THROUGH THE PROCESS FOUND OUT, OKAY, WELL WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS AFFIDAVIT.
UM, AND I DID ASK ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT, BUT THEN FOUND OUT MORE INFORMATION.
SO IT REALLY WAS JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING I THINK, ALL AROUND.
BECAUSE THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING THAT'S IN OUR PACKET IS THAT THIS SUPPORTS THE AUSTIN'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS.
AND I, I'VE JUST HAD A REALLY HARD TIME TYING ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER.
IT FEELS LIKE A LOT OF RANDOM STUFF.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? UM, ANY LINKAGE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING? UM, IS THE QUESTION, I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FOR THIS TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT, THAT WAS IN OUR BACKUP MATERIALS AS PART OF THE BASIS FOR THE ZONING REQUEST.
IS THAT IT AFFORDABLE? I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I'M, I WORK ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING A LOT.
I'M VERY PRO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOUSING, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS FITS INTO THAT.
WAS IT WAS IN OUR BACKUP MATERIAL AS PART OF THE STAFF'S DETERMINATION? I GUESS.
WELL MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UM, AS I REFERRED TO IN MY EMAIL TO YOU EARLIER, THE SF FIVE DISTRICT, IN THE FUTURE, IF THE APPLICANT OR A FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THIS PROPERTY CHOOSES TO REDEVELOP, IT WILL ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE UNITS WHICH INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE HOUSING LEVELS OF, YOU KNOW, ALSO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION FOR THE SF FIVE DISTRICT, IT SAYS IT IS SF FIVE IS MEANT TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO IN THE FUTURE, IF A PROPERTY OR HAD THIS PROPERTY AND PURCHASED IT WITH THE S F FIVE ZONING AND DECIDED TO ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT THE S F FIVE DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW THAT ABILITY.
WHILE SHERRY IS UP THERE, UM, SHERRY, COULD YOU SAY WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING S F FIVE? BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH MY CODE NEXT NOTES, UM, FROM WHEN ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS DID THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND DID A WHOLE CATALOG OF WHAT'S ZONED WHAT IN THE ENTIRE CITY.
I'M ONLY COUNTING LESS THAN 200 SF FIVE PROPERTIES.
AND I ALSO HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS DEFINITELY LESS THAN 200.
SO I DON'T EVEN SEE AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CENTRALLY LOCATED.
SO I I JUST DON'T SEE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SF FIVE HERE.
SO THE REASON THAT THE STAFF CONSIDER, WE CONSIDERED SF SIX AND THEN WE LOOKED AT IT AND THOUGHT THAT SF FIVE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SF FIVE DISTRICT AS IT WAS ON A LEVEL TWO COLLECTOR ROADWAY, WHICH IS A PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF S FFI, THAT IT HAS TO BE ON A LEVEL TWO OR ABOVE.
IT WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THIS AREA WHILE STILL MEETING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STA STANDARDS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AROUND IT.
IT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU COULD DO ON THE SITE TO 10.
AND IN THE CODE THERE'S A RESTRICTION.
THE REASON YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF S F FIVE DEVELOPMENT IS THERE'S ACTUALLY A RESTRICTION IN THE CODE THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE S F FIVE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF ANOTHER S F FIVE ZONING DISTRICT.
SO WE FELT IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR CLUSTERING JUST LIKE THE SF SIX DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, IT WOULD RESTRICT THE UNIT LIMIT TO 10 UNITS ON AN AREA WHERE THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY CONCERNS AND A DROP OFF WITH BLK COUNTY'S CANYON LAND TO THE EAST.
UM, BUT I'M STILL KIND OF, I'M, I'M THINKING WELL WHY NOT SF THREE OR SF SOMETHING OTHER THAN SF FIVE BECAUSE THAT IS JUST A WEIRD ZONING CATEGORY.
ALL IN ALL, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WENT WITH THE SF THREE DISTRICT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUB THE, DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOTS WITH INDIVIDUAL ACCESSES ONTO JESTER BOULEVARD.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A TYPE ONE DRIVEWAY INSTEAD OF A TYPE TWO DRIVEWAY, WHICH
[00:45:01]
WOULD ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE ACCESSES OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY ONTO JESTER INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS WITH INDIVIDUAL ACCESS ON ADJUSTERS.SO YOU WOULD END UP WITH MORE ACCESS POINTS ON AN AREA WHERE, AS WE KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY DROPS OFF AS IT GOES DOWN TO THIS PROPERTY TO THE EAST BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY.
SO WE FELT THE SF FIVE DISTRICT WAS A, A COMPROMISE IN BETWEEN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE APP THE APPLICANT TO DO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO ON THE SITE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHILE ALLOWING FOR CLUSTERING IN THE FUTURE IF THERE WAS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER FLORES MOTIONS MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
UH, DO I HEAR A SECOND?
DO I HEAR A MOTION IN REGARD TO THE ITEM COMMISSIONER FHELPS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITY'S REQUEST FOR SF FIVE ZONING.
OKAY, DO I HEAR A SECOND? I SECOND THAT MOTION.
UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAU AND I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FLORES.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONER STERN? UH, YES.
UM, SO FIRST I SHOULD SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING, I'M, I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF MAKING SPACE FOR THAT SECOND HOME.
AND UM, AND IF IT WAS, UH, CONFORMING ADU WE'D BE DONE WITH THIS.
UM, MY CONCERN, UH, GOES BACK TO PREVIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OFF OF 2222.
THIS IS NOT URBAN CENTER, IT'S PRACTICALLY, UM, PRESERVED LAND OVER THERE, UM, ACROSS THE STREET.
WE WERE JUST ARGUING ABOUT SF ONE AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SF FIVE.
NOW I KNOW THAT THEY MAY ONLY WANT TO BUILD ONE HOUSE NOW, BUT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD 10 IN THAT AREA AND THEN THE REST OF THE AREA AROUND THEM COULD ALSO GET UPZONE.
THERE'S PRECEDENT IN SETTING SO, SO HIGH, UM, A ZONING CATEGORY THERE.
AND UM, AND SO EVEN IF UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS SUGGESTED THAT WE CAN'T REALLY AMEND SF THREE TO ALLOW FOR THE LARGER ADU, I WOULD WANNA LOOK AT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT PERMANENTLY SAYS TWO UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.
WE'LL HAVE A WHOLE DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES AFTER IT.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS PART OF TOWN IS NOT TRANSIT CONNECTED.
THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE FOR CENTRAL URBAN LIFE.
UM, THIS IS, UH, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND COUNTRYSIDE RESIDENT.
AND I, I WOULD WANNA STICK WITH UM, WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND KEEPING IT IN THAT WAY.
SO, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO UM, UM, ADD A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO MAINTAIN TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY CAN COME BACK HERE IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
IS THAT DOABLE? AMENDMENTS AREN'T REALLY FRIENDLY.
UM, BUT I WILL SECOND THAT AMENDMENT AND WE CAN VOTE ON IT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REZONE THE PROPERTY IF YOU PUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON IT WITHOUT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
OH THEY WEREN'T TO PUT 10 UNITS ON.
WOULD THEY COME BACK BEFORE US WITH A SITE PLAN? NO, CUZ IT WOULD NOT BE A CONDITIONAL USE.
WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE? DRIVEWAY ACCESS.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS BASICALLY FOR THAT NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY THROUGH SITE PLAN.
THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO JUST LOOKING AT THE SITE.
BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA GET 10 UNITS BECAUSE OF ALL THE ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY.
NOTABLY THERE'S PROBABLY CS, WE KNOW THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S A VERY SMALL PORTION.
SO LIKE GETTING A SITE PLAN THERE WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
BUT IF THEY'RE ALREADY GONNA GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF BUILDING A DRIVEWAY FOR FIRE ACCESS, LIKE I DON'T SEE WHY NOT.
CAN I, CAN I FOLLOW UP WITH A ANOTHER CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF? UM, WITH SF FIVE ZONING MM-HMM
IT ALLOWS FOR DUPLEXES, IT ALLOWS FOR TIME HOMES AND ALLOWS FOR CONDOMINIUMS. SURE.
THAT'S JUST THE ORDER OF THINGS IN THE PERMITTED USE CHART.
SO THEY WOULD JUST GO THROUGH IF THEY WERE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THIS POINT A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING PROCESS.
MM-HMM
AND TO CLARIFY IF THEY WERE TO ADD MORE THAN THREE IN TOTAL OR MORE THAN THREE
[00:50:01]
AT A TIME IN TOTAL.THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A MOTION PENDING FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION LIMITING IT TO NO MORE THAN TWO UNITS ON THIS SITE.
WE'LL TAKE UP THAT MOTION AND SECOND, FIRST, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? AND SECOND CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES AND AM ROSA, YOU'RE ONLY TAKING UP THE CONDITION OF THE TWO UNITS AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE JUST TAKING UP THE AMENDMENT.
CAUSE IT WAS JUST AN AMENDMENT.
SO WE'RE ONLY TAKING UP LIMITING THE SITE TO TWO UNITS, NOT THE CHANGING THE ZONING.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF LIMITING IT TO TWO UNITS.
JUST CHANGING THE MOTION TO WELL, OKAY.
SO, UH, EVERYONE IS IN FAVOR WITH COMMISSIONER FLORES.
UH, THIS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SO EVERYONE WILL SUPPORT COMMISSIONER FLORES WAS ABSTAINING.
NOW I GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION OF CHANGING IT TO SF FIVE WITH THE TWO UNITS WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, THAT'S ALREADY DONE.
SO THE LIMITED TWO UNITS IS DONE.
SO THIS IS JUST THE BASE MOTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF UH, LIMITED TO SF FIVE.
SO ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE THE AMENDED MOTION OF SF FIVE CO SF FIVE CO WITH, WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
LIMITED THE PROPERTY TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SO BASICALLY WHAT'S IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ADDITION WITH WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON.
HAVE A GOOD DON'T GO ANYWHERE.
[4. Rezoning: C14-2023-0010 - 9815 & 9817 Anderson Mill Rd.]
UH, C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 1 0 98 15 98 17.ANDERSON MILL ROAD, L R C TWO CS STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS L R C O.
THIS IS KC 14 20 23 0 1 10 AGAIN AT 98 15 AND 98 17 ANDREWSSON MILL ROAD.
THE REQUEST IS FROM L R C O TO CS OWNING THE STAFF RECOMMENDS L R C O NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL LIMIT, UH, THE PROPERTY TO, UH, RESTRICTING OF SERVICE STATION USE AND DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES OR DRIVE-IN SERVICES AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND A CONCRETE PAD THAT WAS FORMALLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT IS SURROUNDED BY SEVERAL LARGE TREES.
THERE ARE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES WITH SURFACE PARKING AREAS ZONED L O C O TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH TO THE EAST.
THERE IS A CONVENIENT STORAGE USE AND AN OFFICE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ZONED SF ONE AND LO RESPECTIVELY TO THE WEST THERE IS A DRIVEWAY FOR THE UN UNITY CHURCH OF THE HILLS AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETENTION AREA.
FURTHER TO THE WEST THERE'S AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT FRONTS ANDERSON MILL ROAD, WHICH IS CALLED VALCON GREEN.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THESE LOTS TO SEE US SO THAT THEY MAY DEVELOP RETAIL USES AT THIS LOCATION.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING THE EXISTING L RCO ZONING.
WE ARE WILLING TO ADD BACK SOME OF THE PROHIBITED USES.
THE CURRENT L RCO O ZONING LIMITED THE SITE TO A FEW LR USES AND THEN RESTRICTED IT TO ALL OTHER LO USES.
BUT WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS ZONED OR WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED PREVIOUSLY, THE, THEY DID NOT NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
SO WE WERE LOOKING AT IT UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.
NOW THERE IS A DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THIS PROPERTY TO ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
THE PROPOSED L RCO ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THE SITE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO L OCO ZONING TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST AND SF ONE ZONING TO THE EAST THE LOTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FRONT ONTO ANDERSON MILL ROAD, WHICH IS A LEVEL THREE MINOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
HOWEVER, THEY DO NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY OR TRAFFIC LIGHT TO THE WEST THAT SERVES THE UNIT.
UNITY CHURCH OF THE HILLS CS IS THE MOST INTENSIVE ZONING CATEGORY FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE CS DISTRICT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED MID-BLOCK AND IS NOT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS OR HIGHWAYS.
THE SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CONSIST OF LR L R C O L O C O R R AND SF ONE ZONING.
THEREFORE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING PATTERNS IN THIS AREA.
THERE IS EXISTING CSM UCO ZONING TO THE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANDERSON MILL FURTHER TO THE EAST.
HOWEVER, THIS ZONING WAS BASED ON A USE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN THROUGH ZONING KC 14 2008 0 2 34.
THAT PROPERTY WAS LIMITED TO ONE CS USE AND ALL OTHER LO DISTRICT USES.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY PRECEDENT IN THIS AREA FOR CS THAT IS NOT AT THE INTERSECTION OF ANDERSON MILL ROAD AND 180 3 TO THE EAST.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WHEN I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR.
[00:55:01]
RUZEK, MR. ZACHARY, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.UM, OKAY, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.
I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, SO BEAR WITH ME.
I'M GOING, I'M GONNA TRY TO DO THIS THE BEST I CAN.
THIS PROPERTY, UM, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS, UH, WE'RE REZONING IS OVER AN ACRE IN SIZE.
IT HAS ONE SINGLE STORY OFFICE WITH ANOTHER CONCRETE SLAB THAT USED TO BE A HOUSE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED BACK IN 2007.
WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE REZONED TO CS OR GR BECAUSE OF THE AREA.
AND THAT WAY IT GIVES US MORE OPTIONS AS FAR AS BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR MORE RETAIL USES.
UM, ALSO THE PROPERTY HAS A BIG FIRE HARDENING THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IF WE DO DO A RETAIL, WE'LL HAVE ACCESS TO FIRE, UM, FIRE HYDRANT AS WELL IF WE NEED TO.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ABOUT 0.2 MILES WEST OF 180 3, WHICH IS A MAJOR ROAD.
AND ON ANDERSON MILL ON THE SOUTH SIDE ANDERSON MILL IS A FOUR LANE ROAD PLUS A CENTER TURNING LANE.
AND ALSO, UNLIKE WHAT THE STAFF SAID, WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO A TRAFFIC LIGHT, WHICH IN THIS AREA, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I HAVE THE VIDEOS STILL ON THE SCREEN THAT ALLOWS US US TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE, THE B THE PROPERTY IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
AND I ALSO HAVE A 30 FOOT DRIVEWAY THAT ALLOWS US TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN ENTER IN, I JUST ENTER FROM ANDERSON MILL TURN TO THE LEFT.
THERE'S A ASPHALT DRIVE RIGHT HERE THAT'S PART OF OUR PROPERTY AND THERE'S A TRUCK THERE.
THIS WAS TAKEN YESTERDAY THAT WERE SERVICING THE LINES.
AND THEN THIS IS A 30 FOOT DRIVE THAT GOES OUT OF ANDERSON MILL BECAUSE IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA, YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ALWAYS HAVE PROBLEMS THERE WHEN THEY TRY TO GET TURNED LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THREE LANE OF TRAFFIC AND CAUSES ACCIDENTS AND ALL SORTS OF ISSUES.
THERE'S EVEN RETAIL BUSINESSES TO THE, UM, EAST OF US THAT HAVE THAT ISSUE ALREADY AND THEY GET ACCIDENTS ON ANDERSON MILL ALL THE TIME BECAUSE OF IT.
I'M GONNA READ THE EMAIL WORD TO WORD FROM THE STAFF THAT DESCRIBES THE CS ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
CS ZONING IS MEANT TO BE LOCATED AT OR NEAR INTERSECTION OF A MAJOR ROADWAY, I E MAJOR ARTERIAL OR HIGHWAY BASED ON THAT DEFINITION.
WE FIT THAT CS ZONING DEFINITION PERFECTLY BECAUSE WE'RE A THREE MINUTE WALK FROM 180 3 ON ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
AND ANDERSON MILL ROAD CONNECTS 2 6 20, WHICH IS ANOTHER MAJOR ROADWAY IN AUSTIN.
THE OTHER REASON WE ALSO, UM, RE REQUESTED CS AT FIRST AND INSTEAD OF GR WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THERE IS A CS ZONING THAT'S ALMOST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.
AND ALSO THE STAFF MENTIONED THAT, UM, THAT WAS ANNEXED BEFORE, UM, WAS ANNEX AS A CS AND WAS USED FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY.
THAT'S ALSO INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR OTHER CS ZONINGS WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS TO THE EAST.
AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROPERTY AT 8,300 ANDERSON ROAD THAT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO MY PROPERTY.
IT'S 0.3 MILES AWAY ON EAST SIDE OF, UH, 180 3.
BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY TRAFFIC LIKE TO ACCESS ANDERSON MILL.
THEY LITERALLY HAVE TO PULL THROUGH TRAFFIC AND GO IF THEY WANT TO GO TO THE LEFT.
AND THERE'S OTHER MULTIPLE OTHER BUSINESS BUSINESSES WITH GR ZONING ON ANDERSON MILL TO THE RIGHT, TO THE EAST AND THE WEST OF US.
UM, TWO OTHER QUOTES THAT I GOT FROM THE STAFF THAT CAUSED ME TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON IT.
L R C O ZONING WOULD PERMIT NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBLE USERS ALONG ANDERSON MARO ADJACENT TO AN EXISTENT RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY CIVIC USERS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING PATTERNS IN THE AREA ALONG ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
ONCE I READ THAT, I STARTED TO GO DO RESEARCH ON THE AREA AND TO SEE THE ZONING PATTERN ON ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
IF YOU LOOK UP THE ZONE, UH, ON ANDERSON MILL, IF YOU GO HALF A MILE EAST AND WEST, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE, ABOUT 12 GR ZONING ON ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
AND NOT ALL OF THEM ARE RIGHT BY 180 3 OR NEAR 180 3.
AND THE REST OF THEM, THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING SF ONE S THAT ARE, ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY RIGHT NEXT TO US, WHICH IS A STORAGE FACILITY AND THERE'S A GAS STATION, THERE'S A FUNERAL HOME.
THEY'RE ALL ZONE SF BUT THEY ARE BEING USED AS COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL ON ANDERSON ROAD TO THE WEST OF, UM, 180 3 UNTIL PAST OUR PROPERTY.
UM, THE OTHER BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THE,
[01:00:02]
THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON ANDERSON MILL