[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 THAT ARE ZONE L R IS THAT ALL OF THEM ARE SMALL PROPERTIES.ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE SMALL PROPERTIES WITH BIG OFFICES ON THEM, UH, WHERE THEY CAN BE USED AS A OFFICE WITH LOW FOOT TRAFFIC.
WHERE MY PROPERTY IS EXACT OPPOSITE.
THERE'S A BIG BU UM, UM, SMALL BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE AND LARGE AMOUNT OF LAND, WHICH MAKES IT PERFECT FOR BUSINESSES SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, AUTO RENTAL, AUTO SALES, BANKS, ET CETERA, BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE MORE FOOT TRAFFIC.
UM, WE HAVE SOME RESIDENCES TO THE WEST OF US ON ANDERSON MILL, BUT THEY'RE ALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THEY'RE PAST MILLWRIGHT AND PAST THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ON THE NORTH SIDE, THEY'RE ALSO PAST OUR PROPERTY.
YOU HAVE NO RESIDENCES ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ON OUR SIDE OF ANDERSON MILL, UM, UNTIL AFTER OUR PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN I EVEN WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED UP EXACT NUMBER OF ZONING WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS EACH DIRECTION THERE IS 12 GR ZONINGS.
IF YOU CAN JUST WRAP UP REAL QUICKLY.
RETAILS THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED IN, UM, ARE SIX SF ZONING.
AND I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA GET 12 MINUTES BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S TALKING ON MY PHONE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, THE OPPOSITION.
UM, MR. ACEI ON THE TELECONFERENCE, SELECT STAR SIX.
THIS IS ON BEHALF OF THE GREEN SIR.
MR. CE, HOLD OFF FOR JUST, UH, A MINUTE.
WE'RE, UH, CORRECTING OUR SOUND ON OUR END.
NOW, MR. ZETI, IF YOU COULD, UH, MOVE CLOSER TO YOUR, UH, MICROPHONE AND THEN PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
HELLO? IS IT BETTER NOW? YES, PROCEED.
SO I WAS TELLING YOU SIGN TALKING ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE GREENS, UH, HOA THAT, UH, IS LOCATED JUST A FEW BLOCKS, UH, AFTER THE LOTTERY QUESTION, UH, ONCE, FIRST OF ALL, WE FULLY AGREE WITH ALL THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE, UH, BY STAFF, THE RECOMMENDATION BY THEM.
WE WRITE ALSO TO POINT, UH, TO AN ADDITIONAL POINT ON THE, UH, EXISTING STREET CHARACTERISTICS.
SIR, THIS IS REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO BICYCLE ROUTE.
THERE IS A BICYCLE ROUTE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER THERE RECENTLY WHEN THE ENTIRE AREA HAD BEEN, UH, UNDER SOME ROAD HAS BEEN EXAMINED.
AND THE SIDEWALK IS ON BOTH SIDES NOW AT THIS MOMENT, UH, ON THE LOT THAT IS SIGN POINTING TO AN, UH, EMPORIUM CARTEL.
SO IT SEEMS THAT THE DETAIL THAT IS BEING PLANTED TO BE PUT THERE IS NOT A RESTAURANT OR, BUT IS A, A CAR USE CAR SALES LAW.
SO THIS COULD CREATE A VERY HEAVY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FOR THE CAMERAS ARE ENTERING AND EXITING ALSO FOR THE HALF TRUCK THAT THEY SHOULD UNLOAD THE CAR THAT POSTED THERE.
CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC EXISTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS PRETTY HEAVY.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM THAT IS COULD CREATE TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC.
AND WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE EASIER THIS KIND OF OPERATION, THE, UH, STREETER WOULD BE USED.
THIS ONE LANE ON OUR PROPERTY CREATING ALSO ISSUE TO THAT SIDE.
SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S ALL THAT WE DO HAVE REASON WHY WE ARE STRONGLY AGAINST REZONING, ESPECIALLY IF THE ZONING IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS THE USER.
THANK, YOU'LL NOW HEAR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT.
I COULDN'T HEAR HALF OR UNDERSTAND HALF OF IT, SO, BUT THE PARTS THAT I HEARD WAS INCREASING IN TRAFFIC COUNT.
NO MATTER WHAT BUSINESS I DO AS FAR AS MY BUSINESS GOES, THAT'S AUTO SALES AND I HAVE THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON ANDERSON MILL ROAD RIGHT BY OUR PROPERTY.
IT'S 20 2007 AND BY, UH, 180 3 ANN ANDERSON MILLS 22,782.
ON MY BEST DAY AND MY BEST YEAR IN
[01:05:01]
MY BUSINESS, I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT OTHER BUSINESSES.MY TRAFFIC COUNT WILL NOT INCREASE AT ALL THE, THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON ANDERSON MILL.
THAT'S, THAT'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC THAT IT JUST WILL, I I EVEN BIG DEALERSHIPS, IF YOU B IF I, IF I DO A BIG DEALERSHIP OVER THERE AND HAVE THEM COME IN, THEY WILL NOT ADD THAT MUCH TRAFFIC TO IT.
AND EVEN THOUGH WHEN WE DID THE SUBMITTAL FOR THE REZONING, THEY DID DO A, A CHECK ON THE TRAFFIC COUNT AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT INCREASE THE TRAFFIC COUNT AT ALL BECAUSE I HAD TO SUBMIT A T I APPLICATION THAT THEY CHECK INTO THAT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE WALKWAY THAT THEY HAVE, IT'S PRETTY NORMAL THAT WHEN WE PULL OUT, WE'RE GONNA PULL OUT TO THE LEFT TO USE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT BECAUSE IT'S SAFER.
WHEN YOU HAVE A TRAFFIC LIGHT, YOU CAN GO RIGHT OR LEFT AND YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO, TO PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING ON THE WALKWAY, SAME AS OUR INTEREST.
SO IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WALKWAY, THEN YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO HAVE A LICENSE BECAUSE OTHER THAN THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE TRAFFIC.
I DON'T SEE HOW HAVING THAT WALKWAY THERE MAKES A DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY BEING REZONE OR NOT.
THE OTHER THING IS THERE'S MULTIPLE BUSINESSES ON ANDERSON MILL TO THE RIGHT AND TO THE LEFT OF US THAT HAVE Z G R AND CS ZONING.
UM, JUST LIKE WHAT I'M REQUESTING.
SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DIFFERENCES THAT MAKE BECAUSE I'M REQUESTING IT AND SOMEBODY ELSE ALREADY HAS IT.
BUT, AND I'M SORRY I COULDN'T HEAR HALF OF THE STUFF HE WAS SAYING, SO I CAN'T DO A RIGHT ANSWER FOR HALF OF IT CUZ I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STERN
I STARTED THAT INCOME THIS WAY.
SO, UM, MY QUESTION IS REALLY FOR THE REQUESTER, I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS YOU'RE WANTING TO OPERATE THERE THAT WON'T BE COVERED BY THE LR ZONING? BASICALLY, MOST BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE MORE FOOT TRAFFIC, LIKE I SAID, A RESTAURANT IS NOT ALLOWED THERE.
UM, A CAR SALES IS NOT ALLOWED THERE.
CAR RENTAL IS NOT ALLOWED THERE, BANK IS NOT ALLOWED.
THERE PRETTY MUCH ANY BUSINESS THAT REQUIRES MORE FOOT TRAFFIC, I'M NOT PLANNING ON KEEPING THAT PROPERTY FOREVER.
RIGHT NOW I OWN A USED CAR DEALERSHIP, SO I'M GONNA USE IT FOR THAT FOR THE TIME BEING, BUT I WILL NOT KNOW.
IT'S JUST THE AREA IS GROWING SO FAST AND SO MUCH THAT BUSINESSES, THE PROPERTY WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR IT TO BE IN A, IN A ZONING THAT REQUIRES, THAT ALLOWS MORE FOOT TRAFFIC ON IT.
JUST LIKE THERE'S MULTIPLE ONES RIGHT BY THERE.
UH, MR. JOHNSON QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS VIA THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY DIRECTLY TO ANDERSON MILL AS WELL AS, UH, THE ASPHALT DRIVEWAY CONNECTING TO, UH, THE, THE LATCH SHARED DRIVE.
ON, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY PROPERTY, UH, IS THAT ACCESS VIA A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT OR ANY OTHER LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER? THE PROPERTY, THE ASPHALT SECTION, WHEN YOU MM-HMM.
THAT WILLIAMSON COUNTY GAVE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, I GUESS PASSED AWAY AND YOU TURN RIGHT ON THERE AND THAT'S STILL MY PROPERTY UNTIL YOU GET TO THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WHERE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS USED.
THAT ALLOWS EVERYBODY, FOR US, IT'S BUILT THAT WAY SO WE CAN COME OUT AND TURN RIGHT, WE CAN COME OUT AND TURN LEFT.
UH, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T KNOW HONESTLY IF THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT MM-HMM.
AND I'VE TALKED TO THE CHURCH THAT'S BEHIND ME AND THEY'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS OR ANY COMMENTS.
AND CLEARLY THEY'RE NOT AGAINST THIS REZONING BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT BIGGEST, UH, THEY'RE THE MAJOR ONE THAT GETS AFFECTED THE MOST BY THIS.
NONE OF THOSE, THOSE ARE NOT AGAINST IT EITHER BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WHEN WE MOVED IN THERE, THE PROPERTY WAS PRETTY MUCH NOT BEING USED.
IT WAS A HOMELESS CENTER ALMOST BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS SITTING THERE AND PEOPLE WERE JUST USING IT.
AND WE CAME IN AND CLEANED UP EVERYTHING AND CLEANED UP THE OFFICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
MOWED THE GRASS, MOWED EVERYTHING.
AND THE NEIGHBORS, THE, THE CHURCH AGENT TEXTED ME HERSELF AND SHE ACTUALLY THANKED ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT I WAS ABLE TO CLEAN UP.
AND THEN ANOTHER ONE OF THE CHURCH MEMBERS STOPPED BY AND WAS LIKE, OH, WE'RE ACTUALLY VERY HAPPY THAT WE WERE HAPPY THAT YOU CLEANED UP EVERYTHING TO MAKE IT SO MUCH MORE PRESENTABLE
[01:10:01]
BECAUSE OF THE FACT IT LOOKED SO HORRIBLE BECAUSE IT LITERALLY WAS A HOMELESS CENTER.I FOUND CRACK PIPES AND STUFF INSIDE THE BUILDING WHEN I, WHEN I GOT INTO IT AND I HAD TO CLEAN ALL OF THAT UP, SO.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, DO I HEAR A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FLORES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A PERIOD TO ASK UH, QUESTIONS? SURE.
SHOULD I WAIT UNTIL MOTIONS GO FOR IT.
UH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SAW THIS CASE ON OUR AGENDA, MY VERY FIRST THOUGHT WAS, WHY DID YOU NOT RECOMMEND GR INSTEAD OF LR? GIVEN THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE SITES ZONED TO GR NEARBY.
UH, AND THE INTENT STATEMENT OF THE GR DISTRICT BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WITH ACCESS TO A MAJOR ROADWAY, THIS IS A SITE FRONTING ON A MINOR ARTERIAL SORT OF SEEMS TO PERFECTLY FIT THE BILL.
UH, SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOUR REASONING BEHIND LR VERSUS GR WAS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE GR ZONING THAT'S TO THE WEST MM-HMM.
UM, AND SO IT PROHIBITS ALL AUTOMOTIVE USES AT THAT CORNER AND THEN STEPS BACK TO LO USES AS IT GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF A COLLECTOR AND A MINOR ARTERIAL, WHICH IS ANDERSON MILL.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED MID-BLOCK.
IT DOES NOT, IT IS NOT LOCATED IN AN INTERSECTION.
PART OF THAT DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE CHURCH OF THE HILLS PROPERTY.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT, WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE OF THAT HOY.
IT, IT CAN BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IN AUTOMOTIVE SALES USE.
UH, THAT WHICH IS A HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE.
AND SO THE REASON THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED GR ZONING IS FOR AUTOMOTIVE USES CUZ THOSE ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE LR DISTRICT.
THE STAFF FELT THIS WAS A CONCERN.
IT WAS MID-BLOCK, IT WAS LOCATED A BEND, IT WAS NOT LOCATED AT AN INTERSECTION.
AND SO WE FELT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING ZONINGS, WHICH ARE BASICALLY SINGLE FAMILY LO AND L R, WERE MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, UM, ON BEHALF OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO I GUESS DIDN'T WANNA DRIVE IN FROM DISTRICT SIX, UM, THAT, UM, I HEARD FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT SIX THAT IT LOOKS LIKE SHE WAS GETTING A LOT OF VISITORS TONIGHT FOR USED CAR LOT ON OUR AGENDA.
PEOPLE ARE FLOCKING TO MY FIELD OFFICE TO SAY NO, THAT LIVE NEARBY, FOUR HAVE COME IN ALREADY AND THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO AND AN HOA PRESIDENT IS ON THEIR WAY.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE ISN'T ANY OPPOSITION FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NEARBY.
UM, SO AGAIN, I MOVED TO, TO, UM, ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE NEED A MOTION TO GO WITH L R C R? WHAT'S ALREADY OWNED? L R C R? YES.
CHANGING BUT THE CURRENT L RCO O ZONING LIMITED BASICALLY TO L LO USES.
WITH LIKE ONE OR TWO LR USES, BECAUSE AT THE TIME WHEN THAT WAS ZONED, IT DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY.
SO THIS A STRAIGHT UP L R C L R C O, WHAT WOULD THE CO IT'S A DIFFERENT CO YEAH, IT'S A DIFFERENT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THE STAFF WAS MORE LIBERAL WITH THE CO.
IN PROHIBITING USES, WE ONLY PROHIBITED TWO USES AT THIS TIME.
SO YOUR MOTION IS APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER FLORES? YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.
IT'S, IS THE, UM, APPLICATION BY THE APPLICANT IS RESULTING INTO SOMETHING MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THERE WAS BEFORE? NO.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTED STRAIGHT CO ZONE.
IT IS, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED L RCO.
SO IT'S STILL IMPROVING A LITTLE.
SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONE L RCO, BUT WE'RE ADDING BACK IN OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMERCIAL USES
[01:15:01]
PROHIBIT THAT WERE CURRENTLY PROHIBITED UNDER THE CO.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STERN? UH, I, I JUST, UM, WANTED TO MENTION, UM, IN CASE IT MATTERS THAT, UM, A RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW, FOOD SERVICE IS ALLOWABLE, FINANCIAL SERVICES ARE ALLOWABLE ON THE LOT.
UM, BUT GIVEN THAT THE REQUESTERS SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT PLANNING TO KEEP IT FOR THAT LONG, UM, IF WE WENT TO CS, WE'D ALSO BE ALLOWING PAWN SHOPS AND BAIL BOND AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER BUSINESSES THAT DON'T NEED TO BE LISTED.
SO, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN THAT THERE'S NOT A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO WHAT'LL BE THERE.
IS THERE ANY WAY I CAN SAY SOMETHING, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I CAN GET PUBLIC HEARING'S BEEN CLOSED.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, L R C O SAY AYE, HOLD YOUR HAND.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS, ALEJANDRO SMITH, GREENBERG, FLOYD AND STERN, AND THOMPSON BOONE AND KIELBASA IN FAVOR.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THAT'D BE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. STEIN.
COMMISSIONER, I, UH, ESTHER PHELPS WAS A MR. ABSTAIN.
[5. Rezoning: C14-2023-0006 - Wynne Lane Single Family; District 5]
14 20 23 DASH 0 0 6 WIND LANE, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT 5 7500 WIN LANE.RECOMMENDATION IS FROM MH TWO, SF THREE.
DO WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR A STAFF PRESENTATION? SORRY,
MY NAME IS RICKY BARBO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS ITEM IS NUMBER FIVE ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 1 14 2 22 DASH ZERO SIX.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7,500 WYNN LANE.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED MH AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SF THREE.
THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS 5 6 5 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WYNN LANE AND SHERWOOD ROAD.
THE REQUESTED SF THREE WOULD ALLOW OR UP TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A MIXTURE OF, UH, MANUFACTURED HOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
UH, THE SF THREE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE AND CONSENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES SINCE THERE ARE EXISTING SF TWO AND SF THREE ZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST THAT ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SF THREE DISTRICT ZONING.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR SIX MINUTES.
COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASSI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
LET ME WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION TO COME UP.
UH, BEAR WITH US JUST ONE MINUTE.
OH, WHAT'S HAPPENING? TECHNICAL ISSUES.
THE, UM, ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
IT IS 7 29 AND WE ARE CURRENTLY GETTING A STAFF PRESENTATION ON ITEM FIVE.
I'M SORRY, WE HAD, IS THAT RIGHT? APPLICANT PRESENTATION ON ITEM FIVE.
WE ALREADY HAD A STAFF PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI AGAIN WITH THROWER DESIGN.
[01:20:01]
OUTLINED IN BLUE IN THE AERIAL IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU.UH, IT IS A CORNER LOT THAT HAS FRONT OF JOHN SHERWOOD WYNN LANE.
THAT'S ABOUT HALF ACRE IN SIZE.
THIS IS A GOOGLE STREET VIEW FROM WYNN LANE.
THE SUBJECT TRACK, UM, THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT LEFT REMAINING ON THE TRACK IS THE DRIVEWAY AND CONCRETE PATIO THAT YOU SEE IN THIS IMAGE.
SO OUR REQUEST IS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM MH, WHICH IS A MOBILE HOME TO SF THREE.
UH, THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH, UH, NEARBY DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING.
IT ALLOWS INFILL, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTAINS SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS SF THREE, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE AGAINST ANY FUTURE RE SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND, UM, WE REQUEST THAT YOU, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU SUPPORT THE REZONING TO SF THREE AS IS CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE ACHIEVED A REZONING TO SF THREE IN RECENT YEARS.
AND, UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE OKAY WITH ANY, UH, DENSITY CAPS ON THIS PARTICULAR REZONING, ESPECIALLY WHEN SEVERAL OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT ARE OPPOSING, UM, A RE SUBDIVISION OF THIS LAW HAVE THE ABILITY THEY HAVE SF THREE THAT'S UNENCUMBERED TODAY.
SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, UH, YOUR SUPPORT FOR SF THREE.
ONE ON HERE FOR MR. JEFF DICKERSON.
I REPRESENT MATTHEW LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OUTREACH COMMITTEE.
DON'T PUT THE CART FORCE PEOPLE PUT THE CART.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF AN SF THREE.
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT OF WHAT TWO UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT WOULD MATCH THE MAJORITY OF OF THE ON, WHEN AND SHERWOOD AS WELL AS NEARBY RESIDENTS.
WE OPPOSE THE APPLICANT AGENT PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION AND SUCH UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT SHE PROPOSED.
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT HAVE A 20% VALID APPLICATION, WE HAVE 14 SIGNATURES FROM EIGHT PROPERTIES SURROUNDING WITHIN 500 FEET OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE NEIGHBORS HAVE VOICED THEIR OPINIONS AND I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET THE PETITION IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS.
LAST THING THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IS THERE IS A BROWN LEAK DEED RESTRICTION OR TWO UNITS ON THIS TRACT AND WE WILL BE ENFORCED TODAY.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT A HORSE BEFORE A CART.
I'M SORRY TO SAY WE'RE GONNA BE REVISITING THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE DID ON THE ALBERT REZONING TODAY.
NO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, NO WATER, NO DRAINAGE, NO STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
THERE IS STILL WELL DOCUMENTED LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES REPORTED VIA 9 1 1.
THERE IS NO CAPITAL BUDGETING IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS AREA WHEN SHERWOOD ALBERT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
ONLY FEASIBILITY STUDY AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE BY STAFF, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THESE PAID BY THE DEVELOPERS.
YES, THEY GO INTO THE ROADS BUT NOT THE LOCAL ROADS.
THEY GO INTO A GENERAL PURPOSE FUND THAT ARE PRIORITIZED BY PROJECTS AS NEEDED ON A PRIORITY BASIS.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE MOMENT THEY PAY, IT'LL IMPROVE THE STREETS.
THIS IS THE TRAFFIC THAT WE ENCOUNTER BY ONE PARTY HOUSE, ONE RESIDENCE, 20 CARS THAT'S ON THE LEFT ON ALBERT.
ON THE RIGHT, YOU SEE TWO LOTS DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AUSTIN ENERGY BLOCKING THE STREETS TO REPAIR THEIR LINES.
IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO SEE THE DANGER THAT OCCURS.
I'M GONNA SWITCH GEARS AGAIN A BIT AND ENLIGHTENED COMMISSION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS THEY PROBABLY HAVE NOT SEEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE NEWER REMEMBRANCE.
WE HAVE 251 LOTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE IS 38% OF THOSE LOTS ARE MOBILE HOMES.
[01:25:02]
LOW DENSITY.EVERYBODY TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSING CRISIS, BUT NOBODY TALKED ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.
IN MARCH THERE WERE 190 HOMES FOR SALE IN THIS FIVE SQUARE MILE.
THERE IS UNPLANNED 2,503 UNITS THAT WILL BE COMING ONLINE FOR HOUSING.
HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE FOR MOBILE HOMES OR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? ZERO.
THE SCALE'S NOT TIPPING THE RIGHT WAY.
EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY OF HOW, HOW MARKET FORCES AND SUPPLY WILL DETERMINE PRICES OF THESE HOMES.
HERE'S SOME CURRENT UNITS FOR SALE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS.
NONE OF THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THIS ONE AND THE ALBERT ONE HAVE ANY AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT.
IT WASN'T LISTED ON THE APPLICANT'S FORM THAT SLIDE PLEASE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED MORE ALMOST A MILE FROM ANY TRANSIT CITY.
SO MOST OF THE THERE WILL BE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
NO SIDEWALKS, NO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
UH, END WITH WHOA FOLKS, IF WE DO NOT STOP PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL SPEND YEAR SHOVELING PILE OF HORSE MANURE ISSUES IN SPITE OF WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT, WELL, EVERYBODY HAS TO SUFFER THROUGH THIS.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY THERE'S ENOUGH ISSUES, INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ZONED AND PROPOSED HERE.
AND WE ALSO, AS I SHOWED YOU IN AN EARLIER SLIDE, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CONTAINS A LARGE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE LOTS.
ONE I'LL HEAR FOR MR. EUGENE SUTTON.
MR. SUTTON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH GROUP.
NO DRAINAGE, NO CURB, NO SIDEWALKS, TINY ROADS DISAPPEARING TREES, EXPLOSIVE GROWTH FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO A MOST RECENT ZAP.
RECOMMENDED NINE UNITS PER ACRE AT 76 0 5.
ALBERT, WE AGREE TO SF THREE BUT WISH FOR A LOWER NUMBER THAN SIX UNITS.
THERE IS A PROLIFERATION OF SF SIX DESIGNATIONS ADJACENT TO THIS SITE AND NUMEROUS COVENANTS EXIST.
SOUTH STONE TO THE WEST HAS 71 AGE RESTRICTED UNITS APPROVED FOR THE NORTHERN 10 ACRES.
MAXIMUM SEVEN UNITS WAS ESTABLISHED ON A RECENT 7 74 15 ALBERT CASE.
UNIT NUMBER RESTRICTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN RECOMMENDED ON 76 0 5 ALBERT TO THE NORTHWEST.
NEW REZONING REQUESTS ARE COMING TO 73 0 6 AND 76 0 6 ALBERT.
BOTH ARE REQUESTING SF SIX WITH 37 UNITS ON EACH THREE THREE ACRE SITE.
THE UM, THREE QUARTER ACRE 1512 DAMON REQUEST IS FOR NINE UNITS ON SF SIX.
THESE, THIS FORMS AN L SHAPE WITH 75 0 6 WITH THE SAME OWNERS.
IF NINE UNITS PER ACRES ESTABLISHED IN TOTAL INCREASE WOULD BE 87 OR 120 WITH NO RESTRICTIONS.
TOSS IN 71 FROM SOUTH STONE TOTAL OF 2 31 FOR THAT PROJECT WE ARE UP TO 158.
PUTS US IN 168 EXPANDING TO KEBAR OPPOSITE DAMON TO THE WEST.
THERE IS CONSTRUCTION ON 23 CONDO UNITS NEXT TO MENCHACA, ALONG WITH A REZONING APPROVAL FOR THREE-STORY 23 UNIT APARTMENT GOING SOUTH ON MENCHACA.
A FOUR-STORY APARTMENT UNIT ON MINKA TO THE TRACKS HAS 312 UNITS.
THE TOTAL FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS 532 WITH SIX NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSES ON WIND AND DAMON ALL PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF THE TRACKS BORDERING MATTHEWS LANE.
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES HAVE RETENTION PONDS.
SOUTH STONE HAS 10 ACRES DEVOTED TO BOGGY CREEK ISSUES.
I HAVE REPORTED FLOODING TO THREE 11 ON MY HOME ON DAMON IN THE NEIGHBORING HOME AND DOWNHILL AREAS TO THE WEST OF ALBERT TOWARDS THE TRACK HAVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. WE NEED TO RETURN TO REASON ON UNIT NUMBER AND LIGHT OF OVERWHELMING US ISSUES THAT HAVE GLOSSED OVER WE'LL NEGATE THE INTEGRITY OF LONG-LIVED NEIGHBORHOODS.
[01:30:04]
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.SO ONE THING I WANTED VICTORIA HASI WITH OUR DESIGN.
ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE ARE ASKING TO BRING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, AT MOST IT CAN ALLOW A HOUSE OR A HOUSE IN AN ADU.
UM, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED.
I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I PUT IN MY LETTER, BUT THAT WAS BASED OFF AN ASSUMPTION OF WHAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE THE CASE.
THE CURRENT LANDOWNER, HE LIVES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
HE'S LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL DECADES.
UM, AND HE DOESN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO WITH IT.
HE COULD DEVELOP IT WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND AN ADU.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THAT ONE ADU ARE GONNA COST A LOT MORE THAN IF THIS PROPERTY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED WITH A HOUSE AND AN ADU ON EACH LOT.
SO, AND THAT WILL BE A DIRECT IMPACT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, LANDOWNERS THAT EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY.
UM, I WILL SAY MUCH AS EUGENE AND, UM, JEFF MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE SAME ISSUES EXIST AS FAR AS INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES.
NO SIDEWALKS, UH, UNIM IMPROVED ROADWAYS.
BUT AGAIN, AS I STATED TWO WEEKS AGO, DEVELOPMENT BRINGS FUNDING FOR THESE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
AND I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT A LOT OF THE, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE EXISTING HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN A TIME WHERE THE CITY OF AUSTIN DIDN'T HAVE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TODAY.
AND YOU'VE JUST HEARD MR. EUGENE SUTTON SAY A LOT OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PUT IN DETENTION PONDS.
THEY ARE CAPTURING THEIR RAINWATER AS A RESULT OF THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER.
ANY NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT COMING FORWARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THIS SUBDIVISION IS OLD AND IT IS OLD AND DOESN'T HAVE DETENTION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE HAD DECADES AGO.
THE CITY DIDN'T REQUIRE IT THEN.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN OPTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL ADD INFILL DENSITY.
IT WILL MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER.
UM, AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL SF THREE LOTS IN THIS AREA THAT HAVE UPZONED RECENTLY AND DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY COS THAT LIMIT DENSITY.
SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE SAME TREATMENT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR, I DON'T NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I CAN JUST CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS ANYBODY OPPOSES.
SO
I CAN WITH, UNLESS SOMEBODY OPPOSES, WE CAN JUST CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THE FORMALITY TO GO A MOTION IN SECOND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY? YES.
A CLARIFICATION ON, UH, ONE THING THAT MS. HASSI SAID, UH, AND THIS IS I SUPPOSE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT SF THREE DOES ALLOW DUPLEX USES IN ADDITION TO A SINGLE UNIT AND AN ADU OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL? NO, I, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
ALLOWED USES INCLUDE A DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN ADU? WHAT'S THE QUESTION AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
DOES SF THREE ALLOWED DUPLEX? YES.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF
UM, UM, SO WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND FLOODING AND ISSUES.
WHAT IS THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS? AND IS THIS, YOU KNOW, IS DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY IF IT IS SUBDIVIDED AND DEVELOPED TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT, UH, ALLOWABLE UNDER SF THREE, IS THAT GONNA BE A CONCERN? HOW DOES STAFF LOOK AT THAT? WELL, AS FAR AS FOR US RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE ZONING PORTION.
SO IF THEY DO GET SUBDIVIDED AND ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT WOULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, LIKE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW.
SO THAT WOULD ALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT WHAT THE LAND USE IS.
SO THIS IS BY NO MEANS THE FINAL SAY ON HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT CAN WE'RE JUST BARE BONES.
IF THEY PUT, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT TO THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE MINDFUL OF IS LIKE, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY APPROVING SIX UNIT DWELLING UNITS RIGHT HERE.
PUT A DUPLEX OR A SINGLE HOUSE IN A ADU AND NOT COME BEFORE ANY APPROVAL.
THEY JUST GO TO THE BUILDING U BUILDING PROCESS.
CAUSE IF THEY WANT A SUBDIVIDE, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THAT.
AND RIGHT NOW IT'S A VACANT LOT.
SO IF THEY DO, WHENEVER THEY GO TO THAT PROCESS AND THAT NEXT STEP, IF THEY GET THERE RIGHT, THEN THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW PROCESS AND THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL THOSE LIMITATIONS
[01:35:01]
OR, YES.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION? UH, I MOVE THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF SF THREE.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR SF THREE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FLORES.
[6. Site Plan Revision; Compatibility Waiver: SP-2018-0092C(R1) - The Greens on Cooper Lane Revision; District 2]
ITEM SIX S P 2 1 8 92 C R ONE, THE GREENS OF COOPER LANE REVISION DISTRICT TWO.THIS IS A APPROVAL OF A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER TO LDC 25 2 10 63 TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
GOOD EVENING, HEATHER CHAFFIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UH, AS YOU READ THE CASE NUMBER, THE GREENS ON COOPER LANE REVISION 76 0 1 COOPER LANE.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER, UH, A MODIFICATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY.
UH, THERE IS AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30 CONDOMINIUMS WITH RELATED DRIVES AND IMPROVEMENTS.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
A SURVEY DONE IN THIS TIME PERIOD SHOWS THAT THE SLABS FOR TWO OF THE UNITS ARE WITHIN THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.
UH, THE REQUEST IS REGARDING JUST THOSE TWO UNITS.
UH, THE UNITS ARE AT 24 FEET, SO THEY ARE ONE FOOT INTO THE SETBACK.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST AGAIN, THEY ARE 24 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF 25 FEET ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
THERE WAS A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER APPROVED BY ZAP ON JANUARY 29TH AND 2019 FOR THE WATER QUALITY POND THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.
NOT DIRECTLY RELATED, BUT A LITTLE BIT OF PRECEDENT IN THE AREA.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
MS. GLASGOW, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM.
THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED ON COOPER LANE.
YOU CAN SEE THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU AS, UH, MS. SHAHAN INDICATED.
THE SITE, UH, HAS AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND THE SATURN WAS APPROVED IN 2019 COMPLIANT WITH ALL CITY REGULATIONS AT THE TIME.
AND THE ALL 30 HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT.
THEY ARE UNDER CONTRACT, UH, AND THEY CANNOT BE FINALIZED UNTIL WE GET A CERTIFICATE OF A OF COMPLETION BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO THE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THIS IS THE APPROVED CYCLONE.
YOU CAN SEE IT HAS WHAT HAPPENED,
THE, UH, CIRCLE TO THE TOP SHOWS YOU THE TWO HOMES, UH, NUMBERS TWO AND THREE THAT ENCROACH INTO THE CY PLAN.
NOW THIS ONE SHOWS YOU EXACTLY THE, THE, UH, ENCROACHMENT.
ACTUALLY THE ENCROACHMENT IS LESS, THEY'RE JUST INCHES AS SURVEYED.
SO WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY, UH, DURING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY SURVEYED TO INDICATE WHERE THE SLAB SHOULD GO.
AND THE SURVEY AT THE TIME OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION HAD THE SLABS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, OUT, OUT OF THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.
BUT SOMEHOW THOSE TWO SLABS, WHEN THEY WERE PORT, THEY ENDED UP ENCROACHING.
AS YOU SEE HERE, UH, THE CORNER TO THE LEFT HAS 24.9 FEET.
THAT'S INTO, AS OPPOSED TO 25 FEET SETBACK.
THE, UH, BUILDING CORNER TO THE, ON THE NORTH SIDE HAS, UH, 24.98 FEET.
AND, UH, THE OTHER BUILDING YOU SEE THE ARROW IS AT 24.94.
AGAIN, THE ENCROACHMENT IS REALLY MORE PRECISELY BY INCHES, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THE ONE FOOT SETBACK FROM REDUCING IT FROM 25 FEET TO 24 FEET JUST TO ROUND UP THE REQUEST.
SO THAT'S REALLY OUR, OUR, THE REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT.
IT'S, UH, THE ERROR WAS FOUND AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
ANOTHER SURVEY HAS TO BE PREPARED CALLED THE SIL SURVEY, WHICH THE CITY OF AUSTIN NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE APPROVED C PLAN I COMPLIANCE.
AND, UH, THIS IS WHEN THE ERROR WAS FOUND DURING THAT SILT, UH, SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED.
AND, UM, HENCE THE PROCESS WE HAD TO GO THROUGH.
WE HAD TO REVISE THE C PLAN AND EVERY CORRECTION.
SO WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, JUST TO GET TO THIS POINT.
AND AS, AS I INDICATED THAT HOMES ARE ALL UNDER
[01:40:01]
CONTRACT, UM, THEY CANNOT BE, UH, CL CLOSING CANNOT OCCUR UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THEN ALSO GET, UM, A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN.THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JEFF DICKERSON.
WE OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE AND HERS, THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS FOR A MOTION TO DENY DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REACH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT AGENT DID NOT PROVIDE A CASE FOR A HARDSHIP THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY.
NONE WAS PROVIDED AS NOTED ON THE SITE ITSELF.
A HARDSHIP SHOULD NOT BE SELF-IMPOSED.
AND FROM READING THE, THE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT, A SURVEY DID THIS, THE FOLLOW UP SURVEY, DID THAT, THAT'S SELF-IMPOSED.
THAT IS NOT A UNIQUE HARDSHIP.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE BUILDER AND INVESTOR SHOULD HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY AND CORRECT IT.
I HAD TO GO BEFORE PLANNING, NOT PLANNING, BUT, UH, COMMITTEE TO DO MY ADU.
THEY MADE ME SHRINK MY HOUSE BECAUSE I WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE.
I THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS EQUALLY AND FAIRLY UPON THE SITE.
IF YOU WERE TO CONSIDER A WAIVER, CONSIDER THIS, YOU WOULD BE SETTING AS PRECEDENT FOR 24 FOOT SETBACKS.
YOU GUYS WERE REAL BIG ON PRESIDENTS WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND THE ZONING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHAT'S TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE COME BACK AND SAY, I DID A WHOOPSIE.
CAN YOU GIMME 20 AND A HALF, 23 FEET, 23 AND A HALF FEET, 22 FEET.
ONCE YOU START THIS BALL ROLLING, YOU OPEN YOUR, UH, YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP FOR A BIG CAN OF WORMS. I WOULD SAY DENY THIS.
WANNA HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST, UH, STATE THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT IS JUST FOR THE TWO BUILDINGS.
TWO AND THREE, THE OUT OF 30 HOMES, THE OTHER, UH, 28 HOMES, UH, WITHIN THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT WAS AN ERROR THAT, UH, OCCURRED.
UH, THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYORS.
UH, MY CLIENT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY FROM THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER.
SO YOU ENDED UP WITH, UM, SURVEYS THAT ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
AND AS I'VE AND COUNTED IN THE PAST, AT LEAST WHEN I USED TO WORK FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WE WOULD GET SURVEYS, UH, THAT, UH, YOU HAD ONE SURVEYOR SURVEYED THE SAME SITE FOR ZONING PROPS AND WE HAD FIELD NOTES FOR, TO ACCOMPANY ZONING CASES.
AND YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SURVEY COME IN.
THE TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYORS FOR SOME REASON HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME SURVEY.
SO, UH, MY BELIEF IS THAT, UM, WHEN MY CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO HAD GOTTEN THE SITE WHEN APPROVED AND THEN, UH, HAD TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVEYOR, HIS SURVEY WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT THAT, UH, THAT'S WHEN THE ASBUILT, UM, ERROR WAS FOUND.
I, WE, WE ASKED FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS HEREBY CLOSED.
IS THIS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? SORRY, IS THIS QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? OR BOTH? UM, I SHOULD TURN THIS ON.
YOU KNOW, I, I'M, I'M REALLY TORN ON THIS CASE.
UM, I CAN'T HELP BUT DRAW PARALLELS TO THE CASE WE HEARD EARLIER.
UM, NOT OFF JESTER, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, UH, 22, 22, I FORGET THE NAME OF THE ROAD.
UM, ONLY IN, WHAT'S THAT? THE FIRST CASE? THE FIRST CASE WE HEARD.
ONLY IN MY MIND THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THAT.
THAT REALLY WAS AN ERROR OF DESIGN.
YOU KNOW, UH, A BUILDING A, A STRUCTURE, A DRIVEWAY WAS DESIGNED WITH TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER.
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT MOST 1.2 INCHES.
I MEAN, FRANKLY THAT I, YOU KNOW, I'VE BUILT THINGS IN THE PAST THAT COULD HAPPEN JUST FROM SOIL SHIFTING DURING CONSTRUCTION.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, A CHANGE IN THE PHYSICAL GROUND ITSELF.
UM, THAT SAID, I REALLY APPRECIATE MR. DICKERSON'S COMMENTS IN THAT INTERPRETING RULES AND REGULATIONS DOES REQUIRE CONSISTENCY
[01:45:01]
AND FAIRNESS.UM, AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE GROUND SHIFTING BETWEEN ONE EIGHTH AND ONE AND ONE QUARTER INCHES AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY CHOOSING TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY THAT'S TOO BIG.
UM, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE.
I I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM ON THIS YET.
I THINK IT'S A ROUNDING ISSUE.
LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT 1.2 INCHES AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO COME HERE.
FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD BE SOIL.
I MEAN, THE KIND OF THE PROCESS IS THEY'LL GO OUT AND THEY'LL SET THE FORMS AND THEN DO A FORM SURVEY.
THEY POURED THE FORMS. A FORM COULD HAVE SLIPPED BY HALF AN INCH OR AN INCH DURING THE PROCESS OF, OF BUILDING THE FORM.
SOMEONE BUYS A PROPERTY KNOWING THE FORM SURVEY WAS DONE CORRECTLY, EVERYTHING WAS SET CORRECTLY.
HE DOES A FINAL SURVEY AND IT'S OFF BY AN INCH.
IF IT WERE OFF BY A FOOT, I'D WORRY, BUT OFF BY AN INCH.
IT COULD EASILY JUST BE A SHIFTING OF A, OF A FORM AND A MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH TEARING DOWN A HOUSE AND REBUILDING IT FOR THE SAKE OF BEING AN INCH INTO A SETBACK.
I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE OF SAYING WE'RE GONNA DO AN A PROVEN INCH NOW IN TWO INCHES NEXT WEEK AND SIX INCHES OF FOLLOWING WEEK.
BUT I THINK THIS WASN'T ERROR.
JUST A SIMPLE, VERY MINOR ISSUE.
UM, GREENBERG, BUT THEY'RE NOT ASKING US TO GIVE THEM AN INCH OR TWO, RIGHT? THEY'RE ASKING FOR A FOOT.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THINK.
IF YOU DON'T NEED A FOOT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE YOU A FOOT.
I WOULD, WE'VE HAD TWO SURVEYORS SURVEY COME UP WITH TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
I'D CAUTION TO SAY YOU GO WITH ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA GET A THIRD SURVEYOR WHO'S GONNA COME UP WITH A THIRD NUMBER.
I DON'T, I DON'T NEED THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A FOOT, BUT I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST MAKING IT EXACTLY 1.2 INCHES.
NO, I SOME GIVE THEM SOME AREA TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, IF WE GET A THIRD SURVEYOR, LET'S MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET A THIRD NUMBER COMING IN HERE AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK HERE AND DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN.
WELL I WAS ALWAYS LIKE, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET ANOTHER SURVEY UNTIL YOU GET THE ANSWER YOU WANT.
UM,
UM, BUT YEAH, I MAYBE 24.8 RATHER THAN 24.
I MOVE TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE EXACTLY APPROVING.
WE ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE WEAVER TO ALLOW A SETBACK OF 24, SETBACK OF 24.8.
SO APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY WAIVER TO LDC 25 2 10 63 TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
SO YOU WANNA SAY WAIVER REQUEST TO 24.88.
WELL THAT'S THE NEW COMMISSIONER STERN.
YOU'RE LOOKING, I'M FEELING DISTRESSED ABOUT IT.
I UM, I THINK IF, UH, THEY WERE COMING TO US BEFORE THEY BUILT ASKING FOR THE FOOT, WE'D SAY NO.
BUT THEN I'VE ALSO BUILT A HOUSE BEFORE THAT HAD A VERY GENEROUS MASTER BATHROOM AND THEN THEY POURED THE FOUNDATION INCORRECTLY AND WE HAD TO GO AND FIND THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE SINKS SO THAT YOU COULD WALK IN THERE AND, UM, THAT DELAYED OUR PROJECT BY MONTHS AND THE WAY THAT, UM, THAT AFFECTED US INCREASED THE COST OF THE HOUSE.
AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SITUATION.
THEY'RE ALREADY A YEAR INTO THIS.
THEY'RE DELAYED ON, ON DELIVERING THESE PRODUCTS, RIGHT? NO, JUST ON GETTING THIS CERTIFICATE TO THE CEO.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I ACCEPT THAT THAT WAS A CONTRACTOR ERROR AND UM, AND IF I COULD PUNISH THAT ONE PERSON, I WOULD
UM, BUT UM, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT NOT LEAVING ENOUGH ROOM.
AND, UM, WHILE I'M OPEN TO LIKE NOT DOING A WHOLE FOOT, THIS SEEMS LIKE IF YOU GIVE THEM MORE THAN TWO INCHES, YOU KNOW YEAH, WE COULD PROBABLY EXPAND IT SO THAT IT'S AT LEAST HALF A FOOT IF THAT'LL GIVE THEM ENOUGH WIGGLE ROOM.
I JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN IN A MONTH OR TWO BECAUSE OF IT.
SO, UM, PERHAPS IF I MOVE FOR THE SETBACK TO BE CHANGED TO 24.5, THERE WOULD BE A SECOND THAT'S SIX INCHES.
SO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG TO, TO APPROVE THE COMPATIBILITY WAIVER OF LDC 25 2 10 C TWO THREE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET SIX INCHES.
AND THAT WILL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STERN.
BUT IS THAT THE ENCROACHMENT SHOULD BE NOT MORE THAN SIX INCHES.
SETBACK WILL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 FEET, SIX INCHES.
UM, CUZ IT'S THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
[01:50:01]
IT'S UNANIMOUS.I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
[11. Discussion and possible action to adopt a recommendation concerning Budget FY 23-24. (Sponsors: Chair Smith and Vice-Chair Greenberg)]
FROM THE COMMISSION.ITEM 11, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING BUDGET FY 2324 SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR SMITH AND VICE CHAIR GREENBERG.
I WILL LET COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
WHERE'D IT GO? OH, THERE IT IS.
SO FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UM, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT SOFTWARE GOALS.
UM, SUCH AS THOSE AVAILABLE FROM GRIDS, WHICH IS A COMPANY IN FLORIDA, OUR GIS PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY MORE FAMILIAR WITH.
TO GIVE STAFF MEMBERS ACCESS TO THE DETAILS THEY NEED TO MORE QUICKLY WORK THROUGH PERMITTING AND ZONING APPLICATIONS.
ONE PLATFORM SHOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING NEEDED, INCLUDING PROPERTY DETAILS, ZONING REGULATIONS, FLOODING MAPS, UM, AND AUSTIN'S WILDFIRE RISK MAP.
THE TOOLS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY CHECK SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS FOR ACCURATE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS.
UM, ESPECIALLY ON OUR FIRST CASE, THERE WERE A LOT OF INACCURATE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS THAT I THINK STAFF SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO CHECK YOUR ARITHMETIC.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ENTER THINGS THAT ARE ARITHMETICALLY WRONG ANYWAY FOR CONSISTENCY WITH PROPERTY DETAILS AND ZONING REGULATIONS ONCE IMPLEMENTED, THESE WEB-BASED TOOLS CAN ALSO BE USED TO CREATE AND ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF LARGER PROJECTS SUCH AS SMALL AREA PLANS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDIES, AS WELL AS FACILITATE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
AND I BELIEVE CHAIR SMITH WANTED TO ALSO SAY, THIS WOULD SAVE MONEY.
BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED FEWER STAFF, UM, RATHER THAN MORE, UM, ONCE THAT'S, UM, IMPLEMENTED AND WE'RE KIND OF A TECHNOLOGY HUB HERE, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY REVIEW PROCESS.
HOUSING DEPARTMENT ENSURE ADEQUATE STAFFING AND RESOURCES AND ALL CITY INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING PROGRAMS TO TIMELY MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROVIDED, HOW QUICKLY THE UNITS ARE FILLED, AND WHETHER HEALTH AND SAFETY MAINTENANCE IS PROVIDED ON A REGULAR AND SUFFICIENT BASIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE HAD TO CHANGE THIS BECAUSE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS CHANGED, UM, LIKE LAST WEEK.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PLANNING STAFF AND RESOURCES TO INITIATE AND FACILITATE.
UM, CONCURRENT SMALL AREA PLANNING FOR AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE UNPLANNED.
ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE CITY, UM, IS WITHOUT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
UM, DISPLACEMENT AND PREVENTION AND MITIGATION IN PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDORS.
HISTORIC SURVEYS OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY ASSETS IMPACTED BY RAPID REDEVELOPMENT AND DISPLACEMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
INCREASED STAFFING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT ALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED REQUIREMENTS.
AND TO ADDRESS THE 2,260 1000 DECREASE IN FUNDING FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 20 20 21 BUDGET AND FOR FIRE.
PROVIDE FUNDING TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS AND FIREWISE PROGRAM.
THIS USED TO BE CODE, BUT NOW IT'S PART OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ENSURE ADEQUATE STAFFING AND RESOURCES TO PROACTIVELY MONITOR AND EN ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS BY DEVELOPMENTS THAT PARTICIPATE IN CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING, RENTAL ASSISTANCE OR HOME REPAIR ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN AUSTIN.
UM, ALSO FOR CODE, SINCE THE POLICE AREN'T ENFORCING SEVERAL THINGS THAT THEY USED TO, UM, PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A LIVABILITY TEAM TO FACILITATE TIMELY RESPONSE TO TIME SENSITIVE CODE COMPLAINTS AFTER REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AND ON WEEKENDS.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR FLOODPLAINS STUDY PROJECTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY AND CITYWIDE PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE, UM, TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IN PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
I WAS A LITTLE TEMPTED TODAY AFTER READING THAT THEY WERE GONNA CUT THE FUNDING FOR, WHAT WAS IT? UM, SHOULD THEY SHOULD FIND THIS IN THE AUSTIN
[01:55:01]
MONITOR.THEY JUST HAD TO CLEAN UP ALL THE BRANCHES FROM, UM, ALL THE FREEZE.
AND WITH THE FREQUENT EVENTS THAT SEEM TO HAPPEN HERE.
I WONDER IF WE SHOULD ALSO SAY, DO NOT CUT THE FUNDING FOR AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY, BUT THAT WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DOES THE OH YES, GO AHEAD.
I, I GUESS, UH, THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
THAT'S A FRIENDLY, THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, I, MY ONLY CONCERN ON THAT GENERALLY, I, I JUST SAW THE TYPE OF WHILE I WAS LOOKING AT THAT PORTION, BUT UH, YOU KNOW, I WORK WITH RGIS, UH, EVERY DAY AT MY DAY JOB AND, UH, WE LOOK AT SOFTWARE LIKE GRID AND RGIS URBAN WITH A LOT OF THE CLIENTS, UM, THAT I WORK WITH.
I WORRY THAT SPECIFICALLY ASKING COUNCIL TO CONCLUDE FUNDING FOR THOSE PRODUCTS MIGHT BE PREMATURE IN THAT MANY OF THEM ARE NOT QUITE DEVELOPED TO THE STAGE THAT I THINK THEY WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE CITY.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE CITY STUDY THEM, YOU KNOW, AND LOOK INTO GETTING THOSE THINGS.
BUT MAYBE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE JUST TO RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, EXPLORING THE PURCHASE OF THOSE TOOLS FOR NOW OR INCLUDE FUNDING FOR, MAKE IT A LITTLE BROADER SO THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING COUNCIL TO SPECIFICALLY FUND THESE TOOLS WITH PERSONALLY, WELL IT DOESN'T SAY TOOLS, LIKE IT DOESN'T SAY THOSE TOOLS.
I GUESS IT DOES SAY SUCH AS THOSE.
MAYBE WE JUST STRIP THOSE TWO NAMES OUT AND SAY SOFTWARE TOOLS NEEDED TO GIVE STAFF MEMBERS ACCESS.
BUT I THINK IT'S TIME TO UPGRADE, RIGHT?
SO STRIKE CATS SUCH AS THOSE AVAILABLE FROM GRID, XON, ARC, GIS, URBAN.
SO RE PROVIDE FUNDING TO PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT SOFTWARE TOOLS TO GIVE STAFF MEMBERS ACCESS TO THESE, THE DETAILS THEY NEED.
OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
SO ON THE WATERSHED PROTECTION ITEM, IS THERE A REASON FOR WHY WE ARE BEING SO SPECIFIC ABOUT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR FLOOD PLAIN STUDY? REALLY THERE LIKE DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY REVIEW ARE CAUSING HUGE DELAYS ON SITE PLAN REVIEWS, SUBDIVISIONS.
IT'S A, IT'S REALLY HARD AT THIS TIME.
I THINK IT'D BE GOOD IF WE COULD INCREASE FUNDING FOR ENGINEERING OR ENGINEERS IN GENERAL FOR THAT REVIEW DIVISION POSSIBLE.
WE HAD QUITE A FEW THINGS IN THE RECOMMENDATION LAST YEAR AND WHEN I REACHED OUT TO KEVIN SHANKY SAID, ALL THAT'S ALL FUNDED, THIS IS WHAT WE STILL NEED.
OKAY, SO THIS CAME FROM KEVIN? YES.
KEVIN SH IS I, YOU KNOW KEVIN, SO MM-HMM.
UM, THERE'S NO NEED FOR FUNDING COMMISSIONER.
WHY WAS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO BEGIN WITH TO CUT, UH, RESOURCE, UH, OR WAS IT RESOURCE RECOVERY? UH, IT JUST CAME UP TODAY.
IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC, WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY SPECIFIC RATIONALE FOR THAT.
WE ALL HAVE TO COPE WITH INFLATION
IT'S AN ARTICLE IN THE MONITOR
SO WHEN I READ THAT ARTICLE, I WASN'T SURE IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO CUT FUNDING OR JUST NOT INCREASE IT TO ACCOMMODATE RIGHT.
IT'S LIKE THEIR, THEIR EXPENSES ARE INCREASING AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE BUDGET IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT.
WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME THING AS A CUT, RIGHT? YEAH.
ONE QUESTION I HAD ON THE HOUSING AND PLANNING, NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE CALLING IT NOW, BUT IT WAS HOUSING AND PLANNING.
AGAIN, THE VERSION I LOOKED AT, YOU DON'T HAVE HOUSING AND PLANNING ANYMORE.
AND SO I HESITATE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE EVERYBODY HAVE A SMALL AREA PLAN WHEN THERE'S SOME COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T WANT A SMALL AREA PLAN.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND MODIFYING THAT AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE UNPLANNED AND WANT A SMALL AREA PLANNING COMMISSIONER STERN.
YEAH, I, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, UH, ABOUT THE SMALL AREA PLANNING AS WELL, BUT FOR THE OPPOSITE REASON.
UM, I WAS HERE FOR THAT FIRST ROLLOUT OF A SMALL AREA PLANNING AND UM, MY EXPERIENCE WAS A,
[02:00:01]
MOST OF THE ORGANIZA, MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS PRETTY MUCH WERE LIKE, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.RIGHT? AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE GOT MUCH OUT OF THAT PROCESS.
I'D LIKE TO SEE US SAY SOMETHING LIKE, UM, UM, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE FACT THAT OUR CITY IS DOUBLING IN POPULATION OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME MANDATE THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO A SMALL AREA PLAN, THE, THE CHALLENGE IS HOW DO YOU FIT TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE IN THIS AREA? THEN IT'S A USEFUL EXERCISE, OTHERWISE IT'S JUST LOCKING EVERYTHING IN THE WAY THAT IT IS.
AND TO YOUR POINT, UM, COMMISSIONER SMITH, IF NEIGHBORHOODS OPT OUT, THEY'RE JUST SELECTING TO KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE AND IMPROVEMENT.
RIGHT? SO, UM, I GUESS IF I WERE GONNA MAKE, MAKE A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION, IT WOULD BE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE UNPLANNED WITH AN EYE TOWARDS DOUBLING THE POPULATION CAPACITY OF THAT AREA.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO PUT IN HERE THAT WE'RE FORCING EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
I YOU, YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA GET WHAT YOU ASKED FOR.
IT'S GONNA COST A LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE OR AREN'T GONNA PARTICIPATE.
SO I DUNNO IF YOU'RE GONNA GET ANYTHING OUT OF THAT, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
FOR ME, I WONDER IF LANGUAGE ON THIS SPECIFIC BULLET POINT COULD JUST BE BROADER AND TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REQUEST, THEY PROVIDE ADEQUATE PLANNING STAFF AND RESOURCES TO INITIATE AND FACILITATE CONCURRENT SMALL AREA PLANNING PROCESSES FOR, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS AS ONE OF THE CATEGORIES OF PLANNING AREAS, BOTH BECAUSE OF COMMISSIONER STERN'S CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, UM, UH, CHAIR SMITH'S CONCERNS.
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE EXISTING ADOPTED PLAN AREAS ARE, YOU KNOW, 25 PUSHING 30 YEARS OLD AND NEED MAY NEED UPDATING, UH, LIKELY NEED UPDATING.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AS MUCH FUNDING AS POSSIBLE TO UPDATE AS MANY SMALL AREA PLANS AS POSSIBLE.
NOT JUST THOSE THAT ARE UNPLANNED, BUT ALSO THOSE THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY PLANNED AND ARE NOW OUT OF DATE.
UM, OR AREAS THAT WOULD GET OTHER TYPES OF SMALL AREA PLANNING LIKE STATION AREA PLANS, UH, AROUND, YOU KNOW, TRANSIT PROJECT CONNECT ORDERS.
PARTS OF THAT ARE HAPPENING, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE COULD ENCOURAGE COUNSEL TO INCLUDE FUNDING FOR MORE OF THOSE AREAS TO BE PLANNED.
I FORGET TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN.
UM, I THINK THAT I LIKE THE BROAD LANGUAGE AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIRE, REQUIRES EVERY MUNICIPAL AREA TO BE PLANNED TO HAVE THE ENTIRE CITY PLANNED.
AND I THINK IT'S JUST REALLY STRANGE THAT ONLY ONE THIRD OF AUSTIN IS PLANNED AND THE OTHER TWO THIRDS ARE UNPLANNED.
AND I THINK MORE PLANNING WOULD ACTUALLY HELP US CUZ WE'RE SEEING DEVELOPMENT AND THEN WE'RE SEEING THESE UPZONING CASES AND IT WOULD REALLY BE NICE TO HAVE A PLAN INSTEAD OF THEM COMING TO US AND DOING A PIECEMEAL AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AMENITIES AND EVERYTHING.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS I THINK, UM, SETTING A GOAL FOR PLANNING IS NOT, UM, JUST SAY TO, UM, JUST ENCOURAGE PLANNING AND ABOUT UPDATING PLANS.
WHEN I WAS ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, WE BROUGHT THAT UP AND THEY WERE JUST LIKE, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GET THE CITY PLANNED.
UM, THEY DON'T, AND THEY HAD SEEM TO HAVE STOPPED DOING SMALL AREA PLANS.
THEY ARE WORKING ON, UM, EADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THEY'RE JUST, THEY STOPPED DOING CORRIDOR PLANS.
SO I THINK THAT JUST SOME SUPPORT FOR THE PLANNING STAFF TO PLAN MORE AREAS, IT WOULD HELP US.
AND ALTHOUGH THIS IS PROBABLY AGAIN, MY LAST MEETING, UM, AND UM, HOW MUCH TIMES HAVE WE HEARD THAT? SO ANYWAY, SO HOPEFULLY AND UM, YEAH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY WHILE THE PHONE RINGS.
UM, COMMISSIONER KLOS, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
YOU KNOW, AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE ENTIRE CITY IS PLANNED TECHNICALLY.
WE HAVE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH COVERS THE WHOLE CITY THAT WOULD MORE OR LESS RISE TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY, FOR INSTANCE, CALIFORNIA'S MUNICIPAL PLANS.
BUT EVEN THAT, NO, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T, IT'S CLOSE.
AND EVEN THAT REGARDLESS IS 11 YEARS OLD, IT'S GROSSLY OUT OF DATE AT THIS POINT.
WE'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MOVE HERE IN THE LAST 11 YEARS.
SO I WOULD AGREE THAT WE GENERALLY NEED MORE SUPPORT FOR PLANNING AT ALL SCALES ACROSS THE CITY.
ANYTHING THAT CALIFORNIA'S DOING, CLEAR FOR SURE.
NOT TRYING TO IMITATE THAT MODEL.
ONLY THE FREQUENCY'S NOT WORK, NOT WORKING AND YEAH, AND ACTUALLY I AM SITTING IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT
[02:05:01]
NOW AND IT IS, UM, AND IN FACT I'VE JUST HAD, I HAVE A FRIEND WHO, I HAVE A FEW FRIENDS WHO ARE PLANNERS OUT HERE AND THEY ARE VERY SURPRISED THAT WE DON'T DO THE LEVEL OF PLANNING THAT THEY DO.DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AT ALL IN THE HOUSING AND PLANNING TO BE MORE BROAD? THIS ONE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS PROVIDE ADEQUATE PLAN PLANNING STAFF AND RESOURCES TO INITIATE AND FACILITATE ADDITIONAL PLANNING THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
LEAVE OUT THE WORD SMALLER PLANNING.
SO LIKE CONCURRENT PLANNING THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND YOU COULD EVEN SAY INCLUDING, YOU KNOW RIGHT.
FOR SUCH AS AND THEN THE BULLET POINTS, RIGHT? SURE.
I I WOULD RECOMMEND SOME SORT OF PREAMBLE THERE THAT, UM, OUR REGION HAS DOUBLED IN SIZE EVERY 20 TO 25 YEARS AND JUST PUT THAT RIGHT AS A PREAMBLE AND THAT OUR PLANNING PROCESSES SHOULD REFLECT THAT REALITY.
AND THEN THE PROVIDE ADEQUATE STAFFING.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS APPROVED TODAY OR DO WE WANNA COME BACK WITH A MODIFIED VERSION IN TWO WEEKS? UH, WE'RE ALREADY LATE.
THESE WERE DUE BY THE END OF MARCH.
DO YOU WANNA WORK ON, WE CAN ADOPT THIS AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND THEN YOU CAN EMAIL A WATCH THE, UM, VIDEO AND PUT IN THE LANGUAGE AND GIVE IT TO ANDREW.
DO I HEAR A MOTION THAT THAT BE THE CASE? BE A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STERN.
UH, WHERE ARE WE AT IN THE AGENDA? UH,
[12. Election of interim parliamentarian.]
ELECTION NOMINATIONS.ELECTION OF INTERIM PARLIAMENTARIAN.
WE STILL NEED AN INTERIM PARLIAMENTARIAN.
DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? I SAW NO, HE DID NOT.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO, TO NOMINATE MYSELF FOR THAT.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU ARE PARLIAMENTARIAN ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
[13. Election of Officers.]
DO WE NEED TO DO THAT? DO WE HAVE A CHANGE THE SLATE? WHAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD COMMISSION? I'M WILLING TO CONTINUE SERVING, I'M WILLING TO CONTINUE AS CHAIR IF, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO REPLACE ME.DO YOU WANNA BE MORE THAN JUST INTERIM? NO
YOU'RE GONNA GO FROM INTERIM TO FULL HERE IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS.
I, UH, FULL ELECTION OF FULL TERM OFFICERS WAS, IT'S TODAY TO BEGIN TO TODAY, AND THEY BEGIN SERVICE 1ST OF MAY.
SO BE I'LL STAY, I'LL, I'LL STAY ON IN MY CURRENT POSITION.
SO A MOTION TO KEEP ALL THE SAME OFFICERS AS WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
I WOULD HAPPILY SUPPORT THE TRAINING OF ANOTHER COMMISSION.
INTERESTED
CHAIR, YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION.
WHAT'S THAT? YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION, YOU JUST VOTE.
[COMMITTEE REPORTS]
ORDINANCES.WE HAVEN'T MET SINCE THE LAST TIME.
UH, SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE.
WERE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, I GUESS IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, SO WE'RE NOT NEW PEOPLE FOR, UM, WE NOMINATED LAST TIME NEW PEOPLE TO THE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE.
SO THEY WERE, THEY'RE ALL ON HERE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE VACANCIES LEFT.
DO WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE GONNA MEET FOR THAT COLDS AND ORDINANCES OR HOW THE IT'S NOT AT THE HOUSE.
I THINK IT'S THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OR SOMETHING.
AND I THINK THERE IS AN UPCOMING CONFERENCING PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK.
I BELIEVE I GOT A NOTICE ABOUT IT.
I KNOW THE SMALL AREA JOINT COMMITTEE ALSO MEETS NEXT WEEK.
SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME COMMITTEE REPORTS NEXT TIME.
ANYTHING ELSE? WE'RE ADJOURNED.
[02:10:23]
I STUMBLED THROUGH THE DARKNESS.I LIVED WITHIN A WORLD THAT HAD NO SUNSHINE AND WHEN YOU LEFT ME, DARLING, MY.