[00:00:05]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
HAVE A THANK YOU.CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT, UH, 6 0 6.
UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, PLEASE SHOW, UH, SHOW US YOUR FACES, UH, SO I CAN GET A HEAD COUNT HERE.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER, WE'LL DO A OFFICIAL ROLL CALL HERE.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH A, UH, THE ROLL CALL.
UM, I'LL JUST START HERE ON THE DIAS AND GO LEFT TO RIGHT, AND I'LL JUST CALL YOUR NAME AND ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE.
UH, SO WE'LL START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HERE.
YOU GOT COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.
AND GOING ON TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE THE VICE CHAIR HEMPLE HERE, AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
AND THAT, UH, GIVES US A TOTAL OF SEVEN HERE ON THE DIAS TODAY.
AND THEN VIRTUALLY, UM, IN THE ORDER I SEE YOU GUYS.
UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY HERE AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE.
UH, WE MAY, MAY HAVE SOME OTHERS JOINING US LATER.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES IS OUT.
UH, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH, MOVE THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF OUR AGENDA HERE.
UM, UH, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR, COHEN.
UM, SO WE HAVE OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CHAIR, UH, CHAIR COHEN HERE JOINING US.
AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE IN PERSON, WHICH YOU ARE MOST OF THE TIME.
UH, NOW MOVING ON TO, UH, YES, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
UH, THE FIRST, UH, NEXT ITEM HERE IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 28TH, 2023.
COMMISSIONERS, DID YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL.
[Reading of the Agenda]
AND VICE CHAIR HEMP IS GONNA HELP ME OUT AND DO THE, UH, FIRST RUN THROUGH OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA.AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THAT ON TODAY.
ALL RIGHT, FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 20 22 5 0 2, SECOND ALPHA 95.
ITEM ITEM NUMBER THREE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 114, SECOND ALPHA 96.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 0 5 0 1 VARGAS MIXED USE THAT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM FIVE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 0 7 VARGAS.
MIXED USE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER SIX.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2022 DASH 0 0 1 4 0 5 BERGSTROM SPUR TRAIL MIXED USE THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT PER APRIL 25TH.
ITEM SEVEN, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 46.
TRAIL AREA INFILL WESTERN TRACT, THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
ITEM EIGHT, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 1 48 BERGS FROM TRAIL AREA INFILL EASTERN TRACT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
NUMBER NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 0 2 5 0 6, AND 5 0 8 WEST REZONING.
THAT IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
ITEM 10, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 93 S D C M L K UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 23RD.
ITEM 11, REZONING C 814 DASH SIX DASH ONE 70 FIVE.ZERO FOUR EAST AVENUE PUD AMENDMENT.
[00:05:01]
12, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 9 23 10 GOODRICH.THAT IS UP FOR CONSENT, BUT WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER.
ITEM 13 REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 1 57.
DOMAIN ONE AND TWO PDA AMENDMENT IS UP FOR CONSENT.
ITEM C 14, SITE PLAN S P DASH 2022 DASH 8 52 C 62 EAST AVENUE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 15, CODE AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT IS UP FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 16 E V VARIANCE P 20 21 9 1 CF SITE PLAN IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT NUMBER 17, PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT DASH 2022 DASH 0 3 30 HARRIS BRANCH, COMMERCE PARK PRELIMINARY PLAN IS UP FOR DISAPPROVAL PER FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C.
AND NUMBER 18, THE FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT DASH 2022 DASH 0 2 5 TWO.ONE A.
DOTS SH GOODNIGHT TOWN CENTER PHASE ONE, SECTION ONE IS UP FOR DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C.
THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VICE CHAIR.
UM, I'M GONNA DO A FEW HOUSEKEEPING THINGS HERE AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA AGAIN.
AND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER ON, UH, THE GOODRICH ITEM, UH, THAT WILL, UH, GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM.
SO JUST, UH, THIS FOR, UH, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE.
WE'VE GOT, UM, SPEAKERS PARTICIPATING IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY AS WELL AS COMMISSIONERS HERE ON THE DIAS AND PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY.
AND I BELIEVE, UH, WE HAVE A FEW CASES THIS EVENING.
UM, SO WE'LL TAKE THOSE AN ORDER AND THEN, UH, IF YOU WANT TO WAIT IN THE ATRIUM, I THINK, ARE WE STILL DOING THE EMAIL 15 MINUTES OUT FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? OKAY.
SO YOU CAN JOIN US, UH, WHEN YOUR, UM, WHEN YOUR CASE COMES UP, UM, COMMISSIONERS, UH, JUST REMEMBER THOSE OF YOU PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY.
I HAVE YOUR GREEN, YELLOW, RED CARDS.
IT HELPS ME KIND OF KEEP TRACK OF THE VOTES AND, UH, KEEP YOUR, UM, UH, KEEP ON MUTE AND, AND RAISE YOUR HAND IF I MISS YOU.
I HAVE HELP HERE FROM THOSE AROUND ME IF I, IF I DON'T SEE YOU.
UM, YES, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY OF THE CASES THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR SPEAKER ON.
OH, AND JUST RE REMEMBER, I DON'T, UH, MEMBERS, UH, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE NEW.
IF THERE'S ANY CASES THAT YOU WISH TO PULL AS WE'RE AT THIS TIME PERIOD, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT.
SO, UM, AND THE SAME GOES, UH, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE SPEAKER FOR GOODRICH AND, UM, WE CAN MAKE, DISCUSS, UH, MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO HEAR MORE OR NOT AT THAT TIME.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR SPEAKER.WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. LORRAINE ATHERTON SPEAKING ON ITEM 12 AND OPPOSITION.
UH, HELLO, I'M LORRAINE ATHERTON, UH, MEMBER OF THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING COMMITTEE.
AND, UH, ALSO, UM, UH, MICHAEL GERBER, UH, C E O OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ASKED ME TO, TO HELP THEM MAKE THEIR CASE IN OPPOSITION.
UH, UH, THE, UM, UH, UH, JOY HARDEN HAS, UH, UH, HAS REFUSED TO INCLUDE IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS CASE.
ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE CURRENT, UH, EXISTING 120 UNIT HOUSING AUTHORITY APARTMENT BUILDING, UH, ADJACENT TO 2130 GOODRICH, UH, THE 2018 REZONING AND SITE PLAN FILES FOR
[00:10:01]
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTY AT 2126 GOODRICH CONTAINED TRAFFIC INFORMATION THAT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE TRIP LIMIT AT 2130 GOODRICH INFORMATION THAT WOULD CONTRADICT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE TRIP LIMIT AT 2130.GOODRICH, UH, ATTACHED TO, I'VE SENT YOU, UH, A LETTER AND ATTACHED TO THAT LETTER IS THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM MICHAEL GERBER, CEO OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, UH, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR BACKUP.
UH, UH, MR. GERBER FELT COMPELLED TO CORRECT THE STAFF REPORT AND ASSERT THAT PATHWAYS AT GOODRICH PLACE.
A NEW THREE-STORY 120 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING OWNED BY HAKKA AND BUILT IN 2019 DOES INDEED EXIST ENTIRELY OCCUPYING THE PRIVATE DRIVE AT RA GLEN.
YET THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONTINUES TO SUGGEST THAT RAHAB GLEN WILL BE REBUILT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PATHWAYS BUILDING AND ON TOP OF THEIR DETENTION POND, ALLOWING ACCESS TO THIS LITTLE PROPERTY AT 2130.
GOODRICH, UH, FOLLOWING MY LETTER IS A SAMPLING OF STAFF COMMENTS AND Z N A CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING TRAFFIC ISSUES SURROUNDING THE PATHWAYS PROJECT 2130 GOODRICH AND OTHER PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY SOUTH LAMAR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS AFTER SOME PANDEMIC DELAYS, PROGRESS ON CORRIDOR PROJECTS IS ACCELERATING.
YET THIS STAFF REPORT ON 2130, GOODRICH CONTINUES TO IGNORE THEM.
WE REALLY WANT YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST, UH, UH, AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND PLEASE TAKE SOME ACTION TO CORRECT THE ZONING REPORT BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNSEL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS VERY MUCH.
[Consent Agenda]
ANY, UM, ITEMS? ARE WE, I'M GONNA READ THROUGH THESE AGAIN, UH, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.ALL RIGHT, UH, WE HAVE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
WE HAVE ITEMS TWO IS DISCUSSION.
AND, UH, WE'LL TAPE THOSE UP TOGETHER.
AND NEXT WE HAVE ITEM FOUR, UH, IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ITEM FIVE, THE REZONING CASE.
UH, WE'LL TAPE THOSE UP TOGETHER.
UH, THOSE ARE BOTH DISCUSSION ITEMS. ITEM SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
ITEM SEVEN, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
EIGHT, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
ITEM NINE, REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 25TH.
ITEM 10, REZONING, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 23RD.
ITEM 11, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 9TH.
ITEM 12, UH, REZONING IS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 13, REZONING IS ON CONSENT.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION 15.
ITEM 16, IT'S APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM 17, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS IN EXHIBIT C.
AND ITEM 18, FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN.
THIS ONE IS ALSO DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS IN EXHIBIT C.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.
UM, DO, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? UH, COMMISSIONERS AZAR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT WE DID LAST TIME.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO APPROVAL THIS MOTION? OKAY, IT PASSES.
WE ARE MOVING ON TO OUR CHAIR COMMISSION, LISA AND ANDREW VER MY APOLOGIES.
DID WE NOTE THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, WE DID NOT.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GOT A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
IT'S TAKEN BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND AGAIN, UH, HEARING NO OPPOSITION, UH, WE'LL GO AND PASS THAT MOTION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. RIVERA.
[Items 2 & 3]
OUR FIRST DISCUSSION[00:15:01]
CASE.UH, STAFF WILL GIVE US AN UPDATE.
THIS IS, UH, ITEMS TWO PLAN AMENDMENT ALONG WITH THE ITEM THREE, REZONING CASE AS SECOND ALPHA.
OH, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MR. RIVERA, THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE ALREADY HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS CHAIR, COMMISSION, LAY? YES.
UH, SO WE DO HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT AND TWO SPEAKERS REGISTERED.
UM, SO EACH, UM, MEMBER, I UNDERSTAND WE'LL RECEIVE ONE MINUTE.
AND, UM, WHAT WE'LL DO HERE, IF YOU RECALL, WE ALREADY FINISHED.
WE WENT THROUGH OUR Q AND A AND WE DECIDED TO POSTPONE THIS ONE.
UM, LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT'S SAID AND, UH, WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL Q AND A IF NEEDED, BASED ON ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BUT, UM, UH, WE DID ALREADY HEAR THIS CASE.
SO, UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY NEW INFORMATION, ANY MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS PLAN AMENDMENT M P A 20 22 0 0 0 5 0.02.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 24 0 4 THRASHER LANE.
THE REQUEST IS WITHIN THEOLO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
GOOD EVENING, NANCY ESTRADA WITH PLAINTIFF DEPARTMENT.
SORRY, THIS IS ITEM THREE ON YOUR AGENDA CASE C 14 20 22 114, SECOND ALPHA POINT 96.
AS YOU RECALL, THIS CASE WAS HER TWO WEEKS AGO.
THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT IS TO GO FROM CS N P TO SF THREE NP STAFF REC STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT SF THREE NP.
THERE IS A VALID PETITION FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR DUE TO SOME ISSUES WITH THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
I'LL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WILL NOW HEAR FOR ANY APPLICANT FOR ONE MINUTE.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I'M RODNEY BENNETT AND I'M HERE TONIGHT.
RESPECTFULLY, TO REQUEST THE DOWNSIZE DOWN ZONING OF 24 0 4 THRASHER LANE FROM C SNMP TO SF THREE NMP.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE OWNER TO SUBDIVIDE THIS PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS, SO THAT HE CAN CONSTRUCT FOUR DUPLEXES WITH A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNITS BY SUBDIVIDING INTO LOTS LESS THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS REDUCES THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS ON THE ADJOINING LOT ON THE SOUTH FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET.
THIS PLAN IS THE ONLY PLAN THAT WILL NOT HAVE OPPOSITION FROM THE MONS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE MON TOPLESS C, D, AND THE OWNER TO THE NORTH, DR.
THIS FACT IS PROVEN BY OUR PREVIOUS REQUEST TO RE REZONE THIS TRACT TO SF SIX MP LATER AMENDED TO CSM M U N P.
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THESE GROUPS, THAT CASE WAS WITHDRAWN.
I FEEL THAT THE SF THREE REQUEST IS KEEPING WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHERMORE, FROM A PLANNING ASPECT, COMMERCIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON A DEAD END STREET.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, MS. SARAH SERRY.
UM, THANK YOU GUYS FOR TAKING TIME TO MEET ME WITH ME ONE MORE TIME, OR LISTENING TO ME.
I DID REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AFTER THE LAST MEETING TO DISCUSS FURTHER, UM, POSSIBILITY SOLUTIONS AND GOT NO RESPONSE.
UM, AFTER THE LAST MEETING, I REALIZED THAT NO ONE ASKED, INCLUDING ME WHY THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER WASN'T ABLE TO DO OR WASN'T DOING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, UM, PROGRAM WITHOUT A REZONING.
I MEAN, CONFUSES ME AS TO WHY HE NEEDS A REZONING GIVEN THE NEW ORDINANCE.
AND THAT SHOULD REDUCE SETBACKS CONSIDERABLY ON MY PROPERTY AND COULD SOLVE THE SITUATION WITHOUT THE NEED FOR REZONING FROM SIESTA SF THREE.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE HE COULD AS WELL, ALTHOUGH I TRIED TO CONNECT HIM ON THIS.
UM, HE DID NOT RESPOND, NOR DID THE OWNER.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF WAS LATER ASKED ABOUT THIS, AND IT WAS SHARED THAT HE WOULD'VE, UM, WOULD'VE HAD TO CONSIDER A REZONING CATEGORY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND CONCERNING, UM, COMMERCIAL ZONING.
HOWEVER, THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME SINCE HE'S ALREADY ZONED CS.
UM, THAT PROGRAM, IT SEEMS TO ME, WOULD ALLOW HIM TO BUILD SF SIX F SF HOMES THAT HE WANTS TO OR BUILD POTENTIALLY MORE.
AND WITHIN A PHOTO, AFFORDABLE SET ASIDE, NO REZONING WOULD BE NEEDED AFTER ALL.
I'M A LOT OF LOSS TO WHY ARE WE CAN'T DO THIS, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO DENY HIS REQUEST.
WE ALSO HAVE REGISTERED SUSANNA ALMANZA, HOWEVER, I DON'T HAVE HER PRESIDENT CHAMBERS.
[00:20:01]
AND WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.UM, CAN ASK A CLARIFY, UH, WHO, YES, UH, CHAIR.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? MR. RIVER, MR. MR. RIVER, DID MR. AMANZA INDICATE, UM, WHETHER SHE WAS OPPOSED SUPPORTING OR NEUTRAL? REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY, SO COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR WE MOVE TO A MOTION, ANY PREFERENCES HAVE GOOD QUESTION.
YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK QUESTIONS? YEAH.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.
UM, CUZ IF WE WANNA OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AGAIN, WE, THIS IS GONNA BE A CHANGE.
JUST NEED TO ACCEPT, CHANGE OUR RULES.
DO WE WANT TO ALLOW A CERTAIN NUMBER? LET'S GO FIVE OR THREE MINUTES.
I'M HEARING MR. AAR MAKING A MOTION FOR FIVE AT THREE.
ANY OPPOSITION TO FIVE AT THREE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND PROCEED.
HEY, I, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
WOULD THIS PROPERTY, UH, SO WOULD THIS PROPERTY QUALIFY FOR THE NOW RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL? IT DOES QUALIFY FOR THE ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, UM, PER THIS PAST WEEK, I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WHO'S BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER, AND THEY ARE NOT LOOKING TO, UH, USE THIS ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.
DUE TO THE EL ALL THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS ALL THE AFFORDABILITY ELIGIBILITY THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO, UH, AND THAT WAS 10%, CORRECT? 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
CAN I SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBOR REAL QUICK? HI.
UM, SO SOMETIMES WE WE'RE HERE AND WE, WE HEAR THINGS AND WE READ MORE AND WE LEARN AND RE REMIND OURSELVES OUR RED, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY AND AUSTIN POLITICS.NET, THAT, UM, YOU HAD SHARED LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE THAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU COULD BUILD WAS GOING DOWN.
COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I'M SO SORRY.
HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HOPE TO BUILD AND WHAT DO YOU FEEL THE IMPACT OF, OF THIS DOWN ZONING NEXT DOOR WOULD DO TO THE NUMBER OF BU UH, UNITS YOU LOOK TO BUILD YOUR OVERALL YIELD? SO IT WAS, COULD YOU SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH.
UM, IT WAS, AS I SAID, BACK OF THE NAPKIN MATH, IT WAS ABOUT 330 UNITS REDUCED TO 150.
GIVEN EVERYONE A CHANCE TO TALK, IF YOU WANNA COME UP REAL QUICK, UH, I'D LOVE TO KNOW MAYBE WHAT'S HOLDING YOU BACK FROM CITY COUNCIL? JUST DID A REALLY BIG THING ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
AND YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL? YES, SIR.
THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED ROUGHLY TWO YEARS AGO.
HE'S NOT AN OUT-OF-TOWN BUILDER.
THIS IS ALL HE BUILT IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
HIS, WE LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY NANCY.
AND THE ISSUE IS WITH THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE 10%, 10% WOULD BE ONE UNIT OUT OF EIGHT.
UM, THESE AREN'T LOW END HOMES.
I WOULD CONSIDER THEM MODERATELY PRICED HOMES IN AUSTIN.
BECAUSE OF THAT, HE FEELS THAT HE WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE, UM, BUILDING SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
UM, AS FAR AS MS. AMANZA, UH, SIGNING UP IN OPPOSITION, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE, WE HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, COMMISSIONER MUTO.
UM, AND SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, WHEN DID THE, WHEN DID YOU START WITH THIS PROCESS WITH THE CITY FOR THE REZONING APPLICATION? APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO.
AND SO THIS HAS BEEN TWO YEARS IN THE WORKS, UM, AND YOUR, YOUR SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATED THAT ONCE, IF THIS IS APPROVED AT THIS CLEAREST COUNCIL, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT YOU ANTICIPATE ANOTHER TWO YEARS IN, IN PERMITTING TO GET TO MOVING DIRT OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YES, MA'AM.
WE ANTICIPATE APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME WE GET APPROVED WITH THE ZONING, WE HAVE TO DO THE SUBDIVISION.
THEN ONCE THAT'S APPROVED, FILED FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS.
AND ALSO HAVE EVERYTHING DESIGNED.
AND MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR, UM, THE NEIGHBOR OPPOSING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
[00:25:02]
YES.SORRY, I THINK I LOST MY SCREEN.
AND SO, UM, SO WE'RE ABOUT TWO YEARS OUT WITH THAT.
SO YOU TALKED ABOUT BUILDING MULTI-FAMILY, IS THAT CORRECT FOR YOUR PROPERTY? YES.
MULTI-FAMILY OR, AND WITH MIXED USE.
AND WHERE ARE YOU IN YOUR APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THAT AT THIS TIME? I'M, I HAVE NOT STARTED IT YET.
BUT I WILL SAY YOU HAD ASKED HIM WHEN HE STARTED HIS PROCESS, UM, I REALLY WISH THAT HE HAD IN THE BEGINNING BROUGHT ME INVOLVED IN THIS CUZ WE COULD HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY DISAPPOINTING SINCE APPARENTLY HE'S BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS FOR A LOT LONGER.
I DID NOT OPPOSE TO THE CSM U WHEN HE WAS DOING IT.
AND SO HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S A, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILDER, BUT HE WAS GOING FOR CSM U THEN HE WENT FOR SF SIX.
NOW HE'S GOING TO SF THREE AND I'M FORCED TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF HOW GREATLY IT AFFECTS MY PROPERTY.
I TALKED TO HIM BEFOREHAND AND SAID, LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO THIS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IS SUCH A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY.
UM, I GUESS I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT HE DOESN'T WANNA DO AFFORDABILITY, BUT I WOULD BELIEVE IF HE COULD DO THAT, HE COULD PROBABLY BUILD A FEW MORE AND IT'D BE GREAT FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED AND NOT AFFECT, UM, MY PROJECT.
DO YOU KNOW, DO WE KNOW WHAT YOUR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR? PARDON ME? DO WE KNOW WHAT YOUR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR? MY PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL.
AS IS IS, SO, SO YOU WOULD EITHER HAVE TO APPLY FOR C S M U OR YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR MULTI-FAMILY OR SOMETHING AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL THERE.
WELL, I WAS GOING TO DO THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
AND THAT'S ALL MY COMMISSION MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, FISHER ZAR.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE KNOW NO PATHWAY FOR THIS EXISTS TODAY, BUT LET'S SAY THERE WAS A PATHWAY FOR Y'ALL TO, UM, INDICATE THAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ON THE NEIGHBORING LOT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE OPEN TO? YES, SIR.
WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT.
IF THE OWNER WISHES TO FILE FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS VARIANCE TO ZERO SETBACKS, WE WOULD NOT OPPOSE THAT.
UM, IF THERE WAS IN TIME SOMETHING THAT CAME, ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT CAME UP, THEN SO BE IT.
WE WOULD, WE, I AND THE DEVELOPER ARE IN THE BUSINESS TO PROMOTE GROWTH AND TO GET PERMITS OUT.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, THERE'S NOT AN AVENUE AT THIS POINT IN TIME FOR US TO ALLEVIATE HER CONCERNS.
WE'LL HAVE AN ITEM TODAY WHERE WE MIGHT DISCUSS SOMETHING SIMILAR, DO SEE IF THERE'S AN PATHWAY FORWARD, BUT WE APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M NOT SEEING COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER AZAR? UH, COMMISSIONER COX ACTUALLY HAS IT.
I WAS JUST, UH, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, BUT I WAS, I WAS JUST GONNA MOTION, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR BOTH THE, WE HAVE TO DO BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING CASE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AZAR, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBOR, UH, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER JUST WANTS TO BUILD A COUPLE HOMES.
AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD NECESSARILY STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT FOR A POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXIST YET.
PLUS FUTURE SOLUTIONS THAT COULD COME ABOUT TO RESOLVE THIS, THAT, THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET.
SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF UNKNOWNS TO NOT ALLOW THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER TO JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT THEY WANNA DO NOW.
UH, SO THAT'S WHY I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THIS IS SUCH A TRICKY SITE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONUNDRUM.
I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
THE REASON BEING, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOWN ZONING.
UM, SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED OR FEATURE LAND USE MAP IS COMMERCIAL AND ZONE COMMERCIAL.
UM, AND NOW THAT WE HAVE AN AVENUE TOWARDS HAVING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, UM, IT DOES HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS ONE.
I WONDER, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, WERE YOU SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION?
[00:30:01]
I HAD A COMMENT AGAINST.UH, OTHER COMMISSIONER DES VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO.
I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, A PROJECT THAT COULD COME ONLINE HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND, AND PROVIDE SOME, UH, SOME MISSING ENTRY LEVEL OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
COULD WE POSSIBLY GET MORE OUT OF IT? YES, BUT I, I ALSO AGREE THAT I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGES COMING EITHER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL OR AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT ARE GOING TO RELEASE SOME OF THE PRESSURE ON COMPATIBILITY.
UM, SO I THINK WHEN THE NEIGHBORING, UM, OWNER IS, IS CLOSER TO DEVELOPING, THERE'S GOING THERE.
I, I'M, I'M KEEPING MY FINGERS CROSSED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE BETTER PATHWAYS FOR THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE READY TO DEVELOP.
WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
AND I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY.
I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTED, YOU KNOW, DOWN ZONING, UH, DOWN ZONING A LOT, UM, FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY, JUST SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN SKIRT HAVING TO USE, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, UH, PROGRAM AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING 'EM TO AVOID CREATING AN AFFORDABLE UNIT OF HOUSING, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO UNDER THAT PROGRAM, I THINK IS, I, I DON'T SEE THE PURPOSE OF IT.
AND I ALSO DON'T THINK THIS IS JUST THE STORY OF AN APPLICANT OR A DEVELOPER TRYING TO BUILD SOME, SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
I THINK THIS IS THE STORY OF AN APPLICANT WHO IS CORNERED INTO CHOOSING THIS BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS.
AND SO THEN THERE'S THIS QUESTION OF WH WHICH, WHOSE VOICE IS WORTH MORE, WHICH NEIGHBORS CARRY MORE WEIGHT, UM, AND, AND, AND, AND WHO GETS TO SWAY OR KILL A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT TYPE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK IT'S A VERY TRICKY SITUATION BECAUSE IN MANY WAYS THE APPLICANT WAS CORNERED INTO DOING THIS BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SOME FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SUPPORT.
AND SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, THIS IS A TRICKY ONE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY I WOULD SUPPORT IT.
UH, I DID HAVE, UM, MR. ANDERSON ONE TO SPEAK AGAINST, BUT DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? SEEING NONE.
UH, GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UM, ALSO NOT AN EASY CASE, BUT THEN AGAIN, IT KIND OF BECOMES EASY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, RIGHT? SO BACK OF THE NAPKIN, IF WE'RE LOPPING OFF, LET'S SAY IT'S NOT 150, LET'S SAY IT'S A HUNDRED HOMES, 10% OF THOSE ARE AFFORDABLE, 10% AFFORDABLE.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST LIKE ALL THE, I GET IT.
THE AMAZING SHORTCOMINGS OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ITEM NUMBER 20 CAN HELP ADDRESS THIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE ITEM 20 PASSED QUITE YET.
UM, I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT THE APPLICANT, IF THIS DOESN'T SUCCEED TODAY AND DOESN'T SUCCEED AT COUNCIL, CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO GO AND LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE DONE BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY UNDER, YOU KNOW, UNDER, UNDER COMMERCIAL STANDARDS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PROBABLY PUT A LOT MORE IF YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD SF THREE STANDARDS.
SO MAYBE THERE COULD BE A LOT, QUITE A FEW MORE HOMES, BUT BUILT HERE THAN JUST THE EIGHT THAT ARE PLANNED FROM A TWO YEAR OLD PLAN.
ALSO, SORRY THAT A LOT OF THINGS HAVE TRIED TO HAPPEN ON YOUR SITE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSE THOSE WHEN THEY JUST HAD A LOT OF AFFORDABILITY WITH THEM.
BUT THERE'S GOTTA BE A BETTER, A BETTER SOLUTION HERE.
AND I JUST SEE THIS AS BEING A BIG STEP BACKWARDS.
UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
I'M GONNA START WITH THOSE ON THE DIAS.
UH, WE'LL DO, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UH, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER COX SECOND AND VICE COMMISSIONER AZAR GONNA SHOW ME HANDS FOR THOSE IN FAVOR.
UM, AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR AND JUST THANK YOU.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, THAT WAS GREEN, CORRECT? YOU'RE HOLD? YES.
NOW LET'S MOVE TO, THAT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
UH, LET'S SEE THOSE ON THE DIAS VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION.
UH, THOMPSON, JUST HOLD CAUSE I'M, I NEED TO ANNOUNCE THOSE VOTING AGAINST AND, UH, SUSTAINING SH ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS ON THE SCREEN VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM.
THAT ITEM FAILS WITH COMMISSIONERS, UH, THOMPSON COMMISSIONER, MAXWELL COMMISSIONER WOODS, UH, SHERIFF HAW, VICE HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, MR. CONNOLLY VOTING AGAINST, UH, AND THAT WAS ONE SEVEN TO FIVE, FIVE TO SEVEN.
UH, SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE.
[00:35:01]
NO.[Items 4 & 5]
TO OUR NEXT CASE.UH, YES, IT'S PLAN, AMENDMENT, AND THE REZONING.
SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF REMAR MEREDITH, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS PLAN AMENDMENT MPA 20 22 0 0 5 0.01 VARGAS MIXED USE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 400 VARGAS ROAD AND 65 20 LYNCH LANE.
IT IS WITHIN THE MON MON TOPLESS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 22 0 1 0 7 VARGAS MIXED USE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 400 VARGAS ROAD IN 65 20 LYNCH LANE AND CONSISTS OF TWO TRACKS.
TRACK ONE IS CURRENTLY ZONED G R N P, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C S M U N P.
TRACK TWO IS CURRENTLY ZONED L R N P, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING L R M U N P.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT G R M U C O N P ZONING FOR TRACK ONE AND L R M U N P ZONING FOR TRACK TWO.
THE UNDEVELOPED AND UN POTTED TRACKS ARE 4.31 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF US HIGHWAY 180 3 BETWEEN VARGAS ROAD AND SAXON LANE.
THE LARGER TRACK ONE IS 3.76 ACRES WITH FRONTAGE ALONG US HIGHWAY 180 3.
THE SMALLER TRACK TWO IS 0.55 ACRES AND IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION AT VARGAS ROAD IN LYNCH LANE.
THE SITE DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL CS DISTRICT.
THAT IS NOT AS, IT IS NOT LOCATED AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION.
THIS DESIGNATION HAS OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OR TRAFFIC SERVICE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GR M U C O N P AND L R M U N P ZONING, GIVEN ITS ACCESS 10 ARTERIAL STREET, US HIGHWAY 180 3, AND COLLECTOR STREETS, VARGAS ROAD AND SAXON LANE, AS WELL AS ITS ADJA ADJACENCY TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND CIVIC PROPERTIES.
THE MIXED USE COMBINING DSIG WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, AS WELL AS PERMIT OFFICE CIVIC AND LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES THAT WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND FOR THIS ITEM, I ONLY HAVE THE APPLICANT REGISTERED, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UH, THE SITE, AS YOU HEARD, IS 4.31 ACRES COMBINED.
IT HAS FRONTAGE ON FOUR DIFFERENT ROADWAYS, ONE OF THOSE BEING A MAJOR HIGHWAY, WHICH IS HIGHWAY 180 3.
THIS IS THE SITE IN COMPARISON TO ELEMENTS OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER MILE FROM EXISTING BUS SERVICE STOPS AND ABOUT A MILE OUTSIDE OF THE RIVERSIDE STATION.
UM, IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTER NEXT SLIDE.
SO WE ARE ASKING TO TAKE THIS, UH, BIG RED POLYGON THAT YOU SEE AND CHANGE IT TO BROWN, WHICH WOULD BE MIXED USE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND THEN FOR THE ZONING CHANGE, UH, FOR THE FRONT PIECE THAT FRONTS ON, UH, THE HIGHWAY, IT'S THE LARGER PIECE THAT'S, UH, A LITTLE OVER THREE ACRES.
WE'RE ASKING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO GR OR SORRY, FROM GR TO C S M U N P.
AND FOR THE SMALLER PIECE ON THE BACK HALF, THAT FRONTS ON LYNCH LANE, WE'RE ASKING FOR JUST ADDING THE MU OVERLAY TO THE EXISTING LR ZONING.
SO THIS IS A TABLE THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BETWEEN THE, THE THREE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT EXIST AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR MIXED USE ON ALL OF THE LANDS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, ON THE L RMU PIECE, IT ALLOWS, ON AVERAGE AVERAGING ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 20 UNITS, UH, ON THAT ONE ACRE.
AND THEN, UH, FOR CS M U, THE AVERAGE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM YIELD WOULD BE 40 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT 149 ON THE THREE ACRES, UH, SITE.
THAT'S JUST A LITTLE OVER THREE ACRES.
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN, UH, BETWEEN THE GR AND THE CS, WHICH IS WHERE, UM, STAFF AND OUR REQUESTS ARE NOT IN EXACTLY IN ALIGNMENT IS THE F A R, UH, F A R IS GOING TO BENEFIT THIS PROJECT, UH, ANY PROJECT THAT COMES FORWARD BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE UNIT SIZES.
WHILE THE DENSITY YIELD IS THE SAME, THE F A R DOES ALLOW FOR SOME OF THOSE UNITS
[00:40:01]
TO POTENTIALLY BE LARGER IN SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE FAMILIES.IN ADDITION, UM, C S M U HAS A TWO TO ONE F A R THAT WILL ALSO MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THAT ANY PARKING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT COULD BE STRUCTURED VERSUS UNDER A ONE ONE-TO-ONE F A R.
IT'S LESS LIKELY THAT YOU'LL GET A DEVELOPER TO DO STRUCTURED PARKING ON THAT SITE.
SO, UM, AS YOU HEARD STAFF SAY, THEY'RE NOT RECOMMENDING CSM U ON THE FRONT ACREAGE, UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION.
UM, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES ACROSS THE CITY THAT WHILE MAY NOT BE AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS, UM, HAVE CS ZONING AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR CS ZONING.
UM, THESE ARE SOME SITES IN FRONT OF YOU THAT ARE NEAR OUR SUBJECT TRACT THAT HAVE CS AND HAVE FRONTAGE ON, UH, 180 3 AND ALSO SOME OTHER INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.
THESE ARE SOME OTHER SITES THAT, UM, I TRIED TO FIND SITES THAT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A HIGHWAY, BUT ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE CS, UM, ZONING HAS BEEN APPROVED.
UM, I THINK WE KNOW THAT CS ALLOWS A GREAT DEAL OF OPPORTUNITY FOR USES THAT CAN SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WITH THE SITE HAVING FRONTAGE ON FOUR DIFFERENT ROADWAYS, UM, IT ALSO PROVIDES A GREAT DEAL OF CONNECTIVITY, UH, FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES IN.
WE, UH, REMAIN AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
AND, UM, I THINK WE'RE DOING PRETTY GOOD.
LET'S STICK WITH OUR, DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL OF 'EM.
UH, WE'LL STICK WITH EIGHT AND FIVE, BUT, UH, AGAIN, UM, DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL EIGHT SLOTS.
UH, WE NEED TO GO IN CLOSE PUBLIC CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.
YES, IT'S CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
DO I HEAR ANY, SEE ANY OPPOSITION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING, SAYING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, START WITH Q AND A.
OH, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU WANNA START US OFF? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF'S THERE, BUT I'LL JUST ASK MY QUESTION.
UM, OTHER THAN WHAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED IN TERMS OF THE GREATER F A R AND THE GREATER IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT THEY WOULD GET UNDER, UNDER, UH, CS VERSUS GR, ARE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS THAT, THAT THEY COULD DO DEVELOPMENT OR USE WISE, UM, IF THEY WERE TO GET CS VERSUS GR ADDITIONAL USES? UM, WELL, WE PRETTY MUCH PUT THAT ON A CO YEAH.
UBER WOULD JUST BE A FEW ADDITIONAL USES FROM THE GR TO THE CS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKED WAS? YEAH, I, I BASICALLY, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, OTHER THAN THE F A R AND IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GR AND THE CS AS YEAH, JUST A FEW USES.
UH, I DON'T RECALL WHAT THEY ARE, BUT IF THERE WOULD BE A FEW USES.
YOU, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE, UM, WAS LIKE SOME TRANSPORTATION TYPE REQUIREMENTS, UM, THAT WERE NOT SUITABLE FOR THIS, FOR THIS SITE.
OH, IS THAT, DID I MIS HEAR THAT REGARDING THE CS? YEAH, REGARDING, UH, CS DESIGNATION, DESIGNATION VERSUS G R? YEAH.
OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST BASED ON HAVING CS, UH, AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION.
AND SINCE THIS IS LOCATED AT ONE ARTERIAL AND TWO COLLECTOR ROADS, SAXON AND VARGAS, WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO GO WITH THE GR.
AND THE STAFF FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE.
THE COMPATIBILITY STILL APPLIES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS SITE SEEMS TO BE SURROUNDED BY CORRECT.
PRETTY MUCH SMALL SF THREE EXCEPT FOR ONE LOT, WHICH HAS SF SIX.
YES, SF THREE IS ALL TO THE WEST AND SOUTH, SO THAT WOULD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.
REAL QUICK, IF I'VE GOT TIME, UM, WOULD, IT'S, IT'S A MINOR DIFFERENCE, BUT IF WE WERE, IF THIS COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE CS VERSUS GR, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE LOWER IMPERVIOUS COVER INCLUDED IN A CO FOR DR? YES.
[00:45:01]
WE WOULD.IS THE IDEA, I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S CO THAT'S PROPOSED TO PROHIBIT THOSE USES, AND WE'RE ALSO WILLING TO PROHIBIT OTHER CS USES THAT ARE JUST NOT APPROPRIATE NEAR RESIDENTIAL, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN I SPEAK ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGES? OH, RIGHT QUICK.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, UM, I UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO LOWER THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN, FRANKLY, IT'S VERY HARD TO EVEN GET TO 80% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON EVEN URBAN SITES BECAUSE OF THE DETENTION, WATER QUALITY, LANDSCAPING, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO WE'D BE AMENABLE TO AN 80% CAP ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, FURTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, NOT SEEING ANY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? COMMISSIONER COX? I THINK I'LL LAY OUT THE MOTION THAT RON AND I WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, WHICH, WHICH WAS TO, UH, UH, GRANT APPLICANT REQUEST, UH, WITH THE CO, UM, TO PROHIBIT AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE WASHING BAIL BOND SERVICES, COMMERCIAL OFF-STREET PARKING, DROP OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, EXTERMINATING SERV SERVICES, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING AND PAWN SHOP SERVICES.
AND THEN ADD A LIMIT TO IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 80%.
AND THEN I, I'LL LEAVE THE OTHER SERVICES.
MAYBE YOU CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH STAFF FOR COUNSEL, BUT, BUT FOR NOW, THAT'S WHAT I'LL PROPOSE AS A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER MU TOLLER AND COMMISSIONER COX, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? CAN I ASK FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION? NO, I, I THINK I JUST DID.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER AZAR, JUST IT'S YOUR POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF.
STAFF, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS POINT, THIS MIGHT BE FOR MR. RIVERA TO ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT SOME OF THOSE CO USES FROM CS WOULD CAN BE RESOLVED, OR DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY THEM AT THIS MOMENT? CHAIR COMMISSION LAY ON ANDREW.
SO YOU SHOULD PROBABLY, UH, SPECIFY THE USES AND THEN, UM, ALSO IN CONFIRM WITH LAW, WE CAN, UM, REVIEW PRIOR TO COUNSEL.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT.
YEAH, WELL, AND I ACTUALLY WANTED TO MODIFY MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE, I THINK I NEED TO INCLUDE THE NPA, WHICH WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
UM, AND, AND I GUESS, UH, IS IT POSSIBLE, RON, IF YOU COULD COME UP AND HELP US WITH SOME ADDITIONAL USES THAT YOU KNOW OF? OKAY.
LET'S, UH, JUST, UH, KEEP THINGS OURS.
SO WE HAD, UM, I THINK HE WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE N P A WAS INCLUDED, BUT COMMISSIONER MOOCH TOLD YOU WERE SECONDING THAT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR SECOND THAT THIS INCLUDES THE N P A? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO WE ARE LOOKING JUST KEEP, I'M TRYING TO KEEP UP HERE.
SO WE HAVE THE CO USES THAT ARE IN THE BACKUP THAT WERE, THAT YOU LISTED, COMMISSIONER COX, RIGHT? THOSE ARE IN THE BACKUP? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF ACTUALLY STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND NOW WE ARE, UH, IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL USES TO INCLUDE A NET CO.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW? THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY DESIRE.
AND WHAT I HEARD WAS CONSTRUCTION SALES.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET INTO THIS EXTENSIVELY ON THE FLY, BUT IF THERE'S ANY, SO WE ARE, WE AMENDING YOUR, YOUR INITIAL, BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
SO ARE WE MAKING A AMENDMENT NOW TO THE CO? IS, IS THIS A MOTION TO AMEND THE CO THE CHAIR PROPOSING? OKAY.
DO WE HAVE THIS? SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR WHAT THOSE ARE AND WE'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE A SECOND.
AND, AND I'M HOPING THAT I CAN BREAK THE RULES A LITTLE BIT AND GET RON'S HELP WITH ANY ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
WE'VE GOT THE APPLICANT HERE AND, UH, HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN, UM, GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH THESE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES.
WELL, I MEAN, AGRICULTURAL, WE WOULD BE, WE'D, OH, YOU GOT ONE? GOOD.
WE'D BE GOOD WITH AGRICULTURAL SALES, UHHUH,
THOSE ARE PERMITTED IN CS GIVEN THAT TO YOUR HONOR, BUT THEY ARE IN C CS, WHICH, OKAY.
I'M JUST, I CAN'T SEE KIDDING.
[00:50:01]
THANK YOU.WHAT'S HAPPEN RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, UM, THE ONES WE'RE COMING UP WITH ON THE FLY ARE AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, KENNEL SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES.
AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER SERVICE YOU SAID KEN'S, KEN'S ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, WE'LL BE GLAD TO SPEND TIME BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL TO GET, OKAY.
LET'S, LET'S READ THIS ONE MORE TIME.
JUST, UH, SO WAS AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES? YES.
CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES? YES.
AND WAS THERE ONE MORE? KENNELS.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZA, I'LL, I'LL JUST ASK A QUESTION.
WOULD YOU ALL ALSO BE OPEN TO ADDING AN ADULT ORIENTED SERVICES, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, UNQUESTIONABLY, YES.
AND DROP OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION? YES.
WE'LL ADD THOSE IN AS WELL, HOPEFULLY DROP OFF.
AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? UM, I'M, I HAVE A LIZ HERE.
J IT HELPS THE ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES, COMMERCIAL BLOOD, PLASMA CENTER CONSTRUCTION, SEAL AND SERVICES, DROPOFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITIES, AGRICULTURE, SALES, KENNEL SERVICES, AND EXTERMINATING SERVICES.
SO THIS WAS COMMISSIONER COX'S AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THOSE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES? SO I, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UH, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER? OKAY, JUST, SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY, I, I LOST TRACK HERE.
SO THESE ARE JUST ADDING AND REMOVING ONE PROHIBITED USES FROM THE ORIGINAL LIST THAT I PUT TOGETHER.
THESE ARE ADDING UP MORE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES TO THE ONES THAT YOU READ INTO YOUR MOTION.
IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE LIST, SO, OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE? ALL RIGHT.
ANY OPPOSITION TO ADDING THOSE ON? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I, I JUST HAVE A, A GENERAL DISLIKE FOR CREATING COMPLICATED COS WITH A LONG LIST OF, OF USES THAT AREN'T NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
NO ONE IS GOING TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND TURN IT INTO A RECYCLING DROP OFF CENTER OR, OR A BLOOD PLASMA CENTER.
AND, AND I JUST SOMETIMES WONDER IF WE SPEND TOO MUCH TIME COMPLICATING OUR CODE FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO, COMMISSION THOMPSON, DO YOU WANNA BE SEEN AS VOTING IN OPPOSITION OF THIS? OKAY.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON IS, UM, IN A POSITION, ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION OF THE, UH, ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT AS PASSING, UH, THE AMENDMENT, UH, TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
SO LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL.
I DON'T THINK, DID WE GET THROUGH ALL THE FOREIGN AGAINST? WE DID NOT.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION? I'VE SPOKEN ENOUGH ON THIS.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER DOES IT WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? ANY ADDITIONAL WANNA SPEAK FOR? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE, UM, LET'S GO AND TAKE A, A WELL, LET'S MAKE IT EASY.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT WANNA VOTE IN OPPOSITION OF CHAIR? YES.
UM, CAN WE COUNT THE VOTE? I, I, MAYBE I'M BEING WEIRD HERE, BUT I DON'T LIKE THE WHOLE, WE'RE JUST GONNA PASS IT UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE SPEAKS UP.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX IN BY COMMISSIONER MOTO.
AND THIS WAS, THIS IS APPLICANT REQUEST, UH, WITH THE COS THAT WE JUST IDENTIFIED AND THE IC LIMIT OF 80%.
UH, SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
OKAY, LET'S, UH, THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR, THIS MOTION AND THE NPA, THE, YES, THE NPA AND THE ZONING CASE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS.
UM, SEEING THIS, EVERYONE ON THE DIAS AND, OH, THAT'S ALL GREEN, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
THIS ONE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE.
[14. Site Plan: SP-2022-0852C - 62 East Avenue; District 9]
YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE US, UH, BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM?[00:55:13]
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION.MY NAME IS ZACH LOFTON AND I'M WITH THE URBAN DESIGN TEAM IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE ITEM THAT I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT IS FOR A DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS REQUEST, WHICH EXCEEDS THE PROGRAM'S ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOWANCE OF 15 TO ONE F A R IN THE RAINY STREET SUBDISTRICT IN DOWNTOWN.
SO THIS PROJECT IS 62 EAST AVENUE WITH A CASE NUMBER OF S P 20 22 0 8 5 2 C, AND THE APPLICANT IS THE GENERAL GROUP.
AND SO FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 53 STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WHICH WILL INCLUDE 10 UNITS OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GARAGE PARKING, AND STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THROUGH LDC SECTION 25 2 5 86 B SIX, THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING FROM CITY COUNCIL ADDITIONAL BONUS AREA FROM 15 TO ONE TO 29 TO ONE F A R FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND SO, AS YOU, YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE GATE, UH, GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THE THREE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS THROUGH GREAT STREETS FEE AND LIEU.
SO THIS PROJECT IS ON TECH DOT RIGHT OF WAY, AND SO IT'S PRECLUDED FROM, YOU KNOW, DOING THE GREAT STREETS IMPROVEMENT.
SO IN LIEU OF THAT, THEY'RE GONNA PAY A FEE, THEY'RE GONNA MEET THE AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING, TWO STAR RATING, AND IT'S SHOWN THAT IT WILL ALSO COMPLY WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND SO, SPECIFICALLY FROM A BONUS AREA STANDPOINT, THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO ACHIEVE THE BONUS AREA THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MEANS FROM 40 FEET TO EIGHT TO ONE F A R.
THEY'RE GONNA PROVIDE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 5% OF THE BONUS AREA, TOTALING 3,487 SQUARE FEET AND FOUR UNITS AS REQUIRED BY THE RAINY STREET SUBDISTRICT REGULATIONS.
AND THEN FROM EIGHT TO ONE TO 15 TO ONE, THEY'RE GONNA PAY $298,550 IN FEES IN LIEU.
AND THEY'RE GONNA TARGET A THREE STAR, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING RATING.
AND THEN FROM 15 TO ONE TO 29 TO ONE F A R, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FROM COUNCIL.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA PROVIDE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 5% OF THE BONUS AREA, TOTALING 5,985 SQUARE FEET AND SIX UNITS.
AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GONNA PAY $510,000 IN FEES IN LOOP.
AND SO THAT'LL TOTAL 9,472 SQUARE FEET AND 10 UNITS OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALL FEES TOTALING $808,550 WE PAID INTO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
AND SO WITH THIS, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE CODE REQUIREMENT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE F A R ALLOWANCE FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AND SO FROM A STAFF RECOMMENDATION STANDPOINT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR BONUS AREA ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY 25,000 200 586
I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS TO APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL AS SOME, SOME FOLKS TO SPEAK.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.
HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, I'M LEAH BOJO WITH JENNER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, ZACH DID A GREAT JOB, SO I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND THEN I'M MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, THE CYTO ZONE, C D AS YOU KNOW, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IT'S ONLY ACCESS IS OFF OF EAST AVENUE.
UM, JUST TO SITUATE YOU IN THE, IN THE DENSITY BONUS AREA, YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE WE'RE LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN, AGAIN, RIGHT UP ON EAST AVENUE ON THE EASTERN EDGE.
UM, HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE BUILDING AND A, AND A SORT OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT ZACK DESCRIBED, THAT WE CAN GET UP TO 15 TO ONE F A R, AN UNLIMITED HEIGHT.
ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST 29 TO ONE F A R.
UM, THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT BEING THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL SITE.
IT'S UNDER 12,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, HERE YOU HAVE SORT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
UM, AGAIN, JUST UNDER 12,000 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE LOOKING AT 57 STORIES, UM, AND IT WOULD WE'LL END UP BEING 215 MULTI-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
[01:00:01]
FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, UM, WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES, THE GREAT STREET STANDARDS, THE AUSTIN ENERGY GREENS BUILDING TWO STAR, WHICH WE'LL ACTUALLY AIMING FOR THREE STARS.UM, AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, WHICH IS A, A MIX OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND A FI IN LIEU.
HERE WE HAVE SOME RENDERINGS OF THE PROJECT.
I'LL JUST WALK YOU THROUGH IT QUICKLY.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT OUR STREET SCAPE LOOK LIKE BECAUSE WE ARE ON I 35.
WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE USING THE FEE IN LIEU OPTION FOR GREAT STREETS.
UM, BUT WE DID, UM, SET THE BUILDING BACK AT THE FRONT LEVEL AT THE FIRST LEVEL TO TRY TO CREATE, UM, SORT OF A SEATING AREA AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREA, UH, IN SPITE OF TECH DOTS REGULATIONS.
HERE YOU CAN SEE FRONT ON WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE THERE ON THE FRONT DOOR.
HERE'S WHAT THE GROUND FLOOR LOOKS LIKE.
WE, WE WERE ABLE TO FIT EVERYTHING BACK OF HOUSE ON THE ALLEY SIDE, UM, WHICH WAS FORTUNATE.
AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE THAT SEATING AREA INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE ON EAST AVENUE.
THIS IS A 70 OTHER THAN THE DRIVEWAY, THAT'S A 72 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
UH, HERE'S WHAT THAT SEATING AREA LOOKS LIKE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
WE'RE USING, UM, A YON HOLLY FOR OUR TREE PER THE DESIGN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE WILL BE, UH, WE WILL BE INSTALLING EV CHARGING STATIONS AS WELL AS, UM, UM, COLLECTING CONDENSATE AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO HERE'S PROBABLY THE SLIDE YOU'RE MOST INTERESTED IN.
I TRIED TO BREAK IT UP TO JUST SHOW THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF THE, OF THE HOUSING AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS SINCE WE'RE DOING IT ALL THROUGH, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GREEN BUILDING.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT ZAC DESCRIBED UP TO EIGHT TO ONE F A R IS THE RAINY DISTRICT PROGRAM, EIGHT TO ONE TO 15 TO ONE IS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM.
UM, SO THE FIRST, THE EIGHT TO ONE LAYER PROVIDES FOUR UNITS OF ONSITE, WHICH IS 5%.
UM, THE MIDDLE LAYER THERE FROM EIGHT TO 15, UM, RESULTS IN A BONUS FEE OF $298,500.
AND THEN THE TOP LAYER THAT WE'RE ASKING, WE'RE HERE ASKING YOU FOR, AND WE'LL BE ASKING COUNSEL FOR, AND WE DO OUR BEST TO MIMIC THE RAINY PROGRAM.
IT DOESN'T QUITE FIT IN EXACTLY, BUT WE BASICALLY DO 5% OF THE UNIT SPACE AS ON SITE AND THEN PAY A FEE FOR THE REMAINDER, UM, OF THE, OF THE BUILDING.
SO THIS WILL RESULT TOTAL IN 10 UNITS, SIX OF WHICH ARE THAT ADDITIONAL BONUS AREA, AND 510,000 OF WHICH IS THAT ADDITIONAL BONUS AREA.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, BEGINNING WITH MS. MARGARET DELANEY.
MS. DELANEY ON THE TELECONFERENCE, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SELECT STARS SIX, AND BEGIN YOUR REMARKS.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MARGARET DELANEY.
UM, A FEW WEEKS AGO, DELANEY, MS. DELANEY, MY APOLOGIES TO FOR THE INTERRUPTION, BUT IF YOU COULD GET CLOSER TO THE, UH, MICROPHONE ON, ON YOUR TELEPHONE.
UH, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF HARD TIME HEARING YOUR, OKAY.
HOW'S THAT? IS THAT GOOD? I'M AFRAID IT'S STILL THE SAME.
OKAY, I'M GONNA TAKE YOU OFF WITH MY MICROPHONE AND PUT YOU ON, UH, I DUNNO WHY.
IS THAT BETTER? MUCH BETTER, THANK YOU.
A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE RAINY STREET ASSOCIATION, UH, THE RAINY STREET NEIGHBORHOOD MET WITH Z QUADRI AND, UM, SELECT MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AT A TOWN MEETING.
AND AT THAT MEETING, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, UM, MOBILITY IS, I QUOTE, A CHALLENGE OR SAFE MOBILITY IS A CHALLENGE AND ASSURED US THAT THEY WOULD WORK WITH US TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE.
A FEW WEEKS LATER, WE GET A NOTIFICATION THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AN INCREASE IN THE A R ON 62 EAST AND IT, IT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, BUT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO TAKE SOME THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION THAT I DON'T THINK YOU ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS, UM, A RATIO OF, UH, 29 TO ONE ON AN 11,892 SQUARE FOOT LOT SET BETWEEN RIVER STREET REV RESIDENCES, UM, WITH 377 UNITS AND THE CAMBRI HOTEL WITH GUESTS CHECKING IN AND OUT.
THIS WILL BRING THE BUILDING TO 53 FLOORS AND 229 UNITS.
EACH ONE OF THOSE UNITS WILL HAVE ONE CAR, PERHAPS MOST, UM, PERHAPS TWO.
THIS RATIO IS HIGHER THAN ANYTHING IN NEW YORK CITY.
AND NEW YORK CITY HAS AN INTEGRATED BUS AND SUBWAY SYSTEM WHEN MAKING DECISION, I'M WONDERING IF THE BOARD IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE, THE, UM, HIGH RISES AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE WIDENING OF I 35 ON
[01:05:01]
THE NARROW SHORT STREETS OF RAINY STREET WITH A HANDFUL OF EGRESS AND E AND INGRESS.