[00:00:05]
[Called to Order]
UH, MAY 23RD.UM, BRINGING THIS MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
UH, HEY FOLKS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HOLD UP.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, DO A QUICK ROLL CALL AND, UH, THEN WE'LL GET STARTED ON, ON OUR DISCUSSION CASES, UH, AFTER WE, UH, DO A READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START OVER HERE.
WE'LL START WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER CONLEY PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PRESENT.
CHAIR SHAW AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
THEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE, UH, AND THEN ALSO ON THE DIAS.
WE HAVE, UH, CHAIR OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS, UH, CHAIR COHEN, AND THEN GOING TO THE VIRTUALLY HERE WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER AZAR HERE, AND VICE CHAIR HEMPEL HERE.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S, UM, SO THAT BRINGS US TO 1 2 3 4, 5 8.
UH, WE MIGHT HAVE OTHERS JOINING US, BUT THAT'S OUR COUNT OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THIS EVENING.
UH, WE HAVE FOLKS PARTICIPATING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOTH VIRTUALLY AND HERE ON THE DIOCESE, AS WELL AS SPEAKERS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE.
ALSO, UH, VIRTUALLY IF YOU'RE HERE, UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION CASES YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE ATRIUM.
YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT ALERTING YOU THAT YOUR ITEM IS COMING.
THAT IS IF YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
SO, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY HERE THE WHOLE TIME.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE AT ABOUT FOUR DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING.
AND, UM, WE'LL START WITH A, UH, READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND, UM, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ THROUGH THAT
[Consent Agenda]
THE FIRST TIME.UM, WE, WELL, WE'LL HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 25TH AND MAY 9TH.
UM, SO WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY UPDATES TO THAT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
ITEM TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 3 0 2 EAST 51ST IN CAMERON.
THAT IS, UH, STAFF IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 27TH.
ITEM THREE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 3 EAST 51ST IN CAMERON.
STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 22ND, 27TH.
ITEM FOUR, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 20 22 17 0 1 CRESTVIEW VILLAGE STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 27TH.
ITEM FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 0 1 GOBI TWO 50 IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM SIX REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 1 58 GOBI TWO 50.
THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT WITH A STIPULATION, UH, NOTED HERE WITH REMOVAL OF PROHIBITED USES AGREED UPON BY APPLICANT AND STAFF PER EXHIBIT A, ITEM SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 8 0 1 3 117 TO 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
IT'S PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM EIGHT REZONING C 14 DASH 20 22, 1 50, 3117 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
ITEM NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH ONE 40 BRENTWOOD MULTI-FAMILY STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 13TH.
ITEM 10, REZONING C 814 DASH 97 DASH 0 0 0 1 15.
LEANDER REHA REHABILITATION PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 16 IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 11 REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 93 S D C M L K, THE APPLICANT REQUEST INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
[00:05:01]
SIX DASH 1 75 0 4 EAST AVENUE.PUT AMENDMENT PARCEL H IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM 13 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 20 23 4 4 92.
CLOVER LAWN DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO KEEP GOING, WAIT, IT'S MOVING.
UH, YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU KEEP GOING, SHARON.
OKAY, VICE CHAIR, I'LL PICK IT UP ON ITEM 15, RIGHT OF AWAY VACATION 20 23 0 3 19 BRONZE DRIVE, DISTRICT ONE IS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 16, SITE PLAN S P 20 22 0 5 1 8 C FOUR 15 LAVACA STREET, HILTON DUAL BRAND HOTEL.
ITEM 17, SITE PLANS P 20 22 0 1 0 1 C, THE ACRE AT BERKMAN.
ITEM 18, FINAL PLA FROM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT DASH 2021 DASH 1 52 2 A TENTACLE AT WILDHORSE RANCH SECTION TWO, CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT C.
UH, MOVING ON TO 19 SUBDIVISION C EIGHT DASH 2023 DASH 0 36.
DO, UH, ZERO A VERANDA APARTMENTS.
THAT ITEM IS ON CONSENT 20 SUBDIVISION C 8 20 21 DASH 50 ZERO A 6 0 7 MONOPOLY DRIVE SUBDIVISION DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C.
UM, IMAGINE AUSTIN 10 YEAR REPORT.
UH, LET ME TALK JUST BRIEFLY AROUND ABOUT THIS ONE.
I PULLED IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE MIGHT WANNA GO AHEAD AND HEAR STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, ORDINARILY THIS WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET QUORUM DURING NOT HAVING APPROVED MEMBERS YET.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT FROM STAFF, OFFER UP IF WE HAVE Q AND A, BUT THEN PUSH IT BACK TO THE, UH, CONFERENCE AND PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, IF, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE.
UH, SO 22 IS CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 22 0 0 4 A COMPATIBILITY ON CORRIDORS CORRECTION.
ITEM IS ON CONSENT ITEM 23, CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 20 2015, SAFE FENCING REGULATIONS.
UH, THAT ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION.
AND, UM, SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS ON OUR, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS.
DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? UM, ON THE ITEMS FOR, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
UM, I THINK THE, WE'RE CLEAR ON OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. AND ARE THERE ANY, UH, PLAINTIFF COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
DO I HAVE A, UM, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING TWO SETS OF MINUTES FROM, UH, THE LAST TWO, TWO MEETINGS? YES.UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO, UH, THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, UH, UNANIMOUS APPROVAL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE FIRST DISCUSSION CASE.
ARE WE NEEDING TO TAKE THOSE OUT OF ORDER? CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES ON ANDREW ROAD? YES.
IF WE COULD CONSIDER, UH, TAKING UP ITEM 10.
UH, SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO TAKE STARTING WITH ITEM 10 THIS EVENING? OKAY.
UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH
[10. Rezoning: C814-97-0001.15 - Leander Rehabilitation PUD Amendment #16; District 6]
ITEM 10 AND THEN WE'LL DO SEVEN AND EIGHT.HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE READY NEXT.
[00:10:02]
GOOD EVENING.I'M JOY HARDEN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE FOR CASE MANAGER SHERRY STIS.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 10 ON YOUR AGENDA, CASE NUMBER C 8 1 4 9 7 0 1 0.1 15.
LEANDER REHABILITATION PUT AMENDMENT 16.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT 13 4 30 AND A HALF THROUGH 13, 450 AND A HALF LYNN HURST DRIVE.
AND THIS IS THE LAST UNDEVELOPED TRACT IN THE LEANDER RE UH, REHABILITATION.
UM, P U D THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PUT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT FROM 3,500 TO 4,700 UNITS REDUCED MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL USES FROM 3 MILLION SQUARE FEET TO 1.77 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND INCREASED MULTI-FAMILY, UM, USE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM SIX STORIES TO EIGHT STORIES IN REALIGN INTERNAL DRIVES.
THE SUPERIORITY, UM, FOR THIS IS, UM, 5% OF THE ADDITIONAL 1,200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE RESERVED TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT 80% MFI OR PAY $8 PER SQUARE FOOT.
AND THEY WILL PROVIDE ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM UTILIZING ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES WITHIN ALL GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
STAFF SUPPORTS THE PUT AMENDMENT, THE WAL, UH, WATER UTILITY AS ASKED FOR A CONDITION, AND SO I WILL TURN IT OVER THEM FOR THEM TO OUTLINE THAT CONDITION.
THE APPLICANT IS, DOES NOT AGREE TO THAT CONDITION, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION.
THIS IS PANK, UH, WITH AUSTIN WATER BUSINESS STRATEGY MANAGER.
UM, I'M HERE TO JUST, UH, REPRESENT THE AUSTIN WATER.
I HAVE MY TEAM, UM, HERE AS WELL, CATHERINE JASINSKI.
I'LL VERY QUICKLY TURN IT OVER TO HER ON IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONER TODAY.
UH, ESSENTIALLY I THINK AUSTIN WATER STAND HAS BEEN THAT OVERALL, UM, CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE IN 2018 THAT TALKS ABOUT LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FOR POTENTIAL WATER SAVINGS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS A GREAT CANDIDATE FOR WATER SAVINGS, ESPECIALLY EXTENDING AUSTIN WATER'S, UH, WATER SUPPLIES FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
AUSTIN WATER'S CURRENT PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM USING ALTERNATE WATER SOURCES FOR ALL NON PARTICLE USERS, UM, THAT INCLUDE IRRIGATION, COOLING, AND TOILET FLUSHING.
ALSO, UM, WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT ON PUT LIMITING THE USE OF TOILET FLUSHING TO THE GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS ONLY, UNLESS OF COURSE THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT ALL APPLIC, ALL COMMERCIAL PROJECTS LARGER THAN 250,000 SQUARE FEET COMPLY WITH REQUIRING AN ANTIQUA REUSE FOR ALL FLOORS.
IF IT IS SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR WILL NOT HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, FIVE MINUTES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO, UH, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, I'M LEAH BOJO WITH JENNER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, AM I RUNNING THIS OR? YES.
UM, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK ORIENTATION TO THE SITE, THE LAND LEANER REHABILITATION POD, UM, IS IN NORTH AUSTIN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SIX 20 NEAR LAKELINE STATION.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE OUTLINED IN BLUE.
THAT'S THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, AND ACTUALLY THAT PARCEL, SORRY, THE PARCEL NEXT TO IT IS ALSO UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING, UM, PARCEL IN THIS PUT.
UM, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PUT BOUNDARIES.
YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS MOSTLY PUT AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, IT'S A 20, JUST ABOUT A 30 ACRE SITE AT A 446 TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TODAY.
UM, IT IS, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS FAR NORTH LOCATION, HAS PRETTY GREAT ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE MODES.
UM, AND IT IS A MIXED USE PUT WITH QUITE A BIT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE DESIGNATED TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES AS IN ADDITION TO THE 300 AND OR 3,500, UM, UNITS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED WHEN THE POD WAS APPROVED IN 2008.
UM, SO WITH THIS BEING THE LAST PARCEL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE LEFT OVER THAT'S NOT GONNA BE DEVELOPED, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE REQUESTING THIS EXCHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL
[00:15:01]
SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR, FOR SOME OF THIS COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.UM, WE COULD SUBMIT A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TOMORROW THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY HOUSING UNITS IN IT AND WOULD ALSO NOT, UM, HAVE ANY WATER REUSE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT THAT'S THE PUT AMENDMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU FOR, EXCEPT REQUEST AS THE PART OF THE PUT AMENDMENT.
UM, THE DRIVING, THE DRIVING REQUEST IS CLEARLY THE INCREASE BY 1200 UNITS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER, UM, JUST IN INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER REQUESTS, UM, THAT WE HAVE MADE THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY STAFF.
UM, THIS IS JUST SORT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, UM, 1200 UNITS, SOME OFFICE AND SOME GROUND FLOOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE.
UM, THIS, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUPERIORITY THAT JOY RAN THROUGH JUST A MINUTE AGO.
UM, AND SO THIS IS REALLY, UM, I THINK WHERE IT IS KIND OF WHERE THE, THE IMPASSE IS.
SO THE WATER REUSE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED IN 2021.
UM, I HOPE, I'M SURE THAT, UM, KATHERINE CHER WILL CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK THE TWO MAIN COMPONENTS OF IT ARE THAT YOU HAVE TO RECONNECT TO A RECLAIMED LINE IF YOU'RE CLOSE TO ONE.
WE ARE NOT, WE'RE OVER TWO MILES AWAY AND YOU HAVE TO DO ONSITE WATER, UM, RIO IF YOU ARE NOT NEAR, UM, A RECLAIMED LINE OR, OR EITHER WAY.
UM, AND THAT, THAT, UM, REQUIREMENT GOES INTO EFFECT ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
UM, THE WATER UTILITIES CURRENT REQUEST AS, AS WAS JUST DESCRIBED IS THAT WE, UM, AND WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO IS THE FIRST PART, WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD DO FULL WATER REUSE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, UM, COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, THE, THE, THE, THE IMPASSE THAT WE'RE AT IS BECAUSE, UM, THEY HAVE ASKED THAT WE THEN COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THESE NEW REGULATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN ON DECEMBER 1ST.
UM, AND WE ARE ASKING THAT DUE TO THE YEAR AND A HALF THAT HAS PASSED THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION OF THIS PUT MUCH LONGER THAN I THINK ANYONE EXPECTED.
UM, WHAT WE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR IS THAT THIS, THIS PUT WOULD ACTUALLY SUPERSEDE THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, THROUGH SOME CONVERSATIONS TODAY.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE COME TO IS THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY, IF WE COULD JUST MAKE UP THIS AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE LOST THROUGH THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND SAY, UM, WE'VE LOST ABOUT 18 MONTHS OF TIME IN THIS NEGOTIATION WITH THE WATER UTILITY ABOUT WHEN, WHAT, WHAT AND WHEN, AND, AND WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS WELL.
IF WE COULD JUST IN THE PUD EXTEND THAT DATE, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE.
I BELIEVE 18 MONTHS WOULD BE MAY 1ST, 2025.
UM, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT, THAT WAY WE ARE, UM, ABLE TO KIND OF PULL THIS PROJECT BACK TOGETHER, GET THESE HOUSING UNITS ON THE GROUND, GET THE SUPERIORITY THAT WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, AND GET THIS PROJECT BUILT.
BUT WE DON'T, AREN'T SETTING UP THIS, THIS INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME WHERE, UM, SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO WERE TO FALL APART AND 10 YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE CAME IN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE OLDER RULES.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S A, THIS IS OUT OF DATE.
I APOLOGIZE, UM,
I WISH I THOUGHT OF IT SOONER.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD, UM, MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, DO A MOTION TO PLEA PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND.
ANY OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO Q AND A.
WHO'S GOT THE FIRST QUESTION? I'LL TAKE IT.
UH, CAN I HEAR FROM THE CITY? CAN I HEAR FROM THE CITY WATER FOLKS? DO Y'ALL AGREE? IT SOUNDS LIKE A, TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD COMPROMISE.
UM, I'VE GOT NODDING IN THE AUDIENCE.
DO Y'ALL AGREE WITH THAT COMPROMISE TO MOVE IT OUT TO 2025? UM, UH, SHWETA PANK, BUSINESS STRATEGY MANAGER, AUSTIN WATER, UM, NO COMMISSIONER SIR.
WE, UH, DO NOT HAVE AGREEMENT ON THAT.
I THINK WE, UM, WERE AT AN IMPASSE PARTLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE SITE PLAN IS DOING.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE OFFERED AS A COMPROMISE, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO RETURN IT TO MY STAFF, BUT ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE'VE OFFERED, UH, AS A COMPROMISE IS TO JUST TAKE AWAY ALL OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE POD.
WE CAN JUST LET THIS POD GO WITHOUT ANY UTILITY CONDITIONS, AND AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE SITE PLAN, THEY'LL JUST COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODES.
SO THAT'S AN OFFER THAT WE HAVE MADE.
MAY 1ST, 2025 IS, UM, IT IS TOO FAR OUT FOR THE UTILITY.
UH, LIKE I SAID, I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY IT COMES DOWN TO OUR, UM, WATER SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS AND 3 MILLION SQUARE FEET IS A LOT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY, A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR WATER SAVINGS, UH, IN, IN THE STAGE THAT WE ARE IN STAGE ONE, UM, HEADED TO STAGE TWO PERHAPS THIS SUMMER.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FROM A WATER SUSTAINABILITY STANDPOINT.
IF MAY 1ST, 2025 IS TOO FAR OUT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S NOT TOO FAR OUT, UH, WE COULD PERHAPS CONSIDER SIX MONTHS FROM NOW? SO DECEMBER ONE IS WHEN THE ORDINANCE GOES LIVE, WE WOULD PERHAPS, UM,
[00:20:01]
SUGGEST, UM, MAY 1ST, 2024, BUT WE STILL WOULD PREFER MAYBE PRESENTING ALL OF OUR COMMENTS AND JUST HAVING THE CARD GO AT WITHOUT, UM, A W CONDITIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD JUST COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED.THANK YOU MS. BOW RESPONSE COMMISSIONERS.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY OF A YEAR AGO THAT COMPROMISE OF, UM, WITHDRAWING THE COMMENTS AND LETTING US COME INTO COMPLY, COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE AS IT COMES IN WOULD'VE BEEN A FANTASTIC POSITION, BUT WE HAVE LOST SO MUCH TIME SINCE THEN THAT WE, WE, WE HAVE TO P PUT THIS PROJECT BACK TOGETHER, UM, GET UNDER THE NEW RULES.
AND SO WE, WE NEED AT LEAST A YEAR.
UM, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD AGREE TO, TO A YEAR WHICH, SO DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
UM, BUT SIX MONTHS IS JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME.
COMMISSIONER ANDERS, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF HAS BEEN TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO ADHERE TO AN ORDINANCE THAT COUNSEL'S COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T HAVE GOING TO EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER.
IS THAT ACCURATE? AND IF SO, CAN I JUST UNDERSTAND BRIEFLY WHY THAT IS? UM, UM, I, I CAN PROBABLY START OFF HIGH LEVEL AND I MIGHT NEED, UH, CATHERINE TO CHIME IN.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS PRO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2018 INTENTIONALLY.
THE TIME BUILT FOR DECEMBER 1ST, 2023 WAS TO ALLOW STAFF TO DO THE RIGHT KIND OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, GET FEEDBACK, INPUT AND INCORPORATE, INCORPORATE THE SYSTEM.
SO THAT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A CONCEPT OF, OH, WE HAVE TIME UNTIL DECEMBER ONE.
THIS WAS JUST THE TIME NEEDED TO GET DEVELOPMENT READY, FOCUS ON COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH.
UM, THAT'S REALLY WHY WE BELIEVE THAT EVER SINCE IN 2018 AND THEN 2021 WHEN SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES WENT INTO EFFECT, WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTING APPLICANTS VOLUNTARILY, NOTIFYING THEM, ESPECIALLY IF THEY EXCEED THE 250,000 SQUARE FEET NOTIFYING THEM OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT'S COMING.
UM, I CERTAINLY TURN IT TO MY TEAM, UM, UH, TO SEE IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE.
CATHERINE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CHIME IN? YEAH, UH, CATHERINE DINKY SUPERVISING ENGINEER WITH AUSTIN WATER.
UH, WE'VE BEEN, UH, WORKING UNDER COUNCIL DIRECTION SINCE THE WATER FORWARD PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2018 TO DEVELOP THESE ORDINANCES, UM, IN A PHASED APPROACH TO MAKE THE PROGRAM VOLUNTARY AT FIRST AND THEN MOVE TOWARDS THE MANDATORY PHASE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.
HEY, REAL QUICK BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME, I'M, I AM CURIOUS, UM, DO WE HAVE COST ESTIMATES OF WHAT THIS IS GONNA RUN? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN WE PASSED THIS, WE WERE KIND OF IN A, A HEYDAY OF THE ECONOMY AND NOW NEW STARTS ARE FALLING OFF A CLIFF.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO WE HAVE ESTIMATES OF WHAT THIS WILL COST AS FAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION? SO WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY, SO WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH 2018 AND THEN 2021, WE HAD A PRELIMINARY AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE ONSITE QUARTER REUSE, UM, REQUIREMENTS ROUGHLY.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF $2,000 PER UNIT FOR HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST CAN'T HELP TO THINK OF THE, UH, THE A AND M STUDY THAT DOCUMENTS EVERY YEAR, EVERY THOUSAND DOLLARS YOU RAISE THE PRICE OF A HOME, YOU DISPLACE X FAMILY.
LAST, LAST FIGURE I HEARD WAS 1,222 FAMILIES.
I'LL START JUST BY SAYING THAT, UH, CLIMATE CHANGE, UM, YOU KNOW, DROUGHT IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST RISK, UH, THIS REGION WILL FACE AND I THINK, UM, WE SHOULD TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO CONSERVE WATER, UM, OR WE'RE GONNA BE IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
SO THESE OPPORTUNITIES WITH PUDS, THEY'RE EXPECTED TO COME FORWARD AND MEET AREAS OF SUPERIORITY.
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, OUT OF ALL THESE SUPERIOR ELEMENTS WITHIN YOUR PUD AGREEMENT, WERE THERE ANY WATER CONSERVATION, UH, AREAS OF SUPERIORITY THAT, UM, YOU'RE DEMONSTRATING, UH, THAT JUST TO HELP? SO WE KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR SURE.
UH, WE HAVE AGREED TO DO THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IN ADVANCE OF THESE REGULATIONS GOING IN PLACE.
UH, AND THEN I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE, I BELIEVE I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS TO SAY THIS CUZ IT'S ME USING A WATER BALANCE CALCULATOR, BUT I BELIEVE THAT OUR INHA OUR WATER USE IS INHERENTLY QUITE A BIT LESS WITH MULTI-FAMILY THAN IT IS WITH SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON THE SITE TODAY.
UM, SO IT'S A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED, BUT
[00:25:01]
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.SO YOU'RE SAYING BY SHIFTING TO MULTI-FAMILY THAT WILL YIELD LESS WATER USE? YES.
AND I WOULD ASK, LIKE TO ASK AUSTIN WATER STAFF IS THAT I'M USED TO DOING ENERGY LOAD CALCULATIONS.
SO IS THAT YOUR FINDING THAT MULTI-FAMILY, UH, RESULTS IN LESS WATER CONSUMPTION THAN, UH, COMMERCIAL USES? IS THAT, IS THAT, UH, IS THAT A ACCURATE STATEMENT? CATHERINE, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT QUESTION? SURE.
ON A PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS, MULTI-FAMILY IS A MUCH MORE WATER INTENSIVE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR OUR KIND OF TRYING TO NEGOTIATE THIS WATER REUSE STRATEGY, UM, INTO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UM, SO ARE THERE, UM, WHAT WAS THE APPLICANT? I GUESS I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHAT WAS THE I DIDN'T READ IT ALL.
I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OFFER.
I'M TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT THAT WAS.
UM, SO, UM, ON YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, SO WHAT OUR REQUEST HAD BEEN UP UNTIL TODAY WA OR LAST NIGHT WAS, UM, WE WOULD AGREE TO DO GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WATER REUSE, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT COMMITMENT SUPERSEDE FUTURE CODE CHANGES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING IN DECEMBER.
WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO NOW IS INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IT SUPERSEDES IT INDEFINITELY, WE WOULD SAY IT SUPERSEDES IT AND WE WOULD REQUEST UNTIL MAY 1ST, 2025.
SO THAT GIVES US BACK THE 18 MONTHS THAT WE'VE LOST IN THIS NEGOTIATION.
BUT THEN IF A PROJECT COMES IN AFTER THAT DATE, THEN IT COMES IN WITH WHATEVER IS IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
UM, I, I I GUESS I'LL HAVE A RELATIVELY QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF FIRST.
UM, WHICH IS JUST KIND OF ELABORATING ON COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S QUESTION.
I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL PASSED THE ORDINANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC START DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
AND, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION AROUND SORT OF SLOW ROLLING OR DELAYING PROJECTS SO THAT THEY WOULD FALL WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE IF COUNCIL PROVIDED ANY DIRECTION LIKE THAT, UM, OR IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION LIKE THAT PROVIDED AT THE TIME WHEN THE, WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED.
UM, I'LL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THAT AND PROBABLY TURN IT TO CATHERINE AGAIN FOR SOME OF THE SPECIFICS.
UH, UM, I THINK THE WHOLE VOLUNTARY PERIOD FROM 2018 AND THEN 2021.
SO THERE ARE THREE MILESTONE DATES FOR THIS, THIS ENTIRE WATER FORWARD.
THE ENTIRE WATERFALL FORWARD PLAN ITSELF IS A COMBINATION OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY STRATEGIES.
IT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE CAN CONSERVE WATER THROUGH DEMAND AS WELL AS THROUGH SUPPLY SUPPLY.
UM, BUT DID, THAT WAS A MILESTONE FOR 2018.
IN 20 20, 20 21, WE HAD THE RECLAIMED WATER CONNECTION ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE BENCHMARKING.
AND THE 2023 DECEMBER IS WHERE IT BECOMES MANDATORY.
SO THIS ENTIRE FIVE YEAR TIME PERIOD HAS BEEN USED, USED AS A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS A SOFT LAUNCH OR A SLOW ROLLOUT AS OPPOSED TO THE HARD DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.
BUT DID THIS SOFT LAUNCH INCLUDE A SOFT VETO ON DEVELOPMENTS UNTIL THEY COMPLIED? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THIS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE BECAUSE, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARITY HERE.
WAS THERE ANY DIRECTION SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTING STAFF TO SORT OF HOLD PROJECTS UP IN THE PROCESS SO THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE FORCED TO COMPLY? I, I WANT WAS THAT EVER PART OF THE ORDINANCE IN ANY WAY OR WAS THIS JUST A SORT OF A, AN INITIATIVE TAKEN BY STAFF? KEVIN, DO YOU WANNA CHIME IN ON THAT? SURE.
UM, THERE WAS NO DIRECTION TO, UH, BASED ON THE, A SPEED OF REVIEWING A POD APPLICATION, THERE WAS JUST THE DIRECTION TO WORK ON THE ORDINANCES AND THEN NEGOTIATE WITH PROJECTS THAT ARE ASKING FOR ENTITLEMENTS TO INCLUDE ELEMENTS OF WATER FORWARD BEFORE THE MANDATE GOES INTO EFFECT.
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING REGULAR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO DO STUFF LIKE THIS, AND WE ALSO HAVE A, A VOLUNTARY, UM, OR A PILOT INCENTIVE THAT WE OFFER FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE VOLUNTARY VOLUNTARILY COMPLYING.
UM, I DON'T THINK THIS YEAR AND A HALF HAS BEEN SPENT, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING WITH JUST AUSTIN WATER.
THERE ARE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD COMMENTS, UM, AND OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO US BY THE DEVELOPER, THAT IS WHAT IS HELPS US SHAPE WHAT KIND OF WATER FORWARD ASK THAT, THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING FORTH AND WE NEGOTIATE WITH EVERY SINGLE PROJECT BASED ON THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR PROJECT.
WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, A REASONABLE ASK.
AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN.
IT'S JUST, BUT IT'S ALSO HARD WHEN THE INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED IS NOT
[00:30:01]
VERY COMPLETE.LIKE, BUT IS IT FAIR, SORRY, I JUST HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME.
IS IT FAIR BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS HERE THAT THE, THE, FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT, IT IS A PRIORITY TO MAKE IT SO THAT THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE WATER FORWARD STANDARDS? IS THAT CORRECT? IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT IS, THAT THAT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY OVER THE PAST YEAR TO MAKE THIS PROJECT COMPLY? NO.
TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD, TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD IT'S COST AND WHAT'S PRIORITY TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT YET KICK INTO EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH HERE WAS, UH, DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE CONTEXT.
UM, AS CATHERINE WAS MENTIONING, WE'VE HAD ABOUT 38 OR 39 HARD, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF TIMEFRAME.
AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE.
SO UP UNTIL THE PREVIOUS APPLICANTS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO RETEACH SOME KIND OF A NEGOTIATION IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH THEM AND FINDING SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE.
SO, UM, WE'VE FOUND WAYS TO WORK WITH APPLICANTS IN THE PAST TO BE ABLE TO NOT BE AT AN IMPASSE SPR IN THIS CASE.
HEY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS IN YOUR PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT IF YOU DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, THAT THIS COULD JUST BE DONE AS COMMERCIAL AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THESE PARTICULAR COMING.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE ANY MULTI-FAMILY THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE MANDATE TO TRY AND GET THIS DONE, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THAT'S RIGHT.
WE WOULD NEED TO COME, WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW THE MULTI-FAMILY, UH, WE'VE, THE MULTI-FAMILY IS BUILT OUT.
UM, SO IT WOULD HAVE NO MULTI-FAMILY IN IT AND IT WOULD ALSO HAVE NO WATER REUSE IF THE SITE PLAN CAME IN BEFORE DECEMBER 1ST.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CAUSE I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M REALLY CLEAR ON THIS.
YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS NEW WATER FORWARD PLAN? YES.
THAT'S THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL ELEMENT OF THIS, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO REALLY THE ISSUE IS THAT THE COMPLIANCE IS NOT AT A HIGH ENOUGH STANDARD.
SO REALLY THE SITUATION HERE IS THAT WE HAVE A REGULATION THAT'S NOT YET IN FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY AS AN APPLICANT AND THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF AN IMPASS HERE AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE, MA'AM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
UM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BACKUP.
WE SEE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022 AND IT GOT POSTPONED BY STAFF AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE POSTPONEMENTS.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IF YOU KNOW, I KNOW MR. DAVIS WOULD KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THOSE POSTPONEMENTS WERE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS BEING RESOLVED DURING THE STAFF POSTPONEMENTS? I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING WITH AUSTIN WATER AND THEN THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, THOSE TWO WERE OUTSTANDING, AND SO THEY WERE WORKING SEPARATELY WITH THOSE DEPARTMENTS TO BRING THIS FORWARD.
UM, I THINK THEY EVENTUALLY GOT WORKED OUT WITH PARKS AND NOW WE'RE HERE WITH THIS CONDITION AS THEY WANTED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION FOR US TO MOVE ON TO COUNCIL.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? IT DOES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, HELPING ANSWER THAT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE READY FOR A, A MOTION? YES, WE ARE
UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS RIGHT.
SO LET'S JUST CLARIFY THAT DATE WOULD MEAN WHAT, ONE MOMENT HERE, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT, IS THAT IN THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE BOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ARE WE CHA SORRY, MY APOLOGIES HERE.
IT SAYS, UM, YEAH, SO IT SAYS, UH, AT THE END, SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THE END OF TOILET URINAL FLUSHING APPLICATIONS WILL BE LIMITED TO GROUND FLOOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT UNES, UNLESS A NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION READS FOR AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
AND I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE CHANGE THAT TO DECEMBER 1ST, 2025 AND KEEP STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[00:35:01]
AS IS.DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THE MOTION, YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER CONLEY? UM, YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN, UM, KIND OF LAID OUT HERE IN FRONT OF US.
I THINK CITY COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, PASSED THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE AND THE INTENT OF THE DELAY WAS NOT ONLY TO GIVE STAFF TIME TO PREPARE, BUT ALSO TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY IN PROGRESS AND IN WORK TO MOVE ALONG AND TO NOT HAVE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS BE HELD UP BY THE NEED TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS AND NEW REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE IDEA WAS THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT CREATE A BLOCK IN THE PIPELINE OF HOUSING, WHICH OUR COMMUNITY SO DESPERATELY NEEDS.
SO IF WE ACCIDENTALLY CREATED A SORT OF A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR STAFF TO SLOW ROLL CERTAIN PROJECTS SO THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE INCLUDED, THEN I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT FOR THAT HERE BY ALLOWING THIS, THIS POD TO MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL 1,200 UNITS OF HOUSING AND, YOU KNOW, SOME FOLKS MIGHT NOT FEEL THAT WAY, BUT THIS CITY IS VERY, VERY MUCH IN AN EXTREME HOUSING SHORTAGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE, UH, SO MUCH TO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT I FEEL LIKE IT'S HARD TO EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START, BUT WE ARE IN A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THAT REGARD.
AND WHILE I DO VALUE, AND I THINK WATER REUSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THIS WAY IN WHICH WE HAVE SORT OF SEEN A PATTERN OF, OF A KIND OF A SOFT VETO WHEN STAFF, UH, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T SEEM TO AGREE WITH A PROJECT, THIS ABILITY TO JUST DRAG IT ON INTO ETERNITY.
AND I THINK THAT PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, APPOINTED BY A COUNCIL THAT WAS ELECTED BY A STRONGLY PRO-HOUSING MAJORITY IS TO, UM, FULFILL THAT, UM, FULFILL THAT MISSION.
UM, I'M GONNA GO AND ENTERTAIN A, UH, JUST TRYING TO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO SET A DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
UM, I THINK ON BALANCE, UH, WE MIGHT BE MOVING INTO ANOTHER DROUGHT.
I THINK, UH, UM, I DON'T KNOW, 2025 SEEMS PRETTY FAR OUT.
UM, BUT, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE, UH, FOR SETTING A DATE ONE YEAR EARLIER.
IS ANYBODY WILLING TO SECOND THAT CHAIR? SECOND AGAIN.
I'LL JUST SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT MOTION IS I'VE ALREADY COMMUNICATED HOUSING, YES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE.
PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE IF WE DON'T HAVE WATER.
AND I THINK THE LAST DROUGHT POINTED OUT TO WHERE WE COULD EVENTUALLY GET TO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA GET ANY BETTER, UM, FROM EVERYTHING THE SCIENTISTS ARE TELLING US.
SO ALSO PUDS, THEY'RE GETTING MORE ENTITLEMENTS WITH THIS REQUEST.
UH, YOU OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR A NEED FOR MORE SUPERIORITY.
SO I WOULD OFFER THAT, HEY, YOU'RE OPENING UP THE BOOK, YOU'RE GETTING MORE, THE BAR MAY HAVE MOVE UP A LITTLE JUST FOR ADDITIONAL SUPERIOR ITEMS. SO I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY FAIR IN LIGHT OF, UH, THE CLIMATE CHANGE RISK, YES, IT IS A COST, BUT IN THE END, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WATER'S GONNA COST.
THERE MAY BE AN OFFSET, UM, TO THE PEOPLE LIVE HERE WITH, UH, REDUCING THEIR WATER RATES.
SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF DOMESTIC WATER WILL HELP WITH THEIR BILLS IN THE FUTURE.
ANYWAY, THAT'S, UH, UM, SW PRESENTING THIS MOTION.
ANY, UH, VOTES AGAINST, UH, ANY FURTHER IN FAVOR? UH, COMMISSIONER DESAR.
I'LL SAY I'LL ECHO, UM, COMMISSIONER CON THESE WORDS HERE, WHICH IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS MAKES A BIG IMPACT IN HOUSING AND THEN THE 5% AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT IN THIS MAGNITUDE OF UNITS IS PRETTY CONSIDERABLE.
I ALSO WANNA SAY IT'S VERY EXCITING BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING SOME ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY ITEMS HERE AS WELL.
I THINK THE MOST EXCITING ONE IS THAT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, ALL NON PORTABLE USES SUCH AS IRRIGATION AND COOLING WILL UTILIZE RAINWATER AND AC CONDENSATE.
SO THAT'S REALLY EXCITING, TO BE HONEST.
AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE ALSO GETTING THIS SAME GRAY WATER USAGE PER GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL FOR TOILET AND URINAL FLUSHING.
SO I HONESTLY, I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION TODAY WAS REALLY ABOUT THOSE TOP FOUR FLOORS.
AND SO BE IT, IF THE SITE PLAN GETS REALLY DELAYED, WE WILL STILL SEE THOSE.
BUT REALLY WE'RE SEEING NOT JUST HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPERIORITY HERE.
WE'RE ALSO SEEING SOME GREAT WATER AND WATER.
WE USE SUPERIORITY ITEMS HERE.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN EXCITING ITEM TO SUPPORT.
[00:40:01]
DO THINK THAT WE HAVE A MOVE HERE THAT REALLY HELPS US MOVE FORWARD.ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? WELL, LET'S, SO THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, TO, UH, TO IT'S, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2023 IS DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT ON THE DIAS, UH, IN FAVOR.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE GOT EVERYBODY THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
OKAY, SO THAT'S, UH, IS THAT, IF I'M COUNTING RIGHT, NINE TO ZERO.
[Items 7 & 8 ]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR, ARE WE READY TO DO ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT? UH, WE'LL TAKE THOSE UP TOGETHER.ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF ON ITEM SEVEN.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS NPA 20 22 0 0 0 8 0.0 1 3 3117 THROUGH 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET IS LOCATED IN THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
AND YOU HAVE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF CASE REPORTS AND ALSO SUBMITTED AS LATE BACKUP.
GOOD EVENING, JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTING ON CASE C 14 2020 2 0 1 50 31 17, AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE AND THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM CS ONE C O N P AND C S C O N P AND C S M U V C O N P TO C S M U V C O N P STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF C S M U V C O N P, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING 110 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND 1500 SQUARE FEET OF STREET LEVEL RETAIL.
UH, THERE IS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, AS PART OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 0 2 0 1 1 0 DASH 17.
THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT HEIGHTS RESTRICTION, UH, APPLIES TO THESE PARCELS AT 40 FEET.
UH, UNDER CS DONING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD UP TO 60 FEET AND UNDER VM U TWO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD, UH, UP TO 90 FEET.
UM, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CARRY FORWARD THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 40 FEET ON THESE TRACKS.
UH, THE HEIGHTS RESTRICTION'S TOO RESTRICTIVE AROUND A CAP METRO RAIL STATION LEVEL TWO AS M P ROADWAY AND IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR, WHICH IS AIRPORT BOULEVARD, UH, MAINTAINING THIS HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULD, UH, NOT ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE BUILT ON SITE, UH, AS A PART OF V MU'S PROGRAM, UH, ADDITIONAL STREET LEVEL RETAIL, AND POTENTIALLY THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS.
UM, THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COMMENTS THAT ARE IN THE BACKUP AND LATE BACKUP, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
OH, SORRY, SOMEBODY'S TURNING IN.
UM, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS A REQUEST TO UNIFY, UH, 31 17 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET UNDER ONE ZONING CATEGORY AND ONE FLUME DESIGNATION.
AS YOU'LL SEE IN OUR PRESENTATION A MOMENT, THE SITE IS A BIT MESSY.
TODAY WE HAVE TWO LOTS CONSIST OF THREE CA, THREE TCAD PARCELS AND THOSE THREE DIFFERENT, AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO THREE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES AS, UH, CASE MANAGER JUST MENTIONED, AND TWO DIFFERENT FLUME DESIGNATIONS.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE THINGS.
REZONE THE TWO LOTS TO THE SAME ZONING CATEGORY, CSM, U V C O N P.
THE SECOND THING IS AMEND THE FLUME DESIGNATION ON ONE LOT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE SO THAT BOTH LOTS ARE MIXED USE.
AND THEN THIRD, REMOVE ONE OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS ON THE SITE THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE BACKUP, WE'VE, UH, UH, UH, CONCURRED WITH LEAVING THE CONDITIONAL, THE OTHER CONDITIONS, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY
[00:45:01]
OF PROHIBITED USES.SO OUR PROPOSAL IS, UH, OUR REQUEST WILL HARMONIZE THE SITE AND ALLOW FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ABOUT 80, 80 TO A HUNDRED UNITS, INCLUDING UNITS SET ASIDE FOR RESIDENTS MAKING 60% MFI THROUGH THE CITY'S VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM.
THE RATIONALE AS WE'LL DISCUSS TONIGHT, OUR PROPOSAL ADVANCES THE CITY'S AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING GOALS AND CREATES HOUSING NEAR A RAIL STATION AND TRANSIT LINES.
AND I WANNA NOTE NOW, CAUSE I'M GONNA HIGHLIGHT THIS, THE TRANSIT STATION DID NOT EXIST, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PASSED.
UM, YOU CAN, YOU CAN KIND OF ORIENT YOURSELF.
THE PROPERTY IS, AS YOU KNOW, ON EAST 12TH STREET WITHIN 400 FEET OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE CURRENT SITE TODAY FROM EAST 12TH STREET.
IT IS LARGELY UNDEVELOPED WITH ONE VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE.
IT ALSO SLOPES SLIGHTLY DOWN FROM 12TH STREET.
THIS IS, UH, THIS MAP SHOWS THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS, THE TCAT PARCELS AND THE LOTS, THE LOTS ARE BRACKETED IN RED.
THE TCAD PARCELS ARE OUTLINED IN BLACK, AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE THE GREEN, BLUE AND PURPLE FILL.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE IS FAIRLY DISJOINTED.
TRACK ONE CONTAINS TWO TCAD PARCELS, AND TRACK TWO IS ONE TCAD PARCEL WITH TWO DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES WITHIN IT.
AS WE STATED, OUR ZONING REQUEST WITH UNIFY THE SITE UNDER CS M U V C O N P AND REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE SITE THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
UNDER THIS ZONING, THE SITE COULD REACH 60 FEET, THOUGH IT IS LIMITED BY COMPATIBILITY ON THE STREET FRONTAGE.
AND AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE V M U PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE A REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT AT 60% M MFI.
HERE'S THE FUTURE, THE HERE'S THE CURRENT FLUME DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA WITH EACH TCAT PARCEL DE DELINEATED IN BLACK.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THERE ARE A LOT OF BROWN, UH, OF MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS.
THAT'S THE BROWN COLOR IN THE, IN THE AREA.
SO CHANGING THE EASTERNMOST TRACK TO MIXED USE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING FLUME CATEGORIES.
OUR RESIDENTIAL FOCUSED PROJECT WOULD ALSO BE COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY MULTI-FAMILY USES, DENOTED ON THE MAP WITH THE ORANGE FILL, AND THEN IMAGINE AUSTIN AND AS M P.
UM, SO I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHY THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
AS I MENTIONED, THE SITE IS LESS THAN 400 FEET FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND AS AN ASMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE CITY USES THESE DESIGNATIONS TO GUIDE GROWTH WITH THE AIM OF CONCENTRATING NEW DEVELOPMENT AROUND CORRIDORS AND TRANSIT.
OUR PROJECT ALIGNS WITH THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES SUCH AS FOCUSING INVESTMENTS AROUND CORRIDORS AND EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES IN AUSTIN AND SUPPORTS THE A AND P.
IN FACT, THE FIRST LAND USE PO POLICY IN THE A AND P WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN PASSED IS TO PROMOTE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITIES ALONG TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORKS IN TERMS OF, UH, TRANSIT.
ONE KEY BENEFIT TO THIS PROPOSAL IS THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO A CAP METRO RAIL STATION.
THIS SITE IS WITHIN HALF A MILE RADIUS OF THE MLK JUNIOR RAIL STATION AND HAS A COUPLE OF PEDESTRIAN ROUTES COMPLETE WITH CROSSWALKS AND SIDEWALKS FOR SAFETY.
AGAIN, THIS WAS, THIS TRANSIT STATION DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PASSED.
THE SITE IS ALSO WELL SUPPORTED BY EXISTING BUS LINES AMONG THE ROUTES, UH, RUNNING ALONG AND NEAR THE PROPERTY.
OUR ROUTES 6 3 54, 85 AND TWO.
AND I WANT TO TURN TO, UH, THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR A MOMENT AND TALK ABOUT HOW THE PROJECT SUPPORTS THAT PLAN.
THE PROJECT, AS I MENTIONED, WAS ADOPTED IN 2001 OVER 20 YEARS AGO.
IT'S, IT'S SOUGHT TO OR SEEKS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA, ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALLOW LIVE WORK FLEX SPACE OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON TRACK ZONE FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
OUR PROPOSAL WOULD FULFILL ALL FOUR OF THOSE STATED OBJECTION OBJECTIVES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, MANY OF THE OBJECTIVES ADOPTED IN 2001 ACTUALLY REFLECT TODAY'S LAND USE AND PLANNING GOALS.
AT THE SAME TIME, AS YOU WELL KNOW, AUSTIN'S GROWING DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND TRANSIT ACCESS COMPELS US TO MODIFY AND MODERNIZE MODERNIZE PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO BE RESPONSIVE TODAY'S, UH, COMMUNITY.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL, UH, SUPPORT STAFF'S, UH, PROPOSAL TO CHANGES TO MIXED USE AND TO GO WITH CS M U V C O N P OVER THE ENTIRE SITE WITH THE COS THAT ARE LISTED ON PAGE ONE.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MR. CHRIS PAGE, FOLLOWED BY MS. JENNY GRAYSON.
[00:50:04]
OKAY, UM, SO WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE IN 2022, HORIZONTAL INVESTORS UNDERSTOOD THE EXACT ENTITLEMENTS THAT THEY PURCHASED AT, UH, 31 21 AND 31 17 EAST 12TH.THEY GAMBLED THAT WHEELIN COULD STIGMATIZE EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS EXPLOIT AUSTIN'S AFFORDABILITY PROBLEMS, FUELED MOSTLY BY OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, AND LEAN ON THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY FINANCIALLY BACKED TO EXTRACT MORE VALUE THAN THEY PAID FOR.
WE'RE LITERALLY HERE LISTENING TO A BOUTIQUE LAWYER HIRED BY A COUPLE THAT SOLD THEIR COMPANY FOR 280 MILLION, SUGGESTING THAT EAST AUSTIN IS EX EX, UH, EX EXCLUSIONARY BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR THEORETICAL BUILDING TO BE MORE THEORETICALLY PROFITABLE SO THAT THEY CAN, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, STRETCH THEIR INFLUENCE FURTHER, THE APPLICANT SEEMS TO IGNORE, UH, THE MEANING OF OUR COMMUNITY'S CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN INFORM BY LIFELONG RESIDENTS AND THE DOC IN THE DOCUMENTS AUTHORS IS AS FOLLOWS.
AFTER AUSTIN FORMALLY SEGREGATED THE CITY IN 1928, IT MAKES VERY INTENSE LAND USE INTO EAST AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE 1957 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY LAND USE UNDER THE 1957 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY AND APPROPRIATELY POSITIONED NUISANCE GENERATING HIGH TRAFFIC, POLLUTING AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES NEXT TO FAMILIES' HOMES.
OVER TIME, THOSE PROXIMATE BUT, UH, INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WERE ENSHRINED IN OUR CITY'S ZONING MAPS.
AND AFTER TWO YEARS OF EFFORT AND ADVOCACY, THE RESIDENTS OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM SUCCESSFULLY DRAFTED THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN 2002 AS AN ORDINANCE.
IT ENVISIONED THE COMPACT COMPLETE WALKABLE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY THAT THE CITY IS STILL TRYING TO GET OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TO CATCH UP TO.
TODAY, ONE OF ITS ACHIEVEMENTS WAS UNDOING INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE, CREATED BY DECADES OF DISCRIMINATORY ZONING BY ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL SCALE OF 40 FEET.
IT'S CLEAR THAT AUSTIN AS A WHOLE HAS PLAGUED WITH CHALLENGES OF AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESS TO HOUSING.
THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HASN'T DONE NOTHING BUT SOLVED THOSE CHALLENGES SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
UNDER THE CURRENT ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN MARKET RATE, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BOTH RECENTLY AND, AND IN THE PAST.
YOU CAN LOOK AT 12TH STREET AND SEE EXAMPLES OF, UH, MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS THAT ARE NEW, THAT ARE OLD, THAT ARE SUBSIDIZED.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE RETAIL AT THE GROUND FLOOR AS IT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WHAT IT LACKS IS USUALLY FROM SPECULATION.
UM, ACCORDING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE INVENTORY, UH, WE'VE GOT I THINK 34 LOTS THAT ARE OWNED BY ONE SPECULATOR, ALSO REPRESENTED BY MR. WHEELING.
UH, OF THOSE THERE ARE SIX WITH STRUCTURES THAT ARE ABANDONED.
THERE ARE FOUR THAT ARE UNIMPROVED SELLING ALCOHOL.
UH, AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, ONLY ONE THAT'S CONFIRMED TO HAVE ACTUAL HOUSING.
UM, THERE'S ALSO SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC HAZARDS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THIS SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT.
90 FOOT SCALE IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND UNREPEATABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
12TH STREET IS A TWO-LANE RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET LINED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDES, UH, WELL COULD YOU SCROLL DOWN, UH, TO NEXT SLIDE.
I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THE SLIDES RIGHT NOW.
SO 78,702, OUR ZIP CODE CONFIRMED BY THE 2020 CENSUS HAS PRODUCED SOME OF THE MOST HOUSING IN THE CITY.
IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES FORWARD, THE HOUSES THAT YOU SEE STRUCK WITH A RED LINE, THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE DISPLACED, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THOSE PURPLE AREAS DESIGNATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOME OF THE MOST DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN, IN EAST AUSTIN, AND THOSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE UNDER THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THAT'S THE SCALE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND YOU CAN SEE HOW WELL IT FITS WITH THE COMMUNITY OR DOES NOT FIT.
NEXT, THOSE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SOUGHT BY DEVELOPERS IN IN THE CITY.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S ONLY ABOUT TWO OF THEM THAT EXIST WEST OF I 35.
IS THERE ANOTHER SLIDE? AND THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN SEE HE'S SAYING ON HIS APPLICATION 110 UNITS.
WHAT HE'S SAYING IN HIS LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION IS THAT IT'LL BE 74 TODAY, THEY SAID 80.
UH, THE SAME IS TRUE OF THEIR OTHER PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE ON OAK SPRINGS, WHERE IT'S INITIALLY STATED OF 250 AND THEN IN THEIR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, IT'S 140 SOMETHING.
UM, BUT THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UNDOES DISCRIMINATORY BASE ZONING ALLOWS SMALL LOT AMNESTY, INCORPORATES VERTICAL MIX USE PROVIDES FOR LITERALLY MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF LAND FOR AUSTIN'S MOST FINANCIALLY VULNERABLE
[00:55:01]
RESIDENTS AND PRIORITIZED BALANCED INFILL DEVELOPMENT, EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, THE 2020 CENSUS CONFIRMS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS RACIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, AND EVEN ARCHITECTURALLY DIVERSE.YOU'LL FIND MORE MULTIFAMILY INCORPORATED IN THAT PLAN IN 2002 THAN YOU'LL FIND ACROSS MOST OF THE CITY.
DO NOT ALLOW SPECULATORS TO CONTINUE GETTING FED.
I'LL HEAR FROM MS. JENNY GRAYSON, FOLLOWED BY SETH WILKERSON.
I'VE LIVED IN MCKINLEY HEIGHTS SINCE 2010 AND CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FROM 3,117 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I MOVED TO MCKINLEY HEIGHTS WAS THE PROGRESSIVE THOUGHTFUL COMMUNITY PLAN KNOWN AS THE NA ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL COUNTS ON 2002.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS DESIGNED WITH THE GOAL OF MICKEY EAST AUSTIN, AFFORDABLE, WALKABLE, SHOPPABLE, INCLUSIVE, AND SCALABLE WORKING UNDER THIS PLAN AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, A NUMBER OF MIXED USE BUSINESSES HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BUILT UP TO SCALE 40 FEET RENTED OR SOLD THEIR HOUSING UNITS, AND HAVE RENTED OUT BUSINESS SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A REPLICABLE, SCALABLE PLAN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS DID OUR CITY COUNCIL WHEN IT APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN YEARS AGO.
I ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESPECT THE HOMEOWNER'S WISHES AND NOT REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR BUILDING HEIGHT.
DOING SO WOULD SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS TO BUILD UP TO 90 FOOT BUILDINGS ALL ALONG 12TH STREET, A TWO-LANE STREET THAT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE INFLUX OF TRAFFIC OF ALL FORMS, PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, BUS, AND CARS THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY SUCH LARGE BUILDINGS.
WHEN INVESTORS PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES, THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY COULD OPERATE.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, CAPPED BUILDING HEIGHT AT 40 FEET, AND THEY CHOSE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
HAVING A COMMERCIAL SERVICE IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO NEIGHBOR HOODS IS NOT SAFE AND DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN THE HOMEWOOD HEIGHTS AND MCKINLEY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOODS.
A MINIMUM OF 43 PROPERTIES ARE NOW OWNED BY A SINGLE INVESTMENT FIRM.
AT LEAST HALF OF THOSE ARE 23 SIT VACANT, SIX ARE ABANDONED.
THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE LANDOWNER TO REMOVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT.
IT'S AN ORGANIZED TAKEOVER OF THE EAST SIDE BY LARGE INVESTMENT FIRMS WITH LOTS OF MONEY AND LOTS OF TIME TO WAIT, WAIT FOR THE PROPERTY VALUE TO INCREASE SO THEY CAN FLIP IT FOR A PROFIT, WAIT FOR EAST AUSTIN RESIDENTS TO DIE SO THEY CAN ACQUIRE MORE LAND, WAIT FOR EAST AUSTIN RESIDENTS TO GET FED UP AND ABANDON THEIR HOMES.
BECAUSE WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS NOT PREVENTING DEVELOPERS FROM BUILDING THEIR DESIRE TO REMOVE ZONING, INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY VALUE, SCOOP UP MORE PROPERTIES IN EAST AUSTIN AND LEAVE THEM VACANT, AS YOU CAN SEE, TO SELL AT, AT A LATER DATE, IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR REQUEST.
12TH STREET IS A TWO LANE STREET, ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH BIKE LANES AND RECENTLY ADDED SIDEWALKS FOR YEARS.
RESIDENTS OF MCKINLEY HEIGHTS HAVE PETITIONED THE CITY FOR SPEED BUMPS ON HARVEY STREET, BUT APPARENTLY OUR STREETS AREN'T UNSAFE ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN INTERVENTION.
CARS CUT DANGEROUSLY THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM M L K TO 12TH STREET OR VICE VERSA TO AVOID THE CONGESTION ON AIRPORT.
AIRPORT BOULEVARD, SPEEDING IN EXCESS OF 40 MILES PER HOUR, DAMAGING VEHICLES, NOT SLOWING FOR PEDESTRIANS AND DAMAGING THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PSYCHE.
IN FACT, WE HAD ANOTHER COLLISION YESTERDAY FROM CARS CUTTING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 12TH STREET AT FIVE PMS A NIGHTMARE.
PEOPLE USE IT TO CONNECT TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND THEN 180 3, THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW IS ALREADY STRAINING THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE.
HOW WILL THIS ALREADY CONGESTED AREA HOLD AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSED 180 OR 110 RESIDENTIAL UNITS? THE RAIL IS MORE THAN A MILE AWAY WALKING DISTANCE.
IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN 20 MINUTES FOR EACH PERSON TO WALK.
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OR REMOVE, I'M SORRY, REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
UM, AS A HOMEOWNER WHO'S IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU ALL DO NOT REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FROM FROM 3,117 AND 31 21 EAST 12.
NOW JOINING VIA THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. MR. SETH WILKERSON, START SIX.
HEY, I, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I BELIEVE THE TWO PEOPLE THAT JUST SPOKE FAR MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I WILL, UM, EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF MY CONCERNS.
UH, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT INCREASE WAS NOT NECESSARY OR REQUIRED FOR ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND SO FAR.
UM, I'VE LIVED HERE ON EAST 13TH STREET.
[01:00:01]
I WILL HAVE THIS MONSTROSITY OF A BUILDING LOOKING DOWN INTO MY BACKYARD.I'M DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS.
UM, BUT I'VE SO FAR SEEN THAT NO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP.
UM, BUT THE INVESTORS WERE AWARE OF THE EXISTING OVERLAY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, AND THEY SHOULD ABIDE BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT EXISTS TO SERVE AS AN OUTLINE FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE BUILDING SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 40 FEET.
UM, I HAVE A LOT OF HEARTACHE THINKING FOR DANNY THAT LIVES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM PHASE 12.
THIS IS GOING TO BLIGHT THE SUN FROM HIS YARD.
UH, HE'S BEEN THERE LONGER THAN I HAVE, UH, AS WELL AS CHRIS JOHNSON ON THE CORNER.
UM, IF THE OVERLAY WERE APPROVED, I I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING UP, OPEN UP A MUCH LARGER AREA TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED ABOVE THE 40 FOOT LIMIT.
AND I DO NOT WANT THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THERE ARE PLENTY SUCCESSFUL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OPERATING UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AND I SEE NO NEED FOR AN EXCEPTION IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN NO PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE DEVELOPERS WERE AWARE WHEN THIS, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED.
UM, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC GOES, I CAN ATTEST TO WHAT JIMMY SAID.
TRY GETTING ON MCKINLEY AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ON THE 12TH.
YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO HARVEY IF YOU GET LUCKY.
IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, YOU GO UP TO ALEXANDER, THEN TURN LEFT AND LEFT AGAIN ON 12TH STREET AND YOU GET IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE CARS.
UM, WHETHER SAUL WILSON WAS OPENED UP IN THIS, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT AGAIN, IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
THOSE ARE SMALL TWO-LANE ROADS WITH STOP SIGNS.
UH, IT'S THE GETTING IN AND OUT, GETTING IN LINE ON 12TH STREET THAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. UH, THERE'S, IT'S A TWO-LANE ROAD.
UM, THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, UH, ANYBODY THAT'S SAYING THE
UH, IT'S A LONG WALK AND ONE THAT I TAKE MY DOG ON EVERY NIGHT.
UH, SO I'M GOING TO URGE THE CITY TO REJECT ANY CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS SO THAT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPMENT WITH IN LINE WITH OUR VISION, UH, FOR THIS AREA.
THANK, YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM SCOTT COLLIER, FOLLOWED BY MS. AL RAMOS.
I, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF, UH, I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY.
MY NAME IS SCOTT COLLIER AND MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 28 0 3 SAL WILSON, ONE BLOCK SOUTH AND A COUPLE BLOCKS WEST OF THE SUBJECT 12TH STREET PROPERTIES.
WE LIVE CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL, NOT A MILE WALK AWAY LIKE THE TRAIN TO LEANDER.
LET ME START BY EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK THAT THE CITY O