[00:00:01]
OKAY.UM, I AM CALLING THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF JUNE 20TH, 23 TO ORDER.
WE ARE ON STATE HALL IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 1001.
IT IS 6:01 PM ON JUNE 20TH, AND IT'S A VERY WARM EVENING OUTSIDE.
UM, WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
I, I HAVEN'T SEEN COMMISSIONER FAUS APOLOGY WAS HERE.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SMITH? I AM HERE.
AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? SHE IS ONLINE.
UH, SO COMMISSIONER COSTA AND COMMISSIONER GARRETT ARE NOT HERE, NOR IS COMMISSIONER FOX.
CORRECT? COMMISSIONER GARRETT IS HERE.
COMMISSIONER GARRETT IS PRESENT ONLINE JUST TO SHOW HER VIDEO.
I'LL READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE ITEM ONE, THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR NOTES ON THE MINUTES OF JUNE 6TH?
[1. Approval of minutes from June 6, 2023. ]
OKAY, HEARING NONE.THAT'LL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
[2. Rezoning: C14-2023-0014 - Albert Road Subdivision; District 5]
IS ITEM TWO A REZONING APPLICATION C 14 20 23 DASH ZERO 14 ALBERT ROAD SUBDIVISION IN DISTRICT FIVE.IT IS A REZONING FROM DR TO SF SIX.
THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
[3. Rezoning: C14-2023-0054 - Dagi Collision; District ]
ITEM THREE IS A REZONING APPLICATION C 14 20 23 DASH 54 ON DOGGY COLLISION.IT IS A REZONING FROM SF TWO TO CS AND THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER TO, UM, RESTRICT SOME OF THE CONDITIONS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS PER EXHIBIT A.
AND SO THAT EXHIBIT A IS ONLINE.
[4. Environmental Variances: SP-2022-0167D - 1703 N. River Hills Road Marina Reconstruction; District 10]
IS ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES, SF S P 2022 DASH OH 1 6 7 D 1703 NORTH RIVER HILLS ROAD MARINA RECONSTRUCTION.IT IS THE OLD PIER AND THAT IS A POSTPONEMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO JULY 18TH.
[5. Subdivision: C8-2021-0050.0A - 607 Montopolis Subdivision; District 3]
ITEM FIVE IS THE SUBDIVISION C 8 20 21 DASH 0 5 0 A AT 6 0 7 MONTOPOLIS SUBDIVISION.IT IS A, IT IS AT 6 0 7 MONTOPOLIS ROAD AND IT IS FIVE LOTS ON 0.939 ACRES AND IT IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS IN EXHIBIT C.
[6. Subdivision Vacation: C8J-2017-0212.0A(VAC) - Bayer Subdivision Plat Vacation]
LAST ITEM IS ITEM SIX, SUBDIVISION VACATION CJ 2017 DASH TWO 12 A SLASH VACATION BAC.IT'S THE BEAR SUBDIVISION PLAT VACATION 87 0 5 DECKER LAKE ROAD AND IT IS CONSENT APPROVAL.
THAT IS ALL OF THE CONSENT ITEMS. SO WE HAVE THE MINUTES, WE HAVE ITEM TWO AS A DISCUSSION.
ITEM THREE IS AS AMENDED WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY APPROVAL.
ITEM FOUR IS A REZONING TO, OR A POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 18TH.
ITEM FIVE OF THIS APPROVAL FOR REASONS.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? THAT MOTION IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? COMMISSIONER FLORES, Y'ALL ARE BOTH NEXT TO ME.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 23 0 0 14.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 73 0 6 ALBERT ROAD.
AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SF SIX.
THERE ARE SIGNATURES OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED OPPOSING OR REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SF TWO.
THE PETITION INCLUDES 48.25% OF ELIGIBLE SIGNATURES, THEREFORE MEETING THE 20% THRESHOLD FOR A VALID PETITION.
THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS LOCATED AT 73 0 6 ALBERT ROAD ON A 50 FOOT WIDE UNPLATTED TRACK AND HIS ZONE DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, DR.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND A WORKSHOP LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
THERE ARE STORAGE UNITS AND FACILITIES AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE ZONED MF TWO CO AND SF TWO.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LARGE TRACKS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST THAT ALL HAVE FRONTAGE TO ALBERT ROAD AND A RAILROAD TRACKS ARE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY WITH MF TWO MULTIFAMILY
[00:05:01]
RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS.THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE TOWNHOUSE AND CO CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE ASS OF SIX DISTRICT ZONING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE S OF SIX DISTRICT ZONING ALLOWS FOR MODERATE DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, TWO, FAMILY TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM USE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SF SIX CO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO SEVEN PER ACRE DUE TO THE SUBSTANDARD INFRASTRUCTURE OF ALBERT ROAD.
THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION WILL ALLOW FOR CLUSTERING OF THE PROPOSED UNITS AND FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE DESIGN LAYOUT.
HOWEVER, AN SF THREE DENSITY WILL BE PRESERVED.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M ANDY CLEM WITH BLUE DIAMOND BUILDERS, UH, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS.
UM, YEAH, WE, THE THREE ACRE PARCEL THAT WE HAVE HERE ON 73 0 6 ALBERT, WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO OBTAIN ABOUT EIGHT POINT, UH, SIX, SIX UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, I KNOW THAT THE, UH, PARCELS DOWN THE STREET ON THE SAME STREET ARE, UH, WERE APPROVED AT NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, BUT WE WERE KIND OF WORKING WITH, UM, OUR ENGINEER TO SEE IF WE COULD GET EIGHT, UH, A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SPOKEN TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE, UM, ABOUT VARIOUS DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
OUR, WE HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER HERE ALSO TO KIND OF ANSWER ANY DRAINAGE QUESTIONS OR WATER QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE.
UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH ON THE THREE ACRES, UM, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
WELL, NOW, UH, MR. DAVID BAR JOHNSON, WILL YOU BE SPEAKING? THANK YOU.
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.
UM, JUST WANTED TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I THINK THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, MAINLY DUE TO STORM AND TRAFFIC.
UH, GOING BACK TO THE CAP ON THIS, UM, WITH US BEING BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE UNITS AN ACRE, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO AN SF THREE DENSITY.
UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE ISN'T BEING INCREASED BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
WE'VE GOT A LARGE ROAD IN THE SITE ALREADY WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, SO WITH US GOING TO, YOU KNOW, EIGHT, NINE UNITS AN ACRE, THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE WE'RE INCREASING ON THE SITE ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
AND WITH THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA BE ADDING STORM QUALITY AND RETENTION AND EVERYTHING WE NEED.
UM, THE OTHER BIG THING IS IT GETTING DOWNSTREAM AND CLOGGING UP, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A PLAN TO ULTIMATELY UPGRADE MATTHEWS.
UH, AND WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SLUSH FUND FOR THE MATTHEWS IMPROVEMENT GROWS, AND ONCE IT GETS TO A CERTAIN POINT THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
AND I GUESS THAT KIND OF GOES INTO THE SECOND POINT OF TRAFFIC AND THE ISSUES THEY'RE SEEING WITH THAT.
UH, AS MATTHEWS IS IMPROVED, I THINK THAT THAT WILL ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERN, UM, WITH ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING ON.
AND I THINK THE THIRD MAJOR THING WITH IT BEING EIGHT, NINE UNITS IS JUST AFFORDABILITY.
UM, I'M PERSONALLY AT THE POINT IN MY LIFE WHERE I'M LOOKING TO BUY A HOUSE AND ANYTHING IN AUSTIN THAT YOU KNOW, IS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IN AUSTIN PROPER IS 600 K PLUS.
AND WITH THIS BEING, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE, THAT ALLOWS A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PRICING.
UH, AND IT'S ABLE TO KEEP THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK A LOT OF TEXAS IS GOING TOWARDS THE SMALLER, YOU KNOW, 57, 50, 40 FOOT LOTS.
AND I THINK THIS ALIGNS WITH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
NOW ON THE TELECONFERENCE, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE, UH, MS. KAREN FERNANDEZ.
MS. FERNANDEZ, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
SELECT STAR SIX PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
MY NAME IS KAREN FERNANDEZ AND EXCUSE ME, PROCEED.
I'M THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTIGATION, AND OUR PETITION IS ASKED THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST FOR SF SIX.
BASED ON THE 37 UNITS, WE BELIEVE THAT AN SF THREE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON STILL LIMITING UNIT NUMBERS.
AS, AS YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LACKED THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THAT LEVEL OF DENSITY.
WE HAVE NARROW ROADS, NO SIDEWALKS
[00:10:01]
OR CURBS AND BAR DITCHES ALONG THE ROAD THAT WE USED TO MAINTAIN BY THE RED.THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PROMISED SIDEWALKS FLOOD MEDICATION WHEN THEY WERE ANNEXED THE AREA IN 1984.
WE MET WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER LAST MONTH, AND HE REPORTED THAT THERE IS STILL NO PLANS TO ADDRESS OUR NEEDS.
BOTH LONGTIME RESIDENTS AND OUR NEWER NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL BOUGHT THEIR HOME.
DUE TO THE LARGE LOT, THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE AND THE BIG MATURE TREES, THIS PARTICULAR LOT HAS QUITE A FEW HERITAGE TREES.
WHEN URBAN STRUCTURES FIRST MET WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, THEY PRESENTED A PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 12, 10 AND 12 UNITS, BUT NO MORE THAN 13.
THEY ALSO STATED THAT THEY WOULD BE DOING THE SUBDIVISION AND BUILDING THE ROADS, BUT THEN INDIVIDUALS WOULD BUILD THE HOMES.
WE LEFT THIS IDEA, THE REQUEST FOR SF SIX AND 37 UNITS TOOK US BY SURPRISE.
WE REACHED OUT TO DISCUSS, BUT WE DID NOT HEAR BACK TO THEM UNTIL ABOUT AN HOUR AGO.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SX ZONING ALLOWS THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY AND THE PETITIONERS ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT, BUT NOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DENSITY.
IF WE COULD HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING THE NUMBER TO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE UNITS, THAT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
EXAMPLES OF THIS CAN BE SEEN AT MATTHEWS PARK, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER OF MATTHEWS LANE AND ALBERT ROAD.
THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THERE'S NINE ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES, 1103.
MATTHEWS LANE HAS FOUR HOMES ON THE TWO ACRES, AND 1105 MATTHEWS LANE HAS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.
WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOGNITION OF OUR LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED CAP OF SENATE UNITS, BUT WE FEEL THAT THE NUMBER SHOULD BE CLOSER TO FOUR.
WE ALSO ASK THAT NO STR RESTRICTION BE ADDED.
WE LOVE TO WORK WITH URBAN STRUCTURES TO BUILD HOMES FOR AUSTIN FAMILIES WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE, BUT WE'RE NOT INTERESTING IN JUST PROVIDING MORE UNITS FOR REAL ESTATE INVESTORS.
I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME TO MEET WITH THE BUILDERS TO DISCUSS THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRESENT TO THEM WITH THE NEW PLAN THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I'LL STAY ON THE LINE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
WHEN I'LL HEAR FROM MS. RUTH LA MS. LA YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, NO AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PLANNED FOR THIS SITE.
WE OPPOSE DENSE DEVELOPMENT OVER HALF A MILE FROM A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING LOTS AND THE AREA LACKS URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE IF APPROVED.
THIS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON ALBERT ROAD WILL MAKE THE AREA UNSAFE AND WILL BURDEN AUSTIN TAXPAYERS WITH HUGE INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENSES.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT MORE DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO SOME SORT OF TRUST FUND.
WE WERE ANNEXED IN 84 AND ARE STILL WAITING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
MY SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
THERE IS A VALID PETITION AT 48% OF IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
UH, WHAT I'M SHOWING ON THE SLIDE IS THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US IN APRIL OF 2022, WHICH WE WERE EXCITED ABOUT AND SUPPORTED.
THAT'S SF TWO AND IT'S UP TO 13 UNITS.
THEN IN DECEMBER, I SEE ON THE ABC WEBSITE, AUSTIN'S WEBSITE THAT THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR THREE TIMES THAT MUCH.
WE TRY TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS ON SUSTAINABLE PLANS, EXCUSE ME, TO BRING MORE HOUSING TO AUSTIN.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THEY DID THE SAME.
YOU CAN SEE THE WONDERFUL SHOULDERS AND OTHER PLACES TO WALK IF THERE'S TWO CARS COMING AT YOU, PAGE 20 SHOWS A LITTLE BIT WIDER PORTION OF THE ROAD WITH A TRUCK ON IT.
OKAY, PAGE 23 IS A LETTER FROM CAROL CAMP WHO SUPPORTS THE PROJECT.
HE LIVES IN AN FX SF SIX DEVELOPMENT ON MANCH ROAD, WHICH IS A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
HE THINKS THIS IS THE SAME EVEN THOUGH IT'S OVER HALF A MILE FROM A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
IT IT ALSO APPEARS THAT MR CAMP WORKS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS THE ONLY LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION AS FAR AS THE, YOU CAN BIKE A MILE OR WALK A MILE COMMENT THAT WE SOMETIMES HEAR FROM COMMISSIONERS.
WHEN I WAS IN MY THIRTIES AND LIVED IN 78, 7 0 4, I WORKED DOWNTOWN.
BUT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE NEED A CAR.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO A STORE, YOU CAN'T CARRY A CASE OF BEER HALF A MILE.
[00:15:01]
KIDS, YOU CAN'T HAUL THEM.SO WHILE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ATTRACTIVE FOR PEOPLE WALKING AND RIDING THEIR BIKE, IT NEEDS A CAR, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TEMPERATURE'S OVER A HUNDRED.
COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN AL ALTER APOLOGIZED FOR NOT VISITING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EARLIER.
HE SAID HE COULDN'T BECAUSE HIS CAR WAS IN THE SHOP.
NOW, IF A YOUNG FIT PERSON, LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN ALTAR NEEDS A CAR TO GET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW ARE OLDER PEOPLE LIKE ME SUPPOSED TO GET AROUND? I'M NOT CRITICIZING HIM.
HE WAS SPEAKING HONESTLY ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY GETTING TO AND FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WOULD LIKE, WE OPPOSE THE DENSITY.
WE LIKE THE FIRST PROJECT AND WE WANT A CO WITH NO S STR.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM EUGENE SUTON.
MR. SUTON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I USED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NOW I WORK WITH THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE.
I RECENTLY RECEIVED THIS IN THE MAIL, WHICH IS A U FORM OF THE UTILITY BILL, WHICH HAS A BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN, STORM DRAIN, STORM DRAIN.
AND THERE'S 30,000 OF THEM IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE NONE IN THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE HAS BEEN A, A FOCUS TOWARDS EXPONENTIAL GROWTH UNIT IN NUMBERS ON EVER INCREASING AVAILABLE PROPERTIES.
THREE RECENT LOCATIONS HAVE THREE ACRE SITES.
76 0 5 ALBERT, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF THE HILL, IS SEEKING 37 UNITS.
AND THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THERE'S ALSO 37 UNITS BEING SOUGHT ON 30 76 0 6 DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM 76 0 5.
THE LACK OF DRAINS OR ANY RUNOFF TREATMENT CREATES A CASCADE OF WATER FLOWING TOWARDS 73 0 6.
ALBERT LOOKING AT PROPERTIES ON THE LOWER WESTERN HA LEVEL OF ALBERT HAS DOCUMENTED FLOODING AT MY HOUSE AT 1505 DAMON 1512.
DAMON IS A THREE QUARTER ACRE SITE AND THEY'RE SEEKING NINE UNITS THERE.
THE BUTTS OF RAILROAD TRACKS, IT WILL HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
76 0 6 ALBERT HAS A ALICHE DRIVE THAT WASHES AWAY 74 0 6.
ALBERT HAS HAD WATER ENTERING THE HOUSE AND THE OWNERS ESTABLISHED BURNS TO LESSEN THE FLOOD.
74 11 HAS FLOODING IN THE BACKYARD AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO 74 15 ALBERT, WHICH WAS RECENTLY APPROVED WITH FOUR UNITS BY THE ZONING COMMISSION.
HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL AND KITCHENS SET UP A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN SOUTHERN NEIGHBORS TO 73 0 6.
ALBERT ASKED ME TO REPORT TO THREE 11 REGARDING ITEMS WASHING DOWN TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THAT PROPERTY IN DETERMINING UNIT NUMBERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOUR UNITS PER ACRE HAVE WORKED WELL WITH 1105 MATTHEWS AND 1103 MATTHEWS LANE, BOTH TWO AND A HALF ACRE SITES WITH ONE AND A HALF ACRE FLOODPLAINS.
MUCH DISCUSSION IN CITY DRAINAGE INPUT OCCURRED AT 1609 MATTHEWS LANE.
FOUR BUILDINGS WITH 10 UNITS ON SIX INCHES ACRE NEXT TO THE TRACK.
MATTHEWS PARK HAS NINE HOMES ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES WITH A LARGE RE WITH A LARGE RETENTION AREA.
JUMPING TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE TRACKS, THERE ARE RETENTION PONDS EXISTING FROM MATTHEWS LANE ALL THE WAY TO DIPMAR ACCEPTING KEEL BAR.
I WAS RECENTLY INVOLVED IN REZONING THERE WHERE THEIR 23 UNIT DEPARTMENT WAS DISCUSSED AND THERE WAS MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT PLACING A LARGE DRAINAGE PIPE FROM THE, UH, MINCHA ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE END OF KEEL BAR, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM DAMON.
GRANTED A NEED FOR INCREASED UNITS, BUT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER INCLUDING FOUR UNITS PER ACRE OR SEVEN OR 12.45 SHOULD BE A FUNCTION OF PROPER SCIENCE AND NOT A CALL TO SOLVE.
THE HOUSING PROGRESS IS A CRISIS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SOME GREEN SPACE.
WHEN DAMON GETS A STORM DRAIN, I PLAN TO ADOPT IT.
ONE, I'LL HEAR FROM MS. CARMEN MEYER.
MR. WEHMEYER, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I TOO AM LOOKING FORWARD TO ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN SOMEDAY, MAYBE ON MY STREET.
UH, I'M THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY AND WE HAVE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER, UH, A FEW MONTHS AGO AND THEN JUST NOW OUTSIDE.
UH, WE GENERALLY DO AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND ME PERSONALLY AS THE NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A LOT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY, UH, SUPPORT SF SIX, BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY IT GIVES THEM, UH, TO BUILD MORE DENS HOUSING.
I DO WANT MORE NEIGHBORS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOWEVER, UH, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF PUTTING SOME SORT OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT MY OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE RAISED ABOUT NO SIDEWALKS, NO DRAINAGE.
[00:20:01]
I UNDERSTAND THAT AS MORE DEVELOPMENT COMES, THERE WILL BE MORE MONEY FOR THESE TYPES OF THINGS, BUT THERE'S JUST NO ASSURANCES.AND THE HARMS OF BUILDING TOO MUCH WITHOUT ANY SIDEWALKS, WITHOUT ANY DRAINAGE OR ANY PLAN WHATSOEVER OR ANYTHING IN RIDING TO GIVE US ASSURANCES IS DANGEROUS.
CHILDREN WILL GET HIT BY CARS.
DOGS COULD GET HIT BY CARS, HOMES WILL FLOOD.
THIS IS REAL TRUE DANGER THAT IS NOT FAIR TO PUT ON THE BACKS OF THE NEIGHBORS.
SO WE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO SEE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT ONCE THERE'S SOME SORT OF ASSURANCES OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WE NEED TO SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE SF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF MAYBE SOMETHING EVEN A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN SEVEN, UH, LIKE MY NEIGHBOR SAID, IN THE FOUR TO FIVE RANGE WOULD REALLY BE APPROPRIATE UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE'S SOME SORT OF ASSURANCES THAT WE CAN GET PROPER DRAINAGE AND GET PROPER SIDEWALKS.
UM, WE DID HAVE SOME INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WAYS TO TAKE MATTERS INTO OUR OWN HANDS AND BUILD OUR OWN SIDEWALKS, BUT AGAIN, I'VE BEEN PRACTICING LAW LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT NOTHING'S REAL UNTIL IT'S IN WRITING.
AND SO WHILE I'M EXCITED ABOUT THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THEY CAN'T BE RELIED UPON FOR TONIGHT AND FOR THIS ZONING.
SO I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF FOUR TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, AND TO BE CLEAR, UM, I KNOW THAT THE, UH, I GUESS THE OVERLAY SOME CONFUSION ON WHETHER IT'S 38 OR 39.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING 26 UNITS JUST, UM, AS OUR SITE PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED, UM, WHICH IS UNDER THE NINE FROM WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ACHIEVED, UM, OR SOME OF THE OTHERS.
SO WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT PURSUING 37 TO 39 UNITS, BUT RATHER, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SITE PLAN PROPOSED FOR 26 UNITS.
UM, THEY'RE DETACHED UNITS, UM, ALL HAVE A GOOD SIZE YARD, UH, 15 FEET BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND OVER 25 FEET OF, YOU KNOW, BACKYARD.
UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UH, THE LAST 15 YEARS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO HANDLE OUR OWN DRAINAGE.
UM, THAT'S AN ENGINEERING CONCERN.
SO ULTIMATELY I WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS FOR A LIVING.
SO I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR STREET FRONTAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE SIDEWALK, THAT'S, THAT'S AN EASIER THING TO SOLVE ON OUR, ON OUR END, GETTING THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH CONTROL OVER THAT, BUT I'M WILLING TO HELP.
UM, ON TOP OF THAT, I, I DO, YOU KNOW, WANNA MAKE NOTE THAT THE, THE WATER ISSUES AND THE SEWER ISSUES FOR THE SITE WILL BE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS WHEN THE TIME COMES.
AND, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY YOU CAN'T PICK UP A PERMIT.
THAT'S A LENGTHY PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE.
YOU GOTTA PROVE THAT YOU CAN HANDLE YOUR OWN DRAINAGE AND, UM, YOU ENGINEER YOUR WATER ACCORDINGLY.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR IMPACT FEES, WATER IMPACT FEES, SEWER IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES.
UM, AND SO ANYWAY, WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS AND WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH EVERYONE.
UH, WE WANT THIS TO BE A, A GOOD SUCCESS.
YOU KNOW, EVERYONE KNOWS I'M, I'M PAYING 15,000 A MONTH IN INTEREST, CARRIE, SO
UM, SO ANYWAY, HOPE THAT KINDA SHEDS SOME CLARITY ON THAT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SURE.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG OPPOSED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IT'S SECONDED.
EXCUSE ME, BY COMMISSIONER S UM, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UNANIMOUS THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.
WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? GO AHEAD.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU NOTED IN YOUR REPORT, AND IT'S COME UP IN SOME OF THE COMMENTS, THAT THERE ARE A RANGE OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, UH, ON NEARBY SITES.
I THINK THE MOST RECENT WAS ONE WE APPROVED FOR NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, SO I'M CURIOUS HOW YOU ENDED UP AT THE SEVEN NUMBER AS OPPOSED TO FOUR OR FIVE OR NINE.
UM, WELL WE TALKED ABOUT IT AS A PLANNING TEAM, UM, AND BASICALLY WE, BETWEEN THE MATH OF THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED FOR SF THREE AND TRYING TO GIVE A COMPROMISE WITH KNOWING THAT WE DO WANT A LITTLE BIT OF DENSITY, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE PROJECT.
[00:25:01]
KNOWING WHAT ALBERT ROAD, THE CHALLENGES THAT IT HAS IN THAT AREA, UM, WE CAME UP WITH SEVEN BECAUSE THAT REALLY, WHEN YOU DO THE MATH FOR THE SF THREE, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IT IS SF THREE DENSITY.SO WE WERE REALLY JUST FOCUSING ON TRYING TO KEEP SF THREE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THIS LOT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL.
UH, FOR STAFF, WE SAW SI PLAN VERY QUICKLY.
IS THAT SI PLAN? CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM IT'S COMPLYING WITH COMPATIBILITY, THE 25 FOOT NO BUILD ZONE AND ALL OF THAT? WELL, I, THAT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WE GOTCHA.
SO, BUT IT DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE AN ACTUAL SITE PLAN.
UM, IT IS, I KNOW THAT COMMENTS WERE MADE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH COMPATIBILITY ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A 25 SET, 25 FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE THEY'RE STORAGE FACILITIES ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY.
SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE, THOSE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS BY, UM, THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.
OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? SO THIS REQUIRES, MAYBE THE ENGINEER COULD ANSWER THIS BETTER.
UM, I GUESS IT'S NOT A ROAD, BUT A DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO ACCESS ALL THESE DIFFERENT UNITS.
HOW MUCH LAND WOULD THAT BE? THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS? YEAH.
UH, I THINK ON THERE I HAD A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
UM, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH LAND AREA THAT COVERS.
I THINK IT'S PLUS OR MINUS 18,000 SQUARE FEET WAS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT WE WERE GONNA BE OUTING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION BY ANYBODY WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER STERN MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER? I I DID NOT, BUT I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
I'M SORRY I COULDN'T SEE WHO MADE THE MOTION.
WHO MADE THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER BOONE COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER BOONE MADE THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER STERN MADE THE SECOND TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SORRY, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK THE DRAWING THAT'S IN OUR BACKUP HAD 13 UNITS AND SEEMS TO USE THE LAND REALLY WELL.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR A CO AT 13 UNITS AND NO STRS ALLOWED.
SO S WHICH ZONING CATEGORY WOULD THAT BE STILL? THE SF SIX.
SF SIX WITH THE CO LIMITING IT TO 13 UNITS TOTAL AND NO DO SHORT TERM RENTALS.
I WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT ONE JUST BECAUSE FROM THIS LAYOUT, THE 25, I DON'T THINK THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK IS THERE.
WELL IT'S NOT APPROVING THAT LAYOUT, IT'S JUST APPROVING THAT DENSITY.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK THIS LAYOUT IS POSSIBLE.
REALLY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT LAYOUT IS THAT WOULD BE AN SF THREE SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A ROADWAY AND NOT A SF SIX SITE PLAN WHERE YOU WOULD'VE A DRIVEWAY, THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE NARROWER AND COULD BEDER TO SAVE TREES AND BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT LAYOUT.
BUT THAT'S JUST CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON FER BEFORE, UH, DEBATING THE, UH, BUT IS THERE A SECOND SUBSTITUTE? IS THERE A SECOND FOR OKAY.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S IS, YEAH, SORRY, IS THERE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S SUBSTITUTE, WHICH WAS SF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING TOTAL DENSITY TO 13 UNITS AND NO STRS.
I'M, I'M, UH, CHAIR, I'M NOT SECONDING AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE REASONING IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
WELL THAT WAS WHAT'S DRAWN ON PAGE 18.
THAT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORS.
IT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT AND THEY DO ON THE VALID PETITION.
UM, SO I, I GUESS THE CONCERN I HAVE IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THREE ACRES AND PUTTING
[00:30:01]
13 PROPERTIES ON IT.YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT QUARTER ACRE SITES PER HOUSE.
I MEAN THESE ARE REALLY LARGE YARDS.
IF YOU GO LOOKING FOR REAL ESTATE TODAY, MOST OF THE YARDS ARE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, 0.15 ACRE, NOT 0.25 ACRE.
THAT'S A MUCH LARGER LOT THAN NECESSARY.
UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION LIMITS IT TO UM, SEVEN PER ACRE.
UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A REGULAR SIZE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO WHILE IT'S TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, A MULTIPLE FAMILY, IT STILL FEELS LIKE A REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT TO ME.
SO TO LIMIT IT EVEN FURTHER JUST MEANS WE'RE GONNA HAVE VERY EXPENSIVE PROPERTY.
UM, NOT PORTABILITY IS HAVING MORE OF THEM.
YEAH, WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SECOND.
YEAH, WE IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? IF NOT THE SECOND? THERE'S NO POINT IN DISCUSSING.
SO IS THERE A, IF THERE'S NOT A SECOND THEN YOUR MOTION DIES AND WE'RE BACK TO THE BASE MOTION OF APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS SF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITED TO SIX UNITS PER ACRE.
IS THAT A SECOND? COMMISSIONER ACOA? UH, I BELIEVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS SEVEN.
IS THAT WHAT I SAID? YOU SAID SIX? SIX.
SORRY, I'M TRYING TO SF SIX WITH THE CO LIVING IT TO SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE.
AND COMMISSIONER COSTA YOU HAD A QUESTION? UH, JUST RATHER, UH, I AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S PORTION FOR LEANING STRS.
SO I WOULD CONSIDER THE MOTION WITH THE ADDITION OF LIMITING STRS.
BUT DO YOU THINK THE DENSITY RECOMMENDATION BY COUNSELING? I THINK THAT IT'S BENEFICIAL TO LIMIT SHORT TERM RENTALS WHEREVER WE CAN BECAUSE THEY DO TEND TO TAKE AWAY FROM HOUSING MARKET AS A WHOLE AND ALLOWING FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERS TO TAKE THOSE UM, HOMES REGARDLESS IF THAT DAY I THINK'S BETTER FOR THE, TO BRING US INTO ORDER, I'M GONNA CONSIDER COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S MOTION DEAD.
WE'RE BACK TO THE BASE MOTION.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF NO STRS OR SUBSTITUTE MOTION A STRS OR DO YOU WANNA SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT? WE WANNA DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION.
DOES EVERYBODY AGREE AMENDMENT TO THE BASE? DOES EVERYBODY AGREE THE AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION OR DOES SOMEBODY NOT AGREE? THAT'S THE PART I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
IF NOBODY, IF NOT EVERYBODY AGREES, THEN WE'LL DO I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER STERN? YEAH, DISAGREES.
THEN WE CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF JUST NO STRS AND SEE IF THAT GETS PASSED.
SO YOU WANNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF NO STRS? WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.
WE CAN JUST, UM, VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
SO HE'S SUGGESTING AN AMENDMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT AMENDMENT AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
SO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF SS SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE AND NO STRS.
AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA VOTE ON THAT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ACOA SECOND ABOVE BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO A SECOND.
WELL, TO CLARIFY, THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION.
SO RIGHT NOW THE VOTE WOULD ONLY BE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR NO STRS.
YES, THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING IS THE AMENDMENT IS JUST NO STS BASE MOTION WITH NO STRS.
IF THAT FAILS, GO BACK THE BASE MOTION, BUT IT'S NOT SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WE'RE VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRIMARY AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION OF NO STRS.
SO IT'S, YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS RIGHT?
THERE'S AN AMENDMENT BEING MADE TO THAT OF NO STRS.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A MO A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT UNLESS THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOME CONCESSION FROM COMMISSIONER STERN.
I'D LIKE TO JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY AND YOU KNOW, I KIND OF ASK WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITUATION THAT IMPLIES THAT A ST R BAN AND IF SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THAT PIECEMEAL OR IS THAT A MATTER OF POLICY THAT THEY SHOULD BE DECIDED AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL? IT MAY BE, IT SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC LIKE NO S STR TYPE TWO I, I GUESS I JUST, I WANNA, IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT DECISION, I I'D LIKE TO ATTACH THAT TO SOME SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS CASE.
OTHERWISE I, I'D HAVE TROUBLE SUPPORTING IT.
YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH THAT AND I THINK THAT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE POSITION WE HAVE AS A LIKE, SO BOARD TO PUT THAT FORTH AND THE COUNCIL DECIDE THEY DON'T LIKE THAT COURT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN IGNORE IT.
I THINK IT JUST IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT HOME OWNERSHIP OPTIONS GOOD.
UM, ANY MORE DISCUSSION? OKAY, SO I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION.
UH, SLIGHTLY OFF TRACK, BUT IN TERMS OF STR, IS THERE, I'M, I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH THE DIFFERENT TYPES BUT IS THERE, I GUESS A TYPE THAT WOULD ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTALS OF A PORTION, LIKE IF THEY HAD AN ADU OR
[00:35:01]
A ROOM THAT THEY WERE RENTING OUT SO THAT THE, IT'S SORT OF AN OWNER OCCUPIED AND A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, LIKE ONE ROOM OR AN ADU COULD STILL BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL SORT OF AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE INCOME OF THE HOMEOWNER AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.I'M GONNA LOOK TO STAFF TO SEE IF STAFF CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO IS THERE A SUBSECTION OF THE STR THAT WOULD ALLOW A SECONDARY UNIT TO BE RENTED TO GET INCOME FOR THE OWNER? OKAY, SO A SECONDARY SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THERE A FORM OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS? OKAY.
I'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO REFER TO MY COLLEAGUE ONLINE.
UM, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ABOUT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPES EACH ONE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO LOOK IT UP.
I I AM ONLINE BUT I ALSO AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
IT'S JUST SHORT TERM RENTALS OR NO SHORT TERM RENTALS, SO, OKAY.
UM, I CAN, I CAN SHED A LITTLE LIGHT.
I BELIEVE THAT TYPE ONE IS IN OWNER-OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
SO PERSON LIVES IN THE HOUSE OR APARTMENT RENTS OUT PART OF IT.
TYPE TWO IS LIKE THE WHOLE HOUSE RENTAL.
AND THEN TYPE THREE ARE THE SORT OF COMMERCIAL, LIKE THE VESPER BUILDING DOWNTOWN THAT IS ALL SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO OWN OR OCCUPY AT ALL.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR SO I'M NOT, SO THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS NO SHORT TERM RENTALS PERIOD.
WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT SEEMS WE HAVE ANOTHER MINUTE IF IT'S A SIX, THERE'S NOT AN A D U, IT'S JUST LIKE THE CIP FUND ANYWAYS.
WELL IT COULD STILL BE A ROOM WITHIN A HOUSE.
I THINK IT'S MORE THE ISSUE OF DOES THE OWNER GO ON VACATION AND AND RENT IT OUT, THAT'S TYPE ONE.
OR IS THIS PERMANENTLY BEING USED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL? MM-HMM
AND THEN TAKING AWAY HOUSING FROM I AGREE.
LIKE IF I RENT, IF I WERE TO RENT A HOUSE AND IF I WANTED TO RENT A ROOM TO AFFORD THE RENT, THAT SHOULD BE FINE.
THAT'S NOT SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THAT WOULD BE TYPE, WOULD THAT BE TYPE ONE, TYPE TWO? RIGHT.
TYPE TWO IS THE ONE WHERE IT'S NEVER USED FOR HOUSING, IT'S JUST USED FOR, YEAH.
TYPE TWO NON-OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS HOW I UNDERSTAND IT.
WITH THREE BEING A CONDO THAT'S NOT OWNER, NOT NOT OCCUPIED UNLESS YOU CONDO, THESE ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A POLICY.
SO TYPE ONE IS RENTED FOR PERIODS OF LESS THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS IS OWNER OCCUPIED.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE TYPE TWO WHICH IS ALSO RENTED HERE FOR LESS THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AS NOT PART OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO I THINK I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO UH, JUST LOOKING AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GIVE YOU MORE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REALLY HELPED AS FAR AS THE DAYS, BUT YEAH, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE ZONING USE CHART AND I ONLY SEE THE DEFINITION OF SHORT TERM RENTALS.
I DON'T SEE THE DEFINITION OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THAT'S WHY I AS TWO USES IF WE DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WE'RE GETTING TOO SPECIFIC.
IF WE GO BEYOND JUST SHORT TERM RENTAL, I THINK THAT'S, I THINK, THINK THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT WE CAN'T GO BEYOND JUST SAYING YES ON SHORT TERM RENTALS OR NO ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
WE CAN'T GET, WE CAN'T SUBD DEFINE A USE.
THAT'S EVEN IF IT'S IN THE CODE.
SO I THINK THE MOTION AS AMENDED IS AGAIN SF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
LET ME GET TO SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE AND THE AMENDED THAT WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IS ANOTHER CONDITION SAYING NO SHORT TERM RENTALS PERIOD.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO THAT DIES FROM NINE TO TWO.
SO NOW WE GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS F F SS SIX CO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE AND NO RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.
OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 LINE 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
OKAY, CHAIR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS UH, BOONE SECONDED BY THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER.
THE COMMISSIONER BOONE MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THAT WAS COMMISSIONER STERN.
[00:40:01]
THE CONSENT AGENDA.ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS, I WANNA TAKE THIS SHORT MINUTE PSR PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PSA, PUBLIC SERVICE MENT.OUR NEXT MEETING IS GONNA BE JULY 11TH.
IT WILL NOT BE ON JULY 4TH BECAUSE IT'S JULY 4TH.
IT'LL BE ON AT 5:00 PM IT'LL BE A CONSENT AGENDA ONLY.
SO THERE'LL BE NO DISCUSSION ITEMS. CONSENT AGENDA ONLY ON JULY 11TH AT 5:00 PM HERE.
BACK HERE I'M ASSUMING? YES, BACK HERE.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? COMMITTEE REPORTS, CODES AND ORDINANCES.
COMMISSIONER GARRETT FOR IS, IS STAFF ABLE TO GIVE PRESENTATION ON S STR POLICY FOR THE CITY
THEY WILL ADD THAT TO A LIST OF OF PRESENTATION.
THAT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION ON SHORT TERM RENTAL ISSUES.
UM, GO BACK TO CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.
DID ANYBODY GO TO THAT MIGHT GO BACK? I GO BACK TO UM, A REQUEST.
MAYBE FROM STAFF IF THAT'S A THING.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM STAFF TO COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT SUBDIVISION PROCESS SLASH PROJECT ASSESSMENTS AND HOW THOSE ARE BEING HANDLED? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY AREAS AND DIFFICULTIES ON PLATTING.
DO WE WANNA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ADD TO THAT? ANYTHING THAT'S CHANGING AS A RESULT OF RECENT LEGISLATION? YEAH, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S LEGISLATION THAT'S AFFECTING HOW THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING A LOT OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING.
SO IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO WAIT UNTIL THE STAFF FIGURES OUT HOW THEY'RE GONNA ADDRESS SOME OF THE MORE RECENT LEGISLATION.
CAUSE HONEY IF WE HAVE A BRIEFING NOW IT'S GONNA CHANGE COME SEPTEMBER.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST WAITING A LITTLE BIT TILL ACTUAL LAW COMES IN AND THEY REVIEW IT AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GONNA HANDLE THESE THINGS.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[COMMITTEE REPORTS ]
OKAY, CODES AND ORDINANCE IS JOINT COMMITTEE.THOSE COMMISSIONER FLORES, GREENBERG AND THOMPSON.
ANYTHING? DO YOU WANT ME TO, WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW.
UM, STEVIE GREATHOUSE SAID THAT IT'S A HARDWORKING COMMITTEE THAT CAN HANDLE FIVE COMPLICATED CASES IN A MEETING.
UM, WHEN I GOT ON THE TELEPHONE WITH HER, I SAID, COME ON ANYWAY.
THERE'S FIVE COMPLICATED CASES ON HER AGENDA FOR UM, TOMORROW.
TWO OF THEM ARE SAVE OUR SPRINGS.
UM, UH, WHAT ARE THEY CALLED? LIKE JUST SPECIFIC.
AND THEN THERE'S SITE PLAN LIGHT, WHICH WOULD TREAT THREE AND FOURPLEXES AS IF THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX.
THERE'S THE SIXTH STREET HEIGHT EXCEPTION AND THERE'S LIVE MUSIC VENUE AND CREATIVE SPACE DEFINITIONS.
SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LONG MEETING.
WE DID HAVE A MEETING, UM, I WAS THERE ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UM, THE MAIN TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WAS THE 10 YEAR PLAN.
WE HAD TO GET THAT MEMO REVIEWED AND SO, UM, THEY'VE DIRECTED US TO SPEND THE NEXT 30 DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING KIND OF COMING UP WITH OUR OWN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT OF THE 10 YEAR PLAN AND THEN WE WOULD SUBMIT THOSE AND OUR NEXT MEETING WE WOULD HOPEFULLY APPROVE A MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 10 YEAR PLAN.
AND THEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CIP PROGRAM, BUT WE REALLY KIND OF PUT THAT OFF UNTIL LATER.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT DONE I THINK BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO THERE'S NOT ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW IN THE CIP PLAN.
AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE TALKED ABOUT? NO, I CAN'T RECALL.
THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE? UH, YEAH, WE MET, UM, ON JUNE 7TH, WEDNESDAY BEFORE LAST.
UH, AND SPENT MOST OF THE MEETING TALKING ABOUT, UM, OFFERING INPUT ON HOW TO SORT OF PRIORITIZE WHAT AREAS WOULD BE PLANNED IN THE FUTURE.
UM, FOR SMALL AREAS, A VARIETY OF SIZES, YOU KNOW, RANGING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS TO SORT OF DISTRICT PLANS.
UM, WE WELCOMED A FEW NEW MEMBERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, I THINK THAT WAS THE BULK OF THE, OF THE DISCUSSION AT THAT MEETING.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.