[Call to Order]
[00:00:07]
ORDER OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2023 AT 6 0 1.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, HAVING NONE.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT HAS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? DON'T SEE ANY HANDS? UM, WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT
[Consent Agenda]
AGENDA, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.DOES ANYBODY ON THE DIOCESE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? IF NOT, WE'LL INCLUDE THEM IN THE CALL.
I DON'T SEE COMMISSIONER BOONE ANYWHERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES? HERE.
I SEE A KG ON TV BUT I DO NOT SEE HER PICTURE.
COMMISSIONER GARRETT, YOU WILL COME BACK.
AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON IS OUT OF TOWN.
SO COMMISSIONER GARRETT COMES ONLINE.
WE HAVE A QUORUM OF SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT AND NOBODY ONLINE.
UH, GOING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS A CONSENT ITEM.
REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT ITEM WILL BE ITEM TWO A REZONING CASE C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 5 3 BONNELL RESIDENTIAL AT 48 12 MOUNT BONNE ROAD.
THIS IS A ZAP POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 17TH AND THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT.
ITEM THREE, REZONING KC 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 8 3 LARA VISTA BY STATURE HOMES, THAT'S 11 6 22 LARA VISTA.
IT IS FROM SSF TWO TO SSF THREE AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE WILL BE TAKEN TOGETHER, SO I'M GONNA READ THEM BOTH TOGETHER.
ITEM FOUR IS C 14 20 22 DASH 0 1 0 AT 76 0 6 ALBERT ROAD.
THIS IS A CH UH, ZONING CHANGE FROM DR TO SSF SIX.
ITEM FIVE IS C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 3 2 AT 1512 DAMON ROAD.
THIS IS A REZONING FROM SSF THREE TO SF SIX.
AND THOSE ARE BOTH DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE WILL BE BROUGHT UP TOGETHER AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM SIX IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 3 7 SOUTH CONGRESS MULTIFAMILY BETWEEN EIGHT E 484 12 EVEN NUMBERS ONLY ON SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE IN 1 0 8.
RALPH ADO, THIS IS FROM L I C O TO C SS V.
THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 3RD.
ITEM SEVEN IS A REZO CASE, C EIGHT 14 DASH ZERO ZERO DASH 2063 ZERO WILD HORSE RANCH, PUD NUMBER 10 99 36 AND DALE ROAD.
AND THIS IS A PUD TO PUD TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF THE ZONING.
THIS IS AGAIN A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 3RD, ITEM EIGHT, REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 4 8 AT 7,500 BURNETT ROAD.
THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM CS TO C S V M U RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AS C SS M U V WITH THE CH UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 3RD.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 5 8 AT 11 5 40 11 611 6 0 2 MENCHACA ROAD.
THIS IS A REZONING FROM I R R TO MF FIVE AND IT IS ON CONSENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS IS AN MF FOUR.
THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY CHANGING FROM I R R TO MF FOUR.
IS THAT CORRECT? NOT SEEING ANY CHANGE, I'M GONNA TAKE THOSE AS A YES.
ITEM 10 IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 7 7 ALLENDALE CAR WASH AT 73 20 BURNETT ROAD.
THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM CS TO C S M U V STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS C S M U V WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 3RD.
ITEM NUMBER 11, UH, S P C 2022 DASH 0 3 6 5 C.
JUNIPER APARTMENTS AT 79 0 7 NORTH FM SIX 20.
THIS IS A APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVAL OF A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE SITE PLAN MUST SITE PLAN REQUIRES APPROVAL BY A LAND USE COMMISSION BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION WITHIN THE HILL COUNTRY OVERLAY.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND HONOR OUR CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL.
ITEM 12, FINAL PLAT ITEM, AN APPROVED PRELIM C H A 2022 DASH 0 0 3 0 8 EACH VILLAGE R A 18 AND 22 12 3 10 EY ROAD.
UM, THIS IS AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS PER EXHIBIT C OF A FINAL PLATT OF FOUR LOTS OUT OF A 38.73 ACRE TRACT OF LAND.
AND AGAIN, IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR PER APPROVAL WITH UH, CONDITIONS PER EXHIBIT C.
ITEM 13 IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 22 DASH OH 1 46 PARKSIDE, SECTION TWO OF WILDHORSE RANCH 99 36 AND A HALF LINDE LANE.
THIS IS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN OF 42.3 ACRES
[00:05:01]
WITHIN THE WILDHORSE RANCH PUD CONSISTING OF 169 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH RIGHT OF WAY AND IT IS RECOMMENDED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE AGENDA AS READ? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? I SECOND TO HERE ON EITHER SIDE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS WITH THESE SEVEN PEOPLE ON THE DA.
AND AGAIN, I NEVER DID HEAR IF COMMISSIONER GARRETT'S ON THE LINE OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S KINDRA OR NOT.
GOING BACK TO THE AGENDA, THE FIRST ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS
[3. Rezoning: C14-2023-0083 - Ladera Vista by Stature Homes; District 10]
ITEM THREE A REZONING CASE C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 83 LARA VISTA BY STATURE HOMES AND WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER SHERRY CERTIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS KC 14 20 23 0 0 83 LARA VISTA BY STATURE HOMES.
IT IS LOCATED AT 1 1 6 2 2 LARA VISTA.
THE REQUEST IS FROM SSF TWO TO SF THREE.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS SSF THREE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY A 0.3043 ACRE VACANT LOT THAT FRONTS ONTO LARA VISTA VISTA DRIVE.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST THAT ARE ZONED SSF TWO TO THE EAST ACROSS LARA VISTA DRIVE.
THERE IS AN OFFICE USE AND A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND ZONED LO AND SF SIX RESPECTIVELY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONING TO SSF THREE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DE DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM USE ON THE SITE.
UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ZONING BECAUSE OF THE REASONS AS FOLLOWS, THE RECOMMENDED ZONING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT.
SOUGHT FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR AN AREA FOR MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 57 50 SQUARE FEET.
DUPLEXES PERMITTED UNDER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS.
THE DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE HAVING TYPICALLY MODERATELY SIZED LOT PATTERNS AS WELL AS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WITH MINIMUM LAND REQUIREMENTS.
THE PROPOSED ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE CONSISTENCY AND ORDERLY PLANNING.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AS THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THAT ARE ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT VARIOUS DENSITIES.
THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SITE ARE ZONED SSF TWO TO THE EAST DIRECTLY ACROSS LARA VISTA DRIVE.
THERE IS A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ZONED SSF SIX.
FURTHER TO THE SOUTH THERE IS SSF THREE ZONING ALONG TAYLOR DRAPER LANE AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'LL HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
WE ARE THE OWNERS OF 11 6 22 LADERA VISTA, WHICH IS A VACANT LOT.
WE HAVE APPLIED TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF OUR PROPERTY FROM SSF TWO TO SF THREE AND PLAN TO BUILD A TWO FAMILY HOME DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY IF THE CHANGE IS APPROVED.
REZONING TO SSF THREE REFLECTS THE FUTURE ZONING PLANS LAID OUT BY THE CITY, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TO RMM ONE WHICH IS MISSING MIDDLE UP TO SIX UNITS.
WE BELIEVE THE ZONING CHANGE WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LARGE LOT WOULD PROVIDE.
THIS PROPERTY IS THE SECOND LOT WEST OF JOLLYVILLE AND WILL CREATE A TRANSITION INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO VACANT LOTS.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL ALSO ALLOW US TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT HAVE AFFECTED THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS SOME, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMES.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE REGIONAL STORM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND AN ENGINEER TO DEVELOP THAT PLAN THAT WILL IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE ON LADERA VISTA ALONG OUR PROPERTY AND CONTINUE ALONG THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND HAVE PROVIDED THEM WITH OUR PRELIMINARY PLANS, WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUMMIT OAKS DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE NEIGHBORS WHO SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE AS WELL AS OPPOSE IT.
WE HAVE ASKED FOR THOSE OPPOSED FOR ANY ACCOMMODATIONS THEY WOULD CONSIDER IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL PROPERTY.
WE'LL BEGIN THE OPPOSITION WITH MS. ALISA BOW.
[00:10:03]
MS. BOW, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.DEAR COUNSEL, MY NAME IS LISA BALL, PROPERTY OWNER OF 5,700 SIERRA MADRE.
MY LOT SHARES A HUNDRED FEET OF PROPERTY LINE WITH 1 1 6 2 2 LADERA VISTA.
I OPPOSE THE REZONING OF THIS LOT ALLOWING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO BE CONSTRUCTED HERE.
ALL OF THE HOMES IN THE SUMMIT OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD WERE BUILT IN THE SEVENTIES, MANY OF WHICH STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNERS RESIDING IN THEM.
CURRENTLY, HOMEOWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES WERE INFLUENCED GREATLY BY THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL TO YOUR SENSE OF REASON AND ASK YOU TO HELP MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER BY NOT ALLOWING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO BE BUILT HERE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FILED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS BUT NOT ADHERING TO THEM.
IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS AN ABUSIVE POWER AS A HOME BUILDER AND AN OWNER OF THIS, OF HIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND A LACK OF ENFORCEMENT BY THE CITY.
PLEASE TAKE THESE COMMUNITY CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MR. ROLAND SANDERS.
MR. SANDERS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
CAN YOU ALL HEAR HIM HEAR ME? MM-HMM.
HEY, UM, I JUST WANT TO BE OKAY.
CAN YOU SPEAK YOUR NAME? SORRY.
I AM NEIGHBOR TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND, UH, LISA BALL WHO JUST SPOKE.
AND UM, I JUST WANNA SPEAK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF REASON.
WE'RE ONLY THREE YEARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S UM, IT'S A LOVELY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S AWARE THAT ONE DRAINAGE PIPE UNDERNEATH THE ROAD WILL IN A BIG RAIN EVENT, NOT DRAIN.
IT GOES DOWN AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO DOWN INTO THE HEADWATERS OF BULL CREEK.
HOWEVER, THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE SORTED OUT IS LOVELY.
BUT THERE'S ONE THING THAT THE CITY HAS HAS, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, I'M NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION.
THERE ARE, UM, THREE 16 INCH DRAINAGE PIPES THAT ARE TO BE MADE.
ONE MODIFIED TO 16 INCH AND THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE GOING TO BE 16 INCH.
AND THEY GO INTO A 12 INCH DRAINAGE PIPE UNDERNEATH SIERRA NEVADA.
AND THE WATER HAS GOT TO GET THROUGH THAT PIPE AND THAT PIPE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.
I KNOW THAT, UM, MY NEIGHBOR, THE BALLS, THEY UM, THEY'VE ASKED THE CITY TO CLEAR OUT THE PIPE AND IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED.
SO IT'S ABOUT HALF FULL OF CRUD, WHICH IS NOT EASY TO GET OUT 'CAUSE IT'S A WIDE, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAS WIDE STREETS.
SO HERE'S THE THING, IT'S JUST A FUNNEL.
WE HAVE MORE WATER GOING INTO THAT, THAT THAT LOVELY DESIGNED DRAINAGE ISSUE.
BUT WHEN IT REACHES THE STREET THAT HAS GOT TO CROSS, IT'S GOING TO BE FUNNELED INTO A 12 INCH PIPE THAT IS HALF FULL.
AND AGAIN, THE, THE, I I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF I'M SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I HAVE NO ISSUE AT ALL WITH THE REZONING THING, BUT THAT ISSUE WITH THE DRAINAGE IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, A CONTINUED PROBLEM FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.
THE BALLS, BECAUSE THEY, THEIR YARD GETS FLOODED, THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE CORNER AND NOBODY WANTS THAT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S THEIRS, BUT IT'S ALL OF OURS.
NOBODY WANTS FLOOD AND IT'S NASTY.
BUT ANYWAY, OUR, OUR ATTEMPTS TO, UM, TO HAVE THAT FIXED BY THE CITY HAVE COME TO NOT.
AND, UM, I'M JUST WORRIED THAT THE CITY WON'T WANT TO FIX THAT AND MAINTAIN IT AND THEREFORE THERE, THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE MORE WATER THAT GOES IN AND IT WILL EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND I ALSO DO HAVE A MR. GARINO WHO IS NOT REGISTERED BUT PRESENT IN CHAMBERS AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, SHOULD THE COMMISSION REQUEST, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION? WE HAVE A SPEAKER.
THAT'S FINE IF YOU COMPOSE A QUESTION.
WHAT DID YOU PLAN TO SAY
UM, ESSENTIALLY, UH, WHAT, UH, MR. SAUNDERS JUST SAID AS I, IT IS MY CONCERN.
THE KEYS HAVE BEEN VERY FORTHCOMING.
THEY'VE GIVEN ME A, UM, THE, UH, PRINTOUT FROM THEIR ENGINEER ON THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM.
EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE HERE IS GONNA BE GLORIOUS.
IT'S GONNA WORK GREAT EXCEPT FOR THAT REDUCTION THAT HE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT GOES UNDER, UH, SIERRA MADRE.
IT DOES, I HAVE A PICTURE OF IT HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.
IT DOES REDUCE DOWN TO A 12 INCH P V C TUBE THAT'S ACTUALLY BROKEN WHERE IT GOES UNDERNEATH THERE.
THAT'S GONNA BE A FUNNEL EFFECT, A RESTRICTION, AND IT'S GONNA KEEP MY
[00:15:01]
PROPERTY FLOODED ABOUT ALL THE TIME WHENEVER IT RAINS.AT NO FAULT OF THE KEYS, BUT, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING I FIGURED THIS WOULD BE THE TIME WITH THE ZONING, UH, YOU KNOW, BOARD HERE.
SO GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS UP SO MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THIS ADDRESSED.
IF THIS IS ADDRESSED, THEN I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE DRAINAGE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLAN THAT THEY PROPOSED.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? THANK YOU CHAIR.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM, UM, THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
MS. KEITH, ARE MY SLIDES GONNA BE ON HERE? OH, PERFECT.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING.
UM, HERE ARE THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT DUPLEXES ARE NOT ALLOWED.
UM, IT DOES SAY THAT THERE AREN'T TO BE ANY OUTBUILDINGS, UM, SEPARATE FROM YOUR HOME.
THAT COULD BE A RESIDENCE, BUT A DUPLEX WOULDN'T FALL UNDER AN OUTBUILDING.
UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED OFF OF AN ORIGINAL LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO A COUPLE OF LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UM, 11 6 22 LADERA VISTA HAS TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE SAME DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT IT PREVIOUSLY WAS PART OF 11 6 0 5 BELL AVENUE.
SO, UM, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE CURRENT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE COUNTY.
CHAIR THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I MEAN, THE ONE THING I'M LOOKING AT IS WHETHER IT'S ZONED SSF TWO OR SSF THREE, THE DRAINAGE ISSUE IS GONNA BE THERE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT THEY BUILD SOMETHING AND TRYING TO GET THE CITY'S ATTENTION, WHICH HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO TO GO AHEAD AND CLEAN OUT THAT PIPE AND FIX THAT PIPE WILL BE A GO A LONG WAY.
BUT EITHER WAY, SOMETHING'S GONNA BE BUILT ON THAT LOT SF TWO OR SF THREE AND I'D RATHER SEE MORE BUILT AND LESS.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO GET THE DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THAT AND HOPEFULLY CLEAN THAT OUT.
SO I THINK IT'S LIKE A SEPARATE PROBLEM, BUT I AGREE THAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THAT UP AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMEONE'S ATTENTION TO LOOK AT IT.
DO I HEAR A MOTION? UH, SORRY, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN, I GUESS, BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF WHOEVER'S MAINTAINING, UH, THAT DRAINAGE PIPE? NO.
I'D ENCOURAGE THE NEIGHBORS TO DIAL 3 1 1 AND REPORT IT AND THEN IT CAN REACH THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT ISSUE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE BEEN HAVING SOME TROUBLE GETTING A HOLD OF THE CITY AND MAKING THAT A PRIORITY.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE SINCE THEY'RE HERE THAT, UH, ANY OTHER RESOURCES WE CAN DIRECT THEM TO OR ANYTHING WE CAN SAY TO HELP THEM? NO, I MEAN THIS IS BRING THAT, THIS IS A ZONING CASE ABOUT THE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE, THIS, OBVIOUSLY THOSE ELEMENTS OF A SITE PLAN WILL BE LOOKED AT DURING RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING FOR THE PROPERTY.
BUT, AND THOSE DEPARTMENTS WILL, UH, LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY DURING THAT PROCESS.
BUT AS FAR AS, UH, YOU CANNOT, THERE'S NOTHING YOU COULD REQUEST THROUGH THE ZONING ITSELF THAT COULD ADDRESS THE PIPE ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
I'M REFERRING TO SINCE THE RESIDENTS ARE, SINCE THE RESIDENTS ARE HERE MM-HMM.
UM, IF THE NEIGHBORS WANT TO CONTACT ME, I CAN, UH, FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, WATERSHED DEPARTMENT.
OKAY, THESE ARE, I MOVE TO, UM, I, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR SSF THREE, UH, FROM SSF TWO.
AND YOU'LL GET A HOLD OF, WE CAN HELP SEE IF WE CAN'T HELP OUT WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT'S OUT THERE.
AND UH, CHAIR, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, KENDRA IS ON.
UH, WE HAVE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE
[Items 4 & 5]
ARE THE NEXT DISCUSSION.ITEMS FOUR IS C 14 20 22 DASH AT 76 0 6
[00:20:01]
ALBERT ROAD.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SSF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND ITEM FIVE IS C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 3 2.
IT'S AN ABUDDING PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ON 1512 DAMON ROAD.
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED FROM SSF THREE TO SSF SIX.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SSF SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND IT'S THE SAME APPLICANT ON BOTH PROJECTS.
SO WEB STAFF PRESENTATION YES.
UM, AS YOU SAID, THE, THIS IS CASE C 14 20 22 0 176 0 6 ALBERT ROAD AND C 14 20 23 0 3 2 15 12 DAMON ROAD.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT FOR BOTH TRACKS AND IS REQUESTING SSF SIX.
UH, I DO WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT SIGNATURES OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THESE REZONING CASES TO ANY OTHER CLASSIFICATION THAN SSF TWO OR SF 3 76 0 6.
ALBERT ROAD HAS A PETITION THAT INCLUDES 20.26% OF ELIGIBLE SIGNATURES AND 1512 DAMON ROAD HAS A PETITION THAT INCLUDES 21.03% OF ELIGIBLE SIGNATURES.
UM, CURRENTLY THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 76 0 6 ALBERT ROAD AND 15 12TH DAMON ROAD IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE SMALLER TRACT IS LOCATED AT THE END OF DAMON ROAD ON AN UNBUILT CUL-DE-SAC AND IS ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE ALBERT, UH, ROAD TRACKED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE BOTH TRACKS OF THE SF SIX DISTRICT ZONING AND IS PROPOSING AN APPROXIMATELY 46 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
AT THIS TIME, THE PROPOSED PROJECT ONLY HAS ACCESS FROM ALBERT ROAD.
THERE'S NO CURRENT, THERE'S NO ACCESS FROM DAMON ROAD UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS AND IN BEING CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIMILAR PROPERTIES ALONG ALBERT ROAD STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SSF 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 MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE DESIGN LAYOUT.
HOWEVER, AN SF THREE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WILL BE PRESERVED.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
MR. WILLING WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
WE'LL HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION UP.
UH, YOU CAN READERS, SORRY
UM, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO LAY OUT OUR REQUEST FOR SSF SIX ZONING AT 76 0 6 ALBERT AND 1512 DAMON.
I'LL SAY NEXT SLIDE TO MYSELF.
HERE'S A LOCATION MAP SO YOU CAN ORIENT YOURSELF TO THE SITE.
WE'RE LOCATED BETWEEN WILLIAM CANNON AND CHAKA DITTMAR AND SOUTH FIRST AND HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE ABUT THE FRONTAGES OF TWO STREETS, ALBERT AND DAMON.
THE OVERVIEW, 76 0 6 ALBERT ROAD IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR DR.
WOULD BE ALLOWED ONE ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND 1512 DAMON IS ZONED FOR SSF THREE.
WE ARE SEEKING TO SF SIX ON THIS 3.7 ACRES IN ORDER TO BUILD 46 UNITS OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
THE CURRENT ZONING ON ALBERT ROAD ALLOWS FOR ONLY ONE STRUCTURE ON THE THREE ACRE LOT REZONING ALLOWS FOR EXPANDED HOUSING CHOICE IN AUSTIN AND CREATES ADDITIONAL HOUSING CAPACITY FOR AUSTINITES.
WE'VE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA AND ARE WORKING WITH THEM ON INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON ALBERT.
AS I SAID, WE'VE MET WITH THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERN WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE STREET.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NEIGHBORS IN THE DISTRICT FIVE OFFICE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TALBERT ROAD AND THAT CITY STAFF HAS POINTED THEM TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS ON THE STREET.
IN RESPONSE, WE HAVE COMMITTED TO FUNDING SIDEWALK INSTALLATION ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF ALBERT ROAD AND OF A T D CONVERT CONFIRMS THAT THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS, WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT IN THE SITE PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP, THE BLUE LINE THERE, UH, ALBERT ROAD IS NEARLY 2000 FEET LONG.
THAT'S WHERE THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE AND WE WOULD FUND THE ENTIRE WESTERN LENGTH TO HELP WITH PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED TREPIDATION OVER TRAFFIC ON ALBERT ROAD TO HELP MITIGATE POSSIBLE CAPACITY CONCERNS.
WE ARE SEEKING A SECOND DRIVEWAY ON DAMON.
WE ABUT THAT RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT THE SITE HAS TWO ACCESS POINTS SIMILAR TO THE SSF SIX SITE ACROSS THE STREET THAT WAS APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
WE ARE ALSO OPEN TO WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO IDENTIFY AND BUDGET OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON ALBERT ROAD.
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE, UH, THAT INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE COST TO OTHER NEARBY DEVELOPERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND CONTRIBUTION.
THERE ARE SEVERAL SF SIX ZONED LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TWO THAT ARE
[00:25:01]
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE.THE FIRST IS 76 0 5 ALBERT ROAD, WHICH WAS JUST REZONED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO SSF SIX WITH NO UNIT CAP PER THE STAFF REPORT.
IN THAT CASE, STAFF SUPPORTED BASED ON SSF SIX ZONING BECAUSE THE SITE PROPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS FROM BOTH ALBERT AND SHERWOOD.
THE SECOND CASE IS 1300 WEST DITTMAR OR THE SOUTH STONE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO OUR SITE.
THIS REZONING ALLOWED FOR 252 UNITS AND INCLUDED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT RESTRICTED CONNECTIVITY FROM DITTMAR THROUGH THE SITE TO DAMON AND SHERWOOD CLOSING OFF NATURAL VEHICLE FLOW AND ACCESS TO THE SOUTH.
ON THIS MAP HERE, YOU CAN SEE OUR SITE IN BLUE AND THE SURROUNDING SSF SIX CASES.
I JUST, WITH ALL OF 'EM IN YELLOW.
THE TWO THAT ARE OUTLINED IN RED ARE THE CASES I JUST MENTIONED WITH THE SOUTH STONE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, STRETCHING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO DITMAR.
AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR SITE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKELY BE WELL SERVED WITH CONNECTIVITY TO THE SOUTH.
SO TO RECAP, WE ARE SEEKING ALIGNMENT WITH ADJACENT SSF SIX ZONINGS IN ORDER TO CREATE NEEDED MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING FOR AUSTINITES.
SIMILAR TO THE CASE ACROSS THE STREET, OUR SITE PROPOSES TWO ACCESS POINTS OFF OF ALBERT AND DAMON, WHICH PER STAFF PRIOR ANALYSIS MAKES THE SITE APPROPRIATE FOR SSF SIX WITH NO UNIT CAP.
ADDITIONALLY, ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT WITH MORE HOUSING UNITS RESULTS IN MORE ATTAINABLE PRICES AS LESS LAND AND THUS LESS COST IS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH UNIT.
AS WE DISCUSSED, WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTH STONE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTION OF VEHICLE FLOW IN THE PAST IS A MEANINGFUL COMPONENT TO THE CAPACITY AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT EXIST ON THE STREET.
NOW, IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITY TO EXPLORE THE REMOVAL OF THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH RESIDENTS SO THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONNECTIVITY IS OPTIMIZED MOVING FORWARD.
AS AUSTIN GROWS, WE ARE COMMITTED TO BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS IN THE HOPES THAT WE CAN REACH OUR SHARED GOALS OF ADDING HOUSING AND IMPROVING THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE.
TO THAT END, WE ARE COMMITTED TO FUNDING ALMOST 2000 FEET OF SIDEWALK ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF ALBERT ROAD TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
AND WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO IDENTIFY AND ASSESS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONVERSATION WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS IN THE STREET.
WE BELIEVE OUR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A NET POSITIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR SF SIX ZONING WITH NO UNIT CAP, WHICH ALIGNS WITH RECENT PRECEDENT FOR THIS AREA.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. KAREN FERNANDEZ.
MS. KAREN FERNANDEZ, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY RUTH LAUER.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
MY SON WAS UPSET THAT WE DIDN'T GO DO HIM TODAY BECAUSE, WHICH WE'VE ALWAYS DONE HIS 18 YEARS AS WE CAME HERE, BUT I KNOW YOU DO THE SAME THING.
UM, JUST TO ADDRESS ONE LITTLE THING THAT CAME UP THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THERE WAS MORE TO THAT, BUT THE ACTUAL ENTRANCE, THAT'S A PRIVATE COVENANT.
IT'S A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ML AND A AND SOUTH STONE.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CONTROLS.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST I'M HEARING FROM MR. WAYLON THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROPOSAL, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE LEGAL AGREEMENT.
OUR PETITIONERS ASK FOR THE SSF SIX REQUEST TO BE DENIED AND AN SSF TWO OR THREE DENSITY ZONING BE GRANTED INSTEAD.
BUT THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON DENSITY AND LESS ON THE ACTUAL ZONING AFTER DISCUSSING WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY.
THIS REQUEST, UM, FOR SSF SIX IS ACCEPTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN BECAUSE WE LIKE THE IDEA OF GIVING THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE PLANNING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE HOMES AND HAVE LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER DUE TO ALL OF OUR ISSUES.
BUT THE, THE UNIT NUMBER OF 46, EVEN WITH THE SIDEWALK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US JUST BECAUSE OF ALL OF OUR OTHER ISSUES WITH LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ROADS, THE WATER, THE DRAINAGE, WHICH ARE ALL ISSUES THAT, UM, WE WERE TOLD BY DEVELOPERS THAT ARE IS NOT IN THEIR BUDGET TO TRY AND DEAL WITH, WHICH I UNDERSTAND AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSONALLY FEELS THE CITY SHOULD BE DEALING WITH THIS.
I WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT BOTH LONGTIME RESIDENTS AND NEWER NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL BOUGHT THEIR HOMES HERE DUE TO THE GREEN SPACE AND THE RURAL CHARACTER.
AND NOW THE DEVELOPERS ARE BUYING THESE LOTS AND ALBERT ONLY TO SEE THE LAND FOR ITS MAXIMUM PROFIT POTENTIAL.
WE HAVE MET WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER'S OFFICE AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER TO UNDERSTAND THAT SF SIX ZONING WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY AND WE ARE IN LINE WITH THAT AS LONG AS WE GET THE CONDITION OVERLAY CITY STAFF IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OUR LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDED THE C E O OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE.
AND WHILE WE THINK THIS IS NOT EXACTLY THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER, IT'S BETTER THAN NO CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT AGAINST INCREASED DENSITY, BUT NOT AT THE LEVEL THAT IS BEYOND WHAT OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT.
AS WE DON'T BELIEVE LONGTIME RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER
[00:30:01]
THE CONSEQUENCES OF POOR PLANNING.WHEN THE CITY ANNEXED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1984, WE WERE PROMISED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY STORM DRAIN REMEDIATION.
THE CITY CAME IN, CONNECTED ALL THE HOMES TO THE WATER AND SEWER, BUT THEN LEFT WITHOUT ATTENDING TO THE OTHER ISSUES.
WE HAVE CONTINUED TO ASK FOR FLOOD REMEDIATION ALL THESE YEARS DO, AND WE'RE TOLD THAT THE BAR DITCHES WOULD BE DUG AND MANY OF THE BAR DITCHES ACTUALLY CAUSED MORE FLOODING FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
SO WE HAVE TAKEN INTO OUR OWN HANDS TO DO OUR OWN REMEDIATION AND WE STILL TO THIS DAY ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY MAINTAIN THE BAR DITCHES, NOT THE CITY.
OUR ROADS WERE NEVER UPGRADED AND THE SIDEWALKS NEVER BUILT.
THE WATER PRESSURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE, BUT AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN TOLD YEAR AFTER YEAR BY THE CITY THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO UPGRADE THE INFRASTRUCTURE DUE TO OUR LACK OF DENSITY.
NOW THE CITY WANTS TO USE THESE LARGE LOTS FULL OF TREES AND NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT AND I MIGHT ADD A GREAT BUFFER TO THE CITY ISLAND EFFECT AND A GOOD CARBON SINK TO BUILD CONDOS, BUT STILL CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THE FUNDING TO HELP US WITH OUR LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE NEWER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECOGNIZED OUR ISSUES AND ARE AT A DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE ON AVERAGE.
THESE INCLUDE MATTHEWS PARK AT THE CORNER OF ALBERT AND MATTHEWS ROAD, WHICH WAS THE NORTHERN PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ACCESS ONTO MATTHEWS.
SO THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY USING ALBERTS FOR THEIR TRIPS.
AND THEY ARE AT NINE UNITS ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES.
THERE'S FOUR UNITS AT 1103 MATTHEWS LANE AND ON A LITTLE OVER TWO ACRES AND A C O OF FOUR UNITS ON THE NOT YET BUILDS 1105 MATTHEWS LANE.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT ZAP ACTUALLY DID RECOMMEND RECOMMEND A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF NINE ON THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET THAT HE WAS REFERENCING.
IT WAS LATER TAKEN AWAY FROM CITY COUNCIL, BUT YOU GUYS DID RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT STRUCTURE.
CODY CARR HAS RECENTLY BUILT TWO HOMES ON THE CORNER OF DAMON AND ALBERT ROAD THAT FIT IN VERY NICELY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE HAS SAID HIS INTENTION IS TO DO THE SAME THING AT 76 0 5 ACROSS THE STREET, THAT HE'S PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE GOING AT THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT HE WILL BE SOMEWHERE AROUND NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
IF WE LOOK AT THE BILLS ON WIND LANE JUST DOUBLING THE UNITS, WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENS.
OUR NEW VICE PRESIDENT WHO WILL BE PRESENTING IN A LITTLE BIT, HE BUILT A HOME SSF THREE HOME AND AN A D U THE LOT RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, DECIDED TO SUBDIVIDE AND DID TWICE THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND NOW HE'S HAVING ISSUES ON A BRAND NEW HOME WITH THE WATER PRESSURE.
WE HAVE ANOTHER RESIDENT WHO'S RECENT, WHO REMODELED A BEAUTIFUL HOME ON WOODCLIFFE AND WANTED TO ADD A SCREENED IN PORCH, BUT FOUND OUT FROM A F D THAT SHE COULDN'T DO DO IT BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL 300 SQUARE FEET WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PRESSURE AT THE FIRE HYDRANT.
AND THIS FIRE HYDRANT IS ON THE CORNER RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER HOUSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT AN AERIAL MAP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNITS AT THE BACK OF THESE LOTS.
AND THIS IS DUE TO THE LACK OF WATER PRESSURE.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SERVICE THE ENTIRE LOT.
ONE OR MORE OF OUR RECENT RESIDENTS HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH THE, WITH A F D AND WITH THEIR WATER PRESSURE SINCE THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS HAVE COME ON, WHICH OFTENTIMES HAVE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND IT'S WINDOWS SYSTEMS ARE GOING THAT NOBODY CAN GET THE WATER TO WASH THEIR CLOTHES.
ABBA ROAD CURRENTLY HAS ONLY 31 HOMES BEING SERVICED BY THE WATER ZA HAS APPROVED.
IF WE GET JUST THIS ONE AT 46 UNITS, WE'RE GONNA MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF HOMES ON THAT STREET.
WE MET WITH A DEVELOPER LAST WEEK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER'S OFFICE TO ATTEMPT TO BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER TO SHARE IN THE UPGRADES AND OUR NEEDS.
THEY STATED THAT THE DRAINAGE IN THE ROAD WATER ISSUES WERE BEYOND THEIR BUDGET, BUT THEY ARE LOOKING AT HELPING US WITH THE SIDEWALK.
MR. WHALEN DID CONFIRM THE STRETCH AS HE JUST TOLD YOU, WHICH I WILL NOTE THAT, UM, HIS LETTER STATES THAT WE'RE A QUARTER MILE FROM A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION HUB AND WE'RE NOT.
IT'S JUST A QUARTER MILE TO GET TO MATTHEWS AND THEN FROM MATTHEWS, YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER QUARTER MILE TO GET OVER TO MAN CHECK.
UM, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE CITY SPENDING THE TIME TO HELP US WITH THIS AND UM, I HOPE YOU SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND YOU'RE NOW HEAR FROM E LAUER FOLLOWED BY JEFFREY DICKERSON.
HELLO COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR RUTH LAUER, SECRETARY MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I OPPOSE A ZONING REQUEST BECAUSE I'M PRESENTING THIS PICTURE OF ALBERT ROAD BECAUSE I THINK IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW RURAL IT IS.
13 UNITS IS INCONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND WILL REQUIRE CITY SPENDING ON ROADS AND DRAINAGE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN MEETING WITH ER ALBERT ROAD HORIZONTAL INVESTORS, MR. WAYLON AND HIS, UM, SINCE MARCH OF 2022.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD
[00:35:01]
THAT THEY'RE OFFERING TO BUILD THE SIDEWALK.HOWEVER, IN ALL OF THE MEETINGS THEY WOULD JUST STUCK TO THEIR GUNS ABOUT THIS IS HOW MANY WE'RE BUILDING THE CITY NEEDS HOUSING, THIS IS HOW MANY WE'RE BUILDING.
UM, AND SO I GUESS SOMETHING SAYING, ANYWAY, WE ENCOURAGED THEM TO INCUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, BUT NONE ARE INCLUDED.
WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN ALTER'S OFFICE, WE LOOKED INTO WHETHER FUNDING WAS AVAILABLE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
THERE'S NO MONEY AVAILABLE IN HIS LETTER.
MR. WHALEN STATES THE PROJECT INCREASES MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
I WASN'T REALLY SURE WHAT MISSING MIDDLE MEANT EXACTLY, SO I LOOKED IT UP.
IT REFERS TO DEVELOPMENTS WITH TWO TO 50 UNITS THAT FLANK TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND PROMOTE WALKABILITY TO LOCAL RETAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSIT TRANSIT.
THIS PROPERTY IS NOT FLANKING A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
IF IT WAS, I WOULDN'T BE HERE PROTESTING.
TONIGHT I SUPPORT DENSE DEVELOPMENT ON TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND NEAR RETAIL AND NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT.
SMALLER HOMES AND FOURPLEXES ARE THE MOST COMMON STYLE PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH MISSING MIDDLE.
THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT DUPLEXES ALONG NEARBY MATTHEWS LANE ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE.
HOWEVER, MOST OF THE ALBERT ROAD HORIZONTAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT.
THE APPLICANT USES MANY SEXY WORDS THAT ARE APPEALING TO THE CITY AND TO Y'ALL.
I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ACTION TO BACK UP THOSE WORDS.
MR. WELLEN STATES THAT IT'S LESS THAN QUARTER A MILE CAPITAL METRO ROUTE.
I THINK HE MEANS AS THE CROW FLIES, THE STAFF REPORT DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT CLAIM, NOR DO NEIGHBORS WHO WALK, BIKE AND DRIVE THESE ROUTES EVERY DAY.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGE AND UNDERSTAND THAT AUSTIN NEEDS HOUSING, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THESE COMPANIES ARE IN BUSINESS TO PROVIDE A RETURN TO THEIR INVESTORS.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I APPRECIATE THEY'RE BUILDING SOMETHING FOR PEOPLE, BUT I THINK IT'S A ZAPS JOB TO ENSURE THEIR REQUESTS ARE REASONABLE.
BY APPROVING DENSE HOUSING THIS FAR FROM A TRANSIT CORRIDOR, THE CITY WOULD BE CREATING AN EXPENSIVE SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM FOR ITSELF.
THE STAFF REPORT RECOGNIZES THAT THE MARKET HAS CHANGED, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN ACHIEVE A REASONABLE RETURN EVEN WITH FEWER UNITS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHILE IT'S NOT WHAT MANY NEIGHBORS HOPED FOR, IS, IS REASONABLE, PLEASE SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF SSF SIX WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE.
YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JEFF DICKERSON.
I AM VICE PRESIDENT OF MATTHEWS AND LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AS MY COLLEAGUE STATED BEFORE, ALBERT ROAD IS CLASSED AS A LOW RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR WITH NO SIDEWALK, CURBS OR STORM WATER.
THIS ROAD WAS NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A 90 DEGREE TURN WITHOUT LIGHT SIGNS OR OTHER COMMON SAFETY MECHANISMS SUCH AS TRAFFIC, CALMING AND ROUNDABOUTS.
WE'LL SEE A PICTURE OF THAT SHORTLY.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN, NOR IS THERE ANY PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FOR ROADS, STORM WATER, DRAINAGE, AND WATER SYSTEMS. WE APPRECIATE SIDEWALKS FOR SAFETY REASONS, BUT THAT DOES NOT HELP THE CURRENT RESIDENTS.
IF YOU OVERBUILD WITH 46 UNITS REDUCING THE WATER PRESSURE.
THIS SITE IS NOT CLOSE TO ANY MAJOR TRANSPORTATION THAT WOULD RUN NORTH OR SOUTH.
IT IS THREE FOURTHS OF A MILE FROM AN EAST WEST BUS CORRIDOR.
HERE IS WHAT THE ACTUAL ROUTE LOOKS LIKE.
IT'S ACTUALLY 0.8 MILES TO GO TO A UH, NORTH SOUTH TRANSPORTATION.
HERE'S WHAT A, THE NEAREST IMAGINATION IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR IS.
IT'S 0.7 MILES AWAY, ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILE.
THIS IS THE STRAIGHTEST DIRECT ROUTE TO GET TO THERE.
I'M SURE MOST OF YOU SEEN THIS BEFORE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PUT A HIGH DENSITY UNIT INTO THIS CHOKE POINT.
THE STREETS DO NOT SUPPORT IT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING.
[00:40:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.NOW WE'RE GONNA GO TO OUR, UH, TELECONFERENCE.
UH, MR. DICK HALL IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM MR. HALL, SELECT STAR SIX.
HELLO, MY NAME IS DICK HALL AND I WORK FOR THE GEYSER GROUP, WHICH OWNS THE PROPERTIES AT 76 0 6 ALBERT ROAD AND 1512 DAMON ROOMS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF REZONING IN THE FACE OF THE ONGOING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN AUSTIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OPPONENTS, PARTICULARLY AT A SMALLER SCALE AND MORE ATTAINABLE PRICE POINTS.
SSF SIX ZONING IS THE BEST SINGLE FAMILY CATEGORY THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS AVAILABLE IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THIS SINGLE LITTLE HOUSING.
SUPPORTING SSF SIX ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES AND DEVOTE LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ASPHALT ROADS AND MORE TO NEW HOME TO NEW HOMES.
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS ACKNOWLEDGING, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ASPECT WITH THAT.
WE HAVE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA AND APPRECIATE THEIR ORGANIZATION RESPECTFULNESS AND THE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK THAT THEY'VE GIVEN US ABOUT THE CURRENT ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE'VE COMMITTED TO BUILDING 2000 LINEAR FEET OF OFFSITE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE LENGTH OF ALBERT ROAD AND HOPE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AT THE MATTHEW LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO FIND OTHER FEASIBLE IMPROVEMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THEIR CONCERNS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN, I TOO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPRECIATE, UH, THEIR CONVENING AND COLLABORATING ON, UH, WHAT THEIR ISSUES ARE.
UM, REALLY, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN, UH, THE, THE, THE TOP ISSUE THAT THEY'VE RAISED AND ONE THAT WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS FOR WHAT WE CAN ADDRESS, WHICH IS, UH, AGREEING TO DO 2000 FEET OF SIDEWALK ON THE WESTERN SIDE TO THE EXTENT THERE'S RIGHT OF WAY, UH, WHICH I'M HOPEFUL THERE IS, I BELIEVE THERE IS.
UM, AND FEEL LIKE THAT'S OUR FAIR SHARE AND TO GO AHEAD AND ENGAGE AN ENGINEER TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE OTHER ELEMENTS ARE, UH, AND WHAT THEY MIGHT COST SO THAT WE CAN BRING THAT TO, UH, OTHERS THAT ARE ON THE BLOCK THAT ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET HELP SUPPORT, UH, IN, IN THAT, UH, REGARD AS WELL.
I DO WANNA ALSO ADDRESS, UM, THE SMALLER HOME CONCEPT.
UH, THE ESTIMATE IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1400, 1500 SQUARE FEET PER HOME AND ON 3.7 ACRES, ANYBODY CAN DO THE MATH, YOU WOULD END UP WITH ABOUT, UH, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA PER HOME.
SO THIS IS NOT, I WOULDN'T CALL THIS A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS REALLY, TRULY MISSING MIDDLE OR SMALLER UNITS AT A BETTER PRICE POINT, UM, WITH, UH, LIMITED SIZE HOME, BUT ALSO, UH, GIVING, UH, AT LEAST 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF OF SITE AREA, GROSS SITE AREA PER HOUSE.
I'M ALSO, UH, MATTHEWS, IT TURNS OUT IS A LEVEL TWO.
WE WERE LOOKING THAT UP IN THE AS S M P, IT IS A LEVEL TWO STREET.
UM, AND SO IT IS ONE THAT I THINK, UH, IT JUSTIFIES, UH, HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ABLE TO ACCESS, UM, MATTHEWS.
AND AGAIN, THE COMMITMENT ON THE 2000, UH, FEET OF SIDEWALK IS ONE THAT WE'RE MAKING.
WE'RE MAKING PUBLICLY SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT'LL BE ON OUR SITE PLAN AS AN OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UH, WITH THE SF SIX, UH, WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO WITH THAT, WE THANK YOU AND OBVIOUSLY AVAILABLE, UH, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION? DO WE HEAR A SECOND? SECOND.
AS YOU UNANIMOUS DISCUSSION, WHAT IS EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
HAS THERE BEEN AN SS E R CONDUCTED FOR THESE PROPERTIES? LIKE FOR WATER SERVICE EXTENSION? UM, I'M NOT, UH, WE NEED TO ASK, UH, DICK HALL, WHO'S THE OWNER, IF HE'S STILL AVAILABLE.
IT MIGHT BE A LATER STEP IN THE PROCESS, BUT YEAH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE DOWN AT SITE PLAN, UH, PROCESS.
MR. HALL, IF YOU WANT TO, UH, RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, THEY DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE ON WATER YET, BUT WASTEWATER IS APPROVED.
[00:45:01]
SO, SO THE MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE ANSWER IS YES AND S E R HAS BEEN FILED, WASTEWATERS BEEN APPROVED OR WAITING ON AN ANSWER ON WATER.SO WHATEVER THE WASTEWATER WATER SS E R SAYS THEY'LL HAVE TO DO AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
IF IT IT BE, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY COMMISSIONER FLORES THIS POINT.
ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE GONNA BE COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPER'S WALLET, NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S WALLET.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, YOU AND, AND THE APPLICANT BOTH TALKED ABOUT THE CASE HISTORY IN THE AREA A LITTLE BIT.
UM, WE HAD A MIX OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS PROPOSED, RECOMMENDED, ADOPTED BY COUNSEL OR NOT.
UM, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE INSTEAD OF NINE OR SOME OTHER NUMBER? OH, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED AND SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT'VE HOPED FOR.
AT FIRST, WE WERE REALLY, UM, AS A TEAM TALKING ABOUT IT, THE DENSITY, PRESERVING THE DENSITY AS AN SF THREE LEVEL, UM, THAT, THAT WAS REALLY THE DRIVING FORCE FOR CHOOSING, UM, SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE AS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND AS A CAP FOR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SORRY, QUICK FOLLOW UP TO THAT.
UM, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THAT NUMBER SEVEN PER ACRE WAS REACHED DUE TO INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANDARD INFRASTRUCTURE.
COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY SEVEN IS A GOOD NUMBER RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE? IS THERE A WAY TO, WELL, I MEAN, FIGURE THAT OUT BASED ON WATER AND TRAFFIC AND THAT KIND OF THING.
AND HOW DID THAT NUMBER GET TO SEVEN JUST BASED ON PREVIOUS ZONING CASES? UM, IN THE AREA, WE'VE HAD TWO ZONING CASES WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
AND UM, AND AS P YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT 76 0 5, WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING THE TWO ACCESS POINTS BECAUSE THERE, I MEAN, A PROPOSING SSF SIX, WE DID PROPOSE SSF SIX BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE A POTENTIAL TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS.
SO FOR THE OTHER 73 0 6, WE, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT TO ALBERT ROAD, WE BASICALLY THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE LOT TO HAVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN.
AND WE'RE JUST BEING CONSISTENT WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION WITH THE PREVIOUS TWO, UH, CASES THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
SO AS FAR AS LIKE IT TYING TO INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S JUST KNOWING THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND YOU KNOW, FROM TRANSPORTATION, FROM OUR REVIEWERS, FROM JUST FROM, UH, ASSESSING ALL THE, THE, UH, WHAT IS HAPPENING ON ALBERT ROAD, THE DRAINAGE, THE SAFETY, THE SIDEWALKS, AND JUST LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AS A WHOLE AND, AND COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION.
SO THIS SCENE, AND AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS ABOUT SIG UH, CONSISTENCY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AS IT IS WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND I MAY HAVE MISHEARD, BUT YOU SAID BOTH THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASES WERE SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE? WELL, NO, FOR THE INITIAL 76 0 5, WE DID NOT HAVE A CONDITIONAL, WE DID NOT INCLUDE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
IT WAS JUST RECOMMENDED AS SIX.
AND THEN THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT WE JUST HAD A MONTH AND A HALF AGO, 73 0 6, WE DID RECOMMEND, UM, A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE.
AND THAT WAS MAINLY BECAUSE OF ONE POINT OF ACCESS, CORRECT.
THAT THIS HAS TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING ON STAFF'S OPINION? UM, WELL WE DIDN'T REALLY, WE WERE REALLY BASING IT ON TODAY'S CONDITIONS.
SO, UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, AGAIN, UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, WOULDN'T THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS? ONE ON DAMON AND ONE ON ALBERT TODAY? RIGHT NOW THEY ONLY HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT PER PER PARCEL THAT WAS IN THAT, CORRECT? NO, WITH THE ADDITIONAL DAMON UH, PARCEL THAT IS JUST ADJACENT TO THE ALBERT ROAD, BUT THEY WOULD STILL, FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY STILL ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO ALBERT ROAD.
SO CURRENTLY THERE IS NO ACCESS TO DAMON ROAD, UNLESS RIGHT NOW IT, THE CUL-DE-SAC IS NOT BUILT.
SO IT WHAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY, UM, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TO WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY DOWN THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, IT ONLY HAS ACCESS BOTH PARCELS HAVE ACCESS TO ALBERT ROAD.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT PHYSICALLY THE, THE PARCEL ON DAMON ROAD DOES NOT, IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE ROADWAY, BUT LEGALLY IT FRONTS ON DAMON ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? IT DOES.
[00:50:05]
IS THAT FOR ME? NO.I THINK THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD SPEAKER, UM, HAD COMMENT ABOUT WHY IT WAS NOT LEGAL TO HAVE THAT EXTRA ACCESS FROM DAMON ROAD.
SO THAT'S NOT, UM, DAMON ROAD.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU PART OF THE REASON WHY IS THAT DAMON ROAD LOT WAS CONNECTED TO THE LOT, EXCUSE ME, WAS CONNECTED TO THE LOT.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD? SORRY.
UM, THE DAMON ROAD LOT THAT THEY BOUGHT HAS NEVER HAD A HOME ON IT.
IT WAS JUST KIND OF AT THE END OF THE STREET.
IT'S A DEAD END AND IT WAS CONNECTED TO, I, WHAT IS IT, 15? 'CAUSE OUR ZIPS ARE, ARE THEY'RE KIND OF WOOD.
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE 1510 SUZANNE.
IT WAS CONNECTED TO ANOTHER PLOT, BASICALLY.
SO THERE WAS NEVER A HOUSE HOUSE BUILT THERE AND IT NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THE STREET AS FAR AS, UM, WHAT MR. WAYLON WAS DISCUSSING THAT THERE'S AN ARTIFICIAL CUTOFF WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT GOES TO SOUTH STONE THAT WAS NEGOTIATED.
AND THAT'S A SE A SEPARATE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH SOUTH STONE BECAUSE SOUTH STONE WANTED THE SSF SIX AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS OPPOSED TO IT.
I MEAN THIS WAS QUITE A LONG TIME AGO.
IT'S TAKEN A WHILE FOR SOUTH STONE TO COME IN AS DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'VE HAD AT LEAST TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT OWNERS THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH.
BUT THAT WAS NEGOTIATED WITH THEM BECAUSE WE WANTED AN SSF TWO.
WE ASKED THAT MAYBE THEY DO SF SIX ON THE FRONT PART, AN SSF TWO THAT WAS CLOSER TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT.
SO THEY AGREED THAT THEY WOULD LIMIT THAT ACCESS TO WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO TRAFFIC JUST TRYING TO CUT THROUGH ALBERT DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S AN ONLY A LANE AND A HALF.
SO ALL OF THE ACCESS FOR SOUTH STONE HAS BEEN BUILT TO GO IN AND OUT ON DIPMAR, WHICH IS A MAJOR ROAD THAT CAN HANDLE THAT TRAFFIC.
BUT THAT WASN'T A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY SET BY THE CITY.
THAT WAS A PRIVATE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED AND I THINK I HAD JUST MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY WERE DOING THAT.
SO I COULD GET YOU MORE DETAILS ON THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
BUT SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE DAMON LOT DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS 'CAUSE IT NEVER HAD ACCESS.
AND WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ROAD I THINK IT'S CALLED, IS IT CALLED ALIBI OR ALIBI THAT IS CLOSED.
THAT'S ONLY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET INTO THAT NORTH PART OF SOUTH STONE IF THERE'S AN, A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING.
SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY PROFILE, THE LOT ON DAMON ROAD DOES FRONT ON THE DAMON ROAD RIGHT AWAY, BUT THERE'S NO STREET THERE.
BUT THEY COULD EXTEND DAMON ROADWAY.
THEY JUST NEED TO BUILD THE, THE BULB, HALF THE BUBBLE, THE CUL-DE-SAC OR THE ENTIRE CUL-DE-SAC AND THEN THEY COULD HOOK INTO DAMON ROAD.
I'M GONNA ALLOW TRANSPORTATION TO OKAY.
ADDRESS THAT IF YOU DON'T MIND.
DANIELLE MOR WITH TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS.
UM, SO YOU HAD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
THE END OF DAYMOND ROAD, IT IS, UM, A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, THAT WOULD BE PART OF OUR DISCUSSION WHERE THE SITE WOULD EITHER DEDICATE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR WE WOULD EXTEND IT SOMEHOW, UM, TO ALLOW ACCESS IF, IF WE FELT THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME.
SO THEY COULD HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACRE AC ACCESS IF THEY EXTENDED DAMON ROAD WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE MORE UNITS THAT THEY HAVE, THE MORE IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE TRIGGERED BY T I A, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
UM, AND N T A WAS NOT TRIGGERED BECAUSE OF THE ZONING, UM, ALONG ALBERT ALBERT ROAD.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHEN THE, THEY COME IN FOR A SITE PLAN AS THE ZONINGS CHANGE ON ALBERT ROAD.
UM, IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT WHEN THEY DO COME IN AND N T A MAY BE REQUIRED, BUT AT THIS POINT TODAY, IF THEY WERE TO COME IN FOR A SITE PLAN, IT WOULD NOT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, BUILDING OF THE SIDEWALKS IS GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUDGET.
IS THERE, I GUESS A UNIT COUNT OR A POINT AT WHICH THERE ARE TOO FEW UNITS AND YOU'RE UNABLE TO DO THAT? OR IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS? WELL, THE, THE, THE, THE ANTICIPATION IS THAT WE WOULD BE DOING THE SIDEWALK WITH THE 46 UNITS AND BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY FACTORED IN, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE THE SIFT, THE STREET IMPACT FEE AND THE T I A MITIGATION AND THE WASTE, THE WATER IMPROVEMENTS.
I MEAN, ALL THESE THINGS ARE BEING CALCULATED IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT WORK AT A, AT A PRICE POINT THAT, UH, IS REASONABLE.
UM, AND, AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO CUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS
[00:55:01]
AT THIS POINT THAT THE, THE NUMBER 12 IS AS I INDICATED, ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF LAND AREA PER UNIT.UM, SO I DON'T KNOW A BETTER WAY TO ANSWER THAT.
I MEAN, UH, WELL LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY THAT A DECISION IS MADE AT THE END OF THE DAY AND IT'S SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH I THINK IS AROUND 23, UH, UNITS ON THE SITE, 26, WE, WE, WE WOULD PROBABLY JUST WAIT.
WE WOULD, WE WOULD JUST, UH, WAIT IT OUT, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR, UH, IT JUST, IT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
THAT DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, I I I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S NO RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE DAMON SITE FOR THIS PROPERTY, THERE IS, UH, AS UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD POINTED OUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT APPARENTLY FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY TO ACCESS DAMON, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS DAMON.
THERE'LL BE TWO ACCESS POINTS.
I THINK, UM, STEPPING UP ON THE SIDEWALK THE WAY WE ARE, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, AND THAT'S GONNA BE AN ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT, UM, IS, IS A WAY TO REALLY SOLVE FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, OWNING OUR PORTION OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT I, I, I DON'T, I DON'T, DOING SEVEN WOULD NOT WORK FOR, UH, ECONOMICALLY.
I MEAN NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE AT 6,500 SQUARE FEET.
I CAN DO THE MATH REAL QUICKLY, BUT IT ISN'T GONNA WORK.
UH, IN TERMS OF THE UNIT ACCOUNT, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT TWO, TWO QUESTIONS.
WHAT, HOW, WHAT AMOUNT IS THAT STREET IMPACT FEE? IS THAT PER UNIT, PER ACREAGE? SOME COMBINATION THERE.
I, AND IF YOU CAN'T BALLPARK IT, THAT'S FINE.
I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT PRICE POINT ARE YOU TARGETING FOR THESE UNITS AT 46 UNITS? PARDON ME? WHAT? SAY IT AGAIN.
WHAT? SALES PRICE OR OR RENTAL PRICE POINT TARGETING THESE? UM, I'M NOT SURE THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS WHERE THE MARKET WILL BE, UH, YOU KNOW, 18 MONTHS FROM NOW, AS EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS, SITE PLANS TAKE ANYWHERE FROM NINE TO 18 MONTHS.
UH, IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT AT THE CALIFORNIA FOUR YEAR TIMEFRAME YET.
UH, SO NINE TO EIGHT 18 MONTHS TO GET A SITE PLAN.
UM, SO IT'S JUST HARD TO SAY WHERE WE'LL BE THEN.
BUT YOU CAN, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO DO MATH, YOU CAN GET ONLINE.
LOOK AT WHAT REAL ESTATE'S SELLING FOR.
I'VE TOLD YOU THEY'RE GONNA BE AROUND 14 TO 1500 SQUARE FEET EACH.
I THINK IT'S AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING.
MAYOR WATSON'S HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT HAVING AN EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS AND IT SEEMS IRRESPONSIBLE OR IT SEEMS LIKE NOT.
WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO TO TRY TO CAP AN SF SIX LOT AT SF SSF THREE DENSITY.
UM, IT'S A SUBURBAN WATERSHED.
IT'LL GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN, IT'LL MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS AT D'S.
NOT GONNA LET THIS GO WITHOUT THEM COMPLYING WITH ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK, I MEAN, I HAVE COWORKERS THAT ARE MOVING TO CITY OF MAYNARD NEW BRAUNFELS AND DRIVE HERE EVERY DAY ARE WORKING REMOTE 'CAUSE THEY JUST CAN'T AFFORD A HOUSE.
SO I THINK IT'S MY DUTY TO RECOMMEND THIS TO BE APPROVED WITHOUT A, WITHOUT A CAP IN UNITS.
IS THAT A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
SO YOUR MOTION WOULD BE APPROVED.
APPROVED THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION OF SSF SIX WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? JUST CLARIFICATION.
WE HAD THE LAST TIME THIS AREA HAD COME UP, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND COUNSEL HAD SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT OVERLAY IN PLACE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.
SO I SECOND MOTION, BUT IT WAS ON A CORNER WITH TWO, RIGHT? I SECOND YOU SECOND THE MOTION.
DISCUSSION AND THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE 'CAUSE IF WE, IF THE LAST TWO CASES I UNDERSTOOD, ONE DIDN'T HAVE A CO BECAUSE IT HAD TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
ONE DID HAVE A C E O 'CAUSE IT ONLY HAD ONE POINT OF ACCESS, THIS ONE COULD HAVE TWO.
IF TRANSPORTATION ENFORCE IT, UM, THE S E R IS GONNA UPGRADE THE WATER.
UH, TRAINING DEPARTMENT'S GONNA UPDATE THE DRAINAGE.
SO I, IT'S KIND OF STUCK YOU IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE TWO
CHAIR COMMISSION LANE IS ON ANDREW.
UH, IF WE JUST CAN, UM, UM, NOTE THAT WE ARE, UH, PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION ON THE ITEMS FOUR AND ITEM FIVE.
AND RIGHT NOW THE MOTION IS FOR ITEM FOUR AND FIVE TO HAVE THE, THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED DR TO SSF SIX ON FOUR IN SF THREE TO SF SIX ON FIVE WITH NO CO
[01:00:01]
THAT'S THE MOTION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW IN THE SECOND ONE.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AT THIS POINT, THERE ISN'T A SECOND ACCESS.
UM, IF THEY CAN WORK OUT THAT THERE'S A SECOND AXIS, UM, THEY CAN, BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING, MAYBE THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT AT THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT THE MOST RECENT CASE IN AUGUST, WE RECOMMENDED SSF SIX WITH A SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT ALL IN ONE READING.
SO THAT'S MY RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BASE MOTION? SO AGAIN, THE BASE MOTION IS ON ITEM FOUR, SSF SIX FROM DR TO SSF SIX AND ITEM FIVE FROM SSF THREE TO SF SIX WITH NO CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AND I'M GONNA KIND OF BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ACCESS TO TWO DIFFERENT ROADWAYS.
UM, AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M BASING MINE OFF IS, IS THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION OF THAT.
UM, WE DID HAVE THE COMMISSIONER ONLINE VOTING FOUR.
AND I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR BASIC AGENDA ITEM.
WE DID HAVE ONE DISCUSSION ITEM WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
JUST GOING DOWN THROUGH THE AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.
UM, WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR POLICY ON WHO CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ITEMS ON OR HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ITEMS ON SITE.
WAS UM, ITEM 10 NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
NO, IT WAS, UH, ITEM 10 WAS POSTPONED.
NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONED WITH OCTOBER 3RD.
[14. Discussion and possible action regarding rules and regulations pertaining to discussion postponement items. (Sponsors Chair Smith and Vice-Chair Greenberg]
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? UM, THE ONE THING WE NEEDED TO TALK ABOUT AND THEN WOULD WE DO THAT HERE ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT? OKAY.
RIGHT NOW THE CODE SAYS IF WE HAVE A POSTPONEMENT, UM, ONLY TWO PEOPLE CAN SPEAK IN THE OPPOSITION TO IT.
OR THREE, THE RULES SAY THREE.
WE'VE GOTTEN A MEMO FROM ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND BASED ON CURRENT LEGISLATION, WE CAN'T LIMIT HOW MANY PEOPLE.
AND SO, UM, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING IN MY MIND.
UM, AND WE HAVE TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO SPEAK.
SO WE NEED TO MODIFY THE RULES TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO SPEAK THAN JUST THREE.
UM, BUT WE CAN ALSO MAKE CHANGES IF WE WANT.
SO WE CAN JUST REMOVE THE CAP, 'CAUSE THE RULES AS IT SAYS RIGHT NOW.
UM, ARTICLE FOUR, ITEM C, CITIZEN COMMUNICATION ITEM ONE.
AFTER THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER UP TO, I'M SORRY, THAT'S UP TO, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ITEM.
EH, I GOTTA GET TO THE RIGHT SECTION.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LIAISON AND VERIFY MAY ASSIST.
ARTICLE FOUR, POSTPONEMENT REQUEST C ONE CHAIR CALLS UP TO THREE SPEAKERS.
UH, SO WE NEED TO STRIKE THE UP TO THREE SPEAKERS AND THE SAME THING ON ITEM TWO.
CALL CHAIR CALLS ON UP TO THREE SPEAKERS OPPOSING THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
UM, SO WE NEED TO STRIKE TO UP TO THREE BECAUSE LEGISLATION IS BASICALLY SAID YOU GOTTA ALLOW EVERYBODY TO SPEAK THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.
RIGHT NOW THE POLICY IS SIX MINUTES FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER, THREE FOR EVERYONE AFTER, BUT I THINK ON POSTPONEMENTS IT'S JUST THREE FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, HE SAID IT'S THREE AND TWO.
SO IT'S THREE FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER, TWO FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.
IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A POSTPONEMENT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER AND TWO MINUTES FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.
UM, 'CAUSE THE ONLY THING THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IS THE POSTPONEMENT.
LEGISLATION'S VERY CLEAR AND OUR RULES ARE VERY CLEAR.
ALL YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IS THE POSTPONEMENT, NOT THE ITEMS, NOT THE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM ITSELF.
SO WHAT I WOULD THINK WE COULD DO, UM, IS WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TONIGHT, BUT WE CAN BRING THIS BACK THE NEXT TIME.
UM, IF WE THOUGHT WE'RE POSTED FOR POSSIBLE ACTION, OH, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO.
SO WE CAN DO SOMETHING TONIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OPTION WAS JUST STRIKE THE UP TO THREE SPEAKERS, PERIOD AND LET THE THREE IN THREE, TWO, ANOTHER OPTION WILL BE STRIKE THE UP TO THREE SPEAKERS AND GO TO TWO.
ONE WHERE THE FIRST SPEAKER GETS TWO MINUTES AND EVERY OTHER SPEAKER GETS ONE MINUTE, UH, TO TALK JUST ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENTS.
AND THIS ONLY RELATES TO POSTPONEMENTS, DOESN'T RELATE TO ANYTHING ELSE.
WHAT IS EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS? I GUESS I'D WANNA UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT STATE LAW SAYS IS THAT WE CAN'T TREAT POSTPONEMENTS
[01:05:01]
DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER HEARINGS.OR IS IT THAT WE CAN'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS ON POSTPONEMENTS, BUT WE COULD STILL HAVE DIFFERENT SPEAKING TIMES ALLOTTED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES.
THE STATE LAW DOESN'T JUST MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSTPONEMENTS AND ANYTHING ELSE.
SO IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF MINUTES ALLOTTED TO A SPEAKER, THAT'D BE FOR EVERYTHING.
THE STATE LAW, JUST AS A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL ALLOW EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BODY REGARDING AN ITEM ON AN AGENDA FOR AN OPEN MEETING OF THE BODY TO ADDRESS THE BODY REGARDING THE ITEM AT THE MEETING BEFORE AND OR DURING THE BODY'S CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM PERIOD.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN DO THIS FOR POSTPONEMENTS, YOU CAN DO THIS FOR OTHERS, BUT IT DOES SAY YOU CAN ADJUST HOW MUCH TIME THEY HAVE.
UM, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR A REGULAR DISCUSSION ITEM WHERE THEY HAVE SIX MINUTES FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER, THREE MINUTES FOR EVERYBODY AFTER, THAT'S FINE.
BUT IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS, ALL THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IS THE POSTPONEMENTS THEY CAN'T TALK ABOUT IS THE POSTPONEMENT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE FIRST SPEAKER WOULD'VE TWO MINUTES.
EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE ONE SO THAT WE GET THROUGH THE POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION VERY QUICKLY.
'CAUSE 99 TIMES OUT OF A HUNDRED WE'RE GOING TO GIVE 'EM THE POSTPONEMENT.
UM, VERY RARELY, UNLESS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SECOND OR THIRD POSTPONEMENT.
GENERALLY THE STAFF GETS THE FIRST POSTPONEMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GETS THE POSTPONEMENT.
SO IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO AUTOMATIC.
I SORT OF THINK WE SHOULD FIX WHAT'S NEEDED FOR STATE LAW.
UM, GET RID OF THE UP TO THREE, JUST TAKE THE SPEAKERS AND LEAVE IT AT THREE MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES.
I MEAN, WE DON'T NEED TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
IF WE SOMEHOW GET A POSTPONEMENT AND WE GET, YOU KNOW, 20 SPEAKERS WHO WANNA SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES EACH, WE MIGHT WANNA RECONSIDER OUR RULES.
BUT, UM, WE PRETTY MUCH GRANT THE POSTPONEMENTS ON CONSENT.
SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE EXCEPT FOR BEING ILLEGAL IN TERMS OF STATE LAW.
THE RULE IS JUST SAY CHAIR CALLS ON UP TO THREE SPEAKERS OPPOSING THE POSTPONE REQUEST TEST.
I THINK IT SAYS THREE MINUTES.
I'M NOT SEEING WHERE THE TWO COMES IN, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LADIES LIAISON.
SO THERE WAS A, UM, DURING STARTING WHEN WE WENT TO A TELECONFERENCE OR, UH, REMOTE AND, UM, DURING THE PANDEMIC THAT, UM, GOT MODIFIED.
UM, SO OKAY, THE BASE IS YOUR REGULATIONS.
WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE IS JUST THE THREE.
CURRENTLY IF IT SAYS THREE MINUTES, I'D GO WITH CHANGING IT TO THE FIRST SPEAKER GETS THREE MINUTES AND EACH ADDITIONAL GETS TWO.
JUST TO CLARIFY, EVEN IF WE ALREADY CHANGED IN, IT DIDN'T SOMEHOW GET UPDATED ON THE WEBSITE,
IT'S REALLY ANNOYING TO SPEAK FOR ONE MINUTE.
YEAH, BUT IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT AND YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE MARRIAGE, YOU CAN BARELY SAY YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU LIVE IN 60 SECONDS,
IF WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES, THEY'RE NOT JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT WELL, NO, NO, THEY ARE SINCE WE, IT'S THE CHAIR'S DUTY TO CUT THEM OFF IF THEY GET OFF AND START TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE POSTPONEMENT.
BUT IF YOU THINK THAT'S ALWAYS HARD TO DO.
UM, BUT I I I THINK THAT SINCE IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE BEFORE, I DON'T DISAGREE AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, POLICE A SPEAKER WHO IF THEY GET OFF TOPIC OR TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE MERITS OF THE CASE, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH LEAVING IT AT THREE MINUTES AND, AND JUST CHANGING WHAT WE NEED TO.
TAKE A LIGHT TOUCH TO THE RULES UNTIL WE CAN HAVE MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THINGS.
MR. GREENBERG, YOU WANNA MAKE YOUR MOTION? WELL I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
SO WE ALREADY CHANGED IT TO THREE MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES.
IT'S JUST NOT UPDATED ON THE WEBSITE.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMOVE THE WORDS UP TO THREE IN FRONT OF SPEAKERS ON BOTH THE ONE AND TWO C ONE AND C TWO.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE IS UNANIMOUS.
UM, WHERE ARE WE ON THE AGENDA? THAT'S IT.
COMMITTEE, FUTURE ITEMS. COMMITTEE REPORTS.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ANYTHING CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES AND ANDREW FOR, UH, FUTURE ITEMS. UM, IN NOVEMBER YOU'LL ADOPT YOUR, UH, SCHEDULE FOR 2024.YOUR FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER WILL BE A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA MEETING AT 5:00 PM SO WANT TO SEE IF, UH, THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE AMENABLE TO, UH, SPONSORING THE CALENDAR JUST TO, UH, START LOOKING AT IT AT YOUR NEXT, UH, MEETING.
SO THAT MEETINGS ARE GONNA BE A FIVE? NO, NO, NO.
IT'S AN, UH, CON CONSENT ONLY FIVE O NOVEMBER 14TH.
YOU MAY HAVE TO CALL AND REMIND ME.
[01:10:01]
A BIG RED NOTICE OR SOMETHING? DON'T FORGET.UH, ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? SO JUST FOR A REMINDER, UH, OR JUST CHECKING IN, MICROPHONE PLEASE.
JUST CHECKING TO SEE, UH, THERE HAD BEEN A REQUEST TO WAYS BACK FOR PRESENTATION ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO.
AND JUST CHECKING IN AGAIN ON THAT.
UM, I HAVE AN UPDATE IN REGARDS TO, UM, THE SHORT TERM, THE S T R PRESENTATION.
UM, I BELIEVE WE ARE LINKING AT NOVEMBER 21ST.
UH, COMMITTEE REPORTS, CODES AND ORDINANCES.
[COMMITTEE REPORTS ]
JOINT COMMITTEE.WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW AND WE ARE LOOKING AT ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS. OH YEAH.
WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR I THINK NEXT WEEK.
UM, WE DO HAVE A MEETING COMING UP VERY SOON.
WE'VE BEEN HAVING SEVERAL INFORMAL MEETINGS, BUT I THINK WE DO HAVE ANOTHER FORMAL MEETING.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT IS TRYING TO MEET MORE FREQUENTLY.
SO, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE.
I DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK IT UP.
NO, I MEAN THE, UM, CALENDAR FOR 2024.
SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, SO THE SMALL AREA PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING ON, UH, LAST WEEK WAS CANCELED.
ANYTHING ELSE? WE ARE ADJOURNED.