[00:00:02]
OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS COME ONLINE.
[ Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
HAVING A QUORUM PRESENT.WE CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:04 PM SO FIRST WE'RE GONNA TAKE ROLL AND PLEASE SAY HERE, UH, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I'M GONNA GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER FOR BY THE AGENDA.
SO, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? HERE.
OKAY, SO, UM, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF OUR EX OFFICIOS HERE TONIGHT.
SO, UH, AS USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIRS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS.
AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND IN ATTENDANCE, VIRTUALLY, SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLARK THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES.
AND IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM.
SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME, BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.
AND THEN I WILL HAVE, UH, ASSISTANCE FROM MR. RIVERA, OUR STAFF LIAISON IN ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING FOR THOSE ONLINE.
STAY ON MUTE WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.
AND IF I MISS YOU, PLEASE TRY AGAIN AND LET ME KNOW.
SO FRIENDLY REMINDER, UM, ABOUT SOME OF OUR ITEMS THAT THIS MAY COME UP TONIGHT.
WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ZONING, I REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ASIDE FROM OUR CONSIDERATION OF PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS VIA APPLICANT ELECTING TO INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IS NOT PART OF A ZONING OR REZONING REQUIREMENTS.
SO I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION THIS EVENING.
UM, AND OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 23RD MEETING WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL, UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING THIS MONTH.
[Consent Agenda]
ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.UM, ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT, APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, COMMISSIONER CZAR WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST THAT ITEMS BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, WE'LL BE GOING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FIRST.
SO THIS IS, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 0 2 0.01.
CHRISTCHURCH PLANNING DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 26TH.
UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS, UM, ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 2 0 1 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH I.
NUMBER FOUR IS REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 2.
UH, INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 15 0 4.
THIS IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH ZERO HUNDRED SEVEN HE HOUSING DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 5 0 2 5 5 2 4 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS UP ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING.
UM, THIS IS C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 9 6.
BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.
I NUMBER NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 4 2 ME ROAD DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
ITEM NUMBER 10 OF REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 7 19 11, VOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
ITEM NUMBER 11, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 4 9 DONLEY, NVG REZONING DISTRICT FOUR NORTH BRENT GATEWAY, REZONING DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 12.
THIS IS ALSO REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 50 KRAMER NORTH BURN GATEWAY REZONING DISTRICT FOUR.
[00:05:01]
I NUMBER 13 IS A REZONING AS WELL.OAK CREEK VILLAGE, PHASE TWO DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.
ITEM NUMBER 14, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 1.
UM, E FIVE 80 X REZONE DISTRICT THREE.
ITEM NUMBER 15, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 5 6 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
I NUMBER 16 IS A HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H 2023 DASH ZERO, UM, 1 4 3 DEEP EDDIE GROCERY DEEP EDDIE CABARET, DISTRICT 10 SIGN IS UP FOR CONSENT.
I NUMBER 17 IS A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER FOR SITE PLAN SP DASH 2022 DASH 0 4 9 1 C AT 1170 WEBER.
WILL, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 18 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 BONUS ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM NUMBER 19 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 1 AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 25 RELATING TO THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN DISTRICT SEVEN.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CHECK IN WITH OUR, UH, COMMISSIONERS IF THEY'RE FINE WITH PUTTING NUMBER 20, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND UPDATING THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN REGARDING TELEWORK POLICIES.
UM, AND I CAN SPEAK TO WHAT, WHAT THAT IS.
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER CHECK, GIMME A SECOND HERE.
BUT WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING AT, UM, APPOINTING PEOPLE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, WHICH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WISHES TO SERVE ON IT.
SO WE'LL BE ASKING IF FOLKS ARE AMENABLE TO PUTTING THAT IN THE CONSENT TO HAVE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE TO SLIDE NUMBER 24.
AND WE WOULD BE POSTPONING ITEM 25, WHICH IS NOMINATED MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND I WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER MU ARE, UM, AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD ARE ON ONLINE NOW.
UM, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? NO.
AND DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? UH, THANKS.
UM, I, I THINK I JUST MISSED, UH, MISHEARD OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, UH, VICE CHAIR'S.
WHAT, ON 20 OR YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING TO CONSIDER IT.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THE ITEM ON 20? YES, COMMISSIONER ZA IF YOU WANNA ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, ITEM NUMBER 20 WAS A REQUEST FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT STAFF WAS CONSIDERING LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED REGARDING THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS WAS PART OF THE WORK DONE BY THE TELEWORK WORKING GROUP AND WE JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT STAFF WAS PROPOSING.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THE BACKUP IS AVAILABLE AND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT ESSENTIALLY STAFF IS MOVING AHEAD WITH EXACTLY WHAT THE WORKING GROUP PRESENTED.
SO, AS SUCH, UNLESS ONE OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WISHES TO HEAR MORE ON THAT, WE COULD DISPOSE OFF THAT ITEM AT THIS TIME.
UM, CONSIDERING IT'S WHAT OUR WORKING GROUP HAD ALREADY SUGGESTED AND WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ALREADY VOTED ON.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? UM, DID I MISS THE FACT THAT IT WAS ON THERE OR DID THIS JUST GET ADDED ON TODAY? NO, THIS HAS BEEN POSTED.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS SAID, I THINK, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
I CANNOT REMEMBER WHO SECONDED IT AS A REQUEST TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS BECAUSE WE JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT STAFF WAS MOVING AHEAD WITH.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN INFORMED, ESSENTIALLY STAFF IS MOVING AHEAD WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
I'M LOOKING FOR THE, I'M LOOKING FOR THE MAGIC WORD INCREASE, IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MINUTE.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER 20, THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND UPDATING THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN REGARDING TELEWORK POLICIES? CORRECT.
AND, AND THEN CHAIR, I'VE MADE AN ERROR WHILE COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS CONSIDERING THAT, IF I MIGHT, UM, SAY THAT.
SO THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 19 LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 1 AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 25 RELATING TO THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS ITEM IS POSTPONED TO 2 27.
UM, SO I'LL GO THROUGH THE ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND NOMINATIONS ONE BY ONE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING THEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO NUMBER 20, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS FOR THAT BEING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, WE CAN MOVE THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
[00:10:01]
I JUST, I JUST LOOKED AT IT AND THE WORD INCREASE IS NOT ON THERE.[24. Nominate a member to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Joint Committee.]
ITEM NUMBER 24.UM, UM, NOMINATING A MEMBER TO SERVE ON COMP PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING THAT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO BE NOMINATED TO THAT COMMITTEE? OKAY.
SEEING NONE THAT WILL MOVE TO CONSENT.
AND LIKEWISE, NOMINATING A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, POSTPONING THAT TO OUR NEXT MEETING, UH, FEBRUARY 27TH.
COMMISSIONER COX? I WAS JUST, UH, UH, SORRY, WHICH, UH, WHICH COMMITTEE IS, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON JOINING, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE? UM, I JUST WANTED TO, IF THAT PASSES, I WANTED TO LET HIM KNOW THAT I BELIEVE OUR NEXT MEETING'S TOMORROW, SO
NO, THIS HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL.
THEY, THEY POSTPONED IT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
GOOD TO GOT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
'CAUSE THOSE OF US THAT HAVE VALENTINE'S PLAN GAVE HIM KIND OF GRIEF,
UM, I WAS JUST ALSO GONNA SAY A REMINDER AND MR. VE YOU CAN CORRECT ME.
SO, UH, SERVICE ON THE JOINT COMMITTEES HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO FILL IN THE OATH BEFORE YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE.
UM, THE NUMBER 25 NOMINATING A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE IS POSTPONED TO OUR NEXT MEETING, UM, FEBRUARY 27TH.
ANY OBJECTION TO THAT BEING ON CONSENT? OKAY.
UM, I'LL GO BACK THROUGH AND, UH, BRIEFLY GO OVER OUR CONSENT AGENDA TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL OF THAT STRAIGHT.
SO, UM, ITEM TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT, APPLICANT POSTPONE IN MARCH 26TH.
ITEM THREE, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
ITEM FOUR, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
ITEM FIVE AND SIX ARE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
NUMBER SEVEN, APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION NUMBER NINE, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 10, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 11 AND 12 ARE ON CONSENT.
NUMBER 13, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.
NUMBER 14, CONSENT NUMBER 15, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH, NUMBER 16 AND 17, CONSENT NUMBER 18, DISCUSSION AND NUMBER 19 POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE ITEMS NUMBER 20 AND 24 AND 25 ARE MOVED TO CONSENT.
UM, AND AGAIN, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
FIRST BY, UH, VICE CHAIR AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
COMMISSIONER TAL, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
[Items 5 & 6]
ON TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NIGHT.AND THAT IS NUMBER FIVE AND SIX.
SO MS. MEREDITH, IT'S NOT WORKING.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS PLAN AMENDMENT MPA 20 23 0 0 1 5 0.04.
HEFLIN HOUSE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 51 0 6 AND 51 0 8 HEFLIN LANE WITHIN THE EAST MLK NEIGHBORHOOD.
PLAN CON, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINED, UH, PLANNING AREA, THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR HIGHER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EAST MLK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
GOOD EVENING, JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CASE NUMBER C 14 2023 DASH 0 1 1 7 HELEN HOUSING.
IT IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR 51 0 6 AND 51 0 8 HELEN LANE FROM SF THREE NMP TO MF THREE NMP STAFF IS MAKING AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF SF SIX NP FOR THIS CASE.
THE SUBJECT TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY, APPROXIMATELY A HALF AN ACRE OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HEFLIN
[00:15:01]
LANE, APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET WEST OF WHERE FORT BRANCH CREEK INTERSECTS WITH HEFLIN LANE.IT'S APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF A MILE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF EAST MLK BOULEVARD AND SPRINGDALE BOULEVARD.
BOTH IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDORS.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET FROM THE, THE INTERSECTION OF HEFLIN LANE AND WEBER VILLAGE ROAD WHERE THERE IS A CAPITAL METRO BUS STOP FOR THE LOCAL 18 ROUTE.
HEFLIN LANE IS A LEVEL TWO A SMP CORRIDOR.
THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS ALSO VACANT LAND, WHICH WAS REZONED SF SIX NP IN 2020 TO THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST ARE A MIX OF SMALLER, OLDER, AND NEWER LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND A DUPLEX STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ZONING BASED ON COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RECENTLY REZONED SF SIX NP PARCEL TO THE NORTH.
AND THE PRACTICE OF LOCATING MULTIFAMILY ZONING NEAR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS.
GRANTING MF THREE NP MID-BLOCK WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION TO LESS INTENSELY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT TRACK.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
MS. HASI, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UM, CAN SOMEONE LET ME KNOW IF THE PRESENTATION IS UP? IT'S UP.
UM, THIS, UH, SUBJECT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TWO TRACKS OF LAND, UM, THAT TOTAL JUST UNDER A HALF ACRE.
UM, THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS TWO CIRCLES, THE GREEN CIRCLE BEING A QUARTER MILE RADIUS AND THE BLUE CIRCLE BEING A HALF MILE RADIUS.
AND WE WANTED TO SHOW THIS SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND AND SEE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE VARIOUS, UM, BUS STOPS, MANY BUS STOPS, UM, THAT ARE WITHIN A REASONABLE WALKING DISTANCE.
UH, FOR THIS REASON, WE DO FEEL LIKE THIS SITE IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN SOME ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
SO THIS, UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR A PLUM AMENDMENT TO MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, NEXT SLIDE AND A REZONING TO MF THREE.
SO WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS UNDER MF THREE, UH, WITH SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, YOU COULD GET 13 UNITS OF THOSE UNITS BEING ONE AND TWO BEDROOM MIX.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS SF SIX AND THAT WOULD, UM, HAVE THE POTENTIAL AMOUNT OF, UH, YIELD AND UNITS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED ON THIS HALF ACRE, UH, PIECE OF LAND.
THIS IS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SF THREE ZONING DISTRICT ALL THE WAY UP TO OUR REQUEST OF MS THREE.
AND, UH, MOST NOTABLY YOU CAN SEE THAT THE GAIN IS FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AS WELL AS FAR THAT WOULD ALLOW, UH, FOR A GREATER YIELD.
UM, MF THREE DOES ALLOW A LITTLE BIT, UH, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OVER WHAT ALLOWED TODAY AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET OF HEIGHT.
AND WHILE WE HAVE NOT FULLY EXAMINED THIS SITE TO SEE IF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET, UM, IF, IF THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES, IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE YIELD FOR THIS, UH, AND FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGNING A PROJECT AT THIS SITE.
UH, WE REMAIN AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIR, I HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, A AND I GET A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
WHO HAS OUR FIRST QUESTION? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I WAS, UM, SURPRISED TO SEE LITTLE TO NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
I'VE GOT THE CITY OF AUSTIN FLOOD PRO GIS MAP UP IN FRONT OF ME, AND IT LOOKS LIKE HALF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN.
[00:20:01]
THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE COA FULLY DEVELOPED A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.HALF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE FULLY DEVELOPED 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, I GUESS, UM, THIS IS GONNA GO, I GUESS FIRST TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I, IT SEEMS LIKE POSSIBLY A LOT OF THIS SITE MIGHT NOT BE DEVELOPABLE, SO I WAS SURPRISED THAT YOU WERE WANTING LIKE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND MAX BUILDING COVERAGE WHEN HALF THE SITES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
SO IT, COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND WHAT Y'ALL ARE PLANNING? HASI? UM, YES, I'M HERE.
I I KNOW RON IS ON THE LINE TOO, BUT I THINK HE'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO UNMUTE HIMSELF.
SORRY, WE COULD NOT BE THERE IN PERSON.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, I MEAN, YES, IT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE THERE IS FLOODPLAIN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, UH, IN OUR OPINION A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, NEEDS TO BE FIXED BY WAY OF ADDING DENSITY TO THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU'RE GONNA ECONOMICALLY PROVIDE A DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN MOVE AROUND THE FLOODPLAIN BUILD UP OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN, IT HAS TO BE A PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE OF A DENSITY WHERE THE ECONOMICS CAN ACT ACTUALLY WORK.
UM, SF SIX, AS THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, IS ONLY PROVIDE SIX UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND YEAH, WE COULD DIVIDE THIS INTO TWO LOTS AND PUT SIX UNITS ON THE PROPERTY TODAY UNDER HOME.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE RIGHT APPROACH TO THIS.
AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT GETS THE PROPERTY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO BE DEVELOPED OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN CAN CREATE GREAT AREAS OF REFUGE THAT A HOUSE CANNOT.
AND I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ON OR IN NEARBY BUS ROUTES WITH 160,000 PEOPLE A MONTH, UH, TRAVELING ON THESE VARIOUS BUS ROUTES.
AND RON, I I APPRECIATE ALL THAT, BUT WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE IS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU'RE COMPARING, ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE 11 TWO BEDROOM UNITS VERSUS SIX UNITS BETWEEN THE MF THREE AND THE SF SIX.
AND THAT'S BASED ON THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S NOT BASED ON BUILDABLE AREA.
AND IF HALF OF YOUR SITE IS ALREADY IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, YOU, YOU MAY NOT EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAX OUT TO 11 UNITS ON ONLY HALF OR POTENTIALLY A THIRD OF THIS SITE.
AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF MF THREE IS EVEN SOMETHING.
I DON'T THINK IT'S PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S AN ISLAND OF MF THREE IF WE DID THIS, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE.
BUT ALSO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE BENEFITS OF MF SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF, OF THE SITE ITSELF.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PROCESS IN MY, IN MY HEAD IS, IS ARE WE, ARE YOU EVEN GONNA BE ABLE TO FIT 11 UNITS OR 13 UNITS OR WHATEVER ON THIS PROPERTY? AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, YES, IT IS A HALF ACRE IN SIZE THAT THERE IS ROOM TO DO THAT ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COULD AGAIN, PICTURE THE PROPERTY AT BURNETT ROAD NEAR NORTH LOOP WHERE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN THERE, BUT THERE IS AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS THREE OR FOUR STORIES TALL THAT'S BUILT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
THAT OFFICE BUILDING COULD NOT BE BUILT IF IT WAS ONE STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
THE ECONOMICS JUST DOESN'T WORK.
AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITY HERE TO ALLEVIATE THE FLOODPLAIN SITUATION TO THE BEST DEGREE POSSIBLE.
I DON'T THINK THAT SIX UNITS IS THE ANSWER HERE AT ALL.
UM, I THINK MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE UNITS CREATES A BETTER SITUATION TO PUT PEOPLE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND IN FACT, AND YOU KNOW, ALTERNATELY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COULD BUY THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE LARGELY FLOODPLAIN.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, BRING DENSITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR, AND PUT PEOPLE IN A SAFE PLACE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
I MEAN, IF THE OPTION IS FOR THE CITY TO BUY THE PROPERTY 'CAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR FOR US TO MAX OUT DENSITY
COMMISSIONER COX, DOESN'T THAT SEEM A LITTLE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE COMMISSIONER, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE MAXING OUT THE DENSITY.
COMMISSIONER COX, THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR FIVE MINUTES.
UM, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION.
[00:25:02]
FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION, COULD THE CITY STAFF ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? I SPOKE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN 'CAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THE STAFF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THEY SAW IT.ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALKED TO, AND I I APOLOGIZE, THEY COULDN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY MENTIONED TO ME IS THAT IT WOULD BE LOOKED AT DURING SITE PLAN, WHAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE ON THE SITE WHEN AND NOT AT THE TIME OF ZONING RIGHT NOW.
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HEARING A LOT FROM SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS.
UM, SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TOOK IN CONSIDERATION WHEN IT'S MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION OF SF SIX BECAUSE OF THE LOWER IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, AS WAS INDICATED ON THAT CHART EARLIER, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR, UH, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR SF SIX WOULD BE 55% AND FOR MF THREE WOULD BE 65%.
AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE WOULD GO FROM 40% TO 55%.
SO THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WERE CONCERNING AS WELL.
JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT BECAUSE A COUPLE OF TIMES WE'VE BEEN TOLD ABOUT ISSUES LIKE FLOODING.
THE FLOOD ZONES ARE NOT VIEWED UNTIL THE SITE PLAN AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS COMMISSIONERS ON WHETHER TO GO WITH ONE ZONING OR THE OTHER WITHOUT THAT INPUT AND BEING NEW.
I JUST DON'T GET THAT, THAT, HOW THAT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE.
UM, SOMEONE COULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT? I I JUST, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF BECAUSE TO ME PERSONALLY, ONE WOULD IMPACT HOW I WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION.
I I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, I CAN EXPLAIN IT FROM A FLOOD PLANE EXAMPLE, BUT I COULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT FROM A TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE.
'CAUSE I'VE HAD SOME CASES LIKE THAT.
IF WE'RE GETTING ZONING, UH, IF WE'RE DOING ZONING RIGHT NOW ON A PROPERTY, THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS THAT MIGHT CHANGE ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS DEVELOPED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS GONNA GO AND WHERE DETENTION PONDS MIGHT GO OR WHATEVER ELSE.
UM, IF A TRANSPORTATION STUDY IS DONE DURING, DURING A TRANSPORTATION STUDY MIGHT NOT BE TRIGGERED DURING REZONING, BUT IT MAY BE TRIGGERED AT SITE PLAN BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE GONNA BE DEVELOPED ON THE SITE.
SO IT'S LIKE THINGS CAN CHANGE EITHER AT ZONING OR AT SITE PLAN.
AND SOMETIMES THE MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS IS DONE AT SITE PLAN RATHER THAN EARLIER IN THE PROCESS AT ZONING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I THINK IT DOES WITH TRANSPORTATION TO SOME EXTENT, BUT WITH A FLOODPLAIN, YEAH, IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL AND, YOU KNOW, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THAT BEST ATTEMPT AT THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I'M WONDERING MS HAS HERE, OR MR. THOR, IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT.
WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF YOUR CLIENT? WHAT ARE, WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF WHAT THEY'RE HOPING TO BUILD IN THIS SPACE? UM, YES, COMMISSIONER, UM, SO THERE, THE INTENT IS, AS RON SAID, TO TRY, TRY TO GET A VIABLE PROJECT HERE, UM, ON THIS HALF ACRE.
UM, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST WAYS TO DO THAT IS TO INCREASE THE, THE DENSITY SO THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, ESPECIALLY BUILDING UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, UM, CAN BE SPREAD AMONGST THOSE UNITS.
THE FEWER NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE GET ON THIS SITE, THE MORE COSTLY IT'S GOING TO BE TO, FOR EACH OF THOSE UNITS TO BE BUILT.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT LIKE A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, UH, FOR THIS, FOR THIS PROJECT.
UH, WE'RE MOSTLY JUST, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT ZONING RIGHT NOW.
IS IT APPROPRIATE HERE TO PUT, UM, MORE, UH, UNITS THEN WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER SF THREE TODAY? AND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT GENERAL LAND USES, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO ADD SOME DENSITY IN THIS AREA NEAR EXISTING TRANSIT.
SO AS, UH, JONATHAN SAID, WHEN WE GET TO A SITE PLAN PHASE, WHETHER THAT'S US OR SOMEONE ELSE, THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE OTHER MATTERS IN GREATER DETAIL.
UM, AND THAT WILL AND THEN RESULT IN HOW MANY ACTUAL UNITS ARE GOING TO FIT AND HOW ALL OF THAT'S GONNA COME TOGETHER.
BUT THE PROJECT ISN'T AT THAT PHASE RIGHT NOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LONG-WINDED, UH, ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
BUT ESSENTIALLY THE INCREASE IN DENSITY IS GOING TO ALLOW,
[00:30:01]
UM, FOR A, A DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUILT HERE, UM, THAT'S FEASIBLE.AND, AND, AND I GUESS SORT OF AS A FOLLOW UP, I GUESS THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR, ARE WE THINKING MORE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED PER ACRE OR IS IT SOME OTHER FEATURE OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? LIKE, BUT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IF YOU WANTED TO LIMIT THE PER COVER OR SOMETHING ELSE, WOULD THAT LIMIT THE DEVELOPABILITY THAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT? OR IS THAT JUST SORT OF AN UNKNOWN AT THE MOMENT? UH, I WOULD SAY IT'S AN UNKNOWN AT THE MOMENT.
UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DENSITY THROUGH SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, SF THREE, SF SIX, AND THEN MF THREE.
AND FOR SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT FOR MF THREE OR ANYWHERE BETWEEN 1200 TO 1800 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT, WHICH IS HOW WE ARRIVE AT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CALCULATED NUMBER OF 13.
SO THAT'S MORE OR LESS, THAT'S MORE WHAT'S DRIVING THE REQUEST.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE BUILDING COVER, UM, ALLOWANCE DOES HELP A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, BUT WITHOUT PULLING, DOING A FULL SITE ANALYSIS AT THIS TIME, I JUST, I CAN'T REALLY SAY IF WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FULL, UH, 55% OF BUILDING COVER OR 65% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH THIS PROJECT.
I APPRECIATE THAT MISS, MISS AND THANK YOU CHAIR.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? OH, COMMISSIONER AL.
UM, I HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN STUFF FOR STAFF.
UM, DID WE HAVE, I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER COX PULLING THIS OUT.
IS, IS THE FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION INCLUDED IN OUR BACKUP? I, I DON'T THINK I SAW IT IN OUR MATERIALS.
THERE'S A SECTION WITH THE MAPS AND THERE'S A, UH, IMAGERY THAT HAS THE, THE BLUE OUTLINES.
UM, PART OF IT IS, OKAY, IT'S FLOODPLAIN, BUT PART OF IT IS ALSO A CREEK BUFFER.
SO YEAH, THERE'S A IMPORTANT DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT.
UM, I DIDN'T ADD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT 'CAUSE I LEFT THAT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER WHO'S THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON FLOOD PLANE TO TALK ABOUT THAT, UH, IF THEY CHOSE TO IN THEIR SECTION OF THE REPORT.
UM, AND I, I'M GUESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HELP US TONIGHT.
SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH IS IF WE'RE PERMITTING THINGS IN THE FEMA FLOOD FLOODPLAINS THAT FEMA HAS THE DISCRETION NOT TO INSURE ON THAT.
IS THAT OR NOT TO COVER IN THE CASE OF LOSSES, I THINK YOU'RE ENTERING AN AREA WHERE I'M NOT COMFORTABLE AS A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.
WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOLKS HERE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT IT? SO COMMISSIONER M TOLER, I WANNA CLARIFY THAT ZONING IS NOT A PERMIT.
SO ZONING WOULD JUST BE THE ABILITY TO DO LAND USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON A PROPERTY.
BUT A PERMIT COMES INTO THE PHASE OF WHEN SITE PLAN REVIEW OR SUBDIVISION REVIEW.
THOSE ARE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED PERMITS FOR A PROPERTY AS TO WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO ON A PROPERTY.
SO WHEN WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT ZONING, WE'RE LOOKING AT A CATEGORY OF USES OR SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DEVELOPED ON A PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.
BUT WE ARE SITTING IN A FLOODPLAIN.
AND THAT FLOOD AND CURRENT WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DURING THE SITE PLAN PHASE OF REVIEW WHEN THEY LOOK AT PERMITING AN ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE DON'T EVEN ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THAT ALONG THE ETJ STUFF.
THEY CAN'T EVEN BUILD, LIKE WE HAD STUFF COME THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, SO I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE WE HAD STUFF COME THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A TEAR DOWN REBUILD, ET CETERA.
BUT, BUT THINGS CAME UP WHEN THAT STUFF WAS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, WE STARTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN.
SO THAT I UNDERSTAND IT SEEMS PRETTY RELEVANT WHAT THE SITE IS APPLICABLE FOR FOR THIS.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT OUGHT TO DISQUALIFY IT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE.
I I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN AND OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN'T BUILD WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THAT THERE ARE SETBACKS FROM THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT THAT AGAIN, WILL BE LOOKED AT IN DETAIL AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN REVIEW.
AND SO THEN THOSE SETBACKS NEED ARE GONNA HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN THE INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER IS GOING TO AFFECT ALL THE OTHER IMPERVIOUS COVER AND ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND AS WELL.
AND SO IF WE'RE ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN IN AN AREA THAT WE KNOW IS HIGH RISK, ARE WE ENDANGERING THE OTHER PROPERTIES AND THEIR FEMA ABILITIES? COMMISSIONER MU I APOLOGIZE, WE'RE AT THE END OF YOUR TIME.
IF THERE'S ANOTHER COMMISSIONER
[00:35:01]
THAT HAS A QUESTION OR WANTS TO PICK UP, UH, COMMISSIONER MU'S, COMMISSIONER WOOD? YEAH, I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE WITH THAT QUESTION.I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ENDANGERMENT BECAUSE WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE ZONING AT THIS POINT.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE ABILITY TO DO USES SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THE SITE.
WE'RE NOT PERMITTING USES ON THE SITE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND OUR, THE COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE FLOOD PLAN ON THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE AS STAFF TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR THIS, WHICH IS WHY WE RECOMMENDED SF SIX BECAUSE SF SIX ZONING IS SOMETHING, IS A ZONING CATEGORY THAT'S MEANT TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF PART OF HOW THE STAFF LOOKED AT THIS SITE.
AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE IS NOT COMPLETELY UNCOVERED BY FLOODPLAIN.
SO IF YOU CLUSTERED THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PORTION OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, IT COULD BE DEVELOPABLE.
BUT THE QUESTION IS, HOW MANY ENTITLEMENTS WILL THE APPLICANT HAVE EITHER SF SIX OR SOME OTHER CATEGORY BASED ON Y'ALL'S RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, TO BE LOOKED AT, UH, AS THEY BUILD THEIR SITE PLAN TO BE LOOKED AT EVEN MORE CLOSELY BY ENVIRONMENTAL AND ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT WILL BE REVIEWING THE SITE PLANNING APPLICATION.
AND CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THAT THE INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT MIGHT BE ALLOWED UNDER NM UNDER MF THREE WOULD NOT, WOULD STILL NOT IMPACT THE, THE ABILITY TO BUILD WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT ONE MORE TIME? SORRY.
UH, CAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT EVEN WITH INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER, THERE IS, YOU ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN ON THIS SITE.
YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD WITHIN THE PORTION OF THE SITE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD? I BELIEVE SO.
I MEAN THAT, THAT WOULD BE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TO SPEAK TO AT SITE PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD ISSUE A PERMIT FOR SOMEBODY TO DEVELOP RIGHT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD WANNA DO THAT EITHER, BUT, UM, YEAH.
CAN I SPEAK TO THIS? THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
SORRY, WHO WAS THAT? I THINK THAT'S MR. THROWER.
UM, WHEN A SITE PLAN IS DONE FOR A PROJECT THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN MODEL THAT'S DONE ABOUT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THEN THE PROJECT'S IMPACT ON THAT FLOODPLAIN.
WE CANNOT IMPACT ANY PROPERTIES UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
NOW THERE'S OPPORTUNITY UNDER THOSE, UH, THAT MODELING IS TO, TO DIG OUT AN AREA OF THE SITE TO FILL IN AN AREA OF THE SITE SO THAT THERE'S NOT AN OVERALL DISPLACEMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN ONTO ANYBODY ELSE AS LONG AS THE HYDRO HYDROLOGIC HYDROLOGIC MODEL WORKS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE ON SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE A FLOODPLAIN ON IT.
WE CAN'T IMPACT ANYBODY, BUT WE, WE CREATE AREAS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN TO ACTUALLY PLACE THE DEVELOPMENT.
OR IN SOME AREAS WE WILL BUILD THE PROJECT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS TO BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE FLOOD.
THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION HAS TO BE TWO FEET OUT OF THE FLOOD PLANKS.
AND UNDER ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS, IT'S A FULLY INSURABLE PROJECT.
THANK YOU, MR. THY, THAT'S HELPFUL.
BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE THREE MORE SPOTS FOR COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
UM, I THINK YOU'VE TOUCHED UPON THIS OR THIS IS A QUESTION FOR APPLICANT.
UH, YOU MENTIONED THE NUMBER OF BUS LINES, AND I'M JUST LOOKING IS THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S A DEVELOPING AREA WITH A LOT OF GOOD CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT AND ALSO, UM, WHERE WE ARE SEEING SOME ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT.
UH, COULD YOU SPEAK TO SORT OF HOW THIS AREA IS CHANGING AND WHY THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD PROJECT AT A HIGHER DENSITY? RON THROWER, AGAIN, I MEAN WE, WE HAD REZONED THE PROPERTY BACK BEHIND SF SIX, UH, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO.
WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WENT THROUGH A LONG PROCESS TO GET THERE.
THERE IS DENSITY BEING ADDED TO THE AREA.
SPRINGDALE AND TANA HILL ROADS BOTH HAVE A GREAT NORTH SOUTH ROUTES.
HEFLIN HAS AN EAST WEST ROUTE THROUGH RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE, A HUNDRED SEVENTY 5,000, UH, RIDERS A MONTH GO ON ALL OF THESE ROUTES IN THIS AREA.
THERE'S FIVE DIFFERENT BUS ROUTES.
UM, THE AREA IS DEFINITELY IN TRANSITION TRYING TO GET SOME DENSITY IN THE AREA.
AGAIN, PROMOTING TRANSIT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
Y'ALL KNOW WHERE I STAND ON THAT.
UM, AND THEN A RELATED QUESTION, PERHAPS APPSCAN AND, AND OR STAFF, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF THIS, UH, WAS SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO ONE OF THE KEY CORRIDOR, WE MIGHT BE AUTOMATICALLY MIGHT BE IN CONSENT AND WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT MF SIX OR EVEN HIGHER.
SO IS THE ISSUE HERE REALLY THAT IT'S IN THAT INNER RESIDENTIAL STREET? IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? I DUNNO WHO IN, I'LL LET RON, UH, ANSWER THAT FIRST.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO REPEAT
[00:40:01]
THE QUESTION.JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT SEEMS HAVING, AGAIN, LOOKED AT THIS TO THE POINT THAT YOU JUST MADE, THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MAJOR EAST, WEST AND NORTH SOUTH CORRIDORS IN THIS DIRECT AREA.
HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET, WHICH SEEMS TO BE PLAYING INTO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOWER DENSITY VERSUS GOING FOR A HIGHER ENTITLEMENT.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? WELL, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT AGAIN, THE PROXIMITY TO BOTH OF THE MAJOR ROUTES ON SPRINGDALE AND WEAVERVILLE ROAD, UM, LEND ITSELF TO HAVE GREATER TRANSIT OPTIONS AND GREATER DENSITY IN THE AREA ONLY HELPS THAT SITUATION.
NOT EVERY PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING ALONG THOSE CORRIDORS THAT CAN ACTUALLY PROMOTE DENSITY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA JUST NORTH OF HEIN ON WEAVERVILLE, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
IT'S GONNA FOREVER BE A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
SO AGAIN, JUST ADDING A LITTLE BIT OF DENSITY HERE AND THERE HELPS.
WE GOT SF SIX THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND MF IS A GOOD TRANSITION OUT TO THE ROADWAY IN FRONT OF THAT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UH, QUESTION FOR, UH, MS. HASI OR, OR MR. THROWER? UM, FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
UM, AND, AND IN THE BACKUP, I NOTED THAT, UH, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT, THAT YOU SAY THE REASON THAT YOU WANT THE MORE DENSITY IS, IS YOU WANNA PROVIDE, UH, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
AND SO MY QUESTION, I I THINK COMMISSIONER ZA WAS SPEAKING TO THIS, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND STRAIGHT TO THE QUESTION.
UM, ARE Y'ALL WILLING TO COMMIT TO, UM, UM, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING OR, UM, LOWERING, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ON THIS PROPERTY? IF WE GIVE YOU THE HIGHER DENSITY? I THINK THAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT MF THREE IS A MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPE.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S CHANCE HERE THAT WE COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE MF THREE DENSITY.
UM, AND IT MAY BE CLOSER TO MF TWO, BUT, UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA KNOW UNTIL WE GET INTO THE SITE PLAN STAGE.
BUT WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU AGREE TO, TO DO, UM, 80% MFI ONE UNIT COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE'RE, WE CAN TALK, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS, UH, THAT AS A CONDITION OF ZONING ZONING, UM, ZONING.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO TO PROVIDE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING? MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING COMES IN FORM.
UM, AND THAT CAN STRETCH ANYWHERE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ALL THE WAY UP TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY ALONG THE CORRIDORS, BUT EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE THERE IS MISSING MIDDLE.
THERE'S NOT AN, A INCOME BRACKET THAT WE MUST MEET TO PROVIDE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
AND I'LL JUST POINT TO THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, THE ECONOMICS TO BUILD THIS PROJECT OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN ARE GOING TO HAMPER THE ABILITY TO GO THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO, BUT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT, UM, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I GUESS WE CAN TALK TO THE CLIENT ABOUT.
BUT ALL, ALL OF THESE UNIT, AS OF RIGHT NOW, ALL OF THESE UNITS WILL BE MARKET-BASED UNITS AS OF RIGHT NOW, YES.
WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT OR WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UM, YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, HAVE YOU EXAMINED WHAT, UH, YOU'D BE ABLE TO BE ENTITLED TO BUILD UNDER EITHER MF THREE OR SF SIX ZONING? LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OPTIONAL BONUS PROGRAMS THE CITY HAS, PARTICULARLY THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM? NO, WE, WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.
UM, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE AFFORDABLE PROJECTS THAT YOU SEE COME FORWARD ARE LARGER PROJECTS.
UM, AND WITH EVERYTHING GOING FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT, I'M, I'M, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED.
WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO THE CLIENT ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE NOT CONSIDERED, UM, THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT.
[00:45:01]
THANK YOU.UM, CHAIR, I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL SECOND THAT POINT OF ORDER.
I THINK WE NEED TO SPECIFY FOR BOTH THE ZONING AND THE NPA.
THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS FOR THAT, UH, REMINDER.
YES, THIS WOULD BE BOTH FOR THE NPA ITEM AND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THESE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION? SURE.
UM, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT.
I, I THINK REALLY AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, I THINK I, I THINK QUESTIONS AROUND THE, AND OTHER THINGS, I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT.
AND WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THAT WILL BE HANDLED AS THIS GOES TO, UM, THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
BUT I JUST WANNA SAY, LOOKING AROUND AT THE ZONING AROUND IT, REALLY, THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT IS WITHIN HIGHER THAN SORT OF THAT SF ZONES.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS, MAKES APPROPRIATE SENSE TO PUT IT HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT HEFLIN DOES HAVE A TRANSIT ROUTE ON IT, BUT IT IS STILL NOT ONE OF OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS IN OUR CITY.
IT'S NOT LIKE SPRINGDALE, IT'S NOT LIKE AIRPORT.
IT'S NOT LIKE MLK, WHICH ARE SLIGHTLY DISTINCT.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER 18 COMES HERE, WHICH IS STILL ON A BUS ROUTE THAT COMES EVERY 30 MINUTES.
SO I GUESS WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT KIND OF APPROPRIATENESS MAKES SENSE HERE.
I WILL SAY THAT I THINK SF SIX ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO STILL CONSIDER DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRODUCTS LOOKING AT DOWN HOMES OR MISSING MIDDLE VARIETY.
I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK IF I HAD MORE CLARITY ON WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS TRYING TO CREATE AND IF REALLY THE NEED FOR MF THREE WAS THAT THEY WANTED TO CREATE A MORE, UM, SINGLE FAMILY STYLE PRODUCT, BUT NEEDED SOME DENSITY CONTROLS AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, BUT NOT HAVING THAT INFORMATION AT THIS TIME, I REALLY DO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE GOING AHEAD WITH MF THREE AND I THINK STAFF MAKES A RIGHT RECOMMENDATION OF GOING TO SF SIX IN THIS CASE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION FOR RA RAMIREZ? I JUST WANNA ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR SAID.
ALSO, THE BUS ROUTE IS ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION, SO IT'S NOT GOING IN TWO DIRECTIONS, SO IT REALLY DOESN'T GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT THINK.
SO I, YES, I SUPPORT, UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THERE SPEAKING.
OH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, OH, SORRY.
UH, COMMISSIONER MUTAL SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
I, I DO, UM, THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER THE FLOODPLAIN ZONING AND THOSE THINGS.
UM, UH, PARTICULARLY AS WE LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES AND APPROPRIATE PLACES TO INCREASE DENSITY.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT ON ONE OF OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS, PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN.
WE DON'T PUT MAJOR CORRIDORS ON OUR FLOODPLAINS KNOWINGLY.
AND SO, AND WHEN THE WATER MOVES, WE CAN DIVERT A BIT AND THAT KIND OF THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT PUTS THE OTHER PROPERTIES AT RISK.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENGINEERING AND ALL THAT HAPPENS AT SITE PLAN, BUT YOU CAN'T AVOID THAT
SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT, ESPECIALLY AS WE LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES ON WHERE TO PUT OUR GOOD DENSITY AND, AND DO THAT.
WE KNOW WE HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. WE KNOW COUNCIL'S BRINGING FORWARD BONDS ON CLIMATE EQUITY AND SO I, I DO THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER CZAR'S MOTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEMS FIVE AND SIX, SECONDED BY MYSELF.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO NUMBER
[8. Rezoning: C14-2023-0096 - Ben White Boulevard Medical Office; District 3 ]
EIGHT.NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON YOUR AGENDA.
BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE, WHICH IS LOCATED AT JAMES 4,007 JAMES CASEY STREET.
UM, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS CASE WAS PRESENTED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, SO I'LL BE PROVIDING A BRIEF OVERVIEW THIS EVENING.
UM, THE SUBJECT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 6.3 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY ZONE GR THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A NP.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE
[00:50:01]
BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A MP FOR A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICES.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL 136,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE FOR A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 194,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE ON THE SITE.
THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT WILL ALLOW MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT THE FLEXIBILITY TO ACHIEVE UP TO A HUNDRED, 120 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT C-H-P-D-A-N-P-A COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY SERVICES, CH ZONING DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION SINCE WEST BEND WHITE BOULEVARD IS A SPECIFIED HIGHWAY CORRIDOR THAT ALLOWS FOR CH ZONING.
THEREFORE MEDICAL OFFICE USE ALONG THE HIGHWAY CAN BE PROVIDED TO HELP SUPPORT MEDICAL SERVICES AT A REGIONAL SCALE.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, MR. WHALEN.
MR. WHALEN, UM, IS, UM, APRIL PRESENT? YES.
UM, MR. WAYLON WILL HAVE NINE MINUTES.
UM, MICHAEL WHALEN, I'M I'M GONNA GO FAST 'CAUSE I THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS ONCE BEFORE.
UH, FIRST I WANNA CONFIRM THAT YOU CAN HEAR.
UM, UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING AND FOR HEARING ME OUT ON ROUND TWO OF THIS PRESENTATION.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR AV TEAM FOR MAKING SURE WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT ENSURE THIS HEARING IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
AS YOU RECALL FROM THE LAST MEETING, OUR PROJECT IS THE BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT AT 4,007 JAMES CASEY STREET.
IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE ARE SEEKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM G-R-V-N-P TO C-H-P-D-A-M-P TO FACILITATE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IN SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE EXISTING MOB WAS BUILT BACK IN 1983 AND THIS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD ADD APPROXIMATELY 136,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE TO THE SITE FOR A NEW TOTAL OF 194,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE C-H-P-D-A ZONING ALLOWS US TO BUILD HIGHER THAN 60 FEET WHILE MODIFYING TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACK AND LOT WITH STANDARDS UNDER THE EXISTING GR ZONING.
WE ARE SEEKING CH ZONING FOR THIS SITE, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN ITS LOCATION ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 71, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS BEN WHITE BOULEVARD.
IF APPROVED, THIS PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN MODERNIZED AND EXPANDED HEALTHCARE OPTIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIGNATED HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND IT WOULD ADVANCE COUNCIL DIRECTION AND PLANNING POLICIES THAT SEEK TO PLACE HEIGHT AND DENSITY ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS.
THIS IS A LOCATION MAP WITH THE MOB SITE IN BLUE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY ABUTS BEN WHITE TO AND TO THE LEFT ACROSS JAMES CASEY IS THE ST.
DAVID'S HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS THE SOUTH AUSTIN MEDICAL CENTER.
TODAY, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE 19 83 2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING SITTING BACK BEHIND THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE PROPERTY IS IN THE SOUTH AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, WHICH INCLUDES THE SOUTH MENCHACA NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, AND I BELIEVE YOU'LL HEAR FROM MR. COLLINS, WHO'S FROM THE CONTACT TEAM IN A MOMENT.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 20 14, 10 YEARS AGO, DESIGNATED THE AREA IN BALLOU AS THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF THE MOB SITE IS THE HOSPITAL WHICH REACHES A HEIGHT, UH, AS TALL AS 120 FEET.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT SAYING THAT IT RECOGNIZES THE UNIQUE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS OF A MAJOR MEDICAL CENTER AND RELATED MEDICAL OFFICES AND BUSINESSES.
COUNCIL HAS SUPPORTED DENSITY AND HEIGHT ALONG OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS.
AS I STATED EARLIER, C-H-P-D-A ZONING WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD ABOVE THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT SET BY THE EXISTING GR ZONING, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING US TO MAINTAIN THE LESS RESTRICTIVE GR SETBACK AND LOT WITH STANDARDS ON THE SCREEN.
YOU CAN SEE IN RED THE AMOUNT OF LAND WE WOULD LOSE UNDER CH SETBACKS, WHICH IS MEANINGFUL.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE'S FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION GIVES IT A SOUTHERN LOT WIDTH OF ABOUT 50 FEET.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT FLAG, THERE ISN'T ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE FLAG.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS ALL PUSHED UP AGAINST BEN WHITE AND JAMES CASEY AND THE OTHER BUILDING, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST.
THIS IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF SOME KEY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BOTH CH AND GR WITH THE FLAG LOTT IN MIND, YOU'LL SEE THE CH ZONING REQUIRES A HUNDRED FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH, WHICH WE SIMPLY CANNOT ACHIEVE BECAUSE OF THAT FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION.
YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT THE CH REQUIRES SOME OF THE LARGEST SETBACKS OF ANY ZONING.
GR SETBACKS ALLOW US TO BUILD CLOSER
[00:55:01]
TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY.AND IF WE CAN GO BACK ONE SLIDE, I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT THERE'S NO BUILDING ON THAT FLAG.
SO THIS SIMPLY ALLOWS US TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE, THE LINES THAT ARE ON E EAST BEND WHITE ON JAMES CASEY, AND THEN ADJACENT TO THE OTHER TWO, UH, UH, BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE, UH, NEXT TO US.
IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH CH AS A ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS STRUCTURED TO GIVE YOU MORE HEIGHT IN EXCHANGE FOR LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO IF YOU ARE OVER 80%, BUT UNDER 85% IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 60 FEET OF HEIGHT.
AND IF YOU LOWER YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER BETWEEN 75 AND 80%, YOU CAN ACHIEVE 80 FEET OF HEIGHT.
AND THEN AGAIN, IF IT'S BETWEEN 70 AND 75%, YOU CAN BUILD UP TO A HUNDRED FEET AND SO ON AND SO ON.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT UNDER GR IS 60 FEET AND YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO THAT BOTTOM LINE THERE, 85% TO GET TO 65 FEET, EXCUSE ME, 60 FEET UNDER CH 90%, UH, IN GR UM, THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER, AGAIN ALLOWED UNDER CH IS ONLY 85%.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS, UH, CH ENCOURAGES LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, JUST TO CONCLUDE, WE ARE SEEKING TO REDEVELOP THE 40-YEAR-OLD TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE REDEVELOPMENT WILL YIELD ALMOST 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW MEDICAL OFFICES AND FACILITIES THAT CAN BETTER MEET OUR COMMUNITIES GROWING AND EVOLVING MEDICAL NEEDS.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS DESIGNATED HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND IT COMPLIMENTS THE ADJACENT ST.
AND THE FLEXIBILITY OFFERED WITH C-H-P-D-A-N-P ZONING IS NEEDED TO BUILD ABOVE 60 FEET WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING GR SETBACKS AND LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS.
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND, UH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AFTER MR. COLLINS SPEAKS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. COLLINS.
MR. COLLINS, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
I CHAIR THE SOUTH MINCHA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE ANY OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS YOU SEE IN OUR EXHIBIT A SINCE YOU LAST HEARD FROM ME ON JANUARY 23RD.
SO I'LL CONTINUE MY EXPLICATION OF WHAT I REFERRED TO THEN AS A SMORGASBORD OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
TONIGHT I'LL START WITH A MORE GENEROUS COMMUNITY BENEFIT, REDUCED RENT FOR SPACE IN ST.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX FOR ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS CENTRAL HEALTH AND INTEGRAL CARE TWO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH PROVIDE RESPITE CARE FOR DISCHARGED HOMELESS PATIENTS WHO ARE PRESENTLY BEING DISCHARGED INTO OUR SOUTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WILL POINT OUT HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS A COMMUNITY CARE CLINIC, SIX 10TH MILE, UH, AWAY, AND INTEGRAL CARE IS THREE AND A HALF MILES AWAY.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE DOES NOT DISCHARGE PATIENTS TO THEM.
SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THE SHORTER DISTANCE FROM THE WEST SIDE OF JAMES CASEY STREET TO THE EAST SIDE MAY HAVE SOME BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON HOSPITAL POLICY REGARDING RESPITE CARE FOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, A RELATED PROBLEM IS THAT ST.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE IS A DATA SILO USING THE EPIC, EPIC EEHR RATHER THAN CENTRAL HEALTH MAP AND ECHOES COORDINATED HOUSING ASSESSMENT.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THIS PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED IN PART IF EMS WOULD TAKE IDENTIFIABLE AND UNINSURED PATIENTS TO ASCENSION, PREVENTING LATER FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHICH CREATE DIFFICULTIES HOUSING PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AS MENTIONED IN OUR EXHIBIT B.
OTHER NEGOTIABLE COMPONENTS OF EXHIBIT A ARE THE MINUSCULE ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF LAB AND X-RAY COSTS FOR FREE PEDIATRIC CARE FOR UNINSURED CHILDREN BY LIRIO PEDIATRICS.
SHADE FOR THE UPCOMING HOT SUMMER STUDENTS.
A GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOUTH AUSTIN CREEK ALLIANCE TO MITIGATE OUR FLOODING PROBLEMS IN SOUTHWOOD AND THROUGHOUT SOUTH AUSTIN, UH, BIKE LANE AND FREE BUS PASSES FOR ST.
[01:00:03]
THANK YOU MR. COLLINS.WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR OUR THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
DAVID'S, UH, HEALTHCARE, UM, I HAVE A LETTER IN THE BACKUP THAT KIND OF OUTLINES SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
I THINK ALL OF Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR, UM, WITH THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION GIVES AWAY, UH, UH, MUCH OF WHICH THE MONEY THAT ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION GETS COMES FROM, UH, ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE OR THE HOSPITAL SIDE OF IT.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THOSE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR AND THE, UH, $4.8 BILLION IN, UM, UH, CHARITY CARE THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED BY ST.
DAVID'S SINCE IT, UH, BEGAN, UH, WHICH COMES OUT TO OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF UNCOMPENSATED CARE YEAR.
DAVID'S AT IT, ITS AT ITS EXPENSE, NOT THE FOUNDATION'S EXPENSE, DOES HAVE HOSPITAL CASE MANAGERS AND SOCIAL WORKERS AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN LOCATION.
AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PATIENT AND THEIR SUPPORT SYSTEM, THEY FACILITATE SERVICES NEEDED TO ASSIST PATIENTS IN TRANSITIONING BACK TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.
UM, THESE CAN INCLUDE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING THE CHURCH IF A PATIENT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS IT, BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THE HOSPITAL CANNOT, UM, DEMAND THAT SOMEBODY GOES SOMEWHERE OR, UH, IMPROPERLY, UH, HOLD SOMEBODY, UH, UH, IN THE HOSPITAL.
SO, UH, HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS, WHETHER IT BE THE $600 MILLION IN TAXES THAT HAVE BEEN PAID BY ST.
DAVID'S OVER THE YEARS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER, UH, MEANINGFUL, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY THAT ST.
DAVID'S IS COMMITTED TO CONTINUING WILL ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY CONTINUE TO DO.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, CAN I GET A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POST VICE-CHAIR ARE IN COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ.
UM, LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR QUESTIONS.
SO I WANNA SAY HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE ST.
DAVID'S AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO AND THEIR CHARITABLE GIVING IN THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THEY DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF UNCOMPENSATED CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT I PERSONALLY RECOGNIZE, UM, IN MY DEALINGS WITH AND ANOTHER BOARD I SERVE ON THE, UM, ECHO BOARD, BUT I I JUST WANTED TO ASK SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE REALLY WHAT I WOULD TERM LOW HANGING FRUIT LIKE, UM, SHADE FOR THE ST.
IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE NEGOTIATED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF, UH, ST.
DAVID'S AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, AND THAT'S TO THE APPLICANT, I GUESS? YEAH.
NO, IT'S THE NO FOR THE APPLICANT FOR ST.
MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
DAVID'S, UH, HAS, AS YOU'VE NOTED, UM, AND I, I DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBER, I JUST LOOKED IT UP.
IT'S $80 MILLION A YEAR FROM ST.
AND, UH, UH, SO THE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO ON THIS ONE BUILDING.
AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE COLLECTIVELY, THE, A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS OPERATING PROFITS IS GOING TO ST.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE WAY IT TRANSLATES BY, UM, INCREASING THIS MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT WILL HELP, I THINK, IN, IN THAT EFFORT.
AND IT'S BEING DONE IN A PLACE RIGHT UP AGAINST HIGHWAY 71 AND JAMES CASEY, AND AWAY FROM, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I THINK, UH, RESPECTS AND HONORS WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZES THIS IS THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, YOU KNOW, MY HOPE IS THAT, UH, THE FOUNDATION WILL CONTINUE TO GROW AS IT HAS.
IT'S, UH, I BELIEVE THE LARGEST, UH, FOUNDATION IN THE UNITED STATES SOLELY, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEALTHCARE, WHICH MAKES IT UNIQUE.
IT, THE, THE FOCUS ON HEALTHCARE AND HEALTHY LIVING IS, IS QUITE UNIQUE, AS YOU WELL KNOW.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. MUELLER?
[01:05:03]
A QUESTION FOR MR. COLLINS, IF HE'S STILL PRESENT.MR. COLLINS IS MAKING HIS WAY TO THE DAIS.
AND OUR AUDIO IS WORKING, WORKING FOR THAT THIS EVENING.
WE'RE GOOD? YES, IT'S DOING WELL.
UM, I THINK LAST TIME YOU WERE IN, YOU SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE FOUNDATION AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE ACTUAL HOSPITAL.
UM, DO YOU, UH, YOU'LL FIND THAT, COULD YOU REMIND US? YES.
COULD YOU PLEASE REMIND US HOW THAT RELATIONSHIP WORKS? YES.
UM, SO THE FOUNDATION, UH, IS NOT MR WELL, FIRST OFF, I ASKED MR. WHELAN AT, IN A CONTACT MEETING WHO HIS CLIENT WAS, AND HE CORRECTLY ANSWERED THAT IT IS ST.
HE HAS NO, THERE ARE NO, UH, THERE IS, THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE FOUNDATION, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
BUT, UH, THE, UH, THE BENEFITS THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT BENEFITS THAT EFFECT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THEY ARE BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, SURELY, AND FOR SOUTH AUSTIN, BUT THEY ARE NOT, UH, NONE, NONE OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE IN EXHIBIT A, UH, WHICH ARE ALL NEGOTIABLE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, ARE, UM, ARE NOT, THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT, UH, BENEFIT US IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH IT.
AND, UH, THERE HAS BEEN NO NEGOTIATION ON, UH, THIS FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION AFTER OUR LAST MEETING FROM NO.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST WANNA CARRY ON THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, UH, WITH MR. WAYLON.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU AND THE, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR CLIENT ARE NOT HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN QUITE A BIT OF FEEDBACK ON? I THINK MR. WHALEN IS MAKING HIS WAY DOWN, AND I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST EXPAND ON THAT QUESTION, MAKE IT A BIT MORE DIRECT WITH THE ZONING CASE.
YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO US HOW THIS ADDITIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE WILL HELP RESOLVE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX, THAT WOULD BE USEFUL.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THE, UH, SO THERE'S A LIST OF ITEMS, IT'S IN YOUR BACKUP STARTING AT PAGE 26.
THINK OF THE STAFF BACKUP, UM, ASKING YES, NO, WHETHER WE'LL DO CERTAIN THINGS.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE DO A RAPID FLASHING BEACON.
UH, AND ONE REASON THAT WE, IT REALLY ISN'T A RESPONSE, AND I THINK WE PUT THIS IN OUR LETTER, I DID DO A RESPONSE LETTER TO THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT.
ONE REASON IS THERE ARE STREET IMPACT FEES THAT ARE ESTIMATED TO BE OVER $2 MILLION.
SO WE KNOW, UH, AND, AND THAT WE INDICATED WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ, 'CAUSE THIS IS IN, UH, THAT DISTRICT ON BEING SURE THAT THOSE FEES ARE USED FOR SOMETHING LIKE, UH, THE FLASHING BEACON.
UM, SPECIFICALLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, 40%, UH, AND I WANTED TO MAKE THIS, I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE IS AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION, BUT PAUSE, 40% OF THE GROSS OPERATING PROFIT FROM ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE GOES TO ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE PAYS PROPERTY TAX.
THERE'S NO, UH, UM, RELIEF FROM PROPERTY TAX IN TERMS OF, UH, THE ENTITIES WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY EXIST THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS
SO, SO, SO LET ME, LET ME, LET ME NARROW THIS DOWN.
'CAUSE BECAUSE I HAVE READ A LOT OF THE BACKUP AND IT'S,
[01:10:01]
IT SOUNDS LIKE A WONDERFUL MARKETING DOCUMENT FOR THE ST.DAVID'S FOUNDATION,
YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE A ZONING CASE THAT WILL EXPAND THIS HOSPITAL SYSTEM IN THIS COMMUNITY.
CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW THIS ZONING CASE AND APPROVING IT BASED ON WHAT YOU WANT, WILL HELP RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BROUGHT UP TO US BASED ON THE PROXIMITY AND THE ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THIS HOSPITAL SYSTEM? WELL, THE ISSUE, THE NEARBY ISSUE THAT I'M HEARING, OR THE NEARBY ISSUES, I GUESS IN THE, UH, DOCUMENT ARE, UM, PROVIDING, UH, FREE, UH, FOLLOW-UP CARE REFERRALS FROM ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE FOR UNINSURED PEDIATRIC PAYMENT PATIENTS.
AND AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE ER, THEY HAVE TO TAKE ON ANYBODY THAT WALKS IN, WHICH THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO, WHICH IS WHAT RESULTS IN THE A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PLUS OF UNCOMPENSATED CARE, AN AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE LAB SERVICES FOR THE PEDIATRICS, UH, THE RIOS PEDIATRICS ENTITY.
UM, AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS AT RIOS TO GO TO ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE, EXCUSE ME, ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION TO, UH, APPLY FOR A GRANT IN ORDER TO GET, UH, THE MONEY NEEDED TO, UM, IF THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THOSE LAB SERVICES.
THAT'S KIND OF THE, I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT THERE'S A PROCESS AND A WAY TO, UM, ENSURE THAT THE BENEFITS THAT ARE GONNA BE OBTAINED THROUGH AN EXPANDED, UH, FOOTPRINT, WHICH WILL, UH, PROBABLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MEDICAL ACTIVITY THAT OCCURS IN THE AREA, UH, IS, IS, UH, SEEN BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT THROUGH THE FOUNDATION GRANT, UM, PROCESS, UH, INCLUDING, I NOTICED THERE'S ALSO AN AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE X-RAY SERVICES AT NO COST TO LEUS PEDIATRICS AS A DEMAND FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS I NOTED, THE EMERGENCY ROOM HAS TO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, TREAT ANYBODY WHO, UH, APPEARS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND PROVIDE THOSE, UH, WELL, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S PER LAW, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL DO.
I MEAN, IS THERE, IS THERE A SPECIFIC ITEM THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, THAT WE SHOULD OFFER? COMMISSIONER KOS, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF YOUR TIME.
IF THERE'S ANOTHER COMMISSIONER THAT WANTS TO PICK UP THE QUESTION.
UM, THIS QUESTION'S FOR APPLICANT AS HE WALKS BACK TO, LET'S SEE.
UM, I WANTED TO SORT OF GET BACK TO SOME BASICS REGARDING THIS SITE, BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE ZONING AND WHERE IT IS LOCATED CURRENTLY AND WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE OF HAVING A NEW MEDICAL FACILITY, WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT AS WELL AS BENEFIT TO THE HOSPITAL AND THE FUNCTIONALITY OVERALL? IT, IT WILL, I MEAN, SO LIKE THERE'S, UM, WE'RE ADDING 134,000 SQUARE FOOT FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.
THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WILL BE, UM, UH, USED BY PRACTITIONERS IN THE AREA WILL BE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, UH, UM, IN PART 51% ANYTHING OWNED BY ST.
DAVID'S HEALTHCARE, ANY MONEY, ANY GROSS OPERATING PROFITS THAT ARE ACHIEVED FROM AN EXPANDED FOOTPRINT, 134,000 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WILL GO INTO THAT ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION, UM, UH, UH, ENTITY THAT WE'VE BEEN DESCRIBING AND DISCUSSING IN THE COMMISSION, OR, UM, PHILLIPS HAS SOME DIRECT EXPERIENCE FROM OTHER BOARD SERVICE WITH.
UM, SO I THINK CLEARLY THERE'S THAT DIRECT RELATIONSHIP.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LOCATION, UH, IN TERMS OF A LAND PLANNING CONCEPT, IT JUST, IT APPEARS TO BE BASED ON EVERYTHING I'VE READ, THAT'S BEEN, UM, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE.
UM, AND A RELATED QUESTION TO THAT, UM, WE KNOW THAT THAT SOUTH AUSTIN HOSPITAL, UNFORTUNATELY, HAS SEEN A LOT OF UNDERINVESTMENT OVER THE YEARS, AND THERE HAS BEEN RECENTLY SEVERAL UPGRADES MADE, INCLUDING COMING TO THE SITE AND BUILDING THE NEW MEDICAL OFFICES.
SO THIS IS PART OF AN OVERALL REAL REVITALIZATION OF THE SITE, IS THAT CORRECT? IT, IT IS.
SO, UH, IT'S A LANDLOCKED SITE MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE FOR AN EXPANDING POPULATION.
UH, ST DAVID'S MADE A COMMITMENT LAST YEAR TO INVEST A BILLION DOLLARS IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN, UH, CENTRAL TEXAS.
PART OF THAT IS A WOMEN'S TOWER THAT'LL BE BUILT AT ST.
DAVID'S SOUTH IN THE SOUTH AUSTIN CAMPUS ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THIS IS ALSO PART OF THAT EFFORT IN ADDITION TO, UH, HOSPITALS IN, UM, UH, KYLE AND SOME OTHER, IN, IN SOME OTHER AREAS THAT ARE, ARE BEING, UH, EVALUATED AND INVESTIGATED.
BUT, UH, OH, AND THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL, EXCUSE ME, THAT THE FIRST ONE OF ITS, UH, FIRST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
[01:15:01]
IN OVER 30 YEARS BEING BUILT IN NORTH AUSTIN.SO, I MEAN, MEANINGFUL INVESTMENT IN, UH, IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE.
AND, UM, JUST TO CLOSE OUT HERE, THE, THE SITE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IS CURRENTLY SIGNIFICANTLY COVERED WITH SURFACE PARKING, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE EVEN NEXT TO A HIGHWAY.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE ARE GETTING SOME ACTUAL SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF THINGS LIKE IMPERVIOUS COVER, FLOOD.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GETTING A BIKE LANE.
MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.
IT'LL BE, I THINK WE FALL BELOW 70% IMPERVIOUS.
WE FALL BELOW, WE'RE GETTING 70% OR, OR BELOW PLUS OR MINUS.
IT'LL BE, WE'RE GONNA MEANINGFULLY REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, UH, I KNOW PEOPLE HERE DON'T LOVE PARKING, I GET IT.
BUT PEOPLE STILL, WHEN THEY GO TO A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, WIND UP DRIVE.
AND SO WE WILL HAVE A GARAGE INSTEAD OF ALL THAT SURFACE PARKING LOT.
AND, UH, AND THEN TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, UM, UH, AS WELL.
IN FACT, THE SITE PLAN'S ALREADY IN, UH, FOR THIS.
UM, THIS IS VERY ACCESSIBLE BY TRANSIT AND OTHER OPTIONS, INCLUDING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEW BIKE LANE.
SO THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL ACCESS TO THIS AREA.
I MEAN, IT IS, IT IS THE BUSIEST EMERGENCY ROOM IN CENTRAL TEXAS, PERIOD, END OF STATEMENT.
IT'S JUST, IT JUST IS GIVEN ITS LOCATION ON 71 BETWEEN I 35 AND MOPAC.
QUESTIONS IF NO QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? YES.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND, UM, I INVITE, INVITE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I, I, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THE, LOOKING AT THE, WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, TO DO GREATER GOOD TO THE ENTIRE, NOT JUST SOUTH AUSTIN COMMUNITY, BUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
I DO WISH AT LEAST THEY WOULD LANDSCAPE THE SOCCER FIELD
ELMO'S AND PUT THEIR SIGN UP THERE.
BUT I, I THINK THAT THERE IS A GREATER GOOD HERE.
SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? SPEAKING FOR I CHAIR? OH, I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS A HUGE, AS YOU MAY HAVE TOLD FROM THE, UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CLOSEST HOSPITAL TO MY HOUSE.
AND, UM, THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES WHERE WE HAVE NOT USED THIS FACILITY JUST BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CHRONICALLY UNDER-INVESTED TO.
SO TO SEE NEW MEDICAL FACILITIES COMING IN, THAT WILL BE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE FOR THE DISTRICT AND FOR THE AREA IS TO ME, VERY EXCITING AND SHOULD ABSOLUTELY SEE APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSION.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST VICE CHAIR? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST, UM, WANTED TO THANK OUR SPEAKER FOR COMING IN TWICE.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT TO ASK FOR YOU TO COME TO TWO MEETINGS.
UM, WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT BEING FLEXIBLE WITH US TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THE PROPER RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE ALL FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
SO I JUST REALLY WANTED TO THANK YOU, SIR, FOR BEING HERE AND FOR SHARING YOUR, UM, YOUR COMMENTS WITH US.
I'VE GOT SPOTS OPEN FOR THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST, OTHERWISE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS FOR THE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR IS UNANIMOUS.
DO WE, WE CAN KEEP MOVING, RIGHT? OKAY.
[18. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-044 - Density Bonus Zoning District ]
OUR, UH, NUMBER 18 DISCUSSION ITEM.THIS IS THE LDC AMENDMENT AND, UH, CHAIR, UH, JUST, UH, BEAR WITH ME.
WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
UM, COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ONLINE, CAN YOU COME BACK ON? WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED AGAIN.
WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A LONGER BREAK.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON FOLKS, I JUST HAVE A NOTE FOR STAFF TO SAY THAT ON THE LAST MOTION, WE JUST WANNA, UM, MAKE A NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER AL WAS OFF THE DA OH, AND I DO WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT EXOFFICIO, UM,
[01:20:01]
CHAIR COHEN IS, UH, IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT.WE CAN GET STARTED DEPARTMENT.
AND I'M HERE TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON CASE NUMBER C 2 0 20 23 0 4 4, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, MY COLLEAGUE PAUL BOOKS IS ALSO PRESENT TODAY, AND HE AND I, ALONG WITH OTHERS, HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS DENSITY BONUS DISTRICT IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL RESOLUTION 20 24 0 2 0 1 0 2 6.
AND WE ALSO HAVE STAFF PRESENT HERE FROM PLANNING HOUSING DSD AND OTHER STAFF ASSIST IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA BEGIN WITH SOME BACKGROUND, AND I'LL SAY THIS PART A LITTLE SLOWLY.
SO, IN 2006, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE VERTICAL MIXED USE OVERLAY AND ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REDUCED MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
PROCESSES AND STANDARDS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED SEVERAL TIMES BETWEEN 2006 AND 2013.
IN 2021 AMENDMENTS TO THE VMU OVERLAY, INCLUDING THE CREATION OF A SECOND TIER BONUS PROGRAM, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS VM U2 WERE INITIATED IN JUNE OF 2022, COUNCIL ADOPTED THESE CHANGES THAT INCLUDED THE NEW TIER OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT ALLOWED FOR AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT 30 FEET IN HEIGHT BEYOND THE BASE ZONE STANDARD.
IN DECEMBER OF 2023, THIS CHANGE, AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHERS WERE INVALIDATED.
AND IN JANUARY OF 2024, COUNCIL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO CREATE A NEW DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM RESEMBLING THE VM U2 STANDARDS.
AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.
SO, UM, JUST GO BACK REAL QUICKLY.
SO, JUST REAL QUICKLY IN THE BACKGROUND, I JUST WANNA REITERATE, IN 2021, COUNSEL INITIATED VM U2 AND 2022, JUNE OF 2022, COUNCIL CREATED THE NEW TIER, UM, AND THAT WAS VV TWO, WHICH ALLOWED A MAXIMUM 90 FEET IN HEIGHT AND, UM, OR 30 FEET BEYOND THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THAT VENUE TWO ORDINANCE WAS IN PLACE UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2023.
AND WHAT WE ARE HERE TODAY, NOT TO CREATE A PRO NEW PROGRAM, BUT TO REESTABLISH PER THE COURT A NEW FRAMEWORK, UM, WHICH MIRRORS VM U2, AND THAT IS WHAT'S CALLED DB 90.
UM, UM, SO AGAIN, I SPOKE TO THE RESOLUTION NUMBER THAT COUNSEL CREATED, AND IT GAVE DIRECTION TO MIRROR THE VM U2 STANDARDS.
AND SO FOR RENTAL, THAT'S 10% OF UNITS SET ASIDE AFFORDABLE TO 50% MEDIUM INCOME MFI OR 12% OF UNITS SET ASIDE AFFORDABLE AT 60% MFI.
AND THAT'S FOR 40 YEARS FOR RENTAL AND FOR OWNERSHIP, IT'S 12% OF OWNERSHIP UNITS SET ASIDE, AFFORDABLE AT 80% MFI, AND THAT IS 99 YEARS.
UM, THIS ALLOWS, AGAIN, THIS ALLOWS DEVELOPMENTS THAT PROVIDE ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR 30 FEET OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UP TO 90 FEET IN TOTAL HEIGHT.
AND SO WE'RE HERE AT THE PROCESS.
SO STAFF IS HERE NOW REQUESTING TO CREATE A PAPER DISTRICT AT DB 90.
AGAIN, THIS IS PER COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
THERE'S NO ZONING CHANGE PROPOSED RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME.
IF THE PAPER DISTRICT IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, AND IF THE, AND IF A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO REZONE TO DEVELOP TO THIS DENSITY BONUS, THE OWNER CAN OF COURSE COMPLETE AN APPLICATION FOR THAT REZONING REQUEST.
AND THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE STANDARD REZONING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD, WHICH INCLUDES NOTICE BRIEFING AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE APPLICABLE COMMISSION.
AND THEN COUNSEL WOULD MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET CAN THE REZONING.
AND, AND I'LL HAVE, UM, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THIS.
THE PROPOSED DB 90 PAPER DISTRICT MAY BE COMBINED WITH CERTAIN BASED ZONING DISTRICTS.
A LIST OF APPLICABLE BASED DISTRICTS IS SHOWN ON THIS CURRENT SLIDE, AND I'LL HAVE A SLIDE FURTHER DOWN THAT KIND OF ILLUSTRATES THIS BETTER.
UM, THE AFFORDABILITY AND MIXED USE REQUIREMENTS ARE UNCHANGED FROM STANDARDS IN VM U2.
WE DISCUSSED THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS BEFORE, AND YOU CAN SEE THEM ON THIS SLIDE.
THE PROPOSED DB 90 STANDARDS PROVIDED EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND AGAIN, THE BONUS ALLOWS FOR UP TO 30
[01:25:01]
FEET OF IN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FROM THE BASE ZONE UP TO MAXIMUM A 90 FEET.UM, THIS IS THE SLIDE I SPOKE TO.
AND THIS EXAMPLE, YOUR CS IS YOUR BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
MU DB 90 CO NMP ARE EXAMPLES OF COMBINING DISTRICTS.
SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD BE A ZONING STRING.
UM, UM, IF DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT IS ADOPTED, AND, UM, ON THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE BASED ZONING DISTRICTS, AGAIN, UM, IMPER COVER IS NOT CHANGED.
AND AGAIN, UM, YOU CAN, UM, GET UP TO 30 FEET OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UP TO 90 FEET.
UM, SO CHANGES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18.
WHILE YOU ARE NOT POSTED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, STAFF PROVIDED THIS ORDINANCE FOR CONTEXT PURPOSES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2023 BRIEFING TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE.
THE SEPARATE AND REDUNDANT APPLICATION PROCESSES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAMS LED TO CONFUSION FOR STAFF AND APPLICANTS CONSOLIDATING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESSES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18 WILL IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF ALL DENSITY.
BONUS PROGRAMS. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESSES INCLUDE A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE, CERTIFICATION PROCESS, GENERAL PROVISIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR SITES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND A PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.
THESE PROVISIONS ARE INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND LESS SPECIFIED.
UM, SO THIS IMPACT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM SLIDE, UM, DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE PART OF THE CITY'S HOLISTIC APPROACH TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCLUDING THE PRODUCTION OF MARKET RATE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS WELL AS THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING UNITS, VOTERS, BONUS PROGRAMS, PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TOOLS FOR DELIVERING HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO 60 TO 80% MFI.
AND THEN, UM, AS STATED NC PROGRAM, THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE CON CRITICAL TO ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT.
AND FOR SUIT OF THESE GOALS, BONUS PROGRAMS CREATE MIXED USE AND MIXED INCOME COMMUNITIES BRINGING POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
THE EXISTING VMU PROGRAM HAS DELIVERED OVER 17,500 HOUSING UNITS WITH OVER 2,500 OF THOSE BEING INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS, MAKING IT ONE OF THE CITY'S MOST EFFECTIVE TOOLS AND ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, SO AS STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, THE CREATION OF THE DENSITY BONUS ZONING DISTRICT AND FUTURE ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18, UM, WE WILL BE TALKING, UM, AND HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO COUNCIL ABOUT, UM, ADDITIONAL, UM, TIERS FOR DENSITY BONUS.
AND ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS WAIVERS FROM FEES ASSOCIATED WITH REZONING APPLICATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE VMU OVERLAY OR WITH A SITE PLAN IN REVIEW THAT WERE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE INVALIDATION.
SO WE'RE HERE TODAY, UM, AND WE WILL BE ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 29TH.
COUNCIL DID DO THE SET, UM, AND APPROVED TO CONDUCT THE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 29TH.
AND, UM, LASTLY, YOU CAN CONTACT PAUL BOOKS OR ME IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
I'LL JUST SAY PAUL BOOKS FOR NOW.
YOU HAVE TAKE EITHER OF US AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL STAFF HERE, UM, THAT, UM, YOU'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO REACH OUT TO.
DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, SPEAKERS.
MS. EPSTEIN, IF Y'ALL PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
MS. EPSTEIN, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF ONLINE.
UH, MS. EPSTEIN, IF YOU PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR PHONE.
UM, I'M COMMENTING HERE THIS EVENING BECAUSE AS A LONGTIME RESIDENT IN THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M CONCERNED THAT YOUR DENSITY BONUS PLAN WON'T WORK.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL KEEP TELLING US THAT IF WE JUST DENSIFY HOUSING WILL BE MORE AFFORDABLE.
WE NEVER SEE THE PROOF OF THAT PROMISE.
WE ALL KNOW THAT AFFORDABILITY IS NOT STRICTLY A
[01:30:01]
QUESTION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, AFFORDABILITY CAN'T BE ACHIEVED.IF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PROPERTY TAXES ALL INCREASE IN THE PAST, AUSTIN LET DEVELOPERS PAY INTO A FUND AND NOT PROVIDE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF YOU REDEVELOP RUNDOWN PARTS OF AUSTIN FIRST THAT TRULY NEED REDEVELOPMENT OR USE THE CITY'S LAND TRUST PROGRAM TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T EVEN FIX OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE YOU IMPOSE A GREATER BURDEN ON IT.
THIS PUSH FOR DENSITY ONLY PUTS MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF PRIVATE EQUITY GROUPS, PRIVATE, EAGER TO BULLDOZE A SWATH OF DESIRABLE CENTRAL AUSTIN REAL ESTATE.
BUT THAT DENSITY WILL IN FACT ELIMINATE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RENTAL SPACE, DISPLACE SENIORS IN PAID FOR HOMES, AND DESTROY WHAT REMAINS OF OUR MATURE URBAN TREE CANOPY.
WE NEVER HEAR A SINGLE WORD ABOUT HOW AUSTIN CAN CONTINUE TO GROW EXPONENTIALLY WHEN WE HAVE A DWINDLING WATER SUPPLY AND LOST 6.9 BILLION GALLONS OF WATER FROM LEAKING WATER PIPES IN 2022, ENOUGH TO FILL LADYBIRD LAKE NEARLY THREE TIMES.
ALL WE HAVE IS AN ONLINE ACTIVE WATER LEAK MAP TODAY.
THERE ARE 23 ACTIVE WATER LEAKS REPORTED ON THE SITE WAITING FOR REPAIR.
BUT THAT WATER LEAK MAP, LIKE YOUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE AND WORK HERE.
WHAT WE NEED IS SOME TRUTH FOR A CHANGE, NOT JUST MORE DEVELOPMENT PR.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
UM, SO I HAVE A MR. PHIL THOMAS REGISTERED, UM, BUT DIDN'T PROVIDE A TELEPHONE NUMBER.
UH, MR. THOMAS, ARE YOU ON THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. THOMAS? OKAY.
WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. BRAD MASSAL.
MR. MASSAL, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, GET MY BIFOCALS IN FOCUS HERE.
UM, I'M HERE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH WHAT I THINK OF AS AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED REVISITED.
I'M ADVOCATING FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THESE AMENDMENTS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN AT A PUBLIC FORM OF SOME KIND, WITH PORTIONS OF THE VMU TWO DESIGNATION BEING STRIPPED AWAY BY THE COURT.
WHAT MAKES THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL? IT'S NOT READILY APPARENT ON THE WEBSITE OR THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET.
THE REVIEW SHEET IS WORDY BUT VAGUE.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE DETAILS BEFORE THIS PROCEEDS TO CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST WANNA SEE IF I HAVE THE HIGHLIGHTS RIGHT.
UM, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED REVISITED IS ON THE AGENDA.
UH, THIS, IT WOULD CREATE DENSITY BONUSES, ZONING DISTRICT OR DB 90 DESIGNATION.
UM, THIS IS, IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTING ISSUE.
IT COULD AFFECT THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF FAR OF OUR FAIR CITY IN WAYS AS PROFOUNDLY AND POTENTIALLY AS THE LOSS OF ZILKER PARK OR BARTON SPRINGS.
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPER, THE PLAN DEVELOPERS WOULD NEED TO COMMIT X AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE EXTRA 30 FEET OF BUILDING HEIGHT AMONGST OTHER CONCESSIONS.
WE AS CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, DON'T REALLY SEEM TO GET MUCH BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR THESE CONCESSIONS.
WE NEED MORE, UH, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THERE ARE TWO ORDINANCES BEING PROPOSED RELATING TO THE VMU AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATIONS RELATING TO WHERE THESE PROJECTS CAN BE LOCATED.
ONE ORDINANCE THAT REINSTATE THE PARTS OF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED THAT WEREN'T OVERRULED BY THE COURT BACK IN DECEMBER.
THE SECOND ORDINANCE IS NOT AS CLEARLY WORDED.
THERE ARE A LOT OF LOT TO UNPACK THERE.
WE NEED SOME KIND OF CITIZEN PARTION PARTICIPATION PORTION ADDED TO THE CITY'S AGENDA BEFORE THIS GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
ON LEAP DAY, A PUBLIC MEETING OR HEARING IS IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THIS DB 90 DESIGNATION, THE TIMING OF THE ORIGINAL ORDERS ORDINANCES MEANT THERE WERE PASSED WITH THE ORIGINAL CITIZEN INPUT DUE TO THE PANDEMIC.
UM, THE TIMING WAS WHEN NOT MANY PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO COME, COME UP HERE AND PARTICIPATE.
UM, WE NEED TO INSIST ON PUBLIC
[01:35:01]
TRANSPARENCY AT THIS POINT, THESE FIVE AND SIX STORY BUILDINGS IN AMONG ONE STORY, TRADITIONAL HOUSES IS NOT APPROPRIATE.WE NEED FIRM GROUND RULES AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC CITIZEN INPUT AND PARTIS, UH, PARTIC PARTICIPATION OPTIONS.
THERE ARE TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CLEVERLY TURNED PHRASES IN THE AMENDMENTS LANGUAGE TO PASS IT AT FACE VALUE.
I'M ASKING Y'ALL TO POSTPONE THIS AND LET THE CITIZENS TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU SEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MARY KAY HENDRICKS.
MS. HENDRICKS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS MARY KAY HENDRICKS.
I LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OLD SOUTH AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 44 PLUS YEARS, ALMOST 45.
I'M SPEAKING THIS EVENING ABOUT CONCERNS THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS HAS REGARDING THE AFFORDABILITY.
UNLOCKED SITE PLAN CHANGES BEFORE ANY DEVELOPERS SUBMITS A SITE PLAN.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE CONSIDERED AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY.
AND THAT IS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS, A WATERSHED REVIEW, BECAUSE WE HAVE A CREEK THAT HAS BEEN DAMMED UP BY THE DEVELOPER ALREADY A TRAFFIC STUDY ASSESSING THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD UNDERSTAND IS FOUR BLOCKS SQUARE, IT'S TWO STREETS THIS WAY, TWO STREETS THAT WAY.
AND FINALLY, A CONSIDERATION OF COMPATIBILITY, BOTH WITH THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU ARE, AS MR. MASSENGILL SAID, A ONE STORY HOUSE NEXT TO A 90 FOOT BEHEMOTH, UH, THERE ARE PROBLEMS. THERE ARE PROBLEMS ALL OVER.
THEY'RE PROBLEMS WITH SUNLIGHT.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH, UM, CONSTRUCTION.
AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CULTURE AND LIFESTYLE OF OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT IS AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD.
MR. MASSING GIL'S HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1910.
MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE THIRTIES AND FORTIES, AND IT'S, IT DOES JUST DOESN'T FIT.
AND WE ARE HERE TO, UM, PLEAD THAT MORE INPUT, PUBLIC INPUT IS DONE ALL OVER THE CITY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE NOT THE ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FEELS THIS WAY ABOUT SOMETHING SO LARGE.
I'LL SEE IF MR. PHILLIPS THOMAS HAS JOINED US.
MR. THOMAS, ARE YOU PRESENT CHAIR? THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAD REQUESTED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAIN OPEN.
UM, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH OUR USUAL PROCEDURE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY, BY CHAIR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WHO'S THE BLANK? OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, IS OFF THE DIOCESE.
LET'S, UH, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY TONIGHT.
UM, SO, UM, QUICK REMINDER ABOUT, UM, THAT CITY STAFF HAS PROVIDED US WITH A DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL CREATE THE FRAMEWORK.
STAFF WILL USE TO PROCESS REQUESTS FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT PRESERVES THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ENSURES THE CITY WILL RECEIVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
THE COMMISSION WILL NEED TO CONFINE ITS MOTION TO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE ENTITLEMENTS PROVIDED BY DB.
[01:40:01]
HOME, OUR AMENDMENTS, UM, FOR THIS ITEM, AND THIS IS GONNA BE MORE SIMPLE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.UM, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, FEBRUARY THE 27TH.
I SEE A SECOND BY, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT MOTION.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I AM, UM, RELUCTANTLY, UH, I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS HERE AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO TAKE THIS UP.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT, AND I MEAN, A LOT OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS, UM, THAT, THAT I'VE, YET, THAT I'VE PROPOSED TO STAFF.
I, I DID SEE MR. RIVERA, THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT NINE MINUTES BEFORE WE MET, UH, A A SERIES OF ANSWERS.
I, I'VE STILL GOT SOME ANSWER OR SOME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE, HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED.
AND UNTIL EVERY COMMISSIONER CAN GET THEIR ANSWERS, UM, UH, IN AN ACCEPTABLE FORMAT, I, I JUST THINK WE'RE RUSHING THIS, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO RUSH IT.
WE HAVE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS AND TIME TO CONSIDER IT THOUGHTFULLY AND THOROUGHLY.
I AND A TWO WEEK, UH, WILL ALLOW STAFF TO GET BACK WITH US.
WE'LL ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE CAN STILL GET THIS PASSED AND LET EVERY PROJECT THAT'S SHOVEL READY, READY TO GO, CAN STILL MOVE FORWARD.
IS THERE ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION OR FOUR, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO I WOULD REALLY SUPPORT COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, WANTING TO POSTPONE THIS.
AND THE REASON WHY MY REASONS ARE SIMILAR, I, I HAD QUESTIONS I DIDN'T EVEN GET MY QUESTIONS IN, IN ON TIME TO EVEN GET ANSWERED.
SOME OF THEM WERE ANSWERED THIS AFTERNOON IN A MEETING WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND, UM, COMMISSIONER AZAR AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UH, AND I EXPRESSED MY HESITATION, AND THEN WHEN I SAID, THIS IS NOT DOING THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS IN THE SUNSHINE WHEN WE GET THIS LIKE ON A THURSDAY, LATE THURSDAY SUPER BOWL WEEKEND, AND I'VE SENT IT OUT TO DIFFERENT FOLKS IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO SEND BACK AND TO GIVE ME SOME INPUT.
AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION, IT WAS REALLY, YOU WANT US TO REVIEW THIS IN THAT SPACE, IN THAT TIME.
UH, AND, AND I, MYSELF, UNFORTUNATELY, AND I'LL ADMIT THIS, WHEN WE WERE SITTING THERE ASKING QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STR PROVISION, ABOUT TENANT PROTECTIONS UNDER VM U2, UM, AND DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE WERE EVEN CHANGING THE NAME TO DB 90, SO I DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS VOTING ON.
I, SO I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON THAT NOW.
LIKE COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I DO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE GETTING THIS.
I THINK THAT THE INTENTION IS GOOD, BUT THIS IS NOT HOW YOU DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS IN SUNSHINE.
THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT IN THE DARK WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT IN A COMPRESSED PERIOD OF TIME.
THAT DOES NOT PERMIT FOR SATURATION OR INPUT OR ENGAGEMENT, ESPECIALLY, AND AGAIN, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THIS FROM ME, COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, MARGINALIZED AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, HOW WE ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YOU KNOW, IN CONSIDERING AND LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF, IT'S BEEN CLEAR THAT THE VMU PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
THERE WAS A LONG AND THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION HAD AROUND VM U2, AND WE PROCEEDED AS A COMMUNITY AS AGREEING TO THOSE RULES.
AND VERY HAPPILY, I WOULD POINT OUT WE HAD MANY COMMISSION MEETINGS WHERE WE WERE EXCITED TO APPROVE VM U2 PROJECTS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT OPTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM US, AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS POINT MEETING, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER PROJECTS WITHOUT THAT TOOL.
AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION, I DO WORRY ABOUT A POSTPONEMENT THAT CONTINUES TO REMOVE A TOOL THAT WE VERY MUCH NEED FROM OUR TOOLBOX AS WE CONSIDER ZONINGS, AND THAT WE ARE LEAVING LITERALLY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF UNITS, INCLUDING THOUSANDS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
[01:45:01]
IN LIMBO AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS.SO, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT TIMELINE AND, UH, EX I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE ARE LITERALLY LOSING HOUSING WEEK BY WEEK BY WAITING.
AND A POSTPONEMENT OF TWO WEEKS MAY NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH, BUT THEN THAT MEANS A POSTPONEMENT COUNCIL AND ADDITIONAL POSTPONEMENT FOR PROJECTS THAT MAYBE END UP IN LIMBO THAT THEY DON'T COME OUT OF.
AND I FRANKLY DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A WORTHWHILE TRADE OFF.
ARE THERE COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, UH, IS HE, I JUST HAVE A POINT OF WHERE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS.
SO IF WE, UM, IF WE DON'T POSTPONE, IF WE TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AMENDMENTS OR WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS AMENDMENTS, OR I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT YES.
SO, UM, THERE WILL BE AN AMENDMENT PROCESS IF, IF IT'S NOT POSTPONED.
UM, COMMISSIONER TEL, THANK YOU.
UM, I GUESS WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT ABLE, ARE WE ABLE TO DISCUSS AT ALL? OR IS IT JUST FOR AND AGAINST AT THIS POINT? IT'S FOR AND AGAINST.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE TO KNOW IF THIS WAS GONNA BUMP COUNSEL.
UM, YOU CAN, YOU CAN ASK A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR SURE.
FOR, UM, UM, OUR LIAISON, RIGHT? HOW DOES POSTPONE TO THE NEXT, I GUESS THAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING TO TAKE IT UP.
UM, DOES THAT BUMP THIS DOWN FOR COUNCIL'S PLAN TO HEAR THIS? YES.
IT WOULD WE NOT TURN THAT AROUND IN A DAY, AND COUNCIL HAS SET THEIR PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 29TH, THAT WAS ON THEIR AGENDA, AND THEY SET THEIR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2020 NINTH.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTPONED, UM, UNTIL THEIR NEXT MEETING, BUT THEN IT WOULD GET RENO.
UM, I, I SAW IN THE, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING.
I, THIS IS A TOOL WE, WE REALLY NEED.
UM, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO GET IT RIGHT THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS.
WE, WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, WHEN PROPER PROCESS DOESN'T, DOESN'T GET FOLLOWED.
UM, AND I THINK IF WE, IF WE GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO MARINATE, I THINK, UH, THE COM OUR PUBLIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE MUCH HAPPIER WITH THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE BEEN KIND OF ASKING FOR A TOOL LIKE THIS.
UM, IT'LL BUMP THINGS A LITTLE BIT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA AFFECT THE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN LOOKING AT THAT WE'VE ALREADY, UM, DISCUSSED THESE WITH, BECAUSE THEY'RE CAPTURED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THIS STILL.
SO IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT THEIR PLANNING AT THIS, AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THERE ARE MAJOR CHANGES AS WE GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
BUT I, I, I THINK THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
WE NEED TO GET THAT PART RIGHT.
I'VE GOT TWO SPOTS, UH, TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
I'LL, I'LL JUST, UM, ECHO THE CONCERN THAT, UM, STAFF HAS ALREADY RAI RAISED AND MS. HARDEN HAS RAISED, WHICH IS REALLY JUST THE ISSUE OF TIMELINE HERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE AND RESPECT WHAT MY COMMISSIONERS ARE SAYING REGARDING, UM, HAVING MORE TIME TO LOOK AT SOME OF THIS.
BUT I ALSO, AT THE SAME TIME, LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US, YOU KNOW, THIS GOES TO COUNCIL ON, ON THE 29TH, THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SET.
SO IF WE POSTPONE IT THIS TIME, IT WILL BE GOING ON THE 27TH, WHICH MEANS THAT ANY, HONESTLY, AT THAT POINT, THAT REALLY LIMITS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANY AMENDMENTS OR WORK THROUGH AN ORDINANCE, BECAUSE STAFF WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN AROUND AND PRESENT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL WITH A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THAT'S ONE REASON I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST IT.
IT'S JUST THAT THE TIMELINE IS TIGHT.
ONE MORE SPOT TO SPEAK AGAINST, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
THE LAST STRAW POLL I DID COUNTED 10,000 HOMES THAT WERE TRYING TO BE BUILT UNDER VM U2.
AND SO I'D MUCH RATHER JUST GET THIS BACK ON THE BOOKS.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A GROUP THAT SUES TO STOP HOUSING, BUT HERE'S OUR CHANCE TO MAKE IT BETTER AND GET THIS TOOL BACK UP AND RUNNING.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
THIS IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27TH.
UM, THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, 2, 3, 4, UH, I SEE FOUR IN FAVOR AND THOSE AGAINST EIGHT, AND THAT IS EIGHT AGAINST.
[01:50:01]
SO I'LL SET UP HOW WE ARE GOING TO, UM, HANDLE OUR Q AND A AND THEN GO THROUGH OUR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THIS EVENING.UM, HOPEFULLY THIS IS FAIRLY SIMPLE.
UM, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE FIVE MINUTES FOR EACH COMMISSIONER TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, SPEAKERS, OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
UM, SO YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES EACH AND EX OFFICIOS CAN DO THE SAME.
THEN WE WILL ESTABLISH THE BASE MOTION, WHICH IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO THE COMMISSIONER WILL PRESENT THEIR AMENDMENT AND PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR ONE MINUTE.
AND A NOTE THAT YOU ARE NOT MAKING A MOTION AT THAT POINT.
THERE WILL BE TWO MINUTES FOR, UH, EACH, FOR FOUR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF SPEAKERS OR THE MOTION MAKER OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
AND THEN THE COMMISSIONER WHO MADE THE AMENDMENT WILL MAKE A MOTION IF THEY WISH TO DO SO.
IF THERE'S A SECOND, WE'LL THEN VOTE ON THAT.
AND IF NOT, THE AMENDMENT DIES ON THE DAS.
LET'S GO INTO, UM, I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE WE'LL EACH HAVE, WELL, WELL, I THINK IT MIGHT BE FRUITFUL THIS WAY IF WE GO WITH THE QUE THE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS AND WANNA START OFF USING THEIR FIVE MINUTES.
AND THEN DID YOU HAVE, AND THEN, THANK YOU.
YEAH, I, A SESSION QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WELL, A A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
ONE RELATED TO, UM, THE CHANGES TO, UH, CODE CHAPTER FOUR DASH 18.
UM, JUST A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THAT OTHER, WHAT'S CURRENTLY A DRAFT ORDINANCE? UH, IF IT'S NOT ON THE SAME TIMELINE AS THE DB 90 ORDINANCE CHURCH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, IT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SAME TIMELINE AND WILL BE ON THE FEBRUARY 29TH AGENDA.
UM, I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO ASK TO CLARIFY, THERE IS A SECTION OF THAT FOUR DASH 18, UH, ORDINANCE, WHICH REFERENCES, UM, WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A, A COMPONENT OF THE CURRENT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED ORDINANCE.
UM, AND I'M PULLING UP MY NOTES RIGHT NOW.
BEAR WITH ME FOR JUST A MOMENT.
UM, IT'S THE SECTION PROPOSED SECTION FOUR DASH 18 DASH 32 EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES.
UM, AS THE DB 90 ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, UH, THIS SECTION WOULD APPLY TO THE DB 90 PROGRAM.
UH, HOWEVER THE CURRENT, OR THE PREVIOUS, EXCUSE ME, VM U2 OVERLAY, WHICH DB 90 IS, UH, INTENDED TO REPLACE, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME PROVISIONS.
SO I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY WAS THIS REFERENCE INCLUDED? WAS IT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED? UH, AND AND HOW IS THAT IN LINE WITH, UH, COUNCIL DIRECTION ON ESSENTIALLY REPLACING VM U2 AS IT WAS, UH, IF YOU'RE NOW ADDING AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT WAS NOT IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE? GOOD EVENING, ERIC LEAK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD IS INTENDED TO REPLACE BOTH VM U2 AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAY THIS ORDINANCE, YOU MEAN THE FOUR DASH 18 ORDINANCE? WELL, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY A COMBINATION OF THE DB 90 ORDINANCE, WHICH REFERS TO THE FOUR DASH 18 ORDINANCE.
UM, AND SO THE, UH, PROVISIONS YOU MENTIONED FOUR 18 DASH 32, UM, THOSE WERE GENERALLY INCLUDED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
AND SO THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THIS PROGRAM AS, UH, FOR CONSISTENCY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND ALSO SO THAT THE PROGRAM WON'T INCENTIVIZE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I GUESS I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CONCERN THAT ADDING YET ANOTHER REQUIREMENT TO THIS DB 90 PROGRAM, WHICH WAS NOT IN THE VM U2 PROGRAM.
I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF NOT WANTING TO INCREASE DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES ON EXISTING, UH, SO-CALLED NATURALLY AFFORDABLE, NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT COULDN'T THIS GO TOO FAR IN THE OTHER DIRECTION AND JUST SIMPLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NEVER USE DB 90 AND INSTEAD OPT FOR MF SIX OR SOMETHING THAT JUST DOESN'T HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT AT ALL,
[01:55:01]
LET ALONE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT THAT EXCEEDS THAT.UM, THAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS VMU TWO PROGRAM.
WE KNOW THAT THIS PROVISION HAS COME INTO PLAY IN SOME AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, UM, DEVELOPMENTS AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROGRAM.
UM, DO YOU WANNA CHIME IN FOR, FOR THAT ONE? YEAH, SO WE LOOKED INTO HOW COMMON THIS PROVISION IS TRIGGERED IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECTS MM-HMM
SO THESE REQUIREMENTS TEND TO STEER, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, PRO APPLICANTS TO OTHER SITES THAT ARE MORE RE RE DEVELOPABLE SUCH AS VACANT LAND OR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS.
I, I SUPPOSE MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN TO, TO PROPOSE A DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE PICKING FROM ANY LAND THAT EXISTS IN THE CITY AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'LL DO THAT SITE.
AND SO IT'S NOT QUITE FAIR IN MY MIND TO SAY THIS WOULD DISCOURAGE THE, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SOME SITES AND ENCOURAGE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF OTHERS WHEN IN REALITY IT COULD BE THAT SOME SITES ARE, ARE GOING TO BE REDEVELOPED NO MATTER WHAT.
AND WOULDN'T WE RATHER WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SOME UNDER DB 90 AS OPPOSED TO WHATEVER THEIR EXISTING BASE ZONING IS, OR A DIFFERENT BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
SO AS YOU KNOW, THE UM, DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM DOES PROVIDE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INCENTIVES, UH, NOT ONLY THE HEIGHT BUT DECREASES IN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND, AND OTHER THINGS.
SO PEOPLE ARE GETTING INCENTIVES TO PARTICIPATE AND, UM, AND THIS IS A TRADE OFF THAT WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THAT WAS, UH, THE END OF YOUR TIME.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO COMMISSIONER MARIA RAMIREZ.
AND MY, UM, MY ANALYSIS OR QUESTIONS ARE IN NO WAY AS, UH, COMPLEX OR TECHNICAL, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.
SO, UM, 'CAUSE I'M MUCH LIKE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IN TRYING TO PROCESS ALL OF THIS.
UM, AND I HAD TO GET FRIENDS FROM THE, YOU KNOW, UM, THE PLANNING PROFESSION TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
SO THERE ARE SIX DIFFERENT TYPES OF ZONING THAT'S OUTLINED.
THEY'RE COMMERCIAL, MOSTLY COMMERCIAL, BUT SOME NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE THAT WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, WITH THE ADDITIONAL 30 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO THESE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED.
THE, THE SIX THAT ARE IN WITHIN THE ORDINANCE OR DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE, THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO 30 FEET MORE OR MORE, I'M SORRY, JUST 30 FEET UP TO 90.
AND WITH THE PROVISION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO EITHER 10% AND IT'S, IT'S OUTLINED, BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY FOR, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE THAT IT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT'S CORRECT, IT'S EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONING AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO UP TO 30 FEET HIGHER.
NOT CONFUSING THE SITUATION, BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE, UM, COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET AND HEIGHT UP TO 90 FEET.
BUT I DO WANNA SAY IF SOMEONE HAD, I DON'T KNOW, S OF SIX MAYBE, AND THEY WANTED TO REZONE TO LO DB 90, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T CHANGE THEIR BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND ADD DB 90 TO IT.
I KNOW THAT GETS A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING, BUT THAT IS ON THE TABLE AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT, UM, WITHIN THE ORDINANCE IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT HAVING CERTAIN, NOT HAVING COMMERCIAL ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ROOFTOP RESTAURANTS OR OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USES ABOVE RESIDENTIAL MAKES SENSE AT THIS HEIGHT.
AND SO I WAS WONDERING WHY THAT'S PART OF THE ORDINANCE? WELL, I MEAN THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, ORDINANCE AND SO, UM, WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON GETTING THE HOUSING UNITS AND GETTING, UM, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND SO THAT IS MIRRORED IN THE VM U2 ORDINANCE AND WE WANTED TO MIRROR IT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT COUNCIL HAD APPROVED.
I UNDERSTAND WITH THAT ONE DIFFERENCE THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS POINTING OUT.
UM, I THINK THOSE ARE MY MAIN QUESTIONS.
[02:00:01]
THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD OBSERVATION.IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD BE OKAY WITH ACTIVATING OUR ROOFS.
UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK ON CHANGING THAT.
SO I GUESS A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS ADDED HERE.
THERE'S ALSO PLANNED THINGS, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF THINGS THAT WEREN'T IN VM U2.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS KIND OF WHERE THESE NEW SECTIONS CAME FROM.
IT, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE THERE WAS A GRAB BAG IN SOME WAYS OF JUST LET'S, LET'S JUST ADD A COUPLE THINGS.
SO, SO THE COMPATIBILITY, I WOULDN'T CALL IT A GRAB BAG, BUT, UM, THE COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE THE COMPATIBILITY MOVING FORWARD IN THE SPRING WITH THE PACKAGE OF, UM, CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY.
SO WHAT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM COMPATIBILITY BEFORE ONLY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IF IT'S SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH ONE TO THREE UNITS.
BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO PLANTING, THERE'S SECTION, SO IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, SO THE FIRST, YEAH, IN THE FIRST 10 FEET THERE WOULD BE VEGETATIVE, BUFFER OR VEGETATIVE.
AND THEN, UH, GUESS 15 TO 25 NO STRUCTURES, BUT THERE COULD BE UTILITIES OF THE LIGHT.
SO HOW WOULD THESE, I DON'T HAVE THE OWNERS IN FRONT OF ME, I'M SORRY, BUT HOW WERE THESE ADDITIONS CALIBRATED SO AS NOT TO IMPEDE USAGE? 'CAUSE I, I THINK ABOUT VMU AND THE UPTAKE ONLY BEING 34%.
RIGHT? AND THIS IS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF, OF REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY.
SO HOW DID STAFF GO ABOUT CALIBRATING WHEN MAKING THESE ADDITIONS TO MAKE SURE WE WOULDN'T FURTHER IMPEDE USAGE? UM, I, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE PAUL CAN HELP, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD, THAT'S, THIS IS WHAT'S MOVING FORWARD WITH THE, THE STAKEHOLDER ONE, TWO BECAUSE I DON'T WORK ON THAT.
SO, UH, PAUL BOOK SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, SO THE COMPATIBILITY WAS RELAXED IN VMU TWO, SUCH AS AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK, LIKE THE, THE SECTION FROM AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, JUST EVERYTHING THAT WE ADDED THAT WASN'T IN VM U2.
SO ARE WE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE, UH, VEGETATIVE BUFFER AND THE COMPATIBILITY SECTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, SO, OKAY.
SO LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE SECTION FROM AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK THAT WE'VE ADDED IN.
HOW DID WE CALIBRATE MAKING SURE WE WEREN'T GOING TO IMPEDE USAGE OF EMU TWO? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT YES.
I THINK, UM, RACHEL TEPPER HAD SPOKEN TO THAT AND ERICA LEAK AS WELL EARLIER.
CURIOUS HOW IT WAS CALIBRATED BY STAFF TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T GOING TO IMPEDE USAGE? N NO, IT, IT IS NOT CALIBRATED.
UM, AT THIS POINT IT WAS AS, AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS INCLUDED IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND UM, SINCE THIS IS REPLACING BOTH VM U2 AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL THAT WERE INVALIDATED, IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THAT.
UM, WE HAVE PERCENTAGES IN THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AND OF COURSE WE PASSED THIS AT 12% WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS A DIFFERENT ECONOMY AND INTEREST RATES WERE VERY DIFFERENT.
UM, IS THERE A REASON TO KEEP THE PERCENTAGE IN THE ORDINANCE AND NOT HAVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE MAYBE IT COULD BE ADJUSTED WHERE WE DID WOULDN'T HAVE TO NOTIFY CITYWIDE TRISH LINK WITH A LAW DEPARTMENT.
IT NEEDS TO STAY IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT THE COMBINING DISTRICT, UM, IN ORDER TO HAVE A PROGRAM THAT, UM, WILL SURVIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR CONCERNS FROM THE NOTICE AND PROTEST RIGHTS SIDE FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE LIMITATIONS IN STATE LAW ABOUT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. AND THEY MUST BE VERY CLEARLY PROGRAMS, THEY MUST BE VOLUNTARY.
AND SO THIS, TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT ELEMENT OF STATE LAW, WHICH IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM OUR ZONING, UM, REQUIREMENTS, IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE COMBINING DISTRICT.
IT NEEDS TO BE, UH, STATIC AND STABLE.
UM, AND SO PUTTING IT SOMEPLACE ELSE, UH, WOULD GIVE ME CONCERNS FROM THE, UH, PERSPECTIVE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE HAVING A PROGRAM THAT WE CAN WITHSTAND STATE LAW, SETTING ASIDE NOTICE AND PROTEST RIGHTS.
AND, UH, IT IS EXCITING TO SEE THAT WE CAN CREATE A PAPER ZONING DISTRICT AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE DOING THE SAME FOR TOWN ZONING HERE SOON.
UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO STAFF FOR BEING AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THAT PRESENTATION THAT ANSWERED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD.
I JUST WANNA ASK A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT I KNOW WERE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENTATION SO THAT I I CAN BE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS.
SO NO, LOTS WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY, WILL AUTOMATICALLY HAVE DB 90 APPLIED TO THEM.
LOTS WILL HAVE TO REZONE TO HAVE THAT COMBINING DISTRICT INCLUDED.
AND SO LANDOWNERS WILL HAVE TO
[02:05:01]
GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, INCLUDING THE ASSOCIATED FEES.IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO HOW TO OFFSET SOME OF THE ADDED COSTS THAT WE'RE, SO THERE WILL BE A PROVISIONAL ORDINANCE IF YOU WERE IN BETWEEN JANUARY, WHEN I SAY JANUARY OF WHAT, 2022 AND UNTIL FEBRUARY, 2024, THOSE FEES WILL BE WAIVED.
I MEAN, A NEW CASE, OF COURSE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT THE ZONING FEES.
BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE CASES, THE WORK THAT WERE INVALIDATED WITH THE ORDINANCE, THOSE FEES WILL BE WAIVED FOR THOSE REZONING CASES OR SITE PLAN CASES.
AND HOW FAR THROUGH THAT PROCESS DO THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE IN HAVE TO BE FOR THOSE FEES TO BE WAIVED? I MEAN, THEY JUST HAVE SUBMITTED.
UM, AND I GUESS MY, MY CONCERNS IN COST KIND OF, UH, ECHO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S CONCERNS THAT NOT ONLY NOW DO WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REZONING PROCESS, BUT WE HAVE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS THAT I I FEAR OFFSET.
UM, THAT, THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT BE AS LIKELY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DB 90 AS THEY WOULD'VE BEEN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VMU TWO.
UM, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO HOW WE CAN I GUESS, BALANCE THAT, THAT ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO REZONE AND THEN SOME OF THE CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY AND CHANGES TO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS? WELL, I THINK THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE SET BECAUSE THOSE WERE IN VM U2 MM-HMM.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE SET, UM, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT WANNA CHANGE THOSE.
UM, SO I THINK THE COMPATIBILITY, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING TO THE, YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THE COMPATIBILITY OF RELAXATION OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.
SO THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS WITHIN THE 75 FEET THAT WE'RE GONNA BE PROPOSING FOR CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY WILL NOT APPLY TO DB 90 PROJECTS.
SO THERE WILL ONLY BE THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER KIND OF COMPATIBILITY BUFFER REQUIREMENT AND NO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
SO IT'S A RELAXATION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT UNDER VMU AND VM U2.
I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THIS
THE BIGGEST CHANGE THAT I SEE AND STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, WHICH I HAVE UP IN ONE TAB AND THE, THE WORKING DRAFT WITH I HAVE UP IN THE OTHER TAB IS THAT STAFF'S WORKING DRAFT JUST COMPLETELY REMOVES ALL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR DB 90 PROJECTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT, YES, IT REMOVES ALL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT WORKING DRAFT ORDINANCE.
THE, THE 25, IT'S BASICALLY A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE CALLING IT A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.
UH, WHICH MOST ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE SETBACKS.
SO, SO, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS VMU ORDINANCE ALLOW THE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGER TO SHRINK TO A HUNDRED FEET RATHER THAN JUST OBLITERATING IT ALTOGETHER? CAN YOU EXPLAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TOUTING HOW OUR, OUR PREVIOUS VMU ORDINANCE LED TO SO MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW EVERYONE WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT.
SO IT SEEMED LIKE THAT A HUNDRED FOOT COMPATIBILITY WAS WORKING.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW STAFF GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY JUST REMOVED ALL COMPATIBILITY ALTOGETHER? YEAH, SO I GUESS I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR THAT SHOWED THAT COMPATIBILITY DOES IMPACT THE NUMBER OF MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT VM U2 WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE.
IT WOULD IMPACT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT DB 90 WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE IF THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS APPLIED.
AND SO IT WAS A POLICY, POLICY DECISION TO NOT, UM, HAVE THOSE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THIS DENSITY BONUS COMBINING DISTRICT DON'T, DON'T, BASICALLY ALL COMPONENTS OF OUR ZONING REGULATION REDUCE THE YIELD OF HOUSING UNITS ON THESE PROPERTIES
SO IT WAS THAT THE ONLY REASON WAS, WAS THAT COMPATIBILITY REDUCES THE NUMBER OF UNITS, THAT, THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT STAFF CHOSE TO REMOVE ALL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
[02:10:01]
INTERESTING.IS THAT ALL YOUR COMM YOUR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? YES, MA'AM.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF REGARDING PROCESS AND MAYBE, UM, MS. HARDING CAN HELP US WITH THIS
UM, YOU KNOW, JUST SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
IF DV 90 PASSES BAD
AND I, I GUESS SO A PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE FEES WOULD BE WAIVED, WE WOULD CONSIDER, IS THERE A SPECIFIC ORDER YOU'RE EXPECTING THOSE TO COME IN OR HOW IS THE PROCESS PART OF THIS GOING TO WORK IN THEORY? UM, WELL A LOT OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN IN VERY CLOSE CONTACT WITH ME,
UM, SO, UM, I THINK, UM, SOME ARE REALLY HOPING THAT THIS PASSES COUNCIL FEBRUARY 29TH, UM, AND THEY ARE READY TO SUBMIT SOON AS THE ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE 11 DAYS AFTER OR WHATEVER.
UM, I WILL HAVE A DEDICATED STAFF PERSON OR YOU'RE ASKING LIKE WHAT IT'S GONNA MM-HMM,
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M AN ANSWERING CORRECTLY.
I WILL HAVE A DEDICATED STAFF PERSON, UM, TAKING THOSE CASES SO THEY WON'T, I'LL STILL HAVE OTHER CASE MANAGERS TAKING CASES IN THE QUEUE AND MOVING THOSE FORWARD.
I WILL HAVE A DEDICATED STAFF MEMBER JUST FOR THESE CASES.
UM, FOR THE CASES THAT ARE REPEAT OF ZONING, MOST OF THAT ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE.
SO THAT SHOULD BE A FAIRLY QUICK PROCESS.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR STATUTORY NOTIFICATION DEADLINES, AND OF COURSE I WANNA MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR BECAUSE OF THE COURT SAYING THIS NEEDS TO BE REZONING.
THERE ARE PROTEST RIGHTS, THERE ARE NOTIFICATION RIGHTS, THESE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO YES, THIS IS VM U2, BUT IT GIVES EVERYBODY A SET PROCESS OF HOW THESE CASES MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S UM, UM, SO DEVELOPERS KNOW WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALL INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS KNOW.
AND, AND SO THIS IS THE REZONING PROCESS, A DEDICATED STAFF PERSON, AND IT WILL MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE SITE PLAN CASES, STAFF REPORTS WILL HAVE TO BE REDEVELOPED.
THE VM U2 REZONING CASES WILL MOVE A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE, WE'LL HAVE A DEDICATED STAFF PERSON AND WE HOPE TO MOVE THESE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND THEN ACTUALLY THAT OPENS MY RELATED QUESTION, WHICH IS THAT'S HOW WE'LL BE HANDLING, SAY FLU AMENDMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENTS.
THOSE WILL COME BACK AS WELL? OR IS THAT SORT OF SO WELL, ARE THOSE ALREADY DONE OR
SO THOSE DO NOT HAVE TO, SO FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION.
SO, SO IF THEY WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL MM-HMM.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR THE FLOW WOULD NOT BE, I MEAN THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
REQUIRED, BUT THE REZONING WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
AND THEN, UM, THERE WAS A, ALSO, I NOTICED IN YOUR PRESENTATIONS AN ISSUE REGARDING TENANT PROTECTIONS, WHICH WE'RE BRINGING BACK FROM BM U2 AND THAT'S BEEN A CONCERN.
COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY? UM, LET ME HAVE TRISH SPEAK TO THAT.
OR YEAH,
WE'RE PLAYING BINGO BACK HERE,
UM, SO THE TENANT PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING SINCE THE CITY ADOPTED AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, WE WOULD JUST BE CARRYING THOSE THROUGH.
SO THAT IS THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, UM, THE LEASE ADDENDUM AND THOSE ELEMENTS THERE.
SO WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT STILL IN PLACE.
WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE THAT IN FOUR 18 BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE PART OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE WE ADOPTED AFFORDABILITY AND LAUNCH.
SO WE ARE CEMENTING THE PROCESS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE PROCEDURAL SIDE.
'CAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS OUR CONCERN, RIGHT? MM-HMM,
SO WE WILL ENSURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK, JUST HAVE THE AGREEMENT AND HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS IN PLACE BEFORE THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING.
SO BASICALLY ALL THE TENANT PROTECTIONS WOULD THEN BE EVEN MORE SORT OF CLARIFIED GOING FORWARD FOR THE DB 90 CASES.
UH, NEXT COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION.
UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
ONE IS, UM, THIS IS RELATED TO FOUR 18.
UM, SO FOR THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, CAN, CAN YOU ALL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SORT OF THE INTENT BEHIND IT AND UNDERSTANDING LIKE WHAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE WE THINKING OF? AND SO THAT IS IN FOUR 18, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE PROGRAM THAT LOOKED AT PRESERVING COMMERCIAL SPACES,
[02:15:01]
UM, WE ANTICIPATE THERE MAY BE MORE IN THE FUTURE.WE'RE COMBINING DISTRICTS WHERE THAT WILL COME UP.
AND SO WE WANNA GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT FRAMEWORK IN PLACE AND HAVE THOSE PROVISIONS THERE.
WHENEVER THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL, UH, TAKE UP A COMBINING DISTRICT, THE PAPER VERSION OF IT, UM, THAT WILL SAY WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THAT SECTION APPLIES.
AND IF IT DOES APPLY, IT WILL IDENTIFY THE USES AND THE TIME PERIODS, UM, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE.
SO IN ORDER TO, UM, PRESERVE THEM.
SO JUST FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IS THAT AT LEAST FOR DB 90, THAT SPECIFIC ELEMENT WOULD NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT WRITING IT INTO THE ORDINANCE.
AND HONESTLY, RELATED TO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
I THINK THE WAY IT READS, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT LOOK AT IT AND THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT I KNOW WHEN WE HAD DONE IT BEFORE, WE HAD, UM, AS A COMMUNITY SORT OF HIGHLIGHTED CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ASSETS SUCH AS CULTURAL FACILITIES AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD STILL BE THE INTENT BEHIND IT, THAT THAT WOULD STILL HAPPEN.
IT WOULD JUST HAPPEN WITHIN THE COMBINING DISTRICT.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THE AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.
AND THIS IS I, MS. LEE, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE.
I GUESS I, I JUST SAID ONE OF THE THINGS I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS WE REALLY WANTED TO MATCH IT TO THE VM U2 PROGRAM, BUT I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HAVING A FEE LIE FOR THE OWNERSHIP? YOU JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW IN THE PAST THAT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE, UM, DUE TO CONDO FEES OR HOA FEES AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT HAS ON AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY.
THANK YOU MS. DE MAYO, MANDY DE MAYO HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, YES, THERE IS CONSIDERATION FOR FEE IN LIEV FOR OWNERSHIP, UH, UNITS IN, UH, THE DB 90 PROGRAM.
UM, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE HAVE HAD ENORMOUS CHALLENGES.
FIRST OF ALL, AS WAS, UH, PART OF THE, UH, PRESENTATION EARLIER, ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE VMU UH, UH, PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN OWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
BUT THERE IS ONGOING CONCERN REGARDING, UM, PERPETUAL AFFORDABILITY AND SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE MAY BE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER PARTICULARLY ONEROUS, UH, FEES CHARGED, UH, TO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE SOME WHO ARE LOW OR MODERATE INCOME AND OTHERS WHO ARE MARKET RATE.
SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT IN THE INTERIM.
UM, WE ARE, UH, OPEN TO THE FEE IN LIEU FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
SO THERE, THERE COULD BE A CONSIDERATION FOR SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY.
AND THE LAST QUESTION, I BELIEVE MR. BROOKS, THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE COMPATIBILITY, THE 15 FOOT NO BUILD ZONE OR HOWEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT, IT DOES MENTION THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE, I'M SORRY, LET ME PULL UP THE ORDINANCE.
UM, THAT IN THE RESTRICTED ZONE YOU CAN HAVE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, WOULD THAT INCLUDE AC UNITS AS WELL OR NOT? SO THAT WAS PRIMARILY MEANT TO INCLUDE PUBLIC UTILITIES.
SO I GUESS IN THAT CASE, MY QUESTION WOULD BE THAT FOR THE RESTRICTED USE ZONE, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HAVING HVAC UNITS? I THINK THAT, UM, THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT RESTRICTED USE ZONE THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED WITHIN THE NO BUILD ZONE.
SO IF THAT'S A SUGGESTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT'S YOUR OKAY, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT DURING, OH GOSH, I THINK IT WAS COMPATIBILITY IN CORRIDORS.
WE DID ALLOW FOR HVAC UNITS AS LONG AS THEY WERE NOT INDUSTRIAL HVAC UNITS, SO LIKE A HOSPITAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU COULDN'T DO THAT.
BUT FOR A REGULAR, WHAT WOULD BE USED IN RESIDENTIAL, UM, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
AND THE ONLY REASON I BRING IT UP IS WE'VE HAD THAT CHALLENGE EVEN NOW WHERE FOLKS WANNA PLACE THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE AC FAN UNITS AND THEY CANNOT PUT IT IN THE BUFFER IN THE BACK.
SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE PUTTING IT ACTUALLY IN THE SIDE BUFFERS, WHICH IN SOME WAYS IS EVEN LESS DESIRABLE 'CAUSE YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTIES ON THE SIDE.
SO IN SOME WAYS, I GUESS IN THAT SORT OF SPIRIT OF, UM, FLEXIBILITY, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO CONSIDER WHETHER CERTAIN KINDS OF HVAC, UH, FACILITIES CAN BE PLACED IN THAT RESTRICTED ZONE AS WELL.
OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL BECAUSE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD WAS ABOUT TENANT PROTECTION.
SO GOT THE ANSWER WHEN YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WANTED CLARITY ON, AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR ALSO POINTING OUT THAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS, BUT SOME OF US HAVE ONLY BEEN ON THIS BODY FOR MONTHS, SO IT'S NEW TO ME AND I PRESUME MANY OTHERS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE.
BUT I DO WANT TO ASK, YOU KNOW, I ASKED THIS QUESTION EARLIER, GOT AN ANSWER, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT, AND WHEN I SAY EARLY, I MEANT AT A, A MEETING BEFORE THIS, UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHAT HAPPENS TO SHORT TERM
[02:20:01]
RENTALS UNDER THIS, UH, UNDER DB 90.AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT, WITH THE RIGHT TITLE? UM, ARE THEY, ARE THEY ALLOWED, ARE THE RENTAL UNITS AND IN PARTICULAR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ALLOWED TO BE USED AS ESSENTIALLY HOTEL ROOMS AND NOT HOUSING? SO IN THE, OH, THAT WAS LOUD, SORRY.
UM, IN THE 14 ORDINANCE, FOUR 18 ORDINANCE WE'RE UM, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT.
AND WITHIN THAT IS TO LIMIT SO THAT PEOPLE CANNOT USE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AS MOST OFTEN IT'S GONNA BE TYPE THREE, WHICH IS OUR MULTIFAMILY, UH, STR.
SO THAT WOULD BE LIMITED SO THAT THEY CANNOT USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.
SO JUST THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND NOT ALL OF THE RENTAL UNITS? CORRECT.
I THINK THAT WAS, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE SUM AND TOTAL OF MY QUESTIONS.
I'D LIKE TO JUST ASK ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT TENANT PROTECTIONS.
DOES IT MAINTAIN, I KNOW THAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA MOVE THE TENANT AND EVERYTHING, LIKE LIFT EVERYTHING FROM THE FORMER, UM, ORDINANCE AND PUT IT INTO THIS ONE.
BUT THE ONE THAT I WAS PARTICULARLY, UH, WANTING TO GET CLARITY ON, DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE THE, THE RELOCATION BENEFITS FOR TENANTS WHO ARE BEING DISPLACED BY DEVELOPMENT? DOES IT INCLUDE THAT IN TENANT PROTECTIONS? SO FOR OUR TENANT PROTECTION PROVISIONS, THAT ONLY IS, UM, FOR RELOCATION IS ONLY TRIGGERED IF THE REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IS, IS APPLIED.
SO IF YOU ARE TAKING HOUSING THAT IS, UM, IN REASONABLY GOOD SHAPE AND YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP IT UNDER THIS PROGRAM, IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS RELOCATION PROVIDED TO THE TENANTS AND THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE BASICALLY THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO THE LEASE THE UNITS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AT THE SAME COMPARABLE PRICES AND SIZE.
UM, IS THERE A RIGHT TO RETURN SO THE RIGHT TO RETURN GETS TRIGGERED AGAIN IF THERE'S THE RELOCATION, BUT THERE IS NOT, THE CITY'S HOUSING PREFERENCE POLICY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS? IF THAT'S THE, IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE KIND OF THE BIGGER POLICY THAT WE'RE TEST DRIVING WITH THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS CHAIR, IF I'M, IF THERE IS TIME MR. PHILLIPS, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER? NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COULD I JUST RESPOND TO THAT QUICKLY? SO I GUESS IF YOU LOOK AT THE, WHERE WE'RE DOING FOUR 18, SO THE FOUR 18 DASH 32, THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE, UM, PRETTY MUCH WHAT, UH, MS. LINK WAS MENTIONING, IF INDEED THAT IS TRIGGERED.
SO SOMEBODY'S REDEVELOPING MULTIFAMILY, THEY WOULD BE, THERE'S TWO THINGS IN HERE RELATED TO WHAT YOU SAID.
ONE, PROVIDE CURRENT TENANTS WITH RELOCATION BENEFITS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL UNIFORMED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT.
UM, AND GRANT CURRENTS, TENANTS THE OPTION TO LEASE A UNIT OF COMPARABLE AFFORDABILITY AND SIZE FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF REDEVELOPMENT.
SO IT, IT'S NOT THE PREFERENCE POLICY AS MS. LI WAS SAYING, BASED ON OUR LAND TRUST, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND LEASE A UNIT OF COMPARABLE, UM, RENT AND COMPARABLE SIZE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4 MORE, UH, QUESTION SPOTS.
SO COMMISSIONER MHA, I WILL INDULGE US THE DUMB QUESTIONS FOR THE EVENING.
UM, I NEED SOMEBODY TO EXPLAIN TO ME.
WE'VE GOT THE, UM, THE WORKING DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR THE DB AND THAT'S FIVE PAGES OF DOCUMENT AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE, UM, I GUESS THE, THE CHANGES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE TWO ARE RELATED.
ARE WE TAKING UP BOTH OF THESE TONIGHT FOR DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENT? SO HOW ARE THESE RELATED
UM, SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OUR DISNEY BONUS PROGRAMS IS WE COME WITH OUR CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS, UM, MARRIED WITH THE BONUS PROGRAM ITSELF.
THE, ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE COURT RULING WAS THAT WE
[02:25:01]
WERE GIVING STAFF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ZONING CHANGES.AND THAT'S A COMBINATION OF FACTORS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS NOT HAPPENING IS BY TAKING THESE PROCEDURES, THIS AGREEMENT PROCESS THE CERTIFICATION OUT OF TITLE 25 AND PUTTING IT IN TITLE FOUR.
IF YOU, THE WAY WE ARE STRUCTURING IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT ANY BASICALLY BONUS PROGRAM ADOPTED OR AMENDED AFTER BASICALLY THIS MONTH, YOU WILL FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE SET OF PROCEDURES IN FOUR 18.
SO IT WILL, THEY'RE CONNECTED IN THE SENSE THAT THAT'S A PROCEDURE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW AFTER THE COUNCIL REZONES THE PROPERTY AS DB 90.
UM, AND WE'VE PROVIDED, I PROVIDED IT TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT YOU'D HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT BECAUSE IN DB 90 I DO REFERENCE IT, BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST YET IN THE BOOKS.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION KNEW WHAT THE REFERENCE WAS ABOUT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE POSTED TO TALK ABOUT, LIKE FOR ACTION TODAY IS THE DB 90 ORDINANCE ITSELF.
BUT I'VE PROVIDED THE FOUR 18 SO THAT YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW WE PLAN TO MAKE THIS WORK GOING FORWARD.
DOES, DOES THE FOUR 18 COME BACK BEFORE US OR WHAT'S THE PROCESS ON THOSE CHANGES? UM, IN TITLE IV, THOSE WILL JUST GO TO THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE.
THEY DON'T GO TO, UM, ANY BORDER COMMISSION UHHUH.
'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE LAND ZONING.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING TOO, THE OTHER REASON FOR THE FOUR 18 CHANGES IN PART ALSO IS I BELIEVE, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WE ANTICIPATE OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE BONUS PROGRAM KIND OF WORLD AND LIKE EDD WITH THE CULTURAL DISTRICTS.
AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S USABLE FOR ALL OF OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS.
SO THEN ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD RELATED TO THE STR LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE, UM, THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO.
THERE'S, THERE'S STUFF ABOUT, UM, LOOKS LIKE RETAIL SPACE WITH COMPARABLE SPACE RETURNS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ALL NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHICH IS A COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT'S A PROCESS QUESTION.
ANYTHING PARTICULAR TO A NEW ZONING CATEGORY THAT'S FOR US TONIGHT ON THE DB? CORRECT.
THAT WAS TRULY NOT A DUMB QUESTION.
BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES, IF, IF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT SOME OF IT IS GETTING SEPARATED OUT.
SO IT WON'T BE WITH US, IT'LL BE WITH COUNCIL ON THAT ON THAT FOUR 18.
PEOPLE NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE QUESTIONS.
UM, OKAY, I DON'T SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES ON THE SCREEN.
UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IF, ARE YOU ON MUTE? SORRY, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, CHAIR COHEN, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
DO YOU WANT ME TO
UM, ALL MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED, SO, UM, IN THE SPIRIT OF ALLOWING, I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
I SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS BACK ON.
WE'LL, UH, MOTION BY VICE CHAIR, UM, CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND, AND, AND JUST A REMINDER, FOLKS, THIS IS THE BASE MOTION, SO THIS IS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR PROCESS AND WE CAN SPEAK TO THE MOTION WHEN WE WRAP UP AT THE END, CORRECT.
UM, SO IF I HAVE AN AMENDMENT, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO SAY I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
WELL, UM, WHAT I'LL DO IS I WANNA GIVE EVERYBODY TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, BUT I DON'T OKAY.
WE'LL GO ONE BY ONE, ONE BY ONE IF I MIGHT RECOMMEND.
SO WE WILL GO THROUGH ONE OF YOUR AMENDMENTS AND WE'LL KEEP ON GOING.
AND THEN ONCE ONE ROUND OF AMENDMENTS IS DONE, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU IF THAT'S, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
I, MY AMENDMENT IS VERY SIMPLE AND IT'S ONLY THAT FOR ME IT WAS NOT CLEAR THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
AND IT, INSTEAD OF, I WAS THINKING WHEN IT WAS WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LINEAR FEET, THAT IT WAS BACK TOWARDS THE BUILDING AND NOT ALONG THE BUILDING LENGTH.
AND SO IT'S A VERY SMALL AMENDMENT TO SAY ALONG THE PROPERTY.
[02:30:01]
25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK SHOULD BE ALONG THE PROPERTY.UM, AS OPPOSED TO, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT SAYS IN THE, I'M SORRY.
I'M NOT BETTER ORGANIZED, BUT, AND I'M NOT GOOD AT WORDSMITH THING EITHER.
THAT'S MY, THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CHANGED.
ARE YOU TAKING NOTES CHAIR? YES.
I JUST WANNA OFFER THAT, UM, ON UH, SECTION F SEVEN, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE COMPAT COMPAT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, IT SAYS A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS REQUIRED ALONG A SITE'S PROPERTY LINE THAT IS SHARED WITH A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT HELPS RESOLVE MAYBE YES.
SO I WILL RETRACT MY AMENDMENT SINCE, SINCE THE MOTION WAS NOT MADE.
AND IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN GO TO YOUR SECOND ONE.
MY SECONDARY ONE WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW OTHER USES ABOVE RESIDENTIAL.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL USE AT THE TOP FLOOR OR WITHIN THE BUILDING AS NEEDED TO HAVE A VITAL I DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO THE WAY THAT WE'VE STRUCTURED THIS IS FOUR COMMISSIONERS, TWO MINUTES EACH TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF OR OTHERS.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? MR. PHILLIPS? I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR AMENDMENT? BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I DO
I'M SORRY,
SO FIRST STORY, UM, SO IT SAYS, UH, A BUILDING, THE BUILDING SHOULD INCLUDE A MIXTURE OF USES AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USE SHOULD BE PERMITTED ABOVE THE SECOND, ABOVE THE THIRD STORY OF THE BUILDING.
SO WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT THEN ALLOW A COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT OR ENTERTAINMENT SPACE SHOULD BE ANYWHERE BUT THE ROOF.
UM, LIKE WITH PEOPLE LIVING UNDERNEATH ANYWHERE BUT THE ROOF.
AND I THINK IT, I'M UM, WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
THAT MIGHT BE WEIRD TO FAMILIES THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M IMAGINING, DON'T WE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO DO, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHAT WE ARE DOING.
DO, DO YOU WANNA HELP ME WORDSMITH IT?
I I WOULD LOVE TO BUT I MAY NOT HAVE CAPTURED.
I'M NOT, THAT'S WHY I WASN'T SURE THE INTENT.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER COX HAS MAYBE COULD SAVE ME
WELL, I, I, I WANNA CAUTION, I JUST WANNA THROW UP A ORDER CAUTION ABOUT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING COMPATIBILITY.
SO I, I IMAGINE A LOT OF THESE SITES ARE LOCATED ON CORRIDORS LIKE BURN IT, THAT ARE GONNA BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO SF THREE PROPERTIES AND HAVING A ROOFTOP BAR PROBABLY ISN'T THE BEST.
BUT, BUT I, I, I ACTUALLY WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF ABOUT HOW THAT CHANGE COULD POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE YIELDS OF UNITS.
'CAUSE MY MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THE VMU AND THESE DENSITY BONUSES IS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT EXPECTING ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO END UP BEING RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THAT THEN A PORTION OF THAT HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND SO I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE ALLOW COMMERCIAL ABOVE RESIDENTIAL, WHETHER IT'S THE ROOF OR ANY OTHER LEVEL THAT, THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE ACTUALLY RE WE'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF ENCOURAGING DEVELOPERS TO USE THE DENSITY BONUS TO NOT ACTUALLY BUILD RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH LESS, LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING YIELD.
SO I, THAT WAS MY QUESTION TO STAFF ABOUT KIND OF THE IMPACT OF THAT.
THINK, I THINK I MAY HAVE A SOLUTION TO ONCE WE GET OUR ANSWER THERE.
UH, ERICA LEE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, YES, THAT, THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT PART OF THE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO NOT ALLOW COMMERCIAL ABOVE RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THE, THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS TO ALLOW A LOT MORE HOUSING AND, UH, INCENTIVIZE THE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
[02:35:01]
HOPEFULLY IN MIXED USE BUILDINGS, BUT WITH, WITH IT REALLY BEING FOCUSED ON GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL.UM, THAT, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER AZAR AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, SO I GUESS THIS IS A STAFF QUESTION, BUT I MAY ACTUALLY END UP ASHING COMMISSIONER AZAR WHO I THINK KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE THAT I KNOW HAS BEEN RAISED IN MY DISTRICT TO DISTRICT FIVE THAT VMU HAS STRUGGLED TO REALLY FILL ITS, UH, COMMERCIAL SPACES.
SO AS WE COME BACK TO LOOK AT DB 90, IT SEEMS LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK WHAT COMMERCIAL LOOKS LIKE.
AND IF WE PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S OVERLY RESTRICTIVE, WHICH I THINK IS THE CONCERN HERE, IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THAT FLEXIBILITY GOING FORWARD.
AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT COMM THAT MY COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN ALTER, IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE, I WOULD SAY AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN IF NOT MORE M EMPTY VMU COMMERCIAL SPACES ALONG SOUTH LAMAR WHERE WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF VMU UM, UPTAKE.
SO IF WE DON'T FIX THIS ISSUE, THAT'S A REAL ONGOING PROBLEM.
IT'S LIKE BASICALLY JUST MAKING IT WORSE.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M CURIOUS, DID WE SEE BETTER UPTAKE OF, OF COMMERCIAL SPACES IN UNO? AND IS THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY? AND I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION
IT'S TO SAY, SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YES, WE HAVE HEARD THAT FOLKS FIND IT HARD TO FIND COMMERCIAL TENANTS WITHIN THE, UH, VMU PROGRAM AND SORT OF THE LIMITATION THAT COMES WITH THAT.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I GUESS THERE'S A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD, LIKE DO WE WANT THE WALKABLE RETAILS? IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SORT OF, IT'S A POLICY DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE CERTAIN KINDS OF USES IN A WALKABLE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A CONVERSATION FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER.
WELL, AND I GUESS THAT, SORRY TO FOLLOW UP TO THAT POINT IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT UNO GIVES YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY IN WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE GROUND FOR RETAIL, BUT I DON'T OBVIOUSLY HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME.
SO I'M JUST, UM, CURIOUS IF THAT WAS CONSIDERED AS WE LOOKED AT DB 90, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS NOT.
UM, VICE CHAIR, UM, THANK YOU.
I, AGAIN, UM, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ, YOU'RE THE INTENT THAT YOU'RE DOING HERE, I GUESS AS YOU'RE GONNA BE CRAFTING A MOTION NEXT RIGHT AFTER I'M DONE TALKING, UM,
SO THE LIMITATION WOULD STILL BE TO, I WILL SAY THAT EVEN WITH WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING IT, IF WE ONLY LIMITED IT TO TWO, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT SOMEBODY CANNOT DO LIVE WORK ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND DO TOP.
SO THEY KIND OF HAVE TO PICK AND CHOOSE.
THEY COULD DO EITHER TWO STORIES OF COMMERCIAL OR DO LIVE WORK DOWNSTAIRS OR DO BOTTOM FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THEN TOP FLOOR COMMERCIAL.
BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS WE WANNA KEEP IT RESIDENTIAL FOCUSED.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE FOLKS DON'T END UP CHEATING ON THE PROGRAM.
SO I JUST WANTED TO FLAG I LIKE THAT A LOT FOR YOU.
I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION IF I, I COULD SURE.
I'M WONDERING IF WE CONSIDER THE LANG THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY SAYS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE VERSUS ALLOCATING COMMERCIAL AND SOME OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THAT I WAS ENVISIONING.
UH, UP TOP MIGHT HAVE BEEN A ROOFTOP GARDEN, UM, A COMMUNITY GARDEN, MAYBE A TOP LEVEL, UH, COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR THE RESIDENTS, WHETHER THAT'S A A, A GYM OR A LIBRARY OR
SO I AM CONCERNED THAT, OR I NEED CLARIFICATION.
IF WE'RE SAYING A NON-RESIDENT, WOULD IT BE BETTER TO HAVE OUR LANGUAGE SPECI SPECIFIC ABOUT WHERE COMMERCIAL IS GOING VERSUS USING THIS LANGUAGE NON-RESIDENTIAL? BECAUSE THAT BECOMES A POINT OF QUESTION, WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NON-RESIDENTIAL? YEAH.
SHOULD I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF MS. LINK? THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, WHEN WE USE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S ROOF GARDENS AND THINGS, THOSE ARE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, CORRECT.
SO IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE TENANTS, WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL.
SO WE USE THE BROAD WORD PHRASE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT PLUS WHATEVER CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS MAY APPLY WOULD HELP DICTATE WHAT COMMERCIAL OR CIVIC
[02:40:01]
OR ANY OTHER SORT OF USES THAT THEY COULD DO.AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO KIND OF ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN AND THEN, BUT ENSURE THAT UM, THE BALANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND, AND, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL OF THE WHERE IT'S LOCATED IS WHAT THAT PROVISION IS FOR.
SO COMMISSIONER ALDER AND MS. LINK, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO A, UM, A ROOF GARDEN THAT IS ONLY OPEN TO THEIR TENANTS, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ALLOWED REGARDLESS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, ONE OPTION WE COULD CONSIDER IF THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
UM, WE HAVE LANGUAGE, I BELIEVE IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED WHERE WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE THINGS THAT ARE AMENITIES FOR TENANTS, UH, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED, UH, TOWARDS THE COMMERCIAL LIMITATION IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.
SO COMMISSIONER BARR, RAMEZ, DID YOU WANT TO DRAFT A MOTION? SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE A MIXTURE OF USES NON-RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE USED OR MAY ONLY BE USED WITHIN TWO STORIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
CAN, CAN I, SINCE THIS HAS NOT MADE, THIS IS MY RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT I, I THINK REGARDLESS, LET'S NOT, I THINK TODAY MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT SORT OF MY OLD PARLIAMENTARIAN HAD, LET'S NOT PRESENT RED LINE EDITS TO STAFF.
SO WE'RE REALLY JUST INTENT AND STAFF CAN FIGURE OUT EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT JUST ENOUGH FOR ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO I WAS THINKING WE WOULD BE SAYING IF A BUILDING INCLUDES A MIX OF USES, A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE B MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR SLASH STORY OF THE BUILDING UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED ON THE TOP FLOOR WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN TOTAL DEDICATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND I WOULD SAY, UH, ADDING TO THAT IS DEFINE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO CLARIFY INTENT.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT.
CAN'T, CAN WE REPEAT THAT? I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
UM, I, I, SO ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE DRAFT SO THAT B SUBPOINT WOULD NOW READ MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR SLASH STORY OF THE BUILDING.
AND THIS IS WHERE THE NEW LANGUAGE BEGINS, UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED ON THE TOP FLOOR WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN TOTAL DEDICATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THEN WE'RE GIVING FURTHER DIRECTION TO DEFINE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO CLARIFY INTENT WITH THE CLARITY AGAIN, THAT WE'RE NOT TELLING STAFF THAT THIS IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE THEY HAVE TO USE, BUT THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT WE HAVE.
BUT, BUT, BUT THE MOTION THAT WE'RE CRAFTING ALLOWS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE TO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE A RESTAURANT, BAR, WHATEVER.
SO WE ARE JUST SAYING ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AT THIS POINT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT I LOOKED TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER.
SO WE'LL GO INTO OUR NORMAL PROCEDURES FOR DEBATE, UM, UNLESS WE JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT, BUT I'LL OPEN UP FOR ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST EXPAND.
I, I I REAL, I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF AN ACTIVATED ROOF AND I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THAT BE A COMMUNITY SPACE FOR RESIDENTS.
I THINK HAVING COMMERCIAL USE ON THE TOP OF A BUILDING THAT WE ARE SPECIFICALLY SAYING IS GONNA BE SIX OR SEVEN STORIES TALL BECAUSE THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS, THAT HAS ZERO COMPATIBILITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, THAT IT IS WITHIN OR AROUND.
I KIND OF SEE THAT AS LIKE WORST CASE SCENARIO, NOT ONLY HAVE WE ELIMINATED COMPATIBILITY, BUT NOW WE'RE JUST OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ALL SORTS OF STUFF HAPPEN ON THE ROOFTOPS OF SIX AND STORY BUILDINGS NEXT TO OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I, I JUST, I JUST, I LIKE THE IDEA OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SPACES.
I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE ROOF AND THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS.
THEY'RE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
I MEAN, I THINK FOR ME, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT ALL EXISTING CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES APPLY.
SO IF THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH NOISE, ET CETERA, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE DECIBEL LEVELS.
UM, SO IMAGINING THAT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY OUTDOOR SPACES, BUT MAYBE IT'S JUST THE UPPER LEVEL AND IT'S ENCLOSED AND IT WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH OF A BURDEN ON NEIGHBORS.
[02:45:01]
KNOW IF I CANIT'S LIKE, COMMISSIONER, HOW DO YOU REGULATE THAT? BUT YEAH, NO, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST MS. MAXWELL? UM, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT.
'CAUSE THIS MAKES ME VERY EXCITED.
UM, WE'VE REALLY SEEN VMU STRUGGLE, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, AND PARTICULARLY IN SOUTH LAMAR, WHICH IS A BUSY CORRIDOR.
AND SADLY YOU HAVE TO GO DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW TO GET ROOFTOP VIEWS OF OUR BEAUTIFUL DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH WE JUST DON'T EVEN HAVE THIS OPTION.
SO TO ME, THIS IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY RETHINK WHAT COMMERCIAL LOOKS LIKE IN VMU AND OR DB 90 AS IT WILL NOW BE KNOWN.
UM, AND SO I, I THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT UPGRADE POTENTIALLY AND SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD REALLY WELCOME.
ARE THEY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY.
YEAH, I'M, I'M WONDERING IF THIS WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE.
UM, UH, I'M WONDERING IF, IF I CAN SUBSTITUTE, SO WE TALKED ABOUT LIMITING COMMERCIAL TO TWO FLOORS.
CAN WE, UH, AMEND THAT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE TO SAY, UM, IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES THE ROOFTOP FOR COMMERCIAL? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD ADDRESS MOST OF THEM.
IF IT'S INCLOSED IN THE ROOF AND IT'S NOT A ROOFTOP, YOU'D STILL GET YOUR VIEWS, YOU'D STILL GET ALL THE ADVANTAGES.
YOU JUST WOULD LIMIT THE NOISE AND THE, THE EXTERNAL LIGHT.
SO TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING THIS, IT COULD STILL BE THE TOP FLOOR, BUT THE, THE FACT THAT ROOFTOP IS OPEN TO THE, IS OPEN TO THE AIR.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE.
AND SO ROOFTOP WOULD BE, UH, RESIDENTIAL OR TENANT USE OR THAT KIND OF THING? MM-HMM.
I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT I DID THIS POINT.
SO DO WE, DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE ON THAT OR DO, DO WE NEED TO WORK THAT AGAIN SO I CAN GET A SECOND MM-HMM.
ON THAT IS, IS THAT A SUBSTITUTE OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT?
SO IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN STATE THAT I CAN TRY TO CAPTURE COMMISSIONER, UM, MOTIONAL.
SO ESSENTIALLY I'M, I'M STICKING WITH THAT, UH, AMENDMENT WE HAD AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY, UH, THAT EXCLUDES ROOFTOP, WHICH SHALL REMAIN RESIDENTIAL.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THEN WE'RE SAYING, UM, THE B THAT BULLET POINT B WOULD READ MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR SLASH STORY OF THE BUILDING UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED ON THE TOP FLOOR, EXCLUDING ROOFTOP WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN TOTAL DEDICATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THEN DEFINE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO CLARIFY INTENT.
AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT ALLOWS FOR THE VARIABILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL.
IT ALLOWS FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE ROOFTOP OUTDOOR ACCESS AND AVOIDS ANNOYING RESIDENTS NEARBY
IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? OH, I SEE.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? SO I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION, UM, ON THIS, UM, AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTE.
SO IF UNDER THE SUBSTITUTE, HOW, HOW MUCH, WHICH WOULD THE, WOULD THE ROOFTOP, IF IT'S USED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE, PUBLIC USE, UM, WOULD THAT COUNT TOWARD THE TWO COMMERCIAL FLOORS OR NO.
SO IT WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THAT, RIGHT? SO IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE THE WAY
YEAH, BECAUSE THE WAY I HEARD IT WORDED IT, IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT IT WOULDN'T COUNT TO THAT.
MAYBE I JUST DIDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING CORRECTLY.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU AL CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR INTENT? I'M SORRY,
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SOMEBODY CAN DO THE TOP FLOOR AS COMMERCIAL BUT CANNOT DO THE ROOFTOP AS COMMERCIAL.
UH, SO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOUR QUESTION, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SHOULD RESOLVE THAT.
'CAUSE WE SAY UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED ON, I'LL SAY IN THE TOP FLOOR, UM, EXCLUDING ROOFTOP
[02:50:01]
WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES.SO IT WOULD HOPEFULLY SHE'LL CAPTURE THAT AND HOPEFULLY STAFF UNDERSTANDS OUR INTENT HERE AND CAN PROCEED WITH THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, SHOULD WE MOVE TO A VOTE? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND THEN IN COMM, SORRY.
WE JUST NEED, NEED THE TECHNOLOGY TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE, THE TVS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.
NO, I'M, I'M, I'M AGAINST THE AMENDMENT.
UM, I JUST, I THINK WE'RE ADDING JUST VERY UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY HERE BY, BY DICTATING LIKE WHAT FLOOR EXACTLY CAN HAVE WHAT USES.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT ADDING TWO FLOORS INSTEAD OF ONE FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL WOULD SOLVE THE PREVIOUS PROBLEM WITH COMMERCIAL VIABILITY IN VMU.
I MEAN, I THINK THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN BETWEEN A DEVELOPER AND THEIR, YOU KNOW, FUNDING SOURCES AND THEIR TENANTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT REALLY MAKES SENSE FOR US TO GET THIS IN THE WEEDS ON, UH, AN OPT-IN ZONING PROGRAM, A DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT NOW WE'RE DECIDING WHAT COMMERCIAL OR NON-COMMERCIAL USES CAN OR CAN'T BE ON A ROOFTOP OR ON A, THE, THE TOP FLOOR OR THE THIRD FLOOR.
YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, IT'S, IT'S JUST SO FAR FROM THE INTENT OF, OF WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO DO.
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? YES.
I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AREN'T WE VOTING ON DB 90 WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, UM, THAT'S THE VERY REASON FOR HER AMENDMENT.
I MEAN, ISN'T THE LANGUAGE ALREADY THERE FOR, FOR WHAT THIS SPACE WOULD BE USED FOR? SO IF THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY THERE THEN WE'RE TRYING TO AMEND THAT OR SUBSTITUTE AMEND.
AND BY THE WAY, IS THE SUBSTITUTE FRIENDLY TO YOU COMMISSIONER TO THE, TO THE MOTION MAKER? SO PRO PROCEDURALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FRIENDLY 'CAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A MOTION THAT SUBSTITUTES THE MAIN.
SO, UM, I MEAN YOU COULD SPEAK TO WHAT YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT IT, BUT JUST PROCEDURALLY YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THIS PROPOSAL YES.
SPECIFICATIONS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND JUST BRIEFLY, I CAN'T VOTE FOR A SUBSTITUTE THAT LOOKS TO LIMIT FOLKS ACCESS TO FRESH AIR AND BEING OUTSIDE.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, BUT I DO LIKE THE BASE MOTION THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, SO I THINK MY OVERALL PREFERENCE IS JUST TO KEEP COMMERCIAL AT THE GROUND LEVEL 'CAUSE THAT SEEMS TO MAKE THE MOST SENSE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO ELABORATE THAT.
YES, WE DO HAVE CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT SOUND, NOISE DISTURBANCE, WHATEVER, BUT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A ROOFTOP RESTAURANT WITH A BUNCH OF OUTDOOR SEATING, POSSIBLY LIVE MUSIC, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER ACTUALLY CALLED IN A CODE ISSUE AND, AND HAD THEM RESPOND WITHIN ABOUT FOUR DAYS 'CAUSE THEY'RE WAY OVER SWAMPED.
UH, BUT SECOND, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS LIKE, LIKE JUST BASIC LIGHTING.
LIGHTING AT THAT LEVEL IS GOING TO DISTRIBUTE ITSELF WELL BEYOND JUST THE BALCONY OR THE ROOFTOP THAT THAT STUFF IS LOCATED ON.
AND WHEN WE'RE ELIMINATING COMPATIBILITY ENTIRELY, THAT STUFF BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR JUST DECENT LIVABILITY WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ALONG, ALONG CORRIDORS WHERE THIS IS GONNA BE USED.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THIS SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE IT TRIES TO MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE UNINTENDED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
UM, BUT I WOULDN'T MIND IF BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS GOT SHUT DOWN AND WE JUST KEPT COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM FLOORS.
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS FOR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MOTO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
DO WE NEED TO READ IT AGAIN FOR CLARITY, FOLKS WANT? I CAN READ IT.
SO THIS WOULD BE IN THAT BULLET POINT B WE WOULD SAY MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR SLOT STORY OF THE BUILDING UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED IN THE TOP FLOOR, EXCLUDED ROOFTOP WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN TOTAL DEDICATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THEN DEFINE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO CLARIFY INTENT.
OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION?
[02:55:04]
LET'S SEE.AND THERE'S THOSE OPPOSED 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, SORRY.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ'S SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZA.
UM, IF YOU WOULD DO ME A FAVOR AND READ THAT ONE AGAIN.
SO, UH, THIS WOULD BE, UH, THAT BULLET POINT B WOULD BE, MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR STORY OF THE BUILDING UNLESS THE USE IS LOCATED ON THE TOP FLOOR WITH NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN TOTAL DEDICATED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
ANY LAST THOUGHTS FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, UM, JUST KIND OF LAST THOUGHTS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S GONNA VOTE ON THIS ONE, BUT, BUT I WAS, I WAS SWAYED.
I I WILL TELL YOU I WAS GONNA VOTE FOR THE LAST ONE, UH, BUT I WAS SWAYED THIS, THE, THE PREMISE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS TO REPLACE THE VM U2 PROGRAM AND THE MORE COMPLICATIONS WE ADD AND THE MORE THIS WE ARE STRAYING AWAY FROM AND GETTING AWAY FROM, UM, WHAT HA WHAT STAFF HAS DESCRIBED TO US IS WE NEED TO GET A PATCH, MY WORD, A PATCH WORD IN WORK IN PLACE TO PLUG THAT HOLE SO WE CAN GO FORWARD AND, AND THE MORE WE GET AWAY FROM THAT, THE MORE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE ARE GONNA GET SUED AGAIN.
AND, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING SUED 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE GET SUED ALL THE, ALL DAY EVERY DAY
SO, UM, UH, I'M, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AS WELL, BUT, UM, AND THINK WE SHOULD BE CLOSER TO BMU TOO.
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? YEAH, NO, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UH, YEAH, THANK YOU.
I I WOULD JUST AGAIN, ECHO THAT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, LOOK, THE WHOLE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS WITH VM U2 AND DB 90 IS THAT OUR ZONING CODE IS WOEFULLY OUTDATED AND BROKEN AND WAY TOO COMPLEX THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.
THE WHOLE PROCESS IS, IS MESSED UP.
YOU KNOW, REALISTICALLY, TRUTHFULLY, WE SHOULD NOT, WE SHOULD ALLOW MIXED USES IN EVERY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
LIKE WE SHOULDN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO OPT INTO A BONUS PROGRAM JUST TO PUT A MIXED USE BUILDING ON THEIR SITE.
BE THAT AS IT MAY AGAIN, I, I DON'T THINK THAT ADDING MORE COMPLEXITY TO AN ALREADY BROKEN CODE FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF TIME FOR THIS ONE SMALL OPT-IN PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE WORTHWHILE.
UM, INSTEAD OF JUST GETTING THIS THROUGH AS, AS IN THE LEAST COMPLEX WAY POSSIBLE, HOPING THAT PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY OPT INTO THIS PROGRAM AND WE'LL GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OUTTA IT.
ALL RIGHT, WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE CHAIR? YES.
COMMISSIONER COX, JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT.
I THINK, UH, WE SHOULD VOTE THIS DOWN IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR VALUABLE ROOFTOP SPACES FOR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING, UH, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF DB 90, RATHER THAN CREATE A SPACE WHERE YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO PAY TO ENJOY IT.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO, TO SUPPORT, NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE, UM, ON THIS MOTION.
THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
UM, IS THAT, AM I MISSING ONE PERSON? ANYBODY ABSTAINING? I'M SORRY.
LET'S DO, I'M SORRY, LET'S DO THAT AGAIN.
2, 3, 4, 5, THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
UM, LET'S MOVE ON TO ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
SO I'LL JUST GO IN ORDER SO WE CAN
[03:00:01]
KEEP TRACK VICE CHAIR.UM, I AM GOING TO SURRENDER MY TURN.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, NO AMENDMENTS AT THIS, NO S AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU MR. WOODS, NO AMENDMENTS FROM ME.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, IF WE DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY, DO WE GET A CHANCE TO DO THEM? YES.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, SO IF IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT AGAIN, MY CONCERN ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS AND USING RENTAL UNITS, NOT OWNER UNITS, BUT RENTAL UNITS, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR HOUSING AND GENERATING MORE HOUSING TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING CRISIS ESSENTIALLY AS SHORT TERM RENTALS, UM, THAT ARE MORE OR LESS COMPARABLE ESPECIALLY, UH, TO HOTELS, HOTEL ROOMS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, I WILL ASK STAFF IF IT IS.
IT, IT, THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION EARLIER WAS THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD NOT BE USED THAT WAY, BUT WHY SHOULD ANY UNITS, IF WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE HOUSING, BE USED THAT WAY? OKAY.
SO WE CAN, WE'LL HAVE FOUR SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS AND THAT CAN BE BETWEEN US OR TO STAFF.
DOES ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'M REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IDEA, BUT I'M CURIOUS SINCE WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE LEGAL HERE, WHICH THANK YOU LEGAL FOR BEING HERE,
UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT, WHAT OUR WHAT OUR LIMITATIONS OR ABILITIES ARE RELATED TO STR UH, IN, IN THIS DB 90 AND ADJACENT ORDINANCES.
SO THE CITY WILL HAVE TO REEVALUATE OUR REGULATIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UM, AND THE COMING MONTHS.
UM, WE ARE, WE ARE KIND OF, I I WOULD SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF, UH, ADDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS TO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW IS NOT SOMETHING I WOULD ADVISE.
UM, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE WILL NEED TO LOOK AT OUR FRAMEWORK FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS IN TOTAL.
UM, THIS CAME UP AS WELL DURING PHASE ONE OF HOME, UM, CONCERNS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
SO, UM, BUT IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BE A PROHIBITED USE IN THIS DISTRICT, UM, THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND WE WILL ADVISE COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY.
YEAH, AND I'M, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IS THAT PROCESS AND IF WE HAVE A TIMELINE BECAUSE YOU, YOU ARE CORRECT.
IT WAS A BIG CONCERN IN HOME PHASE ONE.
IT'S GONNA BE A BIG CONCERN IN HOME PHASE TWO AND IT'S GONNA BE A BIG CONCERN AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT, THAT COMES BEFORE US, LIKE DB 90.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IT'S CONSTANTLY A CONCERN, UH, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE AND DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF TIMELINE? SO THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS WORKING WITH THE DSD, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIDE THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR RENTALS ALONG WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO WORK ON PROPOSALS FOR HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AS AN ORGANIZATION IN LIGHT OF THE COURT DECISIONS THAT HAVE IMPACTED US, BUT AS WELL AS OUR OTHER TEXAS CITIES AND, UH, OTHER CITIES IN THE COUNTRY.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A, MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY BECAUSE THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
AND SO IT'S BASED ON KIND OF A TRANSACTION BETWEEN PEOPLE DECIDING TO BE, TO OPT INTO THE PROGRAM IN EXCHANGE FOR OTHER BENEFITS.
AND SO BECAUSE IT IS VOLUNTEER, WHY WOULD IT BE, WHY WOULD IT FALL INTO A LEGAL AREA, A, A LEGAL QUAGMIRE IF YOU WILL, IF YOU'RE SAYING AS IF YOU WANT TO BE PART OF THIS VOLUNTEER, BE A VOLUNTEER IN THIS PROGRAM, IN EXCHANGE THE RENTAL UNITS THAT THE CITY GETS OUT OF IT OR THAT YOU GET OUT OF IT, THE RENTAL UNITS, NOT OWNERSHIP UNITS, BUT RENTAL UNITS THAT THEY SHOULD BE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE SHORT TERM RENTALS BECAUSE THE WHOLE GOAL OF DB 90 IS TO GENERATE HOUSING AND NOT HOTEL ROOMS. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
[03:05:01]
THAT AND IT COMES UP ALL THE TIME AND THEN IT'S PUT OFF ALL THE TIME.HOW, HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE CAN EXPLORE THAT SO THAT IT COULD BE PART OF THIS? THE WAY THAT, UM, WE'VE ADDRESSED IT SO FAR IS IN FOUR 18 WHERE WE LIMIT THE ACTUAL AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE UNITS THAT WE ARE GETTING IN EXCHANGE, UM, APPLYING THOSE REGULATIONS TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE DOING THE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS, SO THE RESERVED UNITS THAT WE SET ASIDE HAVE SET ASIDE, UM, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION OR TO ENSURE THE BENEFIT OF OUR BARGAIN WITH THE, UH, DEVELOPER, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THOSE UNITS ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE SET ASIDE, WHICH IS HOUSING, UM, FOR INCOME, INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
SO FOR THAT REASON, THAT'S WHY IT'S RECOMMENDED AS THE WAY I HAVE IT IN FOUR 18, IS TO LIMIT THAT USE, AGREE TO LIMIT THAT USE FOR YOUR AFFORDABLE UNIT SO THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE UNITS THAT WE ARE CONTROLLING BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE'RE GETTING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT WE'RE GETTING.
SO YOU'RE SAYING WE CANNOT CHANGE THAT DEAL.
IT'S NOT CHANGING IF WE LOOK TO LIMIT SHORT TERM RENTALS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL OF THE RENTAL UNITS IN THIS PROGRAM.
I I UNDERSTAND THE ONLY UNITS THAT WE HAVE KIND OF ANY, UM, REAL FOCUS ON IN THE PROGRAM ARE THE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS.
SO IT, THAT IS WHY IT'S SUGGESTED AND RECOMMENDED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE LIMIT IT TO THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND NOT ACROSS THE BOARD.
HOWEVER, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THEY PROHIBIT TYPE THREE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL SHORT TERM RENTALS, THAT WOULD BE, IF COUNSEL WAS TO ADOPT THAT PROHIBITION, IT WOULD ACTUALLY GO INTO THE COMBINING DISTRICT ORDINANCE.
IT WOULD NOT GO INTO THE PROGRAM, THE PROCEDURES PART.
THANK YOU MR. MAXWELL AND THEN CHAIR COHEN.
UM, AND JUST TO ADD SOME CONTEXT HERE, UM, EARLIER THIS, BASICALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, THE TOURISM COMMISSION ACTUALLY, UM, ANNOUNCED A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INPUT THAT LOOKS AT STR REGULATIONS HOLISTICALLY AND REALLY TRIES TO CONSIDER THE LOGISTICS AND LEGALITY OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE.
AND I JUST WOULD HATE FOR US TO JUMP THE GUN, SO TO SPEAK.
AND I KNOW WE THOUGHT ARE TRYING TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT COMMUNITY INPUT.
SO THERE'S AN ONGOING PROCESS AROUND THIS ISSUE AS A BIGGER, AS WE LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY ACROSS THE CITY.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT I THINK THAT IF THIS DOES COME TO A PLACE WHERE WE END UP SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWING STR IN THESE TYPES OF, THAT WILL GET ADDED INTO THE DISTRICT AT A LATER POINT IN TIME AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO I JUST WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WORK THAT OTHER COMMISSIONS ARE CURRENTLY DOING AND THE REVIEW THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS VERSUS US SAYING WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS, LIKE WITHOUT REALLY THAT INFORMATION OR EVEN THAT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE TO TOURISM COMMERCIAL, I WILL SAY HAS WORKED VERY HARD ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TALKED TO A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS.
SO I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WE'RE CONSIDERING BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY AMENDMENTS.
CHAIR, I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT, BUT I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULARLY CONDITIONS THE PROHIBITS OR CONDITIONS PROHIBITIONS OF STR USAGE WHEN WE GRANT VARIANCES BECAUSE WE ARE GRANTING SOMETHING THAT IS, IS MORE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE.
AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, I THINK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, I KNOW THERE'S GOT TO BE ISSUES WITH THE STATE, UH, WANTING TO ALLOW MORE STR BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING HERE, LIKE IT DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I MEAN, IS IT, IS IT REALLY GONNA HURT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL THAT MAYBE STR WOULDN'T BE THE BEST THING HERE? BECAUSE AS LONG AS WE'RE DEALING WITH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST AND ST AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENTITY THAT IS USING WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED HOUSING OR EVEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A PROFIT MAKING INSTITUTION, IT, WE'RE NEVER GONNA BE ABLE TO GET AHEAD.
AND I JUST, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE IF WE, INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL AMENDMENT OR WE SET IT UP AS A RECOMMENDATION, CAN WE, CAN WE DO THAT? MAYBE.
I CAN SEE YOU DON'T WANT TO AND I, I DON'T WANT TO EITHER.
I JUST HATE STR THEY'RE TAKING AWAY FROM OUR HOUSING
[03:10:01]
STOP.I I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT ON, GET ON MY SOAPBOX HERE FOR JUST ONE SECOND.
UM, STR ACTUALLY ARE A FORM OF HOUSING.
PEOPLE HAVE NEEDS OF HOUSING BETWEEN STIPPLE HOUSES.
WE HAVE FOLKS WHO COME HERE TO WORK ON SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL RENT.
THEY, THEY NEED PLACES TO LIVE TOO.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT STR HAVE A BAD REPUTATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE TOURISM COMMERCIAL IS SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO ADJUST.
AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAKING UP THEIR WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS TOMORROW AT A MEETING.
SO AGAIN, NOT JUMPING THE GUM, BUT ALSO JUST TO POINT OUT, TAKING A STEP BACK THAT WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES ACROSS AUSTIN WHO ARE AUSTINITES AND LIVE IN THIS CITY WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN AN STR FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
THEY HAD HOME DAMAGE, THEY'RE MOVING, THEY'RE BETWEEN HOUSES, THEIR HOUSES ARE BEING WORKED ON, WHATEVER THE REASON.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE DISLIKE FOR STRS, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THERE IS A WORKING GROUP WORKING ON THIS CURRENTLY.
SO SINCE THIS WAS MY, UM, MY THOUGHT, I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT, UM, ABOUT THAT, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC KIND OF, OF, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE KINDS THAT ARE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC KIND.
AND, AND ALSO I WILL SAY THAT THAT, UM, WE COULD JUST SEND THIS UP AS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IT, IT WOULDN'T BE, UH, HAVE THE WEIGHT OF AN AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD JUST BE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND AGAIN, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS ARE WORKING ON THIS, BUT SO ARE WE IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME? SO ARE WE IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME? IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION, I'M SECONDING IT.
AND COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS THAT, UH, QUESTION I, I
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA BEG COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS NOT TO, TO DO THE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE VOTES ARE.
UM, I, I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S, UM, FOCUS HERE.
AND, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET IN, I DON'T WANNA GET IN THE WAY OF THE, UH, TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER IF THAT'S THE RIGHT NAME.
BUT, BUT WE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND THIS IS THE OPTION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.
AND, AND I LIKE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, SUGGESTION TO SAY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS BONUS DENSITY PROGRAM, THIS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM, YOU ARE GONNA MAKE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT ON THAT CONTRACT IS IF, IF, IF THEY'RE RENTAL UNITS, LONG TERM WHATEVER, BUT IF THEY'RE RENTAL UNITS, NOT SELLING UNITS, 'CAUSE THEN WE DO GO AFOUL OF THE LAW AND A LAWSUIT.
BUT IF THEY'RE FOR RENTS, THEY'RE NOT SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND, BUT IF, IF, IF YOU DO IT AS A RECOMMENDATION, I'M GONNA VOTE WITH YOU.
BUT I LIKE THE STRONGER ACTION TO, TO MAKE THIS A, MAKE THIS A PROVISION OF THE PROGRAM.
LET'S, LET'S REEL THIS BACK IN.
AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR MAYBE YOUR MOTION IS TO CREATE A RECOMMENDATION? YEAH, I WAS GOING TO JUST AS LEGAL HAD ADVISED US TO DO, TO SEND IT UP AS A RECOMMENDATION AND LET COUNSEL DECIDE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO.
IF THEY, OR IF IT, IF IT'S NOT.
UM, BECAUSE IT DOES SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT FORMS OF HOUSING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT PARTIES ARE WORKING ON THIS, BUT THIS CAN BE OUR BEST EFFORT.
UM, AND I JUST, I THINK A RECOMMENDATION IS APPROPRIATE, JUST A RECOMMENDATION WITH NO FORCE OF ANY AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S JUST A, AND IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION AND I WOULD EVEN WATER IT DOWN EVEN MORE TO SAY IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF, OF, UM, ASKING AS, AS COMMISSIONER HAYNES POINTED OUT PART OF THE CONTRACT IN PARTICIPATING IN THE DB 90 PROGRAM THAT WE, THAT RENTAL UNITS ARE USED FOR RENTAL UNITS AND NOT FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS.
SO, SO, SO JUST TO SORT OF MOVE IT ALONG AND BRING IT BACK TO SORT OF OUR PROCEDURE FOLKS ARE FINE WITH IT.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I'VE JUST DRAFTED SOMETHING.
SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER PROHIBITING SDR IN ALL RENTAL UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS PENDING REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
AND I'LL SECOND THAT JUST SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST OUR MOTION.
[03:15:02]
WE REMOVING COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I JUST, I JUST, I REALLY SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WHICH IS INTENDING TO PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.SO WHY WE WOULD ALLOW STR TO OCCUPY THE BONUS SPACE THAT IS RESTRICTED, OR THE BONUS SPACE IN GENERAL JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAITED TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC THAT IS BEING STUDIED BY ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY, WE WOULD NEVER TAKE ANY ACTION.
AND SO I, I APPRECIATE OTHERS WORKING ON THIS HOLISTICALLY FROM A CITYWIDE PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO THAT, DESPERATELY NEED TO DO THAT.
BUT FOR DD 90, I THINK THIS IS A NO BRAINER.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? THANK YOU.
UM, AND KUSHNER COX, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT ABOUT, UH, IF WE, YOU KNOW, WAITED FOR EVERY OTHER BODY TO STUDY AN ISSUE, WE WOULD NEVER TAKE ACTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ALSO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM INTENDED TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
UM, ANYTHING THAT WE DO TO OVERCOMPLICATE THIS PROGRAM OR MAKE IT LESS ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOPERS MEANS WE WILL GET ZERO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FROM THE PROGRAM INSTEAD OF ONE OR TWO FEWER HERE OR THERE.
UM, LOOK, I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON ANYBODY'S TOES IN TERMS OF STUDYING THE STR ISSUE.
I THINK IT IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED COMPREHENSIVELY, CITYWIDE.
UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE JUST CONTINUE OUR ESTABLISHED POLICY TOWARDS STR IN THIS BONUS PROGRAM, UH, KNOWING THAT IT'S NOT YET ANOTHER LAYER TO DISCOURAGE PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO VOTE AGAINST THIS, UH, TO KEEP THIS PROGRAM SIMPLE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER AL? UM, I AM, I AM, I AM FOR THIS.
IF WE DON'T PUT IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE, WE DON'T GET THE OUTCOME.
AND LET'S BE CLEAR ON WHY THIS IS HAPPENING.
WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT CAME IN AND GOT ZONING UNDER THE VMU TWO THAT ARE SITTING IN LIMBO BECAUSE THAT'S GONE OUT THE WINDOW.
THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO CERTAIN DENSE CORRIDORS THAT ARE GONNA CONTRIBUTE TO A GRANT THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOON.
THIS WHAT'S DRIVING ALL THIS AND MAKING IT GO REALLY FAST WITHOUT A REAL PUBLIC PROCESS.
SO WE NEED, THEY'RE GONNA COME IN UNDER THIS.
THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE, BUT I'M NOT OPENING THIS UP TO SOME OTHER, GIVE ME ALONG THE WAY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS COMING IN ON THAT FOUR 18, IT SPECIFICALLY TARGETS THOSE AFFORDABLE RATE HOUSING ONES THAT WE NEED.
IT DOES NOTHING ON THE OTHER UNITS IN THERE THAT ARE AT FULL RETAIL.
SO AGAIN, IT'S HITTING AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PLACES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
AND WHAT DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA DO WHEN YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT? THEY'RE GONNA USE THAT LOOPHOLE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST? OR FOUR? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS RECOMMENDATION AROUND STR AND IF YOU COULD QUICKLY READ THAT AGAIN.
UM, THIS WILL BE FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER PROHIBITING STS IN ALL RENTAL UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS, UNITS PENDING REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
AND THOSE VOTING AGAINST TWO AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD OH FOUR.
SO THAT'S TEN TWO THAT PASSES.
I'M GONNA KEEP GOING DOWN THE LINE CHAIR.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE, CAN I JUST MAKE A PERSONAL REQUEST TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS? I KNOW OUR RULES ALLOW US TO DEBATE AND IT, I WOULD, WE HAVE A LOT OF STAFF SITTING HERE.
WE ARE NOT SURE HOW MANY AMENDMENTS WE HAVE TO GO.
I, THIS IS A PERSONAL REQUEST, IF POSSIBLE.
I UNDERSTAND WE'RE PASSIONATE AND WE WANNA MAKE A POINT, ASK QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.
BUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IF WE CAN MINIMIZE COMMENTS, THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL REQUEST ONLY.
I'M GONNA GO TO, UM, THE VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS AND SEE IF YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS.
[03:20:01]
UM, I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT, UH, WE REALLY SHOULD BE TARGETING JUST MORE OF A STRAIGHT UP REPLACEMENT OF OUR PREVIOUS VMU ORDINANCE.AND SO MY AMENDMENT ATTEMPTS TO DO SOME OF THAT.
UH, WHAT I PROPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS F SEVEN AND SECTION 25 8 700.
ELIMINATE THE, UH, F FIVE, WHICH REMOVES, UM, THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR ANY BUILDING PARTICIPATING IN DB 90 AND REPLACE THAT LANGUAGE WITH THE PART TWO, SECTION FOUR THREE 3D OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 2 SUB CHAPTER E IN THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE, WHICH IS D COMPATIBILITY IN NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS.
AND INSERT THAT LANGUAGE, UH, INTO THE F FIVE SECTION.
AND I CAN READ THAT LANGUAGE IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO.
I WISH I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN, BUT, UM, IT'S IN THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE AND IT, UH, TAKES THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION 25 2 10 62 AND REDUCES IT TO, UH, IT REDUCES THE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGER TO A HUNDRED FEET FROM A PROPERTY ZONED SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE.
THAT'S THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE.
OKAY, LET'S GO INTO OUR QUESTIONS.
FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION.
I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, UH, I DON'T HAVE, UH, WILL YOU REREAD THE NUMBER? YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT FOR ME, GRACE OR COMMISSIONER COX, BUT REREAD THE NUMBER SO I CAN LOOK IT UP AND I'LL TAKE THAT TWO MINUTES.
THAT'S, THAT'S ONE, TWO MINUTES.
THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NUMBER IS 20 22 0 6 0 9 0 8 0.
AND IF YOU GO DOWN TO, UH, THE SECOND PAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT, THAT WHOLE SECTION IN THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE OCCUPIES THE SECOND PAGE.
THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE FROM THE, THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO INSERT, THE VMU CODE, WHAT WAS THE 25? TWO SIX? WHAT WAS IT? SECTION? SO THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE MODIFIED IT AMENDED SECTION FOUR THREE 3D OKAY, GOT IT.
OF CHAPTER 25, 2 SUB CHAPTER E.
AND, AND THAT WAS ONE THING I WAS HOPING WE WOULD GET WAS LIKE A COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE AND THIS ONE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
I PUT BOTH ON TABS AND TRIED TO COMPARE 'EM.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU'VE GOT, YOU HAD 20 SECONDS.
I, I APPRECIATE THE PREVIOUS COMMENTARY FROM THIS BODY ABOUT THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE STR ITEM AND THE RESTAURANT ITEM TAKING AWAY POTENTIAL HOUSING UNITS.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF COULD WEIGH IN ON THIS BRIEFLY AND JUST SAY, DOES THIS AMENDMENT LOOK TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT THE TYPICAL DB 90 DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE OR BE NEUTRAL OR DECREASE? UM, SO THE COMPATIBILITY FROM BMU PROGRAM WOULD DECREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE WOULD SEE IN DB 90 PROJECTS.
I REFERENCED THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FROM LAST YEAR.
IN THAT ANALYSIS, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT 2,709 UNITS WERE LOST DUE TO THESE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOMES BUILT BY THOUSANDS OF UNITS.
OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER COX, UM, IF YOU WANT TO RESTATE THE ACTUAL MOTION AND THEN WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
UM,
[03:25:01]
MY MOTION IS TO DELETE, UH, IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE OR THE WORKING DRAFT ORDINANCE, UH, SECTION F FIVE, SECTION F SEVEN, AND THE NEW SECTION 25 8 700 THAT DEFINES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.AND THEN INSERT UNDER SECTION F THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL VMU ORDINANCE.
THAT IS PART TWO, SECTION 4.3 D OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO, SUB CHAPTER E, THAT LANGUAGE.
AND AGAIN, I HAVE IT ON MY SCREEN, I WISH I COULD SHARE IT, BUT OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, LET'S GO INTO FORWARD AGAINST, UM, ANYBODY WHO'S SPEAKING TO THE MOTION.
SO LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UH, THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SEE THREE AND THOSE AGAINST EIGHT.
OKAY, THAT'S THREE EIGHT TO ONE.
UM, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER.
UM, GOING IN ORDER OF WHAT I SEE YOU ON SCREEN.
COMMISSIONER MOTALA, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? YES, THANK YOU.
UM, TRYING TO SEE IF ANYTHING GOT CAPTURED ALREADY.
UM, LET ME FIND IT REAL QUICK.
SO THIS IS IN 25 8, 700 D THE SCREENING ZONE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE, UH, D TWO CC TO BE LARGE GROWTH SHRUBS.
SO THEIR MATURE, THEIR MATURE HEIGHTS WOULD BE LARGE GROWTH SHRUBS.
UM, WE'VE GOT FOUR SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? UM, COMMISSIONER COX, AND THEN VICE-CHAIRS ARE, YEAH, JUST TO STAFF.
I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER, AND I'M HOPING SOMEONE FROM STAFF KNOWS, BUT I THINK, I THINK IN OUR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, DON'T WE HAVE SOME CATEGORIES OF SHRUBS AND HOW WE SIZE THEM? I KNOW WE DO THAT FOR TREES.
SO THERE ARE TWO CATEGORIES OF SHRUBS, SMALL SHRUBS WHICH HAVE A HEIGHT BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR FEET, AND THEN LARGE SHRUBS, WHICH HAVE A MATURE HEIGHT OF GREATER THAN FOUR FEET.
SO COMMISSIONER MUTAL, MAYBE THAT'S HOW WE CAN CATEGORIZE IT, UH, CALL THEM LARGE SHRUBS, UM, TO ENSURE WE GET THAT, THAT SCREENING THAT'S INTENDED.
VICE CHAIR, I CHAIR THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER MTEL, OR DID YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS ON, UH, 25 8 700 CATEGORY D SCREENING ZONE, UH, NUMBER TWO C WHERE IT SAYS 10 SHRUBS.
I WOULD LIKE TO DELETE AND REPLACE WITH 10 LARGE CATEGORY SHRUBS.
AND I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ANY COMMENTARY ON THIS FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
[03:30:04]
OKAY, THOSE AGAINST TWO, 3:00 AM I I HAVE 10 ABSTENTION.AND CHAIR, WILL YOU GOING AROUND A, UH, AN ADDITIONAL TIME IF PEOPLE HAVE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS? YES.
IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND OUR MEETING TILL 10 30.
UM, WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
DID YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? UM, YES.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT.
UM, LEMME PULL THIS UP JUST TO REMOVE, UH, THE REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED CODE SECTION FOUR DASH 18 DASH 32, UH, FROM PART FIVE OF THE DB 90 ORDINANCE.
UM, REASON BEING REALLY IT'S, IT'S YET AGAIN ANOTHER LAYER OF POTENTIAL COMPLICATION THAT WE MAYBE HAVEN'T FULLY ANALYZED AND WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE PREVIOUS VMU TWO ORDINANCE.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHERE THAT REFERENCE IS AGAIN? YEAH, IT'S ON THE VERY LAST PAGE OF THE DRAFT DB 90 ORDINANCE.
UH, IT WOULD JUST GET RID OF WHERE IT SAYS, UM, I MIGHT BE LOOKING AT THE WRONG PAGE HERE.
IT'S ON PAGE THREE OF SIX IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, UH, UNDER 25 DASH TWO DASH 6 5 2 PART G.
YEAH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
I'M SO SORRY, MS. LINCOLN, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
CAN YOU READ THE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT LINE 86, UM, IT IS AT THE END OF PART THREE, RIGHT ABOVE PART FOUR, IT WOULD BE STRIKING THAT, UM, IF THE COMMISSION STRIKES RECOMMENDS STRIKING THAT PROVISION, THEN I WILL MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGE IN PART FIVE THAT ADDRESSES THE REDEVELOPMENT PROVISION AS IT RELATES TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, I WAS JUST, I'M HOPING SHE CAN ELABORATE ON, 'CAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHAPTER FOUR 18 DOES.
SO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION IN FOUR 18 WOULD SET BASICALLY SOME GUARDRAILS AROUND USING DB 90 TO REDEVELOP EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES THAT IS CURRENTLY A REQUIREMENT IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, AND IT WAS PART OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
WAS IT PART OF VMU, THE PREVIOUS VMU ORDINANCE? NO.
DID THAT CREATE ANY CHALLENGES? SO THAT IS WHY IN PART FIVE, THE PROPERTIES WHERE THE ZONINGS WOULD BE REIN WOULD BE, THE REZONINGS WOULD BE INITIATED.
THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION TO ADDRESS THE, THE V PROJECTS ALREADY IN PROCESS.
SO, SO IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER, WHEN YOU SAID REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, IS THIS TIED TO THINGS LIKE TENANT PROTECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF? THIS IS WHEN THERE IS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ON THE SITE AND IT'S IN DECENT SHAPE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE DB 90.
IF IT IS, UM, IN A CERTAIN CONDITION, YOU CAN USE DB 90, BUT YOU HAVE TO GIVE TENANT RELOCATION PROVISIONS.
UM, WELL IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A MOTION YET.
SO I'LL WAIT, I'LL, I GUESS I'LL TRY TO DO THIS IN A QUESTION FORMAT.
UH, I'LL JUST SAY, I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING IT IN MASS.
THERE IS A CONSIDERATION FOR WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE.
WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE IT FOR EXISTING, UM, DEVELOPMENTS WHO MIGHT BE IN THE PIPELINE ALREADY.
I WOULD RATHER ASK STAFF TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT CREATING A VARIANCE PROCESS OF SOME SORT
[03:35:01]
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASK FOR THAT REQUIREMENT TO BE WAIVED RATHER THAN, UM, JUST SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYBODY.UM, SO I GUESS THAT'S NOT A QUESTION WHICH WOULD BE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT IDEA?
I, YOU KNOW, I'D BE OPEN TO THAT.
UM, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU MEAN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER PROCESS AND NOT A, A COMMISSION OR COUNSEL VARIANCE.
UH, HONESTLY, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FROM MS. LINK TO SAY, WOULD THAT SOME, WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE OR NOT? I JUST DUNNO FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
SO I WAS THINKING REALLY? MM-HMM.
UH, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO PROPOSE IT, WE WILL EXPLORE WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.
ALRIGHT, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CRAFT A MOTION? UH, YES.
IS THERE A SECOND? UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR THOSE.
UM, UM, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON BRINGING FORWARD, BECAUSE I THINK DURING THE Q AND A, WE SAW SEVERAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS.
AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER ZA ALSO HAS AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT THE GUARDRAILS WE'RE PUTTING, GIVEN SOME CONCERNS RAISED BY STAFF, BUT HAVING A VARIANCE SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GREAT COMPROMISE HERE.
WE DO WANNA ENSURE THAT WE KEEP AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL VMU ATTEND AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE ALSO DO WANNA BE PROTECTIVE OF THE NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSE SITUATIONS THAT WE MAY FIND IN THE MARKETPLACE.
SO I THINK HAVING THE WAIVER WOULD BE GREAT AND MIGHT BE A GOOD WORKAROUND FOR THIS.
UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S WILLINGNESS TO SAY THAT THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL VMU AND WE WOULD NOT WANT TO INCLUDE THINGS THAT MIGHT END UP, UM, LOWERING THE OVERALL YIELD OF PROJECTS THAT END UP UNDER THE DB 90 AS A RESULT.
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST, OR, UH, COMMISSIONER AL, THIS WILL BE, UH, A SWING SHIFT, BUT I ACTUALLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL ONE YOU WERE ABOUT TO PROPOSE.
I HAVE CONCERNS IF WE GO BACK AND REFERENCE THAT LANGUAGE IN FOUR 18, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THAT'S WORDED.
AND SO, UM, I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AT.
I I THINK IT NEEDS SOME MORE WORK.
UM, SO I KIND OF LIKED YOUR ORIGINAL
NOW,
SO I'LL, I'LL LET THE BODY TAKE THIS UP AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
AND TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO EXAMINE THE METHOD, UM, WAIVER OR VARIANCE.
ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? YES.
J JUST IN THE CASE OF HOW IT'S NOTED, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND MAXWELL, HOPEFULLY THIS, WHAT I HAVE IS EXAMINE WHAT METHOD MAY BE POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A WAIVER OF VARIANCE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS IN SUBSECTION FOUR DASH 18 DASH 32 EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE.
ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE? UH, ALL RIGHT.
EVAN? UH, UH, WHAT A 10? ALL THE AGAINST AN ABS STAIN.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME COUNT.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT? TWO.
MINE ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND VERY
[03:40:01]
EASY.UH, AND, UH, STARTING AT LINE 38 E, UH, ONE AND TWO, AND THEN TWO A AND B IN ON LINE 40.
ANDREW, WE LOST, UM, VIDEO OF MR. HAYNES.
I'LL, I'LL TALK, I'LL TALK REAL FAST.
UM, IN, UH, LINE 40, UH, STRIKE 12 AND ADD AND SUBSTITUTE 15 AND LINE 47.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR ABOUT THIS ITEM.
WAIT, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH? NOPE.
COMMISSIONER MOT, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? YEAH.
WHAT DOES THIS DO TO THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY APPLIED IN LIMBO? I GUESS NOTHING IS, IT'S, THEY HAVEN'T CRAFTED THE PROGRAM YET, BUT, RIGHT.
I MEAN, WE'RE, YEAH, THIS IS, OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COX? JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING WITH STAFF, SINCE THESE PERCENTAGES OFTEN END UP WITH DECIMALS, IT, IT, IT'S ALWAYS, IS IT ALWAYS ROUNDED UP IN TERMS OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF UNITS? SO IF IT'S, IF WE HAVE A 53 UNIT COMPLEX, I CAN'T DO THE MATH AND I DON'T HAVE A CALCULATOR IN FRONT OF ME, BUT WOULD THAT BE ROUNDED UP TO THE NEXT WHOLE NUMBER AND THAT'S THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? YES.
WE ALWAYS ROUND UP TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER FOR BONUS PROGRAMS. OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS,
WE, WE ARE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS WITH THE CONSULTANTS TO LOOK AT THE CALIBRATION FOR SOME OF OUR BONUSES.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND WOULD THAT INCLUDE A DB 90 AS WELL, ERIC LAKE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? UM, YES, WE ARE, WE WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE CONSULTANTS, UM, UNDER CONTRACT IN THE NEXT MONTH, MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF TO LOOK AT THE CITY'S DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY.
AND I DIDN'T CATCH THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
OH, AND, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE WEIGHT WOULD INCLUDE DB 90 AS WELL? UH, YES.
AND SO WE MIGHT COME BACK AND AMEND OUR EXISTING PROGRAMS AT THAT TIME BASED ON WHATEVER FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM OUR CONSULTANTS.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? UM, I HOPE IT WAS A MOTION.
I, I REC OR I, I MOVED, UH, STRIKE 12.
UH, IN, IN, UH, I'M NOT GONNA MOVE MY CAMERA 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S KNOCKING ME OFF, BUT CHECK MY, IT'S, UH, PAGE TWO.
IT'S IN SUB E AND THEN WHATEVER THE LINES CORRESPOND TO WHERE IT SAYS 12 SUBSTITUTE 15.
AND WHERE IT SAYS 10 SUBSTITUTE 12.
AND I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, OPEN IT UP FOR, FOR AND AGAINST ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR THIS ITEM OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.
WE KEEP DOING 10% OF EVERYTHING.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S JUST A CONVENIENT NUMBER AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE DONE IT.
UH, AND, AND I'VE ALWAYS ASKED MYSELF, WHY, WHY CAN'T WE DO MORE? AND, AND COMMISSIONER ZA MADE A MADE AN INTERESTING POINT WITH HIS QUESTIONING THAT WE'RE FINALLY, HOPEFULLY GONNA GET A CONSULTANT TO ACTUALLY DIVE INTO THE, THE NUMBERS ON THIS FOR, FOR CALIBRATION.
BUT TO ME, I'D, I'D RATHER SHOOT HIGH.
AND THEN IF WE FIND THAT IT'S, IT'S TOO MUCH, IF THE CALIBRATION'S NOT WORKING, OR IF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT IT, THEN LET'S
[03:45:01]
COME BACK AND REDUCE IT.BUT LET'S, LET'S SHOOT HIGH FIRST.
LET'S TRY TO GET MORE UNITS, UM, WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGES AND, AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
SPEAKING AGAINST VICE CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY DID ANALYSIS DURING THE CODE.
I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO GO AND LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY SET ASIDES BASED ON GEOGRAPHY THAT WERE CALCULATED.
THEN THERE'S A DOCUMENT SOMEWHERE THAT EXISTS.
IF PEOPLE CANNOT FIND IT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
KNOW THAT OUR CONSULTANTS ACTUALLY IN SOME PLACES RECOMMENDED 6.5% AND ONE PLACES 7.5%.
SO IN ACTUALITY, TO BE HONEST, I'M A LITTLE SCARED OF CONSULTANTS CALIBRATING BECAUSE THEY MIGHT ASK US TO GO LOWER.
SO 10% IN ACTUALITY WAS MORE ROBUST THAN WHAT WE'VE HAD.
AND 12 AND 50, UH, THE 12% IN HERE IS, IS THE MOST ROBUST WE HAVE EVER ADOPTED IN OUR CITY.
AND I UNDERSTAND, AND FOLKS HERE KNOW, I'VE WORKED LONG ON DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND I CARE ABOUT THEM VERY DEEPLY.
BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE OF HOW DO WE BALANCE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGAINST PARTICIPATION.
SO IF WE HAVE BENEFITS, AND WE SEE THIS IN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR, THE RAINY PROGRAM BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED TO BE FIXED, IF YOUR REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE SO HIGH THAT THERE'S NO PARTICIPATION, THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOSS OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
BUT SPEAKING FOUR OR AGAINST, OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
UM, MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? TWO, THREE.
IF SIX, SEVEN AND THOSE ABSTAINING ONE, TWO, THAT MOTION FAILS.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, I DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS.
UM, I WILL GO BACK AROUND, UM, AND SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS.
COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, VICE CHAIR.
I MIGHT, HONESTLY, IF THIS BECOMES A BIG QUESTION, I WILL NOT BE DOING AMENDMENTS.
SO IF FOLKS HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS, I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, THERE WILL BE NO AMENDMENTS, SO PLEASE DON'T ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
IT WOULD BE SAYING, LET ME READ IT OUT.
CONSIDER A FEE LIE OPTION TO MEET THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? CONSIDER A FEE LIE OPTION TO MEET THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
QUESTIONS ON THIS? CAN, OH, I FORGOT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE QUESTIONS,
SO JUST TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THIS IS, WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE WITH OUR AFFORDABILITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS.
SO IN AN IDEAL UNIVERSE, THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES ARE, AND IN GENERAL, GOOD POLICY IS THAT NO HOUSEHOLD SHOULD BE SPENDING MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED COSTS, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE COST BURDEN.
THE CHALLENGE WITH OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN THAT WHEN WE DO OWNERSHIP THROUGH SUCH MEANS, THERE'S HOA OR CONDO FEES THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL AS A CITY OR AS A PUBLIC ENTITY, WHICH LATER ON MEANS THAT PEOPLE ARE NOW PAYING WAY MORE THAN THE 30%.
SO AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS AS PART OF PROJECTS, IN SOME WAYS IT IS BETTER TO COLLECT A FEE THAT WE CAN THEN PUT TOWARDS OUR CITY'S LAND TRUST OR SOME OTHER MEANS SO WE CAN HAVE A MORE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT SO WE'RE NOT ASSESSING EXTRA FEES ONTO FOLKS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE FOR OWNERSHIP.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT PERFECT, AND I KNOW OUR STAFF IS EXPLORING UP WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, BUT THIS WOULD, THE
I, I, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT.
IT, IT REALLY SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IN THE PAST, UM, IN LIEU OF FEES HAVE BEEN USED TO, UM, KEEP CERTAIN PEOPLE OUT.
UM, AND THAT HAPPENED IN, IN MANY UNITS WHERE, ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN.
SO DEVELOPERS ROUTINELY WERE PAYING IN LIEU OF FEES IN ORDER SO THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO OFFER CONDOS TO, UH, AT AN AFFORDABILITY LEVEL.
SO WOULD, WOULD THIS, SO HOW WOULD THIS, BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT ALL OF THE FEES ADDING UP, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S THAT OTHER SIDE TO IT.
SO HOW WOULD YOU BALANCE THAT? I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT.
SO I THINK WE ARE STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
TO YOUR POINT, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ONSITE UNITS.
THERE'S MULTIPLE REASONS WHY THAT'S SUPERIOR, RIGHT? ONE IS IT
[03:50:01]
LEADS TO MORE INTEGRATION WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT.IT LEADS TO MORE GEOGRAPHIC INTEGRATION, AND ALSO MEANS THAT THE UNITS COME ONLINE FASTER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING INTO A FUND AND THEN BEING APPLIED.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE'RE STUCK WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE WHO'S ELIGIBLE FOR AN AFFORDABLE UNIT MIGHT BE PAYING A LOT MORE IN CONDO AND HO OA FEES.
AND SO IT'S, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK ONSITE FOR RENTAL IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OWNERSHIP.
I GUESS THIS IS JUST SOMETHING FOR ALL OF US TO CONSIDER.
I LEAN IN TOWARDS LOSING SOME OF THOSE BENEFITS OF HAVING ONSITE UNITS JUST TO ENSURE THAT FOLKS WHO AREN IN THOSE OWNERSHIP UNITS AREN'T BURDENED BY FEES TOO MUCH.
I'LL BE HONEST, SOME OF THOSE CONDO FEES RIGHT NOW ARE UP TO $500.
I DON'T KNOW HOW A HOUSEHOLD CAN TACK ON $500 TO THEIR REGULAR HOUSING PAYMENT WITHOUT A QUESTION ASKED.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE THE MOTION
AND I WILL SAY FOR STAFF'S SAKE, I AM TAKING NOTES ON ALL THE PASSING AMENDMENTS AND I'LL SEND OUT THE LANGUAGE VERBATIM AS PAST TONIGHT.
ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SPEAK BRIEFLY FOR IT.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS MOTION.
UM, SO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAS HOME BASE AND A LOT OF THESE HOMES THAT ARE BUILT, INCLUDING DOWNTOWN TOWERS, THAT, THAT HAVE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR OWNERSHIP, THEY ACTUALLY GO TO HOME BASE TO BE SOLD.
AND I FOUND OUT JUST YESTERDAY ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT WE SOLD A UNIT TO, IT'S APPRAISING AT 1.2 MILLION.
TCA IS NOT GIVING THEM ANY RELIEF IN YEAR ZERO.
AND SO THEY'RE GOING AT THEM WITH A TAX BILL AS THOUGH THEY LIVE IN A $1.2 MILLION UNIT, EVEN THOUGH WE SOLD THEM A UNIT FOR MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN THAT, AN AFFORDABLE PRICE.
AND NOW THIS PERSON IS LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY GOING BANKRUPT.
AND IT'S JUST LIKE, OKAY, TCA, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP DOING THIS TO PEOPLE? AND SO THERE'S JUST REAL ISSUES WITH THIS.
AND THEN ALSO THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO PROTECT FOLKS FROM AN HOA THAT WANTS TO GO UP OR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT HAPPEN THAT I'VE TALKED TO STAFF AND STAFF GETS NERVOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.
THERE'S, THERE'S FEWER PROTECTIONS THAT WE CAN HAVE IN PLACE WITH THESE FOLKS.
SO I'M, I'M EXCITED TO GIVE STAFF THE ABILITY TO CREATE THIS FOR, UH, V AND L.
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
UH, BY COMMISSIONER CZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? UM, EIGHT.
AND THEN I SEE TWO OR THOSE AGAINST KANSAS AGAINST, UH, MUCH TALLER.
YEAH, YOU GONNA GET THAT RIGHT? SO THAT MOTION PASSES, UM, WAS GIVEN OVER ME.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? NONE AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? NO, THANK YOU.
POINT OF ORDER, UM, ON THE LAST VOTE, DID YOU SAY THE RESULT WAS 8 2 1? YES.
WAS SOMEONE OFF THE DAYS? 'CAUSE I THOUGHT WE HAD 12 MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY.
UM, I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME SEEING FAR AWAY.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ZA, AGAIN BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, 2 3 4 5 9 2 9 2 7 8 9 2 1.
AND STAFF, WE'RE WELL, WHEN DON'T WE HAVE THE TVS UP FRONT.
AGAIN, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SEE MARCH 5TH CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER
UM, I ASKED YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE COMING UP TO ME SO QUICK.
UM, YES, I HAVE ONE OTHER ONE FOR YOU GUYS.
WE ARE BACK TO 25 8, 700 I THINK.
[03:55:01]
THE LINES.AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE, UH, SURFACE PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, ALLEYS.
I'D LIKE TO REMOVE C AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE E.
SO I WOULD REPLACE IT WITH ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE MINUS THOSE TWO.
AND I WOULD NOTE THAT I, THAT LEAVING IN PLACE IN THIS AMENDMENT.
ITEM F ON THE NEXT PAGE, LINES ONE 19 AND 20.
NO, UM, H LINE 1 25 H THAT IF, UM, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE, THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR WORKING WITH THAT.
AS IT APPLIES UTILITIES AND THAT KIND OF THING THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE.
QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? JUST A, JUST A CLARIFICATION.
WAS IT, WAS IT C AND D OR DID YOU JUST END UP SAYING C? SO, UH, UH, OKAY.
SO TO CLARIFY AGAIN, UM, REMOVING C AND REMOVING E, C, E AS IN EDWARD.
I I, I'D LOVE TO GET STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT EXACTLY THIS DOES.
SO AGAIN, WE WERE LOOKING TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE RESTRICTED G ZONE, WHICH IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE NO BUILD BUFFER THAT YOU SEE NOW.
SO THAT WAS IN COUNCIL DIRECTION AND THE RESOLUTION FROM LAST YEAR.
UM, WE ALSO DID LOOK AT, UH, WAIVER REQUESTS FOR, UH, FROM NO BUILD COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS TODAY.
AND SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN C AND E CAME UP IN THOSE WAIVER REQUESTS.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE INCLUDED.
SO THIS AMENDMENT LOOKS TO REMOVE FLEXIBILITY.
BUT TO CLARIFY, THERE'S A MECHANISM IN H THAT ALLOWS 'EM TO CONTINUE TO GET THAT WAIVER IF THEY, IF THEY NEED IT FOR THE PROPERTY.
I JUST DON'T WANT A CARTE BLANCHE.
THEY HAVE TO SHOW, NEED OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, OKAY.
SO LET'S, UH, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, IF YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION SO WE CAN GET A SECOND.
I HAVE LANGUAGE FOR COMMISSIONER MICHELLE, IF THIS HELPS.
SO WE WILL BE SAYING A RESTRICTED USE ZONE MAY NOT INCLUDE SURFACE PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, ALLEYS OR FIRE LANES AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
IS THERE A SECOND? EXCEPT I DON'T SEE A SECOND.
UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IS THAT A NO, NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS.
I DON'T SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
OH WAIT, WERE YOU A SECOND ON THAT? OH, I'M A, I'M A, YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? NOPE.
I SHARE
I'LL, UM, SEE IF THIS GOES, IF IT IS, I'LL ALLOW HVAC SYSTEMS IN THE RESTRICTED USE ZONE EXCEPT FOR INDUSTRIAL HVAC SYSTEMS. UM, UH, LET'S, WE'LL LET YOU MAKE A MOTION.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? COMMISSIONER COX? THE STAFF KNOW HOW LOUD 30 HVAC SYSTEMS ON A PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS.
WE, I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.
DO WE TYPICALLY ALLOW HVAC UNITS TO BE WITHIN SETBACK SPACES
[04:00:01]
AND BUFFER SPACES? YES, WE DO.SO COMMISSIONER COX, WE ONLY, WE DO NOT ALLOW IT.
SO THERE'S A 25 NO BUILD ZONE ONLY.
AND THIS IS THE CONFUSION THAT WAS EARLIER.
WE HAVE REGULAR SETBACKS IN 25 DASH TWO.
THEN WE HAVE A NO BUILD SETBACK THAT IS 25 FEET WITHIN OUR COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE CURRENTLY.
AND SO WITHIN THAT, WE ACTUALLY DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO DO HVACS IN REGULAR SETBACKS.
SO WHAT FOLKS ARE DOING IS THEY CAN'T DO IT IN THE BACK BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, THERE'S A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER THERE, BUT THEY ARE BUILDING IT IN THE SIDE SETBACKS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT IN AN HVAC RIGHT THERE.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING WORSE DESIGN THAN FRANKLY WHAT WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
AND I DO WANT TO SAY WHEN COUNCIL WORKED ON THE COMPATIBILITY ON CORRIDORS ORDINANCE, WHICH AGAIN, UH, WAS OVERTURNED AND SUPPOSED TO COME BACK, THERE'S A LINE VERY CLEARLY IN THERE SAYING, UM, THAT YOU CAN HAVE A STRUCTURE THERE.
AND THE ONLY LIMITATION IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL OR LARGER HVAC SYSTEMS. SO OTHERWISE COUNCIL AT THE TIME, INCLUDING YOUR NOMINATOR COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, DID ASK THAT WE ALLOW HVAC SYSTEMS WITHIN THAT BUFFER.
SO CLARIFYING AGAIN, AND, AND I WANNA SHOUT OUT TO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ FOR ASKING A LOT OF REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WAS JUST SAYING, I NEED A PICTURE.
SO, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR WHERE YOU WANT TO ALLOW THESE HVAC UNITS TO BE.
SO THE NO, UM, THE WAY STAFF HAS DONE IT, IT'S THAT 15 FOOT BEYOND THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER.
'CAUSE IN THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS ANYWAYS, PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED, IT'S THE 15 FEET AFTER THAT 10 FOOT FEET IN THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PRESENTED IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER BARRY RAMIREZ'S QUESTION.
BUT THAT INCLUDES, THAT INCLUDES THE SIDE, RIGHT? IF IT'S, IF IT'S UP AGAINST A, IF IT'S UP AGAINST A, UH, TRIGGERING PROPERTY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT UNDER, WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN VMU IS, SO IF YOU LOOK AT CORRIDOR LOTS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, WE OFTEN HAVE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS BETWEEN THOSE.
ALTHOUGH VMU ACTUALLY DID DO AWAY WITH SOME OF THAT REALLY WAS THAT THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL BEHIND THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE 25 FOOT NO BUILD SETBACK.
SO WHAT WE WERE SAYING THROUGH THAT, THE WAY THE EFFECTIVE POLICY WORKS IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW IS THAT BEHIND IN THE RARE YOU CANNOT HAVE HVAC, BUT ON THE SIDES YOU CAN OR YOU CAN HAVE IT ON THE ROOF, WHICH IS OFTEN ALSO WHAT PEOPLE END UP DOING.
THIS IS ALLOWING MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT IF FOLKS WANT TO PUT HVAC AGAIN, NON-INDUSTRIAL HVAC SYSTEMS, THE WAY HOSPITALS HAVE, OR OTHERS, THAT WOULD CAUSE SOME CONSTERNATION TO NEIGHBORS.
BUT IF YOU HAVE SMALLER UNITS THE WAY YOU HAVE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THAT BUFFER.
AND IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF AN INDUSTRIAL H HVAC UNIT? BASICALLY ANYTHING LARGER THAN WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD HAVE? NO.
I HAD DONE THIS RESEARCH YEARS AGO.
THERE IS ACTUALLY A DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL.
UH, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL HVAC UNITS.
THERE'S COMMERCIAL HVAC UNITS, AND THEN THERE'S INDUSTRIAL HVAC UNITS AND THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ALL THREE.
WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND ON THIS, RIGHT? I CHAIR HAD NOT PRESENTED AS A MOTION.
IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION.
ALLOW HVAC SYSTEMS IN THE RESTRICTED USE ZONE EXCEPT FOR INDUSTRIAL HVAC SYSTEMS. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THIS ITEM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? A FOUR, FIVE.
THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
SO, UM,
[04:05:01]
TWO.CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH ACCOUNTS
YOU DIDN'T VOTE IF YOU VOTE FOR NO, I, OH, COMM.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DID YOU VOTE? YES, HE VOTED FOUR.
WELL, THIS IS IMPORTANT 'CAUSE I'VE, IF, SHOULD WE GO TO A VOICEMAIL, A ROLL CALL THOUGH? IF YOU VOTED FOUR SHOULD BE SEVEN FOUR.
IT'S, I VOTED A MUCH COLOR AGAINST.
IT, THE SCREEN IS REALLY AN ISSUE.
UM, PLEASE HELP ME WRAP THIS UP.
SO THIS TAKES US BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, IT HAD BEEN, UH, MOTION HAD BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
SO AT THIS POINT WE WOULD EITHER BEVO, UH, SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST AND TAKING A VOTE.
DOES EVERYONE BETTY UNDERSTAND WE HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE BASE WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ADOPTED THIS EVENING? UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING, MR. PHILLIPS? WAIT, THAT'S 12.
UM, OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO, UH, WE DO NEED TO EXTEND TIME.
WE ARE ONLY GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND TIME TO 10 45.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT.
[21. Discussion and possible action regarding meetings pertaining to upcoming Land Development Code amendments. (Sponsors Chair Hempel and Vice-Chair Azhar) ]
TO NUMBER 21, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MEETINGS PERTAINING TO UPCOMING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS.SO TONIGHT WAS KIND OF A PREVIEW, A LITTLE BIT OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL BE GOING THROUGH FOR THE UPCOMING AMENDMENTS, UM, WHICH ARE SMALLER LOTS, COMPATIBILITY, EV CHARGING, EO, AND POSSIBLY DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UM, WE HAD SENT OUT A SURVEY, UH, A WEEK OR TWO AGO TO GAUGE EVERYBODY'S AVAILABILITY FOR VARIOUS DATES.
AND, UM, I'LL LET VICE CHAIR SPEAK TO THE SECOND PART OF THIS THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, SO AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT IN APRIL AFTER, UM, THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL BE SCHEDULING SOME SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS TO GO THROUGH THE CODE ITEMS. THE HOPE IS TO WRAP UP MOST OF OUR WORK BY MAY 1ST AT THE LATEST SO THAT STAFF CAN WORK ON IT AND PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL AT THEIR MAY 16TH MEETING.
I BELIEVE, UM, THAT'S THE TIMELINE THAT HAS BEEN SET.
STAFF WOULD REALLY LIKE US TO KEEP IT ALL OF OUR ACTION POTENTIALLY ON ONE DAY, EVEN IF IT IS, UH, RECESSED AND WE COME BACK THE NEXT DAY.
AND SO REALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT, IT WOULD BE THE WEEKENDS WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S VERY HARD FOR FOLKS TO START EARLIER IN THE DAY.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAVE OTHER WORK THAT THEN YOU DO ACCOMPLISH DURING THE DAY DAY.
SO ALL THAT SAID, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE THAT FOR, AND THIS SAID THIS WAS IN THE SURVEY ON APRIL 20TH AND 21ST, WHICH IS SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS WHO WOULD, WHO ESSENTIALLY WOULD SAY THAT WHAT THEY HAD UH, PUT IN THERE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT? SO I'LL JUST READ SATURDAY AT THE MOMENT.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I HAVE YOU AS NOT AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I HAVE YOU AS NOT AVAILABLE AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER WOODS, I HAVE YOU AS NOT AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS AVAILABLE.
UM, COMMISSIONER AL IS AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ IS AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER HEMPEL IS AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS AVAILABLE.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER COX IS AVAILABLE.
DOES THAT STILL STAND TRUE FOR
[04:10:01]
MOST FOLKS? THIS WILL BE THE 20TH AND 21ST.AND COMMISSIONER BARRY RAMIREZ, I HAVE YOU AS FREE.
OKAY, WELL THEN THAT HONESTLY I'M NOT SURE IS A VERY VIABLE OPTION BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PRESENT IS JUST SO TIGHT THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO OUR WORK.
SO MY NEXT QUESTION ON THIS WOULD BE, I'M SORRY, GIVE ME A SECOND.
UH, WHAT DO FOLKS AVAILABLE TO ON THE 27TH LOOK LIKE? I'LL JUST DO A STRAW POLL TO SEE FOLKS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON THE 27TH AND I'LL HAVE TO MAKE A NOTE OF THIS SO I CAN LOOK AT IT.
AND WHICH MONTH IS THAT? APRIL? THIS WOULD BE APRIL, YES.
UM, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU TIL COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER COX AND JOHNSON.
UM, AND THEN THAT WOULD TAKE US TO, UM, I'M SORRY, GIMME A SECOND HERE.
THIS WOULD BE THE 28TH, APRIL 28TH, WHICH IS A SUNDAY.
WHAT DOES AVAILABLE TO YOU LOOK LIKE THEN? NO, LET'S SAY EIGHT 10 AFTER 10:00 AM HORRIBLE.
I'LL BE HONEST, WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER THE DATES IT CURRENTLY LOOKING AT IT, WE CANNOT MAKE MORE THAN EIGHT PEOPLE SHOW UP ON THE WEEKENDS, WHICH MAKES FOR A VERY TIGHT QUORUM.
SO IF SOMEBODY'S SICK OR SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GET UP AND GO, WE MIGHT RUN INTO ISSUES.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR NOW FOR ALL OF YOU IS THAT THE DATES THAT WE HAD SHARED, I'M READ OUT A BUNCH OF THINGS.
PLEASE BLOCK THESE OFF ON YOUR CALENDAR AS WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS OF THIS BY FRIDAY.
WE'LL LET YOU RELEASE THOSE DATES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
BUT FOR NOW, IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE DURING THOSE TIMES, PLEASE BLOCK IT OUT.
SO THIS WOULD BE, UM, SATURDAY, APRIL 20TH AFTER 10:00 AM SUNDAY, APRIL 21ST AFTER 10:00 AM TUESDAY, APRIL 23RD AFTER 4:00 PM WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24TH, AFTER 4:00 PM TUESDAY, APRIL 30TH AFTER 4:00 PM AND THEN WEDNESDAY MAY 1ST AFTER 5:00 PM AND I CAN REPEAT THOSE AGAIN.
JUST BLOCK THOSE OUT ON YOUR CALENDARS AND WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU WITH A CERTAIN DATE.
WE, I'LL, WE'LL SEND IT OUT VIA ANDREW THIS WEEK AS WELL.
UM, SO THAT YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
BUT REALLY THE DATES THAT WE HAD SENT WITHIN YOUR SURVEY, WE'RE KIND OF HOLDING THEM FOR NOW WITH THE UNDERSTANDING.
WE'LL HAVE TO LOCK THIS IN PLACE, UM, BY THE END OF THE WEEK AND WE WILL LET Y'ALL KNOW WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THOSE SPECIAL CALL MEETING DATES ARE.
SORRY, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
WE ARE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY, UM, DOWN ONE COMMISSIONER, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT WE DO EXPECT THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE BACK.
WE WILL HAVE A REPLACEMENT BEFORE THESE DATES POTENTIALLY, BUT WE WE'RE JUST BEING SAFE AND NOT COUNTING THAT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AS THE WEEK GOES ON.
SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR US TO THINK ABOUT.
I DO WANNA SAY WE, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY EVENINGS.
SO JUST A REMINDER TO FOLKS THAT WE WILL BE WORKING FROM 4:00 PM TO LATE IN THE EVENING JUST SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH ALL THE WORK BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE JUST WON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOURS.
UM, ITEM AM NUMBER 22 AND ITEM NUMBER 23 WE CAN TAKE UP TOGETHER.
THESE ARE, UM, THE POSSIBLE ACTION OF APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURE WORKING GROUP AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDING'S WORKING GROUP.
SO, UM, THIS IS JUST A COURTESY TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR ANY OTHER, UM, COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD WISH TO JOIN.
LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR WORKING BOARDS COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUP UPDATES.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. CHAIR.WE HAD ALREADY MENTIONED THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE, UM, UM, PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT THE CODE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS,
[04:15:01]
UM, COMING FORTH IN APRIL.COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECONDS THAT OTHER AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES ]
SO CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, WE WILL MEET NEXT WEDNESDAY.UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
I WAS INFORMED BY MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE THAT WE ARE MEETING NOT TOMORROW, BUT THE WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.
UM, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
WE MET ON THE JANUARY 24TH AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, INCLUDING, UM, RECOMMENDING A MORE ROBUST TELEWORK POLICY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IS ALL THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS COMMISSION.
SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, WE HAD A VERY ROBUST CONVERSATION.
UM, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR TAKEAWAYS, I'M SORRY.
YEAH, THEY GAVE US, THAT WAS THE UPDATE ON THE, UM, THE SOUTH CENTRAL.
YEAH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN MINING.
SO, UM, BUT UH, WE WERE, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON, AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS GONNA BE IN APRIL.
UM, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
WE'RE ACTUALLY MEETING NEXT WEEK TO FINALIZE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN.
UM, CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
WE DO NOT, WE HAVE NOT MET AND DO NOT HAVE ANY UPDATES AT THIS TIME.
AND THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.
SO, YEAH, WE, WE'VE MET I THINK THREE TIMES SINCE WE LAST MET HERE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND WE, UM, I, I WANTED TO NOTE THAT IN WHATEVER DOCUMENT WE HAD BEFORE US THAT NAMED THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING OF THE, OF, OF THIS WORKING GROUP, UM, IT DID NOT INCLUDE COMMISSIONER COX AND HE IS A MEMBER OF THE GROUP, SO PERHAPS WE CAN CORRECT THAT.
UH, BUT WE DO HAVE A PURPOSE STATEMENT.
UH, DID EVERYBODY GET THAT? THE PURPOSE STATEMENT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER, UM, AND I WILL JUST BRIEFLY READ IT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY CHARTER AS AN AUTONOMOUS BODY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE, GUIDE AND REGULATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BENEFICIAL USE OF LAND, WATER, AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN.
AS SUCH, THE COMMISSION WILL STRIVE TO EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ENGAGE ALL AUSTIN RESIDENTS OF CITY INITIATED CODE AND ZONING CHANGES IN A TIMELY, EQUITABLE, AND TRANSPARENT MANNER.
HOW THE COMMISSION WILL UTILIZE MULTIPLE STRATEGIES TO PROVIDE INCREASED OUTREACH AND EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFFECTED COMMUNITIES, INTERESTED PARTIES AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ACROSS MULTIPLE FORUMS BEFORE ACTING ON CITY INITIATED CODE AND ZONING CHANGES AS A BODY MAKING DECISIONS FOR ALL AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE EQUITABLE OUTREACH, TRANSPARENCY, INPUT, AND ENGAGEMENT ACROSS THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC SPECTRUM OF OUR CITIZENRY.
AND I, I, I'LL JUST READ THE WHY AND THEN EVERYBODY CAN KINDA READ THE REST OF IT 'CAUSE WE ALL WANNA GET OUT OF HERE.
BUT THE COMMISSION MUST ENSURE AUSTIN IS A BEACON OF SUSTAINABILITY, SOCIAL AND HOUSING EQUITY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR EXISTING AUSTINITES AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS COMING TO MAKE OUR CITY BETTER.
THE COMMISSION CELEBRATES DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY TO ENSURE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND VALUES ARE RECOGNIZED IN THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE OR AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
AND IN LOOKING AT FOR BEST PRACTICES, I DID LOOK AT THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AND FOUND SOME LANGUAGE THAT THEY HAVE THERE.
AND WHAT IT SAYS IS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ALL PLANNERS MUST ENSURE THAT PROPOSED POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WILL SERVE AND BENEFIT ALL RESIDENTS OF A COMMUNITY IN WAYS THAT REDUCE OR ELIMINATE INEQUITY.
SO JUST SO YOU CAN READ THE REST OF IT,
CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY, CAN I MAKE A QUICK COMMENT, WHICH IS I JUST WANNA THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR THEIR WORK.
I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND IF Y'ALL CAN GET A MEETING WITH, UM, DIRECTOR MIDDLETON BRAT TO DISCUSS THIS WITH HER SINCE THE PROCESS IS
[04:20:01]
UM, IS SORT OF THE PREROGATIVE OF STAFF AND COUNCIL.I WOULD, I WOULD RAISE THIS, ALL OF THIS TO HER.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR HER TO HEAR ALL OF THIS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE LAST WORKING GROUP.
SO THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 10:35 PM THANK YOU SO MUCH.