Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:05]

EVERYONE.

UM, AND OUR COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ONLINE TO TURN ON THEIR CAMERA, I

[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order ]

AM GOING TO CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:10 PM SO WE'RE GOING TO FIRST TAKE ROLL.

UM, AND I'M GONNA GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER ON THE AGENDA.

UM, SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

VICE CHAIR ZA HERE.

COMMISSIONER BARRERRA RAMIREZ.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER COX? HERE.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

HERE.

CHAIR HEMPEL.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

MR. MAXWELL HERE.

MR. MOALA IS NOT ON YET.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

MR. SKIDMORE? HERE.

HERE.

A I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR EXOFFICIO MEMBER, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CHAIR.

UM, ALRIGHT.

PER USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIR IS 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 CLERK'S GUIDELINES.

AND IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING 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.

SO, MR. RIVERA IS GOING TO HELP IN ANNOUNCING OUR SPEAKERS TONIGHT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

UM, MORE REMINDERS FOR OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING.

UM, REMAIN MUTED ONLINE AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.

AND WE STILL HAVE A MONITOR SITUATION, SO IF I DON'T SEE YOU, UM, JUST VERBALLY LET ME KNOW.

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]

I UNDERSTAND.

WE HAVE, UH, SOMEONE FOR PUBLIC COM COMMUNICATION.

THANK YOU CHAIR WHILE HERE FROM MR. STEWART HIRSCH CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, AND ALSO KNOWN AS STU FROM DISTRICT TWO.

FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, I ASKED YOU TO START THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE CODE ON SMART HOUSING.

CURRENTLY, AFFORDABILITY IS ONLY ONE YEAR FOR HOME OWNERSHIP.

FIVE YEARS FOR RENTAL IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY IN WEST CAMPUS.

IT'S 40 YEARS.

WE CAN REPLICATE THAT.

BUT IF I'M FOLLOWING YOUR AGENDAS CORRECTLY, YOU HAVEN'T INITIATED THAT.

SO I'M SHOWING UP AGAIN AND I GOT A DIFFERENT SONG FOR YOU TONIGHT.

UH, THIS COMES FROM GENESIS, NOT THE FIRST BOOK OF THE HEBREW BIBLE OR THE OLD TESTAMENT, UH, BUT THE MUSIC GROUP.

AND I CALL THIS, UH, SONG NO CODE OF MINE.

WELL, THE KEY TO OUR SURVIVAL IS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT.

THE QUESTION IS HOW WE KEEP SAYING, TRYING TO FIND A WAY OUT.

THINGS ARE NEVER EASY FOR US.

PEACE OF MIND IS HARD TO FIND.

WE DON'T NEED A PLACE TO HIDE.

WE NEED A PLACE TO CALL MIND.

THEY SAY THAT TIME IS A HEALER AND OUR WOUNDS ARE NOT THE SAME.

I RING THE BELL WITH A HEART IN MY MOUTH.

YOU HAVE TO HEAR WHAT WE SAY.

WE SIT DOWN TO TALK TO YOU.

WE LOOK YOU STRAIGHT IN THE EYE AND WE SAY YOUR NO CODE.

YOUR NO CODE OF MINE.

YOUR NO CODE, YOUR NO CODE OF MINE.

YOU SCREWED UP AND LEFT US BEHIND YOUR NO CODE, YOUR NO CODE OF MIND.

OH, THE WORDS OF TRANSECT.

WE TRY TO CORRECT AS TIME PASSES BY.

WE'LL GAIN YOUR RESPECT.

YOUR NO CODE, YOUR NO CODE OF MINE.

PLEASE FIX THIS.

DON'T LEAVE US BEHIND.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, ALRIGHT, SO,

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM, UH, LET'S SEE, FEBRUARY 27TH.

UM, THE MARCH 12TH MINUTES.

[00:05:01]

I AM, UM, NEED TO BE POSTPONED, UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, BUT ON THE FEBRUARY 27TH, MEANING MINUTES, ARE THERE ANY EDITS, HEARING NONE, WE'LL ADD THOSE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND I'M RECOGNIZING THAT MOLER AND JOHNSON ARE, HAVE JOINED US VIRTUALLY.

GREAT.

OKAY.

UM, COMMISSIONER

[Consent Agenda]

CZAR, ARE YOU GOING TO HELP ME BY READING THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THESE ARE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UM, I NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2018 DASH 0 21 0.02 SKYLINE ALT ALTER FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0 1 ON TOPLESS FAIRWAY MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER FOUR IS AN N-P-A-N-P-A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 0.01 CHRISTCHURCH PLANNING DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER FIVE IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

THIS IS NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 15 0 5 SH 1702 DELONY STREET DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE IS ITEM NUMBER SIX C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 1 SH 1702 DELONY STREET DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO AP APRIL 23RD AS WELL.

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 0 0 1 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 2 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT D THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 4 7 19 11 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER 10, REZONING.

UM, C 14, UH, SORRY, C EIGHT 14 DASH ZERO SIX DASH 0 1 0 9 0.03 LAKESHORE POD AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, ITEM 11 IS AN ALSO REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 9 4 3 2 3 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER 12 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH NINE 600 KEM STREET, DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A RESTRICTIVE GOVERNANCE C 14 DASH 85 DASH 2 88 6 6 RCA TWO SUNSET BRIDGE DISTRICT EIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST OF MAY 14TH AND THE APPLICANT OPPOSED.

ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A SITE PLAN, UM, SP DASH 2022 DASH 0 5 9 1 C.

AVALON FLATS AT SIX.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF AND APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.

I NUMBER 15 IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, UM, EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, THERE'S TWO OTHER CONSENT ITEMS ON ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

UM, ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 16 WITH DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCALLY KNOWN AS 7,600 TO 76 16 BENNETT AVENUE.

THE SPONSOR FOR THIS ARE MYSELF, UH, VICE CHAIR HAREN, COMMISSIONER WOODS.

THIS ITEM IS PROPOSED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ITEM NUMBER 17, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT IN REZONING FOR PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CORNER OF HUDSON STREET INHIBITS ROAD.

THE SPONSORS FOR THERE ARE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AZAR.

UM, NOTE TO, UH, OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING AND AN AUDIENCE AND ANY AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE POSTPONED TO THE APRIL 23RD MEETING DATE.

THAT MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 4:00 PM UM, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE A MINOR CHANGE ON NUMBER 11, THE REZONING THAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

UM, OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? NO RECUSAL.

BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.

WE HAD, UH, ITEMS 16 AND 17 READ INTO THE AGENDA AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I DON'T SEE THEM ON THE AGENDA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE LIAISON.

OH, THEY SHOULD BE ON PAGE, UM, SIX.

UH, THE SECOND OR THIRD FROM THE LAST PAGE.

[00:10:04]

DID YOU FIND THEM? COMMISSIONER MUTAL? I'M LOOKING.

OKAY.

UM, PARDON? WELL, SHE'S LOOKING MADAM CHAIR.

YES.

UM, I HAD, UH, JUST CHECKING ON ITEM ITEM 9 23 0 0 4 7.

UM, I HAD THAT, IT WAS A, IT WAS A REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT.

I THINK THE VICE CHAIR READ IT.

IT WAS A, IT WAS A CONSENT AGREEMENT.

YES.

IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THAT THINGS WORKED OUT.

YES.

YES.

BASTA AND THE, UH, THE APPLICANT WORKED, I APOLOGIZE.

I MM-HMM, , I CANNOT FIND THIS.

WHICH DOCUMENT ARE THESE OTHER ITEMS IN? SO THE TITLE IS CALLED REVISED PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU.

AND IT IS ON PAGE FOUR OF 11.

OR SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY.

THAT'S THE WRONG PAGE NUMBER.

IT'S ON PAGE SIX OF 11.

AND, AND COMMISSIONER STOLLER, IN CASE IT'S CAUSING ANY CONFUSION.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THESE ARE, THESE TWO ITEMS ARE NOT POSTED AS PART OF OUR, OUR, UM, UH, THEY'RE NOT PART OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, BUT THESE ARE ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

SO THESE WERE A NOMINATED BY BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR COMMISSIONERS.

AND, UH, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND IT ON, UM, PAGE SIX OF THE AGENDA POSTED ON THE BACKUP ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL.

SO THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS IN CASE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT SECTION.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHERS NEEDING TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN? COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

I, I WISH TO BE NOTED AS AN ABSTENTION ON ITEM NUMBER, UM, UH, 15, WHICH IS THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES.

UM, I, I WON'T SPEAK TOO MUCH BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A CONSENT ITEM, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY I RAISED SOME CONCERNS LAST TIME AND I THINK, I THINK WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S A TIMELINE THAT WE NEED TO MEET AND THE STAFF FEELS LIKE, UM, THERE'S A TIME SENSITIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

I DO NOT WANT TO HOLD UP THIS WORKS AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN THEIR CONVERSATION WITH ME.

BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT I'M ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.

YES.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15.

OKAY.

DO THOSE ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15 OR COMMISSIONER? WOULD VICE CHAIR AZAR AND COMMISSIONER MR. M, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND ITEM 16? NO MA'AM.

I AM NOT SEEING THE CONSENT.

I'M SORRY.

I SEE REVISED PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND THEN I SEE WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

MM-HMM.

THROUGH ITEMS 15 AND THEN OKAY.

AND THEN BELOW IT, THEN IT'S DOWN ON CON.

OKAY.

I FOUND IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

AND THEN, SO THESE ARE GOING TO THE CONSENT, BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US WHAT, SO THESE ARE CODE INITIATIONS, UM, BROUGHT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO I'LL, THIS IS DOING IS INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE REZONING OR, AND FOR NUMBER 16, AND THEN INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE AMENDMENT ON NUMBER 17.

OKAY.

SO IT OPENS THE PROCESS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I FOUND IT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, YOU'RE WELCOME.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER COX, REAL QUICK TO THE OTHER VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE Y'ALL ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY THE CITY HALL FEED? IT? IT'S BLURRED OUT TO FOR ME.

UM, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE HAZY FOR ME AS WELL, COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I CAN, IT'S NOT ANY BLURRIER THAN USUAL .

OH, OKAY.

IT'S EXTREMELY BLURRED OUT TO ME.

SO I'M JUST WATCHING A TXN LIVE ON MY BROWSER SO I, I CAN SURVIVE.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF ANY OTHER VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS WERE HAVING ISSUES.

OKAY.

CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE'S ON ANDREW VE AND ALSO A TECHNICAL NOTE.

UM, A CAMERA THAT USUALLY CAPTURES THE PODIUM IS INOPERABLE THIS EVENING.

ALRIGHT, , LET'S ALL PRAY THE AIR CONDITIONING STAYS ON.

UM, OKAY.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANNA PULL CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

UM, ALL RIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO

[13. Restrictive Covenant Amendment: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge; District 8]

BEGIN WITH OUR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT CASE, THAT'S

[00:15:01]

NUMBER 13.

UM, SO THIS IS A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, WE ARE NOT TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

WE ARE SIMPLY HEARING ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR THE POSTPONEMENT.

ALRIGHT, SO, UM, THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT, WE'LL GO FIRST THANK YOU CHAIR.

I BELIEVE WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. S SEK, NATIVE AUSTINITE PRESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST HOA.

IN ADDITION, I REPRESENT BARTON CREEK, UH, SOUTHWEST, H-O-A-H-O-A ES CERA, POAA TOTAL OF 837 HOMEOWNERS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION, ALSO IN OPPOSITION, OUR OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.

ON BEHALF OF THESE PARTIES, I'M REQUESTING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL MAY 14TH.

ON THE BASIS OF ONE, THE CITY REPEATEDLY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION TO PARTIES WITHIN 500 FEET, UH, AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY CITY STAFF IN CASE DOCUMENTS THE POSTPONEMENT ISSUES.

FEBRUARY 7TH, THE POSTPONEMENT ISSUED FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 27TH WAS RECORDED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT WHEN THE FACT IS LACK OF NOTIFICATION REQUIRES A CITY POSTPONEMENT BASED ON THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT LAND CODE.

THE FIRST PROPER NOTIFICATION WE'VE RECEIVED ON THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THIS ONE FOR THIS MEETING.

HENCE, WE REQUEST OUR REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT AT THIS TIME.

SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE OUR COMMITTEE UNTIL 2:30 PM YESTERDAY.

AND THAT EVEN REQUIRED A NUDGE FROM A CITY OFFICIAL TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

THIS IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF BOTH THE GOOD NEIGHBOR CLAUSE AND THE COMMON DECENCY OF RESPECT.

THE APPLICANT ENGAGED THE CITY IN JUNE OF 23, AND THEN IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, THEY HAD SITE CONTROL AND THEY FIRST SPOKE TO OUR COMMUNITY YESTERDAY.

THIS INDICATES THE APPLICANT IS DISINTERESTED IN DIALOGUE TO FOSTER COLLABORATION.

PRIOR DEVELOPERS EVALUATING THIS PROPERTY HAVE CALLED ME BEFORE THEY HAD A SITE PLAN.

THIS ONE HAS DONE NOTHING.

THE PETITION SUBMITTED YESTERDAY BY MORE THAN 85% OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET SHOWS THAT WE CLEARLY NEED SOME TIME TO DISCUSS.

THIRD IS THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF ARE THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS IN WHAT THEY DO.

CALL IT FRANK.

CONVERSELY, THE AFFECTED PARTIES HAVE A FRACTION OF THE EXPERTISE AND WE'VE ONLY HAD THREE MONTHS TIME TO LEARN EVEN WORSE.

THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE SEPARATE CASE NUMBERS RELATED TO THIS WITH TWO DIFFERENT SITE PLANS.

TWO RCAS AND A ZONING CHANGE NOTIFICATION.

YEAH.

ZONING CHANGE CAUSING EXTENSIVE CONFUSION AMONGST RE RESIDENTS.

DISTRICT EIGHT WEBSITE HAS BEEN DOWN FOR WEEKS ON WATERSHED AND DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE.

AND LASTLY, WE JUST RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL ONE WEEK AGO.

WE WOULD LIKE TIME FOR LEGAL COUNSEL TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND TO BE SET AS A CONTACT POINT MOVING FORWARD.

SO IN CONCLUSION, ANY DECISION ON THIS CASE SHOULD BE POSTPONED BY AWARDING OUR CUSTOMER AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT.

FURTHER, FURTHER, THE APPLICANT SHOULD ENGAGE WITH THE AFFECTED PARTIES, NOT RAPIDLY RUN THEM OVER WITH A PROJECT THAT'S THE WRONG SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY FOR THE PARCEL IN QUESTION THEN.

AND ONLY THEN SHOULD THESE HEARINGS PRESUME.

FINALLY, CITY PROTOCOLS WOULD INDICATE AND NOTICES THAT THIS IS A ZONING CASE.

THIS IS NOT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CASE.

LET'S ADHERE TO THE EXISTING LAWS AND PROCESSES AND NOT CREATIVELY CURTAIL THEM.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR SERVICE, THE CITY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. LEE ZIEGLER, LEE ZIEGLER, CHAIR OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM.

THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S REVISION OF THE S-R-A-R-C-A FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AN IMPORTANT GUIDELINE AND BASIS TO DRIVE LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE DEGREE OF EXCEPTION, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, THIS APPLICATION IS ENCUMBERED BY NUMEROUS ERRORS, EMISSIONS CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.

AND NOW CONSIDERING A DULY AMENDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH POSSIBLE RETENTION OF UNNECESSARY EXISTING ALLOWANCES ON THE 12.1 ACRES.

FURTHER COMPLICATED BY A 2010 ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR ONLY 9.6 OF THE 12.1 ACRES.

VERY CONFUSING WITHOUT A DESCRIPTIVE MAP, AT A TIME WHEN MORE ALLOWANCES WERE INTRODUCED BY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, ALL EXCEPTIONAL ALLOWANCES UNDER A SINGLE OWNER, THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY VETTED FOR CONTINGENT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BALCONES ESCARPMENT IN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.

NOR DOES IT ADDRESS THE INADVERTENT ALLOWANCE ASSIGNED OUTSIDE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE, WHICH REQUIRES TWO POORLY DEFINED, INTEGRATED LOTS, BOTH WITH PERMISSIVE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AND AT LEAST TWO ACRES REMAINING UNDEFINED.

A DELAY IS REQUESTED SO THE APPLICANT CAN

[00:20:01]

BETTER OUTLINE THE DETAILS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS.

THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLANATORY COMMUNICATION BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS OR THE CONTACT TEAM.

THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FOCUS SO AS TO REDUCE GROSS ERRORS AND TO CLARIFY CONSTRAINTS AND EXISTING CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT.

WELL, THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS RELATIVE, UH, IS DOES BRING THAT FACTOR IN THE TWO COMPONENTS.

THE HEIGHT WITH IMP UH, BALANCING WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION AT THE POSTPONEMENT.

MR. SETTLE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS RICHARD SU.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TONIGHT.

UM, I'LL, I'LL REBUT JUST BRIEFLY SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE FOR, UH, A, A POSTPONEMENT, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING CASE.

IT IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UH, WE DID HAVE A MEETING, UH, A CITY, UM, SPONSORED MEETING ON JANUARY 19TH.

IT WAS, UH, QUITE LIVELY.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE JUST SOME CASES WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPASSE.

I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE REASONABLE MINES CAN DIFFER AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORS REASONABLY THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.

I THINK MY CLIENT THINKS IT IS.

THE COUNTY THINKS IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE PARTNERING.

THEY'RE THE PARTNER IN THE, UH, FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT.

THE CITY THINKS IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING MONEY IN.

AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS LITERALLY A CHANGE TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT HAS A LONG LIST OF USES THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THESE USES, 55% ON AN OFFICE IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER FAR.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE AS A PERMITTED USE ON THIS TRACK SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND HAVE A VERY, VERY DEEPLY AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION.

NOW, IN TERMS OF NOTICE, WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT PROPER NOTICE WENT OUT BECAUSE THE CITY HANDLES NOTICE.

I KNOW THERE WAS AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAD A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND THE CITY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR THEIR POSTPONEMENT TWO WEEKS AGO.

I THINK THE CITY WENT AND AND GOT THE RIGHT ADDRESS.

SO EVERYBODY'S NOTIFIED.

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

AND I THINK IF YOU WOULD JUST HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT, YOU MIGHT DETERMINE THAT YOU HAVE AN AT LEAST ENOUGH INFORMATION TO, TO GIVE IT THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN TONIGHT.

AND WE WOULD ASK THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENED.

NOW, THE REASON THAT WE FIND IT UNCOMFORTABLE TO EVEN ACQUIESCE TO A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH WE OFTEN DO IF IF IT DOESN'T MESS ANYTHING UP.

BUT WHEN YOU RUN THE CALENDAR OUT, THE DAY WE GET NOTICE FROM, IS IT HUD BOND REVIEW BOARD? WE HAVE 180 DAYS TO RUN AND GET OUR, ALL OUR PERMITS.

NOW WE COULD GET THAT LETTER TOMORROW, WE COULD GET IT NEXT WEEK.

BUT IF WE GOT IT TOMORROW AND WE, AND WE POSTPONE TONIGHT, WE ARE ON THE AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL ON THE FOURTH.

WE ARE ON THAT AGENDA.

IF WE DON'T GO THE FOURTH NOW WE'RE PUSHED TO MAY.

AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL, THERE IS A CODE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

YOURS IS A CUSTOM, THEIRS IS A, IS A CODE IF IT GETS POSTPONED INTO THE SUMMER.

NOW WE'RE PAST, WE'RE GETTING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO THE 180 DAYS.

AND BY POSTPONING TONIGHT, I COULD MAKE A SCENARIO WHERE THIS COMMISSION STOPPED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE POSTPONEMENT.

ALRIGHT.

UM, SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO OUR DISCUSSION WILL BE ABOUT THE MERITS, UH, OR THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT.

AND, UM, THE POSTPONEMENT MUST BE WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM TODAY'S MEETING IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY.

UM, OKAY.

SO WE'LL START UP WITH OUR, UH, ROUND ROBIN Q AND A COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER WOODS.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF SOMEONE IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, WHICH IS, UM, I HEARD IT NOTED THAT MORE THAN 80% OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ARE OPPOSING.

BUT I AM A LITTLE HAZY ON WHAT THE VALID PETITION RULES ARE AS

[00:25:01]

RELATED TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT CASE.

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? HI, I'M JOY HARDEN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

JONATHAN TOMKO IS THE CASE MANAGER, BUT, UH, HE AND HIS WIFE HAD A BABY ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO .

SO I AM DOING THE BEST TO FILL IN, UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW HE'S REALLY BUSY RIGHT NOW.

UM, SO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PER STATE LAW IS NOT, UM, DOES NOT HAVE, UH, PETITION RIGHTS.

THAT'S, AND THIS IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU.

AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT MR. TOMKO WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER FOR US, BUT, AND I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP? YES.

UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, SO I'M SPEAKING FOR HIM IS THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE THAT WENT OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WENT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION'S PREVIOUS ADDRESS.

THAT IS THE ADDRESS THAT WE HAD IN OUR SYSTEM.

AS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MOVE IN AND OUT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PROPERTY OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ADDRESSES CHANGE.

WE DO UPDATE OUR SYSTEM, BUT WE DO NOT UPDATE OUR SYSTEM DAILY.

SO WE MET THE INTENT OF OUR NOTIFICATION, UM, AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.

SO THIS CASE WAS POSTPONED, NOT TWO WEEKS, BUT FOUR WEEKS.

UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT.

'CAUSE I THINK SUBTLE SAID TWO WEEKS IN, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID, IT WAS A POSTPONEMENT FOR FOUR WEEKS AND NOT TWO WEEKS.

AND, UM, IN THAT TIME, UM, WITH THE ADDITIONAL TIME, UM, WE AS A COURTESY MAKE SURE WE NOTIFIED WITH ALL THE ADDRESSES, THE ADDRESS WE HAD IN OUR SYSTEM AND THE ADDRESS THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

UM, SO IN THAT FOUR WEEKS TIME, WE DID, UM, MAKE THAT, UH, NOTICE.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. HARDEN.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS YOU WALK UP.

I'M WONDERING, SINCE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE YOUR FINANCING FOR THIS PROJECT ALREADY IN ORDER, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW MANY SOURCES OF FINANCING THIS PROJECT HAS? ABSOLUTELY.

SO I'M TYLER GROOMS WITH MANIFOLD.

UM, THIS PROJECT IS COMPLICATED.

UM, WE'VE HAD TO LAYER A NUMBER OF SOURCES.

UH, THE, THE FOUNDATION SOURCE THAT WE HAVE IS A LOAN FROM HUD.

IT'S A SPONSORED LOAN FROM HUD.

IT'S A TWO 20 1D FOUR LOAN.

UM, THAT'S ABOUT $80 MILLION.

WE HAVE A TRANCHE OF, UH, DEBT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN FROM THEIR RHODA FUND, THEIR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND.

THAT'S ABOUT $9 MILLION.

WE HAVE, UM, THE BOND THAT RICHARD WAS SPEAKING ABOUT IS A, UM, BOND THAT ENABLES US TO GET LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS TO LAYER IN ON TOP OF THIS, THERE'S ALSO A DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE AND WE WILL ALSO POTENTIALLY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LOAN FROM THE DEVELOPER INTO THE PROJECT.

AND SO IN ADDITION TO THAT BOND, WHICH IS A, IS A 4% HOUSING BOND.

YEP.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, DEADLINES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE FINANCING SOURCES WITH, UM, THE 180 DAYS IS OUR, UM, WHAT I CALL CRITICAL PATH RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE NECESSITY AT THE END OF THAT FOR HUD AND FOR THE 4% BOND DO HAVE OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN HAND, OUR BUILDING PERMIT IN HAND.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR GOT ANSWERED.

OH, OKAY.

UM, CHAIR MY QUESTION FOR NOT GOT ANSWERED.

OKAY.

OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, I GUESS, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO IF THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS CASE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, UM, DOES, DOES STAFF BELIEVE THAT THAT MAY MAKE IT DIFFICULT? UH, AND THAT, I MEAN, THAT, THAT ALONE, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE BABY.

THAT'S WONDERFUL NEWS.

BUT THAT ALONE KIND OF MAKES ME FEEL LIKE, UH, THAT THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE POSTPONED AT LEAST A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE WE CAN HA BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS 700 PAGES OF BACKUP DOCUMENT.

I AM TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP ON ALL OF THIS.

UM, SO DOES STAFF FEEL LIKE THAT THEY ARE EVEN PREPARED TO PICK UP THIS CASE TONIGHT? I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME.

UM, I THINK I AM PREPARED ENOUGH, HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS AND WE HAVE WATERSHED PROTECTION HERE TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.

UM, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND CAN SPEAK TO WHEN THIS CASE WENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, ET CETERA.

AND, AND SO YOU HAD INDICATED IN, IN, IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE PETITION RIGHTS.

UM, IS IS THE REASON BECAUSE THE EXISTING ZONING IS G-O-C-O-N-P, CORRECT.

IS THE REASON THIS IS NOT A REASON ZONING IS BECAUSE OF THAT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL?

[00:30:01]

NO, NOT AT ALL.

THAT THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL GOT INVALIDATED, UM, BY THE COURT.

UM, SO THEY ARE BUILDING UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND THAT DID NOT GET INVALIDATED BY THE COURTS.

AND SO UNDER THAT, UH, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, UM, THEY, IT'S NOT REALLY A ZONING BECAUSE, UM, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY, UH, ANY ZONING, CLASSIFICATION, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED CAN.

OKAY.

SO I CAN SEE HOW THAT'S CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC WHEN, WHEN YES, THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL, UH, IS ZONED OFFICE, UH, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.

UM, AND, AND CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT, NOTICE IT? SO IF THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS FOR THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION CORRECT.

FOR THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, IT WAS THAT, WAS THAT CORRECTED? YES, IT WAS.

UM, AND BUT ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS THAT ARE WITHIN 200 FEET STILL GOT NOTICE? CORRECT.

OKAY.

UM, AND THEN QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER, I GUESS I, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A RESPONSE RELATED TO REACHING OUT TO, UH, THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY AND, AND, AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE MOVING FORWARD.

UM, SO, UH, WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY IN JANUARY.

UM, AS MR. SETTLE HAD MENTIONED, WE HAD QUITE A FEW MEMBERS, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY THERE.

UM, AND THEN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WERE RECENTLY TOLD THAT WE WERE TO BE COMMUNICATING THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY GOING FORWARD.

AND SO I'M NOT SURE, I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ON OUR SIDE HOW WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM GOING FORWARD VIA THE ATTORNEY APPROPRIATELY.

OKAY.

UM, SO THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING IN JANUARY? YES, SIR.

REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

DID YOU HAVE ALL OF THE DETAILS RELATED TO THE PROJECT? 'CAUSE WE'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT HOW A LOT OF THINGS, A LOT OF INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

WE MADE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE HAD AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AVAILABLE IN THAT MEETING.

UM, WE HAD STAFF FROM THE CITY IN THAT MEETING TOO, TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO CODE.

A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED WERE RELATED TO HOW WE COULD DO THINGS PER THE CODE.

OKAY.

AND AND THE, THE SIX MONTH CLOCK THAT YOU'VE, THAT YOU'VE MADE REFERENCE TO, Y Y'ALL ARE NOT UNDER NOTICE YET FOR THAT SIX MONTH COUNTDOWN CLOCK, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE NOT, BUT WE COULD GET NOTICE TOMORROW.

WE'RE LITERALLY THE NEXT PROJECT IN THE STATE.

AND SO IF THEY HAVE A PROJECT EITHER DROP OUT OR THEY REALLOCATE FUNDS, IT COULD COME TOMORROW, IT COULD COME NEXT WEEK.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT COULD COME.

SO WHETHER, WHETHER YOU GO TO COUNSEL EARLY APRIL OR EARLY MAY, UM, THAT'S ONE MONTH OF THE SIX MONTH CLOCK COUNTDOWN? THAT'S CORRECT.

YEP.

AND THAT, THAT CLOCK IS TO GET YOUR, YOUR SITE PLAN PERMIT AND YOUR BUILDING PERMIT? CORRECT.

WE HAVE TO LINE UP EVERYTHING FOR THE CLOSING, WHICH INCLUDES SATISFYING HUD FOR THE LOAN.

HUD'S GONNA REQUIRE, UM, THAT ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO CLOSE ON THE LOAN.

THEY NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THEIR CLOSING DOCUMENTS IN ORDER, USUALLY 60 DAYS BEFORE CLOSING.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY 120 DAYS PLUS OR MINUS 30 DAYS.

SO IS THERE, IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T COME TO THIS? OKAY.

SORRY.

WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE PICK UP THE QUESTION.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT.

I'LL, I'LL PICK UP WHERE COMMISSIONER COX LEFT OFF AND, UH, JUST ASK WHY, WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE, UM, WHY IS IT THAT YOU'RE SORT OF THAT CLOSE UP TO THE CLOCK? COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHY THIS, UH, THIS HASN'T TAKEN PLACE EARLIER? OBVIOUSLY YOU TRIED TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION A MONTH AGO.

UM, BUT BUT EVEN BEFORE THEN, IS THIS JUST THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT'S TAKING TO PULL ALL THIS TOGETHER OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? UNDERSTAND, I'M DOING MY BEST TO GUESS WHAT COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION WOULD'VE BEEN, SO HOPEFULLY I COVERED IT.

SURE, YEAH.

NORMALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT A LAND USE CASE, UM, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME EXTRAORDINARY CLOSING CONDITIONS OR WHATEVER, YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT THE TIME TO, TO PUSH OFF AND ALL.

AND, AND NORMALLY ON SOME CASES THERE ARE, YOU, YOU KIND OF KNOW WHEN THERE'S ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION.

UM, THIS, THIS PROJECT WAS, OR THIS

[00:35:01]

COVENANT WAS FILED FOR IN NOVEMBER.

NOVEMBER.

THE COVENANT AMENDMENT WAS FOR NOVEMBER.

THE, THE, THE NEW THING THAT'S HAPPENED IS WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND THERE ARE VERY FEW SITES THAT CAN MAKE THIS WORK.

SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THIS TIME OF YEAR, IT'S NOT JUST TWO WEEKS.

IT'S NOT JUST ONE MONTH BECAUSE YOU POSTPONE UNTIL APRIL.

NOW WE TECHNICALLY MISS OUR APRIL 4TH DATE FOR WITH COUNCIL, BUT I'M GONNA TELL YOU SOMETHING JUST SO EVERYBODY, NOBODY GETS SURPRISED IN A MINUTE.

BUT IF YOU MISS THE FOURTH AND NOW YOU'RE INTO COUNCIL INTO MAY, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT AND THEY GO ON BREAK, NOW YOU'RE TALKING JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER.

AND YOU'RE VERY, VERY MUCH IN DANGER OF LOSING THE ABILITY TO GET YOUR 180 DAYS DONE IF YOU GET THE CALL SOON.

SO, UM, NOW I WILL TELL YOU THAT MY READ OF THE CODE IS THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND I'LL, I'M JUST GONNA BE UPFRONT WITH YOU NOW AND I'LL, YOU KNOW, I'LL PROBABLY GET BLOWN OUT.

BUT IF YOU POSTPONE TONIGHT, I AM GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL ON APRIL 4TH AND ASK THEM TO START THE PROCESS OF TAKING THIS UP ON APRIL 4TH WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA TO SEE IF WE CAN AVOID MISSING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 107 UNITS AT 50% MFI AND 68 UNITS AT 60% MFI AND 44 UNITS AT 80% OFFI.

SO I JUST WANNA TELL YOU THAT UPFRONT.

I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE THIS UP TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL SET, THANK YOU.

OKAY, I SEE COMMISSIONER, UH, MOOSH AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

UM, I'M GONNA TRY AND GO QUICKLY, UH, BECAUSE I'D, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AND I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE UM, UM, GENTLEMEN REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, SO QUICKLY TO THE APPLICANT.

UM, CERTAINLY WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THIS PROPERTY THAT DID NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WANNA DO FOR THIS PROGRAM.

AND SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHY AND KNOWING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT POTENTIALLY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

AND SO WHY THIS PROPERTY AND WHY ARE WE MAKING A THREE ALARM FIRE WHEN YOU KNEW THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN ALL ALONG? WELL, WHEN YOU FILE COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, AGAIN, IF YOU FILE A COVENANT IN AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER, IT'S NOT REALLY A THREE ALARM FIRE IN OUR MIND TO BE COMING TO YOU AT THE END OF MARCH.

BUT THIS IS AN AREA OF TOWN THAT, UM, MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE QUITE AS MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS OTHER AREAS.

AND IT'S, AND IT'S NEED NO, BUT YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION IS, THIS PROPERTY HAS A VERY KNOWN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO DO.

AND YOU NEEDED TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO CHANGE THAT COVENANT.

YOU KNOW, THAT ALWAYS TAKES TIME.

SO WHY WAS THIS PROPERTY SELECTED IN PROPOSITION TO THE HUD FOR YES, A VERY COMMENDABLE PROJECT, BUT A PROPERTY THAT'S ENCUMBERED WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS BECAUSE THE ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS AN UNUSUAL COVENANT.

AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS ASKING YOU WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

AND YOU COULD TELL US THAT TONIGHT, YES OR NO.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AND THEN A QUESTION FOR THE, UM, I THINK IT WAS MR. SEK, I HOPE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.

I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED.

YOU REFERENCED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, UM, UH, PLANNING APPLICATIONS OR CASE NUMBERS AND UH, THERE WAS MENTION OF A ZONING CHANGE, BUT THIS ISN'T A ZONING CASE.

SO I, I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM AT LEAST THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING AND I'D LIKE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TIMELINE AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THESE DIFFERENT CASE NUMBERS.

AND IF I NEED TO FLIP THAT OVER TO CITY STAFF, WE CAN, WE CAN DO THAT.

SURE.

I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN.

THIS IS JASON SPOT.

UM, SO WE, OR ORIGINALLY RECEIVED NOTICES, SOME I SAY WE, SOME RESIDENTS RECEIVED NOTICES.

UH, AND AT CHRISTMAS, DECEMBER 23RD OR 34TH OR 24TH AT THE ORIGINAL NOTICES.

UH, AND THAT WAS FOR US, UH, ACTUALLY JUST BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A ZONING SIGN CHANGE PLACED ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.

AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS LATER IT TURNED INTO A NOTICE OF A SITE PLAN CHANGE.

[00:40:01]

AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS LATER IT TURNED INTO A SECOND, UH, NUMBER OF SITE ON THE SITE PLAN.

AND LIKE, JUST LIKE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A RCA AND THERE'S AN RCA TWO ATTACHED TO IT.

SO I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN FIVE DIFFERENT INSTANCES OF THIS.

UH, AGAIN, STARTING WITH IT BEING A ZONING CASE, UH, MR. HARRIS WOULD PROBABLY BE EVEN BETTER TO TALK TO THIS 'CAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT DISCOVERED IT.

UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE ON THE DETAILS FROM HIM, HE'S, HE'S, HE'S THE HEAD OF OUR SPECIAL COMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO HELP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THIS CASE.

AND I MAY FLIP IT TO STAFF AND HEAR FROM CITY STAFF IF THAT'S OKAY.

IF WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT.

WHAT WAS, WHY ARE THERE ARE MULTIPLE POSTINGS ON THIS PROPERTY? I THINK WE ALSO HEARD THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I'LL FLIP IT TO STAFF AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT ANSWER FROM OUR STAFF.

THANK YOU.

UH, I AM NOT AWARE OF A REZONING, ONLY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AS PRACTICE.

WE NOT PRACTICE.

'CAUSE IN THE CODE THAT WE PUT UP A SIGN, SO THERE WAS A SIGN UP, THIS IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A SIGN WOULD'VE GONE ON THE PROPERTY.

I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE THERE'S THE HILL COUNTRY THAT, THAT IT'S, THERE IS A SITE PLAN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OR TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS THAT PROCESS.

SO THERE IS SOME CONFUSION.

UM, AND THERE WAS, UH, A MEETING THAT TALKED ABOUT THE SITE PLAN.

THE REZONING CASE MANAGER WAS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT ZONING.

CASE MANAGER WAS THERE, BUT THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS WITH THIS PROPERTY, A SITE PLAN.

SO THERE IS, IT IS CONFUSING FOR, I MEAN, I COULD SEE THEY'RE LENDING ITSELF SOME CONFUSION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

AND I THINK I MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSED 'CAUSE I THOUGHT IF WE HAVE TO WELL, CAN THE SITE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, IS THAT WHY THE SITE PLAN CAN MOVE FORWARD? YES.

CONCURRENTLY, YES.

UHHUH, , THE RC, THEY'RE TOTALLY, TOTALLY SEPARATE.

OKAY.

YEAH.

COMMISSIONER HAW.

NORMALLY, NORMALLY ON OUR ZONING CASES, RIGHT, WE DON'T GET SITE PLAN AND WE ALWAYS GET PULLED.

THAT'LL BE HANDLED THIS SEPARATE, IT'S LIKE THE HILL COUNTRY ROAD, NOT A SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

UM, I THINK IT'S THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN AND NOT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME CLARIFY THAT.

YES, WE'RE WE'RE AT TIME.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

JOY, JOY, I'LL, I'LL SAVE YOU UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET SOME STEPS TO COME BACK.

UH, MS. HARDEN, THANK YOU FOR, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

UH, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M THE NEW GUY.

SO, UM, ARE ARE YOU ASKING US TO, SHE KNOWS WAY MORE THAN I DO.

, I'M STILL A NEW GUY.

UH, ARE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE BACKUP I GET THE, THAT, UM, STAFF IS, IS RECOMMENDING THIS.

ARE YOU ASKING US TO CHANGE ANY ZONING TONIGHT? UH, WELL IT'S THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, UH, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

NO.

OKAY.

SO YOU'RE NOT ASKING US TO CHANGE ANY? NO, NO.

SO, UM, AND THEN, UM, UH, IF, IF WE DON'T, IF SINCE WE, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE, ZONING IS AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN USE.

UM, SO THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED IS ADMINISTERED FROM OUR, THROUGH OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

UM, THEY ARE ASKING TO ALLOW TO PERMIT RESIDENTIAL IN THEIR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UM, SO TO ALLOW THAT USE, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME DO THEY NEED THAT USE TO DO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

OKAY.

UM, THAT'S DONE THROUGH OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

BUT IF THEY GET THE, IF THEY GET THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CHANGE, CAN THEY DO, CAN THEY PARTICIPATE IN AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED? ABSOLUTELY, YES.

OKAY.

UH, OKAY.

AND, AND THEN, UH, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, THAT Y'ALL HAD A, WHAT WAS THE TIMEFRAME OF THE MEETING THAT Y'ALL HAD? UH, THAT, THAT, WELL IT WAS ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE MEETING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ATTENDED WAS AC ACTUALLY CONDUCTED BY SITE PLAN.

CAN YOU REMIND ME WHEN THAT WAS? JA IT WAS IN JANUARY.

THE SITE PLAN CASE MANAGER, UM, FOR, I THINK, I BELIEVE IT'S THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY WAS THE LEAD ON THAT MEETING.

BUT WE, I DID HAVE, UM, STAFF THERE REPORTS TO ME IN THAT MEETING AS WELL.

PERFECT.

OKAY.

AND THEN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU MY LAST MINUTE.

YOU SAID YOU'VE GOT SOME CLARIFICATION ON TIMEFRAMES.

UH, DECEMBER 7TH WAY THEY SHOW UP WITH A, UH, RCA AND IT HAS THE SAME CASE NUMBER FROM 2010.

OKAY.

SO IT'S THE SAME EXACT CASE NUMBER.

NANCY ESTRADA IS ASSIGNED TO THAT NANCY ESTRADA'S THEN MAGICALLY TAKEN OFF THAT AROUND THE 26TH OF FEBRUARY.

[00:45:01]

AND THEN IT HAS A TWO ADDED TO IT.

AND NOW JONATHAN TONKO HAS TAKEN THE CASE, WE, UH, GOT NOTICE OF FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN ON DECEMBER 23RD.

UM, WE CALLED THE CITY, WE CALLED CHRIS EPPO, WE CALLED MACE CONE.

AND EVERY ONE OF THEM SAID, UM, NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN FOR YEARS.

AND I SAID, EXCUSE ME, I'VE SEEN THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE GONNA BREAK GROUND IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.

THEY SAID, NO, NO, BUT IT'S YEARS OUT.

AND I SAID, LISTEN, IF I OPPOSE THIS, YOU SAY IT RIGHT NOW, YOU TELL ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

AND THEY WOULD NOT ADMIT IT.

I'VE GOT IT ON A VIDEO.

WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE SITE PLAN WITH MAE CONE AND THEY WERE DOING THAT TO EVERY RESIDENT THAT CALLED THEM.

AND SO FINALLY HE ADMITTED IT ON THAT VIDEO.

HE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR INTERESTED PARTIES REGISTERED BY JANUARY 10TH, YOU GUYS HAVE TO FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

SO WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO IS PUSH THIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WITH SOMEBODY JUST SAYING, YEAH, IT'S GOOD TO GO.

NOBODY SEEMS INTERESTED.

AND THEN WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK ON JANUARY 12TH, THEY SENT US A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PACKET ON A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY AND THEN IT BECAME A REAL GAME.

SO LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, THERE WERE DECEPTIVE MEASURES, NOT ONLY ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT ALSO ON THE OVERALL CASE ON THE RCA.

THERE'S TWO SEPARATE RCA CASES I CAN THINK OF AND THERE'S TWO SEPARATE SITE PLANS I CAN THINK OF.

AND THEY'RE ALL CONTINGENT UPON OUR UPRISING AND THE WAY WE HAVE RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO THE CASE.

THEY HAVE PIVOTED AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO CURTAIL THE SYSTEM NO DIFFERENT THAN THEY'RE TRYING TO DO TO YOU GUYS TODAY BY AMENDING THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND JUST KIND OF SLIPPING IN RESIDENTIAL LANGUAGE AND JUST KIND OF CASUALLY PUTTING THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF 1.1 TO ONE, WHICH IS 400% GREATER THAN ANYTHING IN OUR REGION ON TOP OF A CAVERNOUS PROPERTY WHERE THE SIDE OF THE US GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CANYON SPRING, WHERE IT HAS A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT ASPHALT DUMP SITE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A SINKHOLE.

OKAY, I'M, I'M GONNA TAKE, I APPRECIATE THE, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, BUT IS IT FAIR FOR ME TO SAY THEN THAT YOU'VE BEEN AWARE OF THIS PROJECT SINCE DECEMBER ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 15TH? I'M NOT GONNA QUIBBLE SEVENTH, 23RD I MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.

YES, SIR.

BUT THEY'VE BEEN, THEY, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH THE CITY SINCE JUNE AND WE JUST FIGURED THIS OUT AND THEN THEY KEEP CHANGING THE RULES AS WE'RE GOING.

SO REALLY LAST WEEK WE JUST FIGURED OUT THAT THERE'S ALL THESE CASE NUMBERS 'CAUSE THEY'RE ONE NUMBER DIFFERENT.

AND SO THE, THERE'S ONE LETTER DIFFERENT.

SO THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE, THE CITY HAS JUST, OR I'M SORRY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS JUST LEARNED OF THIS PROJECT AND YOU'VE JUST HIRED AN ATTORNEY THAT AT LEAST SOME OF YOU KNEW IT FOR FOUR MONTHS.

YES.

UM, ABSOLUTELY.

YES SIR.

YEAH, WE, WE, WE ARE AWARE OF THIS CASE.

APPRECIATE.

OH, OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE THREE SPOTS WITH QUESTIONS.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL GO, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID I SEE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? NO.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.

UM, I TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL 9TH.

GET A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.

UM, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.

I THINK, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUESTED MAY 14TH.

I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.

UM, I DO BELIEVE IN THIS PROJECT AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS CASE AND I THINK CONVERSATIONS COULD GO A LONG WAY.

AND SO TRYING TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, UM, IS APRIL 9TH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.

UM, AND SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

ANY OPPOSED? SURE.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.

OKAY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

MY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? YES.

UM, I, I'M AGAINST A DELAY MOSTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINANCING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS RELYING ON TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THESE 220 AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE SITE, INCLUDING 107 OF WHICH ARE GONNA BE AT OR BELOW 50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

I KNOW THAT IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO PUT TOGETHER THE FINANCING NEEDED FOR THESE CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE PROJECTS AND REALLY WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED TIER TWO PROJECTS, NOT MARKET RATE PROJECTS WITH AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT, WHICH ARE OF COURSE IMPORTANT BUT HAVE MORE CASH FLOW AND ABILITY TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THESE TIER TWO PROJECTS ARE SO DIFFICULT TO MAKE PENCIL AND REQUIRE, AS WE HEARD, LAYERS AND LAYERS OF FINANCING, EACH OF WHICH COMES WITH ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES.

AND I FEEL THAT ANYTHING WE DO TO DELAY OR MAKE MORE DIFFICULT THE PROGRESS OF THESE PROJECTS RISKS PUTTING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED COMMUNITY IN JEOPARDY AND POTENTIALLY PREVENTING THESE FAMILIES FROM HAVING AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS ENJOY.

UM, I THINK IT

[00:50:01]

POTENTIALLY FURTHERS THE CONTINUED INEQUITABLE DISPERSION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND SO WHERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR THIS NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN DISTRICT EIGHT WHERE WE'RE ALREADY FALLING, SO WOEFULLY SHORT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS THAT WE'VE SET AS A CITY, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO AVOID DELAYING THAT DISCUSSION.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST CHAIR COX, COMMISSIONER COX? I'LL JUST SAY THAT, THAT, THAT THIS IS, THIS IS A QUITE COMPLICATED CASE.

I KNOW ULTIMATELY, UM, THE DISCUSSION ONCE WE TAKE UP THE MERITS IS LARGELY GONNA BE ONE OF, OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

BUT THIS, THIS SITE HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF LAYERS THAT ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS RELATED TO THIS.

UM, AND THE WAY THAT THIS CAME ABOUT SEEMS A BIT, UH, IT WASN'T DIS I DON'T THINK IT WAS MEANT TO BE DECEPTIVE, BUT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING.

IT WAS CONFUSING TO, TO ME, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY CONFUSING TO THE RESIDENTS AND I THINK GRANTING A BIT MORE TIME WILL NOT JEOPARDIZE THIS PROJECT.

I HAVE WORKED ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE OF THESE THINGS AND SURPRISED NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED THAT THAT IS OFTEN AN EXCUSE MADE TO TRY TO GET THINGS RUBBER STAMPED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONS AND THROUGH COUNSEL JUST CLAIM, OH, WE'RE GONNA BE IN JEOPARDY.

WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THIS PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR SOMETHING ELSE, SOME OTHER FINANCING THAT'S GONNA FALL THROUGH TO ME THAT THAT IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO GET US TO ACT QUICKER THAN WE SHOULD TO IN ORDER TO, TO GIVE THIS THING DUE CONSIDERATION.

AND SO SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN NOTICED YET, THEY ARE NOT UNDER A PARTICULAR DEADLINE AT THIS TIME.

AND SO I THINK GRANTING A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS CASE THOROUGHLY AND GIVING IT THE CONSIDERATION IT DESERVES IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

UH, SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE DENIAL OF THE POSTPONEMENT.

ANYONE SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YES.

I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT AS OF THIS FRIDAY, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A, UM, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LDC WORK COMING TO THE COMMISSION IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

WE HAVE A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA, I THINK FOR TWO MEETINGS COMING UP.

I'M EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ZONING CASELOAD AND THIS DOES SEEM A COMPLEX CASE AND WE UNFORTUNATELY DO HAVE A LIGHT LOAD THIS EVENING.

SO IN SOME WAYS, TO ME THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A FULL HEARING TO THIS AND TO GIVE THE CONSIDERATION DUE TO THIS COMPLEX SITE, UM, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WE'LL BE DOING A LOT OF OTHER WORK NOT RELATED TO ZONING CASES.

SO THIS MAY BE ONE OF OUR LAST OPPORTUNITIES TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING MOVING FORWARD THIS TONIGHT.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOUR VICE CHAIR? THANK YOU CHAIR.

THERE'S NOT MUCH TO ADD APART FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER WOODS AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAVE ALREADY SAID.

I THINK, UM, REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE APRIL 9TH MEETING.

WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY APPROVAL OF THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT PLAN THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE US AND IT IS GONNA BE TIME SENSITIVE AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF AND WE'RE SEEING IT IN CODES AND ORDINANCES NEXT WEEK.

UM, WITH COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S POINT THAT FOLLOWING THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER ITEMS COMING.

SO FRANKLY POSTPONEMENT POTENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT MAY 14TH.

LET'S JUST BE REALISTIC IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE AND OUR ABILITY TO GO THROUGH CASES.

I AND I, AT THE SAME TIME, I UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE CONCERNS, BUT I'LL BE HONEST, I I DON'T THINK I'M COMFORTABLE ADJUDICATING WHAT, WHEN A NOTICE WAS SENT OR WHAT WAS DONE.

I THINK I'VE HEARD SORT OF FROM BOTH SIDES ON SORT OF THE NEED FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

OF COURSE, IT, IT HELPS THAT WE ARE NOT THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY HERE.

SO AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

AND OF COURSE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER, UM, THOSE THINGS AS WELL.

AND CONSIDERING SORT OF THE TIME SENSITIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINANCES OF THE PROJECT AIM IN A CRITICAL SPACE WHERE WE WANT TO EXPAND AFFORDABILITY.

I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH A DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UM, FINAL COMMISSIONER SPOT FOR SPEAKING AGAINST.

OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

THIS IS DENIED POSTPONEMENT BY MADE BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

I'M COUNTING EIGHT THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4.

DID I COUNT RIGHT? WE HAVE 12.

OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES.

IT'S EIGHT TO FOUR, UM, WITH COMMISSIONERS, HEMPEL, MARIA, RAMIREZ, MUTAL AND COX.

VOTING AGAINST I THINK SEVEN FOUR.

SEVEN FOUR.

OKAY.

[00:55:01]

THANK YOU.

I NEED BETTER GLASSES I THINK.

UM, OKAY, SO THAT MEANS THE, THE CASE WILL BE HEARD TONIGHT.

AND AS THIS IS OUR ONLY DISCUSSION CASE TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO STAFF PRESENTATION, UM, ON THIS ITEM, ITEM 13, AGAIN, COULDN'T GET ANYTHING.

COMMISSIONER JOY HART WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDING IN FOR JONATHAN TOMKO, THE CASE MANAGER.

UM, THIS IS ITEM 13 ON YOUR AGENDA.

THE SUNSET RIDGE APARTMENT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT TWO LOCATED AT 84 0 1 AND 84 0 1 AND A HALF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY USE AS A PERMITTED USE TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND INCREASE THE FLORIDA AREA TO ONE OH TO ONE TO ONE, WHICH IS THE PERMITTED FLORIDA AREA RATIO ALLOWED.

NGNG.

UM, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THIS BEFORE, BUT GEO GENERAL OFFICE, THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THESE REQUESTS ARE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM.

THERE IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 55%.

THE COVENANT TODAY STATES SENT AN OFFICE USE HAS AN IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 55%, BUT ALL OTHER USES HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 65%.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MAINTAIN THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE OFFICE USE.

STAFF DOES RE RECOMMEND ALLOWING THE MULTIFAMILY USE AND INCREASE IN AN INCREASE IN THE FAR.

THIS SITE IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT IN 2017.

AND THE LAST ANNUAL REPORT, 2022 HOUSING WORKS, AUSTIN IDENTIFIED THAT COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT HAD ONLY ATTAINED 2% OF THE DISTRICT'S 10 YEAR GOAL FOR NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS APPROVING THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT WOULD HELP ADD ADDITIONAL INCOME, RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT FURTHERING THIS ADOPTED GOAL.

AGAIN, THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY IS GOC NP, WHICH IS NOT ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE APPLICANT DOES PLAN BUILDING UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND HAS RECEIVED A CERTIFICATION LETTER FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

I WILL NOTE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, DURING THE, UH, DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT THAT WATERSHED, UH, THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT STAFF IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

UH, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. SU, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES CHAIR MEMBERS, THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME'S RICHARD SU.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

BACK IN THE OLD DAYS WE DID SOME PLANNING AND SOME LAND USE BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THIS HERE TONIGHT.

IT'S A 1980S VINTAGE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

IT BASICALLY SETS OUT WHAT, WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT ON THIS TRACK.

IT GIVES YOU A LIST OF PERMITTED USES AND CONDITIONAL USES AND, AND IT SETS AN FAR CAP OF, UH, 0.25 ON SOME USES AND 0.5 ON OTHERS.

AND IF YOU STRIP AWAY ALL THE NOISE TONIGHT, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE CASE.

WE'RE ASKING TO ADD ONE USE RESIDENTIAL, THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND WE'RE ASKING TO HAVE THE SAME FLORIDA AREA RATIO AS OUR UNDERLYING ZONING, WHICH IS ONE-TO-ONE THAT IS THE ENTIRE CASE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.

UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH IS ALLOWED FOR ALL THE OTHER USES.

WE'RE WILLING TO STICK TO THE 55% GROSS FOR THE OFFICE.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT A BIT.

SO WHAT IS THIS CASE REALLY ABOUT? THIS CASE IS REALLY ABOUT PROBABLY THE SITE PLAN.

AND I'VE SEEN IT A HUNDRED TIMES.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, REASONABLE MINES CAN DIFFER.

NEIGHBORHOODS MAY OR MAY NOT WANT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OF THIS SIZE, SCALE, OR DENSITY NEAR THEIR, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I GET THAT, I UNDERSTAND IT.

IT IT, THEY'RE NOT WRONG.

WE'RE NOT WRONG.

WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY, WE, THE DEVELOPERS SAW AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WITH OUR NEW CITY POLICIES THAT COUNCIL HAS ENACTED, THAT IF YOU DO DEEP AFFORDABILITY, THE AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AT 50%, 60%, 80%, THEN YOU, YOU GET SOME LEEWAY.

AND THE LEEWAY YOU GET IS YOU CAN DO IT IN AN OFFICE ZONE TRACK AND WHERE THE SAFETY RAILS ARE, ARE AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE.

BUT THE SITE PLAN IS DISTINCTLY A AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS UNLESS YOU NEED VARIANCES.

THE THE REASON EVERYTHING IS COMPRESSED ON THIS ONE, YOU, WE'VE GOT

[01:00:01]

THE ZONING, WE'VE GOT THE FLORIDA AIR RATIO UNDER THE ZONING, WE HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE.

AND WE'RE MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS ON THE SITE PLAN AS AS WE SPEAK.

YOU WILL HEAR TONIGHT THAT, THAT THERE'S A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS QUESTION ON THE SITE PLAN, NOT AS PART OF THIS COVENANT, BUT ON THE SITE