Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:04]

EVENING EVERYONE.

[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6 0 7 IF OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS CAN COME ONLINE.

OKAY.

FIRST, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ROLL CALL.

I'LL CALL YOUR NAME IN ORDER THAT YOU SEE IT ON THE AGENDA.

SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.

VICE CHAIR ZA.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER BARRO RAMIREZ.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER COX.

NOT ONLINE YET.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE.

CHAIR HEMPEL, MYSELF IS PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS NOT ONLINE.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON? HERE.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? HERE.

COMMISSIONER TAL.

ONLINE.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

AND COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.

ALRIGHT.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN.

ALL RIGHT.

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

PLEASE ALSO REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.

AND IF I MISS YOU, PLEASE TRY AGAIN AND COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.

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.

I WILL HAVE THE ASSISTANCE, UH, FROM MS. FUNK IN ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING.

MS. FUNK, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? WE DO NOT.

OKAY.

MOVING ON TO APPROVAL OF

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

THE MINUTES.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 14TH.

DOES ANYONE HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY.

WE DID RECEIVE SOME, UM, EDITS FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES EARLIER TODAY VIA EMAIL, AND THOSE WILL BE, UM, AMENDED AND THE, UM, WITH THOSE EDITS CAN BE, UH, ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT, OUR FIRST

[Consent Agenda]

ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSIONER ZA 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 CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

SO VICE CHAIR ZA.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

UM, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON, UH, SOMETHING.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2023 DASH TWO 3.03.

DO SH 6 3 0 4 MAIN ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, PER CONSENT.

I NUMBER THREE IS C 14 DASH 2024 DASH ZERO 12 SH 60 0 4 MAINY ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS IS THE REZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PLAN AMENDMENT.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO RECOMMENDED ON CONSENT I, NUMBER FOUR IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT MPA DASH 2023 DASH 0.02 EAST SECOND STREET, 2300 BLOCK DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR, UM, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, 2024.

AND THIS ITEM IS ON CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS, UH, NUMBER ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SORRY, IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT AND P DASH 23 DASH ZERO 2.0 2, 30 0 7, AND 30 0 9 EAST FOURTH STREET, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

UH, NUMBER SIX IS THE REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 5 3 30 0 7, AND 39 EAST FOURTH STREET, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR ALSO UP FOR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH ON CONSENT I, NUMBER SEVEN IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH THREE 200 WEST MA, DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 21 200 WEST MAR DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER NINE IS A PLAN AND PA DASH 2023 DASH 9 0 1 TO WALL STREET RESIDENCES DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A DISCUSSION I NUMBER 10 IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 3 5 D 12 STREET RESIDENCES, DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER 11 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2022 DASH 5 0 1

[00:05:02]

VARGAS MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM WAS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER 12 ZERO REZONING.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 0 7 VARGAS MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS, UH, FOR A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH AS WELL.

NUMBER 13 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 0 4, UH, 43 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.

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

I NUMBER 14 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 5 0 1 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.

THE ASSIGNMENT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER 15 IS C 14 DASH 20 ASSOCIATED REZONING, UH, C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 4 0 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AS WELL.

I NUMBER 16 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 4 58, 10 58 12 AND 58 16 BERKMAN DRIVE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER, UH, 17 IS IN ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 51 58 10 BERKMAN DRIVE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AS WELL.

I NUMBER 18 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NP DASH 2023 DASH ZERO 5.011 TOPLESS FAIRWAY MIXED VIEWS DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE IS NUMBER 19 C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 15 WHEN TOPLESS FAIRWAY MIXED VIEWS DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR, UH, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH AS WELL.

I NUMBER 20 IS A PLANNED AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2 23 8 0 6 67 25 SHIRLEY AVENUE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER 21 IS ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 23 DASH 3 2 67 25 SHIRLEY AVENUE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER 22 IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 7 0 1 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 25TH.

I NUMBER 23 IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 8 0 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 25TH AS WELL.

ITEM NUMBER 24, UM, IS A REZONING C EIGHT 14 DASH 20 20 23 DASH 0 2 7, 311, AND 315 SOUTH CONGRESS.

BUT DISTRICT NINE ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 25, UM, IS C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 0 6 1 2900 OAK SPRING ROAD REZONING DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS, UM, UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.

UM, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET THERE.

ITEM NUMBER 26 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 43 UNIVERSITY PARK SOUTH DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 27 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 5 9 18 0 9 WEST 35TH STREET, DISTRICT 10.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 28, UH, C IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 4 9 CANON COURT DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

I NUMBER 29 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 1230 EAST 38TH AND A HALF, UM, DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

ITEM NUMBER 30 IS C IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 2 5.

UH, POINT SH ST.

MARTIN SENIOR HOUSING DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 31 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2 23 DASH 0 3 9 OAK CREEK VILLAGE, PHASE TWO, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH.

I NUMBER 32 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 4 2 4,005 AND 4,009 BANISTER LANE, DISTRICT FIVE.

THE ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

I NUMBER 33.

UH, C IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 18.

UM, RCT THIS IS ST.

JOHN REDEVELOPMENT, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS OF FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 34 IS REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 9 4 MERRILL DISTRICT FIVE.

THE ITEM IS OF FIRST STAFF POSTPONEMENT DUE JULY, UH, 23RD.

AND NUMBER 13 IS THE 35, SORRY, IS THE BUT AMENDMENT C EIGHT 14 DASH 2014 DASH 0 8 3 0 1.

SUN FIELD P.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO SET FOR STAFF POST PERMIT TO JULY 23RD AND CHAIR.

THAT'S ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? YES.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM 35.

I WORK AT AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND WE WILL BE BUILDING HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHERS? OKAY.

UH, MS. FUNK, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON, UH, ONE OF THE CONSENT ITEMS. SO COMMISSIONERS, AFTER WE HEAR THOSE SPEAKERS, THE COMMISSION CAN EITHER LEAVE THE ITEM ON CONSENT

[00:10:01]

OR PULL FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THIS WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 28.

WE ALSO HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR 32, AND I UNDERSTAND NINE AND 10.

NINE AND 10 HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

YES.

MM-HMM, .

SO 28 AND 32.

YEP.

WE'RE GOOD.

JEFFREY HERBERT, UH, YOU CAN MAY PUSH STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

HI, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WE CAN, YES.

COOL.

UH, YEAH.

HI, I'M JEFF HERBERT.

UM, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS, BUT YEAH, I'M, UH, SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO C 14, UH, 20 24 0 0 4 9.

AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST WHAT IT IS, BUT I'VE, I'VE LIVED AT 5 0 2 KENTON FOR 10 YEARS AND FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, IT'S BASICALLY BEEN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE.

UM, THERE'S FOUR HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT LIKE AT 500 KENTON.

THERE'S A SEVEN PLEX BEING BUILT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME RIGHT NOW.

AND THERE'S A PARKING LOT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS TO COMPLETE.

THAT'S CATTY QUARTER TO ME.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE 10 YEARS, BUT FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, IT'S JUST BEEN, UH, IT'S BEEN TOUGH.

IT'S BEEN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE.

UM, AND SO NOW, UM, I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER ONE GONNA, UH, ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE BUILT RIGHT NEXT TO ME.

SO, UM, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, UH, PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS I'M JUST THINKING FOR MYSELF, I'VE HAD SO MUCH TROUBLE HERE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN CAN I LIVE IN MY OWN HOUSE IN PEACE, YOU KNOW? AND THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ANSWER.

SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A FORUM WHERE I JUST TALK OR IF THERE'S A RESPONSE, UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

UM, IF THE ITEM IS PULLED, UM, WE CAN, UH, A COMMISSIONER MAY ASK YOU FOR A, A QUESTION.

UM, SO IF YOU COULD, UNTIL THE ITEM IS DECIDED, WHAT WILL WE DO WITH IT? JUST STAY ON THE LINE.

OKAY.

NOW WE'LL HEAR THE SPEAKER.

FOR ITEM NUMBER, WAS IT 32? ANNA WHITE.

ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, NEVERMIND.

DID, UM, COULD YOU SAY THE NAME AGAIN? ANNA WHITING.

OKAY.

SHE'S NOT IN CHAMBERS.

OKAY.

WE'LL MOVE ON.

ALL RIGHT.

DO COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT NUMBER 30.

ITEM 30, WHICH IS, UH, 1500 AND 1500 AND A HALF RIO GRANDE UHHUH .

OKAY.

CAN I ASK NOW? UM, SURE.

I GUESS AS THE, I GUESS I'M OFFICIALLY THE NEW PERSON ON THE BIAS OF, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AS WE LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY IN JUDGES HILL, WHY WE, WHY WE WOULD ADD A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AT THIS POINT.

AND THAT'S OF, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S MY MOST BASIC QUESTION.

WHEN I LOOK AT WHY WE'RE DECIDING TO LIMIT IT, THAT'S PART OF THE ZONING CHANGE.

I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT WILL BE LESS THAN 60 FEET, BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS SERVING.

UM, MR. VEDAS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AND THEN IF IT GOES INTO A LONGER ANSWER, WE MAY WANNA PULL FOR DISCUSSION? THANKS, COMMISSIONER SHERRY SIRUS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS TO ADD A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO LIMIT THEMSELVES TO 60 FEET.

SO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, BOJO IS HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK HER THE INTENT.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.

I CAN BE QUICK.

UM, WE, UM, WE ADDED THE CO SO THAT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS USING AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK, SO IT'LL ACTUALLY EXCEED THE 60 FEET.

UH, WE ADDED THE CO, UM, FOR JUDGES HILL'S COMFORT, SO THAT IF ANOTHER PROJECT, IF THE PROJECT WEREN'T TO COME TOGETHER AND FOR SOME REASON WERE TO CHANGE HANDS, UM, THAT PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR REZONING TO EXCEED, UM, 60 FEET.

IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY AFFECT OUR PROJECT, SO WE'RE FINE WITH WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO.

THANK YOU.

THANKS.

ARE YOU GOOD WITH IT? STAYING ON CONSENT? YEAH, I'M FINE LEAVING IT ON CONSENT.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY.

UM,

[00:15:01]

SO I'LL GO BACK THROUGH THE AGENDA AGAIN REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF MOVEMENT ON THIS.

UM, TODAY, UM, NUMBER TWO AND THREE ON CONSENT NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, SORRY, NUMBER FOUR, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, FIVE AND SIX, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, SEVEN AND EIGHT.

STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, NINE AND 10.

DISCUSSION 11 AND 12 STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, 13.

STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 23RD, 14, 15, 16, AND 17 ARE FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER 18 AND 19 AND ARE FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, 20 AND 21.

ARE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, 22 AND 23? APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 25TH, 24 IS FOR CONSENT, 25 WILL BE A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT 26 27 FOR CONSENT.

28 FOR CONSENT.

NUMBER 29, PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH 30, CONSENT 31, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 11TH, 32 AND 33 CONSENT AND 34 AND 35 STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 23RD.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES? I SEE.

SORRY.

THE, OKAY, I SEE, UM, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.

UM, IF NO OBJECTION, THIS ITEM PASSES.

OKAY.

WE WILL MOVE ON.

THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT

[25. Rezoning: C14-2024-0061 - 2900 Oak Springs Rd Rezoning; District 1 (Part 1 of 2)]

CASE, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 25.

WE ARE GOING TO, UM, UH, THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST IS COMING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR JULY 23RD.

IS THAT CORRECT? UM, THE APPLICANT IS IN DISAGREEMENT.

UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS THIS EVENING.

UM, THIS IS NOT YET A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'RE NOT DIVING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

THE POSTPONEMENT MUST BE WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM TODAY'S MEETING, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT FIRST.

ALL RIGHT.

FOR ITEM 25, CHRIS PAGE IS SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT.

ALL RIGHT, MR. PAGE, YOU'LL HAVE, UH, THREE MINUTES.

SO, UH, WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY MERITS, UM, WE'VE HAD VIRTUALLY NO, UH, CAPACITY TO INTELLIGENTLY ANALYZE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.

UH, I MEAN, WE UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF IT, BUT TB 90 IS UP FOR AMENDMENT, UH, STARTING IN TWO DAYS.

UH, OUR NOTIFICATION OF THIS, UH, CAME ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, UM, OVER THE WEEKEND.

NOBODY WAS AVAILABLE FROM CITY STAFF IN D ONE OR OTHER DEPARTMENTS ON FRIDAY, NOBODY ON MONDAY.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ENTIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGED NINE DAYS AGO.

WE DON'T HAVE A, A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THAT YET.

SO WE DON'T UNDERSTAND FULLY THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT AS IT WOULD RELATE TO THIS.

UM, THE GOALS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, AS, AS ESTABLISHED 20 YEARS AGO, AND STILL TODAY, ARE TO, UH, REALLY TRY TO GET TO AFFORDABILITY THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR CENSUS TRACT AND OF OUR AREA, AS WELL AS, UH, PROVIDING A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, MUCH NEEDED IMPROVEMENT, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF SIDEWALKS, UH, PARKLAND, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN GET THOSE DEDICATION FEES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

UH, BUT THE REAL CRUX OF IT IS WE GOT NOTIFIED A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AGO OF THIS HEARING.

UM, THE FILING OF IT WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

DB 90 IS UP FOR REMEN.

UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S BEING REVISITED AND, UH, THE ENTIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHA CHANGED NINE DAYS AGO.

I DON'T HAVE A LOT BEYOND THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THE CASE.

UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED THAT SF THREE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SOME OTHER PROPERTIES THAT, UH, ALSO HAVE LOWER, UH, INTENSITY ZONING, WHICH TENDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MISMATCHED WITH HOW SOME OF THE CODE HAS CHANGED.

UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY COMPATIBILITY WAS VERY DIFFERENT WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPTED IN FOR DASH V ON CS PROPERTIES A WHILE AGO.

THEY

[00:20:01]

WERE ENVISIONING MORE OF A, A TOWN SCALE THAT HAD A MIXED USE OF RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, RETAIL THAT MET LOCAL NEEDS.

UM, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.

WE'VE SEEN TONS AND TONS OF SPECULATION, BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO GET INTO THE MERITS.

UM, JUST THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE CAPACITY TO BE INFORMED ON THIS, INCLUDING DIRECTLY IMPACTED RESIDENTS AND THE CODE IS INDECIPHERABLE AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASSEY WITH ROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS.

SO THIS SITE IS, UH, CURRENTLY IN, IN REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN PROCESS AND HAS BEEN SINCE AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.

OR SORRY, I THINK, I THINK IT'S BEFORE AUGUST.

BUT, UM, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WAS ALREADY BEING ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED AND, AND, UM, MOVING TOWARDS, UH, APPROVAL AND UNTIL THE, UH, LAWSUIT TOOK AWAY THEIR VM U2 PROGRAM THAT THEY WERE DOING THIS PROJECT WITH.

SO THE SITE PLAN HASN'T CHANGED.

IT HAS STAYED THE SAME FROM WHAT IT'S BEEN, UM, WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED OVER A YEAR AGO.

AND WE'RE JUST ASKING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.

THERE IS A CONCERN THAT THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN IS GOING TO EXPIRE IN AUGUST.

AND SO THERE IS A CONCERN WITH TIMING AND GETTING, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL TO GET THIS APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT BEFORE THE SITE PLAN EXPIRES.

THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS, UM, MEETING THE DENSITY, THE DB 90 REQUIREMENTS, AND, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'LL GO INTO, UH, OUR Q AND A ROUND ROBIN.

UM, JUST STATE FOR WHO THE QUESTIONS FOR WHEN YOU HAVE 'EM.

UM, WE'LL START WITH ANY COMMISSIONERS, THE QUESTIONS.

QUICK QUESTION OF STAFF.

YES, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

HEY, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE APPLICANT JUST MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS ON THE PATH OF BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE, AND OF COURSE WE KNOW ANOTHER LI ANOTHER LAWSUIT THAT STOPPED HOUSING.

UM, WAS THAT ACCURATE? WAS THIS ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE VMU TWO CASES THAT'S NOW COMING BACK AS BB 90? HI COMMISSIONER.

OH, EXCUSE ME.

MARCEL BOUDREAU OF DEPARTMENT STAFF? UM, YES, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THIS WAS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED MIDPOINT OF LAST YEAR.

UM, AND THE INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN GIVEN IS THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED UNDER VM U2.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STELLER.

THANK YOU.

I, I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S LINE.

UM, SO UNDER THE VMU TWO, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WOULD THAT SITE PLAN WAS IN PROCESS AND, AND THEN I GUESS THAT'S GONNA BE A STAFF QUESTION.

HI.

THANKS.

MARCEL RO AGAIN.

UM, YES.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DE DEPARTMENT, UM, DOES ADMINISTER THE SITE PLANS.

THEY DO SEND OUT A NOTICE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION OR SITE PLAN.

UM, IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.

OKAY.

BUT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN NOTICE OUT TO, UH, ANY REGISTERED PARTIES OR, OR WHERE WOULD THAT HAVE GONE THAT THERE WAS A SITE PLAN REVIEW GOING ON FOR THE PROPERTY? THE NOTICE OF FILING WOULD'VE GONE OUT TO THE 500 FOOT RADIUS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

OTHER, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.

COMMISSIONER HAYES.

UM, FOR STAFF, UM, STAFF.

IS THIS ? SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE KEPT YOU UP THAT, IS THIS THE, UM, FIRST POSTPONEMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FOR THIS, UH, THIS ONE OR FIRST POSTPONEMENT REQUEST FOR THIS? HI, YES.

THIS IS THE FIRST POST POSTPONEMENT REQUEST FOR THIS ITEM FOR FROM ANY, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF OR APPLICANT.

AND TYPICALLY, DO WE GRANT ONE POSTPONEMENT, UH, WHEN REQUESTED? I DON'T WANNA SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, BUT, UM, THERE ARE MANY TIMES THAT THE FIRST POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN GRANTED.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CHAIR? I MOVE THAT WE HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? SURE.

[00:25:01]

UH, THIS WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS NOT THAT LONG AGO, AND NOW IT ISN'T.

AND, UM, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO POSTPONE THIS.

LET'S GET THIS GOING.

UH, I, I'LL NEVER FORGET SITTING NEXT TO MISS WILLIE MAKI, 'CAUSE WE WERE RENAMING HER LIBRARY, THE LIBRARY AFTER HER, AND SHE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE VERY COOL IF MORE PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO WALK THERE.

I THINK SHE WAS AHEAD OF HER TIME A LITTLE BIT.

AND A LARGE COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF HOMES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS GREAT LIBRARY.

IT'LL BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S GOOD TO GET THIS GOING.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST FOR FOUR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AS BE TO HEAR THE CASE.

I CHAIR, SORRY, CAN I APOLOGIZE? I, I GUESS, UH, I'M KIND OF SOFT AGAINST, UM, THE VMU TWO WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURTS AND THAT, AND WE, THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS WE LIKED ABOUT IT, AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT WE LOST THAT TOOL, BUT THE PROCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THE DB 90 PUTS BACK IN PLACE THE CLEAR AND PUBLIC PROCESS.

UM, AND SO I'M WONDERING IF WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, TO STRIKE A, A MIDDLE GROUND THAT DOESN'T CAUSE THE DEVELOPER TOO MUCH FURTHER DELAY, BUT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC THE INPUT AND HEARING TIME TO BECOME COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROJECT.

I THINK THE DB 90 IS GONNA OFFER A LOT OF BENEFITS THAT MAYBE CAN BE REALIZED IF THERE'S TIME TO UNDERSTAND IT WITHOUT NECESSARILY POSTPONING.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE, IF THIS IS GOING BACK TO COUNSEL OR WHAT THAT TIMELINE IS.

COMMISSIONER ELLER, ARE YOU PROPOSING A, A SUBSTITUTE? I, I GUESS I, I CAN, UM, I BET I WOULD NEED TO KNOW IF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING TO COUNCIL BEFORE THEY BREAK.

UM, JULY 18TH.

JULY 18TH IS WHEN IT'S GOING TO COUNCIL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THEIR LAST MEETING BEFORE BREAK.

OKAY.

AND WE HAVE 11TH AND JUNE, 2020 FIFTH.

SORRY, I'M GETTING CORRECTED.

WHAT WAS THAT FIRST MEETING? AFTER THE FIRST MEETING, AFTER THE BREAK.

OKAY.

SORRY.

SO WHEN DOES IT GO TO COUNCIL? I APOLOGIZE.

IT GOES ON JULY 18TH, WHICH IS THE FIRST MEETING BACK AFTER THEIR BREAK.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO, AND WE WILL HAVE JUNE 11TH AND JUNE 25TH FOR OUR HEARINGS AND MEETINGS.

THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE, WE BRING THE CASE BACK ON JUNE 25TH.

THAT WOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.

WE HONOR THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND WE STILL DON'T DISRUPT THEIR TIMELINE TO GET TO COUNSEL.

ALL RIGHT.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER.

OH, COMMISSIONER BARRE.

BAREZ.

BAREZ.

OKAY.

THAT WAS YOUR SECOND, UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, DID YOU WANT TO, UM, SPEAK ANYMORE ON THAT? I, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IN GENERAL, WE THINK THAT THE DB 90 IS, IS TRYING TO OFFER THE BENEFITS OF WHAT BMU WAS INTENDED TO DO WHILE STILL HONORING THE PUBLIC PROCESS.

SO I'M TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE ON BOTH OF THOSE WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE TIMELINE.

THE APPLICANT'S BEEN ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.

ARE THEY SPEAKING AGAINST, SORRY, THE POINT OF VIEW.

SORRY.

OH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT IT, IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT IF THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH SITE PLAN AND HAD NOTIFICATION ON SITE PLAN AND HAVE RECEIVED THE APPROPRIATE NOTIFICATION ON THIS ZONING CHANGE, THAT WE ARE HONORING THE PUBLIC PROCESS.

SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT CHANGES IF WE COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT IN TWO MORE WEEKS.

FOUR.

ANYBODY SPEAKING FOUR AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK FOUR.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES? UH, I, I'LL SPEAK FOR IT.

I, BUT I WILL TELL YOU UP FRONT, I WOULD, I WOULD BE REALLY THRILLED IF IT WAS, UM, THE, THE FIRST MEETINGS OF THE 11TH.

BUT WITH THAT SAID, SINCE COUNCIL'S ON A BREAK AND, AND I, AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I JUST HAD TO RESET MY PASSWORD TODAY.

SO OFFICIALLY I DO THINK I'D LOSE MY, MY NEW STATUS.

SO WELCOME , WELCOME TO THE NEW STATUS.

'CAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE A YEAR.

UM, BUT, UH, UM, BUT SINCE COUNCIL'S ON A BREAK, AS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AS THE OLD NEW GUY, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT OR JUNE THE 11TH, OR JUNE THE 25TH, IT STILL GOES TO COUNCIL ON JULY 18TH.

AND, AND I THINK THE, THE, THE CITIZEN LAID IT OUT.

I MEAN, WE JUST, WE'VE JUST CHANGED THE LDC CODE AND WE'VE JUST CHANGED THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.

WE'VE JUST UPSET THE, NOT UPSET THE WORLD.

WE, BUT WE CHANGED THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS.

AND I THINK GIVEN ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS TO THE, UM, TO THE FOLKS TO SORT SOME OF THAT OUT AND REVIEW IT AND, AND

[00:30:01]

LOOK AT IT DOESN'T POSTPONE THIS CASE ONE DAY, ONE HOUR, ONE SECOND, ONE MINUTE.

UH, BUT GIVING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AND SEE IT AND KICK THE TIRES ON IT IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING.

GREAT.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I, I THINK I SHARED MY FRUSTRATION, FRUSTRATION, UM, NOTED BY SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

THIS WAS A PLAN THAT WAS MOVING FORWARD UNDER A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.

THOSE RULES WERE, UM, TAKEN AWAY.

SO WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY WE CAN.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOW SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE MORE TIME TO SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN PROCESS, HAD THOSE RULES NOT CHANGED.

AND WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CONCERN OF HEARING COMMUNITY AND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, THOSE ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, AND THAT WE KNOW THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH IT MOVING FORWARD, UM, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A MONTH LONG DELAY.

USUALLY WE ONLY GRANT A TWO WEEK DELAY, SO I AM ALSO UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE DATE THAT WAS SELECTED.

SO I WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.

ALL RIGHT.

LAST SPOT.

FOUR AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST.

OKAY.

SO, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 254 HOMES HERE.

THAT WAS GONNA BE BUYRIGHT, AND I GET IT.

THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A LAWSUIT THAT TRIES TO STOP HOUSING.

SOME ARE GONNA BE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN OTHERS.

THIS WAS A BUYRIGHT CASE THAT STARTED ALMOST A YEAR AGO.

AND MY HOPE IS THAT THIS BODY WILL NEVER LOOK TO POSTPONE ANYTHING THAT WAS A BUYRIGHT ABILITY FOR FOLKS TO BUILD HOUSING.

NOT THAT LONG AGO THAT A, A JUDGE DECIDED TO OVERTURN.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, A GOOD THING, 254 HOMES VERTICAL, OR EXCUSE ME, DB 90.

SO A GOOD CHUNK OF THESE ARE GONNA BE AFFORDABLE.

AND THE FACT IS, THERE IS CERTAINTY, THERE IS, THERE'S LACK OF CERTAINTY.

SO US POSTPONING ANYONE THAT'S BEHIND THIS CASE WANTING TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD, THEY'RE GONNA WATCH THE FACT THAT NOW THIS IS HELD UP, THIS IS HELD UP.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST HELD UP JUST FOR A MONTH FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, AND NOW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO.

NOW WE HAVE TO GO DOWN THIS PATH.

AND WHY BOTHER BUILDING HOMES IN AUSTIN, TEXAS WHEN THEY JUST CONTINUOUSLY TRY AND MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE? THIS BODY HAS A CHANCE TO NOT BE DIFFICULT AND TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

AND HOPEFULLY COUNSEL CAN GET TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THAT IS ALL OF OUR SPOTS.

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

THIS WAS TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL JUNE 25TH.

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

THAT IS FOUR TO SEVEN.

THAT MOTION FAILS.

WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

THAT WAS TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT.

UM, ANYBODY WANTING TO SPEAK? UH, COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ? SORRY, COULD YOU HEAR ME? YEAH.

YES, YES.

I JUST HAVE A, A QUESTION.

I MAYBE I'M, BECAUSE I'M OVER HERE IN CYBER LAND, SO MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND CLEARLY, BUT THEY'RE NOT HEARING THE CASE UNTIL JULY 18TH.

BUT WHETHER WE HEAR IT TONIGHT OR WE HERE ON THE 11TH, WE HERE ON THE 25TH, IT'S STILL NOT GONNA GET APPROVED UNTIL JULY 18TH.

WE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY WON'T, IT WON'T GO TO COUNCIL UNTIL THE 18TH.

WE CAN HAVE GOODWILL FOR OUR FELLOW, GIVE THEM TIME TO DIGEST EVERYTHING, OR WE CAN.

SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DO IT ON THE 11TH AT OUR NEXT MEETING SO THAT THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OKAY.

I SEE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX ON THAT.

DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ.

IT'S JUST PLAYING CRITICAL PATH.

THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T HURT US TO GIVE HIM A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

I JUST, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THIS IS ALL NEW FOR SOME FOLKS, AND IF IT'S GOING ON JULY 20, I MEAN, IF IT'S GOING ON THE 18TH, THEN WE CAN HEAR IT NEXT TIME.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BIG DEAL.

OKAY.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? I, I THINK I'M REALLY STUCK ON THE POINT THAT THIS IS ALL NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITE PLAN THAT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE LAST YEAR.

SO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE COURTESY OF OFFERING POSTPONEMENTS, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST REQUEST FOR, UH, NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, AND I WOULD GENERALLY SUPPORT IT, BUT I THINK THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT.

WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS FOLLOWING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A YEAR, SO IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME PEOPLE ARE SEEING IT, IT'S ONLY THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE SEEING IT, MAYBE AS IT'S LABELED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ZONING CHANGE THAT'S SITTING ON OUR AGENDA.

COMMISSIONER MUTO, SORRY.

CLICKED THE WRONG ONE.

.

SORRY.

TRYING TO UNMUTE.

UM, I, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT IN GENERAL, WHEN THERE ARE SITE PLAN NOTICES VERSUS ZONING NOTICES, THOSE ARE RECEIVED AND PROCESSED DIFFERENTLY.

I MEAN, THE PROCESS FOR VMU WAS VM U2 WAS STRUCK

[00:35:01]

DOWN.

AND SO IT, IT, AND FOR THIS VERY REASON, RIGHT? I MEAN, NOBODY WAS LOOKING AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE STUFF, BUT WHEN PEOPLE HEAR THAT THERE'S A ZONING CHANGE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION.

I, AGAIN, I, I DON'T THINK IT HURTS THE APPLICANT AT ALL TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

AND MY HOPE IS, MY HOPE IS THAT WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GETS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND REVIEW IT, THEN THEY'LL SEE THE THINGS THAT WE LIKE ABOUT IT AND IT WILL BE WELCOME AS A PART OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY HOPE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? THANK YOU CHAIR.

I'LL ACTUALLY BE HONEST.

I, WHEN THIS MOTION WAS MADE, I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA SUPPORT IT.

UM, BUT I DISAGREE WITH ON ONE THING, RIGHT? AND THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT FOLKS ARE TRYING TO DO AND I THINK I WANNA HAVE GOODWILL AS WELL.

BUT LET'S JUST HONESTLY STEP BACK.

THIS WAS A ZONING CASE, THEN THERE WAS A NOTICE SENT OUT FOR A ZONING CASE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED.

IT'S NOT THAT THERE WAS A POSTING ERROR OR THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE NOTICE.

A NOTICE WAS SENT.

AND SO I GUESS STEPPING BACK, THERE WAS A SITE PLAN NOTICE WAS SENT FOR THAT.

AN ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THREE READINGS THERE.

AND THEN TWO PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT WAS INVALIDATED BY THE COURT.

IT WAS REPLACED BY ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT WENT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ACCOUNT, OR, UH, THREE READINGS AT COUNCIL AND A PUBLIC HEARING THERE.

THEN A, UH, REZONING NOTICE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW IT IS HERE IN A PUBLIC HEARING HERE TODAY, AND IT WILL GO TO A COUNCIL HEARING AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT GENERALLY I WOULD'VE BEEN OPEN TO OFFERING THIS POSTPONEMENT, BUT I DO THINK THESE ARE CASES THAT HAVE GOTTEN STUCK INTO A RIGMAROLE BETWEEN A PROCESS QUESTION.

AND I DO NOT WANT APPLICANTS TO HAVE TO SUFFER OR TO ADD THAT DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY TO OUR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE YEARS.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN, UM, MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE? SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

THIS IS TO POSTPONE TO JUNE 11TH, MADE BY BARRE COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3.

THAT'S FOUR AGAINST.

AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON? IS THAT YELLOW? OKAY, THAT IS FOUR TO SIX TO ONE.

THAT MOTION FAILS.

SO GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, FOR HEARING IT TONIGHT, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.

5, 6, 7, ALL THOSE AGAINST.

1, 2, 3.

OKAY, THAT IS SEVEN TO THREE TO ONE.

OKAY.

SO WE WILL HEAR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.

OKAY.

UM, WE'RE MOVING ON TO

[Items 9 & 10]

OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

LET ME GET A HANDLE ON WHICH ONE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FIRST.

THAT WILL BE NUMBERS NINE AND 10.

UM, SO JUST BRIEFLY BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATES THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

YOU MAY NOT SPEAK OUT OF TURN.

DEFAME ANOTHER PERSON.

USE OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE THAT IS LIKELY TO INCITE A BREACH OF THE PEACE, MAKE THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON OR OTHERWISE DISRUPT THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE MEETING.

UM, IF YOU VIOLATE THESE RULES, YOUR TIME MAY BE CUT SHORT OR YOU MAY BE REMOVED FROM CHAMBERS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS MEETING.

SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR ADHERENCE TO THAT.

SO WE WILL HEAR, UM, UH, MS. FUNK, ARE YOU GOING TO MC THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, FOR US THIS EVENING? OKAY, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF FOR SIX MINUTES AND THEN FROM THOSE IN FAVOR, THANK YOURE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

ITEM NUMBER NINE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1 9 0.01 DUVAL STREET RESIDENCES PROPERTY ADDRESSES, OR 33 0 3 33 0 5 DUVAL STREET AND 5 0 1 AND 5 0 5 HARRIS AVENUE.

PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.

THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.

IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.

[00:40:05]

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

CYNTHIA HADR WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS ITEM 10 ON YOUR AGENDA.

UM, SHE JUST READ EVERYTHING FOR THE CASE NUMBER, SO I'M GONNA SKIP THAT PART.

UM, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS 0.31 ACRES DEVELOPED WITH FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

IT'S ON THE INTERSECTION OF DUVAL STREET AND HARRIS AVENUE.

UM, DUVAL IS A LEVEL TWO AND HARRIS IS A LEVEL ONE.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FAMILY RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

UM, THE PROPERTY HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST EL LEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

EASTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND HANCOCK RECREATION CENTER ARE TO THE NORTH AND EAST.

THERE ARE ALSO MULTI MULTIFAMILY ZONE PROPERTIES WITH THE TOWNHOUSE USES DUPLEXES AND MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.

THE NEW OWNER HAS SUBMITTED THIS REZONING APPLICATION TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HOUSING STOCK, WHICH IS FIVE UNITS.

DUVAL STREET'S A LEVEL TWO WITH A CAP METRO BUS STOP DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.

THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY COULD WALK.

THE RESIDENTS OF THIS PROPERTY COULD WALK OR BIKE TO THE HANCOCK RECREATION CENTER.

EASTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND UT CAMPUS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE LIMITED DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINED DISTRICT ZONING.

AS IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, IT IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE MULTIFAMILY ZONING TO CONSIDER THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

ALSO KEEPING THESE UNITS WILL MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HOUSING STOCK.

THE PROPERTY IS NEAR VARIOUS AMENITIES SUCH AS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CAMPUS, HANCOCK RECREATION CENTER, EASTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, AND THE SPLASH POD.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SPEAK? UM, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S LINDA SULLIVAN.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS 33 0 5 DUVAL STREET, LLC AND JOSHUA LAKE MCGUIRE.

UM, WE, I ORIGINALLY CAME ONTO THIS PROJECT AFTER MR. MCGUIRE'S, LLC HAD PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY.

IT WAS FIVE UNITS AT THE TIME.

HE DECOMMISSIONED ONE OF THE UNITS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT UP TO HIS LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS.

HE STARTED GETTING PERMITS IN PLACE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE LIFE SAFETY DEFICIENCIES ON THE PROPERTY.

HAD BEEN NEGLECTED FOR SOME TIME AND QUICKLY REALIZED THAT THE UNITS WERE NOT LEGAL AND COMPLIANT.

SO WE WENT THROUGH SOME, SOME DIFFERENT PATHS.

WE, WE ATTEMPTED TO GET AMNESTY ON THE REAR HOUSE, WHICH WAS THREE UNITS AT THE TIME.

UM, AND DISCOVERED THAT IT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN BUILT IN 1936 OVER PROPERTY LINES THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE AFTER THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 1936.

THE FRONT STRUCTURE IS A DUPLEX WAS BUILT AS A DUPLEX IN 1947, HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DUPLEX AND THERE IS NO PLAN TO CHANGE THAT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DUPLEX.

UM, SO IN GOING DOWN THE PATH OF POSSIBLE SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LOT, BUT IT WAS OVER 13,000 SQUARE FEET, IT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY UNIT INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WHICH AT THIS POINT COULD SUPPORT SIX TOTAL HOUSING STRUCTURES, UM, UNDER CURRENT CODE.

HOWEVER, IF THE LOT WERE TO BE SUBDIVIDED, HE COULD NOT KEEP THE STRUCTURES AS THEY WERE ON THE LOT, DEMOLITION WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CREATE A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE.

SO, BECAUSE THE DUPLEX WAS PUSHED FAR ENOUGH BACK INTO LOT OFF THE STREET FACING SIDE, OFF THE DUVAL STREET FACING SIDE, AND THE TRIPLEX WAS PUSHED FAR ENOUGH BACK INTO THE YARD, SUBDIVISION DID NOT SEEM A REASONABLE PATH IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURES.

DEMOLITION WAS NOT HIS PRIMARY GOAL.

HIS PRIMARY GOAL WAS REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE.

SO THEN WE STARTED LOOKING INTO OTHER OPTIONS AND THE MAIN OPTION WE FOUND WAS TO ZONE TO MULTIFAMILY ONE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 14 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH CAME OUT TO FIVE UNITS, WHICH IS WHAT WAS EXISTING THERE SINCE THE LATE EIGHTIES, EARLY NINETIES.

SO WE THOUGHT SAW THAT AS AN OPTION TO MAINTAIN WHAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS OR MORE.

ACCORDING TO AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER RECORDS, WE, WE DID DO A VERY THOUGHTFUL LONG PROCESS TO LOOK INTO WHAT HAD BEEN THERE, UM, AND WHAT COULD STAY THERE.

THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS THROUGH AFFORDABILITY, UNLOCKED AND SUBDIVISION.

BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD REQUIRE TOTAL DEMOLITION OF THE TWO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT.

UM, THERE ARE TWO DEMOLITION PERMITS IN PROCESS.

WE HAVE NOT FINALIZED THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLAN TO USE THEM.

BUT WE DID NEED TO GO THROUGH HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION TO BE SURE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD KEEP THE STRUCTURES WOULD, WOULD DICTATE THAT THE STRUCTURES HAD TO BE MAINTAINED IN THEIR CONFIGURATION THAT THEY ARE NOW.

SO WE WENT DOWN THAT PATH THAT WAS APPROVED BY HLC.

THEY WERE APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION, BUT AS I SAID, WE HAVE NOT FINAL THE, UM, WE HAVE NOT FINAL THE, UH,

[00:45:01]

DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY YET BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY THOSE DEMOLITION PERMITS WILL NOT BE NEEDED.

HE'S BEEN CONSULTING WITH AN ARCHITECT, A LOCAL ARCHITECT, MAG FICUS ARCHITECTURE TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO PERHAPS BUILD A NEW UNIT THAT WOULD COMPLIMENT THE ARCHITECTURE THAT ALREADY EXISTS AND STILL MAINTAIN JUST THE FIVE UNITS TOTAL ON THE LOT.

AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU.

UH, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

WE HAVE TWO FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

MARY INGLE, YOU ARE OUR FIRST SPEAKER PRIMARY.

UM, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

UH, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.

SHE'S JOINING US IN PERSON.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MARY ENGLE.

I AM REPRESENTING THE CONTACT TEAM TONIGHT AND I'M ALSO REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A RESIDENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY.

UM, THE CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS.

AND THERE ARE FOUR REASONS.

I'LL GIVE YOU THREE.

UH, THE PROBLEMATIC SITUATION OF FIVE UNITS, EXISTING UNITS NOT PERMITTED ON THIS LOT IS NOT REALLY OUR PROBLEM OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEM.

AND IT SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULD, UH, BE BURDENED.

IT SHOULDN'T BE BURDENED BY A SPOT ZONING.

THERE ARE NO ADJACENT, ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY OR A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES.

UH, THE ZONING CHANGE AND THE PLUM CHANGE IS FOR A SINGLE LOT.

UM, WITH NO ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY.

THIS ISN'T THE BEST PRACTICE OF, UH, PLANNING.

THE CURRENT OWNER HAS OTHER RECOURSE, OTHER REMEDIES WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN DONE, UH, LIKE SEEKING A VARIANCE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO ARE WE SUBVERTING OUR PROCESSES? UH, I WOULD THINK THAT ONE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT ALREADY.

UM, THE, NOW I'M GONNA PUT MY HAT ON AS A, A RESIDENT ACROSS THE STREET IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ARBITRARY 'CAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, WE BASICALLY LIVE IN THE SAME AREA.

UM, THE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE AT 35 OR 33 0 5 DUVAL STREET IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE MF ONE IS NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP THE UNITS WHICH WERE NOT LEGALLY PERMITTED WITH SETBACK VIOLATIONS.

THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES FOR THIS PRO, THIS PROPERTY OWNER.

THE APPLICATION OF MF WOULD CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.

SUPPOSEDLY THESE EXTRA, UH, UNIT VIOLATIONS WERE BUILT IN THE NI 1990S, THE EXTRA UNITS, AND WE HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT.

THEN WHAT DO THEY DO? THIS IS ALSO A CASE OF BUYER BEWARE.

DUE DILIGENCE WAS NOT DONE AND WITH THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY.

SO THERE ARE, UH, THERE IS A WAY TO SOLVE THAT ONE TOO.

WHAT I FIND PARTICULARLY UPSETTING IS THAT I THINK THE PLANNING STAFF ARE AIDING IN THE FACILITATION OF CHEATING WITH THIS PROPOSED, UH, REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGES.

THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SF THREE CONTIGUOUSLY.

WE HAVE A PROPERTY ON DUVAL NEARBY WITH A SLIGHTLY LARGER LANDMASS, AS DO OTHER PROPERTIES ON DUVAL.

AND WE HAVE ALL ADHERED TO OUR CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR SF THREE, SINGLE FAMILY THREE AND FOLLOWED THE RULES FOR DEVELOPMENT.

NOW THIS PROPERTY WILL BE REWARDED FOR VIOLATING THOSE, THOSE SAME ENTITLEMENTS REWARDING PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE LAW IS WRONG.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, WHY WE'RE DOING THIS THIS WAY.

THE ZONING CHANGE IS NOT GOOD FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SUPPORT EITHER BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES LIKE GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CONSIDERING A RE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH COULD BE DONE DEMOLITIONS OF THE OFFENDING INCURSIONS AND THE SETBACKS OR WHATEVER.

UM, AND OR THE CURRENT OWNER COULD PURSUE LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE FORMER OWNER OR HIS HEIRS.

WE NEED TO RESPECT OUR PROCESSES AS THE CITY COMMISSION THAT REPRESENTS IDEALS OF PLANNING.

WE URGE YOU TO DENY THIS UPSELLING.

IT'S BLATANTLY UNFAIR

[00:50:01]

TO THOSE OF US WHO FOLLOW THE LAW.

WE COULD HAVE BUILT ILLEGAL UNITS TOO.

UM, AND PLUS WE JUST HAD THE PASSAGE OF HOME TWO.

AS OF, YOU KNOW, MAY 17TH, THIS CASE SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN.

THE SETBACKS ARE NOT IN VIOLATION ANYMORE, BUT A REED SUBDIVISION MIGHT BE THE THING THAT MAKES THE NUMBER OF UNITS WORK ON A, ON THE SAME LOT WITH ITS CURRENT ZONING.

SO I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED.

PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

NOW WE HAVE BARBARA, WE LOST THE PAGE EPSTEIN CALLING IN.

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.

BARBARA, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

IF YOU ARE SPEAKING, TRY PUSHING STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

OH, WE'RE GOOD.

HELLO.

HI.

WE CAN HEAR YOU .

SORRY.

BUT, UH, MISS EPSTEIN, PLEASE TRY THAT AGAIN.

WE HEARD YOU FOR A MOMENT AND THEN YOU WERE MUTED AGAIN.

MS. EPSTEIN, PLEASE TRY STAR SIX ONE MORE TIME.

OKAY, NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALRIGHT.

ALRIGHT.

MY NAME IS BARBARA EPSTEIN.

I'M SPEAKING AS A NEIGHBOR.

ALTHOUGH I AM ALSO THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT.

I WAS TAUGHT THAT IT IS A DUTY OF EVERY EDUCATED CITIZEN IN A DEMOCRACY TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR COMMUNITY TO MAKE IT BETTER.

BUT PARTICIPATION ONLY WORKS IF IT HAS SOME EFFECT ON DECISION MAKING.

YOUR STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF BOTH MULTI-FAMILY REZONING AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WHAT WE KNOW IS 33 0 5 DUVAL STREET.

THEY MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE EFFECT THAT WOULD HAVE ON THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.

WE CARE ABOUT KEEPING THESE FIVE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE.

MOST AFFORDABLE RENT RENTAL UNITS ON THIS SITE UNITS RENTED OUT CONTINUOUSLY SINCE AT LEAST THE 1940S.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIDN'T KNOW THAT TWO UNITS WERE ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A WIN-WIN FOR THE NEW OWNER TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE ALL THESE UNITS LEGAL, KEEP THEM AFFORDABLE FOR RENTERS AND SPEND LESS MONEY.

THE STRAIGHTFORWARD SOLUTION IS TO SUBDIVIDE THIS SF THREE LOT AND GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ADDRESS SETBACK ISSUES.

SETBACK ISSUES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE WITH HOME.

WHAT MS. SULLIVAN JUST OUTLINED HERE TONIGHT ABOUT A SUBDIVISION PROBLEM HAS NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED WITH ME OR THE ASSOCIATION.

THE OWNER REFUSED TO PUT A PRESERVATION PLAN FOR FIVE UNITS IN WRITING SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT HIM.

HE SAID HE WANTED TO KEEP ALL HIS OPTIONS OPEN.

THIS CORNER IS ONE OF THE MOST VISIBLE GATEWAYS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM A STATE HISTORIC HOUSE.

THERE IS A BUS STOP ON ITS CORNER AND IT IS THE MAIN PATHWAY TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

ITS OLDER.

ARCHITECTURE IS A DAILY REMINDER OF TEXAS HISTORY BECAUSE THE SITE IS A PART OF THE FARM THAT SAM HOUSTON SOLD TO SUSANNA DICKINSON, A SURVIVOR OF THE ALAMO.

IF THE OWNER BUILDS MODERN MULTIFAMILY UNITS THERE, THAT VIVID LINK TO THE PAST WOULD DISAPPEAR.

AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WOULD BE CULTURALLY POOR FOR IT.

AS OUR VOTING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU SHOULD CARE WHETHER THIS AFFORDABLE LINK TO TEXAS HISTORY IS EXPENDABLE.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU PULL THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA AND REFER IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THAT IS HOW IT CAN BE RESOLVED.

THANK YOU.

THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC SPEAKER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

OKAY.

WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL.

UM,

[00:55:01]

IN TERMS OF GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE THE SETBACKS AND THE WAY THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DIVIDED TO MAKE TWO SINGLE FAMILY SF THREE LOTS LEGAL, IT WOULD NOT JUST CAUSE A SETBACK ISSUE, IT WOULD CAUSE AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SECOND LOT ISSUE.

THERE WOULD, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CARVED OUT.

AND THE WAY THAT WE APPROACHED THIS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF MATT FCUS, IT LOOKED AS THOUGH THERE WERE NO OPTIONS TO CARVE THAT IN SUCH A WAY.

UM, ALTHOUGH PARKING RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A SECONDARY CURB CUT INTO THE STREET.

IT JUST SEEMED TO BE A MORE DISRUPTIVE PATH TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HOWEVER, UM, WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS POSITIVE.

I'M SORRY, NONE OF THEM ARE HERE.

UM, BUT WHAT WE HEARD WAS, OH, IT'S SO GREAT THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DEMOLISH THESE STRUCTURES, WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT BEING PUSHED TOWARDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR, UM, I THINK IT WAS STATED AT ONE POINT THAT WE COULD CREATE THE, THE PROPERTY, THE STRUCTURES COULD BE MADE TO BE LEGAL.

THERE JUST REALLY ISN'T A CLEAR PATH TO THAT WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF HOW FAR THEY ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK.

SO IT SEEMS IT'S, IT'S AN ODD ARGUMENT, UM, TO BE SAYING, NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO GO TO MF ONE FOR FIVE UNITS.

WE'D RATHER HAVE THEM DEMOLISHED AND SUBDIVIDED AND HAVE THREE BRAND NEW UNITS PUT IN ON EACH LOT.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE REALLY THE SPIRIT OF ANYBODY.

WE, WE FOUND IT ODD THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING PUSHBACK ON THIS.

FRANKLY, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE GETTING SUPPORT BECAUSE THE OWNER WANTS TO KEEP THE STRUCTURES IN PLACE AND WANTS TO KEEP FIVE UNITS INSTEAD OF SUBDIVIDING AND GOING FOR SIX.

SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW BETTER TO REBUT AGAINST THAT.

I THINK THAT THERE MIGHT JUST BE SOME MISINTERPRETATION OF CODE OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF GOALS.

UM, THE, THE APPLICANT THAT I'M HERE REPRESENTING HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR OVER TWO YEARS IN DESIGN, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP THE STRUCTURES.

SO THAT'S PRIMARILY BEEN HIS GOAL.

HE COULD HAVE TORN THEM DOWN LONG AGO.

THAT DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS APPROVED MORE THAN A YEAR AGO AND WE'VE BEEN HOLDING UP THE FINAL STEP OF THAT.

HISTORIC HAS SIGNED OFF, ZONING HAS SIGNED OFF.

EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH IT.

THE ONLY ONE NOT OKAY WITH IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.

HE DOESN'T WANNA DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURES.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND, AND ONE, AND DURING ONE MEETING I SAID, WELL, WE COULD DEMOLISH AND SUBDIVIDE AND PUT SIX NEW UNITS ON THE LOT.

AND SOMEONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SAID, WELL THAT SOUNDS LIKE A THREAT.

AND WE SAID, OH, NOT AT ALL.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANNA DO.

IF WE'D WANTED TO DO THAT, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE LONG AGO.

SO, UM, PROPER PROPERTY OWNERS WORKING IN GOOD FAITH, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE HOPING TO DO.

MF ONE WOULD RESTRICT THE DEVELOPMENT SIX UNITS COULDN'T BE PUT THERE.

ONLY FIVE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU MS. CRODA.

JUST MAKING SURE THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS.

UM, CHAIR THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? IS HE VICE CHAIR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, IF NO OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES.

OKAY.

LET'S GO TO OUR Q AND A COMMISSIONER WITH A FIRST QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER MOS TYLER, SINCE WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE HERE, CAN WE GET SOME, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON THAT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE CURRENT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, SINCE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE PROPERTY THAT KINDA HASN'T COME BEFORE YOU GUYS THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM ONE SIDE FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HEARING FROM OPPOSITION THAT THIS IS WHERE IT SHOULD GO.

SO I'D, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EXOFFICIO.

FIRSTLY, I'D, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST AN HONOR OF MY NEW TITLE THAT WE PLAY HAIL TO THE CHIEF BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

UM, I THINK WE ALL KNOW I LIKE TO TALK, BUT Y'ALL ARE GONNA BE SURPRISED.

I'M ACTUALLY GONNA BE A LITTLE LIMITED IN WHAT I CAN SAY HERE, SIMPLY BECAUSE IF THIS MOTION FAILS AND IT DOES COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THERE WILL BE A CONFLICT.

I CAN SAY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS JUST ONE CRITERIA POINT AWAY FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

IT'S VERY, VERY CLOSE.

UM, LIKE THE ONLY THING RESTRICTING IT IS THAT NORMALLY WHEN YOU DO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, IT'S 25 YEARS HAS IT BEEN ON THE LOT.

BUT THERE'S A RULE ABOUT IS IT A, THE

[01:00:01]

PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY RESIDENCE HERE.

SO THE OTHER OPTION I THINK IS SUBDIVISION WITH NO SETBACKS.

AND I THINK MAYBE I'D HAVE TO, TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY MAP ONE MORE TIME WITH HOME OR HOME TWO.

UH, THAT MIGHT BE, THAT PROBABLY IS DOABLE.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THEN AGAIN, ALSO THAT THAT COULD GO EITHER WAY.

THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY NOT SEE THE HARDSHIP.

I THINK THE, THE DUE DILIGENCE ARGUMENTS, I'M, I'M, I'M GETTING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE AND I I CAN'T REALLY DISCUSS IT.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UM, I THINK YES, IT'S DEFINITELY DOABLE WITH THE VARIANCE.

UH, I WILL LEAVE THE REST OF IT FOR Y'ALL TO DEBATE AND I'M SORRY I REALLY CAN'T ELABORATE MORE JUST IN CASE.

ALRIGHT.

UM, SORRY, WAS THERE A QUESTION OVER HERE? UH, YEAH, I JUST HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR CHAIR COEN BEFORE WE OKAY.

IF, UM, CHAIR COHEN, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF, UM, HOME ONE CASES YET? I MEAN OBVIOUSLY HOME SHOULD JUST PASS, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE MADE SOME DECISIONS GENERALLY ABOUT THESE TYPES OF RULES.

OKAY.

IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN SITTING, WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE, A CASE LIKE THIS BEFORE.

BUT I I, I WOULD ALSO HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF WE HAD, WE HAVE TO TREAT, TREAT EVERY SINGLE CASE, EACH VARIANCE REQUEST AS UNIQUE, THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE WITH US.

IT'S HARDSHIP FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER COS.

THANK YOU.

YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR, FOR STAFF.

UM, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT THE OPTION OF, OF SUBDIVIDING THIS PROPERTY TO TRY AND BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE E EVEN IF THAT WERE FEASIBLE WITH SETBACKS AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE CASE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW HOME ONE WOULD INTERACT WITH THAT AND, AND THOSE CHANGES.

BUT WOULD IT, WOULD SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF REZONING AND ALLOWING IT TO CONFORM OR COMPLY WITH THE CODE AS OF RIGHT, WOULD THAT IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL COST ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, GOING THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION PROCESS? AND WHILE YOU'RE WALKING UP, SORRY, I CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE PODIUM FROM THIS CAMERA ANGLE, BUT, UM, IF SO, WOULD THAT BE A SIGNIFICANT COST? WOULD THAT BE ON THE ORDER OF, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OR, OR SOMETHING MINIMAL.

HI, CYNTHIA RIE.

UM, IT WILL IMPOSE A COST.

I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT, WHETHER IT WOULD BE AN EXTREME AMOUNT OR NOT, BUT, UH, NO, I MEAN, YES, IT WOULD COST THEM TO RE SUBDIVIDE IT AND THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO, UM, THE FEES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID.

ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT, ACTUAL PHYSICAL COSTS OF DOING THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT WOULD BE SORT OF FEES AND, AND REVIEW COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBDIVISION ITSELF.

YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER COX? YOUR HONOR, I'M