[00:00:04]
[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.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.
CHAIR HEMPEL, MYSELF IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS NOT ONLINE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN.
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.
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.
[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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
ITEM NUMBER 27 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 5 9 18 0 9 WEST 35TH STREET, DISTRICT 10.
ITEM NUMBER 28, UH, C IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 4 9 CANON COURT DISTRICT FOUR.
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.
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.
UH, C IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 18.
JOHN REDEVELOPMENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
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.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO SET FOR STAFF POST PERMIT TO JULY 23RD AND CHAIR.
THAT'S ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? YES.
I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM 35.
I WORK AT AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND WE WILL BE BUILDING HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY.
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.
JEFFREY HERBERT, UH, YOU CAN MAY PUSH STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.
HI, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WE CAN, YES.
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.
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.
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.
FOR ITEM NUMBER, WAS IT 32? ANNA WHITE.
ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, NEVERMIND.
DID, UM, COULD YOU SAY THE NAME AGAIN? ANNA WHITING.
DO COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT NUMBER 30.
ITEM 30, WHICH IS, UH, 1500 AND 1500 AND A HALF RIO GRANDE UHHUH
I GUESS AS THE, I GUESS I'M OFFICIALLY THE NEW PERSON ON THE BIAS
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.
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.
ARE YOU GOOD WITH IT? STAYING ON CONSENT? YEAH, I'M FINE LEAVING IT ON CONSENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY.
[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.
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.
THE, OKAY, I SEE, UM, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, IF NO OBJECTION, THIS ITEM PASSES.
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.
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.
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.
[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.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.
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.
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.
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.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STELLER.
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.
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.
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.
OTHER, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
IS THIS
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.
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.
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.
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.
JULY 18TH IS WHEN IT'S GOING TO COUNCIL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THEIR LAST MEETING BEFORE BREAK.
AND WE HAVE 11TH AND JUNE, 2020 FIFTH.
WHAT WAS THAT FIRST MEETING? AFTER THE FIRST MEETING, AFTER THE BREAK.
SO WHEN DOES IT GO TO COUNCIL? I APOLOGIZE.
IT GOES ON JULY 18TH, WHICH IS THE FIRST MEETING BACK AFTER THEIR BREAK.
SO, AND WE WILL HAVE JUNE 11TH AND JUNE 25TH FOR OUR HEARINGS AND MEETINGS.
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.
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.
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.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOUR AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK FOUR.
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
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.
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.
FOUR AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? THANK YOU CHAIR.
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.
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.
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.
AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON? IS THAT YELLOW? OKAY, THAT IS FOUR TO SIX TO ONE.
SO GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, FOR HEARING IT TONIGHT, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
OKAY, THAT IS SEVEN TO THREE TO ONE.
SO WE WILL HEAR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.
[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.
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.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SPEAK? UM, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
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.
WE HAVE TWO FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
MARY INGLE, YOU ARE OUR FIRST SPEAKER PRIMARY.
UM, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
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.
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.
[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.
NOW WE HAVE BARBARA, WE LOST THE PAGE EPSTEIN CALLING IN.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.
IF YOU ARE SPEAKING, TRY PUSHING STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
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.
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.
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.
THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC SPEAKER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL.
[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.
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.
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.
JUST MAKING SURE THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
UM, CHAIR THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER COS.
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.
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.
COMMISSIONER COX? YOUR HONOR, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE WE JUST SPENT A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIME PICKING THROUGH THE HOME ONE AND HOME TWO AND HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM.
'CAUSE I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
UM, AND I THOUGHT WE HAD SCULPTED IT SO THAT SETBACKS, UH, FOR THE QUOTE UNQUOTE INTERNAL LOT LINES WAS ZERO.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH SETBACKS AND I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF HAS KIND OF BRUSHED UP ON WHAT THAT FINAL HOME TWO LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE AND HOW THAT COULD APPLY TO THIS CASE.
AND WHILE YOU'RE FIGURING THAT OUT, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT, THAT, THAT YOU PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER.
I KNOW THAT, THAT WE'RE KIND OF, UH, BROADENING THE SCOPE OF OUR QUESTIONS HERE, BUT I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED ABOUT, ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BASED ON Y'ALL'S BELIEF THAT THIS WHOLE AREA SHOULD JUST BE MULTIFAMILY ZONED OR BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S A LEGAL UNITS AND OR NOW CHANGING ZONING TO ZONING GET EXISTING UNITS IN CONFORMANCE? NO, THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'VE, UM, CHOSEN TO RECOMMEND THIS.
THERE ARE SOME MF MULTIFAMILY SITES AROUND THE AREA DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT, YOU KNOW, ON THE, ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES? NO, BUT THERE ARE SOME FURTHER DOWN THE STREET, UM, TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN THERE'S A LOT TO THE WEST.
UM, SO THEY'RE ONE STREET OVER.
UM, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, YOU CAN SEE THEM.
THEY HAVE TOWNHOUSE, RESIDENTIAL, DUPLEX, RESIDENTIAL THERE.
[01:05:01]
UM, SO THERE ARE OTHER SITES ASSOCIATED CLOSE BY TO THIS THAT HAVE MULTIFAMILY SETTING.SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, BASED ON, BASED ON THAT REASONING, EVEN THOUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS, UM, IF THIS WHOLE BLOCK, IF ALL OF THE OWNERS OF THE LOTS ON THIS WHOLE BLOCK SUBMITTED A ZONING APPLICATION FOR MULTIFAMILY STAFF WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE RECOMMENDING MULTIFAMILY FOR THIS, FOR THIS WHOLE AREA.
YOU KNOW, EACH RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON EACH REZONING CASE.
WELL, THE REASONING YOU'RE GIVING IS GEOGRAPHIC, SO I ASSUME IT'S NOT GEOGRAPHIC SPECIFIC TO JUST THIS BLOCK.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING AND, AND YOUR REASONING SEEMS TO BE ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S MULTIFAMILY A BLOCK AWAY.
IT'S, UM, SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS.
UM, THERE'S THE FACT THAT THERE'S THE CAPITAL METRO BUS STOP DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER REASONS THAT GO INTO IT.
AND IN THE STAFF REPORT YOU WILL SEE THAT, UM, THERE ARE MULTI-FAMILIES ZONED CLOSE BY MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY AND THAT, UH, IT, IT WILL KEEP THE HOUSING STOCK THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
YES, THAT IS A REASON, BUT IT'S NOT THE SOLE REASON.
UM, AND THEN, AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IF, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE QUESTION ON THE SETBACK ISSUE WITH HOME TWO, BUT, UH, I, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE COST OF SUBDIVIDING.
ISN'T STAFF CURRENTLY WORKING ON A SPECIFIC CATEGORY OF SUBDIVISION FOR THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES? THAT WOULD BE A LOWER COST? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
SHERRY
SO, UM, AND AS FAR AS HOME TWO, WE'RE WORKING ON IT TO LOOK UP WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PASSED AT CITY COUNCIL.
HOWEVER, MY COMPUTER'S DEAD, SO I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND FOR YOU,
I, I I WOULD ALSO JUST POINT OUT COMMISSIONER COX, HOME TWO IS ONLY FOR, FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS THE, THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE ARE ALL MULTIFAMILY OR MULTIPLE UNIT BUILDINGS.
SO EVEN IF THEY SUBDIVIDED, THERE WOULD STILL BE MORE THAN ONE UNIT PER LOT, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER HOME ONE, BUT NOT HOME TWO, WHICH BOTH ARE PASSED, BUT ONE DIDN'T HAVE THE REDUCED SETBACKS.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT QUESTION.
MAYBE JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS AREA HAS A LOT OF HOUSING THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE WE MADE HOUSING SO DIFFICULT TO BUILD, BUT IS IS, IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY IS GET ZONING THAT MATCHES THE USE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WE HAVE APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? WOW.
I MEAN,
AND SO FINALLY, I THINK THAT SAYING DOES MAKE SENSE AND HERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
I KNOW WE CAN BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE IT SOUND DIFFICULT, BUT I HOPE WE NOT, I HOPE WE CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT AND WE CAN JUST PASS THIS.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER MOTO, IT'S SPOT ZONING.
UM, I, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY BEING PURCHASED AND HOW YOU BUY FIVE UNITS ON AN SF THREE, AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND MAYBE COMMON JOE PERSON LIKE ME, PRIOR TO BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND KNOWN TO GO TO LOOK FOR PERMITS.
BUT THERE IS A PATHWAY, THERE IS A HARDSHIP PATHWAY FOR THIS PERSON, AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN NOW
[01:10:01]
DO SPOT ZONING ON SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE IT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY BEFORE.THIS PROPERTY'S ONLY OWNER HAS ONLY HAD THIS PROPERTY TWO YEARS.
THERE'S A PATHWAY FOR THEM THAT IS LEGITIMATE.
THIS IS NOT A LEGITIMATE PATHWAY FOR THIS PROCESS.
THIS, THIS IS THE WRONG APPROACH.
AND GIVEN THAT THERE IS A PATHWAY THAT CAN GET THE OWNER THERE, I I THINK WE OUGHT TO REDIRECT TO THE APPROPRIATE PATHWAY.
ALL RIGHT, THIS SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
YEAH, I, UH, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD, WELL, WHAT QUALIFIES MAY, WHAT QUALIFIES AS SPOT ZONING? BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP SHOWN ON PAGE EIGHT OF 19 IN THE, UH, THE BACKUP FOR THIS, I SEE ALL, ANY MANNER OF ZONING CATEGORIES WITHIN A BLOCK OF THIS.
I SEE MF THREE N-C-C-D-N-P-O, I SEE MF ONE NCCD MF THREE.
WHEN I LOOK ON, YOU KNOW, ON THE MAPPING IN THE AERIAL, I SEE MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES LITERALLY DOWN DUVAL STREET AT 32ND.
SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW.
WHEN WE CROSSED THE THRESHOLD OF WHAT IS QUOTE UNQUOTE SPOT ZONING, I, I SEE A CHANCE TO LET FIVE HOUSING UNITS REMAIN AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT.
ARE WE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, IT, THIS IS, THIS IS A MATTER OF PROCESS AND ELI ILLEGALITY FOR ME, UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO, TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE, MAKE AN ILLEGAL ACTION LEGAL, UM, WHEN, WHEN IT WAS CLEARLY ILLEGAL, WHEN IT WAS DONE, AND WE ARE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE THIS TYPE OF STUFF ILLEGAL THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, THROUGH NORMAL PROCESSES WITHOUT BASICALLY MATCHING A RE MATCHING A ZONING CATEGORY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE ALL OF THE ILLEGAL UNITS THAT ARE ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
UM, THERE IS A PATH THROUGH THE BOAI BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A PATH THROUGH THE HOME ONE AND HOME TWO ORDINANCES THAT THAT WE'VE, UM, THAT WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON.
UH, OR MAYBE A COMBINATION OF BOTH.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LOWER COST OPTION, HOPEFULLY THAT'S COMING SOON TO MAKE SUBDIVISION A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE.
UM, IF THERE ISN'T THEN WHAT THE HECK WERE WE DOING WITH HOME TWO
BUT, UM, BUT I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, WHAT, WHAT I DO BELIEVE TO BE, UH, BORDERLINE KIND OF A GRAY AREA OF SPOT ZONING.
UM, BECAUSE THERE'S ILLEGAL UNITS ON A PROPERTY, UM, THERE SHOULD BE OTHER PATHWAYS TO THAT ARE MORE CONSIDERED, UM, TO, TO MAKE, TO MAKE THOSE THINGS LEGAL.
UH, SO I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THIS ZONING CASE.
THAT'S SPOT FOR AND AGAINST COMMISSIONER HAYES.
UM, I'M AGAINST, OKAY, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
OH, OH, LET'S DO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND WE'LL FINISH WITH COMMISSIONER HAYES.
JUST TO GO IN ORDER OF FOR AND AGAINST.
SPOT ZONING DOES NOT MEAN ZONING ONE PARCEL DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NEXT TO IT.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE HEARING TWO CASES RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS A PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONING CHANGE.
UH, IF ZONING CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE WOULD BE AMENDING AND IT CANNOT BE SPOT ZONING.
UM, SO THAT'S REALLY NOT A CONCERN TO ME.
UM, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PATH TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING SORT OF NON-CONFORMITY ON THE GROUND, I THINK IS A VALID DEBATE TO HAVE.
UM, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, IF THE QUESTION IS, IS MF ONE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THIS LOCATION? I THINK THE CLEAR ANSWER BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, UH, WALKABLE BIKEABLE, UH, PEDESTRIAN FOCUSED AMENITIES, THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHIC CENTER OF TOWN, UM, THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY YES.
THE LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE ZONING DIS DISTRICT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RELATIVELY DENSE, ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT'S SORT OF INHERENTLY COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE FOUR BLOCKS IMMEDIATELY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF DUVAL, THREE OF THEM HAVE MULTIFAMILY ZONING APPLIED TO A SINGLE PARCEL ALREADY.
UH, SO IF ANYTHING, THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, UH, I URGE ALL OF US TO VOTE.
YES, MR. HAYES? THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
UH, SINCE I'M NOT THE NEW GUY, I LOOKED UP WHAT SPOT ZONING IS.
AND SPOT ZONING ACCORDING TO BLACKS IS, UH,
[01:15:01]
THE BLACKS LEGAL DEFINITION, UH, IS, UH, ZONING IN REAL ESTATE WHERE FIRST IT SET A RULE, UH, I'M SORRY, UH, SPOT ZONING AND REAL ESTATE REFERS TO A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS ALLOWED TO BE USED, UH, DIFFERENTLY THAN ADJOINING OR SURROUNDING PARCELS.SPOT ZONING USUALLY BENEFITS THE OWNER OF THAT LAND TO THE DETRIMENT OF SURROUNDING OWNERS.
I I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TO THE DETRIMENT OF SURROUNDING OWNERS, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT THREE CRITERIA THERE, THIS CERTAINLY MEETS TWO OF THOSE, THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING.
UM, SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, THE APPLICANT OR THE, THE APPLICANT'S, UM, UM, MADE A, A STATEMENT DURING HER TESTIMONY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THE, UH, THE FIVE UNITS ON ON SITE.
BUT IF IT'S THE PROCESS TO GO FORWARD, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY CAN SPLIT THE PROPERTY AND UH, PUT UP SIX UNITS AND, BUT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.
AND UH, SHE, SHE MADE THE STATEMENT SHE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF, OF THE CITY.
ACTUALLY THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY.
AS COMMISSIONER COX SAID, WE SPENT DAYS, IF NOT, OR HOURS IF NOT DAYS, IF NOT WEEKS, IF NOT MONTHS, TO SIT HERE AND PASS HOME ONE AND PASS HOME TWO.
AND THE INTENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IS TO ADD DENSITY.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS ARE GONNA, UH, I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE A, A RESOLUTION 'CAUSE THE NEIGHBOR'S GOING TO FIGHT THAT JUST LIKE THEY'RE FIGHTING THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE APPLICANT'S PROCESS, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE INTENT OF THIS COMMISSION, OVERWHELMING INTENT OF THIS COMMISSION.
I WAS, I WAS SOLO THAT NIGHT 'CAUSE SOME OF MY COMPADRES WERE MISSING.
I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT VOTED AGAINST IT.
BUT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL VOTED TO DO EXACTLY THAT.
YOU HAVE A METHOD, YOU HAVE A MECHANISM TO BRING THIS SITE INTO COMPLIANCE.
YOU HAVE A METHOD FOR THIS SITE TO BE COMPLIANT, UH, TO BE LEGAL.
AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, GO TO BOA AND GET IT LEGAL THAT WAY.
BUT TO, TO, UM, TO MAKE IT LEGAL THROUGH ZONING IS THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING AND THAT'S ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THAT'S ALL OF OUR SPOTS AND UM, IF WE CAN GET OUR TIMER BACK ON FOR FUTURE.
WE'RE VOTING ON MOVING APPROVAL.
UM, THIS WAS MADE THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S AND SECONDED BY, I WROTE DOWN COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
MAXWELL
AND THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, THAT MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO THREE.
JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR TRYING TO SAVE THOSE HOUSES.
I WAS NEVER AGAINST THE HOUSING.
IT WAS JUST THE PROCESS I THOUGHT WAS, WAS A, COULD HAVE COME TO ME INSTEAD.
BY ME, I MEAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
[Items 14 & 15]
TO NUMBERS NUMBER 14.THIS IS THE 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 HERE FROM MS. MEREDITH AND MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 14 IS NPA 20 23 0 0 2 5 0.01.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 5 7 2 5 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE OAK HILL COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, THE EAST OAK HILL AREA.
PART OF THE PLAN, THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE TO FUTURE LAND USE.
MET FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BUT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE OAK HILL COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
MARCEL BOUDREAUX, CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 4 0 IS THE REZONING CASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NPA THAT MAURY MEREDITH JUST DISCUSSED AT FI 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND.
THE, UM, SHE WENT OVER SOME OF THE DETAILS.
THIS WAS A PROJECT SUBMITTED AS A SITE PLAN, UM, ON OR AROUND JULY
[01:20:01]
OF 2023, US UTILIZING THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING ZONING FOR A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT.AND THE SITE PLAN IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD SLASH UNDER REVIEW AT THE CITY SINCE THE COURT'S RULING INVALIDATE THE BONUSES AUTHORIZED FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS ITEM IS BACK TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW.
UM, BUT IT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE HEARD THIS.
IT IS A 6.527 ACRE SUBJECT REZONING SITE, CURRENTLY ZONED GR DASH NP AND THE REQUEST IS GR DASH DB 90 DASH NP.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 330 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PREVIOUS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IS THE SAME FOR THIS ING REQUEST TO ADD THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT.
THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GR DASH DB 90 DASH NP.
I'M HERE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS.
IN ADDITION, UM, I HAVE COLLEAGUES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HERE AS WELL IN ORDER TO FIELD ANY QUESTIONS.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS, UM, I'LL SUMMARIZE THIS CASE SIMPLY AS, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPER, UH, BASICALLY WORKING TO REDEVELOP A 10, UH, BANK OF AMER, A DEAD VACANT BANK OF AMERICA SITE WITH A 10 LANE DRIVE THROUGH FOR HOUSING, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND KEEPING, UH, BRINGING THE WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION UP TO, UH, NINE.
UH, CURRENT CODE HAS STATED THAT THE, THE TOP OF THIS SLIDE, I'LL EMPHASIZE THAT THERE IS ZERO CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONTROLS AND DETENTION POND IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE 1980S ERA.
UM, I'VE GOT SLIDES THAT BASICALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S ADJACENT TO MULTIPLE IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTERS.
IT'S AN ADJACENT TO US TWO 90, WHICH IS AN A SMP LEVEL FIVE STREET, MULTIPLE CAT METRO BUS STOPS AND ROUTES ADJACENT TO A NEW CAT METRO PICKUP ZONE.
UH, THE PEDESTRIANS SHARED USE PATH THERE.
IT'S REALLY AN ACCESSIBLE, MULTIMODAL, UM, ACCESSIBLE PROJECT.
CURRENTLY A ZONE GR A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE FLU, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT WAS, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, ABOUT THIS TIME LAST YEAR UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE GR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL.
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS SPENT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN PROCESSING THAT.
NOW WE'RE PROCESSING AN ANOTHER DB 90 CASE, UM, BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WAS INVALIDATED BY THE, THE COURTS, THE PERMITS READY TO BE ISSUED IN, IN EFFECT AND APPROXIMATELY 124,000 IN STREET IMPACT FEES WILL BE UTILIZED IN THIS SERVICE AREA MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS IN PARKLAND FEES FOR, UH, OVER 300 MULTIFAMILY UNITS INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND WE'RE GONNA BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODE IN INCLUDING THE STRINGENT SOS WATER QUALITY CONTROLS AND DETENTION AND COMPLIANCE WAS ATLAS 14.
THESE ARE THE APPLICATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS OUR REQUEST AND STAFF ALSO, UH, AGREES WITH THE REQUEST TO NOT PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL, UM, AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE DB NINE 90 ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE'RE ADJACENT TO A HIGHWAY AND THERE'S A SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
THIS THROUGH THE LOCATION MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE BANK OF AMERICA SITE THAT'S GOT, UM, AUTO, UH, UH, REPAIR TO THE EAST, UH, OFFICE, TO THE COMMERCIAL, TO THE SOUTH MOBILE HOME TO THE WEST OFFICE TO THE SOUTHEAST AND VACANT A ISD LAND TO THE EAST.
UM, THIS SHOWS THE ZONING, AGAIN, COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST SOUTHWEST MOBILE HOME.
UM, THE WEST CREEK SOCCER FIELDS YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT IS ZONED IS THE A ID LAND THAT ZONED SF TWO LITTLE ZOOMED IN VERSION.
THIS JUST SHOWS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE FROM FOR THE PROPERTY, AGAIN WITH LESS ABOUT A HALF MILE FROM ONE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS AND CENTER, EXCUSE ME.
AND, UH, ADJACENT TO MANY OTHERS.
UM, UH, BEN WHITE IS A LEVEL FIVE A SMP STREET, WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
UM, AND THEN THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS A LEVEL FOUR.
LEVEL TWO IS THE WEST CREEK ROAD.
AGAIN, MANY EXISTING CAPITAL METRO ROUTES AND STOPS.
THIS IS JUST ZOOMED IN SHOWING ONE AT THE POST OFFICE TO THE WEST AND ONE BASICALLY AT THE SITE TO THE, TO THE EAST.
AND AGAIN, ANOTHER ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THE METRO ROUTES AND STOPS WERE JUST IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND OUTSIDE TO THE SOUTH OF BEN WHITE AND IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THAT PICK, PICK METRO AREA.
[01:25:01]
PROSPECT AND POTENTIAL FOR BEING ADDED INTO BASICALLY ANNEXED INTO THAT.AND WE WILL REQUEST THAT CAPTAIN METRO CONSIDER THAT AGAIN.
URBAN TRAILS NETWORK NEARBY TXDOT SHARED USE PATH RUNNING FROM OAK HILL, UH, THROUGH OUR SITE.
THIS IS AT OLD FREDERICKSBURG BURG ROAD LOOKING WEST AND EAST.
AND THIS IS AN AERIAL SHOWING THE BANK OF AMERICA SITE WITH A BRAND NEW TDOT, UM, SHARED USE PATH ON THIS SITE.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE REASONS TO SUPPORT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED HOUSING, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, ON A MAJOR CORRIDOR WITH THE ROBUST TRANSIT SITE DEVELOPMENT, UH, FILED UNDER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE, PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BRINGING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODE.
WE, WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL RIGHT, WHO DO WE HAVE LEFT NEXT ON OUR SPEAKERS LIST? NEXT SPEAKER, WE HAVE JUSTIN CADO SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
UH, RITA BERRY IS SPEAKING VIRTUALLY.
UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AS PRIMARY, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF THE WEST CREEK NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WEST CREEK MIXED USE PROJECT BEING BUILT IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA FOR THREE SPECIFIC REASONS.
THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN AND THE RESIDENTS THROUGH THE, THE INSIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHALLENGES FROM A LACK OF PARKING FOR SCHOOL AND SPORTING EVENTS, THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASE IN STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND THE LOSS OF HERITAGE TREES.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION FORMERLY BANK OF AMERICA IS ON A LARGE TRACK OF LAND AT THE INTERSECTION OF 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, EASTBOUND AND WEST CREEK DRIVE, ONE OF THE THREE ENTRY EXIT POINTS TO AND FROM THE WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IMMEDIATE AREA HAS A HIGH DENSITY OF BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC BY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FROM WEST CREEK AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING, PAT, NO ELEMENTARY, ASHFORD, MONTESSORI, PRESCHOOL, LONE STAR SOCCER AND SMALL MIDDLE SCHOOL.
ALL OF THIS USAGE FROM CHILDREN, STUDENTS, AND FAMILIES NATURALLY BRINGS A LEVEL OF CONGESTION TO THE AREA, NOT ONLY IN THE FORM OF PEDESTRIAN STREET CROSSINGS AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO INTERMITTENTLY HEAVY STREET PARKING ON WEST CREEK DRIVE.
THERE ARE NO DESIGNATED PARKING SPOTS FOR SOCCER PARTICIPANTS AND LIMITED VISITOR SPACES AT THE SCHOOLS RESULTING IN PARKED CARS THAT LIMIT VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND LIMITED VISITOR SPACES AT THE SCHOOLS RESULTING IN PARKED CARS THAT LIMIT VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC.
WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSED INGRESS EGRESS FROM TRAFFIC FROM THE PROJECT AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE INGRESS EGRESS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD TWO 90 EASTBOUND RATHER THAN ON WEST CREEK DRIVE.
IN THE PAST, FAMILIES AND SOCCER PLAYERS COULD PARK AT SMALL MIDDLE SCHOOL, WALK ACROSS THE TRACKS AND ACCESS THE SOCCER FIELDS BY PATTON.
NOW WITH LIMITED PARKING AND FENCING SURROUNDING SMALL MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCCER FAMILIES HAVE BEEN LESS, HAVE LESS CONVENIENT PARKING, RESULTING IN MORE ON STREET PARKING.
WE ASK FOR ONSITE PARKING FOR ALL TENANTS AND VISITORS AT THE DEVELOPMENT TO HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM.
THE WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBLE INCREASE IN STORM DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND WOULD REQUEST THAT THE IMPERIOUS IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE CODE 25 8 26.
WHAT THE COMMITMENT NOT TO INCREASE THE EXISTING LEVEL OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
WE ARE REQUESTING 40% NET SITE AREA.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS TREES INCLUDING SEVERAL BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE TREES ON THIS LOCATION.
THERE IS A CONCERN THAT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF TREES HAVE BEEN TAGGED FOR REMOVAL.
THE WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL THE PROTECTED HERITAGE TREES AND AS MANY OTHER TREES AS POSSIBLE BE SAVED ON THE SITE.
WE WANT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A COMPROMISE TO WORK WITH WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE DEVELOPER ON THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION CONCERNS WITH DRAINAGE AND PRESERVING THE BEAUTY OF OUR HERITAGE TREES.
[01:30:01]
THANK YOU.NEXT UP WE HAVE LEE ZIEGLER ALSO VIRTUAL.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.
MS. ZIEGLER, WE STILL CANNOT HEAR YOU.
MS. ZIEGLER, IF YOU CAN HEAR US, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX.
SHE IS ON AND WANTED TO SPEAK VERY STRONGLY.
AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO MS. ZIEGLER.
VICTORIA FREEBERG, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
ARE WE WAITING ON A PRESENTATION OR WHILE WE'RE WAITING IF OUR ONLINE SPEAKER HEARS US AND CAN, UH, MS. ZIEGLER BECOME UNMUTED AND YOU SAID MS. ZIGLAR'S ON SHE, THERE'S JUST TECHNICAL ISSUES OR SOMETHING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, EVERYONE.
WE'RE PULLING THE IMAGE UP NOW.
I'D LIKE TO, UH, TODAY, MY NAME IS VICTORIA FREEBERG.
I'M A RESIDENT OF THE WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE 5 70 25 WEST US TWO 90 EASTBOUND FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO MIXED USE.
I, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF OUR NEIGHBORS, FEEL THAT THIS ZONING CHANGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND WILL NOT SERVE OUR COMMUNITY, OUR SOUTHWEST AUSTIN COMMUNITY.
SO I'D LIKE YOU TO TAKE A, A LOOK AT THE IMAGE BEHIND YOU.
SO THIS IS AN OUTWORK, KIND OF LIKE HUMANISTIC LOOK OF THE LAND TRACK THAT'S CURRENTLY IN QUESTION.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A POTENTIAL TO CHANGE THIS ZONE TO ACTUALLY AFFECT THE HEART OF OUR SOUTHWEST AUSTIN YOUTH ASSOCIATION.
SO IN THE CENTER OF THIS, OR WHERE THIS LAND ROOF IS BEING PROPOSED IS THE CENTER OF THE, WHERE WE CENTER OF OAK HILL YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION, WHICH WE HAVE BASEBALL, SOFTBALL PLAYERS, HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN THAT PARTICIPATE IN THAT ACROSS THE STREET ON TWO 90, WE HAVE THE SOUTHWEST FAMILY, YMCA.
SO WE'VE GOT CHILDREN THAT ARE INVOLVED IN SPORTS ACTIVITIES, CHILDCARE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THEN WE HAVE THE WEST CREEK SOCCER FIELDS THAT ARE PART OF BOTH THE SMALL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL COMMUNITIES.
THAT'S OUR WHOLE LONE STAR SOCCER FIELD.
YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN'S AND FAMILIES THAT PARTICIPATE
[01:35:01]
ON THAT WEEKEND STATE.THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE SMALL, UH, MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCCER FIELDS.
AND THAT IS CURRENTLY UTILIZATION BY THE SOUTHWEST FAMILY YMCA FOR ALL OUR SOCCER PROGRAMS. SO ANY GIVEN DAY, YOU'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN'S AND FAMILIES THAT COME TO THAT AREA TO PARTICI PARTICIPATE IN THESE YOUTH PROGRAMS. AND HAVING A DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTER OF THIS IS GONNA BE SIGNIFICANTLY CHALLENGING AND DIFFICULT.
AND YES, IT'S GOING TO BE A, A HUGE ISSUE.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE OF BENEFIT TO ANYBODY IN THE AREA.
WE'VE GOT, AS WE KNOW, THESE YOUTH ACTIVITIES ARE IMPORTANT FOR BOTH OUR COMMUNITY, OUR CHILDREN, OUR FUTURE AUSTINITES.
WE HAVE BOTH PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH THAT, UM, BENEFIT OUR CHILDREN.
AND THE THING IS, IS ONCE WE HAVE THIS GIANT UNIT 342 UNITS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAFETY LIKE THAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE'VE GOT THIS GEM INSIDE SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, WHICH HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES, THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES, IF WE THINK OF IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, TRAVEL TO DAILY, WEEKLY TO PARTICIPATE, THEY'RE GONNA BE AFFECTED.
SO CHALLENGE THAT, THE NEW CHALLENGE THAT THIS UNIT IS GONNA IMPOSE IS A CHALLENGE TO ACTUALLY UTILIZE THESE PROGRAMS THAT WERE BUILT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S A FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PROPOSED AUSTRALIAN CHANGE IS, WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY.
IN FACT, I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
IT'S GONNA HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR YOUTH.
IT'S GONNA NOT ALLOW FOR, IT'S GONNA ALLOW FOR THESE EXCESSIVE PROJECTS LIKE THE ONE THAT WAS CURRENTLY DISCUSSED TO BASICALLY ERODE OUR COMMUNITY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH.
SO, UH, TO SAFETY CONCERNS IMPACTING TRAFFIC BY AFFECTING ACCESSIBILITY TO THESE AREAS AND EVENTUALLY, SORRY.
AND I FEEL IT'S GONNA COM CAUSE A COMPLETE DISBALANCE AND DISRUPTION OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IS MS. SIGLER ONLINE YET? WE JUST ASKED HER TO SIGN OFF AND TRY AGAIN.
UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT WILL TAKE.
SO IT'S UP TO YOUR DISCRETION WHAT WE DO NEXT.
SHE DID ALREADY DROP, SO SHOULD HAPPEN QUICK.
ALL RIGHT, WE WILL GIVE IT ONE MINUTE.
IS SHE LOGGED BACK ON YET? OKAY, I'M GOING TO CALL.
MS. ZIEGLER, PLEASE PUSH STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE, OH, WE THINK MAYBE YOU, HELLO? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
LEE ZIEGLER, CHAIR OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM.
SLIDE TWO, TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY NOW WITH OVER 40 YEARS OF TREE GROWTH.
SLIDE THREE CHANGES MADE TO THE FRONTAGE WEST HIGHWAY 71 2 90.
DO NOT ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY BUT RATHER INCREASE BYPASS TRAFFIC.
A MORE WALKABLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT REMAINS A PRIMARY GOAL IN NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE.
FIVE FOUR NEIGHBORS SUPPORT USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD RETAIN NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR FOR INCREASED WALKABILITY, YET STILL ALLOW OPEN ACCESS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALL POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT NONCONFORMING ZONING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE LAND USE TO ACHIEVE THE 70 FOOT HEIGHT NEEDED BY THE DEVELOPER, WHICH COULD BE BEST CLARIFIED BY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IF YOU CHOOSE TO MANDATE A CHANGE IN LAND USE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY PERMITTED ON THE SIDE STREETS.
OH, UM, ALLOW ONLY, I'M SORRY, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ALLOW ONLY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT UNDER DB 90, THIS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A GATED SINGLE ENTRY INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY PERMITTED ON THE SIDE STREETS.
IN ADDITION TO FRONTAGE ACCESS, ALL DETAILED BY A NEEDED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THIS WOULD BEST MAXIMIZE A SAFER WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT.
[01:40:02]
SLIDE FIVE TO BEST COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.A LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE DESIGNATION REMAINS THE MOST APPROPRIATE IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING CATEGORY, WHICH RESPECTS INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS.
SLIDE SIX, NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE ALSO RECOGNIZES THE EXPANSIVE NEARBY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE MORE THAN 6,000 PROXIMAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND 1000 ADDITIONAL UNITS JUST APPROVED LAST COUNCIL MEETING WITHIN ONE MILE.
SO HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? SLIDE SEVEN.
LAND USE PLANNING SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR AND CONSIDER PROPERTY ALREADY APPROVED FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE AREA TO ATTAIN APPROPRIATE DIVERSITY AND MINIMIZE CONCERN FOR LOCAL FLOODING HERE.
PLANNING TO RESPECT THE SOS ORDINANCE REGARDING OBVIOUS DRAINAGE ISSUE ISSUES SUBJECT TO THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE AND PROTECT THE DULY AFFECTED WATERSHEDS AND REDEVELOPMENT.
BOTH AREAS ARE PARTICULARLY PRONE TO FLOODING CURRENTLY.
DRAINAGE IS PARTIALLY DIRECTED FROM THE WILLIAMSON CREEK WATERSHED TO THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED AND SUBJECT TO A REROUTE ACROSS 71 2 90.
UNTIL NEIGHBORING SCHOOLS ARE GRANTED FUNDS TO IMPROVE UPON ADDING TRAILERS TO EXTEND CAPACITY, INCREASED MULTI-FRONT FAMILY HOUSING IN THE EAST OAKHILL IS SIMPLY NOT LOGICAL OR FEASIBLE.
THIS FACT ALONG WITH INCREASED FLOODING, FAILING GREAT CAPACITY AND MAJOR WATER LEAKS THROUGHOUT THE AREA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN EARLY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.
PLEASE CONSIDER A RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AS STAKEHOLDERS.
REBUTTAL OR AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.
UM, EVERYTHING PRETTY MUCH I'VE HEARD AND SEEN IN THE BACKUP FROM THE OPPOSITION IS ESSENTIALLY SITE PLAN ISSUES OR ITEMS RELATED TO OFFSITE EVENTS, WHICH ARE THE OFFSITE EVENTS ARE CERTAINLY OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL.
AND I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE, THE DECISION BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IS WHETHER THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE ON A LEVEL FIVE STREET.
UH, UH, VERY ROBUST MULTIMODAL ACCESS FOR, UM, AFFORDABLE FOR HOUSING AS WELL AS INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, THINGS LIKE, UM, TRAFFIC, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA COMPLY WITH WHAT THE CITY CODE REQUIRES ON OUR SITE PLAN, AND OUR SITE PLAN DOES COMPLY WITH THAT.
STORMWATER, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY BRINGING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODES.
WE'RE GONNA SOLVE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT ARE BEING EXPERIENCED ONLINE.
AND UH, UM, I WAS GONNA SHOW YOU BASICALLY WHERE WE'VE GOT A, UH, IN TERMS OF ACCESS, WE ACTUALLY ARE, THERE ARE THREE ACCESS WAYS ON THE, ON THE WEST CREEK DRIVE OR THE SITE PLAN.
AGAIN, IT'S A SITE PLAN ISSUE, NOT A LAND, NOT A ZONING CASE ISSUE.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THAT TO SO FROM, FROM FROM THREE TO ONE ON WEST CREEK.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE ONE DRIVEWAY TO, TO THE NORTH.
THE, TO THE SOUTH, WE WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
AND THEN WE'RE PROVIDING SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY AROUND THE SITE, THROUGHOUT THE SITE AS WELL AS A NEW EIGHT FOOT, UH, TRAIL TO CONNECT FROM OLD FREDERICKSBURG TO THE NEW SHARED USE PATH.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S A SITE PLAN ISSUE, UM, THINGS LIKE INGRESS AND INGRESS, AND WE JUST HOPE THAT, UM, THIS, UH, COMMISSION WILL, UH, VOTE IN FAVOR OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING ON THIS, UH, LOCATION.
JUST CHECKING TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS.
WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
UM, IF NO OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES
UM, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
WHO'S OUR FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER WOODS.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR. HARTMAN.
UM, I HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THERE BEING LIMITED PARKING AT PATTON ELEMENTARY AND CLINT MIDDLE SCHOOL AND AT THE WEST CREEK SOCCER FIELDS.
UM, JUST BASED ON KINDA THE WAY THAT THIS SITE PLAN IS LAID OUT, WOULD RESIDENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO WALK TO THOSE SCHOOLS INTO THE SOCCER FIELDS, OR WOULD THEY NEED TO GET IN THEIR CARS TO DRIVE? YES, THEY WOULD.
THE RESIDENTS OF OUR PROJECT WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK.
UM, WE'RE GONNA BE PROVIDING SIDEWALKS FROM OUR, OBVIOUSLY, AROUND OUR SITE, AND THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET, UM, DOWN TO PATTON ELEMENTARY AND, AND SMALL AS WELL.
[01:45:01]
NOT ADDING TO THAT CORRECT TRAFFIC.UM, AND THEN ALSO HEARING CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY TO SOME OF THE YOUTH FACILITIES IN THE AREA, WHICH THERE ARE CLEARLY A LOT OF.
UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FAMILIES IN THE AREA ENJOY.
IS THIS SITE GONNA BE ENCLOSED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD PREVENT FAMILIES FROM WALKING BETWEEN THOSE FACILITIES OR WOULD PREVENT FUTURE RESIDENTS FROM WALKING TO THOSE FACILITIES? I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO WALKING FROM OUR, FROM OUR PROJECT TO, TO ADJACENT SITES.
AND THAT INDIVIDUALS, AS I INDICATED, WILL HAVE THAT, UH, THE NEW EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK, EIGHT FOOT SHARED USE PATH ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE THAT'LL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE PUBLIC TO GO FROM THE SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE NEW SHARED USE PATH ON THE NORTH OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF A SITE PLAN ISSUE, BUT JUST TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT, ARE THOSE SIDEWALKS GONNA BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC'S USE AND THAT PATH BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC'S USE, OR WOULD THAT BE RESTRICTED TO JUST THE USE OF FUTURE RESIDENTS? UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
OUR CIVIL ENGINEER AND DEVELOPER ARE HERE.
THEY CAN CORRECT ME IF THAT'S INCORRECT STATEMENT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY.
UH, IS, UH, ANY PORTION OF THE SITE LOCATED IN, UH, FLOODPLAIN? UH, UM, THE CIVIL ENGINEER IS TELLING ME NO.
AND COULD YOU, UH, I MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, THE PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSES TO USE, UH, CURRENT SOS WATER QUALITY ENT DESIGN STANDARDS? THAT'S CORRECT.
OTHERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? I GUESS, I GUESS, UH, SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, WE, WE ALL GOT CORRESPONDENCE FROM, UH, SOS STATING THAT OBVIOUSLY Y'ALL AREN'T GONNA COMPLY WITH THE 15% NET SIDE AREA BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EXEMPTION ON FILE FOR THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, WE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GRANDFATHERED PER SE.
UH, UH, WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF IS, UM, THE, THE LEGAL STATE LAW GRANDFATHERING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE IS AN EXISTING CITY CODE PROVISION THAT PEOPLE REFER TO AS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO KEEP THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER IN EXCHANGE FOR REDEVELOPING AND BRINGING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODE ON WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION.
AND THAT, UH, THAT SITE PLAN, BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS PRO PRO PROJECT, UH, WILL GO ULTIMATELY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW REVIEW ACCORDING TO THAT REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO WE'RE GONNA KEEP ABOUT THE SAME EXISTING, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER, WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THE IMP IMPERVIOUS COVER SLIGHTLY.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER IS GONNA END UP AT? IT'S NORTH OF WHAT? UM, IT'S MORE THAN WHAT, UH, YOU'RE, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS SOS WAS, OR WHAT YOU JUST STATED WAS 40% IN PREVIOUS COVER, SO YOU'RE GONNA BE NORTH OF 40%.
AND, AND REMEMBER, WE, I GUESS REMEMBER, WE REMEMBER THERE'S ZERO EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION PER 1980S, UM, CODE THAT WE'RE ALL BRINGING UP TO CURRENT CODE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION AUTHORIZES.
UM, AND THEN IF I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT, CAN, CAN YOU JUST HELP, UH, ME AND, AND I GUESS EVERYONE UNDERSTAND ALL WE'RE ALL WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW IS JUST ADDING DB 90 TO THE EXISTING ZONING, CORRECT? UM, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SUMMARIZE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU SUPPORT.
NUMBER ONE IS DB 90 ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND NUMBER TWO IS THE, UM, AGREEMENT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DB 90 ORDINANCE, THAT GROUND FOUR COMMERCIAL BE NOT REQUIRED, BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE BECAUSE IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DB 90 TO ALLOW NOT, NOT REQUIRING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL.
SO, SO IF DB 90 WAS NOT GRANTED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED AND COMMERCIAL, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ESSENTIALLY A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT YOU WOULD BE DOING JUST WITHOUT THE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS? CORRECT.
I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY THAT IF DB 90 WAS NOT GRANTED, WE WOULD, WE WOULD DEVELOP UNDER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S THE ORDINANCE, ONE OF THE ORDINANCES THAT'S BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE COURTS, WHICH IS WHY WE FILED THE DB 90 CASE.
SO WE SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS PLUS ON A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN.
AND THEN WE, BECAUSE OF THE, THE COURTS OVERTURNED THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE,
[01:50:01]
WE'VE, UH, FILED THIS ZONING CASE FOR DB 90 TO AUTHORIZE THE RESIDENTIAL PER THE DB 90 ORDINANCE.SO I GUESS, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT RAISE IT ANOTHER POINT ARE, ARE YOU GONNA BE BUILDING TO THE LIMITS THAT DO HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT TO THEM? SO THE DB 90, UH, ORDINANCE TO DEVELOP UNDER IT REQUIRES AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT.
YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS AND WE'RE GONNA, UH, DEVELOP UNDER THE 12% AT 60% MFI.
SO 305 UNITS ON OUR SITE PLAN, 12% OF WHICH WILL BE AFFORDABLE AT 60% MFI.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ELLER.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THESE CAN BE ANSWERED IN THIS FORUM OR NOT, UM, BUT GIVEN THAT WE'RE SITTING BETWEEN AN ELEMENTARY AND A MIDDLE SCHOOL, UM, WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THIS VERSUS ONE BEDROOM OR APARTMENTS, THAT KIND OF THING? ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE MIX OF UNITS? COMMISSIONER MUHA? YES.
YEAH, AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE ZONING STAGE, SO THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE AUTHORIZE, UM, MULTIFAMILY OR NOT.
WE HAPPEN TO HAVE A SITE PLAN ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE, AND IT'S EARLY TO SAY, BUT CURRENTLY OUR SITE PLAN HAS SOME THREE BEDROOM UNITS AS WELL AS TWO BEDROOM AND ONE BEDROOM.
SO WHAT PEOPLE TYPICALLY THINK OF AS FAMILY FRIENDLY THROUGH BEDROOM UNITS.
AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND PART OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO, TO DUMB IT DOWN FOR ME IN YOUR ANSWER 'CAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE.
SO A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT VMU TWO WAS A NEW ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED AND VMU TWO WAS THROWN OUT BY THE COURTS, RIGHT? ONE OF THE 2, 2, 1 OF THE OTHER, UH, ORDINANCES THAT WAS THROWN OUT BY THE COURTS WAS REFERRED.
NO, I JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS HOPING TO, IS IT GOING TO BE THE COMMERCIAL OR ARE YOU NOT WANTING TO DO THE COMMERCIAL? I, THE PART WAS UNCLEAR TO ME.
SO YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL IS, IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTING, UH, OUR REQUEST TO NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL BECAUSE WE SO YOU'RE ASKING TO BE OUT OF THAT REQUIREMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WE'VE GOT A SITE PLAN THAT WE SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS THAT DOES NOT HAVE IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE GP 90 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING AND WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING.
SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE EXCEPTION.
AND THEN I KNOW THAT THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, IS OLD GUIDELINES, BUT WE ARE ON A RECHARGE ZONE.
WE ARE IN THE EFFECTIVE AREAS.
UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE, BRINGING IT UP TO CODE CONTEMPLATE THE INCREASED INTENSITY.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON, ON THIS BODY ABOUT THAT IN SOME OTHER AREAS OF TOWN, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT IT DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE THE INCREASE IN INTENSITY THAT A DB 90 WOULD BRING, UM, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE MAINTAINING THAT LEVEL OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR CIVIL ENGINEER CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THE PLANS FOR THAT.
YEAH, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST RESPOND THAT I'VE HANDLED SEVERAL, UH, UH, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION CASES, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, YOU SEE IT ALL THE TIME AND IT'S FAIRLY ROUTINELY GRANTED.
AND SO IT'S BEEN DONE, UM, WITHIN THIS AREA, UH, PRETTY ROUTINELY BECAUSE THIS AREA IS, YEAH, I'M FULLY AWARE OF THAT
BUT YES, UH, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE MOTION TO APPROVE OF APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OKAY, I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I'LL JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE, UH, ESSENTIALLY A VACANT BANK THAT HAS EIGHT OR 10 LANES OF DRIVE-THROUGH BANKING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE WITH 305 HOUSING UNITS, 12% AFFORDABLE.
THAT'S THREE, ABOUT 36 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
PEOPLE BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT DRAINAGE ORDINANCE.
A NET REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER, A VAST IMPROVEMENT IN WATER QUALITY OF HOUSING LOCATED NEAR MIDDLE SCHOOLS, AND ALL OF THE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES THAT WERE LISTED BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.
I, IT'S THE PERFECT PLACE FOR MORE HOUSING, SO I FULLY SUPPORT IT.
[01:55:02]
COMMISSIONER COX? CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YES.UM, TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, WITH A, UH, CO THAT MAXES THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AT 40%.
I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOSLER.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, JUST BRIEFLY.
UM, I MEAN, I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT.
UH, I I I, I HONESTLY DON'T LIKE PUTTING MULTIFAMILY RIGHT ON HIGHWAYS, BUT, UH, AS COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE SAID, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN UNDERUTILIZED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UM, AND, AND WE NEED THE HOUSING.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DO AGREE WITH OUR FRIENDS AT THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
UM, I ALSO AGREE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION HAPPENS, UH, FAIRLY LATE IN THE PROCESS.
AND SO IF THIS COMMISSION CAN SIGNAL TO THE APPLICANT OUR INTENT TO NOT ONLY ALLOW THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, BUT ALSO TO HELP MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT IN A SENSITIVE AREA OF OUR CITY, UM, THEN THEY CAN DESIGN THE PROJECT, MAKE THE REVISIONS THEY NEED BEFORE THEY GO TO COUNCIL, BEFORE THEY GET THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACCOUNTING FOR ALL OF THOSE FACTORS.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK HAVING A CEO ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS A, IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE AT THIS POINT.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST MR. SKIDMORE? UH, YEAH, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE OF THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER THE FULL HISTORY OF THE CITY'S, UH, PROCESS TO ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE SOS SITES, BUT ALLOWING 'EM TO MATCH EXISTING IS GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE WASTED IMPERVIOUS COVER RIGHT NOW WITHOUT ANY WATER QUALITY CONTROL WITH SOMETHING VASTLY SUPERIOR.
IF WE WERE STARTING FROM A GREENFIELD PROJECT, I WOULD UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY, BUT I THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO, UH, FORCE THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BETTER WITH IT.
SO ADDING THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY JUST DOESN'T, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
WHAT IT RESULTS IN, AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAD, IS ALL OF THESE SITES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN THAT WERE NOT COMPLIANT WITH ANY WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, EVERYBODY WAS AFRAID TO TOUCH THEM FOR REDEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO VASTLY REDUCE THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY REASONABLE THAT THEY'RE KEEPING IMPERVIOUS COVER AT THE SITE.
UH, AND ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS AROUND FLOODING, FLOOD MITIGATION, I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE A ROBUST DRAINAGE STUDY AND THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, AN IMPACT ANALYSIS TO SHOW NO ADVERSE IMPACT, BOTH HYDRAULICALLY AND HYDRAULICALLY.
SO I, I DON'T THINK, I THINK THAT'S AN UNFAIR BURDEN OF ON THE APPLICANT TO ARBITRARILY REDUCE THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER THIS SPEAKING AGAIN, OR FOUR.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, I JUST WANT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT WHEN WE DO THOSE STUDIES LOOKING AT FLOOD CONTROLS AND WATER RUNOFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS.
AND SO I, I BROUGHT IT UP A FEW TIMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY IT AGAIN, THAT WHAT, WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ARE GOOD ROBUST STUDIES THAT LOOK AT THE CHANGING INTENSITY IN THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE PICTURE WHEN WE CHANGE THESE AREAS INTENSITIES BY A DRASTIC AMOUNT IN A WHOLE AREA.
AND WHAT THAT DOES TO, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE WATER RUNOFF, BUT WATER SUPPLY ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CONTEND WITH FOR THE LONG TERM.
UM, I, I WILL SAY THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THOSE STUDIES, I DON'T KNOW THAT LIMITING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, IS THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
I JUST WANNA KEEP TRYING TO GET THAT AIRTIME THAT, THAT WE NEED THIS AS A CITY AS WE GROW, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW ALL THIS IS GONNA INTEGRATE, NOT JUST ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ONE.
THIS IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CEO TO LIMIT IMPERIOUS COVERAGE TO 40% BY COMMISSIONER COX.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUTAL CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS
UM, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPLACING A 10 LANE DRIVE THROUGH BANK WITH HOUSING A, A BANK THAT HAS ZERO WATER DETENTION, ZERO WATER QUALITY, IT'S A GARBAGE USE.
YOU KNOW, I, I'VE HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GONNA BE A BENEFIT TO ANYONE IN THE, IN IN THE AREA.
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT 305 HOMES OF WHICH 12% ARE GONNA BE AFFORDABLE IS GONNA BE A BIG BENEFIT TO A LOT OF FOLKS.
AND THERE'S A SCHOOL RIGHT THERE AND I'M EXCITED
[02:00:01]
TO SEE THIS GET BUILT AND JUST AN EXTRA LIMITATION.LET'S JUST TAKE THIS HORRIBLE USE AND LET'S JUST, YEAH, LET'S JUST THROW ON AN EXTRA LIMITATION, SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT IS RIPE FOR DISASTER AND I HOPE THAT WE VOTE THAT DOWN AND THEN WE GET TO PASS WITH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAVE COME UP WITH HERE AND SEE THESE HOMES GET BUILT.
OTHERS? SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, BACK TO THE VOTE.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER COX'S MOTION, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOOSHER.
THOSE IN FAVOR? ONE, TWO AND THOSE AGAINST 6 7, 8 9 THAT FAILS TWO TO NINE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS COMMISSIONER, SORRY, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
YOU WERE THE MOTION MAKER ON THIS.
AND THEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO WRITE DOWN.
UM, WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE SPOTS TO SPEAK FOR AND A COUPLE TO SPEAK AGAINST.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER? GO AHEAD.
UM, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS A PARTICULARLY GREAT PROJECT.
UM, IT WAS A REAL SHAME WHEN WE GOT RID OF DREW LEGAL MEANS ONCE AGAIN, THE, UM, COM, UH, DOING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT AND SHOWS WHAT THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT WE CAN DO IN THESE PLACES.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY AS AN A ISD PARENT WHO HAS MANY FRIENDS, A KID AT SMALL MIDDLE SCHOOL AND KNOWS PATTON ELEMENTARY KIDS TOO, THOSE ARE GREAT SCHOOLS AND WE SHOULD BE WELCOMING NEW FAMILIES TO COME TO THOSE SCHOOLS.
AND IF THOSE SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED, THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE THAT MEANS MORE MONEY FOR THE DISTRICT AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN MORE SCHOOLS IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THOSE SPORTS AND BE A PART OF THOSE COMMUNITIES.
SO I'M DELIGHTED AND EXCITED TO HAVE 300 HOPEFULLY NEW FAMILIES COMING INTO THIS AREA AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE WONDERFUL AMENITIES THAT WERE LAID OUT FOR US TONIGHT.
SPEAKING AGAINST SPEAKING FOR, IF I COULD, BECAUSE THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT, I AM VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT AND IN READING SOME OF THE BACKUP FROM MY FELLOW DISTRICT MEMBERS ON PAGE 46 OF 62 IN ITEM NUMBER 15 BACKUP, IT'S, WELL IT WAS REDACTED IN OTHER VERSIONS OF IT.
I CAN'T SPEAK THIS PROFANITY ONLINE, BUT BASICALLY IT'S SELLING, TELLING STAFF THAT THOSE WHO NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE NOT WELCOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT TURNS MY STOMACH TO EVEN READ THAT.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY DESERVING PROJECT.
MY DAUGHTER GOES TO SCHOOL WITH KIDS THAT PLAY IN THE SOCCER FIELDS NEARBY, AND WE NEED MORE OF THIS IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING DEVELOPMENTS THAT START TO GET BACK TO THE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, AND THAT WE SEE MORE NEIGHBORS THAT CAN ACCESS GREAT SCHOOLS.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS LAST SPOT AGAINST MADAM CHAIR.
CAN I ASK STAFF A QUESTION OR IS THAT ALREADY GONE? I'M KIND OF THE GUY WHO'S STILL, WE'LL PASS Q AND A.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, MADE BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND THOSE AGAINST AND ABSTAINING
THAT PASSES 10 TO ZERO TO ONE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO, SHE REMINDED ME, ALLOWED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT.
I I JUST REALLY WANTED TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THE DB 90 CASES.
WE'RE GOING THROUGH THEM TONIGHT.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE AND ARE STILL COMING AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LOT OF CATCH UP.
I JUST REALLY WANNA THANK OUR ENTIRE STAFF TEAM AND MS. HARDEN, UM, AS WELL.
AND I REALLY WANNA THANK MS. FUNK AND MS. GERONA FOR HELPING US THROUGH OUR MEETING AS WELL.
[Items 16 & 17]
ON TO CASE NUMBER 16 AND 17, THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR BERKMAN DRIVE.SO I HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH, WHERE AM I? SO ITEM NUMBER 16 IS NPA 20 23 0 0 2 3 0.04.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS FIVE EIGHT TEN FIVE EIGHT TWELVE AND FIVE EIGHT.
UM, 5 8 1 6 BERKMAN DRIVE WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY HILLS WINDSOR PARK, COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
[02:05:01]
REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM MIXED USE OFFICE TO MIXED USE LAND USE STAFF.RECOMMENDATION IS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND IT IS SUPPORTED.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS SUPPORTED BY THE WINDSOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
ALRIGHT, MR. TOMKO, JOHN JONATHAN TOMKO PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS CASE NUMBER C 14 2020 3 0 1 5 1 5 8 1 0 BERKMAN DRIVE.
IT IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR 5 8 1 0 5 8 1 2 AND 5 8 1 16.
BERKMAN DRIVE FROM LO M-U-C-O-N-P TO G-R-M-U-C-O-N-P STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A LESSER INTENSITY ZONING OF L-R-M-U-C-O-N-P FOR THIS CASE.
UM, THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH PROHIBITS THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE TRACK FROM EXCEEDING 25% OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR WOULD REMAIN.
UM, THIS SUBJECT TRACT IS LOCATED ON BERKMAN DRIVE JUST WEST OF THE WINDSOR VILLAGE, BERKMAN NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER.
UM, IT CURRENTLY HAS TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS BUILT ON IT.
UM, BERKMAN DRIVE IS AN A S AND P LEVEL TWO CORRIDOR, AND, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS LESS INTENSIVE, UH, ZONING BASED ON, UH, COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT, UH, LAND USES.
UH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR, UH, A RESTAURANT USE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN LR ZONING UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 5 87.
UM, AND I CAN GO INTO THOSE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT SECTION.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
HELLO COMMISSIONERS, I'M LEAH BOJO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
WOULD YOU MIND PLAYING OUT MY PRESENTATION? THANK YOU.
I AM GLAD TO HAVE A LESS DRAMATIC ZONING CASE,
SO THIS IS WHERE THE SITE IS LOCATED, JUST SOUTH OF BRIARCLIFF ON BERKMAN DRIVE ACROSS FROM THE WINDSOR VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER.
UM, THIS SLIDE IS HELPFUL BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE IS SERVED WELL BY TRANSIT, UM, AND ALSO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING NEARBY.
AND SO, UM, THIS IS SORT OF A, HAS BECOME SORT OF A COMMERCIAL HUB IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, HERE'S, IT IS MORE ZOOMED IN VIEW OF THE SITE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST, JUST OVER AN ACRE ALTOGETHER.
UM, CURRENTLY, OR RECENTLY IT'S BEEN A PERSONAL SERVICES USE.
UM, AND THE CLIENT THAT I'M REPRESENTING HERE, UH, IS THE OWNER OF COUNTER CAFE AND SHE'S LOOKING TO BUY THE PROPERTY TO MAKE THIS THE NEW LOCATION FOR COUNTER CAFE.
UM, SO SHE'S LOOKING TO DO AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE SITE AS IT IS TODAY.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THAT'S A ROUTE 10 BUS STOP RIGHT IN FRONT, WHICH IS PRETTY AWESOME.
UM, SO THE REASON I INCLUDED THIS, THIS IS THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S IN THE, UH, EXHIBIT THAT'S IN THE BACK OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
BUT I THINK IT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE WHAT IT REALLY SHOWS IS THAT THERE'S A CREEK THAT GOES ALONG THE BACK AND SO, UM, THEY'RE INHERENT IN THAT CREEK.
UM, IF THE SITE WERE TO REDEVELOP RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, SHE'S NOT PLANNING TO REDEVELOP IT, BUT IF IT WERE TO REDEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD BE CREEK SETBACKS, CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THERE WOULD BE AN INHERENT DISTANCE BETWEEN ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE TO THE REAR.
SO HERE, UM, IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE OR, UH, AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE, UM, ZONING REQUEST.
WE HAVE L-O-M-U-C-O-N-P TODAY AND WE'RE ASKING FOR GR M-U-C-O-N-P.
UM, THAT'S DRIVEN PRETTY MUCH ENTIRELY BY THE REQUEST FOR RESTAURANT GENERAL USE.
UH, AND THEN THAT ALSO IS TRIGGERING THE CHANGE TO THE PHM FROM MIXED USE OFFICE TO MIXED USE.
UM, SO THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL RELAY.
WE'VE JUST CARRIED IT THROUGH, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING TO DO AN ADAPTIVE REUSE.
IT, IT WORKS FINE WITH OUR SITE, BUT IT REQUIRES, UM, NOT MORE THAN 25% OF THE USE OF THE SITE TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK THIS SHOWS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REAL PRIORITIZATION OF HAVING WALKABLE COMMERCIAL USES NEARBY.
UM, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALSO ASKED US IF WE WOULD BE OPEN TO PROHIBITING ALL THESE, THESE, THESE USES ADDITIONALLY, WHICH WE ARE.
UM, YOU CAN MAKE THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION OR WE CAN ADD, AMEND OUR APPLICATION.
EITHER WAY IS FINE, BUT WE'RE TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, REMOVING ALL OF THESE USES FROM THE SITE.
UM, WE HAVE HERE, UM, SOME GOALS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ABOUT LOCAL SERVICES, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING, COMMERCIAL USES, WALKABLE SHOPPING AREAS, AND THEN ALSO THE AESTHETIC OF THE, OF THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ARE BOTH THINGS I THINK ARE SUPPORTED BY THIS NEW USE, THIS NEW AND VERY
[02:10:01]
POPULAR USE.UM, AND AS MS. MEREDITH SAID, WE DO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.
I DID INCLUDE THAT WITH IN AN EMAIL THAT I SENT TO ALL OF Y'ALL BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A LOVELY, VERY EFFUSIVE LETTER.
WE HAD, UM, VERY ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT, WHICH I WAS VERY HAPPY TO HAVE FOR THIS USE.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
I WOULD REITERATE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THE, OUR, OUR APP SUPPORT FOR OUR APPLICANT'S REQUEST, NOT THE STAFF REQUEST AS IS OFTEN BEFORE YOU.
ALL RIGHT, MS. FUNK, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE MEDICAL HEARING? ALL RIGHT, I SEE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND COMMISSIONER WOODS IF NO OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER COX? UH, YEAH, TO TO MS TO MS. UH, BOJO.
I GUESS THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHY, IF, IF THEY'RE JUST ADAPTING, UM, TO, TO DO A RESTAURANT, WHY DO YOU NEED THE GR INSTEAD OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES, I, SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE COVERED THAT.
UM, GR ALLOWS RESTAURANT GENERAL USE, UM, WHICH ALLOWS ALCOHOL, SALES, BEER AND WINE, UH, ARE A PART OF THIS BUSINESS'S, UH, MENU TODAY.
UM, LR ALLOWS RESTAURANT LIMITED, WHICH, UM, EXPLICITLY DOES NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF ALCOHOL WITH THE FOOD.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER AL AND TWO, I THINK THEY'RE RELATIVELY SIMPLE.
I, I WANTED TO KNOW KIND OF WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIXED OFFICE VERSUS THE OTHER MIX.
AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY, WHAT WAS STAFF'S CONCERN IN GOING TO THE GR THANK YOU IN ADVANCE RE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE MIXED USE OFFICE LAND USE GOES UP TO GEO MU, BUT, UM, AND THE LOMU, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE LR OR THE, UM, GR THANK YOU.
AND THEN THE QUESTION ON WHY STAFF HAD CONCERNS WITH GOING TO THE, THE GR FOR THAT SITE VERSUS THE LR.
I THINK A GENERAL RESTAURANT USE CAN OPERATE IN AN LR, UH, UNDER SECTION 25 2 5 87.
I'M HAPPY TO READ THAT SECTION FOR YOU IF YOU'D, YOU'D LIKE.
UM, IT DOES SAY A, A RESTAURANT GENERAL USE MAY OPERATE AFTER 7:00 AM AND BEFORE 11:00 PM UM, I THINK STAFF'S CONCERN WAS THE TRANSITION OF THE AREA.
UH, THERE IS GR ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN THERE'S NOT A KIND OF A TRANSITION AREA BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST.
AND THE OTHER CONCERN WAS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT OR AMPLIFIED SOUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT IS A, AN ACTIVITY CENTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT, IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH OF THAT TRANSITION BETWEEN THOSE OTHER AREAS, UH, TO THE WEST.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE TRANSITION TO THE WEST.
I MEAN, WOULD THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREEK BEHIND THE PROPERTY, COULD THAT NOT BE CONSIDERED A PRACTICAL TRANSITION? I MEAN, IT, IT, IT IS A BUFFER.
UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FOLKS THAT WEIGH IN ON, UH, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF STAFF.
UM, THE CORRIDOR IS NOT UNIMAGINED AUSTIN CORRIDOR.
UM, BUT WE, WE WOULD WANNA, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE'S GONNA BE OUTDOOR MUSIC OR, OR OTHER THINGS THAT COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, BE CONTROLLED THROUGH THE REZONING OR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OR ANYTHING, UH, THAT MAY AFFECT, UH, PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.
CAN WE ADD AND SHARE COHEN QUESTION FOR STAFF? HI.
SO ISN'T AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR OUR DECISIONS ABOUT AMPLIFIED MUSIC, WHAT, LIKE REGULATED THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED? I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND READ SECTION 25 2 5 87.
'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE SECTION OR OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD.
THEY'RE ABLE TO RATTLE IT OFF.
'CAUSE I, I FOUND IT INTERESTING.
UM, SO, UH, THE USE OF A, A GENERAL RESTAURANT IS ALLOWED INR, UH, PROVIDED THIS SECTION, UH, ONE, THE GROSS INDOOR FLOOR AREA MAY NOT EXCEED 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
A RESTAURANT GENERAL OR TWO A, A RESTAURANT GENERAL USE MAY OPERATE
[02:15:01]
BETWEEN THOSE HOURS.I MENTIONED AFTER 7:00 AM AND BEFORE 11:00 PM AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA MAY NOT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET OF AREA OR BE LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF PROPERTY WITH A SINGLE FAMILY USE OR PROPERTY ZONED AS A TOWN HOME AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE.
SF SIX OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT FOR UH, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IS PROHIBITED.
FIVE, AN OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND IS PROHIBITED AND SIX A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY IS PROHIBITED.
SO STAFF KIND OF LEANED ON THE, THE LR ZONING AS BEING A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE GR ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST AND THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST.
AND IF A RESTAURANT USE IS ABLE TO CONFORM TO THESE STANDARDS, UH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE LR DISTRICT VERSUS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR GR.
SO IF IT WAS OWNED GR WITH THE CO AND ALL THE AGREEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY'VE AGREED TO ALONG WITH A MAYBE SOMEWHAT RESTRICTIVE, UH, PERMIT FOR SOUND USE, IS THERE REALLY ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? I, I THINK AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IF THOSE CONDITIONS I AND THE UH, THE AGREEMENTS OF THE PROHIBITED USES WAS NOT SOMETHING I SAW OTHERWISE I WOULD'VE INCLUDED WITH THE BACKUP OF THE STAFF REPORT.
UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
NO, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
YOU SAID THIS IS JUST SO BEER, WINE GOES WITH FOOD, RIGHT? THAT'S FINE.
IT'S BEEN ON, UH, EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ FOR A WHILE AND I THINK THEY LOST THEIR LEASE RECENTLY.
SO, UM, I DON'T HAVE THIS CODE SECTION IN FRONT OF ME AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT CONCERNS WITH THAT, WITH MEETING THOSE CRITERIA.
THE SIZE, THE OUTDOOR SEATING SIZE, UM, AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY.
AND I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I THINK THERE IS AN ISSUE, AN ISSUE WITH US DOING AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE BUILDING AND THE SITE AS IT IS TODAY AND THEN MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS IF WE GO TO THE GR THEN WE CAN USE THE SITE FULLY AND USE THE THE BUILDINGS FULLY AS THE, AS THE USE THAT WE'RE REQUIRING OR THAT WE'RE REQUESTING WITH UM, BEER AND WINE SALES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE COCKTAIL SALES.
I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THEY DON'T, BUT THEY WANNA HAVE ALCOHOL WITH FOOD, UM, WHICH IS DELICIOUS, WHICH IS DELICIOUS
AND SO, UM, SO THAT IS THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR THE GR I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE UM, THE FACT THAT LR IS ALLOWED WITH THESE CERTAIN LIKE REQUIREMENTS KIND OF SHOWS, I THINK THAT IT'S A FLEXIBLE USE THAT CAN BE NEAR RESIDENCES.
I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE REALLY LIKE HAVING FOOD NEAR THEIR RESIDENTS AND WITH ALCOHOL SALES AVAILABLE IF THEY WANT IT.
UM, AND THEN I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A PERMITTING PROCESS FOR OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY IF THEY WERE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT YOU BEFORE I GET BACK TO SEAT.
UM, SO I'M READING THIS VERY EFFUSIVE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM AND UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE DELIGHTED WITH THE IDEA OF A COUNTER COUNTERCULTURE COMING TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YET WE'RE HEARING STAFF CONCERNS ABOUT NEEDING SORT OF PROTECTION AND MAYBE A STEP BACK AND, AND I GUESS I'M NOT HEARING THAT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? I WOULD AGREE.
UM, IN FACT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UM, COUNTERCULTURE SUE DAVIS HAS BEEN TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS FOR LONGER THAN WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO BRING THE, THE RESTAURANT TO THEIR AREA AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT THE WHOLE TIME.
AND SO THEY WERE THRILLED WHEN WE HAD A SITE AND WE CAME FORWARD TO THEM.
AND UM, WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT STAFF HAVE RAISED.
AND I GUESS RELATED TO THAT, WE HAVE SEEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ABSOLUTELY BE VERY, I DON'T WANNA SAY DIFFICULT FOR REALLY BE PROTECTIVE OF THEIR CORRIDORS AND WHAT THEY ALLOW CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SINGLE FAMILY.
I'M THINKING OF SOUTH LAMAR WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RESTAURANTS ON ONE SIDE BECAUSE OF CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND MAYBE NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
MM-HMM
SO WE KNOW THAT MAYBE THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREA ON ONE SIDE, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEEMS TO BE WELCOMING THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE STREET, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S FAIR.
OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? YES.
VICE CHAIR, CHAIR WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE WITH UH, APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
OKAY, I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? SURE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS WHY IT DOES MAKE SENSE FOR HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A VERY LIMITED USE THAT THE APPLICANT IS THINKING OF, WHICH OF COURSE SEEMS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
I ALSO WANNA SAY I THINK UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S CONCERNED ABOUT SORT OF HOW THIS IMPACTS PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.
I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLY ADDRESSED BECAUSE THE CREEK DOES PROVIDE THAT SIGNIFICANT BUFFER ON THE WEST AND THERE WILL BE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT CAN OR CANNOT BE BILLED OR WHAT KIND OF USE CAN BE ALLOWED THERE.
[02:20:01]
MAJOR ASPECT.THE OTHER THING IS THIS AREA IS HIGHLY CONNECTED TO TRANSIT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY PART OF A, A GOOD WALKABLE COMMERCIAL HUB AT THIS POINT.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPRECIATES THERE.
I KNOW WHEN THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT PERHAPS A REMOVAL OF SOME OF THOSE COMMERCIAL UM, ESTABLISHMENTS THERE, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS.
SO I THINK THIS DOES MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS.
IT REALLY DOES ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF IS RAISING.
IT IS PART OF A, UH, GOOD AREA WITH GOOD TRANSIT ACCESS THAT REALLY SUPPORTS THIS KIND OF USE.
UM, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT IS BEING SORT OF VERY SENSIBLE AND SENSITIVE IN TERMS OF UH, WHAT USE THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ON THIS, ON THIS SITE.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION IF THE MOTION INCLUDES THE CO FOR PROHIBITED USES THAT THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD NEGOTIATED? YES, AND I SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY CLARIFIED BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE THE NA AS WELL.
SO IT WOULD BE ON BOTH OF THOSE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, INCLUDING THE CEO AS OUTLINED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE SAW, UH, FOR BOTH THE REZONING AND THE NA.
UM, THAT WAS MADE BY COMM, SORRY, VICE CHAIR AZAR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
[25. Rezoning: C14-2024-0061 - 2900 Oak Springs Rd Rezoning; District 1 (Part 2 of 2)]
FINAL DISCUSSION CASE OF THE EVENING.THAT IS GOING TO BE NUMBER, WHERE DID IT GO? NUMBER 25.
THIS IS FOR THE REZONING OF C 14, SORRY, 2,900 OAK SPRINGS ROAD.
THIS IS ITEM 25 ON YOUR AGENDA CASE C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 61 AT 2,900 OAK SPRINGS.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF OAK OAK SPRINGS WITHIN THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA.
THIS WAS A PROJECT SUBMITTED AS A SITE PLAN IN MAY OF 2023 UTILIZING THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING ZONING.
SINCE THEN, THE COURT'S RULING INVALIDATED THE BONUSES, UM, AUTHORIZED FOR A VMU TWO DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS HOW THE SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED.
THE 2.06 ACRES SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONE CS DASH MU DASH V DASH MP AND THE REQUEST IS CS DASH MU DASH V DASH DB 90 DASH MP.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 240 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
THE CITY PREVIOUSLY UNDERTOOK ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY WITH THE V COMBINING DISTRICT DURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OPT-IN PROCESS CIRCA 2008.
AND AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, A SITE PLAN UTILIZING THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WAS SUBMITTED FOR A PROJECT AT THE SITE.
THIS CURRENT REQUEST FOR THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT CONTINUES TO ALIGN WITH CITY OBJECTIVES TO INCREASED DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY IN EXCHANGE FOR MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CS DASH, MU DASH V DASH DB 90 DASH NP COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
I'M HERE FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER WAITING FOR A PRESENTATION.
YEAH, WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING THE PRESENTATION BACK.
[02:25:28]
OKAY, WE'RE BACK.UM, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT IS ALONG OAK SPRINGS, UH, DRIVE, WHICH HAS A LOT OF TRANSIT SERVICE CURRENTLY IT'S LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE AWAY FROM THE UM, AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.
UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OAK SPRINGS.
THE LIBRARY IS TO THE EAST OF THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE WEST, UH, AT THE INTERSECTION WITH UM, RIDGEWAY DRIVE.
APOLOGIZE, I CAN'T SEE THAT UP THERE.
UM, WE ARE ASKING TO, UH, HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THIS SITE PLAN.
IT'S, UH, PROPOSING 240 UNITS, 29 OF THOSE, UM, AT 60% MFI OR LESS.
SO THIS IS THE ZONING ZONING MAP JUST SO Y'ALL CAN HAVE SOME CONTEXT FOR WHAT'S IN THE AREA.
UH, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF CS THAT'S ALONG OAK SPRINGS AND THERE ARE SOME BEES AS WELL.
AND THEN THIS IS WHAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE REPLACING.
UM, AND I'LL HAND IT OVER TO RON HERE IN A SECOND.
HE'S GONNA TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS IN TERMS OF, UM, SOME OF THEIR SITE RELATED ELEMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, JERRY, COMMISSIONERS RON THROWER.
UM, AS Y'ALL ALREADY ARE AWARE, THIS WAS A PROJECT FILED UNDER PMU TWO, UH, THAT WENT ON LIFE SUPPORT WITH THE LAWSUIT.
ALONG COMES DB 90, UH, BROUGHT SOME UH, BREADTH OF LIFE INTO THE PROJECT.
THE DEVELOPER WENT INTO IMMEDIATE MODE, HIRED US.
WE FILED A CASE HERE WE ARE TODAY WITH IT.
BUT IN THAT MEANTIME, BETWEEN THE TIME DB 90 WAS ADOPTED TO, TO JUST MAY OF LAST WEEK, MAY 23RD, THEY SUBMITTED AN UPDATE TO THE SITE PLAN, COMMENTS CAME BACK MAY 23RD.
THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF CLEARING THE COMMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN REACH AN APPROVAL BY THE AUGUST 20TH DEADLINE OF THE SITE PLAN SHELF LIFE.
UM, AND AGAIN, JUST TO, JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE.
THIS PROPERTY IS 60 TO 65 FEET LOWER THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT, UM, THAT ARE UP ON CREST DRIVE.
AND THAT CONTEXT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE SITE PLAN HAS THE BUILDING ONLY AT 75 FEET TALL, NOT 90, BUT THE BUILDING IS ALSO PUSHED 75 FEET OFF OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
SO THAT WEST PROPERTY LINE WHERE BASICALLY YOU SEE THIS ENTRANCE TO THIS DRIVE IS GONNA BE A FIRE LANE THAT'S GONNA GO WRAP AROUND TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND THE ACTUAL 75 FOOT BUILDING IS 75 FOOT TALL BUILDING IS 75 FEET OFF OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU THAT CONTEXT.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
CHRIS PAGE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, CAN YOU START WHEN THE PRESENTATION ACTUALLY COMES UP? SO COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT, UH, THEIR APPARENT RESENTMENT, UH, FELICITY AND GREG AND SOME OTHERS TOWARDS A STRING OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS.
AN ILLEGAL PROCEDURE RIGHT ON BRAND MOTIVATED BEHAVIOR THAT BREAKS PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE, EXPLICIT DIRECTIONS FROM OUR CITY COUNCIL, OUR MAYOR STAFF WHO DEFINE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN OUR DB 90 ORDINANCE.
WITH ADMITTEDLY NO JUSTIFICATION, DB 90 REQUIRES REZONING.
IT'S NOT AN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY YOUR OWN RULES.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, UH, GRANT FIRST REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT UNLESS THERE'S EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOU'VE OPENLY STATED THAT THERE'S NONE.
CITY COUNCIL'S GONNA HEAR IT ON THE SAME DAY NO MATTER WHAT.
YOU JUST WANT AN AN ORGANIZED PRESENTATION.
THE, UH, THE REZONING APPLICATION WAS FILED BARELY A MONTH AGO.
THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE HEARING WAS RECEIVED ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO.
THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN TIME FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO OCCUR.
[02:30:01]
YOU POSTPONING OTHER DB 90 CASES IF THERE'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS? SO TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE'RE ON A-A-S-M-P LEVEL TWO RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET.THE VIEW WAS ADDED IN 2010 WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPT-IN BECAUSE AS STATED EARLIER, THEY WANTED TO HAVE A TOWN FEEL TO IT WITH MIXED, UH, MIXED USE, WHICH ACTUALLY THROWER DESIGN IS TRYING TO GET A WAIVER WAIVER FROM, UM, BY RON'S ADMISSIONS.
THIS IS, UH, IT'S INTERIOR TO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE OR SUCCESSFUL.
THAT'S WHY THEY WANT THE WAIVER FOR MIXED USE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS YOU GO WEST FROM THE SITE, IT'S ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AS YOU GO EAST, YOU HAVE ONE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING COMPLEX.
THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, RESOURCE INVENTORY WAIVER THAT THEY'VE ALSO PUT IN EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SPRINGS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE AREA.
AND THE STEEPEST ELEVATION CHANGE IN EAST AUSTIN.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER? IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENT'S BEAUTIFUL AND WE NEED IT.
OUR TOPOGRAPHY ACTUALLY HAS, AS I SAID, SOME OF THE STEEPEST, BUT OUR CANOPY IS WHAT HOLDS IT UP.
IT'S ALL NATURALLY STABILIZED.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ENGINEERING REPORT.
IT SHOWS THAT THE HILLSIDE IS SLOWLY MOVING.
FOLIAGE PERFORMS AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION AND MAINTAINING THE HILLSIDE AND PREVENTING, UH, SUB UH, BASICALLY EROSION.
IT'S IMPORTANT, UH, THAT IT BE MAINTAINED.
SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE PUTTING IT INTO A DEAD ZONE.
IT'S GONNA GET NO SUNLIGHT FOR PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR MONTHS OUTTA THE YEAR AT THE BASE OF THE HILL.
NOW WHAT DO WE GET WITH 60% MFI? IS THAT FIVE? I'VE GOT TWO MORE MINUTES LEFT.
I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MORE MINUTES.
UM, SO 60% MFI ACTUALLY GENTRIFIES OUR CENSUS TRACT.
THAT'S OUR CURRENT, UH, MFI CITYWIDE AVERAGE AT 126,000.
SO EVEN AT 50% WE'RE GETTING NOTHING OUTTA THIS.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IS OUR MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ACCORDING TO OUR CITY DEMOGRAPHER $54,000 STARKLY DIFFERENT THAN $126,000.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT IT IS STILL A MAJORITY BIPOC COMMUNITY, BUT OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE.
THIS IS A TRUMP ERA TAX EXEMPTION FOR CAPITAL GAINS FOR SOME OF THE WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTRY.
LIKE THE PRINCIPLES THAT GEISER, DAN GRAHAM I THINK SOLD A COMPANY FOR $180 MILLION AND I THINK HIS COMPANY IS GONNA SAVE A COUPLE BUCKS.
THIS IS THE LEAST REGULATED, FASTEST GENTRIFYING ZIP CODE.
AND THAT'S EVEN IN A CITY RESOLUTION.
SO WHAT ARE WE GETTING OUT OF THIS? LESS THAN FIVE UNITS OUTTA 240 THAT AREN'T EVEN AFFORDABLE TO THE AVERAGE RESIDENT ARE CENSUS TRACTED REDUCED CITY FUNDING FROM A PERSON WHO SOLD A COMPANY FOR $180 MILLION.
COMPROMISE HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY.
UM, SO WHAT ARE WE REALLY GETTING OUT OF THIS? RIGHT? 33200% PROJECTED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, NO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THIS IS NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A CS DESIGNATION, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IS A LITTLE ODD TO HAVE SANDWICHED RIGHT UP NEXT TO IT AS WELL AS A HILL THAT'S READY TO FALL APART.
AND IT'S PROVEN BY ENGINEERS, IT'S READY TO FALL APART AND WE HAVE SPRINGS THERE THAT WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT EVEN THOUGH WE TREAT OTHER SPRINGS IN THE CITY LIKE IT, IT'S A RELIGIOUS SITE AND FRANKLY I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THAT, BUT CAN'T WE GET THAT EQUALLY OR CAN'T WE AT LEAST GET ENOUGH CONSIDERATION TO NOT DESTROY THE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE? THIS IS INSANE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SMART HOUSING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MET IN THIS ARE SIMPLY MET BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.
WHEN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER, WE REQUIRED 60% MFI.
SO EVERY CS MUV ZONED PROPERTY IS ALREADY SMART HOUSING AND YOU'RE GIVING AWAY 25% WAIVER ON 15 DIFFERENT FEES.
NONE OF THAT IS GOING, ALL NONE OF THAT CITY FUNDING IS COMING FROM HAS EXPIRED.
SO IT'S COMING FROM TAXPAYERS.
REBUTTAL AGAIN, I'LL BE BRIEF.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NOT A DENIAL OF PROCESS WHEN THIS EXACT SAME SITE PLAN WAS FILED A YEAR AGO.
THERE'S NINE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED PARTIES, THEY'VE HAD ACCESS TO THE SITE PLAN.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO OBTAIN TONIGHT WITH THIS REZONING IS TO GET THAT SITE PLAN APPROVED THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR A YEAR.
[02:35:01]
REGARDS TO, UM, MY NAME GETTING PUT UP THERE, I WANNA EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE DB 90 ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSIDERATION BY A BODY TO NOT REQUIRE COMMERCIAL.GRANTED, THIS PROJECT HAD SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
THE OWNER WANTED TO PURSUE THE OPTION TO NOT HAVE IT AS A REQUIREMENT.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL TO PUT IN LIVE WORK UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR INSTEAD OF MANDATING COMMERCIAL STAFF CAME BACK AND WAS GONNA ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY COULD RECOMMEND THE CASE.
WE JUST SAID, FINE, LET'S LEAVE THE COMMERCIAL IN THERE BECAUSE WE ARE ON A VERY SHORT TIMELINE, WE NEED TO GET THIS ZONING IN PLACE SO WE CAN GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED.
AND UH, THERE WAS ANOTHER NOTE UP THERE ABOUT FIVE UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT'S 29 UNITS.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS SECOND BY VICE CHAIR IF NO OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, COULD THE APPLICANT OR STAFF OR SOMEONE KIND OF WALK US THROUGH WHAT THIS SITE IS TODAY? I JUST WANNA BETTER UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT.
UM, YES, CURRENTLY TODAY THE SITE IS, UH, HOLDING, I GUESS IT'S PROBABLY CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE IS MY BEST GUESS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, UM, AND A WAREHOUSE TYPE FACILITY.
I BELIEVE THE SIGN THAT I SHOWED IN MY PRESENTATION TALKED ABOUT BRICKS, UM, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
AND, AND HOW DOES IT, DOES YOUR CLIENT LOOK TO ADDRESS THE TREES? 'CAUSE THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY THERE AND THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, OUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT I, I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT ASPECT OF IT.
AND I GUESS A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE CASES AND WE HAVE SUGGEST OR WHEN THEY'RE REQUESTING TO WAIVE THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY CAN AGREE TO, CANNOT NOT AGREE TO, AND, AND THE STAFF ALSO WEIGH IN ON THAT? CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT? THIS IS KIND OF NEW, I KNOW WITH VMU, BUT WE KINDA REQUIRE IT AND NOW THERE'S THIS OPTION, BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY A FAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO, UM, IN THE DB 90 ORDINANCE, THERE IS NO, EXCUSE ME, THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR A PROJECT OR A REZONING CASE TO NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL SPACE.
SO, SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE SAID TWO WAYS.
DB 90 PROGRAM ORDINANCE REQUIRES PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THERE IS A PROVISION WITHIN THAT SAME ORDINANCE IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO REQUEST TO NOT PROVIDE IT.
THE STAFF GET TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH THAT PORTION.
SO THE SUBJECT SITE HAS TO BE FRONTING, UM, ONE OF FOUR ROADWAY TYPES.
MM-HMM,
THERE IS A FIFTH ROADWAY TYPE, THE CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR WHEREIN, UM, CURRENTLY THIS REQUIREMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN OR COMMERCIAL CANNOT BE REQUESTED TO BE WAIVED.
SO ON THE COURT TRANSIT CORRIDOR, THEY STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE.
AND IS THIS STILL A REQUIREMENT OF STREET LEVEL ACTIVATION HOMES? WALK-INS? THEY'RE, THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, UM, SUBSECTION E FOR, UM, MIXED USE DESIGN, UM, WHICH IS, UH, VERIFIED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
AND A QUICK QUESTION FOR OPPOSITION, UM, IF WE CAN KEEP IT TO THE ISSUE AND NOT GO AFTER COMMISSIONERS, THAT'D BE GREAT.
UM, DO YOU, ALL THE FOLKS YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO HAVE A PREFERENCE ON IF THIS WAS TO MOVE THROUGH, WOULD YOU BE PREFERRING, PREFERRING IT NOT HAVE THAT GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION THAT THE APPLICANT IS WANTING? OR WOULD YOU PREFER IT TO DO HAVE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DESPERATELY NEEDS GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION.
WE HAVE SOME REHAB CLINICS AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEEING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION? OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UH, YEAH, I WAS GOING TO MOVE THE, UH, APPLICANT REQUEST FOR DV 90, UH, TO BE ADDED TO THE ZONING.
ALRIGHT, I SEE A SECOND OR A SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT THIS WAS UNDER, UH, PREVIOUS ORDINANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.
[02:40:01]
UH, THIS SITE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR HIGHER INTENSITY, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.UH, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WILL YIELD NOT JUST 29 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, BUT SEVERAL HUNDRED HOUSING UNITS.
THAT IN ITSELF IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
AND I THINK SO OFTEN WE SIMPLY LEAVE THAT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS OR THE CITY AT LARGE, UH, IS GETTING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SO I THINK FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, INCLUDING THOSE WE SHOULD SUPPORT THIS PROJECT CHAIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS YOUR MOTION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THEIR MODIFICATION REQUEST AS PART OF THIS CASE? SO, UH, YES.
COULD I BE CLARIFYING WHAT SO IT YEAH.
I'LL RESTATE THE MOTION TO, TO MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND STILL SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
AND I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION THEN, IS THAT INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL OR IS THAT WAIVING GROUND FLOOR RETAIL? IT REQUIRE, EXCELLENT.
OKAY, THEN I DON'T NEED TO MAKE A TIVE QUESTION.
IT, IT DOES REQUIRE JUST TO CLARIFY TO EVERYBODY IN RECORD.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOUR, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
COMMISSIONER, UM, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, I, I'M GONNA, I'M, YOU KNOW, I WAS, I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WANTED TO POSTPONE THIS, BUT, AND THE REASON THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR IT IS, UM, I, I GET WHERE THIS COMMISSION WANTS IT IS GOING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THE FACT THAT, UH, WE WANT TO GO THERE WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED, I I'M OKAY WITH THAT AS WELL.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS, I AM HARD PRESSED TO SUPPORT, UH, SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS IN OUR RULES THAT SAYS THE FIRST APPLIC OR THE FIRST REQUEST FOR A POSTPONEMENT WILL BE GRANTED.
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN, WHEN, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS PROJECT IS MORE THAN, OR THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED, PROBABLY APPROVED, UH, ON IN JULY BY THE COUNCIL, WHETHER WE VOTE TONIGHT OR IN TWO WEEKS.
AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME TROUBLE.
UH, WITH THAT SAID, I'M, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
I I AGREE WITH, UM, COMM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND THAT, THAT WE SHOULD, UH, UTILIZE A HIGHER AND BETTER USE FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT WE HAVE TO RESPECT PROCESS.
ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK FOR VERY QUICKLY AND TO SHARE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THIS BODY HAS HEARD CASES WHEN THAT WAS WHAT WAS ASKED OF US.
AND YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES WE DO GET POSTPONEMENTS AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T.
AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS BODY NEVER GRANTS A POSTPONEMENT WHERE WE ARE BEING ASKED TO MOVE DB 90.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S WE'LL ALWAYS BE, AND THIS ISN'T A UNIQUE CASE.
THIS IS GONNA BE EVERY CASE FOR ME.
AND IF THIS BODY MOVES FORWARD WITH THAT, THAT'D BE A GREAT PRECEDENT OF JUST MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD HOMES IN THE CITY.
IF NO ONE SPEAKING AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A MOTION, UH, SORRY.
THIS WAS BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TO MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION CHAIR.
IS THERE ONE MORE SPEAKING SPOT LEFT.
WELL, I'M NOT AGAINST, SO, OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? YOU JUST SAID IN FAVOR.
THAT IS ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUP UPDATES.CAN I, CAN I JUST HAVE A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE? YES.
UM, I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT I EXTREMELY VALUE THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE GET.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION VALUES, THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE GET ZONING IS WRITTEN IN LAW INHERENTLY AS A PUBLIC PROCESS, NOT
[02:45:01]
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.AND SO WHEN I HEAR THINGS ABOUT WE SHOULD JUST BE APPROVING EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT HAS X, Y, OR Z BEFORE US AND NOT ALLOW OR NOT POSTPONE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC INPUT, THAT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME.
WE, WE NEED TO RESPECT THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE GET.
AND I, AND I HOPE WE CONTINUE TO DO THAT MOVING FORWARD FOR EVERY, EVERY CASE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR, UH, WORKING GROUP UPDATES.
THE FIRST ONE BEING NUMBER 36.
CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, LIKELY TO MEET NEXT MONTH, BUT HAVEN'T SEEN AN AGENDA YET.
NUMBER 37, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE DON'T MEET TILL JULY 1ST WEEK AND, UH, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING YET.
38 JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO COME BACK TO ME CHAIR? I'M JUST PULLING UP A COUPLE THINGS.
NUMBER 39, SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE.
SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
UH, NO MEETINGS UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
UM, DREW, WE HAVE NOT, BUT SINCE WE'VE NOW FAST FORWARD WITH OUR CODE ITEMS, I WILL BE REACHING OUT TO THE, UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO HAVE THAT WORKING GROUP MEMBERS TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
NUMBER 42, OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.
ANY UPDATES FROM, LET'S SEE, IT'S COMMISSIONER COX HAYNES, MOTO PHILLIPS.
NO, NO UPDATES THAT I'M AWARE OF.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE HAVEN'T MET AND WE'LL, UM, SINCE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SITTING HERE, WE WILL, UH, WE'LL NUDGE HER AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED AGAIN.
WE MET LAST MONTH AND WE'LL BE SENDING OUT OUR BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE HAVE A STAFF LIAISON, UM, FOR DISCUSSION AT THE JUNE 11TH MEETING.
I KNOW WE HAVE A BUSY AGENDA, UM, BUT WE'LL SEND THOSE OUT BEFORE AND SO EVERYONE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.
ALRIGHT, AND NUMBER 44, 20 24 TECHNICAL BUILDING CODE UPDATES.
UM, UH, NOW THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY, I AM PLANNING TO REACH OUT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SCHEDULE OUR FIRST MEETING, BUT I DID WANNA ALERT EVERYBODY THAT THERE IS A MAY 30TH IN-PERSON MEETING AT DSD, I BELIEVE RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL CODE UPDATES FOR EVERYBODY.
SO IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN ATTENDING THAT MEETING, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE DETAILS.
MR. MAXWELL, IS THERE A VIRTUAL OPTION FOR THAT? UH, I, I WILL CHECK.
I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY IN PERSON.
THEY HAD A VIRTUAL MEETING EARLIER THIS YEAR.
AND, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU KNOW IF THAT MEETING IS ABOUT THE WHOLE SET OF TECHNICAL CODE? IT IS.
THAT'S ACTUALLY, YEAH, THAT'S WHY'S CODE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA LOOK AT ALL OF THEM.
UM, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE THERE, I THINK THERE'S 10 DIFFERENT TECHNICAL CODE UPDATES THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND THEY'RE GONNA, I BELIEVE, TALK ABOUT ALL 10 OF THEM.
WE'LL GO BACK TO NUMBER 38, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
WE MET LAST WEEK TO GET A STAFF UPDATE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN ITEMS THAT WE'LL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL THAT INCLUDE THE ITEMS THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING AND THE ITEMS THAT THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING.
AND, UM, ALL OF THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
THAT'S ALL OF OUR WORKING GROUPS AND, UH, COMMITTEES.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? COMMISSIONER COX? I, I WAS JUST A QUESTION I GUESS TO, TO, TO YOU CHAIR OR THE COMMISSION.I, I THOUGHT WE HAD PUT IN A REQUEST AT SOME POINT FOR LIKE, SOME SORT OF BRIEFING OF, OF THE STATUS OF ALL THE LEGALITY OF EVERYTHING.
AND I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS JUST OUTRIGHT REJECTED OR IF THAT WAS STILL A POSSIBILITY.
LIKE WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN, WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION, YADA, YADA, YADA, KIND OF A SUMMARY OF ALL OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT STAFF IS STILL COMPILING ALL OF THE BRIEFING REQUESTS.
UM, AND WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THOSE LIVE BECAUSE I KNOW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT BEEN TAKING NOTES ON THOSE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY STAFF TO GIVE AN UPDATE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I KNOW.
I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT'S STILL LIKE A PENDING REQUEST, I'D STILL LOVE TO GET SOME SORT OF BRIEFING FROM STAFF ON ALL OF THAT.
THAT, THAT IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT I REMEMBER.
UH, THAT WAS THE POINT OF ORDER.
YEAH, WE'RE NOT NOTICED FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ON THE AGENDA WE WON'T BE DISCUSSING FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SORRY.
SO YOU FORGET WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
[02:50:01]
SORRY, I SHERIFF, I MIGHT JUST MAKE A QUICK NOTE, JUST A REMINDER TO COMMISSIONERS THAT IN ADDITION TO REQUESTING ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AT THE TIME OF, UM, LIKE AT THE MEETING AS A POSTED ITEM, ANY TWO COMMISSIONERS CAN REQUEST AN ITEM OF OUR STAFF LIAISON.SO IF YOU HAVE A REQUEST FOR ITEM, JUST SEND IT TO OUR STAFF LIAISONS, UM, AND COPY THE PERSON WHO WILL BE WILLING TO SECOND THAT FOR YOU.
UM, AND YOU CAN DO IT THAT WAY.
QUESTION? YES, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, WHO'S OUR STAFF LIAISON, UH, MS. ELIZABETH FUNK IS OUR INTERIM COMMISSION LIAISON.
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED EMAILS FROM HER.
YOU, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE HER EMAIL ADDRESS.
NO, SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB TONIGHT.
MISS ELIZABETH
SO IF YOU DO HAVE OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, WE CAN CREATE A LIST OF THEM.
WE JUST CAN'T DISCUSS DETAILS.
UM, OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? YES.
UM, CHAIR, I AM GOING TO ASK THAT WE PLACE, UM, THE BUDGET WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO ACTION ON THE BUDGET WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE NEXT MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR JUNE 11TH.
THAT WOULD BE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO THE USE OF CITY OWNED LAND FOR COOPERATIVE INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING FOR SENIORS.
WELL THANK YOU ALL FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT.
WE ARE ADJOURNING AT 8:59 PM THANK YOU.