[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
AUGUST 20TH.THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE ARE IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 1001.
I WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, UH,
UH, TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND SO MY NAME IS FELIX DETO.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FOUR.
I'VE BEEN LIVING IN AUSTIN FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS NOW.
UM, IT'S MY FIRST BOARD APPOINTMENT, SO I'D APPRECIATE SOME, UH, PATIENCE AS I GET FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS.
AND, UH, YEAH, UH, I'M REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE, THE FIELD I'M CONSTANTLY READING AND LEARNING.
I DIDN'T FOLLOW IN MY PARENTS' FOOTSTEPS.
THEY'RE BOTH PLANNERS, BUT I KIND OF WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
UH, BUT I'M HOPING THAT NOW AS I'M A LITTLE OLDER, I'M COMING, COMING RIGHT BACK TO THAT.
I'M, I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC, SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
WE'LL TRY TO BE GENTLE ON YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE'S NOBODY ONLINE.
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE, I WILL READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
THIS MAY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.THE FIRST ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, THAT WILL STAY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 24 DASH 0 0 8 4 65 75 DECKER LANE, TRACK TWO IN DISTRICT ONE.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM GRCO TO CSCO AND IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM THREE IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 24 DASH 0 80 82.
WALL STREET, CPL REZONING AT 90 10 WALL STREET.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM RR TO LI AND THERE IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND I'M GONNA READ IT INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE, SOME OF THE BACKUP LISTED SEVERAL ITEMS. BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, LICL, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
UM, THE PROHIBITED FALLING USES ARE INCLUDED AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS.
THESE ARE PRECLUDED USES, PROHIBITED USES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, EQUIPMENT SALES KENNELS, BASIC INDUSTRY, SCRAP AND SALVAGE SERVICES, VEHICLE STORAGE, VETERINARY SERVICES, MONUMENT RETAIL SALES SERVICE STATION, AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION.
THAT IS THE ONE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AND THOSE ARE THE PROHIBITED USES.
UM, ITEM FOUR IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 24 DASH 0 1 0 1.
SCOFIELD FARMS REZONING IN DISTRICT SEVEN AT 1603 AND 1605 WEST PALMER LANE IN 1 2 4 2 4 SCHOFIELD FARMS DRIVE.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM GRCO AND MF TWO TO GR DASH MU.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, I'M SORRY, IT IS POSTPONED.
IT IS A POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 3RD.
UH, SO AGAIN, ITEM FOUR IS POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 3RD.
ITEM FIVE IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT FOR THE SAME SITE, C 14 85 4 9 7 0 2 RCA SCHOFIELD FARMS. RCA IS AT 1603 AND 1605 WEST PALMER LANE AND 12 4 24 SCHOFIELD FARMS DRIVE AND IS AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RECEIVED COVENANT TO REMOVE THE DENSITY LIMITATION OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE FOR MULTIFAMILY.
AND IT IS, AGAIN, POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 3RD.
ITEM SIX IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 4 8 AT 7,500 BURNETT ROAD.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM CS TO CS DASH MU DASH V DASH DB 90.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON FOR DISCUSSION.
SO WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION FOR ITEM SIX.
ITEM SEVEN IS A SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE, SPC 2024 DASH 0 1 7 1 A.
IT'S 76 RAINY STREET IS A CHANGE OF USE TO COCKTAIL LANE LOUNGE IN THE CBD.
THIS ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO IT IS WITHDRAWN AND WILL BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 10TH.
SO AGAIN, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE MINUTES.
ITEM TWO IS A CONSENT APPROVAL.
ITEM THREE IS A CONSENT APPROVAL WITH THE MINUTES AS I READ IT IN FOR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
ITEM FOUR AND FIVE ARE POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 3RD.
ITEM SIX IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, AND SEVEN IS WITHDRAWN AND WILL BE ON PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH.
[00:05:01]
COMMENTS? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE POSTPONE ITEM SIX, THE DB, I MEAN, YEAH, DB 90 IS SCHEDULED TO BE REVISED BY THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL ON THE 29TH OF AUGUST, WHICH IS NEXT THURSDAY.UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE ONE RECOMMENDATION AND THE STAFF MADE ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO PASS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE ITEM SIX, I GUESS ALSO TILL SEPTEMBER 3RD.
WE DO HAVE PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK.
SO THEY CAME ALL THE WAY HERE TO SPEAK AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.
SO IF WE CAN GET A POSTPONEMENT THE VOTE, WE WILL DO THAT.
OTHERWISE WE WILL HEAR THE CASE.
DO I HEAR A SECOND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, QUESTION.
UH, WHAT IS IT? UH, WHEN WE POSTPONE, DOES THAT MEAN COUNCIL TAKES THE CASE? NO, NO.
IT JUST MEANS WE POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
THE, THE ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE, WHILE IT MAY AFFECT IT, IS WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO AMEND THE, THE, THE, UM, ORDINANCE TO IS WHAT'S GONNA BE EFFECTIVE.
SO NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, THE ORDINANCE THEY COME INTO EFFECT IS GONNA BE THE EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE.
WHAT APPLIES? SO THE RULES, THE ORDINANCE IS GONNA BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY, BUT WHAT IT BECOMES IS UP TO CITY COUNCIL, NOT UP TO US.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THAT ASPECT OF IT.
SO IT'S NOT GONNA, WE ARE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY EFFECT ON WHAT CITY COUNCIL DOES.
LIKE BESSY SAYS, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS TODAY BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE CHANGED.
TWO VERSIONS FLOATING OUT THERE.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCES IN THE DECIBEL LEVELS THAT ARE, UH, ACCEPTABLE AT, AT THE PERIMETER.
BUT AGAIN, COUNSEL'S GONNA DECIDE WHAT THOSE DECIBEL LEVELS WILL BE AND WHATEVER IT IS IT IS, AND THAT WILL BE ON THE APPLICANT.
SO IS THAT, IS THAT WHY WE'RE POSTPONING OR DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO HEAR THEM TODAY? HER RECOMMENDATION IS TO POSTPONE AND HEAR THE WHOLE THING.
THEN SHE NEEDS A SECOND AND A POSITIVE VOTE TO GET THAT DONE.
IF NOT, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND HAVE THE CASE PRESENTED TO US AND DECIDE OF THE CASE.
SO I HAVEN'T HEARD A SECOND WITH THAT, IT BECOMES A DISCUSSION ITEM I DO HAVE FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION ITEM.
SO I'LL CALL OUT FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, REZONING OF ITEM SIX C 14 20 23 DASH 0 4 8.
IT'S HOW FIVE HUNTER BURNETT ROAD.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM CS TO C-S-M-U-V DB 90.
DID YOU VOTE ON THE CONSENT? SHE NEVER GOT A SECOND.
SO IT, BUT WE SHE VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SHE'S BACK THERE WAVING HER HANDS.
CAN WE, CAN WE HAVE A VOTE AND MAYBE EVEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE I'M COMPLETELY LOST.
WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION AND I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE GONNA READ ITEM SIX AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM SIX IS THE REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 4 8 AT 7,500 BURNETT ROAD REZONING FROM CS TO C-S-M-U-V DB 90.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS HAD TO FLAG.
I'M GLAD WE FLAGGED YOU DOWN ON THAT.
KC 14 20 23 0 0 4 8 7500 BURNETT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7,500 BURNETT ROAD AND 24 12 RICH CREEK ROAD.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS AND THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED THEIR REQUEST TO C-S-M-U-V DB 90 PRIOR TO THE ZONING REQUEST BEING AMENDED.
THIS CASE WAS LAST HEARD AT THE DECEMBER 19TH, 2023 ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHERE C-S-M-U-V-C-O WAS RECOMMENDED BY CONSENT ON FEBRUARY 1ST, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS RECOMMENDATION ON FIRST READING ONLY.
THE APPLICANT THEN REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT AT THE MARCH 7TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ORDER TO AMEND THEIR REQUEST AND ADD THE NEW DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT.
IN ADDITION, THE REZONING AREA WAS ALSO AMENDED TO ADD A 0.27 ACRE ADJACENT LOT TO THE WEST, LOCATED AT 24 12 RIDGE CREEK ROAD.
THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS NOW 0.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURNETT ROAD AND RICH CREEK ROAD.
IT CONSISTS OF BOTH LOTS LOCATED AT 7,500 BURNETT ROAD AND 24 12 RICH CREEK ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-S-M-U-V DB 90 TO DEVELOP 85 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND 2000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ACCESS IS BEING PROPOSED FROM BURNETT ROAD.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT C SM U VCO DB 90.
THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL CONSIST OF THE PROHIBITED USES LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, WHICH WERE PART OF THE
[00:10:01]
PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH MAINTAINING THE CO AS A PART OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED IT.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? LET'S DO THE REST OF THE OKAY.
WE'LL HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT CHAIR.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX.
UM, AS STAFF INDICATED THIS CASE IS BACK TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE, UM, THE NEW DB 90 ORDINANCE, WHICH, UH, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
UM, THE PROPERTY COMPRISES 0.62 ACRES.
THE PROPERTY THAT, UH, HAS FRONTAGE ON BERNARD ROAD HAS, UM, COMPRISES, UM, 0.35 ACRES, WHEREAS THE TRACK TO THE BACK TO THE REAR HAS, UH, 0.27 ACRES.
SO THIS IS A SMALL SITE THAT, UH, TOTALS 11,000, UM, I'M SORRY, ABOUT 21,000 SOME SQUARE FEET.
THE, UM, THE DB 90 ORDINANCE WOULD, UM, UH, ALLOW FOR USE OF RETAIL GRANDFUL.
OUR PRELIMINARY NUMBERS ARE 85 UNITS AND OBVIOUSLY THE FINAL NUMBERS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN WHEN WE HAVE CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
AND, UM, WITH THAT, WITH THOSE NUMBER OF UNITS, THE, UH, THE CITY CODE, THE DB 90 ORDINANCE CALLS FOR 10% OF THE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE AT 50% MEDIUM FAMILY INCOME FOR 40 YEARS, UH, OR 12% OF THE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE AT 60% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
AND ON THIS SIDE THAT WOULD BE 11 UNITS.
WHEREAS IF YOU DO THE 10% AT 50% MFI, IT WILL BE NINE UNITS.
THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ON 20 AT 24 12.
REACH CREEK ROAD HAS 18, UH, EXISTING, UM, UNITS.
UH, THEY ARE, THEY ARE MARKET RATE.
THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY REQUIREMENT.
REGARDING AFFORDABILITY, THEY ARE ZONED CS.
SO THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING USES BECAUSE CS DOES NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES.
UH, THEREFORE IT NEEDS TO BE REZONED.
SO IT HAS CONFORMING USE ZONING.
THE, UM, THE CURRENT ZONING ON BOTH TRACKS ALLOWS COMMERCIAL ZONING.
SO EVEN IF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT ZONED, WE SHOULD PLANT COUNCIL DECIDE NOT TO ZONE THE, THE PROPERTY AS REQUESTED.
THE CS ZONING WOULD STILL ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, THE, UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, REFLECTS, UM, UH, WHAT OUR COUNCIL IS LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS DENSITY ALONG CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
BERNARD ROAD IS A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR, AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO, TO THE EAST OF BURN ROAD THAT HAS CSV.
I'M SURE THOSE PROPERTIES STILL WILL BE COMING THROUGH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH DB 90 BECAUSE THEY WERE AFFECTED THE SAME WAY WE WERE.
AND YOU ALSO, UM, LAST YEAR APPROVED, UH, THE CAR WASH THAT IS SOUTH OF OUR TRACK TO, UM, D-C-S-M-U-V.
SO, AND THAT AT THAT TIME THERE WAS VM U2, WHICH ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL 30 FEET.
SO I'LL CONCLUDE HERE AND, UM, PAUSE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE OR, OR ANSWER THEM DURING MY REBUTTAL.
ANYBODY ELSE? WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.
WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, GRIFF WAYLON.
GRIFF, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I DON'T, OKAY, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JOSEPH REYNOLDS.
JOSEPH, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES AND HE'S OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER.
YEAH, I SIGNED UP AS THE PRI AS THE PRIMARY.
SO, UH, CHAIR SMITH AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M ON THE ALLENDALE ZONING COMMITTEE.
ALLENDALE DEVELOPS COMMUNITY RESOURCES AFTER THE GREAT 81 FLOOD.
FOUR FROM ALLENDALE DEVELOPED AUSTIN'S FLOOD AND STORM WATER RULES.
WE GOT THE GREAT NORTHERN WATER NORTH GREAT NORTHERN DAM FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND THE NORTHWEST PARK LEVY.
LATER IN THE EIGHTIES WE WORKED TO DEVELOP ELDER HOUSING AROUND NORTH LOOP THAT INCREASED RENTERS IN IN THE EXISTING APARTMENTS.
THE MAYOR OF PRO TIM'S MOTHER LIVED IN ONE OF THOSE AGE 65 PLUS CONDOS WERE BUILT.
AND NOW WHAT IS CALLED THE PATHWAYS TOWER,
[00:15:02]
LIKE THOSE EFFORTS, WE SUPPORT THE NEW ROSEDALE SCHOOL, WHICH IS JUST TWO BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS SITE.ALLENDALE PRESERVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY DOOR COUNT.
ALLENDALE IS ABOUT HALF SINGLE FAMILY AND HALF APARTMENTS POPULATION BIGGER THAN FREDERICKSBURG.
WE SEE 24 12 AS A NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE.
IN ZOOM MEETING, THE NOTICED NEIGHBORS WERE VERY VOCAL ABOUT PRESERVATION.
THE LARGEST MEETING HAD 25, THE SMALLEST TWO.
WE HAVE ONE OF THE MEMBERS, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE, UH, AS WELL, THE NOTICE NEIGHBORS, RESIDENTS OF 24 12 ARE AN INTERNAL COMMUNITY WITH NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR SUPPORT GROUPS.
THESE WERE OBVIOUS AND DISCUSSED WHEN WE MET RESIDENTS.
YOU CAN LIVE THERE AFTER A STROKE WITH HELP FROM NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS.
RESIDENTS ARE ALSO LINKED BY ACTIVITY AND FRIENDSHIP OUT OUTSIDE THE APARTMENTS.
THEY'RE AN ACTIVE PART OF THE WIDER ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD.
DOG WALKS TO BARBECUES TO COMMUNITY INTERNAL TO 24 12.
AND IN THE WIDER COMMUNITY IS ENABLED BY THE OPEN ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING.
COMMUNITY RARELY FORMS AND CLOSED HIGH, HIGH RISE.
AND THIS EXTENDS TO ALL OTHER PLA ALL KINDS OF OTHER PLACES BESIDES APARTMENTS.
I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THAT, BUT I ALSO RAN A RESEARCH GROUP.
AND THE WAY THAT YOU GET A COMMUNITY IN THE RESEARCH GROUP TO BE EFFECTIVE IS YOU GIVE A COMMON AREA WITHIN PRIVATE THINGS IMMEDIATELY OFF OF IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE HERE.
YOU'VE GOT A COMMON AREA WITH THE APARTMENTS FOR PEOPLE.
ALLISON, THE OWNER APPLICANT, HAVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 18 AFFORDABLE UNITS IF 24 12 IS REZONED, BUT THE PROPOSAL IS VERY CONDITIONAL DEPENDING ON SUITABLE FINANCING AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS AND EVENTS.
AND THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR SUPPORT COMMUNITY WOULD BE BROKEN.
DURING DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION.
TWO RESIDENTS WORK AT ROSEDALE SCHOOL AND WALK TO WORK DURING CONSTRUCTION.
THEY HAVE TO MOVE, COULDN'T WALK, LOSE JOBS.
ZONING 24 12 LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF PART OF THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE WILL BE THE SAME NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IF THE 24 12 APARTMENTS ARE PRESERVED AND JUST 7,500 BURNED THAT IS DEVELOPED AND IT CAN ADD FIVE OR SIX EXTRA AFFORDABLE.
THESE APARTMENTS ARE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ALLENDALE FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.
GOOGLE EARTH'S OLDEST IMAGE, UH, IS FROM THE 1990S.
IF I CAN GET THE PHOTOGRAPH ZERO.
IT, THIS PHOTO IS, IS MORE RECENT AND IF IN IN THE NEXT PICTURE THAT COMES UP, YOU CAN, BUT YOU CAN SEE ON THIS ONE THE, THE SCALE OF THE THING AND, AND HOW IT'S HOW IT'S THERE.
AND THESE PEOPLE ARE UP AND DOWN, ALL THOSE, UH, UH, SIDEWALKS.
THE, THE WALKWAYS, THERE ARE EIGHT UNITS IN THE FRONT AND 10 IN THE BACK.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THOSE ARE PLACED WITH STORAGE, LAUNDRY AND GARDEN AREAS WITH SOCIAL SPACE.
THERE'S THE SIGN THAT WE'RE STILL LEASING.
THE 24 12 APARTMENTS ARE AFFORDABLE.
SEVERAL RESIDENTS HAVE SHARED THEIR PAYMENTS.
I KNOW AND REGULARLY HELP A FORMERLY HOMELESS MARINE, FIRST IRAQ WAR DRIVING HIM TO FIND AN APARTMENT.
I LEARNED HIS TRAVIS COUNTY VOUCHER VALUE AND THE DOLLARS ARE VERY CLOSE.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU ZONE ONLY 7,500 FOR DEVELOPMENT.
ALLENDALE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT ON 7,500 BARNETT.
WE SUPPORTED, AGAIN, IT COULD BE AN ASSET IN ENHANCING ROSEDALE SCHOOL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE WANT IT TO BE A SUCCESS.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE IN DISCUSSIONS AND ZOOMS WITH ALICE AND HER PEOPLE ON MAKING IT A SUCCESS.
HAVE Y'ALL GOT QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM CHRIS BERNARD.
CHRIS, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I LIVE ON 7,500 DDY STREET, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 7,500 BURNETT.
I SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AT 7,500 BURNETT, BUT I'M HERE TO OPPOSE REDEVELOPING THE APARTMENTS AT 24 12 RICH CREEK, KNOWN AS THE ALMA APARTMENTS, WHICH CURRENTLY REPRESENT A RARITY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN ADDITION TO BEING A RESIDENT OF ALLENDALE, I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND A BLOCK CAPTAIN COMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE AT THE ALMA APARTMENTS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT I CALL HOME.
REMOVING THE ALMA APARTMENTS AT 24 12
[00:20:01]
RICH CREEK WILL MEAN REMOVING THE RESIDENCE FROM MY ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD, POSSIBLY FOR GOOD.THAT WOULD MEAN JAMILA WOULD NO LONGER BE MY NEIGHBOR.
JAMILA HAS LIVED IN HER CURRENT HOME AT THE ALMA FOR SEVEN YEARS.
MY FAMILY AND I TALK TO HER REGULARLY.
AND MY GIRLS ARE BIG FANS OF HER DOG.
PEANUT JAMILA IS A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AT THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL, ONE BLOCK FROM HER HOME.
SHE DOESN'T OWN A CAR AND SHE LOVES THAT SHE CAN ONLY WALK TO BUT ALSO BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE SHE TEACHES.
GIVEN THE HIGH COST OF LIVING IN TODAY'S AUSTIN, JAMILA IS TERRIFIED ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF SHE'S FORCED TO LEAVE HER HOME.
HER TRANSPORTATION SITUATION COULD VERY WELL MEAN FINDING A NEW JOB AND ABANDONING THE NEEDS OF THE VULNERABLE ROSEDALE STUDENTS WHO RELY ON HER EVERY DAY.
NO ALMA APARTMENTS ALSO MEANS NO DAVID IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
DAVID HAS LIVED IN HIS CURRENT HOME FOR THREE DECADES AT THE ALMA.
HE'S BEEN ACTING IN AUSTIN SINCE HIS ARRIVAL HERE AND HAS APPEARED IN SUCH ICONIC FILMS AS BOYHOOD, BERNIE AND DAZED AND CONFUSED.
HE REGULARLY GIVES MY DAUGHTER JOJO ACTING ADVICE, QUIRKY, KIND, AND ALWAYS OPEN TO TALK.
DAVID REPRESENTS EVERYTHING IN MY OPINION THAT'S GREAT ABOUT OLD AUSTIN AND CURRENT AUSTIN.
IF FORCED TO LEAVE THE ALMA, DAVID HAS NO IDEA WHERE HE'D GO WHEN TOLD OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS HE SHARED THIS PLEA, PLEASE DON'T LET THEM TEAR DOWN.
MY 30 YEAR HOME, JAMILA AND DAVID ARE JUST TWO RESIDENTS OF THE ALMA APARTMENTS WHOSE PRESIDENT, WHOSE PRESENCE ENRICHES MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
LIKE ALL RESIDENTS OF THE ALMA, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN ALLENDALE AND TO BE A PART OF THEIR COMMUNITY IF THESE APARTMENTS DID NOT EXIST.
I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST STEP IN SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN IS TO PRESERVE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WE HAVE GUARANTEEING NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS AND A NEW DEVELOPMENT ISN'T ENOUGH.
IT STILL FORCES CURRENT RESIDENTS OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
IT IN THE CASE OF THESE RESIDENTS, THEY'RE AN INTEGRAL PART TO THE COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL THAT THEY SERVE.
PLEASE HELP THEM STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BENEFITS SO MUCH FROM THEIR PRESENCE.
WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM KAREN MECHI.
KAREN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES I GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M KNOWN PROFESSIONALLY AS KAREN CRAWFORD.
I LIVE ON PINE LEAF PLACE, WHICH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE 7,500 BURNETT ROAD PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I OPPOSE ANY REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 24 12 RIDGE CREEK PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL.
THE ALMA APARTMENTS AT 24 12 RIDGE CREEK HAVE 18 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD DEMOLISH THOSE 18 UNITS AND ONLY BE REQUIRED TO OFFER EIGHT OR NINE UNITS THAT WOULD CUT AVAILABLE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN HALF.
THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
I VOLUNTEERED ON CITY COMMISSIONS FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS.
I SERVED AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS FOR SEVERAL OF THOSE YEARS, AND AS VICE CHAIR OF THE JOINT INCLUSION COMMITTEE FOR A TIME AS WELL.
THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS, THE ONE ISSUE THAT AUSTIN RESIDENTS CON CONSISTENTLY BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WAS AFFORDABILITY, PARTICULARLY IN HOUSING.
THE CITY'S STRATEGIC PLAN ALSO INCLUDES AFFORDABILITY AS A PRIORITY.
CUTTING IN HALF THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT AUSTIN RESIDENTS WANT, AND GOES AGAINST THE CITY'S STRATEGIC OUTCOME OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND AFFORDABILITY.
I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BUY A HOUSE IN AUSTIN 24 YEARS AGO, AND DOING SO IS CONSIDERABLY MORE AFFORDABLE AND WAS ABLE TO RIDE THE WAVE OF INCREASING HOME VALUES OVER TO MY CURRENT HOUSE.
I COULDN'T AFFORD TO BUY MY HOUSE.
RIGHT NOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BECOME LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE AND THAT CONCERNS ME.
DESTROYING THESE APARTMENTS WOULD MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN LESS AFFORDABLE.
THE RESIDENTS OF THESE APARTMENTS WILL BE FORCED OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND HONESTLY, OUR STATISTICS SHOW MAY LIKELY BE FORCED OUT OF BOSTON ALTOGETHER.
AS CHRIS SAID, THE PEOPLE IN THESE APARTMENTS ARE OUR NEIGHBORS.
I'VE SPOKEN TO OTHER NEIGHBORS AND THEY FEEL THE SAME.
THEY'RE PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY AND WE DON'T WANNA SEE THEM FORCED OUT.
THE COMMUNITY AT ALMA APARTMENTS IS A MICROCOSM OF WHAT WE HOPE AUSTIN WOULD BE.
THE RESIDENTS HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF AGES.
IT'S MULTIRACIAL, MULTIETHNIC.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR YEARS, EVEN DECADES.
A COUPLE OF THE RESIDENTS WORK AS THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL.
IF YOU, IF YOU'VE HEARD, WHICH IS A DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR HOUSE.
IT REQUIRES DEDICATION TO WORK WITH OUR MOST VULNERABLE STUDENTS AND THAT APARTMENTS ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE SCHOOL IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO THOSE WHO'VE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO HELPING THEM.
WE LOVE HAVING THE SCHOOL IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE LOVE THAT OUR NEIGHBORS WORK THERE.
AN APARTMENT IS NO LESS A HOME JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN IT.
THE RESIDENTS OF THESE DEPARTMENTS ARE FACING THE LOSS OF THEIR HOMES AND SOME OF THEM HAVE LIVED HERE LONGER THAN MOST OF OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THEIR NEIGHBORS.
WE WANT TO PRESERVE THEIR COMMUNITY AND IN DOING SO, PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS THREE MINUTES OR ABOVE.
THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THEREBUT.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THEY'VE BEEN MEETING WITH US SINCE LAST YEAR.
YOU GUYS REMEMBER LAST YEAR WHEN IT CAME TO
[00:25:01]
YOU? WE WERE HERE SEVERAL TIMES AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS.THEY, UH, ARRANGED FOR US TO HAVE A TOUR OF THE, UM, UM, THE SCHOOL THAT IS CLOSE BY AND, UH, WE'RE ABLE TO SEE HOW THE, UH, IT'S A SCHOOL FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN WHO, SO, UM, THE POINT OF THAT, OF THAT TOUR THEN WAS JUST TO SEE, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY ARE, THEY ARE WHAT, WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE AS FAR AS ACCOMMODATION.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UM, UH, DESIGN DESIGNS THAT ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, WHEELCHAIRS.
SO THE GOAL WAS TO GIVE US AN IDEA AS WE CONTEMPLATE REDEVELOPING, UH, THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT IS HERE FOR TO YOU FOR REZONING.
HOW WE CAN EITHER CONSIDER ACCOMMODATING OR HAVING UNITS THAT ARE, UH, ACCOMMODATE, UH, HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE, UH, THOSE THINGS, THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MANDATED BY CODE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS FOR US TO CONSIDER AS WE GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE SCHOOL.
AND ALSO AS FAR AS, UM, REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, THE OPPORTUNITY HERE IS THAT YOU'RE GONNA, WITH REZONING, YOU END UP HAVING MORE UNITS.
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A PARKING LOT THAT IS JUST SURFACE PARKING LOT.
AND THE, THE, THE, THE UNITS, THE APARTMENTS ARE 8 53 YEARS OLD AT SOME POINT, EVEN WITHOUT THE ZONING.
IF, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, IF COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO ZONE, UH, THE PROPERTY, IT'LL AT SOME POINT, YOU, YOU, YOU NEED THE, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU SPEND MAINTAINING, UM, LEADS YOU TO EXPLORE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO IT COULD BECOME A COMMERCIAL USE.
WHEREAS WITH A REZONING, YOU END UP HAVING MORE HOUSING WITH 18 UNITS VERSUS 85 IN THE COMBINED SITE.
AND THEN ALSO YOUR AFFORDABILITY, UH, WOULD BE LOCKED IN FOR 40 YEARS.
RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH THE UNITS ARE REASONABLY PRICED THERE, THERE ISN'T A MECHANISM THAT LOCKS THOSE, UM, RATES IN PLACE.
SO THOSE ARE THE BENEFITS TO WEIGH REDEVELOPMENT VERSUS NOT DEVELOPING, HAVING COMMERCIAL USES ON BOTH TRACKS.
UM, ALL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ON THE BACK.
AND THEN YOU STILL DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO RE CONSIDER WEIGHING THE, THOSE TWO ITEMS. AND THEN ALSO WE ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, I KNOW JOE REYNOLDS SENT US, UM, A LIST OF RESTRICTIONS TO CONSIDER AND ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO EXPLORE WAYS TO, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND AS YOU KNOW, YOU NEED SUBSIDY TO BE ABLE TO, TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK, TO MAKE A PROJECT PENCIL.
SO WE WERE WILLING TO EXPLORE FINDING OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT CAN ALLOW US TO PROVIDE MORE THAN WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES.
BUT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, CANNOT BE GUARANTEED.
IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO EXPLORE.
SO THAT'S MY PLEA AND, UM, OUR PROMISE THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO DIALOGUE WITH THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WE HEAD OVER TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE, UM, THAT DIALOGUE AS NEEDED.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I HAVE A QUESTION.
WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER THAT, BUT THIS WAY IT'S JUST US ASKING QUESTIONS.
PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED NOW WE CAN ENTERTAIN QUESTION CHAIR.
CAN WE RESTATE WHO THE SECOND WAS? IT WAS, UM, NEW GUY.
I JUST MET HIM 10 MINUTES AGO.
YEAH, SO, UM, THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IS THERE, IS THERE A PLAN IN PLACE TO PROVIDE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR THE, FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE, UH, OF THE EXISTING CONDO? IF THEY SHOULD BE DISPLACED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT? UM, PER THE CODE THERE IS TENANT RELOCATION AND NOTIFICATION, UH, AN ORDINANCE THAT IS REQUIRED.
UM, I CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION, BUT THERE IS AN ORDINANCE TO THAT, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE NOTIFICATION BENEFITS IF THEY, IF THEY, UM, I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS REQUIRED AND THE DETAILS OF THAT.
AND WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT, UH, WOULD THAT RELOCATE THEM IN AN AREA WITHIN THE AREA? OH, OR WOULD THEY BE RELOCATED SOMEWHERE VERY FAR FROM, I, I DON'T, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW, BUT LET ME GET THE INFORMATION ON THE EXACT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, NEXT CHAIR WE CAN GET, UH, STAFF BACK.
[00:30:01]
MS. ESTRADA, HE'S GONNA LOOK UP THAT ONE.TRY TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT ONE QUESTION MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER.
UM, SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ORDINANCE FOR DB 91 IS MAYBE THE EASIER ONE.
UM, IT SAYS THAT THIS SECTION GOVERNS OVER CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE OR OTHER ORDINANCE.
WHEN WE FIRST GOT VMU ALONG THE SAME TIME, THERE WAS ALSO SUBCHAPTER E, WHICH PROVIDED FOR WIDE SIDEWALKS ON CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS LIKE BURNETT ROAD.
DOES THIS IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT THOSE WIDE SIDEWALKS MAY NOT BE PROVIDED OR REQUIRED? NO, THE SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED.
UM, SO THAT THEY DOESN'T THESE FEET FOOT WIDE? YES.
SO, AND THEN AS LONG AS YOU'RE UP HERE, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST? UM, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION.
SO, UM, IT SAYS PART TWO, DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 4 18 32 APPLIES ONLY TO A PROPERTY THAT'S REZONED DENSITY BONUS.
AND THE REZONING APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 MM-HMM
WHEREAS CURRENTLY THE DB 90 HAS THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AM I WRONG THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 4 18 32, WHICH IS BASICALLY THAT EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE REPLACED? SO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CURRENT DB 90 IS WHAT WOULD MOVE, WHAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.
SO WITH, EVEN WITH THE AMENDMENT, IT WOULDN'T, UM, ONCE THE AMENDMENT GOES THROUGH, IT'S ONLY THE APPORTION THAT GOES THAT IS IN EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST, WHICH THIS CASE WAS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT.
SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WELL, IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT THAT TOLD, TALKED ABOUT ALL THE CASES THAT WERE ALREADY DB 90 AND THIS WOULD APPLY TO, AND ALL THE CASES THAT WERE IN PROCESS THAT THE NEW REGULATIONS WOULD APPLY TO.
ALL THE, ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CLARIFICATIONS THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS IS NOT REALLY A CLARIFICATION.
IT'S BASICALLY TAKING AWAY THE REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT SAYS DELAY, LET, LET ME GRAB THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION.
IT'S THE VERY LAST PART, PART TWO.
AND THE OTHER REASON THAT I WANTED TO POSTPONE THIS CASE WAS THAT PART TWO HAS TWO PARTS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
NO, ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ONLY ONE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO IT'S NOT JUST DECIBELS ELSEWHERE IN THAT, IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES.
WELL, THE REGULAR DB 90 JUST SAYS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW FOUR 18, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY INCLUDING 4 18 32.
WHILE WE PULL THAT OUT, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THIS SIDE IS PERFECT CANDIDATE FOR DV 90 AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
IT ALSO HAS LIKE FIVE NONCOMPLIANT DRIVEWAYS, WHICH ARE PRETTY MUCH AGAINST THE WALKABILITY THAT WE NEED IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL.
IT'S A HARD CASE BECAUSE THERE IS PEOPLE LIVING THERE, BUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAN COME AND LIVE HERE IS GONNA BE GREATER THAN THAT.
UM, PLUS IT'S A COURT TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
SO I THINK IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES TO BECOME A DV 90 CASE.
AND KIND OF ONE OF THE THINGS I'M LOOKING AT IS IF WE DON'T AMEND THE ZONING, THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONE CS, SO IF WE JUST REZONE THE FRONT HALF AND ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO BE IN THE FRONT, SOMEONE CAN TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN AND BUILD A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AND IT WOULD NEVER COME BEFORE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
IT WOULD NEVER GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
IT WOULD JUST COME IN AND FILE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL USE AND IT GOES AWAY.
THEY COULD JUST BUILD UNDER CS.
SO THIS GIVES US SOME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT SINCE IT WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THIS COMMISSION.
[00:35:01]
JUST THE FIRST HALF, LIKE THE FRONT PORTION OF THE SITE, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF EVER HAVING LIKE SUBSURFACE PARKING AND WE WOULD JUST KEEP, HAVE TO KEEP SUB UH, SURFACE PARKING IN THERE, WHICH IS NOT IDEAL.COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THERE'S THIS, THERE'S THIS CONFUSION GOING ON HERE.
I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S AN AMENDMENT COMING FOR DB 90 THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE EPOD UM, OVERLAY AND THERE'S SOME REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT, BUT I I'M NOT SEEING THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH AGENDA ITEM YOU'RE REFERRING TO? AND BECAUSE I, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IF I SEE THAT LANGUAGE THERE, WHICH I DIDN'T IN THE STAFF VERSION, BUT IF I DID, I, I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER, BUT RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE CHANGED.
BUT THE, THE TENANT RE NOT OCTOBER, SEPTEMBER.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH ITEM UM, WE'RE REFERRING TO IN THE UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING? IS IT 1 27? HANG ON JUST A SECOND.
SO THE TENANT RELOCATION PORTION THAT IS BEING AMENDED ITEM 1 58 RIGHT.
FOR COUNCIL ON THE AUGUST 29TH AGENDA.
THAT WOULD BE, AND SO IF THAT'S ON UNDER THE, UM, THE STAFF VERSION OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCES, THERE'S A STAFF VERSION AND THERE'S A PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION AND VERSION.
AND AND THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO VERSIONS IS THE DECIBEL LIMIT THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.
BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN PART TWO AS WELL, WHICH IS ABOUT THIS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND THE LI TENANT NOTIFICATION OR RELOCATION BENEFITS, THOSE ARE THE TWO PORTIONS THAT ARE WELL THEY'RE BOTH THE TENANT RELOCATION AND RE BENEFITS ARE IN BOTH VERSIONS.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS A DECIBEL LIMIT THAT IS NOT IN BOTH VERSIONS.
SO THE DECIBEL LIMIT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY STAFF.
SO THERE, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A STAFF VERSION AND A PC VERSION THAT ARE ONLINE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUPPORTING APP YEAH, THE DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL SEE A STAFF VERSION AND A PC VERSION.
SO THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS ADJUSTABLE LIMIT.
BUT THIS PART TWO IS NOT IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
WHICH WITH THE DELAYED, WHEN YOU SAY PART TWO, ARE YOU REFERRING WHICH DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION? DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION UNDER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THERE'S A PART TWO A AND B UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION PART PLANNING PART TWO.
IS THAT THE OCTOBER 1ST DATE? YES.
SO THE OCTOBER 1ST DATE IS ONLY FOR THE TENANT RELOCATION AND PORTION OF IT.
RIGHT? UH, SAY THAT AGAIN OCTOBER.
SO ONCE THIS AMENDMENT GO, MOVES FORWARD AT, AT CITY COUNCIL? YES.
THE EVERYTHING, ALL THE AMENDMENTS WILL BASICALLY GO AND BE APPROVED AND GO INTO EFFECT AS A TYPICAL UM, APPROVED COUNCIL CASE AND THEY'LL GO INTO EFFECT 10 DAYS LATER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS TENANT NOTIFICATION RELOCATION BENEFIT ITEM THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST BEFORE 1832 ISN'T ONLY TENANT NOTIFICATION AND RELOCATION, IT'S REPLACEMENT OF UNITS.
AM I WRONG A REPLACEMENT OF UNITS? WELL I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION.
THERE ARE, YES, THERE'S NUMEROUS, THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED A TWO THROUGH A FIVE.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I CAN PULL THEM UP.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? 4 18 32 32.
SO THAT IS FOR REDEVELOPMENT WITH AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE, AN APPLICANT MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY REQUIRES EXTENSIVE REPAIRS FOR WHICH COSTS EXCEED 50%.
[00:40:01]
IS THE EXACT SAME ABOVE B IS REZONING WAS INITIATED.UM, YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STRUCTURE REQUIRES EXTENSIVE REPAIRS THAT THE AVERAGE RENTS FOR ALL UNITS WERE AFFORDABLE TO A HOUSEHOLD EARNING 80% MFI.
UM, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE TO A HOUSEHOLD EARNING 80% MFI OR BELOW IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS AND HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY BEDROOMS AS THOSE UNITS.
AND THEN, LIKE YOU SAID, THE RELOCATION AND ASSISTANCE, BUT THE REPLACEMENT OF THE UNITS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN IF THIS PASSES COUNSEL BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1ST.
UM, ERIC THOMAS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO IN THE ORIGINAL DB 90 ORDINANCE, IT REFERS TO, UM, DIVISION ONE OF ARTICLE TWO APPLYING AND THAT'S THE FOUR 18 REQUIREMENTS.
AND 4 18 32 IS IN DIVISION TWO.
SO IT, THE RELOCATION WASN'T APPLICABLE IN THE ORIGINAL DV 90 ORDINANCE TO START.
SO IN, IN THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE AMENDMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD, UM, THE REFERENCE TO 4 18 32 IS, IS WHAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS CASE BECAUSE THAT'S EITHER WAY WHAT APPLIES AFTER RIGHT EITHER WAY BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY APPLY AFTER OR ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST.
SO THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED.
OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS A, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE.
UH, MR. STERN, I GUESS UM, WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, UM, WHETHER A POSTPONEMENT WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THE INTENTION CHAIR GREENBERG OF MAKING THIS ACA UH, APPLICANT COME IN AFTER THE TIMELINE OF, UH, SEPTEMBER 1ST.
OR ACTUALLY THIS REQUEST CAME IN BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST ANYWAY.
AND THE DELAY WOULD JUST BE A DELAY OF GAME.
IT WOULD JUST GIVE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE IS GONNA SAY, BUT IT WOULDN'T CHANGE WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO APPROVE A REQUEST WITH A CONDITION ON IT SAYING THAT WE APPROVE IT CONDITIONAL TO THE OUTCOME OF, UM, CITY COUNCIL ITEM 1 58? IT, IT WOULDN'T MATTER.
WHATEVER COUNCIL DECIDES IS GONNA BE WHAT IS APPLIES TO THIS SITE, SIR.
SO IF THEY CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, HOWEVER THEY CHANGE THE ORDINANCE THAT ONCE THEY TAKE THEIR ACTION, IT APPLIES TO THIS CASE.
THERE'S NO GRANDFATHERING ON THE ZONING SITE, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA GRANDFATHER ANYTHING IN WHAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW IS WHAT CITY COUNCIL IS GONNA DO.
BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT IN ANY CONTROL OF WHAT CITY COUNCIL IS GONNA DO.
SO WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO.
UM, SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THE ACTION GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ON HOW YOU VOTE FOR THIS DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY DO? UM, IN MY MIND THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE BACK IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL CS AND WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF ZONING, THE BACK RESIDENTIAL, IT COULD CEASE TO BE ANY RESIDENTIAL, UH, AND CERTAINLY BECOME COMMERCIAL.
AND UNDER THE SCENARIO WE HAVE NOW, IT'S GUARANTEED TO BECOME RESIDENTIAL.
UM, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO WEIGH IS IT BETTER TO HAVE ALL RESIDENTIAL EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH OF AS MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS AS YOU HAVE TODAY, POSSIBLY OR RUN THE RISK OF HAVING EVEN FEWER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OVERALL IN SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL AND HAVING COMMERCIAL ON THAT TRACK.
IS THAT KIND OF SUMMARIZE MR. WADE? YEAH, I THINK THE CHAIR MAKES A GOOD POINT BECAUSE THE, THE FEWER OVERALL HOUSING UNITS WE HAVE IN THAT PART OF TOWN, THE MORE EXPENSIVE THE REMAINING HOUSING BECOMES IN THAT PART OF TOWN.
EVEN IF THERE ARE FEWER AFFORDABLE UNITS BUILT, ALL OF THE REMAINING UNITS BECOME LESS AFFORDABLE BY DEFINITION THE FLIPS, THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE APPLICANT, WHATEVER THEY DO IS GONNA BE BETWEEN 10 AND 12% OF THEIR UNITS ARE GONNA BE AFFORDABLE.
THE MORE UNITS THEY BUILD, THE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO IF WE, IF THEY BUILD ON HALF, THEY GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS AS THE CAPACITY, UH, AND ONLY 10% OF THOSE ARE GONNA BE, OR AT LEAST 10% OF THOSE WILL BE AFFORDABLE.
[00:45:01]
UM, IF THEY BUILD MORE UNITS, THAT 10% IS A BIGGER NUMBER.10% OF THE BIGGER NUMBER IS A BIGGER NUMBER.
MS. SUIS? NO, I MEAN YOU'RE CORRECT.
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IS A PROPERTY THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL, HOWEVER THE ZONING DOES NOT PERMIT THAT IS SO IT'S NON-COMPLIANT.
SO, UM, ADDITION OF THE DB 90, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW FOR A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OR YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD, THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO IN THIS PROPERTY.
SO I'M JUST
HOW'D THAT HAPPEN THAT, I MEAN DID IT HAVE CS AND MULTIFAMILY GOT BUILT ANYWAY? UM, OR DID IT HAVE MULTIFAMILY AND AT SOME POINT BECAME CS? I COULDN'T REALLY FIND HISTORY THAT EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.
THE APPLICANT RAISED, I'LL PASS THAT TO THE APPLICANT AND THE CASE MANAGER, COMMISSIONER GRINBERG, YOU KNOW THAT STUFF, YOU'VE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME, YOU KNOW THE OLD CODE.
SO NOT LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW THAT GOT CS.
SO I'M PUTTING ON MY FORMER PLANNING DIRECTOR HAT HERE TO GO BACK TO IN, IN IN IN 1984.
THAT'S WHEN I WAS HIRED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE UM, ALL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO YOU DID NOT HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFICS.
AND THEN WHEN THE NEW CHAPTER 25 GOT ADOPTED, IT CHANGED WHERE YOUR ZONING COMMERCIAL USES NO LONGER ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
YOU HAD TO BE BOTH SF OR AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
UM, SO THE USES THAT WERE BUILT UNDER THE OLD REGULATIONS IN COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH RESIDENTIAL, THEY BECAME GRANDFATHERED.
SO THEY'RE NOW NON-CONFORMING.
THEY CAN EXIST AS LONG AS THEY WERE BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED BEFORE.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU GO IN FOR FINANCING, USUALLY THAT'S A PROBLEM.
BUT LENDERS WANNA KNOW, WELL WHAT THEY WANT A LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING THAT YOU HAVE PROPER ZONING.
IN MOST CASES THEY WILL TURN DOWN YOUR, YOUR REQUEST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE PROPER ZONING.
SO, AND THEN MORE RECENTLY WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE VMU TWO, THEY ALSO ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL IN COMMERCIAL ZONING.
THAT ORDINANCE GOT NU NULLIFIED BY THE A JUDGE AS AS V TWO.
SO THAT TOOK AWAY, SO THAT'S GONE.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO NON-CONFORMING.
SO THAT'S THE HISTORY OF WHY YOU SEE SOME OF THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION? UM, THERE WAS A, UM, IT WAS, I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR THE NUMBER.
IT WAS, IT'S SLATED TO HAVE WHAT, 85 UNITS, IS THAT CORRECT? 85 TOTAL UNITS? CORRECT.
WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE DESIGN RIGHT.
AND DOING EVERYTHING ELSE, IS THAT A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN SQUEEZE IN MORE UNITS SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THAT NUMBER, GET TO THAT 18.
SO LIKE I SAID, BY THE TIME WE GET TO SOUTHLAND AND AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE LAY OF THE LAND IS, THEN WE ARE, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, AND, AND ALSO THE UNIT MIX.
AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND WE KNOW WE ABOUT THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL AND THE NEEDS AND TO, DEPENDING ON WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, THE UNIT SIZES AND ACCOMMODATING SOME HANDICAP, UM, FIXTURES AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO YEAH, THERE'S A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER FOR NOW AND IT COULD CHANGE TO HOPEFULLY A HIGHER NUMBER DEPENDING ON OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I CAN'T SEE WHO IT IS.
COMMISSIONER FOUT I BELIEVE WAS THE SECOND.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE WILL TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY AYE.
WE'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE NEIGHBORS WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO GET THOSE 18 UNITS.
THAT WON'T BE REQUIRED BY LAW, BUT MAYBE COULD BE WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL.
'CAUSE THE ONE THING WE CAN'T DO IS ADJUST HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS WE GO IN.
THE CODE SAYS 10% UNDER SCENARIO, 12% UNDER SCENARIO.
BUT WE CANNOT ADJUST THAT NUMBER.
WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING IF WE CAN INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, WE CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.
[00:50:01]
THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING DOWN.UM, GOING BACK TO THE AGENDA, WE ARE ON WORKING GROUP
[WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
AND COMMITTEE UPDATES.UM, I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT LAST MONTH AT OUR LAST MEETING, BETSY, YOU CAME IN AND REQUESTED TO TALK, REVIEW THE RULES.
I THINK IF WE MEET, IF WE CREATE A COMMITTEE TO DO THAT, THAT WAY WE CAN BRIEF EVERYBODY ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW WE REALLY CAN'T BRIEF ANYBODY ON WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A COMMITTEE TO DO BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON OUR, SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CREATE A COMMITTEE OR IS IT A COMMITTEE OR TASK FORCE OR WORKING GROUP? A WORKING GROUP.
CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE RULES.
AND IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO JOIN IN OR WANTS TO JOIN YOU.
UM, SO THAT'S, I'D BE INTERESTED CHAIR.
DO WE NEED TO BRING THIS ON A FUTURE AGENDA? YES.
SO ON THE NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA, IF YOU CAN CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE, UM, THE RULES.
UH, CODES AND ORDERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE.
GETTING LACK OF BUSINESS APPARENTLY.
UM, BUT HOPEFULLY THERE'S STUFF COMING FORTH SEPTEMBER MEETING.
CONFERENCE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE MET AND WE TALKED ABOUT YOU'RE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE.
I WAS GONNA SAY YOU MET, WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING DID WE? NO, WE DID NOT.
UH, SMALLER PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE DID MEET, I THINK IT WAS 200 EAST RIVERSIDE.
AND UM, THAT MOVES FORWARD TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, I THINK TOMORROW.
AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN COUNCIL IF THINGS GO ACCORDING TO PLAN.
OH NO, ALSO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OVERLAY WHATEVER, WHATEVER.
FIRST IT WILL HAVE TO GO TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER THE FOURTH.
AND THEN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, THAT'S WHAT IT'S, AND THEN IT WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER THE 10TH.
SO, AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT COUNCIL DATES AFTER WE GET THROUGH COMMISSION.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS? JUST THE WORKING GROUP.I'LL BE ON THE NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA.