[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
UM, WITHIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND IN VIRTUALLY.SO I'M NOW CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:06 PM FIRST WE WILL TAKE ROLL CALL.
UM, I WILL GO IN ORDER AS YOU SEE IT ON THE AGENDA, STARTING WITH MYSELF.
UM, TONIGHT IS, UH, A HYBRID MEETING PER USUAL.
SO, UM, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONERS ONLINE AND HERE IN IN CHAMBERS.
AND SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM CHAMBERS OR 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.
UM, IF I MISS YOU, AS ALWAYS, COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES.OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ANGELA BEIDA, GARDA GARZA.
ANGELA, YOU WILL BE, OR ANGELA, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? WE CAN, YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I, UH, REALLY QUICKLY WANNA MAKE SURE TO PUT ON RECORD, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS, THAT, UM, WE SUPPORT THE, UM, POSTPONEMENT FOR THE GENTER STREET AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT THAT INCORRECTLY AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT ON RECORD.
UM, BUT GOING BACK TO, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT I WANNA GO AHEAD AND SPEAK ON, I'M SO SORRY TO NOT BE THERE IN PERSON TONIGHT.
UM, I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE DB 90 THAT Y'ALL SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY.
AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED AND THEY WERE NOT, UM, ANSWERED CORRECTLY.
AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF OUR NATIVE LAND IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ANSWERING IT, UM, THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT, ARE NOT PART OF OUR NATIVE LAND.
AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE BRIDGE THAT UNDERSTANDING SO YOU HAVE THE CORRECT ANSWERS.
UM, WHEN DB NINETIES GO UP IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND IT'S WITH PRIVATE LAND, UH, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WE'RE NOTICING ON THIS SIDE OF TOWN IS THOSE DB NINETIES ARE GOING HEAVILY EAST OF THE HIGHWAY AND IT DOES IMPACT THE FAMILIES AROUND THEM AND IT DOES ACTUALLY CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AS WELL, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
UM, IT CHANGES THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AROUND THEM.
I WANNA KEEP HER MUELLER FOR A SECOND.
THE REASON THE MUELLER IS DIFFERENT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS IS BECAUSE THAT'S ON PUBLIC LAND.
THAT'S 25% OF THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR AFFORDABILITY AND THERE WAS NO PEOPLE LIVING ON THAT LAND BEFORE THAT WAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED.
'CAUSE I WAS PART OF THE PLANNING ON THAT AS WELL.
AND IT ALSO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN EAST AUSTIN, IT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO A DISTRICT THAT'S EITHER WEST OR CENTRAL AUSTIN.
AND THAT WAS REALLY WEIRD FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANNA EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE DB NINETIES AND EXACTLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S DOING TO ACTUAL FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT 56 ARE GONNA GO THROUGH OR ARE IN THE PIPELINE OF THE 150 AND WE SAW THE NOTE, UM, THE WRITING FROM, UM, GREG ANDERSON AS WELL.
UM, AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK GREG BECAUSE I, THE, THE IRONY WAS THAT I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA GO BACK TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME OF THE WORDS HE WAS USING ONCE AGAIN THAT WERE GOING OVER MY HEAD.
AND THEN WE FOUND THIS CONVERSATION OF DE NODDING.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK GREG BECAUSE I REALLY RESPECT THE WORDS HE DOES FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, BUT I'M GONNA ASK THAT HE RESPECTS US AND TO USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE, UM, SO THAT WE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
'CAUSE WE'RE REALLY, REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO, UH, D 90, I'M SO, UM, GRATEFUL THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER COX ASKED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEVENTIES 6 65.
I WAS LISTENING TO EVERYTHING.
UM, THE THING ABOUT IT IS THAT IT'S HAPPENING AGGRESSIVELY FIRST IN EAST AUSTIN AND THEN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AROUND AUSTIN, TEXAS AS WELL.
WHEN YOU SEE THE NINETIES COME OUT AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF RETURN FOR EXACTLY WHAT'S GONNA GO UP.
SO THE MORE IT GOES HIGHER, THAT MARGINS GONNA HAPPEN AND IT DOES SCARE THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THEM AS WELL.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN DB NINETIES GO UP, EXACTLY WHAT CAN A NEIGHBOR SAY ABOUT THAT? WHAT IS THEIR RECOURSE IN THAT SITUATION? AND IT'S, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S POINT OF VIEW HOW THEY WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NOT GONNA MAKE SENSE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
WE'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF NEIGHBORS.
I'M A THIRD GENERATION HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
I'M NOT AN MB I'M NOT, I'M NOT PART OF YOUR LAWSUITS.
AGAIN, I'M NOT PART OF A KAREN
[00:05:01]
GROUP.WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO EXPRESS TO YOU WHAT THAT THE ACTUAL, UM, TRAUMA THAT THIS IS CALLING CAUSING SOME OF THE FAMILIES MORE SO BECAUSE THEY'RE CONFUSED AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO 56 DV NINETIES THAT ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PIPELINES.
UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE ASKING ONCE AGAIN TO PLEASE USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE.
IT'S OUR FAMILIES THAT ARE GETTING CAUGHT UP IN ALL THIS.
AND IF YOU REALLY, REALLY WANNA DISPLACE OUR FAMILIES, JUST PAY OUR FAMILIES A MILLION OF $5 MILLION EACH AND, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY DISPLACE THEM OUT OF THEIR CITY.
BUT UNTIL THEN, WE REALLY NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THE FAMILIES IN AUSTIN, TEXAS AND WE REALLY DO A LOT OF WORK TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THESE CHANGES TO THEM.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BOBBY LEVINSKY.
BOBBY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M WITH THE SAVE SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
PRIOR TO FINDING OUT ABOUT THE DELAY ON HAYES COMMENTS, WHICH WOULD SOUND GONNA SOUND LIKE GOBBLEDYGOOK TO THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE HAD DIRECTED OUR MEMBERS TO THIS MEETING.
UM, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY'S WHO HE'S HERE FOR IT, THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, UM, AND THAT WE HEAR THAT IT'S GONNA BE BROUGHT BACK IN NOVEMBER.
SECONDARILY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PLEA TO EACH MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET WITH US, UM, GIA, SBCA, THE AUSTIN SIERRA CLUB, UM, ABOUT THIS ITEM BEFORE BRINGING AN SOS AMENDMENT, UM, AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.
YES, THE CITY IS LOSING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AS PROPERTIES ARE BEING RELEASED FROM THE ETJ.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE SCARED ABOUT PIPING IN WATER TO HUNDREDS OF ACRES WITHIN THE RECHARGE ZONE WITH MORE THAN A THOUSAND ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN THE RECHARGE ZONE RIGHT AROUND, UM, UH, INCLUDING HAYES COMMONS AND RIGHT AROUND IT, UH, PIPING WATER TO THIS AREA WILL CAUSE IT MORE IRREPARABLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM THAN ANY REGULATIONS CAN, CAN CONTROL.
THE MAIN ENTITLEMENT ENTITLE, UH, THAT MILESTONE IS SEEKING IS, UH, NOT AN SOS AMENDMENT.
ACCESS TO WATER IS WORTH MILLIONS TO MILESTONE.
THEY WANT TO US TO GET RILED UP IN A DEBATE OVER THE SOS AMENDMENT KNOWING THAT QUITE FRANKLY SOME PEOPLE ARE USED TO DISAGREEING WITH US.
BUT WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE HERE IS WHAT YOU AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL SET AS THE BASELINE FOR WATER FUELED SPRAWL BY EXTENDING WATER WITHOUT UPHOLDING CITY OF REGULATIONS.
YOU GIVE THE ADVANTAGE TO SPRAWL OVERDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY.
YOU MAKE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP WITH AUSTIN WATER THAN IT IS IN THE CENTRAL CITY ON THE RECHARGE ZONE.
WHAT IS YOUR IDEAL POLICY FOR THE PO FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY? WHAT IS YOUR IDEAL POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER TO AREAS OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL HAVE TO DECIDE WITH HAY COMMONS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.UM, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 8TH.
ARE THERE ANY EDITS OR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE THOSE MINUTES AS POSTED WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
MOVE ON TO, UM, THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.SO THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT, APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSIONER WOODS WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
SO COMMISSIONER WOODS, ITEM TWO.
I THINK, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER WOOD'S MICROPHONE IS MUTED, TURNED ON.
ITEM TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 7 0.01 ROSS AND SAUNDERS TARRYTOWN CHRISTIAN CHURCH IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT 10.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 17TH.
ITEM THREE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 5 1 ROSS AND SAUNDERS TARRYTOWN CHRISTIAN CHURCH IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT 10.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 17TH.
ITEM FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 7 0 1 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 8 0 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 9 0.02 HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.
[00:10:01]
ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.ITEM SEVEN IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH THREE TWO HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM EIGHT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 5 0 1 SAXON TWO DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 10TH.
ITEM NINE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH NINE NINE SAXON TWO DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 10TH.
ITEM 10 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 15 0 1 GUNTER STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM 11 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 9 GUNTER STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM 12 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 15 0.02.
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 13 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 4 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 14 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 0.03432 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM 15 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 29 BURNETT AND RUTLAND DISTRICT SEVEN.
ITEM 16 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 4 2 2 1 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.
ITEM 17 IS A FINAL PLA VACATION C EIGHT S DASH 78 DASH 3 3 1 VAC MIKE JOHNSON EDITION PLA VACATION ETJ.
ITEM 18 IS AN ETJ RELEASE, CE TJ DASH 2024 DASH ZERO ONE MAINOR DOWNS INDUSTRIAL PARK ETJ RELEASE AND ACCOMPANYING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
ITEM 19 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 7 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 20 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH 0 22 DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND ITEM 21 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 5, SITE PLAN, LIGHT PHASE TWO AND INFILL LOTS.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY, NOTHING THERE.
AND THEN MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR ITEM 11.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS COLETTE HANKY.
COLETTE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE CONCERNED REGARDING THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
UH, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPERS FOR A POST POSTPONEMENT AND ARE CONFIRMING THAT REQUEST.
UH, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE POSTPONEMENT DUE TO A LACK OF NOTIFICATION, SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DID NOT RECEIVE THE INITIAL NOTICES REGARDING THE ZONING REQUEST AND THE FIRST MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS.
THIS HAS CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DELAYS AS WE'VE HAD TO WORK QUICKLY TO INCLUDE ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY, UH, HAD AN ADDITIONAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26TH.
UH, BUTL THE, UH, ATTORNEY WANTED TO DELAY THE MEETING BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE DEVELOPERS.
WE RESCHEDULED THAT MEETING FROM MONDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 2024, THE VERY FIRST PROPOSED DATE THAT SHE PUT FORWARD.
WE HELD THE RESCHEDULED MEETING AT 6:00 PM ON OCTOBER 14TH.
THE NEIGHBORS MET WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER, THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR ATTORNEYS.
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, THE NEIGHBORS GATHERED TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES, UH, RAISED AS WELL AS QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN UNANSWERED.
UM, AND THAT THE ATTORNEY SAID WOULD THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, ANY UPDATES VIA EMAIL.
UH, NICOLE, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS INITIATED CONTACT ANDEL, UH, AND SENT ELLE A SUMMARY EMAIL TO THE ATTOR, UH, WITH THE QUESTIONS
BUT AT THIS POINT WE HAVEN'T HAD A RESPONSE FROM THE DEVELOPER, SO WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE POSTPONEMENT.
[00:15:01]
UH, WHAT ITEM WAS THAT? YES, IT'S NUMBER 11, THE GUNTER STREET REZONING.IT'S UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 12TH.
THANK YOU COLETTE FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH INKY.
ELIZABETH, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH NCE AND I'M A RESIDENT OF ABATE CIRCLE IN AUSTIN, WHERE I LIVE IN A QUIET CUL-DE-SAC OFF OF GUNTHER STREET, UH, WHICH IS ON THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT.
UH, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONSIDERATION WE'RE ASKING YOU TO P**N IS FOR A REZONING.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA, BUT IT'S CRUCIAL THAT THE CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR RESIDENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR A PROPOSAL IS SO WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AS DOES THE DEVELOPER.
I AM MAKING THIS REQUEST, UH, ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
AS YOU HEARD FROM COLETTE, UH, MORE TIMES REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE IS CONDUCTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
AS YOU'VE HEARD, UH, WE HAD A LACK OF NOTIFICATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE WERE MANY RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICES REGARDING THE INITIAL MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS.
THIS HAS CAUSED MULTIPLE DELAYS AND WE'VE HAD TO WORK REALLY QUICKLY TO BRING ALL OF OUR IMPACTED NEIGHBORS UP TO SPEED ON THE PROPOSAL AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY.
ON OCTOBER 14TH, UH, MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS WERE ABLE TO MEET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PERSON, UH, COLLECTIVELY WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER DEVELOPER AND THEIR ATTORNEYS TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS.
UH, BUT WE ARE STILL AWAITING RESPONSE FROM THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS ON SEVERAL OF OUR QUESTIONS.
ONCE RECEIVED, WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST THE TIME TO, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD COME TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY AND DISCUSS THE DEVELOPER'S FEEDBACK ANSWERS, AND TALK THROUGH OUR NEXT STEPS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN LIGHT OF THESE ISSUES, A POSTPONEMENT WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TIME FOR ALL OF US ON GUNTHER STREET, ABATE CIRCLE, AND MUNSON STREET TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO FULLY ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED.
I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION ON, UH, THAT ARE TIED TO THE PROJECT.
THE FIRST ONE IS TRAFFIC AND PARKING.
ONE OF OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS IS THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE'LL BRING OUR, ON OUR RESIDENT STREET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S MAIN ENTRANCE IS ON GUNTHER STREET, UH, BUT IT ALSO OPENS ONTO OUR CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH IS NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE HIGH TRAFFIC.
OUR STREETS OFTEN USED BY CHILDREN PLAYING AND NEIGHBORS WALKING, AND INCREASED VEHICLE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT THE SAFETY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHERMORE, WITH THE LIMITED PARKING, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ARE GOING TO SPILL OVER INTO OUR CUL-DE-SAC AND WON'T LEAVE US WITH ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING IF THIS REZONING, UH, CONTINUES FORWARD.
SO I'M URGING THE COUNCIL AND OUR DEVELOPER, UH, TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF ALL THE CONNECTED STREETS TO THE REZONING BEFORE MAKING ANY PARTICULAR DECISIONS.
THE SECOND CONCERN THAT WE'VE RAISED IS THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRESSURE IN RECENT YEARS.
WAS THAT MY TIMER? THAT'S YOUR TIME.
OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, FOR OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS AND PARKING ARE STILL UNANSWERED AND WE LIKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JESSE GARCIA.
JESSE WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
JESSE, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UH, GREETINGS, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COUNSEL.
UM, I AM BASICALLY ECHOING WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE SAID.
I LIVE ON, UH, MY WIFE AND I LIVE ON A BAIT, UH, A CIRCLE.
AND, UH, WE HAD MET RECENTLY WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND IT BECAME APPARENT THAT YEAH, THERE WAS NOT EVERYBODY GOT NOTIFIED.
I DON'T, UM, I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF POSTPONING, UH, THE, UH, THE MEETING.
UH, I HAVE VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS AS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED HERE.
UH, SO I'M TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THAT, UH, POSTPONING.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE REALLY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, JESSE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANGELA GARZA.
ANGELA WILL ALSO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
ANGELA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
[00:20:18]
AND ANGELA, PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I APOLOGIZE.
WE, I AGREE WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS.
THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON US.
WE AGREE WITH THE POSTPONEMENT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS OMAR GAVI.
OMAR WILL ALSO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
OMAR, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? YES, GO AHEAD.
A FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, MYSELF AND NICOLE HAVE PERSONALLY WALKED THE ENTIRETY OF THE BLOCK AND DOOR KNOCKED ON EVERY PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UH, IT'S LIKE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS BASED ON THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER, THAT NOT EVERYONE RECEIVED, UH, A LETTER.
AND, UH, WHEN, WHEN ASKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY THE NOTICES ABOUT THE MEETING WEREN'T GET SENT, YOU KNOW, WEREN'T GETTING SENT OUT APPROPRIATELY, THE RESPONSES THAT WE GOT WERE JUST KIND OF LIKE, IF, IF YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THAT MEME OF THE SPIDER-MAN POINTING AT EACH OTHER, IT KIND OF FELT LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? JUST LIKE ALL THE SPIDER-MAN POINTING AT ONE ANOTHER, LIKE TRYING TO BLAME THE POST OFFICE OR LIKE THE MALE OR, UM, THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESSES WERE WRONG.
AND I, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT W THE, THE NOTICES THAT DID GO OUT REGARDING THE REZONING, UM, ALL HAD DIFFERENT ADDRESSES ON THEM.
AND THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL, THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL CONTAINED THE APPROPRIATE ADDRESSES.
SO LIKE I'M, I'M STANDING HERE PHYSICALLY STARING AT TWO DIFFERENT LETTERS THAT I GOT, OH MY GOD, GOSH, THAT ONLY HAVE THE ABATE CIRCLE ADDRESS ON THEM.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE GUNTER STREET ADDRESSES, WHICH I THINK IS EITHER TWO OR THREE OF THEM.
OMAR, THAT WAS TIME BASED THE LAST, UH, LAST CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD.
SO IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT MR. OMAR, PEOPLE ON ABBA CIRCLE.
YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, AND AS A REMINDER, THAT ITEM IS POSTPONED SHOULD IT PASS ON CONSENT, UH, AGENDA THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON TO NOVEMBER 12TH.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE JUST COVERED? MADAM CHAIR? I DON'T, YES, I DON'T WANNA PULL AN ITEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, UM, BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED FROM MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THAT IF WE TAKE A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND MAKE IT SIMPLE AND MAKE IT STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT IN 15 OR 20 YEARS WE'LL BE IN A BETTER PLACE FOR IT.
AND I WISH, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY WISH THAT ITEM 15, WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AND SAID LET'S JUST REDO ALL THE BURN IT, UH, NORTH GATEWAY IN ONE ZONING CATEGORY.
AND THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR SIX WEEKS, PROBABLY, PROBABLY LONGER.
AND YET WE'RE GONNA DO ANOTHER SPOT ZONING TONIGHT.
I'M GLAD WE DID, I'M GLAD WE DID IT ON CONSENT.
BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PATCHWORK IN OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, UM, WITH BUILDINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND IN 15 YEARS ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS GOING, GONNA CURSE Y'ALL 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T DO ONE ZONING CATEGORY AND GET IT ALL DONE WITH.
OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ZA.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 16.
UH, UM, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MS. BOJO.
I REALLY WANNA THANK HER AND HER CLIENT FOR REALLY WORKING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE HEIGHTENED PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS AS THIS CASE GOES FORWARD.
AND THAT THERE WILL BE MEMORIALIZING THIS AND WORKING TO MAKE SURE THIS ALL GETS FINALIZED.
THIS MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL, BUT I JUST WANNA THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH THE TENANTS, MAKING SURE THE TENANTS ARE PROTECTED AS PART OF THIS REZONING AS IT MOVES FORWARD AND FOR AGREEING TO WORK THROUGH ANY SORT OF REMAINING PIECES AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL.
[00:25:01]
OKAY, I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.SEE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THAT, THAT VOTE IS UNANIMOUS OR THAT MOTION PASSES.
AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND OUR EX OFFICIO CHAIR, COHEN AND UH, BOARD TRUSTEE.
UM, UH, HUNTER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.
THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Items 12 & 13 (Part 1 of 2)]
UP OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 12 AND 13.THIS IS THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH.
AND FIRST WE WILL HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH MARIE MEREDITH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS NPA 20 24 0 0 1 5 0.02.
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH IN DISTRICT ONE PROPERTY LOCATION IS 36 1 6 EAST 51ST STREET, 30 21, AND 30 39 PECAN SPRINGS ROAD.
IT IS WITHIN THE EAST MLK COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE, UH, PECAN SPRING SPRINGDALE AREA OF THE PLAN.
THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAT FROM MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 13 IS CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 4.
ALPHA SEVEN DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IS A REZONING REQUEST OF 3 0 1 6 EAST 51ST STREET, 3 0 2 1 AND 3 0 3 9 PECAN SPRINGS ROAD FROM SF THREE NP TO G-R-M-U-C-O-N-P AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT PROHIBITS ALL USES NOT ALLOWED IN AN LR BASED DISTRICT.
AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX USES THAT ARE DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND GRANTING G-R-M-U-C-O-N-P AND OFFERS.
THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF L-R-M-U-N-P SUBJECT TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY 2.285 ACRES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST 51ST STREET.
UH, IT CURRENTLY CONTAINS AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 21,000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING AREA, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND AN APPROXIMATELY 600 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURED BUILDING TO THE NORTH IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO THE EAST IS THE GROVE CONDOMINIUMS, APPROXIMATELY 52 ATTACHED, UH, UNITS IN TWO STORY CLUSTER BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TO THE WEST ARE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO VALID PETITIONS ON THIS CASE IN BACKUP.
UH, ONE SEEKS TO OPPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS EITHER USES OR SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GREATER THAN THE CURRENT SF THREE.
THE OTHER SUPPORTS A ZONING UP TO NO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 70% AND A MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 50%.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM OUR APPLICANT FOR EIGHT MINUTES.
HE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM APRIL BROWN.
APRIL, ARE YOU PRESENT? MICHAEL, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES.
UH, THANK YOU MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR A FLUME AND A ZONING CHANGE FOR THE ALPHA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE ON 51ST STREET.
THE CHURCH IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY WITH A MIXED RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION.
AS YOU JUST HEARD, WE ARE SEEKING TO AMEND THE FLU TO MIXED USE AND TO REZONE FOR GR MU ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IN SOME DETAIL.
OUR REQUEST WOULD PROVIDE THE PROPERTY WITH THE APPROPRIATE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ITS CURRENT UTILIZATION AS A CHURCH AND A FOOD PANTRY, WHICH SERVES UP TO 2000 FAMILIES A MONTH AND ALSO PLAN FOR FUTURE EXPANSION.
CURRENTLY THE CHURCH ONLY HAS 42 PAVED SPACES.
THE MAJORITY OF PARKING IS LOCATED IN A DIRT GRASS AREA BEHIND THE CHURCH, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE.
THIS MAKESHIFT PARKING AREA IS NOT GREAT AND EVEN IN GOOD CONDITIONS AND IT BECOMES MUDDY, IT BECOMES A MUDDY, MESSY SAFETY HAZARD WHEN IT RAINS.
IN ADDITION TO FIXING THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY NEED AT THE CHURCH, LAY LEADERSHIP IS ALSO HOPING TO EXPAND THEIR COMMUNITY OFFERINGS AND PRESENCE AND IS CONSIDERING OPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE A GYM AND COMMUNITY CLASSROOMS. THE CHURCH WOULD ALSO LIKE THE ABILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO FUTURE NEEDS OR PARTNERSHIPS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE OPENING
[00:30:01]
A SMALL CLINIC ON SITE, OFFERING OFFICE SPACE TO A LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS, OR EXPANDING THE FOOD PANTRY TO INCLUDE MORE GROCERIES FOR THE BROADER COMMUNITY.REZONING TO GR UH, BASED ZONING WOULD INCREASE THE CHURCH'S IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY MAXED OUT AT 45% ON THE MAIN LOT AND WOULD ALLOW THE CHURCH TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT TO IMPROVE WALKABILITY AND ACCESS TO THE CHURCH AND THE FOOD PO AND THE FOOD PANTRY.
THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING COVERAGE AND PERMITTED USES WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE CHURCH TO EXPAND TO MEET THE NEED, THE NEEDS OF ITS CONGREGATION.
I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANY MIS UH, UH, UNDERSTANDING.
THE CHURCH HAS NO PLANS OR INTENTIONS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR FOUR DECADES.
THEY'RE SEEKING THIS REZONING AS A WAY TO DEEPEN THEIR PRESENCE AND USE AND USE THEIR SPACE MORE INNOVATIVELY.
WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND HAVE WORKED TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THEIR CONCERNS WITHOUT FULLY TRYING, UH, TYING THE CHURCH'S HANDS OR RESTRICTING THEIR OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH.
TO THAT END, WE OFFERED AN INITIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BEFORE OUR FIRST MEETING THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE COMMERCIAL USES DOWN TO THOSE ALLOWED IN THE LESS INTENSE LR ZONING DISTRICT.
FOLLOWING THE VIRTU, THE FIRST VIRTUAL MEETING, THE PASTOR HOSTED A GROUP OF PEOPLE AT THE CHURCH TO FURTHER ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.
AT THAT MEETING, WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST OF COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS, AND AS A GROUP WE TALKED ABOUT WHICH USES WERE MOST UNDESIRABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS A RESULT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AT THE CHURCH, WE SUBMITTED A NEW CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO CITY STAFF ASKING TO PROHIBIT ADDITIONAL USES BEYOND THE LR USE RESTRICTION, LEAVING THE CHURCH WITH 14 TOTAL PERMITTED USES AND A HANDFUL OF CONDITIONAL USES.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKE TO PROHIBIT ALL COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT OUR PAIRED DOWN LIST OF USES.
14, TO ALLOW THE CHURCH TO BE RESPONSIVE TO FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES.
I'M GONNA MOVE THROUGH THESE NEXT SLIDES QUICKLY.
THIS SHOWS YOU THE CHURCH'S LOCATION LONG AND BETWEEN SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, MAIN CORRIDORS.
YOU CAN SEE MAINOR ROAD TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS TO THE WEST AND SPRINGDALE ROAD TO THE EAST.
THIS IS THE AERIAL THAT SHOWS YOU THE CONDITION ON THE GROUND TODAY.
THE CHURCH AND THE EXISTING PAVE LOT WITH THE 42 SPOTS IN THE FRONT AND THE DIRT LOT AND THE BI BACK, WHICH, UH, ACCOMMODATES MOST OF THE PARISHIONERS.
THERE'S ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE THAT IS USED AS THE FOOD PANTRY.
HERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE BROWN MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS ALREADY EXIST IN THIS AREA ALONG THE MAIN CORRIDORS, BOTH AT INTERSECTIONS AND EVEN FOR LOTS THAT ARE MID-BLOCK, AS WELL AS FOR MANY OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES.
IT, UH, SAME TYPE OF PLANNING, GR ZONING AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE RED IS VERY COMMON FOR PROPERTIES ALONG 51ST STREET SPRINGDALE MAINOR AND AGAIN, INCLUSIVE OF LOTS THAT ARE LOCATED MID-BLOCK.
YOU CAN SEE THE MID-BLOCK LOTS AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE BLACK THAT ARE BACK RIGHT UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
51ST STREET IS BOTH AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND AN A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY, MAKING IT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR GR ZONING.
UM, I SHOW YOU THIS IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, THE, UM, UH, NUMBERS INDICATE THE ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL AND FOLLOW CONTOUR LINES AT THAT ELEVATION SO THE WATER FLOWS OR DRAINS IN THE DIRECTION OF DESCENDING NUMBERS.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE IT STARTS AT APPROXIMATELY 5 78 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND SLOPES DOWN TO 51ST STREET AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY IS SUCH THAT STORMWATER DRAINS, UM, TOWARDS THE CHURCH CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW SITE.
IMPROVEMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE STANDARD CITY OF AUSTIN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY, NONE OF WHICH EXISTS.
NOW, ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ALSO WANTED TO, THIS IS A TYPICAL SATURDAY AT THE CHURCH, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE THE FULL SANCTUARY OR THE MANY STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS BEHIND THE SCENES, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ROOM IS PRETTY PACKED AND THERE ARE FOUR FAR MORE PEOPLE ATTENDING REGULAR SERVICES THAN THE 42 EXISTING PARKING SPACES CAN AT, CAN ACCOMMODATE.
THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN THIS LOCATION FOR THE LAST 41 YEARS, HAS BEEN STEADILY GROWING SINCE COVID.
AND OUR ASK TONIGHT IS THAT YOU SUPPORT ITS DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AND FUTURE PARISHIONERS AND VISITORS BY GRANTING THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO EXPAND.
SO TO RECAP, WE'RE HERE TO AMEND THE FLU TO MIXED USE AS WELL AS IN ACCOMMODATING REZONING, THE GR BASED ZONING WITH MEANINGFULLY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL USES, AGAIN, DOWN TO 14 PERMITTED AND FIVE CONDITIONAL, UH, VIA CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
A MIXED USE FLUME DESIGNATION AND GR ZONING ARE BOTH CONSISTENT WITH NEARBY PROPERTIES ALONG 51ST MAINOR AND SPRINGDALE, INCLUDING THOSE THAT SHARE PROPERTY LINES WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
YOU WILL FIND COMMERCIAL ZONING ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALL ACROSS THE CITY.
AND THIS ZONING IS APPROPRIATE ALONG IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS AND
[00:35:01]
A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK.ROADWAYS, I WANNA CLOSE BY STATING AGAIN, THE CHURCH HAS NO PLANS OR INTENTIONS TO SELL.
THEY WISH TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE AND CREATE THE ROOM THEY NEED TO GROW THEIR PRESENCE AND ABILITY TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS LAURENT GROSSMAN.
LAURENT, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
HE'S ALSO RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM MICHELLE GROOM.
MICHELLE, ARE YOU PRESENT? LAUREN AGAIN? YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING DISTINGUISHED COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE REZONING REQUEST FOR ALPHA SEVENTH ADVENTIST CHURCH.
MY NAME IS GRONER AND I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF PASTORING ALPHA CHURCH FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS.
THIS COMMUNITY HOLDS A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART AND THAT OF MY WIFE, MAJOR CRYSTAL GRONER, AN INTERNAL MEDICINE PHYSICIAN CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE US ARMY.
WE ARE PROUD TO CALL THIS CHURCH.
OUR HOME ALPHA CHURCH HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF THE COMMUNITY, WITNESSING GENERATIONS OF AUSTINITES BEING BORN, RAISED, GRADUATING, MARRYING, STARTING FAMILIES, AND EVEN RETIRING AND PASSING ON BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY.
SUCH DEEP FELLOWSHIP AND LASTING RELATIONSHIPS ARE BUILT OVER TIME WITH INTENTIONAL CARE.
I SHARED THIS TO UNDERSCORE OUR INVESTMENT IN THIS VERY COMMUNITY, IN THIS VERY LOCATION.
AND TO EXPRESS OUR DESIRE TO CONTINUE DEEPENING OUR AS OF NEXT YEAR, JUNE 80-YEAR-OLD ROOTS.
BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY.
MY VISION IS NOT JUST TO CONTINUE TO GROW THE CONGREGATION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY OUR ABILITY TO SERVE WITH EXCELLENCE, THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY.
CURRENTLY AS PART OF OUR OUTREACH, WE RUN A FOOD PANTRY ON SITE THAT SERVES OVER TWO, 2000 FAMILIES EACH MONTH.
AS MR. WELLON MENTIONED, THE BACKSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY AN UNBECOMING DIRT LOT WHERE CONGREGANTS, FOOD PANTRY VISITORS AND GUESTS ARE FORCED TO PARK THE GROUND IS UNEVEN, MAKING IT HAZARDOUS FOR OUR OLDER OR LESS MOBILE VISITORS TO NAVIGATE, ESPECIALLY AFTER STORM OR RAIN, WHERE IT BECOMES A SERIOUS ISSUE FOR DAYS.
THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW US THE NECESSARY IMPERVIOUS COVER TO BUILD A PARKING LOT, MAKING IT EASIER AND SAFER FOR THOSE VISITING THE FOOD PANTRY, RELYING ON THE FOOD PANTRY, AND VISITING OUR CHURCH.
IT WOULD ALSO GIVE US FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AS OUR NEEDS CONTINUE TO GROW BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT IS OUR COMMUNITY.
WE WERE DELIGHTED TO HOST A MEETING WITH SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS A FEW WEEKS AGO WHERE WE REVIEWED THE POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES UNDER GR ZONING.
WE SHARE THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED INTO GAS STATIONS OR SMOKE SHOPS, AND WE ALL WANT TO SEE COMMUNITY FOCUSED BUSINESSES LIKE GROCERY STORES.
INSTEAD TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS, WE AGREE TO PROHIBIT MOST COMMERCIAL USES UNDER GR ZONING, HELPING TO EASE ANXIETIES ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT BRING.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN SOME COMMERCIAL USES TO PROVIDE MINIMAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE MAXIMUM IMPACT NEEDS OR OPPORTUNITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING A GYM CLASSROOMS, OFFICE SPACES THAT COULD SERVE BOTH THE CHURCH, THE CITY, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FREE.
THERE MAY ALSO BE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES SUCH AS MEDICAL CLINIC, GROCERY STORES.
UH, FOR A NEW ENTERPRISE, WE HAVE BEEN, WE REMAIN AND WE SHALL BE CONSISTENT PARTNERS WITH THIS CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY.
THESE ARE GENUINE CONSIDERATIONS AS WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE NO INTENTION, OUR DESIRE TO SELL OUR CHURCH AS HAS BEEN PROMULGATED AMONGST THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M AWARE THAT CITY STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A LOWER ZONING CATEGORY AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR GR ZONING SO WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE MINIMAL FLEXIBILITY OF ITS IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE REGULATIONS.
I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HOST EACH OF YOU AT OUR CHURCH WITH A MEAL INCLUDED, OF COURSE.
SO YOU CAN SEE FIRSTHAND THE BACK LOT AND THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE.
IDEALLY, YOU COULD VISIT ON A RAINY DAY OR IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD TO OBSERVE HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY OF OUR PROPERTY DIRECTS WATER TO 51ST STREET, OFTEN CAUSING IT TO POOL AND PUDDLE AT THE BACK ENTRANCE OF THE CHURCH.
AN ADDED BENEFIT OF THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY RULES, INCLUDING A THOROUGH PERMITTING PROCESS
[00:40:01]
FOR FLOOD AND DRAINAGE REVIEW, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY IMPROVE STORM WATER CONDITIONS FOR THE AREA.I WANT TO REITERATE THAT OUR SANCTUARY ON 51ST STREET IS A HOME, A HOME FOR JUDGES, PHYSICIANS, FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS, ENGINEERS, COLLEGE STUDENTS, CITY WORKERS, BUSINESS OWNERS, RETIREES, MEMBERS OF THE L LGBTQIA PLUS COMMUNITY, AND THOSE WITH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES.
WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY AND HAVE INVESTED DECADES IN BUILDING OUR PRESENCE HERE.
THIS REZONING WILL HELP US TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND SERVE IN THIS LOCATION FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY.
WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR HUMBLE REQUEST.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUDGE ERIC SHEPHERD.
I, I'M NOT SURE WHO MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS, BUT I HAVE TO FOLLOW MY PASTOR, WHICH IS NEVER A GOOD THING TO DO.
MY NAME IS ERIC SHEPHERD AND UM, I'VE CALLED I, UM, I'VE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE A FEW WORDS FOR THE ALPHA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ON BEHALF.
I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF ALPHA SINCE, UH, THEY MOVED THERE IN 1983 WHEN I HAD ABOUT A YEAR AFTER I CAME HERE FOR LAW SCHOOL.
THE REZONING REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FORTIFIES OUR LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE CHURCH, UH, IN THIS LOCATION.
AS YOU'VE HEARD PASTOR GRONER SAY, WE ARE LOOKING FOR, UH, LOOKING TO REZONE OUR PROPERTY FOR TWO REASONS, TO SOLVE AN IMMEDIATE NEED AND TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO F UH, TO THINK MORE EXPANSIVELY ABOUT HOW WE CAN GROW THE FUTURE, GROW IN THE FUTURE.
RIGHT NOW, MORE THAN 50% OF OUR PARKING, UH, CAPACITY IS OUT BACK IN THE DIRT AND THE RAW CONDITIONS OF THAT AREA TO SAY THE LEAST, UM, TRULY POSE A SAFETY HAZARD FOR OUR CONGREGATION AND VISITORS.
THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE NEED WE NEED TO SOLVE FOR HERE TONIGHT.
UM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO, UM, DIDN'T WANT TO AND FRANKLY CANNOT AFFORD TO.
LET ME JUST TELL YOU FINAL TIME.
I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE I GOT HERE TO LAW SCHOOL AND I'M NOT LEAVING AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS MARTHA WILLIAMS. MARTHA, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE.
I WANT TO, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
MY NAME IS MARTHA AND UH, I'VE BEEN A PART OF THAT COMMUNITY FOR OVER 41 YEARS.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, ALPHA HAS ALWAYS TRIED TO BE GOOD, UH, AND RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORS.
I KNOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE LEANED HEAVILY ON THE FOOD PANTRY.
AND TO SEE AT LEAST 100 CARS EACH TIME IS A TREMENDOUS SITE TO BEHOLD.
I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN WHAT THE BACK PARKING LOT CAN GET, UH, WHEN IT RAINS.
AND IT REALLY IS A MESS FOR PEOPLE TO TRY TO WALK, UM, IN THEIR CHURCH CLOTHES, IN THE SHOES.
AND THE CHURCH HAS COMMITTED, UH, TO FOLLOWING THE CURRENT CITY RULES FOR FLOODING.
AND RIGHT NOW THERE AREN'T ANY CONTROLS FOR THAT KIND OF THING.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT ALL AROUND IT WOULD.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CHURCH HAVE THE ABILITY TO GROW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHAIR WILL NOW BE, WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS EMILY NOBEL.
EMILY, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS A PRIMARY SPEAKER.
I LIVE AT, UH, WAYBURN HILL DRIVE.
MY PROPERTY SITS AT THE, THE BACK OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY.
UM, AND I'M A PARTY TO THE ZONING PETITION LIMITING THE ZONING TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH NOT MORE THAN 70% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 50% BUILDING COVERAGE.
I OPPOSE THE CHURCH'S REQUEST FOR TWO MAIN REASONS.
THE USES WITHIN THE LR O, THE LR OVERLAY REQUESTED AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED WITHIN THE GR ZONING.
SO THE CHURCH STATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE SAID HERE, UM, THAT THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES.
UM, AND THEY DO NOT INTEND TO MOVE OR SELL THE PROPERTY ASSUMING THE CHURCH STAYS, WHICH I
[00:45:01]
DO BELIEVE THAT THEY INTEND TO DO.THE ONLY DEVELOPABLE LAND IS THAT VACANT LOT AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT TO HOMES ON PECAN SPRINGS AND WAY BORN HILL INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THAT BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ON PECAN SPRINGS, WHICH IS NOT A PRIMARY ROAD.
IT HAS LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY TRAFFIC.
UH, THE USE IS ALLOWED FOR WITHIN THE OVERLAY REQUESTED BY THE CHURCH, INCLUDING FOOD, SALES, FINANCIAL SERVICES, PERSONAL CARE RESTAURANT, ET CETERA, GO BEYOND ADDRESSING JUST PARKING.
ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER UP TO 90% IS A SERIOUS CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH CONNECTS TO THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY, SITS HIGHER THAN MY HOUSE AND WATER MOVES TOWARDS MY HOUSE.
MY BACKYARD ON WAYBURN HILL HAS HAD LOCALIZED FLOODING DURING SERIOUS RAIN EVENTS, WHICH IS SOME TYPES REQUIRED SANDBAGS IN THAT BACKYARD.
WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES, BUT ALLOWING THE CHURCH TO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PUTS MY PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING HOMES AT RISK OF ADDITIONAL LOCALIZED FLOODING.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE CHURCH'S DESIRE TO IMPROVE THEIR LAND FOR THE PARKING FOR THEIR CONGREGATION, I OPPOSE ANY ZONING CHANGE THAT GOES BEYOND ADDRESSING THOSE SPECIFIC NEEDS.
IN THE ZONING PETITION, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WAS NOTED FOR ITS LIMITED USES, SO IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT OR IT'S AN INCREASE FROM SF THREE, BUT IT'S STILL, UH, A FURTHER LIMITATION AS TO WHAT THEY CAN EXPAND INTO.
GIVEN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE UNDER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE IS ACTUALLY SIMILAR OR EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE SF THREE.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWED FOR, UM, THAT WE BASICALLY CAME TO WAS LO.
SO, UH, WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DESIGNATION ALLOWED FOR TWO RESTRICTIVE OF A BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE LO DESIGNATION SPECIFIC TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE STILL ALLOWS FOR SOME EXPANSION.
UM, AND IF THEY NEED TO EXPAND BEYOND THAT TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL PARKING, UM, THEY CAN INCLUDE NONPERMEABLE, OR SORRY, THEY CAN INCLUDE PERMEABLE, UM, UH, MATERIALS, UH, CRUSH GRANITE, ET CETERA.
BUT THEY HAVE ABILITIES TO EXPAND BEYOND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT JUST CONCRETE.
UM, SO THAT IS WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY.
I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD FIVE MINUTES, BUT I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ROBERT MENDEZ.
ROBERT, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, UM, BOTH IN HEARING US TODAY AND SITTING ON THIS COMMISSION.
IT IS CLEARLY A USE OF YOUR TIME THAT TAKES UP MORE THAN JUST TODAY.
UM, AS MENTIONED, MY NAME IS ROB MENDEZ AND I LIVE AT, UH, WAY BORN HILL DRIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH.
I'M HERE TO OBJECT TO REZONING OF THE REFERENCE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL ZONING.
UH, THE PARCEL AT ISSUE IS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND A SIMILARLY SITUATED CHURCH.
THE MAP THAT WAS SHOWED BY THE CHURCH SHOWS CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, UM, NEAR THE CHURCH BUT NOT ADJACENT.
UH, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY CONDOMINIUMS AND A VACANT LOT AS THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THERE WAS TORN DOWN A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
UH, THAT LOT CAN ALSO NOT BE, UH, IMPROVED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES FROM THE CREEK.
SO THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS SOMEWHAT QUESTIONABLE.
UM, FURTHER TO THIS, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE IS NOT ON 51ST STREET.
51ST STREET IS THE MINORITY PART OF FRONTAGE.
THE MAJORITY OF FRONTAGE IS ON PECAN SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET.
UH, AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE ENTRANCE TO THE AREA THAT IS LOOKING TO BE DEVELOPED IS ON PECAN SPRINGS ROAD, NOT ON 51ST STREET.
UM, THE CHURCH HAS STATED TO US, AS THEY HAVE MENTIONED, THEIR INTENTIONS TO INCREASE PARKING AS WELL AS POSSIBLY WORK ON THEIR FOOD PANTRY.
UM, NONE OF THIS SHOULD REQUIRE, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONING, LET ALONE COMMERCIAL ZONING AT THE LEVEL THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED.
UH, THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IS SUBJECT TO DRAINAGE ISSUES.
THE CHURCH THEMSELVES MENTIONS THAT WHILE MY HOU MY BACK OF MY PROPERTY, SIMILAR TO EMILY'S, WHO IS ACTUALLY MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CHURCH, I HAVE A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL THREE FOOT OUT FROM MY FENCE THAT THEN DROPS ABOUT 18 INCHES TO TWO FEET BELOW THE CHURCH PROPERTY.
THIS IS A SERIOUS CONCERN FOR DRAINAGE ISSUES.
IF THEY WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE LEVEL OF IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUESTED.
UM, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT THEY COULD INCREASE THEIR PARKING WITHOUT USING IMPERVIOUS COVER, CRUSHED GRANITE, UH, TURF STONE PAVERS AND OTHER METHODS.
UM, SO I I SUPPORT THE CHURCH.
I WANT THE CHURCH TO BE THERE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPACTS
[00:50:01]
ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE LIMITED.UM, AS TO THE FOOD PANTRY, THE CHURCH HAS MADE CLAIMS THAT THEY NEED COMMERCIAL USES.
THIS IS HIGHLY SUSPECT TO ME GIVEN THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING THIS FOOD PANTRY UNDER SF THREE ZONING.
THE REQUEST IS FURTHER CALLED INTO QUESTION BY THE FACT THAT THE GREATER MOUNT ZION CHURCH FOOD PANTRY IS CURRENTLY ZONED MF TWO MULTIFAMILY.
THE BAPTIST, UH, COMMUNITY CENTER MISSION AUSTIN, INCLUDING A FOOD PANTRY, IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE.
JOHN'S COMMUNITY CENTER FOOD DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE.
THE A NUMBER OF OTHER FOOD PANTRIES ARE ALSO ZONED SF THREE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IF COMMERCIAL ZONE AND REQUIRED, THOSE WOULD ALL LIKELY NEED TO SHUT DOWN.
UH, AS MENTIONED, I DO OBJECT TO THIS REZONING.
UM, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
OKAY, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, 51ST STREET MAINOR, SPRINGDALE ARE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND AN A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY.
UM, WE HAVE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL ZONING, UH, MIDBLOCK ON BOTH SPRINGDALE MAINOR AND 51ST STREET.
UM, I ALSO WANT THE FLOODING IS AN INTERESTING ONE.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, WHEN YOU SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE THE STANDARD HERE.
AND, UH, IT'S A STANDARD IN THE CODE AND IT'S A STANDARD WE WOULD, UH, APPLY.
UM, THE LIST, IT, IT, WE, AS I MENTIONED, AND I I THINK THEY ACKNOWLEDGED, UH, THAT WE SAT DOWN, WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST OF COMMERCIAL USES AND WE CAME UP WITH 14 THAT, UH, EVERYBODY FELT LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR FELT LIKE, UH, WOULD BE, COULD BE PERMITTED.
AND, BUT WHEN WE DID THIS, BY THE WAY, WE HAD THE DEFINITIONS, WE WALKED THROUGH THE DEFINITIONS AND THE, THE 14 QUICKLY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS OFFICE AND ART GALLERY, ART WORKSHOP, CONSUMER REPAIR SERVICES.
IF, UH, A SMALL REPAIR LIKE, UH, MIGHT BE, UH, POSSIBLE FINANCIAL SERVICES.
'CAUSE PASTOR WAS THINKING MAYBE HELPING PEOPLE WITH A BANKING TYPE THING.
FOOD SALES, MEDICAL OFFICES, NOT EXCEEDING 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
I THINK THE PASTOR MENTIONED THAT OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, PERSONAL SERVICES, PET SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RESTAURANT LIMITED, UM, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND THEATER.
AND I, I, I WOULD SAY ON THE RESTAURANT LIMITED, ONE REASON, OBVIOUSLY, UH, A LOT OF CONGREGATIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE I GO TO, HAS A KITCHEN, A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND OFTEN THAT IS UNDERUTILIZED AND, UH, HAS CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF HELPING TO OFFSET THE COST OF A KITCHEN IN A, A CHURCH OR A ANOTHER FAITH INSTITUTION.
SO, UM, WITH WITH THAT, WE WOULD ASK AGAIN TO LIMIT US TO THESE PERMITTED, THESE 14 PERMITTED USES.
I THINK THERE'S FIVE CONDITIONAL USES, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY FOR WHAT ANY OF THOSE.
UM, BUT THESE ARE THE FIVE PERMITTED THAT THE PASTOR FEELS LIKE, UM, CLEARLY WOULD WORK AND WE HAD GONE OVER THEM WITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT IS ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS THIS EVENING.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER WHO WANTS TO START US OFF ON QUESTIONS.
ASIDE FROM WHAT MEAL YOU WOULD BE SERVING US, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM STAFF IS WHERE IS THE ACCESS TO THE, UH, PROPERTY IN QUESTION? IS IT 51ST STREET OR PECAN SPRINGS? I I'M ASKING STAFF, UM, WAS IT FOR STAFF OR WAS IT FOR IT'S FOR STAFF? YES.
UM, THERE IS ACCESS BOTH FROM 51ST STREET AND FROM PECAN STRINGS.
AND, AND I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE TOO IS THE, UM, THE ISSUE OF FLOODING.
UM, HOW WOULD THE IMPER THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, IMPACT FLOODING? SO, UM, I'M NOT A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON FLOODING THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.
IF A ZONING IS GRANTED, THE ZONING SETS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH THEN WOULD, UH, COMPLY, UH, THAT THE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH.
UM, I THINK THAT THE HANDY THING THAT I WAS PUTTING TOGETHER IS IT'S CURRENTLY SF THREE,
[00:55:01]
IF YOU LOOK IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT.SO ANY OF THOSE PERCENTAGES FOR ANY OF THESE ZONING CATEGORIES, YOU CAN GET AN IDEA FOR HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.
UM, TODAY THAT'S ABOUT 40,000, 45,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, THE REQUEST IS, UH, FOR ROUGHLY DOUBLE ABOUT 90,000 SQUARE FEET AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, LR IS FOR ABOUT 80,000 SQUARE FEET.
ALRIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
I GUESS, UH, I THINK ONE OF 'EM WAS JUST ANSWERED.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR THE LR, OH, I FORGET THE MP AND W MP 80% ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING GR WHICH IS 90%.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THAT, UH, IS A DIFFERENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO THIS QUESTION, I GUESS IS TO THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ROUGH NUMBERS, BUT THAT, THAT WORKS OUT TO PLUS OR MINUS AN ADDITIONAL 30 PARKING SPACES.
AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 90 IS ABOUT 30 MORE PARKING SPACES, ASSUMING ABOUT 300 SQUARE FEET PER PARKING SPACE.
HOW MANY OF PARKING SPACES ARE Y'ALL PROPOSING TO ADD, MR. WHALEN? I THINK THAT'S FOR YOU.
YEAH, SORRY, IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, ONE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DESIGNED IT COMPLETELY.
YOU PROBABLY AS THE TR AS AS THE EXPERT.
UH, AND THIS WOULD KNOW BETTER ON HOW MANY WE COULD FIT ON.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL WE'VE USED UP TO 45 THOU, YOU KNOW, 45% ALREADY.
SO WE'D ONLY HAVE 45,000 SQUARE FEET LEFT.
UM, IF YOU, IF YOU DID THE MATH AND YOU SAID 10, YOU SAID 30 SPOTS WERE ON THE, UH, WELL THAT'S ABOUT, I MEAN, ASSUMING EACH SPACE IS UNDERNEATH SQUARE FEET AND A LITTLE BIT FOR PARKING AISLES, LET'S SAY 300 SQUARE FEET, PLUS OR MINUS PER PARKING SPACE, THAT A D ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER SORT OF AMOUNTS TO ANOTHER 30 PARKING SPACES.
SO I'M TRYING, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THE CHURCH IS ANTICIPATING NEEDING.
UH, I MEAN THEY REALLY, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A NUMBER YET.
THEY HAVEN'T DESIGNED ANYTHING.
I THEY DO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW YOU SAW THE, THE CHURCH CAN GET PRETTY CROWDED ON, UH, ON SATURDAY AND UM, WITH PARISHIONERS AND THE FOOD PANTRY ALSO HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE.
AND THERE THE PARKING IS GONNA BE INTERESTING 'CAUSE THERE IS A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FOOD PANTRY AND THE CHURCH ITSELF THAT'LL NEED TO BE PAVED WITHOUT PARKING SO THAT THERE'S ABILITY TO MOVE FOOD FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE PAN TO THE PANTRY ACROSS THE WAY.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'LL NEED TO BE SOME, UH, TRAVEL WAYS AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS AS WELL.
UM, BUT I THINK THEIR, THEIR HOPE IS PROBABLY TO GET CLOSE TO, YOU KNOW, 75 TO 90, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL PLACE SPACES ON THERE, ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
KEEPING IN MIND WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED ANYTHING AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH SPACE WILL BE NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE MOVING FOOD FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE FOOD PANTRY.
OF, HAS THE CHURCH INVESTIGATED ANY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT? I MEAN, JUST, UH, I GUESS I, I'VE LOOKED AT KIND OF GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES OF THIS LOT AND PARKING OVER THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, 20 CYCLES OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE NUMBER OF CARS IN THE EXISTING LOT.
AND IN THE BACK FIELD, MAYBE AT WORST CASE, I SAW ABOUT 75 CARS OF FREQUENTLY IT WAS LESS THAN 25 AND I WOULD SAY HALF THE TIME IT WAS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CAR EVER PARKED AT THE CHURCH.
SO I REALIZED THIS DEMAND IS VERY FOCUSED ON, UH, ON THE WEEKEND, ON SUNDAY.
BUT HAS THERE, HAS THE CHURCH INVESTIGATED ANY DEMAND MANAGEMENT LOOKING WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, TDM DISCUSSIONS WITH MOVABILITY AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO, I MEAN, UH, SO LIKE MANY CONGREGATIONS UH, RAISING FUNDS FOR ANYTHING IS A CHALLENGE.
I'M OBVIOUSLY HERE PRO BONO, UH, UH, FOR MY, UM, UH, UH, FRIEND ERIC SHEPHERD, WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR DECADES.
AND IT'S HARD TO GO AND GET TRANSPORTATION, HIRE, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS AND OTHERS, UM, PRIOR TO ACTUALLY HAVING A RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING.
AND I THINK, UH, THEY'RE KIND OF CAUGHT IN THAT POSITION WITH NOW, UM, WITH, WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
[01:00:01]
OFFERING SOME TDM ADVICE, I'M SURE THEY'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT.IT SEEMS LIKE ON USES, THEY'RE VERY MUCH, UH, THE SAME, VERY SIMILAR, UH, BUT IT FEELS LIKE THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCES IS REALLY THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I I WAS, I WAS GONNA DRILL DOWN TO THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE WAS MAKING THAT WE'RE, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND, AND MR. WHALEN TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, BUT THIS IS, IF WE'RE DECIDING BETWEEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WERE A ESSENTIALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT A REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10% IMPERVIOUS COVER UP TO 90%.
IS THERE ANY OTHER CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT IS A, A DELTA BETWEEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING? THERE IS SHAME ON ME.
IT'S THE BUILDING COVERAGE AS WELL, AND I HAD THAT NUMBER, BUT I'M SURE THAT, UM, JONATHAN HAS, IT'S 50, IT'S 50 TO 75%, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT IS THE OTHER THING IS HAVING THE ABILITY TO, AS, AS PASTOR MENTIONED, TO EXPAND, UM, WITH SOME COMMUNITY USES THAT THEY'RE PRETTY SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THEY'VE IDENTIFIED IN TERMS OF THEIR VISION, YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I GUESS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS THOUGH, IS THAT LR SEEMS LIKE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD.
UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE I, I MEAN, IF, IF PARKING IS AN ISSUE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE MORE THAN 50% BUILDING COVERAGE, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER LR.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURED PARKING
UH, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ALL THIS PARKING UP TO POTENTIALLY 90% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT ALL OF, UH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE CITY REGULATIONS ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE MET, AND THAT INCLUDES STORMWATER DETENTION AND POTENTIALLY WATER QUALITY.
AND SO SPACE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE DEDICATED ON SITE TO THAT, SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK UNDERWATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY'S COST PROHIBITIVE AND PROBABLY WON'T WORK ON THIS SITE POTENTIALLY.
UM, SO I, I GUESS MY MINDSET AND MR. WHALEN TRY TO CONVINCE ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THE CHURCH IS THINKING OF DOING, IT FEELS LIKE PRACTICALLY SPEAKING WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE GONNA HAVE TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE, THAT AN 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 50% BUILDING COVERAGE PROBABLY PROVIDES THE BOX THAT Y'ALL NEED TO, TO DO A LOT OF WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT.
HE'S COMING, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT, THAT'S A GOOD STRATEGY FOR RUNNING DOWN THE CLOCK.
COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LOVE YOU.
UM, YES,
UH, I THINK THE REALITY IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW YET, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, LEEWAY, AND THAT PROVIDES 'EM A LITTLE BIT OF THAT ELBOW ROOM TO SEE WHAT WILL WORK, HOW IT WILL FIT.
OBVIOUSLY, PARKING LOT, AS PASTOR MENTIONED, UH, IS THEIR FIRST PRIORITY, BUT IT DOES ALLOW THEM THE LEEWAY TO EXECUTE ON, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER VISION AND SOME OF THE OTHER DREAMS THAT THEY HAVE FOR, UH, THE COMMUNITY AT THAT LOCATION.
KEEPING IN MIND THAT IT'S HIGHLY RESTRICTED TO JUST THESE 14 PERMITTED USES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY THE LR USES, SO, OKAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. TOMKO.
SO, SINCE THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS ANY SERVICE THAT'S ANY SURFACE THAT'S BEING USED FOR PARKING AS IMPERVIOUS COVER 'CAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE SOIL IS IMPACTED BY THE WEIGHT OF CARS, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS AREA IN THE BACK OF THE LOT THAT'S BEING PARKED ON IS ALREADY HAVING AN IMPACT ON STORM WATER RUNOFF AND LOCALIZED FLOODING? UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
I'M, I'M NOT, AGAIN, THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, UH, WITH WATERSHED, UH, THE ZONING STANDARDS THAT, THAT EXIST TODAY ARE SF THREE, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO TODAY.
UM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE FACT OF WHETHER THERE'S ALREADY BEEN AN IMPACT OR NOT.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND WHAT
[01:05:01]
THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THE CHURCH DECIDED TO PAVE THAT PORTION OF THE LOT? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN THE REZONING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY CASE HAS TO GO THROUGH, UM, AFTER THE ZONING IS GRANTED IN THOSE ENTITLEMENTS.SO THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT, UH, WAYS IN WHICH THEY COULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S, IT'S GOT SOME FLEXIBILITY TO IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY ARE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE P PERVIOUS PAVERS, WE CAN'T REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT USE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
UH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS ARE, ARE THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE, THE ZONING THAT'S BEING GRANTED.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED, UH, WITH WHATEVER THEY'RE PROPOSING DURING THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.
UM, BASED ON THE QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED, UH, ANSWERED, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY HAVE A PLAN TODAY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD BE, UM, HOW THAT WOULD FIT AND, AND MEET THE STANDARDS, WHETHER IT'S 80% OR 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
BUT THOSE CURRENT SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED UNDER THE SF THREE ZONING.
EVEN THOUGH THAT IS TECHNICALLY WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PREVIOUS COVER, BASED ON THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING USED, THERE HASN'T BEEN A CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, REPORT ON, UH, LOOKING INTO THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UH, ACCORDING TO THE, THE CASE RECORD, NO.
ALRIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF AS WELL.
UH, I'M CONTRARY TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES MIGHT SAY, I AM THE NEW GUY
UM, AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, UM, COMPLETELY IF WE GO WITH, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS, UH, IS ASKING, THAT BASICALLY KICKS IT DOWN TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SO THAT COULD MEAN THAT ONCE WATERSHED GETS THROUGH 'EM, THEY COULD BE AT 82% OR 75% OR WHEREVER IT MIGHT BE.
THAT'S CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO EVALUATE THAT AND LOOK AT THAT.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LIVES, WHERE THAT EXISTS TODAY RIGHT.
OR WHAT THAT NUMBER MIGHT BE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF COST BEING INCURRED BY EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY.
AND BUT IF WE GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT'S 80%, EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ONCE THEY GOT TO WATERSHED IT COULD HAVE BEEN 85.
THAT'S CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY.
ALRIGHT, MR. ANDERSON, I'D LOVE TO ASK SOMEONE FROM THE CHURCH TO COME UP AND JUST KIND OF TALK US THROUGH KIND OF WHAT ARE YOUR CHALLENGES TODAY? AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU GET STAFF RECOMMENDATION VERSUS WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING WITH YOUR AGENT? YOU KNOW, CAN YOU WALK THROUGH MAYBE JUST THE CHALLENGES OF JUST RUNNING THE CHURCH NOWADAYS AND, AND HOW THIS MIGHT HELP? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SHARE, UH, GRONER PASTOR ALPHA CHURCH.
UM, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES FOR US IS THE UNBECOMING LOT AT THE BACK.
UM, THE WEATHER MAKES IT PRETTY, PRETTY UN UNPACKABLE AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COME, UH, USUALLY ON SATURDAYS, UH, OUR OTHER EVENTS, WHEN THE WEATHER IS BAD, UM, HAVE TO TRUST THROUGH THAT UNEVEN AREA.
UH, I'M, I'M A PASTOR WHO BELIEVES IN EXCELLENCE.
MY CHURCH WILL TELL YOU I, I BELIEVE IN EXCELLENCE AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, UH, THIS BACK LOT IS CURRENTLY EXCELLENT IN SERVING OUR PARISHIONERS, UH, AS WELL AS SERVING OUR COMMUNITIES.
I'M THINKING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO COME, UH, ON A WEEKLY BASIS TO THE FOOD PANTRY, UH, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE, UH, ON THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY AND IN SOME CASES STRATEGICALLY MALIGNED, UH, WHO HAVE TO TRUDGE THROUGH UNEVEN WEAR, PERHAPS DAMAGING CARS.
UH, THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF MINISTRY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO EXECUTE.
AND SO OVERALL, I'M HOPING THAT WITH A FAVORABLE OUTCOME, UH, WE CAN HAVE A PARKING LOT THAT MEETS OUR NEED, THAT MEETS OUR COMMUNITY'S NEED, THAT MEETS OUR CITY'S NEED, BUT ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 80 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS, BEEN IN CHURCH FOR 80 YEARS, UH, BUT BEING A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ME MEETS ALSO BEING A GOOD COMMUNITY MEMBER AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.
OKAY, WE HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.
I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE, UH, MAKE THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE, UH, ZONING CHANGE.
[01:10:01]
OKAY.UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
UH, I, I, I VERY MUCH SUPPORT WHAT THE CHURCH IS, IS WANTING TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST, I I I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT, UM, UH, THE CHURCH IS, IS POTENTIALLY SHOOTING FOR THE MOON AS IT RELATES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING, UM, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY FACTOR IN ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING TO US IS WHAT THEY WANNA DO, I THINK IS, IS EXTREMELY FEASIBLE WITHIN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF LR.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY HOW WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR CITY.
WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR CITY BASED ON WHAT CATEGORY MAKES THE MOST SENSE IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK GR WOULD SET A GOOD PRECEDENT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
LR SEEMS LIKE A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE USE AND, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT RECOGNIZES THAT BY TRIMMING BACK ALL OF THE USES DOWN TO LR AND SO I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 75% BUILDING COVERAGE IS NEEDED FOR WHAT THEY'VE EXPLAINED THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO.
I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT REGRESSIVE BECAUSE OFTENTIMES WHEN WE SEE DEVELOPMENTS WITH 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT'S USUALLY HUGE PARKING LOTS ON REALLY OLD STRIP MALLS.
AND WE'RE DEALING WITH A REDEVELOPMENT WHERE WE'RE SHOOTING FOR SOMETHING WITH LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, AND MORE, MORE BENEFITS.
AND SO, UM, I THINK BY APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE STILL ALLOWING THE APPLICANT AND THE, AND THE CHURCH TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN THE FUTURE, UM, WITHOUT LETTING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER SETBACKS, THAT SORT OF THING, GET, GET IN THEIR WAY, WHICH IS WHY SUPPORT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS OR WHAT THE STAFF IS PROPOSING.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE WITH, UH, APPLICANT REQUEST FOR ITEMS 12 AND 13.
SO YOU A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? I WOULD, I WOULD.
UM, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SEARCH COMING DOWN HERE TODAY, AND I WANT THEM TO SHOOT FOR THE MOON.
AND I, I THINK COMMISSIONER HANEY HAD A REALLY GOOD POINT OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAXING THESE THINGS OUT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH TO SUCCEED AND TO CONTINUE SUCCEEDING.
UM, WE HEARD FROM OUR DEMOGRAPHER LAST NIGHT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES IN AUSTIN'S DEMOGRAPHY RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S A CHURCH HOLDING ON AND THERE'S A CHURCH THAT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, DOING AMAZING THINGS 80 YEARS IN.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I'VE FOUGHT FOR A PARKING LOT ONE TIME ON THIS COMMISSION,
THAT BEING SAID, I, I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT DISPLACEMENT IS DOING AND THE COST OF LIVING.
AND MY GUESS IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE STILL A PART OF THIS CHURCH THAT DO NOW HAVE TO COMMUTE IN AND CULTURAL DISPLACEMENT IS REAL AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD DISPLACEMENT AND PEOPLE GETTING DISPLACED.
AND I DON'T WANT TO PLAY A ROLE IN DISPLACING THIS CHURCH OR ANYONE FROM ATTENDING THIS CHURCH.
AND SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN SUPPORT WHAT THE CHURCH IS REQUESTING.
COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, UH, YES.
YEAH, I THINK THAT, UH, I GUESS I'LL ECHO OF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S COMMENTS.
I, I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING, UH, 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS NEEDING FOR PARKING THAT IS, IS JUST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SIT, SIT WELL WITH ME.
AND I DON'T WANNA DIVE INTO THE WEEDS LIKE ENGINEERS CAN, BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO NOT LOOK AT THE SITE AND LOOK AT THE FRONT PARKING LOT AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND ASK MYSELF, WHY IS THE DRIVE AISLE IN THAT PARKING LOT ALMOST 40 FEET WIDE? LIKE, I'M ALREADY TRYING TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE TO GET MORE SPACES ON THE PAVEMENT THEY HAVE BEFORE WE PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL 10% BEYOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK FOR THIS MOTION.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST CONVERSATION AND IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BETWEEN, UM, THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE PIECE.
AND I REALLY HAVE TO SAY WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY THEIR CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BELONGS MID-BLOCK OR NOT, BUT
[01:15:01]
WITH THOSE SORT OF AMENDED USES THAT THE APPLICANT IS OPEN TO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS WITHIN MID-BLOCK.WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR.
THIS IS 51ST STREET AND SORT OF THE WORK, AND IT DOES HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH OF THESE STREETS.
SO THERE IS THAT PRECEDENT OF DOING IT.
AND INDEED YOU CAN SEE THAT PRECEDENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME CORRIDOR, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, MIDBLOCK OR OTHERWISE.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE HERE, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MINIMIZE THE IMPACT AND REALLY PROVIDE THE APPLICANT SORT OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY NEED.
BUT WE, WE ARE OFTEN REALLY LOOKING AT ZONING CASES COMING FROM LARGE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT BODIES WHO ARE COMING IN AND HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF RESOURCES.
AND I THINK HERE AS SOMETIMES WE DO SEE, WE HAVE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, SMALL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS A FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATION HERE COMING BEFORE US AND ASKING FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY SO THAT THEY CAN SERVE THEIR PARISHIONERS SO THAT THEY CAN SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, THROUGH EXPANDING THEIR CONGREGATION AND WHETHER THAT REQUIRES PARKING OR WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM.
AND I TRULY BELIEVE PROVIDING THEM WITH THE FLEXIBILITY HERE ALLOWS THEM TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR COMMUNITY.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD, WE WOULD USE ZONING TO INHIBIT THAT SORT OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENGAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT THAT A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO.
SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOUR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY.
UM, FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ON, I WANNA CLARIFY THIS.
THE ADDRESS IS 30 16 EAST 51ST STREET.
IT IS, UH, DIFFERENT ADDRESS IN THE AGENDA.
IT'S CORRECT IN THE BACKUP THOUGH.
AND LOOKS LIKE TWO AGAINST THOSE WOULD BE COMMERS, COX, AND SKIDMORE CHAIR.
MAYBE FOR STAFF, WOULD THAT MEAL THAT PASTOR GRONER OFFERED BE CONSIDERED LOBBYING
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
[Items 19 & 20]
ON TO ITEMS. WE'LL TAKE UP 19 AND 20 TOGETHER.UM, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. PONTY.
AND REMEMBER, WE HEARD THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE, UM, POSTPONED.
UM, STAFF DID NOT AMEND THE PROPOSAL DUE TO THE SHORT TIMELINE OF THE BUFFER, SO WE DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION FOR UPDATE.
UM, I DID WANNA SHARE, UM, THAT WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING.
SO THE TIMELINE OVERALL HAS CHANGED, OBVIOUSLY DUE TO THE POSTPONEMENT THAT OCCURRED AT THE LAST MEETING.
SO WE ARE HERE TODAY AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING ON ZOOM ON OCTOBER 28TH.
UM, IT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR UP WEBSITE.
UM, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 24TH.
WE'RE POSTPONING TO A LATER DATE AT TOMORROW'S COUNCIL MEETING.
UM, LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? MS. GARCIA? YES.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER.
UM, OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ANGELA GARZA.
ANGELA WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
ANGELA, PLEASE, PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD.
UM, I JUST REALLY WANNA GIVE A QUICK UPDATE.
UM, WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH GOOD FRIENDS, UM, UH, MR. LAWLER OF, UH, NATASHA'S TEAM ABOUT THIS SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS MORE.
WE HAD A MEETING WITH OUR, OUR CONTACT TEAM AS WELL, UM, TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THESE, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENTS AND TO, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BE LIKE SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND
[01:20:01]
EXACTLY THE, THE REASONING THEY'RE DOING IT.UH, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE IN A LOT OF INFORMATION.
IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE WERE DOING.
UH, AND SO WE, UM, BASICALLY WHAT WE FIGURED OUT IS THAT I THINK ONLY A THOUSAND PEOPLE, UM, MAYBE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY THIS 'CAUSE WE'RE ALL, EVERYBODY'S WORKING ON TRYING TO NOTIFY PEOPLE BETTER ABOUT THESE CHANGES IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND I ALSO WANNA READ SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM OUR LAWYER.
I ALSO WANNA THANK ERIC BIRD AND I, I FORGET THE LADY'S NAME IN A, IN A TEAM, BUT THEY WERE ALL VERY GRACIOUS TO MEET WITH US, UM, TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
UM, BUT I DO WANNA, UM, GET SOME THOUGHTS.
AND THIS CAME, I'M NOT A LAWYER.
UM, IT SAYS HERE THAT, THAT THESE CHANGES WILL NOT YIELD THE INTENDED RESULTS AND COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT HARM.
UM, HERE'S A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE KEY ISSUES AND WHY WE SHOULD OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL.
EXCESSIVE DEVELOPER FLEXIBILITY AND LACK OF OVERSIGHT.
IT SAYS, UM, THE PBAT COMBINING DISTRICT SECTION C 20 2024 17 ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO MODIFY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHT AND BORDER RATIO, AREA RATIO FAR, BUT WITHOUT THEIR RESTRICTIONS OR CHECKS.
THESE MODIFICATIONS GIVE DEVELOPERS FAR TOO MUCH CONTROL OVER WHAT CAN BE BUILT, CREATING A DANGEROUS LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY THAT COULD PRIORITIZE PROFIT OVER COMMUNITY NEEDS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND INDUSTRIALS AND GRANTS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT DOESN'T SET PARAMETERS FOR ENFORCEMENT.
AND I KNOW THAT WE WERE TALKING TO MR. LAWLER ABOUT FLOORS, HIM INCREASING FLOORS.
DEVELOPERS COULD EXPLOIT THESE PROVISIONS TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS AFTER RISK SAVING APPROVAL OF LEAVING NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO OVER DEVELOPMENT.
THE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS IN THE DB TWO 40 ZONE ARE MINIMAL.
AND WHEN COMPARED TO THE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS IT OFFERS, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLY 10 TO 15% OF UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT INCREASED GRANTED UP TO 240 FEET.
THIS IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SCALE OF THE INCENTIVES LEAVING A GAP BETWEEN WHAT DEVELOPERS GAIN AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY RECEIVES.
THERE'S ALSO AN OPTION FOR FEE AND LIE, WHICH MEANS DEVELOPERS CAN PAY A FEE INSTEAD OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THIS WEAKENS THE IMPACT ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ACTUAL AFFORDABLE UNITS BEING DEVELOPED, PARTICULARLY IN HIGH RISK DISPLACEMENT AREAS LIKE DISTRICT 1, 2 3.
UM, THE CDC AND EPA HIGHLIGHT THE HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATE WERE LIVING NEAR HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING INCREASED RISK OF ASTHMA, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES.
SECTION EIGHT OF AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, THE DBT, UH, THE DBT 4 2 40 AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONES, WHICH ARE NEAR MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES.
THIS INTRODUCES SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS, PARTICULARLY FOR LOW INCOME AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT WILL BE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT GUIDELINES OR STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS, LEAVING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AT A HIGHER RISK OF EXPOSURE TO AIR POLLUTION AND RELATED TO HEALTHY, UM, HEALTH CONCERNS.
ALSO, AIRSPACE RIGHTS AND LOOPHOLES.
DEV DEVELOPERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SELL OR LEASE AIRSPACE RIGHTS, GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO ALTER APPROVED PROJECTS WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT.
THIS INTRODUCES SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY AS DEVELOPERS COULD SPLIT PROPERTIES OR SELL AIRSPACE AFTER GAINING APPROVAL, RESULTING IN PROJECTS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
BUT WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED ONCE APPROVED, THESE AMENDMENTS COULD LEAD TO A SERIOUS, A SERIES OF CHANGES THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE CONTROL OVER CREATING LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PRIORITIZE FINANCIAL GAIN OVER LONG-TERM COMMUNITY WELLBEING.
ALSO, THE DISTRICT'S MOST AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL, DISTRICT 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR ARE ALREADY AT HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
THESE AREAS HAVE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND A DB TWO 40 PROVISIONS ENCOURAGED THE KIND OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT COULD INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES AND RENT AND THE LONG-TERM RESIDENTS OUT.
UM, AM I, DO YOU STILL HAVE TIME? HELLO? YES.
UM, AND THEN SO WE COMMUNITY SAFEGUARD, BUT I DO WANNA SPEAK TO ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH MR. LAWLER.
HE'S, WHO'S BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WITH US AS WELL.
AND I CAN SEND Y'ALL A COPY OF THIS SO THAT Y'ALL CAN HAVE THIS FOR YOUR RECORDS SO YOU CAN REVIEW THIS.
THIS CAME FROM A LAND DEVELOPMENT CO LAWYER TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER AS WELL AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND WE COULD ACTUALLY ADD BENEFITS ON MR. LO LOLA, UM, UH, DIRECTION AS WELL.
AND I'M SO SORRY TO HAVE TO SPEAK SO FAST ON THIS, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, LET'S VOTE TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
[01:25:02]
SO, AND I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S TIME FOR THIS QUESTION BEFORE I'M SORRY.GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION AND THEN, OKAY.
THE, UM, THE EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM ANDREW RIVERA, UM, THAT TALKED ABOUT PROPER NOTICING, IS THAT THE TIME TO ASK ABOUT THIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE, UM, THE FOLKS WERE PROPERLY NOTICED ABOUT REGARDING THE POSTPONEMENT.
SO LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OKAY.
AND THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.
OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND THEN SECOND, UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY.
UH, I'LL
OKAY, MS. GARZA, CAN YOU PLEASE GO ON MUTE? UM, OKAY.
SO THE MOTION WAS, UH, TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY.
UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES.
FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PHYS.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WE ALL GOT A COPY OF THE EMAIL FROM ANDREW RIVERA, UM, TALKING ABOUT WHEN THERE'S A POST POSTPONEMENT THAT THE, THE, THE, UH, RE-NOTICE HAS TO BE DONE BY DATE AND TIME.
AND IN THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT, HE HAD ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAD HAPPENED.
AND AS OF THE EMAILS THAT I'VE RECEIVED, I'VE NOT SEEN IT ANSWERED.
SO I'M KIND OF ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS REPOSTED ACCORDING TO THE CODE THAT HE HAD.
HE CITES IN THE EMAIL BY DATE AND BY TIME THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE EVENING COMMISSIONERS CHAIR, STEVIE GREATHOUSE, UM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKING UP ALAN PAN THIS EVENING.
ON THIS ITEM, UM, THIS ITEM, WE DID SEND OUT PUBLISHED NOTICE AND NOTICE TO THE COMMUNITY REGISTRY AS IS REQUIRED FOR A CODE AMENDMENT, UM, THAT IS AMENDING THE CODE AND NOT AMENDING PROPERTY SPECIFIC ZONING, UM, REGULATIONS.
THIS WORK IS A, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE TWO NEW PAPER DISTRICTS.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS, WE DID POSTPONE TO A DATE AND TIME CERTAIN, UM, AT THIS BODY LAST TIME.
AND THERE WAS ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, EXPLICITLY TO POSTPONE TO THIS EVENING.
I ACTUALLY WENT AND, UM, WATCHED THROUGH ALL OF Y'ALL'S DELIBERATIONS AND ACTIONS EARLIER TODAY.
UM, AND THAT, UH, SATISFIED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN TERMS OF COUNSEL, WE ACTUALLY ARE CURRENTLY POSTED, UM, TO BE HEARD AT COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, UM, WITH A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, UM, THAT IS MOVING FORWARD AS A MEMO AND BACKUP TO COUNCIL TO POSTPONE TO A DATE AND TIME CERTAIN.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE WITHIN BOUNDS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF POSTPONEMENT.
THERE ARE LIMITS AROUND NUMBER OF DAYS.
UM, THERE MAY BE A, A DESIRE FROM THIS BODY TO ASK LAW FOR SOME SPECIFIC FEEDBACK, BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PLANNING STAFF PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE ANSWER IS YES, THE ANSWER IS YES.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? DID I SEE YOUR HAND? OKAY, CHAIR COHEN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST WANTED TO THROW SOMETHING OUT FROM A BOA PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I GET HAMMERED ON IT ALL THE TIME IF I MISS IT.
I, I THINK WHAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO IS MAYBE MORE RULES AND PROCEDURES, UH, OF, OF, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAN ACTUAL, UH, WHAT WAS DONE.
THE POSTING IN THE BACK OF HAD A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE, BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEING REFERRED TO IS WHEN WE VOTE, OR SORRY, WHEN Y'ALL VOTE HERE, I DON'T GET ONE OF THOSE, UH, THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY VOTING FOR A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME THAT'S BEEN VERBALIZED.
I THINK TRADITIONALLY WHAT, WHAT THE PC HAS DONE IS JUST GIVEN A DATE, BUT NOT A SPECIFIC TIME.
AND I KNOW THAT'S REALLY, REALLY NITPICKY, BUT LEGALLY SPEAKING, MAYBE IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL OF IN THE FUTURE, I GUESS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AM AM I CORRECT IN THAT? NO, MS. HANS, IS THAT A LEGAL QUESTION? MAYBE? ARE YOU SAYING ANY FUTURE POST? WE DON'T SAY TIME AND A DATE.
WE WOULD SAY THE DATE, BUT WE NEVER SAY LIKE, LIKE 6:00 PM 6:00 PM OR 7:00 PM YEAH.
I'M NO LAWYER, BUT I HAVE, THE STANDARD PRACTICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO POSTPONE TO A DATE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TIME IS THE START TIME FOR THE MEETING.
WHY CAN'T WE GET AWAY WITH THAT?
[01:30:01]
MY FAVORITE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE LEGAL ONLINEWE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK IF WE REALLY WANT LAW TO COME ON.
CLARIFICATION MAYBE, OR, OKAY.
CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
SORRY, THIS IS JUST A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I HAD TO STEP AWAY FOR A MINUTE.
UM, AND I THINK I MISSED THE JUICY PART.
ARE WE POSTPONE, ARE WE DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENT OF ITEMS 19 AND 20 RIGHT NOW? WE WERE, UM, NOT DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT, JUST MORE OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF WHAT A POSTPONEMENT IS.
SO HOW, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW? WE CLOSED A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IS THAT JUST ON ITEMS 19 AND 20? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DID WE HEAR FROM STAFF? THAT'S THE PART I MISSED.
SO WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAD A COM UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS USED HER TIME FOR A QUESTION REGARDING, UH, NOTICE AND, UH, STARTED TO GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONEMENT.
I I MISSED THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION.
I CAME RIGHT AFTER RIGHT WHEN WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, IT JUST SEEMED THAT WAS REALLY BRIEF.
ITEM 19 AND 20, UM, STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
I JUST WANNA KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE END UP VOTING ON SOMETHING, WHAT I'M VOTING ON.
UH, STEPH DIDN'T UPDATE THE PROPOSAL DUE TO THE SHORTENED TIMELINE.
WE DID PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE GENERAL TIMELINE OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS POSTPONEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT.
WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL, UH, PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 28TH ON MONDAY AT 6:00 PM UH, WE ARE STILL SCHEDULED TO GO TO COUNCIL ON THURSDAY THE 24TH, BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED A MEMO FOR POSTPONEMENT TO THE FOLLOWING, UH, COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 7TH.
I ALSO RECEIVED WORD BACK FROM LAW AND WAS TOLD THAT MS. GREATHOUSE ANSWERED CORRECTLY AND THAT A PC POSTPONEMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING IS TO 6:00 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
POINT, POINT OF THERE'S ALSO A, A ZOOM PUBLIC MEETING ON OCTOBER 28TH.
OH, I THINK WE'RE JUST TALKING IN GENERAL ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS AND WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF IT BEING A 6:00 PM YES.
BUT THAT WAS THE OTHER ITEM THAT STAFF PRESENTED FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AND THAT WAS TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S QUESTION.
SO I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED NOW.
I, IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? 'CAUSE I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
UM, WE'RE JUST TALKING IN GENERAL ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSION OF A POSTPONE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I ASSUME WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THESE AMENDMENTS ON 19 AND 20.
WE HAVE THE BASE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT WE CAN YES.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES, AND I'LL JUST DO A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING FIRST.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I AM PLAYING UNSUCCESSFULLY THE COMM, THE ROLE OF COMMISSIONER ARE.
SO IF YOU SEE MY NAME ALL OVER THE PLACE, I REALLY APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE BECAUSE I'M NOT AS GOOD AT THIS AS HE IS, AND I WILL PROBABLY FAIL MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR FORGIVENESS IN ADVANCE.
UM, UH, BUT I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT I DID SHARE A WOR A WORKSHEET RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE, UM, DB TWO 40.
AND I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE.
THAT'S WHY IT'S TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. ALL OF THESE PRIMARILY P PERTAIN TO THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS, UM, OR ORDINANCE.
UM, I THINK THERE'S MAYBE ONE OR TWO THAT MAY END UP BEING RELATED TO THE PDA TWO, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE FOCUS HERE IS ON THE DENSITY BONUS AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, THAT'S WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON.
AND THERE ARE JUST ONE OTHER NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS IN HERE, BUT WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD BE SORT OF CONSIDERED AND LOOKED AT, UM, BY STAFF.
SO PROBABLY MOST OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY GENERAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT STAFF COULD PULL FROM.
SO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS, WHILE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE EXACT LANGUAGE THEY'RE EXPECTING TO SEE WHEN THIS ORDINANCE GOES TO THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL.
SO THAT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME HOUSEKEEPING AND GENERAL OVERVIEW.
AND I'M HAPPY TO START ON THE AMENDMENTS AND, OR WE CAN HAVE IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
UM, ARE WE GONNA TAKE THESE UP AT 19, DISPOSE OF IT, 20
[01:35:01]
DISPOSE OF IT? ARE WE DOING BOTH OF THEM TO GET, WHAT, WHAT'S OUR PROCESS HERE? UM, YES, LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR AND GO THAT ROUTE.SO WE'LL START WITH NUMBER 19, 19 DISPOSE OF IT, AND THEN 20 AND OH.
CAN I JUST SEE IF, IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO OUR, UH, NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING? YOU MAY.
SO THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE TO SEPTEMBER, SORRY, NOVEMBER 12TH.
YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UH, IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
WE, WE JUST HEARD FROM STAFF THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT AT COUNCIL.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT, THAT THEIR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS IS STILL ONGOING.
AND SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF NICE TO BE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, UH, BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS PLAYED OUT, WHAT SORT OF FEEDBACK THEY GOT AND, AND MAKE AN EDUCATED RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I, I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF A POSTPONEMENT, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, STAFF SAID THAT THEY ARE POSTPONING TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH COUNCIL MEETING, SO IF WE POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 12TH, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN.
AND THAT WOULD JUST PUSH THE WHOLE TIMELINE EVEN FURTHER BACK.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF NEEDS A WEEK
WE'RE GETTING YOU FOUR TO SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS TO DO THIS SO THAT WE CAN FIND TIME FOR US TO HEAR IT.
AND THEN A COUNCIL MEETING WHO KNOW WHAT A WEEK, TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT.
I'D RATHER JUST DISPOSE OF IT NOW.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE A WHILE AND, UH, WE CAN, WE CAN WEIGH IN NOW AND, AND LET COUNSEL HAVE A FEW WEEKS TO CONSIDER IT BEFORE THEIR NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING.
COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR THE POSTPONEMENT COMMISSIONER HAY.
UM, I, LET ME, I, THE ONLY THE REASON THAT I VOTED OR, UH, AGREED TO THE POSTPONEMENT IS I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE.
AND, AND, AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AT OUR LAST MEETING SWAYED ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT SOME PENDING ONES, SO WE DO NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION ON IT.
BUT THE ONE THING THAT JUST MAKES ME QUEASY IS THAT, UM, AND, AND, AND LET ME GIVE THE SHOUT OUT TO MR. UH, PAN PONTY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, HE DID GO, DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES BASED ON SOME OF THE INPUT, BUT DID GO OUT AND, AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND SO I, I APPRECIATE, I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THAT, I APPRECIATE STAFF DOING THAT.
BUT, BUT NOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS AND IT'S GONNA FAST.
UH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING.
WHAT IF WE GET THE MAGICAL SOLUTION FROM THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN? SURE.
COUNSEL CAN WEIGH IN AND THAT'S WHO ULTIMATELY MAKES THE DECISION ANYWAY, BUT IT, IT JUST MAKES ME NERVOUS THAT WE'RE GONNA DO IT.
WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
SO NO, SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, I WOULD, I DO GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I THINK.
UM, BUT WE HAVE, I I HAVE SPENT SOME TIME TODAY LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS AND, AND LOOKING THROUGH PAST, UM, YOU KNOW, WORK THAT THE CITY HAS DONE AND, AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF MY CONCERNS.
AND SO WHILE I DO, I, I PLAN ON ATTENDING THE PUBLIC MEETING, UM, AND LISTENING TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY.
AND I, I JUST HOPE THAT COUNSEL WILL TAKE THOSE THOUGHTS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION.
LAST SPOT FOUR, THE POSTPONEMENT OR AGAINST.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS TO POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 12TH.
THREE THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR AMENDMENTS, UM, AS WAS SENT TO US.
SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU WANNA LEAD THE CONVERSATION ON THE AMENDMENTS? YES.
AND I CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION PLEASE HERE? YES.
UM, WE HAVE MADE A BASE MOTION ON 19, CORRECT?
[01:40:01]
THAT'S CORRECT.I WAS, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
I, I THINK WE JUST CLARIFY THAT, JUDGE, WE DECIDED AFTER THE FACT TO, TO ONLY TAKE UP 19, SEPARATE FROM 20.
SO WE WOULD MIGHT WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE BASE MOTION IS FOR ITEM 19 ONLY, CORRECT? YES.
I THINK I ALSO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I, I REALIZE THAT SOME AMENDMENTS WERE SENT, UH, THIS EVENING.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPER AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 19.
I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.
SO THE ONLY ITEM THAT I THINK, AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS GONNA DEFER TO COMMISSIONER BAREZ, IS THAT, UM, ITEM 11 IS REGARDING THE, UM, INDUSTRIAL SITES, WHICH IS WHAT, WHAT THE, UH, ITEM 19 SPEAKS TO, MORE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL, THE ONGOING PDA TWO CASES.
SO I WOULD JUST DEFER TO HER IF SHE'D LIKE TO ADD THAT AS A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THIS ITEM.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM 11 IS THE ONLY ONE SPECIFIC TO ITEM 19? YES, AS FAR AS I CAN.
AND I, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST CONFIRM THAT WITH SHE'S, I, NO, I THINK, UM, ITEM 11 IS REALLY ABOUT THE LOSS OF OKAY.
SO, UM, SO IT IT IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL AS IT SHIFTS TO RESIDENTIAL.
AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, ITEM 19 IS JUST FOR RETAINING, UH, INDUSTRIAL.
SO THEN, YES, WE HAVE NO AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ITEM 19.
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS ON ITEM 19 FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
MADAM CHAIR, I, I SHARED TWO YOU YESTERDAY.
I I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY GOT DISTRIBUTED.
I DON'T KNOW MS. GARCIA DID I IT WAS GETTING DISTRIBUTED.
I WAS WAITING TO HEAR BACK IF WE GOT WORD, IF THEY WERE WITHIN THE INTERIM RULES, BUT I WILL SEND THOSE OUT RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANT TO SET UP YOUR AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE EMAILED OUT? UM, FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR ITEM 19? SURE.
I BROKE MINE DOWN INTO ITEM 19 AND TWO.
UM, UH, ON, UM, ON ITEM 19, THE POINT OF PRIVILEGE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? NO
UM, ON, UH, BROKE MINE DOWN INTO AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 20 OR 19 AND ITEM 20, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM 19.
I'M GONNA TALK EVEN SLOWER THAN I NORMALLY DO, WHICH IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO DO, OR PROBABLY VERY HARD FOR Y'ALL TO LISTEN TO.
UH, IT'S NOT GONNA SURPRISE ANYBODY.
MOST OF MY, UH, NOT MOST OF MY, ALL OF MY AMENDMENTS, UM, ARE FOCUSED ON, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND SO, UM, I CAN, I CAN READ 'EM, BUT I CAN WAIT UNTIL IT'S PROBABLY BETTER FOR, UH, I MEAN, EITHER WAY, IF YOU WANT ME TO READ 'EM, I'LL, I'LL ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO DO SO.
UM, I DID IT OFF OF THE, LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE.
'CAUSE I OPENED BOTH OF 'EM UP.
UM, AND, AND SO ON THE PDA TWO, UM, IF YOU'LL GO TO PAGE TWO, LINE 32, AND AFTER THE TWO ON, ON THAT LINE, UH, THE F YOU WOULD, UH, I'M PROPOSING TO ADD THE FOLLOWING AND I WILL ADMIT TO YOU THAT I HAD TO WRITE IT IN THE NEGATIVE BECAUSE IT'S THE, THE ORIGINAL DRAFT MOTION FROM STAFF IS WRITTEN IN THE NEGATIVE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ASK ABOUT THAT ONE.
SO, UH, IT'S WRITTEN IN THE NEGATIVE.
UM, UH, SO I'M BASICALLY ADDING ANOTHER, ANOTHER TWO, A THREE, AND THEN RENUMBERING ACCORDINGLY.
UM, AND NUMBER TWO WOULD READ COMMUNITY BENEFIT OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, EXCEPT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL UNITS, INCLUDING AT LEAST 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS AT 50, MF 50% MFI AND A NEW NUMBER THREE WOULD READ A FEE IN LIEU PAID FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, BUILT, OH, I SAID BUILD BUILT ON SITE EXCEPT FOR THE TOTAL FEE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 125% OF THE TOTAL DUE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS CALCULATIONS.
[01:45:05]
SO THAT'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT'S, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY.UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO READ NUMBER TWO? LET'S, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, UH, OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT MAKER.
UM, COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA.
AND I'M SORRY I'M HAVING TO GO OFF CAMERA.
I JUST NEED TO STAND, I'M HAVING SOME BACK ISSUES.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ASK, THIS IS A QUESTION OF STAFF TO CLARIFY FOR ITEM NUMBER 19.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HOUSING IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE OR MARKETED, LIKE NO HOUSING IS ALLOWED IN STAFF.
RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOT ALLOWED, UM, AS PART OF PDA TWO OR THE BASE ZONES THAT WOULD BE APPLYING FOR PDA TWO.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I GUESS THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS YOU, WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO BE ALLOW, LIKE WOULD RESIDENTIAL THEN BECOME AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE PDA TWO CATEGORY UNDER AN UNDER ITEM 19 IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS INCLUDED AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, IF, UM, WHAT I TRIED TO DO IS BASE IT OFF THE WORKING DRAFT AND, AND IT'S IN B ONE IS, EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IT.
SO IT IS SAYING, IT IT, IT SEEMS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES IN B ONE AND THEN SAYS EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND GOES DOWN.
BUT IF RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED, WHY WOULD WE INCLUDE THEN WHY WOULD, WHY IS B ONE INCLUDED? UM, NOT THAT I'M ANSWERING FOR STAFF.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD ANSWER FOR STAFF.
BUT THE WAY I READ IT, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT IN THIS PD TWO COMBINING DISTRICT, YOU CAN MODIFY OTHER USES, BUT RESIDENTIAL USES CANNOT BE MODIFIED.
IE SINCE THE BASE DISTRICTS DO NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, YOU CANNOT MODIFY TO ADD THEM IN.
AGAIN, I DEFER TO STAFF SINCE IT IS THEIR ITEM, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ESSENTIALLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
COMMISSIONER, UH, AS I UH, WORDED IT CORRECTLY, RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MODIFIED OR MADE CONDITIONAL INTO OR OUT OF OR ANYTHING BECAUSE YEAH, THE BASE ZONES DON'T ALLOW IT AND IT CANNOT BE ADDED.
SECOND, ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL USE.
CAN COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION 'CAUSE I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT ALSO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ITEM 19 DEALS WITH.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE PDA TWO ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY ALONG, WHICH IS THE CONTINUED USE OF PDA FOR SPECIFIC CASES RELATED TO COMMERCIAL AND CURRENT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO CURRENTLY UNDER PDAS YOU CAN MODIFY YOUR USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THAT NEW PDA TWO WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SAME STUFF EXCEPT FOR ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE ADDED OR MODIFIED.
SO INDUSTRIAL ZONES, UH, THAT WANT TO ADD OTHER COMMERCIAL AND MODIFY THEIR INDUSTRIAL ZONE OR USES WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO DO SO AND CHANGE SOME OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
BUT AGAIN, NO RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE INVOLVED.
I WITHDRAW MY FIRST AMENDMENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO INTO THE SECOND? YES.
MY SECOND ONE IS STILL APPLICABLE.
UM, BECAUSE IT, IT DEALS WITH, UM, THERE WAS A KIND OF A STAFF BACK AND FORTH THIS WEEK, UH, CITY STAFF, UM, UH, BACK AND FORTH AND TALKING ABOUT THE, THE REASON AND, AND I WILL ADMIT, I'M, I'M I FAVOR, THE REASON IS, UH, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE ALL THE PDA AMENDMENTS, UH, OR APPLICATIONS COME IN.
AND, UM, I AM, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
AND, AND WHAT I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD DO IS JUST SAY NO MORE PDAS UNTIL WE GET THE DENSITY BONUS, UH, REPORT AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS REPORT AND ALL THOSE I I I UNDERSTAND ARE COMING SOMETIME IN 25.
SO WE'RE GONNA PASS THIS TONIGHT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GET THE REPORT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA AMEND THIS SOMETIME.
BUT ANYWAY, UM, SO MY SECOND AMENDMENT, UH, IS ON LINE TWO, UH, PAGE TWO, LINE 56, UM, ADDING A NEW D AND IT READS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PART, AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO A PENDING ZONING OR A REZONING APPLICATION TO LA TO ADD, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA PDA BUT NOT, NOT YET DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL UTILIZE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA TWO PDA TWO
[01:50:01]
COMBINING DISTRICT INSTEAD OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA.IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS, UM, STEM THE TIDE, STOP THE FLOW, UH, AS SOON AS COUNSEL PASSES THAT, UM, ANY APPLICATION THAT'S IN THE DOOR AS OF THAT DATE.
'CAUSE WE CAN'T RETROACTIVELY GO BACK.
WE'LL GET SUED ON THAT ONE FOR SURE, BUT NO MORE APPLICATIONS COULD GO FORWARD UNDER THE OLD PDA AND THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO GO FORWARD UNDER THE NEW PDA TWO.
THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY INTENT AND IF LEGAL DOESN'T THINK I DID IT CORRECTLY, UM, HAPPY TO WORDSMITH.
ALRIGHT, UM, LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR, UH, QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES ON THIS ONE.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, I TELL ME IF I NEED TO HOLD OFF ON THIS, BUT I ACTUALLY WANT TO GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S PREVIOUS AMENDMENT BEFORE HE COMPLETELY GIVES UP ON IT.
HE'S ALREADY WITHDRAWN THAT ONE.
CAN I, CAN I ASK STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING? SO, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL LET'S STICK TO THIS ONE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ON ABOUT PDA TWO VERSUS PDA.
AND THEN IF YOU WANTED TO OFFER UP AN AMENDMENT THAT IS RELATED TO THE ONE THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES WITHDREW, YOU CAN DO THAT.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SECOND AMENDMENT? NO.
UM, VICE CHAIR ZA MINE MIGHT, MIGHT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
THEN I'LL ASK A QUESTION, WHICH IS, I I THINK ONCE WE'VE DISPOSED OFF THIS AMENDMENT SINCE IT WE ARE IN DISCUSSION, UH, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, IF WE CAN GO OUT OF ORDER FOR OUR REGULAR RULES AND ALLOW COMMISSIONER COX TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX, OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY IF YOU NEEDED TO COME BACK AND MAKE A MOTION.
UM, THAT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
AND I HAD A QUESTION HOW I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT BE EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I COMPLETELY, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE AND I I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE LAW OR IF IT WOULD BE OTHER STAFF THAT CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
I GUESS WHERE I'M GETTING STUCK IS SINCE PD EIGHT TWO IS A NEW CATEGORY AND SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY TO THE NEW CATEGORY SINCE IT'S NOT BEING MAPPED, I GUESS IS THE IDEA BEHIND THE AMENDMENT THAT IF SOMEBODY IS IN AN, IS IN AN, IS IN AN EXISTING PDA ZONING CASE, THAT CASE WOULD BE PAUSED AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PDA TWO APPLICATION.
MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, COMMISSIONER ZA IS NO, WE, WE CAN'T, WELL, CITY OF AUSTIN HAS TRIED TO DO THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, GET SUED AND LOSES THOSE CASE CASES HAND OVER FIST.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO SAY, BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THE, THE MINUTE THIS PASSES, COUNSEL THIS, UM, THIS ORDINANCE PASSES COUNSEL THAT CLOSES THE DOOR ON ANY APPLICATIONS, UH, NOT FINAL, NOT NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.
AND, AND THEN, AND THEN SO IT SETS THE UNIVERSE, SO ONLY THOSE PDAS THAT ARE IN THE DOOR UNDER THE OLD, UNDER THE EXISTING RULES.
AND SO WHEN THIS PASSES, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO GO THROUGH PDA TWO.
UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, LIMITS THE UNIVERSE, LIMITS THE, MY WORD DAMAGE THAT PDA IS AL ALREADY CAUSED.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I THINK THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND IT.
AND I GUESS, UM, WHEN YOU SAY SORT OF IN THE PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE SAYING ANYONE WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY, IF A PDA ZONING APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED, THAT'S IN THE PROCESS, WHATEVER STATUS IT MIGHT BE IN THE OVERALL PROCESS AFTER BEING FILED, BUT ESSENTIALLY IF SOMEONE HAS NOT FILED, THEY WOULD IN THE FUTURE NOT BE ABLE TO FILE FOR IT.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY? THAT'S TRUE WITH THE, WITH THE, THE, UM, THE, THE WORDS I USED AND, AND I DO THIS OFF OF MY, MY STATE, I, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY DOES THE SAME THING.
WE WOULD, WE'VE GOT SOME, UH, DSD FOLKS HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU FILE A PERMIT AT THE STATE, YOU'VE GOT KIND OF TWO STEPS.
YOU'VE GOT ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, UM, IF, IF THE PERMIT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, IF IT'S, IF THERE'S A FEE THAT HADN'T BEEN PAID, IF THERE'S A FILING DEADLINE THAT HADN'T PASSED, THOSE ARE NOT FILED AS ACCORDING TO THE OLD RULES, THOSE ARE DONE AND THEY FALL UNDER THE NEW PD TWO.
AND I GUESS I'LL ASK THE, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO ASK OF STAFF TO SEE IF STAFF,
[01:55:01]
DO Y'ALL HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS AMENDMENT 'CAUSE OR IS THIS ALREADY, I BELIEVE WHAT THE INTENTION WAS, UM, WELL, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.THERE IS LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, LINE, PART FOUR, LINE 42 THAT I THINK GETS TO THE SAME INTENT THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS TRYING TO GET TO THAT, UH, IT INDICATES KIND OF IN THAT LAST SENTENCE, FOR THIS REASON, THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATIONS TO ADD PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA COMBINING DISTRICT AFTER PDA TWO IS ADOPTED.
SO I THINK IT, IT, THE, THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE IS THE SAME THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT NO NEW APPLICATIONS AS SOON AS THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, AND I'M TRYING TO BACK IT UP BY JUSTICE SCO TO SAY, UH, IF THERE'S BEEN A FILED ONE, BUT IT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMPLETE, IT'S ALSO OUT OF THE UNIVERSE.
I, MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION, I GUESS FOR ZONING OR DST, BUT I MEAN, AN APPLICATION ISN'T CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION UNTIL IT'S BEEN PROCESSED OR, YOU KNOW, FEES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR AN APPLICATION.
SO YES, I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TO THE SAME POINT.
SO IT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION UNLESS IT IS A COMPLETE APPLICATION, I GUESS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THANK YOU STAFF.
I FEEL LIKE, UH, MS. GREENHOUSE, YOU MIGHT WANNA SAY SOMETHING.
YEAH, I SEE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE CORNER.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, AND I THINK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LLOYD WAS UP HERE ABOUT TO KIND OF ANSWER OUR EXISTING PROCESS QUESTION, BUT I THINK WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS IF WE COULD HAVE, WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, UM, IF WE COULD HAVE THE DIRECTION BE TO WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND SEE HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT INTENT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
SINCE THIS IS NOT YET A MOTION THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IF, IF DESIRED AS PART OF THE MOTION.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ON THIS AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THIS INTO A MOTION? I WOULD, UH, HAVE YES THERE IN BOTH WORD AND PF.
SO, UM, WHAT I WOULD THEN SAY IS, UM, MICROPHONE, I THOUGHT I'D HIT IT.
SORRY, I MUST HAVE TURNED IT OFF.
WHAT I WOULD SAY THEN IS, UM, UH, EXCEPT FOR THE, THE NEW D WOULD READ, UM, DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH LEGAL, UH, AND ENSURE AN APPLICATION SO IS, AND I SEE MS. GREY HOUSE SHAKING HER HEAD AFFIRMATIVELY.
SO THAT WOULD BE, SO IT, THE NEW AMENDMENT WOULD SAY, DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH LEGAL TO ENSURE AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT DA DA DA DA.
IS THERE A SECOND COMM VICE CHAIR? I'M GOING AHEAD AND SECONDING IT.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYES, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AMENDMENT? I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST? I SPEAKING FOR, YES.
I THINK I'LL SPEAK BRIEFLY AGAINST ONLY BECAUSE I GET HONESTLY REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE TRYING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ORDINANCE LANGUAGE HERE AT THE LAST MINUTE.
AND SOMETIMES I THINK THAT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS MAY HAVE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF CREATING CONFLICTING LANGUAGE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, IF THE TERM ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE MEANS SOMETHING IN THE CITY PROCESS.
BUT I KNOW THAT THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED BY STAFF, UH, UNDER PART FOUR.
A SAYS, NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATIONS TO ADD PDA.
SO LIKE I KNOW WE'RE ALREADY ACHIEVING THIS GOAL, I'M AFRAID BY PLACING NEW LANGUAGE HERE AND THEN, OR EVEN IF WE HAVE LEGAL TO REVIEW IT, WE'RE JUST UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATING IT.
WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA ACCEPT THE PDA ONCE THIS ORDINANCE PASSES COUNSEL.
SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
ANYONE SPEAKING FOR VICE CHAIR? UM, CHAIR, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I COMPLETELY HEAR YOU AND IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONER HAYNES WAS COMING FROM SORT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
UM, AND SINCE WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY TAKE IT TO STAFF, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE, AS I'M, YOU KNOW, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AND SECONDING THIS MOTION, I HOPE STAFF CAN CONSIDER IF THIS, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE ALREADY COVERS
[02:00:01]
IT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WHATEVER WE'RE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO.IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WAS ALWAYS THE INTENTION OF STAFF.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M COMING FROM TO JUST SORT OF DOUBLE DOWN AND TO AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS IS THE COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S, UH, AMENDMENT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 AND AGAINST COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
THAT MOTION OR THAT AMENDMENT PASSES, UM, 12 TO ONE.
LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS.
AND UM, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA ASK YOUR QUESTION REGARDING COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S FIRST AMENDMENT? NO, I, I, UH, I WAS CONFUSING MYSELF SINCE THE STAFF BACKUP COMBINES THE PDA TWO AND DB TWO 40.
OTHER AMENDMENTS ON PDA TWO? SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION.
THAT WAS COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AS AMENDED WITH THAT A MOTION OR THAT AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST VOTED ON.
UM, BELIEVE WE STILL HAVE SPEAKING SPOTS FOR AND AGAINST ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM NUMBER 19 AS AMENDED.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 9 11.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO DB TWO 40.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 20 AND, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON? DO WE CLO WE PO WE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ON 19 AND 20.
UM, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO AMENDMENTS AND COMMISSIONER BARR, RAMEZ, ARE YOU LEANING? THOSE ARE COMMISSIONER, I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE THE BASE MOTION.
YES, WHICH IS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UM, MOVE STAFF, UH, THE STAFF PROPOSAL, UM, AS AMENDED BY CGOC AND I THINK WE SAW THAT PROPOSAL THE LAST TIME.
SO, AND ESSENTIALLY ENCOURAGES, THERE'S JUST TWO MINOR CHANGES.
SO THE BASE MOTION WOULD BE STAFF PROPOSAL AS AMENDED BY THE JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED.
AND MR. MAXWELL, ARE YOU TAKING THE LEAD ON THAT? OKAY.
MADAM CHAIR I'VE GOT, UM, BUT THE, THE, UH, CODES AND ORDINANCES, ANY CHANGES? Y'ALL MEANT THEY'RE ALREADY INCLUDED IN WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? UM, NO, I DID NOT.
SINCE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT THE LAST TIME, I DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE, AS THE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE WE'D ALREADY DISCUSSED THEM.
WE COULD PULL THOSE OUT AND MAKE THEM AS SEPARATE AMENDMENTS.
BUT I JUST WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THE BASIS AS THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES 'CAUSE THAT WAS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME.
SO, BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED IN WHAT WE HAVE FROM STAFF BACKUP.
UH, I, I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY MADE ANY CHANGE.
OFFICIAL CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCES.
SO WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR, WILL YOU JUST TELL US WHICH ONES FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES ARE COMING FORWARD? I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME.
THE, THE BASE MOTION, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOWN IN THE SLIDES AT THE LAST, AT OUR LAST PRESENT AT OUR PRESENTATION LAST TIME THAT OUTLINED WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY C-O-G-O-C.
I DON'T, STAFF CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE TAKING AS THE BASE.
SO THOSE ARE NOT AMENDMENTS ON OUR AMENDMENT WORKSHEET.
AND SO THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM COGC WAS REMOVING THE 10 FOOT STEP BACK AT 90 FEET OF HEIGHT THAT WE HAD.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS CHANGING, UH, THE EMPLOYEE RECREATION USE FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL, WHICH WE DIDN'T INCLUDE.
AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST ONE WAS ABOUT POSTING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO BE DISCUSSED, WHICH THANKS.
SO, UM, IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO AMENDMENTS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE, UM, AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONES WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST TIME.
AND ESSENTIALLY THIS IS JUST A STAFF DIRECTION TO GO AHEAD AND PRIORITIZE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS DISCUSSED IN TB TWO 40, WHICH WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THERE.
UM, I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WANTED TO SEE THESE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS BE
[02:05:01]
OUTLINED AND SORT OF PRIORITIZED, PARTICULARLY AS WE DO HAVE PD 8 2 2 40 OR SHOULD SAY DB TWO 40 CASES COMING FORWARD, THAT WE BOTH UNDERSTAND HOW THE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WOULD BE, UM, CALIBRATED AS WELL AS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN COMMUNITY BENEFITS.COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, IF I CAN, UM, I'M A LITTLE RUSTY ON THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, BUT THIS IS ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW.
UM, SINCE WE HAVE 11 TO GO THROUGH, WHY DON'T YOU READ THEM OUT? WE'LL SEE IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.
OTHERWISE IT WILL REMAIN ON, UH, WE'LL CONSIDER IT CONSENT MOVING FORWARD.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? THAT IS AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION.
SO IF WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT NUMBER ONE, THE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PULL THAT ONE FOR DISCUSSION? I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE.
UH, AND THAT IS, IS THERE A TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, LIKE, UH, A PERIOD OF TIME? YEAH.
UM, YES, AND, AND WE, WE DIDN'T OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT WE ARE TOLD LAST TIME AT OUR PRESENTATION THAT IT MIGHT BE AS LATE AS NEXT FALL BY THE TIME WE WOULD GET THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS CUT SORT OF CALIBRATED AND OUTLINED.
AND THIS IS SORT OF ASKING FOR THAT PROCESS TO BE SPED UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
SO I DIDN'T WANNA BE, BUT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE, WE COULD PULL IT AND ADD IN A TIMELINE.
I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, PLEASE.
UM, REGARDING NUMBER TWO, UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST, UM, IN INSERTING A GROUND, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT.
UM, I'M GONNA BE, JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT, SOME OF THESE WERE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME WERE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS INCLUDED HERE IS ACTUALLY FROM OUR, UM, DB 90.
AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT ALLOWS US TO ENSURE THAT AS WE BUILD IN THESE NEW UNITS, THAT THEY ARE BOTH COMMERCIAL AND UM, HOUSING AND THAT THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS.
SO THAT IS ACTUALLY, AND AS WE'VE SEEN WITH OUR, OUR DB 90 CASES, IN THE MOST, MOST CASES WE END UP USING HAVING COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS THE HOUSING, WHICH IS SORT OF THE DEFAULTS.
BUT THEN IF THERE'S A REASON TO ONLY HAVE RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS TO MAKE THAT AN OPTION.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, I'D, I'D LIKE TO PULL THAT ONE.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE.
UM, THIS ONE ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, PER THE SIZE OF THE, UM, THESE PDAS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT LARGER IN SIZE THAN WE GENERALLY SEE WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER COX HAS THOUGHTS ABOUT OUR PDAS, BUT PART OF THE REASON WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS ONE IS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THAT, UM, WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS MIGHT HAPPEN.
AND AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT JUST ENCOURAGING STAFF TO LOOK AT THESE SITES AND HOW WE MIGHT MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMERCIAL IS BOTH, UM, NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY ON THE LARGEST STREET, BUT ALSO MAYBE IN ONE OF THE INTERNAL OR NON-PRINCIPAL SEAT STREETS.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CONTEXT SPECIFIC.
DOES ANYONE WANT TO PUT THIS, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE WE ALMOST HAVE TO PULL THAT BECAUSE WE PULLED THE LAST ONE, BUT I, I, I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THOSE TOGETHER WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT.
UH, AMENDMENTS NUMBER TWO AND THREE.
I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE A BIG THING.
UM, THIS IS, UH, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AS YOU ALL PROBABLY NOTICED IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DB TWO 40, UM, MAPS, A LOT OF THESE ARE ALONG HIGHWAYS AND WHATNOT.
AND THE IDEA WAS BASICALLY JUST, AGAIN, THINKING OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
HOW CAN WE SUPPORT, UM, ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MOVES US BEYOND CAR CENTRIC DESIGN? SO ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE TO INCENTIVIZE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE ELEMENTS.
UM, AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN FROM THE, UM, DB ETA THAT WE PASSED IN MAY AND ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS US TO SORT OF ENHANCE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, UM, IN EXCHANGE FOR, UH, SAY SOMETHING LIKE AN ELECTRIC BUS CHARGING STATION OR ADDITIONAL, UM, LIKE ELECTRIC BIKES, THINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO ESSENTIALLY THAT THOSE THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF COMMUN COMMUNITY BENEFIT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN PDAS AND THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE THAT SPECIFICALLY.
AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS MEANT TO BE A GUIDELINE, NOT SOMETHING SPEC SPECIFIC, BUT THE HOPE THAT STAFF WOULD TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND ACTUALLY CRAFT IT TO WORK FOR THE PDAS.
ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS ONE? MR. HAYNES? OKAY, DANIEL.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER FIVE.
UH, THESE I THINK WE ALSO DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS HOW WE CAN BASICALLY INCLUDE BETTER STREET LEVEL I, UM, ENTITLEMENTS, UM, RELATED TO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF GREAT STREETS IN DOWNTOWN OR THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY EXAMPLES IN, IN CAMPUS WEST CAMPUS, ESSENTIALLY, UM, ENSURING THAT ON OUR LOWER LEVEL STREETS, AGAIN, AWAY
[02:10:01]
FROM THESE MORE THE HIGHWAYS THAT, THAT THESE MIGHT POP UP ON, THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING ADDITIONAL SEAT STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.AND AGAIN, THAT IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE'D LIKE TO SEE ULTIMATELY INCLUDED IN DB TWO 40 CASES.
I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS WANTING TO PULL THAT ONE.
SO THAT ONE WILL MOVE FORWARD.
ITEM SIX, UM, RELATED TO, AGAIN, THE STREETSCAPES AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WE HAD SEEN THAT WE HAD A RECOMMENDATION FROM.
UM, BASICALLY THIS CONCEPT CAME UP IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, WHICH IS WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER SITE THAT YOU WOULD CREATE SOMETHING CALLED INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES.
AND THE DDD DDAS, WHICH IS, UM, DENSITY, SORRY, LEMME GET THIS RIGHT.
AND THE IDEA BEING THAT RATHER THAN HAVING SEVERAL LARGE BUILDINGS ON ONE SITE, THAT WE WOULD ALSO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS PERMEABILITY AND SORT OF ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE SITE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THESE TYPES OF REGULATIONS.
AGAIN, WE TOOK THE IDEA FROM THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WE WOULD ASK THAT STAFF LOOK AT THAT AND THEN CONSIDER HOW THEY COULD BUILD IT INTO THESE DB TWO 40, LARGER DB TWO 40 SITES.
ANYONE WISH TO PULL THAT ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ONE.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS AN ALSO AN ITEM RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT, AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH STAFF THE LAST TIME, THAT THE CALIBRATION OF THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE WAS ACTUALLY PUT, UM, THAT THAT WORK MOVES FORWARD ONCE THE CITYWIDE RECALIBRATION HAS THE MEMO HAS BEEN RELEASED AND THOSE CHANGES MOVE FORWARD.
AND THAT THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR THIS WOULD BE ALSO THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BE CONSIDERED IN THE, IS AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SORT OF, UH, CALIBRATION.
SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING BOTH AT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS WELL AS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR DB TWO 40 CASES.
SINCE THAT'S A LITTLE, THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS PDAS OR FORMER PDA CASES AND CLOSER TO A PUD, THEN WE WOULD SAY SAVE THAT A DB 90 DENSITY BONUS IS, SO JUST ASKING THEM TO BE CONTEXT SPECIFIC WHEN THEY DO THE CALIBRATION.
I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS ON THAT ONE.
SO THAT ONE WE PART OF THE BASE AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS ALSO GOT DISCUSSED WHEN WE DID THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHY WE HAD PICKED A SPECIFIC, UM, CODES THAT WERE, OR I SHOULD SAY, BASE ZONES THAT WERE USED FOR THE DB 4 2 40.
UH, I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY EXPANDING IT TO ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL AND OR OTHER, UM, S HIGHER USE AND THAT THAT WOULD ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THESE TYPES OF NEW D DB 2 240.
SO, UM, IT'S NOT PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF AN EXPANSION, IT WAS JUST A, A REQUEST TO REVISIT THAT AND LOOK AT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, OTHER ADDITIONAL BASED ZONES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ADDED IN AS PART OF THE NEW DB 202 40 ORDINANCE.
ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER NINE.
AND I DO, I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO, UM, AMENDMENTS FIVE AND SIX THAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL OUTLINED IN THAT, UM, THEY'RE ABOUT SUBCHAPTER E STANDARDS, WHICH, UM, GENERALLY, UH, MANY OF THESE SITES ARE IN WHAT WE, WHAT'S CATEGORIZED AS SUBURBAN ROADWAYS.
UM, AND SO MY AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THAT SUB CHAPTER, E CORE TRAN SUB CHAPTER E WOULD APPLY CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO THE SITES SEEKING REZONING SUCH THAT REQUIREMENTS FOR RELATIONSHIP TO BUILDING CONNECTIVITY, ET CETERA, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ARE MET.
SO SOME, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STREET FRONTAGE THAT WAS IN, UM, ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION, UH, DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN SUB CHAPTER E.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF ONE'S BETTER THAN THE OTHER OR IF WE HAVE, UM, PREFERENCES AS A COMMISSION.
ANYONE WISH TO PULL? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE THAT ONE FORWARD.
OKAY, THIS ONE I HAVE NO LANGUAGE ON, BUT THIS IS JUST MY CONCERN AS A MOM, YOU KNOW, UM, MIXING RESIDENTIAL WITH INDUSTRIAL AND LOOKING AT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE BY RIGHT PERMITTED IN LYL ONE ZONING.
SO THINGS LIKE STOCKYARDS AND RECYCLING, DROP OFF PICKUP, UM, AND MINERAL EXTRACTION ARE PERMITTED BY, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE NEXT TO MINERAL EXTRACTION.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS A WAY TO IN, YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE RESIDENCES IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF MITIGATING THING THAT WE COULD DO.
AND I JUST, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW TO WRITE THAT IN AND I'M JUST EXPRESSING MY CONCERN WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PULL
[02:15:01]
THAT ONE SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT.UM, AND THEN NUMBER 11 IS, UM, AND I HAVE A LINK HERE TO THE PRESENTATIONS FROM NOVEMBER OF 2021.
NO, IT WAS ABOUT, UH, 2020 FROM NOVEMBER OF 2020 FROM MR. WALTERS.
AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS IN OUR, IN OUR CITY AND THE IMPACTS TO JOB CREATION AND THE TYPES OF JOBS THAT WE'RE LOSING DUE TO LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL SITES.
AND SO, UM, DUE TO THAT IMPACT, I, MY RECOMMENDATION HERE IS TO HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS POTENTIALLY LOST AND, UM, I FOUND THE AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN, WHICH IS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO I WAS THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE A WAY IN WHICH WE COULD, UM, KIND OF BRIDGE THAT GAP BETWEEN POTENTIAL JOBS, LOSS OF JOBS.
ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS? OKAY.
OKAY, THAT IS THE END OF OUR AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS BARRA RAMIREZ AND MAXWELL.
WONDERING IF WE SHOULD, LET'S DISCUSS THESE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND THEN COME BACK AND PICK YOURS UP AS WELL.
UM, SO WHAT I HAVE THAT WILL JOIN OUR BASE MOTION SO FAR ARE ITEMS NUMBER 5, 6, 7, 8, AND NINE.
AND WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION WITH, UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THIS IS THE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40 AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UM, WANTED TO PULL THIS ONE.
SO LET'S START WITH QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF.
SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER ABOUT, BECAUSE WE TALKED, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW, UM, IT WON'T COME BACK UNTIL FALL AND THAT'S A PRETTY LONG TIME, REALLY LONG TIME.
AND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIZING IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE.
SO I'M REALLY OPEN TO A RECOMMENDATION OF THE TIMEFRAME WE COULD PRIORITIZE FOR THIS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ABSOLUTELY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I THINK THE ONLY REASON WE HAD NOT PUT IN SOMETHING MORE DEFINITIVE WAS TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO STAFF, BUT IF WE WANTED TO SAY A DATE OF, I GUESS LIKE MARCH OF NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE RECALIBRATION MEMO WILL BE RELEASED IN DECEMBER FROM STAFF, AND THAT THEN THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH ACTUALLY DOING THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND THEN BE ABLE TO BRING FORWARD THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT.
SO IF, IF MARCH I THINK IS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE, THAT'S, LET'S DO IT.
SO THEN I'M GONNA MAKE A, UM, SORT OF, I GUESS AN AMENDMENT, UH, AN ADDITION OR AN EDIT THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS, UM, AS PART OF THE ONGOING DENSITY BONUS, RE PRIORITIZATION, CODIFICATION OF THE DB TWO 40 COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS OUTLINED IN THE NEWS BY MARCH OF 2025.
I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GET, I DON'T WANNA GET NOTICE
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE TO PUT IN SPECIFIC DATES FOR THESE TYPES OF AMENDMENTS, BUT IF LEGAL SAYS WE DO, I'LL, WE CAN ADJUST THAT.
AND WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON OUR CALENDAR FOR NEXT YEAR YET.
THAT WILL BE AT OUR NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT FIRST AMENDMENT? OKAY.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SO THAT WE CAN CLOSE OUT EACH ONE.
SO THIS IS, UM, DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAS BEEN EDITED, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT? UM, SO LET'S MAKE IT OFFICIAL.
SO, UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WOULD BE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40, AND THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT SUGGESTION IS AS PART OF THE ONGOING DENSITY BONUS, RECALIBRATION, PRIORITIZING THE CODIFICATION OF DB TWO 40 COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS OUTLINED IN THE INITIAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION BY MARCH OF 2025.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS OFF THE DAIS.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.
THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU ABLE TO COME BACK ON? MAYBE WE COME BACK TO ITEMS TWO AND THREE.
WE'LL MOVE, WE'LL JUMP TO NUMBER FOUR.
THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
THIS IS THE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION
[02:20:01]
MAKER OR, OR THE AMENDMENT PROPOSER OR STAFF? SURE.THE, UM, AND, AND WE'LL SAY UPFRONT.
UM, I AM A FAN OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND, AND I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR BRINGING SO, UH, SO MANY OF THESE FORWARD.
UH, THE REASON I PULLED THIS AND ASKED FOR IT IS I DON'T WANT TO PIT COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, WHAT I WOULD RATHER DO IS PUT SOME MARKET INCENTIVES IN HERE AND SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE BENEFITS THAT GET YOU EXTRA HIGH, EXTRA FAR, WHATEVER WE WANT.
AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS GET YOU EXTRA HIGH AND EXTRA FAR AND WHATEVER WE WANT.
BUT DON'T PIT THE TWO AGAINST EACH OTHER AND SAY, COMMUNITY BENEFITS SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSING OR HOUSING SUBSTITUTES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS BRINGING YOU THIS BECAUSE, UM, AS I MENTIONED, I WE JUST TOOK THIS FROM THE DB 90, OR SORRY, SORRY, TDBE TODD LANGUAGE, WHICH IS, AS YOU CAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DETAILED INFORMATION THERE, IT ACTUALLY DOES OUTLINE HOW MUCH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS REDUCED.
AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD.
UM, IF YOU PREFER THAT WE STRIKE THIS OR MAKE IT SAY SOMETHING SO THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IN INTRODUCE A REDUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S FINE.
I THINK I WAS USING IT AGAIN, MORE AS A GUIDELINE AND SORT OF A WAY A, A SET OF SUGGESTIONS.
UM, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU.
UH, I'M, IF, IF, IF WE CAN STRUCTURE TO WHERE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS DON'T REDUCE AFFORDABLE, I AM, I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THIS, BUT THE, IT'S THE SAME REASON I VOTED AGAINST E TODD
UM, I, I THINK THAT THAT'S A FAIR POINT AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THESE SITES ARE LARGER, SO YOU WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO BOTH.
SO REALLY THERE SHOULDN'T BE THE SAME TRADE OFFS AS YOU WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE WITH THE DBE E TODD.
SO I THINK THAT POTENTIALLY WHAT WE COULD JUST ADD IN HERE IS A NOTE TO STAFF OR DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SAY THAT BOTH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED THROUGH THE USE OF TRANSIT SUPPORTED, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE, IF THAT SOUNDS.
AND EVEN USING MARKET, MARKET-BASED INCENTIVES.
SO LET'S MAKE THAT AN OFFICIAL MOTION.
UH, SO, UH, THE, THE AMENDMENT FOUR FOR THE DV TWO 40, UH, ORDINANCE WOULD BE DIRECT STAFF TO SUPPORT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS CONSIDERING BOTH COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT MARKET RATE INCENTIVES.
SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
ANY, UM, QUESTIONS? ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? EIGHT.
I DID JUST WANT TO TAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, SKIPPING THE TWO I, BUT HOLD, SORRY I HAD TO STEP OVER.
UM, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN TAKE NUMBER TWO AND THREE TOGETHER.
UM, SINCE THEY'RE RELATED, LET'S START WITH THAT.
AND IF WE NEED TO GO BACK AND SPLIT THEM, WE CAN DO THAT.
SO, UM, THIS IS A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT PROPOSER OR STAFF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IF YOU WANNA JUMP IN.
SO, UH, QUESTION FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER.
UM, JUST LOOKING AT THE TEXT YOU REFERENCED, WE, THIS TALKS ABOUT 75% OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING.
I I THOUGHT WE HAD MODIFIED DB 90 SO THAT IT'S NOW 75% OF THE FRONTAGE OR MAYBE EVEN LESS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTED TO KEEP THE SORT OF WAIVER PROVISION, SO MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU USE THE OLDER LANGUAGE, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, WHAT WAS YOUR THINKING IN, IN THIS? ARE YOU REALLY WANTING 75% OF THE ACTUAL FLOOR AREA OF EACH BUILDING TO BE COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR? NO, AND THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT.
I WAS ACTUALLY, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE REFERENCING DOCUMENTS FROM THE MUNI CODE, THAT'S WHERE I TOOK IT FROM.
SO IF IT'S IN, I MAY HAVE NOT COPIED THE SAME INFORMATION, THERE'S MIGHT NOT HAVE CODIFIED THAT CHANGE YET.
SO IT'S, AND AND YES, TO YOUR POINT, THE REASON I TOOK THAT WHOLE SECTION IS BECAUSE THE WAIVER PART IS INCLUDED IN THAT SECTION.
UM, I DO THINK THAT TO YOUR POINT, ACTUALLY TWO AND THREE ARE SORT OF CLOSELY RELATED, BUT I DO WOULD ALSO AGAIN SAY THAT THIS IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE PER SE.
IT'S MORE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO LOOK AT THESE TYPES OF PROVISIONS TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD BEST UTILIZE COMMERCIAL IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
[02:25:02]
SORRY, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES.UM, AND I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT OUR, OUR PROCESS NOW.
IF WE WANTED TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE OR, OR MODIFY THE AMENDMENTS IN ANY WAY, BUT I JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THAT OR, OR ARE WE WAITING FOR OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THE WAY THAT WE'VE SET UP OUR PROCESS ACTUALLY HELPS ALLEVIATE SOME OF THIS.
WHAT DO WE DO? IT'S NOT YET A MOTION.
SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT CHANGES TO THE TEXT THAT THEN WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION WOULD INCORPORATE.
UM, I THINK WE'RE ALL A LITTLE RUSTY ON THIS AFTER THE SPRING.
UM, YEAH, I MEAN I I I THINK I'M JUST NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE GETTING EVEN THIS PRESCRIPTIVE WITH, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITES THAT ARE MOSTLY ON THE FRINGE OF TOWN THAT ARE ENORMOUS SITES THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S 75% OF GROUND FLOOR OR FRONT.
I MEAN, WHAT FRONTAGE ARE WE, YOU KNOW, THE FRONTAGE MIGHT BE A MILE LONG ON SOME OF THESE SITES.
FRONTAGE MIGHT BE A LITTLE FLAG ON A SEVERAL DOZEN OR A HUNDRED ACRE SITE.
SO, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE I THINK WITH A VERY GENERAL DIRECTION TO STAFF TO JUST, YOU KNOW, EXPLORE ADDING, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS OR ENCOURAGE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T WANT TO EVEN GET AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS TO SAY REQUIRE IT
WELL, AND, AND I GUESS THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THEN.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S TWO, SORRY.
UM, THAT THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS.
ONE IS ACTUALLY INCLUDING A GOING FOR REQUIREMENT AND THEN THE SECOND IS SORT OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, I DO THINK THAT THOSE ARE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS WHAT I PUT IN HERE WITH THE DB 90, THAT AGAIN, AS I SAID WAS JUST SAMPLE TEXT FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT.
BUT I THINK THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF IF WE ARE REQUIRING GROUND FLOOR RETAIL WITH OF SOME SORT OF WAIVER PROCESS FOR DB TWO 40 CASES.
AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT I WAS INTENDING TO MAKE, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON ITEM NUMBER TWO.
ITEM NUMBER THREE I THINK SPEAKS MORE TO THE WHERE AND WHAT DO WE PUT IN THAT COMMERCIAL RETAIL.
AND I WOULD PREFER IF WE CONSIDER THOSE SEPARATELY HONESTLY.
YEAH, SEP SEPARATELY IS FINE THEN I THINK.
'CAUSE I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE A LITTLE MORE DIFFERENT THAN THEY SEEM 'EM AT FIRST GLANCE.
I'M, I I'LL PROBABLY OFFER A SUBSTITUTE 'CAUSE I THINK WE DO DISAGREE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD REQUIRE IT OR NOT.
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS MOTION AT ALL? OFFER A SUBSTITUTE? SHOULD I JUST MAKE A MOTION? UM, HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT FOR NUMBER TWO SPECIFICALLY? UM, WELL, I, I I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN JUST DO A SUBSTITUTE.
SO, UM, THE, THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO FOR DB TWO 40 WOULD BE THE G GROUND FOUR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING SUCH A REQUIREMENT AS PART OF DB TWO 40, UM, THE DENSITY BONUS AND OFFERING A WAIVER SIMILAR TO THE LANGUAGE USED IN DB TWO NINE IN DB 90, UM, IN THE DENSITY BONUS 90 ORDINANCE, IF THAT COVERS IT.
SECOND, SORRY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST ONE ONE AMENDMENT THOUGH? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU, YOU SAY IN A DB 90 COM COMBINING DISC PROBABLY SHOULD BE A DB TWO 40 COMBINING, OH NO, THE LANGUAGE WAS TO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD BASE THE WAIVER PROCESS ON, ON WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN DB 90.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THIS ONE? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF, WELL, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE.
UM, YEAH, SO THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE TO DIRECT STAFF TO, UM, EXPLORE THE CREATION OF STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE, UH, STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS, UM, THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL USES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ACTUAL USES THEMSELVES.
JUST THINKING THAT, WELL, THAT'S THE MOTION
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I I JUST, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WE CREATE THIS TOOL TO INCENTIVIZE DENSITY AND, AND THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FAR-FLUNG SORT OF LESS DENSE AREAS OF THE CITY MOSTLY.
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME OF THE, UH, DISTRICTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS TOOL ARE MORE CENTRAL, UM, BUT IN PLACES THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A MARKET TO SUPPORT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL AND MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE THAT MARKET ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IN QUESTION TAKES PLACE.
AND SO I WOULD RATHER HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT I, WE ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS TO GO THAT HAVE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL, FOR INSTANCE, OR, OR OTHER USES THAT AREN'T THAT SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE ACTIVATION, UM,
[02:30:01]
BUT ARE PHYSICALLY DESIGNED AND BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE FUTURE.SO THAT IF SOMEBODY REALIZES THERE'S A MARKET FOR A COFFEE SHOP OR A STORE OR RESTAURANTS OR WHATEVER, THEY CAN PUT ONE IN WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING, THEY COULD SIMPLY CHANGE THE USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
BUT WE WOULDN'T BE ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPERS TO BUILD VACANT RETAIL SPACES NOW, UM, THAT THEY COULDN'T USE FOR OTHER USES LIKE RESIDENCES.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS? I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
COULD I JUST ASK A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION? I HAVE DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE THE CREATION OF STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES.
AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO END THAT IN SOME WAY.
WELL, I THINK, I THINK IT WAS THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES, UM, WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT USE SPECIFICALLY.
SO ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER USES WITHIN THOSE SPACES WITHOUT REQUIRING THE USE TO BE WITH THE INTENT.
ARE YOU SAYING WITHOUT REQUIRING THE USE TO BE ACTIVATED? I THINK, I'M SORRY.
STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE THE DESIGN OF GROUND FLOORS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USE WITHOUT REQUIRING THE COMMERCIAL USE ITSELF.
SO THAT IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING IN THIS DISTRICT, IT HAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE GROUND FLOOR RETAILER COMMERCIAL, BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE FORCED TO USE THAT SPACE FOR ONLY COMMERCIAL.
ON THE INTENT, WOULD YOU MIND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I'M SORRY, JUST RESTATING THE MOTION IN ITS FINAL FORM.
THE LAST ONE WAS THE MOST ELOQUENT, SORRY.
UM, DIRECT STAFF TO, UH, CREATE STANDARDS FOR THE DB TWO 40 COMBINING DISTRICT THAT, UM, REQUIRE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH OR ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL, UM, USES BUT DO NOT REQUIRE THE USES THEMSELVES.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THAT? MAYBE COMMISSIONER WOODS, YOU REPEAT THAT SINCE YOU'VE GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN? I DON'T SURE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LANG.
I JUST HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER.
UM, BEFORE COMMISSIONER HANEY STEALS IT FROM ME, UH, THE NEW GUY, COURSE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, EXPLAINED THIS TO ME.
WE'RE GONNA BUILD A TALL BUILDING OUT ON ED BLUESTEIN OR WAY UP ON SIX 20 AND FAR FLUNG REACHES.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
BUT THEN YOU'RE GONNA SAY THAT THE GROUND FLOOR, WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT UNTIL THE PEOPLE MOVE IN WHERE WE NEED A RESTAURANT OR A COFFEE SHOP OR A WHATEVER, YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW SOMEBODY TO MOVE IN A RESIDENCE OR A HELP ME OUT.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH YOU? ALMOST.
THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE BUILDINGS CREATED UNDER DEVELOPMENTS CREATED UNDER THIS DISTRICT TO HAVE GROUND FLOORS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY DESIGNED AND BUILT IN A WAY THAT THEY COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT USE ITSELF.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE REQUIRE A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE, IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, IF YOU'RE THE LANDLORD OR THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AND YOU CAN'T FIND A COMMERCIAL TENANT, IT JUST HAS TO SIT EMPTY.
UH, YOU CAN'T ALLOW SOMEONE TO LIVE IN THERE.
I MEAN, THERE'S LIVE WORK AND THERE ARE KIND OF WORKAROUNDS THAT PEOPLE DO, BUT I WOULD RATHER WE START TO BE EXPLICIT AND SAY, LOOK, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE SPACE IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOULD THE MARKET ARISE TO SUPPORT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL, WE CAN CONVERT IT WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD AN ENTIRELY NEW BUILDING OR TEAR IT DOWN OR DO HUGELY COST PROHIBITIVE AMOUNTS OF WORK TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
IT'S JUST SORT OF THINKING AHEAD FOR THAT FUTURE INSTEAD OF FIVE OR 10 OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW, BUT 20 OR 30 OR 40 YEARS IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, SOME OF THESE AREAS WILL BE DENSER AND HAVE MORE OF A CUSTOMER BASE TO SUPPORT THOSE USES, UH, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE TODAY.
DID THAT HELP COMMISSIONER HAYES
THIS IS A, A, A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UH, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, AND I I COMPLETELY GET THE INTENT OF IT.
I GUESS THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE NEED TO HAVE 14 FOOT HIGH CEILINGS AND ESSENTIALLY CREATE, IT'S MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SORT OF GROUND FLOOR DESIGN STANDARDS, THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND, AND YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, SOME OF THE COMMON ONES THAT I'VE SEEN IN MY WORK IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN HIGHER CEILING HEIGHTS, UM, LARGER MECHANICAL AND, AND OTHER UTILITY CHASES TO SUPPORT VENTILATION AND PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL, UM, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
[02:35:01]
FLOOR SLABS DEPENDING ON THE CONSTRUCTION TYPE, YOU KNOW, SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT, UM, TACTICS THAT STAFF MIGHT EXPLORE AND CONSIDER INCLUDING.UM, THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST DIRECTION TO STAFF TO, TO LOOK INTO THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS, DO YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE MAYBE I, I'M, I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS NOT TYPING AS QUICKLY AS I WANTED TO BE, BUT WHAT I HAVE IS DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE STANDARDS FOR THE DV TWO 40 COMBINING DISTRICT THAT REQUIRE THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE OR COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES TO ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES.
DOES THAT CAPTURE IT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I THINK THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH, HOPEFULLY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS I WOULD TO SPEAK AGAINST, SO WE DO SPEAKING.
UM, WELL, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT, YOUR SUBSTITUTE? UM, I THINK I, COMMISSIONER I'VE PRETTY MUCH SPOKEN FOR IT, UH, ALREADY, BUT I, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT AGAIN, I, AS A PLANNER AND AS YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO IS INTERESTED IN LIVING IN A QUALITY URBAN ENVIRONMENT, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A RESIDENCE ON A GROUND FLOOR AS OPPOSED TO A VACANT RETAIL SPACE.
AND I THINK A LOT OF OUR EFFORTS IN THE PAST HAVE CREATED VACANT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES, UM, THAT SIT EMPTY FOR FIVE OR SIX OR 10 YEARS WHILE THE MARKET KIND OF CATCHES UP IN TERMS OF DEMAND.
UH, AND SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO BE A LITTLE MORE PROACTIVE AND, AND PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY UPFRONT AND SPEAKING AGAIN, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THANK YOU CHAIR.
AND I KNOW WE HEARD A LOT OVER THE YEARS ABOUT VMU AND NOT ALLOWING ENOUGH HEIGHT OVER VMU TO REALLY ACTIVATE THE GROUND FLOOR LIKE ONE WOULD WANT.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSITY HERE WITH THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
AND SO I DON'T THINK ANY DEVELOPER WANTS TO SEE THEIR GROUND FLOOR BE VACANT AND THEN THEM TRY AND LEASE OR SELL A BIG BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE A HAIRCUT ON THEIR RETAIL AND HELP WITH TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND HELP GET GOOD FOLKS IN THERE AND HELP THAT FIRST GENERATION SPACE GET BUILT, I'D RATHER SEE THAT SPACE BE BUILT AND BE ACTIVATED RETAIL THAT KIND OF HELPS CAPTURE THOSE FOLKS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT TO GET A TACO OR HAIRCUT OR WHATEVER AND REALLY SEE KIND OF COMMUNITIES HELP THRIVE WITH THE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL.
AND SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR THE AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER RAM RAMIREZ? YEAH, I REALLY LIKE WHERE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS GOING AND HAVING SEEN A LOT OF THOSE EMPTY VACANT, UM, FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH HAVE IT BE RESIDENTIAL AND THEN CONVERT INTO, UM, RETAIL IN THE FUTURE, AS HE STATED.
BUT I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS, WHICH IS INCLUDES A WAIVER, IS THAT IF YOU, IF IN THE, IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE INITIATED PHASE, IF THE DEVELOPER SEEKS A WAIVER AND HAS NO INTENT TO BUILD RETAIL, THEN IT'S NOT BUILT TO THE 12 OR 14 FOOT TALL FIRST FLOOR, AND SO YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO IT IN THE LONG RUN.
WHEREAS AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S SAYING, IF WE TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO BUILD TO A HIGHER HEIGHT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UM, AIR REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR A CAFE OR ET CETERA ARE PART OF THAT BUILD OUT, BUT IT'S NOT TURNED ON, ARE NOT ACTIVATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, AS THEY WANT, AND IN THE MEANTIME IT CAN BE RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, YEAH, I, I THINK THAT I, MY INTENT WITH THE THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY RELATED TO A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, A LOT OF THESE SITES ARE, I THINK, WELL, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, NOT IN, IN THE MOST CENTRAL PART OF, UM, THE CITY.
AND SO REALLY ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL AS A REQUIREMENT AND THAT WE HAVE THAT CHANCE TO DO PLACEMAKING AND SORT OF, AS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON NOTED, UM, CREATES SOME SORT OF WALKABILITY AND SORT OF INTERNAL USES, UM, BE THAT EXACTLY THAT, LIKE A BARBERSHOP OR, YOU KNOW, YOUR PET GROOMERS OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION WITH THE WAY WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THE VMU SPACES, UM, RE LEASED OUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHY I AM INCLUDING THE WAIVER.
AND I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THAT WE COULD HAVE THESE TYPE OF CONVERTIBLE BUILDINGS, BUT I DO UNFORTUNATELY THINK THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DON'T ALLOW THAT AS, AS THAT FLEXIBILITY AS MUCH AS WE MIGHT LIKE.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION OF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AND I THINK I WAS JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT CLEANER BY SAYING, YES, WE WANT COMMERCIAL.
YES, YOU CAN THEORETICALLY GET A WAIVER, AND OF COURSE IF YOU DO GET THE WAIVER, THEN IT IS ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY SIMILAR, BUT JUST KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
AND I REALLY WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT I THINK THE COMMERCIAL DOES HELP WITH OUR COMMUNICATE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND PLACEMAKING, WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
[02:40:01]
SKIDMORE.ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, THOSE AGAINST THREE, FIVE AND ABSTAINING.
WE HAVE, UH, THAT'S 12 WITH COMMISSIONER COX OFF THE DS, THAT MOTION FAILS.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT FOR NUMBER TWO.
THIS WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, AGAIN BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, WERE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION MAKER, VICE CHAIR, UM, CHAIR, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I GOT A LITTLE LOST THERE.
CAN, CAN WE RESTATE THE BASE MOTION AGAIN? UM, UH, THE BASE MOTION OR THIS AMENDMENT I, THE BASE MOTION FOR THIS AMENDMENT? SO WE, WE KNOW, WE JUST DISPOSE OF THE SUBSTITUTE.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES.
SO THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO WOULD BE, UH, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, AND THAT WE WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO USE, UH, TO REQUIRE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL PER THE DB 90 STANDARDS, INCLUDING A WAIVER OF SAID COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS PER THE SAME ORDINANCE OF DB 90.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST QUICK QUESTION, GENERAL QUESTION.
UM, SO ON THE WAIVER PROCESS, IF YOU KNOW THE WAIVERS SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED, WOULD THE DESIGN STANDARDS REMAIN, UH, IN PLACE FOR A COMMERCIAL SPACE OR WOULD IT THEN BE ABLE TO BE DESIGNED WITH, YOU KNOW, NINE FOOT CEILINGS AND, AND ALL THAT? UM, I, I WOULD ACTUALLY DEFER TO STAFF BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN SOME WAIVERS ON DB 90 CASES, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT PART IS HANDLED, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT PER COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD INCLUDE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND WOULD BE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT AS A, AN ADDITIONAL PART OF THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, I'M HONESTLY NOT ENTIRELY POSITIVE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IF YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT, THEN THE WHOLE REQUIREMENT ABOUT THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND ONE IS WAIVED.
SO YES, THE HEIGHTS AND BUILDING WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
SO IF YOU WANNA CHANGE THAT, THAT'S POSSIBLE.
UH, UM, HAS, MY AMENDMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN SECONDED.
SO I CAN ASK, IS IT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? COULD I OFFER A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE IS A WAIVER THAT IT BE, THAT IT, THAT THE WAVED PORTION OF THE BUILDING WOULD NEED TO BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE? YES.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT SUBSTITUTE? I, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY SP SPOKEN IT TO DEATH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR, ARE YOU CLEAR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ON THIS SUBSTITUTE? YES, I'M, I'M GONNA SPEAK TO THE FOUR BECAUSE I'M THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER AND I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THIS, UM, SUBSTITUTE, UM, FOR COMMISSIONER HANEY BECAUSE I THINK IT ACTUALLY GETS TO WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS SAYING WAS THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO CONSIDER THE FLEXIBILITY OF HAVING COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT CAN ALSO BE USED AS RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WE ARE NOT CLOSING OFF THAT BY ALLOWING THE WAIVER PROCESS TO ELIMINATE THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXCELLENT SUBSTITUTE.
HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S? OH, IT JUST INCLUDES THE WAIVER AND THE REQUIREMENT OF, WELL, SORRY, LET ME ASK IT.
AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION HAS A, WOULD ESTABLISH A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THIS DISTRICT, BUT WOULD ALLOW A WAIVER PROCESS AND IF THAT WAIVER PROCESS IS USED, WOULD WOULD IMPOSE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT GROUND FLOOR SPACE STILL BE CONVERTIBLE IN THE FUTURE? I THINK SO.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS A MUCH BETTER WAY TO PUT IT THAN THE TORTURED LANGUAGE THAT I USED.
[02:45:01]
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THIS SUBSTITUTE.LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? EIGHT, NINE, TEN FIVE.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINED, UH, THAT'S A, WAIT, IS THAT A YELLOW? ALL RIGHT.
I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE A SPRING GREEN, SO IT'S, IT'S A YELLOW.
HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING.
I'M JUST SHOWING YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN COLOR.
SO, BUT IT WAS AN ABSTENTION, CORRECT? YES.
12 TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING.
NUMBER THREE,
ARE YOU ENVISIONING THAT LARGER SITES WOULD REQUIRE A LARGER PERCENTAGE OR JUST THAT THEY MIGHT BE REQUIRED ALONG INTERNAL STREETS? I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU, UM, I, I THINK THE ACTUAL POINT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS PROBABLY POORLY WORDED IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE ACTIVATION.
AND THAT THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT YOU COULD MOVE BEYOND JUST A COMMERCIAL SO THAT, THAT'S WHY YOU MIGHT GET SOMETHING LIKE, UH, LIKE A COMMUNITY PARK OR I DON'T KNOW, EVEN, I DON'T KNOW, BIKE PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THERE WOULD BE SOME IDEA THAT YOU WERE DOING AN ACTIVATION RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL.
SO I, I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, YEAH, SO GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION MORE THAN JUST SOME PRINCIPAL SEATS AND CRAFT ADDITIONAL MAKES TO USAGE REQUIREMENTS, LARGER SITES.
UM, YEAH, SO I THINK THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY AND TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMERCIAL WAS ON NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT TO THE HIGHWAY, IF THAT, OR SPECIFICALLY THE LARGEST STREET, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA YES.
MAKE IT OFFICIAL? UM, SO, UH, AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE FOR THE DB TWO 40 WOULD BE CONTACT SPECIFIC CON COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS AS PROPOSED, UH, FOR DB SITES ON LARGER SITES.
IIE, THOSE OVER 2.5 ACRES REQUIRE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION ON MORE THAN JUST THE PRINCIPAL STREETS AND CRAFT AN ADDITIONAL MIX OF USES FOR LARGER SITES TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE SITE BE COMMERCIAL OR SIMILARLY ACTIVATED PUBLIC USE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I THINK WE DID.
JUST DID, BUT JUST BASICALLY ALLOWING US TO REALLY GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR GROUND FLOOR AND HOW WE ACTIVATE THESE SITES.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION FOR, UH, VICE CHAIR CHAIR? CAN I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? YES, YOU CAN.
UM, I, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
I THINK JUST MY ONE SORT OF PIECES, MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE CAN DO THIS IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT BECOME TOO COMPLICATED OR ONEROUS A REQUIREMENT SO THAT WE ARE INDEED MEETING THOSE GOALS OF HAVING SORT OF MORE BROKEN UP BLOCKS AND HAVING THOSE SORT OF WALKABILITY AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVATION.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT BEING, UM, OVERTLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND NOT ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS HARD AT THOSE LARGER SITES SOMETIMES TO UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICITY, UM, OF THE, SORT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF WHERE THE SITE IS AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS.
BUT ALL THAT SAID, I DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE INTENT AND WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.
ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, SECONDED OR MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ IS NUMBER 10.
THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND I THINK WE WERE GONNA HELP CRAFT SOME LANGUAGE MAYBE.
UM, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF BECAUSE COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ AND I HAD A QUICK CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK WE WERE JUST A LITTLE UNCLEAR ABOUT HOW THESE SITES MIGHT INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.
SO IF, UM, SOMEONE FROM STAFF MIGHT WANNA COME ASK A QUICK, SO ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA WAS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES WHERE WE MIGHT END UP WITH, SAY, A NEW DB TWO 40, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF POTENTIALLY INDUSTRIAL OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEARBY.
UM, WHAT DOES THE REVIEW PROCESS LOOK LIKE THAT SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT UNINTENTIONALLY POTENTIALLY
[02:50:01]
DOING, UH, ALLOWING SORT OF UNACCEPTABLE USES CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER? YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, FOR A NEW SITE APPLYING FOR DB TWO 40, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, STANDARD REZONING REVIEW, UH, WOULD OCCUR.AND SO THE ZONING TEAM WOULD USE PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE IF IT'S ADEQUATE DURING SITE PLAN.
THERE IS ALSO AN ACTUALLY DURING REZONING REVIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, REVIEWS, AND THAT INCLUDES REVIEW FOR COMPATIBILITY, KIND OF WITH ANY OTHER LAND USES THAT ARE ADJACENT, SO NOXIOUS USES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, AND SO SIMILARLY, IF YOU HAD A DB TWO 40 SITE AND SOME ONE ADJACENT TO YOU WAS APPLYING FOR SOMETHING WITH A SITE PLAN, YOU'D HAVE VERY SIMILAR REVIEW.
SO THERE IS A REVIEW THAT CHECKS GENERALLY FOR WHAT IS APPLICABLE WITH YOUR CONTEXT AROUND YOU.
SO I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION THEN, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ NOTED THAT THEY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAVING, I GUESS, NEW HOUSING RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SORT OF UNSAVORY.
AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A SENSE OF, BUT LIKE, UH, MAYBE SOMETHING WHERE WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE USES NEARBY, BUT YOU FEEL THAT BETWEEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND OTHER THINGS, THAT THAT WOULD BE AN UNLIKELY CASE HOOD OR IS THERE SOME, IS THERE A NEED TO SORT OF STRENGTHEN THE, THAT REVIEW AND OR SORT OF HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS? UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY TO NEED IT.
I GUESS IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER OBNOXIOUS OR, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DEFINITELY HAS ITS STANDARDS RELATED TO HEALTH.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT OBVIOUSLY CAN BE CONTEXTUAL TO PEOPLE WITH NOISE AND OR OTHER THINGS RELATED TO INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO, SO YOU WERE SAYING, SO IF WE'VE GOT A HOUSING AND, AND THEN A LOT INDUSTRIAL OR A OBNOXIOUS USE COMES IN, YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE, WHAT ABOUT THE REVERSE? IF, UH, IF WE'VE ALREADY GOT A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHED AND HOUSING? YEAH, IF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOR ANY, ANYTHING MAJOR, UH, LIKE A NEW LAND USE INDUSTRIALS ON SIMILAR REVIEW HAPPENS WHERE FIRE IS INVOLVED.
SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO BASICALLY, WE'RE GONNA TRY TO CUT DOWN ON, YOU KNOW, FOLKS MOVING TO THE NUISANCE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE ALWAYS GET CLASHES IS WHEN FOLKS MOVE TO THE NUISANCE AND THEN SAY, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT A HOUSE NOW AND THE PIG FARMS NEXT TO ME, ARE YOU, YOU KNOW? YES, CORRECT.
THE ZONING TEAM WOULD LIKELY NOT RECOMMEND A, UH, DB TWO 40 CASE NEXT TO, NEXT TO SOMETHING THAT IS OBNOXIOUS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, I HOPE EVERYONE'S READ THE, UH, LETTERS WE GOT FROM OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES AT, AT UT UH, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY REGIONAL PLANNING.
UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF AND THE QUESTION TO, I GUESS THE, THE WOULD BE MOTION MAKER FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS DO, DO WE, DO WE UTILIZE THE INFORMATION THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS PROVIDED TO US BY DR. MUELLER, UM, RELATED TO ESSENTIALLY TRAVIS COUNTY'S TOP POLLUTION EMITTERS AND THOSE POLLUTION EMITTERS ESSENTIALLY BEING IN THE MAJORITY OF THESE AREAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR ADDING RESIDENTIAL? I MEAN, DO WE, DOES STAFF FACTOR THAT INFORMATION IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATION? AND, AND IS WOULD THIS AMENDMENT ATTEMPT TO DO THAT IF THAT IS NOT DONE ALREADY? COMMISSIONER COX POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UM, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US GOT COMMUNICATION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN? OH, NO, Y'ALL NEED, SO THIS WAS IN OUR BACKUP.
UH, I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN LATE BACKUP, BUT IF YOU OPEN UP ITEM, UM, ITEM 20, IT'S CALLED PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY LETTERS FROM, UH, TO, UH, PROFESSORS, UM, FROM THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, UH, STRONGLY OPPOSING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AND EXPLAINING WHY.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW, IT, IT MAY BE HELPFUL, UH, IF IT'S ALLOWED TO PULL THAT MAP UP THAT IS ATTACHED TO THAT CORRESPONDENCE BECAUSE IT, IT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN KIND OF UNDERSTANDING, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT, WHEN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL INTRODUCED INTO ESSENTIALLY THE MOST TOXIC AREAS IN OUR CITY.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
IT'S ON PAGE ONE OF THE, UM, THE BACKUP THAT COMMISSIONER
[02:55:01]
COX MENTIONED, AND THE MAP IS ON PAGE FOUR OF THAT LETTER.AND I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS IT, WHILE EVERYONE'S REVIEWING THAT, IF STAFF HAD, IF STAFF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER AND MAYBE JUST RESPOND, UM, TO IT AND, AND, AND, OR MY QUESTION ABOUT IT, UM, WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE LETTER, SO NO, WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED IT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? OR COMMISSIONER COX? DID YOU WANNA, I, I JUST, I JUST THINK THIS MAP IS INCREDIBLY ILLUMINATING, UM, SHOWING HOW DISPROPORTIONATELY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFECTS OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND, AND, UM, THE AREAS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST POLLUTANT EMITTERS.
AND I, I'M, I GREW UP IN HOUSTON AND SO I'M VERY, I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH, WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE IN THE HOUSTON INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND THE FACT THAT OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN HOUSTON ARE VERY CONCENTRATED AROUND THOSE AREAS.
AND I JUST DON'T WANT US TO GO DOWN THE ROAD HERE IN AUSTIN.
UH, EVERYONE KNOWS THE HISTORY OF, OF, OF ALL OF THIS STUFF AND HOW IT'S, IT'S VERY RACIALLY MOTIVATED.
UM, I JUST DON'T WANT US TO DO SOMETHING WHERE WE ALL HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT WE DON'T, WE DON'T REALIZE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF POTENTIALLY FURTHERING THOSE, THOSE DISPARITIES BETWEEN THE HEALTH AND WHERE WE LIVE AND, AND, UM, IN OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, OUR, OUR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
HOW COULD WE ADJUST THE AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THAT? UM, I'M, I TOO AM FAMILIAR WITH, YOU KNOW, HOUSTON AND THE FIFTH WARD, WHICH IS KNOWN AS CANCER ALLEY, UM, AND STRUGGLING WITH THESE ISSUES, THE, THE, UM, HOUSING UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE, BUT THE CANCER RATES ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED IN THE FIFTH WARD.
I'M NOT SURE IF STAFF CAN, HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS TO HELP US? YEAH, STEVIE GRID HOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, THE OBSERVATION THAT I WILL MAKE IS THAT THIS TOOL TO CREATE THE DENSITY BONUS TWO 40 WOULD BE GOING THROUGH A REZONING REQUEST AND GOING THROUGH THE EVALUATION UNDER A REZONING REQUEST, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A SIMILAR PROPERTY OWNER COULD COME IN AND REQUEST STRAIGHT UP MULTIFAMILY ZONING IN THESE AREAS.
AND WE WOULD BE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS TO REVIEW THAT AND REVIEW WHETHER THAT SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT DESIGNATION OR NOT.
UM, SO THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO CREATE A TOOL THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPLIED THROUGH THE SITE, SITE SPECIFIC REZONING PROCESS WITH NOTIFICATION AND LEGISLATIVE EVALUATION BEFORE THIS BODY AND COUNSEL ON WHETHER THAT REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
UM, THAT TOOL IS REPLACING A SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY WHERE FOLKS ARE COMING IN THROUGH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS AND REQUESTING, UM, DISCRETIONARY MODIFICATIONS TO SITE STANDARDS AND USES TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ON THESE SITES.
AND SO I THINK THAT THE INTENT ON THIS WORK, UM, IS REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING MUCH MORE INTENTIONAL ON HOW WE ALLOW TRANSITION OF THOSE SITES TO RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INTENTIONALITY AROUND THAT RELATED TO ASKING FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS, BUT THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE AN EVALUATION BY THIS BODY AND BY COUNSEL ON WHETHER A REZONING REQUEST, UM, MAKES SENSE ON A PARTICULAR SITE, UM, WITH INSIGHT FROM REVIEWERS AROUND ADJACENT USES AND ADJACENT HAZARDS.
CAN I ASK, UH, MS. GREG HOUSE, UM, UH, YOU TRIGGERED SOMETHING IN, IN MY SHORT TERM MEMORY, UM, IN ITEM 19, WE, YOU, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, I GET IT, WE NEED TO CUT OFF PDAS FROM COMING IN AND PUTTING IN RESIDENTIAL USES AND MIXING THOSE WITH THINGS THAT AREN'T COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USERS.
DIDN'T WE JUST CLOSE THAT DOOR IN ITEM 19? YOU JUST SAT ON DID THAT ON 19.
[03:00:01]
THAT IS CORRECT.AND SO WHY, IF WE JUST CLOSE THAT DOOR ON 19, THEN WHY ARE YOU, ARE YOU STILL CONCERNED? THE INTENTION AND DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IN CASES WHERE WE ARE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ON THESE SITES, THAT WE REQUIRE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
THE WAY THAT YOU DO THAT IS THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS WHAT IS ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SO YOU SAID THAT THE REQUESTS ARE COMING IN, BUT DOES THAT, IS THAT THE KIND OF URGENCY THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH? I MEAN, SHOULDN'T WE BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S HELP AND EVEN IF THE REQUESTS ARE COMING IN, THEY CAN BE DENIED OR POSTPONED UNTIL THERE'S AT LEAST STAFF CAN EVALUATE THIS KIND OF INFORMATION THAT'S COMING FROM THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE A LITTLE BIT INHUMANE TO PLOW FORWARD WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH OUTCOMES, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS WILL YIELD.
I HEAR THE CONCERN AND NONE OF THESE DECISIONS ARE EASY.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THIS READY TO BE MADE INTO AN AMENDMENT THAT CAN MAYBE TAKE SOME OF THIS DIALOGUE AND, UM, INFORMATION FROM THE CRP PROGRAM? I, I JUST HAVE A NEW GUY QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WHEN THESE COME BEFORE, UM, BEFORE US FOR EVALUATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW, NEW GUY, UM, IS THERE ANY SORT OF DATA THAT WE GET ALONG, UH, WITH THESE APPLICATIONS THAT, THAT SHOW, YOU KNOW, PROXIMITY TO MAJOR EMITTERS OR TO, YOU KNOW, A QUARRY OR TO, TO SOMETHING THAT COULD AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH? I KNOW WE HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT DO WE HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY THAT THAT'S, THAT MIGHT ADDRESS THAT? THERE IS TYPICALLY AN EVALUATION, APPROXIMATE USES.
NOW AIR QUALITY CARRIES, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT WE'RE DOING, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I DO KNOW WE AREN'T TYPICALLY DOING LIKE AN AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AS PART OF A REZONING REQUEST, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY EVALUATION IN THE ZONING CASE REPORTS THAT MOVE FORWARD ON ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES AND WHAT THOSE ARE.
AND IF SO, GOING FORWARD, IF WE WANTED TO GET AN AIR QUALITY REPORT ON THAT IS SOME, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SORT OF REQUEST ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS OR IS THAT SORT OF A LEGISLATIVE GLOBAL CHANGE THAT'S TOO BIG FOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY STATE LAWS AROUND LAND USE THAT WOULD PREEMPT IF THERE AREN'T PREEM STATE LAWS ABOUT THAT, WE MAY BE PREEMPTED FROM IT.
IF THERE AREN'T, THERE WILL BE.
ALRIGHT, SO WE COME BACK TO, CAN, CAN I OFFER, UM, SUGGESTION ON AMENDMENT LANGUAGE? YOU SURE.
UM, TO CAVEAT THIS WITH, YOU KNOW, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW.
UM, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE AMENDMENT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR DB TWO 40 CASES AND ONLY DB TWO 40 CASES THAT THAT STAFF PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, UM, REFERENCED IN THE INFORMATION AND STUDIES PROVIDED BY PROFESSOR MUELLER.
AND, AND I COULD GO INTO LIKE THE TECHNICAL STUFF IN THE LETTER, UM, BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO REFERENCE THE LETTER RATHER THAN TRY TO START INTRODUCING KIND OF WEIRD SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE.
SO I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION WHEN YOU'RE DONE BECAUSE IT, IT REALLY, THIS IS REALLY DISAPPOINTING TO HEAR HOW WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS AND I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU DO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, I DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT JUST REFERENCING A LETTER WILL DO IT.
I MEAN, WE HEARD, YOU KNOW, WELL THESE THINGS ARE TOUGH AND SO
[03:05:01]
THE CALL GOES THIS WAY.I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IN THAT CONDITION, WHICH SOME OF US HAVE BEEN, THEN YOU KIND OF KNOW THAT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHERE THE CONCERN OUGHT TO BE.
IT OUGHT TO BE WITH PEOPLE AND THEIR HEALTH, HEALTH OUTCOMES AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT.
SO I WOULD PREFER YOU PUT IT IN.
SO I MEAN, I I CAN, I I THINK I CAN MAKE IT SIMPLE THAT FOR PENDING LEGAL REVIEW, UM, RECOMMEND THAT STAFF INCLUDE FOR ONLY DB TWO 40 CASES, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THEIR BACKUP DOCUMENTATION THAT INCLUDES PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS OF PM 2.5 SULFUR DIOXIDE AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ACCORDING TO THE TCEQ, WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IF I GET A SECOND, OR, OR, SORRY, THAT WASN'T, THAT'S NOT MY MOTION.
THAT WAS JUST, THAT WAS A SUGGESTED LANGUAGE.
I MEAN, COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ, I'M FINE WITH YOU.
DO YOU WANT TO BE THE MOTION MAKER AND LOOK FOR A SECOND OR WOULD YOU UM, HE CAN BE THE MOTION MAKER
SO COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL READ BACK WHAT I, UH, HEARD.
UM, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW FOR DB TWO 40 CASES ONLY STAFF IS TO PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS.
I DIDN'T CATCH THE TECHNICAL TERMS ACCORDING TO THE CCEQ WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT.
IF YOU HELP ME WITH, I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT CAPTURES IT.
AND THE, THE TECHNICAL, UM, THE TECHNICAL, IT'S THE, THE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING STUDIED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS PM 2.5.
SULFUR DIOXIDE AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
SO, UM, LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT, COMMISSIONER RERA RAMIREZ AND, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? THAT IS YOUR MOTION NOW? I, I ACTUALLY, SO THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO, UM, THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, FROM UT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER BREWER RAMIREZ WAS, WAS THINKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL THINGS, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO KIND OF THE SENSITIVITIES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE.
SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN AMEND IT, ADD TO IT, WHATEVER, IF, IF THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE IN.
BUT, BUT I THINK, I THINK I'VE TALKED ENOUGH ON THAT ISSUE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, FOUR? I HAVE A, I HAVE A, UH, HOPEFULLY A MINOR AMENDMENT.
I WOULD ALSO ADD HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT, HAPS ARE THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND OKAY TO THAT, ADDING THAT.
I THINK, I THINK THAT FITS WITHIN THOSE, THE GENERAL IDEA.
VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, WE MIGHT BE SORT OF BEYOND QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE STAFF'S THOUGHTS ON THIS.
I THINK I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SORT OF INTENTION BEHIND IT, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR DATA THAT THEY MIGHT NOT ENGAGE WITH.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE THIS IS THE WAY OUT OF MY WHEELHOUSE.
I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT DATA IS AVAILABLE OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ANY RESPONSE TO THIS.
I THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT AND WORK WITH LAW DEPARTMENT AND ZONING CASE MANAGERS TO PROVIDE SORT OF RESPONSES TO GO ALONG WITH IT AS IT MOVES ON TO COUNCIL IF THERE IS AN ISSUE.
UM, I'M HESITANT TO TRY TO ANSWER ON BEHALF OF OUR ZONING TEAM SINCE I'M NOT INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN THOSE PROCESSES, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THEIR INPUT, UM, AS WE MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION.
I APPRECIATE THAT, MS. GREATHOUSE.
ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? ANDERSON, THIS ISN'T A POISON PILL, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST DIRECTING STAFF TO, TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
[03:10:04]
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR AGAIN.JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS, THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE US ON THE DAAS AND FUTURE COMMISSIONS AND FUTURE COUNCILS, THAT INFORMATION EASILY ACCESSIBLE SINCE IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR THESE INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CASES.
I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT.
BUT THIS INFORMATION WOULD, WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE WAY OF BACKUP.
PENDING LEGAL REVIEW FOR DB TWO 40 CASES ONLY STAFFED TO PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS PM 2.5 SULFUR DIOXIDE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND AIR, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ACCORDING TO THE TCEQ WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT.
EVERYBODY CLEAR? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
I KNOW THAT WAS A, A JOURNEY WE MADE IT.
UM, THAT WAS A, A GOOD DISCUSSION.
THIS IS THE RETENTION OF JOBS.
UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU PULLED THIS, UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT IT AND TRYING TO REMEMBER THE BURDEN QUESTION I HAD AN HOUR AGO OR MORE.
UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT, WHAT IS IT YOU ENVISION THIS AMENDMENT DOING? UM, LIKE HOW WOULD THIS, HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS? I MEAN, I, I WORRY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS VERY, LIKE SOCIAL ENGINEERINGY SAYING WHAT KIND OF JOBS WE HAVE TO HAVE IN THE CITY BY WAY OF ZONING, OR IS THIS MORE JUST INTENDED TO HELP PRESERVE IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL USES? SO I PULLED THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM, UH, MR. WALTER'S REPORTS, AND IT REPORT THE PRESENTATION THAT SAYS POLICY SHOULD BE EXPLORED AS TO HOW TO INCORPORATE OR PRESERVE SOME INDUSTRIAL USES AND NEW, WAIT, THAT'S NOT THE ONE I WANT.
IF DECISION IS MADE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES INTO INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS, STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PRESERVE DISPLACED JOBS.
AND SO I STARTED THINKING ABOUT WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND, AND LOOKING FOR PROGRAMS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
AND I CAME ACROSS UP UPON THIS PLAN.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I LANDED, BUT I REALLY, I STRUGGLED ON THIS ONE TOO.
I, I WILL SAY THAT WHEN I WAS THINKING THROUGH THIS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, UH, THE RE THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS HIGHEST IN BEST.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MANY, IT'S PERHAPS MANY OF THESE WORK, UM, WAREHOUSES SIT EMPTY OR UNDERUTILIZED.
AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTIAL.
UM, SO ALL THAT TO SAY THAT MAYBE THERE JOBS AREN'T BEING LOST BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ACTUALLY JOBS THERE TODAY.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY, MY SORT OF QUESTION WAS IS I WOULD IMAGINE SITES THAT REDEVELOP ARE THOSE THAT ARE VACANT OR BECOMING VACANT FOR A REASON.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE A BUSTLING EMPLOYER WILL UP AND CLOSE BECAUSE THEY COULD MAKE MORE MONEY SELLING THEIR LAND TOO.
I MEAN, MAYBE, BUT THAT SEEMS UNLIKELY.
OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY HAVE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE I'M PROPOSING IS ABOUT THE AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN, BUT LOOKING FOR OTHER LANGUAGE.
UM, WELL, UH, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO TURN IT INTO AN AMENDMENT.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO, UM, TO INCLUDE, HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS QUALIFIED TO FILL THEM BY IMPLEMENTING PORTIONS OF AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN.
AND JIM, MIGHT I MAKE A LANGUAGE SUGGESTION BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND? YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO ADDING IN THE END AND ENSURE THERE'S EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL USES THROUGHOUT THE CITY? YES.
AND THE REASON, HONESTLY, I BRING THIS UP IS I AGREE WITH YOU.
YOU KNOW, WE SAW THAT STAFF REPORT BEFORE, AND STAFF IS SORT OF EXPLAINING TO US FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE WANNA HAVE SOME SPACES DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IS, I
[03:15:01]
THINK WHAT'S REALLY BEEN HEARTBREAKING FOR ME IS INCREASINGLY AS WE HAVE CONVERTED INDUSTRIAL LAND TO OTHER USES THROUGH DISTRICT PLANNING OR OTHERS, THE BRUNT OF INDUSTRIAL USE HAS REMAINED IN EAST AUSTIN.SO IT, IT'S KIND OF PAINFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME SOMETHING HAPPENS ON TWO 90 AND THE DOSINGS NEIGHBORHOOD IS STANDING IN FRONT OF US SAYING THEY DO NOT WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO SEE RESIDENTIAL GOING THERE, THERE'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND, BUT SIMILARLY, WHEN THAT HAPPENED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WEST OF LAMAR, WEST OF 35, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION.
SO ALL THAT SAID, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT, AND WE DO WANNA MAINTAIN THAT USE BECAUSE THERE'S A JOB ASPECT TO IT, BUT ALSO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, AN INDUSTRIAL NEED FOR A COMMUNITY TO, TO SORT OF THRIVE.
BUT I THINK THIS HOPEFULLY ALLOWS US TO ALSO LOOK AT THAT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO REALLY, WHILE INDUSTRIAL USE ISN'T NECESSARY USE TO SORT OF KEEP A CITY FUNCTIONING, THAT IT IS EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU BEING OPEN TO THAT.
IS THAT ALSO A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.
I SEE, UH, MOTION BAY, MY COMMISSIONER BURRA RAMIREZ, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR AZAR.
UM, I'LL READ THAT LANGUAGE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE, HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS QUALIFIED TO FILL THEM BY IMPLEMENTING PORTIONS OF AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN AND ENSURE THAT THERE IS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND USES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, SORRY, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I, I WAS, I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M SPEAKING EITHER NEUTRAL TO AGAINST, UM, I'M, I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS STARTING TO TRY AND DO THINGS THAT WITHOUT CHANGING THE MAP ZONING DOESN'T