* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] ONE. SO I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER [CALL TO ORDER] THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 3RD, 6 0 1. WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL. JUNE 3RD, WHAT DID I SAY? JANUARY, JANUARY 3RD, TUESDAY, JUNE 3RD AT 6:00 PM WE ARE IN AUSTIN, CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM 1001. I WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL CHAIR. HANK SMITH. I'M HERE. VICE CHAIR GREENBERG. BETSY, RAISE YOUR HAND. ARE YOU HERE? , VICE CHAIR GREENBERG IS MAKING HER WAY TO THE DAAS. UH, COMMISSIONER PKI. PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES PRESENT. PARLIAMENTARIAN FLORES. EXCUSE ME. UH, COMMISSIONER LUIS SLUGO. PRESENT. SCOTT BOONE. PRESENT. UM, OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER F HERE. COMMISSIONER STERN. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DE PORTU. DIDN'T SEE HIM. HE'S MOVED OUTTA THE COUNTRY, SIR. MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY. THAT IS AN EXCUSE TO NOT BE HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER CHRISTIAN CHEPE. HE'S PRESENTLY IN PUERTO RICO. PERMANENTLY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER CHEE. THEN HE NEEDS TO BE OFF THE COMMISSION. YES, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT WITH, UH, UH, COUNCILOR VELA. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER. MAJOR PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, I BELIEVE. UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ] WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER, SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THEM FIRST. YES, WE HAVE JENNIFER MTEL. SHE'S GOING TO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. UM, JENNIFER, GO AHEAD AND PUSH STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS JENNIFER MESHAL. I AM A RESIDENT IN, UH, DISTRICT 10. I'M A FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEMBER. I'VE SERVED TWO TERMS. I'M ALSO FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE RIVER PLACE, HOA AND LD, AND HAVE WORKED WITH OUR KONA GROUP. I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO YOUR BACKUP. UM, AND I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS, UM, THERE'S A CASE ON THE DOCKET TONIGHT THAT IS FOR POSTPONEMENT, BUT IT HAS BROUGHT UP SOME DISCUSSION BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS HEAR A LOT OF CASES OUT IN THIS CORRIDOR. UM, I HAD STAFF PUT IN THE, THE A SMP STREET MAP, UH, FOR THIS AREA. AND IF WE LOOK AT THAT BRIEFLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN COME UP FOR YOUR DISPLAY OR NOT. UM, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THIS CORRIDOR IS THAT WE HAVE ONE, UH, WHAT IS IT, A LEVEL FIVE ROAD AND ONE OTHER ROAD, AND THAT'S IT. UH, AND YOU CAN'T, THERE IS A TON OF HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE BALCON IS PRESERVED AND EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE. UM, THIS AREA ALSO, IF WE PULL MORE REPORTING, UH, YOU'LL SEE AS ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROWTH AREAS FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF POPULATION. UH, THIS CAME UP IN DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT HOUSING AND OPPORTUNITIES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. BUT SPEAK, LOOKING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE NOW. AND YEAH, THAT'S COMING UP. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IN THIS CORNER. THERE'S ONLY TWO MAJOR ROADS AND THIS IS A, THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. UH, IT'S A PROBLEM AND AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE SAME TIME. UH, SO THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CORNER OF WHERE 2222 COMES OUT WEST TO SIX 20. SO YOU'LL SEE THERE'S ONE YELLOW LINE THERE, AND THEN THE ONE PURPLE LINE. THAT'S IT. THOSE ARE YOUR ONLY TWO MAIN ARTERIES THAT GET THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN AND OUT. UM, AND IT'S THE HIGHEST GROWTH, ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROWTH POPULATION AREAS FOR THE CITY. THIS IS KIND OF WHY ALL OF THIS GOT REDISTRICTED WHEN THEY CHANGED THE DISTRICT BOUNDS FOR D SIX AND D 10. OKAY, SO MOVING ON, BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES, WHAT I WANT, THE OTHER PART I WANTED TO SHOW YOU WAS PLANNING COMMISSION. UH, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW. WE MAY BE COMING UP ON TWO YEARS, A YEAR AND A HALF. WE PASSED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNSEL TO LOOK AT INITIATING A SMALL AREA PLAN FOR ESSENTIALLY THIS CORRIDOR. AND IF WE CAN BRING UP THAT LANGUAGE FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION, THAT PC PASSED, I'D LIKE TO GET THAT IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS. UM, I I DON'T THINK COUNCIL PICKED IT UP. ONE, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN BOTH COUNCIL MEMBERS GOING ON AS ELECTIONS WERE COMING UP, BUT ALSO THE FOCUS WAS ON PROJECT CONNECT AND DOWNTOWN AND PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T [00:05:01] REALLY ADJUDICATE A WHOLE LOT IN THIS CORRIDOR. IT CAME UP FROM PLANNING COMMISSION. HELLO? THAT TIME. OH, OKAY. ANYWAY, UH, I WILL WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU. SORRY. UM, I WANTED TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU. I WANNA SEE IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER PUTTING, UM, ON YOUR AGENDA THIS AND POTENTIALLY MOVING THIS RECOMMENDATION BACK IN FRONT OF COUNSEL FROM ZAP. AND IF IT COMES ON THE AGENDA, THEN I CAN COME BACK AND EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND GIVE YOU MORE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS? NO. CHAIR. THAT IS IT. AND THERE'S NOBODY IN THE ROOM WHO WANTS TO RAISE THEIR HAND? NONE. OKAY. UH, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES ] UM, ITEM ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM TUESDAY, MAY 20TH? SEEING NONE, THOSE WILL STAY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE. OH, WE DO, I'M SORRY. WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY, LET ME READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA FIRST AND THEN WE WILL, WE'LL HEAR OUR SPEAKERS AFTER WE GET THE, AFTER WE 'EM ALL IN, UH, REZONING CASE C 14 20 24 DASH OH 1 59 RESEARCH PARK, PDA AMENDMENT, UM, AT 1 2, 2, 1 9 AND HALF. 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 7 AND A HALF. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, SO ON AND SO FORTH. RESEARCH BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND AND 1220 AND 12, 2 20 AND A HALF. RETA TRACE PARKWAY 65 11 HALF AND 65 13 MCNEIL ROAD. UM, IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM L-I-P-D-A TWO L-I-P-D-A FOR A CHANGE IN THE CONDITION OF ZONING. IT IS RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS. THERE'S ONE CHANGE I WANNA MAKE AND THAT IS, UM, STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED NOT ALLOWING BASIC INDUSTRY. THE APPLICANT WANTED BASIC INDUSTRY, SO I THINK THERE'S AN AGREEMENT TO PUT BASIC INDUSTRY IN AS A CONDITIONAL USE. SO IF THEY DO GO TO CONDITION, GO DO BASIC INDUSTRY, IT WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT ON US. SO THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT'S BEEN ADDED BESIDES THE ONES THAT ARE IN OUR BACKUP. AND THAT IS STILL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM THREE C 14 20 24 DASH 0 1 7 DUVAL, PDA, UM, AGAIN, 55 0 1 DUVAL ROAD, 11 7 0 5, 11 7 55, 11 55 AND A HALF, SO FORTH, UH, RESEARCH BOULEVARD, UM, WEST COW, PATH 11 9 0 4 AND HALF WEST COW PATH. IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM LI LICO AND LO TO L-I-P-D-A. IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH CONDITIONS. AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM FOUR C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 4 1 OLSON REZONING AT 12 0 1 5 BUCKNER ROAD, LAKE TRAVIS. IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM DR TO MF ONE AND COMMISSIONER STERN, I BELIEVE WANTED TO PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION. SO THAT IS GONNA BE FULL PULL FOR DISCUSSION FOR ITEM FOUR. ITEM FIVE IS A REZONING CASE, C 1494 DASH 0 1 6 7 0.0 1 6500 RIVER PLACE PDA AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE IS A 6,500 RIVER PLACE BOULEVARD. UM, IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM R AND DPDA TO R AND DPDA TO CHANGE THE CONDITION OF ZONING. THERE'S STILL SOME NEGOTIATION GOING ON WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING REAL WELL, BUT WE WANNA POSTPONE THIS TO JULY 1ST. SO THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 1ST. ITEM SIX IS A PUT AMENDMENT C 8 14 0 4 DASH 0 1 8 7 0 3 SH GOODNIGHT. GOODNIGHT RANCH PUD AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, EAST SIDE OF OLD LOCKHART ROAD BETWEEN KNUCKLES CROSSING ROAD AND CAPITAL VIEW DRIVE, EXCEPT LOT THREE BLOCK J OF GOODNIGHT RANCH, PHASE TWO, ONE CREEK WATERSHED. UM, IT IS A REQUEST AS TO CITY INITIATED. PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF ZONING AND WAIVERS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOODNIGHT RANCH PUD. THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 15TH. SOMEDAY WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS THING. IT'S BEEN POSTPONED NUMEROUS TIMES. UH, ITEM SEVEN IS A PUT AMENDMENT C 8 14 86 DASH 0 2 3 0 3. CAMELBACK PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 365 0 5 65 11 5 69 15 BRIDGEPOINT PARKWAY. IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM PUT TO PUD TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF ZONING THAT ARE BASICALLY AFFECTED BY A, A TRAM NO LONGER BEING REQUIRED TO GO DOWN THE THE BLUFF. IT HAS GONE THROUGH, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AND IT'S ON OUR AGENDA WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE CONSENT AGENDA. I UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. THEY'RE ALL SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THESE ASPECTS. N NO. OKAY. NOT ALL. I'LL LET YOU READ THROUGH THE SPEAKERS FOR THE CONSENT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION, LET US KNOW. PERFECT. UM, SO WE HAVE OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER ON ITEM ITEM NUMBER TWO IS RICHARD SUTTLE. RICHARD, DO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES? HE'S WAIVING HIS FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. NEXT ITEM. OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IS RICHARD SUTTLE ON ITEM THREE. UM, HE'S WAITING IS THREE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, . AND WE HAVE OUR, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SWITCH OVER TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH THERE IS OPPOSITION. [00:10:01] SO OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IS CHRIS MAYFIELD. CHRIS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THE, THE ONLY THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 1ST, AND I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE POSTPONEMENT. OKAY. SO IF YOU'RE GONNA DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, NOPE, I'M GOOD. SUPPORTIVE. THANK YOU. YOU GOT IT. OKAY. WHAT ELSE WE GOT? OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JENNIFER MUSH. UM, WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY? JENNIFER, GOING PUSH STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. IS THIS ON ITEM FIVE AS WELL? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND AGAIN, THE COMMENTS NEED TO BE LIMITED TO THE POSTPONEMENT ONLY. UM, GO AHEAD. IS AL SHOW ON THE CALL? YES, I AM. SORRY. UM, NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER FOR ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, JONATHAN KON. JONATHAN IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES FROM RICHARD SUTTLE. RICHARD, SO RICHARD, THEY'RE WAIVING MIRRORS. OKAY. UM, JONATHAN, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES. JONATHAN WAD HIS, OH, I THINK THEY'RE WAIVING ANY DISCUSSION. OKAY. THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO THAT I CAN THIS UNDERSTAND. THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY, SO READING THROUGH THE CONSENT AGAIN, AGENDA AGAIN, THIS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 20TH, 2025. ITEM TWO IS REZONING C 14 20 24 0 1 5 9. THE ONLY CHANGE IS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION. THE BASIC USE BASIC INDUSTRY IS A CONDITIONAL USE. UM, EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME AS THE STAFF BACKUP. UH, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH CONDITIONS. UM, ITEM THREE IS A REZONING C 14 20 24 DASH IS RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS. ITEM FOUR IS A PULL FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM FIVE C 1494 DASH 7.01 IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 1ST, ITEM SIX C 8 14 0 4 8 7 SH IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEVEN 15. AND ITEM SEVEN, PUT AMENDMENT CA 14 86 0 2 3 0 3 IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFFING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED. COMMISSIONER LONNIE STERN MOTIONS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FLORES WAS THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE. WAIT, ? YES, MA'AM. GOTTA BE QUICK. UM, ON OKAY. BE TIME NO TWO AND THREE. I'D LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS VOTING. NO, I JUST FEEL LIKE THESE PDAS ARE PUDS WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THREE IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING TO ME BECAUSE WE HEARD JUST A PIECE OF THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE YEARS AGO OR FOUR YEARS AGO, AND THE NEIGHBORS WERE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT IT AND NOW THEY'RE JUST KIND OF, WHAT CAN WE DO? OKAY. WHICH I THINK IS SORT OF A SAD STATE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND JUST A COMMENT ABOUT SEVEN, I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY GOODBYE TO THE ELEVATOR, UM, , BUT ON THE THE SECTION WHERE YOU SAY WHICH THINGS APPLY FROM IMAGINE AUSTIN, I REALLY DON'T THINK VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PUT. UM, IS VARIETY FOR WHO? UM, SO I WOULD JUST SAY TAKE THAT CHECK MARK OFF WHEN IT GOES TO THE COUNCIL. . OKAY. AND THAT'S THE END OF MY ATION. ARE YOU SUPPORTING ITEM SEVEN OR I AM A SUPPORTING ITEM SEVEN. OKAY. THERE'S NO MORE FUNICULAR. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. IT IS UNANIMOUS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS TWO AND THREE FROM GREENBERG. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. UM, GOING BACK TO ITEM FOUR C 14 20 25 DASH 0 4 1 SSON REZONE 12 0 1 5 BUCKNER ROAD, LAKE TRAVIS. IT IS A REZONING FROM DR TO MF ONE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER SHERRY SIRTIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AGAIN, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS C 14 2 2 5 4 1. ALL OF SUN REZONE, IT'S LOCATED AT 1 2 0 1 5 BUCKNER ROAD. THE REQUEST IS FROM DR TO MF ONE ZONING. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT MF ONE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE LIMITED DENSITY DISTRICT ZONING. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A VACANT 2.54 ACRE ATTRACTIVE LAND THAT IS LOCATED ON BUCKNER ROAD, A LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR OR LOCAL ROADWAY. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS UNDEVELOPED IN, IS ZONED DR DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. THE LOTS OF THE SOUTH ARE ALSO ZONED DR AND CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE WEST, THERE IS UNDEVELOPED LAND. THE TRACKS OF LAND [00:15:01] TO THE EAST ARE ZONED DR AND L-O-M-U-C-O AND CONTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UNDEVELOPED LAND IN A DETENTION POND FOR THE VOLVO DEALERSHIP, WHICH FRONTS, UM, FM SIX 20 ACROSS BUCKNER ROAD TO THE SOUTHEAST. THERE'S A VACANT LOT THAT CURRENTLY HAS VEHICLE STORAGE THAT IS OWNED GR AND THAT CONTAINS OF HER SALE SIGN. IN THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO REONE THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION TO MF ONE TO REDEVELOP THIS LOT WITH FOUR RESIDENCES DUE TO WATERSHED REGULATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE LAKE TRAVIS WATERSHED AND IS CLASSIFIED AS WATER SUPPLY RURAL ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT. THE GROSS, UH, AREA OF THIS PROPERTY IS 2.5389 ACRES, BUT THE NET SIDE AREA IS APPRO APPROXIMATELY 50,007,000 SQUARE FEET. THE CODE STATES THAT FOR ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRES OF NET SITE AREA. THIS SITE IS ONLY APPROXIMATELY 1.31 ACRES OF NET SITE AREA. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF ONE, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A BUILD OF 20% OF THE NET SITE AREA ARE APPROXIMATELY 11,400 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. IF THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY IS ANYTHING LESS THAN AN MF, ONE DISTRICT OF VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUILD EVEN ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS SITE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS MF ONE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE LIMITED DENSITY ZONING. THE PROPERTY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE MF ONE DESIGNATION AS THIS DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND WILL ACT AS A BUFFER BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND HIGHER INTENSITY USES IN THE ZONING TO THE EAST ALONG BUCKNER ROAD. THERE IS CURRENTLY A TRANSITION FROM COMMERCIAL ZONING AT THE INTERSECTION OF FM SIX 20 AND BUCKNER ROAD TO THE OFFICE ZONING AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING ALONG BUCKNER ROAD AS IT NEARS THE TERMINUS TO THE WEST. AGAIN, BUCKNER ROAD HAS A MIXTURE OF USES FROM SINGLE FAMILY OFFICE WAREHOUSING, STORAGE, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AND AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USES. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS MF ONE ZONINGS PROVIDED TRANSITION DOWN IN THE INTENSITY OF USES PERMITTED ALONG BUCKNER ROAD TO THE WEST. AND MF ONE ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR HOUSING OPTIONS AT THIS LOCATION. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. QUESTIONS DID YOU WANNA HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? AND THEN YEAH. OKAY. HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. I'M JIM WITCLIFF. WHAT SHERRY SAID. . OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH, UH, WE, WE WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY WITH SF ONE, BUT THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW US TO BUILD ONE HOUSE UNLESS WE HAVE TWO ACRES OF NET SIDE AREA. WE HAVE LESS THAN ONE AND A QUARTER ACRES OF NET SIDE AREA. BUT IF WE GO TO MULTIFAMILY, WE GET 20% OF THE NET SIDE AREA. SO THAT ALLOWS US 11,000 SQUARE FEET TO PUT IN A COUPLE OF SMALL DRIVEWAYS, A COUPLE OF SMALL HOUSES. UH, IT, IT'S FOR HIS FAMILY. UH, WE WERE ASKING FOR THREE HOUSES, BUT WHEN THE HOME AMENDMENT CAME IN, POOF, THREE HOUSES BECAME SF ONE ZONING. CAN'T DO IT. SO WE HAD TO GO UP ONE TO MF MF ONE. UH, WE HAD TO GO TO FOUR HOUSES. SO HE'S GONNA BUILD A SMALL GUEST HOUSE FOR HIS FOURTH HOUSE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S FOUR OR IT FOUR HOUSES OR IT'S NOTHING BECAUSE THANK YOU. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHEDS ORDINANCE. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SPEAKERS? NOPE, THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. OKAY, COMMISSIONER FOUR TWO. DAY FOUR TWO RECOMMENDS COMMISSIONER OLUGO. THANK YOU. SORRY. YOU CAN STILL FEEL HIS SPIRIT. SPIRIT. I'M STILL, I'M STILL COMING. HE'S WHAT HAPPENED THERE? COMMISSIONER OLUGO MAKES A MOTION. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THANK YOU . IT WOULD'VE BEEN FUNNIER IF I LEFT TO KEEP GOING. . OKAY. UM, QUESTIONS CHAIR? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. UM, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THESE CODE VIOLATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. I, I, IS THERE A PLAN TO ADDRESS THESE CODE VIOLATIONS? COMMISSIONER, THE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE ALL ADDRESSED IN 2024. IT WAS CUT THE GRASS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. IT WAS REMOVE A PILE OF JUNK THAT SOMEBODY ILLEGALLY DUMPED ON THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS REMOVED PART OF A FENCE THAT WAS FALLING DOWN. THAT WAS ALL DONE BACK IN 2024. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, SO, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHEN WHEN THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THE VIOLATIONS ARE ACTIVE, THAT MEANS THEY'VE BEEN ADDRESSED. [00:20:01] I'LL LET STAFF ADDRESS THAT. THE VIOLATIONS ARE STILL OPEN ACCORDING TO OUR AMANDA SYSTEM, BUT USUALLY VIOLATIONS ARE PUT ON HOLD WHEN A REZONING CASE IS IN PROCESS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT. OKAY. SO, SO JUST ONE MORE QUESTION IF I MAY. IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR, UH, APPROVING ZONING WHEN THEY'RE OUTSTANDING CODE VIOLATIONS? YES. IT HAPPENS ON A REGULAR BASIS. PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO BRING A PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND SO THEY ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THEIR CODE VIOLATIONS BY GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS. OKAY. YEAH. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THIS IS FOR MR. WHITLOW? NOPE. UM, I THOUGHT I READ IN THE BACKUP THAT YOU WERE REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO BUILD ONE HOUSE AND THEN YOU SAID BECAUSE OF THREE, THEREFORE WE HAVE TO BUILD THREE. YEAH. AND NOW IT'S MF SO WE HAVE TO BUILD FOUR. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO BUILD FOUR, IF WE GET MF ONE ZONING, THE MINIMUM IS FOUR. YOU HAVE TO BUILD FOUR. I MEAN, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BUILD FOUR, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE CAN'T BUILD THREE. IS THAT BECAUSE OF HOME? OKAY. WHY? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? ? COULD HE BUILD ONE OR TWO? YES, BUT NOT THREE. NO. YEAH, I NEED TO . I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S, I FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT WHETHER IT'S TWO OR THREE OR FOUR. I MEAN IF IT'S, IF THERE MAY BE SOME TECHNICALITY, BOY WE CAN'T DO THREE, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S NOT PARTICULARLY, I DON'T WANNA SPEND FIVE MINUTES ON SOME TECHNICALITY OF LIKE, OH, BECAUSE OF EXTRA Y OR Z LAW, A, B, C LAW. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M, I'M SORRY YOU DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT BUT IT'S RELEVANT HOW MANY UNITS CAN BE BUILT ON THIS LOT? OKAY, FOR SURE. ONE THING I WANNA BE CAREFUL OF IS, AND WE CAN GET LEGAL'S INPUT IF WE NEED TO, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING A, TAKING BY NOT APPROVING A ZONING BY WHICH YOU CAN BUILD SOMETHING. WE CAN'T HAVE A ZONING WHERE YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD SOMETHING UNDER A ZONING AND WELL HE HAS, I'M NOT BEING AN ATTORNEY, BUT, UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T, WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS. SO WE DON'T WANNA CREATE A SITUATION OF A TAKING. WELL HE HAS DR AND THEN HE CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING, RIGHT. IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THERE'S NOT A TAKING RIGHT NOW TAKING RIGHT NOW THIS IS A PROVIDING ADDITIONAL RIGHT. WE CAN VALUE TO IS WHAT RECOMMEND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT WAS NOTICED. RIGHT. SO I ERIC COMPLAIN DEPARTMENT HERE TO CLARIFY WHY, UH, THREE UNITS WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED IN MULTIFAMILY. SO THE DEFINITIONS CHANGED WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE HOME AMENDMENT. SO, UM, THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOW ITS OWN USE WITH THREE UNITS AND THAT'S ONLY PERMITTED IN SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE. SO MULTIFAMILY NOW IS FOUR OR MORE. SO IN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS YOU CAN DO UM, SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY AND, OR SORRY, EXCUSE ME, TWO SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO UNIT AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT NOT THREE UNIT. BUT THEN YOU CAN JUMP UP TO MULTIFAMILY BEYOND THAT. AND IN MULTIFAMILY ONE FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN BUILD LIKE IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY, CORRECT? YES. SO THEY CAN BUILD ONE OR TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MM-HMM . OR AS MANY MULTIFAMILIES AS HE COULD FIT ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. DOES THAT HELP? YEAH. AND ARE WE CLEAR THAT HE COULDN'T BUILD MORE THAN FOUR? I MEAN I LOOKED THERE AND I THOUGHT CAN YOU BUILD IT ALL? HE CAN BUILD AS MANY MULTI-FAMILIES AS WILL FIT WITHIN THE, WELL WHEN I DOWN THE STREET, THEY WILL FIT WITHIN THE REGULATIONS. WHEN I DROVE DOWN THE STREET, WE HAVE CONDITIONAL OVERLAID LIMITED IT FOUR. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S WHAT THE LIMIT OF FOUR IS. . DO YOU HAVE A CONDI OR YOU ARE AGREEING TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING IT TO FOUR? WE, WE'VE REQUESTED THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO LIMIT IT TO FOUR UNITS. OKAY. NO, IT'S NOT IN THE BACKUP EITHER. NO. THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST WALKED IN. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE CODE VIOLATIONS, HE'S, HE'S NOT HERE. HEY HANK, I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ASK YOU. UH OH. IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY. I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY. IT'S FINE. NO, YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTION. I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY. UNDER THE MF ONE DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF UNITS YOU COULD DO IS 17 UNITS PER ACRE. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS STATING TONIGHT THAT HE WOULD AGREE TO LIMIT THE SITE WITH THE CO O TO [00:25:01] FOUR UNITS. SO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS NOT IN THE BACKUP. IT'S SOMETHING 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS NOT IN THE REQUEST? NO, BUT YOU CAN ADD IT. YOU CAN ADD IT IN THERE, YES. OKAY. BECAUSE HE'S OFFERED. OKAY, SO WE, WE THERE IS NO CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IN THE BACKUP, BUT HE CAN, HE'S, WE CAN ADD ONE IF WE WANT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. YEAH, HANG JUST ONE QUESTION. IT IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT FOUR UNITS. UM, THAT DO THEY MIND JUST KIND OF EXPLAINING WHY THEY MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT FOUR UNITS? SURE. I'D BE VERY HAPPY TO. I THINK, UM, EVEN SOME OF OUR LISTENERS TONIGHT BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING OUR LAST MEETING, BUT, UM, JENNIFER MUTAL BROUGHT IT UP. IF YOU, IF YOU OPEN UP GOOGLE MAPS AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SIX 20 AND 2222, IT HAS SO MANY TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO BE LIVING IN A MULTI-FAMILY SITUATION. UM, SHE BROUGHT UP THERE'S ONLY ONE LEVEL FIVE ROAD THERE AND ONE LEVEL TWO ROAD THERE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK FOR TRANSIT, YOU'LL FIND ZERO ROUTES AVAILABLE TO YOU AND THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TRANSIT OVER THERE. IT IS NOT PART OF TRANSIT PLAN 20 25, 20 30, OR 2035. SO YOU CANNOT EXPECT ANY TRANSIT TO SHOW UP THERE FOR AT LEAST A DECADE, I CAN PROMISE YOU. AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE 2222 DOES NOT HAVE A FLYOVER ONTO MOPAC. SO IF YOU RUN BUS SERVICE, IT'S GONNA GET STUCK IN THE SAME TRAFFIC THAT SHE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING STUCK AT 22, 22 AND SIX 20. SO ADDING MORE PEOPLE TO THAT SPOT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND IN FACT, WE HAVE AN ORGANIZATION THAT WAS FORMED TO STOP US FROM BUILDING IN WATERSHEDS CALLED SAVE OUR SPRINGS. AND THEIR ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS VERY GOOD. AND I THINK WE'VE FORGOTTEN THAT ORIGINAL INTENTION. AND SO AS ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND WE, WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL THAT WE WANNA ADD AS MUCH HOUSING AS POSSIBLE WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO WALK AND BIKE AND USE TRANSIT TO GET TO WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. BUT WE DON'T WANNA PUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOUSING WHERE PEOPLE ARE A SLAVE TO THEIR CAR. THERE'S JUST NO OTHER WAY TO GET AROUND IN THAT AREA. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE IGNORE THAT IT'S IN A WATERSHED AND WE IGNORE THE, THE BAD URBAN ENVIRONMENT THERE, BUT WE SUGGEST THAT THEY OWN THIS LAND AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY. I CAN UNDERSTAND HAVING A HOME AND MAYBE EVEN HAVING A SECOND HOME THERE FOR ADDITIONAL FAMILY, BUT ALLOWING MULTI-FAMILY TO GROW TO MULTIPLE UNITS DOES NOT SOUND LIKE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A BUSINESS PLAN. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD BE RUBBER STAMPING THAT. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? WELL MY EMOTION WOULD BE THAT WE UM, ADD A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING THIS PROPERTY TO TWO UNITS. YES. I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, WOULD THE APPLICANT BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE TWO UNIT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OWNER? MAYBE I'M JUST, JUST ASKING. YEAH, HE CAN, HE CAN LIVE WITH TWO. HE WANTED A GUEST HOUSE. OKAY. AND WE, WE NEVER WANTED FOUR. NEVER. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT I NEEDED. THANK YOU. PERFECT. OKAY. WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION? YEAH, IT WAS ME. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE OWNER SLASH APPLICANT AND WE DID. THEY, THEY, THEY SAID THE RIGHT THING. I THINK SO. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STERN TO APPROVE THE MF ONE ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITED TO TWO UNITS. AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. UH, THAT IS ALL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, GOING ON TO [WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES ] WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE UPDATES, CODES AND NOTICES, JOINT COMMITTEE COMMISSIONERS, GREENBERG FLORES OR STERN. WE DID NOT, THE LAST MEETING WAS CANCELED BACK OF BUSINESS. OKAY. CONVERSATIVE PLAN JOINT COMMISSION, WHICH IS, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH, GREENBERG AND FAU. WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING IN A WHILE, BUT IS THERE ONE SCHEDULED? NOT [00:30:01] THAT I KNOW OF. OH, OKAY. IF THERE IS I HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IT. UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER LU OS OLUGO PKI OR SHEY? YES. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE MET TOGETHER, BUT I'LL REACH OUT TO BOTH COMMISSIONERS TO SCHEDULE ONE IMMEDIATELY. OKAY. I THOUGHT THERE'S A MEETING TOMORROW. SMALL AREA PLAN? YEAH, WE, WE MEET TOMORROW. OH, BEAUTIFUL. , CHECK YOUR CALENDAR. YES. OKAY. AND ITEM 11, LAND USE COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WORKING GROUP. THAT WAS COMMISSIONER SPOUT MAJOR, BOTH DE LUGO AND CHEE. ANY UPDATE ON ANYTHING COMING OUT OF THAT? I, I, I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO, TO SCHEDULE A MEETING. UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE'VE MET YET. OKAY. I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE FOUR OF YOU GUYS TO GET TOGETHER AND SCHEDULE SOMETHING. UM, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ] ANYTHING IN HERE? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? YES. UM, I'D LIKE IF THERE'S ANOTHER PERSON WILLING TO SPONSOR FOR US TO CONSIDER THE, UM, SMALL AREA PLAN RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, JENNIFER STELLER BROUGHT UP THAT WOULD AFFECT DISTRICT 10 AND DISTRICT SIX. SO I'M HOPING THAT MY, IS THERE A, THE DISTRICT SIX COMMISSIONER MIGHT BE WILLING TO CO-SPONSOR. IS THERE A CO-SPONSOR FOR THAT? IS THIS TO JUST GET IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO LIKE DISCUSS IT AND VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA DO YES. YEAH, I MEAN WE DON'T INITIATE, BUT WE COULD WRITE A RECOMMENDATION SAYING COUNCIL SHOULD INITIATE. I MEAN I, I GUESS I'M, I MISSED THAT. UH, SO I AND THE DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVE, I, I, I MISSED EXACTLY, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO. THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THERE. SO I THINK IT'S THE DESIRE TO HAVE SOME PLANNING BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WOOEY AND THE TRANSPORTATION. SO THE REQUEST WOULD BASICALLY BE PUTTING AN ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO CONSIDER, TO CONSIDER REQUESTING A COMMITTEE BE FORMED TO OR TO REQUEST OR WE CAN JUST LOOK AT, WE JUST REQUEST IT AT WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED AND SEE IF WE WANT TO YES, RUBBER STAMP IT. SO ASKING STAFF REALLY KIND OF COME TO US WITH EITHER COMMITTEE, CREATING COMMITTEE OR BRINGING US INFORMATION ABOUT A REQUEST FOR A SMALL AREA PLANNING FOR THE RIVER PLACE AREA. BUT IT DOESN'T GO ON THE AGENDA UNLESS THERE'S A SECOND PERSON WILLING TO SPONSOR IT. NOW I WAS LOOKING AT DISTRICT SIX. SINCE IT'S THEIR DISTRICT, I'M WILLING TO CO-SPONSOR IT. YES. OKAY. THAT'S ALL WE NEED IS A SPONSOR AND CO-SPONSOR. WE'RE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. SO THAT'S DONE. ANY OTHER FUTURE, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? HEARING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED. IT IS 6 34. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.