[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING IN THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.TODAY IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 19TH.
UH, WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 1001.
I WILL START BY CALLING ROLL CHAIR HANK SMITH.
I'M PRESENT VICE CHAIR BETSY GREENBERG.
HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE WITH A MASSIVE ECHO.
WE'RE IN THE ROCKSTAR COMMISSIONER RYAN PKI.
BETSY, CAN YOU TURN YOUR VIDEO ON? WE NEED TO SEE YOU AS WELL AS HEAR YOU.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
COMMUNICATION? NO.[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE'RE GONNA HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM TWO WEEKS AGO? OKAY, SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS GONNA BE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 5TH.
ITEM TWO IS GONNA BE DISCUSSION ITEM.
IT'S A REZONING KC 14 20 25 DASH 0 3 2 ACRES WEST LOT 20 REZONE.
IT'S A REZONING FROM INTERIM RR TO SF SIX.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BUT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM THREE IS ALSO DISCUSSION.
REZONING OF LOT 31 BLOCK A THE FOUR SECTION ONE AT THE VILLAGES OF SPICEWOOD.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM SF ONE TO SF TWO AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM FOUR IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 5 6 AT 1 2 9 4 OH NORTH US 180 3.
IT'S A REZONING CASE FROM GR AND LO TO CSV.
THERE'S AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO TEN SEVEN, SO THE POSTPONEMENT TO TEN SEVEN WILL BE PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM FIVE IS A ZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 6 1 61 0 5 MELROSE TRAIL.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM INTERIM SF TWO TO MF FIVE STAFFER COMMENDS MF THREE AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM SIX IS A ZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 5 5 AT 65 12 MCNEIL.
UM, IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM INTERIM RR TO CS AND IT IS A CONSENT ITEM.
ITEM SEVEN IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND A CONSENT ITEM BOTH.
UM, ITEM SEVEN IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 7 1.
TRAVIS COUNTY WEST SERVICE CENTER.
THE APPLICANT IS TRAVIS COUNTY.
UM, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM DR TO P.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM EIGHT IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 6 E AE MEDICAL AND RETAIL REZONE.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FOR TRACK ONE FROM GR CO AND TRACK TWO GOCO TO TRACK ONE GRCO AND TRACK TWO GOCO TO CHANGE THE CONDITION OF ZONING.
IT IS ON THE CONSENT ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA.
ITEM ITEM NINE IS A RESTRICTED COVENANT TERMINATION C EIGHT 14 2008 0 2 2 4 RCT AE MEDICAL AND RETAIL AMENDMENT.
UM, IT IS DETERMINATE A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT LIMITS THE OPERATIONAL HOURS TO BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND 10:00 PM AND REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPE VEGETATIVE BUFFERS ALONG INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BUT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM 10 IS A PUT AMENDMENT C 8 14 0 4 DASH 0 1 8 7 0.03 SH GOODNIGHT RANCH PUD.
IT IS A POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 2ND.
UH, ITEM 11 IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SPC 2025 DASH 0 0 8 70 C STONY RIDGE HIGHLANDS AMENITY CENTER.
IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER PRIVATE USE AND SF FOUR A ZONING.
IT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ITEM 12 IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SPC 2024 DASH 0 4 5 6 CFSD NORTHEAST SERVICE CENTER.
THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT IS A APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SERVICE CENTER FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY AND FLEET SERVICES.
THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES ASSOCIATED UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, GRADING, PAVING, AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SERVICE THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE SITE OF IS ZONED P PUBLIC AND IS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE.
THEREFORE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BUT HAS BEEN PULLED FOR A DISCUSSION ITEM HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
[00:05:01]
0 0 5 T CX R FOUR LEANDER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ES NUMBER 19 GRANDVIEW HILLS ANCILLARY BUILDING PROJECT.THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REVISE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ADD PARKING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR AND THEREFORE REQUIRES LAND USE COMMISSION REVIEW.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF MEETS ALL CODE HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 14, SUBDIVISION VACATION C EIGHT J OH 3 0 0 4 1 DASH A IS A VACATION TOWN AND COUNTRY PARK EDITION, THE OPTIMIST CLUB OF TOWN AND COUNTRY ROUND ROCK, TEXAS.
THE APPROVAL IS OF THE TOTAL SUBDIVISION VACATION OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PARK EDITION CONSISTING OF ONE LOT ON 88.289 ACRES.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT I'VE READ? I'LL GO THROUGH VERY QUICKLY THE CONSENT ITEMS. ITEM ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE, IT'S A DISCUSSION.
ITEM THREE IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM FOUR IS AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO TEN SEVEN.
ITEM SIX IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM SEVEN IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM EIGHT IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM NINE IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 10, ITEM 10 IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 2ND.
ITEM 11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM 12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM 13, HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY PERMIT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
AND ITEM 14, SUBDIVISION VACATION IS A CONSENT ITEM.
UM, I HAD MENTIONED, UM, ADDING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE USE OF AMPLIFIED SOUND.
AND THE, ARE THOSE ADDED TO THE CONDITIONAL USES OR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? YES.
THERE WAS SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT WENT BY EARLIER AND THE STAFF WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE BILL COUCH NOT SEEING THE APPLICANT? IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO.
I THINK THE CORRESPONDS I HAD THE APPLICANT WAS IN, IN SUPPORT OF, SO YES, THAT INCLUDES THE LIMITATION ON THE HOURS AND NOISE IN THE MOTION.
SO THEY'RE HEARING MOTION TO PROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ COMMISSIONER.
UM, WE HAVE SOME COMMISSIONER GREENBERG MOTIONS.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS STILL FOR THE CONSENT.
STAFF'S GONNA GO THROUGH THE, LET ME GET A SECOND REAL QUICK.
AND WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS WHO ARE SIGNED UP IN SUPPORT OF THESE PROJECTS AND I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE GONNA WAIVE THEIR JUST TALK, BUT GO AHEAD.
SO WE HAVE, FOR ITEM SIX, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT CARL CROWLEY.
CARL, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
HE'S, HE DOESN'T WANNA CHANGE OUR MINDS.
UM, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS FOR ITEM SEVEN.
WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY ROB AND KILLEN.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
HI, THIS IS, UH, UM, NEW TO DEAN AND ROB KILLEN.
WE BOTH WAIVE OUR TIME FOR THIS ITEM.
AND FOR ITEM 11, WE HAVE THAT BILL COUCH WHO IS ALSO JOINING VIRTUALLY AIMS THE APPLICANT.
BILL, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES ALL SPEAKERS.
UH, ONE MORE 14 IS VICTORIA HASI.
UM, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE WAIVING VICTORIA.
SHE DOESN'T WANNA TALK EITHER.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THESE SPEAKERS HAVE SPOKEN, BUT STAFF IS WAVING AT ME TO GET MY ATTENTION.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE CHAIR THAT ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, MCNEIL ESS, THAT THE CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED WHAT WAS LISTED IN THE ISSUE SECTION OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
WHICH IS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ADDS ON TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CSCO AND THOSE WERE THE CONDITIONALS THAT WERE ADDED ON BY STAFF.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WE WILL GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND WE WILL START WITH
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
ITEM TWO.REZONING CASE C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 3 2 ACRES WEST LOT 20 REZONE, UH, IS REZONE CASE FROM INTERIM MRR TO SF SIX AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, SO I'LL LET STAFF GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
COMMISSIONER SHERRY TI WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS KC 14 20 25 0 0 3 2, WHICH IS THE ACRES WEST LOT 20 REZONE.
IT IS LOCATED AT 13 6 0 8 CALLED CALDWELL DRIVE.
THEIR REQUEST IS FROM INTERIM RR TO SF SIX ZONING.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS SS SIX TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE ZONING.
[00:10:01]
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 0.407 ACRE UNDEVELOPED LOT THAT RUNS ON THE CALDWELL DRIVE THERE.PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OF MEDICAL OFFICES ASSIST TO THE NORTH AND EAST ZONE GOCO.
THE LOTS OF THE SOUTH ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ZONED SF TWO TO THE WEST.
THERE IS AN UNDEVELOPED AREA, A DETENTION POND, AND A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH GOCO ZONING AND INTERIM RRR DESIGNATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PERMANENT SF SIX ZONING TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE DISTRICT ZONING AT THIS LOCATION.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT.
AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROADWAY, THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL PROVIDE A TRANSITION FROM THE OFFICE ZONING, USES ZONING AND USES TO THE NORTH AND EAST TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ALONG CALDWELL DRIVE TO THE SOUTH SF SIX ZONING WILL PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES IN THIS AREA AND WILL ESTABLISH PERMANENT ZONING DESIGNATION ON THIS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LOT.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? YES.
YEAH, SO I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAD SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THAT WE HAD SOME TYPE OF REPRESENTATION THERE AND SOME TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS THERE.
I I READ WHAT WAS IN THE BACKUP.
I JUST WANT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD HERE.
THE COUNCIL OFFICE WAS, UH, CONCERNED AND HAD, UH, HEARD SOME CONCERNS ON THIS, UH, PARTICULAR CASE AT THE, UH, I THINK ITEMS TWO, EIGHT AND NINE GO TOGETHER.
WELL, TECHNICALLY WE SHOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC FINISH THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.
WELL, WE HAVE, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE TO, TO TALK ON THIS CASE, SO, OKAY.
I THINK WE NEED TO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK NE YES.
NEXT AND THEY CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE COMMENTARY FROM THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THEIR CORRESPONDENCE WITH ONE ANOTHER.
SO WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NEXT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE, BEFORE WE GO ON, WE ACTUALLY HAD, UM, BILL COUCH.
UM, SO BEL GO AHEAD AND PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE FOR ITEM TWO, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, TRICIA RETA, WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY TR UH, TISHA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
MR. CIA RETA, I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FOR THE FOLLOWING REZONING REQUEST.
UM, BEFORE I BEGIN MY PRESENTATION, UM, I DO WANNA MENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN, UH, MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS, I THINK ON BOTH SIDES, THE ME, THE APPLICANT, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO, UM, COORDINATE, UH, CONCERNS RELATED TO THIS REZONING REQUEST.
UM, A MEETING WAS NOT ABLE TO GET SCHEDULED, UM, AND A LOT OF CONCERNS, UH, THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ATTEMPT, UM, THROUGH EMAIL, UH, WENT UNRESPONSIVE.
SO, UM, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I CAN CONTINUE WITH MY, MY PRESENTATION.
I JUST WANTED TO FOR THAT QUESTION.
UM, ALRIGHT, UH, WE CAN GO TO THE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
OKAY, SO, UH, PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 3 6 0 8 CODWELL DRIVE, LEGALLY KNOWN AS ACRES WEST LOT 20.
UH, THIS WAS RECENTLY ASSIGNED A NEW ADDRESS DURING THE APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, THIS DID CAUSE SOME NOTIFICATION ISSUES, UH, AFTER SUBMISSION WITH THERE NOT BEING AN ADDRESS ASSIGNED.
UH, THE EXISTING ZONING IS INTERIM RESIDENTIAL RULE.
UH, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT OWNER, UH, IN 2010.
SORRY, ONE MORE SIDE SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS A 0.407 ACRE UNDEVELOPED LOT THAT FRONTS CALDWELL DRIVE.
WE ARE SEEKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ITS EXISTING DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL RURAL TO TOWN HOME AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL SF SIX TO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWN HOME CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT.
SF SIX ZONING WILL ESTABLISH A PERMANENT ZONING DESIGNATION ON A CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LOT
[00:15:01]
AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES TO SUPPORT MUCH NEEDED HOUSING IN THE CITY.PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THERE IS NO FLOODPLAIN WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S A ZONING MAP SHOWING HOW THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN RELATION TO THE ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICT.
OUR REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.
THE PROPOSED ZONING MATCHES THE DISTRICT'S INTENT SINCE THE PROPERTY FRONTS A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET MAKING IT APPROPRIATE FOR MODERATE DENSITY HOUSING LIKE TOWN HOMES AND CONDOMINIUM.
IT CREATES A NATURAL TRANSITION FROM OFFICE USES TO THE NORTH AND EAST DOWN TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG CALDWELL DRIVE TO THE SOUTH AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CONDOS TO THE WEST.
UH, SF SIX ZONING WILL ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THIS UNDEVELOPABLE LOT PLACING HOUSING NEARBY, COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC USES.
THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING ALIGNS WITH THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORE PRINCIPLES AND GOALS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF GOOD SERVICES AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
A VARIETY OF MEDICAL SERVICES AND A DENTIST OFFICE ARE WITHIN 0.2 MILES PROVIDING NEARBY HEALTH SERVICES.
THE ZONING EXPANDS HOUSING OPTIONS WITH
THIS DIRECTLY SUPPORTS IMAGINE AUSTIN AND THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS.
THIS MAP SHOWS THE EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICT AND LAND USES.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CENTRALLY LOCATED AROUND EXISTING COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
YOU CAN SEE THE LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AND MORE COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST ALONG 180 3 HIGHWAY SERVICE ROAD ACRES, WEST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH.
AND THE LONG RECTANGULAR LOT TO THE EAST IS THE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THE COTTAGES AT LAKE CREEK.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS RAISED CONCERN RELATED TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION FROM THE SINGLE ACCESS POINT ON CADWELL DRIVE, DRAINAGE AND FLOODING.
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE CHANGES TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND POTENTIAL IMPACT TO PROPERTY VALUES.
ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WILL COMPLY WITH CURRENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN WHEN THE EXISTING HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BECAUSE THIS SITE IS IN THE RECHARGE ZONE, THE PROJECT WILL FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, SITE ASSESSMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE ADDRESSED.
THE PROPOSED SF SIX ZONING ALLOWS FOR HOUSING TYPES THAT FIT IN WITH THE SURROUNDING TOWN HOMES.
IT SUPPORTS NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR OWNERSHIP, NOT HIGH RISE OR HIGH DENSITY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT.
WELL-DESIGNED HIGH QUALITY INFILL HOUSING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO STRENGTHEN PROPERTY VALUES AND ENCOURAGE LONG-TERM COMMUNITY INVESTMENT.
THIS PROJECT IS SMALL ENOUGH THAT TRAFFIC WILL REMAIN BELOW THE LEVEL THAT WOULD TRIGGER A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT IN ANALYSIS WHILE CADWELL DRIVE IS THE ONLY ACCESS POINT SIMILAR TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS LOCATED OFF HIGHWAY 180 3.
THIS CITY WILL REVIEW AND CONFIRM TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS, FACING SITE DISTANCE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS BEFORE ANY PERMITS ARE ISSUED.
HERE TO PROPOSED DESIGN LAYOUT FOR THE LOT.
SINCE THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE AN APPROVED ZONING DESIGNATION, IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE FOR THE OWNER TO INVEST IN DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING PLANS JUST YET, BUT THESE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLANS GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE OWNER'S INTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE LOT DOES PRESENT SOME DESIGN LIMITATIONS, BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY CON CAREFULLY CONSIDER DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT TO REDUCE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS GIVEN.
UM, WE'LL NOW BE SWITCHING OVER.
WE'LL NOW BE SWITCHING OVER TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER, CINDY BARRON, WHO'S RECEIVING TIME FROM KAY MARTIN.
K, ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, WELL YOU WILL HAVE NINE MINUTES.
WAS SOME OF HER TIME USED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION RATHER THAN HER PRESENTATION STAFF IS WAVING THEIR HEAD? NO.
[00:20:01]
DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS? NO, YOU ALREADY DID AND I DIDN'T WANT THAT TO COME OUT OF YOUR TIME.SHE'LL HAVE A REBUTTAL AND WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE REBUTTAL.
WHEN TISHA RITTER, THE APPLICANT WAS ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS, HER TIME WAS PAUSED, SO SHE GOT HER FULL SIX MINUTES.
OKAY, SO WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM CINDY BARRON FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.
I'M A NATIVE AUSTINITE AND I'VE LIVED IN ACRE WEST FOR 54 YEARS AND I HAVE WITNESSED A LOT OF GROWTH IN THAT AREA, BELIEVE ME.
UM, THIS CASE IS REGARDING A LEGALLY PLATTED RESIDENTIAL LOT IN A ACRES WEST SUBDIVISION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1967.
THE SUBDIVISION CONTAINS 35 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
ALL THE LOTS WERE BUILT OUT EXCEPT FOR THIS LOT, LOT 16 AND LOT 21.
OUR SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY ANNEXED UNDER LIMITED PUR PURPOSE IN 8 19 84.
AND AT THAT TIME THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WERE DESIGNATED AS SF TWO LOTS.
LOT 20 WAS DIS ANNEXED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE LIMITED PURPOSE BOUNDARY LIMITS IN 1989 WITH THE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL TRACT, WHICH SPECIFICALLY DID NOT RELEASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETJ.
THE LOT WAS THEN ANNEXED WITH THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN ACRES WEST UNDER FULL PURPOSE IN 2008.
SO THIS LOT HAS GONE ANNEXED, DIS ANNEXED AND ANNEXED.
UM, IN DOING SO, THE DESIGNATION OF THE ZONING FOR THE LEGALLY PLATTED LOTS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH ANNEXATION DIS ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION LAND CODE DIRECTIVES.
AND SOMEHOW THIS PARTICULARLY PARTICULAR LEGALLY PLATTED LOT WAS DESIGNATED AS IRR BECAUSE THIS CASE IS IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THIS LOT FROM INTERIM ZONING TO PERMANENT ZONING, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF SUBMITTING A VALID PETITION.
IT IS OUR REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE ZONING DESIGNATION BE SF TWO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE LEGALLY PLATTED LOTS IN ACRES.
WEST SUBDIVISION, AS WAS ORIGINALLY PLA AND PLANNED BY THE FOUNDING DEVELOPER WILLIAM P. CALDWELL, WE HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH DO INCLUDE THIS LOT AND DOES NOT ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING SF SIX ZONING IF APPROVED, COULD BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING.
MUCH OF THE LAND CODE THAT ADDRESSES ADDITIONAL UNITS ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS HAS BEEN REPEALED AND REPLACED BY THE HOME INITIATIVE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK BEING DONE THERE.
UM, HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED BY SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 72 THAT A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED USE IS PROHIBITED ON PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO A DEED RESTRICTION THAT LIMITS USE OF THE PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, OR THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT IS LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION AS PROVIDED TO YOU AS BACKUP COMMENTS FROM, UH, MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, FROM MANY OF THE RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS IN ACRES WEST OF UTMOST.
CONCERN IS OUR COMMUNITY IN OUR COMMUNITY IS SAFETY.
OUR STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH, PROBABLY CONSIDERED A MINOR RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY WITH A SINGLE INGRESS AND EGRESS AT US.
WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS OR STORM WATER RUNOFF INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THE ROADWAY SUPPORTS 35 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 74 CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN THE COTTAGES AND A COMMERCIAL MEDICAL USE.
IN FACT, THE CONDOMINIUMS ARE NOT ZONED.
THEY'RE IRR, NOT GRCO AS HER, UM, SLIDE INDICATED.
WE HAVE MANY WALKERS, SOME OF WHOM ARE CONFINED TO WHEELCHAIRS OR WALKERS, AND SEVERAL OF OUR RESIDENTS REQUIRE FREQUENT MEDICAL ATTENTION AND E-M-S-E-M-S CARE VISITS AND CAT METRO DISABILITY VAN SERVICES OUR, OUR, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE FREQUENTLY MACK WILL BE GOING OVER, UM, THE MANEUVERABILITY DEFICITS THAT WE HAVE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN FACT, ROUND ROCK ISD CONSIDERS OUR ROADWAY AS HAZARDOUS TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR BUS SERVICE.
SO THEIR SOLUTION WAS TO ESTABLISH HIGH SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS BE PICKED UP AND DROPPED OFF ON US.
180 3 SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE AT THE CORNER OF OUR STREET ENTRANCE.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER 40 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH, UH, EVEN THROUGH
[00:25:01]
ALL THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES ON US, 180 3, IT IS QUITE DANGEROUS.WE REQUEST YOU TO ZONE THIS SLIDE AS SF TWO.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MACK HOLDER, WHO IS RECEIVING TIME FROM JANET TO JANET.
I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND, UH, UH, THIS IS, AND I BELIEVE IT'S AN EARLY PROJECT OF MINE IN A VERY EARLY AGE, UH, YEAR, BUT, UH, UH, I CAN'T, I I, I JUST REMEMBER IT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY KNOW, UH, ANY SIG SIGNATURES ON IT.
UH, DONE A LOT OF SUBDIVISIONS, ARCHITECTURE, UH, UH, BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE AUSTIN AREA.
UH, I WANNA REITERATE SEVERAL THINGS THAT, THAT CINDY TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT.
AND IF I COULD HAVE THE SLIDES.
OKAY, THAT'S, THERE'S THE BUS STOP.
THIS IS THE BUS STOP ON 180 3.
AND IF YOU'LL LOOK, UH, IT'S, UH, IT IS A VER A VERY DANGEROUS LOCATION FOR A BUS STOP.
THE KIDS, IF THEY GET OFF THE BUS AND DON'T, DON'T GO IMMEDIATELY DOWN THE SIDEWALK AND INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER.
THEY, THE, THE, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S NOT WELL PLACED.
AND, AND THE, THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO, TO HAVE KIDS INTO THE SUBDIVISION IS REALLY A PROBLEM.
THE REASON THAT THERE'S NO SUBDIVISION, NO KIDS INTO THE ALLOWED, INTO THE SUBDIVISION IS IN THE PLANS.
IN THE PREVIOUS PLANS, THERE ARE TWO, UH, TURNAROUNDS, UH, PLANNED FOR ONE AT THE END OF, OF, UH, CALDWELL DRIVE AND ONE AT THE END OF LOIS LANE.
NEITHER ONE HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
AND LET ME HAVE A NEXT SLIDE THAT'S, THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
THIS IS THE, THE, UH, THE LOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST, JUST PAST THE BUILDINGS SHOWN HERE.
NEXT SLIDE THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
YOU CAN SEE HOW NARROW THE STREET IS.
UM, THAT'S ONE CAR PARKED IN A LEGAL PARKING PLACE.
UH, IT, IT'S ACTUALLY A NON, THEY DON'T NOT ALLOW THAT PARKING TO BE DONE DURING THE DAY.
THE, UH, THIS IS THE STREET THAT, UH, THAT THIS EMPTIES OUT ON.
AND AT THE END OF THAT STREET WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE, THE, UH, TURNAROUND FOR THE, HOW FAR IT IS TO THE TURNAROUND FOR THE NEXT, UH, THAT WE, WE NEED, WE NEED CONSTRUCTED.
THIS IS THE HOUSING THAT IS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
IT'S, UH, IT'S RURAL, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THERE'S NICE, UH, LARGER HOUSES THEN MIXED IN WITH IT.
IT'S THE, THE SUBDIVISION HAS HELD UP WELL AND IS WELL RE RESPECTED.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE STREETS HAVE NO CURBS, NO GOVERNOR GUTTERS.
THIS IS LOOKING DOWN CALDWELL TOWARDS THE, THE, UH, TO TOWARDS THE TURNAROUND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE END OF THE PAVING AND THAT'S THE TURNAROUND.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, IT'S KELECHI.
UH, THERE, PEOPLE JUST COME DOWN HERE AND FIGURE OUT, THERE IS NO, NO, NO.
IT IS STRICTLY JUST A DRIVEWAY.
LOOKING BACK TOWARDS, THIS IS LOOKING BACK TOWARDS WHERE WE WERE BEFORE.
UH, IT'S, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES
[00:30:01]
THERE.AND THIS IS THE STUFF THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED WHERE THE, THE REQUIRED TURNAROUND IS TO BE BUILT AND IT, THEY, THEY ARE THERE, THEY, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY'RE LEGAL, BUT THEY, NO, NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO TRY TO MAKE THIS, YOU BE ABLE TO DO IT AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO, TO CONSTRUCT ANY OF THESE TURNAROUNDS.
THE TIMES THAT WE'VE HAD SOMEONE, UH, WITH AN AMBULANCE COMING IN OR THE SCHOOL BUSES CAN'T EVEN COME IN.
BUT WHEN AN AMBULANCE COMES IN, IT, IT CLOSES THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION DOWN.
AND THEN THERE'S THESE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH ARE NICE CONDOMINIUMS. THEY'RE WELL DONE AND THEY'RE MADE OF MATERIALS THAT WILL HOLD UP FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT IT'S, IT'S A, THIS IS A LITTLE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE BACK AND THIS IS ONE OF THE, GO AHEAD.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S NO REALLY WAY FOR, FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET INTO THIS SUBDIVISION TO TURN AROUND TO SERVICE, TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE IN THERE.
UH, AND WHEN THEY, WHEN THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES COME IN, THEY BLOCK THE WHOLE STREET AND THEY SET, THEY SHUT.
IT'S ONLY A LOOP STREET IN THERE AND THEY SHUT THE LOOP STREET DOWN.
AND THESE JUST THE CONDOMINIUMS ARE NICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, THANK YOU, MATT.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, YES.
YOU KNOW THAT THAT STREET THAT THIS, THIS STUFF'S ON IS A 21 FOOT STREET.
THEY SAID IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL STREET THAT IS NOT A, A, A NORMAL RESIDENTIAL STREET.
AND WE HAVE BIGGER THAT FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOE JOSEPH.
ARE I JUST WANTED TO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT THAT, THAT WE HAD, THAT'S A 21 FOOT STREET.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A SUBDIVISION WITH EXTREMELY SMALL STREETS.
WHEN YOU PUT THOSE EMERGENCY FIGURES ON THE STREETS, YOU HAVE SHUT THE WHOLE THING.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE APPLICANT.
GO AND PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
I WILL TRY TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT QUICKER,
UM, I HEAR, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS AROUND EMERGENCY TURNAROUND ISSUES.
HOWEVER, I DO FEEL LIKE THAT IS AN OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE.
UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT PERTAINS TO THE SPECIFIC ZONING DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT.
UM, THIS IS A HOMEOWNER, THIS LOT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF ZONING DESIGNATION.
IT REQUIRES ONE FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.
IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, UH, SINCE HE PURCHASED IT.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO, UH, GO BACK TO ONE OF MY SLIDES OR NO? YES.
YEAH, IT, UM, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO GO BACK TO SLIDE NINE, I AM NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS CAN VIEW THAT.
UM, YEAH, SO THE FIRST IMAGE HERE, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.
SO THIS IS THE VACANT LOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGNATE A ZONING FOR.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CALDWELL ACCESS INTERSECTS WITH CALDWELL THAT ENTERS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN BLUE, THAT IS THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE CALDWELL ACCESS ROAD.
UM, SO BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THE ACCESS ROAD ON CODWELL ROAD, WE'RE LOOKING AT 382 FEET.
[00:35:01]
LOT AND A RESIDENT PULLING OUT AND BACKING OUT IS, IS NOR, I MEAN, ARE WE SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON CAN'T DEVELOP ON THEIR LOT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS HAVING OVERALL ISSUES.UM, I, I STILL FEEL LIKE THERE'S PLENTY OF AREA FOR THIS HOMEOWNER TO BACK OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY, AS DOES EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXIT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE SAME WAY.
UH, AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE BETWEEN THEIR LOT AND THE ACCESS AT HIGHWAY 180 3.
UM, THERE'S A LOT TO THE RIGHT, TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, THIS LOT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST AND NO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CAN TAKE PLACE ON OF IT BECAUSE THEY MAXIMIZED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO NO, NO FURTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ANYWHERE ON CALDWELL DRIVE THAT ACCESSES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO I WILL, I WILL END WITH THAT.
WE CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME.
SHE ANY, NO, THE ONLY, THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL ACCORDING TO THE RULES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, YES.
SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY, UM, BRIEFLY.
SO I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT ZONING, DIFFERENT SORT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE CURRENT SET OF PLAY IN THE ZONING WITH SOME PEOPLE SAYING THERE IS NO ZONING CURRENTLY ON THE LOT, OTHER PEOPLE SAYING IT'S THIS OR THAT.
THE APPLICATION SAYS IT'S CURRENTLY RURAL RESIDENTS TO SF SIX.
BUT I TRIED TO LOOK IT UP IN THE PROPERTY PROFILE AND THE LOT DIDN'T EVEN COME UP AT ALL, SO I COULDN'T CON CONFIRM IT ON MY END.
CAN YOU GUYS CONFIRM WHAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THAT LOT IS? IT'S UN ZONED, IT'S DESIGNATED INTERIM RR.
WHEN A PROPERTY IS ANNEXED BY THE ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IT'S EITHER GIVEN AN INTERIM RRR OR INTERIM SA TWO DESIGNATION, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS ONE WAS DESIGNATED INTERIM RRR AS WELL AS THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH THE CONDOS TO THE WEST.
THOSE ARE ALSO DESIGNATED INTERIM RR.
UM, SO THEY DON'T HAVE PERMANENT ZONING.
SO TO DEVELOP ANYTHING OR TO DO ANY, UH, IMPROVEMENTS ON A LOT, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME IN AND SEEK PERMANENT ZONING.
THE WAY WE DO IT TODAY, WHEN, UH, AN ANNEXATION ORDINANCE IS PASSED, THERE'S A CAVEAT IN THERE THAT SAYS WITHIN A YEAR YOU CAN COME IN AND SEEK YOUR, YOUR ZONING FOR FREE.
BASICALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE FEES, BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY QUITE A WHILE AGO, 2008.
AND SO THAT TIME HAS PASSED AND SO NOW THEY'RE, THEY'VE PAID THE FEES AND COME IN TO SEEK THE PERMANENT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN IF, IF YOU CANNOT DEVELOP A PROPERTY WHILE YOU'RE IN IRR MM-HMM
HOW CAN THE CONDOS BE DEVELOPED IF THEY ARE STILL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THOSE WERE DEVELOPED, IF THEY WERE DEVELOPED IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED D DESSAN ANNEX AND THE RE ANNEXED
AH, I'M NOT SURE A LOT OF TIMES BECAUSE I DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE HISTORY OF THAT PROPERTY.
UM, A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENS.
PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED WHEN THEY'RE, BEFORE THEY'RE ANNEXED BY THE CITY, LIKE IN THE COUNTY, AND THEN THEY'RE ANNEXED BY THE CI CITY AND THEN THEY ALREADY HAVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
SO SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY.
SO I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT THERE.
LET ME GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING.
AND A SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE CAN PROCEED WITH QUESTIONS NOW.
UH, COMMISSIONER ALEJANDRA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE FIRST SPEAKER MENTIONED THERE WAS A DEED RESTRICTION THAT LIMITED THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED.
IS THE OWN, IS THIS IS THE OWNER OR APPLICANT AWARE OF THIS OR IS THERE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS? IF IT'S A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
I'D BE CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION AND THEN WE, WE'LL BE APPROVING A ZONING THAT WON'T EVEN ALLOW THAT DEVELOPMENT ANYWAYS.
AND IT CAN JUST BE MISLEADING FOR, AGAIN, WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
WE WOULD NOT ENFORCE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WOULD BE UP TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENFORCE THE DEED RESTRICTION.
WE WOULD NOT MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED ON A DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE.
UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF.
UH, SO I, I I JUST WANT TO, I, I KNOW YOU'RE KIND OF LIKE THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS, UH, INSTANCE.
COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT DID OR DID NOT TAKE PLACE? THE STAFF IS NOT A LIAISON.
[00:40:01]
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S UP TO THEM TO MEET AND TO DISCUSS IF THEY, UH, WANT TO ASK EACH OTHER QUESTIONS OR TO HAVE ISSUES.UM, WE OBVIOUSLY TAKE COMMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES AND AS STAFF, WE TRY TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT RECOMMEND PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT WE FEEL THE APPROPRIATE ZONING IS.
UM, BUT WE DO NOT, I MEAN, WE CAN MEET WITH EITHER SIDE IF THEY REQUEST TO, UM, BUT WE DO NOT FACILITATE A MEETING BETWEEN THEM THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MEET ON THEIR OWN.
I I DID HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AROUND, UM, IS IT LEGAL TO, UH, ASK FOR A SIDEWALK AS A CONDITION OF THE ZONING
THAT IS NOT PART OF A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT CAN BE PUT ON THE CASE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
UM, BUT THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF SUBDIVISION AND A REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
SO THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN WHEN THEY REVIEW THAT? YEAH.
I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HELPING THE STUDENTS GET TO THE BUS STOP.
AND AS IT IS, WE'LL PROBABLY BE MORE THAN THREE UNITS.
IT WILL REQUIRE A SITE PLAN THAT WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS INSTEAD OF RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING.
QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. GREENBERG? UM, WE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU NOW.
SO WE HEARD FROM BOTH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE APPLICANT THAT THERE WAS DIFFICULTY MEETING AND THAT NO MEETING ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK THE, THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
UM, WHETHER A POSTPONEMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
DO YOU PERCEIVE THAT A POSTPONEMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE APPLICANT? MAYBE GO OVER DETAILS OF PRIVATE ISSUES THAT ARE NOT IN OUR PURVIEW? MS. BARON, WE'VE ALREADY, SHE'S THERE IN PERSON, RIGHT? YES.
IF YOU NEED TO SAY HER NAME AND THEN, HUH? IF YOU CAN SAY HER NAME AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.
DO YOU THINK A POSTPONEMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL? MM.
BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THREE CASES WITH THE SAME CLIENT.
ONLY IF ALL THREE WERE POSTPONED.
ALL THREE WERE POSTPONED FOR TONIGHT.
I THINK, I MEAN, IT BOTHERS ME THAT THERE'S THESE STATEMENTS THAT I TRY.
WE TRIED TO SPEAK TO YOU AND THEN YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO US, AND, UM, I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS CASE, REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONE THIS CASE, AND I WOULD DO THE SAME ON THE OTHER TWO.
IF THERE'S EVEN A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.
NO, I WOULD LIKE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT IF THERE'S MORE TO BE SAID, IT WOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
HOW DO WE GO ABOUT REOPENING A PUBLIC HEARING? SORRY.
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN OUR HANDS WERE TIED IN TERMS OF POSTPONING BEYOND A CERTAIN LENGTH.
SO INSTEAD OF DOING A POSTPONEMENT, YOU COULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DO A CONTINUANCE.
AND THAT CAN BE UP TO 14 DAYS ACCORDING TO CODE.
UM, YOU COULD POSTPONE, UM, BUT AS YOU'VE ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN YOU COULD HEAR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IF YOU WANTED TO DO THE POSTPONEMENT INSTEAD.
SO WE WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT MEETING.
YOU COULD SAY, WE WANT TO REOPEN.
DO WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, SPONSOR A SECOND REOPEN? UM, AND THEN WE WOULD NEED TO DATE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TOO, WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING THE, UM, NEIGHBOR, NEIGHBOR IN OPPOSITION WOULD TWO WEEKS HELP? WOULD A MONTH BE NECESSARY? ANYTIME WE COULD HAVE A MEETING WOULD BE, YEAH.
UH, WE'VE TRIED TO SCHEDULE A MEETING AND EITHER SHE DIDN'T LET THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TWO WEEKS SHOULD DO IT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT? YES.
[00:45:01]
AND IF WE DON'T REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, IF IT'S ON OUR AGENDA FOR ACTION, WE HAVE TO ALLOW SPEAKERS REGARDLESS.I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST BE, YEAH, MAYBE THAT'S, MAYBE THAT PART'S IRRELEVANT.
BUT ANYWAY, I MOVED TO POSTPONE TILL OUR NEXT MEETING.
IS THAT LABOR DAY? IS THAT A SECOND? THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
SO MAYBE INSTEAD OF SEPTEMBER 2ND, SEPTEMBER 16TH.
SO THAT'S A, THAT'S YOUR MOTION TO POSTPONE TO SEPTEMBER 16TH.
IF THERE'S A SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WOULD NOT BE, IT CONTINUES TO BE A POSTPONEMENT TO S SEPTEMBER 16TH.
HEY, MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST BEFORE WE DECIDE TO JUST PICK THEIR APPLICATION FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD? OF COURSE, FROM THE EMAIL CONVERSATIONS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALREADY POSTPONED ONCE, BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT.
OTHER AGENDAS, I I THINK IT FIRST CAME THROUGH IN JULY.
WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
THERE WAS A RE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 15TH AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONED AND WE AGREED TO THAT.
AND THEN UNFORTUNATELY IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SCHEDULE A MEETING.
UM, I'M OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 16TH.
HOPEFULLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WILLING, UH, AND RESPONSIVE SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THIS.
I KNOW THE CLIENT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS APPLICATION FOR THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, SO, UH, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO, WHAT'S ANOTHER ONE? OKAY.
IT'S ALSO A QUESTION, JUST A CONCERN POINT HERE IS THAT, UH, WE ARE UNDER A PERIOD OF QUITE EXTRAORDINARY AUSTERITY AT THE CITY.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING CAME UP A LOT IN THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION THAT WAS A PART OF BUILDING AND SANDERS, WHERE COMMISSIONERS REALLY WANTED TO GET EVERY INDIVIDUAL CASE, MAKE SURE EVERY, YOU KNOW, CORNER WAS TURNED.
MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, LET'S REDOUBLE STAFF'S INVESTIGATIONS HERE AND THERE, AND THAT COSTS MONEY AND THAT COST AND DEFERMENT BOTH IN THE ACTUAL STAFF TIME WASTED.
AND THEN FURTHERMORE, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, EVERY DEVELOPMENT DOLLAR DEFERRED IS A DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY TAX THAT WE DO NOT GET THAT RESULTS IN HIGHER TAXES, IN HIGHER COSTS AND IN DEEPER AND DEEPER CUTS TO THE CITY.
I THINK WE NEED TO FIG, WE NEED TO KIND OF HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON TO DOUBLE BACK AND SAY LIKE, OH, NO STAFF, PLEASE, YOU KNOW, WASTE THE TIME WE'VE DONE, DONE SO FAR.
LET'S NOT GET THAT REVENUE IN.
WE CANNOT BE WASTING TIME JUST FOR WHAT EXACTLY.
I MEAN, THIS IS A FAIRLY CLEAR CUT CASE.
I THINK THE APPLICANTS HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE.
THE, UM, UH, RESIDENTS HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE.
I THINK THE PROS AND CONS ARE VERY CLEARLY OUTLINED.
CITY STAFF HAS DONE THEIR RESEARCH TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE OUR DECISION AND KEEP GOING BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CASES THAT ARE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR OWN PROS AND CONS NEXT TIME WE MEET AND WE HAVE TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
WE CAN'T KEEP KIND OF REVISITING THE SAME CASES OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
UM, I THINK NOT WASTING THE MONEY, I THINK BEING JUDICIOUS AND I THINK JUST MAKING THE HARD DECISION AND MOVING ON IS, IS I THINK THE BEST CASE OVERALL FOR AN EFFICIENT USE OF THE CITY'S MONEY AND THE CITY'S TIME.
UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING THE STAFF TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN OF COURSE RUN THE MEETING WHEN WE HEAR THIS CASE AGAIN.
UM, THE HOPE IS THAT THERE WOULD BECOME AN AGREEMENT.
NEIGHBORHOODS AND APPLICANTS OFTEN COME TO AGREEMENTS AND COME UP WITH WHAT EACH SEES IS A WIN-WIN SOLUTION INSTEAD OF US PITTING ONE, ONE ZONING WITH THE OTHER.
AND WE MAY JUST HEAR THIS ON CONSENT.
THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT NEXT TIME THIS COMES, WE WOULD JUST HEAR THIS ON CONSENT THEY'VE HAD SINCE A MONTH.
YOU KNOW, TWO, THEY CAN DO THIS ON THEIR OWN TIME.
SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS IN A FEW DAYS.
SURE, THEY CAN DO THIS ON THEIR OWN TIME, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND KEEP DOING OUR WORK.
RIGHT NOW THERE'S A CHRISTIAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH, SO I MEAN, FROM READING THE CORRESPONDENCES, IT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT MADE ON BOTH SIDES.
UH, THAT, THAT'S MY BEST READING OF, UH, THE RECORD OF EVENTS.
[00:50:01]
I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THIS ENOUGH TIME.I I THINK THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTPONED ONCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HAD SOME OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT, AND I, I WOULD, I WOULD'VE APPRECIATED THAT, UH, EVERYBODY WOULD'VE COME TO SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT.
UH, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT A POSTPONEMENT IS NECESSARY RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A MOTION MADE FOR A POSTPONEMENT, BUT I, I HAVEN'T HEARD A SECOND, SO UNLESS SOMEONE SECONDS, THE MOTION FOR A POSTPONEMENT IS GONNA DIE FOR THE LACK OF A SECOND.
I'LL GIVE IT A COUPLE OF SECONDS.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY RAISE HANDS BEING RAISED.
SO THAT MOTION IS, IS OFF THE TABLE OR DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION I MOVE TO APPROACH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE, UM, CASE? OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR MAJOR.
OH NO, I WAS JUST RAISING MY HAND A SECOND, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE SOMETHING ELSE DID.
OKAY, WE ALREADY HAVE A SECOND AND A THIRD.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? AND THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
WHILE I KNOW THAT THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE CO OR THE DEED RESTRICTION IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW, UM, AND NOT ANYTHING THAT THE CITY ENFORCES, I AM NOT REALLY WILLING TO RECOMMEND A ZONING THAT ACTIVELY VIOLATES THAT DEED RESTRICTION.
I I'M NOT SURE THAT ZONING ANYTHING VIOLATES A DEED RESTRICTION BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND GET YOUR BUILDING PERMITS AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS, AND THAT WOULD BE, COULD BE BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT COULD BE BROUGHT UP, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY IN ANY CASE.
BUT IT DOESN'T, IN MY MIND, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING NO MATTER WHAT THE PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT SAYS.
THE CONTRACT IS THE CONTRACT, CORRECT? I, I, I UNDERSTAND.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE ITEM TWO C 14 20 25, THE REZONING CASE, MINIMUM RR TO SF SIX.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? AND COMMISSIONER ALEJANDRO FLORES.
I DIDN'T SEE WHICH WAY ALL THE ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, WE HAVE SIX YESES.
REZONING C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 5 4 REZONING OF LOT 31 BLOCK A, THE FOREST SECTION ONE AT THE VILLAGES OF SPICEWOOD.
UM, AND WE HAVE STAFF, THIS IS A REZONING FROM SF ONE TO SF TWO.
I'M AFRAID YOU'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF ME TONIGHT.
UM, AGAIN, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE.
THE REZONING OF LOT 31 BLOCK A FOREST.
THE FOREST SECTION ONE AT VILLAGES OF SPICEWOOD.
IT'S LOCATED AT 1 1 700 FLOWER SCENT COURT.
THE REQUEST IS FROM SF ONE ZONING TO SF TWO ZONING.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS SO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE STANDARD LOT DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 0.40 ACRE SITE THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST AND WEST.
THE LOTS TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE AND WEST ARE ZONED.
SF ONE, THERE IS SF TWO ZONING DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH ALONG LEMON SPICE TRAIL AND TO THE WEST ALONG CEDAR CLIFF DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO A REZONING TO SF TWO TO ALL ALLOW FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF OVER 57 50.
THEY PROPOSE AN TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ITS OWN CLOUDED LOT, WHICH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.20 ACRES.
THE APPLICANT CAN SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO SMALLER LOTS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET IF THEY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP THE BOTS UNDER HOME ORDINANCE, WHICH LIMITS THE LOTS TO 1800 TO 57 50 SQUARE FEET.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE ASKING TO DO A LARGER LOT AND SO THAT IS WHY THEY'RE SEEKING A REZONING.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE STANDARD LOT DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE SF TWO DISTRICT, AS IT IS LOCATED ON A LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL STREET WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT HAS MODERATE SIZED LOTS OR NEW DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING THAT ARE ON LOTS THAT ARE MORE THAN 57 50.
THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN A PLATTERED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE S OF TWO ZONING DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH ALONG WOMEN'S SPICE TRAIL INTO THE WEST ALONG CEDAR CLIFF DRIVE.
[00:55:01]
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, OTHERWISE WE'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT.
FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE, UM, WE'RE GONNA START WITH, UH, CARL SWANSON, WHO'S THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
UH, CARL, I'LL GO AND PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
THE APPLICANT DIDN'T REGISTER TO SPEAK AND NOBODY REACHED OUT TO US, SO WE'RE JUST MOVING ON TO THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR LETTING US SPEAK ABOUT THIS CASE.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OF WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS APART.
I'M SPEAKING AS THE HOA PRESIDENT, AS A HOMEOWNER, AND AS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN IN CONSULTATION WITH EACH OTHER.
MANY OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES IN, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, KNOWN AS THE FOREST, WERE ALL BUILT ABOUT 1999, UM, WITH A LARGE NUMBER, UH, OF THEM STILL HAVE THEIR HOMEOWNERS.
EVERY NEIGHBOR AROUND THE PROPERTY CONSULTS SO FAR, INCLUDING THE TWO DIRECT NEIGHBOR AND PROPERTIES WHICH SHARED PROPERTY LINES.
UH, MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT THIS PROPERTY'S ON, AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS WITH DIRECT CROSS STREET PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET ALL OBJECT TO THIS REZONING.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO REACH OUT FROM THE HOMEOWNER TO ANY NEIGHBORS THAT OF WHICH ANYONE IS AWARE.
UM, MANY NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING ONE DIRECT NEIGHBOR, SUBMITTED, UH, OBJECTION STATEMENTS.
UH, AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER DIRECT NEIGHBOR IS IN THE ROOM WITH YOU TODAY, AND I BELIEVE WOULD POSSIBLY LIKE TO BE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD ALTER THE ESTABLISHED LOOK AND FEEL, POTENTIALLY ENCOURAGE INCOMPATIBLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT SUCH CHANGE AS RISK EROD IN THE CHARACTER THAT, UH, RESIDENTS HAVE VALUED FOR, FOR DECADES.
UM, A ZONING CHANGE COULD VERY LIKELY INCREASE TRAFFIC STRAIN, PARKING, AVAILABILITY, STRAIN, ALREADY PROVEN OVERTAXED, AND OCCASIONALLY FAILING ELECTRIC SYSTEMS, NOT FAILING DUE TO STORMS, FAILING DUE TO OVER USAGE IN THE AREA, UM, THAT PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE FOR.
UM, AND OVERBURDENED EXISTING ROADS.
SEVERAL NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED PARTICULAR CONCERN ABOUT WATER DRAINAGE WITH HI, UH, HEAVY RAINS ALREADY PUSHING THESE SYSTEMS TO THEIR LIMITS WITH WATER BACKING UP STORM DRAINS AND FLOATING FLOODING CUL-DE-SACS AND ROADS.
UM, ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY WITH MORE IMPERVIOUS SERVICES, WOULD LIKELY MAKE ALL OF THESE ISSUES WORSE.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE NEIGHBORS WITH WHICH YOU'VE SPOKEN, INCLUDING BOTH OF THE DIRECT NEIGHBORS TO THIS PROPERTY, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED STATEMENTS, RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT THIS REZONING PROPOSAL BE DENIED, UM, AND REMAINED UNCHANGED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE FOREST HOA BOARD WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.
THE FOREST, HOA DEED RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITS EXPLICITLY CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND LIVING UNIT ON ANY LOT OR SUBDIVISION OF ANY EXISTING LOT BEYOND ITS ORIGINAL CREATION.
THE HOMEOWNER RECEIVED A COPY OF THOSE HOAD RESTRICTIONS AT THE TIME OF PHONE PURCHASE.
THE ARCHITECT, THE HOA ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE PROVIDED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO THE HOMEOWNER'S BUILDER WHEN THEY REACH OUT AND REQUESTED THEM.
THE REQUEST FROM THE BUILDER WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY COMMUNICATION, THE HOA OR ANY NEIGHBORS RECEIVED FROM THE HOMEOWNERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE PLANS.
UH, MOVING FORWARD, UM, FOLLOWING THIS, THE HO A'S ATTORNEY, UM, FORMALLY NOTIFIED THE HOMEOWNER THAT THEIR PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN WOULD VIOLATE THE HOA DE RESTRICTIONS.
TO DATE THE FOREST, HOA HAS RECEIVED NO COMMUNICATION OR REQUEST FROM THE HOMEOWNER OTHER THAN THE CITY'S NOTICE OF THIS HEARING.
UM, WE BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING REQUEST IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH, WHICH WE'VE CONSULTED, UM, BEEN ABLE TO CONSULT AND VIOLATES OUR DEEP RESTRICTIONS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS THERESA AL.
THERESA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES,
MY NAME IS THERESA CABRAL AND, UM, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT FROM TEXAS, YOU KNOW, I GOT HERE AS QUICKLY AS I CAN.
UM, I AM A DIRECT NEIGHBOR OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO I RAISED MY CHILDREN THERE AND THEY WENT TO THE SCHOOLS IN THAT AREA.
AND SO WHEN I SAW THE, UM, THE NOTICE, I WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT THAT WAS.
I TOOK A PICTURE OF IT AND THEN STARTED READING ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AND GOT VERY CONCERNED, UM, VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER ABOUT LIKE THE DENSITY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, INCREASED COMING FROM A HUMONGOUS CITY.
UM, I'M VERY AWARE OF RENTERS AND BEHAVIORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TAXES WILL COME, PROBABLY GO UP.
UM, THERE MIGHT BE SAFETY ISSUES AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
AND AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THEN THE PROBLEM WOULD PROBABLY BE MINE SINCE I AM A DIRECT,
[01:00:01]
UH, NEIGHBOR AND I SHARE A PROPERTY LINE WITH THIS PROPERTY.AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M, I'M OPPOSED TO IT.
UM, AND AGAIN, I I, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBOR, ALTHOUGH MY FAMILY DID HELP HELP THEM PUT THEIR FENCE UP AND I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS FINE, BUT I SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE, UM, I DON'T KNOW, DISCONNECT OR SOMETHING WITH, WITH ALL OF THIS.
SO I, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WENT TO COME DOWN HERE.
I HAD NO IDEA I WAS GONNA BE SPEAKING, BUT I DID IT.
SO, UM, THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY.
AND, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SAT, KALAN SAT.
WHEN DO YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES? PUSH THE BUTTON PLEASE, SIR, AND STATE YOUR NAME.
I FIRST TIME ONE OF THESE, UH, MEETING SETTINGS AND WANTED TO, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
DIDN'T BRING ANY PICTURES OR ARCHITECTURAL DIAGRAMS. CARL SWANSON, OUR H OA PRESIDENT, YOU'RE GOOD SPOKEN.
I'M GONNA EXPRESS MY PERSONAL ASPECT TO IT.
I'VE BEEN IN AUSTIN 30 PLUS YEARS AND ON THIS HOUSE, WHICH IS EXACTLY ON THE BACKSIDE OF THIS, UH, PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT HE'S ASKING FOR REZONING, UH, IT'LL AFFECT US.
I'M A MARATHON RUNNER, AUSTIN MARATHON, 20 OF THEM.
I DON'T WANT ADDITIONAL CARS COMING IN FRONT OF ME OR BEHIND ME.
I'M SAY WE HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THAT QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD FOR YEARS AND NOW ONE PERSON LISTEN CAREFULLY.
ONE PERSON, HE WANTS TO MAKE A QUICK BUCKS, HE WANTS TO MAKE MONEY.
HE BOUGHT THAT HOUSE NOT LONG AGO AND HE WANTS TO SPLIT IT NOW.
HE'LL BE ABLE TO SELL TO, IS THAT THE AUSTIN WE WANT TO LIVE IN? WE HAVE TO CUT DOWN THE TREES FOR THAT GUY MAKING EXTRA THOUSANDS OF BUCKS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT, RIGHT? WE CLIMATE CHANGE.
I HAVE LIST OF LOTS OF THE TOPICS WE SUBMITTED.
THE PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT, THE TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT CARLSON SPOKE ON, EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBOR FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED TO THIS ONE.
THE GUY DOESN'T WANT TO TALK TO ANYONE.
STORM WATER ISSUES IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, THINGS FLOODING OVER.
SO, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, THE LANDSCAPING ASPECTS, YOU NAME IT.
EVERYTHING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF AUSTIN THAT WE LIVE IN.
IF HE DOES IT, 10 OTHER HOUSES WILL TAKE, TRY TO DO THAT.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A LOVELY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ALL LIVE IN.
WE WANT TO RESPECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
AND I WANT TO CONTINUE TRAINING FOR, I'M ABOUT 70.
I DON'T WANT TO BE FACING MORE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD, SO I DON'T WANT TO THAT KIND OF SITUATION.
UH, JUST BECAUSE ONE PERSON WANTS TO MAKE QUICK BUCKS, OKAY? AND YOU HAVE ALL THE TECHNICAL REASONS AND ALL THAT SUBMITTED FROM THE HOA, UH, UH, CARL SWANSON WHO SPOKEN IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO ALL THOSE FACTORS REALLY, WE ARE ALL OPPOSED TO THIS THING.
WHATEVER THE CITY STAFF MAY SAY, THEY MAY NOT HAVE MY REASONS BECAUSE I SAY THE PROCESS IS, THIS IS WHAT I FOUND OUT THAT I CAN COME HERE AND SPEAK TO YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I MOVE TO MOVE THE, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
HOW ABOUT THAT? OH,
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, AND APOLOGIES, I THINK SHE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, BUT I JUST WANT A QUICK REMINDER.
WHAT WOULD BE THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS? UM, IF THE APPLICANT GOT THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE MAXIMUM 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO DEVELOP TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THEY BASICALLY WANTED DIVIDE THE LOT, UM, FROM 0.40 ACRES INTO 2.20 ACRE LOTS.
AND THEN THEY WANNA JUST DO A MAXIMUM OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
IF THEY DEVELOPED UNDER HOME, THEY COULD GET A MAXIMUM OF THREE.
[01:05:01]
BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION.THEY WANT TO DO TWO LARGER SINGLE FAMILY LAWS THAT ARE AT LEAST 8,000 SQUARE FEET A PIECE.
SO THEY'RE AIMING FOR TWO ADDITIONAL, THEY'RE, I MEAN, FOR ONE ADDITIONAL LOT THEY HAVE ONE.
SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TWO.
SO THEY WANT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL GROWING UNIT.
THEY WANNA DIVIDE THEIR, THE TRACK IN HALF AND HAVE TWO LOTS.
THEY COULD PUT THREE HOMES ON THE ONE LOT THEY HAVE YES, WITH THE ZONING THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH NOTHING.
SO WITH WHAT THEY'VE GOT RIGHT NOW, THEY COULD PUT THREE HOMES ON THERE.
THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE IT AND PUT TWO HOMES.
I GUESS IN THEORY THEY COULD PUT THREE ON EACH LOT.
SO THEY COULD PUT SIX MM-HMM
ON THESE TWO LOTS IF THEY WANTED TO, IF THEY DEVELOPED UNDER HOME, IF THEY UTILIZED THOSE PROVISIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY SAID THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T JUST SEEK TO DEVELOP UNDER THE EXISTING SF ONE AND USE HOME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT SMALLER LOTS.
SO THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO AT LEAST 8,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS.
AND SO THEY WANTED LARGER LOTS ON THE PROPERTY.
SO ALSO IMAGINE, I JUST LOOKED UP THE, THE LOT.
IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE THE BIGGEST LIMITING FACTOR.
SO I, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I CAN'T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN DOWN TO THE NITTY GRITTY DETAILS OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER, THEIR SLOPES, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MIGHT COME INTO PLAY AS TO HOW MANY LOTS THEY COULD ACTUALLY FIT.
AND MAYBE THIS IS A LITTLE PREMATURE, BUT IT JUST SEEMS THAT THE AMOUNT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS REALLY NOT GOING TO, UH, PLAUSIBLY HAVE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT, AND MAYBE THIS IS PROBABLY, WELL, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A RESULT OF POOR COMMUNICATION.
UM, THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT REALLY, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT ARE PLAUSIBLY GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE ADDITION OF ONE OR EVEN TWO UNITS.
UM, IT WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER HOME THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY THEIRS IN SIZE.
BUT ANYHOW, SO THAT IS MY QUESTION SLASH OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO, SO, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, THE CURRENT, UH, SF ONE ZONING IS NOT, CANNOT ACCOMMODATE TWO SEPARATE SUBDIVIDED LOTS ON THE FOUR TEN SEVEN ACRE RIGHT? FOR THAT LARGE OF A LOT? NO, THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THEY WANT TO GO TO, THEY WANT TO GO TO SF TWO, SO THE MINIMUM LOT SIDES CAN BE REDUCED TO ROUGHLY 5,800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WILL ALLOW THEM TO, TO PICK UP AN ADDITIONAL LOT.
SO THOUSAND, YEAH, IT'S 10,000 SQUARE FEET UNDER SF ONE CURRENTLY FOR, CURRENTLY.
BUT THEY, THEY WANT TO, THEY WANT TO GO TO 5,800 OR, OR A LITTLE LESS THAN 5,800.
SO THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T, THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
SEE, IF THEY DEVELOPED UNDER HOME, THEY CAN DO 1800 TO 57 50 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
AS SMALL AS AN 1800 FOOT LOT AS LARGE AS A 15 7 57 50 LOT, WHICH IS YOUR STANDARD LOT SIZE.
THEY WANNA DO A LARGER LOT SIZE THAN THAT.
THEY WANNA LITERALLY SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN HALF AND DO OVER 8,000 SQUARE FOOT TO 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SEEKING EVERY REZONING, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO THAT UNDER HOME, UNDER SF ONE.
BUT UNDER, UNDER THE CODE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SF TWO IS APPROXIMATELY 5,800 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S YOUR STANDARD LOT SIZE UNDER SAT, CORRECT? YES.
SO IT, IT MIGHT BE WORTH CONSIDERING WITH THE COMMISSION, AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND PURCHASE COVER, YOU KNOW, STAFF WILL, THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBERS WILL, WILL LOOK AT ENGINEERING CONCERNS, BUT I DON'T KNOW, THE COMMISSION MIGHT BE, MIGHT BE OPEN TO, UH, I THINK WE CALL IT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, RIGHT?
SO WE, WE CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S TWO SUBDIVIDED LOTS.
AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ALLOWED TO, UH, PROHIBIT LIKE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THEIR HOME.
I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CA IF THAT'S ALLOWED OR NOT.
BUT YOU COULD DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON A PROPERTY.
WELL, TH THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A SOLUTION BECAUSE PERSONALLY I'M FINE WITH SF TWO.
UH, THERE'S F TWO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, UH, AND IT'S SF TWO A LITTLE BIT TO THE WEST, I THINK, UH, I I ALSO JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED A, A, A LOT THAT'S FOUR TENTHS OF AN ACRE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO I I WOULD BE OKAY WITH SF TWO,
[01:10:01]
BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR, FOR OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND, AND PURCHASE COVER, I, I WOULD BE OKAY SUPPORTING A RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON, UH, ON THE LOTS.COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I ALSO THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO, UM, DO THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING THEM TO TWO UNITS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD DO IT, BUT THERE'S ROOM ON THAT ACREAGE FOR 3 57 50 YEAH.
SQUARE FOOT LOTS, EACH OF WHICH COULD HAVE THREE UNITS, WHICH WOULD BE NINE UNITS.
AND SO I, I FIND THAT CONCERNING TO ZONE IN A WAY THAT ALLOW, THAT'S, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF ANY PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR DEED RESTRICTION, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
UM, THE CITY ALREADY KIND OF FACILITATED THE VIOLATION OF THAT WITH HOME AND HOME TWO BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE SUBDIVISION WITH SMALLER LOTS.
I MEAN, THEY CAN BUILD TWO UNITS ON THE LOT THEY HAVE BUT NOT EQUALLY SIZED.
SO IF IT'S REALLY THE TWO EQUALLY SIZED THAT THEY WANT, THEN THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE IS, AGAIN, HOME TWO DOES NOT ADDRESS PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
SO IT JUST BECAUSE WE ZONED IT SF ONE OR SF TWO, THAT RESTRICTED COVENANT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO.
YOU MAY ONLY BE ABLE TO DO ONE BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HOME DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
ALSO RELATED QUESTION FOR STAFF, YES.
IF WE DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY YES.
AND THEN THEY SUBDIVIDE IT MM-HMM
LIKE IF THEY JUST SUBDIVIDE THIS PROPERTY, IT'S JUST TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IF WE LIMIT IT TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS THROUGH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, YES, THEY COULD BUILD, WOULD WOULD THE OKAY.
BUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THEY SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN GET ADDITIONAL UNITS.
IT WOULD BE, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD APPLY TO THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S, IT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, SO THE SUBDIVISION DOESN'T CREATE TWO NEW PROPERTIES BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT CREATED LIKE TWO INDEPENDENT LOTS.
IT IT WOULD CREATE TWO INDEPENDENT LOTS.
BUT THE ORDINANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE STILL APPLIES FOR THIS WHOLE PROPERTY.
SO IT APPLIES AS A, AS A SORT OF, OKAY.
SO THE WAY THAT WE HAVE OVERLAY TO MEET WITH COMMISSIONER MAJORS, I'M SORRY TO MEET WHAT COMMISSIONER MAJOR'S WANTING IS YOU WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING IT TO ONE LOT ONE UNIT PER LOT.
AND THAT WAY IF HE DOES TWO LOTS, HE GETS TWO UNITS.
IF HE DOES ONE LOT, HE GETS ONE UNIT.
BECAUSE IF YOU LIMIT IT TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THEY COULD DEVELOP A HOME UNDER HOME AND DO SMALLER LOTS AND JUST DO YEAH.
SO YOU MIGHT WANNA SAY YES TO JUST ONE UNIT PER LOT.
SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR, FOR SIMPLIFYING, UH, KIND OF MY STATEMENT, HANK, BUT JUST, JUST MY, MY LOGIC IS THERE'S SF SF TWO ACROSS THE STREET, SO MAKING THIS LOT SF TWO SEEMS TO BE CONSISTENT.
UH, I, I'M OKAY ADDING LIKE ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSE, UH, I MEAN IT LETS THIS HOMEOWNER, THEY CAN EXERCISE THEIR PROP, THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS TO MAKE A PROFIT.
I'M SUPER OKAY WITH THAT, BUT LIKE EXERCISING HOME AND LIKE PUTTING A BUNCH OF SMALLER LOTS RIGHT.
THERE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST IDEA.
SO THIS WAY EVERYBODY GETS SOMETHING, RIGHT.
THE CITY GETS AN EXTRA HOUSING UNIT, UH, IN A POPULAR AREA OF TOWN IN NORTHWEST AREA, AND THE SKY CAN MAKE A PROFIT OR THE, THE HOMEOWNER CAN MAKE A PROFIT, BUT WE'RE NOT OVERBURDENING THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY POTENTIALLY PUTTING SIX TO NINE ADDITIONAL HOUSES THERE.
SO ELIMINATE THE ONE UNIT PER LOT.
ACTUALLY, NOW THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE BEST TO DO A MAXIMUM OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, PERIOD FOR THE PROPERTY COULD SUBDIVIDED A LOT.
WHAT IF THEY SUBDIVIDED IT INTO SMALLER LOTS AND THEY DID ONE ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS.
SO I THINK IT'D BE BETTER JUST TO DO AN OVERALL TWO LOTS ON THIS PROPERTY.
YOU COVERED THE SAME THING EITHER WAY.
THEY COULD CUT IT INTO SIX SMALL LOTS AND PUT SIX LITTLE BITTY TINY HOMES ON IT.
I I I'M JUST WONDERING, UH, WHAT'S THE KEY REASON FOR THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? IS IT TO, UH, TO ELIMINATE TRAFFIC CONCERNS? YEAH, SO, SO I MEAN, IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK FINE, BUT I, I JUST KIND OF PROPOSED IT AS, AS A HAPPY MEDIUM.
A AGAIN, RIGHT, LIKE SFT IS ACROSS THE STREET, SO IT'S COMPATIBLE IT CHECK, IT KIND OF CHECKS THAT BOX.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS HOMEOWNER CAN EXERCISE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS TO, TO SUBDIVIDING MAKE A PROFIT.
IT CHECKS THAT BOX, BUT IT ALSO JUST CHECKS THE BOX OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF NOT WANTING, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY SIX TO NINE MORE UNITS OUT THERE.
UH, WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC CONCERNS OR, OR, OR IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND, AND AGAIN, I, I UNDERSTAND
[01:15:01]
THAT THOSE QUESTIONS CAN BE ADDRESSED LATER DOWN THE LINE IF AND WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS PULLED FROM THE CITY.UM, SO AGAIN, I I'M NOT WEDDED TO THE IDEA O OF, OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
I, I JUST THINK IT, IT'S AN EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS SOMETHING AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY'S STILL BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE CONDITIONAL, WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, UH, VERSUS THE OTHER ROUTE, FEWER PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF AND SOME MIGHT ACTUALLY BE WORSE OFF.
IF WE HAVE SF TWO ACROSS THE STREET, WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST DO SF TWO THAT'S ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY? WELL, I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING SF TWO, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
BUT WHY WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS, IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
I, IF WE ALREADY HAS HAVE SF TWO IN THE, IN THE AREA, IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME TO PROVIDE THAT WITH SOME CONDITIONS.
IT'S ALREADY CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING OF THE AREA.
SO, SO I, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE, BUT FOR ME, JUST THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD BE DESIGNED TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOME ORDINANCE AND, AND PUTTING THREE UNITS, THREE HOUSING UNITS ON ONE, UH, ON, ON ONE LOT.
WELL, SO, SO REALLY IF THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND SUBDIVIDE IT TO THE MINIMUM OF 57 50, THEY NOW HAVE THREE LOTS, WHICH MEANS, I THINK IF MY MATH IS CORRECT, IT CAN POTENTIALLY GO FROM ONE HOUSE ON, ON FOUR TENTHS OF AN ACRE TO NINE HOUSES.
SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT HOUSES.
AND THEN I, I DO THINK THAT'S A LITTLE TIGHT.
UH, YOU KNOW, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE FREE TO DISAGREE, BUT THE, THAT, THAT'S REALLY WHY I, I SUGGESTED CONSIDERING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO PREVENT AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT HOUSES, UH, POPPING UP ON THAT FOUR TENTHS OF AN ACRE.
I MEAN, THAT'S LIKE, I MEAN, 8,004 TENTHS OF AN ACRE IS MY LOWER.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S REALLY, REALLY DENSE AND, AND THAT MIGHT NOT FULLY FIT WITH, WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I AGREE AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IF THE APPLICANT WERE HERE, THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO DO IN THEIR LETTER.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE OTHER CASE WHERE, UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THEY SAID THIS IS HOW WE'RE GONNA DO IT, AND THEN WE PUT THOSE CONDITIONS INTO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO ALL WE WANNA DO HERE IS PUT THOSE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT SAYS THEY WANT TWO HOUSES OF EQUALLY SIZED LOTS, UM, INTO THE ZONING.
IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
THE ONE CONCERN I'VE GOT IS I DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR COMMISSION BEING IN A ROUTINE OF STOPPING HOME TWO BY SIMPLY EVERY TIME WE HAVE A ZONING CASE, WE SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO HOME TWO, YOU CAN ONLY PUT ONE UNIT ON THIS LOT.
HOME TWO WAS PUT IN BY OUR COUNCIL FOR A REASON.
AND I DON'T WANT US TO BE UP HERE AS A COMMISSION DOING AWAY WITH WHAT HOME TWO IS INTENDED TO DO.
WE JUST APPROVED, THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS AN SF SIX ON A SIDE THAT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE SIDEWALKS.
THE ROAD WASN'T BIG ENOUGH HERE.
THERE'S LIKE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT THERE'S A SPORTS COURT IN THE BACKYARD, SO I WOULDN'T, YEAH, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO, BUT I PREFER NOT TO PUT THE RESTRICTION.
I MEAN, LOOKING FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF A PLANNER LOOKING AT A LOT, THIS IS AN IDEAL LOT TO MEET HOME TWO AND PUT THREE LOTS ON.
UM, THEY DON'T COME ANY BETTER THAN THIS.
THAT THE ONLY, ONLY ONE TO PUT TWO.
BUT THIS IS, I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT HOME TWO IS INTENDED TO DO, THIS WAS THE TYPE OF LOT WHERE YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE WAYS IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU'VE GOT NICE STREETS, YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING SET HERE FOR A HOME TWO LOT TO GO IN THERE AND BE DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE HOMES.
BUT I'M WILLING TO GO WITH THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION.
I'LL GET BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
SO FROM A KIND OF, UH, GOVERNMENT SIMPLICITY AND GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND IZING PERSPECTIVE, I'M KIND OF GENERALLY AGAINST, UH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
YOU KNOW, I, I LIKE KIND OF MORE EFFICIENT REGULATION, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE A STANDARD PROCESS FOR DOING THINGS.
UM, BUT I ALSO, YOU KNOW, TO A CERTAIN CERTAIN EXTENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER ISN'T HERE, SO THEY SHOULD BE THE ONE ADVOCATING FOR THEIR POSITION.
I, I MEAN, I PHILOSOPHICALLY LEAN TOWARDS LIKE, SF TWO IS A SF TWO, WHEREVER IT IS.
UM, THOUGH THE COMMISSION DECIDES THAT IT, YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY WANT THIS OVERLAY, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO CONSIDER IT.
I BUT BASELINE'S PERSPECTIVE, I KIND OF DON'T LIKE CONDITIONAL USE OVERLAYS.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST KIND OF A, A CASE WHERE SF TWO SHOULD
[01:20:01]
MEAN SF TWO.AND IF THIS WAS A, UM, A CASE FOR THREE UNITS ON A LOT, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR REZONING.
AND REZONING APPLICATION MAKES ME THINK THERE'S MORE GOING ON THAN WHAT WE SEE, WHICH IS WHY I THINK THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY KIND OF JUST PUTS THE, UM, PUTS THE APPLICANT TO THEIR WORD, HOLDS THE APPLICANT TO THEIR WORD.
UM, JUST I'LL JUMP BACK IN REALLY QUICKLY.
THE LAST POINT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SAY TWO POINTS.
NUMBER ONE, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, AND I'M SORRY, SOMEONE ELSE KIND OF PIGGYBACKED ON YOUR STATEMENTS.
UH, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, UM, UH, I, I I, I DO SEE WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM IN THE SENSE OF, HEY, COUNSEL PASSED THIS LAW.
IT'S NOT REALLY OUR JOB TO KIND OF PUT A BLANKET MAN OVER THROUGHOUT THE CITY, IF YOU WILL.
SO, SO I, I DO AGREE WITH THAT AND I SUPPORT IT, BUT FOR, FOR ME, I, I THINK HERE, LIKE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD BE EXACTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION.
UH, SO, SO I DON'T VIEW IT AS US DOING ANYTHING THE HOMEOWNER WOULD BE OPPOSED TO BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ALIGNS WITH THEIR APPLICATION.
THAT BEING SAID, UM, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF VOTING FORWARD WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
BUT THAT, THAT'S JUST KIND OF HOW I VIEW IT.
IT'S LIKE, HEY, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE TELLING US, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT IF THEY WERE NOT TELLING US THAT.
AND THEN I SAID, HEY, LET'S, LET'S DO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT, I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BUT I'LL BE IN FAVOR WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UM, THE SF ONE TO SF TWO WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MR. CHIPPY, UM, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, COMMISSIONER, UM, GREENBERG IS OPPOSED.
SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 YESES AND ONE NO.
OKAY, ITEM FOUR WAS POSTPONED.
ITEM FIVE ZONING CASE C 14 20 25 DASH 0 6 1 AT 61 0 5 MEL MELROSE TRAIL, UH, THIS IS AUSTIN WHITE LINE COMPANY.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO INTERIM SF TWO TO MF FIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS MF THREE.
THIS IS CASE C 14 20 25 0 0 6 1, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 61 0 1 AND 61 0 5 MELROSE TRAIL.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM INTERIM SF TWO TO MF FIVE ZONING.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR MF THREE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT MEDIUM DISTRICT DENSITY ZONING.
THE CIDER CONSIDERATION IS A VACANT 5.42 ACRE LOT.
THE TRACKS OF LAND TO THE NORTH ACROSS MELROSE TRAILER DEVELOPED WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A SMALL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST OF HYMAN'S DRIVE.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, ZONE PUD TO THE WEST.
THERE ARE FOURPLEX AND DUPLEX RESIDENCES ZONED MF TWO.
THE LAND TO THE SOUTH CONTAINS A CULVERT DETENTION AREA THAT IS ZONED PUD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MF FIVE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT ZONING TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH APPROXIMATELY 250 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT MF THREE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED ON A LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL AND A LEVEL TWO RE COLLECTOR ROADWAY.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OR THE INTENSITY OF THE MF FIVE DISTRICT AS THIS SITE DOES NOT FRONT INTO A MAJOR ROADWAY OR NEAR TRANSPORTATION OPTION, SUCH AS CAPITAL, METRO BUS ROUTES, BUS STOPS, AND URBAN TRAILS.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT MF THREE ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERNS.
THE PROPERTY IN, IN THE AREA IS IN AN AREA WHERE MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS DESIRABLE.
THE LOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LOCATED WITHIN 0.22 MILES OF THE PALMER LANE ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.
AND THERE ARE COMMERCIAL GOODS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE ALONG, ALONG MCNEIL DRIVE TO THE NORTH.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT ZONING WILL PERMIT ESTABLISHED PERMANENT ZONING AT THIS LOCATION AND WE'LL EXPAND THE NUMBER OF UNITS AVAILABLE AND HOUSING CHOICES IN THIS AREA.
AND AGAIN, THERE IS UH, MF THREE ZONING TO THE NORTH AND THERE IS MF TWO ZONING, UH, TO THE WEST.
SO, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
[01:25:02]
CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TODAY.
THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE AND, AND I THINK I CAN EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR MF FIVE AS OPPOSED TO THE MF THREE REP RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR MF FIVE SAYS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT IS THE DESIGNATION FOR MULTIFAMILY AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF UP TO 54 UNITS PER ACRE.
DEPENDING ON UNIT SIZE, AN MF FIVE DISTRICT DESIGNATION MAY BE APPLIED TO A USE IN A CENTRALLY LOCATED AREA NEAR SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
AN AREA ADJACENT TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DOESN'T APPLY.
OR A MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL OR EMPLOYMENT CENTER WHICH DOES APPLY FOR WHICH HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY USE IS DESIRED.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SITE, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU SEE THAT, WELL FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO WANNA MAKE SURE WELL GO TO THE NEXT ONE 'CAUSE Y'ALL GOT A LONG NIGHT.
YOU DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF.
HERE, HERE'S, HERE'S BASICALLY WHAT THIS SITE LOOKS LIKE.
YOU'VE GOT ABOUT THREE ACRES OF THE FIVE THAT ARE DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ARE ALL BUFFERED BY FLOODPLAIN OR CRITICAL ZONE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE GREEN AREA, THAT'S BASICALLY THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.
AND THEN WE HAVE HERITAGE TREES AROUND THE EDGE.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE, WE SAID, WELL IT'S ONLY 0.15 MILES FROM RESEARCH PARK, WHICH IS A MAJOR, MAJOR, UH, EMPLOYMENT AREA.
AND THEN WE'RE ABOUT 0.23 MILES FROM PALMER LANE AND 0.2 MILES FROM MCNEIL, BOTH OF WHICH ARE MOBILITY CORRIDORS.
SO IT ACTUALLY MEETS THE MF FIVE CRITERIA.
IF YOU LOOK AT ITS PROXIMITY TO EMPLOYMENT AND THE ROADS, YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE HERITAGE TREES AND THE BUFFERS FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AROUND THAT.
THAT TAKES CARE OF THE ZONING QUESTION.
AND IT, THE ONLY WAY TO GET ABOUT 250 UNITS ON THIS SITE IS TO CLUSTER IT ON THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.
AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS MF FIVE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT.
YOU WANNA REBUTTAL?
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? YES, I WOULD'VE A QUESTION FOR EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S SERIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY, UH, I WAS JUST LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM STAFF SORT OF WHAT THE THINKING WAS AROUND UM, MF THREE.
'CAUSE I READ THE REPORT, SOME THINGS WERE CLEAR TO ME, SOME THINGS WERE CLEAR TO ME.
AND FROM, UH, MR. SUBTLE, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW MANY TOTAL UNITS YOU THINK COULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER MF THREE VERSUS MF FIVE.
LIKE IF YOU SORT OF ROUGH BACK ON AN APPLICANT ESTIMATE
UM, SO THE REASON THAT STAFF WAS CONSIDERING MF THREE, BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERNS OBVIOUSLY MATCHED THE MF THREE, MF TWO ALSO IT'S ON LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
IT'S ON A LEVEL ONE AND A LEVEL TWO.
UM, THE OTHER REASON IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT ON THE EDGE.
TRADITIONALLY, MF FIVE AND MF SIX ZONING, WHICH ARE THE HIGHEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS ARE AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARTERIALS AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS.
THEY'RE AT MORE INTENSE ROADWAYS.
AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE WERE MEANT TO, TO GO.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY MCNEIL STEPPING DOWN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MF THREE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, 36 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO, SO WE ESTIMATE THAT IF UNDER THE MF THREE PROPOSAL YOU COULD ONLY GET ABOUT 75 UNITS, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
HOW MANY? 75 PLUS, SORRY, TWO 50.
MY LIPS ARE MOVING LINE 75 LESS THAN TWO 50.
UM, IT JUST MAKES IT A SMALLER PROJECT.
IF WE HAD MORE ACREAGE, WE COULD DO MORE.
THE, THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE ROAD SITUATION IS, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE ROADS.
IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE NEAR SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT AND MEASURED IT OFF 0.2 AND 0.23 MILES AWAY FROM MCNEIL AND UH, WHICH IS A CORRIDOR MOBILITY STREET OR 0.23 MILES FROM PARMER, WHICH IS A BIG REGIONAL MOBILITY STREET, MET,
[01:30:01]
MET THE DEFINITION.AND SO THAT'S WHY WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR THE MF FIVE GETS YOU MORE UNITS, IT'S BUFFERED FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY AND BY NATURAL FEATURES AND IT GETS US MORE HOUSING.
BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINT.
IT'S NOT A GIANT DIFFERENCE, BUT IT IS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T ASK FOR MF SIX.
'CAUSE EVEN I COULDN'T DO THAT WITH A, WITHOUT GETTING A RED FACE
UM, ONE THING, UM, THAT I WANTED TO VERIFY, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HERE IS, IS MORE FAMILIAR THAN I AM WITH THE AREA.
MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOME FAMILIAR MOBILITY FOLKS HERE IN OUR AREA IS THAT THE AREA HAS A PRETTY DECENT TRANSIT CONNECTION.
AND I REMEMBER TIME, YOU KNOW, SPENDING THE SUMMER THERE, THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD BIKE NETWORK THERE RELATIVELY SP IN IGNORING 180 3.
AND I WAS CURIOUS WHAT FROM EITHER FOLKS ON THE CITY STAFF FOLKS HERE, WHAT THE SORT OF, UH, ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY OPTIONS WOULD BE LOOKING LIKE FOR THE FOLKS LIVING IN THOSE COMPLEX.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT AREA IS GOING TO DEVELOP MASSIVELY, RIGHT? THERE'S THE NEW UT UH, KIND OF RESEARCH LABORATORIES.
THERE'S LIKE KINDA THE GREATER DOMAIN ERROR DEVELOPMENTS.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ALL THE OPTIONS FOR THEM WOULD BE.
UM, IF TRAFFIC TRAFFIC IS LIKE SORT OF A POINT OF CONCERN THERE, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND COMMISSIONER STERN, I MEAN AS, I'M NOT REALLY SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR, YOUR QUESTION.
THERE ISN'T AN URBAN TRAIL DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS MM-HMM
UM, THERE AREN'T BIKE LANES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS, SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO A DISTANCE TO GET TO THOSE QUARTERS.
SO THAT'S WHY THE STAFF FELT LIKE A LOWER DENSITY INTENSITY.
UM, OUR CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS IS ONTO A LOWER INTENSITY STREETS AS WELL.
SO, BUT EVEN I CAN RIDE A BIKE LESS THAN A QUARTER A MILE TO GET TO THE MAIN ROADS
UM, AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, UM, THERE ISN'T ANY, UM, WELL TO BE CHARITABLE
UH, SO IN THEORY YOU COULD GET TO IT AND YOUR CLOSEST UM, UH, PARK AND RIDE IS THE PAVILION PARK AND RIDE, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 180 3.
UH, IN THEORY PALMER LANE IS SUPPOSED TO BECOME A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
IT'S IN THE LONG RANGE PLAN, BUT, UM, IT IS IN THE LONG, LONG RANGE PLAN.
UH, BUT, UH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, IF A BUILDING WERE BUILT AT THE MF FIVE LEVEL VERSUS MF THREE MM-HMM
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIDEWALK OR BIKE TREATMENT AROUND THIS BUILDING THAT WOULD MAKE, UH, MORE AMENITIES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE MF FIVE LEVEL VERSUS AT THE MF THREE LEVEL? I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T LOOK AT THE TIME ZONING DURING, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
BUT DURING SITE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION REVIEW DOES ASK FOR THE CITY, LIKE EITHER RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION OR IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THE STREET CAN BE DEVELOPED TO THAT LEVEL.
I WANNA, I'M NOT SURE THOUGH IF LEVEL TWO INCLUDES A BIKE LANE.
I'M TRYING TO LOOK IT UP REAL QUICK.
I'LL JUST, I WILL SAY, I MEAN COMMISSIONER FLORES, I, I WAS LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW AND UM, THERE'S NO BIKE LANE.
IT'S A VERY STANDARD, UM, YOU KNOW, SMALLER, UH, SIDEWALK MM-HMM
IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE FIVE FOOT WIDTH YEAH.
SO, YOU KNOW, TO AGREE WITH STAFF, IT, IT IS A, A LEVEL ONE OR A LEVEL TWO ROAD.
IT'S NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU THINK OF AS AN ARTERIAL ROAD.
JUST TO UPDATE MY CLARIFICATION, UM, UM, I WAS, LOOK, I WAS TALKING ABOUT MCNEIL 'CAUSE I'VE RIDDEN TO MAGNE BIKE LANES AND THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD.
UM, THEY'RE NOT IDEAL, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD FOR CITY OF AUSTIN STANDARDS.
UM, SO I, I KIND OF LIKE THIS PROJECT THE WAY OF, OF BRINGING INVESTMENT TO THE AREA THAT I'M ABLE TO BRING IN MORE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS.
'CAUSE IN, IN MY VIEW, IT'S VERY FEASIBLE TO TAKE THAT A BIKE, YOU KNOW, TO THE HEB THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ABOUT HALF A MILE AWAY MM-HMM
UM, I'VE TAKEN MORE DANGEROUS SPIKE TRIPS WITH WORSE INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE GONNA NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE AND I THINK THAT DEVELOPMENT CAN BRING THAT INVESTMENT.
SO I'M KIND OF A LEANING YES AT THE MOMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING PROHIBITING MF FIVE, UH, ON THE LOCAL ONE AND TWO STREETS, IS THERE ANYTHING PROHIBITING THAT ZONING DISTRICT? NO, IT IS JUST PART
[01:35:01]
OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENT.THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MF FIVE IS MEANT TO BE AT MORE INTENSIVE LOCATIONS WHERE, UH, COLLECTORS AND RT O ROADWAYS ARE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THE STASH RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM.
UM, PART OF THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT TOO IS YOU'RE NOT ON TWO MAJOR ROADWAYS, BUT YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO TWO MAJOR ROADWAYS.
AND I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S LOOKING AT PERSPECTIVE OF SAYING YOU'RE NOT ON IT, BUT YOU'RE CLOSE.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC AREAS AND I, I, SO I KIND OF STAFF'S IN OUR HARD POSITION OF GOING, WE GOTTA LOOK AT THE CODE ONE WAY.
BUT I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, THEY ARE VERY CLOSE TO SOME BASIC LEVEL.
'CAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW A STANDARD, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW A, SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF SELF COHERENT.
BUT FROM A SORT OF BIG, FROM A, LIKE A, WHEN YOU STEP BACK AND JUST THINK ABOUT, OKAY, THIS IS LIKE NEXT TO MCNEIL, FUNCTIONALLY SPEAKING KING ANN PARER.
MR. CHAPPY, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AROUND, UH, THE NEED OF, UH, MF FIVE ZONING VERSUS MF FOUR ZONING, WHICH IS EXTREMELY SIMILAR BY A LOT OF MEANS.
UM, THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO IS A LITTLE LESS UNDER MF FOUR.
UM, THE DENSITIES ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME.
THE, UH, THE SITE AREAS ARE VERY CLOSE AS WELL.
IT'S JUST THE FAR YOU GET A FEW MORE FEET.
MAKE BIGGER UNITS IF, IF WE'RE LIMITED ON THE SITE ALREADY ON THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
DOES THAT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE FAR? IT, IT DOES BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT 60 FEET TO WORK WITH.
AND, AND WHAT DID, WHAT DID I, AND I'M GUESSING AT THIS, BUT I'M GUESSING YOU END UP WITH SMALLER UNITS AT MF FOUR ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER MAYBE, BUT JUST SMALLER.
I, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A QUESTION WORTH ASKING SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MF THREE AND MF FIVE AND MF FOUR IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE
THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE IS THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF 0.75 VERSUS ONE TO ONE.
'CAUSE MF FOUR AND MF FIVE ARE BOTH 60 AND HEIGHT 60 FEET, RIGHT? MM-HMM
QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, BECAUSE MAYBE IT'S TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS, BUT, UM, ARE, IF SIZE IS A SORT OF A BIG POINT OF CONCERN, ARE YOU GONNA BE PLANNING ON BUILDING UH, UNITS FOR LIKE FAMILIES OR LIKE BIGGER UNITS OR SORT OF WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT SORT OF THE YEAH, IT IS, IT IS TOO EARLY TO KNOW.
YOU, YOU END UP THE SITE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR, UH,
UM, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE SITE AREA FOR MORE BEDROOMS. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A PLAN YET MM-HMM
BUT THE MORE BEDROOMS YOU PUT, THE MORE SITE AREA YOU NEED, THE LESS UNITS YOU GET AND IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE THAT BALANCE PROBABLY.
I'M GUESSING THIS WON'T BE A SITE FOR THREE BEDROOM UNITS THOUGH.
YOU'RE ONLY WHAT 0.15 MILES AWAY FROM, UH, THE BIG RESEARCH PARK.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A HUGE EMPLOYMENT CENTER SO YOU'LL BE GETTING PROBABLY PEOPLE WORKING HERE AND RIDING THEIR BIKE OR WALKING OVER TO RESEARCH PARK TELL TERMS OF PREVIOUS COVER AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GONNA DRIVE IT M FOUR FIVE AT THE SIGN.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD ALLOW YOU SOME BIGGER UNITS.
I THINK IT'S FINE IF, I THINK IT'S FINE IF WE GIVE PEOPLE A HUNDRED EXTRA SQUARE FEET OF A HOUSE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION? SORRY, I HAVE A, UH, A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF UNITS, WHAT WOULD, AND I KNOW YOU TYPICALLY LOOK AT LIKE DESIGNATION WHEN IT'S MF THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE.
UM, BUT WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A, THE CUTOFF POINT WHERE YOU WOULD SAY THAT'S TOO MANY UNITS FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT? WE, WE DON'T LOOK AT HOW MANY UNITS.
WE LOOK AT THE ZONING CATEGORY AND WE LOOK AT THE POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF UNITS PER ACRE.
'CAUSE WE CAN'T CALCULATE HOW MANY UNITS THEY'RE GONNA PUT ON THE SITE.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA DO ALL ONE BEDROOMS, TWO BEDROOMS, YOU KNOW, A COMBINATION OF TWO AND THREE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS.
THERE'S OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S ALL THESE THINGS THAT COME INTO PLAY AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
SO WE DON'T SIT THERE AND RUN THE NUMBERS OF WHAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER AN AREA.
WE LOOK AT THE STREET CAPACITIES, WE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERNS.
WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA AND THE TRANSITION OF ZONING AWAY FROM NEIL DRIVE INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE WHAT WE, THE ITEMS WE LOOK AT, THE ISSUES THAT WE LOOK AT WHEN WE CONTEMPLATE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ZONING CATEGORY IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
[01:40:01]
REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE A HUGE PORTION OF THE LOT IS UNDEVELOPABLE, RIGHT? THAT MAYBE JUST LOOKING AT ZONING CATEGORY BY ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE US THE FULL PICTURE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS TOO MUCH ACTIVITY OR TOO MANY PEOPLE, UH, GIVEN A, FOR A PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND IN A GIVEN CONTEXT.I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COMMISSIONER, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PURPOSE STATEMENTS FOR OUR ZONING CATEGORIES SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF GAUGE AS TO WHERE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE IN THE CITY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THE STAFF LOOKS AT.
WE LOOK AT OF COURSE, LIKE FAR HEIGHT, THINGS SUCH AS THAT, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN THE TRANSITION OF THESE CATEGORIES IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDE.
SO, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT LOOKING AT IT ON THE ENTIRE SITE.
YOU DON'T LOOK AT IT TAKING AWAY THE FLOOD AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SITE TO GET
'CAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A SITE PLAN LAYOUT AT THIS TIME.
BUT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT NET SITE AREA LIKE WE USED TO.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT CROW SITE AREA.
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A DECENT AMOUNT OF DENSITY NEARBY, UH, WE'RE NEXT TO PARMER, WHICH, UH, MAY NOT HAVE ACTIVE TRANSIT AT THIS TIME, BUT I, I THINK WITH ALL OF THE DENSITY THAT'S GOING UP AROUND THERE, THE JOB CENTERS, HEB, IT'S A CORRIDOR THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE TRANSIT AT SOME POINT.
I, I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IN TERMS OF, UH, ZONING FOR, UH, 10 TO 20 YEARS OUT, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, UH, THE, THE, THE MF FIVE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE JUST GIVEN THE NUMBER OF JOBS IN THE AREA.
SO I WOULD MOVE TO, UH, DO THE MF FIVE UH, ZONING INSTEAD OF THE MF THREE SECOND.
SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR M FIVE, RIGHT.
SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR MF FIVE MOTION'S.
SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE ON PAPERS SAY AYE.
OH, I, I THINK COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAD HAD SOME DISCUSSION.
I LOOK AT THE MAP AND IT'S PRETTY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE MF THREE MAKES SENSE TO ME.
I HAVE MF THREE IN THE BEHIND MY HOUSE AND IT'S CERTAINLY COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MF FIVE.
IT'S NOT A PLACE WHERE WE'RE GONNA GET, THOSE HOUSES AREN'T GOING AWAY THAT ARE ALL AROUND IT, UM, TO MAKE MORE GROWTH AND LOTS MORE MF FIVE.
SO THE MF THREE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SEEMS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT.
UM, SURE PALMER AND MCNEIL ARE THERE, BUT I'M NOT RIDING MY BIKE ON THOSE ROADS
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS, UM, THAT'S OKAY.
BUT I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION.
A LOT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY IS PUD, AT LEAST TO THE EAST.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS BEING.
YOU GOT PUD, YOU GOT COMMERCIAL, YOU GOT MULTIFAMILY, SO, OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE MF FIVE.
WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 YESES AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
AND ONE OPPOSITION OF COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
ITEM SIX WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT, SEVEN WAS APPROVED.
SHALL WE MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT? I CAN STEAL YOUR THUNDER, BUT THIS IS ITEM EIGHT, REZONING C 14 20 25 DASH 0 6 0.
I'LL LET STAFF, SHOULD WE DO EIGHT AND NINE TOGETHER? UH, SHOULD WE DO EIGHT AND NINE TOGETHER? YES.
EIGHT IS C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 6 9 IS C 14.
ONE IS THE ACTUAL ZONING AND ONE IS THE RE THE COVENANT TERMINATION.
AND I WILL SAY IT BEFORE I START THIS OUT THAT I WAS WONDERING WHY I WASN'T THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS CASE.
UM, THAT WAS BECAUSE I WAS ON MATERNITY LEAVE WITH MY SON
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, KC 14 20 25 0 6 0 AE MEDICAL AND RETAIL REZONE.
IT'S LOCATED 1 3 6 2 4 2 NORTH US HIGHWAY 180 3 NORTHBOUND RESEARCH, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS RESEARCH
[01:45:01]
BOULEVARD.AND THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM GRCO ON TRACK ONE TO GRCO AND ON TRACK TWO FROM GOCO TO GOCO.
THE REASON THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UH, A REZONING IS TO ASK TO REMOVE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE PRIED USES THAT ARE IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE 2010 ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT GRCO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL, OVERLY COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING FOR TRACK ONE AND GRCO GENERAL OFFICE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING FOR TRACK TWO TO CHANGE THE CONDITION OF ZONING.
THE REZONING WILL ADD BACK THE FOLLOWING USES AS PERMITTED USES ON THE PROPERTY ON TRACK ONE, WHICH IS THE GRCO PORTION.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD BACK INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, PRIVATE, PRIVATE SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PRIVATE PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, RESTAURANT GENERAL AND GROUP HOME ON TRACK TWO, WHICH IS THE GOCO PORTION.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD BACK PRIVATE SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PRIVATE PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, GROUP HOME GUIDANCE SERVICES, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT.
AND SO LET ME GO INTO THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE CASE.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 4.365 ACRE LOT THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETAIL CENTER THAT CONTAINS OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICE USES.
THERE ARE PERSONAL SERVICES AND PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES TO THE NORTH THAT ARE ZONED LO THE LOTS TO THE WEST ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT HAVE INTERIM SF TWO DESIGNATION TO THE SOUTH.
THERE IS AN UNDEVELOPED AREA DETENTION POND AND A MEDICAL OFFICE USES THAT ARE ZONED WITH AN INTERIM RR DESIGNATION SF TWO AND GRCO ZONING.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE LIST OF PROBED USES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ZONING CASE C 14 2008 0 0 2 2 4.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR GRCO ZONING FOR TRACK ONE AND G OCO ZONING FOR TRACK TWO TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF ZONING.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE WILL PERMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC USES ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I ALREADY READ THIS INTO THE RECORD SO I WON'T DO THIS AGAIN.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS PERMITTING INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, PRIVATE SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PRIVATE PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND RESTAURANT USES ON THIS PROPERTY AS IT FRONTS ONTO THE SERVICE ROAD OF US HIGHWAY 180 3 AND WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
IN ADDITION, THE CITY NO LONGER RECOMMENDING PROHIBIT RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING GROUP HOME GUIDANCE SERVICES, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT, UH, USES.
THE CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT IS ADVISED THAT PROHIBITING THESE USES WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF LEGAL DETERMINATIONS IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.
NOW I WILL STATE THAT SOME OF THE USES HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY, UH, OTHER USES IN THE CODE, BUT THE, THAT WOULD TRANSFER OVER.
SO, UM, THE STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE SPEAKERS? OH, DID YOU WANT ME TO PRESENT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN ACCOMPANY? YES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO EIGHT AND NINE AGAIN.
YOU WANT ME TO GO ON AND DO THAT BEFORE WE START WITH QUESTIONS? YES.
LET ME MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.
SO WE CAN HEAR THESE AT THE SAME TIME.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS CASE C 14 2008, 2 24 RCT, WHICH IS AE MEDICAL AND RETAIL RCT.
THIS IS AGAIN LOCATED AT 13 6 4 2 NORTH US HIGHWAY 1 8 3 SERVICE ROAD.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED UNDER DOCUMENT 2010 0 0 4 5 7 9 5.
THAT IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT LIMIT OPERATIONAL HOURS BETWEEN SEVEN AND AM AND 10:00 PM AND REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TERMINATE THE PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WAS RECORDED IN 2010 IN ASSOCIATION WITH ZONING CASE C 14 2008 0 2 24.
THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO LEAVE THIS RESTRICTED COVENANT TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REMOVE THESE CONDITIONS OF THIS PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE RETAIL CENTER THAT FRONTS ONTO AND TAKES ACCESS TO US HIGHWAY 180 3.
THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS ADVISED THAT NO, THAT THE CITY NO LONGER RECOMMENDS LIMITING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF BUSINESSES AND IMPLEMENTING LANDSCAPE BUFFERS THROUGH PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
AND I DID WANT TO READ YOU A COMMENT THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT MADE.
OKAY, SO, UM, THE CODE RECOGNIZES THE IDEA TO REMOVE PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND CONVERT THEM INTO CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.
THERE ARE ITEMS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT ARE BEING TERMINATED, ARE BEING TERMINATED, WHICH ARE ZONING RELATED, AND SOME OF THESE COULD BE INCLUDED IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AND BASICALLY THAT WOULD BE A BUFFER.
[01:50:01]
OPERATION HOURS OF OPERATION ARE UNENFORCEABLE.UM, AND SO THEREFORE WE NO LONGER RECOMMEND THOSE.
THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN DO IN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
UM, BUT LAW HAS BEEN, UM, PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE LONGER RECOMMEND DOING PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE CABINETS TO LIMIT HOURS OF OPERATION ON PROPERTY BECAUSE HONESTLY, WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE THEM? UM, YOU COULD CALL THE POLICE TO ENFORCE THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AWARE OF THE PUBLIC RESTRIC COVENANT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY.
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ENFORCES CONDITIONS OF CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE NOT CODE REQUIREMENTS.
SO AGAIN, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
QUESTIONS ON ITEM NINE OR EIGHT AND NINE.
I, I I JUST HAD A QUESTION AROUND, UH, IS THIS IS NUMBER NINE, UH, TERMINATION OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
IS THAT INITIATED BY THE CITY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING? OKAY.
THE TERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE OLDER ZONING CASES? UM, AND PRIOR TO 1985, BEFORE WE HAD CURRENT CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS IN OUR CODE, WE USED TO PUT A LOT OF THE CONDITIONS IN A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
NOW WE TEND TO DO THINGS MORE IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, BUT CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS ARE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO.
YOU CAN LIMIT USES SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ACCESS.
SO THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO IN A, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PER THE CODE.
SO THEY'RE ASKING TO REMOVE THESE CONDITIONS THAT WERE DONE IN 2008.
THEY FEEL LIKE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET AND THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
SO ALSO I FEEL LIKE IT'S BETTER THINGS FOR THE POLICE TO DO.
LONNIE, UH, LET'S SAY I WAS WONDERING ABOUT, UM, DRIVE-IN SERVICES.
I NOTICED THAT IT'S PROHIBITED ON TRACK ONE.
IS THERE A REASON WHY IT'S NOT PROHIBITED FOR TRACK TWO AS WELL? I IMAGINE BECAUSE TRACK ONE IS THE GRCO, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL OR THE GENERAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TRACK AND THE OFFICE TRACKED, THEY WERE PROBABLY NOT ANTICIPATING OFFICE HAVING DRIVE-IN SERVICES.
SO, OKAY, SO JUST BECAUSE OF THE ZONING CATEGORY, RIGHT.
IT CURRENTLY HAS, AGAIN, I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR BECAUSE I WASN'T THE CASE MANAGER, STEVE, WHERE I WAS 'CAUSE I WAS OUT AT THAT TIME.
SO WHEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING CASE WAS HEARD.
I HAVE TO SAY I'M VERY IMPRESSED BY YOUR ABILITY TO REMEMBER CASES ACROSS VAST SWATS OF TIME.
I HAVE COVERED THIS AREA FOR OVER 20 YEARS, SO, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE BACK OF YOUR HAND.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T ALWAYS REMEMBER EVERYTHING, BUT, UM, IF A CASE COMES UP, I'M USUALLY, IT POPS IN MY MIND AND I, YOU KNOW, USUALLY HAVE AT LEAST SOME BACKGROUND.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT? YES.
AND UM, TISHA, YOU'LL HAVE 12 MINUTES SINCE WE'RE COMBINING THEM.
I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP IT TO HALF THAT.
UH, MY NAME'S RETA AND I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER FOR THE REZONING REQUEST.
UM, EIGHT AND NINE, UH, 4 1 3 6 4 2 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, ALSO KNOWN AS SPICEWOOD CENTER.
UH, THIS IS A 4.363 COMMERCIAL LOT THAT CONSISTS OF TWO TRACKS, UM, AS YOU HEARD, ONE GRCO AND ONE GOCO.
CURRENTLY THE EXISTING LAND USES INCLUDE MEDICAL OFFICE, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, AND PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT.
WE'RE REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
DURING INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH PLANNING STAFF, WE ORIGINALLY WERE GOING TO GO FOR A FULL REZONING REQUEST FROM GEO TO GR.
UM, AND THAT WAS DETERMINED IT WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED FROM STAFF.
UH, SO WE REFOCUSED OUR REQUEST SPECIFICALLY ON MODIFYING THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES INSTEAD OF ALTERING THE ZONING DESIGNATION.
UH, OVER THE YEARS, THE OWNERS FACED CHALLENGES SECURING TENANTS FOR THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE OUTDATED USE RESTRICTIONS.
SO TO BETTER ALIGN WITH CURRENT MARKET DEMANDS AND ATTRACT A WIDER RANGE OF POTENTIAL TENANTS, WE'RE REQUESTING TO UPDATE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ALLOW CERTAIN USES THAT ARE TYPICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, AS STAFF MENTIONED, UH, WE ARE ADVISED THAT USES SUCH AS GROUP HOMES, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND GUIDANCE SERVICES ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROHIBIT, UM, AND REGULATED UNDER FAIR HOUSING ACT.
AS A RESULT, WE INCLUDED THOSE INTO OUR REQUEST AS WELL.
UM, GO TO, LET'S SEE, UM, SLIDE FOUR.
UM, HERE'S THE LIST OF USES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO MODIFY IN THE EXISTING AUDIENCE.
UM, EXCLUDING THE PROTECTIVE USES.
OUR, OUR REQUEST WOULD INCLUDE FIVE NEW USES FOR TRACK ONE AND TWO NEW USES FOR TRACK TWO, UH,
[01:55:01]
INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT, GENERAL, PRIVATE, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.UH, THERE IS ALSO A LONG LIST OF PROHIBITED USES THAT WILL REMAIN, UM, UNCHANGED AT THIS REQUEST.
STAFF ALREADY STATED HOW THE PROPOSED ZONING COMPLIES WITH PURPOSE AND PLANNING, SO I'M GOING TO GET THAT TO SAVE TIME.
IF YOU GO TO THE EXISTING LAYOUT ON, LET SEE HERE, SLIDE SEVEN.
UM, THE PROPERTY INCLUDES TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
UH, THERE'S ONE ON EACH TRACK.
UH, FRONT BUILDING HAS FIVE TENANT SPACES WITH ONLY TWO CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.
THE BACK BUILDING HAS FOUR OCCUPYING TENANTS WITH MORE THAN HALF THE SPACE STILL VACANT.
UM, THIS OVERVIEW ALSO, UM, SEE HERE SHOWS YOU THE, UH, ACCESS FROM 180 3 FRONTAGE, THE ONLY ACCESS.
SO WE HEARD, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY, INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE LIGHT, AND UNDERMINING THE 2010 AGREEMENT.
UH, APPROVING THE MODIFIED CO WOULD ALLOW NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING, COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL USES THAT SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY SITE ACCESS WILL REMAIN OFF US 180 3 AVOIDING RESIDENTIAL CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC.
THE CURRENT ZONING AUDIENCE FOR THIS PROPERTY ALREADY PROHIBITS THE VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO CHANGE THAT RESTRICTION.
EXISTING LIGHTING MEETS ALL CITY DARK SKY REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT GLARE INTO ADJACENT HOMES.
NO ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS PLANNED AND THE OWNER IS NOT SEEKING TENANT WHOSE OPERATIONS WOULD GENERATE NOISE THAT WOULD DISTURB THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, DUE TO THE DISTANCE OF TRACT ONE FROM THE ACRES WEST NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ADDITIONAL USES REQUESTED WOULD NOT CREATE ANY LIGHT OR NOISE IMPACT ON NEAR NEARBY HOUSES.
WE RESPECT THE 2010 AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS PUT IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
THOSE CONDITIONS HELP GUIDE THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE NOW ASKING TO RE WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REMOVE ALL PROTECTIONS.
MANY OF THE ORIGINAL PROHIBITED USES WILL REMAIN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING BUFFERS AND ACCESS LIMITATIONS WILL STILL APPLY UNDER CITY CODE.
UH, THIS IS NOT ABOUT OPENING THE DOOR TO HIGH IMPACT OR INCA INCOMPATIBLE USES.
IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING NEIGHBORHOODS SERVING TENANTS LIKE TUTORING CENTERS, MEDICAL SERVICES, OR COMMUNITY RECREATION.
THESE ARE USES THAT WOULD ADD VALUE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST BASED ON THE PROPERTY'S UNIQUE CONDITIONS AND HISTORY AND DOES NOT SET A BLANKET PRECEDENT FOR OTHER AREAS.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT USES SUCH AS GAMING ROOMS, 24 HOUR RESTAURANTS AND DRIVE-THROUGH ESTABLISHMENTS.
THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO REASSURE THAT WE'RE THAT THESE ARE NOT PART OF HIS VISION FOR THE PROPERTY AND HE HAS NO INTEREST IN LEASING TO THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES, NOR HAS HE IN THE PAST.
IN FACT, NONE OF THE BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE ANY DRIVE-THRU USES.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MAINTAINED A POSITIVE TRACK RECORD WITH THE COMMUNITY.
NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE TAKES PRIDE IN SECURING QUALITY TENANTS WHO CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO THE AREA, NOT SIMPLY FILLING SPACES FOR PROFIT.
UH, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NINE, UM, IT GIVES YOU A GREAT AERIAL OVERVIEW OF THE SITE.
IT SHOWS THE SINGLE ACCESS POINT FROM 180 3 AND THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW YOU ANOTHER AREA OF VIEW ILLUSTRATING THE 500 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE THE ACRES WEST NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO OUR, OUR REQUEST IS ABOUT UPDATING AND OUTDATED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SO THIS PROPERTY CONTINUE CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.
WE'RE NOT ASKING TO REMOVE ALL THE PROTECTIONS, UM, THE ADDITIONAL USES.
WE ARE REQUESTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING IN NATURE AND WILL PROVIDE VALUE TO THE RESIDENT WITHOUT CREATING TRAFFIC, LIGHTING, OR NOISE COMPLAINTS.
WE RESPECT THE OLD AGREEMENT AND RECOGNIZE ITS ROLE IN GUIDING EARLY DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT WAS WRITTEN OVER 15 YEARS AGO BEFORE THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED AND BEFORE TODAY'S MARKET AND COMMUNITY NEEDS WERE FULLY KNOWN.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST DESIGNED TO BRING NEW LIFE TO AN UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY, ATTRACT QUALITY TENANTS AND PROVIDE SERVICES THAT SUPPORT, SUPPORT BOTH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY.
I CAN GO INTO ADDITIONAL THINGS ABOUT THE BUSINESS HOUR LIMITATION RELATED TO THE RESTRICTED COVENANT.
UM, IF YOU WANT TO, UM, WE'RE JUST REQUESTING THIS SO THAT WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBLE HOURS TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, VIABLE TENANTS, UM, THAT WE'VE HAD TO TURN AWAY IN THE PAST.
[02:00:01]
UM, AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THE OWNER IS ON BOARD AND COMPLETELY AGREEABLE TO ADDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER INTO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.IF THE COMMISSION NOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PREFER THAT, UH, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE TO THE PRIMARY PARTY IN OPPOSITION.
CINDY, YOU'LL HAVE 18 MINUTES.
DOES IT MATTER WHICH ORDER? NO.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
UM, THE C ONE C ONE FOUR 2000 8 0 2 2 4 RCT.
UM, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HAS ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED BY SUBMISSION OF A NEW SITE PLAN THAT THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE RC.
THE AGENT FOR THE OWNER ORIGINALLY EXPLAINED THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOT, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED TONIGHT, UM, WAS TO ALLOW THEM TO NOT IMPOSE COMPATIBILITY ON THEMSELVES THEIR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
HENCE, THE LANDSCAPING PLAN VARIED IN BENDING THE RULES OF COMPATIBILITY AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S CHANGED EVEN MORE.
THE CURRENT SITE IS STILL PROVIDING A LOT OF NATURAL BUFFER SHIELDING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM VIEWING THE ACTIVITIES THAT THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, WITH THE NEW PROPOSED SITE PLAN, MOST OF THAT NATURAL BUFFER WILL BE REMOVED AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DOES NOT OFFER ADEQUATE BUFFER AND SCREENING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING THE COTTAGES AND THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING THE RESIDENTIAL LOT 20 TO THE SOUTH.
THIS NEEDS TO SOMEHOW BE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED.
IN ADDITION, THE OWNER HAS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS COMPLETED WITH THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE OVERALL PROJECT SITE IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THE LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION SHOULD REMAIN SEVEN TO 10.
THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND LIMITING HOURS OF OPERATION WERE NEGOTIATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOW THE APPLICANT APPLICANT WANTS TO, UH, GO BACK ON HIS PROMISE AND HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS REMOVED.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PREFER THOSE RESTRICTIONS BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO BE INCLUDED UNDER THE NEW ZONING CASE.
THE C 14 20 25 0 0 6 0 AND REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND THAT TO COUNSEL.
THE LANDSCAPING PLAN PORTION OF THE RC MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED BUT APPEARS TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RC WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE NEW SITE PLAN.
THE NEW SITE PLAN IS MOVING FORWARD AS EVIDENCE BY THE FILTRATION AND TREE PROTECTION RECENTLY PUT IN PLACE.
SO THEY'RE GONNA DO IT ON THE OTHER CASE.
THE C 14 20 25 0 6 OH, WHICH IS THE NEW ZONING, UH, WITH THE PROHIBITED USES.
PROHIBITED USES WERE APPROVED BY COUNSEL WITH ZONING CASE 20, UH, FROM 2010.
AT THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT AGENT CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DO A TIA BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
ZAP QUESTIONED THEIR PROMISE TO LIMIT TRIPS TO 2000 A DAY AND WONDERED IF ADDITIONAL USES WERE ADDED BACK IN AS PERMITTED.
WHAT WOULD TRIGGER A REQUIREMENT FOR A TIA TO BE CONDUCTED NOW WITH THEIR REQUEST TO ADD USES THAT COULD PUT THEM OVER THAT THRESHOLD OF 2000 TRIPS, THEY ARE STILL NOT WILLING TO OR ARE REQUIRED TO DO A TIA.
WE ARE REQUESTING COUNSEL TO AT LEAST RECOMMEND A ZONING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS, BE SUBMITTED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTS TO ANY CHANGES TO THE PROHIBITED USE LIST AND WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT OUR OBJECTION.
AGENT CLAIMS THEIR CLIENT HAS FACED CHALLENGES SECURING TENANTS FOR THE PROPERTY DUE TO OUTDATED USE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE OVER 15 YEARS AGO.
I AM AMAZED AT ALL THE BUSINESSES GOING IN AROUND OUR AREA AND FIND THAT STATEMENT HARD TO BELIEVE.
I CAN LIST DOZENS OF USES THAT WOULD FIT WITH THEIR RETAIL OPTIONS AND THE SIZE OF THEIR, UM, BUILDING.
THE THING THAT SCARES ME IS WHEN THEY DISCUSS INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION AND INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AS ADDITIONAL USES OR PERMITTED USES.
[02:05:01]
WE JUST HAD A POKER HOUSE PUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT ABUTS THE OTHER SIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.YOU CANNOT IMAGINE THE PARKING AND THE 24 HOUR OPERATION.
I KNOW THERE'S, UH, LIQUOR INVOLVED AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT IT DOES AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION AND INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, UM, THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND, UH, IS WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED ALREADY.
UH, THAT WAS IN A GR ZONED, UM, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO, UM, AND IT WAS DONE, THE ZONING WAS DONE BACK IN THE SEVENTIES.
SO, UH, THERE, THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON IT.
UH, THEY ALSO WANT PRIVATE, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND RESTAURANT GENERAL.
THESE ARE PROBABLY NOT EVEN DOABLE AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED PARKING AND THE SIZE OF THEIR BUILDING.
AND THIS IS ON THE FRONT BUILDING.
UM, WE PARTICULARLY DON'T SUPPORT THE RESTAURANT GENERAL BECAUSE IT INCLUDES THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
AND IT MAY INCLUDE OUTDOOR SEATING IN MUSIC, WHICH MEANS MORE NOISE, MORE TRASH AND ODORS.
TWO, THEY WANT PRIVATE, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
AGAIN, PARKING IS LIMITED AND COULD ADD TRAFFIC CONFLICT AT THEIR DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS VERY NARROW.
IT'S NARROWER THAN OUR STREET.
UM, AND IS THERE ONLY ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO US? 180 3.
TRAFFIC CAN BE OVERWHELMING WITH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN STUCK IN A, UM, PICKUP LINE AFTER SCHOOL, UH, BY AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU KNOW, IT, IT CAN BE A BIG PROBLEM.
AND WE HAVE MANY OF THOSE KIND OF, UH, EDUCATIONAL, UH, FACILITIES AROUND US, PRIVATE, UM, AND PUBLIC, UH, SCHOOLS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THEIR STATEMENT THAT GROUP HOMES RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND GUIDANCE SERVICES ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROHIBIT BASED ON LEGAL GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT.
WE WONDER, IS THAT TRUE? THIS IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE LAND CODE.
SO WE HAVE HEARD, UH, REASONS BE, UH, BLAMED ON THE LAW DEPARTMENT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND STUFF, AND I SOMETIMES FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.
THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING, I'M SORRY, WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM MAC HOLDER FOR A TOTAL OF 12 MINUTES.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM JOE JOSEPH FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THESE ITEMS. OKAY.
UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? COMMISSIONER CHAFF? ANY SECONDS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SO, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD, OR THAT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT, UM, IT SOUNDED LIKE WE COULD PUT THE LANDSCAPE VEGETATIVE BUFFER INTO THE CO.
BUT WE CAN'T REALLY PUT HOURS OF OPERATION INTO A CO CORRECT.
SO WE'D MOVE THE LANDSCAPE FROM THE RESTRICTED COVENANT OVER TO THE CO E.
LEAVE THE HOURS OF MARGIN OUT.
WE, UM, WE WILL NEED TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A, UH, A SIX MINUTE REBUTTAL AS WELL.
TISHA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UM, I JUST WANT TO, I'LL BE QUICK.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S POSSIBLE IN REGARDS TO THE INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION AND THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.
UM, THE OWNER HAS, UH, BASIC EXPRESSED TO ME THAT HE HAS NO DESIRE TO PUT ANY TYPE OF GAMING ROOM IN.
UM, HE EVEN MENTIONED THE SAME, UH, UH, CLOSE,
[02:10:01]
UH, GAMING ROOM THAT CINDY BROUGHT UP, UH, THIS EVENING.I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN RESTRICT THAT SPECIFIC BUSINESS, UH, WHEN WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THE OWNER IS NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.
UH, 'CAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY INTENT OF USING THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS THERE.
UM, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO ADDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, ANYWHERE IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
I HAVE NO, I HAVE NO MORE COMMENT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE INDIVIDUAL USE WITHIN A BUILDING, UM, TO RESTRICT THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
BUT COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE CORRECT.
THE USE IS WHAT IT IS IN THE CODE.
IT MAY NOT SPECIFICALLY FIT THE CATEGORY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BUT IT'S THE OVERALL UMBRELLA, THAT CATEGORY.
I MEAN, ESPECIALLY A POKER HOUSE THAT'S, THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY A SOCIAL CLUB WITH, UH, A COMMON ACTIVITY.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I WAS GOING TO SAY, I, I, UM, I, THEY, UH, PUT A QUESTION.
I SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T IF ANYONE HAS ANY POINTS OF DISCUSSION, HAPPY TO HEAR IT, BUT OTHERWISE SEEMS MUCH MORE CLEAR CUT.
I DO LIKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT I, I WOULD WANT MOVE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE LANDSCAPING FROM THE COVENANT OVER TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SO I ALSO WANTED TO CLARIFY A POINT ABOUT THAT.
UM, RECENTLY, UH, WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS CASES THAT HAVE REQUESTED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND A LAW DEPARTMENTS NOT FOND OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
THEY'RE MORE ACCEPTABLE OF THE BUILDING SETBACK THAN A LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
UM, WHAT WE USED TO DO BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS IS WE WOULD CITE LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS IN THE LANDSCAPE PORTION OF THE CODE
AND THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD ADD THAT TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
WE COULD GO IN THERE A BERM, CERTAIN TYPES OF TREES, YOU KNOW, GRASS, YOU KNOW.
BUT, UM, THEY HAVE TOLD ME RECENTLY WHEN I BROUGHT FORTH LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, UM, THAT THEY PREFER JUST TO MAKE IT A BUILDING SETBACK.
SO I KNOW THAT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPEASE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY WANT SOME SORT OF VEGETATION IN THERE.
HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SPECIFY THE VEGETATION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP, WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
AND I ALSO WANTED TO BRING UP, WHICH I DID NOT CLARIFY BEFORE, THAT, UH, FAMILY HOME AND GROUP HOME, THEY DON'T EXIST ANYMORE.
SO EVEN THOUGH
UM, SO WE STILL WOULD NOT RECOMMEND PROHIBITING THAT USE BECAUSE IT'S A CIVIC USE THAT IS PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
UM, SO CONSIDERING THE NEW TEXAS SCHOOL VOUCHER LAW,
UM, I DON'T LIVE TOO, TOO CLOSE TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME AND THE PROBLEM WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS, NOT AGAINST SCHOOLS, RIGHT.
AND SO I KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AT THE VERY LEAST TO HAVE THOSE EDUCATION FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE SO THAT THEY NEED TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THAT THERE'S PERHAPS IF THEY'RE REALLY GONNA HAVE A SCHOOL, I MEAN, TUTORING FACILITIES IS, WAS MENTIONED, BUT A SCHOOL IS DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT A DOUBT AND TO, TO TRAFFIC PATTERNS KIND OF ANYWHERE CLOSE BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, FACT THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, 2000 TRIPS.
BUT A THOUSAND OF 'EM OCCUR IN THE SAME 15 MINUTES IS THE PROBLEM.
I I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE QUEUING HAS AN EFFECT ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE QUEUING IS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
UM, THIS IS ON THE EXIT SIDE, SINCE IT'S A ONE WAY RAMP THEY'RE ENTERING, UM, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO QUEUE IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GO BACKWARD UNLESS YOU WANNA GO THE FIRST DIRECTION ON 180 3.
AND ALSO, LIKE IT'S, THERE'S, UH, AS SOMEONE WHO'S IN THE EARLY PARTS OF FAMILY PLANNING, IT'S UH, REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIND, UH, TUTORING FACILITIES OR OTHER KIND OF EDUCATION FACILITIES.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT HARDER.
YOU KNOW, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BIG DEAL TO OVERCOME.
IT JUST COMES BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST CLEAN IF
[02:15:01]
WE JUST KEEP IT.SO I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT SCHOOLS LIVING NEXT TO TWO, UM, AND A DAYCARE.
UM, BUT THE THIS, UH, IS A PRETTY SMALL LOT AS SCHOOLS GO.
UH, IF YOU WERE TO CAN TURN THE ENTIRE THING INTO A SCHOOL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT YOU COULD NECESSARILY DO MORE THAN LIKE A DAYCARE OR A KINDERGARTEN.
SO THE, THE TRAFFIC QUEUING, I JUST DON'T THINK COULD BE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE WITH A BUILDING AND A LOT THIS SIZE.
TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE, UH, VERY DISRUPTIVE, UM, FOR THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND ESPECIALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS INTO A MIDDLE SCHOOL, LET ALONE HIGH SCHOOL.
THERE ARE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS ON LIKE, MINIMUM SIZES OF CAMPUSES AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SPORTS FIELDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, SO I DON'T REALLY SEE IT, IT BEING TURNED INTO A SCHOOL AS A REALISTIC, UH, SCENARIO IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK SCHOOL, AS WE KNOW, IT MAY BE REDEFINED AS SOMETHING LIKE AN ART SCHOOL OR A, A MUCH SMALLER TYPE FACILITY, WHICH AGAIN, YOU'RE QUEUING PROBLEM IS NOT A PROBLEM.
COMMER, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, GIVEN THEY'RE ONLY REALLY ADDING BACK FIVE USES, WHAT REALLY IS THE PLAN HERE?
DO YOU HAVE A PLANNED USE FOR THIS SITE? YEAH, I MEAN, RESTAURANT GENERAL INCLUDES JUST EVEN THE, THE CONSUMPTION OR SELL OF ALCOHOL.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE A COFFEE SHOP THAT'S LOCATED IN THE FRONT BUILDING.
YOU'VE BEEN TO COFFEE SHOPS THAT SELL LIKE COCKTAILS.
WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY, WE'RE NOT EVEN ABLE TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
IF WE WERE TO PUT LIKE A SMALL TYPE OF COFFEE SHOP OR RESTAURANT IN ONE OF THAT FRONT BUILDING, WE'RE NOT REQUESTING THIS FOR, UH, TRACK TWO IN THE BACK AND ONLY IN THE FRONT ONE.
UM, THAT'S CLOSER TO THE ROAD.
UM, RESTAURANT WOULD GIVE US THAT ABILITY.
UM, THE OWNERS MENTIONED TO ME REGARDING LIKE PRIMARY, THIS WOULD BE LIKE PRIVATE EDUCATION.
THIS WOULDN'T BE LIKE A, A BIG SCHOOL WITH, UH, TRAFFIC OF STUDENTS COMING IN AND OUT.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS GIVEN WHAT STAFF SAID? HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER? I THINK GOING TO A BUILDING SETBACK THAT MATCHES THE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER ZONE.
I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T GET OUR, PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF POLICING VEGETATION.
UM, THAT GETS TO BE VERY DIFFICULT IF WE GET INTO A SEVERE DROUGHT AND THE VEGETATION DIES.
ARE THEY IN VIOLATION OF THEIR RESTRICTIVE OR THEIR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? UM, IF AUSTIN WATER UTILITY RUNS OUTTA WATER AND WE DON'T WATER VEGETATION, WHAT HAPPENS? I MEAN, THERE'S SCENARIOS BEYOND OUR CONTROL THAT I THINK PUTTING THE BUILDING SETBACK AND LEAVING IT AT THAT.
SO A BUILDING SETBACK THAT MATCHES THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER DIMENSIONS.
I KNOW WE JUST GOT A LOT OF RAIN.
WE'RE, WE'RE IN A REAL SPENDING MOOD WHEN IT COMES TO, TO WATER.
THE LIFE IS SUDDENLY ALL FULL.
SO I HATE TO TALK ABOUT DROUGHT, BUT, UH, IT WILL NOT STAY THAT WAY.
YEAH, I'M IN FAVOR OF, UH, THAT SETBACK.
DO I HEAR A MOTION? I MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE REZONING WITH THE, UH, THE USES.
GET RID OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN, UH, ITEM NINE AND THEN, UH, PUT THAT, WHAT WAS IT? A SETBACK CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
CONDITIONAL OVERLAY SET SETBACK THAT MATCHES THE, THAT MATCHES THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER IN THE ATIVE COVENANT.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? YES.
WITH THE ADDITION OF A BUILDING SETBACK TO MATCH WHAT WAS IN THE EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND THEN TO APPROVE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE GOT, SO THAT'S WHAT HE SAID,
I JUST DON'T WANNA, WE LANDED THE PLANE.
ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION OR QUESTIONS? YEAH.
I DIDN'T WANNA, UM, DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT.
UH, SO I, I KNOW ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD WAS ABOUT THE, UM, HOURS OF OPERATION, WHICH WE CAN'T REALLY CONTROL FOR IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
BUT, UM, OF THE USES THAT ARE LISTED HERE,
[02:20:01]
UH, RESTAURANT GENERAL IS THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO MOST LIKELY CAUSE A BUSINESS TO BE OPEN LATER.'CAUSE UM, THAT'S WHERE A RESTAURANT HAS ALCOHOL, WHERE VERSUS RESTAURANT LIMITED DOES NOT.
AND UH, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG TALKS ABOUT HAVING, UM, YOU KNOW, CON RESTRICTED USES, THAT MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT YOU TARGET.
UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COCKTAIL LOUNGE OR RESTAURANT GENERAL ARE, ARE THE ONES THAT ARE, ARE THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN ABOUT THE LATE NIGHT HOURS.
BUT THAT WOULD ALSO FILTER OUT LIKE A CHILI'S.
IT'S ALSO LIMITED TO JUST THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT ACCESSES DIRECTLY ONTO 180 3, NOT IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THEY, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY KIND OF MOVED THAT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND GOTTEN IT OUT OF IT.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT IN ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO DOES THAT HELP? I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? TWO ABSTENTIONS.
SO SIX YAYS, TWO ABSTENTIONS, AND IT PASSES ON THAT VOTE.
WHERE ARE WE? ITEM NINE WAS POSTPONED.
ITEM 11 WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT.
ITEM 12, UH, UH, CHAIR ITEM NINE WAS NOT POSTPONED, WHICH IS VOTED ITEM NINE.
WE, WE WERE CONSIDERING EIGHT AND NINE TOGETHER.
YOU MEAN ITEM 10 IS THE ONE THAT WAS POSTPONED.
ITEM 10 WAS POSTPONED NINE TOO.
ITEM 11 IS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA.
CAN ANYONE PROVIDE CONTEXT ON ITEM 10? IT SEEMS TO BE CONSTANTLY POSTPONED.
I DON'T, IT'S NEVER GONNA COME BEFORE US.
AND I CAN FILL YOU OFF STUFF AFTER THE MEETING IF YOU WANT.
UM, ITEM 12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
UM, S PC 2024 DASH OH 4 56 FSD NORTHEAST SERVICE CENTER, 83 0 1 JOHNNY MORRIS ROAD.
THE APPLICANT, UH, THE AGENT IS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN REQUESTS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SERVICE CENTER IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
RESOURCE RECOVERY FOR FLEET SERVICES SITE PLAN INCLUDES ASSOCIATED UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, GRADING, PAVING AND STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SERVICE THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE SITE IS ZONE P PUBLIC AND IS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE, THEREFORE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
SO THEY'RE HERE FOR US TO GET APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM MS. GREENFIELD? UH, YEAH, I'M STAFF.
I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M AVAILABLE.
ME GREENFIELD, UM, PUBLIC PROJECTS REVIEW SENIOR PLANNER, DSD.
UM, SO THIS PROJECT DID GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROJECTS REVIEW PROGRAM AND DSD, WHICH IS A NEWER PROGRAM, UM, ABOUT TWO YEARS OLD.
UM, SO THAT MEANS THEY WENT THROUGH THREE DIFFERENT, UM, PRE-DESIGN CONSULTATIONS WITH OUR REVIEWERS.
AND NOW THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEWS.
SO THEY'VE BEEN IN REVIEW FOR OVER A YEAR.
SO THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THE LAST HURDLES THAT WE HAVE.
UM, AND, UH, IT, IT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, UM, THAT YOU SEE PROBABLY QUITE OFTEN.
SO, UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
WAS THERE A QUESTION? OH, YEAH.
UM, WELL, SO, UH, I THINK I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR PULLING THIS ITEM FROM CONSENT.
UM, WELL, SO I, I GUESS MY QUESTION REALLY IS PARTLY WHY HERE VERSUS NEAR, YOU KNOW, THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, HORN TO BE BEND OR SOME OTHER MORE INDUSTRIAL AREA GIVEN THAT THIS AREA IS ABOUT TO BE REDEVELOPED AND TURNED INTO A MAJOR MIXED USE, UM, ZONE.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE WHILE RIGHT NOW THAT AREA IS EMPTY, IT IS GONNA LOOK LIKE MUELLER WITHIN THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS.
AND SO PLACING A LARGE INDUSTRIAL PLANT IN THIS AREA FOR FUELING SEEMS A LITTLE FOOLHARDY.
I'M THE, THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
UM, I WILL BE TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD CERTAINLY SPEAK TO THE
[02:25:01]
SITE SELECTION PROCESS.UM, I THINK THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO ME COMING ONTO THE PROJECT.
UM, MORE ON THE, THE CITY SIDE, UM, IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND KIND OF HOW THE, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE PROJECT WILL BE.
UM, I THINK AND, AND MAYBE WE COULD PROVIDE BACKUP TO YOU, UM, BUT THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A CAMPUS FEEL.
I DON'T THINK IT REALLY WILL LOOK LIKE THE TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL NATURE THAT YOU WILL KIND OF SEE IN SOME OF THAT OTHER AREA.
UM, YOU'LL KIND OF ENTER THE SITE TO AN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, UM, AND THE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE MORE INTO THE BACK OF THE SITE.
UM, AND SO I I DON'T THINK THAT THAT KIND OF TYPICAL NATURE OF THE SITE IS, IS WHAT'S GONNA BE SEEN.
WELL, WILL THERE BE, UM, VEHICLE FUELING AND REFUELING AND MAINTENANCE IN THIS AREA? THERE WILL BE, YES.
AND, UH, ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW CLOSE THIS IS TO COLONY PARK? YES.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC OUTREACH DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT.
UM, SO I WAS, UH, A PART OF THAT.
UM, SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS WERE, UM, TRAFFIC MITIGATION, UM, AND NOISE, WHICH WE HAVE DONE, UM, MITIGATION FOR THROUGHOUT OUR SITE PLAN PROCESS.
SO WE WILL BE, UM, THROUGH A SEPARATE ROAD ROADWAY PLAN SET, WE WILL BE ADDING DEDICATED TURN LANES TO JOHNNY MORRIS TO MITIGATE THAT TRAFFIC AND TURNING MOVEMENT, UM, FOR THESE VEHICLES, UM, TO GET OFF OF AND OUT OF THE MAIN THREE LANES ON JOHNNY MORRIS.
AND THEN WE WERE ADDING, UM, A KIND OF BERM OR, OR BARRIER, UM, TO RESTRICT THE, THE NOISE.
AND, UM, DO YOU, UH, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PACKET ABOUT ANY OTHER, UM, LOCATIONS THAT WERE REVIEWED AS POSSIBLE FOR THIS FACILITY.
AND I, I'M SORRY, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER LOCATIONS THAT WERE REVIEWED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? DO I HEAR A MOTION? UH, LONNIE, I THINK THE SORT OF, I GUESS THE UPSIDE OF THIS, MAYBE THIS ALLOWS SOME WORKING CLASS PEOPLE TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF YOU HAVE LIKE A HIGH SCHOOL OR AN APPRENTICESHIP EDUCATION, MAYBE YOU CAN LIVE IN COLONY PARK.
YOU WERE IN THE KIND OF LIKE HALF INDUSTRIAL, HALF, YOU KNOW, NON-INDUSTRIAL PARK.
NOT IDEAL, BUT, YOU KNOW, I GREW UP NEAR A SITE LIKE THIS, SO I THINK IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, SIX OUT OF 10.
SO IT HAS MY SUPPORT, BUT I UNDERSTAND LIKE WHY LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY FIT LIKE A PLANNING DESIGN, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S NOT, IT IS NOT, I THINK DISQUALIFYING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM LIKE A COLONY PARK FUTURE BECAUSE IT ISN'T LIKE A CORE CORE PART OF COLONY PARK.
IT'S JUST SORT OF LIKE A 10 MINUTE DRIVE.
SO YOU'D LIKE TO LIVE NEXT TO THIS? UH, NO.
I THINK IF WE HAD BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IT WOULD BE BETTER.
BUT I ALSO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT LIKE THE COUNCIL HAS A LOT OF DESIRES TO STILL HAVE INDUSTRIAL AREAS IN AUSTIN FOR FOLKS THAT ARE NOT COLLEGE DUTY TO WORK AT.
AND THOSE HAVE TO HAPPEN SOMEWHERE.
AND SO LIKE BURLESON, THE AIRPORT, CAMERON PARK, NONE OF THESE SEEM LIKE GOOD ALTERNATIVES.
SOMETHING NEAR THE DUMP, SOMETHING NEAR TDS.
NONE OF THESE CAME UP AS ALTERNATIVES.
I THINK THOSE DEFINITELY COULD, I MEAN, WE COULD PUT IT NEXT TO MUELLER.
I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME THING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE COULD PUT IT WHEREVER WE WANT TO PUT IT.
BUT MY POINT IS, FOR INSTANCE, DO WE WANT FOLKS WITH A, LIKE, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE LIKE AN APPRENTICESHIP OR HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION, THERE IS SIMPLY NO OPTION WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A KIND OF MIXED USE LIVING AND BE REASONABLY CONNECTED TO YOUR WORKPLACE.
RIGHT? I'VE GOT FRIENDS WHO WORK IN THE, LIKE, LARGE INDUSTRIAL SITES OUT IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN.
IT'S A 45 MINUTE DRIVE FROM THEM, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND SO IT'S HOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION HAVE HEARD OF THIS PROJECT BEFORE THIS WEEK? SO ONE OUT OF EIGHT OF US, AND I THINK WE'RE ABOUT JUST ABOUT THE MOST PLUGGED IN PEOPLE THAT THERE WERE.
SO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN COLONY PARK ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT? AND I CAN, UH, I GET CONCERNED WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PUTTING INDUS NEW INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE DO AS A CITY.
AND THEN WE SAY, OH, I'M SORRY, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE, THE LAND WAS INEXPENSIVE AND IT WAS AVAILABLE, AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR US TO KEEP DOING THAT.
AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THE BLOOD ON MY HANDS.
LANYA, HOW DO YOU BALANCE WANTING INDUSTRIAL SITES FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO WORK AT AND WANTING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN THOSE PARTS OF TOWN SOIL? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL SITES, AND THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM.
THIS IS A GREENFIELD AND WE'RE MAKING IT INDUSTRIAL.
[02:30:01]
THE, THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE RIGHT HERE IS THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF INDUSTRIAL SITES IN OUR, IN OUR CITY, AND WE COULD BE PLACING THIS FACILITY THERE.AND THIS IS WHY I WAS A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT HAVING TO RUBBER STAMP THIS OUT.
SO YOUR SORT OF THINKING IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PLACED MORE IN LIKE THAT, UH, ENERGY PARK SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT? IS THAT SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE, I MEAN, IF YOU PLACE THIS IN THE AREA NEAR HORNSBY BEND AS JUST AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT ON THE EAST SIDE FOR SOME LOCATIONAL, UM, PURPOSE, NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR HORN TO BE BANNED, YOU KNOW? BUT, UM, TO PUT IT IN A PLACE THAT'S OF, IN A DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE NEAR A MAJOR TRAIN STATION THAT IS GOING TO WIND UP IN THIS AREA JUST SEEMS REALLY SHORTSIGHTED.
UM, LONNIE, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, I, I WILL SAY THAT THE, THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL USES JUST TO THE NORTH, INTO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, UM, ON BOTH SIDES OF IT.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE BROWN DISTRIBUTING ZONE.
I'VE RIDDEN MY BIKE ON THE, THE TRAIL OVER IN THAT AREA.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THROWING, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S ONE WAREHOUSE, ONE IN THAT ZONE AND THAT EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THAT IS AGRICULTURAL DOES NOT MAKE IT A WAREHOUSE ZONE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT, UM, THAT THE WALNUT CREEK TRAIL WAS DESIGNED TO GO THROUGH AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE EITHER.
NOR DO I THINK ADDING MORE INDUSTRIAL IS GOING TO MAKE IT A MORE PLEASANT EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE OF US WHO USE THAT TRAIL.
HOW LONG HAS THE CITY BEEN DEVELOPING THIS PLAN? AND I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS IF, IF WE'RE LIKE, IF WE'RE CONSIDERING POTENTIALLY NOT APPROVING THIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YEAH, UM, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT FOR YEARS.
THEY HAD TO GET A ZONE CHANGE, UM, A PLAT WHICH HAS RECENTLY BEEN APPROVED AND NOW A SITE PLAN.
UM, THE PROJECT MANAGERS, ANDREW MOORE, UM, WITH FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THEIR SPONSORED DEPARTMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S HELPFUL WE CAN POSTPONE AND HAVE HIM COME AND TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS OF WHY THEY, UH, CHOSE THAT SITE.
UM, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
UM, BUT I, I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS PROJECT WILL LOOK NICE.
UM, IT DOES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SUB CHAPTER E UM, THE BUILDINGS TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE SITE THAT FACE JOHNNY MORRIS, UM, WILL HAVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
THEY WILL HAVE LANDSCAPING, THEY WILL HAVE GLAZING.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WILL, IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE WALNUT CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT OUTLET.
WHICH IS, UM, CLOSE BY, WHICH IS ALSO BEING UPGRADED RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO, SO YEAH, JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
BUT I, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THOSE CONCERNS.
I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, WHY THIS SITE WAS CHOSEN, IF IT WAS JUST WHAT WAS AVAILABLE, UM, AT THE TIME OR WHAT KIND OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS WERE HAPPENING, BUT, UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF NEEDED.
YOU SAID IT CAME THROUGH FOR A ZONING CHANGE.
SO TWO YEARS AGO A COMMISSION, EITHER THIS COMMISSION OR ANOTHER COMMISSION APPROVED A ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW THIS TO PROCEED.
UM, SO I DO HAVE A PROBLEM COMING IN NOW AND SAYING A COMMISSION APPROVED A ZONING CHANGE TWO YEARS AGO TO ALLOW THIS TO PROCEED.
AND NOW AFTER THEY'VE SPENT ALL THE TIME AND MONEY WITH OUR A BOARDING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZONING, TO NOW STOP AND SAY, NO, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE HERE AFTER WE'VE TOLD HIM IT IS APPROPRIATE HERE.
I, I'M NOT DISPUTING YOUR POINT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE'RE KIND OF GOING AGAINST WHAT WE DID TWO YEARS AGO OR WHAT SOMEBODY DID TWO YEARS AGO.
I MEAN, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, UH, LONNIE'S POINTS.
IT, IT JUST IS CONCERNING TO ME THAT WE'D SPEND THIS MUCH TIME AND PUBLIC MONEY DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT JUST TO POTENTIALLY TURN IT DOWN.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY PRUDENT TO THE TAXPAYERS.
SO, I MEAN, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED IT, IT'S, THIS ISN'T AN EASY THING FOR ME, BUT I AM LEANING TOWARDS APPROVING THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UH, SORRY.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND THEN COMMISSIONER GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU'RE UP.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE ZONED IT TWO YEARS AGO INDUSTRIAL AND THEN SAY, OH, WE DON'T WANT INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S P AND SO, AND THE OTHER THING IS
[02:35:01]
WE'RE JUST A COMMISSION THAT MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.AND IF WE, IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN STOP THIS, WE'RE JUST SAYING WE DON'T LIKE IT.
OR MAYBE EVEN WE'RE MORE LIKELY GONNA BE NO RECOMMENDATION AT ALL BECAUSE THERE CAN BE A SPLIT AMONG THE COMMISSION.
AND AT LEAST MAYBE THEN THE COUNCIL WILL LOOK AT, HUH, IS THIS REALLY THE CITYWIDE PLAN THAT WE HAVE? UM, BUT NO, WE DID NOT ZONE THIS INDUSTRIAL TWO YEARS AGO.
AND SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE BRAKES ON SOMETHING THAT WE STARTED.
I, I JUST, SO I KIND OF FEEL LIKE LONNIE'S POINT THAT THIS IS GREENFIELD AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE ADDING INDUSTRIAL TO GREENFIELD.
SO THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T GO TO COUNCIL.
SO THIS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL.
APPROVAL FOR THIS IS SO WE SAY NO, WE SAY NO, THEY DON'T OVERRULE US.
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO, SO, SO, HANK CAN I JUMP IN FOR A SECOND? YES.
SO, SO, SO THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND I, I'VE BEEN SEARCHING THE CODE FEVERISHLY, BUT I, I, I, I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND IT.
BUT IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE CONSIDERED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, THE GOAL IS PRETTY EXPLICIT ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD, WHAT WE NEED TO, TO LIKE CONSIDER WHEN VOTING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
AND, UM, AND AGAIN, I I, I COULDN'T FIND THE LANGUAGE.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR LIKE 15 MINUTES.
UM, BUT AS MUCH AS I AGREE WITH, UM, MANY OF THE THINGS COMMISSIONER STERN HAS SAID, I I DON'T KNOW IF, IF, IF THOSE THINGS ARE WHAT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF OUR REVIEW BY THE CODE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
I LOOKED INTO THIS BEFORE THE MEETING AND IT'S, IF WE HAVE A, THE BEST EXAMPLE WHAT I CAN GIVE YOU IS ITEM 14, WHICH IS APPROVED ON CONSENT, IS A VACATION.
IT MEETS CODES AND ORDINANCES.
WE HAD A VACATE PERIOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMES TO US FOR US TO SAY WE LIKE IT, WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE LIKE IT WITH CONDITIONS.
UM, WE CAN KIND OF DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND MEETS CODES AND ORDINANCES, WE ARE DUTY BOUND TO APPROVE IT.
WE'RE, WE'RE, THERE'S NO STATUTORY REGULATION THAT SAYS WE ARE NOW, WE CAN PUT, WE CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT AND SAY THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, LET ME ASK STAFF ONE QUESTION.
UM, Y'ALL MAY NOT KNOW IF, IF WE DON'T COME UP, IF WE SPLIT A VOTE AND WE CAN'T COME UP WITH SIX PEOPLE SAYING YES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHAT HAPPENS?
I DIDN'T THINK SO TO ME BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW EITHER.
UM,
YEAH, THERE'S AN APPEAL PROCESS.
THERE'S ALWAYS AN APPEAL PROCESS, BUT THERE'S NOT A, UNLIKE ZONING CASES WHEN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL WHAT THEY SHOULD DO ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
BUT THERE IS ALWAYS AN APPEAL PROCESS TO THE CITY COUNCIL SO THEY CAN GO THROUGH THAT APPEAL PROCESS.
I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG OR WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL, BUT THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS AS ALWAYS.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER FLORES AND COMMISSIONER STERN.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS SEEM LIKE IDEOLOGY.
'CAUSE I, THIS IS EXACTLY SOMETHING I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH.
SO I GREW UP WHEN YOU SAID, IT'S LIKE, WOULD I WANT TO GROW UP? WOULD I WANNA LIVE NEXT TO THIS? LIKE YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION THE WRONG PERSON.
'CAUSE I DID GROW UP NEXT TO A BUNCH OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS, JUST BOTH IN VENEZUELA.
AND WHEN I CAME HERE, I LIVED IN HOUSTON.
SO I JUST LIVED IN THE, UH, AN APARTMENT DOWN THERE.
WHICH, YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS PROBABLY HAD SOME BAD HEALTH EFFECTS, BUT IN OTHER WAYS IT WAS PRETTY EASY FOR A LOT OF MY COUSINS TO GET TO WORK.
UM, AND THEN I THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT LIKE AUSTIN IS KIND OF HEMORRHAGING WORKING CLASS PEOPLE BOTH FOR THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE A LOT OF KIND OF COLLEGE EDUCATED JOBS AND A LOT OF KIND OF NON-COLLEGE EDUCATED JOBS AND WE WANT MAKE THE CITY MORE MIXED USE AND MORE SORT OF URBAN, UH, UH, OVER TIME, RIGHT? HOW DO WE BALANCE THE DESIRE TO MAKE MORE OF THE CITY, LIKE THE FUTURE OF COLONY PARK MORE MIXED USE, MORE URBAN WITH WHAT I ASSUME IS THE DESIRE TO HAVE FOLKS BE ABLE TO MAKE A GOOD LIVING HERE EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE, TO ME, THE HEART OF THIS IS LIKE, DO I WANT FOLKS LIKE MY FAMILY GROWING UP TO NOT BE ABLE TO WORK IN AUSTIN BECAUSE THEY JUST LIKE, THEY JUST CAN'T FIND INDUSTRIAL WORK OR LIKE, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION WORK.
AND SO THAT'S SORT OF THE TENSION HERE.
AND YOU GUYS HAVE THINK, I'VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS IN A LOT DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
[02:40:01]
CURIOUS TO HEAR HOW YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH THAT TENSION.I THINK PLACES LIKE, AND I COULD BE WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT A DEVELOPMENT LIKE COLONY PARK OR LIKE MUELLER WILL LIKELY CREATE MORE JOBS THAN A RESOURCE RECOVERY INDUSTRIAL.
AND IT'S DIFFERENT TO GROW UP NEXT TO AN INDUSTRIAL LIKE ST.
ELMA OR LIKE CREATIVE FLEX INDUSTRIAL THAN RESOURCE RECOVERY, WHERE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S WHERE MATERIALS ARE RECYCLED AND IT BECOMES LIKE A BUNCH OF DUMPED MATERIALS.
AND LIKE, I GET THAT MUELLER'S CREATED A LOT OF JOBS, BUT LIKE, YOU CAN GO TO MOELLER, YOU SEE THE JOBS AS CREATED, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST LIKE, IT'S A LOT OF COLLEGE EDUCATED PEOPLE LIVING THERE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ANY PARK TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, A LOT OF DIFFERENT FOLKS FROM DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? UH, I JUST WANNA, UM, CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL DUMP FACILITY.
THIS IS FLEET SERVICES FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY.
SO IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE A LOT MORE LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE TRUCKER SERVICE, DOGS, CAB, METRO, UM, YARD SERVICES, WHICH FOR THE RECORD, I'VE TOLD CAB METRO MANY TIMES THAT THEIR FIFTH AND PLEASANT VALLEY FACILITY NO LONGER BELONGS IN THAT SPACE.
THAT THAT IS NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT CORNER.
AND THAT'S PART OF THEIR MOTIVATION FOR HAVING ACQUIRED THE BUILDING NEXT TO IT SO THAT THEY CAN REDEVELOP THAT AS HOUSING INSTEAD.
AND THAT, THAT, UM, YARD IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA, UM, IN BOTH, UM, OFF BURLESON AND THEN OFF OF, UM, BURNETT.
AND AT SOME POINT THEY'RE GONNA GET KICKED OUT OF THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'LL BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE OFFICE AND HOUSING IN THAT AREA.
UM, SO I, I FEEL PRETTY CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, FUELING AND GASOLINE IN, UH, AN AREA THAT'S AN EMERGING RESIDENTIAL AREA IS REALLY LIKE THE RIGHT USE FOR THAT.
AND IN FACT, IF WE WERE GONNA DO, UM, SOME SORT OF ZONING REQUEST IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA LIKE COLONY PARKER MUELLER, WE'D PROBABLY PUT A CO ON AUTOMOTIVE USES AT THE VERY TOP OF THE LIST.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD LET THE CITY GET AWAY WITH IT WHEN WE WOULDN'T LET ANY OTHER APPLICANT GET AWAY WITH IT.
HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE, UH, TO PUT TOGETHER A PRESENTATION AROUND THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS OR AT LEAST GET THOSE, UH, RESPONSIBLE PARTIES HERE AND PRESENTING? I I, I FEEL LIKE THIS COMMISSION WANTS A BIT MORE CONTEXT INTO THIS BEFORE WE MAKE A YES OR NO.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE FACILITY'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, WHAT AMENITIES WE'RE PUTTING INTO IT, WHAT, WHAT COULD WE ADD TO IT? WHAT HAVE WE DONE IN TERMS OF REACHING OUT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
AND, AND WE COULD HAVE THAT READY TO GO FOR, FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, JUST TO ADD ON TO THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS, UM, WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE, UM, SITE WAS SELECTED 12 YEARS AGO BY THE CITY WITH THIS INTENDED USE IN MIND.
UM, AND THEN ALSO WHEN IT DID GO TO, UH, COUNCIL FOR ZONING, UM, IT WAS PRESENTED WITH THIS USE, WITH THIS USE IN MIND.
UM, I WOULD SAY OUR NEXT MEETING IS IN TWO WEEKS.
THAT'S THE DAY AFTER LABOR DAY
DO YOU WANT TO COME IN THE DAY AFTER LABOR DAY OR DO YOU WANNA COME FOUR WEEKS OUT AND COME BACK ON THE 16TH IF WE POSTPONE IT? I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION.
YEAH, THE SOONER THE BETTER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND ALL THAT.
ASSUMING IT'LL GET, WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW? WHERE ARE WE AT IN THE, IF WE BID THE PROJECT OR WE READY TO START CONSTRUCTION? DO WE KNOW? I THINK SO.
CONSTRUCTION IS READY TO GO IMMEDIATELY.
UM, SO WE'VE ALREADY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS.
THIS IS, THIS, IS IT
SORRY HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, YEAH, I THINK IT EATS INTO THE PROJECT BUDGET.
POSTPONING CONSTRUCTION, I WOULD ASSUME.
UM, I MEAN I'M, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE POINTS, BUT PART OF ME IS LIKE, DO WE POSTPONE IT TWO WEEKS? IT'S NOT PASSING IF WE TRY TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
SO I SAY WE POSTPONE AND GET A, A PRESENTATION AND THEN WE OKAY.
IS THAT A MOTION? YEAH, I, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M EXTREMELY CONFLICTED BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO GET THE RIGHT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND THAT WE DON'T SORT OF KICK THIS DOWN AN EVEN LONGER PATH, LET'S POSTPONE A TWO WEEK, LET'S COME BACK THE NEXT ZONING AND PLATINUM COMMISSION
[02:45:01]
MEETING.AND I WOULD REALLY HOPE TO GET A KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE, AS COMPREHENSIVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UH, PRESENTATION ABOUT THE SORT OF SITE SELECTION PROCESS.
I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE HOW IT LOOKS TO THE FRONT.
I REALLY CARE ABOUT THINGS LIKE NOISE POLLUTION, AIR POLLUTION, SO LIKE WHAT IS THE HEALTH EFFECTS GONNA BE LIKE FOR THE NEARBY RESIDENTS.
UM, AND THEN SORT OF WHAT YOUR THINKING PROCESS WAS IN SITE SELECTION, THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, AT LEAST AND IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER SORT OF PREFERENCES.
BUT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF WHAT I THINK THE PRESENTATION REALLY NEEDS TO BE FOCUSING ON IS LIKE WHAT IS IT GONNA BE LIKE FOR THE FOLKS LIVING IN THERE DAY IN, DAY OUT SITE LAYOUT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
I KNOW THERE'S BUILDING ELEVATIONS PART OF THE SIDE PLAN PROBABLY, SO THAT'D BE HELPFUL TO KNOW TOO.
UH, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION HANK.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
SO WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 2ND.
OKAY, ITEM 14, TOWN AND COUNTRY PARK EDITION C EIGHT J 0 3 0 4 1 0.0 A OF VACATION, WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE, SORRY.
ITEM 13 HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SP 88 0 0 5 2 CX R FOUR LISD, WHICH IS LEANDER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
ES NUMBER 19, GRANDVIEW HILLS ANCILLARY BUILDING PROJECT.
UH, THIS IS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REVISE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ADD PARKING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR AND THEREFORE REQUIRES LAND USE COMMISSION REVIEW.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT MEETS ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY AND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF.
BUT ONE OF THE FORMALITIES IS WHEN YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN IN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, YOU HAVE TO COME TO US FOR APPROVAL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
SO YES, THIS IS ALSO MY PROJECT.
UM, SO THIS IS, UM, DID NOT GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROJECTS PROGRAM, BUT IT IS, UM, TECHNICALLY A PUBLIC PROJECT.
SO IT'S LEANDER, ISD, UM, THEY'RE GRAND GRANDVIEW HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
SO, UM, THAT IS CONSIDERED A, A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
UM, SO I, I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT, AND THIS SHOULD BE IN THE BACK OF MATERIALS.
THE PROJECT, UH, NAME IS, UM, ANCILLARY BUILDING PROJECT.
IT IS JUST PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, SO I DID TELL THE APPLICANT THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE PROJECT NAME AND THEY SAID NO.
SO YEAH, I JUST WANNA NOTE, I I, YEAH.
UM, I DON'T THINK, UH, THIS ONE UH, SHOULD BE TOO CRAZY.
UM, ONE THING IS THAT, UH, THERE IS P ZONING ON THIS ONE AND THAT SHOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO THE BACKUP, BUT I FORGOT TO ADD IT TO THE AGENDA.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE READ INTO THE RECORD SOMEHOW THAT THIS IS ALSO TECHNICALLY A CONDITIONALLY USED PERMIT FOR THE SITE PLAN REVISION IF IT WASN'T POSTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
LET ME, IT WAS POSTED AS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
UM, I HAVE A FEELING I KNOW HOW LAW IS GONNA GET BACK TO US.
MY INCLINATION IS BY WHAT YOU JUST SAID BEFORE WE GET INTO IT TO POSTPONE THIS MM-HMM.
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2ND AND GET IT POSTED CORRECTLY.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH AND DO SOMETHING AND APPROVE IT OR DENY IT.
ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT IT WASN'T POSTED CORRECTLY.
'CAUSE IT'S STRICTLY POSTED AS A CONDITIONAL, NOT A, NOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY PERMIT APPROVAL, WHICH IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING THAN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I WOULD SUGGEST, AND I'LL EVEN MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2ND AND GET IT SECOND CLARIFIED AND POSTED CORRECTLY.
I'LL, THOSE IN PAPERS SAY AYE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, WELL, NEVERMIND.
WE HAVE SOME VERY LITIGIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I SAY WE JUST PLAY IT BY THE BOOK.
[DISCUSSION ITEMS]
15, DISCUSSION ON THE ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DIVISION OF LABOR BETWEEN ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION.YEAH, SO I, I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THIS.
SO WE'RE STILL, UH, SCHEDULING, UH, WE HAVE, UH, INVITATIONS OUT TO, UH, BAY'S OFFICE.
WE'RE TRYING TO SCHEDULE WITH, UH, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH OTHER OFFICE I'VE BEEN REACHING OUT TO, UH, SPECIFICALLY COUNCIL MEMBER LANE, UH, MAYOR WATSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER ZOE QUADRI.
BUT THE BUDGET I THINK HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR FOLKS TO SCHEDULE AROUND.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH, UH, JUST AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVEN'T SCHEDULED ANYTHING BECAUSE OF BUDGET DOMINATING EVERYBODY, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE, UM, KINDA A DRAFT THAT, UM, THAT HAS SOME FORMAL LANGUAGE, UH, TOWARDS A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT WE COULD PROBABLY PRESENT AT, IF NOT THIS NEXT MEETING.
LET'S LEAVE IT ON FOR SEPTEMBER 2ND, THEN WE CAN PUSH IT TO THE 16TH IF WE
[02:50:01]
NEED TO.[WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
JOINT COMMITTEE, GREENBERG, FOREZ AND STERN.WE HAVEN'T MET THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
LAND USE COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? NO, WE FIXING TO SAY SOMETHING? UM, YES, WE JUST WANTED MENTION EARLIER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION REGARDING, UM, THE POSTPONEMENT ON GOODNIGHT RANCH.UM, THE REASON FOR THAT, UM, WAS A CASE MANAGER FOR ITEM 10.
THEY, UM, LEFT THE MEETING AFTER THE ITEM WAS POSTPONED.
BUT THE INFORMATION IS THAT, THAT I DO HAVE IS NOW THE INITIAL INFORMATION RECENTLY PROVIDED BY PARTNER DEPARTMENTS THAT REQUIRED SOME TIME FOR EVALUATION COORDINATION.
AND I CAN ASK THE CASE MANAGER FOR FOLLOW UP VIA EMAIL IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAILS.
IT'S JUST BEEN, WE'VE POSTPONED IT A DOZEN TIMES.
I MEAN IT'S LIKE, IT'S ON HERE EVERY MONTH.
IT'S LIKE, I DON'T CARE, BUT IT'S LIKE AT A CERTAIN POINT WE DOING POSTPONE IT FOR LIKE SIX MONTHS FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
MIGHT WANNA CHECK AND SEE IF THERE'S A REAL DATE WE SHOULD PUT IN HERE.
WE HAVE TO FILL OUR AGENDA WITH SO HAVE THEY FORGOTTEN ABOUT THIS ITEM?
WITH THAT, IT IS 8 53 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.