[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
AND I'M GONNA CALL TO THE ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING IN THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.TODAY IS THURSDAY, APRIL 7TH, 2026.
WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
WHAT DID I SAY? WEDNESDAY? IT'S TUESDAY, APRIL 7TH, 2026.
PRESENT PARLIAMENTARY ALEJ FLORES.
DO NOT SEE HIM? OTHERS? SCOTT BOONE PRESENT.
LONNIE STERN THOUGHT I SAW LONNIE, YOU'RE THERE, BUT WE CAN'T SEE YOU AND WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
OKAY, SO LOUIS OLUGO IS NOT PRESENT.
LONNIE STERN IS HERE, BUT HIS VIDEO IS OFF AND HE'S NOT RESPONDING TO AUDIO, SO HE WILL PROBABLY STEP IN IN A SECOND.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ]
COMMUNICATION FOR ITEMS NOT RELATED TO THE AGENDA? YES.VICKI, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
CHRIS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[ Consent Agenda]
ONE.THERE WAS A TYPO THAT WAS REPORTED AT THE LAST MINUTE.
WE GET THAT I CAN SEND OVER A REVISED OR AN AMENDED VERSION.
OKAY, SO THE REVISED MINUTES ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM TWO IS A DISCUSSION ITEM C 14 20 25 DASH 0 8 9 AT 1120 AND 1122 SOUTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY.
IT IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM LO AND LR TO LOV DB 90.
ITEM THREE IS A CONSENT ITEM 28 25 HANCOCK, UH, C 14 20 26 DASH 0 0 1 1.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM LO TO GRCO.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM FOUR, UM, IS A CONSENT ITEM WITH SOME COMMENTS.
IT IS A REZONING CASE, C 1497 DASH 0 4 1 0 4 PALMER NORTH PDA AMENDMENT DISTRICT SEVEN.
THAT IS ON PARMER LANE, MACALLAN PASS, PALMER RIDGE BOULEVARD AND HARRIS RIDGE BOULEVARD AND HARRIS BRANCH IN THE HARRIS BRANCH WATERSHED.
IT IS L-I-P-D-A TO L-I-P-D-A TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF ZONING AT THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD AND GIVE US THE EXPLANATION.
ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD ONE QUESTION AND I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN RE CAN ANSWER IT AND THEN STAFF CAN RESPOND.
YEAH, MY QUESTION WAS WHY IS, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AUTONOMOUS EV ESSENTIALLY STORAGE CHARGING FACILITY.
WHY DO WE NEED AUTOMOTIVE RENTAL USE ON THIS PROPERTY? SO WHEN OUR CODE WAS WRITTEN, IT DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THIS TYPE OF USE.
SO WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF ABOUT WHAT TO FIT IT UNDER AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THE, UM, THE USE CATEGORY THAT FIT UNDER WAS AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE RENTALS OF, OF CARS, NOT NOT EVERYBODY ELSE'S CARS AND THE INCIDENTAL SERVICE THERE TOO.
AND SO WE AMENDED OUR, UH, APPLICATION TO HAVE EV CHARGING AND AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS ON THIS CASE.
AND I PROMISE THE ONLY REASON IS 'CAUSE STAFF TOLD US THAT'S WHERE IT FIT.
COMMISSIONER SHERRY TIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND YES, WE AGREE AND CONCUR WITH THE STAFF.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WE'RE GOOD.
SO ITEM THREE IS A CONSENT ITEM.
ONCE AGAIN, IT C 14 20 26 0 0 1 5.
I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT ITEM THREE IS BEING OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION.
RE YEAH, ITEM FOUR IS DISCUSSION.
YES, I SAID CONSENT ITEM THREE IS DISCUSSION.
ITEM FOUR IS A JUST CONSENT ITEM C 14 97 0 1 4 OH 0.04 PALMER NORTH PDA AS DISCUSSED AND AGREED TO BY STAFF.
ITEM FOUR IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM FIVE, REZONE IN KC 8 14 20 18 DASH 0 1 2 2 0.03.
CIRCUS OF AMERICAS CIRCUIT OF THE AMERICAS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.
UM, IT IS PUD TO PUD CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
[00:05:01]
ON CONSENT, UM, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN THE BACKUP.UH, SO ITEM FIVE IS A CONSENT ITEM.
ITEM SIX C 8 20 25 DASH 0 8 5 0 A ARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION DISTRICT 10 43 16 FAR WEST BOULEVARD, BULL CREEK WATERSHED.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THESE VARIANCES HAVING DETERMINED THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
IT IS A REQUEST OF VE FROM LDC 25 8 3 0 1 AND LDC 25 8 3 0 2 TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% AND TO ALLOW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% RESPECTIVELY.
AND REQUEST A VARY FROM LDC 25 8 423 TO EXCEED WATERSHED AND PREVIOUS COVER LIMITS TO ALLOW 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO ONCE AGAIN, THE CONSENT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED.
ITEM FIVE IS CONSENT, AND ITEM SIX IS DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER STERN, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF ON FIVE, HOPEFULLY LEAVING IT ON CONSENT.
UM, SO MY QUESTION IS FOR, UM, PARKS, MR. GRANTHAM, SCOTT GRANTHAM, UM, PARKS AND RECREATION, UM, SO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A NEW NAME, SORT OF, UM, SATISFIED WITH THE LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE TWO PROPOSALS FOR LAND.
ONE IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND THE OTHER IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
OH, SOUTHEAST, UM, THE, UH, THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
UH, YES, DEFINITELY WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE LAND, UH, FOR, FOR SOCCER FIELDS, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOCCER FIELDS FOR THE LAND IN THE, THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
UM, UH, IT MIGHT'VE, MIGHT'VE BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD, UH, WERE INTERESTED IN THE LAND, BUT YES, WE ARE, UH, FOR THE LONG TERM.
UM, WE'RE NOT SURE, UH, WHEN THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED.
AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD, IT COULD EVEN BE A DIFFERENT CITY DEPARTMENT THAT ENDS UP WITH THAT LAND.
AND IF IT'S A DIFFERENT CITY DEPARTMENT.
WHAT ABOUT THE COMMITMENT TO PARKLAND? UM, IT WOULD, OR IT'S STILL DONATED AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY, IT, IT MAY, IT MAY END UP BEING A PARK.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST NOT SURE AT THIS POINT.
UH, SO ONCE AGAIN, THE, THE MINUTES ARE ON THE CONSENT ITEM.
ITEM FOUR AND ITEM FIVE ARE CONSENT.
UM, I WOULD REALLY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF ITEM NUMBER FOUR WAS NOT A CONSENT ITEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO PULL IT, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL IT.
I, I'M HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT.
WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE QUESTION YOU HAVE ON THAT ONE? UM, WHY YOU CANNOT BAMBOOZLE ME AND TELL ME THAT THIS IS THE PLACE THAT ALL CARS HAVE TO BE PARKED LIKE THIS IS WE NEED TO HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT TECH RIDGE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR? WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR ITEM FIVE.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS MICHAEL WHALEN, THE APPLICANT.
HE'LL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM APRIL BROWN.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS MAX PIERCE.
MAX, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ARIANA LUNA.
ARIANA, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AMANDA ORTIZ.
AMANDA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES,
AND OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUAN RODRIGUEZ.
JUAN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND Y'ALL WERE REPRESENTING THE UNITE HERE LOCAL AND Y'ALL WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE THE PUD.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? MOTION TO APPROVE.
THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED, UH, ONTO DISCUSSION
[2. Rezoning: C14-2025-0089 - 1120 and 1122 S Capital of Texas Highway; District 8 ]
ITEMS.[00:10:01]
UM, ITEM TWO C 14 20 25 DASH 0 0 8 9 11 20 11 22 SOUTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY IN DISTRICT EIGHT.UM, IT IS ON SOUTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY, UM, 1122 SOUTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY.
UM, IT IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONING FROM LO AND LR TO L-O-V-D-B 90.
UM, AND I HAD SOMETHING I WAS GONNA READ, SO BEFORE THE SPEAKERS ARE CALLED.
UM, BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE SPEAKERS AND THE ADAM, I KNOW YOUR STAFF, UM, I'LL NOTE THAT WE HAVE A LIST OF CONSTITUENTS WHO WANTED TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTED REZONING, BUT DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
A LIST OF THOSE SPEAKERS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND POSTED ONLINE.
AND SO IF THERE ISN'T ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMISSION, OUR PROPOSAL, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE ROUGHLY 70 NAMES IN THE BACKUP, BUT WE WON'T GO THROUGH AND READ THOSE NAMES IF THAT'S OKAY.
GOOD EVENING, BEVERLY ELA WITH AUSTIN PLANNING NUMBER TWO ON YOUR AGENDA.
UM, 11 20, 11 20 AND A HALF, AND 1122 SOUTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY.
THE SUBJECT TRACKS ARE APPROXIMATELY 15 AND A HALF ACRES AND ARE CURRENTLY ZONED LR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND LO LIMITED OFFICE AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH OFFICES IN A PARKING GARAGE.
THE REQUEST IS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY TO LOV DB 90 LIMITED OFFICE VERTICAL MIXED USE BUILDING DENSITY BONUS 90, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING FOR A PROPOSAL OF A MIXED USE PROJECT, POTENTIALLY ACCOMMODATING APPROXIMATELY 475 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SURROUNDING ZONINGS INCLUDE LR MF ONE C-O-L-O-N-G-O TO THE NORTH LR NGO TO THE SOUTH WESTLAKE HILLS, ETJ TO THE EAST AND CITY OF AUSTIN, ETJ HOUSE BILL 30 53 DIS ANNEXATION AND IRR TO THE WEST.
THE SUBJECT TRACKS ARE ADJACENT TO THE LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD IN A SMP LEVEL THREE AND SOUTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY AND A SMP LEVEL FIVE REGIONAL MOBILITY ROADWAY.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR LOV DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING BECAUSE IT ALIGNS WITH COUNCIL ADOPTED GOALS BY PROVIDING AN AVENUE FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND INCREASED AFFORDABILITY IN A PART OF TOWN WHERE BOTH ARE CURRENTLY SCARCE.
THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL ALSO UNIFY BOTH SUBJECT TRACKS UNDER ONE CONSISTENT ZONING DESIGNATION, WHICH WILL OFFER MORE OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT.
LEAH, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
HELLO COMMISSIONERS AND LEAH BOJO WITH RENER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER OWNER.
UM, SO TO START OFF, I'LL JUST MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS SORT OF, UM, ORIENTED.
SO WE ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, NEARBY, UM, IS THE BAR GREENE GREENBELT, UM, SOME, A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.
UM, AND UM, AND THE DISA ANNEXED AREA IS TO THE WEST OF US, THE LAS CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, HERE WE ZOOM IN A LITTLE CLOSER AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, THIS IS CURRENTLY USED AS, UM, UNDERUTILIZED OFFICE SPACE.
UM, THERE ARE SOME TENANTS THERE, UM, BUT IT IS, IT IS AT NEARING THE END OF ITS LIFE.
AND SO I WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT THE BEGINNING FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THIS IS NOT A GREENFIELD SITE, THIS IS A DEVELOPED SITE.
UM, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS IS FROM THE MID EIGHTIES, THE OTHER ONE IS FROM THE MID NINETIES.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE, THEY ARE COMING TO THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE.
UM, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE TODAY ARE ABOUT THREE STORIES AND THEY'RE IN A SEA OF SURFACE PARKING.
UM, SO THIS IS A JURISDICTIONAL MAP, UM, AS BEVERLY DESCRIBED AS KIND OF A COMPLICATED AREA, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS THERE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SORT OF, UM, SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF DESEXED AREAS.
UM, AND THEN THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT THERE IS TO THE SOUTH, UM, ABOUT 15 AND A HALF ACRES, LIKE I SAID, UM, CIRCA MID EIGHTIES AND MID NINETIES OFFICE.
UM, AND THEN WE ARE LOCATED, AND I'LL GO BACK.
UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT WE HAVE A DI WE, YOU CAN ALMOST SEE HERE THAT WE HAVE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON LAS CREEK BOULEVARD, UM, WITH THE MEDIAN BLOCKING IT.
SO IT'S JUST A RIGHT OUT, RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT.
AND THEN WE ALL ALSO HAVE AN, UM, EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY, WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT TO KEEP FOR OUR PRIMARY ACCESS.
YOU CAN JUST SEE KIND OF WHAT WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER.
UM, THERE'S A COUPLE LITTLE DOTS OF LR MOSTLY LO UM, WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD THE DB 90 AND UM, V OVERLAY.
I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S CALLED DB 90, IT ONLY, AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IT ONLY ADDS 30 FEET.
SO THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A 70 FOOT MAX HEIGHT.
IT'S BEEN A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT, UM, THE ZONING DISTRICT ADDING THE DB 90 WOULD ACTUALLY JUST GET US TO 70 FEET OF HEIGHT.
UH, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THIS IS WITHOUT THE DB OVERLAY.
UM, BUT THE MAIN THING I WANNA POINT OUT HERE IS THAT, UM, I KNOW SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED AND UM, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS
[00:15:01]
SUBURBAN WATERSHED WOULD LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 40%.SO WHILE WE DON'T HAVE AN ASBUILT SURVEY TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS TODAY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S OVER 40%.
SO THIS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION.
UM, THIS IS HIGH LEVEL WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE SITE.
UM, AGAIN, ABOUT 475 UNITS, THAT'S A VERY ROUGH NUMBER, 10 TO 12% AFFORDABLE PER THE DB OVERLAY, UM, WITH FIRST FLOOR RETAIL USES.
UM, AND THEN THIS, UM, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT FOR THE, THIS IS THE, THE ALL AGES PATH THAT'S PLANNED AS PART OF THE CITY'S A SMP.
UM, IT'S NOT IN PLACE YET, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AMAZING BECAUSE
IT'S JUST NOT, THERE'S NOT A GREAT WAY TO GET TO THEM IF YOU'RE NOT IN A CAR.
SO IT MAY BE A SHORT CAR TRIP, LIKE THERE'S AN HEB 0.8 MILES AWAY.
UM, AS SOON AS THIS PATH IS IN, UM, THAT'LL BE A LOVELY SIMPLE BIKE RIDE TO GET THERE.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS AREA WAS BUILT SORT OF UNDER SUBURBAN INFRASTRUCTURE RULES UNFORTUNATELY, AND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE LACKING, BUT UM, THE CITY'S DOING A GREAT JOB OF PLANNING, UM, TO KIND OF RECONNECT IT AND, AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR THE FUTURE.
UH, THAT TRAIL WAS PART OF THIS 360 PROJECT, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY MAKE IT BETTER I THINK FOR CAR DRIVERS TOO.
I KNOW WE'VE HEARD, UM, ABOUT SOME TRAFFIC CONCERNS HERE AND I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT PART OF THE MAIN THING THAT'S HELPFUL ABOUT THIS IMPROVEMENT IS THAT IT'LL HAVE A FREE U-TURN, UM, BOTH AT THE TOP AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THOSE OF THAT DIAGRAM.
SO FOLKS WHO ARE WANTING TO GO NORTH, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A U-TURN WITHOUT HAVING TO HOLD UP TRAFFIC AND FOLKS GOING SOUTH WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING.
UM, WE ARE IN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY OVERLAY.
UM, WHILE THE DB ORDINANCE DOES, UM, SUPERSEDE IT AS FAR AS HEIGHT AND FAR GOES, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A VEGETATIVE BUFFER, UM, FOR THE FIRST 100 FEET OF THE SITE.
UM, YOU HAVE TO RETAIN THE NATURAL VEGETATION THAT'S THERE AND IF IT'S BEEN DISRUPTED, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE IT WITH NATIVE PLANTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IT'S ON A HIGHWAY BUT IT'S ALSO A SCENIC ROADWAY, SO IT'S TREATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND, UM, AND A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, SENSITIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT HERE AND I THINK SENSITIVE TO THE RESIDENTS AS WELL.
UM, SO I HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP IMAGINE AUSTIN GOALS IN A WHILE ON A ZONING CASE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IN THIS ONE THEY'VE COME UP A LOT.
SO I WANTED TO TOUCH ON A FEW THINGS.
UM, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE, I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME, UM, IMAGINE AUSTIN GOALS POINTED OUT THAT WE ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH MOSTLY ABOUT MULTI MOBILITY, ALTHOUGH, LIKE I SAID, I THINK SOME IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMING.
BUT I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW, UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN GOALS THAT WE ARE, UH, IN KEEPING WITH MOSTLY ABOUT HOUSING AND HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SUPPORTING, UM, LIVING AND WHERE, WHERE YOU WORK OR WHERE YOU SHOP AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
EVEN IF IT'S STILL A CAR RIDE, IT'S A SHORTER CAR RIDE THAN SOMEONE WHO'S HAVING TO LIVE, YOU KNOW, WAY OUT AND DRIVE IN, UM, TO DO THE THINGS THEY WANNA DO.
THERE ARE ALSO A WHOLE SERIES OF HOUSING, UM, PRIORITIES AND THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN, WHICH I CAN GO INTO, UM, ABOUT PROMOTING A VARIETY OF LAND USES AND DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, WHICH THERE IS, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THAT IN THIS PART OF TOWN THERE'S NOT ALMOST ANY MULTIFAMILY AROUND.
UM, THIS KIND OF SEGUES INTO THE AUSTIN HOUSING BLUEPRINT, WHICH AGAIN JUST REALLY MOSTLY TALKS ABOUT HAVING CHOICES FOR PEOPLE, HOUSING CHOICES IN ALL PARTS OF AUSTIN, EVEN INCLUDING THE PARTS, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE MORE FAR FLUNG, UM, THAN OTHERS.
UM, THIS SHOWS INTERESTINGLY, I THINK THAT, UM, IF YOU LOOK FROM, FROM EAST TO WEST, YOU SEE THAT NUMBER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF D NINE, UM, GO DOWN QUITE A BIT.
LIKE WE, WE DON'T BUILD HOUSING ON THE WEST SIDE AND WE DON'T BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE WEST SIDE.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS FROM 2023, BUT IT'S THE MOST RECENT UPDATE I COULD FIND.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT HERE ABOUT THIS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UM, IT'S IN ONE OF THE BEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRY, UH, WHICH YOU NOW HAVE TO HAVE A MILLION DOLLAR HOME TO BE A STUDENT AT AND THIS WOULD PROVIDE PEOPLE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, LITERALLY IT'S NUMBER ONE IN TEXAS AND SEVENTH IN THE NATION RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO THIS IS A PLACE WHERE WE SHOULD BE HELPING PEOPLE LIVE.
THIS IS WHAT THEIR BOUNDARY AREA LOOKS LIKE.
IF WE DON'T PUT ANY MULTIFAMILY IN THIS WHOLE AREA, WE'RE DEPRIVING THOSE FOLKS OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WITHOUT A REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS SCOTT SMITH.
SCOTT, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS SCOTT SMITH AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LOST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING CASE C 14 20 25 0 0 89.
AT THE TOP, LET ME COMPLIMENT YOUR CITY PLANNING STAFF, PARTICULARLY BEVERLY AND JUAN, WHO HAVE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE AND KIND TO WORK WITH.
UM, AND THEN LET ME ALSO BEGIN WITH A POINT OF ALIGNMENT.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO REDEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.
WE UNDERSTAND AUSTIN IS GROWING.
WE SUPPORT THOUGHTFUL, WELL ANALYZED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
BUT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU DENIED IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS SITE IS SHOULD EVOLVE.
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO RESPONSIBLY RECOMMEND A ZONING CHANGE.
AND TODAY THE ANSWER IS NO, NOT YET.
THIS IS A ZONING DECISION BEING MADE AHEAD OF CRITICAL INFORMATION.
THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR.
THEY DO NOT YET KNOW KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING FINAL UNIT CO, UH, COUNT ACCESS POINTS OR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THE SAME TIME, THE REZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO APPROXIMATELY 475 RESIDENTIAL UNITS UNDER DB 90.
[00:20:01]
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE SITE AND ITS IMPACT ON ITS SURROUNDING NETWORK.YET TODAY, NO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED.
UNDER CURRENT THRESHOLDS NO CONFIRMED T ACCESS STRATEGY EXISTS.
LOOP 360, AS YOU KNOW, IS A TEXT DOT CONTROLLED CORRIDOR.
NO CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC MODELING HAS YET BEEN COMPLETED.
AND CRITICALLY NO SITE PLAN EXISTS TO TEST REAL WORLD IMPACTS.
THIS COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO IMPROVE ENTITLEMENT FIRST AND RESOLVE IMPACTS LATER.
THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS GAP IS REAL AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY STAFF.
WE MET DIRECTLY WITH STAFF LAST WEEK, INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSTS.
TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY WERE CANDID.
THE PROJECT AVOIDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DUE TO A TECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION.
CREEK BOULEVARD IS TREATED AS COMMERCIAL, NOT RESIDENTIAL.
THE CITY'S METHODOLOGY COMPARES THE PROJECT TO A THEORETICAL, FULLY OCCUPIED OFFICE USE.
EVEN THOUGH THE SITE HAS BEEN LARGELY VACANT SINCE AT LEAST 2020, THIS ASSUMPTION SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATES REAL WORLD IMPACT.
EVEN STAFF RECOGNIZE THIS CONCERNED AND AS OF TODAY, THEY ARE RERUNNING THE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET WITH CORRECTED INPUTS.
THAT ALONE SHOULD GIVE THIS COMMISSION PAUSE WHEN THE UNDERLYING NUMBERS ARE STILL BEING RECALCULATED THE DAY OF THE HEARING, IT MEANS THE ANALYSIS IS NOT SETTLED.
I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE INTENT OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR REGULATIONS WHICH APPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS SITE.
THESE STANDARDS WERE CREATED TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY, SCENIC CHARACTER, AND SENSITIVE TOPOGRAPHY OF AUSTIN'S HILL COUNTRY.
THESE REGULATIONS LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHT, DENSITY, AND IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT VEGETATIVE BUFFERING AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE.
AND THESE PROTECTIONS WERE IMPORTANT GIVEN THE SITE'S LOCATION WITHIN A WATER SUPPLY RECHARGE ZONE ALONG A HIGHLY VISIBLE, UH, SCENIC ROADWAY.
DB 90 OVERLAY RELAXES KEY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LIKE HEIGHTENED DENSITY THAT THE HILL COUNTRY CORRIDOR WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO CONSTRAIN.
WHILE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS REMAIN, THE PRACTICAL RESULT IS A SHIFT AWAY FROM A CONTEXT SENSITIVE CORRIDOR SCALE DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS A MORE URBAN INTENSITY THAT MAY NOT ALIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THESE REGULATIONS.
AT A MINIMUM, THIS REINFORCES THE NEED FOR A FULLY INFORMED DEVALUATION OF HOW THE PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE BUILT AND HOW THESE IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED BEFORE ZONING IS FINALIZED.
THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY SEEN THIS PATTERN IN ITS RISKS.
IN THE RECENT ROSEDALE CASE, THE COMMISSION ADVANCED ZONING WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT ISSUES WOULD BE RESOLVED LATER.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY, BUT IN THIS CASE, THE, UH, THERE IS ONE KEY RESPECT.
THE SCALE OF UNRESOLVED INFRASTRUCTURE RISK IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER, IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.
EXCUSE ME, ONLY THREE PRIMARY ACCESS POINTS SERVE LAS CREEK.
IN AN EMERGENCY SCENARIO, A WILDFIRE EVACUATION ANALYSIS IS REQUESTED TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER ADDING 500 PLUS CARS EXITING 360 IN LAS CREEK BOULEVARD.
IN ADDITION TO THE 1200 PLUS CARS ALREADY HERE IS POSSIBLE.
IN THE EVENT OF A WILDFIRE, AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY RATES THE RISK OF LOST CREEK AS HIGH, UH, FOR A FIRE.
LOOP 360 ACCESS TO THIS PROJECT REMAINS UNCOORDINATED WITH TXDOT.
THE SITE SITS WITHIN A WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED WITH CONSTRAINED INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS IS NOT JUST A LAND USE QUESTION, IT'S A MOBILITY SAFETY AND EVACUATION QUESTION.
EVEN THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES KEY UNKNOWNS FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD.
THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT DESIGNED INGRESS EGRESS YET.
PHASING COULD BRING HUNDREDS OF UNITS INCREMENTALLY WITHOUT A FULL SYSTEM ANALYSIS.
SO WE ARE NOT DEBATING A FULLY DEFINED PROJECT.
WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A FRAMEWORK WITH UNKNOWN OPERATIONAL IMPACTS.
LC A'S POSITION IS RE IS RESPONSIBLE, TARGETED, AND SOLUTION ORIENTED.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO DENY THIS CASE OUTRIGHT.
WE ARE ASKING FOR RESPONSIBLE SEQUENCING.
IT IS IF THE UPDATED WORKSHEET STILL DOES NOT TRIGGER A FULL ANALYSIS BEFORE COUNSEL, THEN WE STRONGLY URGE THIS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REQUIRING AN ACCURATE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, VERIFIED TECH COORDINATION, CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC EVALUATION, INCLUDING NEARBY PROJECTS.
PROJECTS, EXCUSE ME, CONFIRMATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS CAPABILITY IN A WILDFIRE EVACUATION ANALYSIS.
THIS APPROACH ALIGNS WITH STAFF'S OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT CURRENT ANALYSIS SHOULD REFLECT WHAT IS BUILT, NOT A THEORETICAL SCENARIO.
THIS IS ABOUT DEFENSIBILITY AND GOOD PLANNING.
AS I HAVE LEARNED, COMMISSIONERS, YOUR ROLE IS NOT JUST TO A ADVANCE POLICY GOALS, IT'S TO ENSURE DECISIONS ARE TECHNICALLY SOUND LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE AND GROUNDED IN COMPLETE INFORMATION.
RIGHT NOW, APPROVING THE ZONING WITHOUT CONDITIONS MEANS YOU'RE RELYING ON INCOMPLETE TRAFFIC DATA, UH, UNVERIFIED ACCESS ASSUMPTIONS IN A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT IS NOT YET BEEN DESIGNED.
THIS IS NOT A STRONG PLANNING POSITION.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK NOT TO TREAT THIS AS A CHOICE BETWEEN GROWTH AND NO GROWTH.
INSTEAD, TREAT THIS AS A CHOICE BETWEEN INCOMPLETE ZONING TODAY OR BETTER ZONING.
WITH THE RIGHT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE, LOSS GROUP PRESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR A BETTER PROCESS AND ULTIMATELY A BETTER PROJECT.
WE BELIEVE THESE GOALS ARE ALIGNED WITH THE MISSION OF THIS COMMISSION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DOUGLAS KEENAN.
DOUGLAS WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
DOUGLAS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
LOOKS LIKE DOUGLAS IS NOT CURRENTLY ONLINE, BUT IF HE JOINS US WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT HE'S CALLED.
[00:25:01]
IS MARVIN HECKER.MARVIN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M A 29 YEAR RESIDENT OF LOST CREEK.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE UNCONDITIONAL GRANTING OF THE REZONING REQUEST IN THIS CASE, AND PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE GRANTING OF A WAIVER OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW 70 OR 90 FOOT HIGH DEVELOPMENT.
I LIVE AT 1319 WILSON HIGH DRIVE AND MY HOUSE BACKS UP TO THE CITY VIEW DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENTS AND COMPROMISES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THAT SITE WAS DEVELOPED AND THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES THAT PROTECT THE WATERSHED, THE SCENIC BYWAY, AND OUR DARK SKIES COMMUNITY.
OUR COEXISTENCE WITH THE CITYVIEW DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN, FOR THE MOST PART, AGREEABLE EXCEPT FOR TRAFFIC ON LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD.
I ASK THAT YOU NOT GRANT APPROVAL BEFORE THE KEY ANALYSES REQUIRED TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WATERSHED AND IMPERVIOUS COVER MODELING, ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PLANNING, AND OTHER SAFETY RELATED ISSUES.
MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PLAN TO REZONE AND REDEVELOP CITYVIEW ARE VALID AND SHARED BY OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO THIS COMMISSION.
BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.
CREEK BOULEVARD HAS RECENTLY BECOME MORE CONGESTED AND DANGEROUS STREET BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OVERLOOK ON THE MARSHALL TRACK ALONG LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD AND THE HOLDEN HILLS STRATUS DEVELOPMENT THAT EXITS ONTO LOSS CREEK AS WELL AS THE AREA'S GROWTH, WHICH HAS MADE LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD A PASS THROUGH ROUTE FROM THE OAK HILL AREA.
ONE OF OUR MA UH, IT'S OUR OWN, OUR ONE MAJOR STREET IS THE MAIN INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN CASE OF WILDFIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY, THE MAJORITY OF SCHOOL TRAFFIC USES THIS STREET.
IT IS ALREADY DANGEROUSLY CONGESTED AT SEVERAL TIMES EACH DAY.
THE REZONING PROPOSAL YOU'RE ENTERTAINING DOES NOT INCLUDE A CORRECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NOR A LIFE SAFETY PLAN COORDINATED WITH TXDOT OR LOCAL FIRE AND EMSA PROPER TRAFFIC STUDY AND LIFE SAFETY EVALUATION WOULD INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD.
THEY WILL NEED MORE THAN ONE CONNECTION TO LOOP 360.
AS FOR SAFETY, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS LOSS CREEK DIS ANNEXED FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN WAS BECAUSE THE A PD COULD NOT PROVIDE THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ADDING THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NO DOUBT RESULT IN SAFETY ISSUES FOR BOTH ITS RESIDENTS AND THOSE OF LOST CREEK, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE A DARK SKIES COMMUNITY IN A SENSITIVE WATERSHED AREA ALONG A PROTECTED SCENIC BYWAY ALLOWING A VERY TALL, HIGH DENSITY MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT WILL CERTAINLY POLLUTE THAT ENVIRONMENT IN MANY WAYS.
AGAIN, I ASK THAT YOU NOT GRANT APPROVAL BEFORE THE KEY ANALYSES REQUIRED TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM DEVLIN DUVAL.
DEVLIN, ARE YOU PRESENT? YES, ROSA, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
MY NAME IS ROSA AND I LIVE ON 1313 WILSON HEIGHTS.
I'M AN AGGIE ENGINEER AND SO I'VE BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO SOME OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMISSION HERE AND I'M HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I, EVERYTHING I'M GONNA TELL YOU IS ABOUT DATA BASED.
SO LET'S START WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THERE IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT SAYS THAT SITE ONE AND SITE TWO OR WHAT WE CALL IT, THE TRACK ONE AND TWO NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND IT NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SITE PLAN OR DATA.
SURELY THE DEVELOPER SAYING, NO WORRIES, LET THE ZONING GO.
WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT WHEN THE SITE PLAN COMES.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE NEED TO HAVE THINGS IN WRITING AND WE NEED TO HAVE CONDITIONS TO PROVE US THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MATHEMATICAL DATA THAT TELL US THAT.
ABSOLUTELY, LIKE SHE MENTIONED THAT THIS WILL NOT VIOLATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT.
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE A RESTRICTED COVENANT.
AND THE SECOND WHY NOT ACCEPT A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.
IT IS A BASIC SAFETY REQUIREMENT FROM NEIGHBORS FROM THE SEC.
SECOND THING IS, IF WE LOOK AT THE VARIOUS COVERAGE WE ARE TREATING TRACK TWO INDEPENDENTLY OF DB 90.
AS THE COVENANT SAYS WE NEED TO USE IT AS A SINGLE SITE.
[00:30:01]
IT IS NETTING A THOUSAND NET TRIPS AND THIS IS BECAUSE WE'RE USING A PHANTOM TRIPS OF 3000.SHE JUST MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A, UM, LET ME SAY UNDERUTILIZED END OF LIFE BUILDING, YET WE ARE ASSIGNING IT 3000 TRIPS, WHICH CONVENIENTLY LEAVES US TO A THOUSAND AND THE AND COMPLETELY VOIDS THE NEED OF A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ONE IS THE HIGHWAY ACCESS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT 360 DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE HAS BEEN AN ACCIDENT LAST YEAR WHERE A PERSON WAS KILLED.
CONTRARY TO BELIEVE THIS IS NOT A PLACE WHERE IT'S SAFE TO RIDE A BIKE.
THERE IS A WHITE BICYCLE WITH FLOWERS IN THAT CORNER AND THERE HAS BEEN MANY, MANY MORTALITIES.
SO THIS IS NOT THE SAFE PLACE TO WALK.
IF MY DAUGHTER WANTS TO WALK TO A BUS STATION, SHE WOULD HAVE TO WALK ALONG THE HIGHWAY.
THE TRACK ONE AND TRACK TWO AGAIN AS I MENTIONED, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANNA POINT, AND IT IS A LITTLE FUZZY HERE, IS THE TRACK ONE IS ASKED TO BE DONE AS L-O-V-D-V 90, YET THEY'RE GONNA KEEP IT AS A GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH OF COURSE GIVES YOU A TRIPS PER DAY.
A LOT LOWER TRACK TWO IS AN LOV DB 90 AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND THEY EVEN MENTIONED A STRIP RETAIL PLAZA, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICATION ASKS FOR.
SO WE HAVE AN APPLICATION AND WE HAVE A WORKSHEET THAT DO NOT MATCH.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE DATA, IF THEY'RE NOT PLANNING TO BUILD ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING, WHY ASKING FOR THE ZONING NOW IS IT JUST A BLANK CHECK? IS IT JUST AN ENTITLEMENT? SO EVENTUALLY THE PROPERTY GO HIGH IN PRICE AND THEY CAN RESELL IT AND THEN WE INHERIT THE PROBLEMS OF WHAT IT MEANS.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND EVERYTHING THAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE TELLING YOU.
IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD MORE, THEN KEEP IT AS AN ELLO.
AND IF THEY WANT TO BUILD MORE, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW WHAT YOUR REALLY TRULY INTENTIONS ARE TO BUILD ON THIS BUILDING.
AGAIN, UM, WE JUST WANNA LOOK INTO THE DATA AND THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE GIVING US.
AND I WANNA MENTION THAT I FOLLOW THE CITY AND I WE WANT HOUSES AND WE WANT AFFORDABILITY, BUT ASKING FOR AN LODB 90 TELLING YOU THAT WE WANT TO BUILD MORE HOUSES AND INS IS A FANTASTIC DISTRICT, BUT THEN WANTED TO KEEP IT AS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
DOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU THINK WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? THE OTHER PART IS WHY GO THE OTHER WAY AS AN ENGINEER, I WOULD THINK I NEED TO HAVE ALL THE DATA TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT YET THE DEVELOPER'S GONNA TELL YOU, DO NOT WORRY.
YOUR YOUR INSIGHT PLAN, WE WILL WORK IT OUT.
NO, WE WON'T KNOW IF WE WORK IT OUT.
WE NEED TO HAVE THIS IN WRITING.
WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON DATA THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE.
THE OTHER THING IS, UM, WELL WE TALK ABOUT THIS NET TRIP, BUT THERE IS INTERSECTION HERE.
WE MENTION IN THE APPLICATION THAT LOST CREEK WILL BE THE PRINCIPLE.
RIGHT NOW THE DEVELOPER MENTIONED THAT IT WILL NOT BE, BUT IN THE APPLICATION IT SAYS, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF CONTRADICTIONS HERE.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR GRID, IT'S AN ONLY A MINOR EGRESS RIGHT NOW.
AND I KNOW BECAUSE I LIVE IN WILSON HEIGHTS, YOU CAN GO INSIDE THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A U-TURN, WHICH MANY PEOPLE DO.
MANY PEOPLE DO ILLEGAL U-TURNS AT THE END OF THE DAY.
WE DO NOT NEED THE HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY.
WE HAVE A THREE ON THE IMAGINE AUSTIN.
WE ARE NOT DOING THE PROPOSED AND MY KEY IS LET'S GO WITH THE ZONING, BUT LET'S DO IT RIGHT.
THANK, LET'S PUT THE CONDITION ON THE OVERLAYS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SEAN REDDY.
SEAN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MATTHEW BAREND.
MATTHEW RECEIVED SOME DONATED TIME FROM A FEW PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT SPEAKING, BUT IF THEY'RE IN PERSON, I'LL GO AHEAD
[00:35:01]
AND GIVE HIM THAT DONATED TIME.IS CARRIE BALDWIN? PRESENT IS BRITTA SIMS PRESENT AND IS MATT PRESENT? I DID NOT RECEIVE A LAST NAME.
SEEING NONE, MATTHEW, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS MATTHEW BARON, RESIDENT.
I APPRECIATE AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO EACH OF YOU TODAY.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S GOAL IS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, THROUGH THE STRATEGIC HOUSING, UH, BLUEPRINT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE LARGE, UH, THERE ARE NUMEROUS LARGE ISSUES WITH THE CITY VIEW REDEVELOPMENT.
IT ENCROACHES ON THE FIREWISE INITIATIVES, THE DEEP SKY INITIATIVES, AND CREATES SEVERAL MATERIAL PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES DUE TO THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS SUCH AS TRAFFIC AND THE RESPONSE TIMES OF LOSS, UH, SORRY, OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE AND EMS WILL BE A MAJOR ISSUE.
THUS, INGRESS AND EGRESS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ON LAW STREET BOULEVARD AS IT'S A RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET THAT IS THE PRIMARY ROAD FOR THE AREA'S RESIDENCE.
I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH DISTRICT A COUNCIL MEMBER PAIGE ELLIS'S RECENT STATEMENT AS PUBLISHED IN THE AUSTIN MONITOR.
SHE SAYS LOST CREEK IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.
SO IF PEOPLE HAD TO EVACUATE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO SAFETY.
NUMBER TWO, THE LOST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, IS A FIREWISE COMMUNITY.
SO I REACHED OUT TO THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT
THEY COMMENTED THAT IF THE EGRESS FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS ONLY THE 360, THEN LOSS CREEK STRATUS AND MILESTONES IMPACT WOULD BE LESSENED.
NUMBER THREE, I'M ASSUMING BOTH CITYVIEW AND CITY OF AUSTIN EXPECT THAT THE LOOP 360 EXPANSION, WE'LL PROVIDE RELIEF WITH MORE LANES AND U-TURNS AS BEEN DISCUSSED, UH, TO MOVE TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF CITYVIEW.
THERE'S AN ISSUE AT THAT ASSUMPTION AS WE MET WITH TXDOT RECENTLY AND LEARNED THE FOLLOWING, THE DE DEVELOPER HASN'T CONFIRMED THE PROJECT WITH TDOT NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, LOOP 360 EXPANSION BETWEEN LOSS CREEK AND MOPAC ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS NOT IN THE 10 YEAR PLAN.
THIS MEANS THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE.
IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE TO THE AREA'S RESIDENTS.
I ALSO FUR FURTHER ASKED THEM, IS IT POSSIBLE IT NEVER GETS BUILT? AND THEY SAID YES.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, LOSS CREEK HAS BEEN A DESIGNATED DARK SKY NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION.
THUS THE 70 FOOT CITY VIEW STRUCTURE WILL HARM LOSS CREEK FROM MAINTAINING ITS IDA DESIGNATION BASED ON THE, UH, CONCERNS I OUTLINED, MY ASK OF THE CITY IS TO NOT APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS IS AND REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO NUMBER ONE, COMPLETE A TRAFFIC STUDY ASSUMING NO INGRESS EGRESS WILL BE PERMITTED ONTO LOST CREEK BOULEVARD.
AND THAT E'S UH, ISD IS IN SESSION WHEN THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS COMPLETED.
NUMBER THREE, LOWER THE HEIGHT TO THE LEVEL THAT DOESN'T IMPACT DARK SKIES DESIGNATION.
ONCE THESE ITEMS ARE COMPLETED, THEN THEY CAN RESUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION FOR REVIEW.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN MYERS.
KAREN WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
KAREN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS KAREN MYERS.
TODAY I WANT TO FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON A CRITICAL ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS REZONING PROPOSAL.
AND NEAR AND DEAR TO ALL ASTONS TRAFFIC CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS LOOP 360, IS ONE OF THE ONLY MAJOR NORTH SOUTH ALTERNATIVES TO MOPAC AND I 35 AND SERVE MULTIPLE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OFFITE DAILY.
THE PROPERTY BEING PROPOSED FOR REZONING SITS AT THE SIGNALED INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY AND LAS CREEK BOULEVARD.
I ASK YOU, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU DROVE THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION? CLEARLY THE SPEAKER REPRESENTING THE OWNER HAS NOT WHEN SHE REFERRED TO IT AS A SIMPLE BIKE RIDE TO GET TO HEB, IN NO WAY IS IT AN EASY BIKE RIDE TRAVERSING CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY TO GET TO HEB OR ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL SPACE.
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T DRIVEN THIS
[00:40:01]
INTERSECTION IN A WHILE, LET ME LET YOU IN ON A WELL KNOWN SECRET, THE INTERSECTION GRID IS A MESS.IT ALREADY STANDS AS A PRIMARY BOTTLENECK ON LOOP 6 360.
NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTLESS SERIOUS ACCIDENTS THAT TAKE PLACE AT THIS INTERSECTION.
EACH HERE, IF ANY LOCATION WARRANTS A THOROUGH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH SUCH A SIGNIFICANT REZONING.
IT IS UNDENIABLY THIS INTERSECTION.
THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL EXACERBATE THE EXISTING DELAYS AND FRUSTRATIONS NOT JUST FOR DRIVERS ON LOOP 360, BUT ALSO THOSE ON MOPAC AND I 35 AS DRIVERS SWITCHED TO THESE OTHER ROADWAYS BECAUSE OF THE GRIDLOCK CAUSED BY THIS ONE INTERSECTION.
NOW, I BELIEVE YOU SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION OUT OF A GENUINE CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
I TRUST IT IS NOT YOUR INTENTION TO MAKE LOOP 360 MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE IMPASSIBLE OR TO SEVERELY WORSEN THE DAILY COMMUTE FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AUSTINITES.
I IMPLORE YOU TO PLEASE REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.
THE RESIDENTS YOU REPRESENT WILL APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FORETHOUGHT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS THOMAS WESTCOT.
THOMAS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME'S ADAM WESTCOT, MY WIFE AND I HAVE FOUR KIDS.
WE LIVE ON 6,100 BEND OF THE RIVER IN LOST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AT THE INTERSECTION OF LUKE 360 AND LOST CREEK BOULEVARD.
UH, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO I WAS, I WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT AND IT'S NOT A SAFE INTERSECTION FOR SOMEONE TO PROPOSE THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA PUT A NICE WALK PATH OR A BIKE LANE TO GET THROUGH THERE TO THE HEB IS NOT SPENT MUCH TIME AT THE INTERSECTION.
UM, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A FOUR WAY, IT'S FOUR LANE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION PLUS TURNING LANES.
AND, UH, THE THOUGHT OF ADDING UP TO A THOUSAND VEHICLES, UH, OR CALL IT 900 VEHICLES IF IT'S 450 UNITS IS NOT GREAT.
SO I, MY SINCERE REQUEST IS FOR A FORMAL TRAFFIC STUDY TO BE COMPLETED.
UM, I'M ALSO NOT REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE, UH, LIGHT POLLUTION.
WE LIVE IN A, YOU KNOW, WE LIVE IN A, A, A REALLY SWEET PLACE.
UH, BECAUSE THE GREEN BELT, A LOT OF US CAN'T GET FIRE INSURANCE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION WHERE WE CAN'T GET OUTTA THE NEIGHBORHOOD FAST ENOUGH AND WE LIVE NEXT TO ALL THE WOODS AND AND SO ON.
AND SO I, MY, I HAD TO SHOP TO GET FIRE INSURANCE.
I WAS DECLINED IT A FEW TIMES.
SO, UM, IT'S A REALLY NICE PLACE AND IT'S GONNA BE QUIET AND I THE THOUGHT OF A BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH MORE PEOPLE AND MORE LIGHT POLLUTION JUST IS NOT, DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE REALLY SWEET AUSTIN PLACE THAT WE WANT.
UM, WHAT ELSE DO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN MY THREE MINUTES? UM, I THINK THAT'S GOOD.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VICTORIA LEVY.
VICTORIA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARK LAVY.
MARK, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM AND WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, I I WON'T GO INTO ALL THOSE, ALL THOSE DETAILS, BUT OF COURSE I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I JUST WANNA LEAVE YOU WITH A FEW POINTS.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA REITERATE THAT WE WOULD OF COURSE COMPLY WITH ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL PRIVATE DUE RESTRICTIONS.
UM, THERE ARE DUE RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO DARK SKIES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE WOULD OF COURSE COMPLY WITH 'CAUSE THE SITE IS WITHIN THE LIMITED DISTRICT.
UM, I WANNA POINT OUT AGAIN, JUST IT IS 70 FEET.
I KNOW IT'S CONFUSING, IT'S POORLY NAMED, BUT IT'S A 70, IT'S A 70 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
UM, WITH THAT COMES WITH THE RETAIL, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE DISTRICT AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OF COURSE.
UM, THIS IS A VERY HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA WITH ALMOST ZERO MULTIFAMILY IN IT, AS WE'VE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES FROM FOLKS.
IT'S A VERY HIGH OPPORTUNITY PART OF TOWN.
IT'S A PLACE WHERE MORE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS.
UM, SO I HOPE YOU'LL VOTE FOR HOUSING DIVERSITY IN THIS DISTRICT.
[00:45:02]
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM MOTION.UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE MOTION? HANK CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK YOUR MIC MIGHT BE OFF TOO.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
UM, I WILL START WITH ONE THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP A LOT IS ZONING IS DOES COME BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE.
ZONING COMES BEFORE YOU DO A CYCL PLAN.
ZONING COMES BEFORE YOU DO A LOT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE REGULATIONS IN PLACE, IN THE CODE, UH, THAT REQUIRE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE DARK SC DARK SKIES CRITERIA REQUIRE YOU TO DO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THE WATERSHED STUDIES, THE EVERYTHING IS INCLUDED IN THE CODE, BUT THE ZONING IS THE FIRST STEP YOU TAKE IN THAT PROCESS.
UM, IT IS THE FIRST STEP IN WHAT YOU DO AND GENERALLY YOU DO THAT BEFORE YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN.
UH, SO IT'LL BE NOT UNUSUAL, BUT IT'LL BE, UH, NOT USUAL AT ALL TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU TO LOOK AT.
'CAUSE THE ZONING'S GONNA BE THERE FOREVER.
UM, THE ZONING IS ON THAT SITE IS GONNA BE THERE REGARDLESS OF WHO COMES IN AND DEVELOPS THAT PROPERTY.
UM, SO IT, IT IS A TYPICAL FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS.
QUESTIONS, ANYBODY HAS START AT THIS END.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I, I'D LIKE YOU TO TELL ME HOW FAR, UH, THE PROPERTY IS TO THE NEAREST TRAIL HEAD FOR THE GREEN BELT.
I, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU, IF YOU GOOGLE, I HAVE, I GOOGLED OUR ADDRESS.
I BELIEVE YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE BACK.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FIRST FORMAL TRAIL HEAD IS THAT YOU WOULD DRIVE TO, BUT THERE ARE PADS THROUGH THAT GREEN BELT AND I BELIEVE YOU CAN GET TO ONE THROUGH THE BACK, UM, OF THE SITE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR LIKE DOWN LOCKS YOUR TRAIL YOU WOULD'VE TO BE, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.
AND I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO LOOK ON GO GOOGLE MAPS YES.
AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LIKE GO HIKE IT, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LOVELY
SO, UH, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST BUS STOP FROM THIS SITE? NOT CLOSE.
I'M NOT GONNA PRETEND THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA WALK TO THAT BUS STOP.
HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY? UM, ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET, WHICH IS THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER AREA.
UH, AND I, I I KNOW YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT BIKEABILITY TO HEB, I KNOW HEB IS, UH, FAIRLY CLOSE AS THE BIRD FLIES.
UM, COULD YOU TELL ME, IT'S NOT A BIKE RIDE TODAY THAT I WOULD TAKE? YEAH, BUT THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE COMING THAT WILL MAKE IT A LOVELY BIKE RIDE.
I MEAN, IF YOU GOOGLE, IF YOU DO IT IN GOOGLE MAPS, IT WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN WALK ALONG THE SHOULDER OF 360.
I'M NOT GONNA SUGGEST THAT ANYONE SHOULD DO THAT.
BUT WHAT THE 360 PLAN DOES INCLUDE IS A SHARED USE PATH ALONG THAT SAME ROUTE THAT WOULD BE 0.8 MILES.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE HOUSING FOR SOME OF THE WORKERS THAT WORK AT HEB.
UH, I GUESS, UH, THAT, THAT ENDS MY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR TPWI BELIEVE IT WOULD BE, UH, ON, UH, THE SHARED USE PATHS AND, UH, IF THEY COULD SPEAK TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
DANIELLE MOORE IN TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? UH, YEAH.
COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE SHARED USE PATH IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT SPOKE OF AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD COME ALONG THE, UH, 360 CORRIDOR THERE THAT MAY MAKE IT EASIER TO REACH, UH, DESTINA UH, DESTINATIONS SUCH AS HEB? SURE.
SO I KNOW THAT TXDOT HAS LONG RANGE PLANS FOR SHARED USE PATHS ALONG 360.
I DON'T, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE TIMELINE FOR THOSE SHARED USE PATHS.
UM, WHAT I CAN SAY FROM THE CITY SIDE IS WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES COME IN FOR A SITE PLAN, UM, IT'S ADJACENT TO A LEVEL FIVE ROADWAY.
SO ALONG 360, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD A SHARED USE PATH, UM, ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE.
SO THAT'S HOW WE GET OUR INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, BUT NOT THE LONG, THE LONG RANGE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING UNDER, UNDER TECH STOP PUR PURVIEW.
IT'S NOT UNDER THE CITY'S PURVIEW.
THAT QUESTIONS, THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS.
UM, YOUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF? YES, MA'AM.
UM, SO IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THEY WERE DOING A RECALCULATION OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM,
[00:50:01]
THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THAT CALCULATION WAS BEING DONE TODAY.IS THAT CORRECT? HELLO, MY NAME'S JUAN VALLETTA.
I'M THE SUPERVISING ENGINEER FOR THIS AREA.
UM, AND THE REASON WE DID REDO THAT, THAT IT, THE ORIGINAL WORKSHEET FOR THE DETERMINATION WAS SUBMITTED AS, UH, HIGH-RISE.
AND SO WE RECALCULATED, UH, THE DETERMINATION BASED ON THAT INFORMATION.
OH, BUT NOT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE OFFICE USE IS NOT FULLY OCCUPIED? N NO.
UH, WE DO ASSIGN A, A USE TO THE EXISTING, UM, PROPERTY.
UH, AND THAT EXISTING USE IS OFFICE AND THAT IS PUT IN INTO OUR IT CALCULATIONS.
AND BASED ON THAT USE THAT, THAT CREATES A, UH, A TRAFFIC NUMBER FOR US.
AND I HAVE QUESTIONS I THINK FOR SCOTT SMITH, UM, THE PRIMARY SPEAKER.
UM, I NOTICED YOU MAYBE HAVE A DIFFERING POINT OF VIEW FOR SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER CHOPE ASKED, LIKE THE DISTANCE TO THE TRAIL AND THE BUS STOP.
THE BUS STOP I BELIEVE IS 1.8 MILES.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE INCLUDED IT IN YOUR BRIEFING PACKET.
UM, AS FOR THE, UM, GREENBELT ACCESS, IT'S NOT A DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE CITY VIEW.
UH, CURRENTLY WE HAVE A, UM, ACCESS FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S QUITE A BIT OF WAYS DOWN WEST CREEK BOULEVARD.
SO IT'S A DRIVE, IT'S A DRIVE, IT'S A DRIVE TO GET THERE.
AND, UM, YOU'RE NOT WALKING TO HEB? DEFINITELY NOT UNLESS SHE WANNA RISK GETTING HIT BY A CAR OR BICYCLING.
NOT UNLESS WE, WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A MEMORIAL FOR A, UM, LOST BIKER RIDE AT THAT INTERSECTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO HEB, BUT THAT'S A RECENT TRAFFIC FATALITY.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED? I DEFINITELY THINK WE HAVE A PATH FORWARD HERE TO BE ABLE TO REACH A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE AND SAFE AND THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST THINK THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND THE, AND THE USE TO FOREGO THAT, I THINK THAT WE COULD REALLY ZERO IN ON THAT AND, AND GET A LOT OF DATA THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THIS COMMISSION.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT WAS DONE, UH, WITH ANY MALICIOUSNESS OR INTENT.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S SOME OLD ASSUMPTIONS IN THERE THAT ARE NOT FACT BASED.
I THINK IF WE LOOKED AT THAT INTERSECTION CAREFULLY, UH, WE'D BE PROTECTING NOT ONLY CURRENT RESIDENTS BUT ALSO THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'RE HOPING TO HOUSE AT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
IF THERE'S A FIRE, IT IMPACTS THEM AS WELL.
WE HAVE A NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING IN ON LOSS CREEK BOULEVARD.
PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE BUYING HOMES.
UM, I JUST THINK THAT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS AS MUCH TO PROTECT YOUR FUTURE RESIDENTS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS CURRENT RESIDENTS.
AND I THINK YOU MAYBE OR OTHERS MENTIONED THE DARK SKY.
UM, DOES IT HAVE TO BE QUITE LOW IN ORDER TO BE 25? UH, RED, BUT YOU KNOW, CAN YOU TRUST GOOGLE AI? UM, IT HAS TO BE 25 FEET MAXIMUM TO STILL QUALIFY.
IS THAT CORRECT? DOES ANYBODY? I BELIEVE SO.
I WOULD DEFER TO MY FRIEND MARVIN WHO MIGHT KNOW THOSE.
BUT WE DO ADHERE TO THE NATIONAL STANDARDS, I BELIEVE, WHICH ARE RATHER LOW.
WE'D BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND SHARE THAT WITH THE COMMISSION.
THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE FOUR STORIES, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT'S PROBABLY 60 FEET TALL THERE TODAY.
I KNOW THIS BECAUSE OUR COMPANY HAS AN OFFICE BUILDING IN THERE.
IT'S A LOW, WHY WOULD IT BE 60 FEET? FOUR STORIES.
THOSE STORIES ARE ABOUT 15 FEET FOR COMMERCIAL.
THAT'S 60 FEET AND IT'S, UH, IT, AS YOU KNOW, SIR, IT'S UH, SET BACK QUITE A BIT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL THERE'S SIX BUILDINGS IN THERE.
AND AGAIN, MY COMPANY HAS AN OFFICE IN THAT COMPLEX AND I USED TO OFFICE ON THE NEXT.
I'M A 60 YEAR RESIDENT OF DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS THE DISTRICT I LIVE IN AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS DISTRICT AND WE DESPERATELY NEED SOME.
UM, MS. BOJO, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? THANK YOU.
ARE THEY 60 FEET TALL BUILDINGS? I DON'T THINK THEY'RE 60 FEET TALL.
I THINK THEY'RE THREE AND FOUR STORIES.
WHAT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT MORE GENERALLY IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS ON THE SITE TODAY THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS.
SO LIKE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
THERE'S A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER OUT THERE.
EVEN THOUGH THE, THE WATER SUPPLY, UH, WATERSHED WOULD ONLY BE 40%.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THING, THE DRAINAGE IS OUTTA COMPLIANCE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE OUTTA COMPLIANCE THAT WOULD BE CLEANED UP WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
AND WOULD THEY BE GRANDFATHERED ON IMPERVIOUS COVER? NO, MA'AM.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE UH, QUESTIONS FOR,
[00:55:01]
UH, SORRY.UM, REGARDING SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED WITH THE, UH, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, UM, ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT, UM, SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THERE WAS AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CURRENT TRIPS BECAUSE THE OFFICES ARE HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED.
UH, COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND HOW YOU, UH, INCORPORATED THE CURRENT LOW USAGE OF THOSE OFFICES? SURE.
WE JUST GO BY, UH, THE USE MANUAL AND THE, THE, THE USE IS WHAT'S GOING TO DETERMINE THE, THE NUMBER, UH, AS FAR AS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE PRODUCED.
UM, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT A BUILDING IS UNOCCUPIED.
IT IS JUST ENTITLED TO A USE AND WE USE THAT USE.
BUT CONSIDERING HOW UNDERUTILIZED THE SPACES, IS IT NOT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THOSE ESTIMATES ARE PROBABLY HIGHER THAN REALITY? IT'S, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT'S HARD TO ANSWER BECAUSE, UH, TO, I GUESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THAT, UH, THE, THE, UM, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND EVEN THOUGH IT IS VACANT, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THAT ENTITLEMENT.
SO IT'S MORE ABOUT CAPACITY THAN ACTUALLY RIGHT.
AND IF IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, THEN THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE ENTITLED TO THAT.
SO, SO WE JUST USE, USE WHAT IT IS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
I ALSO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, UH, REGARDING SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT EVACUATION.
IN THE CASE OF SAY A WILDFIRE, WHICH OF COURSE THE AREA IS VULNERABLE TO, UM, WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS THE CITY TOOK TO ACCOUNT FOR, UM, THERE BEING ENOUGH CAPACITY AND TIME, UH, FOR BOTH THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEW BUILDINGS AND EXISTING ONES TO EVACUATE? THAT WOULD LIKELY BE A QUESTION MORE FOR THE FIRE REVIEWER.
UM, I WOULDN'T REALLY BE THE ONE TO ANSWER THAT.
AND THAT'S A LATER ON IN THE UH, STAGE.
SO IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT SHOULD THAT REVIEW DETERMINE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF UNITS THEY HAVE THAT WERE PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY IS TOO HIGH AND THAT IT WOULD PUT IT PAST A THRESHOLD FOR, YOU KNOW, SAFE EVACUATION THAT IT COULD BE CURTAILED DOWN? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANNA LOOK AT LATER ON IN THE PROCESS? NOT NOW.
I WOULD OFFER UP THAT MOST ALL OF DISTRICT EIGHT IS IN THE WOOEY FIRE AREA, SO THERE'S HARDLY ANY LAND IN DISTRICT EIGHT THAT'S
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IT'S JUST THAT IS BY DEFINITION THE WESTERN PART OF AUSTIN.
AND SO THAT'S ALL WOOY FIRE AREA AND THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED.
I'M, I'M THERE ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR IN MOTION? YES, LONNIE, I MOVE TO DENY THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A ZONING CHANGE AT 1120 AND 1122 SOUTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE REQUESTED ZONING.
UM, DO I HEAR ANY DISCUSSION? YES, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PLAY CLEANUP ON MY PROPOSAL.
GO AHEAD, EXPLAIN YOUR, YOUR REASONING, LANI.
ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, FIRST, UM, I I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING CONSIDERED FOR DISTRICT EIGHT.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES IN DISTRICT EIGHT THAT CAN SUPPORT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND THAT BEING DIRECTLY ON 360 IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PLACES.
UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, THAT WE'RE FINDING A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE DON'T NEED TWO CARS TO LIVE THERE.
IT COSTS $10,000 A YEAR PER VEHICLE.
THIS LOCATION IS, DOES NOT HAVE TRANSIT.
THIS LOCATION DOES NOT HAVE BIKE LANES.
THIS LOCATION DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS TO GET TO A SCHOOL OR A SUPERMARKET OR A PHARMACIST, PERIOD.
WHAT IT DOES HAVE IS A HIGHWAY AND HOUSING OR OFFICE IS BUILT ON THIS HIGHWAY.
[01:00:01]
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE GONNA OBJECT TO GETTING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH USING THAT STREET.
UM, OTHERS WILL OB OBJECT ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND I'VE DRIVEN BY THAT LOT AND IT'S TERRIBLE.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT WORSE THERE.
UM, BUT THE TRUTH IS THIS IS A SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT WEARING URBANIST CLOTHES.
AND IF WE KEEP APPROVING APARTMENT COMPLEXES WHERE EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT HAS TO DRIVE, WE'RE CAUSING REAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. AND SO WHEN PEOPLE COME TO ZAP AND THEY SAY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC, LET, LET, LET'S PLAY THE TAPE FROM LAST MEETING WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BURNETT ROAD ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC BECAUSE THEY POINT TO A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT REQUIRES EVERY PERSON TO DRIVE.
SO IF YOU CREATE A TRAFFIC JAM WITH THIS KIND OF APARTMENT, THEN YOU'RE ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING FUTURE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE OPPOSED TO THEM.
I, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE STAY IN THE HOPE TO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND, UM, UH, I GUESS, UM, THE, THE MAIN THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT IF WE SAY YES HERE ON 360, WE'RE GONNA BE ASKED TO SAY YES TO A WHOLE BUNCH OF MIXED USE ALL ALONG 360.
THAT IS NOT THE URBAN CORE OF THE CITY.
THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TRANSIT HERE.
AND THE ONLY TRANSIT THAT'S 1.8 MILES AWAY IS ROUTE 30 THAT GOES TO THE MALL.
SO WHY DON'T WE BUILD HOUSING WHERE THE MALL IS? WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT WALSH CARDS AND BOULEVARD? WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT B CAPES BOULEVARD? HECK, DISTRICT EIGHT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CIRCLE C.
THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE ALONG WILLIAM CANNON OR BRODY, ET CETERA, FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DISTRICT DATES.
SO I'M TELLING YOU, THIS IS NOT THE LOCATION.
WE'RE CREATING A BAD PRECEDENT.
AND IF WE SAY YES HERE, WE'RE GONNA GET A LOT MORE REQUESTS ALL ALONG 360.
AND YOU ALREADY KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT SIX 20.
SO GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE.
BUT I'LL ALSO REMIND YOU, WE'VE GOTTEN EXACTLY ZERO APPLICATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DISTRICT A.
SO YOU SAY THERE'S A LOT OF LAND AND A LOT OF AREAS WE COULD DO THIS.
UM, SO APPARENTLY A LOT OF PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THAT
YEAH, I WOULD SAY I, UM, APPRECIATE THE, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER STERN'S COMMENTS, BUT, UM, UH, THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE IS ALSO RELATIVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND THIS IS A DISTRICT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, CHAIR, UH, SMITH HAS MENTIONED, DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY ANY STANDARD.
AND, UH, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, THE THE PRICE POINT FOR SENDING YOUR CHILD TO THE IN SCHOOL DISTRICT IS, UH, AT LEAST A SEVEN FIGURE HOME.
SO, UM, NOT EVERYBODY IN IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAS TO BE A LOW INCOME PERSON.
IF THEY LIVE IN, YOU KNOW, THEY WON'T BE IN, IN A MULTI-UNIT BUILDING.
SO I, UH, I WOULDN'T LOOK AT IT THROUGH THAT LENS.
I LOOK AT THIS AS BRINGING HOUSING TO A, I WOULD SAY A, AN AREA OF TOWN THAT IS STARVED OF DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS IN A HIGHER OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND REPLACING, UM, AN OFFICE PARK THAT'S WHOSE BEST DAYS ARE BEHIND IT.
UM, THE CITY IS COVERED WITH OFFICE PARKS THAT ARE SUPER UNDERUTILIZED RIGHT NOW ALL THROUGHOUT THE SUBURBAN PARTS OF TOWN.
UM, AND I'M 100% FOR PUTTING AS MUCH INFILL DENSITY AS WE CAN IN THE URBAN CORE.
WE HAVE A SUBURBAN ONE THAT SURROUNDS THAT URBAN CORE AND WE HAVE AN URBAN CORE.
AND TODAY WE'RE DEALING WITH THE PIECES OF LAND THAT PRESENT OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE OF THE CORE.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO RESPOND AND THINK ABOUT THOSE DIFFERENTLY, UM, WITHIN THE REAL CONTEXT OF THE CITY AS IT IS.
UM, SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT, BUT DO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION AS IT STANDS.
I'D LIKE TO COMMISSIONER STERN, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, UM, YOUR COMMENTS VIS-A-VIS TRANSPORTATION.
I THINK ALL THOSE ARE REALLY ACCURATE AND TRUE.
UM, BUT THE THING THAT DID RESONATE WITH ME IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, A TWO MILE CAR TRIP IS A LOT BETTER THAN AN EIGHT OR A 10 MILE CAR TRIP.
AND I THINK IF THIS DOESN'T GO UP HERE, IT'S GONNA GO UP HALFWAY TO B ONES LIKE IT.
UM, AND SO I THINK THERE IS A TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT HERE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE RIGHT, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A TRANSIT QUARTER.
UM, I SUPPORT THE MOTION, I ACTUALLY SECONDED IT.
AND I, UM, JUST WANNA READ A TINY BIT FROM BOBBY LEWINSKY'S LETTER, WHICH SAYS, THIS FOSTERS CAR DEPENDENT SPRAWL RATHER THAN COMPACT CONNECTED GROWTH, LOCATED ALONG A VERY WIDE HIGH SPEED HIGHWAY WITH INADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSIT AND
[01:05:01]
UNSAFE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE.THE PROJECT WILL PREDICTABLY RESULT IN ATTRACTING HUNDREDS OF NEW CARS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.
AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT VOTING NO ON THIS APPLICATION IS NOT AN ANTI HOUSING MOVE BECAUSE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE WITH AN UP TO 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT WITHOUT ANY ZONING CHANGE AT ALL.
IT'S TRUE, THERE WON'T BE, UM, INCOME RESTRICTED USE UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR US DELIBERATELY ADDING MORE DENSITY AND MORE TRAFFIC.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I'D HAVE TO ADD THAT IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AT LEAST TO, UH, ADD INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS WHERE YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OWN A CAR.
OWNING A CAR IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
UH, BUYING A USED OR NEW CAR, PAYING FOR INSURANCE MAINTENANCE AND MAINTAINING THAT EVERY MONTH, DEF PARTIALLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF, UH, HAVING INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS.
SO, UH, TO ME IT, IT IS VERY RELUCTANT.
UM, I I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO, UM, SAYING NO TO THIS REZONING, BUT I FEEL THAT I HAVE TO BECAUSE, UH, WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT? PROVIDING CONVENIENT ACCESS TO A HIGHWAY AND INCONVENIENT ACCESS TO EVERYTHING ELSE.
UH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE MAKE IT EASY TO BUILD BIG IN OUR EXCERPTS? WHILE IT'S STILL HARD TO BUILD BIG IN OUR URBAN CORE, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTING DB 90, WHILE MOST OF OUR LAND IN OUR URBAN CORE IS ZONED FOR 40 FEET OR LESS.
SO TO ME, THIS IS A NONSENSICAL, UH, MOVE FOR THAT REASON.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? I WOULD LIKE TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT COMMISSIONER ZUKI WAS SAYING.
THINKING OF SCHOOL FOR KIDS IN AUSTIN IS SCARY FOR PEOPLE THAT I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE AND THINKING ABOUT HAVING KIDS AND IT'S SCARY.
SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO PUT MORE HOUSING AROUND THE BEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TOWN AND ONE OF THE TOP SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE NATION.
UM, ALSO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SITE FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT, REDUCING ALL THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND GETTING RID OF THAT MUCH, UM, SURFACE PARKING.
I AM SENSITIVE TO THE TRAFFIC SITUATION, BUT AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE LOOKED AT MORE AT SITE PLAN.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER MOTIONS, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS.
I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE BUILDING A COMPLEX OSTENSIBLY SO THAT CHILDREN CAN CROSS A HIGHWAY TO GO TO SCHOOL.
SO, UM, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE WILL THEN HEAR ABOUT SOMEBODY DYING CROSSING THAT ROAD BECAUSE OF ALLOWING THIS IN, IT, IT, THE BLOOD WILL BE ON OUR HANDS.
UM, I I JUST WANNA CLARIFY ONE LAST THING.
I FEEL MORE LIKE THE WAY KRISTEN FEELS ON THIS.
UM, COMMISSIONER CHAPI, I LOVE VOTING FOR HOUSING
I ALSO THINK THAT THE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT THERE IS NOT SO GREAT, BUT IF WE'RE NOT PRINCIPLED ABOUT WHERE WE PUT IT, WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE MANDATE.
AND I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION WHEN MULTIFAMILY GOT A NO STRAIGHT OUT THE GATE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT WAS.
BUT IF WE ARE NOT PRINCIPLED ABOUT WHERE WE'RE PLACING OUR URBANISM, WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE MANDATE OVER TIME.
SO DO WHAT YOU WILL, BUT AGAIN, MY EMOTION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE ZONING AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
COUNT 1, 2, 3, 4 IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? I SEE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
SO SIX OPPOSED AND FOUR IN FAVOR.
DO I HEAR ANOTHER MOTION? I MOVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
CAN YOU FIGURE OUT WHO YOU HAD THE MOTION AND THE SECOND I HAD THE SECOND HANK.
HEY, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR HAD THE SECOND, WE HAD THE FIRST MOTION UP HERE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I'LL CALL TO VOTE.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA GET THE SAME VOTE
[01:10:01]
IN REVERSE.SAY AGAIN? UM, IT, I MEAN WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO IT, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE WE'RE GONNA GET THE SAME VOTE NUMBERS JUST IN REVERSE AND IT WON'T PASS YOU.
FORTUNATELY WE HAVE TO TAKE THE VOTE.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE ZONING AS WRITTEN, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA, SO WE HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO.
[3. Rezoning: C14-2026-0011 - 2825 Hancock; District 7 ]
IS, UM, ITEM THREE, REZONING CASE C 14 20 26 DASH 0 0 1 1 28 25 HANCOCK.IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM LO TO GRCO.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND IT WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF PRESENTATION.
CYNTHIA HADR WITH AUSTIN PLANNING.
UM, THIS IS ITEMS THREE ON YOUR AGENDA.
C 14, 20 26 0 0 1 1 28 25 HANCOCK DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 1.47 ACRES DEVELOPED WITH ONE LARGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN A, IN A PARKING LOT.
IT IS ON HANCOCK DRIVE WITH AN AS AND P LEVEL THREE.
UM, AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED LIMITED OFFICE DIS DISTRICT ZONING.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS TO GET TO THIS PROPERTY WITH SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, AND BUS LANES ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.14 MILES FROM THE NORTH LOOP STATION AREA AND, AND 0.75 MILES AWAY FROM THE E TODD OVERLAY.
THE PROPERTY HAS MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND AUTOMOTIVE TO THE EAST, ALONG WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.
THE AUSTIN, UM, MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY IS TO THE NORTH ACROSS HANCOCK DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY REQUESTED TO GO FROM LIMITED OFFICE LO TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES.
CS TO ALLOW FOR A BROADER RANGE OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND SERVICE USES THAT BETTER ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALONG THE SEGMENT OF HANCOCK DRIVE.
HOWEVER, ON MARCH 30TH, 2026, THE APPLICANT AMENDED THEIR REQUEST TO MATCH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF GRCO.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF GRCO WILL PROHIBIT THE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT SUITABLE NEAR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE IS NO DEMOLITION PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO KEEP THE CURRENT BUILDING AND ADD MORE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE ADDITION OF THESE USES WOULD BRING MORE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THERE WE GO.
FERRIS CLEMENTS, UH, WITH ARMES AND BROWN ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT.
UH, CYNTHIA COVERED, UH, MUCH OF WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
UH, THIS IS AN EXISTING PROJECT, UH, LOCATED AT 2025 HANCOCK.
UM, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING.
WE'RE LOOKING TO RETAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, THE ZONING PEER TODAY, THE ZONING REQUEST IS, UH, MAINLY TO GET RETAIL AND, AND RESTAURANT USES ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED FOR LIMITED OFFICE, WHICH RESTRICTS, UM, THE USES ON THE SITES.
AND IF YOU SEE AROUND THIS AREA, WE'RE MAINLY SURROUNDED BY CS COMMERCIAL ZONING.
UM, WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF AND WE'VE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT ZONING FOR THIS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE, WE AMENDED OUR APPLICATION FROM CSGR.
UM, WE HAVE AGREED TO A NUMBER OF PROHIBITED USES ON THE SITE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE, UM, APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND TO CLOSE NOW, THIS IS REQUEST FOR AN ALREADY DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL SITE WITH AN EXISTING 19 19,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
UM, THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING, UM, COMMERCIAL USES, IMPORTANTLY RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL USES.
UM, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM OUR FIRST SPEAKER IN FAVOR, CHRISTINE JACOBSON.
CHRISTINE WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
CHRISTINE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
SHE'S NOT CURRENTLY IN OUR QUEUE, BUT IF SHE JOINS, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT SHE'S HEARD.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOSEPH REYNOLDS.
JOSEPH, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
[01:15:01]
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.UH, I LIVE IN BAJA ALLENDALE ON 49TH STREET.
UM, BAJA IS 45TH STREET NORTH TO HANCOCK AND, UH, SHOW CREEK WEST TO THE WEST, TO THE EAST TO THE WEST BANK OF SHOW CREEK BOULEVARD.
SO THIS IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I'M ON THE ALLENDALE ZONING AND, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE COMMISSION.
AND IT'S MY JOB TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORS AS THEY FORM OPINIONS AND THINGS ABOUT THIS.
WE'VE NOT HAD A GROUP MEETING ON THIS, BUT WHEN I'VE REFERRED TO AND, AND SPOKEN WITH THE DIFFERENT MEMBERS, UH, I'VE HAD, AFTER THE CHANGE TO THE, THE REVISED, UH, REQUEST, I'VE NOT HAD ANY OBJECTION FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, THE ISSUES THAT ARE THERE, WE CAN ADDRESS IN SITE PLAN.
THE SIDEWALKS ACROSS THE FRONT OF THIS ALONG HANCOCK ARE A DESIGNATED SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL.
AND THERE IN BAJA ALLENDALE, WE'VE GOT PROBABLY 300 KIDS THAT ARE GOING TO HANCOCK, I MEAN TO HIGHLAND PARK SCHOOL.
AND SO DURING SITE PLAN, WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DURING SCHOOL HOURS THERE'S SAFE TRAFFIC ACROSS THOSE BIKE LANES.
AND THAT WAS, UH, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY OUR, OUR POSITION ON THIS STUFF.
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE, I'VE SEEN NO OPPOSITION AND WHEN I MENTIONED THE RESTAURANTS AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT I GOT APPROVAL FROM 'EM.
SO THERE'S A, AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT TO DO THAT.
AND, UH, AND I'VE NOT HEARD AFTER THE CHANGE IN, IN THE ZONING LEVELS, I, I'VE HEARD ANY, ANY OBJECTION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, OR WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS CATHERINE TURINI.
CATHERINE ALSO HAD A FEW PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE, WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE DONATED TO HER, BUT THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING.
BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THEY'RE IN PERSON AND IF THEY ARE, I'LL GIVE HER THAT EXTRA TIME.
IS MICHELLE WALD HERE? AND IS KELLY ALLEN HERE? OKAY, SEEING NONE, CATHERINE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M CATHERINE TURINI.
I LIVE AT, UH, 22 WEST FRESCO, WHICH WOULD BACK UP ONTO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UM, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, UM, OTHER NEIGHBORS HAD SAID THAT THIS WAS, UH, THEY HAD NO OBJECTIONS.
UM, OUR NEIGHBORS MET, UM, HAVE BEEN MEETING AND SPEAKING THIS WEEK, AND WE DO HAVE SOME OBJECTIONS TO THIS, THOSE SPECIFICALLY ON, UM, WEST AND NORTH FRESCO.
AND, UM, WE APPRECIATE THE, UH, LOWERING OF THE, UH, REQUEST TO SOMETHING THAT SEEMS MORE, SOMEWHAT MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A AN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
OUR INTERSECTION AT BULL CREEK AND HANCOCK GETS, UM, VERY CONGESTED AND THAT'S WITHOUT ANY OF THESE ADDITIONAL, UM, WHATEVER, UM, BUSINESSES WOULD BE COMING IN THERE.
UM, WE WOULD REQUEST, UM, AN ACCURATE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, UM, BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE APPROVED IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BRING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, THE OTHER CONCERN WE HAVE IS, UM, ABOUT HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, UH, DEVELOPER HAS NO INTENTION TO, UM, DEMOLISH OR CHANGE THE HEIGHT, AND SO THERE SHOULD BE NO TROUBLE, UM, LAYING ON A, UM, A RESTRICTION OF THE HEIGHT AT ITS CURRENT, UM, HEIGHT.
UM, THAT'S BECAUSE THIS BACKS UP INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S, UM, BACKYARDS AND, UM, LIGHT WATER AND, UM, PRIVACY CONCERNS.
I APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY ABOUT, UM, NOT BEING OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT, BUT THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFUL, UM, UM, CONSIDERATION SO THAT, UM, AS, UM, ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID THAT, UM, THAT WE, THE NEIGHBORS EMBRACE THE, THE POTENTIAL UPSIDES OF, OF, UM, HAVING SOME MORE AMENITIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M COMPLETE THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOMAS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS FRED THOMAS.
FRED, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
[01:20:07]
UM, I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE ZAP COMMISSION MEMBERS, THE STAFF THAT HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR TIME AND DONE EXCELLENT WORK ON GETTING THE MATERIALS FOR THE BACKUP AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TO BE HEARD.
MY NAME IS FRED THOMAS AND MY WIFE MARTHA AND I RESIDE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON FRESCO DRIVE THE STREET IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
WHEN I RECEIVED THE FIRST NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM LO TO CS IN EARLY MARCH, MY INITIAL REACTION WAS THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY WAY TOO MUCH OF AN ASK TO GO FROM LO TO EXTREMELY INTENSIVE, UH, AND, UH, USES, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROPERTY BEING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS BECAUSE IT WAS DEVELOPED AT A TIME WHEN THOSE DID NOT EXIST AND THAT THESE BUILDINGS WOULD SIT ON THE VERY REAR PORTION OF THAT TRACK BACK UP TO THE LOT LINES OF RESIDENCES THAT ARE ALL EXCLUSIVELY SINGLE FAMILY.
HOWEVER, IT'S NOT LOST ON ME EITHER, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOW AGREED TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING REQUEST TO GR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOLLOWING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
BUT WE STILL REQUEST THAT THE PROHIBITED USES IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BE EXPANDED AND THAT SOME ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS, CONSTRAINTS CON COVERING THE FUTURE AND CURRENT AND FUTURE USE AND POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TRACK ONCE IT GETS TO THE ZONING ARE WARRANTED AND SHOULD BE ADDED.
UH, THERE REALLY THREE PRIMARY AREAS OF CONCERN.
UH, SOME OF THOSE, UH, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER ADDRESSED, BUT TRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUES ARE A BIG ISSUE.
THE, WE ALSO HAD SOME LANES TAKEN AND CONVERTED TO BICYCLE USE, WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT IT ALSO HAS EXACERBATED THE TRAFFIC AT THE, AT THAT INTERSECTION.
FRESCO DRIVE NOW SERVES AS A CUT THROUGH AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT ON STREET PARKING ON OUR STREET JUST FROM RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THESE GR USES MIGHT END UP, UH, FEEDING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO PARKING AND TRAFFIC ARE CONCERN.
I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT DETERMINATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS, EVEN THE MOST RECENT UPDATE SHOWED EXISTING USE AT LU LO.
BUT THE NEW USE WAS STILL SHOWING AS CS AS OF YESTERDAY WHEN I PULLED IT.
UM, AND I FIND IT REALLY CURIOUS THAT GOING FROM LOZO ZONING TO GR ZONING DOES NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY WHEN YOU ADD RESTAURANTS IN GENERAL RETAIL USE.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD REQUEST IS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A NEW TIA SHOWING THE Q EXISTING AND Q MAX BUILD OUT OF THE SITE BASED ON ZONING OR ADD A CAP TO THE CO UNTIL THE UPDATED TIA IS UH, OBTAINED.
AND THEN ONE LAST THING, SINCE I HAD SOME OTHER POINTS.
THERE'S STRONG OPPOSITION TO HAVING OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AT THIS SITE.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST OKAY, WITH THE TENANTS THERE THAT HAVE HAD MUSIC.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THAT AND SOME OTHER ISSUES IN A CO AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WOULD SATISFY.
CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS IN PERSON ON THIS ITEM, BUT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE APPLICANT REBUTTAL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT ON THAT SAME LIST THAT WAS POSTED TO BACK UP, THERE'S ABOUT FOUR SPEAKERS OR FOUR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO SIGNED IN TO NOT SPEAK, BUT WANTED THEIR OPPOSITION TO BE, UM, TO BE HEARD.
AND THAT'S INCLUDED ON THAT SAME LIST POSTED TO BACKUP AS WAS ITEM TWO.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD TO OUR THREE MINUTE APPLICANT.
FERRIS COLUMBUS WITH ARMS BROWN.
WE, UH, DID MEET WITH THE HIGHLAND PARK WEST AND B'S AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BACK ON MARCH 30TH, UM, TO DISCUSS THE CASE.
AS Y'ALL KNOW, THERE'S NO OFFICIAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP FOR THIS AREA.
UM, WE RECEIVED POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM THAT GROUP.
THEY WERE GONNA GO BACK TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO GATHER ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK AND LET US KNOW.
UM, AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING.
UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DEMOLISH IT.
WE'RE LOOKING TO SIMPLY BRING SOME NEW LIFE AND DO IT, UM, AND ADD SOME RESTAURANT RETAIL USES.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
[01:25:01]
OKAY.DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
DO I HEAR DISCUSSION, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? YES.
I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PROHIBIT ADDITIONAL USES? I ONLY HEARD THE ONE USE OR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO PROHIBIT OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT RIGHT NOW? AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT ON HERE FOR NOW, BUT I MEAN THE, ALL OUR CONDIT, IT'S CONDITIONAL.
UM, AND MAYBE WHEN I GET A CHANCE, I WOULD ASK THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION IF THERE'S OTHER USES, BUT, UM, AND THEN COME BACK TO IT.
THE OTHER IS, IF YOU'RE NOT PLANNING TO REDEVELOP, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS THE, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT LO UM, ZONING? SO RIGHT NOW I THINK THAT IT IS THE HEIGHT ISSUE.
AND RIGHT NOW, LO THE, THE MAX HEIGHT IS 40 FEET, I BELIEVE FOR GR AT 60 FEET RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO TOUCH THE HEIGHT OR WE'RE JUST, WE, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS NOT THE, UM, NOT THE PLAN RIGHT NOW.
UM, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE MAX HEIGHT THAT'S A 60 FEET.
AND YOU'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND THERE'S OTHER, I MEAN, THERE'S, UH, SETBACKS, CORRECT.
AND IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ARE DIFFERENT FOR LO COMPARED TO YES.
GR SO YES, YOU WANNA KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT.
UM, AND COMPATIBILITY SETBACK WOULD STA UP STEP, STEP THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, SORT OF
THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR.
UM, BUT WHAT ABOUT, COULD SOMEONE WHO SPOKE IN OPPOSITION, THE LAST SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION SAID THERE WERE THREE USES? OR, OR DID I MISINTERPRET? I HE WAS TRAFFIC, HE WANTED THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
LET, CAN I ASK IF THAT SPEAKER WOULD SAY, ARE THERE SPECIFIC USES BESIDES THE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH WOULD ANY WAY BE CONDITIONAL? I I DON'T THINK THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT WOULD BE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
UM, THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER USES.
UM, BUT THE LAST ONE THAT I DIDN'T GET TO WAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND THOSE DEALT WITH LIGHT NOISE, ODORS, RODENTS THAT WE DEAL WITH OVER THERE.
AND UM, ALSO THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ABUT THE PROPERTY NOW.
BUT THOSE AREN'T ZONING ISSUES.
THOSE YES, THOSE AREN'T ZONING.
SO, YEAH, SO I, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANOTHER USE.
SO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND THAT WILL BE CONDITIONAL.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THE, UH, GR CO UH, REZONING.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO APPROVE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE A QUESTION? TAYLOR, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? I THINK HE WANTED TO.
MR. CHAIRMAN? OH, HE'S READY TO VOTE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[4. Rezoning: C14-97-0141.04 - Parmer North PDA Amendment; District 7 ]
FOUR C 1490 7.014 1.04 PARER NORTH PDA AMENDMENT DISTRICT SEVEN, IT IS ON PARER LANE.MACALLAN PASS, PARER RIDGE BOULEVARD, HARRIS RANCH BOULEVARD.
UM, IT IS A-L-I-P-D-A TO L-I-P-D-A TO CHANGE THE CONDITION OF ZONING.
UH, SHERRY TIS WITH THE AUSTIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, AS YOU SAID, THIS IS ITEM, UH, KC 14 9 7 0 1 4 1 0.04 PALMER NORTH PDA AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.
AND THE ADDRESSES ARE OFF OF EAST PALMER LANE, MCCALLUM PASS, PALMER RIDGE BOULEVARD AND HARRIS RIDGE BOULEVARD.
UM, THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM L-I-P-D-A TO L-I-P-D-A TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF ZONING.
THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO, UH, AMEND THE PDA OVERLAY CONDITIONS TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AS PERMITTED
[01:30:01]
USES ON THE PROPERTY.THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE L-I-P-D-A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING WITH THE ADDITION OF AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AS PERMITTED USES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 64.9 ACRE AREA CONTAINING AN UNDEVELOPED LOT AND A LOT THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH SURFACE PARKING.
THE TRACKS TO THE NORTH CONTAIN ADDITIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, FRONTING CENTER LAKE DRIVE TO THE EAST.
THERE'S A WATER QUALITY POND ADJACENT TO A COMMUNITY RECREATION PRIVATE USE.
IN ADDITION TO THESE FACILITIES, THERE'S A RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE IN ONE AND TWO STORY CONTAINER, POS KNOWN AS THE PITCH ON THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO FOR TENANTS AND VISITORS TO THE ADJACENT SOCCER FIELDS.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HARRIS RIDGE BOULEVARD, THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS MCALLEN PASS TO THE WEST.
THERE'S A DETENTION POND AND A MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX TO THE SOUTH ACROSS EAST PALMER LANE.
THERE'S AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT WITH SURFACE PARKING.
IN THIS REZO REQUEST, AS WE SAID, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PDA ORDINANCE TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AS PERMITTED USES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OVERLAY TO PREVENT THESE USES BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S DESCRIPTION OF THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT, THESE ARE THE USES THAT WE BELIEVE ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY READ THE DEFINITION OF AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS SINCE WE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT USE IN THE CODE AND EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS WHY IT APPLIES.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION IN THE CODE, IT SAYS AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS USE IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR A RENTAL OF AUTOMOTIVE AUTOMOBILES, NON-COMMERCIAL TRUCKS, TRAILERS, OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, INCLUDING INCIDENTAL PARKING AND SERVICING OF VEHICLES.
THIS USE INCLUDES RENT AUTO RENTAL AGENCIES, TRAILER RENTAL AGENCIES, AND TAXI CAB PARKING AND DISPATCHING.
AND THAT IS WHY WE FEEL THAT THIS USE FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY.
UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS L-I-P-D-A BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES IN AN AREA WITH A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ALONG THE EAST HOWARD LANE.
THIS PROPERTY IS NEAR A DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, THE DESAL PALMER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER TO THE EAST AND IS LOCATED BETWEEN TWO ACTIVITY QUARTERS, EAST HOWARD LANE AND PALMER LANE ACTIVITY QUARTERS, WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
CHAIR, WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT.
RICHARD, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A PRETTY SIMPLE REQUEST.
I'LL TELL YOU THE, THE INTEREST WE'VE HAD IN THIS PROPERTY IS THAT, UH, RIDE HAILING COMPANIES, UH, AND SPECIFICALLY AUTONOMOUS CARS HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST TO HAVE, UH, FACILITIES AROUND WHERE THEY CAN DISPATCH AND CHARGE THEIR CARS.
AND WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY STAFF BECAUSE OUR CODE DOESN'T COM COVER THIS KIND OF USE.
AND THAT'S HOW WE FIT INTO KIND OF A BLEND OF AUTOMOTIVE RENTAL AND EV CHARGING.
SO LITERALLY YOU COULD HAVE THESE CARS COME AND PARK CHARGE UP AND THEN GO OUT AND GIVE PEOPLE RIDES BASED ON YOUR APP.
I WISH I HAD A MORE INTERESTING, UH, PRESENTATION FOR YOU, BUT THAT'S LITERALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR
YOU CAN SEE WE'RE NOT AROUND ANY HOUSES.
IT'S BASICALLY A PDA, IT'S UH, L-I-P-D-L AROUND US.
UM, THE ASK IS TO ADD THESE TWO USES.
IF YOU WERE CONFUSED BY OUR FIRST REQUEST, WE INCLUDED AUTOMOBILE WASHING, SERVICING AND ALL THAT.
STAFF BEAT US INTO SUBMISSION AND SAID, YOU DON'T NEED ALL THAT STUFF IF IT'S PARTIALLY PART OF YOUR FACILITY WHERE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THESE CARS.
AND WE AGREED AND WE HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT ON THAT SAME SHEET, WE DID HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER THAT ELECTED NOT TO SPEAK, BUT WANTED TO HAVE THEIR OPPOSITION HEARD, AND THAT CAN BE FOUND IN BACKUP AS WELL.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO YOU GONNA SECOND AGAIN? OKAY.
MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER STERN.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, FIRST I, I WOULD SAY I'M OBVIOUSLY AS SUPPORTER OF ALL TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE REGION.
AND I, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT AT SOME POINT WE'RE NOT GONNA PERSONALLY OWN
[01:35:01]
CARS.WE'RE GONNA HAVE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES THAT PICK US UP AND THIS COULD BE A PLACE WHERE THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT BEFORE THEY COME TO GET US.
HOWEVER, THE REASON WHY I HAVE TOLD THIS FOR DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC PLACE THAT'S BEING, THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED.
NOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT TECH RIDGE TODAY, YOU MAY THINK ABOUT QUALCOMM OR DELL OR GM OR PUT IN YOUR HIGH TECH COMPANY WITH A GIANT DILBERT KIND OF COMPLEX WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF SURFACE PARKING AND MAYBE TWO OR THREE STORY STRUCTURE.
I GET IT, TECH RIDGE IS KIND OF A, AN OFFICE PARK AREA, BUT IT'S NOT
IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF IT'S AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER.
AND IF WE WERE TO ASK ZAP IN 2003 WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THE NORTH BE GATEWAY, THEY PROBABLY WOULD'VE FELT THE SAME THAT YOU MIGHT FEEL TODAY ABOUT TECH RIDGE.
BUT ACTUALLY THIS AREA IS SLATED TO HAVE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT OVER TIME.
AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT ON MO, UM, ON GOOGLE MAPS AT THE MOMENT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYWHERE IN THAT WHOLE AREA, BUT ANYTHING FROM, UM, WHAT IS NOW JAGER LANE OR TECH RIDGE BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH, UH, FOLLOWING IT TO THE EAST WHERE IT BECOMES HARRIS RIDGE BOULEVARD AND THEN AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY EAST HOWARD LANE, THAT WHOLE CIRCLE THAT IS A CORRIDOR DESTINATION ZONE THAT IS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER.
AND RIGHT NOW IT'S A BUSINESS CENTER, BUT IT COULD BE A MIXED USE 24 HOUR DAY CENTER UNLESS WE JUST KEEP COVERING IT IN PARKING LOTS.
NOW, JUST TO REMIND THIS COMMISSION JUST A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, UM, IF YOU TAKE PALMER JUST A LITTLE FURTHER EAST, JUST PAST DESA, WE APPROVED, UH, A LARGER DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE EAST VILLAGE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM SAMSUNG.
AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE SHOULD BE APPROVING WAY MORE EAST VILLAGE LIKE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE COVER IT IN PARKING LOTS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AT BEST, OR JUST UBERS AND LYFTS AT WORST.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE NOT APPROVE THIS AT THIS LOCATION.
AND I JUST FOR JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF THIS WAS COMING IN, IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA ON WELLS BRANCH, I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT THERE SMACK DAB IN A REDEVELOPMENT ZONE AND, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGING THIS SORT OF DEVELOPMENT THERE.
NOW I THINK THE USE IS GONNA BE WHATEVER'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST VALUE, AND IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND WANTS TO BUILD A HIGHER VALUE WAREHOUSE, THAT'S GONNA BE A MUCH BETTER USE THAN THE VEHICLE STORAGE.
THE VEHICLE STORAGE WILL GO AWAY AND A HIGHER USE WILL GO IN, IN A HEARTBEAT.
IT'LL BE ALLOWED UNDER THE L-I-P-D-A.
SO NOTHING WE'RE DOING IS PERMANENT.
WE'RE JUST SAYING AT THIS TIME THIS IS A USE THAT THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE, IT'S THE ONLY, NOT THE ONLY, THE BEST USE.
THEY HAVE HIGHEST AND BEST USE THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO PUT ANY OTHER TYPE FACILITY ON HERE.
YES, I, I WOULD PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED INTENT TO BUILD A, UH, PARKING STRUCTURE AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, UH, ANTICIPATE WILL BE THERE FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, PROBABLY CLOSER TO LIFETIME OF A BUILDING, 40 YEARS OR SO.
AND, UH, I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS AN ADJACENT BUS STOP RIGHT THERE.
UH, THE BUS ONE, UH, WHICH IS 10 MINUTES TO TECH RIDGE CENTER, UH, PARK AND RIDE, UM, I MEAN, THE BUS ONE HITS A LOT OF, UH, MAJOR STOPS AND, UH, THERE, UH, ARE SOME NICE, UH, BIKE LANES CLOSE TO THE PITCH NEARBY ON HARRIS RIDGE BOULEVARD.
I, I, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN AREA THAT, UM, COULD HAVE SOMETHING, UM, WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND, UH, GET TO PLACES.
UH, I I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THERE TODAY, BUT I IMAGINE THAT IT COULD BE IN THE FUTURE.
AND, UH, THE ONE REASON WHY I HA WAS HESITANT AT THE BEGINNING IS, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT PARKING STRUCTURE, UM, POTENTIALLY BEING, UH, BUILT.
UH, YEAH, I, I I JUST DON'T KNOW, UH, HOW LONG, UH, WE WANT THAT TO STAY THERE.
UM, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO, UH, THE COMMENTS OF COMM, COMMISSIONER STERN
[01:40:01]
AND, UH, SHEY, BUT, UM, I LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY.UH, THE, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IN A FAST GROWING CITY IS THAT WE RUN OUT OF SPACES FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, AND THIS IS BASICALLY AN INDUSTRIAL PARK.
UM, RIDE SHARE SERVICES ARE AN ALREADY A CRUCIAL PART OF OUR MOBILITY SYSTEM.
THEY'RE GOING TO ONLY BECOME MORE PREVALENT.
UM, I THINK ABOUT THIS AS THE EQUIVALENT OF LIKE A BUS YARD OR A TRAIN YARD.
UM, AND IT CAN'T BE LIKE, THE FARTHER AWAY IT IS, THE LESS USEFUL IT BECOMES.
UM, SO I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO BALANCE BETWEEN, LIKE, NOT EVERYTHING CAN SERVE HOUSING ALL THE TIME.
UM, THIS ACTUALLY, I THINK IS SUPPORTIVE OF, OF MORE, UH, LIKE A, A CAR-FREE EXISTENCE IN THE CENTRAL CITY BY HAVING A PLACE TO PUT THE WAYMO'S, UH, CLOSE BY.
WE ACTUALLY ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A CAR IN THE DENSER PARTS OF TOWN.
UM, THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK IS ON A LEVEL FOUR ROAD THAT GOES TO A LEVEL FIVE ROAD CALLED I 35.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PRETTY WELL CITED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
UM, SO I, I THINK THIS IS FINE.
I THINK IT'S ALMOST, IT'S NECESSARY TOO.
WE NEED TO PRESERVE SPACES FOR INDUSTRY OR INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC, UH, IT'S NOT AN INDUSTRIAL WASTELAND.
IT'S WHERE
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK INDUSTRIAL TODAY MEANS THE SAME THING IT USED TO EITHER.
UH, CAN YOU SPEAK MORE ABOUT THE, UH, STRUCTURE AND THE, UH, NUMBER OF SPACES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? UM, I KNOW IT'S PRETTY EARLY ON, UH, BUT WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS? AS OF NOW? IT'S PRETTY EARLY ON, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE THINKING, UH, THERE'S, THERE'LL BE A TEMPORARY SPACE WHERE THERE'S A PARKING LOT NOW, AND THEN THE SPACE NEXT DOOR COULD BE BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 2000 CARS.
AND THAT WOULD BE TO WHERE A SURFACE LOT ON ONE SECTION AND THEN A PARKING STRUCTURE ON THE OTHER.
IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF STRUCTURE AND SURFACE.
UM, ANY SENSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS STRUCTURE AND HOW MUCH OF THE, UH, LOT IT WOULD TAKE UP? YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN DESIGNED YET.
OTHER QUESTIONS? BOARD ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I MOVED APPROVE CHAIR.
I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE GET MOVING.
SAY AGAIN? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE GET A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT JUST STATED THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2000 CARS POSSIBLY AND BUILDING A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS ON LAMAR, FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT HAVE A KNEE-JERK RESPONSE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING AT PARMER.
I KNOW YOU DON'T LIVE THERE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DO WISH YOU LOOKED AT PALMER LANE, THE WAY YOU LOOK AT LAMAR OR CONGRESS AVENUE.
YEAH, I MOVE TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR MAJOR HAS A MOTIONS FOR THE SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THE, UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED CAN I ABSTAIN FROM THIS HONOR? I'M, I'M HAVING WIFI ISSUES.
I CAN'T HEAR WHAT THE, WHAT IS ON THE TABLE? WE, WE CALLED A MOTION TO APPROVE AND IT WAS SECONDED.
ALL THOSE NOT IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? TWO OPPOSED.
AND ONE ABSTENTION MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I NEVER SAW, YEAH, WE NEVER GOT A SIGN IN SHEET.
UM, ITEM FIVE WAS APPROVED ON THE CONSENTED UNIT.
[6. Subdivision Environmental Variances: C8-2025-0085.0A - Arbor View Subdivision; District 10]
ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, C 8 20 25 DASH 0 0 8 5 POINT OHA ARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION IS REQUESTED VARY FROM LDC 25 8 3 0 1 AND LDC 25 8 3 0 2 TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% AND TO ALLOW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% RESPECTIVELY.REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 4 23 TO EXCEED WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS TO ALLOW 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THESE VARIANCES HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF ACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION?
[01:45:03]
GOOD EVENING.MY NAME IS MIKE MCDOUGLE, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROGRAM MANAGER, AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND YES, THIS IS THE ARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION 43 16 FAR WEST BOULEVARD, CA 8 20 25 0 0 85 A.
AND, UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND, UM, ON JANUARY 20TH, CITY STAFF PRESENTED THIS PROJECT TO ZAP AND CITY STAFF AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE VARI OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
AFTER DISCUSSION, UH, ZAP VOTED TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU GO A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE OF OF COURSE.
AFTER DISCUSSION, ZAP VOTED TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO CONDUCT A GEO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SLOPE STABILITY AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR HAND.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND THE REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE ZAP BACKUP.
AND SO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS A SUMMARY OF THE JANUARY 20TH STAFF PRESENTATION TO ZAP.
SO SYNOPSIS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLAT A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
ONE LOT WILL BE A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LOT AND WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED.
THE OTHER LOT WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE RIVER.
IT'S BETWEEN LUKE 360 AND MOPAC.
IT'S, UH, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.4 MILES WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF FAR WEST BOULEVARD AND MESA DRIVE.
AND THE PROPERTY IS IN THE BULL CREEK WATERSHED, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN WATERSHED.
IT'S IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE, AND IT'S LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
UH, THE SITE IS CHARACTERIZED BY STATE TOPOGRAPHY PREDOMINANTLY SLOPES OVER 25%.
UH, HERE'S A PICTURE FROM THE SITE.
UM, THE PROPERTY DOES SLOPE TO THE NORTH AWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THE MAJORITY OF THE SLOPES ARE GREATER THAN 25% THAT IS THERE.
UH, GENERALLY 50 TO 80% ON THIS IMAGE.
SO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE, UH, THAT, THAT'S THE, TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE YELLOW IS SLOPE ZERO TO 15%.
THE GREEN IS SLOPES 15 TO 25%, AND THE WHITE IS SLOPES OVER 25%.
SO THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS OVER 25%.
UH, THERE ARE SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PLAT LDC 25 8 3 0 1 LIMITS THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS ON SLOPES OVER 15%, AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
LDC 25 8 3 0 2 LIMITS THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND LDC 25 8 423 LIMITS WATER SHADED PURVIEW COVER TO 30% OF THE NET SET AREA.
THE NET SET AREA BACKS OUT STEEP SLOPES BASED ON THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
AND SO WHEN THE DEEP THE STEEP SLOPES ARE BACKED OUT, THE NET SET AREA IS ABOUT 775 SQUARE FEET.
THE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER IS 30% OF THIS NUMBER.
SO THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE ABOUT 232 SQUARE FEET.
UH, AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ABOUT 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND SO TO PLOT THIS PROPERTY AS ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LOT, UH, THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE NECESSARY.
AND THEY ARE, UH, NUMBER ONE, REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDZ 25 8 3 0 1 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY AND SLIPS OVER 15%.
NUMBER TWO, REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDZ 25 8 3 0 2 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND SLIPS OVER 15%.
AND NUMBER THREE, REQUEST TO VARY FROM 25 8 4 23 TO ALLOW 30% NET SET AREA WATERSHED IMPIOUS, EXCUSE ME, LET'S TRY, I READ THAT INCORRECTLY.
REQUEST A VARY FROM LDC 25 8 4 23 TO EXCEED THE 30% NET SET AREA WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, AND TO ALLOW 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, PREVIOUSLY STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED, UH, DENIAL OF THE VARIANCES.
THAT IS STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET, UH, SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT 25 8 40 25, 8 41 A TWO C, THE VARIANCE WILL CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BASED ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON STEEP SLOPES.
AND THAT IS WHAT, UH, BROUGHT US TO THE SITUATION OF NEEDING, UH, THE, OR REQUIRING THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
UM, AND, UH, CITY STAFF WILL SPEAK TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
UM, IF, UH, THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DOES VOTE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES CITY STAFF OFFER THE FOLLOWING FIVE VARIANCE CONDITIONS.
UH, NUMBER ONE, IMPERIOUS COVERAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO 3900 3900 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT ONE AND ZERO SQUARE FEET FOR LOT TWO.
ONE WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT, LOT TWO WOULD BE THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LOT THAT WOULDN'T BE DEVELOPED.
UM, NUMBER TWO, PRIOR ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE AN APPROVED CITY OF AUSTIN SITE
[01:50:01]
PLAN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DETENTION OF 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUS COVER AND AN EASEMENT.UH, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THAT CITY LEGAL, UH, AFTER THIS BACKUP WAS PROVIDED, CITY LEGAL DID SUGGEST A CHANGE TO THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
THE IDEA HERE WITH, UH, CONDITION NUMBER TWO IS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE, UH, UH, DETENTION PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO, UH, CITY LEGAL HAS SUGGESTED THAT ITEM NUMBER TWO BE REWORDED TO SAY THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN CITY APPROVAL OF A DETENTION PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF THE PREVIOUS COVER AND DEDICATE ANY REQUIRED EASEMENTS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
SO, UH, THE SAME CONCEPT EASEMENTS AND DETENTION FOR THE PREVIOUS COVER, BUT, UH, THE LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE MORE CLEAR, UH, IN THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRING AN EXEMPTION SPECIFICALLY, IT'S JUST THAT, UH, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PLAN, OR EXCUSE ME, THE THE DETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY.
UH, NUMBER THREE, THE DETENTION WILL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF AUSTIN.
REQUIREMENTS NUMBER FOUR, SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED.
THE FOUNDATION AND DRIVEWAY MUST BE CONSTRUCTED USING PIERS.
ANY GRADING EXCEEDING FOUR FEET OF DEPTH OR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 15% WILL REQUIRE LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SO THE IDEA IS THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE FUTURE GRADING ON THE SITE, SAY TO, YOU KNOW, UH, CREATE A FLAT BACKYARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, AND THAT THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES ON THE LOT MUST BE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY A LICENSED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS VERIFIED BY THE CITY.
AND SO THAT'S A, THIS IS ALL SORT OF A, A, A RECAP OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN JANUARY THAT LED UP TO THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ASKING FOR A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, UH, TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND, UH, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE, UH, CITY HYDROGEOLOGIST TO GIVE A, AN ANALYSIS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
UH, I'M WITH THE POLICY AND REVIEW GROUP IN WATERSHED PROTECTION.
I'M A, UH, HYDROGEOLOGIST AND, UM, WE, WHEN WE RECEIVED THIS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, IT WAS, UM, IT DIDN'T PROVIDE A, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT MORE DETAIL THAN THE INITIAL REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP FOR THE JANUARY 20TH, UM, MEETING, EXCUSE ME.
UH, IT OVERALL PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT, UH, INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE UNDERLYING ROCK IS STRUCTURALLY COMPETENT, UH, PER THE UPDATED REPORT.
THE STRUCTURAL DETAILS MUST INDICATE THAT PENETRATION REQUIREMENTS ON THE DOWN SLIP SIDE OF THE FOOTING EXCAVATION, DEEPER PENETRATION MIGHT BE REQUIRED DUE TO STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH, ASSOCIATED WITH THE LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS.
UM, BUT WE, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THE LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE, UH, THE, THE CORING AND THE BOREHOLE THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY RUN THE LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND, AND GET THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND THE SHEER STRENGTH AND, AND TO ACTUALLY, UH, HAVE, HAVE THAT INFORMATION INFORM THE DESIGN OF THE, UM, OF THE PIERS AND, AND THE FOOTINGS THAT WOULD END UP SUPPORTING THE HOUSE.
UM, IT'S NOT CLEAR IF ALL THE RELEVANT DATA, UH, OF THE SITE WAS INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS JUST BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT NUMBERS THEY USED TO, UH, GET THEIR FACTOR OF SAFETY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE, THE, THE METRICS OF THE ACTUAL ROCK ON SITE.
JUST, UH, GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
THEY, THEY DID TEST PITS, UH, WHICH EFFECTIVELY JUST CHARACTERIZE THE, THE SOIL HORIZON BECAUSE YOU, YOU CAN'T REALLY DIG DOWN AND, AND GET A, A GOOD ANALYSIS ON ROCK WITH, UH, BY, BY HAND YOU MEAN, UH, AN AIR ROTARY DRILLER OR SOME, SOME OTHER, UH, MECHANIZED WAY TO PULL A CORE AND, AND TO GET THE ANALYSIS THAT WAY.
UM, NONE OF THE TEST BITS THAT WERE, UH, DUG WERE EXCEEDED FOUR FEET.
UM, THE, BASED ON THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THEY SUGGEST THAT, UH, AT LEAST A, A FOUR FOOT FOOTING WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR, UH, THE STABILITY OF THE HOME.
AND, UH, THEY WERE UNABLE TO EVEN REACH THE, THE FULL DEPTH WITH THAT.
UM, AND, UH, DUE TO THE LACK OF THE BORINGS AND NO SAMPLING OR EVALUATION OF THE BEDROCK MATERIAL WAS PERFORMED, WHICH LIMITS THE,
[01:55:01]
UH, APPLICABILITY AND ACCURACY OF ANY ANALYSIS PERFORMED.UM, AND IN ADDITION TO NOT HAVING THE INFORMATION FROM THE, UH, THAT YOU WOULD FROM A BORE LOG, WE'RE ALSO NOT SURE IF THEY TOOK ALL OF THE, UM, THE, THE, THEY RECOMMENDED OR THEY, THEY DID NOT SEE A, UH, PLANAR INSTABILITY ON THE SLOPE.
HOWEVER, THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS DO SHOW, UH, WHAT IS WHAT WE CALL SOIL CREEP, WHICH IS JUST A, A SLOW MOVEMENT OF THE SOIL OVER TIME.
AND YOU CAN KINDA SEE BASED ON THE, THE CURVE IN THAT, UH, THE TRUNK OF THE TREE THAT'S OUTLINED IN, IN THE PINK, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S KINDA, IT'S VERY CLEARLY, UH, ANGLED UPWARD.
SO YOU, WE KNOW THAT THE SOIL IS MOVING AND AS THE, THE TREE IS GROWING CAUSING, EXCUSE ME, CAUSING THAT TO, UH, TO CURVE, UM, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE STEEP SLOPES.
UM, IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPLYING THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED STAFF CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A FULL GEOTECHNICAL, UH, INVESTIGATION WITH BORINGS TO HELP INFORM THE, UH, STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF WHATEVER THEY PLAN TO, TO PUT ON THERE.
UM, WE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE THIS IS JUST WHAT WAS DOWN SLOPE FROM ONE OF THE TEST PITS THAT WAS TAKEN OVER ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE SITE.
UM, SO IF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS, WE CAN EXPECT THE, THE SLOPE TO BE LIKE THAT, UH, PRETTY, PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE, THE ENTIRE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.
AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO A SIGNIFICANT, UH, EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFFSITE AND INTO THE NATURAL AREA THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH.
UM, AND, UH, WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, IF THAT'S OKAY, ALL THE PRESENTATIONS DONE, THEN WE'LL COME BACK FOR QUESTIONS IF THAT'S OKAY? YES, SIR.
WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT TERRY, IAN, HE HAS WI HE WISHES TO DONATE THREE MINUTES OF HIS TIME TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER, NICHOLAS KAUFMAN.
SO, MR. ARIAN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR, UH, GIVING US THE CHANCE TO DO A FULL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
UM, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION ON THE CASE, I THINK I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER ANYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF, A LOT OF ELEMENTS THAT WE AGREE WITH THE CITY ON.
WE, WE AGREE THAT VARIANCES ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS PROPERTY CAN BE BUILT.
UM, YOU CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE WITH ONLY 232 SQUARE FEET OF ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
WE AGREE THAT THE STOVE SLOPES ARE STEEP, AND WE AGREE THAT IF THIS COMMISSION DOES APPROVE THIS, THAT WHAT WE BILL WILL BE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER HOUSES BUILT ON THIS STREET IN THE 1980S THAT WERE BUILT SLAB ON GRADE.
TONIGHT, YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, UH, THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, UH, WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT, UH, SOIL CREEP SLOPE INSTABILITY AND PLAIN OLD FA FAILURE, UH, IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR, UH, IF FROM PRESSURE THAT IS PUT ON THE SLOPES WITH, WITH FILL, UH, WE ARE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE ANY FILL ON THESE SLOPES.
UN UNLIKE THE HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH HAD UPWARDS OF 15 FEET OF FILL, UH, PLACED OVER THOSE SLOPES IN ORDER TO BUILD A SLAB ON CRANE, UH, UM, THE ENGINEERS YOU'LL HEAR FROM WILL ALSO ADDRESS THE ADEQUACY OF THE TEST PITS IF THEY WENT DOWN TO BEDROCK, AND WHETHER THE PIER FOOTINGS WILL BE INSPECTED AND CLEARED FOR POURING, UH, BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BEFORE, UH, ANY, ANY PORES ARE DONE.
[02:00:01]
UH, ABSOLUTELY WE AGREE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS WELL AS TESTING OF THE CONCRETE DENSITY.SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE REST OF MY TIME, UH, TO NICHOLAS KAUFMAN, WHO IS THE, UH, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WHO DID THE REPORT.
AND AGAIN, MR. KAUFMAN, YOU WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M A LOCAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WITH CAPITAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, AND RECENTLY I WAS PRESENTED WITH SOME OF THESE, UH, CONCERNS THAT STAFF HAD CONCERNING THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
SO I'M HERE TO TRY AND ALLEVIATE THOSE CONCERNS.
UH, JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE HAD DONE RECENTLY, SINCE THE, THERE'S REALLY NO ACCESS FOR STANDARD, UH, EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, TRUCK MOUNTED DRILLING RIGS TRACKED DRILLING RIGS, EVEN A BACKHOE TO DIG A DEEP TEST BIT.
THERE WAS NO ACCESS FOR ANY OF THAT.
THE LAST RESORT WE HAD TO, UH, TRY AND ACCOMPLISH WAS TO USE LABOR INTENSIVE PORTABLE, UH, STATIC TOOLING AND A HYDRAULIC TOOLING THAT A CREW COULD USE TO TRY AND DIG TEST BITS AND DRILL HOLES.
SO THE, THE TEST BITS OR THE HOLES, UH, THEY WERE DONE AND THEY ALL TERMINATED IN HARD FRACTURED LIMESTONE ROCK.
ALL OF THEM, UH, THE TEST HOLES WERE THREE TO FIVE FEET DEEP, DEPENDING ON WHAT PART OF THE SLOPE OR WHAT SIDE OF THE HOLE YOU WERE LOOKING AT.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THEY ALL TERMINATED IN FRACTURED ROCK.
SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS, UH, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE UNDER UNDERLYING ROCK IS STRUCTURALLY COMPETENT? THAT'S THE TERM THAT WAS USED.
AND I'M, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS IMPLYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING FOR HARD, UH, INTACT LIMESTONE ROCK.
BUT SINCE WE'RE USING A FOOTING DESIGN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT A FOOTING ON A HARD LIMESTONE ROCK.
YOU CAN PLACE FOOTINGS ON SOIL.
YOU CAN PLACE FOOTINGS ON RESIDUAL SOIL, SEVERELY WEATHER, LIMESTONE MATERIAL FRACTURED LIMESTONE, HARD LIMESTONE, ROCKY MAR MARLEY LIMESTONE.
WE BUILD THE DESIGN FOOTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF, ALL TYPES OF SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS.
UM, SO THE IMPLICATION THAT THE FOOTINGS NEED TO BE PLACED ON SOLID ROCK WAS, IT THREW ME OFF A LITTLE BIT.
NOW HOW DO WE ADDRESS THIS? WE ADDRESS THIS IN FOOTING DESIGN WITH THE BEARING PRESSURE.
SO IF I WERE TO RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, PUT FIVE 50,000 PSF BEARING ON A FOOTING, THEN YES, YOU WOULD WANT COMPETENT LIMESTONE ROCK UNDER IT, YOU KNOW, 10, 20 FEET THICK.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IT SUBDUED THE ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE.
'CAUSE WE KNOW THERE'S A CHANCE, THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTIES.
WE, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE 10 FEET, 20 FEET OF SOLID INTACT ROCK FRACTURED HARD LIMESTONE ROCK IS PERFECTLY SUITABLE FOR SUPPORTING A FOOTING.
SO INSTEAD OF A 50,000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE, WE SUBDUED IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 5,000 PSF.
UM, SO THIS, SO EVEN IF THERE IS A WEAKER, LET'S SAY YOU ONLY HAVE TWO FOOT OF FRACTURED HARD LIMESTONE ROCK UNDER YOUR FOOTING AND UNDER THAT, AS SOMETHING WEAKER, WE MODELED THIS AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE OF 5,000 PSF.
SO EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE INTACT VERY HARD LIMESTONE ROCK, MORE THAN TWO FEET UNDER THE FOOTING, WE'RE STILL OKAY AT 5,000 PSF BEARING PRESSURE.
AND THAT LOWER BEARING PRESSURE IS GONNA PRODUCE A MUCH WIDER FOOTING, UH, THE ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT, EVEN AT THIS BEARING PRESSURE'S ONE INCH OR LESS.
SO THE, WE WEREN'T LOOKING FOR HARD COMPETENT LIMESTONE, 20 FEET THICK.
WE WERE JUST LOOKING TO SEE WHAT WAS EXPOSED BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE SLOPE, UH, RELATIVE TO THE GEOLOGY, WHICH WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH.
UH, AND THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WE'RE, WE'RE CONFIDENT YOU CAN DESIGN, YOU KNOW, 5,000 PSF FOOTINGS TO SUPPORT THIS HOUSE STRUCTURE.
THE COLUMNS FOR THE HOUSE STRUCTURE.
UH, ONE OF THE OTHER, UH, CONCERNS HAD TO DO WITH LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS.
NOW WITH FOOTINGS, YOUR LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS IS CONTROLLED BY THE RESISTANCE ON THE SIDE OF THE FOOTING, SLIDING AT THE BASE OF THE FOOTING AND OTHER STRUCTURAL, UH, ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN.
IF OUR TEST BITS WERE FIVE, FIVE FEET DEEP OR SO, I'M CONFIDENT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO A LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, WORST CASE DURING CONSTRUCTION, AFTER THEY COMPLETE THESE, UH, FOOTINGS, IF WE SEE A RED FLAG AT THAT POINT DURING THE INSPECTION, WE WOULD STOP REANALYZE THE SITUATION AND DETERMINE IF THE FOOTING DESIGN NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED, WHICH ISN'T A BIG DEAL.
BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS WHAT HE NEEDS FOR A LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS.
SOME PARAMETERS WERE PROVIDED IN THE REPORT FOR LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS, LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS.
I'M CONFIDENT THOSE CAN BE USED SAFELY.
UH, THE THIRD CONCERN THAT CAME UP HAD TO DO WITH SLOPE STABILITY.
UH, SLOPE STABILITY, IT'S GENERALLY PERFORMED.
YOU HAVE TO UNDER OR HAVE TO PREDICT WHAT THE SHEER STRENGTH PARAMETERS ARE OF THE SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS IN THE SLOPE.
NOW HAVING DONE THOUSANDS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS, BEING VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS FORMATION, WE CAN KIND OF CORRELATE OR COME UP WITH SOME VERY SAFE SHEER STRENGTH PROPERTIES TO TRY AND ANALYZE THE SLOPE.
WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING FOR RED FLAGS.
IS THERE A CHANCE THE SLOPE'S GONNA FAIL? MOST OF THE SLOPE IS NOT THAT STEEP.
IT'S 35% OR SO AVERAGE ALONG THAT STREET FRONTAGE.
UM, AND LOOKING AT THE, WE USING THOSE RELATIVELY
[02:05:01]
SAFE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS, I'M RELATIVELY CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES WITH THAT SLOPE.NOW, I KNOW THERE'S A PICTURE THAT WAS PROVIDED SHOWING, YOU KNOW, ONE, ONE YOUNG TREE BENDING, UH, WHICH COULD, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES INDICATE ISSUES WITH SLIDING AND WHATNOT.
UH, THE BEND IN THE TREE ACTUALLY SHOULD BE FACING UP SLOPE.
IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY EVIDENCE OF A PREVIOUS SLIDE, AND IT'S ACTUALLY FACING DOWN SLOPE.
THESE YOUNG TREES, THEY, THEY'LL, SOMETIMES THEY'LL GROW DIAGONALLY JUST BECAUSE OF THE TREE CANOPY IN THE SUNLIGHT IN THEIR DIRECTION.
ROCKS CAN AFFECT THE DIRECTION THAT THAT LITTLE, THAT YOUNG TREE IS GROWING.
I DID NOT SEE A LOT OF THIS ON THE SLOPE.
AND LOOKING AT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SLOPE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, I THINK HAS 2021, UH, TOPO CONTOURS.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS SLIDE ALONG THIS, THIS SLOPE OF CONCERN ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THE HOUSE.
SO I'M RELATIVELY CONFIDENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH SLOPE INSTABILITY HERE, AT LEAST GLOBAL SLOPES OF INSTABILITY.
UM, AND THOSE WERE THE THREE CONCERNS THAT STAFF HAD, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSED.
AND I'M HOPING, UH, I'VE ALLEVIATED SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
AND I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU WITH QUESTIONS LATER IF YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM ME.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM IS MIRZA MIRZA.
WE ARE A CIVIL AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEER, AND WE ALREADY ADDRESS ON THE DRAINAGE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE ALREADY REVIEWED AND CLEARED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY EROSION OR SOME VARIANCE ON THIS ONE.
AND AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, I KNOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THE SOIL IS STABILITY ANALYSIS.
AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, IF YOU'RE NOT PUTTING ANY BACKFILL ON THE EXISTING SOIL, MAYBE 10 OR 15 FEET, WE, I USUALLY DON'T RECOMMEND THOSE STABILITY ANALYSIS, BUT IT'S STILL THE GEOTECH GUYS DID THOSE.
AND SECOND THING, IF YOU ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S A HOUSE ON THE LEFT, WHICH IS ALREADY BUILT LONG TIME AGO, AND IT HAS LIKE 10, 15, MAYBE 20 FEET OF FILL.
AND IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO SLIDE, IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND IT'S MORE THAN 20 YEARS, NOTHING HAPPENED.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF LOAD ON THAT SOIL AND IT'S STILL, THE STABILITY IS GOOD.
AND IN OTHER SCENARIO, WE ARE NOT PUTTING ANY FILL, WE KEEPING THE EXISTING GRADE, ALL THE STRUCTURAL SLAB ARE SUSPENDED.
SO WE ARE NOT PUTTING ANY EXTRA LOAD.
PLUS WE ARE DIGGING THE FOUNDATION, PLUS WE ARE GOING TO CONNECT WITH THE GRADE BEAMS, WHICH MAKE THE SOIL MORE STABLE THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY, UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTION.
AND CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
UM, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UH, MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY STAFF MEMBER WHO PRESENTED ABOUT THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, UM, AND THE, SO, SO THE STAFF MEMBER SAID, HEY, WE THINK THE GEOTECH IS MISSING X, Y, Z.
MY QUESTION IS, DID WE EXPLICITLY TELL THE APPLICANT WE WANTED TO SEE THOSE THINGS IN THE GEOTECH REPORT? UH, THIS IS ERIC BROWN WITH WATERSHED.
UH, WE, UH, DIDN'T SAY THAT WE NEEDED BORINGS DOWN TO A CERTAIN DEPTH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UH, WE JUST ASKED FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH GEOTECH REPORT, UM, THAN THE PRELIMINARY MEMO THAT WAS PROVIDED, UH, DURING THE, THE FIRST HEARING.
SO WE DID NOT SPECIFY BORINGS TO PARTICULAR DEPTH.
DID WE REQUEST BORING SPECIFICALLY? BECAUSE, I MEAN, I DO GEO TECHS.
IF, IF, IF YOU DON'T ASK, WE'RE BORING, YOU CAN DO A TEST BIT.
AND THIS IS WHAT SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
YEAH, WE, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXPLICIT THAT WE SAID, UH, WE HAVE TO DIG, UH, A PILOT HOLE OR A BORING TO GET DOWN TO, TO COMPETENT RUG BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT ACCESS WAS GOING TO BE A, A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
SO, UH, WE, WE ASKED THE, THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND PROVIDE
[02:10:01]
A, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, WHICH, UH, WHICH THEY DID.UM, AND JUST TO, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I'M NOT DOUBTING MR. KAUFMAN OR, UH, MR. REI, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
SO, UM, I, I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT, UH, SOMETHING CAN BE ENGINEERED TO STAY ON THIS SLOPE.
UM, BUT ALL OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE A, A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.
SO, UH, THAT'S THE, THE, THE GENERAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST, JUST REALLY, I THINK ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEN I'LL, I'LL CONCLUDE.
UM, SO IT'S PRETTY APPARENT TO ME THE APPLICANT OPPOSES RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FIVE, WHICH REQUIRES A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT EXPLICITLY OPPOSING ANY OF ANY OF THE OTHER FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF? I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE OPPOSING SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS, BUT YES.
I MAYBE I MISHEARD, BUT I I I THINK THE FINAL, THE FINAL SPEAKER SAID HE WOULD ONLY TYPICALLY, UH, DO A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS, UH, UNDER, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE NOT PRESENT HERE IS, IS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT GENTLEMAN SAY.
UH, BUT, BUT IF I'M WRONG, THAT'S FINE.
BUT THE, THE QUESTION IS REALLY SIMPLY WHAT'S THE APPLICANT'S POSITION ON THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF? I DON'T HAVE THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
CAN YOU PULL THOSE UP AGAIN? BUT ONE OF EM WAS TO A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.
I THINK MR. KAUFMAN'S POSITION IS THAT HE DID ANALYZE THAT.
WELL, NUMBER ONE WAS TEST, UH, BORINGS.
NO, I THINK THE OTHER, I'M READING FROM PAGE 13 OF 13 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
YEAH, I THINK IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT PRESENTATION HERE.
SO THE FIRST ONE WAS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, I BELIEVE A 3,900 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT ONE AND ZERO SQUARE FEET FOR LOT TWO.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE AN APPROVED CITY OF AUSTIN SITE PLAN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DETENTION OF 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND AN EASEMENT THAT WAS MODIFIED A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THE BASIC IDEA IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE DETENTION FOR YOUR QUESTION, WORST WE AGREED WITH THAT.
THE DETENTION WILL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIREMENTS.
AND SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED.
THE FOUNDATION AND DRIVEWAY MUST BE CONSTRUCTED USING PIERS.
ANY GRADE EXCEEDING FOUR FEET OF DEPTH OR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPE SUCCEEDING.
15% REQUIRED LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS.
AND NUMBER FIVE WAS THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES.
AND THE LOT MUST BE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A, FROM A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY A LICENSED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS VERIFIED BY THE CITY.
YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, SUGGESTED BY THE CITY STAFF, BUT BEFORE WHEN WE ENGAGED, UH, MR. KAUFMAN, UH, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT WE DO THAT AT EVERY STAGE, WE AGREED.
SO YOU AGREE WITH NUMBER FIVE? YEAH.
YOU'LL, AND YOU'LL DO THAT AS YOU'RE DIGGING THE FOOTINGS AND DOING THE DESIGN AB ABSOLUTELY.
SO YEAH, THERE'S NO QUESTION ON THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO COMPLY WITH ITEMS ONE THROUGH FIVE IF WE DECIDE TO APPROVE THE MOTION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR MR. BROWN OR MR. MCDOUGAL, BUT TYPICALLY FOR, I MEAN, WHEN I SEE ON GIS IS THERE IS A SPRING AND LIKE CF BUFFER AND THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE ON LIKE 99% OF THE PROPERTY.
IS THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS DEFERRED TO BUILDING PERMIT, OR WAS ONE REQUIRED DURING SUBDIVISION AS WELL? BECAUSE THE PEER DEBT KIND OF SURPRISE ME.
LIZ JOHNSTON, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, SO EROSION HAZARD ZONES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CREEKS.
UM, SO THIS WOULD NOT HAVE AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
UM, IT DOES HAVE STREET STEEP SLOPES.
UM, THERE IS A SPRING, BUT UH, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS, PER SE.
'CAUSE THAT IS REALLY RELATED TO HOW CREEKS MEANDER AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO EROSION FROM WATER.
[02:15:01]
GOT.OTHER QUESTIONS? I MEAN, THIS IS A UNIQUE ONE.
UM, IN THAT BACK WHEN THESE LOTS OR RATS SURROUNDING THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE PLATTED, THESE WEREN'T REQUIREMENTS AND THEY ALL WENT OUT AND BUILT EVERYTHING.
AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY FAILURES THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THAT AREA.
THIS ONE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DIDN'T GET BUILT, AND NOW THEY WANNA DEVELOP ON THIS PIECE.
BUT THE CITY HAS COME UP WITH A LOT OF REGULATIONS THAT PRECLUDED FROM BEING BUILT.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE ARE HERE, IS WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DONE CORRECTLY, UH, THAT WE DO OUR BEST TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECT THIS SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS.
BUT, UM, STAFF MAY WANNA ANSWER THIS.
UM, HAS ANYTHING IN THIS REPORT CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANNA RECOMMEND THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE? I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THIS CAME UP ALMOST IDENTICALLY IN 2014.
WENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, THEY SAID NO UNANIMOUSLY, AND THEN, AND IT CAME TO ZAP IN 2015, AND ZAP SAID NO UNANIMOUSLY.
AND HERE IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME STORY EXCEPT FOR THE SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, SUBDIVISION.
UM, BUT NOW YOU HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL STUDY.
DOES THIS CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S ENVIRONMENTAL RISK? UH, I, UH, I WASN'T PART OF STAFF IN 2014, SO, UH, BUT SINCE LAST MEETING, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT MEETING.
BUT, UH, SINCE LAST MEETING, UH, MY CONFIDENCE IN MR. CTON AND MR. TABI TO ENGINEER A, UH, STABLE STRUCTURE AS REMAINED CONSISTENT, I HAVE, THEY, THEY CAN ENGINEER SOMETHING THAT WILL STAY ON THIS SLOPE.
UH, WILL IT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT, UH, SEDIMENT MOVEMENT AND, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES DOWN INTO THE, UH, THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND IN THAT WILDLAND AREA? YES.
I, I THINK THAT IS, THAT HASN'T CHANGED AS WELL.
SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IS STILL THE SAME? YES.
AND IT'S EVEN KIND OF DESCRIBED THAT UNDERNEATH THERE WOULD BE NO, UM, VEGETATION AND SO UNDER THE BUILDING WOULD LIKELY TO HAVE, UM, I GUESS WATER, YOU KNOW, THAT SHOULD BE DESIGNED SO THAT WATER DOESN'T GO UNDER THE BUILDING, BUT WATER'S GOING SOMEWHERE AND IT, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE, UM, THOSE PROBLEMS. ONE THING IS, THERE'S DEFINITELY, IT SAYS THE GLOBAL STABILITY MODELING IS COMPLEX AND CANNOT ANTICIPATE ALL CONSTRUCTION AS BUILD CONDITIONS OR UPDATE DESIGNS RELATE TO THE SITE GRADING AND PREPARATION, EARTHWORK BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, RETAINING WALLS, AND FINAL GRADING.
AND IT IS THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT IF WE THE CITY APPROVE THIS DOES SOME RESPONSIBILITY, THEREFORE LIE WITH FOUR PROBLEMS, LIE WITH THE CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE A SLOPE FAILURE, 'CAUSE GLOBAL SLOPE STABILITY IS COMPLICATED AND SLOPE FAILURES HAPPEN.
THERE WAS SLOPE FAILURE IN NORTHWEST HILLS.
IT WAS ADMITTEDLY 1966, BUT STILL THERE HAVE, IT'S NOT OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY TO HAVE A SLOPE FAILURE.
AND IT'S EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED WITHIN THIS REPORT, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IF WE RE, IF WE APPROVE THIS, WOULD IT BE LIKE THE SHOAL CREEK AREA WHERE THEY'RE SUING THE CITY, THE OWNERS WHO'S, I MEAN, THERE'S NO LEGAL HERE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS AND THERE'S PROBLEMS, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE? UH, YEAH.
LES JOHNSON AGAIN, UM, THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD ARGUE IN WATERSHED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.
IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
UM, BUT OF COURSE THIS IS A MAY WOULD PERHAPS BE A MATTER SETTLED BY LAW LATER.
IT WOULD LIKELY END UP IN COURT IF SOMETHING HAPPENED.
WE POTENTIALLY, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE CONCERN.
WE APPROVE THINGS ALL THE TIME.
IF THERE'S AN ACCIDENT ON THE ROADWAYS AT OUR FAULT, UM, WE APPROVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT THE BUILDING COLLAPSES.
IS IT OUR FAULT? IT'S, IT'S NOT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IF SOMETHING GOES ON DURING CONSTRUCTION OR USE OF THE FACILITY, IT
[02:20:01]
NEVER HAS BEEN BEFORE.SO I WOULD LIKEN THIS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, THAT IF THEY DECIDE TO BUILD A ROADWAY AND THERE'S AN ACCIDENT ON THE ROADWAY, IT'S NOT THE CITY'S FAULT FOR SAYING YOU CAN BUILD A ROADWAY THERE.
IF THEY DECIDE THEY CAN BUILD A HOME HERE AND SOMETHING HAPPENS AND IT'S NOT RESPONSIBILITY, UM, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WATER WOULD NOT BE FLOWING UNDER THE BUILDING.
THAT THE WATER WOULD BE FLOWING AROUND THE BUILDING.
WE, WE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE LAST HEARING, THAT WE WOULD PUT GIAN BLOCKS UP WHERE NEEDED TO PROVIDE TO PROTECT AGAINST, UH, CONVEYANCE UNDER THE BUILDING, RIGHT.
UH, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEERS.
SO THERE'S NO VEGETATION GROWTH UNDER THE BUILDING BECAUSE ONE, THERE'S NO WATER, AND TWO, THERE'S NO SUNLIGHT.
UM, BUT THEY COULD PUT MATTING OR MATERIALS DOWN THERE THAT WOULD STABILIZE THE SOILS, UM, AND, AND PREVENT THOSE FROM GOING DOWN.
AND FINALLY, I DO WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THE CONCLUSION OR LIMITATIONS IS THERE'S NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE.
UM, MAYBE THAT'S YOU, UM, COVER YOUR ASS, UM, STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD PUT IN ANY REPORT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY HERE IN THIS REPORT.
THAT'S NOT AN UNCOMMON STATEMENT HEARING.
I THINK THE STANDARD LANGUAGE, WE PUT THOSE IN MOST EVERYTHING.
COULD I, COULD I ADD ONE THING? SURE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANY EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED THAT WE'RE GONNA CAUSE ALL THIS EROSION.
UM, THE CITY HAS A ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, UH, STANDARD FOR THE VELOCITY PER SECOND OF, UH, OF, OF WATER BEFORE IT'S EROSIVE.
AND I THINK THE STANDARD IS 3.0 FPS.
THE, THE CITY'S DRAINAGE ENGINEER CALCULATED THAT THE, THE VELOCITY PER SECOND OF DISCHARGE FROM THE DETENTION POND, UH, THAT GOES THROUGH THE WEIR WILL BE AT 0.46.
UH, A FACTOR OF EIGHT BELOW THE, THE STANDARD FOR THE BEGINNING OF EROSIVE EFFECTS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY LONG TERM EROSION BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 100% OF IT IS BEING CAPTURED OFF THE ROOF AND THE DRIVEWAY IN THE DETENTION POND.
I MEAN, FOR ME, IF THIS WERE A NEW GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS.
WE'D BE SAYING NO, A LONG TIME AGO.
THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE AND IT'S ONE HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DEVELOPED 40 YEARS AGO OR 45 YEARS AGO.
AND THIS IS JUST THE ONE REMAINING PIECE TO, TO BE BUILT.
UM, SO IF THIS WERE SOMETHING IN A NEW DEVELOPMENT, NEW SUBDIVISION, IT WOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD? NO, FOR ME, ONLY REASON I'M CONSIDERING THIS BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF A UNIQUE, UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT JUST FOR WHATEVER REASON, DIDN'T GET BUILT 45 YEARS AGO.
IS THERE ANY VERSION OF THIS SUBDIVISION? 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S RARE TO SEE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF NOT RECOMMEND SOMETHING.
I FEEL LIKE THERE'S ALWAYS LIKE A MIDDLE GROUND.
IS THERE ANY VERSION OF THIS SUBDIVISION THAT Y'ALL THINK YOU COULD SUPPORT? MIKE MCDOUGALL, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? UM, TYPICALLY WHEN AN APPLICANT ASKS FOR A VARIANCE, WE MEET WITH THE APPLICANT, MEET WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, THERE'S A, A NUMBER OF MEETINGS TO TRY TO EITHER FIND A WAY TO GET THE PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH CODE OR MINIMIZE THE ASK OF THE VARIANCE.
THAT IS IT MINIMIZED THE MAGNITUDE OR QUANTITY OF VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH MENTIONED IF THIS WERE A BRAND NEW, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
WE WOULD JUST SIMPLY SAY, APPLICANT, NO, YOU CAN'T BUILD THE HOUSE HERE, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD BUILD IT THERE WHERE IT'S FLATTER.
THIS PROPERTY IS HIMMED IN AND ALL SIGNS, THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
SO MY ANSWER IS, UH, THERE ISN'T REALLY A WAY TO GET THIS CODE COMPLIANT BECAUSE THE PRO THE, THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND THERE IS NOT A FOOTPRINT BIG ENOUGH OF SLOPES THAT ARE LESS THAN 15% TO BUILD ON.
SO THERE'S NO WAY TO DO IT IN A CODE COMPLIANT MANNER.
UM, BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRY TO SAY, OKAY, IF, IF IT WILL BE BUILT, LET'S, UH, CONSTRAIN THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, 3,900 SQUARE FEET.
UH, LET'S HAVE VARIANCE CONDITIONS INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, CONCERNS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, SO THERE ISN'T A WAY TO GET IT TO CODE COMPLIANCE, BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRY TO FIND A WAY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE STEEP SLOPES.
[02:25:01]
UM, THEY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MET FOUR OF THE FIVE FINDINGS THAT WE DIDN'T MEET ONE OF THE FIVE FINDINGS.THEY NEVER NOTIFIED US THAT THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
THERE WASN'T ANY SIT DOWN, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WORK THIS OUT.
UH, WE WERE BLINDSIDED, UH, BY THE REPORT IN STAFF'S DEFENSE.
THE, UH, THE PLANNING REVIEW DRAINAGE ENGINEER, UH, HADN'T COMPLETED HIS DRAINAGE REPORT, WHICH SAID THE EROSIVE EFFECT, UH, THE DISCHARGE IS 0.46 FPS.
THAT DIDN'T COME OUT UNTIL TWO DAYS AFTER THEY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE DIDN'T EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE WE COULD DO.
I GUESS MY CONCERN COMES FROM THERE ARE LIKE, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, THIS IS AN ABSTRACT AND THERE'S A REASON WHY IT'S NOT A LEGAL LINE.
MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, I DON'T KNOW, FOR INSTANCE COMES TO MIND EAST AUSTIN CAMP STREET, LIKE WHAT IF I WERE TO SELL, TO SELL A SMALL PORTION AND THEN SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE IF YOU DON'T AGREE THESE WAIVERS.
BUT I AGREE THAT IT'S A UNIQUE CASE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROPERTY MAY HAVE BEEN ON THIS CONFIGURATION FOR A WHILE, UM, FROM JUST BY LOOKING AT TCA.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT MAY BE LIKE THIS SINCE THE EIGHTIES, SO MM-HMM
MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR THE CITY, IF THAT'S OKAY? SURE.
SO IS THE CITY CONCERNED ABOUT EROSION DURING DEVELOPMENT, POST DEVELOPMENT, OR BOTH? UH, MIKE, EXCUSE, EXCUSE ME.
MIKE MCDOUGLE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? UH, BOTH.
UH, THE EROSION CONCERN IS, IS FOR A TYPICAL, A TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE EROSION CONCERN WOULD BE, UH, THE GREATEST DURING CONSTRUCTION, TYPICALLY DURING, UH, ON A FLAT SITE, UH, WITH A SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION, UH, THERE'D BE CLEARING OF VEGETATION AND ROUGH CUT, UH, GRADING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THE WHOLE SITE, YOU MIGHT HAVE LIKE HALF AN ACRE OF JUST RAW DIRT.
SO WHEN IT RAINS, THAT WHOLE HALF ACRE WOULD WASH AWAY, UH, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION'S DONE, THERE'D BE REVEGETATION.
UH, BUT THERE STILL WOULD BE LONG-TERM EROSION CONCERNS WITH THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF.
UH, BUT TYPICALLY IT'S, IT'S DURING CONSTRUCTION IS THE, IS THE TIME WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF EROSION.
AND THAT'S WHY, UH, WE'D WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH US.
EITHER WAY, WE COLLABORATED TO COME UP WITH A, A CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION TO BE CLEARED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
SO IT IS BOTH, BUT PRIMARILY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME CONSENSUS TO MINIMIZE THE, THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION DISTURBANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT? UH, THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
AND, AND, AND BOTH SIDES SEEM TO KIND OF, OF THEY CAN LIVE WITH IT, RIGHT? UM,
BUT, UH, I, I, I, I, I, I LIVE WITH THE, THE VOTES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DO,
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, I'M STILL, UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
UM, I, I THINK WE REALLY DON'T HAVE REASON TO OVERTURN THAT.
UM, THE BUYER DID NOT OWN THIS PROPERTY FOR 50 YEARS.
THE BUYER OWNED THIS, BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WHEN THESE REGULATIONS WERE IN EFFECT.
AND, UM, IT WASN'T PLATTED AT THAT TIME.
NOW, I, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO ADD THAT ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, UM, FOR US TO CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
UM, I THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE BUYER BEWARE, UM, SITUATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE A LOT? YOU'RE MAKING A SECOND? CORRECT.
[02:30:03]
OKAY.UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OPPOSED? UM, OKAY.
ONE OPPOSED, ONE ABSTENTION, FOUR OPPOSED? I THINK JUST TO BE CLEAN, WE SHOULD MAKE THE, SOMEONE SHOULD MAKE THE OPPOSITE MOTION.
CAN WE RESTATE WHO THE ABSTENTION WAS? THERE WE GO.
YEAH, BUT THIS TIME IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE YEAH.
HAVE A MOTION TO, I, I MOVE TO APPROVE.
THE VARIANCE, THE THREE VARIANCES WITH THE FIVE STAFF.
SO THE MOTION IS TO, GUYS, HOLD ON GUYS.
COMMISSIONER CORTEZ SAID HE'S ALSO ABSTAINING.
JUST, JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SO NOW THE MOTION IS TO, I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
THREE IN FAVOR WAS OH, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
SO IS THERE TWO? SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE STAFF RE THE, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD IT WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT THE STAFF HAS SAID IF WE APPROVE IT, WE APPROVE IT WITH THESE FIVE CONDITIONS.
SO THAT IS THE MOTION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I, I SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO, TO BUILD ON THE SLOPES.
GRANT THE VARIANCES WITH THE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS REQUESTED BE IMPOSED IF WE APPROVE THE MOTION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MM-HMM
UH, THANKS FOR RECOGNIZING ME.
I'VE BEEN HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
UM, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, UH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, CARE SMITH, YOU SAID IT BEST.
LIKE, IF THIS WAS ANYWHERE ELSE, IT WOULD BE A HARD NO.
AND SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS.
IT'S NOT LIKE A LEGACY FAMILY THING OR, OR LIKE, THEY DON'T LIVE NEXT DOOR.
THIS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY MAYBE MORE RECENTLY, BUT THEY'VE ASKED, OH, THIS BODY OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE KEEP TELLING THEM NO.
AND THE NEIGHBORS HAVE REMINDED US OF THAT, RIGHT? AND SO LIKE, WHY WOULD WE, WHY WOULD WE GO OVER STAFF OBJECTIONS TO GO AGAINST OUR OWN VOTES IN THE PAST? IT JUST FEELS REALLY, AND I CAN TELL YOU MY REASONING, HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT THIS LONG.
YEAH, I, I'LL TELL YOU MY REASONING, IT'S THE BEST THING.
UM, AS AN ENGINEER, I THINK THIS COULD BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE BE, BE A YOU, YOU COULD DO IT IN PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECT THE BUILDING.
HOMES ARE BUILT ON SLOPES LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE.
UM, IT'S AN UNUSUAL CASE IN AUSTIN, BUT THIS IS DONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
UM, WE HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION HERE IN AUSTIN THAT WE HAVE A STATE LEGISLATURE, UM, THAT MEETS EVERY OTHER YEAR.
UM, AND THEY LOVE CASES WHEN SOMETHING COMES UP LIKE THIS THAT'S OUT OF THE ORDINARY AND UNUSUAL AND SOMEONE GETS DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND RIGHT NOW THESE REGULATIONS WE HAVE IN PLACE WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY, RIGHT, WRONG OR INDIFFERENT.
UM, IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE SOMETHING WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE THINK IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY, WE THINK IT CAN BE DONE PROTECTIVELY.
WE'RE NOT TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS.
IT'S ONE LESS THING FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO COME IN AND AND NAIL THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON WHICH THEY LOVE TO DO.
UM, IF THIS WERE A NEW DEVELOPMENT AND A NEW GREENFIELD, WE WOULD ALL BE SAYING ABSOLUTELY NO, NO WAY.
BUT THIS IS SURROUNDED BY HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE EIGHTIES ON THIS EXACT SAME SLOPE.
UM, AND THERE'S BEEN NO ISSUES, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WE KNOW OF.
AND SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A WEIRD ONE IN THAT SENSE THAT IF IT HAD BEEN BUILT IN 1980 WITH ALL THE REST OF THE HOMES, IT WOULD BE SITTING THERE AND PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVING IN IT.
UM, JUST THE FACT THAT SOMEONE DECIDED NOT TO BUILD IT, DOES THAT MEAN THEIR RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING GOES AWAY? THAT'S UP TO EVERYBODY INDIVIDUALLY TO DETERMINE, BUT I THINK IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
[02:35:01]
THE CODES AND ORDINANCES AND SAY, WE CAN ACCEPT FOR THESE VARIANCES.AND THE EASY PROJECTS IN AUSTIN ARE DONE, ARE GONE.
EVERYTHING WE HAVE FROM NOW ON IS GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS.
UM, AND I PREFER TO FIND A WAY TO BUILD RATHER THAN FIND A WAY NOT TO BUILD IS MY PREFERENCE.
YEAH, AND I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO, UM, THAT SENTIMENT.
UM, I'D ALSO SAY, UH, WHY I FELT COMFORTABLE MAKING THE MOTION.
UM, I IT'S NOT THAT I AM INSENSITIVE TO, UM, STAFF'S CONCERNS HERE, AND I KNOW Y'ALL PUT A TON OF WORK INTO EVERY CASE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THAT AND FOR BEING DILIGENT HERE WITH, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING YOU DO.
UM, I JUST, AS THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED THEIR CASE AND HEARING FROM ENGINEERS IT, I AGREE WITH HANK THAT, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A WAY TO DO THIS AND RESPONSIBLY.
UM, AND, UH, IT'S, IT IS A STRANGE LOT.
UM, BUT AS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS SAID IN ONE OF THEIR LETTERS AGAINST THE CASE, THEY HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S ALSO BUILT ON PEERS.
SO THIS IS NOT EVEN, UH, UNUSUAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF.
I JUST WANT TO ADD MY THOUGHTS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I AM KIND OF CONFLICTED ON THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY I DON'T SEE THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT THE VARIANCE.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I THINK ABOUT THIS.
I ALSO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE CODE CHANGES THAT WE'RE STARTING TO IMPLEMENT WITH HOME AND SUBDIVISIONS AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ADUS AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF LOTS WITHIN THIS AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD POTENTIALLY ADD AN A DU AND YOU KNOW, OR, YOU KNOW, SUB DIVIDE INTO SMALLER LOTS AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE IS A, UH, LESS, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE LOT THAT GETS, YOU KNOW, CARVED OUT.
AND DOES THAT NECESSITATE THE SAME VARIANCES THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING HERE TODAY FOR, YOU KNOW, THOSE SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, RE SUBDIVISIONS AND OR ADUS, ARE WE GONNA PERMIT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY WHO COMES TO TO US AND ASKS FOR VARIANCE AND SAYS, HEY, I WANNA BUILD AN A DU ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25% IN MY BACKYARD, AND BY THE WAY, I'M GONNA DO IT ON, YOU KNOW, ON THESE PEERS.
AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE, DOES THAT, IS THAT THE PRECEDENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO, TO SET HERE? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT THIS CASE IS UNIQUE AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT, YOU KNOW, AS ENGINEERS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CREATE A SOLUTION THAT BALANCES, YOU KNOW, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO IT DOES IT SAFELY.
BUT THAT'S, YEAH, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IT'S MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SURROUND THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND DOES IT, DOES IT WARRANT THAT? UM, SO I'M, FOR THAT REASON, I'M GONNA REMAIN NEUTRAL ON IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UH, JUST ONE MORE THING.
HANK UH, COMMISSIONER FORRES, YOU ABSTAIN ON THE FIRST VOTE, BUT YOU SECONDED THIS MOTION.
I, I I THINK YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, I VALUE YOUR OPINION.
WELL, I'M COMPLETELY
UH, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE LIKE THE ABSTENTION LIKE ABSTAINING TO NOW SECONDING THIS MOTION, I JUST KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO, IF YOU DON'T MIND SHARING, JUST I KIND OF WANNA KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.
IN MY MIND, I'M CONFLICTED AS WELL, UM, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I VOTED SOMETHING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I MEAN, IT, IT HAS BEEN OWNED BY SOMEONE IN THAT CONFIGURATION SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
SO IT DOES FEEL WRONG TO NOT LET IT BE DEVELOPED.
IT'S NOT LIKE A CRAZY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SOMEONE'S PAYING TAXES FOR IT.
SO IT FEELS, IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THE VARIANCE.
UM, SO I SECOND IT, SEE WHAT THE, ENTERTAIN THE DISCUSSION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL CALL THE VOTE.
WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, ALL THOSE OPPOSED ONE, TWO AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
SO THREE YESES, TWO NOS, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
I THINK WE HAD THREE ABSTENTIONS, RIGHT? WELL, I'M SORRY, THERE WERE FOUR.
FOUR IN SUPPORT, TWO, RIGHT, FOUR IN SUPPORT, TWO NOS, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
[02:40:01]
SO THE MOTION FAILS AND, AND YEAH, THERE'S THREE ON TV.UM, THE FOUR IN SUPPORT WERE THE THREE OF US AND, AND TAYLOR MAJOR.
UM, AND THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS FOR THIS.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY IT FROM STAFF.
UH, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, REQUIRES A ONE YEAR WAIT.
SO THE APPLICANT COULD, COULD REQUEST THAT COME BACK IN A YEAR.
IT GOES TO COUNSEL FOR THE FINAL DECISION.
THERE'S NO APPEAL PROCESS IN CODE.
SO YEAH, THIS WOULD BE THE, SO DO YOU STILL HAVE QUORUM? YEAH, WITH ONLY SIX VOTING, WE NEED TO HAVE SIX FOR A QUORUM.
AND THE, THE WAY IT WORKS IS WE HAVE TO HAVE SIX FOR A QUORUM.
WE HAVE EIGHT AND WE HAVE TO HAVE SIX YES VOTES, EVEN IF WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE.
SO IF WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE, IT'S GOTTA BE UNANIMOUS.
SO, UH, THE MAJORITY VOTE IS ALWAYS SIX PEOPLE.
THE BYLAWS ARE WRITTEN KIND OF STRANGELY.
IT'S NOT A QUORUM OF THOSE PRESENT.
IT'S A QUORUM OF THE ENTIRE GROUP IS HOW THE VOTES WORKS.
WE HAVE A FEW OTHER ITEMS TO GO THROUGH REAL QUICKLY, UM, DISCUSS AN
[7. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to the Austin City Council regarding the division of responsibilities between the Zoning and Platting Commission and the Planning Commission. (Sponsored by Commissioner Osta Lugo and Chair Smith)]
ACTION TO APPROVE OR RECOMMENDATION.THIS IS ITEM SEVEN TO THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE DIVISION RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THAT? UH, YES.
UH, OUR WORKING GROUP MET LAST NIGHT AND THE WORKING GROUP IS FINALLY IN AGREEMENT ON THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF LABOR.
AND WE WERE READY TO CIRCULATE THE PROPOSAL TO THE REST OF ZAP.
MY QUESTION, I WAS CONCERNED THAT LIKE SENDING AN EMAIL TO ALL OF ZAP MIGHT CREATE SOME OPEN MEETING ISSUES.
SO, SO MY QUESTION IS JUST WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO CIRCULATE THE PROPOSAL? AND IT'S REALLY A DRAFT.
WHAT'S DRAFT? SEND IT TO THE LANDLORD, USUALLY LIAISON AND SHE WILL DISTRIBUTE IT TO ALL OF US.
SO WE'LL SEE THAT AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING.
[8. Discussion and action to conduct officer elections for the Chair, Vice Chair, Parliamentarian, and Secretary.]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO CONDUCT OFFICER ELECTIONS FOR THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, PARLIAMENTARY, AND SECRETARY CHAIR.I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOMINATIONS, SO IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE NOMINATION PROCESS ON THE S YOU'RE WELCOME TO.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? I THINK HANK HAS BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB AS CHAIR AND
IF HE ACCEPTS WHAT LIKE TO RENOMINATE AS CHAIR.
MAYBE WE COULD DO THE WHOLE SLATE.
ARE YOU WILLING TO STAY? YEAH, NO, I, I'M FINE KEEPING THE WHOLE SLATE UNLESS SOMEONE CURRENTLY IN ONE OF THESE BUSINESS.
DOES ANYBODY JUST WANNA RETURN? ANYBODY REALLY WANNA COME UP HERE AND DO WHAT I DO OR WHAT ANYBODY ELSE DOES?
[ PERMANENT COMMITTEE UPDATES]
ANY UPDATE? NOTHING.MATT, ARE YOU SURE? OH YEAH, WE'RE MEETING ON THE 15TH.
UM, IT'S ABOUT, WHAT'S IT ABOUT
WE'RE WE'RE MEETING ON THE 15TH.
I'M, IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? TYPICALLY IT'S ON OUR SAME WEEK, A WEEK FROM WEDNESDAY.
SO, WE'LL TYPICALLY IT'S ON THE LIKE A DAY AFTER THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE NOT MEETING TOMORROW.
CONFERENCE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE DID HAVE A MEETING LAST WEEK.
WE HEARD A PRESENTATION ON KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND WE DID ASK THEM TO BE SURE AND BRIEF US ON THAT, BUT THEY REALLY DIDN'T GET INTO MUCH OF THE DETAILS.
ONE OF THE DETAILS THAT I THOUGHT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING IS THE PLAN TO REMAP.
BASICALLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS GO AWAY OR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS WILL BE PERHAPS DUPLICATED.
BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS GO AWAY, THAT'S GONNA HAVE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE WHOLE CITY.
SO THE DIVISION OF LABOR THAT DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN KIND OF GOES AWAY, MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE UM, UPDATE TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG
[02:45:01]
THAT ALL TAKES AND THAT'S JUST THE PROCESS IS JUST BEGINNING SMALL AREA PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.UH, WE WILL MEET AGAIN NEXT MONTH AND 12 IS REDUNDANT.
[WORKING GROUP UPDATE ]
LAND USE COMMISSION S WORK GROUP FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
UM, I THINK MAYBE HAVING HEARD REPEATEDLY THIS COMPLAINT THAT THERE'S NOT A TIA THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT CHANGING THE CRITERIA THAT TRIGGERS A TIA.UM, BECAUSE WE'RE HEARING THIS REPEATEDLY AND IT, IT'S NOT WITHOUT REASON.
UM, THAT CONCERNS ABOUT THE, THE TRAFFIC AND DANGER AND, AND MAYBE MORE THAN JUST TIA, BUT THE WILDFIRE UM, EVACUATION SHOULD BE PART OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO A SAFETY ISSUE.
SO I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT A RECOMMENDATION.
MAYBE WE COULD AT THE NEXT MEETING SEE IF THERE'S INTEREST IN PEOPLE WANTING TO BE IN A WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS.
I WOULD WANT SOME FEEDBACK FROM STAFF ON.
BUT HOW MUCH OF THAT IS REALLY RELATED TO ZONING VERSUS RELATED TO SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION? WELL WE'VE MADE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT YES, ROUNDABOUT NOT ROUND.
YEAH, I GUESS UM, DEAD ENDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE GENERALLY ON SUBDIVISION CASES WITH THE WEED THAT WE USED TO HAVE.
WE USED TO HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE THEM ANYMORE.
WE DON'T HAVE, BUT VERY, MAYBE WE COULD THINK OF THAT.
AND I DID RECALL WHAT THE CODES AND ORDINANCES MEANING IS ABOUT THE REVISION TO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
I THINK YOU WOULD BE PERHAPS BENEFICIAL TO GET A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF TO HELP US UNDERSTAND YEAH.
HOW THINGS WORK NOW, UH, TO START THIS PROCESS OFF.
WHAT TRIGGERS IT AND WHAT ARE THINGS AND TO WHAT EXTENT WE SHOULD EVEN BE CONSIDERING THOSE THINGS IN ZONING CASES.
I THINK THAT'S NOT OFTEN CLEAR.
I BELIEVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE PROJECTS WILL MAKE ALL KINDS OF ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE FLAWS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND I DON'T, AND IT'S HARD TO SAY IS THIS SOMEONE WHO JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE PROJECT AND THEY'RE TRYING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT THERE, WHICH I BELIEVE HAS HAPPENED.
OR IS IT SOMETHING QUITE LEGITIMATE? AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND IN TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION, BUT I DON'T KNOW
WE DON'T KNOW IF LIKE THE TIA WORKSHEET IS PART OF THE CHECKLIST BECAUSE THEY WANNA SEE IF IT TRIGGERS 2000 TRIPS AND IT CAN BE A YES NO, MAYBE THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT.
OR IF THERE'S MORE, LIKE IF, DO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IT IN ZONING IF IT'S LESS THAN 2000 TRIPS? YEAH, IF YOU CAN JUST HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM TRANSPORTATION ABOUT THE TIA PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO ZONING OR THE UM, THE DECISION OF WHEN A TIA IS TRIGGERED ESPECIALLY.
THE THE, THE WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE THERE'S NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLANS, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS.
LEVELS AND WHAT TRIGGERS EACH OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BRIEFING? YES.
AND CAN I RECEIVE TWO CO-SPONSORS ON THAT?
HOW MANY WOULD YOU I'M GONNA GO WITH CHAIR SMITH AND COMMISSIONER FOUTS.
ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU INCREASE DENSITY, YOU'RE GONNA INCREASE TRAFFIC.
IT'S JUST THE FACT
UM, SO I UNFORTUNATELY ADDING DENSITY INCREASES TRAFFIC.
BUT I, I, I DO THINK IT'S SOMETIMES HARD WHEN WE GO INTO THESE DECISIONS BECAUSE KNOWING THAT IT IS HELPFUL TO KNOW, WELL WHAT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE NEED FOR MORE DENSITY AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO UPGRADE OUR STREETSCAPE AND OUR ROADS TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN A, IN A WAY THAT'S SAFE AND BENEFICIAL FOR NEIGHBORHOODS WHILE STILL ACCOMMODATING THIS? AND IF OUR DECISION IS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS THE RIGHT ZONING IN THE RIGHT LOCATION, TRAFFIC DOES IMPACT THAT DECISION.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S TRANSPORTATION.
ANYTHING ELSE? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, DID ANYONE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN, IN LOOKING AT, UH, EXPLICITLY CODIFYING, UH, LIKE, UH, UH, LAND USE OR ZONING FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAGING AND CHARGING ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES OVERNIGHT? I, I THINK THAT CAME UP WITH ITEM FOUR WHERE STAFF IS LIKE, WELL THERE THERE'S KIND OF NOTHING REALLY EXPLICITLY IN CODE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN MAYBE ADDING SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE
[02:50:01]
CONCRETE FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE TO CODE? I DON'T KNOW THE STAFF.I THOUGHT THE DESCRIPTION FOR AUTO RENTAL, IF YOU READ THE ZONING FIT THAT IT, WE FIT PRETTY WELL.
THE TAXI DISPATCH IS KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE FITTING IT INTO, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
'CAUSE IT, IT'S AS CLOSE TO A TAXI DISPATCH AS ANYTHING ELSE.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, WE'RE ADJOURN.