[00:00:05]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
SO I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.TODAY IS TUESDAY, MAY 5TH AT AC MAYO.
UM, WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM 1001.
I'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL CHAIR.
PRESENT PARLIAMENTARY ALEJANDRO FLORES.
LUIS OLUGO? I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM.
I HAVEN'T SEEN CHRISTIAN AND TAYLOR MAJOR.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 PEOPLE.
UH, JUST A REMINDER, IT DOES TAKE SIX PEOPLE TO APPROVE ANYTHING.
SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF EIGHT.
UM, NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION GENERAL TO SPEAK OF.
[Consent Agenda]
AGENDA.ITEM ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 21ST.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? OKAY, SO THAT'LL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE C 14 20 25 DASH 0 1 12 LAGOS AUSTIN WEST FM 9 73 MIXED USE, UH, WILDHORSE CREEK COMMERCIAL LP.
IT IS A REZONING CASE MY RR TO GRMU AND IT IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM THREE IS REVIEW ZONE IN CASE C 14 20 25 DASH 0 6 4.
CIRCLE C TRACK ONE 10 LISTED AS DISTRICT FIVE, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY DISTRICT EIGHT.
UH, IS 1101 OH AND A TWO SOUTH PEC EXPRESSWAY.
UM, THE OWNER CIRCLE C LAND CORP.
THE REQUEST IS FROM C-S-M-U-C-O TO C-S-M-U-C-O AND IT'S A REQUEST TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
IT'S RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND SET UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM FOUR IS A TOTAL PLAT VACATION CA 8 89 0 0 4 2 0 AES BAC, THE ROAD SUBDIVISION TWO MILE ETJ AT 1 0 1 0 9 FM EIGHT 12 NORTH FORK DRY CREEK EAST.
IT IS A REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ROAD SUBDIVISION, TOTAL PLAT VACATION.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THAT IS ALL.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEM ONE, THE UM, MINUTES FROM APRIL 21ST, ITEM TWO AND INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENTS BY THE APPLICANT.
ITEM THREE A DISCUSSION AND ITEM FOUR IS A TOTAL PLA VACATION ON CONSENT.
ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? YES.
ON ITEM TWO WE HAVE WHAT IS UP FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I JUST SIGNED, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THIS EVENING IN CASE YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT OR POSTPONEMENT.
AND YOU'RE OKAY IF IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[3. Rezoning: C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 5 ]
THREE, EXCUSE ME.REZONING CASE C 14 20 25 DASH 0 6 4.
CIRCLE C TRACK ONE 10 IN DISTRICT EIGHT.
ADDRESS IS 1 1 0, 1 0 AND A HALF SOUTH MOPAC EXPRESSWAY.
UH, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM C-S-M-U-C-O TO C-S-M-U-C-O TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
AGAIN, IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF SO WE'LL THERE AN APPLICATION FROM STAFF OR GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH AUSTIN PLANNING.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 25 0 0 6 4.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 11 0 1 0 AND A HALF SOUTH MOPAC EXPRESSWAY SOUTHBOUND.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-S-M-U-C-O AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-S-M-U-C-O TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF ZONING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED AND IS DESCRIBED AS B AND CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 67 ACRES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH MOPAC EXPRESSWAY.
JUST NORTH OF SOUTH STATE HIGHWAY 45, PLACING IT NEAR A KEY INTERSECTION OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE WEST, ARE WEST OF THE SITE.
TO THE NORTHWEST IS AN ISD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY IN A CHARTER SCHOOL ARE TO THE SOUTH WITH TRACK B'S.
CURRENT ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, MIXED USE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY C-S-M-U-C-O, COMBINING
[00:05:01]
DISTRICT ZONING.THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ESTABLISHES PROHIBITED USES SQUARE FOOTAGE RESTRICTIONS, ACCESS RESTRICTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ESTABLISHED FOR TRACT B.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE SEVEN PROHIBITED USES THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND REMOVE THE PROVISION PROHIBITING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO DOG GREEN AVENUE.
ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY APPLICABLE TO THIS TRACT WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO D GREEN AVENUE WOULD BE LIMITED TO A GATED INGRESS, EGRESS POINT SERVING THE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL USE AND DAW GREEN AVENUE WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS AN ACCESS POINT TO OR FROM SOUTH MOPAC EXPRESSWAY.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING C-S-M-U-C-O TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOPAC AND STATE HIGHWAY 45 2 MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS MAKES THE AREA APPROPRIATE FOR SUPPORTING HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF ENCOURAGING MORE INTENSIVE USES AND INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE, UM, STAFF HERE FROM TRANSPORTATION AS WELL.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS THE APPLICANT AMANDA SWO.
AMANDA IS RECEIVING SIX MINUTES OF DONATE TIME.
IS KATE KKI HERE AND THEN IS KELLY GRUMP.
I REALLY LIKED IT WHEN YOU COULD STAND UP TO PRESENT.
UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS AMANDA SWARNER GROUP HERE WITH YOU THIS EVENING ON UM, BEHALF OF STRATUS, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE CASE BEFORE YOU, AS STAFF MENTIONED, IS UH, KNOWN AS CIRCLE C TRACT ONE 10.
THE ZONING PORTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT CONSISTS OF 67 ACRES JUST TO THE, UM, WEST OF MOPAC THAT IS PART OF A LARGER TRACT ONE 10 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED IN 2002.
THIS PIECE IS PART OF WHAT WAS TRACT B.
UH, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL, UM, CUT UP PIECES THAT WERE PUT INTO PLACE.
THIS WAS ALL DONE ORIGINALLY IN, UM, 2002.
THE REASON, UM, THAT TRACT B DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENTIRETY OF TRACT B IS THAT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SOUTH BAY WAS DEDICATED.
UM, AND YOU CANNOT ZONE ACROSS A RIGHT OF WAY.
SO THAT IS WHY JUST THE NORTHERN PORTION OF UM, T TRACK B WAS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST.
PUTTING THAT IN CONTEXT, UM, THIS IS THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT WAS TRACKED.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION ALONG LA CROSS, UH, WAS PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED.
THERE WAS LAND AND IMPERVIOUS COVER, ALSO DEDICATED FOR A FIRE STATION AND FOR LCRA, UM, THE FIRE STATION'S ALONG ESCARPMENT AND LCRA IS ALONG 45.
UM, THAT LEAVES A TOTAL OF 190 REMAINING ACRES OF TRACK 10 THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
OUR PROPOSED PROJECT IS A THREE PHRASE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING OF UP TO A THOUSAND RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THAT WILL LIKELY BE A PREDOMINANTLY MULTIFAMILY, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A VERY LARGE INTEREST IN SENIOR HOUSING ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THAT IS ALSO WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THOSE 1000 UNITS.
THERE IS ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL ON THE PROPERTY.
WE SUBMITTED THIS CASE ORIGINALLY IN MAY OF 2005 A YEAR AGO.
HARD TO BELIEVE
WITH THAT, UM, THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE A CS BASED DISTRICT AND MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED TODAY.
WE DID CONTINUE WITH THE REZONING TO CLEAN THAT UP AND MAKE IT, UM, CONSISTENT AS WELL AS ADDRESS SOME OF THE ACCESS, UM, COMPONENTS THAT I'LL CONT TALK ABOUT AS I CONTINUE THROUGH MY PRESENTATION.
THERE ARE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ON TRACK ONE 10.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT 'CAUSE THEY ALL, UM, PLAY AN INTERESTING PIECE IN HOW THIS PROPERTY IS USED.
THERE'S THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH THE CIRCLE C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THE REZONING REQUEST IS WHAT IS HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT MAKING A CHANGE TO THE BASE DISTRICT.
UM, SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A CS M MU CO UM, BASE DISTRICT.
WE ARE SIMPLY PROPOSING A CHANGE TO THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING.
THE FIRST BEING THE CHANGE TO THE USES TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY AS WELL AS A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE SECOND COMPONENT IS CHANGING THE, REMOVING THE PROHIBITION OF ACCESS ALONG DOLL GREEN AND ALL OTHER CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.
I'M GONNA RUN THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICK, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY'RE IMPORTANT.
UH, ONE OF THE BIG CONDITIONS THAT I GET ASKED ABOUT A LOT IS THE, THE SETBACKS THAT WERE INCORPORATED IN THE 2002 ORDINANCE IF THOSE ARE REMAINING IN PLACE.
SO THERE WAS A 200 FOOT AND THESE ARE ALL PER ORDINANCE, A 200 FOOT, UH, PROHIBITION OF PARKING FROM ANY SURFACE PARKED
[00:10:01]
LOT.THAT IS WHERE THE 200 FOOT BUFFER COMES INTO PLAY.
THAT IS WHERE TRACK B ALSO COMES INTO PLAY.
SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SETBACK THAT STAYS IN PLACE WITH NO SURFACE PARKING ALLOWED.
THE SECOND ONE WAS THAT, UM, NO BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AT ALL CAN BE WITHIN 250 FEET OF A PLOTTED LOT THAT'S SHOWN IN PURPLE, UH, ON THIS LOT HERE.
THE THIRD PIECE WAS THAT AFTER THAT 250 FOOT BUFFER, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 45 FEET UP TO 375 FEET.
AND THEN THE HEIGHT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY WAS AT 60 FEET.
ALL OF THOSE STAY IN PLACE TODAY.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT EXISTING COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS ARE 75 FEET.
THIS IS 500% LARGER OF A SETBACK THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER EXISTING, UM, RULES.
THE SECOND PIECE THAT WE ARE, UM, PROPOSING TO AMEND IS THE VEHICULAR PROHIBITION OF ACCESS TO DOLL GREEN.
I'LL TALK ABOUT MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
THE SECOND GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS PUT ON THE PROPERTY IN 2002.
TRACK ONE 10, UH, AT THE INCEPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ALLOWED JUST OVER 26 ACRES.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS TRACT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER HAS BEEN REALLOCATED.
TODAY THERE IS 16.38 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED ON 190 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS JUST UNDER 9% THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED.
WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT.
UH, IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOCATED THE USES THAT COULD BE, UH, INCORPORATED ON TRACK ONE 10 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED AT 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL IN 750,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.
UM, TODAY WHAT REMAINS IS 10,000 AND MINUS A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE.
UM, SQUARE FOOT, UH, SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 651,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE.
THE REMAINDER HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO OTHER TRACKS.
THIS IS, UH, WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT IS THE ONLY THINGS WE ARE REQUESTING TO CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE USES TO REMOVE, UM, NOT TO ADD A THOUSAND, IT WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE 651,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND ADD UP TO A THOUSAND RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
ALSO TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH BAY, WHICH I'LL TALK MORE ABOUT.
WE DID SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT.
IT IS RUNNING CONCURRENT WITH THIS REQUEST, THE ZONING REQUEST AND WILL ALL BE ON THE SAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
THERE'S ALSO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH THE CIRCLE C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT PROHIBITED ACCESS TO DAH GREEN W THE NEXT THING I'LL TALK ABOUT IS TRAFFIC, BUT WE ENDED UP WORKING WITH THE HOA AND THERE IS AN EXECUTED AMENDMENT TO THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT ALLOWS FOR IT EXPRESSLY PERMITS.
THE VERY LAST SIGN, THE LAST WORD ON THIS EXPRESSLY PERMITS ACCESS TO DOLL GREEN AND REMOVES UM, ACCESS TO SOUTH BAY.
THAT BEING SAID, I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, I THINK MY TIME JUST CHANGED BY THE WAY AND DROPPED EXPONENTIALLY.
I WAS AT SIX THAT IT JUST DROPPED THREE.
I'M GONNA KEEP GOING, BUT JUST SO I DON'T GET, SO THE BUZZER DOESN'T GO OFF.
UM, THERE ARE, I WANNA ADDRESS A FEW OF THE, THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HEARD.
SO WITH THIS ZONING WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO DO A ZONING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS.
AND WITH THAT ZONING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT THE ACCESS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING WITH THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ALL ACCESS COMING OFF OF MOPAC, WAS NOT GONNA BE PERMITTED AND WE WERE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SECONDARY POINT OF ACCESS.
ACCESS IS ADDRESSED IN THE ALL THREE OF THOSE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, WHICH IS WHY I TALK BOTTOM.
TWO OF 'EM REQUIRE OR TWO OF 'EM PROHIBIT ACCESS TO DAH GREEN.
ONE OF 'EM REQUIRES THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH BAY.
AT THAT POINT, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS, WE NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS THE CITY ABOUT IT.
THE REQUIREMENT WOULD'VE BEEN TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH BAY, WHICH IS SHOWN IN YELLOW, WHICH WOULD WOULD'VE BEEN A TRUE, UM, THOROUGHFARE AND CONNECTION.
IT STILL WOULD'VE PROVIDED THE SAME ACCESS BACK INTO THE, INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT JUST WOULD'VE DONE IT, UM, FROM THE EXTENSION OF SOUTH BAY.
WHAT WE INSTEAD ARE PROPOSING IS A DRIVEWAY THAT WILL PROVIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WILL BE OFF OF DOLL GREEN.
THE SOUTH BAY EXTENSION WAS ORIGINALLY REQUIRED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SINCE THEN, THE CIRCLE CHOA HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO GET THAT REMOVED FROM THE A SMP AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE SO.
UM, SOUTH BAY EXTENSION IS NO LONGER ON A SMP.
THEY HAVE THIS IS A LETTER, UM, CONFIRMING THAT THEIR AFFIRMATION OF OPPOSITION TO THE EXTENSION OF SOUTH BAY IN THE PREFERENCE FOR THE ACCESS POINT TO DOLL GREEN TRANSPORTATION.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, THIS PROPERTY DOES ALLOW 651,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THAT IS FROM A TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE,
[00:15:01]
IF YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE AM AND THE PM PEAK TRIPS, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT IT IS A REDUCTION BY 50%.I AVERAGE THOSE IN THE MIDDLE FOR 50% REDUCTION IN AM AND PM TRAFFIC AS IT WILL INGRESS AND EGRESS THIS PROPERTY.
THE NEXT THING I'LL JUST TOUCH REAL BRIEFLY, IT'S A QUESTION THAT WE GET QUITE OFTEN.
AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE 16.3 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED THAT IS LESS THAN 9% OF THE ENTIRE 190, UH, ACRES OF TRACT ONE 10 IS UNDEVELOPED.
THIS PROJECT WILL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SOS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
IT WILL COMPLY WITH AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING AND THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES RE UH, REQUESTED WITH THIS, UH, WITH THIS REQUEST.
UH, I WILL ALSO MENTION THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TRAILS AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS AS IT SITS TODAY, PRIVATE PROPERTY.
UM, IF THE A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS PROPOSED, THERE WOULD BE A TRAIL NETWORK THAT IS INCLUDED WITH THE, UH, WITH, I HATE TO, WE'RE ABOUT THREE MINUTES THAT CAME OFF THE CLOCK.
AND SO THE REASON WHY WE ADJUSTED TO NINE MINUTES, 'CAUSE THE SECOND PERSON WHO SIGNED UP DID NOT SIGN UP TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO AMANDA SWORE MELISSA AND LIN DID.
SO JUST CORRECT AND ADD THREE THREE, WE THREE MORE MINUTES BACK ON.
I WON'T, I'LL TRY NOT TO TAKE IT ALL.
I JUST, I I DO THINK THERE'S A COUPLE POINTS.
UM, UH, THE NEXT PIECES IS HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS IT, UM, PERTAINS TO THIS PART OF TOWN.
AS YOU LOOK AT THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, I THINK THE TOP IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND THAT'S CREATING NEW AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES FOR ALL AUSTINITES AND ALL PARTS OF AUSTIN.
UM, THIS PART OF AUSTIN HAS VERY LIMITED HOUSING TYPES.
THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT HAS DISTRICT EIGHT AS A 0%.
UM, NOW THIS IS FROM 2003, BUT 0% OF ITS ONE YEAR GOAL AND IT ONLY 14% OF ITS OVERALL GOAL FOR PROVIDING A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA.
THE LAST LINE ON THE TOP PARAGRAPH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT.
UM, WHILE DISTRICT EIGHT DID SEE GROWTH IN, UH, IN HOUSING, IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT WAS BECAUSE IT FINALLY GOT SOME, THE, THE NUMBER WAS ZERO, WHICH IS WHY YOU GET 150% INCREASE.
UM, BUT EVEN THOUGH IT CON IT CONTAINS THE MEAN FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS OVERALL.
UM, WE DID WORK EXPONENTIALLY WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
WE STARTED INITIAL OUTREACH IN FALL OF 2024.
THIS ITEM WE PRESENTED INITIALLY TO THE HOA BOARD AT AN OPEN FORUM IN APRIL.
UM, SO OVER A YEAR AGO, I STOP.
I NEED EVERYTHING, THE AUDIENCE TO KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT QUORUM, WE CAN ESCORT YOU OUTTA THE ROOM.
WHAT'S HAPPEN, CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY.
UH, AGAIN, INITIAL OUTREACH BEGAN IN APRIL OF 2024 WITH A FULL, UM, AN OPEN PRESENTATION AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE UH, ASSOCIATION MEETING ON APRIL 30TH, 2025.
UH, WE CONTINUED TO WORK THROUGH WITH THE BOARD.
RECEIVED THE INITIAL LETTER OF, UM, SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGE IN ACCESS IN DECEMBER.
UH, THIS ITEM WAS ON BOARD AGENDAS FROM JUNE, 2024 ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL NOW, WHICH IS MAY OF 2026.
UH, WE ARE AT THE POINT AGAIN.
THIS HAS CASE HAS BEEN IN REVIEW FOR OVER A YEAR.
WE ARE HERE, UM, THIS EVENING PRESENTING TO YOU THIS CASE WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL IN JULY.
AND, UM, WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT THAT WE WILL, UM, PUT HOUSING HERE.
AGAIN, THIS IS A CLEANUP ON THE USE.
UH, THE USE IS ALLOWED NOW TODAY UNDER SB EIGHT 40 AND ADDRESSES THE ACCESS LOCATION.
I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE DO HAVE OUR APPLICANT TEAM, UM, IF ANYTHING COMES UP.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE SWITCHING OVER TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS LISA LYONS.
SHE'LL RECEIVE IN NINE MINUTES.
WE WENT AHEAD AND CORRECTED EVERYTHING ON THE BACK END.
YOU CAN JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME.
UH, I AM REPRESENTING A CONTINGENCY OF NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE IN CIRCLE C.
WE ARE NOT REPRESENTING THE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, I'M A 23 YEAR HOMEOWNER IN CIRCLE CI SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT'S SENSIBLE, SUSTAINABLE, AND SAFE.
I BELIEVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE'RE FACING.
CIRCLE C IS A VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD, FULL OF GREEN SPACES, GREAT SCHOOLS, CAREFULLY PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE AND WONDERFUL PEOPLE.
IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RAISE MY DAUGHTERS AND I HOPE TO GROW OLD THERE WITH MY HUSBAND, MAYBE ON THE SENIOR.
SO THAT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT.
I WILL SAY THAT, UM, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HOLDS A SECRET.
IT SITS ATOP, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, ONE OF THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE STATE.
[00:20:01]
AQUIFER AND ITS CAVE SYSTEM PROVIDE 2.5 MILLION TEXANS WITH WATER.UH, CIRCLE C WAS BUILT OUT OF ONE OF AUSTIN'S ORIGINAL SUSTAINABLY PLANNED COMMUNITIES, WHICH WAS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND A PROMISE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO EMBODIES HARD LESSONS FROM LEGAL, BITTER LEGAL BATTLES THAT THE FRACTURED, THAT FRACTURED AUSTIN THREE DECADES AGO.
IT GREW FROM A WATERSHED MOMENT THAT SHAPED AUSTIN'S PATH FORWARD TO SUPPORT, GROWTH AND HARMONY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT TO CREATE WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A CROWN JEWEL OF TEXAS.
AND THAT'S AUSTIN CIRCLE C IS THE PRODUCT OF LEGALLY BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
A MULTI-PARTY, MULTI-AGENCY EFFORT WITH PASSIONATE ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES, WHO ULTIMATELY CAME TOGETHER TO CREATE A BLUEPRINT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTIN.
THAT AGREEMENT SPAWNED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CIRCLE C, WHICH SHE'S ALREADY REFERENCED, TO STREAMLINE THE PLANNING WHEN IN WHILE ENSURING ADHERENCE TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
COVENANTS WERE CREATED FOR EACH OF THE TRACKS OF LAND WITH BINDING PROMISES GOVERNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE TRACK ONE 10 B SPACE IS A GREEN SPACE ON YOUR RIGHT AS YOU DRIVE SOUTH ON MOPAC.
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE KNOWN IT, IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE WILDFLOWER CENTER.
IT'S A LOVELY GREEN BUFFER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IDEALLY IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL IT WERE NEVER DEVELOPED, BUT THAT'S NOT THE, THE, UH, THE HAND OF CARDS WE'VE BEEN DEALT RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT HAS TO BE SAFE AND SENSIBLE.
SO THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL PROJECTS OUR COMMUNITY HAS SEEN IN YEARS.
YET STRATUS, DESPITE WHAT THEY SAID, THE CITY AND OUR OWN HOA HAVE NOT WIDELY COMMUNICATED THE PROPOSED REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO THE RESIDENTS.
AND I WANT YOU TO HEAR THAT TRACK ONE 10 SITS YARDS FROM KIKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
KIKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS ACCESSED VIA DAH GREEN AVENUE AND ITS YARDS FROM HOMES ALONG THE TO OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOMES ALONG THE COR THE DAH GREEN CORRIDOR.
WHEN NEGOTIATING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY AND STRATUS RECOGNIZED DAH GREEN'S LIMITATIONS.
IN 2002 PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND CITY ORDINANCES WERE PUT IN PLACE SPECIFICALLY TO SHIELD THIS NARROW RESIDENTIAL STREET FROM THE IMPACTS OF TRACK ONE TEN'S DEVELOPMENT.
OTHER SPEAKERS WILL DEMONSTRATE JUST HOW HEAVILY TRAVELED THIS SMALL STREET ALREADY IS.
THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS UNDERSTOOD IN 2002 THAT DAH GREEN COULD NOT HANDLE THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM TRACK ONE 10.
AND THEY MEMORIALIZE THIS THROUGH THE CITY ORDINANCE 0 2 0 8 0 1 DASH 31, WHICH I BELIEVE IS POSSIBLY BEING AMENDED RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PROCESS.
SO PLEASE KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING TODAY IS BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION FROM THE RESIDENTS.
UM, SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? WELL, AS REFERENCED BEFORE IN APRIL MAY TIMEFRAME OF 2025, STRATUS PRESENTED A DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL TO THE CIRCLE CHOA FOR A MULTI-USE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AND IN THAT PROPOSAL IT STATED THAT THE DAH GREEN ACCESS PROHIBITION WOULD BE MAINTAINED ONLY WITH AN EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY ADDED.
A YEAR PASSED WITH NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS.
NOW THAT PRESENTATION WARRANTED A SPOT ON OUR HOA WEBSITE.
ALL THE CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN NO UPDATES POSTED, NO EMAILS SENT TO US.
THEY WERE PERHAPS ON THE MINUTES AS AN AGENDA STATUS, UH, STRATUS PROPERTY UPDATE.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AND THAT DOES NOT GARNER THE TE THE ATTENTION OF THE RESIDENTS.
UM, SO WE WERE IN THE DARK UP UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN THE ZONING HEARING NOTICES STARTED ARRIVING.
WE OPPOSE THIS REZONING AS PREMATURE AS IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR DETERMINATION GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT UNRESOLVED LEGAL ISSUES THAT SHOULD FIRST BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SPECIFICALLY, THE REZONING SHOULD NOT PROCEED WITHOUT THE EXECUTION OF THAT AMENDMENT.
A REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF RELATED CITY ORDINANCES, WHICH I THINK IS HAPPENING CONTEMPORANEOUSLY A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT.
NOW THIS IS AN ENTITY THAT WAS SPECIFIED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED SET WITH EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS ON THAT PARCEL, HAS THEY, HAVE THEY BEEN CONSULTED AND IF SO, WHAT'S THEIR RECOMMENDATION? THESE MATTERS ARE OF PRIVATE CONTRACT LAW.
I STRESS THIS BECAUSE WE ALSO CONTEND THAT ANY RUSH TO REZONE UNDER SB EIGHT 40 IS MISPLACED.
LEGAL SETTLEMENTS AND PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ENFORCEABLE INDEPENDENTLY OF SB EIGHT 40 BECAUSE THEY'RE PRIVATE LEGAL CONTRACT MATTERS.
SB EIGHT 40 LIMITS MUNICIPAL REGULATION, NOT PRIVATE CONTRACTS.
SO WE SAY THAT WE ARE EXEMPT BY VIRTUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
[00:25:01]
BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS AMENDED.WHAT THAT MEANS, THE IMPLICATIONS ARE CITY COUNCIL VOTES WITHOUT KNOWING OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS.
THAT MEANS PUBLIC COMMENT IS BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN THE AMENDMENT.
NO CERTAINTY ON INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSIONS.
AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FIRST WOULD MEAN ALL PARTIES KNOW WHAT'S COMMITTED WITH REGARD TO INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING AND CONDITIONS REZONING.
THE REZONING VOTE AND PUBLIC EVALUATION WOULD BE BASED ON A FULL PICTURE.
WE URGE THE COMMISSION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE AMENDMENT IS EXECUTED AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
OTHERWISE YOU ARE ONLY VOTING ON HALF THE QUESTION OR HALF THE EQUATION.
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES THAT WE HAVE, WE OPPOSE A THOUSAND UNIT DENSITY.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT ABSORB THAT AND BY OUR CALCULATIONS AND IS CONFIRMED BY THE SPEAKER BEFORE ME, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT DENSITY.
ALL LOCATIONS REMAINING UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO THEY'RE HAVING TO BORROW AND DO SOME CONVERSION AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MATH, BUT MAYBE THAT WILL BECOME CLEAR TO US.
WE ALSO OPPOSE TALL BUILDINGS, UM, 'CAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION WILL DISTURB THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CAVE SYSTEMS AND WE KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT FROM OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE AREA.
OUR QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION, WHAT ARE THE STATUS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND WHY IS REZONING PROCEEDING BEFORE IT'S FINALIZED? HOW IS THE DENSITY ALLOCATION SHORTFALL BEING ADDRESSED FOR THE PROPOSED 1000 UNITS? HAS THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT BEEN ENGAGED AND WHAT IS THEIR RECOMMENDATION? HAS THERE BEEN FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 1000 PLUS NEW RESIDENTS? WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC PLAN FOR DOREEN AND LA CROSSE? TWO NARROW RESIDENTIAL STREETS WITH NO ROOM TO EXPAND.
I WILL STRESS THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THEM TO WIDEN THE ROADS TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC.
AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN STATED THAT PEOPLE WON'T USE DOLL GREEN AS AN EGRESS, BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE IF YOU EXIT DOLL GREEN AND YOU HEAD UP LACROSSE, YOU THEN HAVE OPTIONS TO GO NORTH OR SOUTH.
IF YOU HEAD OUT THE FRONT OF THE DE DEVELOPMENT, YOU ONLY GET TO GO SOUTH AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DO A U-TURN.
PEOPLE ARE GONNA USE DOLL GREEN.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ORDINANCE PROTECTING DOLL GREEN CHILDREN WALK TO SCHOOL FAMILIES ACCESS COMMUNITY MAILBOX.
DAILY LIFE DEPENDS ON THAT PROTECTION YARDS FROM THE PROPOSED ACCESS POINT ON A 25 MILE PER HOUR RESIDENTIAL STREET.
WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSIONS IS THE CITY RECEIVING IN EXCHANGE FOR AMENDING A 22-YEAR-OLD SETTLEMENT REMOVING THE SOUTH BAY EXTENSION OBLIGATION AND ALLOWING A MORE LUCRATIVE RESIDENTIAL USE? WILL THE FULL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW BEFORE THE REZONING VOTE? SO COMMISSIONERS, WHAT I'VE OUTLINED IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
THESE CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY DENSITY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER ARE SHARED BY LONGTIME RESIDENTS.
BUSINESS OWNERS AND FAMILIES ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO PROTECT WHAT MAKES THIS COMMUNITY WORTH LIVING IN.
I NOW YIELD MY TO MY NEIGHBORS WHO WILL SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC CONCRETE HARMS THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BRING IN THEIR WORDS.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REID EVANS.
REID, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND AGAIN, IF YOU CAN SPELL YOUR NAME BEFORE YOU START AWAY FROM, DOESN'T TAKE TIME AWAY FROM YOU.
I'M A CIRCLE C HOMEOWNER AND UNLIKE MY HO A'S DIMINUTIVE STANCE, I OPPOSE THIS REZONING BECAUSE DEEP IN THE BONES OF THIS REQUEST SOMETHING'S WAY, WAY OFF.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO UNDO THE OUTCOME OF A 2002 DEAL.
THIS CITY ALREADY MADE A DEAL, FOUGHT IN THE OPEN, DOCUMENTED, REMEMBERED, COVERED BY THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE WITH HEADLINES LIKE IS STRATUS BUILDING, BARGAINING OR BACKING THE CITY INTO A CORNER.
IT WAS EVEN CAPTURED IN A MOVIE STARRING WILLIE NELSON CALLED THE UNFORESEEN.
THIS WASN'T JUST COVERAGE, IT HARDENED INTO POLICY FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
TRACK ONE 10 HAS NOT BEEN ZONED FOR WHAT'S PROPOSED NOW.
NOT 1000 APARTMENT UNITS NOT FOR THAT LEVEL.
CONSTANT, UH, CONSTANT PRESSURE ON ROAD SCHOOL SERVICES AND NOT OVER THE BARTON SPRINGS RECHARGE ZONE.
THE 2002 RESTRAINT WASN'T ACCIDENTAL.
IT WAS THE POINT AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE POINT WAS BECAUSE IN 2002, STRATUS STOOD HERE AND ARGUED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING RIGHT NOW.
THEIR LAWYER, STEVE RENER SAID THAT TRACK ONE 10 SHOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL.
CALLING IT AND I QUOTE THE NATURAL PLACE END QUOTE FOR THAT USE AND JUSTIFIED IT BY SAYING, AND I QUOTE, EACH LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS FILED OF RECORD 18 YEARS AGO.
THAT ARGUMENT SHAPED THE SETTLEMENT AND CAME WITH $15 MILLION IN CREDITS TIED TO A SIMPLE TRADE,
[00:30:01]
KEEP THE ZONING LIMIT THE IMPACT.NOW STRATUS WANTS TO KEEP $15 MILLION AND CHANGE THE ZONING ANYWAYS.
YOU DON'T GET TO CASH THE CHECK AND REWRITE THE TERMS. IN 2002, STRATUS ASKED YOU TO HONOR THE PAST FROM 1983.
TODAY THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO FLUSH IT DOWN THE TOILET.
THIS REQUESTS DISHONOR HISTORY AND SHIFTS THE RISK ENTIRELY ONTO THE COMMUNITY, PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE REZONE FIRST CONSEQUENCES LATER.
THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, SCHOOL CAPACITY ANALYSIS, UTILITY ANALYSIS OR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY IN A SENSITIVE RECHARGE ZONE WITH KNOWN CASE HUNDREDS OF YARDS NEARBY.
EVERY CITY HAS A MOMENT WHERE THE QUESTION ISN'T WHAT'S WRITTEN BUT WHETHER IT STILL HOLDS WHEN IT'S INCONVENIENT.
THIS IS THAT MOMENT SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 IS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW UNFETTERED DEVELOPMENT.
I BELIEVE YOUR ROLE IS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS, NOT GREASE THE WHEELS FOR A DEVELOPER.
SO PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS.
DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING REQUIRE TRAFFIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND CONSIDER IT FUTURE FOR THIS LAND THAT PROTECTS IT PERMANENTLY.
AS AUSTINITES FAMOUS WEIRDO LESLIE COCHRAN ONCE SAID, IT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU, IT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS UP TO YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KRISTEN EVANS WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
KRISTEN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE ME ON VIDEO, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD 'CAUSE I KNOW TIME'S CLICKING AWAY.
I'M KRISTIN EVANS AND I LIVE IN CIRCLE C NEAR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE ON THE GROUND FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE THERE.
THE STRATUS PROJECT AND THE MOPAC EXPANSION ARE BEING REVIEWED SEPARATELY, BUT THEY DON'T SHOW UP SEPARATELY IN REAL LIFE.
THEY HIT THE SAME ROADS AND THE SAME WATERSHED AT THE SAME TIME.
THIS SITE DRAINS INTO SLAUGHTER CREEK AND IT SITS IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE AND RIGHT NEAR SOUTH BAY LANE WHERE THIS TRACK CONNECTS IS ALREADY AN AREA WHERE WATER MOVES AND COLLECTS DURING HEAVY RAINS.
SO IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD ADD MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER RIGHT AT THE SOURCE OF THAT DRAINAGE AND ASSUME IT WON'T MAKE THOSE CONDITIONS WORSE.
EVEN IF EACH PROJECT MEETS REQUIREMENTS ON PAPER, THERE ISN'T A CLEAR COMBINED LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ADD MORE PAVEMENT FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT AND MORE PAVEMENT FROM MOPAC, ESPECIALLY DURING THE KIND OF INTENSE STORMS WE GET HERE.
AND IN TEXAS, FLOODING IS NOT THEORETICAL.
WATER MOVES FAST AND WHEN RUNOFF INCREASES IT SHOWS UP DOWNSTREAM FIRST IN CREEKS CROSSINGS AND GREEN BELTS AND THEN IT BECOMES A REAL SAFETY ISSUE.
THIS LAND IN THE RECHARGE ZONE IS UNIQUELY SENSITIVE.
SO IF WE BUILD THE BAR SHOULD BE HIGHER OR WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PRESERVING IT ALTOGETHER.
RESEARCH FROM THE Q CHARITABLE TRUSTS SHOW AUSTIN'S HOUSING SUCCESS CAME FROM BUILDING NEAR JOBS AND TRANSIT PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN COMMUTE LESS AND AVOID TRAFFIC.
THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM ADDING HOUSING AND LOCATIONS THAT DEPEND ON HIGHWAY ACCESS AND ALREADY STRAINED CORRIDORS.
THAT'S ABOUT REDUCING HOW MUCH PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE, NOT ADDING MORE CARS ONTO ROADS THAT ARE ALREADY CONGESTED.
AND THAT MATTERS IN THE CONTEXT OF SANIBEL EIGHT 40, WHICH IS INTENDED TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY BY MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
BUT EVEN WITH THAT GOAL, WHERE WE BUILD STILL MATTERS IF WE'RE PLACING HOUSING IN LOCATIONS THAT INCREASE DEPENDENCE ON ALREADY CONGESTED CORRIDORS WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENT, WE'RE CREATING NEW PROBLEMS WHILE TRYING TO SOLVE ANOTHER.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT ADDING HOUSING, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE WITH THE RIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE AND FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE COMBINED IMPACT.
DO NOT APPROVE THIS CHANGE FOR THE STRATUS PROJECT AND AT A MINIMUM REQUIRE A REAL COMBINED ANALYSIS OF THE STRATUS PROJECT AND THE MOPAC EXPANSION, ESPECIALLY ON DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK BECAUSE ONCE THIS IS BUILT WE DON'T GET A DO OVER.
[00:35:04]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.FARRIS B FAIRS IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES DONATED TIME FROM JASON BAKER.
IS JASON BAKER HERE? OKAY, FARRIS, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.
WELL I CAN DO IF YOU JUST START WITH SPEAKING YOUR NAME.
UH, MY NAME IS FERRIS BA UH, I AM RETIRED EXECUTIVE AND FORMER MARINE CORPS OFFICER.
UH, I LIVED IN CIRCLE C FOR 25 YEARS.
I'M SURE MY RIDE HERE WAS AS PLEASANT AS YOURS.
RIGHT? I SAW YOU DRIVING HERE, WHICH CONFIRMED THE PREVIOUS POINT ABOUT HOW MUCH OF A HELL IS DRIVING A MOPAC MOPAC USED TO BE A PARKING LOT, NOW IS A CONGESTED PARKING LOT.
SO PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THAT ADDING A THOUSAND CAR WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT.
NOW WHAT I HAVE WITH THIS PROJECT WITH STRATUS IS TRUST ISSUES.
THE REASON I HAVE TRUST ISSUE AND I'LL GIVE EXAMPLE SO I'M NOT UH, BEING AGGRESSIVE AGAINST THEM.
THESE GUYS HAVE A GOAL THEY WANNA LIQUIDATE THEIR STOCK IS 29 TODAY.
THEY HAVE A GOAL TO PUMP IT UP TO 39.
IT'S NOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, IT'S NOT ABOUT ANYTHING.
IT'S ABOUT PUMPING THE STOCK PRICE UP.
NOW WHERE YOU START SEEING THESE TRUST ISSUES, NUMBER ONE, THE TRAFFIC STUFF THEY, THEY QUOTE IS NOT REAL TRAFFIC STUDY.
IT'S BASICALLY A FORMULA FROM A BOOK FROM ENGINEER BASED ABOUT THE MODEL I RUN ENGINEERING TEAMS, WE HAVE A MODELS, THE MODELS ARE ALWAYS OFF AND WRONG.
THESE GUYS, INSTEAD OF DOING REAL TRAFFIC STUDY, THEY USE THE MODEL COMES WITH NICE NUMBER AND THEY SIT HERE AND SAY, LOOK, THE NUMBERS LOOK GREAT.
ACCURACY TRUST ISSUE NUMBER TWO, TRUST ISSUE IS THE BUSINESS OF AFFORDABILITY.
ON ONE HAND THEY'RE SAYING CIRCLE C, DON'T WORRY, THIS IS GONNA BE VERY HIGHEND APARTMENT.
THEY COME HERE, OH WE ARE HERE TO HELP AFFORDABILITY.
WHICH ONE IS IT? YOU WANNA HELP AFFORDABILITY OR YOU WANNA UH, HAVE HIGH END STUFF.
NOW THEY CLAIM AGAIN, MAYBE WE'LL GIVE 10% AFFORDABILITY.
I DON'T THINK 1800 IS AFFORDABLE.
I PERSONALLY WELCOME AFFORDABLE, REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE IN CIRCLE C AT THE RIGHT NUMBERS TO HELP THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
BUT THAT WILL NOT JACK STRATA STOCK UP AND THOSE PEOPLE SITTING THERE WILL BE BUMMED ABOUT THE STOCK PRICE.
I THINK THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE TO IT.
MY FRIENDS HAVE MADE VERY GOOD SCIENTIFIC CASES ABOUT THE ISSUE AND I APPRECIATE YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MIRA ILLA.
MITA IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATING TIME FROM JEFF ROUNDTREE.
SO AS ME WE'LL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES ANYWAY.
UM, I JUST WANNA START WITH I'M A HOMEOWNER.
DO YOU TELL US YOUR NAME, I'M SORRY.
A UM, SO I DON'T REPRESENT THE HOA, I'M A RESIDENT OF CIRCLE C, BUT I DO WANT TO UM, READ FROM THE LETTER DATED MAY 3RD FROM THE CIRCLE CHOA TO MAYOR WATSON AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT STATES QUOTE CIRCLE CHOA DOES NOT FORMALLY SUPPORT CONDITIONALLY OR OTHERWISE OR OPPOSE THE STRATUS APPLICATION.
I'M A 20 YEAR CIRCLE C RESIDENT LIVING WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF D GREEN AND GALSWORTHY.
MY CHILDREN WALK TO KYRA ELEMENTARY.
SO I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW CONGESTED AND SENSITIVE THE DO GREEN CORRIDOR ALREADY IS, ESPECIALLY DURING SCHOOL DROP OFF PICKUP AND CERTAIN EVENTS, SCHOOL EVENTS.
I URGE YOU TO MAINTAIN THE PROHIBITION ON VEHICULAR ACCESS TO ON TO DO GREEN AVENUE AND REJECT ANY EFFORT TO REMOVE IT.
DAH GREEN IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET AND A KEY WALKING ROUTE FOR KY RAIL TREE.
IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC, OPENING IT TO TRACK ONE 10 WOULD INTRODUCE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC, INCREASED SPEEDING AND A HIGHER RISK OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN.
THE SCHOOL IS ONLY STEPS AWAY AND A SCHOOL SAFETY ZONE.
A SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE COMPLETED BEFORE ANY CHANGES MOVE FORWARD.
ALSO, I DIDN'T SEE THE WORD SAFETY IN THEIR APPLICATION ANYWHERE.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL, ABOUT 1000 MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITH AROUND 5,000 DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS, NOT INCLUDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES.
SO THAT NUMBER PROBABLY WILL GO UP.
THIS LEVEL OF INCREASE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE SAFETY AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT BEYOND SAFETY, IT'S ABOUT TRUST AND CITY COMMITMENTS.
THIS IS NOT JUST A ZONING CHANGE, IT SEEKS TO AMEND THE 2002 CIRCLE C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE CITY ENACTED AS LAW, THE LEGAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED ACCESS TO DRE
[00:40:01]
TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS AND KEEP TRAFFIC ON HIGHER CAPACITY ROADS, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD THE SOUTHWAY BUILT.THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME IN 2002 DETERMINED AGREED TO THIS.
SO, AND THAT WAS FOR A REASON.
THERE WASN'T, UM, THE ACCESS TO DOLL GREEN WAS RESTRICTED FOR A REASON.
SO WHY IS THE DOLL GREEN PROTECTION BEING RECONSIDERED WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT CONNECTIONS TO MOPAC AND CONNECTING TO OTHER MAJOR ARTERIES LIKE SOUTH BAY, UM, ARE INSUFFICIENT.
SO I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE 2002 AGREEMENT AND MAINTAIN THE PROHIBITION ON DL GREEN TO PROTECT THE SAFETY INTEGRITY OF THIS CORRIDOR.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TAMMY BOWMAN.
TAMMY IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM ANNA BAKER.
ANNA ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, TAMMY, WE'RE RECEIVING SIX MINUTES.
YOU CAN SPEAK YOUR NAME BEFORE YOU START.
COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND FOR ALL THE IMPORTANT WORK YOU DO FOR THE ZONING AND PLATING COMMISSION.
I'M A 24 YEAR RESIDENT HOMEOWNER IN CIRCLE C, LIVING ON ALANI LANE.
JUST STEPS FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DELAY VOTING ON THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO CIRCLE C.
I AM NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT UNILATERALLY, HOWEVER, THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE AND COULD RESEMBLE SPOT ZONING.
THE SCALE OF ROUGHLY 1000 APARTMENT UNITS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND COULD LEAD TO INCREASED NOISE LIGHTING AND PARKING SPILLOVER AS WELL AS TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS WALKING DAILY TO AND FROM KIKER ELEMENTARY.
I'M SO GRATEFUL THAT MY KIDS ARE AT BOWIE HIGH SCHOOL NOW BECAUSE I WOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH IF THEY HAD TO WALK TO KIKER WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
PLEASE KNOW THAT THE CIRCLE CHOA IS NOT REPRESENTING US HOMEOWNERS.
THE CIRCLE CHOA IS NOT REPRESENTING US HOMEOWNERS.
WE NEVER SAW THE AUGUST SET 27TH LETTER UNTIL TONIGHT.
WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE PUT IT UP THERE, THEY DID SEND A LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DATED DECEMBER 10TH INDICATING THAT THEY HAD HEARD SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FROM HOMEOWNERS.
BUT DATE I HAVE ONLY HEARD ONE CIRCLE C RESIDENT THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE CHANGES.
AT LAST WEEK'S HOA MEETING, WE ASKED THE BOARD TO RESCIND THEIR LETTER AND INSTEAD THEY SENT A LETTER DATED MAY 3RD THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED INDICATING THEY NEITHER SUPPORTED NOR OPPOSE THE STRATUS APPLICATION FOR CHANGES.
THESE LETTERS DO NOT REFLECT FULL OR ORGANIZED RESIDENT INPUT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, MANY OF US ARE HERE IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY TONIGHT TO OPPOSE THE CHANGES FURTHER.
IN 36 HOURS, WE GATHERED 200 SIGNATURES ON A PETITION THAT I SENT TO YOU ALL ON SUNDAY EVENING, OF WHICH I DO HAVE THE ORIGINAL HERE WITH ME.
ALL 200 OF THESE RESIDENTS OPPOSE THE CHANGES.
THESE 200 RESIDENTS COME FROM ALL OVER CIRCLE C, NOT JUST THOSE OF US WITHIN 200 FEET, 500 FEET, OR IN THE SECTIONS OF CIRCLE C CLOSEST TO THE TRACT.
IF WE HAD MORE TIME, WE COULD HAVE COLLECTED HUNDREDS MORE SIGNATURES AND WE ARE WILLING TO DO SO.
THERE IS A SETTLEMENT FROM A LAWSUIT IN 2002 THAT GOVERNS DEVELOPMENT IN CIRCLE C INCLUDING THIS TRACT.
THAT AGREEMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO AVOID A TON OF EXTRA RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WOULD DRIVE GROWTH OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
HAS THE COMMISSION FULLY REVIEWED THE 2002 AGREEMENT? I BELIEVE THAT ZONING CHANGES WOULD VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT AND THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED PRIOR TO ANY ZONING CHANGES BEING GRANTED.
THERE ARE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROTECTIONS THAT REQUIRE VERIFICATION.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOURTH AMENDMENT IS PROCEEDING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ZONING WHICH LIMITS MEANINGFUL REVIEW.
FINALLY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE WOULD HAVE.
BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, THE EDWARDS AQUIFER WILL BE AFFECTED SINCE THE TRACT IS IN THE RECHARGE ZONE POLLUTANTS THAT GET INTO THE AQUIFER, REACH BARTON SPRINGS WITHIN DAYS.
BARTON SPRINGS IS A CROWN JEWEL OF AUSTIN.
WE DO NOT NEED MORE POLLUTION REACHING IT.
THERE ARE CAVES AND SINKHOLE NEARBY WHICH ALSO ALLOW POLLUTANTS TO TRAVEL QUICKLY TO THE AQUIFER.
IN BARTON SPRINGS, THERE IS AN SOS ORDINANCE THAT RELATES TO IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
HAS CITY STAFF ANALYZED THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND DONE THE MATH? DOES IT ALIGN WITH THE SOS AGREEMENT? WE NEED MORE DETAILS.
THE SITE LIES WITHIN THE SLAUGHTER CREEK WATERSHED WHERE DROUGHT PRESSURES AND DRAINAGE SENSITIVITY ALREADY EXIST.
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SCALE WOULD INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER RUNOFF AND WASTEWATER DEMAND RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT EROSION FLOODING AND WHETHER AUSTIN SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE CAN HANDLE THE ADDED
[00:45:01]
LOAD.THE STAFF REPORT DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DEDICATED SEWER OR DRAINAGE CAPACITY STUDIES.
WILL THERE BE WATER QUALITY CONCERNS BECAUSE OF DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE? WE NEED MORE DETAILS.
THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REQUIRES AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY.
HAS IT BEEN DONE? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
IN CONCLUSION, I AM NOT ANTI-GROWTH.
I DO THINK A DECISION SHOULD WAIT UNTIL SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS ARE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED.
I AM REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT OF THE ZONING DECISION UNTIL COMPLETE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ARE PROVIDED, INCLUDING A FULL SCHOOL SAFETY ZONE STUDY FOR KIKER ELEMENTARY AND CONFIRMATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHED CAPACITY.
I ALSO DO WANNA SAY BEFORE I CLOSE THAT MY NEIGHBOR MATT OWENS, HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK VIRTUALLY AND HAS NOT YET RECEIVED THOSE INSTRUCTIONS TO LOG IN.
I'M ALSO UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A NEIGHBOR BY THE NAME OF RUSTY IS HAVING TROUBLE LOGGING IN.
THAT BOTHERS ME THAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO LOG IN AND SPEAK AND THEY CAN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO DO THAT.
DO WE HAVE PEOPLE QUEUED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE? YES.
THE ONLINE SYSTEM IS WORKING CORRECTLY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DENISE WADE.
DENISE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES FROM LAURA ODIN.
DENISE, YOU'LL RECEIVE SIX MINUTES.
AND IF YOU CAN START WITH TELLING US YOUR NAME FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO VOICE MY CONCERNS TONIGHT.
MY NAME IS DENISE WADE AND MY FAMILY HAS OWNED OUR HOME IN CIRCLE C SINCE 2009.
WE CHOSE OUR PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD VERY INTENTIONALLY LIKE SO MANY PARENTS THAT WE WANTED A PLACE WHERE OUR CHILDREN COULD GROW UP SAFELY, WHERE WE COULD WALK THEM TO SCHOOL, WHERE WE COULD BE PRESENT IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES.
WE BUILT A LIFE HERE THAT FEELS CONNECTED, SAFE AND DEEPLY MEANINGFUL.
THESE ARE THE MOMENTS THAT SHAPE A CHILDHOOD AND A FAMILY.
THIS KIND OF LIFE DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN BY CHANCE.
IT WAS PROTECTED BY THOUGHTFUL PLANNING.
SINCE 2002, THERE HAS BEEN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IN PLACE THAT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED VEHICULAR ACCESS TO DOG GREEN AVENUE.
IT SHAPED THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S A BIG PART OF WHY WE CHOSE THIS HOME, THIS STREET, AND THIS EXACT LOCATION.
TODAY THAT PROMISE IS BEING THREATENED.
THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD REMOVE THAT RESTRICTION AND TURN DOG GREEN INTO ONE OF ONLY TWO ACCESS POINTS FOR WHAT WILL NOW INCLUDE A VERY LARGE SCALE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ALONG WITH THE AGREED UPON COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THIS IS NOT A SMALL ADJUSTMENT.
THIS IT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE CONDITIONS UNDER FAMILIES UNDER WHICH FAMILIES LIKE MINE MADE ONE OF THE BIG DIS BIGGEST DECISIONS AT THEIR LIVES.
AND FOR US, THIS IS AN ABSTRACT.
OUR HOME SITS AT THE, THE INTERSECTION OF GALSWORTHY AND DAH GREEN GALSWORTHY WOULD LITERALLY BE OPEN TO PEOPLE JUST GOING DOWN GALSWORTHY AND THEY WILL, THIS CHANGE WOULD PLACE US AT GROUND ZERO WHERE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET BECOMES A PRIMARY ACCESS ROUTE FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
BRINGING THAT DRAMATIC INCREASE IN TRAFFIC RIGHT TO OUR FRONT DOOR DURING COMMUTE TIMES.
THIS AREA, WHICH ALREADY HAS A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC, WILL BECOME A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN WHERE, UM, THIS IS NOT THEORETICAL BUT REAL, ESPECIALLY FOR KIKER CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO LIVE ALONG THESE STREETS AND WALK, BIKE, STROLL AND SCOOTER ALONG THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THIS ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WON'T STAY CONTAINED.
IT WILL SPILL THROUGH GORHAM GLEN ONTO LA CROSS AND INTO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AS PEOPLE TRY TO BYPASS MOPAC, WHICH IS ALREADY OVERWHELMED.
WHY DO I THINK THIS IS INEVITABLE? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS ALREADY.
THESE ACCESS POINTS AND COMMUTE ROUTES STRUGGLE WITH THE TRAVEL VOLUME WE HAVE TODAY, MUCH LESS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
I INVITE ANY OF YOU, AND I MEAN THIS SINCERELY, TO COME SIT WITH ME ON MY FRONT PORCH DURING PEAK HOURS DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR OR TAKE A RIDE WITH ME.
I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT THE TRAFFIC IS LIKE WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET TO WORK AND CANNOT GET OUT OF THE, UM, THERE'S LIKE TWO OR THREE WAYS TO GET OUT OF CIRCLE C.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT TRAFFIC PATTERNS, IT'S ABOUT SAFETY, IT'S ABOUT TRUST.
IT'S ABOUT THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENT WE ARE CREATING FOR OUR CHILDREN.
IN CLOSING, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE 2002 CONTRACT.
IT'S ABOUT ADDING 1000 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WORTH
[00:50:01]
OF TRAFFIC FLOWING IN AND OUT OF AN AREA THAT WAS NEVER PLANNED TO, UH, UH, TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.AND AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES RIGHT AT THE CENTER OF THIS IMPACT, THIS DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A SAFE PLAN FOR THOSE LIVING THAT IN THIS COMMUNITY OR THE ONE THAT WOULD BE BUILT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANDREW LEPER.
ANDREW, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HELLO, CAN WE START TELLING US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SURE.
UM, I LIVE ON GALSWORTHY LANE IN CIRCLE C.
UM, DO I CHANGE THIS? THERE WE GO.
SO I WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF THE CHAOS THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THIS ROAD SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT.
WE'VE ALL DONE KID DROP OFFS AND ALL THAT STUFF, BUT IT REALLY IS ALREADY VERY BUSY.
SO, UM, I LIVE ON GALSWORTHY LANE.
JUST STEPS FROM WHERE THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONNECT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, MY WIFE AND I MOVED HERE IN 2010 FOR ONE REASON THAT WAS THE SCHOOLS.
UM, AND SO EVERY MORNING WE WATCH HUNDREDS OF KIDS WALK TO KIKER ELEMENTARY.
AND IT'S NOT JUST ROUTINE, IT'S IT'S PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ADD UP TO 3000 ADDITIONAL CARS ONTO ALREADY CONGESTED NARROW ROADS.
ROADS WHERE CHILDREN WALK, WHERE FAMILIES GATHER AND WHERE KIDS DON'T ALWAYS LOOK BOTH WAYS.
UM, AN EXIT AT DOLL GREEN AND GALSWORTHY RIGHT BY THE SCHOOL PUTS THESE CHILDREN DIRECTLY IN HARM'S WAY.
AND THIS ISN'T HYPOTHETICAL, WE'VE ALREADY HAD A PEDESTRIAN HIT, UM, AND KILLED IN OUR COMMUNITY BY A DISTRACTED DRIVER.
SO THIS HITS REALLY CLOSE TO HOME FOR A LOT OF US.
UM, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO GAMBLE WITH OUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY SO A DEVELOPER CAN MAXIMIZE DENSITY AND THAT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE PLANNING.
WHAT'S MORE CONCERNING IS THAT MANY NEIGHBORS WERE UNAWARE THIS WAS EVEN HAPPENING.
WHEN WE DID BEGIN TALKING TO PEOPLE, THE RESPONSE WAS OVERWHELMING.
HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS OPPOSED.
NOT ONE PERSON WE SP SPOKE TO SUPPORTED THIS SCALE OR THIS ZONING CHANGE.
WE TRIED TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
WE GATHERED SIGNATURES WITHIN 200 FEET ONLY TO BE TOLD THEY DIDN'T COUNT DUE TO A TECHNICAL BUFFER.
I WILL SAY THE CITY WAS VERY HELPFUL ON TRYING TO GET THAT, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY, UM, RESTRICTIONS AND THE VERY PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WERE EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDED FROM THIS.
THIS DOESN'T FEEL THOUGHTFUL, IT FEELS RUSHED AND THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN SHOULD NEVER BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS REZONING.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M AMY RUPP AND I SERVED ON THE 2002 STAKEHOLDERS GROUP THAT CREATED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN STRATUS AND THE CITY.
DURING THIS MEETING, EACH TRACT WAS PAINSTAKINGLY EVALUATED AND GIVEN DEVELOPMENT UNITS, NOT ZONING BANKS OF UNITS.
THEY WERE ALSO NUMEROUS SAFEGUARDS PLACED TO ENSURE THE PERMANENCE OF THE SETTLEMENT.
ANY CHANGES TO THE SETTLEMENT NEEDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP AND THE HOA OVER THE YEARS STRATUS AND ITS AIRS HAVE ALREADY EXHAUSTED THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEY WERE ALLOCATED.
THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMBINED BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S NOT PREJUDICED AGAINST MULTIFAMILY, IT'S A TOTAL NUMBER BY MY COUNT.
THEY HAVE BUILT AT MINIMUM 1300 UNITS IN THE SECOND AGREE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT.
SO TO BUILD WHAT THEY, I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE GONNA GET THE MORE DEVELOPMENT UNITS.
SB EIGHT 40 REQUIRES THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING BE GRANTED TO AREAS THAT HAVE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONING, BUT IT IS SILENT ON OVERTURNING LEGAL AGREEMENTS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND OTHER ORDINANCES.
OTHER TEXAS CITIES HAVE ADOPTED DEFENSIVE ORDINANCES TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THEIR HOME RULE ZONING AUTHORITY.
IRVING, ARLINGTON, PLANO AND FRISCO HAVE ALL ADOPTED ORDINANCES.
ONE OF THEM REQUIRES THAT EACH APARTMENT BUILDING BE EIGHT STORIES TALL WITH WORKOUT AND YOGA STU STUDIOS ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
SO THEY'LL BE PRICEY AND ATTRACT THE RIGHT KINDS OF RESIDENTS.
AND THAT DOESN'T CONTRAVE IN SB EIGHT 40.
UM, AUSTIN DOES WANNA ENCOURAGE MULTIFAMILY HOME, BUT THIS IS IN THE NOT DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
THIS IS IN THE INTENSELY, UH, SENSITIVE, UH, RIGHT OVER THE AQUIFER ZONE.
UM, AND IT'S IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE 2002 LEGAL AGREEMENT.
UH, IT'S A LEGAL AGREEMENT THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE LAND IN THAT AREA FROM GOING, HEY, NOW I WANT THE SAME DEAL AND I WANNA BUILD MORE MULTIFAMILY.
SO IF YOU GO AHEAD, DO THIS AND REMEMBER YOU DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE WHAT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[00:55:01]
WILL PREVENT IF IT'S NOT ALL OVERTURNED WILL PREVENT SB EIGHT 40 FROM BEING APPLICABLE.SO YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CHANGE.
UH, THE PRIMARY I EGRESS IS TO TURN RIGHT INTO THE MOPAC MAIN LANES.
SERIOUSLY, THERE'S NO FEET A ROAD.
THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO DRE IS TO BUILD OUT SOUTH BAY AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED.
IT WAS EXIT OFF MOPAC AND THERE ARE NO HOMES THAT FACE SOUTH BAY.
AND TO BUILD IT OVER TO ESCARPMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FIRE STATION AT ESCARPMENT TO DIRECTLY ACCESS THESE APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
WITHOUT THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE.
IF THERE IS AN APARTMENT FIRE THAT WILL COST THEM A LOT OF RESPONSE TIME.
STRATUS DOES NOT WANT THE EXPENSE OF BUILDING OUT MPAC OR SOUTH BAY.
UM, IF THEY WANNA BREAK THE AGREEMENT, THEY CAN GIVE THE 15 MILLION BACK.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALICIA KIWANI.
ALICIA, YOU'LL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
DO I JUST GO AND PRESS SOMETHING? YOU GOOD? OKAY.
UM, YEAH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ALICIA KIWANI AND I LIVE NEAR THE DEL GREEN AND GALLS WORTHY, UM, INTERSECTION.
UH, JUST DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SECONDARY ACCESS POINT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND I'M ASKING THIS COMMITTEE LIKE MY PEERS TO POSTPONE THIS CASE.
THE CITY ORDINANCE FROM AUGUST, 2002 PROHIBITS VEHICLE ACCESS FROM THIS PROPERTY TO DEL GREEN AVENUE.
THIS APPLICATION PROPOSES THE REMOVAL OF THAT RESTRICTION AND THIS DESERVES FAR MORE SCRUTINY THAN THE CURRENT TRAFFIC STUDY CURRENTLY PROVIDES.
I SAY THIS TO BACK UP AS A PARENT WHO NAVIGATES THE SCHOOL DROP OFF AND PICKUP AT VALOR SOUTH AUSTIN.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AN EARLY TRAFFIC STUDY SIMILAR TO IN WHAT'S IN THIS APPLICATION WAS DONE WITH VAGUE PLANS TO IMPROVE FOR THE FUTURE.
AND AS A RESULT, I SIT ON THE SHOULDER OF MOPAC AND FEEL MY CAR SWAY BACK AND FORTH AS CARS SPEED BY.
IT'S OVER 60 MILES AN HOUR SAYING A PRAYER FOR SAFETY.
UM, PARTIAL EARLY STAGE PLANNING AND PUNTING HARD DECISIONS IS RESULTING IN MYSELF AND HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES, PARENTS AND CHILDREN SITTING ON THE SHOULDER OF MOPAC IN A DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT JUST TO BRING OUR KIDS TO SCHOOL AND PICK THEM UP.
COMMISSIONERS, I'M ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE DON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE.
WE DON'T MAKE THAT SAME MISTAKE BY PUTTING ANOTHER IRRESPONSIBLE ACCESS POINT ON SOUTH BAY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND AN ACCESS POINT ON DAH GREEN.
THE DAH GREEN ACCESS POINT, WHILE OBVIOUSLY NOT ON A HIGHWAY, WILL PUT HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES AT KIKER AT RISK BY USING THE CURRENT TRAFFIC STUDY AS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
FIRST, THERE IS NO SCHOOL STONE SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY ANALYSIS.
THE CITY'S OWNS THE CITY'S OWN TIA GUIDELINES REQUIRE IDENTIFYING ALL SCHOOLS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A DEVELOPMENT.
KIKER FALLS WITHIN THAT RADIUS AND THAT ASSESSMENT IS ABSENT.
SECOND DOREEN WILL BE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IN PRACTICE, IF NOT ON PAPER, THE SOUTH BAY LANE IS RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY, AND RESIDENTS HEADING NORTH ON MOPAC CANNOT USE IT WITHOUT ADDING AT LEAST 10 TO 15 MINUTES TO THEIR COMMUTE TO TURN AROUND AT 45 IN ESCARPMENT, DOREEN CONNECTS TO LACROSSE IS SLOWER SPEED.
IT'S THE MAIN FEEDER ROAD TO GET TO BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH MOPAC.
AND THIS IS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL GO.
THIS IS WHERE I WOULD GO IF I LIVED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE STUDY ASSUMES AN EVEN SPLIT, BUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR TELLS US THAT FOLKS WILL TAKE THE EASIEST ROUTE AND THE TRAFFIC SPLIT WILL NOT BE EVEN THIRD.
THE STUDY PROVIDES NO CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ACROSS THE FIVE PLUS YEARS OF BUILD OUT, NO ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS ON LACROSSE AND DRE AND NO ACCOUNTING FOR THE MOPAC SOUTH PROJECT THAT WILL ADD MORE ADDITIONAL STRESS TO THIS CORRIDOR.
WE ARE ASKING A POSTPONEMENT PENDING AND ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS, UH, COVERING SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY, ACTUAL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC BEHAVIOR IN BOTH DRIVEWAYS AND A REAL ENFORCEMENT PLAN TO KEEP DOLL GREEN FROM BECOMING THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE.
IT WAS ALWAYS PROMISED IT NEVER WOULD BE.
MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS LIKE THEY'VE EXPRESSED ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS TRACK WOULD BE DEVELOPED.
I THINK WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS IT IS TODAY AS IT DOESN'T THOROUGHLY ADDRESS SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ADAM ABRAMS. ADAM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES
[01:00:04]
IF YOU'LL START WITH YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.MY NAME IS ADAM ABRAMS. I, UM, I LIVE IN THE WILD, UH, WILDFLOWER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS JUST ACROSS FROM MOPAC FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK MY NEIGHBORS FOR SHOWING UP, UM, IN PERSON AND ONLINE, UM, TO CONTEST THE APPLICATION TO REZONE TRACK ONE 10.
UM, I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THEM, BUT THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU DENY THE APPLICATION TO REZONE TRACK ONE 10 TONIGHT IN FULL.
ALTERNATIVELY, IF THAT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR THIS COMMISSION, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS HEARING BE RESET UNTIL WE SEE A COPY OF THE FOURTH AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT CONTROL, THAT WOULD CONTROL, UH, THIS SITE.
UM, AND I REQUEST THAT PUBLIC COMMENT BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL THIS GROUP AND OUR NEIGHBORS GET TO SEE, UH, A COPY OF THE FOURTH AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS PROJECT HAS CAUGHT MANY OF MY, UH, MANY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OFF GUARD.
I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS UNTIL SATURDAY OR SUNDAY NIGHT.
UM, ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR US TO DISCUSS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND GET A BETTER GRASP OF THE PROJECT, UH, AND WHAT IS GOING ON.
UM, I OPPOSED THIS PROJECT FOR SEVERAL REASONS, UM, BUT MOST NOTABLY IS JUST THE SHEER SIZE OF THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ALARMING TO ME.
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT GOVERNS THIS TRACK AND THE OTHER TRACKS IN THE AREA MULTI-RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE CAPPED AT 504 UNITS.
THAT'S TO MY UNDERSTANDING FOR TRACK ONE 10.
THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NO ALLOCATION OF MULTI-RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THIS PROPOSAL ALMOST DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF MUL MULTI-RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE AREA AND PLACES THEM SQUARELY ON ONE TRACK THAT BORDERS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND PORTIONS OF A SEGMENT OF CIRCLE C NOT ABIDING BY THE CURRENT AGREEMENT.
UM, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED.
Y'ALL CAN ABIDE BY THE CURRENT AGREEMENT, MOVES THE GOAL LINE FOR MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY WHO AR WHO ARGUABLY RELIED ON CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS WHEN DECIDING WHERE TO LIVE.
ADDITIONALLY, I SAW NOTHING IN THE BACKUP THAT WAS PROVIDED ONLINE, THAT ADDRESSED IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, AND THE AMOUNT AND ANY ANALYSIS BY CITY STAFF.
AND I JUST REQUEST THAT THAT BE MADE AVAILABLE.
UM, AND WE SEE THAT ANALYSIS FROM CITY STAFF.
SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I JUST ASK THAT YOU, UM, RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY DENY THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTINE OLSON.
CHRISTINA IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES FROM WILL BETS.
WILL, ARE YOU HERE? SO, CHRISTINE, YOU RECEIVE SIX MINUTES.
YOU CAN START WITH YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS CHRISTINE OLSON AND I LIVE ON SOUTH BAY LANE IN CIRCLE C.
THANK YOU TO THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR GIVING THE RESIDENTS OF CIRCLE C AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT BY STRATUS.
UM, WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN OUR HOA BOARD'S LACK OF COMMUNICATION TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON THAT WITH THEM SEPARATELY.
BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO COME FORWARD TODAY TO ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THE ZONING EFFORT.
WHEN STRATUS FIRST CREATED A MASTER PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE CIRCLE C COMMUNITY, THEY INCLUDED THIS TRACT AND THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY THINGS DEVELOPED SINCE THEN THAT MAKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF EXIT POINTS IN OUR COMMUNITY A REALLY BAD IDEA.
WE NEED MAJOR STUDIES TO ADDRESS THE DANGERS BY TWO SCHOOLS, ONE COLLEGE, ONE GIANT COMMUNITY POOL, AND A PRESCHOOL NEARBY.
IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO ADD 1500 OR MORE CARS TO OUR COMMUNITY CIRCULATING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
WHEN ASKED IF STRATUS HAS SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS TO THEIR PROPOSAL, TRACKED ONE 10.
THE HOA BOARD SAID AT LAST WEEK'S MEETING THAT STRATUS REFERENCED THE ANA DEVELOPMENT OFF OF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY AS A SIMILAR QUOTE UNQUOTE, LUXURY DEVELOPMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE LANTANA AND SURROUNDING STRATUS PROPERTIES IS THE FIRST MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.
AND SO IT HAS EXCELLENT ROADS AND ACCESS POINTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE.
UNFORTUNATELY, TRACK ONE 10 IS THE LAST MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
[01:05:01]
IN CIRCLE C, NOT THE FIRST, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A SAFE WAY TO DO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING.TRACK ONE 10 IS BETTER SUITED FOR A REC CENTER OR A LEAD CERTIFIED MUSEUM IN LINE WITH UT TEXAS WILDFLOWER CENTER.
NOT A HUGE LAST DITCH EFFORT TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, UPWARDS OF $200 MILLION DESTROYING OUR COMMUNITY.
THE BEST LOCATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE IS ACTUALLY ON SLAUGHTER LANE.
THERE ARE WONDERFUL SWATHS OF LAND THAT HAVE LOW SINGLE LEVEL RETAIL MINI MALLS THAT COULD EASILY BE REDEVELOPED WITH MULTI-LEVEL MIXED USE CONDO DEVELOPMENTS WITH FOUR LANE ROAD AC, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY IN PLACE, WONDERFUL RESTAURANTS, A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, A MOVIE THEATER, AN HEB FOR EASY WALKABLE ACCESS THAT WOULD LOVE AND ACTUALLY NEED MORE BUSINESS, AS WELL AS GREAT ACCESS TO MOPAC AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
WE DO NOT NEED TO DESTROY THIS GIANT ECOLOGICAL GEM OF A LAND FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T SAFE AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
PLEASE ASK STRATUS TO GO BACK TO CAD AND PRESENT SOME NEW IDEAS WITH THEIR ZONING EFFORTS, FACTORING IN OUR WILLINGNESS FOR A WELL THOUGHT OUT, SEAMLESS, FEASIBLE MASTER PLAN.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RUSTY RUBY, WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
RUSTY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, MY NAME IS RUSTY RUBY, 25 YEAR RESIDENT IN CIRCLE C.
GUESS WHAT GUYS? I LOVE REAL ESTATE.
AND WE ALL KNOW THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN REAL ESTATE.
LET'S NOT, LET'S, LET'S, WE DON'T WANT TO FORGET ABOUT CHILD SAFETY.
WE'VE GOT ABOUT THREE WEEKS LEFT TILL, UH, A IC CLOSES UP FOR THE SUMMER COMMISSIONERS.
COME SEE FOR YOURSELVES AT THE KIKER CHAOS THAT HAPPENS EVERY MORNING, EVERY MORNING MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
IT'S ALREADY A DIFFICULT AND MARGINALLY SAFE ENVIRONMENT.
IF I WAS A COMMISSIONER, THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD BE ABLE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT APPROVING ITS ZONING CHANGE LIKE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE CHILD SAFETY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KATIE GOOD.
KATIE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE DON'T SEE HER IN THE QUEUE, SO IF SHE POPS ON WE'LL GO BACK TO HER.
SCOTT, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE HAVE ADRIAN FLANNERY WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
ADRIAN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, 500 FEET OF DO GREEN AVENUE.
UM, SO WE WILL BE HIGHLY AFFECTED BY THE ZONING CHANGE YOU ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT.
WE ATTENDED THE MEETING LAST SPRING WHEN STRATUS PRESENTED THEIR INITIAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TRACK ONE 10.
THE PLANS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HAVE QUITE A BIT FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.
SPECIFICALLY THE ORIGINAL PLAN ONLY HAD AN EMERGENCY ENTRANCE AND EXIT COMING OFF OF DRE.
MY HUSBAND AND I FEEL BLINDSIDED AS IF IT WERE A BAIT AND SWITCH OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN WHAT IS NOW BEING PRESENTED.
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS OPENING UP DRE AS A FULL ACCESS ENTRANCE AND EXIT AND THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF UNITS, UH, PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE.
THE AREA, UH, PROPOSED FOR THIS FULL ACCESS EXIT AND ENTRANCE WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS AND CANNOT SUSTAIN THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT WILL INEVITABLY BE USING IT.
AS MANY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE MENTIONED, IT IS A SAFETY CONCERN FOR THIS SCHOOL CHILDREN RIDING THEIR BIKES AND WALKING TO SCHOOL ALONG THIS ROUTE, MAKING CONGESTION EVEN WORSE THAN IT IS OPENING UP DEL GREEN AVENUE TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL HAVE ROUGHLY A
[01:10:01]
THOUSAND UNITS IS NOT IN FACT IN OUR BEST INTEREST.IT IS NOT WHAT WAS AGREED UPON AND IT IS NOT WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT.
WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MATTHEW OWENS WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
WE DO NOT SEE HIM IN THE QUEUE, SO WE'RE GOING ON TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, THE ONE THAT COULDN'T GET IN.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ERWIN PRINCE WHO'LL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
ERWIN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, OO OKAY, SO MY NAME IS IRVIN PRINCE.
UH, I'VE LIVED IN CIRCLE C WEST FOR 31 YEARS.
UH, I OPPOSE THE REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE FOR C 14 20 25 0 0 6 4, TRACK ONE 10 IN CURRENTLY PROPOSED FORM.
AND I ASKED THIS COMMITTEE TO POSTPONE THE DECISION OR, UH, BASICALLY JUST, UH, STICK WITH THE 2002, UM, AGREEMENT.
UH, THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS MEETING HAS ONLY BEEN SHARED, UH, WITH THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE MEETING MATERIALS OF THIS MEETING.
SO MOST HOMEOWNERS HAVE NOT SEEN THE LATEST INFORMATION.
UH, I THINK THAT THE KEY POINTS HERE ARE THAT THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNINGS, HAS BEEN UNDERESTIMATED IN THE ATTACHED STUDY, IN MY OPINION.
UH, BECAUSE FOR THOUSAND APARTMENTS THERE WILL BE MORE THAN 400 TRIPS IN THE MORNING AND SINCE ALMOST ALL THE TRIPS WOULD GO TO DIE GREEN, UH, UH, TO GET TO MORE BACK NORTH VIA LA CROSS OR TO GET TO, UH, KAKA OR A GARMAN LIKE HEB.
UM, UH, AND THIS CAN'T BE DONE WITH THE CURRENT PLANNED, UM, EXIT TO THE RIGHT ON SOUTH BERLIN LANE.
SO THE, THIS WHOLE PLAN HAS A COUPLE OF LAWS, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE TRAFFIC FLOW, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE FIXED.
UM, UH, SO THAT, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
IF, UH, FOR ANY REASON MULTIFAMILY, UH, WILL BE APPROVED.
UH, THE SOUTH BAY RIGHT TURN IS NOT, IS A NONSTOP OR THIS WOULD'VE TO BE, UH, A U-TURN, THOUGH THE PEOPLE CAN GO NORTH, GO NORTH, UM, FROM SOUTH BAY.
UH, SECOND, THE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS DID NOT AGREE TO ADD 20% OF EXISTING HOUSING TO CIRCLE C IN THE FORM OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
AND THE CURRENT ZONING FROM 2002 FLAG THAT.
SO I ASKED THAT THE ZONING IS NOT CHANGED TO ALLOW MY FAMILY HOUSING.
UH, THIS AREA IS NOT SUITABLE AND, UH, TRANSPORTATION LIKE THE ACCESS VIA ROAD IS COMPLETELY INSUFFICIENT, UH, TO HANDLE ANOTHER THOUSAND CARS AT K ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO SEE IF KATE GOODE OR IF MATTHEW OWENS.
OKAY, CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
NOW TRANSITION OVER TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I JUST WANNA ADDRESS A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT, UM, STATE YOUR NAME.
AMANDA SWORE WITH RENER GROUP, UH, THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT.
THE THIS PROJECT AND THIS REZONING REQUEST IS NOT A CHANGE IN INTENSITY.
IT IS NOT A CHANGE IN WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY TODAY FROM A SIZE PERSPECTIVE.
IT MAINTAINS ALL OF THE SETBACKS THAT ARE THERE TODAY.
IT MAINTAINS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ALLOWED TODAY.
IT IS A MATTER OF WHAT CAN BE BUILT WITHIN THE BOX THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT 651,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE OR IS IT RESIDENTIAL IN A DESIRED PART OF TOWN THAT WILL PROVIDE DIVERSITY AND HOUSING IN AN AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE THAT DIVERSITY? WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT KIKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
KIKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAS HAD A 28% REDUCTION IN ATTENDANCE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING AN AREA THAT WILL ALLOW AGAIN, FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING, NO INCREASE IN INTENSITY.
THE REASON THAT WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ACCESS TO DAH GRAIN IS BECAUSE OF SAFETY.
IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CITY THAT WHEN WE WERE PROPOSING TO HAVE ONE POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ON MOPAC, THAT THAT WAS NOT SAFE.
THE OVERWHELMING RESPONSE THAT WE HAD HEARD UP TO THIS POINT AND AS WAS ACTED ON BY CITY COUNCIL THAT REMOVED SOUTH BAY FROM THEIR A SMP IS THAT THEY DID.
THERE WAS NOT A DESIRE FOR THAT ROAD TO EXIST.
THEREFORE, HAVING A SAFE ACCESS POINT TO D GREEN THAT WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS
[01:15:01]
TO WALK THEIR KIDS TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT HERE.UM, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS HERE.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON INGRESS AND EGRESS FLOWS? I KNOW THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS ARE ALSO HERE TO ADDRESS THAT.
UM, AGAIN, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, UM, PEOPLE OPPOSED TO CHANGE.
THIS IS, AGAIN, A, NOT A CHANGE IN INTENSITY.
IT IS A CHANGE OF WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS TODAY.
UM, MY DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS HERE.
THE OWNERS ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
ARE THERE ANY, I'M JUST GONNA ASK, ARE ANY SPEAKERS HERE WHO DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK? WHO WOULD LIKE TO? OKAY.
UM, DO WE WANNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED NOW WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
WHO WANTS TO START
UM, SO SOME OF THE, UH, NEARBY RESIDENCES WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEED FOR A SCHOOL SAFETY OR SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY STUDY.
UM, CAN STAFF SPEAK TO WHAT TRIGGERS THAT REQUIREMENT AND, UM, WHAT'S BEEN DONE TO REGARDING SCHOOLS AND SAFETY TO AND FROM SCHOOLS? UH, AND ADD SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT MATTER.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WILL COME UP WITH THE SITE PLAN PHASE, NOT THE ZONING PHASE.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH AUSTIN PLANNING.
SO CURRENTLY WE DO, UM, REACH OUT TO A ISD TO GET INFORMATION REGARDING, UM, THE EDUCATIONAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
WE HAVE NOT AT THIS TIME RECEIVED THAT, BUT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH A ISD TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
SO THAT IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE DO PRIOR TO COUNSEL.
AND A QUICK FOLLOW UP, HOW MIGHT WHAT YOU LEARNED FROM A ISD ALTER, UM, THE STAFF'S OPINION ON THE CASE OR THE SCALE OR ACCESS OR ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT? WELL, THEY TYPICALLY WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION WITHIN THAT EIS STATEMENT ON PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGES ON WHETHER, UM, IT IS AN OVERFLOW, WHETHER IT'S BELOW THE MARGINS THAT ARE REQUIRED OR ABOVE IT.
SO, UM, THAT IS INFORMATION THAT WE WILL, THAT WE WILL LOOK AT AT THIS TIME.
AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EIS STATEMENT, SO WE WILL BE WORKING ON GETTING THAT INFORMATION.
DOES THAT STATEMENT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH TRAFFIC? NO.
SO THE TRAFFIC WILL COME FROM A TRAFFIC STUDY AT THE SITE PLAN CASE? YES.
TO BE CLEAR, THE ZONING IS KIND OF THE VERY FIRST THING WE DO IN A PROCESS.
UH, IT'S GONNA GO FROM A ZONING CASE TO A SITE PLAN CASE.
UH, YOU'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE IN THE PROCESS.
A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AND THE FLOODING AND THE TRANSPORTATION.
ALL THOSE GET BROUGHT UP AND ANSWERED AT THE SITE PLAN PHASE.
AND WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH ZONING FIRST TO GET TO THE SITE PLAN PHASE BECAUSE THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GO INTO THE SITE PLAN PHASE IF THEY CAN'T HAVE THE PROPER ZONING.
SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT ZONING.
A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.
UM, THEY'RE JUST NOT GONNA BE ANSWERED AT THIS PHASE UNTIL WE GET TO, IF WE APPROVE THE ZONING.
I'M JUST SAYING IF AND THEY CAN'T MEET THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CRITERIA OR THEY CAN'T MAKE THE UTILITY CRITERIA, THEY WOULDN'T GET APPROVED.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT APPROVING A PROJECT, WE'RE JUST APPROVING IT TO MOVE THAT WE'RE CONVERTING IT FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL FOR PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT.
ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS? JUST A SECOND.
UM, WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, FROM US COMMISSIONERS.
THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT AND OR, UH, TPW, BUT PROBABLY FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT DAHAL GREEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO CON TO CONNECT TO SOUTH BAY? NO.
D GREEN WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO STAY AS IT IS.
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR DOREEN TO CONTINUE SOUTH TO SOUTH BAY.
AND THEN THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO CONNECT SOUTH BAY TO MOPAC, IS THAT, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TODAY? THERE IS, UH, WITH THIS REQUEST, WE WOULD BE LOOKING
[01:20:01]
TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IT FOLLOWS IN LINE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THAT ROAD FROM THE CITY'S A SMP PLAN.AND THEN, UM, THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAD SHOWN WAS PROPOSING A CONNECTION AT A DRIVEWAY A AND DRIVEWAY B UH, BEGINNING AT, UH, MOPAC AND WHERE SOUTH BAY WOULD'VE CONNECTED.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, CONNECTING OUT TO, TO DREE.
UM, WOULD THERE BE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THE SITE, OR WOULD THAT JUST BE FOR THE USE OF, YOU KNOW, THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT? IT AT THIS POINT? IT'S INTENDED THAT IT WOULD BE FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO, UH, ELIMINATE THE EXTRA CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC AND PROVI.
SO IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS TO AND FROM, BUT IT WOULDN'T CREATE A TRUE CUT THROUGH THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MATT, WANNA STAY UP THERE? I GOT ONE QUESTION ON THE ISSUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
DOES THAT KIND BRIEF BE REQUIRED TO BE CHANGED BEFORE COUNCIL OR BEFORE SITE PLANNING OR WHAT IS THE, WHERE DOES THAT FALL IN THE STAGE? IT WOULD BE ON THE SAME AGENDA AS THE ZONING PROCESS.
AND THAT'S SO THAT THEY MATCH, IF YOU CHANGED ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, YOU WOULD HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY.
SO AS I STATED, WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION AT FOR THE ZONING AND AT THE SAME TIME SUBMITTED OUR REQUEST FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS, IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS.
THEY WILL BE ON THE SAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
AND THERE'S ABOUT, WE'RE NOT GONNA HEAR, CITY COUNCIL'S NOT GONNA HEAR ANYTHING UNTIL JULY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SO THERE'S SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL? YES, SIR.
UM, COULD WE HEAR FROM, UH, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION STAFF TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT ACCESS FROM DAH GREEN OR WEATHER THAT'S REALLY NEEDED AND WAS THERE EVEN AN A SMP IN 20 2002?
SO REMOVING SOUTH BAY FROM THE A SMP SHOULD, YOU KNOW, WHY WAS THIS WAS A MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT, UM, THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE THE DOG USE OF DO GREEN THIS WAY? AND IF THIS ISN'T AN INCREASE IN, IN INTENSITY, HOW IS THAT EVEN FEASIBLE AND WHY ISN'T IT FEASIBLE NOW? IS THAT TOO MANY QUESTIONS? YEAH.
DO YOU MIND GIVING MAYBE A SMALLER PORTION OF THAT QUESTION? HAPPY TO ANSWER.
SO WAS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2002 WITHOUT THAT DEVELOPMENT OF DO GREEN A FEASIBLE PLAN? UH, DANIELLE MOORE IN TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS? UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE AGREEMENT THAT HAPPENED IN 2002.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED REGARDING THE ROADWAYS.
I WAS A PART OF THE A SMP BACK IN 2018, 2009, UH, 20 19, 20 20.
AND WE DID ORIGINALLY HAVE SOUTH BAY CONNECTING, UM, TO MOPAC.
THE CIRCLE C COMMUNITY WAS PRETTY LOUD IN THAT THEY WANTED THAT REMOVED FROM THE A SMP.
UM, SO THAT PORT, THAT CONNECTION IS NOT A CITY LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENT.
UM, IT MAY BE A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PRIVY TO.
SO WHY IS IT NOW REQUIRED TO DEVELOP DO GREEN? I THINK WHAT THEY WERE EXPLAINING WAS THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UM, FOR THE ZONING BACK IN 2002.
SO IT, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A REQUIREMENT BASED ON A LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PARTY VERSUS A REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE CITY'S LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT, TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I JUST WANNA SAY THAT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE BECAUSE IT WASN'T PART OF THE PLAN AND NOW IT'S TO BE PART OF THE PLAN.
I THINK THERE, AND I THINK MS. WO WANTS TO EXPLAIN WHY I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A A, A DISCONNECT IN IN THE QUESTION POTENTIALLY.
I, I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTION IS, IF AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IF ACCESS WASN'T REQUIRED TO DOLL GREEN, WHY IS IT REQUIRED NOW VERSUS WHAT IS IN THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? AND I, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IT OR S CAN ANSWER IT.
SO AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[01:25:01]
IS, IS SOUTH BAY WAS CONTEMPLATED, THAT WAS 24 YEARS AGO.UM, THE, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS DEDICATED FOR SOUTH BAY.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS SET ASIDE FOR SOUTH BAY.
WE COULD STILL GO AND CONSTRUCT SOUTH BAY TOMORROW AND MOVE, MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.
HOWEVER, THE, WHEN WE STARTED WORKING THROUGH THIS ZONING, WE HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE AS WAS SHOWN ON WITH THE REMOVAL OF CIR OR OF SOUTH BAY FROM THE A S AND P, THAT THERE WAS NOT A DESIRE FOR SOUTH BAY TO CONNECT.
SO WE PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SINGULAR ACCESS POINT WHERE SOUTH BAY WOULD CONNECT TO MOPAC AND WHEN WE TURNED IN OUR ZTA, WE RECEIVED COMMENT BACK FROM STAFF THAT ONE ACCESS POINT TO MOPAC WAS NOT SAFE.
SO WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK FOR A SECOND ACCESS POINT.
THOSE TWO ACCESS POINTS WOULD'VE EITHER BEEN A, TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH BAY AS IT GOES ACROSS, WHICH COULD HAPPEN, OR TO CONNECT TO DOREEN.
AS WE STARTED HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND WITH THE HOA WHO HAD THE CONTROLLING ACCESS, UM, VIA THE COVENANT, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR THAT WITH THE OUTREACH THAT HAPPENED TO THE CITY DURING THE A SMP PROCESS, THAT THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING DESIRE NOT TO HAVE SOUTH BAY CONNECT, WHICH IS SHOWN BY COUNCIL REMOVING IT FROM THE A SP PLAN.
SO THEN OUR OPTION BECAME TO, WOULD, WAS THERE A DESIRE TO HAVE A NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTED THAT WOULD PROVIDE, UH, CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC AND AN A ROAD OVER AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? OR WAS IT BETTER TO PROVIDE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY? AND I'LL PASS THAT ON TO STAFF, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE BACKGROUND.
SO THE AGREEMENT WENT ONE DIRECTION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THE HOA AND CITY OF AUSTIN AGREE THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD DIRECTION.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN 24 YEARS.
NOW THE PREFERRED DIRECTION IS TO GO WITH ANOTHER ROAD, JUST WANT, BUT ISN'T THIS A SITE PLAN ISSUE? YES.
SO WHY ARE WE CHANGING IT AT ZONING? WE'RE NOT CHANGING IT AT ZONING.
IT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE THAT THERE.
I THINK THERE'S A RESTRICTION IN THE ZONING OVERLAY THATS ACCIDENT REQUEST REMOVE TO REMOVE THAT CRITERIA.
AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WE WILL HAVE TO DO A FULL TIA AND THAT IS WHEN ACCESS LOCATIONS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE LOOKED AT.
IT JUST ALLOWS US TO HAVE THAT CONNECTION AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN FOR IT TO BE ANALYZED.
SO FOR SAFETY'S SAKE, IF WE DON'T REMOVE IT, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUILD SOUTH BAY, COME BACK, OR COME BACK AND REMOVE IT.
AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER.
IF WE REMOVE ONE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO WITH THE OTHER, WHICH IS SOUTH BAY.
AND SINCE THEY'VE REMOVED SOUTH BAY FROM THE A SMP AND THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT SOUTH BAY CONNECTED, THEN WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE ONLY REMAINING OPTION.
AND YET I'M SEEING A LOT OF, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANNA SEE ANYTHING BUILT.
AND IF THEY THINK IF THEY CAN GET THE ROADWAY TO STOP, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I JUST WANT RHOA IS NOT REPRESENTED.
I WANTED TO, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING, UM, BASED OFF THIS CONVERSATION.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECT, DOLL GREEN, BOTH WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS CONNECTING TO SOUTH BAY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR.
AND THEN ALSO DOLL GREEN WAS NEVER SHOWN IN THE AS SMP AS CONNECTING TO SOUTH BAY.
I BELIEVE ONE OF OUR FIRST ITERATIONS DID SHOW IT CONNECTING.
UM, BUT LIKE, LIKE I SAID, SOUTH BAY CONNECTION WAS REMOVED AND THEN THE DOLL GREEN CONNECTION WAS REMOVED AS WELL.
YEAH, IT SOUNDS FOR ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THE, YOU KNOW, CONTENTION HERE IS LIKE DOLL GREEN HAS A SINGLE POINT OF EXIT OUT TO ESCARPMENT.
UM, WHICH IN MY OPINION MAY BE, YOU KNOW, THE CONNECTIVITY TO UM, SOUTH BAY AND MOPAC ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY WOULD HELP RESOLVE THAT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE KIND OF LIKE REMOVED BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS.
UH, TO BE CLEAR, THERE STILL WILL BE A NORTH POINT OF ACCESS TO DOLL GREEN AND THERE STILL WILL BE A SOUTH POINT THAT CONNECTS TO MOPAC, RIGHT? FOR THE USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
QUESTIONS? YES, LONNIE? UH, THANK YOU.
UM, I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, I WAS WONDERING FIRST, UM, YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT PARK AMENITIES.
UH, I WAS WONDERING IF THAT IS INCLUDED AND PART OF THE PLAN THAT BROKE UP.
PARK AMENITIES, PARK AMENITIES IS NOT THE QUESTION.
THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY, UM, IS A PRIVATE PROJECT WITH A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
[01:30:01]
THERE WOULD BE THE INCLUSION OF A, UH, MASTERPLAN TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT THAT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE RESIDENTS.UM, THERE WOULD ALSO BE SUBSTANTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION THAT WOULD BE CONTEMPLATED AND REQUIRED AND WITH THE SIZE OF A PROJECT THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED ON SITE.
HOW MUCH LAND IS ON THIS TRACK AFTER YOU FINISH THE DEVELOPMENT? THERE'S 190 ACRES THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED TODAY.
WE CAN DEVELOP A MAXIMUM OF 16.38 ACRES.
THERE'S A HUNDRED ACRES THAT COULD BE PARK LAND OF SOME SORT, NO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IMPROVEMENT THAT YES, SIR.
UM, THEN I WAS WONDERING, UM, ABOUT, JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME CONFUSION THERE.
THERE WILL BE AN ENTRANCE FROM MOPAC ON SOUTH BAY INTO THE PROJECT AND THEN ANOTHER ENTRANCE FROM COMING OFF OF DOLL GREEN INTO THE PROJECT.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO JUST DOUBLE CHECKING THERE.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH CAP METRO ABOUT HAVING SPACE IN THIS AREA FOR A PARK AND RIDE FACILITY? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WITH MOPAC SOUTH EXTENSION, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROVIDE A HIGH, HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT AT THIS LOCATION.
UH, CAPITAL METRO DID REACH OUT TO START A CONVERSATION ABOUT A PARK AND RIDE.
WE HAVE HAD A PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION.
UH, WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AS THEY ARE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN AN OPEN COMMUNICATION.
AND THEN THANK YOU FOR, I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT IT.
I DID SHARE THIS CASE WITH THEM AS WELL.
UM, THE, THE ONLY, UM, UH, OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS REALLY ABOUT THE, THE WAY THAT THE ROADS ARE INTERACTING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UH, IT IS THERE A WAY TO CREATE MORE OF A GRIDDED SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES CONNECTIVITY AND WALKING? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT, I MEAN IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A TYPICAL CUL-DE-SAC.
IT'S JUST THAT INSTEAD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT'S MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.
AND SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH FIGURING OUT HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS PROJECT BENEFICIAL TO CIRCLE C.
'CAUSE THEY REALLY HAVE TO GO OUTTA THEIR WAY TO GET INTO AND OUT OF IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE ROADS HAVE BEEN CONSTRAINED.
THE ROADWAY NETWORK IS AN INTERESTING PART OF, OF THIS PROJECT FOR SURE.
OUR ACCESS POINTS AND WHAT TOUCHES THIS PROPERTY ARE VERY LIMITED.
UH, BECAUSE OF MOPAC BEING CONTROLLED, UM, AND A HIGHWAY, WE WILL ONLY EVER BE ABLE TO GET THE SINGLE POINT OF INGRESS AN EGRESS THAT SITS THERE.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING TO SEE WHAT OTHER ACCESS WAYS WE HAD, COULD WE GET TO LA CROSSE, COULD WE GET ANOTHER DIRECTION? UM, BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL DESIRES FOR DLL GREEN NOT TO EXTEND FURTHER SOUTH, THE CREATION OF A TRUE GRID SYSTEM WAS VERY DIFFICULT.
WE TOOK A LOT OF THOUGHT AND TIME INTO, IF WE ARE GONNA PUT RESIDENTS HERE, HOW CAN WE CONNECT THEM TO WHAT DOES EXIST? HOW CAN THEY SAFELY WALK AND BIKE TO GET TO SCHOOL? HOW CAN THEY WALK AND BIKE TO GET TO THE AMENITIES THAT ARE THERE ON THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY? SO HAVING THAT ACCESS POINT THAT DOES GO TO THE NORTH BECAME OUR MOST VALUABLE WAY TO CREATE THAT GRID SYSTEM THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH THE LIMITED ACCESS THAT WE HAD.
WELL, SO WHAT, UM, PARTLY WHAT'S UNCLEAR IS THAT ACCESS TO DOLL GREEN FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S WALKING OR BIKING, I MEAN, CAR TRAFFIC IS CLEAR, THERE'S A ROAD.
UM, BUT WHAT I'M WONDERING IS WILL THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BE SURROUNDED BY A BIG FENCE OR WILL THERE BE THESE TRAIL ACCESS POINTS WHERE SOMEBODY COULD WALK THROUGH TO THE, I IF I COULD PULL MY PRESENTATION UP, I CAN ACTUALLY SHOW YOU THAT THERE'S ANTICIPATED TO BE A VERY EXPANSIVE TRAIL NETWORK THAT GOES AROUND THIS PROPERTY.
AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THE 16.38 ACRES THAT WILL BE SITUATED IN THE MIDDLE.
AND I SEE, I, I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 30 OF OUR BACKUP.
IT HAS THE, THE, UM, CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO HERE.
LET ME JUST SNIP A, LIKE A BALL.
AND I THINK THIS MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT MORE IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK ONTO THIS, IT'S A SMALL VERSION OF IT, BUT YEAH, SIMILAR IMAGE, BUT IT REALLY SHOWS THE BIGGER PICTURE.
SO EVERYTHING IN THAT'S PURPLE IS HOW WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE A, A TRAILS MASTER PLAN THAT WOULD TRULY BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
WHAT YOU SEE MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST ON THE PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY THAT WILL CONTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL.
IT WILL CREATE AND EXPAND TRAILS THAT GO TO THE NORTH AND GO TO THE SOUTH AND TRULY CREATE A MASTER PLAN AND ACCESSIBLE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ON THIS 190 ACRES THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.
AND THEN, UM, I I DID WANNA JUST CLARIFY.
UM, I KNOW THAT THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS FOR SOUTH BAY TO ONLY BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE DOING THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF SOUTH BAY? IF IT BECAME DESIRABLE? MAY
[01:35:01]
I MAKE THIS WHERE IT CLICKS AGAIN? OKAY.THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR SOUTH BAY WAS ALREADY DEDICATED AND IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS SET ASIDE PREVIOUSLY FOR THE EXPANSION OF SOUTH BAY.
SO WHILE WE WOULD NOT DO IT, IT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE 'CAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY ALREADY EXISTS.
AND THEN I'VE GOT A QUESTION THAT'S FOR TRANSPORTATION STAFF, UM, IF POSSIBLE.
UH, AND I'M WONDERING ABOUT HOW SOUTH BAY WORKS 'CAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT WRITE IN, WRITE OUT ONLY, BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT FUTURE EXPRESS BUS SERVICE AND WHETHER WE CAN CROSS THAT HIGHWAY SINCE IT'S ALREADY THERE.
SO IS THERE A FUTURE IN WHICH SOUTH BAY WILL CROSS MPAC? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
WE DID MEET WITH T DOT, UM, OVER A YEAR AGO REGARDING THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW, THAT INTERSECTION WE FELT COULD NOT HANDLE CROSS TRAFFIC.
IT'S, IT'S VERY CONGESTED, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING.
WE HAVE VALOR STUDENTS, WE HAVE BEAR CREEK, WE HAVE KIKER PEOPLE USING THAT U-TURN.
SO THAT'S WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT.
UM, ULTIMATELY THAT DRIVEWAY WILL BE PERMITTED AND APPROVED BY TXDOT.
SO WE CAN GIVE THEM RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, BUT IT'LL, IT'LL ULTIMATELY BE TXDOT, UM, WHO THEY'LL WORK WITH REGARDING THAT DESIGN.
SO IF THEY DON'T, IF SOMEBODY TURNS RIGHT OUT OF THERE AND THEY HAD INTENDED TO GO NORTH, THEY BASICALLY HAVE TO TAKE MOPAC ALL THE WAY TO ESCARPMENT TO GO BACK NORTH.
IS THAT THEIR OPTION? CORRECT.
YOU, YOU GO SOUTH TO ESCARPMENT, UM, YOU GO SOUTH AGAIN AND THEN YOU KIND OF GO UP 45 AND NORTH ON MOPAC.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT IF I CAN GET THIS UP HERE, THAT THERE IS A TEXAS U-TURN PLANNED AT ESCARPMENT.
SO IF YOU WERE TO HAVE A WRITE IN, WRITE OUT, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO RIGHT, COME TO ESCARPMENT, MAKE A FREE FLOW U-TURN TO THEN GO BACK NORTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT THROUGH THE LIGHT.
I MEAN THAT'S A, THAT'S A HALL.
UM, AND THEN FOR THE APPLICANT, I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, REASON WHY YOU WOULDN'T WANNA AMEND THE CO TO UM, INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES SUCH AS AUTOMOTIVE SALES, VEHICLE STORAGE AND PAWN SHOP SERVICES? THERE IS A VERY, VERY LONG OF ALREADY PROHIBITED USES ON THIS PROPERTY.
IF THOSE ARE NOT ON THERE, I AM, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO ADDING THEM.
THAT, THAT ALL OF, I THINK THAT ENDS ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE GOING INTO IT, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
OTHER QUESTIONS MR. GREENBERG? SO YOU HAVE REMAINING 16.38 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
DO YOU NEED IT ALL FOR THE MULTIFAMILY FAMILY? THE, AND SO EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THIS PROPERTY COUNTS AS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO EVERY DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS EVERY TRAIL THAT HAS ANY TYPE OF CONCRETE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, UH, HAVING THAT 16.38 ACRES IS AGAIN 8.6% OF THE 190.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE LEFTOVER IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO THERE WOULDN'T BE LEFTOVER PER IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR A PARK AND RIDE PARK AND RIDE IS IMPERVIOUS COVER, OBVIOUSLY.
UM, SO AS ATTRACTIVE AS IT SOUNDS TO HAVE A PARK AND RIDE FOR CAP METRO THERE, IT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING ELSE HAS GOTTA GO.
IT'S A, IT'S A PIECE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE STARTED TO HAVE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT COULD GO, WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT IN THE PROJECT.
WHEN WILL YOU BE
BUT STILL, IF, IF LAND ISN'T SET ASIDE FOR, UM, A PARK AND RIDE, THERE WON'T BE A PARK AND RIDE UNLESS THE AGREEMENT GOT A MINI AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE TAKING ALL THE, UM, LAND THAT WAS OFFICE AND SAYING THIS SHOULD BE MULTIFAMILY INSTEAD.
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? WE'RE TAKING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT WERE ALLOCATED TO THIS PROJECT AND CHANGING THE USE THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN THOSE TO BE RESIDENTIAL? YES MA'AM.
REMOVING USE, WE'RE REMOVING, WE WOULD BE REMOVING THE OFFICE AND ADDING THE RESIDENTIAL.
BUT IT DOESN'T, THAT EQUATION DOESN'T, UM, ALLOW FOR A PARK AND RIDE AS FAR AS YOU CAN SEE.
AGAIN, THIS, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, NOT UNLESS CAPTAIN METRO CAME IN AND WANT ONE OR TO BUILD ONE AND THEY WORKED ON DEAL.
YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK YOU'RE BEING A
[01:40:01]
LITTLE OVERLY LITERAL WHEN I THINK ABOUT SOME PARKING RIDES ARE DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY FOR PARK AND RIDE, BUT SOUTH PARK MEADOWS, THEY'RE JUST LENDING UNUSED PARKING SPOTS.RIGHT? WHICH THERE ARE PLENTY.
AND THE SAME GOES WITH THE TRIANGLE WHERE THERE ARE FEWER BUT THERE IS STILL PARKING OF EXCESS PARKING THERE.
AND IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD MIXED USE WITH APARTMENT AND PEOPLE GO TO WORK, THERE'S GONNA BE EXCESS PARKING CAPACITY IN THAT SPACE.
THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT CAN BE HAD.
SO NOT SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY BUILD THEIR DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN'T HAVE A PARKING RIDE AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME PLACE.
IT'S JUST THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I REALLY CAN'T BRING WELL, WE CAN ASK A QUESTION.
I I I'VE GOTTA DO THIS OFFICIALLY.
OH, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION FOR AMANDA
SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN, YOUR NAME, ROOM FOR ME.
COME SIT RIGHT NEXT YOU CAN, MAYBE I CAN TAKE A PICTURE OF WHAT IT'S THAT YOU SHOWED.
UM, SO I JUST KIND OF STARTED RESEARCHING THIS ALL ON FRIDAY AND HAD TO BRING MYSELF UP TO SPEED ON ALL OF THIS.
WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN IS THAT THERE'S RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BETWEEN THE HOA AND STRATUS AND THAT'S GONNA BE BUILT IN THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS OUR PROTECTION ON DAH GREEN.
YOU'VE SAID THAT WE'VE AGREED THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF AMENDMENT TO THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
LET ME, I, WHEN I REACHED OUT TO OUR HOA THIS MORNING AND I ASKED THEM HAS THERE BEEN ANY AMENDMENT, ANY VOTE ON THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS? SHE TOLD ME NO.
LET, LET, SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT YOU MEANT.
LEMME SAY ONE THING RIGHT NOW.
WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED AT ALL.
I KNOW IN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, NOTHING WE DO CAN HAVE ABOUT, BUT THAT PROTECTS DO GREEN.
AND UNLESS WE'RE WILLING TO AS A COMMUNITY, I OKAY, WE DON'T GET INVOLVED WITH RESTRICTED COVENANTS.
SO I GUESS FROM MY OUTSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS US TO EVEN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT ZONING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE ZONE IS IT ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES.
BUT WHY IS THAT HAPPENING? THEY'RE TWO INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ONLY WITH STRATUS OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS THE CITY IS A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT? NO, NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BETWEEN STRATUS AND OUR HOA.
NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS SIGNED.
I REALLY GOTTA STOP 'CAUSE WE CAN'T OKAY.
AND I'M SORRY, I'M ASKING QUESTIONS THAT UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND IF, OKAY.
AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA USE THE TERM IF WE APPROVE THE ZONING AS A SET UP AND Y'ALL PREVAILED AND IT WHATEVER, THERE'S OTHER HURDLES THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER WE COULDN'T, THEY COULDN'T BUILD DOG.
THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT? JUST BECAUSE WE SAY YOU CAN, DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR RESTRICTED COVENANT WHATSOEVER.
WELL, HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN EVEN HAVE A HEARING MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? BASICALLY IT'S A ZONING CASE.
WE'RE APPROVING A ZONING CASE, BUT I DON'T, HERE WE'RE NOTING A SITE PLAN.
I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO HAVE THE HEARING BECAUSE IT'S NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT'S A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE, UM, THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT.
DOES IT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS TRACT OF LAND TO REMOVE OFFICE AND PUT MULTIFAMILY ON THIS TRACT LAND? THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT.
BUT BY MAKING A DETERMINATION, YOU ARE AMENDING THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THOSE ORDINANCE ARE ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS AN EXHIBIT.
AND YOU'RE NOW SAYING WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING.
WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
IN JULY, CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION, SAY YAY OR NAY, ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A LOT OF OTHER DOCUMENTATION.
WE'RE JUST SAYING FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, BASED ON WHERE THE PROJECT IS, THIS IS WHAT WE SEE IS A GOOD, OKAY.
SO IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, NOT A DETERMINATION.
WE'RE MAKING A FAULT, MINOR RECOMMENDATION TO I APOLOGIZE, CITY COUNCIL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A DETERMINATION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
I AGAIN, I JUST STARTED FRIDAY AND DON'T, DON'T APOLOGIZE.
UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND AND THAT, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO EDUCATE AND, AND THIS IS A AGAIN, WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
THERE'LL BE UP TO THREE COUNCIL HEARINGS.
UM, COULD BE ONE, COULD BE THREE COUNCIL HEARINGS.
YOU'LL HAVE YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE SAME VOICE.
THEY ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DECISION.
AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WITH THEIR HAND UP.
WHY IS YOUR HAND UP
UH, MY QUESTION IS SIMPLY THIS, THIS HAS ALWAYS
[01:45:01]
BEEN CONTEMPLATED AS GENERAL OFFICE.THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE USING SB EIGHT 40 SPECIFICALLY TO GET THE ZONING CHASE.
AND THAT IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A ZONING HEARING THAT THAT WAS, UH, TO BE NICE TO THE CITY.
I'M JUST PARAPHRASING THAT THEY COULD HAVE GONE STRAIGHT INTO SITE PLANNING.
SO MY QUESTION IS THIS, IF SB EIGHT 40 HAD NOT PASSED OR IF IT WERE CHALLENGED AND OVERTURNED IN COURT, DO WE HAVE TO GRANT THE ZONING CHANGE? THOSE ARE NOT THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
THAT SENTIMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE GONNA DECIDE UP HERE AS A COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING APPLICATION.
ADD ON QUESTION, WHY WOULD MULTIFAMILY BE SUPERIOR TO OFFICE SPACE? WHY THERE'S NO DECLARATION THAT ER ISN'T.
SO YOU JUST SAY YES OR NO TO THE APPLICANT AND ANYTHING THEY WANT.
YOU SAY YES WITHOUT WEIGHING THE PROS AND CONS.
WE'RE NOT, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT BACKED UP.
WE'VE ALL RESEARCHED THIS PROJECT.
I'VE LIVED IN THIS AREA SINCE 1968.
I PREDATE CIRCLE C BY MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.
UM, SO I I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE ISSUES ON IT AS ARE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE.
SO, SO WE'RE NOT MAKING A LYING DECISION HERE TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING THEN AN APPLICANT ASKS FOR ZONING CHANGE, THEY WILL BE GRANTED IT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT PROHIBITS IT.
SO THEN IN YOUR DISCRETION, HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT DECISION BETWEEN THE EXISTING GENERAL OFFICE CASE? WE'RE GETTING OFF THE TOPICS OF THIS CASE, AND I'VE GOTTA KIND OF STOP THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING IN GENERAL, NOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CASE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND I DON'T WANNA HAVE SOMETHING THAT GOES OFF THIS FAR OFF TOPIC.
HAVE YOU, HOW HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS? AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, YEAH, I THINK, BUT THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CURRENTLY IN PLACE, COULD THEY BUILD HOUSING BASED ONLY ON SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 OR DOES THIS NEED THE ZONING CHANGE? SO THIS WOULD BE, AS IT RELATES TO ZONING, SB EIGHT 40 WOULD ALLOW A MULTIFAMILY USE.
UM, ACCORDING TO SB EIGHT 40, THIS IS AS IT RELATES TO ZONING, UM, THIS IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND, UM, THAT WOULD BE, UH, MOVED FORWARD BY COUNCIL.
THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD MAKE MAKING THAT, UM, DECISION TO MAKE, MOVE THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
AND THAT'S WHERE THAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE, APPROVED OR DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT.
THE POINT OF HAVING A LAWSUIT IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAN TURN IT ALL OVER SB 48 40 COMES ALONG AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DECIDE.
UM, AGAIN, WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'VE GOT A, I JUST ASKED THAT QUESTION.
I, I WAS WONDERING IF, UM, IF'S TIME TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IF SOMEONE HAS A MOTION, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UH, I'M GONNA MOVE FOR THAT APPROVAL, BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE AMEND THE CO TO ENSURE THAT BOTH TRACKED A AND TRACTED B ALSO PROHIBIT PERSONAL STORAGE.
AUTOMO AUTOMOTIVE SALES, VEHICLE STORAGE AND PAWN SHOP SERVICES.
IF THEY'RE NOT ALREADY PROHIBITED.
IF THEY'RE NOT ALREADY PROHIBITED.
SOME UNDERSTAND SOME AND SOME AND NOT AND OTHERS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE, THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? SO I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS, FIRST OF ALL, APPROVING THE ZONING THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN.
THIS IS PLACE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED FROM FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WAS A REASON FOR THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UM, TO PROTECT THE AQUIFER, TO PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER.
UM, SO, AND IN ADDITION, IT BOTHERS ME TO SEE THE IDEA OF MORE PEOPLE CLOSE TO MOPAC, MORE PEOPLE EXPOSED TO TRAFFIC RELATED AIR POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DO THAT CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK WE'RE WELL AWARE OF THE ASSOCIATED HEALTH RISKS OF LIVING NEAR A HIGHWAY.
[01:50:01]
NOT IDEAL AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.UM, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.
UM, FIRST LIMITING DEVELOPMENT TO 16.38 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITING DEVELOPMENT TO SIX, 6,651,000 SQUARE FEET OF MULTIFAMILY AND NO MORE THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, INCLUDING WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT.
OF COURSE, THESE ARE WHAT WE'RE TOLD WILL BE, IS ANTICIPATED.
SO IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM TO ADD THOSE AS CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.
IT'S JUST KIND OF A, I GUESS I'D SAY BELTS AND SUSPENDERS.
UM, SO THAT IT'S IN THE ZONING AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION.
I'M ASSUMING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHAT SHE'S JUST RECOMMENDED IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
IT'S LIMITING IT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IN THEORY, YOU COULD MOVE THINGS FROM ANOTHER BUCKET OVER INTO THIS AND GET MORE MULTIFAMILY OR MORE COMMERCIAL.
I'M, I'M GOING BY MY EXPERIENCE ON OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, I'M LESS FAMILIAR WITH CIRCLE C THAN I AM STEINER RANCH, FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT STEINER WAS BASED ON, ON A, I MEAN CIRCLE C WAS BASED ON STEINER.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IT'S DRAFTED TODAY, DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE THINGS, THINGS AROUND ADMINISTRATIVELY, MOVE THINGS AROUND.
UM, THERE ARE SOME PIECES OF WITH, WITH WHAT OF WHAT'S ALREADY APPROVED.
UM, THERE ARE SOME PIECES THAT WE'RE OKAY WITH SOME THAT WE WOULD HAVE, UM, TROUBLE WITH GOING IN TO SEE.
BUT IF WE LIMIT IT, IF, IF SHE'S RECOMMENDING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS THE COMMERCIAL, THE OFFICE AND NO, THE COMMERCIAL, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE SQUARE FOOT MULTI-FAMILY TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
WELL, YOU SAID WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR AGREEMENT, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL.
SO THE COMMERCIAL IS 651,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE RESIDENTIAL IS A NUMBER OF UNITS.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A LIMITATION ON A NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A LIMITATION ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF UNITS.
'CAUSE THE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED YET.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL.
THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF WE HAD AN LIMITATION ON A PREVIOUS COVER OF 16.5 ACRES OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS TO WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN THE AGREEMENT, NICK? 1000 TO 1000, 1,650 1000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE.
I DON'T THINK HE'D BE HAPPY WITH THAT.
10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE.
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
SO INCLUDING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT, AS LONG AS I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS.
BUT IN GENERAL, AS LONG AS, LET ME TO WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN, IF NEEDS ME MODIFIED IT COUNSEL IT CAN BE YES.
BUT FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHAT SHE'S SUGGESTING IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO WHAT YOU'VE MADE IN YOUR APPLICATION.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN MY APPLICATION.
BUT THERE WAS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE.
AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE DOING, WE ARE SAYING, SO THERE'S APPLES TO APPLES.
I'M TELLING YOU THAT I DO NOT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN FULLY DESIGNED YET SINCE THIS IS JUST SONY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE STAGE.
I DO KNOW THAT I HAVE A MAXIMUM OF A THOUSAND UNITS.
I DO KNOW THAT HAS TO LIVE WITHIN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF THE SETBACKS, THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS YET.
SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE END OF THE DAY YOU MAY ONLY BE ABLE TO FIT 800 HOMES.
OR IT COULD END UP AT I UNTIL YOU GET THE SITE PLAN DONE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CAN END UP WITH, BUT WITH, IT'LL BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS YOU SUGGESTED.
AND ALL SHE'S SAYING IS WE WANNA MEMORIALIZE THAT INTO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AGAIN, I'M FINE WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER SQUARE FOOTAGE ON COMMERCIAL AND NUMBER OF UNITS.
WELL IF THERE'S 651,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE REMAINING.
AND YOU BUILD A THOUSAND UNITS THEN THOSE AVERAGE SIZE OF THOSE UNITS IS 650 SQUARE FEET.
AGAIN, THERE'S, THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC PARAMETERS THAT YOU CAN COMPARE THOSE DARN HALLWAYS AND STUFF.
CAN'T, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS, YOU CAN'T COMPARE THOSE TWO.
YEAH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT LIKE THEY'S, THEY'RE NOT APPLES TO APPLES ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFF NET RENTABLE OFFICE VERSUS OKAY.
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
WELL, I, WE'VE TRIED TO DO THAT IN THE PAST AND YOU, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
WELL, I'D BE COMFORTABLE I GUESS WITH, I MEAN, ASIDE FROM BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS TO BEGIN WITH.
WITH, UM, LIMITING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
[01:55:01]
THAT OKAY.IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LONNIE? YES.
SO THAT IS THE MOTION AT THIS POINT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, CHAIR, I WAS JUST GONNA, UM, SAY A COUPLE THINGS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, UH, I'M SURE SEVERAL OF YOU MIGHT BE SCRATCHING YOUR HEAD, GIVEN HOW MUCH OF A MELTDOWN I HAD WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING SIMILAR IN A DIFFERENT
UM, SO I WILL FREELY ADMIT I HAVE A KNEE, KNEE-JERK REACTION ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT BUILDING IN THIS PART OF TOWN.
SO I, I REALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
I HAVE VOTED AGAINST BOND ELECTIONS THAT HAD SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA.
UM, WHAT I'M FACED WITH IS THE FACT THAT IF WE DO NOTHING, WE'RE GONNA GET OFFICES IN STRIP MALL.
AND EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY THE COSTCO, YOU KNOW, CENTER OVER AT WILLIAM CANNON, I THINK TO MYSELF, LIKE THERE COULD BE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE TOO.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WASTELAND OF STRIP MALLS.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON, YOU'RE GONNA GET A STRIP MALL OR YOU'RE GONNA GET PEOPLE PLACES TO LIVE.
AND, UM, IN ADDITION, I'M AWARE OF THE LONG TERM PLANNING FOR MOPAC SOUTH AND THE TRANSIT PLAN.
SO THERE IS A VIABLE, LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY FOR DOWNTOWN EXPRESS TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK OR TO KISS AND RIDE.
UH, SO PARK AND RIDE, I'M TAKING THEM INTO CONSIDERATION.
THE, THE, UM, YES, A KISS AND RIDE INSTEAD OF A PARK AND RIDE.
UM, BUT, UM, THE, THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY DOES GIVE ME CONCERN, EVEN THOUGH I'M THE ONE WHO'S PUSHING THIS FORWARD, IS THE LENGTH OF THAT U-TURN HEADING SOUTHBOUND INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO CROSS.
I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED TO REVISIT THAT LATER.
AND SO I WOULD REALLY GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION BEFORE COUNCIL PASSES THAT TO THINK ABOUT HOW, HOW, HOW FAR OUT OF OUR WAY DO WE WANT TO GO AND DO WE WANT TO JUST PUSH THE TRAFFIC JAM TO ESCARPMENT INSTEAD OF BEING RIGHT THERE, UM, AT THE PROPERTY, BUT REGARDLESS.
AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, IT HAS TRANSIT, UM, AS A POSSIBILITY IN THAT AREA.
THIS IS GOING TO BE BUILT NO MATTER WHAT.
AND SO I'D RATHER HAVE MORE NEIGHBORS IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE TRAIL NETWORK WILL MEET OR EVEN EXCEED WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THAT AREA.
SO WITH ALL OF THAT, I AM, I AM IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CEOS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, SUGGESTED SO FAR.
SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR HELP ON THAT.
I, I HAVE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I WANTED TO ASK, UM, WHAT IS THE UNIT CAP FOR THE MULTIFAMILY? HOW MANY UNITS? 1000.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE CAN HAVE A VOTE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS FIRST STEP IN A PROCESS.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION, GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY COUNCIL AND A LOT MORE INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.
[5. Staff briefing regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) process and how it relates to zoning cases. Presentation by Curtis Beaty, Acting Transportation Officer, Transportation and Public Works.]
STAFF BRIEFING REGARDING TIA PROCESS.I'M WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOP TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
I AM THE DIVISION MANAGER OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
WE ARE THE ONES THAT DO AND REVIEW THE TRANSPORTATION STUDIES AT VARIOUS, UH, POINTS OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
WHAT I'M HERE TODAY IS JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A BRIEFING OF WHAT, UH, CODE ALLOWS US TO ASK FOR WHAT WE DO, LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE PROBLEMS DETERMINING A TIME OF ZONING VERSUS TIME OF SITE PLAN.
AND TO GIVE YOU KIND OF A, AN EXAMPLE OF HOW SOME OF THIS PLOT, UH, LIGHTS OUT.
BASICALLY IT'S CHAPTER 27, UH, SIX DASH 6 26 DASH SIX THAT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT REGULATES, UH, TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, THERE'S REALLY TWO THINGS THAT HAPPEN AT TIME OF ZONING.
IF A DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDS 2000 NEW VEHICLE TRIPS A DAY, THEN A STUDY IS CON CAN BE CONDUCTED.
UH, THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT IN THIS SAME CHAPTER ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.
THERE'S A LOT OF KIND OF, UM, POINTS THAT HAVE TO BE CHECKED HERE, BUT
[02:00:01]
HERE'S KIND OF THE RUNDOWN IS, HAS TO BE A RESIDENTIAL STREET OR COLLECTOR.IT HAS TO ADD MORE THAN 300 VEHICLE TRIPS TO THE STREET.
HALF THE FRONTAGE ALONG THAT ROADWAY OR BLOCK MUST BE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL S ONE THROUGH S FIVE.
AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER, UH, SPECIAL ZONING, UH, THAT ALSO CAN BE CONSIDERED.
WE CANNOT DO THE STUDY BEYOND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING ON OUR BLOCK BY BLOCK PLACES.
SO, UH, WHEN WE GET INTO THE EXAMPLE, IT'LL GET INTO, UH, SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THIS ONE.
HOW DO WE DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO PROPOSE? BASICALLY, WE TAKE IN WHAT IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE, WHAT IS THE INTENSITY THEY'RE PLANNING? AND THEN ALSO WHAT IS KIND OF THE GENERAL SETTING.
AND THEN WE USE THE INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MANUAL.
THIS IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD, UH, BROADLY ACCEPTED WAY OF IDENTIFYING FORECASTING FUTURE.
UH, WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY ADOPTED THE 12TH VERSION OF THIS.
AND, UH, IT'S SOMETHING ALL DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO SUBMIT A TIA DETERMINED WORKSHEET, WHICH SAYS, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE BUILDING, HERE'S HOW MUCH WE'RE BUILDING, HERE'S THE EXISTING IN THAT AREA, AND HERE'S WHERE WE'RE THINKING WE'RE GONNA TAKE ACCESS TO THE ROADWAYS.
SO BASED ON THAT, DOES IT TRIGGER ONE OF THESE STUDIES? THIS IS DOCUMENTED AT TIME OF ZONING.
ALSO IS REDONE A TIME OF SITE PLAN.
THERE CAN BE CHANGES BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS OF TIME, ZONING, AND, UH, SITE PLAN.
TYPICALLY INTENSITIES HOW MANY UNITS, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET ARE BEING BUILT TO SOMETHING.
SO THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT MAY NOT TRIGGER A STUDY AT ZONING, BUT SITE PLAN, IT DOES TRIGGER IT.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT ANOTHER DETERMINATION WORKSHEET.
AND THAT'S AT THE TIME WE ASK FOR THE ANALYSIS.
THESE ANALYSIS ARE DONE BY THE DEVELOPER APPLICATION APPLICANT, UM, A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THEY PROVIDE THE COUNTS.
THE STUDY IS IN, THE MEMO IS ACTUALLY GENERATED BY STAFF.
SO THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
A LONG TIME AGO WITHIN THE CITY, A-T-I-A-A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS TRIGGERED.
THERE IS TRADITIONAL, UM, WIDELY ACCEPTED PROCESS FOR LOOKING AT THIS.
AND MOST CITIES, YOU DO THESE AT TIME OF SITE PLAN BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE SO MUCH IS KNOWN AT TIME OF ZONING.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE A MUCH, A LOT OF INFORMATION.
SO WHEN WE CREATED THE AND ADOPTED THE NEW TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL IN JUNE OF 2022, WE SAID, IF YOU'RE GENERATING MORE THAN 2000 DAILY TRIPS, VEHICLE TRIPS WITH A ZONING CASE, THESE ARE THE ITEMS WE NEED YOU TO HAVE YOU, UH, ANALYZE AND PRESENT TO A STAFF, AGAIN, ESTIMATED THEIR TRIP GENERATIONS.
TDM MEASURES TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT.
HOW ARE MEASURES? WHAT MEASURES ARE YOU CONSIDERING TO MOVE VEHICLE, UH, PEOPLE OUT OF VEHICLES INTO OTHER MODES? SO YOU MAY BE ALONG A TRANSIT LINE AND YOU CAN DOCUMENT THAT.
YOU CAN USE THAT AS SOME OF YOUR, UM, TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
WE LOOK AT BIKE PED CONSIDERATIONS.
WE ALSO LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF CAPACITY DO THESE STREETS HAVE WITH EXISTING TRAFFIC.
WE ASK FOR PROPOSED LOCATIONS FOR DRIVEWAYS, AND THEN WE ALSO SAY, ACCORDING TO THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, THE ROADWAY, YOUR FRONTAGE REQUIRES SO MUCH RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WE FLAG THAT AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, YOU MAY HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CITY SO THAT WE CAN IN THE FUTURE ADD LANES.
WE CAN ADD, UH, BIKE SEPARATED BIKE AND, AND PEDESTRIAN, UH, FACILITIES.
WHAT'S UNKNOWN AT TIME OF ZONING, WHERE EXACTLY ARE THE DRIVEWAYS? THIS PAST CASE DRE, WHERE ON DOLL GREEN IS THE DRIVEWAY? WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
SO IT'S HARD TO DO A REAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS AT TIME OF ZONING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
ALSO THE ACTUAL LAND USES AND INTENSITIES, AS YOU HEARD, UM, THE PREVIOUS CASE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THESE LAND USES.
WE WANT TO PROHIBIT THESE, WE WANNA ALLOW, AND AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE LIST OF ALLOW IT, DEVELOPERS CAN CHANGE THE PROJECT.
THEY THINK THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A TIME OF ZONING VERSUS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BUILT A TIME OF SITE PLAN.
SO WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
[02:05:01]
ABOUT WHAT IS BEING BUILT AND HOW MUCH IS BEING BUILT.IT'S CONCEPTS OF TIME OF ZONING, AND WE DO THE BEST WE CAN TO CAPTURE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE ZTA.
BUT AGAIN, THIS ALL GETS REVIEWED A SECOND TIME AT TIME OF SITE PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE REALLY GET INTO HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW.
THE SITE'S FUNCTIONALITY IS ALSO A BIG ONE.
UM, MEANING DO THEY WANNA SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL AND RESTAURANT PEOPLE? DO THEY WANNA HAVE A SEPARATE PARKING GARAGE FOR THE HOTEL, THEN THEY DO RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE? THOSE THINGS TYPICALLY AREN'T KNOWN AT TIME OF ZONING.
AND SO EXACTLY HOW THE SITE IS GOING TO FUNCTION AND WHERE THE TRIPS ARE GOING TO GO OUT INTO THE STREET NETWORK, WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE THE BEST GUESSES WE CAN BASED ON THE INFORMATION.
UH, AGAIN, SPECIFIC TDM, THEY HAVEN'T COME UP WITH A LIST.
HERE'S EVERYTHING WE'RE GOING TO DO TO PROMOTE TRANSIT.
HERE'S EVERYTHING WE'RE GONNA DO TO PROMOTE BICYCLE PARKING AND AMENITIES ON SITE.
SO THEY MAY SAY, WE'RE GOING TO DO 20% TO REDUCE THE, THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC BY 20% BY PROVIDING OTHER MODES OR ACCESS TO OTHER MODES.
BUT TIME OF SITE PLAN, IT'S NOT 20% ANYMORE.
THE OTHER THING IS POTENTIAL WAIVERS BECAUSE OF OUR TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA, UH, MANUAL WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT A DRIVEWAY MAY NOT MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A WAIVER REQUEST SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT OUR DRIVEWAY A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION THAN WHAT THE TCM ALLOWS.
WE'RE NOT SURE AT TIME OF ZONING IF WE'RE GONNA APPROVE THAT WAIVER OR NOT, BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE SITE TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE SITE'S ACTUALLY GONNA FUNCTION AND FLOW TO SEE IS THAT THE MORE APPROPRIATE TO GIVE THEM THE WAIVER OR HAVE THEM GO BACK AND REDESIGN AND TO MEET THE CRITERIA MANUAL.
THE OTHER THING, UM, AT TIME OF ZONING, WE ALWAYS DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HOW IT'S GONNA BE FACED.
SO THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, COULD BE 30 YEARS.
OTHERS TIMES THEY'RE VERY AMBITIOUS AND THEY WANNA BUILD OUT IN FIVE YEARS, BUT IT TURNS INTO 30 YEARS.
THAT HAS A MAJOR IMPACT OF LOOKING AT THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND WHEN THINGS WILL BE TRIGGERED.
SO WE DON'T DO A FULL TIA AT TIME OF ZONING BECAUSE OF ALL THESE UNKNOWNS.
AND WHEN I SAY TI FULL, TIA, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE SCHOOLS, WHERE BUS STOPS, WHERE ARE, UH, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, WHERE WILL TRAFFIC SIGNALS BE TRIGGERED? THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH INFORMATION WE DON'T HAVE FOR US TO DO THE ANALYSIS.
WE ALSO DEFER, UH, IDENTIFYING MITIGATIONS AT TIME OF SITE PLAN.
WE CAN ALSO GET INTO HERE'S THE IMPROVEMENTS YOU NEED TO MAKE WITH YOUR SITE PLAN.
WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE STREET IMPACT FEE BECAUSE WE CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO BUILD THINGS ANYMORE.
STATE LAW ONLY ALLOWS US TO ASK FOR IMPROVEMENTS, UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY'LL PAY THE FULL FEE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
UH, NTA, THE NA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, AGAIN, YOU SAW THAT LIST.
THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC TRIGGERS.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE, UM, UH, JUST BECAUSE A RESIDENTIAL STREET, THERE'S HOUSES ON A STREET, AN NTA IS AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO BE LOOKED AT.
IT'S HOW MUCH OF IT IS RESIDENTIAL.
AND WE ALSO LOOK AT IT ON A BLOCK BY BLOCK BY BLOCK BASIS.
AND SO IF A PROPERTY DOESN'T, A PROPOSED SITE, THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS OR FRONTAGE TO THE BLOCK DOWN THE STREET, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO A STUDY FOR SOMETHING THEY DON'T TOUCH.
ANOTHER RES UH, THING IS IT'S VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE.
UH, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AS WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT EXISTING TRAFFIC PROJECTED, UM, OPERATING LEVELS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS.
AGAIN, WE COME UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY COULD ADDRESS, BUT WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WITH THE T UH, NTA.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A CASE Y'ALL HEARD JUST NOT TOO LONG AGO UNDERSTOOD THAT HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION, AND I HOPE I'M NOT STIRRING ANYTHING UP BY BRINGING THIS, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE, OKAY, OF WHAT IT GETS LOOKED AT AND WHAT IS TRIGGERING AN NTA.
SO IF YOU NOTICE THERE'S THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL.
UM, IT'S COMING IN FOR REZONING.
IF YOU SEE RIGHT THERE ALONG ITS FRONTAGE, THE GREEN BLOCK OF 49TH STREET, THAT IS NOT THE STREET THAT TRIGGERED THE NTA BECAUSE 50% OF IT IS OVER 50% IS COMMERCIAL.
[02:10:01]
THAT IS NOT THE BLOCK THAT ACTUALLY TRIGGERED THE NTA.IF YOU KEEP GOING WEST ON 49TH STREET, THERE'S NO PROPERTY FRONTAGE ON THAT STREET.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE BLOCK THAT TRIGGERS THE NTA.
WHAT'S TRIGGERED THE NTA IS ACTUALLY THE BLUE ROAD, UH, BECAUSE ONE, THEY'RE TAKING ACCESS TO IT, THEY'RE GONNA PUT MORE THAN 300 VEHICLE TRIPS ONTO THAT ROAD.
AND THEN ALSO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT ROAD IS SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THAT IS WHAT'S CALLED TRIGGER THE NTA.
NOW, WITH THAT, WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF LIBERTY AND ASK WHERE THEY DO THE DATA COLLECTION.
AND SO WE DID DO DATA COLLECTION ON 49TH STREET, UH, 48TH STREET AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
SO AS WE COMPILE THE NTA MEMO SAYING, HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, HERE'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO DO, HERE'S MITIGATIONS.
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER A TIME OF SITE PLAN.
ANY QUESTION ON THIS SLIDE IN PARTICULAR, THE OTHER THING THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS DESIRABLE OPERATING LEVELS.
THIS IS A LOT OF PEOPLE INTERPRET IT AS THIS IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT CAN GO ON A ROADWAY THAT'S ACTUALLY INCORRECT.
THIS IS THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON CERTAIN ROADWAYS TO OPERATE IN A DECENT, SAFE MANNER.
AND SO THE BIGGEST PARAMETER IS THE WIDTH OF PAYMENT.
WE DO GO FROM FACE A CURB TO FACE A CURB.
I KNOW A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T INCLUDE THE PAN, BUT PEOPLE PARK ON THE GUTTER PAN.
AND SO THAT IS PAYMENT USABLE.
SO WE USE FACE, A CURB TO FACE A CURB, AND THEN THESE ARE THE VEHICLE PER DAY THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON HERE FOR DESIRABLE OPERATING, UM, LEVELS.
UM, SO ACTUAL TRAFFIC CAN EXCEED.
ONCE WE LOOK AT EXISTING TRAFFIC AND PROPOSED TRAFFIC, IT CAN EXCEED THESE.
WE ALSO, WE LOOK AT OTHER THINGS, WHAT'S GOING ON? WE LOOK AT IS THERE, IT'S A KNOWN, UM, CRASH AREA.
UM, WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS, TRAFFIC LIGHTS, UH, ALWAYS STOPS ARE IN THE AREA, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
DO THEY ALREADY HAVE SPEED MITIGATION ON THAT STREET, ROAD HUMPS OR DO THEY NOT? AND THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS OF WHAT IS THE FUTURE PLANS FOR THAT ROADWAY? IS IT GOING TO BE WIDENED IN THE FUTURE? UM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UH, WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS TABLE, I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE IT BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1991 AND HAS IT BEEN ADOPTED SINCE? SO IT'S ABOUT 35 YEARS OUT OF DATE AND DOES NOT REFLECT OUR CURRENT STREET DESIGN GUIDE THAT WE FOLLOW AND DOES NOT ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE VERY WELL THAT THESE ARE NOT MAXIMAL TRAFFIC LEVELS ALLOWED ON A STREET.
UH, THE ONE EXCEPTION IS WHEN WE HAVE PODS BECAUSE, UH, PODS IS ITS OWN ORDINANCE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC THINGS.
A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION THAT IS UNKNOWN WITH A TRADITIONAL ZONING CASE IS ACTUALLY KNOWN WITH A POD.
THEY KNOW WHERE THEIR DRIVEWAYS ARE, THEY KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA PHASE THIS BECAUSE IT ALL GOES INTO THE PUD ORDINANCE.
SO WITH PUDS, IF THEY GENERATE MORE THAN 2000 DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS, THEY HAVE TO DO A FULL TIA.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTIPLE INTERSECTIONS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE DRIVEWAYS, WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER THINGS DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION, UM, DOWNTOWN VERSUS CIRCLE C AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
IN THAT STUDY, WE ALSO HAVE THEM FORMALLY ADDRESS TRAFFIC, UH, TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ACCOUNT TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO USE THE BUS? ONE, THEY MAY BE ADJACENT TO A BUS STOP.
THEY'RE GOING TO INCLUDE, UH, BUS TRANSIT PASSES FOR EMPLOYEES IN THAT AREA.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA NOT ONLY HAVE INDOOR PROTECTED BICYCLE RACKS, BUT THEY'RE ALSO GONNA HAVE LOCKER ROOMS AND SHOWERS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
SO THERE'S A, THEY MAKE A COMMITMENT OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THIS REDUCTION.
UM, WE ALSO IDENTIFY VERY SPECIFIC MITIGATIONS THAT THEY'VE COMMITTED TO, TO INCLUDE IN THEIR SITE PLANS.
SO IF THAT'S AN AJA, UH, TO BUILD OUT A, A TURN LANE INTO THEIR FACILITY TO MAKE IT OPERATE, WE IDENTIFY THAT IF THIS IS A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACONS, WE IDENTIFY THAT AND IT BECOMES PART OF THE TIA MEMO.
AND THE TIA MEMO GETS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED IN THE HUD ORDINANCE ITSELF.
SO WE NOW HAVE A TIE OF THE COMMITMENT AND THEIR OBLIGATION, UM, TO CONSTRUCT THESE ELEMENTS.
AND WE TYPICALLY BASED ON THE TRIGGERS, HOW THEY'RE GONNA PHASE IT.
SO PHASE ONE, THIS MITIGATION, PHASE TWO, THE MITIGATION, OR
[02:15:01]
WHEN THEY BRING ON DEVELOPMENT AT A CERTAIN TRAFFIC LEVEL.ONCE YOU GET TO 10,000 TRIPS, UH, GENERATED BY YOUR SITE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THIS LOCATION.
AND IN A NUTSHELL, I REALLY DIDN'T INTEND TO FLY THROUGH THIS, BUT, UH, IT, IT, I KNOW IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING OF WHY ARE WE NOT DOING MORE TIME OF ZONING? IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION TO DO A TRULY TRADITIONAL IN-DEPTH STUDY.
UH, I ALSO KNOW THE NTA PROCESS IS VERY CONFUSING.
UM, THE ROSEDALE CASE, WHY DIDN'T WE LOOK AT ALL THESE OTHER STREETS? IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S GONNA IMPACT.
THERE WILL BE TRAFFIC ADDED TO OTHER STREETS, BUT WE HAVE TO GO BACK WHAT THE ORDINANCES ALLOW.
AND THE NTA IS VERY SPECIFIC OF WHAT BLOCKS AND, UH, WHAT TRIGGERS THOSE BLOCKS THAT CAN BE EXAMINED.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO, UM, IT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING YOUR SLIDE THAT SHOWED 25 DASH SIX DASH ONE 13.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE? IT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.
SO IT SAYS, IF THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY A PROJECT EXCEEDS 2000 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY, BUT YOU ADDED IN THE WORD NEW, THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE.
I SHOULD HAVE SAID THE DIFFERENTIAL BECAUSE WE DO NEED, BUT THAT'S ALSO NOT IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE TO SUBTRACT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THAT TRAFFIC NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA CONTINUE TO EXIST ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN.
BUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING IS THAT THE AMOUNT THAT GETS REMOVED FAR EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT THAT'S REALLY THERE.
THE BEST EXAMPLE IS THE, IS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHERE IT'S, DO YOU GO BACK TO WHEN IT WAS OPERATING AGAINST AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? DO YOU GO BACK TO WHEN IT WAS OPERATED AS A OFFICE? DO YOU GO BACK TO WHEN IT WAS OPERATED BY THE POLICE THAT CAME IN OCCASIONALLY AND LOOKED AT IT? YEAH, WE WERE, THAT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT OR UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS, RIGHT? YES.
ARE OFTEN COUNTED AS IF THEY'RE FULL BUILDINGS AND THAT THAT HAS UPSET, UM, OPPONENTS OF ZONING IN MORE THAN ONE CASE THAT'S COME TO US.
AND IT'S NOT IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY, BUT WE HAVE TO SUBTRACT WHAT POTENTIALLY THAT LAND WITH THAT ZONING AND THAT SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT, THEY GENERATE TRAFFIC.
EVEN IF IT'S SETTING EMPTY FOR TWO YEARS, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE TRAFFIC.
THEY COULD JUST GO IN AND REPURPOSE IT AS A, UH, SOME, I DON'T KNOW, UM, OTHER OFFICE BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT IT WITH THEIR NEW TRAFFIC AND THEIR NEW LAND USE.
BUT BECAUSE A BUILDING EXISTS, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE TRAFFIC AND WE'VE GOTTA REMOVE THAT FROM THE CALCULATION.
WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF CASES WHERE OFFICES ARE COMING BACK, COMING IN AND SAYING, WE'RE HORRIBLY UNDERUTILIZED.
I CAN'T GET ENOUGH REVENUE FROM THE RENTS I'M CHARGING FOR AN OFFICE.
I WANNA REPLACE THIS OFFICE SPACE WITH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
AND THE TIAS WERE GOING BACK SAYING, WELL, WHEN THE BUILDING WAS FULLY OCCUPIED, THIS WAS YOUR TRAFFIC.
WHEN YOU'RE OCCUPIED AS AN ELEMENT, AS A SCHOOL, THIS IS GONNA BE YOUR TRAFFIC.
AND THE DELTA MAY BE A DECREASE.
BUT THE SCHOOL, THE THE OFFICE BUILDING IS NOT BEING FULLY UTILIZED, BUT THE ACTUAL CODE DOESN'T SAY NEW, DOESN'T SAY DIFFERENTIAL, DOESN'T SAY DELTA.
THIS IS KIND OF AN INTERPRETATION, WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE AN EFFECT OFTEN OF SAYING, THEREFORE NO TIA IS REQUIRED.
AND IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A POLICY AS OPPOSED TO AN ACTUAL FOLLOWING OF THE CODE.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT IS THE TRIP PER DAY GONNA BE WHEN THIS BUILDING IS FULLY BUILT? CORRECT.
AND IT IS, WHAT IF IT'S 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, THEN IT'S 2000 TRIPS PER DAY.
UM, YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING THE EXISTING USE IS ZERO.
UM, I GUESS ARE YOU SAYING THE EXISTING USE IS ZERO IF IT'S A VACANT LOT? YES.
IF IT'S A VACANT LOT, IF IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING, WHAT COULD THAT BUILDING GENERATE IF, IF IT WERE THERE? I I SEE BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO HAVE, YOU CAN'T JUST COME IN AND SAY THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS NEVER USED.
WELL, CLEARLY IT WAS USED AT ONE TIME.
IT HAD THAT TRAFFIC LEVEL MM-HMM
BUT WITH COVID AND EVERYBODY GOING, WORKING FROM HOME, A LOT OF OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE, ARE UNDERUTILIZED.
BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BASIS SOMEWHERE TO GO BACK TO.
[02:20:01]
BACK TO THE ACTUAL USE AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO PUT A TRAFFIC TUBE AT EVERY DRIVEWAY AND MEASURING TRAFFIC IN THAT, WHICH WOULD NOT GIVE YOU ANY DECENT INFORMATION, YOU GOTTA HAVE SOMETHING MATHEMATICAL TO RIGHT.AND I WILL SAY THIS ALSO, UM, WITH THESE 12TH GENERATION, UH, 12TH VERSION OF THE IT CHIP GENERATION MANUAL, WE'RE DISCOVERING THAT AUSTIN GENERATES LESS TRIPS THAN WHAT THAT MANUAL ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES.
PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK SOME DAYS A WEEK FROM HOME.
AND SO WE'RE FINDING OUT APARTMENTS ARE NOT GENERATING THE TRIPS THAT THE IT MANUAL IS, UH, CALCULATING.
UM, HOTELS HAVE REALLY DROPPED OFF.
UM, SO ONE THING THAT WE ARE, WE DO KIND OF DO THE GUT CHECK OF, IS IT IN LINE WITH THE ITE MANUAL? IS IT IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN AUSTIN? WE ALWAYS GO BY THE MANUAL, BUT WE KNOW IN REALITY IT'S GOING TO FALL SHORT OF THAT.
SO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME GENERATES 10 TRIPS PER DAY.
UH, WE ACTUALLY KIND OF LOOK AT THE, UM, PEAK HOURS WHEN IT COMES TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO WE HAVE 10 TO 12 WHEN MY THREE KIDS WERE LIVING AT HOME AND WE ALL DROVE CARS, WE FAR EXCEEDED THAT.
RIGHT NOW IT'S ME AND MY WIFE.
NOBODY'S GONNA HIT THAT NUMBER OF, OF TRIPS PER DAY, BUT ON AVERAGE, WE'RE GONNA BE BELOW WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN THAT NUMBER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, MY, MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE MANUAL FORECASTS ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WORK FROM HOME AND HOW THAT CHANGES BOTH THE OFFICE AND THE, AND THE HOME ENVIRONMENT.
UM, I GUESS JUST ON A MORE LIKE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN WRESTLE WITH THESE QUESTIONS BETTER.
LIKE IS THERE SOME LIKE, OKAY, WE KNOW THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS X, THE MAXIMUM VERSION OF THIS IS GOING TO DO Y AND LIKE HAVE SOME KIND OF MODEL THAT JUST ACCOMPANIES ZONING CASES.
THAT JUST GIVES LIKE THEORETICAL PARAMETERS, UM, FOR THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES FOR WHAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED WITH ANY PARTICULAR REZONING CASE.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SPECIFICS RIGHT WILL NOT BE SORTED OUT UNTIL THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
WE USED TO LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FOR A SITE, BUT IT WAS THROWING OUT SUCH ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS SUCH AS THERE WAS A SITE ON UH, SOUTH CONGRESS ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO AND WE LOOKED AT THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND IT WAS BRINGING UP ABOUT 70,000 TRIPS PER DAY.
AND WE KNEW THAT WAS NOT GONNA BE REALISTIC AND IT ENDED UP STILL BEING 20,000 SIZABLE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC.
BUT WE STOPPED LOOKING AT THAT MAXIMUM POTENTIAL BECAUSE IT WAS CAUSING A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH INDIVIDUALS THINKING, OH, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THAT MUCH.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WE'RE NOT PRESENTING THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL.
THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE TO THESE NUMBERS.
WE DO THE SAME THING IN DRAINAGE.
WE HAVE THE 50 YEAR FLOOD PLANE, THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE.
WE ALSO HAVE ALSO HAVE A PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD, WHICH IS LEVELS ABOVE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
AND WE REALLY DON'T USE THAT FOR VERY FEW DESIGN ASPECTS IN DRAINAGE.
AND WE RARELY EVER REFER TO THAT, BUT THERE'S SOME CASES WE DO USE THAT PROBABLE MAXIMUM USE AS A NUMBER, BUT USUALLY IT GETS KIND OF TO AWAY.
AND I DON'T IMAGINE AUSTIN IS PARTICULARLY UNIQUE WITH THE WORK FROM HOME AFFECTING THOSE, UM, TRIP COUNTS.
HOW OFTEN DOES ITE UPDATE THOSE MANUALS? ABOUT EVERY THREE YEARS.
AND WHAT'S INTERESTING WITH THIS VERSION, THEY WENT THROUGH AND BASICALLY REMOVED THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES OUT OF THESE COUNTS.
SO THESE ARE MUCH MORE MODERN OF MODERN, UH, PLANNING, MODERN DEVELOPMENT, MODERN BEHAVIOR.
AND SO WE DON'T GET SOME OF THOSE BARTON SPRINGS MALL CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE BARTON SPRINGS MALL IS NEVER FULLY PARKED, BUT THAT'S WHAT WAS CALCULATED.
THINK THE ZUCKER PLAN HAD A PARKING RIDE THERE AND THEN A, UH, OVERHEAD TRAM GOING FROM THAT PARKING LOT TO ZUCKER PARK.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT WAS TOSSED AROUND.
THIS IS HOW, AGAIN, FEEL FREE THROUGH THE LIAISON, IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CONTACT US OR IF THERE'S ANOTHER TOPIC YOU WOULD LIKE TRANSPORTATION TO PRESENT AND GIVE YOU A BRIEFING ON, JUST PLEASE ASK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, ESPECIALLY THIS LATE
[6. 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)]
DISCUSSION, ACTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN ZAP CO AND PLANNING COMMISSION.DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE TONIGHT OR PUNT THIS TO NEXT MEETING? NONE OF THE SPONSORS ARE HERE, RIGHT? UM, I WAS ONE OF THE SPONSORS,
[02:25:01]
BUT COMMISSIONER OFFICER LUGO WAS NOT AND TAYLOR MAJOR'S BEEN ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WORKING ON IT.SO I, YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT BOTH COMMISSIONER MAJOR AND AUSTIN LUGA BE HERE BECAUSE THEY DID SAY THEY HAVE A GRASP OF THE CONCEPT OF IT.
I COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT, UM, I, YEAH, I WAS JUST TEXTING WITH MR. CHE AND HE HAS SOME CONCERNS AND HE WANTS TO HEAR YEAH.
SORT OF THEIR LOGIC EXPERIENCE.
MY ONLY THOUGHT IS IT'S VERY COMPLICATED
AND HOW MUCH THE STAFF REALLY GONNA BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE GO TO, WHAT GOES TO THAT AND WHAT GOES TO PC.
I SPOKE TO MS, UH, COMMISSIONER O LUGA ABOUT IT AND HE HAS A RATIONALE THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF HE WERE HERE TO EXPLAIN THAT.
MOVE TO, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE'LL BRING IT UP AGAIN NEXT.
KEEP THAT ON THE, KEEP IT ON THE NEXT MONTH AGENDA OR TWO WEEKS AGENDA.
UH, CODES AND ORDINANCE IS JOINT
[PERMANENT COMMITTEE UPDATES ]
COMMITTEE, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES.JOINT COMMITTEE HAD TWO MEETINGS IN WHAT'S NOW MAY IN APRIL.
THE FIRST WAS TO LOOK AT THE, UM, CITYWIDE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO LOOK AT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, I WAS NOT AT THE FIRST MEETING, I WAS OUT OF TOWN ALSO.
THERE WERE NO ZAP COMMISSIONERS AT THAT MEETING.
UM, BUT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A QUORUM.
UM, THE QUORUM CAME LATE AND LEFT EARLY AND AS A RESULT THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION ON THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
AND THEN THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS THAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL CALLED OUT ZAP THAT IT'S OUR FAULT.
UM, WHICH IS REALLY, I THOUGHT, NOT VERY ACCURATE OVER THE LONG TERM.
UM, BUT ALLS I WANNA SAY IS IT'S BEST IF AT ALL POSSIBLE PEOPLE GO TO THESE COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T GET CALLED OUT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
AND I HAVE BEEN TO MEETINGS WHERE IT WAS ALL ZCO AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN TO MANY CODES AND ORDINANCES YES.
WHERE ALL THREE ZAP WERE THERE AND ONE YEAH.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER WAS THERE JUST TO MAKE BARELY THE QUORUM AND, AND THEY CAME LATE.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS REALLY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THEN WE HEARD THE CASE TECHNICALLY.
AND SO IT GOES FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.
CONFERENCING PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAD A MEETING BEFORE OUR LAST MEETING.
I THINK I UPDATED ON THAT, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE SINCE THE LAST MEETING.
SMALLER AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND ALL THE, THAT MEMBERS WILL BE THERE.
[WORKING GROUP UPDATE ]
WE'VE DEFERRED.UM, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, ANYTHING
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
IF NOT, YEAH.YES, LONNIE? UM, I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS ON THE JUNE 16TH AGENDA, SO IF I NEED TO JUST WAIT, I WILL.
I, I'D LIKE TO PUT ON, UM, THE CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR JOINT USE, PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS.
WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? UM, WELL I'M GONNA BE, UM, MAKING A, A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WORK ON BETTER CONNECTIVITY WHERE MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE IS INVOLVED SO THAT WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY CREATE MULTIFAMILY CUL-DE-SACS ALL OVER EVERY CORRIDOR IN TOWN.
AND IF YOU NEED A SECOND PERSON TO SPONSOR, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS YOUR SECOND.
ANYTHING ELSE? NOT, IT IS 8 29, SO WE WILL ADJOURN BEFORE EIGHT 30 BY 34 SECONDS.