* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:13] UM, DOES THAT MEAN I CAN CALL US TO ORDER? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, [Reading of the Agenda] LIKE COSTA OR I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY FOR THE DELAY. WE HAD SOME IT ISSUES HERE IN THE, UH, IN THE CHAIR'S HOUSEHOLD. UM, SO, UH, CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER AND THEN GOING, UM, INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, SO THE CONTINUED AGENDA IS A APPROVAL OF MINUTES, B ONE. UM, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF POSTPONEMENTS HERE. SO, UH, SO, SO THROUGH THIS WITH ME FOLKS AND EVERYBODY LISTENING ON, ON THE LINE, UM, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE POSTPONEMENTS. MOST OF THESE CASES THAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE HERE FOR GETTING POSTPONED, UM, OR, UH, OR GETTING PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO ITEM B ONE, WHICH IS, UH, C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO TWO NINE, MONTOPOLIS ACRES, REZONING DISTRICT THREE, UH, 10, 13 AND 10 17 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE HAS BEEN POSTPONED. UM, MR. THAT'S A STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, UM, ITEM NUMBER B TO C 1420 2030 ZERO ZERO THREE ZERO DASH 200 AND TOPLESS REZONING DISTRICT THREE. THAT'S A 200 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE AND 62 OH EIGHT CLOVIS STREET THAT HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT UNTIL JULY 28TH. UH, OR THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IT UP FOR IN THE AGENDA HERE. UH, B3 ITEMS, UH, C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO THREE NINE CLOVIS AND KEMP REZONE AT D TWO ZERO ONE CLOVIS STREET AND THREE ZERO ONE KENT STREET. UM, THAT ITEM IS REQUESTED FOR POSTPONEMENT BY THE APPLICANT UNTIL JULY 28TH, ITEM D FOUR, WHICH IS C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO FOUR FOR SEX AND ACRES, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT THREE. THAT'S A THREE 16 SAXON LANE AND 63, TWO EIGHT EL MIRANDO STREET, UH, HAS, UH, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING POSTPONE UNTIL JULY 28TH ITEM , BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE JUST ONE SECOND PLACE. OH, OKAY. STEPH, JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. OKAY. WELCOME EVERYBODY. SECOND TRY PLANNING COMMISSION SIX 17 CALLING TO ORDER. UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM. UM, I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT, UH, YOU ARE MUTED AND YOU CAN COME OFF MUTE WITH STAR SIX, BUT PLEASE DON'T COME OFF MUTE UNTIL YOUR NAME IS CALLED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME ORDER. UM, ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE AGENDA. NOW WE'RE GOING TO READ THE, UH, THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO WE'RE GOING TO READ THROUGH EACH OF THESE ITEMS, UM, THAT ARE PUT UP FOR CONSENT AND WHAT THE ACTION IS BEING PROPOSED FOR CONSENT. UM, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY WHO'S ON THE LINE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, UM, ON, UH, THE CONSENT ITEMS AT THE END AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UH, IF YOU, UM, UH, WANT TO SPEAK TO HAVING THE, UH, THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY CONSIDER THE ACTIONS, UM, THEN THAT IS THE TIME TO SPEAK ON IT. UH, HOWEVER, UH, AT THAT TIME WE DON'T DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE. IF IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, WE NEED TO PULL IT OFF CONSENT AND PUT IT ON TO DISCUSSION IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE CASE. SO NOW I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE PUTTING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH, UM, AS A REMINDER, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN PULL OFF. SO STARTING WITH ITEM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 26, 2020 MEETING, UM, THEN GETTING ONTO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEM B ONE, WHICH IS C 14, 2020 ZERO ZERO TWO NINE AT, UH, MONTOPOLIS ACRES, REZONING DISTRICT THREE, THAT IS AT 10, 13 AND 10 17. AND ON TOP OF THIS DRIVE, UM, THAT ITEM IS INDEFINITELY POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF OR STEPS PROPOSING AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT ITEM B TWO, WHICH IS C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO THREE ZERO 200 AND TOPLESS REZONING DISTRICT THREE AT 200 MONTOPOLIS DRIVE AND 62 OH EIGHT CLOVIS [00:05:01] STREET. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JULY 28TH, ITEM B3 SEE 14 2020 ZERO, ZERO THREE NINE CLOVIS AND KIM PRE ZONE DISTRICT THREE AT 62 OH ONE CLOVIS STREET AND THREE OH ONE KIM STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONE UNTIL JULY 28 ITEM BEFORE A REZONING C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO FOUR FOR SEX AND ACRES, RESIDENTIAL REZONING DISTRICT THREE, THAT IS AT THREE 16 SAXON LANE AND 63 28 EL MORANDO STREET. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JULY 28, ITEM B FIVE EAST MLK REZONING DISTRICT ONE AT 52 OH ONE EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD. UH, THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THEIR REQUEST DOWN TO THE AMF THREE, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I'M SORRY, THAT ITEM IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION. I'M GOING TO, SINCE THEY'RE GOING WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE PUT IT ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO PULL IT. UM, AND B SIX, A NPA 2019 ZERO ZERO ONE SEVEN.ZERO ONE, UM, SEVEN ONE ONE THREE BURNET. UM, THAT IS A DISCUSSION CASE, A LINKED ITEM B SEVEN C 1472 ZERO THREE TWO RCT SEVEN ONE ONE THREE BURNETTE ROAD, DISTRICT SEVEN, UM, AT SEVEN ONE THREE BURNET ROAD THAT IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO ONE SIX AT SEVEN ONE ONE THREE BURNETT ROAD. UM, IS, UH, ANOTHER LINKEDIN CASE IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION, UM, ITEM B NINE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT 2016, ZERO ZERO ONE TWO.ZERO ONE SH KNUCKLES CROSSING ROAD, SMART HOUSING DISTRICT TWO AS A 4,400 KNUCKLES CROSSING THE ROAD. UM, THAT IS A, UH, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PUT THAT ON CONSENT FOR TONIGHT. UM, ITEM A B T, WHICH IS LINKED TO THAT. SEE 14 ZERO 2017 ZERO ONE ZERO SH KNUCKLES CROSSING ROADS SMART HOUSING DISTRICT TWO AT 4,400, UH, KNUCKLES CROSSING ROAD IS, UM, FOR DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT. UM, ITEM NUMBER B 11, NPA 2018 ZERO ZERO ZERO FIVE.ZERO TWO, MARY BY STATES PUD, LOT 27 AMENDMENT ONE DISTRICT THREE, UM, WHICH IS AT 63 OH ONE CIRCULO DE ON A STUD IS, UM, UH, POSTPONED INDEFINITELY AT REQUEST OF STAFF ITEM B12 LINKED ITEMS. SEE EIGHT ONE FOUR DASH NINE SEVEN DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO TWO DOT OH ONE, MARRIED BY STATES POD, LOT 27 AMENDMENT ONE DISTRICT THREE AT 63 OH ONE CIRCULO DE ON A STUD. HIS STAFF IS REQUESTING INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT ITEM B 13, UH, NPA 2019 ZERO ZERO ONE THREE.ZERO ONE COPELAND SOUTH DISTRICT NINE AT NINE OH ONE NINE 11 NINE NINE 15, 1001, 1003 SECOND STREET AND SIX OH FOUR AND SIX OH SIX COPELAND'S UM, A STEP OR THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND DEFINITELY POSTPONEMENT ITEM C 14, UH, WHICH IS OUR , WHICH IS C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO FIVE SIX WICKERSHAM RETAIL CENTER DISTRICT THREE AT FOUR FIVE FOUR FOUR EAST OLTORF STREET HAS, UM, A REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, UM, OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNTIL JULY 28TH. UM, ITEM BEEF, 15 SPC 2019 ZERO FIVE NINE ZERO EIGHT AT 76 RAINY STREET CUP DISTRICT NINE AT 76 RAINY STREET. UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 25TH. UM, ITEM B 16 S P 2019 ZERO FIVE EIGHT NINE. SEE COLOR FIELD DISTRICT NINE, WHICH IS 1006 BAYLOR STREET. UH, THAT ITEM IS POSTED FOR CONSENT OR APPROVAL FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM B 17 SITE PLAN S P 2019 ZERO TWO FIVE THREE C AT SPRINGDALE FARMS DISTRICT THREE IT'S SEVEN FIVE FIVE SPRINGDALE ROAD, BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED, UM, IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM B 18 S P 2019 ZERO FIVE FIVE NINE. SEE WEST SEVENTH STREET, PASSIVE DISTRICT NINE. UM, THAT IS A ONE ONE ONE EIGHT WEST SEVENTH STREET THAT IS POSTED FOR CONSENT APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM B 19 SPC 2012, UH, ZERO ONE ZERO FOUR D R FOR ZILKER MAINTENANCE BARN, DISTRICT EIGHT AT TWO THREE, THREE EIGHT. COLUMBUS DRIVE IS POSTED FOR CONSENT APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I'M GUESSING THAT'S NOBODY JUMPING IN. I'M GOING TO KEEP READING HERE. ITEM B 20 A RE SUBDIVISION WITH A FLAG LOT VARIANTS THAT'S UNDER THEM. OOH, SOMEBODY IS OFF MUTE. UH, [00:10:02] JERICO SUBDIVISION DISTRICT THREE. THAT IS AT THREE FOUR ZERO NINE NEIL STREET. UM, THAT IS CONSENT APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ITEM B 21. UH, I'M SORRY THAT, UH, THAT ONE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. SO I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH REAL QUICK. UM, AND, UH, UH, MR. BEAR, ARE YOU ON THE LINE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ANDREW RIVERA. UH, I HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO, UM, HEAR THE KNUCKLES CROSSING CASE TONIGHT. UM, THAT REQUEST IS A COUPLE OF MINUTES OLD. UH, THAT'S WHY I PUT THAT ON DISCUSSION. IS THAT NEWER CONTRARY TO YOUR INFORMATION? I'M SURE THERE'S A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT HIM. UH, OKAY, SO THAT ONE THEN, UM, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. UM, MR. SEEGER, YOU RAISED YOUR HAND. GO AHEAD. YES, THEY DID. I HAVE A QUESTION ON FIVE EAST MLK. YES. THIS QUESTION IS, IS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO DISCUSS? YES, THERE ARE THOSE SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION. UM, HOWEVER I SUSPECT THEY MIGHT BE SIGNED UP FOR THE, UM, UH, THE, UH, ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THE MF SIX THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED. I'M GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY, UH, WHO WANTS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS, UH, WHO'S ON THE LINE TO SPEAK, UH, ON THIS AGENDA AT THE END. SO IF FOLKS DO STILL WANT TO DISCUSS IT, UM, UH, WE CAN HEAR FROM THEM, UH, IN JUST A MINUTE HERE. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL UP THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, OKAY, WELL, WE'LL PULL THAT ONE FOR DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK. UM, SO ITEMS, UH, YES. CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION ON THE KNUCKLES PASSING? YES. SO THAT IS ONE WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE. UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE, UH, THAT FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. UM, WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AND THEN VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO POSTPONEMENT AND THEN IF WE DON'T POSTPONE IT, WE'LL HEAR THE FULL CASE. OKAY. OKAY. SO CALL IN FOR THAT. WHERE WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO AT THIS POINT? UM, I GUESS I SHOULD ASK, WAS THIS POSTED ON THE AGENDA FOR JUST, WELL, UM, ALL OF THESE ITEMS, ALL THESE ITEMS ARE POSTED FOR TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DISCUSSION. UM, WE RECEIVE A HEADS UP FROM STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION AND THAT DETERMINES WHETHER STUFF IS PUT ON CONSENT OR DISCUSSION. UM, SO WHEN ITEMS ARE POSTED ON THE AGENDA, THEY'RE ALL POSTED FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO YES. CAN I CLARIFY, OR IF I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT NINE WAS ON CONSENT AND 10 WAS BE POSSIBLY POSTPONED OR DISCUSSED. CAN WE CLARIFY THAT BOTH MINE AND 10 ARE POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION NINE AND 10 TOGETHER OR POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION. THOSE ARE BOTH THE KNUCKLES CASE. SO LET ME JUST RUN THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. UM, SO B ONE INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, UM, ITEMS AND BEFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 28. UM, AND, UH, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, ITEM B FIVE HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, UM, ITEM B SIX B SEVEN, AND TO GET THOSE, THE BENNETT ROAD CASES. CAN SOMEBODY GO ON MUTE PLEASE? UM, UH, THOSE ARE ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEMS B NINE AND , UM, ARE ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA FOR POSTPONEMENT. AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE ACTUAL CASE. UM, ITEM B 11, AND B12 OR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT THAT'S ON CONSENT ITEM B 13 IS APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT FOR CONSENT ITEM B 14 IS, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT ON CONSENT ITEM B 15 IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TIL AUGUST 25TH ON CONSENT. UM, ITEM B 16 IS CONSENT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ITEM B 17 IS FOR DISCUSSION ITEM B 18 IS FOR CONSENT. UH, OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BE 19 IS CONSENTIVE STEP FOR RECOMMENDATION B 20 IS A CONSENT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND BE 21 IS FOR DISCUSSION. IS THAT CLEAR WITH EVERYBODY? ALL RIGHT. UM, AT THIS POINT, [00:15:01] UH, UM, SINCE NO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER INPUT, UH, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE FOLKS WHO ARE ON THE LINE. UM, THIS MIGHT GET A LITTLE CHAOTIC, BUT, UM, THE, UH, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS TO DISCUSS, UH, WHICH ITEMS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, AND IF YOU'D LIKE, UM, ANY OF THEM, UH, TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER, BASICALLY ARGUE THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD BE, UM, UH, PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT. UM, BUT ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT I'VE LISTED FOR DISCUSSION, UM, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE, UH, WHEN THEY COME UP IN THE AGENDA. SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE LINE FOR A MINUTE, FOR ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. OKAY. I'M HEARING NONE. UH, CAN [Consent Agenda] I GET A MOTION TO, UH, OR LET'S, LET'S DO A RECUSALS. UM, EXCUSALS SORRY, COMMISSIONER HEMPHILL, GO AHEAD. YES, I'M ACCUSING SOME BE 13, BE 16 AND BE 17 WHERE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR THOSE PROJECTS. OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND. IF YOU ALSO HAVE RECUSALS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD FROM B 11. WELL, THEY'RE OWNED BY AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND MY INCOME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS OCCLUSALS I'M SURE. CAUSING A CHAIR RECUSING FROM THE MLK CAGES THAT BE FIVE? UM, THAT'S CORRECT. I WAS WORKING ON THAT. OKAY. ANY FURTHER RECUSALS? UM, ALRIGHT. AT THIS POINT, UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA, UM, ALL, UH, AND FAVOR. UM, AND I'LL, I'LL RE UH, IF THERE ARE ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE ENTIRE AGENDA AT THE END, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, HOW ARE YOU VOTING, UH, COMMISSION AND, UH, HMM. UM, CAUSE YOU'RE, HOW ARE YOU WISHING TO ABSTAIN OR VOTE? NO, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. HOLD UP ONE FINGER IF YOU'RE VOTING. YES, THE LEGISLATOR STYLE. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO, UH, THAT IS UNANIMOUS. UM, IF YOU WOULD SHOW ME ABSTAINING ON, UM, I'M SORRY. UH, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S IT. UM, SO ARE THERE ANY EXTENSIONS OR, UH, DEVIATIONS FROM THE VOTING ON THE ENTIRE AGENDA? OKAY. AND JUST A REMINDER, UH, COMMISSIONER CAUSEY ITEM WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSIONS THAT WASN'T ON THE, UH, THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CRUSH THE SECRET BEFORE I CALL ON YOU. I'D LIKE TO DO, UM, THE KNUCKLES CROSSING POST FILLMONT FIRST, PULL IT OUT AND DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE IT. AND THEN JUST SINCE WE HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE LINE, UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, AND, AND HEAR THE CASE AT THAT POINT, IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO DISCUSS IT SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF DO IT ALL AT ONCE AND THEN RESUME THE, UH, THE AGENDA AND REGULAR ORDER. UM, IF DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT IS YOUR HAND IF YOU DO OKAY. COMMISSIONER SEEGER, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT? I'M SORRY, MY MOUSE WASN'T COOPERATING. WELL, IT WAS A QUESTION I HAD AND ASK PEOPLE IF THEY WANTED OR PARTICIPANTS, IF THEY WANTED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MY QUESTION IS IF THEY GO IN AND SAY SOMETHING, BUT YET THEY WANT TO DISCUSS ANOTHER CASE FURTHER ON, WILL THEY BE TERMINATED? UH, THERE CERTAINLY NOTHING IN OUR RULES THAT WOULD DO SO. AND, UM, STAFF CAN, CAN JUMP IN HERE. AND IT'S A BIT OF A MOOT POINT BECAUSE, WELL, LET'S DO THIS SINCE IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY APPLY HERE. UM, LET'S, UH, LET'S REQUEST THAT STAFF WORK OUT, UH, ANY PROCEDURES FOR ANYBODY WHO DOES WANT TO SPEAK ON THE, UH, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT KICKED OUT FOR, FOR OTHER ITEMS. THAT'S FINE. OKAY, GREAT. [00:20:01] OKAY. [9. Plan Amendment: NPA-2016-0012.01.SH - Nuckols Crossing Road - SMART Housing; District 2 Location: 4400 Nuckols Crossing Road, Williamson Creek Watershed; Southeast Combined (Franklin Park) NP Area Owner/Applicant: Owners: Angelos Angelou and John Sasaridis. Applicant: McDowell Housing Partners (Ariana Brendle) Agent: Thrower Design (Ron Thrower) Request: Single Family to Multifamily land use Staff Rec.: Recommended Staff: Maureen Meredith, 512-974-2695, Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Planning and Zoning Department] LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP BEING NINE, UH, UM, FOR THE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, UM, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE DONE THIS, DO WE USUALLY GET THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENTS FIRST AS THIS IS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MEMBERS FROM EACH SIDE FOR AND AGAINST AT TWO MINUTES EACH. AH, GREAT. OKAY. AND NO STAFF INTRO, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE, UM, THE PARTY THAT'S PRESENTING THE POSTPONEMENT. UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, UM, SPEAKERS FROM THE, UH, FOLKS FROM WORK IT'S, THEY'RE BEING LABELED AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WISH TO POSTPONE THIS CASE STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY OF THEM PULLED UP, JOE, BEAR WITH US ONE MINUTE AND THEN APPLICANTS, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE PREPARED TO GO AFTER THEM, YOU HAVE A, UM, UP TO TWO SPEAKERS FOR TWO MINUTES PURCHASING, SO WE SHOULD BE READY FOR YOUR REMARKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE SOME ON THE LINE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD STIR RIVERA? WE HAVE SOMEBODY DOING GENERALLY DO WE'RE WORKING OUT A TECHNICAL. OKAY. I BELIEVE I HAD MS AGAIN TO PROVIDE HER, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE YOUR REMARKS AT THIS TIME. HELLO. LET'S GO AHEAD FIRST. DO YOU HAVE A MUTED? CAN YOU HEAR ANA? I CANNOT HEAR ON A, ON A, IF YOU'RE HERE HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE, RIGHT. IF SHE IS NOT AVAILABLE, I'M THE SECOND SPEAKER LAUREL GRANTSVILLE. OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, AND MAYBE WE'LL GET ON IT. OKAY. WE'RE REQUESTING THIS POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A MAJOR CHANGE. UM, IT WAS A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE, UM, PROPOSAL, AND WE DID NOT EVEN FIND OUT ABOUT IT UNTIL LAST WEDNESDAY. UH, WE GOT THE STAFF REPORT ON TUESDAY AND THEN ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE A MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED, UM, ALSO WITH VERY LITTLE NOTICE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT. DID HE STAY STAFF, UM, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND NEIGHBORS ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT. AND WE RECEIVED THE PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE THE, AND IN THIS PROPOSAL, THERE WERE SEVERAL MAJOR CHANGES THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. UM, MOST SPECIFICALLY THE TRAFFIC, UM, THE, UH, ISSUE, THE, UM, THERE'S BEEN A VERY MAJOR PROPOSAL TO PUT VERTICAL DELINEATORS IN THE MIDDLE OF NEPALIS CROSSING. UM, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. AND SO IT'D BE VERY HARD TO AGREE TO ANYTHING WITH THE APPLICANT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT PARTICULAR ITEMS, THAT, UH, TRAFFIC ISLAND, THE RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO PUT IN. ALSO THE FACT THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR, UM, REQUEST FROM AN MF TO WHICH THE CITY STAFF WAS SUPPORTIVE TO AN MFR, WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED. SO BASED ON THOSE, UH, ESPECIALLY THOSE TWO ITEMS, UH, TRAFFIC AND THE, UH, UH, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, SONY AMA FOR US, UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE POSTPONEMENT SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW, ESPECIALLY THIS NEW [00:25:01] TRAFFIC PATTERN WOULD WORK ON NUMBERS CROSSING, AND IF IT WOULD BE A HINDRANCE OR A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THAT IS YOUR TIME. DO WE HAVE ANA AGRI ON THE LINE AND HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE? WELL, CHAIR, I'M NOT ON A, BUT I'M ON THE CONTACT TEAM AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE'S TRYING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT. HELLO. YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE TECHNICAL ISSUE. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. SO SPEAKING FOR US AS A NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM, AND SO HOPEFULLY THEY CAN WORK THAT OUT CAUSE SHE'S REALLY, UM, ELITE SPEAKER FOR US. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE YEAH. THANK YOU, SIR. UM, BECAUSE THESE, UH, THE DEBATE TIMES THAT, WELL, DID WE POST THIS? UM, , IF WE ARE ABLE TO SLIGHTLY DEVIATE FROM THE ORDER HERE UNDER UNANIMOUS CONSENT, I BELIEVE MR. GHETTO SHOULD BE READY TO PROVIDE HER REMARKS. GREAT. SCARY. ARE YOU HERE? IT WAS ME SAYING, CAUSE SHE NEEDED TO HIT STAR SIX, POTENTIALLY SHE'S NEEDED. OKAY. MR. GARY, CAN YOU HEAR US, MR. BARRY? DO I HAVE IT CORRECT THAT WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT? I CAN JUST SWITCH UP THE ORDER OF SPEAKERS A LITTLE BIT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. UM, DO I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING AHEAD AND LETTING THE APPLICANT I HAVE THEIR TWO, TWO MINUTES SLOTS AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO MR. GARY AND HOPEFULLY IN THE INTERVENING TIME WE CAN, WE CAN WORK IT OUT, SEEING NONE. UM, WE HAVE THE, UH, THE APPLICANT HERE, SAUCY. THIS IS VICTORIA THROWER DESIGN I'M HERE. OKAY, GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR CASE FOR NOT POSTPONING. AND THEN, UH, AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND SPOT FOR TWO MINUTES IF SOMEBODY WISHES TO SPEAK. OKAY. UM, SO TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN, UH, THE REASON FOR POSTPONING THIS CASE, UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S MAJOR CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S A MAJOR CHANGES IN THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE OF, AND THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. UM, WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN DECEMBER WHEN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER CAME ON BOARD AND WE EXPRESSED TO THEM THE CHANGES AT THAT TIME. UH, I ALSO INCLUDED, UH, AND I, GARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM ON EMAILS, UM, THAT WHEN WE MADE OUR OFFICIAL, UH, APPLICATION AMENDMENT TO THE CITY TO CITY STAFF, UM, AND WE'VE BEEN IN, WE'VE CONTINUED TO BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTENT TEAMS. UM, WHEN WE DID AMEND OUR APPLICATION, THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO SEND OUT A NEW NOTICE OF FILING. SO THEY'VE BEEN AWARE OF AN AMENDED REQUEST FOR SOME TIME. UM, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, THE MAJOR CHANGES WITH TRAFFIC THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO OUR SOLUTIONS THAT THEY REQUESTED AND COMMISSIONED REQUESTED THAT WE DIG DEEPER TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR SAFER ACCESS. AND WE DID THAT. AND, UM, THESE ARE THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED AND THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THE PROFESSIONALS HAVE WEIGHED IN THAT THIS IS, THESE ARE SPACED SOLUTIONS FOR THE CONCERNS AT HAND. AND SO WE, WE REQUEST THAT THIS CASE BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT. IT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT IS UP AGAINST A DEADLINE FOR FUNDING, AND WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THAT FUNDING. UM, BECAUSE THAT MEANS WE ALSO LOSE THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR MANY, FOR A LONG TIME. WE'VE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT. UM, DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE ON THE LINE WHO WAS JUST SPEAK, UM, AGAINST POSTPONING, THIS CASE THAT'S CHAIR, THIS WAS RON THROWER. [00:30:01] I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON TO WHAT VICTORIA HAD STATED. UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ATD HAS LED THAT THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT DOES HAVE SAFE ACCESS. MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ON COMMISSION, UH, TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE VERY CORE ITEMS AS TO WHY THE ITEM WAS, UH, POSTPONE TWO YEARS AGO. AND THAT WAS FOR US TO WORK OUT THIS POINT, IT'S SAFE ACCESS AND WE'VE GOT IT. UM, THE SAFE ACCESS IS THERE IS, UH, IT'S A DESIGN THAT EVERYBODY HAS BOUGHT OFF ON AND THE ENGINEERS ARE STANDING BEHIND, UH, THEIR SUPPORT FOR, UH, THE POINT OF SAFE ACCESS. AND AGAIN, TO ECHO WHAT VICTORIA HAD STATED, UH, IT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS, AND IT'S PROVIDING 179 UNITS. AND ANY DELAY IS GOING TO CAUSE FOR THIS PROJECT TO LOSE FUNDING, WHICH MEANS THIS PROJECT WILL GO AWAY IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND I COMMIT THAT WE WILL FULLY ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS. AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS PROJECT FORWARD TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, STEPH, DID WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITH MR. GARY ON, ARE YOU HERE? HELLO? WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, TWO MINUTES. FANTASTIC. YES. OKAY. CHAIR, KENNY, UM, INVITE YOUR CONSTANT COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS BENNETT IKEA. UM, I'M BEING TO GET TEXT HERE FOR THE CONTACT TEAM AND I ALSO SERVE ON THE DECK, BUT I'M NOT BE SPEAKING FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS APP. THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST BY THE CONTACT TEAM TO . WE HAD OUR MOST RECENT MEETING ON JULY 8TH WITH WITH, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF. AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING, WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONTACTING MICK AND LAST NIGHT. AND WITH THAT WE REQUESTED WERE REQUESTING THE POSTPONEMENT SPECIFIC TO THIS TO GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO MAKING INFORMATION, PUBLIC CONCERNS, PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS, SPECIFIC TO TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, AND BICYCLISTS. WE ARE REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THAT ATD STEP. WE'RE ASKING FOR A MODELING, UM, WHICH THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE, UH, ALSO REQUESTING INFORMATION AUDITIONING IN REGARDS TO THAT IN MY FOUR ZONING AGAIN, KNUCKLES CROSSING A SUBSTANDARD ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. IT HAS NO SHOULDERS, NO SIDEWALKS IN OUR CONCERN IS WE ARE ROADS BECAUSE OF THAT. SO WE'RE RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE POSTPONEMENT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU, MR. GARY. UM, MR. RIVERA, CAN YOU REMIND ME, UH, ARE WE UNDER STANDARD, UH, COMMISSIONER DEBATE RULES ON THIS? SO WE'RE GOING IN A ROUND ROBIN. OKAY. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO PREFERABLY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME WITH CON AND THAT'S IT FOR NOW? GO AHEAD AND SEE THERE. I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE CHANGE FROM MF TWO TO MF FOUR WITH THAT FIRST POST LANDED LAST WEEK TO THE CONTACT CHAIN, EXCEPT SOME OF THE MEMBERS. SO WE CALL THE TECH. I'M SORRY. COULD WE, UM, MAYBE, YEAH. DO WE HAVE, UH, MS. MEREDITH OR MS. RHODES ON THE LINE WHO CAN ADVISE ON THAT? THIS IS WENDY RHODES, THE ZONING CASE MANAGER. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO, UM, THE, THE REQUESTS FOR MF FOUR WAS, UH, SENT OUT BY WAY OF NOTICE OF FILING IN AROUND EARLY FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. UM, I DID NOTIFY FOR MF FOUR THROUGH, UM, THROUGH THE NOTICES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND FOR TONIGHT AND CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY, THE 30TH MEETING. UM, THE STAFF IS ONLY RECOMMENDING MF TOO. UM, WE DID HAVE A MEETING LAST WEEK WHERE I PRESENTED THE STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION FOR MS TO, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THAT AS WELL, BUT WOULD LIKE TO FIRST DO THEIR MF FOR REQUESTS. AND I GUESS, I'M [00:35:01] SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. I DID SEND OUT THE, UM, STAFF REPORT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IT WASN'T A LONG TIME BEFORE THE MEETING BECAUSE I WAS STILL FINISHING IT UP. WE MET LAST WEDNESDAY. I, I, MY RECOLLECTION IS, IS THAT I SEND IT OUT ON TUESDAY, THE 7TH OF JULY, THE FULL STAFF REPORT, THE FULL STAFF REPORT. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE DETERMINED WHEN THE CONTACT TEAM WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THE ZONING REQUEST OR REQUEST FOR THAT LAST WEEK, THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE NOTIFIED. SO THEY WERE FIRST NOTIFIED BY WAY OF A NOTICE OF FILING BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS AMENDED FROM NFP TO END UP FOUR IN FEBRUARY OF THIS, AT THAT TIME STILL WAS STILL IN REVIEW. THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS STILL IN REVIEW. OKAY. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION PROBABLY SHOULD GO TO AUSTIN TRAFFIC OR SOMEONE TO AMP YOUR MODEL ON THIS ROADWAY IS 25 FEET WIDE. THAT'S PAID TIP THERE, ART TO KNEE CURBS OR ANYTHING. HOW IS PUTTING IN ISLANDS GOING TO WORK? AMBER MITCHELL, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I CAN ANTICIPATE YOU THERE. I THINK MR. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. WELL, GO AHEAD. IF THIS IS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, CAN WE JUST DISCUSS LIMITED DISCUSSION TO THE MERITS OF POSTPONING THE CASE? YEAH, I AGREE. ONLY THING WAS TO GET TO, CAN WE GO FORWARD, NOT KNOWING WILL THIS ACTUALLY WORK ON A 25 FOOT ROADWAY AND THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE GROUND RULES AND I THOUGHT, ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG A LITTLE BIT ON COMMISSIONER SEEGER'S COMMENT ABOUT WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNEW ABOUT IT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, SO THERE'S A NOTIFICATION THAT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE CITY STAFF AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WHEN WAS THE APPLICANT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE, UH, WITH THE CONTACT TEAM ABOUT GOING TO THE, UH, EMMA FOR RIGHT, BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS DECEMBER. AND, UH, MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION TO THE AFRICA. WAS IT IN DECEMBER THAT THEY ACTUALLY MET AND PRESENTED THE MFA FOR, UM, WHEN WAS THE ACTUAL TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO THE CONTACT TEAM THAT YOU WERE PURSUING AND THAT'S TO THE APPLICANT? THIS IS VICTORIA. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. I'M HERE. SORRY. I'M EATING MYSELF AGAIN. UM, SO YES, WE, WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTEXT, UM, BACK IN DECEMBER, THAT IS WHEN MCDOWELL HOUSING PARTNERS CAME ON BOARD TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. THEY WANTED TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT TIME. AND WE ATTENDED A MEETING AT THE LIBRARY THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND WE DID, WE DID MAKE THEM AWARE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN OFFICIAL AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION COMING FORWARD, BECAUSE WITH THIS PROJECT BEING NOW AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, THEY WERE GOING TO BE MORE UNITS AND IT WAS GOING TO BE, UH, A BUILDING THAT WAS LIKELY TO LOOK DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN, UH, DESIGNED WITH RADIUS. UM, SO I WILL ALSO COMMENT, UH, LIKE I SAID EARLIER THAT, UM, I HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH, UM, FRIENDS, BELL AND ON A URI ALL ALONG. AND WE WORKED WELL TOGETHER AND I, WHEN I EMAILED STAFF OUR AMENDED APPLICATION, I ALSO MADE THEM AWARE THAT WE DID SO, SO NOT ONLY DID WE MEET WITH THEM IN DECEMBER TO TELL THEM THAT THIS WAS COMING, I ALSO INCLUDED THEM AND INFORMED THEM WHEN WE MADE OUR OFFICIAL, UM, AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION. NEXT QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMING OF THE, UH, THE TRAFFIC WITH WHEN THAT WAS, AS LONG AS IT DID, WAS THAT PRESENTED AFTER THE, UH, MFR PRESENTATION ABOUT, UM, THE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS OR WAS THAT AN OLD SOLUTION? THE, WHO WAS THAT QUESTION DIRECTED AT? YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S THE APP. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UH, JUST AS A HOUSEKEEPING NOTE, UH, COMMISSIONER SHAY, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT I'LL, I'LL TAKE THE QUESTION UP IN MY TIME. GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE [00:40:01] WITH YOUR ANSWER. OKAY. UM, WHEN WE AMENDED OUR REQUEST TO ASK FOR MF FOR ZONING, UH, WE THEN HAD TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH AN UPDATED NTA, UM, AND THAT DID TAKE SOME TIME TO DO, BUT WE WERE PREPARED AND READY TO SHARE THAT HOWEVER, THE CORONAVIRUS CAME ABOUT AND THAT PUT A WRENCH IN EVERYONE'S, UH, PLAN FOR MEETINGS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY. AND UNTIL THAT WAS FIGURED OUT, UM, WE HAD TO WAIT, WE HAD TO WAIT TO SHARE THAT WE MADE A PROMISE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF, AND WE, AS THE AGENT MADE A PROMISE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER MEETING AFTER WE HAD ALL OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WERE BEING PRODUCED. AND SO WE HAD INTENDED, UH, TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE THIS MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN APRIL, BUT BECAUSE OF THE VIRUS THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN. SO WE HAD IT AS SOON AS WE COULD AVAILABLE, UM, WITHOUT WHILE STILL TRYING TO MEET WITH DEADLINE. AGAIN, THEY ARE UP AGAINST A SIGNIFICANT DEADLINE THAT WILL KILL THIS PROJECT IF, UM, THEY CANNOT MOVE FORWARD. WE WAITED AS LONG AS WE COULD. OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. AUSSIE, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS OR POINTS? YES. MR. KUSHNER IS OUR CHAIR AFRICAN TO THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE NOT A BY APPLICATION DEADLINE. SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, UM, I'M SO SORRY THAT THAT WAS VERY MUFFLED AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. YEAH. A LITTLE BIT. UM, I'M LISTENING VERY CLOSELY. OKAY. WHEN YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING IS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS APPLICATION. AND SO THERE'S A TIMELINE ASSOCIATED TO THE DANSKIN APPLICATION. CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW OKAY. I STILL DIDN'T GET ALL THAT, BUT I, I GET THAT. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS. YES. AND HOW THAT IMPACTS YOUR YEAH. THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS A TAX CREDIT PROJECT, UM, HOW, UH, THE POSTPONEMENT THAT IS BEING REQUESTED HERE IS GOING TO SPECIFICALLY IMPACT YOUR, UM, YOUR TIMELINE FOR THE TAX CREDIT. YEAH. UH, IT, IT WILL IMPACT OUR TIMELINE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS WHY I WAS STATING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO KILL THIS PROJECT IF WE, IF WE ARE POSTPONED, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY. UM, SO I WILL SAY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WE WERE, WE WERE READY TO HAVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING EARLY, UM, BY THE ZOOM PLATFORM. UM, BUT THE CITY, UH, HELD FIRM THAT THEY NEEDED TO HOST THE MEETING AND THEY NEEDED TO FIND A SOLUTION OTHER THAN ZOO. SO THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY, UH, THE MEETING WASN'T HELD SOONER, UM, BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION, UM, ON THEIR SIDE. SO I'LL SEE IF I CAN CONTINUE THAT QUESTIONING. UM, I BELIEVE I HEARD IT STATED THAT THERE, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS GONNA TOOK US UP TO THE JULY 30TH MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. FOR THE JULY 30TH MEETING, I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THE COMPLETED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL THE 19TH OF JUNE. OKAY. AND CAN I ASK, UM, UH, FROM A SAUCY, IF THE COUNCIL MEETING IS ON THE 30TH AND WE MEET ON THE 28TH, UM, IS, IS THERE THAT MUCH OF AN ISSUE? WHAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE WITH US APPROVING IT? IF WE DID IT ON THE 28TH, OUR CONCERN, OUR CONCERN IS THAT WHILE, WHILE THAT, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, OUR CONCERN IS THAT, UM, WE WILL BE, WE WILL BE FURTHER, UM, DELAYED AT COUNCIL ALSO TOO. YOU KNOW, WE, WE'RE NOT, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TIME FOR THE DRAFTING OF AN ORDINANCE AS WELL. AND SO THEIR, THEIR TIMELINE IS THAT THEY, THEY NEED TO HAVE A RULING, A FINAL RULING FROM COUNCIL BY THE END OF AUGUST. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT THIS CASE IS LIKELY NOT TO GO THREE READINGS IN ONE DAY, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT THE VERY LEAST TWO READINGS WITH COUNCIL [00:45:01] AND COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, BY, BY CITY CODE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO, UM, THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED TO GRANT POSTPONEMENTS. SO OUR CONCERN WITH GRANTING A POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT IS THAT IT WILL EAT UP ANY WIGGLE ROOM THAT WE HAVE, UM, BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO COUNCIL. AND, UM, AS I SAID THERE, WE, WE JUST HAVE REALLY, WE HAVE HUGE CONCERNS FOR, UM, THE FUNDING ON THIS PROJECT GOING AWAY. I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THIS LINE OF QUESTION IN THE LAST MINUTE HERE. UM, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON THE 28TH AND THEN GOING TO THE COUNCIL ON THE 30TH IS THAT IT MIGHT TAKE MORE THAN ONE MEETING FOR, UH, MY, MY CONCERN IS NOT THAT IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN ONE MEETING FOR COMMISSION. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT WILL BE POSTPONED AT COUNCIL FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHETHER THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS TO POSTPONE MINUTE COUNCIL, OR HOW WOULD IT IMPACT HOW WOULD GETTING APPROVED AT THE 28TH VERSUS NOW IMPACT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET POSTPONED AT COUNCIL? HOLD ON. HOW WOULD, HOW WOULD APPROVING SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME APPROVING, UH, IF YOU GOT APPROVAL HERE AT THE COMMISSION ON THE 28TH, INSTEAD OF TODAY ON THE 14TH, HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT, UM, UH, YOUR ABILITY TO GET HURT ON THE 30TH AT COUNCIL? WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD GO FIRST READING AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ANTICIPATING. UM, BUT OUR, OUR CONCERN. YEAH. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY. MY TIME, OR SURE AS OURS TIME HAS EXPIRED. UM, UH, LET'S SEE. COMMISSIONER SEGER, UM, YOU'RE AT THE BACK OF THE LIST SINCE IT'S ROUND ROBIN. UM, DO I SEE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER REQUESTING TO SPEAK OR ASK QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, GO AHEAD. YEAH. CAN I ASK ABOUT THE FUNDING SOURCE? SO ARE YOU COMPETING, ARE YOU COMPETING WITH, FOR THESE, THE SOURCE OF FUNDING? IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE FUNDS AREN'T AREN'T, AREN'T PRESENTED TO YOU, THERE'S THERE'S FUNDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE THERE BE SPENT AND WILL THEY BE SPENT IN THE AUSTIN AREA? SECOND I'M I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. OKAY. I'M BEING TOLD THAT, UH, UH, THE, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT SECURING THE BOND. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THEIR RD H A COMMITTED, UM, AND SECURING THOSE BONDS. UM, IN ORDER TO SECURE THOSE BONDS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE, THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN DEADLINES. SO IF THEY DON'T MEET THOSE DEADLINES, THE BONDS ARE NOT SECURED. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SECURING BONDS IS THE ISSUE. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND. OKAY. I GUESS I'M, MAYBE I CAN ASK FOR THE HELP OF SOME OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, EXPERTS ON THE COMMISSION, BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN NUMBER OF, OF TAX CREDIT PROJECTS THAT WENT FORWARD IN A GIVEN AREA A YEAR. AND THAT, THAT WAS A VERY COMPETITIVE PROCESS. BUT IF THERE WERE A NUMBER THAT WENT FORWARD, NO MATTER HOW MANY WERE PRESENTED, IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE PERMISSION OR KENNY, CAN YOU HEAR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN I, I DON'T KNOW. WHO'S SPEAKING. I'M SORRY. UH, WHO IS SPEAKING? I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER. KENNY. THIS IS PATRICK PATRICK RUSSELL WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. UH, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE FINANCING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO, OR DID YOU HEAR COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S QUESTION? I DID. I GUESS THE GIST OF MY QUESTION IS IF THEY WERE, IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO MISS THE DEADLINE WITH AUSTIN, GET FEWER AFFORDABLE HOMES, [00:50:01] OR, OR WOULD THOSE DOLLARS GO TO THE NEXT BEST PROJECT IN AUSTIN? IT'S HARD TO SAY, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO READ A CRYSTAL BALL. UM, SPECIFICALLY THIS DEAL IS A 4% TAX CREDIT DEAL, WHICH IS, UH, COUPLED WITH PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS APPLICANT IS GOING TO MAKE A GO AT PRIVATE ACTIVITY, BONDS IN AUGUST. THIS IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE AUGUST COLLAPSE. IT IS VERY COMPETITIVE. UM, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY IF THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SECURE FINANCING, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD SECURE FINANCING AT THAT AUGUST 15TH. UM, AND GIVEN, GIVEN HOW COMPETITIVE IT IS, I CAN CONFIRM THAT, UM, THE MORE TIME YOU HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THAT DEADLINE, UH, THE BETTER, IF THEY, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO GO FOR THAT DEADLINE AND AUGUST 15TH TO GET PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS, AS PART OF THE FINANCING, THEY DO HAVE ANOTHER SHOT. IT IS, UH, LATER IN THE YEAR, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL GET IT. UM, AND, AND, AND IF IT DOES EFFECTIVELY HUNTS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD WITH A 4%, BUT I THINK JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I'M NOT AUSTIN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER HOWARD. THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A REASONABLE ALLOCATION IS 9% TAX GRANTS, NOT THE 4%. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT. UM, WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER SEEKERS. LAST QUESTION. IF YOU YOU'RE ABLE TO HOLD YOUR MOTION TO ASK AN ANSWER BY SUMMARY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THIS FOR THE DISCUSSION AGENDA SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA, ESPECIALLY I UNDERSTAND YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. YEAH. THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I HEARD FROM FOLKS HOPING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME HAD TO DO WITH WHAT I BELIEVE HEARD WAS WHEN THEY FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS ZONING, WHICH IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN QUITE A WHILE AGO, MAYBE SIX MONTHS OR GREATER. AND THEN SECOND IS TRAFFIC. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. I'LL NEVER FORGET THIS. ANYONE TELLING ME ONE TIME ON A SENIOR JOB AND SHE'S WORKING ON, SHE'S LIKE, WELL, IF THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND THAT'S AN AMAZING THING FOR SENIORS, THAT'S A PROBLEM WE'RE DESPERATE TO HAVE. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN SENIOR CENTERS AND WITH FOLKS LIVING IN NURSING HOMES, AND I ASSURE YOU THAT THERE'S TYPICALLY NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE, UNFORTUNATELY. SO COMMISSIONER SAID, IF WE CAN FOCUS ON POSTPONING OR NOT UNDERSTOOD, THERE YOU GO. OKAY. UM, SO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? AUSTRALIANA SWEETER, GO AHEAD. YEAH. UM, I WILL SPEAK AGAINST, UM, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, UM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THOSE REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING NOTIFIED. UM, THE VERY FIRST, UH, NOTIFICATION I THINK WE HEARD CLEARLY, OTHERWISE, EVEN FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THE CONTACT TEAM HAD BEEN REALLY GOOD TO WORK WITH. UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT REQUEST FROM WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AND THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT CLEAR. UM, FURTHERMORE, THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS AROUND THIS ARE NOT STRICTLY ABOUT NEW TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE ABOUT TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET AND SAFETY ISSUES. SO I THINK A POSTPONEMENT HERE IS APPROPRIATE, UM, TO FURTHER DISCUSS. AND I THINK THAT THE QUESTION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FUNDING, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE SPECIFIC DETAIL ABOUT THE FIRMS AT STAKE. UM, BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THIS AREA IS COMPLETELY SATURATED WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO THAT I DON'T, I HONESTLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. UM, THIS CONTACT TEAM HAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANGED THINGS AROUND AND MAINTAINED THIS AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL. SO, UM, I'M IN, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT AGAINST HEARING IT TONIGHT, KOSHER MISSION TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. GO AHEAD, FINISH YOUR SHEA. SO A SNICKERS, I MEAN, I THINK, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM WITH ME DOING IT TONIGHT. I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS, IF WE GET TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS IT, YOU KNOW, [00:55:01] YOU WOULD GET US CLOSER TO SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION. I MEAN, IF THEY'RE SEEKING THEM BEFORE, WE COULD STILL END UP ARRIVING BACK AT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT'S FOR US TO TALK ABOUT AND DISCUSS TONIGHT. I MEAN, IF WE REALLY DO NEED MORE TIME AND WE FIND OUT THAT WE NEED MORE, MORE, MORE STUDY INTO THE TRAFFIC THING, WE CAN ALSO POSTPONE IT, ENDED UP FINISHING, HEARING IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO IN HERE TONIGHT. IT WILL GET US THAT MUCH CLOSER IF NOT POSSIBLY EVEN RESOLVED. I SHOULDN'T SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION. MR. SEEGER, GO AHEAD. THE TWO WEEKS WE'LL AFFORD THE TIME FOR THE TWO SIDES TO GET TOGETHER AND DISCUSS THIS. I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE WILL BE THAT MUCH HARM FOR TWO WEEKS DELAY. AND THAT'S WHY I WILL BE HEARING THE CASE THIS EVENING. SURE. JUST WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. SURE. I THINK SIMILARLY WAS MENTIONED INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE. OH, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD. THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS FOR DELAY. I BELIEVE THAT ALL ON FULLY AWARE OF, BUT I THINK THAT THOSE THINGS CAN BE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL TONIGHT. OKAY. UM, AND I FINAL COMMISSIONER WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST MR. SCHNEIDER, GO AHEAD. AS I'VE UNDERSTOOD THE, UM, ARGUMENTS MADE FOR POSTPONEMENT, UM, I, I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW THERE IS ANY HARM TO DELAYING THIS UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING WHEN WE CAN VOTE ON IT AND MOVE IT OUT AND GET IT TO COUNCIL IN TIME FOR THE ALREADY SET MEANING FOR THE 30TH. MY CONCERN IS THAT, AND NOT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS, WHICH I ACTUALLY MAY BE SUPPORTIVE OF, BUT WE, IT ON UPPER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT TO COME TOGETHER ONE MORE TIME. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE WORKED WELL TOGETHER, RESOLVE ALL OF THEIR REMAINING ISSUES OR AS MANY ISSUES AS THEY CAN, AND THEN NOT DELAY IT WHEN IT GOES BEFORE. COUNCIL. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, IT'S STILL SET FOR THE 30TH FOR COUNCIL. AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT. IF WE CAN DO WHAT WE CAN TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND TRY TO MAKE PEACE, THEN SMOOTH SAILING WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL THAT'S. THAT IS MY CONCERN FOR TONIGHT THAT WE DON'T ALLOW THAT ONE LAST CHANCE TO MAKE PEACE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. OKAY. THOSE ARE OUR SPEAKERS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. UM, THE VOTE IS A MOTION BY CONSTRAINT OR SOME SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHADE TO, UH, TO PUT THIS ON THE DISCUSSION AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR. RAISE YOUR GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, UH, ALL AGAINST GO RED. UM, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, UM, ALL OF THE STAINING, SO THAT, UH, MOTION FAILS FIVE TO EIGHT. UH, I THINK THIS NATURALLY CALLS FOR A MOTION TO THEN, UM, POSTPONE THE ITEM, UH, UNTIL, UM, PERHAPS JULY 28TH, WHICH WOULD STILL ENABLE THEM TO MEET THEIR JULY 30TH MEETING. DO I SEE A MOTION, MR. C? MY MOTION IS TO POSTPONE THIS HEARING INTO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS JULY 28TH. ALRIGHT, GREAT. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. UM, ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11, UH, ALL OPPOSED A ONE AND ALL OF STAINING, WHICH I ASKED HIM. WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE ON THAT ONE? COULDN'T SEE IT GREEN. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT WAS 12 TO ONE. UM, SO, UH, THAT MOTION PASSES. UM, SO THAT ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL JULY, UM, UH, 28TH. AND, UM, WE, I BELIEVE STILL HAVE THE CONSENT, NOT READ IT THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. SO WE'RE ONTO OUR REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS MONTH. FOUR OF CORENTI. UM, ALL RIGHT. [5. Rezoning: E MLK Rezoning, District 1 Location: 5201 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Fort Branch Watershed; Montopolis NP Area; East MLK Combined (MLK-183) NP Area Owner/Applicant: 5201 E MLK LP (Ryan Walker) Agent: Thrower Design (Ron Thrower) Request: SF-3-NP to MF-3-NP, as amended. Staff Rec.: Recommended Staff: Heather Chaffin, 512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov Planning and Zoning Department] UH, MOVING ON OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM IS THE EAST MLK REZONING AT, UH, DID YOU TWO OR ONE EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD. UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, THE STAFF ON THE LINE? YEAH. HEATHER CHAFFIN PLANNING AND ZONING. RIGHT. [01:00:01] GREAT. I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE QUICK ON THE INTRO TO THIS. I'VE HEARD IT BEFORE. IT'S KATE'S C 14 2020 DASH OH THREE ONE PAGE. THEY REQUESTED SCANNING FROM SF THREE NP. ORIGINALLY THEY WERE REQUESTING M F AND P THE APPLICANT REVIVED THE REQUEST ON FRIDAY THROUGH REQUEST M F LEE AND T IT'S A 2.6 ACRES ON THE FALL SIDE AND I'LL PAY, UM, OH, IT'S ALSO PROPOSED TO BE A SMART HOUSING PROJECT. THE PROPOSED REZONING FOR MS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 23RD. HOWEVER, LATER IN THE MEETING, THE, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MEETING AND MAYBE DISCUSS IT FURTHER. THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST MLK ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN SPRINGDALE ROAD AND TANNAHILL LANE. IT'S MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY SF THREE NP, BUT THERE IS A COMMERCIAL AND OTHER MORE INTENSE, UH, USES AND ZONING IN A WIDER VICINITY. THIS IS DESIGNATED ON THE FLINT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS MIXED RESIDENTIAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS AND ALLOWS MS. THREE ALLOWS ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY CATEGORIES. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EACH DEVELOPMENT BE MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES. THERE IS ELSEWHERE AND DRY THAT OTHER AS OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, THIS HAS BEEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. ATD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT AN EXTENSION IT IS NOT REQUIRED. IT'S NOT IN ANY OF THE BUDGET PLANNING. AND, UM, THIS IS KIND OF A REMNANT OF THE CLASS AND THE 1960S ALSO NEIGHBORHOOD OPINION OR INPUT HAS BEEN, THEY DO NOT AN EXTENSION THROUGH THEIR ATD, HAS NO FUNDING FOR IT, AND IT'S NOT DESIRED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF IS SUPPORTING AND THAT REZONING AND THAT ZONING IS OFF THE TABLE. ONCE AN APPLICANT HAS MODIFIED THEIR ZONING REQUESTS, HE CAN'T CONSIDER ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. I ALSO HAVE A ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF HERE ON THE LINE AND, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD, HOUSE STAFF. YOU'RE ON THE LINE FOR ANY QUESTION. GREAT. THANK YOU, MS. CHAFFIN, UM, LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT, AND, UH, JUST AS A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY THIS, UH, ORIGINALLY, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS, DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT, UH, SOME BOASTS FORWARD, THEN YOU BROUGHT IT TO SITTER. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SEEING A BUNCH OF SPINNING VIDEOS. SO I'M THINKING MAYBE I CUT OUT FOR A SECOND. UM, JUST AS A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY, UH, THIS, UM, WE HAD THIS CASE, UH, IT DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO RE UH, AND THAT'S THREE DA, UM, AND WE'RE TAKEN UP NOW. SO IF I CAN ASK THAT TO MAYBE SPEAK TO CONCERNS FROM THE LAST MEETING OR ADD NEW INFORMATION AND THEIR TIME, GO AHEAD, KENNY, KENNY, UH, WHEN IT WAS APPROVED ON MF THREE, IT DID HAVE SUFFICIENT, BUT CAN WE AFFORD IT? WAS IT AN EIGHT TO THREE? AND THEN THERE WAS THE VOTE TO RECONSIDER IT, RIGHT. I BELIEVE THE WAS SIX OR SOMETHING. HEY GUYS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CAMPUS IS, CORRECT. THE REQUEST FOR MS. THREE WAS THE FIRST MOTION, OR I'M SORRY. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHERE HE WAS THE FIRST MOTION AS THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION CENTS. AND AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS ONLY EMISSARY. OKAY. UM, SO WE, WE CAN HEAR FROM THE AFRICAN AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING NOW WITH THE MF THREE THAT WAS APPROVED BY COMMISSION LAST TIME. SO, UM, UH, APPLICANT SPEAK TO, TO WHAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO, I GUESS, GO AHEAD. SAUCY, ARE YOU IN LINE? I CAN HEAR YOU NOW. GO AHEAD. [01:05:01] OKAY. I'M TO MAKE SURE TO TURN DOWN YOUR TV, IF YOU HAVE THIS GONE. OKAY. YUP. YUP. GOT THAT. OKAY. UM, SO I REALLY, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD AND JUST THAT AFTER LAST HEARING, UM, WE MET WITH AUDUBON SOCIETY. WE TRIED TO, UH, TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TOGETHER ON THAT. UM, AND IN THE END, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT THE UPHILL BATTLE AND DECIDED TO GO WITH . OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, SO, UH, UH, THAT IS THE APPLICANT, UM, WHO IS NOW, UH, AGREEING TO THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. UM, CAN WE NOW HEAR FROM, I HAVE MARKED, UH, NICOLE WEBB, ANOTHER TERM, UM, UP AS THE THERE'S ANOTHER 10. ARE YOU THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? I'M SORRY, THAT WAS IN FAVOR. I'M SORRY, ADAM. I'M SORRY, NICOLE. I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG LIST. UM, UH, DO I HAVE ADAM SHARP ON THE LINE? IS ADAM SHARP? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME GOOD? YES. GO AHEAD. OKAY. WELL, YEAH, I'M ADAM SHARP. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE STONE GATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I'M, AGAIN, I'M REPRESENTING OVER 65 HOUSEHOLDS. MANY OF WHOM ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED AND CONFUSED BY THE DECISION TO THIS COMMISSION. IT'S BEEN A BAFFLING FEW WEEKS FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. AT FIRST, WE THOUGHT THE COMMISSION HAD DENIED THE MSX SIX DESIGNATION ONLY TO FIND OUT AT THE FOUR HOUR AND 45 MINUTE MARK OF THE MEETING THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS INEXPLICABLY BROUGHT UP FOR A REBOOT, A MOVE THAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS SKETCHY AS A BLACK FRIDAY. THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED A REQUEST DOWN TO MS THREE, WHICH IS STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WE NEVER A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I OWE IT TO MY NEIGHBORS TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE HELP US OUT. I WAS REMISS LAST TIME AND NOT FULLY EXPLAINING TO YOU THE ONLY CONTACT WE HAD ABOUT THE SITE, BUT IN FEBRUARY, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, PAT MISHAP ASKED IF I COULD SET UP A MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO SEEK SUPPORT FOR 200 UNITS. AFTER THAT MEETING, I DID NOT HEAR FROM THEM UNTIL MAY 22ND, WHICH WAS FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS PROPERTY, THIS LESSON, A MASS CONFUSION THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING. AND WE'RE ALL NEW AT THIS. WE ARE NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT MS THREE WOULD ALLOW. AND WHETHER THIS APPLICANT RYAN WALKER, UH, IS MEANT TO BE THE END USER AND DEVELOPED THIS TRACK, OR IS THIS A REZONING FOR A CLIENT OF THEIR WEALTH MANAGEMENT FIRM? DO YOU KNOW IF RYAN IS GOING TO DEVELOP THIS SITE AND HOW HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PROPOSAL? BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT, IF YOU HAVE NOT, WE WONDER WHY SUCH A SIGNIFICANT ZONING WOULD BE WARRANTED. EVEN MS. THREE IS MUCH HIGHER DESIGNATION THAN EVERY ZONING AROUND IT. MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW IT IS INTENDED TO BE USED AND EVEN BIGGER AND RELATED QUESTION IS WHY THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT TO GO WITH THE ZONING CASE. IT'S PURELY, THEN THIS PURELY DONE TO MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AS IT MADE IT MIXED RESIDENTIAL, THAT TEACHER LED YOU SET A GOAL FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE AT LEAST HALF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WITH THE RIGHT THING, DUPLEXES AND TOWN HOMES AND APARTMENTS. SO FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING ARE SUPPOSED TO MATCH. SO WHERE'S THE PLAN AMENDMENT. IF ONE IS NOT NEEDED, PLEASE HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY IS THAT NEEDED? FINALLY, MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE PUT TOGETHER A VALID PROTEST PETITION BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY BIG UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. WE FELT LITTLE CONTACT FROM RYAN AND HIS TEAM. WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH RYAN AND REDBUD TO COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS ABOUT THIS TRACK, TO OPTIMIZE ITS FIT AND FUNCTION IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. MY NEIGHBORS AND I URGE THE COMMISSION TO ENSURE THE PROPER PROCESS IS FOLLOWED IS FOLLOWED AS FAR AS ANY FUTURE LAND MAP AMENDMENT NEEDED. MOVING IN CONCERT WITH THE ZONING CASE, WE ALSO ASKED YOU TO ENCOURAGE RYAN AND THROW IT TO DINE, TO CHECK IN WITH THE STONE GATE NEIGHBORHOOD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD AND WORK WITH THAT SORTS OF CONSENSUS. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANKS. THANK YOU. UM, UH, LET'S GO TO, UH, STICKERS AND SAVER. UM, WE HAVE NICOLE AND OTHER 10 ON THE LINE. [01:10:01] COOL. ANOTHER 10. ARE YOU HERE? SO YOU CAN STAR SIX. YES, WE CAN. NOW GO AHEAD. HI, I'LL BE BRIEF BECAUSE IT IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN HER EXPLANATION, BUT TRAFFIC AUTOBON REMAINS IN FAVOR OF MS. THREE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BLAIR WAS WE SUPPORT THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND SAN GET NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT THAT A LOWER DENSITY ZONING DESIGNATION IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. UH, OUR MISSION IS TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE HABITAT. UH, ATLANTA WAS BOTH NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT REQUIRES US TO SUPPORT DOWNING NO HIGHER THAN THREE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND, UH, DO WE HAVE MARK WILSON, MARK WILSON OR YELLOW? YOU CAN GO AHEAD. UH, I JUST, UH, AM ON THE BOARD OF TRAVIS AUDUBON AND JUST WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT NICOLE JUST SAID. UH, AND WE, UH, SUPPORT THE PROCESS THAT GOING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MOVING ON, UH, DENISE PETITE YOU ON THE LINE. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME, JAN? GO AHEAD. HI, I'M ANDREA, I'M PETITE AND LIFELONG WITH AN ANISTON GAY NEIGHBORHOOD AND AN OFFICER AND AS WELL OF THIS ASSOCIATION, MY MOTHER AND MRS. KATHERINE PATINA RETIRED PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER HAS RESIDED THERE FOR 54 YEARS. OUR HOME IS DIRECTLY SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO THE EAST MLK PROJECT. THIS VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD LET'S DEVELOP FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN PROFESSIONALS. LIKE MY MOTHER, WHO HAD A LONG HISTORY OF BEING ACTIVE IN THE CITY, IT'S DARKLY. WE HAD GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WE WORKED TOGETHER. SO THE RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS WERE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A WIN, WIN. AND I KNOW THOSE LEADERS CARED ABOUT US. WE HOPE YOU CARE ABOUT US TO THE APPLICANT. BRIAN WALKER, WITH DEVELOPMENT ADVERTISE. THEY ARE OPPORTUNISTIC INVESTORS FOCUS WHERE VALUE IS NOT EASILY VISIBLE. OPPORTUNISTIC INVESTORS HAVE COME TO YOU BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY SEE VALUE THAT OTHERS DON'T IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT VALUE IS FOUND IN UPS, OWNING THE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW IT IMPACTS THE COMMUNITY. NOW WHAT YOU ALL TO KNOW, LIKE DON'T GET RESIDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORS AROUND SEE SIGNIFICANT VALUE IN THE INVESTMENTS, THE INTEGRITY, THE LONGTERM VIABILITY WE HAVE BUILT. WE'RE INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING ZONING THAT ACCOMMODATES MORE DENSITY, AND WE ALSO NEED SOMETHING THAT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING ENHANCING, NOT DIMINISHING THE QUALITY OF LIFE. AND I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THAT. AND I HOPE YOU ENCOURAGE RYAN AND RED BUD TO SEE THAT AS WELL. I SENT THEM SLIDES EARLIER. PLEASE PUT THEM UP. IF YOU CAN. THE DEVELOPER CUT DOWN A LOT OF VALUABLE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, IF YOU WOULD STAND BY, CAN I PAUSE YOU FOR JUST A SECOND BETTER PROBLEMS, A LOT OF DAMAGE AND WATER DAMAGE UNDER AND ABOVE THE GROUND, BUT THE SOIL IS VERY UNSTABLE. UH, THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF A QUALITY AND RELIABLES FROM WATER DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE YEARS AGO, THE NATIONAL GUARD OF ENGINEERS. SO THEY CAME OUT AND TOLD US THAT BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS HELPING THEM LANE PROPERTY WAS DANGEROUS DUE TO POTENTIAL FLOODING. LIKE WHAT HAPPENED AT SHELL CREEK, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE, THE BULLDOZER BULLDOZE ALL THE TREES ON THE TREE LINE, WHICH WAS AN ASSET FOR C'MON AND PRIVACY LOSS. AND YES, THE DEVELOPER CAN BUILD WHATEVER HE LIKES. WE JUST WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HIM. I MET WITH THE COMMUNITY, DISCUSSED WHAT HIS PLAN, WHAT HE'S GOING TO DEVELOP THERE AND ALSO MEET WITH THE SPRING HILL SUBDIVISION AS WELL. PLEASE DON'T DENY US BLACK AND BROWN LIVES MATTER AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT TO STOP WANTING TO MAKE MY POINTS. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND. UM, YOU STILL HAVE A LITTLE OF TIME. DID YOU SEND A PRESENTATION INTO, UH, THE STAFF [01:15:03] AND STAFF? IF YOU HAVE IT, CAN YOU PUT IT UP? WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SEE IT. WE DIDN'T HAVE IT. OKAY. STEPH WAS SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY EXHIBITS. DID YOU EMAIL IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS? YEAH, I EMAILED IT TO MR. RIVERA. HEY, UM, I DO NOT HAVE IT IN MY EMAIL. UM, I'M SORRY. UH, OKAY. I DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING EDITING THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED THE DECK. I DON'T THINK WE RECEIVED IT. UH, MAN, UM, UH, AND STAFF DIDN'T RECEIVE IT, BUT, UH, I THINK WE DID GET THE GIST OF YOUR TESTIMONY THERE. UM, SEEING AS HOW WE DON'T HAVE THE SLIDES. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? OH, I CAN AFFORD THOSE AT A LATER TIME. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE POINTS AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. UM, DO WE HAVE ANDREW STEVENS ON THE LINE? ANDREW STEVENS. IT'S STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. HI. AND IF I CAN JUST GIVE A HEADS UP TO, CAN I GIVE A HEADS UP TO ANDREA CALLOW AND DAVID KING ARE UP NEXT. GO AHEAD, MR. STEVENS. GREAT. UH, HOW DO COMMISSIONERS I'M SPEAKING? I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE COMPROMISE WE ARE A PRO DENSITY, BUT AS PETTIT SAID, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A COLLABORATIVE, UM, ENHANCING, UM, ELEMENT IN THAT SORT OF PLANNING. SO, UH, WE, WE LOVE THE COMPROMISE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. UH, ANDREA KELO, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. WE CAN GO AHEAD. AND DAVID IS NEXT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. UM, I GO, MY NEIGHBORS IN BEING SUPPORTIVE OF AS A COMPROMISE, UH, I APPRECIATED SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF THE CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE PROTECTION OF BLAIR WOODS, AS WELL AS THE QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT PROMISE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ALSO AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT OUR CONCERN BEING MORE AESTHETIC THAN ANYTHING, WHICH I FEEL IS REDUCTIVE. MANY OF US SUPPORT ADDING HOUSING AND DENSITY, WHICH IS WHY MANY OF US WOULD SUPPORT MSC ZONING AT THIS SITE, WHICH IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THAT WOULD BE A HUGE AESTHETIC CHANGE FROM THE DENSE FOREST THAT BASICALLY USED TO BE HERE. MUCH OF THE LAST CONVERSATION SEEMED TO BE POINTED ONLY AT THIS FUTURE, WHICH RISKS IGNORING PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR GENERATIONS. AND I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, TAKING THIS SITE TO THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF MS SEEM LIKE AN EXTREME OPTION. SO AGAIN, WE WOULD SUPPORT IN A THREE AND ESPECIALLY COLLABORATION AND CONVERSATION WITH THESE DEVELOPERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. WE HAVE DAVID KING AND THEN ZENOBIA JOSEPH IS NEXT. DAVID KING. ARE YOU THERE? DAVID KING? YOU CAN HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. HELLO. WE CAN GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. YOUR PROPERTY FOR THIS CASE IS LOCATED IN THE EAST MLK NEIGHBORHOOD IN RESTOCKS. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS UPWARD A REPORT INDICATES THAT THIS AREA IS EXPERIENCING DYNAMIC GENTEFICATION WITH SIGNIFICANT INVOLUNTARY DISPLACEMENT OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES, FAMILIES OF COLOR, AND SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES, RAPID REDEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY ARIZONA, THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY CERTAIN UP THE CENSUS TRACK IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY DESIGNATED OPPORTUNITIES ZONE AND ALMOST 50% OF THE HOUSING UNITS ARE OWNER OCCUPIED. HOME OWNERSHIP PROVIDES STABILITY, FLEXIBILITY, RESILIENCE, AND ECONOMIC VALUE FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. THE PROPOSED ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY WILL REDUCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOME OWNERSHIP WHILE INCREASING DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES ON SURROUNDING LOW INCOME FAMILIES, FAMILIES OF COLOR AND SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES. PLEASE RETAIN THE EXISTING ZONING ALONG THIS PROPERTY. AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS AND FOR YOUR SERVICE. OKAY. UH, I HOPE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT CASE. THERE'S NO HOUSING ON HIS PROPERTY. SO NOW WE HAD JOSEPH EUROPE AND THEN FRED LOUIS' AFTER THAT, UM, JOSEPH, ARE YOU IN THE LINE? [01:20:04] INTERESTING. OKAY. UH, WHOEVER JUST SAID I'M MUTED, YOU'RE NOT MUTED. YOU HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE SYNOVIA. JOSEPH, WHO WE HAVE YOU ON THE LINE? JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM MS. JOSEPH, I THINK, UM, SHE SAYS SHE NEEDS THE CODE. UM, STAFF CAN, CAN YOU, UH, ADVISE ON, OR CAN YOU MAYBE EMAIL HER THE CODE AND, UM, WHILE WE'RE YES, I EMAILED, I EMAILED THE PAIN TO HER A LITTLE BIT. MY POINT OF THE MEETING, NOT SIX 20. OKAY. IS IT GOING TO BE JOSEPH LOOK FOR AN EMAIL ABOUT SIX 20 WITH THE, UH, THE CODE AND, UH, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND TAKE UP FRED LEWIS. ARE YOU ON THE LINE? DO WE HAVE FRED LEWIS ON THE LINE? YOU CAN HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU. OH, WE JUST, I THINK WE MAY HAVE JUST LOST YOU AGAIN. HEARD YOU SAY, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? THAT WAS, OH, NO, I THINK WE HAVE YOUR BACK. THERE YOU GO. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, I'LL BE BRIEF. UH, I OBJECT TO THE PROCESS AND I OBJECT TO THE REVISED APPLICATION. I SIGNED UP TO DONATE MY TIME TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK Y'ALL HAVE REALLY LISTENED TO THEIR CONCERNS. AND I FOUND OUT WE DON'T ASK FOR FOUR YEARS, FOUR MONTHS IT'S WARRANTY AND THE CITY HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO DONATE ONLINE OR BE ABLE TO SIGN UP LESLIE 30 HOURS BEFORE HIM. YOU DIDN'T GIVE THEM AN EXTENSION TO JULY 28TH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC. AND FRANKLY, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD BINDS THIS PROCESS INSENSITIVE UNFRIENDLY. AND I'M NOT SAYING IT IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN VERY INCONSIDERATE OF THEIR WISHES AND LISTENING TO THEM. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, FRANKLY, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR THEORIES ARE. I CARE WHAT THE NEIGHBOR DIDN'T WANT. AND AFTER ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR THEIR HOMES AND DEALT WITH THE OPPRESSION OF COST AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WANT. AND I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY WANT THEM AT THREE ZONING. THEY'RE JUST THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO WORSE THAN THEM IF THEY DON'T COMPROMISE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH WEEKLY PUMPS TO MANY PEOPLE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT. MAYBE YOU MIGHT LISTEN MORE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY WHO WORKED SO HARD. OKAY. ARE YOU FINISHED? I AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE SYNOVIA JOSEPH ON THE LINE? UH, I HAVE ATTACHED TESTIMONY. MS. JOSEPH, DO WE HAVE YOU ON THE LINE? OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE HER ON, UM, IF, IF SHE IS ABLE TO GET BACK ON, UM, I'LL, I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE TO, UM, UH, TO SUSPEND OUR RULES AND ALLOW HER TO SPEAK. UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO, UH, WELL NOW I'M GETTING EMAILS, INQUIRIES, RESEND. UM, WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES HERE. UM, STEPH, IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET HER BACK ON THE LINE, UH, I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF WE CAN HEAR FROM HER, BUT, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY NOW AND EVERYBODY WHO'S WAITING, UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, MR. [01:25:01] RIVERA, CAN YOU ADVISE, CAN I LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HEAR FROM COMMISSIONERS AT THIS POINT? OKAY. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, WHO HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS WHEN ROUND ROBIN PREFERABLY QUESTIONS WHERE WE CAN DO COMMENTS, WHICH ARE SEEKER AND THEN COMMISSIONER YANNIS BURRITO, COMMISSIONER SEEKER. YOU ARE MUTED. AM I ON NOW? YES. OKAY. I WAS HAVING TROUBLE UNMUTING MY CONCERN ON THIS, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN RAISED, BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF IT WAS ANSWERED, TOTALLY IS FLYING THOUGH. UH, PLUM AMENDMENT WAS CREATED BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL GROUPIE, WHICH IS CURRENT. HOWEVER THAT, UH, CATEGORY REQUIRES 50% SINGLE FAMILY. AND THIS IS MULTIFAMILY THREE AT THIS POINT. SHOULD THERE BE A PLUM AMENDMENT? THEY'VE CHANGED THIS TO MULTIFAMILY. AND THAT IS MY QUESTION OF STAFF AND ANYONE THAT CHOOSES TO RESPOND. I AM SORRY. I NEGLECTED TO HEAR THE OPPOSITION. UH, I'M SORRY, THE REBUTTAL, UH, AND MR. RIVERA, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING? YES. IF WE WANT TO KEEP CONCERN WITH YOUR PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, I DO HAVE THIS AS AN AUDIO ON THE LINE, SO WE CAN GO FORWARD IN HERE. HER TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY THE THING AND HAVE THE REBUTTAL. GREAT. OKAY, MS. CHAFFIN, IF YOU COULD PREPARE TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER SEEGER'S QUESTION AND MS. ZENOBIA, JOSEPH WILL BRING IT UP. NOW, IF YOU'RE ON THE LINE, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS. I'M ZENOBIA JOSEPH AND SORRY ABOUT THE DELAY, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING MY TESTIMONY. I JUST WANTED TO THANK DAVID KING AND THERE WAS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN LADY THAT JUST SPOKE TO YOU. MY COMMENTS ARE REALLY IN LINE WITH THEIRS, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE OPPORTUNITIES ZONES. THAT'S WHAT I SAW WHEN I FIRST SAW MF SIX, AS OPPOSED TO MF THREE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT CORRIDOR. IF YOU RECALL, YOU DID, UM, ACTUALLY APPROVE JUST ONE MILE EAST OF 52 OH ONE EAST MLK, ABOUT 520 TO 570 UNITS. AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THAT AREA, WE HAVE LIQUOR STORES, YOU HAVE DOLLAR STORES AND THERE IS NO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. I ACTUALLY WALKED THAT CORRIDOR TO SEE FOR MYSELF. SO I ACTUALLY AGREED WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THAT THEY ACCURATELY ASSESSED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A GROCERY STORE. I CAN JUST TELL YOU, I'M A FORMER TEACHER OF THE YEAR AT NAAMAN ELEMENTARY. AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMBINING NORMAN AND SIM MAKING IT A WORLD CLASS LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, BUT JUST PUTTING A NICE SCHOOL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITHOUT THERE BEING GROCERY STORES AND PLACES THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO AND JUST HANG OUT OR JUST, YOU KNOW, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU WALK AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY LIVE, WORK IN PLACE. IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU USE THE BUS. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S COMMENT WHERE HE SAID THAT MFC WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S THE FREQUENT ROUTE 18, IT'S NOT BY DIRECTIONAL. WHAT I MEAN IS THAT THE BUS ONLY GOES TO DOWNTOWN. SO PUTTING DENSITY IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS SIMPLY JUST GOING TO INCREASE THE TRAFFIC. AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND IT RUNS EVERY 15 MINUTES, BUT IN ORDER TO GET TO THE NEAREST GROCERY STORE ETB SPRINGDALE, IT TAKES THREE BUSES. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE 18 FREQUENT TRANSFER TO THE 300 AT SPRINGDALE, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CATCH THE 20. IF YOU TO JUST TAKE TWO BUSES TO GET TO MUELLER, WHICH IS REALLY FAR AWAY, YOU CAN TRANSFER TO TWO BUSES. SO IT'S THIS, UM, IT'S THIS INCENTIVE IN THAT WHOLE CORRIDOR. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ON THE BUS. THE OTHER THING TO KNOW IS THAT THE NEAREST STORE IS 2.9 MILES AWAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN YOUR CAR AND DRIVE TO ATB, IF ANYTHING, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS AREA, IT IS UNLIKE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WOULD SEE DOWNTOWN. UM, EVEN AT THE MLK METRO RAIL STATION, IT'S JUST NOT THERE. AND SO IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE EVEN MS THREE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THIS SUPPORT. THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA. THE OTHER THING I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT YOU ARE REALLY WITH 50% AREA MEDIAN, FAMILY INCOME, EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST FOR FIVE YEARS, YOU'RE BASICALLY HAVING CONCENTRATIONS OF POVERTY. AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING, IT'S NOT, IT'S JUST THEORETICAL. IT'S NOT IN PRACTICE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE 500 [01:30:01] UNITS, WHICH IS A MODEL AWAY WITH NO INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET CLOSER TO MLK AND SPRINGDALE, THAT'S WHEN YOU START TO GENTRIFY AND THE AFFORDABLE, THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT $400,000 FOR YOU TO LIVE AT PECAN SPRINGS, WHICH IS ANOTHER CASE THAT YOU'VE BEEN HEARING. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE WHAT THE AUDUBON SOCIETY WANTS AND WHAT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT, IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE SOME PONTUS STORE. SO IN THE DOCUMENT THAT I SENT YOU, I ACTUALLY GAVE YOU, UM, AN IDEAL IMAGE OF WHERE YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR WITH WALMART, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE APARTMENTS ABOVE IT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S MISSING IN THAT AREA. JUST THE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OVER THE TOP, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE MOST IDEAL. AND SO I JUST WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP THESE IN MIND AND I THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY COMMENTS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. UM, WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS IN A LITTLE BIT, SO PLEASE HANG ON. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND GO FOR A REBUTTAL? HELLO? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME. WE CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. UH, FIRST I'D LIKE TO JUST MENTION THAT AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, THERE WERE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD PEOPLE THAT WERE OKAY WITH MS THREE. UM, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THOSE WHO CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THAT, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND ESPECIALLY THE AUDUBON SOCIETY. UM, THE PROPOSAL FOR THIS PROJECT HAS REMAINED THE SAME ALL ALONG 200 UNITS OF MULTIFAMILY. UM, WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GAUGE THEIR INTEREST. I THINK IT'S THAT THE TOPIC IS COMING UP ABOUT MIXED USE AND HAVING COMMERCIAL USES IN THE AREA BECAUSE WHEN WE MET WITH STONE GATE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WE GAUGE THEIR INTEREST IN MAKING THE PROJECT AT THE SITE. A MIXED USE PROJECT, UH, INCLUDE TO INCLUDE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. UM, THE STONE GATE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SAID THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE THAT. AND EVEN THOUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM ENCOURAGED US TO, UH, PUT COMMERCIAL USES HERE. SO WE WERE, WE OBLIGED WITH THE MOST IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOODS STONE GATE, AND WE TOLD THEM THAT IF THEY DID NOT, IF THEY DIDN'T WANT IT, THEN WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT. AND WE WOULD JUST GO FOR A STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. AND WE EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT WE WOULD, UH, FILE AN APPLICATION AND ALSO EXPLAIN THAT WITH AN PROJECT AT THIS SITE, IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, I DID EXPLAIN THAT HAD THEY HAD, HAD THEY BEEN INTERESTED IN A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY HERE, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT. THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. SO WE DID NOT PURSUE IT, UM, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY. UM, AT THE TIME THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT IS NOT FAR ENOUGH ALONG TO PROVIDE, UH, DETAILS THAT WOULD COME FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN. AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STONE GATE HAS, HAS REQUESTED AND ASKED OF US, BUT THE PROJECT JUST ISN'T THERE AT THAT TIME. WE'RE, WE'RE AT WE'RE AT THE LEVEL OF ZONING. UM, I'LL NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT DISPLACING ANYONE. UM, THERE WAS ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, UM, UH, ON THE SITE, UH, IT'S A LARGE SITE. AND, UH, EVEN IF THE SITE WERE TO REDEVELOP UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING, UH, BECAUSE OF LAND PRICES, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE BUYER OR DEVELOPER, UH, EVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT AT THE PROPERTY WOULD GO FOR MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE RATES. UM, THEN A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFER. SO, UH, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, AND FOR YOU TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND, WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE COME TO, UH, I REALIZED THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY CHANGE HERE. WE CAME IN AND ASKED FOR NSX, HOPING THAT WE COULD GET, UH, A LOT OF UNITS AND DENSITY ON THE CORRIDOR AND WE'VE LANDED IN THE MIDDLE. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR, UH, MS. THREE AT THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MR. , I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU UPON NEXT, UH, MR. SEEGER, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERED? NO. OKAY. UM, I STILL HAVE YOU ON MUTE, SO I'M GOING TO, UH, RESTART YOUR TIME, COMMISSIONER SEGER. UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO MS. CHAFFIN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOWUPS, MR. SEEGER, YOU CAN CONTINUE IN BURWELL. I HAVE YOU UP NEXT IN THE Q AND A, IF [01:35:01] YOU WANT TO SPEAK, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL ADD YOU TO THE QUEUE. UM, MICHELLE, AND ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? YES, I AM HEATHER REGARDING A PIECE OF LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT. THE NEXT RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY, DOESN'T PRESCRIBE THAT THERE BE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON A SITE. IT ALLOWS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, EVERYTHING FROM RURAL RESIDENTS UP TO MFC. TYPICALLY IT ALLOWS US THREE TO MS. WE DOCUMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. CONTACT TEAM AGREES IN 2002, ALSO APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THEY HAVE ADOPTED THAT CATEGORY OF NEXT RESIDENTIAL, BUT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T PRESCRIBE THAT THERE'LL BE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. IT DIDN'T ALLOW FROM AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED FOR ANYTHING, UM, WORLD RESIDENTS. THANK YOU, HEATHER. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT IT'S STATED IN A DOCUMENT THAT MIXED RESIDENTIAL REQUIRES 50% SINGLE FAMILY. UH, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY SINGLE FAMILY. HOW CAN WE GET AROUND THAT? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BUT EVERYTHING WE DO, IT'S CORRECT. SURE. UM, THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT'S DEMONSTRATING THE GOALS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE AREAS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS TRACK, IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE DESIGNATED FOR MIXED RESIDENTIAL. IT'S NOT SAYING THAT EACH ONE HAS TO HAVE THE 50% RESIDENTIAL. I THINK IT'S, AND THIS IS, I'M NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PERSON. I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THE PLAN FROM 2002. I THINK IT'S MORE OF AN AREA GOAL. IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THINGS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, NOT REQUIREMENTS, HARD REQUIREMENTS PER INTENTS OF THE NEIGHBOR. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT WHEN WE CHANGE DIFFERENT USES SUCH AS IN THIS CASE, WE'RE REALLY GOING FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE NPA, OR WE DON'T HAVE TO INITIATE IT NPA BECAUSE THE FLUM IS JUST A SUGGESTION. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A SUGGESTION. I'M SAYING IT'S A GOAL THAT WAS SET BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN 2002, IT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AND FROM THE INFORMATION I'VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING GROUP, IT ALLOWS A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES. OKAY. AND THERE'S, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENTS FOR 50%. IT'S A GOAL. WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THAT IN THERE? IF IT'S A GOAL, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. OKAY, MR. SEEGER, IF I CAN INTERJECT, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S FOR USE IN PLANNING AND FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND, UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THEN FOR REZONING WHEN THEY MAKE THOSE. AND, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT IT SHOULD BE BASED ON LOOKING AT, UH, FOR THE ENTIRE BALANCE OF THAT KIND OF AREA AND THEIR, FROM HOW MUCH SINGLE FAMILY, HOW MUCH MULTIFAMILY HAS THERE BEEN. SO I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BASE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT IT'S FLEXIBLE FOR ANY OF THOSE ZONES. AND, UM, AND THEN I GUESS, WHY WOULD WE USE MULTIFAMILY IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE WHY WOULD WE USE THAT? YEAH, BECAUSE WE HAVE IN THE PAST, UH, NOT ADVANCED ON INTENT. YEAH. UM, SO, UH, IT'S, IT'S, UH, UH, UM, APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A LITTLE MIXED UP HERE. UH, IT'S A GOOD THING. I DIDN'T CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE, UM, WE HAD SOMEBODY ELSE WHO, UH, WAS NOT ON MY LIST, WHO ACTUALLY WAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK. UM, SO WE HAVE ONE LAST SPEAKER AND THEN COMMISSIONER LAYTON, BURWELL, WE'LL GET TO YOU. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT POINT. AND THEN COMMISSIONERS ARE, HAVE YOU AFTER THAT. UH, SO DO WE HAVE BARBARA MACARTHUR ON THE LINE? YOU CAN HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. [01:40:07] HI, DO YOU REMEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION? I ASKED YOU, YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. I ASKED YOU TO DENY ANY SPOT EPISODE INTO THE PROPERTY AT 52 OH ONE EAST MLK TO MS. CATEGORY. THE FUND DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY IS NOT MISUSED, BUT MS. RESIDENTIAL, WHICH SAYS SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL SHOULD COMPRISE AT LEAST HALF OF A MIXED RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE PLAN ALSO GOES ON TO SAY, THIS IS FOR A SPECIFIC SITE, NOT AN AREA. AND THE WATCH SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE ACRE. IT IS CLOSE TO THE FLOOD, PLAIN, A BUST, A LOCALIZED FLOODING AREA. AND IT'S NEXT TO A NATURE PLACE WHERE HE WAS PULLMAN SPRING IT'S CLASSIFICATION, THE PROPOSED LDC METHADONE. THEY ARE TO BE SURELY. IF THERE WAS A COMPELLING REASON TO UP SEWN IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A HIGHER ZONING AND THOSE MAPS PLEASE RESPECT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLAN. INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THE MAJORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN CENSUS SYSTEM YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST. YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST THIS UPSETTING REQUEST BY AN OWNER WHO ADVERTISE THEMSELVES AS AN OPPORTUNITY INVESTOR ON HIS OWN WEBSITE. BY THE WAY, THE DEFINITION OF OPPORTUNITY IS EXPLOITING CHANCES OFFERED BY IMMEDIATE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A GENERAL PLAN, A MORAL PRINCIPLE, PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS UP ZONING REQUESTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, GO TO THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOWARD. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING GO GREEN. I, I SIGNED UP. I'M SORRY. WHO DO I HAVE ON THE LINE TO SPEAK? MEGAN? MEISENBACH I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I GOT AN EMAIL BACK FROM MR. RIVERA. IF YOU CAN JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND, MR. VERA, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I'M MAKING MYSELF, I HAVE YOU REGISTERED FOR, UH, B ONE THROUGH BEFORE, BUT NOT THIS ITEM I REGISTERED FOR THE FIVE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, WELL WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE. YEAH. UM, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR HEARING ME, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSCORE WHAT MS. PETTIT SAID AS AN ESTABLISHED MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY. AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD CHANCE FOR YOU TO RESPECT THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO KEEP SF THERE, AND THERE'LL BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO UPS ZONES LATER, BUT THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME AND WE NEED TO RESPECT OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND ALSO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS. LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT THEY WANT. UM, I DON'T HEAR THEM SAYING THAT THEY'RE REALLY GUNG HO FOR A HIGHER ZONING AND THEY HAVEN'T, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PARKING PLACES AND ALL THAT KINDS OF THINGS HAVE BEEN GONE OVER WITH THEM FOR, UH, FOR THE PROPOSAL NOW. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU KEEP THE ZONING AS AT THREE. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SURE, HOWARD SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING GO GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11, 12. UM, THERE ARE ONLY 12 LAWS. THERE ARE, UH, NO THERE'S 13. THAT WAS 13, 13 TO ZERO. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALRIGHT. UH, CHRIS RELATE IN BURWELL. I HAVE YOU UP. AND THEN COMMISSIONERS ARE, UM, THIS IS A ROUND ROBIN. SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PREFERABLY QUESTIONS, BUT YOU CAN DO COMMENTS. SHARE MINE. CUTE COMMISSIONER IS OUR GO AHEAD FOR THAT VOTE. I DO BELIEVE MR. COFFEES. UH, YEAH, THAT THAT'S. THAT'S GREAT. SO THERE WERE JUST 12 OF US, 12 ZERO. UH, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER IS OUR COMMISSIONER. IS, ARE, DO YOU HAVE A SON? I'M JUST SENDING MYSELF WITH STAFF. SO JUST UNDERSTANDING WHAT RULES AND PROCEDURES AROUND WE BANKING AS WE DID LAST TIME. THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS AROUND THAT PROCEDURE. NOT BEING, I JUST DON'T KNOW THEM WELL ENOUGH. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE CJ'S OR WE CONSIDER CHARTER COMMISSION LIAISON. ANDREW RIVERA. GO AHEAD. SO THE COMMISSION, WHEN WE CONSIDERED THE VOTE TO RECONSIDER WAS WHEN YOU TAKE UP AN ITEM, YOU VOTE ON AN ITEM, COME AND GO WITH THE MOTION. AND THEN REMEMBER WHEN SHE TO RECONSIDER WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE [01:45:02] TO RECOURSE. OKAY, LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN. MR. RIVERA. SO A MEMBER MOVED TO RECONSIDER AND WAS SECOND. THE COMMISSION VOTED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TODAY. SO WE PULLED BACK THE, THE, THE VOTE, WE RECONSIDER THE VOTE, WE APPROVED TO THE VOTE TO RECONSIDER. SO THEY MAY RECONSIDERED. AND AT THAT MEETING, WE POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL TODAY. THINK I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO GETS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDER. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BOSS'S BALL AND LAST TIME WAS GREG. MR. RIVERA, CAN YOU ADVISE, SO A MEMBER WHO WISHES TO RECONSIDER HAS TO BE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL VOTE AND MOTION THAT WAS DONE. SO IT WAS SUFFICIENT AND THE COMMISSION VOTED TO PRESS BUTTONS TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THERE ARE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS DURING THE ROUND ROBIN STAGE COMMISSIONER SHALL GO AHEAD AND THEN COMMISSIONER HEMPHILL. SO IF WE STILL HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF, UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE NATURE PRESERVE AND THE COLEMAN SPRINGS, AND WOULD JUST LIKE THEM TO SPEAK TO THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TEACHERS THERE. AND THEN WHAT, UM, WHAT THEY CONSIDER AT THIS POINT, LIKE APPROPRIATE DENSITY IN AND AROUND, UH, THE SPRINGS AND THAT, THAT NATURE PRESERVE. UH, BUT THAT'S, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF ARE STILL MAYBE COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS CHRIS HARRINGTON CITY OF AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. SO COLEMAN SPRING IS LOCATED THERE. IT IS CLASSIFIED BY OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE. AND SO IT LIKE MANY OTHER SPRINGS ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF TOWN IS A SHALLOW PERCHED GROUNDWATER. AND SO THERE, UH, IT WOULD BE PROTECTED THROUGH SUBSEQUENT LAND DEVELOPMENT, UM, PERMITTING PROCESSES AS A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE. OUR STANDARD CODE REQUIRED 150 FOOT BUFFER FOR THAT SPRING DOES NOT COME ON TO THE PROPERTY BEING PROPOSED FOR REZONING BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY AROUND THE SITE. UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO SUSPECT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARCEL WOULD INTERCEPT OR ALTER, UH, THE GROUNDWATER SUPPLYING COLEMAN SPRING. UM, TODAY THAT DOWNWARD IS MOST LIKELY SOURCED FROM THE NORTH AND EAST. AND THERE'S A TOPOGRAPHIC LOW POINT BETWEEN COLEMAN SPRING AND THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO GENERALLY THE FLOW PATTERNS MIMIC A SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY FOR THESE ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS SPRINGY IN THE BLACK LAND PRAIRIE ECO REGION. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, BUT, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. WE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE NO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ZONING CASE. UM, BUT THAT ARE, WE WOULD CERTAINLY, UH, APPLY ALL OF OUR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE PROTECTION AT THE SUBSEQUENT, UH, SITE PLAN OR, OR, UH, LATER, UM, PERMITTING PHASE. OKAY. AND JUST WHILE I HAVE YOU ON THE LINE, SO THIS SIDE BEING, IF IT IS APPROVED FOR THREE, WOULD, UH, REQUIRE, UM, DETENTION OR A STORMWATER RUNOFF, YES, THERE'S A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE, IT WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH OUR DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 25 DASH SEVEN, AS WELL AS OUR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER 25 DASH EIGHT. AND THEN IN SF THREE, UM, SAY THEY PROPOSE UNDER CURRENT CODE, I GUESS, A DUPLEX THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY, UH, DETENTION OR WOULD IT CORRECT AS JUST A DUPLEX. IT WOULD NOT YOUR CORRECTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. A CRISPR HANDFUL. I THINK YOU WERE IN IT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE SMART HOUSING AND WAS GOING TO BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS. AND I'M JUST NOT CLEAR KNOWING THAT MS. THREE, IF THERE'S NOW ANY AFFORDABILITY, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT LAST TIME. AND SO IF I COULD JUST GET SOME [01:50:01] CLARIFICATION AROUND THAT THAT'S HOW SEE ARE YOU STILL IN LINE? OKAY. I AM STILL HERE. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YEAH. SO THE QUESTION IS, UM, WHEN WE HEARD THE CASE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE PART OF LINE TO GO, SO DENSE WAS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPECT TO THAT. UM, SO IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING STILL AN ASSET TO REQUEST FOR, UM, AT THIS TIME? UM, I, YEAH, THEY'RE STILL PLANNING TO USE SMART HOUSING. UM, UM, I'M NOT, NOT SURE ABOUT, UH, USING ANY OPTIONS FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY STILL ARE PLANNING TO USE SMART HOUSING. I DON'T KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, WHAT THE UNIT COUNTS, UM, AND LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY WOULD BE JUST YET. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECONSIDER ALL OF THAT OR NOT. UM, BUT YEAH, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WILL STILL BE USING THE SMART HOUSING PROCESS. IF, IF I CAN FOLLOW THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, PUSH YOUR HAND, PULL UP. YOU'RE DONE THAT. UM, MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT UNDER THE MF SIX PROPOSAL, THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE 200 UNITS, 100 OF WHICH WERE GOING TO BE, UH, INCOME RESTRICTED AND, UM, SMART HOUSING IS A FAR LOWER REQUIREMENT THAN THAT. CAN, CAN YOU ADVISE THERE MASSAGING? ALL RIGHT. IT TAKES A TAKE TIME TO UNMUTE MYSELF, UM, ASK YOUR QUESTION ONE MORE TIME. CAN I, YEAH, THE, UH, THE PRIOR CONFIGURATION WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, 200 UNITS, 100 OF WHICH WERE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING AND SMART HOUSING HAS A FAR LOWER THRESHOLD THAN THAT. UM, SO, UH, CAN YOU, I GUESS, CONFIRM MY RECOLLECTION AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT LAST TIME AND THEN WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER SMART HOUSING, UNDER SMART HOUSING, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO OFFER 10% OF YOUR UNIT AND ABOUT HOW MANY UNITS ARE YOU ESTIMATING THAT THE SITE WILL YIELD NOW UNDER INDUSTRY? UM, MAYBE 70, UM, AND 10% OF THOSE WOULD BE, UH, 80% MFI. OKAY. AND WHAT MFI WAS, UH, THE, THE INTENT UNDER HIM F SIX, UM, 50%, 50% MSI WITH NSX. SO WE WENT FROM A RIGHT. SO WE WENT FROM A HUNDRED UNITS OF 50% NFI TO SEVEN UNITS OF, OF 80% MFI. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S TO LET YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE SOMEONE FROM NACD TO GET HOUSING. SO THE QUESTION FOR NOW, BUT IF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WISHES TO PURSUE IT, UM, THANK YOU. UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I SAW SOME MOVEMENT. UM, WE'LL DO COMMISSIONER SHIT. GO AHEAD. UM, LET'S SAY, UH, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, I'LL, I'LL EITHER DIRECT THIS TO THE APPLICANT OR STAFF, BUT, UM, JUST TO MOSTLY TALK ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE ALL AROUND IT, FROM THE IMAGINE AUSTIN ASPECT TO THE SNP, TO THE BOND, TO WHAT THE, UH, FUTURE CONCEPT FOR WHAT MLK IS, IS ENVISIONED TO BE. UM, I'D LIKE TO GET A GOOD SNAPSHOT FOR EVERYBODY TO GET A GOOD SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS ON THIS. AND THAT MIGHT HELP ALL OF US UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS FITS IN WITH THAT. SO, UM, MAYBE, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF MS. HAAS, YOU CAN START, MAYBE STAFF CAN CHIME IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT ARE TRAVELING, PLANNING AND ZONING. UM, BEFORE MS. HOFFIE CHIMES IN, UH, I CAN SAY THIS IS AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR. THERE ARE LOTS OF IMPROVEMENTS GOING ON IN THIS AREA. AND IN TERMS OF [01:55:01] LONG RANGE PLAN, I KNOW THIS IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL, AND I'M TRYING TO GET ATB STAFF ON THE LINE TO DESCRIBE THAT FURTHER. YEAH. AND ALSO BE SURE TO MENTION SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS THAT'S ALREADY EARMARKED, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE HAVE QUITE A BIT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, FUNDS ALREADY SET FOR IT. MR. SHAY, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF ME? THIS IS VICTORIA. YES. UM, SO QUESTION WAS TO TALK ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT'S ALL AROUND IT. UM, KIND OF HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT FITS IN WITH EVERYTHING, ALL THE VISIONING THAT'S BEEN GOING AROUND THERE, AS WELL AS THE, UH, EARMARKED FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM BUS STOPS, I GUESS, MULTIMODAL ANY, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO BASICALLY TO GET THE COMMISSIONERS, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AREA IS ENVISIONED, YOU KNOW, EVEN HOW IT TIES INTO IMAGINE AUSTIN. YEAH. UM, SO, SO MLK IS, UH, HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE ASM P UH, FOR A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO MORE STUDIES TO IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT THEY DO WANT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, THAT'S AUTOMOBILE CYCLING AND, UH, AND PEDESTRIAN, UM, THIS TOUCH OF MLK NEEDS A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO BRING IT, UM, TO WHAT THEY'RE VISIONING. UM, AND I, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN EARMARKED FOR THAT. I WOULD PREFER FOR ATD TO SPEAK TO THAT. UM, BUT IT, IT HAS IDENTIFIED AS AN AREA WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIMODAL TRANSIT AND, UM, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE WANT TO PUT WHERE PEOPLE, SO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO MULTIPLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO GET IN A CAR. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. UH, YES IT DOES. AND, UM, I KNOW IT DEFINITELY AFFECTS AFFORDABILITY BY HAVING GOOD TRANSIT RIGHT. NEXT, IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T WANT A CAR, YOU KNOW? UM, AND I DON'T KNOW. I THINK, UM, I KNOW HEATHER SHOPPING WAS TRYING TO SEE THE ATP CONVENTION TO SEE IF THERE WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED ANY MORE INFORMATION. UM, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE WE BOTH, THAT YOU AND HEATHER CHAFFIN IS ALREADY COVERED ENOUGH TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW. SO MAYBE IF WE'RE OKAY, AND IF STAFF COMES ON, THEN WE CAN LISTEN. OKAY. DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM ON THE ROUND ROBIN? ALL RIGHT. SO AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING REDUNDANT, UM, COMMISSIONER SEEGER'S POINT, I WANT TO QUESTION STAFF ABOUT THIS INTERPRETATION OF A MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, BUT IT ALLOWS FOR A MIX AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING A MIX. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING VERBATIM OF OUR CODE IS THAT, UM, MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE ACTUALLY REQUIRES JUST THAT A MIX. AND SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING LIKE MS, EVEN WE WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF, UM, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OR SOMETHING THAT GUARANTEES THAT THERE ACTUALLY WOULD BE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, NOT JUST ONE SINGLE DESIGNATION. AND I'D LIKE STAFF TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY, DON'T, WHY THEY'RE NOT INTERPRETING THE CODE TO MEAN JUST THAT OTHER CHAPMAN'S CLAIMING AND SENDING A CHEF. AND DO WE MAYBE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM ON THE LINE FOR A DIFFERENT CASE? UM, MY, I GET IT. UM, SO MULTIFAMILY ZONING CATEGORIES DO ALLOW AND MIX OF USES. THEY ALLOW ALL INTENSIVE USES. SO IN YOU COULD DO SINGLE FAMILY, YOU COULD DO DUPLEX, YOU COULD DO TOWNHOUSE, CONDO AND MULTIFAMILY IT'S THAT IT'S PERMITTED. WE CANNOT PRESCRIBE THAT ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOP A CERTAIN MIX OF UNITS OR USES, UNLESS IT'S SOMETHING LIKE A PUD. AND THEN ALSO SOME OF THE VMU CASES, BECAUSE [02:00:01] THEY REQUIRE A LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY AND A MIX OF LIKE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES. BUT FOR OUR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, YOU CANNOT SAY YOU MUST HAVE X NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY, X NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY OR TOWNHOUSE OR DUPLEX. OKAY, LET ME INTERJECT HERE. WHY IS IT THAT, WHY THEN DO WE HAVE A DISK? CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MULTIFAMILY PLUM CATEGORY, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A MIX OF USES AND ALLOW FOR LESS INTENSIVE ZONING CATEGORIES? WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION THEN BETWEEN THAT AND MIXED RESIDENTIAL FLAT CATEGORY? WHY THE TWO, I REALLY CAN'T, EXCEPT FOR IT REFLECTS THE DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THEY WOULD PREFER THAT A PROPERTY BE MULTIFAMILY VERSUS HAVING A PROPERTY, HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF BEING A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES. AGAIN, THIS WAS CREATED IN 2002. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE WERE CREATED AS A COOPERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF AT THE TOP, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, CONTACT TEAMS AND WORK WITH THE BUYERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT TIME. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT CONVINCED. AND IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REQUIRING SOME OTHER MIX OF USES. UM, I WILL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME AND I'M SORRY. AND, AND TO THAT POINT, WE CANNOT ACQUIRE AND MIX, UM, RESIDENTIAL USES BY CODE. OKAY. UM, RIGHT. THAT MAY BE AS FAR AS WE CAN GET ON, UH, ON THIS LINE, THE CHAIR, IS THERE ANY MORE TIME FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION OF HOUSING STAFF WHILE WE HAVE THEM AVAILABLE. I HAVE ONE MORE SLOT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE WAITING TO SPEAK? ALRIGHT, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE LAST SLOT COMMISSIONER SHAW. OKAY. SO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING STAFF, SO WHAT IS THE, I ASKED HER A QUESTION ABOUT THE TERM OF THIS SMART HOUSING ARRANGEMENT, AND I THINK IT'S FIVE YEARS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS GO AWAY AFTER FIVE YEARS? I SEE. ARE YOU STILL WITH US? HI, THIS IS SANDRA HARKINS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. UM, WHEN I WAS UNMUTING, UH, PART OF YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER CUT OFF. COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT LAST PART ABOUT WHAT WAS THE STATE NEEDED CLARIFICATION ON? YES, I READ THE SMART HOUSING AGREEMENT IS FOR FIVE YEARS IN THE BACKUP. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS PRETTY MUCH REVERT BACK TO NON AFFORDABLE UNITS AFTER THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD? IF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS PARTICIPATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF DENSITY BONUS THAT WAS REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY OR WITH THE FUNDING FROM OUR DEPARTMENT ARE FROM A LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT? YES, SIR. YOU ARE CORRECT. OKAY. CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE, UM, IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, UM, UH, YOU CAN USE THE REMAINDER OF THAT TIME. YES. BECAUSE, UM, I'VE DEVELOPED SMART HOUSING BEFORE, AND I REMEMBERED THAT THERE WAS A CHOICE IF IT WAS PERPETUAL OR IF IT WAS NOT. SO EITHER PERPETUAL, YOU GOT, YOU GOT TO DO LESS UNITS. WHEREAS IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO MORE UNITS AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IS THAT A CHOICE? IS THAT, CAN THAT BE, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT STUFF? IS THAT STILL IN SMART HOUSING? I CAN, YES. SO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMART HOUSING OR FULL RENTAL VEHICLES ARE 80% AND BELOW. AND THERE IS A CHART THAT ALLOW THAT 10% OF THE UNIT HAS TO BE REASONABLY PRICED TO 40%. AND WITHIN THAT RANGE, THERE IS A PERCENTAGE OF FEES THAT ARE AWAY. SO IT IS THE DEVELOPER'S CHOICE OF WHAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE TO HAVE IT WAIT. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS STILL THE PERPETUAL OPTION, RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE'S THE ONE THAT WAS LIKE CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS AND THEN REVERTS, AND THEN THERE'S ONES THAT, UM, CAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN I DID DEVELOP SMART HOUSING THAT, UH, WE GOT TO PICK AND WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME PERPETUAL UNITS THAT WE ACTUALLY [02:05:01] PUT INTO. UM, I FORGOT SOMEBODY ELSE WAS MANAGING IT. UH, BUT WE DID A PERPETUAL. SO WE GOT, WE DID LESS UNITS, BUT WE HAD PERPETUAL, UH, AFFORDABILITY. SO FOR LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT NOT STILL, IT ABSOLUTELY COULD BE. IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING. UM, HOWEVER, THIS PROJECT IS NOT, IS NOT, UM, RECEIVING ANY FINANCING FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNIT. OKAY. SO WITHOUT MEETING THOSE OTHER AFFORDABILITY. OKAY. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT IS THE END OF OUR ROUND ROBIN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WHO SOMEBODY IS ON? NOT ON MUTE. OKAY. IT'S BETTER NOW. ANY EMOTION ON THE TABLE, BUT COMMISSIONER SHAY, GO AHEAD. I'LL GET A, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? UM, FOR SURE. SHANE, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? SURE. UM, I MEAN, I MEAN, WE'RE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I, I, I ALWAYS KIND OF REVERT BACK TO THINKING ABOUT IMAGINE AWESOME BIG PICTURE AND THE VISION THAT WE HAVE TO CREATE THIS COMPACT CONNECTED CITY ABOUT ROBUST CORRIDORS AND WHERE WE SHOULD BE PLACING DENSITY TO HELP SUPPORT OUR TRANSIT. AND THIS IS MLK. I MEAN, WE HAVE BOND PACKAGES. WE HAVE ASM, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE REINFORCING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING DENSITY. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I SEE THIS, I MEAN, THIS IS ON MARTIN LUTHER KING. AND THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, WE, IT'S A LARGE SWATH OF LAND. WE'RE NOT DISPLACING ANYBODY. I MEAN, THERE'S, I GUESS THERE'S ONE HOUSE ON IT RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S ONE OF THE BEST PLACES TO BE PUTTING DENSITY. AND THIS PROJECT I HAD CALLED THIS BACK, I'M THE ONE THAT KIND OF BROUGHT IT BACK AND HOPING THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS AT 50, YOU KNOW, 50% UNITS AT 50% AFFORDABILITY. AND WE DIDN'T GET THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT DOING SMART HOUSING. UM, SO AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING DENSITY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. UH, SO I HOPE THAT COMMISSIONERS CAN AT LEAST VOTE LIKE THEY DID LAST TIME. WE KINDA JUST DID THIS WHOLE CASE ALL OVER AGAIN. SO THAT'S IT. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? SURE. YOU GOT US FOR NOW. I'M SPEAKING AGAINST AND I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST PRIMARILY BECAUSE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PROCESS ON TWO POINTS. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE RECONSIDERATION FOR THIS CASE WAS, UH, PROBLEMATIC. THERE WAS NO NEW EVIDENCE, UM, PRESENTED FOR RECONSIDERING, REALLY, AT LEAST THAT I KNOW OF. UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, ALL I HEARD WAS SORT OF JUST PATIENT GET MORE TOLERANCE FOR NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PARTIES. UM, AND SINCE THEN, I'VE BEEN FURTHER CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, THE PROCESS HERE AS IT RELATES TO, UM, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING, WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED AND THE WAY THAT STAFF IS INTERPRETING THE REQUIREMENTS AROUND MIXED RESIDENTIAL, THEY MAY STOP ME NOT CLEAR THAT MIXED RESIDENTIAL REQUIRES AN ACTUAL MIX, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS VERY CLEAR AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ACTUALLY DOES REQUIRE THAT 50% SINGLE FAMILY, THE, UM, JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIFAMILY, UH, BEING INTERPRETED JUST LIKE MR. MIXED RESIDENTIAL. UH, AS I HEARD FROM MS. SHAVEN DOES NOT, UH, I'M NOT SOLD ON THAT. I DON'T, I DON'T BUY IT. AND I THINK THAT, UM, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT IF WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE A PROCESS OF AMENDING A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE ARE NOT RECOGNIZING THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE FLOW. AND THAT IS A CRITICAL STEP IN THIS UPSTANDING. SO FOR THAT REASON, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE AFFORDABILITY ARGUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN STRONG TO ME, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT OR GUARANTEED IN ANY KIND OF WAY. AND WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEARS. SO, UM, I AM GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST, UH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PROCESS THAT BETTER REFLECTS THE RULES AND GOOD GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK THAT IF WE KEEP UP WITH SHENANIGANS LIKE THIS, WE'RE ASKING FOR A LAWSUIT. OKAY. ALRIGHT, MR. ANDERSON, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU TO YOUR, UM, THANK YOU STAFF FOR CONFIRMING THAT WE WERE 100% FOLLOWING THE RULES LAST CASE. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE RECONSIDERED THIS BECAUSE WE HAD JUST VOTED DOWN 500 YEARS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 100 YEARS, TIMES FIVE, HE'S IN MATH, AND THAT'S [02:10:01] A LOT OF HOUSING. UM, ALSO IF A MIX REQUIRES LESS EFFICIENT, LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT HEARKENS BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS FOUND THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE OUTDATED AND INEQUITABLE. UM, WE'RE NOT BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSING, NO HOUSING IS AFFORDABILITY. HOUSING IS HEALTHCARE, AND WE'RE JUST NOT BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSING ON MLK ON A VACANT TRACT OF LAND. WE CAN'T COME UP WITH THE ABILITY TO PUT MORE HOUSING. HE OBVIOUSLY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT OF COURSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE HOUSING ON THIS CORRIDOR. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANICURED GREEN SPACE AND NATURE. SO I'M SORRY THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF THING THAT THE AUTOBON COULD GET BEHIND THESE HOMES ON AVERAGE WOULD HAVE HAD WERE TO 200 HOMES. THERE WOULD HAVE HAD 460 SQUARE FEET EACH, BUT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET EACH. SO AGAIN, A BIG CONFLICT THERE. YOU KNOW, WE WANT IT TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE IT TO BE LESS AFFORDABLE BY ALLOWING FEWER HOMES TO BE BUILT. THERE ARE GOING TO HAVE LESS EFFICIENCY, WARM PERVIOUS COVER, JUST KIND OF THAT CYCLE THAT WE'RE IN. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY A LOT OF US ON THIS COMMISSION DO WORK IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PERHAPS TO THE CHAGRIN OF SOME OF OUR HOUSING OPPOSITION GROUPS. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OFTEN THE MOST VOCAL AGAINST NEW HOUSING, BUT WE HAVE TO WORK REALLY HARD BECAUSE THERE ARE A TON OF FOLKS GETTING DISPLACED EVERY SINGLE DAY. ANOTHER AFFORDABILITY PAPER CAME OUT TODAY WITH NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION AND REALLY, REALLY BAD. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE WHO NEED HOUSING THAT ARE EXTREMELY HOUSING COST BURDEN, BUT DON'T HAVE A VOICE NOW THEY'RE NOT HERE TO SAY, PLEASE BUILD HOUSING. THE 200 PEOPLE, 200 FAMILIES THAT WOULD HAVE LIVED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. HAD WE BUILT IT. THEY'RE NOT ON THE LINE SAYING, GUYS, THIS IS MY FUTURE AT HOME. PLEASE BUILD THIS, YOU KNOW, AND I, 100% UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO WORK NEARBY. AND IT JUST WAS A BETTER COMPROMISE, VERY GLAD THAT WE POSTPONED LAST TIME TO TRY AND GET THAT. I'M SORRY, IT WASN'T ABLE TO HAPPEN, BUT YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO PASS THIS. AND THE IDEA THAT THIS SHOULD BE MUCH LESS AFFORDABLE, MUCH LESS SUSTAINABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WOULD HAVE GONE HERE. OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT PUSHING TO SPEAK AGAINST WHAT'S YOUR SECRET. GO AHEAD. I'M ONLY SPEAKING AGAINST PROCESS. UM, I, FIRST OF ALL, WANT TO SAY THAT GOING FROM TO MF BREE RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF MANY, MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS, IT TAKES IT DOWN TO SEVEN UNITS AT 80% MFI. THAT SEEMS TO BE A BIT STRICT AND , BUT I'M NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE IT. THE FACT, AND I KNOW THAT SMART HOUSING IS ONLY FIVE YEARS. HOWEVER, A LOT OF CREDITS ARE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE SEVEN UNITS FOR FIVE YEARS. IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE RIGHT ALCALAY WE CAN GET SOON A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN THAT JUST DOESN'T DOES NOT GIVE AWAY A LOT OF FEES. AND IN RETURN FOR A COUPLE OF UNITS, THE WHOLE NPA FLUM, WHATEVER PROCESS SEEMS FLAWED. AND I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED AND IT SHOULD BE EXPLAINED AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. IT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF HAVING AT IT'S A SUGGESTION AND WE'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE ON SOME THINGS IT'S AS THE GESTURE, I DON'T LIKE SUGGESTIONS. I REALLY LIKE TO SEE US FOLLOW OUR ZONING OUT OF OUR ZONING AND OUR CODE AND IF AND SOMETHING IN IT, LET'S FOLLOW IT. SO THAT'S FINE. I'M NOT VOTING FOR THIS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD PROJECT IN MY MIND, BUT IT'S TO ME IT'S LORD. THANK YOU. RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONERS, WISHING TO SPEAK ON FAVOR OF THE MOTION. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. AND THE MOTION IS BY COMMISSIONER SHAY SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. I THINK I'M GETTING THAT RIGHT. AND, UH, FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR , I'M ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, UH, ALL OPPOSED ONE, TWO, THREE, UH, ALL ABSTAINING TWO, UM, SEVEN THREE, TWO. UH, SO THIS, UH, THE MOTION PASSES TO AFRICA FOUNDATION HAS PASSED. UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. UM, [02:15:02] I'M PRETTY SLOWLY TONIGHT, GUYS. UM, DO YOU WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, UM, UH, I CHECKED UP ON THINGS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BE, UH, ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO, TO READ THE RULES, UM, UH, MOVING TO RECONSIDER AS, AS AN OPTION, IS THAT A RULES AS WELL AS ASCENSION? UM, THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN USED NOT OFTEN, BUT IT IS THERE. UM, AND, UH, THERE ISN'T ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT IS REQUIRED FOR A RECONSIDERATION. SO, UM, I, I DO URGE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE DISSATISFIED WITH OUR RULES TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND PUT ON A, ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, A RULE CHANGES CAUSE, UM, WE CAN DO THAT. UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEMS [Items B6- B8] BE SIX, SEVEN, AND EIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP AT ONE TIME. UM, THIS IS, UH, ITEM . THIS IS MPA 2019 ZERO ZERO ONE SEVEN DOT OH ONE SEVEN 71 13 BURNETT DISTRICT SEVEN, UH, SEVEN, UH, COVENANT TERMINATIONS, SEE 1472 ZERO THREE, TWO RCT 71 13 BURNET ROAD, DISTRICT SEVEN, AND BE A REZONING C 14 2020 ZERO ZERO ONE SIX 71 13 BURNET ROAD, DISTRICT SEVEN. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THOSE ALL UP TOGETHER. AND FIRST ON THE LIST IS, UH, THE APPLICANT MICHAEL GARDENY. MR. GUARDIAN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? ACTUALLY, THIS IS MARINE MEREDITH. UM, MAY I CORRECT SOMETHING? I'M SORRY. I'M THE SAME. I JUST NEED TO CORRECT THE CASE NUMBER. IT IS MPA TWO ZERO TWO ZERO DASH ZERO ZERO ONE 7.01. IT IS INCORRECT ON THE AGENDA. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT CORRECTION NOTED. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT EATING? OH, THAT'S RIGHT. THERE WE GO. ORIENTING BRAIN. UM, LET'S, LET'S START WITH STAFF PRESENTATION. UM, STEPH WILL LETS YOU PICK THE ORDER, BUT UM, MS. MEREDITH EUROPE FIRST, SO THIS ISN'T REALLY NARRATIVE PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM B SIX IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA TWO ZERO TWO ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE 7.017113 BURNET ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT SEVEN ONE ONE THREE BURNETT ROAD WITHIN THE CRESTVIEW WOULDN'T COMBINE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. THE REQUEST IS, HAS CHANGED THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY LAND USE. IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM STOP CASE REPORTS DO HAVE COMMUNICATION FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. OKAY. OKAY. TO MY PRESENTATION, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MARK GRAHAM ON THE RCT CASE E R C T CASE IS A SIMPLE MATTER. UM, WHEN IN 19, IN THE 1970S, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS THE WAY THAT YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR A BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. IT DID NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. UM, IN THE MEANTIME WE'VE ADOPTED A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT WE FEEL BETTER PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORS INTERESTS, UH, BY INCREASING SETBACKS, UM, DEALING WITH BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN ALL, IN ALL PROVIDING BETTER TRANSITIONS, UH, BETWEEN THE DETACHED RESIDENCES AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. I WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSING THE REZONING CASE IF YOU'RE READY FOR THAT. YES. GO AHEAD AGAIN. UM, OKAY. UM, THIS CASE IS A PROPOSAL TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR THE MS. THE HIGHEST DENSITY, UM, MULTIFAMILY, UM, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO GRANT , UM, A STONING WITH CONDITIONS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. UM, AND THE RATIONALE FOR THIS IS THAT IT'S A BIT LESS INTENSE WOULD PROVIDE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 60 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 90 FEET, UM, WHICH WERE, WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS CONCERN FOR THE, UM, FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. I WOULD LIKE TO HANG OUT IN PARTICULAR. [02:20:01] UM, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM THAT THEY HAD NOT YET RESOLVED THE TRANSPORTATION, UH, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IN SEAGRASS. UM, IN THE LATE BACKUP, YOU WOULD FIND A COPY OF A, AN EXECUTED AND RECORDED RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT RESOLVES ATDS CONCERN WITH THE ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY. UM, ALSO THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENT, UH, NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY'VE PROPOSED, UH, MODIFIED HEIGHTS AND, UM, OTHER THINGS THAT MAY HAVE ADDRESSED THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. UH, WE DID NOT GET A LETTER, UH, REFLECTING NEIGHBORHOODS COMMENTS ON, ON THOSE CHANGES, UM, AS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. UM, IN THIS CASE, WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, UH, WE'RE SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE INSTRUMENT COMMERCIAL TO A MULTIFAMILY, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. HE WAS ON THE, ON THE LAND USE MAP. UM, THE, UH, CURRENT ZONING AND USE THE ZONING IS, UM, ALLOWS THE, THE BAR ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A STRIP RETAIL IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S OFFICE ZONING, UH, AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. UM, IT'S, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF VACANCY THERE. THE RETAILING IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM BURNET ROAD. UM, SO THIS, UH, TAKES BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. UM, EARN IT AS IS THE PLACE THAT, UM, ANTICIPATE FROM, IMAGINE AUSTIN'S SEEING, UM, SOME DENSITY OF HOUSING AND IF IT'S DONE CORRECTLY, THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE RAPID, UM, UH, METRO RAPID, UM, TRANSIT INTO DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITY. ALSO, UM, THE THREE MAIN POINTS THAT WE'RE MAKING, SUPPORTING THIS ZONING, UM, IS THAT THE, UH, UH, THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT. THE MULTIFAMILY WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE HERE. IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREE. SO WE ARE PROMOTING THE MULTIFAMILY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN PARTICULAR IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, UH, MIDDLE LEVEL OF DENSITY, UH, TO BE THE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UM, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE SECOND PIECE OF RATIONALE HERE WAS THE PROPOSED REZONING. WE SHOULD SATISFY A REAL PUBLIC NEED. AND I THINK WE'RE MOSTLY ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN AUSTIN AND THE JOB GROWTH IN AUSTIN. AND WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE ON THE MAJOR CORRIDORS. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF, OF THAT SOLUTION. UM, AND THE THIRD ONE WAS THE ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE THE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES. WE FEEL THAT THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS DO THAT, UM, AND THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE SONY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM MR. GUNN. HELLO, LET ME COMMISSION MY OWN. YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU MAKE SURE YOUR TV IS TURNED DOWN AND, UH, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. THANK YOU. UH, MICHAEL GAMBINI ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE'RE GOING TO TRY SOMETHING NEW WITH THIS. I RECORDED MY POWERPOINT IS A VIDEO IN THE HOPES THAT IT MIGHT MAKE IT EVEN SMOOTHER. SO I'M JUST GOING TO PASS THIS BACK OVER TO ANDREW, TEE THAT UP AND WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES. AND THEN I'LL RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CLOSE. THANK YOU, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, MICHAEL GALLENIA ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A TRIO RELATED CASES AT 71 13 BURNETT ROAD. WE'VE GOT A RESTRICTED AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION, BUT WHAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE, YEAH, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS [02:25:04] CHAIR VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, MICHAEL GALLENIA ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A TRIO RELATED CASE GO OLD FASHIONED. IF WE CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT, I'M REZONING A PLUM AMENDMENT IN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION, BUT WHAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT ABILITY TO DO A 360 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON BURNET ROAD, WHICH WOULD FEATURE 10% OF TOTAL UNITS AT SEA. UM, YES, MR. VERA, WE CAN NOT HEAR IT. OKAY. YEAH, WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SO FAR NOTED. BEAR WITH US. JUST ONE SECOND. I RATE THIS ONE STAR SO FAR. I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT THAT THIS ACTUALLY MIGHT BE SMOOTHER, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE I'VE JUST MUCKED IT UP A LITTLE BIT. IT'S ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND, AND JUST PULL UP THE, UH, UH, THE DECK. DO YOU HAVE THAT? OKAY. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, MICHAEL I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A TRIO RELATED CASES. WE'RE NOT SEEING IT IN 13 BURNET ROAD. WE'VE GOT A REZONING. THANK YOU. YOU'VE CUT THE SHIRT, SCREENER, WHATEVER IT IS. CHAIR VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS CSC. WE'RE STILL NOT SEEING ANYTHING. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, MICHAEL GALLAGHER. WE'RE ALL GOOD GUYS. WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL WATCH. NOW I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A TRIO RELATED CASES AT 71 13 BURNET ROAD. WE'VE GOT A REZONING, A PHLOEM AMENDMENT AND A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION, BUT WHAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO DO A 360 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON BURNET ROAD, WHICH WOULD FEATURE 10% OF TOTAL UNITS AT 60% MFI. SO HELP ORIENT YOU A BIT. THIS IS THE SITE, AND IT'S CURRENTLY CARVED UP INTO THREE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES, INCLUDING ONE OF THE MOST INTENSE ZONING DISTRICTS AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA. , IT'S CURRENTLY USED AS AN OUTDATED SUBURBAN STYLE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE, INCLUDING A PROMINENT USE IN THE FRONT AS A BAR. SO AS THIS STRUCTURE REACHES THE END OF ITS LIFE, THE POLICY QUESTION FACING Y'ALL IS WHAT SHOULD IT BECOME? AND THE ANSWER THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TO THE CITY'S GOALS, POLICIES, AND PLANS RELATING TO THINGS LIKE HOUSING, AFFORDABILITY AND MOBILITY. AND WHEN WE LOOK TO THOSE, WE SEE THAT BURNET ROAD IS KEY. IT'S AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR, A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND A TRANSIT PARTY NETWORK ROADWAY, AS WELL AS THE 2016 MOBILITY BOND CORRIDOR IN WHICH THE CITY IS INVESTING APPROXIMATELY $53 MILLION ON MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS IN SHORT, THE CITY'S PLANS AND GOALS CONSISTENTLY SAY THAT GROWTH AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITY ARE NOT JUST APPROPRIATE FOR BURNET ROAD, BUT THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY WHERE WE WANT THESE THINGS TO OCCUR. AND AS WE'LL SEE, WE HAVE WORK TO DO, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THESE GOALS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FIRST, THE CITY STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT HAS SPECIFIC GOAL OF 1098 AFFORDABLE UNITS ALONG BURNET ROAD BY 2027. SO IF WE TAKE BOTH OUR EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF BURNET ROAD, AND THEN WE ADD IN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS CURRENTLY IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, WE CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE A VERY LARGE GAP THAT WE WILL NEED TO FILL. IF WE'RE GOING TO HIT THE CITY'S GOALS FOR BURNET ROAD, TO PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE, OUR CURRENT PACE HAS BEEN ADDING ROUGHLY 15 AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF BURNET ROAD PER YEAR. AND IF WE CONTINUE AT THAT SAME PACE THAT WE'VE BEEN ON, WE WILL NOT HIT OUR GOAL, WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE NEED TO FULLY EMBRACE THIS VISION OF OUR CORRIDORS EMBODIED IN OUR CITY PLANS AND GOALS. AND OUR PROPOSAL HELPS ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH THE COMMITMENT FOR 10% OF TOTAL UNITS AT 60% MFI, WHICH WE WILL ACCOMPLISH THROUGH AN ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND. AND AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE CITY'S HOUSING INVENTORY, THIS PROJECT WOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE FIRST INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS AVAILABLE IN CRESTVIEW TO DATE FOR US. THIS IS A PRETTY BIG PIECE OF OUR VISION FOR THE SITE, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO CITYWIDE MULTIFAMILY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, YET WE'RE UNABLE TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY ON THIS PART OF THE PROJECT. [02:30:02] SO TO THAT, I WOULD SAY, EVEN IF YOU PUT ASIDE OUR ENTIRE COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE UNITS, EVEN THEN OUR PROJECT IS STILL THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO ACCOMPLISH THE CITY'S GOALS. FOR INSTANCE, THE CITY HAS A GOAL OF ROUGHLY 135,000 NEW UNITS BY 2027, WHICH COMES OUT TO ABOUT ROUGHLY 13,520 PER YEAR ON AVERAGE. BUT ACCORDING TO THE US CENSUS BUREAU STATISTICS, WE'RE CONSISTENTLY FALLING SHORT. THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED UNITS TO HELP US MEET THIS MAJOR HOUSING GOAL. AND IT WILL DO SO ON A KEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR, WHICH AS WE KNOW IS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR OUR MOBILITY GOALS. THESE ARE SOME EXCERPTS DIRECTLY FROM THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN CALLING FOR INCREASING DENSITY ON OUR CORRIDORS TO SUPPORT A ROBUST TRANSIT NETWORK, PROVIDING AFFORDABLE UNITS NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT AND REDUCING OUR CURB CUTS FOR BETTER WALKABILITY. ALL OF WHICH OUR PROJECT IS PROVIDING THE LAST PIECE OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR A DOWN ZONING HERE. YOU CAN SEE A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS YOU KNOW, MF SEX IS A PURELY MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS UP TO 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND THAT UNDER COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD STEP UP GRADUALLY TO A TOTAL OF 90 FEET OF HEIGHT. SO HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE ENTITLEMENTS SITE ALREADY HAS TODAY? WELL, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE ALLOWABLE, IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING COVER ACHIEVABLE TRIPS AND INTENSITY OF USES AS ONE OF THE EXISTING USES ON THE SITE TODAY, AS A BAR, IMPORTANTLY, THE HEIGHTENED TITLEMENTS WOULD ALSO BE ROUGHLY THE SAME UP UNTIL YOU WERE ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH AWAY FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. ONCE YOU GET BEYOND THAT 300 FEET FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS WHEN YOU START TO SEE THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IN MF SIX, AS ALLOWS YOU TO CONTINUE STEPPING UP UNTIL YOU REACH A TOTAL OF 90 FEET OF HEIGHT, WHICH IS BASICALLY UP ALONG BURNET ROAD, THE OTHER INCREASE WOULD BE REMOVING THE FAR RESTRICTION. SO I'M UP SIX RESTRICTS, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVER, BUT IN RETURN ALLOWS GREATER HEIGHT ON THE CORRIDOR. AS LONG AS IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPATIBILITY. I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED MFR TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE HEIGHT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT MFR AND MFIS BOTH CONTAINED DENSITY RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE OUR PROJECT. I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE CITY'S OWN POLICIES RECOGNIZE THAT THE CORRIDORS ARE APPROPRIATE AREAS FOR GREATER DENSITY. YOU TAKE BMU FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH THE CITY HAS ALREADY ZONED UP AND DOWN BURNET ROAD, CSV EMU IS LESS INTENSE OR EQUIVALENT TO MF SIX IN ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY. THE SOLE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS THAT MF SIX CONTINUES TO STEP UP TO 90 FEET OF HEIGHT, AGAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. AND FOR OUR PURPOSES, MF SIX ALLOWS US TO DO A PURELY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IN A WAY THAT VMU SIMPLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE CONFIGURATION OF OUR SITE MAKES MULTIFAMILY A BETTER FIT FOR THIS LAW. SO TO RECAP, THE CITY OF SET GOALS FOR IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY AND MOBILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND BURN IT ROAD IS A KEY PART OF THOSE GOALS. THIS BURNET ROAD PROJECT, WHICH IS ON A SITE WITHOUT DATA BAR AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES, WE'VE HELPED MEET THESE GOALS AND PROVIDE THE FIRST INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS IN CRESTVIEW TO DATE. IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, WE WOULD NEED TO RECEIVE MF SIX ZONING, WHICH IS THE ONLY EXISTING ZONING TOOL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE THIS PROJECT AS ENVISIONED AND WOULD PROVIDE AN OVERALL DECREASE IN INTENSITY IN MOST RESPECTS, UH, WITH THAT I WOULD RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CLOSE AND I'M HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, DO WE HAVE, LET'S SEE, UH, MOVING TO THE OPPOSITION, MIKE LEVINE, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? MIKE LEVINE? YOU CAN HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. ALRIGHT. UH, LIKE LIVING, IF YOU WERE ABLE TO GET ON NEXT WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO YOU AS AN ANDREW CUNNINGHAM ON THE, ON THE LINE. ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, YOU CAN HIT STAR SIX. YEAH, GO AHEAD. YOU CAN HIT, UH, WELL, UM, YEAH, IF YOU HAVE A TV ON TURN IT DOWN AND, UH, CHIP HARRIS AND NANCY HARRIS ARE FOLLOWING YOU, UH, GO AHEAD AND YOUR CUNNINGHAM, THAT'S IT. THANKS SO MUCH. UH, SO, UH, WHEN THE CUNNINGHAM, I'M PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONLY PEOPLE ON THIS CALL, IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, IN QUESTION, UM, MY MAIN POINT IS THAT, UM, WHICH HAS A HEIGHT MAXIMUM WAS 48. AND THE INTENT THERE WAS TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THAT LOT WAS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ABOUT 10 HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, [02:35:01] BUT THAT ZONING WAS THERE BASICALLY TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER'S BUILT THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, STAYS UNDER A CERTAIN HEIGHT MAXIMUM. UH, AND I THINK THE REQUESTS, UM, MY GOD, AMY AND THE DEVELOPER OF 703 USED TO GO UP TO MS SIX, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER, AGREED TO CONCESSIONS IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BUT MY MAIN CONCERN THERE IS THAT IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES PASS THROUGH AND THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T ACTUALLY FALL FORWARD, BUT IT DOES FALL THROUGH. AND IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, UM, WHEN THAT WHOLE LOT HAD BEEN ZONED FOR A HEIGHT MAXIMUM, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN, THAN WHAT WAS, UH, AND THEN I CAN ALSO SAY HIGHER THAN LUCKY. UH, I WASN'T ALLOWED FOR WHAT SHE DOES IS 40 FEET. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S MY MAIN, UH, MAIN POINT. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, CHIP HARRIS, DO WE HAVE YOU ON HOLD? THIS IS MIKE LEVINE. I THINK I'M FINALLY, AM I NEEDED NOW? YEAH. URM MUTED. UH, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET YOU GO. AND CHIP HARRISON, NANCY HARRIS, OR YOU GO AHEAD AND MIKE LEVINE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND EARLIER THE STAFF SAID IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTE FROM US AND, UH, I DID SEND A LETTER IN, SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. UM, IF YOU DON'T, I'LL JUST READ THAT. UH, DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE OUR LETTER FROM THE CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I AM LOOKING FOR IT LOOKING FOR A, WE DON'T HAVE IT DISPLAYED. SO, UM, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN IT, IF YOU WANT TO I'LL READ IT, IT IS IN THE BACKUP AND MR. LEVINE, JUST TO BE ADVISED, YOU HAVE ABOUT FIVE MORE MINUTES AS THE PRIMARY OPPOSITION SPEAKER. SO YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME. GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT, THANKS. UH, BEFORE COVID SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN, WE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HIS AGENT, MICHAEL DAVINE NEEDED TO DISCUSS THEIR EXPLORING OPTIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY. THE FIRST MEETING WAS IN JANUARY, BUT IT WAS REQUESTED TOO LATE TO BE INCLUDED ON OUR PUBLISHED AGENDA BY, BY BY RULES. AND BY THE WAY, WE DISTRIBUTE OUR AGENDA VIA NEWSLETTER TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ALLOWED THEM TO COME ANYWAY AND SPEAK THOUGH, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY PREVIOUS NOTICE OF THE COMMUNITY. THERE WASN'T MUCH TUNE AT THAT TIME. THE BIGGEST REQUEST OF US WOULD BE WHETHER WE WOULD SUPPORT A CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY. THIS WAS EXCITING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, AND BROUGHT US TO THE TABLE, HOPING TO WORK OUT A DEAL, TO BOTH CREATE A LARGE AMOUNT OF HOUSING, WHERE THERE WAS NONE PREVIOUSLY ALONG A CORRIDOR AND NEAR TRANSPORTATION AT THAT TIME. AND IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS, MOST OF THE USUAL CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT OCCUPANTS, SUCH AS THEY'LL PLACE DUMPSTERS WITH POORLY TIME DISPOSAL, PICKUPS, AND ADEQUATE FENCING, AND A LACK OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WERE QUICKLY APPEASED. WE ENCOURAGED THE DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE PROPERTY TO TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEIGHT, OVER THEIR BACKYARDS REDUCTION IN PRIVACY, ET CETERA, THEY DID DISCUSS THIS AND THE DEVELOPER PRODUCED A QUOTE UNQUOTE COMPROMISE PACKAGE IN JUNE, PUSHING HIM TO START A 40 FEET A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THEY COULD DO IT BY RIGHT UNDER CURRENT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. WE APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO TALK AND IT KEPT US AT THE TABLE. BUT AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE BACK OF A CHERRY ON PAGE 10 ON THAT MARCH 3RD PUBLIC MEETING THAT GOT ME INTO THE REFERS TO IT, WASN'T CHERYL, BUT WE WERE TOLD THE HEIGHT OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE 60 TO 75 FEET. AT THAT TIME, HE WAS ASKED, UH, ABOUT THE, UH, CURRENT ZONING, ALLOWING YOU TO SEE US ROWING 60 FEET AND ALLOWING UP TO 90 FEET. HE SAID, YOU DON'T WANT THE 90 FEET THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER NSX. WE MAYBE NEED 50 TO 75 FEET WITH FIVE TO SIX FLOORS. SO WE WENT ALONG CONTINUING TO TALK TO HIM. UH, MID MARCH THROUGH APRIL WAS MINIMALLY A DOWNTIME FOR OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, I THINK IT WAS THE ONES FOR MANY PEOPLE. WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PRESSING ITEMS AND THIS WASN'T NECESSARILY IN THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MINDS. UM, BUT, UH, AFTER IT MADE IT DIFFICULT TO MEET, UH, WE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS CONVENIENTLY BY STALLING, MICHAEL AND I SPOKE VERY OFTEN, OFTENTIMES ONCE, EVEN TWICE A WEEK. AND I CONVEYED OUR COMPENSATION TO OUR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, WHICH NOW MEANS BY DOING AS OFTEN AS IS NECESSARY, I'VE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS OVER SEVERAL FACTORS, NAMELY THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, SINCE IT SEEMED IT WAS NOW GOING TO BE WELL OVER 80, 85 FEET. DESPITE PREVIOUS ASCERTATION, I'VE OFFERED REPEATEDLY, UH, 75 FEET AS A COMPROMISE POSITION. SEVERAL TIMES THAT SEEMED LIKE 22, UH, PLENTY ENOUGH ENTITLEMENT TO GET WELL OVER 300 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY AND STILL PROVIDE THE PALTRY 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY SAT AS A GOAL. THEY HAVE NOT BUDGED MEANINGFULLY YET. WE'VE ALSO GOT TO SEE ANY RECENT DRAWINGS OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO SINCE THEY'D GONE ABOVE THE 60 TO 70 FEET, THEY INITIALLY SAID. AND, UH, WE WE'D LIKE TO ALSO, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE MIX OF UNITS WOULD BE IN THERE. NAMELY, WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE A MORE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MIX OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD BE EITHER. WAS IT JUST GOING TO BE SINGLE UNIT SINGLE BEDROOM, OR IS IT GOING TO BE A MIX OF ONLINE? UNDERSTAND THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS WILL DICTATE SOME OF THEIR FINAL PRODUCT, BUT IT SEEMS UNLIKELY TO ME THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SENSE OF WHAT THEY'RE REALLY ASKING, YOU'RE TRYING [02:40:01] TO DO HERE. BUT WE GENUINELY WENT INTO THIS PROCESS WITH THE HOPES OF BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT A LARGE SCALE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR OFFER TO WORK TOGETHER TO SUPPORT A SHORTER TOWER WAS A HEATED, THE TOWER PROPOSED THE DOG WILL BE ONE OF THE TALLEST THINGS BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND THE DOMAIN. WE ENJOYED WORKING WITH DAVINE AND DON'T BLAME HIM PERSONALLY FROM IT. BUT AT THIS TIME THE MOST SITE WE COULD SEE TOWARD THIS LOCATION, THE 75 FEET ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET THERE, BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T YET. WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TALKING AS WE'VE OFFERED OTHER CONCESSIONS, BUT THEY JUST DON'T SEEM TO BE WILLING TO TALK. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE POINT IS OF ASKING DEVELOPERS TO TALK TO HIM, BUT ASSOCIATIONS, IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH US AT ALL, I FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY, FIVE FEET IS PRETTY GENEROUS, WOULD BE THE LARGEST THING ANYWHERE NEAR THERE AND WOULD PROVIDE PLENTY OF HOUSING. UM, BUT AGAIN, WE, WE ALSO HAVEN'T SEEN ANY ACTUAL RESTRICTING TABLETS FROM ANY OF THE OTHER AUTHORS YET. AND SO, UH, WE FEEL LIKE WE JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AT ALL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. IS CHRIS HARRIS ON THE LINE? THIS IS CHIP HARRIS. OKAY, GO AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES? THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CHIP HARRIS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO CV. THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL PLANNING STAFF HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB IN THIS CASE IN RETINA AND PULLING A REPORT, RECOGNIZING THE BENEFITS OF GROWTH, BUT COGNIZANT OF ITS POTENTIAL, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, CITY STAFF, ALTERNATE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION THAN THAT. FOUR FINDS THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO I'M IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, THEN THAT FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION LANES LAYS OUT THE PATH OR REASONABLE, SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. OVER THE PAST DECADE, THE CITY HAS GROWN ABOUT 24%, BUT THE CROSSFIT COMMUNITY HAS GROWN BY A HUNDRED PERCENT LEAVING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS HORRIBLY BEHIND, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC ISSUES, CITY STAFF, AND THEIR THOROUGH REVIEW RECOGNIZES. AND THE REPORT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED QUOTE, ATD STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE PROPOSAL ZONING FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE. HIGHEST DENSITY IS IT WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CONFLICT, ESPECIALLY IN PEAK PERIODS IN QUOTE, PARTIALLY AS A RESULT OF THE EXCESSIVE GROWTH IN THE AREA. BURNER, BRUINS, COMPANION ARTERIAL LAMAR BOULEVARD, WHICH BORDERS THE EAST SIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUFFERING GRIDLOCK AND REQUIRES A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR QUAID SEPARATION RESUME EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING CITY STAFF FORUM. ZONING ON THIS TRACK WILL CELEBRATE THE DECLINE OF BURNER ROAD AS A BIBLE TRAFFIC CORRIDOR. THIS WILL DIVERT MORE TRAFFIC IN TO OUR INTERIOR STREET WITH OUR GROWING NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS AND SMALL CHILDREN AT RISK. THE CITY'S REPORT RECOMMENDS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 60 FEET AT A PUBLIC MEETING ON MARCH 3RD DEVELOPER STATED, AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, A HEIGHT OF 60 TO 75 FEET WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THAT IS MORPHED TO A MINIMUM OF 85 FEET HEIGHT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH MOSTLY TWO OR THREE STORY STRUCTURES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND LACKING IN HUMAN SCALE. THE 400 PLUS MF PROPERTY PROPERTY ON ROCKWOOD JUST NORTH OF HERE WAS APPROVED WITH 60 PER SITE. AND THE PEARL ON CANEY SITS AT 45 FEET WITHOUT A SQUARE FOOT OF PARKLAND. IN CRESTVIEW. THIS DEVELOPMENT WENT INTENSIFY THAT DEFENSE, THAT DEFICIENCY, WE NEED TO START ACTING ON THE LESSONS WE'VE LEARNED WITH THE CURRENT RIDERS THAT NEARBY ACCESSIBLE PARKLAND IS PARAMOUNT. PLACING A SMALL PUBLIC POCKET PARK HERE WOULD BE A BOON TO ACTIVE MOBILITY ON BURNETT ROAD, BUT THE DEVELOPER REFUSES. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE A CHOICE. IN THIS CASE, WE CAN BE GUIDED BY CAREFULLY CRAFTED PLANNING CRITERIA, OR WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE DEVELOPER'S FINANCIAL DESIRES. AGAIN, I QUOTE FROM THE CITY STAFF'S REPORT, QUOTE, THE REPOSE ZONING SHOULD SATISFY A REAL PUBLIC LEAD AND NOT PROVIDE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THE OWNER. IN QUOTES. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE OF STAFF ALTERNATE FOR ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS, SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE CITY WITHOUT DEGRADING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE NANCY HARRISON ON THE LINE? HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. ALRIGHT. UH, GETTING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS NANCY HARRIS AND I'M A RESIDENT OF CRESTVIEW [02:45:01] AND AN OFFICER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS WANTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, WE'VE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT TIME UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THEY WANT US TO SO WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT FROM THE TIME I FIRST LEARNED OF THE PROPOSAL, THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF UNITS HAS GROWN WITH EACH PRESENTATION I'VE HEARD OR READ FROM A HEIGHT OF 60 TO 75 FEET WITH FIVE OR SIX FLOORS. IT IS NOW PROPOSED FOR OVER 80 FEET, FROM 275 UNITS. IT HAS GROWN TO ABOUT THREE 60. MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE HEIGHT, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO LIMIT THE REAR PORTION CLOSEST TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE VALUE OF THIS CONCESSION SEEMS RATHER QUESTIONABLE IS THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS ALREADY SEEM TO LIMIT ACTUALLY BUILD IN THE AREA BEING CONCEITED. THE FRONT PORTION AT 80 PLUS FEET SEEMS TOO TALL FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA WHILE THERE WERE SOME PRELIMINARY RENDERINGS EARLY ON, SINCE THE EAGERLY AWAITED COMPROMISE PACKAGE FROM THE APPLICANT WAS FINALLY DELIVERED IN JUNE. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A SIMPLE DIAGRAM OF WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD LOOK LIKE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND THEIR REQUESTED ZONING OR A DRAFT RESTRICTIVE KEVIN OR ANY HANDS OF WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS FOR THE MIX OF UNIT SIZES. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS, OUR QUESTIONS HAVE MOSTLY BEEN MET WITH SOME BIG TAX REFORM OF, WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET. IT WILL BE DECIDED LATER. HOWEVER, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION NOW WITHOUT IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR HAS BEEN, THE APPLICANT WILL CONTINUE TO MAXIMIZE THE ENTITLEMENTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN SEVERELY DISRUPTED WITH THE CORONAVIRUS WHILE THE CNA OFFICERS HAVE SPOKEN WITH NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL, MANY OF THE USUAL ATTENDEES TO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS HAVE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH AND OR UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN VIRTUAL MEETINGS. HOWEVER, CNA RECENTLY PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT WENT TO EVERY NUMBER HOUSEHOLD ASKING THEM TO TEMPORARILY ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE BOARD TO REPRESENT THEM ON ESSENTIAL ISSUES UNTIL WE COULD RESUME NORMAL OPERATIONS, THEIR TRUST IN AND SUPPORT FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE CURRENT OFFICERS AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ON MATTERS DURING OUR PRESENT CRISIS WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS. THE OFFICERS HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PROJECT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS AND AT THIS TIME BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I SENSE THAT WHILE THERE IS GENERALLY ACCEPTANCE, SOME TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY ZONING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE. THERE ARE GREAT RESERVATIONS ON THE PART OF MAJORA, THE OFFICERS ABOUT SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, SUCH AS HYPE AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS. I KNOW THAT PERSONALLY, I CAN NOT SUPPORT IT AS IT STANDS NOW, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. BACK TO, UH, MICHAEL GOES DANNY FOR REBUTTAL. UH, THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF POINTS RAISED HERE, UH, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY I THINK THE UNDERLYING POLICY QUESTION DRIVING THIS DISCUSSION, THE MAIN POLICY QUESTION FOR Y'ALL TO ANSWER IS WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS. UH, SPECIFICALLY IT'S A QUESTION OF HEIGHT AND THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BECAUSE BASICALLY IN EVERY OTHER WAY, THIS DISTRICT IS A DECREASE IN INTENSITY. SO FIRST UP, I JUST WANT TO SAY THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION HERE REGARDING OUR PROJECT SITE. UM, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WE'VE BEEN CONCEIVING OF THIS PROJECT IS SIX STORES, WHICH WOULD BE AT 75 FEET. AND WE STILL THINK THAT IS THE LIKELIEST PATH, BUT WE HAVE WANTED TO KEEP THE OPTION OPEN FOR THE ABILITY TO DO SEVEN STORIES. IN THE EVENT, WE'RE ABLE TO RECOUP SOME OF THE UNITS THAT WE LOSE IN THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR IF WE RUN INTO UNFORESEEN SITE PLAN CONSTRAINTS AND TO BE CLEAR AT EVERY MEETING WE'VE HAD, WE'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT OUR REQUEST FOR MF SIX. UM, IT WASN'T JUST PRESENTED AS MULTIFAMILY AND I'VE HAD THAT AND THE HEIGHT STANDARDS ON THE HANDOUTS FROM EACH OF HIS MEETINGS, GOING BACK TO DECEMBER, UH, BUT PUTTING ASIDE THE SPECIFICS OF OUR PROJECT AND FOCUSING ON THE ZONING AND POLICY REGULATIONS, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE FULL HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE AT, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE UP ON THE CORRIDOR. AND WHEN I SAY UP ON THE CART OR ACTUALLY MEAN UP ON THE CORRIDOR, BECAUSE THE CURRENT CODE ALREADY HAS EXTENSIVE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, BUT POST THE GRADUAL STEP UP IN HEIGHT IN ORDER TO ENFORCE A TRANSITIONS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CORRIDOR. SO THIS ISN'T A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY'RE ALLOWING 90 FEET OF HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY'RE ALLOWING 90 FEET OF HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE, ROUGHLY A FOOTBALL FIELD AND A HALF AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. AND THAT'S, WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE COMPATIBILITY TODAY. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER ALLOWING 90 FEET OF HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATE ON BURNET ROAD GENERALLY. AND I THINK OUR CITY PLANS HELP US ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BY INDICATING THAT THE CORRIDORS ARE THE PLACES WE WANT TO SEE THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS [02:50:01] AND OUR GOALS INDICATE THAT NOT ONLY ARE THESE PROJECTS APPROPRIATE, BUT THEY'RE NEEDED, IF WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS IN THE REAL ISSUES FACING US RELATED TO HOUSING, AFFORDABILITY, MOBILITY, ANY OTHER POLICY AREAS, UH, BUT THE PLANS ONLY ESTABLISH THE VISION AND THESE TYPES OF CASES OR THE FOLLOW THROUGH AND WHERE THAT WORK ACTUALLY GETS DONE. AND I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT I THINK IT WAS A FAIRLY BROAD CONSENSUS ON THIS. CAUSE IF WE LOOK BACK AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION PROCESS, AS FAR AS IT WAS A TIME FOR ALL OF THE MANY DISAGREEMENTS OVER THOSE DRAFTS, IT REALLY DID NOT SEEM TO BE SIGNIFICANT DEBATE AMONG POLICY MAKERS OVER THE CORRIDORS THEMSELVES, WHICH I THINK IS NOTABLE BECAUSE THE PROPOSALS THAT WOULD HAVE, UM, THOSE PROPOSALS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS SITE TO GO TO 90 FEET OF HEIGHT AND WOULD HAVE A LOT OVER A MUCH GREATER SWATH AS THE SITE THEN WHEN, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY. SO I WOULD JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I THINK THERE IS A BROAD CONSENSUS REGARDING OUR CORRIDORS, THAT SPACES THAT PROVIDE HOUSING, AFFORDABILITY, MOBILITY, WALKING INTO HOODIE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO PUT OUR PLANS IN ACTION AND HELP DELIVER ON OUR GOALS AS A STATE. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'M ALSO AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, AND MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR, UH, ALL THREE OF THESE ITEMS. UH, THE, SORRY I LOST MY PLACE. UM, B SIX, B SEVEN MBA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A MOTION MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IS ARK SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SEEGER. ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY. UM, UH, DO WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER FOR ROUND ROBIN? PREFERABLY A QUESTION, BUT COMMENTS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE RULES. UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. WE APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO GET CREATIVE HANGS UP ON NEXT. CAN YOU WALK ME BACK THROUGH? I'M NOT HEARING ANY. YES, THANK YOU. SORRY. NO, I WAS UNMUTING. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION. UM, SO YES. SO, UH, WHAT WE'VE REQUESTED, UM, OR WHAT, WHAT WE PUT FORWARD AS PART OF OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT WE WILL ENTER INTO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OF A RUN WITH THE LAND, BUT WILL REQUIRE, UH, BASICALLY WE TRIED TO REFLECT WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO IN THE VNU. AND THAT'S 10% OF YOUR TOTAL UNITS AT 60% MFI IN THIS AREA, DIFFERENT AREAS HAVE DIFFERENT NFI LEVELS. AND IF YOU'RE AT 60% OF FLY OTHERS, IT'S 80. UM, AND THAT LASTS FOR THE STANDARD PERIOD OF 40 YEARS. UM, BUT WE ALSO HAD, UM, SOME ITEMS RAISED ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF THINGS MIGHT BE COMING DOWN THE PIKE IN THE NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, POTENTIALLY WE DON'T KNOW YET, BUT WHAT WAS IN THE DRAFT REGARDING A MARKETING PLAN FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, DISPERSION OF UNITS, EQUITY OF ACCESS, ENSURING EQUITY TO AMENITIES FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, NINE STANDARDS, UM, AND THE TIMING OF AVAIL AVAILABILITY OF UNITS. AND WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND WE'VE INCORPORATED THOSE INTO OUR COMMITMENT AS TO WHAT WE WOULD PUT IN THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. SO IF YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT IT, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH CMU. IMAGINE DMU, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND THEN IN ADDITION THAT WE'RE GOING BEYOND WHAT DMU, UM, PROJECTS PROVIDE IN A NUMBER OF THINGS RELATED TO EQUITY, THE NEW CODE HOUSES, ZONING THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING COMPARED TO THE ZONING THAT YOU WERE LOOKING TO GET THE NEW CODE IT'S. UH, SO IT'S, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS INTENSIVE THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE. UM, YOU BASICALLY THAT ENTIRE FRONT LOT, ANYTHING THAT WAS UNDER THE NEW CODE WOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO 90 FEET BECAUSE WE'RE DOING AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY AND THE BACK BACKLOG UNDER THE NEW CODE, THE LR PUSHING, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO 65 FEET CAUSE YOU'RE DOING AFFORDABILITY. UM, AND THE, ACTUALLY THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS WE WERE OFFERING THE VMU STYLE, 10% OF TOTAL UNITS IS MORE THAN THE 5% THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED UNDER THE MOON COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH GREAT OTHER QUESTIONERS QUESTIONS. SURE. SHALL I GO AHEAD? WELL, IT WAS A WORD THERE NOT MANY FOLKS ARE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS, SO IT'S IN A WAY TO BE IN BETTER GO NOW. UM, SO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, WHAT ARE WE LOSING, UH, ROUGHLY IF WE DROP FROM THE 85, HE, THAT YOU, UH, PROPOSED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, TO THE 75 FEET THAT THEY WANT IT, DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON LOSS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? [02:55:04] YEAH, SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM, AND AS I TOUCHED ON IN MY CLOSING, UM, I THINK OUR MAIN THOUGHT IS THAT WE'RE LIKELY TO USE SIX STORIES, BUT LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE OF VARIOUS DIFFERENT CONSTRAINTS AND ESPECIALLY A SITE PLAN AND THINGS ARE MOVING THROUGH AND WE LOSE THE NUMBER ON THE BACK, WE WANTED TO KEEP OPEN THE ABILITY TO DO POTENTIALLY SEVEN STORIES UP ON THE FRONT, IF WE CAN. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO ACHIEVE, UH, SEVEN STORIES THAT, UH, FROM MY KIND OF ROUGH LOOKING OVER THIS ROUGH ESTIMATE, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 15 TO 20 UNITS. OKAY. AND, UM, I'M TRYING, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD KIND OF ON THE PROCESS AND IT'S BEEN VERY CHALLENGING TIMES RIGHT NOW WITH COVID, BUT DO YOU, UH, I THINK THE DATE OF JUNE WAS THAT EARLY JUNE WAS THAT THE FIRST DAY THE CHIEF PROPOSED, UM, THE 80 FOOT FIVE FOOT HEIGHT, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT PROPOSAL THAT YOU OFFERED TO THEM TO CONSIDER LOWERING THE, YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. UM, SO I'M SORRY. NO, NO, YOU GUYS SAW YOU HAD A PROPOSAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE DATE AND WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN DID YOU FIRST PROPOSE 85 FEET? RIGHT. SO PRIOR TO JUNE, WE HAVE BEEN GOING FORWARD WITH OUR BASELINE REQUESTS, WHICH WAS JUST MSX, WHICH ALLOWS TOTAL OF 90 FEET. THAT FROM THE, FROM THE BEGINNING, WE WERE REQUESTING A PURE MSX AND WE HAD EARLY MEETINGS DISCUSSING JUST GETTING GENERAL FEEDBACK. AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAD COME UP DURING THOSE EARLY MEETINGS. UH, AND THEN MY NEXT STEP WAS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE ANOTHER MEETING TO TALK ABOUT THESE AND DISCUSS WAYS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONSENSUS PROJECT WHERE WE COULD MEET OR UNIT COUNT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT ALSO TRY TO MITIGATE. AND SOME OTHER WAYS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS, UM, THAT MEETING DIDN'T END, THOSE MEETINGS JUST KEPT NOT HAPPENING. AND SO I WAS TOLD, UM, WELL, IF YOU PUT TOGETHER SOME POTENTIAL THINGS IN WRITING, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. SO ON JUNE 3RD IS WHEN I WAS ABLE TO PUT THAT TOGETHER. AND AT THAT TIME WE GET OUR INITIAL OFFER TO SAY, I THINK IT WOULD HELP US BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD STILL DO SEVEN STORIES WITHIN 85 FEET. SO WE SAID, WELL, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING THE, THE OVERALL 90 FEET THAT WE WOULD GET REQUESTS DOWN TO 85 FEET, CAUSE IT WOULD STILL MEET OUR GOALS. SO THAT JUNE ONE WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WAS PUT INTO THE PRINT. OKAY. AND, UH, FINALLY, UM, WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DO IN RC? CAUSE I'M HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY'RE WAITING FOR AN RC, BUT WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET THERE? YOU GAVE THEM A PROPOSAL, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE ROADMAP TO GET TO THE RC STAGE? SO OUR PROPOSAL WAS THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE COMPROMISE PLAN WOULD BE AN AVENUE TO GET TO A CONSENSUS PROJECT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY WERE READY FOR OFFER A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR A LETTER OF NON OPPOSITION. UM, AND I WAS NEVER GIVEN AN INDICATION AND I WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR AS PART OF THIS PROCESS TO TRY AND AFFORD THAT. UM, AND I WAS NEVER GIVEN A DIRECT, UM, THIS PROPOSAL WILL OR WILL NOT OCCUR. SO UNTIL WE HAVE A SENSE AS TO WHETHER THAT PROPOSAL WILL BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED, I DON'T, I DIDN'T, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT TOGETHER A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR ITEMS THAT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED OR NOT. UM, THERE WAS SOME INDICATION IN THE LAST WEEK, BASICALLY ABOUT, UM, ABOUT A SPECIFIC 70 FOOT FIVE FEET, UM, AND THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT WITH WHAT WE WOULD WRITE. UM, AND IN TERMS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR SICK LEAVE COVENANT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD ENTER INTO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE WANT THAT TO BE A THIRD PARTY THAT YOU ALL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN. SHE GETS CONFIDENCE, WE'RE BEING ENFORCEABLE. SO THAT WILL OCCUR AS I PUT IN WRITING ON THE RECORD WITH Y'ALL AND THAT'LL BE WITH, UM, A THIRD PARTY THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE THAT. DID YOU FILL OUT QUESTIONNAIRES OR THE QUESTIONS? YES. HI. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE DESIGN. THAT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO, ALL THE HEIGHT BEING ON BURNETT ROAD HAVE LAID ANY CONSIDERATIONS, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN, WHERE IT IS STEPPED BACK TO THE METAL AND THEN AH, SUPER STAY ON TO THE LOWER HEIGHTS. HAVE YOU GIVEN THEM ANY FACTS TO BACK UP? SORRY, I'M LOSING MY DESIGN. THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. AND THE ANSWER IS THAT BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, WE [03:00:01] CAN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR VIA A CODE MODIFICATION OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES BECAUSE WE'RE RESTRICTED. WE CAN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO TRADE AWAY COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THE BACK BECAUSE THE CITY SAYS WE HAVE TO IS COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. UM, SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE SITE STEP BACK. UM, YES, BUT COULD THERE BE ANY CREATED DESIGN THAT TAKES THE MASS OFF AND DOES SOMETHING WITH IT? HAS THAT BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION? THE ONLY IN TERMS OF THE MATH? I THINK, I THINK WE'VE HIT ONE ON ONE, ONE, AND PLUS ONE EQUALS TWO ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT I THINK COULD, COULD KIND OF SPRING THAT TRAP. I THINK WE'VE HIT WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO HIT WITHIN COMPATIBILITY. OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION TO FOLLOW ON TO THE PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT. YOU SAID THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A PARTY WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BE SIGNING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ENTITY ON BOARD AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I WILL COMMIT THAT WE WILL HAVE THAT ALL IRONED OUT BEFORE WE HIT OUR FINAL READING AND CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. UM, AND I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED TO PUT SOME PRELIMINARY FEELERS OUT THERE. UH, WE KNOW SOME FOLKS WHO AREN'T INTERESTED. AND SO I THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IN THE PAST, AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE THAT IS INTERESTED, WHICH IS WHY I WAS WILLING TO PUT THAT COMMITMENT IN WRITING ON THE RECORD. AND IT WILL BE AVAILABLE BY THE TIME WE HIT THAT. BUT I WANTED YOU TO HAVE THE CONTENT OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THAT PRIVATE RC, WHICH IS WHERE I PUT THAT LETTER TOGETHER FOR Y'ALL. OKAY. I JUST NEED TO REMIND YOU AT THAT'S A REQUEST OF STAFF THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR APPROVAL. UH, AND SO WE GET A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT HAS BONUSES AVAILABLE IN THESE AREAS. RIGHT. I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING. I'M JUST THEN, CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE MONITORING OF THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY POLICY? HOW WOULD THE MONITORING THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT? SO THAT WOULD BE HANDLED VIA THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH US AND THE THIRD PARTY ENTITY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY SOMEONE THAT WORKS IN THAT WORLD. AND IT'S NOT JUST FRIENDS, IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH MIGHT NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO DO THAT. AND AS WE SPOKE YESTERDAY, YOU INDICATED THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. I SEE YOU STILL HAVE THAT SAME POSITION. YES. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVIDES THE ACTUAL WAIVER OF SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS. SO NOTHING ELSE THAT MFI FOR INSTANCE, WOULD BE A DECREASE OF OVER A HUNDRED UNITS, WHICH MAKES THIS PROJECT VERY DIFFICULT TO DO AT 10% AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THESE UNITS SUBSIDE. AND SO, SO IN TERMS OF THE UNIT COUNT, AND THEN ALSO BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY ACCESS, UM, THAT FRONT AREA HEIGHT UP ON BURNET ROAD, WHICH WILL BE FULFILLING THE VISION OF OUR POLICIES AND PLANS AND HOW MUCH WILL BE THE ONLY ONE THAT MEETS ALL OF THESE CRITERIA REAL QUICKLY. ONE MORE QUESTION IN THE UNDERGROUND PARKING PROPOSED A YES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN PLANNING FOR ALL ALONG. AND, YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET DOWN. UH, SO I, I CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY, IT'S ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE THERE. CAUSE IF THERE'S JUST STRAIGHT UP ROCK UNDERNEATH AND WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT ON THAT, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE UNDERGROUND PARKING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DRIVING TOWARDS. UH, SHAY, GO AHEAD. SO, UM, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT THE CITY STAFF AT TUFTS HAD MENTIONED THAT THE, I GUESS THE DENSITY OR THE ZONING IS DETRIMENTAL OR THE TRAFFIC OR THE BURNETT, RED'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE IT. UH, SO I WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT, UM, WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA WORK OR NOT. I MEAN, W W W WHAT ARE THE COMPLEXITIES, WHAT ARE THEY RECOMMENDING NOT TO GO TO, WHATEVER'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE. UM, AND THEN, UM, DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR A REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT ON WHATEVER WE HEAR FROM THE STAFF. SO STAFF CAN KIND OF SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO, OKAY, THIS IS MARK GRAHAM WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. [03:05:02] THE LATE BACKUP INCLUDES A QUOTE FROM JANE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION, UH, THAT SAYS OVER SUPERBOWL APP ACCESS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CREATED AND RECORDED BY THE OWNER WITH THE NORTHWEST SITE. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THIS PROPERTY INTO GREENLAWN PARKWAY, WHICH HAS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME, THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE LAND USES AND INTENSIVE USE HAVE BEEN FINALIZED, SHOWED UP AS, UM, ATDS. UM, AND THEN ALSO, SO THE PROPOSAL TO DATE, THEY PROPOSE TO DEFER THE REST OF THE ANALYSIS TO SITE PLAN. OKAY. SO THEN, UM, OKAY. NO, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT. UM, I THINK THAT'S, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YET? UM, MAYBE I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR, UH, APPLICANTS ON THE HEIGHT. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT 85 FEET POTENTIALLY. AND HOW FAR BACK, I GUESS, HOW DEEP OF 85 FEET ARE WE LOOKING AT, UM, THAT WE'RE SEEING AS THAT FIRST SECTION FROM BURNETT, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A VISUALIZATION. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND ACTUALLY, ANDREW, IF YOU PULL UP THE POWERPOINT AND GO TO THE VERY LAST, VERY, VERY LAST SLIDE, IT WASN'T IN THE ONE THAT I PRESENTED, BUT I HAD THAT IN THERE BECAUSE I FIGURED THIS MIGHT COME UP AND I MEASURED IT FROM THE FULL 90 FEET. SO YOU CAN HAVE A SENSE CAUSE 95 90, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE VISUALIZATION WILL BE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE BRIGHT. I WOULD LOVE TO GET A REALLY TALKING ABOUT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A VISUAL OF A CROSS SECTION OF WHAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, HOW IT ALL, YOU KNOW, HOW IT ENDS UP, YOU KNOW, STEPPING DOWN TO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY IS, I WOULD THINK FOR THE COMPATIBILITY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT 30, 40 FEET AND THEN KIND OF KEEPS STEPPING UP AND I'M JUST WANTING TO SEE HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT THIS IS REALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW? AND THEN WHAT'S IT LIKE RIGHT AT THE CORRIDOR. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M SORRY, JUST REAL QUICK IN MY EXHIBITS, THERE IS, HOLD ON. I THOUGHT YOU'RE INTERJECTING AND I'M TRYING TO HELP SHAPE, UH, ANY, ANY VISUALS WOULD BE GREAT FOR ALL OF US. SO DID YOU CATCH THAT COMMISSIONER? HUH? DID YOU CATCH THAT TO MY SHIRT? YES, I DID. SO IT LOOKS LIKE SEAN HAS AN EXHIBIT AND GARDENY HAS AN EXHIBIT AS WELL. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE SAW THAT AS EXHIBITS. OKAY. AND EVERYBODY'S EXHIBIT, UM, IF ANDREW HAS THAT, WE CAN PUT THAT UP. MY AUDIO CUT OUT. OH, THERE WE GO. OKAY. LET'S STAY WITH THE SEC MATE. LET'S LOOK AT THE SECTION AND IF YOU CAN KIND OF TALK THROUGH IT FOR WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AND THE STREET AND WHERE THAT PARTY CIRCLE, WHERE THAT COMPATIBILITY HITS, YOU CAN JUST KIND OF, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THAT SECTION. THAT'D BE GREAT FOR SURE. UM, DO Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY HAVE IT UP ON YOUR SCREEN NOW WE'RE LOOKING IN PLAN. UM, ANDREW, CAN YOU GET THAT ADVANCED TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THERE YOU GO. OKAY. EXCELLENT. SO IF YOU, UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, SORRY, I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT I THINK I SHARED WHERE YOU HAVE KIND OF ONE CURVED LINE. THAT'S WHAT WE SEE IN THE LARGER LOT. UH, AND SO THAT LINE IS WHERE YOU CAN GET 90 FEET AND, AND THEN BASICALLY YOUR 90 FEET AFTER THAT, FROM THAT UP TO THE FRONT, I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A STOPPAGE ON THE FRONT TO SOME STUFF GOING ON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET PIECE OF THAT SEGMENT. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT IN YOUR HEAD, IF YOU WANT TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS, THAT'S 420 FEET. UM, SO A FOOTBALL FIELD IS ABOUT 300 FEET. UH, YOU'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD AND A HALF PEOPLE WERE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH KIND OF THAT LENGTH. IT'S THAT LENGTH OF A DISTANCE BEFORE YOU CAN REACH YOUR FULL HEIGHT OF 90 FEET. AND YOU KIND OF SEE THAT LINE ON THE VISUALIZATION FOR LOOKING AT THE SAME THING RIGHT NOW. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FROM ABOVE, OR ARE YOU LOOKING IN SECOND? I'M SORRY. YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE GRID. ONE THAT, UM, THAT COMMISSIONER SHARP [03:10:01] PUT TOGETHER, UH, UH, TIME HAS EXPIRED. UM, SO WE, WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER, IF THERE IS ONE, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS ARE, GO AHEAD AND WHAT'S YOUR GUARDIAN. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ANSWER SHANE'S QUESTION? YES. SO, UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE GRID VERSION OF IT, UM, COMMISSIONER SHAW HAS IT UP THERE AT FOUR, AT 400 FEET, YOU CAN GO UP 10 85 FEET OF HEIGHT, AND HE'S ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS IS PRETTY HELPFUL. HE'S ACTUALLY SHADED OUT THE SIGHT LINES. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT LITTLE KIND OF PERSON THAT HE HAS OVER THERE ON THE LEFT, YOUR SIGHT LINE TO THAT FIRST BUILDING, THAT'S 40 FEET OF HEIGHT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED THERE TODAY, YOUR SIGHT LINE FOR THAT. UM, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN SEE BASED OFF THE SIGHT LINE THAT HE'S DRAWN, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN SEE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES THAT MEAN. CAUSE IT'S USUALLY A, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, IT DOES. I MAINLY I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE RESIDENCES AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY, THEY WON'T EVEN SEE THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. THANKS. THANK YOU. UM, I GUESS WHEN I'M HERE, WHEN I HAVE A DYING GIRL, I'LL JUST DO ONE BIG COMMENT AND QUESTION DOCUMENTS OR REQUIREMENTS AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE SORT OF GOING ABOVE AND UNDER THE LDC. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THAT. I THINK MY, MY GUESS ONE SORT OF QUESTION THAT IS, AND I KNOW THAT I HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT WHY CHOOSE NOT TO USE, AND YOUR DRAWERS DO NOT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND THE SOCCER GAMES OR IF THEIR CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY THAT PROPERTY IS LAID OUT, IT'S REALLY LONG. IT DOESN'T HAVE A TOUGH ONE IN JOHN BURNETT. UM, AND SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS, UM, AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF TYPE OF PROJECT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THIS SITE, UH, THAT TYPE OF CONFIGURATION MAKES IT MAKES COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR SUBOPTIMAL, UM, AND MAKES ANY FULLY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT A VERY, UH, MUCH MORE OF A DOABLE AND GOOD PROJECT FOLLOWED PROJECT. SO UNFORTUNATELY I THINK THAT POTENTIALLY SOME OF YOUR NEW CODE WOULD FIX THIS AND ALLOW YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY ON THAT. BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, VMU REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE, THAT TYPE OF THING. SO MSX WAS REALLY THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO A PURELY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT KIND OF DEMANDING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, MR. LAYTON BURWELL HERE. SO JUST AS A ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO SUPPORT, UH, CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I THINK IT'S A SMART, UM, COMPROMISE ON THIS. UM, THIS SECTION OF BURT ROAD HAS PRIMARILY SINGLE STORY, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENTS, UM, BUT THE BIGGEST PROJECT DOWN THE STREET. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS COULD SEE IT IS THE MARK ON BURNET ROAD AND THAT'S 60 FEET. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DASHED LINE THAT I'M SHOWING ABOVE THAT. OKAY. AND THIS IS WAY, WAY DOWN THE STREET, PROBABLY AT LEAST A QUARTER OF A MILE TO A HALF MILE DOWN THE STREET. EVERYTHING ELSE, IF YOU NOTICE ACROSS THE STREET IS ONE STORY TO TWO STORY. UH, THIS IS NOT A HEAVILY DEVELOPED AREA. THIS IS NOT ON A MAJOR INTERSECTION. THIS IS MID-BLOCK IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL, UH, A FEEDER INTO ALLENDALE. UM, THERE ARE, UH, PROJECTS LIKE THE ONE THAT I'VE SHOWN YOU AT 60 FEET, UH, AND GIVE THEM ALL SORTS OF DENSITY TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP WHAT THEY NEED. UH, WHAT WE'RE SEEING MOSTLY ALONG HERE ARE MARKET RATES, UH, PROJECTS, UH, WITH, UH, THESE, YOU KNOW, UH, SO WAY 10%, UM, TO, UM, AFFORDABILITY. WE'RE IN FACT, THAT'S NOT THEIR [03:15:01] TARGET MARKET AT ALL. THIS IS NOT AN AFFORDABLE PROJECT. UM, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, SO TO CREATE DENSITY WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENCE TO QUALITY OF LIFE OR CHARACTER IS WHAT PRISONS ARE ABOUT, RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT DENSITY TRYING TO FIT PEOPLE INTO A SMALL THING. THERE'S, UH, IT'S, THERE'S IT'S TO DANCE FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S NO, UH, FAMILY UNITS IN THIS. THESE ARE ALL FOR YOUNG AFFLUENT, UH, PROFESSIONALS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE PROJECT, BECAUSE THIS AREA IS ABOUT, UM, YOUR CONSIDERABLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREATER DENSITY, LIKE THE WALMART OF, UH, PROJECT AT, UM, BURNET AND AT ANDERSON LANE. UH, BUT, UH, THAT'S A, UH, A TWO STORY PROJECT BEST. SO, UM, SO TO DO THIS KIND OF DENSITY ARE ONE LITTLE SLIVER, UH, AND THAT KIND OF HEIGHT IS SO OUT OF CHARACTER, IF YOU KNOW THE PROJECT UP ON, UH, SIX 20 AND ONE 83 THAT SAT THERE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS. HOW ABOUT ONE 30, 40 YEARS? UH, THAT WAS LIKE 15 STORIES AND IT JUST STUCK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB BECAUSE IT WAS SO OUT OF CONTEXT, THAT'S WHAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE. MFR IS SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO DO A WORKABLE PROJECT, A WORKABLE SCALE, A COMPATIBILITY, WE'LL STEP IT DOWN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT STAFFS. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE IT A CHAIR, I KNOW I'VE ALREADY ASKED QUESTION. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CONCEDE TO ME, I JUST HAVE, I'LL TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO HOW WE FRAME THE MOTION. SO AFTER ALL THE TESTIMONY, BUT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO GIVE ME TIME. UH, OKAY. YEAH. UM, I MEAN, THE WAY, THE WAY THE RULES, THE RULES, DON'T SPECIFY THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO GIVE YOU TIME. AND, AND THE WAY I LIKE TO RUN THINGS IS JUST TO SEE IF, IF, UH, IF NOBODY ELSE HAS TO SPEAK AND THEN ONCE EVERYONE IS EXHAUSTED, THEN I CAN MOVE ON AROUND TOO. AND I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS FROM ROUND ONE. UM, SO, UH, SO MR. SHAW HERE FOR ROUND TWO, AND YOU'RE ALSO THE LAST WEEK, SO IT'S FOR STAFF AND IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT 75 FEET, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. CAUSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I THINK IT STOPS AT 60. SO HOW DO WE GET TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AT 75? WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? WE WOULD ACTUALLY SUGGEST A REDUCTION IN HEIGHT FROM THE MSX. AND SO I THINK STAFF WOULD, I NEED SOME GUIDANCE FROM STAFF ON HOW WE WOULD GET TO THAT 75 FEET. YES. MARK GRAHAM AND STAFF IN PLANNING AND ZONING. UM, YOU CAN, UM, USE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO, UH, REDUCE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE . OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. OKAY. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF A ROUND ROBIN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SURE. SHALL GO AHEAD. UM, I WANT TO, UH, SUPPORT , BUT WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, CAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIRED 75 FEET. WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, COMMISSIONER SHAW. DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, YEAH, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS DISTRICT SEVEN AND, UM, I THINK I'VE HEARD FROM BOTH ALLENDALE AND CRESTVIEW, AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN THAT PUTTING THIS DENSITY ALONE, UM, CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT CODE AT THIS, BUT SO, UH, I I'M GOING TO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING. THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE, WE HAVE TWO LETTERS FROM BOTH NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY'VE EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO SUBSTITUTE KNOWS HOW MUCH I'M SORRY. I HOLD ON. SOMEBODY IS SHUFFLING PAPERS. WHAT'S YOUR SECRET. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE YOU. UM, CHRISTINA ANDERSON, GO AHEAD. WHAT WAS YOUR MISSION? SUBSTANTIVE NOTION THAT WOULD BE MF SIX WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CZAR, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? HAPPY TO, YEAH. I REALLY FEEL THAT STAFF GOT THIS ONE WRONG TO, UH, TO GO FROM CS ONE TO NFR ON BURNETT ROAD OF ALL PLACES MAKES ABSOLUTELY ZERO SENSE TO ME. SO WE ALL KNOW THAT SITE PLAN CAN OFTENTIMES BE LIKE GOING FROM NEW ZONING. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY UNITS YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE GOING THROUGH A SITE PLAN THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. YOU SEE A DEVELOPMENT THAT THINKS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE X, [03:20:01] AND THEN THEY'RE AT 0.8 X 0.7 X. AND AS WE TWO THROUGH THOSE UNITS, THE COST OF ALL THE OTHER HOMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TO BUILD JUST GOES UP UP, UP. WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WE LOSE MORE UNITS TO COMPATIBILITY THAN ANY OTHER RULE ON OUR BOOKS. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE WORST COMPATIBILITY IN THE COUNTRY, BUT YET THIS ADHERES TO OUR OLD ANTIQUATED AUTOCENTRIC COMPATIBILITY, 100% ADHERENCE TO IT. AND, YOU KNOW, HAD WE ADOPTED THAT NEW CODE THAT REFLECTED THE HOUSING THAT WE NEEDED, IT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ALLOWANCE FOR THIS AMOUNT OF HOUSING TO BEGIN WITH. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES THAT TOUGH QUESTION. ARE WE MORE AFRAID OF A TALL BUILDING ON A MAJOR CORRIDOR HALL, BEING SEVEN STORIES ARE FROM TALL, CONCERNING MOST MAJOR CITIES OR UNAFFORDABILITY BECAUSE ONCE THEY'RE MOBILIZED, ONCE THEY'RE BUILDING, ONCE THEY'RE FLYING TABLES, THEY'RE ALREADY BUYING CONCRETE, ADD THE X AMOUNT OF NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY CAN ADD ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. THOSE COULD BE SOME OF THE CHEAPEST UNITS FOR THEM. THEY BUILD IN THAT PROJECT. NOW I GET IT. WE'RE LOOKING TO LOOK AT IT. I'M LIKE, WELL, THEY'RE DOING MORE. THAT'S THE BONUS HERE. THEN UNDER THE PROPOSED CODES, MAYBE WE GOT IT WRONG UNDER THE PROPOSED CODE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE WHEN YOU'RE FAILING THE HOUSING MARKET, YOU CAN MAKE ALMOST ANY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WORKS. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD. THIS ANDRE FAILED CODE. SO THEREFORE THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE THE 10% WORK. COULD THEY DO THIS UNDER A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOUBTFUL, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. SAUNDRA ARE FAIRLY LANDOWNER CODE. SO A HUNDRED PERCENT EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS AND GET HOUSING ON THE EIGHT OR THREE BUS, RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM. NEXT TO ALL OF THE MAJOR WHEEZING AMENITIES AUSTIN HAS TO OFFER. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? THIS IS A QUESTION OF SCALE AND EMMA FOR HER, IT IS A COMPROMISE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO REFLECT THE HEIGHT AND THE NEGOTIATIONS REFLECTS THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH MEETING IN THE MIDDLE AND FIND THINGS AT SCALE. THE REALITY IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN LEGO LAND. IT'S NICE IN THEORY, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK IN PRACTICE AND IN PRACTICE, COMMUNITY PLANNING ACTUALLY REQUIRES SCALE AND IT REQUIRES NEGOTIATION. SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE. ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, ONE OF OUR, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, MR. SCHEIDER, I HAVE A QUESTION POINT OF CLARIFICATION. UM, JUST TO BE SURE THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS MF SIX WITH A HEIGHT LIMIT OF CONDITIONAL LEVEL AT 75 FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? THIS MOTION JUST ELIMINATES THAT 75 FOOT LIMIT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. UM, UH, NO ONE HERE AND PRETTY MUCH NOBODY OUTSIDE DENIES THAT WE'RE IN A CRISIS OF HOUSING. UM, THERE WERE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AND THAT WE'RE IN A GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT CRISIS ON THE EAST SIDE. AND THE ONLY WAY TO ALLEVIATE THE DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION CRISIS ON THE EAST SIDE IS TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING OUTSIDE OF THE EASTERN CRESCENT. THAT'S IT, THERE'S, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT. UM, THE DISPLACEMENT STUDY, UH, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH CONFIRMED THAT. AND, UM, IT'S INTERESTING TO READ THE FOOTNOTES ON SOME OF THEIR RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES, WHICH NOTED THAT PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING OTHER THAN, THAN INCREASING SUPPLY CITYWIDE IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE, UH, DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE. UM, WE KNOW THAT OUR, UM, OUR POPULATION IS GROWING RAPIDLY. WE KNOW THE DEMAND WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE. AND I'LL SAY THIS ABOUT MONTOPOLIS CASES. UM, I THINK LOT BY LOT, UH, REZONING THOSE LOTS FROM SF THREE TO SF SIX, IF THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE UNIT ON IT, IT MAKES SENSE. UH, I'M I'M GROWING CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, CREATING A RUN ON THE LARGE LOTS IN MONTOPOLIS. IF THERE IS A SENSE THAT THESE, UM, THAT THOSE LOTS ARE AVAILABLE AND, AND PRETTY ASSURED OF REZONING. UM, AND, BUT WHAT IS UNAMBIGUOUS, UH, TO ME IS THAT CREATING HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OUTSIDE OF THE EASTERN CRESCENT HELPS MONTOPOLIS. AND IT'S THE DRIP, DRIP, DRIP OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS COMPATIBILITY COMPROMISES AT REZONING CASES, UM, DELAYS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT HAVE CREATED A SITUATION WHERE IT'S REALLY HARD AND REALLY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD HOUSING IN AUSTIN. AND IF YOU HAD TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE SHOULD HOUSING GO IN AUSTIN, WHERE SHOULD ALL THESE NEW PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE [03:25:01] LIVE INSTEAD OF GOING TO BID AGAINST HOUSING AND MONTOPOLIS, YOU WANT THEM ON A TRANSIT LINE IN CENTRAL AUSTIN. THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT PEOPLE. IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO SAVE THE CLIMATE, YOU WANT THEM TO RIDE TRANSIT. YOU WANT THEM TO WALK TO NEARBY MIXED USES. UH, YOU WANT TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT. DON'T PUT THEM ON THE EAST SIDE AND PREVENT PRESSURE ON THE EAST SIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEALING WITH A CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IS CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF, OF PEOPLE TO STEP OUTSIDE THEIR COMFORT ZONE AND STEP UP TO CHALLENGES WHEN THERE'S A CRISIS. AND, UH, THIS, THIS ZONING CASE FOR ME, EXEMPLIFIES THAT KIND OF PROBLEM IN OUR HOUSING CRISIS IN AUSTIN, MORE THAN ANYTHING. SO, UM, SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS. UM, WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE COMING, THIS IS WHERE THEY SHOULD GO. IT'S ON A, A MAJOR CORRIDOR OR MAKING TRANSIT INVESTMENTS. UM, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE STORY, THAT'S 300 FEET FROM THE NEAREST HOUSE. UM, WE, WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING. SO THAT'S WHY I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION, PICTURES THAT WANT TO SPEAK, WHICH ARE, SHALL GO AHEAD. SO, UM, I AGREE. I MEAN, THIS IS THE CORRIDOR, UM, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TRANSIT SUPPORTED DEVELOPMENT. UM, I THINK THE ISSUE FOR ME IS THAT WE'VE GOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE KINDA GOT A LAND CODE THAT WE'RE ALL WAITING ON TO FINISH THAT DEBATE AND, AND, AND PUSH THE HEIGHTS TO THAT LEVEL. BUT THE NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT NOW, UH, WE ARE KIND OF, I THINK GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND I THINK THE LAND CODE WILL BE THE MECHANISM FOR GETTING THAT HEIGHT WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL IN THAT DEBATE. AND THIS IS, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD MADE A CONCESSION, YOU KNOW, OF GOING UP TO 75, THEY'RE WILLING TO COMPROMISE. AND I THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF SOME OF THEIR TOLERANCE LIMITS. I THINK THEY ARE GIVING SOME, SO I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A NEGOTIATION. I DO AGREE THIS IS A CORRIDOR, WE NEED DENSITY, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, LET'S DO IT INCREMENTALLY. UH, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GIVING UP SOMETHING HERE. UH, I THINK THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO COME TO THE TABLE IN THE FULL WAY, BUT THEY DID MAKE THIS CONCESSION OF 75 FEET. SO, UM, I'D TO GIVE THAT A CHANCE, BUT THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE THE NEXT BOOK. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONERS? SO TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, MR. ZAR, GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO SAY, I AM PHYSICALLY ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS AND IT WAS SIX, FOUR, AND SORT OF MULTIPLE REASONS. ONE IS THAT. SO WE, AREN'T TALKING ABOUT UNITS AT 61 YEARS, WHICH IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT IN HERE. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN A HIGH OPPORTUNITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA WHERE WE'RE NOT DISPLACING ANYONE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING DOTTED SYSTEM ABOUT THAT HAND, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN IN SO MANY OTHER CASES. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I DO WANT TO SEE IT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HIGH COMPATIBILITY. THERE WAS NOT COMPLETELY, THERE WAS NO COMPATIBILITY ON HIS PROPERTY. I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT. HAVING SAID THAT IT'S STEPS UP TO THAT 90 FEET AND AS RECEDING, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HE SAID ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT REALLY IS RIGHT ON THE BORDER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE 90 HEAT. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT IT WAS A COMBINED IN THE SAME, YOU KNOW, YOU VISUALIZING WHAT 15 STORIES LOOKS LIKE. AND I WOULD AGREE THAT I THINK THAT GIVES STORIES COMPLETING SIX HOURS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, DACA. WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE HALF. SO WE LIKE ON SOMETHING THAT I THINK ALIGNS WITH THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH. IT DOES WORK WITHIN THE COMBINED BUILDING STANDARDS AND PROVIDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HAVING SAID THAT, I DO WANT TO KNOW THE FACT THAT I THINK IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT WE ARE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT TRANSIT LINKAGES AND HOW MUCH FUNDING WE'RE SPENDING ON BORDERS AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND WE'RE SORT OF JUMPING THROUGH THESE HOOPS OVER DOCKING, WHAT A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING, UM, LIKE A CITY FUNDED STUDY OR A CITY SANCTION STUDY, I SHOULD SAY, AND THE CITY FUNDED STUDY, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY HOW I FIND THAT SAME THING HERE, WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE DO THEN THAT WILL LEAD TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND WILL LEAD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN A HIGH OPPORTUNITY. SO I WILL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THIS. UM, AND [03:30:01] I THINK THE AFRICAN HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND I HOPE AS THE MOVE FORWARD, WE WILL GO THROUGH WITH THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BEFORE THEY GO TO COUNCIL AND FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS. UM, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. LET'S JUST SPEAK AGAINST, OKAY. BUT LET'S TAKE A VOTE. UM, THE MOTION IS BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR YES. THE MOTION ON THE RESTRICTED COVENANT TERMINATION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL, RIGHT. UH, OKAY. SO, UM, MR. ANDERSON, UH, I, I, YOU INTENDED YOUR MOTION TO APPLY FOR ALL THREE ITEMS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. UM, SO IT'S APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COVENANT WITH THE, UH, SET THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND THEN, THEN, UH, IT IS ITEM A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT, A REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND THE A, AND THE REZONING WITH THE REZONING TO MS. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. ANDERSON? THAT'S CORRECT. I DO WANT TO CHECK WITH A SECOND FOR SURE. THAT THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF EMOTION. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE HAVING COMPUTER ISSUES WITH OUR COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW. THAT TRIANGLE MEANS GETTING BANDWIDTH. I DID WANT TO ASK REAL QUICK. UH, ANDREW COMMISSIONER, IS THIS OKAY? THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT, WE'RE TAKING ALL THESE BOATS RIGHT NOW ONCE, CORRECT. I'M NOT GETTING A RESPONSE FROM COMMISSIONER CAUSEY. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. SEE IF WE CAN GET THEM BACK UP. THERE HE GOES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THE NOTION ON THE TABLE. GO GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. UH, ALL OPPOSED. GO READ ONE, TWO, THREE, AND I'LL STAND AND GO YELLOW ONE. SO SEVEN, THREE, ONE. I'M MISSING SOMEBODY. OH, YOU OKAY. SO SEVEN FOUR ONE EIGHT. YES, THAT'S. OKAY, LET'S GO. BRILLIANT AGAIN. YES. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. UH, CHRIS, YOUR SHARE. ARE YOU IN FAVOR? THAT'S A YELLOW. OKAY. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT. YOU'RE CORRECT. ALL OPPOSED THE RED ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, AND ABSTAINING ONE. SO EIGHT 41. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM. UH, UNFORTUNATE. UH, YES, UNFORTUNATELY. SO, UM, UM, I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE CAN GET ALL THESE ITEMS DONE BY LET'S GO 10 45 AN HOUR. UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SEGER ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11, 12. OKAY. UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE'RE EXTENDED SEVEN 45. UH, [17. Site Plan: SP-2019-0253C - Springdale Farms; District 3 Location: 755 Springdale Road, Boggy Creek Watershed; Govalle / Johnston Terrace NP Area Owner/Applicant: Glenn and Paula Foore dba Texas Trees & Landscapes Agent: Jarred Corbell and Casey Giles, P.E. (Storybuilt.) Request: Request to vary from LDC 25-8-261 – to allow development in a Critical Water Quality Zone Staff Rec.: Not Recommended Staff: Kristy Nguyen, 512-974-3035, kristy.nguyen@austintexas.gov Development Services Department] NEXT ITEM IS, UH, B 17 SEVEN FIVE FIVE SPRINGDALE ROAD, SP 2019 ZERO TWO FIVE THREE C SPRINGDALE FARMS. UH, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DEALS WHERE I THINK THEY'RE APPEALING TO US FOR THE SITE PLANT. SO, UM, IS CHRISTIE WENT ON THE LINE FROM DSP? GOOD EVENING CHAIR, KENNY AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CHRISTIE WHEN YOU HEAR ME. YES. GO AHEAD. HI, PENNY AND COMMISSIONER WITH THE 51 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SPECIALIST SENIOR WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UM, I DID EMAIL ANDREW A PRESENTATION, [03:35:02] SO I WOULD LIKE TO PREVIEW THAT PRESENTATION, MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE THAT HANDY? AND BEFORE WE DO START THE PRESENTATION AND THE INTEREST OF TIME WITH THE COMMISSION PREFER TO JUMP AHEAD TO STAFF DETERMINATION AND EXHIBIT STARTING ON FIVE 14, OR FOR THE FINDINGS OF FACTS, LIKE BE PRESENTED. THIS INFORMATION WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE PACKAGE CHECKUP. UH, I'M GOING TO BE FINE WITH YOU JUMPING AHEAD TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UNLESS SOMEBODY WAVES CAUSE THEY WANNA GET THE FULL THING. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION. OH, AND TO STOP FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE COVER SHEET IN THE BACKUP UNDER ENVIRONMENTS OF BOARD ACTION, EIGHT COMMISSIONERS VOTED EIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONERS VOTED FOR AS IN FAVOR FOR STAFF CIRCLE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DENIAL OF THE BARONS AND NOT FOR THE PROMOTED DURAN. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLEAR THAT UP. OKAY. SO MY RECOMMENDATION STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATERFALL REZONE AND HAVE NOT BEEN MET, THE BUILDING OVERHANGS AND FIRE LANE HAMMERHEADS WOULD NOT PROVIDE GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FEED BUILDING OVERHANGS AND HAMMERHEADS WERE NOT FUNCTIONING ECOLOGICALLY LIKE THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY OFF IT WILL REQUIRE MOWING. IT REQUIRES MOWING AND THERE WILL BE NO WOODY CC STAMPING, MOREOVER THE LARGE SCALE OF THE PROJECT TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT ADVANTAGE OF A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT 25 EIGHT, TWO 51 SATISFY ANOTHER CODE REQUIREMENT. THE PROPERTY IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION CONTAINS UPLAND, APPROXIMATELY TWO THIRDS OF THE SITE THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER ADD THAT, UM, THAT BASED ON THE CITY'S HYDROLOGY MAPPING DATA, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE IS A TRIBUTARY OF BOBBY CREEK AND IS A NATURAL CHANNEL. OKAY. UM, OR IS THAT GOOD? IS THAT IT? AND YOU CAN SEE MY EXHIBIT ON SLIDE NUMBER 15. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TURN, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD CHRISSY. OH YES. HI, I'M SORRY. I WAS WAITING FOR THE SLIDES TO SHOW UP ON THE ONLINE SCREEN. UM, IT SHOWS THAT THIS PART IS THAT, UM, SO MY RIBBON CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE FUCK IS DEVELOPABLE. IT'S NOT TO THE SCALE OF WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES, AS YOU CAN SEE IF THE FIRE LANE IS, ARE SHIFTED A LITTLE OUTSIDE, THE CRITICAL, IT WILL LOSE A FEW UNITS, BUT AGAIN, THE, THAT IS STILL DEVELOPABLE AND THAT IS, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. AND, UM, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK IT UP, UH, BUT IF MY MEMORY SERVES, UM, THE, UH, I BELIEVE THE CODE ASKS THE LAND USE COMMISSION ID US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, OF THE LAND AND, AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF IT. SO, UM, BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I'M GOING OFF MEMORY THERE. SO, UM, UH, APPLICANT, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO ASK US TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS HERE. UNDERSTOOD, UH, JARED CORBELL WITH STORYVILLE. UH, THANKS FOR EVERYBODY'S TIME TONIGHT. ANDREW JUST SENT ME A NOTE, PLEASE. WHEN THE PRESENTATION HAS BEEN PRESENTATIONS, PLEASE STATE. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER WAS JUST A REFERENCE SINCE I'LL BE KIND OF BLOWING THROUGH THIS. IF YOU FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF EACH SLIDE NEXT TO THE SB LOGO, I HAD A PAGE NUMBER THERE FOR REFERENCE. SO IF YOU NEED TO JUMP AHEAD AS I MOVED PRETTY QUICKLY, SO WE'LL, UH, WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN. UH, SO HERE WE ARE SPLITTING 55 SPRINGDALE ROAD SPRINGDALE FARMS THAT EVERYBODY'S PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE LOCATION HERE, UH, ZONING S AND YOU SEE O N P A IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR, ET CETERA. UH, I THINK, UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE. UH, I'M ON SLIDE THREE NOW, UH, REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH, UH, FOR ROUGHLY THE LAST 16 TO 18 MONTHS, UH, WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, THE MTCT LOCAL BUSINESSES, ET CETERA, UH, TO NUMBER ONE, UNDERSTAND FROM OUR NEIGHBORS, [03:40:01] UH, WHAT THE FARM HAS MEANT TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, GET A SENSE OF WHAT USES THEY MIGHT FIND BENEFICIAL AS WELL AS INTRODUCING A STORY AS A COMPANY AND DISCUSSING KIND OF WHAT OUR OVERALL DESIGN STRATEGY WAS FROM THE SITE ON SLIDE FOUR, YOU'LL SEE SOME, SOME OF THAT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND PROJECT GOALS, UH, YOU KNOW, HIGH LEVEL LEVEL OF FARMING, OPEN SPACE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, AND LIMITING IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO IF WE JUMPED TO SLIDE SIZE, UH, THIS IS A LETTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, UH, FOR ALL ENTITLEMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING ON THIS PROJECT, UH, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE LIST IS LONG, BUT IT'S BEEN NECESSARY, UH, BASED ON THE HARDSHIP THAT, THAT DOES EXIST ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. ON SLIDE SIX, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, 211,000 SQUARE FEET AND, UH, CONTRARY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF'S, UH, OPINION ON DEVELOPABLE LAND. UH, THEY DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COMPATIBILITY OR HAVE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. SO TECHNICALLY WE HAVE 50% OF SITE AREA TO DEVELOP ON. AND THAT OBVIOUSLY CREATES A CHALLENGE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE DESIGN GOALS THAT WE SET OUT TO ACHIEVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ALSO THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT IF THIS PARTICULAR CHANNEL HAD ANOTHER ONE TO TWO FOOT UP SLOPE TOWARDS BOGGY CREEK, THAT THE APP ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS CHANNEL, UH, MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TODAY. SO IF WE JUMP TO SLIDE SEVEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT YOUR SITE PLAN. AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE UP TO, UH, 87 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, SOME COMMERCIAL SPACE. WE ARE JUST UNDER TWO AND A HALF ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH INCLUDES THREE, 3000 SQUARE FEET OF URBAN FARM. UH, WE ARE 50% IMPERVIOUS COVERED, UH, 35% BELOW THE ALLOWED, UH, SAR. WE ARE AT 0.8 TO ONE. UH, OBVIOUSLY ZONING ALLOWS TWO TO ONE, UH, BUT OBVIOUSLY WITH COMPATIBILITY AND TIPS, UH, WE ARE ACTUALLY ENTITLED TO BE 1.2 TO ONE. SO THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, STORE BUILT, TRYING TO PUSH AS MUCH FAR PROGRAMMING ONTO A SITE, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE LEAVING 70,000 SQUARE FEET AND CHANGE ON THE TABLE TO ACHIEVE A SITE PLAN THAT THAT REALLY MAKES A LOT OF SPLINTS HERE. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. UM, SO ON SITE EIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO HOP INTO THE, THE, THE ENCROACHMENTS. WE'VE GOT THREE THAT TECHNICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING. WE HAVE 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF GRASS CREEK, WHICH IS JUST A TOPSOIL, A GRASS THAT IS, THAT IS SERVING AS A FIRE LANE, UH, THAT ENCOMPASSES 3,500 SQUARE FEET, 1200 SQUARE FEET OF THAT ISN'T IS WITHIN THE INITIAL 50 FOOT SETBACK OF THE CHANNEL CENTER LINE. AND THEN WE DO HAVE 810 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING OVERHANG, UH, ON THE COMMERCIAL SITE THAT, UH, IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX AND A HALF FEET. UH, SO IN TOTAL, WE'VE GOT 1.6% OF ENCROACHMENT, UH, WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, WE HAVE 3.2% OF THE ENTIRE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, UH, THAT WE ARE ASKING TO GRASS, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, 0% PROPOSED. AND I KNOW STAFF, UH, AND, AND THE CODE, UH, ASSUMED OR STATES THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ELEVATED AT 15 FEET ABOVE GRADE, UH, IT STILL COUNTS AS IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO WE ARE SHOWING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING 1% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, ON SLIDE NINE. UH, JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THERE TODAY. UH, THESE ARE EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS THAT IF WE WERE NOT PROPOSING TO, UH, TOUCH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, UH, WOULD FROM MY UNDERSTANDING BE ALLOWED TO, TO PRESIDE AS THEY SIT TODAY. SO RIGHT NOW IN THE NORTH CORNER, WE'VE GOT AN EXISTING GREENHOUSE MATERIAL STORAGE, PARKING EQUIPMENT STORAGE, UH, UNDERNEATH THE, UH, COMMERCIAL. WE ARE PROPOSING FARMING, UH, AND RIGHT NOW THAT IS EXISTING FOR ME. UH, AND THEN ON THE SOUTHWEST, UH, THERE IS AN EXISTING HOME AND A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND CURRENTLY EXISTS WITHIN THE CRITICAL, UH, ON SLIDE 10, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE, UH, WE DID HIRE A THIRD PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO GRADE THE EXISTING CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, AND IT RECEIVED A POOR TO FAIR CONDITION. UH, THE ENTIRETY OF THIS SITE HAS BEEN DISTURBED HISTORICALLY FOR YEARS AND YEARS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE, WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO GRASP A PORTION OF IT, UH, CREATE SOME URBAN FARMING AND, UH, IN A LITTLE BIT, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT WHETHER IT'S A, YOU KNOW, CITY SPEC, 609 SEATING, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES THAT STAFFED AND RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, PROVIDE ELSEWHERE. UH, SO IN SLIDE 11, UH, IT'S JUST KIND OF BOUNCING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LEGS. UH, SO AGAIN, ON THE, ON SECTION ONE, WE ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE EXISTING GREENHOUSE AND THE MATERIAL STORAGE AND EQUIPMENT PARKING, UH, [03:45:01] WITH, WITH THIS GRASS STREET. AND IF NOT GRANTED, WE LOSE FOUR UNITS, UH, SLIDE OR SECTION TWO, UH, WE ALL ENCROACHING A LITTLE BIT INTO THE 50 FOOT, UH, OFFSET OF THE CREEK CENTER LINE. UH, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE REMOVING THE EXISTING HOME AND THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND REPLACING IT WITH TOP SOIL, UH, RESULTED IF WE ARE NOT GRANTED, UH, THESE TWO ASS, THEN THIS IS GOING TO RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ONE OF THE FRUIT OF A UNIT AS WE HAVE AN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE G AND DC TO PROVIDE 10% AFFORDABILITY OF ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROJECT. JESSE WAS SLIDE 12, JUST A QUICK NOTE, SHOWING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY. AND I'M SHOWING A SIMILAR PROJECT IN SOUTH LAMAR, UH, OF THE GRASS STREET, THE FIRE LAND THAT WOULD GO AND STAFF IS CORRECT. I MEAN, YOU DO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS. WE CANNOT HAVE, UH, OVERGROWTH, UH, AND THIS PARTICULAR AREA, BUT WE THINK IT'S CERTAINLY BETTER TO, UH, TO WHAT'S EXISTING TODAY. SLIDE 13. WE DON'T NEED TO DIVE INTO MUCH. IT IS JUST THE STANDARD DETAILS OF THE GRASS STREET. I'M GOING TO JUMP AHEAD TO SLIDE 14 AND LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE OVERHANG THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. UM, SO THE URBAN FARMING THAT IS THERE TODAY IS GOING TO REMAIN IN USE. UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR A, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THOSE TRIANGLES THERE IN OVERHANG OVER THE FARMING, UH, BASED ON THE EQUINOXES ECONOMIC STUDIES THAT WE DID, WE DO GET ENOUGH SUNLIGHT TO GROW VEGETATION. AND IF WE DO NOT GET ENOUGH RAIN, THEN WE DO HAVE IRRIGATION AVAILABLE ON THE SITE. UH, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH OUR FUTURE FARM OPERATOR WHO CURRENTLY OPERATES THE FARM TODAY. AND WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS DESIGN. UH I START HERE AND WE DO HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. YEAH. CAN I HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND, MR. RIVERA, CAN I CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? CORRECT. OKAY. UH, MR. CORWELL, YOU HAVE ANOTHER THREE MINUTES, UH, FOR YOUR, UH, QUOTE UNQUOTE REBUTTAL. AND, UH, AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO QUESTIONS. SO GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THREE MORE MINUTES. WONDERFUL. OKAY. SO, UH, SITTING ON SLIDE 14, UH, SO AGAIN, WE ARE LIMITED TO THE WEST BY THE TREE CANOPIES AND HAVE TO GO RID JONES OF THE TREES THAT ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO THIS SITE AND THE DESIGN, THE OVERALL DESIGN, UH, I GUESS, STRATEGY, UH, OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA AS WE NEED THIS TO BE THAT WELCOMING ENVIRONMENT THAT DRAWS PEOPLE IN TO THE FUTURE FARM STAND, UH, IN COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND SO LED THE IDEA BEHIND THIS OVERHANG IS SO WE CAN CREATE MORE VIABLE. UH, THEY BAGELS, UH, RIGHT NOW WILL BE SEVERELY LIMITED. AND, AND WHAT WE DON'T THINK WOULD BE A VERY VIABLE SPACE FOR ANY FUTURE USERS, UM, DOWN THE ROAD. AND SO, AGAIN, JUST SHOWING THE RESULTS, IF NOT GRANTED, WE LOSE, UH, UPWARDS OF 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. SO JUMPING TO SLIDE 15, WHICH IS JUST KIND OF A QUICK SUMMARY, UH, OF EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING. AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE'VE GOT THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT OBVIOUSLY AREN'T WHAT A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY IS, BUT TO INHABIT. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ARE PROPOSING, YOU KNOW, A, A GRAPH. THEY SAW IT THAT IS IN PLACE TODAY, BUT IF THEY JUMP TO SLIDE, SLIDE 16, AND WE LOOK AT THE OVERALL ZONE, WE'VE GOT 73,000 SQUARE FEET OF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR 4.8% OF THAT TO BE GRASS, ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTALLY INSENSITIVE ENCROACHMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO, THEN RE-ESTABLISH 32% OF THAT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY LOAN WITH URBAN FARMING AND ALL SIDES, PLENTY COMPONENTS CAN REMAIN AS THEY ARE. WE KEEP ALL OF OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS IN PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO, WHERE THE FARM LAND NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE, EVERYTHING HAS A PURPOSE HERE INSTEAD OF A NEEDLE. AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE REMAINING PERCENTAGE OF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, NOT BEING SUCH, IT'S OUR OPINION THAT, THAT WE GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF. AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S THE CITY SPEC OF 609 S FEEDING, BUT WE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO REALLY CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA LET'S CREATE A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY SOUND THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY BY COMBINING URBAN FARMING WITH SOME TRUE PLANTINGS AND SEEDING. THAT IS WHAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE, YOU KNOW, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED BASED ON CODE. THANKS. EVERYBODY'S DONE AND LET'S WORK. ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. OKAY. RIGHT. UM, I AM, UH, JUST [03:50:01] GOING TO TAKE THE FIRST QUESTION TO CONFIRM, UH, STAFF AND NATURE OF THIS, UH, ITEM. UM, SO THIS COULD BE FOR MS. LYNN OR MR. RIVERA, IS THIS VARIANCE UNDER 25, EIGHT 41? HI HONEY. OH, YES. I WOULD LIKE TO, YES, IT IS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY EARLIER STATEMENT, UM, IT IS LANDED ON THE CODE TWO, FIVE, EIGHT 41, AND IT SPECIFIES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE IF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS THAT ONLY THE MINIMUM DEVIATIONS FROM CODE, BUT ALSO THAT THE VARIOUS PROVIDES GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EQUAL OR BETTER WATER QUALITY AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. RIGHT. AND I WANT TO, UM, UH, READ THE FIRST PART OF THAT FOR COMMISSIONERS. SO, UM, WE HAVE TO, IF WE VOTE FOR THIS THING, WE ARE MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT, UM, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS A FEELING WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF A PRIVILEGE AVAILABLE TO OTHER OWNERS OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY WITH APPROXIMATELY CONTEMPORANEOUS DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SIMILAR CODE REQUIREMENTS. UH, AND THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY NECESSITATED BY THE SCALE LAYOUT METHOD OR OTHER DESIGN DECISION MADE BY THE APPLICANT UNLESS THE DESIGN DECISION PROVIDES GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THAT IS ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. UH, IT IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENT NECESSARY TO ALLOW A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT CREATE A, UH, SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND DEVELOPMENT WITH THE VARIANTS WILL RESULT IN WATER. THE QUALITY OF THAT IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE WATER QUALITY ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. UM, AND STEPH CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, UM, UH, CODE ALSO SEEMS TO REQUIRE US TO PREPARE A WRITTEN, FINDING OF FACT, UH, TO SUPPORT THE GRANT OR DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND THAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE. YEAH. RIGHT. SO, UM, I THINK WE COULD GO, YOU KNOW, AS MINIMAL, AND IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS FOR ME IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, HAVING REVIEWED THE, THE FACTS AND THE PRESENTATION AND THE BACKUP, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST POINTING TO THOSE AND THEN SAYING WE DETERMINED THAT, AND THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THEN THE, UH, THE TEXT OF THE, UM, THE C THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, WOULD THAT SUFFICE TO SATISFY THE CODE? YES. SO TO CLARIFY, YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE FINDINGS AND IT'S NOW A NATION. NO, I'M SAYING THAT, UM, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, UM, IT WOULD SATISFY THE CODE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THE MATERIAL PREPARED BY STAFF, WE DETERMINE THAT AND THEN QUOTE THE CODE. AND THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD SATISFY CODE'S REQUIREMENT FOR THE WRITTEN FINDING OF FACT OR WHAT WE NEED MORE THAN THAT. UM, MAY I HAVE NOT RECOMMENDED, RIGHT. I'M SAYING BASED ON THE FACT FINDING EFFECTS. YEAH. UH, AND, AND MR. RIVERA'S IS SAYING YES. SO, SO I THINK, UH, JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS. SO, UH, WE COULD, I THINK SATISFY CODE BY DOING SOMETHING AS MINIMAL AS, AS JUST POINTING TO EVERYTHING IN THE BACKUP AND SAYING THAT SUPPORTS THIS REQUIREMENT OF CODE. UH, WE COULD GO MORE IN DEPTH, I THINK IF WE CHOSE, BUT THERE IS A REQUIRED FINDING EFFECT WITH THIS. UM, SO I, I, I THINK THAT'S FAIRLY CLEAR IN TERMS OF, OF, OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE, UM, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS. SO, UM, WITH THAT I'LL, UH, I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR A ROUND ROBIN ROUND, MR. SCHNEIDER, GO AHEAD CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER ABOUT THE STANDARD AGAINST WHICH WE'VE GOT TO JUDGE THIS CASE. UM, I, UM, IT MAY HAVE MY MIND THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT TO SATISFY. I'M SORRY. I CAN'T REMEMBER PRECISELY HOW MANY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU SAID ON THAT LIST I UNDER, AND WE MAY BE ABLE TO TECHNICALLY ACHIEVE THAT BY POINTING TO GENERALLY POINTING TO THE RECORD. BUT, UM, AS YOU READ THOSE, I GOT A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN END AT THE END OF THE LIST, UM, THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T SATISFYING EACH ONE OF THOSE. AND, UH, I WONDER IF I COULD FIRST ASK THE STAFF AND THEN THE APPLICANT TO, [03:55:01] IN A VERY QUICK WAY GO OVER EITHER HOW WE FAIL TO MEET THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT OR, OR FOR THE APPLICANT, HOW WE ARE MEETING THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT. AND FIRST TO STAFF FOR THAT QUESTION, IF I COULD STAFF HERE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ASKED TO DO TO SIMPLY HAVING ENOUGH AREA YOU DEVELOP ON WITHOUT NEEDING, WITHOUT NEEDING IT, DEVELOP IT WITHIN THE CREDIT FALL, TO MEET ANOTHER KIND OF REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE DESIGN AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CHRIS HARRINGTON CITY OF AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. I'LL JUST ADD TO CHRISTIE'S POINTS. AGAIN, THIS VARIANCE IS NECESSITATED BY THE SCALE AND DESIGN DECISIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF. DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT DESIGN DECISION PROVIDES GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND WOULD OTHERWISE BE ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE BERRIEN. WE ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM CODE NECESSARY TO ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT BY CONSTRUCTING IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS SEEKING TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT THERE STILL IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE TO SATISFY A REASONABLE USE. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE PLACING PERMANENT STRUCTURES AND PERMANENTLY ALTER ALTERING THE LIBRARIAN'S FUNCTION OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. WHEN WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CREATE THE SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL VINYL CONSEQUENCES. SO IN TOTAL, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN WATER QUALITY THAT IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO WATER QUALITY ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD BE COMPLIANCE WITH CODE. THANK YOU, JARED CORBELL WITH STAFF. UM, AGAIN, I, I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE MAXIMIZING THE DEVELOPABLE AREA HERE. UH, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR, UH, NUMBER ONE, THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF BELIEVES THAT WE 3.2 ACRES OF UPLAND THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED. AND, AND THAT'S FRANKLY JUST NOT TRUE, UH, UNLESS WE START RIPPING DOWN HERITAGE TREES AND ASK FOR VARIANCES WITHIN COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS, AND, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS BEING A SENSITIVE AREA, WE WORKED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATIONS THROUGH OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS BY MOVING OUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, FIVE FEET OFF OF THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK TO JUST FURTHER BE RESPECTFUL OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND IT IS TRUE. I MEAN, WE COULD CERTAINLY, UH, REMOVE THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT, AND WE COULD BOX THIS THING IN AND, AND MAKE THIS, UH, A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. UH, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE THAT, THAT TAKE PLACE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. AND HERE WE ARE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP ON AN URBAN FARM THAT WE CAN KEEP 20, 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF, AND ALSO CREATE A UNIQUE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTS THAT ARE GOING TO A LIVE HERE AND BE COME VISIT AND BE IN, SEE WORK HERE, UH, AT THE COMMERCIAL STAGE. AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT A COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, WHICH, YOU KNOW, NEW CODE COMING AROUND, THIS DOESN'T EVEN, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBILITY GOES AWAY, BUT, BUT HERE WE ARE WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK, WE CAN DO NOTHING WITH, UH, WE CAN, WE CAN PUT GRASS IN THERE AND IT HAPPENS TO WORK THAT, UH, A GRASS CRETE CAN SATISFY FIRE FIRE CODE. AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT WE ARE PROVIDING, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THERE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK OF THIS CHANNEL, THERE IS A HOME THERE'S MULT FILES. THERE'S TRACTORS. THERE IS NO NATURAL SEATINGS IN THIS AREA, AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. AND SO TO OFFSET THAT WE'RE GOING TO INSTALL URBAN FARM LAND, WHICH IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND AT THE SAME TIME, BRINGING IN 4% OF THAT CRITICAL LAWS AND OF THAT 73,000 SQUARE FEET AND BRINGING A LITTLE BIT OF GRASS SO WE CAN KEEP SOME UNITS AND PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, FIRE SAFETY WELFARE FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND THEN I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT OF THE OTHER 50% OR WHATEVER. WE HAVE A CORPORATE OF WATERFALLS ZONE LEFTOVER. [04:00:01] YOU CAN SEE IN THE NORTH CORNER, WE HAVE A, AN AREA THAT IS JUST ASKING FOR SOME NATIVE SEEDLINGS, BUT WE CAN ACTUALLY CREATE A CRITICAL WATERFALL TO THEM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, TODAY IT IS URBAN FARMLAND AND IT IS A MODE DRAINAGE CHANNEL, AND WE CAN IMPROVE THAT. OKAY. SOMEBODY POOR TO FAIR CONDITION TO A, A GOOD TO GREAT POSSIBLY, UH, WITH THE ENCROACHMENTS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RESTAURANT. YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD TIME FOR THIS QUESTION. UH, WE HAVE KNOW WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AVAILABLE, COMMISSIONERS WISH TO ASK THEM MR. KASI, GO AHEAD. YEAH, I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS. ONE TO, UH, ADDRESS, UH, A COMMENT THAT YOU MADE AND ANOTHER ONE TO POTENTIALLY ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF. THE FIRST ONE, UM, I WANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO ON LIKE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE THAT WOULD COME TO US FROM, FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. AND WE'RE SORT OF ALMOST RUBBER STAMPING IS, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. ARE WE SAYING THAT THIS IS KIND OF A DIFFERENT STANDARD, MEANING WE GOT SOMETHING FORWARDED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND PASSED THERE, ARE WE TRACKING ON SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND ARE WE, ARE WE, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE CASE, ARE WE, UH, ARE WE, UH, HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD AGAIN? UH, I'M GOING TO LET STAFF CONFIRM THIS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST READING THE CODE IT'S, IT'S AN A AND I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION STANDARD IS. THIS ONE DOES REQUIRE A FINDING OF FACT, UM, IN ORDER TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. UM, AND SO I'LL, I'LL SAY BAD ABOUT THIS ONE AND, AND DECLINED TO COMPARE TO HISTORICAL. CAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THE DETAILS OF THAT. EXACTLY. OKAY. UM, AND THEN TWO ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CREATIVITY AND A LOT OF EFFORT THAT'S GONE INTO, UM, WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF EFFORTS. UM, IF I WERE TO, IF I COULD GET ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF TO COMMENT ON, IF THERE WERE, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OTHER 96% OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, UH, TO IMPROVE IT OR, OR, OR, UH, OR, OR, UH, GENERATE SOME BENEFITS, NOT SO MUCH COMMENT ON, YOU KNOW, THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE, OR THE, UH, MINIMAL DEVIATION, BUT REALLY COMMENT ON, ARE THERE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, BENEFITS? UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT CURRENTLY THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS, IS RATED AS FAIR. AND EVEN AS THE PROJECT DID NOT ENCOURAGE AND THE CRITICAL WATERFALL NONCOMPLIANT STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE HOUSE AND PAVING THOSE AREAS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO THOSE STRUCTURES. AND NONCOMPLIANT USES WOULD BE REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED AND BE RESTORED WITH RIPARIAN APPROVED PLANTING TO SAY THAT THOSE STRUCTURES AND AREAS WILL EXIST. EVEN IF THIS VARIANCE WASN'T GRANTED, IT'S ALL. AND YOU ANSWER A QUESTION, ESSENTIALLY, CODE IS OUT PERMIT AND ALLOWANCE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITHIN THE CRITICAL IN EXCHANGE FOR MITIGATION SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT'S NOT A QUICK OUTCROP, UH, WELL, AGAIN, AND WE'RE KIND OF TASKED WITH, WITH THAT TOO. UM, BUT IF I COULD JUST MAYBE, UH, PROBE INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, CODE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO LOOK AT THOSE MITIGATIONS ELSEWHERE, BUT ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR, FOR THAT KIND OF MITIGATION? YES. AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS CHRIS HARRINGTON, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. UH, JUST TO ADD ON TO WHAT I THINK YOU MAY BE ASKING YOU, THE, THE COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPLY CONDITIONS TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. AND SO AS LONG AS THEY ARE PROPORTIONATE TO AND RELATED TO WHERE THEIR ANSWER REQUESTS, SO IT'S SPECIFIC TO IN THIS CASE DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED IN THE CRITICAL, SO YOU'RE, IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE CONDITION TO, FOR THE COMMISSIONING, EXCUSE ME. TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITION. YEAH. CHRIS, THANKS. THANKS FOR ADDING THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S PRECISELY WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS IS YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AND WE MIGHT NEED SOME, WE NEED SOME HELP FROM Y'ALL. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU. CLARIFICATION. GO AHEAD. [04:05:02] UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID IT. CAN, CAN YOU REMIND ME SOMEONE IN MIAMI, WHAT THE VOTE, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WAS? WAS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR WAS IT OPPOSITE OF STAFF RECOMMENDS IT WAS EIGHT VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. IS IT WORTH NOTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DIDN'T ALLOW A PRESENTATION WALK THROUGH Q AND A, IT WAS A SORT OF A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAN WHAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY. I JUST THINK IT'S TRUE WITH MOTIVE. IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS, SO WE'RE HAVING TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETINGS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CLERK AND THE RULES FOR THAT. WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CLERK FOR HOW WE RUN THE MEETINGS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ARE DIFFERENT THAN, UH, THE RULES THAT Y'ALL ARE OPERATING UNDER. SO IT WAS NOT THE STANDARD PRACTICE OF, UH, THE FULL PRESENTATIONS AND, AND LOTS OF BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE APPLICANT. OKAY. UM, TRISHA, GO AHEAD. SO I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED, CAUSE I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF LIKE HIGH PERFORMANCE, YOU KNOW, INNOVATIVE STANDARDS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW WE DEAL WITH WATER QUALITY AND DIFFERENT THINGS, AND TO BE ABLE TO FIND WAYS FOR OUR CODE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT HERE, I'M LIKE, OH, MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, AT LEAST MAYBE IN SOME COMPROMISED FASHION AND MAYBE NOT IN THE 50 FEET, BUT THE CODE RIGHT NOW IS SO RIGID, SO PRESCRIPTIVE AND IT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT LETTER, THEN I'M LIKE, IF IT DOESN'T WORK, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND THEN FOLLOWING ALONG KIND OF WHAT, UM, WE'RE SURE. CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN, WHAT HAVE WE ALLOW DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THIS CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE THAT ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE PERFORMANCE AND I'M TALKING TO ACTUALLY BUILT STUFF. UM, CAN STAFF GIVE US AN EXAMPLES? ALL I HEAR IS YES, YOU CAN DO IT, BUT GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT SEEMS LIKE. OR IS IT PRETTY FAR FASTER? HOW HAVE WE DONE IT IN THE PAST? AND THEN THE OTHER CONCERN IS IF WE WERE TO LET SOMETHING LIKE THIS GO THROUGH, THEN WHAT TYPE OF, UH, IS THIS GOING TO COST KIND OF A TURMOIL OF PRECEDENCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH HOW WE APPROACH IT, BUT WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST AND THEN WILL THIS CAUSE A PRECEDENCE, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. JUST TO QUICKLY ADD ON BECAUSE IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. SO, UH, I WOULD NOT ARGUE THAT THIS CASE SETS ANY PRECEDENT, EACH OF THESE VARIOUS DECISIONS ARE EXTREMELY SITE-SPECIFIC. AND SO, UM, I THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, LOOK AT THIS SITE AND IT'S INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT LOADED TO THE REQUESTED DEVIATION FROM CODE, UH, AND, AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WITHOUT FEAR OF ESTABLISHING THE PRECEDENT TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION. ONE OF THE COMMENT I AGREED, THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THESE FORMAL VARIANCES ARE AN EXTREMELY HIGH BAR. AND SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK BEYOND JUST THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND LOOK AT THE ACTUAL, UM, PROJECT IN TOTAL AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDED DIVISION FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THOSE ARE ON HOLD. SO WE HAVE THE CODE, UM, AS IT EXISTS TODAY. SO IN TERMS OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN HOW A BUILT ENVIRONMENT COULD ENHANCE THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE FROM PRIOR PERSPECTIVE, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL POLICY AS EVIDENCED BY THE CODE IS THAT DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES, EXCEPT FOR A VERY NARROW SET OF ALLOWED ACTIVITIES. AND SO CAN A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE BE ENHANCED WHEN IT'S PARTICULARLY IN A DEGRADED CONDITION? YES, ABSOLUTELY IT CANDY, BUT THAT'S THROUGH NATIVE PLANTING. UM, AND BASICALLY THE NATURAL FUNCTION OF A SITE IN TERMS OF THE RAINFALL RUNOFF RELATIONSHIP AND, UH, THE PRESENCE OF DIVERSE AND ABUNDANT NATIVE VICARIOUS VEGETATION. CHRISTIE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? OH, NOW THAT YOU'VE SAID IT AND YES, IT'S ALL DETAILED UNDER THE UNDER 609 S AND SIX OH FOUR LOCATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS ONLINE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, ANYBODY LEFT? I MEAN, THIS IS A REAL HIGH BAR HERE AND, UH, UM, I THINK MAYBE REMIND YOU THE MOST PRODUCTIVE IF ANYBODY LEFT IS WANTING TO CRAFT A, SOME SORT OF MAYBE COMPLEX YEAH. [04:10:02] A MOTION HERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. UM, THAT'S KINDA HARD TO CLEAR THAT BAR. I COULD TRY TO THROW SOMETHING TOGETHER. UM, WHAT, WHAT IS THE PROPOSAL FOR, UH, ANY OF THAT REPAIRING THE REPLANTING WITHIN THAT SYSTEM FOOT BUFFER? I MEAN, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CONTESTED, WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THAT? I MEAN, ARE WE DOING ANYTHING? I KNOW THAT THERE WAS THIS COMING UP, UH, CURRENTLY, UH, THE SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW ANY ACTIVITY IN THERE. UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WOULD KIND OF, UH, IN, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, UH, WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER PROJECTS WHERE IT WAS NECESSARY TO, UH, BUILD WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, UH, FOR OTHER PURPOSES. UH, AND THE SIX OH NINE S SEEDING SPEC WAS WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US BY ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC AND IT'S VERY EASY TO INCLUDE ON A SITE PLAN FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. SO CHRISTY AND STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THOSE LIMITS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. AND THAT TO ME WOULD PROBABLY SATISFY THAT, UH, HOWEVER, UH, AND I DON'T WANT TO KEEP ADDING MORE SEATING, BUT TO ME ALSO THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL ITSELF NEEDS SOME WORK. I DON'T KNOW THAT A 609 A FEEDING WORKS SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE, THE SIMILAR, THE CHANNEL AND THE DIRECT UPSLOPE. UH, MAYBE THERE ARE SOME OTHER, UH, IDEAS THERE. I KNOW OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT HAD A FEW IDEAS, BUT ESPECIALLY THE UPLANDS THAT THE CITY MAKES SENSE, BUT I'LL LET CHRISTIE SPEAK TO THAT. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO INCLUDE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN. YEAH, I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT CURRENTLY. OH, GO AHEAD AND INTERRUPT YOUR CONDITIONER. NO, GO AHEAD. OH, I LIKE TO ADD THAT RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE MITIGATION FANCY BECAUSE THE THERAPIST SERVINGS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND CRITICAL, AND THEREFORE IT'S ALREADY REQUIRED BY CODE THAT THERE HAS TO BE MITIGATION PLANTING ONE, ONE FOR ONE. SO IF THEY'RE WORKING A CONDITION TO THIS, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOVE AND BEYOND AND WHAT'S REQUIRED RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE THAT'S ABOVE THAT THEY COULD BE DOING THAT'S IN THIS, AND HERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. I'M TRYING TO GET ALLOWING I'M ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE 50 FOOT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 50 FOOT WIDE, UM, THERE'S A ONE HAMMER THAT KIND OF STICKS KIND OF IN, AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF GETTING REALLY CLOSE TO THE CENTER LINE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO, TO ALLOW THAT IF THEY COULD ADD SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH PERFORMANCE, SO NOT QUITE GRANTING THEM EVERYTHING, BUT KIND OF A COMPROMISE IN PRETTY MUCH STAYING OUT OF THE MOST CRITICAL PARTS, THE 50 FOOT. SO I'M TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO MAYBE HAVE HIM ENHANCE IT. UM, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE I THINK HE'LL JUST LEAVE IT LOOSE, MAYBE PUT THREE UNITS OR SOMETHING. SO CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? YES. I MEAN, THE FIRE, THE HAMMERHEADS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE INNER HALF OF THE CRITICAL THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON THE OUTER HALF, THE OUTSIDE OF THE 50, BUT ONE OF THEM IS IN IT. I WOULD, ONE OF THEM IS IN THE, IS IN THE FIFTIES, THE LOWER ONE NUMBER. YEAH. WE SHOWED ROUGHLY 1200 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE 50 BOATS IN LATIN ON THE SOUTH PORTION. CORRECT. RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONE I'M TRYING NOT TO ALLOW. I DON'T WANT THAT ONE, BUT I'M TRYING TO FIND, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW THE OTHER ONES, UM, I WANT TO FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND, AND THAT'S WHY I WANT STAFF TO HELP THEM. UM, I WOULD, FOR ME, I, IT WOULD BE WHAT WE HAVE UNDER THE CITY OF AUSTIN STANDARDS. AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING BACK TO SIX TO NINE, SIX TO FOUR PLANTINGS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE AS, AS A STANDARD FOR RIPARIAN HEALTH. SO I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW IT WOULD GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. I WOULD SUGGEST DOING, INSTEAD OF ONE FOR ONE, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, GO OVER THE RATIO OF ONE TO ONE IF SEVEN TO RESTORATION AREA, AND ALSO TOUCHED UPON SERETSE POINT. I WOULD BE VERY OPEN TO LOOKING AT, AT THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT, UM, IDEA OF PLANTING SATURDAY. OKAY. UM, CHRIS, YOUR SHOW, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. UM, HE, UH, GOOD KEEP GOING. I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT OR SOMETHING OUT OF THIS MEETING THAT IS GOING TO SATISFY THEM THE REQUIREMENTS. UM, IT'S JUST MY OPINION THAT TO ME, THE TWO [04:15:01] OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US, OUR DENIAL OR POSTPONEMENT TO CRAFT SOMETHING. SO, UM, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? I THINK THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, WHAT STAFF IS, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. UM, AND IT'D BE GREAT IF THEY COULD KIND OF FOLLOW ALONG THOSE LINES. OKAY. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL WHEN NEXT MEETING 20, 28, IT'S GOING TO BE A PAINFUL MEETING, JAMES. ALRIGHT, WELL, WE CAN DO IT TIL JULY 28TH. CAN WE GET A FIRST? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU GO FIRST? NO. CAN WE GO FIRST? NO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR JULY 28TH AWAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY KESHER SEGER? DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK OR SCRIPTURE SHAY, SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? KIND OF A QUESTION TO STAFF. IF IT IS A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION, THEN, THEN YES. WELL, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY, THAT'S RIGHT. WE GET QUESTIONS ON OUR EMOTIONS. UM, YOU QUESTION IS, WOULD WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TO HEAR ANY OTHER PROPOSALS BEFORE WE HEAR THIS AGAIN? I THINK THEY ALREADY DISPOSED OF THE ITEM BY AN OFFICER. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO ANDREW A BEAR, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT AN ITEM TO RETURN TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA, TO ANSWER A SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT ANDREW, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT, THAT'S INCORRECT. ONCE IT'S COME HERE AND I CAN'T SEND IT BACK. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A POINT OF VERIFICATION, UH, IS TWO WEEKS ENOUGH TIME TO WORK SOMETHING OUT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM CONSENSUS. WE'VE GOT NO'S ON ALL 16 BARBARA, MANY QUESTIONS WE'VE GOT AND ANY DOLLAR TURN TO GREEN, WE COULD PUT IT TO THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST, AUGUST 11TH. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, LET'S CHANGE IT TO AUGUST UNLESS THE COMMISSIONER, AUGUST ANOTHER RESEARCHER. YOU, SO YOU'RE PULLING DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION. I'M PUTTING UP A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL AUGUST 11TH. YES. AND COMMISSIONER SEEGER. ARE YOU SECONDING THAT MOTION? OKAY. UM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE, UH, JAMES, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I THINK, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THEY'RE THERE, WE'RE FINALLY FINDING A WAY TO FIND A PATH, RIGHT. AND TO ME ALWAYS CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE CODE SAYS NO, NO, NO. AND WE JUST STAND BEHIND. THAT IS, I DON'T THINK IS RIGHT WAY TO GO. I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR INNOVATION AND THIS GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME INNOVATION, EVEN IF THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN FIND SOME COMPROMISE AGAIN. I MEAN, MY INTENT IS THAT I CAN WHERE THE 50 FOOT CRITICAL THAT, THAT CRITICAL BUFFER ALONG THAT CENTER LINE, IF THAT'S MAINTAINED, THERE'S A BEAUTY IN THAT. RIGHT. AND THEN ESPECIALLY IF WE DO SOME TWO FOR ONE, UH, PLANNING OR, YOU KNOW, HIGHER, UH, YOU KNOW, MITIGATION EFFECTS, I MEAN, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BRING IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF FAIR TO BE EXCELLENT. SO THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT RATHER THAN JUST MINIMUM STANDARDS. I'M SURE WE MIGHT NOT GET THE FULL DENSITY ONE. IT'S GOING TO BE COMPETENT. THEY MAY LOSE THREE UNITS, BUT WE ALSO GAIN SOMETHING AND AT LEAST GIVE THEM MECHANISM FOR THAT TO BE EXPLORED. AND IT SEEMS LIKE BOTH SIDES HAVE IDEAS. RIGHT. SO WE'LL GET TO THAT ANSWER. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER AGAINST THE MOTION? SURE, SURE. GO AHEAD. CAN I SAY NEUTRALLY? UH, IF NOBODY WANTS TO, I'M SORRY. YES, YOU CAN. OKAY. I, UH, THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS IT'S SUCH A HIGH BAR OR ARE WE KIND OF GIVING THE APPLICANT KIND OF FALSE HOPE WHEN THEY COULD BE JUST RE SPENDING THE TIME REDRAWING THEIR DESIGN? CAUSE I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE. AND SO THEY COULD BE SPENDING THAT TIME JUST COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN IF THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE IT ANYWAY, JUST A CONCERN. I MEAN, I CAN GET MORE TIME. IT JUST SEEMS, IT JUST SEEMS VERY UNLIKELY. OKAY. I'LL TAKE A SLOT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UM, UH, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT, UM, IF IT COMES BACK TO US, I'M INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST. UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE APPLICANT THAT, UM, IT'S PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME TO COME BACK AND LISTEN AS A CLEAR UPGRADE OVER THE WATER QUALITY. YEAH. THAT IS, UM, THAT IS REQUIRED. SO, BUT I'LL, I'LL, I'M WILLING TO GIVE IT A CHANCE, UM, SPEAKER AGAINST OR NEUTRAL KRISTEN THOMPSON, JUST NEUTRAL. BUT I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T [04:20:01] HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHEN YOU COME BACK AND I, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR IT. OKAY. A SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, MR. SCHNEIDER'S LAST SPOT, I'M A HAPPY TO, UH, PROVIDE A FEW MORE WEEKS TO SEE IF SOMETHING COULD GET WORKED OUT. BUT, UM, JUST TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S POINT, THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF DECISION THAN WE TYPICALLY MAKE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LIKE COMING UP WITH A COMPROMISE OR TRADING THIS THING FOR THIS THING THERE'S SPECIFIC. IN FACT, WE HAVE TO MAKE SO JUST TO THE APPLICANT, MAKE IT BETTER PLACE. ALRIGHT. LAST SPEAKER AGAINST OR NEUTRAL. ALRIGHT. LET'S UH, LET'S TAKE A VOTE. UM, THE VOTE IS, UH, BY COMMISSIONER SHAY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SEEGER TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE AUGUST 11TH MEETING ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN. OKAY. ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11, 12. AND, UM, CRISPR HANDLES OFF THE DYES. SO 12 ZERO ZERO. ALRIGHT. UM, WE WERE AT 12, 10 35. UM, THE, UH, UM, I KNOW IT SAYS BURNT ROAD ON THERE, BUT UH, A LITTLE FRUSTRATED BY GETTING THE QUARTER OFF, COME TALK TO US. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT'S ABOUT. AND THEN, UM, IT WAS ALSO MY ERROR THAT I LET FALL OFF THE AGENDA. I'M APPOINTING THE WORKING GROUP ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, WHICH ARE, UM, UH, THE OTHER, SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONS INVOLVED FOR THE DADS WITHOUT. AND, UH, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ON FUTURE. SO, [21. Code Amendment Street Impact Fee Program Request: Discuss and consider recommendations amending Title 25 of the City Code related to Street Impact Fee program. 1) Establishing a Street Impact Fee 2) Street Impact Fee Schedule Staff Rec.: Recommended Staff: City Staff: Liane Miller, Austin Transportation, 512-974-7922, Liane.Miller@austintexas.gov] UM, THE LAST REMAINING, UM, BESIDES SOME WHATNOT IS STREET IMPACT THESE, UM, AND, UH, UH, SOMEBODY'S UN-MUTED WOW. SEGER. UM, SO, UH, WE HAVE NINE MINUTES LEFT IN THE TIME. UM, AND BEFORE WE EXTEND THE TIME, UH, LET'S TAKE, UH, UH, BE 21, UM, UH, COMMISSIONERS SHAKE, MR. GANAS, QUITO AND FISHER IS OUR, AND I, UH, MET WITH ATD STAFF AND, UM, AND, UH, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS. AND, UH, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY FORWARD ON THIS THAT, UM, IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO SATISFY A LOT OF FOLKS WHO WANT TO SEE THE, UM, THE CITY GOALS ESTABLISHED AS, OR FURTHERED, UH, AS WELL AS, UM, UH, SATISFIED, UH, NOT, UM, SOMEWHAT COOLING THE HOWLS OF PROTEST FROM, UH, FROM SOME OF THE BUILDERS WHO ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED ON THIS. SO, UM, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE READY. AND, UM, THE, OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON THE 28TH COUNCIL'S MEETING WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE SEPARATE TD INTENDS TO AND PRESENT TO THEM. IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE 30TH. UM, BUT THAT'S JUST FIRST READING. SO, UM, WHILE A, UH, IF WE PASS SOMETHING ON THE 28TH, THAT WAS A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE'VE KIND OF BEEN DISCUSSING WITH ATD, THEY, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO, WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THEIR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FIRST READING, THEY COULD, IF THEY CHOSE ON SECOND READING. UM, AND THEN AS WELL, UH, THE, THE FOUR MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP HERE, AND WE HAVE ROOM TO ADD, MORE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED, UH, COULD, UM, GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION TONIGHT AND WORK TOWARDS A, UH, UH, HOPEFULLY A CONSENSUS POSITION AND GIVE ATD THAT IMPACT. AND ATD MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THEIR PROPOSAL TO BRING TO COUNCIL ON THE 30TH. SO, UM, THAT IS THE WAY I LIKE TO PLAY THIS THING. UM, AND, UH, I, THAT'S THE WAY WE HAVE THE THREE COMMISSIONERS INVOLVED WITH LIKE, THOSE GOLF COURSE WANT TO GET, UM, THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION. UM, WE HAVE SEVEN MINUTES UNTIL, UH, TIME, UH, AND MR. RIVERA POINTS OUT, IT'S NOT A WORKING GROUP, IT'S A AD HOC, UH, SUB QUORUM, A MENAGERIE OF COMMISSIONERS. UM, AND, UH, SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO GET A PRESENTATION FROM ATD WHO I BELIEVE IS HERE, UM, THAT IS MAYBE NOT DELVE INTO THE TECHNICAL DETAILS, UH, AND THEN HAVE THE FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED OFFER SOME OF THEIR THOUGHTS AND WHERE WE'VE BEEN GOING AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND TABLE THAT ITEMS. SO I THINK WE COULD GET THAT DONE AND ALL THE COMMITTEE REPORTS IN 30 MINUTES. SO I'D LIKE TO ASK US TO EXTEND TO A LUNG 15 AND THEN GO TO BED. UM, COULD I GET A MOTION? YES, SIR. DO YOU HAVE A SPEAKER ON THE LINE? OH, OKAY. AND WE HAVE A SPEAKER. UM, SO, UH, BUT WE ARE EXTENDING TIME AT THIS POINT. WE'LL GET TO THEM IN JUST A SECOND. UM, SO, UH, I HAVE A MOTION FOR FISSURES ARE TO EXTEND, TO LUMP 15. DO I HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER SNYDER? UH, ALL IN FAVOR, GO GREEN AND COMMISSIONER HEMPHILL IS ABSTAINING OR BIDDING AGAINST GREEN AS WELL. OKAY. SO WE'RE UNANIMOUS. [04:25:01] WE WILL, OF COURSE VOTE ON WHETHER TO POSTPONE OR TAKE A POSITION. SO, UM, WITH THAT, WE HAVE ATD ON THE LINE. LEON, ARE YOU HERE? I CAN HEAR YOU NOW. UM, SO, UH, IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU PRESENTATION AND, AND, UH, WE HAVE, UH, 30 MINUTES TO WRAP ALL OF THIS UP. SO MAYBE ABOUT FIVE OR 10 MINUTES. YES. THAT IS A CHALLENGE. UM, BUT I WILL, I WILL CUT TO THE CHASE. I KNOW IT'S LATE. UM, SO THIS IS LEANNE MILLER PROGRAM MANAGER WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION. UM, IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU HAVE SLIDES ON THIS ITEM, THERE ARE OVER 30, SO I WILL NOT GET YOU EVERYTHING. UM, BUT AS A CHAIR, KENNY MENTIONED, WE'LL BE COMING BACK AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW AS A, AS A, UM, PREVIEW, I GUESS, BEFORE THE, UH, THE CHAIR OUTLAYS, UM, THE PROPOSAL, UM, THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED. SO, UM, IF WE COULD PULL UP THE PRESENTATION AND IF YOU COULD JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN SEE IT, AND THEN I WILL JUST JUMP UP. GREAT. OKAY. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, I PRESENTED SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON FRIDAY, AND, AND THAT IS THE DATE ON THE SEVEN DAYS IN, BUT, UH, THIS IS FOR Y'ALL. SO, AND, UH, BUT IF YOU SAY, GO AHEAD AND THEN, AND THEN I'LL SAY, OKAY, WHEN WE'VE GOTTEN TO THAT SLIDE. SO GO AHEAD. YEAH, THAT'S A TRUCK FALL HERE. OKAY. SO SLIDE THREE. UM, WHAT IS AN IMPACT FEE? WE HAVE IMPACT FEES IN AUSTIN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER. WE'VE HAD THEM SINCE THE NINETIES, THE CITY IS OUT PROPOSING A ROADWAY IMPACT FEE TO, UH, FUND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, UM, THE STUDY THAT IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER THREE 95 OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, UM, SINCE LATE 2016. UM, SO GOING TO SLIDE FOUR, WHY ARE WE WORKING ON AN IMPACT TEACH PROGRAM? UM, AS YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR, THE CURRENT TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROCESS CAN BE VERY, UM, CUMBERSOME AND UNPREDICTABLE AND THE, UH, THE RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF THAT PROCESS, BOTH FOR THE CITY, UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOODS OR THE COMMUNITIES AROUND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. SO, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT AN IMPACT THE PROGRAM IN ESTABLISHING A, UM, A FEE UPFRONT, UM, IS A WAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO HAVE A BETTER, UM, CONFIDENCE AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED OF THEM THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. UM, GIVE THE CITY A MORE PREDICTABLE, UM, REVENUE STREAM FOR TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, UM, TO FUND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE NEW GROWTH AND IS MORE, UM, TRANSPARENT TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOW, UH, MITIGATION FUNDS ARE BEING SPENT. UM, SO THAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND, UM, THE PROGRAM. SO, UM, SOMETHING TO SLIDE SIX, WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THIS STUDY IS THAT WE ESTABLISH A SERVICE AREAS. A STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE COLLECT REVENUE AND SEND REVENUE WITHIN THE SAME AREA. SO, UH, SERVICE AREAS, WHICH MAXIMUM FEE IS DETERMINED, UM, THERE'S WHAT WE'VE DEFINED. WE DEVELOPED GROWTH PROJECTIONS, WHICH IN THIS CASE ARE CALLED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, UM, WITHIN EACH SERVICE AREA. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 10 YEAR HORIZON OF GROWTH. AND THEN WE, UM, LOOK AT THE ROADWAY PROJECTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO SERVE THAT NEW GROWTH OVER 10 YEARS. SO, SO, UM, SLIDE SEVEN SHOWS THE DEFINITION AND CHAPTER THREE 95 OF WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS WERE ALLOWED TO INCLUDE. MOSTLY THESE PROJECTS ARE LIMITED TO ROADWAY, CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT. HOWEVER, IT DOES ALLOW US TO INCLUDE, UM, THEY'RE NECESSARY AND PERTINENT CASES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE MULTIMODAL ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE PART OF A STANDARD CROSS SECTION. UM, SO IF THOSE ARE THE THREE, THREE ZONE, THE BICYCLE FACILITY, THE SIDEWALK, ISN'T THE MEDIAN, UM, THE PAVEMENT FOR THE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE, UM, PAVEMENT ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, BUT, BUT THERE IS A CONSTRAINT ON THIS TOOL BEING USED FOR ROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECTS. SO THAT IS CLEAR. I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX THAT DOES NOT ALLOW US TO FUND ALL, UM, ALL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. SO, UM, GOING TO SLIDE 10, WE HAD TOOK STUDY ASSUMPTIONS, THOSE THREE KEY ELEMENTS, THE SERVICE AREAS, THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS ON THE BROADWAY CAPACITY PROJECTS TO COUNCIL LAST SUMMER. AND THEY APPROVED THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH ALLOWED STAFF TO MOVE INTO THE MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION. UM, AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE HAD COMPLETED THE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF A STUDY, [04:30:01] AND THAT BROUGHT US INTO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PHASE, WHICH BEGAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR WITH THE IMPACT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A, UM, COUNCIL APPOINTED BODY THAT ADVISES STAFF AND COUNCIL ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPACT, THE STUDY, AS WELL AS THE IMPLEMENTATION. SO THEY'VE BEEN ADVISING OPTIMUM WATER OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES, UM, ON, ON THE WATER, WE STARTED HIT BACK THE PROGRAM. SO I'M GOING TO SLIDE 13, THAT CALCULATION AND DETERMINING WHAT THE MAXIMUM IMPACT IS IN EACH SERVICE AREA IS A SIMPLE FORMULA TAKING THE COST OF THE PROJECT AND DIVIDING THAT BY THE NEW GROWTH. SO DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF, OF CAPACITY PER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED AND THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH THAT'S ANTICIPATED IN DIFFERENT AREAS, WE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT MAXIMUM FOR EACH SERVICE AREA. SO IN SETTING, UM, IN SETTING THE FEE ITSELF, UM, COUNSELING WELL, AND GOING TO SLIDE 15 ON THIS COUNCIL, CAN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE FEE ANYWHERE FROM ZERO TO THAT MAXIMUM? AND THEY CAN, MARY, WE REALLY HAVE POLICY LOVERS HERE TO, UM, TO USE, TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COLLECTION FEE WOULD BE. AND, UM, THERE ARE SOME HE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE STATE LAW OFFSETS OF DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE AN OFFSET TO THEIR FEE OTHERWISE DO SO IN CERTAIN CASES, IF YOU'RE BUILDING ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU MAY NOT PAY ANY FEE AT ALL. AND THAT WE CAN INCLUDE, UM, REDUCTION. SO IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC, UM, OBJECTIVES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE OR INCENTIVIZE WE CAN PROVIDE FEE REDUCTIONS FOR THOSE THINGS. SO I WOULD SAY, UM, THE COLLECTION RATE WHERE WE ARE IN THE ZERO TO A HUNDRED PERCENT, AS WELL AS THOSE REDUCTIONS IS MOSTLY WHERE, UM, THE, THE POLICY DIRECTION AND DECISION IS AT THIS POINT. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE, UM, THE FOCUS OF THIS COMMISSION IS LIKELY TO BE, UM, SLIDE 16 SHOWS THE IMPACT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. UM, THEY CAME TO OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL MONTHS DISCUSSING. SO THIS WOULD BE FOR, UH, 50% OF THE MAXIMUM FOR NON USES. THERE'S 35% OF THE NEXT MONTH FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS MEANS I'M GOING TO SLIDE 17, THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT, UM, DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATES IN EVERY SERVICE AREA AND, UH, THE APPLICANTS, UH, AND DETERMINED THAT WHILE, UH, THAT THEIR, THE GOALS THAT THEY HAD OF WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE WERE SHARING THE COST BETWEEN GROWTH AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE TO, UM, REFLECT THE, THE KIND OF HISTORICAL PROCESS FOR FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE DID RESULT IN HAVING SERVICE AREAS THAT HAVE, UM, HIGHER COLLECTION RATE ON HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN UNDER INVESTED IN, IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THERE WAS AN EQUITY CONCERN WITH THIS APPROACH WHEN WE CAME TO A STAFF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES. SO, UH, JUMPING TO SLIDE 24, THIS IS OUR REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH MAINTAINS THE 50 AND 35%. UM, BUT THAT'S A REVIEWED BASED ON THE CITYWIDE MAXIMUM INSTEAD OF MAXIMUM IN EACH SERVICE AREAS, WE HAVE $1 PER VEHICLE MILE RATE, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES. UM, SO THE BLUE BELIEVES THAT THAT SPRINGS MORE SIMPLICITY AND IMPROVE THE EQUITY, UM, IN THE PROGRAM BECAUSE ALL SERVICE AREAS, UM, WOULD BE IN THE SAME AREA WOULD BE CHARGED THE SAME. SO ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE LOOP IN THIS CASE, UM, IS THREE 60, 7,183, ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE LOOP WOULD BE CHARGED WITH SAYING ALL AREAS INSIDE THE LOOP OF RECHARGES SAVED RATHER THAN HAVING, UM, MORE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN, UM, EAST, WEST AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY. SO, UM, AND THEN LASTLY, SLIDE 30. UM, THE FEE REDUCTIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE FOR INTERNAL CAPTURE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, UM, THAT ARE CAPTURING SOME OTHER TRIPS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PARKING PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, UM, AS PART OF A REDUCTION UP TO 40%, UM, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND A TIERED, UM, SYSTEM UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS, UM, A REDUCTION FOR SMALL INFILLS RESIDENTIAL. AND SO THAT'S NOT ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING, UM, UH, BUILDING REUSE REDUCTION FOR, UM, CHANGES OF USE AND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH SMALL, UM, SMALL RENOVATIONS MODIFICATIONS OF UP TO 100%. SO NO FEES IN THOSE CASES. UM, AND THE, THE LAST SEVERAL SLIDES ARE THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT IS DRAFTED FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO YOU GUYS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. UM, AND [04:35:01] SLIDE 35 IS TWO DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING ONE FOR CREATIVE SPACES AND ONE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. AND I'LL JUST NOTE THAT THERE IS A CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, AND THEN THERE IS A FEE SCHEDULE AND STUDY ADOPTION ORDINANCE. UM, THIS COMMISSION IS, UM, SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT OF COURSE CAN PROVIDE FURTHER DIRECTION ON THE, ON THE FEE SCHEDULE ITSELF. UM, BUT WE'RE HOPING TO MAKE ONE CODE AMENDMENT. AND THEN AS THE STUDY IS REVISED ON A, ON A FIVE YEAR REVIEW BASIS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE AMENDING THE CODE EVERY TIME, BUT, BUT ACTUALLY JUST CHANGING THAT FEE SCHEDULE WHEN WE COME IN TO UPDATE EITHER THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES, UM, COUNCIL SCHEDULED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT IT'S JULY 30TH, HATING, BUT WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD GO THROUGH ALL THREE MEETINGS AT THAT MEETING. SO, UM, THAT IS REALLY APPRECIATED AND RUSHED THROUGH. AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I BREATHE OVER ANYTHING. UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I ALSO HAVE OUR CONSULTANTS ON THE LINE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE GREAT. WE, UH, STAY ON, UM, WE HAVE, UH, ONE SPEAKER, UM, DAVID KING, ARE YOU ON THE LINE HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE? YES, I'M ON THE LINE HERE. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU. UH, MR. , I JUST ASK YOU TO BE AWARE THAT, UM, THERE ARE 40 MINUTES LEFT IN THIS MEETING, INCLUDING FOR SOME OTHER BUSINESS, YOU HAVE A FULL SIX MINUTES, BUT THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN ANY COMMISSIONER ON HERE WOULD GET. SO, UM, COULD BE BRIEF. YES, I WILL BE BRIEF. I WILL NOT USE THE SIX MINUTES HERE. I RESPECT WHAT YOU SAID. SO, UM, MY NAME IS DAVID KING. THE STREET IMPACT FEE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AS YOU WELL KNOW, DURING THAT TIME HUNDREDS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE PROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. INSTEAD, THOSE COSTS HAVE BEEN SHIFTED TO RENTERS, HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES, HIGHER RENT, INCREASED TRANSPORTATION FEES AND MORE TRANSPORTATION BONDS. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO AN ADOPTION OF THIS STREET IMPACT FEE TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR ITS IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED STREET IMPACT FEE IS IMPORTANT, BUT NEEDS MORE WORK BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL. THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS OF UP TO 100% IS FREE IN IMPACT. THE EFFECTIVE RATE WILL LIKELY RESULT IN A LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN STREET IMPACT FEES. OVER 10 YEARS, THE PROPOSED EFFECTIVE RATE IMPLIES THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR JUST 50% OF BERRY IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND LUXURY. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR JUST 35% OF THEIR IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD SEEK ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS OF UP TO 100% BY PROVIDING RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE BASED ON CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS WITH MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME REQUIREMENTS ABOVE 50%, 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR THE AUSTIN ROUND ROCK MSA IS $47,950. AND WE DIDN'T FAMILY INCOME FOR BLACK AND LATINO FAMILIES IN AUSTIN IS ROUGHLY $45,000. SO YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE, 50% MFI WILL MISS MOST BLACK AND LATINO FAMILIES IN AUSTIN. THIS MEANS THAT THEY ALREADY HAD SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE WHEN, WHEN APPLYING FOR INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN AUSTIN. AND SO OUR DISCRETE IMPACT FEES SHOULD NOT PERPETUATE THAT INEQUITY NEED TO STOP THAT AND BASE OUR MSI ON BELOW 50% OF FAMILIES AREN'T EVEN BELOW 50% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. SO I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER THESE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. THE EFFECTIVE RATE FOR IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE SET AT 100% FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES THE PROPOSED REDUCTION FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PREDICATED ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BOTH BREAST AND SUSTAIN DEVELOPMENT PREVENTION PROGRAMS. I'M SORRY, DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES LOCATED ON TRANSIT CORRIDORS, SERVICE FEES, AND SERVICE AREAS OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED TO OFFSET OR REDUCE REDUCED SERVICE FEES IN SERVICE AREAS INSIDE THE URBAN CORE REDUCTION IN SERVICE FEES AND SERVICE AREAS INSIDE THE URBAN CORE SHOULD NOT BE USED TO OFFSET SERVICE FEES IN SERVICE AREAS OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE REDUCTION IN SERVICE FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INFILL UNITS, BUILDING REUSE, OR ANY OTHER PURPOSES SHOULD NOT BE SUPPLANTED BY ANY OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING GENERAL REVENUE. THESE ARE GENERAL REVENUE FEES, TAXES, OR ANY OTHER SOURCES. MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE REDUCTIONS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 50%. AND THE STREET IMPACT IS UTILIZED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRANSIT ORIENTED INVESTMENTS FOR CAP METRO PROJECT CONNECT, TRANSIT ROUTES AND SERVICES SHOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL [04:40:01] TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION, TITLE SIX AND SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DISPARATE IMPACTS ON DISENFRANCHISED COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, LOW INCOME FAMILIES, AND PEOPLE PROTECTED BY THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS TIME LATE AT NIGHT TO CONSIDER THIS IMPORTANT, UH, ORDINANCE. AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS AND FOR YOUR SERVICE. I THINK HE IS MR. KING. UM, SO, UH, AS WE GET INTO ROUND ROBIN HERE, UM, I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE FIRST SPOT TO, TO LAY OUT SOME STUFF THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING SO FAR. UM, THE, UH, UM, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, UM, MET AND THERE ARE RECOMMENDATION AND SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WAS, UH, TO NOT, UM, TAKE THAT 50% OFF THE TOP FOR EVERYBODY, FOR COMMERCIAL AND 65% OFF THE TOP FOR RESIDENTIAL. UM, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE DISCOUNTS THAT'S BUILT INTO. AND, AND COULD WE, I THINK WE WANT TO BELIEVE THOSE SLIDES UP. CAN WE BRING THE SLIDE BACK UP AND, UH, LAND, IF YOU COULD REMIND US WHAT THE SLIDE WAS THAT SHOWED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM FEES AND WHAT THE GROUP RECOMMENDED AND WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED. UM, BUT THE JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED DON'T GIVE THAT, UH, DISCOUNT OFF THE TOP. LET'S SEE. 16, UM, WHAT THEY, THE RECOMMENDATION OF AFRICANIZATION THERE WE GO RIGHT THERE. UM, SO YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAIT IS THAT THE THAT'S NOT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED RATE IS, OH, THAT IS OKAY. SO YOU SEE THAT, UM, THE, UH, WHAT THEY'RE SETTING THERE IS THE, UM, IS, IS THAT THE ONE ISN'T THERE ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS THE NEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION? THERE WE GO. OKAY. SO, UM, THE 65% REDUCTION AND THE 50% REDUCTION IN FEES IS STILL HERE. SO YOU SEE THAT IN THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE COLUMN THEY'RE TAKING, YOU KNOW, 65% OFF OF THAT TO GET TO THE 36 21, UM, I'M HOPING MY MATH IS RIGHT. UM, AND, UH, AND, AND SO THE, UM, SO THEY'RE BUILDING IN THAT DISCOUNT JOINT COMMITTEE SAID DON'T BUILD IN THAT DISCOUNT, UM, BUT DO OFFER SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF TRANSIT AND, UH, KEEP DISCOUNTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WE GOT INTO, UM, THE, UH, AND IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WE'RE SHOWING LEANNE WITH THE DISCOUNTS, THERE SHOULD BE 30. RIGHT. AND SO, UM, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THE INFO UNIT A HUNDRED PERCENT BUILDING REUSE A HUNDRED PERCENT, WHAT THAT REALLY IS, IS BASICALLY SAYING, IF YOU ADD UP TO THREE UNITS ON A LOT, UM, WITH NO ADDITIONAL PARKING, THEN WE'RE NOT GONNA ASSESS THE FEE. AND IT'S AN EXEMPTION BASICALLY. AND SAME WITH BUILDING REUSE, BASICALLY IF YOU'RE NOT EXPANDING A BUILDING, BUT YOU'RE MAYBE GETTING A CHANGE OF USE OR DOING A RENOVATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE TO DO A SITE PLAN OFTENTIMES, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TRIGGER THE FEE. SO, UM, SO, SO THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. UM, AND, UH, I WILL SAY THAT MY SENSE IS, IS THAT WE CANNOT GO IN AND MUCK AROUND IN THE STUDIES THAT PRODUCE THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, UM, AND, UH, THAT REALLY WHERE WE CAN BE EFFECTIVE, UH, IN TERMS OF REALISTICALLY, UH, RECOMMENDING POLICIES AT THIS VERY LATE STAGE IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT DISCOUNT COMES OFF THE TOP. AND THEN WHAT, UH, WHAT KIND OF DISCOUNTS, UH, SUCH AS THESE, ON THIS PAGE ARE AVAILABLE. UM, SO I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THE MOBILITY GOALS THAT WE CAN DO, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONERS ARE SOME THOUGHTS ON THE, ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WITH THAT, UM, MAYBE WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING EVERYBODY AT ONCE. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. OH, KRISHA HOWARD. GO AHEAD. ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST INTERESTED IN HEARING SOME THOUGHTS AS A COMMITTEE AD HOC GROUP, RIGHT? SO WE DON'T HAVE A COMP OR WE DON'T HAVE COMMITTEE THOUGHTS YET. UM, AND, UH, SO I THOUGHT THAT THE FOUR OF US COULD EACH THROW OUT, UH, IF WE HAVE THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT AND SO THAT WE CAN GET REACTION FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. SO, UH, OF COURSE YOUR SHOW, YOU WANNA START SURE. I'LL THROW OUT SOME STUFF. UM, I MEAN, I HAVE A COUPLE POINTS AS TO KIND OF GET EVERYBODY TO ROLL INTO THIS, BUT, UM, I WAS ASKED, I ASKED STAFF ABOUT ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. THIS BASICALLY TAKES CARE OF ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY WITH SOME COMPLICATED PROCESS THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE TO GO INTO, AND IT WASN'T VERY PREDICTABLE. SO THIS PROCESS WOULD BRING A MORE PREDICTABLE, UM, ABILITY TO, TO ASSESS THE COSTS, UM, THAT COULD [04:45:01] BE, UH, A DEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE. AND I THINK, UM, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT CAUSE WHEN SOMEBODY IS LOOKING FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY DEVELOPED AND THEY'LL KIND OF KNOW, WELL, IT'S GOING TO COST X FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AT THIS POINT. NOW WHAT WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE PREDICTABLE IN HOW WE ENDED UP CRACKING THE DEVELOPMENT. FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WAS JUST A, A STRIP CENTER WITH, UM, ALL THIS PARKING, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYTHING RIGHT. BUT THEN WE FIND OUT, OH, IT'S GOING TO HAVE IT'S WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF, UH, OF TRANSIT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, UM, DIFFERENT TYPES OF, UH, UH, TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND WE CAN START FINDING A WAYS TO GET THAT FEE LOWERED. AND AGAIN, BEFORE WE EVEN START DEVELOPING, WE CAN START PIECING TOGETHER WHAT OUR FEE WOULD BE. AND THEN ON THE LARGER LEVEL, IT WILL ALSO HELP PEOPLE START CRAFTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT EARLY ON TO THINK ABOUT WHAT COMPONENTS ARE GOING TO LIKE IF I WANT TO KEEP A REALITY CHECK ON THE TIME. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR, UH, THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE FULL COMMISSION ON? I WOULD LIE. I MEAN, MOSTLY ABOUT THE TOOLS, LIKE HOW, HOW SHOULD WE BE ADJUSTING THOSE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS? LIKE WHAT, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM THAT THOSE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED DOWN FROM A HUNDRED PERCENT MAX DOWN TO ZERO. AND I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE PREDICTABLE IN THE END. THERE SHOULD BE LIKE A MATRIX THAT A DEVELOPER CAN USE AND KIND OF SEE. UM, AND SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT TYPE OF STUFF WOULD BE GREAT, UH, AS EMPLOYEE. OKAY. UM, MICHIGAN HAS CREDO FOR SURE. THOSE ARE, IF YOU WANT TO FLOAT ANYTHINGS, I WILL JUST, UM, THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY THAT, HOW CAN WE DO, BUT I REALLY WANT TO THANK STAFF CAUSE I THINK IT WASN'T RANDY SPAWN AND IT WAS FUNNY ROOM. WELL, AS WE'VE GONE TO THE ORDINANCES, WORK AROUND AFFORDABILITY. AND I THINK JUST TO GIVE FOLKS AN IDEA AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FEEDBACK AND WHAT YOU CAN SHARE RIGHT NOW, OTHERWISE WE, I DID READ THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE GEARED AFFORDABILITY. SO IF A MAJORITY OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS AFFORDABLE, THEN YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF YOUR FEES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO IT'S KIND OF GEARED BASED ON THAT. AND WE MIGHT CONSIDER LOOKING AT LEVELS OF AND OTHER UNDERTAKE WITHOUT HOPEFULLY MAKING IT TOO COMPLICATED. AND THE IDEA REALLY IS IF YOU'RE A MAJORITY FOR BILL HOUSING, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FEE WAIVED. AND SO IT SORT OF DIED IN AND WE WERE WORKING WITH NMC, HE STOPPED AND MADE SURE THAT IT ALIGNS WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER PROGRAMS. SO THE AFFORDABILITY ARE ALIGNED WITH WHAT WE HAVE THERE. SO FOLKS CAN REALLY BE ABLE TO USE MULTIPLE PROGRAMS, UM, OR CONSIDER THE INDICTMENTS AND BALLSY PROGRAMS, BUT ALSO HAVE A FEW PROGRAMS. OKAY. UM, YEAH. AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO THROW OUT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S ESSENTIALLY AN AFFORDABILITY TRACK FOR DISCOUNTS AND THEN THERE'S A, DOESN'T MEET OUR MOBILITY GOALS, DISCOUNTS, UM, WHICH IS BUILT INTO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING A 20% INTERNAL CAPTURE. SO ESSENTIALLY MIXED USE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE A TRAVEL WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN REDUCE, UM, UH, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT I GET FROM INDUSTRY IS, UH, YOU KNOW, ATD NEVER GIVES ME INTERNAL CAPTURE, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT FOR WHAT YOU WILL. UM, AND THEN, UH, TDM, UM, GET, COULD GET YOU A 40% DISCOUNT. AND, UM, THE REALLY INTERESTING THING I FOUND IN TALKING TO SOME BUILDERS WAS THAT THEY SAID A, THE PREDICTABILITY IS SO, SO HUGE FOR ME, UM, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, I CARE MORE ABOUT THAT THAN MAYBE THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF THE FEE. UM, AND THEN SECOND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, TIA TDM THAT IS AROUND AND ROUND PROCESS WITH ATD OVER MONTHS, AND I HAVE TO GET A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO LOOK AT IT AND IT'S NOT PREDICTABLE. UM, AND, UH, BUT THE, THE TWO BIGGEST DETERMINANTS OF ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DRIVING IN AND OUT OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT ARE HOW CLOSE ARE YOU TO TRANSIT AND HOW MUCH PARKING DO YOU PROVIDE? AND A HUGE THING THAT I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF ABILITY, ACTIVISTS IS LIKE, CAN YOU PLEASE BASE THIS ON PARKING? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE PARKING PEOPLE, AREN'T GOING TO BE DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS COULD SERVE AS AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE NOT TO OFFER MORE PARKING. SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE THROW OUT THERE THAT, UH, WE SHOULD IN PLACE OF THE 20% INTERNAL CAPTURE AND THE 40% TDM DISCOUNTS THAT THERE'LL BE TWO TIERS OF DISCOUNTS. ONE IS IF WE'RE WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE WALK, A QUARTER MILE OF TRANSIT, AND THEN THE SECOND IS IF YOU'RE IN A HALF MILE A TRANSIT, BUT THAT THOSE ARE PREDICATED UPON OFFERING A LEVEL OF PARKING THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE THROUGH EITHER THE CRITERIA MANUAL OR BY RULE. SO THAT IF YOU'RE PUTTING A PARKING GARAGE ON A TRANSIT ROUTE, YOU'RE NOT GETTING A DISCOUNT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE PROVIDING A TON OF PARKING ON A TRANSIT ROUTE, YOU'RE NOT GETTING A DISCOUNT. UM, BUT IF, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT OFFERING A LOT OF PARKING AND YOUR TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE, YEAH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG DISCOUNT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE LEVELS ARE, BUT I, [04:50:01] MY FIRST TAKE IS THAT THERE ARE DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE ARE DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE FROM ABILITY, AND IF YOU'RE GREAT ON MOBILITY AND DO A PRETTY GOOD AFFORDABILITY PIECE, MAYBE THAT GETS YOU DOWN TO ZERO, OR YOU CAN, YOU CAN GET ALL THE WAY TO ZERO FOR AFFORDABILITY. I LIKE TO DO THAT, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO WITH YOUR, UM, WITH JUST YOUR MOBILITY AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO BACK UP TO THE A HUNDRED PERCENT AND FOR THE MAXIMUM FEE, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH TDM, WITH TIA UNDER THE, UH, STAFF PROPOSAL FOR COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE 25% OF THE MAXIMUM AND FOR RESIDENTIAL, YOU'RE MAYBE LOOKING AT LIKE 20% OF THE MAXIMUM, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A HECK OF A LOT. UM, SO, UH, TH TH THAT WOULD BE DOING A LOT, BUT SO I WOULD BE SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN GET DOWN TO 50% IF YOU'RE WITHIN A HALF MILE AND NOT OFFERING A LOT OF PARKING OR 60%, AND THEN MAYBE DOWN TO 30 OR 40%, IF YOU'RE REAL CLOSE TO TRANSIT AND NOT DOING PARKING. AND THEN THE, THE REMAINING ONES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO ACHIEVE THROUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO, UH, UM, THAT, THAT IS MY THOUGHT IS, AND, AND THAT COULD MAKE IT REALLY SIMPLE. SO YOU NEVER EVEN HAVE TO DO A TIA. YOU CAN JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH PARKING YOU WANT TO OFFER, AND IF YOU'RE CLOSE TO TRANSIT, WHAT'S YOUR HANDLE. I HAVE A QUESTION WITH THE, UM, PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, BUT, UM, THERE'S TWO CASES TONIGHT, ONE OFF OF MLK WHERE MS. JOSEPH'S TALKED ABOUT THE BUS ROUTES BEING VERY INFREQUENT, AND YOU HAVE TO TAKE SCREEN LINES TO GO TO ANYWHERE SIGNIFICANT VERSUS THE BURNETT CORRIDOR, WHICH HAS FREQUENT BUS ROUTES. SO WE TEMPER THAT POTENTIAL DISCOUNT TO BUY WHAT KIND OF WINES THEY'RE LOCATING NEXT TO, UH, MY REACTION TO THAT WOULD BE THAT WE COULD, UM, BUT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE USE THE ASP AND THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORKS TO CHART OUT OUR TRANSIT COURSE FOR THE NEXT 20, 30 YEARS. AND, UM, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL STICK AROUND AS LONG AS THAT. SO RATHER THAN BASING IT ON JUST THE IMMEDIATE SERVICE, I'D LIKE TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT INTO THE FUTURE IS MY PERSONAL DIRECTION. LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MLK METRO RAPID ROUTE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER TO INVEST A LOT OF MONEY IN THAT, IN THAT ROUTE. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE PRETTY HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT THERE. UM, MR. SNYDER, SO, UM, THE THREE OF THE FOUR YOU WHO WERE ON THE COMMITTEE, I HEARD, I HEARD THINGS LIKE WE WANNA, WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY WANTED TO DO. WE WANT PREDICTABILITY, WE WANT SIMPLICITY. I, IT WAS, I WAS GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED AND I, I, I JUST WONDER IF THERE'S BEEN ANY STAFF MODELING, LIKE WHERE, WHERE DOES IT, WHERE DOES IT BECOME OVERLY COMPLICATED AND NOT WORK TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES? OR HOW MUCH, LIKE, WHERE DOES IT, WHERE DOES IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO LIKE, TRY TO, UM, UH, BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SORTS OF THINGS THAT, UM, PERCENTAGES OF INCENTIVIZATION? UM, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER A, LIKE, IT'S, IT SOUNDS VERY COMPLICATED. AND DOES THAT WORK AGAINST THE SORT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING? UM, OTHER FOLKS FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN? I THINK THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CALCULATION THEY OFFERED IS FAIRLY SIMPLE. UM, UH, THE, THE MOBILITY SIDE OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET UP TO A 60% DISCOUNT THROUGH TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND TIA, AND, UH, INTERNAL CAPTURE, BUT THAT REQUIRES DOING A TRAFFIC INPUT ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, OR, UH, IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIRES YOU IN ALL KINDS OF ANALYSIS. WHEREAS IF YOU SWITCHED OVER TO JUST LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, DISTANCE FROM, YOU KNOW, UH, THE TRANSIT NETWORK ON THE MAP, AND THERE'S A TABLE FOR PARKING AND HOW THAT IMPACTED YOUR DISCOUNT THERE, UH, THE REACTION THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM INDUSTRY IS THAT THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY EASIER AND THAT THEY WOULD REALLY PREFER THAT. SO MY PERSONAL FEELING IS TO GO FOR A HIGH MAJORITY, UH, A MAXIMUM, A HIGH BASE FEE, SO THAT IF YOU'RE DOING SPRAWL WITH NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, YEAH, YOU'RE GETTING HIT FOR LIKE THE FULL COST OF PRODUCING THAT ROADWAY NETWORK. BUT IF YOU'RE DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE YOU MORE THAN, THAN WE GET. AND WE ASKED FOR NOW, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOTHING FOR THIS. SO, UM, THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOTTEN IS THAT THIS WOULD BE A MUCH SIMPLER SCHEME AND THAT THEY WOULD LOVE TO NOT INVOLVE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS IN IT. MR. HOWARD. SO, SO THEN HELP ME UNDERSTAND. AND I, SO I I'VE, I UNDERSTAND ROBERT CORNELL LITTLE, BECAUSE I WAS WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND [04:55:01] THEY DID APPLY THAT, UM, RELATIVE TO PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO I GUESS IN THIS SCENARIO, IF YOU HAD AN URBAN MODEL OF A TARGET IN A NEAR THE, IN THE URBAN CORE THAT PRODUCED SEVERAL WELL, POTENTIALLY SEVERAL TRIPS, UM, BUT IT WAS NEAR A TRANSIT LINE. WOULD YOU PAY A LITTLE LESS IN THAT CASE? BECAUSE IT WAS BECAUSE OF WHERE I WAS KNOWN LOCATED VERSUS THE TRAFFIC THAT IT POTENTIALLY MAY GENERATE. ALL THE ASSUMPTION IS FOLKS WILL USE TRANSIT BECAUSE THERE ARE LESS PARKING SPACES. I MEAN, I GUESS SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE HOW THAT MAY WORK ON, IN, AS IT RELATES TO THE CREATION OF POTENTIALLY MORE TRAFFIC VERSUS THE PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES, PER SE. I MEAN, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOAL IS, OBVIOUSLY WANTING TO TRY TO DISCOURAGE MORE, UH, TRAFFIC OBVIOUSLY. AND SO TO INCENTIVIZE SUCH YOU DO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, HOWEVER, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE FIRST ONE'S END WOULD BE THE ONE THAT'S MOST BENEFITING FROM IT. AND THOSE THAT ARE DEVELOPED LATER ON WITH LESS LIKELIHOOD OF BEING CLOSE TO MAYBE TRANSIT WOULD HAVE LESS OF AN ADVANTAGE TO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE DISCOURAGED FROM DEVELOPING. SO HOW DO YOU SORT OF BALANCE THAT? I GUESS IN THAT REGARD AS A FRESHMAN, I WAS, I HAD IN MY MIND, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE FEES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM ARE POTENTIALLY HUGE. UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY TIME YOU RAISED THE COST, YOU ARE DISINCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT. SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME, IT'S THE QUESTION OF LIKE, WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT DO YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE AND WHAT DO YOU DON'T? SO MAYBE AN URBAN PARK, AN URBAN TARGET WITH NO PARKING DOWNTOWN ON A TRANSIT LINE, YOU KNOW, IS THAT REALLY GENERATING CAR TRIPS? I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH SORT OF LIKE WHAT MR. HOWARD SINKING, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF, LET'S SAY THERE WAS A DEVELOP THAT WAS FURTHER OUT, LET'S SAY, UM, I DUNNO DOWN 35, SO LET'S SAY NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES UP. IT'S, IT'S CLOSE TO 35. AND SO IT'S ON TRANSIT THERE, SO THEY HAVE TO PAY SOME AND, YOU KNOW, AND THEN AS A DEVELOPER STARTS THINKING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT HAS GOT, WELL, IF I ADD SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I'LL BE ABLE TO GET THE PRICE DOWN AND THEN WE START THINKING, WELL, WE SHOULD INCENTIVIZE CREATING SOME TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK IN TERMS OF COMPLETE COMMUNITY, RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOT SHOPPING THERE, IF THERE'S NOT DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESOURCES THERE THAT IT'LL CAUSE PEOPLE TO FURTHER DRIVE AROUND. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CREATE INCENTIVES TO, TO THINK IN TERMS OF COMPLETE COMMUNITY. SO IF SOMEBODY WERE DEVELOPED A BUNCH OF HOUSING, SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT COME AND THINK, WELL, I'M GOING TO CREATE THE NEW COMPONENT TO THE HOUSING, WHICH IS THE SUPPORT, UH, SHOPPING, BUT THEN MAYBE WE W SO WE'VE GOTTA HAVE TOOLS TO REINFORCE THAT AGAIN, IN TERMS OF COMPLETE COMMUNITIES. AND THEN WE START PUTTING ALL THESE PIECES TOGETHER. SO I DUNNO IF WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT AS WE THINK THROUGH, UM, HOW DEVELOPMENT INVOLVES, RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THESE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS. UM, CAN I GET A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME BY 10 MINUTES MADE BY COMMISSIONERS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, ALL IN FAVOR, VIRGO GREEN, UH, THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. OH, NOPE. COMMISSIONER CAUSEY VOTES AGAINST, UM, SO, UH, YEAH, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO HASH THROUGH. UM, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO HASH THROUGH IT. SO, UM, I GET SOME KIND OF VALUE STATEMENTS MAYBE ON KIND OF THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE OR DISINCENTIVIZE OR, OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR PRIORITIES WOULD BE FOR THIS. I JUST HAVE A QUICK, NOTHING IS SIMPLER, SO THERE'S NOTHING SIMPLER OR MORE PREDICTABLE THAN THE AMOUNT OF PARKING WHEN IT COMES TO JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE GENERATED BY A CERTAIN AREA. SO ULTIMATELY I WOULD HOPE THAT WHATEVER WE'RE VOTING ON, YOU KNOW, IF IT HAS ZERO PARKING, THEN OF COURSE THEY GET TO GO DOWN TO ZEBRA. AND I ALSO LIKE WHAT I HEARD ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO FAR. SO THOSE TWO INDICATORS SEEM TO SPEAK WELL FOR TRYING TO FOSTER AFFORDABILITY [05:00:01] AND TRANSIT AND WHATNOT. SO I'M MORE OR LESS BY THAT. THEY DON'T HAVE A MOTOR VEHICLE MYSELF INCLUDED EVERY TIME WE BUILD SOMETHING AND THEY HAVE A TON OF PARKING SOMEONE'S SUBSIDIZING THAT AND STUFF. THEY'RE BUILDING A LOT OF PARKING THEN. YEAH. THEY'RE GOING TO GET HIT THE SPEED MORE SO THAN THEIR FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE THREATS OF GLOBAL BOILING AND WHATNOT. SO I LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT CAN BE ON IT. RIGHT. WHO ELSE? WHAT'S YOUR SCHNEIDER? GO AHEAD. I, UH, APPRECIATE THE, THIS, UH, IDEA OF SIMPLICITY WITH, UH, AND TYING IT TO PARKING OR CAR USE. I JUST THINK IT, WE MAY WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS ALSO PAYS FOR THE STAFF, SAID IT, YOU KNOW, IT PAYS FOR OTHER KINDS OF TRANSIT THAT GOES ALONG WITH ROADS LIKE BIKES AND SIDEWALKS, AND, UH, EVEN A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT NEEDS, BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, OR, YOU KNOW, BICYCLE TRANSIT TO GET TO AT, OR SIDEWALKS TO GET TO IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO GO DOWN TO ZERO THAT MAY MAKE TOTAL SENSE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T STARVE OURSELVES OF NEEDED BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE OR SIDEWALKS, WHO ELSE SURE. HOWARD, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, I THINK THE IDEA OF FORCING SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, OR LET'S SAY COMPLETE COMMUNITIES, OR HOWEVER, IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED OBVIOUSLY. SO I THINK THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW WE INCENTIVIZE THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER AGAIN, MIXED USE OR MULTIPLE USES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD, SHOULD RENDER SOME SORT OF INCENTIVE OR REDUCTION, I GUESS A COUPLE OF MINUTES HERE. UM, ONE IDEA THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE, GO AHEAD. I WANTED TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON, UH, W WE HAD HEARD, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE'S RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A STAFF, UH, EXEMPTION, BASICALLY, IF YOU ADD THREE UNITS ON A SITE, BUT YOU DON'T ADD ANY PARKING THAT, UH, THAT YOU'D BE EXEMPT FROM THE VISA, SMALL INFILL, UM, 80 USE ARE SO UNECONOMICAL TO BUILD THAT I REALLY HESITATE TO ATTACK ANOTHER FEE THEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE BEING ADDED TO EXISTING HOUSING. UM, AND JUST, AND, AND THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN ADDING ANY USE TO EXISTING HOUSING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH. UM, I WAS THINKING, YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE CONSIDER, UM, LETTING IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT AN ADU, LETTING THEM ADD ONE SPACE, AND IF IT'S, IF IT'S AN EXISTING HOUSE, UH, AND NOT AN EXEMPT THEM FROM THE FEE AS WELL, SO THAT WE'RE NOT TACKING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, THREE OR SIX GRAND ONTO THE COST OF AN ADU. I THOUGHT STAFF WAS ALREADY WAIVING THE COST FOR ONE TO THREE ADDITIONAL HOUNDS. IT'S ONLY IF YOU DON'T ADD ANY PARKING SPOTS. SO I THINK THE CONVERSATION HERE IS IF YOU PRESERVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND EVEN IF YOU ADD IN PARKING SPOT, BECAUSE YOU'RE PRESERVING THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, WHAT ESSENTIALLY, JAM'S GOING TO CONCLUDE FOR ONE THING AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF A COMMISSIONER WANTS TO SEND SOMETHING, SOMETHING, OR IDEAS AS THEN THEY CAN SEND THEM DEAL, AND THEN YOU CAN SEND THEM OUT TO ALL COMMISSIONERS. SO MY HOPE IS THAT IF FOLKS HAVE OTHER IDEAS, THEY CAN SEND THEM TO US. YEAH. YEAH, DEFINITELY. UM, WELL, MR. RIVERA, I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT, CORRECT. IT'S TRUE. RIVERA GONE TO BED. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL WORK THAT OUT AND WE'LL, WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO SOME DISTRIBUTION. UM, BUT DEFINITELY IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS, UM, SEND THEM ALONG TO MR. RIVERA AND, UH, AND WE'D LOVE TO GET THEM. UM, SO WE HAVE, UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING LAST THAT THEY WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO COMMITTEE REPORTS? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY. SUPER LAST THING. UM, THE, THE FIRST TIME THAT I REALLY STARTED TO HERE IN AUSTIN MAKE DEVELOPMENT PAY FOR ITSELF WAS AROUND 2011. IT'S KIND OF ONE THAT KIND OF BLEW UP. UM, ALL I KNOW IS AFFORDABILITY IN AUSTIN HAS GONE THE COMPLETE WRONG DIRECTION 100% SINCE 2011. SO, [05:05:01] UM, I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THINKING THAT THAT MANTRA SOMEHOW REALLY MEANS THAT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, UM, A LOT OF EFFICIENCIES ARE LOST WHEN WE TRY TO PUT A LOT OF THE COSTS ONTO THE DEVELOPER ON THEIR FORGETTING. IT WAS A HABITAT HOME, AND WE WERE TRYING TO ADD A WATER MAIN AND, UM, FOLKS THAT AWESOME MODERATE SHARED WITH US. THEY'RE LIKE, YEAH, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY, WE USED TO DO THIS FOR ABOUT TWO TO 3000 AND THEY UNDERSTAND, SORRY THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR YOU GUYS TO DO IT, IT'S MORE LIKE 12 TO 15,000. SO MAKE DEVELOPMENT DAY FOR ITSELF MIGHT SOUND GOOD, BUT THE RESULTS ARE LOUSY QUITE. SO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UM, WE'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES, UH, [E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. UH, I ALREADY DISCUSSED BRINGING BACK, UH, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, UM, UH, WORKING GROUP. UM, I WANT TO DO THAT NEXT TIME. UM, WELL, UH, I THINK I GOT ONE, THE OTHER ONE. YEAH, SURE. I DO. ONE IS WEST AND FIRST I HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT WITH US. AND I GUESS LIKE WITH DEREK'S OFFICE CONVERSATION, IS THERE A WAY TO EXTEND THE SIGN UP FOR, UM, SPEAKING WITH AN ITEM D TUESDAY GRANTEE WHAT'S BEGAN TO HAPPEN IS OUR AGENDA GOES UP AND YOU CAN ONLY SIGN UP TO RUN THE AFTERNOON. AND THAT DOES NOT SEEM REASONABLE TO ME. AND COUPLED WITH THAT IS A REQUEST TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE THE AGENDA SHARED WITH US AND BOLSTERED AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. IT WILL BE HELPFUL WHEN THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S COMING UP, WHICH I THINK CURRENTLY IS NOT HAPPENING AS WELL AS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. AND WE KNOW THESE ARE UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, THANKS JACK FOR THEIR WORK. AND LET'S START TO SEE IF THERE'S A, TO DO THIS PROCESS. UM, AND THE OTHER WORDS I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH ON, UM, DO YOU USE OR STRICTER CUMMINS FOR AFFORDABILITY? AND I KNOW STAFF SORT OF REMINDS US OF WHAT BEGAN AND CANNOT DO, EVEN IF WE HAVE TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF, IF LEGAL STAFF CAN SORT OF GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED IN THE PAST, HELPED ME HANDLE THIS AND THIS AND WHAT, EVEN IN THEIR BATHROOM WE'VE DONE, THESE ARE SORT OF DIFFERENT TIMELINES AND YOU CAN ALL LIVE IN YOUR DISAGREED, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE WORTHY OF STAFF GIVING US SOME GUIDANCE AND HAVING A CONVERSATION AND HOBBIES. GREAT. UH, SO DO WE HAVE, UM, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? DO I SEEM, I STILL HAVE YOUR SECOND FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP. THERE WE GO. UH, AND DO I HAVE SECONDS FOR, I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO PUT THOSE ITEMS AS STATED ON THE AGENDA, EVEN IF WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THEM AND WE CAN SAY, HEY, WE GOT THERE, WE DIDN'T NEED IT. UM, SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THOSE COMMISSIONER? HEMPEL MY VIDEO'S FREEZING. UM, IF THERE IS AN, UH, CHRISTINA SCHNEIDER. OKAY, GREAT. UM, ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY. [F. BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES] UH, COMMITTEE REPORTS, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES. DID STUDENT IMPACT FEES. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. ANY OTHER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO COMMITTEES MEET MR. SNYDER JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARD A REVISED CLIMATE PLAN. UM, AND THAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR GETTING AUSTIN TO NET ZERO CARBON, UM, THAT IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE PLANNING, UH, IN AUGUST, MAYBE LATE AUGUST. UH, I, THERE MAY OR MAY NOT. I MEAN, IT'LL, THERE'LL BE A PRESENTATION. IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING AND WILL PROVIDE US SOME THOUGHTS FOR HOW WE MAKE DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE. UM, JUST ONE SPOILER, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE GOAL FROM 2050 TO 2040. UM, AUSTIN ENERGY IS WELL ON ITS WAY. UM, BY 2030, IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SOONER, UM, THAT LEADS A BUNCH OF CARS, UM, SOME OTHER THINGS, BUT A BUNCH OF CARS RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. SO JUST A PREVIEW AND, UH, WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION ON THAT AT SOME POINT IN AUGUST, IF I MAKE IT A BETTER DATE AT THE NEXT MEETING AND I'LL LET EVERYBODY KNOW. GREAT. ANY OTHER REPORTS FOR TWO MINUTES LEFT REPORTS. OKAY. UM, I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING. UH, UM, WE LEFT IT OPEN. I THINK WE ACTUALLY NEED TO TAKE A VOTE TO TABLE THE STREET IMPACT FEES UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN TAKE IT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING. UM, UH, I GOT A MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING STREET, IMPACT THESE IN THE NEXT MEETING, UH, UNANIMOUS. OKAY, GREAT. ALRIGHT. UM, FOLKS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SORRY ABOUT SOME MIX-UPS EARLY ON, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT [05:10:06] BRUSH THOSE TEETH FROM YOUR . * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.