[0:00] All right, we will call to order the Austin City Planning and Zoning

[0:05] Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 12th, 2026.

[0:10] Uh, I normally say in the packets was the minutes from our last meeting, but

[0:14] there was no packet this time. Did everyone find everything on Govwell?

[0:18] Okay, everyone managing to get the information kind of.

[0:24] » So, the meeting minutes were out there from our last meeting which was April

[0:28] 14th. So, if no one has any additions or corrections for those minutes, I need a

[0:33] motion and a second to approve them as written.

[0:37] » Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second.

[0:39] » Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Burroughs and a second from

[0:42] Commissioner Shrock to approve the minutes from April 14th as written. All

[0:47] in favor of the motion, please say I. >> All oppose? No.

[0:52] » Motion carries. Those minutes are approved.

[0:55] We have three open public hearings tonight. The first one on the agenda is

[1:00] an application from John and Christy Luna at 1,0423rd

[1:05] Avenue Southwest for a variance from city code on accessory structures with

[1:11] aggregate square footage of 1,200 square f feet.

[1:18] Yeah, as noted, uh the petitioners have uh made an application uh for uh a

[1:25] variance due to having a a shed that was um added without a permit and they had

[1:32] gone over the ordinance requirements. The petitioner has three sheds and a

[1:39] detached garage for a total of 1,236 square feet. All but one of the sheds

[1:44] had existed before annexation into the city of Austin.

[1:47] Uh the unpermitted shed was later added to the west of the house for motorcycle.

[1:52] The petitioner is requesting a variance from our city code which allows a

[1:55] maximum of two detached structures with an aggregate square footage of 12,200

[1:59] square feet um for partial under one acre. The property in question is

[2:04] approximately.7 acres. The variance request then of

[2:08] course would be to allow four detached structure structures all are existing

[2:13] and increase the aggregate square footage from 1,200 square ft to 1236

[2:17] square ft. Um the planning commission and city

[2:22] council must decide if the request meets statutory requirements for granting a

[2:26] variance. One, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and

[2:30] intent of the zoning ordinance. Two, the variance is consistent with the

[2:33] comprehensive plan. Three, the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable

[2:37] manner. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the land

[2:41] owner. Variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the

[2:44] locality in which the property is situated. This is a recommendation to

[2:48] council. Planning commission may approve, deny, or approve with

[2:51] conditions. And I do have pull the map up here.

[2:57] It's not as smooth as I usually do it. I'm still trying to figure out the new

[3:00] software that we're using. So, I'm going to be flipping back and forth a little

[3:03] bit. But this is the this is the area in the

[3:08] southwest. The neighborhood the parcels are overall a little bit larger than our

[3:13] ordinary older neighborhoods. I think

[3:18] I think this property was annexed in the 2000s.

[3:29] And the structure that we're talking about is this to the west of the house

[3:36] in the attached garage.

[3:40] » So, I went by there today. That's the metal one.

[3:43] » Yeah. Yeah. And the petitioners are here if you would like them to answer any

[3:47] questions. >> So, how big is that?

[3:49] » Um, if you could go up to the podium and then just state your name and address.

[3:55] » Hello, my name is John Luna. I live at 10423rd Avenue Southwest. And right

[4:01] there, that garage is for my motorcycle.

[4:05] » Right. The metal shed. How big is that shed?

[4:08] » How big is that? >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's uh 18 by 12.

[4:20] » That was constructed after annexation. Is that correct?

[4:23] » Yeah, that's the only building I had um we got annexed in 2003. And so um from

[4:30] my understanding when we had meetings on this when we got annexed in that they

[4:34] were still our street was still going to be zone that's commercial and the

[4:40] businesses that are on that street they run you know so there is it there's more

[4:45] than one business on that street. >> Yeah. They would have been uh

[4:49] grandfathered in essentially is the term. Um so they would be considered a

[4:53] legal non-conforming use once they're annexed in. Uh although

[4:59] But yeah, I'm not sure what the if it was a commercial zone prior to being

[5:03] annexed. >> I don't know how they can have a

[5:06] business if they didn't because the bus company was there. Um, Palmer bus

[5:10] company was right down the road for me. Uh, Durban's garage. We had a Payton

[5:15] company right at the end of the road. We had Kilby's lawn service and we had a

[5:19] Casey mowing company there. So, >> and to your point, I think uh

[5:26] Commissioner Woods, were you wondering about the square footage?

[5:29] » Yeah, if it was under 200, he doesn't have to permit it. So, it's 216. So,

[5:33] » that would be required, but I think was this a bought uh pre-made or did you

[5:39] » I built it. >> You built it. Okay.

[5:41] » Yeah, it was a hit and so um it been up for five years at least.

[5:48] So, it just didn't get built. And I don't know why all of a sudden,

[5:54] you know, they were coming around asking for money for this.

[5:58] The three sheds that I had were there when I we got in. So, I just wanted to

[6:04] point that out. >> We normally do investigate based on

[6:08] complaints and so we had gotten a complaint from someone and then that led

[6:12] to this current uh variance matter. >> Yeah. If you seen if you drove by my

[6:19] house and seen that shed, it has a garage door in front of it. So, it's

[6:23] nothing's sticking out or you can't see in it or out. So, it's all and I got

[6:28] plants growing around it. So, it's decent.

[6:31] » Yeah, I've been by there. It's very clean and neat and wellkept.

[6:35] » Yeah. Lot number 15 or whatever there is. That's are not 15 but on the other

[6:40] side. I mean kitty corner. If you drove by my house you hadn't seen that house

[6:44] cuz that house is you know a wreck. So >> talking about down here.

[6:49] » Yeah that one I think it is. >> Yeah we've had some cases with them

[6:53] » and it still isn't cleaned up. And then we got Charlie that owns that building

[6:58] next to me that's been there since I Bob I think Kudson died in in 2000. So, um,

[7:05] » is that this is that this one on the west or the east?

[7:08] » East. >> On the east side. Yeah.

[7:10] » There's all them buildings right there that he owns are Oliver owns and he's

[7:15] left them there. I had three graduations at my house and the people walking by uh

[7:21] seeing, you know, seeing that house. It's just a brick house doing nothing.

[7:26] Broken windows and I don't understand it.

[7:28] » Yeah, we have a case with that, too. So,

[7:32] » I guess my house is I I don't see anything wrong with it. You know, I

[7:37] everything's cleaned and so I I can't believe I'm here and

[7:42] Charlie Farber and other guys are here. >> What specifically was the complaint?

[7:48] » You remember? Uh

[7:54] I think having

[7:57] uh I think just it was having excess number of

[8:00] » number of buildings structures. Yeah. It wasn't that there was anything

[8:05] » uh you know I guess in poor condition or anything like that.

[8:13] » [clears throat] >> So square footage wise it's six six

[8:16] square feet is >> it's a little bit over the

[8:19] » exception for building code >> so there would have to be a conversation

[8:23] about permitting it that could be a condition I guess if you know you wanted

[8:29] to approve it um

[8:33] that it just meet building code or be able to be

[8:39] permitted >> I have a question is

[8:43] » my garage and the three sheds in the back were there when I got anx. They

[8:47] took 10 ft of my yard to make that boat there. So, um, and now you guys want to

[8:53] charge me $300 for a variance and another whatever it is to have the

[8:57] permit that I built 5 years ago. >> It was actually public right away, but

[9:02] it felt like your yard because >> it was I had a ditch in culprit that I

[9:06] put in. I had mow my lawn all the way up in that ditch. So, you guys didn't know

[9:10] it. If I would have known that, you guys could have paid no motive. So, but they

[9:14] took a lot of it. They took a lot of my land and Oh, wow.

[9:19] » the the other structures are considered illegal use,

[9:24] but when you put something new, >> they count toward they count towards the

[9:28] totals. >> I don't see why.

[9:31] But anyway, like I said, it was commercial. We were zoning in. They told

[9:35] us we were going to stay commercial on that street. So,

[9:40] There's businesses on that street. If you drove by it today, then you'd know

[9:43] see the businesses there.

[9:48] » Well, everything, and the city attorney can catch me if I'm wrong, everything

[9:52] when it's annexed in is annexed in is R1. Correct. So things that were

[9:58] something else are just automatically non-compliant.

[10:01] We don't make you go back and change it, but you're non-compliant going forward.

[10:05] So as long as you don't add anything new, you're fine. Like Holly said,

[10:09] adding the building after that. That's what that's what triggered the problem.

[10:13] But >> any other commissioners got any other

[10:17] questions? >> Well, if we don't want recommend the

[10:19] [clears throat] council to to let this go, what's what's the options for Mr.

[10:23] Luna tear? >> Uh just removing the structure

[10:26] » and and it's it looks like it's pretty close to the house. I did not get to

[10:29] drive by, but it's darn near attached, right?

[10:31] » It's right up against the house. Yeah, if it was attached to that

[10:34] » because, you know, so they could potentially remove one of their existing

[10:37] structures, you know, and replace it with this one to get to the square

[10:40] footage or number of structure requirement, but they have three. So,

[10:45] this is four. So, they'd have to do quite a lot of

[10:49] um you know, changing things around just to have this one.

[10:54] » But if it was attached, would that change things? What's that?

[10:57] » If it was attached to the home, would that change things?

[11:00] » Uh, yeah. We don't count the So, what's the stipulations or requirements to make

[11:04] that attached? >> Uh, good question. Yeah, I don't know

[11:08] what the >> 2x4 and a couple nails type thing. I

[11:10] mean, I'm I'm sure it's not that simple. >> We talked about that before.

[11:13] » Yeah, I think uh on attached we have to have it um foundation on it. So,

[11:21] » and it doesn't have it's on concrete. So,

[11:24] » it's sitting on a concrete slab next to >> and it's probably four feet away from

[11:30] the house. Yeah, it's a standalone metal shed.

[11:32] » Y >> it looks nice. It's white.

[11:35] » Yeah. >> So, what are the other sheds for?

[11:39] » I have my garage, three garage there that I use to do work in. And then I

[11:44] have a yard shed. And the other shed is for storage. When we take out our our um

[11:50] furniture in the winter, we put all our furniture in that,

[11:54] our outside furniture.

[12:01] So again, it's not uncommon for rural properties that are annexed into the

[12:06] city to have multiple, you know, out buildings or detached structures. Um

[12:16] » there's this is probably not the only one in town,

[12:19] » right? um where there's this kind of

[12:21] circumstance where they maybe added a shed [snorts] without, you know, maybe

[12:25] realizing that they had a limitation or thinking that they were, you know,

[12:30] grandfathered in that it didn't count or something along those lines.

[12:36] But we kind of we have to address it like it's like running a stop sign. Did

[12:41] you or didn't you? So, we're just following the letter of our ordinance.

[12:46] The only option would be to get a variance potentially or to do one of the

[12:51] things that we discussed as an alternative.

[12:56] » We we are not here to decide the cost of the variance or the payment of the

[13:01] variance. We're here to decide whether or not to issue the variance

[13:06] » for the building or not. Correct. >> You would use that list of items that I

[13:10] read off as a guideline. The one on the staying with the

[13:15] character of the neighborhood is irrelevant, believe me, to drive into

[13:20] there. One of the nicer properties actually.

[13:29] So, yeah. Do you want me to just quick go through those again? So, just the

[13:32] variances in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning

[13:35] ordinance. Um, in this instance, it's a detached structure we

[13:41] typical to res. areas. The variance is consistent with

[13:45] comprehensive plan. The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable

[13:50] manner. The there are unique circumstances to the property not

[13:54] created by the land owner. The variance if granted will not alter the central

[13:58] character of the locality in which the property is situated. I mean, you could

[14:03] often make arguments either way on any of those.

[14:06] » Okay. Any more questions for Mr. Luna? >> All right. You can sit down. Thank you

[14:10] for coming tonight and answering our questions.

[14:13] » Yeah, thank you. >> Not all petitioners show up, so we

[14:16] appreciate that. It helps make a decision. Uh if there's no more

[14:20] questions from the commissioners, anybody ready to make a motion?

[14:24] » I'll make a motion to approve.

[14:29] » All right. Anybody want a second? >> Second.

[14:32] » All right. So, thank you. We have a motion from uh Commissioner Bartley to

[14:37] recommend the council to approve the request for the variance and a second

[14:42] from Commissioner uh May or Mark. [laughter]

[14:48] Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and vote.

[14:52] All in favor of the motion, please say I.

[14:54] » I. >> All oppose? No.

[14:57] » Motion carries. Variance is approved or the recommendation of the council is

[15:01] approved. So, this will go to council meeting on Monday for final decision.

[15:09] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[15:13] » So, next up, another open hearing. >> I just have a correction on this one.

[15:18] » Sure. >> Let me see here.

[15:20] » Now, you guys, >> you're good. [snorts]

[15:25] » Where am I? Okay.

[15:29] » All right. So, the this is not public hearing. This is actually a fence

[15:33] appeal. >> Okay.

[15:34] » Don't send out notices for this one. >> Um and the individual's name, this was

[15:39] copied from our I think our u

[15:44] our GIS map, but it's the gentleman's name is Ray Mundo Solidad.

[15:50] Just that those are the only two corrections I have on this one.

[16:16] Oh, I guess I should say it's after the fact, but we've already voted on it. But

[16:20] I did have contact from neighbor a neighbor on the prior matter and uh they

[16:26] were they were not concerned although the neighbors were talking about it.

[16:35] So this is um so this is for Rayundo Soladad

[16:40] 104th Street Southwest. Um this property is in a residential area R2 multif

[16:46] family. Uh is surrounded by also by multif family community business and

[16:52] single family to the south. The petitioner is appealing from our fence

[16:57] ordinance ordinance code uh city code 4.70 subdivision division 5 which limits

[17:04] fences constructed in front yards to 36 inches in height unless substantially

[17:08] open. A solid or opaque fence may be constructed but must be set back 25 ft

[17:13] in the front yard and 12 and a half ft in a sideyard in an R1 residential

[17:17] district. The petitioner wishes to add a six foot privacy fence between his house

[17:21] and garage to the sidewalk. Uh the home is set back approximately 13 feet and

[17:27] the garage approximately 16 ft which is obviously less than 20 25 foot

[17:32] requirement. Um we do allow the fence to start at the house uh set back uh based

[17:39] on the fact that the house is already going to be an obstruction. Um the

[17:44] proposed uh Let's see. We also have a 15 foot

[17:49] sight triangle uh that should be maintained where the fence will

[17:53] interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility across the driveway, street,

[17:56] alley, or sidewalk. Um the maximum height fe uh feet, the maximum fence

[18:03] height for uh the front yard could be uh extended

[18:07] to four feet if if the last foot was substantially open.

[18:13] Um the proposed in this instance is

[18:18] adjacent to an alley, sidewalk, and driveway. A six foot privacy fence would

[18:22] obstruct views for pedestrians and drivers in those locations. Uh staff

[18:27] suggests that the fence only go to the garage on the west side of the driveway

[18:31] and that the fence be installed in an angle on the east side of the driveway

[18:34] to prevent visual obstructions, drivers, pro protect pedestrians. This is also a

[18:39] recommendation to council. The planning commission may approve, deny, or approve

[18:43] with conditions. I have

[18:47] here somewhere.

[18:52] This is what this is the drawing that he had submitted.

[19:01] All right. Well, that didn't work. Let's see. So, he had proposed

[19:07] um

[19:10] fencing in this area along the sidewalk to connect a fence to from his house to

[19:15] garage and then um and then fencing in that area from the garage along the

[19:20] sidewalk. He doesn't have a

[19:25] a draw a line here, but he intended to connect that. Um,

[19:32] and this I had drawn up. Our engineering department did this thing for me. It

[19:36] just shows what if we had 15 foot sight lines, what that would kind of measure

[19:40] here on this side, on the west side along the driveway, along the alley, and

[19:47] then on the east side along the driveway.

[19:50] the um uh

[19:55] one suggestion was to just have the fence start here because of these two

[19:59] sight lines. I have not talked to the petitioner

[20:04] about that and then the other would be to have like have this at an angle and

[20:09] there could be a variance from the 15 foot if the if the planning commission

[20:13] recommended. Um but uh those were the main areas of

[20:19] concern. Uh, we do again. So, I'm using the new software and it should be

[20:25] sending email notifications to the petitioner. So, I he should have gotten

[20:29] notice that the meeting was tonight, but again, I have not spoken to him. He was

[20:35] pretty responsive um about filing the application and uh

[20:41] getting everything submitted that he needed. So, I'm not sure

[20:46] why he's not here tonight, but but if you have any questions,

[20:52] » it's disappointing that he's not here because this one definitely requires

[20:56] some conditions, I think, for approval. I went and looked at this one also and

[21:01] uh [clears throat]

[21:04] the the biggest issue that I saw that alleyway on the left side, that thing is

[21:10] really narrow. I drive a pickup. I hard to get in, I think. And you can't hardly

[21:16] see it from the picture, but on the left side of that alley, you can leave that

[21:20] picture up. I'll >> sure. Okay.

[21:23] » The one that was up the aerial photo. >> Yeah. There you go.

[21:27] » The left side of that alley, that's a hedge.

[21:30] » Oh, >> it comes right to the sidewalk. So, you

[21:32] got no vision looking to the west already coming out of that alley. You

[21:37] can't see that sidewalk or anything till you're over it. And so coming back to

[21:41] the east where he wants to put the fence in that corner, that would be this. I

[21:45] mean, you'd be coming out of a tunnel. You'd be on the sidewalk before you can

[21:49] see anything in either direction. And then at the garage, you would need

[21:54] another 15 foot triangle. So you'd have this fence would just be a point down

[21:58] there in the corner, which is kind of pointless. So I agree with Stash's

[22:02] recommendation completely for the alley side. That piece of fence should come

[22:06] straight across to the garage. shouldn't even come any farther toward the

[22:10] sidewalk. It's just going to be too dangerous.

[22:14] So then that leaves the one on the east side of the garage. Same thing there.

[22:18] You you won't be able to see around that fence until you're on the sidewalk. In

[22:21] fact, halfway down the driveway. And so that for sure has to have the 15t

[22:26] triangle to be approved. In my in my opinion,

[22:30] if those conditions were met, I think it's probably okay. Those are two big

[22:34] ones that jumped out at me when I looked at it. Well, you certainly could make

[22:39] that decision or make that condition and then if the petitioner decided they

[22:43] didn't want to do that, they they would just not go through with the fence

[22:47] installation. >> In fact, I would even be open to

[22:51] discussion that instead of doing the 15oot triangle, bring the front of the

[22:55] garage, bring the fence straight over to the house there, too. And don't even

[22:59] come out towards the sidewalk. >> He would still have his fencing yards

[23:03] for the safety that he's looking for. And they could still go. I think I

[23:07] assume they're they're moving from inside the garage into the house behind

[23:11] the fence is what he said. He has kids and dogs or kids and a dog that they

[23:17] want to >> I mean it's a little yard is that's a

[23:20] » I was just going to say that's going to pull up a

[23:22] » glide across. It's just tiny. >> But none of these concerns if they just

[23:25] follow our fence ordinance of having a three foot chain length fence here we

[23:31] wouldn't have to worry about sight. >> True. If they that's an alternative

[23:34] » and it also meets his requirements of safety,

[23:36] » right? They could have an open fence like a chain link fence and they put it

[23:40] right up. >> Follow the our regulations. He'd solve

[23:43] the problem. >> Yeah, true. I mean, he wouldn't he

[23:46] really wouldn't need a variance if he just put the fence right at where the

[23:49] garage is and >> actually went to the house. And so

[23:55] those are two options. >> It wouldn't be approved with conditions.

[23:59] It would be >> deny.

[24:00] » Deny, >> right? And then those would be the

[24:03] options available that were left if you denied the variance.

[24:14] » It's my two cents.

[24:18] [clears throat] >> Because I have serious concerns about

[24:21] sight lines on a very populated street, especially with construction now in that

[24:25] area. You're going to have people sneaking through on those alleyways. And

[24:29] then not to mention, having seen so much squad video at Nauseium watching law

[24:34] enforcement try to go through some of these alleyways with these huge privacy

[24:38] fences, it becomes a major public safety concern. There's not enough lighting. I

[24:43] just sort of go, we don't need more privacy fences to close in on that area

[24:49] in my humble opinion. >> I agree. I agree.

[24:55] chain link or nothing. >> That's how I feel. That would

[24:59] » that would be chain link or set back to the structures.

[25:01] » Yeah. >> What's that?

[25:03] » Three feet or nothing. He can go opaque if it's

[25:05] » right. It could be privacy but shorter. >> Yeah. Right.

[25:08] » That would help a lot with the dogs actually. But

[25:11] » can he go six foot chain link and leave it open?

[25:15] » No. Not in the front four foot limit in the front yard.

[25:22] » Don't know what their dogs are, but Well, did he even say dogs? Because I

[25:26] thought the issue was kids and he's claiming

[25:28] » insurance. Yeah, >> right. It was insurance. They had a

[25:34] trampoline or something. >> Well, that's a whole different issue,

[25:38] [laughter] >> cuz now we're dealing with why he needs

[25:41] a privacy fence. I mean, it's been a while since I did

[25:44] civil, but [laughter] >> yeah,

[25:48] » so that makes sense. The insurance recommendation. I'm sure their insurance

[25:52] company wants them to keep that. >> So where would you have a trampoline

[25:56] when you have cut in six foot privacy fences? [laughter]

[26:01] » Kids would be bone set off the >> right. Yeah.

[26:06] » I >> sounds like you guys are ready for a

[26:07] motion. >> I make a motion to recommend denying the

[26:12] fence appeal. >> Yes.

[26:15] » Is this a recommendation to council or is this us?

[26:17] » This is a recommendation to council. >> Okay.

[26:21] All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[26:23] » Second. >> All right, thank you. A motion from

[26:26] Commissioner Burroughs and a second from Commissioner Shrock to recommend the

[26:30] council to deny the fence appeal.

[26:36] Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say

[26:40] I. >> I.

[26:42] » All oppose? No. >> Motion carries. Recommendation to

[26:46] council is to deny.

[26:51] Last item. Good old 2045 comprehensive plan.

[26:56] [laughter] >> The good old

[26:58] » Okay, let me see. I had the staff report up here somewhere, but Oh, here we go. I

[27:04] should have printed this off because I can't do this along with the uh

[27:07] PowerPoint, but um if you were able to look at some of these uh links, were

[27:12] were most of you able? This is This is a public hearing. We were hoping some

[27:17] public would show up, but uh we all count.

[27:21] » Um if you did you have a chance to look at the uh online items at all? Okay.

[27:28] » Well, we'll go through a PowerPoint so you'll get a kind of an overview of the

[27:32] pro project. >> Um so we started this project in 2024.

[27:37] Um it was the city of Austin and M County which is pretty uh novel uh

[27:42] approach to doing a future land use plan. Um, I think most communities there

[27:50] are different jurisdictions do them, you know, as their budget allows. There's

[27:55] not really a lot of opportunity in general probably to do them together,

[28:01] but I would say that this is probably the best way to do it. Um,

[28:06] not only did we have, you know, additional outreach, but we had, um,

[28:13] just a lot of, uh, you know, additional interactions with our staff, the county

[28:19] staff, Austin utilities, and just finding areas where we we complement

[28:24] each other and where there might be friction, and just being able to either

[28:27] get some of those issues on the table to discuss and then maybe address some of

[28:32] them in our comprehensive plan as well. And then also we were able to do um with

[28:36] impact Austin uh Nick Nabatne was uh the spearheading the community engagement

[28:43] for us and that was just phenomenal having one individual that was really um

[28:49] u taking the lead in the community engagement. Although of course, you

[28:53] know, myself and my counterpart Val Shei at the county were also doing community

[28:58] engagement as well as well as our um our consultants were helping us facilitate

[29:03] those uh contacts as well. Um so since the start of uh the planning

[29:11] process we've had over what I think 12,000 community um interactions uh and

[29:17] that was captured through the project website open houses popup workshops

[29:22] inerson meetings interactive maps surveys uh student engagement advisory

[29:26] meetings uh meetings with uh specific groups uh within Austin the and the

[29:33] public uh input is related to each topic is summarized in their respective

[29:37] chapters. So the all of the information we got from the public is you know

[29:44] looked at and analyzed and our professional consultants planners um

[29:50] with and Mark Nolan here was the one that led the the project on the city

[29:56] side. Um they figure out the way to best make all of these these things that the

[30:02] community wants happen through planning. uh processes whether it's uh you know

[30:09] zoning or transportation recommendations or housing uh solutions. Those things

[30:15] are you know we're we have a certain toolbox. We can't do all of the things

[30:20] to make those happen but we can do the things um within our our specific area

[30:25] of expertise. Um and then again uh let's see going

[30:31] beyond our traditional comprehensive planning the plan also integrates a

[30:34] playbook uh that includes concepts such as uh food city. This will expand expand

[30:40] opportunities for business development, entrepreneurship, community character,

[30:44] tourism, entertainment, arts, culture, agriculture, parks and open space. Um it

[30:50] included concepts for improving downtown and surrounding neighborhoods as well as

[30:54] establishing a regional park. Um this uh primarily was spurred by a desire to um

[31:03] improve our downtown, but also we looked at this with more of a regional lens and

[31:10] also um you know how everything is connected and how the county and the

[31:17] city uh work together to uh to improve things that are going on

[31:24] in our in our downtown. The um draft of the comprehensive plan

[31:30] was published on the project website uh for public review on March 30th. In

[31:36] in addition, we have an online story map version of the plan which is just a

[31:40] shorter interactive version that summarizes the plan and the

[31:43] implementation process um and highlights key recommendations from each chapter.

[31:48] Uh the requested action tonight is um well, we will present the draft

[31:54] comprehensive plan for your review and comment and then request that you

[31:59] forward the draft to Austin City Council for final review and approval. Following

[32:03] adoption, the plan will guide future land use decisions, capital

[32:06] improvements, and policy initiatives with the playbook supporting both near

[32:09] and long-term implementation actions. And um so anyone anyone who wants to

[32:15] live and work in Austin potentially utilize the information in this

[32:19] comprehensive plan. And let's see. So, with that, I'll pull

[32:23] up our PowerPoint and get that started

[32:30] my little arrows here. So, the purpose of the plan is to guide

[32:37] our growth and quality of life for the next 20 years. Um, sets goals and

[32:42] strategies for a range of topics that are communitydriven.

[32:46] um used uh it'll be a you tool used by pretty much as I noted earlier anyone

[32:52] who's living or interested in work uh having a business in Austin um and it

[32:57] should be updated every 12 10 years to reflect changing conditions we're right

[33:02] on right on track we uh did our last comprehensive plan in 2016 and I was

[33:07] here for that process and again it's just like a night and day difference.

[33:12] There's nothing wrong with doing it the way that we did it previously. It's just

[33:16] that this just gives us so many more opportunities to do it collaboratively.

[33:24] So just uh putting that into words here.

[33:32] And then how does it differ from our traditional comp plan or previous comp

[33:37] plan regional collaboration? more robust

[33:42] public engagement, includes the playbook with initiatives that feed into the

[33:46] plan's goals, and shifts the community identity to build on culture,

[33:50] recreation, arts, food, downtown, and tourism. And then I think I can let Mark

[33:55] take it from here. Am I am I into the Yeah, you can.

[34:10] Thanks, Holly. I'm Mark Nolan with SE. Thanks you. Thanks to the commissioners

[34:15] for having me in to speak with you tonight. I I do want to repeat some of

[34:20] what Holly said. This is this, you know, this is part of the adoption process and

[34:24] a celebration of of this planning effort and it really was a pleasure working

[34:28] with staff and the steering committee and the public. And we're going to talk

[34:32] about how all of that came together here. And so I'm going to click through

[34:38] um some of these. Also, some of the other things we looked at in comparing

[34:41] to the previous plan is uh looking at evaluating tax revenue per acre. That's

[34:45] part of that playbook that we had talked about to help determine um the locations

[34:50] potential locations of future development. Again, looking at that food

[34:54] systems approach and the value of of uh agriculture to the county and um also to

[34:59] the city itself. and then identifies a catalytic triad model for a dynamic

[35:05] implementation. We'll speak to that here in a little bit. So the plan itself, if

[35:10] you've had a chance to look at it, it's kind of divided into three general

[35:13] sections. The first section is more the introduction. Um gives some background,

[35:17] talks about the community profile, trends, demographics, etc. And then also

[35:22] summarizes the engagement that that we had experienced during this plan. We'll

[35:28] talk about that in a little bit. This middle section really is the meat of the

[35:32] plan. It's that um more of the core elements of the plan. Land use, housing,

[35:37] economic development, transportation, utilities, and then parks and

[35:41] recreation. We will review these quickly here in a little bit. And then of course

[35:46] where the rubber hits the road the implementation chapter at the end which

[35:51] really talks about identifying action steps responsible parties when those uh

[35:56] can occur and what's really wonderful about this process is that some of this

[36:01] implementation has already begun even before the plan had ended.

[36:07] So again, beyond uh traditional comprehensive planning, um this playbook

[36:11] that was developed, it is a very I don't know if you all had a chance to see it.

[36:14] It's a very dense document. It's filled with lots of wonderful information and

[36:19] our partners um Dan Hins at the um velocity group uh and the sub

[36:26] consultants that worked with him played a real key role here with this with this

[36:29] plan for both the city and the county. I want to make sure that they they get

[36:32] their kudos for putting this playbook together, looking at branding, food

[36:37] systems, again, downtown tourism, arts, economics, open space, and parks in a

[36:43] little bit more detail. Um that was then incorporated into the rest of the

[36:48] planning chapters. And so this is the vision statement that

[36:53] the community developed along with our uh planning advisory committee. I'll

[36:58] just go ahead and read this. The city of Austin is a vibrant and diverse

[37:01] community offering a rich blend of culture, education, and nature. It's a

[37:06] place where people are connected by a strong sense of community and history.

[37:09] It fosters innovation, inclusivity, and tradition, making it an ideal place to

[37:16] live, visit, work, and start a business.

[37:22] And so, um, what how all of that came together started with community input.

[37:27] Again, looking at demographic and market research and and looking at current

[37:31] conditions and trends in future forecasting for growth combined with

[37:35] some of the best practices that our team brings to the table and ends up with the

[37:39] overall goals and strategies for the planning process. And the way that those

[37:43] are kind of determined is everything starts again with engagement. And

[37:47] through engagement and working with staff and the steering committee, we

[37:52] come up with that plan vision. And then that plan vision is re is reflected

[37:56] throughout each of the chapters by a set of goals. So for example, example that

[38:00] land use chapter will have goals specific to land use but that also

[38:04] support the overall plan vision. And then each of the strategies, there are

[38:08] strategies listed under each goal which are more like action steps to achieve

[38:12] those goals. Again, working towards that 20-year plan vision.

[38:19] And so each chapter is structured in a similar way, each of those core chapters

[38:22] to make the the plan more easily uh digestible uh to a variety of audiences.

[38:28] So we start with Austin today. So existing conditions um summaries of what

[38:34] we've heard from the public that are specific to each chapter and then out of

[38:38] that comes opportunities and recommendations and again those goals

[38:41] and strategies. So, an example of that is in the housing

[38:45] chapter where we've got a quick summary here of some of those existing

[38:49] conditions about housing in uh in Austin. And then followed by some kind

[38:55] of infographics, kind of easy to read and digest information about what we

[38:59] heard from the public regarding housing um and neighborhoods in Austin. Then

[39:05] again, looking at opportunities and recommendations here. This one talks

[39:08] about those districts, experienced districts throughout downtown. And then

[39:13] again some goals and strategies uh at the end of each chapter.

[39:19] And again we just want to revisit uh the playbook again. So uh the chapters are

[39:24] on the lefth hand side um stitching together land flavor in place. Again,

[39:29] this was a very um large effort that the team and the sub consultants put

[39:33] together working with the community on on things that really focus on um

[39:39] systems that tie the whole community that's a city and county together, but

[39:42] then also focusing on implementation and big ideas. So again, those topics that

[39:47] we've been discussing here, tourism uh food system and downtown

[39:54] and some of those playbook elements um that really stand out um from farmland

[39:58] to fork again the food system strategies looking at agriculture and local food

[40:03] production even culinary entrepreneurship uh within the city

[40:07] itself and looking at food access and equity

[40:11] uh tourism and the Austin Mau story. We had a self consultant who kind of really

[40:16] focused on on emphasizing tourism here um and strengthening Discover Austin's

[40:22] capacity and funding. That's a really key point here is looking at funding

[40:25] opportunities for Discover Austin to be able to implement some of these ideas.

[40:29] Looking at festivals, cultural tourism, etc.

[40:35] [clears throat] The section called grounded and welcome really looks again

[40:38] at downtown Austin. this very high level kind of downtown plan for the city. Um,

[40:44] separating the city into different what were called experience districts that

[40:47] have unique identities, looking at mixed use development and housing downtown.

[40:52] Uh, public realm improvement and then uh in the end looking at

[40:56] potential zoning and land use reform to be able to support the recommendations

[41:01] and then arts and culture development as well. This kind of all ties in around

[41:04] that looking at public art and cultural programming and inclusive and accessible

[41:09] arts initiatives. So another key aspect of this and and

[41:14] part of the development of the framework and those other uh food systems and

[41:18] related components were the development of communities of practice that helped

[41:22] advance the food city initiative. And so these were groups that met that formed

[41:26] during the process and and met sporadically throughout the the process

[41:31] and really it talked about access, food uh production, community branding and

[41:36] education. Um and then also there were district councils that were set up for

[41:40] each of those um downtown districts. So there's a a set group of folks that met

[41:46] representing each district along with those communities of practice. And one

[41:50] of the key aspects of this is these are groups that already exist. And the idea

[41:54] here is that momentum was building throughout this process. And you know

[41:58] hopefully this that momentum could be carried uh through implementation as the

[42:02] plan uh is adopted and implemented over time.

[42:09] So I'm going to try and fairly quickly review each of the chapters a couple of

[42:14] slides a piece. I'm not going to read every every word here, but just wanted

[42:18] to highlight um really about the community engagement in this plan. So,

[42:23] Holly mentioned the total engagement touch points that we've had here. Um I

[42:29] can't overemphasize the um you know, Nick and and that group Impact Austin

[42:36] coming through and and helping us reach just an amazing amount of folks here in

[42:40] the community. This is a list of of of some of those tools that we used to do

[42:45] that. So, of course, a website, in-person meetings, openhouse, we had an

[42:49] email list, social media, schools, etc. So, some of the things that Holly

[42:54] covered in the staff report, and again, um the engagement throughout

[43:00] this process was was really um inspiring. So over 5,000 individual

[43:06] visitors to the website, 16,000 interactions. That's

[43:10] persontoperson interactions throughout various um meetings, over 100 meetings,

[43:15] workshops, tableabling events, um etc. Some of you folks came to some of those.

[43:20] We had over 100 comments on our map. Our project advisory committee met 11 times.

[43:26] We've got a representative here. Thank you, Steve, for coming tonight. Um Steve

[43:30] has been a very active member of that committee and um also had over 400

[43:35] responses to our surveys, just a few photos, in-person openhouse, virtual

[43:41] openhouse. We had an online interactive map tabled

[43:45] at the state fair and

[43:49] » I'm sorry, >> county fair

[43:51] and thank you. Uh also some of those community of practice groups. Um and

[43:56] also uh we had attack. So, this was a combined group between the county and

[44:00] the city that met a handful of times throughout the process just to make sure

[44:04] that we're all coordinating. Um, Austin Utilities also was part of that

[44:08] committee. And then interactive um workshops we had

[44:14] with our project advisory committee as well.

[44:20] So, the land use chapter um covers the future land use of the city of Austin.

[44:26] So this is uh what the land use guidance looks like over the next 20 years. So

[44:32] the 2016 comprehensive plan had these land use categories that you all are

[44:36] probably pretty familiar with. The categories as being recommended right

[44:40] now are fairly similar. Um I think one of the key differences um is the

[44:46] residential land use categories now have mixed residential u categories. uh that

[44:52] mixed allowing um you know corner store, coffee shops, some of those neighborhood

[44:57] type of potential retail uses and other uses that can be more associated with uh

[45:02] a residential neighborhood. Um another um category agricultural was added as

[45:09] well.

[45:12] I won't dive into this um but here is that future land use map. Um, you know,

[45:17] we went through a process of iteration with Holly and city staff, u providing

[45:22] her with an interactive map for staff to use to be able to look at recommended

[45:27] land use changes over the next 20 years. And so that's what this map represents.

[45:41] » The urban influence areas. Thank you. So, um, so the striped areas on the

[45:46] outside of, um, on the edges of this, uh, of this map are what we're calling

[45:52] urban influence areas. Those are areas within the extr territorial jurisdiction

[45:57] around the city. And these areas were determined and identified again along

[46:02] with the county and city staff as well as Austin utilities. Um, and a lot of

[46:08] these were were there are variety of reasons that these areas were chosen,

[46:12] but one of them is is being able to serve these areas with utilities um,

[46:16] without trying to leapfrog into other areas um, as well as some existing

[46:22] information that city staff had about interest in some of these areas. So, um,

[46:27] so that's what we identified alongside with the county.

[46:30] » So, what do you mean by that? Those are areas you've targeted for annexation. Is

[46:34] that what you're saying?

[46:38] So these were areas where there were potentially concerns about um so if

[46:43] annexation was technically yes annexation potentially

[46:49] in the future it might be decades into the future but these are areas where as

[46:54] Mark had noted um there's infrastructure available um whether it's water uh sewer

[47:01] um or there may be instances where there may be a neighborhood that's existing

[47:06] ing that is struggling with their existing um on-site septic systems. Um

[47:13] and they don't really have any options other than to either um use a holding

[47:18] tank or um connect to city sewer. So yeah, I mean some of these areas, I mean

[47:24] right now it's just not feasible to provide uh sewer or other utilities, but

[47:31] um just by kind of mapping this out, this kind of helps everybody get on the

[47:35] same page that um so you're saying both the city and the

[47:41] county agree that in terms of of planning in

[47:47] the future to assume that these areas would someday be part of the city and

[47:51] Austin Utilities. Yeah. Areas where they >> territory.

[47:54] » Yeah. Where they could extend water or uh other, you know, other gas, electric.

[48:00] » Would that be a forced annexation >> as a property owner in that area? A

[48:05] couple properties. >> You know,

[48:07] » I'm now concerned. I would say that we we have we have done big projects with

[48:14] multiple homeowners and there may be a couple of homeowners that don't want to

[48:19] be annexed in that do end up being annexed in. But generally

[48:24] um generally we won't force people to annex in unless they're you know they

[48:28] they really have to because they don't have any other options. the county is

[48:32] typically, and I don't want to speak for them, but they're not going to really

[48:36] uh generally agree to holding tank option.

[48:42] Um, no, they won't. >> So, they're [laughter] so they're gonna

[48:45] » they're just going to say you're, you know, either connect to sewer if it's

[48:49] available or if we can do a project in the future. Usually, we try to uh apply

[48:54] for some grants that are available through the state to try to defay the

[48:57] cost of extending sewer. Um but >> right, but if you're in a situation

[49:02] » we do wanna but we do want to talk about also um getting on the same page with

[49:07] Austin Utilities and trying to figure out ways to get water to these

[49:11] neighborhoods too because in the future when there's further development, it

[49:16] kind of prevents it from happening when there's no water available. So, we're

[49:21] just trying to get all on the same page and and [snorts] some of these areas

[49:24] just really are, you know, in, like I said, in difficult

[49:29] circumstances. >> Well, didn't we deal with this with that

[49:32] one development last year out by Old Mill area?

[49:36] » Back road. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[49:38] » If we're going to develop those areas, then part of that piece has to be they

[49:42] have to become part of Austin Utilities Service T.

[49:44] » Yeah. I would say when we do look at multiple parcels, there's always, you

[49:48] know, a certain number of people that definitely want in and there's a certain

[49:52] number of people that don't. And so it just kind of ends up having to be, you

[49:55] know, is the majority ready to do it? And if everybody if we don't get enough

[50:00] people to participate, it's just not feasible from a cost expense uh cost

[50:04] perspective. And I'm certainly we're looking at this for future use of

[50:07] potential developments where it's like these are blocks of area that we might

[50:12] be able to put some housing that is desperately needed for the area for both

[50:15] county and city. >> Yeah. And transportation,

[50:18] » right? And the rest of that infrastructure. Yeah. So the idea here

[50:21] is it is a guide plan. So um it's not a prescriptive in that way, but we're what

[50:27] it really does is does help staff um kind of what what where are those first

[50:32] places they can look when those opportunities come up? And this is

[50:34] what's identified now. And I think what was valuable about this process too was

[50:39] getting the county, the city to work together, but but also Austin utilities.

[50:42] I I think um we kind of felt like this um getting everyone at the same table

[50:48] was not something that happened often. And I think hopefully one of the

[50:53] recommendations we have here is getting those agencies together to meet more

[50:57] often to be able to coordinate some of this. And um so I think that was pretty

[51:01] valuable.

[51:10] So, speaking of housing, um some of the things that we heard about housing is

[51:15] is, you know, twothirds of respondents said yes, there is a need for more

[51:19] housing and expanding housing options is a theme that we heard. Um looking at

[51:24] maintenance of properties, uh as well as making sure that new housing matches

[51:29] existing character. Um so some some folks um so 25% responded that there is

[51:36] an adequate supply of property maintained housing choices. So here

[51:39] there's a theme here. Some more additional housing, which is not

[51:42] unusual, right? We're hearing that not just in Austin, but a lot of places

[51:45] right now looking at um some additional housing opportunities and housing choice

[51:50] for folks. And some of those key recommendations um again won't be

[51:54] reading through all of this, but there was a recent housing study that was

[51:57] completed and one of those recommendations is to follow through on

[52:00] the recommendations in that housing study and again looking for

[52:05] more housing options, infill development, U looking at housing

[52:09] downtown. Um and what we mean by downtown and infill is those areas that

[52:13] are already served by infrastructure and if there's opportunities to look at

[52:18] looking at housing that are close closer to destinations that are already served

[52:21] by infrastructure is is more cost effective. Um and in doing so enhances

[52:26] downtown and um also neighborhood character. And also looking at accessory

[52:31] dwelling units again as as a potential option.

[52:38] economic development. Just one quick summary question here about what folks

[52:42] about the city's top priorities for the future should be. Maintain quality

[52:46] schools is something we hear often and certainly in this and for the city of

[52:49] Austin, but also downtown development, looking at new growth in the future and

[52:54] expanding and preserving parks, etc. And some of the key recommendations

[53:00] regarding economic development. And again, this is a piece that was informed

[53:04] by all the good work that urban strategies did in the playbook. Um,

[53:08] making sure that the city can retain and attract businesses and young

[53:11] professionals, getting young families here and and helping them stay. Um,

[53:16] strengthening the downtown, implement that food systems concept, potential

[53:20] downtown hotel was uh certainly discussed quite a bit throughout this

[53:23] process. And uh, again, expanding housing options. Employers are looking

[53:28] for housing options for their employees as a way to attract employees. So

[53:32] there's definitely overlap here in all of these chapters. Housing and economic

[53:36] development is one.

[53:41] Transportation. Um most folks, more than threequarters of of uh folks responding

[53:46] to the survey said they feel safe using existing sidewalks and trails, but about

[53:50] the same amount said um they'd like to see more amenities, more trees, benches,

[53:54] things like that to make that pedestrian experience um more pleasurable. Again,

[54:00] adding more sidewalks, maintaining the roads that the city already has.

[54:03] Maintenance does come up quite a bit in in this chapter. And then improving a

[54:08] sense of safety. And so some of those key recommendations

[54:12] for transportation is build a more connected grid network for all users. So

[54:16] not just roadways but also sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycle facilities. The

[54:21] city does have a complete streets policy was adopted in 2012. Uh recommendation

[54:26] here is to really apply that and maybe uh work on um giving that policy a

[54:32] little bit more weight. Um look at wayfinding and walking and biking in

[54:37] downtown. A couple more recommendations,

[54:43] community facilities and utilities. You know, for as far as the city is

[54:48] concerned, we we did add uh have a couple of survey questions here. In

[54:53] general, it looks like folks are, you know, strongly or somewhat agree that

[54:56] community facilities are wellmaintained and well managed along with utility

[55:01] services as well. So the recommendations here are to prioritize repairs and

[55:06] maintenance to the sanitary system based on the recent sewer evaluation

[55:12] and then also um identify locations where infrastructure is can be

[55:16] efficiently expanded for new development. just talking about that

[55:18] that that is certainly the case here in this chapter and and again what's not

[55:23] listed here but is in the plan is to continue that working relationship with

[55:26] Austin utilities

[55:32] parks and recreation um we heard a lot from the pickle ball folks uh in this

[55:37] process um I will say we work in a lot of communities doing comp plans and and

[55:42] that's very very popular right now a lot of people want pickle courts, but also

[55:47] bathrooms, landscaping, and adult fitness classes in terms of how to

[55:51] program those parks. About twothirds of folks think that the parks right now

[55:56] meet their needs. Um, and along with a variety of uses, but there were some

[56:01] indication that some folks don't feel a strong sense of safety when traveling

[56:05] along some trails. So key recommendations are again to

[56:11] implement um recommendations from the parks, wreck and trails master plan. Um

[56:17] look at really concentrating resources towards improving prominent parks and

[56:21] recreational facilities. So um we did hear from staff and others instead of

[56:25] developing new parks because you have a pretty pretty decent park system right

[56:28] now is to really focus those uh utilities and resources on those those

[56:33] uh prominent parks. enhancing character, improving accessibility,

[56:38] and um looking at the potential of restoring uh plants with some native

[56:44] species to reduce maintenance needs.

[56:50] Then I mentioned implementation. So this is just a snapshot of that

[56:55] implementation table that is in chapter 10. And what we're looking at here is is

[57:01] a matrix of action items. These action items many of them are taken from the

[57:05] strategies that are listed throughout the document. So on the left hand side

[57:11] is what chapter those are in the action item. Then the timeline whether it's

[57:16] near-term, long-term or ongoing level of effort, impact and champion or

[57:21] responsible parties. And what is a little unique about this compared to

[57:25] some other processes is that this uh with some input from staff is sorted by

[57:30] high impact first and then level of effort. So what you're looking at here

[57:35] at the top would be those higher impact lower effort action items to really kind

[57:41] of look at focusing on first in terms of priorities. and and some of those are

[57:46] again both of those top two um rows for example are just working with other

[57:52] partners and continue those relationships which can have higher

[57:55] impacts in terms of results and implementation with a relative low

[58:00] amount of effort in terms of you know there's no construction involved with

[58:03] that there's it's more just making sure people get together and meet on a

[58:06] regular basis >> and can you talk about the catalytic

[58:09] triad a little bit >> sure

[58:12] so in the in our playbook Um this came from Daniel Hines from Velocity Group,

[58:17] but um it is something that is really resonates. Um and I think just even in

[58:22] the way that we approached this project, we um had several uh organizations that

[58:29] helped us fund this project. So it included um the city, the county, um

[58:35] Hormel Corporation, Mayo, and Hormell Foundation. and impact Austin had

[58:40] applied for a grant to the Hormel Foundation to help us um the bulk of the

[58:45] financing for this project. And then also the the idea of this catalytic

[58:50] triad model for implementation or for um seeing these ideas come to fruition or

[58:58] these strategies and goals um is that it is

[59:03] working together with the private sector, the public sector and the

[59:08] nonprofit sector and just really um emphasizing that none of us can really

[59:14] do it on our own. it really has to be a group effort and that doing it that way

[59:21] is going to create um just a a higher likelihood of success in trying to uh

[59:29] accomplish all of these things that we want to get accomplished.

[59:34] It's a really good point and often times we see in this right hand column um

[59:39] oftentimes it's a bunch of city departments that are listed as the

[59:44] champions or primary responsible parties. What's nice about this process

[59:48] that we mentioned earlier about those different committees that met throughout

[59:51] this process, they already exist. You know, maybe some of them need to be, you

[59:56] know, um started up again, but there are others that, you know, there is still

[59:59] momentum behind some of this. And and to Holl's point, it's not just it's not

[1:00:04] just city staff and city departments that are responsible for implementing

[1:00:08] everything. Obviously, there's a role there, a primary role there. Um but

[1:00:11] there's also members of the community that have invested their time and effort

[1:00:14] into this and um have a vested interest in seeing this implemented.

[1:00:24] And I just I also wanted to add that um a lot of times when we finish big

[1:00:30] projects like this and we come back with this um document

[1:00:34] um a lot of people say is this just going to sit on a shelf? Um and it might

[1:00:39] if there's no um investment into it whether it's time or or money or

[1:00:46] whatever it requires. Um, but I also wanted to say that

[1:00:51] when I first came here, there were a lot of things that were

[1:00:55] going on and a few of the things that I've accomplished since I've been here,

[1:01:00] quite a few of the things I was building on things that somebody did before me.

[1:01:05] So, there was with like for example the rental licensing and inspection program,

[1:01:09] there was 10 years of effort put into that before I got here. And then there

[1:01:14] was a lot of effort on my part to implement it, but I could never have

[1:01:18] done it without all the efforts that had taken place before me. So even though

[1:01:22] some of these things may seem like a long way away, it has to start

[1:01:27] somewhere. You have to put these things on paper, the things that the community

[1:01:31] is asking for. And I might be the champion today, but there will be

[1:01:37] somebody else that comes after me. And that's how we make things happen. We

[1:01:41] have limited resources. most of the time. Sometimes we get lucky and get a

[1:01:45] grant or funding partner that might help something happen in the near term. There

[1:01:49] are some things that are maybe more easy to implement immediately, but overall a

[1:01:54] lot of these projects will take time and effort and um I always say like you know

[1:02:00] projects are like you know juggling. Sometimes it feels like you're just not

[1:02:03] getting anywhere. I should say learning how to juggle. You're not getting

[1:02:07] anywhere and then all of a sudden you're doing it. So all of a sudden a project

[1:02:10] comes together because the timing is right. you have the right partners and

[1:02:14] you have been putting all this together making these connections over a period

[1:02:18] of time and that's that's how these things I think uh facilitate

[1:02:23] the uh the ultimate objectives.

[1:02:31] » Thanks Holly. >> So we're nearing the end here. We are in

[1:02:36] the review and adoption process. So, um, we've been working with the community

[1:02:41] and the pack and staff, um, to guide this process, and this process was

[1:02:47] guided by the community, um, with a draft plan that was prepared and then

[1:02:52] presented online at a public openhouse um, that was held at the nature center a

[1:02:58] few uh, weeks back, a few months back. That plan was then revised based on

[1:03:02] input we've received. And we are here now presenting this plan to you all. And

[1:03:09] um hopefully what happens next is then is recommended um with comments or

[1:03:14] without to city council for adoption here in a few weeks.

[1:03:22] So that's our presentation. Thank you for your time.

[1:03:27] » Yes, >> we should probably thank all the people

[1:03:31] that helped [snorts] us. Thank you. Oh, thanks, Steve. Do we can't remember? Do

[1:03:37] we have the list of everybody somewhere? >> It's in the plan. Yeah.

[1:03:39] » Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. But we had uh several people from the community with

[1:03:44] our uh planning advisory committee, which Steve was one, and you were on our

[1:03:49] 2016 as well, >> right? Planning commission, right?

[1:03:53] » Yeah. One of the things Steve said was uh when I first did this in 2016, I

[1:03:57] wanted Austin lower county to be better. And now in 2026, I Austin County to be

[1:04:04] the best. [laughter]

[1:04:14] » All right. So, what you're looking for from us is just a recommendation

[1:04:17] » comments on anything that jumped out or thought should be

[1:04:22] amended or any changes or any additions or any questions about how

[1:04:29] we got to the point where we got to think did a good job.

[1:04:34] [clears throat] >> I have a question on the when I was

[1:04:36] going through the housing section uh specifically the whole umbrella of

[1:04:42] multifamily housing versus our one single family housing is there's there's

[1:04:49] different groups. There's there's town homes, twin homes, condos,

[1:04:57] and there's also duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. I think those are two

[1:05:01] very different groups. I think the distinctive difference is

[1:05:05] whether or not it's owner occupied versus rental property, but in all the

[1:05:10] stuff I look at, it's just all lumped under multi multif family dwelling,

[1:05:16] residential, R2, R3 or whatever. So, how do you

[1:05:21] how do you separate those in the plan or do you separate those because those are

[1:05:25] two totally different animals. >> They are. And I think what taking a

[1:05:30] closer look at the both the recent housing study that was completed as well

[1:05:36] as the additional work we had done in the plan year starts to look at some of

[1:05:40] those trends and demands for house for rental versus owner occupied.

[1:05:44] Oftentimes, you know, a comprehensive plan, yes, it will look at, you know,

[1:05:48] the housing stock and what to um um what to recommend or allow in each district.

[1:05:53] for example, um you know, this plan recommends mixing some of those types a

[1:05:58] little bit, right? Not putting all the, you know, higher density housing in one

[1:06:03] place versus all the single family in another. But I think the market does

[1:06:06] have a lot to do with what happens with with rental versus versus owner

[1:06:12] occupied. And I just there are

[1:06:18] state level discussions about housing and where it should go.

[1:06:24] » Yeah, there's a number of bills floating around this session about pushing out

[1:06:28] statewide policy on what should be local policy in my opinion.

[1:06:34] Uh so how do you

[1:06:39] I mean if you're going to if you're going to push for higher density housing

[1:06:43] and even R1 for example, how do you distinguish between rental versus owner

[1:06:49] occupied or do you

[1:06:54] » I I think that um I don't know that we would differentiate

[1:06:59] between rental versus owner occupied. I mean we do have a rental licensing

[1:07:03] inspection program. So there's some you know as far as building is concerned I

[1:07:07] guess um you know would it probably be based on

[1:07:12] primarily just the number of units would you say like just the density question

[1:07:17] of you know how much density do you want to have in a particular area and then

[1:07:21] how would you get to that density what would you know what type of housing

[1:07:25] would you prefer I mean that's where our you know you would be involved with um

[1:07:31] amending our ordinance unless it become a state statute where it was, you know,

[1:07:37] a statewide policy, but we don't know what going to happen with that quite

[1:07:41] yet. Um, but yeah, otherwise it would be these recommendations would end up in

[1:07:46] our zoning code where we would be, you know, I guess, um, making

[1:07:51] recommendations. I would bring something to you for you

[1:07:54] to review and you would make a recommendation on it.

[1:08:00] Anything

[1:08:04] else? Commissioners, >> I have a question. [clears throat] First

[1:08:08] off, I think the catalytic triad thing is sweet. I'm going to steal that and

[1:08:12] use that. I think that's really cool. Whoever came up with that. Um, but the

[1:08:15] compreh uh complete street policy that was adopted in 2012. Can I get the

[1:08:20] cliff's notes on that or is that can I access that? I'm just curious as to what

[1:08:24] what's that? >> It's in the plan.

[1:08:26] » It's Yeah. Right. Well, apparently [laughter]

[1:08:28] 177 pages. I might have missed a little. >> That's right. We put it in the plan.

[1:08:31] It's also It's on the website. It really is. And and maybe speak more to it or

[1:08:36] maybe Stephen could if you were here, but the um a lot of communities adopted

[1:08:40] complete streets policies in the teens um and cities and counties which um and

[1:08:47] the cities is it's really just about a page or two, right? It's it's a it's a

[1:08:51] brief policy that council adopted back in I say 2012.

[1:08:55] » Yeah. >> Yeah. And it really looks at

[1:08:58] implementing are considering improvements for other modes other than

[1:09:02] just vehicles. And that doesn't mean every street has a bike lane. It just

[1:09:06] means that you really have to consider and a lot of these are ADA improvements

[1:09:10] and things like that. Um, and what the recommendations really look at is is

[1:09:15] implementing that policy even for even utility improvements. Whether you're,

[1:09:21] you know, you're working at an intersection, you're doing a road

[1:09:24] improvement project and look at ways to improve the pedestrian conditions there.

[1:09:28] even if it means ADA compliant ramps, things like that.

[1:09:33] » Yeah, I would say our original policy was developed uh because we had a

[1:09:37] council that was very passionate, certain council members that were very

[1:09:40] passionate about um uh sustainability. Um they're also very passionate about

[1:09:46] the rental licensing inspection program, but the sustainability piece was where

[1:09:50] the complete streets came from. And then also um I think there was a period where

[1:09:55] the Minnesota Department of Transportation was encouraging those

[1:09:59] kinds of pedestrian uh facilities and then that could feed into maybe some

[1:10:04] grant opportunities and um we had been involved in a a voluntary program called

[1:10:10] Greenep Cities with the state. Um, and then that had a lot of different

[1:10:15] sustainability things that they just had like lists of things that you would, you

[1:10:20] know, complete to make it to a certain step, you know, and so we made it to

[1:10:23] like three steps within the program, but we're not as active with that now that

[1:10:26] those council members are no longer here. But, but that's kind of how it was

[1:10:30] developed and then it sort of, you know, sort of waxed and waned over time as to

[1:10:35] whether it was, you know, seen in a favorable way or an unfavorable way. Of

[1:10:39] course, when a number of constituents come in, like the gentleman who is here

[1:10:43] right now, they did a trail along Fourth Drive um as well as expanding the street

[1:10:48] and then they lose part of that public rightway that feels like your property,

[1:10:53] but it's really public right away. And so there's just so a lot of people come

[1:10:57] in and they're upset about it and then it doesn't happen and even though we

[1:11:01] have this policy. So, I think we're just talking about let's just have this

[1:11:05] policy and then we don't have to have to weigh it back and forth every time we

[1:11:10] decide. We just say this is our policy and and we will put sidewalks in when we

[1:11:15] have a reconstruction. >> Okay. Thank you. I needed I I was

[1:11:18] actually reached out to by a couple people that live in areas where there's

[1:11:21] ditches in front of their homes, no sidewalks, and they're they don't want

[1:11:24] sidewalks. So, I can maybe give them a little answer now as to

[1:11:29] how that will work. Thank you.

[1:11:41] I think it's amazing the work that was put into all this.

[1:11:45] » There's a lot to it. >> It's a lot to think just seeing all the

[1:11:48] collaboration across not just county and city which always get along

[1:11:56] um but also the buyin from like the private companies. I think that's really

[1:12:00] key. Um, so I really appreciate everybody who volunteered to do this.

[1:12:05] It's a lot of work and I know you guys put a lot of time and effort into it.

[1:12:10] Um, but I think it's it's a good plan. I think there's a lot I I like the topics

[1:12:15] that are covered. I think we're always going to have some conflict between some

[1:12:19] of them. There's always the we want business downtown, but we also like

[1:12:23] green space. So, what do we do when those two conflict? Um, the and the bike

[1:12:29] trails and all of that kind of stuff. And then at the end of the day, it's

[1:12:32] always a cost. What do we want to spend our tax dollars on? And so I think

[1:12:37] that's constant communication, but this is always a good guideline to start

[1:12:41] from. Um, so I I'm I'm excited for that future.

[1:12:50] » My opinion of uh of the name comprehensive plan, it truly is. Um I

[1:12:55] focused on a couple effort or areas and that one was land use or is land use

[1:13:00] housing and economic development and I know Steve's been a real uh driver

[1:13:05] behind the bike trails. I'm a big bike trail fan and use it. I use them, but

[1:13:10] also really attract I mean, and I spent a lot of time at Hormal Foods down in

[1:13:14] Benville, Arkansas, and they just created a place that people want to go

[1:13:18] and and so that to me, you know, it kind of resonated with with with me when I

[1:13:23] read it. But like like like everybody, I mean, I can't believe the amount of

[1:13:27] community involvement for one uh it's truly a plan and it's not, you know,

[1:13:31] it's it's a roadmap and I just think it's some really good good work and I I

[1:13:36] do commend everybody that I was never a part of it. Maybe they didn't want me.

[1:13:40] They never asked me. I'm retired. I got some time on my hands. But um I just

[1:13:44] think that there's some really great work in this thing. And like like Pete

[1:13:47] said, it's 174 pages. It's a lot of stuff, but it's a lot of really good

[1:13:52] stuff. So thank you. >> We still have to implement. So

[1:13:56] » you're newly retired. [laughter]

[1:14:02] » So is this an action item for us? Do we need to do anything or you were just

[1:14:07] looking for feedback? Do we make a formal

[1:14:09] » uh yeah just >> recommendation to council

[1:14:14] » recommend it to council for final approval.

[1:14:17] » Okay. Has therefore before we do that has

[1:14:21] there been any negative feedback from anyone?

[1:14:24] I mean judging by the empty seats I'm guessing probably

[1:14:28] » I'm trying to think of >> anything we should consider. there. I

[1:14:33] feel like there's just the normal >> comments

[1:14:37] » resistance. >> I mean, this is often we wait till it's

[1:14:40] done and then we complain. [laughter] >> Well, some sometimes there individual

[1:14:45] like they'll come to an open house and see land use is maybe changed, you know,

[1:14:49] where you the guided use has changed where you live. A lot of questions about

[1:14:54] that. But once you talk with folks and land owners about, hey, this isn't we're

[1:14:57] not changing the zoning code on you. not >> understand that it's just kind of a

[1:15:02] future look. But yeah, I think it's been fairly fairly smooth.

[1:15:10] » I think it's good to have direction and this gives us that.

[1:15:14] I think also, you know, there people have mixed feelings about

[1:15:19] working with the government, whether it's your local government, your state

[1:15:22] government, your federal government, but people do like to be heard, you know,

[1:15:26] and they do like to tell you how they would like things to be. And I don't,

[1:15:31] you know, I'm sure there's some skepticism about what changes will

[1:15:34] happen and how quickly they will happen, but um we couldn't do anything that we

[1:15:39] do without the support of our community. I mean, we have a small staff. You know,

[1:15:44] there are lots of volunteers in our community that um support, you know, the

[1:15:49] efforts that we try to implement to make our community a great community.

[1:15:59] » All right. If there is nothing further from commissioners, we need a motion and

[1:16:04] a second to recommend approval, final approval of the comprehensive plan for

[1:16:09] 2045. the council.

[1:16:12] » So move. >> I'll second.

[1:16:14] » All right. Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Burroughs and a second

[1:16:18] from Commissioner Bartley to recommend the council to approve the final draft

[1:16:22] of the comprehensive plan for 2045. Any further discussion?

[1:16:28] » All in favor of the motion, please say I.

[1:16:30] » I. >> I.

[1:16:30] » All oppose? No. >> Motion carries.

[1:16:35] » Thank you, commissioners. >> Thank you.

[1:16:36] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Holly. And Holly was at the

[1:16:39] um county board meeting this morning for their adoption.

[1:16:43] » Yeah, they did a final app for rule this morning.

[1:16:47] » And this will go next this will go to our um uh work session on Monday so

[1:16:53] council can discuss it freely and then uh for final adoption uh June 1st I

[1:16:58] think is the date.

[1:17:02] » I don't have anything further. Any commissioners have any other

[1:17:06] business? If not, can I get a motion? A second to

[1:17:10] adjurnn. A >> motion to adjurnn.

[1:17:13] » A second. >> Thank you.

[1:17:16] Have a motion from Commissioner Burroughs and a second from Commissioner

[1:17:19] Mayor to adjurnn. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I.

[1:17:22] » All oppose? No. >> Thank you. for journey.

Planning Commission Meeting - 5/12/26

Transcript