[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.