Response to CM Casar's question re. Item 39/PUD

[Kathie Tovo]

Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo
Oct. 1, 2015 City Council Agenda
Explanation of Item 39

In yesterday's work session, Council Member Casar asked for the rationale behind requiring a supermajority of the City Council for approval of a PUD when the Land Use Commission recommends denial.

Because this provision of the City Code predates my service on the City Council, I cannot speak to the rationale of the Council that originally adopted this provision. However, as a stakeholder who was heavily involved in the PUD revision process, I can speak to some of the discussions we had regarding the desire to achieve superiority.

Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning aims to produce development that achieves superior community benefits than those which can be achieved under conventional zoning. PUD zoning does this by offering waivers and tweaks to the city code that provide flexibility to go beyond conventional zoning and subdivision regulations.

When the Planning Commission or the Zoning and Platting Commission recommends denial of PUD zoning, it sends a signal that the PUD may be falling short of the city’s goals. PUD is a unique zoning category, and given the level of flexibility it affords, the bar should be high on what actually is considered superior. During the discussion about revising the PUD ordinance, the idea was considered to require a supermajority vote for all PUDs. But that idea was not adopted, in part because our code empowers the Planning Commission to serve as that initial reality check.

The Land Use Commission recommending denial of a PUD is a very rare occurrence. In the time I have served on the Planning Commission and the City Council, I can recall only one time that the Planning Commission recommended denial of a PUD application: a proposal for a very small property on Barton Springs for a single building (the Park PUD, which was colloquially referred to as the "Pico PUD.") The Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD, which triggered a supermajority vote at Council. The applicant was able to secure a supermajority approval (6-1) at the City Council.

That being said—as we discussed at work session, this resolution does not grant a new power of the Land Use Commission. The ability to trigger a supermajority by recommending denial of a PUD already exists in the City Code. This resolution would only treat properties that are currently un-zoned in the same manner that a property that is already zoned would be treated.

State law permits cities to trigger a supermajority ON ANY ZONING CASE if the Land Use Commission recommends denial. My resolution did not go that far, but perhaps Council should consider that broader step. My resolution seeks only to restore some equity in how residents are treated—regardless of whether they live next to zoned or un-zoned land.

Thank you for the suggestions several of you brought forward at work session; my staff have revised the resolution and are reviewing these changes with our three co-sponsors.

Best,

Kathie Tovo

[Bobby Levinski (2015)]

As Mayor Pro Tem Tovo mentioned above, the resolution has been revised to reflect the dialogue at the Work Session:

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 171649.pdf

This revised resolution will be submitted as new backup material for Item 39.

- Bobby

[Greg Casar]

Thank you very much, Mayor Pro Tem. I appreciate this detailed response.