CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Public Hearing May 05, 1961 7:30 Ρ.Μ. Auditorium 390 390 The meeting was called to order with Mayor Pro-tem Palmer presiding. Roll call Present: Councilmen Bechtol, Perry, White, Mayor Pro-tem Palmer Absent: Mayor Miller Present also: Councilmen-Elect, Mr. Bob Armstrong and Mr. Louis Shanks City Manager, Mr. W. T. Williams, Jr.; City Attorney, Mr. Doren R. Eskew; and Director of Planning, Mr. Hoyle Osborne Present also: Members of the Planning Commission: Mr. David Barrow, Mr. Doyle Baldridge, Mr. Emil Spillman, Mr. S. P. Kinser, Mr. Howard E. Brunson, Mr. W. Sale Lewis, and Mr. Pericles Chriss Present also: Chamber of Commerce: Mr. Ed St. John, President, and Mr. Dick Mathias, Secretary Mayor Pro-tem Palmer opened the hearing on the Austin Development Plan, stating the Charter had been amended on January 31, 1953, whereby the City Council was instructed to adopt a Master Plan. In 1954 a consultant was employed to study the Austin Plan. The Plan Commission took the information and was to recommend to the City Manager, and the City Manager was to submit his recommendation to the Council. The Charter also provided for public hearings before the plan was finally adopted. MR. DAVID BARROW gave a brief history of the plan, and stated the Council had adopted one phase--the thoroughfare plan and right-of-way widths for streets. The Plan consists of three phases of the development, and three maps will display these phases--(1) land use; (2) circulation or transportation; and (3) public facilities. In addition to the maps, there are written statements of policy or standards which will accompany them. He pointed out some changes in the plan since it was recommended some time back. He pointed out the flexibility of the plan, and the recommendation that it be annually reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council. He stressed the residential and educational character of the city. Mr. Ed St. John added that there was interest in industrial development. Councilman Bechtol stated besides governmental, residential and educa- tional characteristics, there are recreational--tourism--military, and light industrial developments that must be considered. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 393 393 MR. RUSSELL ROLAND inquired of the study given to the utilization of property owned by the City for the location of any of these public facilities, and whether or not outside help would be considered on this. The City Manager stated a complete inventory of land was completed, and passed around to the Departments to determine whether or not they might have need for any of it; and in some cases it was found some could be used; and this had been taken into account generally in the studies. The Mayor Pro-tem stated in many instances areas were zoned commercial and it would be some time before development took place. One common complaint from people is that they purchased their property not knowing it was next to commercial. He said when they were put on notice in advance, they knew it would be a calculated risk to build. He listed some of the city-owned property and stated its uses. MR. J. H. MORTON asked if the industrial area in and above the Colorado River represents an area that will be changed considerably from its present status, or if it means this now represents what is there and if the character will be the same as it is now. (Area from the Interregional Highway around the river to 19th Street.) He asked if the plan anticipated that this be converted into an industrial area. It was stated it did. Mr. Morton asked what made this land more desirable for this development than that to the west, and if the land west of the town lake was such it could not be developed industrially. He noted the grey area extended in one direction. The Director of Planning stated the topography was the main thing; however, beyond Congress Avenue running from the Railroad up to 6th Street west to Lamar there was industrial property. The City Manager stated this was semi-industrial--warehouse property along the railroad frontage, but was limited by the terrain in that it could not be used for large industrial plants. Mr. Morton discussed industrial uses running into residential areas. The Director of Planning explained this in line with the plan, stating the Plan indicates the approximate location where demarkation between residential and indus- trial should occur based on the existing facilities and topography. The City Attorney pointed out industrial development depended upon rail transportation which is available in this location; it requires sewage disposal facilities, which are available. He also pointed out this location was not the only industrial area but provisions were made for industry in the north and south parts of the City. It was brought out the areas Mr. Morton had asked about were zoned in 1948 and earlier. Mr. Barrow stated he thought the Council would like to maintain the attitude that any opposition to any specific recommendation is what it wants to hear and to consider. MR. WESLEY PEARSON stated the Department heads had a 10 year projected plan at the time he voted to order this Master Plan project, and stated he hoped the Council saw fit to go ahead and adopt this plan before long, as it is a very fine project and coordination of the different plans the Departments had. He believed the plan would save the citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars. As to sidewalks he stated possibly subdividers would be required to put them in in new subdivisions. MR. LANDON BRADFIELD noted a few things that needed to be worked out. (1) Intermixing of residential zoning in an industrial area. He stated industrial development was the slowest process in the world. Travis County in 1935 had less CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 394 394 industrial activity than any county of its size in the United States. He did not believe a large area like is designated (in the north part of the city) should be set aside for another 20 years and exclude residential development from it. (2) The matter of off-street parking. He stated this ordinance was stifling the possibility of large buildings near the center of town. This needs some thought to be given to the ordinance on off-street parking. (3) The subdivision ordinance. He said the sidewalk question is one that should be gone into thoroughly before the Plan is adopted. Mayor Pro-tem Palmer stated this was the purpose of this public hearing. He stated the Council had recognized the problem of off-street parking requirements in construction in the down-town area and extended that area. DR. W. ASTOR KIRK inquired about the airport planning and asked why the runways were not extended so that the City could have the jet planes. It was brought out that Austin was a feeder line into the jet lines, and that the present runways can accomodate some of the jets now. It was also brought out that a number of aircraft being made now does not require long run-ways. The City Manager stated Austin was not a point of origin; but as time goes on, and if Austin could support non-stop flights to greater distances, the runway space required for such aircraft would be in the capability of our present airport; if not they could be ex- tended through land the city owns. MR. VIC MATHIAS suggested that an attempt to explain to the people who feel that this plan was a cut and dried blue print which would have to be followed to a letter, that it is subject to changes. MR. ED ST. JOHN stated the Chamber of Commerce stands ready to assist the city in formulating the Master Plan acceptable to all citizens for the economic value to the City. MR. KINSER stated the Plan Commission had worked many hours on this, and he commended the Chairman, MR. DAVID BARROW. The meeting ended at 10:00 P.M. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AM Mayor Pro-tem