Minutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosewood Neighborhood Contact Team Monthly Meeting June 15, 2006, 6:15 - 8:00 p.m. Conley-Guerrero Senior Activity Center Present ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Rivera, Gilbert Rivera, Michael Emery, Angela Miller, Ryah Christensen, Linda Hutchins, Craig Johnson, Richard Weiss, Mocha Jean Herrup, Mahala Guevara, Judith Clarkson, Shelby O'Brien, Richard Vogt and Dusty McCormick; members of the Boggy Creek Planning Team: Girard McKinney, Gordon Bennet, and Bo McCarver; Laura Patlove, City of Austin. Old Business ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Minutes from May meeting approved. 2. The group reviewed and approved the letter to the church planned at Harvey and 12th street, stating our current opposition to any change in the neighborhood plan, and our interest in the further developments on that property. 3. The Neighborhood council has approved RNCT's Downs Field letter. New Business ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Jane has been unable to contact the developers planning to build East Austin Plaza at Oak Springs and Airport, to ask them for more details about that future site, which is situated on a spring that has been designated a "water feature" in the neighborhood plan. We are noting, for the record, that they have not responded to our request for information. 2. Richard Weiss has formally stepped down as secretary, noting a possible conflict of interest once RNCT becomes an official nonprofit, because Mrs. Weiss directs non-profit funds given by the city. Jane asked Ryah if she would serve as secretary, and she agreed. All present approved the motion. Redeemer Church ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The remainder of the meeting was dedicated to the discussion of Redeemer church, and the RNCT group was joined by members of the BCPT, several church representatives (names?), and Richard Suttle, a city liaison aiding the church in its discussions with the city and neighborhood groups. According to Mr. Suttle, the church tried to distill the information they received from former neighborhood meetings and discuss those issues with the church members. The issues they defined and responded to are as follows: Q: Is the Featherlight property the right place for a church? A: The church members are committed to that property. Q: Is it necessary to have an 80' bell tower and 60' steeple? A: The church is willing to concede the bell tower (erase it from the plans altogether) but needs the 60' steeple for its acoustics. They hope that we will be willing to support the 60' height variance if it only applies to the church footprint and not the rest of the property. Within its campus, the sanctuary will be the only 60' building, serving as one side of a four-sided compound whose center will serve as a traditional cloister (the other buildings will be for educational and recreational purposes). In addition to excluding the bell tower from the plans, they have now set the sanctuary back from the road, and the parking lots next to the road. They are also hoping that we resolve this issue by the next meetings of both the Board of Adjustments (July 10th) and the Planning Commission (June 27th). Members of the RNCT and the BCPT responded to Mr. Suttle's presentation with the following questions/concerns, and received the following answers: Q: Does Redeemer church serve the local neighborhood? A: Membership includes some folks from the neighborhood as well as all over Austin, and even surrounding communities outside of Austin. They currently meet at Concordia. Eventually they hope to serve a congregation of 800 members. Q: How much of the Featherlight property does the church campus cover? A: The Church campus will cover approximately 6 acres of the 11-acre property. Q: Would allowing the 60' sanctuary set a dangerous precedent for further development on the property and in the area in general? (Currently, the Featherlight property is zoned at 40') A: The church will only be seeking the height variance for the footprint of the sanctuary. And, given the push for high-density development in the area (Cap Metro transport stops coming soon), and the 60' height limit allowed to nearby developments, it wouldn't be, by itself, a precedent. Apparently, the city had "offered height" to the church and other developments in the area, but the church did not accept in deference to the neighborhood. Q: Could parking be located towards the back, instead of the front of the property? A: The church would like to know what the Planning teams think is best, given future parking needs Cap Metro commuters. Q: Could the parking lots have a mixed use (i.e. basketball courts)? A: The church is open to incorporating community ideas into the design. Q: Many on the planning teams feel that the real heart of the issue is that the church bought the Featherlight property with well thought neighborhood plans already in place, stating that the communities desired that property (the largest undeveloped property in the area) to have a 40' height restriction and incorporate mixed use SMART growth ideals, including affordable housing. This is why, even if the neighborhood does accept the church, the other half of that property is so important. If the church were willing to commit to directing development on the other half in accordance with the neighborhood plans, then the planning teams would be much softer regarding height/use restrictions the church is wishing to change. So, what is Redeemer willing to give to the neighborhood? And... Q: Could Redeemer think about the Featherlight property as a whole development with the church incorporated into its midst? Q: Could the compound become an extension of community use? Maybe with a portion dedicated to maintaining community culture and cultural activities? A: The church is willing to discuss the development of the other half of the property, as well as the inclusion of the larger community in its resources (such as the educational and recreational centers) on the church campus. They need concrete ideas from the planning teams. Next Steps ---------------------------------------------------------------------- At this point, Redeemer representatives left the room, so the Planning Teams could discuss the "next steps" in private, identified as: 1. Ask Redeemer to put in writing and pictures its ideas as to how to incorporate the church campus into the neighborhood plans. 2. Participate in a Cap Metro session to get a better idea of the future transportation development along Manor Rd. and MLK Blvd. 3. Convene a Boggy Creek/Rosewood special meeting to collect and define specific ideas/demands for Redeemer Church to consider in its overall development plan.* The group told Redeemer of its decision to follow this last course of action, thus postponing the Board of Adjustments and Planning Commission presentations. A date for the special Rosewood/Boggy Creek meeting will be announced. *Meeting adjourned*