* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:03]
          UH, 
          [Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
LET'S GO AND BRING THIS, UH, FINALLY COMMISSION, UH, ON MARCH 23RD. 
          UM, TO ORDER IT SAYS 6:02 PM. 
          UM, QUICK ROLL CALL AND, UH, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONER COX IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT WE'LL JUST GO DO THE ROLL REAL QUICK. 
          UM, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I STATE YOUR NAME. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, COMMISSIONER NEWEST MEMBER, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, UH, COMMISSIONER HEMPEL, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UH, COMMISSIONER YANNIS, PALITO, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, COMMISSIONER SHEA, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND HERE'S TRULY MR. SHAW. 
          AND THAT BRINGS US TO A TOTAL OF 11. 
          WE STILL HAVE, UH, TWO, UH, WELL, THEIR NEXT MEETING, WE MAY HAVE THE OTHER TWO COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, SO WE MAY HAVE A FULL HOUSE NEXT TIME. 
          UH, OH, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE, I THINK WE HAVE THAT. 
          YES, UH, ARE EX OFFICIO MEMBER, DON LAYTON BURWELL HERE WITH US THIS EVENING. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEWEST, UH, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONER FROM, UH,  UM, HERE AND JUST WELCOME COMMISSIONER COX. 
          AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE IF YOU, YES, UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU, WE ALWAYS NEED, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A FULL HOUSE. 
          UM, BUT I'D LIKE, IF YOU HAVE A FEW, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, JUST INTRODUCTORY WISE, JUST, UM, THIS IS YOUR MOMENT. 
          NO PRESSURE, BUT, UH, YEAH, SURE. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UH, I HAVE TO REMEMBER TO CALL YOU, UH, CHAIRMAN SHAW INSTEAD OF W WE LIVE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO, UH, WE, WE SEE EACH OTHER AROUND QUITE A BIT, BUT, UH, BUT MY NAME IS, UH, GRAYSON. 
          UM, I AM THE, UH, PLANNING, UH, COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 10. 
          I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE WITH Y'ALL, UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO, TO ALL OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA GET OURSELVES INTO. 
          UM, JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME. 
          I'M A, I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEER BY TRAINING. 
          I MANAGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WITH A SPECIALTY IN TRANSPORTATION AND AIRPORTS. 
          UM, I, UH, I WAS, UH, I KIND OF GOT MY STREET CRED WITH THE GROWTH PUD. 
          UM, ANYONE WHO'S BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH FOR, OR KEEP TRACK OF CITY HALL LONG ENOUGH, UH, THEY KIND OF KNOW THE GROVE. 
          I LIVE ACTUALLY RIGHT NEXT TO THE GROVE. 
          UH, SO THAT KINDA GOT ME ALL THE EXPOSURE I EVER WANTED TO, UH, THE CITY'S ZONING PROCESS. 
          SO ANYWAYS, I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE, UH, AND LOOKING FORWARD, LOOKING FORWARD TO EVERYTHING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COX. 
          AND, UH, WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME, UH, COMMISSIONER CONSCIOUS FOR YOU KIND OF GOING THROUGH AS WE, LIKE, I LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS CHALLENGING HERE, UH, DOING THIS VIRTUALLY. 
          SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE OUT THERE THAT ARE PART OF THE HEARINGS AND FOR YOU, I'LL KIND OF STEP THROUGH WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, THE FIRST OF ALL, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE LIST OF JUST REMINDERS AND, UH, THIS IS IMPORTANT. 
          WE USE A COLOR CODED KIND OF, UM, THINGS TO VOTE. 
          EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN WAY OF SHOWING THEIR FLARE AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT IT. 
          SO REMINDER THAT EVERYBODY, UH, HAD YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING, UH, REMAIN MUTED, UH, WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED, UH, KEEP IT UP. 
          AND IF I TOTALLY MISS YOU, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE NOT NOW IDENTICAL ORDER, AND SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERYONE. 
          UH, JUST GO AHEAD AND USE YOUR MICROPHONE IF I'M JUST NOT SEEING YOUR HAND, UM, FOR THE PARTICIPANTS OUT THERE, STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. 
          UM, AND IF YOUR ITEM IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, UH, WE WILL, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY ON THE LINE. 
          UH, YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT, UH, WHEN WE, UH, FROM WHEN WE TAKE UP THAT ITEM. 
          SO THE FIRST, UH, ACTIVITY, UH, FOR TODAY, UH, WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF, UM, VOTE, UH, DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          AND BASICALLY, UH, IN THAT CONSENT AGENDA WILL INCLUDE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. 
          UM, AND WE'LL LOOK AT, UH, WE'LL LOOK AT A CONSENT, UM, THOSE 
          [00:05:01]
PARLIAMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT CONSENT AGENDA. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'LL BE THE FIRST ACTIVITY, UH, THAT WE'LL TAKE ON TODAY. 
          SO WHAT I'M GOING TO START WITH IS IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT HAS, UH, ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES, UH, UPON REVIEW, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH THAT, UH, HAVE CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? SO HEARING NONE, UH, WE'LL GO AND PUT THOSE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS, UM, AS POSTED. 
          AND NOW I'M GOING TO, 
          [Reading of Agenda]
UH, ONE READ THROUGH EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND THIS WILL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE, SO, UH, WANT TO START WITH ITEMS, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS, B ONE, UH, THE ONE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THIS HAS BEEN POSTPONED. 
          UH, THAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 13TH. 
          IT'S THE FIRST REQUEST. 
          UH, THIS IS AN NPA 2021 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO ONE DOT OH ONE DOT S H PARKER APARTMENTS. 
          AND THIS WAS, UH, TO TAKE THAT, UM, PROPERTY FROM CIVIC TO MULTI-FAMILY. 
          UH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          WE HAVE B2, UH, WHICH IS THE COMPANION REZONING. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, THIS IS POSTPONED POSTPONE UNTIL, UH, APRIL 13TH. 
          AND, UH, THIS IS C 14 DASH 2021 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO EIGHT. 
          THAT S H PARKER APARTMENTS. 
          THIS IS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING S3 NP TO END AT FOUR NPE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS MP3 NP ITEM B3, UM, IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, UH, C EIGHT 14 DASH 2020 DASH OH ONE ZERO FOUR SPRINGDALE GREEN CODE. 
          AND THIS IS A T R M U C O N P AND R R NP TO PUD AND P IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          AND AGAIN, WILL, THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM, UH, BEFORE IS A REZONING IT'S ON CONSENT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          SEE 14 2021 ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE THREE SEVEN ZERO SEVEN GOODWIN AVENUE. 
          AND THIS IS FOR CSM U N P TO CSM, UV AND P MOVING ON TO B FIVE. 
          THIS IS, UH, A PLAT VACATION IT'S ON CONSENT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND C EIGHT S DASH SEVEN TWO ZERO ZERO NINE. 
          UH, DAC IS THE WEST END EDITION RE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS TO A THROUGH FIVE, A IN THE RESIDENTIAL OF RE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS, ONE THROUGH 14 BLOCK, A, UH, VACATION. 
          AND, UM, AGAIN, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          WE MOVE ON TO ITEM B SIX SITE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WAIVER. 
          WE ARE TAKING THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION IT'S SP 2020 ZERO THREE SIX FOUR C LESSON LANE, UH, VS. 
          AND, UM, WE'VE GOT, UH, THIS IS THE APPROVAL OF A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER FROM LVC 25, TWO ONE ZERO SIX THREE FOR DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY PONDS TO ENCROACH INTO THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. 
          IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND FOR ITEM D SEVEN, UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE I CAPTURED THE NOTE HERE. 
          UH, THIS IS UNCONVINCED, UH, AND IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AS NOTED IN THE BACKUP. 
          AND THIS IS RECOMMENDED, AS I SAID, BY STAFF IT'S ITEM C EIGHT, J 2020 ZERO ZERO ONE THREE WEST BELTS COMPLAINER. 
          AND, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN, SO EVERYBODY HAS SOME, I'M SORRY, I'M HEARING SOMETHING. 
          NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAVE ITEM B EIGHT PART APPEAL. 
          UH, WE HAVE, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TILL APRIL 13TH. 
          IT'S A SP 2019 ZERO SIX ZERO ZERO C WILDER AND STAFF RECOMMENDS UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, BUT AGAIN, WE'LL HEAR THIS ON APRIL 13TH. 
          [00:10:02]
SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY RECUSALS THIS EVENING? UH, NONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT I READ OFF FOR CONSENT? OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          UH, LET'S SEE. 
          AND I GUESS FOR A PARTICIPANT, UM, WE GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, I GUESS SOMETIMES IF THEY'RE OUT THERE AND, UH, WISH TO PULL AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES HERE CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY, WE'VE LINED OUT OUR SPEAKERS FOR THE, FOR THIS TIME BEING, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO GO AND GO OVER THE ITEMS ONE MORE TIME AND THEN WE'LL, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, SO WE HAVE, UM, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES WE HAVE. 
          UM, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. 
          WE HAVE, UM, ITEMS, UH, B ONE AND P TWO ARE POSTPONED TILL APRIL 13TH. 
          WE HAVE DISCUSSION IS ITEM B3 CONSENT ITEM BEFORE CONSENT. 
          I'M GOING TO BE FIVE. 
          UH, THIS WILL TAKE UP FOR DISCUSSION ON A B SIX ITEM SEVEN B SEVEN IS ON CONSENT AND ITEM EIGHT IS, UH, POSTPONE TILL APRIL 13TH. 
          SO DO I HAVE, UH, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS ALL AT ONCE. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YOU HAVE A LATE REQUEST TO PULL SOMETHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S BACK UP A LITTLE, WHICH ITEM ITEM BEFORE ON GOODWIN? UH, LET ME SEE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, LET ME SEE. 
          WE DO, WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT PRESENT. 
          UH, SO YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT ONE FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          SO WE WERE, WE, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, PULL ITEM BEFORE, UH, FOR DISCUSSION, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER YONIS PAULINA'S REQUESTS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WITH THAT, 
          [Consent Agenda]
UH, CHANGE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          UM, GO AHEAD ONCE AGAIN. 
          UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OKAY. 
          FOR THE MINUTES AND, UH, FRAME CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA. 
          LET'S GO AND VOTE. 
          UH, LET'S SEE. 
          THAT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          ALRIGHT, SO THAT CLEARS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WE 
          [B3. Rezoning: C814-2020-0104 - Springdale Green PUD; District 3]
WILL MOVE ON INTO, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS NOW. 
          AND I GUESS, UH, UH, MR. RIVERA ARE OUR SPEAKERS READY? WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL START ITEM B3, UH, WITH STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          THIS IS HEATHER CHAPMAN WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I'M SORRY, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE SCREEN WHERE I WAS READING, UM, ON THIS ITEM, IT IS C EIGHT 14 2020 ZERO ONE ZERO FOUR. 
          THIS IS MOON AS SPRINGDALE GREEN PUD. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM G R N U C O N P AND R R M P TO P V N P. 
          IT'S ABOUT 30 ACRES AT BASICALLY THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGDALE ROAD AND AIRPORT, AND ALSO SOME CAPITAL METRO RAIL LINE OF WAY STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR P P THE MP. 
          IN ADDITION TO THE SUPERIORITY HEADINGS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UH, THE LATER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDATION, UH, IS SUPPORTING THE REQUESTS WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, 
          [00:15:01]
AS WELL AS THE PROHIBITED USES OF AUTOMOTIVE RENTAL REPAIR AUTOMOTIVE SALES, WASHING OF ANY TYPE DROP OFF RECYCLING COLLECTION, EQUIPMENT, REPAIR EQUIPMENT, SALES EQUIPMENT, EXTERMINATION SERVICES, FUNERAL SERVICES OF COMMUNITY GARDEN, AND SERVICE STATION. 
          UM, AS I STATED, THIS, UH, HAS GONE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. 
          THEY ADDED A COUPLE MORE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY CITY STAFF. 
          AND THEN ALSO THE APPLICANT AGREES TO WORK ON MEETING LEAD AND SUSTAINABLE SITES CERTIFICATION AND INCREASING THE MINIMUM STREET YARD TREES TO AT LEAST THREE CALIPER INCHES INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD TWO. 
          THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS KNOWN FOR BEING PART OF THE FORMER EAST AUSTIN TANK FARM, WHICH HISTORICALLY WAS AN AREAS USED FOR STORAGE OF PETROCHEMICALS FOR SEVERAL DECADES. 
          AND THEY WERE FINALLY REMOVED AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OCCURRED. 
          THIS SITE WAS REMEDIATED IN THE NINETIES THAT NOT TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ON THIS SITE. 
          SO ONSITE RESIDENTIAL IS, IS NOT PERMITTED PER THE LEVEL OF REMEDIATION. 
          SO ONLY OFFICE COMMERCIAL LIMITED INDUSTRIAL LAND USES WOULD BE PERMITTED. 
          THERE ARE ALSO SIGNIFICANT CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE OF WATERWAY, FLOODPLAINS AND WATER QUALITY, BUT BUFFER ZONES. 
          THERE'S ALSO HERITAGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH MAINLY OFFICE, BUT ALSO SOME COMMERCIAL, UH, LAND USES LIKE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL. 
          AS I SAID, IT'S EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGDALE AND AIRPORT, UH, RAIN ROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          PART OF CAP. 
          METRO RIDEAWAY IS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, IN THE MANY YEARS SINCE, UH, THE SITE WAS DECOMMISSIONED AS PART OF THE TANK FARM. 
          AND, UM, IT'S BEEN USED FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY AUTOMOTIVE SALES. 
          AND HAS THESE PRIMARILY VACANT AT THIS POINT SURROUNDING LAND USES IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS SPRINGDALE GENERAL, WHICH WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO FOR S C S C O N P ZONING. 
          IT'S A MIX OF USES. 
          THERE ARE, UM, RESTAURANTS, ART STUDIOS, PROFESSIONAL, UH, OFFICES, A WIDE RANGE OF USES IN THAT DEVELOPMENT FURTHER NORTH, UH, NORTH OF SPRINGDALE GENERAL IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA ZONED SF THREE NP IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS BEFORE YOU GET TO THE RAILROAD. 
          AND, UH, TO THE INTERSECTION IS, UH, A PROPERTY WITH AUTOMOTIVE SALES. 
          IT'S G R M U C L N P ACROSS THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY OUR PROPERTIES ZONED G R N U C O N P AND P U D N P. 
          THESE ARE, UH, PRIMARILY MULTI-FAMILY LAND USES, BUT THERE'S ALSO A FEW OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND SOME LIMITED INDUSTRIAL USES FURTHER SOUTH IS ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS TO THE SOUTHWEST OF SPRINGDALE STATION, WHICH IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO SPRINGDALE GENERAL, UH, THE PUD AND P SITE TO THE WEST AND MORPH OUR PROPERTIES ZONE. 
          THE C S N U N P C S C O M P AND F THREE AND P. 
          THESE ARE, UH, PRIMARILY, UH, DEVELOPED WITH MULTI-FAMILY SOME LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY LAND USES. 
          UH, THE PROPERTY IS, UM, AGAIN, THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY IS PART OF THE PROPOSED METRO GREEN LINE. 
          THERE ARE EXISTING CAP. 
          METRO BUS STOPS ADJACENT TO THE SITE ON SPRINGDALE ROAD. 
          THIS IS WITHIN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND ALONE TO IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY, QUARTER CORRIDORS. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE PURE ONE HUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH IS REQUIRED. 
          AND THEN ALSO PROVIDE PURE TWO STANDARDS. 
          THESE ARE, THERE'S A, AN ATTACHMENT THE EXHIBIT D THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING ARE SOME GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, THREE-STAR GREEN BUILDING RATING, EXTENSIVE REVEGETATION AND RESTORATION AS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. 
          THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PERMITTABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM 90% TO 50% AND PROVIDE TREE MEDICATION MITIGATION AT 50% MORE CALIPER, ANCIENTS THAN REQUIRED BY CODE. 
          [00:20:01]
UH, THE APPLICANT WILL PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BASED ON ANY INCREASED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SINCE THEY, THEY CAN'T PROVIDE ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY INTO THE CITY'S FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          UM, THE CARBON IMPACT STATEMENT IS ATTACHED. 
          IT OUTLINES, UH, SOME OF THE BENEFITS I JUST DESCRIBED IN SOME OF THE WAYS THAT THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THEIR, THEIR GOALS. 
          THE PRIMARY REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 60 FEET, WHICH IS LOUD IN THE BASE FUNDING CATEGORY TO 93 FEET. 
          THAT'S THE MAIN CRUX OF IT TO THAT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD BE RELAXED IN SOME CATEGORIES IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, SETBACKS. 
          AND THEN ALSO THERE WOULD BE MODIFICATION OF CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES AND REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE LADY'S PLAN IS ATTACHED A CHAISE, THE PROPOSED MOVING LOCATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM, AND, UH, MORE DETAILED, UH, CODE MODIFICATION. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          AS I SAID BEFORE, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ADDED A COUPLE ADDITIONAL ITEMS, BUT, UM, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND THE ASK HIM AGREES WITH THOSE, UH, STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST. 
          UH, THE LAND USES THAT I LISTED NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THIS WAS PROHIBITING. 
          THOSE LAND USES WAS, IS INTENDED TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF LADY'S LAND USES THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS TO THE PROPERTY LIKE AUTOMOTIVE USES IT TO NOT MAKE IT, UH, CONTINUE TO BE POLLUTED ON THE SITE. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UM, MIXED USE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE OFFICIALLY ONLY ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMOVE THE MIXED USE, BUT WE ALSO WANT IT TO REMOVE SOME OTHER LAND USES THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR SITE WITH THIS KIND OF BROWNFIELD HISTORY, COMMUNITY GARDENS, UM, AND ELSEWHERE, UM, ANIMALS, ANIMALS WOULD BE STORED OUTDOORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          THE HEIGHT IS THE PRIMARY CHANGE. 
          AND YEAH, WELL, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING MY REPORT EARLIER TODAY, I REALIZED I MADE REALLY INACCURATE MEASUREMENTS IN MY NEXT SECTION REGARDING THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES TO THE NEARBY SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I, I BELIEVE I WAS MEASURING THEM OFF OF, UH, ONE OF THEM OFF OF THE WRONG, UH, STREET DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, WHICH ARE THE ONES, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG OUR AVENUE. 
          THOSE ARE SEPARATED FROM THIS SITE BY SPRINGDALE GENERAL, AND THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET FROM THIS PROPERTY. 
          SO THEY ARE NOT VERY NEARBY. 
          AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS, UH, STAFF FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS, UM, THEY'RE SEPARATED BY A WHOLE OTHER USE. 
          IT BASICALLY JUST AFFECT HOW TALL THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE. 
          THE MEASUREMENT TO THE EAST. 
          I MISTAKENLY MEASURED FROM BERKS WOOD AVENUE INSTEAD OF SOUTH STATUS STREET. 
          THIS SITE DOES, UH, UM, BASICALLY RIGHT UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON SOFT FADO. 
          I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THE AREA CITY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS I KNOW HAVE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS. 
          AND, UM, SOME, I BELIEVE SOME OF THE GOAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITH THE PUD WOULD, UH, ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE FLOODING WITH THE SULFATE OF STREET RESIDENTS. 
          AND SO THEY ARE THE LETTER THAT'S ATTACHED SHOWS SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS ON THAT STREET. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS IN AN IMPORTANT LOCATION IN TERMS OF BEING IN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. 
          AND ALONG TO IMAGINE, IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDORS, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO BE RESIDENTIAL THERE. 
          SO A VIABLE OFFICE COMMERCIAL LAND USE IS, IS SOMETHING THAT A STAFF SEES AS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION. 
          I ALSO HAVE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION 
          [00:25:01]
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS ON SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. 
          AND THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, THANK YOU. 
          AND, UH, I, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION AND REAL QUICK, JUST BEFORE WE START CLOCK ON THE APPLICANT, UM, I SAID I WOULD DO THIS AND I FORGOT. 
          SO THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, WE HEAR FROM STAFF, UH, AND THEY HAVE, UM, SIX MINUTES. 
          WE THEN MOVED TO THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION FOR SIX MINUTES. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE SPEAKERS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, THE ITEM AND WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH AND THEN AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT AT ONE MINUTE. 
          AND THEN FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO THE, UM, ITEM, WE HAVE THEIR PRIMARY, PRIMARY OPPONENT. 
          THEY HAVE SIX MINUTES, AND THEN WE MOVED TO, UH, SIX SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH AND THEN UNLIMITED AT ONE MINUTE. 
          AND THEN AFTER ALL THE FOREIGN AGAINST SPEAKERS, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT REBUTTAL. 
          THAT'S THREE MINUTES. 
          WE THEN VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          AND THEN WE GO TO THE ROUND, ROBIN Q AND A, WHICH IS EIGHT COMMISSIONERS WITH FIVE MINUTES EACH. 
          AND SOMETIMES WE HELP EACH OTHER OUT AND TRYING TO MANAGE THAT TIME AND GET ALL OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. 
          UM, AND, UH, LASTLY, YOU KNOW, WE DEBATE AND THEN, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PROCESS ON EACH ONE OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE, UH, APPLICANTS, UH, UH, PRESENTATION. 
          AND WE HAVE SIX MINUTES FOR THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SOMEBODY WILL LET ME KNOW WHEN THE SLIDE IS UP, PLEASE. 
          I CAN SEE THAT COVER. 
          YEP. 
          YEAH. 
          MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, OUR PROPOSAL WOULD ADDRESS THIS 30 ACRE SITES HISTORY AS A TANK FARM THROUGH AN AMBITIOUS PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SUSTAINABLE BUILDING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER KEY COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN ORDER TO DELIVER ON THIS VISION, WE ARE ASKING FOR PUDS ZONING, WHICH WOULD LOCK IN THESE COMMITMENTS THAT WE ARE MAKING IN AN ORDINANCE WHILE ALSO ALLOWING US TO PROVIDE AN OFFICE PROJECT THAT IS WITHIN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER. 
          AND AS YOU HEARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO, IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS STAFF, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS ALL RECOMMEND THIS PROJECT. 
          AND WE WOULD ASK FOR A FAVORABLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. 
          BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DETAILS, I WANTED TO DISCUSS THE SITE'S HISTORY. 
          AS YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ONE OF THE TANK FARM SITES LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT IN SPRINGDALE, WHERE OIL COMPANIES STORED A NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRODUCTS. 
          THIS SITE, THIS IS THE SITE AS IT EXISTED IN 1940, JUST PRIOR TO BECOMING A TANK FARM, THOUGH, OVER THE SUBSEQUENT DECADES, IT WAS TURNED INTO A TANK FARM FOR OIL COMPANIES AND WAS STILL EXPANDING EVEN AS LATE AS THE 1980S, RIGHT HERE, I'LL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE END OF SAUCIDO STREET, WHICH IS IN THE TOP RIGHT OF YOUR, OF THE AREA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. 
          THIS IS 1984. 
          AND IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT BY 1987, A LARGE NEW TANK HAS BEEN ADDED RIGHT NEXT TO THE NEARBY HOMES. 
          IN FACT, THE TANK FARM COMPANIES WERE POISED TO EXPAND YET AGAIN IN THE EARLY NINETIES, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS LAUNCHED A CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS THESE ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITIES, HEAD ON AND CLEAR OUT THESE DAMAGING CHEMICALS, THEY SUCCEEDED, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE TANK FARMS ARE GONE TO THE SITE WAS IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE. 
          EVEN TODAY, AS MUCH OF THE SITE HAS BEEN REMEDIATED. 
          IT STILL STANDS AS THE LEGACY OF AUSTIN'S ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PAST. 
          I'VE GROUPED THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF OUR PROJECT INTO THREE AREAS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THIS WORK WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT TO SUSTAINABLY BUILT OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH STRUCTURED PARKING SPRINGDALE, GREEN WILL REMOVE THE REMNANTS OF THIS INDUSTRIAL PAST AND HELP RESTORE THE SITE'S NATURAL BEAUTY AND BIODIVERSITY. 
          WE WILL BE RESTORING 15 ACRES OF CREEK AND FLOODPLAIN AREAS WITH OVER 400 CANOPY TREES, OVER 2000 UNDERSTORY TREES AND SHRUBS, AND HER BASE HAS PLANTS. 
          AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, THE SITE STILL HOLDS STILL HAS OLD PIPES AND CONCRETE REMNANTS FROM ITS TIME AS A TANK FARM. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE WILL BE CLEARING THESE OUT, HELPING AGAIN TO CORRECT THE SITE'S INDUSTRIAL PAST. 
          WE ARE ALSO COMMITTING TO A 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT. 
          SPRINGDALE GREEN WILL ALSO BE ON THE FOREFRONT OF INNOVATIVE LANDSCAPING TECHNIQUES PROVIDING ONE OF THE LARGEST USES OF SILVA CELLS IN THE CITY, SERVING 15 TREES. 
          OUR PROJECT 
          [00:30:01]
WILL ALSO PROVIDE TREE MITIGATION ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT CODE OTHERWISE REQUIRES 50% ABOVE THE BASELINE. 
          AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE RESTORATION PLAN THAT I ALREADY REFERENCED. 
          THE NEXT THEME I'LL FOCUS ON IS SUSTAINABILITY IN TERMS OF OUR BUILDING PRACTICES, OUR LANDSCAPING AND OUR WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES. 
          SPRINGDALE GREEN IS PARTICIPATING IN MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS THAT REQUIRE THE PROJECT TO MEET HIGH STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, ENERGY USAGE, EFFICIENCY, AND MORE. 
          WE WILL BE ACHIEVING A THREE-STAR AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM STANDARD, AS WELL AS LEADERSHIP AND ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OR LEAD CERTIFICATION AND THE SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE. 
          WE WILL ALSO BE MEETING AT LEAST 50% OF ALL IRRIGATION NEEDS THROUGH CAPTURING RAINWATER AND AC CONDENSATE. 
          WITH THE USE OF LARGE SYSTEMS, WE WILL BE UTILIZING INNOVATIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 
          WE WILL BE MANAGING OUR ENTIRE WATER QUALITY VOLUME, 100% OF IT THROUGH THESE FORWARD LOOKING AND INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 
          OUR LAST MAJOR THEME IS COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THE VARIOUS WAYS WE ARE HELPING TO MEET IDENTIFIED NEEDS THROUGH THE, THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THIS SITE'S PASS AS A TANK FARM, IT IS CURRENTLY RESTRICTED FROM PROVIDING ANY RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY HOUSING ON THE SITE. 
          AS MS. CHAFFIN JUST NOTED, WE WILL BE MAKING A $700,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE, TO HELP ACHIEVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          EARLY ON, WE LEARNED THAT RESIDENTS WERE EXPERIENCING FLOODING PROBLEMS ON SOCIO STREET TO HELP ADDRESS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AN INNER BASE AND TRANSFER FROM THE TANNAHILL CREEK TANNAHILL CREEK WATERSHED. 
          THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO ALMOST DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE DETENTION FACILITIES IN ORDER TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL STORM WATER, TO HELP RELIEVE THE FLOODING ISSUES IMPACTING RESIDENTS TODAY, URBAN TRAILS, THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING URBAN TRAIL PROJECT. 
          THEY ARE WORKING ON JUST SOUTH OF THE, OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          WE WILL BE CONTRIBUTING $250,000 TO HELP THEM BUILD THAT OUT, TO BUILD OUT THAT PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND FINALLY, WE WILL BE CONTRIBUTING $75,000 TO THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY TO HELP PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE FOR LONG TIME EAST AUSTIN RESIDENTS IN RETURN FOR THESE EXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS, WE ARE ASKING FOR SOME TARGETED CODE MODIFICATIONS. 
          THE MAJOR MODIFICATION, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD IS THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE 93 FEET OF HEIGHT WITHIN 140 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST TRIGGERING SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY AND 70 FEET OF HEIGHT WITHIN 85 FEET OF THE CLOSEST TRIGGERING PROPERTY. 
          I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE CLOSEST TRIGGERING PROPERTIES ON  STREET HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP. 
          THE OTHER MAIN MODIFICATION WE ARE REQUESTING IS TO ALLOW FOR A LIMITED INCREASE IN THE WIDTH OF THE TRAIL ALLOWED WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. 
          FINALLY, WE ARE ASKING TO CODIFY SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS TO THE PROJECT. 
          WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THOSE BE CONFIRMED AND LOCKED DOWN IN THE PUTT ITSELF. 
          SO I BELIEVE THAT I PUT FORWARD A THOUGHTFUL PROJECT WITH EXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO HELP TAKE ANOTHER STEP TOWARD CORRECTING FOUR MAJOR MISTAKES FROM AUSTIN'S PAST THE CITY RECOMMENDS OUR PROJECT. 
          THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS ON SOUTH SADO STREET HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU IN SUPPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF IT. 
          WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO TO RECOMMEND OUR PROJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I GUESS, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'VE GOT SOME NAMES HERE. 
          UM, AND I THINK, UH, UH, D ELLIA, UM, ARE YOU JUST, UH, HERE FOR QUESTIONS OR ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? YES, I'M HERE. 
          I WOULDN'T MIND MAKING A FEW BRIEF REMARKS IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, HI, MY NAME'S JANETTE DALEA, UM, I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER FOR J PAUL COMPANY, WHICH OWNS THE SITE AND IS PUT FORWARD TO SPRINGDALE GREEN VISION. 
          YOU'VE HEARD FROM MICHAEL WEIL IN ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHAT WE PUT FORWARD, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW WE GOT HERE. 
          WE FOUND THIS SITE OVER A YEAR AGO, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE LEARNED ABOUT IT WAS ITS HISTORY AS A TANK FARM AND THE WAY THAT HISTORY IMPACTED BOTH THE SITE ITSELF, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO THAT WAS OUR STARTING POINT. 
          AND FOR, FROM EARLY ON, WE STARTED THINKING THROUGH WAYS WE COULD ADDRESS THE SITE HISTORY AND CHALLENGES TO PROPOSAL YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS A RESULT OF THAT EFFORT. 
          IT'S BEEN AN ITERATIVE PROCESS. 
          WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF WHAT WAS PUT FORWARD. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE TAKING ON COMPLICATED 
          [00:35:01]
PROJECTS, BUT WITH SPRINGDALE GREEN, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TURN A NEW LEAF FOR THIS SITE AND TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S SENSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. 
          WE STARTED MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS VERY EARLY ON TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK. 
          AND WITH PEDS ZONING, WE'D HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEED BACK DIRECTLY INTO THE PROJECT, ESPECIALLY WITH HELPING IMPROVE THE PRE-EXISTING FLOODING ISSUES THAT OUR NEIGHBORS ALONG SOFRITO STREET HAD BEEN FACING. 
          SO I'M VERY PROUD OF THE PROJECT AND WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY. 
          IT'S BEEN A COMPLICATED PROJECT TO WORK ON, BUT ALSO A COMPELLING ONE. 
          AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERED FEDERATION. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I THINK, HELLO. 
          HI HEARING PEOPLE WHO IS THIS? YES, THERE WAS THIS STAR SIX CHAR YOU JUST HEARD FROM MS. ELLIA. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I THINK, I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF, UH, WE HAD THE NEXT SPEAKER SPEAKING YET. 
          UH, SO MICHAEL GOT DANNY IS AVAIL FOR QUESTIONS NOW. 
          I THINK WE'LL MOVE TO DANIEL WOODRUFF, STAR SIX AND MUTE CHAIR. 
          THIS IS MICHAEL WHALEN. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S HERE TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I HAVE NEXT, UH, HARRISON HUDSON, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? THIS IS HARRISON. 
          I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. 
          I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR ENGINEERING QUESTIONS AS NEEDED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT, THAT HELPS. 
          AND NOW, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE, UM, LIST OF THOSE OPPOSED. 
          WE HAVE OUR FIRST AND ONLY SPEAKER, UM, BEN RAMIREZ, UH, STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. 
          ARE YOU THERE MR. RAMIREZ? HELLO. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO. 
          MY NAME IS BEN RAMIREZ AND I'M A MEMBER AND REPRESENTATIVE OF GO VALLEY JOHNSON, TURF NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM, AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SPRINGDALE AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED PUD FOR 10, 11, AND 10 17 SPRINGDALE ROADS AT THE CURRENT ZONING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET AND OPPOSES THE PROPOSED HEIGHT CHANGE TO 93 FEET. 
          WE, THE COMMUNITY FEEL THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS, UH, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. 
          THERE IS NOTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE HEIGHT ANYWHERE IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE ARE CONCERNED THAT APPROVING A 93 FOOT STRUCTURE WILL SET AN UNWANTED PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPERS AT THIS HEIGHT OR HIGHER. 
          THIS PROJECT IS ALSO AN OFFICE DEVELOPED AND NOT HOUSING, WHICH OUR COMMUNITY DESPERATELY NEEDS. 
          THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR OFFICE PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN RECENTLY COMPLETED AND ARE IN CONSTRUCTION. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT OFFSETS THE DAMAGE THAT IT WILL CREATE ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THIS TYPE OF PRECEDENT BEING SET, WHICH IS WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED EMAILS OF OPPOSITION TODAY FROM PETE RIVERA, REPRESENTING SAUNA, UM, THE GO VALLEY JOHNSON PISS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM, GILBERT RIVERA FROM ROAD, THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AND MICHAEL FLOYD AND OFFICER FROM SANA HAVE ALL WRITTEN OPPOSITION LETTERS TO THE COMMISSION OPPOSING THE 90 FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE. 
          I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT MICHAEL WHALEN ALSO PRESENTED TO THE EAST MLK CONTACT TEAM AND HAS PRESENTED NO SUPPORT LETTER FROM THEM. 
          AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HE HIKED IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR THE MAJORITY, NOT THE MINORITY. 
          I ONLY SEE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE FROM SALSEDO STREET AND, AND PETE RIVERA WROTE A PERSONAL LETTER ASIDE FROM SAUNA IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND NOT AN INDIVIDUAL OPPOSING THE HEIGHT INCREASE TO ABOUT TWICE AS HIGH AS THE HIGHEST BUILDING IN THE VICINITY. 
          WE STRONGLY URGE THAT THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED ONLY IF IT RETAINS THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND OPPOSED THE PROJECT AT THE PROPOSED 90 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY OR SOME TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS OR ENTITY TO HELP OR PARTNER WITH THE DEVELOPER IN ORDER TO CREATE A GOOD USABLE SPACE AND RESTORE THE AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY WITHOUT SETTING 
          [00:40:01]
THIS TYPE OF PRECEDENT. 
          I, THIS IS SHORT BUT SWEET, BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR SERVICE TO OUR GREAT CITY. 
          I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND I SAID, WE ARE THE MAJORITY, NOT THE MINORITY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR TIME. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, LEILA, WE MAY, WHEN WE DO OUR CNA, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, AND NOW WE'LL, UH, HAVE, UH, THREE MINUTES FOR THE APPLICANT REBUTTAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          AND, UM, I WANT TO CALL SO PUBLICLY THANKED, UH, MR. RAMIREZ, YOU KNOW, HE, AND I HAVE OBVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THIS AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S, UH, MAKES FOR A HEALTHIER, UH, UH, EFFORT ALL AROUND. 
          UM, AND I KNOW THAT THE EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS I THINK, UH, FAVORABLE FROM, UH, MR. RAMIREZ PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND, UH, EXCEPT FOR THE HEIGHT, WHICH, UH, IS BEING REQUESTED IN PART TO, UH, ALLOW FOR THE, UH, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ECOLOGICAL, UH, AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED AND, UH, PROVIDED FOR THE, UH, A SUGGESTION THAT WE COULD DO RESIDENTIAL HERE. 
          AND IT MIGHT, I MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB BEFORE OF SHARING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE TCQ RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY, BUT ONLY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USE ARE ALLOWED. 
          UH, RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND GROUND WATER USES ARE NOT ALLOWED, UH, ON THE PROPERTY. 
          AND, UM, IN TERMS OF SETTING A PRECEDENT, I WOULD KNOW THAT THE, SIR, WE'VE GOT A RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE EAST. 
          I KNOW THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE OTHER SIDE, GOT AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN, UH, TO THE SOUTH OF US, BETWEEN US AND, UH, THERE'S AN AUTO SALES AND THEN WHICH IS PRIMARILY FLOODPLAIN AND THEN AIRPORT BOULEVARD ACROSS THE STREET. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IN A MOMENT, UH, YOUR AGENDA FOR IS GOING TO IS A VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECT ACROSS SPRINGDALE. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE SPRINGDALE GENERAL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF US. 
          SO SINCE WE'RE IN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER, UH, AND WE ARE REALLY, UH, LEANING INTO CHANGING AND BREAKING FROM THE ENVIRONMENT, THE TANK FARM HISTORY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, UH, TO ALLOW FOR THE HEIGHT, UM, TO ACHIEVE THESE BENEFITS, ALL OF THESE BENEFITS, UH, I THINK, UH, IS, UH, JUSTIFIED. 
          AND I DON'T THINK WHEN YOU SET THE BAR AS HIGH AS WE HAVE, THAT YOU ARE IN ANY WAY, SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT IS GOING TO, UM, UH, BE FOLLOWED, GIVEN ALL THAT WE'VE DONE. 
          AND BASICALLY HEIGHT IS THE MAJOR ASK. 
          IT'S THE ONLY MAJOR ASK AND NONE OF THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE AT JUST 60 FEET. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE 60 FEET. 
          UM, AND IMPORTANTLY, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED IT. 
          SO I SAY TO THOSE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CLOSEST HAVE IN FACT WRITTEN A LETTER OF SUPPORT INDEED BECAUSE OF THE MEANINGFUL, UH, UH, EFFORT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING TO MANAGE AND ALLEVIATE, UH, SOME FLOODING THAT IS OCCURRING ON SAUSALITO. 
          UM, BUT WITH THAT, I'M ALSO AVAILABLE AS OUR, AS YOU HEARD SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, SO DO I HAVE A VOTE TO CLO, UH, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSIONER NFL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER ON, UH, SHOW ME YOUR CARDS, WHATEVER YOU HAVE ARE, UH, UH, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW WE MOVE ON TO, UM, OUR ROUND ROBIN. 
          SO WE HAVE EIGHT, EIGHT SPOTS, UM, AND FIVE MINUTES EACH FOR THOSE EIGHT COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, UH, LET, UH, THE AUDIENCE KNOW WHO YOUR QUESTION IS FOR WHETHER IT'S STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, JUST BE CLEAR ON WHO YOU WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THAT WAY WE CAN, UH, USE THE FIVE MINUTES, UM, USE IT WELL. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          WHO, UH, FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION I'M LOOKING AROUND, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COPS. 
          [00:45:01]
YEAH, MY FIRST QUESTION, UH, I THINK IS PROBABLY FOR STAFF. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK UP AND DOWN AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO SEE WHAT THE OTHER NEWER BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE. 
          AND THE TALLEST THING I COULD FIND WAS ACTUALLY IN MUELLER, WHICH WAS FOUR STORIES. 
          AND I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF KNOWS OF ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OR ZONING ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD, OR JUST IN THE VICINITY OF THIS PROJECT THAT HAVE A 90 FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE ON IT. 
          SURE. 
          HEATHER CHAFFIN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES, THERE ARE NO OTHER, UH, BUILDINGS IN THE 90 FOOT RANGE BECAUSE MOST CITY OF AUSTIN ZONING CATEGORIES TOP OUT AT 60 FEET. 
          UM, SO THE, THERE ARE A FEW CATEGORIES HIGHER THAN 60 FEET, UM, , WHICH IS HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY AND THEN CBD DMU DOWNTOWN AREA, UM, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL IT'S HEIGHTS ABOVE 60 FEET ARE PRETTY MUCH THE CAP, UM, UH, CROSS MOST OF THE CITY. 
          THE CLOSEST I CAN THINK OF TO THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITE IS, UH, SOME OF Y'ALL KNOW IT AS THEN GARDEN. 
          IT'S THE FORMER MOTOROLA SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF ONE 83 IT'S IT'S NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE. 
          AND IT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED FOR VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT HEIGHTS. 
          IT'S A REDEVELOPMENT OF THE, OF AN OFFICE INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS FROM A LONG TIME AGO. 
          NO, THERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANYTHING ABOVE 60 FEET FOR, FOR QUITE A WAYS AROUND HERE AND, AND ALSO FOR STAFF, UM, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IN THE RESTORATION PLAN AND OPEN SPACE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING, BUILDING B IS ONLY BETWEEN 102 HUNDRED FEET, UH, FROM, FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENCE, IS THAT CORRECT? AND BUILDING B IS STILL SLATED FOR SIX STORIES TALL. 
          UH, THAT IS WHERE I HAD MADE MY MATH ERROR ON MEASURING THE DISTANCE ON THAT. 
          BUT, UM, I THINK MR. WAYLON HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. 
          HE, THEY, IN THE, IN THE REQUEST AS I'VE BEEN PROCESSING, IT WAS TO MODIFY THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS TO ALLOW UP TO THE 93 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, THE APPLICANT IS NOW NOT REQUESTING THAT GRADE OF HEIGHT AT THAT LOCATION. 
          I BELIEVE HE SAID, UM, 75 FEET OF HEIGHT AT THAT LOCATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE I'D HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO HIM, BUT YES, THEY, THEY ARE IN PRO ABOUT A HUNDRED, SOME ODD FEET AWAY FROM BUILDING B. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, I GUESS THAT, THAT, THAT GOES INTO THE, UH, THE, A GOOD SEGUE INTO MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS, UM, ARE ALL THESE BUILDINGS INTENDED TO BE SIX STORIES TALL? OR ARE YOU GONNA STEP IT UP IN HEIGHT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO SPRINGDALE ROAD AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCE, UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, UM, AS IS REFLECTED IN THE SAUCE CEDA RESIDENCE LETTER, WHICH IS NEAR THE VERY BACK OF THE, UH, STAFF BACKUP. 
          THE, IT IS A STEP UP FROM THERE A PARTICULAR LOCATION IT'S AT FIVE STORIES, AND THEN AT FIVE STORIES WITHIN 85 FEET OF THEIR PROPERTY, THE CLOSEST TRIGGERING PROPERTY, RIGHT ON RIGHT AT THE CORNER THERE, AND THEN STEPS UP TO SIX STORIES AT 140 FEET AWAY FROM, UH, THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR, UH, AND WILL BE SIX STORIES AND BUILDING A SIX STORIES SINCE IT'S MUCH FURTHER AWAY FROM THOSE RESIDENTS AND, UH, THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SPRINGDALE GREEN AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAIL RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE EAST, HOW TALL IS BUILDING BE THE SAME, IT'S BUILDING BE THE ONE THAT'S CLOSEST TO, SO I'D SAY TWO IS 75 FEET AT EIGHT, WITHIN 85 FEET OF THE CLOSEST TRIGGERING PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN AT 140 FEET AWAY, IT BOUNCES UP TO THE 93 FEET TO SIX STORIES. 
          AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, I, I'M LOOKING AT THE OPEN SPACE PLAN, WHICH LOOKS LIKE IT HAS THIS PRETTY NEAT SPROUT SYSTEM RUNNING THROUGH THE, THE RESTORED PART OF THE SITE. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY TRAIL CONNECTIONS AT ALL TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THAT IS. 
          AND IF, IF THERE'S A PLAN TO ACTUALLY CONNECT UP THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THAT, THEY'VE GOT ACCESS TO THIS OPEN AREA, UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE, UM, BECAUSE 
          [00:50:01]
UNDER THE TCQ STANDARDS, NO RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED THAT INCLUDES NO PUBLIC PARK LAND, UH, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS NOT THAT CONNECTION. 
          UM, WE HAD ALSO HOPED THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO A TRAIL ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AND THAT TOO WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTION BY THE TCQ, WHICH IS WHY WE MADE THE $250,000 TO HELP FROM BOMB ROAD TO AIRPORT, UH, UH, ON THE URBAN TRAILS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION, I GUESS I'LL START WITH, UH, MR. WAYLAND. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT, YOU KNOW, AND WE HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT AND, BUT I WANT IT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO GET A BETTER PICTURE OF WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE, RIGHT. 
          SO WHAT IS, IF WE DIDN'T GET THIS HUD ZONING, WHAT IS IT THAT COULD BE PLACED THERE? RIGHT. 
          CAUSE I HEARD SOMETHING WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE 60 FOOT HIGH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, I GUESS, I DUNNO W I FORGOT WHAT YOU MENTIONED, BUT IF YOU CAN TELL ME, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT COULD BE PLACED THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND, UM, IF, IF WE, IF YOU DIDN'T GET THIS, WHAT WOULD SOMEBODY BUILD THERE AND WHAT WOULD WE POTENTIALLY LOSE OUT ON? UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, JUST SO WE CAN KIND OF LIKE W WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY PICKING. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, SO THE BASELINE, WHICH IS USED TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOLLARS WILL BE USED IS GR BASED ZONING. 
          THAT'S THE BASE ZONING. 
          UH, THE RR WOULD BE PART OF OUR SITES, SO THAT DOESN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN OUR SITE, THE RR PORTION, THE, AND ITS FLOODPLAIN, WE DETERMINED THAT APPROXIMATELY 674,000 SQUARE FEET COULD BE BUILT ON THE SITE, IN THE AREA THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN. 
          AND, UH, UH, IT WOULD BE GREATER THAN 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          I'M NOT SURE THE EXACT AMOUNT WE CAN GO UP TO 90%. 
          UH, BUT THE FLOODPLAIN AREA IS YOU CAN SEE IS FAIRLY LIMITING IN TERMS OF WHERE YOU CAN BUILD. 
          SO WE'D BE UP WHERE WE ARE NOW, BUT IT WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, BE A, A SHORTER BUILDING, OBVIOUSLY, UH, FIVE STORIES AND 674,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE RESTORATION. 
          SO IT'S, I MEAN, SO IT SEEMS LIKE IMPERVIOUS COVER MIGHT GO UP A LITTLE BIT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT'S OUR CURRENT ZONING. 
          SO WE WOULD JUST GO AND DO THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE WOULD BE, WE WOULDN'T DO ANY AT ALL. 
          EVERY, EVERY MY ENTIRE PRESENTATION WOULD NOT EXIST. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE A ZONING. 
          WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE SEEKING ZONING. 
          WE DO A 60 FOOT TALL BUILD OFFICE BUILDING, UH, WITH REGULAR STORMWATER DETENTION. 
          UH, AND THERE'D BE NO NEED TO DO THE RESTORATION PLAN OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS WE MIGHT DO SOME OF IT, UH, UH, BUT WE WOULDN'T, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO DO THE, THE THING I'M REALLY WE'RE OFFERING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE WOULDN'T GET ANY OF THE FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FOR THE CONSERVANCIES. 
          AND, UM, ANY OF THOSE THINGS NOW, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          SO, UM, CAN YOU TELL US, IS THERE, I MEAN, USUALLY LIKE WHEN WE SEE, IMAGINE AUSTIN QUARTERS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, COME TO AN INTERSECTION, WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT THOSE AS LIKE HUBS, RIGHT. 
          DIFFERENT PLACES FOR THE CITY. 
          WHEN, WHEN TWO OF THESE MAJOR THINGS COME TOGETHER, THEY'RE OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE, UH, LIKE COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, IS, IS THERE ANYTHING PLANNED FOR, THIS IS, THIS IS THIS AREA, HAS THIS AREA BEEN IDENTIFIED SINCE IT IS AN INTERSECTION OF TWO, YOU KNOW, AS AN, AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND ALSO THE INTERSECTION OF TWO MAJOR, IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS, UM, IS THERE ANY PLANNING OR SHOULD THERE BE, IS IT ONE THAT, UM, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED? I MEAN, WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR THINGS LIKE THIS? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE IF WE HAVE, IMAGINE AUSTIN, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE TRYING TO DO, BUT THEN WE HOLD OURSELVES TO, WELL, CODE JUST SAYS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE STUCK AT 60 FEET. 
          THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF ALL THIS PLANNING AND EVEN TALKING ABOUT QUARTERS, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE JUST HELD AT THE, YOU KNOW, AT, AT, AT THE, THE THING THAT'S PULLING US BACK VERSUS CONTINUING TO ENVISION, LIKE IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, WANTS US TO, SO STAFF, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT THAT, THAT PROCESS? AND IS THIS ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY IS ONE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED, UH, HEATHER CHASON HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          I CAN'T 
          [00:55:01]
REALLY SPEAK TO ANY PROPOSED FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS, AS HE SAID, THIS IS IDENTIFIED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN IMAGINE AUSTIN, AND THERE IS TEXTS. 
          AND IMAGINE AUSTIN DESCRIBING THE INTENT FOR THAT BEING AN AREA WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, CONNECTION AND COMMUNITY AND EMPLOYMENT AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          AND AGAIN, THE ACTIVITY CORRIDORS, SIMILARLY HAVING GOODS AND SERVICES AND, UM, TRANSIT AND VARIOUS OTHER CONNECTIONS IN THE AREA. 
          BUT THIS, THE CITY IN RECENT YEARS, WE HAVE DONE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. 
          WE'VE DONE CORRIDOR PLANS. 
          WE'VE DONE, UM, ALL SORTS OF LITTLE, UM, FOCUSED PLANNING EFFORTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE BOOKS FOR THIS AREA RIGHT NOW, JUST THAT, UM, WE ARE FOCUSING ON TRANSIT AREAS AND CORRIDORS FOR FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS. 
          THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF REZONING IN THIS AREA RECENTLY, UM, DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE SOUTHWEST IS A CASE THAT JUST RECENTLY HAD A FEE ADDED TO IT. 
          AND, UM, AS YOU ALL ARE ALL AWARE, THE AREA IS CHANGING A LOT. 
          AND, UM, AT THIS POINT, AS YOU SAID WITH CODE, WE DON'T HAVE AN AVENUE TO GO GREATER IN HEIGHT, UH, IN THIS AREA EXCEPT FOR TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, UH, THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER HEMPEL. 
          DID YOU PHRASE YOUR HAND EARLIER? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE A THIRD COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, THANK YOU, CHAIR, STAFF. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU, CAUSE I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION, CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE IN BURMESE AROUND THE SITE TODAY? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? SURE. 
          WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE? THE ENERGY YARD. 
          90%. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S NICE. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FLOOD PLAIN AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES ON AREAS, BUT YES. 
          UP TO 90% UNDER GR YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          AND THEN I ALSO HAVE A, UM, A QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO PRESENTED, OH, I'M SO SORRY. 
          I'M GOING TO FORGET YOUR NAME. 
          UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. 
          SO I'M LOOKING AT IT AND, UH, WE HAVE, UM, DOES SAUCIDO A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR INSTANCE, ON SENSITIVE STREET, THEY'VE WRITTEN US A LETTER AND SUPPORTING IT. 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE THE FOLKS WHO ARE MOST CLOSEST TO THE SITE AND IN SOME WAYS WILL BE MOST IMPACTED BY COMPATIBILITY AND DOCTOR ISSUES. 
          AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU PUT IN THEIR POSITION ON THIS VERSUS YOUR POSITION, WHY THERE'S A DISCREPANCY THERE, CONSIDERING THAT THEY'RE THE ONES LIVING NEXT TO THE SIDE. 
          AND I THINK YOU WERE ASKING FOR MR. RAMIREZ. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION REAL QUICK? ONE MORE TIME YOU WERE BREAKING DOWN. 
          SORRY. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. 
          UM, SO MR. WHERE'S THE ASSOCIATES, UH, STREET NEIGHBORHOOD, ESSENTIALLY THE FOLKS WHO ARE CLOSE TO THE SITE SENT US A LETTER SAYING THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTING THIS INCLUDING THE HEIGHT. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A DISCREPANCY IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WHY YOU'RE SUPPORTING IT, CONSIDERING THAT THEY'RE CLOSEST TO THE SITE. 
          WELL, THEY, THEY OWN PROPERTY IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY UNITS THAT ENTAILS, BUT I THINK IT'S LIKE TWO OR THREE. 
          I THINK THERE WAS A TOTAL OF MAYBE SIX PEOPLE ON THAT LETTER. 
          UM, I, I, MY POSITION COMES, WE WORK WITH DEVELOPERS ALL THE TIME. 
          I'M ON THE CONTACT GAME. 
          I GET INTO SUBCOMMITTEES, I JUMP HEAD FEET, HEAD FEET, JUMP FEET FIRST IN AND TWO REPRESENTED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND I TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          I CONSTANTLY WALK MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYBODY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL AS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS. 
          AND THE SPRINGDALE IS THERE TOO, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE GO VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN. 
          AND I STILL THINK THERE ARE WAYS FOR US TO HELP THEM. 
          AND THERE'S OTHER WAYS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE SUCCESSFUL OTHER THAN SETTING THE PRECEDENT. 
          LIKE HEATHER SAID, I, HOW, HOW MANY MILES AWAY NEAREST 90 FOOT BUILDING DOWNTOWN? THERE'S NOTHING 
          [01:00:01]
AROUND OUR AREA. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I JUST HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          SO I'M SORRY. 
          I'M JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF GRANDPA. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT AT LEAST THOSE SIX NEIGHBORS, IF NOT MORE, ARE FACING SIGNIFICANT FLOODING ISSUES AND THIS FRAUGHT, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD ACTUALLY RELIEVED THEM OF THOSE FLOODING ISSUES. 
          AND THAT IS WHY THE SUPPORT TO THIS IS THAT A, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? I, I ASSUME, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE ON SALSEDO STREET. 
          I DON'T KNOW THEIR ACTUAL POSITION. 
          I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THAT STREET PARTICULARLY, AND I DON'T KNOW THEIR FLOODING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, HOW FAR FARTHER IN TO THE FLOOD ZONE THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOOD ZONE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE ON IT, ALL I KNOW IS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHEN YOU THAT, AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO GET THIS CORRECTLY. 
          SO YOU HAVE NOT HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THOSE. 
          SO CEDAR STREET NEAR WHERE NEIGHBORS AT ALL, IS THAT CORRECT? I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THIS INFORMATION. 
          I HAVEN'T, I JUST NOW HEARD I WASN'T IN CONTACT. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS. 
          I DID A LAST MINUTE 11TH HOUR, UM, PUSH FOR EVERYBODY THAT HAD A POSITION IN THIS TO ACTUALLY VOICE THIS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THAT INCLUDES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          THAT INCLUDES OUR CONTACT DEANS. 
          THAT INCLUDES THE NEIGHBORING CONTACT TEAMS. THAT IT'S MORE THAN SEVEN PEOPLE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          , I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE ON TO A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, I HAVE THIS OTHER QUESTION FOR MS. STAFFING. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK IN RECENT TIME WE'VE HAD, WE HAVE REZONED TWO PROPERTIES AROUND SPRINGDALE TO VMU. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO WHAT, WHAT HEIGHT WILL THOSE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE CONSIDERING THAT WE WOULD REZONE THEM? AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY, HOW THEY WENT THROUGH COUNCIL OR NOT. 
          BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE NOW HAVE SOME VMU SITES ALONG SPRING DAM. 
          AND CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THE HIGH ARGUMENT HYDRO DOWNSTAIRS? YES. 
          HEATHER CHECKING POINT HOUSING AND PLANNING AGAIN, VM DOES NOT ALLOW INCREASED IN HEIGHT. 
          IT ONLY ALLOWS A RELAXATION OF SOME OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, UH, SETBACKS REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, FAR THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE HEIGHT. 
          THERE IS A V VMU SITE THAT IS, UM, LIGHTLY NORTHWEST OF THIS THAT WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO. 
          THE NEXT ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. 
          IT'S A REQUEST TO ADD VI TO AN EXISTING CFMU SITE. 
          AND THEN, UM, SOUTHWEST ACROSS AIRPORT, WE RECENTLY DID A, THE CASE LONG GUNTER, 1135 GUNTER, UM, THAT, WELL, I GUESS IT'S MORE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, BUT ACROSS, UH, AIRPORT BOULEVARD, IT'S, UH, IT SHOWN AS CFC, OH, ON THIS MAP RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT, UM, I GUESS THIS MAP WAS PRINTED BEFORE THAT CASE WAS APPROVED AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL. 
          UM, I THINK IN JANUARY EFFECT TYPE. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK, I THINK, UH, WE, UH, SO WE HAD THE FOURTH, FOURTH COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER YANA, SPOLETO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I BELIEVE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT IT MIGHT BE A PARTIAL QUESTION FOR MR. WAYLON AS WELL. 
          UM, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTY FALLS INTO FLOODPLAIN AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. 
          I MEAN, EVEN JUST APPROXIMATELY, AND REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THE DIFFERENCE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER ASSOCIATED WITH A 60 FOOT PROJECT VERSUS A 90 FOOT PROJECT GIVEN, UH, THAT FLOODPLAIN IN CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. 
          OKAY. 
          HEATHER, KATHERINE HOUSING AND PLANNING, WE DON'T HAVE, OR I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO A CALCULATION THAT SAYS EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE DIFFERENT, UH, ZONES. 
          THERE ARE SOME EXHIBITS THAT SHOW IT GRAPHICALLY. 
          UM, THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION I HAVE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 39 OF 54, UH, IT'S ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. 
          I THINK THAT SHOWS VERY CLEARLY HOW MUCH OF THE SITE IS INUNDATED. 
          AND, UM, PRESUMABLY THE NIGHT, THIS IS PRESUMABLY THE 90% AS IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ALLOWED, COULD THEN HAPPEN ON THE AREAS THAT REMAIN ON THE SITE REMAIN UNENCUMBERED ON THE SITE, BUT NOT AN ACTUAL CALCULATE. 
          I DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL CALCULATION OF WHAT THAT, I'M SORRY, MS. CHAFFIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE? I DIDN'T QUITE GET IT. 
          IT WAS KIND OF STUMBLING. 
          UM, I DON'T 
          [01:05:01]
HAVE A CALCULATION FOR WHAT THE REMAINDER OF THE LAND IS. 
          THE REMAINDER THAT IS NOT ENCUMBERED WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN OR COLD WATER QUALITY ZONE. 
          SO, BUT I'M PRESUMING THAT THAT LAND AREA COULD THEN CONTAIN THE 90% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          CAN JUST BE SQUASHED DOWN INTO THAT AREA. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          THEN MAYBE I COULD FOLLOW UP WITH MR. WAYLON AND JUST ASK, WHAT WOULD THAT DIFFERENCE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER BE? DO YOU THINK, I MEAN, PR PRESUMING YOU CAN'T ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL WAYS TO DO THE SAME RESTORATION STUFF. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M GONNA ASK, UH, OUR ENGINEER HARRISON HUDSON DONE MUTE MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, HE, I THINK HE'S GOING TO TELL YOU THAT LIKE TWO THIRDS IS OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. 
          SO IT'D BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET CLOSER, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUR STORMWATER FACILITY, UH, AT THE END OF SAW SADO, THAT ALL IS OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN. 
          SO YOU COULD BUILD ALL THE WAY BACK, UH, BACK THERE, OBVIOUSLY COMPATIBILITY WOULD IMPACT YOU. 
          BUT, UM, ANYWAY, I'LL LET, I'LL LET, UH, HARRISON GIVE YOU THE FIGURES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE SITES, YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY 30 ACRES OR SO, AND I BELIEVE ABOUT 12 TO 15 ACRES IS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME. 
          UM, BUT LIKE MICHAEL SAID, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE TRACT IN THE SOCIO AREA. 
          THAT'S OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED. 
          AND THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF AREA ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CREEK. 
          THAT'S OUTSIDE THE FLOOD PLAIN THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER PURPOSES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD COMMISSIONER WITH THE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT AND IT'S KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER, UH, YANNIS POLLITOS QUESTION. 
          UM, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A BETTER PICTURE HERE. 
          SO THE, THE SENSE THAT I'M GETTING IS THAT, IS THERE ANY KIND OF PERCENTAGE NUMBER BREAKDOWN THAT WE CAN GET ABOUT WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD LOOK LIKE? UM, SOME KIND OF ESTIMATE OR, OR GUESTS ARE WE TALKING LIKE SOMETHING CLOSER TO THE 50% RANGE OR MORE? SO OUR CURRENT SITE PLAN, THIS IS HERE'S THAT'S. 
          AND AGAIN, SIMILAR TO OUR CURRENT SITE PLAN FILED WITH THE CITY IS ABOUT, I BELIEVE LIKE 30% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          UM, AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WENT FULLY DEVELOPED ON THE TRACK, YOU WOULD, IT WOULD DEFINITELY GET OVER 50%, BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT MY GUESS WOULD BE, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY GUESS 60% OF THE SITE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONER, I THINK WHAT YOU'D SEE IS INSTEAD OF CONCENTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT UP AGAINST A SPRINGDALE, YOU WOULD SPREAD IT OUT INTO THE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, UH, WOULD TAKE UP OBVIOUSLY MORE, UH, AREA AND YOU'D BE ABLE, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREAS THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY COMPATIBILITY A LITTLE BIT, YOU'D PUT PARKING PROBABLY, UH, TO, UH, AVOID THE EXPENSE OF CONGRESS, OF CONCENTRATING THE PARKING IN GARAGE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, MY NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, FOR MR. RAMIREZ, IF HE'S STILL THERE, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HI, MR. RAMIREZ. 
          I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU EXPRESS THE SENSE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS LIKE, UH, HEIGHT IS A, IS, IS A PROBLEM YOU, YOU EXPRESSED SORT OF DAMAGES WAS WORD THAT STOOD OUT TO ME THAT YOU USED, UH, RELATED TO HEIGHT. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY IS THE HARM ASSOCIATED WITH HEIGHT? IS IT JUST A FEAR THAT WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT AND THAT THIS IS GOING TO TRIGGER MORE DEVELOPMENT? WHAT IS THE, WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUE WITH HEIGHT, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POINT OF VIEW? WELL, PART OF IT IS WE'LL SEND IT AS SOON AS PRECEDENT. 
          SO EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO COME IN NOW IS GOING TO TRY TO EXCEED THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          AND IT IS, IF YOU LOOK AROUND IN THAT AREA, IF YOU WOULD VISIT OUR AREA, I BELIEVE IT, BEFORE YOU VOTE, YOU SHOULD DRIVE AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF YOU SEE ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD. 
          NOW I DO, I DO LIKE A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT THEY WANT TO DO TO THE AREA, BUT I FEEL THERE'S OTHER WAYS WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MEDIATE SOME OF THIS AND, AND STILL HAVE THE 60 FOOT. 
          I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS WE CAN GO ABOUT IT. 
          THEN, THEN PUTTING AN EYE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS AROUND THIS AREA. 
          UM, HI, UH, JUST, SORRY, I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION AND THANK YOU. 
          I, I, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I PREFER TO WALK THROUGH IT THAN TO DRIVE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE HARM RELATED SPECIFICALLY WITH HEIGHT? UM, WHAT HARM DOES HEIGHT? CAUSE, 
          [01:10:01]
UM, THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          I'M NOT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, UM, SORT OF WHAT IS COMPARABLE IN THE AREA, BUT WHAT HARM IS CAUSED BY HEIGHT? WHAT HARM IS CAUSED BY HIGH? YEAH, THIS, THE CHANGE, THE CHANGING OF OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CHANGE, I MEAN, YOU HAVE EVERY MAJOR, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND IN CONTACT TEAMS IN THE AREA, WRITING A LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO 90 FEET AND SUPPORT THE 60 FEET. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOME KIND OF MEDIATION THAT CAN TAKE PLACE, SOME KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND AND NOT JUST TRY TO PUT SKYSCRAPERS IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THERE'S, SO ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSES IT, THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF WHY THE HEIGHT ITSELF IS SOMEHOW GOING TO BE HARMFUL. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT WELL, I, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY STANCE THAT IS ON A CONTACT TEAM AND THE MAJOR AND THE MAJOR CONTACT TEAMS IN THE AREA. 
          THEY, IT SETS A PRECEDENT AND I, I WORK WITH DEVELOPERS EVERY DAY. 
          I DONATE MY TIME LIKE YOU GUYS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR DONATION OF YOUR TIME, BUT WE WORK WITH DEVELOPERS TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND, TO FIND SOME KIND OF MEDIATION THAT'S APPEASABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS. 
          AND THE MOST OF THE CONSENSUS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS I UNDERSTAND IT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GROWING JUST IMMENSELY FAST. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS CHANGING RAPIDLY. 
          ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE, ALL OF OUR OLDER NEIGHBORS ARE GETTING KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. 
          UM, MAN, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WE DON'T NEED MORE OFFICES. 
          EVERYBODY'S WORKING FROM HOME. 
          WE WANT TO PUT IT, SORRY. 
          I STRONGLY, I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THAT. 
          AND IF THERE WAS ANY WAY TO MAKE HOUSING APPEAR ON THIS SITE, TRUST ME, I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON HERE TO JUMP ON THAT POSSIBILITY ENERGY. 
          I'M JUST TRYING. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WAS JUST REALLY TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF, OF, OF WHAT SPECIFIC HARM IS CAUSED BY HEIGHT. 
          BUT THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          I, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO NOW WE'RE, UH, WE HAVE A FEW MORE SLOTS, UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. 
          ANYONE ELSE? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          IF I LOOK AT THE CONNECTIVITY TO THE TRAIL FROM SAUCEDO STREET, IT DOESN'T CONNECT BACK TO ANY OF THE BUILDINGS. 
          SO IF THERE'S A CAFE IN ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, THERE'S NO ONE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN EASILY GET THERE. 
          THEY HAVE TO GO BACK OUT ON SPRINGDALE TO GET THERE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? UM, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, UNFORTUNATELY. 
          YES, BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND I, AND I, AND I, AGAIN, I'LL REMIND YOU, OUR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY HAD, UH, A PUBLIC TRAIL AND THAT, UH, UH, WE DID NOT REALIZE ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THAT RESTRICTION. 
          SO UNFORTUNATELY YES, BUT, BUT I GUESS SO, SO EVEN AS TRANSPORTATION, AS CONNECTIVITY, UH, UH, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE PATH TO THE, TO THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE TO GO OUT, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WE, WE HAVE WE'RE IN SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, SPRINGDALE GREEN TO CREATE SOME, UH, POSSIBLE CONNECTIVITY THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE, BUT, UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT, UM, IS GOING TO HAPPEN, UH, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE, THE SITE, THEIR SITE IS CONSTRUCTED ALREADY. 
          SO, SO WOULD THERE BE A FENCE ALONG THAT TRAIL TO KEEP PEOPLE I'M ASSUMING IF, IF, IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A PARK, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE KIDS FROM SOSEDO STREET GO AND RIGHT. 
          WELL, FLOWERS LIKE A WAYLON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE'D BEEN IS COMMISSIONER CONLEY, NOTED, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS RESTRICTION AGAINST RESIDENTIAL AND IS ONE THAT IS, IS BROAD. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          UM, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, IF I LOOK AT THE, THE AUSTIN MOBILITY PLAN, I MEAN, I SEE THAT THIS IS CONSIDERED A TRANSIT HUB RIGHT THERE. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST THINKING OF, OF OTHER HUBS THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND IN TERMS OF THIS IS LISTED AS A MOBILITY HUB, SORRY, ON THE, THE SMP MAP AND OTHER HUBS THAT WE HAVE ALONG THAT THAT WOULD BE THE GREEN LINE THAT, THAT TRAIN THAT'S GOING RIGHT THERE. 
          I MEAN, SORT OF OTHER HUBS GOING INTO TOWN ARE DEFINITELY HIGHER THAN 90 FEET OR AT 90 FEET AROUND SALTIER PLAZA, ET CETERA. 
          AND THEN THE NEXT STATION OUT ON THE, ON THE GREEN LINE IS THE ONE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. 
          THE, 
          [01:15:01]
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT AGAIN. 
          UM, BUT THE, IT HAD THE 400 FOOT HIGH. 
          SO, I MEAN, W WOULD YOU NOT EXPECT, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY PLANNING FOR THIS TODD FOR THIS STATION, BUT WOULD YOU NOT EXPECT THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE PLANNING AND THAT PLANNING WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE OTHER TWO OR, OR NEAR THOSE OTHER HEIGHTS? UH, HEATHER CHAPMAN HOUSING AND PLANNING. 
          I, I CAN'T REALLY CONJECTURE WHAT, UM, WILL, WHICH AREAS WILL BE STATIONARY OR PLAN AREAS IN THE FUTURE? I KNOW THE CORRIDOR, UH, MOBILITY PROGRAM IS, IS GOING FULL FORCE. 
          AND A LOT OF WORK IS GOING ON BEHIND THIS, AS YOU SAID, OUR EXISTING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AREAS LIKE PAUSES HEALTH PO HAVE INCREASED HEIGHTS. 
          AND THEN THE, UH, THE OLD MOLD MOTOROLA SITE, UH, THEY NAMED IT THEN GARDEN, THAT ONE, THEY ARE ALSO ALONG THE GREEN LINE TO THE EAST OF HERE. 
          AND THEY WERE GRANTED UP TO 400 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          UH, AND IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THAT WOULD BE A PLATFORM LOCATION EITHER THERE OR NEARBY THERE. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN SET THAT THAT IS A PLATFORM LOCATION. 
          UH, SO THOSE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED GREATER HEIGHT, BUT I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY PLANS IN THE WORKS. 
          I MEAN THAT THE ASM P DOES SHOW IT AS A MOBILITY HUB. 
          SO I GUESS I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT MEANS A PLATFORM THAT ARE ALONG THE GREEN LINE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOPE, NO MORE QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          A FEW MORE SLOTS IN OTHER COMMISSIONERS LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM CONDITIONER IS BIZARRE. 
          I WILL ONLY GO FOLKS. 
          I'M NOT ALWAYS GONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAD A, UM, RESTAURANT WITH JEFF AND I, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US ANSWER THIS, BUT I WAS ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO WATERSHED STAFF ON HERE. 
          IF, IF YOU CAN HELP US ANSWER THIS QUESTION, I'M SORRY. 
          WE DO HAVE WATERSHED STAFF AVAILABLE. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THEN THEY CAN, HOPEFULLY YOU REALLY HELPED ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION. 
          SO ONE, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THE EXISTING, UM, FLOODING ISSUES ON SOUTH CEDAR STREET AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS? SO THAT QUESTION WAS INJURED, WATERSHED STAFF, IF YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE FLOODING ISSUES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, BUT AGAIN, ASSOCIATED STREET NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, THE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING FLOODING PROBLEMS ON PLATO? IS THAT ACCURATE? IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE ARE MOSTLY WHAT WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS LOCAL FLOODING OR NUISANCE FLOODING RESULTING FROM THE CONCENTRATION OF THE DISCHARGE FROM THE DETENTION FACILITY FOR SPRINGDALE GENERAL, UH, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH. 
          AND SO BASICALLY THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION AND, AND POTENTIALLY MODIFICATION OF THE WAYS THAT THAT OUTFALL OF THAT POND WORKS, UH, THAT IT'S, IT WAS PROVIDED CAUSING WHAT WE WOULD, AGAIN, REFER TO LOCAL FLOODING, NOT THE CREEK RISING, BUT WATER RUNNING OFF OF IMPERVIOUS AREAS. 
          UM, AND THEN IMPACTING THAT. 
          AND THEN WE DID WORK WITH OUR, UH, DETENTION ENGINEERS AND THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY, UM, OR A COMMITMENT TO HELP US FUND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT EXISTING NUISANCE FLOODING PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SO I HAVE TWO FOLLOW UPS. 
          I THINK ONE IS, SO I'M UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD SORT OF MITIGATE THAT FLOODING. 
          SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PROVIDED UNDER THE GUIDELINES WOULD HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THIS LOCALIZED FLOODING. 
          YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          WE THINK IT IS, UH, ONE OF THE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SUPERIORITIES. 
          UM, THERE WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE HOUSES HAD TO BE RAISED, UM, BY NO MORE THAN A FOOT TO ACCOMMODATE OR TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE, AGAIN, WE DON'T MEAN IT DISPARAGING WAY, BUT AS A LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUE, YOU AND THEN FOLLOW UP QUESTION WAS JUST TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK WE'RE HEARING THAT IF WE DID NOT DO IT, BUT AN UNDERGROUND ZONING YOU'RE ALLOWED 
          [01:20:01]
TO BUILD UP IMPORTANT FACTOR THERE IN BURMESE COVER ON THE SOCIO NEIGHBORHOOD SITES OF NORTHWEST, JUST NORTH OF THE CREEK. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO, AND I GUESS YOU WOULDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IF WE WERE TO BUILD ON THAT SIDE NORTH, WE PROBABLY INVITE SOUTH ASSOCIATED STREAM. 
          WHAT IMPACT COULD EMBARK DISCOVER THERE, HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST NORTH OF IT, WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACTS FROM IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          SO THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT, UM, UNDER EITHER CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PUDDLE ORDINANCE AS WE DRAFTED IT. 
          AND AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT, OR, UM, WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CODE OTHERWISE. 
          SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL ADVERSE IMPACT FROM A WATER QUALITY OR A FLOOD OR DETENTION PERSPECTIVE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO. 
          SO THEY CAN CLEARLY ACHIEVE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE IN LIEU OF GOING UP. 
          THEY COULD SPREAD OUT TO OCCUPY THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE SITE. 
          UM, EVEN, YOU KNOW, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AS PERMITTED BY CODE LOCATING, UH, PARKING AGAIN WITH LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE AND THE DEPTH OF FLOODING, BUT THEN COULD EVEN POTENTIALLY LOCATE SOME PARKING FACILITIES WITHIN THE FLOOD POINT. 
          AND SO, UH, AND I'M SORRY, I SHOULD'VE MET, I MENTIONED IT WRONG. 
          I CALLED AN INQUIRY SCO WHEN I WENT TO SAY BURN. 
          YES, IT'S A MISTAKE I VERY OFTEN MAKE. 
          SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AS YOU WERE SAYING, IF THERE WAS MORE BILLING TO THE KNOX DESIGN, INCLUDING ADDING MORE BERGER, ADDING MORE NUMBERS THERE. 
          AND THEN ALSO TRYING TO SEE IF WE DID ADD PARKING THERE, WOULD THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON FLOODING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NO, IT WOULD, IT WOULD, UH, THE ALTERNATE SCENARIO. 
          SO WITHOUT THE PUD, THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ADDITIONAL IMPACT ON FLOODING. 
          HOWEVER, WITH THE PUD AND THE ADDITIONAL, UM, SUPERIORITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS OFFERED TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING LOCAL FLOODING CONCERN, THERE ACTUALLY BE A REDUCTION IN THE OVERALL FLOOD CONCERNS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION WITH REGARD TO PERVIOUS AREA, FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, WE CERTAINLY, UH, LOOK TO A HIGHER DENSITY OF OCCUPANCY, UM, OR USE WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND PREVIOUS COVER. 
          AND SO IF THEY WERE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, ACHIEVE THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE, UM, BUT OVER A BROADER FOOTPRINT THAT WOULD HAVE A LARGER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT ANSWERS ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'VE GOT ONE MORE SLOT. 
          IS THERE ANYONE THAT HASN'T ASKED QUESTIONS YET, AND I'M SEEING A VICE-CHAIR SAMPLE WITH THEIR HAND UP. 
          SO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE LAST SPOT. 
          YEAH, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR MAYBE APPLICANT. 
          UM, JUST I'M WONDERING ABOUT FURTHER REMEDIATION OF THE SITE AND IF IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE FOR IT TO EVER BE REMEDIATED TO A POINT WHERE YOU COULD HAVE RESIDENTIAL ON IT. 
          HI, THIS IS CHRIS HARRINGTON, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, AND I'M HAPPY TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT THAT. 
          ALTHOUGH I WOULD CERTAINLY DEFER TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I THINK THEY'VE CONSIDERED IT CLOSER. 
          I MEAN, IT WOULD, IT WOULD INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL AND LANDFILLING OF THE BULK OF THE SOIL, UM, IN THE, IN, ON THE SITE. 
          AND SO IT IS CERTAINLY FEASIBLE FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, UM, BUT IT WOULD BE A VERY MASSIVE UNDERTAKING. 
          UM, AND, AND TO THE APPLICANT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UM, WAS CONSIDERED, OR, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE THOUGHT PROCESS THERE ABOUT WHY IT WAS ONLY REMEDIATED IT TO THE LEVEL WHERE HE WOULD BE PUTTING OFFICE ONLY ON IT? YEP. 
          UH, MICHAEL WHALEN, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          SO IT, IT WAS, UH, REMEDIATED, BUT BY THE PETROLEUM AND THE OIL COMPANIES, UM, THEY LEFT IN PLACE, UH, A, A PLUME, UH, IN THE GROUND WATER, ALTHOUGH THEY ATTEMPTED, AND THEY DID, I THINK MINIMIZE IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WE DID NOT. 
          AND WE DID NOT AT ALL, OBVIOUSLY PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THAT. 
          WE BOUGHT IT WITH THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS. 
          UM, AND, UH, WE, WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THIS COST WOULD BE. 
          IT WOULD BE TRULY EXTRAORDINARY. 
          UM, AND I'VE NEVER PARTICIPATED IN, IN, UH, IN, IN, IN REMEDIATING SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE MASSIVE AND MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF REMEDIATION AND SOIL REMOVAL. 
          UM, BUT I, I THINK IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. 
          UM, 
          [01:25:03]
IT, YOU KNOW, AT THE SITE, I MEAN, TRULY, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          SORRY. 
          IT IS, UH, UH, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, I WOULD ARGUE FOR WORSE. 
          THERE IS A STANDARD PRACTICE OF THE STATE THAT THEY DO ALLOW REMEDIATION TO OCCUR TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ONLY BE SUITABLE, UM, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AS LONG AS A DEED RESTRICTION IS THEN PUT ON THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT, UM, RESIDENTIAL USES AS THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. 
          SO, UM, THERE WAS CERTAINLY NOT IDEALLY, UH, OR THE IDEAL OUTCOME FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          IT IS A STANDARD PRACTICE THAT THE STATE DOES AND IS WHAT HAPPENED HISTORICALLY YOU'RE ON THIS LOCATION THAT REMINDED ME MICHAEL WAY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          IT ISN'T A DEED RESTRICTION. 
          SO WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GO AND GET SENECA OR EXXON OR WHOEVER IT WAS IN THAT OLDER DEED TO AGREE TO LIFT THE RESTRICTION, UM, AND TAKE ON ANY, UH, LIABILITY THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH LIFTING THAT RESTRICTION AS, SO IT WOULDN'T JUST BE CLEANING IT. 
          UH, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO THEN MANAGE LEGALLY GETTING AN OIL COMPANY TO BE WILLING TO DO THAT, WHICH I, I HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS THAT WILLINGNESS. 
          I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR QUESTIONS AND, UM, AT THIS POINT, UH, JUST, UH, BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN MOTIONS, UH, ONE, UH, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE ON THIS  IF THERE'S ANY AMENDMENT THAT, UH, UM, TO THAT AGREEMENT THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY THINK WOULD IMPROVE IT, WE CAN OFFER THOSE UP IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, ANY EMOTION. 
          SO JUST WANT TO SAY THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL AND THE TIER TWO IMPROVEMENTS. 
          UH, ANYWAY, JUST, UH, LET YOU KNOW, WE CAN RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS POET IF, UM, YOU CAN THINK OF THEM. 
          SO WITH THAT, DID WE HAVE ANY, UM, WE HAVE ANY EMOTIONS ON THIS ITEM, ANYONE, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COPS. 
          YEAH, I, I WOULD, UH, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND WITH THE HEIGHT REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          SO I THINK IT WAS 93 FEET, UH, LIMITED TO THE FIRST 600 FEET OF DISTANCE FROM BRING DALE ROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          AND I CAN SPEAK TO THE RATIONALE THAT WHENEVER THAT'S ALLOWED, UH, 18, UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? UH, UH, COMMISSIONER HANDFUL. 
          ARE YOU SECONDING THE MOTION? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COPPS. 
          YOU HAVE, UM, THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, SO I, I JUST, I I'M, UM, I DO THINK THAT THE, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT. 
          UM, I THINK THE 93 HEIGHT WITHIN THE PROXIMITY OF, OF THOSE RESIDENCES, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN THAT ANYWHERE WHERE I'VE BEEN, UM, IT IT'S IT TO HAVE SIX FEET OR SIX STORIES OF HEIGHT, UH, WITHIN, WITHIN JUST A HUNDRED, 200 FEET OF, OF, UH, OF THE HOME, UH, DOES SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE, UM, THE, THE, THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE HOMEOWNER HAVE. 
          UM, AND, AND SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          I KNOW THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HEIGHT AND HOW HIGH IT DOES OPEN UP OTHER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND VIABILITY. 
          UM, SO IT'S ALWAYS A BALANCE TO ME TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GIVE AS MUCH OF THAT OPPORTUNITY TO THE DEVELOPERS WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING, UH, THE, THE, THE DESIRES AND NEEDS OF, OF THE, OF THE ESTABLISHED, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE THERE. 
          UM, AND SO AIRPORT ROAD IS, HAS AN AMAZING, AMAZING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT ALLOWING THAT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL TO HAPPEN 
          [01:30:01]
AS CLOSE TO AIRPORT ROAD AS POSSIBLE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, BUT THE, THE LACK OF ALMOST COMPLETE LACK OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THIS PILOT REALLY CONCERNS ME. 
          AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SOURCE OF THE LIMITATION OF THE HEIGHT AS YOU GET FURTHER AWAY FROM SPRINGDALE ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCE IS BEHIND THIS PART. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE, UM, SOMEONE THAT'S SPEAKING AGAINST MR. THOMPSON, CAN I JUST GET A QUESTION? CAN, CAN WE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEE LIKE WHERE THAT 600 FOOT LINE WOULD BE GET A PRESENTATION, BUT YEAH, A STAFF CAN PULL UP A SITE PLAN. 
          UM, THIS MAY TAKE A MINUTE, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE TO KIND OF LAY EYES ON THE SITE. 
          I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THAT, HOW THAT'LL IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER COX. 
          YOU HAVE A YEAH, AND, AND SO 600 FEET. 
          AND, AND, UH, I THINK THAT NUMBER CERTAINLY IS UP FOR ADJUSTMENT, ESPECIALLY IF WE WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION WITH, WITH THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. 
          BUT I TRIED TO, I TRIED TO LOOK AT THEIR, UM, BUILDING A AND BUILDING C BOTH OF WHICH ARE AGAINST SPRINGDALE ROAD, UH, AND ENCAPSULATE THAT WITHIN THE HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, BUT THAT BUILDING B, WHICH IS A LOT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOT, UH, JASON TO THIS SITE THAT, THAT FALL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL ZONING HEIGHTS STANDARD COMMISSIONER FIVE. 
          SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PAGE ON THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. 
          I AM LOOKING AT PAGE 43 OF THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION. 
          CAN WE PULL THAT UP? I'M NOT GOING TO COUNT THIS TIME AGAINST US. 
          I THINK THE SITE PLAN IS GOING TO HELP. 
          HELLO, MR. LAYTON, BERT BURWELL, AND JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, TO, UH, ANSWER, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S QUESTION ABOUT HEIGHT. 
          UH, I THERE'S THE ISSUE OF PRECEDENT, BUT ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS SOLAR ACCESS. 
          AND WE RECENTLY HAD A, UH, UH, PROJECT THAT DIDN'T MEET COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OR WAS ABLE TO DO HIGHER IN OUR NEW PROPOSED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAST A SHADOW ON A BRAND NEW SOLAR ARRAY THAT SOMEBODY HAD, UH, PUT IN AND, AND WAS, UH, POSSIBLY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, HELP FUNDED BY THE CITY. 
          SO WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT SOLAR ACCESS IS NOT HINGED UPON. 
          SO THAT'S JUST ONE, ONE THING THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER ON THE HEIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I WANT TO HOLD THAT THOUGHT BECAUSE I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, BUT WE MAY MAYBE TOO LATE FOR THAT. 
          UH, ARE WE ABLE TO PULL UP THE SITE PLAN? CAN ANYBODY TELL ME CHAIR, COMMISSIONER PULLING UP? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, WHILE WE'RE GETTING THAT COULD BE ASKED TO GET A COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT ON WHAT THE IMPACT OF A 600 FOOT WOULD BE. 
          YEAH. 
          LET'S GET OUR BEARINGS HERE. 
          IF WE CAN BLOW THIS UP A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO WE CAN, UH, THERE WE GO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND SETTLE. 
          SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT JUST TO KIND OF SH UH, WHERE IS THE 600 FOOT LINE? UM, IF WE CAN JUST POINT THAT OUT ON HERE. 
          WHERE'S THAT GONNA TAKE US? THIS IS HARRISON HUDSON WOOD. 
          KIMLEY-HORN. 
          IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ABOUT THE, THE EDGE OF BUILDING C IS ABOUT 600 FEET. 
          COULD WE BLOW THIS UP JUST A LITTLE MORE? I'M SORRY. 
          I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THE LETTERS. 
          I KNOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE UP A LOT OF THE SCREEN. 
          YEAH. 
          MICHAEL WHALEN. 
          IT'S THE BUILDING, IT'S THE PARKING GARAGE RIGHT AT THE CORNER. 
          SO YOU WOULD LOSE ALL OF BUILDING B, UH, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. 
          THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          WE'D LOSE ALL THE BUILDING B TO THE, TO THE RIGHT THERE ON THE MAP. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX IS YOUR RA, WHERE ARE YOU DRAWING YOUR 600 FOOT LINE WHERE YOU SEE THAT COMING IN? UH, YEAH, LIKE I MENTIONED, LIKE BUILDING A AND BUILDING B, THOSE ARE, 
          [01:35:01]
THOSE ARE UP AGAINST THE SPRINGDALE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, SO 600 FEET SEEMED TO BE, UH, THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE TO ENCOMPASS THOSE TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTED. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY BUILDING B WOULD BE COMPLETELY LOST IF IT FALLS UNDER, UM, THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          UM, BUT MAYBE THE APPLICANT OR STAFF COULD, COULD HELP EXPLAIN THAT. 
          CAUSE MY INTENTION IS NOT TO, UH, NOT TO ELIMINATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR BUILDING B, BUT TO BE MORE MINDFUL OF ITS IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          YEP. 
          MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE, WE TIGHTENED IT UP SO THAT WE WOULDN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST. 
          IS WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH COMMISSIONER HARRINGTON, YOU'D HAVE, UH, A LOWER BUILDING ALL THE WAY HEADING TO THE EAST. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD COLLAPSE THE DESIGN CAUSE WE HAVE IT. 
          SO THE PARKING, WE ONLY USE ONE PARKING GARAGE CLOSE TO BOTH OF THE BUILDINGS. 
          UM, SO THAT, I MEAN, IT JUST BECOMES A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT AND, UH, YOU BETTER OFF ANYWAY. 
          YEAH. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD. 
          ALL I WANT TO DO IS JUST POINT OUT THE 600 FOOT HERE. 
          WE REALLY NEED TO JUST, THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING. 
          WE'RE KIND OF GETTING OUT OF ORDER, SO SORRY. 
          UH, UM, BUT WE'RE, UH, SO WE'RE I GUESS, SO THE COMMISSIONERS CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THE 600 FOOT IS ON THE MAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A DECISION. 
          SO WE ARE, WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE HAD ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I THINK YOU WERE SPEAKING AGAINST, I WASN'T, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE IT ON A MAP. 
          I, TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAD A RIGHT. 
          WELL, LET'S GET BACK TO, LET'S GET BACK TO THIS BACK IN ORDER HERE. 
          WE'VE GOT, UH, WE STARTED WITH A FISHER COPS. 
          UH, I'M LOOKING FOR A SPEAKER AGAINST, UM, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER SHEA? UH, CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER GRAYSON, BUT BASICALLY I WANT TO ENCOMPASS A, B AND C. 
          SO THIS WAY THE SITE LOCATION WISE, THE CUTOFF DOES ENCOMPASS THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THAT DIAGRAM AND THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SQUIRREL AWAY AND COME UP WITH SOME OTHER IDEA, YOU KNOW, SO THIS WAY, UM, IT HOLDS THEM TRUE TO WHAT THEY'VE PRESENTED TO US. 
          AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. 
          AND, UM, AS FAR AS FOR PRECEDENTS, I MEAN, WE, WE ARE SO HONING IN ON AS A PUB, WE WERE ABLE TO REALLY ZOOM IN AND HONE IN VERSUS LIKE IF IT WAS A REGULAR ZONING CASE. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, SO THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE AS A CERTAIN QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I NEED A CLEAR STATEMENT FOR YOUR SUBSTITUTE COMPARED TO WHAT WE MENTIONED. 
          SO AS FAR, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS, BUT AS PRESENT, WE COULD JUST SAY AS PRESENTED, UM, ON THAT PAGE AS PAGE 43, UM, AND WE COULD HOLD THAT BOUNDARY FOR, UH, OF THE BUILDINGS PRESENTED FOR THE, UM, FOR THE 93 FEET W AND BE CLEAR WHAT BOUNDARY AGAIN FOR WHAT IT'S SHOWN IS BUILDINGS, UH, ABC. 
          OKAY. 
          SO BILLY'S ABC. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S IS GOING TO BE HELD AT THE 90 THREES AND THE REST OF THE SITE IS GOING TO FALL BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE BASE IS, WHICH IS THE 60 FEET. 
          SO WE'LL GIVE IT TO THEM ON THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT LITTLE SPOT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS INSTEAD OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          DO I HAVE S DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OKAY. 
          SO DO I HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. SHEA, AND I'LL KIND OF SPEAK ABOUT IT. 
          AND, UM, A COUPLE THINGS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HERE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE STEWARDS OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN. 
          AND THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN TOGETHER. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT THE INTERSECTIONS OF WHERE QUARTERS COME TOGETHER AND CREATING A SPECIAL HUBS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, NEW CENTERS, NOT JUST QUARTERS, BUT THE CENTERS. 
          AND HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A PLACE FOR A CENTER. 
          AND IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE PLACE FOR A CENTER, THEN WE GO, OKAY, SO WHERE ARE THE PLANS FOR THIS? WHERE ARE THE SMALLER, YOUR PLANTS ARE THIS RIGHT NOW, THE CITY IS NOT DOING ANY OF THESE PLANS. 
          SO IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO US TO, TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS, UM, ABOUT WHERE IMAGINE AUSTIN WAS LEADING AND ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ARE LEADING TO. 
          SO BECAUSE OF THAT, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES LIKE THIS, WE SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF HEIGHT. 
          AND THE HEIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
          [01:40:01]
IS WHAT, AROUND 30, AROUND 30 FEET. 
          RIGHT? AND WHEN I WAS ON DESIGN COMMISSION, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO BREAK UP THE WHOLE THOUGHT AND FEEL OF, HI, THERE'S THIS POINT WHERE IT GETS A CERTAIN HEIGHT BECAUSE A LITTLE HIGHER, IT CAN, YOU DON'T REALLY NOTICE IT SO WE CAN EVEN MITIGATE WITH, WITH, WITH SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS OF IT. 
          THE OTHER THING IS ALSO WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GIVING, UH, WHAT THE RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO IT. 
          THEY WANT THIS RIGHT. 
          AND SO THE IMPROVEMENTS AND WHAT THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT IS BRINGING, UM, IT IS DEFINITELY BENEFICIAL FOR THE AREA. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IS KEEP IN MIND THE CITY, THE ONLY THING THAT THE CITY HAS TO BE ABLE TO HELP ENCOURAGE THOSE DEVELOPERS, TO GIVE US THOSE BENEFITS BACK IS SOME TYPE OF DENSITY OR HEIGHT. 
          AND THIS IS EXACTLY THAT POINT. 
          NOW, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. 
          OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO GET STUFF FOR 60 FEET AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY IMPROVEMENTS. 
          WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET FLOODING. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GET, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE MONEY FOR AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE CONSERVANCIES OR ANY OF THOSE. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T KIND OF PRESENT ITSELF AS A PRECEDENCE. 
          SO THAT'S MY, I FIGHT FOR THAT ALL THE TIME. 
          SO, SO DO WE HAVE, UH, STEVE WHO AGAINST THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION, COMMISSIONER SHINER? UH, I FEEL LIKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS JUST BASICALLY NO, ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          UM, I APPRECIATED THE INITIAL MOTION BECAUSE I WAS ALSO STRUGGLING WITH, UM, WHAT ARE SOME REAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SIDE, UH, AT LEAST SOME CONTRIBUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND, UH, MY FEAR WAS IF WE ELIMINATED ANYTHING ABOUT 60 FEET, WE WOULD LOSE ALL THOSE BENEFITS. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT OUR NEW COMMISSION MEMBER DID AND HIS INITIAL MOTION WAS TRY TO FIND A PLACE OF COMPROMISE. 
          IT'S NOT THAT WE ARE LOSING ALL OF THE HEIGHT. 
          THE FRONT BUILDINGS WOULD STILL BE 93 FEET. 
          AND I THINK THAT CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT PRECEDENT ARE WELL-FOUNDED. 
          YOU MAY RECALL, UM, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, THIS COMMISSION, UM, AND THE SCHLOTZSKY'S APPROVED, UH, HEIGHT ABOVE 90 FEET, DESPITE THE PROMISE ON THE CITY COUNCIL SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, THAT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. 
          WE, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING UP EVERYWHERE, BUT 90 FEET AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS TRADITIONALLY A LOWER INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD, TRADITIONALLY SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THAT THIS IS A BIG CHANGE. 
          SO IF WE CAN MITIGATE, UH, THE, THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS THROUGH THE APPROACH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX INITIALLY PROPOSED, I THINK THAT'S, UH, A BETTER COMPROMISE THAN SIMPLY ALLOWING IT AS THE APPLICANT PROPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, MEMBERS IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I LIKE TO PUT THAT THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IT GIVES, DOES GIVE US THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON, UM, THINGS THAT WE WANT TO SEE. 
          I THINK THAT WE CAN'T BE AFRAID OF THE HEIGHTS. 
          I THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES AND THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO I DO BELIEVE I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SITE PLANNING. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A, IT'S A NOBLE THING TO DO, BUT HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BEGAN TO PRESCRIBE SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, AREAS OF WHERE WE BELIEVE BUILDINGS ARE OR NOT, I THINK IT LIMITS THE CREATIVITY OF THE SITE PLANNERS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          I THINK WE LOOK AT THE STANDARDS OF WHICH WE WANT TO ADHERE TO AND ALLOW THERE TO BE SOME ABILITY TO HAVE THOSE THINGS THAT ACHIEVE WITHOUT BEING SO PRESCRIPTIVE. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE I LIKE TO SUBSTITUTE BULLSHIT. 
          NO, I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MEMBERS AGAINST A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONING ON HIS PLAY-DOH, UH, FOR INSTANCE, I JUST WANT TO EXTEND MY APPRECIATION TO, UM, ALL THE CREATIVITY AND THE MOTIONS AND, AND SUBSTITUTE OF TRYING TO MAKE THIS WORK AND NOT, AND THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, UM, EQUITY AND ESPECIALLY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL SITE IN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM HISTORY. 
          UM, WE NEED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY AND WE NEED TO LEARN WHY THE SITE IS EVEN AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          UM, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE THAT'S REALLY CLEANED UP TO RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. 
          THAT'S LIVABLE ON RESIDENTIAL 
          [01:45:01]
STANDARDS BECAUSE EVEN SOME OF THE SITES THAT WERE CALLED RESIDENTIAL BY THE STATE IN TERMS OF TCEQ QUALITY, THIRD-PARTY STILL FOUND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, SOIL CONTAMINATION, CONTAMINATION. 
          IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL TOXIC IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS. 
          UM, I GREW UP IN PART ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE LAST TANK, ONE OF THE LAST TANKS TO BE REMOVED, UM, CLOSE TO SHADY LANE AND CLOSE TO THAT THINK EAST PROPERTY WHERE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS POSSIBLE AND THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY DID NEGOTIATE FOR HEIGHT AND HUNDREDS OF UNITS AND SUBSIDIZE THE PROJECT BECAUSE GOOD PROJECTS SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED. 
          UH, BIOFILTRATION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIXING FLOODING. 
          THESE ARE BASIC NEEDS. 
          THESE ARE EQUITY ISSUES. 
          WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. 
          WE HAVE A FIRE LIT IN THE BELLY OF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON RESILIENCE IN THE CITY FOR THREE YEARS WITH NOT ENOUGH CITY RESULTS. 
          WE HAVE TO CLIMATE PROOF, OUR BUILDINGS AND OUR LAND. 
          AND I DEFINITELY SEE THE OPPORTUNITY HERE, BUT THE LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO DO 90 FEET IS A LOSS IN OPPORTUNITY, COST FOR RETURN ON INVESTMENT. 
          IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS WITH A 60 FOOT HEIGHT AND 60 FEET IS THE NEGOTIATION POINT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UM, BEN HE CONTACT TEAM HAS HAD 33 OUT OF 37 SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2003. 
          AND IT'S A DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ACROSS THE STREET, BUT GOOD PLANNERS WILL TELL YOU YOUR STREETS, SHOULDN'T DIVIDE. 
          YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA. 
          SO THIS IS A SERIOUS PRECEDENT BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU LOOK AT UPROOTED AND REALLY, IF YOU JUST LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE WHO YOUTUBE, THE TANK, FARM STUFF, READ THE HISTORY, WATCH THOSE WATCH BLACK AND BROWN AUSTIN. 
          IT'S THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING YOU, DON'T THIS PRECEDENT HERE BECAUSE WE STAND TO BENEFIT ONLY IF WE CAN STAY. 
          UM, THERE ARE OTHER CREATIVE WAYS TO FINANCE THIS. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THE BACKS OF THE SAME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT FOUGHT TO CLEAN UP THIS PLACE AND EVEN MAKE IT APPEALING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A CHARGE FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN, IMAGINE AUSTIN ALSO HAS A CHARGE TO RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS, WHICH DOES NEGOTIATE GROWTH AND NEW HEIGHT, BUT NEEDS TO DO SO RESPONSIBLY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS OKAY. 
          MEMBERS, UH, THAT ARE SUPPORTED. 
          THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS ARE  QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMIND ME I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO A SASKATOON ON A SUBSTITUTE, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. 
          UH, MR. RIVERA, RIGHT? THE SUBSTITUTES ON SUBSTITUTES, CHEER FOR CANADIANS FOR FIVE SECONDS. 
          I DID NOT MEAN TO HOLD US. 
          UM, IT'S OKAY. 
          UM, UH, THERE MIGHT'VE BEEN SOME OTHER ISSUES, SO IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ALL YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MY QUESTION, I CAN RESEND MY QUESTION. 
          LET'S SEE. 
          YEAH, IT'S A, THEY'RE CONFERRING WITH LEGAL, SO JUST, I THINK WE NEED TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT, UM, YEAH. 
          WHAT, WHAT, UH, MR. RIVERA COMES BACK WITH. 
          [01:50:54]
SO, UM, LET'S JUST DO THIS, UH, I'M GONNA DO I HAVE A SECOND TO MOVE JUST FOR A QUICK RECESS FOR THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST, UH, TAKE A BREAK. 
          UH, WE'LL COME BACK AT SEVEN 56, GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO FIGURE IT OUT. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I'M GOING TO BRING THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER IT'S, UH, SEVEN 58 AND, UH, WE LEFT OFF, SO WE, WE CAN'T HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TO A SUBSTITUTE. 
          THAT WOULD BE A THREE PENDING MOTIONS. 
          SO, UH, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION ON THIS, THIS ONE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          WE HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE PERSON SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER, DO I SEE HIM FOR MR. CONLEY OR NOPE. 
          YES, I CAN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, COP. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO I THINK I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE LAST POINT AND IT'S ONE THAT, THAT I'LL PROBABLY BE MAKING A LOT IS WE HAVE TO FIND, WE HAVE TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE. 
          UM, I FEEL LIKE IF, IF, UM, IF YOU DO THESE ZONING CHANGES IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OR ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT EXISTING HOMEOWNERS OR EXISTING RESIDENTS HAVE, UM, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO OPPOSE ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO PERCEIVE ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS A THREAT TO THEIR INTERESTS. 
          AND SO MY GOAL ON THIS COMMISSION IS TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEED TO GROW THE NEED, TO ADD HOUSING, THE NEED, TO HAVE A DIVERSE MIX OF USES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF NEIGHBORHOODS, TRANSIT, CORRIDORS, ALL THAT STUFF THAT WE WANT, THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE, BUT WHILE RESPECTING, UM, THE INTERESTS AND THE NEEDS OF THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE IN THESE PLACES. 
          AND WE'VE HEARD FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE HEIGHT IS A CONCERN. 
          I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE A FEW HOMEOWNERS SAW THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A, A DRAINAGE ISSUE FIXED BEHIND THEIR HOME. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE IS. 
          THE DETENTION POND DRAIN BASICALLY RIGHT INTO THEIR BACK FENCES, AND THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          BUT THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW IS REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OFFSITE DRAINAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S PART OF THE CITY CODE. 
          THEY HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          THEIR ENGINEER KNOWS THEY HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          SO THE PREP, SO THE WATER THAT'S COMING FROM THOSE HOMES, THAT'S COMING FROM THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THEM. 
          THEY HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT OFFSITE DRAINAGE, NO MATTER WHAT, THAT'S NOT A SUPERIOR TYPE OF TYPE OF THING. 
          IT IS SUPERIOR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE SOME SORT OF NEW DRAINAGE STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING. 
          BUT, UM, AND I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE PUTTING RESIDENTS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY'RE HAVING TO TRADE, UH, YOU KNOW, THEIR COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS OR HAVING A SIX STORY OFFICE BUILDING NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE WITH GETTING A DRAINAGE ISSUE FIXED BECAUSE THERE'S DRAINAGE ISSUES TO NOT BE TOOLS TO HOLD HOMEOWNERS HOSTAGE. 
          SO, SO MY WHOLE POINT IS TRYING TO FIND, TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE. 
          AND I THINK BY THEY'RE STEPPING THAT HEIGHT UP AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS, UH, THE, THE AIRPORT ROAD IN SPRINGDALE, RIGHT OF WAY WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE TRANSIT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN. 
          UH, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. 
          IT GIVES YOU A LOT OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS, BUT ALSO, UH, INCREASE IN COMPATIBILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          [01:55:01]
COMMISSIONER COX, I FORGOT TO TELL YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          THE TWO MINUTES, UH, IS ALL WE HAVE FOR THE LAST, FOR THE OTHER SPEAKERS. 
          SO I DIDN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, SO I, I NEED TO BE, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, WE, WE CAN'T PUT A SUBSTITUTE ON A SUBSTITUTE, BUT WE CAN AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE. 
          SO THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY AND, YOU KNOW, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO, UH, ON A MOTION, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONERS CAN OFFER AMENDMENT. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO. 
          SO, UH, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE VOTE, UH, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE RIGHT? YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT? YES. 
          UM, THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          AND, UM, I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH LIKE, TO SEE IF YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE, SO THIS IS A FAMILY AMENDMENT, BUT ESSENTIALLY, SO I'M HEARING BOTH SIDES AND I'M HEARING LIKE A CONCERN OF THE COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOODS AND I, AND I WOULD PREFER TO GO TO ACTUALLY, WHAT IS IN OUR BACKUPS. 
          I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 110, WHICH IS EXHIBIT J. 
          UM, AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE WOULD GO 75 FEET OF HEIGHT AND 85 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE AND 93 FEET OF HEIGHT AT ONE 40 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST SINGLE FAMILY BARBIE LINE. 
          I THINK THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THAT, I'M SORRY, THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          I CAN SPEAK TO IT. 
          UH, REPEAT THAT PLEASE. 
          UH, 75 FEET HEIGHT AT 85 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, FROM THE CLOSEST SINGLE FAMILY MARK LINE. 
          AND WHAT PAGE AGAIN? CAN YOU, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT PAGE AGAIN? SURE. 
          THIS IS 110 FOR THE EXHIBIT FOR B3, AND THIS IS EXHIBIT G A HUNDRED AND 112. 
          SO THIS IS A LETTER AND I AM LOOKING AT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, THE THIRD COMPLETE BACKGROUND. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO LET'S BE REALLY, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT G, SORRY. 
          YEP. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          I'LL REPEAT THIS AGAIN. 
          SO I'M LOOKING AT A PAGE NUMBER 110 OF 112 OF OUR BACKUP, WHICH IS EXHIBIT J THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORS. 
          AND I'M LOOKING AT THE TURD. 
          BIOGRAPH THE TEXEL BIOGRAPH. 
          UM, AND I'M READING LAST TIME ESSENTIALLY TO SAY THAT IT WILL BE 75 FEET OF HEIGHT AND 85 FEET FROM THE CLOSED SINGLE FAMILIES, LOT LINE AND 93 FEET OF HEIGHT AND 140 FEET FROM THE DOOR, SINGLE FAMILY LOCK LINE. 
          SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT AMENDMENT, RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? YOU SECOND IT, NO, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PATIENT FOR THE MOTION MAKER. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, ISN'T THIS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING? SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE OF HAVING 93 RIGHT NEXT TO THE SINGLE LOCK LINE. 
          SO IT'S FAMILY LOCKED LINE, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND STEPPING IT UP AND SORT OF HAVING THAT SORT OF GEARED HEIGHT. 
          AND I'M SAYING, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS WERE INDEED THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS AND THEY HAVE GIVEN US A CLEAR INDICATION WHAT THAT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW THE INDICATION THAT THE PEOPLE LIVING RIGHT ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, WHO WOULD BE CLOSEST TO THAT BUILDING, WHAT THEY'VE ASKED US TO DO. 
          SO, SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS, IS THIS NOT WHAT IS IN THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED? NO. 
          THE, THE APPLICANTS LOOKING FOR 93 PERIOD, NOT THE STEP UP THAT IT'S CLEAR, IT'S, IT'S JUST SIMPLE AND CLEAR LIKE THAT. 
          SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS, UM, PUT IN THERE WITH THE STEP UP. 
          SO THE, SO TO BE CLEAR ON THE MOTION, YOU'RE SAYING THE CURRENT, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS 90. 
          THEY'RE SAYING THEY WANT TO GO TO 93 AT 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND WE'RE SAYING THEY, THEY GO TO, THEY'LL GET 75 FEET, UM, AT 85 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN AT 140 FEET, THEY CAN GO TO 93 FEET. 
          SO THAT, UM, SO IS THAT TRUE? I MEAN, IS, ARE THEY, ARE THEY PROPOSING 93 FEET AT 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? I GUESS I HAVE TO SAY I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE APPLICANT HERE IS PROPOSING TO THIS SPACE. 
          UH LET'S UH, SECOND AND I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO MY WASHING. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION IS, UH, IS I HEARD IT WAS, UM, LOOKING AT EXHIBIT J PAGE ONE 
          [02:00:01]
10 THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED 75 FEET AT 85 FEET FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT. 
          SANDY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. 
          AND THEN IT 140 FEET, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO 93 FEET. 
          SO THAT'S THE MOTION. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, LET'S SEE. 
          COMMISSIONER CAUDALIE SECONDS. 
          IT, SO NOW SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR AND YOU HAVE, UM, TWO MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT SEVEN OR THE MINI WAS ESSENTIALLY 93 FEET AS A PART OF THE BUD. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ALL BUILDING ON SITE. 
          AND I'M ALSO HEARING THIS ISSUE OF COMPATIBILITY AND HAVING A STEP DOWN FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT EITHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS WE HAVE A LETTER WITH CLEAR INDICATION FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR AND I'M THINKING THEIR INDICATION TO GO TO THIS. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY HAVING THAT STEP DOWN SO THAT WE HAVE SOME DEGREE OF COMPATIBILITY, WE ALSO IN MUNDANE THE HIGHER STANDARDS OF THE BOD, AND WE ENSURE THE VIABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO BRING THE HEIGHT DOWN AND SQUEEZE THE DEVELOPMENT OUT EAST, WHICH WOULD THEN START IMPACTING THE ASSOCIATE OR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THERE'S A CEDAR STREET NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE. 
          ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH I THINK THIS IS A BETTER DEVELOPMENT IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS DOORS, THE FRONT OF THE SITE, ALLOWING THAT BOND IN THE BACK. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO SORT OF THE MUNDANE, THE SUPERIORITY OF THE, UM, THE PROPOSAL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, HAVING THAT STEP UP, COMING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF. 
          OKAY. 
          DO I HAVE A COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE COMMISSIONER CUT, UH, CUPS. 
          I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT THAT IS THE PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, SO, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS NOT ONLY THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT ALSO THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          WE, I, I APOLOGIZE IF, IF, IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WE, WE KEEP AMENDING OR SUBSTITUTING MOTIONS THAT ARE BASICALLY JUST SENTENCES OR GRAPHICS FROM THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. 
          SO, UM, OKAY. 
          SO I'M BEING TOLD, UH, I GUESS THIS ISN'T AN AMENDMENT, SO, UH, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM, UH, MR. RIVERA. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THIS, UM, WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHY THIS IS AN AMENDMENT SURE. 
          COMMISSION LASER HANDOVER. 
          SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS BASICALLY A THIRD SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE STEP, UM, BACK YOU'RE, UH, CREATING A SEPARATE MOTION, MODIFYING THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          YOU CAN ADD TO BE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT YOU CANNOT MODIFY IT THE STOMACH. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I RESEND MY SUBSTITUTE AND THEN ALLOW THIS ONE TO MOVE FORWARD? WE HAVE NOT. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE NOT VOTED. 
          SO WHAT'S, UH, UM, SURE. 
           SO THE MOTION, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE AND IT BELONGS TO THE BODY. 
          IT DOES NOT. 
          IT'S NO LONGER TO A COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, VOTE, UH, ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          SO WE'VE, UH, I MEAN, SOMEBODY COULD OFFER AN, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE, BUT I THINK, UM, I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION UNLESS WE HAVE SOME MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE, UH, LET ME GO AND READ THIS, UH, IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, BY SHAY SECONDED BY MR. AZHAR AND IS PRESENTED ON, UM, EIGHT 43. 
          UH, WE WERE ALLOWING LIMITING, UH, THE, THE SITES, A, B AND C TO 93 FEET, BUT ONLY THOSE AREAS ON THE PAGE 43, THE SITE PLAN WITH, UM, ONLY AREAS A, B AND C WOULD BE ALLOWED THE 93 FOOT HEIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. 
          IT'S THE SUBSTITUTE. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT. 
          UH, SHOW YOUR CARDS PLEASE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I HAVE, 
          [02:05:01]
UM, LET'S SEE, IT DOES FOUR ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX. 
          AND KEEP YOUR CARDS UP AND AGAINST OH, SEVEN ONE TWO THREE. 
          HOLD ON. 
          KEEPING UP ONE. 
          I HAVE SEVEN, FOUR AND ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AGAINST ALL RIGHT. 
          SEVEN TO FOUR. 
          SO THAT MOTION, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO WERE WE FIT, COMPLETED THAT ITEM? I THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME. 
          THAT WAS CHALLENGING, BUT I THINK WE GOT THROUGH IT. 
          UM, SO WE'RE, UH, NOW GOING TO HOLD ON ONE SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO, UM, ITEM B SIX AND WE'LL START WITH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN HAD ABILITY WAIVER, AND WE'LL START WITH THE PRESENTATION FROM STAFF CHAIR, COMMISSIONER WEIGHS ON ENVER. 
          UM, WE DO HAVE A BEFORE. 
          OH, I APOLOGIZE. 
          YES, WE DID APOLOGIZE. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, YANNIS. 
          TOLEDO. 
          YES, 
          [B4. Rezoning: C14-2021-0001 - 3707 Goodwin Avenue; District 3]
WE HAVE ITEM BEFORE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, GET THE STAFF TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THAT ONE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          COMMISSIONERS, HEATHER CHAFFING, HOUSING AND PLANNING. 
          THE CASE IS  2021 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE. 
          IT'S 37 OH SEVEN GOODWIN. 
          IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE ONE YOU JUST FINISHED TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO ADD A Z TO A SITE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THE S M U ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S 3.12, ONE ACRES STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE REQUESTS, SCROLL DOWN. 
          UM, IF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, UTILIZING THE, THE V BENEFITS AND RELAPSED STANDARDS, THEN THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROXIMATELY 400 APARTMENTS. 
          AND 10% OF THOSE UNITS WOULD BE AT 80% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. 
          THE SITE IS NOT ON A CORE OF FUTURE, UH, COURTROOMS AT CORRIDOR EXISTING OUR FUTURE. 
          UH, ALTHOUGH THIS IS IN THE VICINITY OF OTHER TANK FARM SITES, THIS ISN'T HER PART OF THE TANK TANK FARM, AND NO ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION HAS BEEN REQUIRED. 
          UM, UH, THIS PROPERTY ALSO IS WITHIN AN IMAGINAL SKIN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. 
          AND ALONG TO IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDORS, THERE ARE BUS STOPS IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE AND INTO THE FUTURE GREEN LINE. 
          UH, IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR ZONED CFMU, U N P ACROSS AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO THE WEST ARE MIXED WITH LAND USES, UH, THEN THE S T O N P MS. LEE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SALES. 
          UH, THE CASE I HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY AT 1135 GUNTER STREET IS ALSO IN THAT AREA ACROSS THE AIRPORT THAT, UH, RECENTLY HAD A V DESIGNATION ADDED TO IT. 
          UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, ALSO ACROSS THE STREET FROM, UM, ACROSS GILLILAND AVENUE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY IS, UH, 3,706 GILLILAND AVENUE, WHICH ADDED DIZZY, UM, LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW, SPRINGDALE GENERAL AND THE BASE SPRINGDALE GREEN SIDECAR TO THE BEAST THAT, UM, COVERS THE DETAILS. 
          WE'RE SUPPORTING THE REQUEST BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE WE TRADITIONALLY HAVE RECOMMENDED A VERTICAL, AN EXCUSE. 
          IT IS PROXIMATE TO MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THAT HAD BEEN GRANTED VMU IN THE PAST THREE YEARS WITH SELECTING THE POLICIES OF COMMISSIONING COUNCIL, ADDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AN AREA, SORT OF DEVELOPED BY TRANSIT AND OFFERING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UM, UH, DAVID HARTMAN, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? 
          [02:10:01]
DID HE MEAN SHARON COMMISSIONERS, DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE ACCIDENT? UM, IF YOU COULD LET ME KNOW ON THE SLIDES THAT THE SLIDE DECK IS UP ON SLIDE TWO FAIR. 
          WE'RE READY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I ALSO HAVE JILL CHARLTON, CIVIL ENGINEER AND SIMON SCHUMANN SHOEMAKER, A DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE HANDY FOR QUESTIONS ON THE PHONE. 
          UM, THIS IS A SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD VMU CLAY CASE, BUT IT'S EXCITING IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S TRANSFORMING THREE ACRES OF A TRUCKING TERMINAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT AND SPRINGDALE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, UH, HOUSING ON THE GROUND. 
          THE HAS NO EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND, UH, UH, THE DETENTION, UH, CURRENTLY IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT CODE STAFF TALKED ABOUT ADJACENT ZONING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          I'M AWARE OF FIVE VMES ZONING CASES NEARBY. 
          THE TWO MENTIONED, AND THEN JUST ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS, 74, SEVEN 48 AIRPORT AND TRAIL PHASE TWO 1101, SHADY WERE APPROVED ON CONSENT BY THIS BODY IN LATE DECEMBER, AND THEN, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN 48, 13, UM, GONZALEZ AROUND THE CORNER ON SEVENTH WAS APPROVED AS WELL. 
          THE ADJACENT USES HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AGAIN, IT'S A SIMPLE CASE, JUST ADDING A VMU ZONING STAFF RECOMMENDS AND SUPPORTED BY THE SPRING SPRING DALE AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, OR SIMPLY TRYING TO, UH, PROPOSING TO OFFER A 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IN HOPES THAT IT WILL GET TO THE, UH, BLUEPRINT SCORE SCORECARD ON HELPING FULFILL SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS THAT WE'RE FAR BEHIND. 
          UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          THIS SHOWS THE PROJECT AREA OF JUST THE INTERSECTION AT SPRINGDALE AIRPORT AND GOOD ONE NEXT SLIDE. 
          THIS SHOWS, AGAIN, THE ADJACENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT USES, UM, APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH, THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS TO THE WEST AND A COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH AND EAST. 
          NEXT SLIDE IS THE ZONING AREA MAP. 
          AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE CSV TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST TO SEE US M U VMU THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN APPROVED AND THEN CS AND GR TO THE SOUTH AND EAST. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE FLOM THAT SHOWS THIS IS MIXED USE ON THE FARM SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT VMU IS CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS SITE. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, SLIDE SHOWS THAT THIS IS SQUARELY WITHIN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN SPRINGDALE STATION NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THAT THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE CONFLUENCE OF ASM P TPMS BOUNDED BY IT. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THAT AGAIN, AS WAS MENTIONED BY MS. CHAFFIN, THAT THE PROJECT IS BOUNDED BY BUS STOPS, AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE PROJECT'S PROXIMITY IMMEDIATELY ACROSS AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SPRINGDALE. 
          UM, STOP ON THE GREEN LINE CAP. 
          METRO STAFF SAYS THAT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IN A NUMBER OF YEARS AND A POSSIBLE NEW BUS STATION SOONER AND ABOUT FOUR YEARS. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE I'LL PAUSE ON AND GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT SLOWER. 
          THE COLUMN IS THE EXISTING ZONING AND THEN THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT FACTORS. 
          AND THEN THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN IS OUR, UH, PROPOSED ZONING. 
          YOU CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TOP ROW IS MAXIMUM HEIGHT, 60 FEET. 
          UH, WHEN OUR PROPOSED ZONING, WE'RE GOING TO BASICALLY LEAVE THE IDENTICAL SAME, NOT CHANGING ANY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNTIL YOU GET TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ROW. 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 10% AFFORDABLE. 
          AND WE ESTIMATE PROBABLY ABOUT 400 UNITS ON THIS PROJECT. 
          SO APPROXIMATELY 40 UNITS, OTHERWISE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT RATES ARE GONNA STAY THE SAME. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS PRETTY TYPICAL GARAGE RAT BY RESIDENTIAL. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED LIVE WORK ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ON SPRINGDALE ROAD. 
          NEXT SLIDE, JUST SO IT SHOWS THE SAME VIEW AGAIN, GARAGE, RIGHT BY RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL COUPLE OF SLIDES. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE SUPPORT LETTER BY THE SPRINGDALE AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHERE THEY'VE GOT FOUR DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO. 
          THE, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE IN SUPPORTIVE TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT EARMARKING, PARKLAND, DEDICATION FEES TOWARDS GABEL, AND THEY WERE THE PART THAT'S PROBABLY IN THE VICINITY OF $350,000, UH, PARKLAND FEES, DONATING MONEY TO THE AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION EARMARKED FOR THAT PARK, AND THEN LIMITING. 
          [02:15:01]
HI, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AGAIN, THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF CONVERTING A TRUCKING TERMINAL TO MULTIFAMILY UNITS, AND THAT FULFILLS THE NEIGHBORHOODS VISION FOR THIS TRACK, THEN EXISTING ZONING. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL SLIDE IS JUST THE SUMMARY OF THE REASONS TO SUPPORT THAT WE'VE GONE. 
          UM, AGAIN AT THIS BASICALLY, UH, CONVERTING EXISTING TRUCK TERMINAL AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN A SMP, THE PROJECT CONNECT THE CORRIDOR MOBILITY PLAN, AND HOPEFULLY CATCHING UP ON SOME ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, BRING ENVIRONMENTAL REGS UP TO CURRENT REGS, ADDING NEW STREETS AND LAND, UH, STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING ARAMARK IN MARKING, YOU KNOW, SIX FIGURES WORTH OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES. 
          AND AGAIN, SUPPORTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          AND THE PLAN ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES THIS TRACK AS UNDERUSED AND ENVISIONS A MIXED USE PEDESTRIAN TOD DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          AND I WOULD JUST END BY ASKING THAT WE HOPE THE SUPPORT STAFF AND THE SPRINGVILLE SPRINGDALE AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND I'LL STOP AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, UM, SIGNED UP OR IN AGAINST, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ANY REBUTTAL HERE. 
          UM, SO LET'S GO AND START WITH THE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, WELL, LET'S SEE, I GUESS WE HAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I SEE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GOOD. 
          UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, I'LL SPEAK SINCE I PULLED THIS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SO IF ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK. 
          BUT I, UM, WAS ACTUALLY JUST LOOKING FOR CLARITY AND CONTEXT ON THIS CASE IN PARTICULARLY, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE VOTED ON WHEN IT'S A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. 
          NOW IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT LONG AGO, BUT ONE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS, UM, UH, WHERE WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THE, UM, IMPACTS OF THE EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE, UM, GOING TO BE REMOVED FOR THAT SITE. 
          SO I WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE THIS SITE, HOW THIS INTERPLAYS WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THE APPLICANT LAID OUT, UM, VERY NICELY. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 
          UM, AND I'LL JUST GIVE BACK WHATEVER OTHER TIME HE WANTS. 
          OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          UH, NO COMMISSIONER CODDLING. 
          UM, YEAH, IT'S, UH, IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY SHORT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          AND, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK BRIEFLY IF ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED TO THE LARGE AMOUNT OF PARKING GARAGE SPACE, UM, THAT IS ALLOCATED IN THE, IN THE PROJECT. 
          UM, I GUESS I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO, UM, MR. SHOEMAKER OR MS. CHARLTON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY. 
          I MEAN, THE REQUIREMENT IS A SITE DEVELOPMENT, UH, ISSUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT SITE DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? NO, I WAS JUST, YEAH, IF IT'S NOT EASY TO ANSWER, THAT'S ALSO NOT A BIG DEAL AT THIS POINT. 
          YEAH. 
          I WOULD SAY, I GUESS OFF THE TOP, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, AGAIN, OTHERS CAN CHIME IN, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE AT THE ZONING STAGE AND THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU SEE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE SLIDE DECK IS, UH, AS STATED A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. 
          AND WE'VE KIND OF DONE SOME BACK OF THE ENVELOPE STUDY. 
          I'VE MET WITH ARCHITECTS AND THAT'S THE GENERAL LAYOUT AND GENERAL IDEA, BUT, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          I MEAN, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT IS IT'S GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE, THE, THE GREEN LINE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S PRECISELY WHY I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE LARGE AMOUNT OF PARKING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT ANY MORE QUESTIONS, RIGHT? UH, IN ONE, WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER MOVE WE ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZAR. 
          SO, UM, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          ONE, TWO, THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ARE YOU YELLOW? OKAY. 
          THAT'S YELLOW. 
          SORRY, THIS IS MY GREEN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT'S UH, WE 
          [02:20:01]
HAVE 10, UH, FOUR AND ONE, UH, NEUTRAL. 
          OKAY. 
          [B6. Site Plan- Compatibility Waiver: SP-2020-0364C - Lessin Lane Villas ; District 3]
ALL RIGHT. 
          NOW I THINK WE'RE SAFE TO MOVE ON TO, UH  AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM STAFF. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          I AM RESUME ABILA WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 
          I'M THE CASE MANAGER FOR S P 2020 ZERO THREE 64 LESSEN LANE VILLAS. 
          IT'S LOCATED AT TWO, TWO, ONE LEFT IN LANE AND THE DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DISTRICT. 
          NUMBER THREE. 
          IT IS THE SF SIX AND P IT IS 1.4664 ACRES. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A COMMISSION APPROVAL COMPATIBILITY WAIVER FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 TO 10 63 FOR THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, UM, ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY PONDS. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IS 17 CONDOMINIUM UNIT. 
          UM, THE VERSION CONTROLS ARE SUFFICIENT AND COMPLIANT WITH THE LDC AND ECM CRITERIA. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST. 
          ALL UNITS WILL NOT BE WITHIN THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK. 
          UM, THE APPLICANT IS ON THIS CALL AS WELL AS CITY STAFF TO ANSWER ANY DRAINAGE, ENVIRONMENTAL, OR FLOODPLAIN QUESTIONS, AND I WILL HAND IT BACK OVER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO I HAVE HERE, UM, MARK ZUPAN. 
          ARE YOU, ARE YOU THERE STAR SIX SEMI PERSON RESIDENCY PAN? OH, YES. 
          UH, YES, PLEASE. 
          UH, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          THIS IS YOUR PEN. 
          IF YOU WILL SELECT STAR SIX. 
          OH, THAT WAS RIVERA. 
          SORRY. 
          SURE. 
          WE MAY BE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUE WITH MR. COUPON. 
          UM, WE'LL HAVE HIM CALL BACK IN. 
          HAVE YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION? OH, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. 
          OKAY, MR. ZUPAN HIS CHAIR. 
          I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. XU PAN CALL BACK IN MR. ZEBRA HENNA. 
          IF YOU'LL CALL BACK INTO THE NUMBER AND SHARE, WE CAN HEAR FROM THE, YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO IN HERE FROM THOSE OPPOSED TO THE CASE. 
          UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, JUST THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. 
          SO REBECCA SCHELLER STAR SIX 10 MEET. 
          YES, THIS IS REBECCA SCHELLER. 
          OKAY. 
          WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UH, YEAH, SO, UH, I'M A NEIGHBOR OF THE PROJECT HERE ON LESSEN LANE. 
          I'M PRETTY CLOSE FROM SOUTHEAST OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND, UH, BEEN FOLLOWING IT CLOSELY. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A WAIVER OF THE SETBACKS FOR THE RETENTION POND ALONG EAST GOLDEN CREEK. 
          UH, EAST BOULDIN CREEK IS ACTUALLY THE REASON THAT THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FORMED IN 1994, THAT THE ORIGINAL FORMATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS TO PROTECT THE CREEK. 
          UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THESE RETENTION PRONGS ASKING FOR SETBACK JUST GIVES LESS PROTECTION TO THE CREEK AND THE WATERSHED IN GENERAL, POTENTIALLY LEADING TO FLOODING. 
          UM, I WAS FOLLOWING THE CASES EARLIER. 
          UM, I THINK, UM, NOT BEING REALLY, REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WHERE THESE RETENTION BONDS ARE PLACED, COULD PUT A LOT OF OTHER PROPERTIES AND PEOPLE IN DANGER IN TERMS OF WATERSHED. 
          UM, RIGHT NOW EAST BOLDEN CREEK. 
          THIS IS AT THE HEADWATERS OF THE CREEK. 
          AND RIGHT NOW THE CREEK IS IN PRETTY GOOD CONDITION AT THE HEADWATERS AS IT GOES. 
          WATERFLOWS FURTHER DOWN TOWARDS THE LAKE, THE WATER QUALITY WORSEN. 
          SO, UM, I'M JUST ASKING FOR SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION ABOUT THIS WAIVER. 
          UM, 
          [02:25:01]
I, I DON'T, I, IF THIS PLAN IS, UH, 17 UNITS ON A LITTLE, UNDER AN ACRE AND A HALF, IT'S NOT A UNIFORM LAW, THEY'RE REALLY SQUEEZING THE 17 UNITS INTO THIS, THIS LAW. 
          UM, IT WAS GRANTED A WAIVER TO SSX TO X FROM, AT THREE TO SSX NEARLY AUTOMATICALLY OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT, BUT, UH, THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER ON THIS PLAN. 
          AND, UH, BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER IN THE YEAR TIME TO EXPLAIN THAT IT'S NOT JUST A NORMAL ONE AND A HALF ACRES, THAT IT REALLY KIND OF SITS IN A DEAD END ON ONE SIDE AND THE ONE WAY ON THE OTHER AND A CURVE ON THE OTHERS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY SS THREE, AND JUST SEEMS LIKE A BETTER SOLUTION TO THE PLAN WOULD JUST TO BE TO, UM, JUST LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF UNITS EVER SO SLIGHTLY AND PUT THE RETENTION PONDS WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AND DO GOOD PLANNING FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY. 
          SO, UM, IT'S ALSO, UH, THE ALONG THE CREEK, IT'S IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN. 
          SO AGAIN, THERE'S JUST SOME REALLY SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS ON THIS LAW AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE, OF THE POND. 
          SO, UM, I JUST WANT TO BE FORWARD-THINKING WHEN THE PROJECT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          I'M SURE IT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL. 
          JUST SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE DOWNSIZED EVER SO SLIGHTLY TO DO THE RETENTION POND TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH OUT THOSE, UH, THE OPPOSITION, JUST TO FINISH THAT AND THEN WE'LL JUMP BACK. 
          SO THE NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE IS CARMEN HERNANDEZ, STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. 
          OKAY. 
          HI. 
          YES, THIS IS CARMEN HERNANDEZ. 
          UM, AND I LIVE AT, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          SO THIS IS CARMEN HERNANDEZ, AND I LIVE AT TWO 16 CREPT LANE. 
          I HAD A NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET FROM BECKY AND DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE LESSON LANE PROPERTY. 
          I HAVE OWNED A LYFT HERE FOR THE PAST NINE YEARS, AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE WAIVER OF SETBACKS FOR THE RETENTION POND. 
          UM, IT'S JUST MY OPINION THAT BY GRANTING THIS WAIVER, MY NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL WILL BE AT A GREATER RISK FOR FLOODING. 
          THESE CODES ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE FILTER HAS OUR, OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S BEST INTEREST IN MIND. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THE SOLUTION IS TO NOT GRANT THIS WAIVER, BUT INSTEAD TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT PROPERLY WILL FIT IN WITHIN THE PROPERTY. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. 
          SHARE YOUR IMMUNE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE HAVE RICK RAMYA STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. 
          SURE. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE MR. RINGER ON THE LINE ON THE TELECONFERENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. RIVERA. 
          SO THEN, UM, WE WILL GO TO THE APPLICANT, UM, MR. AND YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES FOR VONDA COMBINED, YOUR SIX MINUTES UP FRONT AND YOUR REBUTTALS. 
          SO, UH, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES IF YOU NEED THEM STAR SIX ON IT. 
           ARE YOU THERE STAR SIX, UM, CHAIR. 
          I'M GOING TO, UM, GIVE MR. ZUPAN A CALL TO SEE WHAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MR. RIVERA, DO YOU THINK THIS WILL TAKE MORE THAN A, WELL, MAYBE HARD TO TELL MORE THAN A FEW MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES PLEASE. 
          MR. DOES, DID HE SAY FIVE MINUTES? LET'S GO AHEAD. 
          AND, UH, I'M GOING TO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES? UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR SECONDS. 
          UH, SO WE'LL BE BACK HERE AT EIGHT 41. 
          UH, WE HAVE FORUMS. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, UH, RESUME THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
          [02:30:01]
HERE AT EIGHT 41. 
          UM, AND MR. ZUPAN, YOU'VE GOT ACTUALLY NINE MINUTES IF YOU NEED IT. 
          WE'RE COMBINING YOUR INITIAL SIX MINUTES AND THREE MINUTE REBUTTALS. 
          SO, UM, SHOULD YOU NEED IT? YOU CAN TAKE THE TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE NINE MINUTES. 
          UM, I, I HEARD FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT FLOODING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          SO PER CODE, WE NEED TO RELEASE THE, THE AMOUNT OF WATER FROM THE SITE AS IT WAS NOT EVEN DEVELOPED. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, BY LAW, WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT AFFECT THE DOWNSTREAM, UH, INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE IT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. 
          SO BECAUSE THE PONDS ARE LOCATED WHERE THE PONDS ARE LOCATED, IT'S, WE'RE NOT FLOODING ANYONE. 
          THE PONDS ARE LOCATED IN THE AREA THAT THEY ARE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE, THE SITE SLOPES. 
          SO THAT'S THE LOWEST POINT OF THE SITES NOW, UM, I KNOW I HEARD A, A COMMENT THAT, UH, WE REZONED THE LOT FROM SF THREE TO SF SIX, AND IT MADE IT MORE DONE. 
          WELL, WHAT WE DID WITH REZONING, THE LOT WE TOOK, WE COULD'VE PUT 19 DRIVEWAYS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          AND BY REZONING, IT WE'RE PUTTING ONE DRIVEWAY. 
          I HEARD ALSO THAT WE ARE IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, THE DRAIN, THE DETENTION PONDS ARE NOT IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 
          AND NOTHING THAT WE ARE BUILDING IS IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DO A MODIFICATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN WITH FEMA. 
          AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN TAKES TOO MUCH TIME. 
          DON'T WANT TO DO IT. 
          SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS. 
          AND ONE OF THE THOUGHTS ON DEVELOPING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE ARE ALSO HERITAGE TREES THROUGHOUT WHICH WE DESIGNED THE PIECE OF PROPERTY AROUND TO KEEP THEM AND NOT MITIGATE FOR THEM AND PAGES, MONEY INTO A FUND. 
          SO WE WANTED TO KEEP THE, THE EXISTING NATURE OF THE LOT, AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLE COULD. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S HONESTLY, ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY IS WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE ANYONE'S PROPERTY WORSE. 
          IT'S GOING TO STAY THE SAME. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ON THAT. 
          IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS AND MORE THAN THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ASK ME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S ALL OUR SPEAKERS, UH, COMMISSIONER . 
          YES, I DO HAVE MR. RAYNA ON THE LINE NOW. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL GIVE MR. REYNA TENTS TO SPEAK. 
          YOU'VE GOT, UH, THREE MINUTES MR. RENO, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX. 
          THANK YOU. 
          PROCEED. 
          HELLO? HELLO, PLEASE PROCEED. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YES, THIS IS MR. RAINA. 
          YES. 
          I OWNED THE PROPERTY THAT TWO OH NINE AND TWO 11 DUNLAP, UH, AND, UH, MIKE PROBLEM WITH, UH, RATTING THEM 25 FEET CLOSER IS THE FLOODING. 
          AND THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS, UH, THE FLOODING THAT'S, UH, THAT, THAT COULD BE GREG A RISK RATHER THAN HAVING IT SIT BACK TO WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS. 
          AND I KNOW THEY HAVE THEIR ISSUE PROBABLY AS AESTHETICS AND, UH, UH, OR MAYBE THEY WANT TO PUT ANOTHER UNIT THERE. 
          I'M NOT SURE, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH, IT'S WORTH THE RISK OF A FLOODING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THAT AREA SITS REALLY LOW. 
          AND, UH, AND I'M, I'M SURE THAT WAS ALL THE, UH, UH, CONSTRUCTION THERE. 
          NOW THAT'S PROPOSED, UH, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A GREATER RISK OF FLOODING. 
          UM, THAT'S ABOUT IT. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. 
          OKAY. 
          A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, MR. ZAR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER. 
          UH HEMPEL UH, AND OKAY. 
          UNANIMOUS. 
          WELL ALMOST WE'LL WAIT, THERE WE GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YOU GOT IT, BUDDY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          UH, QUESTIONS, MR. FOX. 
          [02:35:02]
YEAH. 
          UM, I THINK STAFF COULD HELP CLARIFY, UH, FOR, FOR ALL INVOLVED THE, THE, THE SETBACK, THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          IT HAS NO RELATION TO THE CREEK OR THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? CAN STAFF CLARIFY THAT FOR US? CORRECT. 
          THE CASE MANAGER, CORRECT. 
          THE COMPATIBLE COMPATIBILITY STEP BACK IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE APPLICANTS, UH, OR THE ENGINEER, MR. UM, MR. ZUPAN, UM, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT, WHAT YOU FIRST SEE THESE DETENTION PONDS, UH, LOOKING LIKE, ARE THEY JUST GOING TO BE EARTHEN EMBANKMENT WITH, UH, WITH EITHER A CONCRETE WEIR STRUCTURE THAT DISCHARGES IN THE BOLDING BOLDEN CREEK, OR IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, MAYBE THERE'S A PIPE THAT COMES OUT OF IT AND DISCHARGE IT INTO THE CREEK. 
          SO IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE A CONCRETE STRUCTURE. 
          I BELIEVE I MADE IT AS SMALL AS I POSSIBLY COULD. 
          I BELIEVE THE HEIGHT IS THREE FEET. 
          IT'LL BE ENCLOSED WITH A DECK ON TOP OF IT. 
          SO IT'LL JUST LOOK LIKE A RETAINING WALL. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE A POND. 
          THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE WILL BE AWARE. 
          AND THEN FROM THE FILTRATION SIDE, IT'LL BE A SIX INCH PIPE WITH AN ORIFICE, UM, COVER ON IT TO, TO RELEASE THE WATER AT THE, UH, THE FLOW RATE THAT I NEED TO FOR CODE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE BEAUTY OF, OF WHERE THIS IS, DISCHARGE IS DIRECTLY INTO THE CREEK. 
          SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE OVER ANY OVERLAND FLOW. 
          UM, NO, NO, UH, EROSION AND SO FORTH. 
          YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS THAT THESE PONDS WERE GOING TO BE COVERED WITH A DECK. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YES, THERE, THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION THAT I HAD WITH THE DRAINAGE REVIEWER. 
          UH, I BELIEVE TODAY. 
          YEAH. 
          MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO, INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING A OPEN STRUCTURE AND THEN UGLY, THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE A DECK AND PUT IT OVER THE TOP WITH ACCESS, ACCESS PORTS. 
          SO IT CAN BE MAINTAINED AND TAKEN CARE OF IS THE DECK, IS THE DECK GOING TO BE LIKE RECREATIONAL OR PUBLIC OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE YOUTH EXHIBIT? UH, THE, UH, THE IDEA, THE USE OF THE DECK IS NOT GOING TO BE PER EACH UNIT. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LAND OWNER ON HOW WE WANT TO DO THAT. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, I MEAN, THE DECK IS NOT GOING TO BE, I, I DON'T KNOW, HONESTLY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FOR EVERY, FOR, YOU KNOW, LIKE A PARKLAND, IF YOU WILL. 
          WE HAVE, WE HAVE ABOUT, I THINK 0.4 ACRES OF, OF OPEN SPACE THAT WE'RE IN TALKS WITH, UM, PART TWO, YOU KNOW, INTEGRATE. 
          SO TH THE, THE LOT IS IT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE WE ARE, WE ARE PROVIDING ACCESS FROM LESSON LANE TO KREBS AND REYNA, AND WE'RE DOING THAT VIA THE PROPOSED ROADWAY. 
          WE'RE ALSO IN TALKS WITH PART ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UM, ADDING, SO WE HAVE THE PONDS AREN'T ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THE PONDS ARE FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          SO WE'RE IN TALKS WITH TRYING TO ADD A PATH, BUT, UM, IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEN THERE'S, THERE'S ACCESS FROM LESSON TWO RAIN. 
          YEAH. 
          VIA THE, THE, UH, THE ROAD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT, THAT LARGE TREES GOING, GONNA BE A CHALLENGE WHEN IT COMES TO THAT POINT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT WAS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH PART IS, LOOK, GUYS, THERE'S, IT'S THE SLIGHTEST UNIQUE, JUST BECAUSE THAT IS A BIG HERITAGE TREE. 
          AND I HAD TO, YOU KNOW, ENGINEER THE PONDS AROUND THE TREE, AROUND THE FLOODPLAIN, AROUND THE GRADING, OR OUT ROUND AROUND THE SLOPE ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH EVERYONE, RIGHT? YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          HEY, MY LAST COMMENT IS JUST, THEY'D BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE MAYBE THE DECK OVER THOSE PONDS TO ENJOY THAT TREE, UM, SINCE IT IS SO LARGE, AND I'M SURE I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY SEEN IT, BUT I'M SURE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL 
          [02:40:01]
TREE. 
          SO, UH, BUT NO, I THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S AWESOME. 
          OKAY, COOL. 
          THANKS TO CONSIDER. 
          AND THEN CONLEY, UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF AND I THINK, DO WE STILL HAVE A WATERSHED STAFF, UH, AVAILABLE? YES. 
          UH, THIS IS JODI SWAMI WITH CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT. 
          I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY FLOODPLAIN RELATED QUESTION. 
          GREAT, THANKS. 
          THANKS. 
          SO, UM, UH, I, I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN THE BACKUP ON PAGE FIVE. 
          THERE'S A SORTA, THERE'S A DETAILED LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT AND SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT PONDS ARE GONNA GO. 
          I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ON THE PART OF NEIGHBORS THAT THE PONDS MAY ENCROACH ON THE A HUNDRED YEAR PLANE. 
          WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS RENDERING, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE NOT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE CLOSE. 
          AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'D LOOKED AT IT AND, UH, YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, THEY, THE, AS WELL AS THE, UH, SITE IS LAID OUT RIGHT NOW, A PORTION OF THE SITE IS IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, HOWEVER, NO DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING GRADING OR THE PONDS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, AS WE AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND BY FEMA. 
          SO THE POND IS CLOSE TO THE FLOOD PLAIN, BUT IT IS AS, AS, AS LAID OUT RIGHT NOW, IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN. 
          AND ARE THERE, UH, SO YOU SAID AS LATE AS IT'S LAID OUT NOW, IS THERE SOME SCENARIO WHERE THESE WOULD ENCROACH? NOT, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, I'M JUST GOING, BASED ON WHAT THE LATEST I PLANNED THAT I HAD SEEN. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY. 
          SO OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          UH, AS I SEEN IT, UH, UH, LAID OUT AT CURRENTLY, THE, THE PONDS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, AS THE, AS THE ENGINEER, THE PONDS WILL NOT INCREASE. 
          THE PONDS WILL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE FLOOD, PLAIN. 
          IT CAUSES TOO MUCH, THERE'S TOO MANY STEPS TO DO IT. 
          SO AS YOU SEE IT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. 
          GOTCHA. 
          THANKS. 
          SO, UH, AGAIN FOR, UM, FOR A WATERSHED STAFF, UH, SO I, I KNOW WE JUST ADJUSTED THE, UH, THE FLOODPLAINS HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AND I DUNNO IF THIS WAS ADJUSTED OR NOT, BUT, UM, IF THERE HAPPENED TO BE SOME, UH, SOME, A FLOOD THAT WAS BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, AND, UH, OVERFLOWED INTO THE RETENTION PONDS, IS THERE, WHAT IS THAT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S A BIG CONCERN FOR WATERSHED OR, UM, IS THAT NOT A VERY GOOD CONCERN? I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM WOULD BE IF THAT HAPPENED. 
          RIGHT. 
          I CAN, I CAN TRY TO ADDRESS IT. 
          SO THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION WAS THAT THE FLOOD PLAIN BEING ADJUSTED, AND I THINK, UM, WHAT YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO AS OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS ARE TO THE ATLAS 14 FOOT PLANE, UH, REGULATION, UM, INFORMATION, WHICH IS AN UPGRADE OR NOT UPGRADE UPDATE, RATHER A UPDATE OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN, FROM WHAT OUR PREVIOUS A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION WAS. 
          UM, AND SO THIS SITE PLAN IS SUBJECT TO THE MOST IS IT'S SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, WHICH IS THE ATLAS 14, UM, UH, FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION. 
          WHAT WE ARE USING IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR IS THAT THE, THE FEMA 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN IS BEING USED IN PLACE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN HUNDRED YEAR, UH, ATLAS 14, UH, DELINEATION, BECAUSE ALL THE MODELS FOR THE ATLAS 14 DELINEATION, HAVEN'T ALL BEEN UPDATED IN, IN OUR, IN OUR, UH, FLOOD SYSTEM. 
          AND THE FEMA 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN HAS BEEN A GOOD, UH, STAND IN, IN, YOU KNOW, IN SOME, IN MOST CASES, EVEN MORE OF A CONSERVATIVE, UH, DELINEATION UNTIL THOSE FLOODPLAIN MODELS ARE UP, ALL UPDATED IN OUR SYSTEM. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, UM, THE ENGINEER ALWAYS, UH, HAS THE, UH, OPTION OF DELINEATING THE FLOOD PLAIN USING THE ATLAS 14 RAINFALL DATA OR USING THE FEMA 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAN AS, AS THE, UH, THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WE REGULATE TO. 
          UM, SO FOR THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, YES, WE DO REGULATE TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 
          SO IF THERE IS A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN THE A HUNDRED YEAR, OF COURSE, THEN IT WOULD POSSIBLY BE OUT OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, UH, FOR OUR REGULATIONS AND OUR CODING CRITERIA. 
          WE, WE REGULATE TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I WILL SAY THAT THERE'S ALSO DRAINING, I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION, IT REALLY GOES TO THAT, SORRY, SORRY TO INTERRUPT. 
          I WAS JUST HAVE A LITTLE TIME, UM, UH, JUST TO THE CONCERN THAT THE NEIGHBORS RAISED, I THINK THIS WAS WHERE THEY WERE GOING. 
          LIKE, SO WHAT HAPPENS IF, UH, 
          [02:45:01]
IF, UH, IF WATER FLOW IS, GOES OVER, THE, UM, THE POND IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL, UM, HARM EITHER FOR FLOODING OR FOR, UM, UH, DETERIORATION OF THE CREEK OR THE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINION ON THAT? UH, WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, I, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO JUST RE JUST REITERATE AGAIN, THAT, THAT OUR CODE AND CRITERIA IS TO, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THERE'S NO ADVERSE IMPACT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO IF YOU KNOW, UH, ALL THE FLOWS FROM THE ONSITE, UM, WOULD IT BE, HAVE TO BE HELD TO WHAT EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE, AND IN TERMS OF FLOODPLAIN FOR OUR REVIEW, WHAT WE'RE MAKING SURE IS THAT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT THERE IS NO RISE IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, UH, IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR, UM, IN A A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT IN THAT CREEK. 
          UH, SO WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT IF THAT'S THE, IF THE, IF A A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT WAS TO OCCUR, THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY INCREASE, UH, NO ADVERSE IMPACT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE REGULATE TO, IF IT'S A RAINFALL BEYOND WHAT OUR REGULATIONS, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, REVIEW TO WHAT WE REVIEW TOO, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TOO MUCH TO THAT IN, IN, IN, IN PARTICULAR. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR ANSWERS, UH, MR. SOUNDLY. 
          HI. 
          YES. 
          MY QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER IF ALL OUR NATIVES TO THE, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND FIRST, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THESE LOTS? THERE ARE, SO THE HOUSES ARE LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET IN, UM, IN FLOORPLAN. 
          SO I BELIEVE THE, THE BIGGEST, THE BIGGEST FOUR PLAN THAT WE HAVE IS I THINK MAYBE 4,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THAT'S THREE LEVELS, IF YOU WILL. 
          SO THE, THE FLOOR PLANS ARE 2000 SQUARE FEET, AND LESS DEPENDS ON, DEPENDS ON THE UNIT DEPENDS ON BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE THERE'S DUPLEXES, THERE'S THREE STORIES, THERE'S TWO STORIES AND SO FORTH. 
          SO THESE ARE LOOKING AT THE PADLOCK LARGE, OH, SORRY. 
          THESE ARE LOOKING LIKE PRETTY LARGE HOUSES. 
          UM, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, POSSIBLY REDUCING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A FEW OF THE UNITS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A LITTLE MORE OF THE SETBACK? SO THE FLOOR PLANS, THE FLOOR PLANS THEMSELVES ARE NOT LARGE. 
          THE WHOLE, THE TOTAL ON MULTIPLE LEVELS IS, IS 30, 3,800 3,900 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO DIVIDE THAT BY THREE. 
          SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN OF WHAT 1300 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO IT'S NOT A BIG FLOOR PLAN. 
          THE FLOOR PLANS ARE NOT BIG AT ALL. 
          IT'S JUST, BUT YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SIZES, DIFFERENT, UH, DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF UNITS. 
          YOU SAID SOME DUPLEXES, CORRECT. 
          WE ARE DUPLEXES. 
          THE DUPLEX IS THE DUPLEX IS, DO NOT ABUT. 
          THE GREEK DUPLEXES ARE ON THE, SO I GUESS THAT'D BE THE EAST SIDE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT, YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE SIZE OF THE UNITS ON THE, UH, THE SITE PLAN. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN THAT OR NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I HAVE, UM, I'M TAKING A PEEK AT IT RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, JUST TO REFRESH. 
          OKAY, COOL. 
          BUT MY QUESTION IS MORE RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF SPACE. 
          UH, WOULD THERE BE A, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT WAYS TO POSSIBLY BUY MORE SPACE, UM, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SITE, BY REDUCING THE SIZE OF SOME OF THE HOUSING UNITS OR GOING FOR YOU, YOU KNOW, DEBTS OR, UH, INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF DENSER HOUSING UNITS AND SO FORTH. 
          AND IF SO, IS THERE SOME RATIONALE FOR WHY YOU'VE ARRIVED AT, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE, UH, HOUSES STILL REMAIN, UH, VERY LARGE HOUSES, UM, MAYBE NOT BY AUSTIN STANDARDS, BUT BY THE STANDARDS OF MOST PLACES, THEY'RE PRETTY LARGE HOUSES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE COULD, WE COULD HAVE, WE'RE PUTTING 17 UNITS ON THIS. 
          I BELIEVE WE COULD PUT 20. 
          SO IF WE WERE SF THREE, I THINK WE COULD HAVE PUT 29 UNITS ON THIS. 
          SO WE'VE CONSOLIDATED AND YOU HAVE TO, I MEAN, YOU GOT TO LOOK AT GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE UNITS. 
          SO WE MADE THIS AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE IN THE FACT OF WE'RE PUTTING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, UM, AS LITTLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE'S TREES BECAUSE THERE'S FLOOD PLAIN. 
          SO WE, WE MADE THIS 
          [02:50:02]
AS EFFICIENT, HONESTLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO YES, WE'VE LOOKED AT, WE'VE LOOKED AT ALL SORTS OF ITERATIONS ON PUTTING HOUSES HERE. 
          AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE ALL CAME TO AGREEMENT ON AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT WORKS GRADE-WISE, IT WORKS CODE WISE, IT WORKS. 
          UM, I MEAN, IT, IT JUST WORKS FOR THE ZONING AS WELL. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE PUTTING LESS UNITS ON THERE THAN WE CAN TO MAKE IT MORE DENSE. 
          I MEAN, OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER, I THINK OUR IN PURCHASE COVERED LIMIT 65% AND WHERE IT SHOOT 56, 57%, IF, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN AND MAYBE EVEN LESS THAN THAT. 
          SO IF WE WANTED TO, IF WE WANTED TO FULLY DEVELOP THIS, WE COULD HAVE, WE COULD HAVE MADE THIS A CONCRETE. 
          I MEAN, IT'D BE CONCRETE EVERYWHERE AND HOUSES EVERYWHERE, BUT WE DON'T, WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          NO, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT FULLY DEVELOPING. 
          I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT JUST WONDERING IF, IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THERE COULD BE SOME SACRIFICES MADE IN THE SPACE THAT SOME OF THE UNITS OCCUPIED WITHOUT LOSING THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T WANT LESS UNITS. 
          WE CAN'T. 
          SO YES, WE WE'VE. 
          WE LOOKED AT THAT. 
          WE LOOKED AT THAT, WE LOOKED AT THE PERFORMER THAT WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO KEEP THIS MANY UNITS AND REORIENTING MAKING THEM, PUT THEM IN DIFFERENT PLACES. 
          THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKED JUST FLOW WISE WITH THE, WITH THE ROAD GOING THROUGH WITH THE WATER SERVICES, WITH THE WASTEWATER. 
          I MEAN, DRAINAGE WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED AT A LOT OF, A LOT OF, UM, OKAY. 
          WE ARE OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO LET'S GO TO A FOURTH COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, ANYBODY, A FISHER SHAKE. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, SO THE BASE ZONING ON THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN, I GUESS, BEFORE I SAID SIX WAS SF THREE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS BEFORE YOU GUYS GOT SO, SO SIX? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO UNDER SF THREE, UM, WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE DONE ANY OF ALL THIS, UM, FLOOD MITIGATION OR DETENTION PONDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YES. 
          SO TO WHAT EXTENT IS, I KNOW THAT'S A THREE SAME EXTENT, HUH? SO THE SAME EXTENT, THE SAME EXTENT. 
          YUP. 
          YUP. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEN, UM, WAIT, WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, ANYTIME YOU, ANYTIME YOU DEVELOP, YOU NEED TO RETURN THE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO EXISTING CONDITIONS. 
          SO IF YOU DEVELOP, YOU PUT 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHATEVER IT IS IN PREVIOUS COVER, YOU CAN'T LET WATER FLOW OFF THE SITE AT G W WOULD YOU HAVE THE LIMITATIONS ON WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING, HOW YOU'RE DEALING WITH IT WITH SF THREE? LIKE THE POSITION OF IT, I THINK POSITIONS UPON. 
          SO THE THING WITH SF THREE SF THREE, I COULD HAVE HAD 17 DRIVEWAYS. 
          SO IF I NEEDED TO, I COULD HAVE PUT PAWNS. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, IT, IT MADE IT UNSAFE ADDING 17 DRIVEWAYS TOTAL, AND YOU KNOW, THE DETENTION, THE DETENTION STILL GONNA HAVE TO BE WHERE THE DETENTION IS. 
          SO THE DETENTION PONDS ARE IN THE LOWEST PART OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          I WISH I COULD PUT IT UPSTREAM. 
          I WISH I COULD MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE WAY FROM THE CREEK, BUT EVERYTHING DRAINS TO THE CREEK. 
          SO I NEED TO PUT DETENTION PONDS DOWN BY THE CREEK. 
          AND THAT'S JUST IT, I MEAN, THAT'S YEAH, BUT UNDER MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT BUILDING, YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE SETBACK, RIGHT? THAT'S A THREE DOESN'T HAVE A 25 FOOT SET. 
          THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. 
          SO THEN I COULD HAVE PUT, SO I COULD PUT THE PONDS DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, YOU COULD PUT IT PRETTY MUCH WHERE YOU HAD IT WITHOUT HAVING TO COME HERE. 
          IF IT WAS SF THREE, AM I CORRECT? BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE ONLY 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK. 
          RIGHT. 
          I AM, I AM HERE BECAUSE I'M TRYING, I AM ASKING TO PUT PAWNS IN THE 25 FOOT SETBACK. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHICH EXISTS BECAUSE IT'S SO, SO LET ME, OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF THIS BECAUSE, I MEAN, OKAY. 
          SO STAFF, UM, HAVE WE DONE THIS BEFORE? IS IT COMMON TO COME AND ASK TO BE ABLE TO PUT SOME OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE IN, ON THESE SITE 
          [02:55:01]
PLAN PRODUCTS IN THE FIVE FOOT COMPATIBLY SETBACK? NOT THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING, NOT THE BUILDING, BUT ACTUALLY INFRASTRUCTURE, BECAUSE I KNOW I, I'M PRETTY SURE WE'VE SEEN THESE PROJECTS LIKE THIS BEFORE. 
          SO BACK TO WATERSHED OR STAFF IS THIS COMMON TO ASK JUST AS ROSEMARY, THE CASE MANAGER. 
          SO THIS IS COMING TO LANDIS' COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY ARE CONDOMINIUM UNIT. 
          UM, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE POND IN THE SETBACK, BECAUSE THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS, IF THEY WERE SF THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS WOULD NOT BE A PERMITTED USE. 
          SO THEN IT WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THAT WOULD NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW, UM, QUESTION BACK TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE THE REASON IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TRIGGERING BECAUSE YOUR SF SIX, OTHERWISE, IF IT WAS S3, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME HERE FOR THAT. 
          NOW THE BENEFITS BETWEEN THE SF THREE TO SF SIX, AS FAR AS, CAN YOU KIND OF TELL US, UM, THE BENEFITS BETWEEN THE TWO THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, WHY WE ENDED UP HERE? UH, BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING HERE FOR A WAIVER, UM, BECAUSE YOUR CHOICE TO DO SOMETHING, UM, TO DEVELOP IN A CERTAIN WAY BASED ON  BECAUSE BASED UPON THE BENEFITS. 
          SO CAN YOU REMIND US THOSE BENEFITS, THAT WHY YOU WENT THIS ROUTE, WHETHER IT BE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, TREES THAT YOU'RE SAVING, CAN YOU KIND OF TALK ABOUT THAT? SURE. 
          IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DID. 
          YOU JUST SAID THE PREVIOUS COVER TREES, DO YOU WANT 17? SO SF FREE. 
          WE COULD HAVE 17 DRIVEWAYS TOTAL, ACTUALLY, 19 DRIVEWAYS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. 
          SO WITH SF SIX, WE HAD ONE CONNECTION POINT. 
          AND, AND WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH THE CITY STREET GOING THROUGH? IS THAT CORRECT? NO. 
          NO, YOU DO NOT. 
          YOU'RE ALREADY ON THE STREET. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS THROUGH TWO ROUNDS OF COMMENTS. 
          TRANSPORTATION HAS APPROVED IT. 
          UM, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE WELL, WE'RE WELL THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, THIS ISN'T JUST, HEY, I'M COMING IN AND SAYING, HEY, I WANT TO PUT THE PONDS HERE. 
          WE'RE VETTING EVERYTHING OUT. 
          SO WITH SF SIX, SSX MAKES THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORS, BETTER FOR THE AREA. 
          IT'S, I MEAN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT HERE SAYING THAT, HEY, I'M GONNA MAKE THIS WORSE TRYING TO MAKE IT. 
          SO IT WORKS. 
          WE'RE AT A TIME FOR THAT ROUND. 
          UH, SO WE DID HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OF SIMPLE, UH, LOOKING AT THE, THE SUMMARY OF THE CODE. 
          IT SAYS THAT, UM, A RAIN GARDEN WITHOUT A CONCRETE BOTTOM WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SETBACK. 
          AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT WAS A DESIGN CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF IF IT'S EVEN A POSSIBILITY TO DO INSTEAD OF THE, THE DIRECTIVE OR DETENTION PONDS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED INSTEAD OF DOING A RAIN GARDEN. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCESS, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT IF IT WOULD BE DOABLE. 
          YES, MA'AM WE, UM, WE LOOKED AT, WE LOOKED AT ALL TYPES OF WATER, QUALITY RAIN GARDENS DON'T WILL NOT SATISFY THE WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 
          SO RAIN GARDENS THEY'RE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. 
          THEY ARE, BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE ENOUGH WATER QUALITY CREDIT FOR, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU WILL, WHERE IT'S LOCATED THE POND, AS I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THE POND IS AS SMALL AS I COULD POSSIBLY GET IT. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, A STACKED, STACKED WATER QUALITY FOND WITH DETENTION THREE TO DEPENDING UPON WHICH, WHICH POND IT IS. 
          I THINK IT'S THREE FEET TALL. 
          IF YOU WILL, RAIN GARDENS, I COULDN'T GET, I COULDN'T ACHIEVE THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME THAT WAS NECESSARY PER CODE USING RAIN GARDENS. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, MR. ? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I THINK THIS WAS, UM, PART OF WHAT COMMISSIONER SHAY WAS GETTING AT AS WELL. 
          UM, STAFF, WE HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          I CAN SEE THAT. 
          CAN YOU 
          [03:00:01]
PLEASE SPEAK TO SORT OF WHERE WE HAVE DONE THIS SORT OF COMPATIBILITY WE WERE IN THE PAST OR HOW COMMON IT IS JUST TO, FOR ME TO GET AN IDEA? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? I WAS A BIT CONFUSED BY IT. 
          I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T PHRASE IT VERY WELL. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW COMMON WOULD SUCH A COMPATIBILITY WEAVER BE. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY EVER DONE IN THE PAST AND WE'VE SORT OF SEEN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IT AND WE'VE SEEN THE DOESN'T CAUSE SORT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES LIKE FLOODING. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY HOW COMMON IS SUCH A WEAVER AND HOW OFTEN HAVE WE DONE THIS IN THE BASKET? UM, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          UM, I HAVE TAKEN COMPATIBILITY WAIVERS TO BOTH COMMISSIONS BEFORE. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO SAY WHICH ONES WERE NEXT TO A CREEK AND WHICH ONES WEREN'T, UM, IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO ANSWER, BUT WE HAVE TAKEN MANY COMPATIBILITY WAIVERS TO COMMISSION BEFORE. 
          UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE VICINITY TO THE FLOODPLAINS IN THE CREEK. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I GUESS IT'S, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT COMPLETELY UNCOMMON. 
          AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE SORT OF HAD THIS QUESTION ALREADY ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM AGAIN WITH STAFF THAT I KNOW STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS FROM YOUR ASSESSMENT, THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT ANYTHING ON SOUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, SITES. 
          UM, STAFF DID RECOMMEND, UM, BECAUSE THE EROSION CONTROLS ARE COMPLIANT. 
          THEY'RE SUFFICIENT, IT'S OUTSIDE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AND NONE OF THE UNITS ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK. 
          SO THAT IS WHY THEY GOT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND IF I CAN, IF I CAN INTERJECT BY COAT, IF I CAN INTERJECT BY CODE, I CAN NOT, AS THE ENGINEER, I CAN NOT INCREASE AND PUT ANYONE ELSE AT RISK. 
          I CAN'T INCREASE THE FLOW. 
          SO ANYTHING COMING OFF OF THIS SITE DEVELOPED HAS TO RETURN TO EXISTING CONDITION FLOW. 
          SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET A PERMIT TO DO THIS, I CAN'T PUT ANYONE ELSE IN HARM'S WAY. 
          THAT'S JUST, THAT'S MY CODE OF ETHICS. 
          THAT'S THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S PER THE CODE OF AUSTIN. 
          SO WE, WE CAN'T IN ORDER TO GET A PERMIT, WE CANNOT FLOOD ANYONE ELSE DOWNSTREAM. 
          OTHERWISE I WOULD NOT GET A PERMIT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          ANY MORE COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. 
          SO I HAVE A FEW, UM, AND THIS WOULD BE FOR, UM, STAFF. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO BE, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THESE 25 FOOT SETBACKS? WHY ARE THEY IN OUR CODE AND SERVING, UM, SINCE COTTON? UH, THIS IS ROSEMARY AGAIN, UH, COMPATIBILITY IS IN THE CODE. 
          UM, IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE EIGHTIES AND AGAIN, THEY HAVE THE STIPULATION OF WHAT WE CALL A STRUCTURE. 
          AND SO BY STAFF PRACTICE, WE SAY ANYTHING WITH CONCRETE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING THE POND AND WHY WE BRING THE SIDEWALKS THROUGH DRIVEWAYS. 
          UM, ANYTHING WITH CONCRETE IS WHAT WE CONSIDER TO NOT BE ALLOWED. 
          UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE REWRITE OF THE CODE OF HOW DIFFERENT IT WILL BE, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. 
          I GUESS I JUST, LET ME JUST BE MORE CLEAR IS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPATIBILITY IS SET BACK IS TO PROVIDE MORE SPACE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'VE GOT SPACES, PROVIDE MORE SPACE. 
          UM, IT IS TO PROVIDE MORE SPACE FROM THE ACTUAL SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES. 
          UM, SINGLE FAMILY USES TO GIVE, UH, A BUFFER OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND WE CONSIDER CONDOMINIUMS TO BE MORE ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY IT IS COMING. 
          CAUSE IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          IF IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IT WOULDN'T BE HERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WE HAVE A CREEK THOUGH, ON THIS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES AND THE, UM, THIS IN THIS COMPATIBILITY SET THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, I GUESS FOR WATERSHED STAFF, ARE THERE 
          [03:05:01]
ANY OTHER INNOVATIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, DETENTION, WATER QUALITY FEATURES, IT COULD BE EMPLOYED THAT WHEN, UH, WHEN TAKE UP THIS MUCH SPACE, ARE THERE OTHER INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES TO, TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO DO? SOMEBODY FROM WATERSHED? OKAY. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE OUR DRAINAGE REVIEWER WHO, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? THIS IS ROSEMARY. 
          I THINK RON MCCALSKY CAN ADDRESS THAT I BELIEVE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WOW. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. SHAW, I HAVE A WELL TRISHA. 
          I HAVE, UH, I HAVE ONE IDEA THAT HAS BEEN RUN BY ME ON ANOTHER PROJECT. 
          YOU'D LIKE ME TO TELL YOU REAL QUICK WHILE YOU'RE WAITING. 
          UH, SURE. 
          SO, UM, SSX DEVELOPMENT PUTTING THE DETENTION POND BELOW THE ROAD, SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT IT UNDERGROUND. 
          LIKE IN THIS CASE IT COULD ACTUALLY GO UNDERNEATH THE ROAD, UM, AS A DETENTION, ASSUMING THAT ALL THE ELEVATIONS DO WORK, IT COULD GO, IT COULD BE UNDER AND YOU COULD PUT A ROAD OVER IT EFFECTIVELY, MOVE IT OUT OF THAT. 
          IS THAT THAT ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM A DRAINAGE OR SHOULD I JUST, OKAY, WELL I'M, UH, I'M DONE. 
          THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND DO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A SPOT FOR ONE MORE, IF ANYBODY NEEDS TO ASK A QUESTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT'S OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE ALL OUR QUESTIONS. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION MR. SHEA MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER? YOU HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER, UH, CUTS. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER SHEA. 
          YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? SO, UM, WHAT, W W WE HAVE SEEN CASES LIKE THIS COME TO US BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IN SOUTH AUSTIN, I MEAN, ACTUALLY ON CONGRESS, OUR MEMBER, UM, US GOING THROUGH SO MANY OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS. 
          SO, AND, AND TO ME, IT'S, IT'S BEEN PRECEDENTS FOR US TO ALLOW THIS INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE INSIDE THESE COMPETITIVELY SETBACKS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT NO ONE SEES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BELOW THE EYESIGHT BELOW THE FENCE LINES. 
          I MEAN, NOBODY SEES IT. 
          AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THESE SPACES, THAT'S FOR COMPATIBILITY COMPATIBILITY IN THE SENSE OF THE STRUCTURES THAT WE SEE BETWEEN IT, THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO PUT, PUT THERE? SO WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST. 
          WE SHOULD DO IT. 
          NOW, THE REASON THEY'RE ALSO IN THIS POSITION IS ALSO THEIR, THEIR, THEIR CHOICE OF GOING TO SF SIX. 
          AND NOTICE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE SF, YOU KNOW, THAT, UM, IT'S THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS. 
          I MEAN, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS, IS PRETTY, YOU KNOW, LOW DENSITY IN THE SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE BETWEEN ALL THE BUILDINGS. 
          IT IS STILL VERY MUCH LIKE AN SF THREE, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO, UH, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY ALSO IF THE CONCERN IS FLOODING AND THE WAY THAT THE DESIGNS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING ALONG TODAY, UM, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HARMING ANYTHING DOWNSTREAM. 
          AND IF, UH, THEY'RE DEVELOPING THIS WAY, IT'S FULLY ENGINEERED AND IT'S GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, THE CITY REVIEW. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I'M CONFIDENT IN THAT SYSTEM TO, TO, TO REVIEW IT, SO, OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS AGAINST ANOTHER COMMISSIONER. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER, UH, BURWELL. 
          I JUST, JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M A NON-VOTING MEMBER, BUT AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEES A SETBACK, VARIANCES, ALMOST EVERY OTHER CASE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WE SEE FIBER EIGHT CASES A NIGHT. 
          UM, AND WHEN, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS, WE WOULD GO, UH, WELL, ONE, OUR, OUR BAR IS HIGHER BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW HARDSHIP. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A TWO THIRDS VOTE, UH, OR SORRY, 75% VOTE. 
          UH, SO WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND GO, IT'S A BLANK SLATE. 
          YOU DESIGNED THIS PROBLEM. 
          UM, SO THAT'S JUST ONE POINT OF REFERENCE THERE, RIGHT? UH, THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT THIS IS THE 
          [03:10:01]
NOTION THAT THIS BE DECKED THAT BECOMES NOW AN OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE RIGHT ACROSS FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S BACKYARD, MAYBE ACROSS THE CREEK, BUT IT'S RIGHT THERE. 
          SO YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE PRECLUDE THEM FROM MAKING THIS A SPACE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO UTILIZE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE AS A DETENTION. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY. 
          CAN WE GET A LITTLE CLARITY FROM STAFF IF A DECK IS CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE, UM, IN, IN THAT ZONE, BECAUSE I KNOW IT SAYS, UM, IS THE DECK CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE? YEAH. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR A QUESTION AND GRAYSON MIGHT BE HAVING AN ANSWER, BUT DOES ANYBODY OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER TOM SEED HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? YEAH. 
          I MEAN, YES, IT IS UNSTRUCTURED. 
          SO FOR THE DECK, UH, WOULD BE, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE AS WELL. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, THAT MY, MY DEFINING POINT HERE IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE NEXT TO A CREEK, UH, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHERE YOU WANT YOUR DETENTION FACILITY TO BE, UH, FROM A, FROM A PHYSICAL STANDPOINT, UH, THAT, THAT TYPICALLY WHERE YOU WANT TO LOCATE THE KITTENS. 
          UM, SO, SO I'VE MANAGED TO PUT US OUT OF ORDER AGAIN. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE. 
          UM, LET'S UH, SO WHERE ARE WE, WHERE ARE WE? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS SPEAKING AGAINST ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR THIS MOTION? ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          THEN I SEE THOSE FOUR, UM, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT. 
          I'VE GOT TO NEUTRAL, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY. 
          OR IS THAT A GREEN? YES, GREEN GREEN EIGHT, EIGHT THREE ONE MORE TIME. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UH, GO AHEAD AND HOLD UP. 
          YOUR ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S, UM, EIGHT TO ONE BOY, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN EIGHT NINE, NINE TWO. 
          THANK YOU RIGHT ABOUT THAT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          SO WE, UH, ARE DONE WITH THAT ONE. 
          SO, UH, WE ARE FINISHED WITH, UH, OH, THANK YOU. 
          THOSE WERE TWO EXTENSION. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE. 
          UH, WE HAVE NINE IN FAVOR AND TWO ABSTENTIONS. 
          UH, SO 
          [C1. Update on code amendment regarding City Code Title 25 relating to sign regulations in the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) District. (Co-Sponsors: Commissioner Shieh and Commissioner Azhar)]
NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO, UH, OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTO ITEMS. AND, UM, WE HAVE, UH, I WOULD ON THIS ITEM, I KNOW WE HAD, UH, TWO CO-SPONSORS COMMISSIONER IS OUR COMMISSIONER SHEA. 
          UH, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, BURWELL HAD SOME INTEREST IN THE SIDE OF THAT. 
          I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF TO JUST KIND OF FRAME THE BACKGROUND ON THIS, UH, UH, TITLE 25 UNO, UM, AMENDMENT, JUST TO GIVE US KIDS, GET US ALL UP TO SPEED BEFORE WE DISCUSSION. 
          AND THIS IS, WE'RE NOT TAKING ACTION AT THIS MEET, UH, ON THIS ITEM. 
          UH, BUT WE WILL END IN IF, UH, WE CAN, UH, AGREE TO TAKE ACTION IN A FUTURE MEETING IF WE WISH. 
          SO WITH THAT, IF A STAFF COULD JUST KIND OF UPDATE US ON THE BACKGROUND, UM, ON THIS AMENDMENT. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. IS THIS IS JERRY REST OF HIM WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, IN LATE MAY OF LAST YEAR, I CAME TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE STAFF REQUESTED COVID INITIATION. 
          UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE INITIATION WAS THAT NOVEMBER OF 2019, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, UM, SOME PRETTY MAJOR CHANGES TO THE, UH, UNIVERSITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD OR NO OVERLAY ORDINANCE. 
          UM, MOST OF THOSE CHANGES HAD TO DO WITH, UM, UM, HEIGHT DISTRICTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          I WAS THE RESULT OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN, UM, I GUESS UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS AND THE CAMPAIGN GROUP. 
          UM, ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WAS RATHER MINOR COMPARED TO THE OTHER ONES HAD TO DO WITH THE CHANGE TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY HAVING TO DO WITH SIGNS THAT ARE ABOVE THE SECOND STORY OF A BUILDING, NAMELY THE NAME OF A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, 21 RIO OR, OR WHATEVER. 
          UM, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT IN THE UNITS THAT THOSE, UM, SIGNS BE INLAID INTO THE CONCRETE, IF YOU WILL, WHETHER THEY BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT HANGING ON THE SIDE OF 
          [03:15:01]
THE STRUCTURE. 
          UM, THIS PROVED TO BE AN ISSUE WHEN BUILDINGS WERE BEING BOUGHT AND SOLD AND THE NAMES WISH TO BE CHANGED AND THEY COULD NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          SO IT WAS AGREED TO TAKE THAT PART OUT, UM, IN REWRITING, UM, THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, THERE WAS A SIMILAR SECTION THAT, YOU KNOW, SIGNED ON AND THEN TALKED ABOUT NO ELECTRONIC MOVING IMAGE SIGNS. 
          SO TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THE ONES THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE SCROLLING, SCROLLING WORDS OR TVS, IF YOU WILL, UM, INADVERTENTLY THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT PROHIBITED ELECTRIC SIGNS PERIOD, AS OPPOSED TO ELECTRONIC MOVING IMAGE SIZE. 
          SO THE END RESULT WAS ELECTRIC SCIENCE ARE PROHIBITED IN THE UNO DISTRICT. 
          UH, I'D ALSO LIKE TO PULL OUT THE, WHO KNOWS HOW REGULATIONS ALSO APPLIED IN THE TODDS. 
          YOU HAVE CRESTVIEW EAST OF OKAY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          UM, AS WELL AS THE NORTH BURNET GATEWAY AREA. 
          UM, SO LAST MAY I ASKED YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE TWO THINGS. 
          UM, WE DISCOVERED A WAY THAT WE COULD MAKE A CHANGE TO THE, UM, THE BUILDING NAME SIGN. 
          UM, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, UM, THROUGH A CORRECTIVE PROCEDURE. 
          HOWEVER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHANGE TO THE, UM, ELECTRIC SIGN ISSUE REQUIRED A CODE AMENDMENT. 
          UM, I HAVE NOT MOVED FORWARD ON THIS CODE AMENDMENT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH CODE AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW. 
          I THINK THE PIKE COMMISSION MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE KRAMER LANE SUB UH, SUBSTATION ISSUE THAT RECENTLY WENT THROUGH THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS THE, UH, CENTRAL HEALTH OVERLAY ISSUE, WHICH WE'LL BE BRINGING BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION AWHILE. 
          SO STAFF HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME WHILE WE WAIT FOR THOSE CONCERNS TO PLAY THEMSELVES OUT. 
          SO WITH THAT AVAILABLE QUESTIONS, AND I ALSO HAVE, UH, LISA SIMMONS ON FROM A LOT OF PROBLEM IS, IS, UH, IF YOU'RE WITH ME TODAY. 
          SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND REAL QUICKLY COMMISSIONER CZAR, COMMISSIONER, SHANE, MICHELLE LAYTON, BURWELL, JUST, UH, MAYBE A MINUTE OR TWO, UH, JUST IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US KIND OF YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE INTO, UH, RANDOM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE DESIGNED TO, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER SHEA COMMISSIONER, LATE BURWELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? AND HE TRIED TO SHINE A LIGHT ON THIS. 
          SO, UM, THIS WAS NOT BROUGHT TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ATTENTION, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AGAIN, PART AND PARCEL TO WHAT WE DO AS A SIGN BOARD, AS WELL AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          UM, AND SO IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AND IT ONLY CAME TO MY ATTENTION THROUGH MY ROLE HERE. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, THAT WAS MAY OF LAST YEAR THAT, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT, UH, BEFORE YOU GUYS TO, UH, TRY TO, UH, AMEND THE CODE, UM, THIS BUSINESS ABOUT NOT BRINGING CODE AMENDMENTS FORWARD IS POLITICAL. 
          IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THIS BOARD CAN OR CANNOT DO. 
          UM, AND, UH, EVERY SINGLE, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING, I, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY SINCE, UM, THIS HAS HAPPENED HAS HAD A, YOU KNOW, UM, SIGN ILLUMINATION CASE COME BEFORE US. 
          UH, SO IT IT'S, UH, INCREASED OUR CASELOAD UNNECESSARILY BECAUSE OF STAFF, UH, RELUCTANCE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD THROUGH A PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS BECAUSE, UH, IT, UH, THAT CODE AMENDMENTS ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE FOR THE HOPES THAT, UM, A NEW CODE WILL SUPERSEDE THIS BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS. 
          SO IT'S A, IT'S A POLITICAL ISSUE. 
          AND I WOULD JUST ASK YOU GUYS TO TAKE A STAND ON AND, AND FIX IT. 
          IT WAS A MISTAKE, UH, IN THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. 
          UH, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT AND, UH, IT HAS NO LEGAL IMPLICATIONS THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND AT ALL, UH, FROM THAT. 
          AND WHY MR. RUSTO HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO COME BEFORE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ADDRESS THIS IS BEYOND ME. 
          SO I HAD TO BRING IT HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST, UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE SURE. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER BARNWELL, I APPRECIATE, UH, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND HOW THIS ADS DO THE WORK THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THERE. 
          I ALSO APPRECIATE WHAT MS. RESTAURANT IS SAYING IN TERMS OF THE LIMITATIONS. 
          AND I KNOW THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE ONGOING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK FOR US TO CONJECTURE AND DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS DO SOMEHOW HOLD PEOPLE HOSTAGE OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT KIND OF DISCOURSE HAS BENEATH THIS BODY. 
          SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I PROBABLY MENTIONED BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETE CONJECTURE, AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO SAY THAT, BUT HAVING SAID THAT I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT STAFF DOES AND THE EFFORT THAT THEY PUT 
          [03:20:01]
INTO THEIR WORK. 
          SO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSION, UH, FINISHING ON THIS PLUTO. 
          SURE. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT WANTING TO ASSIGN INTENTION AROUND THINGS, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A FULL INFORMATION. 
          I JUST WONDERED IF MR.  WANTED TO RESPOND AS TO WHY IT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, OR THE, UH, THE CASES HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKES, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTRIC SINUS TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, SO THEY'VE HAVE NEEDED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, MY INTENTION IS TO GET THIS FIXED THROUGH THE, UH, CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS WHEN, UM, WHEN I FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO SO. 
          UM, SO MY INTENTION IS TO FIX THE PROBLEM AS SOON AS I FEEL, BUT IT'S, UM, UM, IT'S PRUDENT TO, TO DO SO. 
          SO MAYBE I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION, UH, MR. . 
          SO, UM, I JUST ONE HAS, SO WHAT, WHEN YOU SAY PRUDENT TIMING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A TIME ISSUE HERE. 
          I JUST WANT TO HEAR IT FROM YOU. 
          WHAT, WHEN IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME? IS THAT, ARE YOU SAYING, IS THAT PART OF THE LAND CODE OVERHAUL SWISHER? WE'VE HAD TWO CASES RECENTLY WHERE WE BROUGHT POSTCODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE WAS WHERE THIS CENTRAL HEALTH OVERLAY AND ONE WAS FOR THE, UM, ON THE KRAMER LANE SUBSTATION. 
          AND IN BOTH CASES, WHEN WE, WE WOULD CUT THROUGH THE COMMISSION. 
          AND WHEN WE GOT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO USE A DIFFERENT METHOD OTHER THAN CODE AMENDMENT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. 
          UM, IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO THAT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. 
          ONE CASE IT WAS THROUGH A POD AND ANOTHER CASE. 
          IT WAS THROUGH A ZONING CASE. 
          IF YOU RECALL, FROM A FEW MONTHS AGO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO THIS, MAKE THIS CHANGE WITHOUT A CODE AMENDMENT, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE ZONING ALTERNATIVE AS THE WERE IN THE TWO PREVIOUS CASES. 
          AND SO THAT IS, UM, SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MOVE IT FORWARD FOR THAT REASON. 
          IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO MOVE IT FORWARD, WE CAN MOVE IT FORWARD. 
          I CAN BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION, BUT, UM, UM, I BELIEVE I, UM, I MAY RUN INTO SOME ISSUES WITH THAT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS, UM, DIFFERENTLY WORDED OR THEY USE OR ARE DIFFERENT TERMS, BUT COULD IT BE, UH, BROUGHT TO US AS A CORRECTIVE ORDINANCE AND NOT A CODE AMENDMENT? FOR SURE. 
          I DISCUSSED THE MR. I DISCUSSED THAT WITH A LOT DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, WE WERE WORKING ON THAT, I BELIEVE BACK IN NOVEMBER. 
          I THINK I WAS GOING TO EMAIL TODAY TO SEE WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS WITH A LOT DEPARTMENTS THOUGHT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO FIX THIS BECAUSE EVERYONE AGREES. 
          IT WAS A MISTAKE AND EVERYONE AGREES IT SHOULD BE CHANGED, BUT I WAS INFORMED AT THAT TIME BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT THAT WE COULD NOT DO THIS AS A CORRECTIVE AND WE HAD TO RUN IT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE SPOTS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO ASK FOR THE COMMISSIONER LATE. 
          YEAH. 
          LATE BRO. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UH, MR. RUST OPENED, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS BODY COULD ACT ON THAT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT COUNSEL WILL NOT, AS, AS DIRECTED AS I SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE, THIS, EVEN AS PLAYING COMMISSION SENSE OF FORWARD. 
          MR. I DO NOT WANT TO PUT MYSELF IN A POSITION WHERE I'M HAVING TO GUESS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD DO, UM, WITH, UH, WITH AN ITEM. 
          I JUST TOLD YOU WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE RECENTLY IN THE PAST. 
          OKAY. 
          SURROGATE. 
          SO YOU'RE NOT BRINGING IT FORWARD WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT EVEN IF PLAN COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED IT. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE A TYPO, RIGHT? THIS IS A CORRECTIVE THING. 
          IT ACCIDENTALLY GOT WRITTEN WRONG AS, AS I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS $3,000. 
          EVERY TIME SOMEBODY NEEDS, UH, APPLICANT NEEDS TO GET AN ILLUMINATED SIGN IN, YOU KNOW, ON THE DRAG OR ON BURNET ROAD OR, YOU KNOW, UH, OTHER, UH, AREAS. 
          SO, UM, UH, SO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY WAS THAT BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THESE OTHER TWO THINGS, EVEN IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED THIS, THAT IT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT COUNCIL WOULD SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. 
          [03:25:03]
I HAVE HAD TWO CASES RECENTLY WHERE WE BROUGHT FOOD AMENDMENTS FOR THEM KRAMER AND CENTRAL HEALTH. 
          THEY WERE BOTH RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          IN BOTH CASES, I WAS DIRECTED TO FIND A THROUGH ITEMS FROM COUNCIL TO PROCESS THEM IN A DIFFERENT MANNER, UH, YOU THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOTAL VENDOR PROCESS, BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. 
          THANK, UH, MY COUNT. 
          I MAY HAVE LOST COUNT. 
          UH, I'LL OFFER ONE MORE QUESTION IF ANYONE THAT HASN'T, BUT WE NEED TO GO AND WE'LL GO AND MAKE A DECISION ON HOW WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          ANY MORE QUESTIONS, ANY, UH, MOTIONS FOR, UH, TAKING THIS ITEM UP IN A FUTURE MEETING OR LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I DON'T SEE ANY COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, WE CAN, UH, ADD THIS. 
          I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED PROCEDURALLY AND I'M SORRY. 
          IT'S JUST LATE FOR ME, BUT ARE WE, THIS IS REQUIRING US TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUSH IT FORWARD THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, NEXT MEETING. 
          SORRY. 
          WE'RE NOT, I'M SORRY. 
          WE'RE NOT SLATED FOR TAKE ACTION. 
          SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE CAN JUST AGREE IF WE WANT TO, UH, PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          THAT'S REALLY ALL WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW. 
          SO NO ACTION. 
          SO THAT'S, UH, UH, THE DISCUSSION WE'LL GO 
          [D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO, UM, INTO AGENDA ITEMS. SO THIS IS WHEN WE CAN, IF ANY, UM, COMMISSIONER WANTS TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, THEY CAN FOR A FUTURE DATE. 
          SO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ANYONE NEED TO SPONSORS? YES. 
          YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. 
          IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE SHOULD PERIODICALLY CHECK IN ON THIS. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A WAY TO THAT SOME LANGUAGE AND HAVE IT READY TO GO. 
          THE MOMENT WE GET SOME CLARITY OR IF THAT'S EVEN NECESSARY. 
          UM, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST OR MOVE THAT, UH, WE REVISIT THIS AFTER, I DON'T KNOW, THREE MORE MEETINGS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT IS. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, LET'S JUST, UH, DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO, LIKE, IS THERE ANY REASON, I MEAN, DO YOU, WOULD, IT WOULD, IT WOULD SENDING IT TO S CODES AND ORDINANCES FOR DISCUSSION MORE SO LOOSELY BEFORE IT COMES TO US BE ANOTHER OPTION, MR. ? UM, YES, I COULD TAKE IT TO THE PART TWO BECAUSE THE ORDINANCES SUBCOMMITTEE, IF YOU'D LIKE, UM, AND GET THROUGH THAT STEP SO THAT, UM, UM, IT WOULD BE READY TO GO SOONER NEXT TIME. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OPPOSITION AT ALL TO, YOU KNOW, TO THIS ITEM, CERTAINLY NOT FROM THE STAFF AND CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I HEAR FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, SO I COULD TAKE IT TO THE NEXT CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE TO THE COULD MOVE, YOU KNOW, ONE STEP CLOSER TO BEING DONE. 
          IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO DO THAT, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION FOR THAT. 
          THE COMMISSION DID IN THE SHIFT, THAT'S ACTUALLY LAST YEAR. 
          SO I CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. 
          SO CAN I, DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT? OR CAN WE JUST SAY WE'RE NOT TAKING ACTION TODAY? SO I GUESS, I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST BE, I THINK, UH, MR.  BEEN DOING THAT ON HIS OWN BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS. 
          SO I THINK WE SHOULD, YEAH, I THINK LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST LET IT GO THAT WAY AND THAT WAY THERE'S SOME DISCUSSIONS AND WE GET A REPORT BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD. 
          MR. RIVERA. 
          SO AS THE, UH, COUSIN HORSES, JOINT COMMITTEE ARE AUTONOMOUS OR A GROUP OF TWO MEMBERS OF THAT JOINT COMMITTEE COULD SPONSOR THAT ITEM ON THEIR AGENDA. 
          OH, ON THEIR OWN AGENDA. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONERS, IF I COULD CLARIFY THAT THE COMMISSION ALREADY INITIATED THIS AMENDMENT LAST YEAR, SO I DO BELIEVE I CAN TAKE IT FORWARD, UM, TO THE COMMISSION, UM, LIKE, LIKE, UH, PATRICIA, NOT MY OWN BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY INITIATED, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S MOVE ON ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY. 
          SO NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO, 
          [E1. Nomination and recommendation for Council consideration; members to serve on Codes and Ordinance Joint Committee.]
UM, ITEM E, WHICH IS NOMINATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND, UM, UM, MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE CODES AND ORDINANCE JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          WE LOST TWO MEMBERS, 
          [03:30:02]
UH, WANT TO GO AND FILL THOSE SPOTS. 
          UM, THINK THERE ARE SOME ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE COMING UP, BUT LIKE THE ONE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, SO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR, UM, THE CODES AND ORDINANCE JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE, UM, AND I GUESS I'LL PREFACE THIS BY SAYING THAT I'VE TALKED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH COMMISSIONER CHERISH AND BOISTEROUS CAMPBELL AND THEN SHOWING THE INTEREST IN THE PAST. 
          SO, AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO SERVE ON IT. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          SO I WANT TO NOMINEE BOTH CHERISH AND VICE-CHAIR TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION OR SEEING NONE? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. 
          SO, UH, OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT, UH, WHAT I WANT TO JUST, I'LL JUST SAY ONE THING THERE IS I'M GOING TO LEAVE THEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, IF THIS GETS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, UH, THEN I WOULD OPEN UP THAT SPOT BECAUSE COMMISSIONERS, UH, NEW COMMISSIONERS, WE WANT THEM TO SERVE ON THESE JOINT COMMITTEES AND THESE WORKING GROUPS. 
          SO WE NEED TO MAKE SPACE FOR THEM. 
          SO IF ANYBODY'S, UH, DOUBLED UP, UM, WE CAN MAKE ROOM FOR, UH, THE NEW FOLKS COMING IN AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE. 
          SO JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          YES. 
          AND SIMILAR SENTIMENT FOR THIS SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, MOVE IN THAT KIND OF SPACE UP ON THAT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL UM, OH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. 
          THE NATION, UH, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. 
          NO, AFTER THE, AFTER THIS ABOUT, YEAH, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON IT. 
          I THINK I WAS TRYING TO MOVE THINGS ALONG QUICKLY AND WE DO NEED TO VOTE. 
          SO THAT'S A NOMINATIONS FOR THE CODES. 
          NORTON'S, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, FOR VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR SHAW AND, UH, IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          OH, DID I SEE, UH, MISSIONARY YANNIS PALITO? IT IS FREEING. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          [F. BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
UH, MOVING ON TO THE LAST ITEM ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND RE OH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. 
          YES. 
          JUST IN THAT SAME REGARD. 
          UM, UH, I, UH, I GOT APPROVED TO BE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE JOINT PLAN COMMITTEE BY THE COUNCIL. 
          UH, AND I'M STILL ON JOINT SUSTAINABILITY. 
          AND SO FAR THAT'S NO BIG DEAL BECAUSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HASN'T MET, BUT IF THEY START, IF IT'S START ENGAGING ANYTHING AT MAYBE ONE OF THE NEW MEMBERS, EITHER COMMISSIONER COX OR ONE OF THE, UH, COUPLE OTHER NEW MEMBERS. 
          AND WHEN I, OR SOMEONE WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN, UH, THE CONFLUENCE OF CLIMATE POLICY AND EQUITY MIGHT WANT TO REPLACE ME AND I CAN BECOME SECONDARY ON THAT JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE'LL, HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE TWO MEMBERS WITH US AND WE CAN, UH, AGREE TO PUT THAT ON A FUTURE, UM, FUTURE MEETING ONCE THEY GET HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, LET'S RUN THROUGH THIS QUICKLY SO WE CAN NOT GO PAST 10. 
          WE HAVE, UM, ITEM F BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUP UPDATES. 
          UH, THIS SHOULD GO PRETTY QUICKLY. 
          ANYTHING FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          OKAY. 
          CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TOWING COMMITTEE. 
          I HAVE NOT MET EITHER A JOINT SUSTAINABILITY, ANYTHING TO UPDATE US ON THERE, MR. SMITH TOMORROW. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND I DO HAVE, UH, I WILL RESPOND TO YOUR EMAIL TO ME CONCERNING SOME OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, WITH THE RECENT WEATHER EVENT. 
          I TALKED TO SOME FOLKS I'LL, I'LL, I'LL CALL YOU ABOUT THAT. 
          A SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE, ANY ACTIVITIES WE'LL MEET NEXT MONTH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD COMMISSIONER, TOM W WE GOT AN UPDATE ON THE, UM, THE STATESMEN PROPERTY. 
          UH, BUT BASICALLY THAT WAS, THEY'RE STILL WORKING A FEW THINGS OUT AND IT'LL BE, UH, A FEW MORE WEEKS FOR THAT'S READY. 
          UM, AND THEN WE ALSO GOT AN UPDATE ON HOW THE, THE NEW TEXTING STRUCTURE MIGHT WORK AND HOW IT MIGHT WORK UNDERNEATH THE, UM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UH, ORGANIZATION, AND MAYBE HAVING, IF THERE IS A TAX, A VALUE TAX, THEN THAT, THAT BOARD WOULD DECIDE HOW TO SPEND THAT MONEY OR, YOU KNOW, APPROVE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES THAT, 
          [03:35:01]
AND MAYBE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD WOULD SORT OF DISAPPEAR AND BE REORGANIZED UNDER THAT, UNDER THAT ECONOMIC BOARD. 
          SO IT COULD MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW TO SPEND THAT TAX MONEY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THE LAST GROUP, WHICH I THINK, UH, THOMPSON, UH, THE MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP, UM, WE, I SAW THAT WE HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND WE'RE AWAITING THOSE TO BE ANSWERED. 
          AND THEN IT, UM, UH, WHAT THE SCHEDULE KIND OF LINED OUT. 
          I FROM, UH, MR. RIVERA, THE PO THE COMMENT PERIOD ENDS MAY 10TH. 
          UM, SO TRYING TO GET OUR COMMENTS, UH, ANY AMENDMENTS, UH, DONE IN AND AROUND THAT TIME, UH, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK THAT THE SCHEDULE WE COULD GO WITH TO KIND OF MEET THAT, THOSE DEADLINES? DID YOU SAY MR. RIVERA OR ME? NO, I'M SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. 
          I JUST, YEAH. 
          SORRY. 
          I, I THINK IF, IF, SO I THINK THE, THE SCHEDULE NOW IS ON THE 29TH, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT PRESENTATION? UH, I THINK IT'S 27, UH, PRACTICE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IF, IF, IF WE DID, YOU KNOW, COM IF, IF THE, THE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP COMES TO YOU WITH SORT OF AMENDMENTS, AND OF COURSE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS WELL, BUT IF THEY COME, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH A SHEET OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THAT, UM, CRITERIA MANUAL, THEN WE COULD EITHER VOTE ON THEM THEN. 
          BUT IF WE DECIDED THAT THERE WERE SOME THAT WE NEEDED MORE INFORMATION ON AT THAT MEETING TO POSTPONE IT AND VOTE ON THE NEXT MEETING AND STILL MAKE THE TIME, I THINK. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, UH, YEAH, LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PLAN AROUND THAT IS TRYING TO HAVE THOSE AMENDMENTS, UH, UH, THERE, WHEN WE'RE GETTING OUR PRESENTATION MAY BE A LOT DEPENDING ON THE, UH, WORKLOAD FOR THAT DAY, BUT WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN FIT IT ALL IN. 
          AND, AND, AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF STAFF COULD PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH SORT OF FEEDBACK AND, AND ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO WE COULD SUBMIT MORE QUESTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THE IDEA IS THAT BY THE TIME WE'RE ACTUALLY AT THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, PROVIDED BY STAFF FOR ALL THE COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, SO WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE A REALLY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION IN THAT MEETING AND, AND BE ABLE TO MOVE ON, ON A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS IF THERE ARE ANY, IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. 
          AND I APPRECIATE, UH, IT WAS, IT WAS OBVIOUS YOU GUYS REALLY DUG INTO THAT, UH, TRANSPORTATION CREDIT CRITERIA MANUAL, A LOT OF REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. 
          SO I THINK THAT ARE STILL UNDER REVIEWED. 
          AND SO IF PEOPLE, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE, UM, ANDERSEN THAT OUT TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          SO IF THERE WERE PARTS WHERE YOU THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE SECTIONS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL HAD THOUGHTS ABOUT, UM, ANYONE FROM THE WORKING GROUP BECAUSE OF A WALKING QUORUM, THEY CAN SEND THEIR COMMENTS TO ME, BUT ANYBODY ELSE I SAID, I SHOULD SEND THE COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO ANDREW. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHEN I HEARD IS, UH, IF IT'S NOT DONE ALREADY GOING FORWARD THE QUESTIONS TO THE, THE ENTIRE BODY AND THEN COMMISSIONERS, UH, IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TO SEND US TO ANTHONY, UH, MR. RIVERA, IF, IF THEY'RE TO, IF THEY'RE ON THE WORKING GROUP THAT CAN SEND THEM TO ME AND I'LL TRY AND CORRELATE THEM TOGETHER. 
          SO ANDREW DOESN'T HAVE AS MANY CORRELATE. 
          UM, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN JUST SEND THEM STRAIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, SO WE'LL HEAR MORE ON APRIL 27TH AND OUR BACKUP, OR IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE'LL, UH, GO ON TO MAY 11TH. 
          SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE. 
          SO WE ARE AT GERMANY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOU'RE AT NINE 51. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BYE .
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.