Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:03]

BLOCKS.

SO IN FACT IT MAY HAVE SWITCHED TO 6 0 1.

SO LET'S START TONIGHT'S

[Call to Order]

ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AND I WILL BEGIN WITH TAKING A ROLL, UM, COMMISSIONER KOSTA, RESENTING CHAIR, BARBARA RAMIREZ, PRESENT COMMISSIONER BREY, COMMISSIONER DANGLER, AIR COMMISSIONER, GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER KING, DEAR COMMISSIONER.

OR THAT WOULD BE ME VICE TERRA.

CABASA THAT'S ME COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON YEAR COMMISSIONER WOODY, AND OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SCOTT BOONE.

AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF? OH, YOU DID LAST TIME HERE.

OKAY, HERE.

SORRY.

BUT WELCOME.

WELCOME COMMISSIONER BOON.

AND TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS A ONE APPROVAL

[Consent Agenda]

OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 21ST, 2021.

AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

B ONE REZONING C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 7 1 HARRIS BRANCH AND HOWARD LANE DISTRICT ONE STAFF IS ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH, B2 REZONING CA ONE FOUR DASH 90 DASH 0 0 0 3 0.21 HARRIS BRANCH PUD AMENDMENT 21 DISTRICT ONE THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL.

B3 REZONING C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 1 4 2 OH C 14.

I'M SORRY, C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 4 2.

PERFECT CUTS LANDSCAPING DISTRICT SIX STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO J JANUARY 18TH BEFORE REZONING C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 4 5 ROGERS ADU DISTRICT ONE AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

DID YOU WANT TO PULL THAT ONE? OKAY, SO THAT IS BEING PULLED FOR DISCUSSION B FIVE C 14 DASH 2021, DEF 0 1 5 5 LINDHURST REZONING DISTRICT SIX, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH, B SIX, REZONING C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 6 1 WEST WILLIAM CANNON HOUSING DISTRICT FIVE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ASKING FOR POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH, B SEVEN, REZONING C 14 H DASH 2021 DASH 1 6 5.

DR.

SIDNEY, JR.

AND HELEN WHITE HOUSE, DISTRICT 10.

THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL B EIGHT SITE PLAN EXTENSION SPC DASH 2 0 0 7 DASH 4 9 7 C IN PARENTHESES, X T THREE.

THE OFFICES AT REBEL AND RANCH PHASE ONE, DISTRICT 10.

THAT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM AND B NINE SITE PLAN EXTENSION S P DASH 2 0 0 7 DASH 0 5 4 9 B IN PARENTHESES, X T THREE, CALLUS DAD LABORATORIES INCORPORATED P R A SITE PLAN DISTRICT 10.

AND THAT IS ALSO FOR DISCUSSION.

AND SO OUR CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT FOR APPROVAL IS B2 AND B FAR, UM, ALL I'VE EVER WRITTEN DOWN AND B SEVEN FOR APPROVAL FOR CONSENT APPROVAL, CONSENT POSTPONEMENTS B ONE OH AND ALSO THE MINUTES, A ONE AND THEN CON CONSENT POSTPONEMENTS B ONE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH, B3 STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH, B FIVE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 10TH, V6 NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 18TH.

AND THAT IS TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA.

IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONER? DANCLER UH, MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

I MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA BY CLOSING THE HEARINGS AND PROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSENT A POSTPONEMENT.

VERY GOOD.

AND IS THERE A SECOND, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS AND LOOKING OUT THERE TOO.

IT IS UNANIMOUS AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND OUR FIRST CASE TONIGHT WILL BE B

[B4. Rezoning: C14-2021-0145 - Rogers ADU; District 1]

FOR THE REZONING.

AND

[00:05:01]

SINCE HEATHER IS NOT HERE, I BELIEVE WENDY RHODES WILL BE TAKING OUR CASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. RHODES FOR STEPPING IN GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS WENDY RHOADES.

I'M FILLING IN FOR HEATHER CHAFFIN.

UH, THIS CASE IS ON AT 52 10 ROGERS LANE, AND THE REQUEST IS FROM SF TWO TO SF THREE.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY, UH, FOUR LOTS UP ON, OFF OF ROGERS ON ROGERS LANE, WHICH IS A LOCAL STREET.

AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SF THREE IN ORDER TO DO A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS ALREADY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS CASE.

UH, ROGERS LANE IS A LOCAL STREET THAT HAS, UH, THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES.

IT IS MOSTLY SF TWO.

HOWEVER, THERE IS AN SFC THREE ZONING CASE THAT WAS COMPLETED IN US IN 2020, DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.

AND, UH, THE, SO THE, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE SF THREE AS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO DO A, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

THANK YOU.

AND THE APPLICANT IS, IS HERE.

HI, DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK HE OR SHE IS ENTITLED TO MR. CARR AND, AND THE APPLICANT, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES.

AM I CORRECT? UM, YEAH.

OKAY, THANKS.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS STUART CARR.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR EVENING TO, UH, LOOK AT THIS YET.

AS WENDY HAD MENTIONED, THIS IS A, UH, REZONING FROM SF TWO TO SF THREE.

UH, I'M INTERESTED IN BUILDING AN ADU IN THE BACKYARD HOUSE IS GOING TO BE ROUGHLY 1100 SQUARE FEET WITH A SINGLE CAR GARAGE.

IF YOU TAKE, UM, THE SITE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY DEEP.

IT'S ALMOST A 200 FOOT DEEP LOT, AND WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO BE PRESERVING THE FRONT HOUSE.

WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE FRONT HOUSE IN THAT CHARACTER AND WE'RE HOPING TO BUILD A HOUSE BEHIND IT.

THE HOUSE IS SET PRETTY FAR BACK, ABOUT 150 FEET OFF THE FRONT LINE.

AND SO THAT DRIVEWAY IS, IS VERY LONG.

I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT PARKING, BUT I WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE AT LEAST TWO SPOTS.

PLUS THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL, ROUGHLY A HUNDRED FEET OF DRIVEWAY THERE.

SO I'M GOING TO KEEP IT BRIEF.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I ASSUME THERE'S NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN DO WE WANT TO CLOSE A VOTE, A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, ANYBODY BOON OR ACOSTA, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS FOR CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND THEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

SO I PULLED THIS GENERALLY BECAUSE WE DO THIS, I PERSONALLY THINK ALL THE SF TWO SHOULD BE ALLOWED IDEAS, BUT THIS IS SPOT ZONING.

UM, IT SINGLES OUT A SMALL TRACK FOR TREATMENT THAT DIFFERS FROM THAT ACCORDED THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THAT SOMEHOW WE DID THAT AS WELL.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD KEEP DOING THIS KIND OF SPOT ZONING.

I EVEN THOUGHT THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD INITIATE A ZONING CASE FOR THE WHOLE BLOCK TO MAKE IT ALL SF THREE, RATHER THAN JUST A ONE PROPERTY THING.

UM, I'M GONNA OPPOSE THIS.

UM, AND I, AND NOT SUGGEST THE INITIATION FOR THE WHOLE BLOCK BECAUSE ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE, THE STREET IS TERRIBLE.

SO, UM, THAT'S JUST MY PROBLEM WITH IT.

IT'S THAT IT'S, UM, REALLY SPOT ZONING.

THE CITY IS ALREADY, I THINK IT WAS A RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR SF TO, TO ALLOW A, TO USE IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE FRONT HOUSE IS GOING TO BE PRESERVED.

AND THEN IT'D BE FAIR.

IT'D BE FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THIS ONE-OFF ZONING CASE.

SO I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THIS COMMISSIONER SMITH.

I BELIEVE , UM, FOR THE BACKUP, THE ADJACENT LOT IS ZONED .

IS THAT CORRECT?

[00:10:02]

UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S IT'S ADJACENT DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? COMMISSIONER DANCLER, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, EXCUSE ME, MS. ROSE, I'M SORRY.

UM, I PULLED UP THE CIP AND SOMEONE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SEND ME THE ASM P AND THE ROAD IS REALLY BAD.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY ELEMENT OF IT.

UM, AND I DON'T SEE ANY PLAN TO PROPOSE IT.

ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE ON THIS? THE APPLICANTS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO SIDEWALK, BUT THAT NTA, I THOUGHT FOR A GAVI AND A GAVI DOESN'T EVEN CONNECT TO THIS PROPERTY OF THAT SUBDIVISION DOESN'T EVEN CONNECT.

SO HOW DO WE ENSURE IMPROVED SAFETY, UH, FOR ANY INCREASED ZONING ALONG THIS STREET? UH, INCREASED UNITS ON THIS STREET.

SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, YOU KNOW, NSF AND S3 WOULD NOT, WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, A SIDEWALK TO BE BUILT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER OTHER TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROGERS LANE.

I KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER CASE CALLED THE GAVI.

THAT'S NOT FINISHED WITH STAFF REVIEW YET.

I BELIEVE THAT DOES HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

UM, AND I, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT WOULD BE.

DOES IT CONNECT, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING? DOES THE, A GABA PROPERTY, UH, TO SEE A GABE'S SUBDIVISION CONNECT TO ROGER'S? UH, I, I, MY ON THIS IS THAT A GAVI IS ON THE NORTH.

IT'S CALLED WEST ROGERS LANE.

AND IT'S SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON PAGE SIX, IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST ROGERS LANE, I DON'T THINK, BUT I DON'T THINK IT CONNECTS TO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS IN THE AREA THAT ARE ADJACENT.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE NTA WE'RE WAITING.

YEAH.

THE NTA IS, IS IF YOU GO ALL THE WAY UP ROGERS LANE TO THE NORTH AND THEN TURN WEST, IT'S CALLED WEST ROGERS LANE, THAT'S WHERE A GAVI IS, OR IS ALSO A CASE THAT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THIS MAP.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAD A NAME, UM, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS.

IT WAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROGERS LANE.

AND I THINK THAT WAS IT'S, UH, I THINK, OH, I THINK THAT WAS CALLED ROGERS LANE RESIDENTIAL, AND I THINK THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, UH, LIMITING NET TO A TOTAL OF THREE UNITS AND IT'S GOING THROUGH COUNCIL RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN WE'VE DISCUSSED CEO'S WITH LAW BEFORE, AND I KNOW MR. RIVERA CAN CHIME IN, WE CAN'T AS A, UM, MOTION REQUIRE A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT THEY BUILD WHEN THE ROAD IS IMPROVED, CAN EMOTION BE MADE AND THEN ZAP TAKE A SEPARATE ACTION VIA A LETTER TO SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE ROAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I, I DON'T THINK THAT AS A SEPARATE ACTION COULD BE THIS CASE, COULDN'T COME WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO, YOU KNOW, WITHHOLD DEVELOPMENT OR HOLD DELAY DEVELOPMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, AS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OCCUR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM IC COMMITTEE CHAIR? BERRERA RAMIREZ, GO AHEAD.

HI.

I HAVE MY HEADPHONES ON.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY, GOOD.

SO I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GREENBURG THAT THIS IS SPOT ZONING AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS EVERYWHERE IN AUSTIN.

AND I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BLANKET ALL SF TWO SHOULD, UM, BE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, 80 USE IN THERE ON THEIR PROPERTY.

WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES AS THEY WANT TO WITH THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS THEY DEEM, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

SO I, I, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S WORTHWHILE TO PUNISH THIS PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE SWEEPING, UM, IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL OF AUSTIN.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK WE W I I'M IN SUPPORT OF LETTING THIS PERSON BUILD ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, AND THEN ALSO BRINGING SOMETHING TO CODES AND ORDINANCES IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE HOPPER, UH, TO ALLOW FOR CITYWIDE 80 USE AT ZONING.

SO I THAT'S MY THINKING.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE QUALITY OF THE ROADWAY, I MEAN, I THINK I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ON ROGERS TO CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS AND SAY, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET OUR MILL AND PAVE? I MEAN, THAT'S CLEARLY NOT IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION.

UM, HOPEFULLY IT'S ON THEIR RADAR

[00:15:01]

TO GO AND, AND, UH, REHABILITATE THAT ROADWAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER KOSTA.

THANK YOU.

UM, I'M NOT SURE.

I AGREE THAT THIS IS SPOT ZONING ASIDE FROM THE SF THREE THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS MORRIS AT THREE, IT LOOKS LIKE ON SANDERO HILLS PARKWAY, UM, LESS THAN A MILE AWAY.

SO I THINK THAT S3 IS, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.

AND ALSO, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE QUALITY OF THE ROAD, I DON'T KNOW IF PREVENTING THIS CASE FROM MOVING FORWARD OR FROM A REZONING WOULD IMPROVE OR EVEN MITIGATE ANY OF THE DAMAGES ON THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.

UM, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, OF THIS MOVING FORWARD, AND I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THEIR EDU.

IS THAT A MOTION? AND I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

YEAH, I'LL SECOND.

THE MOTION.

I MEAN, THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS AND THERE ARE HILLS PARKWAY IS ALL SF RATED.

JASON, A LOT IS SF THREE.

IT BACKS UP TO LR, M U BEHIND LRM U IS SF SIX.

I MEAN, I DON'T SEE WHERE WE'RE SPOT ZONING WHEN YOU HAVE THE SAME ZONING ALL AROUND THIS PIECE OF LAND, OTHER THAN ON ONE SIDE.

UM, THE ONLY THING THAT'S ZONE LOWER THAN SF THREE IS ONE LOT TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS .

SO I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE LAND USE AND HAVING TWO HOUSES OUT THERE WILL CERTAINLY HELP THAT'S LOOK AT THE MOTION.

OKAY.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER, CLOSE TO SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR S FOUR SF THREE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SURE.

DAVID HAS A QUESTION.

OKAY.

I'M SORRY, DAVID.

AND MY, YOU KNOW, MY GLASSES ARE FOGGING UP.

GO AHEAD.

NO PROBLEM.

VICE-CHAIR AND I, I CONCUR WITH A CHAIR, UH, BARRERA RAMIREZ HAS COMMENTS AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, AGREE WITH HER THAT I CAN SEE HOW IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.

SO, BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GOOD LOCATION FOR AN ADU AND FOR SF THREE ZONING AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD, I HOPE THAT LATER ON WHEN WE GET TO IT, WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A TO USE BY, BY RIGHT IN SF TWO ZONING.

THAT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

AND I'M DISAPPOINTED.

WE HAVEN'T ALREADY NOT OUR COMMISSION, BUT THE COUNCIL HASN'T ALREADY DONE THAT.

BUT, UH, BUT I THINK WE COULD, UH, WE COULD MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION AS A COMMISSION, SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND I'LL SAY THIS PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN ON THIS FOR YEARS KNOW THAT I GENERALLY DO VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY IT'S JUST A PET PEEVE.

EVERYBODY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD ALLOWED TO HAVE SF THREE ZONING, BUT I'M ACTUALLY VERY GLAD THAT COUNCIL HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT WILL CORRECT THIS, BUT I UNDERSTAND, AND I GENERALLY LOSE THESE VOTES, SO, AND IT'S FINE.

I UNDERSTAND.

I IT'S JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO GET SF 80 USE IN EVERY SF TWO NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT.

SO ANYWAY, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BREAK, COMMISSIONER BOONE, COMMISSIONER COSTA, COMMISSIONER SMITH.

AND ON THE, UM, COMMISSIONER KING COMMISSIONER, WOODY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND CHAIR, BARRERA RAMIREZ, ALL THOSE OPPOSED COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ME AND COMMISSIONER DANCLER OKAY.

CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU'VE GOT YOUR ZONING AND I HOPE IT HAPPENS TO EVERYBODY.

IT'LL GO TO COUNCIL, BUT YOU GOT ERECT YOUR ZONING FROM US.

I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I EMAIL MY COUNCIL MEMBER.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS JUST PUBLIC WORKS, IMPROVING THE ROAD.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A CANDIDATE ON THE SUBSTANDARD ROADS.

THE NEXT TIME THEY HAVE A, THERE WAS NO DRAINAGE.

THERE'S YEAH, IT'S A REALLY BAD ROAD WITH STEEP SLOPES AND IT'S A MESS AND THIS IS THE ONE THEY WANTED THAT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON.

RIGHT.

AND WE LET THAT DOWN BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN TOO MUCH.

SO THIS, THIS AREA DEFINITELY NEEDS SOME TLC.

AND BEFORE WE GO OFF TOPIC, I WILL JUST SAY, WE CAN DISCUSS TLC ON AN AGENDA ITEM, POST THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM IN THE FUTURE, BUT GOOD POINT.

AND NEXT WE HAVE THE SPC AND THAT IS B NINE AND BA

[Items B8 & B9]

I'M SORRY.

LET'S EITHER USE MY GLASSES OR DON'T USE MY GLASSES.

AND IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER? YEAH, SURE.

COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDOVER.

UM, I BELIEVE WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THEM UP IN TANDEM.

UM, YEAH, WHATEVER, WHICHEVER WORKS

[00:20:01]

FOR YOU ALL OUT THERE.

OKAY, GOOD.

IT WOULD BE GOOD.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS ROSEMONT.

ABILA WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR ITEM B, A CASE NUMBER SPC 2007 0 4 9 7 C X T3 OFFICES AT ROSALIND RANCH PHASE ONE LOCATED AT 70 16 RIVALING RANCH DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 15 YEAR EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES.

STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE 15 YEAR EXTENSION, BUT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND A 10 YEAR EXTENSION TO THE SITE PLAN PERMIT.

THE SITE IS ZONED PUD.

ALL SITE CALCULATIONS ARE WITHIN THE ALLOWED AMOUNT.

THE APPLICANT FILED THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, UH, FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH GOOD FAITH EXPECTATION THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 10 YEARS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMMISSION, GRANTED EXTENSION REQUESTS FOR CHURCHES, UM, CHURCHES DEPEND ON FUNDRAISING MONEY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE A PROJECT SUCH AS AUSTIN BAPTIST CHURCH.

ALSO GIVEN THE PANDEMIC, UM, AFFECTS THE FUNDRAISING EFFORTS OF THE CHURCHES.

UM, THE APPLICANTS HERE FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND NOW, MR. SUTTLE.

OH, OKAY.

ITEM B NINE.

ALSO A CASE NUMBER SP 2007 0 5 4 9 B X T3, CAL STATE LABORATORIES, INC.

P R A S A PRA SITE PLAN LOCATED AT A 110 FM 2222 ROAD.

UM, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING 15 YEARS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS ALSO RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES.

STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE 15 YEARS.

WE DO RECOMMEND 10 YEARS GIVEN IT'S A CHURCH.

UM, THEY HAVE TO FUNDRAISE.

THIS SITE IS ZONED R AND D PDA.

UH, THE SITE MEETS ALL CALCULATIONS THERE WITHIN THE ALLOWED AMOUNT.

UH, THE APPLICANT FILED WITH GOOD FAITH EFFORT THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION.

UM, YEAH.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S IT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND NOW THE APPLICANT'S AGENT, YOU KNOW, EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION IS DIFFERENT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER DO Y'ALL PREFER, I KEEP MY MASK ON WHILE I'M UP HERE.

UM, WE CAN HEAR YOU GREAT.

JUST KEEP IT ON.

WE'LL KEEP IT ON.

OKAY.

I'LL KEEP IT ON.

CAN WE PULL UP THE, CAN WE HIT THE NEXT ONE? THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE ONLY PIECE THAT WILL BE RELEVANT.

UM, IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE WAY BACK WHEN, WHEN 2222 WAS A VERY BUSY SPOT AND LOTS OF PEOPLE WANTED TO DO THE HIGH-TECH THINGS OUT HERE.

THERE WERE TWO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THE CAL STAT TRACK, AND THE RAVELING TRACK.

ONE WAS A PAD.

ONE'S A PDA.

THEY WERE SLATED TO DO A LOT OF OFFICE, A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

AND, UM, ONE THING LED TO ANOTHER AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO THEIR, THEIR THING.

AND, UH, THE AUSTIN BAPTIST CHURCH WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GET BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER.

THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE TRACKS, BUT BY THEM BOTH TOGETHER.

AND THEY, THEY, THEY CAME WITH A VERY VALUABLE ASSET TO A CHURCH, AND THAT IS ZONING TIED TO A SITE PLAN.

THEY ALSO HAD SITE PLANS ON THEM THAT WE WERE ABLE TO REWORK AND TURN INTO A CHURCH.

THE COMMUNITY WAS VERY HAPPY WITH THIS BECAUSE THE CHURCH USE WAS A MUCH LOWER, UH, INTENSITY AND MUCH LOWER TRAFFIC AND WAS EASIER ON 22, 22.

AND IN 2011, THE CHURCH BOUGHT IT AND STARTED ON THE PROJECTS UNDER THE OLD SITE PLANS WITH THE ZONING.

UM, WHAT A DIFFERENCE THE WORLD MAKES WAY BACK WHEN THOSE SITE PLANS WERE GETTING READY TO EXPIRE.

AND WE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR A TEN-YEAR EXTENSION WHEN WE STARTED BACK, THEN WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IS ASKED FOR A 20 OR 30 YEAR, UH, EXTENSION BACK THEN, BECAUSE NOW HERE WE ARE 10 YEARS LATER, A LOT OF THE CHURCHES BUILT, BUT THERE'S STILL STUFF LEFT TO BE DONE.

72,000 SQUARE FEET OF CHARGED SPACE, SOME PARKING AND A MAINTENANCE YARD.

UM, SO NOW WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR TENURE, UH, THING AND OR EXTENSION.

AND WE PICKED 15 YEARS BECAUSE HISTORICALLY THAT'S WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN GIVEN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS.

AND WE ASKED FOR 15 AND THE STAFF SAYS 10.

AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS HAVING TO COME BACK HERE AGAIN IN ANOTHER 10 YEARS AFTER LOSING THE HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARGE, BECAUSE THE DEACONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHEPHERDING THIS THING FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS MAY NOT BE THERE IN 10 YEARS FROM NOW.

AND IF WE NEED ANOTHER EXTENSION, WE JUST THOUGHT WE'D ASK FOR 15.

THE REASON IT'S IMPORTANT FOR CHURCHES IS, IS AS WAS MENTIONED BY STAFF IS THEY'RE

[00:25:01]

RELYING UPON FUNDRAISING AND CHURCH GROWTH.

AND IT'S HARD TO PREDICT EITHER ONE OR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER.

THEY KNOW THEY'VE GOT TO HIT THEIR RETURNS, THEIR DEADLINES, THEIR LOANS, BUT A CHURCH BASICALLY GROWS AS THE MEMBERSHIP GROWS AND THEY DEVELOP AS THEIR FUNDRAISING DEVELOPS.

AND SO, UH, HERE WE ARE 10 YEARS AFTER ASKING YOU FOR THE LAST EXTENSION.

WE'RE ALMOST DONE, BUT NOT QUITE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE, WE CAN'T TELL YOU THAT WE'LL BE DONE IN FIVE YEARS.

WE CAN'T TELL YOU WE'D BE DONE IN 10.

WE'D JUST, WE PICKED 15.

IT IS AN ARBITRARY NUMBER.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE ASKED FOR 15, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE LAST ONE I THINK Y'ALL DID ON THE, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE HYDE PARK BAPTIST SCHOOL.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT'S BASICALLY THE HISTORY.

AND ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION, BECAUSE THESE ARE ZONING SITE PLANS.

IF THE EXTENSIONS WEREN'T GRANTED OR, OR THE, UH, THE SITE PLANS EXPIRED, IT'S THE ONLY CONSEQUENCES THE CHURCH HAS TO PAY A REFILING FEE TO REFILE THE EXACT SAME SITE PLAN BECAUSE THEY'RE LOCKED IN UNDER THE ZONING.

AND SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF A PENALTY TO THE CHURCH IF THEY HAD TO JUST REFILE THE SAME THING.

IF THE SITE PLANS WERE TO EXPIRE, IT'S ALL WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND HOPE, HOPE Y'ALL CAN SEE IT IN YOUR, IN YOUR HEARTS TO DO THE 15 YEARS.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND I BELIEVE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR AND OPPOSITION, SO WE CAN ACTUALLY NOW GO ON TO A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC, HEARING A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COSTA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND WHO WOULD LIKE TO KICK THIS OFF, MAKE A MOTION OR DO WHAT? COMMISSIONER KING? YES.

UH, THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.

UM, SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.

UM, SO IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONE OF THE CASES THEY, THEIR SITE PLAN WAS EFFECTIVE ON 2 25, 2008.

AND THE OTHER SITE PLAN IS, IS, UH, FEBRUARY 27TH, 2008.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THAT'S WHEN THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE CODE THAT WAS IN EFFECT AS OF THOSE DATES, IS THE CODE THAT THE SITE PLANS MUST ABIDE BY, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, FOR EXTENSIONS, UH, THEY DO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE OR CURRENT REGULATIONS THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO.

SO THESE SITES ARE SUBJECT TO THE PDA AND THE PUD, UM, EXTENSIONS DO NOT GRANDFATHER, A SITE PLAN.

AND IF STAFF, UH, SAW THAT THEY WEREN'T COMPLIANT, THAT WOULD MAKE THEM DO A CORRECTION TO, UH, KEEP UP WITH CURRENT SAFETY AND WELLNESS GUIDELINES.

OKAY.

SO, UH, BUT, BUT, BUT THOSE ARE THE DATES THAT, THAT THE, THAT THE SITE PLANS, THE CODE THAT WAS IN EFFECT THAT APPLIES TO THESE SITE PLANS, UH, THEY WERE APPROVED IN 2008.

YES.

RIGHT.

SO, AND, AND THAT YOU, YOU, THAT YOU, YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOTTEN MY POINT THERE ABOUT, UH, WHAT VESTED RIGHTS DO THEY HAVE AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS BY IF WE GO WITH, UH, THESE EXTENSIONS, UH, WHAT CODE WOULD THEY THEN NOT HAVE TO COME TO ABIDE BY? UH, IS THERE ANY CODE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY? THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE THE 2008, THESE, THESE ORIGINAL DATES HERE, IS THERE ANY CODE THAT, AND THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH CODE THAT IS THE RULES WHERE THEY EXTENSION AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT GRANDFATHERED.

UM, SO THEY DO REVIEW FOR DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY.

OKAY.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS THAT UNLIKE THE TREE ORDINANCES.

SO THEY WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT TREE, LIKE TREE ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AS OF TODAY AND, AND WATER QUALITY, WATER, EROSION CONTROLS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE IN AZ AND WILDFIRE REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

UH, YES, I CAN CONFIRM THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT.

UM, YES.

ARBORIST HAS DONE A REVIEW OF DRAINAGE TRANSPORTATION.

EVERYBODY HAS COMPLETED THE REVIEW FOR THIS, AND RIGHT NOW ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED.

OKAY.

SO LET ME JUST, LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M REALLY UNDERSTANDING THIS.

SO LET ME JUST, I'M JUST GONNA THROW OUT A NUMBER AND JUST LET'S SAY, AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE BOUND BY THE TERMS IN THE PUDDLE, THE PUD ORDINANCE ITSELF.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOUND BY WHAT'S IN THERE FOR SURE.

NO DOUBT, BUT LET'S SAY THAT, UH, THE CODE HAD REDUCED THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, LEVELS ALLOWED UNDER A ZONING CATEGORY THAT'S WITHIN THIS PUD, WHAT WOULD THAT NEW REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER B WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE PUD RULES? RIGHT? SO AND SO, UH, BUT IF THE, IF THE NEW WOOD, SO IF AN, IF A CODE CHANGE OVERRODE OR CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WASN'T KEN A NEW CODE OVERRIDE OR CHANGED SOMETHING IN AN UNAPPROVED PUTT,

[00:30:01]

NOW THE POD WOULD HAVE TO DO A PROCESS AND THEN, AND WELL, SEE, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONFUSED BY IT.

I MEAN, I KNOW THE CODE HAS CHANGED SINCE, YOU KNOW, THE SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS OF OUR CODE HAVE CHANGED SINCE THIS PUD ORDINANCE WAS, WAS APPROVED.

I MEAN, THIS PUD WAS APPROVED.

AND SO I'M STILL NOT THERE YET IN, IN UNDERSTANDING, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT PRACTICAL IMPACTS WOULD THIS HAVE ON DEVELOPMENT, ENTITLEMENTS AND, AND NEW CODE REQUIREMENTS LIKE SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATION, ENTITLEMENTS.

AND I'M SORRY, I'M BELABORING THIS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CHURCH NEEDS THIS ADDITIONAL TIME.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO GIVING THE CHURCH THE ADDITIONAL TIME THEY NEED HERE FOR FUNDRAISING AND TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO HERE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION, PUBLIC SAFETY AND, UH, THINGS LIKE THAT.

UH, THE, UH, SO IT, SO THEY, IT, SO, UM, I GUESS, UM, I KEPT REALLY, OR MY QUESTION PROPERLY HERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THERE WAS A CODE REQUIREMENT THAT CHANGED, UH, A EROSION CONTROL, THAT WAS THAT, THAT THE PUD WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THAT THE NEW CODE WOULD, WOULD TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND DRAINAGE.

UM, THEY WOULD REVIEW FOR CURRENT CODE.

I SEE.

SO YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE STAFF WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, OKAY, YOU'RE COMING IN FOR AN EXTENSION.

NOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS REVIEW YOUR POD AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT CODE THAT'S IN EFFECT WHEN THAT AMENDMENT IS GOING THROUGH, IF IT AFFECTS SAFETY AND WELLNESS.

YES.

SAFETY AND WELLNESS.

OKAY.

SO THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE AREAS OF THE CODE THAT THEY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAY UP WITH, UP TO, UP TO DATE WITH, IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE.

YES, IT WAS STAFF, UH, DEEMED IT HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELLNESS.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT.

RIGHT.

BUT, BUT LIKE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER CHANGE THAT, THAT THE, THAT THE COUNCIL SAID, WELL, UNDER THESE NEW ZONING CATEGORIES, AND IF WE DISCOVER CHANGE IS GOING TO REDUCE WHAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO, THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PUTT ENTITLEMENT.

NO, I WOULDN'T JUMP INTO, TO THE HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER LEVEL THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THAT PUTT BECAUSE THE PUTT HAS ALREADY SAID, SO I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND.

I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CODE CHANGES FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

AND ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT, THAT, THAT WE MAKE AND IN THE CODE IS IMPERVIOUS COVER TO HELP DEAL WITH SAFETY AND DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROLS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPACT THIS HAS, BECAUSE IF, IF THESE EXTENSIONS, IF THE TEN-YEAR EXTENSION IS APPROVED, THEN THEY WOULD, WHAT, WHAT BE THE, THE DATE THAT THIS WOULD CARRY THEM THROUGH IN TERMS OF THIS, IF WE GAVE THEM A 10 YEAR EXTENDED, WHAT WOULD BE THAT THE EXPIRATION DATE, THE NEW EXPIRATION DATE FOR EACH ONE OF THESE? UM, BECAUSE THE MAYOR'S CURRENT COVID ORDERS, IF THEY EXTENDED EVERYTHING TO MARCH, 2022, SO IT WOULD EXTEND IT TO MARCH, 2032.

IF THE APPLICANT'S 15 YEAR OLD REQUEST WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD GO TO MARCH, 2037.

OKAY.

SO, SO THE STAFF REQUESTS WOULD PUT, PUT BOOK FOR BOTH OF THESE MARCH THE 20TH, 20, 20 32.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME GO THROUGH MY PROCESS HERE.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY.

AND I'M GOING TO GO, I SEE THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH HAS A QUESTION OR EMOTION OR SOMETHING.

MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

IT'S ON, SORRY.

THE MASK OF STOPPING, I THINK WHAT IS THE TERM OF THE PUD AND THE PDAS OR EXPIRATION DATE FOR THOSE? I DON'T HAVE THAT ON MORE THAN 15 YEARS.

I'M ASSUMING IT IS.

SO I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT, OKAY, I'M ASSUMING IT'S MORE THAN 15 YEARS.

SO ANY, IF WE APPROVE THE 15 YEAR REQUEST, ALL HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWED BASED ON CURRENT CODE, THE PUD AND THE PYD WILL DICTATE THE SITE PLAN CONDITIONS, WHICH WILL NOT CHANGE FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE PIT AND THE BUD, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE WAS THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE UP STAFF TIME AND THEIR OWN RESOURCES TO REAPPLY FOR THE EXACT SAME SITE PLAN TO REVIEWED UNDER THE EXACT SAME STANDARDS AS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE 15 YEAR TERM AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.

OKAY.

IS THERE A SECOND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRAY AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS AND COMMISSIONER BENKLER.

I HAD A QUESTION FOR MS. AVILA.

I'LL BE QUICK.

I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY, UH, VIA ABILA ALLOW.

I'M SORRY.

UM, WHY DOES THIS SITE PLAN MATCH WHAT'S IN THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE ORDINANCE, IS THIS, UM, WOULD THIS HAVE REQUIRED A PET AMENDMENT? NO,

[00:35:01]

IT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED TO PUT AMENDMENT.

OKAY.

AND BY HEALTH AND SAFETY, UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CHANGED, UH, FIRE CODE, PLUMBING CODE, BUILDING CODE, WHERE WOULD SELLER BE ON THIS ONE? UM, AND THE APPLICANT, WOULD HE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ENTITLEMENTS OR NOT? BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A LAID OUT PROCESS FOR THAT, UM, SECURITY OR ELEMENTS, I THINK IN 28, IN 20, UNTIL 28, 2008.

EXCUSE ME.

I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THIS STAFF IN PLUMBING CODE, UH, AS IT'S NOT IN MY PURVIEW, UM, PAST SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

UM, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT IF YOU LIKE.

YEAH.

IT'S OKAY.

I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ARE READY TO MOVE.

SO THE BUILDING CODES DON'T, AREN'T AFFECTED BY THIS EXTENSION, THIS EXTENSION ONLY RELATES TO THE SITE PLAN, WHICH THE BUILDING CODES DON'T APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT.

WHATEVER BUILDING CODES ARE IN A PLACE IN MY FLAT, WHEN THEY FILE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE WHAT THEY'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT OR THEIR ENTITLEMENTS IN 2007 ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS, A SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS IN 2007, NO, IN OH SEVEN.

WE DID NOT HAVE THE SUPERIORITY THINGS THAT CAME WITH A PUD.

BUT AGAIN, TONIGHT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS NOT THE PUD, BUT JUST THE YES.

I PLAN EXTENSION.

CORRECT.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE, THE 15 YEAR EXTENSION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BRAY, COMMISSIONER, OR CLOSE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH AND I UP THERE CHAIR, BEREA, RAMIREZ, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODY, ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER BOON.

VICE-CHAIR KOBASA COMMISSIONER DANGLER.

AND LOOKING UP THERE.

COMMISSIONER KING AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

SO THAT IS 6, 5, 6.

OKAY.

HOW COULD IT BE FIVE? YEAH, IT'S A GOOD NUMBER.

FIVE.

SIX.

YEAH.

IT WAS FIVE.

YEAH.

FIVE, SIX.

SO THE MOTION FAILS IS THERE AND THIS WAS ON BOTH, UH, BOTH OF THEM.

AND SO IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? YEAH.

FOR, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I COULD MAKE THAT MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 10 YEARS.

OKAY.

AND IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.

AND THAT WAS, WHO WAS SECONDING THAT FROM THE OKAY.

THOMPSON.

OKAY, GREAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER BRAY, COMMISSIONER BOON, MEANING KOBASA COMMISSIONER CLOSE TO COMMISSIONER.

DANCLER COMMISSIONER SMITH AND WOODY CHAIR BREWER, RAMIREZ THOMPSON KING.

SO IT'S UNANIMOUS.

SO THANK YOU EVERYBODY.

YEAH.

SINCE STEPH, THANK YOU FOR THIS.

IT'S VERY HELPFUL THAT WE HAD THE, FOR ME, THAT WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE EXTENSIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER KING.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN NEXT ON C1

[C1. Discussion and possible action regarding matters related to any proposed revisions to the Land Development Code including but not limited to staff updates, presentations and scheduling. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa)]

ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO ANY PROPOSED PROVISIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT DOES, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING THAT DOES REMIND ME THAT WE DO HAVE THAT SORT OF IN THE HOPPER SORT OF, UM, WHAT KIND OF AMENDMENTS ARE COMING.

AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR BRIEFING ON THAT.

IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON THAT? OKAY.

AND THEN

[D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMISSIONER COSTA.

UM, I KNOW THE SMALL AREA COMMITTEE, UH, COMMITTEE HAD A PRESENTATION ON ETO DS, AND IF IT WASN'T ALREADY ON OUR AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE HEAR A SIMILAR PRESENTATION.

UM, OKAY.

I MEAN, I ACTUALLY ALREADY PARTICIPATED IN THE, IN THAT, AND SO I WOULD ACTUALLY NOT, I WOULD WAIT FOR AN UPDATE BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY LIKE AN HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE.

UM, BUT THAT'S PERSONAL AND I KNOW TWO OTHER, AT LEAST TWO OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD PRESENTATIONS AND PARTICIPATED.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK HOW WOULD IT BE IF WE JUST KICKED THAT UNTIL IT'S, THERE'S SOMETHING NEW? CAUSE I PERSONALLY WOULD.

I MEAN, IF I HAD KNOWN WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE PARTICIPATE IN THAT, IN THE LIKE ALMOST LIKE A TWO HOUR THING COMMISSIONER ALSO I COULD SHARE WITH, UM,

[00:40:01]

MR. RIVERA, THE LINK TO THE VIDEO AND YOU CAN WATCH THE VIDEO.

THERE WAS A LONGER ONE THAT I WATCH PLUS THE ONE AT, UM, A SMALL AREA PLANNING.

SO I THINK IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY WATCH THAT.

BUT AT THIS POINT, THE QUESTIONS I HAD, LIKE, WHICH WERE THE STUDY AREAS WAS STILL UNANSWERED.

UM, PERHAPS IF THEY'RE READY TO ANSWER ABOUT THE STUDY AREAS AND DISCUSS THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT OTHERWISE SHE CAN WATCH THE VIDEO WELL, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD AT SOME POINT.

AND I'LL SAY ALSO WHAT ELSE? CAUSE I, I, UH, CHAIR BARRERA, RAMIREZ, AND I HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS TOO.

AND I HAD BROUGHT UP THAT THE AUSTIN IT'S ALWAYS TRANSPORTATION ALL THE TIME, AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, THEY ARE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK.

AND I BELIEVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GETTING A BRIEFING BRIEFING ON THAT.

SO ANOTHER TRANSPORTATION THING COMING BEFORE US AND TO HAVE A BRIEFING, THE SAME BRIEFING THAT IS GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO US, AND THEY ARE SOLICITING FEEDBACK.

I'VE ALREADY PARTICIPATED IN THAT STUDY TOO.

SO IF WE COULD DO THAT, SO, AND THEIR DEADLINE IS COMING UP PRETTY QUICKLY.

WHAT'S THAT CHECKING MICHELLE HE'S ON ANDREW RIVERA, UM, FOR FUTURE BUSINESS.

YES.

UH, THAT WILL BE A ITEM THAT WILL BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND FALL, UM, BE PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION AS A COMMISSION.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND ACTUALLY ANOTHER THING THAT, THAT CHAIR BARRERA RAMIREZ AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT TOO, IS TO ACTUALLY SIT DOWN OR TALK TO ANDREW BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF CASES THAT HAVE BEEN POSTPONED LIKE FOR TONIGHT AND TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WE HAVE THE TOMA PRESENTATION COMING UP ON FEBRUARY 1ST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CASES NEXT AT OUR NEXT JANUARY MEETING.

AND SO TO TRY TO ACTUALLY PLAN OUT SOMETHING BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY HAVE MADE A LOT OF REQUESTS AND SOME OF THEM MATERIALIZED SOME HAVEN'T.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD.

AND I REALLY DO, LIKE, I, I ACTUALLY LIKED THE TODD PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK I WOULD FALL ASLEEP IF I HAD TO DO IT AGAIN.

AND I WOULD.

AND, UM, THEY, AND THEY WERE REALLY HAPPY THAT SOME OF US COMMISSIONERS DID PARTICIPATE, BUT WHEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING NEW, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

AND I ALSO ASSUME THAT CHAIR BERRERA RAMIREZ MAYBE, OR MAYBE WON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'RE, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THEM TOO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE NEW MATERIALS, NEW AND FRESH MATERIAL, ANYTHING ELSE? CAUSE THAT, SO THEN W UM, E COMMITTEE REPORTS AND WORKING GROUPS, ANY, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES DURING COMMITTEE, ANY REPORTS? NO, UH, COMP COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.

AREN'T COMMITTEE, SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE, NOTHING.

OKAY.

AND THEN ONION CREEK AND LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP.

OKAY, GREAT.

THEN GUESS WHAT? WE ARE ADJOURNED AND WE PREPARED FOR A BIG MEETING NEXT TIME.

THANK YOU.

YOU GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE.

YOU TOO.

GOODNIGHT.

EVERYONE.

.