Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:04]

ALL RIGHT.

[CALL TO ORDER ]

IT'S 6 0 4.

UM, WE ARE CALLING THE ORDER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON MARCH 2ND, 2022.

UH, WE'RE UP AT 63 10 WILL.

HELL ME NOW WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE, UH, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78 7 5 2.

UM, I THINK WE WILL CALL IT TO ORDER AND GO THROUGH ROLL CALL HERE.

COMMISSIONER.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT.

DON'T SEE SCOTT.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT, PRESIDENT COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY BRISTOL.

RIGHT NEXT TO YOU.

KEVIN ROMBERG IS HERE.

UM, COMMISSIONER BRIMER ERR, AND COMMISSIONER BEDFORD HERE.

PERFECT.

UM, THEN I'LL ALSO ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER GARY.

THIS COULD BE YOUR FIRST TIME TO, TO, TO CALL IN.

YES, HERE.

THANK YOU.

AND WELCOME.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE GONNA, UM, I GUESS JUST GONNA START HAMMERING THROUGH THE AGENDA, CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL GO WITH

[1A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ACTION ]

ONE A, UM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES KAYLA DISTRIBUTED.

THOSE HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

ANYBODY GOT A SECOND? SECOND.

ALL RIGHT.

I GOT A MOTION BY BEDFORD AND A SECOND BY BARRETT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, OR RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE ON SCREEN, LOOKS LIKE WE'RE UNANIMOUS.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

[2A. STAFF UPDATES ]

AND THE NEXT ITEM IS, UH, ITEM TWO, A A STAFF UPDATE FROM THE VIOLET CROWN WATER WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST 5 1 1 1 AND 5 1 1 2.

THANK YOU.

THE COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.

AND BEFORE I GIVE THAT UPDATE, I WAS, UM, WANTING TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER ON A GRAY FROM DISTRICT NINE, UM, TO, TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

UM, AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UM, YES, MY NAME IS ANNA AND, UM, I USED TO SERVE MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS ON THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE.

UM, AS A RESULT OF THE FLOODING THAT HAPPENED IN 2013 AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY IN 2015.

SO THAT'S BEEN MY BIG INVOLVEMENT.

I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO FLOODING ISSUES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN ALL OF AUSTIN.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WELCOMING ME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF Y'ALL.

WELL, THANK YOU.

WE WORK FOR IT.

LOOK FOR IT AS WELL.

UM, SO THE, UM, THE UPDATE I WANTED TO GIVE TO THIS EVENING, UM, IS RELATED TO THE VIOLET CROWN WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS THAT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS, UM, MEETING AGENDA THAT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.

UM, W THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AGAINST APPROVAL OF, UH, THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS TO THE VIOLET CROWN PROJECT.

UM, I WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT DID, UH, REQUEST THAT THE, UM, UH, THE APPLICATION FOR THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST BE WITHDRAWN ON FEBRUARY 22ND.

AND SO THAT, UH, RE APPLICATION AND THE REQUEST IS NO LONGER MOVING FORWARD.

SO IT WILL, IT WILL NOT GO TO WATERWAYS, WATER COMMISSIONER, CITY COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK I WOULD LIE.

SO LIKE, TO, UH, UH, TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER GARY, UH, WELCOME TO OUR, UH, OUR, THE FUN THAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT AND, UH, AND, AND ALL THE, ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND ALL THE ASPECTS THEY'RE IN.

SO WELCOME.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

ALL RIGHT.

[3A. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ]

UM, NEXT ITEM IS THREE A TO HOLD AN EMERGENCY ELECTION FOR THE VACANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OFFICER POSITION OR POSITIONS, UH, FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, UM, FOR THROUGH,

[00:05:01]

THROUGH THE TERM OF, OF APRIL 20, 22.

UM, SO I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE A CHAIR, UM, SINCE CHERYL GUERRERO IS GONE.

YES.

YEAH.

W YES, BARRETT COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE VICE CHAIR RAMBERT TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, WE GOT A MOTION BY BARRETT AND SECOND BY BRISTOL.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE, OR RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE REMOTE.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M CHAIR.

UH, NOW THANK YOU.

UM, THANK YOU.

UH, UH, NOW I GUESS WE NEED TO VOTE FOR A VICE CHAIR.

UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE PERRY BEDFORD FOR VICE CHAIR, AND I WILL SECOND SECOND BY BRISTOL.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, CONGRATULATIONS, VICE CHAIR, BEDFORD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

MOVING PRETTY QUICK.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, WITH THAT DONE, WE'RE GOING ON TO

[4A. Name: 7715 1/2 West State Highway 71, C14-85-288.23(RCA) Applicant: Amanda Swor, Drenner Group Location: 7712 Oak Forest Lane, Austin TX 78736 Council District: District 8 Staff: Liz Johnston, Deputy Environmental Officer, Watershed Protection Department and Leslie Lilly, Environmental Program Coordinator Watershed: Williamson Creek, Barton Springs Zone (Contributing Zone), Drinking Water Protection Zone Request: Conduct a public hearing and approve a restrictive covenant amendment Staff Recommendation: To grant an amendment to the restrictive covenant (30 minutes) ]

FOUR A, WHICH IS, UM, IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, UM, ITEM FOUR, A S UM, WHICH IS 7 71, 5 AND A HALF.

OH, NO.

UH, THIS APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO POSTPONE THIS AS WELL TO A FURTHER MEETING WE'RE THINKING IN APRIL, CORRECT? YES.

LET'S NOT SET THE DATE JUST IN CASE, BUT YEAH.

OKAY.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO, UH, POSTPONE THIS TO A FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, AND WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE OR MAKE A MOTION OR ANYTHING LIKE, CORRECT.

YES.

YOU DO NEED TO VOTE TO POSTPONE.

OKAY.

BUT THEN I WOULD MOVE THAT.

WE'VE POSTPONED THIS TO A FEW FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, SECOND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

DID YOU HAVE QUESTION? OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A, UM, A MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, UH, AND HAS BEEN SECONDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS TO A FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATE, RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY, AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT ALSO LOOKS UNANIMOUS.

WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE BATTING A THOUSAND.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

[4B. Name: Mary Vice Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) Lot 27 Amendment; Case No. C814-97-0002.01 Applicant: Husch Blackwell LLP (Stacey L Milazzo) Location: Montopolis Dr. and Felix Ave. Council District: District 3 Staff: Leslie Lilly, Environmental Program Coordinator, Watershed Protection Department Watershed: Carson Creek Watershed, Suburban Classification, Desired Development Zone Request: To amend a Planned Unit Development Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended with conditions (30 minutes) ]

SO FOR B THE, UH, THIS PROJECT IS THE MARY VICES STATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PUD LOT 27 AMENDMENT CASE NUMBER C 8 1 4 DASH NINE SEVEN DASH 0 0 0 TWO.ZERO ONE.

THE APPLICANT IS HUNCHED BLACKWELL, AND THE LOCATION IS ON TOP OF HIS DRIVE AND FELIX AVENUE.

UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO AMEND A PUD, AND I THINK WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION TO START.

OKAY.

THERE WE GO.

FOUR B FOUR B.

YES.

IT SAYS MARY VICES STATES.

YEAH, THERE WE GO.

THAT'S FINE.

OKAY, GREAT.

OH, YOU WANT ME TO CLICK SO GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'M LESLIE, LILLEY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.

AND TONIGHT I AM GOING TO BE SPEAKING WITH YOU ABOUT THE MARY VICE ESTATES, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CASE NUMBER C 8 1 4 9 7 0 0 TO 0.01.

SO TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, UM, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS A TYPE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY CITY ORDINANCE FOR ATTRACTIVE LAND, ESPECIALLY FOR TRACKS OF LAND THAT HAVE MULTIPLE USES IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

UM, THE MARY VISE ESTATES PUD OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 97.

AND IN THAT PUD, IT DESIGNATES LAND USE TYPES TO EACH LOT WITHIN THE TRACT OF LAND BASED ON A LAND USE PLAN.

SO THE LAND USE PLAN IN THE PUD HAS DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS, EITHER COMMERCIAL USE OR

[00:10:01]

MULTI-FAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, THE, THOSE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE HAVE SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AROUND IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND THAT IS ALL IN THE ORDINANCE.

SO THE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THAT ORDINANCE TO REVISE ONE OF THE USE TYPES FOR A LOT WITHIN THE TRACT OF LAND, FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE TRACT OF LAND.

SO IT WOULD BE CHANGING THE LAND USE TYPE FROM COMMERCIAL, UM, TO 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UM, TO SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS IN THE CITY.

IT'S IN EAST AUSTIN, UM, ON MONTOPOLIS AND FELIX AVENUE.

AND IT IS IN THE FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.

IT IS NOT IN THE RECHARGE OR CONTRIBUTING ADVERSE AQUIFERS ZONE.

SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ABOUT THE SITE IS IT HAS NO CREEKS, NO CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES, NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.

THERE ARE NO FLOOD PLANS EITHER WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

AND ADDITIONALLY, IT IS IN THE SUBURBAN, UH, CARSON CREEK WATERSHED.

UM, SO MARY VICE ESTATES, PUD, UH, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WAS DONE BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.

SO THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF THIS POD ARE ALSO, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

SO THE 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE NEW TRACT WOULD BE NEW, UH, NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

AND THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE MAP IS THE RED AREA DESIGNATING THE SITE IS THE LOT WITHIN THE TRACT OF LAND INCLUDED IN THE MERRY VICES STATES PUD, THAT WOULD BE CHANGING LAND USE TYPE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY.

SO WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THIS POD AMENDMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.

AS I MENTIONED IN THE RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE TYPES, THERE ARE IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS ALLOTTED TO DIFFERENT LAND USE TYPES.

SO THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS WERE 70% AND PERVIOUS COVER ON A NET SITE AREA CALCULATION SHALL BE ALLOWED RATHER THAN THE 65% CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE WITHIN SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS.

THE CURRENT PUD ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER UNDER THE COMMERCIAL USE.

SO THE NET REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE DOWN TO 70%, BUT JUST ALLOWING FOR THE MULTI-FAITH MULTI-FAMILY USE TO BE AT THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE PUD.

UM, SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS THAT IS THE AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED TODAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND, AND, UM, IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD GET THE SCREEN UP TO WHERE WE CAN SEE THE, IT SHOULD BE ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? UM, CAN WE GET THE SCREEN UP TO WHERE WE COULD SEE THE COMMISSIONERS TOO? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN THERE.

YES.

WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK WITH THE ITEMS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL.

AND THEN WE CAN, AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE CAN JUST ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION THAT PROBABLY IS PRETTY IMPORTANT, AND I'D LIKE SOMEBODY TO PAY ATTENTION.

IT'S NOT ON FELIX.

THE ADDRESS IS NOT ON FELIX IT'S MONTOPOLIS.

AND, UM, WHAT IS IT CALLED? CORRECT.

HELIX IS A BLOCK OVER, BUT HE LIKES, UM, IS NEARBY.

IT'S AN HONEST MISTAKE, BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS.

THAT IS IT'S WRONG TO LABEL IT THAT WAY.

SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT THERE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

THE TRACTOR, THE LOT OF LAND THAT IS BEING DESIGNATED OR THAT IS BEING REQUESTED TO CHANGE.

LAND USE TYPE IS WITHIN A LARGER SEVEN ACRE TRACT OF LAND THAT DOES ACTUALLY INTERSECT WITH FELIX.

SO THE MAP THAT IS SHOWN IN

[00:15:01]

THE PRESENTATION DOES NOT SHOW THE LOT BEING ADJACENT TO FELIX, BUT THE POD, THE ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE MERRY VICES STATES IS ON FELIX.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION QUESTION.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

SO FOR THE APPLICANT WE HAVE , DO WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THIS OR IS THIS JUST, YES, THE APPLICANT HAS UP TO 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE EXCITED.

THERE WE GO.

NICOLE MEAD WITH HATCHBUCK.

WELL, HE REPRESENTING AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND PERSPECTIVE DEVELOPER.

UM, I HONESTLY DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO ADD LESLIE REALLY COVERED EVERYTHING.

AND SO I WOULD JUST OFFER TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.

WE ALSO HAVE ANDY ISLER CONE WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.

HE'S THE LAND DEVELOPMENT VICE-PRESIDENT HE IS ON THE PHONE, I BELIEVE.

AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER IF ANYBODY SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN REALLY ADD TO THE PRESENTATION THAT LESLIE DIDN'T ALREADY COVER.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, DO WE, YES.

UH, LET'S GO, LET'S GO ROUND AND ASK QUESTIONS, THOMPSON.

UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND KICK US OFF, PLEASE.

OKAY.

I JUST WONDERED IF, IF THEY ARE ONE OR TWO STORY, BECAUSE I TRIED TO FIND THAT OUT, BUT I'M, I KNOW THEY'RE SIX DUPLEXES AND THEY'RE 12 UNITS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER AND THEY ARE TWO STORY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THOMPSON.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GIRA.

YES.

AND I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS MORE PER STEP AND I'M JUST LEARNING ABOUT LEARNING, BUT I NEED TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS ON THE, THE REPORT FROM THE STAFF.

AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE, THE ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET ON PAGE SIX.

IT HAS OTHER STAFF COMMENTS AND ENTER ENVIRONMENTAL.

IT STATES WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE FOR ALL LOTS.

SINCE THIS REMOVAL WOULD AFFECT ANY REDEVELOPMENT IN THE PICTURE.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PLAYS INTO THIS DECISION.

THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT, COMMISSIONER AGUIRRE.

YES.

IT'S IN THIS NEW CHANGE REVIEW SHEET AND IT'S THE SECOND DOCUMENT.

THAT'S PART OF THIS CASE AND IT'S ON PAGE SIX.

THERE WERE PAGES AND THIS IS ON PAGE SIX.

I BELIEVE THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

LIZ JOHNSTON WATERSHED PROTECTION.

UM, THE APPLICANT IS NOT REMOVING THEIR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT.

YEAH.

AND, AND COMMISSIONER AGGIE DAY.

I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT VERY EARLY ON, BUT WE, THAT NEVER ENDED UP IN PART OF OUR REQUEST.

SO THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

THAT SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY, PROBABLY STILL HAVE BEEN IN THERE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE VIDEO COMMISSIONERS? IF THAT REQUEST IS NOT IN THERE, DO WE NEED TO UPDATE THAT? I DON'T KNOW.

CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER, TARA BRISTOL? I DON'T THINK IT ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT IN OUR, IT'S NOT ANYTHING WE REQUESTED, SO I DON'T THINK ANY THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL COULD APPROVE IT, EVEN IF THEY WANT IT TO BE, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN OUR REQUEST.

THERE IS AN ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER IS APPLAUD NOTE THAT SAYS WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEED THEM.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

YES, COMMISSIONER SHERRY'S HER WEIGHT IS WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THAT WAS PART OF THE EARLY DISCUSSION IN THE BEAUTY COMMENTS AND THE COMMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO THE REPORT.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION PER CHANCE? WE DO.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YEP.

I'M GOING TO REMOVE THIS TO READ THIS OUT.

UM, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION MARCH 2ND, 2022, CASE NUMBER C

[00:20:01]

8 1 4 DASH NINE SEVEN DASH 0 0 0 2 0.1 0.01.

THE MARY ESTATES, UM, MARY VICES STATES PUD LOT 27 AMENDMENT.

UH, WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND, UH, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CARSON CREEK SUBURBAN WATERSHED.

AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS VARIANCE WITH, UM, STAFF CONDITIONS, HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND FACTS HAVE BEEN MET, THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING IN THE STAFF CONDITIONS.

ARE THIS APPLICANT COMPLETES THE PROJECT ESTABLISHED BY THE PUD, SUCH AS ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO CURRENT CODE AT THE TIME OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICANTS APPLICATION.

THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION.

70% IMPERVIOUS COVER ON A NET SITE AREA CALCULATION SHALL BE FOLLOWED RATHER THAN THE 65% CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR MULTIFAMILY.

USE THE END SECOND, SECOND TO BUY A BEDFORD, ANY, UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY AYE.

LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY TO ME.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU GUYS.

[4C. Name: Water Oak Apartments, SP-2019-0109C Applicant: Gemsong Ryan, Jones | Carter Location: 12151 S I-35 Frontage Rd, Austin, TX 78747 Council District: 5 Staff: Pamela Abee-Taulli, Environmental Program Coordinator, Development Services Department Watershed: Onion Creek Watershed, Suburban Classification, Desired Development Zone Request: Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill to 25 feet to construct a driveway. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend this variance, having determined that the findings of fact have not been met. (30 minutes) ]

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA.

ITEM FOUR C, WHICH IS THE WATER OAK APARTMENTS S P UH, 2019 DASH 0 1 0 9.

APPLICANT IS GEMSTONE JIM SONG, RYAN, UH, FROM JOHNSON CARTER, UH, AND THE LOCATION IS 12 1 5 1 SOUTH AT 35 FRONTAGE ROAD, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78, 7 47.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION MAYBE COMING IN REMOTELY.

YES, YES, YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH.

WHILE WE'RE BRINGING THE, UM, THE STAFF PRESENTATION UP, I JUST, UH, I DID WANT TO KIND OF INTRODUCE THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE TRICKY AND NOT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS SOME OF THE VARIANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY.

UM, WHEN AN APPLICANT REQUESTS, A VARIANCE STAFF LOOK AT WHAT'S CALLED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AT FOURTH AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY AND TRIED TO BE VERY CONSISTENT IN HOW WE INTERPRET HOW WE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

UM, HOWEVER, THEY DON'T, THE FINDINGS ARE SET FORTH IN CODE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THEM, AND WE CAN'T ALWAYS CONSIDER EVERY SITUATION OR, OR EVERY CONSIDERATION THAT MAY ARISE.

UM, AND THAT IS WHY WE BRING THESE VARIANCES TO COMMISSIONS, TO, TO CONSIDER MAYBE EXTERIOR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT TRICKY OR A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM, FOR EACH PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

UM, AND MS. AB TALI WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION A LITTLE BIT MORE IN HER PRESENTATION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF INTRODUCE THAT, THAT IDEA THAT SOMETIMES THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE A LITTLE RESTRICTIVE FOR STAFF.

SO THANK YOU.

OKAY, MS. ABIES HOLLY, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

NOBODY HAD THE POWERPOINT.

OKAY.

UM, SO, UH, WELL I'M PAMELA AMY TOLLI WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

AND, UM, SO, UH, SURE.

UH, THE CHAIR ALREADY READ OFF THE ADDRESS AND EVERYTHING.

IT WAS ON THE FIRST SLIDE.

THE LOCATION OF THIS IS, UH, UM, IN THE SOUTH OF TOWN RIGHT OFF BY 35, JUST AT THE EDGE OF THE, UH, WHOLE PURPOSE JURISDICTION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

OKAY.

[00:25:03]

UM, AND THERE'S, UH, ANOTHER MAP PICTURE TO SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS JUST NORTH OF 45 OUT OF 5 35.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

RIGHT.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE, ABOUT THE SITE IT'S IN I'M IN CREEK WATERSHED.

IT JUST CLASSIFIED A SUBURBAN, IT ISN'T A DESIRE DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION, AS I MENTIONED IS NOT OVER THE OTHER WORDS FOR RECHARGE ZONE.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE SITE OR CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE JUST VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR A ROADWAY THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE APPLICANT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING, BUILDING THE ROADWAY AS PART OF OUR SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AND RELEASED BACK IN JUNE OF 2020.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO ORIGINALLY THE ROAD WAY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BOTH.

UH, WELL IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT A PUBLIC STANDARDS AND THEN, UH, WAS INTENDED TO BE DEDICATED AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DESIGN, WHICH USES 25 FEET OF FILL ELVIN BY ROUTINE WALT, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ROADWAY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES THE ABILITY FOR PUBLIC ROADWAYS PUBLIC, RIGHT OF WAY TO EXCEED FOUR FEET OR KIND OF FILL WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THE GRADING APPROVED FOR THE WRONG PLAY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CODE.

AS I SAID, THIS WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND THE, AND WE STARTED BUILDING IT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HOWEVER, PRIVATE ROADWAYS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED, FILL, UH, FILL OVER FOUR FEET.

SO AS A PRIVATE ROADWAY, THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CODE AND A VARIANCE IS NEEDED.

THEREFORE, THE VARIANCE IS A REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 25 8 3 42, TO ALLOW PHIL TO 25 FEET TO CONSTRUCT THE DRIVEWAY NEXT.

LIKE THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW.

UH, THERE'S THE ROADWAY AROUND THE RIM OF IT.

AND THEN THE, THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE INSIDE OF IT, THE ROADWAY IS PARTIALLY COMPLETED.

THE RED ARROW SHOWS WHERE THE 25 FEET OF FILL IS NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THOSE ARE TWO MORE VIEWS OF IT UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

OKAY.

SO THIS SHEET IS THE GRADING EXHIBIT FROM THE PLAN SET, UM, AND SHOWS WHERE PHIL OVER HT IS.

AND, UH, AP THE CUT-OVER AP IS, WAS CODE COMPLIANT, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN THE FIRST, WELL, WHEN THE PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR THIS FILL EVER EIGHT FEET IN THE ROADWAY, UH, WAS, UH, IS WHAT NOW NEEDS THE VARIANT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO STOP DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANT.

WE DO NOT FEEL THAT IT MEETS TWO OF THE FINDINGS, 25, 8 41 TO EIGHT AND 25, 8 41 TV.

NEXT SLIDE, 25, 8 41 2 A REQUIRES THAT THE VARIANCE NOT BE NECESSITATED BY A DESIGN DECISION OF THE APPLICANT.

WE FEEL THE VARIANCE IS NECESSITATED BY A DESIGN DECISION THAT IN WELL, BACK UP THE DESIGN, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSITATED BY THE AMOUNT OF FILL AND THE, WE FIND THAT THE BILL IS DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN DECISION TO FILL RATHER THAN SPANNING THE MORE THAN 20 FEET OF GRADE CHANGE ACROSS A VERY DEEP SWALE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO 25, 8 41, 2 A DOES A WHILE APPROVAL OF NONCOMPLIANT DESIGN DESIGN DECISION.

IF IT PROVIDES GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, THAT IS ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANT, WE DO NOT FIND THAT, UH, THIS PROVIDES GREATER ALL OVERALL GREATER OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

I'M TRIPPING OVER MY TONGUE.

I APOLOGIZE.

UM, NEXT, LIKE, SO ONTO THE NEXT FINDING 25, 8 41, 2 B REQUIRES THE VARIANCE BE THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENT NECESSARY TO ALLOW A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

[00:30:02]

THE PROPERTY IS A 47, I'M SORRY, A SEVEN LOT 58.4 ACRE SUBDIVISION WITH 40.9 ACRES.

PLATTERED FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THE CODE REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENTS DO NOT DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE STOP CONSIDERS THAT THE OTHER THREE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MET.

UH, IT IS OUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF A PRIVILEGE AVAILABLE TO OWNERS OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.

AND THAT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN WATER QUALITY THAT IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE WATER QUALITY ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME OR THE APPLICANT? I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE.

KAYLA, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UM, AVAILABLE OR ARE THEY PROPOSING TO DO A PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING? YES.

KAYLA CHAMPION WATERSHED PROTECTION.

WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE ON PHONE AND, UH, THAT IS JIM'S ON RYAN AND I BELIEVE THEY ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION.

OKAY, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GO ROUND WITH QUESTIONS.

ARE YOU ALL ABLE TO HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS.

WE'RE JUST BRINGING UP THE PRESENTATION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, KAYLA.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS WILL BE A MINUTE.

OKAY.

SO YEAH, THE, WHEN YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATIONS UP, UM, AND, AND PLEASE JUST, UH, INSTRUCT THE AB GURUS OVER HERE TO ADVANCE SLIDES AS NEEDED, BUT WE'RE ON THE COVER SLIDE RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

GO FOR IT.

OKAY.

UM, THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS, UH, THE TITLE IS YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SIDE.

THAT'S THE LOCATION THAT WE'RE THERE.

OKAY.

THIS IS KIND OF VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT PAMELA ALREADY SHOWED YOU WHERE WE ARE AT, UM, RIGHT OFF .

UM, THAT'S OUR ONLY ACCESS TO THE SITE IS OFF THE I 35 SERVICE ROAD.

UM, AND WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF INDIAN CREEK AND NORTH OF 45.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, THE FINAL PLAT, UM, IS SHOWN, THIS IS WHAT WAS RECORDED.

WE REPORTED THIS IN FEBRUARY OF 2020.

UM, THERE'S THREE TRACKS ARE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN THERE ARE FOUR ADDITIONAL TRACKS THAT WE DEDICATED TO PLANT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, SO HERE'S KIND OF THE PRODUCT OVERVIEW THAT SHOWS THE, THE TOPO AROUND THE PROJECT, UM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY EXTENSIVE.

UM, THE FIRST PHASE INCLUDES THIS, THIS OR SECTION AND MULTIFAMILY, UH, WITH 292 UNITS, AND IT'S TREATED BY WATER QUALITY, WHICH IS RAIN GARDENS THROUGHOUT THE SITE AND CENTRAL DETENTION POND.

AND THIS POND ACTUALLY ALREADY CAME THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD FOR A VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED OR CUT OVER 12 FEET AND FOLKS OVER 15%.

SO WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF BEEN THROUGH THIS, UH, BOARDING COMMISSION WITH THIS PROJECT.

UM, WE DID HAVE SEVERAL HERITAGE TREES THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN GOOD CONDITION WAS PRESERVED.

AND THAT ALSO DICTATED KIND OF THE ROAD PLACEMENT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE PROJECT BACKGROUND IS THE PLOT WAS RECORDED AND PERMITTED IN JUNE OF 2020.

UM, INTERNAL SITE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN AND WE HAD SENT THE WALL RETAINING WALL STRUCTURAL DETAILS TO PUBLIC ORDERS FOR REVIEW PUBLIC WORKS, REQUESTED THE PLANS WE ADDED OFFICIALLY TO THE PERMIT THAT WE, UM, SUBMITTED THEM WITH A CORRECTION TO ADD THE STRUCTURAL WALL PLAN.

AND IT WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER, 2020, AND THEN WE BEGAN THE WALL CONSTRUCTION ON THE RIGHT AWAY.

UM, WE HAD, WE HAD WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE CORRECTIONS TEAM THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAD APPROVED THE WALL DETAILS, BUT

[00:35:01]

UNFORTUNATELY PUBLIC WORKS SAID THAT THEY DID NOT APPROVE THEM.

SO WE STOPPED CONSTRUCTION AND WE HAD BEEN COORDINATING WITH CITY STAFF EVER SINCE THAT TIME, UM, BETWEEN ATD PUBLIC WORKS, PASSMORE, USEFULLY, AND DSC, OR HOW TO GET THIS WALL APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED.

UM, SO WE PUBLIC WORKS STRESSES TO ACTUALLY PUT IT IN THE PLANT THAT THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVISION, WHICH WE'RE IN THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHY IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

UM, DURING THE REVISION PROCESS, PUBLIC WORKS HAVE STATED THEY DO NOT WANT IT TO STAY IN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

THEY DID NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN THE WALL AND THEY WANT TO TURN THIS ROAD INTO A PRIVATE ROADWAY, WHICH THEN PUTS US OUT OF CODE COMPLIANCE THAT WE WILL PREVIOUSLY THEN NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, SO THE DESIGN BACKGROUND FOR THIS PROJECT, UM, LOCATION OF THIS PUBLIC ROAD WAS DETERMINED BY OUR TIA THAT WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH, UM, WITH TXDOT AND REVIEW BY ATD.

UM, WE REQUIRED TWO PUBLIC ASSET ACCESS POINTS PLUS, UM, ACCESS OUT TO THE EAST FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY.

UM, WE HAD ORIGINALLY WERE GOING, GONNA PROPOSE EMBANKMENT, UM, THAT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE PROVED OR SUPPORTED BY STAFF ARE STILL OVER 25 FEET OUTSIDE OF A RIGHT AWAY.

THAT'S WHERE THE WALL DECISIONS WAS COORDINATED WITH ALL STAFF.

WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS DURING PERMITTING AND, UM, ATD AND EVERYONE AGREED THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT WALL.

UM, UNFORTUNATELY PUBLIC WORKS DID NOT GET CALLED INTO MEETINGS.

SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF, THERE WAS A NEW COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN STAFF.

UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THIS AGAIN IS A CAPSULE THAT SHOWS THE AREAS THAT WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE SPILL OVER, UM, EIGHT FEET IN THE AREAS OF 15 ZONES THAT REPRESENTS ABOUT 0.1, ONE ACRES OF THE ENTIRE RIGHT AWAY, UM, OR 4% THAT'S IN THAT ACCESS OF SLIPS THEM.

UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, UM, THAT JUST SHOWS YOU THE EXTENT OF THE TWO RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND, UM, THE 10 TO 25 FOOT HEIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS JUST THE DESIGNED YOU HAVE FROM THE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR THE LOCATION AND PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE TWO WALLS.

WE'LL WANT THEM ALL TO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS WHAT THE, UM, PROFILE VIEW OF THE, THE CUT OF THESE WALLS AND KIND OF HOW YOU SHOW THAT WE'RE NOT SELLING ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY WITH THESE WALLS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, WE PLACED THIS ROADWAY INITIALLY TO AVOID HERITAGE PROTECTED TREES.

UM, WE PLAYED FOR A VERY LONG, THE HIGH RIDGE OF THE SITE TO TRY TO MINIMIZE, CUT AND FILL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT HOW WE HAD TO TIE IT INTO THE TEXTILE ELEVATIONS IS WHAT NECESSITATED THIS SPILL.

UM, THERE IS A SMALL WHALE THAT GOES THROUGH THE SITE AND THAT TAKES ABOUT NINE ACRES OF OFF-SITE WATER.

AND THIS IS WHERE THE SWALE IS, IS WHERE THE, THE MOST FILL IS AT 25 FEET.

UM, THERE ARE NO CRITICAL BUFFERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SWALE.

UM, AND THEN MOST OF US WILL ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE PARKLAND AND AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF A PRIVATE SITE, UM, INTO THE TOTAL SUBDIVISION.

UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS THE PICTURE OF THE SITE PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT, THAT SHOWS THAT SWALE WHERE WE'RE HAVING THESE ASSESSMENTS SLOPE OF THE OVER 15%.

UM, THE MOST AGAIN ABOUT FLOW IS THROUGH PARKING AND NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THIS SHOWS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS FIRST PHASE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE UNDISTURBED WELL PART IN THE GREEN WITH THE TREES WHERE THE TWO WALLS ARE, AND THEN THE PARKLAND AREAS ON EITHER SIDE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS SHOWS THE TWO WALLS AS A STATE.

NOW THE FITTINGS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

AND, UM, THIS IS WHERE WE GOT TO WHEN PUBLIC WORKS, STOPPED AND SAID THEY WANTED FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO WHERE WE ARE NOW IS WE ARE REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE TO CONVERT HEATHERLY FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE AS A REQUEST BY PUBLIC WORKS.

THIS IS A PREVIOUSLY PERMANENT PROJECT, AND MAJORITY OF CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.

THE CONSTRUCTION WALLS BEGAN AFTER THE CORRECTION APPROVAL PRIOR TO OUR AWARENESS THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAD NOT APPROVED THE PLANS AND ANY OTHER ROADWAY DESIGN AT THAT DRAIN.

SO LIKE A BRIDGE OR A SPAN, UM, WOULD REQUIRE TEARING DOWN WITH ALREADY INSTALLED, UM, AND JUST BE FINANCIALLY UNFEASIBLE FOR THIS PROJECT.

THAT THE POINT, UM, PUBLIC WORKS DESIRE CANNOT MAINTAIN THE ROAD IS LIKELY TO ALSO APPLY TO A BRIDGE AS WELL.

UM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO MAINTAIN A BRIDGE, SO WE'RE STILL GONNA BE IN THE SAME KIND OF SITUATION WITH THEM.

AND AT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED, DENIED THE WALLS IN THE ROADWAY ARE, ARE STILL THERE, AND WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE FURTHER COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC WORK.

IF THE NCUA TO SEE HOW WE CAN GET THIS PHONE APPROVED.

AND THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, WHILE WE'RE PULLING THIS UP, I GUESS, COMMISSIONERS, UH, JUST BE GETTING READY TO ASK QUESTIONS

[00:40:01]

TO OTHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.

YEP.

PULL BACK UP THE SCREEN WHERE WE CAN SEE ALL THE THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

OH, NO.

OKAY.

I WOULD JUST, I SAW YOUR HAND.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

UH, YES, UH, VICE-CHAIR BEDFORD.

I JUST HAD A ONE QUESTION I SAW THAT THEY WERE AS PARKLAND, UM, MARKED ON, ON THE APPLICANT'S SLIDES.

AND I WAS CURIOUS IF THAT WAS A PUBLIC PARKLAND OR IF IT WAS LIKE PRIVATE PARKS FOR THE PROPERTY.

THAT IS, UH, THIS IS JIM FUNG THAT IS PUBLIC PARKLAND.

UM, WE HAD TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THAT FOR THE PUBLIC ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY, UM, FOR ADA ACCESSIBILITY AS WELL TO THE PARKLANDS.

UM, AND WE WORKED WITH THE PARKLAND GROUP TO PROVIDE TRAILS THROUGH THE PARKLAND FROM INTO THE CREEK THAT WE HAVE IN THE BACK THAT WE DEDICATED TO THE PARKLAND.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO INTERPRET THAT HAND AS A, YOU HAVE A QUESTION COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

I DID AT THIS POINT, I DO.

UM, I THINK IF WE AGREED TO LET THEM FILL ON THE SWELL THAT IT WOULD JUST NOT BE GOOD FOR DRAINAGE AT ALL.

AND I, I THINK IT MIGHT, UM, CAUSE FLOODING, I'M WONDERING IF I'M MISTAKEN IN THAT STAFF.

COULD YOU MAYBE TAKE A RUN AT THAT AND THEN A REQUEST, ANY SUPPORT FROM THE APPLICANT PLEASE? YEAH.

SO, UM, DO WE DO APPROVE THE PLAN AS, AS IT'S STRONG, LIKE THE FIRST TIME AROUND WITH ALL OF THAT PHIL? UH, IT SHOULDN'T, THEY'RE HAVING YOU, DO, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY MAKE ANY PROBLEMS FOR FLOODING.

IT WAS REVIEWED BY FLOODPLAIN REVIEW, UH, AND BY, UM, WHERE THEY, THE REVIEWS, THE POND, THERE ARE, UH, THE WATER STARTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND GOES DOWN THAT SWALE AND THEN INTO THE POND AND THEN THROUGH CULVERTS UNDERNEATH THE, UH, THAT BIG WALL.

SO THERE ARE CULVERTS UNDER THERE.

SO YES, THERE, THERE, THE WATER DOES GO UNDER.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.

ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

HI.

THANK YOU.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO, UM, OR WHAT, I GUESS I'M MORE OF, WHAT WOULD THE, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY FOR A COMPROMISE? IS THERE A WAY TO USE SOME OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT, BUT TO STILL COMPLY WITH IT? UM, THAT I CODE FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY, LIKE IN A, IN A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY.

SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL THE QUESTION, BUT I GUESS THAT WASN'T A GOOD QUESTION, BUT WHAT HAVE THINGS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF IT, SO IF YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE, I GUESS, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? SO MAYBE THAT'S THE BETTER QUESTION.

I KNOW THAT I KNOW THE APPLICANT RESTED AT THE VERY END, BUT LIKE, WHAT WOULD, IF THERE'S LIKE THREE OPTIONS, OF COURSE, A, B OR C, COULD YOU, DO YOU MIND ELABORATING A LITTLE MORE ON LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, GOING FORWARD, UH, AS FAR AS STAFF SEES THERE'S ARE NOT A LOT OF OPTIONS AND THAT'S WHY WE, WE BROUGHT IT AS WE HAVE.

I THINK IF THERE HAD BEEN MORE OPTIONS, WE WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S ALREADY SO FAR BUILT.

AND SO MUCH OF IT HAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE, AS JIM SAID, YOU KNOW, A REALLY BIG COST AND FRANKLY, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE TO REMOVE ALL THAT DIRT, BUT THEY ALREADY GOT THERE.

SO, UM, WE, WE DID NOT SEE ANY OPTIONS, OTHER OPTIONS, JIM SONG.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN AT THIS POINT, LIKE AS FAR AS HAVING LESS BILLS, THE WALLS AREN'T AS HIGH, UM, THERE WOULD NOT BE A WAY THAT WE COULD EVEN, EVEN IF WE TOOK 10 FEET OFF, UM, AND HAD THE 15 FOOT WALLS, IT WOULD STILL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND THEY WOULD NOT BE DESIGNED TO PROBABLY AT THE TIME THE RIGHT AWAY.

AND THOSE WORDS WILL NOT BE SAFE.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

WELL, I GUESS, SORRY, ONE SECOND.

THOMPSON.

YEAH, GO AHEAD, BEAR.

NO, JUST TO ADD ON THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS CLEAR BECAUSE I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED.

UM, BUT SO, BUT

[00:45:01]

IF IT, IF THE ROAD BECOMES A PRIVATE ROAD AND IT DOES IT, DOES IT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES? LIKE COULD IT GET STILL BE BUILT AS IS, OR IS IT NOT IF, IF, IF IT DOESN'T, UM, OR DOES THE WHOLE PROJECT STOP? I UNDERSTAND THAT IT KIND OF GETS SWITCHED FROM RIGHT AWAY TO PRIVATE.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ONE OF THESE TYPES OF, BUT IT'S A CONFUSING THING.

SO THE CODE SAYS, UH, IT SAYS YOU CAN'T FILL OVER 40 AND THEN IT SAYS ACCEPT.

AND, UM, ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IS IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WHEN IT WAS DESIGNED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, UH, THEY COULD FILL AS MUCH AS THEY WANTED, UH, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, APPARENTLY NOT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

UM, SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

SO YEAH, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR A REGULAR DRIVEWAY TO THE, TO THE, UM, GOING OVER FOUR FEET.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AROUND THE HORN AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU.

OKAY.

THOMPSON, UM, COMMISSIONER BRIMER PLEASE.

SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A QUESTION OR NOT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE HAVEN'T TRACTABLE PROBLEM HERE.

UH, THE DEVELOPER HAS, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS A SUBSTANTIAL AND BUILT A DEVELOPMENT AND ROADWAY THAT CAN'T BE USED OR PROVED WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, CORRECT.

WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HIT TO TEAR ALL DOWN THE ROADWAY AND REBUILD IT IN SOME OTHER MANNER THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MIGHT BE, UH, UNLESS WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, WHICH IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

UH YOU'RE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

UM, AS LIZ DID POINT OUT IN THE BEGINNING, UM, STAFF GIVES YOU OUR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON OUR EVALUATION OF THE FINDINGS.

UM, YOU THEN ARE ALLOWED TO, UH, TO, TO COME TO YOUR OWN DECISION, ACCORDING TO THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW, THERE ARE TWO FINDINGS, TWO OUT OF THE FIVE THAT WE FEEL IT DOES NOT NEED.

AND THEN, UH, BUT YES, IT CAN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE OR WITHOUT A HUGE WE DO.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO BRISTOL REAL QUICK AND THEN COME TO YOU NEXT QURESHI.

SORRY TO JUMP AHEAD BECAUSE I WANT SOME CLARITY ON WHAT, UM, PAMELA JUST SAID.

SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, BEAR WITH ME HERE.

SO IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, DECIDES THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THE VARIANTS, WE COULD GO AHEAD AND DO THAT EVEN THOUGH STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING IT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO, I NEEDED TO PUT THAT IN, IN, IN SOME TERMS THAT, UH, I UNDERSTOOD THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER QURESHI.

YEAH, FOR SURE.

I THINK, UH, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS IS A DEFINITELY AN INTERESTING ISSUE.

MY QUESTION IS, IS PART OF, SORT OF THE, UH, DRASTIC CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE IF THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE WAS DENIED WOULD BE LIKE THE, UH, HAVING IT SPAN THE SWALE.

I THINK ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTATION, AS OPPOSED TO, UH, FILL I, THAT THAT WAS A STAFF'S PREFERENCE WAS TO SPAM THE SWALE, UH, INSTEAD OF FILLING IT AND, UM, UH, REALLY THE APPLICANT FELT THAT THAT WOULD BE A COST PROHIBITIVE.

AND SO THEY, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

SO THIS OTHER SOLUTION WAS SETTLED ON.

I HAVE CURIOSITY, HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST? IT'S PROBABLY MORE THAN I'VE GOT, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST BALLPARK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I FEEL LIKE THE OWNERSHIP ANSWERED.

NO, NO.

UM, AND TO BE FAIR, I HONESTLY, IF WE CUT THIS UP PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND HOW DOES SPAN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY? I DON'T KNOW IF THE PUBLIC WORKS WOULD ACCEPT THAT EITHER AS A MAINTENANCE COST TO MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE A BRIDGE, BASICALLY THAT'S 25 FEET NEAR AND SPANNING LIKE 150 200 FEET, HEY, TURNED INTO A TOURIST ATTRACTION, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST, UM, AND, AND TO BE HONEST, WE WORKED A VERY LOT AND PAMELA WAS

[00:50:01]

VERY GREAT AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING HONESTLY WITH THIS PROJECT AND HER FOR 2020 AS OUR ORIGINAL REVIEWER.

AND SHE WAS IN ALL THE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD WITH STAFF TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE MOST, YOU KNOW, COMPROMISE BETWEEN WHAT WAS COST EFFICIENT AND WHAT DIDN'T REQUIRE AS MANY VARIANCES THAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID.

AND THIS IS KIND OF LIKE PAMELA SAID WHERE WE ENDED UP, BUT WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT WITH, WITH ALL THE SE STAFF IN TECHS, OFFICES TO PATIENTS.

YEAH, IT SOUNDS GOOD.

THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH MY LAST QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS? YEAH.

COMMISSIONER GEARY.

SO I GUESS I'M HAVING TO DECIDE ON WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY RISKS ARE COMPROMISED.

IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED AND THEN WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, INCLUDING DOWNSTREAM THAT ARE COMPROMISED IF, UM, YEAH.

THAT, WHAT, WHAT RISKS ARE BROUGHT UP CREATED IF WE APPROVE THEIR VARIANCE AND WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES ARE CREATED, IF WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND THEN THE THIRD ONE WILL BE, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN? IT'S LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE PUBLIC WORKS WAS LEFT OUT OF THE EQUATION IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I JUST AM CURIOUS AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED AND MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

SO AS TO HOW IT HAPPENED, THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION AMONG THE MANY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF A REVIEW.

AND, UH, THERE, THERE WAS A PROCESS ERROR SOMEPLACE.

UM, WE TRY TO AVOID IT IN THE FUTURE.

WE CAN ONLY ORDER AVOID, ALSO SERVES PLAY THAT'S AS GOOD AS WE CAN DO.

I'LL DO OUR BEST.

UM, AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS, I, IF, IF YOU APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AND IT IS BUILT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, UM, THERE SHOULD BE NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES THERE.

THE THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT, IS THAT IT WAS THE DESIGN WAS APPROVED, UM, AT LEAST FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE.

UH, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS, THIS PROCEDURAL ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FILL WAS ALLOWED, UM, AND THEN AS TO THE SAFETY ISSUE, UH, JIM SWAN, DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON WHY PUBLIC WORKS DOESN'T WANT IT WHERE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT? YES.

SO THIS IS, UM, WE WILL, WE WILL STILL HAVE AS PART OF THIS REVISION PROCESS, PUBLIC WORK, THE APPROVAL ON THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE WALL.

IT BECOMES A MAINTENANCE THING WHERE THEY JUST DO NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN IT, AND THEY WANT THE OWNER TO MAINTAIN IT.

AND THE OWNER HAS NO PROBLEM MAINTAINING IT.

AND WE WOULD HAVE A MAINTENANCE PLAN AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD COME ALONG WITH THAT.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T CHANGE NOTHING HERE, CHANGES WITH ALREADY BEEN PERMANENT, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED AND WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL, ALL LEVELS OF STAFF THROUGH THIS REVISION.

UM, AND IT WAS DESIGNED TO PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE CURVE OF THE ROAD, THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, GUARDRAILS, ALL THAT STUFF.

THANK YOU.

I THINK ROUND TWO, WE WERE GOING TO GO THOMPSON AND THEN, AND THEN BAIRD, IF Y'ALL STILL HAVE QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ANSWERED BY THE CONVERSATION.

YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, MY COMMENT WAS THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY HELPED CLEAN UP A CULVERT LIKE THIS AT THE SHUDI FAST TRACK.

AND IT'S W IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SWALE AND IT WAS FILLED IN AND THERE WERE CULVERTS AT THE BOTTOM AND WE STRUGGLE TO KEEP, I MEAN, WE HAD TO CLEAN IT OUT A LOT.

UM, IT, IT JUST GETS BLOCKED IN, UH, A RAIN SITUATION.

SO I'M UNDERSTANDING MY PUBLIX WORKS DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS ON.

SO, UM, I THINK THAT, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT IF THERE'S THAT MUCH WATER MOVING THAT QUICKLY TO FILL UP EVER, AND WE DO HAVE RAIN EVENTS HERE THAT IT'S, UM, NOT A GOOD IDEA.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

I, I, I GUESS I WAS HOPING THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

UM, I WISH SOMEBODY FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS HERE TO GIVE US SOME ANSWERS BECAUSE, UM, IT'S SORT OF, LIKE HE SAID, SHE SAID, AND I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S HOW ERRORS HAPPEN.

UM, SO I, I'M JUST WONDERING, UH, JUST WHAT THE OPTIONS WOULD BE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE FOR THEM TO BUILD A BRIDGE THERE AND HAVE PUBLIC WORKS, ACCEPT IT.

AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY WOULD THEN AS ACCORDING TO WHAT SHE SAID, BUT IF THAT IS AN OPTION, I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IT, BUT WHATEVER WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW.

[00:55:01]

SO, UH, KATIE COHEN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IF PUBLIC WORKS, DECIDED THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS, WHICH THEY'RE NOT AS A PUBLIC ROADWAY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN TO CHANGE.

IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME DESIGN.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE'RE GOING FROM A PUBLIC ROADWAY TO A PRIVATE ROADWAY, WHICH HAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS ON CUT AND FILL, WHICH MEANS WE NEED THIS VARIANCE TO APPROVE THE CUT FILL STANDARDS.

SO EVEN IF PUBLIC WORKS WOULD ACCEPT IT, WHICH THEY, THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO, BECAUSE OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RETAINING WALL, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE DESIGN OF THE ROADWAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT, DID YOU HAVE AN OR YEAH.

UM, MS. ABBY TALLINN, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

UH, JUST TO ALLAY YOUR FEARS, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UM, THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, UH, WITH REGARD TO DEBRIS, THAT IS A WATER QUALITY POND, WATER QUALITY DETENTION POND THAT'S, UH, RIGHT BEFORE THE COLOR.

SO THE WATER WILL BE COMING THROUGH THE PARK AREA, INTO THE WATER QUALITY DETENTION POND.

SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DEBRIS ISSUE UNLESS YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GREAT FLOOD.

UM, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE A DEBRIS ISSUE GOING THROUGH THE CUPBOARDS JUST TO LA IF THERE'S CONCERN, KICKING, THANK YOU.

I, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO, UM, EXPLAIN TO ME KATIE AND TO ALL OF US, UM, ABOUT THE ISSUE.

THE ISSUE WITH ME IS THAT IF PUBLIC WORKS DOES NOT WANT THE ROAD FOR MAINTENANCE ISSUES, UM, THEN IT IT'S THE COST ONLY.

AND WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT PROBABLY THIS ISN'T THE BEST THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAT, THAT IT'S ALREADY GONE THIS FAR.

AND SO THAT WE WOULD APPROVE IT.

SO I WAS, MY QUESTION WAS THAT IF PUBLIC WORKS WOULD JUST WOULD SUGGEST ANOTHER DESIGN THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SO THAT IT WOULDN'T THE BURDEN OF THIS DECISION, A BAD ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION WOULD NOT BE PLACED ON US.

SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I WAS WONDERING IF WHEN THE APPLICANT STARTED CONSTRUCTION, THEY SAID THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM PUBLIC WORKS.

WAS THERE SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM PUBLIC WORKS AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED UPON FURTHER REVIEW CONSIDERING THE MAINTENANCE? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

UM, WE WERE, WE SAID THAT AT THE, THE PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THEY CAME BACK WITH THEIR COMMENTS THAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE ADDED TO THE PLANS THAT THE, WE, UM, DID A CORRECTION THROUGH THE CITY CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENTS, ADD THOSE SHEETS INTO OUR PLANS THAT, UM, AND WHEN THAT HAPPENED, WE GOT APPROVAL FROM THE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND WE ASKED THE CORRECTIONS REVIEWER, DID WE GET PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL? AND IN WRITING, THEY SAID, YES.

SO THAT'S WHEN THE WALL CONSTRUCTION STARTED, BUT THEN PUBLIC WORKS CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, THEY DID NOT GRANT THAT APPROVAL.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE STOPPED.

OKAY.

THANKS FOR, THANKS FOR GOING OVER THAT AGAIN.

ONE MORE TIME.

TRUST ME, THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS.

AND THEN, OKAY.

I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK IT ONE MORE TIME AS WELL.

UM, IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT APPROVED, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND LIKE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ROAD AS IT IS? AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REMAINING, UM, DEVELOPMENT? UM, THIS IS THE FAMILY YOU WANT TO ANSWER.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE VARIANCE WAS NOT APPROVED.

THEY WOULD NOT GET THE REVISION APPROVED, WHICH IS WHAT'S IN FOR REVIEW RIGHT NOW.

THEY WOULD NOT GET A REVISION OF APPROVED AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STOP.

AND WE DESIGN AND FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT EVERYBODY WAS OKAY WITH, WITH GOING FORWARD.

SO IT WOULD CAUSE THE PROJECT TO STOP AND, AND WHATEVER CHANGES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE WOULD BE MADE.

THIS IS THE APPLICANT.

UM, THERE ARE RESIDENTS ACTUALLY LIVING HERE BECAUSE THIS ROAD, THE SECTION OF THE ROAD IS NOT NEEDED TO ACCESS THE FIRST PART OF THE PROJECT.

UM, ALL THE UTILITIES FOR THAT PROJECT ARE IN AND EVERYTHING IS CONSTRUCTION.

WE DO HAVE RESIDENTS LIVING THERE.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO STAFF ON THEM.

THEN WITH DSD, EVERYONE, EVERYONE THAT IS A REVIEW STAFF, DSD, UM, ATD, UH, TEXTILE, AND ALSO THE PUBLIC WORK.

AND I DON'T, I, THE ANSWER IS, I DON'T KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND START THOSE COORDINATION OVER AGAIN.

THANK YOU.

[01:00:03]

QUESTIONS.

YOU HAVE BRIMER COMMISSIONER BROWN, PLEASE.

NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO PHRASE THIS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, THE AM I CORRECTNESS IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROAD, AS IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED NOW RECEIVE ALL THE NECESSARY APPROVALS IN THE PAST RIGHT NOW WOULD APPEAR THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING ONLY A VARIANCE TO ACCOMMODATE A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PRIVATE ROADWAYS, BUT FROM AN ENGINEERING SAFETY AND FIRE, MENTAL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, POINT OF VIEW ROAD HAS MET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE SET FORTH EARLIER.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THERE'S, IF IT WORKED FOR, FOR THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S A TWENTY-FIVE FOOT BALL, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE DISCUSSING THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND YES AND NO.

UM, I, IT IS TRUE.

SO THE, HM SOMEHOW GOT THROUGH WITHOUT FINAL PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL.

SO THEY IN, AND I'LL LET JIM SONG FINISH UP WITH HIS ANSWERS, BUT, BUT, UH, THE, THE ENGINEERING HAS BEEN, UH, HAS, HAS BEEN APPROVED IT'S SOUND.

IT'S JUST THAT IF PUBLIC WORKS IS NOT WILLING TO TAKE IT DUE TO WE'RE SEEING, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE ISSUES INTO THE FUTURE, THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR ISSUE.

THEY GOT SOMEHOW SOME PART OF THE REVIEW THEY MISSED, THEY WEREN'T IN ON.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I UNDERSTAND.

BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT THERE'S NO, ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY, ET CETERA, AS FAR AS THIS ROAD GOES, HAVE BEEN NET BY PREVIOUS REVIEW, BY THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND WHOEVER PASSES MUSTER ON THIS TYPE OF THING.

AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT AN ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR SOMETHING TO HAVE A 25 FOOT WALL, AS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR FOOT WALL PRIVATE ROADWAY SHOULD NORMALLY HAVE.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

YES, I, I, I APOLOGIZE.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT, I JUST WANT TO BRING IT UP ONE MORE TIME.

SO THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING THIS, THIS THE 20 THE STRUCTURE, CORRECT.

AS A PRIVATE ROADWAY.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND ANY AGREEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE PLANS.

UM, WE, WE ALREADY ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE IN PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? YES.

COMMISSIONER GARY.

SO I'M GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTED IN HOW THE MAINTENANCE ROLE RESPONSIBILITY BEING NOW PART OF THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY IN A, I'M ONLY SEEING THIS BECAUSE OF MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE WHEN I WAS IN THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE, WHEN SOME SERIOUS FLOODING DAMAGE WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, ENTITY NOT MAINTAINING THE DRAINAGE POND.

SO THAT CREATED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, UM, IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE, WAS, IT WAS CLOSE TO SHOW CREEK, BUT, UM, OR THE TRIANGLE ACTUALLY.

SO THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, IS, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THROUGH AND MAKING SURE, YOU KNOW, OWNERSHIP CHANGES THOSE TYPES OF DYNAMICS HAPPEN.

AND SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, THEY'VE FOLLOWED THROUGH BECAUSE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS EXTENSIVE, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY DAMAGE, THE WORST ONE IS POTENTIAL LOSS OF LIFE AND JUST BEING SO CLOSE TO ONION CREEK AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH HOW THAT, YOU KNOW, ONION CREEK IS

[01:05:01]

NOT A LITTLE CREEK.

IT BECOMES A, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FLOOD, THE MOVEMENT OF THE RIVER IS, YOU KNOW, DURING THE 2013, IN 2015, PLUS IT WAS DOUBLE THE SPEED OF NIAGARA FALLS.

SO THAT'S HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS.

NOW, OF COURSE, THIS AREA SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT WAYS OFF, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN.

WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE OWNER WILL TAKE ON REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MY CONCERN, UM, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.

AND, UM, I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE, UH, WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION POND DO, UM, RECEIVE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY WATERSHED PROTECTION, UPON INSPECTION STAFF.

AND SO THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, ENSURE THAT, THAT IT IS FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY.

I THINK THE ISSUE THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAD WAS REALLY THE WALLS THEMSELVES AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE, THE ROADWAY THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MEET THEIR STANDARDS.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? YEAH, I MEAN, I, MY ONLY COMMENT IS I THINK THIS KIND OF FOR GOOD OR BAD IS WHY WE'RE ALL HERE ON THIS COMMISSION, UM, TO KIND OF TAKE ALL OF THIS AND MAKE, MAKE, MAKE, UH, SOME KIND OF DECISION ABOUT IT BASED ON WHAT STAFF CAN AND CAN'T DO AND, UH, WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.

SO, UM, WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION WE DO, AND I HOPE THAT I'M READING THE ROOM, RIGHT.

AND I HOPE KEVIN AND I HAVE READ THE ROOM, RIGHT.

UH, ON HOW WE, UH, HOW WE'VE COME UP WITH THIS.

OKAY.

UH, MARCH 2ND, 2022, WATER OAK APARTMENT S P DASH 2 0 1 9 0 1 0 9 C.

UM, WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO VARY FROM L D C 25 DASH 8 3 4 2, TO ALLOW PHIL TO 25 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY.

WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ONION CREEK WATERSHED, SUBURBAN CLASSIFICATION, DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE, NO CRITICAL WITH NO CRITICAL, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS VARIANCE.

HAVING DETERMINED THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET WITH THAT IN MIND, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DOES RECOGNIZE, RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE.

THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE VARIANCE REQUESTED.

WOULD THEY C WITH THE COMMENT THAT STAFF WORKED COLLABORATIVELY TO ENSURE THIS SITUATION DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.

SECOND, SECOND BY BEDFORD, ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, IDEAS.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE SCREEN OR SAY I ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

LOOKS LIKE IT PASSES AND I DIDN'T READ OUT EVERYBODY, BUT KAYLA, HOPEFULLY YOU GOT THAT VIDEO.

UM, THANK YOU GUYS.

THAT WAS A FUN ONE.

CAN WELCOME.

COMMISSIONER GARY.

UM,

[5. COMMITTEE REPORTS ]

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON, UH, TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMITTEE REPORTS, UM, FOR THE, THE STANDING COMMITTEES THAT WE HAVE? IF SO, JUST START TALKING.

YOU'RE GOOD.

YEAH.

BARRETT, I THANK YOU.

SO I DO HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.

UM, THE CITY HAS RECENTLY HIRED A CLIMATE ENGAGEMENT ASSOCIATES THAT HELP WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND, UM, THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION THAT MIGHT EQUITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WORKING GROUP.

IT'S ALSO, UM, LOOKING TO, UM, TO INCLUDE A DIVERSE GROUP OF, UM, MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO IF, UM, YOU ALL WANT TO HELP SPREAD THE WORD THERE.

UM, AND THEN THE CITY IS, UM, TRACKING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION WITH THE SOCRATES OR SO CRADA DASHBOARD THAT FORM AND THERE'S A WEBSITE, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE WEBSITE, BUT, UM, THERE IS A WEBSITE FOR, UH, THOSE THAT

[01:10:01]

ARE INTERESTED AND, UM, AND TRACKING THE IMPLEMENTATION AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT.

WE CAN, UH, IF, IF, UH, KAYLA CAN GET THAT WEBSITE, WE CAN SEND IT OUT TO COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS IT.

YEAH.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS? GO AHEAD, KAYLA.

UH, THIS IS KAYLA CHAMPLIN, WATERSHED PROTECTION, NOT A COMMITTEE REPORT, BUT JUST A REMINDER THAT WE DO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING PLAN FOR MARCH 30TH AT 6:00 PM.

UH, WE'VE JUST HAD A DOODLE POLL THAT WENT OUT, BUT I HAVEN'T SENT OUT AN OFFICIAL EMAIL ABOUT IT, BUT ONE WILL BE COMING TO JUST KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT.

THANK YOU.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MEETING ON WEDNESDAY THE 16TH.

CORRECT.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT ME.

OKAY.

AND WE, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE NEED TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE REPORT OR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.

HOW DO WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT? UH, WE