Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:05]

OKAY. SO FIRST WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY COMMENT ON THE MINUTES FROM LAST TIME? GREAT.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> DO YOU WANT TO DO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FIRST.

>> CHAIR: IS THERE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? THANK YOU. MR. RIVERA, ARE THERE ANY

COMMENTS? >> CHAIR, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY

[Consent Agenda]

REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SO ITEM B1, C14-2020-0040 PIONEER HILL PLAZA, DISTRICT 1, WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 19TH.

OR SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JULY 19TH.

ITEM B2, REZONING, C14-2021-0123, BIRDHILL REZONING. STAFF IS SEEKING INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. ITEM B3, SITE PLAN SPC-2021-0244C CASCADES AMENITY CENTER, IS ON CONSENT. ITEM B4, SITE PLAN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SPC-2021-0426C MU 15 WEST TRACT IS ON CONSENT. ITEM B5, C8-2020-0112.1A BRAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE I, FINAL PLAT.

DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN.

IN IS IT EXHIBIT C? >> YES.

>> CHAIR: ITEM B6, C8J-2020-0091, GREGG MANOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN, RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND WE'LL BE DISCUSSING B7. FOR REVIEW, ITEM B1 IS POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 19TH. B2, STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. B3 AND 4 ON CONSENT.

B5, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C, AND B6 RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN

EXHIBIT C. >> AND IF I CAN, I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF ON ITEM B4. THAT IS MY COMPANY WORKING ON THAT. I'LL BE RECUSING FROM ITEM

B4. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER KING? >> KING: THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT ITEMS B3 AND B4 ARE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> CHAIR: YES.

>> CHAIR: AND COMMISSIONER ACOSTA HAS JOINED US ON THE DAIS. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. AND A SECOND FROM? FROM COMMISSIONER KIOLBASSA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE MEETING MINUTES? OKAY.

THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> AND SHOW ME ABSTAINING. >> CHAIR: YES.

AND CAN COMMISSIONER SMITH IS ABSTAINING ON B4.

[B.7. Code Amendment: Flood Regulations]

>> WE'LL NOTE THE RECUSAL. >> CHAIR: RECUSAL, YES.

AND WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM B7, A DISCUSSION FROM THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT. MR. COURTNEY.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M JAMISON COURTNEY WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR A RESOLUTION ASKING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. NEXT SLIDE.

BEFORE I GET INTO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE I WANTED TO DO A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY DONE ON UPDATING OUR FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE ATLAS 14 RAINFALL REPORT.

ATLAS 14 WAS A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UPDATING RAINFALL STATISTICS FOR ALL OF TEXAS. IN CENTRAL TEXAS WE SAW A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THOSE STATISTIC AL RAINFALL EVENTS AND WE REALIZED THAT OUR FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS NEEDED TO BE UPDATED SO THAT WE WERE PROVIDING THE SAME LEVEL OF PROTECTION FROM FLOOD RISK AS HAWES ALWAYS BEEN -- HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR STANDARD.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE PREVIOUS ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT UPDATE TO OUR FLOODPLAIN RULES IN THE CITY'S 36 YEAR HISTORY OF EXISTENCE. LIKE I SAID, THE GOAL WAS TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM FLOODING BASED ON THIS NEW UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD RISK. THERE WERE FOUR MAJOR UPDATES THAT WE MADE WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THE FIRST WAS UPDATING THE FLOODPLAIN DEFINITIONS TO MATCH OUR NEW UNDERSTANDING OF RAINFALL THAT UPDATED THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S REGULATORY 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF FEMA'S 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

THIS IS A TEMPERATURE MOVE WHILE WE WORK -- TEMPORARY MOVE WHILE WE WORK WITH FEMA TO UPDATE THE MAPS.

THOSE STUDIES ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.

[00:05:02]

AS THOSE STUDIES BECOME EFFECTIVE THE FEMA MAPS WILL FALL IN LINE WITH THE CITY'S REGULATORY FLOODPLAINS.

WE ALSO CREATED A RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION THAT I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL IN JUST A MINUTE. WE EXPANDED AN EXISTING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW NEW BUILDINGS IN THE COLORADO RIVER FLOODPLAIN. THIS EXCEPTION PREVIOUSLY ONLY APPLIED TO TOWN HALL AND DOWNSTREAM OF LONGHORN DAM. WE UPDATED IT TO INCLUDE LAKE AUSTIN AND LAKE TRAVIS AS WELL.

AND THAT'S DUE TO THE RISK BEING SIMILAR ACROSS THE WHOLE LAKE SYSTEM. WE HAVE A FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM FROM LCRA AND FLOOD WARNING TIMES IT WAS EASIER TO EVACUATE THE STRUCTURES AND THE RISK ISN'T AS SEVERE AS THE FLASH FLOODING WE HAVE ON OUR CREEKS.

THE LAST BIG UPDATE WAS TO UPDATE THE FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT TO BE TWO FEET CITYWIDE.

THAT IS THE REQUIRED HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE AND THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION.

IS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ONE FOOT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AND TWO FOOT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

INCREASING TO TO TWO FEET CITYWIDE MAKES IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND PROVIDES A BETTER FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR OUR RESIDENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. CITY CODE STARTS FROM THIS POSITION OF SAYING NO NEW BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THEN WE PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.

SO WITH ATLAS 14 WE REMOVED SOME OLD EXCEPTIONS AND CREATED THIS NEW ONE FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IF IT'S REPLACING OR MODIFYING AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING YOU'RE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. THE FINISHED FLOOR MEETS OUR FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT AND IS PROPERLY DEVELOPED AND IT DOES NOT MAKE FLOODING WORSE FOR ANYBODY ELSE.

THIS FALLS IN LINE WITH OUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT GOALS WITHOUT WANTING ANY MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAN WE HAVE TODAY, BUT ALSO PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS IN FLOODPLAIN TO MAINTAIN OUR HOMES AND BE SAFER AND REPLACING HOUSING STOCK WITH SOMETHING BETTER DESIGNED TO THE FLOOD RISK.

THIS DOESN'T NEGATE OUR DEPARTMENT'S OBLIGATION TO REDUCE FLOOD RISK. WE STILL LOOK AT FLOOD CONTROL, BUYOUTS, ALL THOSE THINGS TO PROTECT HOMES FROM FLOODING ARE STILL ON THE TABLE.

THIS JUST ALLOWS MARKET FORCES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MITIGATE THE FLOOD RISK ON THEIR OWN IN THE MEANTIME WE WORK THROUGH THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WE HAVE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THAT ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. WE DID OUTREACH TO 2700 PEOPLE. WE HAD OVER 100 DIFFERENT PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE SUBJECT AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE NEW RULES IN NOVEMBER OF 2019.

AS PART OF THAT PROCESS COUNCIL ASKED STAFF TO COME BACK TO THEM, CONSIDERING THE IDEA OF A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. SINCE THEN WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS TO COME UP WITH WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING UPDATING NOW.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE GOAL LIKE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION, WAS TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR REDEVELOPMENT THAT DECREASES FLOOD RISK COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF THE FACTORS THIS THIS, BUILDING USAGE, OCCUPANT LOAD, THE RISK FOR FLOODING IN THE PARKING LOT, BUILDING HEIGHT AND HOW THIS CAME INTO PLAY WITH THESE RULES, ALL THOSE WERE CONSIDERED.

WE MET WITH VARIOUS OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS TO DISCUSS THIS. FIRE MARSHAL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ULTIMATELY MANY OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS ENDED UP IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN IF IT'S REPLACING OR MODIFYING AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THE FINISHED FLOOR MEETS OUR TWO FOOT FREE BOARD.

YOU DO NOT INCREASE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE PROPERTY. YOU'RE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM CERTAIN USES, EDUCATIONAL, FACTORY, HIGH HAZARD AND INSTITUTIONAL. SO EVEN IF THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS THAT USE, YOU COULD ONLY QUALIFY FOR THIS EXCEPTION IF THAT USE WAS BEING CHANGED TO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ONE OF THOSE FOUR.

YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES OR THE DEPTH OF FLOODING IN THE PARKING LOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN, UNLESS IT'S OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY CODE. SO IF YOU HAD AN EXISTING SITE THAT WAS NOT MEETING CURRENT MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT REQUIRED YOU TO ADD SPACES, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADD THE MINIMUM NUMBER REQUIRED TO MEET CODE.

[00:10:01]

AND AGAIN, LIKE ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NEW BUILDING DOES NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT.

AND IF YOU CAN MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, STAFF HAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT AND APPROVE THE BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS COULD WORK. LET'S SAY THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING CONDITION. THERE'S A FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH AN ASSEMBLY USE.

WE HAVE 14 SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND 14 OUT OF THEM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THIS WOULD BE ONE WAY YOU COULD DO IT IS YOU COULD KEEP THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE THE SAME, DEMO THE OLD BUILDING, CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE THAT'S PROPERLY HE WILL INDICATED. IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO DEMONSTRATE NO ADVERSE IMPACT.

YOU ARE JUST GETTING A NEWER BUILDING OR POTENTIALLY REPLACING A DAMAGED BUILDING IF IT WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED BY FIRE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HERE'S A DIFFERENT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU COULD WITH THE SAME SITE RECONFIGURE THE LAYOUT.

THE BUILDING IS STILL 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S NOT ONE OF THE PROHIBITED USES.

WE STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WE HAVEN'T INCREASED THAT NOR HAVE WE INCREASED THE DEPTH OF FLOODING FOR THIS SITE. IT MAY BE MORE INVOLVED TO DEMONSTRATE NO ADVERSE IMPACT, BUT ASSUMING YOU CAN DO THAT THIS WOULD ALSO MEET THAT EXCEPTION AND STAFF COULD APPROVE IT AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE.

SO OUR PROCESS TO APPROVAL, WE'VE GONE TO COJC, THEY PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK ON SOME CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING BUILDING HEIGHT. WE WORKED WITH DSD STAFF TO DETERMINE THAT THAT CONFLICT DIDN'T EXIST AND THAT IT WAS MORE THAN LIKELY NOT GOING TO COME UP AS A HINDRANCE TO ANYBODY SO WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT FOR THE EASE OF SIMPLICITY. SAND WE'VE GONE TO PLANNING COMMISSION, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, COJC AGAIN AND NOW WE'RE IN FRONT OF Y'ALL AND WE'RE SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT WEEK.

NEXT SLIDE, WHICH I THINK IS THE LAST ONE.

SO YEAH, SO WITH THAT I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU, MR. COURTNEY.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. >> GREENBERG: SO WHEN ARE THE ACTUAL FLOODPLAIN MAPS EXPECTED TO BE UPDATED? I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS FOR YE

YEARS. >> WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IT, BUT WITH ATLAS 14 IT'S THE WHOLE CITY.

WE JUST HAD OUR KICKOFF PUBLIC MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO I THINK IT WAS FOR THE ONION STUDY, WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE UNION WATERSHED INCLUDING WILLIAM AND SLAUGHTER AND LITTLE BEAR AND BEXAR COUNTY AND ALL THOSE OTHER ONES -- BEAR CREEK AND ALL THOSE OTHER ONES. THAT WAS THE INITIAL KICKOFF MEETING TO TELL THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND WHAT TO EXPECT. IT WILL PROBABLY BE TWO TO THREE MORE YEARS BEFORE WE HAVE DRAFT MAPS WITH THE SUBSIDY IS A COOPERATING TECHNICAL PARTNER WITH FEMA ON THESE MAPS AND IT'S A PRETTY INVOLVED PROCESS SO THE STUDIES ARE JUST NOW GETTING UNDERWAY.

THOSE WILL GET DONE, WE'LL GET DRAFT MAPS.

WE'LL DO MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TO SHOW PEOPLE THOSE DRAFT MAPS. THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL AND PROTEST PERIOD. AT SOME POINT THE CITY WILL REGULATE THEM AND PROBABLY ADOPT THEM AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A YEAR GAP BEFORE FEMA ADOPTS THEM FOR FLOOD INSURANCE PURPOSES. FEMA HAS A VERY PRESCRIBED TIMELINE FOR THAT MAP ADOPTION PROCESS.

>> GREENBERG: SO ONCE THOSE MAPS ARE ADOPTED IT WON'T BE 25 [INDISCERNIBLE] 25 AND SO FORTH?

>> YEAH. WE'LL BE HAVING --

>> IT IS WHAT IT IS? >> IT IS WHAT IT IS.

YOU KNOW, THIS ADOPTION OF THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, FEMA 500, AS OUR REGULATORY, IS AN INTERIM SOLUTION SO WE WEREN'T CONTINUING TO BUILD NEW STRUCTURES IN THE FLOODPLAIN PRIOR TO THE FEMA MAPS GETTING UPDATED.

SO WE ANTICIPATE THE NEW STUDIES MAY BE SLIGHTLY SMALLER FLOODPLAINS THAN WHAT WE'RE REGULATING TO NOW IN SOME CASES, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RAINFALL STATISTICS THAT WERE USED TO MAKE THE OLD 500 YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND WHAT WE'RE USING TODAY FOR THE 100 YEAR, THEY'RE REMARKABLY SIMILAR.

>> AND OTHERWISE THERE'S NOT EXPECTED TO BE A CHANGE BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DOESN'T MEAN IT ONLY HAPPENS LIKE ONE TIME OUT OF 100. IT'S MUCH MORE COMMON THAN

THAT? >> YES.

CERTAINLY THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN -- WE STRUGGLE WITH HOW TO -- WHAT THE BEST TERMINOLOGY IS HOW TO EXPLAIN THAT. IF YOU SAY IT'S THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN I THINK PEOPLE GET A GOOD SENSE OF THAT IT IS A LARGE FLOOD, BUT THEY THINK IT'S LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN. IF YOU CALL IT THE ONE

[00:15:01]

PERCENT ANNUAL FLOODPLAIN, MEANING THAT THERE'S A ONE PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE, PEOPLE MAYBE UNDERSTAND IT'S PERHAPS MORE FREQUENT THAN THEY REALIZE, BUT IT UNDERSELLS WHAT A LARGE FLOOD EVENT THAT IS AND WHAT THE RISK WOULD BE WHEN IT OCCURS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE TRY TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOOD EVENTS THAT HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF A TIME FRAME THAT A LOT OF FOLKS ARE USED TO THINKING IN.

SO IT GETS CHALLENGING. >> GREENBERG: OKAY, THANK

YOU. >> CHAIR: COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> THOMPSON: YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE.

I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THIS DESIGNATION -- WHY WOULD WE WANT TO -- HOW DO I ASK THIS QUESTION? I'M TRYING TO GET TO WHAT -- HOW THIS RELATES TO EMERGENCY ACCESS.

SO ADDING A FOOT OF FREE BOARD OR ANY OF THESE KIND OF CONSIDERATIONS, HOW -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE EXCEPTION IS FOR THIS KIND OF EMERGENCY ACCESS ISSUE, BUT I'M STRUGGLING TO CONNECT THE DOTS ON HOW THESE CHANGES ACTUALLY ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

>> YEAH. SO IF THERE'S NOT AN EXCEPTION IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THEN THE ONLY WAY FOR THAT TO BE CONSTRUCTED WOULD BE THROUGH A VARIANCE.

AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OUTLINES TWO TYPES OF VARIANCES FOR FLOODPLAINS. ONE SAN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE THAT STAFF WITH APPROVE, AND THAT AS SEVEN CRITERIA, AND THE DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET ALL SEVEN OF THOSE. IF YOU CANNOT MEET ALL SEVEN, THEN THE VARIANCE HAS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. AND SO OF THOSE SEVEN, A LOT OF THEM ARE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS EXCEPTION, DEMONSTRATING NO ADVERSE IMPACT, MEETING FREE BOARD, ALL OF THOSE TYPE OF REQUIREMENTS. BUT ONE THAT'S -- ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IS MEANS OF EGRESS, MEANING YOU CAN GET FROM THE BUILDING TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT HAVING TO ENTER FLOOD WATER AT ANY POINT DURING THAT CONNECTION AND YOU'RE NOT AT FLOOD WATER AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO THERE'S NOT -- SOME BUILDINGS QUALIFY FOR THAT, BUT A LOT DON'T. IF YOU THINK ABOUT LIKE A BUSINESS THAT -- ON LAMAR DOWNTOWN, THEY DON'T HAVE SAFE ACCESS. THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO MEET THAT BECAUSE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ALSO IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND SO --

>> THOMPSON: RIGHT, BUT THIS VARIANCE CRITERIA DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT, SO WE WOULD BE --

>> CORRECT, THIS EXCEPTION DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT.

CRITERIA IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T ALREADY.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE PUTTING MORE PEOPLE IN THE FLOODPLAIN WHERE NECESSITY MAY HAVE TO ENTER FLOOD WATER TO EVACUATE THAT STRUCTURE.

WHAT THIS EXCEPTION DOES IS IT GIVES SOME OPTIONS FOR THOSE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE TOO LOW, THAT WE KNOW DON'T HAVE SAFE ACCESS AND HOPEFULLY IT IMPROVES THE SITUATION BECAUSE AT LEAST THAT WAY YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FLOOD WATER ENTERING THE STRUCTURE EVEN IF THOSE PEOPLE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, STUCK IN IT FOR THE DURATION OF THE FLOOD.

IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IT'S A SOLUTION, YOU KNOW.

SO THAT'S WHY OUR DEPARTMENT STILL LOOKS AT ALL OF OUR FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS, SO THIS ISN'T GOING TO STOP US FROM LOOKING AT WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO TO GET SAFE ACCESS TO THESE BUILDINGS OR IN SOME CASES CITY BUY OUT THESE BUILDINGS AND GET THEM OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVES DEVELOPERS TO REDUCE THEIR FLOOD RISK IF IT IS AN AREA PRIORITIZED LOWER THAN OTHER AREAS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO FOR AWHILE.

IT ALSO GIVES PEOPLE OPTIONS IF THE BUILDING WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED, WHICH IS ANOTHER OPTION IN THE CODE. WHICH IS IF IT TURNS OR IF IT FLOODS. IF FLOODS AND THAT DAMAGE EXCEEDS 50% YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REBUILD IT UNLESS YOU BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE.

WITHOUT EXCEPTION IF YOU'RE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND YOU'RE REQUIRED SAFE ACCESS TO BRING IN CURRENT CODE, YOUR ONLY OPTION WOULD BE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM CITY COUNCIL. AND FRANKLY THAT'S HOW I SEE IT BEING USED. CONSIDERING THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON NOT CREASING SQUARE FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALL THAT STUFF, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXCEPTION THAT WILL LET SOMEBODY TEAR DOWN A ONE STORY RESTAURANT AND BUILD A 10 STORY OFFICE BILLION, IT

DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. >> BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE BUILDINGS ON LAMAR NEAR SHOAL CREEK, SO TWO FEET OF FREE BOARD IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FATE OF THOSE STRUCTURES, RIGHT? BUT THEY WOULD STILL QUALIFY

FOR THIS EXCEPTION? >> IT'S TWO FEET OF FREE BOARD ABOVE THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE TWO FEET ABOVE WHAT IT IS NOW, IN SOME CASES IT MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THAT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE.

[00:20:02]

>> I SEE. AND ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT ATLAS 14 BECAUSE I WANT TO CHECK MY UNDERSTANDING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT IS STILL BASED ON DATA IS IS IN THE PAST, 100-YEAR-OLD DATA OR DATA OVER THE LAST 100 YEAR PLUS PERIOD.

>> IT ONLY FACTORS THEM IN IN SO MUCH WHATEVER WE'VE ALREADY OBSERVED. SO IF WE HAVE BEEN HAVING MORE INTENSE RAINFALL AS A RESULT OF IT OVER THE PAST DECADE THAT'S NOW INCORPORATED, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT IT'S NOT PROJECTING FORWARD.

THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE WENT TO TWO FEET OF FREE BOARDING IS TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL FACTOR OF SAFETY

AS WE MOVE FORWARD. >> THOMPSON: OKAY, THANK YOU. THANKS SO MUCH.

>> CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

COMMISSIONER KING? >> KING: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WONDER IF TWO FEET IS BETTER THAN ONE, WHY NOT THREE FEET?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AT SOME POINT YOU START GETTING INTO CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND WHAT THAT RISK WOULD BE. WE DO HAVE LOTS OF COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS THAT HAVE GONE WITH THREE FEET.

IT CONTINUES TO BE COASTAL COMMUNITIES THAT GO WITH THREE FEET. THREE FEET IS CERTAINLY BETTER, BUT PAST THREE FEET OF FREE BOARD YOU STOP SEEING A POSITIVE BENEFIT IN INSURANCE RATES SO PEOPLE DON'T USUALLY DON'T GO BEYOND THREE IN THE REGULATIONS, BUT WE FELT LIKE BASED ON THE TYPE OF FLOODING WE HAVE AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE ALREADY FACE WITH LIKE TERRAIN, IF THE LOT'S NOT FLAT AND YOU NEED FREE BOARD IT CAN MESS WITH BUILDING HEIGHT STEPS SO WE SETTLED ON TWO FEET BEING A GOOD COMPROMISE FOR

SAFETY AND AFFORDABILITY. >> YOU'RE MUTED.

>> COMMISSIONER KING, YOU'RE MUTED.

>> KING: THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

IN TERMS OF -- THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS HERE, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. SO THE FIRST ONE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT IS COMMERCIAL.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS THAT THEY CAN'T EXPAND

THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> CORRECT.

>> KING: THEY COULD INCREASE THE HEIGHT.

IF THEY'RE NOT BUILDING TO THEIR MAXIMUM HEIGHT AROUND THE CURRENT ZONING THEY COULD GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, NOT THROUGH THIS NECESSARILY, THIS EXCEPTION, BUT THEY COULD GET MORE HEIGHT IF THEY'RE ENTITLED

TO IT UNDER ZONING. >> CORRECT.

AND TO YOUR OTHER POINT AND I'LL GET BACK TO YOUR QUESTION. THE RESIDENTIAL ONE WAS INCLUDED IN WHAT COUNCIL ADOPTED IN 2019.

SO THAT ONE IS ALREADY IN CODE.

WE'RE JUST HERE TONIGHT FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

I WAS -- I GOT IN DETAIL ON THE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSES THEY MIRROR EACH OTHER.

BUT YOU'RE CORRECT, THE COMMERCIAL PROHIBITS AN INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT'S TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, NOT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FOOTPRINT. BUT IF YOU HAD A LARGE ONE STORY BUILDING YOU COULD GO TO A TALLER, FALLER FOOTPRINT WITH TWO STORY, THREE STORY AND THERE MAY BE ADVANTAGES TO THAT FROM A FLOODPLAIN REHABILITATIVE.

>> KING: BUT IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO OTHER THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN ON THAT SITE SUCH AS AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO HOW -- IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT MORE PARKING SPACES ON THERE, YOU KNOW, ON THAT SITE, WOULDN'T THAT INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND EXACERBATE THE FLOODING ISSUES?

>> WHATEVER THE IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE OR WHATEVER DETENTION OR WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS THEY MAY HAVE. WHETHER THEY WERE IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR NOT, STILL EXISTS.

THIS DOESN'T WAIVE ANY OF THOSE.

WITH REGARDS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FLOODPLAIN, IT REALLY -- IMPERVIOUS COVER MATTERS A LOT FOR THINGS LIKE WATER QUALITY, IT CAN MATTER A LOT FOR BASE FLOW CONDITIONS, WHICH CAN HAVE IMPACTS ON EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN THE CREEKS. FROM A FLOODPLAIN PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, IMPERVIOUS COVER TENDS TO NOT BE A MAJOR FACTOR. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WITH THE 100 YEAR STORM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 AND A HALF INCHES ROUGHLY IN 24 HOURS. WE'RE GOING TO HIT FULL SATURATION ON THE SOIL WELL INTO THAT.

SO RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS COVER ISN'T A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THESE LARGE FLOOD EVENTS.

IT CERTAINLY MATTERS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT NOT FROM A FLOODPLAIN IMPACT.

>> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT YOU MADE EARLIER ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES.

THEY COULD POTENTIALLY ADD MORE PARKING SPACES BUT WE COULD NOT -- THEY COULDN'T ADD MORE PARKING SPACES IN

[00:25:03]

THE FLOODPLAIN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR REARRANGE THE SITE THAT THE DEPTH OF FLOODING IN THE PARKING SPACES INCREASED. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WE MAKE TO THAT WOULD BE IF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T MEET CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD SPACES AS A RESULT OF JUST

REDEVELOPING THE SITE. >> BUT THOSE ADDITIONAL SPACES COULD NOT BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

>> THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE IF THEY HAD TO BE.

LIKE IF YOUR SITE WAS ENTIRELY IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND YOU HAD A RESTAURANT AND IT HAD SIX PARKING SPACES AND CODE SAID YOU NEEDED PHONE THAT SIZE RESTAURANT AND YOU'RE REDEVELOPING IT, SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S THE SAME USE, LIKE NOTHING IS REALLY CHANGING OTHER THAN THAT REDEVELOPMENT TRIGGERS YOU TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING, WE WOULD LET THEM BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN THAT INSTANCE. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT AND SO IT WOULD REALLY BE JUST FOR A SITE USING THIS EXCEPTION AND WAS ALREADY NON-CONFORMING WITH PARKING TO START WITH.

>> KING: AND MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS ROUND WOULD BE JUST ON THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT.

COULD YOU GO OVER THAT ONE MORE TIME? WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT -- JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AND THEN I'LL HAVE A QUESTION FOR

YOU? >> SO WITH NEW BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE IS CALLED MEANS OF EGRESS. SO THAT REQUIREMENT SAYS THERE HAS TO BE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM THE STRUCTURE TO A POINT OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THE DURATION OF THAT CONNECTION IS AT LEAST ONE FOOT ABOVE THE 100-FOOT FLOODPLAIN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO IF YOU PICTURE A LOT WHERE YOU'VE GOT A ROAD UP HERE AND A CREEK DOWN HERE AND THE LOT SLOPES DOWN FROM THE ROAD TO THE CREEK, IF THE ROAD IS OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND YOU CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT'S MAYBE ALL OR PARTIALLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT YOU CAN HAVE A WALKWAY FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE SIDEWALK OR TO THE STREET AND YOUR FINISHED FLOOR AT IS AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS AT LEAST ONE FOOT ABOVE, THAT WOULD MEET THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WHERE STAFF COULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE THAT NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THERE'S A LOT OF SITES THAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

IF YOUR PROPERTY IS FULLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE STREET AROUND YOU IS FULLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, YOU WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO MEET IT. IN THAT SCENARIO IF IT'S A NEW REQUIREMENT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL TO GET A VARIANCE. BUT IF IT MET ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA WE WOULD LET THEM DO THAT AND THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT WE'RE REPLACING AN EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT NOT DESIGNED TO THE FLOOD RISK WITH THINGS THAT ARE STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED, IT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED. WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. ALL THOSE THINGS CONSIDERED THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE TODAY FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE EVEN IF IT ISN'T THE STANDARD THAT WE WOULD HOLD NEW GREEN FIELD DEVELOPMENT TO.

>> SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT OPENING UP THIS -- A LOOPHOLE OR SOMETHING HERE THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD ALLOW ANY SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO MEET THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THOSE UNDER THIS AMENDMENT.

>> UNLESS THEIR MEETING ALL OF THESE CRITERIA.

SO IF YOU VAN EXISTING SITE AND YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP IT BUT YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, IF YOU WANT TO USE ONE OF THOSE USES THAT'S

PROHIBITED. >> ANYTHING LIKE THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

YOU NEED TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE EXCEPTION.

SO IT'S A A PRETTY LIMITED EXCEPTION IN THAT SENSE.

IT'S JUST REPLACING THE BUILDING WITH ONE OF THE SAME SIZE OR SMALLER IF SOMEONE CHOSE.

>> I JUST GET A BIT WORRIED IF I SEE ELIMINATE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. THAT WORRIES ME, THE WAY IT'S WORDED. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IT'S GOING TO PUT MORE PEOPLE IN -- I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IF I'M STUCK IN YOUR BUILDING AND I CAN'T GET OUT OF IT FOR WHAT DAYS, I'M NOT SURE -- CERTAINLY THAT'S SAFER THAN GETTING INTO THE FLOOD WATERS AND GETTING WASHED AWAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HAVING MORE PEOPLE STUCK IN BUILDINGS THEY CAN'T GET OUT OF FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE POTENTIALLY?

>> SO THE SIXTH STREETS ON RESTRICTING BUILDING SIZE AND WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON SOME OF THOSE PROPOSED -- ON SOME OF THOSE USES BEING PROHIBITED THE GOAL WOULD BE

[00:30:01]

TO NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STUCK IN BUILDINGS, BUT HAVE THOSE PEOPLE ALREADY STUCK IN A BUILDING STUCK IN A BUILDING THAT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED.

>> KING: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME REALLY DIG INTO THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD JUST HOPE IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE SAFE ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED AND YOU MAY BE STUCK IN THETHAT THOSE BUILDE FACILITIES HAVE SOME WAY TO SUPPORT THOSE PEOPLE IF THEY'RE STUCK IN THE BUILDING. MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION FOR THIS, BUT IF WE KNOW THERE'S A CHANCE THAT PEOPLE WILL BE STUCK IN BUILDINGS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME FROM FLOOD SITUATIONS, 13 THOSE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REQUIRE SOME SORT OF SUPPORT OR SAFETY NET FOR PEOPLE STUCK IN THE BUILDING. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ASSOCIATED THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT.

>> IN THE PAST ON COUNCIL VARIANCES WHERE THERE HASN'T BEEN SAFE ACCESS TO A PROPOSED BUILDING WE HAVE WORKED WITH APPLICANTS ON REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFETY PLANS OR EVACUATION PLANS OR SIGNAGE.

IT'S GENERALLY BEEN PROBLEMATIC TO MAINTAIN OVER THE LIFE OF THOSE BUILDINGS. THOSE ARE AREAS WE'VE EXPLORED. ALSO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FLOODING IN AUSTIN GENERALLY ISN'T DAYS OR HOURS.

IT CAN BE MINUTES. IF IT'S HOURS IT'S A FEW HOURS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT -- THIS IS FLASH FLOODING, IT HAPPENS VERY QUICKLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WHERE WE SAY IT'S GOING TO FLOOD IN FLEE DAYS, EVERYBODY FILL SANDBAGS.

IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. IT'S VERY QUICK AND UNEXPECTED. BUT IT ALSO GOES DOWN PRETTY QUICK AS A RESULT OF THAT TOO.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NEW ORLEANS WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE DAYS FOR PEOPLE STUCK IN THESE BUILDINGS.

IT'S GIVING THEM -- HAVING THE BUILDING ELEVATED WHERE THEY HAVE AN AREA OF SAFE ROUGE TO KIND OF RIDE IT OUT AND NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN MORE THAN IT ALREADY EXISTS.

THOSE ARE KIND OF TWO GOALS. >> KING: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ONE QUICK COMMENT. IN YOUR DISCUSSION YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT AFFECTING THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE COLORADO RIVER. IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE ENFORCING REGULATIONS IN THE COLORADO RIVER, BUT THE RAINFALL DATA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT BASIN WIDE WITHIN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN.

THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN GOES WAY OUT INTO WEST TEXAS AND YOU DON'T SEE THE SAME CHANGE IN RAINFALL EVENTS IN WEST TEXAS THAT WE SEE OVER THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

SO WE'RE DOING WHAT SCIENCE SAYS BUT SCIENCE SAYS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE SAME INCREASE IN FLOODPLAIN OF THE COLORADO RIVER LIKE YOU WILL SEE ON WILLIAMSON CREEK. SO IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE IGNORING SCIENCE ON THE COLORADO RIVER, THE SCIENCE IS JUST NOT THERE SAYING YOU'RE INCREASING THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE COLORADO RIVER.

SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING FORGET ABOUT COLORADO RIVER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY.

THE SCIENCE SAYS IT DOESN'T APPLY, NOT THE FACT THAT OUR

POLICY SAYS THAT. >> YES, THE CHANGES IN RAINFALL STATISTICS IN THE REPORT, THEY WERE STATEWIDE, BUT THE CHANGES WERE NOT UNIFORM.

THE UPSTREAM WATERSHED FOR THE COLORADO DIDN'T SEE THE SAME INCREASE IN RAINFALL. WHETHER THAT'S BECAUSE IT HASN'T CHANGED OR BECAUSE THERE'S LESS DATA POINTS UP THERE IN TERMS OF RAIN CHANGES, I CAN'T SAY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE LCRA DAM CONTROL SYSTEM.

THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS IN PLACE.

ULTIMATELY THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A NEW STUDY FOR THE COLORADO RIVER. AUSTIN ISN'T ACTIVELY LEADING THAT CHARGE BECAUSE WE DON'T EXPECT THERE'S A BIG CHANGE FOR US, BUT CERTAINLY DOWNSTREAM COMMUNITIES, BASTROP, LA GRANGE, A AS ALL OF OUR CREEKS INCREASE IN FLOW, WE WILL PROBABLY SEE THAT DOWNSTREAM. THERE WILL BE A NEW STUDY AT SOME POINT, A REGIONAL EFFORT, MAYBE LCRA OR THE REGIONAL FLOOD PLANNING GROUPS FROM THE WATER

DEVELOPMENT BOARD. >> LAST QUESTION I HAD.

WHEN DOES THIS GO TO CITY COUNCIL?

>> WE'RE CURRENTLY ON THE AGENDA FOR I THINK IT'S

SEPTEMBER FIRST. >> SO YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION TONIGHT. WE HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, CONSIDER IT, BRING A MOTION BACK IN TWO WEEKS AT

OUR MEETING? >> IF YOUR NEXT MEETING IS IN TWO WEEKS I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

>> THAT'S IT. >> I DON'T KNOW.

TO BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW. >> THE DISCUSSION HAS KIND OF PROMPTED A THOUGHT ABOUT WE'RE REALLIER TALKING ABOUT COMMISSIONER KING WAS TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND THE NON-CONFORMING USE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE MORE PARKING, I WONDER IF THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SAY YOU'VE BEEN FUNCTIONING FOR THE SHOAL CREEK SALOON COMES

[00:35:02]

TO MIND WHERE YOU'VE BEEN FUNCTIONING WITH LIMITED PARKING ALL THIS TIME. WE DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FOUR SPACES.

WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD WORK WITH?

>> WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM ON IT. AND TO CRITERIA THE EXAMPLE YOU BROUGHT UP, THE FLOODPLAIN IS PRETTY DEEP AND MOVING PRETTY FAST IN THAT LOCATION.

IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WHERE THE OWNER WAS INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING THEIR CURRENT LEVEL OF PARKING, ASSUMING IT MEETS CURRENT LEVEL OF CODE.

AND THERE WAS SOME OTHER VARIANCE THAT WE COULD GET FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO NOT DO THAT, I THINK WATERSHED DEPARTMENT WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT FOR SURE. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON PARKING. THEY'RE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA. THERE MAY BE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THEM. SO IT'S NOT -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF THESE SITES WHERE WE WOULD SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PARKING AS A RESULT OF

THIS. >> CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF US AND WHAT ADMINISTRATIVELY OUR ROLE IS HERE?

>> YEAH. SO WE ARE DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THIS ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT TO 256793, THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, PART 1 GENERAL EXCEPTION. YOU CAN SEE IN YOUR BACKUP ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE UNDERLINED ARE NEW.

SO THAT'S THE REVISION TO THE CODE.

SO AS MR. COURTNEY HAS WALKED US THROUGH, THERE ARE THESE ADDITIONAL LIMITED USES, THE FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT, THE PARKING SPACES, ALL THE ITEMS WEIS DISCUSSED HERE, HE'S ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THESE CHANGES TO THE CODE. SO WE WOULD NEED TO PRESENT SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION TO THAT IF WE AGREED WITH THESE

CHANGES. >> AND WE HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MADE IT INTO THE BACKUP PACKET OR NOT.

>> I DIDN'T SEE A DRAFT RESOLUTION.

>> A DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR US?

>> RIGHT. THEY WERE JUST SAYING THEY THOUGHT A DRAFT RESOLUTION HAD BEEN PREPARED BUT I

DIDN'T SEE ONE. >> I DON'T EITHER.

>> CHAIR, COMMISSION LIAISON ANDREW RIVERA.

I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE 19 OF 22.

>> >> OF HIS PRESENTATION?

>> I THINK THEY ARE ALL PUT TOGETHER.

WE HAD THE PRESENTATION, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE --

>> THAT'S NOT A RESOLUTION. >> I THINK THERE WAS --

>> IT'S ACTUALLY A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT IS PROVIDED.

>> A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN THERE.

OKAY. >> THE ONE WITH THE

WHEREASES IS WHERE WE NEED. >> EXACTLY.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS A MOTION TO HAVE WHEREAS AND THEN THAT. THAT'S NOT BEEN PREPARED.

>> CHAIR: COMMISSIONER KING.

>> >> KING:.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SMITH'S POINT ABOUT LETTING US STEW ON THIS AND COMING BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A RESOLUTION.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO VOLUNTEER TO WRITE THE RESOLUTION IN THE MEANTIME AND GET IT OUT SO THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.

>> IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASSIST COMMISSIONER KING IN WRITING A RESOLUTION? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ARE YOU VOLUNTEERING?

>> YEAH. >> I'LL DO THE SAME.

I'LL BE GLAD TO WORK WITH YOU, DAVID.

BETWEEN THE THREE OF US WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO COME UP

WITH SOMETHING. >> CHAIR: OKAY.

WE'LL HAVE THIS SMALL GROUP PUT TOGETHER A RESOLUTION FOR NEXT TIME FOR APPROVAL AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS-UP

19TH. >> 19TH, YES.

>> CHAIR: SO WALL STREET PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR

JULY 19TH. >> THANK YOU.

AND WE UNDERSTAND STAFF THAT THIS IS GOING TO COUNCIL

PRETTY SOON. >> CHAIR: YOU HAVE SOME TIME. SEPTEMBER 1ST.

>> KING: SEPTEMBER, THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL IS MEETING IN AUGUST ON

ANYTHING BUT BUDGET. >> SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A CO-TO PLACE IS ON THE AGENDA NEXT TIME.

>> I WILL BE ONE. >> CHAIR: SO COMMISSIONERS KING AND SMITH WILL CO-SPONSOR THAT ITEM ON THE

AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME. >> CHAIR, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION.

>> CHAIR: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE ARE ON TO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE JUST HEARD SOME.

[D. NOMINATIONS]

[00:40:02]

SO ANYTHING ELSE I DON'T THINK SO.

SO D, DOMINATE A MEMBER OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION TO BE SERVING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE? ANYBODY WANTING TO SERVE.

>> CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIAISON ANDREW RIVERA.

THAT IS THE POSITION FORMERLY HELD BY COMMISSIONER ACOSTA WITH AN AAPPOINTMENT TO ZAP.

ONCE YOU'RE REAPPOINTED YOU HAVE TO BE RENOMINATED TO THAT JOINT COMMITTEE IF THAT IS THE PREFERENCE OR IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO HAVE ANOTHER NOMINEE WE

CAN DO SO AS WELL. >> SO WE NEED TO REAPPOINT

COMMISSIONER ACOSTA? >> CORRECT.

>> I THOUGHT HE WAS ON TWO. >> I AM.

I AM CURRENTLY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLAN AND [INDISCERNIBLE] AREA PLANS. I WANTED TO SAY I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND A GREAT DEAL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE IT IS IN THE WORKDAY AND I CAN'T GET OFF THE NINE TO FIVE SHIFTS.

WHEN I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND I FOUND THEM ENRICHING AND ENJOYED THE EXPERIENCE.

ALL THAT TO SAY I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THAT ROLE, BUT IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS THE TIME AND HAS â– THE INCLINATION AND DESIRE I'D BE HAPPY TO STEP ASIDE.

HAPPY TO CONTINUE IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO.

>> WE GENERALLY MEET QUARTERLY OVER THE LUNCH HOUR IN THE BUILDING ON 11TH STREET.

>> I JUST MENTION I'M NOT ON ANY COMMITTEE SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SERVE IF THAT'S OF INTEREST.

>> OKAY. >> WE SENDED TO HAVE A POLICY OR NOT -- YOU CAN SERVE ON AS MANY COMMITTEES AS YOU WANT, BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE NOT SERVING ON ANY COMMITTEE, THEN YOU JUST PICK ONE.

>> OKAY, I NOMINATE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

>> COMMISSIONER KING, ARE YOU SECONDING?

>> I'M SECONDING, YES. >> OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER THOMPSON ON THE --E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE? OKAY.

AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED. YOU CAN VOTE FOR YOURSELF,

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> I'LL ABSTAIN.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? AND ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. SO.

>> ONLY SIX VOTES. >> CHAIR: YES.

THERE WERE SIX VOTES. COMMISSIONER STERN WERE YOU VOTING IN FAVOR? YES.

OKAY. SO THAT WAS ALL OF US.

AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON ABSTAINED.

>> COMMISSIONER ACOSTA, I'LL REACH OUT TO YOU TO DOWNLOAD YOUR EXPERIENCE. IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIAISON ANDREW RIVERA.

SO ALSO IF WE CAN GO BACK TO ITEM B6 AND EXHIBIT C WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONER.

IT'S SINCE BEEN SENT TO THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STERN FOR VOTING THAT ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS.

THE DOCUMENT WAS SENT TO THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE A RECONSIDERATION AND INCLUDE

EXHIBIT C. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM B6, RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS INCLUDING

THOSE IN EXHIBIT C. >> CHAIR: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ACOSTA. ALL OF THOSE -- ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG?

>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO BE READY TO VOTE IN FAVOR.

>> CHAIR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL TO CONSENT

ITEM B6 WITH EXHIBIT C. >> MR. STERN, YOU'RE ON

MUTE. >> I WANTED TO DISCUSS THIS

ITEM BEFORE. >> OH, OKAY.

>> CHAIR: YOU WANTED TO PULL IT FROM THE AGENDA?

>> IT'S A SUBDIVISION. WE CAN DISCUSS IT BUT WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT AT THE END.

>> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS AN ITEM ABOUT IT.

IF SHOULDN'T AFFECT THE VOTE, BUT I JUST FEEL IT NEEDS SOME DISCUSSION. IS THAT OKAY BEFORE WE

FINISH THIS VOTE? >> YES, BUT WE DO NEED

MR. RIVERA SAYS NO. >> CHAIR, I DO NOT HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE TO SPEAK TO IT.

>> THERE'S NO STAFF AVAILABLE.

>> CHAIR: MR. STERN, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

>> IT WAS MORE A COMMENT BEFORE WE DO THIS.

[00:45:02]

I CAN MAKE A COMMENT AFTER WE DO IT.

>> CHAIR: YOU CAN MAKE THE COMMENT BEFORE.

[B.6. Preliminary Plan: C8J-2020-0091 - Gregg Manor Subdivision Preliminary Plan (Small Lot Subdivision)]

>> ALL RIGHT. I GUESS MY GENERAL COMMENT IS IN LOOKING AT THE SUBDIVISION PLAN.

AND I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS IN THE ETJ.

I RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING.

AND IT IS WHAT IT IS. THAT'S FINE.

THE CONCERN I HAVE IS ABOUT THE DISCONNECT ACTIVITY THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY CREATING. IN THE YEAR 2022.

IF YOU LOOK, WHILE SOME PARTS OF THE PLAT LEAD TO GREGG MANOR ROAD, GREGG MANOR ROAD, THERE ARE LARGE POSITIONS WITHIN AN ISLAND BECAUSE OF THE AUSTIN WATER RETENTION THAT'S IN THIS AREA ON THAT PLOT.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE CUL-DE-SACS THAT GO TO DEAD ENDS INSTEAD OF HAVING SOME SORT OF SIDEWALK OR PASEO, SO THAT IN FUTURE PEOPLE CAN GET INTO THE MAIN STREET WITHOUT GETTING INTO A CAR. AND WE SPEAK A LOT ABOUT NOT REPEATING THE PAST MISTAKES AND MAKING SURE THAT OUR GREEN FIELD DEVELOPMENT IS SUSTAINABLE.

AND THIS IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE GREEN FIELD DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME. SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO FIND SOME WAY FOR THIS COMMISSION.

AND IT COULD BE THAT I'M A NEW COMMISSIONER TO BASICALLY INSIST ON WALKABILITY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, EVEN IF TRANSIT WERE BROUGHT INTO THE AREA, ARE GOING TO BE -- THEY'RE GOING TO BE STUCK PAYING CAR PAYMENTS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES AND IT'S A TRAP. SO I KNOW THESE PEOPLE MOVING OUT HERE ARE GOING TO BE SEEKING AFFORDABILITY.

WE ARE NOT HELPING THEM WITH AFFORDABILITY IF WE KEEP MAKING PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THEIR CARS.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE SHOULD BE FINDING WAYS TO ENCOURAGE THESE SITE PLANS TO HAVE WALKING CONNECTIONS IN A GRID EVEN IF THEY HAVE CUL-DE-SACS.

I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN DO THAT TODAY.

>> WELL, LET ME MAKE ONE OBSERVATION.

WHEN WE DO SUBDIVISION PLATS THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO BY STATE LAW IS APPROVE THEM PROVIDED THEY COMPLY WITH ALL THE CODES AND ORDINANCES.

AND WHEN THE STAFF TELLS US THEY MEET CODES AND ORDINANCES WE'RE OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THEM.

WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS CHANGE TO CODES AND ORDINANCES TO SAY A PRELIMINARY PLAN HAS TO SHOW WALKABILITY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS ONE, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WOULD BE A CODE CHANGE TO SAY THIS IS THE WAY WE NEED THINGS DOG FORWARD.

I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND AGREE WITH YOU. YOU CAN'T APPLY THAT ON EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS GOING THROUGH.

>> IT WAS ON CODENEXT BUT DIDN'T GET PASSED.

>> WE GOT CLOSE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A TOPIC TO BE TALKED B I THINK EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.

WHEN IT COMES TO A SUBDIVISION ON OUR APPROVAL, IF STAFF IS SAYING IT MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES, WE'RE REALLY KIND OF HAMSTRUNG TO SAY WE HAVE TO

APPROVE IT. >> CHAIR: SO YEAH, TO THAT END I WOULD TAKE THE -- I WILL LOOK THROUGH THE PREVIOUS -- AT THE TIME I WAS AT THE CITY AND WORKING FOR THE TRAIL DEPARTMENT AND WE WERE LOOKING AT BLOCK LANES AND CONNECTIVITY. SO I WILL TAKE THE INITIATE TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE CODE REVISION AND SEE IF I CAN'T PULL OUT SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE AND WE CAN BRING IT UP AT OUR NEXT CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING.

>> CHAIR, WOULD WE AS A COMMISSION BE ABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? JUST FOLLOWING ON WHAT OUR

OPTIONS ARE. >> CHAIR: SO WE ARE

STRAYING FROM THE AGENDA. >> RIGHT, TRUE.

>> CHAIR: BUT WE CAN -- THIS SEEMS LIKE IT FITS IN C1, DISCUSSIONS OF POSSIBLE MATTERS RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO MAYBE VICE-CHAIR KIOLBASSA AND I CAN DISCUSS SOME LANGUAGE. SHE IS ALSO ON THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE WITH ME SO MAYBE WE CAN PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING. WEIS LOOKING LIKE SHE WANTS

TO MAKE A COMMENT. >> KIOLBASSA: CAN YOU HEAR

ME? >> YES.

>> KIOLBASSA: WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT AS A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM ON THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THIS AND MAYBE COME UP WITH SOMETHING THERE.

>> YES. >> KIOLBASSA: SO JUST BE

COMPLETELY SOMETHING -- >> SOMETHING TO FORWARD TO

THE CODES AND ORDINANCES. >> EXACTLY.

>> CHAIR: AND WE CAN THINK ABOUT SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE.

YES, COMMISSIONER KING. >> KING: THANK YOU.

[00:50:02]

I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER STEARNS POINTING THIS O I AGREE WITH HIM, IT NEEDS TO BE WALKABLE. WE WANT THAT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HERE IN THE CENTRAL CITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE WANT HERE. SO I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HIS SENTIMENT HERE. IN TERMS OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE ALL KNOW HOW BIG OF A BEHEMOTH THAT IS TO DEAL WITH.

I HOPE THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS VERY FOCUSED AND TARGETED SO WE CAN -- BECAUSE I AGREE AND I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF -- IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF SENTIMENT ON THE COMMISSION IN SAYING YES, LET'S MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT MAKING THESE NEW SUBDIVISIONS MORE WALKABLE FROM THE GIT-GO.

SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STERN FOR BRINGING THIS UP.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M NOT AS EXPERIENCED AS YOU ARE AND I JUST THOUGHT I SHOULD MAKE A COMMENT HERE SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION FOR THE COMING MEETING.

>> CHAIR: WE APPRECIATE THE FRESH EYES.

>> DO WE NEED A VOTE. >> CHAIR: WE NEED A VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF ITEM B6. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ACQUISITION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> KING: THAT WAS

UNANIMOUS? >> 8-1 WITH COMMISSIONER

STERN IN OPPOSITION. >> KING: THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> CHAIR: I DON'T RECALL.

IS THERE A THING THAT YOU HAVE TO POINT TO THE CODE AND SAY WHY YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION.

>> CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIAISON ANDREW RIVERA.

THAT IS ONLY IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO DENY.

>> CHAIR: GREAT. SO WE ARE MOVING -- WE'VE

[E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

NOMINATED COMMISSIONER THOMPSON ON D1.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS WE'VE DISCUSSED THE WATERSHED ONE AND THEN KIOLBASSA AND I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS MAYBE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> KING: IT WAS SUBDIVISION CONNECTIVITY.

>> CHAIR: SUBDIVISION CONNECTIVITY.

>> OH. I'LL JUST SAY THAT I JUST THINK WE SHOULD JUST SPONSOR IT AND HAVE IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN BRING THEIR IDEAS FORWARD.

>> CHAIR: GREAT. THAT'S FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. WE'LL GO ON TO COMMITTEE REPORTS AND WORKING GROUPS.

CODES AND ORDINANCES -- I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE MET BEFORE, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE SAME THING THAT WE HAD THE PRESENTATION ON TONIGHT. SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT

COMMITTEE DID YOU MEET. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> CHAIR: OKAY. AND THEN SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE? DID NOT MEET.

ONION CREEK AND LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP, DID YOU MEET? OKAY.

THAT'S IT. WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU, GUYS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.