Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:10]

AND FIRST

[Call to Order]

I'LL CALL ROLL, ROLL.

UH, COMMISSIONER ACOSTA, COMMISSIONER, OR CHAIR? BARRERA.

RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER BOON, PRESENT COMMISSIONER DANGLER, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER, UH, KING HERE.

UH, I'M HERE.

JOLENE KOBASA COMMISSIONER SMITH, COMMISSIONER STERN, COMMISSIONER STERN.

UH, HE HAS TO SAY, WE HAVE TO SEE HIS LITTLE FACE AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.

OKAY.

AND CALL COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY.

UH, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

UM, NOBODY'S SIGNED UP

[A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, A ONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 5TH, 2022.

I HAVE HEARD OF ANY, NO PROBLEMS WITH THEM.

YES, SURE.

THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER KING.

I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ON THE MINUTES ON ITEM B FIVE, IT SAYS, UH, DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS.

AND I BELIEVE IT SHOULD SAY FOR EXHIBIT C, COULD, COULD STAFF CONFIRM THAT CONFIRMED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO ADD PER EXHIBIT C TO THE, TO THE, UH, TO THE MINUTES.

THANK YOU FOR THEN FIVE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SECRETARY KING FOR BEING SO DILIGENT.

OKAY.

[ Consent Agenda]

B ONE REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 7 3 1 3 1 EAST HOWARD LANE.

A REQUEST IS FROM WLO TO G R M U STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, LR TO M U AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA AND Z, UM, B2C ZONING, C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 7 4, TEXT DOT 6 9 2 0 3 AND A HALF NORTH LAKE CREEK PARKWAY AND REQUEST IS FROM IRR TO MF.

FOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS RECOMMENDED AND THAT IS ALSO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

B3 REZONING SEE 8 1 4 DASH 2 0 0 9 DASH 0 1 3 9 0.03 B BULL CREEK PUD AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.

AND THAT IS, UM, A BUNCH OF ADDRESSES.

DO I HAVE TO READ THEM? I GUESS NOT.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS PEN IS PENDING.

IT'S A POSTPONEMENT TO, UM, WHEN IS THAT? CAUSE I DON'T.

OKAY.

AUGUST 16 POSTPONE TO AUGUST 16TH BY STAFF.

AND BEFORE ZONING, C 14 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 9 4, EVELYN, CONTIGUOUS TO DISTRICT 1 6 1 0 0 BLUE GOOSE ROAD.

AND ONE, 1-815-CAMERON ROAD.

AND THE REQUEST IS, OR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS S RATHER REQUEST IS SF FORAY AND C S M U, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SF FOR A TRACK ONE AND G R M U TRACK TWO.

AND THAT IS, AND I'M GOING TO KEEP ON LOOKING AT YOU, ANDREW, JUST CAUSE I CAN'T PULL IT UP ON MY AND IT'S SO, AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND I'M GOING TO S I AM JUST GOING TO TAKE A QUICKIE BREAK CAUSE I THINK I DO HAVE IT ON HERE.

OKAY, GREAT.

UM, THAT WAS ONE THING I DID SAY.

OKAY.

B FIVE C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 4 3 8 1 1 0 SPRINGDALE ROAD REQUEST IS I R R TO L I AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UM, OH, THAT HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THEN B SIX C 14 DASH 2 0 2 2 DASH B FIVE IS NOT PULLED FOR CONSENT.

I MEAN THIS ALL CAN STAND UP.

OH, IT IS NOTED IN CORRECTLY ON YOUR SCREEN.

OH, OKAY.

GREAT.

THANKS.

OKAY, SO THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND SORRY ABOUT THAT.

BEEF B SIX C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 3 WALNUT CREEK WWTP EXPANSION.

AND THAT IS ALSO, THAT IS ALSO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND THAT IS A SF TWO TO P AND B SEVEN C 14 DASH 2022.

UM, AND I MUST BE LOOKING AT MY OLDER ONE, BUT 2022 DASH 0 0 6 7.

[00:05:01]

BILL IS AT SOUTH AUSTIN DISTRICT TWO.

AND IS THAT A POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION? OH, THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

OKAY.

I HAD IT WRONG.

AND B SIX C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 4 0 PIONEER HILL PLAZA.

AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 2ND.

AND THAT DESIRE TO MAKE BA SORRY ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN B NINE NEW GLASSES, SORRY, B NINE CODE AMENDMENT, UH, FLOOD REGULATIONS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

AND THAT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN ITEM C ITEMS FROM THE DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION UNDER C C1 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO ANY PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO STEP UPDATES, PRESENTATIONS AND SCHEDULING AND SPONSORS, BARRERA, MARIS, AND VICE-CHAIR KOBASA AND NO ITEMS THERE, BUT SEE TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING RESUB DIVISIONS AND CONNECTIVITY.

CO-SPONSORS CHAIR BARRERA, RAMIREZ, AND VICE-CHAIR KOBASA AND WELL, THAT IS IT.

ACTUALLY, I, THAT WAS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

RIGHT.

IT'S JUST A YES.

AND SO THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND I CAN DO THAT AGAIN.

IS B ONE, B TWO B THREE STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 16TH BEFORE B SIX, B B FIVE B6 AND B YEAH, B SEVEN AND B EIGHT POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 2ND, BUT I BELIEVE WAS PULLED.

IT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

SORRY.

SO THAT IS IT.

AND I CAN REPEAT THAT AGAIN, BUT I THINK YOU GOT IT IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS, UM, SO IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IMPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COULD READ AGAIN, BE OUT OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, UM, TO INCLUDE EXHIBIT C UM, ON CONSENT AGENDA IS OUT AS B ONE B TWO B FOUR, B FIVE B SIX, EX CONTINUANCES.

POSTPONEMENTS IS ITEMS B3 POSTPONED AUGUST 16TH AND ITEM B A POSTPONED TO EIGHT 12, AND THEN ITEMS SEVEN AND NINE ARE DISCUSSION FROM B 79.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

AND IS THERE A SECOND? AND THERE IS A SECOND COMMISSIONER KING.

IS THAT A SECOND OR A QUESTION? OH, I DON'T MIND SECONDING, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST CLARIFY THAT B ONE IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF LR, M U YEAH.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ONE AND ALSO STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON FOUR.

RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND CLARIFY THAT IT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS L R M U ON ITEM ONE.

THAT'S THE MOTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

OKAY.

THANKS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

AND I WANT TO, OKAY, GO AHEAD.

I THOUGHT WE HAD DISCUSSED OFF THE DYES THAT WE WOULD POSSIBLY POSTPONE, UM, BENIGN, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SEVEN.

WE CAN DO THAT WHEN WE GET TO GET TO THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.

WHY DON'T WE, YEAH, WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THEN OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AND I WANT TO NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER STERN IS HERE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND IT IS ALL IN FAVOR AND THEN NEXT ZERO.

RIGHT.

AND SINCE WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE, THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES IN.

UM, WE MAYBE SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF POSTPONING, OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. UM, I, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER.

AND ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE ISSUE ON B SEVEN? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISCUSSION REASONING ON THAT ONE IS.

THAT'S WHY I'M JUST ASKING.

WELL, THE REZONING IS FROM SF FOUR A TO SF SIX, RIGHT.

AND THERE'S A PIPELINE.

YES.

AND BASICALLY THE, UM, SF SIX KIND OF CIRCUMVENTS THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS.

YES.

AND THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, I THINK ARE KIND OF ESSENTIAL WHEN THERE'S A PIPELINE ON THE PROPERTY, THE PIPELINE ORDERS AS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCE THAT WILL APPLY EITHER.

IT'LL, I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH, IF WE CAN GET THROUGH MINOR DISCUSSIONS, IF WE CAN GET THIS ITEM APPROVED OR NOT.

WELL, I THINK WE WILL, CAUSE I ALSO HAVE SOME COMMENTS

[00:10:01]

TOO, SO, AND ALSO THE MAPS WERE LATE, SO WE COULD DECIDE WHETHER TO POSTPONE IT NOW.

UM, THERE COULD BE A MOTION OR WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT.

UM, ANY, ANY THOUGHTS I'M JUST HERE TO CRACK THE WHIP.

OKAY.

THEN WE'LL GO.

YES.

COMMISSIONER KING.

IT, IT, UH, WHICH, UH, I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT WHICH DISTRICT IS THIS END TO DISTRICT TWO.

OKAY.

AND DO WE HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT TWO IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS.

I, I, WE COULD TAKE ACTION.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT I, WITH THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND THE GAS PIPELINE, I, I WOULD THINK IT'D BE REASONABLE TO POSTPONE IT AND LET THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TO BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

OKAY.

IS THAT A MOTION TO POSTPONE?

[B.7. C14-2022-0067 - Villas at South Austin; District 2]

UH, YES.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM V SEVEN AND TO OUR, TO OUR MEETING, UH, PERSONALLY IN AUGUST, WHICH WOULD BE AUGUST 2ND, AUGUST 2ND.

OKAY.

IS THERE A SECOND SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CHALETS ON EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? OH, YES.

I'M SORRY.

WE ARE RUSHING INTO THIS.

YES.

APPLICANT.

UM, YES.

UM, YOU ARE PLEASE STEP UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

WHAT DO YOU THINK COMMISSIONERS? UH, I'M SCREENING I'M THE OWNER AND APPLICANT OF THE SONY CASE.

C 14, PRETTY EARLY 2 0 0 6 7.

SORRY, YOU'RE JUST THINKING HERE ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT.

WE'RE THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS WHETHER TO POSTPONE YOUR CASE TO AUGUST 2ND OR NOT.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH POSTPONING? THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER IS IN HERE, BUT, OR YOU CAN SAY YOU, YOU DON'T YOU'RE OPPOSED.

I MEAN, YOU CAN, WHATEVER YOU WANT FLUENT FROM DENVER THIS MORNING.

AND I WAITED TILL NOW.

I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE IT, BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'M OKAY WITH, THAT'S A LONG WAY TO FLY HIM, TO HEAR A CASE.

YEAH.

ESPECIALLY FOR THE HOT WEATHER.

UM, SO, OH, THAT'S A NEUTRAL.

UM, THANK YOU.

SO, UM, IT WOULD BE POSTPONED TO AUGUST 2ND AND WE COULD, NOTHING IS EVER GUARANTEED, BUT WE WOULD PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEED THAT WE WOULD HEAR THE CASE.

I WOULD, WE CAN TRY.

I MEAN, IT TAKES SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO PASS OR DENY.

AND WITH ONLY SEVEN PEOPLE HERE, THE CHANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT REDUCED COMPARED TO IF WE HAD A FULL COMMISSION, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE SO WE CAN KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE SO HE CAN KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.

IT GOES BACK TO DENMARK.

WELL, DENVER, DENVER, IF I SAID DENVER, I SAID, DENMARK FARTHER AWAY SO WE CAN RAISE, WE COULD, WE SHOULD.

WE'RE JUST ONLY SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS THE POST-MOMENT.

WE CAN RAISE OUR QUESTIONS.

WE CAN DIRECT OUR QUESTIONS TO YOU AND TO, OR WE CAN JUST YOUR CASE MANAGER AND THE CASE, MAN, AND THE CASE MANAGER WILL PASS QUESTIONS ON TO YOU.

AND WE CAN HEAR THE CASE.

AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, WE CAN STILL POST THEM.

YES, THAT IS TRUE TOO.

I'M ALMOST LEANING TOWARDS, LET'S HEAR THE CASE, SEE WHAT WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND THEN DECIDE TO POSTPONE OR NOT.

OKAY.

WELL, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO THANK YOU.

UM, MAKE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO NO, THERE'S NO NEED TO DO THAT CHAIR.

I WILL WITHDRAW THAT MOTION IF IT, IF THE, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION WOULD PREFER TO HEAR TONIGHT, I THINK I CAN.

THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME TO HEAR IT AND TO DECIDE TO POSTPONE LATER AFTER WE HEAR IT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

SO I'LL WITHDRAW IT IF MY SECOND WOULD ALSO CONCUR WITH THE WITHDRAWAL SECOND.

OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY.

THEN THAT SETTLES THAT, AND WE WILL HEAR THE CASE AND THE CASE MANAGER WILL BE HERE FIRST AND YOU CAN SIT UNTIL, AND THEN YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN YOUR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND THANK YOU FOR FLYING IN FROM DENVER.

SO THANK YOU THAT DENMARK AND I AM STILL GOING TO WORK ON GETTING WE'RE GOING TO HEAR BE SET.

YES.

PRESENTATIONS THAT PRESENTATION FIRST, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET ONLINE, UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MIKE DEITZ.

I WORK WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I'M PRESENTING ITEM B SEVEN ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA ITEM B SEVEN IS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 7.

ALSO CALLED THE VILLAS AT SOUTH AUSTIN.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 73, 11 AND 73 13 BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.

IF YOU LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE AT 73 13 PLUS SPRINGS ROAD, IT'S A TRIANGULAR LOT.

THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.285 ACRES

[00:15:01]

IN SIZE.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SF FOR A C O AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.

UH, JUST SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK, TRUNK HILO TRAIL.

THERE ARE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.

THOSE ARE ZONES C S M U C O.

THEY'RE ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND EAST BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE LOT.

UH, THOSE ARE ZONED TO SF FOR A CEO LIKE THE SUBJECT SITE.

AND THERE'S ALSO AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE TO THE SOUTH AS ZONED IRR.

UH, IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IT RECORDED GAS EASEMENT ONSITE, WHICH REQUIRES A 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

ESSENTIALLY.

UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SF SIX ZONING TO CONSTRUCT SEVEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, WITH THE SIZE OF THE LOT.

THAT'S ROUGHLY SIX UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THE BUILDING DESIGN AND THE SITE LAYOUT ARE UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME.

THOSE WILL BE FLESHED OUT FURTHER WITH A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION.

A STAFF IS RECOMMEND RECOMMENDING TO REZONE TO SF SIX.

UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED, IS SITUATED BETWEEN A C S M U C O ZONE TO THE WEST, WHICH ALLOWS A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AS WELL AS A SF FOR ACO ZONE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST, WHICH HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET.

UH, IF THE SUBJECT SITE WERE TO BE REZONED TO SF SIX, IT WOULD MAINTAIN THAT SAME 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT A REZONING.

THE PROPERTY WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A TRANSITION ALONG BLESSED SPRINGS ROAD, WHERE YOU HAVE THE DENSER APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, AS WELL AS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE LESS DENSE SF FOR A DISTRICT.

UH, THE SF SIX DISTRICT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE CLUSTERING OF HOMES AS OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT, UH, WHERE THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE SUBDIVIDED.

AND THEN EACH NEW LOT WOULD REQUIRE FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED ROAD.

UH, GET THERE GIVEN THE SHAPE OF THE LOT THAT WOULD, MAY REQUIRE A INSTALLATION OF A NEW ROAD.

IT'S ALSO WORTH CONSIDERING GIVEN THE GAS EASEMENT AS WELL AS THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT.

THE CLUSTERING OF NEW RESIDENCES WOULD BE A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOR THE SITE AND STAFF'S OPINION.

UH, THIS DOES CONCLUDE MY CASE SUMMARY WITH THAT SAID I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

AND THE AGENT MR. IS ALSO IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND NOW, UM, MR. AND I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME, BUT THE MAN FROM DENVER, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, AND YOU WILL HAVE SIX MONTHS, YOU YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES, THREE MINUTES.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER LAYS ON THE RIVER BEFORE MR. MCKINNON PROCEEDS.

UM, I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE, UM, REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION.

WE CAN RUN THE CLOCK FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES, WHICH WOULD BE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL INCLUDED.

OKAY.

YEAH, YOU CAN REBUT YOURSELF THEN A PHACO.

MY NAME IS SRINIVAS.

AND, UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CONSIDERING I'M HERE FOR, UH, I'M THE OWNER AND APPLICANT FOR THE ZONING CASE C 14 20 22 0 0 6 7.

AND NEXT TIME, PEACE.

AND YOU SEE ON THE MAP, UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST OF THE BRASS SPRINGS ROAD AND, UH, SOUTH OF THE TRIANGLE.

THIS IS ON THE EAST OF, UH, SOUTH AUSTIN PART X.

I PLEASE, THIS PROPERTY IS 1.28 ACRES VACANT LOT CURRENTLY ZONED AS A FOUR FOOT SMALL FAMILY.

LOT AS PER THE CURRENT ZONING, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE UNIT ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED.

AND THE PROPOSED PROGRESS IS TO CHANGE IT TO SF SIX TOWNHOUSE IN CAMBODIA, LIKE SAY PLEASE, OR YOU SEE, UH, ON THE ZONING MAP, UH, ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE IS MULTIFAMILY CSM, SMU, AND, UH, AS A FORAY ON THE NORTH AND EAST AND AUTOMOBILE RUBBISH ON THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY ON A SUBJECT AND THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY IS TRIANGULAR NOT GOING DOWN TOWARDS EAST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE PROPOSED ZONING IS, UH, , UH, I'M PLANNING TO DEVELOP A SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY CONDOS.

THE REASON REQUEST FOR THE SF SIX IS, UH, THE LIMITATIONS OF PIPELINE AND, UH, NOT TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE ACCESS ONTO THE BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD WITH WHICH CARRIES SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC.

AND, UH, IT'S A SIX CAN ALLOW FLUSHING OF THE UNITS AND PROFILE.

I MEAN, CAN BE ACCESSED, CAN PROVIDE WITH SINGLE DRIVEWAY ON THE BLUFF SPRINGS STORE, NEXT TYPE OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SINCE THERE IS NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, THEN WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, LIKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

[00:20:01]

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY, THANKS.

AND THEN THE QUESTION OR DISCUSSIONS, QUESTIONS I'M LOOKING AT PEOPLE, UM, I GUESS SINCE YOU'RE UP HERE, WE'LL ASK YOU FIRST.

UM, DO YOU HAVE A SITE LAYOUT? NO, WE HAVEN'T GONE THAT FAR RIGHT NOW.

UH, IF IT'S A SIXTIES APPROACH, UH, WE ARE PLANNING TO PUSH THE UNITS TO THE SOUTH FARTHER AWAY FROM THE PIPELINE.

UH, WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

IT'S A DISTRICT TO MAINTAIN, UH, 50 FEET FROM THE PIPELINE CENTRAL LINE.

THAT'S 75 FEET FROM THE NOT THERE'LL BE ON THE PROPERTY.

ALL THE UNITS WILL BE ON THE SOUTH END AND THE NORTH END WILL BE GREEN AS, AS THE PERCENT.

SO HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH SEVEN? IF YOU HAVEN'T? UH, MY MYSELF, I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER, SO I JUST PUT TOGETHER ON THE CAR, BUT WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ANY OFFICIAL PROCESS IT'S CITY ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT YOU HAVE SORT OF LAID IT OUT.

YES.

UM, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, THE MAXIMUM COULD GO IS SEVEN WITH THE SAFE 25 FEET ROADWAY RATE.

THEN THE FIRE TRUCK TURNED AROUND AND ALL THAT THINGS.

THAT'S HOW I CAME UP WITH SEVEN.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS FROM ON FROM THE SCREENS? OKAY.

I SEE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE SCREENS.

NOW THAT I'M A THEN I GUESS, QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S PIPELINE ORDINANCE, IT WOULD APPLY UNDER BOTH THE SF SIX THE PIPELINE ORDERS SUPPLIES THE SAME IN EITHER CASE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE, UH, THE SF SIX WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE FURTHER SUBDIVISION, BUT THIS IS ALREADY A FLAT, A LOT OF, SO IT'S A PLANTED LOT.

THE PIPELINE ORDERS WILL BE THE SAME CONDITION, SAME RESTRICTIONS, THE SAME SETBACKS, NO MATTER WHAT THE ZONING IS, CAUSE THERE'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT SIX WOULD JUST ALLOW FOR CLUSTERING.

THE DSS SIX GIVES HIM THE FLEXIBILITY TO GET FURTHER AWAY IN THE PIPELINE DOORS.

CAUSE HE'S CLUSTERING NOT HAVING TO PUT IN A SUBDIVISION ROAD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BECOME AN IMPACT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I LOOKED AT WAS THE FACT THAT THE SF SIX GIVES HIM MORE FLEXIBILITY.

WE RESTRICT THE HEIGHT TO THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE UNDER SF FOUR, A IS THE SAME.

THE SETBACKS ARE THE SAME.

THIS GIVES HIM THE FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE AND PROVIDE A BETTER SUBDIVISION, NOT NECESSARILY MORE HOUSING, BUT A BETTER DEVELOPMENT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PIPELINE.

THAT IS IF YOU GO THROUGH A TRADITIONAL AND TRY TO CARVE IT UP INTO LOTS, BECAUSE IF BE CARVED UP A LOGIC AND A WINDUP WITH PFLAG, LOTS AND DUPLEX AND SOME FUNKY THINGS GOING ON WITH THE SUBDIVISION, WHEREAS FSF SIX WILL ALLOW THEM TO JUST COME INTO A SITE PLAN AND GET ALL THAT DONE AT ONE TIME WITH TOWNHOMES.

UH, I THINK WE'LL BE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND A MUCH BETTER PRODUCT FROM THE SAFETY STANDPOINT.

AND FROM THE SUBDIVISION STANDPOINT, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I LOOKED WAY.

I LOOKED AT THIS, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER GREENBURG.

SO THE, UM, CODE 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34, UM, SAYS IN CALCULATING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA IS EXCLUDED.

AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE REMAINING AREA IS? BECAUSE IT ALSO SAYS A RESIDENTIAL LOT.

THAT'S LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE MAY NOT INCLUDE A RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA.

SO WHEN YOU DO THAT CALCULATION, AFTER YOU TAKE OUT THE RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WITH MY RULER IT'S REAL CLOSE.

SO HAS THERE BEEN A CALCULATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ONE LOT, WHICH WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL LOT WOULD SATISFY THIS? UH, I PERSONALLY STAFF HASN'T, HASN'T DONE THE CALCULATION, UH, APART FROM EYEBALLING IT, AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, I, I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT IF YOU HAVE.

YES.

UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT ON BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN WE, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING.

SO FROM DATA UNDERSTANDING, IF WE ELIMINATE THE PIPELINE, UH, EASTMAN, THEN IT DOESN'T REQUIRE TO MEET ONE ACRE LOT.

IF IT'S MEETING, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE ACRE MINIMUM, LOT, WE ARE, IF YOU ELIMINATE THE PIPE, UH, PIPELINE EASEMENT, THEN IT, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE TO MEET ONE ACRE LOTS SINCE IT IS NOT CONSIDERED WITHIN THE PIPELINE EASTMAN, SINCE WE TAKE IT OUT, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW I'M READING THE CODE.

[00:25:01]

I MEAN THAT I JUST PULLED IT UP AND IT SAYS MEANS A PIPELINE DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSMISSION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA INCLUDES AN AREA WITHIN 25 FEET OF A HAZARDOUS PIPELINE IN AN AREA WITHIN A PA WITHIN A HAZARDOUS PIPELINE EASEMENT.

AND THEN WHAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SAID, A PARTY IS IN CALCULATING MINIMUM LOT UNDER THIS CHAPTER, A RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA IS EXCLUDED.

SO WE ACTUALLY, AND TO THE BACKUP, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO HAVE HAD SHOWING SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE PIPELINE EASEMENT WAS AND WE DIDN'T EVEN GET THE MAPS.

AND, BUT, UM, AND BUT TO SHOW SPECIFICALLY, AND ALSO TO HAVE A CALCULATION OF HOW MUCH CAUSE IT IS, IT DOES PLAY A ROLE IN WHETHER IT'S ONE ACRE, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING.

I MEAN, WE'RE HERE FOR A ZONING CASE.

THOSE RULES APPLY WHEN HE COMES IN AND FILES THIS SITE PLAN, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE REGULATIONS ARE.

AND THOSE ARE THE REGULATIONS.

HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BILL SEVEN UNITS, BUT THERE'S FLEX THE FLEXIBILITY AVAILABLE UNDER SF SIX IS GOING TO GET THE MOST NUMBER OF UNITS IN THERE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE REGULATION.

I WOULD DISAGREE AND SAY, IT'S POSSIBLE IF HE ENDS UP WITH LESS THAN AN ACRE, THAT HE CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING, WE SHOULD NOT ZONE IN A WAY THAT HE CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING.

MY, I THINK THIS SHOULD BE EXAMINED REALLY CAREFULLY BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION.

UM, ONE OTHER OPTION POSSIBLY THAT COULD GIVE YOU MORE UNITS.

IF THE SF DOESN'T WORK IS SF THREE, BECAUSE TWO UNITS ARE ALLOWED ON A LOT.

UM, MAYBE YOU CAN ONLY GET TO TWO LOTS, BUT THAT WOULD BE FOUR UNITS INSTEAD OF THREE, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN ONLY GET THREE WITH THE, UM, AS A FORAY.

BUT ANYWAY, I FEEL LIKE UNLESS WE KNOW THE EXACT ACREAGE REMAINING AND HOW THIS SECTION APPLIES, I WOULD VOTE TO DENY OR POSTPONE.

OKAY.

I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ENOUGH OF THOSE TO APPROVE.

SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT AND ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER KING HAS HIS HAND UP AND YOUTUBE CONNECTS, WELL, COMMISSIONER KING, WHO'S YOUR QUESTION FOR, UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF.

AND, UM, A BIG QUESTION IS ABOUT TH AS I UNDERSTAND, THE, THE, THE, THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER, UH, IS CURRENTLY SF FOR A C O AND IF WE, THIS ZONING IS APPROVED, THE REQUESTED ZONING IS APPROVED.

THE CEO GOES AWAY.

AND CAN STAFF EXPLAIN THAT CEO AND HOW REMOVING THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT CEO WOULD AFFECT THE REST OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS COVERED BY THE CEO? UH, CERTAINLY SO THE CEO, UH, JUST HAS ONE CONDITION ON THE, ON THE OVERLAY.

IT, UH, CURRENTLY RESTRICTS VEHICLE TRIPS, UH, CUMULATIVE TRIPS TO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY.

UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT WE'VE KIND OF GONE AWAY FROM THAT A LITTLE BIT.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY ATD, BUT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE BEHOLDEN TO THE 2000 TRIPS PER DAY REQUIREMENT.

CAN I BE SHOCKED? YOU GET TO DEATH CRISPR, THEY HAVE ANYTHING ON THERE.

PLEASE LET I WONDER, YOU KNOW, I THINK I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR THAT IF THE STAFF HAS FINISHED.

AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT STILL CONCERNS ME BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A CHUNK OUT OF A SITE THAT THERE'S THIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPLIED TO.

WE'RE TAKING A PIECE OUT OF THAT AND WILL NO LONGER APPLY.

AND YET WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT HERE.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT.

SO I, AGAIN, I'M UNCERTAIN ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THAT EFFECT THAT WOULD REALLY HAVE MATERIAL EFFECT.

IT WOULD HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, ON THE USEFULNESS OF THAT, THE SIDE IN TERMS OF PARKING, BUT ALSO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TRIPS, YOU KNOW, THE EFFECT ON THE TRIP COUNT TOTAL FOR THIS ENTIRE SITE, THAT'S COVERED BY THE CEO.

THIS, THIS IS NOT, THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS ONLY A PIECE OF THE PROPERTY, A PIECE OF A TOTAL SITE COVERED BY THE CEO, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS THAT RIGHT? STAFF TO CEO COVERS OTHER PROPERTIES, NOT JUST THIS ONE THAT'S CORRECTIVELY.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE NOW TAKING A PIECE OUT OF THIS PUZZLE HERE AND SAYING, NO, I, I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS ON THE REST OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE STILL COVERED BY THE CEO.

IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF IGNORE.

I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS, BUT IT JUST CONCERNS ME.

SO I, I THINK IT'S ANOTHER REASON WE NEED TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT AND IF WE'RE GOING TO PUSH FORWARD TONIGHT, THEN I CAN'T SUPPORT IT EITHER.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THE ZONING REQUEST.

I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO AUGUST 2ND.

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES COMMISSIONER SMITH,

[00:30:01]

MOTION TO POSTPONE.

IS THERE A SECOND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CASE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT.

SO, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING, WE HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OH YEAH.

MOTION, CHECK YOUR MACHINE WHILE HE'S ON ANDROIDS WITHIN TWO WEEKS, UM, THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT ALREADY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM BECAUSE IT'S AN ACTION ITEM ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND, AND CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO COMMENT IF THEY WANT TO ON THIS ITEM AND IT COMES BACK.

OKAY.

SO IT REMAINS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

SO THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS AND IT LOOKS UNANIMOUS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU FOR THAT GOOD DISCUSSION.

AND THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP AND FOR US ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS AND WE WILL GET FURTHER QUESTIONS, UM, TO YOU VIA THE CA CASE MANAGER.

SO THANK YOU, MR. SORRY ABOUT THE FLIGHT.

YES.

YES.

SAFE TRAVELS BACK TO DENVER.

YEAH.

COOLER WEATHER.

OKAY.

THEN

[B.9. Flood Regulations]

NEXT IS NINE V NINE CODE AMENDMENT FLOOD REGULATIONS, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FLINT AND REGULATIONS.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MEMBER MR. COURTNEY.

UM, DO YOU, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK UM, JUST THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

UM, I ALSO HAVE THE PRESENTATION FROM THE LAST MEETING TOO, IF THERE'S ANY DESIRE TO SEE A PORTION OF THAT AGAIN.

OKAY, GREAT.

WELL THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR BEING ON HAND.

SO THAT HELPS.

OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS AND I WILL RE COMMISSIONER KING, IT'S A CHAIR BASED ON THE DISCUSSION EARLIER IN OUR MEETING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF POSTPONING THIS, UH, SO WE COULD HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST WONDER, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THIS IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE, THE FLOOD, UH, COMMERCIAL FLOOD, PLAIN REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL'S MEETING ON, ON JULY THE 28TH.

SO CAN STAFF RESPOND TO THAT? AND, UH, IS THAT, IS THAT THE, THAT THE DEADLINE TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL? TH THAT'S THE SET DATE FOR COUNSEL? THE ACTUAL PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.

I SEE.

SO WE, WE STILL HAVE TIME BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL THAT'S.

THAT'S GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

SO I'M MORE COMFORTABLE WITH POSTPONING.

I DON'T WANT TO MISS THE WINDOW OF TIME.

UH, OH YEAH.

AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER KING COMMISSIONERS KING COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, AND COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR SUBMITTING BACKUP ON THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SO IS THERE A WILL OF THE PEOPLE HERE MOVE TO POSTPONE? OKAY.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING.

OKAY.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SECONDED BY TO OUR NEXT MEETING, TO OUR NEXT MEETING, THE SECONDED BY ANYBODY COMMISSIONER KING, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

AND THAT IS COMMISSIONERS GREENBERG.

UH KOBASA.

WAS YOUR HAND UP COMMISSIONER STERN OR NOT? IT WAS OKAY.

STERN BOON.

IT'S UNANIMOUS.

OKAY.

THANKS.

AND THEN OUR NEXT ITEM, AND WE CAN DO THIS ALSO IN POSTPONING,

[C.2. Discussion and possible action recommending to Council revisions to the Land Development Code regarding resubdivisions and connectivity. (Co-Sponsors Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa)]

A C TWO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS AND CONDUCTIVITY.

AND CONSIDERING THAT CHAIR BERRERA RAMIREZ WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN, UM, WELL, WE WORKED TOGETHER ON IT TOO, AND ALSO WITH COMMISSIONER STERN.

UM, SHE SHOULD PROBABLY BE HERE.

SO WHY DON'T WE POSTPONE THAT TO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? UM, I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

OKAY.

AND IS THERE A SECOND TO POSTPONE WITH THIS? I'M SORRY, ADAM C TWO C TWO.

IS THERE A SECOND? UM, COMMISSIONER STERN AND ANY DISCUSSION ALL DURING THAT? I'M SORRY.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER KING.

IS THIS A POSTPONEMENT? AUGUST 2ND? YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND IT IS SORRY, CHAIR.

YES.

YES, OF COURSE.

I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT'S ALLOWED IN DISCUSSION HERE.

I'M CURIOUS.

THE ORIGIN AND THE SIDE DOWN.

IS THERE ANY BACKGROUND ON THAT AVAILABLE? IT CAME FROM COMMISSIONER STERN.

SO WHICH ABOUT A, LET HIM GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER STERN.

YEAH.

WE WERE APPROVING A

[00:35:01]

SUBDIVISION IN THE ETJ.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THERE WERE CUL-DE-SACS ALL OVER IT.

THERE WERE A BUNCH OF DEAD END STREETS THROUGHOUT IT.

AND SO WHILE IT ISN'T IN A TRANSIT CORRIDOR YET, AND WHILE IT IS ON THE PERIPHERY, AT SOME POINT IT WILL BE CONSIDERED CENTRAL CITY AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE NOW AND IN THE FUTURE DESERVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A WALKABLE COMMUNITY THAT CONNECTS TO THE SURROUNDING STREETS RATHER THAN HAVING TO WALK IN CIRCLES THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, UM, WE, WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT, UM, PREVIOUS WORK DONE ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING DEN ED AND STREETS AND CUL-DE-SACS, AND SEE IF WE COULD, UM, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL ON ADJUSTING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THAT PARTICULAR WAY.

I HAVE, I HAVE SOME CURRENT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

SO, I MEAN, I CAN WAIT TO DISCUSS THOSE WITH THE NEXT MEETING.

I'M THE SAME WAY I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT AS WELL, BUT I THINK THERE'S A SOLUTION IN THERE, BUT IT MAY BE IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

I COMPLETELY AGREE.

WE NEED TO POSTPONE.

I AGREE.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KING D AND ANY OTHER RAISING HANDS OR, OKAY, GOOD.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING WHO MADE THE SECOND ON THAT ONE, I MADE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE WHO WAS THE SECOND START.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UNANIMOUS.

OKAY THEN D VISTA NATION COMMISSION.

YES.

WELL, IT'S CLEAR EVERYBODY HAS THEIR HOLIDAYS AT THIS TIME.

UH, SEE TO DISCUSSION WE HAD, YEAH, THAT WAS C2.

I WAS GOING TO, BUT I WAS THINKING TWO THOUGHTS AT ONCE.

WE HAD MORE PEOPLE AFTER THE FOURTH, ON THE 5TH OF JULY.

YEAH.

SO, UH,

[D.NOMINATIONS]

NOMINATE A MEMBER OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.

AND THE NOMINATION WAS GOING TO GO FOR COMMISSIONER COSTA, BUT HE'S NOT HERE.

SO DO WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL HE'S HERE? OR DO WE WANT TO NOMINATE ANOTHER SINCHIA OR ALSO IF THERE'S SOMEBODY YES.

GO COMMISSIONER GREENBURG.

UM, YEAH, LET'S WAIT AND SEE IF HE FEELS COMFORTABLE DOING IT.

AND HE DOESN'T HAVE THE PERFECT ATTENDANCE RECORD.

IT'S A HARD, IT'S A HARD MEETING TO GET TO BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY I WAS ON IT, COMMISSIONER KING.

UH, AND IF WE WORKED AT POSTPONE THIS DECISION UNTIL OUR AUGUST 2ND MEETING, THE NEXT SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 10TH.

SO IF WE DID IT ON AUGUST 2ND, IT COULD STILL BE CONFIRMED BEFORE THE NEXT COMMITTEE CONFIRMED BEFORE COUNCIL.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER HE'S AN .

SO THERE IS SOME, UH, TIMING TO CONSIDER, UM, THE COUNCIL MEET, UH, JULY 28TH AND SEPTEMBER 1ST.

AND SO THEY WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM, UH, THE NOMINATION.

SO IT CAN'T BE, YEAH.

SO WE HAVE TO HEAR IT AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.

NOW, IF THERE'S, OR WE SH IF IT'S A CONSIDERATION, IF THEIR NEXT MEETING IS JULY 28TH, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER WE MAKE IT AN HOUR.

GOT THOSE.

NEVERMIND.

YES.

AND AS A S AS A YEAH.

AND YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SOME COMMISSIONS HAVE HOLDOVER CAPACITY.

DO WE KNOW IF THAT ONE, THE COMMITTEE SURE.

COMMISSION-WISE ON IT? I BELIEVE DUE TO THE, UM, ORDINARILY YOU WOULD HAVE A HOLD OVER IT, BECAUSE THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE A MEMBER, I WAS REAPPOINTED TO A REAPPOINTED TO THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE UMBRELLA, UH, COMMISSION, THEREFORE, UH, THE, UH, SEAT AS A VACANT UNTIL A MEMBER IS THE NOMINATED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL.

IS THERE ANYBODY OF THE SEVEN PEOPLE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SIT ON THIS COMMITTEE? AND IS THAT A NOD FROM COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? OH, JUST THAT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK.

OKAY.

AND ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER BOON OR COMMISSIONER STERN BOONE IS ON, I THINK IT'S PREFERABLE TO GO WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ON ANYTHING YET.

AND SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOOKING AT YOU COMMISSIONER STERN, UM, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER BOONE YOU'RE ON SOMETHING, RIGHT.

JUST WANT TO HAVE EQUITY HERE.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, YOU JUST GOT APPOINTED TO SOMETHING COMMISSIONER KING.

I KNOW YOU WERE ON SMALL AREA.

I WAS ON IT WITH YOU A LONG TIME AGO.

GREENBERG IS ON SMALL AREA, SMALL AREA COMMISSIONER SMITH.

I'M ON COMPREHENSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLIP.

SO, BUT YEAH.

SO CAN YOU REMEMBER, IS IT USUALLY LIKE LUNCHTIME? IT IS LUNCHTIME, SO THAT, YEAH.

THAT'S I, AND YOU CAN ATTEND REMOTELY.

YES.

WHICH IS NICE.

SO IF HE'S

[00:40:01]

SEEING NOBODY JUST JUMPING OUT OF THEIR SEATS, WE WILL LET ME MAKE A MOTION TO JUST GET THIS THING, GOING TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER ACOSTA ONTO THE SMALLER PLANNING.

OKAY.

THAT'S GREAT.

AND I I'LL SECOND IT AND, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

OKAY.

GREAT.

UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PULLING US OUT OF A STICKY SITUATION.

SO WE DON'T PROCRASTINATE ON EVERYTHING.

WELL, AND WE NEED TO GET A SEAT IN THE SEAT.

YEAH.

OR ELSE THEY MAY NOT HAVE A MEETING.

OKAY.

SO THAT IS ANY E FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, SEEING NONE.

[F.COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS]

OKAY.

ANY COMMITTEE REPORTS AND WORKING GROUPS, NOTHING ON, ON THE CUBS NOTICES.

I MEAN THE CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE DID NOT MEET AND CODES AND ORDINANCES MEETS TOMORROW, AND WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR BUSINESSES, FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND ANY OTHER UPDATES.

AND IF NOT, I'M CALLING IT A JOURNEY AND BACK OUT INTO THE THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU EVERYONE.

THANK YOU.

YEAH.

THANK YOU.