[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
SINCE I WILL NOW CALL THE MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER IT IS 6:01 PM.
AND I'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
UM, COMMISSIONER KOSTA IS NOT HERE.
I'M HERE ABOUT
I'M GOING TO SHARE A DINKLER PRESENT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS HERE.
CAN I SHARE KING YOUR COMMISSIONER KIELBASA HERE? COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE.
CAN I SHARE A THOMPSON AND COMMISSIONER WOODY? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO ON TO
[Consent Agenda]
THE CONSENT AGENDA FIRST WE HAVE.ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? SORRY.
IF YOU COULD BEAR WITH ME JUST ONE SECOND.
COULD I REFRESH THE EXCEL SHEET? OKAY.
AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, I AM POOLING A SUBDIVISION.
I HAD A QUESTION OUT TO THE, TO THE CASE MANAGER AND DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER BACK.
I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH ANDREW ABOUT IT.
IT'S THE I GO THROUGH ALL MY PAPERS.
UM, IT IS, UH, 15, UH, THE SON CHASE MIRADOR PHASE ONE SECTION ONE.
AND THAT LOOKS LIKE MISS SOME NURSE.
SO MAYBE SHE'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER LIAISON AND VERA, UM, UH, REACHING OUT TO THE STAFF ON THAT MATTER AND, UH, JUST CONFIRMING, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ON TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES THEN.HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO APPROVE, UM, LOOK AT THE MINUTES AND ARE THERE ANY REQUESTED CHANGES? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO, UM, MEDICARE, UM, LOOKING AT THE CONSENT AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO, UM, UM, ABSTAIN FROM ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ABOUT THE EXPO CENTER PARKING LOT.
I WILL BE ACTUALLY, I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE ITEM AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING IT.
UM, SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM.
NUMBER TWO HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
I HAD NUMBER THREE AT C 14, 20 22 0 0 1 6 23 0 1, OAK VALLEY, DRY ROAD.
AND IT'S WEIRD CAUSE THERE'S NO LETTER.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THE NUMBERS.
THREE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION THAT C 14 20 22 0 0 6 7 VIAS AS AT SOUTH AUSTIN.
NUMBER FOUR IS A REZONING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
C 8 1 4 2009 0 1 3 9 0 3 BULL CREEK PET AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, UH, ITEM FIVE.
REZONING IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
C 14 20 22 0 0 7 5 AT 75 0 1 CAPITOL, TEXAS.
NUMBER SIX IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6TH.
IT'S A REZONING FOR C 14 20 22 0 0 5 0 0 ALLENDALE VILLAGE.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER EIGHT C 14 20 22 0 0 3 9.
PEACEFUL HILL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20TH.
ITEM NINE, REZONING WILL BE UP FOR DISCUSSION C 14 20 22 0 0 5 3 SWANSON'S RAMPS, SINGLE FAMILY.
I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE THAT ONE IN ORDER.
UM, ITEM 10 IS A REZONING FOR JUST UP FOR DISCUSSION C 14 20 22 0 0 5 6 74 15 ALBERT ROAD, REZONING.
NUMBER 11 IS A REZONING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, C 14 20 22 0 0 6 6 12 1 9 5 METRIC ITEM 12 AS A SITE PLAN VARIANCE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, SP 20 21 0 1 27 C MERCEDES-BENZ SOUTH AUSTIN, 13 CONSENT, FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C OH, OH, I WROTE IT WRONG.
SO THAT ONE IS SO ITEM 13 IS DISAPPROVED FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND ALSO ON THE CONSENT.
UM, SO C 8 20 20 0 1 1 TWO.ONE EIGHT BREAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE ONE FINAL PLAT.
UM, 14 IS DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, BUT WE ARE APPROVING THE VARIANCES AS SHOWN.
SO PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH VARIANCES C 8 20 21 0 1 5 2 PINNACLE AT WILD HORSE RANCH AND THE REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF
[00:05:01]
REPORT.UH, ITEM 15 COMMISSIONER KOBASA HAS ASKED A POOL FOR QUESTIONS.
SO THAT'S UM, CAJ 2008 0 2 1 TWO.ZERO ONE.ONE, A SON CHASE MIRADOR PHASE ONE, SECTION ONE, A, UM, ITEM SIX 16 IS A PARTIAL PLAT VACATION ON CONSENT, C EIGHT S 79 0 1 7 VAC CIRCLE, RANCH ESTATES VACATION OF LOTS, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE ITEM 17, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
FINAL PLAT C 8 20 22 0 1 4 7 0 8 AND MAXWELL SUBDIVISION DISTRICT THREE, ITEM 18 ALSO DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
FINAL PLATFORM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 18 0 1 65 DOCK FOR A CASCADES AT ONION CREEK EAST.
AND THEN THE FINAL ITEM IS 19 THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING.
SO TO REVIEW, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
THREE WILL BE DISCUSSION ITEMS, 4, 5, 4, AND FIVE ON CONSENT.
SIX IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER SIX, SEVEN HAS CONSENT.
EIGHT IS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN MET.
SO SEPTEMBER 20TH, EIGHT, NINE AND 10 ARE DISCUSSION 11, 12 ARE CONSENT 13 AND 14 IS DISAPPROVED FOR CONDITIONS.
15 WE'LL BE PULLING FOR DISCUSSION.
16 IS CONSENT 17 AND 18 ARE DISAPPROVAL DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT AND 19 WILL BE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER KING.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO VERIFY, UH, ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS THERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? THERE ARE NONE.
WE SEE PEOPLE RAISING THEIR HANDS.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE STAFF.
IF THEY'VE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM WOULD BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
OR WE CAN ALWAYS PULL IT IF MADAM CHAIR.
CAN IT BE PART OF, UH, THE COMMUNITY COMMENT INSTEAD OF PULLING IT? NO.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING COMMISSIONER KING.
VANDERVEER THE SPEAKERS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM.
UM, SO YEAH, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK IF IT'S ALREADY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
NO, THE SPEAKERS DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DO I SEE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ WITH THE DISAPPROVALS BASED ON EXHIBIT C AND THE STAFF BACKUP.
AND ONE NOTE THAT'S A LITTLE ODD IS THAT ITEM NUMBER, UM, 14 IS WE'RE DISAPPROVING IT FOR REASONS IN THE, OF AN EXHIBIT STABLE, WE ARE APPROVING THE VARIANCES.
SO IT'S JUST A LITTLE ODD THERE.
I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON AS RED AND, UH, CHAIR.
UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAS HER HAND UP AND THEN WE'LL WELL DISAPPROVING AND THEN APPROVING THE VARIANCE.
I'M SORRY, CAN WE JUST POSTPONE THE VARIANCE? SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCES APPROVED SO THAT YOU CAN, WHEN YOU COME BACK ON THE NEXT TIME, YOU'LL JUST BE ON CONSENT AGENDA AND IT GOES TO THE PROCESS.
THERE'S THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES.
CAN WE SHARE A KING? NO, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
SO IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
UH, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM
[3. Rezoning: C14-2022-0067 - Villas at South Austin; District 2]
DISCUSSION, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, CHAIR.COULD, COULD YOU TELL ME WHO'S TALKING TO THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER KOBASA VICE-CHAIR KOBASA THANK YOU.
UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I WORK WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DIVISION.
I'M PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER THREE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
UH, THE CASE NUMBER FOR REFERENCE IS C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 7 IS THE VILLAS AT SOUTH AUSTIN PROJECT.
UH, THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD AND CONSIDERED AT THE JULY 19TH COMMISSION MEETING, UH, WHERE IT WAS POSTPONED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
HOWEVER, FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY, UH, JUST TO
[00:10:01]
MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN HERE, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 73, 11 AND 73 13 BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS A TRIANGULAR LOT.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.28, FIVE ACRES IN SIZE IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF OR A C O.
AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.
UH, JUST SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK YELLOW TRAIL.
THERE ARE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS ACROSS BLUE SPRINGS ROAD.
AND THOSE ARE ZONES C S M U C O.
AND THERE'S ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND EAST BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE SITE.
AND THOSE ARE ZONED SF FOR ACO, UH, AS WELL AS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE SOUTH, WHICH IS ZONED I R R A.
IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THERE'S A RECORDED GAS EASEMENT ONSITE REQUIRING A 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BACKUP TO THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SF SIX ZONING TO CONSTRUCT SEVEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY SIX UNITS PER ACRE, UH, SPECIFICS ABOUT THE BUILDING DESIGN AND THE SITE LAYOUT ARE NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, TO REZONE TO SF SIX.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED BETWEEN A, A C S M U C O ZONE TO THE WEST, WHICH ARE THOSE APARTMENTS.
AND THEY ALLOW A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
AND THAT DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE SF FOUR, A C O ZONE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST, WHICH HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, IF THE SUBJECT SITE WERE TO BE REZONED TO SF SIX, IT WOULD MAINTAIN THE SAME 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
I REZONING THE PROPERTY, BUT ALSO PROVIDE A TRANSITION ALONG BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD, UH, BETWEEN THE DENSER APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, AS WELL AS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS YOU GET INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE SF SIX DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CLUSTERING OF HOMES, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT RULES UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE SUBDIVIDED IN EACH NEW LOT.
REBEL WOULD REQUIRE FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED ROAD.
HOWEVER, WITH THE CLUSTERING RULES, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT WITH THE SF SIX ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE SEVEN UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN, UH, BEEN PROPOSED, EXCUSE ME, UH, GIVEN THE GAS EASEMENT LOCATION AND THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, UH, THE CLUSTERING OF RESIDENCES, UH, DOES SEEM TO BE A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN STAFF'S OPINION.
UH, JUMPING AHEAD TO THE JULY 19TH MEETING, THE COMMISSION DID PRESENT, UH, MULTIPLE CONCERNS.
UH, THE FIRST ONE WAS THAT THE PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY RUN A FOUL OF CHAPTER 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS PIPELINES.
UH, IN, IN SPECIFICS CONCERNS WERE PRESENTED THAT THE PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY VIOLATE THAT CODE AS THE SITE WOULD END UP, UH, LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE AFTER EXCLUDING THE RESTRICTED PIPELINE AREA.
AND THE CODE DOES SPECIFY THAT RESIDENTIAL LOTS CAN NOT BE LESS THAN ONES THAT ONE ACRE IN SIZE WHEN YOU EXCLUDE THE PIPELINE AREA.
SO AGAIN, THE SITE IS 1.285 ACRES, BUT IF YOU WERE TO NET OUT THE PIPELINE AREA, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE ONE ACRE SPECIFIED IN THE CODE.
HOWEVER, A STAFF WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THIS CODE SECTION IN QUESTION, A ONLY APPLIES TO SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
THE CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2003, THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTION I SHOULD SAY.
AND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LOT ORIGINALLY OCCURRED IN 2016.
SO AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THAT CODE, UH, WHAT, EXCUSE ME, UH, THE SITE'S ALREADY APPLIED LOT.
AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 2016, WHICH IS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE, UH, STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY NOTATIONS OR VARIANCES FOR THE SUBJECT SITE TO THAT CODE.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROPOSED TO RE SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.
THEY'VE NOT, UH, PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE LOT LINES IN ANY WAY AS SUCH A, THIS LOT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING W UH, LAWFULLY EXISTING THAT IS RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH THE PIPELINE ON IT.
AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO STAFF THAT THE, UH, THIS, THIS PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION CODE WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE.
UH, THE SECOND THING THAT, OR SECOND CONCERN THAT THE COMMISSION BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE JULY 19TH MEETING, UH, WAS THAT, UH, POTENTIALLY REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH RIGHT NOW THERE'S JUST ONE CONDITION WHICH RESTRICTS, UH, CUMULATIVE VEHICULAR TRIPS.
AND, UH, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS PARTICULARLY RELATED TO HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTIES REMAINING IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SO IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR THIS PROPERTY, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THOSE THAT ARE STILL GOVERNED BY THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? UH, THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY ATD FOR POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
STAFF ALSO DISCUSSED THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH THEM.
UH, ATD DID NOTE THAT THE, UH, THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE THAT ESTABLISHED THAT CEO HAS ALREADY BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED NOW, UH, WITH 135 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AN ESTIMATED 1,330 CUMULATIVE TRIPS PER DAY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SEVEN DETACHED CONDOS WOULD GENERATE AN ESTIMATED 87 TRIPS PER DAY.
UM, THAT SAID IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN THE FUTURE OF THE SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED TO THE MAXIMUM, UH, DENSITY ALLOWED, WHICH WOULD GENERATE ABOUT 143 TRIPS PER DAY.
UH, THAT BEING THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY FULLY BUILT OUT, ATD
[00:15:01]
DID INDICATE THAT A VEHICLE TRIP RESTRICTION IS NOT PRODUCTIVE IN THIS INSTANCE.AND THEY, AGAIN RECOMMENDED A REMOVAL OF THE CEO FROM THIS PROJECT.
UH, STAFF WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR REMOVING CEO'S AS PART OF REZONING APPLICATIONS WHERE THE SAME CUMULATIVE RE VEHICULAR TRIP RESTRICTION WAS APPLIED.
UH, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEVEN UNITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY ATD.
AND AS SUCH STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CEO, UH, AS PART OF THIS REZONING EFFORT IS WARRANTED.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY CASE SUMMARY WITHOUT OF IT, WITH THAT SAID I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU MIGHT HAVE THE AGENT, MR.
WILL I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MR. MINECON? SEE FOR FIVE MINUTES? YEAH.
UH, I'M HERE TO SEEK ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION BEGINNING WITH, UH, MS. BRANDON MCKINNEY, MR. MCKINNEY, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SO I'M IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WANTED TO BRING UP A FEW POINTS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UM, UH, PROPERTY, ONE BLUFFS RINGS AND WILLIAM CANNON IS ALREADY A MAJOR CHOKE POINT.
IT'S A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY FOR EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THAT POINT.
UM, IT'S ALREADY INCREDIBLY OVERSTRESSED.
UM, I REALIZED THAT THIS IS ONLY SEVEN UNITS, BUT COULD BE MORE AND SETS PRECEDENT FOR, UM, NOT HOLDING DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR DEALING WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO THE AREA.
UM, SO ANOTHER UNIQUE INTRA, UH, UNIQUE PROBLEM WITH THIS AREA IS, UM, IT'S GOING TO CREATE A NEW, DANGEROUS SCENARIO.
UM, WE HAVE AN EXISTING ONE JUST NORTH OF THIS COMING SOUTH ON BLUFF SPRINGS AT BLUE MEADOWS.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS TRAFFIC COMES SOUTH.
SO THE LEFT LANE AT THE LIGHT GETS BLOCKED UP.
SO PEOPLE JUMPED TO THE RIGHT LANE.
AND THEN THOSE OF US THAT LIVE ON A LATER I PASS HAVE TO TURN LEFT JUST AFTER THAT LIGHT.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE COME SOUTH JUMPED TO THE, TO THE RIGHT LANE, JUMP IMMEDIATELY BACK TO THE LEFT, AND IT'S A NEAR REAR END EVERY TIME.
AND IF YOU RIDE A BIKE, WHICH I DO, IT'S ESSENTIALLY SUICIDAL TO SIT IN THAT LEFT LANE.
SO THIS, UH, FROM BLUE MEADOW TO ALLEGRA PASS IS 400 FEET PAST THE LIGHT.
THIS PROPOSAL COULD BE AS SHORT AS 250 FEET, IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THE NEXT PIECE IS THAT, UM, THE CASE FILE FOR THIS INDICATES THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE APARTMENTS ALREADY BUILT ACROSS THE ROAD ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS, HAVE A SIDEWALK THERE.
IT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS, AND THERE IS NO SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE AT ALL WITHOUT PEOPLE CREATING AN INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS SCENARIO AND CROSSING A FOUR LANE ROAD THAT HAS TRAFFIC AT HIGH SPEED.
UM, THE CASE FILE ALSO INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ALL NORMAL TREE PROTECTIONS.
AND, UM, AS WE CAN SEE ON GOOGLE MAPS FROM APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEAR-CUT.
SO WE CAN'T PROTECT THE TREES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT DOWN.
UM, I ALSO READ THAT THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF CAP METRO BUS STOP, AND IT'S VERY CLOSE, BUT IT IS AT 0.3 OF A MILE TO THE STOP AT BLUE MEADOW.
SO IT'S VERY CLOSE, BUT, UM, FOR SEVERAL OF THE, THE REGULATIONS HERE, WE'RE SORT OF HAND-WAVING AND LETTING THEM GO FOR ONE OF THOSE, THAT CAN BE OKAY, WE'RE DOING THAT FOR SEVERAL THINGS HERE.
AND THEN THE LAST MAJOR POINT THAT I WANT TO BRING UP IS THAT THE ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM DID NOT INCLUDE THIS CASE.
SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THIS ONLINE, OTHER CASES BEFORE THE SPORT ARE THERE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT.
[00:20:01]
YOU.WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. MOSES FOR THREE MINUTES.
IS IT TRUE THAT IF 20% OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THAT IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE? OKAY.
SO ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER, THE RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER COMPLETELY OBJECTS, AND THAT'S 50% AT LEAST OF THE PROPOSED REZONING ON THE NORTH SIDE.
MOST OF THE RESIDENTS WHO I SPOKE TO DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE PROPOSED REZONING UNTIL LAST NIGHT, AT WHICH POINT THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO.
SO, UH, MANY OF THEM FILLED OUT THE, THE FORMS THAT WERE, THAT WERE SENT TO US.
SOME OF THEM ALREADY HAD COPIES AND FILLED THEM OUT.
UM, DO YOU HAVE THEM? YES, WE DO HAVE THEM.
THERE'S ABOUT 15, WHICH IS THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ON THE NORTH SIDE, THAT OBJECT AS WELL.
SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO TAKE THAT INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION THAT BY FAR 20% OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS DO OBJECT TO THIS.
SO I'M ALSO A HOMEOWNER IN THE SUBDIVISION.
AND I PURCHASED IN RELIANCE ON MY OWN FAMILY'S PEACEFUL AND QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOME.
AND IT IS INCOMPATIBLE TO HAVE A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT JUST ABUTTING OUR BACKYARDS.
WHY IS THAT? WELL, WE KNOW FROM THE MULTIFAMILY HOMES AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? IT'S SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING SIX, SEVEN UNITS.
SO IT'S NOT MULTIFACETED SF SIX.
SO THAT WAS DESCRIBED IN OUR DOCUMENTS THAT CAME TO US AS MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUMS AND UP TO 60 FEET IS WHAT WE WERE JUST TOLD.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO, SO WHAT, THE PROPOSAL THAT WE GOT IN THE MAIL WAS IT SAID, I'LL TELL YOU JUST A SECOND.
I THINK IT'S 35 THAT YOU WANTED TO MOVE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SMALL LOT DISTRICT TO TOWNHOME AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENT DISTRICT.
SO YES, THAT'S STILL, IT'S STILL SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY.
WHAT I CONSIDER MULTI-FAMILY OKAY.
SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU S WHEN YOU BUILD A CONDOMINIUM, HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN, IN IT? SO I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT THERE'S.
SO EACH ZONING TYPE HAS, UH, IT'S, IT'S LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF SPACE, RIGHT? SO THERE ARE SO MANY, AND THIS PARTICULAR, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS CONSTRAINED BY A GAS LINE.
SO THERE HAS TO BE, THERE WILL BE A HUNDRED FEET SEPARATING YOU FROM THIS, FROM THE PEOPLE, AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET SEPARATING YOU FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WILL LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THERE'S 50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE GAS LINE.
SO THE LONG-TERM CONCERN IS THE PRECEDENT.
IT SETS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST ON THIS SMALL LOT, BUT ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR AND ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR AND ON THE ONE NEXT DOOR.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 FEET.
SO NOTHING WILL BE 60 FEET IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE'RE AT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
AND WHAT'S CONCERNING IS THE LONG-TERM PRECEDENT OF OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONES, MOVING INTO CONDOMINIUM, UM, RESIDENT DISTRICTS, WHICH THIS IS PROPOSED, AND THOSE LOTS COULD BE BIGGER AND THE PROPERTIES COULD GO UP HIGHER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF EMPTY LAND.
SO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS FROM THE MULTIFAMILY.
HIGH-RISES ACROSS BLUFF SPRINGS.
THEY'RE NOT ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET.
WE ARE BUFFERED BY BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD.
WHAT HAPPENS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IS EXTRAORDINARY.
I INTERRUPTED YOU SEVERAL TIMES, WHICH IS HIGH CRIME.
SO WE'VE HAD FIVE MURDERS IN THE, UH, IN THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX, RIGHT ACROSS FROM BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.
[00:25:02]
I DON'T SEE IT GETTING BETTER, BETTER.UM, THERE'S, THERE'S NO INDICATION CRIME HAS, HAS BEEN REDUCED.
UM, SO AS, UM, MY NEIGHBOR BRANDON MENTIONED, WE HAVE TRAFFIC JAMS ALREADY.
IT TAKES ME A HALF AN HOUR JUST TO GET FROM MY HOME A MILE, UH, FROM 35, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ON, UM, BLUFF SPRINGS, JUST GETTING OUT FUNNELING IS VERY DIFFICULT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE AUSTIN.
WE, WE WANT TO PROTECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT JUST FOR THE TREES THAT WERE, UM, ILLEGALLY TAKEN DOWN.
WE HAD SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE TREES, BUT FOR OUR ANIMAL BRETHREN AND FOR OURSELVES.
SO I HOPE THAT THE, YOU CONSIDER VOTING AS A SUPER MAJORITY AND CONSIDER GIVING US MORE TIME TO GET THE OPINIONS OF EVERYBODY THAT IS AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER LAND OWNER.
CAN I, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, SO EVERYBODY THAT LIVES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PREP, HOW MANY, 500 FEET.
IT SHOULD HAVE, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING IN THE MAIL NOTIFICATION IN THE MAIL.
WELL, TO RECEIVE IT, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON TRANQUILLO TRAIL THAT ABUTS TO THE NORTH END OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY DID NOT GET NOTICED.
THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED IT IN THE MAIL, BUT, UH, BUT FOR, FOR THEM, THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, SO MAYBE THEY COULD BE NOTICED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT ANYWAY, YOU HAVE THEIR OPINIONS, HEAR THEIR OBJECTIONS.
AND AS FAR AS THE HOMEOWNER ON THE SOUTH SIDE, HE'S NOT WITH US TONIGHT, BUT I KNOW FROM KNOWING HIM IN PERSON, HE OBJECTS.
AND WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER WALKING.
NOW IT'S JUST GOING TO CORRECT.
CAN YOU ALL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND JUST SF SIX HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 57, 50 SQUARE FEET.
UM, MY MOTHER AND I HAVE LIVED ON A SPEEDO COVE FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS NOW.
AND, UM, MY MOTHER IS MEXICAN AND, UM, A LOT OF THE HOMEOWNERS RIGHT HERE ON CHUNK WILLOW TRAIL ARE MEXICAN AS WELL.
AND, UM, I THINK THEY WERE PRETTY UNAWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT COMING, HOWEVER LONG THE PROJECT IS.
UM, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT MORE AWARE TO THEM ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
UM, IT SEEMS, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT MOST OF THEM ARE JUST SPANISH SPEAKERS, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, THEY CAN'T VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 1ST OR FOR, UM, FOR THE CITIES FROM, UH, FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, I THINK THAT GIVES ME SOME MORE TIME TO, TO GET MORE OPINIONS ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PROJECT.
SORRY, THE PROCESS IS WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL THAT MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
YOU JUST MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.
UM, I ALMOST, I'M OBVIOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT.
UM, I ALSO RIDE A BICYCLE ON BLUFF SPRINGS AND IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
THERE'S NO BIKE LANE AND TRAFFIC HAS ALMOST, I DON'T EVEN KNOW QUADRUPLED IN THE LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC BY A LOT MORE.
UM, I JUST, I THINK THAT, UM, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THOSE HOMES NEED TO BE MADE A LITTLE BIT MORE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON OR WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN RIGHT BEHIND THEIR HOMES.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT THREE MINUTES REBUTTAL, MR. MCCANEY AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, WE ARE NOT BUILDING ANY TALL APARTMENTS OR HIGH-RISES THE LOT CURRENTLY IS 1.3 ACRE AND CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS TO BUILD
[00:30:02]
PROBABLY 12, 13 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SINCE 3,600 SQUARE FEET.IT'S A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, BUT THERE IS THE 50 50 IS MEANT ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE GAS LINE.
AND ALSO 25 FEET AWAY FROM THE 50 IS MEANT IS THE BILLING RESTRICTION.
THE ONLY REASON TO BRING DOWN THE 14 UNITS TO SEVEN UNITS IS TO STAY AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE PIPELINE AND CLUSTER ALL THOSE UNITS.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE ARE PROPOSING OR REQUESTING REZONING.
UH, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS UP ON THE NORTH AND THE PROPOSED UNIT WOULD BE 78 TO 80 FEET.
THAT'S AS WIDE AS BLUFFING STORE AND ALSO IN THE PREVIOUS SESSION AS, UH, ATD RECOMMENDED, UH, THERE WILL BE WIDENING ON THE BLUFF BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD FOR A HUNDRED FEET AND FUTURE.
SO THEY RECOMMENDED US TO LEAVE THAT AND LEAVE THAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ARE ACCOMMODATING BIKE LANES, BUT EXCHANGE PROFIT INTO THAT FUTURE PLANS.
BUT IF THIS PROPERTY CAUSES OR CREATES ANY MORE ISSUES, WE ARE DEFINITELY OPEN TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE MEASURES.
I MYSELF WANTED TO MOVE TO AUSTIN ALONG WITH MY FRIENDS.
SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THE PLACE SAFE, UH, TO REINSTATE THAT, UH, SEVEN SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS THAT'S SAME SINGLE FAMILY.
ONE STORY UNITS WILL BE DEVELOPED, BUT LET'S START INTO ONE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE ARE REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM
UM, SO DO I SEE, UM, WELL, DO WE WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AREA.
SO COMMISSIONER SMITH MAKES A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'M NOT LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT MY COMPUTER AND NOT LOOKING AT, OH, IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER KING IS SECONDING.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, DISCUSSION, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. DATES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED AFTER THIS, THE REQUIREMENTS FROM SECTION 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34 WERE PART OF THE CODE.
SO IT WAS SUBDIVIDED INCORRECTLY OR ILLEGALLY.
UM, BUT IT WAS, UM, IT WAS IN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS AND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION WAS DONE WITH PERMITS AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE DONE, BEEN DONE LAWFULLY.
I CAN'T SPECULATE, UH, AS TO WHETHER SOMEBODY MISSED SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL LOT AS IT IS TODAY WITH THE, WITH THE PIPELINE ON IT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT THE TREES.
SO WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS A HEAVILY WOODED AREA AND IT'S NO LONGER THAT WAY.
HOW, WHAT, I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OR DO WE ASSUME THAT THEY WERE ALL LESS THAN 12 INCHES? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU HOW'S THAT? UM, YEAH, I TH I THINK IT, UH, I THINK PERHAPS IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF WE, UH, HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THERE'S AN EXPLANATION OFFERED THAT I COULD NOT CERTAINLY LOOK INTO REPERCUSSIONS FOR THAT.
UM, VERY PRESSURED, UH, THE PRE SERVICES AND THEY WENT BACK AND THEY DID A SURVEY AND THE SAID, UH, THESE ARE THE TREES THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CUT DOWN OR BRING DOWN.
AND THESE ARE NOT A TREATMENT.
THEY USED LANG TECHNOLOGY SAYING THAT NOT PROTECTED.
AND, UH, THAT'S BASED ON THE TRUNK WEIGHT.
AND, UH, THEY COUNTED THREE, FOUR TREES THAT ARE WIDER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT REQUIRES PERMIT.
AND THEY DIDN'T TOUCH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SMALLER BANQUET THREES.
THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK, WHERE IS YOUR TREE SURVEY? UM, YOU SHOULD'VE HAD A TREE SURVEY DONE FOR THIS BEFORE YOU REMOVED ANY TREES? NO, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH.
THEY MANUALLY INSPECTED WHEN I WAS PURCHASING THEIR ROBERT REED SERVICES.
UH, WE OFFICIALLY HIRED THEM TO INSPECT AND CLEAR WHATEVER IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT.
SO YOU GOT A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE TREES.
[00:35:02]
I MEAN, NO.THEY MENTIONED, UH, ANY TREES THAT ARE CERTAIN DIAMETER, MORE THAN 39 METER.
THEY SAID, UH, THEY ARE NOT TOUCHING ANY OF THOSE PRIESTS, BUT WHICH ARE SMALLER TREES.
OH, I WASN'T SURE ON THAT, BUT FOR VALUE, BUT THEY DID CHECK THAT AND THEY MARK, WHICH ARE WIDER THAN THAT, THEY JUST LEFT THEM.
DID YOU CALL ON ME? I'M SORRY.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION, UH, BUT, UH, IT DOES, THE WOODEN STAFF MAKES, SO I UNDERSTAND STAFF WAS THERE WITH THE APPLICANT AND I COULD, I'M NOT SURE.
IS HE SAYING THAT THE STAFF GAVE HIM THE VERBAL OKAY.
TO CUT DOWN TREES? I THINK HE WAS WORKING WITH AN ARBORIST AND THE ARBORIST USED HIS BEST JUDGMENT WHEN DECIDING WHICH TREE OR A TREE COMPANY OF SOME SORT.
SO DID THE CAN, IS THERE ANY, UH, TH TH TH THE TREE COMPANY WOULD, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DIDN'T THAT, THAT, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING TO ME THERE, UH, THAT SO MANY OF THE TREES WERE CLEARED THERE, A TREE COMPANY TO SUBMIT, UH, WHATEVER EVALUATION THEY PERFORM, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT RIGHT.
WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR THEM MEETING TONIGHT.
SO WE COULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR CLEAR CUTTING OR CUTTING, YOU KNOW, REMOVING A LOT OF THE TREES THERE, VEGETATION.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS IT GETS TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A POTENTIAL CONCERN, BUT I DO WANT TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION HERE.
UM, AND THAT IS THE, UM, THE CEO AND, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, AND I RAN THROUGH THE MATH HERE.
I, IN FACT, I REALLY WANT TO THINK STAFF ARE GOING IN AND FOLLOWING UP ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE'VE MENTIONED.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN GOING AND TAKING TIME TO REALLY GET INFORMATION.
I CAN SEE THAT STAFF WORKED HARD TO GET THIS, THIS INFORMATION.
THAT'S GOING TO BE SO HELPFUL TO US IN MAKING OUR DECISION TONIGHT.
UH, HOWEVER I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, EFFECTIVELY DECREASING THE SIZE OF A, OF A CEO, UH, THAT LIMITS IT TO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, AND ESSENTIALLY DECREASING THE SIZE OF THAT AREA, WHERE 2000 TRIPS PER DAY ARE ALLOWED.
SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE GOING TO SHRINK THAT AREA AND SAY, YOU CAN STILL DO 2000 TRIPS PER DAY NOW, ONLY IN A SMALLER AREA.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT DOING THIS ABOUT STRIPPING THIS PART OFF OF THE CEO? I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT TO DO THAT.
I THINK IT JUST PUTS MORE EMPHASIS ON PUTTING TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN ANOTHER PART, BUT NOW IT DOES HAVE THE CEO.
SO I JUST, I WORRY ABOUT THAT AND I'M NOT SURE A HUNDRED OAK.
SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF WANTS TO REPLY.
I'LL BE HAPPY FOR STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE.
I THINK I'VE UNDERSTOOD THE POINT.
UH, ESSENTIALLY IT'S, IT'S THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTH AND EAST.
THAT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THE CO THAT IT'S NOW ESSENTIALLY BUILT OUT ASIDE FROM THIS ONE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CEO, UH, YOU WOULD BE MAKING THE AREA SMALLER, BUT MY PERSONAL TAKE ON IT WOULD BE YOU BE REMOVING THAT MUCH POTENTIAL FOR TRAFFIC, BECAUSE YOU'D BE TAKING THIS PROPERTY OUT OF THE EQUATION AS WELL, AND GETTING THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY BUILT OUT.
SO I THINK THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT YOU'LL GET FROM THEM IS MORE OR LESS KNOWN, OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FAMILIES MOVE IN AND YOU COULD HAVE MORE TRAFFIC.
UH, BUT I, I THINK THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN MY OPINION.
WELL, THANK YOU, NEVERTHELESS, MY CON APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU DID.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING THIS INFORMATION.
MY CONCERN REMAINS THOUGH ABOUT ALLOWING, UH, ESSENTIALLY THAT TRAFFIC TO NOW BE PUT ONTO THIS OTHER PART, WHERE THE CA WOULD CONTINUE IF THE CEO GETS REMOVED FROM THIS.
UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN THERE.
AND, UH, I ALSO WONDER ABOUT THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE GAS LINE.
UH, UH, COULD STAFF JUST VERIFY IS IT IS, WELL, WHAT IS THE CLOSEST THAT IT BUILDING ON THIS, ON THIS SITE COULD BE TO THAT GAS LINE? WHAT IS THE CLOSE NUMBER OF FEET? HOW CLOSE CAN THE, CAN A BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE TO THAT GAS LINE? UH, YOU'D HAVE THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE GAS LINE EASEMENT, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE BUILDING SETBACK RULES.
UM, IT'S TOUGH TO SAY FOR A BUILDING TO BUILDING, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO BUILDING SETBACK RULES ON THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 75 FEET AS I CALCULATE IT.
SO, SO, AND FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT ON THIS SITE, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT.
I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ON THIS
[00:40:01]
SIDE.IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 50 FEET AWAY, PLUS ANY OTHER BUILDING SETBACK BURGERS.
SEE, I, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A 25 FOOT EITHER ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PIPELINE.
SO YOU HAVE A PIPELINE RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE AND THEN 25 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
IS, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING HERE I CAN RUN AND CHECK THE SURVEY REAL QUICK? I MAY BE HELPFUL.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT.
I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT WHAT WE'RE, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN TELL I'M CONCERNED.
AND I THINK THE REASON WHY THAT, THAT, THAT SUBDIVISION RULE WAS CHANGED, APPARENTLY THIS ONE GOT IN UNDER THE WIRE, UH, YOU KNOW, IS TO TRY TO AVOID HAVING HOUSING TOO CLOSE TO THESE PIPELINES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NO DANGEROUS PIPELINE.
AND I JUST WANT TO, IF WE, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TIME TO GO LOOK, THAT'S FINE.
I'LL, UH, I'LL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET, UH, YOU KNOW, VERIFICATION, IS IT 50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THAT GAS LINE? IS THAT THE EASEMENT, IS THAT THE CLOSEST THAT A BUILDING COULD BE? AND SO THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT STAFF THERE, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED ABOUT ONLINE FEEDBACK FOR CASES IS, UH, THAT, THAT APPARENTLY ON CASES THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA, UH, THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT FEEDBACK ONLINE, BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT ON THIS CASE.
UH, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS.
IS COULD SOMEBODY CLARIFY THAT FOR ME, FROM STAFF? UM, YEAH.
THERE, SO THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS YOU CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
THERE'S A QR CODE, WHICH WILL TAKE YOU TO AN ONLINE, UH, DOCUMENT WHERE YOU CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ISSUE.
UH, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, TO BE HONEST, THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I DO, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SUBMIT AN EMAIL.
UH, YOU CAN, UH, GIVE ME A CALL AND GIVE ME YOUR FEEDBACK OVER THE PHONE.
SO THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES YOU CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK WITH, BUT I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE QR CODE IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE.
WELL, IF STAFF WOULDN'T MIND, WOULD YOU, WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TOUCH BASE WITH THAT, THAT, UH, THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THEY'RE THEY'RE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO US, YOU KNOW, UH, THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS THE CITY PROVIDES.
AND THAT THOSE MEANS ARE CON THEY WORK CONSISTENTLY.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE YOU'RE ON, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID HERE FOR THE PUBLIC.
COMMISSIONERS AND LIAISON ENVER, UM, IT IS A FAIRLY NEW PROCESS AND I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO, UH, ANY DEFECTIVE ISSUES WITH IT AND, UH, FORWARD, UH, THE DOCUMENTATION TO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER, I THINK CLAIRE, QUICK QUESTION, MR. DIETZ, UM, HOW WAS THIS NOTICE? DID WE NOTICE TELLING FOLKS THAT THE CEO WAS GOING TO BE REMOVED? UH, TH THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UM, IT'S IN THE NOTICE AND IT GOES OUT IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
AND THEN, UM, I'LL EMAIL YOU TOMORROW ABOUT WHO TO CONTACT IN WATERSHED ABOUT THE CLARE CUTTING, SO THEY CAN EVALUATE IT FROM THE PICTURES TO WHAT'S EXISTING AND THEY'LL CONTACT THE ARBORIST, UH, AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF HE'S IN VIOLATION OR NOT.
AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH TO THE NEARBY HOMES THAT HELPS TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
FIRST, ARE THERE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ADJACENT TO THE PIPELINE? UM, CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT, THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH HOMES, BUT THOSE HOMES WOULD BE A DECENT DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE BIBLE.
SO, UM, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON TRANQ, UH, KILO COVE TODAY, UM, HOW FAR AWAY ARE THEY FROM THE PIPELINE? OKAY.
50 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE PIPELINE.
AND HOW FAR AWAY WOULD THESE HOMES BE FROM THE PIPELINE? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE EXISTING HOMES FROM A WHILE BACK NOW, I GUESS THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT OLDER AND THEY'RE ALREADY 50 FEET SETBACK AND THAT'S ALLOWED, AND THEN THESE HOUSES WOULD BE REPLICATING THAT YES.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO CASA, KAREN THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, IS THAT ALSO THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE PIPELINE? YES.
I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE FIVE CODE, IT SHOULD BE 50 ENABLING SHOULD BE 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE, AND THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS INSTALLED MORE RECENTLY THAN THE HOUSES THAT AND DRINK HILO COVE 2016.
AND THE CODE IS STILL THE SAME AS WHEN WE BUILT THOSE APARTMENTS.
UH, THE CODE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THEN.
I HAVEN'T A SURVEY FOR THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THE CODE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 2016 THAT I LOOKED INTO.
AND THEN TO CLARIFY THE, UM, THE APARTMENTS AT KAZA, KAREN, IS THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF INTENSITY OR IS THIS A MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AT 73 13 BLUFF SPRINGS ROAD? YEAH, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, SORRY.
THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WOULD BE MUCH MORE DENSE.
THESE ARE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED CONDOS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A BIT OF THE CONFUSION ABOUT, ARE THESE HOUSES
[00:45:01]
OR ARE THESE APARTMENTS THEY'RE DETACHED CONDOS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THEY WOULD SHARE ONE LOT, BUT THEY FUNCTION MUCH LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.SO HOW MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD FUNCTION LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY? GIVEN THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS, UH, THE MATH FOR THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, WE'D GET THEM UP TO 15, UH, 15 UNITS ON THE SITE.
I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THEY COULD REALISTICALLY GET 15, JUST BECAUSE OF, UH, THE, THE SHAPE OF THE SITE THAT YOU'VE GOT, THE GAS SIGN EASEMENT, AND YOU'VE GOT, UM, BUILDING SETBACK RESTRICTIONS.
I, MY GUESS IS PROBABLY MORE IN THE 10, 11, MAYBE 12.
UH, BUT THEORETICALLY UP TO 15, IF YOU COULD FIND A WAY TO SITUATE THEM.
SO IF WE DO SF SEX, WE CAN GET 10 TO 15 HOUSEHOLDS HOUSING IN THIS AREA.
AND THEN IF WE DON'T DO SF SIX, HOW MANY HOMES WOULD HE BE ABLE TO CREATE ON THIS PROPERTY? AND THAT WOULD BE A MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER, BECAUSE IF, IF IT WAS TO REMAIN WITH THE SF FOR ACO ZONING, THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS, YOU WOULD NEED TO SUBDIVIDE TO CREATE ANY NEW LOTS OF FIRST FROM THE ONE EXISTING LOT.
AND TO DO THAT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, YOU NEED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET THAT STREET THAT ISN'T THERE ASIDE FROM BLUFF SPRING.
SO YOU'D MOST LIKELY BE CONSTRUCTING A NEW ROAD.
AND MY GUESS IS YOU FIND THE PROJECTS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
AND, UM, AND SO WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A BENEFIT TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DRIVEWAYS LEADING OUT INTO BLUFF SPRINGS, GIVEN THE CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC IN THE AREA? UM, MY, MY PERSONAL VIEW IS, UH, WE NEED HOUSING AND I THINK THIS SITE COULD BE WELL-EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE THE, THE DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS. UH, SO THAT'S WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS 25 FEET FROM THE PIPELINE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN SAY 50 FEET, LIKE, BUT IT'S OH, THERE WAS A 25 FOOT EASE, BUT IT'S A 50 FOOT STEP AFTER THE FIRE.
SO THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO THINGS OUT THERE.
YOU HAVE LIKE 50 FOOT WIDE EASE, BUT AT 25 FEET YOU DECIDED THE CENTER LINE.
BUT IN ADDITION, THE CODE SAYS THE BUILDING'S GOT TO BE SET BACK 50 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE PIPE.
SO YOU HAVE A BUILDING SETBACK DUE TO THE FIRE CODE, NOT DUE TO THE ELAN ITSELF.
KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK LIKE, SO IT WOULD BE IN THE FIRE CODE PART CODE.
I'M I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, BUT YES.
I JUST, JUST WANTED TO THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THE 50 FEET, UH, IN THE FIRE CODE.
UM, AND, AND, UH, BUT I DO, YOU KNOW, I, I DO AGREE, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SAY THIS EARLIER, BUT I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED MORE HOUSING AND I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PARTICULAR STRATEGY OF SF SIX COULD ACTUALLY LEVERAGE THAT LIMITED AMOUNT OF LAND THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
SO, AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE NEED MORE HOUSING, SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED HERE BECAUSE THAT CEO REMOVING THE CEO REALLY DOES FOR ME, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IF I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, IT'S 2000 TRIPS IS A LOT OF TRIPS AND SEVEN UNITS IS GOING TO CAUSE MAYBE I DON'T NOT THAT MANY.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS GOING TO EXCEED THE CAP.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE STRATEGY, THE, THE, THE PRECEDENT OF NOW SHRINKING AN AREA WITHOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF TRIPS AND ALL ALLOWED IN THAT SMALLER AREA.
NOW THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE MOVING TRIPS FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT AREA THAT'S CAPPED AT 2000 TRIPS PER DAY.
THEY'RE SHRINKING THE SIZE OF THAT AREA AND SAYING THAT NOW THAT SMALLER AREA CAN HAVE 2000 TRIPS PER DAY, ESSENTIALLY BY CARVING THIS SECTION OUT OF THAT CEO.
AND THAT'S MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN ABOUT DOING THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE DO THIS, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT.
SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE HAVING THIS AS ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN AN SF SIX, BUT I JUST, THAT, THAT BOTHERED ME.
SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THAT REASON, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE NO EITHER.
I MEAN, THE CEO DOESN'T BOTHER ME AS MUCH CAUSE THEY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS BUILT OUT AND WE RARELY EVER SET PRECEDENCE WITH WHAT WE DO.
UM, I KNOW WE ALL TALK ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENTS, BUT WE GO AGAINST PRECEDENTS ALL THE TIME.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE HOUSING, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED.
IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF DURING THE REVIEW.
UM, THE TREE ISSUE IS NOT REALLY A ZONING ISSUE.
IT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS.
[00:50:01]
I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO TALK ABOUT APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ZONE THIS TO, UM, SF SIX AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, LIKE AN EMOTION.SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOON.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WE'LL BE OPPOSING THIS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PIPELINE SF FOR CEO.
AND I DO THINK THAT THERE IS THIS RATIONALE THERE OF NOT BUILDING TOO DENSELY NEAR PIPELINES.
AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY HARD, UM, PROPERTY TO BUILD ON ANY WAY.
AND ALSO PERSONALLY, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THE TREES WERE ALREADY TAKEN DOWN.
I THINK THAT IS THAT SETS A REALLY BAD, THAT'S A BAD SIGN FOR A SMALL LOT, RIGHT? SO BY THAT CODE, WITHOUT THE ACRE MINIMUM, YOU COULD FIT A WHOLE LOT MORE HOMES THAN
AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR SMALL LOT MORE HOMES, UM, HAS BEEN TRUMPED BY THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT WAS INTENDED FOR MULTIPLE LOTS.
AND I WISH TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE HERE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I KNOW THAT THE, THE NOMENCLATURE LIKE SF SIX CONDO IS VERY CONFUSING.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT SINGLE FAMILY THREE.
THERE YOU CAN HAVE TWO UNITS ON A LOT.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S CONFUSING.
BUT, UM, SO YOU'LL, UNFORTUNATELY YOU'LL EVENTUALLY LEARN.
SO, AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE SUPER MAJORITY WILL TAKE PLACE AT CITY COUNCIL.
UH, IF YOU CAN BACK THAT UP, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE IT WILL BE HEARD AND REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY I'M ALSO GOING TO VOTE.
NO, UH, THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS THAT SOMEHOW THIS BECAME A RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT HAS EFFECTIVELY LESS THAN AN ACRE, WHICH VIOLATES 25 DASH FOUR DASH 1 34, WHICH IS CALLED HAZARDOUS PIPELINES.
SO WHEREBY A HAZARDOUS PIPELINE, I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBDIVIDE.
UM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY, UM, ADHERE TO THE, UM, THE SECTION OF THE CODE.
WE READY TO VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE FOUR OF US, STERN SMITH, BOON, AND MYSELF.
ALTHOUGH AS OPPOSED, THAT'S KIELBASA, GREENBURG AND DINKLER AND ABSTAINING IS KING AND THOMPSON.
NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ON THIS TRAGIC.
OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.
WE'LL HAVE LESS HOUSING FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
HOUSING WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING IT MIGHT CHANGE OR MIGHT NOT CHANGE, UH, EVEN THREE UNITS, FOUR AND FIVE UNITS.
IF WE GO THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND IF THEY DID REMAIN ONLY TWO UNITS OF THREE UNITS APARTMENTS, THEN THAT'S THEM, THAT'S THE UNITS WE WILL BE GOING WITH.
IT'S PENDING FIGHT OPERA APPROVAL, AND THEN TO WORK WITH A FIGHT TRUCK AROUND RADIOS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO SEVEN UNITS IS ME PUTTING IN THE NUMBER ON THE CAR, BUT IT'S NOT ANY FIXED NUMBER.
AND EVEN THOUGH SEVEN UNITS THAT I'M ASSUMING WILL BE EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH THE PROPERTIES IN FRONT OF IT.
SO THERE'LL BE ONE HOUSE BEHIND THE HOUSE WITH 75 FEET DISTANCE.
THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION BASED ON THE OUTER VIEW.
IF FIRE DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT CLOSELY AND REVIEW RATE AND IT SAYS ONLY THREE UNITS ARE PERMISSIBLE, I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE UNITS.
THE REASON FOR SF SIX IS NOT PUTTING MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS AND NOT PUTTING FLAT LOTS ON THE DOCK DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE REQUEST REPORTS OF SIX OR SEVEN IS NOT MAGICAL NUMBER THAT WE'RE GOING WITH.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, NO NINE.
[9. Rezoning: C14-2022-0053 - Swansons Ranch Single Family; District 5]
THANK YOU.MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS WINDY ROADS WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A CASE OFF OF, UM, SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
IT CONSISTS OF THREE PLATTED LOTS, UH, WITH OVER 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON BOTH SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD AND BILL BURKE PLACE.
THE TWO NORTH LOTS ARE ZONED SF TWO, AND THE QUAD IS ZONED SF ONE.
UM, THE TWO NORTH LOTS CONTAINED ONE SINGLE FAMILY AT PEACE AND THE SOUTHWEST UNDEVELOPED AND WAS FORMERLY OPERATED AS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE.
[00:55:02]
UM, THAT PRE-EXISTED AN ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY LIMITS.PRIVATE ACCESS IS TAKEN TO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD AND THAT, UH, ROAD CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, AND ON BILL BROOKE TO THE WEST, THERE IS A SERVICE STATION, UNDEVELOPED LAND, AND A CHURCH.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE SS THREE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO RE SUBDIVIDED THE THREE LOTS AND REDEVELOPED.
THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITH EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WOULD BE TAKING ACCESS VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD OR BUILD WORKPLACE.
UH, THEIR PROPOSAL IS UP TO SEVEN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OR, UH, 14 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BECAUSE THIS SITE SITS ON A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET.
IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER, UM, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS, UH, ALONE SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
AND SO IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
AND, UH, IN THE BROADER CONTEXT, THREE ZONING IS A REASONABLE OPTION FOR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT AS RESIDENTIAL INFILL.
THERE ARE, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH THE TEXAS OAK SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, THERE IS CORRESPONDENCE AND A DETAILED SET OF QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE STAFF AND, UH, REZ AND RESIDENTS OF TEXAS OAKS.
UH, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, CHAIR ONE OUT HERE FROM THE APPLICANT, MISS VICTORIA HASI AND SAUCY YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER SUBJECT TRACK IS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT IS A LITTLE OVER ONE AND A HALF ACRES BETWEEN THE THREE TRACKS IT'S LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AND IT IS ABOUT 300 FEET FROM AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND EXISTING CAPITAL METRO BUS SERVICE.
NEXT SLIDE, AS WENDY WAS SAYING, THE ZONING TODAY IS SF ONE, NSF TWO FOR TWO OF THE LOTS.
OUR REQUEST IS SF THREE, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, UH, IN THE AREA.
AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IN A, IN A CITY WITH, OR A METRO AREA OF THIS, OF THIS SIZE AND THAT'S GROWING.
UM, IT IS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FIND WAYS TO HAVE INFILL DENSITY IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S NOT CONTINUING TO SPRAWL TO OUR OUTER AREAS.
THAT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
UM, SO IF WE CAN GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY HERE, I DO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS EVENING.
UM, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR NSF THREE ZONING CHANGE HERE.
SO THIS IS A COMPARISON OF
UM, SF TWO IN SF THREE ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE AS WENDY WAS STATING IS SF THREE ALLOWS FOR A TWO FAMILY, USE A ONE.
YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT.
UM, AND IN A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WITHOUT A ZONING CHANGE, YOU WOULD SEE A TOTAL OF EIGHT, LOTS AND EIGHT UNITS WITH THOSE UNITS BEING ABLE TO ACCESS BILL BROOK OR SWANSON'S, UM, RANCH ROAD.
UH, IF, IF, UH, SF THREE IS TO BE APPROVED, WE CAN ACHIEVE UP TO 10 LOTS.
UM, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT 10 LOTS DOES NOT FULLY EQUATE TO 20 UNITS BECAUSE THERE ARE STORMWATER AND, UH, DETENTION, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND SO IT'S LIKELY THAT A GOOD CHUNK OF LAND WOULD TOWARDS PUTTING IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S A PRETTY SHORT PRESENTATION.
UH, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSING IN THIS AREA.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. BILL MEACHAM.
MR. MITCHUM, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND OPPOSITION.
I LIVE IN TEXAS OAK SOUTH, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE TEXAS SUBJECT TRACK.
[01:00:01]
THREE BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONCERNS.IF THE DEVELOPMENT ENDS UP WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS TO BILL BROOKE, IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION INCREASED TRAFFIC WOULD ENDANGER EVERYONE IN 623 ACRES, WHICH HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED ACCESS.
A VIABLE COMPROMISE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR BIDDING VEHICULAR ACCESS ON BILL BROOKE.
THE SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE LARGER CONTEXT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SUBJECT TRACT IS A SMALL PORTION OF A VERY LARGE POCKET OF LAND OUTLINED IN RED ON THIS IMAGE THAT IS COMPLETELY ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES, SUBJECT TRACTORS, THE LITTLE GREEN AREA AT THE TOP, RIGHT? THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER TRACKS IN THE POCKET, SOME IN THE CITY, SOME IN THE ETJ, THIS POCKET COMPRISES ABOUT 623 ACRES AND OVER 1800 HOUSEHOLDS IT'S BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE SOUTH BY SLAUGHTER CREEK ON THE EAST, BY MARY MORRISSEY, WRIGHT PARK PREJUDICE.
MIDDLE-SCHOOL IN SOME DEPARTMENTS AND ON THE NORTH BY SLAUGHTER LANE, THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS WHOLE AREA IS TO THE NORTH SURROUNDED BY TWO LITTLE YELLOW CIRCLES, WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE BECAUSE THERE'S AN OVERLAY, BUT JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT GREEN THING, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO WAYS OUT.
UM, THERE'S NO WAY OUT TO MANSHACK ON THE WEST, NO WAY OUT TO 16, 26 TO THE SOUTH, NO WAY OUT TO SOUTH FIRST, THE ONLY ACCESS POINTS ARE BILL BROOKE PLACE AND DAVID MOORE DRIVE TO THE NORTH.
AND THE 90% OF THE TRAFFIC IS ON BELLBROOK.
BY THE WAY, GENOA DRIVE DOES NOT CONNECT TO SLAUGHTER LANE AS SHOWN ON YOUR ZONING MAP IN YOUR PACKET, GENUINE DRIVE ACTUALLY GOES UNDER A BRIDGE.
THE MAPS WERE ON THE 2020 MESSENGER.
TIA IS THE MOST RECENT STUDY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TIA ACKNOWLEDGES A FAILED INTERSECTIONS.
THEY'VE GOT A GRADE OF F AT BILL BROOKLYN SLAUGHTER, EVEN AFTER INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.
THE NEWLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AND GENUINE DRIVE WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 62 CONDOS AND OVER 400 DAILY TRIPS, THERE WERE SEVERAL LARGE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE 623 ACRE POCKET THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AND WOULD ALSO RELY ON, RELY ON BELLBROOK.
MILLBROOK PROVIDES THE PRIMARY ACCESS AND IS THE ONLY WESTBOUND OPTION FOR THE HIRING A HUNDRED TIRE, EXCUSE ME, 623 ACRE AREA.
BILL WORKPLACE IS A BOTTLENECK AND BILL BROOK IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
IF THERE WERE A FLOOD OR A FIRE OR SOME OTHER EMERGENCY, THE BOTTLENECK WOULD BLOCK SERVICE VEHICLES COMING IN, IT WOULD MAKE IT VERY HARD AND SLOW FOR RESIDENTS TO EVACUATE.
THIS MAP IS BASED ON ONE PROVIDED BY THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO IT'S AREA OF AREAS OF HIGH FIRE RISK IN DARK RED AND BLACK.
AND THE GREEN OUTLINE IS THE 623 ACRES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE SURROUNDED MY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL.
MOST OF THE AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE WILD LAND, URBAN INTERFACE, IF A FIRE WERE COME, COME UP FROM THE SOUTH AT THE SAME TIME THAT FIRETRUCKS AND AMBULANCES WERE TRYING TO GET IN A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WOULD BE TRYING TO GET OUT AND ALL THROUGH THE SAME NARROW BOTTLENECK WILDFIRES TYPICALLY DO NOT HAPPEN IN ISOLATION BECAUSE DROUGHT CONDITIONS IMPACT ENTIRE REGIONS.
WITHIN THE PAST MONTH, FIREFIGHTING CREWS HAVE BATTLED FIRES AND TRAVIS HAYES, GILLESPIE, AND WAKO COUNTIES, RESOURCES CAN EASILY BE STRETCHED THIN AND FIRE SEASONS NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MUST BE ABLE TO QUICKLY AND SAFELY SELF EVACUATE AND NOT WAIT FOR THE CITY TO HELP US.
THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS NOTICED THAT THERE'S A SERIOUS EVACUATION PROBLEM IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EVACUATE THEMSELVES AND CANNOT NOT RELY SOLELY ON EMERGENCY SERVICES.
THE RISK IS NOT JUST BEING LATE TO WORK.
IT'S A LOSS OF PROPERTY AND EVEN LOSS OF LIFE, PEOPLE COULD BE KILLED ALREADY.
MORE TRAFFIC HERE IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER.
WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY HAS A GOAL TO CREATE MORE HOUSING.
HOUSING IS MUCH NEEDED AND WE SUPPORT THAT GOAL.
BUT THE CITY ALSO HAS A GOAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY.
THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN DIRECTS DECISION MAKERS TO, AND I QUOTE, PRIORITIZE THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE OVER ALL ELSE IN THE PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATION THAT BOSTON'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE BOTH GOALS, TRAFFIC AND HOUSING DENSITY, WE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE SUBJECT TRACK FOR BIDDING VEHICULAR ACCESS ON THE BUILD PLACE.
THERE'S ALREADY ACCESS ON SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
THIS WOULD CREATE A WIN-WIN THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS ZONING CHANGE AS REQUESTED BY THE OWNER, HELP ADDRESS HOW THESE THINGS SHORTAGES IN THE COMMUNITY AND ALLEVIATE OUR CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY.
[01:05:01]
SO IN THE CASE OF THESE DUAL GOALS, WE ASK YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.THANK YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. CHRISTINE ALLEN, MS. ALLEN, DO I HAVE THREE MINUTES MEMBERS? THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I AM WITH THE HOLLOWS AT SLAUGHTER CREEK.
I'M ALSO ONE OF THE HOA BOARD MEMBERS.
I AM HERE TONIGHT, UM, TO REPEAT EVERYTHING MY ESTEEMED NEIGHBOR SUGGEST SAID, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A NEED FOR HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
UH, OUR COMPROMISE WITH HAVING TRAFFIC FLOW ONTO THE ADJACENT STREET, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
IT HELPS GIVE US MORE HOUSING.
IT ALSO ADDRESSES THE SAFETY CONCERN, AS HE SAID, UH, WE'RE LITERALLY LANDLOCKED IN BOTH NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR BIGGEST FEAR AS A NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT IF EMERGENCY FIRE? THERE'S LITERALLY NO WAY, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO CONVERT THE LANES LIKE A HURRICANE EVACUATION SITUATION, THEN NOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET IN.
SO, UM, THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST FEARS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LIVING CLOSE TO THAT LOT.
THE OTHER CONCERNS WE HAVE AGAIN, IS THE SAFETY.
THERE ARE BIKE LANES ON THERE, UH, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY USED PRETTY FREQUENTLY.
UH, THERE IS A, UH, UNHOUSED, UH, COMMUNITY CLOSE BY THAT UTILIZES THE CHURCH FOR SOME OUTREACH, UH, AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH.
SO THERE IS A LOT OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS THAT UTILIZE THOSE BIKE LANES TO GET TO THAT CHURCH.
AND THE CONCERN IS IF THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE IN THOSE BIKE LANES, PEOPLE MIGHT BE WHIPPING AROUND PEOPLE WAITING TO TURN LEFT INTO THOSE LOTS, IF THEY'RE HEADING SOUTHBOUND ON BELLBROOK.
UM, SO THAT IS A CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, AS FAR AS BIKE LANE, AS WELL AS CONGESTION, UM, THERE WAS ALSO THE VALVOLINE GAS STATION ON THE CORNER.
UH, THERE HAVE BEEN ACCIDENTS RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF PEOPLE EXITING IN AND OUT OF THAT VALVOLINE AS WELL.
SO, UH, AS MY WONDERFUL NEIGHBOR SAID, WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS HOUSING DID CITY NEEDS IN AUSTIN.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING Y'ALL ARE MORE THAN PAINFULLY AWARE OF.
WE'RE ASKING THAT TO PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW ANY ACCESS FOR THIS TRACK OF LAND ON BILL BROOKE AND MAKE IT TO THE ADJACENT STREET TO MAKE SURE THERE'S FLOW.
AND ADDITIONALLY, THAT ROAD, UH, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT TURN LEFT ONTO SLAUGHTER FROM THERE, YOU CAN VERY EASILY TURN RIGHT AND MAKE A U-TURN.
UM, I'VE MISSED MY TURNS MANY TIMES AND HAD TO DO THAT AND BEEN ABLE TO SAFELY DO SO.
SO THERE IS A WAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT, AND YOU TURN AND STILL SAFELY DO SO, UM, WITHOUT HOPEFULLY HITTING ANYONE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. MICHELLE ADAMS, MS. ADAMS YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HI, MICHELLE ADAMS, I'M PRESIDENT OF THE TEXAS OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 15 YEARS.
I'M ALSO A LOCAL REAL ESTATE BROKER, AND I UNDERSTAND AUSTIN'S NEED FOR MORE HOUSING.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE WORK THAT YOU DO.
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THAT YOU MAKE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN COMING ONSITE, VISITING WITH US, COMMUNICATING WITH US AND MAKING THE DECISIONS THAT HELP OUR CITY GROW SUSTAINABLY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT TO REVIEW THE SAFEST SOLUTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.
THE MOST IMPORTANT BEING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC UTILIZING SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD ONLY SWANSON'S RANCH IS A DEAD END ROAD THAT HOSTS APPROXIMATELY 15 LOTS WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO SLAUGHTER.
FURTHERMORE, IF THE DEVELOPER CREATES FLAG LOTS, I BELIEVE THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR DENSITY AND MAKE THE SALE OF THESE HOMES MORE ATTRACTIVE IN REVIEWING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR ZONING.
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT COULD BE A GREAT USE OF THE LOTS.
IF DEVELOPED THOUGHTFULLY AND VEHICULAR ACCESS IS RESTRICTED TO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
ONLY WE ASK THAT YOU REVIEW THE COMPLEXITY OF THE BILL, BROOKE AND SLAUGHTER AREA AS A WHOLE, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE USE OF BILL BROOKE FOR THE VEHICULAR ACCESS.
I BELIEVE CURB CUTS ALONG BILL BROOKE, SO CLOSE TO THE BUSY FAILING INTERSECTION OF BILL BROOKE AND SWATTER WILL INEVITABLY INEVITABLY BACKUPS SLAUGHTER AND FURTHER EXACERBATE TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUES, AS WELL AS CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR DRIVERS, BIKERS, AND THE PEDESTRIANS THAT USE THOSE STREETS.
OUR AREA HAS UNIQUE GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ANY LONGTERM GROWTH.
WE'D LOVE TO HELP CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITH THE CITY AS WE CONTINUE TO SEE DEVELOPMENT COME ACROSS
[01:10:01]
OUR AREA.WHEN I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL MASSAGE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, IT IS TRUE.
THIS AREA IS A BIT LANDLOCKED, UM, FROM WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.
UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS TO EXIT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
UM, THE MESSINGER TRACT IS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT TODAY AND IT'S NEARING COMPLETION AND THEY ARE CREATING CONNECTIVITY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLES BETWEEN BILL BROOKE AND DAVE, UH, DAVID MOORE DRIVE.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S PROBABLY NOT ONE THAT IS PREFERRED, BUT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, IT IS AN OPTION THAT THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED.
THERE IS ONE OTHER OPTION THAT ACTUALLY DOES ACCESS DAVID MOORE FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION, BUT IT IS THERE IN, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY.
UM, SO THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THERE WILL BE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO THE INTERSECTION OF SLAUGHTER AND BILL BROOKE.
UM, THOSE WERE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED WITH THE MESSINGER TRACT DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE WILL BE COMING.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'VE, THEY'VE BEEN COMING FOR A WHILE AND THEY KIND OF KEEP GETTING PUSHED OFF, BUT THEY'RE COMING SOON.
AND I, I SUSPECT ATD, UM, CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT NOT ALL OF THE PROPOSED LOTS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED WITH THIS REZONING WILL ACCESS BELLBROOK.
UM, IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT HALF OF THE LOTS, HALF OF THE NEW LOTS WILL ACCESS SWANSON'S RANCH AND HALF OF THEM WILL ACCESS BELLBROOK.
SO IT'S NOT ALL OF THESE LOTS TAKING ACCESS.
AND EVEN IF YOU WERE TO, UM, KEEP EXISTING ZONING AND SUBDIVIDE IT TODAY, THE NEW SUBDIVISION, THE NEW LOT SUBDIVIDED COULD HAVE ACCESS TO BILL BROOKE WITHOUT NEEDING A REZONING CHANGE.
SO REALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, NOT VERY MANY DRIVEWAYS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE TODAY VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE DONE, TO GET A FEW MORE UNITS OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DINKLER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STIRRED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CAUSE I'M THE PERSON WHO DID THE FIELD TRIP.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ILLUMINATING.
I WANTED TO SEE IT BECAUSE WE HAD HAD SO MANY CASES THERE AND, UM, AND THE IDEA THAT CARS WOULD BE BACKING OUT OR GOING ON TO BILL BROOK WHILE THAT IS A MAIN ROAD FOR OVER A THOUSAND HOUSEHOLDS, SEEM TO ME, UM, ACTUALLY A LITTLE CRAZY AND ALSO BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY ACCESS ONTO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
AND I DROVE THAT TO, TO SEE THAT THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS AND THERE'S, AND IT'S ALREADY SET UP FOR FACING ONTO SWANSON'S RANCH ROAD.
AND THEN I WOULD ALSO PRINT, I PRINTED OUT A LITTLE MAP AND IT SHOWS THAT LIKE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP AT SLAUGHTER LANE, TRYING TO GET OUT.
I MEAN, THAT IS A VERY BUSY ROAD AND TRUE.
YOU CAN GET OVER AT SWEETWATER, BUT THAT'S ABOUT HALFWAY UP.
UM, SO THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE BETWEEN SWEETWATER AND SLAUGHTER LANE HAVE TO RELY SOLELY ON, UM, SOLELY ON BELLBROOK.
UM, SO I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I, MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T LIKE FLAG LOTS AND THAT I CONSISTENTLY VOTED AGAINST THEM, BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK FLAG LOTS ARE, UM, MUCH MORE PREFERABLE TO JUST HAVING CARS BACK OUT INTO THE BIKE LANE.
AND IT'S A PRETTY NARROW ROAD IT'S, I MEAN, FOR HAVING SO MANY FOR HIM, FOR HAVING SO MANY PEOPLE RELY ON THAT, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE, UM, I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT UNTIL I SAW IT.
SO OBVIOUSLY I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THE OTHER COMMENTS CONCERNING.
CLEAR, IT'S A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UM, MS. RHODES, YOU, I THINK YOU HANDLED THE DAVID MOORE CASES WHEN THE PAVEMENT WITH, ON DAVID MORE LIKE 10 FEET WIDE.
UM, DO YOU RECALL OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, OR DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE IN A MINUTE OR TWO? UH, I DO REMEMBER THAT IT WAS A, THAT THE LAW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE ROAD WAS
[01:15:01]
LESS THAN WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES.UH, AMBER HUTCHINS WITH ATD IS ON THE LINE AND MAY HAVE MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T RIGHT NOW, BUT I'LL GET IT FOR YOU HERE IN JUST A SECOND.
AND I'M TALKING PAVEMENT WITH, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER STERN? UM, YEAH, I'M, UH, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT OF A LOSS.
UM, JUST, UH, I'M WONDERING WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE FOR THE U-TURN BEHAVIOR AT BELLBROOK.
UM, PEOPLE HEADING WESTBOUND ON SPOTTER ARE GOING TO BE TURNING LEFT ESSENTIALLY INTO BILL BROOKE.
SO IT WILL BE PREVENTING ACCESS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEN INSTEAD OF QUICKLY TURNING, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SLOWLY MAKING A U-TURN AND THERE'S SOME CRASH ISSUES THERE VERSUS THE ONE THAT'S E YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE.
BUT, UM, AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I WONDER ABOUT IS GUEST, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, WHICH IS WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT DEAD ENDS AND CUL-DE-SACS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE BUILD OUT A PROPERTY THAT IS DEPENDENT ON A CUL-DE-SAC IN A DEAD END AS THEIR ONLY STREET.
SO WHILE WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR THE THOUSAND HOMES, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO ACCESS TO THESE HOMES WITHOUT DRIVING TO WESTLAW, AFTER MAKING A U-TURN JUST EAST OF DAVID MOORE, THEN COMING BACK TO BILL BROOKE AND HEADING SOUTH ON TO BILL BROOKE TO GET TO A FRIEND WHO LIVES IN THAT AREA.
AND SO AT THE VERY LEAST WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING WHAT IS THE EXCELLENT BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OVER TO THAT AREA.
SO THAT IT'S POTENTIALLY POSSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ACTUALLY NEIGHBORS WITH ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE TODAY.
OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS IS I RECALL THERE WAS IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE OR FLOOD.
THERE WAS THE ABILITY TO EVACUATE THROUGH THE, UM, THE MIDDLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, UM, AND GET OVER TO MARY MORRISSEY WRIGHT PARK ROAD.
AND THEY EFD WAS GOING TO WORK ON AN EVACUATION PLAN, AS I RECALL TO KIND OF GET EVERYBODY IN AND OUT AND WHAT THEIR PLAN WOULD BE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS IN AND OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
SOME OF THEM MAY GO THROUGH GREATEST MIDDLE SCHOOL.
IT'S A MIDDLE SCHOOL, NOT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THEIR, THAT WOULD BE THROUGH USING THAT SWEETWATER RANCH ROAD OR RIVER ROAD.
I MEAN, AND THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT TOO, WHILE THEY COULD GO OUT TO THE PARK, BUT IT'S STILL, I, I CAN IMAGINE IF THE RISK SCHOOL IN SESSION RIGHT THEN THAT WOULD ALSO BE DIFFICULT.
IT'S LIKE, THERE'S JUST NO REALLY GREAT SOLUTION HERE, BUT WE'RE OFTEN TALKING ABOUT PRETTY LOTS.
THAT'S A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF IMPACT IS WE'VE GOT TO SQUEEZE MORE HOMES, WHEREVER WE CAN FIT THEM.
WE CAN ALWAYS FIND A REASON NOT TO PUT A HOUSE SOMEWHERE, BUT WE'VE GOT TO START FINDING REASONS TO PUT HOUSES PLACES.
UH, AND THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO PUT MORE UNITS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S OBJECTING TO THE UNITS.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS ACCESS AND THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THE PROXIMITY TO WEST SLAUGHTER ON, ON BELLBROOK.
I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN OUT THERE TOO.
AND WHAT I SEE IS WHAT I WAS STRUCK BY WHEN I WENT OUT LAST TIME WAS NOT ONLY THE SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC, BUT THE NORTHBOUND TRACKING.
I SEE THIS BEING A CUING NIGHTMARE WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO TURN IN, UM, HEADING SOUTHBOUND, TRYING TO TURN INTO THOSE THREE LOTS AND HOLDING TRAFFIC UP AT A FAILED, UM, LIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S FAR WORSE THAN THE 15 LOTS, YOU KNOW, ADDING THREE MORE, LOTS TO THE 15 PEOPLE ON, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THEY'RE DOING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BILL BROOKE AND SLAUGHTER AND THAT LIGHT AND THAT WHOLE INTERSECTION IS TO RELIEVE A LOT OF THAT.
SO I THINK THOSE, THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE WORKING ON WILL RESOLVE THE SITUATION, BUT LONG BEFORE THESE EVER GET BUILT, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY GOT, THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN UP ALL THE RIGHT AWAY.
THEY CAN ON THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IT'S IT'S DONE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, THIS ANYBODY'S GOT ANYTHING ELSE I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
IS THERE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION THOUGH, ON DAVID MOORE? YEAH.
UH, AMBER HUTCHINS, ATD, DAVID MORA IS ABOUT 20 TO 22 FEET IN PAVEMENT WITH, AND I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION JUST ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROADS DOWN THERE.
I MEAN, IS, IS THERE A PLAN FOR ME ATD TO EXTEND EAST WESTBOUND ROUTE IN THIS AREA? UM, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTEXT ABOUT FUTURE ROAD DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE,
[01:20:01]
YOU KNOW, CHAPEL LANE FOR EXAMPLE, COULD BE EXTENDED ACROSS.AND, UH, W I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE ARE PLANS LIKE THAT, THAT HAVEN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.
TH THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ASN CURRENTLY THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EAST WEST CONNECTIONS WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, THE RAILROAD TRACK GETS IN THE WAY QUICKLY COMMISSIONER KING, AND THEN I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
MAYBE STAFF COULD, UH, CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE, UH, UPDATES OR THE ENHANCEMENTS TO BILL BROOKE AND, UM, SLAUGHTER.
UH, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE.
YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENTS COMING ONLINE HERE, IT'S ALREADY A HEAVY TRAVELED ROAD, AND NOW MAYBE THESE ARE JUST A FEW MORE UNITS, BUT YOU KNOW, THOSE LAST FEW UNITS, WHEN YOU ADD THEM ON, THEY REALLY CREATE SOME SERIOUS TRAFFIC ISSUES HERE.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERN IS.
UH, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT ARE THE PLANS TO ENHANCE THAT INTERSECTIONAL BILLBURK TO GET THAT TRAFFIC TO MOVE MORE SMOOTHLY AND ANNUAL, UH, RESOLVE THESE ISSUES THAT NEIGHBORS CONCERNED ABOUT? YEAH, SO THE MESSENGER TRACKED, UH, POSTED FISCAL TOWARDS THE CPO IMPROVEMENTS FOR TWO NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANES AT THE BILL BURKE AND SLAUGHTER INTERSECTION.
THOSE DESIGNS ARE 100% COMPLETE.
UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LET YET.
SO WE'RE STILL IN PROCESS OF WORKING OUT WHEN THERE'LL BE CONSTRUCTED.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE A FIRM TIMELINE FOR YOU AT THAT AT THIS MOMENT.
SO THERE'S ALREADY ONE NORTHBOUND LANE.
THERE WOULD BE AN A SECOND NORTHBOUND LANE ADDED, CORRECT.
THERE'S THERE'S, AS I UNDERSTAND, THERE'S A BICYCLE LANE ALSO ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT MILLBROOK, IS THAT CORRECT? IS, WOULD ONE OF THOSE BICYCLE LANES GO AWAY THEN, OR THAT SECOND, UH, NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC LANE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I BELIEVE THAT A SHARED USE PATH MIGHT BE BEING CONSTRUCTED ON ONE SIDE BEHIND THE CURB.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, BUT I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY'VE RESOLVED SOME OF THE CONSTRAINT WITHIN THE, IN THE INTERSECTION.
WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORTA LIKE LET'S ADD SOME BICYCLE LANES AND THEN LET'S, YOU KNOW, CONVERT THEM TO SHARED LANES, WHICH TO ME GETS A LITTLE WORRISOME FOR ME.
IF I WERE ON A BICYCLE TO BE IN A SHARED LANE THERE OR KNOWING HOW IS THERE, I'M SORRY, UH, A SHARED USE PATH BEHIND THE CURVE, RIGHT.
IT'LL BE OFF THE STREETS LIKE A WIDE.
SO THAT'S SIDEWALK WITHOUT TWO LANES.
HOW FAR WOULD THAT TWO LANES GO DOWN? BILL BROOK? HOW FAR SOUTH WOULD THE TWO LANES GO? I DO NOT HAVE THE QUEUE LENGTH OR THAT IN FRONT OF ME, I WOULD NEED TO GO FIND THAT.
SO IT'S A QUEUING THING WHICH MAY BE MAYBE A BLOCK OR TWO LONG OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF WE'RE QUEUING LANES, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT EVEN, IT'LL STILL, IT'LL BE A TURN LANE.
I JUST, I DON'T HAVE THE, THE LENGTH OF IT ON.
SO DUAL LEFT ESSENTIALLY GETS YOU, YOU KNOW, WHEREAS BEFORE YOU MAY HAVE A LONG LINE OF CARS, NOW THEY'RE DOUBLED UP.
AND SO THEY GET TWICE AS MUCH TIME TO GO THROUGH.
SO, SO, AND IN MIND, I'M JUST TRYING TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC HERE AND THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT THE PLANS ARE.
SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DO AGREE, THIS IS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED SEEMS REASONABLE AS LONG AS WE CAN GET THE TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE THERE IN PLACE.
AND SO MY LAST QUESTION WOULD BE, AND I APPRECIATE THE POINTS EARLIER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PUTTING TRAFFIC ONTO A CUL-DE-SAC AND, YOU KNOW, TO A ROAD THAT BASICALLY YOU CAN ONLY TURN RIGHT ON, YOU KNOW, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH SAYING THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY ROUTE.
I JUST HAVE TO PUT IT OUT THERE.
THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY OUT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WORRIES ME.
SO COULD THERE BE A SHARED, SO HALF OF THE LOTS WOULD BE IN ONE HALF WOULD BE THE OTHER, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT ATD WOULD CONSIDER DOING? DO YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF ACCESS RESTRICTION ACCESS? WELL, NOT, WELL JUST SAYING ALTERNATIVE ACCESS.
SO SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS TO EITHER ONE TAKE ACCESS TO EITHER ONE AT THIS TIME.
ATD IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS TO ACCESS, TO BUILD BROOKE OR SWANSON'S RANCH, SO THEY COULD ACCESS BOTH OF THEM RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME.
I GOT ACCESS ONE OF THE OTHER, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
YOU CAN HAVE HALF OF THEM ACCESSING ONE HALF AFTER THE NEXT OR THEY CAN'T ACCESS BOTH, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WE GOT THROUGH LONG IS THROUGH LOTS OF PERMITTED.
AND, AND SO, SO THAT, THAT PLATE, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
SO AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A DECISION ABOUT WHICH LOTZ WOULD TAKE, WHICH ACCESS THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY, BY AGG IT'S PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, OR ACTUALLY WHEN THEY'RE RE SUBDIVISION OCCURS, ACCESS WILL HAVE TO BE CHOSEN.
BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE TO KEEP IT IN THE CONFIGURATION IT'S IN RIGHT NOW, ACCESS WILL NOT BE GRANTED ON BOTH SIDES.
[01:25:01]
OKAY.I GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF SF THREE.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? YES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
OH, WAIT, DID YOU HAVE, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? NO.
SUCH THING AS, UM, OR GET AMENDMENTS? I MEAN, SERIOUSLY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
UM, I'LL, I'LL JUST THROW IT IN AN AMENDMENT TO, UM, OR I'LL JUST EVEN JUST MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE A CEO FOR NO ACCESS ONTO BELLBROOK.
I DON'T WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS.
UM, AND IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND? OKAY.
THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
I COULD DO AN AMENDMENT AND THEN YOU VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND IF IT FAILS, THEN WE'D GO TO THE PARLIAMENTARIAN.
NO, IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE.
UM, SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE CAN'T DO IT ON OUR BOAT WITHOUT A BUDDY AGREEING TO IT UP.
IT'S NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
CAUSE THERE'S ALL OF OUR MOTION.
IF YOU DO, IF YOU DO A SECOND MOTION IS FINE.
IF YOU DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WE'RE ALL GOOD.
I'LL DO A SUBSTITUTE, BUT I WAS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR SF THREE WITH A CEO THAT THERE IS NO, UM, NO ACCESS ON TO BILL BURKE.
SO WE VOTE FOR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
AND I'D LIKE TO COMMENT THAT YEAH, I SEE THE PROBLEM WITH FORCING PEOPLE ONTO SWANSON RANCH ROAD, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE A LATER DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT HAVING THESE CALLED THE SACKS.
UM, IT'S THERE, IF IT WASN'T THERE, I COULD SEE THEM GOING ONE WAY IN ONE DIRECTION, THE OTHER WAY IN THE OTHER DIRECTION OR, OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE PLAN, THE RIGHT NOW SEEMS THE SAFEST, WHICH IS TO NOT PUT MORE TRAFFIC ONTO BILL BROOKE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE BACKING OUT OF DRIVERS.
WELL, AND I SEE IT AS THE IT'S, IT'S THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.
WOULD YOU RATHER BE IF YOU'RE EVACUATING, WHEN YOU'D RATHER BE EVACUATING WITH A THOUSAND PEOPLE TRYING TO GET OUT OF BILL BROOKE OR 20 PEOPLE TRYING TO GET OUT OF, UM, SWANSON'S RANCH EVACUATE ONCE AND PROBABLY NEVER YOU DRIVE THIS ROAD EVERY DAY.
I KNOW YOU'RE GIVING UP THE DRIVING EVERY DAY FOR THE EVACUATION.
IT'LL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN, BUT I THINK WHILST OTHER PEOPLE IN STEM, BUT LET'S VOTE ON THE MOTION.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE ALTERNATE MOTION WISHES TO PUT ON A CEO THAT WOULD ONLY ALLOW ACCESS HONDA SWANSON'S ROADS STILL.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION, SUBSTITUTE, SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO THAT IS, UH, DINKLER GREENBURG AND CABASA OKAY.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, THAT'S ME AND SMITH AND BOONE, AND ALL THOSE ABSTAINING IS KING STERN AND THOMPSON.
SO THEN WE CAN VOTE THAT, THAT FAILS.
WE'LL GO BACK TO RACE MOTION, WHICH WAS JUST STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS PUT UP BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT'S ME, STERN BOONE, KING AND SMITH.
AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED IS DINKLER GREENBERG AND KOBASA.
THANK YOU, MR.
[10. Rezoning: C14-2022-0056 - 7415 Albert Road Rezoning; District 5]
ITEM NUMBER 10 ALBERT ROAD, REZONING.I HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM, ANYTHING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT DRS ZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 4 1 5 ALBERT ROAD.
IT IS A, I APPLIED A LOT AND CONTAINS A VACANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THERE ARE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS ON LARGE TRACKS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST THAT HAVE FRONTED ON ALBERT ROAD.
THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST, AND THERE IS A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO THE SOUTH, WHICH TAKES ITS
[01:30:01]
PRIMARY ACCESS TO DITMAR ROAD.THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED SF THREE DISPARATE IN ORDER TO RE SUBDIVIDE THE LOT AND CREATE A DISH NEWLY NEW LOTS WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UH, AS A REMINDER, THE S3 ALLOWS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY.
RESIDENCE IS TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES OR DUPLEX, AND A LOT MAY NOT INCLUDE MORE THAN TWO UNITS.
UH, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE SSPS ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UH, EXCUSE ME, THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET AND IS LOCATED WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE OTHER SFC LOTS ON DAMON ROAD, ALBERT ROAD AND ON THE STREETS IN THE VICINITY.
AND THE STAFF BELIEVES SF THREE IS A REASONABLE OPTION FOR PARCELS PROPOSED TO BE REEKED DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL INFILL, A COUPLE OF ISSUES TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APPLICANT DID MEET WITH THE MATTHEWS BLIND NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPERTY IN JUNE, UM, IN LATE JUNE, UH, THERE IS CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHED, UH, FROM THE BOTH THE, UH, APPLICANT AND ALSO RE AS OF THIS AFTERNOON CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THERE IS ALSO A, A VALID PETITION ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S AT 49 POINT 84% OF, OF PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
SO IT IS CONSIDERED A VALID PETITION.
UH, THERE, THE, UH, SIGNATORY SIGNATURES ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A SF TWO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT, AS WELL AS, UH, NEIGHBORS FROM THE MATTHEWS LANE ASSOCIATION.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THIS POINT OF INQUIRY, UH, WAS ANYBODY ELSE ABLE TO GET THE BACKUP OPEN ON THIS? CAUSE I, I, I THINK THEY WERE IDENTICAL THE SAME SIDE AND THEN NEITHER ONE OPEN FOR ME.
SO ONE OF THEM, NOT ONE DID I READ? YEAH, SAME HERE.
I'M TRYING TO OPEN THEM BOTH NOW TOO.
A PROBLEM WITH ONE, BUT THEY WERE THE SAME FILE SIZE.
SO MY ASSUMPTION IS THEY WERE THE SAME.
THE FIRST ONE OPENED UP IT DIDN'T AT FIRST AND IT OPENED UP A SECOND TIME, DEPENDING ON WHICH BROWSER YOU USE.
BUT THE SECOND ONE I NEVER COULD GET OPEN.
SO YES, THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THIS ONE.
I JUST HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION OPEN, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL BACKUP.
I MEAN, I COULD NOT OPEN IT WITH ONE BROWSER, BUT TWO OTHERS WORKED FINE.
WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY IF IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY A BROWSER ISSUE BECAUSE OPEN IT UP AND IT IS A RASPBERRY.
WELL, YEAH, IT MAY BE MORE, BUT IT IS A BROWSER ISSUE.
I MEAN, I, SOME BROWSERS ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, SO YOU CAN'T GET ANYTHING OVER THERE.
WELL, THAT'S FIGURED THAT OUT, BUT IT WAS IT'S TRICKY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE USED TO DOWNLOADING IT.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDOVER.
UM, AND THAT WAS THE CASE FOR ME WHEN I FIRST UPLOADED THE INITIAL DOCUMENTATION ON THURSDAY AND THEN, UM, USED, UM, UH, EDGE AT WHAT IT LOAD.
BUT THEN I, I MOVED TO ANOTHER BROWSER AND IT WOULD LOAD ON, UM, BOTH, UM, MY PHONE AND ALSO THE ALTERNATE BROWSER.
UH, ULTIMATELY THREE BROWSERS FOR EDITS ALSO, UH, SHOULD BE AN HOUR THAT THE AGENDA IS POSTED WITH THE, UH, CONTACT OF THE CASE MANAGER.
AND I DID SEND OUT THE LINK TO, OR THE BACKUP TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE MATTHEWS LANEY VERSUS ASSOCIATION WHO HAD EXPRESSED AN INTEREST I'LL CHECK TO SEE WHETHER I SENT THEM A PDF OR NOT.
SHARE THE DOCUMENT IS THE LOADING ON MY END IS GOT CURRENTLY.
UM, WE'VE HAD OUR PRESENTATION FROM MS. RHODES AND NOW WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT.
CHAIRMAN WILL NOT HEAR FROM THE
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ON THE COMMUNITY TO INTRODUCE MYSELF ON THE REZONING APPLICATION OF 74 15 ALBERT ROAD.
I'M MY BUSINESS PARTNER HERE IN DURHAM AS WELL.
WE BUILD HOMES LOCALLY AND WE ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR BUSINESS.
A DOCUMENT THAT WE PREPARED IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU, UH, HAVE RECEIVED
[01:35:01]
AND ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD OF WITH YOU LAST WEEK FROM THE NEIGHBORS.BUT LET ME GIVE YOU THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY AND UPDATED INFORMATION, AS SOON AS YOU KNOW, UH, AND YOU'VE HEARD FROM, UH, THE CASE MANAGER, THERE WAS, UH, EVEN EMAILS RECEIVED TODAY.
UH, WE BELIEVE OUR APPLICATION AND FOR S3 SUMMONING IS REASONABLE.
THEY NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPRISED OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THERE IS PRECEDENT OF SEVERAL OTHER
SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SIMILAR TO OURS, EVEN ON THE SAME STREET.
THE PROPERTIES AREA IS EXACTLY ONE ACRE AND IS QUITE DEEP, ALMOST 420 FEET DEEP TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, THE SYS IS OVER SEVEN AND A HALF TIMES.
THE MINIMUM LOT SQUARE LOT SIZE REQUIRED FOR US OF THREE.
THE LENGTH IS AROUND 440 YARDS, WHICH IS WAY MORE THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD, THE RECENT CONDITION THAT WISHES TO THE WISHES TO LIMIT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY TO FOUR HOMES, THERE ARE PLENTY OF, UH, SFPD PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY DENSITY RESTRICTIONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS A ZONING MAP, THERE ARE SEVERAL LISTS OF THREE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES.
THERE IS A COUPLE ON THE SAME ROAD, AS I SAID A MINUTE AGO, AND ALSO SEVERAL MORE, UH, A FEW YARDS TO THE SOUTH, UM, ON DAMON ROAD.
AND WE WEANING THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE, UH, ON THE, ON THE PETITION.
I'M SORRY, OUR TRAFFIC AND WATER RUNOFF.
THESE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THE LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED, BUT LET ME EXPAND.
WE HAVE THINK THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT TERMINATION, THAT CONCLUDED THAT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS NOT REQUIRED SINCE WE DO NOT, UH, EXCEED THE THRESHOLD OF THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THESE ASSUMED THAT IT'S SCENARIO OF EIGHT HOMES.
LET ME CLARIFY THAT THIS SCENARIO OF EIGHT HOMES IS VERY PRELIMINARY.
AS WE HAVE TOLD THE NEIGHBORS AND THE GAZE MANAGER, WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOT FINALIZED ANY PLANS FOR SUBDIVISION AT THIS.
AT THIS POINT, IN REGARDS TO THE WATER, RHONDA, THESE WILL BE ASSESSED AT THE SITE BLIND STAGE.
ONCE WE KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THESE RESIGNING, AS IT IS REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SINCE WE ARE ON THE WATERSHED WATER QUALITY FACILITIES MAY BE REQUIRED.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, WHAT ALL OF THESE MEANS IS THAT WE WILL DEMONSTRATE THE REENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
VIRTA CURRENT REGULATIONS IN CASE NEEDED.
WE WILL IMPLEMENT ANY NECESSARY MITIGATION CONCERNS.
THESE MORNING, I WAS TOLD OF POSSIBLE WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS WE ALREADY CHECKED, AND THESE PROPERTY IS ALREADY SERVED BY YET AN EXISTING SIX-INCH WATER DISTRIBUTION MAIN AND AN EIGHTH INCH WASTEWATER COLLECTION MAINE WITHIN THE ALBERT ROAD.
THESE TIME METERS ANTICIPATED THAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, ANY UPSIDE IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED SUCH AS AN ACR OR SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST WHEEL WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING A SITE DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE CASE MANAGER TODAY BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND IT'S SEVERAL COMMENTS WERE MADE THAT I WISH TO CLARIFY ONE, THE ASSOCIATION SAYS THAT THEY REACHED OUT TO US.
UH, WE REACHED OUT TO THEM AS SOON AS WE WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
THIS IS A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION AND, AND, UH, WE WENT AHEAD AND REACHED OUT TO THEM THE MINUTE WE HEARD OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
UM, AND THAT WAS ON JUNE 10TH.
UH, WE, WE, WE AGREED TO A MEETING WHICH, UH, HAPPENED ON THE 22ND OF JUNE.
UM, PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, AFTER WE HAD AGREED TO MEET, THEY FILED A PETITION THOUGH, QUITE A BIT, UH, OF OUR SURPRISE.
SECOND, WE NEVER QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSOCIATION AS, AS THEY SUGGESTED THEIR EMAIL.
WE SIMPLY ASKED HOW THEY WERE ORGANIZED.
AND, AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION SINCE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO, UH, FIND ANY, ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS ABOUT THEM? THIRD, WE NEVER HEARD, WE NEVER SAID THAT WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY SITE ON SCENE BASED ON AN SF SIX PROPERTY ON DID MY ROAD.
UH, WHAT WE STATED TO THEM IS THAT WE, WHAT WE SAID IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE VISITED THE PROPERTY MANUFACTURED BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT.
BUT WHAT WE, THESE DATES SAY TO THEM IS THAT, IS THAT I CAN FINISH.
OKAY, I WILL, I WILL JUST CLOSE AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY.
THERE IS PRECEDENT OF SEVERAL OTHER
UM, AND, UH, WE BELIEVE, UH, THE ZONING IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH, UH, UH, JASON AND NEARBY, UH, USES, UH, AS A STAFF.
[01:40:01]
THANK YOU.WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. KAREN FERNANDEZ ON THE TELECONFERENCE, MS. FERNANDEZ, UH, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR MARKS.
YOU DON'T HAVE FIVE MINUTES, A SELECT STAR, SIX TO UNMUTE MR. FERNANDEZ, IF YOU CAN, UH, UM, PAUL'S APARTMENT MR. FERNANDEZ, IF HE CAN, UH, RESPOND TO, UM, MY VOICE APPEAR AVAILABLE.
ARE YOU PRESENT, UH, APOLOGIES, MR. FERNANDEZ, WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES ON OUR END.
UM, WOULD THE COMMISSION CONSIDER, UM, TABLING THIS ITEM FOR NOW AND, UM, TAKING UP ITEM 15 WHILE WE TRY TO GET THIS SITUATED, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE TELECONFERENCE FOR ITEM 15.
COULD WE MAYBE ASK STAFF A QUESTION? UM, WHY DON'T WE, I WOULD SAY LET'S JUST HEAR THE WHOLE, WELL, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SPEAKER TO RECONNECT WELL, BUT CHAIRED BERRERA RAMIREZ ISN'T HERE.
SO I WOULD SAY, WAIT UNTIL EVERYBODY'S ON THE DIOCESE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING.
UM, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A RECESS.
WOULD THE GROUP BE AMENABLE TO LIKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? IS THAT OKAY? WHY DON'T WE, AND WE'LL CALL IT 10 TO MAKE SURE.
AND SO WE WILL BE BACK HERE AT 7 54.
SO WE'LL RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.
I JUST WANT TO RUN THE BATHROOM.
DID YOU HAVE A CORUM? AND MS. FERNANDEZ IS ON THE PHONE.
YEAH, I'M GOING TO CALL IT IT'S UM, SEVEN FIFTY EIGHT TUESDAY, THE 16TH OF AUGUST.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION BACK TO ORDER.
WELL NOW HEAR FROM MS. FERNANDEZ, MR. FERNANDEZ, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PROVIDE YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KAREN FERNANDEZ AND I LIVE AT 7,400 AND FOREST ROAD.
I'M THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE MATTHEW'S
[01:45:01]
LANE TO THE NORTH DITMAR, TO THE SOUTH COOPER LANE, TO THE EAST AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE WEST THREE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS LIE WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES, ELMO TO STATES BROWNLEE, THE STATES AND GREENLEAF ESTATES, WHICH IS WHERE 74 15 ALBERT IS LOCATED.I HAVE WORKED WITH THE ASSOCIATION SUCH MOVING HERE IN 2004 AS VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARY.
AND NOW AS PRESIDENT, SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING TO YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AS WELL AS ANY FEEDBACK YOU CAN GIVE ME ON HOW BEST TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMISSION.
OUR FORMER PRESIDENT, EUGENE SUTTON HAS INFORMED ME THAT I SHOULD KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET AND JUST THE FACTS.
SO I WILL SPARE YOU MY PASSIONATE PLEA TO SAVE OURSELF OFF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE GENTRIFICATION THAT IS DEMOLISHED SO MANY BELOVED NEIGHBORHOODS AND DISPLACE THE TEACHERS, ARTISTS, CIVIL SERVANTS, AND WORKING CLASS MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
WE WERE BLESSED TO STAY ON THE CROSS HAIRS FOR AS LONG AS WE DID.
AND IN MANY WAYS WE'RE VERY NAIVE WHEN FIRST DEALING WITH THE REZONE REQUEST FOR US OF THREE, KNOWING THE NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WERE IN SUPPORTIVE SF THREE ZONING REQUESTS WITH THE PROMISE OF A NEW HOME IN AN ADU TO BE BUILT ONLY TO SEE THE PROPERTIES QUICKLY, WE SOLD FOR A PROFIT OR READ THE SUBDIVIDED.
WE NOW HAVE AN OUTREACH COMMITTEE DEDICATED TO MONITORING RESET DIVISION AND ZONING REQUESTS.
WE SEEK PROACTIVELY TO CONTACT NEW, EDUCATE THEM ON THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL OF THE LOTS ARE LARGE WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE ROADS ARE NARROW WITH NO SIDEWALKS, CURVES OR DRAINAGE.
SAVE THE BAR DITCHES THAT ARE MAINTAINED MOSTLY BY OWNERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY OFTEN IGNORES OUR REQUESTS FOR MAINTENANCE FLOOD MITIGATION IS SIMPLY THE LARGE LOT SIZE AND THE ASSOCIATED PERVIOUS COVER.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ANNEXED IN 19 84, 84 CITY, BUT WAS NEVER UP FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE YET REQUESTS FOR INCREASED DENSITY IN OUR AREA PERSISTS.
OUR LATEST ISSUE IS THE LOW WATER PRESSURE AT THE FIRE HYDRANTS DUE TO THE FEW ADDITIONAL HOMES CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE MET WITH THE MORE THAT ARE GONE AT THE LOT IN QUESTION TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY'RE PLAN TO BUILD EIGHT UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
ALL OF WHICH ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND LARGER LOTS.
MR. MOSER GONE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY SITE UNSEEN DUE TO THE NEARBY SF SIX ZONING.
I AM SURPRISED BY HIM NOW STATING THAT HE DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT WHEN THERE WERE THREE OTHER NEIGHBORS PRESENT AT THE MEETING TO WITNESS IT.
WE POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT THE SSX SUBDIVISION WAS ACTUALLY SOUTH STONE, A 42 ACRE PROPERTY WITH CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AND ACCESS FROM DENTON, NOT FROM ALBERT.
THEY PROCEEDED TO QUESTION THE ABILITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION AND STRESS THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR SF THREE ONCE RATHER, RATHER THAN SF SIX, WAS THEIR WAY OF BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS.
WE POINTED OUT THAT 1501 DAMON, WHICH IS IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, AND BACK TO THE SOUTH STONE DEVELOPMENT WAS PURCHASED BY CODY CAR WHO REQUESTED A ZONING CHANGE OF SF THREE WITH THE INTENTION OF BUILDING DUPLEXES AFTER MEETING WITH US AND SEEING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MR. CARR WORKED WITH US TO COME INTO AGREEMENT.
MATTHEW'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED HIS REQUESTS FOR SF THREE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
HE IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ADU THAT IS IN LINE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A PROPERTY WHERE THE DEVELOPERS WORKED WITH US TO COME TO AN AMICABLE AGREEMENT.
WE ONLY ASK THAT THE MORE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME, WE OPPOSED THE REASON REQUEST THE SS THREE WITH FURTHER SUBDIVISION AND ASK THE SF TO BE APPLIED, WHICH IS THE DOMINANT ZONING AND ALL THE SUBDIVISIONS, INCLUDING THE, WITHIN THE ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES.
THE SF THREE ZONING THAT DOES EXIST HAS ONLY ONE HOME AND AN AGU PER LOT.
I AM ALSO, WE'VE ASKED ABOUT PARKING FOR THE EIGHT UNITS AND WHAT THEY ENVISIONED, AND THEY REPLIED THAT MILLENNIALS DON'T LIKE DRIVING.
IF THEIR INTENTION IS TO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS LOT IS NOT CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
THE CLOSEST BUS STOP IS ALMOST A MILE AWAY THROUGH DANGEROUS, NARROW ROADS WITH NO SIDEWALKS, ALL ALONG ALBERT AND MATTHEWS TILL AFTER THE RAILROAD CROSSINGS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY AND WE'LL STAY ON THE LINE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR ME, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME OTHER MEMBERS IN THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE THAT ARE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK IN PERSON WHO CAN ALSO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. EUGENE SUTTON SUTTON.
[01:50:01]
PRESIDENT OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND NOW SERVE ON THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE.WE ARE SEEKING SF TWO REZONING ON THIS ONE ACRE PLOT ON ALBERT, THE WIDTH AT THE MAILBOX OF SEVEN WITH THE ROAD AT THE MAILBOX OF 7, 4 74, 15 IS 18 AND A HALF FEET.
MS. FLANK BY BAR DITCHES IS A ROAD NARROWS UPHILL.
PONDING IS NOTED BY AN IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH AND WATER CASCADES DOWNHILL AT 7,404 ALBERT TO RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE WESTERN PROPERTIES.
NO SIDEWALKS EXIST ON ALBERT AND REQUESTS FOR MITIGATION OF FLOODING IS LED TO A RESPONSE FROM THE CITY TO DEEPEN BAR DITCHES DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPER HAS CENTERED UPON FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, AS THIS IS COMMON FEATURE WITHIN RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
THERE'S FOUR UNITS AT 1103 AND 1105 MATTHEW LANE, NINE UNITS AT MATTHEW PARK, WHICH IS ON ALBERT, WHICH IS LOCATED ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES.
MATTHEW HAS LANE PROPERTIES INVOLVED TWO AND A HALF ACRE SITES THAT HAD ONE AND A HALF ACRES OF FLOODPLAIN RESTRICTIONS.
MATTHEW'S PARK HAZARD RETENTION POND SF THREE ZONING IS REZONING IS PROLIFERATING ON ALBERT.
AND THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEY'RE BOTH ONE ACRE SITES AND I'VE SPOKEN TO THE OWNER AND HE'S PLANNING ON BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY AND AN ADU ON EACH ONE ACRE SITE.
SF THREE IS PROLIFERATING ALSO ON DAMON, WHICH IS WHERE I LIVE.
AND CURRENTLY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES IS HAVING A SINGLE FAMILY AND AN ADU BEING BUILT.
THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL PROPERTIES ON WHEN THAT ARE SF THREE.
AND AGAIN, PEOPLE ARE PLANNING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY IN AN ADU.
THE DEVELOPERS MENTIONED SF SIX REZONING NEXT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SOUTH STONE, WHICH IS 42 ACRE PROJECT CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED BY MID CITY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS ENCOMPASSES LAND BEHIND DAMON AND THE SHERWOOD ALBERT INTERSECTION RUNS ALONG THE TRACKS TOWARDS DITMAR IN A HORSESHOE SHAPE.
A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2006 TO ALLOW THE SF SIX ZONING, THE NORTHERN PORTION, 10.01, ONE ACRES ALONG DAMON AND SHERWOOD IS RESTRICTED OVER 55 AND, UH, OVER 55 YEARS AND OTHER GUIDELINES APPLIED TO THE CONDOMINIUM REGIME, FENCING ENTRANCE ON DITMAR OR EMERGENCY ENTRANCE AND OWNERSHIP.
THE RESTRICTIONS ALSO INCLUDE ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION WERE PRECIPITATED TO ANGER OVER THE 18 WHEELERS, WHICH TRAVERSED ALBERT AND SUBSEQUENT DETERIORATION OF ALBERT SINCE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN IN THE HOUSING.
THE CURRENT COVENANT STATES THAT ENTRANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES IS NOW ON DITMAR.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF 74 15 WAS INCENSED BY THE CONSTANT PARADE OF TRUCKS AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE SADDENED BY THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL TREES, EXCEPT ONE HERITAGE LIVE OAK ON THE NORTHERN 10 ACRES UNITS ARE BEING ERECTED ON THE DITMAR PHASE WITH A COST OF 671,000.
THE AML MATTHEW'S LANE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION CONTINUES TO WORK WITH AND MONITOR THE AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTH STONE, ESF SIX DESIGNATION AS AN ANOMALY, AS SUCH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD VIEWED AS THE COMPROMISE FOR SUCH A LARGE SITE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM ONE TO THREE ACRES, WE REALIZED THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS TO OCCUR.
WE BELIEVE SF TWO IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE, SF THREE, AS APPROPRIATE FOR SOME OF THE OTHER SITES.
AS LONG AS WE ADHERE TO A SINGLE FAMILY AND AN ADU, MANY OF THE LONG-TIME RESIDENTS ARE PASSING AWAY AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF SELLING OAK WELT HAS DECIMATED TREES ON THIS PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A RED OAK AND AN OLD PEACHTREE THAT EXISTS NEXT TO ALBERT AND SHOULD BE RETAINED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
NEIGHBORS REALIZED THAT THE IMPENDING CHANGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORS RE REALIZE THE IMPENDING CHANGE IN NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT WISHED TO DO SO IN A PRUDENT MANNER.
FOUR UNITS IS THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. JEFF DICKERSON.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE RAPIDS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH COMMITTEE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT TRAFFIC STORM WATER, WATER PRESSURE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES THAT HAVE EXISTED SINCE 1984 ANNEXATION.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE 90 DEGREE BLIND CURVE.
I HAVE A PICTURE INDEPENDENT TODAY THAT YOU CAN PREVIEW.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE BLOODY REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES THAT REDUCE LIVABLE STRUCTURES.
APACHE WRITTEN THE NOTE AS RETENTION PONDS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT ASSESSABLE WALKABLE, TRANSIT LOCATIONS.
[01:55:01]
WHAT I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS WE WOULD LIKE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAGIC LANE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE BALLOT PETITION, BUT THEN THAT'S UP TO COMPATIBILITY.ONE THING THAT THIS GETS TO ME IS THIS IS NOT AN EAST AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS NOT A MUELLER DEVELOPMENT.
WHY, WHAT ARE THE IMPACT THAT DENSITY IS GENTRIFICATION.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
WHAT I WILL POINT TO LATER, DENSE CONSTRUCTION DENSITY ALSO EQUATES TO ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, UH, HERE FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN ALL THE TIME, WE NEED MORE PARKS.
WE CAN BOARD GREENERY, BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THIS OBSESSION WITH, WE NEED MORE HOUSING.
WHAT DOES THIS DENSITY DO? WHAT IS THE IMPACT IT HAS? AND I HAVE TURKEY VULTURE AND THAT'S THE ONE I WON.
IT'S THE BLACK VULTURE PROTECTED SPECIES.
WHO'S, UH, ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN WIPED OUT BY THE SOPS KNOWN DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S BEEN A REDUCTION IN THE NATURAL HABIT IN HABITATS LIKE DEER DUCKS BOXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THEY'RE DISAPPEARING FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO CONSTRUCTION, UH, WITH ALSO LOCK NUT SLIDE.
NOW, THE ONE THING THAT THE APPLICA CHOSE TO SAY WHAT THE PRECEDENTS ON MY STREET ON SOMEBODY 5 0 5, WHEN WITH REGARD TO THIS IS GOOD, SF THREE DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES.
THIS IS A THIRD OF AN ACRE LOFT THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO, AND NOW HAS FOUR STRUCTURES ON IT.
IN ADDITION, THIS PROPERTY IS, HAS A DIFFERENT DEED AND WHAT THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS ABOUT.
UH, THE CURB THE IS ON ALBERT LANE.
AND I'M GOING TO WRAP UP WITH SOME NAMES FOR THIS HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS THE DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE RECTANGULAR, UTTERLY MONSTROSITY, TALL PILE OF PETS IS COUCH ONE, MY NEIGHBORS.
WELL, AND I THINK YOUR TIME IS DONE, BUT WE APPRECIATE WE CAN READ IT.
UH, AND ONE QUOTE FROM MAN RICHARD, SHE CAN PUT ON LIPSTICK, EARRINGS ON A HAWK, CALL IT MONIQUE, BUT IT'S STILL A PIG.
IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR.
THE APPLICANT WILL FORGO REBUTTAL.
SO, UM, EMOTIONAL CLOSED, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DINKLER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING, THE PUBLIC HEARING LOOKS PRETTY MUCH UNANIMOUS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
AND THEN, UM, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
THIS WAS A QUESTION I THINK THE STAFF COULD ANSWER.
UM, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE, UM, FRONTAGE ON ALBERT ROAD? I'LL NEED TO LOOK THAT UP JUST A MOMENT.
I'M GOING TO LOOK IT UP FOR YOU.
CAUSE SF TWO AND SF THREE REQUIRE 50 FEET.
SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCES ARE A HUNDRED FEET.
WELL, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF YOU'RE SAYING SF TWO, AND YOU'RE SAYING UP TO FOUR UNITS, HOW ARE YOU GETTING FOUR UNITS WITH SF TWO? THAT'S WHAT THE BALLOT PETITION IS REQUESTING.
SO I'M JUST UNCLEAR IF THAT'S EVEN A SORT OF RATIONAL REQUEST.
YOU CAN ONLY FIT FOUR IF YOU DO SF THREE AND DO DUPLEXES.
THAT'S THE WAY IT LOOKS, BUT I'M JUST WANTING THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT.
SO DID YOU SAY AS A HUNDRED FEET, MS. RHODES? A LITTLE BIT OVER A HUNDRED FEET? YES.
SO YOU COULD HAVE TWO LOTS AND IF THEY REALLY ARE OKAY WITH THREE UNITS,
[02:00:01]
THEN SF THREE IS THE RE REASONABLE, UM, RECOMMENDATION.SO JUST TO EXPLAIN IT FURTHER BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE FRONT END OF THE ROADWAY, YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PUT, TO HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS FRONTING ONTO ALBERT ROAD.
AND BECAUSE IT'S THREE, YOU COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL UNIT IN THE BACK.
SO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY IS FOUR WITH SF THREE AND LESS.
MAYBE YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE DIFFERENTLY WITH FLAG LOTS, BUT I WOULD GO FOR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF FOUR UNITS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF SF THREE.
CAUSE YOU CAN FIT TWO DUPLEXES, WHICH IS TWO ON H AND H YOU GET AN 80, YOU, I BELIEVE THAT FOUR UNITS ON HIS LOT, A DUPLEX AND IN TWO 80 YEARS, SF THREE LOTS ONLY ALLOW A TECH, DUPLEX, OR A HOUSE IN AN ADU IN ANY STILL TWO UNITS, NO MATTER WHAT UNITS, THAT'S NOT MY EXPERTISE.
I JUST KNOW YOU CAN DO A DUPLEX IS WHAT SF THREE IS.
CAN YOU VERIFY FOR US THAT IF THEY DO TWO LOTS, EACH WITH AROUND 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE, THEY GOT AND A TOTAL OF FOUR UNITS, OR IT CAN BE TWO DUPLEXES.
IT CAN BE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, OR IT COULD BE, UM, OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PLUS ONE, UH, TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE ALSO KNOWN AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT A PIECE.
SAY THAT WHAT WAS THE LAST OPTION FOR PETE? THE LAST ONE IS THAT I THOUGHT YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ON EACH LOT? OKAY.
SO IT'D BE, SO YOU COULD DO IT HAS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE PLUS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH, ON EACH LOT UNDER SM THREE.
DID THAT UNIT BE A DUPLEX INSTEAD? COULD BE YES.
IT'S A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS DUPLEX PLUS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS THREE UNITS.
THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER ARREST.
THAT'S THREE THAT YOU, FOR THAT YOU NEED A MULTIFAMILY DISPARATE.
AND SO JUST TO PREVENT SORT OF SOME OTHER KIND OF SUBDIVISION USING FLAG LOTS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
IF PEOPLE ARE READY FOR EMOTION FOR SF THREE, WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF NO MORE THAN FOUR UNITS TOTAL ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KING.
YOUR I CAN'T YOUR VIDEO'S NOT ON, SO I CAN'T SEE YOU.
DO YOU WANT A SECOND THAT YES.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE 80 OR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
YOU CAN ONLY FIT TWO UNITS ON IT.
YEAH, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT ON THERE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS.
[15. Final Plat out of Approved Preliminary Plan: C8J-2008-0212.01.1A – Sun Chase Mirador Phase 1 Section 1, A]
15 M AND MS. SO CONTROL KOBASA.UM, AND I HAD PULLED IT, UM, AND, BUT SARAH SUMNER IS HERE FROM THE COUNTY, BUT SHE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
SO, UM, AND SHE'S BEEN VERY NICE.
SHE CAME HERE, UM, AFTER WORK AND, BUT WE COULD JUST VOTE ON I'M HAPPY TO IMPROVE.
WE APPROVED, UM, B OR WHATEVER, 15.
WITH CAN AND THERE'S CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, BOOKS HUMANA'S OKAY.
AND SHOULD HAVE HAD YOU PREPARE OR SHOULD PRESENT JUST TO MAKE IT WORTH YOUR WHILE.
YOU WANT TO COME PRESENT? SO, YES.
UM, MR. SHANK IS ON, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT,
[19. Code Amendment: Flood Regulations]
I DON'T EVER 19 FLOOD REGULATIONS.DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR SHOULD WE YEAH.
THAT'S HOW YOU USE YOUR, THIS.
WE CAME TO THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS KEVIN SEAN, BUT PLANT ADMINISTRATOR FROM THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, WE DID COME TO THE COMMISSION WITH THEIR PRESENTATION ON JULY 5TH.
AND THEN WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ON JULY 19TH.
UH, HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME ABSENTEES IN THE GROUP.
AND SO THEN IT WAS MOVED UP TO AUGUST 2ND, WHICH I BELIEVE GOT CANCELED.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
SO I CAN TYPE ON THE PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO, OR WAIT, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER.
SO, UM, OUR, I DON'T KNOW, DO WE WANT A PRESENTATION? THE PROCESS, BUT WHEN HE SAID HE COUNSELED
[02:05:01]
ANOTHER VOICE ISSUES AND KIND OF WHAT'S WHERE ARE WE AT AT THIS POINT? YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? SURE.IT'S GOING TO SEPTEMBER 1ST FOR COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
UH, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ONLY COMMISSION YET TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE SPEAKERS.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SPEAKERS.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH MR. JOSEPH REYNOLDS, MR. REYNOLDS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF YESTERDAY.
I SENT YOU A LOOSE SET OF 10 ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED BEFORE THIS CODE CHANGES PAST A SAY IN THE DOCUMENT I SENT, I HAVE A LONG ASSOCIATION WITH FLOODING IN AUSTIN.
I FIRST SAW SHOW CREEK FLOODED IN 19 61, 20 YEARS LATER, I WAS ON THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD FOR THE 1981 MEMORIAL DAY FLOOD.
AND I KNOW THE HISTORY OF HOW AUSTIN GOT HIS FLOOD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
I SPENT 40 YEARS AS A LEADER OF TREYCORE'S APPLIED RESEARCH DIVISION STARTING IN 1963.
AND I WORKED IN NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS, MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN CREEK FLOODING.
STRANGE RUN-ON STAFF RUNS A HUNDRED DYNAMIC MODEL TO PREDICT WATERFLOW.
I BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS VERSION OF THAT PROGRAM IN 1970.
I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT PROGRAMS LIMITS AND HOW IT CAN BE ABUSED.
ONE OF MY PROJECTS AT TREYCORE INVOLVED GROUNDTRUTH TARGETS FOR SURVEILLANCE SATELLITES.
I KNOW THE LIMITS OF SENSING THE EARTH SURFACE WITH CAMERAS, LIDAR RADAR AND WITH AIRCRAFT SENSORS.
SO I KNOW THERE'S ONLY LIMITED DATA AVAILABLE TO DESCRIBE LOW CHANNELS DATA REQUIRED FOR PROPER PROGRAM USE.
I KNOW ABOUT THE GEOLOGY AND CHARACTER CREEK CHANNELS LIKE SHOW CREEK.
I KNOW THEY CHANGE DURING A FLOOD.
SO THE STATIC PREDICTIONS OF FLOW ARE OFTEN WORTHLESS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FLOOD PROBLEMS. I SENT YOU 10 CONCERNS OF DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE.
FIRST, THE UNQUALIFIED NATURE OF DECLARATION BY THE DIRECTOR, SIMPLY NO ADVERSE FLOOD IMPACT TO THE ABSENCE OF QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF RISK OR SAFETY AND THE EFFORTS LEADING TO THAT DESPERATION THREE, A GENERAL LACK OF MEASUREMENT AND QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS WITH NO ASSIGNED ENGINEERING RESPONSIBILITY.
THE KING GREENBERG RESOLUTION ADDRESSES THIS, BUT ENGINEERS MUST SIGN AND SEAL THEIR MO THEIR WORK.
CURRENTLY THERE IS WIDESPREAD USE OF PLANNERS FOR THIS ROLE, FOR LACK OF SPECIFIED IN OFFICE PROCESSES TO ENSURE CONSISTENT EVALUATIONS PROJECT TO PROJECT THAT'S BASIC FAIRNESS, FIVE, NO PUBLIC FORUM FOR EFFECTED PARTIES ONLY FOR THE APPLICANT SIX, NO DEFINED DOCUMENTATION PROCESS FOR AN EVALUATION SEVEN, NO SCHEDULE OF REQUESTING REBUILDING OR FOR A RE OR FOR, OR FOR THE REBUILDING OR LIMITS ON HOW MANY REQUESTS EIGHT, NO DOCUMENTATION OF THE CITY STANDING IN AUTHORITY TO DO THIS INCLUDING LETTERS TO AND FROM INVOLVE REGULATORS, DATES OF HEARINGS AND SIMILAR NINE THERE'S RECKLESSNESS AND REDUCED OVERSIGHT OF BUILDING IN A FLOOD PLAIN, AND FINALLY 10 DISREGARD FOR THE FINDINGS OF THE CITIZENS TASK FORCE.
THIS COMMISSION WILL BE NEGLIGENT IF IT APPROVES THE CODE CHANGES, UNLESS PROBLEMS ARE CORRECTED FIRST.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. DOCTOR FRIEND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT.
MY NAME'S NATALIE FRENSLEY I'M HERE.
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, MY DAUGHTER ALMOST DROWNED IN SHOAL CREEK.
I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO ADOPT THE KING AND GREENBERG RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT CREATES IMPORTANT CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR FLOODPLAIN SAFETY SSESSMENT AND MUNICIPAL GOOD GOVERNANCE, WATERSHED PROTECTIONS, PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE FALLS IN A GLARING PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COLLABORATIVE INVOLVEMENT GAPS.
SINCE THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE IN 2015, IN 2015 CITY COUNCIL CREATED THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE, WHICH WAS A VERY ADMIRABLE CITIZEN STAFF COLLABORATION TO ANALYZE, UNDERSTAND
[02:10:01]
AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PLANNING ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE PUBLIC MEDIA, SINCE THE PUBLIC FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE PLANS FOR FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THIS DOMAIN AREA WERE ANNOUNCED ONLY THIS APRIL, THE PROBLEMS THE COMMUNITY HAS WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE ARE AT SEQUENCING AND SCOPE.THE KING GREENBERG RESOLUTION ADDRESSES THESE PROBLEMS. SEQUENCING WISE WATERSHEDS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE PUTS THE OPERATIONAL BEFORE THE STRATEGIC, THE PROVERBIAL CART BEFORE THE HORSE, WHICH IS LESS THAN DESIRABLE PUBLIC POLICYMAKING.
THE CURRENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS AN OPERATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE AT A TIME THAT THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN IS IN FLUX.
IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WATERSHED PROTECTION HELD ITS KICKOFF FOR RAIN TO RIVER, WHICH IS THE STREET'S DZIEDZIC PLAN TO REPLACE THE CURRENT WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN, BUT WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATED CHANGING THE LDC REGARDING COMMERCIAL FLOOD PLAIN CONSTRUCTION.
LAST YEAR, BEFORE RAIN TO RIVER WATERSHED SEQUENCING DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCES.
NUMBER ONE, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT A CITYWIDE FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITIZATION POLICY BASED ON LOSS OF LIFE, GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE.
ALL SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND BUDGET DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH THIS FRAMEWORK.
WATERSHED IS ASSERTING COMMUNITY COLLABORATION, BUT IGNORING COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE KING GREENBERG RESOLUTION HELPS ADDRESS WATERSHED SEQUENCING.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE CREATES POTENTIAL PERIL THAT DIRECTOR DETERMINATION ESTABLISHES A DEFACTO POLICY-MAKING PROCESS WITH A SINGLE POINT OF INFLUENCE WITH NO PUBLIC APPEAL OR INVOLVEMENT OTHER THAN JUDICIAL.
THE KING GREENBERG RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION OF AUDITS, PUBLIC REPORTS, CONCISE SAFETY DEFINITIONS, AND PUBLIC NOTICE OR ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNS THAT CREATE GOOD AND ETHICAL GOVERNANCE AND OVERCOME THE SCOPE PROBLEM OF THE PRESENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND BY DINKLER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? I THINK IT'S PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? YES.
UM, DISCUSSION AND I'M LOOKING, I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE, HERE WE GO.
OH, ACTUALLY I CAN START IF YOU WANT.
I WAS GOING TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, MR. SHUNK WANTED TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS OR, UM, OR IF WE WANT TO JUST GO WITH OUR DISCUSSION FIRST.
YEAH, WE'LL HAVE, DO, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING, MR. SEAN? I THINK THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION THAT WE DID BACK ON JULY 5TH, AS WELL AS SOME DISCUSSIONS WE HAD AFTER THAT, UM, ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ADDRESS, I'M HAPPY TO.
UM, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO DO.
UM, THIS IS A VERY NARROW SCOPE OF WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ATTEMPTING TO DO.
AND I'M GOING TO RUN YOU THROUGH A SCENARIO WHERE SOMEONE HAS GOT A SMALL BUSINESS, UH, AND THERE DIDN'T USED TO BE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, BUT THE FLOOD PLAIN IS NOW CHANGED AND FLOOD COMES ALONG AND IT IMPACTS OUR BUILDING.
THEY CAN'T REBUILD THAT STRUCTURE.
UM, THEY ARE NOW OUT OF BUSINESS, UH, THE PRODUCT THEY PRODUCE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.
THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY HIRED ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO HAVE A PLACE TO WORK.
UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ABOUT A SIX MONTH, A YEAR LONG PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THAT FACILITY REBUILT.
UM, AND THEY'RE SIMPLY IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, THEIR BUSINESS WOULD GO WANDER.
NOBODY HAS A BUSINESS THAT COULD LAST THAT LONG AND WITHOUT INCOME COMING IN.
AND SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF BUSINESS.
AND THIS ORDINANCE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUSINESS AND YOU FLOOD AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE THAT STRUCTURE OUT OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN AND REBUILD NO MORE THAN WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE, BUT REBUILD WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE.
[02:15:01]
THIS IS AN EXPEDITED WAY OF DOING THAT PROVIDED IT HAS NO IMPACT TO DOWNSTREAM FLOODING AND DOESN'T MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE THAN IT WAS BEFORE.UM, THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT A HANDFUL OF PROPERTIES, BUT IT MAY MEAN THE LIFE OF THAT COMPANY.
BEING ABLE TO COME BACK OR NOT COME BACK, THE STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY FLOODING, OR THEY MAY HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY A FIRE OR SOME OTHER KIND OF STRUCTURAL DEAL.
IT'S NOT SOMEONE JUST DECIDING, HEY, I WANT TO BUILD TWICE AS MUCH LAND AS I HAD HAD BEFORE.
UM, IT IS SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THEIR STRUCTURE AND THEY NEED TO REBUILD.
UM, THEY NEED TO GET THOSE EMPLOYEES BACK.
THEY NEED TO GET THAT PRODUCT BACK TO THE, TO THE, THE RESIDENTS WHO NEED THAT PRODUCT, WHATEVER IT IS.
UH, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO DO.
IT'S NOT CHANGING THE FLOOD PLAIN.
IT'S SIMPLY SAYING, IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU'RE HAVING NO IMPACT DOWNSTREAM AND YOU CAN SAFELY RAISE YOUR STRUCTURE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE RESIDE OR HOUSED DURING A FLOOD.
AND IN VERY NARROW SCOPES AND YOU AVOID SPENDING SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR GOING THROUGH A CITY COUNCIL PROCESS.
AND SO IF WE HAD GO AT THIS AND SAY, THIS IS GREAT, BUT WE WANT TO ADD ON PUBLIC REVIEW.
WE WANT TO ADD ON ALL THESE THINGS, YOU DEFEATED THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
UM, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE STAFF DECISIONS VERY QUICKLY AND GET THESE PEOPLE BACK IN BUSINESS ON A VERY EXPEDITED PURPOSE.
AND IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH AND ADD A BUNCH OF REQUIREMENTS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND THEY WOULD SIMPLY GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND DON'T NOT HAVE ANYTHING DONE.
SO THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT AND A VERY NARROW FASHION TO HELP SOME CUSTOMERS WHO WERE IMPACTED BY NATURAL DISASTERS AND IN A VERY SMALL FASHION.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I WROTE WHAT I DID WAS IT WAS TALKING TO STAFF AND GOING OVER WHAT WAS, WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO AND SIMPLY SAYING, OKAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT OF IT.
THAT'S WHERE MY VERSION CAME FROM.
UH, WHEN YOU START ADDING THINGS ON TO THAT, AGAIN, YOU DEFEAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
UM, THIS ISN'T A CHANGE TO THE FLOOD PLAIN OR THE FLOOD PROCESS.
IT'S SIMPLY HOW DOES THIS ONE ENTITY THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED GET BACK IN BUSINESS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT MYSELF.
UM, SO LOOKING AT THE, I HAVE THE KING GREENBERG ONE AND THE SMITH, UH, VERSION HERE ON MY, ON MY SCREEN.
AND SO I'M KIND OF LOOKING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TWO AND, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST FIVE ITEMS ON THE KING GREENBERG, BE IT NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
THE ONE THROUGH FIVE, I THINK ARE REALLY ADDRESSING JUST SOME OF THE FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES THAT WE HAVE KIND OF IN OUR, IN OUR CULTURE, IN OUR BIGGER SCOPE, BIGGER.
IS THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST FEARS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE WE'VE EXPERIENCED FLOOD AND IT'S, WE'RE RESPONDING TO, UM, THIS, THIS THING THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED.
UM, SO I THINK I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
IT IS MORE THAN WHAT, UH, MR. SHUNK IS TRYING TO DO BY JUST HELP THESE COMMERCIAL, HELPING THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY FLOODS.
SO TO THAT POINT, I THINK THAT NUMBERS NUMBER SIX, WITH THE 30 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE OF REDEVELOPMENT, THAT'S I GET A LITTLE STUCK THERE AS MR. SMITH WAS SAYING, MR. SMITH WAS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH PROVIDING NOTICE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE NOTICED, BUT THEN WHAT REQUESTS IS IT JUST FOR THEIR INFORMATION? OR, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY TRYING TO STOP THE ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, VARIANTS? SO I KINDA HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND THEN THERE'LL BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
UM, SHOULD WE NOT HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTIES? SO THIS IS KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT, THE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THING IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO REDEVELOP AFTER THEY'VE BEEN IMPACTED BY A FLOOD.
SO THE IDEA IS THAT THEY WOULD BUILD THEIR, THEIR, UH, STRUCTURED, OH, TWO FEET OVER THE FLOORBOARD THAT WHAT'S CALLED THE FREEBOARD, THE FREEBOARD TO TWO FEET OVER THE FREEBOARD OVER THE FLOOD, PLAIN, UH, OVER THE FLOOD PLAIN FREEBOARD, WHICH IS TWO FEET, TWO FEET OF FREEBOARD.
SO IT WOULD BE A TALLER THING THAT IDEALLY GET THEM OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, AND TO BE SAFE.
AND SO THEIR BUILDING IDEALLY WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED AGAIN.
SO WE'RE BUILDING BACK BETTER.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT ONE, THE FIRST ONE.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE, AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME THING.
YOU KNOW, WE, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT IS TRYING TO, OR THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO FIX WHEN A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GETS FLOODED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK.
SO, UM, I AND THE CITY HAS NEVER BOUGHT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, BOUGHT AT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE BY SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL.
THEY DON'T BUY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
[02:20:01]
YOU KEEP IT IN THERE CAUSE IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN OR WON'T HAPPEN.SO THOSE ARE MY, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND I'M SORRY, I JUST WANT HIM TO, NO, YOU, YOU, YOU HIT ON WHAT EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS IN WHILE I AGREE WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING, IT, IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT THIS COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT IS TRYING TO DO.
UM, IT'S GOOD STUFF, BUT IT DEFEATS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO DO TRAUMA.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE TRAUMA.
SORRY, KING AND THEN GREENBERG.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD, UH, KNOW WE MAY, IF WE WILL REWIND A FEW WEEKS BACK THEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND I, AND COMMISSIONER SMITH, W WE, UH, GOT TOGETHER TO KIND OF PUT OUT THE, YOU KNOW, PRODUCE THESE RESOLUTIONS AND WE KIND OF SHARED NOTES THERE.
I, I, UH, COPIED, UH, COPIOUSLY FROM, UH, COMMISSIONERS SMITH'S RESOLUTION IS FIRST, IS THE FIRST FEW, WHEREAS IS BECAUSE THEY THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY INFORMATIVE AND THEY WOULD FIT INTO OUR RESOLUTION.
BUT ESSENTIALLY THE RESOLUTION OF KING GREENBERG RESOLUTION IS NOT SAYING, DON'T PASS IT.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE SIMPLY, WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE ALSO NOT SAYING PASS IT W WE'RE BEING, WE'RE BEING SILENT ON THAT.
AND, AND AS FAR AS IT GOES, IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE, WHAT THAT NOTICE WOULD BE JUST TO NOTIFY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THAT, THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS TO LET THEM KNOW, HEY, THERE'S AN ADMINISTER.
IF IT GETS APPROVED, THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION FOR, UH, FOR THIS, UH, REDEVELOPMENT IN THE, UNDER THIS, UH, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
AND, UM, THE, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ANY PROPERTY D PROPERTY THAT'S DAMAGED FOR PRETTY MUCH, ANY REASON COULD QUALIFY FOR THIS, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DAMAGED, CAUSED BY A FLOOD IF I'M WRONG, AS BEST I CAN CORRECT ME, BUT ANY PROPERTY THAT'S DAMAGED, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE RE REBUILT OR, YOU KNOW, FROM SCRATCH OR, OR A MAJOR REMODELING DONE, THEN THIS EXCEPTION WOULD, COULD POTENTIALLY COME INTO EFFECT FOR THEM, WHETHER THAT, THAT THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE OF A FIRE OR A FLOOD OR WHATEVER CAUSED THAT REASON.
AND MAYBE STAFF CAN CLARIFY THAT, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO RESOLUTIONS AS THE KING GREENBIRD IS NOT RECOMMENDING NOR NOT RECOMMENDING, NOR RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THESE ARE THINGS COUNCILS SHOULD CONSIDER.
AND IN PUBLIC NOTICE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PUBLIC PROCESS, THEN THE AFFECTED PARTIES, THE PARTIES AROUND, AROUND THIS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, THIS POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT, THERE, THEY ARE PROBABLY ALSO IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, THEY'VE PROBABLY ALSO BEEN FLOODED OUT POTENTIALLY, OR, OR, OR CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
SO I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT THEY BE NOTIFIED.
IT'S JUST A TRANSPARENCY NOTIFICATION.
YOU HOPE TO GAIN FROM THE NOTIFICATION, WHAT IS IT? IT'S JUST FOR INFORMATION.
AND SO THEY CAN BE AWARE AND THEY CAN SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO? AND HOW MIGHT YOUR REDEVELOPMENT AFFECT MY PROPERTY? YOU KNOW, AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL IT'S ABOUT.
THE PURPOSE IS NOT TO SAY SLOW THINGS DOWN.
IT'S JUST TO TRY TO PROVIDE, UH, UH, NOTICE HOW THAT AFFECTED FOLKS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED, COULD BE AWARE OF THIS.
AND IT'S NOT JUST ADMINISTRATIVELY DONE, UH, WITH NO, NO NOTICE.
I THINK IF I CAN EXPAND ON COMMISSIONER KING'S COMMENTS, WE NOTIFY FOR SUBDIVISION.
WE NOTIFY FOR ZONING AND WE GIVE CONTACT INFORMATION SO PEOPLE CAN KNOW WHO THEY CAN CALL WITH QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE.
VERY, WE DO THAT EVEN ON ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLANS, AND YOU CUT FILL LESS THAN BETWEEN FOUR AND EIGHT FEET.
IT JUST GETS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE OR BY STATE.
BUT ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN, YOU STILL GET NOTICED SAYING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONTACT THIS PARTY, IT'S SUCH AND SUCH YEAH.
SO YES, WE DO CUT AND FILL NOW ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT SIDE PLANS ARE NOTED.
SUBDIVISIONS NOTIFIED SITE PLANS, ZONING, AND ALL STAFF IS TRYING TO DO IS GET PEOPLE BACK IN BUSINESS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
AND ANYTHING YOU DO TO DELAY THAT IT'S GOING TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.
BUT THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING WITH THIS IS THE CAUSE THE BUSINESS IS NOT THE ONLY CONSTITUENT IN THIS PROCESS.
IT IS THE PROBLEM, BLACK, THIS MIRRORS, THE SAME PROCESS.
IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT GETS INUNDATED AND REBUILDING YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THIS MIRRORS THAT SAME PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY.
IF YOU HAD TO REBUILD YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CAUSE YOU WERE DAMAGED, YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND DO IT WITHOUT GETTING ALL THIS STUFF.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
YOU JUST GO AT, LET'S GET IT REBUILT.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAS HER HAND UP.
UM, YEAH, SO IT IS THE SAME AS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
AND FRANKLY, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
UM, IF YOU WANT TO BUILD IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, LET THE COUNCIL TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THAT.
THIS SORT OF IS A WAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER
[02:25:01]
THOSE CASES.THEY CAN JUST GET THEM ALL APPROVED UNILATERALLY BASED ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
I MEAN, I THINK ABOUT FLORIDA, THEY HAVE HURRICANES AND THEN AFTER THE HURRICANE PEOPLE REBUILD RIGHT WHERE THE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS.
AND I'M SORT OF SURPRISED THAT YOU DIDN'T USE THE STAFF, USE THE DAMAGE BY FIRE, BUT I FIND IT ESPECIALLY HORRIFYING TO THINK OF DAMAGED BY FLOOD AND THEN REBUILDING IN THE SAME LOCATION.
THEN RAISING IT UP, JUST LIKE IN THE WHATEVER HURRICANE ZONES, THEY PUT THE HOUSE ON STILTS THE NEXT TIME, UM, WHICH IS WHAT THIS WILL DO, RAISE IT UP TWO FEET.
UM, BUT YOU'RE STILL BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
AND I DON'T WANT TO APPROVE, UH, A RECOMMENDATION THAT SAYS, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.
BUT BY NOT SUPPORTING WHAT THEY'RE DOING, YOU'RE PUTTING THAT COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS FOR SOMETHING, THEY HAD NO IDEA.
THEY DIDN'T BUILD THEIR BUILDING IN THE FLOOD.
PLAIN, THE FLOOD PLAIN HAS MOVED AND NOW IT CAN CONSUME THEIR PROPERTY.
THESE ARE NOT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CREEK.
I'M GETTING DISTRACTED OVER HERE.
I, I HEAR YOU COMMISSIONER SMITH.
SOME OF THOSE FOLKS ARE GOING TO FIND THEMSELVES IN A FLOOD PLAIN, UM, THAT DIDN'T KNOW.
SOME OF THEM KNOW THEY'RE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE HAS GOOD INSURANCE, BUT I FEEL LIKE OUR JOB AS A PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO THINK ABOUT APPROPRIATE PLANNING.
AND ATLAS 14 IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER HISTORIC FLOODPLAIN MAPS, BUT IT'S STILL AN IT'S USING ANTIQUATED DATA.
IT DOES NOT FACTOR IN CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS.
SO AS MUCH AS THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO FIND OUT THEY'RE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, THERE'S GOING TO BE EVEN MORE THAT ARE IN THE REAL FLOOD, PLAIN THAT DON'T KNOW IT.
UH, FLOODING IS GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE A REALITY IN OUR CITY AND MANY OTHERS, BUT FAR FACT IN OUR CITY, EXTREME FLOODING EVENTS ARE GOING TO INCUR WITH MORE FREQUENCY AND GREATER INTENSITY.
AND I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR US AS A PLANNING BODY TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD EXPEDITE MORE BUILDING IN FLOODPLAINS IN AUSTIN.
I THINK THIS IS A POLICY THAT SHOULD HAVE MAYBE HAPPENED 30 YEARS AGO.
IT MIGHT'VE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 30 YEARS AGO, BUT THE REALITY OF THE, WHAT OF THE CLIMATE WE'RE FACING, IT'S JUST NOT APPROPRIATE TO, TO SORT OF SIGN A BLANK CHECK TO DEVELOPMENT AND THE FLOOD PLAIN, THERE ARE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE IMPACTED.
IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY ALMOST AN INCENTIVE AND, OR AT LEAST IT'S A REMOVAL OF THIS INCENTIVES AND IT DOES HAVE A COST OF STAFF TIME, EMERGENCY RESOURCES.
IT'S ALSO, UH, THE CITY SORT OF SAYING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT USING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINKING AHEAD OF THESE FLOODS AND THE THINGS THAT WE COULD BE DOING TO MITIGATE IMPACTS TO LARGER SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, THIS FLOOD PLAIN IS GOING TO KEEP GROWING ATLAS 14 DOES NOT CAPTURE THE ENTIRETY OF IT.
AND SO I JUST, I WILL BE VOTING NO, AND I DO HAVE A LOT OF EMPATHY FOR FOLKS IN THIS SITUATION.
I HOPE THEY'RE GOING TO, I HOPE THE CITY'S GOING TO ACTIVELY COMMUNICATE TO FOLKS ABOUT THEIR RISKS AND WHAT THEIR OPPORTUNITIES ARE FOR INSURANCE.
UM, BUT THAT DOES NOT, THAT DOES NOT IN MY MIND SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE, UM, ENCOURAGING THAT KIND OF DEVELOPING.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE HELPING THOSE FOLKS GET OUT OF THAT SITUATION AND MAKING DECISIONS THAT PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY FROM, FROM THE INTENSE FLOODS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING.
BUT I, I JUST HAVE TO SHARE, LIKE, IT'S NOT JUST THAT BUSINESS OWNER THAT'S IMPACTED, IT'S THE BROADER COMMUNITY IMPACTED.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT IS IMPACTING THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE SAYING BUILDING IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, THIS IS REBUILDING SOMETHING THAT WAS DAMAGED.
THIS IS REBUILDING SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE THAT PROBABLY WASN'T IN THE FLOOD PLAIN WHEN IT WAS BUILT WELL, BUT IT WOULD BE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN WHEN IT'S REBUILT.
THAT'S THE POINT AT THAT POINT, THE FLOODPLAIN IS MOVED AND YOUR OPTION IS PUT THIS COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS AND IT'S GOING TO BE SMALL MOM AND POP SHOPS.
IT'S NOT BIG COMPANIES, WE'RE PUTTING OUT A BUSINESS.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE? YES.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, UM, DURING THE NEXT MEMORIAL DAY FLOOD, THAT WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE TAVERN THAT IT CAN NOT REOPEN THAT HOUSE PARK SHOULD NOT REOPEN, UM, THAT AUSTIN LANNON CATTLE COMPANY STAKE SHOULD NOT REOPEN AT WHOLE FOODS OFFISH
[02:30:01]
AND NOT REOPEN THAT.I'M THE SOUP PEDDLER, CASTLE HILL, FITNESS, WIKIS, WINE AND SPIRITS.
UM, I THINK YOU'VE COVERED THE ACTUAL CREEKS.
I MEAN THAT WHOLE, THAT WHOLE GROUP, THAT, THAT WHEN THE FLOOD COMES, WE NEED TO SCRAPE ALL OF THOSE BUSINESSES OFF THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REESTABLISH THERE.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAYING.
THOSE BUSINESSES HAVE SURVIVED FLOODS AND THEY STILL EXIST.
IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO, YOU JUST ADVOCATED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUILD.
I'M SAYING THAT THE CITY, WE SHOULD, WE, THE PLANNING COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BE INCENTIVIZING THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE CREATING A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THAT ALL WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT THEY HAVE TO REBUILD ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN INSTEAD OF JUST REBUILD.
BUT THE POINT IS THE FLOOD PLAIN IS ACTUALLY UNDERESTIMATED AND IT'S NOT A FIX IS ALL I'M SAYING.
SO, AND I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S UNFAIR.
I THINK THE COMMENT THAT WOULD JUST MADE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ON, ON, YOU KNOW, GETTING CLOSE TO A LINE OF, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THESE WORDS WERE SAYING SHUT THESE BUSINESS DOWN BUSINESSES DOWN.
AND I THINK THAT'S JUST AN UNFAIR COMMENT.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WE'RE JUST SAYING IF WE KEEP THE CURRENT PUBLIC PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE THE COUNCIL IS ACCOUNTABLE AND THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT, LET'S KEEP THAT GOING.
THAT'S THE KEY THING HERE, ACCOUNTABILITY ALONG THE WAY AND TRANSPARENCY ALONG THE WAY.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THESE BUSINESSES, CAN'T OPEN, WE'RE SAYING GO CONTINUE TO USE THE SAME PROCESS THAT, THAT HOLDS THE COUNCIL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE POLICY DECISIONS ABOUT, UH, ABOUT REBUILDING IN, IN FLOOD PLAIN.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I HOPE THAT WE CAN, UH, AVOID SOME OF THESE REALLY EXTREME COMMENTS.
SO, SO JUST TO MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH EITHER GO THROUGH THEM AT SAME.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE FIRST HALF OF BOTH OF THEM ARE THE SAME.
SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE WAREHOUSES THAT ARE DIFFERENT.
SORRY, BUT DOESN'T COMMISSIONER, DINKLER ALSO HAVE, UM, SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE.
I THOUGHT I SAW THAT IN THE, I'M GLAD YOU RAISED THAT, BUT WHY DON'T WE START WITH, UM, WALKING THROUGH THESE TWO AND THEN, UM, FIGURING OUT WHICH VERSION THE MAJORITY OF THE TRADITION INCORPORATED INTO MINE WERE S UH, SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONS TO THE, THE KING GREENBERG RESOLUTION.
MY ISSUE WAS I WANT THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO BE ABLE TO RE OPEN, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE DOING THAT IN A VERY TRANSPARENT WAY AND PUTTING IT STRICTLY IN THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE OF IT MADE ME A LITTLE NERVOUS BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN, UM, PLANNERS MAKE DECISIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ENGINEERS.
I'VE SEEN DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS BY DIFFERENT, UM, ENGINEERS.
SO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IS ADD SOME AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT LOOKED FOR MORE CONSISTENCY, UH, IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION SO THAT WE WERE BEING FAIR AND EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE AND THAT THE PUBLIC KNEW THESE WERE ALL BEING CONDENSED, UM, BEING CONDITIONED.
SO IF YOU WANT, I CAN GIVE YOU THE LANGUAGE THAT I WAS SUGGESTING BEING ADDED TO THE KING GREENBERG VERSION, OR WE CAN TRY JUST DOING IT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE TWO, AND THEN I'LL GIVE MY AMENDMENTS LAST.
I DON'T KNOW, WHAT'S THE BEST PROCESS.
UM, I WOULD, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET, I WOULD ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER DANGLER INTO THE KING AND GREENBERG, UM, RESOLUTION.
AND SO MAYBE WE CAN JUST LOOK AT THAT AS ONE OPTION AND VOTE ON IT IF THAT'S OKAY WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER KING.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONER, WE CAN JUST, UH, SINCE THE GREENBURG GREENBERG AND I ARE THE AUTHORS OF THIS KING GREENBIRD RESOLUTION, IF WE BOTH ACCEPT THESE AMENDMENTS, THEN THAT'S FINE WITH ME, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMISSION EXCEPT HER AMENDMENTS INTO OUR RESOLUTION.
SO IT'S SIMPLE FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO WE HAVE THESE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS AND FROM, IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE, UM, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS SMITHS THAT'S DIRECTLY REGARDING THE STAFF PROPOSAL.
SO, AND THEN WE HAVE THIS SECOND RESOLUTION THAT'S, UM, MORE ABOUT FLOODING POLICY GENERALLY AND PASSING THAT ONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM
[02:35:01]
COVERING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY COVER THE REQUESTS FROM STAFF AT ALL.IT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAUSED STAFFS THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO DO A MOOD POINT.
AND THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE A POINT OF INQUIRY THOUGH.
UM, BUT FOR MR. SMITH, ARE THERE THINGS IN THE, IN THE KING P UM, GREENBURG PROPOSAL, LIKE FROM ONE TO FIVE IN THEIR RESOLUTIONS BEFORE THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT YOU ARE ALREADY IN, UH, APPROVAL OF.
SO WE CAN START FROM A PLACE OF WHERE WE AGREE AND BUILD ON IT RATHER THAN BREAK IT DOWN.
I MEAN, ITEM ONE IS STUFF THAT'S MORE BROAD.
IT'S SIMPLY NOT RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
AND WHILE IT'S NOT A BAD BROAD POLICY, IT'S JUST NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET AN, A STAFF AMENDED EXCEPTION TO GOING THROUGH THE FLOOD PLAIN REMEDIATION SECTION, BECAUSE THAT INVOLVES A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THAT REMEDIATION, IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY GOING TO CASTLE AND SAYING, HEY, I WANT TO REBUILD IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THERE.
UH, AND IT GIVES STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY TO SAY, NO, IF THEY CAN REBUILD, LET'S LET THEM REBUILD AND RAISES OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND MAKE EVERYBODY SAFER AND MAKE EVERYBODY DOWNSTREAM BETTER OFF AND GET THAT DONE ASAP RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE FLOOD MITIGATION.
AND I MEAN, ONE OPTION WILL BE TO TALK TO STAFF AND SEE WHAT STAFF THINKS ABOUT THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS.
WELL, AND I FEEL LIKE I'M LOOKING AT YOUR RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER SMITH, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S CUT OFF LIKE SO RIGHT NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE SORT OF AGNOSTIC ABOUT ITEM ONE, ITEM TWO, IT'S DOING SOME THINGS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO.
UM, IT HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
IF I COULD MAKE A COMMENT, IT'S PARTLY WHY I ATTACHED MY AMENDMENTS TO GREENBERG, UH, EXCUSE ME, KING GREENBERG'S RESOLUTION.
I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET THE PRESENTATION FOR MR. SHUCK TODAY.
AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE TRYING NOT TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATIONAL FACTORY, HIGH HAZARD INSTITUTIONAL.
SO IS EDUCATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, DAYCARES DAYCARE, ONE, TWO OR THREE.
I COULD SEE SO MUCH DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ON THIS.
THAT THAT'S PARTLY WHY I WAS HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THIS RESOLUTION.
IS THIS, SOME OF THIS IS REALLY VAGUE.
WHAT IS, WHAT ARE THESE CATEGORIES IS FACTORY REALLY INDUSTRIAL IS HIGH HAZARD INDUSTRIAL.
SO I WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH SOME OF THE VAGUENESS OF THE LANGUAGE, LIKE NO ADVERSE IMPACT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? NO SUBSTANTIAL, WHATEVER IT WAS.
SO I DON'T THINK ADDING IN THESE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS IS REALLY A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ARE STILL ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FINE TUNE THE DIRECTION SO THAT THINGS ARE MORE TRANSPLANT.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD CLARIFY MY QUESTION THEN JUST ASK MR. SMITH, IF THERE'S ANY OF THE SIX PROPOSALS BEFORE THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT WOULD, UM, NEGATE YOUR YES.
I MEAN, SOME SPECIFICALLY, UM, OH, THIS DOESN'T ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT IF YOU'RE FLOODED AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS IF YOUR BUILDING IS FLOODED, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME THROUGH HERE, BUT BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND REDEVELOPMENT SECTION FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED BY FLOOD.
THAT'S THE WHOLE, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE.
THESE WERE FACILITIES THAT WERE DAMAGED BY FLOOD.
THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO REBUILD.
WELL, AND THAT'S IN THE BA FURTHER, THAT'S IN THE B ONE THROUGH SIX THOUGH.
THERE'S NOTHING REQUIRE A 30 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE OF REDEVELOPMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DELAYING IT FOR 30 DAYS.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, AND I GUESS YOU WOULD TRY TO DO IT OR AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO YOUR CONCERN IS SIX AND THEN THEIR FIRST FURTHER RESOLVED, NOT THE SECOND FOR THE RESULTS.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS WHERE WE COULD START WITH THAT.
AND THEN DOES IT STILL REQUIRE PASSING TWO RESOLUTIONS OR IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE ONE TOGETHER SO WE CAN JUST GET IT ONE A TIME? I DON'T KNOW.
UM, I MEAN, WHEN I GO THROUGH HERE, I LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER TWO, DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT THE EQUITY OFFICE, TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS.
UM, THEIR AMENDMENTS GOES ON TO SAY AN EQUITABLE PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW INCOME.
WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR EVERYBODY.
I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE, UM, TO COME IN AND SAY, WE WANT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT EQUITY OFFICE
[02:40:01]
TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION CODE AMENDMENTS.BUT THEN WHY ARE WE SAYING AN EQUITABLE PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW INCOME FAMILIES? IF YOU'RE NOT OR LOW INCOME, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE PROTECTED? WELL, COMMISSIONER SMITH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST INTERJECT IF I MAY, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE REALITY AND THE FACT IS, AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW IT ON THIS DIES HERE.
UH, THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION IS THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN SUFFERING, THE BRUNT OF THE FLOODING AND, AND THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PROTECTIONS.
YOU JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN AND YOU WILL SEE THAT FIRSTHAND.
SO I STAND BEHIND THAT AND I AM, THERE'S NO WAY I'M GOING TO MOVE KNOW SUPPORT, MOVING THAT OUT.
THE EQUITY OF COLOR, OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT HAD BEEN THE BRUNT OF FLOODING AND DEVELOPMENT AND FLOODPLAINS IN THE PAST AND THE LOW INCOME FAMILIES, WHICH ONES GO LOOK BACK AND SEE ALL THE FLOODING AND SEE WHICH OF, WHICH OF OUR, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR STATEMENT SAYS HERE.
I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR STATEMENT SAYS.
IT SAYS EQUITABLE PROTECTIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE EQUITABLE PROTECTIONS RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S WHAT THAT'S INTENDED TO SAY.
UM, I WELL, AND I'M, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE COULD FIND COMMON GROUND, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING.
IT'S JUST MAYBE THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF, UM, YEAH.
THERE'S ALSO, I DON'T REMEMBER THREE SAYS CERTIFY ALL WAIVERS HAVE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE REQUISITE AND MANAGER REQUIRES CITY SIBLINGS, NEW AND PUBLIC SITE TO GET OFFICIAL, TO CERTIFY ALL WAIVERS OF SITE TO YOU.
WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE CIPHER.
WE'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
UM, IN, IN AND OUT OF THESE BUILDINGS DURING A FLOOD, YOU'RE SIMPLY NOT, UM, YOUR, YOUR BUILDING THAT YOU'RE RAISING IS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND DURING THAT FLOOD, YOUR SAFEST THING IS TO STAY, PUT, NOT HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
SO WE'RE NOT HAVING SAFE ACCESS IN AND OUT.
UM, SO THAT DOES OF LIKE, THIS GOES AGAINST THAT SAFE ACCESS.
WELL, NO, ACTUALLY IT PUTS A HIGHER BURDEN IN CASE THEY WERE GOING TO, SO IT'S SAYING IT'S CERTIFYING ALL WAIVERS OF SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
RIGHT? SO, SO THEY'RE SAYING IF THEY'RE GOING TO WAIVE THAT SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT, THEN THEY NEED TO HAVE IT CERTIFIED WITH, UM, THE, THE FOLKS LISTED IN ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SO IT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE THAT'S RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER, BUT THE CODA MEHMET WAVE SAFE ACCESS.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
SO YOU'RE THERE ASKING YOU, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING FOR ANOTHER LAYER OF REQUIREMENTS.
AS WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED IS THAT STAFF STAFF CAN WAIVE THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION DOG.
ALL WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU DO THAT, JUST MAKE SURE IT'S CERTIFIED.
THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S A, UH, UH, CERTIFIED BY THE, THE, UH, CIVIL ENGINEERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS.
THAT'S ALL IT'S SAYING YOUR STAMP ON IT.
AS THE SPEAKER SAID EARLIER TONIGHT, HAVE THEM PUT THEIR, THEIR, THEIR SIGNATURE AND THEIR STAMP, BUT WHAT ARE THEY CERTIFIED? THEY'RE CERTIFIED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE PLAY FACTS.
THIS NO THEY'RE CERTIFYING THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR, FOR BEING WAIVED FROM THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
THE WAY MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
YOU CAN'T CERTIFY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING.
NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M NOT, IT DOESN'T SAY CERTIFY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
THE CITY STAFF CAN SAY, WE ARE GOING TO WIPE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WAIVING THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD.
ALL WE'RE SAYING IS OKAY, IF YOU DECIDE TO WAIVE THAT, THEN MAKE SURE THE CITY, CIVIL ENGINEERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS HAVE THEIR SIGNATURE ON THAT WAIVER.
THAT THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY, PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE AGREE THAT IT'S SAFE TO WAVE THOSE SAFE ACCESS WITH MR. SEAN, CAN YOU TELL US WHO, WHO SIGNS OFF ON THE WAIVERS OF SAFE ACCESS TODAY? UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE CODE SPECIFICALLY.
THERE ARE SOME GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN THE CODE TODAY THAT WE DO APPROVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE A, THAT BASICALLY WAVED TO SAY, FAX US REQUIREMENT.
THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED BY STAFF.
THERE ARE SCIENTISTS, THERE ARE ENGINEERS AND THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
SO THE, THE REVIEWERS ARE ENGINEERS, BUT THEY DON'T, IT'S NOT A, UM, I MEAN, THERE,
[02:45:01]
IT'S NOT LIKE A SITE PLAN OR A SCHEMATIC OR THAT'S STAMPED THAT THEY WOULD PUT THEIR SEAL ON.WE DON'T HAVE MIRRORS IN THE GROUPS THEN A SEAL, ANY SORT OF REVIEW DOCUMENTS RIGHT TODAY.
THEY JUST LOOK AT MA THEY DO MODELING AND, UM, REVIEW.
SO, SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE ENGINEERS, EXCEPT THE WORK THAT'S PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER.
THAT IS OUR ROLE AS REVIEWERS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO US IS APPROPRIATE AND ACCURATE.
CAN YOU ALSO HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE AN ENGINEER PICKS ONE MODEL, WHEREAS A DIFFERENT MODEL WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME? WOULD IT, WE REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE MODELS AND THE DATA THAT THEY'RE USING ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITUATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE OUR STAFF IN ANY WAY SEAL THAT THEY ACCEPT WHAT'S DOING OKAY.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING, I MEAN, WELL, AND IF I, IF I GO BACK TO THE, IF I GO BACK TO THIS, IF I'M JUST GOING TO FINISH OFF THIS NUMBER THREE, I'D, IT'S THIS CONCERN THAT SOMEONE UNQUALIFIED IS APPROVING WAIVERS OF SAFE ACCESS.
AND SO HOW MIGHT THE CITY STAFF ENSURE THAT A QUALIFIED PERSONNEL, I E AN ENGINEER, NOT A PLANNER, TRYING NOT TO GET OFFENDED SIGNS OFF, BUT AGAIN, WHAT'S, YOU'RE WAVING IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
THAT'S TECHNICALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING THAT WAVE WE WAY WE HEAR MY WAY, THE SEC SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT, UH, THAT, THAT THE WAIVER THAT THIS, THIS, THIS ITEM RIGHT HERE IS JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT WHEN THAT OCCURS, WHEN THAT, UH, WAIVER OCCURS AT WAIVER PROCESS, THAT ONE OF THE OUTCOMES FROM THAT PROCESS WOULD BE SOME SIGNATURES SOMEWHERE.
IT SAYS CERTIFIED DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SEAL, SAYS CERTIFIED SIGNATURE THAT CITY, CIVIL ENGINEERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
SO USUALLY IN AN APPLICATION PROCESS, THERE IS A SHEET THAT GOES UNDER REVIEW BY ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, LIKE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT.
AND USUALLY IT'S A STAFF PERSON THAT WRITES A COUPLE OF SENTENCES ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
WOULD THAT MEET THE NEEDS? IT USUALLY HAS THE PERSON'S NAME.
UM, AND MAYBE IT'S GOT A PE BEHIND IT, WHICH MEANS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WHEN STAFF GRANTS, THE EXCEPTION THEY'RE GRANTING THE WAIVER.
SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH STAFF IS SAYING IS, WELL, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED WITH THIS REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS REQUIRED TO DO THAT.
SO WE'VE GOT A BUILDING THAT'S BEING REDEVELOPED IN THE FLOOD ZONE HERE THAT WE KNOW IS IN A FLOOD ZONE.
UH, AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE GONNA, WE, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO WAIVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN THE EVENT OF A FLOOD THAT THEY HAVE SOME WAY TO GET OUT SOME, NO, WE'RE JUST, YEAH.
WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE, THE SAFEST THING TO DO IS TO STAY PUT, RIGHT.
WE HAVE VERY, THE FLOOD CONDITIONS IN CENTRAL TEXAS ARE VERY PEAKY.
THEY COME QUICKLY AND THEN THEY GO.
AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT YOU WILL STAY SECURE IN PLACE FOR MAYBE 24 HOURS.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT KNOW, BUT YOU WOULD SECURE IN PLACE IF THERE'S NO SAFE ACCESS AVAILABLE.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SAYING.
AND I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING, LET'S HAVE SOMEBODY WITH EXPERTISE IN THE CITY SIDE, SIGN OFF AND SAY, THAT'S FINE.
BUT WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU, IF YOU ADD A SEPARATE DOCUMENT AND ACTUALLY, AND COMMISSIONER KING, I, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THE PROCESS TO HAVE A CIVIL ENGINEER SIGN WITH A SEAL, THIS, OR BE PART OF THIS, THAT THE WHOLE RELIANCE IS ON THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER.
AND I THINK THAT THIS KIND OF IS A, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK JUST BY LOOKING AT THE DISCUSSION ON THE DIOCESE, IT'S KIND OF BECOME NOW A BIG RED HERRING.
AND I MEAN, AND I THINK YOU BRING
[02:50:01]
UP SOME REALLY IMPORTANT POINTS ON TRANSPARENCY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.SO I WOULD ALMOST, UM, I WOULD SAY MA HE HAS STRIKE IT, AND I KNOW YOU REALLY LIKE IT, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, IF WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME AND WE'RE ALL SMART PEOPLE HERE, UM, THEN IT'S, I DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO A REAL PRACTICAL.
CAN I GIVE A LANGUAGE, A SUGGESTION? SURE.
TO SIMPLY STAY DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUIRE CITY CIVIL ENGINEER REVIEW OF ALL, UM, PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS, ALL COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS.
DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUIRE CITY CIVIL ENGINEERS IN CITY, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS, UM, REVIEW ALL, UH, FLOODPLAIN, COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, EXCEPTIONS.
WHY ARE WE TREATING THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE? I MEAN, BUT THAT'S, I JUST DON'T WANT WITH DAN OR REVIEWING THIS.
WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER WAIVER.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO TODAY.
THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT IN OTHER WAIVERS AT THE CITY GRANTS.
SO A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS A WAIVER IS A WAIVER.
UM, IF WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GRANT IT, THEY DON'T APPROVE IT.
BUT DON'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO PULL THIS WAIVER OUT AND TREAT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN EVERY OTHER WAY WITH THE CITY, BUT ISN'T IT REQUIRED ISN'T IT REQUIRED FOR ALL WAVE, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT STAFF DOES.
I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ENGINEERS THAT REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT GOES THROUGH CIVIL ENGINEERS.
UH, MR. SEAN, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION OR YOU ALL YOUR REVIEW THROUGH AN ENGINEER OR NO, WE HAVE STAFF THAT ARE NOT ENGINEERS, BUT THEY ARE CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED THROUGH THE FLIGHT PLAN, TEXAS FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, AND SO MUCH AS THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE STATE, AS WELL AS FEMA REGARDING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS.
SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRAINED, UH, FLOODPLAIN MANAGER VERSUS AN ENGINEER IS THE ABILITY TO, UH, YOU CAN COMPLAIN WITH AN ENGINEER TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SOCIETY.
IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE? AM I MAKING SENSE? I'M SORRY.
I GUESS YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYBODY YOU WANT TO.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE A RECOURSE POTENTIALLY WITH, WITH A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
THERE IS THE STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ON THE FLIP SIDE, THERE'S THE ASSOCIATION OF SAFE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SORT OF, UM, UH, UH, ART PROCESS THAT THAT GROUP DOES GO THROUGH WITH A CERTIFIED FLOOD BY MANAGERS.
CFMS I, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, THAT, BUT IT MAY EXIST SIMILAR TO, WITH THE STATE PROFESSIONAL.
WE'RE GETTING DOWN INTO THE DEGREE OF TELLING STAFF WHO THEY SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T HAVE REVIEW THESE THINGS WAY BEYOND WHAT, WELL, NOW THAT I KNOW THEY'RE CERTIFIED WHAT PLANE MANAGERS, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT THAT.
SO SOMETHING LIKE, UM, I AM THREE IS ON SHAKY GROUND AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I'M FOUR AND FIVE EXACTLY.
I HAVE FOUR EXACT SAME LANGUAGE IN FOUR AND FIVE IS ALSO OKAY.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO COME WITH A DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR NO ADVERSE FLOODING IT.
MAYBE THAT'S 50% OF THE COST OF THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING I THINK THEY CAN DO WELL SHOULD BEFORE WE LEAVE, ARE WE STRIKING THREE? IS THAT THE CONSENSUS HERE? GOOD.
I THINK MAYBE WE NEED A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON AMENDMENTS.
WE ACCEPT THE KING GREENBERG, UM, REC RESOLUTION WITH THE DINKLER, UM, ADDITIONS.
AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, THEN AT LEAST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING, THEN WE CAN AMEND DINKLER WILL SECOND THAT OKAY.
SO THEN WE'LL CONTINUE DISCUSSION AND THAT'S JUST, I DON'T KNOW, NOT THAT WE'LL CONTINUE DISCUSSION.
AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO JUST WALK THROUGH THE FIRST, WHEREAS IS FINE.
UM, THE FIRST, SO IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION YOU HAVE TO REVISE THIS? THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF WALKING THROUGH.
I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH Y'ALL'S VERSION AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT I HAD ON MINE THE FIRST, WHEREAS IT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT I HAD THE SECOND, WHEREAS, UM, IS INITIATING A PUBLIC PROCESS TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS.
THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
UH, SO I WOULD SUGGEST STRIKING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE GLOBAL ISSUE, NOT AN ISSUE RELATED TO REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL EXCEPTIONS.
[02:55:02]
UM, AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO GET IT AT.WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT STAFF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO INITIATE PUBLIC PROCESSES, TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS, THE CITY OF FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS BASED ON THAT, THE SPORTING PUBLIC COMMISSIONER SMITH.
IT JUST SAYS THAT THE KIMMEL COUNCIL IS ALREADY DIRECTED.
IT'S JUST SAYING THE COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO DO THIS.
THAT'S ALL THE SECOND, WHEREAS SIMPLY SAYS, WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL OF DIRECTLY, YEAH, NEVERMIND.
UM, THE NEXT WORD IS THE NEXT WORD AS IS THE SAME, PRETTY MUCH VERBATIM FROM MINE.
UM, YOU ADDED THE FOURTH ONE, WHEREAS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN.
WHEREAS THIS WORD, ARE WE OKAY WITH, UM, ADDING THAT RESIDENTIAL PORTION THERE? I GUESS WE'RE MAKING SOMETHING LARGER THAN WHAT WE'RE REQUESTED.
CAUSE WE STARTED WITH COMMERCIAL ONLY.
I, THAT WAS IN MY, THAT WAS IN THEIR PRESENTATION.
MY LANGUAGE PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THEIR PRESENTATION THAT WAS PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESENTATION.
UM, WHEREAS THE KEY GOALS OF THE CODE AMENDMENT ARE TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY.
THAT'S NOT THE KEY GOALS OF THE AMENDMENT.
UM, THE KEY GOALS OF THE AMENDMENTS WERE STATED IN THE AMENDMENTS AND THE KEY GOALS WERE AS, UM, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE HERE.
IT'S LISTED IN YOURS, THE GOAL TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT THAT DECREASES FLOOD RISK COMPARED TO THAT WAS THE GOAL AS STATED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND NOT RIGHT.
AND, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU DID CATCH ME THERE.
I DID PULL OUT SOME OF THE WORDS AND SOME OF THE KEY THING IN THERE IN MY, MY POINT IS, IS TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY AND DECREASE BLOOD RISK.
THAT'S WHY ARE WE DOING THIS AT ALL? IF IT'S NOT INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY, SAFETY AND DECREASING FLOOD RISKS BECAUSE WE'RE DOING IT FLOOD OR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, EXCEPTION LEAD THEIR KEY GOALS.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FLOODPLAIN ORDERS.
WE'RE JUST GETTING AT FLOOD PLAN, COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, EXCEPTIONS.
I DON'T WANT TO GET GLOBAL IN WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I WANT IT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE I TRIED TO PULL LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND NOT GET BACK INTO A GLOBAL, HEY, WE GOT TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
UM, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT ONE? UM, WELL, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE GOAL GENERALLY.
I MEAN, INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY AND DECREASING FLOOD RISK IS STILL THE GOAL OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
SO IT FITS, I DON'T CARE ONE WAY.
THERE'S JUST NOT, IT'S NOT IN STAFF, NEVER MADE THAT.
IT'S NOT A GOAL OF THIS DOCUMENTS.
SO WE'RE SAYING IT'S A GOAL WHEN IT'S NOT A GOAL.
WELL, WE COULD SAY, WHEREAS AN ADDITIONAL GOAL VERSUS THE KEY GOAL, THAT WAS NOT A GOAL LAST DAY TO DAY.
I ACTUALLY THINK BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE STAFF.
I THINK YOU COULD ACTUALLY COMBINE THE TWO WHERE THE CITY HAS A GOAL TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS TO COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT THAT DECREASES BLOOD COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE NEXT ONE WAS EXACT SAYING, SO THEN NOW YOU'RE UNDER THE NOW THEREFORES OKAY.
SO THEN WE GO TO THE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
SO WE HAD GONE THROUGH ONE AND TWO, ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT ONE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS AGAIN, GLOBAL AND NOT GETTING AT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE OF THAT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT OR THIS, BUT ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? OR YOU FEEL LIKE, WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR.
I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE A, YOU KNOW, THESE TWO COME TOGETHER, YOU CAN INCLUDE BOTH OF THESE ONES, RIGHT? BUT THIS IN THE END, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONDUCT A PERIODIC, EVERY FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL AUDIT OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT TO EVALUATE STAFFING RESOURCES, ALLOCATIONS, PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS, AND SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER PLAN, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
THAT IS A VERY BROAD STATEMENT.
UM, AND NOT, DOES IT GET IT ALL TOWARDS FLOODPLAIN COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT CENTER? YEAH.
SO TO BE HONEST, I'M A, I'M A BIT AGNOSTIC ABOUT IT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT REQUEST FOR AN AUDIT BASICALLY IS GOING TO PRECLUDE THE ACTUAL REQUEST OF STAFF, WHICH IS TO APPROVE THE, UM, COMMERCIAL, UM, OPPOSITE.
SO IT WON'T GET IN THE WAY IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL STAFF AND COSTS, INCREASE STAFFING AND INCREASE FEES, WHICH WE'RE ALREADY THE HIGHEST FEE FOR ANY CITY IN THE STATE BY A LONG WAYS.
UM, I, THAT'S WHY I AGREE IT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT IN HERE.
THE CITY SHOULD NOT GRANT VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT.
IT MAY LEAD TO FUTURE FLOODING THAT'S ALREADY IN HERE.
UM, MY MIND SAYS THE SAME THING
[03:00:01]
JUST IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.MINE SAYS HE DOES NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FLOOD LEVEL OR PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN ON THE PROPERTY, UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT.
THAT'S MINE'S PULLED DIRECTLY FROM HIS DASH.
DO YOU OBSERVE, HE'S PARAPHRASING WHAT STAFF TO SAY.
I'M EXACTLY SAYING WHAT STAFF IS SAYING.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS ONE A WHEN I, UM, YES, ONE B I PREFER TO REITERATE EXACTLY WHAT STAFF IS SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO AS OPPOSED TO TRY TO PARAPHRASE WHAT STAT SAYS ARE GOING TO DO.
SO YOU HAVE, THAT YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR MIND SAYS DOES NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FLOOD LEVEL OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE FLOOD, PLAIN ON THE PROPERTY, UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED AND NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT PERIOD.
SO THEN YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO REPLACE ONE B WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR ONE ENF E F.
MY ABC E ENF ARE DIRECTLY TAKEN FROM STAFF'S PROPOSAL.
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT STAN WANTS TO DO.
COMMISSIONER KING, ARE YOU FOLLOWING ALONG? THIS IS YOUR RESOLUTION.
SO I WOULDN'T BE NO LONG, BUT, BUT I GOT MY AUDIO GOT DISCONNECTED.
SO I COULDN'T HEAR PART OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THE LAST MINUTE I GOT, I WAS ABLE TO RECONNECT.
SO I KINDA MISSED THE END OF A THERE, ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE A IN
WE SORT OF PUT IT IN THE PARKING LOT FOR THE MOMENT, BUT THEN NOW WE'RE ON ONE B.
WELL, SO IT WAS FOR ONE BEING THE, UM, WE WERE COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS SAYING THAT B IS SORT OF A PARAPHRASE AND THAT INSTEAD OF ONE BEING, WE COULD LOOK AT HIS RESOLUTION AND PUT IN, IF I'M, I MAY BE WRONG ON THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ONE ENF, BUT MAYBE IT'S D E I MEAN ONE D E N F ONE B DID HE GETS INTO DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING USES EDUCATIONAL FACTORY, HIGH HAZARD INSTITUTIONAL.
CAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE THESE WAIVERS TO THOSE ENTITIES.
AND I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE.
AND MAYBE THE DISTANT WE'LL JUST TO FINISH THAT DISCUSSION.
I HEARD EARLIER FROM COMMISSIONER DINKLER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THESE USES EDUCATIONAL.
SO IS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR US TO SUBSTITUTE THE USES FOR ACTUALLY ZONING CATEGORIES? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER DOING? BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR THOSE CHAIR.
THOSE FOUR USES ARE DEFINED IN THE BUILDING CODE AND WE'VE GOT THOSE FOUR USES FROM THE, UH, FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ARE LINKED BACK DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING CODE.
UM, I REALLY, I REALLY DO LIKE COMMISSIONER SMITH'S A THROUGH F HERE UNDER ONE, BECAUSE AS HE'S MENTIONED, IT PULLS DIRECTLY FROM STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE THINGS BEYOND THE QUESTION ABOUT THE USES THAT OTHERS FEEL, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE CAN MOVE IT OVER.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT'S NOT INCREASED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
ALL THAT STUFF ABOUT PARKING AND THE FLOOR, UH, THE FLOOR ELEVATION AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN.
ALL THOSE ARE REALLY WHAT, THIS, WHAT, THIS IS THE MEAT OF THE THING.
THE SCOPE IS WHAT HE'S SAYING, BUT I AGREE EXCEPT FOR THE ONE, THE NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE THAT DEFINED, BUT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE ABOVE IT AND THE NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S DEFINED IN LIKE MY EMMANUEL SOMEWHERE OR IN THE CODE LDC.
YOU GO TO THE CODE AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT MEANS THAT WE DO.
SO CAN WE, I LIKE THE IDEA OF KEEPING ALL OF COMMISSIONER SMITH'S NUMBER ONE AND MOVING IT TO THE KING GREENBERG AND ADDING IT.
UM, AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THE REST OF THESE, WELL, WE DECIDED TO GET RID OF THREE NUMBER TWO.
I FEEL LIKE IF WE COULD, IF IT REALLY IS, SORRY, IT REALLY IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EQUITY OFFICE AND FOCUSING THE EQUITY OFFICE ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER SMITH ABOUT INTEGRATING, YOU KNOW, ENSURING SAFE, UM, FLOOD MITIGATION FOR EVERYONE.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR NUMBER TWO IS ABOUT THE DIRECTING TO THE EQUITY OFFICE.
MY LANGUAGE SIMPLY SAYS DIRECT, THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDE ANNUAL PUBLIC REPORTS ON THE EFFICACY
[03:05:01]
OF FLOOD, PLAIN REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS, AND THE GOALS TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY AND DECREASE FLOOD RISK RISKS IN FLOODPLAINS PERIOD.THAT'S WHERE I STOPPED BECAUSE YOU SAID HAVE THE EQUITY OFFICE, DO THIS, DOES ANY MANAGER DO THIS PERIOD? UM, CAN I SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE OFFICE COMMENT? YEAH.
UM, SO, UH, IN BOTH THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN 2018 AND 2019 ON THE SWEEPING, WHEN MANAGEMENT REGULATION CHANGES, WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE EQUITY OFFICE IN OXFAM ABOUT THOSE CHANGES THAT WE WERE MAKING, THE EQUITY OFFICE HAS BEEN AND TRYING TO EMPOWER OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO CONSIDER EQUITY ISSUES WITHIN WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING.
AND SO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT HAS CREATED WHAT WE CALLED THE WATERSHED, UM, EQUITY COORDINATION TEAM.
AND THAT IS A TEAM OF STAFF THAT HAS WORKED WITH THE EQUITY OFFICE AND TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO BE ADDRESSING.
AND SO WE PRESENTED THIS PROPOSAL TO THE WATERSHED EQUITY COORDINATION TEAM AND GOT FEEDBACK FROM THEM BASED UPON WHAT THEY FEEL WE NEEDED TO DO, UM, THAT WE MAYBE WEREN'T DOING OR COULD DO MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO WE DID MAKE AN ATTEMPT, UH, TO, UH, ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR, UH, WE, WE MET WITH THE EQUITY TEAM TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COME FROM THE EQUITY OFFICE SPECIFICALLY.
THAT'S HELPFUL WATERSHED EQUITY TEAMS. SO MAYBE WE REFERENCED THEM, DID A GREAT JOB COORDINATION TEAM, WATERSHED EQUITY COORDINATION TEAM, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO, YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE COMMISSIONER SMITH'S DRAFT THAT'S POSTED ENDS WITH COMMA.
SO YOU'RE NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE APPROVE THE, UM, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
WHERE, WHICH LANGUAGE THE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED FLOOD, PLAIN COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT SECTION CODE AMENDMENTS.
HERE'S SOME THINGS WE WANT YOU TO CONSIDER.
AND THESE ARE DIRECTLY FROM STAFF'S PRESENTATION TO US.
UM, THE UNDER THE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
WHEREAS I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF OUR RESOLUTION IS TO NOT SAY THE EXACT SAME THING BY THOSE THAT ARE FINISHED WITH THE INTENT, I BELIEVE IS TO NOT SAY WE ARE RECOMMENDING IT WITH CERTAIN CHANGES.
WE'RE JUST SAYING, THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.
SO WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION OR NOT FOR ME, I DON'T, YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING I'M SAYING.
SO INTERPRET HOWEVER YOU WANT.
I DON'T THINK SHE, I DON'T THINK SHE IS.
I DON'T, WELL, I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME.
SO IF IT'S THE SAME, THAT'S WHY I DON'T SEE HERE WHERE YOU SAY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, DOESN'T SAY THAT.
I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS ITEM ONE, BECAUSE ITEM ONE IS REITERATING WHAT THE STAFF IS REQUESTING AND THAT'S, WHAT'S INCLUDED IN HIS RESOLUTION.
THAT'S MISSING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS WHERE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, SHE HAD TO GET ADOPTED IF ABCD, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN EVERYTHING ABOVE THE LINE.
AND WHERE HE'S BASICALLY SEEING HOW MUCH OF ONE AND TWO CAN BE ADDED INTO YOUR RESOLUTION AND THEN HOW MUCH THAT'S IN YOUR RESOLUTION IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AFTER THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT, WE DON'T SAY SHOULD BE ADOPTED IF, UM, I DON'T THINK EITHER OF THEM DO BOTH OF THEM SAY, YEAH, IT DOES.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? NUMBER ONE? I SEE THE FLOOD PLAIN SHOULD BE ADOPTED HERE.
RIGHT? SO WE'RE TRYING TO MARRY THE TWO TOGETHER BY PUTTING THEM TOGETHER.
THE PART WHERE I THINK THERE'S LIKE DIVORCED.
SO MAYBE, WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND ADOPTING IT, THEN WHY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? WELL, BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS I'M IN PARTICULAR CONCERNED ABOUT A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR PREVIOUSLY FLOODED PROPERTIES.
THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE, THIS FOR ANY KIND OF DAMAGE, BUT PREVIOUSLY FLOODED IN PARTICULAR CONCERN.
[03:10:01]
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS PEAK IS PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY IMPACTED BY FLOOD PLAIN.WE WANT TO GET THEM OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN.
AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
SO WITHOUT THAT, YOU'VE LOST THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UM, I MEAN TO REVISIT, I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO REDEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY, UM, DAMAGED BY FLOODS OR ANY OTHER STRUCTURE.
WELL, THAT'S THE ANY OTHER YES, BUT MINE IS, IF YOU'RE DAMAGED AND HAVE TO REBUILD, YOU CAN GET AN EXCEPTION UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU WERE DAMAGED.
THAT CAR RAN INTO A TRUCK, RAN INTO YOUR HURRICANE, HIT A FIRE HIT.
SO MR. SHANK, IS THAT THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT? CORRECT.
SO IF A BUILDING HAS EXPERIENCED A BUILDING HAS EXPERIENCED ANY KIND OF DAMAGE WHEN IT GETS RECONSTRUCTED, IT HAS TO BE BUILT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DAMAGED, RIGHT.
IT COULD BE NOT DAMAGED AT ALL.
IT'D BE EITHER NOT DAMAGED OR DAMAGED BY FLOOD FIRE, TORNADO OR ACCIDENT.
ANYTHING ANY OF THOSE APPLY AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE I THINK IT'S LIKE THREE SIDES OF, IF YOU'RE TAKING DOWN MORE THAN THREE SIDES, YOU'RE DOING SOME KIND OF FREE DEVELOPMENT.
YOU'RE UPGRADING YOUR PIPES OR WHATEVER WINDOWS YOU WANT TO BUILD IT.
I MEAN, ANYTHING I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT IS IT'S NOT JUST THE FLOOD DAMAGE.
BUT INCLUDING BIGGER, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE BUSINESSES THAT I MENTIONED ON, YOU KNOW, NORTH LAMAR, WE WANT THEM TO CONTINUE.
THIS IS PROVIDING A WAY FOR THEM TO CONTINUE SAYING, IF YOU TAKE YOURSELF OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE IN THIS, IN THIS SPOT.
IF ANYTHING HAPPENS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANY WORK ON YOUR PROPERTY.
YOU SHOULD BE RAISED OUT OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN BEEN FLOODED AND THEY DO CONTINUE, RIGHT.
THIS IS KIND OF MAKES IT EASIER, FASTER.
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO GET YOURSELF OUT OF THE, AND IF THEY NEED A FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE THAT NORMALLY THEN THE COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THE TOUGH DECISION.
AND THEN THE EQUITY ISSUE COMES IN BECAUSE THOSE FAMILIES YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ON ONION CREEK, THEY DON'T HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO BE LIKE, WELL, FORGET YOUR VARIANTS.
I'M JUST GOING TO BUILD THIS THING.
CAUSE IT'S BEEN HERE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.
THAT COMMISSIONER KING IS BRINGING UP.
WE HAVE 30 MINUTES AND WE STILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SUBDIVISIONS.
AND SOME DIVISIONS DOESN'T HAVE A TIMELINE, SO, SO NO, I WOULD SAY, YEAH.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO, WE JUST DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER IT, UM, OR I'M NOT SURE.
CAN I BRING UP THE NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT? UM, FOR THE DEFINITION, BECAUSE I AM LOOKING AT IT AT, UNDER 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 66, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD TO JUST CITE IT.
UM, THAT IS A LONG SECTION AND I AM NOT ALSO, UM, I HIRED HYDRAULIC EXPERT AND, BUT IT DOES LIST WHAT THE NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT IS TO OTHER PROPERTIES.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO JUST SAY AS ACCORDING TO 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 66, WHERE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO DO LOOK IT UP IN THE MUNI CODE.
DID YOU GET THAT PARLIAMENTARIAN? SO IS THAT GOING TO REPLACE ITEM NUMBER FIVE IN THE GREENBERG KING OR IS THAT IN ADDITION TO, WELL, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF, I THINK THAT IT IS DEFINED HERE.
I WISH I HADN'T SEEN IT AT NINE 30 AT NIGHT.
UM, I WISH WE COULD HAVE HAD, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY LIKE YEAH.
PER SECTION BLIND, BLIND, BLIND, RIGHT.
BUT NOT HAVING READ THAT SECTION.
MY INTENT OF MY AMENDMENT TO THEIR RESOLUTION WAS I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT HISTORIC FLOODING PATTERNS.
NOW I DID CATCH THAT IT'S AT LEAST TWO FEET.
YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU MAY HAVE TO GO HIGHER DEPENDING ON WHERE IT IS AND THE CHANNEL, ET CETERA.
AND I WANTED TO SUGGEST THAT THEY USE MODELING THAT SHOWS THE GREATEST POSSIBLE IMPACT ON FLOODING, NOT THE, THE MODEL THAT WON'T SHOW IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I OFFERED UP THAT AMENDMENT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SECTION TO 5 25 DASH 25, 7 DASH SIX SEVEN DO THAT THE CITY DICTATES WHICH MODELS YOU USE IN VARIOUS CONDITIONS.
BUT I, I LIKED THAT HAS THE ONE THING, THE HISTORIC, I DON'T KNOW.
I, I WORRY THAT YOU GET LOST WITH AT LEAST TWO.
[03:15:01]
YES.THE DEFINITION OF NO ADVERSE IMPACT IS IT'S IN 25 DASH SEVEN DASH TWO.
THERE MAY BE MENTION OF IT IN 66, BUT THE DEFINITION IS 25 72.
AND I ASKED STAFF A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF THE, UH, LET'S SEE, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
IS THAT, IS THAT ALSO DEFINED IN CODE SOMEWHERE? ABSOLUTELY.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING A NUMBER FIVE, THAT BOTH OF THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE IN THERE THAT WE HAVE IN THERE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT AND NO ADVERSE FLOODING, UH, IMPACT ARE DEFINED IN CODE.
SO I CAN SEE THAT THAT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY SINCE THEY'RE DEFINED IN CODE.
SO I, THAT, THAT WHEN I COULD, I COULD SUPPORT REMOVING THAT ONE.
AND, UH, WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER REMOVING NUMBER THREE BECAUSE, UH, WELL, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS US GET THIS THING THROUGH, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
NUMBER SIX, I WOULD BE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THE TIME HERE AND THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL, YOU KNOW, I WOULD DOCK TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME RECOMMENDATION E AND NOT, AND NOT SOMETHING, NOT JUST NOT SEND ANY RECOMMENDATION AT ALL AND JUST LEAVE IT UP AT 10 INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS TO SEND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS IN.
YOU JUST SAID REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE, NOTICE TO REDEVELOPMENT, EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS, TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND LEAVE OUT THE 30 DAY.
YOU NOTIFY THEM BACK AND TALK TO THEM.
I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT, BUT I ALSO HAD AN AMENDMENT THERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HEAR IT SINCE WE WENT OVER THE DEFINITION AND I STILL DON'T LIKE THAT LANGUAGE, BUT, UM, I HAD ADDED SOMETHING THAT IT'S CLUED, STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION AND AN APPEAL PROCESS.
I DIDN'T WANT THE APPEALS JUST TO BE BASED ON THE, IS THERE AN APPEAL PROCESS? WELL LET'S, CAN WE AT LEAST AGREE ON INCLUDE STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION? OKAY.
I THINK THAT'S PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT SECTION APPLICATION TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, RENTERS RESIDENTS, TENANTS, AND BUSINESSES, AND THAT INCLUDE THIS AND STAFF'S CONTACT TO THAT INCLUDES THE SCIENCE, UH, STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION.
MR. SHUNK, IS THERE AN APPEALS PROCESS? NOW, IF A BUSINESS OWNER WANTS TO DO A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION AND YOU GRANT IT CAN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER APPEAL THAT OR NOT.
I MEAN, THIS IS A PROPOSAL I KNOW, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF LEGAL QUESTION THAT I, YEAH, I'M GOT, I'M GOING TO DABBLE IN IT.
UM, IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IS MADE BY STAFF, THEREFORE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT, UM, I WOULD THINK THAT A RESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY AND RIGHT.
TO ADDRESS THE CITY MANAGER BASED UPON THAT DECISION.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS FORMALLY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S IN A FORMAT KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING.
I, I THINK THERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOMEBODY APPEAL LIKE A SUBDIVISION.
I REMEMBER MR.
I THOUGHT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION STUFF.
SO SOME OF THE APPEALS ARE SPELLED OUT IN STATE LAWS, CITY ORDINANCES.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT GETS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THIS.
I DIDN'T JUST WANT THE, YEAH, I'M TRYING NOT TO TALK OVER YOU.
UM, I DIDN'T, I, IF SOMEONE THOUGHT THAT WAS A BAD IDEA AND THAT ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPTION OF SAYING NO, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GIVEN ENOUGH FREE BOARD.
OR, UM, I THINK THIS IS, I WANTED THEM TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOMEBODY HIGHER UP TO LOOK AT IT.
AND SO I WANTED TO SAY COST STAFF, CONTACT INFORMATION AND AN APPEAL PROCESS.
I DIDN'T WANT THE ONLY PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN WAS THE, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO HOW DO YOU BRING THE PUBLIC INTO THIS? SO YOU CAN HEIGHTEN THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE DECISION-MAKING.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THERE ISN'T A FIELD PROCESS.
I'M THINKING THERE SHOULD BE ONE AGAIN, YOU HAVE ALL KINDS OF WAIVERS.
IT WILL BE THE SAME THING THAT APPLIES TO EVERY WAIVER.
GRANTED, WHEREVER YOU STAFF DECISION TO SPREAD IT.
WE, WE HAVE APPEALS PROCESSES FOR LOTS OF THINGS.
AND I THINK THIS ALSO APPLIES TO A PROPERTY OWNER BEING ABLE TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT.
I THINK ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
I DON'T, IF WE'RE GOING TO GET TO A RESOLUTION BECAUSE THAT'S LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO THAT.
[03:20:01]
ABLE TO HELP US OUT WITH THAT ANSWER.I'M FINE WITH SAYING REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT, STEPHAN EFFICACIOUS, BUT JASON PROPERTY OWNERS, RENTER, AND THEN INCLUDING STAFF CONTACTS AND CONTACTS, STAFFING IS STAFF AND TELL THEM, THIS IS WHAT YOUR REPEALED.
IF WE FEEL PASSIONATELY THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPEAL PROCESS.
AND WE'RE REALLY, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION GOING TO COUNSEL.
WE'RE, WE'RE ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.
WE'RE MO ALMOST ALL OUR PROCESSES.
THAT'S ALL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CODE AMENDMENT RIGHT.
THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
JUST A QUESTION IN TERMS OF, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO 10, MR. SHANK, DO WE, WHEN DO YOU NEED A RECOMMENDATION BY IF WE NEED TO WORK ON THIS? DON'T I'M GETTING STARES FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN GET THIS DONE SEPTEMBER 16TH.
THAT'D BE SEPTEMBER 1ST WHEN IT'S UNDER COUNCIL CONSIDERED, THIS IS OUR LAST MEETING.
I MEAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO LEGALLY SPELL OUT ON THE PEEL.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL CAN DECIDE THEY WANT OR DON'T WANT.
THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD TELL.
I MEAN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO CALL STAFF TO ASK THEM TO TELL THEM WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS, I THINK I'VE WANTED TO PUT IT TOGETHER, BUT YES.
WHAT IF WE JUST, IT SAID, UH, JUST HAVE YOU'LL PUT IN THE RESOLUTION.
THAT'S COUNSEL SHOULD CONSIDER AN APPEALS PROCESS.
JUST CONSIDER AN APPEALS PROCESS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE IT OR DECIDE WHAT IT IS COUNCIL SAYS.
WE PUT IT IN AND LEGAL SAYS IT'S BAD.
THEY'LL TAKE IT OUT IF I DISAGREE, BUT IT'S NOT WORTH ARGUING ABOUT.
LET'S GO BACK UP TO, UM, THE DANGLERS NUMBER FIVE.
ARE YOU, DO YOU FEEL AS THOUGH EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DEFINED AND WE CAN, THIS IS WHY, WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING BACK TO, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LANGUAGE OF WHAT'S AN ADVERSE IMPACT.
DOES IT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE CONSIDER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IN OUR MR. SHANK? YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO GIVE THE ANSWER TO THIS.
DOES IT CONSIDER BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT SESSION? DOES IT ALSO CONSIDER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ARE Y'ALL LOOKING AT A STORK FLOOD PATTERNS? UM, ARE YOU LOOKING AT MODEL? LET ME, LET ME FINISH USING MODELING THAT USES THE GREATEST POSSIBLE IMPACT.
UM, MR. SMITH SCISSORS, YOU HAVE TO USE AN APPROVED MODEL, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU HAD FOUR DIFFERENT MODELS THEY COULD USE.
SO ARE WE ASKING THEM TO DO THE MODEL THAT IS THE MOST LIKELY TO SHOW, UM, FLOODING? ARE WE TAKING THE EASY OUT? AM I EXPLAINING THIS? WELL, PROBABLY NOT, BUT I KNOW WHEN YOU DO A TIA, YOU ALWAYS ASSUME THE WORST, OR WHEN YOU DO PARKING, YOURS ASKED FOR MORE PARKING THAN YOU PROBABLY NEED, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO THINK IT'S CHRISTMAS.
AND IF YOU'RE A MALL, I'M NOT SAYING ANY OF THIS WELL, BUT ARE WE TAKING THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION IN ADVERSE IMPACT? YES WE ARE.
AND WHAT I'LL SAY TO THAT IS THERE ARE MULTIPLE MODELS THAT CAN BE USED.
AND IF ONE MODEL SAYS THE IMPACT IS FIVE FEET, AND THEN THE ONE SAYS THE IMPACT IS ONE FOOT, WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY CHOOSE THE FIVE FOOT MODEL.
MOST ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THE CONDITION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
WE USE THE MODEL THAT'S MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITUATION.
I CAN MAKE A MODEL, SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
I KNOW THAT'S THE LOOK AT IT AND SAY, HERE'S THE ACCURATE MODEL.
AND WHEN THEY DO STAFF DOES GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT ACTUAL FLOOD EVENTS.
THEY CAN LOOK AND SAY, OKAY, WE HAD A 10 INCH RAINFALL.
WHAT AM I FLOOD GATES SAY? AND YOU CORRESPOND THE FLOOD GAUGE READINGS TO THE MODEL.
SO THEY STAFF IS ALWAYS COMING IN AND CONFIRMING THINGS, JUST LIKE, YEAH, THIS 10 INCH RAINFALL PRODUCED WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD PRODUCE.
DO YOU CONSIDER FLOW RATES AS PART OF THIS? THAT'S WHAT IT CONSIDERS.
COMMISSIONER TO HELP THINGS MOVE ALONG.
YOUR AUDIO IS OUT BECAUSE YOU PRESSED MUTE.
[03:25:01]
UH, THERE WE GO.UH, TO MAYBE HELP GET EXPEDITE THE PROCESS HERE.
WHAT IF WE, UH, WHAT IF WE JUST INCLUDED, UH, THE, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH'S, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT THE FIRST SENTENCE, BUT INSTEAD THE REWORD, THE FIRST SENTENCE, A LITTLE BIT, A NUMBER ONE, BUT TAKE A THROUGH F AND, AND THEN, UH, PUT IT INTO THIS RESOLUTION.
WE'RE DISCUSSING THE KING GREENBERG AND IT WOULD BECOME THE NEW NUMBER ONE.
AND IT WOULD SAY, UH, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING, UH, YOU KNOW, REPLACE OR MODIFY EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
AND IN OTHER WORDS, A, A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING.
I MEAN, HE'S DONE THINGS THAT WAY.
WE CAN JUST CUT AND TAKE ALL OF THOSE OVER, BECAUSE IF WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS, IF COUNCIL DOES APPROVE THIS AND I AGREED THAT THOSE THINGS WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE IN THERE, PHILOSOPHICALLY, I HAVE A PROBLEM THAT
AND THEN HAVING HALF THE GROUP SAYING, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.
ANYWAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL ANYWHERE, RECOMMEND DENIAL, BUT DON'T COME BACK AND TRY DENIAL CHAIR.
I MEAN,
WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND IS KIND OF WEED.
THE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I GUESS IN THE MIDDLE HERE AND SAY, BASICALLY SAY, WE'RE NOT SAYING THE DENYING, WE'RE NOT, I'M NOT THE RESOLUTION.
OR IF WE DON'T SUPPORT IT, W WHERE I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING IS YES, WE RECOMMEND THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ANY RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING THE GENERAL COUNSEL, AS YOU CONSIDER THIS COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND SEC EXCEPTION, THOSE POINTS THAT YOU PUT IN YOUR RESOLUTION, A THROUGH F THEY'RE ONE A THROUGH F I THINK ARE GOOD, THAT THEY SHOULD BE IN, IN SUCH A, UH, A, A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
SO, IN A WAY WE'RE SAYING, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SAYING DON'T DO IT COUNTS UP, BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING GO DO IT EITHER.
AND THEN BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, WE EITHER NEED TO SAY ADOPT MY VERSION, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT CODE SAYS OR TELL THEM, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE INTO SOMETHING HALFWAY IN BETWEEN W WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT YOUR RESOLUTION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SALVAGING WHAT WE CAN FROM YOUR RESOLUTION INTO THE, THE ONE THAT'S.
BUT IF ON TOP OF THAT, WE'RE GOING TO ADD, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO ANYTHING, BUT IF YOU DO SOMETHING, WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS, THEN I'M SAY NO, NO.
SO FAR, UM, THERE, THEY'RE NOT SAYING THEY'RE OPPOSED.
NO THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY BASICALLY ARE ORDER TO STAIN.
DO YOU WANT A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT ORDER? SHE HAS.
HOWEVER, IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN, THEN WE'RE TRYING TO SAY WHAT IT SHOULD BE WITHOUT SAYING DO IT, BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY WANT IT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY DO, BUT ARE YOU GOING TO GO TO YOUR CAMP NUMBER? SAY YOU DON'T DO IT? NO, PROBABLY NOT.
AND I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR THAT.
WHAT I DON'T WANT IS TO SIT HERE AND NEGOTIATE ON SOMETHING TO THE 11TH HOUR AND THEN HAVE HALF.
AND YOU GO TO YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SAY, YEAH, WE NEGOTIATED, BUT DON'T APPROVE ANYTHING.
I THINK WE'RE DOING THIS BACKWARDS AND WE SHOULD HAVE DONE A SUBSTITUTE CONSIDERED YOURS.
SEE IF THERE'S SIX VOTES TO PASS IT AND CALL IT A DAY.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING SO LONG AS WE DON'T UNDERMINE IT BY SAYING, BY GOING TO CANCEL AND SAYING, YEAH, WE AGREED ON THIS AS A COMMISSION, BUT WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING.
IF YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU NEVER DO THAT, THEN I'M FINE WITH THAT.
IT DOESN'T SAY WE DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT'S FINE.
SO I DO THINK THAT, I MEAN, CERTAINLY COMMISSIONER SMITH'S RESOLUTION HAS THE NUMBER TWO THAT SAYS TO PROVIDE ANNUAL PUBLIC REPORTS OF THE EFFICACY OF FLOODPLAIN AND REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS, AND THE GOALS TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY AND DECREASE FLOOD RISKS AND FLOOD PLAINS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAPPENS TO ME TO HELP EVERYBODY.
IF NUMBER ONE, WE SAID THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL BOOK BUILDING, THE FLOODPLAIN SHOULD CONSIDER AND THEN LIST OUT MY ONE, TWO, MY A, B, C, D E F ADD IN THE, I THINK THAT'S REALLY JUST THE SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
THOSE THINGS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER OR EVEN INCLUDE INCLUDE SOMETHING, JUST LIKE NOT TAKE OUT THE WORD ADOPTED AND INSERT.
ANOTHER WORD IS NOT A BAD THING, BUT YOU NEED TO
[03:30:01]
CONSIDER THOSE THINGS INCLUDED.THAT SAYS, INSTEAD IT SHOULD BE ADOPTED IF IT SAYS, SHOULD INCLUDE.
AND THEN DO WE WANT TO SCOOCH IT OVER TO THE KING GREENBERG? OR DO WE WANT TO JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE AND JUST HAVE THE NUMBER TO BE DIRECT? THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE ANNUAL PUBLIC REPORTS, ET CETERA.
WE CAN VOTE SEPARATELY ON THE FURTHER RESOLVED.
YOU MEAN THE ONES? WHICH ONES? THE ONES ON ONE THROUGH SIX OR THE TWO BELOW IT REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
IF YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY FLOODED FURTHER.
SO DID WE, AND DID WE COME TO A NEW, DID WE ACTUALLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE ONES THAT MY MAX THAT I'M SORRY, UH, ON THE, UM, GREENBERG KING RESOLUTION, THERE WAS ONE THROUGH SIX.
DID WE COME TO RESOLUTION ON WHICH ONES WERE STAYING? YES.
I THINK WE'RE THREE WAS OUT FIVE AND SIX WERE OUT.
SIX WAS MODIFIED SIX IS MODIFIED PUBLIC ACCESS.
REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE OF REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, RANCHERS RESIDENTS, TENANTS, AND BUSINESSES THAT INCLUDE THE ASSIGN STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION AND POTENTIALLY IN APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED AN UNSEALED OR, AND THAT'S SIX, BUT THEN WE'RE GETTING RID OF FIVE AND THREE.
IF I HAD ALL THE WAY, ARE YOU OKAY WITH GETTING RID OF FIVE ALL THE WAY? YEAH.
THOSE WERE ALREADY THE FINE TERMS. WOW.
I STILL LIKE THE HISTORIC FLOOD LAST THAT JUST, UM, IF I, IF WHAT WE SAID WAS YOU'D REFERENCE THE CODE, WHEREAS THAT'S FINE.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 30 25, 7 2.
IT'S MORE, IT'S MORE SPELLED OUT IN 25 DASH 7 66.
SO IN ONE APP YOU COULD SAY AS DEFINED IN YEAH.
WHATEVER, SOMEBODY READ IT TO ME.
CAUSE SOME, AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN THREE WAS GONE.
AND THEN IT'S THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS TWO SEPARATE AD-ONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN BODIES.
SO FOR YOU COMMISSIONER DINKLER ONE IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOOD.
PLAIN SHOULD BE INCLUDED, SHOULD INCLUDE A THROUGH F AND F INCLUDES THE LDC REFERENCE, WHICH IS 25, 7 DASH TWO AND 25, 7 DASH 66.
AND THEN TWO IS THE SAME AND WHERE, OH, WELL ACTUALLY IS TWO.
I DIDN'T INCLUDE THE LAST BASE.
CAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO EVERYBODY EQUALLY.
AND THE ONE AND THE TWO FROM KING GREENBERG COMBINED, THE TWO TWOS.
AND THEN THE FOUR STAYS THE FIVE OF COURSE ALREADY IN MIND, FIVE, SIX GETS MODIFIED.
AND THEN THE SIXTH IS REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE OF REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS.
WE DON'T CONSIDER OUR APPEALS PROCESS.
SO THEN WITH THE, TO BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ONE OF THEM IS A POISON PILL.
CAUSE IT ONE NEGATES THE WHOLE THING.
SO IF IT'S, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD VOTE FOR IT SEPARATELY BECAUSE IT W IT WOULD BE LIKE TACKING ON NOT IT, YOU KNOW, OPPOSITE DAY, BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER REASONS THAT THEY REDEVELOPED BESIDES DAMAGED BY FLOOD, BUT DAMAGED BY FLOODS GONNA BE THE MAIN ONE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST LIKELY THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM RIGHT THERE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN OR THE, WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THEM HERE.
AND THAT'S THE IMPETUS BEHIND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TO ALLOW THEM TO REDEVELOP BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IMPACTED BY A FLOOD.
AND IF THEY CAN DO IT IN SAFELY, GET THEMSELVES OUT OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN AND IMPROVE CONDITIONS DOWNSTREAM.
YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JUSTICE FOR EVERYBODY.
SO YOU GET TO REDEVELOP RAPIDLY RIGHT NOW.
THEY CAN REDEVELOP WITHIN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, IF THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO IT, THIS IS SUGGESTING THAT IF YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO IT, YOU NEED TO TAKE YOURSELF AT LEAST TWO FEET OUT OF THE FLOOD, PLAIN.
THIS IS INSTEAD OF GOING TO COUNCIL FOR A VARIANCE, THAT'S TRUE.
THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN DO IT, BUT NOT WITHOUT, BUT AGAIN, IF THEY'VE BEEN FLOODED, I WANT TO GET THEM BACK IN BUSINESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, NOT SPENDING SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR, GOING THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS, IN WHICH CASE THEY'VE LOST THEIR BUSINESS.
UM, COMMISSIONER KING, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY ON, ON, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST, OUR GUESTS, THE SECOND TO THE
[03:35:01]
LAST, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR BOTH.SO WHAT IF WE JUST MADE THAT A NUMBER, YOU KNOW, MOVED IT UP AND MAKE IT LIKE, I GUESS NUMBER EIGHT IS GOING TO BE THE APPEALS PROCESS, THE POTENTIAL CONSIDER, UH, AN APPEALS PROCESS.
NUMBER NINE COULD BECOME, CONSIDER, UH, NOT ALLOWING PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, NOT ALLOWING PROPERTIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
JUST MAKE IT A CONSIDERED INSTEAD OF SAYING, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT BE ALLOWED 'CAUSE IN MY MIND, THAT IS THE IMPETUS BEHIND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
IT'S NOT A POISON PILL THAT JUST SAYING CONSIDER, IT'S NOT SAYING THE POISON PILL IN MY MIND, IF YOU'RE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND YOU'RE FLOODED, BUT YOU CAN'T REBUILD BECAUSE YOU FLOODED, THAT'S GETTING AWAY FROM THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE VOTE ON JUST THEN ONE THROUGH SIX AS THEY'RE WRITTEN.
AND THEN I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT COMMISSIONER KING IS DOING, WHICH IS BASICALLY SOFTENING THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S A CONSIDERATION VERSUS A RESOLUTION.
IF WE DO IT THE OTHER WAY, WHERE WE APPROVE EVERYTHING AND THEN WE VOTE SEPARATELY ON THIS ISSUE, IT'S GOING TO APPEAR AS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
AND IT'S A DEFINITE, BUT IF IT'S DONE THE WAY THAT COMMISSIONER KING IS SAYING IT, NOW IT'S A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER.
BECAUSE I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE WHOLE THING.
IF WE INCLUDE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T REDEVELOP IT FOR FLOODED BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING GOING AGAINST THE WHOLE REASON BEHIND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
WHAT ABOUT IF WE'RE ASKING THEM JUST TO THINK ABOUT IT? NO.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON BEHIND THIS.
THIS IS A REDEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTIES IN THE FLOOD.
THE MOST LIKELY THINGS ARE GOING TO HIT BY.
YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET FLOODED THAN HIT BY A CAR OR HIT BY, EXCEPT FOR THE TAVERN.
I THINK THE TAVERN GETS HIT BY CARS INSTEAD OF ARGUING, LET'S JUST VOTE, VOTE.
WE DO INCLUDE THE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED BY FLOODS.
AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, WE CAN VOTE ON IT.
CAN YOU CLARIFY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD DO IT AS A, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED OR AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION? SHE'S JUST SAYING INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE.
THERE'S NO SECOND I'LL SECOND IT, OKAY.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ONE THAT SAYS, AND I KNOW THIS IS, I DUNNO IF THIS IS OFF TOPIC OR IF YOU WANT TO GO ON, BUT YOU WANT TO DO IT TO GET SEPARATE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND TO LAST, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BEING A, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THAT WAS A GREAT, GREAT SOLUTION TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT FOR, SO CAN, OKAY.
SO THEN WE CAN JUST STRIKE IT.
I DIDN'T GET THE VOTE ON THAT DAY.
IT WAS JUST YOU AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND EVERYBODY ELSE VOTE AGAINST IT.
SO THEN WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT UTILIZE THE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE A PUNISHMENT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
WE NEVER, WE'VE NEVER BOUGHT A COMMERCIAL.
SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE IN THERE.
SO CAN WE SHARE IT? AND CLAIRE, ARE YOU GOING TO TYPE THIS ALL UP AND SEND IT OUT? DO WE NEED TO HAVE A FINAL LOAD? I'M GOING TO SEND, DO YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE IT ONE MORE TIME AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT.
COULD YOU GO THROUGH LIKE THE BEGINNING THOUGH? EVERYWHERE AS EVERYTHING.
SO, UM, THE FIRST, WHEREAS IS, ARE THE SAME.
THE SECOND, WHEREAS WE PICKED IS, IS THIS STATING THE EXIST STATING THAT WE USE OUT WAS 14.
THE THIRD, WHEREAS IS THE SAME, THE FOURTH, WHEREAS IS THE SAME, THE FIFTH.
WHEREAS THE KEY GOALS I THINK WE DECIDED TO STICK WITH, DID WE, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT AGREEMENTS, SMITHS LANGUAGE AND ADDED PART OF, UH, KEN GREENBERG.
AND WE ADDED JUST APPLAUSE TO DISMISS LANGUAGE THAT SAID INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE NEXT ONE IS ABOUT CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GOT THAT ONE WAS CHANGED ON THAT.
AND CAN YOU READ IT COMMISSIONER DINKLER UM, WHEREAS THE CITY HAS THE GOAL TO CREATE AND MAKE THAT LOWERCASE IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, THE DECREASES FLOOD RISK COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
AND THAT WAS IN COMMISSIONER SMITH'S RESOLUTION
[03:40:01]
AND THEN ADD THIS CLAUSE TO IT AND INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY.SO WE'RE COMBINING THE TWO, WHEREAS IS TOGETHER CORRECT INTO A SINGLE WHEREAS, OKAY.
THE NEXT ONE IS, WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY OF AUSTIN ARE COMMITTED TO EQUITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE SAME NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES IS THE SAME.
AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
AND THE FLOOD PLAIN SHOULD BE, SHOULD INCLUDE.
AND IT LISTS THE HREF AND IT REFERENCES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THEN THE ONE IS THE SAME FROM THE KING GREENBERG.
UM, THE TWO AND THE TWO COME TOGETHER AS A HYBRID FROM BOTH BASICALLY I THINK WE'LL HAVE, THEY MIGHT BE TWO SEPARATE SENTENCES THERE.
SIX IS REVISED TO SAY REQUIRE 30 DAY PUBLIC, SORRY, REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE OF RE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, RENTERS RESIDENTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, INCLUDES ASSIGNED CO CONTACT STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION AND CONSIDER AN APPEAL PROCESS.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PROPERTY THAT UTILIZED THE RESIDENT OF COMMERCIAL TO FOR FUTURE BUYOUTS.
SUBMIT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REVISED RESOLUTION AS DISCUSSED THAT IS SMITH BUTTED.
ARMITA'S KIELBASA, DINKLER STERN AND KING, ALL THOSE OPPOSED IT IS GREENBERG AND THOMPSON.
YOU'VE GOT FOUR MINUTES TO FINISH THAT.
NOT BUILDING TO PANEL ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
WHAT SHOULD I JUST DO IT? OKAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION ON SUBDIVISIONS.
[FCOMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS]
THE CODES AND ORDINANCES.JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ARE MEETING TOMORROW.
Y'ALL I'M NOT READY FOR IT, BUT WE GOT TO COME IN.
COMMISSION THE COMPRESSOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING.
ARE YOU GOOD? DO YOU HAVE A MAT, SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE, NOTE, ONION CREEK.
THAT WAS SOME SERIOUS SAUSAGE WE MADE.
BONNIE REALLY HELPED ME OVER THERE.