Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

THEN IT IS 6 0 5 ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH.

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER FIRST.

WE'RE GOING TO DO ROLL CALL.

UM, COMMISSIONER ACOSTA IS NOT HERE.

I'M HERE.

COMMISSIONER BOON.

MR. DANCLER ISN'T HERE.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, PRESENT COMMISSIONER KING YOU'RE VICE-CHAIR KIELBASA IS ON HER WAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE, COMMISSIONER STERN, YOUR COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.

AND COMMISSIONER WOODY DOES NOT LOOK TO BE HERE EITHER.

UM, OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

START WITH APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 16TH.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES AS THEY WERE POSTED?

[Consent Agenda]

NO.

OKAY.

THEN I'M GOING TO REVIEW THE CONSENT AGENDA.

FIRST ITEM IS NUMBER TWO.

IT'S A REASONING C 14 20 22 0 0 4 0 KIND OF PIONEER HILL PLAZA.

AND IT'S UP FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, ITEM THREE IS A REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 4 9 500 VW ROAD.

STAFF IS SEEKING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 4TH.

ITEM FOUR IS ON THE AS FOR UP FOR CONSENT.

IT'S A REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 5 0 ALLENDALE VILLAGE ITEM FIVE, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 0 0 3 SOUTH LAKE RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 4TH, ITEM SIX, WE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM SEVEN, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 22 0 2 2 1 RIVER PARK SOUTH THAT WE'RE DISAPPROVING FOR REASONS THAT'S SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C, ITEM EIGHT, PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 22 0 1 1 2 VELOCITY PRELIMINARY PLAN, DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C ITEM NINE, FINAL PLAT OUT OF APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 20 0 1 1 TWO.ONE, A BREAKER HILL SUBDIVISION PHASE ONE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C AND ITEM 10 FINAL PLATFORM IMPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 18 0 1 6 5 DOT FOUR EIGHT CASCADES AT ONION CREEK EAST APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C.

SO TO REVIEW WE HAVE, UM, ITEM TWO, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT THREE AND FOUR ARE POSTPONED AND I'M SORRY, THREE AND FIVE POSTPONE UNTIL OCTOBER 4TH FOR AS CONSENT SEVEN AND A ARE DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN AND NINE AND 10 ARE APPROVAL FOR REASONS AS SHOWN.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

I SAW FIRST.

SO FOR HIS CONSENT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, YES, I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING.

YOU BEAT ME TO IT.

JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT CS DASH V ONE DASH C O VCO REVERSE.

YES.

WELL DCO.

OH, THERE YOU GO.

YES.

THANK YOU.

GOOD, GOOD LONG LETTERS.

THEY ALL MEAN SOMETHING.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ AND JUST NOTE ON ITEM FOUR, THAT IT IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CS ONE VERTICAL CEO.

IS THERE A SECOND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THAT'S PRETTY UNANIMOUS.

COMMISSIONER KIELBASA IS ARRIVING AND RAISING HER HAND.

OKAY.

SO THEN WE WILL THE SHERIFF, WE CAN JUST, UM, WHITES, WE'RE GOING TO WAIT FIVE SECONDS.

SHE'S GOING TO GET UP HERE.

HER BEST WAS LATE.

WE'RE APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RED.

I HEARD IT.

YEAH.

EVEN LOBBIED MY SUFFICIENTLY ON THE DICE.

YES, I THINK SO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

PERFECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON

[6. Zoning: C14-2022-0204 - Gemini School of Visual Arts; District 6]

TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.

SEEMS LIKE WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM MR. .

HELLO, JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M SORRY.

THE, IT WAS UNANIMOUS THAT BASKETBALL, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I AM SHERRY SIR, WITNESS WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

AND THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SIX.

THIS IS CASEY 14 20 22 0 2 0 4, WHICH IS THE GEMINI SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1, 2, 3 TO FIVE HIGH MEADOW DRIVE.

AND THE REQUESTED ZONING IS FROM INTERIM SF TWO TO GEO THE STAFF RECOMMENDS GEO GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 2,995 SQUARE FOOT

[00:05:01]

SUITE WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE COMPLEX.

THE LOTS TO THE EAST ARE DEVELOPED WITH OFFICE BUILDINGS.

THE TRACK TO THE WEST CONTAINS A DERRICK DAYCARE USE TO THE NORTH ACROSS HIGH MEADOW DRIVE.

THERE'S A PUBLIC SCHOOL, WHICH IS A HIGH SCHOOL AND A MULTIFAMILY USE TO THE SOUTH.

THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING GEOS ZONING FOR THE SITE TO UTILIZE THE SUITE WITHIN THE OFFICE COMPLEX FOR A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY FACILITY OR BUSINESS OR TRADE SCHOOL USE AND LIST BOTH BECAUSE THE STAFF BELIEVES THIS IS A COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY USE BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED ON THE APPLICANTS WEBSITE.

UM, BUT THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THEY QUALIFY AS A BUSINESS OR TRADE SCHOOL USE.

AND I POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE USES ARE FIRST PERMITTED IN THE GEO GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT.

IN OUR CODE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS GEO GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT STANDING FOR THIS FOOTPRINT AREA BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE GEO DISTRICT AS IT FRONTS ONTO AND TAKES ACCESS TO A LEVEL TWO COLLECTOR ROADWAY, HIGH MEADOW DRIVE, AND WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE USES LOCATED TO THE EAST AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND DAYCARE SERVICE TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

UM, AS BARCELONA BARCELONA, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.

HELLO.

MY NAME IS PAULA BARCELONA.

UM, I'M HERE FOR JIM AND I SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS.

SO AS MR. WADE HAS JUST EXPLAINED, WE OUT OF CAREER TRAINING SCHOOL, OF COURSE IS A FOUR YEAR, UH, CAREER TRAINING COURSE.

UM, WE ARE THERE FOR NOT TO CONSIDERED A DEGREE GRANTING COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, BUT WE ARE APPROVED BY THE TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, CAREERS AND COLLEGES.

UM, WE ALSO FIVE IS VERY SMALL SPACE AND, UM, WE NEED, UH, OVER TO REZONE THE SPACE FROM, UH, THE COMMERCIAL THAT IT IS NOW TO A ZONING THAT ALLOWED THE TRADE SCHOOL.

WE NEED THE FIRE CERTIFICATES.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS US FROM BEING APPROVED BY THE TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION.

AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ZONED CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO THE FARM OR SHOW.

SO, UM, THE SUGGESTION TO USE THE GEO SEEMS TO BE, UH, VERY APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S COVERED, UH, THE, THE USE, UH, FOR THE TRADE SCHOOL AS WELL AS COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

I KNOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN AN OBJECTION AND THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE TO USE AN O INSTEAD, BUT UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT COVER, UM, A TRADE SCHOOL.

I'M THERE FOR NOT, I DO NOT SAY HOW BAD IT COULD BE, UM, USE IN OUR CASE.

I, UM, ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS ZONED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN CLOSED DOWN BY THE TEXAS WORKFORCE BECAUSE WE COULD NOT PROVIDE A FAR CERTIFICATES, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE ZONING IN PLACE BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER OR EARLY OCTOBER, SO THAT WE CAN REOPEN THE SCHOOL.

WE HAVE STUDENTS WHO ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PROGRAM AND IT BREAKS OUR HEART THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PROCEED THEM, CONTINUE WITH THEIR EDUCATION.

UM, OUR SCHOOL HAS BEEN IN AN OPERATION IN AUSTIN FOR 21 YEARS.

IT'S A SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL AND IT'S 85 TO 90% OF OUR STUDENTS ARE WORKING IN VERY LUCRATIVE, UM, UH, POSITIONS IN THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY.

AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE, BUT THERE ARE 85 VIDEO GAME COMPANIES IN AUSTIN.

SO, UM, WE ARE RUNNING IMPORTANT PARTS OF THIS INDUSTRY.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER OUT APPLICATION POSITIVELY.

AND, UM, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO US.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN ADD TO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JOSEPH CRAWFORD.

MR. CRAWFORD, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.

[00:10:03]

HELLO.

MY NAME IS JOE CRAWFORD.

UM, MY WIFE AND I OWN ONE OF THE THREE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH.

UM, WE I'VE SUBMITTED SOME COMMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED AS LATE BACKGROUND, UH, ATTACHMENTS FOR YOU ALL.

AND MR. WHITE, THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL IN HELPING ME GET THOSE TO YOU.

UH, YEAH.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS LIMITED OFFICE.

AND IF THIS USE FALLS UNDER LIMITED OFFICE, THEN I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO USE.

AND I'M, I HAVE NO OBJECTION IN ANY WAY TO GETTING TO ALLOW THIS USE, UNLESS IT REQUIRES THE PROPERTY B ZONE GENERAL OFFICE.

SO THE ZONING GUIDANCE THAT I COULD FIND ONLINE SAYS THAT LIMITED OFFICE IS THE DESIGNATION FOR AN OFFICE THAT SERVES COMMUNITY NEEDS AND IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THAT SEEMS TO EXACTLY DESCRIBE WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE LIMITED OFFICE.

IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE THREE STORY MAXIMUM FOR LIMITED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT.

ALL OF THE OFFICE USES THAT WERE MENTIONED TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE ARE ZONED A LIMITED OFFICE IF THEY ARE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE REASON WE HAVE THESE ZONING GUIDELINES IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT A SPECIFIC USER AND THROW AWAY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED.

SO, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I WELCOME THIS USE.

I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT USE TO HAVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT IS, UH, IF IT CAN BE DONE UNDER A LIMITED OFFICE ZONING.

THAT'S GREAT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF AGREES THAT IT CAN, UM, IF IT CAN'T THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT BEARING IS PROCEDURES THERE ARE THAT EXIST BACK TO THE LOUDEST USE AND NOT REZONE THE PROPERTY AS GENERAL OFFICE.

MY CONCERN ISN'T BITCH USED.

MY CONCERN IS OTHER USES THAT CAN COME IN IN GENERAL OFFICE THAT CAN'T COME IN IN LIMITED OFFICE DESIGNATION.

SO, UM, THINGS LIKE, UH, RESTAURANTS COULD BE A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, UH, GROUP HOMES, REHABILITATION, FACILITIES, THESE THINGS.

THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT CAN BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED IN LIMITED OFFICE ZONING, BUT, UH, ARE JUST MORE BROADLY ALLOWED UNDER GENERAL OFFICE ZONING.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE, THE PLAN OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS MAINTAINED AND IF WE CAN GET THIS USE DONE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THAT, THEN, THEN THAT'S GREAT.

YEAH.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I'LL STAY ON ONLINE.

DID IT, SCOTT? UH, IF YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM ME, IF NOT, I, UH, I'LL JUST HANG UP AND LISTEN.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE HOLD IT IN CASE THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND WHILE HERE FOR MS. COLLETTE BOSS ALONE FOR THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL YES.

HELLO.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SPECIFY, BUT OUR LOCATION IS VERY, VERY SMALL.

THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANYBODY WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF HAVING A RESTAURANT, A HOSPITAL OR ANYTHING SIMILAR IN THAT TINY SPACE.

IT'S REALLY VERY SMALL.

SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THERE IS A CONCERN THERE.

I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT I DON'T EVEN THINK THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WOULD ENTERTAIN RENTING THE SPACE TO A HOSPITAL OR A RESTAURANT.

UM, IT JUST DOESN'T LEND ITSELF.

UH, THE, THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE COURTYARD.

THERE'S NO WAY A RESTAURANT OR A FAST TO ADDRESS JOE WOODS WOULD EVEN CONSIDER IT.

IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE, THE MAIN STREETS.

UM, SO I, I, I REALLY DON'T SEE THAT THAT IS A CONCERN.

I, I CANNOT SEE IT.

I UNDERSTAND MR. CRAWFORD POSTS, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT, UM, SUCH, UH, UH, USE WOULD BE ENTERTAINED.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU.

SO LET'S SEE, WE NEED CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ALL SECOND SECONDED BY KIELBASA, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:15:01]

THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

OKAY.

FIRST QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

UM, MR. CRAWFORD, COULD YOU COME BACK? UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS WHICH GEO USES ARE YOU PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH? ONE OPTION IS FOR US TO, UM, PROHIBIT THOSE USES.

THEY NEED THE GEO IN ORDER TO HAVE THE CURRENT USE, BUT IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL USES, I MEAN, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITH PROHIBITING RESTAURANT AND HOSPITAL USES.

UM, UH, I'M S I'M SORRY, SOME OF YOUR QUESTION.

THIS IS JOE CRAWFORD.

SOME OF YOUR QUESTION GOT CUT OFF BY A VOICEOVER ON THE, UH, ON THE TELECOM, ON THE TELECONFERENCE.

I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS YOU'RE ASKING WHICH, WHICH GEO ARE NOT OKAY.

UM, I DON'T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST IN FRONT OF ME.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ONE OF THESE, UH, THESE, THESE PROCEEDINGS.

SO I'M, I'M IN MY CAR RIGHT NOW.

SO I CAN'T TELL YOU I'VE PROVIDED IN THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS.

SOME PARTICULAR USES THAT ARE CONCERNING TO ME THAT IT SHOULD AT LEAST BE CONDITIONAL FOR THIS PROPERTY.

UH, THAT'S THINGS LIKE GROUP HOME, TWO DESIGNATIONS AT THE RESTAURANT DESIGNATION AND THE GENERAL HOSPITAL THAT USES, OR SORRY, NOT DESIGNATION.

THOSE ARE ALL USES.

UM, I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN'T LIST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

EVERY USE THAT'S INCORPORATED IN GENERAL OFFICE USE AS OPPOSED TO LIMITED OFFICE USE.

UM, BUT I WANT TO SAY ALSO TO THE, TO THE IDEA THAT THIS SPACE IS SMALL.

I THINK THAT SOME OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT YOU ARE ALL ATTACHED WITH IS LOOKING AT WHAT THE ZONING IS IN THE AREA.

AND THIS WOULD BE AN OUTLIER AS A GEO ZONING ON THIS SIDE OF THE BLOCK.

SO IT WOULD MOVE THE GOALPOSTS FOR FUTURE ZONING DESIGNATIONS.

UM, YEAH.

SORRY TO GO OFF TRACK THAT'S OKAY.

NO, I W I WOULD LIKE TO, SORRY, JUST, I WANT TO VERIFY JUST TO MAKE SURE CAUSE JUST SO MR. WADE IS THEY CANNOT BE LOW.

THE CURRENT USE WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR ELLO ZONING.

OKAY.

IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.

OKAY.

THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN GEO THAT ARE ALLOWED IN ELO.

EXACTLY.

IT'S PRINTING AND PUBLISHING.

UM, RUSS RESTAURANT IS CONDITIONAL ON BOTH.

YEAH.

UM, DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOU GO CONVALESCENT SERVICES, GROUP HOME TO GUIDE AND SERVICES AND HOSPITAL SERVICES.

OKAY.

AND I WANT TO SAY WE CAN'T PROHIBIT GRIP HOMES OR GUIDANCE SERVICES, RIGHT? SO THE ONLY THINGS WE COULD PROHIBIT WOULD BE CONVALESCENT SERVICE, CONVALESCENT SERVICES IN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING.

I THINK, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CON HAVE THAT CONDITIONAL DIFFERENCE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING MR. CRAWFORD.

YEAH.

SO WE, CAN'T THE WAY THE ZONING WORKS.

WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE MORE AGGRESSIVE ZONING AND THEN WE CONDITION BACK.

YOU CAN'T GO WITH THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ZONING AND THEN CONDITION UP, YOU COULD PROHIBIT RESTAURANT USES, AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE CONDITIONAL ON THE SITE, OR YOU COULD LEAVE THEM AS CONDITIONAL USES THAT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN.

SO IT'S UP TO YOU.

I WOULD, IF ANYBODY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, I WOULD, UM, PROHIBIT HOSPITAL USES IN CONVALESCENT SERVICES? CAN WE, I DON'T THINK WE CAN LIMIT HOSPITAL USES.

OKAY.

WE CAN.

OKAY.

YEAH.

SO THERE'S LIKE A LIST OF FIVE THAT WE HAVE THAT YOU CAN YEAH, SURE.

I THINK THERE ARE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY AFTER HEARING THAT LIST, THE, UM, THE OTHERS THAT CONCERN ME ARE GUIDANCE SERVICES CAN INCLUDE REHABILITATION CENTERS, WHICH ARE GREAT, AND I SUPPORT HAVING THEM IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT IT IS.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT MORE CLOSELY IF IT'S SHARING A PROPERTY LINE WITH THREE RESIDENTIAL USES MR. CRAWFORD, ACCORDING TO OUR LAW DEPARTMENT, WE CANNOT PROHIBIT GUIDANCE SERVICES BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

SO, SO IT WOULD BE HOSPITAL SERVICES.

IS THAT, IS THAT IN EITHER DESIGNATION YES.

HOSPITAL, THIS COULD STOP A NUMERATE.

THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED FROM PROHIBITION.

CAN WE CANNOT PROVE IT.

GROUP HOME, FAMILY, HOME

[00:20:02]

GUIDANCE SERVICES, TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES.

LET ME LOOK.

THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER SURE.

BUT IT'S NOT ON THIS LIST.

SO THANK YOU.

CAN I RAISE A QUESTION THOUGH? AND THAT IS ON THE YOU SUMMARY CHART, GUIDANCE SERVICES IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER ELO, BUT IT IS ALLOWED UNDER IT IS CONDITIONAL UNDER, UM, NOW I HAVE TO FIND THE TINY PRINT PERMIT PERMITTED.

YEAH.

BUT I CAN SEE WHERE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS ARE, ALLOW OUR PC EVERYWHERE, EVERYWHERE.

SO I, I CAN ASSUME THAT THAT, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

OKAY.

THE REASON TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAY PC ON YOUR CHART ON EVERYTHING ON EVERYTHING IS BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR OWN TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE THAT COVERS THOSE AS TO WHERE IN THE CODE THAT THOSE CAN BE LOCATED.

SO THAT'S WHY IT STATES THAT, BUT THEN GUIDANCE SERVICES, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED UNDER ELLO.

WE DON'T HAVE A GUIDANCE SERVICES ORDINANCE.

AND SO WHY WOULD THEY, WHY COULDN'T WE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? WHY COULDN'T WE PROHIBIT THEM IN GEO IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED UNDER ELA, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT THAT CANNOT BE A PROHIBITED USE IN AN ORDINANCE AND IS UNIMPORTANT, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER REGULATIONS IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW THAT GUIDE THOSE USES SPECIFIC USES THAT ARE ASSISTING.

OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY.

WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE BETTY AND BAKER AND I USED TO GO BACK AND FORTH AND PACKET.

SO I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION AND I MAY GET THIS WRONG.

IT'S OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

MR. CRAWFORD, WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT GEO WITH A LIMITATION ON CONVALESCENT SERVICES, UM, HOSPITAL.

IT REALLY ONLY APPLIES TO ASSETS, A SOLID CONDITIONAL.

UM, I DO BOTH GENERAL AND LIMITED, UM, RESTAURANT HAS ALREADY CONDITIONED PRINTING AND PUBLISHING.

OKAY.

I THINK THAT'S IT.

I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF.

SO WHAT I HAVE IS TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF G O ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, ADDING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO PROHIBIT CONVALESCENT SERVICES, HOSPITAL SERVICES, PRINTING, AND PUBLISHING USES.

CORRECT.

THAT IS MY MOTION.

IS THERE A SEC? IS THAT A SECOND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? OKAY.

YES.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE COMMISSIONER KING, WAS HE BUILDING OR QUESTION YOU'VE BEEN DOING YOUR MUTE? YES, I AM.

THANK YOU.

YES.

YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING ON THE BACKUP, THE STAFF REPORT HERE, AND I, I JUST, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER GEOS ZONING AROUND HERE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AND I'M, I'M CERTAINLY, UH, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION HERE.

I, YOU KNOW, I DO WANT TO MAKE, SEE IF WE CAN HELP, YOU KNOW, MAKE THIS WORK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE SERVICE HERE.

IT'S ALREADY HERE AND I THINK WE NEED TRADE SCHOOL.

SO CERTAINLY A HUNDRED PERCENT BEHIND WHAT'S WHAT'S BEING ATTEMPTED HERE, BUT I JUST WORRY ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR GEO NOW BEING MORE WIDELY USED AROUND HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

SO I, I KNOW THAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO THREAD A NEEDLE HERE.

UH, THE OTHER THING IS THE HEIGHT IT'S, IT'S 20 FEET HIGHER.

SO, AND BY, BY RIGHT NOW, THIS, THIS LOT WITH THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE 20 FEET HEIGHT.

THE ENTITLEMENT.

NOW I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT.

I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOW SETTING IS THAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING A NEW, A NEW HEIGHT HERE EFFECTIVELY.

THAT'S ALLOWED, ALLOWED HEIGHT AT THIS AT THIS SIDE.

AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER GEO ZONING OR ANY OTHER ZONING, MAYBE I'M MISSING IN THE BACKUP.

UH, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT WHAT'S BEING OFFERED HERE.

I JUST WANT TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THE CONCERN, SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT WAS EXPRESSED BY THE SPEAKER TONIGHT.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

I, I APPRECIATE THE CEO TO HELP KIND OF BACK DOWN ON SOME OF THOSE USES THAT MAY NOT BE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

SO THANK YOU.

IF I CAN CLARIFY ONE THING, THE ZONING RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE MAKING ONLY APPLIES TO A 2,995 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE WITHIN THIS BUILDING.

SO YOUR HEIGHT COULD ONLY GO UP ON THAT 200, 2,990 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD LIKELY NOT BE WITHIN THE OFFICE BUILDING WILL BE SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY RIGHT ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE.

AND ALSO THERE IS ESTABLISHED GEO OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HIGH MEADOW DRIVE.

IT WAS DONE IN 2014.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR ZONING CASE MAP, THERE IS INTERIM ZONING.

[00:25:01]

THE REASON MAJORITY OF THIS AREA IS INTERIM ZONE IS IT WAS ANNEX, BUT NEVER GIVEN PERMANENT ZONING.

RIGHT.

AND SO WE DID HAVE A CASE ADJACENT TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST.

IT WAS C 14 20 14, 0 0 4 8, WHICH ESTABLISHED GEO ZONING ALONG HIGH MEADOW.

OKAY.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE KARA, JUST TO CLARIFY, I DO UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THIS IS JUST A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT WITHIN THIS, THIS SIDE HERE, SO THAT THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

AND I ALSO DO SEE SOME ELO NEARBY AND ALSO SOME GEO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY.

SO I, I, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT IT AND I COULD SEE NOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO I I'M, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AND I WAS GOING TO SUPPORT IT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT KIND OF BEING A ONE-OFF HERE IN THESE, IN THESE ZONING CASES.

UH, BUT I THINK THIS WAS A GOOD DECISION HERE, SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

OKAY.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER, I THINK.

CAN WE DO 13 FIRST AND THEN WE CAN DO 11 OR 12? YEAH.

SO LET'S DO 13 FIRST.

[13. Environmental, Drainage, and Landscape Amendments. Discuss and consider a recommendation for adoption of an ordinance amending Title 25 of the City Code relating to environmental, drainage, and landscape requirements. City Staff: Liz Johnston, Watershed Protection Department, (512) 974-2619, Liz.Johnston@austintexas.gov (Co-Sponsors Chair Barrera-Ramirez ,Vice-Chair Kiolbassa, and Commissioner Denkler)]

SORRY.

ARE YOU GUYS READY? OKAY.

GOING, GONNA SEND THIS UP IN FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES.

JUST KIDDING.

REALLY? NO, TAKE US AWHILE.

TALK LIKE AN AUCTIONEER, BUT NOW I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF SLIDES.

UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING US.

MY NAME IS KATIE COIN ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION.

I'M EXCITED TO BRING FORWARD THESE, UH, THIS ORDINANCE FOR Y'ALL.

WE'RE HAPPY THAT YOU'VE ASKED US TO COME PRESENT TO YOU.

UM, THESE ARE CHANGES THAT FOR THE MOST PART WERE ALREADY PROPOSED AS DRAFT LANGUAGE IN OUR PREVIOUS LDC DRAFT, UH, WHICH IS WHY COUNCIL ASKS US TO BRING THESE BACK ON A VERY TIGHT TIMELINE.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OUR DEPARTMENT AND MUCH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY COMMUNITY WAS VERY EXCITED TO SEE PASSED, UH, AND, AND ARE SEEN AS REALLY A LONG TIME COMING.

SO THINGS LIKE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, THINGS LIKE MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THE COLORADO RIVER, UH, FRONTAGE, UH, AND MANY OTHER THINGS THAT LIZ WILL WE'LL TALK THROUGH IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BRING FORWARD THAT WE THINK ARE GOING TO BE REALLY IMPACTFUL FOR OUR CITY TO BE MORE RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE FOR YEARS TO COME.

SO I'LL PASS IT TO LIZ.

TALK THROUGH THE DETAILS.

WE'LL HAND IT TO ANDREA TO TALK ABOUT, UM, SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS WORK FOR OUR STAFF REPORTS, AND WE'LL TRY TO DO THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU.

NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US.

UM, SO THE ORDINANCE THAT I'M BRINGING FORTH TODAY IS RELATED TO A RESOLUTION THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED IN JUNE.

UM, THAT RESOLUTION DOES HAVE OTHER DELIVERABLES.

UM, UH, IN ADDITION TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE WON'T BE ADDRESSING HERE THIS EVENING RELATED TO, UM, UH, ADDITIONAL MONITORING OF INDUSTRIAL SITES, UM, AND ADDRESSING INEQUITIES BETWEEN OUR, UM, REGULATIONS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE THIS EVENING.

THIS IS A SUBSET OF THAT RESOLUTION.

UM, UM, ADDRESSING SOME KEY SUBJECT AREAS, UM, THAT I WILL SPEAK ABOUT, UM, IN DEPTH, UM, THE DUE DATE THAT WE WERE GIVEN.

UM, SO THIS WAS BACK JUNE 9TH IS WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED IN THIS, UH, UH, OUR DUE DATE WAS DUE SEPTEMBER 15TH.

UM, LOOKING AT, UM, BOARDS AND COMMISSION DATES.

WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT WE ARE, UM, TRYING TO, UH, HAVE THIS ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE AFTER THIS ABBOTT SEPTEMBER 15TH, WHICH IS THE 29TH.

SO NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM, WE, WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, WE BROUGHT TOGETHER, UH, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SOME INTERNAL STAFF FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

UM, WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, UH, AS A QUICK BRIEFING, UM, BACK IN JUNE AND THEN FORMED A WORK GROUP WITH THEM WITH THAT I WAS MET ONCE WE'VE GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION UPDATE, WE'VE PRESENTED TO CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE, AND WE GAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION A BRIEFING AS WELL.

NEXT SLIDE.

UM, TOMORROW EVENING WE'LL BE PRESENTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGAIN, HOPING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM THAT BODY.

UM, WE WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 13TH.

UM, THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY MAY TAKE ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE GIVING A, UM, UH, BEFORE VOTING ON IT.

UM, AND SO, UM, THERE MAY NOT BE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE 13TH, BUT HOPEFULLY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MEETS, UM, THERE IS ANOTHER RESOLUTION W W ANOTHER ORDINANCE COMING ON THE HEELS OF THIS ONE, UM, THAT WAS PULLED OUT AND GIVEN A SLIGHTLY LONGER TIMELINE RELATED TO A COUPLE OF THOSE ITEMS, WHICH, UM, SO RELATED TO GREENFIELD DETENTION

[00:30:01]

REQUIREMENTS AND URBAN SLOPE PROTECTION.

SO WE WILL BE BRINGING THAT FOR, UH, FORWARD AS WELL, UM, AT A LATER DATE.

NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO DIVING IN ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, I'VE GROUPED THE ELEMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE BY SUBJECT MATTER.

SO THEY MAY, THE NUMBERS MAY BE OUT OF, OUT OF TURN.

UM, SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT JUST GOING BY THE, UM, SUBJECT MATTER, NOT WHAT'S IN THE RESOLUTION ITSELF, UM, BUT I'M TAKING LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE RESOLUTION.

SO FIRST ONE IS ESTABLISHED CRITERIA THAT PRIORITIZE WHEN GREEN STORMWATER METHODS SHOULD BE REQUIRED OR INCENTIVIZED OVER CONVENTIONAL STORMWATER CONTROLS.

UM, WHAT THIS MEANS IS, IS, UM, UH, SO GREEN STORMWATER METHODS INCLUDE RAIN GARDENS, BIOFILTRATION PONDS, RAINWATER CAPTURE, OTHER ELEMENTS, UH, OTHER TYPES OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT OPTIONS THAT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS THAN WHAT CONVENTIONAL STORM WATER CONTROLS DO.

UM, ON THE, I HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF STORMWATER CONTROLS SHOWN HERE.

ONE IS A RAIN GARDEN.

THE OTHER IS A SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION POND.

THAT'S BEEN SAID, PHIL POND HAS BEEN THE WORKHORSE OF OUR WATER QUALITY, UM, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY YEARS DECADES.

AND IT DOES VERY WELL.

UM, AND IT FOR REMOVING TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE OTHER ANCILLARY BENEFITS, UM, BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY A SAND FILTER IT'S YOU CAN'T PLANT THE THINGS IN IT NECESSARILY, NO TREES, NO OTHER POLLINATOR PLANS.

IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR INFILTRATION.

IT'S USUALLY KIND OF TO THE SIDE AND IS NOT ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A FENCE AROUND IT.

UM, AND SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS SAYING IS WHEN SHOULD WE REQUIRE THE GSI VERSUS CONVENTIONAL STORMWATER CONTROLS? UH, NEXT SLIDE.

UM, I'M NOT GONNA LIST OFF EVERY BULLET POINT HERE, BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, NEXT SLIDE.

UM, AND I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES JUST TALKING ABOUT THE TIMELINE, THIS JUST LET YOU KNOW, THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

IT WAS DISCUSSED IN IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ADVOCATED FOR, BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND BY WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF FOR A DECADE OR MORE AT THIS POINT, NEXT SLIDE.

AND ACTUALLY NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO OUR DRAFT RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS GOING INTO.

THE SECOND READING OF THE LDC REWRITE.

AND THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REQUIRE GSI FOR SITES WITH LESS THAN 90% IN PERVIOUS COVER.

UM, THERE WOULD BE CARVE-OUTS FOR SITES THAT HAVE HIGHLY CONTAMINATED RUNOFF OR FOR SITES THAT, UM, ARE TREATING OFFSITE AND PERVIOUS COVER, UM, OF GREATER THAN 10 ACRES.

UM, AND WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE OPTION FOR SITES WHERE IT'S, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY JUST CAN'T GET ALL OF THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT INTO A RAIN GARDEN OR BIOFILTRATION POND OR RAINWATER CATCHMENT, AND NEED TO BE ABLE TO TREAT SOME OF IT WITH A SAID, FILL POND.

SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE SOME CARVE-OUTS, UM, TO, UH, TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT IN GENERAL SITES THAT ARE LESS THAN 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE AS MUCH GSI ONSITE AS POSSIBLE.

UM, UM, OF COURSE WE WILL NEED WITH THIS ENTIRE EFFORT TO UPDATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.

UM, WE HAD SOME STAFF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE, IS THERE A WAY TO IMPROVE THE SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION POND DESIGN TO BRING IN SOME ANCILLARY BENEFITS? AND SO THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE ONGOING.

UM, BUT FOR NOW WE WOULD GO WITH THE ECM, UM, UH, DEFINED GREEN STORM WATER, INFANT INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, UH, FACILITIES, UH, NEXT SLIDE, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO REQUIRES SURFACE PARKING, LOT STORMWATER TO ENTER PERVIOUS PARKING, LOT ISLANDS, MEDIANS, AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPES AS A METHOD OF WATER QUALITY AND REQUIRE THE PAVEMENT BE GRADED TO ALLOW RUNOFF TO ENTER PLANTING AREAS.

UM, SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS NOT, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO REQUIRE ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO SERVE AS WATER QUALITY CONTROLS.

UM, WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS INSTEAD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THESE PERVIOUS AREAS IN PARKING LOTS BE PROTECTED WITH A SIX INCH CURB, WHICH PREVENTS WATER FROM GOING INTO THESE AREAS, UM, AND REMOVE A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, UM, IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT

[00:35:01]

THAT, UM, WAS ATTEMPTED TO, UH, BRING IN SOME OF REQUIRE STORM WATER TO ENTER SOME OF THE AREAS, BUT NOT ALL OF THE AREAS.

AND INSTEAD REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DRAIN STORMWATER TO THESE AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE.

UM, SO WE'D BE CHANGING SOME ITEMS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, THE ZONING SECTION OF, UH, THAT TALKS ABOUT LANDSCAPING.

AND, AND TWENTY-FIVE EIGHT TO JUST SAY WHERE YOU CAN PUT YOUR WATER INTO THESE, THESE AREAS.

UM, THIS SHOULD STREAMLINE THE, FOR THIS SOMEWHAT BECAUSE THE STORM WATER IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS IS AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE DESIGN TEAM TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE STORMWATER IS GOING TO A CERTAIN AREA.

THIS IS JUST SAYING WHERE YOU CAN DO IT.

AND SO THERE'S NOT A PERCENTAGE.

NEXT SLIDE NUMBER FIVE ALLOWS CISTERNS TO BE SIZED BEYOND THE REQUIRED STORM CAPTURE AMOUNT AND REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR STORMWATER RELEASE SO THAT THEY CAN SUPPLY IRRIGATION NEEDS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

UM, SO WE'VE MET WITH OUR FOLKS IN AUSTIN WATER WHO ARE WORKING ON A WATER FORWARD PLAN AND BRINGING THEY'RE WORKING ON AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BRING FORTH, UM, REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RAINWATER CAPTURE.

AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION IN LOCKSTEP WITH WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO.

SO WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS WE DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL CODE CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BECAUSE THE, THE STORMWATER RELEASE REQUIREMENT IS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.

UM, AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY BASED ON THAT CRITERIA TO ALLOW, UM, APPLICANTS TO SIZE THEIR SISTER AND LARGER IN ORDER TO CAPTURE MORE RAIN WATER, AND THAT LARGER AMOUNT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, UM, DISCHARGED AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS HAVE REGULAR MEETINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY STARTED WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN AUSTIN WATER TO DEVELOP CRITERIA AND THE ECM, UM, THAT WOULD MEET BOTH OF OUR NEEDS AND UPDATE OUR CRITERIA TO PROVIDE MORE GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS, UM, AND BE ABLE TO MEET BOTH AUSTIN WATER AND WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, UM, POSSIBLY INCLUDING SMART CONTROLS, UM, OR OTHER ABILITIES POSSIBLY, UM, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT IF IT'S BEING KEPT BEING USED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING.

UM, AND SO THOSE, THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE GOING, UM, IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

ITEM THREE, THIS IS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

SO TECHNICALLY THIS IS A NOT WATERSHED PROTECTION CODE, BUT IT'S CODE OWNED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL GREEN.

UM, AND SO THIS IS SAYING IMPLEMENT FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES WITH MORE THAN 80% ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO WHAT FUNCTIONAL GREEN IS, UM, IS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MORE, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR, OR MORE URBAN HIGH IMPERVIOUS COVER SITES.

THE PREVIOUS LANDSCAPE CODE ANTICIPATES A BUILDING WITH A LARGE PARKING LOT AND A STREET YARD KIND OF MORE SUBURBAN TYPE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AND THESE INFILL PROJECTS THAT ARE REAL DENSE THAT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT, UM, UH, DON'T HAVE A STREET YARD OR MAY HAVE COVERED PARKING OR, UM, STRUCTURED PARKING.

UM, THIS IS, THIS WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A POINT SYSTEM THAT THESE SITES WOULD HAVE TO MEET, UM, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS IN THAT BUILDING.

UM, SO IT'S BASED ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUE CREATED BY THE LANDSCAPE, UH, NEXT SLIDE.

UM, SO THIS IS, UH, SOME BULLET POINTS OF SOME OF THE, UH, TYPES OF ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AND FUNCTIONAL GREEN, NEW TREES, SHRUBS, RAIN GARDENS, UM, VEGETATED ROOF, POROUS PAVEMENT.

UM, AND SO ONE KEY THING TO POINT OUT WITH FUNCTIONAL GRAIN IS THAT WITH, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PROJECT WERE TO PROPOSE A RAIN GARDEN THAT HAD SOME GROUND COVER AND SOME TREES ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THAT ONE ELEMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO GET MULTIPLE POINTS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A RAIN GARDEN, IT WOULD HAVE GROUND COVER, IT WOULD HAVE TREES.

AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AND OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS COULD ALSO COUNT TOWARDS THIS.

SO YOU CAN DOUBLE DIP TO SOME EXTENT NEXT SLIDE.

[00:40:01]

AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LDC REWRITE, SECOND READING WITH SOME EDITS, UM, AND CONSULTATION WITH LAW.

UM, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH NOT AMENDING 25 TO ZONING, BUT RATHER BRINGING FUNCTIONAL GREEN INTO A SEPARATE SUB-SECTION OF 25 8.

AND WE WILL BE ASKING CITY COUNCIL FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE ALL OF LANDSCAPING AS WELL, JUST TO GET IT OUT OF, OF ZONING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY BELONG THERE.

BUT FOR NOW WE'RE, WE'RE JUST PROPOSING THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN BEAD, UM, LIVE IN A DIFFERENT SPOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, DIFFERENT FROM ZONING.

SO THIS WOULD APPLY IN THE CBD WHERE, AND DOWNTOWN MIXED USE PROPERTIES THAT DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND SITES GREATER THAN 80% ALLOWABLE, IMPERVIOUS COVER, NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS LISTED.

UM, THIS IS ONE, UM, THAT WOULD PRE PROHIBIT AND CHANNEL DETENTION PONDS, UM, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN CASES WHERE, UM, WATERSHED PROTECTION NEEDS TO PART NEEDS TO EITHER CONSTRUCT SOMETHING, REHABILITATE SOMETHING, OR PARTNER WITH A PUBLIC ENTITY WHERE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS FEASIBLE TO PROVIDE REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.

UM, THE CURRENT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW DETENTION PONDS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AT ALL.

YOU CAN'T GET A FOOT INTO THAT BUFFER ZONE, EXCEPT THAT IT DOES HAVE THIS CARVE OUT FOR IN-CHANNEL DETENTION PONDS.

THEY CAN BE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO, UM, DO THE MODELING NECESSARY TO GET THEM, UM, APPROVED, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED.

AND I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, UNLESS WE REALLY, REALLY NEED TO FOR COMMUNITY BENEFIT IT'S BEST PRACTICE NOT TO HAVE THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHANNEL.

NEXT SLIDE.

UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ELEMENTS THAT, UH, UM, KIND OF SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT UTILITY LINES AND HOW THOSE INTERSECT WITH CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES.

UM, SO ONE IS REQUIRE PROJECTS TO RELOCATE REPLACED, OR WHY WASTEWATER PIPES IN THE INNER HALF, UM, TO MAKE IT MORE CODE COMPLIANT IN THE OUTER HALF.

SO, YOU KNOW, EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, REAL CLOSE TO THE CREEK WHERE POSSIBLE MOVE THEM, UM, INTO THE OUTER HALF OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.

SO THEY'RE NOT WHEN THEY BREAK, THEY DON'T DIRECTLY DISCHARGE INTO THE WATER.

UM, ADDITIONALLY NEW EAS UTILITY EASEMENTS NEED TO BE LOCATED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES NEW UTILITY LINES NEED TO BE.

AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, IN, IN GENERAL UPSIZED OR REPLACED WASTEWATER PIPES, UNLESS IT'S LIKE AN EMERGENCY REPAIR WHERE THEY'RE REALLY JUST GOING IN AND FIXING A, A SMALL SECTION PUTTING LIGHT FOR LIKE THAT AND CALLING IT MAINTENANCE, IF IT'S BRINGING MORE WASTEWATER OR RE BEING A, YOU KNOW, A LARGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT REPLACES A LARGE SEGMENT, WE WOULD, UH, ALREADY SAY THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE OUTER HALF OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ANYWAY.

SO THERE'S NOT A BIG DIFFERENCE IN HOW WE CURRENTLY INTERPRET, UM, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THAT PERSPECTIVE.

UM, UTILITY EASEMENTS WOULD BE A KIND OF A NEW ADDITION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HOWEVER, IT'S, UM, KIND OF COMMON SENSE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ACQUIRING UTILITY EASEMENTS, THAT SHOULD BE IN A PLACE THAT THE CODE ALLOWS THE UTILITY TO BE ADDED.

NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

NUMBER NINE, PROVIDE WETLAND PROTECTIONS AND BUFFERS EQUALLY ALONG LADY, BIRD LAKE TO HELP STABILIZE AND PREVENT EROSION ALONG THE SHORELINE.

UM, SO WETLANDS ARE PROTECTED EVERYWHERE IN TOWN, EXCEPT FOR THE AREA SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THIS MAP HERE.

SO THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE AREA ALONG LADYBIRD LAKE, BUT JUST IN THAT YELLOW SECTION.

AND SO THIS WOOD CODE AMENDMENT WOULD SAY, ALL OF LADY BIRD LAKE HAS WETLAND PROTECTIONS.

UM, WE WOULD NOT BE ADDING WETLAND PROTECTION TO DOWNTOWN, BUT JUST APPLYING IT TO LADYBIRD LAKE.

UM, SO NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS.

UM, THIS IS, UM, A CODE AMENDMENT THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY SOME OF THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING PODESTA AND THE COLORADO RIVER ALLIANCE.

UM, AND SO THIS IS SAYING, EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND EROSION HAZARD ZONE BUFFERS ON THE COLORADO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE LONGHORN DAM AND PROPOSED PROTECTIONS THAT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS TO THE RIVER THAT WILL ENSURE A HEALTHY REPAIRING CORRIDOR TO STABILIZE THE RIVERBANK AND PROTECT PROPERTY FROM EROSION.

AND SO THIS IS SAYING THE FREE FLOWING PART OF THE COLORADO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF LADY BIRD LAKE.

SO DOWNSTREAM OF THE LONGHORN DAM, IT'S HIGHLY ERODIBLE THERE.

UM, YOU KNOW, FLOODS COME THROUGH THE,

[00:45:01]

THE, THE BANK OF THE RIVER MOVES SIGNIFICANTLY IN SOME AREAS, THERE'S SOME REAL STEEP BANK, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, BLUFFS WHERE THE BANK HAS BEEN ERODING OVER TIME.

AND SO WE KNOW THAT OUR CURRENT CODE IS NOT REALLY, UM, ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE HIGHLY EROSIVE NATURE OF THE, UM, ALLUVIAL, UM, FLOODPLAIN OF THE COLORADO RIVER.

SO OUR CURRENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS TO BE, UM, ONLY WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK IS BASICALLY THE BANK.

SO WHERE IS AN ORDINARY RAIN EVENT? WHERE WOULD THE BANK BE? AND SO THAT, THAT IS, WOULD BE A HUNDRED FOOT OFFSET.

WE KNOW THAT THE RIVER COULD ERODE WELL BEYOND THE A HUNDRED FOOT MARK.

AND SO, UM, WE ARE, UM, AND, AND ADDITIONAL THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS ESTABLISHED AT 200 OR 400 FEET, DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN, WHICH WE ALSO KNOW 200 FEET IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT, UM, ANY INFRASTRUCTURE OR BUILDING FROM THE EROSIVE NATURE OF THE COLORADO RIVER.

UM, ADDITIONALLY WE, UM, STORMWATER DISCHARGES, WE DO ALLOW STORMWATER DRAINS TO GO THROUGH CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES SO THAT THERE COULD BE OUTFALLS INTO OUR WATERWAYS, BUT WHEN YOU NEED TO PUT ONE OF THOSE IN THE COLORADO RIVER, THAT'S A LOT OF DISTURBANCE OF A HIGHLY ERODIBLE BANK.

AND SO THERE'S NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE COLORADO RIVER FOR THESE STORM WATER DISCHARGE LOCATIONS, NEXT SLIDE.

AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS TO 400 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK, UM, TO ESTABLISH THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AT 400 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK, WHICH IS, UM, THE SAME CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AS BARTON SPRINGS, JUST FOR, UH, OR SORRY, BARTON CREEK, UM, AS A, AS A, UM, JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, UM, IF A SITE HAS THE ABILITY TO, UM, HAVE A STORMWATER OUTFALL SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN DIRECTLY TO THE COLORADO RIVER, WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT THEY LOOK, UM, THEY DO THAT INSTEAD.

SO A DIFFERENT WATERWAY INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY TO THE COLORADO RIVER.

UM, WE'RE ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR PUBLICLY VIEWER, UH, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE VIEWER PROPERTY PROFILE TO SHOW THE ESTIMATED LOCATION OF THE ORDINARY WATERMARK HAS THERE.

YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THAT RIGHT NOW.

NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO NUMBER 11, ADDRESS, CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CODE AND CONSISTENCIES AND OTHER MINOR CODE REVISIONS IN TWENTY-FIVE SEVEN AND 25 8 THAT STAFF HAVE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED AS PART OF THE CODE NEXT AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONING PROCESS, UM, OR OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF THIS RESOLUTION.

AND WE'RE DIRECTED TO WORK AS CLOSELY WITH THE PREVIOUS CODE, UM, THE LDC REWRITE AS, AS POSSIBLE AS WE BRING FORTH THESE AMENDMENTS.

SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH KIND OF SOME BULLET POINTS AND NOT SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON EACH ONE, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT KIND OF CAPTURES YOUR EYE, AND YOU WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF CLEANUP.

UM, THERE'S SOME REORGANIZATION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

UM, THERE, UH, WE'RE MOVING FLOOD, PLAIN MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND TWO CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE REQUIREMENTS.

WE'RE TAKING SOME OF THE BULKHEAD WAVE ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S IN ZONING, MOVING THAT INTO TWENTY-FIVE EIGHT WATER QUALITY, UM, CONSOLIDATING OUR LAKE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS INTO, UM, THE SAME INTO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL, EDITING SOME OF THESE, UM, UH, THE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION AND THE ROADSIDE DITCH EXEMPTION, WHICH IS EXEMPTS DITCHES FROM CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE PROTECTIONS TO MAKE THEM MORE CLEAR, BECAUSE THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION, UM, AND EXEMPTING RAINWATER, HARVESTING CISTERNS FROM IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE.

UM, WE ARE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS TO STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THAT PROCESS, UM, EXCEPT FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WHICH WE'RE JUST, UM, WE'RE MORE OR LESS LEAVING THE SAME, EXCEPT THAT WHERE IT SAYS A SAID, FILL POND IS REQUIRED, WE'D SAY, UH, A POND THAT GIVES MORE OPTIONS.

[00:50:01]

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE ART, UH, BIOFILTRATION OR RAIN GARDEN.

IF, IF, UH, IF NECESSARY, NOT JUST A SAID FILL POND, UM, REQUIRING OUR, SO UPDATING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS, UPDATING STREET CROSSING AND CREEK CROSSING REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, ASAP NEXT SLIDE.

UM, WE ARE CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE CAN BE NO, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES WITHIN 500 FEET OF LAKE AUSTIN.

THIS WOULD GIVE STAFF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY AS THEY HAVE ELSEWHERE IN TOWN TO APPROVE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE WOULD EXEMPT, UH, TRAMS FROM THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO TRAMS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FULL AND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE PROCESS AS THEY DO TODAY.

UM, ALLOW STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES AND FLOODPLAINS, AND WITHIN 50 FEET OF A CF.

SO IF THERE'S EXISTING DRAINAGE ISSUES FROM EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A STORMWATER CONTROL, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN A RAIN GARDEN IN THAT AREA, UM, CLARIFY EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS, REMOVE CODE LANGUAGE THAT ACTS IMPLICITLY ALLOWS WETLANDS TO SERVE AS WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CRITERIA TO ALLOW THAT NEXT SLIDE, UM, UPDATE CUP, FILL RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW CUT AND FILL IN EXCESS OF FOUR FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STREET OR DRIVEWAYS, UM, WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT THE STREET AND DRIVEWAYS HAVE TO CROSS SLOPES.

UM, THERE'S A SECTION IN 25, 8, 360 7.

THAT'S VERY OLD, REALLY RELATED TO THE RELOCATION OF THE SHORELINE ON LADY BIRD LAKE.

THAT REQUIRES COUNCIL ACTION.

UM, THIS IS, UH, WE FEEL NOT RELATED TO WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS AND MORE RELATED TO DAM OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT, AND WE'RE SIMPLIFYING OUR ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTIFICATION TO REMOVE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE SPECIFIC ENDANGERED SPECIES, BECAUSE THAT LIST DOES CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME.

AND JUST, WE'LL JUST BE SAYING IF THERE IS A, AN ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THIS AREA THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CERTAIN NOTIFICATION OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES, NEXT SLIDE.

AND SO MOVING ON TO THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT, IT WAS, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION THAT SAID, UH, BASICALLY DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE.

AND SO THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME GOES THROUGH A DIFFERENT REVIEW PROCESS.

THAT IS, THAT IS MUCH FASTER, UM, AND HAS FEWER REQUIREMENTS THAN A MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT.

AND SO THIS IS SAYING FOR PROJECT, FOR A SITE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING METAL.

NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN EXPLAIN THIS IN A WAY THAT'S CLEAR.

SO FIRST WE HAVE TO EXP CLEARLY CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

RIGHT NOW, THE CODE IS VERY UNCLEAR.

IT DOESN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WE DO APPLY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS TO SUBDIVISIONS.

SO NEW SUBDIVISIONS THAT COME IN HAVE TO MEET CURRENT CODE REGULAR REQUIREMENTS, BUT FOR A LOT THAT WAS PLANTED PRIOR TO ANY WATERSHED ORDINANCES OR THAT, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, THAT MAY BE AN EXTRA CREEK.

AND, UM, HAS BEEN BUILT ALREADY FOR PLANTED, OR IS EXEMPT FROM PLANTING.

WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO APPLY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS TO THOSE LOTS BECAUSE THEY GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT PERMITTING PROCESS.

THEY GO THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.

UM, THIS WAS AN, AN ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED FAIRLY IN DEPTH YEARS AGO WITH PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS, CHUCK LESNIAK, UM, AND CHRIS HARRINGTON AFTER HIM AND THE, THE, THE, WHAT WE CAME UP WITH, WHAT STAFF CAME UP WITH WAS A LIST OF ELEMENTS THAT WE FEEL SHOULD APPLY.

AND THEN WE WOULD EXEMPT EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T APPLY FROM THOSE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, PROJECTS.

SO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL HAS TO APPLY, YOU KNOW, THE PROHIBITION THAT VEGETATION IS CLEAR BEFORE A PERMIT WOULD APPLY.

UM, THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS HAVE A APPLICATION.

THE APPLICATION IS ALWAYS ASKED IF THERE'S CUT OR FILL GREATER THAN FOUR FEET, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY FOR THAT WATERWAY PROTECTIONS IS A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO EXEMPT EVERYTHING, BUT WE DO HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE

[00:55:01]

THAT MANY OF THE INFILL PROJECTS WERE PLANTED LONG BEFORE ANY OF OUR WATERWAY REGULATIONS.

AND SO THIS IS SAYING THAT IF YOUR LOT WAS PLANTED BEFORE THE COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS MAY 18TH, 1986, THEN YOU WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM WATERWAY PROTECTIONS.

YOU'D STILL HAVE FLOODPLAIN, YOU'D STILL HAVE EROSION HAZARD ZONE.

UM, YOU, YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OBSTRUCT WATER, BUT THE, THE CREEK BUFFER SETBACKS WOULD NOT APPLY.

UM, AND SO WE'RE BRINGING FORTH THOSE SAME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE PART OF THE LDC REWRITE AS PART OF THIS AS, UM, AS PART OF THIS EFFORT, NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

SO NOW WE HAVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WHAT SINGLE-FAMILY WOULD APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY, AND WHAT DOESN'T, WE WILL OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REQUIREMENT TO, OR THE, THE, UH, THIS, UH, ELEMENT THAT SAYS DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE IS THAT WE WOULD SAY IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY PLANTED LOT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, YOU COULD, UH, AND, AND WE'RE LIMITING IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 55% LIMITING THE SITE TO HAVE AN ACRE, HAVE A MORE STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLY THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS TO THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO WE'RE NOT, I JUST ALSO WANT TO SAY, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING ENTITLEMENTS.

AND SO IF YOU'RE A SINGLE FAMILY, A LOT IS NOT KNOWN FOR UP MORE THAN 11 UNITS, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO IT WOULD BE UP TO CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THESE LOTS COULD BE ZONED DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY AREN'T TODAY.

SO, BUT WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL RULES WOULD NOT STAND IN THE WAY, I GUESS, OF THESE MISSING METAL PROJECTS, UH, NEXT SLIDE.

AND SO WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THESE PROJECTS WOULD QUALIFY FOR WHAT IS CALLED A SMALL PROJECT SITE PLAN APPLICATION.

IT'S A PROCESS THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

UM, AND SO IT WOULD STILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, DRAINAGE WOULD BE PART OF THE REVIEW FLOODPLAIN WOULD BE PART OF THE REVIEW FIRE AND ALL OF THE OTHER PARTNERING DEPARTMENTS THAT STILL REVIEW SITE PLANS WOULD STILL GET A PART OF THAT.

WE WOULD JUST BE CLARIFYING WHICH WATER QUALITY, UM, REQUIREMENTS APPLY.

UM, PART OF THE SMALL PROJECT SITE PLAN IS THAT NO NOTICE GOES OUT AND AS A FASTER REVIEW TIME, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE INTO THE STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS, AND I'M GOING TO TURN OVER TO OUR INTERIM PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER, ANDREA BATES, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

I AM ANDREA BATES ALSO WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION, INTERIM PLANNING, DIVISION MANAGER, AS LIZ SAID.

SO I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS THAT WE HAVE PREPARED FOR THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.

AND THAT INCLUDES THE STEPH PORT ITSELF, WHICH FOLLOWS THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET TEMPLATE.

YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH AND FIVE ATTACHMENTS, A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE.

IT WENT TO YOU IN REDLINE FORMAT, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE, UH, IN TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACKUP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ATTACHMENT B AS A TABLE WITH A PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS, WHICH HOPEFULLY PROVIDES AN EASY OVERVIEW OF EACH THING THAT IS PROPOSED.

AND GENERALLY, WHAT IS IT ACCOMPLISHING? ATTACHMENT C IS NOT READY YET, BUT IT WILL BE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED BY HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF.

WE ARE EXPECTING THAT TO BE FINISHED SOON, AND IT WILL BE INCLUDED AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN THE COUNCIL.

BACKUP ATTACHMENT D IS A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF PREPARED AND I WILL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON TONIGHT.

AND THEN ATTACHMENT E IS A WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT EQUITY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THESE ARE A FEW HIGHLIGHTS IN THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET.

IT INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THE INITIATED CODE AMENDMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND THE STAFF PROPOSAL THAT RESPONDS TO COUNCIL'S INITIATION.

I WILL NOT READ, SUMMARIZE THOSE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT LIZ HAS JUST COVERED FOR YOU.

AFTER THAT SUMMARY, THERE'S A SECTION ON NEXT STEPS, AND THOSE WILL INCLUDE UPDATES TO THE CRITERIA THAT WILL IMPLEMENT THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.

MOST OF THOSE ARE LOCATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.

THOSE UPDATES WILL INCLUDE A LOT OF BASIC THINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE AMENDMENTS, UPDATING THE LANGUAGE, DESCRIBING WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

[01:00:01]

ABOUT HOW THE CODE AMENDMENT IS TO BE APPLIED, BUT THE LARGER INITIATIVE ON THE CRITERIA UPDATES WILL BE EVENTUALLY A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE CRITERIA, THE DESIGN CRITERIA, AND THE LIST OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERED GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.

AND SO WE WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THOSE CRITERIA TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE BOTH EASY TO IMPLEMENT AND ARE RESULTING IN CONTROLS THAT ARE PROVIDING THE BENEFITS THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR FROM THAT GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT.

SO THAT WILL BE A LONGER UNDERTAKING, UH, THAT WON'T HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE, BUT WILL BE ROLLED OUT OVER TIME TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS AND THE EFFICIENCY OF SOME OF THE CRITERIA FOR GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

IN ADDITION TO THE ECM UPDATES, THERE'S ALSO A SECTION IN THE STAFF REPORT ON HOW WE WILL BE DEVELOPING POLICY GUIDANCE.

SO THESE AREN'T THINGS THAT RAISED AT A LEVEL OF AN ACTUAL CRITERIA AMENDMENT, BUT IT WILL BE COMING TO AN UNDERWRITTEN UNDERSTANDING, UH, ON KEY ELEMENTS LIKE THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT WILL WORK WITH AUSTIN WATER TO ENSURE WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT A MAJOR REPLACEMENT OF A UTILITY LINE IS.

THAT'S LANGUAGE THAT'S USED IN THE, UH, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT, UH, WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE TYPE OF WORK THAT, UH, FALLS UNDER THAT TERM MAJOR REPLACEMENT, AS WELL AS THE TYPE OF CONDITIONS THAT WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT.

AND SO THIS IS KIND OF A DEPARTMENT TO DEPARTMENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS MEANT BY SOME OF THE CODE LANGUAGE DEVELOPED AND POLICY GUIDANCE MEMOS.

IN ADDITION TO THOSE, THE STAFF AMENDMENT OR THE STAFF REPORT ALSO INCLUDES THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE BEING PRESENTED AND AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST THAT EITHER COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO RELOCATE THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FROM THEIR CURRENT LOCATION IN CHAPTER 25 TO ZONING TO 25 8 IN A NEW SUB CHAPTER C AS I BELIEVE LIZ MENTIONED WHEN SHE WAS DESCRIBING THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN AMENDMENTS, WE DID NOT FEEL WE COULD DO THAT WITH THIS SET OF CODE AMENDMENTS, BUT IT IS A LOGICAL THING WITH WHICH TO PROCEED IF IT'S INITIATED BY EITHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR COUNSELING.

AND THEN, UH, ONE OF THE FINAL SECTIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT IS A SUMMARY WILL BE A SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO ATTACHMENT A, AS I MENTIONED IS A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TONIGHT IN REDLINE FORMAT.

AND THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE IN THE LEGAL FORMAT IS COMING, AND THIS REFLECTS STAFF'S CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT MAY BE RECEIVED FROM, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, UH, ZAP OF COURSE, AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THOSE WILL OF COURSE BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND THINGS WHERE WE HAVE AGREEMENT CAN BE INCORPORATED AND POTENTIALLY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE GOING TO COUNCIL AS A DIRECT RECOMMENDATION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS ATTACHMENT B THE SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS IN TABLE FORMAT.

AND IT WAS JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT HAS THE ACTUAL CODE SECTION OR THE CODE CITUS, UH, FOR TRACKING THE, UH, WHERE SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE GOING IN RELATION TO CURRENT CODE, THE TYPE OF CHANGE WHICH WE HAVE CATEGORIZED AS A POLICY LEVEL CHANGE A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN WHAT THE CODE DOES FROM WHERE IT STANDS CURRENTLY A CLARIFICATION, WHICH IS JUST THAT A CHANGE THAT CLARIFIES A CURRENT CODE, BUT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY DOING AND THEN THE MIDDLE GROUND OF A MINOR CHANGE.

UH, SO IT'S, IT IS A SMALL CHANGE FROM WHAT THE CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE POLICY CHANGES WOULD BE A CHANGE IN DIRECTION.

UH, THEN THERE'S THE CURRENT STATUS OR CONCERN THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGE THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND IN THE BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THAT CHANGE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AS I MENTIONED, THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT WILL BE ATTACHMENT C BEING DRAFTED BY HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF STILL IN THE WORKS, BUT IT SHOULD BE READY TO GO SOON AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN BACKUP.

THEN NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND HERE'S WHERE I CAN START GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE SUMMARY OF WHAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE ATTACHMENT D IS THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

AND WE'VE INTERPRETED THAT AS POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CITY STAFFING OR THE NUMBER

[01:05:01]

OF STAFF REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND IMPACTS TO CITY PROJECTS WHERE THE CITY IS COMPLYING WITH THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS.

I'M GOING TO TAKE IT TOPIC BY TOPIC, STARTING WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSITION TO GREEN STORMWATER IMPACTS STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW ABOUT HOW STAFF HAS ANALYZED THIS FOR THE GSI PROPOSAL IS THAT WE GENERALLY USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WILL USE A BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM OR A BIOFILTRATION POND TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO USE GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INSTEAD OF A SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION SYSTEM, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT MEET SPECIFIC PRECONDITIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED CODE.

A BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM IS THE MOST SIMILAR TO A SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION SYSTEM IN TERMS OF FOOTPRINT.

IT IS A CENTRALIZED CONTROL.

THEY CAN BE EQUIVALENT IN SIZE.

GENERALLY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER IF YOU USE A SIDE SLOPES INSTEAD OF VERTICAL WALLS, BUT YOU