[00:00:08]
FOUR IN PERSON AND FOUR ONLINE.
SO I'M GONNA START THE MEETING.
[Call to Order]
SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022.STARTING WITH ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER O COSTA, NOT HERE.
CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
ARE YOU HERE? COMMISSIONER BOONE.
YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR MIC ON NO AUDIO.
I'LL COME BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER DINKLER PRESENT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HERE.
SECRETARY KING IS HERE AND I FORGOT TO SAY COMMISSIONER DINKLER IS OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
COMMISSIONER LONNIE STERN HERE.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON COMMISSIONER.
ARE WE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE VIRTUAL AUDIO? YEAH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
THAT WAS MY, MY FAULT, BUT I GOT THE ISSUE FIXED.
ARE YOU, CAN YOU SAY YOU'RE HERE AGAIN, PLEASE? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU COMMISSIONER BOONE, RIGHT? THANK YOU.
AND COMMISSIONER ROY WOODY HERE, THERE.
AND, UH, I'LL CALL COMMISSIONER THOMPSON JUST HERE IN A SECOND WHEN YOU KNOW YEAH, I AM HERE WE ARE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON IS HERE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANYONE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? OKAY.
NO ONE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.
[Consent Agenda]
GONNA READ THROUGH THE AGENDA FIRST, THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE CONSENT ITEMS. OKAY.ITEM ONE IS THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING ON AUGUST 30TH, 2022.
THAT'S A, THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONSENT ITEM.
NUMBER TWO MINUTES FROM THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2022, A A CONSENT ITEM, PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM THREE C 14 20 22 0 0 3 9.
PEACEFUL HILL RESIDENTIAL REZONING STAFF POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 22ND, 20 TALKS, OCTOBER 4TH, 2022.
THAT'S CONSENT ITEM NUMBER FOUR, C 14 20 22 0 0 9 6 MAGELLAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL REZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM L O C TO GO O C THAT'S A CONSENT ITEM.
NUMBER FIVE IS A DISCUSSION C EIGHT C.
LET'S SEE, LEMME GET THAT NUMBER RIGHT HERE.
THAT IS C EIGHT 14 DASH 96 DASH 0 3 1 8.
PIONEER CROSSING, PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 18, ITEM SIX, C 14 20 22 0 9, 7 15 0 7 AND 1511 TRO SERVICE ROAD, REZONE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 4TH, 2022.
ITEM NUMBER SEVENS, P 2021 DASH ZERO THREE D 15 57 0 9.
THAT'S A VARIANCE IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN MY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CONDITIONS.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT C 8 20 20 DASH 0 180 6.
HARRIS BRANCH COMMERCE PARK PRELIMINARY PLAN DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS FOR EXHIBIT C, THAT'S A CONSENT ITEM ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION ITEM NINE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AS I UNDERSTAND, THERE ARE NO ITEMS TONIGHT ON THAT, ON THAT ITEM.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR THAT ITEM.
ITEM, 10 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS AND CONNECTIVITY DISCUSSION.
THAT THAT'LL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM, ITEM 11, ENVIRONMENTAL DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENTS.
THAT'S ALSO A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR TONIGHT.
SO THE CONSENT, IT ARE ITEMS ONE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING ON AUGUST 30TH, 2022 ITEM TWO MINUTES FROM THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2022, ITEM THREE C 14 20 22 0 0 3 9.
THAT'S PEACEFUL HILL RESIDENTIAL REZONING STAFF POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 4TH, 2022, ITEM FOUR C 14, 20 22, 0 96.
MAGELLAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL REZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION, L OCO TO GO OCO ITEM SIX, C 14 20 22 DASH 0 0 97, 15 0 7 AND 1511 DROP SERVICE ROAD, REZONE STAFF POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 4TH, 2022, ITEM SEVEN S P 20 21 3
[00:05:03]
D 57 0 9.THAT'S A VARI STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION COMMISSION CONDITIONS, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT C 8 20 20 DASH 0 180 6.
HARRIS BRANCH COMMERCE PARK PRELIMINARY PLAN AT STAFF RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C.
THOSE ARE THE CONSENT ITEMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS, COMMISSIONER SMITH, I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ASED A MOTION TO CONCL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.
IS THERE A SECOND COMMISSIONER STERN SECONDS THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, RIGHT? IT LOOKS LIKE UNANIMOUS TO ME.
OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL GO TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM AND THAT IS ITEM
[5. Rezoning: C814-96-0003.18 - Pioneer Crossing PUD Amendment #18, District 1]
FIVE C EIGHT 14 DASH 96 0 3 0.18, PIONEER CROSSING, PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 18, MS. RHODE.IS, IS THERE A QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
E OF ZING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
I AM WENDY ROSE AND I'M FILLING IN FOR SHERRY.
THE, UH, PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 376 UNDEVELOPED AREA THAT WAS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF, UH, EAST PARER LANE AND SAMSUNG BOULEVARD AND ON THE SOUTH AND, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST HOWARD LANE, UH, THE PARCELS THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT WERE ADDED TO THE P U D.
THAT WAS PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN, UH, 2005 BY WAY OF A PUT AMENDMENT.
AND IN THIS PROPOSED 18TH AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE OVERALL UNIT COUNT THAT WILL REMAIN AT 29, 2,989 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION, UH, TO COMMERCIAL ON PARCEL R 12, TO ADD COMMERCIAL TO THE EXISTING, UH, MIXED RESIDENTIAL, UH, FOR PARCEL RA 14, AND TO ADD ABOUT 510,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES TO THIS POD.
AND THAT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOTEL AND OFFICE BUILDINGS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM THREE TO FIVE STORIES ON SIX PARCELS.
UH, THAT WOULD BE UP TO APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET AND AS A BENEFIT FOR THIS PROPOSED P U D AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO OFFSET THE ADDITIONAL CON COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO INCREASING THE HEIGHT ON SIX PARCELS BY OFFERING A $1 MILLION CONTRIBUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND TO INCREASE THE P PUD SUPERIORITY TO THE PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS BY PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PARKS ON PARCEL R A 10, UH, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED 18TH AMENDMENT, AS IT WILL ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE MULTI-USE PROJECTS AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL PROVIDE MORE SERVICES TO THIS AREA, UH, NEAR, WHICH IS DEVELOPING, WHICH IS NEAR DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND IS, UH, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SEVERAL MAJOR EMPLOYERS.
AND WITH THAT, UH, THAT IS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU, MS. RHODES, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND, AND THAT IS MR. MICHAEL WAYLAND.
THANK YOU, MR. KING, UH, COMMISSIONER KING, MICHAEL WAYLAND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND HERE ALSO WITH WALTER HOSO WITH LJA ENGINEERING.
FIRST, I WANTED TO START BY COMMENDING STAFF.
UH, THE STAFF REPORT IN THE BACKUP.
UH, I KNOW THAT SHERRY SEDAS IS OUT SICK TODAY, BUT SHE SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR ALL THE EFFORT THAT, THAT TOOK TO PACKAGE IT TOGETHER AND REALLY PROVIDE SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW.
SINCE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A DECADE, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING THAT WE HAVE OFFERED WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
AND THEN WALTER HOSSA WILL PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAIL ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH I KNOW MR. GOHO IS HERE TO DISCUSS, UH, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED THROUGH THE COUNTY TO IMPROVE THE ROAD THAT MR. GOHO WILL BE SPEAKING ABOUT, WHICH IS A COUNTY ROAD AS NOTED ON PAGE ONE OF THE STAFF BACKUP.
THERE ARE FOUR IMPORTANT CONDITIONS TO THIS REZONING.
ONE PARCEL R 10 WILL HAVE SPECIFIC PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES THAT WILL COST APPROXIMATELY $2.5 MILLION.
THIS PARK DESIGN AND COST HAS BEEN VETTED BY PAR I BELIEVE PAGES 31 TO 32 OF THE STAFF BACKUP HAS THE SPREADSHEET AND THE PARK PLAN, WHICH
[00:10:01]
HAS A SOCCER FIELD, A BASEBALL FIELD, A PLAYGROUND IN SIX PICKLEBALL COURTS, TWO, THE VOL THE APPLICANT IS VOLUNT VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO A $1 MILLION PAYMENT TOWARD PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, WHICH IS CRITICAL, UH, WHICH IS A CRITICAL NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY.THIRD, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO AGREED TO AN INCREASED BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE CREEK AND FOUR, THE PUB, THE PU WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED PUT TRIP GENERATION MEMORANDUM.
AND I WANT TO PAUSE, CAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION, EVEN WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE APPROVED TRIP VOLUMES OUTLINED IN THE ORIGINAL TIA.
I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE AS, UH, MS. RHODES DID THAT.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE 1,548 ACRE.
PUT IT ONLY REALLOCATES THOSE UNITS.
THE FOCUS OF THIS PUT AMENDMENT IS TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FROM 40 FEET OR THREE STORIES TO 70 FEET OR FIVE STORIES.
SO THE, AND OF COURSE THE COMMENSURATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE PUT, THERE IS NO INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AGAIN, NO INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THIS IS BEING DONE TO MEET THE DEMAND IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE SAN SAMSUNG FAB THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET.
ALSO, I WOULD NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED TWO STORIES ON THE SIX PARCELS LOCATED, UH, ARE LOCATED NEAR THE MORE INTENSE PALMER LANE FRONTING TRACKS, INCLUDING NEAR A TRACK THAT COUNCIL APPROVED FOR 75 FEET LAST YEAR.
THEY ARE ALSO BUFFERED FROM THE LOWER INTENSITY SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, WHICH ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK BY A LARGE 150 ACRE, 150 ACRE OPEN SPACE AREA.
I WANTED TO END BY NOTING THAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS, IF THE CURRENT POD, OR TO TALK ABOUT THOSE, AND SPECIFICALLY IF THE CURRENT POD USE, IF, EXCUSE ME, IF WE LOOKED AT THE CURRENT POD TIER TWO MATRIX REQUIREMENTS AND APPLIED IT TO THIS POD, WE WOULD OWE, UH, APPROXIMATELY 26 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE IN PARKLAND, EVEN UNDER THE NEW PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL SPACE, THE POD WOULD OWE APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PARKLAND.
INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO 157.65 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE IN PARKLAND, WHICH IS THREE TIMES THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.
IN ADDITION, IF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES, THAT'S INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DE DEDICATION FEES HAD APPLIED, THEY WOULD'VE REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP ONSITE PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE TO A VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.8, 7 MILLION.
INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING OVER THREE MILES, THREE MILES OF TRAIL AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY 1 MILLION, WHICH WAS COMMITTED TO IN THE LAST PUT AMENDMENT.
AND WITH THIS AMENDMENT TODAY, THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTING TO ANOTHER 2.5 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILLION, WHICH IS 1.6, 3 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE NEW PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE RULES APPLY IN TERMS OF COMMITMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO HAVING THE PARKLAND DEVELOPED AS SOON AS, AS SHOWN ON PAGES 31 AND 32 OF THE BACKUP BEFORE THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING LOCATED ON PARCEL RA 13, WHICH IS AN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL TRACK, SO THAT IT WOULD BE ONE ADDITIONAL CONDITION.
I KNOW THAT A COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAD A QUESTION ABOUT TIMING AND, UH, WE LOOKED AT IT AND LOOKED AT WHAT WAS THE MOST, THE NEAREST AND THE, A RESIDENTIAL TRACK.
AND THAT WAS A TRACK THAT, UH, POPPED UP.
UM, ANYWAY, APPLICANT REQUESTED YOU ALLOW FOR THIS PUT AMENDMENT AND OF COURSE, WALTER HOY AND I ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
AND LET'S SEE THE NEXT, UH, PER THE NEXT SPEAKER WOULD BE MR. HOA, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? SORRY.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US WALTER HOA WITH LGA ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
UM, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, THE ONLY PREPARED SPEECH I'VE GOT AT THIS POINT IS THIS POD AND THERE IS ANOTHER, UH, EXCUSE ME, 50 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE POD WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY, THAT THE APPLICANT IS DEVELOPING TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ALONG PALMER LANE.
AND THEN UP ALONG HALSEY ROAD, DUE TO THAT DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE ALREADY WORKED OUT SCOPED A VERY SUBSTANTIAL TIA WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AND TEXT DOT.
UM, WHEN THE CITY WAS LOOKING INTO THIS BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THEY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CHANGES WE WERE MAKING IN THE PUT DIDN'T EXCEED, THEY ALREADY APPROVED TIA THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, KNOW WITH THE COUNTY FOCUSED TIA AND TEXT DOT, WE'RE ALREADY PUTTING THREE SIGNALED INTERSECTIONS ALONG PARER LANE WITHIN THE FRONTAGE.
[00:15:01]
LANE, EXPANDING HALSEY ROAD, ALL OF THIS SERVES PARER.I KNOW IT DOESN'T DO MR. GOHO, THE HECK OF A LOT OF GOOD, BUT WE ARE TO MITIGATE THE MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC CAUSED BY THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION BETWEEN HARRIS BRANCH CREEK AND HOWARD LANE.
ALSO INSTALLING TWO TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON HOWARD LANE.
UH, ONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOWARD AND BAILEY FIELD, ABOUT 750 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREG LANE AND HOWARD LANE.
AND THEN THE OTHER AT LOCK COUNTY, TERRA BOULEVARD, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER THOUSAND, 1500 FEET TO THE WEST OF THERE.
UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT AT THIS POINT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? OR JUST STANDBY? WE CAN STAND BY.
AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER COSTA HAS JOINED US ON THE, ON THE DI DIAS HERE.
UH, THAT ALL THE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.
NOW SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, DA JACK GUA HORN.
SORRY, I DIDN'T PROBABLY DIDN'T SAY THAT CORRECTLY.
NO, JUST CAUSE I BROUGHT, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR, UH, TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO ME ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PROBLEM I'M GONNA BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
UH, I'M HERE TO ADDRESS WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT AND GROWING PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN, UH, ON GREG LANE.
UH, AND I'M GONNA SHOW YOU AS WE TALK ABOUT IT, UH, HOW GREG LANE IS IMPACTED SIGNIFICANTLY ALREADY AND WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY IN A MUCH BIGGER WAY ONCE, UH, IMPACTED IN A MUCH BIGGER WAY.
ONCE THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT FRONTS ON HOWARD LANE, UH, IS COMPLETED AND PEOPLE ARE MOVING IN THERE.
UM, THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, I'M GUESSING 490 SOME ODD HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT ON THAT AREA, RIGHT BY HOWARD LANE.
IF YOU LOOK, UH, AT THE, AT THE MAP THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN IN FRONT OF YOU, UM, THE, UH, IN, BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE NORTHERN PART OF THE, OF THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, UM, MY REQUEST, AND I'M GONNA SKIP TO THIS BECAUSE I'M, DON'T WANNA RUN OUT OF TIME AND MISS IT.
MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU CONSIDER, UH, AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AT THIS PERMIT THAT, THAT YOU, THAT YOU CONSIDER ASKING THE DEVELOPER, UH, THROUGH CONDITIONING, THE PERMIT, UH, TO EITHER ENGAGE IN A LIMITED TIA THAT WILL IN, THAT WILL INCLUDE GREG LANE, UH, OR ALTERNATIVELY WORK OUT SOMETHING WITH THE COUNTY TO MAKE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF GREG LANE.
UH, LET ME, LET ME EXPLAIN, UH, GREG LANE USED TO BE A TWO-LANE COUNTY ROAD THAT RAN FROM CAMERON ROAD, UH, ALL THE WAY TO DESAW ROAD, UH, WHEN THEY EXTENDED HOWARD LANE TO CAMERON ROAD IN THE FIRST PART OF HOWARD LANE'S EXPANSION, UH, FROM DESHAW THEY TOOK IN MOST OF GREG LANE LEAVING ABOUT A HALF OF A MILE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE, ON THE EXHIBIT OF GREG LANE THAT RUNS FROM CAMERON ROAD, UH, TO HOWARD LANE, TO HOWARD LANE AND WHERE GREG LANE ENTERS, UH, HOWARD LANE IS ROUGHLY, UH, ALMO ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO, UH, WHEN EAST VILLAGE DID THEIR TIA INITIALLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS WHOLE PROJECT, UM, GREG LANE, WASN'T INCLUDED IN THAT TIA, UH, THAT'S A, A COUNTY PROBLEM.
UH, AND, UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE SOMETHING TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING ABOUT, UH, OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
UH, BUT IT'S, THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN UNLESS THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO FINALLY, SOMETHING OPENED UP AS A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS GAVE ME A CHANCE TO COME, UH, STAND HERE AND WHINE TO ALL OF YOU ABOUT, ABOUT MY CONCERNS.
UM, I HAVE NO BEEF WITH THE DEVELOPERS AT ALL, UH, ON THIS, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO INCLUDE ROADS IN THE TIA IT'S FRANKLY, IT'S THE CITY AND COUNTY'S JOB TO ENSURE THAT THAT ALL ROADS ARE INCLUDED.
WHY HAD THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE GREG LANE? I CAN GO TO A LOT OF ANSWERS THAT I GOT THROUGH TIME.
A LOT OF IT WAS A MISTAKE THAT IT USED TO, THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GREG MAINER ROAD, BUT THAT, THAT ROAD, WHICH IS A TWO-LANE ROAD, THAT'S GOT A NARROW BRIDGE THAT HAS A NARROW BRIDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
UH, HADN'T CHANGED MUCH IN THE LAST 40 YEARS.
AND, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE INCUMBENT
[00:20:01]
UPON, UH, EAST VILLAGE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.AND I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH WHAT, WHAT BOTH MICHAEL AND WALTER WERE ALLUDING TO.
AND THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE, I BELIEVE ARE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND MAYBE TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT IN THE TIA THAT WALTER, UH, NO.
YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT WALTER WAS TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL TIA, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GREG LANE ONCE AGAIN.
UH, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
UM, I HAVE BEEN TOLD FOR SEVERAL YEARS THAT THERE WASN'T ANY WAY TO OPEN THIS UP OTHER THAN, THAN COMING BEFORE YOU AND TAKING YOUR TIME, WHICH I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH.
UH, JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, UH, EAST VILLAGE IS BUILDING, UH, THOUSANDS OF HOMES IN THAT, OR THOU THOUSANDS OF LIVING UNITS IN THAT, IN THAT WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS I SAID, ABOUT 500 OF THEM WILL BE RIGHT THERE ON HOWARD LANE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AND YOU WANT TO GO TO ONE 30, UH, YOU'RE GONNA CUT THROUGH BECAUSE THERE'S THERE'S, THERE IS, UH, YOU CAN GO TO HOWARD LANE AND STAY ON IT AND GET TO HOWARD LANE AND TAKE A RIGHT, UH, TO GO SOUTH.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WAY TO GO TO HOWARD LANE AND TAKE A, AND TAKE A LEFT AND GO NORTH.
SO YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN CAMERON ROAD TO THE NEXT ENTRANCE THAT'S THERE.
SO TRAFFIC WILL BE GOING CUTTING THROUGH OBVIOUSLY GREG LANE A LOT.
UH, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU'RE COMING, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GO THE OTHER DIRECTION COMING FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH, UH, IT'S GONNA BE A LOT EASIER FOR YOU TO JUST TO TURN RIGHT ON GREG LANE.
THEN IT WOULD BE TO GO TO THAT INTERSECTION AND HAVE TO COME AROUND TO, TO, UH, THE HOWARD LANE PART OF THE PROJECT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, UH, IS TO ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN, IN CONDITIONING, THIS PERMIT SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS DONE.
UH, I HAVE SOLD, LET'S SAY I HAVE MY FAMILY AND I HAVE SOLD THE FRONT PART OF OUR PROPERTY TO A DEVELOPER.
AND THAT DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO SPEND MONEY ON GREG LANE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE A FRACTION OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF, OF, UH, THE, OF EAST VILLAGE, UH, IS IN NOW AND OWNED BY ENDEAVOR.
AND IT'S GONNA BE MORE TRAFFIC, AND I'M HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WILL REQUIRE THE, REQUIRE THEM TO DO SOMETHING.
AND I AM, UH, LIKE I SAID, I'M, I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO ME TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT I HAVE NOW KILLED MY SIX MINUTES.
UH, I'LL BE GLAD TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THAT THE, UH, THE, OUR LAST SPEAKER? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO, UH, WE'RE FINISHED WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS HERE AND I'M OPENING IT UP THROUGH THE COMMISSION CHAIR COMMISSION LAY ON ANDREW, ANDREW RIVERA.
WE HAVE A REBUTTAL FROM THE, FROM THE APPLICANT.
UH, REBUTT THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL.
UH, MIKE WHELAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AGAIN, UH, JUST A COUPLE OF, UH, RESPONSES TO MR. GO HORN.
OBVIOUSLY WE WERE CHATTING AHEAD OF TIME.
UM, GREG LANE IS IN THE COUNTY AS WAS NOTED.
UH, WE HAD TO FOLLOW A VERY DEFINED SCOPE FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE TIA.
THE SCOPE INCLUDED GREG LANE, AND I BELIEVE CAMERON IN THE ANALYSIS, TWO LIGHTS, TWO ADDITIONAL LIGHTS, AND MR. HOSO REFERENCED WERE ADDED.
UH, WE'VE AGREED TO EVERYTHING THAT THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED, WHICH COMES OUT TO OVER APPROXIMATELY 3.9 MILLION OF MITIGATION.
UM, AND, UH, CERTAINLY PREPARED TO, UH, GO WITH MR. GOHO TO MEET WITH ANDRE BEDED AGAIN, AHEAD OF THE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE COUNTY AND DISCUSS FURTHER, UH, GREG LANE, THE PROS AND CONS OF WIDENING IT, AND WHETHER WIDENING IT, UH, CREATES A SITUATION WHERE MORE PEOPLE WOULD ACCESS IT THAN, UH, CURRENTLY, WHICH I THINK COULD DEFINITELY BE A POSSIBILITY AS WE'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND IN OUR EXPERIENCE HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN WITH STREETS THAT GET WIDEN RATHER THAN NARROWED.
SO, UM, CERTAINLY, UH, MR. GALLA, HORN'S A NEIGHBOR AND WE'RE PREPARED TO, UH, UH, SIT DOWN.
UH, WE HAVE COMMITTED THOUGH ALREADY OVER APPROXIMATELY 3.9 MILLION TO EVERYTHING THAT THE COUNTY HAS ASKED FOR, AND WE'VE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THEIR SCOPE AND EVERYTHING THEY'VE ASKED US TO DO, AND THIS IS A COUNTY ROAD, BUT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT THAT'S THE END OF THE SPEAKER.
SO, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DINKLER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND COMMISSIONER OPPOS TO SECONDS THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SAY, UH, RAISE YOUR HAND.
[00:25:01]
THAT'S UNANIMOUS.NOW LET'S, UM, OPEN UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR QUESTIONS.
IT'S A QUESTION FOR MS. RHODES, MS. RHODES.
I UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS A CITY INITIATED UPDATE, A TIA UPDATE FOR THE OVERALL PROPERTY.
SO WHAT REMEDIES, IF ANY, DOES THE CITY HAVE TO LOOK AT GREG LANE? I REALIZE IT'S IN THE COUNTY, BUT IT HAS TO AFFECT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED BY THE REST OF THE, UM, PROJECT, UH, COMMISSIONER DINKLER, UH, BRIAN GOLDEN WITH ATD IS ON THE LINE AND WE'LL BE ABLE BEST TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
COMMISSIONERS BRIAN GOLDEN WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION OF ATD.
UM, SO IN, IN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, UM, SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A, UM, A TIA COMPLIANCE FOR A POD AMENDMENT, UM, THERE AREN'T SPECIFIC, UM, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PROJECT TO REVIEW, AND SO WE DON'T KNOW THE POTENTIAL, UM, CHANGES AND IMPACTS, UM, THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, UM, WILL BRING.
SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS JUST, UH, THAT, THAT THE CHANGES IN, IN INTENSITY OR LAND USES DON'T EXCEED THE THRESHOLDS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE, UM, ORIGINAL TIA.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL TIA, WHICH WAS DONE IN, IN 95 OR 96, I BELIEVE.
UM, BUT SO THERE'S THAT THAT'S ONE ISSUE.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS THAT IT'S A GREG LANE IS A, IS A COUNTY ROADWAY HERE.
AND SO ANY, UM, ANY POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE CITY WOULD BE LIMITED, UM, IN ENFORCEMENT AND, UM, AND, AND IN JURISDICTION.
SO, UM, WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK, UM, AND, AND TRY TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY, UM, WHEN, WHEN THESE SITE PLANS COME IN.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS THE POD AMENDMENT GOES, UM, WE'RE PRETTY LIMITED.
AND SO THERE'S NO ABILITY TO DO A LIMITED, UM, UPDATE TO THE, UM, TIA, JUST FOCUSING ON GREG LANE.
I MEAN, WE'RE, WE LI DID A LIMITED TIA UPDATE TO CHECK THE DENSITY.
SO WE KNEW THE NUMBERS AGAIN, OVERALL FOR THE, ALL THE TRACKS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO DO.
UM, AND A ME INCLUDE A LOOK AT GREG LANE.
AM I SUMMARIZING IT? MM-HMM
WE, WE DON'T, WE DON'T INCLUDE, WE DON'T LOOK AT A REVISION TO THE SCOPE AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO NEXUS TO TIE AN INCREASE IN SCOPE TO A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR, UH, TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT CAN COME WITH LATER SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHERE WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW A SITE, UH, WELL, WE ASSUME A SITE WILL FUNCTION.
UM, BUT AT THIS TIME WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE OVERALL INTENSITIES AND, UH, AND, AND LAND USES.
SO WE, WE, WE DON'T LOOK AT THE, IN CHANGES IN THE SCOPE AT THIS TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY, SO I, I WOULD ASK A QUESTION.
UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, BECAUSE GREG LANE IS, IS THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNTY AND NOT THE CITY, THEN IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LOOKED AT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PUT AMENDMENT.
IS, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? MM-HMM AND THAT'S FOR STAFF, OR DID YOU SAY GREG, YOU DID LOOK AT GREG LANE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PUT AMENDMENT.
WE, WE DO NOT LOOK AT, UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE, THE ROADWAYS WITH THE PUT AMENDMENT WE'RE, WE'RE JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSALS, UH, OF, OF LAND USES AND CHANGES IN INTENSITY, UH, DO NOT EXCEED THE TRIP
[00:30:01]
THRESHOLDS.UM, THAT THE TIA ESTABLISHED TRAFFIC COUNTS DID THE, I SEE, I GOTCHA.
SO, SO, AND, AND WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE TIA, THE TRAFFIC COUNTS THAT TIA THAT WAS DONE IN SET THAT TRAFFIC, UH, CAP, I THINK, IS IT 2000 TRIPS? IS THAT THE CAP? IS THAT THE, WHAT IS IT? NOT IN THE, IN SIGNIFICANTLY THAN THAT.
SO THERE IS A CAP, OR THERE IS A, WHAT, WHAT IS THE LIMIT FOR THIS PUT, IT'S GONNA BE A LOT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A LIMIT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING IN, IN WHAT IMPACT THIS CHANGE, CUZ IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A CHANGE TO ADD MORE COMMERCIAL AREA AND WHAT THE USES ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE.
THAT'S ALL, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING FOR IS WHEN WOULD THAT BE LOOKED AT WHEN A SITE PLAN WILL A SITE PLAN COME FROM, FROM THIS AMENDMENT AT SOME POINT THAT THE STAFF WILL LOOK AT? UH, YES, THERE WILL BE RESULTING SITE PLANS IF PROVIDED THIS PUT AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC COMMERCIALS THAT ARE BEING, UH, THAT ARE BEING, UM, THAT WILL BE THERE.
AND THEN YOU CAN UPDATE THE, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT BASED ON THAT.
I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT AT SOME POINT, UH, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S NOT JUST KIND OF, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE COUNTY, WE CAN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT.
WELL, I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, MR. CHAIR? OKAY.
COULD I USE MY THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL TIME? THERE'S NO, I'M SORRY.
THE ONLY THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL, SO SORRY.
UM, BUT A COMMISSIONER MAY ASK YOU A QUESTION.
I, I, I GUESS CHAIR, I MEAN IT LOOKING IN THIS, IT'S JUST UNCLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT SITE PLAN IS GONNA LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I SEE THE COMMERCIAL ALL FACE TOWARDS PARMER LANE, IT MAKES ME THINK ABOUT, UM, MUELLER AND ALL OF THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE FACING I 35.
AND WHILE IT'S NOT MY FAVORITE MIX OF THINGS OVER THERE, IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE RETROFITTABLE SO THAT THERE ARE CLEAR BLOCKS THAT ARE THERE MM-HMM
IT'S ALSO CONFUSING WHY MIXED USE NEEDS TO BE MOVED FULLY TO COMMERCIAL FOREGOING, ANY POSSIBILITY OF HOUSING IN THAT SECTION? UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT PARMER LANE IS THE ONE THAT IS SLATED FOR METRO RAPID SERVICE MM-HMM
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE SEE THE SITE PLAN TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION'S GONNA LOOK LIKE FOR THE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE AND WHETHER WE ONLY WANT PEOPLE TO USE TRANSIT WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO STORES VERSUS WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO AND FROM THEIR HOMES.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT.
AND, AND I THAT'S WHEN THE SITE PLAN COMES THROUGH, THAT'S WHEN THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POLICY STATEMENT, OUR POLICY PERSPECTIVE THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM THE COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE FROM, FROM COMMISSIONER STERN THERE ABOUT MIXED USE AND, AND, AND HOW IT TIES INTO OUR MASS TRANSIT, OUR, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING HEADWAY AND MAYBE PART OF THIS PUT AMENDMENT IN, IN THAT DIRECTION.
AND I KNOW THIS, YOU KNOW, STAFF LOOKS AT THIS AND CONSIDERS THESE POLICIES TO LEVERAGE OUR MASS TRANSIT, OUR INVESTMENT IN MASS TRANSIT.
AND SO, UH, MS. RHODE, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE FILLING IN FOR
SO MAYBE, BUT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A POLICY THAT STAFF WOULD LOOK AT WHEN THE, WHEN THE SITE PLAN COMES A POLICY ABOUT PUTTING OUR MIXED USE ADJACENT TO OUR, OUR TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
AND, UM, I DID NOT MENTION IN THE, UH, IN MY PRESENTATION THAT THIS, UM, SITE IS, IS LOCATED ALONG AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR BEING THE EAST PALMER LANE ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AS DESIGNATED MIGHT IMAGINE AUSTIN.
THE, I THINK THE REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP IS BECAUSE IF WE BUILD THIS COMMERCIAL, UM, SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE REST OF PARMER LANE FURTHER WEST, WHERE THERE'S AN OCEAN OF PARKING FACING PARMER LANE.
NO, ONE'S GONNA, THERE'S NO WAY.
I MEAN, YOU GOTTA WALK A HALF A MILE ACROSS A PARKING DESERT TO GET TO TRANSIT.
SO, UM, I'LL BE VERY INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THE SITE PLAN LOOKS LIKE BEFORE HAVING ALL THAT COMMERCIAL CLUSTERED AND
[00:35:01]
SEPARATED MAKES ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS MIXED USE URBAN DEVELOPMENT.I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION OF COUNT THE CITY.
AND THEN ALSO IF MR. GOHO, UM, CAN WE AS A PART OF OUR MOTION, I KNOW WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT, BUT IS A WAY FOR US TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO MEET WITH MR. GUA HORN AND THE CITY, ANDREW BENNETT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND DISCUSS WHAT IS GOING ON WITH GREG LANE.
WE CAN'T REALLY DIRECT ANY OUTCOME, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK THEM TO MEET, AND THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING BACK TO THE CITY FOR MORE PERMITS.
AND SO I'M A, YOU, IF WE ASK THEM, I'M VERY CONFIDENT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO GO IN ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY THAT I ACTUALLY AM AN IN THE ENGINEER WORKING FOR MR. GUA HORN ON THE PROJECT HE'S SELLING.
SO I'M WORKING DIRECTLY ON A PROJECT THAT ACCESSES GREG LANE.
UM, SO
I'M NOT WORKING AT ALL FOR THE POD, SO I HAVE NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER.
UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE AS THEY, THEY OFFERED, UM, JUST A REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH MR. GUA HORN AND THE CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AND DISCUSS WHAT IS GOING ON WITH GREG LANE, SO THAT THEY'RE FAMILIAR AND EVERYONE'S KIND OF BOARD WHAT'S GOING ON.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD, UH, YES.
WE CAN MAKE THAT NOTATION UNDER THE, UH, FOLLOWING THE ZONING AND PLATING ACTION.
IT CAN BE PART OF IT, BUT IF WE COULD PROVIDE THAT, YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT NOTATION REQUEST AS PART OF UNDER THE ACTION.
AND LET ME KIND OF HAVE FOLLOW UP WITH MR. GOHO, WOULD THAT HELP AS MUCH AS WE CAN RESOLVE YOUR QUESTIONS IF WE HAD A MEETING WITH YOU AND THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT? UM, YEAH.
IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING TO THE DIAS, WE COULD ENCOURAGE, PLEASE COME, PLEASE COME TO THE DI SORRY.
IF WE ASK YOU A QUESTION RECORD, I'M JACK DOHO.
UM, JUST IF, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE COULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNTY YES.
UH, TO, TO JOIN IN THAT MEETING, BECAUSE THAT FRANKLY, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA, UH, BE MAKING THE DECISION, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS THE CITIES AND THAT'S WHERE THE HAZARDS ARE GONNA COME FROM.
SO IT, IT'S KIND OF EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY OWNS A PIECE OF THIS AND I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, AND THE APP CAN DISCUSS THAT IN THEIR PRESENTATION.
THAT'S NOT A CONCERN WITH HIM.
I GREAT CONFIDENCE THAT, THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO OKAY.
AND, AND THIS IS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MS. RHODES, WILL THE SITE PLAN COME BACK TO THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REVIEW OR WILL IT BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE A REVIEW? UH, IT, IT COULD BE IF, IF, IF THERE ARE VARIANCES TO THE SITE, ONE THAT ARE NOT COVERED IN THIS P U D THAT ARE COMMISSION RELATED, THEN YES, IT WOULD COME BACK, BUT IT COULD VERY WELL BE AN, AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, SITE PLAN AS WELL.
SO IT'S GONNA BE IMPORTANT THAT THIS DIRECTION YOU'VE GIVEN, I THINK IS PART OF THAT.
SO THAT CAN IN, IN CASE IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US.
SO IF THERE'S NOT ANYMORE QUESTIONS, I WILL PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ON VIRTUAL COMMISSION? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSION.
AGAIN, EVERYONE KIND OF KNOWS MY POSITION ON HERE, SO I'M NOT,
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE C 8 14 96 0 0 0 3 0.18, PIONEER CROSSING, PUT AMENDMENT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND ALSO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT, THE CITY, THE COUNTY, MR. GOHO, AND TO MEET WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND DISCUSS, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG GREG LANE, SO THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
UH, IS THAT A QUESTION THERE? OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A QUESTION? YEAH, I'M UH, BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR A SECOND TO THE, WE NEED A SECOND.
FIRST WE NEED A SECOND WAS GREENBERG ISSUE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UM, THAT, UM, BEFORE THIRD READING AT COUNCIL, THERE SHOULD BE A TIMELINE AND FORMAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKLAND ON PARCEL R A 10.
AND I WOULD ADDITIONALLY LIKE TO ADD THE COUNCIL, A RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER INCREASING THE REQUIRED PAYMENT TO THE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND.
IS THAT, IS THAT THAT'S AGREEABLE TO ME.
SO SINCE IT HASN'T BEEN SECONDED, WE CAN HAVE A CHANGED TO MY MOTION AND I ACCEPT THAT.
AND SO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ARE YOU SECONDED THE MOTION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND OKAY.
AND I'M GOING TO LET THE MOTION MAKER GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN AND REPEAT THE MO THE RECORD.
UM, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE, THE APPLICANT, THE COUNTY, MR. GUA HORN, WHO'S A PRIMARY PROPERTY OWNER ON GREG LANE.
[00:40:01]
SIT DOWN AND MEET AND DISCUSS THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ALONG GREG LANE.AND THEN THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG WERE ONE TO BEFORE THIRD READING, HELP ME OUT HERE.
UM, BEFORE THIRD READING AT COUNCIL AGREEMENT, THERE SHOULD BE A TIMELINE TIMELINE FOR THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THEN THE THIRD ONE WAS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE AS BEING PAID.
SO WE HAVE THE MOTION AND THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
IS THERE A QUESTION DOWN HERE? NO, I'M SORRY.
I WAS GONNA MAKE A COMMENT, BUT I'LL SHUT UP.
DID YOU WANNA MAKE, DID YOU WANNA SAY NO, I WAS BOTH.
SO ALL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO OUR NEXT ITEM IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE.
AND I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, IT'S A DISCUSSION IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT ITEM TONIGHT.
JUST MAKE SURE AND VERIFY THAT ANYTHING IN THE VIRTUAL AIR WORLD THERE.
[10. Discussion and possible action recommending to Council revisions to the Land Development Code regarding resubdivisions and connectivity. (Co-Sponsors Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa)]
NUMBER 10.IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON REVISIONS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS AND CONNECTIVE CONNECTIVITY.
AND WE HAVE A, UM, RECOMMENDATION THAT Y'ALL HAVE SEEN AND, UH, UH, LOOKS VERY GOOD TO ME.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO, UH, ASK A QUESTION OR, UH, START THE DISCUSSION? I THINK IT WAS A GOOD, A GOOD COMBINED COMBINATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENT MOTIONS THAT WERE OUT THERE.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, DID YOU, UM, I DON'T REALLY AGREE THAT IT WAS A GOOD COMBINATION.
I THINK THAT IT, UM, THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE SINCE LAST WEEK WERE BASICALLY SUBVERT THE INTENT, WHICH WAS TO, UM, IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY, TO LIMIT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE USE OF, OF CUL-DE-SAC EXCEPT WHERE NEEDED.
UM, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT WE INSTEAD CONSIDER OR CONSIDER THE, UM, SUBMISSION BY BARRE RAMIREZ AND KI BAA THAT'S POSTED WITH THE SEPTEMBER 6TH BACKUP.
SO I GUESS I COULD JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE, UM, RESOLUTION AS, AS POSTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 6TH BACK.
THAT'S LISTED AS SUBMITTED BY BARRE RAMIREZ AND KIL BASA, IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT OKAY.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT? I'LL GO AHEAD.
BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO SEE WHAT THIS MOTION OR THIS, UH, RESOLUTION TURNED OUT TO BE, BECAUSE IT STARTED WITH COMMISSIONER STERN BEING CONCERNED ABOUT CONNECTIVITY WHEN WE WERE APPROVING, UM, SITE PLANS OR WHATNOT, AND IT HAS MORPHED.
AND THEN THIS WAS DEFINITELY, SO IT WAS ALL ABOUT CONNECTIVITY.
AND THEN WHEN I SAW THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY EVEN WEAKER THAN CURRENT CODE, SO I, I CAN'T EVEN SUPPORT IT.
I MEAN, THERE'S A SECTION IN 3.3 OR WHATEVER, AND I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP AGAIN, BUT IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS YOU JUST DON'T DO CALL THE SAC.
UM, THEY ARE NOT PART OF IMAGINE, IMAGINE AUSTIN, AND I CAN FIND THE CITATION.
SO FOR ME, IT'S EITHER CONNECTIVITY OR JUST LIKE, JUST WALK AWAY FROM THIS ISSUE.
ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION I WOULD, UM, I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON WAS RAISING HER HAND.
YEAH, I, THEN I WOULD PROPOSE, WE WALK AWAY FROM THE ISSUE BECAUSE I, I DO NOT THINK THAT CUL-DE-SAC AND CONNECTIVITY ARE EXCLUSIVE OF ONE ANOTHER.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE INTENT I HAD IN TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME OPTIONS IS THAT WE NOT BE SO PRESCRIPTIVE AND ALLOW FOR SOME CREATIVE CONNECTION.
I, I THINK CUL-DE-SAC IN THE RIGHT PLACES PROVIDE A LOT OF OTHER ASSETS TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND I JUST DON'T FEEL IT'S THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION TO DICTATE, YOU KNOW, WHAT EACH SCENARIO SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND, AND THAT, AND THAT THERE ARE, THERE IS STILL THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONNECTIVITY.
[00:45:01]
SO I THINK I THOUGHT THIS WAS A, A, YOU KNOW, A COMPROMISED APPROACH.IT'S SAYING THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY CAN COEXIST AND, UM, AND STILL THE, I THINK WHAT IS MISSING AND THE RI FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS THE EMPHASIS ON THE, UH, SAFETY COMPONENT OF THE VERY LONG SINGLE EXITS FROM SUBDIVISIONS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I THINK WE STILL SHOULD ADDRESS, BUT ISN'T ADDRESSED BY THIS, UH, EITHER WAY, BUT
UM, I COULDN'T SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL VERSION.
I LIKE CUL-DE-SAC, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE AN, A TRANSIT WAY.
IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD A CUL-DE-SAC THAT WE WANTED TO REQUIRE THEM TO PUT A PEDESTRIAN SLASH BICYCLE EXIT AT THE END OF IT.
UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE SAID.
THERE WAS NO WAY FOR US TO DO THAT IN CODE.
SO WE TRIED TO CREATE A PLACE IN CODE WHERE WE COULD REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE A PEDESTRIAN, UH, BICYCLE ACCESS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS PROBABLY FOUR MEETINGS BACK.
UM, AND WE KIND OF MORPHED TO A LOT OF THINGS THAT WEREN'T ORIGINALLY WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT TO BE.
UM, I LIKE THIS COMPROMISE, UH, BUT AGAIN, I'M KIND OF LIKE THE SAME WAY IF WE CAN'T SUPPORT THEM, WE WALK AWAY AND DO NOTHING.
UH, I'M GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG ON THE VIRTUAL, AND THEN I'LL COME TO YOU.
COMMISSIONER STERN, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
I JUST WANTED TO, AM I MUTED? NO, NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
UM, THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE SAYING TO PROHIBIT DEAD END STREETS OR CUL-DE-SAC, UNLESS THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THE TOPOGRAPHY NATURAL FEATURES OR UNUSUAL CONDITIONS MAKE CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED STREET INFEASIBLE.
UM, SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE JUST ABSOLUTELY NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED WE'RE NEEDED.
UM, I REMEMBER, UM, HOW THIS GOT STARTED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, BUT SINCE COMMISSIONER STERN IS SPEAKING NEXT, I WILL LEAVE THAT TO HIM.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STERN.
UM, WELL, SO I, I DO, UM, APPRECIATE THE DEBATE THAT'S GOING ON ABOUT THIS.
AND, AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, MY HEART IS MORE TOWARDS THE ORIGINAL, UM, PROPOSAL.
UM, I, I DO THINK IT ADDRESSES A BIT ABOUT WHAT SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT THE BLOCK LENGTH.
UM, THAT ISSUE IS NOT IN THE NEW DOCUMENT AND IT OBFUSCATES THAT ISSUE BY SAYING THAT THE CUL-DE-SAC ITSELF SHOULD BE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH.
UM, THE, BUT I, BUT I AM SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERN ABOUT, UM, THE RESOLUTION ITEM, NUMBER TWO, THAT, UM, YOU'RE GIVING A DIRECTOR KIND OF CART BLANCHE, YOU KNOW, DISCRETION ABOUT HOW TO ENFORCE THIS.
AND IT'S NOT CLEAR, UM, WHEN, AND IF THEY SHOULD ENFORCE IT.
UM, MY CONCERN ON THE NEW DOCUMENT IS IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS REQUIRE THAT DEAD END STREETS AND, OR CUL-DE-SAC STREETS BE NO LONGER THAN 500 FEET OR PROVIDE A MULTI-USE TRAIL CONNECTION.
IT, THE WAY I'M READING IT IS THAT WE'RE SAYING WE'RE, WE'RE REQUIRING THAT THEY CAN'T DO EITHER THAT THEY CAN'T DO THE TRAIL EITHER THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, THEY SHOULD BE NO LONGER THAN 500 FEET OR PROVIDE A MULTI TRAIL CONNECTION.
WHEN I KNOW THE INTENTION WAS IF IT'S LONGER THAN 500, THERE SHOULD BE A MULTI TRAIL CONNECTION.
UM, SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT AS WRITTEN CURRENTLY.
UM, AND THEN THE LAST THING IS, UM, I WOULD SAY IN GENERAL WHILE, UM, I LOOK AT CUL-DE-SAC AS, UM, KIND OF DESTROYING THE GRID.
NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CUL-DE-SAC, UM, THAT THE, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT CAR MOVEMENT THROUGH THE GRID.
IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE MOVEMENT THROUGH THE GRID.
AND IF YOU ARE IN A CAR, IT'S VERY EASY TO KIND OF GO OUT OF YOUR WAY, ONE BLOCK TO GET ACROSS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT IF YOU'RE IN A BIKE OR YOU'RE WALKING, IF YOU'RE A CHILD, IF YOU CAN'T DRIVE, IF YOU ARE BLIND AND THEREFORE YOU CAN'T DRIVE, WE ARE CREATING THESE ADVERSE CONDITIONS FOR MOVING AROUND YOUR COMMUNITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ON TRANSIT, JUST GETTING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR POOL.
SO THAT'S THE, THE REAL GOAL THERE.
SO I WILL SAY IT, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT, UM, UM, FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT THAT TRAIL CONNECTIVITY.
IT'S ABOUT COMPLETING A GRID FOR PEOPLE ON THEIR FEET OR PEOPLE ON A BIKE VERSUS PREVENTING, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL CUL-DE-SAC ITSELF.
UM, I THINK AFTER THE DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE SAFETY BENEFITS AND THE STREET COMING, I UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR.
SO AGAIN, UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FIRST CLARIFYING IN A SEPARATE ITEM ABOUT THE BLOCK
[00:50:01]
LENGTH ISSUE SO THAT WE DON'T OBFUSCATE THE, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE IS A DEAD END STREET OR CUL-DE-SAC STREET, IT MUST USE A TRAIL CONNECTION TO ARTERIO, YOU KNOW, ARTERY STREETS TO ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WALKING, BIKING, AND ACCESSING TRANSIT.IF WE SEPARATE THAT OUT AND THEN SEPARATELY ADD IN THE LANGUAGE FROM THE FIRST ONE ABOUT LIMIT BLOCK LENGTH, AND WE CAN HAVE SOME DEBATE ABOUT HOW LONG, HOW LONG A BLOCK LENGTH WE WANNA, UM, SUGGEST THEN, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD READ BETTER AND BE MORE TOWARDS THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL I COULD SUPPORT.
I, I, I AGREE WITH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I WAS SUPPORT COMING UP WITH A KIND OF AN IN BETWEEN SAYING THAT IF YOUR BLOCK LENGTH IS MORE THAN ON A CUL-DE-SAC, IF YOUR BLOCK LENGTH IS MORE THAN X YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY, IF IT'S LESS, THE DIRECTOR WAS GONNA STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO HAVE A PEDESTRIAN, SO THAT THERE'S NO REASON YOU SHOULDN'T ALWAYS HAVE A PEDESTRIAN AT THE END OF A CUL DEAC, THERE WOULD BE TIMES WHEN YOU CAN'T.
BUT I THINK IF YOU REQUIRED FOR LENGTH ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE DIRECTOR, ENCOURAGE IT FOR SHORTER ONES.
AND I THINK THAT KIND OF GETS AT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, WHAT I'M THINKING DEAD END STREETS IN MY MIND ARE DIFFERENT.
I THINK THEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONNECTED.
A DEAD END STREET IN MY MIND IS WHEN WE DO A DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE SUBS STREETS THAT TEE INTO THE EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND THE NEXT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED.
SO WE HAVE A DEAD END STREET THAT WHOEVER DEVELOPS THE NEXT PIECE IS SUPPOSED TO TIE INTO.
AND IT'S ALWAYS VERY FRUSTRATING WHEN WE HAVE A DEAD END STREET, THE GUY NEXT TO US DEVELOPS HIS AND DOESN'T TIE INTO IT, AND THEN YOU'RE LEFT WITH A DEAD END.
AND I THINK IT FRUSTRATES TRAFFIC 90% OF THE TIME.
THE REASON IT'S NOT TIED INTO IS BECAUSE NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN NOT WANTING TO CUT THROUGH STREET.
UH, AND SO IT'S GENERALLY NEIGHBORHOODS WHO COME IN, SO WE DON'T WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTED TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO DON'T MAKE THAT CONNECTION.
UM, BUT I THINK REQUIRING DEAD IN STREETS TO CONNECT IS DIFFERENT THAN HAVING NO, CUL-DE-SAC, THERE'S A DISTINCTION IN MY MIND.
SO I THOUGHT THIS KIND OF GOT IT, DEFINING BOTH OF THEM AND THEN HAVING SOME CRITERIA ON THE DEBT ON THE, ON THE, UM, CUL-DE-SAC WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER? I MEAN, UH, YES.
I'M JUST GONNA READ, AM I UNMUTED YOU'RE I'LL JUST READ FROM THE YOU'RE TRANSP, THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA, MANUAL 3.4 0.2 0.2 CUL-DE-SAC OR THEY CALL 'EM CALLS, DEAC THAT LDC DEFINES WHEN SINGLE ACCESS STREETS OR CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CITY AND ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER OR APPLICABLE DIRECTOR APPROVAL CUL-DE-SAC SHALL BE USED SPARINGLY AS THEY VIOLATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL FOR COMPACT AND CONNECTED CITY AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
SO THAT, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT IS EVEN A STRONGER STATEMENT THAN THE RESOLUTION AS IT IS NOW.
SO I WILL STILL, UM, I'LL STILL OPPOSE IT, BUT WHATEVER THE VOTE IS IS WHAT THE VOTE IS.
THE, UM, I, THE ONLY ONE THAT'S, UM, FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, THE ONLY ONE THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S EVEN A CONCERN AND I COULD BE WRONG HERE WAS ITEM NUMBER TWO, PROHIBITING THE DEAD END STREETS AND, OR CUL-DE-SAC UNLESS THE DIRECTOR CUZ OF THE, THE GRAYNESS.
BUT, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 WE'RE.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY, ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID YET THAT DISPUTES ALL OF THOSE.
SO WE MIGHT JUST BE TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND JUST TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO.
UH, YOU KNOW, AND THE COMMISSION Y'ALL HAVE PUT SOME GOOD WORK INTO THIS AND SOME HOURS INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THIS.
UH, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO JUST STRIKE IT NUMBER TWO AND THEN BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND THEN ADDRESS THAT SEPARATELY.
AND, WELL, WE HAVE AN OPEN, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION YEAH.
SO BE UP TO, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
ALTHOUGH, UM, I WILL JUST, AS A POINT OF INFORMATION MENTIONED THAT, UM, SOME OF THE, UM, LANGUAGE IN THE PREAMBLES IN THE NEW ONE DO TALK ABOUT, UM, SOME ASPECT OF OUR COMMUNITY CONSIDERING CUL-DE-SAC A BENEFIT.
AND, UM, I DON'T WANNA DISMISS THAT WORK FROM COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S INVOLVEMENT.
SO JUST WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE.
SO IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, IF YEAH, YES.
SO, SO THE MOTION IS FOR THE, UH, THE SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION SUBMITTED BY BERE RAMIREZ IN KOBASA IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY THAT THAT'S THE MOTION AND EVERYBODY HAS COPY OF THAT.
AND SO THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IS TO, IS TO TAKE ITEM NUMBER TWO OUT OF THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE OR CHANGE THE
[00:55:01]
WORDING ON THAT OR JUST REMOVE IT.COULD WE CONSIDER JUST STRIKING COLD TO STACK FROM TWO AND LEAVING IN THE DEAD END STREET CLAUSE TO COMMISSIONER SMITH'S POINT.
OH, IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF THAT? UM, I'M SORRY.
THAT IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT COMMISSIONER STERN WAS YOUR INTENTION THERE? WELL, SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS SAYING THAT WE CAN'T REALLY PROHIBIT DEAD END STREETS BECAUSE THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO IT.
SO A LOT OF TIMES IT TURNS INTO A STUB OUT, BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY A DEAD END STREET, DEAD END STREET, BUT WE'RE DOING IT.
SO WE PEOPLE DEVELOP NEXT DOOR.
SO IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE DEFINING THAT IN SECTION FOUR AND THEN, I MEAN THE, YEAH, I GUESS YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT AS SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ABANDONMENT AVAILABLE WAY OR SOME TERM OF ART THAT IS IN CREATED YET.
UM, THE PROBLEM, I, I GUESS MY GOAL HERE IS TO REMOVE THE CONTROVERSY OF OUR CUL-DE-SAC FROM TWO WHILE LEAVING ED COMMISSIONER SMITH'S WELL, THE, THE REASON NO, THE, THE REASON TO, TO REMOVE TWO AS IS, IS BECAUSE OF WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER CABASA ALREADY BROUGHT UP TO US, WHICH IS THAT THE CURRENT RULES ALREADY DISCOURAGE CUL-DE-SAC IN THEORY.
AND LATER ON IT SAYS IF ALLOWED BY THE DIRECTOR AND NUMBER THREE, A DENIN STREET, OR CUL-DE-SAC MUST BE NO LONGER THAN 300.
SO NOW WE'RE DEFINING THAT IF THE DIRECTOR SAYS YES, THEN WE'RE PUTTING THESE CONDITIONS ON IT.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT THE AUTHOR OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, NOR IS IT MY MOTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
I GUESS THE INTENT WAS TO STRENGTHEN WHAT'S IN THE CODE.
UM, BECAUSE IT'S AT LEAST SAYING IT COULD ONLY BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR FOR THESE REASONS AS OPPOSED TO IF THEY JUST DECIDE, WHICH IS WHAT'S THE CURRENT CODE.
COULD YOU READ THE CURRENT CODE AGAIN? SHE'S RIGHT.
IT'S WHY, CHAIR'S WHY I LIKE IT AS IT.
VICE CHAIR COULD ALSO IS GONNA READ THE CODE, THE CURRENT CODE AGAIN.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND MY MUTE.
AND NOW I HAVE TO SWITCH SCREENS BACK AGAIN.
AND IT SAYS, UM, UNDER SECTION 3.4 0.2 0.2, THE LDC DEFINES WHEN SINGLE ACCESS STREETS ARE CUL CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CITY AND ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER OR APPLICABLE DIRECTOR APPROVAL.
MM-HMM
AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT COMMISSION, WHAT YOU JUST READ IS IN CODE TODAY.
IT WOULDN'T CHANGE BY THE, BY THE MODIFIED VERSION THAT'S OUT HERE TODAY.
SO THAT'S OH NO, I REALIZE THAT, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THEN WHY HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT'S KIND OF LIKE WEAK, YOU KNOW, SAYING WEAKENING IT AND THEN ESPECIALLY SAYING THREE THINGS DEFINE DEAD END AND CUL-DE-SAC STREETS REQUIRE THAT DEAD END STREETS AND CUL-DE-SAC STREETS BE NO LONGER THAN 500 FEET OR PROVIDE A MULTI-USE TRAIL CONNECTION TO ARTERI ARTERY STREETS TO ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WALKING AND BIKING, WHICH IN MY MIND WAS WHY WE STARTED THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION REQUIRE MORE CONNECTIONS FOR EXTERNAL STREETS FOR LARGER SUBDIVISIONS.
WE'RE NOT SAYING CHANGE THE CODE, LEAVE THE CODE THE WAY IT IS.
IT'S IT'S ALREADY IN THERE ABOUT DISCOURAGING CUL-DE-SAC.
BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENED IN MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE SAW THIS, THIS SUBDIVISION THAT HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF CUL-DE-SAC AND IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT.
I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, IF, UM, IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, I WOULD SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AS IS, CUZ IT'S IT'S SAYING WHAT I'M, WHAT, WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE, WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION? I MEAN, IT MAY BE WORTH WHILE SEEING IF IT WOULD PASS AS IS.
BUT I, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT PALATABLE FOR EVERYONE, BUT SOMETIMES SOME PEOPLE ARE GONNA DISAGREE.
I THINK IT'S AT THIS POINT WE COULD VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL.
SO WE'RE CLOSING IN, ON A VOTE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
IF I MAY, UM, IF WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL, I WONDER IF, UH, IF IT WOULD BE ACCESS ACCEPTABLE TO FOLKS TO ADOPT THE 500 FEET OVER THE 300 FEET, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S JUST SUCH A, I THINK FIVE WALKING 500 FEET IS NOT
[01:00:01]
PROHIBITIVE TO, TO, UM, CONNECTIVITY.WELL, THE ORIGINAL HAS 600 FEET.
IT, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT SIX HOUSE LONG, SIX, A LENGTH OF SIX HOUSES OR SO IT'S JUST NOT THAT LONG.
SO I FEEL LIKE THE 300, FEET'S A LITTLE EXTREME.
WHAT DO, WHAT DO OTHER FOLKS THINK ABOUT AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL VERSION IS 600 FEET THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE, THE SAME VERSION.
MAYBE I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG VERSION.
THIS IS THE SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION.
IT SAYS THE CUL-DE-SAC MUST NOT BE LONGER THAN 300 FEET AND PROVIDE A TRAIL CONNECTION.
VERY, A VERY SHORT LENGTH AND A TRAIL REQUIRED THIS LANGUAGE.
I MEAN, I DON'T SUPPORT THAT VERSION ANYWAY, SO CAUSE IT HASN'T, I DON'T EITHER.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD, IT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE IF IT WEREN'T SO EXTREME IN MY MIND, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND JUST, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE CODE WITH THIS.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, STAFF MAY HAVE INPUT ABOUT WHETHER IT'S, UM, THOSE NUMBERS WERE ARBITRARY.
THE 600 FOOT BLOCK LENGTH WAS CHOSEN TO SORT OF GET 10, 10 BLOCKS PER MILE, WHICH IS KIND OF A STANDARD, UM, 300, IF THAT'S TOO SHORT, THEN IT WON'T PASS THE COUNCIL THAT WAY.
SO, UM, YEAH, I'M JUST, JUST BRINGING IT UP AS LIKE, AS IF THE GOAL IS CONNECTIVITY, I FEEL LIKE 600 FEET IS STILL CONNECTED AND THE ORIGINAL VERSION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT IS IRC CONNECTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLES AT THE END OF THE CUL DEAC.
CAUSE IT BANS CUL-DE-SAC WELL, EXCEPT WHERE NEEDED.
BUT IT DOESN'T TALK ANYTHING ABOUT CONNECTING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY THROUGH THOSE ON THE ORIGINAL VERSION.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS ALL NIGHT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE, UM, AT LEAST MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE READY TO TAKE A VOTE, SO, AND JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL, UH, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE VERSION THAT'S UH, FROM SEPTEMBER 6TH, UH, SUBMITTED BY BERE RAMIREZ AND KOBASA IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY.
THAT'S THE MOTION TO, AND WE'VE MADE NO CHANGES AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND.
SO, UH THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODY.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
SO THAT LOOKS LIKE SEVEN VOTES AND THAT'S COMMISSIONER STERN COMMISSIONER DINKLER COMMISSIONER KING, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER KOBASA COMMISSIONER BOONE AND COMMISSIONER WOODY, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
THAT'S THE VOTE? SO THE MOTION PASSES.
Y'ALL MOVING ON ANOTHER HIT TO HOUSING.
WELL, I DO APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TRYING TO PROMOTE CONNECTIVITY AND THE, THE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE COMPLEXITY OF DOING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S AND WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS AND WE JUST MADE IT WORSE.
[11. 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 (Sponsors Chair Barrera-Ramirez, Vice-Chair Kiolbassa, and Commissioner Denkler)]
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.NUMBER 11, ENVIRONMENTAL DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENTS.
LIST JOHNSTON WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, KATIE COIN JUST STEPPED OUT.
UM, I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN A BRIEFING ON THIS, SO I'M NOT GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH THE 40 PAGE SLIDE THAT I HAVE.
I DID WANNA GIVE YOU A KIND OF, UM, JUST A, A SUMMARY AND FILL YOU IN ON WHERE WE'VE BEEN SO FAR.
SO AS A REMINDER, UM, THE INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO A RESOLUTION THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BACK IN JUNE.
UM, THESE ARE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN MOSTLY, HAVE BEEN LONG REQUESTED BY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND WERE LARGELY PROPOSED TO BE PART OF THE, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE PACKAGE.
UM, THEY GAVE US A VERY QUICK TURNAROUND ABOUT THREE MONTHS, UM, TO, TO GET ALL THESE DONE WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY'D ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
UM, OF COURSE WE STILL WANT TO HEAR BACK FROM Y'ALL, THERE'S SOME NEW THINGS IN THERE, UM, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT THESE ARE NOT PART OF THE GREATER PACKAGE.
AND, UM, SO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE'RE HERE TO, TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT, BUT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BRING THESE FORWARD.
UM, SOME THESE, UH, INITIATIVES WOULD, UM, REQUIRE
[01:05:01]
GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INSTEAD OF TRADITIONAL CONTROLS, WHICH ARE, UM, WHAT'S BEEN A GOAL OF A WATERSHED DEPARTMENT, UM, FOR, UH, OVER A DECADE NOW, UM, WE WOULD BE BRINGING LANDSCAPE SCAPE REQUIREMENTS TO HIGHLY URBANIZED AREAS, UM, RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL RAIN THAT WOULD HELP INTEGRATE NATURE INTO THE CITY AS, UH, ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, WE'RE STRENGTHENING, UH, PROTECTIONS ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND CLARIFYING AND CLEANING UP AND DOING SOME, UM, SOME OF THE OR MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE, UM, ANOTHER INITIATIVE OR A PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING FORWARD IS, UM, AN ITEM THAT, UH, SAYS DO NOT DISIN DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS.SO FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, THESE CODE AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT, UM, UM, UH, INCENTIVIZE SOMEONE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME INSTEAD OF A MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT.
UM, AND SO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY DEALING WITH ZONING REALLY IN THIS, UM, WHAT WE CAN DO IS LOOK AT SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SAY WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, CODE PROVISIONS APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND APPLY THOSE SAME, UM, PROVISIONS TO SMALLER MISSING MENTAL PROJECTS WITH SOME CONSTRAINTS.
SO THAT IT'S MORE OR LESS THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THAT LOT, WHETHER OR NOT THE LOT IS ZONED FOR MORE UNITS IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF, OF THESE PROJECTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
UM, SO WE'VE GONE, UM, TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS WE'VE GONE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CODES AND ORDINANCES.
WE'VE GONE TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'VE BEEN TO Y'ALL ONCE AS WELL.
WE DON'T HAVE A, A RECOMMENDATION FROM ANYONE YET.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOMORROW.
THEY WERE PAST A RESOLUTION THAT GENERALLY SUPPORTED IT, BUT WANTED TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT.
IT WAS GETTING KIND OF LATE LAST TIME.
SO WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION TOMORROW EVENING.
AND WE ARE HOPING FOR, UM, RECOMMENDATION FROM, UM, THIS BODY THIS EVENING.
UM, OUR ORIGINAL TARGETED, UM, CITY COUNCIL DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 29TH.
WE WILL BE ASKING A POSTPONEMENT TO THE, THE OCTOBER 13TH, JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BREATHING ROOM.
AND AS A REMINDER, THE ORDINANCE, UH, THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED DID DIRECT STAFF TO ALSO BRING FORTH, UM, SOME OTHER ELEMENTS IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE COMING BACK IN ON A SLIGHTLY DELAYED TIMELINE RELATED TO GREENFIELD DETENTION REQUIREMENTS AND URBAN SLOPE PROTECTIONS.
UM, THESE WILL, UM, WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE MORE IMPACTS ON AFFORDABILITY THAN THE OTHER PROJECTS.
AND SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA BE WORKING, UM, CLOSELY WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF INCENTIVE THAT WOULD, UM, UM, MAKE THIS PACKAGE MORE, UM, UH, BE ABLE TO, TO, TO MEET ALL THE GOALS OF, UH, STAKEHOLDERS.
GREENFIELD DETENTION IS A, IS A REAL, UM, IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR THAT WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO BRING FORWARD.
WE JUST NEED TO GET THROUGH THIS FIRST ORDINANCE FIRST.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WILL STOP THE PRESENTATION UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE OR HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MS. COHEN, DID YOU WANT US, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? I APPRECIATE IT.
UH, NO, I'M SURE LIZ COVERED IT.
UH, BUT THANKS FOR HAVING US AGAIN, HAPPY TO BE HERE AND EXCITED ABOUT A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT.
SO OPENING UP FOR THE COMMISSION, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS I DRAFTED COMMISSION OF KOBASA.
SO I WANNA, COULD YOU ASK AGAIN, SO COUNCIL WILL NOT BE HEARING THIS UNTIL WHEN AGAIN, UM, WE WILL BE POSTPONING IT UNTIL OCTOBER 13TH.
UM, PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE MAKING THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE 27TH.
AND SO JUST HAVING TWO DAYS IN BETWEEN THAT MEETING, WOULD'VE BEEN RATHER DIFFICULT FOR US TO INCORPORATE ANY OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, SO, OKAY.
AND, UH, WE, OUR COMMISSION HAS A MEETING ON OCTOBER 4TH, UH, IN, SO WE, WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE STAFF CAPACITY TO COME TO A THIRD ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UH, AND OUR STRONG PREFERENCE WOULD BE ACTION TONIGHT.
UM, WE'VE, WE'VE COME TO MANY MORE MEETINGS THAN INITIALLY SCOPED IN THIS AND WANT, WANT THIS TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE AS, AS POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S UNDERSTOOD.
ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMISSION? YES.
COMMISSIONER, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SCARE YOU ON THAT.
[01:10:01]
I JUST NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND, BUT I WANT TO SEE IT.SO THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO, OR RESOLUTION TO CHANGE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS TO NOT, NOT DISIN, NOT DISINCENTIVIZE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT TO INCENTIVIZE CI MIDDLE, OR DO I HAVE THAT THE OTHER WAY AROUND? SO THAT'S ONE COMPONENT OF MANY COMPONENTS INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION, INCLUDING GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, BECOMING THE MANDATED WATER QUALITY CONTROL OVER SOME CONVENTIONAL CONTROLS THAT DON'T HAVE AS MANY ANCILLARY BENEFITS, FUNCTIONAL GREEN, WHICH IS A LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT THAT'S ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BASED BY THE WAY, KATIE COIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
I REALIZED I DID NOT CHECK THAT BOX BEFORE I STARTED TALKING, UH, AND GOOD TO SEE YOU COMMISSIONER COSTA, UM, WHOLE SUITE OF, OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE MISSING MIDDLE IS ONE PIECE.
UH, AND SO REALLY WHAT THAT IS SAYING IS FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, UH, WE DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO BUILD MULTIPLE UNITS ON A SITE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY NOW BE INCENTIVIZED TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY ONLY HAS TO SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT, RIGHT? DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH MANY, UH, OF OUR REGULATIONS, UH, BUT THAT A FULL SITE PLAN THAT, THAT ANY OF THESE MISSING MIDDLE PROPERTIES WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH TODAY IS A, A BIG LEAP IN BURDEN BEYOND WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, RIGHT? PERSONALLY, LIKE THAT'S WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A, A VERY MUCH NEEDED PROVISION.
AND LIKE, IT IS A SMALL THING THAT CAN HELP A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON PAGE FIVE OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET, IT MENTIONS THAT THERE WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE, OR THERE'S NOT ENCODE A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY, UM, WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS ARE EVALUATED, WHETHER IT BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, A DOWNTOWN TOWER, OR A 500 ACRE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
AND THEN YOU SAID, BUT IT'S IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE THIS IN PRACTICE, SO IT'S NOT IN ENCODE, BUT IT'S IN PRACTICE.
THERE'S BEEN A DIFFERENCE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS AND SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION, BUT THERE'S POINTED OUT THAT ONE AND OR TO TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ARE NOT REVIEWED FOR ALL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS, WHICH LEADS TO.DOT OCCASIONALLY POOR ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES.
UM, SO IF THE THING IS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, UM, BETWEEN MISSING MIDDLE AND SINGLE FAMILY, WOULDN'T THE APPROPRIATE THING TO BE, TO FOLLOW THE CODE.
UM, SO SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS HAVE TO BE RE THEY ARE REVIEWED FOR CURRENT CODE.
AND SO IN THEORY, EACH LOT THAT COMES IN TO BE BUILT AT EACH TIME SHOULD, UM, ADHERE TO THE CURRENT CODE.
OF COURSE, CODES HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, MANY, LOTS THAT WERE PLANTED WELL BEFORE OUR REGULATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WERE PLANTED UNDER, UM, DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.
AND SO THOSE LOTS MAY BE LOCATED IN A CREEK.
THEY MAY BE LOCATED NEXT TO A, UH, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.
THEY MAY BE ON A STEEP SLOPE, ET CETERA.
THE CODE HAS BEEN SILENT ON THOSE.
AND IN PRACTICE OVER TIME, STAFF DO NOT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HOMES, OCCASIONALLY THINGS COME UP, UM, BOAT DOCS, FOR EXAMPLE, DO GET REVIEWED.
SO THE BOAT DOCK WILL GET REVIEWED FOR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS, BUT THE HOUSE ITSELF WILL NOT.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE, UM, IMPACTS TO WATERWAYS OCCUR WITH, UM, UM, WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
AND SO, UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS BRING IN SOME OF THOSE REGULATIONS THAT ARE, HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR MORE CONSISTENTLY OVER TIME RELATED TO SO CUT AND FILL FOR EXAMPLE, IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR, UM, UM, BY SINGLE, UH, BY THE, IN THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS, UM, UH, UH, IMPER, WHAT, WHAT, LIKE HOW IMPERVIOUS COVER IS DEFINED IS, IS REVIEWED FOR, UH, EROSION CONTROL, UH, CLEARING OF VEGETATION, AND SO, AND, AND SAVER SPRINGS.
SO WE, WE CAN'T EXEMPT, UM, ANYTHING FROM SAVER SPRINGS.
UM, AND SO THOSE THINGS WOULD CONTINUE NOW, WATERWAY SETBACKS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY, UM, BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANNA GIVE
[01:15:01]
AWAY THE FARM WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE, BUT WE HAVE TO ALSO REGU CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY LOTS IN THE URBAN CORE THAT THE ENTIRE LOT COULD BE IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, FOR EXAMPLE.AND THOSE WOULD REALLY BE GRANDFATHERED IN BASICALLY.
SO THOSE BEFORE THE COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE REVIEWED FOR THOSE AFTER THE COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE.
SO WE'RE TALKING MAY 18TH, 1986 IS WHEN THAT PASSED.
SO ANY LOT AFTER THAT WOULD START TO GET REVIEWED FOR.
SO WE ACTUALLY OUR STRENGTHENING THOSE REVIEWS IN PROCESS.
UM, BUT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE OPTION IN CASE THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, IN, IN A CASE THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR THAT PROJECT.
UM, SO THAT SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS, BUT WE WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO CATCH PROJECTS THAT HAVE REAL DIRECT NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE CREEK.
SO IT'S, UM, WE'RE KIND OF SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE WITH WATERWAY SETBACKS.
SO WHEN, YEAH, UM, WHEN YOU SAY, UM, OCCASIONAL, WHERE DID IT GO FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES? UM, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND WON'T THOSE GET WORSE WHEN YOU ARE DOING LESS REVIEW ON LARGER PROJECTS WITH THREE TO 11 UNITS? UM, THE GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
AND SO WE'RE SAYING THAT WELL, THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT THOSE LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE THAT DON'T HAVE HIGH IMPERVIOUS COVER CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT FOLLOWING OUR REGULATIONS.
UM, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? YEAH.
UH, JUST, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, TO CLARIFY, I SEE THIS AS A WIN-WIN FOR MORE UNITS AND, AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES, WE ARE MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING INCENTIVIZED TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY THAT WOULD NOT GET AS MANY PROTECTIONS AS A LOT THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER OUR SITE PLAN.
UH, OUR REDUCED KIND OF SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE.
SO ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IS LOT TO LOT FLOODING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REVIEWING SITE PLANS.
ONE THING THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE MAINTAINS ITSELF WITHIN THE SITE PLAN LIGHT, THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR MISSING MIDDLE IS THAT WE ARE, WE ARE STILL WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CAUSING ANY OF THOSE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
AND SO WE WILL STILL BE REVIEWING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CAUSING THOSE NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR LOT TO LOT IMPACTS IN TERMS OF THAT LOCALIZED FLOOD ISSUE.
SO THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT IN TALKING TO OUR FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR AND TALKING TO OUR MODELING FOLKS THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO COMPROMISE ON, ON TAKING THOSE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS OUT, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE WILLING TO FLEX ON THINGS LIKE WATER QUALITY AND, AND SOME OTHER ITEMS, UH, TO ALLOW FOR THIS COMPROMISE FOR THESE SMALL SCALE MISSING MIDDLE UNITS.
UM, ONE MORE THING TO ADD FLOODPLAIN AND EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS DO GET REVIEWED WITH SINGLE FAMILY, AND THAT WOULD CONTINUE WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER COSTA? SORRY ABOUT THAT.
UH, I MOVED THAT WE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE, OR, UH, RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TITLE 0.5.
SO THERE'S TWO COMMISSIONER COSTA THERE'S RESOLUTION.
THERE'S THERE'S ONE RESOLUTION AND, AND THE ITEM WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS I, THE RESOLUTION, THERE'S AN EDITING RESOLUTION THERE RESOLUTION AS WELL.
THERE ARE TWO RESOLUTIONS TONIGHT.
SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE RESOLUTIONS THEMSELF OR TO SORRY? YEAH, THE RESOLUTION FOR US.
SO WE HAVE A, THERE ARE TWO RESOLUTIONS, SO WE NEED A MOTION FOR ONE, ONE OR ONE OR THE OTHER, WELL, WE CAN DISCUSS THEM OR WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
AND, UM, IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD PUT, I I'VE SEEN THE FIRST RESOLUTION.
I HAD DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS EVEN A PROPOSED NEW RESOLUTION TODAY.
SO IS THERE ANY WAY THAT CAN BE PUT ON THE CAMERA SO WE CAN ALL CATCH UP AND BE ON THE SAME PAGE CHAIR COMMISSION ON SO LISTED ON YOUR BACKUP? UM, IT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE INTERNET, SO IF IT CAN BE PUT UP, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
MM-HMM
I WAS HAVING PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET IN THE BUILDING TOO.
I'M USING A, A MYFI, BUT IT, IT IS A LITTLE UNCLEAR THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 VERSIONS OF ITEM NUMBER 11.
AND THEN THERE'S RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 22 0 6 0 9 0 6 1.
[01:20:01]
SO THAT'S THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.THERE'S ONLY TWO RESOLUTIONS THERE'S AND TO MAKE IT SIMPLE.
YEAH, THERE WAS ONE RESOLUTION THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY AND THEN I TOOK THAT AND, AND MODIFIED IT.
SO MY, MY RESOLUTION HAS STRICK OUT, STRICKEN OUT, ADDS ITEMS OUTTA THAT AND ADD ENDS THAT ARE ADDED INTO THAT.
SO IT'S KIND OF, YOU PUT UP THE SMITH RESOLUTION, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE BOTH BASICALLY.
I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING TO YOU MODIFY HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
IS, IS IT JUST POSSIBLE TO SEE IT FIRST? I'M SORRY.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS, NOT ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY HARD TO UNDERSTAND IT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ SO WHILE, WHILE THE DOCUMENTS BEING LOADED, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO LET COMMISSIONER SMITH, UH, GIVE US KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF HIS CUZ I THINK FOLKS HAVE SEEN THE OTHER ONE ALREADY.
SO I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU SOME GENERAL COMMENTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT'S NOT TRUE THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE NOT REVIEWED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
WHEN WE FILE A SUBDIVISION PLAT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION, IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING.
IT INCLUDES REVIEWS FOR THE STREETS, THE SIDEWALKS, THE DRIVEWAYS, THE HOUSES, EVERYTHING IS, IS IN A VERY LARGE PICTURE, LOOKED AT BY WATER QUALITY STANDPOINT.
THE WATER QUALITY OF THE PONDS THAT ARE DESIGNED AND BUILT WITH SUBDIVISIONS INCLUDE THE RUNOFF FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, FROM THE STREETS, THE SIDEWALKS, THE DRIVEWAYS, ALL THAT IS LOOKED AT AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE.
YOU DON'T LOOK AT IT AGAIN AT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME PHASE.
YOU JUST LOOK AT A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CUZ IT COMPLIES WITH THE OVERALL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS.
THE PROBLEM YOU RUN INTO IS THERE ARE SOME SUBDIVISIONS THAT WERE APPROVED IN 19 60, 19 50, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY WATER QUALITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE SETBACKS CUZ NONE OF THAT WAS IN CODE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
BUT THERE'S A HANDFUL OF LOTS THAT WERE NEVER BUILT ON.
SO YOU HAVE A HANDFUL OF LOTS THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED BACK TO THE CODE AND 1950, WHICH WAS NOTHING.
AND THOSE LOTS CAN BE BUILT ON WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND NOT HAVE WATER QUALITY, NOT HAVE COMPLIANCE WITH CREEK SETBACK BECAUSE THOSE DIDN'T APPLY AND THEIR GRANDFATHER RETINA HAVE LEGAL LOT.
YOUR LOT WAS PLATTERED IN 1956, YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH THOSE REGULATIONS.
UM, BUT ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD, ANY NEW SUBDIVISION INCLUDES THE RUNOFF AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR EVERY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
YOU LOOK AT EVERY CAR FEATURE IN THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.
YOU DON'T JUST LOOK AT ONES UNDER THE ROAD, YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND ALL THAT IS SHOWN ON THE, THE, THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
AND SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THE SETBACKS ARE, WHERE THE CREEK SETBACKS, WHERE THE WETLANDS, WHERE THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO THEY'RE LOOKED AT, THEY'RE JUST LOOKED AT AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE, NOT AT THE SINGLE FAMILY PHASE AND WHAT THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS COME IN AND SAY, OKAY, SINCE WE DON'T LOOK AT THAT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, LET'S ALLOW UP TO 11 HOME, LOTS, 11 UNITS TO BE BUILT ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ALL YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING, UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OR WE'RE SAYING INSTEAD OF BUILDING ONE HOME, YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 11 UNITS, SMALL UNITS ON THAT SAME LOT.
UM, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ACTUALLY FIT 11 UNITS ON ME.
I CAN'T IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE YOU'D BE ABLE TO PUT 11 UNITS, BUT WE'RE JUST SAYING, MAKE IT IT EASIER TO BUILD MORE UNITS ON THAT SINGLE FAMILY LIFE THAN JUST ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
YOU'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT ALL THE WATER QUALITY EVERYTHING'S BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE.
ALL YOUR EASEMENTS, ALL YOUR CES SETBACKS, CRITICAL WATER QUALITY IS ON SETBACKS.
ALL THOSE APPLY AND HAVE ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.
UM, THE ONLY TIME YOU'D GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING, IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THAT WAY IS IF YOU HAD A LOT THAT WAS PLANTED IN 1960 BEFORE ALL THESE REGULATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT, AND NOW YOU WANNA PUT 10 UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT, UH, YOU'RE GONNA BE EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA, CUZ IT WASN'T APPLICABLE WHEN YOU PLANTED THAT LOT.
BUT THAT LOT WAS PLANTED AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF ON THE MISSING MIDDLE TOPIC, WHICH IS ONLY ONE SMALL ASPECT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THAT'S LIKE SOMEONE WHO DOES THIS ON FOR A LIVING.
WE DO LOOK AT EVERYTHING FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS AS THEY COME IN.
AND ALSO I JUST WANNA POINT OUT ZONING WOULD HAVE TO BE IN PLACE IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE THAT MANY UNITS.
I JUST WANT, MAYBE SINCE YOU WERE THERE STANDING AT THE PODIUM, I JUST WONDER IF YOU COULD JUST AT A BIG PICTURE LEVEL, THE, THESE AMENDMENTS THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, DO THEY, DO THEY CONFLICT IN ANY WAY WITH SOS? NO, WE'VE BEEN VERY CAREFUL TO, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE BARTON SPRING ZONE REGULATIONS SOS AND WE'RE EXEMPTING THESE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS FROM SOS BECAUSE THEY DO NEED TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ONCE THEY'VE CHANGED THE USE FROM SINGLE FAMILY PER THE LANGUAGE OF THE SOS AND, AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE AREAS OF OUR, OF OUR CITY WHERE THEY DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF SOS.
AND SO HOW WILL THOSE AREAS GET THE BENEFIT OF SOS? YES.
UM, SO OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE RESPONDING TO WITH THIS ORDINANCE, UM, ASK FOR
[01:25:01]
OUR STAFF TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS IN INCLUDING PLANNING FOR ADDRESSING EQUITY.UM, SO THAT IS A LONGER PROCESS.
IT'S NOT A THREE MONTH PROCESS AT ALL.
UM, SO THAT PROCESS WILL BE, WILL BE GETTING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AS PART OF OUR RANGER RIVER STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THAT.
UH, WE'LL ALSO BE ISSUING A MEMO, UH, BY NOVEMBER 1ST LIKELY, UH, FROM OUR PLANNING TEAM THAT KIND OF OUTLINES THE WAY WE'RE INTEGRATING EQUITY INTO THAT LARGER RANGE RIVER STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
THE OTHER THING THAT IS A COMPONENT OF THE BACKUP AS A PART OF OUR STAFF REPORT IS THAT WATERSHED HAS A, A STANDARD PROCESS.
NOW WE HAVE A NEW EQUITY PROGRAM MANAGER ON STAFF WHO REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECTOR.
UM, SO WE HAVE A STANDARD PROCESS, ANY MAJOR CODE REWRITE, ANY MAJOR PROJECT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH A FULL EQUITY ASSESSMENT.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT WERE POSED A FEW YEARS AGO AND COUNCIL TO BE FRANK DID NOT GRANT US THE TIME TO DO WHAT WE FEEL LIKE IS A FULL EQUITY ASSESSMENT.
SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A HIGHER LEVEL EQUITY REVIEW THAT OUR COORDINATION TEAM DID TO FOCUS ON RACIAL EQUITY FOR THIS, UH, WAS RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, REALLY TAKE A WHOLESALE LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL CODE, UH, TO ASSESS THE EQUITY IMPLICATIONS AND COME BACK, UH, ON A LONGER TIMELINE WITH POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, TO VARIOUS BOARD COMMISSIONS AND COUNCIL FOR UPDATES THAT SHOULD OCCUR TO ENSURE THAT EQUITABLE PROTECTIONS EXIST.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LONGER TERM PROCESS, UH, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT PROTECTIONS OF THE WATERSHED, THE WATER QUALITY THAT, THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT AS WELL AS ANY OTHER COMMUNITY IN OUR CITY.
AND THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT.
SO MY CONCERN IS THOSE AREAS WILL BE TARGETED FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT, MORE REDEVELOPMENT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION THAT SOS BRINGS TO THE OTHER COMMUNITIES.
I JUST WANT, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I, I CAN SEE THE BENEFITS OF THIS, BUT I'M JUST WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO JUST CONTINUE.
CERTAINLY I A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE.
THIS IS A CORE REASON WHY I CAME INTO THIS ROLE.
I'M IN NINE MONTHS, EQUITY IS A CORE PART OF THE WAY I THINK, IN THE VALUES THAT I HAVE.
AND SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING IN THE LONG TERM THAT I WANT TO STILL EXIST.
I WILL SAY THE MISSING MIDDLE IS ONE PIECE MM-HMM
UH, THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE BOOKS, UH, AS THE MANDATE FOR THE MAJORITY OF SCENARIOS FOR YOUR WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT.
UH, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE CONTROLS THAT PROVIDE SO MANY MORE BENEFITS THAN WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A CONVENTIONAL CONTROL, LIKE A SEDIMENT FILTRATION BASIN IN MM-HMM
UH, AND SO I SEE THAT AS AN EQUITY WIN REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT EASTSIDE COMMUNITIES AS MORE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GETS, BECOMES THE STANDARD THAT THEY'RE REAPING THE BENEFITS OF URBAN HEAT ISLAND MITIGATION HABITAT, THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF, OF THESE SYSTEMS THAT THAT REALLY ARE BEST PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY NOW.
AND, AND THAT THEY CAN, THEY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY.
THAT'S NOW GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THESE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T LIVE THERE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BENEFIT FROM IT.
ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? CLARIFY RESOLUTION IS WRITTEN BY STAFF.
AND I, MY COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, NOT, NOT OUR RESOLUTION, SO, AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE GOOD WORK, THE HARD WORK YOU ALL DOING.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU, SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT LOTS TO LOT FLOODING AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I LIVE IN ZER AND THERE'S A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE LOTS.
THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY, LOTS THERE, AND IT IS NEXT TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA HERE.
AND I SEE, AND WE HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE, ARE DOCUMENTING EVERY TIME THERE'S A REDEVELOPMENT OCCURRING AND THEY DIDN'T DO THE PROPERTY EROSION CONTROL AND GUESS WHAT? THAT STUFF GOES RIGHT DIRECTLY INTO THE INSENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
UH, IT, IT HAPPENS HUNDREDS OF TIMES THROUGH THE YEAR.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A FEW TIMES A YEAR, IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED AND YOU ALL PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THAT.
I BELIEVE YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
I'M NOT GONNA NAME NAMES AND I'M, BUT I AM GONNA SAY THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE.
AND, AND, AND SO WHAT, HOW WILL THESE, WILL THIS ADDRESS THAT IN ANY WAY? UM, NOT DIRECTLY, HOWEVER, UM, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL WOULD BE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT DOES APPLY AND FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS.
AND SO SINCE IT STILL WILL HAVE A SITE PLAN, IT WILL STILL GET ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
AND SO THERE WILL BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EROSION SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS FOR THOSE PROJECTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS?
[01:30:01]
IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? HAS THERE BEEN ANY ABILITY TO, UM, SHARE ON A DOCUMENT CAMERA? YES.UH, SHARE COMMISSION LAY ON ANDREW RIVERA.
UH, WE WILL BE DISPLAYING THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION, UH, JUST A REMINDER TO STAY WITHIN TOMA IF WE CAN, UM, STRICTLY ABIDE BY ONE SPEAKER AT A TIME WHILE THE DOCUMENT IS UP.
AND THIS IS YOUR RESOLUTION, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY THOUGH.
SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER SMITH'S RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW AND WHY DON'T WE LET HIM WALK US THROUGH IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, WHEREAS IS THEY'RE THE SAME ON BOTH, UH, THERE'S NO CHANGES TO ALL OF THE, WHEREAS IS WHEN YOU GET DOWN INTO THE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE 1, 2, 3, 4, THE SIX BULLET POINTS I HAVE ADDED IN THE TWO BULLET POINTS THAT ARE STRICKEN OUT WERE ONES THAT WERE IN THE OTHER VERSION.
UH, AND THEN ON THE NEXT PAGE, THERE'S THE SAME THING.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A ONE ITEM THAT WAS STRICKEN OUT OR TWO ARMS THAT WERE STRICKEN OUT FROM THE OTHER VERSION.
UM, AND I CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT MY CON, WHY I PUT THESE ITEMS IN THERE.
UM, GO BACK UP TO THE FIRST PAGE THERE.
SO COMMISSIONER SMITH, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO IF THE, THE, THE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE STRICKEN ARE IN THE OTHER RESOLUTION.
SO REALLY YOURS IS A SUPER SET.
IT CONTAINS EVERYTHING IN THE OTHER RESOLUTION PLUS THINGS THAT YOU'VE ADDED.
AND I'M, I DIDN'T UNDERLINE WHAT I'VE ADDED IS ONLY, ONLY DIFFERENT.
SO I'D HAVE TO, I'M GONNA HAVE TO POINT OUT TO YOU WHAT I'VE ADDED.
UM, SO IF WE GO TO THE NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED HALFWAY DOWN, THAT'S THE EXACT SAME, BUT THE FIRST BULLET POINT, UM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS ALL FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
WHAT I'M LOOKING AT THERE IS THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN IS VERY EXPLICIT.
IT'S GOT A NUMBERING SYSTEM AND A POINT SYSTEM, AND IT'S VERY EXPLICIT DETAILS, BUT THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T GET INTO THE DETAILS OF HOW YOU DO THIS.
THE TECHNICAL CRITERIA MANUAL DOES THAT.
THEY'RE WORKING ON AN EMERGENCY ADDITION TO THE TECHNICAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS FUNCTIONAL GREEN IS FINE.
LET'S IMPLEMENTED, BUT LET'S NOT IMPLEMENTED UNTIL THE TECHNICAL CRITERIA MANUAL IS PUBLISHED.
SO THAT SOMEONE WHO DOES THIS FOR A LIVING HAS SOME GUIDANCE AS TO HOW TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR TECHNICAL GREEN.
UM, BUT IT, BY SAYING, LET'S DO IT.
IT GIVES THE STAFF THE CONFIDENCE THAT, OKAY, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION.
NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THE CRITERIA MANUAL TO REFLECT THAT.
AND THEY'LL BOTH GO INTO EFFECT AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY THE FIRST BULLET POINT.
SECOND BULLET POINT, THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE.
UM, SO SIMPLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS ONCE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT IS DETERMINED, ANY NEGATIVE ASPECTS WILL BE COUNTERBALANCED WITHIN INCENTIVES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SAYS, THERE'S A, THIS IS GONNA RAISE THE COST OF HOUSING X NUMBER OF DOLLARS WHEN WE DO THIS, AND THERE'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT BALANCES THAT OFF.
SO WE'RE NOT JUST AGAIN, IMPACTING THE COST OF HOUSING.
SO THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME KIND OF, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT THERE'S NO AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
IDEALLY, WE'D HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US TO LOOK AT AND SAY, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT IT'S SAYING.
HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO NOT HAVING IT.
I'M JUST SAYING IF THERE IS ANY NEGATIVE, LET'S TRY TO COUNTERBALANCE THAT WITH SOME POSITIVE SO THAT WE HAVE A NET NEUTRAL ON THE ORDINANCE.
UM, THIRD BULLET POINT ALLOWED BOAT DOCK ACCESS TO REMAIN WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE.
AS IT RELATES TO 25,000 8, 25, 25, 8 25 SAYS, IF YOU REDEVELOP A LOT, YOU HAVE TO REMOVE ALL IMPERVIOUS COVER WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A BOAT DOCK ACCESS GOING DOWN TO THE BOAT DOCK, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THAT WHEN YOU REDEVELOP, YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO AWAY WITH YOUR ACCESS.
SO RATHER THAN REMOVING YOUR ACCESS, GETTING EVERYTHING BACK TO BACKGROUND CONDITIONS, AND THEN PUTTING THE ACCESS BACK IN.
SO YOU'RE DISTURBING IT TWICE.
LET 'EM LEAVE THAT ACCESS IN, UH, JUST AS IT RELATES TO THE ACCESS TO THE BOAT DOCK.
SO IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC IMPERVIOUS COVER ACCESS TO THE BOAT DOCK.
ONLY EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE REMOVED.
UM, UNDER SECTION 25,864 E FOR THE LOTS THAT CANNOT BEAT THIS CRITERIA.
THIS IS ONE WHERE THE CRITERIA WE MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AS, UM, THE ENGINEERS.
AND IF THE LOT IS ZERO TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET, WE ASSUME IT'S GONNA HAVE 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN PERVIOUS COVER.
WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE CODE SAYS THAT IF YOU CAN'T, YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW YOU'RE GONNA MEET THE 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON EVERY LOT.
WHEN YOU FILE A PLAT, UM, IT GOES A STEP FURTHER SAYING IF YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT, THEN YOU CAN'T BUILD A LOT.
UM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND SAY, CAN I PUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT HOUSE ON THAT LOT? AND THE 500 SQUARE FOOT DRIVEWAY, LET ME BUILD SOMETHING SMALLER AND, AND PUT A NOTE ON THE PLAQUE THAT SAYS LOT 14 IS LIMITED TO X SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO DON'T SIMPLY SAY BECAUSE HALF THE LOT'S GOT A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK ON IT, OR FLOODPLAIN OR SOMETHING, DON'T RULE OUT ANY DEVELOPMENT.
IF PART OF THAT LOT IS STILL DEVELOPABLE FOR A SMALLER PRODUCT.
[01:35:01]
UM, NOT EVERY HOUSE IS GONNA BE 2,500 SQUARE FEET.UH, SOME OF 'EM MAY BE SMALLER.
SO I'M JUST SAYING, GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PUT A SMALLER LOT LIMIT IT.
PUT A NOTE ON THE PLAT TO, TO RESTRICT THAT, UM, 25 8 2 13, I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT I HAD ON THAT ONE.
THIS IS ONE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHEN YOU PUT IN WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, IT USED TO SAY THE CONTROL MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST THE TREATMENT LEVEL.
AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT GREEN CONTROLS.
SO WE'RE SUBSTITUTING GRAIN CONTROLS FOR SAND FILTRATION.
UM, THE OLD CODE SAID THE CONTROL MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST THE TREATMENT LEVEL OF SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION SYSTEMS UNDER THE OLD CO UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
THEY MODIFIED IT TO SAY THE CONTROL MUST ACHIEVE THE LOAD REDUCTION STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT LOAD IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE AND DETERMINE.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE SAMPLES BEFORE A STORM, DURING A STORM, AFTER A STORM, COMPARE THOSE TO THE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS.
AND THE STAFF'S NOT GONNA DO THAT.
THE APP, NO ONE'S GONNA BE DOING THAT.
AND SO TRYING, SO USING THE WORD ACHIEVE THE LOAD REDUCTION STANDARDS IS GIVING ME A LOT OF CONCERN BECAUSE NO ONE'S GONNA MONITOR.
HOW DO YOU MONITOR THAT? AND YOU DESIGN THESE, YOU DESIGN FOR VERY EXPLICIT STORM, WHICH PROBABLY NEVER OCCURS.
UM, THE STORM YOU'RE LOOKING AT WOULD, WOULD BEGIN ON HOUR, ONE, GENTLY INCREASE AND INTENSITY TO A PEAK AND GENTLY DECREASE TO A PEAK AT THE END.
SO YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE THAT STORM THAT YOU'RE MONITORING BEFORE.
YOU CAN MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES TO THIS CODE, WHICH THAT STORM NEVER HAPPENS.
WE ALL KNOW WHEN IT SUDDENLY RAINS, IT JUST STARTS RAINING BUCKETS ALL OF A SUDDEN, OR IT'S NOT A TYPICAL STORM.
SO I THINK GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A TREATMENT LEVEL OF SEDIMENT FILTRATION, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO BIOFILTRATION, IT NEEDS TO BE LEAST AS STRINGENT, NO LESS STRINGENT THAN WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE.
UM, BUT THE WORD ACHIEVE, AND I'VE TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THIS AND THEY, THEY CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WORKS THERE.
SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN ON THAT ONE.
I KNOW NOT EVERYBODY DOES SO SLOW DOWN 2 82.
UM, WHAT WAS I SAYING? REMOVE TWO B IN C B IN IT IS KIND OF THIS ONE THEY'RE STRIKING FROM THE CODE.
UM, IF WE HAVE A EXISTING WETLAND ON AN UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF LAND RIGHT NOW, WE TRY SOMETIMES TO PRESERVE THAT WETLAND, BUT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO COME IN AND MODIFY IT.
IF THE WETLAND IS FOR AN EXAMPLE, A STOCK TANK THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOT, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THAT'S BEEN A FARMER'S TANK OVER TIME THAT WET THAT STOCK TANK BECOMES A WETLAND.
WE TRY TO USE THOSE SR WATER CALL.
SO WE WILL COME IN AND TAKE THAT STOCK TANK, CUZ IT WAS PUT THERE BY THE FARMER BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE WATER DRAINED TOOK.
MM-HMM
YOU PUT IT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL WHERE THE WATER RUNS TO.
SO WE TRY TO USE THAT STOCK TANK AS PART OF OUR WATER QUALITY TO DO THAT.
A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO COME IN, TEAR IT UP, REBUILD IT AND REESTABLISH THE WETLAND IN THAT SAME LOCATION.
THEY'VE COME IN AND SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
UH, THEY, THEY WANT TO PROHIBIT THAT.
I'M SAYING LET'S NOT PROHIBIT IT, LET'S LEAVE IT IN.
UM, AND SO IF WE JUST TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT, IT'S STILL THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROTECTION.
SO LET THE DIRECTOR DECIDE WHETHER THEY CAN OR NOT.
AND SO THIS IS ONE WHERE I WAS JUST SAYING, LET'S, LET'S NOT PROHIBIT IT OUTRIGHT.
LET'S LET US GIVE US THE DISCRETION TO USE IT.
IF WE CAN MAKE IT ALL WORK AND BEAT ALL THE CRITERIA.
UM, SO I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE I HAD IN HERE.
UM, I'M I, I MAY BE READING THAT SECTION WRONG, BUT IT SAYS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN 25, 8, 2 82 WETLAND PROTECTION ITEM B PROTECTION METHODS FOR WETLANDS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR MM-HMM
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER TWO IS WETLAND MITIGATION, INCLUDING WETLAND REPLACEMENT, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THE, THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAD IN THAT SECTION.
BUT I THINK IT'S THERE, CORRECT.
OUR INTENTION IS NOT REALLY TO PROHIBIT THAT ACTIVITY, THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH DESCRIBED, BUT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO, UM, ACHIEVE, UM, WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS WITH AN EXISTING STOCK POND.
WE'VE HAD SOME CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO DO IT AND DIDN'T REALLY WORK OUT.
AND SO THE CODE KIND OF MAKES IT SEEM LIKE YOU CAN DO IT, BUT YOU CAN'T ALWAYS DO IT.
SO IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE REMOVING THAT OPTION IF IT'S, IF IT, UM, IS IF IT WORKS OUT AND THIS ONE, DID WE LEAVE IT IN OR TAKE IT OUT?
CAUSE WE, WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS IS AND COULDN'T REALLY COME TO A GOOD CONCLUSION WHETHER WE LEAVE IT IN OR TAKE IT OUT.
UM, IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER EITHER WAY, EITHER WAY.
IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER EITHER.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT TAKEN OUT OF THE CODE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS CODE DOES IT.
SO THEY WERE GONNA LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T, UH,
[01:40:01]
BUT GAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO PUT THAT IN THERE.SO THAT'S WHY I LEFT IT IN THERE.
SO LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT FLEXIBILITY IS THERE, THAT WE CAN USE THESE, IF IT'S DONE APPROPRIATELY, IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK, BUT THAT WAS, THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, SO THOSE WERE THE ADDITIONS I MADE.
UM, I TOOK OUT TWO ITEMS, UM, CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN 15 FIVE DASH THREE B 13 BS, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OR 55%.
WHICHEVER IS LESS MY READING OF IT.
IT'S NOT 15 FIVE IS 25 5, BY THE WAY.
UM, MY READING OF THAT IS IT'S NOT 55% IS NOT A LIMITATION.
THAT'S NOT AN IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE.
YOU WERE JUST SAYING IN 25, 53, UM, THAT YOU HAD TO BE LESS THAN IF THE, THAT DIDN'T APPLY.
IF YOU WERE MORE THAN 55% IN PURCHASE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT WASN'T ESTABLISHING A LIMIT.
IT WAS JUST SAYING, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
AND SO LEAVING THAT, THAT IN, I THINK IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LIMITATION ON 55%.
AND IT'S THE, THIS WOULD BE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE BIGGER THAN AN AND ZONING AND PERVIOUS COVER STILL APPLIES.
IT'S JUST SAYING YOU CAN ONLY USE THIS UP TO IMPERVIOUS COVER THIS AMOUNT.
SO I THINK IN MY MIND TAKING THAT OUT WAS APPROPRIATE.
UM, RETAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY CONTROLS FOR PROJECTS THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRE THEM.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS.
I THINK WE'RE, THIS IS GETTING AT THE MISSING MIDDLE STUFF THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS ON THE SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE WE NEVER HAVE.
UM, AND SO WHILE CODE SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, WE DON'T AS PRACTICE DO IT ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE WE DO IT AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE, NOT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LOT PHASE.
I THINK STRIKING THAT OUT, GIVES IT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO.
UM, THE NEXT, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THERE'S ONLY, I THINK A COUPLE OF MORE ON THE NEXT PAGE.
YOU CAN GO TO PAGE TWO THE FIRST TIME I'M, I'M FINE WITH, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS IN BOTH OF THEM REQUIRED THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF TO WORK WITH AUSTIN EQUITY OFFICE TO ADDRESS INEQUITIES.
I STRUCK REQUIRED THAT ALL SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLANS AND URBAN WATERSHEDS MEET STEEP SLOPE PROTECTIONS.
UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO HELP WITH BY MAKING THIS A BENEFIT OF, UM, IT'S NOT IN THE CODE TODAY AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE CODE THE WAY IT SITS TODAY.
SO THEN THE NEXT TWO ITEMS, THE URBAN SLOPE PROTECTIONS AND THE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS BASELINE IS, UM, WAS PART OF THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON A, A DELAYED TIMELINE.
AND SO IT, I THINK THESE WILL BE TALKED ABOUT IN MORE DETAIL AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING 'EM IN HERE.
I THINK THEY WERE TAKEN OUT OF THIS, THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT REASON SAYING, LET'S TAKE IT OUT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY AND MOVE THAT TO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO TOMORROW.
THEY'RE IN THE SAME RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL.
THEY'RE JUST ON A DIFFERENT TIMELINE.
WE'RE CALLING IT PHASE TWO, WE WILL BE BACK.
SO I I'M THINKING, I WANT TO KEEP THOSE IN PHASE TWO AND NOT MOVE THEM FROM COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION, PUTTING 'EM IN PHASE TWO AND PUTTING IN PHASE ONE, I WANNA KEEP 'EM IN PHASE TWO WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY WERE RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL.
SO I STRUCK THOSE OUT FOR THAT REASON, SO, OKAY.
THAT'S THE RESOLUTION THAT I PUT TOGETHER.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SMITH.
UH, SO IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS COMMISSIONER DINKLER I WOULD LIKE, THIS IS A, UH, RESOLUTION'S GONNA BE COMING FROM ALL OF US.
UM, AND SO I KNOW
ARE YOU HAVE SOME NUANCE THAT YOU WANT US TO UNDERSTAND? I I'D LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ON HIS COMMENTS ESSENTIALLY.
UM, I, SO THE FIRST ONE, UM, FUNCTIONAL GRAIN REQUIREMENTS, EXCUSE ME.
CAN WE PUT UP THE, THE RESOLUTION AGAIN? SO WE'RE MAKING SURE WE COVER EVERYTHING.
Y'ALL MM-HMM
I THINK I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION.
SO I'LL LOOK AT THE ONE ON HERE.
SO THE FIRST BULLET, ALL FUNCTIONAL GRAIN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED.
AND SO UNTIL SUCH TIME, AS THE ECN IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, AS COMMISSIONER SMITH MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME DRAFT RULES.
UM, WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THOSE THROUGH THE EMERGENCY RULE ADOPTION PROCESS.
AND SO I THINK IT, UM, IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO DEFER ANY IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THAT IS FINALIZED.
SO, UM, I WOULD JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, UM, CLARIFY THAT IT'S THE EMERGENCY RULES, NOT THE, UM, THE LATER, UM, ECM UPDATE THAT WOULD, UM, WHEN, WHEN THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT BECAUSE EMERGENCY RULES HAVE A CERTAIN TIMELINE.
AND THEN DURING THAT TIME, STAFF HAS TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL ACTUAL PROCESS FOR RULES ADOPTION.
AND SO WE'D LIKE THE EMERGENCY RULES FOR THAT.
UM, SECOND, ONCE THE AFFORDABLE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT
[01:45:01]
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT, HOW DOES, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THIS STATEMENT THAT WE YOU'RE JUST REVIEWING ALL FUNCTIONAL AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED? HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT STATEMENT BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID? RIGHT.I WOULD RECOMMEND MY PRE UH, STAFF PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE, UM, EMERGENCY ECM IS UP, EMERGENCY RULES ARE ADOPTED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
WOULD YOU CHANGE WHAT I PUT? I GUESS IT WAS THE, WAS HIS QUESTION.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, SHE SAID IT WOULD BE ALL FUNCTIONAL GRAIN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE EMERGENCY RULES ARE, UH, UM, ADOPTED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
WE ADD THE WORD IMPLEMENTATION TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S JUST THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEFERRED YEAH.
REQUIREMENT OF ALL FUNCTIONAL GRADE REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL FUNCTIONAL GRAIN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE EMERGENCY RULES ARE ADOPTED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
ONCE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT IS DETERMINED, ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ASPECTS WILL BE COUNTERBALANCED WITH INCENTIVES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT, UM, THERE WILL BE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT FROM THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, ALLOW BOAT DOCK ACCESS TO REMAIN WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE AS IT RELATES TO ITEMS. SO IN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, UM, I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE A GOOD CLARIFICATION IN THERE.
UM, OUR INTENT IS NOT TO, UM, PROHIBIT SHORELINE ACCESS.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE VERY, VERY RARE WHEN THIS COMES UP BECAUSE MOST PROJECTS DON'T FALL UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
THEY'RE JUST NEW PROJECTS, BUT, UM, WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CLARIFY THE INTENT THERE JUST IN CASE.
SO THE NEXT ONE UNDER SECTION 25, 8 64 E FOR LOTS THAT CANNOT MEET THIS CRITERIA, A MECHANISM TO ALLOW SMALLER UNITS WILL BE DEVELOPED.
THIS IS REFERRING TO THE, UM, UH, PROPOSED REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS CONTAINING CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES, ET CETERA, DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE'S A BUILD TOIL THAT THAT'S BUILDABLE PER THE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, CURRENTLY STAFF ALREADY DOES ASK FOR PLA NOTES IF A SMALLER AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER IS PROPOSED.
AND SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE, UH, ACCEPTABLE.
UM, IT'S IT'S CURRENT PRACTICE NOW.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IS, IS IT, SHOULD IT READ, UM, FOR LOTS THAT CANNOT MEET THIS CRITERIA? IS THAT THAT OKAY? CORRECT.
REMOVE 25 8 2 13 A ONE PROPOSED CHANGES.
WE, UM, SO THIS IS RELATED TO THE TREATMENT STANDARD WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD.
UM, I THINK THAT WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR, UM, WATER QUALITY ENGINEERS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN TWEAK THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE KEEP THE EXACT EXISTING LANGUAGE OR MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN CON CONSIDER, BUT I, I, I UNDERSTAND, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH'S CONCERN WITH THAT AND REMOVE 25 8, 2 82 B AND SEE PROPOSED DELETIONS AND LEAVE SECTION IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT ONE.
UM, AS WE DISCUSSED, I BELIEVE THAT THE CODE ALREADY WOULD ALLOW WATER QUALITY TREATMENT IN STOCK PONDS OR OTHER WETLAND FEATURES IF, IF STAFF AGREE WITH IT.
AND DID, DID THAT ALSO COVER THE LAST PAGE? DID, WERE ITEMS, WAS THAT WHAT I STRUCK OUT? AND IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE SECOND PAGE THAT THEY STAFF WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AS WELL? WELL, WOULD THEY LIKE TO ADDRESS THE STRIKEOUT STRIKEOUT OUT THE STRIKEOUTS? THAT'S SURE I'D LIKE TO RAISE A POINT OF ORDER HERE.
WE ARE GETTING INTO A LOT OF CROSSTALK AND IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO HEAR WHEN I'VE GOT SO MANY CONVERSATIONS GOING IN SO MANY DIRECTIONS.
SO I'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY WE NEED TO HAVE THE CHAIR RECOGNIZE PEOPLE TO SPEAK IF THAT'S OKAY.
AND I WAS ASKING IF STAFF COULD, UH, COULD JUST RESPEAK TO THE SECOND PAGE THERE AS WELL, THE STRIKEOUTS, THE STRIKEOUTS.
SO THIS ONE SAYS, CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN 25 5 3 B 13 B IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY THE ZONING, UM, OR 55%, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
UM, UH, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH LAW TO CLARIFY IT.
UM, SO I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S CLEAR IN THE CODE TO REVIEW STAFF, UM, SECOND RETAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY CONTROLS FOR PROJECTS THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRE THEM.
[01:50:01]
SO THERE WOULD STILL BE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, UM, BUT WATER QUALITY CONTROLS WOULD BE WAIVED FOR THAT SMALLER SUBSET OF MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS.SO THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING BECAUSE IT WOULD BE NOT THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UM, NEXT PAGE REQUIRE THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF TO WORK WITH AUSTIN'S EQUITY OFFICE TO ADDRESS INEQUITIES CREATED BY DIFFERENT RULES FOR THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES, SUCH AS BARTON SPRINGS.
UM, AS WE SAID, WE'RE DEFINITELY, UM, UH, READY TO, TO TAKE THAT EFFORT ON AND WE'LL BE HAVING A MEMO EXPLAINING WHAT OUR, UM, THE PROCESS WILL BE.
SO WE'RE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT ONE.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO REQUIRE THAT SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLANS AND URBAN WATER SHEDS MEET STEEP SLOPE PROTECTIONS.
UM, THAT IS A SECOND, SECOND PHASE AMENDMENT.
SO WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT BACK AS SOON AS WE CAN AFTER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
UM, SAME WITH THE SECOND, THE, THE LAST BULLET REQUIRE NEW AND REDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPED PROJECTS TO USE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS BASELINE WHEN CALCULATING DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE ON A SLOWER TIMELINE, BUT WE, IT'S NOT MUCH SLOWER.
SO WE'RE GONNA BE COMING BACK AS SOON AS WE CAN WITH THOSE.
AND, AND IF I MIGHT COMMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE ITEMS, UH, THAT ARE ON THE, THIS, THE OTHER PATH, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOWER, OR I, I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN LEAVING THEM IN HERE, KNOWING THAT THEY WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD BE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, IN, IN A, APPARENTLY A PHASE THAT'S GONNA COME ON THE HEELS OF THIS ONE.
SO THAT'S MY OPINION ABOUT THOSE, THOSE ITEMS. I, I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN LEAVING THEM IN THERE.
AND I'M ONLY SAYING THAT IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING, UH, SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THIS, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
UH, AND, UH, HAVING, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HOPEFULLY CAN SUPPORT THIS.
AND, AND WE WANT TO BRING THOSE THINGS FORWARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THE REASON WHY, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE ON A LONGER TIMELINE IS BECAUSE WE WILL BE WORKING WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING ON BRINGING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE FORWARD FOR ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS TO HELP MITIGATE THOSE ITEMS AND POTENTIALLY IN ITEMS IN THIS, IN THIS PHASE ONE.
BUT THE INTENT OF, OF REMOVING THEM WAS REALLY JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S IN PHASE ONE AND WHAT'S IN PHASE TWO.
AND WE DON'T WANT FOLKS TO THINK THAT WE'RE BRINGING THOSE THINGS FORWARD NOW WITHOUT THE MITIGATING ENTITLEMENTS.
I, I JUST, I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BE, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE ISSUES, IF THEY'RE NOT THERE, THEN PEOPLE ARE GONNA WONDER, WELL, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THEM.
ARE THEY GETTING DROPPED OUT? OR WE, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT KIND OF PLAYS BOTH WAYS.
IF YOU PUT IT IN, THEN YOU HAVE THE CONCERN.
IF YOU TAKE A MOUTH AND PEOPLE ARE WELL, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THAT, ARE THEY, THEY MUST BE GETTING RID OF IT.
THERE MUST YOU SEE? SO I, I, I THINK IT'S STILL, THAT'S NOT HARMFUL TO PUT THESE, TO KEEP THESE IN.
SO ANYWAY, I JUST WAS TRYING TO GET SOME CONSENSUS HERE ON THE COST OF COMMISSION.
ANY, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO DO THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT TO MAKE SURE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S GONNA SLOW THINGS DOWN, UM, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, FEATURES COULD COST MORE.
UM, AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WE MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH, UM, TO SAY THAT THERE'LL BE SOMETHING TO BALANCE IT IS ASKING FOR A WHOLE NEW THING.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO LEAVE IN, UM, UH, THE LAST TWO BULLET POINTS THAT WERE ADDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.
I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, CLARIFYING IS JUST CLARIFYING AND DOING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
IT JUST SAYS DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SO, UM, I THINK THOSE STRIKEOUTS TO CLARIFY, AND TO DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SHOULD BE LEFT IN, BUT MAYBE STAFF COULD COMMENT ON THE, THE SECOND BULLET POINT ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT.
YOU SAID IT WILL BE DONE, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHEN SURE.
UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT HOUSING AND PLANNING IS WORKING ON, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE REALLY VETTING THE DATA THAT WAS GOING INTO THAT.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE FINALIZING THIS WEEK.
UH, IT WILL BE A PART OF FUTURE BACKUP FOR, FOR COUNCIL DATES.
UH, JUST AN EXAMPLE, A LOT OF THE ITEMS IN PHASE ONE, WE SEE AS VERY MINIMAL IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT TO, UM, THE ECONOMICS OF, OF PROJECTS.
[01:55:01]
INSTANCE, GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS, IS REALLY BEST PRACTICE IN MOST SCENARIOS AT THIS POINT.SO JUST ONE ANECDOTE THAT I KNOW WILL BE IN THE, UH, AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
UH, WE LOOKED AT 16 AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECTS, AND 13 OF THOSE PROJECTS, 13 OUT OF 16 WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.
UH, SO WE'RE SEEING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE PROJECTS, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT USING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY MIGHT BE USING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF WATER QUALITY, WHICH IS A TOOL THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THEY WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THESE REGULATIONS ON THE BOOK.
SO EVEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE PROJECTS, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT SEEING HUGE IMPACTS.
UM, SO JUST, JUST TO GIVE YOU A PREVIEW OF, OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATE, I THINK THAT IF YOU ASK US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MITIGATING, UM, FOR ANY AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS, I SEE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ROLL THAT INTO CONVERSATIONS WE'RE ALREADY HAVING AS PART OF PHASE TWO, WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE DOING THAT'S THAT, THAT'S FINE.
SORRY IF IT'S PART OF PHASE TWO AND WE PUT IT IN NOW, UM, THEN MAYBE, MAYBE THAT, UM, BULLET POINT SHOULD SAY PHASE TWO, AND THAT MAYBE THE OTHERS THAT ARE STRICKEN THAT ARE PA PART OF PHASE TWO, SHOULD SAY AS PART OF PHASE TWO, SO THAT WE'RE STILL THEM TO DO THOSE THINGS LIKE THE SLOPES AND URBAN WATERSHEDS, BUT, UM, MAKING IT CLEAR, WE'RE NOT SAYING HOLD UP, THESE CODE CHANGES FOR THAT.
DID Y'ALL HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT.
AND I, I, I THINK THAT THAT CLARITY IS, IS, IS PERFECT.
HONESTLY, I THINK ROLLING THAT IN AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT HOW WE MITIGATE GREENFIELD DETENTION AND STEEP SLOPES PROTECTIONS IN PHASE TWO, BUT IF THERE ARE IMPACTS WE WANNA MITIGATE FROM PHASE ONE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT IN WEIGHING THE SCALES IN PHASE TWO, MAKES, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
SO ARE ALL THE BULLET POINTS OR WHATEVER IN, UM, THE SECOND, WHEREAS, OR BE IT SECOND, BE IT RESOLVED FOR PHASE TWO, THE EQUITY PIECE ALSO IS, UH, BUT NOT RELATED TO CODE, BUT, OH MY GOSH, SORRY.
I'VE NEVER LEANED AGAINST THIS PODIUM THIS MUCH.
UH, YES, THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ALL PHASE TWO ITEMS AND I'D KIND OF SUGGEST THAT THE, I MEAN, THE SECOND BULLET POINT ADDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH ALSO BE ADDED TO THE SECOND, WHEREAS, OR THE SECOND BE IT RESOLVED.
AND THAT, THAT SECOND BE IT RESOLVED THAT SPECIFY THAT WE'RE SAYING AS PART OF PHASE TWO, CUZ ALL OF THOSE THINGS ALL NOW FOUR WOULD BE PART OF PHASE TWO.
UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, GREENBERG, ARE YOU JUST, I'M TRYING, TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH HERE.
ARE YOU SAYING MOVE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS TO, TO THE SECOND BE, UH, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE AND UH, AND THEN, AND THEN, UH, THAT WOULD MAKE THAT A TOTAL OF FOUR.
THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIVES FROM COUNCIL BE COMPLETED AS PART OF PHASE TWO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND THEN WE REWORD THAT, WHEREAS WHERE IT SAYS THAT THESE ARE PART OF PHASE TWO AT THAT END.
SO IT'S CLEAR, THERE IS NO WHERE WHICH WHEREAS, UH, BE, I'M SORRY.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, THAT WORDING THERE, THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS FOR PHASE TWO WILL JUST CLARIFY THAT THAT'S FOR PHASE TWO.
AND AS MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I'M KEEPING TRACK OF EVERYTHING HERE, WHAT I'VE, WHAT SEEMS LIKE I'VE HEARD SO FAR THAT THAT STAFF IS GOOD WITH, UH, IN THE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED IN COMMISSIONER SMITH'S VERSION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST TWO BULLET POINTS, UH, ALL OF THOSE ITEMS STAFF IS OKAY WITH THOSE EXCEPT THE, THE LA THE LAST ONE OR THE LAST TWO, THE LAST ONE, THE LAST ONE.
SO, YEAH, SO THAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE KIND OF WHERE WE ARE, GIVE EVERYBODY KIND OF, SO EVERYTHING TO THAT POINT, WE'RE MOVING THE ONES, THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT IS DETERMINED DOWN TO THE, THE, THAT SECOND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE OR THE OTHER, BE IT FOR THE RESULT.
UH, AND THEN WE'RE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GONNA STRIKE THAT LAST, UH, ITEM REMOVED 25 DASH 8, 2 82, B AND C PROPOSED DELETIONS AND LEAVE SECTION THAT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
WE'RE GOING TO THEN, UH, LEAVE IN AS I'M UNDERSTANDING.
I MEAN, THE, THE, THE, UH, CLARIFY STRICKEN ITEMS ON CLARIFY THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT AND RETAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, STAFF I'M UNDERSTANDING IS OKAY WITH LEAVING THOSE IN.
SO, UH, I DO HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE GATE.
WE'RE LAYING AT THE LAND RIGHT HERE FROM THE BIG PICTURE RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW CLOSE ARE WE.
[02:00:01]
AND THEN NOT, NOT THE SECOND ONE, THE RETAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY CONTROLS FOR PROJECTS THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRE THEM.UM, OUR PROPOSAL IS NOT TO INCLUDE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS FOR THE MISSING METHOD.
SO YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE FIRST ONE, BUT NOT THE SECOND ONE.
AND THEN, AND THE SECOND PAGE OF THE STRICKEN ITEMS, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE OKAY TO LEAVE IN.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYBODY KINDA THE LAY OF THE LAND.
DID YOU GET THE COMMENT THAT THEY MADE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION DEFER FUNCTIONAL GREEN UNTIL THE EMERGENCY, RIGHT.
I DIDN'T HEAR THAT SALES YOU'RE DOUBLE CORRECT.
THAT, THAT I DID NOT MENTION THAT ONE, BUT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS WELL.
ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE A COPY THAT I CAN SCRATCH THROUGH HERE ON THE FLY.
SO IF SOMEBODY IS, YOU KNOW, KEEPING TRACK OF EVERYTHING, THEN YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS BACK TOGETHER, SO TO SPEAK IN, YOU KNOW, COMPLETE VERSION HERE DOES COMMISSIONER DINKLER DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE ALL THOSE CHANGES? NO, I DON'T.
I'M ACTUALLY DOING IT IN WORD RIGHT NOW, SO, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER SMITH IS DOING THE WORDING HERE.
THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THIS FINAL VERSION HERE, IT SOUNDS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WHILE HE UPDATES, UH, UM, TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MOVING IS IN THE, THE FIRST FIVE BULLET POINTS, SIX POINT POINTS I HAD REMOVING THE LAST BULLET POINT ALTOGETHER MM-HMM
UH, AND THE LAST, FURTHER RE RESOLVE WILL BE FURTHER RESOLVE AS PART OF PHASE TWO, UM, PHASE TWO.
WHAT, AND WE WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEAN ABOUT I'M, WHICH, WHICH WHAT, WHERE'S THE EQUITY ONE THAT YOU'RE WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AS IS THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT OUT THERE LIKEABILITY IMPACT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT WAS MOVED, RIGHT? THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT, THE EQUITY WAS ALREADY THERE.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS PART OF PHASE TWO PHASE TWO OF COUNCIL INITIATED CODE, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL CODE UPDATES.
REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL HAVE TO WORK WITH EQUITY, BLAH.
AND THEN ONCE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT IS DONE, RIGHT.
THAT WOULD GO THERE WOULD, WOULD GO THERE.
THE THIRD BULLET POINT REQUIRE THAT ALL SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLANTS AND SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS MEETS DEEP SLOPES, LEAVE THAT IN MM-HMM
I MEAN, THE LAST WOULD RATHER TAKE OUT REQUIRE NEW AND REDEVELOPED PROJECTS TO USE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS A BASELINE, TO BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT.
I MEAN, WE, WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT.
IT'S IT'S NOT GONNA BE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE OKAY.
WE'RE WE'RE CLEARLY SAYING THIS IS FOR PHASE TWO, BUT I, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REQUIRING NEW AND REDEVELOPED PROJECTS TO USE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS A BASELINE THAT DOES AWAY COMPLETELY WITH REDEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE WHOLE REDEVELOPMENT THAT SAYS, IF YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THAT'S THERE, THIS DOES AWAY WITH REDEVELOPMENT AND BASICALLY PRE PRECLUDES ANY INCENTIVE FOR ANYBODY TO REDEVELOP ANYTHING.
AND WE GET A LOT OF BENEFITS WHEN PEOPLE REDEVELOP PROJECTS THAT DON'T COMPLY AND THEY REDEVELOPMENT OR PROJECTS THAT DO COMPLY.
THIS DOES WAY IF ANY INCIDENT TO REDEVELOP ANYTHING.
COMMISSIONER IN MY MIND, COMMISSIONER GREENFIELD, UH, GREENBERG, I'M SORRY.
THIS IS TO, UM, HAVE SOME IMPROVEMENT IN OUR ISSUES WITH LOCALIZED FLOODING AND IN ANY CASE IT'S IN THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
UM, YEAH, I REALLY PREFER TO LEAVE IT.
RATHER THAN REQUIRE, CAN WE DO SOMETHING BESIDES PROPOSE THAT ALL SUDDEN ENCOURAGE, ENCOURAGE SOMETIMES OTHER THAN RECOMMEND, RECOMMEND DISCUSS SOMETHING OTHER THAN REQUIRE.
SO WE HAVE A WORD RECOMMEND, IS THAT, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE? ANY OBJECTIONS? OKAY.
AND DOES THAT CAPTURE ALL THE CHANGES THEN THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED? AND WE DID GET THE ONE ABOUT EMERGENCY RULES.
I, HE, COULD YOU COMMISSIONER, COULD YOU, SO THE BULLET POINTS STARTING FROM THE, THE BULLET POINTS, I'LL JUST START THERE IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, NOT IMPLEMENT.
THAT'S A BUR NOT A WHERE'S THE, UM, DOCUMENT IT'S ON MY COMPUTER.
UM, I CAN TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES I'M I'M SUGGESTING.
THE WAY I'M READING THAT FIRST BULLET POINT IS IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE EMERGENCY RULES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
SECOND BULLET POINT, ALLOW BOAT DOCKS TO ACCESS, ALLOW BOAT DOCK ACCESS TO REMAIN WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE.
AS IT RELATES TO ITEMS 25, 8, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, SAYING
[02:05:01]
UNDER SECTION 25, 8 64 E FOR LOTS THAT CANNOT MEET THIS CRITERIA AND MECHANISM TO ALLOW SMALLER UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED.UH, NEXT BULLET POINT 25, 8 DASH TWO 13, A ONE PROPOSED CHANGES, UM, REMOVE THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD STAY THE LAST, THE NEXT BULLET POINT, WHICH IS THE LAST ONE ON BOTH WOULD BE JUST REMOVED AND IN THIS ENTIRETY, UM, AND, AND NOT ANYTHING DONE WITH THAT.
UM, THE TWO STRIKEOUTS WOULD BE MOVED TO THE END.
SO NOW YOU GO TO THE NEXT BEEF AT FURTHER RESOLVED.
MINE SAYS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS PART OF PHASE TWO OF COUNSEL INITIATED CODE UPDATES THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, UM, REQUIRED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF WORK WITH THE AUSTINS EQUITY OFFICE VERBATIM, WHAT THAT SAYS TAKING THE PREVIOUS FIRST BULLET POINT FROM THE OTHER ONE.
ONCE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT IS DETERMINE THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS WILL BE COUNTERBALANCED WITH CITIES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
THIRD BULLET POINT WOULD STAY IN RECOMMEND THAT ALL SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLANS AND URBAN WATERSHEDS MEET STEEP SLOPE PROTECTIONS AND RECOMMEND NEW AND REDEVELOPED PROJECTS TO USE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS BASELINE WITH CALCULATING DRAINS REQUIREMENTS.
IS, UH, COMMISSIONER GREEN GREENBERG.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT WAS UNCLEAR ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE, UM, I, I WAS UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE KEEPING THE CLARIFY STATEMENT.
THEY'RE JUST BEING MOVED TO THE, THE, THE, THE FIRST CLARIFY.
NO, CUZ THE IT'S, IT'S NOT AN IMPERIOUS COVER LIMIT.
I THINK WHAT IT'S, THE WAY IT'S STATED IN THE AMENDMENT IS INCORRECT.
THE WAY IT STATED IN THE CODE IS CORRECT.
SO CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IN 15 5 3 B 13, B CB 25 DASH FIVE, TWO B 25, RIGHT.
IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OR 55%.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN A LIMIT THAT'S BEING ESTABLISHED.
I THINK THE WAY THE CODE READS IS CORRECT.
IT COULD SAY CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IN 25, 5, 3 B ONE, ET CETERA, IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY THE ZONING NOT TO EXCEED 55% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK THE WAY THE CODE READS CODE, DOESN'T SAY BY THE ZONING, BUT IT, BUT THE ZONING DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ZONING.
I KNOW, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT STATEMENT.
BUT THE CODE DOESN'T REFLECT THE LIMITATION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO A CLARIFICATION IS JUST A CLARIFICATION, RIGHT.
BUT THIS IS CLARIFYING SOMETHING THAT THE CODE'S NOT SAYING, IT'S THE, CODE'S NOT SAYING WE HAVE A LIMITATION OF 55%.
BUT THESE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE THIS MISUNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S BEING RAISED.
AND SO I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.
SO THAT IS NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING, I THINK SHE'S AND FRANKLY, SOMETIMES THOSE LAWYERS, IF YOU LEAVE A WHOLE, THEY'LL DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH IT.
I MEAN, I, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING THOUGH IS INCORRECT IS, IS MY CONCERN, UM, STAFF, I INTERJECT HERE EARLIER, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WERE OKAY WITH THAT.
DID YOU WANT A MINOR WORDING CHANGE ON THAT? I WOULD RECOMMEND CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IN 25 5 3 B 13 B IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY ZONING NOT TO EXCEED 55%, 5% NOT TO EXCEED 55%.
SO IS, IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT? WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING A NEW 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER, CORRECT? NO, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THIS COMMENT SEEMS TO NOT, NOT TO EXCEED 55%.
IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT? SAY THAT ONE AGAIN.
AS YOU SAYING, CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IN 25 5 3 B 13 B IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY ZONING OR NOT TO EXCEED 55%.
AND IS THAT COMMISSIONER DIINER IS THE 55%, UM, NOT TO EXCEED 55%.
IS THAT FOR MULTIFAMILY? I, I DON'T.
I REMEMBER SINGLE FAMILY BEING 45%.
SO THE 55 IS REALLY THROWN ME AND I COULD SEE SOME FOLKS BEING ALARMED BY THAT.
SO WHERE DOES THE 55% APPLY? THERE ARE SOME SF, UH, LIMIT, UH, ZONING CATEGORIES THAT ALLOW UP TO 55%.
DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES THOSE ARE POSSIBLY MM-HMM
WHICHEVER IS LESS, CUZ IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
NOW THAT WE'VE WE TOOK IT OUT CHANGED STUFF.
THIS IS, AND THEN THE LAST RETAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS WOULD STAY OUT.
THAT ONE WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THAT.
IS THAT IT? ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? WE DID IT IN LESS THAN A MEETING,
[02:10:02]
A MEETING AND A HALF.SO, UH, DO WE HAVE A, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UM, I'M GONNA READ THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME AS I MAKE.
THE MOTION IS ALL THE WHEREAS IS IN ALL THE DRAFT STAYS THE SAME AND BEGINNING WITH NOW.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO APPROVE C 20, 20, 22 5 A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, BULLET 0.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE EMERGENCY RULES WHERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL IS UPDATED TO REFLECT APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA WILL 0.2 ALLOW BOAT DOCK ACCESS TO REMAIN WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE.
AS IT RELATES TO ITEMS 25 DASH SHAPE DASH 25, B2 25 DASH SHAPE DASH 27 D TWO UNDER SECTION 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 64 E FOR LOTS THAT CANNOT BEAT THIS CRITERIA AND MECHANISM TO ALLOW SMALLER UNITS WILL BE DEVELOPED 20 NEXT BULLET POINT 25 DASH EIGHT DASH TWO 13, A ONE PROPOSED CHANGES REMOVED 25, 8 DASH TWO 13 A ONE PROPOSED CHANGES.
UM, SO THEREFORE NOW YOU GET INTO ONE MORE BULLET POINT, CLARIFY THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IN 25 5 3 B 13 B IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY THE ZONING NOT TO EXCEED 55% AND, AND COMMISSIONER THAT GOES INTO THE NEXT B IT RESOLVED.
IS THAT GO TO THE NEXT ONE THAT STAY IN? CAUSE THAT'S IS THAT, IS THAT, DOES THAT STAY HERE? YES.
I THINK THAT STAYS HERE THAT STAYS THERE.
UM, NOW WE GET IN THE NEXT BE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS PART OF PHASE TWO OF COUNCIL INITIATED CODE UPDATES THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BULLET 0.1 REQUIRE THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF TO WORK WITH AUSTIN EQUITY OFFICE TO ADDRESS INEQUITIES CREATED BY DIFFERENT RULES FOR THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, SUCH AS BART SPRINGS.
ONCE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT IS DETERMINED, ANY NEGATIVE ASPECTS WILL BE COUNTERBALANCED WITHIN INCENTIVES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
THIRD BULLET POINT RECOMMEND THAT SUB DIVISIONS AND SITE PLANS AND URBAN WATERSHEDS MEETS DEEP DETECTIONS AND RECOMMEND NEW AND REDEVELOPED PROJECTIONS TO USE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS BASELINE WHEN CALCULATING DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS.
AND UH, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA SAY THAT THE EMERGENCY RULES ARE ADOPTED NOT INCLUDED IN THE CRITERIA MANUAL, BUT MAYBE IT'S THE SAME THING.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENT FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL EMERGENCY RULES ARE ADOPTED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.
SO REPLACE UPDATED WITH ADOPTED IT'S THE SAME THING, BUT IF YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ADOPTED, I WILL PUT ADOPTED IN.
SO WE, SO YOU MAKE A MOTION TO, FOR THAT.
THAT'S MY, FOR THAT, UH, RESOLUTION THAT YOU JUST READ THROUGH AND IS THERE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SECONDS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
WE GOT COMMISSIONER SMITH'S VOTE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED ALL THOSE ABSTAINING.
SO WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION AND EVERYONE ELSE IS VOTING FOR IT.
THANKS TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR WORKING ON THIS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE GOOD WORK YOU DID.
UH, YOU KNOW, AND THE BACKGROUND ON THIS TO GET THIS DONE TONIGHT.
SO MOVING ON WITH THE AGENDA, WE HAVE ITEM 12
[12. Nominate a member of the Zoning and Platting Commission to be considered by Council to serve on the Small Area Planning Joint Committee.]
NOMINATIONS TO THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.WE'VE THIS IS OUR THIRD ATTEMPT, RIGHT? TO DO THIS, THE THIRD ATTEMPT TO DO THIS, THE THIRD TIME'S A CHARM.
LET'S
THE, OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OCTOBER 5TH IS LIKELY NOT TO HAPPEN, BUT WE PROBABLY HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON OCTOBER 19TH.
SO IN TERMS OF TIMING, THIS, YOU KNOW, THE TIMEFRAME FOR GETTING THIS DONE AND IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL BEFORE IT CAN, THE INDIVIDUAL CAN SERVE CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS AND ANDREW OVER THERE.
JUST TO NOTE THAT THIS, UM, WAS PREVIOUSLY, UH, SEAT HELD BY COMMISSIONER COSTA COMMISSIONER COSTA.
[02:15:02]
COMMISSIONER COSTA.DID YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE WHERE YOU WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OR KEEP FORGETTING? IT'S DONE? I WOULD LOVE TO KEEP SERVING ON THIS, UH, ON THIS COMMITTEE.
I THINK IT DOES INVALUABLE WORK, UH, BUT IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO REALLY WANTS AN OPPORTUNITY AND HASN'T HAD A CHANCE, IT'S A GREAT LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
UH, SO I JUST WANNA THROW IT OUT THERE, BUT NO ONE WANTS TO THEN I WOULD RELISH THE OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK WE HAVE A NOMINEE HERE UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND SOMEONE ELSE.
COMMISSIONER COSTA HAS BEEN NOMINATED IS, DO WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT? OKAY.
IF THERE'S, UH, IT IS BY ACCLIMATION, HE IS NOW THE NOMINEE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER COSTA.
[COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS]
COMMITTEE REPORTS, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND THE SMALL AREA OF PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, I JUST MENTIONED OUR NEXT MEETING IS I'M GONNA BE OCTOBER THE 19TH, UH, ONION CREEK, LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD DISCUSS IN THE MEANTIME, WHETHER WE, WHAT ELSE WE'RE GONNA DO ON THIS COMMITTEE.
SO WE'LL ADDRESS THAT NEXT TIME.
IF THERE'S, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ON ANDREW THERE? UM, JUST A QUICK NOTE, IF WE COULD, UH, STEP BACK TO NEW, UH, NOT NEW BUSINESS TO, UM, FUTURE BUSINESS, UM, WE WILL, UM, IT'S 10 SCHEDULED THAT STAFF WILL PROVIDE THE VME TWO BRIEFING AND YOUR SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER.YOU, UH, MAKING SURE WE, WE PUT THAT, COVER THAT TONIGHT.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE AS WELL.
AND ANY, UH, SINCE WE HAVE NO OTHER ITEMS, THEN WE'RE GONNA ADJOURN THE MEETING WITH NO OBJECTION.
ANDREA EMAILED YOU THAT MOTION.