[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.